Humour in Conversation

2.5 Humour in Conversation

The relevance of context in humour understanding is pivotal. Some scholars have concentrated on the analysis of jokes in connection to the context within which they are uttered. According to Attardo (1994: 295-296), within this branch of humour research, there is a distinction between canned and conversational (or situational) jokes. Canned jokes are defined as jokes that have already been used by other speakers in several situations and are available, for instance, in books or collections of jokes. Conversational jokes may occur spontaneously in conversation and may be caused by a given situation. They are generally defined as ‘witty’. He also highlights the fact that these two classes tend to overlap and interchange. Attardo stresses the fact that the former is a kind of ‘reused’ joke that is usually decontextualised. However, he also makes it clear that, once canned jokes are used in a given context or conversation, they are influenced by it and can enter the class of conversational jokes. In addition, he claims that it is easier to reproduce a canned joke within a new context than transforming a conversational joke into a canned one (cf. also Nash 1985: 56-58 and Oring 2003: 85 on similar considerations).

Attardo (ibid.297-298) also points out that, unlike conversational jokes, canned jokes require an introduction (e.g. “Do you know that one…” etc.; my example). Nonetheless, conversational jokes can sometimes exploit a part of the previous discourse and build on it, while canned jokes cannot. Norrick (1993) devotes a chapter

of his book-length study to the analysis of the way audiences and joke tellers negotiate of his book-length study to the analysis of the way audiences and joke tellers negotiate

In their discussions, both Attardo (1994, Ch.10) and Norrick (1993) refer to Sacks ’s (1972, 1974) and Sherzer’s (1978) contributions to humour research, which are based on their work in Conversation Analysis. The former is the most prominent proponent of the Conversation Analysis framework, which helps to understand how people construct a conversation and build social order through talk. As Attardo (ibid.311) explains, Sacks (1974) offers a detailed micro-analysis of the structure of jokes in conversation according to Conversational Analysis. In particular, he demonstrates that both canned and conversational jokes have a similar structure which contains an introduction of the joke, its telling and the audience’s reaction.

Attardo (ibid.312) also reports on Sacks’s (1972) analysis of the mechanisms used in constructing conversational humour. The latter considers in particular how punning and wordplay are exploited to this end. In Sacks’s view, punning in conversation is

mainly possible because the interlocutors exploit the literal and idiomatic meaning of what he calls ‘proverbials’ (or ‘formulaic expressions’). Evidence of both Sacks’s claims can be found in Chapter 5 in this thesis, in which I investigate humorous puns in my data and particularly puns based on the exploitation of the literal and idiomatic meaning of fixed expressions.

Finally, Attardo also explains that, in his attempt to continue Sacks’s work, Sherzer (1978) suggests that puns are likely to be found at the end of an exchange because they are based on proverbials whose double meaning can be exploited to sum up a topic and create (final) cohesion. However, in the light of what I have reported above regarding the existence of jab lines and their jocular nature, it can be argued that puns can be found both in final position but also throughout the text, especially in long ones Finally, Attardo also explains that, in his attempt to continue Sacks’s work, Sherzer (1978) suggests that puns are likely to be found at the end of an exchange because they are based on proverbials whose double meaning can be exploited to sum up a topic and create (final) cohesion. However, in the light of what I have reported above regarding the existence of jab lines and their jocular nature, it can be argued that puns can be found both in final position but also throughout the text, especially in long ones

It is now worth considering the function(s) of humorous instances in conversation.

2.5.1 Function(s) of Humour in Conversation In his introductory chapter on natural occurring humour in conversation, Norrick (1993) importantly points out that:

[J]oking allows us to manipulate talk and participants in various ways, by presenting a self, probing for information about the attitudes and affiliations of our interlocutors, realigning ourselves with respect to them and, of course, injecting humour into a situation, which helps to relieve the tension and foster friendly interaction (ibid.5).

All these functions have been investigated in humour research and deserve special mention. For example, Tannen (1984) analyses humour and irony at a Thanksgiving dinner and suggests that those who use humour in conversation leave a stronger impression of themselves on other people. Moreover, Tannen highlights the fact that people display peculiar ways of creating humour, which she defines as their “brand” of humour, their personal style in joking. For example, some people may pick on others’ pronunciation and mock their way of talking, but without causing offence (ibid.132).

Antonopoulou and Sifianou (2003) also explore instances of humour that do not aim to cause offence. These scholars analyse humorous telephone exchanges between Antonopoulou and Sifianou (2003) also explore instances of humour that do not aim to cause offence. These scholars analyse humorous telephone exchanges between

Norrick (1993: 63) claims that wordplay and punning can be used in conversation to challenge, test and attack the interlocutor(s) and, at the same time, to show the speaker’s wit. Along with jokes, puns, wordplays, Norrick (ibid.45-81) also studies the use of anecdotes. One of the most interesting points he makes regarding personal anecdotes in conversation is that they help to promote a positive self-image. Anecdotes often refer to humorous but also painful experiences and if the teller is able to joke about it, s/he is likely to be positively evaluated by their interlocutors. In addition, Norrick maintains that an anecdote can present an amusing scene which calls for listeners ’ reaction (e.g. to laugh, comment, tell a counter-anecdote, etc) (ibid.48; cf. Hay 2001 on humour support). Norrick finally claims that conversational humour among friends usually aims to entertain and create in-group bonding rather than expressing the audience ’s or the speaker’s superiority (ibid.111).

As can be seen, the analysis of humour in naturally occurring conversations can reveal important information about the people involved in them. For example, it may show the joke teller’s wit (or lack of it) and the interlocutors’ (in)ability to grasp implied meanings and humour. More importantly, it can make evident how the norms established in a given socio-cultural setting may determine the (in)appropriateness of humour (Attardo 1994: 319).

In the next section I will consider the specific case of humour in TV comedy, which is also the main focus of this thesis.