1

Theoretical Viewpoints

Humor spans the areas of sociology, philosophy, and even physiology.

Humor also has to do with the principles of psychoanalysis, linguistics, and

cognitive principles.. It is a great influence on almost every area of peoples’

lives. Research into humor has been going on for many years and is huge in

its scope. This chapter will be about the linguistic theories of humor and

those that have something to do with the goals of the study. Another

purpose of this chapter is to decide the importance of the theories in relation

to the analysis of texts in this paper.

3.1 Incongruity Theories

The theory of incongruity is one of the most important approaches in

the research and definition of humor. Schopenhauer in 1819 described the

theory of incongruities:

The cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and the laugh itself is just an expression of this incongruity. (In The World as Well and Idea, reprinted in Morreall, 1987, p. 52).

Simply, if funny stories are analyzed with the theory of incongruity, two

things are presented in one concept. Both different things are compared to

the one concept, and the things then appear to be similar.

As the joke goes along, it becomes obvious that the concept only goes with

one of the things and that is what is called the incongruity. Therefore, in

2

general it can be said that humor involves incongruity. (Ritchie, 2004).

Theories of incongruity are dependent upon the cognitive aspect of

humor. They are closely related to the linguistic theories of structuralism

descent because they are essentialist (Attardo, 1994:49). In additions, that

just reinforces the fact that incongruities are to be worked out in some way.

The aforementioned theories consider humor as the “linking of disparities”

(Monro, 1951:248), “incorporating into one situation what belongs to

another” (ibid: 45). In the words of Oring, “humor depends upon the

discernment of an appropriate incongruity” (1989:349).

Morreal (1989:12) stated that humans are the only species that

enjoys incongruity. He went on to say that humans can identify and enjoy

incongruity, and therefore can see the rest of the world in “un-practical”

ways. (1989:12). Understanding and having a good time with incongruity has

assisted in the development of objectivity and understanding and

appreciating humor. (Morreal, 1989: 12)

Shultz (1976) spelled out two different stages of incongruities:

resolution and perception. After the incongruity is understood by a lister or

reader that it is resolved and humor is the result. For that person, humor or

laughter is in the actual incongruity. The incongruity theory then means

humor is achieved through a process of several stages: The incongruity is

established, then more information is introduced which resolves the

incongruity. Shultz (1976:11) demonstrates this in his analysis of “immense

heuristic value in accounting for vast samples of humor”.

3

In the literature, no precise definition of congruity is produced.

Rothbart and Pien wrote that humor was a combining cohesion of the “two

categories of incongruity and two categories of resolution” (1977:37).

Possible or impossible incongruities and complete or incomplete resolution

are the potential results. Rothbart and Pien (1977:38) said:

Cognitive aspects of humor would be seen as a function of (a) the number of resolved incongruous elements, (b) the number of incongruity elements remaining unresolved, (c) the degree of incongruity of each element, (d) the difficulty of resolution (e) the degree of resolution. Increases in the first three factors should lead to increase in humor appreciation, while the difficulty of resolution may be ... related to humor.

Those theories that are based on incongruities assert that the humor is

in the incongruity itself It is for the listeners to figure it out and resolve the

incongruity, and in so doing, the humor is revealed.

3.2 Superiority Theories

In the rhetorical theories of ancient Greek and Roman literature superiority

theories of humor are based on derision, aggression, malice and superiority.

Ludovici and Rapp (1947, 1951) wrote that humor is supposed to be based

on the similarities in the bodily positions between aggressive behavior, such

as arguing and laughing. Suls (1977:41), however, wrote that these theories

of humor are totally based on the proposition that we laugh at others’

weaknesses and problems. And that they are similar to the views of Hegel,

Hobbes, and Plato. These theories also focus on the superiority of the teller

4

of the joke, versus the actual target of that joke, which may or may not be

the listener. Keith Spiegel (1972: 7) wrote:

Not all theorists who include the element of superiority as a part of humor believe that laughter is always contemptuous or scornful. Sympathy, congeniality, empathy, and geniality may be combined with the laughter of superiority.

The humor researchers of such superiority theories, such as McDougall

(1922) and Rapp(1949) as a way of “getting out” feelings and tendencies

toward aggression.

3.3 Release/Relief Theories

Another set of categories of humor are the Release/Relief theories

which rely on the relief principle that says that humor and laughter are just

ways of releasing stress and inhibitions which come about because of social

constrictions. (McGhee, 1983a). The intention of jokes are to help get that

relief from the stress. Therefore, if the joke’s listener or listerners feel relief,

it has been a good joke. If the audience does not, it is a failure. The most

important thing is the effect of the joke on the audience or listener. That

way, a joke that is not funny fails as far as the audience is concerned

because they cannot decipher what the point of the joke was or do not

appreciate its humor at all. Another reason that a joke might “fall flat” is

when the audience does not correctly interpret the joke and therefore no

humor is achieved. Therefore, it is important to note that these release/relief

5

theories pertain only to the listner’s feelings and psychology and not the joke

teller. (Raskin: 1985: 40).

3.4 Raskin’s Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH)

Raskin’s theory (1985) was the first linguistic theory concerning humor

which is centered around text. His theory said that humor is produced when

the text has two different scripts which are actually opposite in meaning and

overlap in the joke, causing humor. Attardo (1994:198) defines a script as

An organized chunk of information about something (in broadest sense). It is a cognitive structure internalized by the speaker which provides the speaker with information on how things are organized.

However, Koestler (1964) had previously written about this very idea

focusing on the impact of the two different lines of thought. This process is

what he called bisociation. Raskin came up with this idea by using the

smenatics of linguistics to illustrate that a joke is found in conflicting

“chunks” of dialogue that are the source of the incongruity. The notion of

script, therefore, shows that all the information, both intralinguistic and

extralinguistic, is included in a lexical unit (Raskin, 1985:81; Attardo,

1994:201). Scripts are connected with other scripts, forming “semantic

networks”. Raskin (1985:100) put forth the following to illustrate his theory:

“Is the doctor at home?” the patient asked in his bronchial whisper.“No,” the doctor’s young and pretty wife whispered in reply. “Come right in”.

Raskin likens this joke and the differences between the two scripts

and said it could be shown as: “the patient comes to the doctor’s house to

6

see the doctor” versus “the patient comes to the doctor’s house not to see

the doctor” (Raskin: 110), which would make little sense and probably ruin

the humor.

Raskin (1985) also wrote about what he termed the non-bona-fide

(humorous) form of communication which is different from bona-fide

(serious, information-giving) that the former goes against at least one of the

four conversational maxims of Grice’s principles (Grice, 1975) which are

quality, quantity, relation and manner. This can be intentional or

unintentional by the teller. (Raskin l985: 100

Attardo (1994) asserts that the contrast in scripts is a matter of

situation, context, or just opposites. The oppositional theory could be

interpreted as the difference between the real situation, the normal state of

affairs and the situation. Some typical pairs of opposites are: obscenity \ no

obscenity, violence \ no violence, money \ no money, death \ life, bad \ good

(Raskin, 1985: 107).

Raskin limits his theory, however, only to certain types of jokes and

that is in relation to linguistic form. This is why it did not deal with the

differences that are not in the texts, and does not take into account humor or

comedy which does not use linguistics. For instance his theory does not deal

with sight gags, or what is considered “slapstick” comedy routines, like

someone slipping on a banana peel. Also, it does not depend on

interpretation, such as when humor depends on the listeners’ interpretation

7

which can be different by different people, or in different situations or

societies. .

3.5 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)

The General Theory of Verbal Humor is the idea of telling a story or a tale,

linguistics and practicality (Attardo, 1994:222). It depends partly on the

semantics of the humor and other features, both linguistic and non-linguistic,

which occurs by the knowledge of resources (KR) and the similarity of the

jokes. It is important to know that this is a change in the semantic script

theory of humor (SSTH) by Raskin and Attardo, in orer to enlarge the theory

to go over more linguistic areas and go beyond the domain of the mere

expressed joke. It brings up six KR’s “which inform the joke” and are the

basis of SSTH: SO’s or script oppositions. The five other resources have to

do with factors associated with SO—language (LA), narrative strategies (NS),

situation (SI), target (TA) which takes in the audience and logical mechanism

(LM). .

3.5.1 Script Opposition (SO)

The script opposition is based on Raskin’s semantic theory of humor, which

holds that there are two different scripts and these two scripts are opposites

in a special way, i.e., good / bad, real / unreal, and so on. Attardo and Raskin

(1991: 296) wrote about this theory:

A chunk of structured semantic information, the script can be understood for the purposes of this article as an interpretation of the text of a joke. The main claim of SSTH is that the text of a joke is always fully or in part compatible with two distinct scripts and that the two

8

scripts are opposed to each other in a special way.

3.5.2 Logical Mechanism (LM)

The Logical Mechanism KR shows the mechanism that will be used to oppose

the script. An example would be a joke that uses figure-ground reversal,

false analogy, simple reversal, simple juxtaposition false priming and the

juxtaposition of two different situations shown by an ambiguity is a pun.

(Attardo, 1991)

3.5.3 Situation (SI)

Situation (SI) is the set of circumstances which “set up” the joke, such as the

time, place, or whatever. A joke can be totally different if set up with a

different set of circumstances and different situations, as per the script

opposition (SO) and logical mechanism (LM).

3.5.4 Target (TA)

The target of a joke is the thing or the person who is the “butt” of the joke.

This is an optional parameter of the aforementioned resources.

3.5.5 Narrative Strategy (NS)

This KR decides whether the joke should be in the form of a riddle, a

conundrum, religious texts, political texts, sexual texts, or another form.

3.5.6 Language (LA)

LA is primarily about the wording the joke uses. An important aspect of the

GTVH is that it has a particular organization of KRs as the following: SO, LM,

9

SI, TA, NS, LA, organized from more different and less determined to the

more similar and more determined.

Attardo (1991) says that if the GTVH is right, it will seem like an increase

in similarity between pairs of jokes selected along the KR hierarchy will be

detected. This is true for all KRs except LM. The question comes up if LM is a

KR or not. Attardo (1997) talks about the GTVH compared to the incongruity-

resolution theories, and says that LM is actually the resolution of the

incongruity, or script opposition (SO). Therefore, LM is seen as an optional KR

due to the “nonsense” jokes. These are jokes without resolution, and can be

seen as comical or funny. It is possible, also, that LM is only the resolution

and not the KR. (Attardo, et al., 2002:4-17).

Ritchie (2001) writes that GTVH is developed more than any other

theory of linguistics. Particularly, script-opposition and logical mechanicm

KR’s need an almost complete understanding of the world, including many

different areas, in order to fully be operational. In the language KR with all its

diverse parts such as phonologic, morphophonemic, morphologic, lexical,

syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels of language structure, the joke

teller, or raconteur, is very much free to some particularly humorous

elements and relations. (Ritchie: 121).

3.6 Language-Specific Humor (LSH)

This section talks about the linguistic effects of jokes and their humor.

Also, it talks about their humorous effect on language choice, for instance,

the interactions between language and jokes. This research also deals with a

10

phenomenon called Language-Specific Humor which which is said to be that

kind of humor whose humorous effect is determined by the types and forms

of the language used. As it is defined, the study attempted to determine the

nature of language-specific humor in regard to various manifestations, to

discover and understand the possible differences of language-specific humor

that make up the most important part of the humor. Language-specific

humor has to do with the various types of humor both spoken and in writing.

It has wordplay in it such as pun and non-wordplay such as slips of the

tongue, potential ambiguities, non-intended associations and repetitons.

(Delabastita, 1997: 6).

Language-specific humor is a neutral description of a term that takes

in forms of language that is used restrictively to produce a humorous result.

Similarly, it is what Hockett (1977: 263) calls “a poetic joke”--a joke plays

with the language to make humor and the listender needs to understand the

way the teller of the joke has “fooled around” with language. Language-

specific humor is an another term for wordplay. Chiaro (1992: 1) said “the

term wordplay includes every conceivable way in which the language is used

with the intent to amuse.”

The terms wordplay or “play on words” is often used instead of the term

pun. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines pun as “the

humorous use of a word to suggest different meanings”. The term wordplay

is therefore used in the literature of humor to mean making a pun (e.g.

Delabastita 1993, 1996, 1997; Alexieva 1997; Hedrick 1996). LSH though

11

does not have to do with the differences in meaning;It involves other factors.

This shows definitely that LSH is a much larger concept than just punning.

Wordplay, slips of the tongue, puns, malapropisms and meaningful names

are also in the LSH. Therefore, most of the information on puns and their

definitions can be applied to LSH.

3.6.1. Wordplay

Delabastita (1996) differentiates between wordplay and unintentional

ambiguity,, saying that the most important part of wordplay is the intent to

produce words with a certain meaning, because if not intentional, they would

not make any sense. Delabastita (1996.: 128) also said that wordplay

involves:

The various textual phenomena in which structural features of the languages used are exploited in order to bring about a communicatively significant confrontation of two or more linguistic structures with more or less different meanings.

In Arabic, the poet Sirajuddin 1-Warraq wrote:

اديب عندهم الموت لقاء اناس عن وجهي اديم اصون

حبيب و لهم به وافى ولو بغيض عندهم الشعر رب

Translation

I avoid showing my face to those for whom meeting a literary person is like

dying.

Many a poem is hated by them, even though Abu Tammam Habiib Ibn Aws

al- Ta’i.

12

Habib in the second line has more than one meaning. It could mean

‘friend’, ‘beloved’, or’ the name Abu Tammam Habiib Ibn Aws al- Ta’i. The

writer meant to say that some people believe that poems are distasteful and

even if written by a good poet, like Habiib, or even if a loved one wrote a

poem, they would not like it. Habib would supposedly mean ‘friend’, but the

poet does not intend this. He makes a “play on words”since the name of

agreak poet is also Habib. The poet intends to use the word Habiib as either

a ‘beloved’ or ‘the name Abu Tammam Habiib Ibn Aws al- Ta’I’ .

Alexieva (1997: 38) gives the definition of wordplay as “a clash of two

meanings”, however, Davis (1997: 25) has a much different definition which

rests on the “systemic operation of language” and “disambiguating context”.

She goes on to define the systemic operation of language to be the reliance

of denotational meaning based on certain rules and semantic features. As a

result, the ambiguous meaning is made clear by the context (Davis, 1997).

Sometimes linguists cannot describe or define what wordplay is.

Golden (1996: 279) wrote that wordplay actually cannot really be defined

because it covers semantic boundaries. The subject of boundaries remains

obscure. Delabastita (1997: 4) said that the reason the term wordplay is

difficult to define is that the term should really be considered a cline, not an

abstract term.

3.6.2 Pun

Pun is defined as a play on two words close in sound, but the meanings are

different. The word pun is defined as a play on two words similar in sound

13

but different in meaning (Crisafulli, 1996: 261; Delabastita, 1996: 128). Also,

it is a joke the relies of playing with the different meanings of a word or

bringing two words together with similar sounds, or forms, but very different

meanings. It is sometimes called paronomasia. (Crystal 2003:467).

Paronomasia means the humorous use of a word in a certain way that uses

different meanings of the same word. A pun is a figure of speech which

involves a play words. In order to discuss wordplay, it is necessary that the

word “pun” is integral in that type of humor. A pun is the prime example of

other forms of language-specific jokes which are based on word play. It is

really an alternative term for the other forms of language-specific humor. .

Numerous researchers have tried to come up with a definition for the

word pun and how it is placed in the ield of humor. Similarly, these

definitions mention the use of similar words with different meanings which

end up causing laughter or humor. Pun was researched by linguists such as

Abrams (1957: 36), Leech (1969: 110), and in the early 1990’s, such as

Attardo (1994: 112). Every since the 1980’s the pun has been thought of as

a valid academic study and it makes for an independent branch of linguistics.

Many researchers have seriously studied the use of puns, for example

Chiaro, Delabastita, Offord, and others. Nash wrote:

We take punning tawdry facetious thing one of the less profound forms of humor, but that is the prejudice of our time, a pun may be profoundly serious or charged with pathos.

(Nash, 1985: 137).

14

The pun is involved in many literatures and is, in a way, a universal

type of humor. Humor is created when the audience catches both the

obvious meaning and the “not really meant” meaning of the joke teller.

Researchers solve the translation situation that arises in puns in several

ways. If they cannot find a similar word in the target language which has the

source meanings responsible for creating the pun, they may define both

meanings. A famous pun in dramatic literature is Mercutio’s statement as he

is dying: “Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man”. (Romeo

and Juliet, III, i). The pun on “grave” can be translated only if the new

language has a word or phrase that means at the same time ‘serious’ and ‘a

burial place’. If the new language does not have such a words or phrases, the

pun may be forever lost. Another way of handling this problem is the

insertion of new puns for the ones that cannot be recovered.

3.6.3 Slips of the Tongue

Slips of the tongue are accidental and non-intended words or phrases that

Chiaro (1992:17) terms “verbal banana skins,” and Nash (1985:149) says are

“lucky lapses.” These are called Freudian slips as they are said

unconsciously, as in “slips of the tongue” and can be made deliberately, in

which case they are produced by the conscious brain. Therefore, the

difference between wordplay and “slips of the tongue” is whether it is

intentional or not. (Toury, 1997:273). There are three types of “slips of the

tongue”: spoonerisms, malapropisms and Goldwynisms, all named after the

people who became famous for uttering them.

15

3.6.3.1 Spoonerisms

Spoonerisms are called such after the Reverend William Archibald Spooner

(1844-1930), the Dean of New College in Oxford. He regularly mixed up

sounds and words to produce such phrases as the following:

You have hissed all my mystery lectures. In fact you have tasted two whole worms and you must leave Oxford this afternoon by the Town Drain.

(Huxley, 1944: quoted in Toury, 1997:272).

The intended meaning of the example, of course, is:

You have missed all my history lectures. In fact you have wasted whole terms and you must leave Oxford this afternoon by the down train.

Transposing of the two linguistic units can be governed by a set of

rules to make an actual spoonerism:

I. It must involve well-formed units;

2. There may be a stretch of text between the sentence segments; and

3. The transposition process occurs only before the initial sounds (Toury,

1997: 274).

3.6.3.2 Malapropisms

A malapropism is a mistake in speaking, called such because of a fictitious

character, Mrs. Malaprop, in the Sheridan play, The Rival. In the play, Mrs.

Malaprop uses words which make no sense in the context used. In a

malapropism, a word is used that is close in sound, but not in meaning to

another, generally high level word, (Bolinger, 1968: 139-240), and which by

using that word, the speaker attempts to appear of a higher class,, and

better educated that he or she really is, and which turns out funny.

(Chiaro,1992:20). The following is an example:

16

Sure, if I reprehend anything in this world, it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!

(Sheridan, The

Rivals. Act III. Scene III)

The above could also be written as follows:

Sure, if I comprehend anything in this world it is the use of my vernacular tongue, and a nice arrangement of epigrams.

The re-writing of this shows a malapropism which comes about when

two words that sound similar are deliberately transposed. These “slip ups”

can be classical malapropisms in which the mistakes happen unintentionally

due to the speaker not knowing the difference, or intentional mistakes done

totally for the humorous reaction. .

3.6.3.3 Goldwynisms

Goldwynisms are phrases which are named after Sam Goldwyn who is

famous for such phrases as “include me out” and “in two words: im-possible”

(Nash, 1985). The comedic part in the second phrase is that it makes “im” a

word along with “possible.” The same thing happens in the following

sentence: “A backwards poet writes inverse”. The “in” of course is part of

the word inverse, but it is funny because of the meaning of the entire

sentence as a whole.

3.7 The Purpose of Jokes

When a joke is studied through linguistics, its humor is better

understood and the researcher can more deeply get into the language and

the way it functions. Most jokes have a lack of correspondence between

17

form and meaning. That is a source of ambiguities which make the joke

“funny.” These ambiguities lets the listeners get a sense different from what

the primary meaning would suggest, to humorous effect. The reason for

humor and jokes and especially language specific humor are several. The

first purpose is to display wit, cause surprise or to get to the audience. The

person telling the joke is important in the humor producing mechanism.

(Apte, 1985:199). Many times the teller of a joke uses pun to ake an effect

opposite to what the audience expects. This produces a funny or humorous

situation. The audience has also a major part in the success or failure of the

joke. Veisbergs (1997: 159) states that humor can attract the reader’s

attention to only one point or particular part of the text. Watson (1984: 245-

246) added the following functions: assisting composition, lending

authenticity, denoting reversal, showing appearances to be deceptive, and

equating two dissimilar things.

3.8 Humor vs. Joke

Though both humor and jokes lead to laughter, or are supposed to, there is a

difference between the two. Humor is events, characters or situations that

make people laugh, but jokes are linguistic and logical structures that make

people laugh. Although both lead to laughter, there is a difference between

humor and joke. Shakir and Farghal (1992) found that “these characteristics

can be classified into two groups: those relating to surface structural

features (the said), and those relating to underlying features (the unsaid)”.

Most theorists discuss jokes in terms of the incompatibility of context, which

18

causes a search for the resolution of that incongruity. Attardo (1994, 1996,

2000, 2001) says that a joke begins by processing the actual meaning of the

ambiguous word.

3.9 Jokes and Pragmatic Rules of Conversation

In situations where communication is a part, laughter is often caused by

someone breaking the regular “rules” of language. John Morreall (1983:82)

asserted the rules of conversation which were developed by Grice, who said

that cooperative rules are used to describe language. He explained how

humor can be generated from these rules. Here are Grice’s rules (1975: 45-

46):

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required for the purposes of

the exchange.

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

3. Do not say what you believe to be false.

4. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

5. Avoid obscurity of expression.

6. Avoid ambiguity.

7. Be brief.

8. Be orderly.

Morreall (1983: 86) presents another eight principles of conversation.

Any one of which can make the conversation humorous:

1. When the person plays a role in an unhelpful conversation, he makes

humor.

19

2. The very much enlightening person is comic,

3. Lies and lying characters make people laugh.

4. Wild expectations or guesses inserted into a conversation can make

humor.

5. Obscurity of expression holds back or stops communication in a funny

way.

6. Ambiguity causes humorous misinterpretation.

7. The person who does not know when to stop talking is funny.

8. A confused person is sometimes a comic character.

Levinson (1983: 103) said that people will primarily understand and be

able to explain these “rules” but Grice believes that most ordinary

conversation between people do not necessarily follow these rules.

3.10 Joke Interaction

People find more humor when they are in a group connected with one

another and doing the same things. A joke is a social phenomenon which

makes people laugh. Al-Khatib (1999: 269-270) wrote that “everybody can

tell jokes, but not all those who tell jokes have the ability to make others

laugh heartily”. Telling a joke is a definite skill and whether it works depends

on the teller of the joke. Also, along with the “telling” of the joke gestures

and body language play a role in the joke-telling process. In 1928, Freud said

that telling a joke involves three participants: the narrator or teller of the

joke, the butt of the joke (which could even be an inanimate object) and the

audience or listeners. Sven Svebak (1974) used the same participants but

20

with using different labels for the first two: humorist instead of narrator,

target for butt, and audience. Craig Lundberg (1969) also wrote about

humorous behavior and put forth four “analytical categories,” notably, the

initiator or teller of the joke, the target or audience, the focus of the story,

and finally, the butt of the joke. .

Dwyer (1991) follows Lundberg’s idea, but he defines the target

differently. According, the target is the “the object of the joke”. This seems

to be the same and described by Lundberg as the focus of the joke, but it is a

bit different. Dwyer uses the word “audience” to refer to the group that

Lundberg calls the “target.”

Success in the telling of a joke takes someone who is very skilled, who

has a keen sense of humor, and tells the joke with some degree of

sophistication in the physicality of the joke-telling. Telling a joke or a funny

story is a social experience. It maintains good will and group attention when

in the midst of several people.

3.11 Summary

The chapter was about the theories having to do with humor. It mainly

centered on the primary theories of humor and these are: the incongruity

theory, superiority theory, release/relief theory, Raskin’s semantic script

theory of humor (SSTH), and the general theory of verbal humor (GTVH).

The theory of incongruity is one of the most prominent theories about humor

and says that humor is mostly cognitive. It maintains that almost anything

can be humorous two actions are not compatible with the listener’s

21

expectations and results in a short struggle cognitively, resulting in an

incongruity. The end result is humor.

The Superiority theory says that something is funny because the

audience is made to feel superior to the teller of the joke or presenter of the

story. This theory says humor is a way of making the listener feel better or

enhance his or her ego. The next theory is the release/relief theory. In this

theory, humor is a socially acceptable way to release stress, anxiety and

tension. Supposedly it comes from a psychological perspective. (Attardo,

1994).

The fourth theory is SSTH. This theory is one of the linguistic theories

that is important for this study. In this particular theory, humor is produced

when two scripts are opposing each other. Thus, for a text to product humor

it should be two overlapping scripts. This theory looks at humor as a

violation of Grice’s cooperative principles. This theory views humor as a

violation of Grice’s cooperative principles and the punch line changes the

humorous text from the bona-fide to the non-bona-fide.

The final and by far the most important theory is the GTVH. This

theory is a complicated revising and extending of the SSTH that was

developed to cover more linguistic areas and expand past the simple joke.

GTVH emphasizes verbal humor and is what is considered similarity between

the funny texts and jokes by keeping track of the number of KR’s that the

jokes have in common.

22

The next section of this chapter is concerned with a linguistic

phenomenon called Language Specific Humor (LSH) described as that types

of humor whose humorous result comes about by the features of the

language used. LSH is one alternative to wordplay and it is about all kinds of

humor either text or spoken. It also can have wordplay devices such as pun

and “slips of the tongue.”

The real reason for telling jokes is for us to make humor or comedy

that show intelligence and make others laugh. This means that the person

telling the joke must be good at telling the joke so that it is successfully

understood by the listener. Grice’s maxims are general practical rules that

people follow in a regular conversation. But, if one of the rules is broken,

laughter or humor can be the result. Of course, laughter requires groups of

people to interact with each other and make a humorous atmosphere.

Because a joke is a social phenomenon, it cannot be a joke for just one

person, but needs more than one human being in order to create laughter.

One writes a joke for another, or one tells a joke to an audience, and so on.

Freud,, however, said that jokes involve three or more participants--the

teller of the joke, the butt of the joke, and the audience.

23