The Translator. Volume 8, Number 2 (2002), 195-220 ISBN 1-900650-58-4
A Cognitive Approach to Literary Humour Devices: Translating Raymond Chandler ELENI ANTONOPOULOU University of Athens, Greece Abstract. This paper explores Marlovian wisecracks in Raymond Chandlers early texts and their translations into Greek. Source texts and target texts are analyzed using the GTVH (Attardo 1994, 2001), which provides a sound linguistic framework allowing for a comparison of humorous texts. In addition, cognitive linguistic insights are adopted (particularly from Fillmore and Kays forth- coming work on Construction Grammar) as it is suggested here that for the purposes of translation research we can benefit from a cognitively based, fine-grained analysis emphasizing idiomat- icity. Shifts attested in the target texts are explained in terms of (a) encoding or decoding idiomaticity and conventionalized mean- ings of constructions, and (b) different humour traditions or repertoires (Toury 1997) in the two languages. A tentative hypoth- esis is presented relating the suggested motivation for observed shifts to processing effort, which has been shown to impact on humour appreciation (Attardo et al. 1994). In this paper, 1 I intend to focus on specific humour devices exploited in Raymond Chandlers early texts and their translated counterparts in Greek. My aim is (a) to underline shared interests in humour and translation re- search, beyond traditional areas of common ground, such as punning (and other loci of ambiguity) or data of explicit sociocultural significance and, accordingly, (b) to suggest strategies for effective humour translation. In particular, I will discuss specific constructions and tropoi in source Ameri- can English and target Greek texts with the overall aim to explore, on the one hand, the importance for humour theory of using translated texts as data and translation studies insights as input and, on the other, the importance for translation research of using data from humorous texts and insights from 1 I am indebted to Jeroen Vandaele for invaluable comments. I would also like to thank my colleagues K. Nikiforidou and M. Sifianou for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this paper, as well as the anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions. This research has been funded by the Special Research Account (No 70/4/5268) of the University of Athens. Translating Raymond Chandler 196 humour theory for its own purposes. To this end, I will focus on humorous lines within narratives and use the General Theory of Verbal Humor, and cognitive linguistics (both Cognitive and Construction Grammar) as theo- retical frameworks. The humour devices under investigation belong to what is commonly referred to as Marlovian wisecracks; they are quite typical of Chandlers early texts (following the Black Mask period), especially those written be- tween 1939 and 1949 (see Primary Sources). The wisecracks will be shown to be linguistically encoded in similes and metaphors, 2 equative or compara- tive syntactic patterns, conditionals, as if-clauses and patterns reversing the count-mass distinction of nouns. Among these, only ironic similes have received specific attention in literary analyses (e.g. Irwin 2001), although all these devices contribute to both style and characterization. At least four different categories ((i) to (iv) below) are exemplified in the introductory paragraph of Trouble is my Business (Chandler 1939/1950:7): Anna Halsey was about two hundred and forty pounds of middle-aged putty-faced woman in a black tailor-made suit. Her eyes were shiny black shoe-buttons, her cheeks were as soft as suet and about the same colour. She was sitting behind a black glass desk that looked like Na- poleons tomb and she was smoking a cigarette in a black holder that was not quite as long as a rolled umbrella. She said: I need a man. (i) Count-mass noun reversal: Anna Halsey was about two hundred and forty pounds of middle-aged putty-faced woman. (ii) Simile: She was sitting behind a black glass desk that looked like Na- poleons tomb. (iii) Negation (NEG) + equative construction: She was smoking a ciga- rette in a black holder that was not quite as long as a rolled umbrella. (iv) Metaphor: Her eyes were shiny black shoe-buttons. These different linguistic encodings will be shown to have a common cognitive basis: they are traceable to a cognitive event whereby two distinct entities are coactivated and an operation is executed for comparing them in order to assess their relative identity. For example, in (i) a person is pre- sented as comparable to 240 pounds of meat, in (iii) a cigarette holder is presented as comparable (in size) to an umbrella, in (iv) a persons eyes are 2 Linguistic expressions are characterized here as metaphors following traditional terminology for figures of speech. In the cognitive linguistic framework (e.g. Lakoff 1993, Grady 1998) metaphors are taken to be conceptual mappings between a source and a target domain with linguistic use being understood as a reflex of that conceptual mapping. Eleni Antonopoulou 197 presented as comparable to shoe buttons and (ii) is obvious. To my knowledge, the humorous mechanisms in these texts have not been linguistically discussed, although they are illuminating for both hu- mour theory and translation studies, as I will try to show. The need to analyze such constructions in detail has arisen from a consideration of mainly Greek translated texts (using Chandlers stories and novels as source texts), but also French and German texts used as tertia comparationis. Informants re- actions have also been sought as I consider that humour appreciation is more important for translation scholars than it may be for linguists working on humour. 3 What follows is to be understood as an interdisciplinary experiment start- ing, for purely methodological reasons, with a linguistic analysis of ST data. In the following section (1) the relevant theoretical frameworks are presented with tentative suggestions for modifications of current linguistic humour analyses. Attested translational shifts related to constructions such as (i) and (iii) above are discussed in section 2 and a hint is made at linguacultural preferences in terms of humour devices. This last issue is further exploited in section 3, which deals with figures of speech in source texts (e.g. (ii) and (iv) above) and target texts manipulating semi-fixed expressions with strong sociocultural currency. In section 4 the results of the attempted analysis are summed up and explained in terms of idiomaticity (and conventionalized meanings) of constructions, and a tentative hypothesis is forwarded relating the suggested motivation for the shifts to processing effort and humour ap- preciation. 1. Theoretical background In the analysis of the data, I have applied the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH; Attardo & Raskin 1991, Attardo 1994, 2001, Attardo, this volume). I specifically argue that for the purposes of translation research the data under consideration are best accounted for if the GTVH incorporates insights from cognitive linguistics (e.g. Langacker 1991 for basic semantic 3 The extracts in question were given to 52 men and women, well-educated native speak- ers of Greek, aged between 40 and 60. This age range was chosen on the assumption that it was the group targeted when the translations were produced (in the 80s). Informants were asked to rate each jab line on a scale of 1-3 (very amusing, amusing, non-amusing) and to offer comments explaining their initial reactions. Sheets were distributed, each including genre and contextual information along with the specific sentence with the jab line(s) highlighted (where jab lines are non-final punch lines fully integrated in the narrative in which they appear, Attardo 2001:82). The percentages obtained are included in the notes accompanying each example. Most of the informants were col- leagues and friends, with whom I also had the opportunity to discuss the texts, after they had completed the task. Translating Raymond Chandler 198 distinctions such as count-mass nouns) and Construction Grammar (Fillmore and Kay, forthcoming) for the fine-grained analysis of the semantic and syn- tactic effects of constructions. What follows is a brief presentation of those tenets of the GTVH and Construction Grammar which are necessary for the attempted analysis and can be safely skipped by readers familiar with these theories. Cognitive Grammar insights from Langacker (1987, 1990, 1991) will be stripped of jargon where possible, hopefully not beyond recognition. The GTVH is in my view the only fully-fledged linguistic theory of hu- mour today and can prove invaluable for humour translation research. In its most recent and extended version (Attardo 2001) it makes a bold attempt at providing both a theoretical framework for and a detailed analysis of long narratives, such as whole stories. The method of analysis requires identify- ing humorous instances in a narrative, approaching them as punch lines of a joke (or jab lines if they are non-final) and supplying for each one of them six parameters, called Knowledge Resources (KRs) by which the jab/punch is informed. Each KR is a list/set of lists from which choices are made and it is understood as a parameter of joke difference: similarity among jokes is to be worked out according to the number of shared parameters and the hierar- chical position of any differing parameter, given that KRs are hierarchically ordered although of equal status (Attardo & Raskin 1991:223, Attardo, this volume). A disclaimer also holds to the effect that the proposed ordering is not a representation of the cognitive process of joke production. The KRs identified by the theory are presented in detail and exemplified in Attardo (1994, 2001). At this point I will simply list them according to their hierarchical order 4 and take special issue with the last one, namely Lan- guage: Script Opposition (SO), 5 Logical Mechanism (LM), Situation (SI), Target (TA), Narrative Strategy (NS), Language (LA). As already pointed out, the six KRs informing the joke are based on and are explicitly consid- ered to be capable of accounting for joke similarity: two jokes may be variants on one or more KRs (Attardo & Raskin 1991). The GTVH introduces, there- fore, a metric for the degree of joke similarity, experimentally supported by empirical studies (Ruch et al. 1993). Two jokes are more similar to each other the higher the position of the KR they share. Therefore, since Lan- guage is at the bottom of the hierarchy, jokes differing only in terms of Language are considered to be most similar. This is an important issue for translation: jokes sharing all their KRs except Language are expected to have very similar force. 4 Editors note. All six Knowledge Resources are explained in detail in Attardos contri- bution to this volume. 5 The term script is to be understood as an organized complex of information, a cogni- tive structure internalized by the speaker (Attardo 2001:2-8). Eleni Antonopoulou 199 Language includes all the linguistic components of the text on all levels, i.e. information necessary for the verbalization of a text. The claim is made explicitly that as any sentence can be recast in a different wording (using synonyms, other syntactic constructions, etc.) any joke can be worded in a (very large) number of ways without changes in its semantic content (Attardo 2001:22). The notion of meaning being kept intact under paraphrase is also explicitly applied to (interlingual) translation, with puns regarded as a marginal exception, along with other verbal (as opposed to referential) jokes (Attardo ibid.:23, 1994:29, 95). For the purposes of analyzing source-text and target-text jab lines, the Language KR might require further elaboration. Indeed, the theory rests on the assumption that Language is too obvious a criterion which moreover wouldnt distinguish interesting classes of jokes (Attardo 2001:69). The reason behind this downgrading is probably the fact that both Raskins (1985) and Attardo & Raskins (1991) GTVH were originally modelled on jokes (as a text type), and referential rather than verbal (i.e. punning) jokes in particular. It is fairly obvious that, for the humorous effect of a referential joke, the Language KR, i.e. the actual wording of the text, is of little impor- tance. However, the humorous effect of certain jab lines may lie crucially in the specifics of the construction used. If this proves to be the case, it might be useful to borrow insights from cognitive linguistic theories (even though they are not designed to cater for humour). Specifically, the suggestion for- warded here is to enrich the Language KR with more fine-grained, cognitively based analyses which emphasize the importance of idiomaticity (rather than relying entirely on compositionality), as Construction Grammar does. Construction Grammar, as originally formulated by Fillmore and Kay (forthcoming), integrates different levels of analysis and is attuned to and in conformity with what we know about human cognition and interaction. Its most important tenets for present purposes are the following: it considers constructions, i.e. form-meaning pairings, as the basic units of language. Constructions involve linguistic expressions of any length and complexity, from single lexemes to phrases standing on their own, i.e. sentences. There- fore, lexical entries (single constituent constructions) combine with other (multi-constituent) constructions to form phrases. Crucially, the theory treats constructions consisting of more than one word as units. The meaning of a phrasal construction may be arbitrary (i.e. idiomatic) in the same way the meaning of a single word is arbitrary. The main issue which needs to be emphasized at this point is the notion of conventionalized meaning as it bears directly on humour and translation (as I will hopefully show). What Construction Grammar refers to as the mean- ing of a construction draws simultaneously on semantic, pragmatic and sociocultural information. For instance, in the construction Whats X doing Y (e.g. Whats this coat doing in my wardrobe?), discussed in Kay & Translating Raymond Chandler 200 Fillmore (1999), the disapproval implication is clearly non-derivable from the component parts of the construction. In other words, as Kay & Fillmore (ibid.:4) put it, certain meanings are neither given by ordinary compositional processes, nor derived from a literal meaning by processes of conversational reasoning. This implies that certain aspects of a constructions meaning can be compositionally derived (i.e. predicted from the meaning of its parts), others may be conversationally derived (by applying conversational, prag- matic principles to the basic meaning), but still others may be non-derivable either compositionally or conversationally (e.g. disapproval in the above example). Such meanings are of a pragmatic, encyclopedic, sociocultural nature and they are attached to the specific construction arbitrarily, i.e. by convention. This cognitive residue (for lack of a better term) is a crucial part of the meaning of certain constructions. The fact that certain aspects of mean- ing are conventionally attached to a whole multi-constituent construction can at least partly explain why paraphrases may not have the same humor- ous effect and why formally similar constructions belonging to different languages may give rise to humorous effect in one language but not neces- sarily in another. The conventional/idiomatic aspect of meaning of a construction is, there- fore, what is left unexplained after the contribution of the meaning of each word has been computed (e.g. the implication of disapproval in the Whats X doing Y construction above). Therefore, although the theory does not rule out compositionality, it emphasizes the fact that constructions display idiomaticity to varying degrees. Consequently, idiomaticity is understood as a continuum. Prototypically idiomatic constructions (e.g. by and large) occupy one end of the continuum; relatively general patterns of the language (e.g. What is this?) occupy positions at the other end (Kay & Fillmore 1999). It is important to note that in traditional terms, idiomaticity is re- stricted to non-transparent constructions (like by and large above). Construction Grammar, however, crucially distinguishes between decoding and encoding idiomaticity, drawing on the distinction between language un- derstanding (decoding) and language production (encoding). The linguistic expression by and large constitutes a clear case of a decoding idiom, be- cause no part of its meaning can be attributed to the meaning of the individual words composing it. This implies that a foreigner, for instance, cannot de- code the message communicated by this expression by simply knowing the meanings of by, and and large and the general combinatorial rules of the English language. The linguistic expression let me be the first to congratu- late you, on the other hand, is not a decoding idiom, because its meaning is clearly derivable from the contribution of the meanings of the words com- posing it. Nevertheless, a foreigner, for instance, is unlikely to use it spontaneously and appropriately, i.e. to encode the message communicated by this expression, if he or she has not been exposed to the English language Eleni Antonopoulou 201 enough to know that this is how it is said by native speakers of the lan- guage. It is for this reason that the semi-formulaic expression let me be the first to congratulate you is a clear case of an encoding idiom. In other words, encoding refers to the most common, popular and usual expressions employed by a linguistic community. Encoding idioms are the frequently, normally and spontaneously activated constructions within the set of all theo- retically possible constructions of a language. It is clear that the criterion of transparency/compositionality is irrelevant for encoding idioms and valid only for decoding ones but constructions may of course be decoding and encoding at the same time and to various degrees. It is my contention that for humour appreciation and (humour) translation this extended understand- ing of idiomaticity and the related notion of conventionalized meaning can be very useful, as we will see shortly. To sum up, the (conventional) meaning of a construction depends on a genuine unification of syntactic-semantic-pragmatic and sociocultural infor- mation, including facts about register, dialect variation, topicality, already established relevance to the discourse, etc. (Goldberg 1995). This meaning may well be unique to a specific construction and arrived at in a holistic rather than a purely compositional manner, thus rendering the construction in question idiomatic despite its transparency in terms of propositional con- tent. The relevance of these issues for the Language KR lies in that the humorous effect of a certain construction may depend crucially on its idi- omatic, conventional meaning, which is uniquely related to that particular construction. In such cases, even intralingual paraphrase may change or even destroy the humorous effect. The remaining sections are devoted to analyses of jab lines exemplifying types of devices as those listed in (i) to (iv) above. 1.1 Negative equative constructions The initial paragraph of Chandlers Trouble is My Business has already been cited in the previous section. It involves playful comparisons of Anna Halsey, the owner of a detective agency employing the private eye John Dalmas (a dead ringer for Philip Marlowe). Anna Halsey is portrayed as a monumentally large figure behind a monumentally large desk with additional connotations ridiculing both. The culmination of these comparisons is probably (1) She was smoking a cigarette in a black holder that was not quite as long as a rolled umbrella. (the emphasis in all examples is mine) The text is interspersed with similar constructions exemplifying a type of humorous device where humour depends crucially on the actual construc- tion used, as will be shown in what follows. In pre-theoretical terms, Chandler seems to be playing here with his readers Translating Raymond Chandler 202 in a specific way. He is asking them to consider something preposterous, or obviously false, as a possibility and at the same time is telling them that it is of course false. This strategy is in a way similar to teasing a child, but it is linguistically realized in quite a sophisticated manner. In my view, it tells us something about the type of reader the author aims to address and the au- thors concomitant views on style expressed in his letters. 6 Exaggeration in the form of playful comparisons is a common feature of Chandlers early texts and the negative equative construction in (1) is just one example. For the GTVH, the processing of a humorous text involves reaching an inter- pretive dead-end and backtracking in order to find another interpretation to the text (Attardo 1994:276), and the dead-end is typically reached through a violation of Grices quality maxim. Interestingly, this is hardly the case here, because what is blatantly flouted is the be brief submaxim of man- ner: a reasonable brief paraphrase could well be: (1') She was smoking a cigarette in a black holder that was slightly shorter than a rolled umbrella. The question arising here is why (1) rather than (1') is opted for. In cognitive linguistic terms, where meaning is a matter of construal, it is important to examine how the conceptualizer chooses to construe the situation and por- tray it for expressive purposes (Langacker 1990:5). Applying the apparatus of Construction Grammar, one can provide an interpretation for construc- tions such as (1) which will show how it differs from possible paraphrases. In particular, it should show that such constructions specify, besides compa- rability of two entities, an exact judgement (after careful comparison) of actual values of z (length) on the part of the speaker (the narrator in this case), functioning here as the judge (see Kay & Fillmore 1999:26). The steps of the judgement in the not quite construction can be presented as follows: x is not quite as z as y means approximately: 6 It is no easy trick to keep your characters and your story operating on a level which is understandable to the semi-literate public and at the same time give them some intellec- tual and artistic overtones which that public does not seek or demand or, in effect, recognize, but which somehow subconsciously it accepts and likes. My theory has al- ways been that the public will accept style, provided you do not call it style either in words or by, as it were, standing off and admiring it. There seems to me to be a vast difference between writing down to the public (something which always flops in the end) and doing what you want to do in a form, which the public has learned to accept (Gardiner & Walker 1997:61). Despite Chandlers complaints about the public (his read- ership) who, in his view, are characterized by an efficient vulgarity, the author makes it his task to retain a sense of style and quality (ibid.:58). He seems to expect his readers to display a certain degree of sophistication. In compensation he undertakes the task of offering them intellectual stimulation and amusement. Eleni Antonopoulou 203 (a) Someone (including narrator) judges x and y to be comparable as to z. The narrator presents this as a fact. (b) Someone (excluding narrator) judges x and y to be identical as to z. The narrator presents this as a possibility. (c) Someone (at least narrator) judges x and y to be not identical as to z. The narrator presents this as a probability. (d) Someone (at least narrator) judges x to be only slightly less than y as to z. The narrator presents this as a fact after careful consideration of (a) (c) and an implicit accurate examination of the relevant sizes of x and y. Thus, incongruity seems to arise at all four steps: incongruity between real world scripts/scenarios (cognitive script 1, activated by a default narrator seen as a very serious, bona fide communicator) and non-real world ones (cognitive script 2, activated by the type of narrator that Marlowe really is). The effect is cumulative. The concluding judgement in (d) presupposes all the preceding steps. What distinguishes not quite constructions from others (with slightly less for instance) is, in my view, the presence of (b) above. Although con- struction (1) is completely transparent (i.e. the whole of its propositional content can be compositionally computed), it is on the conventional cogni- tive residue that the joke rests. Not only are the entities compared incomparable in size, but also the narrator pretends that they are in fact so close in this respect that someone else might consider them identical in length. This is exactly what forces the narrator-judge to measure the relative sizes in order to establish their supposedly slight difference. Therefore, even intra- lingual paraphrases of (1) need not have the same humorous effect, even if the basics of the scripts and the way they are opposed are kept constant. The GTVH acknowledges the importance of the Language KR in the case of puns. My point here is that actual wording may play a decisive role in hu- mour appreciation, not only in cases of (lexical or syntactic) ambiguity, but also in cases of idiomaticity (as described above). If idiomaticity is much more pervasive in language than is traditionally acknowledged, then intra- and interlinguistic paraphrasability of jab lines cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, the freedom of the Language KR is questionable. Slight dif- ferences in the wording may bear directly on the content of higher-order parameters, including Script Oppositions (SOs) and Logical Mechanisms (LMs). This restriction related to Language may not be important for hu- mour scholars but it seems especially relevant for translators and translation students. 1.2 Feature-changing constructions: count nouns construed as mass nouns The initial sentence (i) in Trouble is My Business (1950:2), repeated here for ease of reference: Translating Raymond Chandler 204 Anna Halsey was about two hundred and forty pounds of middle- aged putty-faced woman in a black tailor-made suit construes a count noun (a person) as a mass one by presenting the person as being x number of pounds of woman. It is what Fillmore and Kay (forthcoming) call a feature-changing construction exemplifying it with sentences like There was cat everywhere and I dont need much blanket. More specifically, I will refer to Marlowes construction as a count-mass noun reversal. In the understanding of (non-objectivist) theories of meaning based on cognitive processes, count nouns designate things construed as being inherently bounded in space, heterogeneous (of non-uniform compo- sition) and individuated (Langacker 1991:15-35 and Fillmore & Kay forthcoming). Here, Anna Halsey is presented as two hundred pounds of ... woman, so the count noun woman is construed as being inherently unbounded in space, a homogeneous substance (of uniform composition) indefinitely extended, replaceable by meat, for instance. Although, strictly speaking, incongruity seems to be encoded in the second half of the sentence starting with of, in fact its resolution depends on the reader realizing the reason motivating the switch, i.e. that she is so fat that she is more mass than count. The construal foregrounds the mass and the volume and pushes the individual to the background. In my understanding, it is the construction as a unit which points to that interpretation and, in particular, its con- ventionalized meaning, which obliges the reader to reverse the semantic attributes mass-count and to construe individual, discrete entities as substances. It is, therefore, clear that the relevant interpretation on which the humorous effect rests is not derivable compositionally, although the con- tribution of the constructions individual parts (two hundred and forty pounds, of and woman) is quite transparent. Syntactic, lexical and semantic-pragmatic information is conflated and the construction is idiomatic in the sense discussed above. Evidently even an intralingual paraphrase of the reversing construction (e.g. x was 240 pounds) cannot maintain the humorous effect. 2. Humour and translation: exploiting idiomatic constructions 2.1 Not quite versus slightly less A careful examination of the Greek translations (see Primary sources) re- veals that they exhibit various degrees along Tourys (1995:57) adequacy- acceptability scale, which means that the translators naturalize to different extents and make use of all the standard strategies (from omission to explicitation to loan to adaptation, etc.). Yet, the overall tendency is to achieve functional equivalence throughout the text, in the sense that translators de- cide which considerations should be given priority at any time if they accept that not all the variables in translation are relevant in every situation (Kenny Eleni Antonopoulou 205 1998:77, referring to Newman 1994:4695). If the scripts evoked belong to experiential domains with which the target reader is expected to have suffi- cient familiarity, no cultural substitution is called for and none is used. Interestingly enough, concerning humorous fragments, negative equative constructions of the type discussed above receive different linguistic treat- ments by different translators, or even by the same translator at different points of the same text. If the scenes evoked for comparison do not represent an amusing opposition in terms of their actual (referential) content, the ef- fect of the corresponding jab line will necessarily depend on the linguistic means used to perform the comparison (and the opposition), as has been explained above. The crucial contribution of Language in such cases be- comes obvious. Greek readers faced with the following extract were moderately amused: 7 (1B) . (Balis 1982:7) [She was smoking a cigarette with a long black cigarette holder that looked like a closed umbrella.] In GTVH-terms, the following KRs could be seen as shared by ST (appear- ing as (1) in 1.1 above) and TT (1B): SO: size of a cigarette holder/size of an umbrella (size explicitly mentioned in ST, but implied in TT); LM: false analogy: NS: hyperbole; SI: context; TA: Anna Halsey and her conspicuous lifestyle. 8 In relation to the Language KR, however, it would be erroneous to consider that since no punning is involved here, this jab line can be freely paraphrased interlingually as the GTVH would predict for any referential joke. Due to its cognitive residue and idiomaticity, the not quite as as construction resists intra- and interlingual paraphrasing. Consider further the following jab (2B), an extract from the same trans- lation, to which informants reactions 9 were similar to those offered for (1B): (2A) The lobby was not quite as big as the Yankee Stadium. (Trouble is my Business, Chandler 1939/1950:18) (2B) . (Balis 1982:24) [The hall was huge a regular football ground that is.] 7 The results obtained from the informants (see note 3) were as follows: Very amusing 4%; Amusing 42%; Non-amusing 54%. 8 To remind the reader: SO = Script Opposition; LM = Logical Mechanism; SI = Situa- tion; TA = Target, NS = Narrative Strategy; LA = Language. 9 Very amusing 4%; Amusing 67%; Non-amusing 29%. Translating Raymond Chandler 206 The lobby in (2A) belongs to a huge and hugely nouveau riche apartment building. Thus, the same type of life style is targeted as in (1) and all high- order KRs are shared, but a different strategy is adopted by the translator: an explicitating paraphrase is overtly provided in the translation, thus lowering the comic effect. The following less naturalizing jabs were, however, considered even less amusing than the preceding ones by the same informants, although the cor- responding source lines are considered highly amusing: 10 (3A) He wore an Ascot tie that looked as if it had been tied about the year 1880. The green stone in his stickpin was not quite as large as an ap- ple. (Farewell My Lovely, Chandler 1940/1949:22) (3B) 1880.
. (Papadimitriou n.d:16) [Gloss: He wore (an) Ascot tie which looked (as if) it had been tied about 1880. The green stone of the pin on the tie was a little smaller than an apple.] (3C) 1880. . (Paraboukis 1984:29) [Gloss: He wore a tie Ascot which looked (as if) he had it tied at his neck since 1880. The green stone of his pin was a little smaller than an apple.] All KRs could be seen as shared by A, B and C (excluding, of course, Lan- guage). It would therefore be reasonable to expect all three texts to have very similar humorous force, unless the Language parameter plays a very significant role and needs to be approached in the way suggested in 1.1 above, emphasizing idiomaticity and by implication questioning the assumption that paraphrase is challenged only by wordplay-based humour. Such an approach would allow us to explain why the absence of step (b) in 1.1 is probably responsible for the important difference between the source and target texts in terms of humorous effect. To appreciate the importance of Language, the following remarks on the translations are necessary. The original English jabs discussed in 2.1 involve explicit comparison, encoded in equative patterns. In principle, the option is available to Greek 10 Results for 3B and 3C were strikingly uniform: Very amusing 3%; Amusing 36%; Non-amusing 51%. Eleni Antonopoulou 207 translators to reproduce this English pattern verbatim using the correspond- ing Greek one x z y x is not exactly as z as y. The Greek translators in my data do not take this option. The explanation seems to rest with the status of simpler equative ... as as con- structions in Greek. In the absence of frequency counts, I shall have to rely on my native speakers intuitions and standard Greek dictionaries and gram- mar books. It is interesting to note that ... is only listed in one recent dictionary and even there it is mentioned as a marginal case for en- coding comparison in Greek (e.g. Babiniotis 1998:1800). We find the same information in grammar books (see e.g. Holton et al. 1997:474-75 on equa- tion). Greek informants insights were sought for verbatim translations of simple equative ST constructions which abound in Chandlers texts (e.g. he looked about as inconspicuous as a tarantula on a slice of angel food, Farewell my Lovely, Chandler 1940/1949:7) ...). Different translations preserving the ... as as pattern were considered not amusing, bizarre and rather strange. It is therefore hardly surprising that when it comes to a complex, negative equative pattern with an additional (explicit) identity marker (i.e. quite), no attempt is made at reproducing it in Greek. In other words, although sentences like the cigarette holder was not quite as long as an umbrella are well-formed in Greek, they do not con- stitute common, idiomatic constructions in the sense of encoding idioms. Apparently, linguistic expressions which sound bizarre and unnatural to target audiences, i.e. those which are non-idiomatic in the encoding sense, stand few chances of amusing these audiences (an issue to be considered elsewhere). It is for this reason, I suggest, that (unlike the French and German trans- lators of the same ST) the Greek translators mentioned above do not opt for reproducing the English pattern. What further options are therefore avail- able? In (3B) and (3C) the same paraphrase is used: a little smaller. In terms of the constructions used, there is nothing unnatu- ral here. Yet, there is also nothing which points to the (implicit) presence of the possibility of x and y being identical or the implication of an exact meas- urement being performed, i.e. the elements shown to characterize the English construction(s) in question. This means that these jab lines have to rely (for humorous effect) entirely on a simple comparison between non-comparable entities (as to their length). Similar considerations are, in my view, applica- ble to (2B): the semantic content is kept constant, but only on the crude level of a simple comparison and a concomitant exaggeration. 2.2 Count-mass reversal in translation As I have argued in 1.2 above, constructions like (4A) exhibit count-mass noun reversal. Consider the Greek translation of that extract along with a Translating Raymond Chandler 208 similar example from the Lady in the Lake (Chandler 1946/1979:8) and the corresponding TTs: (4A) Anna Halsey was about two hundred and forty pounds of middle-aged putty-faced woman in a black tailor-made suit. (Trouble is My Busi- ness, Chandler 1939/1950:7) (4B) 120 , , . (Balis 1982:7) [Gloss: Anna Halsey was a moving mass about 120 kilos, middle-aged, with a face plastered with make-up and wore a black suit.] In (4B) a person (Anna Halsey) is presented as x number of pounds of woman, while in the next one (5A) a desk is presented as x number of dollars worth of desk: (5A) Derace Kingsley marched briskly behind about eight hundred dollars worth of executive desk. (Lady in The Lake, Chandler 1946/1979:8) (5B) . (Balis 1982:10) [Gloss: Derace Kingsley sat behind his desk that by a rough estimate I calculated it (to be) about eight hundred dollars.] (5C) . (Argyros 1982:10) [Gloss: Derace Kingsley proceeded hastily behind his desk which would cost about eight hundred dollars.] In (5C) no special linguistic device is being used to create humorous effect, and consequently no humour was detected by most of the informants. 11 In terms of semantic, propositional content, however, there is no difference between source and target versions. This is probably further evidence in fa- vour of attributing the humorous effect of (5A) to the specific English construction used, i.e. the count-mass noun reversal, a reversal which has no formal counterpart in Greek. 12 In (4B) and (5B), humorous effect is achieved through different kinds of semi-fixed expressions and very successfully, too, according to my informants. 11 Very amusing 0%; Amusing 4%; Non-amusing 96%. 12 The expression 120 120 kilos woman does exist in Greek, but is con- strued by hearers as a reversal not of the semantic attributes (count-mass), but simply of Eleni Antonopoulou 209 In (4B) 13 moving mass is a standard expression used for ridiculing obesity. It is here part of a metaphor, a fact that should be reflected in the Narrative Strategy KR (in accordance with GTVH-practice). Interest- ingly, both source and target texts involve a type of metonymic part-for-whole mapping: one of the features of a person (i.e. mass) stands for the whole person, eliminating all the other, individual characteristics of that person in order to emphasize her unusually large figure. 14 In (5B) 15 the translator employs the construction: with a rough estimate I calculated it. This draws from the sociolects of wholesalers and construction managers: especially the verb is typical of (if not actually restricted to) those particular sociolects. The partial similarity of (4A) and (4B) can be readily captured in GTVH- terms, despite the fact that completely different types of constructions are employed; SO: attractive/non-attractive appearance, instantiated in the hu- man being/mass of flesh equation; LM: false analogy, exaggeration (?); SI: context; TA: Anna Halsey and (her) obesity; NS: comparison. Shared KRs are used by the GTVH intralingually to compute the relative similarity be- tween different jab lines in the same text or in different texts by the same author. The metric of jab line similarity can function as a discovery tool in an authors style, in genre identification, etc. (Attardo 2001:86). It is sug- gested here that translation studies can exploit this tool interlingually, in the case of translated texts which show relevant similarity to source texts in terms of humorous force. A small-scale attempt to that effect is made here, where same, similar and different humorous effect is accounted for in terms of shared KRs. Consider also in this respect the case of (5A) and (5B), where the follow- ing KRs are shared; SO: simple/conspicuous life style, instantiated in the piece of furniture for a specific use/(money) value equation; LM: false analogy, exaggeration; SI: context; TA: Derace Kingsley and (his) conspicu- ous life style; NS: comparison. In short, all higher-order KRs are shared between STs and TTs. In relation to Language, however, it seems to me that there is a crucial difference between the shifts in (4B) and (5B). In the former case, the humorous effect is the same in ST and TT, because the target lan- guage happens to have an expression whose conventionalized meaning is the word order of the more neutral 120 woman of 120 kilos. The mass- count reversal would require the head noun phrase (woman) to appear in the genitive case, which would be unacceptable exactly because woman is not and cannot be seen as a mass noun. 13 Very amusing 73%; Amusing 17%; Non-amusing 10%. 14 To account for this similarity between ST and TT metonymic mapping could appear under the NS KR, in both cases. 15 Interestingly, the informants considered this jab highly amusing: Very amusing 83%; Amusing 17%; Non-amusing 0%. Translating Raymond Chandler 210 very similar to that of the relevant ST construction. In the latter case (5B), the humorous trigger seems to me to be a case of register humour (the inap- propriate use of , which is not obviously related to the STs presenting the desk as more value than desk). Be that as it may, the translators of these texts (a) show evidence of recognizing the idiomaticity of the ST construction and its humorous exploitation, and (b) produce humorous effect by exploiting equally idiomatic constructions (in the TL system), characterized by strong sociocultural currency (in CG terms). Translation research has acknowledged the importance for humour of clichs and idioms (in the traditional understanding of the term), which Redfern (1997:266) calls the automatic features of language. Translators have given proof of being alert to the significance of automatic features and the recycling of fixed expressions (ibid.:267). My point is that both humour and translation research could benefit from a principled, theoretically sound approach to idiomaticity, which expands the notion to encompass the con- ventionalized meanings of (deceptively) transparent constructions, and the status of frequently used expressions of a language. 3. Different repertoires cause translational shifts In the preceding sections I suggested that certain translational shifts observed between English (ST) and Greek (TT) humorous texts are explainable in terms of relative idiomaticity of the source and target constructions and their respective conventionalized meanings. I have also observed that TTs in my data which have proved successful in terms of humorous effect, tend, on the whole, to replace syntactic manipulations in STs with manipulations of culturally grounded fixed expressions. In this section I will focus on the translational treatment of STs involving other types of constructions also encoding comparisons between different entities. These comparisons may be present either on the surface (as in the case of similes and metaphors, which are commonly preserved in the TTs under consideration) or on a deeper level (as in allusions, asif-clauses, etc.). Consider first (6A) from Farewell my Lovely, consisting of three jab lines, the last two also combining to form a third unit comprising the ifthen- pattern (traditionally called the protasis-apodosis structure), along with their translated Greek versions. The informants presented with the corresponding translated chunks (see note 4) found them amusing, with a general prefer- ence for C. 16 16 B1 Very amusing 19%; Amusing 65%; Non-amusing 15%. B2 Very amusing 29%; Amusing 56%; Non-amusing 13%. B3 Very amusing 12%; Amusing 71%; Non-amusing 17%. Eleni Antonopoulou 211 (6) Farewell My Lovely (Chandler 1940/1949:36) A1 A2 A3 Shes a charming middle- and if she has washed her Ill eat my hat rim and aged lady with a face like hair since Coolidges all. a bucket of mud second term B1 B2 B3
. , , . [She-is a very nice [And if she-has washed [I (will) eat the spare woman with a face like her hair since Coolidge tyre of the car along (a) mop.] was-elected again with the rim.] president, even once,] C1 C2 C3
, . [She-is a charming [and if she-has shampooed [I (will) eat my hat middle-aged lady with from the First World War along with the a face like (a) stepped- and after,] ribbon.] on coffeepot] The three similes (A1, B1, C1) can receive identical specifications for the following KRs: LM: false analogy; TA: She (=Jessie Florian); NS: simile; SI: context. (B1) opts for very likeable instead of charming, with a con- comitant effect on SO: likeable is opposed to non-attractive, a much milder incongruity (if any), than attractive/non-attractive appearance, which (A1) and (C1) share. This difference notwithstanding, each one of these KRs re- curs with the same content at many points in all of Chandlers early texts. In GTVH-terms, this means that interesting strands and stacks are formed (see Attardo 2001:29, 81-85) 17 giving substance to the intuitive judgement that such devices constitute typical Marlovian wisecracks. Style and characteri- zation are also served: KRs prove particularly useful in that respect too. In relation to the Language KR, the following observations seem crucial. In (C1) (attractive or charming) is used, which is marked for elevated register, clashing very effectively with stepped- C1 Very amusing 73%; Amusing 23%; Non-amusing 4%. C2 Very amusing 65%; Amusing 35%; Non-amusing 0%. C3 Very amusing 83%; Amusing 15%; Non-amusing 2%. 17 The term strand indicates generally three or more [jab or punch] lines which are related ... Strands of strands are called stacks (Attardo 2001:29). Translating Raymond Chandler 212 on coffeepot signalling low register besides flatness, destruction, wrinkles and ugliness. Similarly in (C2) and (C3) semi-fixed expressions are used: o since the First World War and . Ill eat my hat. The first one is a standard expression for something supposed to have happened a very long time before the time of the utterance. The second one evokes directly scenes associated with comic Greek movies of the 60s (widely considered the best time of comic Greek cinema and repeatedly shown on television see Georgakopoulou 2000). It is an expression associated with tough guys (or people aspiring to that char- acterization) who did wear hats (like Chandlers Philip Marlowe) and were proud of them. Common collocational patterns would involve threats like: unless you do x Ill give you your hat to eat. It is therefore hardly surpris- ing that C was better received than B, which was considered by some informants unnatural or boring. In my view, the main difference between (B2) and (C2) is that only the latter contains a fixed expression with socio- cultural currency for a Greek audience. The most successful jabs in my data invariably included culturally grounded fixed expressions or familiar collocations and, crucially, register clash. Let us consider some more examples. (7A) He had his job, his reputation for toughness, his public esteem to consider. (Farewell My Lovely, Chandler 1940/1949:12) (7B) E , . (Apostolides n.d.:15) [Gloss: He had to consider his professional career, his fame/(reputation) and the public feeling.] (7C) , , . (Papadimitriou n.d:8) [Gloss: He had to consider his job, his fame as a tough cookie, his reputation.] The referent of he in A is a poor devil working as a bouncer in an extremely low-brow joint. He is about to be beaten up by the colossal Moose Malloy with whom he tries to put up a fight, in his capacity as the protector of the joint that Malloy has started pulling to pieces. The narrator presents A as the justification in the bouncers mind of why he should try to fight with Moose although the odds are against him. The narrators statement in A is therefore sarcastic in this context. Sarcasm is not only reproduced in both B and C, but also intensified by the translators choices of actual wording. In B high- register constructions are used. These range from single lexemes, i.e. rather than the informal for consider, to colloca- tions and fixed expressions, i.e. professional Eleni Antonopoulou 213 career rather than the informal job, and the public feeling rather than the informal the opinion of (other) people. Register clash with the actual situation (high-low) adds to the humorous effect by enhancing the incongruity. he had to consider his professional ca- reer sounds like a parody of old fashioned parents expressing concern for the future of their offspring. 18 The phrase pro- fessional career is completely transparent, i.e. its meaning is clearly compositional from a linguists point of view. It owes its idiomatic status to the fact that it is fixed, so that its individual parts are probably perceived by speakers of the language as jointly forming a single unit (not unlike com- pound lexemes). This construction would probably sound funny, by virtue of its sheer pomposity, in many different contexts. No wonder, therefore, that it was highly appreciated by the informants. 19 In C the language is colloquial; in fact the idiom (literally hard nut, implying tough cookie) would be more appropriate for a bouncer characterizing himself (or other members of the same social group). There- fore, this translator makes a different choice (from the translator of B), which is, however, also considered amusing by the informants (see note 17). Mixed reactions accompanied the last noun phrase however: the public feeling. This is also a fixed expression, and a high-register one, evok- ing old-fashioned police jargon: people could be arrested for allegedly provoking the public feeling and censorship was commonly justified on similar grounds by the Junta in Greece. The final triplet to be discussed here involves Marlowes protest against Moose Malloys carrying him from the elbow into Florians caf. (8A) All right I yelled. Ill go up with you. Just lay off carrying me. Let me walk. Im fine. Im all grown up. I go to the bathroom alone and everything. Just dont carry me. (Farewell My Lovely, Chandler 1940/ 1949:10) (8B) . . . . . . . (Papadimitriou n.d.:7) [Gloss: All right I roared. I will come with you. But stop carrying me. Let me walk on my own. My legs are all right. I can go alone (by 18 This is an old-fashioned expression, of fairly formal register: in Greek films of the 60s and the 70s it would be used by ageing parents favouring or disfavouring candidates for the hand of their daughter on the basis of professional advancement. 19 B Very amusing 75%; Amusing 4%; Non-amusing 21%. C Very amusing 54%; Amusing 33%; Non-amusing 13%. Translating Raymond Chandler 214 myself) to the toilet and all that. I dont need help.] (8C) , , . . . . . . (Apostolides n.d. :13) [Gloss: All right, I cried, Ill come up with you. Stop carrying me though. I manage fine. I am a big child (boy) now. I go alone (by my- self) to the toilet. Just dont carry me.] The winner is C 20 and in particular , , . . . . . . I am a big child (boy) now, a fixed expression reminiscent of fathers reacting to overprotective mothers (e.g. , stop cutting his nails for him, hes a big boy now). It may also be reminiscent of children protesting to parents for offering unnecessary help where the high-register more clashes with child talk and might there- fore add to humorous effect. The overall picture deriving from the comments of my informants on data such as the examples discussed above in detail is the following: the most successful TTs in terms of humorous effect seem to be those exploit- ing semi-fixed expressions, crucially involving intertextual, socioculturally grounded elements, inappropriate sociolect choices and register clashes (with immediate linguistic or situational context). Humour devices of the same type abound in original Greek texts of the same genre, produced at about the same time as the TTs examined (e.g. , , ). 21 This may reflect the possibility of linguaculturally specific preferences for humour, towards an identification and understanding of which translation theory may contribute. Toury (1997) explores the possibility of the existence of linguacultural, conventional elements within the area of humour. Discussing spoonerisms, Toury (1997:282) places them in the rep- ertoire of habitual or conventional elements of a culture. In this sense, spoonerisms and puns, for instance, may be said to constitute conventional humorous devices in an English or a German speaking community, but not in a Greek one. The claim I am making here is best understood within such a 20 B Very amusing 4%; Amusing 63%; Non-amusing 33%. C Very amusing 75%; Amusing 21%; Non-amusing 4%. 21 These are of the best known translators and authors of Greek detective fiction in the last twenty years. There is no research on this work but careful consideration of the humorous devices these authors use and discussions with them have led me to the iden- tification of these tendencies, a fuller account of which goes beyond the limits of the present paper. Eleni Antonopoulou 215 framework. Chandlers Greek translators, I suggest, may have a different repertoire from which to draw. Unfortunately, there is very little humour research based on Greek data, so a discussion of the contents of the relevant repertoire is obviously premature. 22 I can only mention Canakis (1994), who provides evidence for the importance for humour creation of register clashes involving older forms of the language (i.e. Katharevousa forms clashing with Koine Modern Greek) and Georgakopoulou (2000), who shows the importance of sociolect choices in comic Greek movies (as already discussed). Observations on the humorous effect of TTs (such as those explored here) seem to corroborate the evidence provided in the above mentioned research and could be used to inform humour theory in the direction of culture-spe- cific preferences and tendencies. 4. A cognitive explanation of shifts and concluding remarks A number of points emerge in examining jab lines typical of Marlovian wise- cracks in Chandlers early texts and their Greek translations. The first point to be made concerns what brings together the various instances discussed above. Some of them are equative constructions (she was smoking a ciga- rette in a black holder that was not quite as long as a rolled umbrella); others are feature-changing constructions exhibiting count-mass noun reversal (Anna Halsey was about two hundred and forty pounds of middle-aged, putty-faced woman). There are also immediately recognizable tropoi like similes (a face like a bucket of mud) and metaphors (her eyes were shiny black shoe-buttons), among other types of constructions. As pointed out at the beginning of this paper, it seems reasonable to con- sider all such cases as being motivated by a cognitive event whereby two distinct objects are coactivated and an operation is executed for comparing them and assessing their relative identity. The reader is asked to recognize 22 Evidently repertoires are not to be understood as closed lists or restricted and unique language-specific sets, but rather as involving linguacultural preferences and tenden- cies, probably relatable to historical facts (besides typological differences between languages). One such example is the exploitation of register clashes for humorous pur- poses. The phenomenon is attested in many different languages and the GTVH has accounted quite insightfully for it. Its exploitation in Greek texts, however, seems to be particularly extensive and it is certainly not unrelated to the problem of diglossia which has had serious socio-political repercussions in Greece: university professors have been taken to court for their views on language use in the 20th century and the Greek people have been ideologically and politically divided and even castigated under totalitarian regimes (dictatorship between the two World Wars and again between 1967 and 1974) on evidence for their political views drawn from their language use and in particular on what linguists (innocently) refer to as register. Turning an old problem into a laughing matter is perhaps one way of coping with a trauma and is certainly outside the scope of the present paper. Translating Raymond Chandler 216 that A = B: a person equals two hundred pounds of meat, a cigarette holder equals an umbrella. Equations can be evidenced also in allusive lines such as: He had his job ... to consider (see 7A) or Just lay off carrying me Im all grown up. I go to the bathroom alone and everything (see 8A). These can be accounted for in similar, metaphoric terms: a bouncer equals a re- spectable professional; a person carried equals a baby. ST and TT examples were first analyzed in GTVH-terms and shown to share KRs (except Language, since they are instances of interlingual trans- lation). The GTVH can prove useful for translation research as it provides tools for analyzing humorous texts to allow identification of thematic and formal similarities holding between jab lines within the same text, but also between different texts by the same author (see Attardo 2001:86). It is sug- gested here that translation studies can examine similarities between ST and TT jab lines interlingually for its own purposes, e.g. translators style, genre identification, linguacultural preferences, etc. In the texts examined, ST and TT jab lines have been shown to share a number of higher-order KRs, and yet be dissimilar in terms of humorous effect. This points to the direction of re-evaluating the contribution of the Language KR for the purposes of translation research. I have in effect at- tempted to show that we might need a more fine-grained, less compositional and more cognitively based analysis in order to explain attested shifts in TT jab lines. To that end I have specifically made use of the concepts of relative (encoding and decoding) idiomaticity and conventionalized meanings of constructions (as advocated in CG) and I have also pointed to the possibility of translators awareness of different humour traditions/repertoires in SL and TL. Faced with highly idiomatic, albeit transparent, ST constructions like x is not quite as z as y, Greek translators opt for shifts and employ construc- tions such as x looks like y, or x is slightly less z than y although, in principle, formally corresponding constructions are available in Greek. In my view, these shifts are motivated by the extremely low degree of (encod- ing) idiomaticity of the wisely avoided corresponding TL constructions. The attested options have at least some humorous effect, although the exact judgement element of the ST construction is necessarily sacrificed. Faced with equally highly idiomatic ST constructions reversing the count noun/mass noun feature, Greek translators resort to shifts, since no corre- sponding reversal is available in Greek. If an (encodingly) idiomatic construction happens to exist in the TL, with (accidentally) similar conven- tionalized meaning, it is opted for and proves highly successful with informants, e.g. z pounds of woman is rendered as a moving mass about z kilos. If no such option is available, humorous effect is compensated for by using an (encodingly) idiomatic construction in TL with different conven- tionalized meaning, featuring a sociolectal clash, e.g. z dollars of desk is rendered as a desk, which, with a rough estimate, I calculated it (to be) z Eleni Antonopoulou 217 dollars. 23 Alternatively, the translator may opt for adequacy and decide to keep the propositional content of the ST constant at the cost of humorous effect (to various extents). The criterion of idiomaticity seems to be important also when it comes to other types of constructions involving comparison, such as those containing metaphors or similes, for instance, where (formally) corresponding constructions are available in SL and TL. Shifts attested in this area involve interference with the propositional content of the ST, in order to save the humorous effect. In such cases highly encodingly idiomatic Greek con- structions are used with strong cultural currency, register clashes and inappropriate sociolect choices, e.g. with a face like a bucket of mud is rendered as with a face like a stepped on coffeepot. The success of these choices seems to point to the direction of the translators awareness and creative exploitation of the automatic features of language (Redfern 1997:267), as well as to the possibility of the existence of linguacultural preferences for humour (as suggested in Toury 1997). It is evident that for any conclusions to be reached as to the relationship between idiomaticity, linguacultural preferences and humorous effect we need extensive data from corpora studies and a consideration of additional fac- tors, such as genre, time of production and type of edition. The tentative hypothesis I would like to forward here is simply that both factors discussed above (i.e. degree of encoding idiomaticity and observance of a humour tra- dition) may be related to the amount of cognitive effort required for humour appreciation, which has figured prominently in humour research. Attardo et al. (1994:39) explicitly point out that humor should provide some, but not too much difficulty some cognitive challenge, without, however, being too complex to process. Suls (1972:92) mentions that humor increases with ease of information processing and that appreciation decreased as processing time increased (ibid.:93). In other words, humour theory has identified the importance for humour appreciation of the brevity of humor resolution and of the short time span of the punch line (see Attardo 1997:407 for a discussion of these notions). Although these observations are mainly based on the processing of jokes, the principle underlying them can be brought to bear on the amount of cognitive effort required for the successful processing of single jab lines in different text types, such as nar- ratives. Jabs featuring high encoding idiomaticity and reflecting humour devices well established in the repertoire of a linguistic community may re- quire less processing effort and may therefore stand better chances of success. Informants reactions to the data considered here, at least, seem to indicate that effective humour may depend on the ease with which the opposed scripts 23 Calculated here stands for the Greek , which can be literally translated as make up a quantity bill. Translating Raymond Chandler 218 and the resolution of the opposition are accessible to the recipients. If effec- tive humour is part of a translators agenda, high TL encoding idiomaticity and TL humour preferences may be important considerations. Similar con- siderations can be part of the translation researchers agenda; employing fine-grained and at the same time cognitively based analyses seems a prom- ising addition to complement the GTVH. ELENI ANTONOPOULOU Faculty of English Studies, School of Philosophy, University of Athens, Panepistimioupoli Zografou, 157 84 Athens, Greece. echanton@enl.uoa.gr References Primary sources Apostolides, Andreas (, ) (tr.) (n.d.) (Fare- well, My Lovely), Athens: Agra Publications. Argyros, Constantinos (, ) (tr.) (1982) , (The Lady of the Lake), Athens: Erato Publications. Athanasopoulou, Eleni ( , ) (tr.) (1987) Y (The Big Sleep), Athens: Grammata Publications. Balis, Nikos ( , ) (tr.) (1982) (Trou- ble is my Business), Athens: Grammata Publications. ------ ( , ) (tr.) (1982) (Trouble is my Business), Athens: Mavros Ilios Publications. ------ ( , ) (tr.) (1991) (Ill Be Waiting), Athens: Mavros Ilios Publications. Chandler, Raymond (1939) The Big Sleep, London: Hamish Hamilton. ------ (1939/1950) Trouble Is My Business, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ------ (1939/1950) Ill Be Waiting, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ------ (1940/1949) Farewell, My Lovely, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ------ (1946/1979) The Lady in the Lake, London and Sydney: Pan Books. Kargakou, Nena (, ) (tr.) (1987) Y (The Big Sleep), Athens: Medusa. Mistraki, Tzeni (, ) (tr.) (n.d.) (The Lady of the Lake), Pireas: Lychnari Publications. Papadimitriou, Anna (, ) (tr.) (n.d.) , (Farewell, My Lovely), Pireas: Lychnari Publications. Paraboukis, Vagelis (, ) (tr.) (1984) (Ill Be Waiting), Thessaloniki: Paratiritis Publications. Secondary sources Attardo, Salvatore (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humor, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ------ (1997) The Semantic Foundations of Cognitive Theories of Humor, Humor 10(4): 395-420. Eleni Antonopoulou 219 ------ (2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Attardo, Salvatore and Victor Raskin (1991) Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model, Humor 4(3-4): 293-347. Attardo, Salvatore, Donalee Hughes Attardo, Paul Baltes and Marnie J. Petray (1994) The Linear Organization of Jokes: Statistical Analysis of Two Thou- sand Texts, Humor 7(1): 27-54. Babiniotis, Georgios (1998) Dictionary of Modern Greek, Ath- ens: Centre of Lexicography. Canakis, Costas (1994) Diglossia as an Agent of Humor in the Writings of Helena Akrita, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 12: 221-37. Delabastita, Dirk (ed) (1997) Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester & Namur: St. Jerome & Universit de Namur. Fillmore, Charles and Paul Kay (forthcoming) Construction Grammar, Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Gardiner, Dorothy and Kathryn Sorley Walker (eds) (1997) Raymond Chandler Speaking, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra (2000) On the Sociolinguistics of Popular Films: Funny Characters, Funny Voices Journal of Modern Greek Studies 18: 119- 133. Goldberg, Adele (1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grady, Joseph (1998) The Conduit Metaphor Revisited: A Reassessment of Metaphors for Communication, in J. P. Koenig (ed) Discourse and Cogni- tion: Bridging the Gap, Stanford: CSLI. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton (1997) Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London and New York: Routledge. Irwin, John (2001) Being Boss: Raymond Chandlers The Big Sleep, Southern Review 37(2): 211-48. Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore (1999) Grammatical Constructions and Lin- guistic Generalizations: The Whats X Doing Y Construction, Language 75(1): 1-33. Kenny, Dorothy (1998) Equivalence, in Mona Baker (ed) Routledge Encyclo- pedia of Translation Studies, London: Routledge, 77-80. Lakoff, George (1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202- 251. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theo- retical Prerequisites, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ------ (1990) Subjectification, Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 5-38. ------ (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II. Descriptive Appli- cation, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Newman, Aryeh (1994) Translation Equivalence: Nature, in R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ox- Translating Raymond Chandler 220 ford & New York: Pergamon. Raskin, Victor (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humor, Dordrecht, Boston, Lan- caster & Tokyo: Reidel. Redfern, Walter (1997) Traduction, Puns, Clichs, Plagiat, in Dirk Delabastita (ed) Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester & Namur: St. Jerome & Universit de Namur,.261-69. Ruch, Willibald, Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin (1993) Towards an Em- pirical Verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor, Humor 6(2): 123-36. Suls, Jerry M. (1972) A Two-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons: An Information-Processing Analysis, in Jeffrey Goldstein and Paul McGee (eds) (1972) The Psychology of Humor, London & New York: Aca- demic Press, 81-100. Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ------ (1997) What Is It That Renders a Spoonerism (Un)translatable in Dirk Delabastita (ed) Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester & Namur: St. Jerome & Universit de Namur, 271-91.
Surrounded by Idiots: The Four Types of Human Behavior and How to Effectively Communicate with Each in Business (and in Life) (The Surrounded by Idiots Series) by Thomas Erikson: Key Takeaways, Summary & Analysis
Body Language: Decode Human Behaviour and How to Analyze People with Persuasion Skills, NLP, Active Listening, Manipulation, and Mind Control Techniques to Read People Like a Book.