Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
An Ethnolinguistic Background of Akan
Data and Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis and Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Psychology

An Ethno-Pragmatic Analysis of Humour in Akan Draughts Games

Profile image of Kofi AgyekumKofi Agyekum

2021, Ghana journal of linguistics

https://doi.org/10.4314/GJL.V10I1.5
visibility

…

description

27 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Humour is an important aspect of human behaviour and communication. However, it is one of the least studied phenomena in Akan linguistics. This paper, therefore, offers an ethno-pragmatic analysis of humour in the Akan draughts game called Dame. It focuses on the types of humour, the linguistic strategies used in creating humour and the functions of humour in the game. Data were gathered through non-participant observations of the game and semi-structured interviews. The paper shows that participants of the game generally resort to teasing in the form of jocular mockery and jocular abuse. This is done through the use of stylistic devices like metaphor, allusion, sarcasm and simile, as well as other linguistic strategies like rhetorical questions and songs. Contextual cues such as laughter and giggles are employed to signal the evocation of a humorous frame, and as such, insults and ridicule should be perceived as 'this is play'. Through the application of the Superiority Theory, we argue that participants often use insults and ridicule, which generate humour, to demoralize and spread fear in a losing contestant while boosting the confidence, competence and importance of the winning contestant. Rather than generating tension and conflict, this language use engenders bonding and strengthens group cohesion.

Figures (1)
Generally, some norms govern the appropriate use of language in any communicative or speech event, including the game of dame. One of such norms is on who is permitted to participate in this game. Traditionally, chiefs are not allowed to play this game in Akan because of its nature. For example, it is a game which is full of insults and invectives due to the lift of the ban on social insult in that context. Therefore, because Chiefs are revered and held in high esteem, they are not supposed to partake in the game since anybody can insult them and bring their highly respected status and office into disrepute. Another interesting feature of this game is that women are not permitted to engage in it because the game is full of insults. Again, since women in the past were supposed to be working at home after coming from the farm, they could not join the men to nlav.
Generally, some norms govern the appropriate use of language in any communicative or speech event, including the game of dame. One of such norms is on who is permitted to participate in this game. Traditionally, chiefs are not allowed to play this game in Akan because of its nature. For example, it is a game which is full of insults and invectives due to the lift of the ban on social insult in that context. Therefore, because Chiefs are revered and held in high esteem, they are not supposed to partake in the game since anybody can insult them and bring their highly respected status and office into disrepute. Another interesting feature of this game is that women are not permitted to engage in it because the game is full of insults. Again, since women in the past were supposed to be working at home after coming from the farm, they could not join the men to nlav.

Related papers

The Functions of Humorous Discourse in Mind Your Language
Imam Romadlani

LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra, 2022

The primary purpose of this study is to reveal the function of humorous discourse identified in the Mind Your Language situation comedy series. The researcher adopted a descriptive qualitative approach to complete this humor research. The data were obtained from the script of that sitcom. The function of humorous discourse found in that sitcom was then classified based on Hay's framework, which divides the function of humor into three main functions: the function of solidarity, the function of power, and the function of psychology. The findings demonstrate that teasing and satire humor in Mind Your Language sitcom are utilized to express solidarity. Meanwhile, humorous discourses that trigger conflict, harm, threaten others or show disagreement are created to express the function of power. Furthermore, humorous discourse to gain an advantage, protect oneself, entertain, or boast is used to express the function of psychology. The context of the conversation given is highly signif...

View PDFchevron_right
Cultural Conceptualisations in Humorous Discourse in English and Serbian
Diana Prodanović Stankić

Advances in Cultural Linguistics, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
" Joking, kidding, teasing " : Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humour
Cliff Goddard

Terms like ‘to joke’ (and ‘joking’) and ‘to tease’ (and ‘teasing’) have a curious double life in contrastive and interactional pragmatics, and related fields. Occasionally they are studied as metapragmatic terms of ordinary English, along with related expressions such as ‘kidding’, e.g. Shalicky et al. (2015), Haugh (2016). More commonly they are used as scientific or technical categories, both for research into English and for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparison. Related English adjectives, such as ‘jocular’ and ‘mock’, are also much-used in a growing lexicon of compound terms, such as ‘jocular abuse’, ‘mock abuse’, ‘jocular mockery’, and the like. Against this background, the present paper has three main parts. In the first part, it is argued that the meanings of the verbs ‘to joke’ and ‘to tease’ (and related nouns) are much more English-specific than is commonly recognised. They are not precisely cross-translatable even into European languages such as French and German. Adopting such terms as baseline categories for cross-cultural comparison therefore risks introducing an Anglocentric bias into our theoretical vocabulary (Wierzbicka 2014a). Nor can the problem be easily solved, it is argued, by attributing technical meanings to the terms. Detailed analysis of the everyday meanings of words like ‘joking’ and ‘teasing’, on the other hand, can yield insights into the ethnopragmatics of Anglo conversational humour (cf. Goddard ed., 2006, 2015; Levisen 2012, this volume). This task is undertaken in the second part of the paper. The important English verb ‘to kid’, and the common conversational formulas ‘just kidding’ and ‘only joking’ are also examined. The semantic methodology used is the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2014), which depends on paraphrase into simple, cross-translatable words. Building on the NSM analyses, the third part of the paper considers whether it is possible to construct a typological framework for conversational humour based on cross-translatable terminology.

View PDFchevron_right
The Cooperative Pursuits of Linguistics and Humor
Tariq Khan

As an axiomatic fact, our everyday interaction is filled with instances of creative language use called humor 1 . Despite this, humor has been out of the mainstream linguistic research or received very little attention from the linguistic arena. Verbal humor is basically a linguistic phenomenon; wherein a creative manipulation of language use, word plays, violation of maxims, ambiguities and errors result in the experience of funniness. The theoretical explorations on verbal humor or jokes, however, mainly exhibit the sociological, philosophical or psychological bearings. This paper explores the phenomenon of verbal humor and the linguistic aspects of it. It focuses on how such instances of creative language use achieve success. The theoretical propositions on humor have been evaluated and their shortcomings, from a linguistic point of view, have been highlighted in this paper. The primary objective of this paper is to impress upon the need for studying verbal humor as an instance of humor-linguistics cooperation. It also explicates how such an investigation would initiate and progress.

View PDFchevron_right
How English-Learners Joke With Native Speakers: An Interactional Sociolinguistic Perspective on Humor As Collaborative Discourse Across Cultures
Catherine Davies

Journal of Pragmatics, 2003

An approach to humor grounded in interactional sociolinguistics starts not with reified abstractions such as 'humor','wit', or 'irony'but rather with the situated interpretation of joking as a speech activity. Using videotaped data of crosscultural conversation groups, and ...

View PDFchevron_right
An Approach to Verbal Humor in Interaction
M. Belén Alvarado Ortega
View PDFchevron_right
Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory
Thomas Flamson

Topics in Humor Research, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
MA thesis Linda Broeder UU 2007 tr humour
Ekaterina Petrova
View PDFchevron_right
De-anglicising humour studies
Cliff Goddard

Australian Humour Studies Network, Melbourne, 2019

This paper has two main aims. The aim is to argue that systematic approaches to “humour” have been hampered and skewed by terminological Anglocentrism, i.e. by reliance on English-specific terms and categories, such as ‘funny’, ‘amusing’, ‘joking’, ‘(non)serious’, and ‘mock’, and even the the banner term ‘humour’ itself (Goddard 2016, Goddard and Mullan in press/2019). Though some humour scholars have recognised this problem, I contend that they have under-estimated its severity. Anglocentric terminology not only interferes with effective communication within the field, but affects research agendas, methodologies and theoretical framing (Wierzbicka 2014). Needless to say, humour studies is not alone in facing this predicament, which at its largest can be described as the Anglicisation of global discourse in the humanities and social sciences (Levisen 2018). While calls to make humour studies more conceptually pluralistic are laudable, they cannot fully succeed, I argue, while ever the scholarly lingua franca is English, with its full admixture of Anglo values and perspectives. The second aim of this paper is argue that considerable progress can be made by de-Anglicising English from within, as it were, using the newly developed approach known as Minimal English (Goddard ed. 2018). This depends on re-thinking and re-framing humour terminology and agendas using a small vocabulary of simple cross-translatable English words, i.e. words which carry with them a minimum of Anglo conceptual baggage. Specifically, I will show how complex, and sometimes contested categories and descriptors such as ‘wit, cleverness’, ‘fantasy/absurdity’ and ‘word play, double entendre’ can be clarified and de-Anglicised using Minimal English.

View PDFchevron_right
The variables of the evaluative functional relationship: The case of humorous discourse
Laura Alba-Juez
View PDFchevron_right

References (83)

  1. Agyekum, Kofi. 2000. "Aspects of Akan Oral Literature in the media". Research Review 16(2): 1-18.
  2. Agyekum, Kofi. 2006. "Lexical expansion and elaboration in Akan: Afisɛm and the media". Issues in Political Discourse Analysis 1(1):73-88.
  3. Agyekum, Kofi. 2009. "Ethnography of Akan speech play". Nordic Journal of African Studies 30:47-81.
  4. Agyekum, Kofi. 2010a. Akan Verbal Taboos in the context of the ethnography of communication. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.
  5. Agyekum, Kofi. 2010b. "Ghanaian radio and the Akan language: Unplanned language and Development". Issues in Political Discourse Analysis 3(2): 1-21.
  6. Agyekum, Kofi. 2010c. "The ethnopragmatics of Akan compliments". Legon Journal of the Humanities 21: 13-38.
  7. Agyekum, Kofi. 2011. "The ethnopragmatics of Akan palace language". Journal of Anthropological Research 67(4): 573-593.
  8. Agyekum, Kofi. 2013. Introduction to Literature. Legon-Accra: Adwinsa Publications (Ghana) Limited.
  9. Agyekum, Kofi. 2015. "Metaphors of Anger". International Journal of Language and Culture 2(1): 88-107.
  10. Agyekum, Kofi. 2017. "The language of Akan herbal drug seller." Language and dialogue 7(3):360-386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. Agyekum, Kofi. 2018. Akan body parts expressions: Cognitive semantics and pragmatic approach. Accra: Adwinsa Publications (Gh.) Ltd.
  12. Attardo, Salvatore. 1993. "Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes". Journal of Pragmatics 19: 537-558.
  13. Attardo, Salvatore.1994. Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  14. Attardo, Salvatore. 2002. "Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts". In Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, edited by Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper, 231-250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  15. Attardo, Salvatore. 2008. "A primer for the linguistics of humour". In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by Victor Raskin and Willibald Ruch, 101-155. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  16. Bateson, Gregory. 1953. "The position of humour in human communication". In Cybernetics, edited by Von Foerster H., 1-47. New York: Josiah Macey Jr Foundation.
  17. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. "A theory of play and fantasy". In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, edited by Gregory Bateson, Pp.177-193. Northvale/New Jersey/London: Jason Aronson Inc.
  18. Buah, Francis Kwamina. 1998. A history of Ghana. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
  19. Coates, Jennifer. 2007. "Talk in a play frame: More on laughter intimacy". Journal of Pragmatics 39: 29-49.
  20. Cooper, Cecily. 2008. "Elucidating the bonds of workplace humour: A relational process model". Human Relations 61: 1087-1115.
  21. Crawford Mary. 1995. Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage Publications.
  22. Crawford, Mary. 2003. "Gender and humour in social context". Journal of Pragmatics 35(9): 1413-1430.
  23. Creswell, John W, 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  24. Diabah, Grace and Nana Aba Appiah Amfo. 2015. "Caring supporters or daring usurpers? Representation of women in Akan proverbs". Discourse & Society 26 (1): 3-28.
  25. Dolphyne, Florence A. 1988. The Akan (Twi-Fante) language: Its sound systems and tonal structure. Accra: Woeli Publishing Services.
  26. Dolphyne, Florence A. 2006. The Akan (Twi-Fante) language: Its sound systems and tonal structure. Accra: Woeli Publishing Services.
  27. Donkoh, Elvis K, Davis, Rebecca, Owusu-Ansah, Emmanuel D.J., Antwi, Emmanuel A. and Mensah, Michael. 2019. "Application of combinatorial techniques to the Ghanaian Board Game Zaminamina Draught". European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 12(1):159-175.
  28. Dynel, Marta. 2009a. "Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour". Language and Linguistics Compass 3(5): 1284-1299.
  29. Dynel, Marta. 2009b. "Creative metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour". Metaphorik. de 17: 27-48.
  30. Dynel, Marta. 2011a. "Pragmatics and linguistic research into humour". In The Pragmatics of Humour across discourse domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 1-15. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  31. Dynel, Marta. 2011b. "Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status". Pp. 217-243. In The Pragmatics of humour across discourse domains edited by M Dynel. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  32. Dynel, Marta. 2013. "Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse". The European Journal of Humour Research 1(1): 22-60.
  33. Dynel, Marta. 2017. "But seriously: On conversational humour and (un) truthfulness". Lingua 197: 83-102.
  34. Ford, Thomas E., and Mark A. Ferguson. 2004. "Social consequences of disparagement humour: A prejudiced norm theory". Personality and social psychology review 8(1): 79-94.
  35. Ferguson, Mark. A and Ford, Thomas. E. 2008. "Disparagement humour: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humour: International Journal of Humour Research 21(3): 283-312.
  36. Fine, Gary Alan. 1983. "Sociological approaches to the study of humour". In Handbook of Humour Research, edited by Goldstein Jaffrey H. and Paul E. McGhee, 159-181. New York: Springer.
  37. Fine, Gary Alan, and De Soucey, Michael. 2005. "Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life". Humour. 18(1): 1-22.
  38. Freud, Sigmund, 1905. "Jokes and its relation to the unconscious". The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud pp. 1-247.
  39. Ghana Statistical Service. 2012. Population and Housing Census. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.
  40. Goddard, Cliff. 2009. "Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence". Intercultural Pragmatics 6(1): 29- 53.
  41. Gruner, Charles R. 1978. Understanding laughter: The workings of wit and humour. Chicago: Burnham Incorporated Publication Limited.
  42. Gruner, Charles R. 1997. The game of humour: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New York, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  43. Harris, Matthew K. 2009. The Political Application of Humour. Syracuse University Honours Programmes Capstone Projects.
  44. Haugh, Michael. 2010. "Jocular mockery, (dis) affiliation, and face". Journal of Pragmatics 42(8): 2106-2119.
  45. Haugh, Michael and Bousfield Derek. 2012. "Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English". Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1099-1114.
  46. Haugh, Michael. 2014. "Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo- Australian conversation". Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(1): 76-99.
  47. Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
  48. Holmes, Janet. 2000. "Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace". Discourse Studies 2(2): 159-185.
  49. Holmes, Janet and Marra, Meredith. 2002. "Over the edge? Subversive humour between colleagues and friends". Humour: International Journal of Humour Studies 15(1): 65-87.
  50. Janes, Leslie M, and Olson, James M. 2010. "Is it you or it is me? Contrasting effects of ridicule targeting other people versus the self". Europe's Journal of Psychology 6(3): 46-70.
  51. Jewell, Paul. 2005. "Humour in cognitive and social development: Creative artists and class clowns". International Education Journal 6(2): 200-205.
  52. Jussim, Lee. 1986. "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: A Theoretical and Integrative Review". Psychological Review 93(4):429-445.
  53. Jussim, Lee, Smelser, Neil J. and Baltes, Paul B. 2001. "Self-fulfilling Prophecies". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. pp. 13830-13833.
  54. Labov, William, 1973. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-humor-code/201109/the- importance-humour research.
  55. Martin, Rod. 2007. The Psychology of Humour: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
  56. Murata, Kazuyo. 2014. "An empirical cross-cultural study of humour in business meetings in New Zealand and Japan". Journal of Pragmatics 60: 251-265.
  57. Murphy, Scott Patrick. 2017. "Humour Orgies as Ritual Insult: Putdowns and Solidarity Maintenance in a Corner Donut Shop". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46(1):108-132.
  58. Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  59. Obadare, Ebenezer. 2009. "The Uses of Ridicule: Humour, 'Infrapolitics' and Civil Society in Nigeria". African Affairs 108(431): 241-261.
  60. Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1999. "Apologies in Akan discourse". Journal of pragmatics 31(5): 709-734.
  61. Ofori, Victoria. 2019. Humour in Akan: The case of draught and selected radio programmes. M.Phil. Thesis, University of Ghana.
  62. O'ring, Elliot. 2003. Engaging Humour. USA: Board of Trustees.
  63. O'ring, Elliot. 2008. "Humour in anthropology and folklore". In The Primer of Humour Research, edited by V. Raskin and W. Ruch., 183-210. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.183-210.
  64. Owu-Ewie, Charles. 2012. Introduction to Traditional and Action research. Accra: Vision Express Secretariat Service.
  65. Palmer, Jerry. 1994. Taking Humour Seriously. London: Routledge.
  66. Piata, Anna. 2016. "When metaphor becomes a joke: Metaphor journeys from political ads to internet memes". Journal of Pragmatics 106: 39-56.
  67. Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic mechanisms of humour. Boston & Lancaster: D. Reidel. Publishing company.
  68. Raskin, Victor. 1987. "Linguistic heuristics of humour: A script-based semantic approach." International journal of the sociology of language pp.11-26.
  69. Raskin, Victor. 2017. "Humour theory: What is and what is not". In Humourous Discourse, edited by Władysław Chłopicki and Dorota Brzozowska, 11-22. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  70. Romero, Eric. J., and Cruthirds. Kelvin W. 2006. "The Use of Humour in the Workplace". Academy of Management Perspectives 2(2): 58-69.
  71. Ross, Alison, 1998. The language of humour. London: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.
  72. Ruch, Willibald, 2008. "Psychology of humour." In The Primer of Humour Research, edited by V. Raskin and W. Ruch., 17-100. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  73. Sekyi-Baidoo, Yaw, 2016. "Akan Pre-eventive Apologies or Apologetic Signals". International Journal of Culture and History 2(3): 122-131.
  74. Schnurr, Stephanie, 2005. Humour and Leadership Discourse in Different Workplace Cultures. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.
  75. Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2013. "Decoding encoded (im)politeness: Cause on my teasing you can depend". In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, edited by M. Dynel, 263-288. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  76. Sinkeviciute, Valeria and Dynel Marta. 2017. "Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation". Language and Communication 55:1-9.
  77. Takovski, Aleksander. 2018. "Extending ethnic humour theory: Genuine vs. functional ethnic joke scripts". European Journal of Humour Research 6(2): 60-80.
  78. Van Ramshorst, Jared P. 2019. "Laughing about It: Emotional and affective spaces of humour in the geopolitics of migration". Geopolitics 24(4): 896-915.
  79. Westwood, Robert, and Rhodes, Carl. 2007. Humour, Work and Organization. London: Routledge.
  80. Wilson, Christopher P. 1979. Jokes: Form, content, use, and function. New York: Academic Press.
  81. Wu, Zhihui. 2013. "The Laughter-eliciting Mechanism of Humour". English Linguistics Research, 2(1): 52-63.
  82. Yankah, Kwesi. 1983. "From Loose Abuse to Poetic Couplets: The case of Fante Tone Riddle". Maledicta VII: 167-177.
  83. Zillmann, Dolf, 1983. "Disparagement humour". In Handbook of Humor Research, edited by P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein, 85-107. New York: Springer.

Related papers

Editorial: humour in contrast across languages and cultures
Kerry Mullan

The European Journal of Humour Research

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to Special Issue on Humour: A Modest Attempt at Presenting Contemporary Linguistic Approaches to Humour Studies
Marta Dynel

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 2008

Verbal humour 1 is a phenomenon prevalent in everyday and media discourses, occurring in various contexts (e.g. formal/informal or spoken/written) and manifesting itself in an array of forms, e.g. canned jokes, witticisms, teasing or humorous lexemes. Likewise, nonverbal humour enjoys a gamut of forms, such as cartoons, pictorial advertisements, or exaggeration in facial expressions and gestures. Given its prevalence and multifariousness, it is hardly surprising that humour should garner wide-ranging scholarly interest. It is next to impossible to present a coherent and exhaustive picture of the state-of-the-art research on humour, inasmuch as this is a greatly diversified field, comprising a wide spectrum of disciplines (philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology and linguistics) and innumerable approaches within which all manner of humour's manifestations and humour-related phenomena may be studied. Even narrowing down the scope of interest to one discipline does not render the task unchallenging.

View PDFchevron_right
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor
Barbara Plester

Journal of Pragmatics, 2018

Salvatore Attardo's Handbook of Language and Humor is part of the Routledge series of handbooks devoted to topics in Linguistics. As Attardo himself acknowledges in his introduction, this handbook could not have been possible three decades ago, when he started researching humor (p. 3). However, the turn of the century has demonstrated that times are now ripe for this comprehensive collection devoted to such a multifaceted and overarching phenomenon as humor. This handbook comprises 35 chapters which have not been grouped into specific subsections. However, its general structure is meaningful and well organized around a series of topics. Due to space limitations, I have concentrated on those chapters that are more likely to be of interest to the readers of this journal, and left some others aside (e.g. Raskin's 'Script-Based Semantic and Ontological Semantic Theories of Humor', L opez and Vaid on 'Psycholinguistic Approaches to Humor', Chen et al.'s 'Neurolinguistics of Humor' or Taylor's 'Computational Treatments of Humor'). Chapters 1e5 offer compelling summaries of humor theories by discussing punning in particular. Larkin-Galiñanes's 'Overview of Humor Theory' provides a thorough yet concise overview of Superiority and Disparagement, Release and Incongruity Theories. Her reflections on the way humor and laughter were denied by Christianity because they were associated with frivolity, vulgarity and sin are worth reading (6e7; cf. Trouvain and Truong in this volume for an extensive discussion on laughter). Guidi's 'Humor Universals' concentrates on humor as a universal mode of communication, which is used and/or manipulated for specific purposes (e.g. persuasion, legitimation, etc.). Recurrent patterns of phonetic similarity and their violations are shown to be markers of potential humor, which corpus-based studies can detect in a well-defined manner. Hempelmann's 'Key Terms in the Field of Humor' reviews the way terms such as 'humor' and 'wit' have come to be used in English. Moreover, corpus-based research on parallel corpora from original and translated texts can be used to show how these concepts are conveyed across language and culture (cf. also Helmpelman and Miller's 'Puns. Taxonomy and Phonology' in this volume for a similar approach). Attardo and Raskin's 'Linguistics and Humor Theory' is certainly an engaging piece of reading in its poignant defense of both Raskin's SSTH and Attardo's GTVH. The criticism of both theories arguing that script oppositions also apply to non-humorous texts is dismissed by a straightforward explanation that 'each theory comes with a purview, and it applies only to the phenomenon within this purview' (p. 52) and not all texts belong to the humor purview. Chapters 6e8 also review the main tenets of important theories of humor by looking at punning as a verbal and/or nonverbal (i.e. visual) realization of humor. Aljared's discussion of 'The Isotopy Disjunction Model' is engaging but not always easy to follow due partly to the fact that information is not well presented and signposted. That said, its value certainly lies in the cross-cultural and cross-linguistic application of IDM to a set of Arabic jokes. The findings are then compared to previous studies using IDM in American, German and Italian jokes to verify whether some similar or dissimilar characteristics can be detected. This approach can certainly reveal interesting insights on how different languages and cultures construct jokes and what their marked and unmarked features are in humor creation. Aarons's 'Puns and Tacit Linguistic Knowledge' is a clear and well-structured explanation of the mechanism at work in punning and how tacit knowledge is required to process it. A wealth of examples makes this a fitting contribution to the handbook, providing a sound overview of the issue at hand, especially when it demonstrates that ambiguity and overlapping are indeed necessary features of humorous texts like jokes. Attardo's 'The General Theory of Verbal Humor' offers the reader a sound discussion of the development and application of this theory 25 years on. Most notably, Attardo defends the validity of his theory by clarifying those concepts that, probably, were not well comprehended by fellow scholars (e.g. narrative strategy and logical mechanisms among the six Knowledge Resources informing the theory; p. 130e133). Although Attardo only briefly comments on the fact that 'Target' is sometimes a difficult knowledge resource to pinpoint within as humorous text, I am inclined to think that it deserves more attention, especially when investigating the perception of humor in texts such as (political) cartoons (Tsakona, 2009) or controversial advertising (Dore, 2018b). Chapters 11e14 consider humor from different angles, which are clearly interconnected by the approaches proposed in Stylistics and Pragmatics. Chłopicki's 'Humor and Narrative' draws on narratology and humor research to deal with the issue of detecting humor in texts longer than jokes. Simpson and Bousfield offer a concise but well-presented summary of the main

View PDFchevron_right
Humour in Language : Textual and Linguistic Aspects
Anders Bengtsson

2010

View PDFchevron_right
Humour in interaction and cognitive linguistics: critical review and convergence of approaches
MARTA BUJÁN

Complutense Journal of English Studies, 2019

Linguistic humour studies have been undertaken from different perspectives. The present paper offers a review of the most influential theories seeking synergies and convergence between them under the umbrella of cognitive linguistics, and, more specifically, resorting to Langacker’s (2001) current discourse space (CDS) as the overall framework which can accommodate and encompass those perspectives, along with Fauconnier and Turner’s (2003) Conceptual Integration Theory. A sketch of various theories is included (Raskin, 1985; Attardo, 1994; Coulson, 2005a; Veale, 2015, etc.), along with an analysis of points of convergence and similarities as the rationale for bringing them together against the backdrop of the CDS.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved