Overview of the Theories of Humour

2.3 Overview of the Theories of Humour

Limitations of space prohibit an extensive review of the large literature on humour produced throughout human history. Furthermore, such a task certainly falls beyond the scope of this thesis. Comprehensive discussions of theories of humour have been provided by scholars from various fields such as Philosophy (Palmer 1994, Critchely 2002) and Folk Studies (Oring 2003). Others have concentred on the social function of humour (Mulkay 1988, Billig 2005). In the first chapter of his 1994 book, Attardo offers a long survey of the studies on humour by Greek, Latin, medieval and modern scholars, who analysed it not only from a linguistic, but also philosophical and psychological points of view.

In this chapter I base my overview on Morreall (1983), Raskin (1994) and Attardo (1994) as they offer comprehensive descriptions of the theories of humour put forward by scholars in various fields. Both Morreall (1983) and Raskin (1985: 30-41) propose

a tripartite categorisation of these theories. Morreall (ibid.4-37) distinguishes among:  Superiority theories: Plato, Aristotle but also Hobbes suggested that we

laugh at others because we consider ourselves as superior;

 Incongruity theories: Kant, Schopenhauer and, to some extent, Beattie claimed that humour is the result of experiencing an incongruity between what we know and what we expect;

 Relief theories: Spencer and Freud saw laughing at others as a form of relieving pleasure.

Raskin (1985: 30-41) focuses in particular (but not only) on modern approaches to the study of humour. Interestingly, he points out that different theories highlight one or two prominent features of humour. Hence, their synthesis can foster a better understanding of humour than considering each feature separately (ibid.30). Like Morreall, Raskin suggests a group that comprises theories based on incongruity. This group includes theories based on the idea that humour occurs when two concepts or ideas clash because their meanings oppose each other. These are essentialist theories that aim to explain the essence of the phenomena from a structuralist point of view (ibid.31- 36). Raskin’s script-based theory (the SSTH) and Attardo’s subsequent development (the GTVH) can also be included in this group, as I will show later in this chapter.

Raskin’s (ibid.36-38) second group includes a larger set of theories (hostility, superiority, malice, derision) whose basic idea is that humour is created by the speaker’s aggressive attitude towards the object of her/his humorous utterance (disparagement). As Raskin points out, many researchers that used this approach

considered themselves followers of Hobbes. The latter suggests that laughter is an expression of the speaker/receiver’s sense of superiority over the target of the humorous utterance. Drawing from Bergson, Raskin explains that humour can be seen as aggressive when it attempts to correct a socially unacceptable behaviour (defined as

‘exclusive’ humour and opposed to ‘inclusive’ humour, which is used for a cohesive purpose).

Raskin’s third and final group includes theories that tend to see humour as a means of freeing oneself from the conventions imposed by society. He labels it the ‘release

theory’ group and identifies Freud as its main proponent. Raskin sees these theories as directly associated with suppression/repression laughter, although they are usually

related to sex (ibid.39). Attardo (ibid.47-

50) summarises Raskin’s (1985) general classification outlined above and labels the three groups as ‘Incongruity’, ‘Hostility’ and ‘Release’ respectively. In particular, he high lights each group’s orientation. As I have said

earlier, ‘Incongruity Theories’ aim to understand the essence and the creation process of humour. Therefore, Attardo considers them as cognitive-based approaches. In contrast, t he sociolinguistic orientation of the ‘Hostility Theories’ emphasises the interpersonal (or social-behavioural) aspect of humour. Finally, the ‘Release Theories’ mostly analyse humour from a psychological point of view because they try to understand its psychological causes and effects. I have reproduced Attardo’s summarising table below for the sake of completeness. The theories are subsumed under three groups but they are not hierarchically ordered. They are all at the same level:

Psychological Incongruity Hostility

Cognitive

Social

Release Contrast

Derision Disparagement

Table 2.1: Reproduction of Attardo’s (1994: 47) categorisation of Theories of Humour

More importantly, Attardo points out that there have recently been some relevant developments in humour research from the linguistic point of view (ibid.59). Thus, he provides a survey of the most prominent linguistic theories of humour, including Structuralist Theories, Semiotic and Text Theories, Script-Based Theories and Theories of Contextual Humour. I will briefly introduce the first two groups here because they have contributed to the development of the Script-based Theories, which include Raskin’s SSTH and Attardo’s GTVH. The Theories of Contextual Humour will be treated separately because they are relevant to the analysis of conversational humour and comedy in particular.

In a nutshell, Attardo explains (ibid.62-63) that Structuralist Theories are mainly based on Greimas’s (1983 [1966], quoted in Attardo ibid.) ‘Isotopy-Disjunction Model’ and focus on the analysis of verbal jokes. According to Greimas, jokes are composed of two main sections whose isotopies are in implicit opposition. More specifically, he points out that, when a text is produced, it can contain various different meanings resulting from the linguistic items of which it is composed. In order to establish a single meaningful reading of a whole text, a disambiguation process is needed. Hence, Greimas introduces the notion of isotopy as a tool that facilitates this disambiguation process. An isotopy allows the interpretation of all the elements composing a text according to a single meaning given by the context within which they are embedded (ibid.69).

However, Attardo points out that the level of interest in the notion of isotopy has led to problems in its precise definition because scholars in various fields of research (e.g. Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1976, the Groupe  1977, Eco 1984) tend to broaden and sometimes confuse its meaning (ibid.74-81). For this reason, Attardo seeks to give a general, yet precise, definition of this concept by stating that an isotopy is a coherent However, Attardo points out that the level of interest in the notion of isotopy has led to problems in its precise definition because scholars in various fields of research (e.g. Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1976, the Groupe  1977, Eco 1984) tend to broaden and sometimes confuse its meaning (ibid.74-81). For this reason, Attardo seeks to give a general, yet precise, definition of this concept by stating that an isotopy is a coherent

a linear reading of the text which allows its receivers to understand it (ibid.94).

Drawing on Morin (1966), Attardo finds three functions that account for the linear composition of a joke. The first function (F1) establishes the content and the context of the text. The second function (F2) contains a ‘connector’, which is a word whose meaning (isotopy) is given according to its context. The connector also links this part of the text to the following one. The third function (F3) introduces the ‘disjunctor’, whose role is to display the opposition between the first serious sense (established in the previous part of the text) to the second humorous one. This model is based on the linear sequence of the elements listed above (F1 + F2 + F3). The connector and disjunctor in the text operate in order to create the humorous effect (cf. also Tsakona 2003 on the analysis of jokes according to these three functions). This process explains how the humorous effect is created by the speaker and processed by the receiver (ibid.85-101). As I will demonstrate shortly, the isotopy can be seen as the forerunner of the concept of ‘script’, which is introduced in the next section.

Attardo’s second group includes what he calls Semiotic and Text theories. The latter (or Linguo-Literary Approaches) are language-based and focus on literary texts with humorous content. The Semiotic Th eories mainly derive from Koestler’s (1964)

book on creativity and the ‘Bisociation Theory’ proposed in it. In Koestler’s (1964: 35, quoted in Attardo ibid.175) view, bisociation is a cognitive process provoked by the presence of two incompatible ideas in the same text (or context). Perlmutter (2000: 155) explains the concept of bisociation connected to humour as “the collision of lines

of thought”. This clash reveals itself in the last part of the joke, its punch line, thereby of thought”. This clash reveals itself in the last part of the joke, its punch line, thereby

For Attardo (ibid.175), these cognitive approaches can be associated with the incongruity theories mentioned above. Indeed, they combine the notion of isotopy and script opposition (described in the next section). Drawing on Manetti’s (1976) semiotic approach to humour, Attardo explains that the punch line of a joke carries a relevant load of information which also triggers the opposition between the isotopies of the text by identifying its incongruous parts. Most importantly, Attardo points out that Manetti’s major contribution to the understanding of the process of humour is based on the idea that certain isotopy oppositions can be considered as recurrent patterns. Manetti introduces the so- called ‘relational grid’, according to which it is possible to establish which oppositions can be considered humorous in a given culture. In this light, it seems plausible to think that a humorous text is created on the basis of pre-existing isotopy oppositions in a given culture. However, Attardo reminds us that Manetti fails to present any list of possible oppositions (ibid.177-178). This gap is filled by Raskin’s theory, which will be discussed in the next section.