1
What would life be like if we had no humor? It is safe to say that it would be lackluster and practically unable to bear. After all, humor is a big part of our everyday life. Almost no part of life is devoid of humor. It defines us as human beings. Many attempts have been made to actually “get to the bottom” of the definition of humor. What is it actually? That is a question that is often asked, but not easily answered.
All through the centuries, philosophers and academics have pondered the question of why various forms of speaking make people laugh and others do not. Aristotle had an idea of the difference between comedy and tragedy. He said that the difference was that comedy makes men look worse than they really are and tragedy makes them look better than they are. Aristotle’s view was that tragedy was more important than comedy for some reason.
In some ways this is still true today. Humor, or comedy, is considered a lesser form, just as it was when Aristotle opined the same back in 322 B.C. (Carison, 1993: 20) Philosophers such as Kant, Plato and Hobbes consider laughter in reply to humor as people considering themselves superior to others. In other words, people’s reaction to comedy is almost in the sense of “bullying” or making fun of others. In current times, psychologist also have somewhat agreed with this view. Sigmund Freud wrote that repression and anger were behind humor (Francis, 1983: 149). In 1922, McDougall said that laughter is instinctive, correlating it to our ability to sympathize with others. Nevertheless, these different theories still do not fully define comedy or humor.
Background
All through history humor and what it evokes have been discussed and debated. Most recently humor has been the subject of discussions and studies in psychological and physical health fields. The philosopher, Plato, said that people laugh at other’s misfortunes (1975[4th, 45-49]). He said that we laugh at failure and therefore the laughter comes from our own moral failure. Nineteenth century theorists viewed humor similarly to those of the past.
In 1859, Bain wrote that “in everything where a man can achieve a troke of superiority, in surpassing or discomfiting a rival is the disposition to laughter apparent.” (153) In addition, he said that “the occasion of the ludicrous is the degradation of some person or interest-possession dignity in circumstances that excite no other strong emotion.” (248) Hazlitt (1903: 8-9) wrote that, “We laugh at absurdity…at deformity…at what we do not believe…to show our satisfaction with ourselves, or our contempt for those about us or to conceal our envy or ignorance.”
As the more modern “take” on humor, Susan Forward (1989: 30) wrote that humor can actually be a mask for verbal abuse, and then if the victim takes offense, the abuser says he or she just simply has no sense of humor. This is definitely a negative image of humor. But, it has not always been that way. Kant (1790: 176) considered wit to be the “play of thought” and believed that absurdity evokes laughter, and is actually a form of affection. (1790: 177) Kant also said that humor must contain something that deceives “for a moment.” To sum up, Kant defined humor as “sudden.”
“Humor in a good sense means the talent for being able to put oneself at will into a certain frame of mind in which everything is estimated on lines that go quite off the beaten track (a topsy-turvy view of things), and yet on lines, that follow certain principles, rational in the case of such a mental temperament. A person with whom such variations are not a matter of choice is said to have humors; but if a person can assume them voluntarily and of set purpose (on behalf of a lively presentation drawn from a ludicrous contrast), he and his way of speaking are termed humorous.” (Kant, 1790: 238)
The “sudden” change from the behavior that is expected can be in the use of language, such as grammar or the use of words. It can be a sudden deviation in character and behavior from the normal. But, it could also be merely situational such as visual associations and incongruities.
Academics and scholars, beginning in the 1900’s began to think of laughter and humor as a form of release of tension and stress. Freud (1976 [1905]: 282) for instance wrote about the pleasure in jokes and the release of comic pleasure.
He (Freud, 302) wrote:
The pleasure in jokes has seemed ... to arise from an economy in expenditure upon inhibition, the pleasure in the comic form of an economy in expenditure upon ideation... and the pleasure of humor from an economy in expenditure upon feeling.
The relatively new idea that laughter and humor have appreciably beneficial effect on peoples’ health is based on this view. Most notable in writing about the use of humor as a form of therapy are Fry and his associates (Fray and Stoft, 1971: Fry and Allen, 1975, Fry and Rader, 1977; Fry and Salameh, 1987; Fry and Savin, 1988). These different researchers have found that laughter produces an increase in arterial blood pressure which decreases below resting pressure levels. That of course, makes the blood circulate much more efficiently. That is one of the most healthful benefits that could be obtained by just a joke or a laugh.
Humor
Humor’s role in society is notable for making people aware of aspects in society that need attention. Humor can emphasize these possible abuses and adversities in society and think more carefully about the current prejudices and social conventions. (Koestler, 1964) Examples that are obvious are political cartoons, television parodies, and even the ever-present “sit-com” which sometimes bring to light in a humorous way, the inconsistencies we might otherwise accept or overlook. Humor can be utilized as a weapon as well. As Muller wrote (1978):
“Humor is one of the highest expressions of liberty. There is apparently a close correlation between humor and the knowledge of oneself. Humor is the constant challenge and irritant to the clock of seriousness with which every power group in the world disguises its attempts at supremacy, monopoly, and domination.” (In: Nilsen and Nilsen, ed. 1983: 191)
The Nazi regime notably used the type of humorous drawings called caricature, along with an underlying disguised anti-Semitic message as propaganda.
Humor is not a simple phenomenon. Koestler (1964: 31) said that humor is the only creative activity where a specifically defined response is produced with a highly complex stimulus. A lot of humor is actually just figuratively used language. The real essence of humor is in starting out with something familiar, deceiving the listener to think they know what is going on, and then, coming up with a twist at the conclusion which is different than that which was anticipated.
For example, the old joke that goes like this:
Did you hear about the new baby that was so ugly the doctor slapped the mother instead?
Roukes (1997) put humor into categories as a sort of definition of different types:
- Whimsy—a sense of fun, amusement and the like. Once in a while this is considered a less sophisticated type of humor just because it is spontaneous and fanciful.
- Satire---can be anything from a gentle teasing to severe cutting ridiculing or biting humor. Humor of this type can be can be a comical change in slogans or words that are similar, but have different meanings. Satire’s purpose is to improve mankind, or bring about a criticism of things that are wrong in society.
- Narrative trickery or foolery---telling stories with characters that play jokes, or are comical in some kind of way.
- Parody—comical references to people’s behavior, which could be imitation, repetition, or other humorous references to people’s behavior, beliefs, or customs.
These various types of humor show how important it really is socially. It is a way or relating to others and having a good time. But, it is also a device to discuss difficult topics and social issues. As a result, the manifestations of humor should be an important concern to those who decide to use humor or study humor in a cultural perspective.
Numerous philosophers have considered humor and comedy as merely an emotion. As such, it can be classified just as any other emotion. If that is done, then humor would have terms such as evaluations, actions, and different situations. Sometimes researchers consider the uses for humor such as games and just the idea of socially being accepted by the use of jokes and humor. (Fry, 1963) Using this line of thinking then, a joke or some other type of comedy is really just its use such as social acceptance, releasing frustrations, persuasion for something, and other uses.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the speaker’s intended meaning and the study of language use in contet, according to Yule (2001: 127). In order to analyze humor, it should be inferred that pragmatism is a basis for humor and comes from the amusement of a culture. The conclusion then is that the words alone do not convey everything that the speaker means. This, though, is only one aspect of the pragmatics. How a person interprets and recognizes the words are another part of the equation. And this depends on the recognition of the act of speaking.
The Speech Act Theory, according to Dascal (2003) says that the meaning of the spoken word can be construed in two different ways—directly or indirectly. He says the direct way is when the it is the same as the meaning of the spoken word. The pragmatic interpretation then is the affirmation of the meaning by the recipient. The indirect way is when of course, it is different than the meaning. The pragmatic interpretation then means trying to find out from various cues, the meaning of the speech in order to understand what exactly was said. Humor uses this indirect use of the spoken word.
Grice (1957: 383) wrote about the difference between certain words’ meanings and the speaker’s actual intentions of the chosen words. This is a very important distinction in the study of humor. The “indirectness” idea was studied by Austin (1975: 383) who came up with three different types of speech:
1. Locutionary: Example: She said to me, “Turn the water on.” This is saying something... etc.
2. Illocutionary: Example: She advised me to turn the water on.” This is to do something by saying something.
3. Perlocutionaryact : She talked me into turning the water on.
The first is meant to produce an effect on behavior. The second and third different types of speech show that merely telling someone something directly may not have the desired effect, or the perlucutionary effect. This is the reason why telling any joke or displaying humor is a more than regular use of language. In some cases, comedians have been imprisoned, and assaulted both physically and verbally for simply using certain words in their performances. Language which is used for humor, therefore, should not just be said to be “hollow or void nor is it parasitic upon its normal use.” (Austin: 1975: 22)
Dascal (1985: 98) agrees with the impact on humor and wrote that humor depends on whether certain socio-pragmatic devices make indirectness possible. He classified these devices into three different types:
1. Sentence meaning: understanding a speaker’s specific words.
2. Utterance meaning: understanding the words in their specific context.
3. Speaker’s meaning: the speaker’s actual intention of the words spoken.
Besides, making a situation humorous is not just changing the structure of a sentence, but also creating humorous meanings. Here, it comes down to the difference between the meaning of the words spoken and these are exaggerated to make them more humorous.
Taking into account the two models by Dascal (1985) previously discussed, the first model (M1) the speaker and the listener both agree on whether it is direct or indirect.
Sentence meaning
Utterance meaning
Listener meaning Speaker meaning
Indirect Indirect
Listener meaning Speaker meaning
direct direct
Model two (M2) demonstrates the circumstances where there should be an agreement between a speaker and a listener, and a complete explanation of the relationship between the two.
Here is an old joke for consideration:
The miser took all his money out of the bank for a holiday. When he decided it had had enough of a rest he put it all back.
While the first sentence indicates that the miser is going to spend some money on a holiday vacation (M1) which would not be like him, the second (M2) shows that he did not spend it at all. That takes it from the relationship to M3, a new meaning entirely. (See the diagram)
The miser took all his money out of the bank for a holiday. When he thought it had had enough of a rest, he put it back.
The miser had a holiday is implicitly understood but not established. The money had a holiday is explicitly understood and established.
Here, M2 can only be seen to have a particular meaning by way of its relationship to Ml. If the joke led the listener directly to M2 without any hints at Ml, there would be no inconsistencies. However, the relationship between Ml and M2 provides understanding for the listener.
Pragmatics is how people analyze how humor actually works. Humor’s understanding and interpretation depend totally on the context and vary considerably such as the various words used, the social activity involved, and the culture involved. This is just another demonstration of the complexity and difficulty of dissecting humor.
2.1.3 Incongruity
A number of research studies have been done regarding incongruity as it relates to humor. (Raskin, l985; Attardo, 1994). Incongruity means something that is out of place, not harmonious in character or somehow inconsistent. The theories about incongruity are not so much based on the social or psychological part of humor as the strictly cognitive part. These theories are based on two different ideas, concepts, or contradictions. (Hemepelmann, 2000: 11). To quote Beattie (1776: 605), “laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in complex object or assemblage, or as acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them”. Humor is considered, in this context, as that which is out of place, or not belonging to that particular situation—it is not matched up with the normal behavior. It gives us a society which has “the abnormal, the bizarre, and the nonsensical” (Oring 1989: 350). However, this is not to say that that every
“out of place” factor is supposed to cause humor, or does seem humorous. Suls (1972) said that there must be a violation of expectations first, then for people to perceive the incompatible into the compatible, while still keeping that expectation. Three steps, then, are simplified, according to Suls:
1) A violation of expectations.
2) Perception of a set of events combining incompatible parts.
3) Preservation of the violation.
These three steps can be clearly seen in the following joke:
(I)“Mummy, mummy I do not like daddy!”
“Then leave him on the side of your plate and eat your vegetables”.
(Quoted in Chiaro 1992: 14.)
In this joke, the expectation is the child that does not “like daddy” sees that it is not acceptable. (Step 1) When the reader realizes the word “like” has a different meaning, he or she sees the absurd rule. (Step 2) Because of the two different meanings, and the readers’ awareness of them, the reader gets the violation. (Step 3) In this joke, one line is not funny, but the combination of them are funny, or humorous, when combined together as a gag. In this way, humor should be considered as a whole unit, not just one or two individual sentences. If taken that way, the purpose of the humor will be lost altogether, and the “punch line” would lose its meaning.
The third step, as a natural follow up to the steps one and two. When the reader realizes the item and the incongruity, it becomes simple to see the difference between the bizarre and the normal in the humor. This allows the listener to enjoy the joke, the opposite of the originally expectations.
There is a certain place in which humor meets incongruity. The point at which they meet shows that spoken humor is not similar in terms with Grices’ (1975) theories. It really does not matter which of these rules or definitions a person uses and which is not used.
Culture
Culture is extremely important in that it helps people get insight into how native people see life and see themselves and how they fit in with others. Bennett (1968: 10) defined culture as the reflection of the behavior of the society, whereas Lado (1957: 111) said it is the systems of patterned behavior. Whatever it is, humor plays a part in every culture. Humor in one culture, however, may be highly inappropriate in other cultures. Humor, therefore, can be “culture specific” varying from one culture to another. (Chiaro, 1992) Certain humorous situations may seem totally lacking in humor to a person not familiar with the socio-cultural aspects of the community.
Ruch et al. (1991) did a survey which divided the sense of humor into only two groups: the German and the French. He arrived at that conclusion in a particular way. He said that German humor appreciated categories of incongruity and nonsense, and the French appreciated humor that had sexual context. But humor only works when it is in the right context, and makes sense. In that regard, appropriate humor really is a creation of laughter, communication, and wit, while the wrong or inappropriate humor only does the opposite. Chiaro (1992) said that humor is only appropriate when the situation is socially appropriate, it is well timed, the creator of the humor aims it at himself or herself, and the idea is to make fun of the situation, not a person or group of people. On the other hand it would be inappropriate when it is rude, used to hurt people or humiliate them. It is also not appropriate when it clearly is frustrating to someone who wants to have a serious conversation. Positive humor, resistance to humor, or negative humor all come about as we live our lives. Humor does have numerous advantages,Sultanoff (1992) lists the following as the most important ones: