From the Other Side of the Looking Glass: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Account of Translating Lewis Carroll

Abstract

The present paper offers a cognitive-pragmatic account of the translation of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. More specifically, its main objective is to analyse the translation of puns in a corpus consisting of one Galician and six Spanish versions of the mentioned novels from a relevance-theoretic perspective. The analysis is based on 959 textual fragments which correspond to the 137 ST extracts which contained wordplay. The results show that translation technique selection is determined, among other factors, by the principle of relevance. In those cases in which there is a coincidence in the relation between the levels of signifier and signified across source and target language, translators normally opt to translate literally and reproduce a congenial pun. In the rest of the cases, translators still strive to produce a pun which, even if it is not able to reproduce the meanings of the ST pun, at least gives rise to some of the cognitive effects intended by the original author, particularly those associated with the processing of wordplay. Other solutions adopted by translators include the sacrifice of secondary information, a non-selective translation containing the different meanings of the ST pun in a non-punning context, the resort to diffuse paraphrase, punoid, editorial means, or transference. Variables such as the specific version considered or the type of pun have been found to have an effect on the choice of translation technique. Moreover, it has also been proved that choice of translation technique and use of editorial means were interconnected.

1 Introduction

One of the most defining characteristics of the language of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There is the overwhelming abundance of wordplay. In consonance with their ludic tone, language is one of the elements which is used to play with in those two novels.¹ In fact, in both books 137 puns have been identified. Partly because of that, the translation of those two literary works into any language represents a real challenge. The main objective of the present study involves analysing the techniques used by the translators of six different Spanish versions and one Galician version of the two mentioned novels to render wordplay in their target texts (TTs)² from a cognitive-pragmatic standpoint. More specifically, the framework used in this study is Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory.³ All in all, then, our corpus consists of 959 textual fragments corresponding to 137 source text (ST) extracts containing wordplay.

The second section of this chapter will be devoted to a brief explanation of the relevance-theoretic account of translation and specifically of the translation of wordplay, Sect. 3 will focus on the different techniques used by the translators to face wordplay, and Sect. 4 presents and discusses the results of the study. Finally, the chapter is closed with the conclusions section, followed by the bibliographical references.

2 Relevance Theory and the Translation of Wordplay

Relevance Theory, which originated in the late 1980s, is one of the most influential theoretical frameworks within the field of pragmatics. It departs from the assumption that human beings are programmed to address their attention to that which is relevant to them, or in other words, to that which may produce changes in their cognitive environment. Those changes are technically called cognitive effects. From a relevance-theoretic standpoint, the more cognitive effects a given stimulus gives rise to, the more relevant it will be. However, those cognitive effects must be put in relation to the effort needed to derive them, since an increase in the effort needed to process a given utterance will go to the detriment of its relevance. Thus,

• (a) Other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects achieved by processing an input, the greater the relevance of the input to the individual at that time.

• (b) Other things being equal, the greater the processing effort expended, the lower the relevance of the input to the individual at that time (Wilson & Sperber 2004: 609).

In this sense, one of the main principles of Relevance Theory is the principle of relevance, according to which, “[h]uman cognition tends to be geared to the maximization of relevance” (Wilson & Sperber 2004: 610). In other words, an addressee will make the effort to process a given statement if s/he considers that the statement will be relevant, or in relevance-theoretic terms, will be able to modify his/her cognitive environment. As will be seen below, many of the decisions taken by a translator can be explained by resorting to the principle of relevance.

Another assumption which is particularly important in the case of translation is the difference between the descriptive use and the interpretive use of language. In this sense, language is said to be used descriptively when a given utterance is intended to be taken as true of a state of affairs in some possible world. On the contrary, language is said to be used interpretively when an utterance represents what someone else has said or thought. Thus, in (1a) below Alice uses the utterance “I’m not a Monster” to claim that the state of affairs that the utterance describes is true. In (1b), however, Alice does not necessarily claim that the state of affairs described by the same utterance is true. That is to say, whereas in (1a) the utterance is being used descriptively, in (1b) it is being used interpretively. As regards the interpretive use of language, there is a relation of interpretive resemblance between the original utterance and that other utterance used to represent it. The degree of interpretive resemblance will depend on the amount of implicatures and explicatures shared between the two utterances.⁴

(1)	a.	Alice: “I’m not a Monster.”
	b.	Alice: The Unicorn said, “I’m not a Monster.”

It has been pointed out more than once (Gutt 1990, 1991, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005; Rosales Sequeiros 2002, 2005; Alves & Gonçalves 2003, 2007, 2010; Zhonggang 2006; Jing 2010; Martínez-Sierra 2010; Yus 2012; Díaz-Pérez 2013, 2014) that Relevance Theory can be applied to translation. From a relevance-theoretic perspective, translation involves interpretive use across languages. In this connection, Relevance Theory allows the study of intra- and inter-lingual verbal communication as manifestations of the same underlying concepts, and in this sense, offers a unified theory of verbal communication.

Amongst the different applications of Relevance Theory to translation, Gutt’s has been the most influential one. According to him,

From the relevance-theory point of view, translation falls naturally under the interpretive use of language: the translation is intended to restate in one language what someone else said or wrote in another language. In principle it is, therefore, comparable to quoting or speech-reporting in intra-linguistic use. One of its primary distinctions setting it off from intra-lingual quoting or reporting is that original text and translation belong to different languages (Gutt 1998: 46).

From the perspective of this relevance-theoretic view of translation, the relation between a translation and its ST is considered to be based on interpretive resemblance. After analysing the original author’s assumed intentions and assessing the cognitive environment shared by ST addresser and TT addressee, the translator may adopt different techniques to try to recreate the cognitive effects intended by the original writer with the lowest possible processing effort by the TT receptor. In a subsequent expansion of his application of Relevance Theory to translation, Gutt (2004) claims that when translation brings into contact a communicator and an audience with different cognitive environments, additional sophistication is required, namely the human beings’ capacity of metarepresentation.⁵ Metarepresentation involves the ability to represent in one’s mind how other human beings represent states of affairs in the world in their minds. The translator needs to metarepresent not only the shared cognitive environment between the original communicator and his/her audience, but also the target receptors’ cognitive environment. In Gutt (2005), translation is defined as a higher-order act of communication (HOAC), “an act of communication that is about another (lower-order) act of communication” (Gutt 2005: 25). Since the lower-order act of communication consists of a stimulus and an intended interpretation, according to Gutt (2005: 34) two modes of higher-order communication can be distinguished, namely the stimulus-oriented mode (or s-mode) and the interpretation-oriented mode (or i-mode).

As regards the particular case of the translation of puns, the difficulty it entails is something obvious, which has been highlighted on several occasions. According to Delabastita, the reason for this difficulty is that

the semantic and pragmatic effects of source text wordplay find their origin in particular structural characteristics of the source language for which the target language more often than not fails to produce a counterpart, such as the existence of certain homophones, near-homophones, polysemic clusters, idioms or grammatical rules. (Delabastita 1994: 223)

Particularly those cases in which there is lack of symmetry between the levels of form and meaning across languages are the most challenging ones for the translator, since they demand a higher degree of creativity, as emphasized more than once (Levý 1969; Gutt 2000; Sanderson 2009; Marco 2010). The translator will have to decide whether it is more important to be faithful to content or to the effect produced by wordplay. It has been argued (Asimakoulas 2004; Díaz-Cintas & Remael 2014; Yus 2012) that the preferable solution in these cases is that which involves the creation of a new pun, even if (part of) the content had to be sacrificed. From the perspective of Relevance Theory, this solution is said to recreate the cognitive effects produced by the processing of wordplay.

Yus (2012) presents several examples of jokes based on puns. Adopting a relevance-theoretic standpoint, he defends that a translator’s most important task is to preserve those inferential strategies which made the derivation of humorous effects possible in the source language (SL). That task very often demands that the semantic content should be changed completely. The pragmatic scenario predicted by the SL communicator would then be preserved in the target language (TL), not only in the quantity and quality of inferential strategies, but also in the balance of cognitive effects and mental effort (Yus 2012: 144).⁶ One of the examples used by Yus (2012) is the following joke from the film The Naked Gun, which plays on different senses of the subsentential utterance Goodyear?, which can encode both the explicature “Was the typical blimp with the Goodyear logo on it?” and the explicature “Was it a good year?” For the cognitive effects associated with the processing of wordplay triggering humour to be reproduced in the TT, the translator had to change the cultural and semantic scenarios. Cultural references such as Orange Bowl and Goodyear, which are unlikely to be part of a Spanish speaker’s cognitive environment,⁷ have been changed into Conserva del Norte (“fish cans from the North of Spain”) and Bonito (signifier meaning both “variety of tuna fish from the North of Spain” and “nice”). This change of scenario has allowed the translator to include a pun on the subsentential utterance ¿Bonito?, which could encode the explicatures “were the cans of bonito fish?” and “was it nice?”.

(2)	a.	SL JOKE.
		DREBIN: lt’s the same old story: boy finds girl, girl finds boy, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girl dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year’s Day.
		JANE: Goodyear?
		DREBIN: No, the worst. (The Naked Gun)
	b.	TL TRANS.
		DREBIN: La historia de siempre. Chico conoce chica, chico pierde chica, chica conoce chico, chico olvida chica, chico recuerda chica, chica muere en trágico accidente en globo anunciando pescado en Conserva del Norte.
		JANE: ¿Bonito?
		DREBIN: No, fue horrible.
	c.	BACK TRANS.
		DREBIN: The same old story: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl meets boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girl dies in a tragical blimp accident while making publicity for canned fish from the North (of Spain).
		JANE: Tuna fish? (Or: Was it nice?)
		DREBIN: No, it was horrible . (Yus 2012: 140–141)

3 Techniques for the Translation of Puns

Following Hurtado Albir (2001: 268) and Marco (2010: 265), the term technique has been employed in this paper instead of other labels which have also been used to refer to the same notion, such as strategy, method, solution-type, or procedure. Taking Hurtado Albir’s (2001: 268) definition as a basis, a translation technique can be described as a procedure, normally at the verbal level, which has a functional character and which refers to a textual fragment. According to Hurtado Albir (1996, 1999, 2001) and Molina & Hurtado Albir (2002), a translation strategy, in turn, is a conscious or unconscious, verbal or non-verbal procedure used during the translation process with an objective in mind. Translation strategies include strategies for comprehension and strategies for reformulation. As argued more than once (Zabalbeascoa 2004; Marco 2004, 2007, 2010), typologies of translation techniques for specific translation problems are better suited to explaining the particularities of each problem than general classifications, considered valid for any textual fragment.⁸ Ten different techniques have been identified to translate puns in the corpus used in this study, which in turn have been grouped into six categories, as shown in Table 1.⁹ These techniques are explained in the sub-sections below from the point of view of Relevance Theory.

Table 1 Techniques for the translation of puns in the corpus

3.1 Preservation of the Pragmatic and Semantic Scenarios: Punning Correspondence

Although often considered to be a very difficult task, a ST pun more often than expected finds a punning counterpart in the TT. In this way, in relevance-theoretic terms, all those ST-intended cognitive effects associated with the processing of wordplay will be accessible to the TT receptor as well. Following Yus (2012), it could be said that when this is the case, the pragmatic scenario is preserved, even though very often the semantic scenario may have to be sacrificed, as will be discussed in Sect. 3.2.1. On some other occasions, however, as presented in this sub-section, a coincidence in the relation between the levels of signifier and signified across languages will allow the translator to adhere to both the ST semantic and pragmatic scenarios.

In those cases in which there is a lucky coincidence in the relation between form and content across SL and TL, the translator frequently takes the opportunity and reproduces a congenial pun in the TT. The term congenial pun has been used by Delabastita (1993: 196) to refer to a TT pun which reflects the same semantic ambiguity as its ST counterpart and which is based on the same linguistic phenomenon. Previous to the application of this technique, the translator will have to correctly metarepresent the cognitive environments of ST communicator and TT receptor.

The following excerpt contains a polysemic and horizontal pun on the verb find,¹⁰ whose meaning in its first and third occurrences is “to consider or regard as” (s1), whereas in the other occurrences the content is “to come upon by chance or in the course of events” (s2).¹¹ By translating the punning fragment literally into Spanish (3b) and Galician (3c), a congenial pun has been reproduced in the TT, since the verbs encontrar and atopar are also polysemic respectively in Spanish and Galician, and they transmit the same senses as their English counterpart.

(3)	a.	‘Edwin and Morcar, the earls of Mercia and Northumbria, declared for him; and even Stigand, the patriotic archbishop of Canterbury, found it advisable—’”12
		“Found what?” said the Duck.
		“Found it,” the Mouse replied rather crossly: “of course you know what ‘it’ means.”
		“I know what ‘it’ means well enough, when I find a thing,” said the Duck: “it’s generally a frog, or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?” (Carroll 2000/1865: 32)13
	b.	Edwin y Morcar, condes que eran a la sazón de los condados de Mercia y Northumbria, se pusieron de su parte. Incluso Stigand, honra y prez de patriotas, arzobispo que era de la sede episcopal de Canterbury, lo encontró oportuno en aquellas circunstancias…
		Pero ¿se puede saber qué es lo que encontró? –preguntó el Pato.
		Encontró «lo» –respondió irritado el Ratón–, ¿o es que acaso no sabe usted lo que significa «lo»?
		¡Pues claro que sé lo que significa «lo»! -contestó el Pato-. ¡Pero he de ser yo el que «lo» encuentre! Y «lo» que yo encuentro suele ser una rana o algún gusano. Pero aquí se trata de averiguar «lo» que encontró ese arzobispo… (Buckley 2005: 130–131)14
	c.	… Edwin e Morcar, Condes de Mercia e Northumbria, apoiárono, e mesmo Stigand, o patriota arcebispo de Canterbury, foi con Edgardo Atheling ó encontro de Guillermo para ofrccerlle a coroa, atopándoo ben aconsellable …
		¿Atopando o que? – dixo o Parrulo.
		Atopándoo – contestou o Rato enfurruñado-; vostede sabe perfectamente o que significa o nestes casos.
		Ben sei o que significa o cando son eu o que atopo algo, que é case sempre un sapo ou un verme. Pero o que digo eu é, ¿que foi o que atopou o arcebispo? (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 46 and 48)

In (4) there is a horizontal pun based on the homophony between tea and the name of the letter T. Both in Spanish and Galician té and T are also homophones and, leaving aside certain different connotations, the semantic content is basically the same in the occurrences of the two lexical items both in ST and TT, so that a word for word translation has reproduced a congenial pun in the TT. Even though the presence of a pun demands a higher processing effort, this is compensated by the yielding of additional cognitive effects, as signalled more than once (Tanaka 1992, 1994; Yus 2003, 2008; Van Mulken et al. 2005; Higashimori 2011; Solska 2012). The additional cognitive effects are not only derived from the existence of at least two meanings, but also from the presence of a pun and from its processing. As Solska (2012: 180) puts it, “cognitive effects are not limited to the additional propositional content, but include such benefits as the appreciation of wittiness or the enjoyment of humour”.¹⁵

(4)	a.	“I’m a poor man, your Majesty,” the Hatter began in a trembling voice, “and I hadn’t but just begun my tea—not above a week or so—and what with the bread-and-butter getting so thin—and the twinkling of the tea—”
		“The twinkling of what ?” said the King.
		“It began with the tea,” the Hatter replied.
		“Of course twinkling begins with a T!” said the King sharply. “Do you take me for a dunce? Go on!” (Carroll 2000/1865: 79)
	b.	–Soy un pobre hombre, Su Majestad –empezó con voz temblorosa el Sombrerero–, y aún no había empezado el té… hará cosa de una semana… y con las pocas tostadas… y con el titilar del té…
		–¿El titilar de qué? –preguntó el Rey.
		–La cosa empezó con té, y… –replicó el Sombrerero.
		–¿Titilar? ¡Claro que empieza con T! –le cortó el Rey–. ¿Me tomas porzopenco? ¡Sigue! (Maristany 1986: 120)
	c.	-Eu valer non vallo cousa. Maxestade –empezou o Sombreireiro, con voz tremente– e aínda non empezara a merendar… non haberá máis dunha semana ou así… e co pan con manteiga máis fino de cada vez, e o tintilar do té …
		-¿O tintilar do que? -dixo o Rei.
		-Empezou co té -replicou o Sombreireiro.
		-¡Ben sei que tintilar empeza cun T -dixo o Rei
		asperamente-. ¿Coidas que son un simplorio? ¡Continúa! (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 148–149)

Whereas in (4) the ST contained a phonetic pun based on homophony, the ST pun in (5) is a syntactic one. Thus, the phrase a minute can be analysed as a time adjunct – which is the most likely interpretation – or as a direct object of the verb stop. This second analysis gives rise to a much more unlikely but also possible interpretation, and it is in fact the king’s interpretation of Alice’s utterance, which produces humorous effects. The literal translation of that sequence into Galician has produced a congenial pun which will allow the TT addressee to retrieve the ST-author-intended cognitive effects without investing unnecessary processing effort.

(5)	“Would you—be good enough—” Alice panted out, after running a little further, “to stop a minute— just to get—one’s breath again?”
	“I’m good enough,” the King said, “only I’m not strong enough. You see, a minute goes by so fearfully quick. You might as well try to stop a Bandersnatch!” (Carroll 2000/1871: 144)
	–¿Tería a bondade… de… parar un minuto… xusto… para coller folgos? –arquexou Alicia, despois de correr un pedazo máis.
	–Bondade teño –dixo o Rei– · o que non teño é a forza. ¡Un minuto pasa tan axiña! Iso é coma querer parar a un Bandarpillán! (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 124–125)

In the three previous examples, the translators have decided to keep the original puns by translating the sequences in which the puns are inscribed word for word, so that the target addressees could recover from their cognitive environments the encoded meanings of the lexical items encontrar, atopar, and té and of the phrase parar un minuto, Thus, the target audience would be able to recognize the existence of a pun and to recover the cognitive effects intended in the ST. The degree of interpretive resemblance corresponding to this translation technique is a very high one, because of the high amount of implicatures and explicatures shared by ST and TT. As mentioned above, apart from the lucky coincidence that the correspondence between form and content is identical or almost identical in SL and TL, the translator decides to apply this translation technique after metarepresenting the cognitive environments of source writer and target reader. With regard to (5), the analysis could be summarized in the following way:

Cognitive environment and Effects (source culture)

Existing Assumptions (EA)

• 1. In the English sequence to stop a minute the phrase a minute is an adverbial which refers to duration.

• 2. Although much more unlikely, in the sequence to stop a minute the NP a minute can also be interpreted as the direct object of the verb stop.

• 3. The two previous interpretations can be combined in a pun.

Contextual Assumptions (CA)

• 1. Both Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There abound in puns.

• 2. Much of the humour in the two novels is based on puns.

• 3. Many of the characters in both novels interpret linguistic utterances in unusual ways, sometimes nonsensical or literal.

• 4. The King’s answer indicates that he has misunderstood Alice’s request, interpreting the sequence stop a minute in an unlikely but possible way.

Cognitive Effects (CE)

• 1. CA1 reinforces mainly EA3, but also EA2 and EA1.

• 2. CA2 reinforces EA2 and EA3.

• 3. CA3 reinforces EA2.

• 4. CA4 reinforces EA2.

• 5. Contextual implication: the combination of CA3 and CA4 with EA2 and EA3 produces a surprising and amusing effect, because what might seem an unlikely interpretation – that in which a minute is the direct object of stop – is relevant in this context, and this produces humorous effects.

The five cognitive effects derived would also be accessible to the target reader without gratuitous processing effort, as s/he would depart from the same assumptions. As a result of the technique adopted, then, the target addressee can have access to roughly the same cognitive effects intended by the source communicator.¹⁶ Had the translators opted to reflect the meaning in the previous fragments without reproducing wordplay in the TT, the target addressee would have had to invest less processing effort, but conversely the ST-intended cognitive effects would have been sacrificed. The target receptor, then, would have been deprived of the processing of wordplay and, consequently, of the cognitive effects – humorous or of any other type – associated with that processing.

3.2 Preservation of the Pragmatic Scenario

3.2.1 Change of Pun

Despite the fact that, as seen in the previous sub-section, a ST pun occasionally may have a congenial TT counterpart, in the majority of cases the relation between form and content across SL and TL is an asymmetrical one. It is in these cases that the translator will have to decide whether content or the cognitive effects associated with the processing of wordplay should prevail. If the translator decides to preserve those effects associated with the processing of wordplay, a new pun will have to be created, at the expense of a larger or smaller sacrifice of the semantic content.

In (6) there is a phonologic pun on Tortoise and taught us. As the literal translation into either Spanish or Galician would not reproduce the pun in the TT and the pun is highly relevant in this case due to the humorous cognitive effects it gives rise to, the translators of 6 out of the 7 versions studied decided to create a new pun in the TT. Thus, in (6b) there is a morphological pun on galápago, “fresh water turtle”, which is interpreted as though it were composed of the morphemes gala and pago,¹⁷ in (6c) the pun is idiomatic, playing on the literal and idiomatic senses of the set phrase tener más conchas que un galápago, respectively “to have more shells than a turtle” and “to be a sly one”, and in (7d) the Galician TT pun is based on the paronymy between Sapoconcho, “turtle”, and sabio chocho, “doddering wise man”.

(6)	a.	“The master was an old Turtle—we used to call him Tortoise—”
		“Why did you call him Tortoise, if he wasn’t one?” Alice asked.
		“We called him Tortoise because he taught us,” said the Mock Turtle angrily. (Carroll 2000/1865: 70)
	b.	El maestro era una vieja tortuga a la que llamábamos Galápago.
		− ¿Por qué lo llamaban Galápago, si no era un galápago? − preguntó Alicia.
		− Lo llamábamos Galápago porque siempre estaba diciendo que tenía a «gala» enseñar en una escuela de «pago» −explicó la Falsa Tortuga de mal humor − (El Cid 2009: 131–132).
	c.	«El maestro era una vieja tortuga al que llamábamos Galápago».
		«Y ¿por qué lo llamaban ‘Galápago’ si no lo era?», preguntó Alicia.
		«Lo llamábamos ‘Galápago’», replicó muy molesta la Tortuga Artificial, «por las muchas conchas que tenía, ¡naturalmente! ¡Vaya pregunta! (Ojeda 1976: 152)
	d.	O mestre era un Sapoconcho xa vello (que nós chamabásmolle Sabiochocho) …
		− ¿E logo por que lle chamaban así? –preguntou Alicia.
		− Chamabámoslle Chocho porque ás veces, cando se ía da clase, estaba ido, e sabio, porque cada un sabe de si –dixo a Tartaruga de Imitación, toda enfadada–. (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 127)

Whereas in (6) at least one of the senses in the TT puns coincided with one of the senses realized in the ST pun, on some other occasions the TT pun is completely unrelated to its ST counterpart from a semantic point of view. In other words, neither of its meanings coincides with the meanings realized by the original pun. That is the case of (7), which contains two instances of wordplay. The first ST pun is a horizontal and phonologic one, based on the homophony between flour and flower. As a literal translation into Spanish would not reproduce any pun, the translator of (7b) decided to create a new pun on harina, the Spanish word for flour, and a new element, arena (“sand”). It is in the translation of the second ST pun − that between the past participle of the verb to grind and the noun ground (“soil”) − that its TT counterpart introduces completely new senses, as it plays on two senses of the polysemic word grano in Spanish: “grain (of wheat)” and “spot, pimple”. In the Galician TT (7c), there are also two puns, one on fariña (“flour”) and fouciña (“sickle”) and another one on moer (“to grind”) and mover (“to move”).

(7)	a.	“I know that!” Alice cried eagerly. “You take some flour—”
		“Where do you pick the flower?” the White Queen asked. “In a garden or in the hedges?”
		“Well, it isn’t picked at all,” Alice explained: “it’s ground—”
		“How many acres of ground?” said the White Queen. (Carroll 2000/1871: 160)
	b.	− ¡Esto sí que lo sé! − se apresuró a decir Alicia−. Se pone harina…
		− ¿Arena, dices? − Preguntó la Reina Blanca − .
		− ¿Dónde la pones? ¿En el jardín o en la playa?
		− No dije arena, sino harina − corrigió Alicia − y, propiamente, primero se muele el grano…
		− ¡Moler el grano! − exclamó horrorizada la Reina Blanca−. ¿De la cara? ¡Qué método más salvaje! (Maristany 1986: 259–260)
	c.	− ¡Iso seino! –exclamou Alicia moi animada–. Móese un pouco de fariña…
		− ¿E como moves a fouciña? − preguntou a Raíña Branca−. ¿De esquerda a direita ou de direita a esquerda?
		− Non a moves; a moes no moiño. (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 160)

In (6) and (7), and whenever this technique is used, the translator decides to sacrifice (part of) the semantic scenario and to preserve the pragmatic one, in such a way that the cognitive effects derived from the processing of wordplay may be accessible to the TT audience without gratuitous processing effort. Judging from the translation technique chosen by the translators in these cases, they must have decided that, rather than the specific meanings communicated by the ST puns, what was really relevant was the presence of wordplay in the ST. The degree of interpretive resemblance in this case was lower than in the case of the previous technique.

3.2.2 Punoid

Occasionally, the translator decides to tackle the translation problem which constitutes the object of this study by means of the resort to some type of rhetorical device, such as rhyme, alliteration, repetition, etc. Delabastita (1993, 1994) brings together all those devices under the term Punoid. In (8) the ST pun is a phonologic one based on the homonymy between well as a noun, meaning “a deep hole that is dug in the ground to provide a supply of water”,¹⁸ and as an intensifying adverb. The ST puns in (9) and (10) are both phonologic puns based on homonymy, respectively between the noun miss (“[a] form of address to a (usually young) woman”¹⁹) and the verb miss (“[n]ot to be in time for”²⁰) and between the noun mine – “[a]n excavation in the earth for extracting coal or other minerals”²¹ – and the pronoun mine -“[u]sed to refer to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the speaker”²² –. The rhetorical devices used by translators have been rhyme in (8) and (9) and alliteration – specifically of nasal sounds – in (10).

(8)	“But they were in the well,” Alice said to the Dormouse, not choosing to notice this last remark.
	“Of course they were,” said the Dormouse: “well in.”
	This answer so confused poor Alice, that she let the Dormouse go on for some time without interrupting it. (Carroll 2000/1865: 59)
	«Pero ¡es que estaban dentro del pozo!», insistió Alicia dirigiéndose al Lirón y no queriendo darse por enterada del calificativo que le acababa de propinar el Sombrerero.
	«Pues claro que estaban dentro, ¡y bien en el centro!», declaró el Lirón. Esta contestación dejó a Alicia tan aturdida que no volvió a interrumpir al Lirón durante algún rato. (Ojeda 1976: 126)
(9)	“That would never do, I’m sure,” said Alice: “the governess would never think of excusing me lessons for that. If she couldn’t remember my name, she’d call me ‘Miss,’ as the servants do.”
	“Well, if she said ‘Miss,’ and didn’t say anything more,” the Gnat remarked, “of course you’d miss your lessons. That's a joke. I wish you had made it.” (Carroll 2000/1871: 114)
	No está tan claro –repuso Alicia–. La institutriz encontraría la manera de salvar esa dificultad..Se inventaría algún nombre para llamarme… Diría, por ejemplo, ¡Venga aquí… señorita!
	– Pues entonces tú le contestas: ¿Dice usted que hay… visita?. ¡Pues entonces no hay clase! –exclamó el Mosquito–. Bueno… ¿Qué te ha parecido el chiste? ¡Se te podía haber ocurrido a ti! (Buckley 2005: 274)
(10)	“there’s a large mustard-mine near here. And the moral of that is—‘The more there is of mine, the less there is of yours.’” (Carroll 2000/1865: 68)
	aquí pretiño hai unha gran mina de mostarda. E a lección moral diso é … “Canta máis hai na miña mina menos haberá na túa.” (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 123)

As highlighted by Marco (2010), this technique – which he calls pun → related rhetorical device – “implies using some kind of rhetorical compensation for the loss of the pun proper — even though the borderline between the pun proper and such devices as rhyme or alliteration is far from clear-cut” (Marco 2010: 280). From a relevance-theoretic perspective, it could be said that by means of the resort to both rhyme and alliteration some of the cognitive effects derivable from the processing of puns have been reproduced in the TT, particularly those related to using language in a playful way. In this sense, the translator – in this technique as well as in the previous one – has given prevalence to the pragmatic scenario over the semantic one in accordance to what a translator should do in Yus’s (2012: 130) opinion.

3.3 Preservation of the Semantic Scenario

On some other occasions, no pun appears in the TT and consequently the pragmatic scenario is sacrificed. The semantic scenario, however, is often (partially) preserved, as shown in 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

3.3.1 Sacrifice of Secondary Information

In (11) there is a vertical polysemic pun on head, which simultaneously means both “[t]he uppermost part of the body of a human” (s1) and “Brit. colloq. A postage stamp” (s2).²³ According to different studies in the field of lexical pragmatics, the meanings of words are very often pragmatically adjusted and fine-tuned in context. As stated in Wilson & Carston (2007: 238), a theory of lexical pragmatics within the framework of Relevance Theory can account for pun-like cases, such as this one, by saying that the interpretation of the noun head in this context involves the construction of an ad hoc concept head* whose denotation includes both s1 and s2.²⁴ Of those two senses contained in the ST pun, however, only the first one is retained in the Galician TT.

(11)	“She must go by post, as she's got a head on her–” (Carroll 2000/1871: 219)
	Ten que ir por correo, que leva unha cabeza… (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 59)

Likewise, in (12), the Spanish TT keeps only one of the two senses reflected in the paronymic pun on Laughing and Grief and Latin and Greek. This pun corresponds to the third type devised by Yus (2003: 1323), in which “[n]o interpretation consistent with the principle of relevance is reached (initially) due to absurd and/or nonsensical punning associations. Only the reliance on a mutually manifest joking intention keeps the hearer searching for a relevant interpretation.” Nevertheless, the translator decided in this case to keep the initial interpretation in a non-punning textual fragment, which gives rise to a textual fragment which does not make much sense.²⁵

(12)	“He taught Laughing and Grief, they used to say.” (Carroll 2000/1865: 71)
	Creo que enseñaba la Risa y la Pena. (Alba 1982: 52)

The translator must have considered that the presence of wordplay is not relevant enough to demand an extra processing effort from the TT receiver. The cognitive effects derived from the processing of wordplay in this case would not offset the extra processing effort the TT recipient would have to invest, the translator must have decided. Therefore, the application of this technique could also be explained by the principle of relevance. Other intervening factors, however, should not be disregarded, such as the translator’s unawareness of the existence of wordplay, his/her inability to find a punning solution, or his/her personal attitude towards punning in general, among others.

3.3.2 Non-selective Translation

Although both techniques coincide in the preservation of the semantic scenario to the detriment of the pragmatic one, in the non-selective translation, contrary to the technique presented in 3.3.1, both of the semantic layers of the ST pun are kept in the TT extract corresponding to it. Unlike the previous technique, the non-selective translation seems to indicate that the translator must have thought that both meanings are equally relevant, and therefore, has decided to convey the two of them to the TT. This implies an increase in the interpretive resemblance between ST and TT. All the originally intended cognitive effects derivable from the processing of a pun, however, will not be accessible to the TT audience in this case either.

In (13a) the signifier draw contains two different meanings, namely s1: “[t]o cause (anything) to move toward oneself by the application of force; to pull” and s2: “[t]o make (a picture or representation of an object) by drawing lines; to design, trace out, delineate”.²⁶ Both meanings are present in the TTs in the sequences dibujar, sacando and sacar debuxos, as dibujar and debuxar are respectively the Spanish and Galician verbs for s1 and sacar is both Spanish and Galician for s2.

(13)	a.	“And so these three little sisters—they were learning to draw, you know—”
		“What did they draw?” said Alice, quite forgetting her promise.
		“Treacle,” said the Dormouse, without considering at all, this time. (Carroll 2000/1865: 58)
	b.	Así pues, nuestras tres hermanitas… estaban aprendiendo a dibujar, sacando…
		– ¿Qué sacaban? – preguntó Alicia, que ya había olvidado su promesa.
		– Melaza -contestó el Lirón, sin tomarse esta vez tiempo para reflexionar. (El Cid 2009: 104)
	c.	– Pois logo estas tres irmás… que estaban aprendendo a sacar debuxos, sacaron…
		– ¿O que sacaron?– dixo Alicia, que esquecera xa que dera palabra de estar calada.
		– Melaza– dixo o Leirón, desta vez sen pararse a pensalo. (Barro & Barreiro 2002: 102–103)

3.4 Preservation of the Cultural Scenario

3.4.1 Transference

By means of the Transference technique, a TT word or sequence acquires the meaning associated with its counterpart in the ST, even if it is not its normal meaning.²⁷ That is the case of catching a crab and its calqued translation apañar un caranguexo in (14). The ST sequence, via lexical broadening, also refers, in a figurative or loose sense, to “making a faulty stroke in rowing whereby the oar becomes jammed”. Both the literal and the figurative interpretations are relevant, and in fact Alice’s literal interpretation of the phrase gives rise to humour. Therefore, the resource to an ad hoc concept can explain the interpretation of the pun, as the verb phrase catch a crab – understood as catch a crab* – may be interpreted literally and figuratively at the same time. The sequence has been calqued or translated word for word into Galician as apañar un caranguexo (14b) and into Spanish as coger un cangrejo (14c), and these TT phrases have adopted the two meanings of the original pun explained above. The figurative meaning is explained in a footnote in the Galician version and in the Spanish version used to illustrate this technique.²⁸ By resorting to this editorial means, the translator makes sure that the target addressee interprets the phrase in the intended way.

(14)	a.	“You’ll be catching a crab directly.”
		“A dear little crab!” thought Alice. “I should like that.” (Carroll 2000/1871: 130)
	b.	“¡Que vas apañar un caranguexo!”
		“¡Un caranguexiño pequeniño!,” pensou Alicia. “¡Gustábame ben coller un!” (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 98)
	c.	O no tardarás en coger un cangrejo.
		«¡Un cangrejito encantador!», pensó Alicia. «Me encantaría». (Torres Oliver 1984: 240)

Similarly, the English proverb a cat may look at a king, which is used to indicate that “there are certain things which an inferior may do in presence of a superior”,²⁹ is source of wordplay, as the sequence is also interpreted in a literal sense. The translators of the seven versions analysed have applied Transference to deal with this pun, as the English proverb has been calqued in all of them, even though the same proverb does not exist in Spanish or Galician. In four of the versions an editorial means is added to explain the meaning of the original proverb, whereas in the remaining three, which do not use editorial techniques, the translators may have decided that the meaning can be easily inferred from the context.

(15)	a.	“A cat may look at a king,” said Alice. (Carroll 2000/1865: 64)
	b.	– Un gato puede mirar a un rey – dijo Alicia –. (Torres Oliver 1984: 109)
	c.	– “Un gato pode ollar para un rei —dixo Alicia—” (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 115)

3.4.2 Direct Copy

Direct copy involves, as its name indicates, a reproduction of the ST pun in the TT in its original form in the SL. It is a technique normally used when at least one of the ST pun semantic layers coincides with a cultural reference. In different typologies of techniques for the translation of cultural references, other names used instead of Direct copy are exoticism (Haywood et al. 2009), loan (Díaz-Cintas and Remael 2014), repetition (Franco Aixelà 1996), or retention (Pedersen 2011). The technique has been rarely used in our corpus, mainly when dealing with proper nouns which involve a pun,³⁰ as in (16) and (17). In the first case there is a pun on hatter, whereas in the second case the ST pun is on L. C., the initials of Lorina Charlotte.

(16)	“The other Messenger’s called Hatta” (Carroll 2000/1871: 142)
	El otro mensajero se llama Hatta. (Maristany 1986: 225)31
(17)	“and their names were Elsie, Lacie, and Tillie;11 and they lived at the bottom of a well—” (Carroll 2000/1865: 58)
	– Había una vez tres hermanitas –empezó apresuradamente el Lirón–, que se llamaban Elsie, Lacie y Tillie, y vivían en el fondo de un pozo… (Torres Oliver 1984: 96)32

A more surprising case of the application of this technique can be found in (18), a TT fragment corresponding to the ST pun introduced in (9). Instead of devising a solution in the TL, in this case the translator has decided to reproduce the pun in the SL accompanied by a footnote.³³ The adoption of the Direct copy technique gives rise to an ungrammatical textual fragment in the TL in this case.³⁴ The adoption of this translation technique may produce a barbarism or “[a] translation error where the translator uses an inappropriate calque, borrowing, or literal translation that is perceived as foreign to the linguistic sensibilities of the target audience” (Delisle et al. 1999: 121), or an Anglicism – “[a] borrowing from English into another language” (Delisle et al. 1999: 118) –.³⁵ Direct copy involves an extreme case of foreignizing translation in Venuti’s (1995: 20) terms, since the cultural values and, in this case, the language of the source or foreign culture are present in the TT. The linguistic and cultural difference of the ST is thus registered and the “cultural other is manifested” (Venuti 1995: 20), in such a way that the target reader is sent abroad. At the opposite end of the scale, domestication (Venuti 1995: 23) or naturalization (Jaskanen 1999: 44) involves replacing the ST cultural referent by a more local or accessible one.

(18)	Nunca sucederá eso, estoy segura –dijo Alicia–. La institutriz nunca pensaría en no darme lecciones por eso. Si no pudiera recordar mi nombre, diría para llamar “¡Señorita!”, como hacen los sirvientes.
	Bueno, si dice miss y no dice nada más –observó el Mosquito– por supuesto tú miss tus clases. Esto es un chiste. Me gustaría que tú lo hubieras hecho. (Alba 1982: 104)

The fact that in this case the punning words have been left in the SL may also contribute to the creation of cognitive effects associated with different aspects of the source culture. Particularly in the case of Direct copy, but also in the case of Transference, the extent to which the target addressee derives cognitive effects intended by the source communicator will depend on the target addressee’s knowledge of the English language and culture. In this sense, Martínez-Sierra (2010: 202–203) highlights the importance of shared knowledge of the world between the source and the target audience when translating humour. A higher quantity of existing assumptions shared by both audiences will increase the probability of obtaining an analogous degree of relevance to the target addressee. Zabalbeascoa (2005: 204), in this sense, mentions contrastive differences in the background knowledge of source and target audiences as one of the obstacles which will have to be overcome during the translation process.

The Direct copy technique represents a clear case of stimulus-oriented mode or s-mode, according to Gutt (2005), as the higher-order communicator − or translator in this case − reproduces another token of the original stimulus. In s-mode the target audience “is practically independent of the interpretive activities of the higher-order communicator” or translator (Gutt 2005: 38). The decisive factor which will determine how close the target receptor’s interpretation gets to that of the source addressee is the extent to which s/he can have access to the originally intended context.

3.5 None of the Scenarios Preserved

3.5.1 Omission

In this case, the textual fragment which contains the original pun is simply omitted in the translation. This may imply a decision on the part of the translator that neither the pun nor the meanings realized by that pun are relevant enough to be rendered in the TT. The textual fragment which activates the pun between the noun mine and the possessive pronoun mine in the ST in (19) has disappeared from the TT. This solution deprives the target audience of the possibility to access the cognitive effects related to the processing of wordplay and also those cognitive effects derivable from at least one of the meanings realized in the original pun.

The ST pun in (20) is a morphologic one, as it is based on a word-formation process, namely blending, by means of which two words are fused into an only word in such a way that their boundaries merge.³⁶ Thus, galumphing is a blend of galloping and triumphing. Carroll himself invented the term portmanteau word to refer to these new coinages.³⁷ This ST word, however, has no textual correspondence at all in the Galician TT.

(19)	Hay una gran mina de mostaza cerca de aquí. Y la moraleja de esto es… (El Cid 2009: 126)
(20)	One, two! One, two! And through and through
	The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
	He left it dead, and with its head
	He went galumphing back. (Carroll 2000/1871: 102)
	¡Zis, zas! ¡Zis, zas! A espada orzal
	bateu de bris, cortou de bras,
	deixouno morto no piñeiral,
	levoulle a testa coas dúas mans. (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 35)

3.5.2 Diffuse Paraphrase

When a non-punning textual fragment corresponds to the ST pun, another possibility involves keeping neither of the meanings realized in the original pun. Following Delabastita (1993: 206), in these cases the TT is said to offer a diffuse paraphrase of the original. In (21) the ST offers an idiomatic pun on much of a muchness, but the counterpart of muchness in the Spanish TT excerpt is maullido, “miaow”, which does not involve a pun and which reflects neither the idiomatic nor the literal meaning of the original sequence. In (22) the ST pun is based on the homonymy between the proper noun Bill and the common noun bill (“[a] note of charges for goods delivered or services rendered”).³⁸ Neither of the semantic layers of this pun is reflected in the non-punning TT extract (“The Rabbit sends a Pancho down the chimney”).

(21)	“—that begins with an M, such as mousetraps, and the moon, and memory, and muchness—you know you say things are ‘much of a muchness’ —did you ever see such a thing as a drawing of a muchness!” (Carroll 2000/1865: 59)
	… todo lo que empieza con M, como: memoria, mostaza, minino, maullido… ¿Has visto alguna vez el dibujo de un maullido? (Alba 1982: 40)
(22)	The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill (Carroll 2000/1865: 36)
	O Coello manda un Pancho pola cheminea abaixo39 (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 55)

Neither the ST pun nor the senses it contains must have been considered relevant enough from the point of view of the translator to be reflected in the TT. Compared with the previous strategies, this one is that in which the degree of interpretive resemblance between ST and TT is lowest. None of the ST scenarios – pragmatic, semantic, or cultural – has been preserved in the TT.

3.6 Amplification: Editorial Means

Translators may also decide to make themselves visible by resorting to a technique known as amplification, which involves the inclusion of specifications which did not appear in the ST. As indicated by Hurtado Albir (2001: 269), editorial means, such as footnotes, can be considered as a special type of amplification. The term used by Franco Aixelà to refer to those cases which involve amplification and in which the explanation is not mixed with the text is extratextual gloss (Franco Aixelá 1996: 62). Under the general label of editorial means, several devices can be included, such as footnotes, endnotes, or commentaries about the translation by means of an introduction or epilogue. The editorial techniques used in the translations analysed in this study fulfil the functions of explaining or commenting on the ST pun, which the translator reproduces literally, paraphrases or explains. The footnote in (23), corresponding to the Galician version of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, explains and paraphrases the ST pun.

(23)

Melaza dise en inglés “treacle,” que tamén significa antídoto (da mesma raíz grega, theriake, có galego triaga). As fontes medicinais de Oxfordshire chamábanse treacle-wells, ou «pozos de triaga». Vivien Greene, a muller de Graham Greene, que moraba en Oxford, foi a primeira en comunicarlle a Martin Gardner, o anotador de Alicia, que nos tempos de Carroll habia un deses pozos en Binwy, preto de Óxford. (Barro & P. Barreiro 2002: 102)

[Melaza is “treacle” in English, which also means antidote (from the same Greek root, theriake, as the Galician word triaga). The medicinal springs of Oxfordshire were called “treacle-wells.” Vivien Greene, Graham Greene's wife, who lived in Oxford, was the first person to tell Martin Gardner, the annotator of Alice, that in Carroll’s age there was one of those wells in Binwy, near Oxford.]

In addition, the editorial means may explicitly reflect on the relationship between the ST and the TT, whether the latter contains a pun or not, as in (24):

(24)	[N. del T.] En inglés to draw significa tanto “dibujar” como “sacar o extraer.” La melaza la “sacaban” y a la vez la “dibujaban.” Por más que se ha estrujado los sesos, el traductor no ha encontrado una palabra castellana que expresara el doble juego del inglés. (Buckley 2005: 177)
	[In English “to draw” means “to sketch” as well as “to extract” or “to pull out.” They both “pulled out” and “sketched” the treacle. However much he racked his brains, the translator has not found a Spanish word which reflected the English pun.]

With respect to the use of editorial techniques, Gutt (2000: 96) says that in those cases in which complete interpretive resemblance is not achieved, due for instance to linguistic differences between the two languages, strategies for preventing communicative failure may be resorted to. Thus, for instance, the translator may alert the audience to the problem and correct the difference by some appropriate means, such as footnotes, endnotes, comments on the text, and so on. The translator, of course, will have to consider in each case whether the correction will be adequately relevant to his or her audience. In other words, a decision will have to be taken as to whether the benefits derived from the correction or editorial technique will outweigh the processing effort required by it.

Jing (2010: 94), in turn, considers that the use of editorial means presents a number of disadvantages, since not only does it disrupt the smoothness of the TT, increasing the target reader’s processing effort, but it also destroys the punning effect and fails to match the source writer’s intention with the target reader’s expectation. Therefore, in her opinion, this solution should be regarded as the last resort for the translation of puns. However, it should be remembered that editorial means are necessarily combined with other strategies, even with the creation of a pun in the TT. And in those cases in which the TT presents no pun, the editorial means may serve to explain the original pun or its lost sense, for the reader to become aware of the source writer’s punning intention.

3.7 Compensation

Aware that on some occasions the cognitive effects derived from the processing of a pun in the ST will not be accessible to the target audience, the translator may also decide to offer a TT pun corresponding to a textual fragment which does not contain any pun or even with no textual counterpart at all in the ST.

The first case may be found in (25), where the Spanish word pena means both “penalty” and “pity.”

(25)	“She’s under sentence of execution.”
	“What for?” said Alice.
	“Did you say ‘What a pity!’?” the Rabbit asked.
	“No, I didn’t,” said Alice. “I don’t think it’s at all a pity. I said ‘What for?’” (Carroll 2000/1865: 63)
	¡Está bajo pena de muerte!
	– ¿Qué pena?– preguntó Alicia.
	– ¿Has dicho “¡Qué pena!”?– le preguntó a su vez el Conejo.
	– No, no he dicho eso– repuso Alicia–, porque a mí la Duquesa no me da ninguna pena… He querido decir ¿por qué le han dado esa pena? (Buckley 2005: 184)

The second possibility referred to above may be illustrated by means of (26). In this case, the TT contains a pun for which it is impossible to find any corresponding textual material in the ST, as happens with the inserted set phrase a toda costa in the following fragment, which plays on the meanings “along the whole coast” and “at any price”:

(26)	“The reason is,” said the Gryphon, “that they would go with the lobsters to the dance.” (Carroll 2000/1865: 73)
	“La razón es,” dijo el Grifo, “que querían bailar con las langostas a toda costa…” (Ojeda 1976: 163)

Finally, extract (27) serves to illustrate both possibilities, since the ST contains a morphologic pun on bough-wough and bough, which has as a counterpart another morphologic pun on fungar (“to produce a continuous and dull sound, like the wind”) and fungueirazo (“blow struck with a stick”) in the Galician TT, but in addition the Galician extract contains two other puns. One of them is a polysemic one on the noun paos – with the semantic layers “sticks” and “blows” – and the other one, also polysemic, is triggered by the noun leña, meaning both “firewood” and “a beating”. Of those two new TT puns, the first one corresponds to a non-punning ST fragment, whereas the second one does not correspond to any textual fragment at all.

(27)	“It says ‘Bough-wough!’” cried a Daisy. “That’s why its branches are called boughs!” (Carroll 2000/1871: 104)
	– E como funga co vento, pode dar fungueirazos –berrou unha Margarida– e máis dá paos tamén, e leña. (Barro & P. Barreiro 1985: 42)

The point of the resort to this strategy is to make accessible to the target audience those cognitive effects which are derivable from the processing of wordplay and which in many other cases have been lost in the TT. Even if the use of this strategy has as a consequence an increase in the processing effort demanded from the target reader, that additional effort will be compensated for by the creation of new cognitive effects. This is particularly relevant if we take into consideration that the target audience has been deprived of the possibility to access cognitive effects of the same type in many other fragments of the TT.

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 General Overview

As the results of this study reflect, the most widely used technique to translate puns in the corpus analysed is Change of pun – with 31.9 % –, followed closely by Punning correspondence – scoring 30.0 % –, which implies that more than half of the ST extracts containing puns, exactly 61.9 %, have been translated by means of textual fragments which also contain wordplay (See Table 2 and Graph 1).

Table 2 Distribution of translation techniques in the whole corpus

Graph 1

Use of translation techniques in the corpus

Techniques which have preserved the semantic scenario at the expense of the pragmatic one, such as Sacrifice of secondary of information and Non-selective translation, have reached much lower percentages, respectively 17.8 % and 1.5 %. Meanwhile, techniques which have preserved none of the three scenarios, such as Diffuse paraphrase or Omission, have not scored high: 9.4 % and 0.9 % respectively. Source-culture oriented solutions, namely Transference – 6.1 % – and Direct copy – 0.7 % –, were not frequently used by the translators either.

Other solutions which are more oriented towards the preservation of the pragmatic scenario, as they try to recreate part of the cognitive effects derivable from the processing of wordplay, namely Punoid, were chosen by the translators only in 1.7 % of the cases.

4.2 Variables

4.2.1 Version

There is a relation between the version variable and the choice of translation technique, as proved by the chi-square statistical test applied to the data. Thus, although the technique which ranks highest in the seven versions analysed involves the presence of wordplay in the TT, in four of them (those by Ojeda, Buckley, Maristany, and Barro & P. Barreiro) the first technique is Change of pun, whereas in the other three, the solution which occupies the first place is Punning correspondence (See Table 3 and Graph 2). In addition, if we add the percentages corresponding to those solutions which involve TTs containing puns (3.1 and 3.2.1), in Barro & P. Barreiro’s translation the result amounts to 70.1 % whereas in Alba’s it is only 44.5 %. In versions such as those by Buckley, Barro & P. Barreiro, Maristany, or Ojeda, then, there is a very clear tendency towards the preservation of the pragmatic scenario, which is much less clear in versions such as that by Alba.

Table 3 Distribution of translation techniques across versions

Graph 2

Distribution of translation techniques across versions

The chi-square statistical test reflects that there is a relation between choice of translation technique and version.⁴⁰ Since the P-value is less than 0.05, the hypothesis that choice of translation technique and version are independent – also called null hypothesis – can be rejected at the 95 % confidence level (See Table 4 and Graph 3).

Table 4 Results of the chi-square test for translation technique by version

Graph 3

Mosaic plot for translation strategy by Version

4.2.2 Use of Editorial Means

As regards the use of editorial means, translators resorted to them in 107 instances, which accounts for 11.2 % in the whole corpus. However, two of the versions include no editorial means at all, whereas another one only includes 3 footnotes. If only the four versions which regularly include editorial techniques are considered, the percentage rises to 19.0 %. These editorial techniques are always used in combination with some other technique, and in this sense, a relation can be established between choice of translation technique and resort to editorial means. In other words, certain types of translation techniques seem to require the presence of an explanatory editorial means more than others. Thus, when Transference or Direct copy are used to deal with wordplay in the TT, the translation technique is accompanied by some type of editorial means in respectively 56.2 % and 50.0 % of the instances, whereas in the case of Punning correspondence, the percentage goes down to 13.4 % (See Graph 4).⁴¹ This is logical, since if the translator decides to resort to a foreignizing technique, such as Transference or Direct copy, it is because he wants the target addressee to recover the cognitive effects intended by the original author, but as those techniques demand a certain background knowledge of the source culture and/or language by the target addressee, the translator often decides to provide some assumptions to ensure a comprehension as accurate as possible. In the case of Punning correspondence, more often than not the inclusion of an editorial technique would burden the target addressee with extra processing effort which would not be compensated for by additional cognitive effects.

Graph 4

Use of editorial techniques across translation techniques

As reflected in Table 5, the chi-square test also proves the interdependence between the two variables considered, namely use of editorial means and choice of translation technique. The null hypothesis can be rejected at the 95 % confidence level, as the P-value is less than 0.05.

Table 5 Results of the chi-square test for editorial technique by translation technique

4.2.3 Type of Pun

The linguistic device giving rise to the ST pun has also been found to have a clear effect on the choice of translation technique. In other words, the type of pun and the selection of translation technique variables have proved to be clearly related, as demonstrated by the chi-square test (See Table 6) and displayed in Graph 5. Thus, cross-linguistic differences demanded the recreation of a new pun in the TT for ST phonologic or morphologic puns. In the case of phonologic puns, two homophonous words in the SL, for instance, will not normally be homophonous in the TL, which requires a Change of pun solution if the pragmatic scenario is to be preserved. With regard to idiomatic puns, idiomatic expressions and proverbs are normally very closely linked to culture-specific aspects, and if translated literally into the TL will not normally keep the same meaning. It is precisely in this type of pun that Transference has been more widely used. As an exact equivalent of the original idiom or proverb does not exist in the TL, translators very often decide to accompany this technique by some type of editorial means.

Table 6 Results of the chi-square test for translation technique by type of pun

Graph 5

Distribution of translation strategies across types of pun

5 Conclusions

Within the framework of Relevance Theory and focusing on wordplay translation, the different techniques used by the translators of seven different versions of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There have been analysed throughout this paper. In general terms, it can be stated that the translators, guided by the principle of relevance, have tried to make the ST-writer-intended cognitive effects accessible to the target audience at minimal processing cost.

Those cases in which there was symmetry in the relation between form and content across SL and TL were normally taken advantage of by the translators. Thus, after metarepresenting the source writer’s and target reader’s cognitive environments, the translators normally decided to reproduce a congenial pun in the TT. However, more often than not there was lack of symmetry across SL and TL. The translator, then, had to decide whether prevalence should be given to the pragmatic scenario or to the semantic one. In general, they decided to maintain the pragmatic scenario and create a new pun in the TT, so that the cognitive effects derivable from the processing of wordplay could also be accessible to the target reader. This latter alternative was normally adhered to, to such an extent that Change of pun was the solution most frequently adopted in the whole corpus.

In spite of that general tendency, there were significant differences with respect to the choice of technique across the seven versions, as proved by the chi-square tests applied to the data. Whereas some of them were very clearly oriented towards the pragmatic scenario, in other versions – especially in that by de Alba – this orientation was not so clear.

Apart from the version variable, the type of pun one was also found to affect the choice of translation technique. Thus, for instance a polysemic pun is much more likely to be maintained in the TL if translated literally than a phonologic pun, which has favoured the use of Punning Correspondence for puns based on polysemy and the choice of Change of pun for puns rooted in phonology. Transference, in turn, is a translation technique mainly used to deal with idiomatic puns.

Moreover, in those versions in which editorial techniques were resorted to, their use was clearly related to translation technique selection. This finding can also be explained by means of the principle of relevance, as depending on the translation technique used, translators occasionally decide that the higher processing effort demanded by an editorial means may be outweighed by the additional cognitive effects derived from it.