臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
本研究之目的，乃是探討翻譯連載漫畫幽默文本時所遇到的挑戰。首先，本研究使用的弁?
理論(the skopos theory)及溝通翻譯概念去檢視一些漫畫翻譯，以瞭解其錯誤何在，並提出有效策略
以解決這些問題。其次，本研究應用了Attardo (2002)所提出的理論(General Theory of Verbal Humor,
GTVH)，以分析從中國郵報收集的英譯中連載漫畫樣本，並檢視原文與譯文笑話之間的相似度。
GTVH 理論裡包含了六個知識類別：語言、敘事方式、標的、狀況、邏輯機制和對立腳本。
此種衡量笑話相似度的理論，提供本研究一個評量標準，以評估原文笑話與譯文笑話之間的差異。
本研究進行質化與量化兩種分析。質化分析探討之重點乃是：翻譯錯誤、語言層面訊息之流
失、非語言層面訊息之流失、擬聲字之誤譯，以及技術層面之問題與錯誤。分析結果顯示，譯者在
翻譯連載漫畫時，往往遇到一些挑戰，包括：缺乏原文社會文化背景之知識、擬聲字之翻譯問題，
及空間限制、時間限制等技術問題。本研究試圖根據動態對等、弁鉆齔央B溝通翻譯法與目的理論
等觀念，針對所例舉的誤譯提出較恰當的翻譯。
本研究之量化分析，結合了Schmitz (2002)的幽默文本分類法和Attardo (2002)的GTVH 理論，
其目的乃是比較原文與譯文之間的笑話相似度。研究結果顯示，Dilbert 和Peanuts 這兩種連載漫畫
最常使用一般笑話與文化相關笑話，此兩種笑話譯文的正確度相當高，譯文與原文之間的笑話相似
度也很高。此外，語言笑話譯得最好的連載漫畫為BC 和Mother Goose。因此，翻譯教師可從
Dilbert、Peanut、 BC、Beetle Bailey 和Mother Goose 取得連載漫畫，作為教授翻譯笑話之教材。
總而言之，本研究雖樣本種類與數量有限，但對於報紙上連載漫畫之譯文評估已稍陸^獻。本
研究期望試驗性的研究結果能夠激發一些研究學者，日後能繼續擴大研究，以求得更真實、更周全
的結果。
關鍵字：連載漫畫、幽默之翻譯、動態對等、弁鉆齔央B溝通翻譯法、目的理論、語言層面幽默之
通則 (General Theory of Verbal Humor)

ABSTRACT
The overall purpose of this study is to understand the challenges of translating
humorous texts in comic strips. First, I used the skopos theory and the concept of
communicative translation to check whether comics translations in The China Post have
met with these requirements. After that, Attardo’s (2002) General Theory of Verbal
Humor (GTVH) is adopted to assess the translations of comic strips gathered from The
China Post and examine the joke similarity between the source language (SL) and the
target language (TL) texts.
GTVH is a theory that allows us to relate joke differences between SL and TL to
six hierarchically ordered Knowledge Resources (parameters); namely, Language,
Narrative Strategies, Target(s), Situation, Logical Mechanism(s), and Script
Opposition(s). Based on this metric of joke similarity, we evaluate how much a
translated joke differs from the source joke.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses is adopted in this study. The
qualitative analysis aims to investigate erroneous translations, loss of integrated verbal
messages, loss of nonverbal messages, faulty translations of onomatopoeic words, and
technical problems and errors. The results of the analysis show that there are a variety of
challenges confronting the translators of comic strips, such as insufficient background
knowledge of socio-cultural issues, onomatopoeia problems, as well as the technical
problems of space limitations and time constraints. Examples are given to illustrate the
problems derived from these challenges and solutions are raised to exemplify the model
of dynamic (or functional) equivalence and communicative translation.
iv
The quantitative analysis is conducted to compare the joke similarity between the
source language text and the target language text. Schmitz’s (2002) classification of
humorous discourse and Attardo’s (2002) General Theory of Verbal Humour are applied
in this analysis. The result of the quantitative analysis indicates that comic strips like
Dilbert, Peanuts frequently use universal and cultural jokes, and their translations show
a higher accuracy, compared to the translations of other types of comic strips. The SL
and TL text of the these two comic strips also show higher joke similarity, compared to
those of other comic strips. In addition, the highest percentage of the good quality
translations of lingusitc jokes is found in BC and Mother Goose. Thus, the translation
instructor could extract the good translation samples from Dilbert, Peanuts, BC, Beetle
Bailey, and Mother Goose when they want to teach students the translation of jokes.
In short, this study, though limited to its subjects and size of samples, has shed
some light on the evaluation of the translation of comic strips in the newspaper. The
tentative findings of this study are expected to provide inspirations for future
researchers to conduct similar studies or find more refined and more generalized results.
Key words: comic strips, translation of humor, dynamic equivalence, functional
equivalence, communicative translation, Skopos Theory, General Theory of
Verbal Humour

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………….......…..……..…… i
摘要……………………………………………………………………….……..… ii
ABSTRACT………………………………………….…………………………..... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………….…………..….. v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………….……..…. vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………..………………………... viii
Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………….…..…. 1
1.1. Background and Motivation……………………………………..…..…... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem……………………………………………....… 3
1.3. Purpose of this Study…………………………………………………..… 8
1.4. Research Questions……………………………………………..…….…. 8
1.5. The Structure of this Study………………………………..…………..…. 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………….……………..... 11
2.1. The Theory of Equivalence Concept...………………….……………..… 12
2.2. The Skopos Theory…………………………………………..…………... 15
2.3. Humor and Translation………………………………………..….…….... 18
2.3.1. Definition of humor………………………………..………...….. 18
2.3.2. Classification of humorous elements in texts………………….... 19
2.3.3. Translation of humorous elements in comic strips……………… 21
2.4. General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH)………………..………..….. 23
2.4.1. Scripts……………………………………………..………..…… 24
2.4.2. Knowledge Resources……………………………………..…..... 25
2.5 Translation of Comic Strips……………………………..………...…..….. 34
2.5.1. Definition of comics……………………………………..…...…. 35
2.5.2. Challenges and strategies of translating comic strips………..….. 37
vi
Chapter 3 Methodology…………………………………………………….…….. 41
3.1. Research Subjects …..…………………………...………………………. 41
3.1.1. B.C……………………………………….……………………… 42
3.1.2. Dilbert …………………………...……………………………… 44
3.1.3. Peanuts ………………….……………...……………………….. 44
3.1.4. Hagar the Horrible…………………...………...……………….. 46
3.1.5. Beetle Bailey……………..…………………………..………….. 46
3.1.6. Mother Goose…………..…………………………………..…… 47
3.1.7. Garfield……………….…………...…………………………….. 48
3.1.8. Non Sequitur……………………………...……………...……… 49
3.2. Research Method ……………………..…………..……………………... 49
3.3. Procedures………………………………….……………………………. 50
3.4. Data Analysis………………………..…………………………………… 52
Chapter 4 Findings and Discussions………………………………….…………. 54
4.1. A Qualitative Analysis…………………………………………………… 54
4.1.1. Erroneous translations……..……………………..……………… 55
4.1.2. Loss of integrated verbal messages in translation ……..……….. 61
4.1.3. Loss of nonverbal messages in translation………..…………..… 68
4.1.4. Inappropriate translations of onomatopoeias …..…..…………… 71
4.1.5. Technical problems and errors….……………………...………... 77
4.2. A Quantitative Analysis…………………………………….……………. 80
4.2.1 Analytical results of the good-quality translations of universal
jokes using the standard of joke similarity……………………… 81
4.2.2. Analytical results of the good quality translations of cultural
jokes using the standard of joke similarity………………………. 82
4.2.3 Analytical results of the good quality translations of linguistic
jokes using the standard of joke similarity……………………… 84
4.2.4. Comparison of the eight comic strips in terms of the number of
the good translation of the three types of jokes…………………. 86
Chapter 5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 89
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… 94
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….. 100
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: The list of known Logical Mechanisms……………………………...… 32
Table 4-1: The percentage of the good quality translations of universal jokes..….. 82
Table 4-2: The percentage of the good quality translations of cultural jokes……... 83
Table 4-3: The percentage of the good quality translations of linguistic jokes….... 85
Table 4-4: Comparison of the eight comic strips in terms of different humorous
texts………………………………………………………………...…
86
Table 4-5: The average percentage of the good quality translations of jokes in the
eight types of comic strips…………..…………………………….….
87
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: The hierarchical organization of the Knowledge Resources…….….… 33
Figure 2-2: Two opposite versions of comics………………………………..……. 36
Figure 2-3: Beetle Bailey ………………………………………………….………. 38
Figure 2-4: Hagar the Horrible………………………………….………….…….. 39
Figure 2-5: BC……………………………………………………..……………… 40
Figure 3-1: Dry humor in BC…………………………………….……………….. 43
Figure 3-2: Humor by prose in BC………………………………….………………. 43
Figure 3-3: Wiley’s Dictionary in BC……………………………………………… 43
Figure 3-4: Dilbert…………………………………………………………………. 44
Figure 3-5: Peanuts …………………………………………………………..…… 45
Figure 3-6: Hagar the Horrible …………………………………………………... 46
Figure 3-7: Beetle Bailey .…………………………………………………………. 47
Figure 3-8: Mother Goose.………………………………………………………… 48
Figure 3-9: Garfield……………………………………………………………….. 48
Figure 3-10: Non Sequitur………………………………………………………… 49
Figure 4-1: Mother Goose.………………………………………………………… 55
Figure 4-2: Garfield……….……………………………………………………….. 56
Figure 4-3: BC………………………………………………….………………….. 58
Figure 4-4: Non Sequitur…………………………………………………………... 59
Figure 4-5: Mother Goose……………………………...………………………….. 60
Figure 4-6: Mother Goose………………………………………………...……….. 62
Figure 4-7: Mother Goose…………………………………………………………. 63
Figure 4-8: Beetle Bailey………………………………….……………………….. 64
Figure 4-9: Garfield.……………………………………………………………….. 65
Figure 4-10: Hagar the Horrible……………………….………………………….. 67
Figure 4-11: Dilbert………………………………………………………………... 69
Figure 4-12: Non Sequitur……………………………...………………………….. 70
Figure 4-13: Mother Goose……………………………………………….……….. 72
Figure 4-14: Garfield………………………………...…………………………….. 73
Figure 4-15: Beetle Bailey………………………………………………...……….. 74
Figure 4-16: Hagar the Horrible…………………….…………………………….. 75
ix
Figure 4-17: Hagar the Horrible………………………………….……………….. 76
Figure 4-18: Non Sequitur……………………………...………………………….. 78
Figure 4-19: Garfield.………………………………………………………….….. 79

REFERENCES
Alexieva, B. (1997). There must be some system in this madness. Metaphor, polysemy,
and wordplay in a cognitive linguistics framework. In Delabastita (Ed.), Traductio:
essays on punning and translation (pp. 137-154). Manchester: St Jerome
Publishing.
Ammann, M. (1989/1990) Grundlagen der modernen Translationstheorie – ein
Leitfaden für Studierende (Translatorisches Handeln 1). Heidelberg: Universităt.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 395-420.
Attardo, S. (1998). The analysis of humorous narratives. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 11(3), 231-260.
Attardo, S. (2002). Translation and humour: an approach based on the General Theory
of Verbal Humour (GTVH). The Translator, 8(2), 173-194.
Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke
representation model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3-4),
293-347.
Baker, M. (Ed.) (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London and NY:
Routledge.
Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (Eds.) (1990). Translation, history and culture. London:
Pinter.
95
Binsted, K & Ritchie, G. (2001). Towards a model of story puns. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research, 14(3), 275-292.
Carrier, D. (1992). The aesthetics of comics. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965/1980). A linguistic theory of translation: an essay in applied
linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Clements, W. M. (1969). The types of the Polack joke. Folklore Forum. A Bibliographic
and Special Series 3.
Collins English Dictionary (Electronic version 1.0) (1992). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Creators Syndicate (2006). B.C. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.creators.com/comics_show.cfm?comicname=bc
Davis, K. (1997). Signature in translation. In Delabastita (Ed.), Traductio: essays on
punning and translation (pp. 23-44). Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Delabastita, D. (Ed.) (1989). Traductio: essays on punning and translation. Manchester:
St Jerome Publishing.
Dilbert Com (2005.) Dilbert. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from
http://www.dilbert.com/
Draitser, E. (1989). Comparative analysis of Russian and American humor. Meta, 34(1),
88-90.
Dr.Eye 6.0 (professional version) (n.d.). Shanghai: Inventec.
El-Yasin, M. K. (1997). The translatability of Arabic jokes into English. Meta, 42(4),
670-676.
Freedman, M. & Hoffman, P. (1980). How many Zen Buddhists does it take to screw in
96
a lightbulb? New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia (2005). Farlex Inc. Retrieved
November 14, 2005, from http://www.tfd.com/
Gentlzer, E. (1998). Contemporary translation theories. London and New York:
Routledge.
Griffith, J. S. (1983). Bilingual border jokes. WHIMSY, 1, 123.
Gocomics (2005). Non Sequitur. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/
Gower, D. L. (2001). Health-related content in daily newspaper comic strips: A content
analysis with implications for health education. Education, 116(1), 37-43.
Harvey, R. C. (2001). Comedy at the juncture of word and image: The emergence of the
modern magazine gag cartoon reveals the vital blend. In Varnum, Robin &
Gibbons, Christina T. (Eds.), The language of comics: word and image. Studies in
popular culture (pp. 75-96). Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches handeln: Theorie und methode), (Annales
Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ B 226). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia/
Finnish Academy of Science.
Hönig, H. & Kussmaul P. (1982). Strategie der Übersetzung. Tübingen: Narr.
Kaindl, K. (1999). Thump, whizz, poom: A framework for the study of comics under
translation. Target, 11(2), 263-288.
King Features Syndicate (2005). Beetle Bailey. Retrieved November, 26, 2005, from
http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/bbailey/about.htm
King Features Syndicate (2005). Hagar the Horrible. Retrieved November, 26, 2005,
97
from http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/hagar/about.htm
King Features Syndicate (2005). Mother Goose. Retrieved November, 26, 2005, from
http://grimmy.com/
Koller, W. (1979/1992). Einfũhrung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, (4th Ed.).
Heidelberg and Wiesbaden: Quelle und Meyer.
Koller, W. (1989). Equivalence in translation theory. In Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in
translation theory (pp. 99-104). Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies.
Target, 7 (2), 191-222.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (1986). Scheint eine schöne Sonne? Was ist ein Übersetzungsfehler?
Lebende Sprachen, 31 (1), 12-16.
Latta, R. L. (1998). The basic humor process. A cognitive-shift theory and the case
against incongruity. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Long, D. L. & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing.
Discourse processing, 11, 35-60.
McCloud, S. (2000). Reinventing comics. New York: Harper & Collins.
Newfield, M. & Lafford, B. A. (1991). The origin of the specious: the creation and
interpretation of puns. Language and Style, 24(1), 77-89.
Newmark, P. (1988). A text book of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: EJ Brill.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: EJ
Brill.
Nord, C. (1988; 2nd Ed. 1991). Textanalyse undÜbersetzen. heoretische Grundlagen,
98
Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse,
Heidelberg: J. Groos.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches
explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Norrick, N. R. (1984). Stock conversational witticism. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(2),
195-209.
Paolillo, J. C. (1998). Gary Larson’s Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research, 11(3), 261-290.
Paws Inc. (2005). Garfield. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from
http://www.garfield.com/
Pym, A. (1992). Translation and text transfer. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Pym, A. (1995). European translation studies, une science qui derange, and why
equivalence needn’t be a dirty word. TTR: Traduction, Termilologie, Rédaction, 8
(1): 153-176.
Rafferty, M. (Ed.) (1988). Skid marks: common jokes about lawyers. California: Shelter
Publications.
Reiss, K. & Vermeer, H. J. (1984/1991). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie (Linguistische Arbeiten 147) (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1993). Towards and empirical verification of the
General Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 6(2), 123-136.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Wit and humor. In Wolfgang Schmidt-Hidding (Ed.)
Humor und witz. Munich: Hüber.
99
Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation
courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 89-113.
Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester: St.
Jerome.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute.
United Feature Syndicate (2005). Peanuts. Retrieved November 26, 2005, from
http://www.snoopy.com/
Vandaele, J. (2002). Introduction. (Re-)constructing humour: meanings and means. The
Translator, 8(2), 149-172.
Vermeer, H. J. (1978). Ein rahmen für eine allgemeine translationstheorie. Lebende
Sprachen, 23 (3), 99-102.
Williams, N. (1995). The comic book as course book: Why and how. (presented at the
29th Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
March 26-April 1, Long Beach, CA.) (ERIC Document No. ED390277).
Retrieved July 27, 2005, from ERIC database.
Witte, H. (1987). Die kulturkompetenz des translators – theoretisch abstakter begriff
oder realisierbares konzept? TEXTconTEXT, 2, 109-36.