Frame Semantics and The Translation of Humour by Rojo

34 48:1 34–77
Babel © Ana Maria

Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel Rojo Lopez
Frame Semantics and the Translation of Humour
Ana Maria Rojo Lopez
The complete process of understanding is better characterized by the joke

about the two psychoanalysts who meet on the street. One says, ‘Good
morning’; the other thinks, ‘I wonder what he meant by that.’
(PINKER 1994, p. 230)
1. Humour and Frame Semantics
To define humour is not an easy task. Humour is a complex phenomenon

which is part of human nature. It is something more than a simple conductor
to a pleasant laugh; it may become a weapon for defence or attack, a way to
protest or accept something we cannot avoid, a method to overcome shyness
and establish new relationships; it is even possible to use it as a way to face
what we cannot explain or control. Being an integral part of human nature,
humour has been studied from many different perspectives (e.g., Chapman
and Foot 1976; Freud 1973; Nash 1986). But despite the different points of
view adopted in its study, all definitions of humour presuppose, explicitly or
implicitly, a common ground between the interlocutors or at least, as the
philosopher Elder Olson outlined, a mental frame that implies confidence, a
care-free attitude and disposition to be happy and have a lighthearted ap-
proach to life.1
In spite of such pressuposed common ground, the translation of humour
has been frequently studied from a primarily linguistic perspective. However,
this has proved insufficient to study an essentially social phenomenon. As
Nash 1986:12 points out, humour ‘characterizes the interaction of persons in
situations in cultures, and our response to it must be understood in that broad
context’. In this sense, Fillmore’s semantic theory, known as ‘Frame Seman-
tics’ (1976, 1982, 1985), provides a method to incorporate this social context
(frequently classified as extralinguistic) into the description of the nature of
language, adopting a perspective that integrates the numerous subfields which
Frame Semantics and the Translation of Humour 35
take part in the study of meaning and comprehension. Fillmore argues that the
analysis of a language system cannot be based only on a description of lexis and
grammar. In Fillmore’s view, any analysis of a language system should
necessarily incorporate the description of the cognitive and interactional
frames speakers use to interpret their environment, formulate and understand
messages and storage or create their own model of the world.
This cognitive perspective is based on the concepts of ‘context’, ‘proto-
type’ and ‘frame’ (Fillmore, 1976) and proves especially relevant for the
study of humour as a complex cultural phenomenon. The notion of ‘cognitive
context’ is of a crucial importance for the analysis of humour as a phenom-
enon linked, not only to the immediate context in which the humorous
emission takes place, but also to the expectations and attitudes that speakers
build on the basis of their experience of the world. In this sense, Nash (1986)
indicates that humorous language has three frames of reference:
a) A ‘genus’, or derivation, in culture, institutions, attitudes, beliefs, typical
practices, characteristic artefacts, etc. … b) A characteristic design, presen-
tation, or verbal packaging, by virtue of which the humorous intention is
indicated and recognized. c) A locus in language, some word or phrase that
is indispensable to the joke; the point at which humour is held and dis-
charged (Nash 1986, pp. 9–10).
Nash also comments an important difference between written and oral

humour: although both depend on context, written humour differs from oral
humour or popular joke in the greater complexity of the procedures authors
use to expand it, whereas oral humour is expanded by the repetition of a
certain type of joke or the exploitation of an evident situation or subject,
textual humour is expanded by more elaborated devices that are meticulously
interwoven forming a complex pattern. Moreover, while oral humour appears
as a response to an immediate situation, textual humour is designed for a
distant and anonymous receptor that has to interpret the complex clues
imbricated in the text.
Another basic concept in Frame Semantics (or any other cognitive
approach) is that of ‘prototype’. This notion of prototype plays an important
role in the interpretation of humorous texts, since the idea is that to under-
stand a concept we need access to a stored repertoire of prototypes in our
memory. In this sense, perception and interpretation depend on the repertoire
of the interpreter’s available prototypes rather than on a series of parameters
inherent to the concept itself. This explains why the same joke can be funny
36 Ana Maria Rojo Lopez
for a Spanish person but not for an English one, since each will interpret
humour from their own repertoire of prototypes.
In Frame Semantics, the context and the prototypical organization of our
experiences are combined with an important notion in recent works on
linguistics, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence: the notion of
‘frame’. The idea is that human beings have a stored inventory of frames in
our memory, which we use to structure, classify and interpret their experi-
ences. Besides, we have different ways and procedures to access these
frames. One of Fillmore’s best known examples is the COMMERCIAL TRANSAC-
TION FRAME,2 which is structured as a scenario where we can identify a series
of semantic roles, such as buyer, seller, goods and money. Moreover, the
transaction event is subdivided into the following sequence of actions: the
buyer spends some money and takes the goods and the seller hands in the
goods and takes the money. Any word related to the event allows us access to
the whole frame. Thus, any English speaker who finds and understands any
of the words buy, sell, cost, charge, etc. will be able to activate the whole
frame of the commercial event, even when each term only highlights a small
section of the frame.
Fillmore (1976: 25) applies the notion of frame to language processing
in the following way.
Particular words or speech formulas, or particular grammatical choices, are
associated in memory with particular frames, in such a way that exposure to
the linguistic form in an appropriate context activates in the perceiver’s
mind the particular frame — activation of the frame, by turn, enhancing
access to the other linguistic material that is associated with the same frame.
Thanks to this ability to activate the relevant frames from linguistic expres-
sions, we can interpret the humour of jokes and plays on words. Let us take
for example the following Spanish joke:
– Mamá, mamá, que en la puerta hay un extraterrestre.
– ¿Cómo que un extraterrestre?
– Sí, dice que es del ‘Planeta Agostini’
To understand the humour of a joke which seems so simple at first sight

requires, however, quite a complex comprehension process. To start with, we
need to activate the frame EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE, which will allow us to
connect ‘aliens’ as extraterrestrial inhabitants with the planet where they
supposedly live. Moreover, it is necessary to have access to the cultural
prototype of the salesman who sells encyclopedias door-to-door. Although
nowadays door-to-door sales are being substituted for more sophisticated

methods such as TV or computers, a few years ago selling books door-to-
door was very common in Spain. One of the most widely-known publishing
houses devoted to this type of sales was precisely the publishing house
‘Planeta Agostini’. Thus, humour results from linking the publishing house to
a supposed planet of the universe. Without knowing the name of the publish-
ing house and the cultural prototype of the door-to-door salesman, the joke
would be impossible to understand.
2. Humour and Translation
Given the dependency of humour on context, there are numerous factors that
take part in the elaboration of humorous language in a novel: e.g., the
speaker’s intentions, conversational expectations and implicatures, connota-
tions of words, etc. Taking this complexity into account, we can easily
understand the difficulty in providing systematic solutions to the translation
of humour. Authors such as Wittgenstein have indicated the possibility to
find punctual solutions to concrete translation examples, but have also recog-
nised the difficulty in finding a systematic method for the translation of
humour (cf. Steiner 1975/1992: 290).
However, as Marta Mateo indicates (1995), despite this lack of method,
there are certain common translation procedures that can be summarised in
three general trends: fidelity to ST in those cases where the humorous example
can be easily translated; adaptation to the norms of the TT language and
culture; and refusal to explain the humorous text, since this explanation
destroys the humour. Besides these translation procedures, Marta Mateo
(1995) also outlines the researchers’ common practice of establishing a scale
of difficulty depending on whether the joke or humorous expression relies
mainly on situational, linguistic or cultural factors. They have argued that the
greater the cultural load and/or dependency on linguistic factors, the more
difficult it will be to be faithful to the ST. Although these guidelines result
from ‘ad hoc’ solutions and not from a systematic method, it is undeniable that
they have been, and still are, useful in the practice of translation. Thus, it is not
our intention to deny them; on the contrary, we intend to integrate them into an
explanation more coherent with a cognitive model of language processing.
The problem with most traditional approaches to the translation of
humour was to base their study on the linguistic categories used in the
humorous expression, leaving aside social and cognitive factors. Later on,
pragmatic approaches (e.g., Reiss and Vermeer 1984; Reiss 1977/1989;
Vermeer 1989) overcame this linguistic barrier foregrounding the importance
of the equivalence in the effect both texts have on their respective audiences.
In this sense, an adequate translation of an emission that leads to laughter
should have on the target audience an equivalent effect to that the ST has on
its audience, that is, to make them laugh. The importance of pragmatic
equivalence in the translation of humour is undeniable; however, what a
cognitive approach like the one we propose here tries to outline is that to
achieve such equivalence often requires adjusting the comprehension mecha-
nisms of both audiences. For example, for Spanish readers to understand an
English person’s joke about Irish people they need to have access to the
prototype of the ignorant and foolish Irish that all English and Irish people
have or, at least, to an equivalent prototype in their own language (e.g.,
people from the Spanish town of Lepe). Humour needs a common ground or
frame where interlocutors share a history and a way to interpret experience.
Humorous emissions have their effect by referring to a frame or store of
shared knowledge and memories.
3. A Cognitive Approach to the Translation of Humour in Novels
The aim of this paper is precisely to propose an approach to the translation of

humorous texts that overcomes linguistic barriers and helps us to incorporate
cognitive and cultural factors to the study of humour. We intend to elaborate
a model that integrates stylistic and pragmatic analysis into the analysis of the
cognitive and interactional frames that intervene in text comprehension pro-
cesses. Such a study may guide translators, helping them to develop a
systematic method to solve the problems involved in the translation of
humour. In this way, it will be easier to adjust the comprehension mecha-
nisms of the ST audience and those of the TT audience and elaborate a
translation that achieves an equivalent effect to that of the ST.
The proposed model is based on Rojo (1998) and expands the model
suggested in Rojo (2000). Such a model focuses on the frames or knowledge
structures activated in the text and on the procedures authors use to manipu-
late these frames and create the humorous effect. We have specifically
focused on the analysis of the four procedures3 we have considered most
relevant to explain the way in which David Lodge manipulates his readers’
cognitive frames creating a humorous effect: MODIFICATION, REINFORCE-

MENT,4 METAPHORIC MAPPING and METONYMIC MAPPING.
MODIFICATION may imply distorting the frames that readers already
have, creating new frames from already existing ones, establishing new
connections between frames or even erroneously activating a frame in a
context that requires a different one. REINFORCEMENT simply consists in
confirming the frames the receptor has. METAPHORIC MAPPING includes those
examples in which David Lodge uses a frame that requires to be interpreted in
terms of a different frame. They are therefore cases which require the concep-
tual mapping of knowledge from one domain onto a different one. In the case
of our corpus, all the metaphors we have analysed illustrate a curious process
of ‘animalization’ that requires mapping the frame ANIMAL onto the frame
HUMAN BEING. Whereas metaphor implies two different domains METONYMIC
MAPPING uses an entity to refer to a related one within the same frame.
Besides these four basic procedures, we have also included a section
with an example which illustrates the combined use of metaphoric and
metonymic mapping. Although we have here differentiated between the
procedures for methodological reasons, we should take into account that an
author may use several procedures simultaneously to create humorous ef-
fects. Thus, it will not always be possible to establish clearly differentiated
categories.
The procedures exposed here have been used to classify a series of
humorous examples extracted from David Lodge’s (1985) novel Small World
and its translation into Spanish El mundo es un pañuelo by Esteban Riambau
Saurí.5 We will try to show how these procedures may guide translators,
helping them to adjust the comprehension mechanisms of both ST and TT
audiences to elaborate a translation that causes an equivalent effect to that of
the ST. From this perspective, translators need to be aware of the way in
which the ST author manipulates his/her readers’ cognitive frames to create a
humorous effect. Only in this way will they map these procedures onto the
TT, choosing a language that activates equivalent frames to those of the ST
and manipulates in a similar way the TT readers’ expectations, attitudes and
cultural assumptions.
All the analysed examples are distributed into three paragraphs: in the
first one we present the ST with the expression to be analysed in italics. The
second one contains Riambau Saurí’s translation and, again, the analysed
expression appears in italics. Finally, we introduce the translation we suggest
in bold, italics and underlined. We have also substituted Riambau Saurí’s

translation in those cases in which we consider it is possible to improve the
translation of other expressions apart from the ones studied.
3.1. Humour by modifying frames
We will start our analysis with the procedure of modification of frames,

concretely, with the distortion of frames that readers already have.
3.1.1. Distorting already existing frames
In Small World David Lodge continuously uses the device of distorting the
receptor’s frames to create humorous effects. In general, the world he pic-
tures in his novel constitutes a prominent deviation from the prototype of the
university world. Instead of the prototype of the university teacher as a
serious person, with a formal language, deeply interested in his work and
academic research, we find people that enjoy nightlife, strip-tease clubs and
love affairs; teachers with a language full of colloquial expressions and
vulgar terms, people more interested in academic prestige and power than in
knowledge.
One of the clearest examples of deviation from a prototypical university
world is the way David Lodge distorts the prototype of university confer-
ences as meetings devoted to academic subjects which participants attend
eager to acquire and share knowledge. Instead, we find a general atmosphere
of apathy and boredom, with participants that show no interest or enthusiasm:
(1) Some were leaning back as far as their seats allowed, staring vacantly at the
ceiling, others were slumped forwards onto the desks that separated each
row, resting their chins on folded arms, and others again were sprawled
sideways over two or three seats, with legs crossed and arms dangling
limply to the floor. [S.W.: 13]
Algunos se repantingaban tanto como les permitían sus asientos, contem-
plando vacuamente el techo, otros se habían derrumbado sobre los pupitres
que separaban cada hilera, apoyando sus barbillas en sus brazos cruzados, y
otros se habían desparramado lateralmente a lo largo de dos o tres asientos,
con las piernas dobladas y los brazos colgando inertes hasta el suelo [M.P.: 31]
Algunos estaban tan repantingados como les permitían sus asientos, con-
templando alelados el techo, otros se habían desplomado sobre los pupitres
que separaban cada una de las filas, apoyando las barbillas en los brazos
cruzados, y otros se habían despatarrado a lo largo de dos o tres asientos,
con las piernas cruzadas y los brazos colgando inertes hasta el suelo.
In this example Saurí’s translation reduces somehow humorous effects by

using terms that activate frames that either do not exist in the Spanish reader’s
mind (‘vacuamente’), or are different from those activated in the ST (‘piernas
dobladas’ as ‘legs crossed’). Other terms that also activate slightly different
frames to those evoked by the ST are ‘derrumbado’ and ‘desparramado’.
Whereas ‘slumped forwards’ and ‘sprawled sideways’ clearly activate a
POSITION frame, ‘derrumbarse’ and ‘desparramarse’, when referred to people
or social activities, often activate FRAMES OF MIND: ‘derrumbarse’ usually
evokes SADNESS or DEPRESSION (e.g., ‘Desde que murió su hijo se ha
derrumbado por completo’) and ‘desparramarse’ often evokes ENJOYMENT
(e.g., ‘Aquella fiesta fue un desparrame’).
The result is a translation which is stylistically marked for a Spanish
reader who, despite understanding the translation, cannot help feeling a
certain disconnection between the expressions used and the frames activated
by the text. In the alternative translation we proposed, we have tried to evoke
the apathy, boredom and lack of interest described in the ST translating
‘vacantly’ as ‘alelados’ and ‘legs crossed’ as ‘piernas cruzadas’. Similarly,
we have translated ‘slumped forward’ as ‘desplomarse’ and ‘sprawled side-
ways’ as ‘despatarrarse’ considering that both translations activate POSITION
frames which are equivalent to those of the ST. Moreover, all these transla-
tions allow the access to an informal frame that contributes to distort the
prototype of a formal conference, inducing the reader to smile.
Another device frequently used by David Lodge to create humorous
effects is the modification or distortion of intertextual frames that structure
the reader’s knowledge about other literary texts. In the following example of
a ‘limerick’, the ST humorous effects are reduced in a TT that transcribes the
English text and resorts to the translator’s note to offer a translation without
rhyme. ‘Limerick’ activates in the ST reader the frame of a humorous poetic
composition which rhymes and always starts by ‘There was a’. The humour
of the limerick is usually racy and somehow grotesque. David Lodge plays
with his readers’ expectations and creates a text where humorous devices are
exploited to the full, achieving a vulgar and grotesque rhyme:
(2) (Dempsey) ‘What are you thinking about?’

(Persse) ‘A poem.’
Dempsey’s frown momentarily dissolved into a leer: ‘I’ve been working on
that limerick,’ he said. ‘What about this for a start:
There was a young fellow from Limerick
Who tried to have sex with a candlestick…’ [S.W.: 37]
(Dempsey) — ¿Y en qué está pensando?
(Persse) — En un poema.
Por un momento, el ceño de Dempsey se convirtió en mueca burlona.
(Dempsey) — He estado pensando en aquel limerick -dijo — . ¿Qué le
parece esto como comienzo:
There was a young fellow from Limerick
Who tried to have sex with a candlestick…?
(N. del T): Érase un joven de Limerick/que trató de gozar con un candelero.
[M.P.: 60]
(Dempsey)‘¿Y en qué está pensando?’
(Persse) ‘En un poema.’
Por un momento, el ceño fruncido de Dempsey se convirtió en una mirada
desdeñosa.
(Dempsey) ‘He estado pensando en aquel limerick’ dijo.‘¿Qué le parece esto
como comienzo:
Érase un joven muy majadero/
que intentó tirarse a un candelero.’
In this case, humour results from the way in which David Lodge twists his
readers’ frame of the poetic composition known as ‘limerick’, exaggerating
the racy humour that characterises this composition and elaborating a rhyme
with grotesque sexual connotations that induce laughter. This is the second
time that Dempsey tries to find a word that rhymes with ‘limerick’ to make
fun of the young Persse. To carry out the teasing, David Lodge activates a
humorous text type frame (i.e. LIMERICK). Then, he increases the humorous
effects distorting slightly such a frame to break the expectations of a reader
who surely did not expect the poem to have a teacher from a university with
the same name as subject matter or to find such grotesque rhyme.
In Spanish it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a word that
rhymes with limerick and allows us to keep the ST play on words. Thus, to
achieve a humorous effect, the translator can concentrate on the elaboration
of a rhyme that, as in the ST, activates a MOCKING frame that induces laughter
due to the taboo character of the language used. In the proposed translation,
we have used the frame of the Spanish RHYMING COUPLET as a poetic compo-
sition that is frequently humorous.
3.1.2. Creating new frames
Besides distorting his readers’ frames with humorous purposes, David Lodge
also creates new frames designed to make readers laugh. They are cases in
which David Lodge elaborates a new frame from already existing ones. A
clear example of this technique is the creation of names of places and
characters.
One of the most representative examples of David Lodge’s creation of
names of places is that of ‘RUMMIDGE’ as the name of the town where the plot
starts:
(3) “APRIL is the cruellest month,” Persse McGarrigle quoted silently to him-
self, gazing through the grimy windowpanes at the unseasonable snow
crusting the lawns and flowerbeds of the Rummidge campus.’ [S.W.: 3]
‘Rummidge’ is, at first sight, a name invented by David Lodge. However, it

can activate two different frames in English readers’ minds. On the one hand,
it seems Rummidge has been invented from the name of the English city of
Birmingham, called ‘Brummidgeham’ by the locals. On the other hand,
English readers can associate ‘Rummidge’ to its homophone ‘rummage’,
activating thus the ‘antiprototype’ of a NICE FRIENDLY TOWN. In this way, the
description of Rummidge campus as a university somehow grey and depress-
ing, with grimy windowpanes and chipped walls, perfectly fits the ‘anti-
prototype’ evoked by its name, making readers laugh.
Given that transcribing the English name in the TT implies losing all this
information, Rosa Lorés (1992) has suggested the possibility of using a
Spanish term adapted into English. Ingeniously, Lorés proposes the term
‘escombro’ as equivalent of ‘rummage’, since it also has the nuances of
something which is ‘useless, rundown and old’. Moreover, she suggests a
good adaptation into English with the name of ‘Scombrough’. However,
Lorés also points out that this translation would constitute an unacceptable
distortion of the fictitious world created by David Lodge, since, as we have
already outlined, ‘Rummidge’ appears as a fictitious town in several of his
novels. Other options would be to resort to the always annoying footnote or
try to compensate for the loss of information and humorous effects in other
parts of the text.
Apart from names of places, David Lodge especially shows his wit when
creating names for his characters. Proper nouns usually do not have other
meanings apart from denoting the person they refer to, although authors
frequently choose their characters for their symbolic value. In fact, in literary
works we often find proper nouns that, besides denoting a person, mean
something. In this way, authors use proper nouns as a device in order to
communicate their readers information on the characters that appear in the
work. Let us take the example of PERSSE MCGARRIGLE in Small World:
(4) “I was lucky,” Persse agreed. “Indeed I was. I found out afterwards that I
was called to the interview by mistake. They really meant to interview
another fellow called McGarrigle — some high-flying scholar from Trinity.
But the letter was addressed to me — someone slipped up in the Registry —
and they were too embarrassed to retract the invitation.” [S.W.: 15]
On the one hand, there is a similarity with the real Irish name ‘Pierce
McGonigle’, which indicates the character’s Irish origin and gives an impres-
sion of reality. What is more, the phonetic resemblance with ‘gargle’ has a
clear humorous effect on English readers. David Lodge has used the term
‘gargle’ and has transformed it using two typical characteristics of Irish
names (i.e., the affix -‘Mc’- and the epenthetic vowel ‘-i-’). These devices
and the phonetic similarity between ‘Persse’ and ‘Pierce’ allow the reader to
activate the frame of IRISH PROPER NOUN. Both the Irish nationality and the
similarity with ‘gargle’ inform the reader of Persse’s somehow ridiculous
personality, being a young man, too idealistic and naive, who finds a job at a
university by mistake and who goes around the world chasing a strip-teaser
he hopes to convert to a decent life.
The problem with the translation of proper nouns is certainly a complex
matter. In examples of proper nouns which mean something, the translation is
possible because there is semantic information that can be transmitted to the
TL. In this particular example, Spanish allows a play on words similar to that
of the ST by creating the proper noun ‘Gárgarez’ adding the suffix ‘-ez’,
which is characteristic of many Spanish surnames, to the word ‘gárgara’.
This surname would let Spanish readers activate both the frame of GÁRGARA
(‘gargle’) and that of the SPANISH PROPER NOUN. The Irish origin would be
lost, but the character’s humorous implications would be kept. However, the
decision to translate a proper noun often implies altering the ST scenario,
changing a plot that takes place in Great Britain for one which happens
somewhere in Spain or substituting an Irish man for a Spanish one. We
should bear in mind that translating proper nouns can affect the general
relevance of the world described in the novel. In the case of Small World, we
find a typically English scenario that can be easily recognised by all readers
who know England. In this way, David Lodge invites English readers to take
part in this world, showing his intention to communicate information he
considers may be relevant for them. To keep this general relevance, changing
British proper nouns for Spanish ones would imply changing every detail
associated with such a British world for details related to Spain, which would
result in different connotations to those intended by the author.
On the other hand, if we do not translate the proper noun, Spanish readers
will probably not be able to decipher the connotations hidden in the English
name and the contextual effects of the term will be lost. A possibility to
transmit the meaning and respect the nationality of the name is to translate this
meaning and then make it look like a SL name. For instance, in the case of
McGarrigle, we could translate ‘gargle’ as ‘gárgara’ and we could drop the
final ‘-a’ and add the affix ‘Mc-‘ (e.g., ‘McGargar’) to evoke the character’s
Irish identity. However, Newmark (1982: 71–72) points out that this strategy
should only be used when the culture the character belongs to is as important
as or even more important than the message conveyed by the book, and he
warns the translator that this type of translation requires exceptional linguistic
skills. For this reason, the most widely used and accepted strategy for translat-
ing proper nouns is transcribing the ST, trying to compensate for the loss of
information and effects in other parts of the text.
Fortunately for the translator, transcribing the name does not always
imply losing information or humour. Some of the proper nouns of the book
allow Spanish readers to infer the same or, at least, most of the information
which they transmit to the ST reader. For example, Spanish readers are
perfectly able to establish the connections between the fastness and the
suddenness evoked by the name ‘ZAPP’ and the character’s personality. In the
same way, Spanish readers have no problems to associate the name of Zapp’s
wife ‘DESIRÉE’ with the idea of ‘sexual desire’.
Not all the examples of creation of new frames are names of places and
people. It is also possible to find cases in which David Lodge invents a new
adjective with clear humorous purposes, as in the play on words ‘TROILISM’
found in the following example:
(5) ‘I just want to know,’ said Morris Zapp, ‘how you manage to reconcile
living like a millionaire with being a Marxist.’ [S.W.: 128]
Morris Zapp took his departure from Milan as soon as he decently could, if
‘decent’ was a word that could be applied to the Morgana Ménage, which he
ventured to doubt. The troilism party had not been a success. As soon as it
became evident that he was expected to fool around with Ernesto as well as
Fulvia, Morris had made his excuses and left the mirrored bedchamber.
[M.P.: 150]
Morris Zapp se marchó de Milán apenas le fue decentemente posible, si es
que ‘decente’ era la palabra aplicable al matrimonio Morgana, de lo cual se
permitía dudar.
El ménage à trois no había sido un éxito, y apenas resultó evidente que se
esperaba de él que retozara con Ernesto al igual que con Fulvia, Morris se
excusó y abandonó el dormitorio de los espejos [M.P.: 195]
Morris Zapp se marchó de Milán apenas le fue decentemente posible, si es
que ‘decente era una palabra que pudiera aplicarse al matrimonio Morgana,
de lo cual se permitía dudar. La asociación trioskista no había sido un éxito
y apenas resultó evidente que se esperaba de él que retozara con Ernesto al
igual que con Fulvia, Morris se excusó y abandonó la cámara de los espejos
This is perhaps one of the examples which reflects David Lodge’s sense of
humour better. Morris Zapp has been kindly invited by Fulvia Morgana to her
Italian villa to spend the night. Fulvia is an Italian university teacher who
despite living as a millionaire, shows off her Marxist ideology. After dinner,
Fulvia tries to seduce Zapp taking him to her bedroom. When they are already
in bed, Fulvia’s husband appears, and, considering the situation as normal,
tries to join the couple. The example we are discussing describes precisely the
moment when Zapp, shocked, tries to escape from the liberal Mr and Mrs
Morgana and their intentions to have a ménage à trois.
The grotesque character of the situation is increased by the narrator’s
comment and the subtle play on words. ‘The troilism party’ makes readers
laugh because it combines the frame of the sexual threesome with that of the
political party. David Lodge has created a new frame in which he has linked
‘TROI-’, which evokes the frame ‘ménage à trois’ to ‘-LISM’, which evokes the
frame of the political party (e.g., Marxism, Trotskyism, etc.). Besides, ‘party’
contributes to the play on words, since it also activates two frames which are
very similar to those activated by ‘troilism’: the frame of PARTY, connected to
the sexual play activated by ‘troi-’, and the frame of POLITICAL PARTY, which
reinforces the political frame activated by ‘-lism’. The result is a new frame
that evokes the prototypical appearance of names of political parties and
affiliations, but which, once more, moves away from the prototype activating
a frame defined by a sexual subject.
In this case, the translator has opted for suppressing the play on words,
substituting it for the real French expression ‘menàge à trois’, also known by
Spanish readers. However, once more this solution unnecessarily diminishes

the ST humorous effect, since the translator can map the ST combination of
frames onto the TT, looking for the linguistic terms that allows him/her to
evoke equivalent frames to those of the ST. Thus, our translation proposes the
play on words ‘TRIOSKISTA’ or ‘TRIOXISTA’, combining the ending ‘-XISTA’ or ‘-
KISTA’, which in Spanish evokes the frame of political party (e.g., ‘Marxista or
Troskista’), and the expression ‘TRIO-’, which activates the frame of the
sexual threesome. Other solutions could be ‘TRUASKISTA’ and ‘TRUAXISTA’, in
which TRUA- evokes the sexual threesome colloquially known in Spain with
the Spanish-like pronunciation /menás a truá/.
The contribution the ambiguity of ‘party’ makes to the play on words is,
however, more difficult to achieve, at least as precisely as in the ST. We have
suggested the term ‘associación’ because it can activate both the sexual
frame (that is, in the sense of ‘carnal association’) and the political one, since
a party is actually a political association.
3.1.3. New connections between frames
In some cases, David Lodge’s creativity when achieving a humorous effect lies
in his ability to establish new connections between frames which are already
stored in the minds of the readers. The examples commented in this section and
the creation of new frames analysed in the previous section only differ in the
fact that, whereas in the previous section we find new invented linguistic
frames (e.g., ‘Rummidge’ or ‘troilism’), in the following examples David
Lodge uses a frame already stored in the minds of the readers, but manipulates
the context to activate several frames and establish new connections between
them. The result is an ingenious play on words that makes readers laugh.
An example in which humour is based on a clever connection between
two existing frames is the following association between the expressions
‘knock fund’ and ‘knocked-up’:
(6) ‘Never mind that,’ said Persse. ‘Look, Bernadette, if you ever change your
mind about going back to Ireland, there’s a priest in Rummidge who will
help you. He has a fund for repatriating young Irish people. The Our Lady of
Knock Fund.’
‘Our Lady of the Knocked-Up would be more like it,’ said Bernadette,
sardonically.
‘Knocked-up?’
‘Haven’t you heard that expression before?’
‘Indeed I have. Anyway, this priest is called Father Finbar O’Malley — ‘

[S.W.: 132]
— No importa — dijo Persse — . Mira, Bernadette, si alguna vez cambias de
parecer en lo de regresar a Irlanda, hay un cura en Rummidge que te
ayudará. Dispone de un fondo para repatriar a jóvenes irlandeses. El Fondo
de Nuestra Señora del Socorro para Emigrantes Arrepentidos.
— Nuestra Señora del Socorro para las Arrepentidas sería un nombre más
adecuado — dijo Bernadette sarcásticamente.
— ¿Las arrepentidas?
— ¿No sabes a qué me refiero?
— Claro que sí. Bueno, pues este cura es el padre Finbar O’Malley…
[M.P.: 173]
‘No importa’, dijo Persse. ‘Mira, Bernadette, si alguna vez cambias de
parecer en lo de regresar a Irlanda, hay un cura en Rummidge que te
ayudará. Dispone de un fondo para repatriar a jóvenes irlandeses. El Fondo
de Nuestra Señora del Socorro.’
‘Nuestra Señora del Pitorro sería un nombre más adecuado’ dijo
Bernadette sarcásticamente.
‘¿Pitorro?’
‘¿No habías oído antes esta expresión?’
‘Claro que sí. Bueno, pues este cura es el padre Finbar O’Malley…’
‘Knock’ is a village in Western Ireland where the Virgin is thought to ‘have

appeared’. So, David Lodge uses the name of ‘Our Lady of Knock’ to create
the name of a kind of fund (i.e., ‘The Our Lady of Knock Fund’) to help Irish
inmigrants who want to go back to Ireland. ‘Knock-up’ is an expression that in
British slang means ‘to make somebody pregnant’. Bernadette has just con-
fessed to Persse she is pregnant and he has advised her to go back to Ireland.
Bernadette does not want to go back because she is afraid of her family, but
Persse insists in her going home and tells her about the fund to repatriate
young Irish people who want to go back. Bernadette uses the name of the fund
‘The Our Lady of Knock Fund’ to make a joke based on the similarity between
the invented expression ‘knock fund’ and the slang ‘knock-up’, which defines
her situation and probably also that of most young Irish women who decide to
go back to Ireland. Humour lies both in the similarity between both expres-
sions and in the blasphemous character of a joke that turns the ‘Virgin of
knock’ into the ‘Virgin of accidental pregnancies’.
The translator has tried to reproduce the joke using the term ‘arre-
pentido/-a’. The verb ‘ARREPENTIRSE’ activates a textual frame in which
readers expect to find, at least, the subject or person who regrets something
and the object of his/her regret, since when we ‘regret’, we always regret
something. In the expression ‘emigrantes arrepentidos’, the people who
regret something are clearly inmigrants and what they regret is having left
Ireland. However, in the case of the expression ‘las arrepentidas’, both the
subject and the object are elided, forcing readers to infer them from their
knowledge of the previous context. Thus, the translator supposes that readers,
using the context as a reference point, will probably infer that ‘las arre-
pentidas’ are all the women who, like Bernadette, regret being pregnant
without being married.
Although Saurí’s translation transmits the ST information from the point
of view of content, the humorous effect has been diminished, since the play
on words and the blasphemous character of the joke have been lost. For this
reason, we have proposed as an alternative the play on words between
‘Socorro’ and ‘Pitorro’. This translation implies changing the name of
the Irish Virgin (‘Our Lady of Knock’) for the name of a Spanish Virgin
(‘Nuestra Señora del Socorro’). With this change, the allusion to Ireland
implied in the name of ‘Knock’ is lost. However, the loss does not seem to
have a serious impact on the coherence of the novel. Neither the name of ‘Our
Lady of Knock’ nor the fund appear later on in the book. The main function of
the example is humorous, and the play between ‘Socorro’ and ‘Pitorro’ at
least allows us to keep humorous effects. The link between these terms makes
the reader smile both because of the phonetic similarity and the somehow
blasphemous association between the ‘Virgen del Socorro’ and a term which
refers to the male sexual organ. Besides, ‘Pitorro’ allows Spanish readers to
activate a sexual frame in which it is possible to establish the connection
between ‘pitorro’ and Bernadette’s actual situation.
In the following example, Saurí has ingeniously translated the ST play
on words between ‘Puss’ and ‘pussy’. Once more, David Lodge makes his
readers laugh connecting two terms which are almost identical in pronuncia-
tion and/or spelling, but completely different in the frames they activate in a
certain context. Thus, ‘puss’ and ‘pussy’ are virtually identical; however,
whereas ‘puss’ refers here to the main character of the tale Puss in Boots,
‘pussy’ is the vulgar expression which refers to the female sexual organ. In
this way, the humour of this example lies in connecting two almost identical
terms, but that in this context activate two different frames: TALE and FEMALE
SEXUAL ORGAN:
(7) ‘So Puss in Boots is equivalent to the Grail?’ Persse said facetiously.
‘Miss Maiden was not discomposed. ‘Certainly. Boots are phallic, and you
are no doubt familiar with the vulgar expression ‘pussy’?’
‘Yes, I have heard it occasionally,’ said Persse weakly.
‘It is a very ancient and widely distributed metaphor, I assure you. So you
see the character of Puss in Boots represents the same combination of male
and female principles as the cup and spear in the Grail legend.’ [S.W.: 36]
— ¿O sea que el Gato con Botas equivale al Grial? — preguntó Persse en
broma.
La señorita Maiden no se inmutó.
— Desde luego las botas son fálicas, y sin duda usted está familiarizado con
la vulgar expresión ‘minina’, ¿no?
— Sí la he oído algunas veces — admitió Persse débilmente.
— Le aseguro que es una metáfora muy antigua y ampliamente extendida.
Por lo tanto, ya ve que el personaje del Gato con Botas representa la misma
combinación de principios masculinos y femeninos que la copa y la lanza en
la leyenda del Grial. [M.P.: 59]
‘¿O sea que el Gato con Botas equivale al Grial?’ preguntó Persse en broma.
La señorita Maiden no se inmutó.
‘Desde luego las botas son fálicas, y sin duda usted estará familiarizado con
la expresión vulgar ‘el minino’, ¿no?’
‘Sí la he oído algunas veces’ admitió Persse débilmente.
‘Le aseguro que es una metáfora muy antigua y ampliamente extendida. Por
lo tanto, ya ve que el personaje del Gato con Botas representa la misma
combinación de principios masculinos y femeninos que la copa y la lanza en
la leyenda del Grial.’
Considering that in Spanish there seems to be no term which is almost

identical to ‘gato’ and which also allows us to activate a SEXUAL frame, the
translator has opted for using a synonym. In this way, ‘minina’ lets us
establish the connection with the term ‘gato’ and thus activate the frame of
TALE and it also allows the access to a SEXUAL frame referring to the male
sexual organ. The humour is therefore guaranteed in the translation, but
perhaps it would have been more adequate to use the expression ‘minino’
instead of ‘minina’, since ‘minina’ is colloquially used to refer to the male
sexual organ. This connection to the male organ would cancel the combina-
tion between male principles (the boots as phallic symbol) and female prin-
ciples (the term ‘puss’ connected to the female sexual organ) that Miss
Maiden tries to illustrate.
3.1.4. Activating an erroneous frame
A special device David Lodge exploits in Small World to create humorous

effects is the pragmatic mistake often made by foreigners when inmersed in a
different culture. This type of misunderstanding results in the erroneous
activation of a frame in a context which requires activating a different one. In
this sense, in Small World David Lodge uses the character of the Japanese
translator ‘Akira Sakazaki’, who has serious problems to understand certain
cultural elements in Frobisher’s novel, which he tries to translate into Japa-
nese. Sakazaki’s understanding difficulties constitute an excellent humorous
device for David Lodge, who frequently illustrates the Japanese translator’s
tendency to activate the wrong frame, causing a funny pragmatic misunder-
standing.
An example of the way David Lodge uses the character of the Japanese
translator as a humorous device is the following case, in which Akira
Sakazaki, not knowing the real meaning of the expression ‘sweet fanny
adams’, has activated the frame of PERSON. ‘Sweet fanny adams’ means
something like ‘nothing at all’ and it is actually an euphemism for the
expression ‘fuck-all’.6 The problem is that ‘Fanny’ is also a quite common
woman’s name and ‘Adams’ is a surname. Thus, Akira Sakazaki, not having
heard before the expression ‘sweet fanny adams’, breaks up the idiom into
‘sweet’ and ‘fanny adams’, assuming it refers to the ‘sweet’ Ms ‘Fanny
Adams’. In this way, Sakazaki makes readers laugh pointing to the possibility
to relate the frames of the EUPHEMISM and the WOMAN’S PROPER NAME:
(8) In this sport, Akira sees an allegory of the elations and frustrations of his
work as translator […] Neglected at his feet lies a blue aerogramme with
questions neatly typed: ‘p. 152, ‘jam-butty’. What is it? p. 182, ‘Y-fronts’.
What are they? p. 191 ‘sweet fanny adams’. Who is she? [S.W.: 142]
En este deporte, Akira ve una alegoría de las elaciones y frustraciones de su
trabajo como traductor […] Yace abandonado junto a sus pies un aerograma
azul con unas preguntas pulcramente mecanografiadas: ‘p. 152, ‘jam-butty’.
¿Qué es? p. 182, ‘Y-fronts’. ¿Qué son? p. 191 ‘sweet fanny adams’. ¿Quién
es ésta?
(N. del T.): A semejanza de Akira Sakazaki, también el traductor al castell-
ano pasa sus momentos de apuro. En este caso, para no alterar en absoluto la
intención del autor, ha juzgado conveniente dejar intactas las tres locuciones
inglesas que tanto desconciertan, y no sin razón, al traductor japonés. ‘Jam-
butty’ es una especie de tartaleta casera, en realidad una rebanada de pan con
mantequilla y mermelada. ‘Y-fronts’ son calzoncillos tipo slip provistos de
bragueta. Por último, llegamos al ‘sweet fanny adams’, que es donde radica
la chispa humorística en el original y que, traducido literalmente, significa
‘dulce culo’. El hecho de llamar a esta parte de la anatomía humana ‘fanny
adams’ confunde al buen Akira Sakazaki y le mueve a preguntar quién es
tan dulce señorita. [M.P.: 184]
…Abandonado junto a sus pies, yace un aerograma azul con unas preguntas
pulcramente mecanografiadas: ‘p. 152, ‘una catalana a la plancha’. ¿Quién
es ésa? p. 182, ‘unos Abanderado’. ¿Qué son? p. 191 ‘el señor Roca’.
¿Quién es ése?
The translator’s note in this example not only diminishes the humorous
effects, but also shows that the translator does not know the real meaning of
the euphemism ‘sweet fanny adams’. The translator’s note indicates that
‘sweet fanny adams’ means literally ‘dulce culo’, but this is actually not
exact. ‘Fanny’ refers to the female sexual organ in Great Britain and to ‘the
buttocks’ in EE.UU, but ‘fanny adams’ does not mean ‘the buttocks’ in any
country. To translate the play carried out by David Lodge, it is necessary to
find an equivalent that activates the frame of the EUPHEMISM and allows the
confusion with the frame of PROPER NOUN. A possibility would be the expres-
sion ‘el señor Roca’. ‘Roca’ is a popular Spanish make of toilet accessories
that activates the frame of W.C. Moreover, Spanish has the expression ‘visitar
al señor Roca’ as a euphemism for going to the toilet.
Together with the expression ‘sweet fanny adams’, we find other two
cultural terms (i.e., ‘jam-butty’ and ‘Y-fronts’), that have not been translated
either, even when it is possible to find Spanish cultural equivalents that
preserve the humour of the example. ‘Jam-butty’ is the colloquial name used
in the North of England to refer to a jam and butter sandwich. The term makes
readers smile due to its colloquial character and its link to a given part of
England. In the same way, the use of ‘Y-fronts’ is also humorous, since
talking about underwear has a certain taboo character that here encourages
readers to laugh.
These humorous effects are lost with the transcription of the English
terms. We should bear in mind that, unlike proper nouns, translating these
terms does not imply drastically modifying the ST fictitious world. The main
function of these examples is to create a humorous effect and the use of
cultural terms is more an instrument to serve humour than an end in itself. For
this reason, we have proposed the equivalents ‘catalana’ and ‘abanderado’
as alternatives which contribute to keep the ST humour. On the one hand,
‘catalana’ is a term used in several parts of Spain to denote a type of cold
meat (e.g., in the Northern Spain) or even a sandwich (e.g., in Murcia a

‘catalana’ is a Serrano jam and tomato sandwich). In this way, ‘una catalana
a la plancha’ activates, like ‘jam-butty’, the frame of FOOD and keeps the
ST colloquial tone. Besides, the other sense of ‘catalana’ as ‘a woman
from Cataluña’ allows us to activate the frame of WOMAN and use the
question‘¿Quién es ésa?’ Regarding the term ‘Abanderado’, being a famous
make of underpants, it allows readers to activate the frame of MEN’S UNDER-
WEAR, making readers laugh for similar reasons to those of the ST. Another
possibility would be to use the term ‘slips’, but the Japanese translator is
likely to have more difficulties to understand the term ‘Abanderado’.
Transcribing in the TT the English terms which confuse the Japanese
translator may be due to an attempt to respect the ST cultural elements. It is
true that the translations we propose here imply the use of cultural equivalents
that replace British cultural elements for different Spanish ones. As we have
already remarked in this work, this technique is not too advisable in the
translation of literary texts, since it may alter the ST fictitious world. How-
ever, considering Sakazaki is not even a central character in the book,
translating the cultural elements in this example does not seem to radically
alter the ST world. In fact, Sakazaki’s role in Small World is mainly to make
readers laugh illustrating the possible pragmatic misunderstandings of a
translator who does not know certain aspects of a different culture.
Sakazaki is not the only character responsible for pragmatic misunder-
standings. In the following example activating the erroneous frame is due to
both the phonetic similarity between the frames and the probable lack of
attention of a speaker who is not very interested in the subject. In this case,
the translator has opted for an ingenious solution to the translation of the ST
play on words between ‘John’ and ‘Genre’, but has forgotten to translate one
of the ‘Johns’ which appear in the ST, causing certain incoherence in the
conversation:
(9) ‘Another conference?’
‘Right. Some conference on John.’
‘John? John who?’
Pabst shrugs. ‘Angie didn’t say. She just said she was going to a conference
on John, University of Hawaii.’
‘Could it have been ‘Genre’?
‘That’s it.’ Pabst looked at his watch. ‘I’m sorry, McGarrigle, but I have to
leave now. You can walk me to the plane if you have any more questions.’
[S.W.: 279]
— ¿Otro congreso?
— Exacto. Un congreso sobre Genaro.
— ¿Genaro? ¿Genaro qué?
Pabst se encoge de hombros.
— Angie no lo dijo. Sólo dijo que iba a unas conferencias sobre John, en la
Universidad de Hawaii.
— ¿Pudo haber sido ‘Género’?
— Eso es. — Pabst consultó su reloj — . Lo siento, McGarrigle, pero ahora
tengo que marcharme. Puede acompañarme si tiene más preguntas que
hacer. [M.P.: 349]
‘¿Otro congreso?’
‘Exacto. Un congreso sobre Genaro.’
‘¿Genaro? ¿Genaro qué?’
Pabst se encoge de hombros.
‘Angie no lo dijo. Sólo dijo que iba a un congreso sobre Genaro, en la
Universidad de Hawai.’
‘¿Pudo haber sido ‘Género’?
‘Eso es.’ Pabst consultó su reloj. ‘Lo siento, McGarrigle, pero ahora tengo
que marcharme. Puede acompañarme hasta el avión si tiene más preguntas
que hacer.’
In this example, David Lodge exploits the phonetic similarity between the
proper name ‘John’ and the term ‘genre’. The confusion is comical for several
reasons: firstly, readers perceive the similarity in the pronunciation of both
terms. Moreover, readers also recognise the typical situation in which some-
body who is not a specialist in the subject has difficulties to understand a
specialised term. Finally, a term which activates a frame of INANIMATE OBJECT
is mistaken for another which activates the frame of PERSON, causing a strange
process of ‘personalisation’ which is somehow comical. These are exactly the
effects the translation has on its audience by substituting John for a Spanish
proper noun (‘Genaro’) phonetically similar to ‘género’. However, the trans-
lator has not replaced one of the occurrences of ‘John’, confusing the reader.
Translating a proper noun in this example contradicts in principle our previ-
ous advice about not translating proper nouns; however, in this case ‘John’ is
not a character but only a name used exclusively with humorous purposes
because of its phonetic similarity to ‘genre’. Thus, using the name ‘Genaro’
does not seem to affect the ST fictitious world.
3.2. Humour by reinforcing frames
Seeing our frames reflected in a novel can also produce a humorous effect. So
far, in all the examples analysed, humour is the effect of an ingenious
manipulation of frames. However, humour can also result from simply rein-
forcing the reader’s cultural frames. In this section, we will discuss some
examples which, in one way or another, ‘hinder’ the activation of the proto-
type David Lodge tries to reinforce. The first example illustrates a case in
which David Lodge uses accent as a trigger for a cultural prototype. It shows
a Dutch prostitute who tries to convince Persse to pay for her services. The
situation itself is grotesque enough to make readers laugh, but David Lodge
increases its comical character reflecting the prostitute’s foreign accent in
sentences which are gramatically incorrect:
(10) ‘Excuse me,’ he said.
‘You American?’ she enquired. ‘You like to spend some time with me? Forty
dollar.’
‘There was another girl in here just now,’ said Persse.
‘She gone. She babysitter. Don’t worry, I give you good time.’ [S.W.: 203]
— Perdone — dijo Persse.
— ¿Americano? — inquirió ella — . ¿Quiere pasar un rato conmigo?
Cuarenta dólares.
— Había aquí otra chica, hace un momento — dijo Persse.
— Se ha marchado. Ella canguro. No se preocupe, yo le haré pasar un buen
rato. [M.P.: 203]
‘Perdone,’ dijo Persse.
‘¿Tú americano?’ inquirió ella.‘¿Tú quieres pasar un rato conmigo?
Cuarenta dolars.’
‘Había aquí otra chica, hace un momento,’ dijo Persse.
‘Marchado. Ella canguro. No te preocupes, conmigo pasar buen rato.’
Among all the grammatically incorrect markers David Lodge uses to activate
the prototype of FOREIGN ACCENT, the translator opts for omitting the verbal
form ‘es’ (‘is’) and the article ‘la’ (‘the’) or the possessive ‘mi’ (‘mi’) in the
sentence ‘Ella canguro’ (‘She babysitter’). Apart from this sentence, the rest
of the Spanish TT is grammatically correct, which prevents readers from
activating the prototype of FOREIGN ACCENT and decreases the ST humorous
effects. In this particular case, translating the ST accent is not very problematic,
since it is not a central character and the translation does not affect its identity;
on the contrary, not translating the accent implies certain problems because it
modifies the character’s identity. For this reason, we have proposed as an

alternative a translation which reflects equivalent grammatical mistakes and
allows readers to activate the prototype of a FOREIGN ACCENT in Spanish.
Sometimes David Lodge describes in detail a prototypical scene using a
colloquial and familiar language which aims to ‘reinforce’ the activated
cultural prototype. The difficulty to translate these examples lies precisely in
preserving the image evoked in the ST.
(11) Beefy businessmen in striped suits, striped shirts and striped ties, carrying
sleek executive briefcases and ingenious overnight wardrobe bags, all zips,
buttons, straps and pouches, are checking in for their flights to London,
Glasgow, Belfast and Brussels. A group of early vacationers, bound for a
package tour in Majorca, and dressed in garish holiday gear, wait patiently
for a delayed plane: fat, comfortable folk, who sit in the departure lounge
with their legs apart and their hands on their knees, yawning and smoking
and eating sweets. [S.W.: 102]
Rollizos hombres de negocios con trajes a rayas, camisas a rayas y corbatas
a rayas, portadores de delgados maletines de ejecutivo y de ingeniosas
bolsas de viaje para la ropa, todas ellas cremalleras, botones, hebillas y
bolsillos, se disponen a emprender el vuelo rumbo a Londres, Glasgow,
Belfast y Bruselas. Un grupo de turistas primerizos, reunidos para una
estancia de vacaciones en Mallorca y ataviados con chillonas indumen-
tarias, esperan pacientemente un avión que lleva retraso; son personas
obesas y de aspecto comodón, que se sientan en la sala de salidas con las
piernas abiertas y las manos sobre las rodillas, bostezando, fumando y
comiendo golosinas. [M.P.: 135–6]
Fornidos hombres de negocios con trajes a rayas, camisas a rayas y corbatas
a rayas, llevando elegantes maletines de ejecutivo e ingeniosas bolsas
guardarropa de fin de semana, todo cremalleras, botones, hebillas y bolsi-
llos, se disponen a emprender el vuelo rumbo a Londres, Glasgow, Belfast y
Bruselas. Un grupo de turistas tempraneros, con rumbo a Mallorca en un
viaje organizado y ataviados con chillones conjuntos veraniegos, esperan
pacientemente un avión que lleva retraso: un clan de gordos comodones,
que se sientan en la sala de salidas con las piernas abiertas y las manos sobre
las rodillas, bostezando, fumando y comiendo golosinas.
The scene takes place in Rummidge airport. The narrator describes two
different types of stereotypical travellers who can be usually found in an
airport, at least in Western countries: businessmen and package holidays
tourists. Readers immediately recognise the stereotypes and smile at the
grotesque contrast between both groups. On the one hand, we find executives
with smart briefcases and striped suits checking in for their business flights;
on the other hand, we find a group of fat and tacky tourists, who are waiting
for their charter flight to some cheap and sunny destination. The humour
caused by the contrast between the stereotypes is increased by the use of
colloquial terms such as ‘beefy’, ‘gear’, ‘folk’.
However, the translator once more decreases the ST humour by soften-
ing the contrast between the stereotypes. In this sense, we have proposed
to substitute ‘rollizos’ for ‘fornidos’ (‘beefy’), ‘delgados’ for ‘elegantes’
(‘sleek’) and ‘bolsas de viaje para la ropa’ for ‘bolsas guardarropa de fin de
semana’ (‘overnight wardrobe bags’), considering that in this way it is easier
to achieve a clearer image of the stereotype of the SMART AND DYNAMIC
EXECUTIVE and a sharper contrast with the economy class travellers. Simi-
larly, we have suggested the options ‘vacaciones organizadas’ for ‘package
holidays’ and ‘tempraneros’ for ‘early’, thinking they fit the ST description
better: a ‘estancia de vacaciones’ can be organised by tourists themselves or
through an agency but ‘a package tour’ implies organisation through an
agency. In the same way, in this context ‘early vacationers’ does not refer to
tourists who are inexperienced but to those who travel before summer holi-
days, probably because the prices are lower. Besides, Saurí’s translation
shows again a tendency to ‘neutralise’ the ST colloquial tone. Thus, he uses a
term such as ‘personas obesas’ for ‘fat comfortable folk’, which contributes
to create a TT which is more formal than the ST and reduces the humourous
strength of the contrast between the stereotypes.
3.3. Humour by metaphoric mapping of frames
In this section we include some examples in which David Lodge has used
‘metaphor’ as a humorous device. We consider metaphor to be something
more than a purely linguistic phenomenon; this work subscribes to the view
that metaphor is a ‘cognitive’ phenomenon, which is reflected both in the way
we speak and in the way we think and act. This view that Lakoff and Johnson
(1990) described in a simple and precise way in their famous work Metaphors
We Live By has originated what now seems an unstoppable line of research on
a type of ‘cognitive metaphor’ that Gibbs defines as follows:
Metaphor is not merely an instance of language, a special rhetorical device
used for communication and persuasion. Instead metaphor is a fundamental
mental capacity by which people understand themselves and the world
through the conceptual mapping of knowledge from one domain onto
another. The overwhelming ubiquity of metaphor in language, thought,

science, law, art, myth, and culture illustrates that metaphor is an integral
part of human life. (Gibbs 1994, p. 207)
In this type of studies the barrier between poetic and conventionalised meta-
phor disappears at last; both types of metaphors depend on the same process
of conceptual mapping from one domain onto a different one. In the examples
found in our corpus, David Lodge’s intention is clearly humorous, mapping
the knowledge from the frame of ANIMAL onto the frame of HUMAN BEING.
Some of the metaphors are more conventional than others, but they all serve
humour.
Let us imagine the frame of ANIMAL and its physical description. This
frame specifies that an animal has a series of ‘attributes’, such as organs to
hear, see, eat, etc. The names for these organs can vary depending on the
animal. In the same way, the frame of HUMAN BEING also specifies organs to
hear, see, eat, etc. and ‘variables’ assigned to those attributes. When a
‘variable’ assigned to an attribute in the frame of ANIMAL is used for the same
attribute in the frame of HUMAN BEING we find a case of metaphoric mapping.
In this way, David Lodge often uses terms that belong to the frame of ANIMAL
to describe his characters, regarding both their physical appearance and their
actions. Sometimes, the mapping is carried out explicitly; as a comparison;
this is the case of the following example:
(12) Without opening his eyes, hooded like a lizard’s in the brown, leathery
face,… [S.W.: 97]
Sin abrir los ojos, encapirotados como los de un lagarto en la cara pardusca
y correosa… [M.P.: 130]
However, in most cases David Lodge uses metaphoric mapping in an implicit

way. An example of this type of mapping is the use of the word ‘fang’ to
describe Felix Skinner’s teeth in the following two examples:
(13) Felix Skinner bared his yellow fangs, noting, not for the first time, what a
very shapely pair of legs Gloria possessed. [S.W.: 155]
Felix Skinner mostró sus amarillentos colmillos, observando, y no por
primera vez, que Gloria poseía unas piernas muy bien torneadas. [M.P.: 201]
Felix Skinner mostró sus amarillentos colmillos lobunos, fijándose, y no
por primera vez, en lo bien torneadas que estaban las piernas de Gloria.
(14) ‘I say, have you really?’ Skinner exposed his fangs in a yellow smile.’ [S.W.:
170]
— Hombre, ¿de veras? — Skinner mostró sus colmillos en una sonrisa
amarillenta — . [M.P.: 219]
‘Hombre, ¿de veras?’ Skinner mostró sus colmillos lobunos en una sonrisa
amarillenta.
‘Fangs’ is one of the terms which can be used in English to denote animal
teeth (or the teeth of ‘a being’ characterised by the exceptional big size of its
eyeteeth (e.g., as in the case of Dracula). However, the terms used for a
person are usually those of ‘eyeteeth’ or ‘canine teeth’. Thus, when David
Lodge uses the term ‘fangs’ to describe a person’s eyeteeth, he is carrying out
a process of metaphoric mapping in which the frame of ANIMAL is mapped
onto the frame of HUMAN BEING. Thus, when British readers meet somebody
like Skinner who, instead of ‘eyeteeth’ has ‘fangs’, they immediately imagine
him having enormous animal teeth. The problem with the translation in this
case is that in Spanish there is only one term (i.e., ‘colmillo’) both for animals
and people. Thus, using the word ‘colmillo’ to describe Skinner’s teeth does
not activate the frame of ANIMAL, since it does not imply any process
of metaphoric mapping. As a result, the humour that results from the
‘animalisation’ of the character is eliminated in the Spanish translation. An
option to preserve the humour would be to use a word that could activate the
frame of ANIMAL, as in ‘colmillos de lobo o lobunos’. It would also be
possible to translate simply ‘fangs’ as ‘colmillos’ and try to compensate for
the loss in other examples. An example of a suitable case for such compensa-
tion could be for instance the following:
(15) ‘I don’t think we have that many lecturers over here,’ said Persse apologeti-
cally.
‘There must be more than fifty-seven,’ growled Morris Zapp. Where are
they? I’ll tell you where. Most of them are holed up at home, decorating
their living-rooms or weeding their gardens…’ [S.W.: 19]
— No creo que aquí tengamos tantos profesores — repuso Persse en tono de
excusa.
— Pero bien debe haber más de cincuenta y siete — gruñó Morris Zapp — .
¿Dónde están? Yo le diré dónde. En su mayoría encerrados en casa,
decorando sus salas de estar o regando sus jardines… [M.P.: 38]
‘No creo que por aquí tengamos tantos profesores’ repuso Persse en tono de
excusa.
‘Tiene que haber más de cincuenta y siete’ gruñó Morris Zapp.‘¿Dónde

están? Yo le diré dónde. La mayoría están encerrados en sus madrigueras,
decorando sus salas de estar o cuidando sus jardines… ‘
In this way, using ‘madriguera’ maps the concept of ‘home’ from the frame
of ANIMAL onto the frame of HUMAN BEING, increasing humorous effects.
David Lodge also makes use of this type of ‘animalisation’ to describe
certain simple actions, as for example ‘smelling’, ‘touching’, ‘talking’:
(16) ‘You make me desirable, that’s what matters.’ He nuzzled her, inhaling
odours of shore and rockpool; the skin of her inner thighs was as tender as
peeled mushrooms; she tasted clean and salty, like some mollusc from the
sea. [S.W.: 226]
— Haces que me sienta deseable, y esto es lo que importa. — Él la hozó,
inhalando olores de playa y de rocas marinas; la piel del interior de sus
muslos era tan tierna como setas peladas, y sabía a limpio y a salado, como
un molusco del mar. [M.P.: 286]
Although ‘nuzzle’ can be applied to people, it actually evokes the prototypi-

cal way in which an animal (e.g., a dog) smells and strokes somebody with its
nuzzle. Thus, using this term to explain the way Swallow stroked Joy with his
nose and mouth implies the metaphoric mapping of the attribute ‘way of
smelling/stroking’ from the frame of ANIMAL onto that of HUMAN BEING. A
possible translation, if we want to keep the metaphor to preserve humour, is
that of mapping the ‘organ used to smell’ from the frame of ANIMAL onto that
of HUMAN BEING, expressing it explicitly in the TT (e.g., ‘Él la acarició con el
hocico’). However, there is also the possibility to use, as Saurí has done, the
verb ‘hozar’ as equivalent of ‘nuzzle’. The problem with this translation
derives from the difference in the images evoked by the British and the
Spanish terms. ‘Hozar’ evokes the prototypical way in which animals such as
the pig or the wild boar dig the earth with their nuzzle, but it does not evoke
the way in which an animal such as the dog smells or strokes somebody.
Nevertheless, despite the different images, ‘hozar’ allows Spanish read-
ers to imagine easily the metaphoric mapping of an animal’s typical way of
smelling onto that of a human being. Besides, ‘hozar’ perfectly keeps the
somehow grotesque tone of the images used in the description of the scene.
David Lodge uses a scene of lovers’ kisses and caresses to make his readers’
laugh, comparing the softness of Joy’s thighs to that of ‘peeled mushrooms’,
her flavour to that of some mollusc and Swallow’s caresses to those of an
animal.
3.4. Humour by metonymic mapping
In the case of metaphoric mapping, we conceive an element in a frame in

terms of another frame. For example, in the previous case of ‘croak’ we think
of the attribute ‘voice’ in the frame of HUMAN BEING in terms of the frame of
ANIMAL. However, there are other examples in which David Lodge uses an
element in a frame to represent a different element in the same frame; these
are cases of ‘metonymic mapping’.
One of the main differences between metaphor and metonymy is pre-
cisely the number of frames or domains which are involved in the mapping
process: whereas metaphor implies mapping between two different frames or
experiential domains, in metonymy we use an entity to refer to a related one
within the same frame. For instance, when referring to a girl as a pretty face,
as in the expression ‘She is just a pretty face’,7 we are using a prominent
feature in a frame (the face as part of the frame GIRL) to stand for the whole
frame (the GIRL). In other occasions, a metonymy expresses relationships
between two things. For example, the verbs ‘to eye’ and ‘to sun oneself’
contain the instruments used (i.e., ‘eye’ and ‘sun’) to represent the actions
carried out (i.e., ‘to look’ and ‘to sunbathe’)
As in the case of metaphor, David Lodge also uses metonymy as a
humorous device in Small World. In certain situations, humour results from
the originality of the metonymic expression used, as in the following ex-
ample:
(17) ‘Majorca? Ah yes, I remember visiting Robert Graves there once. Did you
happen to meet him?’
‘No,’ said the postgraduate. ‘It was a package holiday. Robert Graves
wasn’t included.’
Rudyard Parkinson glanced at the young man with momentary suspicion.
Was it possible that callow Newcastle could be capable of irony — and at
his expense? [S.W.: 157]
— ¿Mallorca? Ah, sí, recuerdo haber visitado una vez allí a Robert Graves.
¿Acaso pudo verle?
— No — dijo el posgraduado — . Era un viaje organizado y Robert Graves
no estaba incluido en el programa.
Rudyard Parkinson miró al joven con una momentánea suspicacia. ¿Era
posible que aquel jovenzuelo de Newcastle fuese capaz de ironizar…y a
expensas de él? [M.P.: 203]
‘¿Mallorca? Ah, sí, recuerdo haber visitado una vez allí a Robert Graves.
¿Por casualidad lo viste?
‘No’ dijo el posgraduado. ‘Era un viaje organizado y Robert Graves no
estaba incluido en la oferta.’
Por un momento, Rudyard Parkinson miró al joven con recelo.‘¿Era posible
que el Newcastle ése fuese capaz de ironizar…y a sus expensas?’
Parkinson is the supervisor of this young postgraduate from Newcastle Univer-

sity. Thus, the expression ‘callow Newcastle’ constitutes a curious metonymy
in which the university where one studies stands for the person who studies
there. David Lodge creates such a metonymy as a humorous device, inviting
readers to laugh with him at his own characters. Parkinson is, as readers already
know, a prestigious professor at Oxford University, whose arrogant and elitist
attitude makes him despise everyone who does not have his position in the
academic world. But, above all, Parkinson looks down on everything and
everyone who comes from or belongs to a ‘modern’ university without the
prestige of Cambridge or Oxford. It is thus not strange that Parkinson’s
becomes indignant at a student’s joke, considering that such a student gradu-
ated at Newcastle University. Then, when angry, Parkinson chooses as s
knickname for the student an expression that underlines the feature he consid-
ers most unacceptable: the fact he studied at a university of such little note as
Newcastle. In this way, the metonymy emphasizes Parkinson’s arrogant
personality and invites readers to laugh at his systematic despise for modern
universities.
Although the use of ‘jovenzuelo’ in the translation transmits the speaker’s
derogatory intention, however, losing the metonymy decreases the comical
character of the fragment. An option is to keep the metonymy using an
expression such as ‘el Newcastle ése’. Using an English name (Newcastle)
certainly increases the difficulty to understand the TT; however, the derogatory
use of the pronoun ‘ése’ can help readers to understand the expression as an
ironic comment invented by Parkinson. Besides, mentioning only a few lines
earlier the university where the postgraduate studied (Newcastle University)
facilitates the interpretation of the metonymy.
Another example in which David Lodge coins an original metonymic
expression is the following fragment:
(18) Philip stares into the bottom of his glass. ‘Once I did,’ he said. ‘Shall I tell
you the story?’
‘Just let me get myself a cigar. Is this a cigarillo story or a panatella story?’
[S.W.: 67]
Philip contempló el fondo de su vaso.

— Una vez — contestó — . ¿Quieres que te cuente la historia?
— Permíteme que encienda un cigarro. ¿Es una historia de purito o de
panatella? [M.P.: 95]
Philip mira fijamente/tiene los ojos clavados en su bebida.
‘Una vez, yo’ contestó.‘¿Quieres que te cuente la historia?’
‘Antes deja que me encienda un cigarro. ¿Es una historia de cigarrillo o de
puro?’
In this metonymic expression David Lodge uses the whole object (‘cigarillo’
and ‘panatella’) to stand for only one feature (that is, its length). ‘Cigarillo’
and ‘panatella’ are two different types of cigar: the former small and thin; the
latter thicker and longer. Zapp wants to know whether it is a long or a short
story; thus, before lighting a cigar, he takes the opportunity to use the
difference in size between the two cigars to formulate the question. This type
of ‘linguistic game’ is typical of Zapp, who enjoys the humour and cultural
differences which invite his interlocutor to praise his wit.
The problem with the translation proposed by Saurí is that unless we
know what a panatella is, it will not be possible to interpret the metonymy or
understand Zapp’s question. Moreover, transcribing ‘panatella’ may even
confuse Spanish readers, since there exists the Spanish term ‘panatela’, but it
does not refer to a cigar but to a type of cake. For this reason, we propose to
use ‘cigarrillo’ and ‘puro’ to create a metonymy: the difference in size
between a cigarette and a cigar allows Spanish readers to easily interpret the
metonymy and participate in Zapp’s wit. Another possibility would have
been to resort to a cultural equivalent, using ‘habano’ as a type of cigar.
3.5. Humour by metaphoric and metonymic mapping
We will finally conclude our study of humour with the analysis of some
examples in which David Lodge combines metaphoric and metonymic map-
ping in order to achieve a humorous effect. We will deal with two examples
of metaphors which require a metonymic interpretation. The two metaphors
still have the frame of ANIMAL as source domain, but while in the first
example the target frame is that of INANIMATE OBJECT, in the second case it is
that of HUMAN BEING.
The first example maps an onomatopoeic expression from the frame of
ANIMAL onto another type of frame; it is the following case of the expression
‘hee-haw’:
(19) ‘Look at it this way, Désirée.’ Morris’ voice crackles in the telephone while
outside, beneath the balcony of her room overlooking the sea, police cars go
hee-hawing along the Promenade des Anglais in search of the call-box it is
coming from.’ [S.W.: 283]
— Míralo bajo este punto de vista, Désirée. — La voz de Morris crepita en el
teléfono mientras afuera, debajo del balcón de la habitación de ella, de cara
al mar, los coches de la policía recorren con sus sirenas en marcha la
Promenade des Anglais, en busca de la cabina telefónica de la que procede.
[M.P.: 353]
‘Míralo de este modo, Désirée.’ La voz de Morris se quiebra en el teléfono
mientras afuera, debajo del balcón de la habitación de ella, de cara al mar,
los coches de la policía recorren la Promenade des Anglais rebuznando
con sus sirenas, en busca de la cabina telefónica de la que procede la voz.’
‘Hee-haw’ is the term used in English to denote the sound made by an ass (in
Spanish ‘rebuznar’ or ‘rebuzno’). In this case, David Lodge has mapped the
expression ‘hee-haw’ from an animal frame (ASS or DONKEY) onto an inani-
mate object frame (THE POLICE CAR). By experience we all know that, at least
in Western culture, a police car shares the basic attributes of any car, but also
has a particular feature that it shares with other vehicles such as ambulances:
although it is not an animate object, it can emit sounds thanks to its sirens.
They are actually the sirens, rather than the cars, which make the sound;
therefore, the expression ‘police cars go hee-hawing’ is based on a metonymy
where the whole (‘the car’) stands for a part (‘the siren’). This capacity of the
sirens to emit sounds is precisely what allows David Lodge to map the term
‘hee-haw’ of the attribute ‘sounds’ in the frame ASS onto the attribute ‘sounds’
in the frame POLICE CAR. Moreover, in this case, the mapping also has an
onomatopoeic base, since the expression ‘hee-haw’ imitates quite well the
sound of sirens. This mapping results, as in the cases of ‘animalisation’ of
human beings, in the creation of humorous effects; the reader cannot help
laughing at the idea of a police car that emits the same sounds as an ass.
Nevertheless, these humorous effects have been lost in the TT, where the
translator has opted for omitting the metaphor using the explanation ‘con sus
sirenas en marcha’. The onomatopoeic value of the English expression ‘hee-
haw’ makes it easier for English readers to interpret the metonymy and infer it
is the sound of the sirens; on the contrary, the Spanish term ‘rebuznar’ lacks
onomatopoeic value and it is difficult to associate to a police car. In this
sense, most Spanish readers will probably find a metaphor such as ‘los coches
de la policía recorren rebuznando la Promenade des Anglais’ strange. How-
ever, there is the possibility to eliminate the metonymy and include the
‘sirens’ as the instruments which produce the animal sounds, as in ‘los coches
de la policía recorren la Promenade des Anglais rebuznando con sus
sirenas’. In this way, we preserve the ST humour without being artificial or
blocking the understanding of the TT.
In all the metaphoric examples commented so far, the metaphor consists
in mapping a certain term from one frame onto another. However, there are
also cases in which the metaphoric mapping is more elaborated, as in the
following description of British teachers’ behaviour when knowing about
Swallow’s book:
(20) ‘He is having a huge success with a totally brainless book about Hazlitt,’
says Morris, ‘Ruyard Parkinson gave it a rave review in the TLS. The British
are on this great antitheory kick at the moment and Philip’s book just makes
them roll on to their backs and wave their paws in the air’. [S.W.: 235]
— Está teniendo un éxito enorme con un libro totalmente obtuso sobre
Hazlitt — explica Morris —. Ruyard Parkinson le dedicó una reseña
entusiasta en el TLS. En este momento, los británicos se dejan llevar por esa
gran tendencia a la antiteoría, y el libro de Philip les ha hecho tumbarse de
espalda y agitar las patas en el aire. [M.P.: 296]
‘Está teniendo un éxito enorme con un libro totalmente ridículo/estúpido
sobre Hazlitt,’ explica Morris. ‘Ruyard Parkinson le dedicó una reseña
entusiasta en la revista TLS. En este momento, a los británicos les ha dado
fuerte por la antiteoría y el libro de Philip les ha hecho revolcarse panza
arriba y agitar las patas en el aire.’
Using the term ‘paws’ activates the frame of ANIMAL; however, the subject it
refers to is human (‘the British’). Once again, we find a metaphoric mapping
from the frame of ANIMAL onto that of HUMAN BEING. However, the metaphor
on its own does not facilitate the interpretation of the text. Even assuming the
‘animalisation’ of the academics, this does not explain why Swallow’s book
would have to make them ‘roll on their backs and wave their paws in the air’.
Readers know, by experience and knowledge of the world, that lying on one’s
back and moving their legs in the air is not an adult’s normal behaviour. Thus,
to provide a coherent explanation we need to resort to a metonymic mapping
in which the ‘effect’ (in this case, the British people’s behaviour) stands for
the ‘cause’ (that is, the laugh).
A laugh which is too strong usually activates a prototypical scene in
which a person laughs recklessly while losing their balance and moving
sharply. Thus, Spanish people make use of expressions such as ‘partirse de

risa’, ‘retorcerse de risa’ or ‘revolcarse de la risa’, and British use ‘double
up with laughter’, ‘fall about laughing’ or ‘roll around laughing’. Having
stored this information about laughing, English readers can easily associate
the expression ‘roll around laughing’ to the description ‘make them roll on to
their backs’ and relate the movement of the legs (‘wave their paws in the air’)
to the typical movements when laughing recklessly. Thus, the metonymic
interpretation helps readers to infer that Zapp’s comment on the effect of the
book refers to the strong laughter that such a theoretical book provokes in
British academicians, given their antitheoretical tendency.
In general terms, Saurí’s translation allows us to carry out the described
inferencing process. However, we have proposed an alternative translation in
which ‘tumbarse de espaldas’ has been substituted for ‘revolcarse panza
arriba’. We have considered this expression reflects the colloquial character
of Zapp’s idiolect better, favours the activation of the frame of ANIMAL and,
besides, ‘revolcarse’ facilitates Spanish readers’ association with the expres-
sion ‘revolcarse de la risa’.
4. Conclusions
This work has proposed a method of analysis for the translation of humour
which synthesizes notions from cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics
and translation. Such a method has focused on the notion of frame, which is
considered to be greatly determined by both the ST and TT culture. Culture
has been understood as the store of knowledge shared by a certain commu-
nity, including a whole repertoire of common cognitive frames. From this
perspective, humour depends on the underlying prototypical frame. More-
over, our model has not only centered on the frames activated by the text; we
have also studied the procedures used by authors to manipulate those frames
and create humourous effects.
To conclude this work, we will consider some of the most relevant
contributions our approach can make to the translation field:
– It constitutes an approach ‘integrated’ with other cognitive systems. All
throughout this work we have not intended to deny previous theories or
discover revolutionary methods; our intention has rather been to offer a
method of analysis which is coherent with established cognitive models.
In this sense, the approach suggested in this work, even though still far
from the scientific rigor of disciplines such as psychology, neurology or

artificial intelligence, is at least completely compatible with the discov-
eries made in the field of cognitive science.
– It can provide a more unified and general approach to the translation of
humour. We have stated above that the proposed model allows an
approach ‘integrated’ with other cognitive systems, adjusting thus to the
‘cognitive commitment’ postulated by Lakoff. We will now indicate that
the model also satisfies the requirements of what Lakoff has considered
to be the other basic commitment of CL (‘the generalization commit-
ment’), allowing a more unified and global linguistic description.8 The
translation problems analysed here are the same as those which for years
have worried linguists and translators. However, although these interlin-
guistic differences have already been studied before the appearance of
CL, Frame Semantics provides a new perspective of study. A ‘cognitive’
analysis like the one proposed here allows us to relate a series of
phenomena which so far have been studied in an isolated way. For
instance, the procedure we have called ‘modification of frames’ can
contribute to find equivalents that preserve the humorous effects of
linguistic phenomena as different as colloquial expressions and colloca-
tions (e.g.1), intertextual references (e.g. 2) and a wide range of plays on
words (e.g. 3–7) etc. ‘The reinforcement of frames’ also proves espe-
cially useful for the translation of colloquial and familiar language (e.g.
9) and even for the translation of elements that activate certain national-
ity stereotypes, as in the case of markers of foreign accent (e.g. 8).
‘Metaphoric mapping’ can help the translator to find appropriate equiva-
lents in those examples that require mapping a frame onto a different
one. In Small World this procedure is mainly applied to the translation of
expressions that map the frame of ANIMAL onto the frame of HUMAN
BEING (e.g. 10–14). ‘Metonymic mapping’ can also be useful for the
translation of examples in which the author uses an entity to refer to a
related one within the same frame (e.g. 15 and 16). Moreover, meta-
phoric and metonymic mapping can be combined in the same example.
In this sense, examples 17 and 18 illustrate two cases in which David
Lodge uses both metaphor and metonymy to achieve a humorous effect.
In this way, the notion of ‘frame’ becomes the meeting point of a series
of linguistic phenomena traditionally studied individually as translation
problems. The method proposed in this work allows us to relate a series
of different linguistic categories and provide a more unified, coherent

and structured explanation of the translation problems which appear
when two different languages and cultures come into contact.
– It contributes to the systematization of ‘humour’. Most of the translation
manuals that circulate in the market usually devote a section to the
cultural problems which may arise when translating. Almost all the
theoretical studies of translation, sooner or later, mention the importance
of culture for a translator who feels obliged to act as a cultural as well as
a linguistic mediator. However, the study of humour is usually relegated
to the background, being considered too complex and unsystematic. In
this work, focusing on humour as a prominently cultural phenomenon,
we have tried to demonstrate that studying the interlinguistic differences
from a perspective based on the notion of frame can help to clarify the
difficulties translators have to face when dealing with the translation of
humour. Thus, what is at stake is no longer a more or less fortuitous
collection of ‘untranslateable’ elements; on the contrary, it is possible to
attribute the translation difficulties to the way authors manipulate their
readers’ frames to make them laugh. In this sense, an approach like the
one proposed here can be useful for the translator as a tool to systematise
and structure problems of a humorous kind. Applying frame manipula-
tion procedures like the ones suggested here, translators may impose
certain order and coherence on many of the problems they face when
translating humour. These frames do not guarantee a solution to all their
problems, but will at least provide them with a tool to systematize them
in an explicit way.
– It allows the connection of lexical and semantic information and world
knowledge. One of the most determinant characteristics of this work is,
in our opinion, its capacity to explain linguistic questions over and above
word and sentence levels. The system we have discussed here offers a
method to connect lexis and frame structures, providing thus a meeting
point for lexical, semantic, pragmatic, cultural information, etc. In this
way, relating certain terms and expressions to a semantic structure of an
‘encyclopaedic’ nature, we can at last link very different information
sources. As a result, we have the possibility to include in the linguistic
analysis aspects which have been traditionally ignored or ‘trivialised’ in
formal linguistics, but that are however present in every translator’s
daily task. This is the kind of information derived from knowledge of the
society and culture we live in. This shortcoming in formal linguistics and
the need to elaborate methods more ‘integrated’ and appropriate to our
human cognitive skills has been pointed out by a great number of
linguists and translation scholars.9 In this sense, in 1975 George Steiner
(1975/1992) already outlined the flaws in the models based on
Chomskyan linguistics:
At the same time, I have expressed the conviction that models such as that
put forward by Chomsky drastically schematize their material, and that they
neglect, often to the point of distortion, the social, cultural, historical
determinants of human speech […] formal linguistics has taken an abstract,
often trivialized view of the relations between language and mind, between
language and social process, between word and culture. (Steiner 1992, p.
496–7)
Unlike formal linguistics, this work has precisely focused on the study of
these cognitive and cultural factors, trying to suggest an approach in
which the relationships between language, mind and culture are present
in the linguistic analysis by using the notion of ‘frame’.
– It has an enormous potential for applications in other fields. The notion
of ‘frame’ has been, and still is, applied to a great variety of fields. Each
field has studied the concept of frame from a different perspective.
However, they all share the interest in mental structures and the way we
conceptualize reality. Thus, both the aim of automatic translation to
formalize ‘frames’ and the respect of literary criticism for the creativity
of ‘schemas’ share a common interest in a type of structure which lets us
organise our world knowledge. Focusing on the study carried out here,
we would like to affirm that this method could be useful for incorporat-
ing cultural and pragmatic information into automatic translation pro-
grammes. However, such possibility is nowadays still a distant target.
Formalizing verbal construction frames is quite an easy task when com-
pared to the formalization of cultural and pragmatic knowledge.
In a verb frame it is possible to identify a series of elements quite
clearly, such as the person who carries out the action, the way it is carried
out, the object of the action, etc; however, when working with cultural
and pragmatic information, the categories are more abstract and general
and their borders more vague and diffused. Despite these formalization
problems, a model based on the notion of ‘frame’ can be interesting for
literary critics and discourse analysts, since it allows the explanation of

linguistic phenomena over and beyond sentence level. Reading or inter-
preting a text implies establishing a relationship between the reader’s or
interpreter’s mind and the text itself. For this reason, for a discourse
analyst it is important to take into account the cognitive skills the text
demands from the reader. In this sense, Emmott (1997) has argued that
frames are dynamic entities that allow us to explain these demands, both
regarding inference making and the storing of mental information. From
such a cognitive perspective, the analysis carried out here can contribute
to understand the mental mechanisms that underlie the interpretation of
cultural elements in discourse.
Over and beyond word and sentence level, frames help us to under-
stand the interaction between textual and stored cultural information.
Furthermore, the notion of frame can help literary translators and critics
to define and systematize ideas difficult to apprehend such as the
author’s ‘intention’ or the notion of ‘shared knowledge’. As we have
tried to demonstrate in this work, to analyse the procedures used by the
author to ‘manipulate’ his readers’ frames can help to specify the infor-
mation writers share with their audience and the way they guide their
reader’s inferences. In this way, this type of analysis contributes to
reveal the author’s intention when using a certain element, structuring a
textual fragment or writing a whole novel.
– It underlies the importance of models based on the process. One of the
main objectives of this work is to stress the importance of mental
processes for translation. In disciplines such as psychology, artificial
inteligence or neuroscience, the importance of these processes is as-
sumed, but in linguistics and translation the study from a cognitive
perspective is still relatively recent. For a long time, linguists and trans-
lation scholars have concentrated on the text itself, studying the result
instead of the process. However, the objective of study has progressively
moved from the product to the process of translation. Gradually, authors
have focused their interest on explaining what translators actually do
when translating (e.g., Bell 1991; Gile 1995; Wilss 1996). Adopting a
cognitive perspective implies precisely changing the focus of attention
from the text to the processes involved in its production and interpreta-
tion. From this perspective, translation is considered as a dynamic pro-
cess characterised by the interaction between the ST, the translator, the
TT and their social and cultural environment. In this way, translation

acquires a social and cultural dimension in which the ST, the TT and the
translator’s working environment come into contact. In this study we
have tried to capture the study of such translation process. In a more or
less systematic way, we have found in the comprehension process the
answers to some equivalence problems. However, our interest in the
process does not mean that the TT is no longer important. In fact, this
work has followed a methodology which uses the text to make inferences
about the process. Taking the ST and the TT as starting points we have
tried to answer four basic questions: What is translated? For whom is it
translated? How? And Why? To answer these questions, we have formu-
lated certain hypotheses on the cultural information stored in our minds
and the processes involved in activating and using this information.
– It can help in training translators. Although the teaching of translation is
not one of the immediate objectives of our study, we would like to
comment on the importance Frame Semantics may have in training
translators. Translation teachers try to show their students the impor-
tance of context, teaching them how to infer the meaning of a word or
expression in the particular context it appears. But the question is: how
can teachers train their students to avoid mistakes and improve their
comprehension process? This work subscribes to the benefits, already
indicated by Kussmaul (1995), that Frame Semantics can contribute to
translation students. To show students the comprehension processes they
carry out when translating can help them to improve such processes.
Thus, a model like Frame Semantics can help to distinguish between the
text and the linguistic expressions and the concepts, scenes and images
found in the reader’s mind. In this model, the teacher’s role consists in
showing how textual expressions activate certain scenes or images,
ensuring the balance between both aspects. In this way, students are
provided with an explanation of their own cognitive skills that helps
them to appreciate the importance of placing the word within a given
context. In Kussmaul’s opinion, after a period of training and practice,
these processes can be automatized, assuring thus a quicker and more
effective translation. From this perspective, it is possible to consider that
our model of analysis can help translation students to disclose and
understand the processes involved in the interpretation of cultural and
humorous elements. To distinguish between the frames that organise our
cultural knowledge, the linguistic expressions that activate such frames

and the procedures authors use to manipulate them can lead to a more
rapid and automatic translation of cultural and humorous elements. In
this way, Frame Semantics allows the translation teacher to substitute
general advice and warning for a more coherent explanation, based on
the students’ own comprehension processes.
4.1. A last word
Readers of this work will probably find more problems to solve than answers.
We cannot forget that Frame Semantics is still a developing theory that
requires further research. But despite its shortcomings, it is impossible to
deny that its postulates appeal to our common sense and basic cognitive
skills. At a theoretical level, it provides us with a view of language com-
pletely coherent with the most recent findings on human cognition. At a
practical level, the notions of ‘frame’ and ‘prototype’ allow us to systematize
and organize our cultural knowledge and integrate it with information of a
linguistic kind.
As Fillmore outlines, every word drags with it a scene. These scenes can
be as concrete as a certain image or as abstract as the cultural postulates of
love and hate. But whether concrete or abstract, these scenes represent
fragments of a given culture and, thus, enclose a whole series of experiences,
beliefs and memories common to all its members. The translator’s role is
precisely to transmit these images to the members of a different culture,
probably represented by different scenes. Sometimes, the translator will carry
out his/her job successfully and transmit the richness of the scene; however,
other times the experiences and memories will remain unavoidably trapped in
the ST culture. We would like to conclude this work stating that Frame
Semantics can guarantee the success of every translation, but unfortunately
things are not so easy. There are no magic formulae to translate; even the
postulates of Frame Semantics are no guarantee of a successful translation.
To possess a good linguistic knowledge does not seem enough for the literary
translator. Ideally, the translator of novels should have the genius of a
novelist and the translator of poetry should have the sensitivity of a poet. But
the postulates of Frame Semantics can help translators to discover the scenes
enclosed in every word and recreate them in a different language. Although
cognitive linguists cannot work wonders, they can help translators to under-
stand better the world around them and show them the most adequate tech-
niques to carry out their job.
Including all kinds of information, the notion of ‘frame’ allows us to
represent a richer concept than the abstract and succinct definitions of most
dictionaries. But even though, a ‘frame’ is still an abstraction of reality and
therefore it is impossible that it adapts to the world with pinpoint accuracy.
For this reason, it is necessary to go beyond words and concepts to look at the
cultures of the languages involved in the translation and observe them with
the sensitivity of an artist and the eagerness of a child. The reality is unique
and unstoppable; a ‘frame’ is an analytic tool that, like a camera, allows us to
‘photograph’ reality and reflect it in images that are however static and
limited. But as photographs help us to remember the unique and unrepeatable
images that we once contemplated, ‘frame’ helps linguists and translators to
‘imagine’ and ‘capture’ a reality that strives to escape their hands:
In my own view, language is the play of verbal symbols that are based in
imagery. Imagery is what we see in our mind’s eye, but it is also the taste of
a mango, the feel of walking in a tropical downpour, the music of Missis-
sippi Masala. (Palmer 1996, p. 3)
Notes
1. Olson, E. (1968) The Theory of Comedy. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

2. Following a general trend in cognitive works, in this paper frames will appear in small
capitals.
3. Although we have focused on these four procedures, this does not mean they are the
only possible ones. By distinguishing between frame modification and reinforcement
we simply intend to suggest a starting point for the study of the different ways novelists
can use language to manipulate their audience’s cognitive frames.
4. These two procedures of ‘modification’ and ‘reinforcement’ are based on Cook’s
(1990) distinction between the processes of ‘schema disruption’ and ‘schema reinforc-
ing’. However, our idea is different, since Cook intends to demonstrate that literary
discourse carries out the cultural function of creating the necessary conditions for
frame change, providing readers with the opportunity to reorganise their frames with-
out incurring in social sanctions or inconvenient practices. Nevertheless, despite the
differences, there is a common starting point: the belief that authors of a literary work
may use language to manipulate the expectations, attitudes and assumptions that their
readers have been building on the basis of their experiences.
5. David Lodge’s novel Small World was first published by Secker & Warburg in 1984.
However, the edition used in our study is the one published by Penguin in 1985.
Regarding its translation into Spanish, we have used the translation by Esteban
Riambau Saurí El Mundo es un Pañuelo, published by Versal in 1989.
6. Used with the verb ‘know’ (‘saber’), ‘sweet fanny adams’ is somehow equivalent to the
Spanish expression ‘ni jota’ as an euphemism for ‘ni puta idea’, but ‘sweet fanny
adams’ can be used in more contexts, such as in ‘he’s done sweet funny adams’ (‘no ha
dado ni clavo/ni golpe’).
7. Example taken from Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 37).
8. For a detailed definition of the cognitive and generalizations commitments, see Lakoff
(1990).
9. Among them, we can underline those in favour of a ‘cognitive’ approach to the study of
language and translation (e.g., George Lakoff, Charles Fillmore, Ronald Langacker,
Mary Snell-Hornby and Elzbieta Tabakowska).
Bibliography
Bell, R. T. 1991. Translation and Translating. London: Longman. xx +298 pp.

Chapman, A. y H. Foot. (eds.) 1976. Humour and Laughter: theory, research and
applications. London: Wiley. x+ 348 pp.
Chesterman, A. (ed.) 1989. Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura
Ab. 200 pp.
Cook, G. 1990. A Theory of Discourse Deviation: the Application of Schema Theory to
the Analysis of Literary Discourse. PhD Dissertation. University of Leeds. xvi + 311
pp.
Emmott, C. 1997. Narrative Comprehension. A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. xiv + 320 pp.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1975. ‘An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning’. BLS 1: 123–
131.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1976. ‘Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language’, en S. Harnad et al.
(eds.) Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. Nueva York: Nueva York
Academy of Sciences, 20–32.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1978. ‘On the Organization of Semantic Information in the Lexicon’,
Chicago Linguistic Society, 5. Proceedings of the parasession on the lexicon, D.
Farkas et al. (eds.), 148–173.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1981. ‘Ideal Readers and Real Readers’, Georgetown University Round
Table on Language and Linguistics, D. Tannen (ed.), 248–70.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1982. ‘Frame Semantics’, in Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics
in the Morning Calm, Seúl: Hanshin, 111–138.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1985. ‘Frames and the Semantics of Understanding’. Quaderni di
Semantica 6 (2): 222–254.
Fillmore, Ch. J. y K. Hirose. 1992. ‘A Cognitive-frames Approach to Comparative
Lexical Analysis’. Manuscrito inédito. Universidad de Berkeley. 20 pp.
Freud, S. 1973. El chiste y su relación con el inconsciente. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
227pp.
Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Under-
standing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ix + 527 pp.
Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. xvi + 278 pp.
Kussmaul, P. 1985. ‘The Degree of Semantic Precision in Translation’. Babel 31 (1): 12–
19.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. xiii + 242 pp.
Lodge, D. 1985. Small World: an Academic Romance. Hamondsworth: Penguin Books.
339 pp.
Lodge, D. 1985. El Mundo es un Pañuelo. [translated by Esteban Riambau Saurí].
Barcelona: Versal. 419 pp.
Lorés, R. 1992. An Assesment of the Translation into Spanish of Cultural Terms in British
Fiction. Unpublished MPhil. University of Salford. 233 pp.
Mateo, M. 1995. La traducción del humor. Las comedias inglesas en español. Oviedo:
Universidad de Oviedo. 311 pp.
Nash, W. 1986. The Language of Humour. Style and Technique in Comic Discourse.
London and New York: Longman. xvi + 181 pp
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. xiii + 200 pp.
Olson, E. 1968. The Theory of Comedy. Indiana: Indiana University Press. ix + 145 pp.
Palmer, G. B. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Texas: University of Texas
Press. xii + 348 pp.
Reiss, K. 1977/1989. ‘Text-types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment’ (trans-
lated by Andrew Chesterman), in A. Chesterman (ed.) 1989, 105–15.
Reiss, K. & H.J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie.
Tübingen: Niemeyer. 248 pp.
Rojo, A. 1998. Esquemas y traducción: un Acercamiento Cognitivo a la Traducción de
Elementos Culturales. PhD Dissertation. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 436 pp.
Rojo, A. 2000. ‘Una aproximación cognitiva a la traducción del lenguaje humorístico’, in
M. P. Navarro Errasti, R. Lorés Sanz, S. Murillo Ornat and C. Buesa Gómez (eds.)
Transcultural Communication: Pragmalinguistic Aspects, pp. 99–109.
Rojo, A. & J. Valenzuela. 1999. ‘Una comparación de los verbos de ver en inglés y
español utilizando Frame Semantics’. In Gloria Alvarez Benito et al. (eds.), Lenguas
en Contacto, Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla (CD-ROM edition.)
Rojo, A. & J. Valenzuela. 2000. ‘Maneras de decir: verbos de decir en español y su
traducción al inglés’. In Adolfo Soto Vazquez & Begoña Crespo García (eds.) Insights
into Translation, Vol. II, La Coruña: Lugami, pp.115–126.
Rojo, A. & J. Valenzuela. (in press). ‘How to say things with words: ways of saying in
English and Spanish’. Meta. Journal des traducteurs.
Steiner, G. 1975/1992. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation.2nd edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. xviii + 538 pp.
Vermeer, H. J. 1989. ‘Skopos and Commission in Translational Action’ (translated by
Andrew Chesterman), in A. Chesterman (ed.), 173–87.
Wilss, W. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. xii + 259 pp.
About the Author
ANA MARÍA ROJO LÓPEZ teaches translation in the Department of English at the
University of Murcia Spain). She is mainly concerned with the application of Cognitive
Linguistics to translation, especially Fillmore’s Frame Semantics, Langacker’s Cognitive
Grammar and Lakoff’s theory of cognitive metaphor. She is also particularly interested in
studying the consequences of Talmy’s (1991) typological distinction between verb-
framed languages and satellite-framed languages for the translation of different types of
verbs between English and Spanish cf. Rojo and Valenzuela, 1999, 2000, in press.)
Address: Dept. de Filologia Inglesa, Univ. de Murcia, c/ Santo Cristo s/n, 30001 MURCIA,
Spain. E-mail : anarojo@fcu.um.es
Abstract
Humour is essentially a cultural phenomenon whose interpretation requires the reference

to a common frame where speaker and hearer share a history and a way to interpret
experience. This study aims to propose an approach to the translation of humorous texts
that goes beyond linguistic barriers and helps us to incorporate cognitive and cultural
factors to the study of humour. We will propose a model centered in the frames or
knowledge structures activated in the text and the procedures used by authors to manipu-
late such frames and create humorous effects. This model will be applied to the analysis of
a number of examples from David Lodge’s Small World and its translation into Spanish El
mundo es un pañuelo by Esteban Riambau Saurí.
The proposed model is based on Rojo (1998) and expands the model suggested in
Rojo (2000). We have specifically focused on the analysis of the four procedures we have
considered most relevant to explain the way in which David Lodge manipulates his
readers’ cognitive frames creating a humorous effect: MODIFICATION, REINFORCEMENT,
METAPHORIC MAPPING and METONYMIC MAPPING. We will argue that such a model may
guide translators, helping them to develop a systematic method to solve the problems
implied in the translation of humour. In this way, it will be easier to adjust the comprehen-
sion mechanisms of the ST audience and those of the TT audience and elaborate a
translation that achieves an equivalent effect to that of the ST.
Résumé
L’humour est un phénomène essentiellement culturel dont l’interprétation exige la

reférence à un cadre d’expériences commun à celui qui parle et celui qui écoute. La
présente étude propose une théorie de la traduction de textes humoristiques qui puisse
transcender les barrières linguistiques et incorporer les facteurs cognitifs et culturels.
Nous proposons un modèle fondé sur les ‘frames’ (cadres) ou structures de cognition qui
sont activés dans le texte et les procédures utilisées par les auteurs pour manipuler ces
‘frames’ et créer les effets humoristiques. Ce modèle sera appliqué à l’analyse d’une
selection d’exemples tirés du livre de David Lodge, Small World, et de sa traduction en
espagnol, El Mundo es un Pañuelo, d’Esteban Riambau Saurí.

Le modèle proposé se base sur le travail de Rojo (1998) et approfondit le modèle
suggéré par Rojo (2000). Nous nous centrons sur l’analyse des quatre procédés que nous
avons considérés les plus efficients; ce faisant nous expliquons comment David Lodge
exploite certains repères cognitifs de ses lecteurs pour créer un effet humoristique: la
modification, l’intensification, la projection métaphorique et la projection métonymique.
Notre argument est que ce modèle peut guider les traducteurs, les aidant à déveloper une
méthode systématique pour résoudre les problèmes de la traduction de l’humour. De cette
façon, il devient plus facile d’ajuster les mécanismes de compréhension des récepteurs du
texte original à ceux des récepteurs du texte traduit, le but étant que la traduction d’obtenir
un effet équivalent à celui du texte original.
← Vierteljahresschrift für die Übersetzungspraxis
↓→↑
Bulletin trimestriel sur la pratique de la traduction
Rivista trimestrale per la traduzione pratica
Quarterly on the practice of translation

Hieronymus
The official journal of the

Swiss Association of Translators,
Terminologists and Interpreters
Subscriptions and advertisements:

ASTTI, Postgasse 17, CH-3011 Bern
Telefax (+41 31) 312 12 50

Frame Semantics and The Translation of Humour by Rojo

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Frame Semantics and The Translation of Humour by Rojo

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

34 48:1 34–77

Babel © Ana Maria

Frame Semantics and the Translation of Humour

Ana Maria Rojo Lopez

The complete process of understanding is better characterized by the joke

1. Humour and Frame Semantics

To define humour is not an easy task. Humour is a complex phenomenon

Nash also comments an important difference between written and oral

To understand the humour of a joke which seems so simple at first sight

nowadays door-to-door sales are being substituted for more sophisticated

2. Humour and Translation

3. A Cognitive Approach to the Translation of Humour in Novels

The aim of this paper is precisely to propose an approach to the translation of

cognitive frames creating a humorous effect: MODIFICATION, REINFORCE-

in bold, italics and underlined. We have also substituted Riambau Saurí’s

3.1. Humour by modifying frames

We will start our analysis with the procedure of modification of frames,

3.1.1. Distorting already existing frames

In this example Saurí’s translation reduces somehow humorous effects by

(2) (Dempsey) ‘What are you thinking about?’

3.1.2. Creating new frames

‘Rummidge’ is, at first sight, a name invented by David Lodge. However, it

Spanish readers. However, once more this solution unnecessarily diminishes

3.1.3. New connections between frames

‘Indeed I have. Anyway, this priest is called Father Finbar O’Malley — ‘

‘Knock’ is a village in Western Ireland where the Virgin is thought to ‘have

Considering that in Spanish there seems to be no term which is almost

3.1.4. Activating an erroneous frame

A special device David Lodge exploits in Small World to create humorous

meat (e.g., in the Northern Spain) or even a sandwich (e.g., in Murcia a

3.2. Humour by reinforcing frames

modifies the character’s identity. For this reason, we have proposed as an

3.3. Humour by metaphoric mapping of frames

another. The overwhelming ubiquity of metaphor in language, thought,

However, in most cases David Lodge uses metaphoric mapping in an implicit

‘Tiene que haber más de cincuenta y siete’ gruñó Morris Zapp.‘¿Dónde

Although ‘nuzzle’ can be applied to people, it actually evokes the prototypi-

3.4. Humour by metonymic mapping

In the case of metaphoric mapping, we conceive an element in a frame in

Parkinson is the supervisor of this young postgraduate from Newcastle Univer-

Philip contempló el fondo de su vaso.

3.5. Humour by metaphoric and metonymic mapping

sharply. Thus, Spanish people make use of expressions such as ‘partirse de

from the scientific rigor of disciplines such as psychology, neurology or

of different linguistic categories and provide a more unified, coherent

literary critics and discourse analysts, since it allows the explanation of

TT and their social and cultural environment. In this way, translation

cultural knowledge, the linguistic expressions that activate such frames

4.1. A last word

1. Olson, E. (1968) The Theory of Comedy. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Bell, R. T. 1991. Translation and Translating. London: Longman. xx +298 pp.

About the Author

Humour is essentially a cultural phenomenon whose interpretation requires the reference

L’humour est un phénomène essentiellement culturel dont l’interprétation exige la

espagnol, El Mundo es un Pañuelo, d’Esteban Riambau Saurí.

← Vierteljahresschrift für die Übersetzungspraxis

Quarterly on the practice of translation

The official journal of the

Subscriptions and advertisements:

Potrebbero piacerti anche