Cover not available
Part of
Humour in Self-Translation
Edited by Margherita Dore
[Topics in Humor Research 11] 2022
► pp. 141–176

Chapter 7
Humour and self-interpreting in the media

The communicative ethos and the authenticity contract in late-night shows

ORCID logo | Universidad de Granada | GALMA (Galician Observatory for Media Accessibility)

While humour in translation has received a considerable degree of scholarly attention and new perspectives and methodologies keep advancing this field of study, it is a topic that is underexplored in the context of interpreting in general and self-interpreting in particular (Chiaro, 2002).

Humour in interpreting is most visible in the media, particularly in the so-called infotainment genre (Katan and Straniero Sergio, 2001). Given the live and immediate nature of interpreting, it is widely acknowledged by practitioners and trainers alike that interpreting humour is one of the biggest challenges for interpreters (Pavlicek and Pöchhacker, 2002, Pöchhacker, 1995), with the live broadcast setting only adding further stress. But what happens when self-interpreting is consciously used as an intrinsic part of a late-night comedy show? To what extent is it part of the production of humour? And can this type of mediation be explored through the lenses of interpreting standards (c.f. Darwish, 2006) and ethics (Katan and Straniero Sergio, 2003)? These are the key questions that this paper aims to tackle by looking at a case study of a self-interpreted interview (English-Spanish) by the host of a popular Spanish late-night show: La Resistencia on Movistar TV, hosted by David Broncano.

The data will be explored via the theoretical frames of the communicative ethos of broadcasting (Scannell, 1988) and the authenticity contract (Enli, 2015). Studies have shown how interpreting is heavily impacted and framed by the broader communicative context and, whether organised ad hoc or as an intrinsic part of the production, the interpreter-mediated interaction becomes part of the ethos of the broadcaster, with submerged discourses and ideologies in place (cf. Gieve and Norton, 2007, Katan and Straniero Sergio, 2003, and Castillo Ortiz, 2015b). By applying Conversation Analysis to the bilingual interaction in the broadcast, this study aims to unveil the mechanisms used to integrate self-interpreting into the comedy programme and highlight patterns that may contribute to a conceptualisation of this type of socially situated practice which moves beyond normative views of TV interpreting.

Keywords: media interpreting, communicative ethos, authenticity contract, conversation analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Media interpreting studies: Organisational, discursive and interactional approaches for the study of humour in media interpreting
    • 2.1Infotainment and ideologies behind interpreter-mediated broadcasts
    • 2.2The communicative ethos of broadcasting
    • 2.3Mediated authenticity
    • 2.4CA and the study of humour and interpreting
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1The communicative ethos of broadcasting in La Resistencia
    • 4.2The authenticity contract
    • 4.3CA: Strategies and mechanisms for the production of humour via self-interpreting
  • 5.Summary of findings
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.11.07cas
References
Amossy, Ruth
(2010) La Présentation de soi. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baños-Piñero, Rocio & Chaume, Frederic
(2009) Prefabricated orality: a challenge in audiovisual translation’.: inTRAlinea, Special Issue: The Translation of Dialects in Multimedia. Retrieved from [URL]
Bell, Allan
(1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
(1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castillo Ortiz, Pedro
(2015a) Interpreting in the Media: Organisational, Interactional and Discursive Aspects of Dialogue Interpreting in Radio Settings. A study of Spain’s Radio 3 . PhD Thesis. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.
(2015b) Interpreting for the Mass Media. In Mikkelson, H. & Jourdenais, R. (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 280–301). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2021) Media Interpreting. In Bielsa, E. (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Media. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiaro, Delia
(2002) Linguistic mediation on Italian television: When the interpreter is not an interpreter: a case study. In Garzone, G. & Viezzi, M. (Eds.) Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 215–225). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chovanec, Jan & Tsakona, Villy
(2018) Investigating the dynamics of humor: Towards a theory of interactional humor. In Tsakona, V. & Chovanec, J. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and negotiating humor in everyday encounters (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A.
(1992) The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from medical encounters. In Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 11 (pp. 291–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darwish, Ali
(2006) Standards of Simultaneous Interpreting in Live Satellite Broadcasts Arabic Case Study. Translation Watch Quarterly, 2:2, 55–88. Retrieved from [URL]
Dore, Margherita
(2018) Laughing at you or laughing with you? Humor negotiation in intercultural stand-up comedy. In Tsakona, V. & Chovanec, J. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and negotiating humor in everyday encounters (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Heritage, John
(Eds.) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistic, 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enli, Gunn
(2015) Mediated Authenticity: How the Media Constructs Reality. New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Gascón-Vera, Patricia
(2020) El infoentretenimiento en la televisión de pago, Movistar+ y el canal #0. El uso transmedia de sus contenidos de humor. Ámbitos. Revista Internacional de Comunicación, 49, 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgalidou, Marianthi & Kaili, Hasan
(2018) ‘The pragmatics of humor in bilingual conversations’. In: Tsakona, V. & Chovanec, J. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and negotiating humor in everyday encounters (pp. 77–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gieve, Simon & Norton, Julie
(2007) Dealing with linguistic difference in encounters with Others on British television. In Johnson, S. & Ensslin, A. (Eds.) Language in the Media (pp. 188–210). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grinshpun, Yana
(2019) L’importance de la notion d’éthos dans la traduction. In Dziub, N., Musinova, T. & Voegele, A. (Eds.) Traduction et interculturalité: Entre identité et altérité (pp. 101–113). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John
(1992) Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 11 (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardt, Hanno
(1993) Authenticity, communication, and critical theory. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10 (1), 49–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. & Clayman, Steven
(2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. & Greatbatch, David
(1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 93–137). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
(1985) Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 95–117). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In Silverman, D. (Ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Second Edition (pp. 222–245). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
(1995) Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 219–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2006) Media Talk. Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Glasgow: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. & Wooffitt, Robin
(2008) Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Katan, David & Straniero Sergio, Francesco
(2001) Look who’s talking: The ethics of entertainment and talkshow interpreting. The Translator, 7 (2), 213–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Submerged ideologies in media interpreting. In Calzada Pérez, M. (Ed.) Apropos of Ideology (pp. 131–144). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia & Lunt, Peter
(1994) Talk on Television. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mack, Gabriele
(2002) New perspectives and challenges for interpretation: The example of television. In Garzone, G. & Viezzi, M. (Eds.) Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 203–214). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian
(Ed.) (1999) The Translator, 5 (2). Edinburgh: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
(2000) Models and methods in dialogue interpreting research. In Olohan, M. (Ed.) Intercultural Faultlines (pp. 215:232). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
(2004) Conduits, mediators, spokespersons: Investigating translator/ interpreter behaviour. In Schäffner, C. (Ed.) Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies (pp. 88–97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Role, Positioning and Discourse in Face-to-Face Interpreting. In De Pedro Ricoy, R., Perez, I. A. & Wilson, C. W. L. (Eds.): Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings. Policy, Practice, Pedagogy (pp. 52–73). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
McIlvenny, Paul, Mettovaara, Sari, & Tapio, Ritva
(1993) ‘I really wanna make you laugh’: Stand-up comedy and audience response. In M. Suojanen & A. Kulkki-Nieminen (eds.) Folia, fennistica and linguistica: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish Linguistics Symposium 16 (pp. 230–233). Tampere: Tampere University Finnish and General Linguistics Department Publications.Google Scholar
Morreall, John
(2009) Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlicek, Maria & Pöchhacker, Franz
(2002) Humour in Simultaneous Conference Interpreting. In The Translator, 8:2, 385–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
(1995) Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 14, 31–53.Google Scholar
Scannell, Paddy
(1988) The communicative ethos of broadcasting. Paper presented at the International Television Studies Conference. London: BFI.
Scarpetta, Fabiola & Spagnolli, Anna
(2009) The interactional context of humor in stand-up comedy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(3), 210–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
(1992) Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seewoester Cain, Sarah
(2018) Teasing as audience engagement: Setting up the unexpected during television comedy monologues. In Tsakona, V. & Chovanec, J. (Eds.) The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and negotiating humor in everyday encounters (pp. 127–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straniero Sergio, Francesco
(1999) The interpreter on the (talk) show: interaction and participation framework. The Translator, 5 (2), 303–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
(1998) Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2000) Co-constructing Yeltsin – Explorations of an interpreter-mediated political interview. In Olohan, M. (Ed.) Intercultural Faultlines (pp. 233–252). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
(2008) In and off the show: Co-constructing ‘invisibility’ in an interpreter-mediated talk show interview. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 53 (1), 184–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
(2016) Humor and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar