VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS. Melita Mikutytė

Transcription

1 VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS HUMANITARINIŲ MOKSLŲ FAKULTETAS UŽSIENIO KALBŲ, LITERATŪROS IR VERTIMO STUDIJŲ KATEDRA Melita Mikutytė HUMORO TIPAI IR JŲ VERTIMAS Į LIETUVIŲ KALBĄ DVIEJUOSE VAIKŲ ROMANUOSE: A. STANTONO TU BJAURUS, PONE GUMBAI! IR T. PRATCHETTO MAŽIEJI LAISVŪNAI Magistro baigiamasis darbas Taikomosios anglų kalbotyros studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 621Q30002 Anglų filologijos studijų kryptis Vadovas (-ė) Prof. Milda Danytė (parašas) (data) Apginta doc. dr. Rūta Eidukevičienė (parašas) (data) Kaunas, 2017

2 KINDS OF HUMOR IN TWO NOVELS FOR MIDDLE CHILDHOOD READERS, ANDY STANTON S YOU RE A BAD MAN MR. GUM! AND TERRY PRATCHETT S THE WEE FREE MEN AND THEIR TRANSLATION INTO LITHUANIAN By Melita Mikutytė Department of Foreign Language, Literature and Translation Studies Vytautas Magnus University Master of Arts Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Milda Danytė May 11, 2017

3 Table of Contents Santrauka.i Summary..... ii 1. Introduction Aim and Objectives of the Research Data and Methods Organization of the Paper Theories and Kinds of Humor Major Concepts in General Theories of Humor Kinds of Humor Strategies for Translation of Humorous Literature for Children Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! as Humorous Novels for Middle Childhood Readers Major Kinds of Humor in Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and strategies of Their Translation into Lithuanian Used by Emilija Ferdmanaitė Analysis of Humor of Situation in Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its Lithuanian Translation Analysis of Humor of Incongruity in Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its Lithuanian Translation Analysis of Language Humor in Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its Lithuanian Translation Analysis of Irony in Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its Lithuanian Translation Major Kinds of Humor in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Strategies of Their Translation into Lithuanian Used by Danguolė Žalytė Analysis of Humor of Situation in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Its Lithuanian Translation Analysis of Humor of Incongruity in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Its Lithuanian Translation

4 5.3 Analysis of Language Humor in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Its Lithuanian Translation Analysis of Irony in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Its Lithuanian Translation Comparison of The Use and Translation of Humor in Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men and Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! Conclusions References Appendix 1 Examples of Humor Terry Pratchett s Wee Free Men Appendix 2 Examples of Humor Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum!...73 Appendix 3 Plot Summaries... 75

5 List of Tables 1. Humor of Situation Table 1 Humor of Situation: Mr. Gum s Foolishness Table 2 Humor of Situation: Logical Contradiction Table 3 Humor of Situation Combined with Nonsense Table 4 Nonsense: Mr. Gum s Cupboards Table 5 Nonsense: Billy s Laugh. 21 Table 6 Nonsense: Mr. Gum s Beard Table 7 Nonsense and Repetition Table 8 Wordplay. 23 Table 9 Wordplay and Repetition Table 10 Metaphoric Language: Exageration Table 11 Metaphoric Language: Mixed Idioms Table 12 Metaphoric Language: Idioms and Overstatement Table 13 Running gag Table 14 Parody of Fairy-Tale Beggining Table 15 Parody Through Questions Table 16 Irony by Overstatement and Repetition Table 17 Irony by Overstatement, Repetition and Nonsense.. 28 Table 18 Irony by Overstatement: Mother s Advice Table 19 Irony by analogy Table 20 Humor of Situation: The Wee Free Men about Humans Table 21 Humor of Situation: Tiffany as Possible Wife Table 22 Humor of Situation: Lesson for a Cat Table 23 Nonsense: Nightmares Table 24 Nonsense: Stealing Eggs...35 Table 25 Nonsense: the Toad s Memories Table 26 Nonsense: Small Talk Table 27 Wordplay on names

6 Table 28 Running gag: The Wee Free Men s Moto Table 29 Running gag: the Moto Repeated.39 Table 30 Running Gag: the Moto Out of Context..39 Table 31 Running gag: Waily, Waily.. 39 Table 32 Disparaging Humor Table 33 Joke...42 Table 34 Parody: Tiffany s Letter Table 35 Parody: the Second Letter Table 36 Parody of Legal Language Table 37 Sarcasm: the Toad s Advice Table 38 Sarcasm: Bad Advice Table 39 Sarcasm: the Toad s Help Table 40 Puns: Names of Witches Table 41 Puns: Miss Tick s Name Table 42 Irony by Analogy: Witches and Wizards...49 Table 43 Irony by Analogy: Fairy Tale Stereotypes..50 Table 44 Irony by Analogy: Specific Fairy Tales. 51 Table 45 Irony by Analogy: Stereotypes about Witches Table 46 Irony by Understatement: the Wee Free Men Wash Up. 53 Table 47 Irony by Understatement about Danger. 54 Table 48 Irony by Understatement about Nightmares..55 Table 49 Irony by Understatement about Time Table 50 Irony by Understatement about Giving Birth. 56 Table 51 Irony by Overstatement about Flying Table 52 Irony by Overstatement Table 53 Irony by Internal Contradiction about Danger Table 54 Irony by Internal Contradiction about Frogs and Toads Table 55 Irony of Situation about The Wee Free Men Table 56 Irony of Situation: Adventure with a Whale Table 57 Irony of Situation: Marriage..61 Table 58 Comparison of the Two Novels..63

7 SANTRAUKA Baigiamojo magistro darbo tikslas išanalizuoti humoro tipų raišką komiškuose romanuose vaikams. Pasirinkti dviejų britų autorių kūriniai: Terry Pratchett Mažieji laisvūnai (2004) ir Andy Stanton Tu bjaurus, pone Gumbai! (2006); taip pat Danguolės Žalytės ir Emilijos Ferdmanaitės vertimai į lietuvių kalbą. Humoro tipus perteikiantys pavyzdžiai išrinkti iš abiejų kūrinių. Šiame darbe keliami uždaviniai: pristatyti bendrines humoro teorijas, humoro tipus ir jų vertimo strategijas, ištirti humoro pavyzdžius minėtuose romanuose ir palyginti jų vertimus į lietuvių kalbą, taip pat sugretinti kūrinius siekiant atskleisti, kuris humoro tipas ir vertimo strategija dominuoja šiose knygose. Pavyzdžiai išrinkti ranka ir jų analizei pasitelkti šie autoriai: David H. Monro (1951), Colin Muecke (1969), Victor Raskin (1985), Robert Solomon (2002), Adrian Bardon (2006), Susan Dugdale (2006), Rod A. Martin (2007), John Morreal (2013) ir kiti. Magistro darbą sudaro septyni skyriai. Pirmajame skyriuje pristatoma tema, romanų autoriai, tikslas, duomenys, metodai ir darbo struktūra. Antrame skyriuje aptariamas humoras pagal bendrą teoriją, sietiną su šios srities antikos filosofais ir mokslininkais. Šiame skyriuje taip pat pateikiama humoro klasifikacija: nuo bendrinės iki specifinės. Tiriamojoje dalyje aptariami pavyzdžiai, didžiausią dėmesį skiriant jų analizei pagal specialistų apibrėžtas kategorijas: situacinis humoras, neatitikimo humoras, kalbinis humoras ir ironija. Šie pavyzdžiai yra analizuojai atsižvelgiant į šias kategorijas kartu lyginant orginalus su Danguolės Žalytės ir Emilijos Ferdmanaitės vertimais. i

8 SUMMARY The aim of this paper is to analyze the types of humor found in two comic British novels for child readers of about nine to twelve years old Andy Stanton s novel You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum!(2006) its Lithuanian translation Tu bjaurus, pone Gumbai! (2013) by Emilija Ferdmanaitė, The Wee Free Men (2004) by Terry Pratchett, ant its Lithuanian translation Mažieji Laisvūnai (2007) by Danguolė Žalytė. In order to discuss the types of humor and their Lithuanian translation, the examples were collected from both the original and translated texts. The analysis focuses on analyzing the examples according to the categories of humor made by specialists; additionally as the different choices of translation strategy used by translators Danguolė Žalytė and Emilija Ferdmanaitė are considered. The aim and the objectives of the research are to present the theory about general theories of humor, kinds of humor translation strategies, to examine the examples of humor in both of the novels and to compare these examples with Lithuanian translations and to compare the results of the two novels to see which type of humor as well as the translation strategy prevails in the two novels. The data in this research has been manually collected and is based on major theoretical sources on humor by Colin Muecke (1969), John Morreal (2013), Robert Solomon (2002), Adrian Bardon (2006), Rod A. Martin (2007), David H. Monro (1951), Victor Raskin (1985), Susan Dugdale (2006) and other researchers. The paper is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter introduce the topic, authors and their novels, aim and objectives, data and methods and the organization of the paper. The second chapter begins by explaining what humor is. Then this is further explained by surveying general theories that were created by classical philosophers and scholars in this field. This section also includes the classification of types of humor from general categories to specific ones. The analytical sections discuss the examples chosen to be collected from the novels and their translation. These examples are categorized into four major categories of humor: humor of situation, humor of incongruity, language humor and irony. These examples are identified and analyzed according to these categories as well as in comparison to the way they are translated by Danguolė Žalytė and Emilija Ferdmanaitė. ii

9 1. INTRODUCTION Humor plays a major role in many novels for readers from nine to twelve, in what is known as middle childhood, and encourages children to read. Since children of this age are familiar with comic narratives of many kinds, writers can choose from a wide variety of forms of humor; individual authors tend to have different preferences. Moreover, since humor is closely tied to the specific features of culture and languages, it can be hard to translate. Humor tests the skill of a translator so that analyzing instances of humor in both the source and target texts is a very interesting form of translation studies. Choosing literary texts for such analysis is not necessarily a simple matter. Novels for readers in middle childhood were selected since the fiction for this age group often includes a great deal of humor. To be sure, the possible number of texts were limited to those comic novels in English translated into Lithuanian. It was decided to consider two English novels by different writers to allow deeper qualitative analysis. In addition, choosing texts, rendered into Lithuanian by two different translators meant that some comparative analysis could be carried out. In general, the criteria for these texts were as follows: novels with a great deal of humor; contemporaty texts; well-written source texts; well-translated target texts. The first novel chosen for the analysis You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! was written by the British author Andy Stanton in Stanton (born 1973) studied at Oxford University, but did not complete his program, leaving the university when he realized he did not want to pursue his career as an academic. After this, he took many different jobs: a stand-up comedian, film script reader, cartoonist (Barnes 2016 Authorgraph No.178: Andy Stanton) One can see that more than one of these involved the comic so it is not surprising that his books are filled with humor. In addition, he claims that his books refer back to earlier books for children; he asserts that his novels are "remixing all the books I read" (Stanton in Pauli 2011). In You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum!, Stanton not only uses a variety of types of humor but also provides many illustrations to make the story more appealing to younger readers. In 2013 the novel was translated into Lithuanian by Emilija Ferdmanaitė. The story is about Mr. Gum, a grumpy and rather foolish old man who decides to kill a dog that makes a mess in his garden, but keeps encountering comic obstacles, including the opposition of a young girl Polly and her friends. The novel has been very successful with British children so that Stanton has written a whole series on the characters. Stanton is also an award-winning author who has won, among others, the Roald Dahl Funny Prize Award for comic literature for children. 1

10 The second novel that is analyzed in this thesis is The Wee Free Men, first published in 2004 by the British comic fantasy writer Terry Pratchett (born ). The writer is known to have written over 70 books, though he died at the age of 66. His managing director, Larry Finlay states that he wrote so brilliantly, with great skill, enormous humour and constant invention. (Finlay in Richard and Davies 2015). Pratchett was known for his fantasy fiction for children and adults and this genre dominates in the book chosen for the analysis. In The Wee Free Men, Terry Pratchett uses a wide variety of types of humor that makes the book not only very amusing to read but also a good source for analysis of types of humor. The novel was translated into Lithuanian in 2007 by Danguolė Žalytė. It centers on a young girl named Tiffany and her adventures, some frightening and others comic, in rescuing her little brother from an evil magical Queen and taking her first steps to becoming a witch; she is helped by a variety of comic characters, especially small creatures called the Wee Free Men. 1.1 Aim and Objectives of the Research The aim of this Master thesis is, after reviewing general theories of humor and categories of specific kinds of humor, to analyze humor in Andy Stanton s novel You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its translation Tu bjaurus, pone Gumbai! by Emilija Ferdmanaitė, as well as Terry Pratchett s novel, The Wee Free Men and its translation Mažieji Laisvūnai by Danguolė Žalytė. The main objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To present general theories of humor from classical times and the more specific categorization of kinds of humor; 2. To review certain strategies used in the translation of humor; 3. To examine how humor of situation, humor of incongruity, language humor and irony are used in the two novels for readers of middle childhood: Andy Stanton s You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and Terry Pratchett s The Wee Free Men; 4. To compare examples of categories of humor in the English source text with the Lithuanian translations in Mažieji Laisvūnai by Danguolė Žalytė and Tu bjaurus, pone Gumbai! by Emilija Ferdmanaitė 5. To consider which translation strategies Žalytė and Ferdmanaitė use the most often. 2

11 1.2 Data and Methods The data in this thesis is based on the examples of different kinds of humor that have been collected from the two novels and categorized according to types of humor. All the examples are provided in the appendices. Thirty examples of humor were collected and are examined in Andy Stanton s novel You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum!, out of which nineteen are examined and forty-five examples in Terry Pratchett s novel The Wee Free Men, out of which thirty-nine are examined in this thesis. The examples that are not examined are those that are repetitions of other instances. Among the major theoretical sources on humor are Colin D. Muecke (1969), John Morreal (2013), Robert Solomon (2002), Adrian Bardon (2006), Rod A. Martin (2007), David H. Monro (1951), Victor Raskin (1985), and Susan Dugdale (2006). Both print and internet sources have been used for the theory and the analysis. The examples for the analysis of this thesis were manually collected; their analysis is qualitative, as is that of the Lithuanian translations of these examples. 1.3 Organization of the Paper The thesis consists of seven chapters with a summary and a list of references. Chapter One is divided into three subsections. First, it introduces the topic as well as the writers and the novels selected for the analysis. Sub-section 1.1 explains the aim and the objectives of the paper, 1.2 briefly introduces the data and the methods used and 1.3 introduces the organization of the paper. Chapter Two is divided into three sub-sections; Sub-section one discuss general theories of humor, their categorization according to their definitions by scholars and philosophers in this field, Sub-section two connects these theories with a further categorization of humor and Sub-section three discusses certain strategies used in translation of humor. Chapter Three introduces the concept of middle childhood,discusses what is specific in the novels for readers of this specific age group and briefly introduce the main features of the novels that will be further analyzed in the next chapter. Chapter Four begins the specific analysis: it is divided into four sub-sections that analyze specific types of humor found in the novel by Andy Stanton You re a Bad Man Mr. Gum! and its Lithuanian translation by Emilija Ferdmanaitė. Sub-section 4.1 analyze the examples of humor of situation, while Sub-section 4.2 looks at humor of incongruity, Sub-section 4.3 considers language humor and Subsection 4.4 analyzes examples of irony and its further categorization according to the theories discussed. 3

12 Chapter Five discusses types of humor in the novel The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett and its Lithuanian translation by Danguolė Žalytė. This chapter is further divided into four sub-sections that similarly analyze the examples of: humor of situation, humor of incongruity, language humor, and irony that were found in Pratchett s novel. Chapter Six compares the use of humor in source and target texts, analyzes which types of humor as well as whitch translation strategies are found to be dominant. Chapter Seven concludes the findings that can be drawn from the analysis. 2. THEORIES AND KINDS OF HUMOR This chapter provides theoretical perspectives on general theories of humor at different time periods; from classical philosophy to contemporary theories. This chapter will also review and discuss the classification of types of humor according to a number of scholars in this field Major Concepts in General Theories of Humor The concepts of humor that are known today have their beginning in the first discussions in ancient Greece. Classical philosophy, developed by Aristotle and Plato, was understood as critical thinking that was applied to fundamental concepts with a close relationship to human experience. Not all philosophers or schools of philosophy have recognized humor as important enough to be analyzed, but fortunately a number of major thinkers have felt it was worth examining. This chapter will discuss some of the major definitions and the development of general theories of humor from classical times to the present: superiority, incongruity, relief theories, humor as social activity and humor as a social mechanism, focusing on the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, Freud and others. In his article The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor John Morreall (2013) discusses how classical philosophies looked at humor and states that the understanding of humor did not really lose its negative connotations until the 20 th century (Morreall 2013). For example, the Greek philosopher Plato ( BC) believed that humor focuses more on mocking and scornful laughter of humans (Morreall 2013). Plato analyzes humor in Philebus (48 50) and asserts that it is not something that one should enjoy: [ ] the people we laugh at imagine themselves to be wealthier, better looking, or more virtuous than they really are. In laughing at them, we take delight in something evil their selfignorance and that malice is morally objectionable. (Morreall 2013) He believed that laughter should be avoided or tightly controlled in order to prevent anger or violence (Morreall 2013). Plato s student Aristotle ( BC) possessed a similar point of view towards 4

13 laughter and comedy, though he was strict about humor. In his work Poetics, Aristotle describes comedy as an imitation of people who are worse than the average (Morreall 1987 in Bardon 2005:3). Aristotle admits that relaxation and amusement as a necessary element in life (Morreall 1987 in Bardon 2005:3) but still asserts that humor should not be used too much where people laugh at ugliness (Morreall 1987 in Bardon 2005:3). After the Classical Greek theories, further major ideas were developed only in the Renaissance and later. Many studies that aim to explain the mechanisms of humor and its importance to human beings can be grouped into basic categories: superiority, relief, incongruity and play theories. The first theory is called Superiority Theory. The philosopher that is usually associated with superiority theory is the Englishman Thomas Hobbes ( ). His ideas about humor and laughter were influenced by the philosopher Plato. Hobbes sees laughter as [ ] sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves (Human Nature, in Bardon 2005:4). Hobbes explains that laughter arises from joy that is sparked by the evident failings of others (Bardon 2005:4). By seeing someone else fail, one can make a comparison to oneself and thus one s self-image becomes superior (Bardon 2005:4). Hobbes s idea of humor can be compared to the one that Plato and Aristotle proposed: it can be said that Hobbe s superiority theory also views humor and laughter as negative elements in society (Bardon 2005:4). In the 18 th century, however, the superiority theory began to be questioned by Francis Hutcheson (1750) who criticized Hobbes by stating that superiority is not necessary for laughter to be created (Morreal 2013). In addition, he added that it is not necessarily the case that people compare themselves to someone else (Morreal 2013). Superiority theory was not only doubted in the 18 th century but a contrary notion was introduced in the 21 st century by Robert Solomon (2002). He offered quite the opposite, delibarately caling it inferiority theory. Solomon states that humor theory should not be fully based on the concepts that were introduced in classical times (Solomon 2002 in Smuts). His theory discusses whether humor and laughter appear only when comparing ourselves to others (Solomon 2002 in Smuts). On the contrary, Solomon considers the ability to not take yourself seriously, or to see yourself as less than ideal, as a source of virtuous modesty and compassion (Solomon 2002 in Smuts). Another theory that appeared in the 18 th and 19 th centuries was incongruity theory when many philosophers and psychologists like James Beattie, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and Søren Kierkegaard took interest in and decided to offer a completely different approach to humor. They suggested that humor is found primarily in an intellectual recognition of an absurd incongruity between conflicting ideas or experiences (Bardon 2006: 5). The first philosopher that analyzed incongruity was the Scotsman James Beattie (1779); he stated that the cause of humor was two or more inconsistent, 5

14 unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, as acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them (Beattie 1779: 320 in Morreal 2013). Another psychologist, Francis Hutcheson, in 1750 contributes to this theory by stating the cause of laughter is the bringing together of images which have contrary additional ideas, as well as some resemblance in the principal idea (Hutcheson 1750 in Morreal 2013). In addition, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1790) notes that incongruity is not only achieved by contradicting ideas but also by the factor of surprise (Kant 1790 in Morreal 2013). Kant did not use the word incongruous to describe humor, but his explanation of laughter and wit can be considered to be part of incongruity theory: In everything that is to excite a lively convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing. This transformation, which is certainly not enjoyable to the understanding, yet indirectly gives it very active enjoyment for a moment. Therefore its cause must consist in the influence of the representation upon the body, and the reflex effect of this upon the mind. (Kant 1790 in Morreal 2013) According to Kant, one laugh at absurdities not because the intellect itself finds pleasure in that which frustrates it, but because the intellect s attempt to reconcile an absurd conjunction of ideas causes a physical response that we find pleasant (Bardon 2006: 7). While Kant has his own definition of humor, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer has a different concept about the pleasure one can get from humor. Schopenhauer divides human perception and understanding into two basic categories: through abstract concepts and through sense-perception (Schopenhauer in Bardon 2006: 7). According to him, the laughter and pleasure that one can receive from humor can be achieved through the incongruity of understanding between abstract concepts and senses (Bardon 2006: 8). Although Kant states that there is nothing enjoyable in humor or laughter (Bardon 2005:8), Schopenhauer argues that the pleasure and satisfaction that one can get from humor comes from the direct satisfaction that is achieved by human sense-perception (Bardon 2005:8). In addition, Schopenhauer says that this satisfaction is achieved when one s intellect is capable of perceiving that our expectations do not match the reality and that frustration is enjoyable (Bardon 2005:8).. There were other scholars like James Beattie and Michael Clarke that had the same point of view towards incongruity theory. Clarke enumerates three features that are sufficient for humor: 1. A person perceives (thinks, imagines) an object as being incongruous. 2. The person enjoys perceiving (thinking, imagining) the object. 3. The person enjoys the perceived (thought, imagined) incongruity at least partly for itself, rather than solely for some ulterior reason. (Morreall 2009: ) 6

15 According to Morreall the enumeration of these features is a revision of incongruity theory that improves the definition of amusement but he states that it still seems not specific enough (Morreall 2009: ). Another theory that is clearly distinguished and discussed by philosophers and psychologists is relief theory. The theory is based on the idea that humor helps people release tension. Two specialists that can be clearly identified with this theory are Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud. First, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer ( ) developed the theory that humor is connected to psychological factors. He states that people possess energy that at some point must be released (Smuts in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). He did not argue with the fact that action of releasing the energy is connected with physical activity; he states this fact: nervous excitation always tends to beget muscular motion (Smuts 2016). Spencer proposed this theory not in conflict with incongruity theory; he rather states that the theories are in some way connected (Morreal 2013). The releasing of tension arises from incongruity with the physical movement (Morreal 2013). The result of this tension is that one may release nervousness or other type of emotions (Morreal 2013). Another very famous thinker, the Austrian psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud ( ), also contributed to the defining of relief theory and added a few new processes and emotions that a person may release with humor. In his work Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905) Freud distinguishes humor (jokes) from the comic (absurdity) (Bardon 2005:10). He states that when people laugh at a joke, they are using energy for the sake of cognitive thinking (Bardon 2005:10) while they laugh at absurdity, they release built-up energy (Bardon 2005:10). In addition, David Hector Monro argues that Freud saw humor as a means of censoring (Monro 1988). Freud thought that people is internal censor kept them from displaying all of their natural impulses (Monro 1988). Although Freud did a large number of studies on the psychology of humor and sexuality, he states that it is not only the sexual impulses that are not supposed to be displayed (Monro 1988). The censor keeps one from displaying offensive jokes or other natural impulses as well as natural negative feelings (Monro 1988). When a person represses negative feelings, Freud states that this person saves his/her energy (Bardon 2005:10). relief theory states that humor helps people to lower their tension levels so that they feel much better in a community (Bardon 2005:10-11). Based on Freud, it can also be said that when people repress negative emotions, they can be accepted more easily in a community (Bardon 2005:10-11). These three basic theories, superiority, incongruity and relief, are the basis for much of the current analysis of humor, and of the factors that make people laugh. However, some theoreticians now discuss the function of humor from a different point of view. As an example, the scholar Rod A. Martin argues 7

16 that humor can be viewed as a social activity (Martin 2007:5). First of all, he suggests that humor can be divided into four essential components: (1) Social context, (2) a cognitive-perceptual process, (3) an emotional response, and (4) vocal-behavioral expression of laughter (Martin 2007:5). Martin, along with other researchers, asserts that we laugh and joke much more frequently when we are with other people than when we are by ourselves (Martin 2007:5). However, he admits that there are cases when humor occurs when a person is alone, giving examples such as watching television or reading a book (Martin 2007:5). He states that these are not true examples, of situations in which people could be considered as not active socially. He rather calls these examples pseudo-social (Martin 2007:5), that is, one is are alone at the moment one is engaged in these activities but one is still responding to humorous characters or memories that one experiences in real life (Martin 2007:5). Furthermore, Martin connects humor to the social context and states that humor is how humans can interact with one another in a playful way (Martin 2007:6). Martin also explains the process of how human minds produce humor: To produce humor, an individual needs to mentally process information coming from the environment or from memory, playing with ideas, words, or actions in a creative way, and thereby generating a witty verbal utterance or a comical nonverbal action that is perceived by other to be funny. (Martin 2007:6) Nevertheless, Martin acknowledges earlier theories and also states that the essence of humor seems to be incongruity, unexpectedness, and playfulness [ ] (Martin 2007:6). Although humor is now widely discussed as a phenomenon which evokes pleasurable emotions, it can also be considered as a social mechanism. The Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin interprets the role of humor and relates it to the Middle Ages, when strict rules dominated the lives of people: [ ] a person of the Middle Ages lived, as it were, two lives: one was the official life, monolithically serious and gloomy, subjugated to a strict hierarchical order, full of terror, dogmatism, reverence and piety: the other was the life of the carnival square, free and unrestricted, full if ambivalent laughter, blasphemy, the profanation of everything sacred, full of debasing and obscenities, familiar contact with everyone and everything. Both lives were legitimate, but separated by strict temporal boundaries. (Bakhtin 1960: ) In Bakhtin s theory he asserts that humor has always been a part of human life. The Middle Ages was restricted by so many rules and regulations that humor became a form in which people felt free to forget their difficulties and celebrate life. Bakhtin developed the theory of what he called the carnivalesque, the way people enjoy escaping rules during a carnival. The wide range of theories of humor shows that humor exists in people s lives for various reasons. It is not only a physical activity to release tension or to make people feel that they are superior to others. 8

17 Humor exists deeply within human consciousness, though the specific reasons that a person laughs may not be so simple Kinds of Humor This section presents the terms used for different types of humor which can also be found in literary texts. Many scholars use different labels but there are terms or concepts that are generally similar. Firstly, in order to define the terms, David Hector Monro (1951) classifies a list of elements that can be treated as the basis of humor or humorous situations. These elements are related to the subject or the context when humor occurs: (a) Any breach of the usual order of events, (b) any forbidden breach of the usual order of events, (c) indecency, (d) importing into one situation what belongs to another, (e) anything masquerading as something it is not, (f) word-play, (g) nonsense, (h) small misfortunes, (i) want of knowledge or skill, (j) veiled insults (Monro 1951:40 in Raskin 1984:30) It is not hard to see that these ten items in this list can be grouped into a smaller number relating them to theories of humor. 1) Some of Monro s cases belong to incongruity theory: a) Any breach of the usual order of events, b)any forbidden breach of the usual order of events, c) anything masquerading as something it is not, 2) Some fit in Superiority Theory: a) Indecency, b) veiled insults, c) small misfortunes, d) want of knowledge or skill, 3) The last group includes kinds of humor related to the use of language: a) word-play, b) nonsense, c)veiled insults. In reference to language humor, Walter Nash (1985) states that there is a difference between written and oral humor: Although both depend on context, written humor differs from oral humor or popular joke in the greater complexity of the procedures authors use to expand it, whereas oral humor is expanded by the repetition of a certain type of joke or the exploitation of an evident situation or subject, textual humor is expanded by more elaborated devices that are meticulously interwoven forming a complex pattern. Moreover, while oral humor appears a response to an immediate situation, 9

18 textual humor is designed for a distant and anonymous receptor that has to interpret the complex clues imbricated in the text (Nash 1985: 9-10 in Lopez 2002:35). This distinction is not completely convincing. In a literary text, for example, all the humor is in one sense written, but since it occurs either in dialogue or narrative, it is also oral. Linguist Victor Raskin (1985) enumerate the most prominent verbal types of humor by explaining them in detail. According to Raskin, one type that can be found very often is ridicule. He describes ridicule as: [ ] a mishap which happens to another human being and causes laughter to the observer (Raskin 1985:24). This goes back to Plato s Superiority Theory. In addition, Raskin identifies such concepts as disparaging humor, otherwise known as laughing at their own experiences (Raskin 1985: 24). Lampert and Ervin-Tripp contributes to this concept of humor, stating that this type is more selfteasing than condemning oneself (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp 2006 in Dynel 2009:12). Furthermore, this type of humor shows an individual s intelligence, the ability to display a positive self-image and how he or she can compose oneself during a particular situation (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp 2006 in Dynel 2009: 12). In general terms this is a sub-variety of Superiority Theory in which both roles are played by the same person. In addition, Raskin also identifies such terms as jokes and anecdotes, puns, conundrums and wisecracks (Raskin 1985:29). Verbal humor such as jokes and anecdotes mostly appears in oral humor because of its structure and the quick response it requires. Scholars such as Hockett ) and Sherzer (1985) state that jokes consist of a build-up and a punch line. It is further explained that the build-up is the story that is given in a narrative form,[ ] while a punch-line is the final portion of the text, which engenders surprise and leads to incongruity [ ] (Suls 1972 in Dynel 2009:1284). Anecdotes, on the other hand, are a humorous narrative by means of which the speaker regales the hearer with a story deriving from his/her personal experience or other people s lives (Norrick 1993, 1994, 2003 in Dynel 2009:1295 ). In telling an anecdote, the tone of voice and facial expressions are important, so that this does not work so well in a written text (Dynel 2009:1295). Another type of humor, puns, is a form of humor that is created by using linguistic means, typically violating linguistic expectations and playing with words. In addition, it draws together different references or sounds that are similar but have a different meaning, thus creating a surprise. (Chiaro, 1992 in Lippman and Dunn 2000:185). Other types of verbal humor such as the wisecrack are defined as a: clever remark [ ] which deals with a particular person or thing (Raskin 1985: 29), while conundrums are simply riddles with a pun (Raskin 1985: 26). Another scholar Susan Dugdale (2006), identifies other categories of verbal humor such as malapropism: intentional or unintentional misuse of a word - substituting the 'right' word for another with a similar sound. (Dugdale 2006), spoonerism: transposition of the sounds of two or more words 10

19 (Dugdale 2006), and mixed metaphors: combination of two metaphors or clichés (Dugdale 2006). In addition, she refers to such categories as a running gag: an amusing situation or line recurring throughout a story or performance. (Dugdale 2006), parody: copy someone of something in order to mock the original (Dugdale 2006), irony: using words to imply the opposite of their literal meaning, or a situation where the outcome is the opposite from that intended or expected (Dugdale 2006) and absurdity: humor lacking in reason [ ] often includes the use of nonsensical language (Dugdale 2006). Dugdale also mentions other methods to produce humor, techniques such as exaggeration, overstatement and statements of the obvious. Sound devices can also be used in order to achieve a humorous effect: most often these are alliteration: repetition of the beginning sound(s) of words (Dugdale 2006), assonance: different words sharing vowel sounds (Dugdale 2006), consonance: words that are similar in consonant sounds (Dugdale 2006), onomatopoeia: imitating words sounding like their meaning when spoken and rhyme (Dugdale 2006). A final common form of humor is physical humor. Laura Backes (1996) identifies this type; unlike verbal humor, it focuses more on physical accidents or misfortunes (Backes 1996). In addition, this type may concern physical contrasts among people or animals or difference in appearance (Backes 1996). Another sub-category of humor that is important for further analysis is irony and it s furher categorization. First, when concerning what irony is, D.C. Muecke states that it is a good idea to begin with the definitions in dictionaries. He then cites The Oxford English Dictionary, which categorizes two different senses of irony: 1) a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used and 2) a condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things (Muecke 1969:42). In addition, other scholars such as Ross Murfin and Supryia M. Ray add that irony can further be divided into three major categories: verbal irony, situational irony and structural irony (Murfin, Ray 2003:222). Verbal irony is said to be the most common kind of irony (Murfin, Ray 2003:222). Muecke argues that verbal and situational irony functions through the action of the ironist. In verbal irony, it is the ironist who implies something, while situational irony does not have any ironist (Muecke 1969:42). The third category, structural irony, is different still: the author instead of using an occasional verbal irony, introduces a structural feature that serves to sustain a duplex meaning and evaluation throughout the work (Murfin, Ray 2003:135). These three major categories can be divided into subcategories that are analyzed with the examples in the two selected novels. The types of humor that are discussed in this sub-section may appear in oral or in written form. In a novel, which is the genre discussed in this research paper, writers usually use a variety of kinds of 11

20 humor. However, certain ones tend to predominate, depending on the kind of plot or character, or the writer s individual preferences. 2.3 Strategies for Translation of Humorous Literature for Children Strategies of translation appear when the translator is given a task to translate a foreign text. The translator is the one who decides what strategy to use to convey the overall meaning of the text. Theoretitian and translator Lawrence Venuti suggest that among many different strategies only two are the dominant ones. He further discuss this point stating: Strategies in producing translations inevitably emerge in response to domestic cultural situations. But some are deliberately domesticating in their handling of the foreign text while others can be described as foreignizing, motivated by an impulse to preserve linguistic and cultural differences by deviating from prevailing domestic values (Venuti in Baker 2001: 240). The domesticating strategy is used since the ancient times where the texts had to be translated to the period that is already new (Venuti in Baker 2001: 241). While domesticating any culture specific concepts titles or names can be replaced to the ones existing in that culture (Venuti in Baker 2001: 241). Considering this, foreignizing is the opposite, all of the foreign culture values and markers are left as they are in the text even though they may not be know to the target readers (Venuti in Baker 2001: 242). To the question which is the strategy should be used in the text while translating Venuti answers as it clearly depends on a detailed econstruction of the cultural formation in which the transaltion is produced and consumed [ ] (Venuti in Baker 2001: 243). Venuti also claims that there are reasons why foreignization is desirable and domestication is to be rejected (Oittinen 2000:74). He says that in domestication there is ethnocentric racism and violence (Oittinen 2000:74). Scholar Oittinen agrees to this saying that translation is always an issue of norms and power [ ] (Oittinen 2000:74) but disagrees in the sense that his ideas are in the a wyt too general for the analysis of translated literature (Oittinen 2000:74). She further states that Venuti does not address the complexities concerning the multiplicity of readers and reader response (Oittinen 2000:74). Oittinen also addresses children s literature the problem of adaptation and (in)visibility comes up within children s literature, too, where domesticating and foreignizing are very delicate issues (Oittinen 2000:74). She further argues Venuti s theories by stating that every act of translating for children, too, has a purpose, scopos, and all translations should be domesticated according to the scopos.[ ]translatiors, especially those translating for children, translate for some special audience(s), superaddressees (Oittinen 2000:76). Oittinen discuss this issue 12

21 because in her opinion the important thing is loyalty to the readers (Oittinen 2000:76) and domestication strategy is what could be called loyalty. Considering the importance of the reader it is important to note that translation could be for specific purposes as well. When translation of humor is concerned, there are certain specific strategies useful for analyzing translation of humor. First, Vinay and Darbelnet state that there are two basic methods for direct transfer: direct translation and oblique translation (Vinay and Darbelnet in Waliński 2015:57). The direct translation is word for word quotation[ ] (Vinay and Darbelnet in Waliński 2015:57) and includes strategies as borrowing, calque and literal translation (Vinay and Darbelnet in Waliński 2015:57) while oblique transaltion is when the translator interprets, elaborates or summarizes, the explicit contents of the original and strategies such as transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation (Vinay and Darbelnet in Waliński 2015:58) are used. While Vinay and Darbelnet talks about methods of translation, Eirlys E. Davies states that there are micro-level individual procedures. First is preservation when there is no close equivalent in the target culture, a translator may simply decide to maintain the source text term in the translation (Davies 2003:72-73). The second, is omission which is simply omitting some kind of item (Davies 2003:79). Kinda Klaudy states that grammatical omissions occur as a result of systematic differences between languages (Klaudy in Dimitriu 2004:165), while stylistic omissions are used in order to avoid redundancy (Klaudy in Dimitriu 2004:166). In addition, there are several reasons why omissions may occur. First it presents all the information in a more concise manner (Dimitriu 2004:166), second it presents only essential information (Dimitriu 2004:167) and third it is to avoid unnecessary bumps in terms of culture, time, and space (Dimitriu 2004:167).The third, creation is when the translator decides to create the word or term (Davies 2003:88). The next strategy is addition when the word needs additional information in order to be understood (Davies 2003:77). Certainly Davies states that these additions may be a burden on the reader and Hickey (1998) adds that it is important not to deviate from the original by using this particular translation strategy (Hickey 1998:228 in Davies 2003:77). The globalization strategy is when a culture-specific item is replaced by a more general term for the same item (Davies 2003:82-83). The item in the translation will not be fully accurate but the target readers would recognize more easily what it is (Davies 2003:83). The opposite of this strategy is localization when the item is aiming at a specific culture (Davies 2003:84). In Lihuanian context localization would be changing the grammar of the word for an easier pronounciation or adding grammatical endings. A completely different strategy is transformation and it is when the decision to modify the content of a text (Davies 2003:86) and it is done according to audience flexibility, tolerance and willingness to 13

22 wrestle with possible obscurity (Davies 2003:86). An example of that would be changing the name that is relevant to one culture to a completely different one relevant in the target culture: Churchill to Kudirka. The final translation strategy would be compensation which is making up for the loss of a source text effect in the target text through means that are specific to the target language and/or text (Harvey in Baker 2001:37) Keith Harvey also adds that this trategy is often used in translating puns (Harvey 2001:37). In addition, using this strategy is employed in both source and target texts to achieve a similar humorous effect (Harvey in Baker 2001:37). Newmark (1991) also adds that puns, alliteration, rhyme, slang, metaphor, pregnant words all these can be compensated [ ] (Newmark 1991:144 in Baker 2001:38). All of these strategies are important not only for translation in general but for translation of humor as well. The strategies will be applied to the following analysis of the two novels for middle childhood. 3. TERRY PRATCHETT S THE WEE FREE MEN AND ANDY STANTON S YOU RE A BAD MAN MR. GUM! AS HUMOROUS NOVELS FOR MIDDLE CHILDHOOD READERS In general people refer to stage of human life before adulthood as childhood and adolescence, but many child psychologists and teachers also refer to a specific stage in between childhood and teenage years called middle childhood. Blume (2015) further explains middle childhood as the developmental period between early childhood and adolescence [ ] and state that in health care it is considered to be the period of groth and development. (Blume 2015). Jessica Straley explains that this stage is when after parental dependency has passed but before the onset of puberty, during which time the child is primarily acculturated (Straley 2016:185). In addition, Blume state that clinical psychologists characterize middle childhood as a latency period that precedes the intense sexual interest of adolescence (Blume 2015). Further Blume explains that teachers tend to believe that middle childhood starts from the age of six, others say that middle childhood is from ages nine to ten (Blume 2015). Nevertheless, Blume states that most scientists and practitioners agree that children in the middle childhood period are qualitatively different from children who are either younger or older (Blume 2015). Schickedanz (1990) adds that children in this period increase in body growth and other physical changes and increase awareness of other people s opinions[ ] (Schickedanz 1990:446). In addition, 14

23 Schickedanz state that during this period children develop social role-taking ability (Schickedanz 1990: 508) which is understanding of what other person is feeling. Rudolph Schaffer (1996) further discuss how children s view of others develop over the years. First, children up to the age of 7 decribe others by external characteristics, second, from 7 or 8 children more reveal their emotions towards other people, and third, in early adolescence people are more compared to other people and certain situations are taken into account (Schaffer 1996: ). According to M. L. Hoffman (1988) empathy is another important ability that evolves throught the four stages of development: 1. Global empathy 2. Egocentric empathy 3. Empathy for another s feelings 4. Empathy for another s life condition (Hoffman 1988 in Schaffer 1996: ) In these four stages, empathy changes from involuntary empathy, which is simply mimicking other people s motions, for example crying, to a more complex understanding of life and the conditions that are not equal to all people (Hoffman 1988 in Schaffer 1996: ). In addition, Piaget studied children s moral judgement and claims that children up to six understand moral judgement by compairing him self to others and damage done (Piaget 1965 in Schickedanz 1990: 523). Between the ages from five to ten children s judgements shift to subjective judgements-based on intentions and other psychological considerations (Piaget 1965, Lickona 1976 in Schickedanz 1990: 525). Another researcg on moral reasoning by William Damon (1980) revealed that moral reasoning is connected to children s understanding of justice ir fairness (Damon 1980 in Schickedanz 1990: 529). Damon also states that children have different view about authority. The research results revealed that this is highly connected to reasoning ability. It is seen that in the early years, children obey their mother not questioning why (Damon 1980 in Schickedanz 1990: 530), while in the later years children refer to other authority figures that may be close to him/her, such as teachers (Damon 1980 in Schickedanz 1990: 530). Later they start to view someone as an authority depending on their abilities for example popstars or actors (Damon 1980 in Schickedanz 1990: 530). Finally, at the highest level of authority, people see authority in a particular situation. (Damon 1980 in Schickedanz 1990: 530). During the stage of middle childhood, children s persception towards parents also change. Alison Clarke-Stewart (1985) state that during this stage children are not so open with their parents and begin to have secrets (Clarke-Stewart 1985: 468). During this age, children are more aware that adults are different and some may even see it as an inequality (Clarke-Stewart 1985: 468). Nevertheless, compared 15