Methods of transferring linguistic humor in J.K. Jerome’s novel "Three men in a boat ..." translated by Y. Lisnyak

Personification – the last category of metaphor mentioned in the theoretical part of this chapter – does not represent any translation problem and is usually preserved in translations. As the three translators of Jerome’s novel do not change or adapt the personifications in Three Men in a Boat in any way, I will only offer one example of their renderings by way of illustration:

Possibly the result may have been brought about by the natural obstinacy of all things in this world. The boat may possibly have come to the conclusion, judging from a cursory view of our behaviour, that we had come out for a morning’s suicide, and had thereupon determined to disappoint us. That is the only suggestion I can offer. (160 – 1)

Можливо, причиною була природна непокірливість усіх речей  на світі. Мабуть, човен, спостерігаючи  нашу поведінку, дійшов до висновку, що ми надумали задля розваги вчинити гарненьке самогубство. І вирішив поламати наші плани. Це єдина вірогідна гіпотеза, яку я зміг придумати. (Лісняк, 205)

Since the metaphors in Three Men in a Boat are not culture-specific and the images and symbols contained in them are well-understandable for Ukrainian readers, they do not cause difficulties in translating and do not require any special renderings on the part of the Ukrainian translators. As for Newmark’s proposed modes of translating metaphors, the way of translating metaphors using the same or a similar image is most frequently employed. If a metaphor is modified in some way, it is the translator’s own initiative (i.e. it was not due to cultural reasons) and the sense and effect of the original metaphor are preserved. As far as the translation of idioms is concerned, the translators either substitute them with Ukrainian idiomatic equivalents or, if this is not possible, they replace them with unidiomatic expressions with the same sense. Both these approaches prove to be successful. Similes and personifications are probably the easiest categories of metaphor to translate. The overwhelming majority of similes is rendered literally and all the cases of personifications are retained. In my opinion, the translators manage to keep the balance between the source and target metaphorical language with no excessive losses or gains in the target text.

 

CHAPTER IV. Register

4.1 Register in Three Men in a Boat

 

The term register is used to “describe the fact that the kind of language we use is affected by the context in which we use it, to such an extent that certain kinds of language usage become conventionally associated with particular situations” (Montgomery 55). Thus, we would use different register when speaking to friends (informal, familiar language) and to superiors or strangers (formal, polite language). Among the main social determinants that influence our choice of register are: age, sex, class, occupation, religion, country of origin, generation, schooling etc. Moreover, our choice of register is conditioned by the mode (written vs. spoken) and the occasion in which it is used (Newmark, Approaches 121).

 Montgomery (56) defines three different aspects of any situation or context which will affect the register: the mode of communication – this relates to whether the language is written or spoken; the tone, which is connected to the social relationships between the participants in the situation (formal vs. informal, personal vs. impersonal relationships); and the field, i.e. the purpose the language is used for (e.g. to convey information, to express feelings, to intimidate, etc.) and the activities or professions it is characteristic of (e.g. the register of legal profession, advertising, football commentary, journalism and so on).

 Since each of us switches naturally and smoothly from one register to another and since we know which register is appropriate in a certain situation, we are all sensitive to deviation in register (Montgomery 56). Many authors of humorous literature rely on this sensitivity and employ registers inappropriately to create humour and humorous situations. The same does J. K. Jerome in his Three Men in a Boat. He makes use of very formal register to exaggerate certain situations or problems and thus makes them more comic:

 We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach. Reach not after morality and righteousness, my friends; watch vigilantly your stomach, and diet it with care and judgment. Then virtue and contentment will come and reign within your heart, unsought by any effort of your own; and you will be a good citizen, a loving husband, and a tender father – a noble, pious man. (Jerome 94 – 5)

This formal, almost philosophical in tone, statement follows J.’s account of how proper dinner made the three characters content and blissful after a long day. The grand tone of this “recommendation” is apparently incongruous with the ordinary situation of eating and thus makes it sound comic.

Jerome also uses formal language to establish irony. When the character of George asks a lock-keeper for some drinking water, the keeper maliciously offers him to take as much as he wants, pointing to the river and saying that he has drunk the river water for the last fifteen years without any harm. George, in response to the keeper’s impoliteness, uses formal and very polite language to make an ironic insult:

George told him that his appearance, after the course, did not seem a sufficiently good advertisement for the brand; and that he would prefer it out of a pump. (Jerome 132)

Informal register appears frequently in the novel as well and it serves to reinforce the comic elements in the situations and to mock the characters. Jerome uses colloquial language that can be found both in the narrative and the direct speech, as in the following examples:

This was hardly what I intended. What I had meant, of course, was, that I should boss the job, and that Harris and George should potter about under my directions . . . (Jerome 37)

“Well, I don’t know, gents,” replied the noble fellow, “but I suppose some train’s got to go to Kingston; and I’ll do it. Gimme the half-crown.” (Jerome 49)

The colloquial language of villagers is also employed (only in direct speech) to make the distinction between the three main characters, who come from the middle class, and the ‘Arrys and ‘Arriets – “a term coined by the middle-classes to describe the lower-classes” (Nicholas 60). In some cases it shows the villagers’ simplicity and helps to make the mockery of them more profound, as it is with the character of slow-witted churchyard keeper:

“I’m a-coming, sur, I’m a-coming. I’m a little lame. I ain’t as spry as I used to be. This way, sur.”

“Go away, you miserable old man,” I said.

 “I’ve come as soon as I could, sur,” he replied. “My missis never see you till just this minute.

You follow me, sur.” (Jerome 65)

As I already mentioned, using certain register inappropriately (the above example concerning stomach) is one of the devices for achieving humorous effect. Another register-based method for creating humour involves juxtaposition or mixing of different registers:

The quaint back streets of Kingston, where they came down to the water’s edge, looked quite picturesque in the flashing sun-light, the glinting river with its drifting barges, the wooded towpath, the trim-kept villas on the other side, Harris, in a red and orange blazer, grunting away at the sculls, the distant glimpses of the grey old palace of the Tudors, all made a sunny picture, so bright but calm, so full of life, and yet so peaceful that, early in the day though it was, I felt myself being dreamily lulled off into a musing fit. (Jerome 49)

The above quoted surroundings description written in highly poetic register is suddenly interrupted in the middle by a commonplace remark on Harris’s intensive sculling (underlined), which somehow surprises the reader, spoils the poetic, serious tone of the extract and forces the reader to realise a new – humorous – dimension of the utterance.

 Alison Ross mentions a further device for register-based humour – bathos. Bathos is “a sudden switch in style, from one which has grand overtones to one which is commonplace” (45). There are about four cases of bathos in Three Men in a Boat; here is one example by way of illustration:

. . . and, lulled by the lapping water and the rustling trees, we fall asleep beneath the great, still stars, and dream that the world is young again – young and sweet as she used to be ere the centuries of fret and care had furrowed her fair face, ere her children’s sins and follies had made old her loving heart – sweet as she was in those bygone days when, a new made mother, she nursed us, her children, upon her own deep breast – ere the wiles of painted civilisation had lured us away from her fond arms, and the poisoned sneers of artificiality had made us ashamed of the simple life we led with her, and the simple, stately home where mankind was born so many thousands of years ago.

Harris said:

 “How about when it rained?”

You can never rouse Harris. There is no poetry about Harris – no wild yearning for the unattainable. Harris never “weeps, he knows not why.” If Harris’s eyes fill with tears, you can bet it is because Harris has been eating raw onions, or has put too much Worcester over his chop. (Jerome 18)

In this example, Jerome suddenly switches from poetic, lofty style to commonplace language describing Harris’s practicality. The difference is even amplified by the sentence length – the poetic part is formed by one, very long sentence; while the following text is composed of relatively short sentences (underlined). The vocabulary and particularly the combination of words play an important role as well. In the first part, poetic devices such as vivid imagery (‘rustling trees’, ‘painted civilisation’, ‘poisoned sneers of artificiality’ etc.) and personification (the world is personified – young, her face, her loving heart) are used; the subsequent part is formed of words of everyday language and does not involve any unusual combinations of words.

 Ross also speaks about the method of building up balanced phrases from which the final one drops in register or style to form a sort of anti-climax (44). The method is used by Jerome when urging the readers not to burden their lives with unnecessary things:

Throw the lumber over, man! Let your boat of life be light, packed with only what you need – a homely home and simple pleasures, one or two friends, worth the name, someone to love and someone to love you, a cat, a dog, and a pipe or two, enough to eat and enough to wear, and a little more than enough to drink; for thirst is a dangerous thing. (Jerome 27)

In this example, Jerome begins in a noble way to name things and people one would not do without in their lives. Towards the end, however, he proceeds to things (underlined) that are not expected in such a clichés-based utterance (i.e. ‘pipes’, ‘drink’ – in this case, the word ‘drink’ is ambiguous as it can refer both to alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverage).

4.2 Translation of Register

Unfortunately, there is not much specialised literature that would offer any useful and detailed approaches to the translation of register. I will therefore draw only on Newmark’s opinion of how to render register in translation and Levý’s attitude to dialect translation. Peter Newmark (Approaches 121) thinks that the main interest to a translator when dealing with register is the lexical field (including characteristic word ‘deformations’ and syntactic markers), which s/he should recognise in the source text and transfer to the target text. In chapter seventeen, J. and George are sitting in a pub, meeting different village people who tell them the story of how they caught the big trout that is displayed there in a glass case. It is obvious that the villagers make the stories up and when another man enters the pub, George decides to put his truthfulness to the test, using inappropriate, highly formal language:

“I beg your pardon, I hope you will forgive the liberty that we – perfect strangers in the neighbourhood – are taking, but my friend here and myself would be so much obliged if you would tell us how you caught that trout up there.” (Jerome 172)

- Перепрошую…  Ви, сподіваюся, пробачите нам, що  ми, люди нетутешні й зовсім  з вами не знайомі, так запросто  до вас звертаємось, але мій  друг і я були б дуже вдячні  вам, якби ви розповіли, як  ви спіймали оту форель. (Лісняк, 219)

Jerome uses features of politeness, among them words of politeness (‘I beg your pardon’), conditional mood and highly formal and noble words such as ‘forgive the liberty we are taking’ and ‘obliged’. In my opinion, the Ukrainian translator succeed in transferring the excessively high level of formality into Ukrainian. He recognises the lexical field (words of politeness, formal words and the conditional) and use the Ukrainian equivalents to create the same comic effect as in the original. A translator can only manage to distinguish between the language of a villager and the national language. To indicate rural language, it is advisable to use linguistic features that are regionally unmarked, i.e. features that are not perceived as specific for a certain dialect and thus are related to a more general perception of rural areas (126). This suggestion for treating dialect in translation could be also applied to the translation of rural language in Three Men in a Boat. The translation of colloquial language and especially of language of villagers involves greater variety on the part of the novel’s translators. For example, in the following extract J. meets a party of ‘Arrys and ‘Arriets (i.e. young village people) and asks them where the Wallingford lock is. They answer in this way:

 “Wallingford lock!” they answered. “Lor’ love you, sir, that’s been done away with for over a year. There ain’t no Wallingford lock now, sir. You’re close to Cleeve now. Blow me tight if ‘ere ain’t a gentleman been looking for Wallingford lock, Bill!” (Jerome 90)

Non-standard, colloquial form of English is evidently used in this example. Short forms such as ‘ain’t’, ‘’ere’, and exclamations like ‘Lor’ love you’ and ‘blow me tight’ indicate that the characters do not use standard language. Despite this fact, Y.Lisnyak uses standard Ukrainian in his translation:

- До Волінгфордського  шлюзу? – перепитали мене. –  Господь з вами. Сер, його вже  більше року як розібрано. Ніякого  Волінгфордського шлюзу давно нема. Ви вже підпливаєте до Кліва. Чуєш, Біле, щоб я пропав, ось якийсь джентльмен шукає Волінгфордського шлюзу! (Лісняк, 119-120)

Lisnyak opts for rather formal language which one would not expect from young village people and thus spoils Jerome’s intention to vivify the narration by the rural language and to differentiate the villagers from the middle-class characters of J., George and Harris.

Another example can be observed in which non-standard English is used by the churchyard keeper:

“I’m a-coming, sur, I’m a-coming. I’m a little lame. I ain’t as spry as I used to be. This way, sur.”

“Go away, you miserable old man,” I said.

 “I’ve come as soon as I could, sur,” he replied. “My missis never see you till just this minute. You follow me, sur.” (Jerome 65)

Here is the translator’s solution:

- Іду, йду, пане. Вже йду. Ноги старі, не такий моторний став, як був колись. Ось сюдою, пане.

- Дайте спокій, діду, не в’язніть,- відказав я.

- Я поспішав. Як  міг. Пане, - запевнив він. –  Моя стара оце тільки вас  побачила. Йдіть за мною, пане. (Лісняк, 89).

Y.Lisnyak again employs standard Ukrainian which does not match the colloquial original text and spoils the comic effect and mockery created by the use of the colloquial language.

Translation of the register-based methods for creating humour should not cause any major problems as it basically involves a change of register. In the following example two registers – formal and slightly colloquial – are juxtaposed:

I impressed the fact upon George and Harris and told them that they had better leave the whole matter entirely to me. They fell into the suggestion with a readiness that had something uncanny about it. George put on a pipe and spread himself over the easy-chair, and Harris cocked his legs on the table and lit a cigar. (Jerome 36 – 7)

The first sentence of the extract is formal in tone, the expression ‘impressed the fact upon’ being employed, whereas in the rest of the extract the language becomes more colloquial since the phrasal verbs (‘fall into’, ‘put on’) and expressions such as ‘spread himself’ and ‘cocked his legs’ are used. What follows are the translator’s renderings of this passage:

Отже, я втлумачив  це Джорджеві й Гарісу і сказав їм, що найкраще буде, коли вони полишать це діло на мене. Мою пропозицію вони прийняли так радо, що я аж спантеличився. Джордж запалив люльку й розсівся в кріслі, а Гаріс сів у друге, поклав ноги на стіл і закурив сигару. (Лісняк, 52)

In this translation the transition to informal and colloquial language is not quite apparent.

 As for bathos, or a sudden switch in style, differences in the Ukrainian renderings occur as well. In the following passage, the first direct speech is formed by poetic, pensive language, while in the second direct speech the author switches to commonplace, dispassionate style thus creating humorous effect:

“Hark! do you not hear? Is it but the mermaids singing deep below the waving waters; or sad spirits, chanting dirges for white corpses, held by seaweed?”

Harris would take you by the arm, and say:

 “I know what it is, old man; you’ve got a chill. Now, you come along with me. I know a place round the corner here, where you can get a drop of the finest Scotch whisky you ever tasted – put you right in less than no time.” (Jerome 19)

 

- Слухай! Невже  не чуєш? Це, мабуть, русалки співають  у глибинах або ж сумні духи тужать над білими тілами утоплих, заплутаними у водоростях!

Він візьме вас  під руку й відкаже: «Я знаю, що це таке. В тебе гарячка, ти, мабуть, застудився. Ходім-но зі мною. Я тут за рогом  знаю одне місце. Там можна випити чарочку такого шотландського віскі, як ти ще зроду не пив. І все вмить мов рукою зніме». (Лісняк, 29)

Translator successfully preserve the poetic and emotional tone of the first part. He also switch into commonplace and informal style in the second part

 To conclude this chapter on register, I would like to sum up the Ukrainian translator’s approaches to dealing with register in Three Men in a Boat. Y.Lisnyak tends to stick to standard Ukrainian in all the cases of register mentioned, i.e. formal, colloquial register and language of villagers. He avoids using colloquiality (except for occasional informal expressions that occur in spoken language – however, these expressions are still in the standard Ukrainian forms) contained in the original and thus spoils a part of its humour.

 

CHAPTER V. Pragmatics, Wordplay, Ambiguity

5.1 Pragmatics, Wordplay and Ambiguity in Three Men in a Boat

 

In a study concerning humorous devices, the concept of pragmatics must be definitely mentioned. Pragmatics focuses on “the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)” (Yule 3). In other words, it is concerned with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances rather than with the meanings of the individual words used in those utterances. In this kind of study it is necessary to consider the context in which the utterances occur and how the context influences what is said (Yule 3).

Humour elicited by pragmatics relies on a gap between the sense and force of the utterance. The sense refers to the information an utterance conveys, whereas the force pertains to the variety of messages the utterance offers in a given context (Ross 39). Thus, misunderstanding may occur when a person misinterprets what is said by the speaker/writer and incorrectly infers, or deduces, the message. Here is an example from Three Men in a Boat, in which the three characters discuss what to pack for their trip:

 “Begin with breakfast.” (George is so practical.) “Now for breakfast we shall want a frying-pan” – (Harris said it was indigestible; but we merely urged him not to be an ass, and George went on) – “a tea-pot and a kettle, and a methylated spirit stove.” (Jerome 30)

This example is based on the ambiguity of the phrase ‘we shall want a frying-pan’. The intended meaning is easily retrievable from the context of the situation, however, Harris pretends to misinterpret George’s utterance ‘we shall want a frying-pan’ as ‘we shall want to eat a frying-pan’ instead of ‘we shall need a frying-pan’. Therefore, he makes a remark about the frying-pan being indigestible, which creates a comic effect.

 Another possible source of ambiguity consists in the way speakers co-operate in a conversation. The philosopher H. P. Grice in his theory of co-operative principle suggests that in conversational interaction people rely on the assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation (Thomas 62). These rules should help them to avoid ambiguity and to interpret an utterance correctly. He also proposes four conversational maxims that contribute (if followed) to our understanding what the intended message of an utterance is (Thomas 63 – 4):

 Maxim of quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.