Humorous and Non-Humorous Effects in Sitcoms: a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Humorous utterances can be divided into those which are created for their own sake (that is, to amuse others), dubbed autotelic humour, and those which communicate truthful and/or untruthful meanings germane to the ongoing conversation, dubbed speaker-meaning-telic humour (Dynel 2018). The present paper carries out a qualitative analysis of humorous units in sitcom discourse with a view to delineating a number of propositional meanings, which can be potentially derived by the TV recipients. Special attention is confined to one of the most powerful tools used to explain humour in various humorous manifestations, i.e. weak implicatures (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]; Wilson and Sperber 2004). It is believed here that pragmatic COMPREHENSION mechanisms proposed within Relevance Theory and the notion of weakly communicated assumptions are two sides of the same coin since these account not only for the viewer’s recovery of a humorous interpretation but also of an array of non-humorous propositional meanings. Moreover, the participatory framework has been employed as an additional parameter to show the difference in the reception of a dialogue by fictional characters and the viewers.
Downloads
Article Details
Author, submitting a text to the editorial board of the journal “Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Linguistica", certifies that the content of the article has not been published so far and that the work does not violate in any way the copyright or related rights of other person, as well as other rights of third parties, and that no one's rights to the work (or any part thereof) have been missed. After signing the contract, the property rights to the published materials are transferred to the Scientific Publisher of the University of the National Education Commission, Krakow.
“Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Linguistica” is an open access journal, and all its content is made available free of charge to users and institutions under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license (attribution, non-commercial use, no derivative works). Under this license, the authors agree that their work may be lawfully reused for any purpose, except for commercial purposes, without the prior consent of the author or publisher. Everyone can read, download, copy, print, distribute and process these works, provided that the author's marking and the original publication place are correct. Published texts may not be used to create derivative works (e.g. to translate and publish in another language without the consent of the publisher). This is in line with the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition. "Studia Linguistica" does not charge for submitting or processing articles.
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton.
Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore and Raskin, Victor. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor 4 (3–4): 293–348.
Google Scholar
——— 2017. “Linguistics and Humor Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, Salvatore Attardo (ed.). New York, London: Routledge, 49–63.
Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika A. 2010. The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London/New York: Continuum.
Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri. 1905 [2010]. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. London: Macmillan and Co.
Google Scholar
Casey, Bernadette, Neil Casey, Ben Calvert, Liam French, and Justin Lewis. 2002. Television Studies: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Davis, Murray S. 1993. What’s so Funny? The Comic Conception of Culture and Society. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2011. “I’ll be there for you: On Participation-based Sitcom Humour.” In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, Marta Dynel (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 311–333.
Google Scholar
———. 2013. Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. The European Journal of Humor Research 1: 22–60.
Google Scholar
———. 2018. Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Gruner, Charles R. 1978. Understanding Laughter: The Working of Wit and Humor. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria. 1991. What makes jokes tick. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 241–253.
Google Scholar
———. 2008. “What‘s in the punchline?” In Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, Ewa Walaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska (eds.). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 67–86.
Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. The pragmatics of humor support. Humor 14(1), 55–82.
Google Scholar
Marc, David. [1989] 1997. Comic Visions: Television Comedy and American Culture. New York, NY: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Mills, Brett. 2005. Television Sitcom. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Morreale, Joanne. 2003. Critiquing the Sitcom: A Reader. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Google Scholar
Mulkay, Michael. 1988. On Humor: Its Nature and its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Google Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka and Maria Jodłowiec. 2018. Weak communication, joke targets and the punch-line effect: A relevance-theoretic account. Studies in Polish Linguistics 13(1), 25–44.
Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Solska, Agnieszka. 2012. The relevance-based model of context in processing puns. Research in Language 10(4), 387–404.
Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986 [1995]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.). Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 230–259.
Google Scholar
———. 2019. Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31–38.
Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111 (443): 583–632.
Google Scholar
———. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward (eds). Oxford: Blackwell, 607–632.
Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 1998. Relevance theory and media discourse: A verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics 25, 293–309.
Google Scholar
———. 2003. Humour and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 35(9), 1295–1331.
Google Scholar
———. 2016. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Ziv, Avner. 1984. Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
Google Scholar