tesis gender and humour

Gender and Humour: Beyond a Joke

Jennifer Hay

Submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington
in ful
lment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Linguistics.

June 13, 1995

Abstract

This thesis investigates the interaction between gender and humour in spontaneous New Zealand English. Tapes were collected of men and women in single
sex and mixed groups and instances of humour were identi
ed and transcribed.
The taping situation proved more comfortable for the female groups and the
mixed groups than for the male groups. Male groups tend to be more task-based,
and so often treated the taping as a task to be completed. The tape-recorder
was the primary reason for their conversation, whereas for other groups, the
tape-recorder was incidental to the interaction.
A taxonomy of types of humour was constructed. Log-linear modelling showed
that both gender and group composition a ect the type of humour used. The

most statistically signi
cant results were that women are more likely to use observational humour than men, insults and roleplay are more likely to occur in
single sex conversations and humour involving quotes or vulgarity seldom occurs
in mixed interaction and is more often used by men than by women. Other
trends indicated that anecdotes and fantasy humour are more likely to occur in
mixed interaction than single sex interaction, and men tend to use more roleplay
and wordplay than women whereas women are more likely to use jocular insults.
Most of the humour in the corpus was fresh humour, although men were shown
more likely to use external source humour than women. This supports prior
research which indicates men's humour is likely to be less context bound than
women's and that they are more likely than women to discuss things they have
seen or read.
An analysis of the functions of humour showed women more likely to use humour
to create solidarity than men. In particular, women often used humour to share
personal information about themselves. When using humour for solidarity based
purposes men were more likely to capitalise on shared experiences or highlight
similarities. Power based strategies such as controlling or fostering conict occurred extremely rarely. Men were more likely than women to use humour only
for the general function of increasing status and solidarity and performing positive work on their personal identity. Men were more likely to use humour to
cope with a situational problem, whereas females more often used general coping
strategies which enabled them to cope with problems not speci
c to the immedi-

ate situation. The results showed that, contrary to literature indicating teasing is
a predominantly male activity, men and women tease both in a powerful manner
and to create or maintain solidarity, although this strategy is largely restricted
to single sex groups.
The humour used by the females was more likely to be about a topic involving people than men's humour. The men joked more about work, computers,
television shows, movies or books, and alcohol.
Speakers were much more likely to use humour focussed on a same-sex group
member when in single sex groups than in mixed groups. In mixed interaction
speakers maintained gender boundaries by focussing humour on group members
of the opposite sex.
In mixed groups men contributed more humour than women. This supports
claims that, as joking has been regarded a masculine activity, women are reserved
with their humour when in mixed groups.
Analysis of how speakers present themselves through humour can give insight
into the value systems of the group. The humour in this corpus indicates that
the ability to laugh at oneself and to be open and honest are valued more by
female groups than male groups, and wit and \coolness" are traits valued more
by males.
The
nal aspect of humour investigated is that of humour support. It is shown
that the issue of humour support is much more complicated than many researchers claim. There are numerous support strategies available to any audience, some of which provide stronger support than others. The most appropriate

strategies will vary with context. Some types of humour do not require any support at all, and there are many reasons why an audience may choose not to
support an attempt at humour.
The results presented in this thesis are intended as ground work on which to
base further qualitative investigation of how gendered identities are constructed
via humour.

Acknowledgements
In Which Jen Admits that She had a Little Bit Of Help

This thesis could not have been completed without the time, help, advice and
energy of numerous people.
I am extremely indebted to those friends who succumbed to my bullying and
taped their conversations to contribute to my corpus. Thanks are also due to
Anita Easton, for providing me with several pre-transcribed conversations, and
to the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English for allowing me access
to their data, and lending me a transcribing machine.
This thesis has bene
tted greatly from the advice and comments of several seminar and conference audiences. I would like to thank Miriam Meyerho and
Maria Stubbe for providing references, comments, enthusiasm and support. Useful references were also provided by Chris Lane, Laurie Bauer, Gary Johnson,
David Crabbe and Robert Sigley. Alan Tam converted my graphs to postscript,
and Annie McGregor provided papers, references, enthusiasm and good humour

when it was most needed. I'd also like to thank Alex Heatley for his thorough
attempt at retrieving my literature review from the back-up tapes!
Sally McConnell-Ginet provided much needed enlightenment as to the structure
of my function taxonomy, a willing ear, and useful advice and comments.
Many thanks are due to the sta of the linguistics department at Victoria, who
provided much support and encouragement. I would also like to thank Alastair
Gray for his advice and guidance on the statistics in this thesis.
Financially I am indebted to the BNZ and Victoria University for their generous
scholarships, the internal grants committee for covering thesis-related expenses
and the Linguistic Society of New Zealand for funding my trip to the conference
in Lincoln. I'd also like to thank Liz Pearce for the chance to accumulate some
teaching experience, Allan Bell for providing tapes on which to practise my
transcribing, and Janet Holmes and Allan Bell for giving me an excuse to spend
a few days in the sun.
I am eternally grateful to Mrs Wasmuth, my sixth form English teacher, who
provided boundless inspiration, enthusiasm and encouragement. Had it not been

for her class, I may well have been
nishing an MSc in computer science right
now. I can not express my gratitude enough!
I'm grateful to the many people who regularly stopped by the oce to chat,

providing a welcome distraction and relief. In particular such thanks are due to
Gary Johnson and Allan Bell.
For co ee, support, meals, chats, and laughter, I would like to thank Bernadette
Vine, Claire Oram, Andrew Chick, Linton Miller, Judi Lapsley Miller, David
Tulloch, Jenny Freeman, Lindy Smith, and Phil Plasma.
In particular I am indebted to Aaron, resident computer consultant, translator,
advisor, proofreader, friend, chau eur and chef-extraordinaire.
I am extremely grateful to my wonderful mother who patiently proofread the
draft of my thesis. Bernadette Vine and Gary Johnson also proofread parts of
this thesis, and Bernadette checked through my many tables and sacri
ced some
sleep to help with the last minute rush! Chris Lane provided useful comments
on the
nal draft.
My greatest debt is to my supervisor Janet Holmes. Her support and enthusiasm
for this project were constants I could always rely on. I would like to thank her
for providing both valuable guidance and the freedom to wander where my data
and whims lead me, for setting tight deadlines and understanding when I often
missed them, for
nding my work interesting even when I found it most boring,
and for being a mentor and a friend.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Father, who would have been
proud.

Contents
1 Introduction

1

2 Review of humour research

3

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

De
ning Humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Theories of humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Humour research using elicitation or surveys :
Research on conversational joking : : : : : : :
Literature on types of humour : : : : : : : : :
The functions of humour : : : : : : : : : : : :
Conclusion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :

3 Gender, Language and Humour

3.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

3.2 Men and Women in Conversation : : : : : : : : : : :
3.3 Explanations of di erence : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.3.1 Female De
cit : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.3.2 Di erence or Dominance? An ongoing debate
3.4 Conceptualisations of Gender { Moving Forward : :
3.5 Gender and Humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.6 Conclusion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

i

3
4
7
8
8
10
12
14

15

: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : :

15
15
18
18
18
20
24
32

CONTENTS

ii

4 Methodology

4.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2 Control of Variables : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.1 Number of Speakers : : : : : : : :
4.2.2 Sex : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.3 Ethnicity : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.4 Age : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.5 Education : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.6 Intimacy of Speakers : : : : : : : :
4.2.7 Setting : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.2.8 Alcohol : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.3 Data Collection : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.3.1 Speakers' knowledge of the project
4.4 Selection of examples : : : : : : : : : : : :
4.5 Methodological problems : : : : : : : : : :

35

: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :

5 Statistical methods

5.1 Log-linear modelling : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.2 Clustering e ects : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.2.1 Clustering due to individual behaviour : : : : : : : : :
5.2.2 Clustering due to conversational ow : : : : : : : : : :
5.2.3 Clustering due to complex examples : : : : : : : : : :
5.3 A statistical check on clustering : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.4 The suitability of statistics for analysing conversational data

51
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :

6 Types of humour

6.1 Introduction : : : : : : :
6.2 The Taxonomy of Types
6.3 De
ning the Types : : :
6.3.1 Anecdote : : : :

35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
40
41
51
59
59
59
60
60
60

63
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

ii

63
65
65
65

CONTENTS

iii

6.3.2 Fantasy : : : : :
6.3.3 Insult : : : : : :
6.3.4 Irony : : : : : : :
6.3.5 Jokes : : : : : :
6.3.6 Observational : :
6.3.7 Quote : : : : : :
6.3.8 Roleplay : : : : :
6.3.9 Self Deprecation
6.3.10 Vulgarity : : : :
6.3.11 Wordplay : : : :
6.3.12 Other : : : : : :
6.4 Results : : : : : : : : : :
6.5 Discussion : : : : : : : :
6.6 Conclusion : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

7 Fresh Humour and Seconds Humour
7.1 Background
7.2 Results : : :
7.3 Discussion :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

8 The Functions of Humour

8.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.2 The Framework : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.3 Solidarity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.3.1 To share : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.3.2 To highlight similarities or capitalise on shared experiences
8.3.3 To clarify and maintain boundaries : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.3.4 To tease (S) : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.4 Power : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.4.1 To foster conict : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
iii

68
70
71
73
74
75
76
78
78
79
81
82
84
89

91

91
95
96

97

97
97
99
100
100
102
102
103
104

CONTENTS

iv

8.5

8.6
8.7
8.8

8.9

8.10

8.4.2 To control : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.4.3 To challenge and set boundaries : :
8.4.4 To tease (P) : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Psychological Functions : : : : : : : : : : :
8.5.1 To defend : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.5.2 To cope with a situational problem :
8.5.3 To cope with a general problem : : :
Results : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Overall results : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Results of individual strategies : : : : : : :
8.8.1 Results of solidarity based strategies
8.8.2 Results of power based strategies : :
8.8.3 Results of psychological functions : :
Discussion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.9.1 The General Function : : : : : : : :
8.9.2 Solidarity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.9.3 Power : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8.9.4 Psychological Functions : : : : : : :
Conclusion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :

9 Focus and Topic

106
107
108
108
109
109
110
111
111
114
114
115
117
118
118
119
122
123
123
125

9.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : :
9.2 Focus : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
9.2.1 Classi
cation and Results
9.2.2 Discussion : : : : : : : : :
9.3 Topic : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
9.3.1 Discussion : : : : : : : : :
9.4 Conclusion : : : : : : : : : : : :

iv

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

125
125
126
128
129
132
136

CONTENTS

v

10 Amount of Humour

10.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
10.2 Quantifying \Amount" of humour : : : : : : : :
10.2.1 Counting instances of humour : : : : : : :
10.2.2 Calculating relative humour contribution
10.3 Results : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
10.4 Discussion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

137
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :

11 Social and Personal Identity
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6

Background : : : : : : : :
Ability to laugh at oneself
Wit/Cleverness : : : : : :
Openness/Honesty : : : :
Coolness : : : : : : : : : :
Conclusion : : : : : : : :

137
139
139
139
140
143

145
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

12 Laughter and humour support strategies
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4

Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Laughter as humour support : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Counting laughter : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Humour support strategies : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.4.1 Contributing more humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.4.2 Echo : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.4.3 O er sympathy or contradict self-deprecating humour :
12.4.4 Overlap and heightened involvement in the conversation
12.4.5 Non-verbal : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.5 When explicit support is not needed : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.5.1 The humour is a support strategy itself : : : : : : : : :
12.5.2 Irony : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
12.6 Failed humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
v

145
147
148
149
151
153

155
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

155
155
157
162
162
166
167
169
169
170
170
170
171

CONTENTS

vi

12.6.1 Insucient contextualisation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 171
12.6.2 Being too late or reviving \dead" humour : : : : : : : : : 172
12.6.3 Assuming too much background knowledge : : : : : : : : 173
12.6.4 Misjudging relation between speaker and audience : : : : 175
12.6.5 Negatively teasing someone present : : : : : : : : : : : : : 176
12.6.6 Trying to gain membership of exclusive sub-group : : : : 177
12.6.7 Disrupting serious conversation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 178
12.6.8 Portraying oneself inappropriately for one's status or gender179
12.6.9 Other unsupported humour : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 181
12.7 Conclusion : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 181

13 Conclusion

183

A Key to Transcription Conventions

189

Bibliography

193

vi

List of Figures
8.1 The functions of humour :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

10.1 Humour contribution by individuals in mixed groups : :
10.2 Humour contribution by individuals in single sex groups

vii

: : : : :
: : : : :

98
142
142

List of Tables
4.1 Pre-collected data available

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

39

5.1 Example model: Observed frequencies : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.2 Example model: Predicted frequencies according to the independence model : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.3 Example model: SAS analysis for independence model : : : : : :
5.4 Example model: SAS analysis of model showing interaction between all variables : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.5 Example model: SAS analysis of model of main e ects for hair :
5.6 Example model: Predicted frequencies for model of main e ects
for hair : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.7 Example model: Predicted frequencies for model of main e ects
for hair { collapsed : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.8 Example model: Conditional probabilities : : : : : : : : : : : : :

58
58

6.1 Probability
gures for types of humour :
6.2 Odds ratios for types of humour : : : : :

82
83

7.1 Probabilities for \freshness" of humour :
7.2 Odds ratios for \freshness" of humour :
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Results of possible models for overall function
Probability
gures for overall function : : : :
Odds ratios for overall function : : : : : : : :
Probabilities for solidarity based strategies : :
ix

: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : :

53
53
54
55
56
57

95
95
112
112
113
114

CONTENTS

x
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9

Odds ratios for solidarity based strategies
Probabilities for power based strategies :
Odds ratios for power based strategies : :
Probabilities for psychological functions :
Odds ratios for psychological functions : :

9.1 Probability
gures for focus of humour :
9.2 Odds ratios for focus of humour : : : : :
9.3 Percentage of humour on di erent topics

: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

10.1 Number of high and low contributors of humour
12.1 Percentage of humour supported by laughter

x

115
116
116
117
117
127
127
131

: : : : : : : : :

141

: : : : : : : : : : :

159

Chapter 1
Introduction
Interest in language and gender research has exploded in the last few decades.
Researchers have examined the relationship between language and gender using
numerous methodologies and with regard to a diverse set of variables. Humour
research has also become increasingly proli
c, to the extent that there is now
a regular journal devoted to the subject. The intersection between these
elds,
however, is relatively unexplored. There are many myths and stereotypes postulating gender di erences in use and appreciation of humour, but there is a
conspicuous lack of studies investigating how men and women use humour in
spontaneous, natural, spoken English. This thesis is an initial step towards
lling this gap.
In chapter 2 I briey review relevant literature in humour research, giving an indication of past
ndings and areas which would bene
t from closer investigation.
Chapter 3 outlines recent developments in the area of gender and language, and
goes on to discuss research which has dealt speci
cally with gender and humour.
The speci
c methodology employed in this study is described in chapter 4. The
design of the project, the data collection, the variables controlled, and resulting
methodological problems are addressed.
The statistical technique with which I have chosen to analyse several aspects of
my data may be unfamiliar to some readers. Chapter 5 outlines the reasoning
behind log-linear modelling and illustrates the technique with a simple example.
The discussion is designed to equip readers with the background necessary to
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

2

adequately interpret the results presented in the following chapters.
Chapter 6 outlines a taxonomy for categorising types of conversational humour.
The taxonomy was used to classify my data, and the results are presented and
discussed. In chapter 7 I introduce and illustrate the notion of freshness, and
discuss relevant gender di erences.
I also constructed a taxonomy of humour functions and strategies. This was
applied to the data. Chapter 8 describes and exempli
es the taxonomy and
outlines and discusses the results.
In chapter 9 I discuss the focus of the humour, and indicate the range and
distribution of topics. Chapter 10 outlines the proportion of humour contributed
by men and women in the recorded conversations.
Chapter 11 is a discussion of personal identity, and illustrates how humour, like
all interaction, provides an opportunity for the speaker to display certain characteristics. An analysis of how speakers portray themselves reveals information
about value systems. Signi
cant gender di erences in the representation of certain traits indicate that individuals are identifying as male or female, or more
precisely, what it means to identify as male or female.
Chapter 12 is a discussion of humour support strategies. I show that the issue of
humour support is much more complex than is generally assumed, and describe
a range of humour support strategies, and possible reasons why humour may go
unsupported.
I conclude in chapter 13 with a summary of the main
ndings and suggestions
for further research.

2

Chapter 2

Review of humour research
2.1

Introduction

The literature on humour is vast, and draws on a number of disciplines. Scholars
in psychology, sociology, anthropology, women's studies, communications and
management have investigated aspects of humour and joking, and linguists have
approached humour from several diverse angles. This discussion is, by necessity,
an extremely limited review of the huge amount of research available. It touches
briey on aspects of humour research which provide background information
relevant to this thesis. I will not touch on aspects of humour development,
the use of humour for therapy, cross-cultural issues, or the semantics of why a
joke is funny. I also omit discussion of literature on humorous written pieces
and people's reactions to and appreciation of such pieces, and have no room to
discuss the vast literature on comedy and stand-up routines.
In this chapter I limit discussion to literature which is directly relevant for the
topic of my thesis. I discuss problems in the de
nition of humour and related
terminological issues, and outline research which deals with spontaneous spoken
humour and is relevant to the analysis of types and functions of humour. Chapter
three outlines the current state of research and thinking in the area of language
and gender, discussing its potential impact on humour and gender research, and
concludes with a review of research which has combined the study of gender and
humour. This literature review is intended as an overview only. In the following
3

4

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

chapters I introduce literature in more detail where appropriate. Reviews of the
literature on gender di erences in amount of speech, topic, focus and other areas
discussed in this thesis are provided in the relevant chapters.

2.2 Dening Humour
Very few researchers take care to de
ne what they mean by humour, or specify
the basis on which they selected their examples. Aspects and repercussions of
humour and the functions it can play are readily ascribed and discussed, and
entire theories are sometimes constructed, without a de
nition in sight.
Those researchers that do de
ne their terms or make explicit the criteria by which
they select examples adopt varying approaches and emphases. Comparison of
de
nitions highlights contradictions and inconsistencies in this area. The issue
is further complicated by terminological overlap and confusion.
De
nitions tend to focus on either speaker intention or audience interpretation.
Berger (1976) de
nes humour as \a speci
c type of communication that establishes an incongruent relationship or meaning and is presented in a way that
causes laughter." The fact that Berger includes laughter as part of his de
nition
reects the fact that he holds the audience's interpretation to be important in
the de
nition of an event.
Winick (1976) concentrates on speaker intention. His de
nition of a joke is \any
type of communication that has a witty or funny intent that is known in advance
by the teller."
Unsuccessful attempts at humour would be included in Winick's de
nition, but
not in Berger's. De
nitions focussing on audience response are much easier to
apply than those which attempt to establish speaker intention. A researcher can
never tell from recorded data alone the exact nature of a speaker's intention. It is
easier to monitor the audience's reaction, and particularly easy if you maintain,
as does Berger, that the incident must be met with laughter. This is, of course,
complicated by the fact that laughter can indicate many things of which positive
response to humour is only one (see Poyatos 1993).
Pizzini (1991) uses the same criterion as Winick to select her examples:
4

2.2.

5

DEFINING HUMOUR

I have analysed those interactions from which the actors intended to
elicit a laugh or a smile. Thus I have disregarded what the researchers
considered as humorous, but which may not have been intended as
such. This has cast light on the situated nature of humour, as we see
in the examples of humorous remarks: the jokes recorded here do not
make the reader laugh, not only because they are sometimes tasteless
and unamusing, but because the reader (and writer) is alien to the
particular social group and situation in which the joke was expressed.
(Pizzini 1991:479-480)
Pizzini states that she is alien to the social group involved, and so she can have no
intuitive sense of the sorts of things they
nd humorous. She disregards what the
researchers think is funny, but which might not have been intended as humorous.
There can be no sure way of establishing speaker intention, so on what basis is she
selecting her data? She is most likely analysing those interactions that do elicit a
laugh or smile, and is perhaps guided by context and clues in the speaker's voice
which indicate that they are not serious. When joking, a speaker often adopts
a laughing or smiling voice, and they may speak more rapidly than normal,
using exaggeration and a wider pitch range, or otherwise indicate through their
intonation that their utterance is intended as humorous.
Martineau (1972:114) incorporates both elements in his de
nition. He states
\humour is conceived generically to be any communicative instance which is
perceived as humorous by any of the interacting parties". This de
nition, while
more comprehensive than many others, seems rather circular.
It can be seen that, though the de
nition of humour is possible, its application
to the selection of examples from recorded data is far from problem free. There
is inevitably some subjectivity involved, and the researcher must place some sort
of interpretation on the data. Researchers will no doubt concentrate on one
aspect depending on what they are interested in. If a researcher is interested
in how much humour is supported, then speaker intention is clearly the main
criteria for selection. Other approaches may require knowledge of all events an
audience found funny. The important thing is to make explicit which criteria are
being used, so that the reader may be sure exactly what is meant when the word
\humour" is used in any given piece of research.
5

6

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

It is important to be aware of overlap between the terms wit, humour and jokes.
Duncan (1984) chooses to use the terms joke and humour interchangeably. Long
and Graesser (1988) de
ne humour in the wider sense of Martineau (1972), incorporating both interpretation and intention. They de
ne jokes as things said
to deliberately provoke amusement.
Humor is anything done or said purposefully or inadvertently, that
is found to be comical or amusing. In contrast, jokes are de
ned as
anything done or said to deliberately provoke amusement. (Long and
Graesser 1988:37)
So it would seem that they use the term \joke" in a way similar to Winick (1976).
They then continue though,
Jokes are also context free and self contained in the sense that they
can be told in many conversational contexts. Wit will be de
ned as
anything deliberately said that provokes amusement in a speci
c conversational context (ie context bound). (Long and Graesser 1988:37)
So their de
nition of joke is restricted to anything said to deliberately provoke
amusement, and which is context free. This would apply to canned jokes { the
term given to a learned joke such as a narrative joke or a riddle. Some other
types of humour would also
t into this de
nition though most other types of
humour are context bound. Context bound intentional humour is labelled wit by
Long and Graesser. So they are taking an umbrella de
nition of humour { their
de
nition is the same as Martineau (1972). Together Long and Graesser's \joke"
and \wit" come together under a category labelled \joke" by Winick (1976)
and \humour" by Pizzini (1992). \Humour", by Berger's (1976) de
nition, will
include some of Long and Graesser's \jokes" and \wit", and some of what would
just be in their general humour category, and exclude some examples from all
of these categories. Research which de
nes humour in the same way as Pizzini
(1992), claiming the speaker's intention is paramount, often taxonomizes the
examples into various subsets of types of humour. Two of these categories could
well be jokes and wit. In such a context the labels have de
nitions which are
6

2.3.

7

THEORIES OF HUMOUR

more restrictive still. Sherzer (1985) for example, de
nes jokes as discourse units
consisting of two parts, the set up and the punchline.
It is obvious that there is some confusion and disagreement as to what the various
terms should refer to. This makes it all the more important for researchers to
de
ne their terms carefully to avoid misunderstanding. The terminology is a
minor problem compared to others facing us in humour research and all that is
really needed is some agreement. Until such time, however, it is important that
terms and criteria for selection of examples are very clearly documented for each
study.

2.3 Theories of humour
There are many diverse theories of humour. Most of these can be loosely categorised into one of three categories: superiority theories, incongruity theories
and relief theories.
Superiority theories have as their basic premise the assumption that laughter is
the triumph of one person over other people (Keith-Spiegel 1972).
Incongruity theories emphasise the cognitive processes involved in perceiving humour. Suls (1972) proposed a model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons.
This involves a two stage process which relies on the generation and discon
rmation of a listener's expectations. Raskin (1985) proposes a similar theory of
humour, claiming that jokes are compatible with two di erent scripts that are in
some way opposite. A joke begins by being compatible with one script, and then
a script-switch trigger occurs which is inconsistent with the original script. The
trigger is usually the punch line. The listener then searches for an alternative,
more compatible script. The humour lies in the overlap between the two scripts.
Relief or arousal theories incorporate the belief that laughter is the release of
repressed energy (Freud 1905).
How such theories of humour interrelate and function is a complex question. I
will not be touching on the issue of why something is considered funny in this
thesis. Instead I will be concentrating on actual spoken humour, and how it
occurs and functions in every day conversation.
7

8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

2.4 Humour research using elicitation or surveys
Only recently have researchers begun to study spontaneous spoken humour. Past
studies have been based on questionnaires or surveys (Crawford and Gressley
1991, Hampes 1992, Vitulli and Barbin 1991, Duncan 1984, Neuliep 1991 and
others) and elicitation (Fink and Walker 1977).
The methodology of some early studies is highly questionable. Fink and Walker
(1977) looked at humorous responses to embarrassment. The methodology employed in this study is somewhat dubious for both linguistic and ethical reasons. Sixty male subjects were put through an embarrassing interaction with
an experimenter by phone. They were asked to talk about issues such as sexual
attractiveness and appearance, and to describe the most embarrassing situation
they had experienced. The same interviewer was used throughout, but how she
introduced herself was varied. She introduced herself either as a professor, an
undergraduate or a high school student. This was so the variable of status could
be examined. In fact there were no signi
cant di erences in humour used with
regard to status, although signi
cantly more laughter occurred between people of
relatively equal status than between people with unequal status. Of course, these
are perceived status di erences rather than actual ones. The status is determined
by the way in which the interviewer introduced herself, but her conversational
style remains the same. This cannot be an exact simulation of conversation
between equals/unequals, although the authors seem to treat it as such.
The many questionnaire studies vary in their approach. Some ask for reactions
to certain instances of humour (Cox, Read and van Auken 1990), or ask for
descriptions of people the respondents perceive as particularly funny and about
their own use of humour (Crawford and Gressley 1991).
The questionnaire based studies of interest to this project are those which relate
to humour and gender. These are discussed in chapter 3.

2.5 Research on conversational joking
The most interesting and relevant humour research is that which is relatively
recent, and deals with recorded natural conversation.
8

2.5. RESEARCH ON CONVERSATIONAL JOKING

9

Davies (1984) investigated natural conversation, scripts, talk shows, interviews
and several other sources. She describes three joking styles used by speakers
of American English. The
rst consists mainly of insults, but only recognised
strengths must be attacked. This requires careful monitoring of reactions. In the
second style, speakers build on what others have done. Speakers demonstrate an
ability and willingness to participate in the joint e ort. It must be kept impersonal, and laughing and latching are common. Characteristic of this style are
phonetic play, lexical repetition and semantic linking between utterances. The
third style is an intimate positive politeness style in which the speaker displays
an understanding of what the other person is feeling/thinking. It uses allusion to
shared symbols and incongruity, gives the person a chance to express themselves
further and is usually accompanied by small smiles and laugh particles.
Norrick (1993:2) claims that in order to fully understand how joking can simultaneously express aggression and build rapport, we need to view joke-telling,
punning and teasing in relation to power, solidarity and distance and in light of
the principles of politeness and cooperation. He points out that the majority of
conversational joking grows from preceding talk, with much playing on it directly.
Norrick's book discusses di erent forms of humour, and gives some general examples of various joking styles. It is useful both as a signi
cant contribution to
research on situational joking, and an indication of how much we still have to
do!
Chiaro (1992) discusses jokes in depth. Her analysis is primarily based on jokes
and incidents drawn from personal memory, although some is taken from joke
collections, and the most interesting from recordings of dinner parties. She emphasises that for an audience to \get" a joke, there needs to be shared knowledge.
If a joke is too culturally oriented, then it does not travel successfully. A hearer
must have linguistic, sociocultural and poetic competence to understand a joke.
Chapter
ve of Chiaro's book is the most useful chapter. Here she looks at wordplay in action, claiming that if someone decides to be witty, something in the
context in which the conversation is taking place must have triggered this. This
prompt is most likely an element of the language or social context around the
conversation. We can joke \at any given moment" with people with whom we
are on friendly terms, but for those with whom we are less acquainted, play is
reserved for conventionally relaxed situations such as informal lunches or parties.
9

10

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

Chiaro discusses various joking styles and the implications of these. She also looks
at the features that distinguish serious and humorous discourse. This leads her to
the conclusion that the two labels are opposite ends of a continuum, and the area
in the middle could be de
ned either by neither or by both labels. The distinction
is not a clear-cut one. Some features which do tend to distinguish humorous from
serious discourse are choice of words, use of euphemisms, intonation and informal
discourse markers, gesture and comic expressions, exaggeration and interaction
with the audience, and a casual and chatty style. When analysing my data I
used many of these features to help identify and interpret instances of humour
(see chapter 4).

2.6 Literature on types of humour
In this section I will briey review some of the taxonomies for classifying types of
humour proposed by humour researchers. The crucial criterion here is the form
the humour takes. There are many such taxonomies, and listing them all would
not be particularly useful. Instead I pick out a few and through these identify
some key categories. Many taxonomies are intended only for categorising canned
or formulaic jokes.
Monro (1953) provides an outline of what he regards to be the traditional classes
of humour: a) any breach of the usual order of events, b) any forbidden breach
of the usual order of events, c) indecency, d) importing into one situation what
belongs in another, e) anything masquerading as something it's not, f) wordplay,
g) nonsense, h) small misfortunes, i) want of knowledge or skill, j) veiled insults.
This seems to be more or less a list of things that people
nd funny. These are
mostly the topics of the humour, rather than its actual form. Categories like
\wordplay", and \veiled insults" though, do describe the form of the humour.
Zijderveld (1983) describes humour as the exploitation of institutionalised meanings, and breaks down types of humour into exploitation of either language (e.g.
puns, spoonerisms), logic (wit, elephant jokes), emotions (black humour) or the
activities of everyday life (parody, understatement).
Feigelson's (1989) taxonomy of humour among employees in a factory is as follows:
10

2.6. LITERATURE ON TYPES OF HUMOUR

11

1. Puns
2. Goo
ng o (slapstick)
3. Jokes/anecdotes







Humorous self-ridicule
Bawdy jokes (sexual or racial basis)
Industry jokes

4. Teasing





Teasing to get things done
Bantering { the great leveller

Categories such as industry jokes, are context speci
c. Puns are a relevant
category. These would fall into a broader category of wordplay, as described in
Norrick (1993: chap.3). Wordplay can include not only puns, but also types of
humour such as spoonerisms, allusion, hyperbole and metaphor.
Feigelson has put jokes and anecdotes together as one category, although many
researchers choose to keep these distinct. Telling a joke is di erent from telling
an anecdote. An anecdote will be more personal, whereas telling a joke is more
of a performance.
Mitchell (1985) makes a further distinction between narrative jokes and question
and answer jokes.
Teasing is an important category. There is some confusion, though, as to whether
it is a type of humour, or a strategy, or function. It is rather di erent than other
\types" identi
ed in that a tease can not be formally identi
ed by any criterion.
In my data, humour which served to tease someone present appeared in the form
of fantasy humour, insults, wordplay, anecdotes and roleplay, and so is clearly
on a level di erent from a purely formal taxonomy. I regard tease as a strategy
which can take any number of forms, and which can be used to create either
solidarity or power. This category is further discussed in chapter 8.
There are two further categories identi
ed in the literature which do not seem to

t into Feigelson's framework. One is sarcasm as discussed by Norrick (1993:73).
11

12

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

And
nally, Morreall (1983) provides a comprehensive taxonomy of humour,
based on the concept of incongruity. Most of his categories could be slotted into
one of those discussed above, with the exception of mimicry.
In chapter 6 I outline a taxonomy developed for this thesis, which draws on the
literature discussed above and is further modi
ed to suit the data being analysed.

2.7 The functions of humour
In this section I briey outline the literature dealing with functions of humour
and identify some recurring themes.
Martineau (1972) discusses three functions of humour: consensus, conict and
control. The term consensus refers to the reduction of social distance. The
function of such humour is to initiate and solidify the development of social
relationships. It therefore encompasses functions such as integration into a group,
and creating solidarity. Conict humour introduces or fosters conict in a group.
Ridicule is a form of humour that can e ectively introduce conict. The term
control refers to the control of others. Humour is used to express grievances and
to draw people's attention to their mistakes.
The control function is also discussed by Collinson (1988). He discusses humour
on the shop oor, identifying three main functions { to resist boredom, to conform
and to control others. Collinson's conform reects the consensus category created
by Martineau. To resist boredom is a function not mentioned by Martineau. This
will be the function of a large number of instances, although probably not often
the sole reason. A broader term is to amuse or to entertain.
Pogrebin and Poole (1988) also identify three functions of humour. The
rst
is exploration, or probing. Humour allows us to test the attitudes and beliefs
of others in a non-threatening, o -record manner. In this way we can clarify
boundaries and standards. Humour is also used as a coping strategy. It helps
to normalise crises and deal with circumstances beyond our control. The third
function Pogrebin and Poole comment on is that of solidarity.
An aspect of solidarity is also investigated by Hampes (1992), who uses questionnaires to establish a correlation between humour and intimacy, concluding
12

2.7.

THE FUNCTIONS OF HUMOUR

13

\humor apparently helps people succeed in intimate relationships because it allows them to handle the stress within those relationships" (Hampes 1992:127).
Fink and Walker (1977) identify humour as a face-saving device in an embarrassing situation. This is another example of the coping function of humour.
The exploration and coping functions of humour are also discussed by Linstead
(1985), who points out that humour often performs a boundary function. He
refers to Davies (1982) work on ethnic jokes. By making fun of peripheral groups
we clarify boundaries. These boundaries can be social, geographic or moral. We
can establish acceptable standards, and ensure that there is consensus amongst
the group as to what these standards are.
In discussing self-directed humour, Ziv (1984) identi
es the following four functions:



Rede
ning the social hierarchy by higher status individuals in order to
create solidarity among group members of di ering social status




Protecting the self by identifying a weakness before anyone else does




Sharing similarities between self and others




Coping with weaknesses by making light of them

Ervin-Tripp and Lampert (1992) refer to these functions as equalizing, defending,
sharing and coping.
The categories I have mentioned are those identi
ed in a small sample of literature. The most comprehensive review available is Graham, Papa and Brooks
(1992), who derive 24 functions of humour from the literature. These are listed,
along with authors who have discussed these functions (pg 167-168). The functions are drawn from 31 di erent works. This review was particularly helpful
in the construction of my working taxonomy of functions of humour, which is
outlined in chapter 8.

13

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF HUMOUR RESEARCH

14

2.8

Conclusion

In this chapter I have briey discussed some relevant literature on humour and
joking. It can be seen that the terminology in this area is still somewhat confused,
and that there is a need for much more research. As Graham, Papa and Brookes
(1992:177) point out:
We are lacking a substantial body of research that focuses on the use
of humour in conversational settings. Such research is necessary for
the development of a single, uni
ed functional model of humour.
Research has become increasingly advanced in many areas of humour research,
but research on spontaneous spoken humour is still a rarity. This is no doubt
partly due to the diculties involved in collecting appropriate data and identifying and analysing spoken humour.
In the next chapter I review relevant work in the area of language and gender,
and discuss developments in humour and gender research.

14

Chapter 3

Gender, Language and
Humour
Nothing spoils a romance so much as sense of humour in the woman,
or the want of it in the man. (Oscar Wilde)

3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines developments in research on gender and its relation to
language and humour. Section 3.2 describes some di erences that have been
claimed to exist between the speech of men and women. In section 3.3 I discuss
some of the explanations proposed for these di erences, and in section 3.4 I
address in more detail recent thinking on the notion of gender. Section 3.5
describes research which has dealt speci
cally with humour and gender.

3.2 Men and Women in Conversation
In 1975 Robin Lako hypothesised some di erences in the speech of men and
women. She described her impressions of the features of \women's language".
These features involved expression of uncertainty, avoidance of strong expressions
of feeling, and subject matter deemed \trivial to the real world". This sparked
15

16

CHAPTER 3. GENDER, LANGUAGE AND HUMOUR

a urry of action in language and gender research and so, while much disputed,
provided a valuable impetus and focus for further research.
The hypotheses have been tested in a number of ways. Many studies concentrate on more formal speech or speech collected in arti
cial environments (O'Barr
and Atkins 1980, Preisler 1986 among others). This is problematic because
Lako 's hypotheses related explicitly to speech in informal situations. The various methodologies adopted by researchers have also meant that much research
is non-comparable and results are sometimes conicting.
Many re