The Language of Humor
THE LANGUAGE OF HUMOUR – THE HUMOUR OF LANGUAGE
IRONY AND HUMOUR IN INTERPERSONAL VERBAL ENCOUNTERS
Zsuzsanna Ajtony
Abstract: In this paper the problem of verbal humour and irony is approached from a sociolinguistic perspective, starting from the Semantic Script Theory of Humour (Raskin 1985), which establishes that all humour involves a semantic-pragmatic process. Humour should be understood and appreciated shared sociocultural knowledge; a common code should exist between speaker and recipient. As humour is subjective, this is especially true for the humour of nations, the root of which is hiding in national or ethnic stereotypes, in close relationship with ethnic and national prejudices. All these theoretical issues are put into practice in the analysis of G.B. Shaw’s humour as displayed in Caesar and Cleopatra. Concentrating on the target as one of the knowledge resources, it is concluded that choice of the target person has an effect on the identity of the person uttering the humorous remark.
Keywords: general theory of verbal humour, script opposition, target; solidarity, in-group identity
1. Introduction
The central topic of this paper is to apply the General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH) to conversational narratives and to relate it to socio-pragmatic approaches. Script oppositions are considered as the necessary preconditions of humour while its perlocutionary effect (i.e. eliciting laughter) as the characteristic feature of the humorous text. Although one of the most frequent social functions of humour is exactly the construction of solidarity and in-group identity, relatively little sociolinguistic research has been conducted in this respect. Therefore, one of the particular aims of this paper is to illustrate how can / does humour become a flexible discourse strategy in constructing certain aspects of social identities, focusing on the
TARGET, as one of the knowledge resources of the general theory of verbal humour.
Research of
IRONY AND HUMOUR IN INTERPERSONAL VERBAL ENCOUNTERS
Zsuzsanna Ajtony
Abstract: In this paper the problem of verbal humour and irony is approached from a sociolinguistic perspective, starting from the Semantic Script Theory of Humour (Raskin 1985), which establishes that all humour involves a semantic-pragmatic process. Humour should be understood and appreciated shared sociocultural knowledge; a common code should exist between speaker and recipient. As humour is subjective, this is especially true for the humour of nations, the root of which is hiding in national or ethnic stereotypes, in close relationship with ethnic and national prejudices. All these theoretical issues are put into practice in the analysis of G.B. Shaw’s humour as displayed in Caesar and Cleopatra. Concentrating on the target as one of the knowledge resources, it is concluded that choice of the target person has an effect on the identity of the person uttering the humorous remark.
Keywords: general theory of verbal humour, script opposition, target; solidarity, in-group identity
1. Introduction
The central topic of this paper is to apply the General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH) to conversational narratives and to relate it to socio-pragmatic approaches. Script oppositions are considered as the necessary preconditions of humour while its perlocutionary effect (i.e. eliciting laughter) as the characteristic feature of the humorous text. Although one of the most frequent social functions of humour is exactly the construction of solidarity and in-group identity, relatively little sociolinguistic research has been conducted in this respect. Therefore, one of the particular aims of this paper is to illustrate how can / does humour become a flexible discourse strategy in constructing certain aspects of social identities, focusing on the
TARGET, as one of the knowledge resources of the general theory of verbal humour.
Research of
References: Attardo, S. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Attardo, S. 2001. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Attardo, S., Hempelmann, Ch.F., Di Maio, S. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modelling incongruities and their resolutions Attardo, S., Raskin, V. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor 4 (3-4): 293-347. Bart, I. 1998. Angol kulturális szótár. Budapest: Corvina. Brown, P., Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freud, S. 1960. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: The Norton Library. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour: Garden City/New York: Anchor Books. Grice, H.P. 1975/2001. A társalgás logikája. In C. Pléh, I. Síklaki, T. Terestyéni (eds.), Nyelv – kommunikáció – cselekvés, 213-227 Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: Reidel. Riszovannij, M. 2008. Irányzatok és kihívások a nyelvészeti humorkutatásban (Trends and challenges in the linguistic research of humour) Triezenberg, K. 2004. Humor enhancers in the study of humorous literature. Humor 17 (4): 411-418. Wilson, D. 2006. The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua 116 (10): 1722-1743. Wilson, D., Sperber, D. 1992. On verbal irony. Lingua 87 (1): 53-76.