A Data-Based Study from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspect

UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW

FAULTY OF MODERN LANGUAGES

INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH STUDIES

Magdalena Wieczorek

Humour as a Carrier of Meaning

in Sitcom Discourse: A Data-Based Study

from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective

This dissertation is presented in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of PhD,

written under the supervision of

dr hab. Agnieszka Piskorska

Warsaw 2021

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................................9

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Streszczenie ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Chapter I. Overview of Theories of Humour

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 18

1.2. Humour: its definitions, manifestations and the like ................................................................................ 20

1.2.1. Definitions and categories of humour ............................................................................................................. 21

1.2.2. Types of conversational humour ...................................................................................................................... 26

1.2.2.1. Focus on narrative forms .............................................................................................................. 27

Witticisms................................................................................................................................................................ 27

Personal anecdotes .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Jointly produced narratives .................................................................................................................................... 29

1.2.2.2. Focus on the elements linguistic aggression/ impoliteness ........................................................ 29

1.2.2.3. Focus on formal structures ............................................................................................................ 32

Humorous allusions ................................................................................................................................................ 32

Wordplay/ punning/ wordplay interaction ............................................................................................................ 32

1.2.3. Humorous frame .................................................................................................................................................. 33

1.2.4. Contextualisation cues ........................................................................................................................................ 34

1.2.4.1. Cue Theory .................................................................................................................................... 36

1.3. Families of humour theories ....................................................................................................................... 37

1.3.1. Superiority theories ............................................................................................................................................. 39

1.3.1.1. The disposition theory of humour and its offshoots ................................................................... 41

1.3.1.2. Application to sitcom discourse ................................................................................................................. 43

1.3.2. Relief/release theories ......................................................................................................................................... 44

1.3.2.1. Application to sitcom discourse ................................................................................................... 47

1.3.3. Incongruity /incongruity-resolution theories ................................................................................................. 47

1.3.3.1. The concept of incongruity ........................................................................................................... 48

1.3.3.2. The resolution of incongruity ....................................................................................................... 52

1.4. Incongruity as bisociation ........................................................................................................................... 55

1.5. Incongruity resolution as a two-stage model ............................................................................................. 56

Application to situation comedy ................................................................................................................................ 58

1.6. Incongruity resolution as a catastrophe model .......................................................................................... 61

Application to situation comedy ............................................................................................................................... 62

1.7. Incongruity as a script opposition/ overlap ............................................................................................... 64

1.7.1. Semantic Script Theory of Humour ................................................................................................................ 64


1.7.2. General Theory of Verbal Humour ................................................................................................................. 69


1.8. Incongruity as schema conflict ................................................................................................................... 74


1.9. Incongruity resolution as a graded salience hypothesis ............................................................................ 78


1.10. Incongruity resolution as a forced reinterpretation model........................................................................ 81


1.11. Incongruity resolution as the MGI/SCI schema ........................................................................................ 84


1.12. Incongruity resolution as a garden-path, red-light and crossroad mechanism ....................................... 87


1.13. Criticism of incongruity and incongruity theories .................................................................................... 92

1.14. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 94

Chapter II. Humour in Relevance Theory

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 98

2.2. Preliminary remarks: Grice’s CP and maxims ........................................................................................ 100

2.2.1. Application to humour ..................................................................................................................................... 101

2.2.2. Non-bona-fide mode of communication ..................................................................................................... 102

2.2.3. Criticism of Attardo’s and Raskin’s stance ................................................................................................ 104

2.2.4. Yamaguchi’s Character-Did-It Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 105

2.3. Relevance Theory ..................................................................................................................................... 106

2.3.1. Cognition ............................................................................................................................................................ 107

2.3.2. Communication ................................................................................................................................................. 108

2.3.3. Inference and Comprehension ....................................................................................................................... 111

2.4. Humour in RT ........................................................................................................................................... 113

2.4.1. Yus’ Intersecting Circles Model ................................................................................................................... 114

2.4.2. Sociological/ cultural perspective ................................................................................................................. 121

Epistemic vigilance and the cultural spread ........................................................................................................... 125

Stereotypical information ........................................................................................................................................ 127

2.4.3. Relevance-theoretic analysis of sitcoms ...................................................................................................... 129

2.4.4. Metarepresentation and the Mind-Reading Ability .................................................................................. 130

2.4.5. Implicitness, Mutual Manifestness and Recipient’s Cognitive Environment..................................... 132

2.4.6. Intentionality and Metarepresentation: Three Modes of Interpretation ............................................... 134

2.4.7. Weak Communication and Cognitive Overload ....................................................................................... 138

2.4.8. Poetic Effects and Non-propositional Effects ............................................................................................ 140

2.5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 145

Chapter III. Comedy Discourse

3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 147

3.2. Comedy and its genres ............................................................................................................................... 148

3.3. Sitcom discourse ........................................................................................................................................ 149

3.3.1. Characteristic features ...................................................................................................................................... 150

3.4. The origins and role of sitcoms ................................................................................................................. 152

3.5. The representation of the family ............................................................................................................... 154

3.6. Participation framework ............................................................................................................................ 155

3.6.1. Types of participants ........................................................................................................................................ 158

3.6.1.1. Audience design and the position of the viewer........................................................................ 160

3.7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 165

Chapter IV. Functions of Conversational Humour

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 166

4.2. Bergson’s (1905) humour as a social corrective ..................................................................................... 168

4.3. Martineau’s (1972) model of social functions ........................................................................................ 170

4.4. Ziv’s (1984) social goals .......................................................................................................................... 173

4.4.1. Social function ................................................................................................................................................... 174

4.4.2. Defence mechanism ......................................................................................................................................... 175

4.5. Attardo’s (1994) social goals of humour ................................................................................................. 175

4.6. Hay’s (1995, 2000) sociolinguistic functions ......................................................................................... 177

4.6.1. Solidarity ............................................................................................................................................................. 179

4.6.2. Power ................................................................................................................................................................... 180

4.6.3. Psychological functions ................................................................................................................................... 182

4.7. Zajdman’s (1995) humour as a face-threatening act .............................................................................. 183

4.8. Boxer and Cortés-Conde’s (1997) degrees of teasing ............................................................................ 184

4.9. Fredrickson’s (1998) broaden-and-build theory ..................................................................................... 186

4.10. Holmes and Marra’s (2002) subversive humour .................................................................................... 188

4.11. Meyer’s (2000) humour as a unifier and divider .................................................................................... 191

4.12. Martin’s (2007) psychological and interpersonal functions .................................................................. 194

4.12.1. Psychological function .................................................................................................................................. 195

4.12.2. Interpersonal function .................................................................................................................................... 195

4.13. Discussion and conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 196

Chapter V. Humour as a multifunctional strategy in the sitcom Modern Family

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 198

5.2. Cognition, relevance, incongruity and affect .......................................................................................... 201

5.3. Mockumentary style and sitcom aesthetics ............................................................................................. 202

5.3.1. The code of realism .......................................................................................................................................... 204

5.3.2. Scripted communication vs natural conversations .................................................................................... 205

5.4. Methodology and the subjectivity problem ............................................................................................. 207

5.5. Research hypotheses and questions ......................................................................................................... 210

5.5.1. About the cast of Modern Family ................................................................................................................. 212

5.5.2. About the sitcom and its stereotypical load ................................................................................................ 214

5.5.3. Non-linguistic incongruities and contrasts .................................................................................................. 217

5.5.4. The viewer as the main recipient ................................................................................................................... 219

5.6. The analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 220

5.7. The findings ............................................................................................................................................... 223

5.7.1. The functions conveyed by dint of humor ................................................................................................... 227

5.7.1.1. Affiliative/reinforcing humour ................................................................................................... 227

Highlighting shared experiences .......................................................................................................................... 228

Disclosing character-specific information .......................................................................................................... 230

Sharing ................................................................................................................................................................... 233

Advising ................................................................................................................................................................ 235

Soliciting support .................................................................................................................................................. 237

Defending .............................................................................................................................................................. 239

Metalinguistic humour ......................................................................................................................................... 241

Discourse management ........................................................................................................................................ 242

5.7.1.2. Disaffiliative/ subversive humour .............................................................................................. 244

Controlling behaviour ........................................................................................................................................... 245

Criticising .............................................................................................................................................................. 248

Social norm-related functions .............................................................................................................................. 250

Conveying social norms .................................................................................................................................. 251

Challenging social norms ................................................................................................................................ 252

Conflict-related functions ..................................................................................................................................... 254

Fostering conflict ............................................................................................................................................. 254

Reducing conflict/ tension .............................................................................................................................. 256

Avoiding conflict ............................................................................................................................................. 257

5.7.1.3. Cognitive benefits: psychological .............................................................................................. 258

Releasing tension/Coping..................................................................................................................................... 258

Providing a puzzle ................................................................................................................................................ 260

A linguistic play ............................................................................................................................................... 260

A non-linguistic play ....................................................................................................................................... 263

Providing a cultural reference .............................................................................................................................. 264

Showing off ........................................................................................................................................................... 266

Conveying a serious message .............................................................................................................................. 268

5.8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 270

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 274

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 280

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 301

- 9 -

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Agnieszka Piskorska for her

assistance at every stage of the research project. Her insightful comments and suggestions and

as well continuous support inspired me to work on the present thesis, even in the moments of

doubt. The Professor is the person with whom the journey called “doctoral thesis” was genuine

pleasure.

I am extremely grateful to my family, especially my parents and husband, Arkadiusz, for their

unwavering support and belief in me.

- 10 -

Abstract

The aim of this dissertation is to perform a qualitative analysis of humorous episodes collected

from the American situation comedy Modern Family. The analysis draws upon Sperber and

Wilson’s (1986 [1995]) Relevance Theory. Sitcom is a form of comedy discourse, the primary

function of which is to amuse its viewers, however, its value cannot be reduced to providing

entertainment. As a result, the present analysis aims to tease out all the functions that are

communicated by dint of humour on the part of the viewer. Whilst much functionalist literature

focused on the identification of one function within one humorous unit, my research is designed

to detail the totality of all the functions that can be possibly fulfilled on the part of the audience.

This type of study is validated by the researchers who reckon that humour is a multifunctional

tool that is initiated by the communicator in order to pursue an array of objectives, such as

conveying social norms, advising or fostering conflict. Another difference between other

studies and my analysis is that the former were mainly based upon naturally occurring

discourse, whereas the latter is contingent upon fictional discourse that is typically characterised

by a higher frequency of humour, given the fact that it can be carefully devised by the

production crew.

It is demonstrated that the analytical framework of Relevance Theory is a research

programme that carries the potential to accurately delineate the viewer’s retrieval of humorous

effects and construction of various propositional meanings that can be studied in terms of

communicative functions. Those additional cognitive effects that humour communicates can be

scrutinised on the strength of the relevance-theoretic concept of weak communication. As

already substantiated in literature, humour lies in the recipient’s recovery of a great deal of

weak assumptions, which do not attain the level of full mental representations, and which

eventually leads to the cognitive overload effect (Jodłowiec 2008, 2015, Piskorska and

Jodłowiec 2018). The analysis shows that in their search for relevance, viewers engage their

pragmatic processes that are part of comprehension heuristic, which enable to process the

humorous input in the most relevant way.

Abstract

- 11 -

This thesis pursues and extends the research into the functions of humour as well as on

the viability of Relevance Theory to the study of communication. It furnishes considerable

evidence that fictional communication can be studied in the same manner as natural

conversations. By resorting to the participation framework relevant to fictional discourse and

more specifically to the recipient’s communicative level (for example, Dynel 2011e), the object

of my study is defined as the communication between the production crew and recipients,

however it naturally takes the fictional characters’ turns into consideration. In general terms,

the innovative character of my study involves the application of the relevance-theoretic

approach to the analysis of the discourse of situation comedy as well as focus on the televisual

recipient’s perspective in the recovery of humorous and additional effects.

The dissertation consists of five main chapters. The first is devoted to the definitions of

the notions employed in humour studies, viz. conversational joking or verbally expressed

humour, as well as manifestations of conversational humour, such as banter, puns, witticisms

and jointly produced narratives. It also summarises three families of humour theories, i.e.

superiority, relief and incongruity, with special emphasis on incongruity-resolution models as

they fit perfectly with the relevance-theoretic view of comprehension procedure. Their

theoretical potential is then assessed against the data from the sitcom. The second chapter

discusses the conceptual tools proposed within Relevance Theory, which are conducive to the

explanation of humour as well as additional cognitive effects. In the third chapter, attention is

confined to the workings into sitcom discourse, which include the description of characteristic

features of sitcoms, a short history of the genre, the representation of family and the

participatory framework. The fourth chapter concentrates on some of the existing studies on the

functions of humour. The last analytic chapter presents the results of the qualitative analysis

with a view to characterising humour as a strategy that may serve a myriad of functions on the

part of the viewers. More specifically, it is argued that the functions of humour can be grouped

into one of three types: solidarity, power and psychological functions. Nevertheless, it is

possible that one function can be classified to two types.

- 12 -

Streszczenie

Nadrzędnym celem dysertacji naukowej jest wykonanie analizy jakościowej humorystycznych

wypowiedzi zaczerpniętych z amerykańskiego serialu komediowego pt. „Współczesna rodzina”.

Opiera się ona na aparacie teorii relewancji, która została stworzona przez Dana Sperbera

i Deirdre Wilson (1986 [1995]). Sitkom został zaklasyfikowany jako forma dyskursu

komediowego, którego najważniejszym celem jest rozśmieszenie widza. Rozprawa przedstawia

znaczenia serialu wykraczające poza dostarczanie rozrywki. Obecna analiza ma na celu

zaprezentowanie wszystkich funkcji, jakie mogą zostać przekazane odbiorcy za pomocą

wypowiedzi żartobliwych. Dotychczasowa literatura poświęcona badaniom funkcji humoru

skupia się przede wszystkim na wyodrębnieniu jednej jego roli w poszczególnych sytuacjach oraz

w głównej mierze opiera się na naturalnym dyskursie. Moja analiza szczegółowo opisuje

wszystkie funkcje, które mogą być potencjalnie odebrane przez widza. Badania tego typu, zostały

potwierdzone przez innych naukowców. Postrzegają oni humor jako narzędzie, które może

służyć do wypełnienia wielu różnych funkcji m.in. przekazywania norm społecznych, doradzania

czy doprowadzania do konfliktu. Ponadto moja analiza oparta jest na dyskursie fikcyjnym, który

charakteryzuje się większą częstotliwością humoru ze względu na dialogi, które są

przygotowywane przez ekipę producencką.

Aparat teorii relewancji jest programem badawczym, który może służyć nie tylko do

opisania efektów humorystycznych. Funkcjonuje on również jako narzędzie do ukazania

osiągania przez widza funkcji przedstawionych wcześniej. Dodatkowe efekty poznawcze,

uzyskane poprzez humor, można przeanalizować za pomocą relewancyjnego pojęcia słabej

komunikacji. Jak już zostało wykazane w literaturze, humor może wynikać z utworzenia

szerokiego wachlarza słabych implikatur, które nie stanowią świadomych reprezentacji i których

pojawienie się prowadzi do efektu przeciążenia poznawczego (Jodłowiec 2008, 2015, Piskorska

i Jodłowiec 2018). Analiza pokazuje, że widzowie angażują procesy poznawcze (pragmatyczne),

zaproponowane w ramach heurystyki rozumienia wypowiedzi. Umożliwiają one odbiorcy

przetworzenie humorystycznej wypowiedzi w najbardziej relewantny sposób.

Rozprawa doktorska podejmuje i rozszerza nie tylko badania nad funkcjami humoru jak

również nad przydatnością teorii relewancji w badaniach nad komunikacja. Przedstawia dowody

na to, że fikcyjna komunikacja może być analizowana w dokładnie taki sam sposób jak dyskurs

Streszczenie

- 13 -

języka naturalnego. W analizie nawiązuję do modelu partycypacji, który znajduje zastosowanie

w fikcyjnym dyskursie, a dokładniej do płaszczyzny, gdzie komunikat skierowany jest do widza

(np. Dynel 2011e). Wspomniany model partycypacji pozwala na dokładne zdefiniowanie

przedmiotu badań. Składa się na nie komunikacja pomiędzy ekipą produkcyjną, a widzem i jest

uzależniona od komunikacji między fikcyjnymi interlokutorami. Innowacyjny charakter moich

badań ukazuje się w tym, że teoria relewancji została wykorzystana do analizy języka serialu

komediowego, ale tez w uwzględnieniu perspektywy odbiorcy telewizyjnego dla osiągnięcia

efektu humorystycznego oraz dodatkowych efektów poznawczych.

Rozprawa składa się z pięciu głównych rozdziałów. Rozdział pierwszy został poświęcony

przedstawieniu pojęć, które używane są w badaniach nad humorem m.in. konwersacyjne żarty

oraz humor wyrażony werbalnie. Dodatkowo zostały opisane typy humoru konwersacyjnego, np.

udawana agresja, kalambury, dowcipne powiedzenia czy wspólnie stworzone narracje. Rozdział

przedstawia również krótkie omówienie trzech grup teorii humoru tzn. wyższości, ulgi,

inkongruencji. Ze względu na relewancyjne spojrzenie na przetwarzanie informacji, w głównej

mierze uwaga została skupiona na modelach inkongruencji. Potencjał w/w modeli jest oceniony

pod kątem ich przydatności do analizy danych zebranych z sitkomu.

Rozdział drugi omawia narzędzia teorii relewancji, które zostały wykorzystane do

wyjaśnienia etapów powstawania efektów humorystycznych i dodatkowych efektów

poznawczych.

Rozdział trzeci poświęcony został badaniom nad serialem komediowym. Obejmuje on opis

cech charakterystycznych dla sitkomu, krótką historię tego gatunku, przedstawienie rodziny

w serialu komediowym oraz model partycypacji.

Rozdział czwarty koncentruje się na przedstawieniu niektórych badań nad funkcjami

humoru.

Ostatni rozdział analityczny przedstawia wyniki analizy jakościowej, która ma na celu

scharakteryzowanie humoru jako strategii, która może pełnić wiele różnych ról z perspektywy

widza. Funkcje humoru mogą zostać zaklasyfikowane do wybranych trzech typów: te, które

wzmacniają solidarność, podkreślają władzę lub spełniają psychologiczne korzyści, jednocześnie

każda z nich może być zaklasyfikowana do więcej niż jednej grupy.

- 14 -

Introduction

Humour research has its long-established tradition that dates back to antiquity, particularly the

Platonic and Aristotelian thought that explained humour and laughter in philosophical terms.

From the times of Greek intellectuals to the times of contemporary researchers, humour studies

has experienced a genuine upsurge in the interest, which is exemplified by the number of

renowned humour-oriented journals, special journal issues, edited volumes and monographs.

These also testify to the fact that regardless of the bulk of extant writings, humour has not been

explored to the fullest. In particular, the issue of humour has been a concern to many domains

of studies as varied as psychology, sociology, mathematics, ethnography, medicine and folklore

studies. It has not been until the end of the 19th century that the first linguistic theory was put

forth, which represented a watershed in the linguistic considerations over humour. Nowadays,

there are more than a hundred of humour theories that have been documented (Ziv 1984).

The ultimate objective of this dissertation is to carry out a pragmatic analysis of the

conversational units from the sitcom Modern Family, premised on the main tenets of relevance

theory, in order to expound on the totality of propositional meanings gleaned by television

recipients. Those meanings can be regarded in terms of various communicative functions that

are served by means of humorous utterances. Granted that humour is primarily used with a view

to amusing others as well as infrequently serving “a wide range of other functions” (Holmes

and Marra 2006: 124), it is interesting to study a plethora of information that is communicated by

the production crew to the viewers. In sociological terms, this thesis may offer the answer to the

crucial question concerning the viewers’ eagerness to gather in front of the TV screen.

Nonetheless, it needs to be underlined that the present analysis does not pursue a sociological

account of the language of sitcom as it is a linguistic dimension that is placed in the centre of

attention.

In order to attain the goal of the dissertation, the starting point was to collect the data that

consists of the communicative episodes from the sitcom Modern Family, which are believed to

be potentially amusing, at least to some recipients. The reception of humour is conditioned by

a number of interrelated factors, such as current psychological state, gender, age, social

background, etc., which cannot be predicted in the case of multiple viewership. It is essential,

therefore, to refer to other notions that would systematise the results, for instance incongruity

Introduction

- 15 -

that can be used to explain all occurrences of humour. The humorous units, which were

collected, are complemented with contextual information as well as non-verbal cues, both of

which make the reader unacquainted with the sitcom better understand the dynamics among the

fictional characters. The results from the qualitative analysis will be presented in the form of a

classification that will encompass not only the types of functions of humorous communication

distinguished in previous studies but also novel functions that emerge from a bottom-up

methodological perspective. There are plenty of various categorisations of humour in

functionalist literature, thus, the question can be posed as to whether there is a need for this type

of study. While the already existing classifications of humour are based on natural discourse,

my research aims to describe the functions served with the use of humour on the viewers’ part

in the context of fictional discourse. To the best of my knowledge, there is no study that has

aimed to describe humour in terms of its potential to fulfil a number of functions as well as

there is no study that has examined effects that humour may spread upon the television

recipients, not to mention study that dwells upon Relevance Theory.

The structure of the thesis is designed to guide the reader through the intricacies of

humour studies, from the most general issues that help to set the course of the analysis to the

more specific phenomena. Chapter I of the dissertation offers definitions of humour,

manifestations of conversational humour as well as theories of humour. In general, humorous

communication can be defined as “intentional verbal and nonverbal messages which elicit

laughter, chuckling, and other forms of spontaneous behaviour taken to mean pleasure, delight,

and/ or surprise in the targeted receiver” (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield 1991). This

generic definition can become a point of departure for further humour-related notions, such as

conversational humour, which is the focus of scholarly investigation here. As for humorous

manifestations described in this chapter, their initial description draws upon the well-

established distinction between jokes and the types of conversational humour, such as personal

anecdotes, puns, humorous allusions, sarcasm, irony or banter. The second part of Chapter I

summarises families of theories of humour, preserving a tripartite division between cognitive

(incongruity), social (superiority), and psychoanalytical (relief) ones. It also outlines the cue

theory, devised by Mills (2009), which is particularly relevant to sitcom humour as it explains

some mechanisms of humour in fictional discourse through emphasis on the notion of a cue.

Out of the three families of humour theories, the incongruity/ incongruity-resolution approaches

are brought to the fore, which is premised on the assumption that the process of interpretation

endorsed in incongruity-based workings and that in Relevance Theory are similar. A disclaimer

should be made: almost all incongruity-based theories were originally exemplified with jokes

Introduction

- 16 -

and thus the typical structure of a joke was key in explaining the creation of humorous effects,

whereas my analysis employs instances of conversational humour that may lack a joke-specific

structure. Having said that, the knowledge of these theories is still important as they are widely

acknowledged in literature and hence places the thesis in a broader context, and, as will be

demonstrated, the theories bear relevance to interactional humour and the humour of the sitcom

as well.

Chapter II offers the summary of the theoretical framework adopted in the analysis, i.e.

Relevance Theory. It specifically focuses on the underlying assumptions concerning cognition,

communication and comprehension. More importantly, it details the notions that are of

immediate importance to explain the recovery of humorous effects in sitcoms by TV recipients,

such as weak communication and propositional content communicated by means of humorous

utterances.

Chapter III brings into focus the research into sitcom discourse. First, it describes the

forms and modes of comedy in order to help the reader place the genre of sitcom on the “map”

of other entertainment phenomena, next to parody and slapstick. Then, it provides one of the

possible conceptualisations of sitcom in terms of its characteristic features, such as canned

laughter (or lack of thereof) or shooting style, which are used to distinguish the so-called ‘new

comedies’ – the type to which Modern Family can be classified. Third, the origins of sitcom

are discussed, with special attention to the transition of media from newspapers and radio into

the television, as well as the place that sitcoms have occupied in family life. Given the fact that

the sitcom under analysis is a family sitcom, the chapter also describes how family as a unit

was represented in various sitcoms. Last but not least, the participation framework is addressed,

which more thoroughly defines the object of the study, viz. communication between the

production crew and viewers. There are a number of participants who are engaged in fictional

interactions, such as overhearers or third party, but the emphasis is put on different

conceptualisations of the position of the viewers since it is their perspective that is vital.

Chapter IV zooms in on the functional studies of humour in order to describe the

background for my analysis, as it outlines some of the classifications of functions of humour.

It will be demonstrated that many effect-based taxonomies are wide in scope as these are

focused on the delineation of all the functions that humour can possibly convey in conversation,

whilst others address only one function of humour, such as subversion, or a particular humour

manifestation, such as puns or jointly produced narratives. It needs to be borne in mind that not

all the functions teased out in the literature can be identified in the sitcom data, which can be

mainly attributed to the nature of data itself (natural vs fictional). Furthermore, it can be readily

Introduction

- 17 -

noticed that one of the overriding functions of humour is to amuse, which boosts solidarity and

cohesion among co-conversationalists.

The last chapter constitutes the pivotal part of the dissertation as it presents the results

from the qualitative analysis (Appendix contains all the examples that were collected as well as

the analysis along the following parameters: fictional layer, recipient’s layer, humorous

mechanisms – incongruity, superiority and/ or relief, relevance-theoretic tool, strategy,

functions, and propositional meanings). The analysis furnishes ample empirical evidence that

humour is a multifunctional strategy. As a result, in lieu of discerning only one main function

that a humorous episode can communicate on the recipient’s part, the present study is designed

to demonstrate the totality of functions served with the use of one humorous unit. In other

words, while the functional analyses summarised in Chapter IV single out one function in one

humorous episode, my research shows a host of functions.

- 18 -

C h a p t e r I

Overview of Theories of Humour

Cameron: I’m playing a drinking game.

It’s called everytime I feel depressed about something, I take a drink.

Mitchell: That’s already a game. It’s called alcoholism.

Modern Family (S03E15)

1.1. Introduction

The paramount objective of this chapter is to provide a theoretical background to the subject of

the present study, i.e. humour in sitcom discourse. The chapter is divided into two parts with a

view to navigating the reader through the vast bulk of literature. The first part presents various

definitions of humour and its adjacent notions, such as conversational humour, conversational

joking/ telling or verbal humour, some of which are regarded as synonymous in the literature.

There is an array of different manifestations, forms and structures of humour, which have been

variously catalogued in taxonomies with respect to a specific criterion. As for the manifestations

of humour, there are those which are inherently humorous, like jokes and puns, and those which

permeate to humour research, like irony and sarcasm. Irrespective of whether we study

spontaneously produced interaction or scripted fictional communication, the types of humour

are not confined to any single form of communication (Dynel 2013b). An attempt will therefore

be made to provide a systematised classification of the forms of conversational humour,

dividing them into three main groups, i.e. narrative forms, linguistic impoliteness and formal

structures.

The second part of the chapter concerns three families of humour theories: superiority,

relief and incongruity, with special attention confined to incongruity and incongruity-resolution

(IR) models. These three families of humour theories seek to offer a coherent and plausible

explanation of the occurrence of humour within their respective framework. The reason why

incongruity-based approaches to humour are given prominence is that they neatly fit into the

relevance-theoretic comprehension heuristics, which will be used as a methodological tool in

the present work (Yus 2003, 2016). More specifically, the following models are summarised


- 19 -

chronologically: Koestler’s (1964) Bisociation Theory, Suls’ (1972) Incongruity-Resolution

Model, Raskin’s (1985) Semantic Script Theory of Humour, Attardo and Raskin’s (1991)

General Theory of Verbal Humour, Norrick’s (1986, 1987) Bisociation as Conflict Schema,

Giora’s (1991) Graded Salience Hypothesis, Ritchie’s (2002, 2004) Forced Reinterpretation

Model, Yus’ (2003) MGI/SCI schema and Dynel’s (2012b) IR mechanisms. Then, their

theoretical potential to account for humour in sitcoms will be critically assessed, taking into

account that all of the presented theories have been primarily intended to account for jokes. As

will be shown, some of the IR theories echo the central proposal of Koestler’s (1964) bisociation

cognitive theory so his theory seems to be a reference point for the studies of many other

approaches. In addition, throughout the present chapter, I tend to offer examples of humour,

which Canestrari (2010) dubs off-stage humour – one that arises on the recipients’ layer and it

is very common in cinematic discourse. My data culled from Modern Family is no different in

this respect as there are few humorous interactions in which the fictional characters are amused

or entertained, apart from the viewers.

The concept of incongruity and its consequent resolution is treated as a necessary

mechanism, which underlies most, if not all, occurrences of humour. However, there are

additional factors which need to be coupled with incongruity to make it comic: surprise, the

comprehender’s playful mode and novelty of a stimulus. The reason for discussing other

elements is that these factors, together with incongruity, provide a broad picture of humour.

In addition to the three broad families of humour theories, Mills’ (2009) cue theory is

presented, viewed as the fourth theory of humour that is particularly valid to the study of

sitcoms. The Cue Theory, presented in Section 1.2.4.1., lays strong emphasis on

contextualisation cues, i.e. non-verbal behaviour, verbal message, prosodic and paralinguistic

clues, which introduce the play frame. These cues enable the production crew to place viewers

on the right humorous footing. The motivation behind developing this alternative humour

theory was that superiority, relief and incongruity approaches have originally been developed

to study jokes, which are short comic moments: “[s]itcom, however, is made up of many comic

moments1, alongside a whole host of other narrative and aesthetic factors, which means to

analyse the joke alone is to ignore the variety of tools the genre employs” (Mills 2009: 92).

1 In a similar vein, Zillmann (2000) believes that joke-telling in television sitcoms is composed of ‘miniatures’ –

humorous episodes which appear in quick succession.


- 20 -

1.2. Humour: its definitions, manifestations and the like

The area of humour studies is vast and there have been many attempts to precisely define

humour and subcategorise its manifestations. Before presenting some definitions of humour,

we need to be aware of a number of factors affecting a lack of unitary definition. First, the

notion of humour is broad, as it comprises all instances of phenomena regarded as amusing,

laughable or funny (Attardo 2001b). The anthropologist Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi (1990) holds

that humour cannot be defined because it lacks essence, which is contrary to what Attardo

(1994) advocates, stating that there are essentialist theories of humour that aim to provide

necessary and sufficient conditions of humour. Second, researchers preoccupied with humour

studies offer their understanding of the phenomenon on the strength of their field of expertise.

In other words, the idea of what constitutes an amusing, laughable or humorous matter can be

differently understood by psychologists or sociologists. Third, there is no unifying criterion in

the treatment of humour and its adjacent terms like laughter, the comic, joke, wit, all of which

are sometimes used interchangeably (Keith-Spiegel 1972, Raskin 1985). Nevertheless, some

attempts at defining humour will be presented below.

There is an abundance of taxonomies of categories of conversational humour and humour

in general (for example, Raskin 1985, Ross 1998, Fry 1963, Nash 1985, Berger 1993, Norrick

1993, 2003; Attardo 2001a, Martin 2007, Dynel 2009b, Tsakona 2017). On the other hand,

according to Attardo (2001b) such taxonomies are of limited usefulness, since they are based

on different parameters, be it function, structure, or relevance to ongoing conversation. Also,

diversity in the means and situations in which humour may occur accounts for differences in

the categorisations, for example radio resorts to crack jokes and witticisms, television employs

a great deal of sitcoms, blooper shows, stand-up performances or political satire, while

newspapers print comic strips and cartoons (Martin 2007: 10). Norrick (2003) claims that it is

no use compiling an exhaustive and clear-cut classification of humour types since the groups

may overlap in natural conversation. Bearing certain restrictions in mind, a clarification is

required: some authors referred to humour in general terms, i.e. any occurrence that can be

potentially amusing to the recipient, encompassing for instance non-verbal humour. Hence,

Section 1.2.1. presents possible definitions and categories of humour as well as humour-related

notions. Section 1.2.2. concentrates on some classifications of the instances of conversational

humour.


- 21 -

1.2.1. Definitions and categories of humour

First, this section delineates selected notions used in humour literature, such as conversational

humour, conversational joking/ telling, verbally expressed humour, verbalised humour, or

humour in interaction. Second, it lists possible classification of the types subsumed under the

term humour, ranging from verbal humour to situational humour to jokes. Third, it presents the

basic distinction between jokes and various manifestations of conversational humour, with close

attention devoted to the former, as the latter will be discussed in detail in the following section.

The term humour encompasses a range of linguistic and non-linguistics types, with the

latter communicated through body language or pictures (Norrick 2004, Dynel 2009b).

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, humour is “that quality of action, speech, or

writing which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun” (Martin

2007: 5). The psychologist Harvey Mindess (1971: 21) conceptualises the notion in question as

“a frame of mind, a manner of perceiving and experiencing life. It is a kind of outlook, a peculiar

point of view, and one which has great therapeutic power” (in Raskin 1985: 7). The psychiatrist

William Fry (1963) equates humour with play, which is established by cues.

The term conversational humour (abbreviated as CH) can also be dubbed conversational

joking (Norrick 2003), situational humour (Fry 1963) or humour in interaction, which

underlines the interactional aspect of humorous encounters (Norrick and Chiaro 2009).

According to Dynel (2009a, 2009b), CH includes any humorous form in interaction, comprising

simple lexemes or phrasemes2, longer utterances and humorous exchanges integrated into non-

humorous discourse. Using simple terms, Hay (2000: 715) offers the definition of humour in

conversation as “anything the speaker intends to be funny”3. However, she cites Tannen’s

(1993: 166) studies, where it is claimed that “the “true” intention or motive of any utterance

cannot be determined from examination of linguistic form alone” since a sociological

component is also necessary. Kosińska (2008a: 25) suggests that CH is “any instance of humour

– activity with the intended perlocutionary effect of inducing laughter, occurring without

serious disruption of the natural flow of conversation”. Hence, CH is a blanket term for verbal

and non-verbal manifestations, performed impromptu or recalled verbatim (Dynel 2009b).

2 Lexemes and phrasemes (Mel’cˇuk 1995, in Dynel 2009b) are very short lexical constituents whose humorous effect

is mainly dependent upon creativity or a novel juxtaposition of elements which are assigned a unique semantic

meaning. The former type is dubbed neologisms, the humour of which is emergent in the course of morphological

processes. The latter type encompasses semantic phrasemes resting upon the odd connection of two unrelated words

and phrasemes comprising already existing phrases which are attributed a new meaning (Dynel 2009b). 3 This concise definition is particularly valid for my research given the fact that the sitcom Modern Family lacks

the laugh track and hence the data comprises the instances which are potentially funny for the viewers.


- 22 -

There is also a difference between two speech activities: joke telling and conversational

joking. While the latter requires the initiation of the play frame which, in turn, operates upon in-

group knowledge, joke-telling “is a highly conventionalized and socially bound speech behavior”

(Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997: 277). These two may be introduced through cues, typically

introductory statements. In the case of joke telling, cues are formalised like “Have you heard the

one about...”. As regards conversational joking, there are too many cues to be listed since it is

upon communicator’s creativity how to signal a humorous message (Boxer and Cortés-Conde

1997, cf. Martin 2007).

Ritchie (2000, 2004) offers the terms verbally expressed humour (VEH) and verbalised

humour to denote units of humour, which are communicated solely through the linguistic

system, for example puns, humorous riddles, or amusing epigrams, as divergent from

situational or visual humour (cf. Raskin 1985, Chiaro 1992, Attardo 1994, Dynel 2009a, 2009b,

see also the paragraph below on Aristotle’s typology). Additionally, Chiaro (1992) reckons that

many instances of verbal humour employ a specific comic device, in which a communicator

deceitfully conveys an accidental remark which has been in fact purposeful.

One of the earliest efforts to classify the types of humour was made by Aristotle, who

teased out two types of humour, namely verbal and referential. Within the realm of verbal

humour, we may find: homonyms, synonyms, repetition, paronyms (by addition and by

subtraction), diminutives, deformations by the voice, and figures of speech. Referential humour

encompasses similarity, deception, the impossible, the possible and inconsequential, the

unexpected, or other forms of purposely incoherent discourse (Janko 1984: 70; 1987: 44-45, in

Attardo 1994: 24-25). Cicero speaks in favour of Aristotle’s verbal/ referential taxonomy, however,

he further expands the two types. As regards verbal humour, it is posited to consist of ambiguity,

paronomasia, false etymologies, proverbs, literal interpretation of figurative expressions, allegory,

metaphors and antiphrasis (irony). Within referential humour, Cicero lists two subcategories,

namely anecdotes and caricature (Attardo 1994: 27). Cicero also alludes to incongruity which is

often explained in terms of failed expectations (see Section 1.3.3.): “The most common kind of joke

is that in which we expect one thing and another is said: here our disappointed expectation makes

us laugh. But if something ambiguous is thrown in too, the effect of the joke is heightened” (Cicero,

On the Orator, in Morreall 2008: 216). Another ancient rhetorician who expanded the Aristotelian

referential-verbal humour bifurcation was Quintilian, who mentions six types: urbanitas (“urban,

civilized”), venustum (“beautiful”), salsum (“salty, spicy”), facetum (“well done, pleasing”), jocus

(“not serious”) and dicacitas (“saying”) (Attardo 1994: 31).


- 23 -

Among modern classifications of humour, two examples will be mentioned: one by

Raskin (1985) and a more recent one by Martin (2007). Raskin’s typology is similar to Esar’s

(1952: 13-33, in Gruner 1978) and includes the following categories: ridicule (the only non-

verbal manifestation), deliberate ridicule (alternative to a physical attack), affectionate ridicule,

humour at the speaker’s own expense, riddle, conundrum (the punning riddle), pure pun, and

suppression/ repression humour. Martin (2007: 11-15) divides humour types into three general

categories, viz. jokes (prepackaged humorous anecdotes), spontaneous conversational humour

and accidental/ unintentional humour. On the basis of all the different classifications in

literature, he enumerates eleven types of spontaneous conversational humour: irony, satire,

sarcasm, overstatement and understatement, self-deprecation, teasing, replies to rhetorical

questions, clever replies to serious statements, double entendres, transformations of frozen

expressions and puns.

Of the three general categories distinguished by Martin (2007), unintentional humour

does not seem to be deserving of much attention in this analysis, as it could be only applied to

the level of characters engaging in humorous situations unbeknownst to them. Let us then

consider the category of joke, defined as “a ready-made unit, learned and repeated by a speaker

to amuse an audience” (Coates 2007: 31) or a form “produced orally in conversations or

published in collections” (Dynel 2009b: 1284). One of the ways to describe its nature is to

specify its structural components, each of which has an important function in creation of

humorous effects. Hockett (1972 [1977]) advances a bi-partite definition of a joke including a

‘build-up’ and a ‘punch’. In the same vein, Sherzer (1985) distinguishes the ‘set-up’ and the

‘punch line’, while Navon (1988, in Jodłowiec 1991a) identifies the ‘setting’ and the

‘punchline’. On the other hand, Attardo and Chabanne (1992) argue that jokes, when compared

to micro-narratives, champion a tri-partite structure embracing a narrative, a dialogue and a

punchline4. The narrative comprises one or several sentences whose function is to present

information concerning the artificial situation, sometimes place and time, but always “the social

identifications of the characters” (Attardo and Chabanne 1992: 166). This part can be replaced

or even elided when it is not important for the creation of incongruity or can be deduced by the

hearer. The dialogue is relatively short and is held by two or more characters (cf. Oring 1989).

The first two parts can be thought of in terms of the setting. The punchline is the focal part and

is placed at the end of the text to “close” what has been said earlier. Given its importance, the

punchline is vital for a perlocutionary effect upon the hearer, i.e. the intention to make the

4 The same joke division is advocated by Fry (1963): story, build-up, punchline.


- 24 -

audience laugh. Generally, the punchline is a “complete break with predictability” (Attardo and

Chabanne 1992: 169), referred to as “incongruity”, and its processing inevitably leads to

surprise (see Section 1.3.3. on incongruity theories).

Notwithstanding obvious differences between the humorous manifestation discussed

above and humour occurring in sitcoms, Attardo (2001a: 91) reckons that longer narrative texts,

such as fiction, bear some resemblance to the structure of jokes. Given a textual structure of

sitcom humour, these humorous texts can be classified as texts with a “bathtub placement”. The

term refers to longer conversation’s being comprised of smaller embedded humorous episodes

or punchlines, which may occupy the initial or final position. As regards the initial placement of

the punchline, it is quite frequent for sitcoms to start with a “teaser” – a short humorous unit

which can be possibly connected to the ongoing conversation but not necessarily so. It may be

hypothesised that the role of the teaser is to put the audience on a humorous keying. As for the

punchline’s final position, sitcoms conventionally hinge upon this structure when they end with

a small joke dubbed the “tag”, the point of which is to provide a comment on what has just

happened.

Jokes are not only written in collections of jokes or found on the Internet, where they are

grouped with regard to their object of ridicule forming a joke cycle (a set of jokes connected

thematically, Attardo 2001a). Jokes as individual units are also employed in spontaneous or

fictional conversation. Their presence in natural communication among people that do not know

each other very well may function as a test of other interactants’ attitude towards a topic and a

way of establishing one’s limits to acceptance of taboo topics. In a more friendly environment,

jokes are not used to establish membership and understanding but simply to amuse others and

possibly to strengthen the bond (Norrick 1993).

As regards applicability to sitcoms, initial episodes may be used to a similar end as jokes,

i.e. as a test to find the common ground between viewers and fictional characters. Given the

industrial nature of sitcom production, there are special regulatory departments which evaluate

the audience’s reception of material presented in the broadcasting, for example the acceptability

of offensive language (Mills 2005). When viewers get used to the type of humour in a chosen

sitcom on the one hand and broadcasters and regulators adjust the content on the other,

subsequent seasons may be used with a view to amusing and entertaining the audience.

Moreover, viewers’ regular meetings with fictional characters create rapport (Mills 2009).

Mills (2005) states that the presence of jokes in sitcoms is problematic granted syndicated

re-runs and the viewer’s familiarity with certain jokes, which could deprive humour of the


- 25 -

element of surprise. Nonetheless, a subsequent hearing of the same humorous episodes may in

fact be amusing because humour is also conditioned by social circumstances.

Elaborating on the difference between forms of CH and jokes, it is to be noted that the

latter are self-contained and do not depend upon the context for their effect. Norrick (1993),

Martin (2007) and Dynel (2009b) employed this basic division between jokes and other forms

of humour in their own classifications. It is maintained that jokes are not spontaneous, but are

frequently prefaced by explicit markers (see Section 1.2.4.), which disrupt a natural flow of

communication (Fry 1963, Chiaro 1992, Coates 2007, cf. Norrick 1993, 2003). However, it is

possible for them to be easily transferred, with modifications, to the ongoing conversation

(Mulkay 1988, Oring 2003, Martin 2007). Moreover, jokes can be amusing on the second or

subsequent encounter, which may seem to be counterintuitive since punchlines are believed to

rely on surprise (Morreall 1983).

CH is highly reliant upon the social context since it necessities a mutual work between

the speaker and the hearer, who are coordinated towards the common goal. This is what Clark

(1996) dubs joint activity, that is a set of coordinated actions towards a dominant goal, involving

two or more participants. Conversationalists need to share immediate spatial and temporal

environment, which is adjusted in accordance with the communicative goal (Clark 1996).

Moreover, a great deal of non-verbal communication, such as eye movement or

suprasegmenals, plays an important role in conveying the meaning, despite the fact that these

non-linguistic cues can still be ambiguous (Martin 2007).

The social nature of conversational humour makes it difficult to be transferred to

situations other than those in which they originated: first, conversational episodes are unique

and second, interactants create local scripts of a situation. It means that the knowledge required

to understand a piece of spontaneous discourse is restricted to this particular occasion, which

narrows down interpretative possibilities. By this token, humorous import is created “on the

fly” (Attardo 2001a). These restrictions do not apply to jokes, the immediate context of which

is easily constructed (Mulkay 1988). Nevertheless, units of CH can be converted into jokes

when their content is to be formulated in more impersonal terms, i.e. when they lack situation-

dependent specifics (Mulkay 1988). Oring (1999, in Attardo 2002: 62) claims that “canned5

jokes originate from conversational jokes which have undergone a process of

decontextualization”.

5 Some humour researchers employ the adjective ‘canned’, nonetheless any joke is repeated verbatim (Dynel

2009b) and whenever I use the term “jokes”, I mean “canned jokes”.


- 26 -

As indicated above, jokes are considered as decontextualised forms of humour, whereas

other forms of conversational humour are context-dependent. However, when interlocutors are

engaged in a joke-capping session (the term similar to ping-pong punning; Chiaro 1992), i.e. a

sequence of jokes in which one is semantically related to the other, it is the case that jokes bear

relationship to the current topic. In addition, it is sometimes unfeasible to draw the boundary

line between spontaneous humour and jokes (Norrick 1993, Dynel 2009b).

1.2.2. Types of conversational humour

This section attempts to provide an overview of types of humour pervasive in naturally

occurring conversation. In particular, humorous manifestations are categorised with respect to

focus on narrative forms, linguistic aggression/ impoliteness and formal structures.

Esar (1952: 13-33, in Gruner 1978: 9-15; Raskin 1985: 29) puts forth a categorisation of

humour manifestations into wisecrack (an amusing witticism at the expense of others), epigram

(a witticism directed at a group of people), riddle (a puzzle-like short phrase, or question-answer

form), conundrum (a punning riddle impossible to be deciphered by the hearer), joke, anecdote

(an interesting and peculiar event) and gag6 (conversation-like form).

Norrick (1993) compiles a list of three functional categories of conversational humour:

1) organisational (banter, mocking), 2) interpersonal (personal anecdotes, jointly produced

narratives, wordplay, punning, wordplay interaction, sarcasm and mocking) and 3) metalinguistic.

As regards interpersonal categories, personal anecdotes, narratives and wordplay are tailored to

display common ground, while mocking and sarcasm are seen as aggressive.

Dynel (2009b) identifies the whole gamut of semantic and pragmatic types, such as

neologisms, semantic phrasemes, witticisms, stylistic figures (simile), puns, allusions (based

on distortions, like anti-proverbs, and quotations), register clash, retorts, teasing, banter, put-

downs, self-denigrating humour and anecdotes. Moreover, it is maintained that the types she

teases out are germane to both naturally occurring and scripted communication (Dynel 2009a).

In the present work, the categories of CH are succinctly summarised with special attention

to their functions in spontaneous conversational humour. These manifestations are grouped into

three types: narrative forms (jokes, personal anecdotes, jointly produced narratives), linguistic

aggression/ impoliteness (witticism, teasing, banter, put-down humour, self-deprecating

humour, sarcasm, mocking) and formal structures (puns, allusions). It needs to be highlighted

6 The types gags, wisecracks and epigrams are succinctly described in Chapter III since these manifestations are

particularly relevant to sitcoms (see Section 3.2.)


- 27 -

that there is no intention to offer a strict and flawless systematisation of types of CH as this

would probably be an unattainable goal. The sole purpose of the classification presented below

is to offer a point of reference for my further analysis.

1.2.2.1. Focus on narrative forms

Under the heading of narrative forms of humour, we may find three forms, viz. witticisms,

personal anecdotes and jointly produced narratives. The reason for the choice of the name

‘narrative’ is that there is a narrative structure, i.e. some kind of a story, in these manifestations.

Moreover, it is claimed by Neale and Krutnik (1990) that the types like jokes, gags and

wisecracks (witticisms) are not always self-contained and easily dividable from the rest of

conversation but they require the narrative context.

Witticisms

A wisecrack, or witticism, is defined as a witty and clever remark, which can convey a biting

or ironic comment. This kind of humour manifestation is recurrent in sitcoms, as indicated in

Section 3.2. (Neale and Krutnik 1990). In the sitcom Modern Family, there are many instances

of witticisms incorporated into the fabric of fictional communication, which are local/

momentary and hence integral part of narrative contexts. There is one episode of Modern

Family, which is contingent on the use of witticisms and these form the main storyline of this

episode. Some of these wisecracks are repeated verbatim or in a slightly altered form in

subsequent episodes. In episode 2 titled “Schooled” (season 4), the witticisms are collected in

the book entitled Phil’s-osophy since these bright statements are made by the character named

Phil and are part of his personal philosophy:

(1) (a) Always look people in the eye. Even if they’re blind. Just say, “I’m looking you in the eye”.

(b) The most amazing things that can happen to a human being will happen to you if you just lower your

expectations.

(c) Never be afraid to reach for the stars because even if you fall, you’ll always be wearing a parent-chute.

(d) Take a lesson from parakeets. If you’re ever feeling lonely, just eat in front of a mirror.

(e) Success is 1% inspiration, 98% perspiration, and 2% attention to detail.

(f) You can tell a lot about a person from his biography.

(g) Watch a sunrise at least once a day.

(h) If you love something, set it free, unless it’s a tiger.

(i) When life gives you lemonade, make lemons. Life will be all like, “what?!”.


- 28 -

Some of the witticisms presented above are uttered by Phil, while others are provided by the

members of his family glancing directly into the camera. Judging by an expression of disbelief

on their faces, they cannot glean the proper meaning behind those conversational episodes. Phil

is oblivious to the fact that his life lessons are not taken seriously by his family and that these

witticisms create humour on the part of viewers and possibly fictional characters. In general,

the humour is produced when witticisms state the obvious (Holmes and Marra 2002a), for

example it is general knowledge that a biography publishes (un)authorised information (1f) on

somebody’s life, while the sun rises and sets once a day (1g). There is a play on a phonological

level, viz. parachute vs parent-chute (1c) or there is a rephrasing of the existing proverbial

phrases, i.e. when life gives you lemons, make lemonade vs when life gives you lemonade, make

lemons (1i). Given their simplicity, some of these wisecracks may be regarded as being

accidentally irrelevant (Wilson 1999, 2005) since the viewer does not learn anything new, in

particular from those in (1f) and (1g).

Personal anecdotes

One of the ways to create rapport with other conversationalists is to tell a personal anecdote

about one’s own or someone else’s life, with the latter being less pompous (Norrick 1993).

Personal anecdotes “are told as true reports of funny events experienced by the teller” and

usually contain an explicit marker, such as “the funniest thing happened to me” or “I remember

when I was five or six” (Norrick 2003: 1339). As opposed to jokes, anecdotes are not disruptive

but are topically coherent and hence tightly interwoven into continuing conversation. For this

reason, the episode of storytelling requires actively involved participants who may eventually

become co-tellers and exchange their own experience. The most desirable hearer’s reaction is

laughter, which generally occurs at the end (Norrick 2003). However, anecdotes do not contain

a standard punchline, whose function is to test the audience’s understanding and thus laughter

may be invited right after the set-up part. In addition, Dynel (2009b) notes that a dramatic

anecdote may be turned into a humorous one to foster laughter, especially through the use of

colourful language, i.e. witty lexemes and phrasemes.

Swapping humorous stories helps collect social information about people involved in

conversation (Goffman 1959, in Norrick 1993), i.e. we may find out about norms and attitudes

about a certain topic, or what communicators have in common. Other functions include

projecting a positive self-image and expressing one’s sense of humour, which establish

sympathy and solidarity (Norrick 1993).


- 29 -

Jointly produced narratives

While hearers are expected to provide an evaluative comment in personal anecdotes, jointly

produced narratives do not invite any reaction (Norrick 1993). Another difference between the

two categories is that we may perceive an equal distribution of social power in a narrative

because any interactant is entitled to provide a part of their mutual story. Hence, a jointly produced

narration does not concern only a person who has the floor but others present during conversation.

Since the collective recollection of a story lacks any punchline, laughter may be prompted right

after the initiator’s turn. Moreover, speakers, after having produced the narrative, return to the

serious turn-taking interaction, while a personal anecdote invites hearer’s attention.

The function of a jointly produced narrative is not a test for comprehension but rather a

platform for conversationalists to promote solidarity via turning past events into mutual

experiences (Norrick 1993). Rapport is also maintained when every speaker recalls own personal

story, which helps to establish the common ground, for instance the type of films we like.

1.2.2.2. Focus on the elements linguistic aggression/ impoliteness

There are several linguistic types of conversational humour, some of which aim to deliver a

linguistic attack upon the addressee or oneself. An impolite communicative act in fictional

discourse leads to social disharmony and conflict among actors, which is captivating to the

audience. On the one hand, impoliteness can be aggressive but on the other, it can be

entertaining, depending on the speaker’s intention and hearer’s recognition (Culpeper 1996,

1998, 2005). Among aggressive humorous types, Norrick (1993, also Norrick and Spitz 2008)

enumerates sarcasm, mocking/ self-mocking and banter, whereas Dynel (2009b) mentions

banter, self-denigrating (self-mocking) humour, retorts, teasing and put-downs. There are types

of humour that can be described as humorously aggressive (affiliative humour) and genuinely

aggressive (disaffiliative humour), with the latter being unhumorous to the butt of the attack.

As for disaffiliative instances, it encompasses sarcasm, disparagement, putdowns, ridicule and

mockery (Dynel 2013a, 2013b; see Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann 2003).

Self-denigrating humour (self-directed, self-mocking) (Zillman and Stocking 1976,

Norrick 1993, Zajdman 1995, Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Dynel 2009b) is the one in which

the speaker puts himself/ herself in the position of the butt. It proves to be a useful tool in

vulnerable situations as a communicator shows that s/he can handle difficulties with

equanimity. Any instance of self-mockery may be understood either as self-teasing or self-

putdown, with the latter being a part of self-presentation politics (Zillman and Stocking 1976,

Dynel 2009b). Norrick (1993) believes that self-mocking performs the functions of informing


- 30 -

others of one’s sense of humour, which is a virtue in today’s world, and of ratifying group

values. In addition, it conveys the function of displaying individual social identity with a

bonding effect (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997), when the communicator voices concern for

hearer’s positive face, which is in fact the way to conceal the speaker’s feeling of superiority

(Zajdman 1995).

Putdown humour/ hostile humour is genuinely aggressive and is rarely regarded as

humorous by the target (Zillmann and Stocking 1976, Dynel 2009b). For instance, the turn You

must be an experiment in Artificial Stupidity (Dynel 2009b: 1294) is hardly amusing to the

addressee since it unambiguously issues a maximal face threat instead of reinforcing

cohesiveness (Zajdman 1995). On the other hand, studies conducted by Mateo and Yus (2000,

2013) show that insults may be used to convey a social bonding intention or to express

admiration. As regards putdowns in mass mediated discourse, a fictional character or a

television host intends to amuse another actor and more importantly, viewers, for the benefit of

whom fictional discourse is created. When a putdown is initiated in spontaneous conversation,

it may pass unnoticed or the communicator can explain that a remark is rather a tease, which is

not intended to inflict damage. Hence, to differentiate an instance of aggressive teasing from a

putdown is to acknowledge the speaker’s intention (Dynel 2009b). Moreover, given pre-

communicative categories, it is stated that men are inclined to tease others and produce

putdowns, while female more often engage in self-denigration (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997,

cf. Zillmann and Stocking 1976).

The concept teasing is problematic because of a myriad of pragmatic functions it performs

(Dynel 2009b), such as pretence of hostility coupled with friendliness, or face enhancement

covered by face threat (Sinkeviciute 2013). A tease is not designed to disclose true information

and hence it is oriented towards solidarity and positive relationship enhancement (Kotthoff

1996; cf. Sinkeviciute 2013). Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997) offer a continuum of cases of

teasing enclosed within the joking frame, ranging from bonding to nipping to biting, which are

not mutually exclusive and thus the addressee needs to rely on non-verbal cues and

suprasegmentals to see whether an act is mitigated. Haugh (2016) offers a classification of

playful teasing into jocular mockery (a tease within the play frame in which the communicator

belittles the hearer) and jocular pretence (a tease overtly or covertly deceives the addressee into

seriousness of turn, which is then transformed into non-serious one), which differ in the design

of the act, occurrence of laughter and subsequent progression to a serious or humorous frame.

Banter can be delineated by Leech’s Principle of Banter, which states that the interactant,

in saying something untruthful and impolite, fosters solidarity with others. The notion is gradable,


- 31 -

that is “the more intimate the relationship, the less important it is to be polite” hence the more

hostile people are towards each other, the higher degree of social harmony (Leech 1983: 144).

Culpeper (1996, 1998) regards banter as mock impoliteness, aimed to promote social solidarity.

In fact, it is conceptually discrete from politeness or impoliteness and can be better viewed as

‘non-impoliteness’ (Haugh and Bousfield 2012). Haugh and Bousfield (2012: 1103) discriminate

between two-participant and multi-party communication in participants’ evaluation of an impolite

act, viz. in the former interactants “must evaluate the talk or conduct as non-impolite”, while in

the latter, “not all of the participants need necessarily evaluate the talk or conduct as non-

impolite”.

Sarcasm, or mock politeness, is employed for social disharmony. It is the polar extreme

to banter (mock impoliteness) as sarcastic remarks “remain surface realisations” (Culpeper

1996: 356; 2005). Culpeper’s (1996) idea of sarcasm is similar to Leech’s (1983: 82): “If you

must cause offence, at least do so in a way which doesn’t overtly conflict with the PP [M.W.:

Politeness Principle], but allows the hearer to arrive at the offensive point of your remark

indirectly, by way of implicature”. A close affinity between sarcasm and irony makes it difficult

to capture the conceptual difference between them and they may be conflated into one notion

of sarcastic irony: “a type of irony which inherently carries pejoration of the target” (Dynel

2016a: 220; 2014, Jorgensen 1996). The contrasting element is overt untruthfulness which

invariably characterises irony, but not necessarily sarcasm, which resides in an explicit or

implicit unfavourable evaluation conveyed by a witty remark (Dynel 2014).

Mocking, like sarcasm, is contingent upon genuine aggression7 and verbal attack upon the

target, which bifurcates into a mocking talk outside current interaction and a mocking talk within

the context of conversation (Norrick 1993). The first type can be exemplified by the

communicator’s purposeful alternation of the meaning and hence creating ambiguity, which is

opposite to what the interactant tries to convey. The second type encompasses instances in which

the speaker draws conversationalists’ attention to an inappropriate sentence structure or use of a

word. Both forms of mockery may be employed by speakers as a cohesive device to promote

rapport. In addition, Norrick (1994: 423) sees sarcasm and mockery as serving a dual function:

“aggression and solidarity – aggression in the message, attacking others for their foibles and

errors, and solidarity in the metamessage, including others in a playful relationship with increased

involvement”.

7 This type of CH can be seen as less aggressive when mockery is jointly produced (Norrick 1993).


- 32 -

1.2.2.3. Focus on formal structures

Humorous allusions

Instead of producing an ingenious novel utterance, the humorist may build the turn upon

humorous allusion, which includes distortions or quotations (Dynel 2009b). More specifically,

the former subtype operates on rephrasing of the original text and sometimes its meaning. Its

humour is based upon a deletion, substitution or addition, so that there is a part of a letter,

syllable or word incorporated into a model text. To illustrate, the original phrase The pot calling

the kettle black is transformed via word substitution into The pot calling the grass green. The

second type of allusion is based on recalling of authentic texts, especially those which belong

to popular culture, such as films, songs, books or advertising slogans (Dynel 2009b). Allusion

as a form of CH “has an obvious double humorous potential, first in its actual contribution to

the current context, and second by recalling to the original text for listeners in the know”

(Norrick 1993: 69-70), which can be coupled with wordplay or punning.

The presence of an unannounced intertextual reference in one’s utterance serves two

functions: it is a test for background cultural knowledge, which elicits laughter and hence builds

rapport among conversationalists (Norrick 1994, Dynel 2009b). Nash (1985: 79) adds the

following functions of an allusive remark: “to smooth over a difficulty, to ward off an attack,

to help the underdogged against the overbearing, to comment on society and manner”. As

regards the intertexuality, allusions are similar to parody (Norrick 1987, cf. Nash 1985).

However, allusions employ humorous texts in their own right and aim to praise the original text,

while parody mimics/ imitates the source text with an irreverent attitude towards it (Norrick

1987). It needs to be highlighted that not all allusions, or intertextual texts in general, are used for

humorous purposes (Norrick 1987, Ross 1998), whilst parody aims to produce humour.

Wordplay/ punning/ wordplay interaction

Sacks (1973, in Norrick 1993: 61) defines a pun as a humorous text evoking two contextually

appropriate interpretations derivable from an ambiguous word or phrase. Any wordplay calls

for suspension of the serious frame since it disrupts the ongoing conversation and the hearer

needs to accept a change of topic (Norrick 1993, 2003; Chiaro 1992), nevertheless it may work

well in serious conversation carrying a serious meaning concealed under the cloak of humour.

Puns are successfully delivered when they violate Giora’s (1991) relevance requirement so that

the speaker manipulates the hearer’s derivation of interpretations from the least to the most

relevant one.


- 33 -

Norrick (1993) believes that wordplay may serve primary and secondary functions,

depending on the communicator’s intention. A primary function is when it is delivered as a

cohesive device used to cement personal relations, while secondary functions include the use

of puns as a means of opening/ ceasing conversation, filling awkward pauses or conferring a

topic change. Besides these functions, puns enhance solidarity via shared laughter elicited by

shared knowledge, work as a test for hearer’s sensitivity to taboo topics (and hence gather social

data on what is deemed funny by a specific person), help to manipulate the course of

conversation and serve a basis for further forms of wordplay.

1.2.3. Humorous frame

The meaning conveyed in humorous communication can be described by a psychological

construct of a play frame or joking/ humorous frame (Bateson 1972), within which interlocutors

are not committed to the truth of their contribution. The concept has been employed by a

number of authors claiming that conversational humour involves the establishment and

maintenance of the frame (Fry 1963; Goffman 1974; Norrick 1993, 2003; Zajdman 1995, Boxer

and Cortés-Conde 1997; Kotthoff 2006; Coates 2007; Dynel 2009a, 2011f; Norrick and Bubel

2009), which can also be dubbed keying8, footing9 or layering.

The concept of the frame has been proposed outside humour studies, being also dubbed

script, scenario or schema. Bednarek (2005), following Minsky’s (1975 [1980]) understanding,

concedes that the frame is a cognitive/ mental unit covering general information about a certain

situation: “a data-structure for representing stereotyped information” (Minsky 1977: 355, in

Bednarek 2005: 68610), for example going to a birthday party. As for the play frame, Bateson

(1972: 186) depicts the frame as a meta-communicative psychological concept and hence “[t]he

play of two individuals on a certain occasion would then be defined as the set of all messages

exchanged by them within a limited period of time...”. Interlocutors “frame” their utterances in a

8 Goffman (1974: 43-44) defines a key as “the set of conventions by which a given activity, one already meaningful

in terms of some primary framework, is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the

participants to be something quite else”. The process of keying requires a type of transformation in a frame, which

would be discarded as redundant otherwise. 9 Drawing upon the notion of ‘key’, Goffman (1981) comes up with ‘footing’ designated as “the alignment of an

individual to a particular utterance whether involving a production format, as in the case of a speaker, or solely a

participation status, as in the case of hearer” (Goffman 1981: 227). It is highlighted that a change in footing is just

“another way of talking about a change in our frame for events” (Goffman 1981: 128). The alternation of a footing

is conditioned by language expressions or paralinguistic language markers, for instance academic teachers giving

lectures speak in an official variation of Norwegian but if they want to encourage free discussion they alternate

their footing introducing a regional Norwegian dialect. 10 See an overview of different conceptualisations of the concept of a frame.


- 34 -

playful or serious mode11, which in turn elicits a proper reaction on the hearer’s part with respect

to the established frame. The communicator introducing a play frame conveys the ‘metamessage’

that ‘this is a play’ and otherwise aggressive or derisive utterances would not be taken seriously.

In the same manner, Norrick (1993) believes that once an interactant starts wordplay, s/he

immediately initiates a playful mode, which enables others to continue the activity.

The establishment of the play frame is not a one-sided process resting upon the humorist

but a collaborative endeavour between speakers and hearers (Coates 2007). This joint activity

fosters solidarity and rapport among participants working within the humorous frame: “[s]uch

fine-tuning of understanding is the core of why the ability to participate in such joking is important

in the development of rapport” so that it is shown that they are finely tuned (Davies 2003: 1361)

(Hay 1995, Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Norrick 1993, Coates 2007). In the case of sitcom

discourse, the production crew’s primary goal is to elicit viewer’s humorous reaction (Mills 2005,

2009) but the negotiation of the humorous frame is also up to the audience who, by the very fact

of watching entertainment, agrees to join it.

Besides the discrimination between “play” and “nonplay” (Bateson 1972), Dynel (2018)

posits that the distinction between humorousness and seriousness should be abandoned as it is

rendered redundant in her model based on overt/ covert (un)truthfulness and her notions of

speaker-meaning-telic humour (humour that conveys meaning pertinent to the conversation)

and autotelic humour (for its own sake).

1.2.4. Contextualisation cues

The humorous frame and hence communicator’s playful intent can be signalled by

contextualisation cues. In conversational joking “creating the play frame is fundamental, since

the humor not only emerges in the situation itself but from the appropriate cues that make it a

laughing” (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997: 277). The very term of a cue was devised by

Gumperz (1982, 1992) to represent a series of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, which help

the hearer retrieve presuppositions and determine the speaker’s underlying intentions:

“contextualization cues include prosodic features such as stress and intonation, paralinguistic

features such as tempo and laughter, choice of code and particular lexical expressions”

(Gumperz 1992: 229; see also Gumperz 1982: 131, Holmes and Hay 1997: 132).

11 It is maintained that the interactants engaged in conversation need to know within which mode, either serious or

non-serious/humorous, the utterance should be considered, for the sake of unobstructed transmission of

information (Mulkay 1988).


- 35 -

Contextualisation cues are differently dubbed in literature: McGhee (1977) uses the term play

signals, Paulos (1980) speaks of metacues, Palmer (1987) names them paralinguistic markers

and Mulkay (1988) uses the notion of humorous cues.

As a cue, the humorist may choose to employ preface sequences (Sacks 1974), explicit

markers (Attardo 1994), standard prefaces (Norrick 2003), metalinguistic formulaic expressions

(Jodłowiec 2008), or formulaic introductions (Oring 2008), like “Did you hear the one about…?”,

“Stop me if you have heard this one…”, “Have you heard the latest?”, which explicitly mark the

beginning of conversational joking. A different type of cue is a catchphrase with which the

audience associates a particular televised programme, e.g. Good moaning in ‘Allo ‘Allo! (1982-

1992; BBC One). Besides verbal signs, Fry (1963) mentions non-verbal metalinguistic

discriminating signals, i.e. a change in a body movement or posture, eyebrow lifting, gurgle in

the voice, winking, laughter and almost unnoticed body movement, which also facilitate the play

frame.

Laughter appears to be primarily a kind of response to humour, but as will be shown later

it can also become a cue in sitcom discourse. Attardo (1994) explains that humour is a mental

phenomenon, while laughter is its physiological realisation. In other words, “humor belongs to

the competence side, whereas laughter is a performance-side issue” (Attardo 2008b: 2011).

The studies undertaken within the field of discourse analysis (DA)/ conversation analysis

(CA) indicate that laughter and joking are seen as “two parts of adjacency pair” (Norrick 1993:

23), so that laughter is the preferred reaction to joking or punning (for an overview of laughter

see, e.g. Attardo 1994: Chapter 10, Chafe 2007).

The presence of laughter after the joking element is an indicator that “the occasion was

appropriate for joking” (Attardo 2008a: 116). In the case of stifling laughter, the hearer may

implicitly reject or disapprove of the moment for a joke, which may be offensive to the humorist

(Jefferson 1979). Besides the right moment for joking, laughter also suggests the moment of

getting a joke (Davies 2003).

The model adjacency pair of humour and its uptake is that a recipient’s laughter

immediately follows the communicator’s humorous turn. In other words, laughter is an

anticipated completion of the joking elements (Sacks 1974, Norrick 1993). Mulkay (1988)

reckons that this is a fairly rare case to happen in natural conversation since any interactant’s

attempt to solicit laughter would not result in a spontaneous response, which should occur when

a recipient is truly amused. Extending Jefferson’s (1979) research, he argues that there are two

ways in which the communicator may invite laughter. First, the speaker can insert within-

speech laughter, which comes immediately after or overlaps and hence partially interrupts the


- 36 -

humorous turn. Inserted laughter is a sign of the humorous intention that the conversationalists

are entering a humorous mode, which is a joint activity. Second, the communicator employs

post-utterance laughter as soon as s/he perceives a lack of uptake in the audience. Alternatively,

s/he decides to make a brief pause and then laugh in order to direct the hearer’s attention to the

humorous substance in his/ her utterance. Post-utterance laughter is used to “solicit laughter

from a partner, to acknowledge a partner’s humorous intent, to conform to a conventional

pattern of conduct, and generally to manage the ongoing sequence of interaction” (Mulkay

1988: 116-117). The viewer may decline the speaker’s post- utterance laughter invitation so

that his/ her utterance offers “serious pursuit of topic as a counter to the pursuit of laughter”

(Jefferson 1979: 93).

For Jefferson (1979) laughter is a proactive instrument, which is used to frame utterances

as humorous, i.e. it invites recipients to laugh. Laughter is one of the key elements in sitcoms,

not only the one which is performed by fictional characters but also the one articulated by studio

audience (Mills 2005, 2009). Given the sitcom’s aim to amuse, laughter should be treated as

part of the text. Onscreen laughter cues the audience to know that an utterance is intentionally

humorous but the audience may still remain unamused (Neale and Krutnik 1990).

As regards sitcom discourse, Mills (2005) argues that the laugh track is no longer a

generic contextualisation signal but rather a sign of social unity in the audience (see Provine

2000). Shared laughter gives a sense of collectivity, especially in the audience who watches

older comedies with the laugh track – the viewers laugh together with a studio audience. Sitcoms

are seen as a form of entertainment for two types of audience: live audience in a studio and

viewers at home. Nowadays, new-era sitcoms stopped using the laugh track since they sound

more natural and hence may appeal to younger audiences. It may also be the case that producers

want to convey serious material concealed under humour, as was the case with the war TV series

M*A*S*H (1972-1983; CBS) (Mills 2005, 2009; on the laugh track see Section 3.3.1.).

1.2.4.1. Cue Theory

As a follow-up to the discussion on laughter as a cue, a theory of humour based on this notion

will be presented. Mills (2009) puts forth the cue theory premised on the assumption that it is

humorous cues, not comic moments, which identify the genre of sitcom: “the ways in which

jokes work in sitcom is less important than the ways in which the genre signals its intention to

be funny, creating a space within which audiences are primed to laugh” (Mills 2009: 93). Unlike

the three theories (superiority, relief and incongruity), which are applicable to other genres like

drama, documentary films or news programmes, the cue theory is aimed to explain exclusively


- 37 -

the mechanism of sitcom. It is stated that sitcom is a collective work of producers, text and

audience, and hence the cue theory would explain the way in which meaning is negotiated. In

addition, while the three humour theories focus on textual elements which make a joke

humorous, the cue theory refers to signals that are typical of comedy.

Apart from the laugh track, one of the significant cues that Mills (2009) mentions are

promotional materials, such as trailers. These advertising procedures cue the audience into the type

of narrative they can anticipate. For example, the trailer of the first season of Modern Family

pictures a regular family doing everyday chores, going to school/ work, eating lunch together. In

other words, it presents a range of possible comic situations that would be situated in a family

context.

There are two forms of cues: category routinised joking and setting-specific joking

(Handelman and Kapferer 1972: 484, in Mills 2009: 95-96). In the former, the relationship

between the production crew and the audience has already been put on a humorous key and

comicality is expected on the basis of previous encounters with fictional characters. In addition,

comic actors that usually appear in entertainment programmes create in the viewers certain

expectations concerning the type of discourse. That is to say, the comedian’s joking behaviour

has become “routinised” and thus there is a high level of understanding about the context and

content of joking. In the latter, the recipient relies on resources deployed locally by actors,

which are derivable from the setting in which an action occurs. Consequently, it requires actors/

producers to provide a metacue that what is seen on screen is comedy, which can be achieved

through opening titles, scheduling, shooting style or comic performers.

1.3. Families of humour theories

The most widely recognised classification of theories of humour is three-fold, viz. superiority

theories, relief theories and incongruity theories (see literature review in e.g. Raskin 1985;

Attardo 1994, 2008a; Monro 1951 [1963], Wilson 1979, Martin 1998, 2007, Morreall 1983,

2008), however, different labels have been used to denote the same group (see table 1.1. below).

These approaches try to explain the essence and true origin of comicality. The superiority and

relief theories will be succinctly summarised, with special attention to their basic tenets and

workings within the field of humour. The incongruity theories will be given prominence here on

the grounds that first, it is argued that they capture most, if not all, verbalisations of humour

(Dynel 2009a), and second, their premises are concurrent with a relevance-theoretic


- 38 -

comprehension procedure in the way a humorous text is interpreted (Yus 2016) and incongruity

is resolved by the hearer/ reader.

There are also other less known categorisations of humour theories. Keith-Spiegel (1972)

compiles a list of eight types, i.e. biological (instinct, evolution), superiority, incongruity,

surprise, ambivalence, release and relief, configurational, and psychoanalytic theories, making

an explanatory note that her taxonomy suffers from rigidity since some theories may overlap.

Wilson (1979) speaks of Relief, Conflict, Incongruity, Dualistic, Gestalt, Piagetian, Mastery,

Freud’s, and Apter and Smith’s theories. Irrespective of the presence of different labels, theories

of humour can be subsumed under one or other of the three families:

Cognitive Social Psychoanalytical

Incongruity

Contrast

Hostility

Aggression

Superiority

Triumph

Derision

Disparagement

Release

Sublimation

Liberation

Economy

Table 1.1. The three families of theories (Attardo 1994: 47)

It needs to be highlighted that their mutual inclusiveness has already been recognised, which

enables interdisciplinary research. As noted by Raskin (1985), a ‘smaller’ theory can be

applicable to two humour families as it incorporates conceptual tools from sociology,

psychology and/ or cognitivism. Incongruity-based models are incorporated into either

superiority theories or relief theories, suggesting that the concept of incongruity becomes the

focal centre of interest for humour scholars. This will be reflected in the overview below.

Among the theories which cannot be unanimously classified as either superiority or

incongruity is Bergson’s12 hybrid theory. His conceptualisation of incongruity theory depends

upon the claim that the source of humour and hence incongruity is “something mechanical

encrusted upon the living” (Bergson 1905 [2010]: 25). He explains that “a mechanical element

introduced into nature and an automatic regulation of society... are the two types of laughable

effects at which we have arrived” (ibid.: 24). To reiterate, there is a discrepancy between true

reasoning and mechanical behaviour. As regards its superiority part, laughter is seen as a social

phenomenon, which aims to mock and humiliate those individuals whose behaviour is

unacceptable. It is supposed be painful for an individual at whom it is directed.

12 In relevant literature, Bergson’s work is commonly discussed under the incongruity working (Attardo 1994).


- 39 -

1.3.1. Superiority theories

The superiority approach to humour experience adopts a sociological orientation as it

concentrates on humour which derives from a feeling of superiority or triumph over the

disparaged party. An emotional reaction is produced when the speaker perceives the target’s

misfortunes, imperfections or foibles, all of which are a source of mirth.

Being the oldest sociological group of humour theories, its roots are dated back to

antiquity with two prominent Greek philosophers: Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322

BC) (Morreall 1987, 1997; Shelley 2003; Perks 2012), who explained laughter in terms of its

negative component. For Plato, pleasure deriving from laughter is connected to malice: “when

we laugh at the ridiculous qualities of our friends, we mix pleasure with pain, since we mix it

with envy” (Philebus 50A, in Attardo 1994: 18). What people find amusing is their self-

ignorance in the way they consider themselves as being wealthy, physically attractive, virtuous

and intelligent (Morreall 1983, 2008). Plato’s work provided his successors with philosophical

foundations for modern humour theories, namely: the superiority theory (intense pleasure found

in the elation of others’ flaws), the ambivalence theory (laughter emerges from the mixture of

incompatible feelings, for instance pain and pleasure), and the aggression theory (humour is

produced as a token of hostility and aggression) (Shelley 2003: 352).

Parallel to Plato’s views, Aristotle believed that laughter is a form of derision, but it may

also act as a social corrective, which positively influences or alters deviant behaviour (Morreall

1983, cf. Hobbs 2007, Morreall 1987; Norrick 1993). Among differences between the Platonic

and Aristotelian approaches to laughter is the fact that Aristotle acknowledged its aesthetic

dimension (Piddington 1993: 153, in Attardo 1994: 20).

The work carried out by the Greeks stimulated and influenced the Latins, particularly

Cicero (106BC-43BC) and Quintilian (c. 35 – c. 100 AD), whose studies also concern the art

of oratory. Cicero believes that the source of laughter “lies in a kind of offensiveness and

deformity, for the sayings that are laughed at the most are those which refer to something

offensive in an inoffensive manner” (Morreall 1987: 17).

Contrary to Plato’s and Aristotle’s belief that people laugh at others’ infirmities, Hobbes

(1651, in Ruch 2008) champions the idea that laughter derives from a feeling of “sudden glory”

– the perception of great eminence in ourselves, which is gained in the course of comparison

between the weaknesses of others and ourselves from the previous experiences, blunders or

stupidity (Ruch 2008) (for discussion on the Hobbesian perspective see La Fave, Haddad and

Maesen 1976). While Plato and Aristotle advocate that a feeling of superiority is produced via


- 40 -

the perception of the target’s weaknesses, Hobbes states that humour emanates from the

comparison of one’s own infirmities with a more unfortunate individual. For Hobbes, laughter

is not to be associated with joking but a swift self-triumphant feeling which, when directed at

oneself, can be thought of as laughter targeted at the person’s other self (see Morreall 2008).

Moreover, Hobbes is regarded as the founding father of sociological underpinnings of

superiority theories, propounding that derisive humour puts the object of ridicule lower in a

hierarchy than the humorist. The speaker’s recognition of some deformities in others prompts

the comparison with oneself, which in turn promotes laughter (Zillmann 2000).

The body of contemporary literature on superiority theories is abundant. The existing

approaches mainly attempt to establish the relationship13 between a victimised person and a

wrongdoer or other participants and the object of ridicule. Inasmuch as superiority-based

workings pertain to the sociological domain, they are particularly significant to the fields of

social anthropology (Apte 1985, 1988) and social psychology (Rapp 1951; Fry 1963; Zillmann

and Cantor 1972, 1976; Zillmann 1983, 2003; Zillmann, Taylor and Lewis 1988; Zillmann and

Bryant 1991; Haddad 1973; Berlyne 1969; La Fave 1972; La Fave, Haddad and Maesen 1976;

Gruner 1978, 1997; Raney 2003; Billig 2005; Ferguson and Ford 2008).

Discussing the role of jokes in hostile aggressiveness, Freud (1905 [1976]) claims that

humorous texts enable people to make their enemies ridiculous and to communicate what

cannot be said blatantly: “the joke will evade the restrictions and open sources of pleasure that

have become inaccessible” (ibid.: 147). Making fun or witty remarks at others’ expense may

not be harmful for the target or may even become a source of pleasure.

Gruner (1997) is an ardent supporter of Hobbes’ theory, stating that humour enjoyment

draws upon conflict, the task of which is to create mental tension, and the sudden victory over

the defeated party. One feels superior when misfortunes like “stupidity, clumsiness, moral or

cultural defect” (ibid.: 6) are displayed in others. Essentially, humour is not innately aggressive,

i.e. it is not used to inflict physical harm upon other people. It is rather seen as “playful

aggression” which is still a form of entrainment exemplified by a competition or a game.

Following Gruner’s (1997) train of thought, humour is a matter of “winning (“getting what we

want”) and sudden perception of that winning” (ibid.: 9; italics in original). In other words, a

necessary and sufficient condition for humour is an object of derision who abruptly suffers a

13 It can also be dubbed ‘joking relationship’: “a patterned playful behavior that occurs between two individuals

who recognize special kinship or other types of social bonds between them; it displays reciprocal or nonreciprocal

verbal or action-based humor including joking, teasing, banter, ridicule, insult, horseplay, and other similar

manifestations, usually in the presence of an audience” (Apte 1985: 30-31).


- 41 -

loss. On a similar note, Billig (2005) regards laughter as central to humour because it operates

as a mechanism for social control. According to him, we may regulate wrongful conduct by

dint of laughter which should cause embarrassment in a wrongdoer: “Ridicule, far from being

a detachable negative, lies at the heart of humour” (ibid.: 196).

Despite different focus and machinery, Suls (1977) contends that superiority theories can

be combined with a much broader incongruity approach. More specifically, the interpretation

process at the incongruity phase may be hindered or terminated as soon as an individual takes

a sympathetic and favourable attitude to the disparaged group. The hearer must interpret a

communicative act as ‘a joke’, which can result in hostility. Suls’ (1977) IR model of

disparagement predicts that amusement in a disparaging situation is higher when the resolution

of incongruity is minimally ambiguous. In addition, it is posited by Zillmann and Cantor (1976)

that connecting incongruity-inducing manifestations, for example puns, unexpected contrasts

or surprises, with hostility can be treated as an “excuse” for being aggressive or malicious for

the sake of our pleasure.

1.3.1.1. The disposition theory of humour and its offshoots

One of the superiority theories which establishes the relationship between the speaker and the

ridiculed party via belittlement, debasement, humiliation, hostility or destruction is the

disposition theory of humour14, proposed by Zillmann and Cantor (1972, 1976, 1977) (also

Zillmann 1983). It is believed that “humor appreciation varies inversely with the favorableness

of the disposition toward the agent or the entity being disparaged, and varies directly with the

favorableness of the disposition toward the agent or the entity disparaging it” (Zillmann and

Cantor 1976: 100-101). In other words, a mirth-evoking feeling is maximal when our friends

are scornful about implacable enemies, while amusement is minimal in the reverse situation.

Based on a group of college students and professors, it was found that the students assigned

higher ratings to jokes which presented the subordinate deride the superior (the upward

condition); however, the professors preferred the downright condition. Contrary to the

affiliation/ non-affiliation dichotomy (see footnote 14), Zillmann and Cantor (1976) call for the

‘continuum of affective disposition’, which presupposes that affect is a gradable notion

encompassing extreme negative, neutral and extreme positive emotions. These different affects

14 The theory is premised on Wolff, Smith and Murray’s (1934, which is in turn built upon James’(1890) notion

of ‘empirical self’, in Zillmann and Cantor 1976) conceptual distinction between affiliated and unaffiliated objects.

Affiliated things are those for which we have positive sentiments and affection, the disparagement of which does

not create a favourable condition for mirth. On the contrary, unaffiliated objects are not assigned profound positive

emotions and hence they may appear in a disparaging situation.


- 42 -

(for example, a personality trait) fluctuate with time and hence are treated as transitory states,

which are conditioned by stable ones. This dispositional dynamics explains why close friends

disparage themselves finding a momentary pleasure.

The scope of the disposition model of humour has been expanded into the disposition theory

of drama and comedy (Zillmann and Cantor 1976; Zillmann 1980, 1983, 2000), which is

especially relevant to the present work given its orientation towards fictional discourse. It is

stipulated that the recipient of comedy or drama performs the role of a moral monitor, who

approves or disapproves of the actions of actors. The viewer’s favourableness towards a friend-

like hero promotes dispositions of liking and caring so that good fortune is hoped for, whereas

his/ her condemnation invites disliking and resenting, which fosters wishing for misfortunes for

a villain-like character. The recipient’s affective dispositions can also be mapped on the

continuum ranging from the feelings of intense hatred, to complete indifference and great

fondness. The degree of amusement increases together with witnessing of mishaps of despised

characters. Affective indifference occurs when the viewer does not anticipate a dramatic plot. In

the case of fictional discourse, laughter is elicited when a disliked character is disparaged by a

liked one, whereas the reverse situation should not meet with gaiety.

Another direction in which the disposition theory has been developed is the explanation of

the television viewer’s positive affective reaction to suspense in drama, formulated in the theory

of the enjoyment of suspenseful drama (Zillmann 1980; cf. Ziv 1984). The level of entertainment

depends on a number of manipulable conditions, the presence of which increases or decreases

humorous response: affective reaction mediated by fear, hope or combination thereof,

victimisation or beneficiation of liked/ disliked characters, and subjective certainty of positive/

negative outcomes. The enjoyment of suspense should be maximal when there is a suggestion of

dire threat posed for a sympathetic person, leading to great distress in the audience, which is

eventually eluded. The very termination of empathetic distress should suffice for pleasure, which

is a relief-inducing factor for viewers.

Zillmann and Cantor’s (1976) disposition theory of humour is often juxtaposed with the

model of reference group/ identification class15 (La Fave 1972, La Fave Haddad and Maesen 1976).

The two approaches differ in a number of issues, but one thing remains constant: disparagement

can be best characterised in terms of the distinction between the object of repulsion and affection.

15 Well-founded as it is, La Fave (1972) holds that the reference group notion suffers from several drawbacks,

among others, it is less comprehensive and more ambiguous, and hence should be replaced with the identification

class (IC) construct. The IC notion deals with emotional components ranging from positive to neutral to negative,

as opposed to the reference group which lacks neutral affective response.


- 43 -

The studies undertaken by La Fave (1972) indicate that people find jokes amusing when these do

not deprecate the group with whom they identify. To illustrate, women may laugh heartily at anti-

male jokes and ruefully at anti-female jokes, whereas men regard anti-female jokes as more

amusing than anti-male ones. The “identification class” (IC) is an attitude-belief system regarding

a class of people who, at a given moment, believe they are a member of that class and hold positive,

negative, or neutral feelings. The attitudinal component of IC can be cognitive or emotive:

conception of the class itself or affection towards the class, with the former being more complex.

According to La Fave, Haddad and Maesen (1976)16, affiliation is a stable construct and

thus should be pleasant since it enhances the hearer’s self-esteem, which is crucial in humour

appreciation. Besides, La Fave and his colleagues (La Fave, Haddad and Maesen 1976) reported

five controlled experiments of theirs, all of which confirm the claim that jokes enhancing a

positively valued identification class provoke more cognitive enjoyment than those which

esteem a negatively valued identification class or disparage a highly valued class. Their

vicarious superiority theory built upon the previously introduced superiority theory holds that

the attitudes (besides affiliation and membership) towards the disparaging (vicarious) class and

the disparaged class appear to be determinants of enjoyment.

Similar results of the gravity of humour and disparagement are obtained by Ferguson and

Ford (2008). They attached much significance to social identity which serves as a sufficient

tool to explain how disparagement can induce humour. Correspondingly, disparagement

humour is a means of bolstering and maintaining “positive distinctiveness through (1) specific

social categorisations and (2) social comparisons to relevant out-groups on valued, identity-

relevant dimensions (ibid.: 298).

One of the criticism levelled at superiority theories is made by Ritchie (2004: 7) who

states that these theories “have little to say about why certain presentations of an idea are funny

while other presentations, with equally aggressive content, are not”.

1.3.1.2. Application to sitcom discourse

Superiority theories explain humour in terms of people’s inclination to engage in aggressive

communication and derive pleasure from targeting others. There are many instances of

disaffiliative humour in sitcoms since viewers may find open aggression against the butt

laughable (Dynel 2013b). The reason for this situation is that first, aggression is not directed at

16 In the contribution, they underline the fact that the results of their experiments contradict the Hobbesian theory

(La Fave, Haddad and Maesen 1976).


- 44 -

TV recipients and second, it is not understood as true aggression. Given that there are two levels

of communication germane to fictional discourse (Section 3.6.), humour may be entertained by

both fictional characters and viewers or only by the latter. It is quite rare that only characters

are amused since a television recipient is the most important component in entertainment

industry. Another possible constellation is that the communicator produces an unintentional

humorous impolite remark which has not been intended to amuse fictional characters (Dynel

2013a). Beside the division of communicative layers and humour consequent upon them, it is

the viewer’s subjective judgement to decide whether a fictional character is ostensively and

genuinely or playfully aggressive since it carries opposing implications for intentions attributed

to actors. Moreover, the question remains as to whether a television viewer feels truly superior

to fictional characters. In the case of humorous aggression, a recipient may derive pleasure from

quasi-superiority, which is momentary and not harmful to the disparaged party. In the case of

genuine aggression, witnessing an act of superiority on screen may only be regarded as

unpleasant by fictional characters, while viewers still operate within the humorous frame.

Gruner (1997: 30) argues that any instance of humour conveys superiority: “if it were not

for competition, struggle, combat, contention, conflict, and discord, we would have practically

no entertainment at all”. However, Mills (2005, 2009) recommends revision of social theories so

that they cover commodities of the broadcasting system. First, sitcom is a collective product and

hence we cannot discern the communicator, i.e. whether it is a producer, director or scriptwriter.

Moreover, stereotypes are often addressed in such a way so that viewers may not be able to define

whether these are bolstered, mitigated or condemned. In order to be more transparent and

appealing to larger audiences, sitcoms call for a number of possible positions the audience can take,

i.e. to laugh with the superior party or laugh at the superior party for having uncivilised views (see

Section 3.6.1.1. on viewer’s participatory roles). Second, the laugh track in sitcoms is a signal of

collective agreement on the content of joking, which is crucial for superiority theories. In doing this,

viewers are informed of humorous intention so that they are not offended by targeting a certain

social group with which they could identify. However, achieving mutual understanding on what

can be laughed at is not a fail-safe process. Third, while superiority humour is employed to deride

those from the above, sitcoms do not need to rely on social distinctions.

1.3.2. Relief / release theories

Whereas socio-behavioural theories of humour concentrate mainly on the initiator of derisive

act, who finds amusement in a feeling of superiority, psychoanalytical theories shift attention


- 45 -

to the recipient of a humorous episode. In particular, these studies are designed to investigate

psychological effects upon the target. Morreall (1983, 2008) contends that there are two main

trends in relief-based approaches: “laughter may release some pre-existing nervous energy, or

second, the humorous stimulus may itself cause the build up of the nervous energy and then

relieve it” (Morreall 2008: 222). It has already been indicated that superiority and incongruity

theories of humour can be combined since they approach the phenomenon from different

angles. The same applies to relief theories, which are to be coupled with incongruity theories

(Morreall 1983) since the latter do not deal with suppressed feelings.

Spencer (1865) views humour fundamentally as a way to discharge nervous emotional

energy which has already aroused and been rendered superfluous (Morreall 1983, 2009). Freud

(1905 [1976]) is considered the most influential enthusiast of relief theory, even though he also

made several claims in support of amusement via superiority. He suggested that laughter in joking

gives vent to psychic energy expended to suppress sexual or hostile feelings and thoughts.

Following his parlance, jokes sublimate insatiable desires. The pleasure of laughter depends on the

intensity of energy channelled to restrain from these feelings: the more intense effort, the more

pleasure.

According to the Freudian theory, there is a strong correlation between jokes and dreams:

economy of psychic energy, discovery of hidden meaning, combining two virtually disparate

things and making two nonsense things meaningful (see Berger 1997). The only discriminatory

feature of jokes is their playfulness. One of the core techniques in jokes is “condensation

accompanied by the formation of a substitute” (Freud 1905 [1976]), which aims to save energy

by creating a double meaning or homophony, e.g. the non-existent and hence incongruous word

famillionaire built upon the constituent elements familiar and millionaire. In fact, all the three

joking techniques operate in dreams as well: condensation, displacement and indirect

representation (Oring 2003).

The title of Freud’s book on jokes, viz. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious,

suggests that thoughts underlying jokes, like dreams, are available to unconsciousness. Oring

(2003)17, in accord with the psychoanalytic perspective, notes that while dreams are symbolic

because they depict an unconscious thought which is additionally changed/ distorted, jokes

“express perfectly conscious ideas in distorted form” (ibid.: 28). A deformed thought is fully

17 Oring (2003) carefully analyses Freud’s books, collection of letters and memoirs, finding the relation between

the Jewish jokes he quotes and his personality and heritage (Oring 2003, see Oring 1997).


- 46 -

reversible and hence the original proposition is recoverable. It logically follows that first we are

presented with a joke, and then we start looking for a thought or proposition associated with it.

Two decades after Freud’s Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, Gregory (1924:

40) considers a feeling of relief an indispensible but not sufficient condition for humour: “The

discovery of sudden interruption through relaxation of effort merely begins the inquiry into

laughter”. The element of relief seems to suspend genuine aggression, permitting only a small

amount of hostility, which otherwise would foster contempt. It is also asserted by Grotjahn (1957)

that humour serves a way of guilt-free release of disruptive behaviour.

In accord with release theories a claim was put forward that humour has a liberating aspect

as it may provide freedom from hardship (Knox 1951, Mindess 1971, Pollio 1983, Berger 1997).

Knox (1951: 543) defines humour as “playful chaos in a serious world” and a form of liberation:

“it is the liberation that comes to us as we experience the singular delight of beholding chaos that

is playful and make-believe in a world that is serious and coercive” (ibid.: 541). It is the

divergence between the playfulness of comedy and seriousness of the world, which exerts a

cathartic effect. According to Mindess (1971), people are constrained by social roles which are

imposed on them and hence they are inclined to stifle basic instincts and conform to a

predetermined model. This self-regulatory behaviour promotes a lack of spontaneity, with

humour providing a means to remain genuine. In the same vein, Pollio (1983) argues that humour

gives us freedom from external constraints, like social pressure, and we tend to laugh in a safe

and friendly environment, which enables an individual to forget about hindrances. This is

complementary to Freud’s belief that it is internal inhibitions that are released in humour since

inhabitations reflect social constraints. For Berger (1997), the liberating power of laughter is

crucial when it relieves, at least for a limited period of time, from fear of, for example death.

The idea of humour as a liberation tool, which was originally proposed in the field of

psychology, can be applied to linguistics. The most illumining example is puns, the humour of

which resides in the breach of the rules of language, nonetheless there are other linguistic forms

subsumed under the category of colourful language (Partington 2006, 2008, in Dynel 2018),

such as paradoxes, register clashes, innovative collocations, neologisms, allusions. As such,

this creative freedom from rigid principles is enjoyable to the hearer (Attardo 1994: 50). Within

a release theory, the text of a joke is successful when it becomes the catalyst for the production

and release of tension (Carrell 2009).


- 47 -

1.3.2.1. Application to sitcom discourse

Repressed feelings are released in the form of laughter and hence relief theories are a well-

suited lens through which we may explain the viewer’s laughter consequent upon sitcoms.

Freud regards comedy as “unsocialised behaviour that bursts through the restraints of normally

acceptable conduct” (King 2002: 92, in Mills 2009: 88). In studying regulations of comedy

content, it is apparent that it is an acceptable medium to openly discuss taboo topics (sex,

violence), while other forms of media do not have much leeway since abusive material can be

instantly censored. That is, some insulting, shocking or seemingly unacceptable fabric is

‘camouflaged’ under the unseriousness of humour. It is even required from comedies to touch

upon controversial topics (Fry and Allen 1998, in Mills 2009) since they have tools to set trends

on what is socially tolerable. For more sensitive viewers, sexual or racist humour may seem too

vulgar, however when they are taken off-guard, they may be entertained by actors’ performance.

It is not only unexpectedness of offensive material that is amusing but also the societal need to

laugh away suppressed emotions or eagerness to push boundaries of decorum (Mills 2009).

Relief theories are especially useful to explain humour in adult animation which is an

animated film or series targeted towards adult. The content of the genre is usually replete with

gallows humour, obscene gestures, profane language, and graphic violence, for instance in

South Park (1997-2019; Comedy Central), and Beavis and Butt-Head (1993-1997; MTV),

while others are ‘milder’ in making adults laugh, e.g. The Simpsons (1989- ; Fox) and Family

Guy (1999- ; Fox). It is no surprise that adult animation series “have repeatedly been criticised

for what is perceived to be their attack on civilised values and the supposed detrimental effects

they have on society” (Mills 2009: 90). Being amused by words like piss, shit, farts, or semen

is a reflection of adults’ repression about bodily fluids and anatomy.

A myriad of topics discussed in comedies, especially of sexual or racist content, suggests

that television recipients have internal need to relieve emotional tension which can be created

by society’s expectance that others exhibit standards of behaviour (Mills 2009). However, on a

critical note, in no way can all variations of laughter be explained in terms of relief or

expenditure of emotional nervous energy because many humorous situations do not involve any

tension or suppressed feelings.

1.3.3. Incongruity /incongruity-resolution theories

The comprehension heuristic advocated within an incongruity-resolution model, more

specifically the one proposed by Suls (1972, 1983), is akin to the relevance-theoretic model of


- 48 -

humour comprehension (Yus 2003). This is the main reason why assiduous attention is confined

to the frameworks which employ the idea of incongruity. There is a general consensus among

the scholars that the concept of incongruity is necessary for humour appreciation, while some

philosophers and psychologists question its sufficiency.

1.3.3.1.The concept of incongruity

The utmost importance of incongruity was first acknowledged in the fields of philosophy and

psychology, while much later it was employed in the linguistic domain. Since philosophical

workings laid foundations for cognitive studies, only relevant claims are recapitulated (for a

comprehensive historical overview see Morreall 1987). The body of literature on psychological

and linguistic treatment of incongruity is ample (Suls 1972, 1977, 1983; Shultz 1972, 1974;

Holland 1982; Morreall 1989, 1997; Deckers and Buttram 1990; Forabosco 1992, 2008; Ruch

1992; Deckers 1993; Staley and Derks 1995; Ritchie 1999, 2004; Hempelmann and Ruch 2005;

Martin 2007; Dynel 2009a, 2011a; Venour, Ritchie and Mellish 2011; Kaczorowski 2011;

Canestrari and Bianchi 2013).

Central to cognitive theories is the elusive term of incongruity, which has been differently

defined depending on the scholars’ judgment on what it really constitutes and the field within

which it is proposed. While psychologists generally regard incongruity as a deviation from “the

cognitive model of reference” (Forabosco 2008: 45), linguists explain it in terms of a mismatch

between two competing meanings. In order to show a wide diversity in emphasis, some of the

definitions are presented below:

“the simultaneous presence of two or more habitually incompatible elements, where an element can be

either an object or an event” (Shultz 1972: 457)

“Humor arising from disjointed, ill-suited pairings of ideas or situations or presentations of ideas that are

divergent from habitual customs form the bases of incongruity theories” (Keith-Spiegel 1972: 7)

“Incongruity is usually defined as a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke”

(Shultz 1976: 12)

“associating two generally accepted incompatibles; it is the lack of a rational relation of objects, people,

or ideas to each other or to the environment” (Gruner 1978: 5)

“The notion of congruity and incongruity refer to the relationship between components of an object, event,

idea, social expectation…an event is incompatible with the normal or expected pattern…” (McGhee 1979:

6-7)

“something unexpected, out of context, inappropriate, unreasonable, illogical, exaggerated…” (McGhee

1979: 10)

“Humor involves an idea, image, text, or event that is in some sense incongruous, odd, unusual, unexpected,

surprising, or out of the ordinary” (Martin 2007: 6; discussing cognitive theories)

“is that some thing or event we perceive or think about violates our normal mental patterns and normal

expectations” (Morreall 2009: 11)


- 49 -

It is evident that there is one noticeable feature which connects these definitions, namely the

presence of two incompatible elements, the simultaneous presence of which diverges from our

expectations. Holland (1982) enumerates three prevailing types of incongruity, viz. cognitive,

ethical, and formal. Cognitive incongruity is related to our intellect, which may also touch upon

social matters, for instance people produce laughter when perceiving a clash “between an

intellectual contradiction and an emotional reaction to it” (Holland 1982: 22). Ethical incongruity

is concerned with one’s sense of value, which is materialised in the discrepancy between “the

noble and the contemptible, the high and the low, the sacred and the profane…” (ibid.). Finally,

formal incongruity originates from the Aristotelian school of thought, in which laughter results

from defects in forms, i.e. “something harmful presented harmlessly” (ibid.: 24).

In the philosophical tradition, it is Kant and Schopenhauer18 who first made an attempt to

explain the essence of laughter in terms of incongruity. In his Critique of Judgement, Kant

argues that “[l]aughter is an affection arising from sudden transformation of a strained

expectation into nothing” (Morreall 1987: 47). Genuine pleasure is brought about by our

expectations being abruptly violated and turned into emptiness, or in other words, by being

briefly deceived in order to oscillate between tension and relaxation. In the same vein,

Schopenhauer, in the work The World as Will and Idea, states that “[t]he 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 laughter itself is just the

expression of this incongruity” (Morreall 1987: 52). He was the first who explicitly employed

the term “incongruity” to describe a paradox caused by two concepts put in opposition, which

in turn results in mirth. This term was also employed by Beattie to explain the occurrence of

laughter: “laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous

parts of circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or as

acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of

them” (Beattie 1779, in Raskin 1985: 32).

Morreall (1983) compiles a list of humorous incongruities, with the basic distinction

drawn between incongruity in things and in presentation. Non-verbal incongruities reside in

various deficiencies (physical deformity, shortcoming or failure of actions), juxtaposition of the

opposites, and mimicry. Verbal humour functions at different levels of language: sound

(excessive alliteration, rhymes, verbal slips and spoonerism), semantics (play with ideas) and

18 Attardo (1994) points out that the early conception of laughter can be traced back to the Renaissance or even to

the era of Plato and Aristotle, both studies of whose are presented in Sections 1.2.1. and 1.3.1.


- 50 -

pragmatics (lack of fit between the statement and reality, discrepancy between semantic content

of utterance and non-verbal expression, violation of logical principles, spurious appeal to

quasilogical principles). Acknowledging that he has not teased out all possible incongruities,

Morreall concludes: “Wherever there is a principle to be violated or regularity to be upset, there

is room for incongruity and so for humour” (1983: 82). Even though his list may be criticised

on the ground that it is incomplete, he shows a wide spectrum of the types of incongruity leading

to a humorous response. Dynel (2009a, 2013a) critically evaluates Morreall’ account with

regard to a lack of attention devoted to an online/ incremental process, which is essential to

incongruity-resolution models.

Among factors which affect the understanding of incongruity as humorous is surprise

which is in turn associated with unexpectedness, suddenness and novelty (Suls 1972, La Fave

1977, Morreall 1983, Norrick 1987; Zajdman 1995, Gruner 1997; Forabosco 1992, 2008;

Alden, Mukherjee and Hoyer 2000; Giora 1991). The notions of “surprise” and “incongruity”

are interrelated for they result from breaking one’s expectations (Keith-Spiegel 1972). The

account of humour in these terms was originally suggested by philosophers, among others

Hobbes, who spoke about ‘sudden glory’ (Morreall 2008). An opposing view is aired by

Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi (1990), who believes that a surprising element does not fully explain the

occurrence of humour since laughter may be evoked by repetitive telling of jokes, which should

hinder a humorous reaction. However, there are other studies which reveal that recurrent

exposure to jokes, especially those whose interpretation comprises several levels or which

positively interacts with one’s cognitive environment, can be found funny (Suls 1972).

Furthermore, the surprising component can be explained in relation to violation,

divergence or disconfirmation of cognitive expectations and mental patterns (Nerhardt 1977;

Suls 1972, 1983; Morreall 1983, 1989, 2009). In Morreall’s writings, it is suggested that

violation occurs when we have a mental concept for a situation or thing and hence we have

certain predictions regarding the whole scenario. When an activity does not follow a standard

course of action, incongruity between what is expected and what actually has taken place may

lead to laughter. He also claims that incongruity is one of the forms of unfamiliarity, which may

induce amusement. Another form is novelty, for which individuals lack expectations. There are

two critical remarks concerning violation of expectations. First, while processing the text

incrementally, an individual does not necessarily create expectations about a subsequent portion

of the text (Dynel 2009a). Second, a feeling of surprise is not experienced when something

unexpected happens but rather when something that was extremely unlikely to occur happens:

“What surprises us is not unexpected things – most of the things that happen were not expected


- 51 -

to happen just there and then – but rather things we expected not to happen – because we

expected something else to happen instead” (Hurley, Dennett and Adams 2011: 54).

There is still a distinctive way of clarifying incongruity as a cognitive notion. McGhee

(1972, 1977) introduces two modes of cognitive assimilation: reality assimilation and fantasy

assimilation, both of which may play a role in processing an incongruous stimulus. The former

requires a more serious and realistic interpretation since violation occurs in the real world. In

the latter, which is crucial to humour, an individual “proceeds to assimilate the source of

inconsistency or expectancy disconfirmation into existing relevant cognitive structures”

(McGhee 1972: 65). In other words, suspension of a real state of affairs allows an individual to

accept an unusual, improbable, impossible and/ or surprising event, which seems to explain the

appreciation and more generally comprehension of a humorous phenomenon.

It is worth underlining that not all incongruous stimuli with concomitant surprise are

necessarily amusing to the audience, but all humorous instances demonstrate a kind of

incongruity. In Berlyne’s view (1972: 45), there are collative variables which specify the

occurrence of cognitive arousal in humorous incongruity, including “degree of novelty,

surprisingness, complexity, rate of change, ambiguity, and incompatibility”. What induces

genuine laughter is a “pleasant psychological shift” (Morreall 1983: 39). There are three

characteristic features of this shift (Morreall 1983: 38-39). Firstly, the change of psychological

state can be either cognitive or affective. The cognitive change is the switch from a serious to

non-serious mode so that one is entertained by the discrepancy present in the punchline, which

catches the hearer off-guard. The affective shift, exemplified by superiority and relief theories,

occurs when laughter develops as a reaction to an increase in positive emotions or decrease in

negative feelings. It is possible that the change is cognitive and affective at the same time.

Secondly, the change must be sudden, i.e. not easily assimilated. Thirdly, it needs to be pleasant,

i.e. one which leads to self-glory, release of suppressed energy, or entertainment by incongruity.

Besides these three conditions, there are additional requirements for humour and by

extension, incongruity. Suls (1983) and Holland (1982) enumerate a “play” cue or a playful

climate, extreme divergence between the two incongruous mental representations and a specific

amount of time required to recognise and process humour. Too little time would not enable the

hearer to properly prepare for the incongruous punchline, whereas too much time would make

the individual envisage the concluding sentence of a joke, which is particularly relevant to the

emergence of humour on the part of viewers. An issue related to timing is the humorist’s control

over the humorous material and hence over the hearer’s path of comprehension (Morreall 1983).

Moreover, the perception of incongruous material should occur in a safe or playful environment


- 52 -

since a feeling of being in danger would stop amusement (Rothbart 1976, Nerhardt 1977,

Morreall 1983, 1989; Wyer and Collins 1992). The safe environment can also be dubbed

“emotional climate” (Mulkay 1988: 46). A sense of cognitive security and control is linked to

an individual’s disengagement from practical concerns which stop the process of rationalising

an amusing situation (Morreall 1989).

As has been noted, the very presence of incongruity does not necessarily lead to the

perception of a stimulus as humorous. Among other possible reactions to an incongruous part

we may find puzzlement or a range of negative emotions, for example fear, anger, jealousy,

regret, shame (Berlyne 1960, Suls 1972, Gruner 1978, Morreall 1983, 1987, 1989, 1997;

Forabosco 1992, 2008; Curcó 1995, 1996a, 1997). The hearer’s lack of recognition of humorous

incongruity can also be caused or prompted by his/ her obliviousness of the intention to amuse

(Suls 1972). From this proposal it follows that an individual should be apprised of the fact that

conversation enters into a non-serious mode and hence standard expectations of informativeness

are suspended for the audience’s benefit. Suls’ (1972) view that the precondition for humour is

the prior announcement is somehow contradictory with respect to fundamental premises imposed

on incongruity which should be novel, unexpected and surprising.

Forabosco (1992, 2008) explains the notion of incongruity as a cognitive construct whose

humorous potential is unlocked when a stimulus “diverts from the cognitive model of reference

(Forabosco 2008: 45)19. His understanding of the model20 is drawn upon an epistemological

sense as it “highlights the comparative and interpretative aspect: a model is a sort of preliminary

representation and minitheory which the subject uses in his relationship with reality”

(Forabosco 1992: 54). The cognitive model of reference consists of abstract concepts, which

are activated as soon as a stimulus is evaluated as incongruous by the model. A key attribute of

the model is its possible changes with experience, which may explain the fact why the same

joke may lead to a gale of laughter on some occasions, while on others a forced smile.

1.3.3.2. The resolution of incongruity

Inasmuch as the phenomenon of incongruity is a necessary condition for the appreciation of

humour, its sufficiency seems to be a bone of contention in literature. There are numerous

writings in which it is suggested that incongruity itself is enough to amuse the audience

(Nerhardt 1970, 1977; Rothbart 1973, 1976; Shultz and Horibe 1974), especially in children at

19 The definition of an incongruous stimulus offered in Forabosco’s article (1992) is altered with respect to the

verb used: differs is changed into diverts, given the etymology of these words. 20 The cognitive model of reference is differently dubbed frame, schema, daemon, schemata.


- 53 -

an early developmental stage, who appreciate resolution-removed version of joke21. This

indicates that a young child, between 6-7 years of age (the preoperational stages in Piaget’s

terminology), is cognitively capable of enjoying pure incongruity (Shultz 1976) which is based

on “simple surprise” (Morreall 1987: 60).

As regards the stage of the resolution of incongruity, a number of studies demonstrate

that the recognition of humorous intention necessitates the second stage (e.g. Suls 1972, 1977,

1983; Shultz 1972, 1976; Forabosco 1992, 2008; Gruner 1997; Dynel 2009a, 2012a). Support

here is lent to Suls’ two-stage model of incongruity resolution (summarised in Section 1.5.)

since its comprehension heuristics is analogous to the one proposed within the theory of

relevance. Attardo (1994) contends that the term of ‘resolution’ is nebulous as it presupposes

“dissolution” of incongruity, which, in fact, should linger. This claim is in accord with residual

incongruity 22 (2008: 50) proposed by Forabosco who states: “the final step is that of getting

the flavor of humor which is connected with the perception of a residual incongruity (or

nonsense)”. The description of incongruity as residual means that humorous effects arise when

some parts are not fully resolved and the tension created by incongruity should be pleasurable

(Mulkay 1988; Forabosco 1992, 2008). Moreover, it is argued that “resolution of incongruity

may not make the incongruity completely meaningful and may sometimes add new elements

of incongruity” (Rothbart and Pien 1977: 37). The importance of partial resolution has also

been stressed by Dynel (2012a), who believes that making incongruity fully congruous and

sensible would stop humorous arousal. The idea of residual/ congruent incongruity is differently

dubbed in humour studies. Ziv (1984) speaks of local logic, which is seen as appropriate in

certain contexts since it provides a partial explanation for inconsistencies: “We are accustomed

to logical thinking, and all of a sudden it does not work. Failing to solve a joke’s incongruity

by logic, we try the thought mode of local logic” (Ziv 1984: 96). Freud (1905, in Forabosco

1992) employs the term of sense in nonsense, while Maier (1932) limited logic, Attardo (1994)

suspension of disbelief, Ritchie (2014) internal logic, the notion of which suggests that every

joke has its own fictional world with its “within logic”.

Oring (1992, 2003) contends that humour revolves around the concept of appropriate

incongruity, which is understood as “an appropriate interrelationship of elements from domains

21 The appreciation of incongruity alone or incongruity together with its resolution is beyond the scope of this

work. It was just to illustrate that there are psychological and cognitive studies which are set out to substantiate

the claim that it is possible for an individual to appreciate incongruity itself. In other scientific experiments

designed to test the appreciation of incongruity-removed jokes and resolution-removed ones show that the subjects

aged 8 needed both incongruity and resolution phases to enjoy humour (Shultz 1972). Pien and Rothbart (1976)

state that children under 6 may already resolve easy incongruities. 22 This is what Forabosco in his 1992 article dubs congruent incongruity (1992: 59).


- 54 -

that are generally regarded as incongruous” (Oring 2003: 1). The notion presumes that some

tension between incongruous categories needs to remain and as a result, incongruity is not

resolved. Moreover, appropriate incongruity does not impose any order of recognition, which

is in force in IR models, i.e. incongruity followed by its resolution.

To preserve enjoyable tension accompanying incongruity, Ruch and Hehl (1998) call for

an expansion of the two-stage model of humour appreciation to include the third step: the meta-

level. It is aimed at individual’s realisation of having been fooled that his/ her process of

rationalising has been violated. Hence, this knowledge enables one to distinguish between a

standard activity of problem-solving and an act of humour processing.

Expounding on the problem with the resolution of humorous incongruity, Rothbart and

Pien (1977) distinguish two types of resolution: complete (incongruity encountered at the outset

is fully disambiguated), and incomplete (initial incongruity is not made meaningful). The

classes of resolution correspond to the two categories of incongruity: impossible and possible.

As the very names suggest, the former describes an unexpected stimulus which cannot be

framed with respect to the immediate context, while the latter denotes an unexpected but

possible incoherent situation (Rothbart and Pien 1977). In a similar vein, Attardo, Hempelmann

and Di Maio (2002) discern two types of incongruity in a humorous text: focal and background.

Focal incongruities are central to the punchline and its resolution since these play a role in the

hearer’s derivation of comic effects, whereas background incongruities do not prompt the

humorous outcome. However, it may be speculated that the second type may impart a particular

flavour to the humour of the text of a joke. Furthermore, humorous incongruities can be divided

into: completely backgrounded, backgrounded and foregrounded. The difference between the

first two levels is that completely backgrounded incongruities can be erased without the loss of

funniness since they do not induce a cognitive shift in the resolution phase: “foregrounded

incongruity would occur in the punch line, whereas backgrounded incongruity would occur in

the setup phase of the text” (Hempelmann and Attardo 2011: 136).

This line of reasoning is developed by Ritchie (2009: 9) who devises three degrees of

resolution: full resolution which aims to erase discrepancies completely so a person engages in

non-faulty logic; partial resolution presupposes the existence of residual incongruity which is

left unexplained, or which introduces new oddities; and null resolution is exemplified by the

cases of nonsense humour in which it is difficult to explain funniness of jokes.


- 55 -

1.4. Incongruity as bisociation

The notion of bisociation, upon which the Bisociation Theory is built, has been coined by

Koestler (1964). Attardo (1994) claims that Koestler’s cognitive model has been used as a starting

point for semiotic theories of humour. The essence of the theory can be summarised as follows:

“The pattern underlying both stories [M.W.: jokes presented earlier] is the perceiving of a situation or idea,

L, in two self-consistent but habitually incompatible frames of reference, M1 and M2. The event L, in which

the two intersect, is made vibrate simultaneously on two different wavelengths, as it were. While this unusual

situation lasts, L is not merely linked to one associative context, but bisociated with two” (Koestler 1964: 55).

Figure 1.1. The graphic representation of Koestler’s Bisociation Theory (1964: 55)

It is evident that bisociation (humorous incongruity) occurs when there is a juxtaposition of two

seemingly inconsistent situations, events or ideas. He further explicates that the shift in the

hearer’s train of thought should be abrupt and then “the emotive charge which the narrative

carried cannot be so transferred owing to its greater inertia and persistence; discarded by reason,

the tension finds its outlet in laughter” (Koestler 1964: 60). Norrick (1986, 1987) endorses

Koestler’s theory, claiming that the concept of bisociation encompasses various phenomena

proposed in humour research: Bergson’s (1905 [2010]) man-machine dichotomy, Freud’s (1905

[1976]) joke technique, Bateson’s (1952 [2003/ 2016]) and Fry’s (1963) paradoxes, Milner’s

(1972) sudden reversals and Douglas’ (1968) play on form.

Apter’s (1982) cognitive synergy is similar to bisociation since it refers to the cognitive

process in which two interpretations are necessarily incompatible or contradictory. These

meanings need to be activated in the mind and appear successively in the comprehension

process. This mechanism is not restricted to humour enjoyment but it also accounts for

creativity and aesthetic pleasure. His view on the resolution is also slightly different than that

advocated in the standard version of IR theories. Rejecting the proposal that humour occurs

when incongruity is resolved, Apter reckons that humour hinges upon the concurrent perception

of incongruous frames of references. In jokes, it is the punchline which establishes an

incongruous synergy.


- 56 -

The excerpt from Koestler’s Act of Creation is one of the most frequently cited in humour

literature because it is a variation of cognitive theory, which presupposes the notion of

incongruity and Freud’s view of humour as relief from constraints. On the other hand, it has

prompted legitimate criticism (Attardo 1994, Latta 1999), in which it is pointed out that some

expressions are vaguely defined, which can diminish its value.

Attardo (1994) goes as far as to claim that the notion of bisociation is approximately

tantamount to Raskin’s (1985) notion of script opposition. On a critical note, Koestler’s term

lacks a proper formal description and his theory fails to explicate comprehension processes that

are typically characterised in linguistic models. It seems that Koestler’s bisociation theory has

been a driving force for many early linguistic theories, for example Norrick’s (1986, 1987,

Section 1.8.) and hence its relevance cannot be undermined. However, being aware of all the

limitations that the author finds hard to overcome, the bisociation theory would not be applied

to the study of situation comedy.

1.5. Incongruity resolution as a two-stage model

The most widely acknowledged model of incongruity resolution (IR) is credited to Suls (1972,

1977, 1983). It was originally proposed for jokes and captioned cartoons. Incidentally, Shultz

(1972) offers his IR model, which, as noted by Suls (1983), is an independent work, however

Shultz’s research is confined to ambiguity-based jokes and riddles. There are a few differences

with regard to the two models (Dynel 2009a). First, Suls’ model lays foundations for cognitive

mechanisms underlying humorous effects, which are of vital importance to linguistic studies,

while Shultz’s point of departure is Berlyne’s (1972) mechanism of arousal jag, which correlates

the perception of incongruity with cognitive arousal decreasing in the resolution phase. Second,

Suls elucidates the comprehension of jokes, whereas Shultz explicates psychological aspects

influencing the appreciation of humour. Third, Shultz’s attention is devoted to the perception of

humour by children, which undermines its explanatory power since it is not universal. Taking

these points into consideration, it is Suls’ model which is summarised below.

Suls’ (1972, 1983) focal centre of interest is the mechanisms that are at work in the

comprehension of jokes, together with a few emotional and motivational factors influencing a

humorous meaning. It is argued that humour arises within the reader/ listener when incongruity

is created by means of the initial part of a joke, which is then resolved in the final part. In order

to make the text of a joke congruous, the listener needs to find a cognitive rule which reconciles

discrepant meanings conveyed by the two parts of a joke, otherwise the incongruous part would


- 57 -

be deemed unfunny. This is what Forabosco (2008) means by the notion of cognitive mastery,

which is one’s ability to process a discrepant stimulus so as to get the resolution. The model

under discussion can be roughly outlined as follows:

“In the first stage, the perceiver finds his expectations about the text disconfirmed by the ending of the joke

or, in the case of a cartoon, his expectations about the picture disconfirmed by the caption. In other words,

the recipient encounters an incongruity—the punch line. In the second stage, the perceiver engages in a

form of problem solving to find a cognitive rule which makes the punch line follow from the main part of

the joke and reconciles the incongruous parts. A cognitive rule is defined as a logical proposition, a

definition, or a fact of experience. The retrieval of such information makes it possible to reconcile the

incongruous parts of the joke.” (Suls 1972: 82)

A simplified graphic representation of Suls’ two-stage model is given below:

Figure 1.2. Suls’ IR model (adapted from Yus 2016: 69)

During the initial stage of joke processing, the listener construes the context and setting, which

enable him/ her to make certain predictions and assumptions concerning a subsequent portion

of the text. The first part of a joke conveys only one interpretation in order not to preclude an

individual from the derivation of a humorous interpretation beforehand. As soon as the hearer

encounters the punchline, which creates cognitive dissonance (Festinger [1957] 1985, in Ziv

1984), s/he needs to look for a cognitive rule to adjust the setting with the punchline. In the case

of not finding a rule, the hearer is left with an incongruous segment of a joke. However, it is

highly unlikely for a person not to find a meaningful interpretation, for which there are three

reasons: jokes are non-serious acts, the hearer has already expended mental effort and s/he

needs to make an attempt to find sense in nonsense.


- 58 -

Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio (2002) acknowledge that studies positing complete

resolution are in fact instances of partial resolution and endorse Rothbart and Pien’s (1977) idea

of multiple incongruities within a joke, with only one resolved. In the light of this research, they

reconceptualise the IR theory as follows:

“a joke text (T) is funny if T contains one or more incongruous elements any of which may or may not be

fully or in part (playfully or not) resolved by the occurrence of the punch line, which may or may not

introduce new incongruities”. (Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio 2002: 27)

According to Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio (2002), not only is it possible for a

humorous text to contain several incongruities but there also might be multiple logical paths to

one or more resolutions.

Before I proceed to test the viability of Suls’ schema, a proviso needs to be made. The

analysis of telecinematic discourse in accordance with the incongruity-resolution model

undoubtedly poses certain analytic problems since conversational episodes in sitcoms do not

resemble jokes with regard to an organisational structure. Hence, in any fictional conversation,

the discussion of the role of incongruity-based models has to be coupled with the two

communicative levels pertinent to fictional discourse.

Application to situation comedy

In this section, it will be shown that Suls’ (1972, 1983) two-stage model is a good candidate to

explain humour appreciated by viewers. Following Suls’ terminology, sitcom humour would

be explained as occurring when the viewer is presented with an unexpected surprising stimulus

which disrupts the narrative frame. This sets in motion the recipient’s process of understanding

of why such an incongruous episode is present in the narrative (Messerli 2017a). In sitcoms,

humorous turns may be deployed in any place, as jablines in longer texts (Attardo 2001a).

Excerpt (2) shows that there are multiple incongruities (Rothbart and Pien 1997; Paulos 1980)

constructed by the production crew: incongruity within the reception of the dialogue between

interactants themselves and among recipients in front of the TV set, incongruity between

aggression and humour and incongruity within the acceptance of sensitive stereotypical

information. To illustrate focal incongruity (see Section 1.3.3.2.) that primarily brings about

humorous effects relevant to the punchline and its resolution, let us analyse an example from

the sitcom Modern Family. The extract encompasses the following clashes: the incongruity

between a wealthy man who thinks of himself as a real man and a poor hard-working Colombian

who does physical work (and hence should be regarded as a real man).


- 59 -

(2) Context: Gloria and Jay are in their kitchen. Jay is planning to play golf when Gloria asks him to help

Manny fix the fan in Manny’s room. In order to kill two birds with one stone, Jay finds a compromise

solution – hiring a Colombian handyman.

Gloria: Nooo. You’re supposed to do it with him. It’s important that we teach him how to do things

for himself. In my culture, men take great pride in doing physical labour.

Jay: I know. That’s why I hire people from your culture.

Gloria: You’re too funny. I’m gonna share that one with my next husband when we’re spending all

your money. (S01E02)

In this extract, there are two humorous turns that the viewer may entertain, and at least one of

them has the potential of inducing laughter on the part of a fictional character. On the fictional

characters’ layer, Jay’s line may be understood as being potentially impolite to Gloria since it

contains genuine aggression/ criticism, i.e. the Latino are good as labour workers. More

specifically, it may be classified as an instance of mock impoliteness (Haugh and Bousfield

2012), which may be evaluated as impolite or non-impolite by Gloria. The conversation

between Gloria and Jay can be appraised differently by the recipient. From the viewer’s vantage

point, Jay’s turn does not necessarily contain ostensible aggression since the viewer knows that

sitcom is a piece of entertainment. His teasing in the form of biting (Boxer and Cortés-Conde

1997) is encoded by the production crew within a humorous frame in order to impart

stereotypical information that the Colombians are considered to be good blue-collar workers.

Gloria’s turn can be analysed in terms of put-down humour, which is certainly not humorous

to Jay, being the butt of her comment. Her smile signals the metamessage that “this is play” and

hence she cloaks her serious message under humour. The intention of the production crew is to

verbally belittle Jay’s social attitude and at the same time, to amuse the viewers.

Messerli (2016) argues that studying sitcoms within the IR model highlights an interesting

feature of telecinematic discourse. It is theoretically possible for humour to be entertained only

by viewers, only by characters or both when the same surprising element responsible for

prompting a humorous response occurs on any level. On the basis of my data from Modern

Family, it might be noticed that humour is not frequently cued by the actors with verbal/ non-

verbal signals on the fictional layer, which may be explained by the fact that it is the audience

who is supposed to be entertained. For some recipients, collective laughter on the diegetic level

may impede their discovery of a cognitive rule to solve any incongruity as they would feel

“forced” to be amused.

The last theoretical aspect boils down to the application of Suls’ (1972) and Yus’ (2003)

models of incongruity resolution to the humour in sitcoms. In my opinion, extract (2) shows


- 60 -

that the viewer is cued to establish a humorous frame when Jay adopts a tone of mock

seriousness when he claims that the reason for hiring the Colombians is their feeling as real

men. The first stage of understanding a humorous turn in (2) encompasses the recipient’s

formulation of the narrative schema on the basis of Gloria’s initial turn, i.e. Jay, instead of

playing golf, should devote some time to teach his stepson (Manny) how to fix domestic

appliances. The setting facilitates making certain predictions about the way in which the

dialogue may proceed. The viewer may expect that Jay, being a devoted husband, would agree

to stay at home with Manny. In accordance with Suls’ model, the second stage comprising Jay’s

turn, which would be assigned the role of the punchline, is surprising and hence is seen as

incompatible with reference to how Gloria pictures a perfect man. That is, a hard-working man

from Latin America is considered a real man by Gloria, while Jay considers himself a real man

because he has money to pay for anything. A cognitive rule to resolve an incongruous material

would encompass Jay’s proposition from which it logically follows that a real man has money.

I have explicated so far that sitcom humour may be analysed in similar terms as jokes so

that we may find some challenging element which involves a degree of violation. How would

Suls’ model apply in the analysis of the last turn (Gloria’s second turn)? In order to do this,

I would like to argue that the first two turns may constitute a new setting for the last incoming

stimulus provided by Gloria. It is the main humorous (punchline-like) line, which has the

potential of inducing more humorous effects than Jay’s turn, even though it does not introduce

any incongruity on a local level. A novel set-up would be that Gloria asks Jay for staying at

home and doing chores, while he prefers other people to do this. Once again, the viewer may

make predictions about how the discourse may develop. In normal (real-life) circumstances,

offensive or hostile acts, as Jay’s, can meet with withdrawal or retaliation, both reactions can

be equal to taking offence. Gloria decides to make a biting comment camouflaged under

humour. It is also part of the dialogue that the surprising effect inducing humour can occur on

the recipient’s and fictional characters’ layers. In other words, studying the dialogue globally

makes the recipient infer Gloria’s intention to amuse Jay, which is incongruous with respect to

one’s knowledge concerning marriage. Humour involves the clash between personal and

cultural beliefs, that is between the knowledge that married people do not await one’s death and

the fact that Gloria would easily spend Jay’s money with the next husband.

The analysis of this extract lends support to Suls’ (1977, 1983) claim that IR theories and

disparagement theories can be merged together in order to reveal a broader picture of not only


- 61 -

cognitive but also social dimension of humour. Suls (1977) contends that one of the problems

the analyst may encounter is when humour derides the recipient’s membership group but it is

still considered amusing. On the one hand, the production crew can never be sure whether some

viewers find the content offensive, on the other, their primary aim is to entertain and amuse a

TV recipient and hence to establish a devoted viewership and solidarity. Zillmann (2000) argues

that any fictional discourse needs to use humorous cues which are typical of its genre. It would

prepare its viewers to the situation in which misfortunes happen to the group they like.

Moreover, I believe that placing a humorous footing on a serious context results in the viewer’s

suspension of disbelief (Attardo 1994, Dynel 2011f), which enables viewers to experience

comic enjoyment because the events are not real.

1.6. Incongruity resolution as a catastrophe model

Paulos’ (1980) Cusp Catastrophe Theory Model of Jokes and Humour stands as a testimony

that humour can be scrutinised from various vantage points. Peculiar though it seems, humour

and mathematics have much in common: logic (in the case of humour, logic is frequently

inverted, Paulos 1977), a form of intellectual play (in humour, emphasis is on play, while in

mathematics on the intellectual part), economy and explicitness (mathematical proof does not

need to include many details, while humour is spoiled when it includes too many details). The

theory incorporates cognitive incongruity and emotional energy (fear, hostile feelings,

satisfaction) which is released as soon as incongruity is resolved. It originates from Thom’s

(1975) theory of catastrophe, which is based on the mathematical study of discontinuities, e.g.

jumps, switches or reversals.

The Catastrophe Model hinges upon the assumption that jokes operate on some sort of

ambiguity. When the punchline is communicated, the catastrophic switch occurs, which forces

the hearer to discontinuously change the lower layer into the upper one, i.e. from the first

interpretation into the second one:

“A joke can thus be considered a kind of structured ambiguity, the punch line precipitating the catastrophe

of switching interpretations. It adds sufficient information to make it suddenly clear that the second (usually

hidden) meaning is the intended one” (Paulos 1980: 85)


- 62 -

Below, the graphic realisation of the process of incongruity resolution is presented:

Figure 1.3. The graphic representation of Paulos’ Cusp Catastrophe Model

The catastrophe of switching the meanings preserves humorous enjoyment. Paulos (1980)

maintains that the property of hysteresis states that any deviation in the process, e.g. accessing

only one meaning on the lower layer or the second meaning too soon, would result in joke’s

falling flat. Another condition for the text to be humorous is that it needs to conform to the

inaccessible gap, which means that only one interpretation can be accessed at a time.


It is Paulos (1980) who notes that his model is pertinent to jokes in which there is structured

ambiguity, i.e. the punchline involves the catastrophic switch between layers and hence

interpretations. Other humorous manifestations exemplified by captioned cartoons or

unexpected pratfalls pose a serious conundrum for Paulos’ mathematical model since there is

no catastrophic drop between layers. As can be expected, the catastrophe model does not

account for any humorous turn deployed by the fictional characters but rather for conversational

units, the structure of which resembles ambiguity jokes with a clear-cut division between two

meanings. I would like to consider one conversational humorous episode (3) from the sitcom,

in which Paulos’ theory can be applied since it involves the switch from one interpretative layer

to another:


- 63 -

(3) Context: The Dunphy-Pritchett-Tucker clan is on the cruise. Mitchell has just met his first crush in the

bait shop. Visibly distressed, Mitchell goes back to the boat where his father notices his rotten mood.

Jay: What’s going on, son? [Mitchell waves his hand meaning NO] I know there’s a story there,

and I really care.

Mitchell: It’s nothing.

Jay: Bup, bup, bup. Walls down, please.

Mitchell: Ugh. Okay, fine. Um, it’s really embarrassing. Uh, I ran into this guy who works at the bait

shop.

Jay: Is that a gay bar?

Mitchell: No, an actual bait shop. (S09E01)

In extract (3), there is ambiguity/ misunderstanding on the fictional level, in particular Jay

thinks that Mitchell uses a secret code and instead of being blatant about this visit in a gay bar,

he prefers to use a euphemistic notion of a bait shop. More specifically, Jay wants to clarify the

place where his son was, which precipitates the catastrophic switch between the literal and

euphemistic meanings of the expression “bait shop”. In Paulos’ (1980) terms, the property of

hysteresis is easily preserved in the extract under analysis. The viewer certainly has not

considered the gay bar before Jay’s uttering it as in the previous scene Mitchell was seen

wandering around the shop. The last ingredient in the catastrophe model is the inaccessible gap

which corresponds to making the audience formulate only one interpretation at a time.

The notion of the catastrophic drop is scalar since the greater the drop induced by the

punchline caused by a large gap between the lower and upper layers, the more humorous the

text is. Paulos (1980) does not expound upon the heuristic procedure for how the size of the gap

and hence the catastrophic drop should be measured. On the one hand, Paulos refers to the notion

of incongruity, implying that the model explains any occurrence of humour, which involves

discrepancy, but then (ibid.: 90) he states that the model encompasses simple jokes residing in

structured ambiguity. Extract (3) exemplifies that to a certain degree, humour resulting from the

play between literal and metaphorical meanings can be explained in Paulos’ terms.

The cusp catastrophe model is not only a version of incongruity resolution but also a relief

theory. Paulos (1980) believes that the resolution of incongruity results in the release of

emotional energy of hostile feelings, sexual anxieties, playfulness, etc., which converges with

the Freudian view on humour.


- 64 -

1.7. Incongruity as a script opposition/ overlap

This section deals with one of the most methodologically and theoretically advanced models,

which greatly contributed to the linguistic inquiry into verbal humour, viz. Raskin’s (1985)

SSTH (Semantic Script Theory of Humour) and its advanced version GTVH (General Theory

of Verbal Humour) formulated by Attardo and Raskin (1991, see also Attardo 1994, 1996, 1997,

2001a, 2008a; Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio 2002; Hempelmann 2004, Hempelmann and

Attardo 2011). The two theories are built upon the notion of script (a.k.a. frame, schema,

daemon, schema), defined as “a large chunk of semantic information surrounding the word or

evoked by it” (Raskin 1985: 81).

The term of script originates from psychology and denotes general information about well-

established routines and conventional ways to undertake a type of activity (Bartlett 1932 [1995],

Goffman 1974, Tannen 1985, Abelson 1981). It has also been incorporated in artificial

intelligence (AI) (Schank and Abelson 1977) and linguistics (Chafe 1977, Raskin 1979).

1.7.1. Semantic Script Theory of Humour

As opposed to what the title of his book Semantic Mechanisms of Humor suggests, the SSTH

deals with the semantic and pragmatic analysis of humour23, with the latter viewed as a violation

of the Gricean Cooperative Principle (Section 2.2.1.). Raskin illustrates his theoretical proposals

with jokes – the most prototypical form of humour, which may pose a problem when the theory

is to be applied to other humorous manifestations (Attardo 1997).

There are two basic components of a semantic theory: lexicon and combinatorial rules. The

former “contains lexical information which approximates the speaker’s knowledge of the

meaning of the words”, while the latter “combines the meanings of the words into the semantic

interpretation of the whole sentence to which the words belong” (Raskin 1985: 76).

The central idea of the SSTH is based on the Main Hypothesis, which is formulated as

follows:

A text can be characterized as a single-joke carrying text if both of the conditions are satisfied:

(i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts

(ii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite (Raskin 1985: 99).

23 Attardo (1996) emphasises the fact that contrary to the fallacious assumption that the SSTH/ GTVH are

concerned only with semantics of humour, they have a lot to do with cognitive linguistics.


- 65 -

These two conditions are said to be necessary and sufficient for the perception of a joke as

funny.

On the basis of a canonical joke used by Raskin (1985: 100), and echoed in the writings

of many, I would like to illustrate how the SSTH is employed into practice:

(4) “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 1985: 100)

The patient’s question leads to the activation of the first script DOCTOR, in which we picture

a typical situation: a patient comes to the doctor’s because of great difficulty in speaking and

he requires urgent medical treatment. In other words, there is an assumption that backs up the

choice of the DOCTOR script: visiting the doctor who is medically qualified to help the man

suffering from bronchial problems. Having heard the woman’s reply and invitation to a

clandestine meeting, the hearer becomes aware of the fact that the DOCTOR script is not longer

valid for the punchline – the absence of the doctor at home should not result in the patient’s

being asked to come in. As a result, the text should be reinterpreted: the wife’s attractive look

and young age as well as a whispering man who is invited in while the doctor is away, give rise

to the emergence of the LOVER script: the two lovers take advantage of the doctor’s absence.

Joke in (4) is partially compatible with the overlapping scripts DOCTOR and LOVER which

are, to a certain extent, opposite.

As regards formal and technical representation of a script, it contains a “lexematic handle”

(Attardo 2001a) which leads to its activation. More specifically, the script corresponds to a

“graph with lexical nodes and semantic links between the nodes” (Raskin 1985: 81)24. The

lexematic handle works as a token in an utterance, e.g. the utterance which contains the word

cat immediately leads to the emergence of the CAT script (Attardo 2001a). All scripts comprise

continuous graphs. A lexical entry of a word is viewed as a domain inside each graph, which

acts as a central tier (node) in a particular domain. Each word elicits its domain and adjoining

nodes, which are linked to the word. The construction of scripts is a dynamic process, which is

revised on the basis of new information.

The technical representation of a script DOCTOR containing a specific type of

information is as follows:

24 A simplified definition of a script is proposed by Attardo (2001a: 53): “a complex of information associated

with a lexical item”.


- 66 -

Subject: [+ Human] [+ Adult]

Activity: > Study medicine

= Receive patients: [patient comes or doctor visits]

doctor listens to complaints

doctor examines patient

= Cure disease: doctor diagnoses disease

doctor prescribes treatment

= (Take patient’s money)

Place: > Medical School

= Hospital or doctor’s office

Time: > Many years

= Every day

= Immediately

Condition: Physical contact

Figure 1.4. The lexical script for DOCTOR (Raskin 1985: 85)

A script is a cognitive concept, which is equated with the native speaker’s knowledge of the

world, i.e. routines and situations conditioned by background assumptions and idiosyncratic

experience. The type of information stored under a script can be confined to a group of people

who share similar activities, for example family members or close friends (Raskin 1985).

Despite the fact that Raskin (1985) refrains from introducing a hierarchical organisation

of scripts, he comes up with a notion of “macroscript” and a “complex script”. The former is a

cluster of scripts arranged in a chronological order, for instance a script RESTAURANT

contains scripts DRIVE UP TO THE RESTAURANT, BE SEATED, ORDER FOOD, whereas

the latter are scripts which are composed of other scripts, for example the script WAR consists

of several others: ARMY, ENEMY, WEAPON (see Attardo 2001a: 53-60, for a classification

of scripts into lexical, sentential and inferential).

As regards the first condition of the Main Hypothesis, a script overlap is a necessary but

insufficient prerequisite for humour since every ambiguous, obscure, figurative or metaphorical

text contains two or more overlapping scripts. A partial overlap is created by evoking one or

two scripts, the semantic meanings of which are not compatible with each other. The same utterance

in the serious (bona-fide) mode of communication would be marked as meaningless, whereas in the

humorous mode, the utterance would make sense. A full overlap means that the two scripts are

consistent with one another and there is no element in the text that can be regarded as odd,

superfluous, lacking or out of place with reference to one of more scripts in the text.

According to the second condition in the Main Hypothesis, two scripts have to be in

opposition in a certain sense. For Raskin (1985: 111), script oppositeness boils down to three

basic types of “real” and “unreal” situations a script may evoke: actual vs non-actual/non-

existing situation, normal/expected state of affairs vs abnormal/unexpected state of affairs,

possible/plausible situation vs fully or partially impossible or much less plausible situation.


- 67 -

These binary categories of script oppositions may be exemplified with more specific

instantiations, which are vital to human life: good vs bad, death vs life, obscene vs non-obscene

and money vs no money (or, much money vs little money). Attardo (1994: 204) claims that the

three general classes are not culture-dependent but lower-lever instantiations can be perceived

as culture-variable. Table (1.2.) below shows various combinations of script opposition/ overlap

(Attardo 1994: 204):

scripts opposed non-opposed

overlapping humour

metaphor, allegory,

figurative, mythical,

allusive, obscure

non-overlapping conflict (possibly tragic) plain narrative

Table 1.2. Combinations of script opposition/overlap

To explain the passage from one script to the opposing one, Raskin (1985: 114-117) coins

the concept of the semantic script-switch trigger to denote a textual material which renders a

humorous interpretation plausible at the punchline stage.


Alluding to Noam Chomsky and his famous division into linguistic competence and performance,

Raskin (1979, 1985) claims that the prime objective of any semantic theory is to “model the

semantic competence of the native speaker in its relevant manifestations” (1985: 59). The SSTH

is no different in this respect since it devotes special attention to the native speaker’s ability to

find two opposing overlapping scripts responsible for humour. Granted that any human

communication consists of the knowledge of a linguistic system and the actual use of language

in writing or speaking, disregarding the other component, i.e. humour performance, raises a

practical problem for the application of the theory to the analysis of situation comedy. In other

words, any mass-mediated communication, sitcoms included, is oriented towards the audience,

hence, it is the potential ability of the recipients to entertain script opposition that matters.

The sitcom Modern Family has already been analysed in terms of the SSTH with a view

to classifying recurrent clashes in semantic scripts (Korostenskiene and Lieponyte 2018). The

study, as argued by the authors, also carries important social implications because the humour

that is created in the sitcom is interpreted by the lens of mass media. The broadest category

involving a divergence in scripts is family, which is further subcategorised into parents (adults)

vs children, husbands vs wives, parents-in-law vs children-in-law, sibling vs sibling and family


- 68 -

vs football. In my opinion, it is no wonder why most humorous instances reside in the clash of

family-related scripts as it results from the specificity of the sitcom itself, which is classified as

family sitcom. Furthermore, Korostenskiene and Lieponyte (2018) reckon that Raskin’s (1985)

basic class of script oppositeness normal/ abnormal is better explained in terms of a looser

opposition of expected/ unexpected state of affairs, constituting roughly 70 per cent of all

instances. This is not new to the SSTH as Raskin himself provides such an opposition.

Let us take the expansionist approach to the SSTH (Attardo 2001) in order to see how

sitcom humour can be explained in terms of script overlap and oppositeness. Given the fact that

Korostenskiene and Lieponyte (2018) provide a quantitative analysis of a clash of semantic

scripts, I would like to extend their scrutiny with a qualitative approach, focusing on the creation

of opposing scripts.

(5) Context: Mitchell and Cameron talk into the camera about their childhood. Mitchell recalls his

promising career as a figure skater, whose pair was Claire.

Cameron: When Mitchell was 10 and Claire was 13, they were competitive ice dancers.

Mitchell: Figure skaters. Oh, for God’s sakes, I’ll tell the story. Yes, my sister and I were

actually a very good team. We were called “Fire and Nice”. I was Fire ‘cause of the

red hair and Claire was Nice because it was ironic and she wasn’t. (S01E07)

The humour in example (5) operates on the basic opposition between the “real” and “unreal”

state of affairs, with the subtype “normal/ expected situation” and “abnormal/ unexpected

situation”. The first script NICE SIBILING is evoked on the basis of Mitchell’s turn in which

he explicates the constituent parts of their team’s name, with the word fire signifying his ginger

hair. The viewer builds up expectations that the reason why the pair skating team is also called

nice is that the other member – Claire – was the nice one too. The semantic-switch trigger is

the word “ironic” which prepares the recipient for the shift of scripts. The second script NON-

NICE SIBILING gets activated when he states the name “nice” is just added in the opposite

sense since Claire is not a friendly person. Another clash between two scripts hinges upon the

fiction/ reality dichotomy. In other words, the name of Mitchell and Claire’s name of team Fire

and Nice alludes to the American animated fantasy film Fire and Ice (1983).

In Raskin’s (1985) terms, the humorous episode in (5) creates a partial overlap, which

means that the whole turn is not compatible with the two scripts at once, which is also common

in verbal jokes. I believe that the scripts may be semantic in nature but their formulation and

more importantly, the switch is pragmatic. In other words, it is a matter of the context how

scripts are evoked and their oppositeness is created. Furthermore, the analysis of (5) reveals

that humour in sitcoms is notably conceived via multiple incongruities, which in the Raskinian


- 69 -

theory, would require the activation of various semantic overlapping scripts. It may be

interesting to expound some of the scripts, the evocation of which does not contribute directly

to one’s entertainment. For instance, the viewer realises that there is a clash between their own

mental cultural set of representations and the one provided by the actors. It can be represented

as follows: In my culture, it is believed that x, whilst In the sitcom, it is believed that y. These

two overlapping and opposing cognitive structures are not the main source of humour, which

is the basis of the SSTH encapsulated within the Main Hypothesis, nevertheless such opposing

cultural representations are likely to provide additional sources of incongruity. In addition,

evoking two different pieces of information is not made along semantic networks. Nevertheless,

the disparity between personal and collective cultural representations contributes to humour.

1.7.2. General Theory of Verbal Humour

The GTVH originates from Raskin’s (1985) theory and the reason why it has been developed

is the possibility of overcoming the limitations of the semantic theory. While the SSTH

accounts for jokes and its main aim is to provide sufficient and necessary conditions for humour

in terms of overlapping and opposing scripts, the GTVH puts forth the six hierarchically

organised Knowledge Resources (KRs). These parameters include language (LA), narrative

strategy (NS), target (TA), script opposition (SO), situation (SI), logical mechanism (LM),

which account for the degrees of joke similarity (see Ruch, Attardo and Raskin’s (1993)

empirical study). A hierarchical order of the KRs is illustrated as follows (Attardo and Raskin

1991: 325):

SO→ LM→ SI→ TA→ NS→ LA

To begin with the lowest parameter, language “contains all the information necessary for the

verbalization of a text” (Attardo 1994: 223), including “all the choices at the phonetic,

phonologic, morphophonemic, morphologic, lexic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels of

language structure that the speaker is still free to make” (Attardo and Raskin 1991: 298). This

KR specifies the exact phrasing of a joke and distribution of a punchline, which usually occurs

at the end of a joke (Attardo et al. 1994). A final position of the punchline guarantees an

appropriate distribution of implicit information and is relevant given its “functional

organization of the information in the text” (Attardo 1994: 223).

By narrative strategy, Attardo and Raskin (1991) mean various “microgenres” of jokes,

to name but a few, riddles, question-answer sequences, anecdotes, short humorous stories, etc.


- 70 -

In other words, the NS determines the narrative organisation of humorous texts. Attardo (1994)

argues that this KR corresponds to a “genre” within literary theories.

The parameter target simply describes the butt of a joke, which is centred on a

stereotypical content associated with the group of people, for instance the dumb behaviour in

English jokes is expected from the Irish rather than the British (see Davies 2011). This KR is

optional since in some jokes the butt is unidentifiable, for example we may assign an empty

value for the target in non-aggressive humour (Attardo 1994, 2001a). In accordance with the

psychological research, the TA maximises funniness and hence humour appreciation when the

hearer appreciates the choice of a targeted group or individual (Zillmann 1983).

The knowledge resource situation determines the “props” pertinent to a joke, for example

the activity, the participants, objects and instruments that participants use to carry out the

activity. Attardo (1994) admits that every joke “is about something”, but its jocularity may not

depend on the choice of the activity.

The parameters of the logical mechanism25 and script opposition are more abstract and

possibly more important than the previous ones. The LO and SO originate from the SSTH. The

logical mechanism characterises the jocularity of a text via overlapping/ opposing scripts. In

other words, it is the mechanism in which the incongruous part of script opposition is rendered

humorous. Attardo and Raskin (1991) compile a short list of logical mechanisms, including

figure-ground reversal, faulty logic, chiasmus, false analogy, garden path mechanism,

juxtaposition, which is elaborated in Attardo Hempelmann and Di Maio (2002: 18):

role-reversals role exchanges potency mappings

vacuous reversal juxtaposition Chiasmus

garden-path figure-ground reversal faulty reasoning

almost situations analogy self-undermining

inferring consequences reasoning from false premises missing link

coincidence parallelism Implicit parallelism

proportion ignoring the obvious false analogy

exaggeration field restriction Cratylism

meta-humour vicious circle referential ambiguity

conceptual domain mapping26

Table 1.3. List of all known LMs

25 The LM is one of the KRs that comes under severe criticism, for example for its misleading name since there is

no logic in any of the logical mechanisms (Davies 2011), for the pointless efforts to compile a list of LMs (Davies

2004, 2011), for the LMs being just cognitive structures (Brône and Feyaerts 2004), and for the fact that logical

mechanisms are not truly mechanisms (Oring 2011) (see Raskin 2011 for a point-by-point rebuttal of criticism

made by Oring 2011). 26 This LM was proposed in Attardo (2015) in his study of metaphors.


- 71 -

There is no consensus on whether the GTVH should be classified as a variation of incongruity-

resolution theory. Interestingly, Attardo (1997) advocates a postulate that the GTVH can be

reduced to an incongruity-resolution model, in which script opposition correlates with the

incongruity stage and logical mechanism is equated with the resolution phase. Raskin, on the

contrary, does not agree with Attardo, claiming that the script opposition parameter is not the

reason why it is to be equated with IR models.

The GTVH has been applied to longer humorous texts, with Chłopicki (1987, 1997) being

the first to pursue this type of study. Attardo (2001a), so as to better explain the similarity

between jokes and longer texts, offers the term jabline applicable to the latter case, which

operates on the same basis as the punchline in the former. Jokes traditionally have only one

punchline, while longer texts may include several jablines which are not necessarily situated in

a pre-final or final position. Also, jablines are not disruptive, i.e. “they either are indispensable

to the development of the ‘plot’ or of the text, or they are not antagonistic to it” (Attardo 2001a:

83). Contrary to the punchline, the jabline is an optional element in a narrative, and hence

Attardo (2001a) introduces the concept of a plot with a humorous fabula – “the one in which

the central complication involves a humorous SO, but does not (necessarily) end in a punch line

and does not (necessarily) breach the narrative illusion” (Attardo 2001a: 98).


One of the weak points of the GTVH is that, as the SSTH, it does not account for the role of the

audience. Attardo (2001a: 30) intends to propose “a (partial) theory of the speaker’s potential

production/ interpretation on the basis of their knowledge and skills”. As a result, the GTVH

marginalises both the role of the audience and the speaker’s part, focusing on the internal

structure of the text itself and its contribution to building comic effects (Attardo 2001a).

Certain limitations aside, the GTVH, as its name implies, is supposed to explain various

manifestations of verbal humour, not only jokes as it is the case of the SSTH. Some humorous

texts may be structurally similar to jokes, containing a punchline at the end, but there are texts

which are distinctly different, e.g. those comprising jabline(s) (Attardo 1994). Besides, this

theory might be expected to account for various linguistic levels, viz. pragmatic, textual

linguistic and narrativity, beyond the level of semantic tools (Attardo 1994).

There have been successful attempts to bridge the gap between the audience-less GTVH

and discourse analysis in the research into humour occurring in conversations (e.g.

Antonopoulou and Sifianou 2003). The one that deserves special attention is offered by

Archakis and Tsakona (2005) since it not only applies the GTVH to conversational narratives


- 72 -

conjoined with sociopragmatic studies, but it also concentrates on one of solidarity functions,

i.e. identity construction – which is pertinent to the present work. In particular, they argue that

it is feasible to apply Attardo and Raskin’s (1991) theory to recognise humorous texts and to

analyse conversational turns. Focusing on one of the KRs, viz. the Target, Archakis and

Tsakona (2005) demonstrate that humour can work in two simultaneous and discrepant ways:

as a means of critical appraisal or corrective design and as an index of positive politeness

strategy devised to foster solidarity and positive in-group feelings.

I would like now to present the dialogue from Modern Family, in which the GTVH is

used to explain the occurrence of humour on the part of the viewer. Following Archakis and

Tsakona’s (2005), the three jablines are marked in italics.

(6) Context: Jay, Mitchell’s father, volunteered to renovate Mitchell’s kitchen as part of passing time at

retirement. He hasn’t made rapid progress at all and Mitchell is somewhat impatient and wants to

hasten his dad.

Mitchell: Um, Dad, if this is too much for you.

Jay: Now, wait a second. You’re not here to fire me, are you?

Mitchell: What? No. Pfft! That’s a strong word.

Jay: I’ve done enough axing in my time to recognize the look. Just do it.

Mitchell: See, now, I was I was hoping this would be more of a conversation.

Jay: Never been much for confrontation. You weren’t engaged to a woman six months in law

school because you were good at dropping the hammer. Didn’t you guys get a cat together?

Mitchell: Okay, you know? Y... y... yes! You’re fired! Okay? You’re an incompetent man-diva. The

only thing you’ve ever built is a closet i.e. a box of air. So get out, and don’t let the door

hit you on your ample behind.

Jay: [after 3 seconds, smacks lips] Nicely done. Maybe an unnecessary shot at closets,

particularly from someone who was in one for 22 years but... (S09E05)

The first jabline dwells on the recollection of Mitchell’s adult life, i.e. personal anecdote in

Norrick’s (1993, 2003) terms. The analysis of this jabline in accordance with the six parameters

originated in the GTVH is provided below. The script opposition, being a necessary prerequisite

for humour, is based upon the fact that Mitchell is homosexual, yet he decided to be engaged

to a woman in order not to perform a decisive action and reveal the truth about his sexual

orientation.

SO: normal/ abnormal; Mitchell hid the truth about his sexual orientation for eight years / homosexual men

are not usually engaged to a woman for such a long time.

LM: faulty reasoning (Attardo and Raskin 1991: 304; Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio 2002: 18).

SI: Jay recalls Mitchell’s previous confrontational problems and draws parallel to the one in question.

TA: Mitchell.

NS: put-down humour (as interpreted by the viewer; Mitchell may interpret Jay’s turn as a mocking act).

LA: it may be speculated that the semantic meaning of the word “hammer” (in the phrase “drop the

hammer”) is used in connection to the renovation process in Mitchell’s kitchen.


- 73 -

The script opposition in the second jabline is contingent upon the normal/ abnormal basis or

expected situation vs non-expected situation. Mitchell speaks of his father’s company

producing closets in terms of a product filled with air, which is not true given that air is gas.

Mitchell treats air as material used to make a piece of furniture. His intention is to clearly

undermine Jay’s business success.

SO: normal/ expected state of affairs vs abnormal/ unexpected state of affairs; setting up and running own

closet business is a difficult enterprise vs running own closet business is compared to producing boxes

of air, which is an uncomplicated enterprise

LM: parallelism: proportion

SI: Mitchell would like to undermine his father’s business success

TA: Jay

NS: put-down humour (as interpreted by the viewer)

LA: irrelevant

The script opposition in the last jabline rests upon the actual/ non-actual dichotomy since there

is a play between the literal and intended meaning of the phrase be in the closet.

SO: actual/ non-actual, Mitchell did not wish to tell everyone that he is a homosexual/ Mitchell was living

in the piece of furniture

LM: referential ambiguity

SI: Jay wants to underline that Mitchell did not want to come out of the closet, which bears resemblance to

Jay’s closet firm

TA: Mitchell

NS: put-down humour (as interpreted by the viewer)

LA: play between a literal and idiomatic sense of the phrase “to be in the closet”

It is undeniable, as the analysis of extract (6) exemplifies, that the GTVH is accurate to specify humour

in conversation since it goes beyond one knowledge resource of SO, as in the SSTH. The structural

organisation of fictional and natural communication reveals that humorous turns are deployed in any

position of the text and very frequently, there may be more than one humorous line.

Besides the overall structure of humorous texts characterised by the KRs, Attardo (2001a,

2002) describes connections among the jablines, for instance all the lines that relate to the same

object of ridicule are called strands. Then, a stack is a set of strands, a case in point being all

episodes of sitcoms. As regards the patterns of occurrence of jab/ punchlines, Attardo (2001a)

notes that texts with a bathtub placement (see Section 1.2.1.), e.g. sitcoms, usually accommodate

bridges, which are two or more jablines located at a larger distance (however, the notion of

distance is rather fuzzy and understudied), whereas combs occur in close proximity. In example

(6), all the jablines are combs since these are arranged almost one after another.

There are several suggestions for new knowledge resources, which would provide more

accurate tools for studying humour. Particularly, Thielemann (2011) claims that the GTVH


- 74 -

needs to include the “perspective or point of view” KR. Canestrari (2010) develops the theory

by adding the Meta-Knowledge Resource. She additionally discerns two groups of on- and off-

stage humour, depending on the presence of meta-communicative signals used to designate the

humorous frame. As for the orientation of the present work towards the recipient of sitcoms,

the point of interest is the latter type of humour since off-stage humour is solely aimed at

viewers and these instances are usually devoid of the Meta-Knowledge Resource. When the

Meta KR is absent, the humour can still be explained in terms of the SO and LM since humorous

intentions are marked with “internal indexes”, which are related to the presence of incongruity

and its subsequent resolution. Moreover, the lack of meta signals gives the recipient much

leeway to interpret a piece of discourse (Canestrari 2010, also Mills 2005). Another possible

development of the KRs is suggested by Tsakona (2013) who speaks of the context of humour

(CO), which would include sociocultural content affecting the production and interpretation of

a humorous stretch as well as metapragmatic information.

The additional KRs offered by Canestrari (2010) and Tsakona (2013) are relevant to my

project. The Meta KR is helpful to account for instances in which humour arises on the

recipient’s layer as well as the fictional layer. Despite the lack of the Meta KR in off-stage

humour (viewers’ level), there are still implicit meta signals rooted in the humorous genre of

sitcoms, which indicate that the primary aim is to amuse viewers. Hence, the presence of

genuine aggression on set is not interpreted by recipients as something threatening but rather

amusing given some implicit cuing (e.g. actors associated with the genre). The claim can also

be made that the production crew’s and viewers’ relations form an in-group, whereas viewers

and fictional characters can be both out-group and in-group, which can be placed on a

continuum of cases, reflecting viewer’s reception. In other words, the viewers may sometimes

feel offended, hence their status would be momentarily similar to that of an out-group. Humour

can be targeted at out-group relations, which implies the presence of in-group feelings (Boxer

and Cortés-Conde 1997, Archakis and Tsakona 2005). Tsakona’s (2013) CO KR is particularly

salient for the sitcom Modern Family since the viewer frequently needs to resort to extra-

linguistic/ cultural knowledge in order to find the turn humorous.

1.8. Incongruity as schema conflict

Norrick (1986, 1987) sets out to conflate the two theories, viz. bisociation with frame theories,

in order to ponder far-reaching implications for cognition. Specifically, the notion of

bisociation is explained in terms of schema conflict, with frame theory (Minsky 1975 [1980],


- 75 -

Schank and Abelson 1977) providing a cognitive grounding. As a starting point, Norrick (1986,

1987) adopts bisociation from Koestler’s (1964) theory and assigns a refined meaning: conflict

schema “which puts the theory of bisociation on sounder footing as a model of cognitive

processes” and “suggests (the possibility of) conflict resolution on some other level” (Norrick

1986: 230). It follows that some initial schema conflict arises at a lower level, which is made

congruent and hence leads to humorousness at a higher level. The view of ‘schema conflict’

and ‘conflict congruence’ is analogous to the incongruity and resolution phases, with the former

being necessary but insufficient to produce humour. Surprise consequent upon schema conflict

can lead to funniness (Norrick 1987).

As for the frame theory, it offers schemas (also, scripts, schemata) which are used to

organise human knowledge. These schemas can be construed as “arrays of relations between

variables that stand for agents, objects, instruments etc. The variables may be partially filled

with stereotypical ‘default’ values which correspond to customary everyday patterns of

knowledge and belief” (Norrick 1986: 229). The notion of a schema denoting ongoing activities

corresponds to the idea of a script, which denotes both spatial and temporal relations between

variables and between lower level schemas. The choice of a particular schema and subsidiary

script creates in the hearer/ reader certain expectations of what is going to happen next, which

relevant interpretation should be accepted as appropriate, and helps to evaluate participants in a

given situation.

His bisociation qua schema conflict is relevant to several manifestations of verbal humour

(retorts, puns, quips, one-liners, jokes, parody). Let us analyse joke in (7) quoted by Norrick

(1986: 239):

(7) An ancient, wizened man accosts a lady of the night and inquires as to her rates. She replies, ‘$5 on the

floor, $10 on the couch and $15 in bed’. As he hands the hooker $15, she remarks, ‘Okay, once in bed’,

to which he objects, ‘No, three times on the floor’.

Norrick (1986) explains that a few words of a story lead to the activation of schema(s)/ script(s),

which matches the situation (variables and their relations). The beginning of the text, i.e. man’s

wrinkled old face, woman’s pricing policy and his choice of the price, suggests that a man

would certainly opt for having an intercourse in bed. The punchline, i.e. man’s disapproval of

her proposal and eagerness of having an intercourse three times, conflicts with the schema in

force, which has been formulated by not only the hearer but also the prostitute. Norrick (1986)

posits that a higher level fit between the two conflicting schemas is consequent upon the $15

price which can be differently divided into one vs three sexual acts.


- 76 -


It seems alluring to equate the SSTH’s script oppositeness and Norrick’s schema conflict since

on the surface, these two approaches propound the same idea for incongruity creation and its

subsequent resolution, i.e. the text of a joke communicates two interpretations, with the

punchline facilitating the switch of interpretations. Attardo (1994) reckons that one cannot draw

a close analogy between the two incongruity resolution models as they differ with respect to

the primary objective: Raskin (1985) describes the occurrence of humour in formal terms,

whereas Norrick (1986, 1987) frames humour in descriptive terms. On the other hand, Norrick

(2001) believes that the SSTH is in accord with the view of incongruity as schema conflict and

more importantly, his bisociation qua schema conflict synthesises other models, for instance

Bergson’s, Freud’s or Fry’s.

The foundation of Norrick’s (1986) theory is the presence of lower-level conflict and

higher-level fit. The way he explains various verbalisations of humour (retorts, quips, one-liners

and jokes), it may be deduced that there appears incongruity on the lower level, which is made

congruous by the fit. Schema conflict arises when the punchline is delivered and suggests that

there needs to be a resolution. It cannot be overlooked that the explanation of humour with the

use of schema conflict echoes Suls’ (1972) and Raskin’s (1985) theories, which basically call

for the switch of interpretations at the stage of the punchline. Given this, there is no point in

repeating some fragments only changing the nomenclature relevant to any theory. Now I would

like to analyse extract (8) which does not resemble a bi-partite structure typical of jokes in order

to test whether these theories are versatile. In general, it would be argued here that a very short

conversation can introduce several schema conflicts.

(8) Context: The conversation below precedes the one presented in (6). Jay seems to be quite easy-going

given the fact that he has a considerable backlog of the renovation of the kitchen furniture. He enjoys

himself when he has a conversation with the constructors, recalling his business success.

Jay: [to the constructors] You got to remember, this was the ‘60s. Competition in the closet game

was fierce, everybody chasing after the next big storage idea. Historians remember this

period as the “space race.”

[Mitchell walks in]

Jay: Oh, Mitchell.

Mitchell: Uh, Dad? Uh, I would like to see the kitchen.

Jay: I’d like to think that drinking beer makes my hair grow back, but life ain’t fair.

Mitchell: Okay, uh, then w... we need to talk.

Jay: [to the constructors] You guys want to take it outside? I need a couple minutes with El Rojo.

Jay: [when the constructors left] Mm-hmm. Rojo means “red.”

Mitchell: I put things together quickly, unlike your workers, which is, uh, why I’m here. (S09E05)


- 77 -

Jay’s first turn is amusing as it bases its humour upon a punning element “space race”, the

ambiguity of which should be perceived by the viewer. In Norrick’s (1986) terms, the phrase

“space race” brings about the schema conflict given the two possible readings, with at least one

apparent to Jay and the constructors. The first (literal) meaning of the phrase “space race” refers

to the closet industry, in which the word “space” is used in its metonymic relation to a closet.

The second (idiomatic) interpretation, which conflicts with the lower-level schema27, is based

upon the schema (script) which does not involve, as it rather contrasts with, the action of

constructing closets, being compared to the big time in the history when the USA and the Soviet

Union fought for the exploration of the universe. A few turns on, we can see another humorous

conversation in which Jay calls his son “El Rojo”, meaning “red” in Spanish, which is motivated

by Mitchell’s ginger hair colour. Moreover, Mitchell’s last line hinges upon the punning

element which also introduces the schema conflict: put things together quickly can be

understood as “deduce and infer from the given premises” or “literally assemble furniture”.

What I attempted to accentuate is that the three humorous turns (marked in italics) are

incorporated into the fabric of fictional conversation, each of which leads to schema conflict.

Now the question arises as to where to put the demarcation line between humorous turns which

appear in uninterrupted succession so as to enable the division into a lower-level and higher-

level schemas, which have been studied in isolation so far. In particular, there are two possible

paths of how to think about this problem. First, we can treat every humorous line as a separate

unit, as was done in the analysis of (8) and hence support the practical validity of IR theories to

the study of any conversational episode. Second, an incoming stimulus is being interpreted in

such as way that it provides the context (potentially) for the next stimulus.

To sum up the discussion on the IR models generated so far, almost none of the IR

theories has envisaged the analytical problem encountered in the study of conversational

humour since they were invented with jokes in mind. The only theory that seems to be working

well in the conversations resembling joke structure (we may clearly define the setting and the

punchline) and conversations comprising many humorous/ non-humorous lines is the GTVH

thanks to its notion of jabline. Hence, a claim can be made that in some conversational episodes,

the IR theories would fail to describe humour in all its complexity.

27 In the case of puns or punning elements, it is difficult to definitely pinpoint which interpretation is the one

created on the lower level and the other on the higher level.


- 78 -

1.9. Incongruity resolution as a graded salience hypothesis

Giora28 (1991) concedes that her studies into the structure of jokes can be incorporated into the

incongruity theory, particularly Suls’ (1972, 1983) and Nerhardt’s (1977). Her proposals are

also relevant to jokes and irony (Giora 1991, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2011; Giora and Fein

1999a). Giora (1991) formulates the two prerequisites for a well-formed joke: first, it adheres

to the Relevance Requirement (it preserves the relevance of the last interpretation) and second,

it violates the Graded Informativeness Requirement (hence, fulfils the Marked Informativeness

Requirement) (the interpreter’s shift from the salient/ unmarked interpretation into the marked

one). The latter condition states that jokes should end with a markedly informative (almost

inaccessible) meaning. To illustrate the marked and unmarked bifurcation, let us analyse joke (9):

(9) “Did you take a bath?” a man asked his friend who has just returned from a resort place.

“No,” his friend replied, “only towels” / “is there one missing?” (Giora 1991: 472)

Joke (9) violates the Graded Informativeness Requirement as there is a gradual progress from

least to the most informative meaning. The phrase taking a bath in the sense of “stealing a bath”

is markedly informative because it is almost inaccessible, untypical and surprising, whereas the

sense of “taking a sun or mud bath” is unmarked and hence uninformative since it is almost

prototypical and easily accessible. The passage from the unmarked into marked member of a

given set needs to be abrupt so the latter meaning cancels the former (more on the requirement

see Giora 1988). Giora (1991) posits that linear ordering of the joke presupposes asymmetry

between the two senses of ambiguity, which are not simultaneously retrieved. In her parlance,

jokes employ “salience imbalance that invites the comprehender to process the most salient but

eventually incompatible meaning first... in order to dispense with it and activate a less salient but

congruent meaning” (Giora 2003: 168). Moreover, the meaning communicated by the

punchline must be cognitively distant from the initial part of a joke so that it shares as few

features as possible.

The idea of markedness and salience is developed in the Graded Salience Hypothesis

(Giora 1997, 1999, 2003), which, as its name implies, is hinged upon an ordered sequence of

interpretations:

28 A similar, yet independent, approach to jokes based on the notion of informativeness, which is supplemented

with the idea of ‘accessibility’, ‘salience’ and ‘parallelism’, has been provided by De Palma and Weiner (1992)

and Weiner (1996, 1997).


- 79 -

“more salient meanings – coded meaning foremost on our mind due to conventionality, frequency, familiarity

or prototypicality are accessed faster than and reach sufficient levels of activation before less salient ones.

According to the graded salience hypothesis, then, coded meanings would be accessed upon encounter,

regardless of contextual information or authorial intent. Coded meanings of low salience, however, may not

reach sufficient levels of activation to be visible in a context biased toward the more salient meaning of the

word.” (Giora 2003: 10)

It is held that although supportive and strong contextual information may influence or even

speed up the formulation of appropriate (less salient) meanings, it would not obstruct more

salient meanings (Giora 1999, 2002, 2003, 2011): “salient meaning would not be bypassed;

Rather, they are activated first, rejected as the intended meaning and reinterpreted in

consistency with the Principle of Relevance” (Giora 1998: 85).

In spite of the fact that the first salient interpretation is inappropriate, it is not suppressed or

deleted because it should not interfere with the highly accessible interpretation of the punchline

– this claim is developed within in the retention/ suppression theory (Giora 2003, Giora and Fein

1999b). Those meanings which are conducive to the comprehension are retained, whereas those

which are not relevant are almost instantly discarded. On the other hand, reinterpretation of salient

meanings coupled with their suppression may obstruct the process of joke interpretation and

hence prolong the time needed for its comprehension. When ambiguity is not eliminated

(suppressed) but sustains, the resulting outcome is a witty, not humorous, interpretation (Giora

1991).

At first glance, it may be hypothesised that Giora’s (1999, 2003) salience and Sperber

and Wilson’s (1986 [1995]) relevance theory are akin. Within the graded salience hypothesis,

it is held that a salient meaning can be compatible with contextual information because it is

accessed automatically or it may be incompatible because it does not merge with the context.

In the case of contextually incompatible meanings, the interpretation is either retained, when it

is instrumental or not intrusive, or suppressed. Relevance Theory (RT) (for summary see

Section 2.3.) underlines the significance of context which determines the accessibility of

interpretations. The relevance of meanings is graded in accordance with their accessibility, i.e.

they should lead to the emergence of many cognitive effects at lowest mental effort. To

recapitulate, Giora believes that a salient (coded, stored) meaning is always derived first,

whereas Sperber and Wilson state that the hearer accepts the first interpretation which satisfies

the balance of cognitive effects and effort. Hence, the notion of salience is indifferent to

relevance (Giora 1998).


- 80 -


It is suggested that the Graded Salience Hypothesis can be applied to humorous texts dependent

upon covert ambiguity to enable the switch from the unmarked/ salient to marked/ less salient

interpretations. Besides the bedrock for Giora’s theory (1991, 1998, 2003), she makes certain

claims which, in my opinion, are relevant to the study of sitcom discourse. Moreover, it would

be interesting to demonstrate how the salience hypothesis differs from the relevance-theoretic

approach since the two approaches employ the notions of salience and relevance, which in lay

users’ terms are very similar. Below an example of on-stage humour (Canestrari 2010) from

Modern Family is provided with a view to employing Giora’s Relevance and Marked

Informativeness Requirements.

(10) Context: Manny (Jay’s stepson) has just found out that Luke (Jay’s grandson) intends to run for the

school president. Manny and Jay are in the kitchen.

Manny: Hey, Jay, do you need to julienne any vegetables?

Jay: What?

Manny: If so, you can use the knife your grandson jammed in my back.

Jay: Well, that was worth the journey. (S08E03)

A humorous narrative strategy employs the question-answer riddle (Chiaro 1992) in which

Manny asks a seemingly stupid question, Jay looks confused and then Manny offers an

unpredictable answer. More specifically, on the basis of Manny’s trivial question, the first

salient, unmarked interpretation (that is closely related to the encoded meaning of words) is that

Manny makes an assumption that Jay, who is in the kitchen, wants to prepare something to eat

with the use of a julienne knife. Giora (1991, 2003) claims that the context does not precondition

the derivation of any interpretation, which is different from an RT view (Sperber and Wilson

[1986] 1995)29. It is hard to envisage that a different physical context, for instance in which Jay

is in the office or at the supermarket, would lead to another interpretational possibility, which is

an argument in favour of RT’s dynamic view of context construction. Either way, this is the only

interpretation that the recipient may derive, which is strengthened by the context. A punchline-

like line is Manny’s reply that Jay can julienne vegetables with the proverbial knife that Luke

plunged into his back – this is a marked interpretation. As a result of the analysis, it can be

argued that the riddle incorporated into communication conforms to the Marked Informativeness

Requirement (an abrupt shift of interpretations). Jay’s last turn is an indicator of appreciation, in

29 In her book, Giora (2003) speaks of the predictive context which may facilitate and accelerate the recovery of a

markedly informative interpretation, however, in no way does it obstruct the coded meaning.


- 81 -

which the word “journey” implicates that processing of Manny’s reference to the knife that he

has in back took a great deal of Jay’s mental effort. What can also be noticed is that none of the

interpretations is bypassed, discarded or suppressed. The humorous interpretation just needs to be

in force in order to cancel the uninformative meaning, which is preserved by the suppression theory.

In my opinion, the saliency-based model has the theoretical potential to explain humour

built into the carefully weaved web of longer conversations. In the case of sitcoms, humorous

effects are expected and hence no information can be disclosed too early to avoid the danger of

humour falling short. Given that, it is crucial for a salient meaning to be given at the right time.

1.10. Incongruity resolution as a forced reinterpretation model

Originally dubbed the surprise/ sudden disambiguation model, Ritchie’s (1999, 2002, 2004,

2006, 2009) forced reinterpretation (FR) model fits neatly into the main tenets of Suls’ (1972)

IR model and, by extension, it converges with the comprehension heuristic within RT30.

Nevertheless, if we were to compare the two models, their objectives are quite different. The

IR model aims to construe the type of humorous incongruity, whereas the FR model pertains to

the delivery of humour and the comprehender’s process of interpretation (Ritchie 1999).

Ritchie’s view on the resolution of incongruity supports a bi-partite division of the text of a

joke into the set-up and punchline. It is argued that a joke communicates two interpretations on

the set-up stage, with one being more plausible and salient and thus accepted by the audience.

The punchline contradicts the initial choice, generates incongruity and forces the hearer to

reinterpret:

“The set-up has two different interpretations, but one is much more obvious to the audience, who does not

become aware of the other meaning. The meaning of the punchline conflicts with this obvious

interpretation, but is compatible with, and even evokes, the other, hitherto hidden, meaning. The meaning

of the punchline can be integrated with the hidden meaning to form a consistent interpretation which differs

from the first obvious interpretation” (Ritchie 2004: 59)

Ritchie (2002) makes a disclaimer that his FR model is confined to humorous texts which are

dependent upon some sort of ambiguity (e.g. homophony, polysemy). Within this account, there

are four important aspects: the first (more obvious) interpretation of the set-up part, the second

(hidden) interpretation of the set-up, the meaning of the punchline and an interpretation formed

by integrating the meaning of the punchline with the hidden meaning (Ritchie 1999: 79; 2002:

30 Yus (2016) believes that the FR model is pertinent to the cognitive construction of situations (his make-sense

frames).


- 82 -

48; 2004: 61). Additionally, there are six properties germane to humour: obviousness, conflict,

compatibility, comparison/ contrast, inappropriateness, and absurdity, some of which are

necessary for humour to arise. Obviousness describes the situation in which the obvious

interpretation from the set-up is more easily noticeable than the hidden one, which is formulated

at the punchline delivery. The feature of compatibility, best understood as discourse coherence,

characterises the meaning of the second part of the text as consistent with the covert meaning.

The three remaining relationships of conflict, comparison/ contrast and inappropriateness

are subsumed under the heading of ‘incongruity’ in humour literature. Ritchie (2002) highlights

the fact that the notion of conflict should not be understood as logical inconsistence or semantic

clash. It is rather the trait of the punchline that conflicts with the easily accessible (first)

interpretation, which in turn signals the demand for reinterpretation. There are two

manifestations of conflict: it contrasts the punchline with either the obvious or predicted

meaning of the set-up. Moreover, the obvious and hidden interpretations need to bear a

contrastive relationship or clash. Also, related to the punchline is the idea of inappropriateness,

which shows that the hitherto hidden meaning is inherently odd, abnormal, eccentric, or

generally flouts socially acceptable norms, which would lead to taboo or absurdity.

Comparing the notions proposed within the FR theory with those rooted in the SSTH

(Section 1.7.1.) and Giora’s model of graded salience, it appears that Raskin’s script opposition

corresponds to Ritchie’s comparison and inappropriateness relationships. Moreover, Giora’s

(1991) notion of markedness deals with the conflict, obviousness, and possibly comparison

properties. The question can be posed about the usefulness of Ritchie’s parameters, i.e. whether

they can truly describe humour more accurately or they introduce unnecessary complexity.


Ritchie’s Forced Reinterpretation Model provides another descriptive framework for the

creation of incongruity, its position in a humorous text and its resolution. The footing for the

model is the presence of two interpretations at the set-up stage, with only one discernible

initially and the other apparent at the punchline level. Not every joke follows this pattern, in

particular puns or one-liners, which force the hearer to access two interpretations

simultaneously, not to mention longer conversations in which, as already noted, there is more

than one humorous line serving the function of a punchline. It is, however, not to imply that the

FR workings have no theoretical capability whatsoever, for instance in conversation (11).


- 83 -

(11) Context: Cameron and Mitchell decided to help one of the footballers, Dwight, in Cameron’s team to

stay at their home as his family is transferred to another corner in the world. Now Mitchell is watching

the game in the stand.

The woman: I just want to say…I love what you’re doing.

Mitchell: Well, thank you. I...I wear this sweater with these trousers a lot. When you’re high-

waisted, it is very difficult finding pieces that work together, so

The man: Yeah, you look really nice, but what she means is it’s great that you’re letting Dwight

live with you. (S08E02)

As opposed to Suls (1972), Ritchie (2004: 94) does generate the discussion on how the

punchline is recognised: “it does not make sense (CONFLICTS) with the current (most

OBVIOUS) interpretation of the preceding text”. In other words, it must lead to discourse

incoherence – the line that discontinues the expected flow. In the analysis of extract (11),

attention is confined to the misunderstanding emerging on the fictional layer, which is the

source of amusement on the viewer’s layer. The set-up part, i.e. the woman’s remark, contains

the word WHAT which has two referents: the things that Mitchell wears vs the things that

Cameron and Mitchell do for Dwight. The subsequent part of the conversation, with Mitchell’s

turn treated as the punchline, reveals that Mitchell derives the former interpretation, whereas

the couple aims at the latter meaning. Clearly, there is a conflict between the viewer’s predicted

meaning (the couple praising Mitchell) and the one derived by Mitchell, which is crucial to the

FR model.

In extract (12), the FR’s methodology does not suffice to aptly describe the occurrence of

humour in which the initial part of the conversation should invite the recovery of two meanings:

(12) Context: Haley, who is the dumb one in the Dunphy family, comes with her boyfriend Arvin, an

astrophysics professor, to dinner. Her very intelligent sister Alex with her dumb boyfriend are also

present.

Haley: Mom, Dad, this is Arvin.

Claire: Hello, Arvin. It’s a pleasure to meet you.

Phil: Yes, you are the first TED Talkin’ science superstar we’ve ever had in our house.

Claire: Mm-hmm.

Arvin: Well, as long as I’m a “superstar” and not a supernova.

[Phil and Claire are laughing heartedly]

Alex: You don’t even know what you’re laughing at.

Claire: I get it.

Phil: I got it more.

A firefighter: I don’t get it, but, uh, you sound like Austin Powers, man. (S09E17)


- 84 -

The conversation does not resemble a joke pattern since we cannot find the setting

communicating two divergent meanings. The punchline – the line passing on humorous effects

on the recipient’s and fictional layer – is the one delivered by Arvin who speaks of “superstar”

and “supernova”, the common denominator of which is the word “super”. That is, he prefers to

be a “superstar” but not a supernova (a star that explodes). In other words, the recipient first

derives the meaning of the star as a well-known person, which needs to be reinterpreted along

polysemous networks (“superstar” is a hyperonym of “supernova”), in order to reach the

interpretation of the star as the one in the sky (supernova). Nevertheless, the humour in this

conversation hinges upon wordplay and hence it is difficult to state which interpretation is

reached initially since the construction of context is dynamic. Furthermore, the turns that

precede Arvin’s line do not constitute the initial part in Ritchie’s (2004) sense, which would

reverse the meaning gleaned by Phil, Claire and the third party, bringing about the hitherto

hidden interpretation.

1.11. Incongruity resolution as the MGI/SCI schema

The incongruity-resolution model has been successfully grafted on the theory of relevance

because both theories focus on cognitive processes during the hearer’s retrieval of the intended

meaning. Yus (2003, 2004, 2008) offers à la-Suls’ (1972, 1983) IR model, claiming that an

individual is guided by the principle of relevance in order to derive the speaker’s interpretation.

Moreover, Yus endorses a two-part structure of a joke: the multiple- graded interpretation part

of a joke (MGI) and the single covert interpretation part of a joke (SCI) 31.

A relevance-theoretic process of incongruity resolution is as follows: when the hearer is

presented with the initial part of the text (the MGI part), s/he needs to formulate the first highly

accessible interpretation which satisfies the balance between mental effort and cognitive effects

(see Section 2.3.1.). At this point, the speaker has managed to fool his/ her interlocutor into

accepting the highly accessible interpretation and is convinced that other meanings would not

be available. On the delivery of the punchline (the SCI part), the communicator creates a

cognitive dissonance (incongruity) with a different set of assumptions not matching the initial

meaning. In other words, the speaker humorously foregrounds the second less accessible but

31 The multiple-graded interpretations part of a joke (MGI for short) is a term first used by Yus (2003: 1309) to

denote this part of a joke from which the hearer is likely to derive the first accessible interpretation which is likely

but eventually incorrect. The single covert interpretation part of a joke is a term used by Yus (2003: 1309) to

describe this part of a joke from which the addressee is likely to derive unlikely but finally the correct

interpretation.


- 85 -

finally relevant interpretation. So as to derive the intended meaning, a surprised hearer should

follow the path of least effort to achieve a large number of effects in order to reconcile the two

parts of the joke. In this line of argument, the humorous effect is achieved because incongruity

was solved by finding the coherent interpretation (Yus 2003). The MGI/SCI schema indicates

that interpretations are graded in accordance with their accessibility with the MGI part of a joke

communicating possibly a range of (weakly communicated) meanings (Jodłowiec 1991a,

1991b).

Coupled with the MGI/ SCI parts of a joke, there are two types of intentions: covert and

overt. The former intention is focused on communicating an irrelevant but finally correct

interpretation, while the latter concerns conveying a highly accessible interpretation which

would be later invalidated and replaced with the meaning formulated on the basis of following

chunks of discourse. The transition from the overt interpretation to the covert one enables the

extraction of humorous effects. Consider joke (13) illustrating the MGI/SCI schema:

(13) [MGI] When his wife died, old Sam Kleinbell, the distinguished jurist, decided to retire and join

his friends, Mike and Kathy O’Connor, in Key Biscayne. Taking Kleinbell under their wing, the

O’Connors were pleased with his rapid adjustment to life in the sun. Years went by. One day

Kleinbell announced to his old friends that he was going to marry a twenty-one-year-old waitress.

“Sam, you’ve only known her for a few weeks.” cautioned Mike, “and consider the risks. You’re

almost eighty-five. At this point sex could be fatal!” [MGI]. [SCI] Kleinbell shrugged

philosophically “If she dies, she dies” [SCI]. (Streiker 1998:108)

Overt interpretation in the MGI: Mike warns old Kleinbell not to marry a twenty-one-year old waitress

as he is almost eighty-five and having sex can be fatal to him

Covert unlikely interpretation fitting the MGI/SCI: Old Kleinball is convinced that his friend Mike is

talking about the possibility of fatal sex to his new wife but not to him

What is crucial for the present discussion is the combination of the three requirements needed

for humour (Yus 2003: 1313-1316): the resolution of incongruous on-going interpretations, the

realisation of having been fooled by the communicator, and a positive interaction of the joke

with the addressee’s cognitive environment. The first requirement refers to the hearer’s innate

capacity to minimise any incongruity in the world, which is afforded by the Cognitive Principle

of Relevance. The second condition characterises the interlocutor’s eagerness to spend more

mental effort in exchange for cognitive humorous effects as soon as s/he has been fooled into

selecting the first interpretation, which at first seems to be irrelevant, blatantly untrue or senseless.

The last prerequisite deals with the hearer’s appreciation of the content of the joke, which would

make him/ her ready to process it. There are many positive/ negative constraints which may hinder

the successful humorous outcome: suitability of the hearer’s background knowledge and beliefs,


- 86 -

interlocutor’s gender, sense of humour, relationship between interlocutors, group size, hearer’s

mood, and speaker’s traits and performance (Yus 2016: 54-59).


As any theory of incongruity resolution, the MGI/ SCI interface was originally devised with

short discourse units (a.k.a. jokes) in mind. This comprehension pattern is particularly visible

in jokes in which an explicit interpretation is questioned by the humorist and the hearer/ reader

discovers another foregrounded (less salient at first) reading in the punchline (Yus 2008).

Moreover, this schema is more limited in the scope than Suls’ (1972) and Ritchie’s patterns

(2004) since in theory, these account for humorous effects in “not only jokes in which

incongruity arises from a multiplicity of interpretations of the initial part of the joke, but also

jokes in which the incongruity is not based upon this multiplicity” (Yus 2008: 144).

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise that his view on the resolution of incongruity is

salient to sitcom discourse. That is to say, even though it is argued that Yus’s schema accounts

for ambiguity-based humorous turns, Yus (2004) showed that the MGI/ SCI interface can prove

to be applicable to stand-up routines which incorporate jokes. In my opinion, incongruity is not

only apparent in the exploitation of relevance-theoretic enrichment processes but it also occurs,

for instance, when an individual’s mental storage of representations clashes with public

representations produced by the production crew (see Section 2.4.1.). Let us analyse extract

(14) presented earlier (Section 1.5.) to see the difference, if any, between Yus’ and Suls’

conceptualisations. For the sake of convenience, I will repeat the dialogue below.


Manny fix the fan in Manny’s room. In order to kill two birds with one stone, Jay finds a compromise

solution – hiring a Colombian handyman.

Gloria: [MGI→Nooo. You’re supposed to do it with him. It’s important that we teach him how to do

things for himself. In my culture, men take great pride in doing physical labour. MGI] Jay: [SCI→ I know. That’s why I hire people from your culture SCI] Gloria: You’re too funny. I’m gonna share that one with my next husband when we’re spending all


In the extract, I have marked the division of the fictional dialogue into the multiple-graded

interpretations part of a text and the single-covert interpretation part. As may be noticed in the

analysis of the dialogue (14), humour may but does not have to involve inferential steps leading

to the recovery of explicit content, such as reducing or resolving ambiguity, working out

referential ambivalences or filling in illocutionary indeterminacies. The manipulation of

inferential steps leading to the recovery of implicature is also recognised in Yus’ (2003, 2008,


- 87 -

2016) model of the MGI/ SCI pattern. In relevance-theoretic terms, the MGI part of the dialogue

(14) communicates the first highly salient interpretation that true men are those who are hard-

working and more importantly, those who are manual workers (including Colombian people

and possibly Jay if he would agree to help Manny). The reading based on Gloria’s words forms

the implicated premise for further process of understanding. The SCI part conveys the

implicated conclusion that true men have a lot of money and are able to pay for hard work of

others. As pointed out earlier, Gloria’s last turn would remain largely unexplained by the IR

models or can be treated as the punchline for the next step of comprehension.

1.12. Incongruity resolution as a garden-path, red-light

and crossroad mechanism

Dynel (2012b) claims that a relevance-theoretic framework is insufficient to explain some of

the ways in which humorous effects are created. Consequently, she proposes a three-fold IR

categorisation of jokes, paying attention to the incremental/ linear/ on-line processing with the

differences between incongruity emergence and incongruity resolution (Dynel 2009a, 2012a,

2012b). The taxonomy includes the following mechanisms: garden-path, red-light and

crossroad. It is claimed that some jokes may operate upon the two mechanisms at the same time,

e.g. the garden path mechanism, which contains covert ambiguity at the set-up stage, is coupled

with the crossroads mechanism, which entails incomprehensibility of the initial part of a joke.

The garden-path32 mechanism is similar to other conceptualisations of IR comprehension

process: the set-up brings about covert ambiguity with only one highly accessible interpretation

being accessed effortlessly, while the punchline renders any earlier inferences gratuitous and

prompts the hearer to backtrack. The task of the punchline is to elicit a hidden meaning, reveal

ambiguity and cancel the first interpretation. Also, it is the final part of a joke, which forces the

process of reinterpretation of the initial part. Dynel (2012a) contends that covert ambiguity may

be of two types: semantic and pragmatic. Semantic (often lexical) ambiguity is exemplified by

homonymy, polysemy or homophony. The setting is pragmatically ambiguous when the first

salient meaning results from Grice’s (1975, 1978) generalised conversational implicature or

Levinson’s (2000) presumptive meaning.

(15) Women are like Angels…always up in the air and harping about something. (Dynel 2012a: 11)

32 The notion ‘garden path’ appears in the writings of many: Hockett (1972 [1977]), Yamaguchi (1988), Attardo

and Raskin (1991), Attardo, Hempelmann and Di Maio (2002).


- 88 -

The funniness of one-line joke (15) resides in the simile of ‘women’ and ‘angels’, implying that

females possess some characteristic features of angles: they are fragile and benevolent. The

salient interpretation from the initial part is cancelled by the punchline which forces the switch.

The hearer needs to reprocess the two covertly ambiguous features, which are fostered in the

second part of the one-liner: women can fly and play the harp or women are omnipresent and are

babbling on about. This is what is observed by Dolitsky (1992: 35): “The humorous effect comes

upon the listener’s realization and acceptance of the fact that s/he has been led down the garden

path. (…) In humor, listeners are lured into accepting presuppositions that are later disclosed as

unfounded.”

The crossroads mechanism is conditioned by the element of incomprehensibility in the

set-up part, which makes the hearer unable to make any inferences, to decide which

comprehension path to take or to detect any default alternatives. The setting contains central

incongruity which can be resolved just only in the punchline, which may introduce another

incongruity resolving the one present in the set-up. It is important to note that the punchline

does not need to be consistent with the setting.

(16) Some people’s brains are like the prison system…not enough cells per person. (Dynel 2012a: 14)

The crossroads mechanism is quite frequent in one-liners and riddles, however it may also

operate in longer jokes. In the one-line joke above (16), the hearer is presented with the setting

which contains a metaphorical comparison of human brains and the prison system. S/he may

have problems to fully interpret this chunk, i.e. to find relation between the two phenomena.

The second part of a joke provides the hearer with necessary information to resolve incongruity

emergent in the first part. Particularly, the individual needs to access the interpretation of cell

understood as “the smallest part of a living thing” or “a small room in a prison or police station

where prisoners are kept”.

The red-light mechanism capitalises on the hearer’s encounter of a surprising red-light

punchline which directs the comprehension process to a place which has not been foreseen.

There is no ambiguity in the setting and the surprising element is induced by the punchline. The

second part of a joke introduces incongruity which is seen as such in comparison to the setting

and then it is made congruous.

(17) Two attorneys were walking out of a pub and a beautiful young lady walks by. One attorney turns to

his associate and comments “Boy, I would like to fuck her!” The other attorney replies “Out of what?”

(Dynel 2012a: 16).


- 89 -

The setting in (17) provides the hearer with the casual meeting of two friends at a pub. The

punchline is marked by the second attorney’s turn which seems to be meaningless in

comparison to the first interlocutor’s remark. In particular, the second interactant derived an

unintended taboo meaning of the phrase fuck her, which is highly stereotypical given the

context of two friends meeting in the bar. It may be speculated that joke (17) can be regarded

as “garden-path” given covert ambiguity with the two meanings being communicated (one in

the setting and another in the punchline), however, the first interpretation is not rejected as

being irrelevant. It is rather the acknowledgement that the communicator in the joke has drawn

erroneous inferences, which results in humour in the comprehender.


A valuable asset of Dynel’s classification, which may be crucial to the explanation of comic

effects in sitcoms, is a difference in the roles assigned to the development of incongruity and

its resolution. The differentiation between the garden-path mechanism and the other two

mechanisms seems to be particularly promising as the previously discussed models provided

suitable tools for accounting for ambiguity-based humour, whereas the potential of the

crossroad mechanism was not recognised (when humour results from misunderstanding).

The garden-path mechanism is the one in which ambiguity occurs at the initial stage, the

preliminary inferencing of which is invalidated by the punchline. Conversational unit (18) can

be compared to a three-part joke, which is composed of three parallel actions with the last one

(punchline) bringing about humour (Attardo 1994), such as jokes about an Englishman,

a Scotsman and an Irishman. Parallelism in extract (18) is exemplified with the three

prohibitions the fathers want to impose upon Lily but after any prohibition, they find a reason

to lift it. The first salient meaning is that Cameron and Mitchell reject any idea to punish Lily

because of their plans but they are still eager to punish her. Their turn raise certain expectations

in the viewer that they would finally agree on how to ground Lily. The second meaning

communicated by Cam’s and Mitch’s turns is that Lily would not be punished because of their

too busy entertainment schedule. In excerpt (19), the default interpretation is that Manny implies

that he had sex with his girlfriend as there were two sweet brown things his girlfriend had the

chance to devour (there is an implicit reference to Manny’s darker complexion), one of which

was a chocolate-soufflé bake-off. The second interpretation invalidates this inference since she

tasted the cookies baked by Manny.


- 90 -

(18) Context: It’s the April Fool’s Day. Lily, Mitchell and Cameron are in shopping centre when Lily decides

to play a trick on Cameron and puts a bra, which has a security tag, into his bag, which activates an anti-

shoplifting gate. When they get out of the shop, Mitchell scolds Lily for doing this.

Mitchell: A fight at school, and now a shoplifting prank? If you wanted to rebel, why don’t you just

put a pink streak in your hair?

Lily: I told you, I don’t want one.

Mitchell: But you would look so cute.

Cameron: Okay, well, whatever this phase is, I’m not a fan.

Mitchell: I blame us. We’ve been far too permissive.

Cameron: Agreed. You are grounded for one month, Missy!

Mitchell: [hushed voice] We got the Cirque du Soleil tickets.

Cameron: Except for Cirque du Soleil!

Mitchell: [hushed voice] And the Disneyland trip.

Cameron: And for Disneyland! But you are not going to Christina’s slumber party tonight no matter

how much…

Mitchell: [hushed voice] We have reservations at Cactus.

Cameron: Okay, Christina’s slumber party is the last one for a while. (S09E18)

(19) Context: Jay gives lecture to Manny about women. In particular, he underlines the fact that women like

when a man outwits any opponent.

Manny: My girlfriend Karen was pretty frisky the other night after her ex showed up, and I bested

him in a chocolate-soufflé bake-off. I don’t need to tell you my soufflé wasn’t the only sweet

brown dish she devoured that night.

Jay: Because?

Manny: I also made molasses cookies.

Jay: I’ve learned to ask the second question. (S09E18)

As regards the cross-road mechanism, Dynel (2012a) argues that it is quite transparent in

short humorous forms, like riddles or one-line jokes. Given this, it is more challenging to detect

a puzzling or incomprehensible element in a longer conversation, which is deemed incongruous

by the punchline. It needs to be borne in mind that when we extrapolate joke-driven workings

onto the study of conversational data, certain revisions or adjustments are required. In excerpt

(20), the “make-believe” incomprehensibility arises on the part of Jay (fictional character) who

makes a pretence of mishearing what Manny has just said, i.e. he has developed IBS (Irritable

Bowel Syndrome; a condition of the digestive system developed in the course of long-term stress,

etc.) when his mother threw out a collection of magazines aimed at theatregoers. In particular,

Jay replaces IBS with a less serious illness, the flu, and the magazine Playbills is changed into

Playboy. Unlike many teenagers at his age, Manny is a sensitive boy uninterested in looking at

half-naked women. This incomprehensibility constitutes the central incongruity, which does not

disturb the coherence of the conversation but poses a puzzle for the viewer and possibly Manny.


- 91 -

The humour in the conversation in (20) is contingent upon the recovery of implicature on the

basis of Manny’s getting IBS because of Gloria’s throwing his Playbills and Jay’s wish that it

was the flu caused by throwing out Playboys that Jay believes that Manny is too sensitive and he

wishes that Manny is interested in things associated with men. The humour in the conversation

in (21) is based on Mitchell’s and Lily’s beliefs that they are reading the notes that were intended

for them (the viewer is aware that they labour under a misapprehension).

(20) Context: Manny and Jay complain together about Gloria’s irritating behaviour, in particular that her

personal “pride” does not allow her to acknowledge that she might make a mistake.

Manny: She never admits when she’s wrong.

Jay: Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the crazy one.

Manny: Yeah, she’ll do that to you. I got IBS when she refused to admit that she threw out my

collection of Playbills.

Jay: I’m gonna pretend you said “the flu” and Playboys and move on. (S09E03)

(21) Context: Cameron and Lily have started unpacking gifts from Cameron’s grandmother who recently

passed away.

Lily: “Enjoy all my old lipstick, you big sissy.” Why did she call me a sissy?

Cameron: I … She doesn’t

[Mitchell enters]

Mitchell: Oh! We’re opening Grams’ gifts, huh?

(…)

Mitchell: “When Cam first brought you here, I thought I’d never get used to you. I was raised to

hate your kind. But seeing how happy you make my grandson, I couldn’t help but come

to care for you.” (…) “Who else but you should inherit my beloved Oriental fan? I hope

it don’t make you homesick.” [takes the fan out of the box] (S08E01)

Extract (21) is more transparent with respect to an obscure element arising in the setting. Lily

encounters “cognitive obstacle” when she is called “a sissy”, which makes her unable to draw

reasonable inference from the assumptions she stores in mind. When Mitchell reads his note

about being given an Oriental fan, Lily may resolve incongruity given her Vietnamese ancestry.

The red-light mechanism is the easiest to detect in my corpus since the production crew

would like to surprise the viewers by deflecting the comprehension process to the path that the

recipient has not been able to predict at the beginning (Dynel 2012a). This technique is not

confined to short humorous texts but it may be teased out in scripted conversations.

(22) Context: It’s the Halloween Day so children and those who feel young at heart are fully entitled to make

harmless pranks. The children in the neighbourhood wrapped toilet paper around Phil’s trees in the front

yard. Phil decided to pay back and drives to the neighbours’ house.

[Phil is at the gate and taps the entryphone]


- 92 -

Carol: Who is it?

Phil: [low-pitched voice] Special delivery from UPS.

[Phil talks into the camera]

Phil: [normal voice] United Prank Service. I went to the history books for this one, all the way back

to the first practical joke – the Trojan Horse. Only I swapped out silly string for broad swords

and laughter for murder. (S09E05)

The conversation between Carol and Phil on the entryphone leads the viewer into the current

situation in which Phil wants to deliver a package to his neighbour on behalf of UPS. There are

two premises which should fuel the recipient’s suspicion: Phil is not a worker of UPS (United

Parcel Service) and his soft voice implies the intention of deceitful behaviour. The meaning of

the red-light punchline is contingent upon pragmatic ambiguity so that the viewer needs to

assign a new meaning to the acronym UPS, being deciphered as United Prank Service. A similar

instance of a red-light mechanism can be traced down in the following conversation (23)

between Claire and Alex, in which Claire’s turn contains a surprising incongruous punchline

which reverses the viewer’s expectations. The recipient may predict that since Alex provides

her mother with a good piece of advice and is referred to as her “moral compass” (Claire

employs irony to communicate that she does not want to listen to her), Claire would act

accordingly:

(23) Context: Claire boasts about finishing the 10K race. The problem is that she took the shortcut. She

begs Alex for help since Claire was asked by his father to show the picture of her running next to the

Pritchett’s Closets.

Alex: There’s not gonna be any footage of you running past Pritchett’s Closets because you cut two

miles out of a six-mile race. Better tell Grandpa you didn’t win.

Claire: Oh, you are my moral compass. Which is why I don’t want to talk to you for the rest of the

day. (S09E07)

1.13. Criticism of incongruity and incongruity theories

As already mentioned above, the concept of incongruity may not be sufficient to explain

humour since it needs to be coupled with other phenomena like surprise, novelty and a playful

frame of mind. Rothbart (1977: 91) rightly observes that “precise definitions of both incongruity

and resolution will be necessary in order for progress to occur”. It seems that the original

versions of IR models, proposed by Suls (1983) or Shultz (1976), and their more recent

developments lack a unifying formal conceptualisation of what accounts for these two pivotal

notions (Latta 1999). A comparison of several IR theories reveals that many incongruity-based

frameworks have little in common. Specifically, they vary with respect to the scope of the


- 93 -

theory, sequentiality of events, location and routes of incongruity, extent and facets of

resolution (Ritchie 2009). Gibbs (1989: 249) disputes the claim that there needs to be a passage

from the first to the second meaning in order to resolve the incongruous part: “it is the shifting

of speaker’s intentions through which a joke gets to its humor, not in the shift from a “literal”

to “secondary” meaning in the text”.

Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi (1990) expresses criticism against the concept of incongruity and

its role in the production of humour in jokes. First, she claims that what people consider as

incongruous is their subjective assessment. The communicator who deploys an incongruous

humorous material cannot be sure whether it has been found incongruous also by the hearer.

Second, many jokes are structured in such a way that some parts are incongruous, while some

are not. This is why incongruity alone cannot account for the chunks that do not contain any

discrepancy or inappropriateness in their model of reference. Also, there are alliterative jokes,

which are not based upon ambiguity, and these create humorous effects in the course of

heightened congruity.

Latta (1999) carries out a thorough appraisal of incongruity theories, stating that some, if

not all, models are in fact not incongruity-based because they assign a slight theoretical role to

the perception of incongruity in the humour process. It is rather a cognitive shift which is a

carrier for humorous meanings. He contends that some jokes are truly contingent upon

incongruity, but it is a fraction of humorous texts. Second, IR models presuppose that the hearer

needs to be in the right (humorous) mood to be entertained, which is incompatible with the view

of incongruity as a structural concept – not the one which is tied to one’s emotional state. Third,

incongruity theorists do not explain how the perception of incongruity invokes laughter and

how the hearer can find incongruity laughable. A similar objection is lodged by Veale (2004:

425), for whom it is not incongruity but social collaboration between the speaker and hearer,

which is vital for humour: “What is needed is not a logical mechanism as such, or a logic of

oppositions, but a social logic that allows a theory to ground the interpretation in the specific

concerns and prejudices of the listener as a social agent”.

Instead of underestimating the importance of incongruity, Cundall (2007) calls for the

extension of the concept of incongruity with the joke-transaction, based upon Cohen’s studies

(1999, in Cundall 2007). It is believed that the entertainment of humour is a social matter since

the perception of incongruity and affective shift consequent upon it is not enough for the

emergence of humour. Cundall (2007) bases his argument on the social aspect of laughter which

cues others to find the intention humorous. The presence of jokes in conversation is treated as

an invitation for other conversationalists to share the same perspective or take on a situation.


- 94 -

In joining the humorous play, the interactants bolster their intimacy, solidarity and a sense of

community and belonging. This communal activity indicates that people have in common some

cognitive and affective similarities in order to enjoy a light-hearted environment.

1.14. Conclusions

This chapter aimed to achieve two principal objectives. The first part attempted to present

possible definitions of humour and its related terms, such as conversational humour or verbally

expressed humour, as well as to categorise humorous manifestations with respect to three

groups: narrative forms, linguistic aggression/ impoliteness and formal structures. These types

may equally appear in the form of collections of humour texts or may be incorporated into

naturally produced or scripted communication (Dynel 2009b). The second part offered a

summary of three families of humour theories (superiority, relief, incongruity), with special

attention to incongruity-resolution models, which is motivated by the fact that they are in accord

with a relevance-theoretic view. Attardo (2001a) asserts that even though IR theories have

generally been illustrated with jokes, they are relevant to conversational jokes occurring in

different contexts, be it stand-up routines, joke-telling contests and conversations. The reason

why there was such a detailed presentation of different views on the perception of incongruity

and resolution was to assess their viability to the research into situation comedies. In view of

the fact that these workings provide diversified descriptions of incongruity and other concurrent

factors, it is profitable to have a broader account of humour production and/ or comprehension.

The author is aware that there are other existing humour theories, however, for the sake of

space, some constraints needed to be put.

As regards humour in sitcoms, superiority theories would explain fictional characters’

and/ or TV recipients’ feeling of dominance over the target of a joke, while relief theories centre

on, for example, sexual or racist humour. In other words, superiority-based approaches

concentrate on the relationship between the viewer and the production crew, whereas relief/

release theories are one-sided since they study the hearer’s response. As this chapter testifies,

incongruity theories carry a universal explanatory power to deal with humour mechanisms,

amusement and humorousness in sitcoms. In incongruity theories, humour is explained in terms

of a relation between two incompatible stimuli or divergent expectations, which is also a key

to sitcoms. For viewers to be entertained, they need to be taken by surprise. Sitcom is edited in

a certain way to draw recipients’ attention to the ‘reveal’ to make them simultaneously spot

linguistic incongruity which can be aided with visual one. Mills (2009: 86) recalls the episode


- 95 -

The Trial from One Foot in the Grave (1990-2000; BBC1), in which the actor asks the

employees at the gardening centre to ship and leave the yucca plant “in the downstairs toilet”,

which introduces linguistic ambiguity in the word toilet that gives rise to two possible

meanings: “room containing a toilet’ and “a large bowl in a toilet”. The viewer would probably

understand the word toilet as a room since people do not usually plant a tree in a toilet bowl.

To facilitate the humorous interpretation, the recipient is shown a plant in the bowl. The element

of incongruity coincides with surprise, which in turn is connected to timing33 – the right moment

two incongruities become apparent (Mills 2009).

Incongruity theories demonstrate that comedies are related to social norms since the

audience needs to possess basic knowledge concerning socially acceptable patterns of conduct

in order to laugh at their diversions and deviances. For this reason, sitcom may be viewed as

offensive since it pictures an unconventional or abnormal course of action. For the audience

flocking in front of TV, an artificially constructed world in sitcoms is amusing because it serves

as a form of escape from mundane everyday life (Mills 2009).

Sitcoms do not differ from other forms of humour in which incongruity is amusing when

it hinges upon surprise resulting from our expectations being undermined, i.e. humorousness

revolves around setting up linguistic and narrative expectations and then confounding them.

For instance, a viewer is presented a scene which is not connected to the ongoing narrative –

the procedure which is regularly employed in Family Guy. This is what falls under Kant’s and

Schopenhauer’s versions of incongruity that should make our expectations fall short.

Not all incongruities are humorous, for example discovering a cobra in a fridge can hardly

produce laughter (Morreall 1983). Incongruity in mass mediated communication has a potential

to amuse when it is surprising and, more importantly, when a viewer is cued, via laugh track,

editing style, sound effects, cuts or stings of music, to interpret a piece of discourse in a

predetermined way. While horror films or thrillers promote the interpretation of incongruity as

frightening, sitcoms encourage to be understood as a piece of entertainment (Mills 2009).

An example which illustrates that a humorous dialogue can be studied within the IR is

the type of humour which I dub inclusive-exclusive dialogue monologue34 (Wieczorek 2017).

It can be defined as an instance that is humorous to the viewer, in which fictional characters are

33 Norrick (2001: 256) states that the notion of timing is not stable since “[t]he overall tempo of the performance,

the ebb and flow of given and new information highlighted by repetition and formulaic phrasing along with

rhythms of hesitation and more fluent passages all co-determine timing”. 34 The exclusive-inclusive dichotomy is dependent upon the viewer’s recognition of humorous intention which is

connected to the two communicative layers in fictional communication. Inclusive humour is the one which arises

on the two levels, while exclusive humour solely emerges on the fictional characters’ level (Wieczorek 2017).


- 96 -

excluded from amusement due to the fact that they have a different dialogue with each other

and another dialogue with the viewer. This type of humour is quite common in my data since

there are many “interviews” that fictional characters hold with the recipients in order to confess

something crucial:

(24) Context: Cameron and Mitchell discuss taking care of Lily, i.e. who is going to stay at home with

her. When they are talking to each other, Mitchell pretends to like staying at home, while Cameron

makes Mitchell believe that he likes working. Their true feelings are revealed in monologues.

Cameron: So, you gonna... you gonna call him?

Mitchell: I don’t know. I mean, you know, I sort of promised myself and you that I’d take a little

time off, and...

Cameron: And you are loving your time off.

Mitchell: Totally.

[Mitchell speaks alone in front of the camera]

Mitchell: I am losing my mind. As much as I love Lily, which is, you know, more than life itself...

I am... whoo... not cut out to be a stay-at-home dad. No, but it’s Cameron’s turn. It’s

Cameron’s turn to be out in the world interacting with other grown-ups while I get to

stay at home and-and plot the death of Dora the Explorer. (…)

[A traditional dialogue between Cameron and Mitchell continues]

Mitchell: So, I don’t know. Should I... Should I call him?

Cameron: I don’t know. Maybe just to get your dad off your back.

Mitchell: Yeah. Yeah.

Cameron: I mean, because the last thing I want for you is to take a job right now. Mmm. I am

loving our life.

[Cameron speaks alone in front of the camera]

Cameron: I am in a really dark space. Being away from my Lily is literally torture.

[weeping] And I can’t pressure Mitchell, but I really, really, really just want him

to get a job so I can go back to being a stay-at-home dad/trophy wife! (S01E20)

The incorporation of two types communication in which a monologue is interwoven into a

dialogue shows that incongruity is perceived and resolved only on the recipients’ layer. In other

words, what is communicated in dialogues, i.e. an explicit division of parental duties which are

assigned to Cameron because Mitchell now becomes responsible for supporting the family

financially, is incompatible with the meaning communicated in monologues.

In addition, when it comes to the application of the IR models into sitcoms, the attempt

was made to show that a great deal of humour intertwined into longer conversations can be

studied in accordance to the predetermined lines (as argued by the authors of the models), i.e.

the setting and the punchline. These are the humorous instances which resemble the structural

design of jokes consisting of two parts. Nonetheless, there are many conversational episodes

which do not follow this pattern and hence they pose a serious problem to the theories. There

was one theory whose application did not cause a methodological problem, which is Attardo


- 97 -

and Raskin’s (1991) GTVH governed by the six KRs and their possible extensions. The

GTVH’s most helpful conceptual tool was the notion of the jabline, enabling to navigate several

humorous turns which appear in a short span of time.

The main focus of the present work is to show not only that relevance-theoretic

mechanisms facilitate the recovery of the humorous interpretation but also that through their

implementation, the viewers assess the content of sitcoms, which may clash with their cognitive

environment, and thus may lead to the extraction of additional information. Given this, there

are a number of functions communicated by dint of humour, which surpass pure enjoyment.

A linguistic analysis of sitcom discourse may also reveal the social impact of serious and/or

humorous meanings upon the viewers. In other words, the recipients may watch sitcoms only

for the sake of entertainment but there are still other reasons why they decide to lounge on the

sofa and watch this particular format. One of the possible reasons is that a sitcom positively

affects and corresponds to one’s individual mental representations (Sperber 1996). Besides

propositional meanings gleaned by the audience, there is a whole gamut of non-propositional

effects, such as emotions that arise in the course of interpretation. As for the IR models, none

of these possesses in their repertoire theoretical or conceptual tools to denote additional effects.

It may partly be explained by the fact that the models were devised with the intention to describe

jokes, which were collected from various sources, be it websites, collections of jokes, which

may be devoid of the social context.

- 98 -

C h a p t e r I I

Humour in Relevance Theory

Alex Dunphy: Dumb guys go for dumb girls and smart guys go for dumb girls.

What do smart girls get?

Phil Dunphy: Cats, mostly.


2.1. Introduction

The present chapter seeks to attain two major objectives. First of all, it thoroughly summarises

the core theoretical assumptions of Relevance Theory in order to place my analysis of the

sitcom humour on the proper footing. Secondly and more importantly, it presents and examines

the relevance-theoretic workings of the study of humour. Special attention is devoted to these

tools that lend credence to the occurrence of humorous effects on the part of sitcom

comprehenders. Granted that the main emphasis of the present work is concentrated on

delineating a myriad of cognitive effects entertained by telecinematic viewers, one of the most

powerful notions to explain this fact is weak communication that forms the basis for the

emergence of cognitive overload (Jodłowiec 1991a, 2008, Piskorska and Jodłowiec 2018).

The chapter is structured around three parts. The first part (Section 2.2.) contains the

introduction to the discussion of Relevance Theory by outlining Grice’s central proposals on

communication. This is motivated by the fact that relevance theoreticians believe that

“[r]elevance theory may be seen as an attempt to work out in detail one of Grice’s central

claims” (Wilson and Sperber 2004: 607). Both RT and Grice reckon that communication is an

inferential enterprise. The Gricean view on communication is followed by the application of

the conversational maxims to the explanation of humorous effects (Section 2.2.1.), which

illuminates that humour violates the conversational maxim(s) or even the Cooperative Principle.

Section 2.2.2. contains the delineation of Raskin’s approach that verifies the theoretical aptness

of Grice’s maxims to the study of humour, postulating the humour maxims and the non-bona-

fide communication. To balance the discussion, there are some critical remarks concerning some

postulates on the application of the maxims to humour in Section 2.2.3. Next, an interesting


- 99 -

approach to Grice’s model offered by Yamaguchi (1988) is summarised, which attests that the

CP is observed in humour.

The second part of the chapter is dedicated to an overview of Relevance Theory with the

intention to describe the assumptions concerning cognition (Section 2.3.1.), communication

(Section 2.3.2.) as well as inference and comprehension (Section 2.3.3.). In general, this part

endeavours to furnish the theoretical information on the interdependence between the

relevance-orientated approach and the analysis of humour.

The third part concerns the relevance workings of humour as well as the tools that are

conducive to humour in the sitcom discourse. First, Yus’ (2013a, 2013b) Intersecting Circles

Model is described in Section 2.4.1., the types of which are exemplified with the extracts from

Modern Family. This classification helps to demonstrate that different pieces of information,

viz. utterance interpretation and cultural as well as make-sense frames, are combined to develop

a comprehensive picture on the analysis of humour. Second, given the fact that humour in

sitcoms is dependent upon various stereotypes, it is shown how a sociological/ cultural

perspective can be extrapolated on the study of language with a special emphasis on the process

of metarepresentation of cultural beliefs, epistemic vigilance, the spread of cultural information

and stereotypical information. In general, this work validates the claim that sitcom humour is

subsumable to Relevance Theory, despite the fact that academic scholarship on this topic is

scant (Section 2.4.3.). Third, various relevance-theoretic concepts are abstracted, which have a

significant bearing on the research into humour. More specifically, Section 2.4.4. sets out to

present the notions of metarepresentation and the mind-reading ability to clarify the

interactant’s recognition of the communicator’s underlying intentions. The next section

elucidates the notions of implicitness, mutual manifestness and cognitive environment, which

are connected to sitcom discourse, as they gloss upon the conversationalist’s formulation and

evaluation of the hypothesis concerning the (un)intended meaning. Then I proceed to detail

Sperber’s (1994) modes of interpretation, which are conditioned upon the development of

human intelligence and more importantly, which can be used to explain one’s recovery of a

humorous interpretation or lack of thereof. The last two sections depict the notions of weak

communication, cognitive overload (Section 2.4.7.) and poetic and non-propositional effects

(2.4.8.), which may prove to be effective to characterise the totality of meanings gleaned by the

audience of sitcom discourse.


- 100 -

2.2. Preliminary remarks: Grice’s CP and maxims35

The present section is devoted to the summary of Grice’s central claims concerning

communication and their relevance to the study of humour. Grice’s and Sperber and Wilson’s

models of communication are inferential, and thus lay emphasis on the importance of intentions,

i.e. their expression by the communicators and attribution by the comprehenders. The questions

will be addressed whether Grice’s framework is suitable for analysing humour and if yes,

whether it requires any revisions.

Grice (1975 [1989]) formulated the principle that governs conversational exchanges,

based on the assumption that human beings are rational. Those expectations are articulated

under the Cooperative Principle and its subservient categories: the Category of Quality,

Quantity, Relation and Manner. Speakers are generally believed to be cooperative rational

communicators in their efforts to make their conversational contributions as successful as

possible in order to be understood (Grice 1975 [1989]: 45). The Category of Quantity states

that communicators are required to be as informative as they can be but not more than what is

necessary for conversation. The Category of Quality assumes that communicators are expected

to be truthful and say something for which they have adequate evidence. The Category of

Relation preserves the relevance of one’s contribution, that is stick to the topic of a

conversation. The Category of Manner states that communicators convey information in an

economic manner, which means that one should avoid obscurity and ambiguity of expressions.

The Cooperative Principle (CP): Make your conversational contribution such as it is required, at the stage

at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged

(Grice 1975 [1989]: 45)

The Category of Quality

Supermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true

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

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

The Category of Quantity

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)

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

The Category of Relation

1. Be relevant.

35 Grice, being an ordinary language philosopher, made an invaluable contribution to the growth of linguistic

pragmatics. This section places emphasis on his seminal lecture “Logic and Conversation”, more specifically the

CP and its categories. The reason why the Gricean postulates are summarised in the present thesis is that both RT

and Grice opt for the inferential account of human communication.


- 101 -

The Category of Manner

Supermaxim: Be perspicuous

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

3. Be brief.

4. Be orderly.

There are several ways in which the maxims are not fulfilled, some of which may result in the

derivation of conversational implicatures by the hearer/ reader, being the focal point of his

theory. First, maxims can be violated, which means that the communicator covertly and

unostentatiously fails to fulfil them and hence in certain situations, s/he will be liable to deceive

other interactants. Second, the speaker may opt out of observing the maxims or CP and s/he

may overtly note that s/he is unwilling to be cooperative, for example by saying I cannot say

more, my lips are sealed. Third, there may also be cases of a maxim clash, frequently between

the first maxim of Quantity and the second maxim of Quality. Fourth, the most interesting case

from the point of view pragmatics is when the maxims are flouted but still the CP is observed,

which means that the communicator deliberately and overtly exploits one or more of the

maxims, in this way activating the process of extracting an implicature.

The proposals on the viability of Grice’s theory can be divided into two main trends: neo-

Gricean pragmatics that draws upon original proposals and post-Gricean pragmatics that is not

built upon Grice in a strict sense but gives rise to a new revised model, such as Relevance

Theory, which will be discussed in detail below.

2.2.1. Application to humour

Grice’s account of communication governed by the Cooperative Principle and maxims has been

applied to the study of verbal humour36 with special attention to jokes (Raskin 1985, Attardo

1990, 1993, 1994: Chapter 9; Raskin and Attardo 1994; Alexander 1997; Mooney 2004; Dynel

2008, 2009a).

Attardo (1990, 1993, 199437, 2017) claims that a vast majority of jokes violate maxims

or even the CP in the first reading as “they fail to conform to their ‘recommendations’” (Attardo

1990: 355). When the hearer processes the text of a joke on the literal level, as any other text

without humorous intent, s/he is covertly deceived by the communicator. The reason why it is

violation, not merely flouting, that creates humour is that there is “no ulterior interpretation of

36 See Goatly (2012: 228-233) for the discussion of various humorous texts, which flout Grice’s categories. 37 It needs to be underlined that Attardo and Raskin were not first researchers who evinced interest in the relation

between jokes and Grice’s lectures (see Attardo 1994: 272 for an overview).


- 102 -

the text that can salvage it from the violation of the maxim” (Attardo 1993: 543). The rationale

for such an argument is that the violation of maxim(s) is associated with the speaker’s deceitful

behaviour to mislead the hearer into believing that normal (non-humorous) information has

been produced and hence a ‘usual’ process of understanding should be followed. The hearer is

oblivious to the fact that the interlocutor has decided not to fulfil a maxim to create a special

humorous effect upon him/ her. Discarding a text because of its ill-formedness is socially

undesirable since the CP presumes cooperativeness, meaningfulness and relevance to the

hearer. Therefore, according to Attardo (1990), jokes are cooperative texts and the

communicator’s subversive acts (maxim non-fulfilment) acquire a social status38.

Van Raemdonck (1986: 62-63, in Attardo 1990: 359-360) argues that whenever jokes

violate the maxims of quality, quantity or manner39, the maxim of relevance is violated as well.

In other words, when the communicator’s contribution is not truthful, exhaustive or organised,

it is not relevant to the hearer. Attardo (1990) posits that both maxims of quantity and relation

can be not abided by in jokes, with the former being crucial to implicit information. Contrary

to these views, the study conducted by Norrick (1993: 36)40 shows that gendered jokes do not

always flout the relevance maxim as their presence in conversations triggers telling another

gender joke, which is topically connected to the previous one. As for shaggy-dog stories, they

violate the maxim of quantity since they offer a surplus of information, while puns violate the

manner maxims given their inherent ambiguity (Attardo 1993). Similarly, Alexander (1997: 69)

argues that jokes chiefly break the maxim of manner since comic effects result from intentional

ambiguity. Norrick (1993: 24) also believes that conversational joking is often employed as a

topic changer, disrupting the natural flow of conversation and thus it breaks the relation maxim.

2.2.2. Non-bona-fide mode of communication

Raskin (1985: 100-104) puts forth the non-bona-fide (NBF) mode of communication in an

attempt to circumvent the paradox about the view of humorous texts as violations, which are

still cooperative. In humorous communication, jokes retain their communicative status since

they impart information through their “presuppositional basis, rather than their illocutionary

38 Attardo (1994: 271-286) defends the view that the non-cooperative nature of jokes can still be considered

cooperative when violation is only mentioned (not performed) (see Section 2.2.4.). 39 Nash (1985: 117-119) coins four notions of runabout, skid, backhander and googly/ spitball, which stand for

the type of text flouting of maxim of quantity, relation, quality and manner (also quantity), accordingly. 40 Oring (2003: 95-96) shows the way in which jokes are relevant to the current conversation.


- 103 -

value, through metamessages and suppressions of the violation” (Attardo 1993: 537). The NBF

communication is governed by a separate set of humour maxims:

Maxim of Quantity: Give exactly as much information as is necessary for the joke.

Maxim of Quality: Say only what is compatible with the world of the joke.

Maxim of Relation: Say only what is relevant to the joke.

Maxim of Manner: Tell the joke efficiently. (Raskin 1985: 103)

It follows from these humour maxims that the hearer does not expect the proposition to be true,

informative or relevant. The bona-fide communication is deliberately and consciously

abandoned when the speaker’s intention to make his/ her audience laugh is recognised. The

reason why interactants engage in the non-bona-fide mode is that humour seems to be socially

acceptable right after abandoning serious conversation (Raskin and Attardo 1994).

The NBF has been proposed in opposition to the bona-fide (information- or fact-

conveyance) mode, which is governed by the Cooperative Principle. In bona-fide

communication, the hearer processes an utterance presuming that the speaker is committed to

the truth and relevance of his/ her contribution:

“Bona-fide communication is governed by the ‘co-operative principle’ introduced by Grice (1975).

According to this principle, the speaker is committed to the truth and relevance of his text, the hearer is

aware of this commitment and perceives the uttered text as true and relevant by virtue of his recognition of

the speaker’s commitment to its truth and relevance.” (Raskin 1985: 100-101)

Trying to show the usefulness of the non-bona-fide mode, Raskin and Attardo (1994) concede

that the bona-fide communication is only applicable to the literal uses of language, excluding

various figures of speech, which, in Grice’s account, arise out of floutings and lead to the

subsequent extraction of implicatures. Moreover, Raskin (1985) believes that the humour mode

is instantly impelled when ordinary discourse does not create effects the speaker intends to

produce, claiming that joking is “a much more socially acceptable form of behavior than, for

instance, lying...” (Raskin 1985: 101).

To sum up Attardo’s and Raskin’s views, they reckon that the position of humour within

the Gricean framework falls outside its scope and they opt for the NBF mode in which the CP

does not apply. Attardo (1990, 1993, 1994) acknowledges the fact that humour violates the

maxim(s), which in Grice’s terms, would be treated as uncooperative behaviour.


- 104 -

2.2.3. Criticism of Attardo’s and Raskin’s stance

The validity of the humour maxims has been accepted at face value and reverberate through

many scientific writings, which have been critically assessed by some scientists (Oring 2003,

Dynel 2008, 2018). What I would like to do here is to demonstrate a few critical comments that

I find compelling, which are in favour of abandoning an additional mode of communication.

Mooney (2004) puts forward the idea that the term ‘violation’ should be replaced with

‘non-fulfilment’, being an umbrella term encompassing the acts of communication in which the

interlocutor does not adhere to the maxims. Dynel (2008, 2009a, 2018), endorsing the neo-

Gricean perspective, goes as far as to claim that the studies designed to merge humorous

discourse into Grice’s theory are doomed to failure since the philosopher employed the term of

violation inconsistently. In her opinion, Attardo’s (1990, 1993) view that jokes should be seen

a case of maxim violation is ill-advised on the grounds that, as explained in the Gricean lectures,

violation is a deliberate breach of one of the maxims, which is concealed from the hearer. In

this way, a humorous verbalisation aims to deceive the audience and hence any jocular text is

equated with covert lies, i.e. the audience cannot draw proper inferences. For Attardo, violation

involves non-fulfilment of one maxim while others are obeyed, thus, it is evident that he uses

‘violation’ and ‘flouting’ synonymously. When a humorist disobeys one of the maxims for

jocular effects, it cannot be perceived in terms of violation (Jodłowiec 1991a, Dynel 2008).

What can also clarify the occurrence of humour through maxim flouting is cooperative

rationality that is central to Grice’s philosophy. A humorous episode cannot be communicated

without the hearer’s awareness of this intention.

Dynel (2009a) holds that not even once in Grice’s lectures do we come across the term ‘bona-

fide’ used in the same sense as Raskin (1985) tries to ascribe, i.e. as being guided by the CP. In fact,

Grice (1989) made the reference to bona-fide as a non-technical notion, which lacks strictly

delineated boundaries. Second, Raskin (1985) shows a close affinity between Grice’s CP-centred

mode and his humour-governed CP (Raskin 1985: 103, also found in Raskin and Attardo 1994):

“Just as bona-fide communications can fail if the speaker does not have full control of maxims [Gricean],

humor fails if the maxims [Raskinian] are not abided by. Similarly, the hearer can fail the speaker in bona-

fide communication even if the speaker does everything right and the hearer of the joke can fail to get it

even if the speaker provides all the necessary ingredients and follows all the maxims.”

For Raskin (1985), it is axiomatic that whenever the bona-fide communication fails to be in

force, the non-bona fide is implemented. Understood in this way, there are only two types of


- 105 -

communication, i.e. information-conveying and humorous, where there is no room for lying,

irony, metaphorical utterances, etc. (Dynel 2008).

Raskin seems to anticipate the criticism of NBF communication and advances a rebuttal

against it: maxims “do not really provide an explicit account of the semantic mechanisms of

humor” (Raskin 1985: 103-104). Moreover, the bona-fide mode should not be extended to

include the non-bona-fide since the same text may require two analyses (Raskin and Attardo

1994). Furthermore, Dynel (2008, 2018; also Oring 2003) criticises the proposal of NBF and

maxim violation, which seem to be unnecessary complication, as jocular texts can be

accommodated within the neo-Gricean scholarship. Despite the fact that humour often draws

upon illogical or absurd relationships, the most important feature of communication is

conversational rationality (Dynel 2008) that also refers to comic texts.

According to Dynel (2018: 78), humour may flout, observe or violate the maxim(s),

which “cuts across the truthfulness-untruthfulness division, being in various relationships with

Grice’s first maxim of Quality”. For instance, humorous irony is premised on overt

untruthfulness, whereas humorous deception is based on covert untruthfulness. In lieu of the

bona and non-bona-fide dichotomy, Dynel (2018) puts forward the autotelic and speaker-

meaning-telic humour dichotomy, where the former term refers to humour uttered for its own

sake, whilst the latter denotes humour that conveys the meaning that conversationalists find

crucial to the ongoing conversation.

2.2.4. Yamaguchi’s Character-Did-It Hypothesis

An alternative proposal that posits keeping the CP has been put forth by Yamaguchi (1988),

who expounds on the claim that jokes are a form of cooperative discourse, which involve the

deceptive violation of Grice’s maxims. This phenomenon is described within the Character-

Did-It Hypothesis, which is dependent upon the two conditions:

i. One of the characters in a joke is free to violate the maxims of conversation in order to produce the

essential ambiguity of the joke

ii. The narrator must avoid violation of the maxims. When for some reason the maxims are to be violated

in the narrator’s own report of the event, either the narrator needs to pass on the responsibility for the

violation to one of the characters, or at least to minimize the narrator’s own responsibility for the

violation in one way or another (Yamaguchi 1988: 327)

It is maintained that the conversational maxims are freely violated by one of the characters in a

joke, and hence s/he shoulders responsibility for producing essential ambiguity in the build-up,

being a prerequisite for garden-path jokes. Even though it is the humorist (narrator) who

actually utters the text and violates the maxims, s/he does not disobey the maxims on the same


- 106 -

level as characters within a story. Thus, there are different roles assigned to characters in the

fictional world, who are entitled to violate the maxims, and the conversationalists in the real

world. The narrator may choose to either delegate responsibility upon the character or to

minimise his/ her own responsibility, which can be done through viewpoint projection, evasion

or backgrounding (Yamaguchi 1988: 330-335). The uncooperative humorous use of language

is salvaged because violation is overtly mentioned. This view is pivoted on Sperber and

Wilson’s (1981, see Wilson and Sperber 1992) mention theory of irony.

Moreover, it is also assumed that the recipient and narrator are engaged in a cooperative

enterprise. As a result of his study, Yamaguchi (1988: 336) speaks of the micro and macro

levels of communication. The micro layer refers to communication occurring in the fictional

world, whereas the macro layer constitutes conversation between the encoder (writer or

speaker) and decoder (reader or hearer). It is the micro layer on which maxim violation is

enacted and the only reason why it happens is the creation of humorous ambiguity.

Yamaguchi (1988) claims that the violation of the maxims of quality, quantity and

relation is conductive to garden-path jokes. The second submaxim of Quantity as well as third

and fourth submaxims of Manner are not usually violated for the sake of humour since these do

not have the potential to induce ambiguity.

Attardo (1993, 1994) critically revisits mention theories dividing them into a strong

version, exemplified by Sperber and Wilson’s (1981) account in which utterances implicitly

mention another, and a weak version, epitomised by Yamaguchi’s (1988) hypothesis in which

utterances explicitly mention another. Attardo refers to the ‘implicit mention’ view (unbeknown

to the hearer) as ‘zero mention’. Sperber and Wilson’s version is ‘stronger’ with respect to the

scope of mentioning, ranging from explicit to implicit, whereas Yamaguchi’s version is

‘weaker’ since it is solely restricted to an explicit mention.

2.3. Relevance Theory

Relevance Theory (henceforth RT) was proposed over three decades ago in the publication entitled

Relevance: Communication and Cognition by Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]). It is still one of

the most powerful pragmatic theories, which has psychological cognitive underpinnings. Wilson

and Sperber (2004) argue that RT is commonly associated with a reconceptualisation of two Grice’s

claims: first, an indispensible feature of both verbal and non-verbal communication is the

production and identification of intentions and second, the very act of conveying utterance directs

the hearer’s cognitive processes towards the recovery of the speaker’s meaning. Since RT maintains

that human communication and cognition are relevance-oriented, its fundamental tenets are to be


- 107 -

divided into those referring to cognition and those concerning communication. These two sets of

assumptions are discussed in the following sections (2.3.1 and 2.3.2.). Moreover, essential

proposals concerning inference and comprehension are summarised in Section 2.3.3. Next, the

employment of RT to the study of humour is discussed in Section 2.4.

2.3.1. Cognition

This subsection summarises the RT view on human cognition. Its focal point is the First (or

Cognitive) Principle of Relevance41, which states that “[h]uman cognition tends to be geared to

the maximization of relevance” (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 260). It follows from the

principle that people have an innate capacity to allocate cognitive resources so as to attend to

information that has the potential of being relevant in some way. The notion of relevance42 is

defined as the property of “external stimuli (e.g. utterances, actions) or internal representations

(e.g. thoughts, memories) which provide input to cognitive processes” (Sperber and Wilson

2002: 14). That is to say, a stimulus is regarded as relevant when the interpreter acquires some

cognitive benefits when processing it (Wilson and Sperber 2002). More specifically, a stimulus

is assessed as relevant when it yields positive cognitive effects, which are worthwhile inputs to

our representation of the world. Hence, attention is allocated to stimuli which are more relevant

than others. There are three types of cognitive effects: strengthening, abandonment or revision

of existing assumptions, and contextual implication, which is derived from the input and the

context (Wilson and Sperber 2004).

Relevance is not only a classificatory but also comparative concept (Sperber and Wilson

1986 [1995]: 152-153). There are two determinants of relevance: cognitive effects deducible

from processing of an input and mental effort expended on obtaining these effects, both of

which are non-representational phenomena of the cognitive system:

Relevance of an input to an individual:

a) Other things being equal, the greater the positive cognitive effects achieved by processing an input, the

greater the relevance of the input to the individual at that time.

b) Other things being equal, the greater the processing effort expended, the lower the relevance of the input

to the individual at that time. (Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]: 153; Wilson and Sperber 2004: 609)

41 In the first edition of Relevance, Sperber and Wilson (1986: 158) offer the principle of relevance, which reads:

“Every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance”. In the Postface

to the book, the main aim of which was to revise some claims, the authors put forth the two principles of relevance,

which replace the single principle. 42 Relevance is a technical term to denote a non-representational property of mental process (Sperber and Wilson

1986 [1995]).


- 108 -

Besides the notion of relevance, Wilson (1999, 2005) offers two complementary notions

of accidental relevance and accidental irrelevance. The former is explained in the following

manner: an “utterance is accidentally relevant when the first interpretation that seems relevant

enough to the hearer is not the intended one” (Wilson 1999: 138). This idea squarely converges

with Sperber’s (1994) interpretative strategy of naïve optimism (Section 2.4.6.). Accidental

irrelevance occurs when the speaker provides the hearer with information that the latter already

stores, a case in point being told, for instance one’s name – unless the hearer suffers from

amnesia, this piece of information does not improve one’s knowledge.

Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]) explain our tendency to maximise relevance, that is

how human beings aim to obtain the massive amount of cognitive outcomes for the least mental

effort, in two steps. First, it is a human automatic biological mechanism to choose the best variant

of a certain phenomenon and at the same time, disregard other unbeneficial variants, i.e. to achieve

a balance between costs and benefits. Second, people are genetically programmed to aim at

maximal cognitive efficiency, which means that their cognitive system articulates and allocates

resources to increase the chance of processing the most relevant information in an optimised way.

2.3.2. Communication

RT is consistent with post-Gricean pragmatics, which revisits the Gricean maxims and offers a

more cognitive orientation. Relevance theoreticians, following in Grice’s footsteps, argue in

favour of the inferential model of communication, hence breaking with the coded view

(Shannon and Weaver 1949 [1964], Saussure 1959 [2011], Jacobson 1960), which explains

utterances in terms of signals that encode the meaning that interlocutors wish to communicate.

The major criticism voiced against the traditional model is that the semantic content of sentence

vastly underdetermines the speaker’s meaning (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]; Carston 1988,

2002; Wilson and Sperber 1993, 2004; Wilson 1999; Sperber and Wilson 2002; Recanati 2004;

Jodłowiec 2015). In order to bridge the gap between a linguistic form/ decoded meaning and a

speaker-intended meaning (including explicit and implicit components), Sperber and Wilson

(1986 [1995]) advance the inferential communicative model, according to which utterances are

understood as coded pieces of evidence about the intended message. Hence, comprehension is

not a simple process of decoding but a process of decoding and inferencing on the basis of the

speaker’s evidence: “the linguistic meaning recovered by decoding is just one of the inputs to an

inferential process which yields an interpretation of the speaker’s meaning” (Wilson and Sperber

2002: 600).


- 109 -

Sperber and Wilson’s model concerns ostensive-inferential communication. i.e. overt and

intentional communication defined as follows: “the communicator produces a stimulus which

makes it mutually manifest to communicator and audience that the communicator intends, by

means of this stimulus, to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions”

(Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 63). In other words, it is the communicator who is involved

in the act of ostension, whereas the recipient is engaged in the process of inference. An ostensive

stimulus is constructed and conveyed to grab the interactant’s attention and focus it on the

speaker’s intention. It has the potential of raising precise and predictable expectations of being

relevant, which is not created by other stimuli.

RT holds that any utterance (ostensive stimulus) is presumed to be relevant, i.e. it is

automatically and spontaneously attended to and processed, whether it actually turns out to be

so or not. In other words, utterances convey a presumption of optimal relevance. This assertion

forms the basis for the Second (or Communicative) Principle of Relevance:

Communicative Principle of Relevance:

Every ostensive stimulus conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance. (Sperber and Wilson 1986

[1995]: 158; Wilson and Sperber 2004: 612)

Presumption of optimal relevance:

(a) The ostensive stimulus is worth the audience’s processing effort.

(b) It is the most relevant one compatible with communicator’s abilities and preferences.” (Sperber and

Wilson 1986 [1995]: 268; Wilson and Sperber 2004: 612)

As for clause (a) of the presumption, the processing effort required to understand an ostensive

stimulus is worth the audience’s while since the stimulus is more relevant than other competing

stimuli that the communicator could have chosen. In other words, “the level of effort needed to

reconstruct the intended interpretation is treated as given, and the presumption is that the effect

will be high enough for the overall relevance of the stimulus to be at or above the lower limit”

(Wilson and Sperber 2004: 612). According to clause (b), it is in the communicator’s interest

to offer the most relevant and easily understandable stimulus – weighted against his/ her

preferences and capacities – whose processing leads to the derivation of not only immediate

cognitive effects, which the interlocutor wants to achieve, but also further cognitive effects

(Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]; Wilson and Sperber 2004; Wilson 1999).

It is maintained that human communication is an act which aims to modify the cognitive

environment of others. The modification is possible when an item of new information is added,

or a new stimulus is provided “by a diffuse increase in the saliency or plausibility of a whole

range of assumptions, yielding what will be subjectively experienced as an impression”


- 110 -

(Sperber and Wilson 2012a: 87). The cognitive environment is defined as “a set of facts that are

manifest to him”43 (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 39). As a result, one’s cognitive

environment consists of not only assumptions already stored in mind as probably true but also

those which are likely to be held as true – even mistaken assumptions can be accepted as true

when they are well-evidenced. Crucial to the notion of the environment is the term manifestness.

A fact is manifest to an individual when it is capable of being perceived or inferred, i.e. when a

person is able to non-demonstratively infer it. Manifestness is a gradable notion since assumptions

may be more or less manifest. Hence, there is a strong correlation between the communicator’s act

of manifesting and the interpreter’s act of entertaining of an assumption: “manifest assumptions

which are more likely to be entertained are more manifest” (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 39).

The difference between being manifest and being more manifest lies in one’s immediate physical

environment and cognitive predispositions. Moreover, it is worth underlining that the notion of

(mutual) manifesteness is weaker than that of (mutual) knowledge, whereas some fact can be

manifest without an individual’s knowing it (in a strong view, the interactant needs to have a

mental representation of a fact in order to have a knowledge of it, Sperber and Wilson 1986

[1995]; Wilson 1999).

When the same set of assumptions is manifest to two individuals, the point at which their

cognitive environments meet is called a mutual cognitive environment. Sperber and Wilson

(1986 [1995]: 45) further explicate that “[w]hen a cognitive environment we share with other

people is mutual, we have evidence about what is mutually manifest to all of us”. Even though

we have concrete evidence of what is mutually manifest to people in our physical environment,

it is not required that each assumption, being a part of that mutual cognitive environment, has to

be identically represented and accepted as true by each participant in a communicative situation.

Ostensive-inferential communication is explained in terms of two types of intentions: the

informative intention and the communicative one, which read as follows:

a) Informative intention: to make manifest or more manifest to the audience a set of assumptions I.

(Sperber and Wilson 1986[1995]: 58)

b) Communicative intention: to make it mutually manifest to audience and communicator that the

communicator has this informative intention. (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 61)

When the communicator conveys something, s/he signals that s/he has the informative

intention. When s/he wants to inform his/ her interlocutors that s/he has that particular

43 A few pages earlier in the book, Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]: 46) explain the cognitive environment as

“a set of assumptions which the individual is capable of mentally representing and accepting as true”.


- 111 -

informative intention in mind, s/he has the communicative intention. In Grice’s paradigm, there

are also layers of the recovery of the utterer’s meaning (associated with non-natural meaning

abbreviated as meaningNN): the communicator intends to provoke a belief on the part of the

comprehender to make him/ her recognise this particular belief (Grice 1957: 384). The view on

intentionality was revised in the following manner: the speaker wishes to elicit a particular

response that needs to be recognised by the comprehender, which is crucial for the fulfilment of

this intention (Grice 1989: 92). In addition, Grice believes that communicator’s (illocutionary)

intentions are reflexive, which means that the speaker’s intention is to cause a psychological

state with the use of the hearer’s recognition of intentions. In RT, for truly overt communication

to occur, the informative intention needs to be made mutually manifest to the communicator and

audience with the use of an ostensive stimulus, which grabs audience’s attention and provides

direct evidence to the speaker’s intention44 (Wilson and Sperber 1993, 2004).

2.3.3. Inference and Comprehension

RT holds that utterance interpretation is a non-demonstrative inferential process, which “as

spontaneously performed by humans, might be less a logical process than a form of suitably

constrained guesswork” (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 69). It follows that communication

is not a fail-safe process and thus there is no guarantee that utterance is interpreted as the

communicator intends. Comprehension was initially understood as a ‘global’ process, with

“free access to all conceptual information in memory” (ibid.: 65). Later, Sperber and Wilson

(2002) (also, Wilson 2005, Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004) revisit their claims about the

global/ local process and speak in favour of a dedicated comprehension module which

incorporates specialised principles and mechanisms.

An utterance is characterised as “a linguistically-coded piece of evidence” (Sperber and

Wilson 2002: 3), which points to the communicator’s intentions. It is believed that utterance

comprehension comes in two stages, viz. linguistic decoding and inference: “a modular

decoding phase is seen as providing input to a central inferential phase in which a linguistically

encoded logical form is contextually enriched and used to construct a hypothesis about the

speaker’s informative intention” (Wilson and Sperber 1993: 1). These pragmatic inferential

processes are adopted to enrich a logical form into a fully-fledged proposition. In particular,

there may be some ambiguities to resolve, referential ambivalences to fill in, illocutionary

44 However, Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]: 64) acknowledge the fact that unintentional communication is also

feasible when the communicator provides evidence for the informative intention but disregards the communicative one.


- 112 -

indeterminacies to remove, or metaphors and ironies to interpret. The interactant needs to

employ contextual assumptions in order to obtain a contextually enriched meaning. In so doing

s/he follows the comprehension heuristic procedure formulated as follows:

Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure

a) Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects: Test interpretive hypotheses

(disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility.

b) Stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied (or abandoned) (Wilson and Sperber 2004: 613).

In interpreting an utterance, there may be a number of possible candidates (interpretations) with

potentially the same amount of cognitive effects. However, it is the criterion of the presumption

of optimal relevance, which conditions the hearer’s choice. Since the communicator is

presumed to offer the ostensive stimulus which can be easily understood, the audience stops the

process of comprehension at the interpretation which is obtained at lowest cost possible. Wilson

and Sperber (2004: 613) specify the comprehension process by distinguishing three subtasks:

Subtasks in the overall comprehension process45:

a) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about explicit content (in relevance-theoretic terms,

EXPLICATURES) via decoding, disambiguation, reference resolution, and other pragmatic enrichment

processes.

b) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the intended contextual assumptions (IMPLICATED

PREMISES).

c) Constructing an appropriate hypothesis about the intended contextual implications (IMPLICATED

CONCLUSIONS)

It needs to be accentuated that the retrieval of explicit meaning, appropriate contextual

information and implicit meaning is not ordered sequentially but rather all three subtasks run

in parallel: “implicated conclusions must be deducible from explicatures together with an

appropriate set of contextual assumptions” (Sperber and Wilson 2012b: 14). In RT, this is

dubbed the mutual parallel adjustment. RT pictures communication as an online process, in

which one’s search for the speaker’s interpretation is constrained not only by the presumption

of relevance but also individual expectations about potential relevance of the utterance. All of

these may warrant hypotheses about explicatures and implicatures via backward inference

(Sperber and Wilson 1997a, 2008; Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004; see Mazzone 2015, 2018).

The dedicated comprehension module tests the hypotheses concerning the implicit and/ or

explicit meanings and chooses the optimally relevant interpretation.

On the RT account, the derivation of both explicitly and implicitly communicated content

involves inferential processes. It is argued that explicitness is a matter of degree, depending on

45 The exploitation of some of interpretive stages in order to induce humorous effect on the part of the recipient is

presented in Section 2.4.1)


- 113 -

the level of indeterminacy and hence, the interpreter’s pragmatic inference. An explicature is

stronger when the decoding phase greatly contributes to the resulting interpretation, whereas it

is weaker when the process of inferencing takes a relatively bigger share (Sperber and Wilson

1986 [1995]; Wilson and Sperber 2004; Carston 2004). Implicatures, on the other hand, are

described as those propositions which are not communicated explicitly and can be divided into

implicated premises and implicated conclusions. Premises are those assumptions which form

the context consisting of information retrieved from the memory or created on the basis of

assumption schemas. These premises facilitate the recovery of the relevant interpretation.

Implicated conclusions are formed from premises and the explicit content (Sperber and Wilson

1986 [1995])46. Like explicatures, implicatures can be stronger or weaker. Strong implicatures

are propositions, the recovery of which is indispensible to construct the relevant interpretations,

and hence the interactant is strongly encouraged to derive them, whereas weak implicatures

may not be necessary for the overall interpretation. Some inferences may also be drawn on the

interpreter’s sole responsibility. One utterance may give rise to a number of weak implicatures

(Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]; Wilson and Sperber 2004; see Section 2.4.7 on the role of

weak implicatures in the entertainment of humour as well as Section 2.4.8. on non-propositional

effects). Within weak communication, interlocutors may intend to create a certain impression

on the recipient’s part. It needs to be highlighted that impression is a specific type of a cognitive

effect, defined as “a change in the manifestness of an array of propositions which all bear on

our understanding the same phenomenon” Sperber and Wilson (2015: 138). It follows that the

communication of the speaker’s determinate meaning and of impression are at opposite poles,

whilst cases placed in-between form a continuum (Sperber and Wilson 2012a).

2.4. Humour in RT

RT is a wide-ranging framework which is applicable to a number of communicative

phenomena, for example humour, irony, metaphor, translation and interpreting, language

acquisition, second language teaching, media discourse and Internet communication,

(im)politeness and phatic communication47, etc. As for the research into humour, it has been

adopted to the analyses of jokes (Yus 2003, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2016, 2017b;

Jodłowiec 1991a, 1991b, 2008; Curcó 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Higashimori 2008), puns

46 This is how Sperber and Wilson explain the hearer’s performance of a three-task comprehension process. One

cannot help but have an impression that the process of going through the construction of explicatures, implicated

premises and conclusions is in fact incremental and sequential. 47 Consult Yus’s comprehensive online bibliography service of literature on Relevance Theory, which is regularly

updated: https://personal.ua.es/francisco.yus/rt.html. References can be sorted according to thematic sections or

author’s name.


- 114 -

(Dynel 2010b; Solska 2012a, 2012b), stand-up performances (Yus 2004, 2005, 2016), longer

humorous texts exemplified by novels (Larkin Galiñanes 2000), conversational humour

(Kosińska 2008a, 2008b; Piskorska 2016) and humour elicited in audio described context

(Martínez-Sierra 2009).

What can be noticed is that the research into humour on the strength of Sperber and

Wilson’s theory has stimulated many scientists. Among the bulk of potential benefits that one

can entertain when investigating humour in accordance with RT’s lines is the fact that the theory

is not detached from other linguistic approaches and models, especially IR accounts that can be

employed to study any occurrence of humour. Second, RT pays scientific attention to the

comprehender’s inferential processes, which can be exploited by interlocutors to interweave

humour in the fabric of longer conversations. It is precisely valid for the research into sitcom

discourse as we may study the strategies employed by the production crew, who aim to devise

humorous units in such a way as to induce a jocular response on the audience’s part.

Accordingly, since the relevance-based approach subscribes to IR models, it connects the IR

workings with pragmatic processes to give rise to a broad picture of human communication.

Third, besides a linguistic perspective, RT enables a comprehensive analysis of cultural

knowledge which has an impact upon the totality of meanings. As has already been underlined,

the present work does not aim to undertake a sociological analysis, nevertheless it makes

references to the cultural context.

2.4.1. Yus’ Intersecting Circles Model

In this section, I would like to show that Yus’ Intersecting Circles Model can be used to explain

humour in sitcom discourse and thus there is no need to put forth additional mechanisms or

concepts. A considerable asset of his design is the joint functioning of the three elements:

pragmatic processes, cultural information and make-sense frames, which can more precisely

describe the humour in a sitcom unit. Yus’ Model is one of the several templates for joke

analysis, the most important part of which is inferential processes followed by the recipient.

Early work on humour within RT put forth various classifications of jokes. The earliest

version was proposed by Jodłowiec (1991a, 1991b)48 who champions a two-fold categorisation

into ambiguity jokes and implicit import ones. Then, Curcó (1995, 1996a, 1997) offers the

taxonomy with three types, viz. the entertainment of contradictory propositional content, the

treatment of foreground assumptions as if they were in the background and a clash between the

48 The reason why I mention other taxonomies is to show that Yus’s (2013a, 2013b) Intersecting Circles Model is

not the earliest to date.


- 115 -

expectations of the way in which upcoming material will achieve relevance and the way in

which it actually does49. Other four classifications have been advanced by Yus in 2003, 2008,

2012b and 2013a, 2013b. In the 2003 taxonomy, it was shown how the communicator can

exploit the relevance-theoretic comprehension procedures (extraction of a logical form,

ambiguity resolution, reference assignment, enrichment, implicature) in order to achieve

humorous effects on the part of the hearer. Subsequently, Yus (2008) advanced a four-group

classification: explicit interpretation questioned (this type corresponds to the whole

classification from 2003), explicit interpretation clashing with contextual assumptions,

implicated premises and conclusions at work and targeting background encyclopaedic

assumptions50. The 2012b categorisation can be represented graphically as follows, in which

there is a basic division into intentional and unintentional humour, with the former being the

point of attention for pragmatics:

Figure 2.1. A relevance-theoretic classification of jokes (Yus 2012b: 274)

49 Curcó’s classification has been criticised on the ground that it attempted to present a classification of humorous

texts but then she employed witty quotations and epigrams (Dynel 2012b). Moreover, it has been claimed that

these mechanisms are relevant to non-humorous texts and these do not constitute a fully-fledged list of all possible

logical mechanisms in humour (Piskorska 2005). 50 This grouping of jokes has been critically revised since it lacks a unifying criterion and the types are not mutually

exclusive (Biegajło 2011, Dynel 2012b, Wieczorek 2019).


- 116 -

The latest version of Yus’ (2013a, 2013b) taxonomy is the Intersecting Circles Model (ICM)

and it is contingent upon the three focal points (called circles): make-sense frames, cultural

frames and utterance interpretation. The ICM encompasses seven types of jokes, which reflect

the reliance on one or the combination of the three circles. By following the comprehension

procedure, the hearer activates a frame (or frames) and/or pragmatic processes leading to a

humorous interpretation (Yus 2013a, 2013b, 2016). The ICM has originally been proposed as

a classification of jokes but it is believed here that these pragmatic mechanisms can be

extrapolated to those employed by the viewers of sitcoms in their quest for relevance.

The first circle is a make-sense frame encompassing three items of information: word-

associated schemas (encyclopaedic information concerning a word, which may be different

among individuals), sequence-associated scripts (information about a particular order of

executing an action) and situation-associated frames (assumptions about prototypical events

which may appear in a given situation).

The cultural frame incorporates stereotypical information about societies and cultures,

which may take the form of assumptions constructed or acquired individually by some people

(private beliefs) or information regarded as held within a particular culture (metarepresented

cultural beliefs) (Yus 2002, 2013a, 2013b). Both collective representations, which are ascribed

to the whole society, and individual representations may be the same, similar, different or

complementary. Needless to say, there are mythical scripts (Attardo 1994) which cycle among

different cultures irrespective of whether they reveal the truth or not. Sociological research into

those scripts shows that their presence is motivated by socio-economic factors and they may

still be used even when the factors are no longer valid (Davies 1996).

The utterance interpretation circle encompasses the humorist’s manipulation of the

hearer’s interpretive inferential stages, viz. identification of a logical form/ semantic

representation, reference assignment, ambiguity resolution, saturation/ enrichment and

derivation of implicatures.

In what follows the types of humour teased out by Yus (2013a, 2013b) will be

summarised and illustrated with extracts from Modern Family.

Humour51 type 1: make-sense frame, cultural frame and utterance interpretation

The first group of humorous units hinges upon the utilising of the three circles. In excerpt (1),

the viewer needs to formulate a proper make-sense frame, cultural frame and engage in the

process of construction of explicature in order to understand the conversation between

51 Since it is shown here that the ICM is pertinent to sitcom discourse, I change the phrase “joke type” into “humour

type”.


- 117 -

Cameron, Mitchell and Lily. The initial make-sense frame, more specifically situation-

associated frame, is built upon Cameron’s and Lily’s turns for the prototypical situation in

which the father wishes to teach a life lesson to his daughter. Also, the word-associated schema

of the word lady includes the information that a lady refers to a woman. Upon Mitchell’s

delivery of his turn, the hearer activates another make-sense frame in which the word lady can

be used to refer to hypersensitive men or homosexuals. This frame is tightly connected to the

cultural stereotype of homosexuals as individuals who behave in an effeminate way.

Subsequently, the viewer derives the explicature: Mitchell’s father has called his son a lady.

This meaning is obtained in the process ad hoc concept construction as there are two concepts

that are required: LADY* (referring to women, especially those who behave well) and LADY**

(referring to homosexual men in order to convey a derogatory meaning), with the former

referring to Lily, whereas the latter to Mitchell. To assess the precise meaning, the implicature

is to be extracted: Mitchell’s father believes that Mitchell is a typical homosexual with all

stereotypical features.

(1) Context: Lily receives a rebuke from Cameron for hiring a cleaning lady, which is outrageous given her

early age. To avoid punishment, Lily accuses Mitchell and Cameron of using apps for everything, e.g.

Uber, Postmates, TaskRabbit, Washio, ParkMe, LogBuddy. Lily, Cameron and Mitchell are at the front

yard. Cameron is carrying garden equipment on the wheelbarrow

Cameron: All right, you are about to get an important lesson on self-reliance, young lady.

Lily: I know he’s serious when he calls me “young lady.”

Mitchell: My dad did the same thing. (S08E13)

Humour type 2: make-sense frame and cultural frame

Humorous effects can be contingent upon the recipient’s construction of the make-sense frame

coupled with the cultural one. In the conversation below (2), the make-sense frame that is

activated contains the information about putting one’s child to sleep, which includes a culturally

sanctioned element that mothers generally put their children to sleep. Mitchell and Cameron

reach the conclusion that Lily’s sleep disorder is caused by her longing for being taken care of

by women. This make-sense frame is highly relevant to Mitchell’s attempt to hand over Lily to

Cameron. Hence, the cultural stereotypical frame needs to be constructed in which a gay father,

who has a more woman-like shape, is treated as a parent who can replace a mother:

(2) Context: Mitchell and Cameron are coming home after having adopted a baby girl from Vietnam.

Mitchell seems to be worried that Lily has not slept.

Mitchell: I can’t. That... That orphanage was all women. Maybe she just... she can’t fall asleep

unless she feels a woman’s shape.


- 118 -

Cameron: I guess that’s possible.

Mitchell: So here.

Cameron: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[Cameron and Mitchell are sitting in front of the camera]

Cameron: Yes, I’ve gained a few extra pounds while we were expecting the baby, which has been

very difficult. But apparently your body does a nesting, very maternal, primal

thing…where it retains nutrients.... some sort of molecular physiology thing. But that’s

science. You can’t...You can’t fight it, so... (S01E01)

Humour type 3: make-sense frame and utterance interpretation

The production crew may also manipulate the viewer’s inferential stages of comprehension and

the construction of the relevant make-sense frame. In the interaction between Cameron and

Mitchell (3), the make-sense frame for “Valentine’s Day” is evoked when they discuss their

plans, which is salient in order to resolve the incongruity that arises in Cameron’s last turn.

When he speaks of the number one activity, the recipient probably accesses the most

stereotypically salient activity that couples do to celebrate the day of love: “having sex”.

Another premise which reinforces this interpretation is the fact that it is described as making

one dirty and ashamed. Mitchell’s final turn invalidates the number one activity as “sex” and

assigns a different referent for this activity, namely the visit at the Cheesecake Factory. In short,

the TV recipient’s implicature derivation phase has been exploited for the sake of humorous

effects. Yus (2003) argues that one of the components of successful reception of humour is the

hearer’s acceptance that s/he has been fooled into choosing what initially seemed to be a highly

inaccessible but finally correct interpretation.

(3) Context: Mitchell and Cameron discuss their Valentine’s Day’s at the fireplace while Sal, their dearest

friend, storms into their home to take them out. Mitchell is eager to go out with her, while Cameron

prefers to spend time only with his husband.

Cameron: Hey, so what about our plans?

Mitchell: Look, you know Sal. She’s not gonna leave until we agree to this. So, look, we’ll just

get the two of them drinking. They won’t even notice when we slip away and, you know,

get back to our list.

Cameron: That’s a good plan.

Mitchell: Yeah.

Cameron: You know what? I didn’t even want to do number one anyway. It makes me feel dirty

and ashamed.

Mitchell: Okay, well, bye-bye, Cheesecake Factory. (S08E12)

Humour type 4: make-sense frame

There are fictional interactions whose humour depends upon the construction of make-sense

frame(s), which can create little or no cognitive dissonance. In extract (4), throughout Claire’s


- 119 -

phone conversation with Phil, she is petting Phil’s dad’s dog. The viewer is required to activate

two make-sense frames simultaneously, either of which would relate to a different conversation

between Claire and Phil or Claire and Phil’s dad. In particular, the make-sense frame “big

troubles” relevant to the Claire-Phil conversation concerns the information about Phil’s running

into serious troubles and hence not being allowed to sleep in their bedroom. A divergent make-

sense frame “big dog” is constructed on the basis of the meaning gleaned by Phil’s father: “big”

refers to the size of the dog, whilst “no sleeping in the bedroom” is a restriction imposed upon

the dog.

(4) Context: Phil’s dad arrived to Phil and Claire’s and to make things worse, he brought the dog. Phil

has forgotten to inform Claire about his impending visit. When Phil’s dad appears on their doorstep,

Claire tries to conceal her mixed feelings. She decides to phone him in order to hear the explanation.

Phil [on the phone] Am I in trouble?

Claire: Oh, really, really big.

Phil: Okay, I’m a little scared. How bad is this?

Claire: Oh, well... We have a new rule... no sleeping in the bedroom. (S01E21)

Humour type 5: cultural frame and utterance interpretation

Humour in sitcoms can be induced by the combination of a cultural frame and the exploitation

of an interpretive path. The family conversation (5) requires the recipient’s activation of the

cultural frame that encompasses stereotypical information about a very sensual woman (Gloria)

who is married to a much older man for the sake of financial stability and safety. There is also

phonetic similarity between the two phrases “coal digger” and “gold digger”, which give rise

to two different interpretations: Gloria exploits her looks to get money from her rich husband

and Gloria is a mine worker. The latter meaning gets invalidated on the strength of the viewer’s

background assumption that Gloria is not a manual worker recruited in a mine. The recipient’s

familiarity with the cultural frame about the relationship between a pretty woman and a rich

man as well as the fact that Gloria fits into stereotypical thinking are decisive factors in deriving

the humorous interpretation.

(5) Context: All family members are gathered at Jay and Gloria’s house. Earlier same day, Manny and

Luke had a fight in school. Phil gets inquisitive about the reason behind their school scuffle. Manny

poked fun at Luke for having the same second breakfast every day.

Luke: I made fun of him because his mom used to dig coal.

Gloria: What?

Manny: He said you were a coal digger.

Phil: Okay, I think we can move on.


- 120 -

Gloria: Who said I was a coal digger?

Luke: That’s what my mom told me.

Alex: What’s a coal digger?

Phil: Sweetheart, he heard it wrong. It’s “gold digger”. (S01E05)

Humour type 6: cultural frame

Humour can be dependent upon the recipient’s construction of cultural frames. It will be

demonstrated in the analytical chapter that there is an abundance of humorous turns in which the

viewer needs to resort to cultural/ sociological information. In a nutshell, the recipient of the

sitcom under analysis needs to frequently construct the cultural frame in conversations held by

Mitchell and Cameron, whose sexual orientation is overtly manifested, or Gloria, whose

Colombian origin or thick accent is underlined. In extract below (6), the recipient is supposed to

formulate two cultural frames, which give rise to two interpretations: “the Colombians as blue-

collar workers” and “Jay as an older husband who is going to die soon, leaving Gloria with big

money”.


Manny fix the fan in Manny’s room. Jay is determined to go to a golf club so he suggests taking a

Colombian handyman.

Gloria: Nooo. You’re supposed to do it with him. It’s important that we teach him how to do things

for himself. In my culture, men take great pride in doing physical labour.

Jay: I know. That’s why I hire people from your culture.

Gloria: You’re too funny. I’m gonna share that one with my next husband when we’re spending all


Humour type 7: utterance interpretation

It is also possible for the production crew to exploit the recipient’s relevance-seeking inferential

procedures, as predicted within RT (Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]), so as to maximise

humorous effects (Yus 2003, 2008, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2016). The interactions may include

polysemy, ambiguity or the interplay between the explicit and implicit meanings. In

conversation (7), the viewer encounters the ambiguous term Supremes that may have several

meanings, with no definite candidate for the interpretation: “being the singer in an American

singing group” or “being the part of the bar”. The main reason for leaving the recipient clueless

about the intended interpretation is to create the oscillating effect where the comprehender

“ends up swinging back and forth between two conflicting interpretations of one linguistic form

without being able to abandon either” (Solska 2017: 204).


- 121 -

(7) Context: Mitchell has just been asked for legal advice by his father and he is flabbergasted at this fact.

Cameron: Well, Mitchell is an amazing lawyer. Oh. My dream for him is that one day he’ll be on

the Supreme Court.

Mitchell: Why, Cam?

Cameron: So at parties I can tell everyone my partner is one of the Supremes. (S01E14)

To sum up, although a qualitative analysis is intended as part of my study, humour type 5 and

6 seem to be the most widely represented categories of humour in the sitcom Modern Family.

As a result, the sitcom frequently creates amusement by hinging upon stereotypical information,

which can be conjoined with the exploitation of an interpretive path. In fact, any member of the

Pritchett-Dunphy-Tucker clan is pictured as a stereotypical character of some sort: a young

woman married to a wealthy man (Gloria), a well-off man who thinks that it is not money he

earns that attracts women (Jay), a typical homosexual couple (Mitchell and Cameron), a

housewife who decides to go back to work after a decade of raising children (Claire), a pretty

dumb real estate agent (Phil), etc. (see Section 5.5.3.)

2.4.2. Sociological/ cultural perspective52

Humorous utterances in sitcoms, like in other types of natural and scripted communication, are

determined by cultural and social53 context (Oring 1992, Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997,

Kuipers 2008). Various linguistic models of communication, especially those relating to mass-

mediated discourse, do not take into consideration socio-cultural aspects given their lack of

uniformity. However, there are some socio-pragmatic studies into humour, in particular into

jokes with a view to showing a change in gender tendencies (Kotthoff 2000, Crawford 2003,

Thielemann 2011) or targeting an ethnic group (Popescu 2011). A number of researchers

corroborated the theoretical potential of the inferential processes in the interpreter’s recovery

of a humorous meaning. The strand of research relevant to the present analysis is the one

initiated, among others, by Yus (2013a, 2013b) who underlines the import of encyclopaedic

information about social and cultural context, which can be stored in the recipients’ mind. This

research is relevant in the context of the study of sitcoms, the comic effects of which often

dwell on society-based stereotypes. In other words, humour does not only consist in linguistic

means but also cultural phenomena, which in turn encompasses psychological aspects. It is vital

52 One of the critical claims levelled at RT is that it lacks the connection of its research programme into sociological

studies. In fact, Sperber, a social scientist, wrote alone or in collaboration with other scientists, a series of articles

on culture and society (these can be accessed on Sperber’s personal website http://www.dan.sperber.fr/). 53 Sperber (1996) argues that there is no difference between social and cultural phenomena. In this work,

irrespective of contrasting factors, the author follows in Sperber’s (1996) footsteps.


- 122 -

for the current research to incorporate Sperber and Wilson’s (1986 [1995]) cognitive model of

communication into socio-cultural phenomena to demonstrate that humour is used to fulfil a

number of communicative functions, for instance challenging stereotypical information.

One of the keys to the understanding of sitcom humour lies in the relationship between

linguistic means of inducing humour and the viewer’s (sub)conscious awareness of

sociological/ cultural conditions. Nevertheless, when the viewer does not know some of the

stereotypical information used to perform functions other than amusement, his/ her formulation

of the humorous interpretation should be not hampered. That is to say, it is believed that the

derivation of additional cognitive effects, which are communicated by dint of humour

consequent upon weak communication, are treated as independent of a humorous intention. On

the other hand, when humour bases its comic effects upon the knowledge of a certain stereotype,

which the viewer lacks, humorous communication would not be established. This perspective

on the functions performed with the use of humour converges with the one adopted by Piskorska

and Jodłowiec (2018), who believe that both universal and culture-dependent assumptions can

be combined in jokes to spark off the cognitive overload effect (Section 2.4.7.).

Sperber and Wilson (1997b) defend RT from criticism against its alleged inability to deal

with social phenomena, claiming that human communication carries crucial social implications.

They define culture as those enduring representations which can be promptly discerned by other

individuals. Sperber and Claidière (2008: 283) claim that culture is better viewed as a “property

that human mental representations and practices exhibit to a varying degree rather than as a

type or a subclass of these representations and practices”.

According to RT, human beings have the storage of different conceptual representations

in mind, some of which are accessible for a longer period of time, whilst others are relevant

only on a particular occasion (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]). There are three types of

representations: public, mental and abstract (Wilson 1999), with the first two playing a role in

the transmission of cultural information (Sperber 1996). Mental representations take the form

of beliefs, intentions and preferences, which exist in the mind of one person. Public

representations include signals, utterances, texts or pictures, which can be disseminated on a

larger audience. As a result, mental representations are “internal to the information-processing

device”, whereas public representations are “external to the device and which the device can

process as inputs” (Sperber 1996: 61). In other words, mental representations emanate from

accessing their public versions, which are themselves derivatives of mental counterparts.

Sperber (1993, 1996) proposes an epidemiological view of the spread of cultural

representations, which means that communication is prompted by two mechanisms: the first is


- 123 -

a process of turning mental representations into public ones and the second is an operation of

converting public representations into mental ones:

“(…) first transformed by the communicator into public representations, and then re-transformed by the

audience into mental representations. A very small proportion of these communicated representations get

communicated repeatedly. Through communication (or, in other cases, through imitation), some

representations spread out in a human population, and may end up being instantiated in every member of

the population for several generations. Such widespread and enduring representations are paradigmatic

cases of cultural representations” (Sperber 1996: 25)

Cultural representations are a subset of mental and cultural representations, which can

undergo constant revision when they are spread, but they can also reach a considerable level of

stability. In Sperber’s (1996) parlance, sitcoms are regarded as a public production which, as

any ostensive stimulus, aim to modify the viewer’s cognitive environment by, for instance,

strengthening or revision of old assumptions. In particular, the viewer constructs mental

representations in his/ her mind based on public representations produced by fictional

characters’ monologues and dialogues, which were retransformed from mental representations

originating in the scriptwriters’ mind. McKeown (2017) states that in the case of humour, the

increased mental effort is compensated with positive socio-cognitive effects, which are seen as

improvements in one’s system of representations having a social value.

Within RT, it is believed that those representations which are transmitted on a number of

social encounters and which are not greatly modified (are stable) become part of culture

(Sperber 1996, Sperber et al. 2010). Since interpretations are defined as one’s own

representations of representations of others, different audiences may hold similar or divergent

assumptions in mind, which differ with respect to the level of their relevance to the organism

(Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]: 161). In particular, the audience may entertain a set of

representations given their intuitive and reflective beliefs (Sperber 1996, 1997). Intuitive

concepts are constructed in the course of “spontaneous and unconscious inference from

perception” (Sperber 1997: 77) or communication. These beliefs are generally concrete and

reliable and they are stored as commonsense concepts about the world. Intuitive beliefs form a

fundamental category of cognition (they are quite superficial and descriptive), and hence they

are held as inputs to further inferential processes. Reflective concepts arise because of human

beings’ metarepresentational ability to metarepresent attitudes and intentions of others since

these require the validating context. Reflective beliefs contribute to the development and

transmission of cultural assumptions, irrespective of whether they are fully or partially

understood. It is possible for some representations to reach the level of intuitive beliefs and then

after interaction, they become reflective ones, and vice versa. The former case can be illustrated


- 124 -

with the situation when a person has an intuitive idea of the concept of “weight”, which was

later differentiated from the concept of “mass” and then one holds a reflective belief concerning

weight. The latter case can be exemplified with the situation when a child is consciously taught

the difference between even and odd numbers, while a grown-up has an intuitive idea of these

numbers.

In the case of sitcoms, it is the production crew (associated with fictional characters) who

are seen as the validating context or an authority figure that is responsible for fostering a number

of reflective beliefs on the part of the audience. Consequently, these representations may

become the candidates for the viewer’s cultural knowledge. Sperber (1996) maintains that the

transmission of reflective beliefs is a visible social process, which is made consciously and

deliberately as these beliefs are held consciously. To illustrate the communication of reflective

beliefs, I would like to present one of Yus’ (2002, 2005) examples of a stand-up monologue in

which the comedian is granted authority to plot the course of his/ her performance, for example

when the audience is entitled to provide a response. Among the validating sources, Sperber

(1996) mentions parents and teachers, which Yus (2004: 337) complements with “the barrage

of information from mass media discourses”. In extract (8), David Allen challenges the

authority of his parents whose influence on the child’s creation of stereotypical assumptions

about sex roles is joked about:

(8) One of the main changes in today’s society is our attitude to what we could call the stereotype of the sexes...

or the role that sex plays. If you actually think back to your childhood... We had very distinctive lives... My

mother was a great believer in what we could call sexual differences. I was four years of age... I would walk

with my mother down the street... my mother would say things like “David, walk on the outside”. I’d go

“What do you mean?”. “Walk on the outside of me”. “Why mummy?”. “It leaves your sword arm free”

[audience laughs]. “What are you talking about? I don’t have a sword!” [audience laughs]. “No, but in the

days, years ago, when men did have swords, some men might want to attack the female, so the male would

walk on the outside of the female so he can get out his sword and fight that person... See? That’s why you

walk on the outside”. “But... but... I don’t have a sword!” [audience laughs]. “No! But you protect

mummy!!... You protect!!... male!!... you’re a male!! You’re the stronger of the two!! Males are the hunters!

The providers! Females stay at home, and make a home and a nest and keep it warm for the... [mimics the

mother hitting her son] Stop crying!!” [audience laughs] (Allen, 1996). (Yus 2002: 274)

What is also crucial in studying cultural phenomena is that it is impossible to draw the

dividing line between those representations which belong to one’s privately held storage and

those which are treated as cultural information circulating within society. Sperber and Claidière

(2008) claim that these two types of information should be arranged on a continuum of cases

since mind-internal representations can be combined from private and social inputs. Moreover,

the content of cultural representations needs to attain the level of stability through


- 125 -

communicating the same information or sharing the commonly held belief (Sperber and

Hirschfeld 2007, see Sperber and Wilson 1997a).

Epistemic vigilance and the cultural spread

From the speakers’ perspective, the principal purpose of communication is not only to be

understood but also to be believed, whilst from the recipients’ perspective, some mechanism is

required to protect themselves from deception. This mechanism is dubbed epistemic vigilance.

Human beings are endowed with this specialised faculty in the mind, which is explained as

one’s cognitive attentiveness operating when there is the risk of inadvertent or deliberate

misinformation (Sperber et al. 201054, Mazzarella 201355). It is a universal mental ability, which

is not confined to the processing of cultural metarepresentations but it is conductive to the

explanation of how information circulates in a social group. It is further explained that vigilance

is not opposite to trusting but to blind trusting56. Mascaro and Sperber (2009) enumerate three

aspects of the capacity of being vigilant: moral/ affective (attending to malevolence), epistemic

(attending to false information) and mind-reading (attending to one’s intention to deceive).

More importantly, they claim that the epistemic ability cannot exist without the mind-reading

one (but not vice versa). The discussion on social mechanisms of epistemic vigilance in culture

needs to be complemented with the study of epistemic vigilance towards the source of the

communicated information and the content.

The case is quite simple when cultural ideas are dispersed along the chains of transmission

from a single authority (Sperber 1996), whom others strongly believe, and hence the mechanism

of epistemic vigilance is exercised in face-to-face communication (Sperber et al. 2010). More

important to the analysis of sitcoms is when the viewer does not know the source of local or

cultural information. Hardly can we image the situation in which the recipient ponders about

whether it is the production crew or fictional characters, who are epistemic authorities of

cultural beliefs. In the case of mass-mediated communication, the source of information is

always the producer, so in sitcoms it is the production crew who constructs fictional

conversations. As for fictional characters’ role in the spread, it is the case that they air views

54 This article contains section Epistemic Vigilance on a Population Scale. The postulates it contains are not restricted

to the social transmission of cultural metarepresentations but are relevant to the spread of any type of information. 55 It is worth underlining that Mazzarella (2013) calls for the extension of the mechanisms of epistemic vigilance.

It is argued that epistemic vigilance is exercised when there is a risk of not only misinformation but also

misinterpretation. 56 Epistemic vigilance is a different type of mechanism from the guru effect since the guru effect can be equated

with blind believing/ trusting. In other words, we believe that our mental gurus are benevolent and competent

interactants and thus we blindly rely on information provided by them (Sperber 2005 [2010]).


- 126 -

held by scriptwriters with which they do not necessarily agree. Sperber et al. (2010) reckon that

the answer to how epistemic vigilance operates on a population scale is the reliability and

trustworthiness (i.e. his/ her benevolence and competence) of the source, which goes with

reputation, i.e. opinion about a communicator. One’s trust in others is allocated on the basis of

the situation, interlocutors and topic of conversation. These three components have direct

influence upon the viewer’s epistemic trust in the production crew. Given dedicated and

constant viewership of sitcoms, the recipients are believed to accept what they are said and

agree with, for instance cultural load. Fiction, like real-life interactions, can influence our

picture of the world and our processing of information that “leak” through the TV screen. In

general, the viewers’ epistemic vigilance in sitcoms works in exactly the same way as in natural

communication. A piece of entertainment, however, may relax one’s attentiveness since the

production crew does not intend to use deliberate deceit.

The viewer’s vigilance is also targeted at the content of information. Since all fictional

communication in sitcoms is treated as newly incoming stimuli, its believability is assessed on

the basis of background knowledge. Sperber et al. (2010: 375) enumerate three possibilities of

what can be done with new information:

i. If the source is not regarded as reliable, the new information can simply be rejected as untrue, and

therefore irrelevant.

ii. If the source is regarded as quite authoritative and the background beliefs which conflict with what the

source has told us are not held with much conviction, these beliefs can be directly corrected.

iii. If you are confident about both the source and your own beliefs, then some belief revision is

unavoidable.

As regards communication in sitcoms, the most reasonable steps taken by the viewer is the

second and third. The first option is not, in my opinion, devised with sitcom (or film) discourse

in mind because the reason why viewers are attracted to a particular piece of entertainment is

that they regard dialogues/ monologues amusing and thus worth the processing effort. Although

the recipient applies a different approach to analysing fictional events than to real-life events,

s/he does not reject fiction because of its unbelievability as fictional discourse presumes some

realism (see Section 5.3.1.). When it comes to the two subsequent reactions to the source of

newly acquired information presented above, the recipient can be fully or quite confident about

the reliability of the production crew/ fictional characters. Some cultural or general beliefs can

undergo the process of revision since the viewer’s epistemic commitment is sometimes stronger

than one’s personal beliefs. A case in point can be the homosexual couple, Mitchell and

Cameron, who are positively pictured in the sitcom, and this portrayal can meet with scepticism,

acceptance or rejection from the recipient. In this case, the authority of Cameron and Mitchell


- 127 -

may act as a positive verifier as to the acceptance of information, which may trigger the viewer’s

updating of stereotypical information57.

The recipient’s epistemic involvement in communication, i.e. one’s fondness to put

mental effort in order to interpret an utterance, can acquire a social status and is not necessarily

linked to the source and content of message: “the content of the ideas matters less to you than

who you share with, since they may help define group identities” (Sperber et al. 2010). It is this

feeling of belonging, solidarity or bonding (Hay 2000) and being part of community that seems

appealing to the audience who watches a sitcom or takes part in a stand-up performance. Yus

(2002) refers to communal laughter, which is shared by the audience in the same physical

environment of the theatre, being an indicator of the fact that the same set of assumptions is

mutually manifest to them.

Stereotypical information

Granted that humorous effects frequently reside in the audience’s accessing, strengthening or

challenging stereotypical information concerning gender roles, ethnicity, race, blondes,

politicians or lawyers, this section sketches how RT may approach the analysis of humorous

units, which are contingent upon stereotypes.

Yus (2002, 2004, 2005) investigates the social side of humour in stand-up performances,

the postulates of which are relevant to sitcoms. There are two categories of cultural beliefs:

stereotype consistent and stereotype inconsistent, which may produce different variations of

humour. In particular, there are four elements which need to be taken into account: 1)

comedian’s input is (in)consistent, 2) audience’s intuitive representations are stereotype

(in)consistent, 3) audience’s reflective representations are stereotype (in)consistent, 4)

audience’s metarepresentational cultural representations are stereotype (in)consistent. These

distinctions interact with another basic classification of cultural representations, which can be

divided into private beliefs and metarepresented cultural beliefs (Yus 2002, 2004, 2005).

Private beliefs are those acquired intuitively, via perception and inference, or reflectively, via

communication (Sperber’s intuitive and reflective beliefs). Metarepresented cultural

representations are those which members of a specific culture regard as commonly held by a

group. It follows from the stereotype-consistent and inconsistent bifurcation that the content of

the audience’s and the comedian’s storage of cultural information can be overlapping or

disparate, or even the recipients and the interlocutor can have parallel representations about the

57 Instead of approving of new cultural information, which clashes with personal storage of representations,

Sperber et al. (2010: 375) claim that the viewer may also “reduce [his/ her] confidence in the source or [his/ her]

confidence in [his/ her] less entrenched beliefs”.


- 128 -

same concept (Yus 2002). This claim is particularly viable to sitcoms since the viewer can find

the dialogue humorous, even though s/he does not endorse the stereotype. In other words, there

is a dividing line between private beliefs and metarepresented cultural beliefs. The audience

may own individually held representations which are different from those maintained by

society. Pilkington (2000) speaks of culturally endorsed emotions – the ones that every

individual in a culture or society is assumed to experience concerning a stereotype.

As Sperber and Wilson (1997a) believe, what an individual mentally holds can be

relatively stable or person-specific, and such assumptions can converge with those distributed

within culture or society. More importantly, new or idiosyncratic assumptions may achieve the

level of stabilisation through communication, hence it is a social matter. In the case of sitcoms,

it is quite tangible since the production crew (associated with fictional characters) is the

validating context (authoritative figure) and their beliefs may be accepted as true by the

audience and then become stabilised in the audience’s mental storage.

Yus (2004, 2016) underlines the fact that public enjoyment in the audience during a stand-

up performance results from the individual’s realisation that his/ her private cultural

representations actually circulate within culture or society. It is this collective recognition which

is surprising to the audience and hence leads to amusement. The same is true about comedy.

Granted that what the production crew communicates conveys the potential of being humorous

or amusing, the viewer can also acknowledge the fact that some of the private representations

achieve the level of collectivity.

Strengthening or challenging cultural information seems to be one of the most frequent

sources of humour in stand-up comedies (Yus 2002). At this point it may be far-fetched to claim

that all sitcoms aim to bolster or challenge stereotypical information, which would be among

one of the most common humorous mechanisms, however, the sitcom Modern Family often

bases its comicality on stereotypes. The strengthening of personal representations occurs when

an assumption is made mutually manifest by the comedian during the show. The challenging

of personal beliefs is defined as the act of making mutually manifest an assumption collectively

held by many people, which is not the same as the one aired by the interlocutor. In the case of

challenging, there is the shift from the collective or comedian’s personal assumptions to the

audience’s, whereas in the case of strengthening, the process is reverse (from personal to

collective storage) (Yus 2005). Exploiting a cultural stereotype may also encompass cases in

which the audience is pointed out that some stereotypes exist. There is another mechanism

hinged upon stereotypical assumptions, i.e. when these are refined or improved. When the

production crew questions existing cultural stereotypes, this act is subsumed under the process

of strengthening of metarepresented cultural beliefs (Yus 2002, 2005). Whether it is a stand-up


- 129 -

performance, sitcom or spoof, the analyst scrutinising comedy discourse can never be sure

whether a piece of discourse strengthens, challenges or refines one’s cultural representations

since the relevance of any stimulus is assessed against individual background knowledge.

The idea that the audience may trust and accept the validity of argument by the production

crew in sitcoms can also be approached in terms of the guru effect58 (Sperber [2005] 2010).

This concept underlines the role of authority and argumentation in the sense that we strongly

believe in what an intellectual guru states and that it is relevant and worth the mental effort,

even if an utterance is communicated in an obscure and opaque manner. Authority is understood

as a social relationship, which works in parallel with reputation (competence and reliability)

established in the course of repeated communicative acts. When the production crew aims to

question the audience’s personal stereotypical information, s/he may assume that his/ her

authoritative position suffices for a sitcom recipient to believe in its validity. An additional

effect upon believing in the truthfulness of guru’s reasoning is that the recipient becomes a part

of authority, which has intellectual and social implications. That is to say, the individual

supporting claims made by the guru has the feeling of being cognitively capable of

understanding a complex idea.

2.4.3. Relevance-theoretic analysis of sitcoms

There is a wealth of television series and serials but the study of sitcoms within RT has been

given scant attention, not to mention that RT has not been employed to investigate functions of

humour in sitcoms. One of the reasons why the research into situation comedy has been

marginalised may be that the genre itself belongs to popular culture, which in turn was regarded

as undeserving scientific scrutiny (Neale and Krutnik 1990, Mills 2005, 2009). In previous

sections, I tried to point to the affinity between postulates concerning sitcom studies and other

humour manifestations investigated from an RT point of view, more specifically stand-up

performances and jokes. It has been shown that findings specific to other genres can also be

applied to sitcom studies.

As regards sitcoms in RT, this topic has not been exhaustively studied apart from two

such contributions, which will be discussed to show the analytical path taken by the researchers.

The two articles include Hu (2012, 2013) and Ma and Jiang (2013), both of which make no

attempt to specify accessing humorous effects by the viewer. The length of these articles

amounts to five to seven pages, which do not perform comprehensive analyses of humour in

58 It only refers to honest gurus who do not intend to be deceitful.


- 130 -

sitcoms. According to Hu (2012)59, humour results from interplay between the maximally and

optimally relevant interpretations in a given context. In my opinion, it follows the pattern set

by Curcó’s studies (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Section 2.4.5.), in which it is suggested that the

entertainment of incongruity arises from the clash between two competing interpretations, as

well as by Yus’ (2003), where it is argued that humour resides in accessing a highly relevant

but incorrect interpretation, which is replaced with a highly irrelevant but finally correct one.

On the other hand, Ma and Jiang (2013) believe that RT’s cognitive account needs to be

integrated with Verschueren’s Adaptation Theory since the latter provides conceptual tools to

explicate social and cultural background, which determines a particular choice of interpretation.

The result of their study is that humour resides in the clash between optimal and maximal

relevance (same as in Hu 2012), the derivation of weak effects (nevertheless, the authors do not

refer to the notions ‘implicit effect’ or ‘implicature’), the clash between contextual assumptions

and optimal relevance and the ambiguity on different levels (sound structure, lexicon, sentence

proposition). On a critical note, Ma and Jiang (2013) do not make reference to the importance

of social or cultural contexts determining the viewer’s selection of the optimally relevant

meaning.

2.4.4. Metarepresentation and the Mind-Reading Ability

The present section demonstrates the way in which interlocutors are able to predict how

utterance is to be interpreted by the comprehender in order to devise a stimulus that would

create intended cognitive effects. RT sees verbal communication as a metapsychological mind-

reading activity, which is performed intuitively and unreflectively. The ability to communicate,

i.e. construct one’s meaning and evaluate the speaker’s meaning, is executed by a dedicated

comprehension module, which belongs to a suite of theory of mind mechanisms. Sperber and

Wilson (2002) corroborate that one way of explaining the speaker’s recognition of co-

conversationalists’ intentions is through “a ‘theory of mind’ dedicated to the attribution of

mental states on the basis of their behaviour” (Sperber and Wilson 2002: 4). In an RT view, the

concept of the module is more loose than the Fodorian (1983, in Sperber and Wilson 2002)

sense to denote “domain- or task-specific autonomous computational mechanism” (ibid.: 9; also

Sperber 1996). Hence, the module is a specialised mental mechanism operating at the level of

unconsciousness in order to recognise the communicator’s intentions.

59 The author gives the brief RT analyses of the two examples taken from The Big Bang Theory, while the rest of

the article is devoted to Grice’s account, i.e. how flouting of the maxims can lead to humour – the research which

has already been performed by Attardo (1990, 1993, 1994) and Dynel (2008).


- 131 -

The mind-reading ability comes in handy to explain how it is possible for humans to

foster social relationship in natural or fictional communication. Since it is not feasible to

literally see what is going through one’s mind, the interactant may act upon the mental states

of other communicators by predicting some features of a stimulus: the one that would attract

others’ attention, the one which would induce the hearer’s search for relevant background

information and the one which would enable the recipient to make inferences (Sperber and

Wilson 2002). All these three components are taken into consideration by the production crew.

The role of the mind-reading module has been underlined by Yus (2004, 2003, 2013a,

2016), as being essential to predict inferential stages the hearer is likely to go through in order

to exploit them humorously. It is argued that in the case of jokes or stand-up performances, the

communicator can anticipate how an utterance will be interpreted, what inferential steps will

be followed to enrich the incoming information into a fully contextualised material, which

inferences will be drawn, which make-sense or cultural frames will be constructed.

McKeown (2017) claims that humour poses an ostensive challenge, the presence of which

informs recipients that they are challenged to spend more mental effort in return for

entertainment. Moreover, a humorous unit promotes mind-reading abilities to communicators,

which “creates a desire to socially bond with the humorous person” (McKeown 2017: 628).

Hence, humour is seen as a sign of displaying affiliation and the humorist’s mind-reading

abilities are exercised when s/he provides others with relevant information that is loaded with

social currency.

What Sperber and Wilson (2002) advocate is that the process of mind-reading is carried

out automatically and unconsciously in spontaneously produced communication. In my

opinion, this ability can be used by the producers, scriptwriters, directors, etc. to induce a

humorous response on the viewers’ part. That is to say, the production crew devising fictional

dialogues employs his/ her mentalising abilities in a conscious way. It means that they make

conscious predictions concerning the way in which scripted conversations are to be received by

the audience. To rephrase, scriptwriters of any mass-mediated communication deliberately try

to steer the recipients’ train of thought in order to presume that humorous episodes are

recognised in accordance with their intention. Nonetheless, in the case of weak implicatures the

speaker can never fully predict which meanings are gleaned by the audience.

The mind-reading capacity can be seen as a sub-module of metarepresentational abilities,

defined as the ability to represent representations, i.e. a lower-order representation, which may

encompass thoughts, utterances, or propositions, embedded within a higher-order

representation (Wilson 1999). A lower-order representation may take the form of the public


- 132 -

representation (e.g. utterance), the mental representation (e.g. thought), or the abstract

representation (e.g. sentences, propositions) (Wilson 1999, 2000). In other words, the act of

metarepresentation enables human beings to consider their own and other interactants’

thoughts. The other two types of metarepresentation include the pragmatic (or

metacommunicative) ability to regard utterances and overt communicative episodes, and the

argumentative (or metalogical) ability to apply one’s epistemic vigilance (Wilson 2009; see

Section “Epistemic vigilance and the cultural spread”). Sperber and Wilson (2002) claim that

the standard mind-reading act comprises only one level, whereas metarepresentation requires

several levels in inference-based communication (as shown in Section 2.4.6.).

2.4.5. Implicitness, Mutual Manifestness and Recipient’s Cognitive Environment

RT holds that communication and comprehension are inferential, which consist in a

metapsychological endeavour of the formulation and evaluation of a hypothesis concerning the

interactant’s meaning (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995], Wilson and Sperber 2012). In order to

make the informative intention attributable, the communicator needs to make mutually manifest

to both the speaker and the recipient that s/he wants to communicate (that s/he has the

communicative intention). The fact that the intention needs to be made mutually manifest in

order to establish communication is one of the basic tenets in RT. Many relevance theoreticians

concerned with humour either explicitly or implicitly refer to this postulate.

Curcó (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997) underlines the role of implicitness, mutual

manifestness, metarepresentation and incongruity in verbal humour. Based on the notion of

implicitness, three mechanisms are proposed, which are explained in terms of forms of the

perception of incongruity and include: 1) the entertainment of contradictory propositional

content, 2) the treatment of foreground assumptions as if they were in the background, 3) a

clash between the expectations of the way in which upcoming material will achieve relevance

and the way it actually does. The third mechanism may work on its own or may originate from

the first two mechanisms. In general, humour resides in accessing two clashing propositions:

the strongly implicated premise, dubbed the key assumption, and the assumptions derived from

the context, termed the target assumption. The two assumptions divide one’s cognitive

environment into two relevance search fields (Curcó 1995, 1996a). Piskorska (2005) reckons

that Curcó, by no means, provides a fully-fledged list of logical mechanisms, while Dynel

(2012b) believes that the mechanisms can be narrowed down to one mechanism in which two

interpretations are in a clash.


- 133 -

The viewer’s cognitive environment is much wider than that of fictional characters’ since

the recipient of film/ sitcom discourse has access to a wider context. In other words, a set of

assumptions made mutually manifest to the viewers by the production crew is broader than

what is mutually manifest among fictional characters. The production crew is believed to

predict which information can be easily accessed by the audience and which information can

interact with audience’s personal cognitive environment, although a full overlap with the

recipient’s environment is never attainable (Yus 2004). Moreover, Yus (2016) comes up with

the notion of narrowed mutual cognitive environment which is “made up of assumptions which

are very salient or prominent, and which are almost unconsciously activated due to frequent

interactions with the interlocutor, where this information has repeatedly been mentioned or

commented upon” (ibid.: 205). This is exactly what happens in sitcoms. Throughout regular

“meetings” with actors, viewers learn the type of humour that can be expected. A wide

knowledge concerning fictional characters, their portrayal, habits and frequency of joking as

well as non-verbal cues used for humour can save a lot of the viewer’s mental effort. Moreover,

the viewer who happens to watch one episode in the middle of an ongoing season would not be

able to access all mutually manifest assumptions and hence some humorous intentions may pass

unnoticed. As regards the viewer’s failure to be amused, the responsibility for this cannot be

allocated on the part of the production crew who may fail to make certain information more

relevant than others because it was in his/ her own preferences and abilities to provide the most

relevant stimulus. It is a recipient who has failed to pay attention to certain highly relevant

assumptions. Irrespective of the fact that Curcó exemplifies her claims with witticisms and

funny aphorisms, her research is also relevant to sitcoms. Let us analyse extract (9) where there

is a clear overlap between two propositional forms:

(9) Context: Phil boasts about his sales achievements.

Phil: You don’t get to be district salesman of the year without thinking inside the box. [knowing that

the recipient may ponder] That’s right. I said “inside”. You know why? ‘Cause while

everyone’s chasing each other around outside the box, you know what the box is? [tapping on

his head60] Empty. (S04E05)

What the recipient who regularly watches the sitcom knows about Phil is that he is eager to

surprise the recipient with a witty remark, very frequently stating or reversing the obvious,

which puts him in the target position. In Curcó’s nomenclature (1996a, 1996b, 1997), the key

60 Phil’s non-verbal behaviour may also positively influence or boost one’s enjoyment since he utters the word

“empty” and points to his head, which may also be understood as Phil’s being stupid. The character is certainly

oblivious to the meaning that was implicated.


- 134 -

assumption derived from Phil’s monologue is that one should think outside the box, which

clashes with the target assumption that comprises the interpretation that one should look for a

solution to a problem or a good idea inside the box. The main reason why I believe that the

strongly implicated conclusion (key assumption) is formulated on the basis of the phrase outside

the box is that Phil knows that the recipient may wonder whether or not he has made a slip of

the tongue. Hence, instead of stating the correct phrase outside the box, he delivers a new phrase

inside the box, which grabs the recipient’s attention. Curcó (1996a) claims that before the key

assumption is derived by the recipient, the target assumption is treated as a piece of weakly

implicated information.

Based on the RT view of irony as an echoic use (Wilson and Sperber 2012), Curcó (1996a,

1996b, 1997) asserts that much intentional humour “consists in implicitly expressing an attitude

of disengagement towards an attributable assumption which is made strongly mutually manifest

by the implicit import of an utterance” (Curcó 1996a: 1). It seems sometimes indispensible for

the comprehension of humorous communication to identify the communicator’s tacit

propositional attitude of dissociating from the target assumption. Granted that dialogues

delivered by actors are devised by scriptwriters, the production crew can tacitly distance

themselves from an attributable assumption made mutually manifest by fictional characters.

The same applies to a variety of functions fulfilled by dint of humour. The production crew

takes advantage of actors who are made responsible for mental representations created in

recipients’ mind and thus, viewers attribute the meaning to characters.

2.4.6. Intentionality and Metarepresentation: Three Modes of Interpretation

The essence of human communication, be it verbal or non-verbal, is the production and

recognition of the communicator’s intention on the basis of evidence. This line of research was

initiated, among others, by Grice (1975, 1989). Within RT, the attribution of interactants’

intentions is a matter of satisfying one’s expectations of relevance, which can vary from quite

simple to more complex. Sperber (1994) advances three strategies of interpretation61, viz. naive

optimism, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding, each of which demands from the

hearer an additional layer of metarepresentation. A difference between three paths of

61 Sperber’s (1994) strategies of comprehension should be viewed as ‘modes’ of understanding since they are

proposed with reference to the development of human intelligence. The naive optimism strategy is typically

employed by small children as they have problems with the understanding of ironic or metaphorical utterances.

It happens that adults make simple errors in comprehension, which is an indicator of their following the naive

strategy. As soon as people understand each other perfectly fine, this means that they employ a more advanced

path of interpretation. Hence, complex inferencing, i.e. cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding, is

achieved by adults (see Wilson 1999).


- 135 -

comprehension lies in how much benevolence and competence the hearer ascribes to the

communicator, which coincides with his/ her engagement of a higher metarepresentational tier.

Grafting these modes of comprehension onto the research into sitcoms can yield some

relevant results in explaining humorous effects. First of all, we cannot expect the viewer to take

up the position of a naive or cautious understander since the intended humorous interpretation

of a fictional dialogue would fall short62. In other words, a humorous talk would be interpreted

on the basis of the first meaning, which is usually invalidated, and its perlocutionary effect,

even if made manifest, would fall flat. Secondly, Sperber’s (1994) technique of sophisticated

understanding is also pertinent to the explanation of functions that a humorous unit is intended

to convey, the fulfilment of which requires an extra layer of metarepresentational abilities.

The naive optimism strategy is the one in which the hearer remains at the low level of

metarepresentation and hence looks for the most easily accessible relevance. The communicator

is believed to be both competent and benevolent, which means that s/he will not mislead or

make his/ her audience misinterpret utterances. In other words, a recipient uncritically accepts

the first interpretation that comes his/ her mind as the production crew knows what is relevant

for his/ her audience. The conclusion of an inference is the second-degree meta-representational

attribution of a first-degree informative intention.

In the second higher strategy, a cautiously optimistic audience believes that the

communicator is benevolent, but not necessarily competent. As a result, the speaker may fail to

make the intended interpretation more relevant than others since the possible meanings of

utterance are graded in terms of accessibility. Following the path of least effort, a naive hearer

stops the comprehension process at the first meaning that seems relevant and attributes it to the

speaker. A cautious hearer stops at the interpretation that the speaker might have believed would

be relevant enough (Sperber 1994). The cautious optimism strategy is useful to prevent the case

of accidental relevance and accidental irrelevance (Wilson 1999, see Section 2.3.1.).

In the sophisticated understanding strategy, the communicator may be neither benevolent

nor competent but intends to seem as one. The hearer attributes the interpretation to the speaker,

which s/he might have thought would seem relevant enough to his/ her audience. Since the

recipient’s communicative competence involves the fourth-order metarepresentations, s/he can

glean the most complex meaning. The interactant’s informative intention may fail when the

recipient does not believe in the truthfulness of the contribution but the communicative

intention is still recognised (Sperber 1994). Moreover, as noted above in passing, a

62 In my earlier research into jokes (Biegajło 2013, 2014), it has been argued that following the naïve optimism

strategy is tantamount to accessing the literal sense of the punchline, whereas the cautious optimism path would

save humorous cognitive enjoyment from misfiring.


- 136 -

sophisticated understander is capable of unconscious recognition of information that is

communicated by dint of humour. This postulate can be further extended to claim that the

viewer needs to entertain a fifth-order metarepresentation when the production crew wishes

sitcom viewers to become aware of a plethora of functions that a humorous episode can

perform, such as advising. Let us have a look at the extract from Modern Family to exemplify

the three modes of comprehension:

(10) Context: Phil boasts about being an expert of a teenage language.

Phil: I’m the cool dad. That’s... That’s my thang. I’m hip. I... I surf the Web. I text: “LOL” – Laugh

Out Loud. “OMG” – Oh My God. “WTF” – Why The Face. Um, you know, I know all the

dances to High School Musical, so... (S01E01)

Starting from the simplest interpretation pattern, a naively optimistic viewer does not ponder

about humour when identifying the intended meaning. The recipient makes the presumption

that Phil conveys a relevant piece of information and to meet this end, he has used the best

stimulus possible. The first interpretation that comes to the viewer’s mind is that Phil is really

a superb parent as he deploys quite convicting arguments for that, i.e. being able to surf the

Internet, use texting abbreviations and Internet acronyms, typically known to young people,

and dance to the romantic comedy musical television film. Even if such a viewer was familiar

with the standard reading of the abbreviation “WTF”, s/he could form a hypothesis that an

alternative reading – the one used by Phil – also exists.

Next, a cautiously optimistic viewer recognises the fact that Phil has not provided the best

stimulus and thus his competence can be questioned. Granted that the first interpretation does not

seem plausible, the viewer needs to evaluate the meaning with respect to his/ her knowledge about

the world. A cautious hearer becomes aware of the clash between the proper (relevant) and improper

(less relevant) reading of the abbreviation of WTF as “Why the Face” vs “What the Fuck”, which

is intended to generate humour. As a result, s/he reaches the interpretation that Phil does not really

know teenage language. Moreover, it can be argued that when a fan-recipient (Wieczorek 2018)

analyses this dialogue, s/he accesses more meanings, for instance that Phil usually says something

awkward. Sperber (1994) reckons that even though a cautious recipient employs an extra layer of

metarepresentations, s/he may not cope with the complexity of communication. On the strength

of the analysis of example (10), a claim can be ventured that sitcom humour is more standardised

so that conversational units can be understood by mass audience.

A sophisticated understander is cognisant of not only the play between the two possible

interpretations of the acronym WTF but also of the fact that the production crew purposefully

manipulates the reception of humour. The most interesting case given the objective of the


- 137 -

present work is when the recipient engages in interpretation, which is slower and relatively

more conscious than comprehension (see Wilson 2018), to search for additional cognitive

effects achieved with the use of humour. In my opinion, it is only possible when the hearer is

eager to employ the fifth order of metarepresentational abilities. There is a whole bunch of

functions fulfilled on the part of the viewer, all of which are communicated in terms of weak

implicatures (see Piskorska and Jodłowiec 2018):

1) The monologue makes fun of people who are not teenage language-savvy.

2) It is quite entertaining when parents do their best to follow the way teenagers speak or dress.

3) It shows that adults are not able to keep up with a constant change in teenage language.

4) What parents think is fabulous may not be funny to teenagers, e.g. the knowledge of the dances to High

School Musical.

5) Teenagers often make fun of their parents, the testimony of which is Phil’s certainty of the proper

decoding of WTF.

The graphical representation of the viewer’s metarepresentational ability, who consciously

analyses fictional dialogues in order to tease out all the information delivered with the use of

humour is given below:

The production crew intends

the viewer to believe

that the production crew intends

the viewer to believe

that by saying that WTF can be deciphered as “Why the Face”

the production crew shows that adults may not be able to

keep up with the constantly changing language mastered by

teenagers63

Figure 2.2. The description of the viewer’s metarepresentation when some functions of humour are accessed

in the form of weakly communicated information (on the basis of Sperber 1994: 195)

In Sperber’s (1994) parlance, the first-order metarepresentation is the informative intention. On

the basis of Figure 2.2., it can be noticed that the first-order metarepresentation consists of the set

of weakly communicated implicatures. The actual content of this set may vary across recipients

and may also include implicatures such as, “Phil’s children make fun of him as they did provide

him with the incorrect meaning of WTF” or “Phil wishes to appear younger than he really is”.

When the audience is receptive to infer not only the production crew’s intended humorous

interpretation but also other weakly intended information, s/he needs to entertain a complex level

of metarepresentations. Sperber (1994; also Curcó 1995, 1997 (Chapter 7)) believes that fully-

fledged communicative competence is established when the communicator is able to entertain at

least a third order, while the recipient is able to entertain at least a fourth-order

63 In Sperber’s (1994) explanation of different layers of metarepresentation, he does not refer to the fifth order but

this possibility is not precluded.


- 138 -

metarepresentational attribution of the communicative intention. This is also pertinent to sitcom

discourse since the derivation of the humorous meaning requires a fourth layer, as indicated in

Figure 2.2. This is also what Curcó (1995: 42) advocates that “[e]mbedding the contradictory

propositions in metarepresentations of lower degrees than those needed for verbal humour and

wit results in a variety of different effects, relative to the metarepresentational orders involved”.

To sum up, a naive recipient does not have access to humorous communication, not to

mention weak implicatures that are extracted on the basis of a humorous unit. The main reason

why the recipient stops at the first meaning that seems relevant is that a fictional character is an

honest guru, the authority of whom suffices to accept valid arguments (Sperber 2005 [2010]). In

other words, a piece of sitcom discourse is analysed as an ordinary unit (i.e. the one without a

humorous intention). A cautious hearer has the intellectual ability to access humour given the fact

that the recipient undermines the production’s crew competence and thus does not accept the

initial interpretation. In this case, one’s epistemic vigilance may help to trigger recipient’s more

advanced inferential processes and hence lead to humour (Padilla Cruz 2012). Without a doubt,

a sophisticated understander can fully glean humorous intentions but also additional weakly

manifest information.

2.4.7. Weak Communication and Cognitive Overload

A plausible explanation of a humorous response elicited on the part of the recipient is advanced

in terms of weak communication (Jodłowiec 1991a, 1991b, 2008, 2015; Piskorska and Jodłowiec

2018). More specifically, it is argued that humour in verbal jokes emerges when the punchline

makes manifest or more manifest a wide array of weakly communicated assumptions, the mental

state of which is termed cognitive overload (Jodłowiec 2008). Never do these weak implicatures

achieve the status of being full mental representations hence, humorous effects are derived at the

subrepresentational level. This is the reason why many recipients of a humorous story may find

it challenging to articulate why something has been funny or amusing. In addition, accessing

weak assumptions is largely individualistic and depends upon a number of different factors, such

as cultural background or personal experience (Jodłowiec 1991a, 2008), which is labelled

contextual constraints by Yus (2016) (see Section 2.4.8.).

The cognitive overload effect is put forth to explicate the punchline effect so, in theory, it

should account for humorous effects only in jokes, where there is a clear-cut structure into the

setting and the punchline. Moreover, in Jodłowiec’s writings, theoretical claims are exemplified

with jokes in which the punchline occupies the final position (cf. Attardo 1997), which is not


- 139 -

always the case in humorous episodes in sitcoms64. It is not to undermine the explanatory power

of the cognitive overload effect. Quite the contrary, in my opinion, the mental state which is

created in the recipient’s mind when a plethora of weak assumptions is communicated is the same

in the case of jokes and other discourse units, such as fictional discourse. It needs to be highlighted

that not every piece of discourse communicating weak assumptions is equally humorous. Only

these units can potentially evoke humour when the simultaneity of weakly manifest assumptions

occurs leading to the overload. More importantly, the cognitive overload is particularly salient to

explain different communicative functions delivered with the use of humour (Piskorska 2016),

which is pursued in the present work. It is maintained here that a vast number of functions are

achieved with the use of humour on the part of the television viewer. These functions make

manifest various propositional meanings in a weak way and none of them are capable of

becoming fully-fledged representations. To show how the cognitive overload effect works in

practice, let us consider the extract from Modern Family:

(11) Context: Phil meets a well-known weatherman on the news, which makes Phil very excited. Rainer,

a weatherman, finds out that Phil is a real estate agent and tries to find a common language.

Rainer: You know, I think you sold my neighbor’s house, Doris Jacobs.

Phil: [trying to recall] Uh, white, mid-century, big back porch?

Rainer: That’s her. (S08E04)

Analysing the structure of this dialogue, it seems evident that the fictional humorous unit may

be similar to that in jokes, i.e. Rainer’s last turn is the punchline, i.e. the axis of humour, which

brings about incongruity and forces the viewer to backtrack in order to find the relevant

interpretation. Rainer’s and Phil’s initial turns can be interpreted as a usual conversation about

their mutual acquaintance, Doris Jacobs, and more specifically the house that she bought. Phil

tries to recall the front of the property that he sold to Doris: white, built or designed in mid-

century, with a big porch behind the house. Rainer decides to humorously switch the referent for

Phil’s description from the description of the estate to the description of the woman. The process

of reference assignment is exploited for the sake of humour not only on the fictional character’s

level but also the recipient’s level (see Section 3.6. on the participatory framework, and Yus

(2003) on the humorist’s exploitation of hearer’s interpretive processes). Besides the explicature

formed on the basis of Rainer’s last turn that Phil’s description fits both the house and the buyer

of that house, the viewer can access a number of implicatures which are manifest in a very weak

64 Norrick (1993) argues that jokes are very different from jokes appearing in conversation given the latter need to

be thematically connected to the on-going discourse.


- 140 -

way. These assumptions are constructed on the basis of background information that the recipient

accesses at the time of watching the sitcom, some of which may converge or contradict the ones

recovered by a different individual. Let me underline that these weak implicatures are listed with

a view to enumerating propositional meanings communicated by dint humour on the part of the

recipient:

- in a stereotypical men’s talk, women are described in terms of objects

- it is typical of some men that they ridicule women and hence show their power

- by drawing attention to the way in which men talk, the production crew may wish to alter undesirable

behaviour in which women are treated as an object of affection and nothing more (see Bergson 1905

[2010])

- humour can be used to establish the common ground

2.4.8. Poetic Effects and Non-propositional Effects

This section serves two aims. First, the notion of poetic effects within RT is discussed with

reference to literary texts which often contain poetic/ creative metaphors (Sperber and Wilson

1986 [1995], 2008; Wilson and Sperber 2004; Wilson 2011, 2018; Furlong 1995; Pilkington

1989, 1994, 2000; Vande Wiele 2016) and aphorisms (Jodłowiec 2015). Second, its viability is

assessed against the data culled from the sitcom Modern Family, which also aims to induce

certain emotions, sensations or aesthetic effects with the use of humour. It is believed that the

phenomenon of poetic effects complements the discussion on the fulfilment of different

functions by means of weak communication. As a result, the very performance of functions

occurs at a subrepresentational level, i.e. without recipients’ full mental awareness. In this way,

we may show how sitcoms are relevant to their viewers, that is they are intended to create positive

cognitive effects. Like literary works, sitcoms require from the audience to recognise not only the

production crew’s communicative and informative intentions but also delve into a broader goal

of communication: to draw intuitive inferences to fulfil expectations of relevance (Wilson 2011).

The notion of poetic effects denotes non-propositional effects65, which are construed in

the hearer’s search for an optimally relevant interpretation on the basis of accessing a wide

range of weak implicatures (Sperber and Wilson 2008) or on the basis of construction of a new

ad hoc concept (Pilkington 1994, 2000). Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]: 224) suggest that

non-propositional effects should be studied in the same manner as propositional effects66:

65 One of the reasons why non-propositional effects are not included in the studies of verbal communication is that

these lack a propositional content, which makes them very slippery. 66 Nevertheless, Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]: 57), few pages earlier, claim that: “No one has any clear idea

how inference might operate in non-propositional objects: say, over images, impressions or emotions”.


- 141 -

“How do poetic effects affect the mutual cognitive environment of speaker and hearer? They do not add

entirely new assumptions which are strongly manifest in this environment. Instead, they marginally increase

the manifestness of a great many weakly manifest assumptions. In other words, poetic effects create

common impressions rather than common knowledge. Utterances with poetic effects can be used precisely

to create this sense of apparently affective rather than cognitive mutuality.”

What Sperber and Wilson (1986 [1995]) state is that the primary objective of poetic effects is

to generate affective response in the form of weak implicatures. Moeschler (2009) believes that

emotive effects and propositional ones are connected in such a way that the former may block

explicit and implicit propositional effects, which in turn has an impact upon emotional states.

In other words, the manner in which utterance is delivered may influence or hinder eventual

relevance.

A pragmatic theory should be able to describe our affective experience which is crucial

to poetic effects (Pilkington 1994, 2000). Yus (2016, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c) believes that

emotions, feelings and impressions are non-propositional effects resulting in the process of

interpretation, which bifurcate into positive and negative non-propositional effects. The

difference between them is whether a non-propositional effect positively or negatively

influences the accessing of cognitive propositional effects and hence adds to the eventual

relevance or irrelevance of an output. This positive-negative division can be incorporated into

the relevance-theoretic effect-effort trade-off:

the cognitive effects generated from the interpretation of an utterance

[+] the existence of positive contextual constraints

[+] the generation of positive non-propositional effects

SHOULD EXCEED…

the mental effort needed to process this utterance

[+] the existence of negative contextual constraints

[+] the generation of negative non-propositional effects (Yus 2016: 16)

Moreover, Yus (2016) coins the term positive/ negative contextual constraints to refer to “non-

propositional qualities of the interaction that underlie communication and hence constrain the

successful outcome of the speaker’s humorous intent” (ibid.: xvii). It is suggested that non-

propositional effects emerge during the process of comprehension, while constraints, which are

also of non-propositional quality, guide communicative episodes and hence may inhibit the

attribution of humorous intentions. There are many negative constraints and negative non-

propositional effects, which may hinder or impede successful humorous communication, among

others: suitability of the topic for joking, hearer’s background knowledge and beliefs, the


- 142 -

interlocutor’s sex, one’s sense of humour, relationship between interlocutors, group size, hearer’s

mood, culture and ethnicity, the communicator’s traits and performance (Yus 2016, 2018b)67.

Moreover, non-propositional effects are divided into two types: those which are

intentionally communicated in the course of interaction (dubbed affective attitude, Yus 2018a)

and those which are not intentional but leak from the communicative episode (dubbed affective

effects, Yus 2018a) (Yus 2017a, 2018a, 2018b). The latter can serve an explanation of why

interlocutors engage in humorous communication which is mostly uninformative. Hence,

accessing non-humorous and/ or humorous effects of non-propositional quality compensates

for the lack of relevance or turns an irrelevant content into relevant one (Yus 2018a).

Within RT, it is suggested that fiction can generate internal and/ or external expectations

of relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1987; Wilson 2011, 2018): the former “arise in the context

of the preceding text and guide the interpretation of subsequent text”, while the latter create

“lasting cognitive effects on belief and assumptions about the actual world that the reader has

independently of the text” (Wilson 2018: 202). In my opinion, some genres are intended to

produce a vast array of externally relevant assumptions, for example universal knowledge about

human behaviour, people’s functioning in society, etc., whereas other genres aim to produce a

few assumptions that are not widely accessible. For instance, when the comprehender reads or

watches a detective story/ film, s/he does not only want to find out who the murderer is but also

what conditions/ inclines people towards becoming a villain. Consequently, there is no piece of

fictional discourse that is devoid of externally obtained assumptions since there are always other

factors that attract viewers/ readers to devour fiction.

Wilson (2018) notes that fictional genres, such as romantic or detective novels, are

produced as a form of entertainment and hence are mostly internally relevant to a recipient.

However, Wilson (2011, 2018) claims that other fiction genres can lead to accessing positive

effects which are externally relevant in the actual world. The key to this is to acknowledge two

levels of communication: the lower level is contingent upon fictional events, whereas the higher

level is based on displaying this world to the reader as if these events were possible to happen

in real-life situations (Sperber and Wilson 1987). The lower-higher level distinction is in accord

with the two communicative layers pertinent to fictional discourse discussed in Section 3.6.

Focusing on the studies of sitcom discourse, I believe that internal and external relevance work

in parallel. On the one hand, viewers adjust or enrich certain assumptions about fictional

characters on the basis of previous encounters, which strengthen or invalidate the recipient’s

67 Inasmuch as Yus (2016) is right to claim that there are many factors which may condition the hearer’s recovery

of humorous interpretation, these constraints are difficult to be predicted in the case of fictional communication.

That is to say, the production crew cannot possibility collect all the beliefs that the viewers may hold.


- 143 -

view about a character, while on the other, fictional events do not always differ from real

situations and hence can contribute to one’s understanding of real life via a fictional situation.

This internal-external interplay is epitomised below (12):

(12) Context: Claire and Phil have an argument over who is a better parent.

Claire: ...You think I smother our child?

Phil: No, Honey, it’s not your fault, “mother” is part of the word. You never hear of anyone being

sfathered to death. (S01E18)

Phil’s coinage of the phrase to sfather to death is first analysed on the basis of the existing

phrase to smother to death which helps the viewer to interpret the new expression. In other

words, Phil communicates an indeterminate meaning of to sfather to death contingent upon the

conventionalised determinate meaning of to smother to death (cf. Vande Wiele (2016)).

Moreover, it achieves internal relevance when the recipient adjusts his/ her interpretation on

the strength of prior encounters with Phil and Claire. The background information which is

made mutually manifest is that Phil is laid-back, whereas Claire is overprotective towards

children. These internal expectations arise in the lower-level communication. How does this

humorous conversation achieve external relevance? It is created by the higher-level

communication so that the viewer tests the usability of fictional information in the real world,

which takes the form of explicature and implicature, for example, it shows a way of coping with

a contextual problem (the one which arises in the course of interaction, Hay (2000)), i.e. the

recipient learns the lesson of passing on a critical remark in a mild humorous way. Moreover,

externally relevant assumptions foster interpersonal relationship between the recipients and the

production crew (Wilson 2011, 2018).

These non-propositional effects are said to introduce small changes in individual’s

cognitive environment (Sperber and Wilson 1995 [1986]). If we regard poetic effects through

the lens of various functions fulfilled in sitcom discourse, we would get the answer of how the

viewer creates certain impressions, attitudes and emotions. Wilson (2011, 2018) argues that

there are two cases in which the affective function is carried out by reading literature, and the

same applies to fictional communication. First, the production crew aims to evoke humorous

mood so that it would be easier for the recipient to derive a vast array of weakly communicated

assumptions. That is, example (12) may communicate the following weak implicatures: the

reason why fathers do not reduce child’s freedom is that there is not an appropriate phrase in

the English lexicon; the viewer’s knowledge about Phil is reinforced that he can be linguistically

inventive; it strengthens the myth that mothers are overprotective. The second case concerns


- 144 -

the lower-higher level distinction: the production crew aims to amuse the viewers on the lower

level, whilst they also induce a particular affective response on the higher level.

In general, humorous utterances, as any other case of ostensive-inferential

communication, convey a set of assumptions along a continuum from fully determinate, semi-

determinate to indeterminate (see Pilkington 1989, 2000). The communication between Claire

and Phil (12) is quite determinate since Phil’s communicative intention is made mutually

manifest when he provides the relevance of the newly-coined expression to the ongoing

discussion. However, the vast range of weak implicatures, which fulfil a number of different

functions, are only marginally manifest and hence they do not have to be entertained by the

viewer (Furlong 1995). There are fictional dialogues or monologues, which are more

indeterminate since the communicator does not produce firm evidence as to his/ her intention.

Hence, the recipient needs to claim responsibility for drawing inferences:

(13) Context: Mitchell is asked by his father about legal advice, which makes him happy.

Cameron: Well, Mitchell is an amazing lawyer. Oh. My dream for him is that one day he’ll be on

the Supreme Court.

Mitchell: Why, Cam?

Cameron: So at parties I can tell everyone my partner is one of the Supremes. (S01E14)

Cameron aims to make a humorous remark which should be amusing to Mitchell and the

viewers (the actors are talking directly into the camera and hence have more intimate

relationship with the viewers), which can be judged by his cheerful smile. There are many weak

implicatures which are communicated through the word Supremes:

(13a) Cameron wishes Mitchell to become the singer in an American singing group called The Supremes

(13b) Cameron wants Mitchell to become the part of the bar

(13c) Cameron would like Mitchell to obtain a higher social status, i.e. to be supreme

There is no hint in the dialogue, which would navigate the recipient which meaning is intended

by the production crew and Cameron. Nevertheless, it does not disrupt the viewer’s comic

enjoyment. As regards external relevance, the dialogue can be used to convey the message that

people find pleasure in boasting about anything that their partners do/ have achieved,

irrespective of having no particular reason.


- 145 -

2.5. Conclusions

The purpose of this chapter has been to summarise the main proposals of RT and bring into

focus those concepts that can thoroughly delineate the occurrence of humorous effects on the

part of telecinematic recipients. In order to achieve the goal, the assumptions concerning human

communication, cognition, inference and comprehension are characterised, which encompass,

among others, the Communicative and Cognitive Principles of Relevance, presumption of

optimal relevance, informative and communicative intentions and comprehension heuristic.

This helps the reader who is not acquainted with the theory to understand the theoretical

machinery of RT. The subsequent part of the chapter brings to the fore the RT notions pertinent

to sitcom discourse to show possible ways of deriving comic effects by the comprehender.

In particular, Yus’ (2013a, 2013b) ICM proves to be relevant in the light of the analysis

of humour in sitcom as it puts forth the conjunction of three threads of information, i.e. make-

sense frames, cultural information and inferential processes of comprehension. As will be

exemplified, the path of interpretation is an initial step in the recovery of the speaker’s meaning

as its activation helps to gain cognitive effects: not only humorous ones but also those that are

(un)intentionally communicated by the production crew.

One of the criticism voiced against RT is that the theory sidelines the sociological

dimension. Sperber and Wilson (1997b) reckon that “as a theory of communication, relevance

theory is a theory of a type of social phenomenon” (ibid.: 145), which is further validated by

Sperber’s collection of articles on culture. Sperber, being a social scientist, offers a detailed

account of how cultural information is spread within society, conceptualising a number of

useful terms, such as mental, public and cultural representations as well as intuitive and

reflective beliefs. His studies are complemented with Yus’s (2002, 2004, 2005) proposal of

private and metarepresented cultural beliefs. The recipients’ storage of beliefs can be predicted

given the mind-reading ability, which is particularly crucial to the production crew of mass-

mediated communication since s/he must predict the assumptions (and thus cognitive

environment) that the recipients would possibly attend to during the watching event.

Consequently, the communicators, i.e. mainly scriptwriters, can tailor and modulate the

fictional character’ dialogues so that an exact set of evidence is offered.

Furthermore, it will be shown in the analytical chapter that the notion of weak

communication would best account for a host of possible meanings conveyed by means of

humour. It would also explain why every, some or few of the functions are fulfilled on the

recipients’ part. Given the premise that various effects communicated by dint of humour are


- 146 -

made manifest in a weak manner, the very fictional dialogue may lead to the cognitive overload

effect, where none of the assumptions becomes fully represented in the recipients’ mind. It is

corroborated by Wilson and Carston (2019: 37):

“in weaker forms of communication, where the goal is not to achieve exact duplication of thoughts,

communicator and addressee(s) may end up entertaining different members of the array of propositions

made manifest by an utterance without this constituting a failure of communication”

It will be demonstrated in the analysis of the sitcom data that RT has a number of useful tools

in its theoretical repertoire that can provide a detailed account of not only humorous

interpretation but also other meanings that the diversified audience can access.

- 147 -

C h a p t e r I I I

Comedy Discourse

Claire:“Family is a gift you receive every day”


Gloria:“Family is family. Whether it’s the one you start out with,

the one you end up with, or the family you gain along the way”


3.1. Introduction

The main aim of the chapter is to draft the broader context for the qualitative analysis

undertaken in the work, which would facilitate the understanding of the nature of the sitcom

data. This chapter is divided into two main parts. First, the workings of comedy are discussed

with a view to explicating what type of discourse it is. Special attention will be devoted to one

of its forms, i.e. sitcoms, given the fact that my exemplification data is collected from the sitcom

Modern Family. Section 3.2. succinctly summarises the modes and types of comedy in order to

help the reader navigate the place that situation comedy occupies with respect to different

genres. Section 3.3. offers a few introductory remarks concerning possible conceptualisations

of the genre of sitcom. Its subsection 3.3.1. characterises distinguishing features of sitcoms,

such as canned laughter (or lack of thereof), shooting style, scheduling as well as the process

of hybridisation that is quite frequent in the case of new situation comedies. In section 3.4.

careful attention is directed at the social dimension of the genre and the origins and role that

sitcoms play in the audience’s life are investigated. The last section of this part of the chapter

touches upon the issue of the representation of the family unit on screen and how it has evolved.

This is motivated by the fact that Modern Family is a family sitcom, being one of the most

frequent types of sitcoms. Also, the idea of family can receive a more global understanding to

denote any unit in which people are closely related to each other, such as workplace (Feuer

2001, Hartley 2001).

Second, the chapter also elucidates the participation framework that is central to the study

of any fictional communication. This framework transcends the speaker-hearer dyad to call for

the duality of communicative layers, i.e. fictional and collective senders’. In subsection 3.6.1.

various types of participants on the two levels are described. Section 3.6.1.1. constitutes the


- 148 -

focal part of the chapter as it addresses the role and position of the viewer in fictional discourse

as well as the audience design. It needs to be highlighted that different scientists advocate and

assign various roles to a televisual recipient, ranging from a passive overhearer to an active

recipient or metarecipient.

3.2. Comedy and its genres

As indicated in the Introduction, this section presents the workings of comedy discourse. It is

Aristotle who first considered structural aspects of comedy:

“Comedy is… imitation of more loathsome things, albeit not in regard to all that is evil, yet it is the

ridiculous side of what is ugly. It is indeed ridiculous whatever error and vice that is painless and harmless,

like the comic mask is ridiculous, deformed but cause of no pain” (Savorelli 2010: 22).

Neale and Krutnik (1990) advocate the claim that comedy68 is an aesthetic notion comprising

a variety of forms and modes. While slapstick, parody and satire are comedy modes, sitcoms,

wisecracks, jokes, gags, comic events/ moments are considered forms of comedy. Deriving

from the Aristotelian tradition, Neale and Krutnik (1990) underline two factors of comedy:

creation of laughter (local and momentary) and a happy ending (which is also a key

characteristic to melodrama).

As for comedy modes69, parody is contingent upon aesthetic conventions, which is used

to mock and attack through the imitation of an original work (Neale and Krutnik 1990, Palmer

2005). It may also be regarded as a “human behaviour which is enacted in various ways, through

gesturing, writing or speaking” (Rossen-Knill and Henry 1997: 720). The same mocking

function, however with a more insistent manner, is performed by satire which depends upon

social conventions, where the most often ridiculed are political and religious institutions and

their representatives (Berger 1997; on political satire see Wagg 1992). The third comedy mode,

slapstick, is chiefly associated with silent gag-films (Neale and Krutnik 1990), the most

distinctive feature being a number of exaggerated pratfalls which are often seen as dangerous.

As for comedy genres, these share certain factors, i.e. dependence upon an element of

surprise (created through arousing and undermining expectations) and feature of being a self-

contained product that may become a part of narrative context. A wisecrack70, also dubbed

68 A term similar to comedy is comic which refers to one generic criterion, such as character or event (Neale and

Krutnik 1990). 69 I do not aim to provide a detailed description of all the modes and forms of comedy. The purpose of a short

overview is to demonstrate where sitcom is situated on the map of comedy discourse. 70 A wisecrack is similar to a quip and epigram (Dynel 2009b). Conversational witticisms are quips “which occur

in response to various nonlinguistic situations” (Norrick 1986: 234) but not to other utterances. An epigram is a


- 149 -

witticism, is “a bright, smart, witty or sarcastic remark” (Neale and Krutnik 1990: 47), which is

context-dependent and hence needs to be incorporated into a larger chunk of text. In form,

wisecracks mirror one-line jokes but the former communicate a meaning outside the humorous

frame and are intrinsically ingenious (Dynel 2009b). A gag is a visual and physical humorous

action, which is unpredictable and unexpected and thus humorous to the viewer (Neale and

Krutnik 1990). Gags are often not accompanied by a verbal message.

3.3. Sitcom discourse71

Sitcoms are a subgenre of comedy discourse. It is also an important phenomenon belonging to

popular culture, which may partly explain the fact why these have sparked avid interest in the

domains of sociology and culture (Horton 1991, Jones 1992, Davis 1993, Marc [1989] 1997,

Staiger 2000, Morreale 2003, Dalton and Linder 2005, 2016; Mills 2005, 2009; Tueth 2005).

Yet, sitcoms, or comedies in general, have not much been studied from the vantage point of

linguistics (Palmer 1987, Neale and Krutnik 1990, Quaglio 2009, Bednarek 2010, Richardson

2010, Savorelli 2010, Sorlin 2016).

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term sitcom first appeared in print in

1964. The word itself is an abbreviated version for the more official one, i.e. situation comedy,

which is dated back to the 1950s – the time when this genre experienced a growing surge in

popularity, with broadcasting one of the most widely recognised and influential American

sitcoms titled I Love Lucy (1951-1957; CBS). Situation72 comedy should be dubbed comic

drama or narrative comedy to fully describe its format, however given their serious sounding

unsuitable for promotional reasons, it has become just sitcom (Marc 2005). Television sitcom

is modelled on radio sitcom, the prime time of which was in the 1930s and 1940s in the USA.

Some radio sitcoms were successfully turned into television ones, while others lost their

humorous effects when changed into another medium. In turn, radio sitcoms were developed

from different genres of entertainment, such as vaudeville and music hall sketches (Neale and

Krutnik 1990).

witty remark on a group of individuals as opposed to wisecracks which concern a particular individual (Esar 1952,

in Dynel 2009b). 71 This section summarises the workings of not only sitcoms but also fictional discourse since the latter are general

and thus are applicable to any fictitious communication. 72 The reason why there is the adjective situation is that every episode of sitcom presents a pressing problem which

is resolved, bringing the situation into reconciliation: “episode = familiar status quo→ ritual error→ ritual lesson

learned→ familiar status quo” (Marc [1989] 1997: 90; also Linder 2005). The presence of situation is salient from

the narrative perspective as it forms a frame where “all manner of gags, one-liners, warm moments, physical

comedy and ideological conflicts” are deployed (Feuer 2001: 69-70).


- 150 -

It seems that sitcom depends upon regularity in terms of not only characters, locations

and situations but also structure of each episode, all of which aim to ensure continuity. An episode

is a complete piece of work so that the audience is first clashed with some disruption which is

minimised or stabilised at the end. More importantly, picturing stable environments with familiar

characters generates a loyal audience, which in turn establishes rapport between viewers and actors

(Neale and Krutnik 1990; Mills 2005, 2009), which can be materialised via laughter (Glenn 2003).

Considering how sitcoms differ in aesthetics and forms, Mills (2009) identifies two types

of realist/ naturalist situation comedies. Both groups are devoid of laugh track, as they are

intended to appear to reflect real events. The first type comprises sitcoms that can be a mixture

of a drama and/ or documentary-like style. As a result, these reject the theatrical origins of

sitcoms and position the TV recipient in the role of a witness of real events through actors’

speaking directly into the camera, which is the essence of mock-documentaries (see Section

5.3.). The second, drama-like aesthetics adopts a realist approach according to the conventions

of soap opera and social realism. As regards its form, it may resemble the former type of

sitcoms, nevertheless it is not shot in a mock-documentary style and as a result, the fourth wall

is maintained (see Section 5.3.). In addition, there are two identifying criteria of these sitcoms:

a large number of shooting locations and humour resulting from repetition, instead of single

humorous events (jokes).

3.3.1. Characteristic features

The genre of television73 sitcom adheres to well-established conventions which arouse certain

expectations in the audience. These conventions can be described in terms of distinctive features

that are more or less universal: setting (picturing a recurrent set of participants in two or three

familiar places), aesthetics (audience’s awareness of watching fiction) and narrative

(repetitious events) (Mintz 1985, in Mills 2009: 28; see Neale and Krutnik 1990). To the list of

basic elements, Lacey (2000) adds iconography (sounds, objects, costumes and props), style,

and stars (the presence of actors that are typically associated with the comic), claiming that the

setting and characters are vital for sitcom. In addition, television sitcom is allotted between

twenty four and thirty minutes time slot, which is a considerable change from radio sitcoms and

early TV sitcoms, both of which were allocated fifteen minutes.

The shooting style of classic sitcoms can be described as the “three-headed monster”

(Putterman 1995, in Mills 2005, 2009), which means that the scene is filmed from three angles

73 It is mass-circulation newspapers in the 1870s and 1890s (Neale and Krutnik 1990) and then radio sitcom (Marc

2005), which first followed standardised characteristics of what we know now as television sitcom: constant

characters, produced weekly, finished situation, simple plot.


- 151 -

where the first camera gives a general view on the actors and place, whereas the last two

cameras show close-ups of individual characters. A change in the camera positioning can

restructure the viewer’s reception, which has an impact upon humour (Bubel 2008, Brock 2015,

Wieczorek 2016). For instance, Peep Show (2003-2015; Channel 4) employs the point-of-view

(POV) shots in which the viewer is granted the fictional character’s stance so that the same

picture is enjoyed by the actor and recipient.

Quite common in sitcoms is the laugh track/ canned laughter74 which is “the aural

embodiment of the audience, captured electronically and transmitted alongside the programme

in order to show that real people found the events on-screen funny” (Mills 2009: 102). The

laugh track is a set of pre-recorded or live response cries (Savorelli 2010), the most frequent of

which in sitcoms is the expression of amusement via laughter. It is also possible to include other

reactions, such whopping or cheering, for instance in Friends (1994-2004; NBC), which are not

as common as laughter. Canned laughter is an indication of producers’ humorous intention,

which fulfils the meta-comic function, as it sanctions effectiveness of humour, as well as the

pragmatic function as it informs the audience of their intention (Savorelli 2010). Despite being

a cue, the presence of canned laughter deprives the audience of having own personal affective

response, i.e. to display emotion other than amusement. Moreover, only those humorous

reactions are added to the sound mix, which appear on the right moment, hence any “peculiar”

noises are edited out (Mills 2009). In a similar vein, mass-mediated discourse can also

accommodate studio audience whose responses are a crucial part of the meaning conveyed by

TV viewers (Seewoester Cain 2013).

The episode of any situation comedy is generally thematically organised around the main

storyline, e.g. episode 8 (season 9) of Modern Family revolves around the characters’

description of an encounter with an eminent person (musical hero, football icon, playwright and

celebrated comedian). Savorelli (2010) dubs these sitcoms closed series because fictional

events barely condition what happens in the subsequent episode and there is some constancy in

the relationships among people. Series can also be built as open, which entails engagement and

linkage between the action from the previous and the next episode. In terms of viewership,

closed series allows for an occasional viewing, while open series necessitate dedicated and

constant recipients keeping track of events.

There are also secondary features conductive to the genre. In the United Kingdom, there

is a specific time slot for which various comedies are scheduled, e.g. BBC2 has a comedy night

called Thursdays are Funny or Channel 4 broadcasts entertainments on Fridays, while NBC

74 It is believed that the presence of canned laughter is typical of North American shows, which is added in the

post-production process (Lacey 2002).


- 152 -

airs Comedy Night Done Right on Thursdays (Mills 2009). Second, while a music score in films

is generally used to create atmosphere and portray emotions, sitcom music marks the passage

through the scenes.

Discussing possible conceptualisations, Mills (2005, 2009) concludes that some sitcoms

lack typical characteristics of the genre but they are still classified as such by the audience. Hence

the idea of what is regarded as sitcoms is rather flexible. Moreover, sitcom and comedy drama share

the feature of being entertaining and picturing recurring characters. A possible way to precisely

define sitcom is to refer to its “comic impetus” or comic pleasure, which becomes the primary

rationale for an audience to gather in front of the TV screen (Mills 2005, 2009; similar Ross 1998).

Notwithstanding characteristic features, Mills (2005, 2009) argues that the very essence

of sitcom-ness (Butler 2010) does not lie in the distinguishing factors since they also describe

drama series. Moreover, any alternation of the genre can give rise to new genres like ‘hybrid

sitcoms’, such as docu-sitcom that hinges upon the elements of sitcoms and docu-soap, or

reality sitcoms (reality-com/ real-com), like The Osbournes (2002-2005; MTV) which is a

reality show packaged as a sitcom (Linder 2005, Neale and Krutnik 1990, Zillmann and Bryant

1991, Hartley 2001, Savorelli 2010). Thirdly, many ‘new comedies’ are shot from a single-

camera setup coupled with the lack of laugh track (Savorelli 2010, Picone 2014), a case in point

being Modern Family which is analysed here.

3.4. The origins and role of sitcoms

This section explicates the developing format of situation comedies and their changing role in

social and everyday life of many people. In other words, it aims to describe how the genre of

sitcoms has evolved throughout centuries, which emerged from music-hall sketches and other

theatre-related pieces of entertainment, then it was borrowed into newspapers (published in

weekly instalments) and radio programmes/ shows to be finally introduced into television

industry (Neale and Krutnik 1990).

The roots of situation comedies trace back to theatrical tradition in which performances,

such as vaudeville and music hall, were given to live audiences who were external spectators, just

like viewers/ listeners of television or radio (Neale and Krutnik 1990, Savorelli 2010). Comedy

performers staged a series of comic gags, which mostly lacked any narrative structure (Mills

2005). Nevertheless, an early version of comedies is a “video approximation of theatre” (Marc

1996: 11, in Mills 2009: 35). There were two problems with the broadcasting of consecutive

episodes: while shows can be performed multiple times to different audiences in theatres,

episodes of comedies can be shown once on television. Second, theatre acts seem sensible when


- 153 -

shown once to one audience in a theatre, which is different from presenting repetitive characters

in repetitive contexts and situations on television. To become successful, comedy performers

advanced the format of sitcoms that we know today with recurring features, such as back stories

and other characteristics of the setting to foster a lasting relationship between the audience and

characters as well as to ensure continuity through the sequential nature of broadcasting (Mills 2009).

In the printed version, the origins of sitcoms, understood as a piece where daily domestic

life was in the centre of attention, can be dated back to the 1870s and 1890s newspapers. It was a

means of mass circulation that many people can afford and access easily. Each sketch (instalment)

was brief (so that it can be contained in a column) and complete (so that its disruptive events were

resolved). Moreover, each column “centred around the same characters (a husband and a wife)

and each involved a great deal of conflict and action. The plots were simple and the action usually

took place in the home” (Gladden 1976: 176, in Neale and Krutnik 1990: 227).

At the beginning, the introduction of comedy into radio was problematic because of failure

to provide the right cue at the right moment, however radio producers came up with the

phenomenon of the studio audience that cued the radio audience. The 1930s and 1940s mark the

time when radio sitcoms/ comedy programmes became popular. The processes of radio broadcast

can be characterised as “the ‘domesticizing’ of leisure and entertainment” (Neale and Krutnik

1990: 210), which can also be used to describe television broadcast. That is to say, the television

industry and radio industry are similar with respect to many characteristic features, such as

functions they fulfil on the part of the recipients, formats of programming as well as scheduling

policies (Neale and Krutnik 1990). While vaudeville performances contain a string of witticisms

and situational jokes, radio sitcoms needed to rely on humorous narratives for their effects. It was

quickly noticed that theatre performances required a lot of weeks and even years of touring to garner

dedicated viewership, which can be replaced by just a few weeks in the case of radio (Mills 2005).

The 1950s (specifically, in America in the years between 1948 and 1952, and in the UK

after 1955) marked an upsurge in television as the main medium for comedy programmes (Neale

and Krutnik 1990).

The research into sitcom discourse is appealing for social reasons: it can be treated as a lens

through which viewers see their own or others’ behaviour, personality, etc. In other words, sitcom

is “not only representative of a culture’s identity and ideology, but it also becomes one of the

ways in which that culture defines and understands itself” (Mills 2005: 9). It can be surmised that

people are inclined to comedy programmes in which they can relate to and associate with the

characters whose code of conduct is very familiar or considerably discrepant. The way the society

is represented should adhere to and utilise “normalised social conventions” (Mills 2005: 7), which

enables the televisual recipients to find it intelligible and relatable.


- 154 -

Not only being the mirror which reflects social changes occurring in various spheres of life,

sitcoms can also be used as a platform for raising important issues. Addressing those issues on

air can be a means of neutralising them, which can make the society more accepting towards

diversities. This strategy has been pursued in a number of socially important subjects, such as

different models of a family unit, ethnicity, gender roles, etc.

3.5. The representation of the family

As highlighted in the previous section, sitcoms can be regarded as a medium that reflects

cultural changes within societies as well as a means of understanding the ever-changing world.

Granted that the extracts from Modern Family are used as exemplification data, which, as the

title of the sitcom suggests, is a family sitcom, there is a need to delineate this variation of

comedy. In particular, attention will be paid to how the model of family has been developed,

which also points to the recipients’ acceptance of varieties in the family model.

There is a host of family75 / domestic American sitcoms, which portray a group of people

related by family or business ties (Tueth 2005, Kutulas 2005), or a group friends76 who can be

regarded as family in its broad sense. An obvious attraction of this genre is that the

representation of family, irrespective of whether it is nuclear, extended or blended, creates a

homely atmosphere in which members are engaged in everyday situations: baking a cake,

moving furniture, discussing problems at work (Neale and Krutnik 1990; cf. Linder 2005).

These are the same household activities in which most viewers are involved. Feuer (2001: 69)

notes that “the sitcom seems to require the presence of a quasi-familial structure in order to

satisfy the needs of the viewer”. The idea behind creating family sitcom was to offer

entertainment for families to past time. That is, early sitcoms were always designed for families

and about family units, which were acutely needed after the Great Depression era.

A family is a hierarchical social institution with definitive roles and responsibilities

assigned to each member (Linder 2005). A vast majority of domestic sitcoms that hit the prime-

time entertainment programming in the 1950s represent an idealised portrayal of the daily life

of a white middle-class nuclear family, especially living in the suburbs. From early years, these

families comply with a standardised model, in which a father is an authoritative figure and

breadwinner, while a mother is a housewife whose role in the family is not noteworthy. Even

75 Feuer (2001) reckons that the word family is redundant given the fact that every sitcom involves a variety of

domestic unit. 76 Mills (2005) believes that sitcoms representing a circle of friends may form surrogate family (or, metaphorical

family, Hartley 2001), which embodies the substitution of family related by blood. The sitcoms include Friends

(1994-2004; NBC), Seinfeld (1989-1998; NBC) and Cheers (1982-1993; NBC).


- 155 -

when some disruptive event occurs, it can be cured within a little more than twenty minutes

(complying with the problem/ resolution format). In short, the 50s sitcoms were used to promote

conservative values as these sitcoms were family-oriented, such as I Love Lucy or Leave it to

Beaver (1957-1963; CBS/ ABC). Therefore, “to base a sitcom on a nuclear family is to affirm

rather than question the status quo” (Feuer 2001: 69).

The sitcoms dated from the 1970s break with an idealised version of a family life with a

view to promoting partnership-based relationship or representing a truncated family. The

sitcoms in which a change of family dynamics can be noticed include All in the Family (1971-

1979; CBS) that addressed a number of socially important issues, such as racism,

homosexuality and abortion, The Andy Griffith Show (1960-1968; CBS) which addressed single

parenthood and The Brady Bunch (1969-1974; ABC) that addressed the ordeal of divorce. Then,

the 1980s experienced a marked revival of traditional family sitcom, however parents were

more tolerable and cultivated children’s independence (Kutulas 2005). This revised family

model was represented in Family Ties (1982-1989; NBC) or The Cosby Show (1984-1992;

NBC) that pictured a mother who pursued professional career and a father who did chores

typically associated with mothers. The Cosby Show was one of the first sitcoms that centred

upon a black family, nevertheless it was critically assessed by some audience claiming that the

sitcom was “too white”, which means that it failed to represent a real black family.

As Hough (1981, in Mills 2005: 44) notices, American sitcoms can be grouped with

respect to the representation of family “from traditional families, through nuclear families,

followed by eccentric, bizarre families, to families which represented the complex ethnic

makeup of contemporary society”. Mills (2005) clarifies that sitcoms reflect what is deemed

tolerable to be laughed at by society, which converges with social changes in real life.

Therefore, we may notice a diversity in the models of family, from stable units through surreal

to surrogate ones (Marc [1989] 1997, Mills 2005).

3.6. Participation framework

Pertinent to the discussion on sitcom discourse is its interactional aspect, which can be neatly

captured by the participation framework77. The traditional dyadic model presupposes two

participatory roles during a speech event (Hymes 1972), i.e. the speaker (producer) and hearer

(receiver) (Shannon and Weaver 1949 [1964], Jakobson 1960). In the ethnographic vein,

77 See Messerli (2017b) for a detailed overview of the participation structure in fictional discourse with special

emphasis on participatory roles of viewers/ readers, authors/ producers and characters.


- 156 -

however, Hymes (1974) contests against the dyadic view and notes that “[t]he common dyadic

model of the speaker-hearer specifies sometimes too many, sometimes too few, sometimes the

wrong participants”. Goffman (1963, 1981, see Dynel 2011b) is a forerunner of a move beyond

the dyad. He enumerates three roles of the producer: animator, author and principal. The

animator is a person who is currently taking the floor: “the sounding box” and “a body engaged

in acoustic activity” (Goffman 1981: 144). The author can be defined as an individual who

“who puts together, composes, or scripts the lines that are uttered” (Goffman 1981: 226) or

“someone who has selected the sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they

are encoded” (Goffman 1981: 144). Finally, the principal is a person “whose position is

established by the words that are spoken” (Goffman 1981: 144) or “whose position, stand, and

belief the words attest” (Goffman 1981: 226). These three roles amount to the production

format, as opposed to the participation framework, which in Goffman’s (1981) parlance, covers

the reception side.

Goffman’s Participation Framework

Ratified

Addressed recipient- “the one to whom the speaker addresses his visual attention and to

whom, incidentally, he expects to turn over his speaking role”

Unaddressed recipient- the rest of the “official hearers”, who may or may not be listening

Unratified Over-hearers- “inadvertent”, “non-official” listeners, or bystanders

Eavesdroppers- “engineered”, “non-official” followers of talk

Table 3.1. Goffman’s (1981) reception roles (participation framework) (adapted from Levinson 1988: 169)

Levinson’s (1988) work was greatly inspired by Goffman’s (1981) as he distinguishes

four participant roles: speaker (utterer), source (a participant or non-participant in an event;

origin of message), addressee (participant in a proximate destination) and target (may be a

participant; destination of message). In general, a participant is “a party with a ratified channel-

link to other parties” (Levinson 1988: 170), hence other unratified individuals who may be

present during communication are disregarded. Levinson (1988) defines audience by negation,

that is they are not producers (source of utterance) or recipients (addressee or target) (see the

table below with Levinson’s reception roles; see Levinson’s (1988: 173) production roles):


- 157 -

Levinson’s Reception Roles

Address Recipient Participant Channel-link

Participant reception roles

interlocutor + + + +

indirect target - + + +

intermediary + - + +

audience - - + +

Non-participant roles

overhearer - - - +

targeted overhearer - + - +

ultimate destination - + - -

Table 3.2. Levinson’s reception roles (Levinson 1988: 172)

Communication in mass-mediated discourse as well as in a real-life context rarely hinges

upon the producer-receiver pair. That is, one’s participatory status is simply determined by the

person’s presence during a social situation, but participants may also be “divided, or mute and

distant, or momentarily present” (Goffman 1964: 135). A departure from the dyadic view

results in a revised participation framework which covers a number of roles performed by

speakers and hearers. These roles are in turn negotiated and changed with respect to a shift in a

speech frame. By this token, interaction is understood as a dynamic process of meaning co-

construction, encompassing two communicative levels with a range of possible interactional

frames and distinct participatory roles.

A number of scholars have followed in Goffman’s footsteps proposing different layers of

action (Clark 1996), ends of media communication (Yus 1998), circles (Burger 1984, 1991, in

Bubel 2008: 56-57), communicative levels (Brock 2011, 2015; Dynel 2010a, 2011c, 2011d,

2011e), frame interaction (Fetzer 2006), or containers (Messerli 2017a). In particular, Yus

(1998) employs the spectator-oriented and character-oriented communication, Brock (2011)

speaks of the inner (characters’) and outer (comedians’) boxes, Dynel (2010a, 2011d, 2011f)

proposes the inter-characters’/characters and recipients’ levels, and finally Fetzer (2006)

offers the first-frame interaction and second- or media-frame interaction.

It is indisputable that any scripted and prefabricated interactions consist of the diegetic

(artificial) level and non-diegetic (natural) level (Rossi 2011). Also, it has been noticed that fictional

communication mirrors natural conversation, hence, similar linguistic models can be applied

(Piazza 1999, Quaglio 2009, Bubel 2008, Dynel 2010a, 2011e, Richardson 2010, in Dynel 2015).

Some fictional interactions are socially acceptable or highly probable to occur in natural discourse,

while others may be even impermissible (Dynel 2015). It is through reality code or code of realism


- 158 -

that fictitious interactions resemble natural conversations (Dynel 2011c, 2013b), which arouse

expectations of normality. This adherence to realism serves several functions, among others:

“control of viewer evaluation and emotions” (Kozloff 2000: 33) (see Section 5.3.1.).

Pivotal to the revised participation framework78 is the division of communication into the

two communicative levels, viz. the inter-character’s/character and the recipient’s (Dynel

2010a, 2011e). The former comprises fictitious conversations (dialogues and monologues) in

which actors are engaged, while the latter consists of the meanings gleaned by the audience on

the basis of fictional characters’ communication. Hence, television discourse is structured upon

the two layers: fictional and collective sender’s (Dynel 2011e). The verbal and visual context

as well as the roles of participants on the fictional layer are parallel to the ones in a real life

(Dynel 2010a, 2011c). It is worth underlining that the two levels are intertwined since the

interpretations construed by TV viewers are conditioned by fictional characters’ exchanges. As

for the collective sender, it is a group of scriptwriters, directors, producers and editors, who are

deemed to be responsible for the conveyed message.

Some of the existing participation frameworks appear to be centred upon either the

production or reception end. Bubel (2008) openly acknowledges the fact that it is the spectator

(understood as an overhearer in a natural talk) who is the main target of cinematic discourse

since “utterances are designed with overhearers in mind, on the basis of an estimate of the

spectators’ world knowledge and on the knowledge the participants have gleaned from

interactions that the spectators have observed” (ibid.: 66). Dynel (2010a, 2011e), on the other

hand, pays special heed to the other level – fictional characters’ – providing the whole gamut

of characters who influence the reception of telecinematic conversations and the way in which

recipients’ interpretation is conditioned by the actors. Brock (2015) adopts a similar approach

but he makes a reservation that “neither side [M.W. reception or production] is favoured over

the other or treated in isolation from it” (p. 29).

3.6.1. Types of participants

Reliant on the two-fold layering, Dynel (2011e: 312-315) sets forth a fully-fledged and well-

organised taxonomy of participants with distinct individuals germane to each communicative

level. In her nomenclature, a participant is an individual who may listen to the progressing turn

and convey his/ her utterance, a case in point being the speaker and/ or the hearer (cf. Goffman

1974). Likewise, a non-participant is a person who is out of earshot but may be in close

proximity, however, s/he is not able to formulate any interpretation (Dynel 2011e: 313).

78 The participation-based model is applicable to films, series, serials, sitcoms (Dynel 2011e), hence, throughout

the summary I may employ the term ‘fictional discourse’ as the most general one.


- 159 -

Figure 3.1. Participants in a film interaction (Dynel 2012c: 173)

Below, please find Brock’s (2015: 32) realisation of a participatory model of communication

with two communicative levels (CLs), in which the CL1 constitutes the interaction between the

production crew and TV viewers, while the CL2 is the fictional level which mirrors Dynel’s

(2011e). Brock argues that it is the most straightforward participation framework79 since there

are many possible constellations of the model depending on the type of comedy discourse.

Hence, any peculiarities in recipientship, which influence the humorous meaning in the sitcom

under analysis, will be discussed in the next chapter.

Figure 3.2. Brock’s (2015) simple participation framework

79 In this section, I draw much attention to Dynel’s (2011d, 2011e) participation framework to preserve

systematicity, however, let me note that this model is not the first which promotes the duality in fictional discourse.


- 160 -

Dynel80 (2011e) subdivides participants on the fictional characters’ level into ratified and

unratified. Ratified participants, also dubbed conversationalists, interlocutors or interactants,

are further categorised into the speaker and ratified hearers/ listeners. They are fully entitled

to verbalise their thoughts and feelings as well as take notice of what is going on among fictional

characters, i.e. they may assign and express the meaning. The speaker is best defined as a person

whose turn is in progress, while the group of ratified hearers bifurcates into the addressee and

the third party. The addressee is the one who, by dint of verbal or visual stimulus, is ratified to

work out the meaning, while the third party is a blanket term to denote any person of whose

presence other individuals are aware and hence they are licensed to draw inferences. The

subsequent group of participants on the fictional layer is unratified participants (also called

unratified hearers/ overhearers) epitomised by bystanders and eavesdroppers. To differentiate

between the two categories, the communicator is cognisant of bystanders’ aural proximity and

their ability to interpret a communicative act but s/he is entirely unaware of eavesdroppers’

presence, which converges with Goffman’s (1981) and Clark and Schaefer’s (1992) realisation

of the two types of overhearers. On the other hand, Clark (1996) maintains that there are some

positions between overhearers and eavesdroppers, which are unidentified.

The second communicative level encompasses various types of viewers who are labelled

recipients (Dynel 2011e). It is for the sake of recipients that the collective sender (production crew)

devises fictional interactions. A novel type of viewer is the metarecipient (Dynel 2011e) who is

more observant and competent than a traditional viewer and whose aim is to pass more perceptive

comments and implications. Quite apart from appreciating humour, the metarecipient may be

concerned with the techniques deployed by the production crew to elicit a humorous response.

As for sitcom discourse, the epitome of the metarecipient is a humour scholar who demonstrates

a substantial level of academic knowledge and hence uncovers the mystery behind humour.

3.6.1.1. Audience design and the position of the viewer

This section is devoted to the conceptualisation of the audience/ recipient design which is

centred upon the position of the recipient of fictitious communication. There are quite a few

approaches to the role of the audience, which are summarised with a view to enhancing a

conceptual understanding of how the production team tailors cinematic communication and

how the viewers are believed to process that communication. A proviso needs to be made that

80 Bell (1984) offers four audience roles: addressee (known, ratified, addressed), auditor (knows, ratified,

unaddressed), overhearer (known, unratified, unaddressed) and eavesdropper (unknown, unratified, unaddressed),

which are graded according to the distance to the speaker, with the addressee being the closest.


- 161 -

some of the frameworks explicitly mention TV recipients, whilst others only show the direction

in which the audience can be situated on the telecinematic layer. In short, Bubel (2008) believes

that every fictional unit is designed for an overhearer (implied spectator) whose conjuring

process is facilitated by means of the same language or code. Bell (1984) calls a TV viewer a

referee, the absent third party, whose importance is immense to the communicator as the referee

influences the speech of the speaker. According to Clark and Carlson (1992) and Clark and

Schaefer (1992), a sitcom recipient would be either an addressee or overhearer. In Dynel’s

parlance, the viewer is a recipient (or metarecipient) on the collective sender’s layer. The last

approach towards recipients is their active viewership, which describes the assignment and re-

assignment of roles by the interlocutors. Given the fact that the current study aims to present a

vast array of functions fulfilled by dint of humorous interactions, it is the recipient’s perspective

and collective sender’s intention, which are vital. As will be demonstrated, the participatory

role of the TV viewer has remained unsettled in literature.

Any televised or spontaneous discourse is devised with the viewer, recipient, or even

overhearer (Clark 1992) in mind. The idea of hearer-oriented talk is clarified by the

phenomenon of recipient design (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974), also dubbed audience

design (Bell 1984, 1991 2001; Clark and Schaefer 1992), or overhearer design (Bubel 2006,

2008). The recipient design deals with “a multitude of respects in which the talk by a party in a

conversation is constructed or designed in ways which display an orientation and sensitivity to

the particular other(s) who are co-participants” (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974: 727).

Bell (1984, 1991, 2001) characterises two dimensions of a speaker’s style, i.e. responsive

and initiative, which are explained in terms of audience design and referee design respectively.

The former style design is the communicator’s response to the language (or dialect) of the

audience provoked by extralinguistic factors, both inter- (social) and intra-(stylistic) speaker.

The audience design is complemented with the referee design which is identified by the

initiative style. It can be best described as the speaker’s redefinition of style due to the non-

physical presence of the third party (referees) (Bell 1984, 1991). In sitcom discourse, as in

media communication, the referee is a TV viewer whose preferences and speech style are of

primary importance. It may happen that the style of the speaker (production crew) and the

audience is divergent, however it is only short-term since the referee chooses to converge with

the style of other communicators instead of leaving the floor. The very fact of adjusting the

style is an indicator of building solidarity between interactants.

In the case of the presence of other participants besides the speaker and the addressee,

Clark and Carlson (1992) argue that the communicator simultaneously performs two

illocutionary acts: the traditional one intended for the addressee (promises, apologies) and the


- 162 -

informative one intended for others. In the course of role assignment, the speaker designs his/

her utterance differently for various participants. It is advisable to divide the audience design

into the participation design, addressee design and overhearer design, all of which depend on

physical arrangement, gestures or linguistic content of the talk (Clark and Carlson 1992: 222).

A disparity in roles is connected to different responsibilities and intentions towards co-

conversationalists. The addressee is the main interactant since the communicator is expected to

obey the principle of responsibility by which the addressee keeps track of all intentionally produced

utterances and then gleans the meaning. On the other hand, the overhearer can only conjecture, not

recognise, what is intended and make inferences on the basis of vague evidence. The speaker can

take the attitudes of indifference, disclosure, concealment or disguisement, none of which guarantee

proper attribution of intentions (Clark and Schaefer 1992). Bubel (2008) believes that it is the

communicator’s disclosure which is pertinent to fictional discourse since the speaker wishes an

overhearer to retrieve relevant information on the basis of assumed shared knowledge.

The audience can also be conceived as an overhearer in Goffman’s sense, whose role is

similar to that in naturally occurring communication (Bubel 2008, Kozloff 2000), that is s/he is

(un)deliberately granted an unratified status so that utterances “are eternally sealed off from the

audience, belonging entirely to a self-enclosed, make-believe realm” (Goffman 1981: 139).

Having the theatre audience in mind, Goffman widened the scope to include imagined

recipients (TV viewers or radio listeners) (ibid.: 138), who may listen to onscreen dialogues

and make inferences. Even though Bubel (2008) believes that interactants wish an overhearer

to understand the talk, there are two dire consequences of this conceptualisation. The audience

is assumed to claim no conversational responsibility and at the same time they are expected to

glean the meaning on the basis of little common ground shared with ratified individuals. An

even bigger obstacle is the lack of co-construction or negotiation of meaning among the

participants as Duranti contends (1986: 243-244, in Bubel 2008: 58):

“…interpretation (of texts, sounds etc.) is not a passive activity whereby the audience is just trying to figure

out what the author meant to communicate. Rather, it is a way of making sense of what someone said (or

wrote or drew) by linking it to a word or context that the audience can make sense of”

Irrespective of diverse participatory statuses, Bubel (2006, 2008) depicts the viewer in

cinematic discourse as an overhearer who operates in similar terms as an overhearer in natural

conversations. The TV recipient occupies the place on the continuum between the eavesdropper

and bystander, given the fact that the interactants may be aware of being overheard by

eavesdroppers, while the latter are oblivious to the speakers’ recognition (Clark 1996). The

overhearer design is the one tailored for an implied spectator sitting in front of the TV screen.


- 163 -

It is claimed that any film discourse is constructed with the approximate evaluation of

overhearers’ world knowledge and knowledge concerning fictional interactions. The appraisal

of a viewer’s knowledge is indirect and hence valuable information needs to be made available,

which may be thought of as excessive for ratified participants. It is challenging to establish the

common ground between the production crew and viewers as each chunk of fictional utterance

requires an active process of interpretation and any recipient may construct quite a different

meaning. The graphical realisation of the overhearer design is presented below (Figure 3.3).

At every step of comprehension, the viewer matches his/ her existing knowledge

structures with a fictional conversation and hence s/he is able to reproduce the common ground

between the actors and hence glean meaning. These structures consist of knowledge about the

world and information gathered from previous encounters with the characters (Bubel 2008).

Figure 3.3. A model of film discourse (Bubel 2006: 57; 2008: 68)

Other scholars claim that the viewer takes on the privileged position of the recipient on

the collective sender’s layer (Dynel 2010a, 2011e; Holly and Baldauf 2002 in Bubel 2008: 62),

with the possibility of an advanced standpoint of the metarecipient. In addition, the audience

may enjoy different statuses, albeit not simultaneously, as they are actively engaged in the co-

construction of the meaning (Neale and Krutnik 1990, Brock 2015, Wieczorek 2016, Messerli

2017a), which is mainly achieved by the camera work and production techniques. The intention


- 164 -

of the production crew to alter the viewers’ stance accentuates their dynamic role in the

reception (Goffman 1981). Brock (2015) puts forth three roles for the sitcom viewer: overhearer

(with or without audience laughter), fictional character (any interactant on the fictional layer)

and the targeted overhearers. The change of the role results in transcending the fictional layer,

which may be accomplished via camera work:

“As the camera is mostly ignored and rarely addressed but tolerated, the camera (and microphone) position

along with the characters’ ignoring the camera construct a participation slot which resembles the position

of a natural overhearer and which becomes the main (fictitious) identification point for the real TV viewer

to slip into” (Brock 2015: 32-33)

Figure 3.4 shows the standard production framework for most sitcoms in which the recipient is

an overhearer given the fact that the camera is ignored by the fictional characters. Figure 3.5.

depicts sitcoms with studio audience whose genuine reactions are included in the show. Thus,

the audience in the studio is grated a similar perspective as TV recipients and well as their

reactions/ noises are included in the totality of sound mix that can be entertained by TV viewers:

Fig. 3.4. The framework for TV comedies

(Brock 2015: 34) Fig. 3.5. The framework with live studio audience

(Brock 2015: 36)

The viewer may also be assigned the fictional character position given the point-of-view (POV)

shots. The viewer’s perspective is achieved through holding the camera in front of the face of

other conversationalists (see Figure 3.6.). As a result, s/he can become one of many characters

in the scene when the actors communicate or are being directed to. Nonetheless, if the camera

is positioned in the place of an eavesdropper, the same positioning is assumed to the TV

recipient. Finally, the viewer can cross the fictional/ real border and become a recipient at whom

the collective sender and fictional characters direct attention. In fact, this pattern shows how a

general constellation can be slightly modified (see Figure 3.7).


- 165 -

Fig. 3.6. The viewer as many fictional characters

(Brock 2015: 37) Fig. 3.7. The viewer is addressed by the collective

sender (Brock 2015: 39)

Brock’s (2015) research finding is partly validated in my research, which supports the claim

concerning the negotiation of the viewer’s roles in the sitcom Modern Family. I believe that

there are three positions that the recipient is granted: ratified listener (on the recipient’s level),

an overhearer on the fictional layer (as s/he may be excluded from amusement given the fact

that humour depends upon culture-specific information) and an overhearer switched into a

recipient (when the fictional characters direct their utterances at the viewer). The participatory

roles are defined and redefined with respect to collective sender’s intention (Wieczorek 2016).

3.7. Conclusions

This chapter has been intended to serve two principal aims. First of all, it has discussed general

considerations on the conceptualisation of sitcom, viz. its characteristic features, origin, as well

as how a family unit is represented in this genre and the role it plays in social life. All these

pieces of information would familiarise the reader with the specificity of sitcom as well as draw

a broader picture of how this discourse is conceived in relevant literature.

The second part of the chapter has attempted to expound on the participatory model that

lies at the root of a linguistic inquiry into fictional discourse. Much as there are a host of

different participants occupying the two communicative levels, i.e. diegetic (fictional) and non-

diegetic (natural), the recipient is in the centre of attention as it is for his/ her pleasure that

sitcoms are produced. Irrespective of whether the viewer’s role is assumed to be more static or

dynamic in the design, the most crucial element is the construction of fictional conversations.

As Brock (2015) illuminates, the nature of communication, for instance with live studio

audience, conditions how the role of the audience gets defined and re-defined. This is also valid

for the discourse in Modern Family, which is clarified in Chapter V.

- 166 -

C h a p t e r I V

Functions of conversational humour

Manny: My girlfriend Karen was pretty frisky the other night after her ex showed up, and I bested him in a chocolate-soufflé bake-off. I don’t need to tell you my soufflé

wasn’t the only sweet brown dish she devoured that night. Jay: Because?

Manny: I also made molasses cookies.

Jay: I’ve learned to ask the second question.


4.1. Introduction

The principal purpose of this chapter is to familiarise the reader with a rich variety of

classifications of functions carried out by dint of humour. This functional view on humour as

expounded in the literature is particularly relevant to the last step of my dissertation and the main

point of interest, which is the qualitative analysis of the functions of humour in the sitcom Modern

Family. More specifically, attention will be devoted to a propositional content of fictional

humorous message in order to draw a broad picture of information gleaned by the audience.

In spite of the wealth of the classifications of functions of humour, these conceptualisations

are extremely varied and bring about sometimes divergent views. Therefore, the functional

studies of humour can be divided into three broad categories, which are by no means clear-cut:

1) general classifications of all functions that the researcher can enumerate on the basis of corpora

or his/ her predictions (Ziv 1984; Graham, Papa and Brooks 1992; Hay 1995, 2000, Martin 2007,

Kosińska 2008a), 2) research into two or more functions, for example, subversive or transgressive

humour (Martineau 1972, Zajdman 1995, Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Meyer 2000, Holmes

and Marra 2002a), and 3) a descriptive analysis of functions with respect to humour

manifestations (Norrick 1993, 2003) (see Section 1.2.2. for the classification of the humorous

genres and the functions they fulfil). Within these strands of research we can find the workings

of humour as a conceptual tool satisfying a number of functions at once (Ziv 1984, Mulkay 1988,

Palmer 1994, Holmes 2000, 2006; Hay 2000, Meyer 2000, Holmes and Marra 2002a, 2002b;

Martin 2007, Kuipers 2008, Piskorska 2016, McKeown 2017, Schnurr and Plester 2017;

Dahlberg 1945 and Gruner 1965, in Meyer 2000). According to Hay (1995: 97, 2000: 716),

“every attempt at humor is an attempt to both express solidarity with the audience and construct

Chapter IV. Functions of conversational humour

- 167 -

a position of respect and status within the group”. This line of scholarly investigation seems

promising and hence will be pursued in the next chapter.

For the reason of space, only those of the existing classifications are summarised in this

chapter which are, in my view, most relevant to the present research. Also, multifarious goals of

humour, such as reinforcing cohesiveness or lubricating social personal relationships, are

recurrent in the writings of many. At this point, I also would like to underline that Norrick’s (1993,

2003) categorisations are not summarised here since he concentrated on a variety of functions

that humorous genres attain in natural communication, the presentation of which is more relevant

in Chapter I. What is interesting in his research is that one humorous manifestation, such as puns

can be used with the intention of performing various functions, for example the enhancement of

solidarity, the change of conversational topic or the means of collecting social data on one’s

boundaries and norms for the use of humour. As a result, not only humorous communication itself

is multifunctional but a single type of humour can fulfil a number of communicative goals.

The classifications of functions of humour will be provided chronologically to show how

the functional studies have been developing. It needs to be highlighted that the claims regarding

the three families of humour theories summarised in Chapter I are also relevant to the functions

of humour since they are inextricably linked to the mechanisms of humour postulated by these

theories (Meyer 2000, Schnurr and Plester 2017). Incongruity-based theories would thus claim

that humour forces the interpreter to look for a novel relationship between objects or actions,

which necessitates regarding a certain situation in two ways: normal and surprising (the function

of offering a new perspective). Relief theories view humour as serving the function of venting

surplus energy, while superiority approaches see humour as an instrument for booting one’s self-

esteem (Meyer 2000).

All the functional studies into humour have teased out the goals the interactants wish to

achieve in conversation, i.e. how humour is enacted and responded to. As already mentioned, the

abundance of various classifications makes it difficult to present all of them but there is another

reason for not summarising each and every possible grouping: some of the functions resonate

in many studies, such as solidarity enhancement. The most comprehensive list of the functions

has been drawn up by Graham, Papa and Brooks81 (1992: 167-168), comprising twenty four

communicative goals, which is based upon the thorough investigation of the literature on

humour theories. The list, presented below in order to show a wide spectrum of humour

functions, is additionally complemented by references:

81 A systematic review of literature on social functions conveyed by means of humour has also been conducted by

Martineau (1972) and Hay (1995, 2000).


- 168 -

1. To transmit verbally aggressive messages (Berkowitz, 1970; Civikly, 1989; Landy & Mettee, 1969).

2. To demean others (Civikly, 1989; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976).

3. To entertain others (Civikly, 1983,1989; Stocking & Zillmann, 1976; Weaver et al., 1988; Zillmann &

Bryant, 1988).

4. To show a sense of humor (Martin & Lefcowt, 1984).

5. To disarm potentially aggressive others (Bradney, 1957; Civikly, 1983,1989; Zillmann & Stocking, 1976).

6. To allow others insight into another’s state of mind (Civikly, 1983; Linstead, 1985).

7. To help one adjust to a new role (Vinton, 1989).

8. To play with others (Baxter, 1990; Betcher, 1981, 1988; Cheatwood, 1983; Civikly, 1983, 1989).

9. To decrease another’s aggressive behavior (Baron & Ball, 1974; Civikly, 1983,1989; Whitacker, 1975).

10. To minimize anxiety (Bricker, 1980; Civikly, 1983, 1989; Smith & Powell, 1988).

11. To reduce boredom (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Roy, 1960).

12. To facilitate relationship patterns (Sykes, 1966).

13. To help others relax and feel comfortable (Civikly, 1983,1989; Landy & Mettee, 1969; Smith & Powell,

1988).

14. To ease the tension wrought by new or novel stimuli, such as new information (Civikly, 1983; Ullian,

1976; Vinton, 1989).

15. To disclose difficult information (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Smith, et al., 1971).

16. To let others know what I like and dislike (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Kane, et al., 1977).

17. To increase liking by others (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Derks & Berkowitz, 1989; Goodchilds, 1959).

18. To develop one’s own sense of humor (Zillmann & Stocking, 1976).

19. To control others (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Goodchilds, 1959).

20. To express feelings (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Freud 1905/1960).

21. To defend my ego against possible damage (Zillmann & Stocking, 1976).

22. To put others in their place (Byrne, 1956; Civikly, 1989).

23. To avoid telling personal information about myself (Civikly, 1983, 1989; Sprowl, 1987).

24. To allow one to cope with a serious subject (Obrdlik, 1942; Pogrebin & Poole, 1988).

The review of humour research with regard to functions shows that humour is a multifaceted

phenomenon, the employment of which can fulfil a wide array of goals, such as amusement and

criticism as the most extreme poles of the continuum of cases. The list itself seems to be full-

scale so that no other function might be added. Graham, Papa and Brooks (1992: 177) point to

the field requiring further probe: “we are lacking a substantial body of research that focuses on

the use of humor in conversational settings” in order to develop “a single, unified functional

model of humor”.

4.2. Bergson’s (1905) humour as a social corrective

Chapter I mentioned in passing that superiority humour targets some groups or individuals by

presenting them as less fortunate and their behaviour as worth ridicule or mockery. Superiority-

saturated laughter is a means of exerting social control as it brings about regulatory power upon

the behaviour of others. The proponents of humour as a social corrective perspective are


- 169 -

Bergson (1905 [2010]) and more currently, Ziv (1984, 2010), Drew (1987, in Attardo 1994),

Powell (1988, in Kuipers 2008), Billig (2005) and Hobbs (2007). In the Bergsonian view, the

nature of laughter is social, which can become a disciplining tool designed to regulate improper

conduct and as such excludes those who do not comply with the standards of behaviour:

“Laughter is, above all, a corrective. Being intended to humiliate, it must make a painful impression on the

person against whom it is directed. By laughter, society avenges itself for the liberties taken with it. It would

fail in its object if it bore the stamp of sympathy or kindness.” (Bergson 1905[2010]: 86)

Carrell (2009) states that Bergson’s superiority humour is a one-sided process in which there

are two groups of people: a mocked individual and a ridiculing initiator. Therefore, it divides

interlocutors into in-group and out-group communicators (Martineau 1972, Mulkay 1988,

Attardo 1994, Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Meyer 2000, Kotthoff 2006).

Billig (2005: 196) follows in Bergson’s footsteps in the view of laughter as a means of

social control: “Ridicule, far from being a detachable negative, lies at the heart of humour”.

Another point of similarity is that humour is based upon embarrassment and negative feelings

towards the object of derision.

While theoretical scientific consideration is crucial since it lays foundations for further

discussion, it is the practical application which is important for the present work. It may be

inferred that humour as a regulatory device is particularly useful in environments in which there

is an unequal distribution of power (highly formalised and structured context), e.g. military or

workplace. There are two studies worth summarising: Coser (1960, in Mulkay 1988: 165-169)

and Hobbs (2007), which testify that laughter as a social corrective can be used in various

contexts. The first research concentrates on humour employed during staff meetings in a

psychiatrist ward, which indicates a social hierarchy among members. The author contends that

humour is used with respect to the downright condition, that is senior psychiatric staff joked

about junior staff, junior staff made fun of auxiliary staff (nurses) and nurses tended to mock

other nurses or patients. Senior staff ridiculed junior staff so that reprimand was given in an

unthreatening way, which also showed support. In this way, humour served a dual function: it

was used to express critique and support, or correction without challenging. Coser (1960: 95, in

Mulkay 1988: 169) asserts that “humor...helps to overcome the contradictions and ambiguities

inherent in the complex social structure, and thereby to contribute to its maintenance”.

Furthermore, humour is not only a pedagogical tool but also a means of establishing the hierarchy.

Coser’s (1960) study has been validated by Sayre (2001, in Martin 2007).


- 170 -

The second contribution of the corrective power of humour is offered by Hobbs (2007),

who documents three court cases and judges’ use of mock-heroic parody, ridicule, sarcasm and

satire in their argumentation. The general public claim that the courtroom is not a suitable place

for engaging in parodies or satiric narratives, the presence of which may cause an impression

that lawsuits are not taken care of in serious terms. The judges’ preference for employing

various forms of humour rather than serious clarification of a verdict can be thought of as an

attention-grabbing strategy. On a general note, judicial humour is a powerful weapon in the

hands of judges and attorneys since it may be used to “sanction counsel and/ or litigants who

take flatly unsupportable positions, inflicting punishment on the offenders and deterring similar

conduct” (Hobbs 2007: 66). In other words, judges have linguistic tools to sanction offenders

so as to prevent their engagement in unlawful behaviour.

It seems that corrective humour can also be successfully employed as a means of altering

one’s behaviour in sitcom discourse. In Chapter II (Section 2.4.7.), I identified this function of

humour in the sitcom, stressing that it is fulfilled on the viewer’s part by means of weak

implicatures. It is the audience’s responsibility to derive assumptions, which can be understood

as the production crew’s attempt to influence their beliefs, for example by picturing a

homosexual couple raising an adopted girl in a positive light. This may induce positive feelings

upon viewers and make them reformulate previously held attitudes.

4.3. Martineau’s (1972) model of social functions

Many classifications presented in this chapter make frequent reference to Martineau’s (1972)

model of the social functions of humour, which details intra- and inter-group relationships

within societies. His view on functional studies of humour was a novelty given the fact that the

functions are associated with social varieties and hence the uptake of humour differs whether a

humorous turn disparages or esteems the in-group or out-group feelings.

There are two factors which Martineau (1972) utilises in his design: variables influencing

humour and different structural settings in which humour appears. In addition, the model is

based on four main parameters: the initiator, audience, target and judgement, the influence of

which is assessed in a particular setting. The three contexts include humour interpreted within

an intra-group, humour interpreted in an inter-group situation with emphasis on one of the

groups, and humour interpreted in an inter-group situation with emphasis on intercourse

between two groups. The basis for his research is the claim that humour, understood as a social

concept, can be a lubricant since it is conceived to “initiate social interaction and to keep the


- 171 -

machinery of interaction operating freely and smoothly” (Martineau 1972: 103). At the same

time, humour can be abrasive, which means that it is “interpersonal friction and a juncture in

the communication process which may modify the character of the interaction” (ibid.).

All the three intra- and inter-group settings can be discerned on the recipient’s layer in

fictional discourse. In particular, the audience and fictional characters (production crew) may

form an intra-group relations as they may be members of the same social group, the functions

of which can be represented graphically as follows:

Figure 4.1. Martineau’s (1972) intra-group social setting

There is no way of testing whether the viewer feels part of in-group or out-group, granted

sitcom’s world-wide reception. Nevertheless, the aim of the production crew is not to offend or

openly criticise, but to amuse and create constant viewership. This is why I believe that fictional

characters wish to create in-group relations, as any fictional entertainment discourse intends to

achieve. Any humour praising in-group relations positively acts upon the audience’s cognitive

environment and hence strengthens social bonds and facilitates communication. Second, self-

disparagement humour may positively develop in-group’s social relationships but may also

communicate negative serious content in a lighter manner. As a result, Martineau (1972: 117)

advocates that humour “acts as a safety valve for expressing grievance or controlled hostility

against deviance”. In sitcom discourse, as long as the viewer does not take offence, watching is

a pleasurable experience. Third, Martineau (1972) sees humour commending an out-group as

intra-group social setting

esteeming ingroup

humour solidifies the group

disparaging ingroup

- humour controls ingroup behaviour

- humour solidifies the ingroup

- humour introduces or fosters conflict already present

- humour fosters demoralisation and social disintegration of the group

esteeming outgroup

humour solidifies the group

disparaging outgroup

- humour increases morale and solidifies the ingroup

- humour introduces or fosters a hostile disposition toward that outgroup


- 172 -

conveying the solidarity function, however, it is possible to exert the opposite effect when the

social group has a negative disposition towards his/ her own reference group. The fourth

scenario is when humour disparages an out-group, which may boost the viewer’s self-esteem

and increase solidarity. It may also anchor negative feelings, which, granted that sitcom is a

mass-mediated form, is not a desirable procedure, which runs into the problem of not receiving

critical acclaim and thus should be avoided.

The other two social settings are dependent upon inter-group situations, which account

for occurrences when fictional character’s and production crew’s social environments differ,

i.e. first, humour focuses on one of the groups, second humour focuses on the interaction

between two divergent groups. As regards the duality in inter-group relations, it seems

legitimate to note that the latter case of interaction between two different groups is more

relevant to sitcom discourse because the American sitcom (Modern Family) can be distributed

to every corner of the world and thus the fictional characters and viewers represent different

values. The social functions in an inter-group setting include:

Figure 4.2. Martineau’s (1972) inter-group social setting

A humorous episode glorifying one of the groups in an inter-group situation can be studied in the

same manner as in an intra-group context, that is, it is used as a positive politeness strategy (Brown

and Levinson [1978] 1987). It draws attention to the similarities among interlocutors and hence

enables them to maintain mutual exchange. However, when one or both of the groups engage in

self-praising humour, the consequence is more damaging unless the groups have already fostered a

degree of solidarity. As soon as self-praising humour is regarded as too egotistical by the members

of any group, it may lead to heated confrontation and hence to the conclusion that the two groups

do not share mutual ground any longer. Another humorous strategy, disparagement of the

audience’s group, may be regarded as abrasive since its intention is to “disrupt interaction, threaten

the relationship, and possibly introduce intergroup conflict” (Martineau 1972: 122-123). However,

inter-group social setting: interaction

esteeming of the groups

- humour fosters consensus and social integration

- humour foster disintegration of the relationship

disparaging of the groups

- humour fosters disintegration of the relationship

- humour redefines the relationship


- 173 -

when two groups acknowledge their weaknesses and equally employ self-criticism, it has the

potential of underlining their membership to a larger group.

Martineau’s (1972) model of social functions provides a valuable insight into differences

in the uptake of humorous discourse, even though it was devised almost fifty years ago. The

major asset of his model is the presence of different structural settings, which has a tremendous

impact over marking a humorous episode as solidarity-oriented or disparagement-inducing.

4.4. Ziv’s (1984) social goals

Ziv (1984) offers a five-fold taxonomy of functions of humour introducing basic division

between pure forms of humour – the ones which serve only one function – and those which

serve more than a single function. The functions that humour can perform encompass

aggressive, sexual, social, defensive and intellectual, which are described below. Ziv expresses

a certain reservation that the classification is “artificial and arbitrary” (ibid.: 79), however, in

my opinion, it has certainly enabled other researchers to bring their studies to the next level.

Figure 4.3. Ziv’s (1984) social functions

The intellectual function is conductive to the delivery and enjoyment of humour since

whenever there is incongruity to resolve, there are cognitive/ intellectual processes set in

motion. This is why this function is put in the dominant position given the fact that most of

humorous instances are contingent upon some sort of incongruity (see Chapter I).

There is no need to summarise all the functions since the claims made under the function

of aggression can be subsumed under superiority-based approaches in which the interlocutor

The functions of humour

aggressive sexual social

individual in a group

relations wihin a group

defensive

black humour

self-deprecating

sexual humour

intellectual


- 174 -

wishes to express aggression cloaked under humour, which brings the initiator malicious

pleasure. Ziv states that aggressive humour is “an antitaboo device that has undergone a process

of socialization” (Ziv 1984: 14).

In addition, some of the postulates of Ziv’s sexual function are found in relief theories as

humour enables people to air views on sexuality in a more socially acceptable way. The reason

why sexual humour is prevalent in conversations is that people consider sex pleasurable or

disappointing and this is their vent to disclose their attitudes towards sexual activities. Using

eroticism in humour may also improve practical knowledge concerning sexual actions, whet

sexual appetite or compensate for one’s inability to engage in a sexual intercourse.

What may be concluded from the summary of the three functions (intellectual, aggressive,

sexual) is that these effects upon conversation stem from the three families of humour. More

specifically, the intellectual function is connected to incongruity theories, the sexual function

is exemplified by the data presented within relief theories and the aggressive function is

reflected in superiority theories.

4.4.1. Social function

The discussion of the social function is divided into humour for the individual in a group and

humour for the individual within a group. The salient fact is that we appreciate people who

amuse us and we also appreciate when we amuse others, which explains why comedy films or

TV shows are popular. In this way humour works as an index of interpersonal relations, that is

it is used to test our interlocutor’s sense of humour, where the production crew may test the

viewer’s sense of humour. The employment of humour by fictional characters creates their

social roles – this point is discussed more at length in Chapter V, especially the role of the

clown played by Phil in Modern Family – and is a means of finding social boundaries to how

far humour can go.

The second strand of investigating the social functions of humour is in relation within a

group, as, on a general note, “interpersonal humor oils the wheels of communication and permits

the establishment of social relations with a minimum of conflict” (Ziv 1984: 32). In the gamut of

these functions we may find more specific ones: reducing tension and conflict, increasing group’s

cohesion (connected to the establishment of social group hierarchy with the possibility of

lessening the gap among members), fostering common language, and preserving or executing

group norms. An important point made by Ziv (1984) is that not only the main functions of

humour may appear in clusters, for instance solidarity and aggression, but also the sub-functions

may co-exist.


- 175 -

4.4.2. Defence mechanism

Humour can be used as a defence mechanism against stimuli which cause anxiety or tension.

This is analogous to people’s being keen on watching thrillers as the higher the level of

apprehension, the higher appreciation when tension is released (Ziv 1984, after Spencer 1980;

Martin 2007). The defensive function is exemplified with black humour, self-deprecating and

sexual humour.

As for black humour (dubbed also horror humour, sick humour, gallows humour, or grim

humour), it is frequently used by individuals who have developed emotional trauma, with

laughter consequent upon humour channelling negative feelings. A case in point can be sitcom

or comedy films that present war-time experience in a light manner, such as M*A*S*H (1972-

1983; CBS) or CATCH-22 (1973) (Mills 2005). Amusing others and being amused by black

humour is an indicator of victory and control over sensitive topics. Modern Family is not typically

a sitcom classified as black comedy, hence, there are no clear examples of horror humour. As

regards self-deprecating humour, it is a highly valued characteristic in one’s talk and it has a

beneficial impact over the initiator and the audience. The communicator highlights his/ her

awareness of own shortcomings as this act serves two purposes: to impede other’s attempt to

laugh at misfortunes and to gain appreciation. A secondary function of self-deprecation is not

only defence against being attacked by others but also boosting own and interlocutors’ feelings

of superiority.

Sexual humour is the most interesting genre since there are many references to sex,

especially homosexual sex in my data. Ziv (1984) claimed that the topics such as sexual

indifference, homosexuality or impotence provoked anxiety in society and humour could be

used to “tame” taboos or controversial topics. Despite the fact that attitudes towards gay couples

have changed markedly since the publication of Ziv’s work, it appears that his postulates can

still explain why the producers decided to picture a homosexual couple in Modern Family.

4.5. Attardo’s (1994) social goals of humour

Attardo (1994) offers the dichotomous division of the social functions into primary and

secondary. The former are those effects that the communicator intentionally and directly wants

to induce in the audience, while the latter are effects which are carried out indirectly or

unintentionally. Neat as it may seem, the division is not so clear-cut in practice and Attardo

himself underlines the fact that the taxonomy is only operational and some overlap is possible.

It seems intuitively false to propound such a bifurcation in its current state since one cannot be


- 176 -

absolutely certain about the effect that a humorous strategy serves, i.e. how a humorous segment

is actually interpreted.

Given these deficiencies, it is my intention to redefine these functions, which would be

relevant to my research. Primary goals are attained more consciously as their propositional form

is more easily teased out, for instance the speaker intends to be amusing to his/ her audience,

which is construed as a means of boosting solidarity. In other words, these functions are satisfied

by means of explicature or strong implicature, to employ RT wording. Secondary functions are

weakly communicated effects, the intention of which is more difficult to attribute to the

communicator than it is the case with strong implicatures. The recovery of secondary functions

does not influence the main aim of humour, which is to entertain or amuse, but it may well reduce

or heighten humorous effects. In theory, the revision of the primary/ secondary division seems to

be germane to the RT analysis since RT offers subtler tools to explain Attardo’s functional

bifurcation.

Figure 4.4. Attardo’s (1994) social functions

As regards primary social functions, Attardo (1994) identifies social management,

decommitment, mediation and defunctionalisation. The social management goal encompasses

instances in which humour is used as a tool strengthening in-group relations, which may also

mark communicators’ belonging to the out-group. The function is further subcategorised into

social

functions

primary

social management

social control

conveying social norms

ingratiation

discourse management

establish common ground

cleverness

social play

control

decommittment salvaging

probing

mediation

defunctionalisation

secondary


- 177 -

social control (humour as a social corrective), conveying social norms (humour as a way of

addressing offensive material), ingratiation (humour used as a tool to boost positive affect),

discourse management (humour used to administrate discourse, e.g. topic shifts; Norrick 1993,

2003), establish common grounds (humour used to enhance mutual understanding), cleverness

(a degree of ingenuity is assumed since humour engages more mental effort), social play

(humour stimulates group cohesiveness and promotes intimacy) and repair (humour can diffuse

uncomfortable situations). The decommitment function is when humour is employed in order

to dissociate or distance from the seriousness of message, nevertheless this function may well

be classified as the sub-type of the social management goal. Decommitment can be executed with

the strategies of probing and salvaging, namely the communicator can probe others’ responses to

behaviour that s/he is doubtful whether it will be positively assessed, or the communicator can

salvage unfavourable circumstances by denying serious import. The third mediation function

encompasses instances in which humour moderates embarrassing, uncomfortable or even

aggressive conversations (Mulkay 1988). The last primary function is dubbed defunctionalisation

and is marked by humour’s lack of carrying information besides being a playful act.

Secondary functions are explained as a by-product of humorous communication,

especially when the recipient employs the bona-fide mode (see Section 2.2.2.). It is then

possible for the hearer to derive a serious meaning behind humour and to influence his/ her

knowledge, for instance, on stereotypes circulating in a specific society. This category contains

also episodes in which humour is employed as a meta-means of notifying the hearer that the

communicator is in a joking mood or that s/he approves of the choice of topic for amusement.

The present summary of the social functions of humour put forth by Attardo (1994)

indicates that there are humorous instances which can be grouped into more than one primary

category. For instance, a humorous remark is used with a view to strengthening social bonds

(the social management function), which is also classified as the defunctionalisation function

since it does not convey any important information. It can also be observed that the sub-

functions of the main social management function overlap given the fact that the employment

of the strategy of social norm and repair operate in a similar fashion.

4.6. Hay’s (1995, 2000) sociolinguistic functions

Hay (1995, 2000) propounds the taxonomy of sociolinguistic functions of humour. The main

advantage of her classification is its anchoring in spontaneously produced humorous segments

of New Zealand English. Besides constructing the classification, the goal was to enunciate the

way in which gendered identities are constructed.


- 178 -

Figure 4.5. Hay’s (1995, 2000) sociolinguistic functions

Hay (2000) demonstrates that humour is a strategy to deliver a vast array of functions,

which transcend sheer pleasure, for instance it is a means of promoting solidarity and intimacy

but also of establishing social boundaries. In addition, a humorous unit is defined as any

conversational segment in which the interlocutor aims to be amusing or entertaining. Since a

linguistic form is not sufficient to undisputedly locate a humorous intention (Tannen 1993),

there are many other factors used to detect the communicator’s intention: the knowledge about

the group, context influencing the production and comprehension of the unit, the tone of voice

(its pace or pitch), and other relevant verbal signals.

The bottom-up (data-driven) taxonomy encompasses three main functions of humour,

viz. solidarity, power and psychological. Hay (1995, 2000) argues that some conversational

episodes may not be taxonomised to any of the categories and in this case, an instance is

grouped to the general function of being amusing. It is also maintained that a humorous segment

accomplishes both functions at once: humour as an index of solidarity and a way of addressing

psychological needs. In a similar vein, Tannen (1993) holds that the very solidarity function

entails the power-based strategies and vice versa since intimacy and closeness restrict freedom,

while a sign of power requires close relationship.


- 179 -

4.6.1. Solidarity

The solidarity category covers the strategies of sharing, highlighting similarities or capitalising

on shared experiences, clarifying and maintaining boundaries (boundS82), teasing (teaseS), and

others (all instances in which the members of the group cultivate cohesiveness but which cannot

be classified to the enumerated strategies).

The most common tactic of sharing is when the interlocutor gives some personal, ideally

little-known, fact about himself/ herself, often in the form of anecdote (Norrrick 1993, 2003),

which is also common in sitcoms. In revealing childhood memories or embarrassing stories, a

fictional character enables the recipients to know him/ her better and that s/he regards the

audience as part of the team. In the long run, through sharing, a persona created by an actor is

seen as more well-rounded and realistic. In conversation (1), all the fictional characters

throughout the episode recollect their meeting a famous person, so the viewer can know whom

they value most and know a fact from their private life:

(1) Context: Everyone recollects a meeting with a well-known person.

Jay: Being in the closet business, I met a lot of famous people. I can’t name names, but let’s just

say it’s someone who’s the boss.

Gloria: You met Bruce Springsteen?

Jay: No, Tony Danza.

Gloria: Oh, from the TV show? Nah, she was the boss.

Jay: It’s open to interpretation.

Joe: I saw Santa Claus at the mall. (S09E08)

The second strategy of solidarity is when the conversationalists underline the things they

have in common or they draw upon mutual experiences (also Ziv 1984). Fictional characters’

conversations in Modern Family abound in co-constructed reminiscences. Although the

recipient does not actively participate in an interaction with the characters, s/he may recognise

the fact that they have similar patterns of experience or share similar opinions. Sharing may be

used by the production crew to stress similarities between fictional characters and viewers,

which creates intimacy and closeness. There are many examples in the data, which may

potentially be amusing to viewers and be effective in highlighting similarities among them and

the fictional characters.

Another technique to cultivate solidarity is the employment of boundary humour, which

reinforces social norms and values as well as informs others of boundaries of acceptability.

82 The letter ‘S’ means that the specific strategy is used to foster solidarity as opposed to the boundP and teaseP

strategies used to exercise power (Hay 1995, 2000).


- 180 -

It may also encompass units in which interlocutors clarify in-group relations and make fun of

those from the outside. As regards communication between the recipient of sitcoms and the

production crew, boundary humour is a risky move since it may be interpreted as criticism,

which may change a solidarity-enhancing strategy into the power-based function. Nevertheless,

it is the audience who decides how a given segment is read as there may be members of the

audience who may either approve or disapprove of ridicule of outsiders, that is whether to read

it in a solidarity or power fashion.

The last strategy discerned by Hay (1995, 2000; Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997) is

teasing, the offensive content of which is superficial and thus can express rapport. A tease is

seen as a face-saving act when it develops within a joking relationship (Radcliffe-Brown 1940),

which is a blend of friendliness and pretended hostility. Zajdman (1995) argues that teasing is

amusing when the hearer does not take offence, irrespective of whether it was meant as such

by the initiator, but it is received as an insult when the audience finds only its serious import.

Furthermore, Radcliffe-Brown (1940) speaks of symmetry and asymmetry in teasing: the

former accounts for situations in which speakers equally tease or poke fun at each other, while

the latter refers to cases in which one speaker uses denigrating humour at the cost of the other

party who does not engage in retaliation.

4.6.2. Power

Within the power function, there are the strategies of fostering conflict, controlling, challenging

or setting boundaries and teasing (teaseP). Hay (1995, 2000) notes that the nature of her data

from everyday friendship groups limits the use of humour in which the interactants aim to

purposefully belittle or express trenchant criticism. Granted that sitcom discourse is fictional

and viewers are (sub)consciously aware that the events are not true, in spite of being authentic,

there is a higher level of aggressiveness among the characters, which is found humorous by TV

recipients. One of the reasons for being amused by genuine (un)mitigated criticism is that the

face threat is only made-up, even though we positively value the target of banter, teasing,

criticism. Lorenzo-Dus (2009: 187, in Dynel 2012c: 173) claims that impoliteness in a variety

of discourse which serves amusement for the audience can be called incivility-as-spectacle:

“discursive processes and practices whereby such behaviour is explicitly staged for its

entertainment value”. In my data from Modern Family, there are many instances of


- 181 -

disagreements, quarrels or deliberately aggressive acts performed by the fictional characters,

which provoke sheer enjoyment on the part of the recipients83.

Conflict may be fostered when an interlocutor degrades other members, conveys face-

threatening information or even strongly and openly disagrees with another. Manny in exchange

(2) purposefully deploys an impolite comment directed at Gloria (and implicitly at other ratified

hearer, Jay) as an answer to her statement implying that Manny is too young to love an older

girl. Manny demeans Jay as he is much older than Gloria. The viewer may consider this turn

amusing, given the little boy’s ingenuity.

(2) Context: Manny, Gloria and Jay are in the car while Jay scolds Gloria for being emotional and

temperamental. Right on cue, Manny, Gloria’s son, acts in a similar manner as he wants to declare love

to the girl whom he does not know personally.

Jay: You know Gloria, that blow-up with that other mom, why do you have to do things like that?

Gloria: If someone says something about my family, I’m going to...

Jay: I’m just saying you could take it down here a little bit.

Gloria: Well yeah, but that’s when you live down here but I live up here!

Jay: You don’t have to be so emotional all the time, that’s all I’m saying. Manny, you’re with me

on this, right?

Manny: I wanna tell Brenda Feldman I love her.

Jay: Oh, for God sakes.

Gloria: Manny, she’s 16.

Manny: Oh. It’s okay for you to take an older lover?

Jay: Hey, watch it. (S01E01)

Controlling is the second strategy subsumed under the power function, which refers to

the speaker’s attempt to influence the behaviour of others. It covers instances of humour used

as a social corrective or regulatory mechanism (Bergson 1905 [2010]). The level of dominance

differs with respect to the context and relationship among people. The controlling tactic may

appear in informal context and take the form of innocent orders, such as pointing a person where

s/he should sit or in a more formalised context with fixed hierarchy (e.g. army), where orders

issued by the superior to subordinates are more imposing. The situation in which the fictional

characters compel one another to undertake an action are numerous but in the case of the

audience, the controlling function takes a subtler form: the scriptwriters can tacitly influence

the behaviour of the audience by picturing characters in a positive or negative light. The “power”

of controlling may be stronger when the actors look into the camera, which is similar to face-to-

face communication.

83 There is an extensive body of literature on the close association of conversational humour and impoliteness (see

Dynel 2013a for an overview).


- 182 -

Challenging and setting boundaries (boundP) is operative when the interlocutor wishes to

defy existing boundaries or introduce new ones. Some humorous units found under the boundP

heading can also be classified to the previous strategy of controlling since their common

denominator is to influence the behaviour of co-conversationalists (Hay 1995, 2000).

The last power-displaying strategy is teasing (teaseP), which includes more specific

instances in which the interlocutor voices hostile criticism or attacks personal characteristics so

as to enhance or maintain power. In this way, the teaseP strategy can converge with the boundP

strategy.

4.6.3. Psychological functions

Psychological needs are satisfied when the initiator uses humour in order to defend himself/

herself from any verbal attack or to cope with contextual or non-contextual problems (Hay

2000)84.

Defensive humour is generally employed when, as Ziv (1984) claims, speakers want to

protect themselves from criticism by disclosing personal inconvenient details about themselves

before anyone else would do that. The purpose of self-denigrating humour is to deter potential

aggressiveness or gain appreciation from others and as a side-effect, emphasise superiority

when the communicator is brave enough to admit weakness (Ziv 1984; also Norrick 1993,

Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997). As regards sitcoms, fictional characters constantly open

themselves to criticism not only from other characters but also viewers in front of a TV screen

as they put themselves in awkward situations. Once again, self-deprecation may not be amusing

to fictional characters but it carries the potential to provoke laughter on the recipient’s layer.

Humour can also be used as a coping device to deal with a contextual problem, i.e. the

one which arises at the moment of conversation and needs to be overcome. A contextual

problem can emerge as “a social gaffe of some sort to a pot boiling over” (Hay 2000: 725). A

non-contextual problem is more general and situation-dependent, which is humour about the

topics that fuel our fear, such as death or sickness. In that case, humour is a means of venting

unpleasant feelings or reliving tension caused by anger or grief. In other words, the former

problem needs to be tackled to survive the ongoing conversation, whereas the latter is addressed

to survive the life (Hay 1995, 2000).

84 In an earlier version of the classification of functions of humour, Hay (1995) dubs the contextual and non-

contextual problem as the situational problem and general one.


- 183 -

4.7. Zajdman’s (1995) humour as a face-threatening act

Zajdman (1995) couples the workings of politeness (Brown and Levinson [1978] 198785) and

impoliteness consequent upon humour. In particular, humour can be a strategy for executing a

face-threatening act (henceforth, FTA). The communicator performing a humorous act does not

intend to minimise the imposition of an FTA, which is positively evaluated by the recipient as

“S and H tacitly agree that face demands be suspended for the sake of the other interest, which

is ‘to get a laugh’” (Zajdman 1995: 326). At first glance, it seems unattainable to test the

interlocutor’s intention in any way, i.e. whether s/he is truly or just playfully impolite, and the

recipient’s actual interpretation. Accordingly, in order to salvage her theory from critical

assessment, a presupposition needs to be made that the humorist acts in the hearer’s best interest

and therefore endangers his/ her public self-image for the sake of entertainment and amusement.

Zajdman’s (1995) article is interesting for two reasons. First, she shows that Brown and

Levinson’s politeness strategies, viz. bald-on-record and actions with or without redress, are

applicable to jocular texts. Second, she devises the template with four configurations of

acceptance or refusal of humorous communication between the initiator and recipient with

regard to their expectations and possible reactions, as presented in the table below (Zajdman

1995: 333, the bold is mine):

Speaker’s intention Hearer’s interpretation Speaker’s expectation Hearer’s reaction

Meaning offence Taking offence Insult Insult

Meaning offence Not taking offence Insult Amusement

Not meaning offence Taking offence Amusement Insult

Not meaning offence Not taking offence Amusement Amusement

Table. 4.1. Zajdman’s (1995) configuration of parameters in FTA acts

The configuration shows that humour is a two-party enterprise, which is composed of several

factors, i.e. the interactant’s intention and expected result as well as the recipient’s interpretation

and reaction. All the four tiers play an important role in the research into situation comedy as it

is not only fictional dialogues that are important to establish communication but also the

television viewer’s actual resolution of humorous chunks that are relevant. However, clear

recognition of intentions cannot be achieved as “intentions often cannot be ‘proved’” (Zajdman

85 In Brown and Levinson’s terms, joking is viewed as the strategy improving one’s positive face with the sub-

strategy reducing the threat upon the recipient’s positive face, i.e. humour is employed to diminish social distance.

As a result, it conveys the function of solidarity and friendship.


- 184 -

1995: 333). The table above also indicates that an attempt at humour can be risky for both the

speaker and recipient. For the initiator, a humorous turn may fall flat because of a number of

reasons, such as the recipient’s incomplete switch to the BF(H) (bona-fide-cum-humour) mode

(see Section 1.2.3.), cognitive deficiency, terrible mood or a different level of acceptance of

offensive material. In the case of sitcoms, the threat of jeopardising the hearer’s face is double

since joking can be an FTA to a fictional character, which the viewer may find enjoyable or

disturbing. Nevertheless, as soon as a character is truly offended since a joking activity involves

mild aggression directed at him/ her as a butt, the viewer can also be insulted when joking

targets his/her reference group. Zajdman (1995: 332) claims that the level of an FTA is

comparative to “the symbolic transformations achieved within the joke’s boundaries...into ‘real

world’ relationship”.

There are several strategies at the communicator’s disposal to reduce a negative impact

of an FTA upon his/ her face when a joke falls short, i.e. disclosing original source, employing

various prefacing devices (e.g. “Do you want to hear a joke?”, “No offence”, see Section 1.2.4.),

and resorting to the third party who is an intensifier of the risk of the speaker and hearer. When

the third party is present, the recipient would rather feign amusement than admit defeat in the

understanding of a joke. As regards sitcoms, the appearance of the third party on screen can

boost humorous effects arising on the recipient’s layer as the conversationalists may be

oblivious to their presence.

Zajdman’s (1995) study puts my research on a sounder footing given its configuration of

four elements, which helps to establish whether the communicator and recipient work towards

agreement or disagreement on an FTA. It is very important to take into account not only the

interlocutor’s production but also recipient’s interpretation of a jocular element to see why a

humorous intention can potentially misfire on the viewer’s layer. Moreover, in her view,

addressing one’s (hence, television recipient’s) face needs is not the production crew’s primary

goal in joking and therefore it is possible for the viewer to sit comfortably on a couch and delve

into a piece of entertainment not worrying about the production crew’s intention to inflict verbal

harm. This is not to say that his/ her face demands are not relevant at all since they may

ultimately affect the reception of humour.

4.8. Boxer and Cortés-Conde’s (1997) degrees of teasing

Teasing, as noted in Chapter I, is regarded as a form of conversational humour as “teases may be

based on overt pretence but still involve communicative ambiguity (...) in terms of the speaker’s

genuine intentions to convey a non-humorous meaning” (Dynel 2016b: 133). Consequently,


- 185 -

teases can be genuinely amusing and jocular within the humorous frame but they can also

communicate a serious meaning beyond the humorous frame. Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997)

postulate that teasing is a tool not only used to exert social control as it both defuses and handles

conflict but also to show social identity. Teasing is therefore divided with respect to its interpersonal

function, the subtypes of which are placed along a continuum from the forms of bonding to nipping

to biting, which are not mutually exclusive and hence some overlaps are possible.

Figure 4.6. Boxer and Cortés-Conde’s (1997) teasing

It is claimed that teasing is one of the three separate speech genres (types of conversational joking)

next to joking about an absent person and self-denigrating joking (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997).

Both nipping and biting are similar in some situations since these involve verbal

aggression. The conversationalists need to rely on non-verbal cues and suprasegmentals or a

lack of thereof, which help the audience to recognise whether a tease is the one that nips or

bites. Biting is not accompanied by cues and as such, is based upon verbal, slightly “disguised”

aggression, which is non-threatening to intimates and more threatening to strangers or unequals.

Nipping is a “playful bite within the teasing frame” (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997: 284), the

aggressive message of which is not serious. The same teasing line can be understood as a nip

or bite or a nip can become a bite and vice versa, which depends upon the relationship between

conversationalists. In a more friendly environment, a tease is merely a nip (Boxer and Cortés-

Conde 1997: 290) and potentially fosters solidarity. Teasing in the form of bites or nips needs

to be directed at a participant or non-participant, whereas in the form of bonding, it needs to be

directed at an absent person (who is at the same time, the target of tease). Occasionally, teasing-

cum-bonding may be used as a social corrective given the fact that interlocutors wish to control

other’s disruptive behaviour but still continue positive relationships with close friends.

(3) Context: Claire and Phil are always forgetting about their youngest child’s birthday as the date overlaps

with Thanksgiving Day. This year they decided to throw a party like their child Luke has not had in his

lifetime. Phil rents many children attractions, such as an inflatable water slide, snow cone machine,

climbing wall, which shocks Claire. Phil is excited and asks Claire about the things she has prepared for

Luke’s birthday.

Phil: So, what you got there?

Claire: Oh. These are supplies for the crafts table. I finally figured out what we’re gonna be making.

bonding nipping biting


- 186 -

Phil: [chuckles] Kids bored? [Claire looks disappointed] I’m teasing. I’m teasing. It looks good. What

is it?

Claire: Comb sheaths. I know... I know... But we made them when I was 11 years old at Donna Rigby’s

birthday party. At first we thought it was really stupid, and then we had a blast, so...

Phil: How could you not? You combined the two things that kids love the most...combs and sheaths.

(S01E09)

There are two teasing lines delivered by Phil, which are directed at his wife Claire (marked in

italics). Granted that these are in close proximity, it may be stated that this procedure boosts the

influence of the teasing power upon the participant. Phil’s teasing humour, which can be

identified as amusing only by the initiator of the turns and the viewers, carries a bonding effect

because of their marital relationship (this dialogue undermines the proposal put forth by Boxer

and Cortés-Conde given the fact that in their view, bonding is connected with targeting an

absent party). Following Boxer and Cortés-Conde’s (1997) account, it may also be

hypothesised that Phil’s teasing takes the form of nipping, which serves to bond. His

employment of teasing humour is more creative than a serious turn and conveys truthful

information beyond the teasing/ humorous frame, hence possible face threat is contextually

mitigated. First, he intends to undermine Claire’s idea to teach children how to make comb

sheaths, which would make children bored rather than entertained. Second, Phil teases Claire

that combs and sheaths are the things that children cannot wait to make at a birthday party.

Instances of teasing in which a bite or nip is an index of rapport and intimacy are less transparent

(Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997). This example (3) illuminates that even extreme teasing can

fulfil a solidarity-enhancing function among acquaintances (Ziv 1984, Norrick 1993, Zajdman

1995, Habib 2008, Schnurr 2009, Sifianou 2012, Haugh and Bousfield 2012, Dynel 2011g,

2016b), which is what Radcliffe-Brown (1940) dubs joking relationship or Wengner (1998)

calls community of practice.

4.9. Fredrickson’s (1998) broaden-and-build theory

A promising strand of research to study sitcom humour and its goal to provoke positive

emotions in the viewer is put forward in the broaden-and-build theory by Barbara Fredrickson

(1998, 2004, 2009) and her collaborators (Fredrickson et al. 2000; Fredrickson and Branigan

2005). The model itself is not designed to account for the occurrence of humour, however,

among the emotions that are enclosed within the palette of positivity is amusement, which

makes it applicable to all mirth-producing discourse. The bedrock for the broaden-and-build

theory is that “positive emotions serve to broaden an individual’s momentary thought-action


- 187 -

repertoire, which in turn has the effect of building that individual’s physical, intellectual, and

social resources” (Fredrickson 1998: 300). People’s resources are understood as any enduring

piece of (sub)conscious information that would be needed in the long run (Fredrickson 2009).

Figure 4.7. Fredrickon’s functions of positive emotions

There is a common denominator of Fredrickson’s positive psychology and the workings of

sitcom discourse on the one hand, and Sperber and Wilson’s RT on the other hand. Any piece

of entertainment is supposed to tickle the viewers, which in turn leads to the emergence of

positive emotions, the benefit of which is to broaden one’s cognition (Fredrickson 2004,

Fredrickson and Branigan 2005). The enhancement of cognition is particularly relevant to the

production and comprehension of humour as people become more receptive and creative in

their thinking, which enables them to find novel interrelations between ideas (Fredrickson

1998), being one of the characteristics sought in humour.

In addition, the broaden-and-build model of positive emotions contends that positivity

augments our thinking in multiple interdependent manners, which can explain the fact that

humour serves multiple interrelated functions. Numerous authors immersed in humour studies

have proposed that humour is a coping mechanism to overcome adversity or ordeal (Hay 2000,

Martin 2007), just like positive emotions (Fredrickson 2004, 2009). Another function of

humour is to contribute to one’s psychological well-being, the function of which is described

by the broaden effect in which positivity enhances the feeling of happiness (Fredrickson 2009).

Amusement, in particular, is believed to be a social venture, which can produce a cushioning

effect, dubbed the undo/ undoing effect determined within the undoing hypothesis (Fredrickson

et al. 2000, Fredrickson and Branigan 2005). It has been empirically tested and proven that

amusement is an emotion that can diminish lingering negative feelings. Consequently, in the

times of hardship, stress or uneasiness, sitcoms may provide a platform to overcome negative

arousal and to spark the urge to relax in order not to be overburdened by negativity.

As positivity is argued to build a number of interrelated resources, this is also pertinent to

humour. Mental resources are materialised when, through watching a sitcom, the viewer savours

Functions of positive emotions

broadening momentary thought-action repertoire

building physical, intellectual, psychological and social resources


- 188 -

pleasant fictional actions or experiences mirth. Within this function, we may also pinpoint

occurrences of humour, which boost one’s mental openness to, for instance the gay couple, or the

character of Gloria in Modern Family, who may teach the TV recipients to be more open-minded

to minorities. Sitcoms also dwell upon psychological resources when the recipients become more

optimistic towards life, which cannot be determined on the basis of one conversational episode but

is assessed against the overall reception. The same is true of physical resources granted that

entertainment serves its secondary function to promote physical health, for instance by reducing

stress, which makes people more resilient to stress and thus stops the downward spiral (Fredrickson

2009). Last but not least, sitcoms draw upon the social function and hence build one’s social

reserves by gradually creating and straightening the emotional bond between fictional characters

and viewers.

Taking these points into account, there is a strong correlation between positive psychology

and the functions sitcom aims to fulfil. I believe that psychological, physical and social resources

are established on the generic level since the information the humorous episodes offer cannot be

recognised on the basis of a single unit. This is somehow different from the social resources, the

building of which can be noticed within one dialogue. In general, the broaden-and-build theory

provides an account of the whole gamut of corresponding resources, which are manifest in sitcom

as the viewers are equipped with the information presumably necessary in real-life situations.

4.10. Holmes and Marra’s (2002) subversive humour

It has been underlined in the present thesis that the primary aim of humour is to amuse, entertain

and hence express friendliness towards our listeners, especially when we talk about sitcom

viewers who are intended to pass the time in a light-hearted manner. Nevertheless, it is possible

for a joking activity to be undertaken for the sake of defying or subverting power relations and

authority, which is predominant in the workplace context (Holmes 2000, Holmes and Marra

2002a, 2002b). As Holmes and Marra (2002a) advocate, subversive humour is put in opposition

to reinforcing humour which is primarily designed to continue and cement personal and

professional relationships (in Holmes and Marra 2002b, a similar distinction is proposed

between supportive and contestive humour86).

86 Holmes (2006: 33) explains the difference between supportive and contestive humour in a following manner:

“supportive contributions agree with, add to, elaborate, or strengthen the propositions or arguments of previous

contribution(s), while contestive contributions challenge, disagree with, or undermine the propositions or

arguments put forward in earlier contributions.”


- 189 -

Figure 4.8. Holmes and Marra’s (2002a) types of humour

In my opinion, sitcom humour may serve the functions of subversion and reinforcement at once.

The former function is served on the fictional level, which would draw the audience’s attention

to the communicated message as it diverts from social hierarchy in power relations among

fictional characters. The latter function aims to maintain positive relations between viewers and

the production crew. More specifically, humour contests and undermines the proposition

expressed by a fictional character, which can be regarded in terms of a collaborative work

between viewers and the production crew since it is not the former group who is directly

endangered. Dialogue (4) shows the discoursal strategy that Holmes and Marra (2002a: 77)

term jocular abuse which “involves an insult or a negative or put-down remark aimed at

someone present”87. It is slightly modified in certain extracts from the sitcom so that a slur or

barb is thrown at a fictional character, who is not amused, and the jocular part is materialised

on the viewer’s part. In short, the viewer is amused at the expense of a fictional character.

Overall, the full jocular abuse strategy is always rendered humorous on the recipient’s layer. It

is nonetheless still possible that fictional characters are entertained in the course of a funny

verbal attack inflicted upon the target.

(4) Context: The scene is shot in an airplane while most of the passengers have boarded the plane from

Vietnam for Los Angeles. There is Mitchell who is pampering Lily on his laps as they are waiting

for Cameron. Some of the passengers are complimenting on the appearance of the baby girl.

A passenger: She’s adorable.

Mitchell: Thank you.

A passenger: Hi, precious.

87 Besides jocular abuse, Holmes and Marra (2002a) mention the strategies of quips, role-plays and terms of

address among the discourse strategies that can be adopted in order to create a subversive effect.

Types of humour

Subversive humour

challenges or subverts the status quo

quips jocular abuse role-play terms of address

Reinforcing humour

maintains or reinforces the status quo


- 190 -

[Mitchell is waving Lily’s hand for an old lady, saying: Hello]

Mitchell: We just adopted her from Vietnam. We’re bringing her home for the first time.

A passenger: She’s an angel. You and you’re wife must be thrilled.

Cameron: [enters the airplane having done shopping] Sorry, sorry, sorry, daddy needed

snacks. [to a passenger] Hi.

[A passenger looks indignant at the fact that Mitchell and Cameron are a gay couple]

Cameron: [to a passenger and Mitchell] So, what are we talking about?

(…)

Mitchell: [to Cameron, muttering] You saw that right? Everybody fonding up to Lillian,

then you walk on and suddenly it’s all: “Oh, SkyMall. I gotta buy a motorized tie

rack”.

Cameron: You are not giving the speech. You’re gonna be stuck with these people for the

next five hours.

Mitchell: You’re right, you’re right. Okay. I’m sorry.

A passenger: Look at that baby with those cream puffs. [the ones that Lily is holding]

Mitchell: Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. This baby would have grown up in a crowded

orphanage if it wasn’t for us “cream puffs.” And you know what? Note to all of

you who judge-

Cameron: Mitchell….

Mitchell: Hear this. Love knows no race, creed...

Cameron: Mitchell…

Mitchell: Or gender. And shame on you, you small-minded, ignorant few

Cameron: Mitchell…

Mitchell: [angrily]: What?

Cameron: [whispering] She’s got the cream puffs.

Mitchell: [distraught] Oh.

Cameron: [happily] We would like to pay for everyone’s headsets. (S01E01)

The extract has already been interpreted with regard to the two communicative layers in

Wieczorek (2018). In RT terms, from the viewer’s perspective, humour exploits the

comprehension procedure of ambiguity resolution in which the phrase cream puffs may refer to

homosexuals (Cameron and Mitchell) or light sweet pastry. On the fictional layer, there is no

jocularity but rather abuse in which Mitchell feels offended by being called ‘a cream puff’. On

the viewer’s layer, jocular abuse is blatant and unmitigated since Mitchell believes that he has

been called in a homophobic way. The passenger’s comment functions as if it were intended to

disrupt a traditional pattern of conduct in which homosexuals are insulted publicly. This kind

of subversive humour is quite common in my data as fictional characters like to challenge each

other, which is parallel to naturally occurring conversations (Holmes and Marra 2002a, 2002b).

Also, this dialogue may positively influence the viewers’ well-being as it is not their status quo

which is endangered, hence this is an example of reinforcing humour. Additionally, it may

positively influence the viewer who knows that Mitchell is misinterpreting the situation and the


- 191 -

challenge to his position is only apparent. It has been confirmed in the analysis of humour

(Morreall 1983), frequent in sitcoms, that discourse revolves in such a way that social order is

disrupted at the beginning of the episode, which causes dilemma and then the order is restored

until the end (Morreall 1983, Marc [1989] 1997, Neale and Krutnik 1990, Zillmann and Bryant

1991, Mills 2005). As the extract exemplifies, there may be micro-disequilibrium in the scenes,

particularly some disagreements which are settled by one of the characters.

4.11. Meyer’s (2000) humour as a unifier and divider

An interesting insight into the functions of humour is provided by Meyer (2000) who accentuates

that humour is better viewed as a unifying and/ or dividing instrument. The former encompasses

two strategies88 of mutual identification and clarification of position and values, whereas the latter

includes the tactics of enforcement of norms and differentiation of acceptable versus

unacceptable.

Figure 4.9. Meyer’s (2000) uniting and dividing humour

In lieu of advocating a mutually exclusive design, the rhetorical functions fall along a

continuum of cases ranging from identification to clarification, then enforcement and the most

extreme case of differentiation. Given this, a humorous line can establish a number of

communicative goals so that it creates a positive feeling of belonging to the in-group and joint

aggressiveness against the outside-group. The dual nature of humour results from viewing a

certain situation in a two-fold manner: the norm which the communicator momentarily and

88 Meyer (2000) claims that unifying and divisive humour are strategies, while identification, clarification,

enforcement and differentiation are functions. For me, identification is a strategy serving a unifying function.

Functions of humour

a dividing function

enforcement of norms

differentiation of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviour/people

a uniting function

mutual identification

clarification of position and values


- 192 -

benignly violates for the sake of humour and the violation which is contingent upon deprecation

by dint of humour. For humour to occur, there needs to be the right level of familiarity – the

viewer cannot lack a social script for the situation pictured in a humorous episode and cannot

be too familiar in order to find the deviation in the script (Raskin 1985). Meyer (2000) also

believes that it is the audience’s decision (as Zajdman 1995) to determine how humour is

understood and the function it performs.

The identification strategy draws upon a sense of similarity and sharedness between

interactants and hence it adds credibility to the communicator as well as prompts group

cohesiveness. By identifying with the audience, a speaker touches upon an issue which is well-

known and as a result, the butt of humour is “required” to share the same view. In doing this,

humour is said to relieve tension and the interactant and recipient are identified as the group

(Meyer 2000). As regards sitcom, the fictional character on the screen and the TV recipient

should form an in-group, especially when the actors confess or clarify a subject, which should

gain understanding from viewers.

Humour in the clarification tactic arises when there is a disparity in the level of familiarity

and agreement between communicators, which brings about clarification that does not endanger

the hearer’s positive face. In this strategy, humour is used with a view to teaching or clarifying

social norms of proper conduct or accepted viewpoint concerning the issue under discussion.

The speaker does not intend to criticise and thus wishes to nurture positive fellow feelings.

In the third case, i.e. enforcement, humour is used as a persuasive tool to enforce social

norms when there is a level of unfamiliarity or disagreement between claims that are aired by

the communicator and views held by the audience. This is still not trenchant criticism as the

interlocutor wants to bolster a substantial level of identification, hence, in my opinion,

enforcement may be dubbed mitigated social corrective. Serious messages cloaked under

humour “point to a need for correction or enforcement of social knowledge and norms” (Meyer

2000: 320). A comic effect derives from the audience’s lack of proper knowledge regarding,

for instance sociocultural context.

Lastly, differentiation occurs when the audience, though being thoroughly familiar with the

topic of humour, strongly disagrees or disapproves it and thus s/he experiences differentiation.

The strategy bears the traces of superiority-based theories since conversationalists compare

themselves (views, behaviour, social group) to their less fortunate opponents. There is a big asset

of employing differentiation as opposed to open criticism: the former is a form of comic ridicule

and hence is more creative. It is this creative ridiculing which fuels humour. Meyer’s (2000)

strategy can be labelled unmitigated social corrective (Bergson (1905 [2010]) speaks of social

corrective) since the imposition is more explicit.


- 193 -

In the case of sitcoms, there is a thin line between mitigated and unmitigated acts since

the final decision rests upon the viewers how a humorous episode is interpreted and which

function it carries. What is evident in Meyer’s unifying and divisive humour is that even though

the communicator passes on a critical remark, it is enclosed within the humorous frame, which

diminishes the possibility of disagreements or quarrels. It is even feasible that the most extreme

case of differentiation is to be understood as a form of identification when the two opposing

groups tell jokes about own reference group, which do not do harm to each other. Granted that

the production crew aims at long-term and dedicated viewership (Mills 2005, 2009), a majority

of humorous conversations serve the strategies of identification or clarification. The

enforcement and differentiation humorous tactics can introduce duality in the reception. On the

one hand, these strategies influence in-group cohesiveness (thus, conveying a great amount of

identification) given the fact that derisive humour or put-downs are not aimed at them. On the

other hand, humour points to unacceptable violations which are supposed to be addressed. The

TV viewers should always belong to an in-group so that positive feelings are created and

maintained.

The nature of humour in fictional communication is not always dual as Meyer (2000)

propounds given the fact it can be even four-fold since there are two communicative layers and

at each layer, humour can serve two opposing functions. That is to say, comic communication

can unite and divide fictional characters, and the same happens with respect to the production

crew and viewers. A situation in which humour occurs on the two layers is rare as it is the

viewers who need to be entertained. Furthermore, the most common “configuration” of humour

is when its divergent nature, i.e. to amuse and demean, is differently determined on the two

layers. A case in point concerning four dimensional humour is exemplified with teasing in

extract (5) in which Claire amuses others (the family members present in the kitchen and the

viewers) with the act of teasing directed at her husband:

(5) Context: Phil is going to be on the news. He decided to put on heavy make-up so that he looks good

in the eye of camera. Before his going out live, he drinks water and notices that he has left a lipstick

mark on the mug.

Phil: Oops. [noticing that he left a lipstick mark on the mug] Looks like I need to reapply.

Claire: To clown college? (S08E04)

On the fictional layer, Claire’s biting comment in the form of teasing is contingent upon mock

impoliteness. Her humorous turn is based on the two possible enrichments of the verb re-apply,

i.e. “re-apply something” vs “re-apply to”. Through using a conversational episode in a humorous

and creative manner, the wife wants Phil to assign a serious meaning as “contestive or teasing


- 194 -

humor can serve as a valuable socio-pragmatic strategy for conveying negative or challenging

content in a more acceptable way” (Schnurr and Holmes 2009: 114). In other words, Claire

performs the role of a bitter critic and resorts to the strategy of differentiation, which divides her

and the husband, since there is nothing in her utterance that mitigates the diatribe. Phil’s

misbehaviour is attacked, which should be corrected as it does not conform to social norms.

Phil’s pursing of lips indicates that Claire’s teasing carries the function of differentiation. On

the recipient’s layer, Claire’s teasing/ put-down may be understood as the strategy of clarification

or enforcement because of the close relationship between Claire and Phil. The duality in

interpretation results from the duality of layers in fictional communication: differentiation (the

fictional layer) and clarification/ enforcement (the collective sender’s layer). Meyer (2000)

underlines that the most important factor in judging the strategies is an audience’s reaction.

4.12. Martin’s (2007) psychological and interpersonal functions

The last classification of the functions of humour that is offered in this chapter is the one

conceptualised by Martin (2007). He concentrates on two general effects: psychological and

interpersonal but in fact, Martin’s book discusses other functions as well, such as persuasion,

which are not included in the categorisation.

Figure 4.10. Martin’s (2007) psychological and interpersonal functions

Psychological

cognitive and social benefits

social communication and benefits

tension relief and coping

Interpersonal

self-disclosure, probing and norm violation

decommitment

social norms and control

status and hierarchy maintainance

ingratiation

group identity and cohesion


social play


- 195 -

4.12.1. Psychological function

There are three broad groups enumerated under the psychological functions of humour: 1) cognitive

and social benefits of the positive emotion of mirth, 2) uses of humour for social communication,

and 3) tension relief and coping with hardship. It is generally maintained that humour is a form of

social play, the beneficial effects of which stem from engendering positive emotions.

The first category of the psychological functions corresponds to the studies undertaken by

Fredrickson (1998, 2001), which are outlined in Section 4.9. In a similar vein, Isen (2003, in

Martin 2007) demonstrates that positive emotions consequent upon humour promote cognitive

potential and social functioning. Shiota et al. (2004, in Martin 2007) underline a key role of mirth

in interpersonal relations in order to succeed in three types of tasks: recognition of a potential life-

time partner, establishment and continuing of stable/ key relationships and ability to work

effectively in a group.

The social communication/ influence category explicates other effects of humour, which

go beyond amusement. Humour is a perfect means to convey criticism in a way that does not

endanger the face of the communicator and the audience (humour as a face-saving strategy in

Zajdman 1995, Section 4.7.). It can also be used with an aggressive intention to coerce an in-

group into conforming to social norms and hence ostracising others. The paradoxical/

incongruous nature of humour of being pro-social and aggressive at the same time enables the

playful mode to settle conflicts or affect group cohesiveness and cause verbal offence.

The third string of the psychology-based functions is connected to humour as a factor

positively influencing one’s well-being in the face of anxiety, depression, illness or death of a

family member. The use of humour in rough times helps not to be overcome by problems. It

can also be used as a coping mechanism with a view to “making fun of the stupidity,

incompetence, laziness, or other failings of the people who frustrate, irritate, and annoy”

(Martin 2007: 19), given its potentially inherent aggression.

4.12.2. Interpersonal function

Martin’s (2007) interpersonal functions of humour converge with those offered by Attardo

(1994, Section 4.5.) in the group of primary social functions. There are seven functions: self-

disclosure/ social probing and norm violation, decommitment, social norms and control, status

and hierarchy maintenance, ingratiation, group identity and cohesion, discourse management,

and social play. It has been underlined that these functions are not clear-cut and thus a humorous

episode fulfils various purposes. These functions will not be further discussed as first, have

been outlined in Section 4.5., second, the labels are self-explanatory and hence there is no need


- 196 -

to repeat most of the claims offered in this chapter, and third, their practical validity is assessed

on the basis of the sitcom data in the next chapter.

4.13. Discussion and conclusions

The objective of this chapter was to present some of the existing functional studies of humour,

which are necessary to place my own study on the firm theoretical footing. The abundance of

classifications of humorous functions testifies that humorous communication is a fertile ground

to accomplish multiple interrelated goals. In the subsequent empirical chapter attention will be

confined to conversational humorous units culled from the sitcom Modern Family with a view

to showing the palette of meanings gleaned by the audience. Granted that humour comes in

various shapes and shades, its mutlifunctionality results from being a flexible instrument as “it

can function as a bouquet, a shield, and a cloak, as well as an incisive weapon in the armoury

of the oppressed” (Holmes 1998, in Schnurr and Plester 2017: 313).

Some of the existing classifications entrenched within functionalist discourse analysis can

be criticised for two reasons: first, they neglect important elements which influence humorous

interactions, for example the factors of power or subversion in a workplace context, second,

humour is utilised as a strategy of enhancing solidarity with no attention paid to its aggressive

part (Schnurr and Plester 2017). What can be remarked is that many classifications presented in

this chapter draw upon the view of humour as a double-edged sword, which can be affiliative and

disaffiliative at once.

The brief survey of functionalist studies attests that besides the potential of humour to

amuse the audience, there is another primary function, i.e. to build and foster solidarity. In this

way, humour is used to cultivate interpersonal relations, to create mutual understanding and

hence mutual language, as well as to display a sense of closeness and social cohesion (Apte

1985, Norrick 1993, Kuipers 2008, Schnurr and Plester 2017). In the general classifications and

one-function workings (e.g. Holmes and Marra 2002a) summarised here, the solidarity-oriented

function is expounded in all the taxonomies. Martineau (1972) remarks that humour can solidify

in-group and out-group relations, even if it contains disparagement of own group. Ziv (1984)

does not overtly mention the function of solidarity, however, the sub-function of the social

category contains the traces of solidarity in which humour is used as a key to establish the

common ground and gain affection. In Attardo’s (1994) social management sub-function, we

may find two micro-functions which aim to forge social bonds, namely ingratiation as it can

“foster liking” (Long and Graesser 1988: 54, in Attardo 1994: 324) and social play since it is

used to “strengthen social bonds and foster group cohesiveness” (Long and Graesser 1988: 57,


- 197 -

in Attardo 1994: 324). These two strategies are also explicated in Martin (2007). Meyer’s (2000)

uniting function contains the strategy of mutual identification, which builds group coherence.

Solidarity enhancement is also evident in the studies of a specific humorous genre.

Zajdman’s (1995) research does not take into account humour as a strategy of boosting

solidarity but Brown and Levinson’s (1978 [1987]) positive politeness strategies, which

Zajdman adopts, are used to express friendliness. Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997) advocate that

teasing and joking can take the form of bonding, especially when the interlocutors unite against

the butt (on the interdependence between teasing and humour see Norrick 1993, Zajdman

1995). In addition, Holmes and Marra (2002a) contend that subversive humour can be used to

maintain positive personal relations and solidarity.

The nature of humorous communication is ambiguous, enabling two discrepant goals, for

instance solidarity and aggression. This fact is validated by a plethora of workings in which

impoliteness is extrapolated onto humour studies (see Dynel 2013a and references therein; also

Ziv 1984, Norrick 1993). Moreover, solidifying close interpersonal relations is coupled with

other power-based functions as it typically entails exercising power (Tannen 1993, Habib

2008). There are various techniques to establish authority, which encompass forcing others to

comply with standards of behaviour (Bergson 1905 [2010], Graham, Papa and Brooks 1992,

Attardo 1994, Holmes 1995, 2000; Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Meyer 2000), fostering

social integration via disparagement (Martineau 1972), controlling and setting boundaries (Hay

1995, 2000), defusing or exerting social control (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997, Martin 2007),

reducing power (Holmes 2000), establishing group norms or undermining power relations

(Meyer 2000, Holmes and Marra 2002a).

As this overview has aimed to show, humour is a complex, multifunctional and

multifarious phenomenon, the initiation of which facilitates accomplishing several

communicative purposes on different layers, for instance social, psychological and pragmatic.

Although some of the classifications are theoretical and hence not supported by natural or

fictional discourse, their validity was tested when some extracts from my data were applied

throughout the chapter. The functional research is by no means limited to the overview

presented here but it furnishes ample ground for further scrutiny. More importantly, there is no

research into fictitious discourse, which would reveal that other individuals besides co-

conversationalists, e.g. eavesdroppers or third party, and more importantly, viewers of fictional

discourse, (see Section 3.6.), derive something beyond pleasure consequent upon humour. In that

research, we need to take two aspects into consideration: the communicator’s goal in the

production of a humorous line and the audience’s recovery of humorous and/ or non-humorous

import.

- 198 -

C h ap t e r V

Humour as a multifunctional strategy in the sitcom

Modern Family

Frank Dunphy: 80% of comedy is surprise. The other 20% is wordplay


5.1. Introduction

The previous chapter demonstrated that humour studies abound in functionalist accounts and

more importantly, that humour serves multifarious ‘serious’ functions which transcend pure

enjoyment (Norrick 2010). Savorelli (2010) claims that regarding humorous discourse in terms

of its amusement is reductive and erroneous. Above all, humour research and its functional

conception are a serious matter through and through as the humorous mode is not always

“without serious intent or devoid of serious implications” (Mulkay 1988: 30).

For a number of compelling and legitimate reasons it is vital to work on the effects-based

studies. Graham, Papa, Brooks (1992) corroborate that studying functions of humour in

interpersonal communication provides a better understanding of ulterior motives behind the

initiation of humorous talk. Meyer (2000: 310) attests that a functional analysis “will clarify

understanding of its use in messages”, while Martin (2007) contends that this line of research

illuminates the intricate and multifunctional nature of humour. The author of the present thesis

endorses these rational justifications as they fit neatly into the study of fictional discourse. In

particular, a researcher can improve linguistic knowledge concerning the way in which the

production crew devises scripted conversations so that the intended effects are derived by the

viewer. This type of research will enable drawing more detailed conclusions regarding the

fictional character’s linguistic and non-linguistic means to attain a variety of goals, which may

sometimes be divergent. As the title of the thesis reads Humour as a Carrier of Meaning in

Sitcom Discourse, it aims to unravel what types of message the TV recipient receives when

watching a piece of ready-made conversations.


- 199 -

With the wisdom of hindsight, the proper footing has been prepared to undertake the

qualitative functional analysis whose objective is to tease out a number of functions, which are

performed by dint of humour as a discursive strategy. As shown in Chapter IV, there has not

appeared an empirical and comprehensive study into the language of sitcom humour

characterised in terms of a multifunctional tool. The present research draws upon Sperber and

Wilson’s (1986 [1995]) RT, the aptness of which lies in the explanatory power of its conceptual

tools and thus in saliency to humorous discourse. The exemplification data is collected from

the American sitcom Modern Family, which has retained immense popularity for more than ten

years (nevertheless, the producers announced the eleventh season is the last). It needs to be

highlighted that the present thesis ventures a linguistic, particularly pragmatic, analysis, which

necessarily makes reference to social and cultural aspects crucial to demonstrate the whole

gamut of meanings. Nevertheless, it does not pursue to conduct a sociological scrutiny,

therefore the excerpts from the sitcom are used for illustrative purposes (as Bednarek 2010). In

RT’s parlance, humorous interactions are classified as a type of ostensive inferential

communication, which does not warrant additional requirements or supplementary mechanisms

(Yus 2003, 2016). Exercising humour in televisual discourse offers the sitcom production team

a powerful tool to carry an extensive range of propositional and non-propositional meanings,

both of which are typically communicated by means of weak implicatures, which can bring

about the cognitive overload effect at the subrepresentational level (Jodłowiec 2015, Piskorska

and Jodłowiec 2018). The analysis takes the perspective assumed by lay language analysts

(Bubel 2011), i.e. the audience, which necessarily needs to resort to the fictional communicative

layer. That is, the meaning and intentions constructed by the TV viewers are predicated on the

fictional characters’ interactions. However, the reception of humour may greatly vary

depending on the communicative layer since whilst the viewers can find some units amusing,

the same conversational episodes would be marked as hostile by the characters.

The present analysis will demonstrate that humour can be a carrier not only for enjoyment

but also for sharing, criticising or relieving tension. The cornerstone for this research project is

the fact that relevance-theoretic pragmatic mechanisms would explain the recipients’

processing of the message in the most salient way. Moreover, it will show how it is feasible for

the recipient to go beyond amusement and discover what lies beneath humour. In other words,

the whole gamut of different, often weak, implications are explored by means of the

comprehension procedure (Piskorska 2016). It is worth noting that the very linguistic form

enables the initiator of the message to communicate a number of implications, which cannot be

communicated otherwise given emergent properties recovered in the specific context

(Piskorska 2016).


- 200 -

My analysis indicates that there are twenty one functions carried out by dint of humour,

which are teased out on the basis of a careful analysis of the extracts collected from the sitcom.

The functions are divided into those which aim to enhance solidarity (affiliative humour), those

which are anchored in impoliteness (disaffiliative humour) and those which provide cognitive

benefits (psychological functions). In addition, these functions are determined along the same

criteria: their performance in conversation, i.e. whether they are used with a view to boosting

positive affiliation, inflicting a face damage/ threat or enhancing cognitive repertoire. This

effects-based classification is a result of top-down and bottom-up methodological perspectives

towards the analysis of the data. Whilst the former lays the theoretical foundation that is treated

as a point of reference for the proper “handling” of the data, the latter provides an empirical

picture of theoretical assumptions. Binsted and Ritchie (2001) reckon that these two extreme

procedures should be conjoined in order to undertake comprehensive research: “[o]ne cannot

devise a general theory (top-down) without at least keeping an eye on the data, and one cannot

work on particular data (bottom-up) without assuming (perhaps implicitly) at least some

theoretical basis” (ibid.: 280). A similar approach is adopted in the present work since the

analysis is the outcome of a careful scrutiny of the literature and the data. In other words, the

results are not detached from what was proposed in earlier studies.

The idea that humorous discourse can serve the meaning that transcends the viewer’s

sheer enjoyment can be detected in many humour-oriented contributions, which is sometimes

tacitly acknowledged. In most of the cases, these are, alas, passing remarks which are not

addressed at greater length since the humorous interpretation was in the centre of attention.

“The cognitive experience of humor has characteristic underlying physiological (arousal) changes and overt

behavioral reactions (smiling and laughter) associated with it, but these are by-products of humor. Social,

motivational, and other psychodynamic factors closely linked to humor...are considered to serve only as

modifiers and sources of enrichment...” (McGhee 1979: 43).

“humour differs from serious discourse requiring at least a duality of meaning, and often a multiplicity of

opposing meanings” (Mulkay 1988: 30)

“Conversations consists, very roughly, of sequences of utterances among two or more people; with each

utterance, the speaker performs one or more illocutionary acts directed at addressees” (Clark and Carlson

1992: 217)

“The broader expression “the pleasure of humor” is to be understood to encompass the fundamental

pleasure and, in addition, “the secondary pleasure of humor,” or “secondary pleasure”: all pleasure of any

other sort which is associated closely with the humor process in a particular case or limited class of cases.

Secondary pleasure includes, for instance, pleasure at the inventiveness of a storyteller, gratification at the

wounding of an enemy, the perception of a child as adorable, the consolation of wisdom, or pleasure at the

beauty of an utterance or passage of writing to the extent that it is associated closely with this or that humor

process. It is to be noted, however, that “secondary” does not mean weaker.” (Latta 1999: 43; italics is

mine)


- 201 -

“In any joke or humorous situation, there is an invitation for the hearer to come closer to my outlook or

take on a situation.” (Cohen 1999, in Cundall 2007: 208)

“The pleasures offered by sitcom performance are not only those involved in the momentary enjoyment of

jokes” (Mills 2005: 90)

“it [prioritising the genre’s entertainment] ignores other possible pleasures associated with comedy’s

humour” (Mills 2005: 136)

“American sitcom has been a carrier of discourses on very sensitive cultural and social matters: from racism

to war, from intergenerational clashes to sexual identity” (Savorelli 2010: 176)

“humour may transgress the walls of the second container [the fictional layer- M.W.] or the height of the

stage, and depend upon the audience’s ability to perceive not just humour in the diegetic world, but also

the container or the stage in or on which it occurs. This second type of humour requires awareness of the

constructedness of the fictional artefact (but not necessarily the manner in which it is constructed)”

(Messerli 2017a: 16-17; italics is mine)

5.2. Cognition, relevance, incongruity and affect

Throughout the previous chapters I have dealt with a number of crucial approaches and issues,

which would make the present analysis comprehensive. First, the approaches to and models of

incongruity and resolution consequent upon humorous enjoyment are central to the explanation

of any occurrence of humour and thus these lay the firm foundation for the research into sitcom

discourse. Second, RT provides conceptual tools to study humorous episodes, which contribute

to the investigation of different weak effects offered to the viewer via the fictional character’s

turns. Third, attention is turned to the functions of humour conceptualised in literature, which

helps to set the proper course to the analysis. These three perspectives form the three pillars of

the whole thesis, deployed to accomplish the objective of the analysis, viz. delineation of

propositional meanings conveyed by means of humour.

It is important to underline the fact that incongruity models can detail the cognitive

processes going through the recipient’s mind while analysing conversational humour. This is

particularly relevant to humour in the sitcom, which takes the form of extended sequences that

lack a clear-cut setting-punchline division. It is advisable to take into account the other two

families of humour theories, viz. superiority and relief, in order to yield a profound insight into

the occurrence of humour. As Raskin (1985), Graham, Papa and Brooks (1992) as well as

Martin (2007) maintain, the three families of humour theories “characterize the complex

phenomenon of humor from very different angles and do not at all contradict each other – rather

they seem to supplement each other quite nicely” (Raskin 1985: 40). The incongruity,

superiority and relief workings are essential as they provide a comprehensive perspective of all

the effects the audience is intended to derive.


- 202 -

5.3. Mockumentary style and sitcom aesthetics

This section explicates the aesthetics of mockumentary (a blend of mock and documentary),

which is motivated by the fact that Modern Family is said to be shot in a mockumentary style.

Moreover, it is advocated here that this very style has direct influence upon the functions that

are served on the viewers’ part.

Mockumentary can be defined as a type of discourse that can refer to the aesthetics of

fiction: “mockumentary appropriates styles not only from the codes and conventions of

documentary proper but from the full spectrum of nonfiction media” (Hight 2012: 73). It is

connected to breaking the so-called fourth wall89 in order to convey an impression that what is

being watched is the denotation of real events. It can especially be pinpointed in the instances

where actors look directly into the eye of the camera as in new sitcoms (Mills 2009), or where

performers address the audience directly as in stand-up routines. Christopher Lloyd, a creator

of Modern Family, claims that adopting a documentary-like approach “gives audiences a

voyeur’s perspective on a family” (Smith 2010). Mills (2009: 128) reckons that such aesthetics

“resolutely rejects the theatrical nature of sitcom, abandoning the laugh track and offering a

visual style which positions the viewer as an observer of everyday behaviour”. One of the

negative effects of mockumentary is that the removal of the laugh tract entails the loss of

collective experience that the hearer gains while laughing together with the studio audience

(Mills 2005). This may be the reason why the producers of Modern Family resort to the use of

confessions into the camera as part of a compensation scheme so that viewers have an

impression that they are not alone in front of the TV set.

Overall, three basic types of communication can be observed in the sitcom under analysis:

regular conversations among interlocutors who do not pay heed to the camera (purely fictional

discourse), the interview sequence uttered into the camera90 (reality-like discourse), and in-

between cases where there are regular conversations and suddenly one of the characters peeps

into the camera (mixed fiction-reality discourse). The turns delivered in front of the camera

provide the viewers with an opportunity to learn a hidden agenda, true feelings and thoughts91.

The TV recipient is sanctioned this exclusive privilege and is constantly invited to join their

fictional world. The documentary-like shooting style alters the viewer’s position into one close

89 The fourth wall is the one that the viewers cannot see as it is the place where the camera is placed to film the events. 90 To be more precise, the fictional characters sometimes look somewhere close to the eye of the camera as if there

were a person with whom they talk, however, it does not have any practical implications for my academic analysis. 91 There are many inclusive-exclusive instances in which the viewers are included in the the entertainment of

humour, while some of the interlocutors are excluded from a real course of action (Wieczorek 2016).


- 203 -

to a co-conversationalist as the fictional characters display their awareness that they are

videotaped (Mills 2005). Moreover, the documentary aesthetics blurs the line between what is

fictional and what is real (Roscoe and Hight 2001). I would like to air the claim that these candid

“interviews” or confessions produce more cognitive effects on the part of the viewer, which

would not be otherwise made manifest. To rephrase, when a recipient is directly addressed and

offered, for instance a piece of advice, as in face-to-face conversation, it may have a greater

impact upon him/ her than in communication in which s/he is the third party.

Given the fact that there are instances of traditional fictional communication, Modern

Family still adheres to the three-headed monster way of shooting (see 3.3.1.) (in short, one

camera films the general shot of the scene, the other two focus on specific things crucial to the

ongoing conversation, Mills 2005). Being omnipresent, the TV recipient is aware of all the

issues or details, many of which fictional characters are not conversant with. The discrepancy

between recipients’ knowledge and fictional interactants’ knowledge gives rise to humorous

effects, especially in confessions uttered into the camera. The viewer’s greater awareness can

be studied within superiority approaches since s/he demonstrates “intellectual mastery over

misinformed, unaware and unintelligent characters” (Hobbes 1914, in Mills 2005: 63).

The documentary shooting style has both an advantage and disadvantage. The severe

disadvantage is that the characters when looking into the camera may seem to show their

behaviour in a more positive light, i.e. simply conceal true feelings (Mills 2005). An advantage

is that when the actor is alone with the camera, s/he airs his/ her views more openly (but there

may be a clash between attempt to be truthful and deceitful), which creates the bond with the

viewer. A number of confessions may make the recipient unable to laugh at a fictional character

with whom s/he has created friendly relationships.

In traditional sitcoms with genre-specific cues the viewers know what type of

entertainment is being watched and thus what type of humour is expected. In new comedy, such

as Modern Family, The Office (2005-2013; NBC) or Curb your Enthusiasm (2000-2020; HBO)

(which do not employ documentary-like aesthetics), however, the recipient can just be

entertained by the compound of cues from realistic and fictional discourses (Mills 2005). What

makes the viewers entertained is their feeling of security of laughing at someone’s misfortunes

while being home (Mills 2005).

The last issue connected to the shooting style is the construct of space in Modern Family.

Savorelli (2010) contends that the couch is a space-defining component in American sitcoms,

being the place around which any important event revolves. This is also true for the sitcom


- 204 -

under analysis since direct conversations (into the camera) take place on the cosy couches or

chairs situated in the drawing rooms of the Pritchett-Tucker-Dunphy clan houses.

5.3.1. The code of realism

An associated issue with the mockumenatry aesthetics is the notion of the code of realism,

which concerns “[t]he imitation of reality...typically achieved with the help of specific filmic

conventions” (Bubel 2006: 43). These techniques include editing (with no sudden transition

from one scene to another), camera work (can be hand-held to vest authenticity) or diegetic

track (to imitate natural sound) (Bednarek 2010). The intent behind creating real-like

environment is that “the viewers are under the impression of actually overhearing private

conversations” (Bubel 2006: 42). In one way, the code of realism makes the televised

programme resemble spontaneously uttered conversations so that the boundary between fiction

and reality is blurred. It may particularly influence the affiliation between fictional characters

and audience and their ‘relation’ is less obstructed by the process of mass mediated editing.

Interestingly, as Kozloff (2000) maintains, the pure mockumentary style would render the

sitcom less realistic due to the direct audience address: when the television recipient is aware

of being spoken to, instead of merely eavesdropping, it “violates the suspension of disbelief”92

(Kozloff 2000: 57) pertinent to the maintenance of the code of realism.

Granted that there are two main types of communication in Modern Family (purely

fictional and real-like), a claim can be proposed on the basis of media studies literature that this

situation comedy should be treated as both realistic and non-realistic. In other words, traditional

communication preserves the code of realism and the authenticity of the narrative, while direct

utterances suspend the plausibility of events. What has been underlined multiple times

throughout the previous chapters is that the fictional characters’ paying heed to the camera

creates the atmosphere of friendship and imitates face-to-face conversation. Kozloff’s claim

that the viewer is as if caught red-handed eavesdropping fictional conversation does not appear

to be watertight: as long as two parties (recipients and characters) look at each other construing

and gleaning the meaning, it is rather realistic and hence does not break the code of realism.

Relevant to the discussion about the sitcom loaded with stereotypical information is

Neale’s (1990, in Bednarek 2010: 22) bifurcation into cultural and generic verisimilitude

92 The notion of willing suspension of disbelief was coined by Coleridge (in Bednarek 2010: 22) to articulate the

reader’s eagerness to cease the train of thought usually employed in the processing of real events and thus starting

to believe in implausible occurrences.


- 205 -

inherent in cinematic discourse. Cultural verisimilitude denotes the narrative’s adherence to the

socially accepted norms or values, whilst generic verisimilitude refers to the adherence to the

genre itself, i.e. what is imaginable. Generic verisimilitude enables the production team to play

with the conventions of a specific format, e.g. the portrayal of vampires in The Vampire Diaries

(2009-2017; Alloy Entertainment/ CBS/ Warner Bros). As regards the sitcom under analysis,

both types of verisimilitude would be necessary in my investigation, however the former group

is more dependent upon one’s subjective judgement.

It can be argued that it is the frequency of humour in screen-to-face discourse that can

disrupt the prefabricated to natural conversation link. Quaglio (2009: 75) observes that some

cases of humour “‘disrupted’ the naturalness of the exchange” (see Dynel 2015 on impoliteness

and its verisimilar dimension).

5.3.2. Scripted communication vs natural conversations

The fact that prefabricated communication should resemble naturally occurring conversations

is well-established in literature, which can be detailed in terms of the code of realism and

mockumentary style of shooting. There are also critical voices that decline this reasoning

claiming that scripted communication is “a canonical approximation of spontaneous talk in

interaction” (Boxer 2002: 18, in Bubel 2011: 29).

The main asset of scripted interactions and their analysis as a real-life data is that these

have not “been elicited by the researcher for the purpose of his or her research project but that

occurs for communicative reasons outside of the research project for which it is used” (Jucker

2009: 1615, in Dynel 2018: 28). Prefabricated discourse can be defined with reference to

multiple authorship, viz. producers, directors, scriptwriters, and other staff present during

shooting a scene, who (unconsciously) share their internal beliefs, convictions or feelings which

“are transmitted through the created dialogue into a globalized community of TV viewers across

the world” (Bednarek 2010: 63). In a similar vein, Spitz (2005) reckons that a scriptwriter,

being an individual living in society, resorts to his/ her and viewer’s “shared background

knowledge of social, cultural, linguistic and interactional norms and expectations” (Spitz 2005:

76). Moreover, she claims that dramatic dialogue mirrors natural discourse (also Bubel 2006)

given the fact that the underlying knowledge about the mechanisms of personal conversations

in the factual world can be duly envisaged. In other words, scriptwriters observe real-life

communication and this knowledge is then adequately implemented in fictional dialogues.


- 206 -

The very fact that scripted interactions are tailored by a specialist ascertains that they

cannot be equated with naturally produced communication, however, the analysis of televisual

discourse shows the way in which unscripted interactions can be perceived and interpreted (Rey

2001, in Quaglio 2009). On the basis of the review of literature (e.g. Kozloff 2000, Bubel 2006,

Quaglio 2009), Bednarek (2010) provides a list of distinctive features of TV and film dialogues,

as opposed to natural communication. The list itself is prompted by Quaglio’s (2009)

comparative research on the language of Friends and in natural corpus:

− it exhibits conventions of stage dialogue

− it comprises certain stock lines

− it avoids unintelligibility (false starts, overlaps, interruptions, unclear words, abrupt topic shifts)

to favour intelligibility above acoustic fidelity and naturalism

− it has a relatively even distribution of (short) turns

− it has a lower frequency of ‘vague’ language, e.g. kind of

− it has a lower frequency of ‘narrative’ language

− it has a higher frequency of emotional and emphatic language (see Mills 2009 on emotional realism)

− it has a higher frequency of informal language

− it is less varied linguistically (e.g. in terms of settings, interaction types, topics)

− it avoids repetitive discourse and fillers, because they do not advance the narrative

− it contains aesthetic devices, for example, repetition, rhythm and surprise (Bednarek 2010: 64)

The present analysis does not aspire to compare the linguistic means employed in the sitcom

under scrutiny and unscripted language, however it is interesting to draw attention to the points

of dissimilarities. Some of the features presented above are pertinent to Modern Family, which

is obvious since both Friends and Modern Family are sitcoms and hence their scripted texts

converge. Nevertheless, for instance, Modern Family employs a higher degree of narrativeness

when the characters confide to the viewers when looking into the camera – in Quaglio’s (2009)

terms it is dubbed narrative focus.

Another side of the scripted vs unscripted communication bifurcation is the fact that

among the aspects which signal that the TV recipients know that they are watching fiction is

their amusement when intentional impolite, often unmitigated, acts are performed on the

fictional layer (Dynel 2012c, 2013a, 2015). As a matter of fact, the viewers are cognisant that

impoliteness is under the pretence of humour, which is why we need to take into account other

humour-generating factors, such as surprise or the recipient’s playful frame of mind, in order

to state whether the deliberate intention has been accurately gleaned. In real life, it is hardly

plausible that disagreements, insults or slurs would invite humorous reaction from the target,

which are not socially anticipated or even acceptable. In addition, what is crucial in the

discussion of the natural-looking televisual discourse and Modern Family is that the sitcom is

designed to mirror real-life events and more natural language when the actors look into the eye


- 207 -

of the camera. This realistic touch helps to transcend the fictional barrier and to enrol the viewer

into their world.

The last point that can be made about the scripted/ unscripted interface is that it can be

presumed that fictional communication is not in fact expected to be identical to naturally

occurring interactions. This can be explained by the fact that the fictional nature of sitcom

discourse is the reason why many people find it appealing, for example that disagreements

inevitably lead to harmony. The perfect balance is that sitcom should not be too distant and too

close to the reality.

To sum up, the present section aimed to feed into the discussion on the scripted (rehearsed)

and unscripted (unrehearsed) communication. There are many different perspectives and methods

to resolve the issue of whether televisual and natural discourses share, to a greater extent, linguistic

and non-linguistic features. There are studies which show that sitcom discourse is realistic,

nevertheless it is not a verbatim representation of reality (Spitz 2005, Bubel 2006). It might be

worthwhile to consider other issues, such as deriving pleasure from misfortunes of others.

5.4. Methodology and the subjectivity problem

This section endeavours to expound on the methodology for the present analysis and how the

subjectivity problem associated with it can be minimised. Collecting the data is fraught with

several problems, the most important of which seems to be the choice of the right quality of

conversational episodes that should not be constrained by the scholar’s subjective judgment.

There are various practical methods which can be adopted in order to preserve a degree of

objectivity given the fact that what is amusing to one individual can be abysmal to another. One

of the verification processes a scholar can follow is dubbed “member checking” (Schnurr and

Plester 2017), in which the researcher checks the humorous intention with the initiator of

discourse, the benefit of which is to elaborate or reverse the interpretation. This is problematic

with respect to mass-mediated communication since in the case of sitcoms, it is difficult to

determine the source of a dialogue, i.e. whether it is a televisual character and/ or the television

production team (see Bednarek 2010). Second, it is possible to resort to the “mutual guarantee

technique” based on introspection (Olbrechts-Tyteca 1974, in Attardo 1994), which enables the

researcher to assume that a particular instance is funny, providing that it has been regarded as

such by others. Third, the analysts can rely on contextualisation cues (Section 1.2.4.), such as

meta-comments or departures from syntactic structures (Schnurr and Plester 2017). Another

method of studying the audience’s reception, which could maintain the objectivity factor, but

which would be troublesome and time-consuming, is based on a detailed questionnaire

accompanied by audiovisual material (collected by the researcher), presented to respondents in


- 208 -

order to assess a conversational unit. This technique is still not flawless since the researcher

provides the interviewees with the ready-made units, not the corpus that the respondent would

choose on his/ her own. Either way, it is highly unlikely to gather a sufficient number of

volunteers and burden them with investigating lengthy data.

The data collection from Modern Family aims to circumvent the problem with

subjectivity, at least to some extent. I take into consideration not only the text in its narrow

sense (a fictional dialogue in which televisual characters are engaged, Bubel 2011) but also

other relevant discoursal features connected with action (such as facial expression or direction

of gaze). Within speech events, there is a range of different means of how a propositional

meaning can be construed on the part of the viewer, viz. the assignment of intonation contours,

paralinguistic phenomena, such as tone of voice, loudness, speed of delivery (Kozloff 2000,

Bednarek 2010). These verbal and non-verbal cues help to determine a given instance as

potentially funny to the audience. As Kozloff (2000: 99) maintains, taking into account the

whole meaning “allows for a tight anchoring of the spectator’s identification with the character,

but it also permits the viewer to pick up subtle discrepancies and undertones”. In addition, there

is a superordinate cue in sitcoms, that is it is classified as comedy (according to the Internet

Movie Database), which, from the outset, creates certain expectations concerning

humorousness for the viewer. In other words, sitcom is “a form of programming which

foregrounds its comic intent” (Mills 2009: 49; italics in original). Granted that what is gleaned

by the viewer is dependent upon linguistic means and other modalities, it is necessary for the

study of propositional meanings to include a variety of cues contributing to the recognition of

the sitcom production team’s intentions and ultimately bringing about the audience’s

anticipated reaction.

I have transcribed the data93 from the sitcom Modern Family manually since there are no

websites (designed by fans or whosoever) with transcripts available for scientific scrutiny.

Dialogues and monologues are accompanied with the description of a salient communicative

context, such as non-verbal behaviour or appearance of the characters (who were not present

from the beginning of the scene), thereby providing a bigger picture of a humorous encounter.

Then, I rewatched the episodes right before undertaking the present analysis to see whether the

same dialogues and monologues have been collected. The last step was to analyse all the

dialogues with respect to the meaning(s) communicated and its dominant function, which

revealed some recurring patterns.

93 I follow Bednarek’s (2010) method of data collection, which is systematic and thus helps to attain logical results

and avoid the problem with unreliable corpus for study.


- 209 -

The transcribed data does not “feature linguistic transcription conventions94, for example,

systematic signalling of emphatic stress, paralinguistic features, lengths of pauses, intonation,

overlap” (Bednarek 2010: 70). Nonetheless, relevant features of speech, which influence the

reception of humour are included in square brackets. Another technique which allows the

analyst to avoid one’s sense of humour suspending objective judgment is to collect the data

over a longer period of time (Dynel 2018). My interest in the humour of Modern Family is avid

and has grown long before doing this research, thus it was possible to watch one episode on a

number of occasions. The first time that the data was extracted was more than two years ago

when I was preparing the presentation for the ISHS Conference in Tallin (2018).

It needs to be highlighted that the humorous episodes were collected from scratch on the

second cycle, i.e. without looking at the first-time collected data. I noticed that some humorous

units were not included in the corpus on the first cycle, which could have been caused by binge-

watching of the episodes and taking pleasure from entertainment instead of “serious business”.

More importantly, I am constantly trying to improve my humour-specific knowledge by reading

newly published monographs, edited volumes or articles, which may further explain why there is

a discrepancy between the extracts on the first and second collection. Furthermore, there can arise

a disparity between the variation of language used in the data and the whole thesis: Modern

Family is an American situation comedy, which makes the American variety of the English

language appear in spelling or vocabulary, whereas this work follows the British English spelling.

The data from the sitcom is used for illustrative purposes, “only demonstrating analytical

frameworks and methodologies, and findings are related to other television series as much as

possible” (Bednarek 2010: 4). The analysis is of linguistic nature and hence it does not aspire to

describe cultural or societal dimensions or show differences in inter- and intra-group relations.

Modern Family comprises eleven seasons (it has been announced that the sitcom will not

be continued). It contains some of the features typical of a traditional sitcom: each season

incorporates from twenty two to twenty four episodes and the running time of each episode is

between twenty to twenty three minutes. The data for this analysis encompasses conversational

units from season 8. The underlying motivation for limiting my investigation to one season is that

the analysis of a larger set of data would take a considerable amount of time (it is not to say that

handling smaller corpora takes short time) and the data would be extremely difficult to manage.

In addition, the data collection from all the seasons would not make the results distinctly different

inasmuch as the humour in my corpus is representative of humour constructed in the sitcom.

Furthermore, there are some other legitimate reasons for collecting the data from season 8: 1) the

position of the sitcom in the audience’s awareness is already strong; 2) more humorous units

94 For instance, Bubel (2011) follows the model transcription system invented by Dressler and Kreuz (2000).


- 210 -

are initiated by any member of the families, in comparison to the seasons when the children

were small; 3) reviewers reckon that the storylines in this season are finished and connected to

the main theme of each episodes (the problem that occurs in season 9).

In general, my data comprises 116 humorous instances from season 8 (this amounts to

139 pages in a Word file with a normal default margin), which are presented in Appendix. The

total number of words in a text file, including the contextual information95, the titles of the

episodes, and my analysis, is 326 494 (with spaces). The data has been analysed with respect

to a number of parameters: the conversation constructed on the fictional layer, the creation of

humour on the audience’s part (the viewers’ layer), humour mechanisms (incongruity,

superiority, and/or relief), a relevance-theoretic tool, a strategy devised to induce humour,

function(s) that humour performs as well as propositional meanings.

Last but not least, I am a Polish speaker, which makes me an outsider to the American

culture and thus there can be a discrepancy in my analysis and the one undertaken by an

American scientist. Bednarek (2010) remarks that being a person who is not brought up in a

particular culture should be considered a merit since this fact entitles one to tease out more

cultural features of a TV series.

5.5. Research hypotheses and questions

The principal objective of the present thesis is to conduct a qualitative analysis of the excerpts

from the sitcom Modern Family in the light of the RT toolkit, presenting a broad spectrum of

the (non)communicative functions fulfilled on the part of the recipient. This type of research

adduces evidence that humour can be a carrier for a number of meanings, only some of which

acquire the status of the viewer’s full representations. For its humorous effects, the content of

sitcom should be comprehensible to any TV recipient from different corners of the globe. It is

Quaglio’s (2009) perspective on the conceptualisation of the audience that I find convincing

and relevant to my research:

“the virtual interlocutors (the audience) are characterized by a wide range of socio-cultural backgrounds.

In this sense then for the language of the show to be easily understood (and the vagueness easily

interpretable), the level of vagueness should be as ‘global’ as possible, which is likely to compromise the

naturalness of the dialogues.” (Quaglio 2009: 78)

There are some plausible hypotheses that can be considered on the basis of expected results

from the analysis, which can be later assessed with respect to the final outcome. The hypotheses

95 All the verbal and non-verbal stimuli, which can be perceptible or inferable, are highly important to the recovery

of the relevant interpretation (Sperber and Wilson 1986 [1995]; Wilson and Sperber 2004)


- 211 -

are constructed on the strength of the study of the literature on humour, fictional discourse and

functions:

1. As a rule of thumb, any humorous episode can be explained using the concept of

incongruity, but one still needs to resort to other notions, such as a positive frame of

mind, surprise, or novelty, the feeling of superiority (social theories), and humour as a

means of releasing pent-up energy (psychoanalytical workings). This would prove the

claim presented in Chapter I that a comprehensive humour theory requires linking

incongruity with other mechanisms. Such an approach helps to delineate more

functions conveyed by means of humour on the recipient’s part.

2. RT offers a bunch of useful tools to study any type of discourse, which my analysis

would exemplify. Therefore, no novel concepts should be proposed for the sake of the

present research.

3. Humorous effects are best characterised in terms of weak communication, leading to

the emergence of the cognitive overload (Jodłowiec 2008, 2015) and hence being

comparable to poetic effects (Wilson 2011, 2018).

4. The number of humorous episodes assessed as amusing by viewers is

disproportionately higher than the ones on the fictional layer given the fact that sitcoms

are produced and syndicated for the cognitive benefits of the viewers.

5. Granted that the production crew would like to maintain stable viewership, there are

more solidarity-enhancing functions than those contingent upon genuine aggression.

6. Hay’s (1995, 2000) classification of the functions of humour with several strategies

can constitute the basis for my analysis.

7. The bottom-up (data-based) analysis enables the researcher to find new trends in the

creation of humour on the part of the viewer, i.e. to put forth new functions fulfilled

by dint of humour.

Second, in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of the analysis, the data is studied with respect

to four basic parameters:

1. The description of conversation on the two communicative layers (fictional and

recipient’s) to see how the reception of a conversational unit differs with respect to the

layer.

2. The function(s) that the extract serves to perform on the part of the recipient. It would

present the totality of different propositional meanings communicated within a single


- 212 -

excerpt. It is crucial to note that the function(s) are teased out mainly on the basis of a

humorous line, not the whole dialogue/ monologue.

3. The strategy that has been employed to evoke a humorous response, which is assessed

on the basis of the performance of humour in an overall conversation.

4. The RT’s comprehension processes, which are aimed at the recovery of explicit and

implicit meanings, such as reference assignment, enrichment or disambiguation.

The research hypotheses and the parameters are coupled with the research questions, which

further help to draw attention to the intricacies of a functional analysis of sitcom discourse:

1. Can all the functions summarised in Chapter IV be pinpointed in the chosen sitcom

discourse?

a) Does each and every function described in the previous chapter require some

adjusting given the nature of my data? It needs to be borne in mind that those

functionalist analyses are based on either naturally occurring communication or the

ones invented for the sake of study.

2. Is it possible to create a clear-cut classification of the functions or do we have to

acknowledge the fact that some overlaps are permissible? The latter provides much

leeway in the viewers’ reception as it is not predetermined how a recipient should read

a given instance.

3. Does the bottom-up analysis reveal other functions than those which have been already

proposed in the literature summarised in Chapter IV?

4. The work is based upon the participation framework. The viewer’s position on the

recipient’s layer is slightly altered depending on whether a fictional character looks

directly into the camera or has a regular conversation with other characters. Is there a

separate function that is fulfilled as soon as a viewer is directly addressed?

5.5.1. About the cast of Modern Family

The series depicts the ordinary family life of the Pritchett-Dunphy-Tucker clan living in a

suburb of Los Angeles. All the members of the clan are related to senior Jay Pritchett and his

two children Claire and Mitchell. In general, the situation comedy shows that family ties can

occasionally be twisted and some problems can be difficult to overcome, however the members’

genuine warmth and need to help transcend all misunderstandings and this is what gathers

millions of viewers in front of a TV.


- 213 -

The Pritchett family is a blended family among whom there is Jay, his wife Gloria

Ramirez-Pritchett, Jay’s stepson Manny and Gloria and Jay’s son Joe. Jay is a retired owner of

closet business and a patriarch, who likes to have the last word in an argument. In his late

sixties, he decided to remarry and is now in a relationship with a Colombian passionate beauty

Gloria. He seems to be staid and mild-mannered but when it comes to Mitchell’s sexual

orientation, his sense of humour appears to be bitter as he does not mind verbally attacking his

own son. Gloria is much younger than Jay, which makes all family think that she is a typical

gold digger. She frequently makes pronunciation mistakes, which provokes laughter on the

fictional characters’ and viewer’s layers. Manny has an old head on young shoulders and he is

not like other teenagers his age as he likes poetry, picking flowers, cooking, etc.

Among the members of the Dunphys, a nuclear family, there are Phil, Claire, Haley, Alex

and Luke. Phil, a real estate agent, is a self-appointed “cool dad” (as he knows how to surf the

Internet) with his parenting technique dubbed “peerenting”, a blend of peer and parenting

(which means that he is a father with whom a child can talk to like with a friend). His character

resembles the personality of a teenager, i.e. he likes trampolines, magic, and believes that robots

can take over the world. Claire is a housewife, who after several years of being devoted to home

chores, comes back to work and starts working in Jay’s company. Phil and Claire’s relationship

reflects the basic ideological oppositions between a laid-back father and domineering mother (see

Feuer 2001). Phil and Claire’s children can be described with the use of the smart/ dumb

dichotomy with Alex’s being the smartest, Haley’s having flashes of intelligence, and Luke’s

being not so wise.

The Dunphy-Tucker family is a same-sex marriage: Mitchell and Cameron, who have

adopted a baby girl Lily from Vietnam. Their relationship works on the basis that opposites

attract. Mitchell, a lawyer, is good-natured and easygoing. It is not in his repertoire of behaviour

to wave his gayness in public. Even worse, he is embarrassed by his partner’s flowery clothes

and overemotional manners (for example, proneness to sobbing). Cameron is a stereotypical

homosexual as his behaviour and dress-code speak volumes that express his emotions. He

would rather stay at home with the daughter than work.

Kutulas (2005: 17) claims that the central point of family sitcoms is “the clear articulation

of roles and responsibilities and the gentle lines of authority that flow from wise dad and

understanding mom to obedient children”. This can be pinpointed, to a certain degree, in

Modern Family, as both Phil and Jay provide for the family (Claire later in season 5 starts

working in her father’s closet business), while Claire and Gloria take care of their homes. Their

divergent personalities (Claire’s and Phil’s as well as Gloria’s and Jay’s) reflect what Feuer


- 214 -

(2001: 70) calls ideological flexibility, where Gloria is hot-blooded and Jay is peaceful.

Furthermore, as has already been mentioned in Chapter III, family life represented in sitcoms

reflects social changes in society (Mills 2005). There is a departure from presenting an enduring

and deeply-entrenched stereotype of a perfect family in which a father is a bread winner and a

mother is a housewife. One of the merits of the evolution of the TV family is that viewers may

relate to and identify with other models of family (Respers France 2010). The change in modelling

of a family unit in sitcoms is connected to the function that comedy is supposed to serve, which

is not only produced for the sake of amusement but also with a view to touching upon socially

important issues (O’Hara 2016).

5.5.2. About the sitcom and its stereotypical load

As already mentioned, the theoretical discussion on the mutlifunctionality of humour is

illuminated with the data derived from the American sitcom Modern Family. First aired in 2009

in the USA, UK and Canada, it quickly earned accolades with a number of awards and

nominations (for instance, The Golden Globe), which has made it go up in TV ratings (the

highest-rated season is 3 with almost 13 million viewers). The series was conceived by

Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan, who are also scriptwriters of most of the episodes, for

the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and its syndication rights were sold to USA

Network, among others.

The very title of the sitcom suggests that it centres upon family life in its modern version,

which builds up in the viewer general expectations regarding the content of the series. More

specifically, representing a traditional family unit is an outdated format since there are many

such sitcoms, especially in the 1950s-70s, such as I Love Lucy (1951-1957, CBS), The

Honeymooners (1955-1956, CBS), Leave It to Beaver (1957-1963, CBS/ ABC), or The

Goldbergs (2013-, ABC). In Modern Family viewers are invited to join the world of fictional

characters and attend their ups and downs, who despite all the odds, know that the most valuable

element in life is a family bond. Each episode is built upon one main storyline, dubbed story

thread (Smith 2009), for instance spending Thanksgiving together or engaging in Halloween

celebration, in which all or only some of the actors participate. Other characters may be

involved in subplots (Smith 2009), i.e. secondary plots, which can be detached from the main

narrative until these dovetail with the rest of the story.

Modern Family features an ensemble cast which means that the fictional characters are

allocated a similar length of time, i.e. no character is more important than others. It is a perfect


- 215 -

type of series for those who like to watch various settings in which there is no character around

whom the plotline revolves. I believe that besides the sitcom-specific elements summarised in

Section 3.3.1., another feature can be distinguished and labelled the protagonist drop to refer

to sitcoms that lack the main character, which usually characterises new comedies. These

comedies are quite convenient for the production crew as well since in the case of the

withdrawal of an actor, the sitcom’s narrative is not hindered. This feature is present in the

sitcoms like The Big Bang Theory (2007-2019, CBS), Friends, or Full House (1987-1995;

ABC). As regards Modern Family, all the members of the Pritchett-Dunphy-Tucker tribe

perform in almost every episode, especially adults. As any sitcom, Modern Family’s setting is

limited to three reoccurring locations, i.e. the three homes of each family, which are briefly

converted to scenes in restaurants, shopping centres or on streets. Shooting the sitcom on

location, instead in big studios with live audience, amounts to a substantial degree of

authenticity.

The last generic element relevant to sitcoms I would like to comment upon is the laugh

track or lack of thereof. As noted in Chapter III, Modern Family belongs to the new comedy

format, which does not rest upon the presence of studio audience or sound mix for their

humorous effects. Savorelli (2010) claims that laughter in sitcoms fulfils both a meta-

communicative function, i.e. guaranteeing its humorous reception, and pragmatic function, i.e.

teaching viewers to perceive a unit as comic. When the series abandon the laugh track and hence

become more realistic, there are other means to meet these functions. The metalinguistic and

pragmatic functions are satisfied by the organisation of discourse itself, which contains

linguistic and paralinguistic features. Above all, viewers know that they watch non-serious

events and this fact introduces a new way of reading fictional dialogues.

In order to explain the remarkable phenomenon of Modern Family, one needs to resort to

its specificity in raising socially crucial issues, with three being dominant: an atypical

relationship between two people differing in the socio-economic status and age (Jay and

Gloria), homosexuality (Mitchell and Cameron) and homosexuals who are granted parental

rights to bring up children. American sitcoms, in particular, are “a carrier of discourses on very

sensitive cultural and social matters: (...) sexual identity” (Savorelli 2010: 176). On the other

hand, Mills (2005) remarks that sitcoms do not serve an important social role but are a factor

of social attitudes. I would go as far as to say that situation comedies do aim to reshape negative

stereotypes, for example by showing that homosexuals can become devoted and loving parents.

To lend credence to my claim, it is worth glossing upon the Modern Family effect, the

term of which denotes significant cultural influence the sitcom has had upon society. In


- 216 -

particular, the positive representation of the gay couple, Mitchell and Cameron, may have

wielded to, for instance enacting the law permitting homosexuals to marry in some states of the

USA (Kornhaber 2015, cf. Singh 2015). Featuring homosexual characters on screen recedes

prejudices in real life since viewers become emotionally attached to a persona played by an

actor, which creates parasocial relationships (Giles 200296, Singh 2015) and hence bolsters

solidarity. The fact that positive characterisation redounds to changes of people’s attitudes,

which is treated as a form of interaction and provides a safe distance, is supported by the media

researcher Edward Schiappa (Singh 2015). In addition, diversity in representations of gays

(Mitchell is unlike a stereotypical homosexual, while Cameron can be an epitome of a

homosexual) can be regarded as category work, so that viewers get to know different people

from the group and thus can identify with either individual (Schiappa, in the conversation with

Guy Ruz from NPR97).

As Savorelli (2010: 26) puts it, sitcom “thrives on highly stereotyped characters”, which

is conspicuous in Modern Family (see Selby and Cowdery 1995). In my opinion, the most

stereotypically loaded character is Gloria Pritchett (played by Sofía Vergara), who, as in real-

life, is of Colombian descent. She frequently code-switches Spanish and English and speaks

with a marked accent. Her foreign origin is a fertile ground for humour, which is connected to

various linguistic levels, that is phonology, semantics or syntax. Extract (1) shows an instance

of metalinguistic humour in which Jay draws Gloria’s attention to the mistakes resulting from

code-switching (1) (the malapropisms are marked in italics).

(1) Context: Gloria finds to learn the mistakes she makes.

Jay: Okay, well, I may have noticed some tiny, little mistakes you might want to take a look

at.

Gloria: Like what?

Jay: Just little mispronunciations. Like, for example... Last night, you said, “we live in a doggy-

dog world.”

Gloria: So?

Jay: Well, it’s “dog-eat-dog world.”

Gloria: “Yeah, but [chuckles] That doesn’t make any sense. Who wants to live in a world where

dogs eat each other? A doggy-dog world is a beautiful world full of little puppies! [sighs]

What else do I say wrong?

Jay: Well, it’s not “blessings in the skies”. It’s “blessings in disguise”.

Gloria: What else?

Jay: “Carpal tunnel syndrome” is not “carpool tunnel syndrome”.

96 The term was first used by Horton and Wohl (1956, in Giles 2002). 97 The transcript of the interview is available at

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=152578740.


- 217 -

Gloria: What else?

Jay: It’s not “volumptuous”.

Gloria: Okay, enough. I know that I have an accent. But people understand me just fine!

Jay: What the hell is this? [holding a figurine of a baby Jesus]

Gloria:

I told you, Jay... I called your secretary and told her to order you a box of baby cheeses.

Oh, so now that is my fault too. (S02E06)

Sitcoms represent homosexuals more often than any other television genres or formats

(Mills 2005). This may partly explain the presence of Cameron and Mitchell in Modern Family,

with Cameron dressing and behaving like a typical gay (colourful clothes, sensitivity), and

Mitchell not showing any such stereotypical features (see Section 5.5.3 on the stereotypes or

contrasts employed in the sitcom). The producers of Modern Family play with the audience’s

accessibility of sexual stereotypes, which are easily identifiable. Showing a contrast between

Cameron and Mitchell may serve to underline that not every homosexual person displays the

same sort of behaviour. This technique should positively influence the recipients’ perspective

on homosexuality. Selby and Cowdery (1995), on the other hand, claim that “any sitcom which

contains stereotypical gay characters will fuel homophobia even if those characters are given a

very positive role in the narratives” (ibid.: 108).

5.5.3. Non-linguistic incongruities and contrasts

It has been underlined in scholarly literature that humour is predicated on some sort of

incongruity in our expectations towards objects, events or in general, our frame of reference

(what is deemed normal). The present work aims to detail the occurrence of humorous effects

and additional cognitive effects upon the viewer, which is enclosed within relevance-theoretic

studies conjoined with incongruity resolution approaches. This section veers towards other than

linguistic forms of incongruities and contrasts that the production crew creates in order to

produce amusement in the Modern Family’s viewers. These incongruities are connected, to a

certain degree, with stereotypisation (see also Section 5.5.2.). I believe that further explication

of the fictional characters and their personalities can help those who are not fully acquainted

with the cast and more importantly, it would help to explain the choice of humorous dialogues

and place my analysis in a broad context.

Savorelli (2010; also Feuer 2001) reckons that the stereotypes presented in sitcoms can

take the form of contrasts between different types of persona created by the actors or between

fictional and factual life. I believe that these are not the only disparities that can be observed in

the sitcom under analysis. There are also contrasts between personality traits or behaviour


- 218 -

within one character or between information produced in a dialogue and a confession uttered

to the viewer. At this point, it is impossible to discuss all the incongruities as it would require

to resort to each and every dialogue from Modern Family. It is rather to signal other relevant

discrepancies, which usually co-occur.

The dialogue-monologue (or public-private) disparities are the most general ones, which

encompass other specific incongruities. First, Phil is pictured as pretty dumb and sometimes his

individual needs do not go beyond those of a six-year old child, for instance when he bought

alpaca because it was on massive sale, while the other times, he is a responsible and caring

father who devotes his time to his children. Second, Alex, Phil and Claire’s middle child, is the

smartest for a number of consecutive seasons, however, in seasons 8 and 9, she has flashes of

stupidity. Alex is the opposite of Haley, the oldest child, and their cleverness-stupidity

dichotomy works in a certain pattern: when Alex’s cleverness diminishes, Haley’s cleverness

raises. It is usually shown in one scene that while Alex acts stupid, Haley gets smart, and vice

versa. Third, Gloria is an amazingly attractive woman about whom many people may

stereotypically think that she does not care about anything but her outward youthful appearance.

In fact, she is a truly nurturing mother who puts her children in the dominant position. Next,

Cameron and Mitchell are interesting examples of the real-fictional life dichotomy. Eric Allen

Stonestreet is an actor who plays Cameron in the sitcom. He manages to perfectly represent a

stereotypical homosexual in the show, while he is heterosexual in the factual world. Cameron

may be put in opposition to his partner (later, his husband) Mitchell. Jesse Tyler Ferguson, who

plays Mitchell, is homosexual in real life but his portrayal of gayness in the show is mild. This

may have been the intention of the production crew to subvert the viewers’ stereotypical

thinking about different sexual orientations.

Savorelli (2010: 26) claims that the number of members of the cast in sitcoms has bearing

on fictional discourse as “[t]he higher the number of characters, the more evident and

combinable the conflict, not only as an opposition between polarized thematic investments, but

also as a modulation of similar investments”. The permanent crew of twelve people in Modern

Family (including Joe who is the youngest but in the last three seasons has some influence upon

the humorous discourse) guarantees the distribution of incongruities and contrasts among them.

In the course of eleven seasons, the production crew has succeeded in designing various

oppositions and conflicts that temporarily subvert the harmony among family members as well

as in juxtaposing divergent personalities that in real life would not be possible. To exemplify

Savorelli’s (2010) claim that sitcoms hinge upon polarisation, let me mention in passing two

situations testifying to the producers’ attempts to find new incongruities. Throughout many


- 219 -

seasons, Cameron and Phil’s friendship is non-existent, however in season 9 they become a

dancing duo in order to win a dancing competition (episode 16). Secondly, Mitchell and Phil

have never been represented as very close, nonetheless, they together attend Hero-Con

organised for lovers of fantasy fiction (episode 22).

There are some reasons why the viewers may consider various polarisations amusing.

First, they are shown that what is impossible in the factual world can be rendered humorous in

the fictionalised world, for instance disagreements would increase a hostile disposition in real-

life. Second, sitcom discourse may greatly divert from socially acceptable norms and this is this

otherness that can appeal to the audience. Third, fictional discourse raises serious issues in a

light-hearted manner, unlike the way these can be addressed in real life.

5.5.4. The viewer as the main recipient

Section 3.6.1.1 discerned a number of positions that the television recipient can occupy, which

largely depends on the way in which a researcher articulates the audience design. In particular,

Kozloff (2000), Bubel (2006, 2008) and Bednarek (2010) (following the Goffmanian tradition)

conceptualise the viewer as an overhearer, who “can only make conjectures about what they

listen in on, as they do not fully share the participants’ common ground” (Bubel 2006: 83).

Dynel (2010a, 2011e) characterises a recipient as a participant occupying a different

communicative layer, who can become an advanced metarecipients, delving into a complex

process of intention attribution. The third stance designated to the viewer takes into

consideration the dynamics of fictional interactions. It is argued that the position of the recipient

is assigned and re-assigned in accordance with the fictional characters’ intent and needs

concerning the viewer’s participation in the meaning making (Brock 2015, Wieczorek 2016,

Messerli 2017a).

It is the principal objective of the present thesis to discern the meanings enclosed within

the humorous frame, as grasped by the audience. An issue that requires a brief discussion

concerns the design of the viewer as the central recipient of televisual discourse. The case is

even more complex when a series, serial or film garners international reception, being

distributed on DVDs, downloaded from websites or watched online. The content of comedic

interactions cannot offend their recipients since international broadcasters aim for continuous

viewership. This is why the collective team of producers, directors and scriptwriters (agency,

in Huisman’s 2005 terms) predicts an assumed/ hypothetical audience’s tastes and values (Mills

2009). Bubel (2006: 57) reckons that the collective sender devises scripted conversations with


- 220 -

a model recipient in mind as both the recipient and actors “aim for overlap between the

characters’ common ground and the audience’s knowledge in a mediated grounding process”.

Huisman (2005) suggests the dichotomy of the audience into illocutionary and

perlocutionary, which hinges upon Austin’s speech act theory. The former are the recipients

that the television team aims to “allure” in front of the TV screen and as such they are predicated

in the design of the prefabricated discourse, whereas the latter is the audience that actually

chooses to watch a mass-mediated programme. As regards my own analysis of the

conversational units culled from Modern Family, the researcher is on the verge of these two

groups. On the one hand, I am part of the actual audience, who is eager to spend time with the

fictional characters. On the other hand, I take into account the totality of meanings aimed at the

projected audience since I believe that what is gleaned by the fan of the sitcom is narrower than

what is inferred by the humour researcher.

Having commented upon possible conceptualisations and duality of the audience, the

question arises about the audience’s conjuring of televisual characters’ intentions. In other

words, how the production team can be sure that the audience’s ascription of meaning is as

expected, especially when individuals’ system of norms and beliefs can be immensely varied.

The theory of relevance comes to the rescue in the form of the mind-reading ability tool (see

Section 2.4.4.) and interactants’ expectations of optimal relevance (see Section 2.3.2.). Their

import will be demonstrated throughout the analyses. It is the scriptwriter’s priority to appeal

to a general audience. Evison et al. (2007: 149, in Quaglio 2009: 86) propose degrees of

communicative context: local, societal and global. Local knowledge is intelligible only to a

specific group who shares “social and cultural frames of knowledge”, the epitome of which can

be the family members of Modern Family as well as devoted recipients. Societal knowledge is

when the interlocutors share the same cultural background, for instance English speakers.

Global knowledge is universal and is demonstrated worldwide. In my opinion, it might be the

case that the array of various meanings is extensive and thus a different piece of information

would attract and appeal to different audiences.

5.6. The analysis

As noted in the methodology section, the conversational units have been analysed with respect

to several criteria: communication on the fictional layer, communication on the recipients’

layer, a humorous mechanism, an RT tool used to explain humour, a strategy devised by the

fictional character(s) to provoke amusement, the communicative function(s) served with the


- 221 -

use of humour and propositional meanings communicated by dint of humour. The goal of this

functionalist analysis is to present the totality of the functions that are possibly performed on

the recipients’ part. The results are demonstrated in the form of classification, nevertheless there

was no attempt to compile a list of distinct functions that do not overlap. Below a dialogue with

an analysis (example 24 in Appendix) is offered to show the way all the extracts were analysed:

Context: Alex has problems with her concentration after having suffered from mononucleosis.

Alex: [failing to solve a crossword] Ugh. What is wrong with me? I feel so fuzzy.

Haley: Oh, stop being so hard on yourself. It’s just arm hair.

Alex: [sighs] I can’t figure out this crossword puzzle. I...I think mono turned my mind to mush.

Fictional layer

Alex calls herself fuzzy as she cannot guess a crossword puzzle. Haley misunderstands

Alex’s message as she derives the meaning of fuzzy that Alex’s skin is covered with

hair. Then, Alex explains that it is her concentration that she has problems with.

Recipient layer

The humorous effects derive from Haley’s having misunderstood Alex’s complaint

about being fuzzy. The recipient needs to establish the relevance between Alex’s

complaint of feeling fuzzy and Haley’s comment that she should not criticise herself

as it is only arm hair. The word fuzzy, being a homophone, requires from the viewer

to construct two concepts, each of which is relevant to the intentions of Alex and

Haley: FUZZY* (being confused) and FUZZY** (covered with soft short hair),

respectively (a paradigmatic pun). The recipient can formulate the interpretation that

people’s intentions are sometimes at cross-purposes and that Haley frequently fails to

understand what is said.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the word fuzzy

- Superiority: Alex’s cognitive superiority over Haley

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (punning effect)

Strategy - misunderstanding/ self-denigrating humour

Functions

- providing a puzzle (linguistic play)

- disclosing character-specific information (Alex is very smart, Haley is quite dumb)

- avoiding conflict (there is no use in arguing)

- advising (how to carry on positive family relationship)

- highlighting shared experiences (if they have come across a dumb person: it is

better to explain)

- conveying a serious message

- discourse management

- releasing tension/ coping

Propositional

meaning(s)

- a clash between a smart person who is irritated when fails to do a crossword and

a dumb person who accepts the first interpretation that comes to her/ his mind

(in Sperber’s (1994) terms, Haley is a naïvely optimistic hearer)

- a dumb person will always fail to ascribe deliberate intentions

- sniping at other person would not always succeed and you may put yourself in the

position of the butt

- a sister-sister relationship can be sometimes peaceful in which one complains

about being too hairy, while other tries to comfort her

- mononucleosis may have negative long-term effects upon one’s psychological

capabilities

Table. 5.1. An exemplary analysis of a dialogue from Appendix


- 222 -

As for the dialogue, some lines are marked in italics, which is a reference point for the analysis:

either they may be the ones that convey a humorous message or they may be the ones that

precede humour and hence may contribute to it. When there are two jocular lines, they are

allocated a disparate strategy and RT tool. Also, in the humorous mechanisms box, there appear

to be several incongruities as well as there are more functions.

As regards the analysis, the first two parameters are crucial for those who are not familiar

with the sitcom, viz. how the conversation is interpreted on the fictional layer (it is usually

devoid of humour) and how the humour is analysed by the telecinematic recipients (the viewer’s

analysis draws upon an RT framework and thus uses its conceptual tools). It is important to

resort to communication on the fictional layer since it has a significant bearing upon the

viewer’s reception and potential entertainment, for instance it is interesting to see how a

fictional argument sparks off positive enjoyable emotion in the recipient.

The humorous mechanism box refers to three families of humour theories presented in

Chapter I. Granted that incongruity is stated to be a prerequisite for comic effects, this

mechanism was always specified. Superiority mechanisms were assigned when there was

disparagement and thus one of the characters entertained a feeling of cognitive victory over the

belittled party. Relief/ release theories were assigned either when a character releases negative

energy as soon as s/he utters a biting comment or when the recipient’s expectations of relevance

were satisfied on a different level than initially predicted. The latter claim is premised on Ziv’s

(1984) belief that relief workings involve release from standard thinking and hence there occurs

a switch from one interpretation to the other: “[t]he enjoyment of understanding something is

at the foundation of the humorous experience. But to this understanding another element may

be added – that of release from regular thought and the bonds of logic” (ibid.: 76).

The strategy box refers to the manifestations of conversational humour (Section 1.2.2.).

It needs to be remembered that it is the recipient’s stance that is a point of reference for the

analysis hence strategies were assigned according to the viewer’s reception. For instance, the

strategies of self-denigrating humour or self-mockery were marked when a fictional character

said something that has put him/ her in the position of the target, which is not regarded as such

by a character. I would like to underline that these strategies will not be discussed in detail since

all the humorous segments are classified in accordance with how humour manifestations are

explicated in literature.


- 223 -

It is also worth commenting upon the propositional meaning box: it comprises all the

meanings that can be potentially gleaned by the audience, written in the form of assertions that

the production crew intends the audience to ascribe to the fictional characters. When there are

two or more humorous lines in one dialogue, there is no dividing line between a turn and a set

of meanings it communicates. The reason for doing this is that there is the interdependence

between those lines and the meanings they communicate. Besides explicatures as well as

strongly and weakly communicated implicatures, the propositional meanings box incorporates

the so-called emergent meanings to whose recovery the recipient is not strongly encouraged to

access: “meanings which the speaker may but does not have to endorse yet which are perfectly

possible in the light of the assumptions that have by this stage been derived, and which can be

used in the processing of whatever utterances the comprehender may encounter next” (Solska

2012b: 395). Such meanings are posited to result from the interaction of the recipient’s

cognitive environment with the content of the sitcom.

In theory one function of humour should correspond with one propositional meaning, but

in practice, there is no one-to-one correspondence since, as is maintained in the present thesis,

humour is a multifunctional tool used to communicate a number of meanings. Also, various

viewers can recover disparate meanings, hence the propositional meaning box comprises a

number of possible, often weakly communicated, propositions. It is also feasible that the

audience would access the meanings that were not intended by the production crew (emergent

meanings). A point in case illustrating this ‘freedom in reception’ (enabling to reach various

highly individualistic interpretations) is the presence of stereotypes in the sitcom, the content

of which may positively and negatively act upon one’s cognitive environment, as those

stereotypes may be strengthened (when viewers know about them), revised or derived as new

pieces of information. Let us move to the next section in which the result of my analysis is

presented and discussed in greater detail.

5.7. The findings

This section constitutes the focal part of this work since it offers a detailed discussion on the

communicative functions served with the use of humour. These functions have been categorised

into three groups: affiliative/ reinforcing functions, disaffiliative/ subversive functions and

psychological functions. The premise for this study is one of the relevance-theoretic

assumptions concerning comprehension, namely that any stimulus, such as a turn uttered in a


- 224 -

sitcom, activates the recipient’s mental processes that lead to the recovery of explicit and/ or

implicit meanings. It needs to be highlighted that the presence of the functions of humour is

acknowledged from the point of view of the sitcom recipients. Moreover, the analysis is

linguistic in nature, nevertheless there is a plethora of social functions and the analysis naturally

needed to veer towards covering a social side of the sitcom. That is, the language does not exist

in a vacuum but is conditioned by social/ cultural changes.

Table (5.2.) shows all the functions that humour is devised to fulfil on the part of the

telecinematic recipient. On the basis of the careful analysis of the collected data, twenty one

functions are teased out, which mirrors a number of goals that the production team would like

to achieve at a (sub)representational level. The functions are complemented with the

description, i.e. when a specific function was assigned in a given conversational unit. Their

explanation may differ from a layman’s understanding as well as may differ with respect to

which communicative level is taken as a point of reference.

As regards the affiliative functions, this group includes the following functions:

highlighting shared experiences, disclosing character-specific information, sharing, advising,

soliciting support, defending, metalinguistic humour and discourse management. Within the

disaffiliative humour, there are the following: criticising, controlling one’s behaviour,

conveying social norms, challenging social norms, avoiding conflict, reducing conflict/ tension

and fostering conflict. Under the psychological functions, there are: releasing tension/ coping,

providing a puzzle (a linguistic play and non-linguistic play), providing a cultural reference,

showing off and conveying a serious message. The graphic realisation is presented below. It

shows that norm-related (challenging and conveying) and conflict-related (avoiding, reducing,

fostering) functions are treated separately on the graph, however norm- and conflict- based

functions are the general instantiations of sub-functions, such as challenging and conveying.


- 225 -

Functions of humour Description

Affiliative/ reinforcing humour (solidarity functions)

highlighting shared experiences a character attempts to corroborate the common ground to identify shared

ideas, interests, etc.

disclosing character-specific

information

a character (implicitly) releases some information about himself/ herself,

which makes the audience construct an image of a character

sharing

a viewer is lent insight into a character’s mind, which helps the audience

to know him/ her better and feel like a member their “own family” or the

only confidant

advising the audience is granted a piece of advice, which can be communicated

explicitly, i.e. advising overlaps with being advised on the fictional layer

soliciting support a fictional character seeks support from the viewers in the conversations

carried out into the camera

defending

the televisual recipients feel that the characters attempt to defend

themselves against some predicaments that can possibly endanger their

face

metalinguistic humour the viewers are educated how to use language, which overlaps with the

fictional characters’ being educated

discourse management the viewers are implicitly shown how a humorous remark can influence a

piece of discourse

Disaffiliative/ subversive humour (power-based functions)

controlling one’s behaviour the viewers are demonstrated that the fictional characters’ unfavourable

behaviour is ridiculed and thus it should be altered

criticising

the fictional characters’ shameful behaviour prompts criticism from

others. It informs the audience that this is not socially acceptable

behaviour

conveying social norms the fictional characters conform to the widely established social norms,

which cues the audience what kind of etiquette is expected

challenging social norms the fictional characters deviate from accepted social norms, which

informs the audience about possible consequences of such behaviour

fostering conflict the audience is shown how non-neutralised acts can provoke serious conflict

reducing conflict/ tension the audience is demonstrated how a conflictive situation can be mitigated

avoiding conflict the fictional characters show the means that can be employed to avert

serious conflict

Cognitive benefits: psychological functions

releasing tension/coping the viewers get a better insight into the way that problems can be

circumvented or tension can be reduced

providing a linguistic play the viewers can discover the means that are used to amuse them, which

draws upon language

providing a non-linguistic play the viewers can discover the means that are used to amuse them, which

draws upon other means than language

providing a cultural reference the viewers’ knowledge about cultural context is collectively

strengthened or reversed

showing off a fictional character displays wit and mental mastery

conveying a serious message a fictional character conveys a heartfelt or difficult message

Table 5.2. The functions conveyed by dint of humour in Modern Family


- 226 -

Figure 5.1. The graphic realisation of the functions of humour in Modern Family

It needs to be borne in mind that some functions may overlap as their performance in

conversations is assigned with respect to the researcher’s intuitions about the goals that the

communicators would like to attain. An overlap between the functions can also be explained

by the fact that the viewers are granted freedom to derive a meaning according to their

knowledge of the world, current mental state and individual assumptions stored in their minds.

The abundance of humour in the sitcom confirms Hay’s (1995, 2000) postulate that the

main objective of engaging in humorous communication is to provide amusement. The content

Functions of CH in Modern Family

affiliative/

reinforcing humour

highlighting shared

experiences

disclosing character-specific

information

sharing

advising

soliciting support

defending

metalinguistic humour


disaffiliative/

subversive humour

controlling behaviour

criticising

conveying social norms

challening social norms

fostering conflict

reducing conflict/tension

avoiding conflict

cognitive benefits:

psychological

releasing tension/coping

providing a linguistic play

providing a non-linguistic

play

providing a cultural

reference

showing off

conveying a serious

message


- 227 -

of sitcoms aims to put the recipient in a proper emotional state, facilitating the derivation of

positive cognitive effects. Considering the fact that the production crew intends to enhance

positive relations with televisual recipients, which would guarantee dedicated and constant

viewership, there are a number of means at their disposal to achieve that. The last point I would

like to make is that the five functions of providing a linguistic play, providing a non-linguistic

play, providing a cultural reference, disclosing character-specific information and

metalinguistic humour are novel discoveries. In the subsequent section all the functions are

thoroughly described since, as already highlighted, there may be differences between marking

those effects on the basis of naturally occurring conversations and on the basis of fabricated

communication.

5.7.1. The functions conveyed by dint of humor

5.7.1.1. Affiliative/reinforcing humour

One of the primary objectives of interspersing humour in either spontaneous or fictitious

communication is to ratify the bond with the co-conversationalists, foster in-group cohesion

and thus create the situation in which the interactants’ cognitive environments cross-cut one

another. Provoking positive emotions in the viewers leads to beneficial consequences upon

one’s mental processes as positivity helps, among others, form unusual cognitive associations

(Fredrickson 1998), which is essential in entertainment discourse, as the content of humorous

episodes frequently dwells upon the viewer’s capability to find novel associations.

A solidarity-enhancing/ reinforcing/ uniting/ esteeming in-group/ establishing common

group (as is dubbed in the literature) function is always identified as soon as humour occurs, even

when the fictional characters are engaged in impoliteness. The bedrock for sitcoms is that they

are supposed to provide entertainment and hence it is not the audience whose mental well-being

is threatened. The production crew intends to enhance the mutual understanding and corroborate

the common ground with the recipients. Without a shadow of a doubt, sitcoms contain a large

number of humorous episodes since they must appeal to diverse unconnected audiences (Mills

2009). The production crew intends to create humour communities, a dynamic social entity, which

is defined as “an abstract system comprised of many different yet similar audiences, audiences

who share something, audiences who enjoy(ed) a particular syndicated television situation

comedy” (Carrell 1997: 14-15). In order to connect the viewers by virtue of amusement, it has

been found out that the production crew may employ a plethora of communicative functions:


- 228 -

highlighting shared experiences, disclosing character-specific information, sharing, advising,

soliciting support, defending, metalinguistic humour and discourse management.

Many humorous dialogues point to interpersonal relationships among family members,

be it mother-daughter (Claire and Alex/ Haley; Gloria and Manny), father-daughter (Phil and

Alex/ Haley), father-son (Phil and Luke), wife and husband (Claire and Phil, Gloria and Jay)

and stepson-stepfather (Jay and Manny), etc. This family atmosphere is what can easily appeal

to the audience since any person has a family (understood in its global sense in which people

are related along blood or friendship ties).

Highlighting shared experiences

The first function designed to employ humour as a cohesive device is when the production crew

capitalises on and highlights shared experiences, similarities, or interests. This effect of humour

was variously dubbed by Ziv (1984) and Hay (1995, 2000) as ‘to highlight shared experiences’

and by Meyer (2000) as ‘identification’. By hinging upon the things that the audience and

fictional characters can have in common, the characters intend to earn, maintain and corroborate

mutual trust, which enables the intimate relationship to thrive upon. In general, any

manifestation of conversational humour can be an invitation to adopt a particular perspective

upon the world (Cohen 1999, in Cundall 2007).

My data features a range of conversational episodes that can potentially reflect on shared

experiences, which can test the recipients’ and fictional characters’ cognitive environments’

compatibility. The viewers naturally cannot verbalise and take an active part in “the joint

recounting of a story” (Davies 2003: 1369), nonetheless the production crew has a range of topics

at his/ her disposal to try to constitute the common ground. As already noted, Modern Family is

a domestic sitcom and any recipient is linked by an emotional bond with his/ her family or friends.

Therefore, ratifying collectivity among the fictional characters and viewers can be easily

achieved. For the sake of space, it is not feasible to discuss all the conversational units98 in which

the recipients are signalled that they are connected by similar ideas, interest and experiences – the

three similarities that are acknowledged by Hay (1995, 2000). In the sitcom, this function required

to undergo a minor revision: it was marked when a recipient can entertain a similar experience,

interest or view like a fictional character or a recipient knows a person who has a similar

personality, standard of conduct or way of clothing like the one pictured on screen.

98 There are only three dialogues in which the analyst found it difficult to mark this particular function, i.e.

examples 21, 54, 88 in Appendix.


- 229 -

There emerge certain patterns in which the highlighting shared experiences/ similarities

function was found. First, when a homosexual is targeted because of his sexual orientation and

therefore treated like a second-class citizen and effeminate individual (reflected for instance in

examples 8, 10, 56, 61, 75, 104 in Appendix). The audience can relate to these occurrences

when they suffered discriminatory treatment. Second, another way of underlining similarities

is when a person needs to deal with the stupidity of others, which is frequent in the

conversations with Haley and Luke whose level of intelligence is pretty low (examples 5, 18,

23, 24, 25, 50, 55, 57, 67, 99, 100, 101 in Appendix). Third, any recipient knows a person who

performs a social role of a group clown and hence creates a pleasurable atmosphere (Ziv 1984)

– in Modern Family, Phil often intends to amuse others (examples 17, 36, 81, 92, 95, 111 in

Appendix). The fourth pattern hinges upon showing the “ugly/ real face” of parenthood, i.e.

parents can be exhausted with their responsibilities (which was not possible to feature in the

50s sitcoms) or they tend to deceive their children (which may be found unacceptable by some

audiences) (examples 1, 27, 31, 35, 47 in Appendix). The fifth pattern draws upon the strategy

of misunderstanding, which takes place at linguistic or mental levels. It is Gloria who delivers

many turns containing pronunciation mistakes, while Phil and his children fail to recognise

others’ intentions (examples 14, 22, 24, 32, 33, 64, 72, 89, 90 in Appendix). In other words, the

viewers have certainly needed to deal with misunderstanding, i.e. either they have been

misunderstood or have misunderstood a message. All these patterns aim to demonstrate that the

audience is made aware that they share similar experiences or know similar people like the

fictional characters.

There are other topics that can appeal to different audiences as they underline similarities,

such as being allergic to sweets (examples 40, 42, 71 in Appendix), commenting upon poor

medical qualification of Colombian doctors (examples 110, 116 in Appendix), the husband’s

disapproving of his wife’s chattiness (example 102 in Appendix), believing in folk medicine

(example 106 in Appendix), being lied to by a partner (example 87 in Appendix) and regretting

marrying his first wife (example 76 in Appendix). In extract (2) (example 12 in Appendix), Jay

is proud of his child having the same outlandish idea to sleep in the woods:

(2) Context: Joe wants to persuade his parents into letting him live in the woods, like Mowgli in the Jungle

Book, which Gloria contests.

Gloria: Jay, tell him he can’t.

Jay: [smiling, feeling proud] First time I saw Tarzan, I wanted to live outside. Dad said: “fine”.

I walked in the woods, met a hobo. Taught me how to open a can with a bird’s beak.

Gloria: [irritated] That story’s not helping! (S08E02)


- 230 -

The viewer can entertain Jay’s reminiscing his story from childhood (personal anecdote in

Norrick’s 1993 terms) and more importantly, can find similarities between his (or her) proud

parental moments and Jay’s, i.e. when a child’s personality reflects his/ her parent’s personality.

In RT heuristic, humour is based upon reversing the recipient’s expectations about a proper

reaction of the father as to whether his child can sleep outside. The viewer’s personal background

assumption is that a parent is usually protective towards children and does not let do anything that

may involve danger. The viewer’s (and Gloria’s) expectations become invalidated when Jay gives

implicit permission to Joe to sleep in the woods. The recipient should derive the implicature that

it is not safe to sleep in the woods when one is a child as one can meet a drunken homeless person.

Besides the underlining similarities function, the dialogue serves a range of other

functions: disclosing character-specific information (Jay’s personal anecdote helps the recipient

gain insight into his past), controlling one’s behaviour (it is better not to sleep in the woods, as

Jay’s anecdote exemplifies), advising (a parent is warned that a child is not safe alone in the

woods), avoiding conflict (Jay prefers not to disappoint his child and implicitly gives

permission), fostering conflict (Jay irritates Gloria that he cannot forbid Joe to engage in a

dangerous activity) and challenging social norms (a child should not sleep alone in the woods).

Norrick (2003: 1348) contends that “[c]onversational humor generally allows us to present a

personality, share experiences and attitudes, and promote rapport”, which is clearly noticeable

in this dialogue as the recipient gains the information about Jay’s personality (being permissive

and proud of his child’s similar personality) and can find his experiences similar to own.

In conclusion, the audience is keen on watching the fictional world in which some

experiences are similar to the ones they have gone through, which helps to corroborate the common

ground and hence mutual trust. The next strategy is also aimed to foster solidarity between the

fictional characters and the recipients so that the latter can get information about the former.

Disclosing character-specific information

Another function that can be served with the use of humour is when it is “used to self-disclose

and probe beliefs and attitudes regarding a wide variety of issues, such as political and religious

views and attitudes toward people of different ethnicities, nationalities, occupations, or gender”

(Martin 2007: 118). Furthermore, fictional characters disseminate other items of information

about their personality type or concerning reasons for displaying specific behaviour or factors

that motivate them to attain goals. While in spontaneous communication co-conversationalists

try to get to know one another in order to become friends or foes (as the two extremes in a

relationship), sitcom characters intend to foster friendship by being open with the recipients,

which can be achieved by dispersing personal information. Self-disclosures in humour can be


- 231 -

“risky, in the sense that they can be taken as serious comments, jeopardizing social relations

and jeopardizing face” (Ervin-Tripp and Lampert 2009: 5). A case in point are the turns

delivered by Jay in which he speaks of homosexuals in derogatory terms, the negative import

of which is not mitigated. As a result, the viewer is entitled to reckon that Jay regards

homosexuals, especially his son Mitchell, as mediocre individuals. On the one hand, these turns

are enclosed in the humorous frame, on the other, the recipient may still draw the conclusion

that Jay is homophobic.

The self-disclosing function is very productive in the sitcom, which means that it was

marked in almost every unit. The conversations in which it was not found (examples 3, 21, 82

in Appendix) are mostly delivered by the characters with whom the recipient has not nurtured

any affiliation, i.e. these are not the characters that appear regularly. This interpersonal function

manifests itself in the sitcom in three manners: strengthening or revisiting of already stored

assumptions or mutually manifesting of new assumptions. That is, the viewer is reminded or

keyed to alter some of the information about the character or needs to add a new piece of

information. In addition, self-disclosures are always performed by means of implicature/

implications as the characters never refer to their views explicitly, for instance: Jay never says

that homosexuals are effeminate and second-class citizens. Consequently, it can be concluded

that self-disclosing information just “leak” from the television screen into the recipients who

are comfortably seated on a sofa or in an armchair. Yus (2016: 64) coins the term leakage to

denote “a gradual storage of information that is accumulated from elements of ordinary

conversations (…) on social aspects (community membership, identity shaping, etc.)”.

There are several recurrent situations in which strengthening of the already stored

assumptions can be easily pinpointed: Haley’s and Luke’s dumbness, Cameron’s sensitiveness,

Claire’s level-headedness or Jay’s proneness to criticism, which are concordant with the

viewers’ overall picture of the fictionalised people. In other words, these instances affirm the

viewer’s knowledge. Extract (3) (example 86 in Appendix) demonstrates the pattern in which

some personal information about the characters is reinforced, in particular about Jay’s being

keen on voicing criticism in the form of teasing as well as Manny’s being unlike his peers:

(3) Context: Manny walks into the kitchen where there are Gloria and Jay. He wants to inform them of his

being accepted to college.

Manny: Oh, what a B-U-tiful morning. I joke because I’ve been accepted to B.U.

Gloria: Oh, Manny, I’m so proud of you!

Manny: I’m six for six. So many suitors not sure which to choose from. I feel like Lady Mary in the

last season of “Downton Abbey.”

Jay: I’d avoid the big football schools. (S08E17)


- 232 -

Humour is dependent upon three lines, viz. Manny’s creative way to break the news to

everyone, his creative comparison as well as Jay’s advice given to Manny. First, the recipient

needs to construct two concepts for the homophonic expression: B-U-tiful* (BU stands to

Boston University to which Manny has been accepted) (/biː juː/) and BEAUTIFUL* (Manny’s

opinion about today’s morning or it is a greeting) (/bjuːtəfəl/). Second, Manny’s simile that he

and Lady Mary (Downton Abbey) are similar as Manny has many suitors (universities) requires

the construction of the explicature that he feels that he is seduced by good university offers.

Third, Jay’s comment that he would avoid going to football schools requires the extraction of

implicature that Manny is unsuitable to attend a football school because of his sensitivity.

There are also other functions served by this dialogue: highlighting shared experiences

(when a father believes that his chid is unsuitable for sports schools), controlling one’s

behaviour (Jay’s comment is used to “help” Manny decide on the school), criticising (Manny’s

personality is not like his peers), showing off (Manny’s wit to announce the admission),

providing a cultural reference (Downton Abbey) and providing a linguistic puzzle (BU vs

beautiful).

The next excerpt (4) (example 96 in Appendix) shows another side of self-disclosure in

humour when the telecinematic comprehender is led to revise and abandon the existing

assumption. Manny is generally represented as a person incapable of teasing in order to bite or

nip (Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997), he rather accepts criticism without any attempt to confront.

In the conversation below, Manny copies Jay’s personality, who usually plays the role of a

bitter critic, to underline the age difference between him and his mother Gloria. Jay gives him

appreciative laughter probably because he is proud that Manny can belittle him.

(4) Context: Jay complains to Manny that Gloria is a hoarder and keeps any useless thing in the garage,

especially the things that belong to little Joe.

Jay: Your mother won’t even let me get rid of this sticky, old tarp. She’s attached to everything.

Manny: Someday soon, that will work in your favour.

[Jay chuckles] (S08E19)

Humour is based upon Manny’s claim that with time Jay will like Gloria’s feature of character

that she gets attached to old things. The viewers need to find the relationship between Gloria’s

proneness to hoarding old things and Manny’s answer that Jay will like that specific quality.

The implicated premise is that when a person likes collecting old things, s/he will not abandon

them easily, whereas the implicated conclusion is that Manny teases his stepfather about his

mature age. That is to say, Manny implicates that Gloria will not leave her older husband.


- 233 -

The self-disclosure function in extract (4) is served together with the following functions:

highlighting shared experiences (a harmonious relationship between a parent and child),

challenging social norms (it is not always socially approved that an older man marries a young

woman), showing off (Manny reflects his wit) and fostering conflict (a biting comment can be

understood as posing a face threat).

Except for making the recipients know the fictional characters better, it is feasible to find

another convincing explanation for self-disclosures. The humorous chunks in which characters’

personal information is made mutually manifest can be “a useful tool for social comparison, a

process whereby we seek information about others in order to evaluate our own feelings and

performance” (Morse and Gergen, 1970, in Martin 2007: 118). In this way, self-disclosures are

a prism through which the viewers can understand their own or others’ emotions. The next

function to be discussed is similar to the one offered in this section as the fictional character is

sanctioned the opportunity to acquaint with the TV viewer through getting to know them better.

Sharing

Humour that serves the function of sharing is succinctly described by Hay (2000: 718) as the

one that “reveals something about the speaker, and lets the audience know them better”. As

much as the explanation seems accurate, the function of sharing would overlap with the

“disclosing character-specific information” function in my data. Despite the fact that the

meaning communicated within sharing and disclosing may be roughly similar, sharing was

designated in two types of conversations in the sitcom data. First, when a fictional character

grants the recipient an interview held directly into the camera so as to confide some secret,

which further boosts intimacy and thus the viewer feels to be trusted (for instance, examples 6,

13, 27, 31, 43, 76, 77, 79, 100 in Appendix). Second, when a character shares innermost feelings

with any of the family members. Consequently, sharing can lead to a clash between the public

and private persona (different emotions are shared to all the fictional characters and in the

presence of just one character), or provide a completely new piece of information (for instance,

examples 9, 19, 35, 48, 63, 69, 94, 103, 111, 113, 114 in Appendix).

Extract (5) (example 27 in Appendix) is a clear indication of the first sharing event in

which Jay is asked to help Manny to prepare the best admission video for an art school. In the

conversation with Manny, Jay promises Manny that he would do anything for him, which

includes preparing a video that would be memorable, while in the monologue, Jay reveals his

true hidden agenda to the viewer that the reason for helping Manny is to get rid of him as he

cannot stand his strange habits:


- 234 -

(5) Context: Manny is desperate to prepare a new application for an art school.

Manny: The deadline for early admission is tomorrow. I’ll never come up with something great by

then.

Jay: Yes, you will, and I’ll help.

Manny: You’d do that for me?

Jay: Anything for you, kid.

[Visibly angry, Jay talks into the camera]

Jay: I got to get this kid out of the house. All his crazy quirks. The farther away, the better. I keep

leaving brochures around for schools at sea. (S08E04)

Humour is dependent upon the disparity between the meanings communicated by Jay either to

Manny or the viewers. The recipient’s expectations of relevance are not satisfied given the fact

that Jay intends Manny to glean the interpretation that he is eager to help him out of the

goodness of the heart, while Jay intends the recipient to formulate the interpretation that he has

a serious reason to help his stepson. The recipient is supposed to extract the implicature that

Jay is willing to help his stepson to make him move out of the house.

In addition, this dialogue can potentially communicate a myriad of various functions:

disclosing character-specific information (Jay frequently shows that he is not emotionally

attached to his children), avoiding conflict (when a father conceals his true feelings),

challenging social norms (parents do not always want their children to live with them),

soliciting support (the fact that Jay reveals his emotions to the recipient shows that he seeks

understanding) and highlighting shared experiences.

The second sharing situation is presented below (6) (example 61 in Appendix) – the clash

between public and private persona – where there is a disparity between Jay’s viewpoint

expressed to Mitchell and Cameron (public persona: he constantly derides them because of

sexual orientation) and Jay’s viewpoint expressed to Gloria (private persona).

(6) Context: Jay and Gloria wonder who may take care of Joe if something bad happens to them.

Jay: If someone other than us needs to raise Joe, I vote Mitch and Cam. Nice balance. Mitch is, uh,

responsible, he knows culture, and Cam is basically a mom who played college football. Plus, Joe

and Lily are close in age. (S08E10)

Humour is contingent upon Jay’s comparison of Cameron’s personality to a mother, the

humorous effects of which necessitate the process of lexical adjustment: mom (literally a female

parent of a child) and MOM* (a homosexual male parent). Contextual assumptions involved in

this process give rise to the explicature that Jay considers Cameron a caring and responsible

parent. There is also the implicature which is a result of the clash between the background


- 235 -

information about Jay and the explicature: Jay values Cameron’s positive characteristic

features, which are typical of women, and hence he is a perfect candidate for raising his son.

In sum, Hay (1995, 2000) believes that the strategy of personal anecdotes falls within the

category of sharing, nonetheless the study of the sitcom data shows that the basic criterion for

sharing is the revelation of inner true emotions in monologues (only to the recipient) or in

dialogues to any of the characters, giving rise to a clash. The difference between Hay’s and my

conclusion results from two factors. First, while Hay’s research focuses on spontaneously

produced communication, my study is contingent upon fictional conversations (where many

strategies and functions can be carefully planned). Second, Hay focuses on the communication

between interactants, while my research hinges upon the viewer’s reception.

Advising

The study of communication between the recipients and the characters of Modern Family

reveals that the latter group may wish to pass on a piece of sensible advice concerning mostly

social life. In short, this effect is closely related to the moral that the audience is supposed to

discover99. As for the recipient, advising on the screen may either refer to the viewer’s past

social gaffes and mishaps that can be avoided in the near future or to the viewer’s future actions

that can be performed better. More specifically, the first type of conversational episodes in

which the advising function was tagged covers the instances where a fictional character was

advised and hence the recipient can reckon that this is a suggestion offered also for him/ her (it

can be pinpointed for instance in examples 20, 21, 30, 73, 86, 91 in Appendix). As a result,

advising on screen converges with being advised “on the couch”, forming in-group relations.

Second, many cases of advising via humour consist in the viewer’s feeling of being advised,

which take the form of more indirect advice (examples 20, 22, 27, 33, 53, 70, 108 in Appendix).

In other words, there is a difference between the instances where a character is advised and so is

the recipient and instances in which the recipient can merely draw implications constituting

advice for him/ her.

The first advising case is exemplified below (7) (example 73 in Appendix) where Haley

is advised by Cameron and Mitchell, which may overlap with the same effect on the recipient’s

part. In particular, Haley decides not to make an emotional scene to her boyfriend when he is

noticed to have met with an attractive woman. Cameron and Mitchell offer Haley a piece of

advice to change her mind and not to remain passive. The recipient is advised how to deal with

99 On a general note, one of the missions of Modern Family is to offer a lesson on tolerance towards minority

groups, such as homosexuals or racial groups.


- 236 -

the dilemma between reacting or ignoring an uncomfortable situation. That is, the viewer is

keyed that it is better to face the problem instead of pretending that it does not exist:

(7) Context: Haley, Mitchell, Cameron and Sal are at the pub while Haley notices her boyfriend Rainer

kissing another girl. She decides not to react.

Mitchell: So, what’s it like touring the world with other Canadian acrobats?

Haley: What?

Cameron: We just assumed you were a member of Cirque du Soleil.

Mitchell: Yup, because you’re bending over backwards to avoid standing up for yourself.

Cameron: And setting a good example for other [Cameron and Mitchell say it together] women. (S08E12)

The humorous effects result from Cameron and Mitchell’s extended metaphor. The initial

accusations of Haley that she is a member of the Canadian acrobat group called Cirque du Soleil

seems irrelevant in the context of her boyfriend’s kissing a woman. As soon as Mitchell

provides the explanation (his second turn), the recipient needs to backtrack and construct two

concepts, each of which is relevant to Haley’s and Cameron’s turns (which provide the literal

and metaphorical meanings): member of cirque du soleil (Haley is considered to be an acrobat

being able to do difficult physical actions) and MEMBER OF CIRQUE DU SOLEIL* (Haley

bends fundamental rules concerning facing the problem). The viewer needs to construct the

interpretation that Cameron and Mitchell believe that Haley should not behave as if she needs

to turn a blind eye to her boyfriend’s affair just for the sake of being with him.

The second advising case is demonstrated in example (8) (example 66 in Appendix),

where a piece of advice is conveyed on an implicit level, especially when some criticism is

aired on the fictional layer, the recipient may infer the meaning that some behaviour is

considered advisable or appropriate. In the extract, Jay’s humorous simile aims to criticise

Claire’s attitude towards her personal life and at the same time, amuse others present at the

table. As regards the meaning that may arise on the recipient’s part, it is tantamount to the

advice that one should not display the same behaviour in professional and private life and hence

it is better to be less uptight in private life:

(8) Context: Claire, Jay, Mitchell and DeDe (Jay’s ex-wife) are at the wedding table. Since Jay and Dede

are known to fight all the time, Claire tires to calm the situation down by asking Mitchell to tell about

Lily’s recital or his recent diet.

DeDe: [to Claire] Sweetie, I see what you’re doing, but this whole controlling thing it’s challenging.

Jay: Works good in the office, but sometimes she’s as tight as a camel’s ass in a sandstorm.

Claire: Ooh, this seems aggressive. (S08E11)


- 237 -

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s humorous simile, which aims to criticise Claire’s attitude and

amuse others. The recipient needs to engage in the process of implicature derivation on the

basis of the simile to be tight as a camel’s ass in a sandstorm that Jay uses to creatively describe

Claire’s feature of character of being too uptight both in personal and professional life. This

contextual assumption is strengthened by the viewer’s background assumption about Claire

who has a domineering personality.

It needs to be underlined again that this function is delivered by means of weak

implicatures and the recipient is not directly advised to fit in to a predetermined code of

behaviour. Consequently, the televisual comprehender may feel to be educated but no specific

influence is used to persuade the recipient. Kosińska (2008a) finds only one example of

advising via humour in the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, which indicates

that the conversations among friends are not marked by a high frequency of advising. This is

another difference between spontaneous and fictionalised communication.

One may speculate that the function of advising may be categorised under the group of

controlling one’s behaviour or criticising as in some way, advising is connected with the

character’s wish to alter one’s misconduct. The reception depends upon the comprehender, i.e.

whether s/he feels to be “forced” into complying with a particular role model or not. As

mentioned earlier, these functions are performed on the basis of weakly communicated

assumptions and the analysis aims to demonstrate the totality of effects that can be possibly

experienced by viewers. In addition, the content of the information gleaned through advising

vs controlling one’s behaviour would also be different since it is connected with corroborating

solidarity and affiliation (advising) or subverting status quo and boosting disaffiliation

(controlling one’s behaviour).

Soliciting support

Humour can be used with a view to soliciting support and compassion in the audience about

some personal predicament. The function of support seeking was labeled solely in the

interviews that fictional characters give directly into the eye of the camera. In so doing, the

character places his/ her trust onto the audience but more importantly, expresses the belief that

the viewer would develop empathy, which promotes intimacy. The rationale for assigning the

soliciting support function only in the interviews (but not in every direct contact) is the fact

these are the moments when the characters may appeal to the audience for their understanding.

At first glance, the function of soliciting support can be compared to the function of

sharing as these two are most noticeable in the confessions. Nevertheless, the information


- 238 -

communicated by dint of sharing or support-seeking is quite disparate. Let us look at example

(9) (example 16 in Appendix) to show that different meanings are gleaned by the audience

along the two functions:

(9) Context: Cameron and Mitchell want to talk to Lily about her argument with her transgender friend

whom she called a weirdo.

Lily: He called you guys weirdos for putting that painting up, so I called him a weirdo.

Mitchell: Well, honey, why didn’t you tell us?

Lily: ‘Cause I didn’t want your feelings to get hurt.

Cameron: Get hurt? How? Because that rube Tom knows nothing about art?

Mitchell: Cam, she was protecting us. But you don’t have to, sweetie, okay? Don’t feel like

you can’t be honest with us just to protect our feelings.

Lily: Really?

Cameron: Really. Hey, you can tell us anything.

Lily: Okay. I hate the painting, too. [Cameron whimpers]

[Mitchell and Cameron talk to the camera]

Mitchell: It was hard for us to hear, but in the spirit of tolerance, we accepted the fact that a 9-

year-old might not want to fall asleep under the watchful eyes of her half-naked

fathers.

Cameron: Call the Sistine Chapel. I guess art is out. (S08E02)

Humour is based on Cameron’s wish to call the Sistine Chapel that art is no longer appreciated.

The viewer needs to construct the implicated premise that the Sistine Chapel is regarded as one

of the most impressive works of art in Europe. By Cameron’s exclamation that a person

(viewer) is asked to call the Sistine Chapel, he wants to implicate that her daughter does not

know anything about a spellbinding piece of art, i.e. the painting of her parents. This

interpretation is further supported by the background information that Cameron is very sensitive

about being criticised and that he loves the paining in Lily’s room as Cameron and Mitchell are

her “guarding angels” in the painting.

The focal point in assigning the functions of sharing and soliciting support is the

confession, just like the one made by Mitchell and Cameron. As for the sharing function, the

recipient might entertain the meaning that Cameron feels resentful about Lily’s

acknowledgement that she hates the picture of her fathers (Cameron expresses his injured

feelings to the recipient and Mitchell). As for the support-seeking function, Cameron probably

hopes that the recipient will develop sufficient understanding and will show support to him in

times of hardship.

Granted the fact that the recipients do not have any means to signal their understanding

and approval, soliciting their support does not overlap with the same function performed on the


- 239 -

part of the fictional recipient (see for instance unit 19 in Appendix where Manny looks for the

support from Jay). The premise for this function is that there needs to be eye contact for the TV

viewers to feel that they are “appointed” for being the fictional characters’ anchor.

The humour in Modern Family does not predominantly dwell upon the character’s

soliciting for support (it was designated in examples 6, 13, 16, 27, 31, 40, 42, 58, 65, 76, 77,

79, 85, 89, 100). In excerpt (10) (example 65 in Appendix) Cameron would like to attract

sufficient support from the recipient to provide him with comfort as he was tormented by some

woman at Lily’s recital:

(10) Context: During Lily’s ballet recital, a woman sitting in front of Cameron stood up and covered

Cameron’s sight on Lily, which makes Cameron sad and angry.

Cameron: [into the camera] Last night, I was robbed. That’s right. There I was at Lily’s dance

recital, breathlessly anticipating my baby’s first-ever ballet solo. (...) That horrid woman

robbed me of my proud daddy moment and forced me to lie to my daughter. “You danced

beautifully, Lily!” But did she? [screaming] I have no idea! (S08E11)

Humour is contingent upon Cameron’s use of hyperbole about being robbed the other night.

The viewer constructs two concepts on the basis of the homonym robbed, both of which are

relevant to analyse his turn: ROBBED* (to be physically assaulted and robbed of possessions) and

ROBBED** (to deprive a person of being able to do something). These two concepts are not created

simultaneously. The former is created as soon as Cameron starts discussing this robbery, whereas

the latter concept is accessed when Cameron provides an explanation about the robbery. The

recipient is supposed to formulate the explicature that Cameron values his daughter’s performances

and feels furious about the fact that he was made unable to see her dance at the recital.

This humorous episode communicates other functions: sharing (Cameron shares his pain

concerning having been unable to see the performance), advising (one should be more

considerate), disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is sensitive), controlling

one’s behaviour, highlighting shared experiences (being embittered when a person cannot

experience a child’s important event), conveying social norms and criticising.

Defending100

Exercising humour as a defence mechanism has already been acknowledged in the literature on

humour studies. Ziv (1984) considers defensive humour to be a platform for protecting oneself

from being verbally attacked by others as soon as one corroborates his/ her weaknesses first.

100 Hay (1995, 2000) subsumes ‘defending’ under the category of psychological functions. I believe that it also

serves a solidarity function since the fictional character would like to foster positive relations with the recipient

when provides the explanation for a particular (mis)behaviour.


- 240 -

Hay’s (1995, 2000) understanding of defending in humour is broader than Ziv’s as it refers to

all the cases where the interactants wish to protect themselves from any danger, the strategy of

which encompasses, among others, exaggerating one’s pitfalls or avoiding to disclose personal

information. A similar approach is developed for the sitcom humour here in which defending

is attributed a broader meaning to consist in the instances in which the fictional characters

attempt to escape a possible face threat.

My data does not contain many conversational episodes where the characters attempt to

defend themselves, which may be explained by the fact that in natural communication people

also find it difficult to admit they have made a mistake and hence there is no need to produce a

cushioning effect. Conversation (11) (example 5 in Appendix) shows the situation in which Luke

tries to defend his thesis that the Statue of Liberty holds a paintbrush with which she painted

freedom in America. The defending line is the second line provided by Luke marked in italics:

(11) Context: Luke, Haley and Alex pretend to be at home while they are still in New York. The scene is

shot next to the Statue of Liberty.

Haley: All you had to do was say goodbye.

Alex: Now we have to paint the mailbox when we get home.

Luke: Sorry. It just popped into my head when I saw the Statue of Liberty holding that paintbrush.

[Alex rolls her eyes in disbelief]

Luke: You know, what she used to paint freedom in America.

Haley: Oh. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

[Alex is in disbelief that her siblings are that dumb] (S08E01)

Humour is contingent upon Luke’s stupidity and his obliviousness of it. The viewer’s

background knowledge concerning the Statue of Liberty is that the figure of goddess in the

Statue holds a torch, which clashes with the contextual assumption that the Statue holds a

paintbrush. The recipient needs to access the implicated premise that some people lack

elementary knowledge concerning American history and culture and thus depend upon visual

aspects since a torch resembles a paintbrush. The implicit meaning is that Luke is quite dumb.

Luke resorts to the strategy of self-disparagement, which is assessed as such by the

recipient as he usually says something that puts him in the position of the target. Ziv (1984)

maintains that self-disparagement “is also likely to arouse a wish to help and encourage the

person who has uncovered his weaknesses” (ibid. 63). Hence, the recipient can feel that s/he in

a safe environment where his/ her faults would not be laughed at. Moreover, seeing other’s

weaknesses on screen can be advantageous for another reason: it may evoke audience’s

sympathy and appreciation.


- 241 -

Metalinguistic humour

The function of humour to pass on metalinguistic information is not, to the best of my

knowledge, identified within functionalist literature. More specifically, the role of this effect is

to provide a commentary about the language itself, i.e. the language is used to discuss language.

In the sitcom under scrutiny, there are few conversational segments (five instances) that offer a

recipient a piece of advice of how to use the English language. This function is particularly

important for second language learners who obtain a brief insight into the English language.

The metalinguistic humour function was teased out in the following instances: strong

recommendation about avoiding to use synonyms (example 7 in Appendix), proper

pronunciation of the name Keifth (example 62), slight phonological difference between tips and

tits (examples 64), definition of seismologist (example 67) and difference between sex addiction

and sex addition (example 72). Let us look at example (12) (example 7 in Appendix) to

demonstrate how the metalinguistic function operates in the sitcom, i.e. how a character to

advised to use language:

(12) Context: Cameron and Lily come back from Cameron’s family in order to celebrate Father’s Day with

Mitchell.

Cameron: Surprise!

Lily: Happy Father’s Day!

Mitchell: Wait, you guys flew in?

Cameron: Yeah, I just wanted us to all be together today.

Mitchell: Aww!

Cameron: In spite of your thoughtlessness and insensitivity.

Mitchell: Okay, those mean the same thing, but okay.

(…)

Lily: Grams left us all something in her will, even you.

Mitchell: She left me something! Aww.

Cameron: Even though you’re stubborn and pigheaded.

Mitchell: Okay, again. (S08E01)

Humour is hinged upon Cameron’s use of synonymous words, which, in Mitchell’s opinion, is

redundant or even irritating. The recipient needs to engage in the process of implicature

derivation to be amused by the dialogue. The implicated premise is that using synonyms has

communicative consequences which cannot be communicated otherwise, for instance a person

would like to emphasise the import of the message. This is probably the effect that Cameron

wanted to achieve, i.e. to highlight Mitchell’s negative qualities. Then, the recipient needs to


- 242 -

derive the implicature that Cameron intends to underline the “strength” of his turns that Mitchell

is really insensitive and stubborn.

The dialogue communicates the following functions: controlling one’s behaviour (one

should not be stubborn and insensitive), disclosing character-specific information (Cameron

likes underlining others’ mistakes), advising, criticising, fostering conflict (by underlining

negative qualities), discourse management, conveying a serious message (to avoid using

redundant words), conveying social norms (it should be a norm to avoid using redundant

words), highlighting shared experiences and providing a puzzle (a non-linguistic play; a clash

between using one descriptive adjective and using two similar adjectives).

Discourse management

Like the metalinguistic function, the next function of humour, discourse management, is used

as a pro-social tool to maintain positive relationships with the televisual recipients. The reason

why this function solidifies in-group relations rather than conveys genuine aggression is that

the viewers are cued how humour can influence the dynamics of discourse. Discourse

management is a function in which a humorous segment is used with a view to administering

discourse, such as “changing topics, democratizing exchange, marking the arrivals and

departures of participants, or filling embarrassing silences” (Oring 2003: 145). In a similar vein,

Long and Graesser (1988: 55, in Attardo 1994: 324) claim that humour is used for “initiation,

termination, passing (exchange of control), topic shift, checking”. Norrick’s (1993: 20-40)

study thoroughly deals with not only joking but also other forms of CH serving the discourse

management function, which is briefly summarised in Section 1.2.2 and its subsections. On a

general note, Norrick (1993: 20) reckons that “joking helps us negotiate greetings, fill

uncomfortable silences, and change topics without offending anyone”.

There are a myriad of humorous lines that bring about the discourse management effect

in the sitcom. It needs to be pointed out that the function was assigned in the cases which are

not amusing for the fictional characters but these very instances can demonstrate to the

recipients how a humorous unit can facilitate or disrupt the conversation, among other possible

ways of influencing discourse. Furthermore, the function was not marked in the confessions

uttered directly into the camera as long as there was only one fictional character since a

monologue does not influence any conversation.

It has been observed that all the uses of humour in Modern Family can be discussed in

terms of introducing a playful keying/ humorous frame (Norrick 1993) as it is the main effect

that a given segment is supposed to create upon the viewers. First, humour in the sitcom

abounds in disparaging comments whose influence on discourse is to take control and hence


- 243 -

influence the direction of a conversation at hand. Second, a humorous unit can lead to the

termination of conversation, owing to the specificity of fictional communication in which

arguments are not continued as the scene is sometimes cut in the most embarrassing/ heated

moment. Hence, the fictional characters’ use of humour, which ends in the conversation being

terminated may be divided into preferred termination or dispreferred one. Third, a turn can be

used to introduce a humorous frame (Norrick 1993), thus, humour occurring on the recipient’s

layer overlaps with humour on the fictional layer. The last discourse management effect was

initiated to set the tone or style of the ongoing communication. Other less common uses of

humour include turn-taking, disrupting a topical talk (especially when misunderstanding

occurs) and checking for meaning.

In extract (13) (example 14 in Appendix), Jay’s biting comment is used with a view to

ceasing the conversation as he implicates that Gloria is not able to understand the same

stereotypes as Jay needs to face since she is not white. His barb communicated the message to

Gloria that it is high time to finish the conversation as their perspectives are significantly different.

(13) Context: Jay tries to explain to Gloria the predicament connected to installing security cameras.

Jay: Guess what. A black family’s moving in right across the street the same day my security

cameras are going up. Well, what am I supposed to do? I made the appointment weeks ago

right after the break-in down the street. But they’ll think I made the call the minute I saw

them because I’m a racist old man.

Gloria: Why would the neighbors just assume that you’re a racist?

Jay: Gloria, Gloria, Gloria. You’ll never understand the stereotypes old white men face. (S08E02)

Humour is located in Jay’s last turn. The beginning of his second turn, i.e. Gloria, Gloria,

Gloria. You’ll never understand the stereotypes…, creates in the viewer certain expectations

what Jay would say. It could be hypothesised that he would refer to the stereotypes about black

people. The subsequent chunk of his turn challenges the viewer’s stereotypical thinking. The

assumptions communicated by Jay make the recipient extract the implicature that he is an

inferior burdened with an array of negative stereotypes that he needs to fight. Moreover, he

implicates that Gloria is not able to understand white male stereotypes since she is not white.

The other functions communicated by means of Jay’s humorous remark include:

highlighting similarities (when viewers and Jay have similar experiences), disclosing character-

specific information (Jay likes teasing others), sharing (Jay shares to Gloria and the viewer that

he suffers from some stereotypes), defending, fostering conflict (when you underline racial

differences), advising, providing a puzzle (non-linguistic play; a clash between stereotypes


- 244 -

white men face and black men/ people face), providing a cultural reference (stereotypes),

conveying a serious message and releasing tension/ coping.

5.7.1.2. Disaffiliative/ subversive humour

The scholarship on disaffiliative humour in fictional discourse demonstrates that the fictional

characters frequently engage in impoliteness, which induces a humorous response on the

viewers’ part. Despite a higher frequency of verbal aggression in fictional discourse than in

naturally produced conversation, the recipient is not taken aback by the presence of talks

inconceivable in real life (Dynel 2015). There are various methods of how the recipient may

rationalise deploying impoliteness in a fictionalised world. Firstly, the episode is just “a select

sample of the interactions the characters hold in their fictional lives, which need not be so

impolite taken as a whole” (Dynel 2015: 158). Secondly, the abundance of uncanny utterances

may be explained by being attributed “to the speaker’s frame of mind or exceptional wit”

(Dynel 2015: 158), which is plausible in natural communication. Thirdly, I believe that those

impolite talks are judged as humorous by the recipients on the strength of the fact that they are

not the ones who have been belittled or demeaned. This claim is contingent on the assumption

that disaffiliation is amusing to the third party, but not to the target, which makes the audience

discover the ulterior – humorous – intention. In other words, whilst the production crew lays

on lavish entertainment for the recipients, they also foster disaffiliative relationships with the

characters. Besides, acts of impoliteness on screen are not mitigated by dint of humour and

hence this impoliteness is usually interpreted as genuine aggression by the fictional characters.

Under disaffiliative humour, there are various subversive functions that include:

controlling behaviour, criticising, conveying and challenging social norms as well as reducing,

fostering and increasing conflict/ tension. Some of the functions communicated by means of

humorous communication fall along the continuum of cases, which is conditioned by the

viewer’s reception, that is the strength of the message. A case in point can be the functions of

criticising and advising, i.e. the recipient can feel to be advised how to behave or criticised for

misbehaviour.

The fictional characters implement the strategies of teasing, self-denigration, put down,

self-mockery, sarcastic irony and mockery to exert social control and thus these strategies help

to maintain or disrupt social order. In addition, most of the instances of impoliteness promote

in-group and out-group relations, dividing the recipients into those who are denigrated (targets

of adverse comments) and those who denigrate others or listen to aggressive talks.


- 245 -

Consequently, one instance can be marked as a case of reinforcing and subversive humour (see

Meyer 2000, Holmes and Marra 2002a, Ferguson and Ford 2008, Dynel 2011e).

On the basis of the research into a quiz show, Culpeper (2005: 45) posits four factors that

demonstrate the relationship between entertainment and impoliteness: intrinsic pleasure

(disagreements and quarrels that are picked up for their own sake seem to be engaging and

pleasurable), voyeuristic pleasure (picturing human exploitation), the audience is superior

(being only a witness of belittlement of others) and the audience is safe (being a witness of

other’s disparagement makes oneself safe from being a target). In my opinion, the last two

factors are quite essential for sitcom discourse where verbal aggression is displayed among the

characters: first, the recipients are unscathed in their (arm)chairs and second, they cannot

become the butt of aggressive chunks. Elaborating on impoliteness in fictional discourse,

Culpeper (1998: 83) goes as far as to claim that “impoliteness is particularly interesting because

it generates the disharmony and conflict between characters which generates audience interest

and often moves the plot forward”.

Whenever the fictional characters disaffiliate from their family or friends, the superiority

mechanism should always be at work since its basis is the disparagement of others (see Section

1.3.1.). The study of my data reveals that it is not always the case, for instance the controlling

behaviour function aims to influence the behaviour of the viewers, despite the lack of mockery

on screen. In other words, not every function subsumed under disaffiliative humour employs

the mechanism of superiority. The premise for marking the instances as disaffiliative humour

is that the fictional characters express genuine aggression on screen, which is regarded as

playful by the viewers. The recipients’ amusement with barbs indicates that they are included

in some televisual characters’ world that is safe. As long as the recipient does not identify with

the disparaged group, genuine vicarious laughter (consequent upon amusement) would occur,

otherwise s/he would regret the group with whom s/he probably identifies (La Fave, Haddad

and Maesen 1976). Zillmann (2000) notes that “[d]ispositions towards characters are mapped

onto a continuum from extreme hate, through affective indifference, to extreme love” (ibid.:

39), which can explain affective intensity that the recipient entertains while witnessing

disparagement.

Controlling behaviour

Humour is a social construct and therefore can be used as a social corrective whereby an

individual whose disruptive behaviour needs to be altered is ridiculed (Martineau 1972,

Graham, Papa and Brooks 1992, Attardo 1994, Hay 1995, 2000; Martin 2007). This wide-


- 246 -

ranging group of function accommodates “[a]ny humor intended to influence the behavior of

the audience […]; this comprises any humor which serves a regulatory mechanism” (Hay 2000:

722-723).

As much as exercising social control is feasible in natural communication where the

person laughs at other’s misconduct, the production crew lacks communicative tools to laugh

at the recipients. Situation comedy is a form of entertainment that can merely attempt to

positively influence the behaviour of its viewers by shaping socially acceptable attitudes. As a

result, humour can become an indirect means of rectifying the behaviour of the viewers by

means of mockery. The recipients are encouraged to comply with a pattern of socially

acceptable behaviour and, ergo, to terminate distasteful activities.

In Modern Family, there are three main groups of episodes whereby the controlling

behaviour function was assigned. Firstly, the fictional characters were scolded for their actions

by one of their conversationalists, which shows more clearly to the audience what kind of

behaviour should be displayed. Being mocked on screen usually, but not invariably, overlaps

with being mocked on the recipients’ layer. Secondly, the viewers entertain the clash between

the local interpretation constructed on the basis of a single episode and global interpretation

constructed on the basis of a number of episodes. That is to say, what is represented throughout

many occasions is intermitted with (unanticipated) verbal aggression directed at one of the

characters. For instance, perfect parenthood of Mitchell and Cameron (global interpretation that

they are good adoptive parents) is disturbed with Jay’s negative comments concerning their

sexual orientation (local interpretation). As a result, a reverse judgment is expected from the

viewers. Within the second corrective function situations, there does not always have to be the

clash between the two meanings. The prerequisite is that the fictional characters exhibit verbal

aggression towards others’ activities and thus make the audience deduce that such behaviour

should not be followed. The information communicated by the controlling function takes the

form: the ridicule/ mockery/ teasing/ put down aims to make the recipient to..., for example,

adopt a similar stance (situation 1) or take the reverse action (situation 2).

The first corrective situation is exemplified by the following conversion (14) (example

23 in Appendix) in which Haley and Claire intend Phil to alter his deviant behaviour of applying

heavy make-up so as to look perfect on television. By means of put down humour, they wish

Phil to remove make-up. The information gleaned by the audience is that Claire’s and Haley’s

put downs aim the recipient to adopt a similar stance so that men do not put on make-up.


- 247 -

(14) Context: Phil is going to be on the news so he decides to put on make-up. Claire, Phil, Alex and Haley

are in the kitchen.

Claire: [startled] What did you do to your face?

Phil: Just a little color to make my eyes pop. [all the family stand with their jaws wide open] Like

yours are now.

Haley: Is this how we find out you’re transitioning? Oh, please don’t pick a young name. The world

doesn’t need a 50-year-old Jasmine.

Phil: Trust me, this’ll look completely normal on camera.

(...)

Phil: Oop. [noticing that he left a lipstick mark on the mug] Looks like I need to reapply.

Claire: To clown college? (S08E04)

Humour is contingent upon Haley’s comparison of Phil to a person who has just decided to

undergo a sex change operation (implicature) and Claire’s reversal of meaning that Phil wanted

others to glean. Phil’s complaint that he should reapply requires the process of lexical

enrichment, which can be enriched in accordance with Phil’s intention: “to reapply make-up”

or Claire’s intention: “to reapply to clown college”. The interpretation ascribed to Claire carries

additional information about her attitude towards Phil’s make-up: she wishes that Phil would

remove the make-up as it does not suit a grown-up man.

Besides serving social corrective, the audience can discover the functions of highlighting

shared experiences (when a viewer has needed to rebuke a family member), disclosing

character-specific information (Phil is not very clever), providing a linguistic puzzle (to

reapply), advising (a person is advised not to wear make-up), showing off, conveying a serious

message, criticising and fostering conflict.

The second corrective occurrence is shown below (15) (example 79 in Appendix) in

which Phil, probably unintentionally, communicated the meaning that being a father of Alex

and Haley is not as important an achievement as building Dunphy Tower. The recipients should

exhibit the opposite behaviour so as not to upset their children (or the people they love) by

being inconsiderate.

(15) Context: Phil decides to make his dreams come true and has started building Dunphy Tower. Phil,

Alex and Haley are at the construction site. Phil hugs them.

Phil: Breathe it in, girls. My journey begins today. Finally bringing something into this world I can

be proud of. [the girls look discontent]


Phil: As children, the Wright Brothers dreamed of flying machines. Oprah dreamed of hiding

presents under chairs. And I dreamed of building something magnificent. Well, recently, Jay

and I bought a vacant lot on which we are building Dunphy Tower. (S08E14)


- 248 -

Humour is contingent upon two micro-turns: Phil’s greatest pride in Dunphy Tower and his

metaphor about the importance of the Tower. First, the recipient needs to formulate the

implicature that Phil has never thought of his children as his achievement because his pride in

building the Tower overshadows his children as achievement. The subsequent part of Phil’s

confession requires the process of deriving the implicated premise that the Wright Brothers’

flying machine or winning a car by everyone in the audience in Oprah Winfrey’s show are

significant achievements. Accordingly, the implicated conclusion that can be extracted

encompasses the interpretation that Phil considers his Tower to serve something good to

humanity.

Given the fact that the controlling function in sitcom discourse can go in divergent

manners, i.e. one in which the viewer’s views can be either praised or condemned, there is quite

high frequency of this effect upon the audience. It needs to be borne in mind that this function

cannot sometimes be pinpointed on the basis of a single unit but on a longer continuity of some

actions, such as picturing homosexual parents in a positive manner, the sitcom intends to

positively influence the behaviour of the recipients. As a result, the controlling function can

become global in scope as it is assessed on the strength of the whole sitcom.

Criticising

Humour can become a powerful tool employed in order to voice legitimate criticism, the

negative import of which is mitigated/ neutralised by means of humour101. By this token,

humour is a face-saving strategy (Zajdman 1995, cf. Jorgensen 1996) as it “may finesse

objections to an insult, or a criticism by presenting them in a form which frames the objector

negatively” (Holmes and Marra 2002a: 66). It has been already glossed over that the controlling

function may overlap with the function of criticising or advising. Hay (2000: 723) claims that

“’control’ might be seen as a stronger term than is required to describe the more innocuous

examples of this form.” As regards my data, the regulatory (social corrective) function is a very

general category that may comprise, among others, advising or criticising, nevertheless the

audience gleans different propositional meanings on the strength of different functions.

The criticising function served on the recipient’s layer does not always overlap with the

same function performed on the fictional layer. Representing fictional characters’ shameful

behaviour that is criticised by some other character elicits the viewer’s feeling of being

101 Granted that coercive behaviours are corrected by means of humour, it also makes it difficult for the audience

to try to retaliate (Martin 2007).


- 249 -

reprimanded as it is easier to notice the faults of others than one’s own. Another way of fulfilling

the criticising function is when the viewer’s attitude is shaped by demonstrating undesirable

behaviour towards the characters with whom the recipients affiliate.

In conversation (16) (example 18 in Appendix) Alex employs the strategy of teasing

(power) in order to communicate to her sister that her job to earn a living as a person promoting

clubs on social media is below reasonable parental expectations of how a child should earn

money. This conversation represents the criticising situation in which a person on screen is

reprimanded for her misbehaviour (looking like a hooker to promote clubs), which may make

the recipient think what kind of job should not be taken. If a recipient earns money in a similar

manner, s/he may glean the meaning that s/he is criticised for landing an undemanding job and

is shown the reaction this kind of job may spark off in society:

(16) Context: Haley wants to set up her own business in which she and her friends would promote different

clubs on social media. She asks the parents for help. Alex is the third party.

Haley: We made $500 last night for promoting a hookah bar.

Claire: [regretfully] I remember when you were a little girl. You told me you wanted your job to

be “princess.” I would kill for those days.

Alex: [writing on paper since she cannot talk because of mononucleosis] “Is that why you’re

dressed like a hookah?” (S08E03)

Humour is based on Alex’s personal opinion about Haley’s new profession. The viewer might

be amused when Alex utters the word hookah, which is phonetically similar to the hooker.

Alex’s tease requires the process of lexical adjustment, which gives rise to two different

concepts: HOOKAH* (a bar where customers can smoke water pipe) and HOOKER* (a term

for a prostitute). These two concepts that arise out of two encoded concepts are responsible for

the creation of a punning effect. The recipient needs to formulate the implicature that Haley’s

promotional job is not decent as she looks as though she sleeps with men for money.

With the use of this example, it is also possible to focus on a subtle difference between

the controlling function on the one hand and the criticising and advising functions on the other.

The premise for the discrimination between them is a different determinate propositional

meaning that these lead the audience to ascribe to the production crew. The interpretation

communicated with criticising is that a person is criticised for engaging in an unworthy job.

The interpretation conveyed by means of advising is that a person is advised not to accept or

advised to resign from a menial job. The interpretation that is transmitted by the controlling

function is that verbal aggression is intended to influence the behaviour of the disparaged party.

Another criterion that can facilitate the demarcation between those functions is that the recipient


- 250 -

may feel to be advised and/ or criticised for a specific behaviour, and then may feel the influence

(control) that the sitcom may exert.

The criticism in sitcom discourse is used to alter the recipient’s behaviour, which makes

it still possible to foster positive relations and hence maintain in-group relations. This can be

explained by Fredrickson and her collaborators’ (Fredrickson et al. 2000, Fredrickson and

Branigan 2005; see Section 4.9.) as undoing effect whereby amusement consequent upon

humour reduces the negative effects of, for example, criticism. The recipient may eventually

adopt the subversive attitude of unlaughter (Billig 2005) where, despite the presence of

humorous keying, s/he refrains from laughter.

Social norm-related functions

Humour can be an effective means of preserving and executing social norms (Ziv 1984), which,

due to the humorous frame, are not regarded as impositions or strong recommendations. As

Meyer (2000: 320) puts it, “[h]umor allows a communicator to enforce norms delicately by

leveling criticism while maintaining some degree of identification with an audience”. Attardo

(1994) reckons that the function of conveying social norms is categorised as the social

management functions that “facilitate in-group interaction and strengthen in-group bonding or

out-group rejection” (ibid.: 323).

There are two social functions that are connected to social norms: conveying social norms

and challenging social norms. The information that the recipient gleans by means of executing

these functions can sometimes overlap, i.e. a dialogue both conveys and challenges social

norms, nevertheless it is possible that different information is accessed on the basis of either

conveying or challenging social norms. The variation in reception results from the recipient’s

private beliefs and the metarepresented (cultural) beliefs (Yus 2002, 2004, 2005) disseminated

by the production crew. As a result, when the viewers’ and the production crew’s beliefs

converge, the former would discover the function of conveying social norms. When the

production crew holds the beliefs that are quite disparate from those held by the recipients, any

such instance would be grouped under the challenging of social norms function. Moreover,

Zillmann’s (1980, 1983, 2000) and Zillmann and Cantor’s (1976) disposition theory of drama

and comedy holds that the recipient is a moral monitor who is responsible for endorsing

(promoting positive affect) or condemning (promoting negative affect) the behaviour of the

fictional characters.


- 251 -

Conveying social norms

The conveying social norms function occurs when the production crew explicates social norms

that are widely accepted by most members of a particular society. Meyer (2000) remarks that

the enforcement of norms has a dividing effect upon the audience as laugher that aims to

discipline divides the interactants into those who do not exhibit proper behaviour and those who

wish the former group to exhibit such behaviour. Granted that the production crew does not

wish to distance themselves from his/ her recipients, there is a need to describe this function as

covering the humorous instances whereby the recipients’ and the production crew’s system of

beliefs overlap and thus their mutual understanding concerning norms is corroborated. In the

controlling and criticising functions, there were instances in which the fictional character

displayed either exemplary behaviour that should be followed by the audience or deviant

behaviour that was mocked. Those episodes that represented acceptable behaviour would also

be classified as units delineating proper norms, despite communicating different propositional

meanings. Norrick (1993) believes that mocking or satire may be used to ratify groups norms,

hence the production crew and audience can test their mutual agreement on what is deemed

acceptable. Once again the recipients’ cognitive environments may differ greatly and the

production crew cannot envisage assumptions that are held by all the recipients, nevertheless

there must be a certain degree of assumptions that are customarily accepted by society.

As regards the social norm conveyance in Modern Family, there emerge two recurrent

types of the episodes: first, when the fictional characters conform to the widely established

social norms that are potentially accepted by many people in the world (examples 1, 16, 29, 33,

70, 111, 115 in Appendix), and second, when the character’s undesirable demeanour is instantly

critically assessed by other interactants and hence cuing the televisual recipient to endorse

social norms (examples 5, 6, 13, 18, 46, 63, 73, 103 in Appendix). Whenever the fictional

characters resort to teasing, sarcasm or mockery, the production crew “can communicate

implicit expectations and rules concerning the kinds of behavior that are considered acceptable

within the group” (Martin 2007: 119).

It has been mentioned above that there are some instances where it was unfeasible to

decide whether a social norm is conveyed or challenged, as it is largely conditioned by the

recipient’s private beliefs. I have found the conversations in which the occurrence of conveying

and challenging of norms is pinpointed in one instance (examples 25, 40, 61, 74, 79, 83 in

Appendix), which is illustrated below (17) (example 79 in Appendix, which was presented to

exemplify the corrective function) (for the sake of convenience, it is repeated):


- 252 -

(17) Context: Phil decides to make his dreams come true and to build Dunphy Tower. Phil, Alex and Haley

are at the construction site. Phil hugs them.

Phil: Breathe it in, girls. My journey begins today. Finally bringing something into this world I can

be proud of. [the girls look discontent]


Phil: As children, the Wright Brothers dreamed of flying machines. Oprah dreamed of hiding

presents under chairs. And I dreamed of building something magnificent. Well, recently, Jay

and I bought a vacant lot on which we are building Dunphy Tower. (S08E14)

Phil’s behaviour can be assessed as both a norm which should be followed by the recipients and

as a deviation from the norm. As for the conveying function, it is a norm that a person regards

own achievements as a matter for pride. This is why Dunphy Tower is compared to inventing

a flying machine by the Wright Brothers or hiding a present (a free car to everyone in the

audience) under a chair by Oprah Winfrey. As for the challenging function, Phil reverses the

viewer’s system of beliefs as he implicates that being the investor of Dunphy Tower makes him

prouder than being a father to three children – Tower is the first meaningful thing brought into

the world.

The dialogue serves many other functions, such as highlighting shared experiences,

sharing, defending, disclosing character-specific information (Phil frequently says something

awkward), advising, criticising, soliciting support, controlling one’s behaviour (it is distressing

to children when they are not valued by parents), providing a cultural reference (Oprah Winfrey

and Wright Brothers) and fostering conflict.

Attardo (1994: 323) claims that the function of conveying social norms is when “the

speaker uses humor to attract attention on taboos, unacceptable behavior”. Much as it may seem

accurate for naturally occurring conversations, using humour in sitcom discourse as a means of

addressing offensive content should not be regarded as conveying social norms, but rather as

instances where social norms are challenged. In other words, the very act of challenging fulfils

the educational role, viz. it draws the recipient’s attention to good behaviour. Nonetheless, the

instances where unfavourable behaviour is scolded by one of the characters can be subsumed

under the conveying of social norm function.

Challenging social norms

Humorous effects can be derived by the audience when the production crew challenges socially

acceptable norms. As a result, there needs to be the clash between individual assumptions and

those made mutually manifest in the sitcom, which makes humour in those instances suitable

to be explained on the strength of incongruity mechanisms. Mills (2009: 87) contends that “the


- 253 -

Incongruity Theory demonstrates that humour rests on diversions from social norms means it

is of great use in the debate about the social value of comedy and sitcom”. Instances of

humorous episodes where the televisual character challenges social norms are much more

frequent than those in which social norms are conveyed, which attests to Mills’ claim. This can

serve as an explanation for the appeal of sitcom: the viewers are attracted by the fictional world

that is distant from what they know, for instance that constant criticism does not lead to harsh

arguments and destroying family relationships.

In order to classify the humorous episodes as those serving the function of challenging,

the recipient’s individual norms need to clash with the norms presented in the sitcom. In other

words, the assumptions made mutually manifest in humorous encounters cannot be regarded as

politically correct or socially acceptable. In conversation (18) (example 69 in Appendix), Jay

breaks with a standard parental approach in which he should have offered Manny a solution

concerning the problem with the girls, i.e. with which one to spend Valentine’s Day. The

recipient’s expectations have been challenged as the stepfather advises Manny to drink a lot of

alcohol, which may probably help him make the decision.

(18) Context: Manny cannot decide which girl he wants to date on Valentine’s Day and tells Gloria and Jay

about his problems.

Manny: Well, Delgado’s got a doozy of a Valentine’s dilemma. I texted out feelers for two dates.

Vicky Noh is top choice, but Alexa Potts has been doing this bad-girl thing lately I’m into.

So, while I wait for a yes from Noh, I’ve got to keep Potts on the back burner.

Jay: Oh, my God. Is it still talking?

Gloria: Jay, that’s so rude!

Jay: He overthinks everything.

[Gloria’s phone starts ringing and she answers it]

(...)

Jay: If you don’t come home smelling of light beer and chlorine, do not come home at all.

(S08E12)

Humour is dependent upon the father’s piece of advice about how to pick up a girl. The

contextually facilitated assumption concerning Jay’s advice is that Manny should drink a lot of

alcohol at the party, which will make him relaxed and this will help him pick up a girl. This

contextual assumption converges with the viewer’s background assumptions about Jay who

always says what he thinks. All these assumptions clash with one’s private assumptions, which

may also be collectively held, that a parent would never advise a teenager to drink alcohol. As

a result, the viewer can access the implicature that Jay thinks that drinking (or overdrinking) is

a key to Manny’s girl problems.


- 254 -

Jay’s humorous turn conveys the functions of highlighting shared experiences (it is how

some parents can act), disclosing character-specific information (Jay is laid-back), sharing (Jay

discloses what he thinks how to pick up a girl), reducing conflict/ tension and advising (it may

be profitable to drink a lot of alcohol in order to pick up a girl).

Conflict-related functions

Humour can be an instrument designed for a number of conflict-based situations, which

encompass conflict/ tension avoidance, reduction or fostering. The production crew certainly

does not intend to exacerbate tense situations where face-threatening acts are not mitigated and

even worse, not sanctioned, which could negatively influence constant viewership. Therefore,

by intuition, the function of fostering conflict should not be assigned frequently. Irrespective of

the fact whether the production crew pursues to introduce, reduce or avoid conflict, any instance

of adversarial humour is moderated by means of humorous keying. Boxer and Cortés-Conde

(1997: 275) corroborate that teasing in humour is “a double-edged sword that both diffuses and

controls conflict”.

The last issue that I would like to gloss upon is whether the production crew has linguistic

means to foster, avoid or increase a tense situation with the viewers. The functions that arise on

the fictional layer are different from the functions materialised on the recipient’s layer. In my

opinion, assigning the functions that are at the viewer’s disposal needs to be modulated and suited

with respect to the discourse under analysis. On the one hand, conflict-based effects can be

regarded as being a step further from the criticising function and thus there may be some tension

between the production crew and the viewers. On the other, the conflict in which the fictional

characters engage may convey to the recipient how conflicts can be handled or introduced in

interpersonal natural communication, since, as Mulkay (1988) contends, mass humour is parallel

to face-to-face (natural) communication. This is why a similar piece of information is recovered

by the fictional character and recipient. The three functions presented in this section, viz. fostering

conflict, avoiding conflict and reducing conflict, would equip the recipient with knowledge

concerning different effects that one may achieve through conflict in hostile communication.

Fostering conflict

Conversational humour can be used as a device for fostering a state of argument or conflict,

which is potentially threatening for the recipient. In conflict-based events, Hay (2000) reckons

that “the speaker uses humor to voice clear disagreement with a member of the group” (ibid.:

722), i.e. when people display adversarial behaviour or engage in communicating an aggressive


- 255 -

message. Martineau (1972) admits that humour may be used for fostering conflict when it

disparages an in-group and an intra-group in a social setting. In particular, humour can be a

conflict weapon that would render communication terminated. Interactants may employ

subversive humour on a number of levels: focus on the individual, subvert the group and

challenge the wider society (Holmes and Marra 2002a). As regards sitcom discourse, the

recipient may feel that humour is also intended for him/ her (hence fulfilling a function similar

to criticism) or is used for subverting the wider society.

The scrutiny of language in Modern Family demonstrates that a fictional character who

has initiated or has endeavoured to initiate disagreement serves the function of fostering

conflict, which may additionally converge with passing on non-neutralised criticism. In other

words, the fictional characters show to the recipients how conflictive situation may be fostered.

As a result, there are two types of conversational episodes: those that visibly lead to quarrels

(the negative outcome is presented on screen) and those that may potentially end in quarrels

(the negative outcome is only presumed by the recipient). Furthermore, this function is the most

frequent out of all three conflict-based functions, which can be explained by the fact that the

televisual interactants are not always interested in minimising a verbal threat and they do it for

the sake of the recipients’ amusement. As a side remark, there are instances in which it is

implausible to define whether conflict has been fostered or reduced (or both, for instance

examples 2, 32, 42, 50, 114 in Appendix).

Excerpt (19) (example 11 in Appendix) demonstrates the situation where Haley employs

the strategy of teasing (to indicate power in Hay’s (1995, 2000) parlance) to bite/ nip Alex as

she purports that Alex, who is a young eminent scholar, contracted mono when kissing the same

pillow with others scholars. In real-life, such a biting comment can promote a conflict situation

with others given some weak implications that one can access: scientists are believed to be

unable to build personal social life as they are utterly devoted to research and the only romantic

relationship scientists are able to establish is with a lifeless object.

(19) Context: Alex has contracted infectious mononucleosis, which is also known as “the kissing disease”

since it spreads through saliva. Her sister wonders how it is possible that Alex has acquired the infection

as she is only interested in her studies at California Institute of Technology.

Haley: How do nerds even get mono? Did you all practice by kissing the same pillow?

Alex: Shouldn’t you be at work by now? (S08E02)

Humour is dependent upon Haley’s question about how her sister could have got mono. The

viewer probably creates the initial expectations that Haley’s first question would be answered


- 256 -

by Alex who could say that she has a boyfriend. Instead, Haley continues, suggesting that there

is another way of contracting mono – by kissing the pillow that an ill person was kissing. The

viewer is supposed to formulate the implicature that scientists (like Alex) do not have partners

and thus mononucleosis can be contracted by kissing the same pillow.

Haley’s humorous chunk serves other functions, such as disclosing character-specific

information (Haley can also air biting comments), showing off (Haley is clever to comment

Alex’s disease), conveying social norms (siblings tease each other), highlighting shared

experiences (smart people are often teased) and controlling one’s behaviour (targeting smart

people is not desirable).

Reducing conflict/tension

The second conflict-based function is the one whereby humour is initiated as “a means of

smoothing over conflicts and tensions between people” (Martin 2007: 17). In a similar manner,

Mulkay (1988) ventures a claim that humour is a mediating tool used for mitigating

uncomfortable or aggressive conversations (Attardo 1994). As already mentioned, humour helps

to achieve two functions as it both aims to reduce tension within a group and increase solidarity

(Ziv 1984).

My sitcom data comprises some humorous segments where a potential threat has been

mitigated, despite its relative frequency. There emerge two main situations in which the

fictional characters’ units carry out the function of reducing conflict: either the characters

provide an unreasonable explanation (subscribing to local logic, in Ziv’s (1984) terms) or

provide implicit criticism (mostly in terms of teasing). In conversation (20) (example 91 in

Appendix), Jay implicitly expresses disapproval at Manny’s wish to master foam skills, which

makes discussion about using protection redundant. By not stating openly that being interested

in foam skills discourages girls from dating Manny, Jay manages the conflict to “minimize the

importance of a potential threat issue” (Meyer 2015: 89).

(20) Context: Manny is driving Jay and Gloria to the cinema.

Jay: Speed it up, Manny. The movie starts in five minutes.

Manny: Sorry, but I’m not going over 20 miles an hour with this cappuccino machine not strapped

in. Once I perfect my foam art skills, my freshman dorm will be the place to be.

Jay: I think we can put off that talk about using protection.

Gloria: Mm, look, there’s a spot right there. (S08E18)


- 257 -

Humour is based upon the clash between Manny’s statement that when he hones his skills at making

foam on cappuccino and Jay’s need to postpone the conversation about Manny’s using protection.

In order to derive comic effects, the recipient needs to access the implicated premise that as long

as one is interested in strange matters, such as perfecting foam skills, one would not have a sex

partner at university. The conclusion is that Manny would not find a girl with whom he can

have sex.

The dialogue also performs the following functions: controlling one’s behaviour (in order

to have sex with a teenage girl, one needs to be more interested in teenage stuff), highlighting

shared experiences, advising, disclosing character-specific information (Manny is not a typical

teenager; Jay uses any opportunity to tease Manny), challenging social norms (it is not a norm

that a person interested in coffee foam cannot have intimate life) and conveying a serious

message (one should share interests with their age-mates when starting college in order to have

common ground for interactions).

Avoiding conflict

Humour as a tool to avoid potentially aggressive interactions and disagreements may be treated

as a subtype of the function of reducing conflict. Nonetheless, the main difference between the

instances where the conflict is avoided and reduced lies in whether a fictional character manages

the conflict in a such way to entirely avert it (avoiding conflict) or just to mitigate the threat

(reducing conflict). My sitcom data depicts a few conversational humorous segments where

aggression is avoided (examples 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 16, 24, 25, 27, 34, 35, 45, 61, 89, 102, 113 in

Appendix). In particular, these are the cases in which the character conceals his/ her true

emotions (and reveals them to the TV viewer or another character) or refrains from uttering any

criticism (additionally, s/he may provide an explanation). It needs to be underlined that the

functions are sometimes assessed against the whole dialogue where humour was deployed, and

thus, the avoidance function is not to be solely communicated by dint of a humorous turn. As

the extract below exemplifies, the character deploys the function of avoiding conflict as soon

as there is a lack of reaction on the part of the character. Example (21) (example 5 in Appendix)

shows a situation in which Alex chooses not to react to Luke’s stupidity that is reflected in his

two humorous turns, i.e. the Statue of Liberty holds a paintbrush with the use of which she

painted freedom in America. Undoubtedly, Alex has successfully succeeded in averting the

conflict with her brother (the extract has been used to illustrate the defending function).


- 258 -

(21) Context: Luke, Haley and Alex pretend to be at home while they are still in New York. The scene is shot

next to the Statue of Liberty.



Luke: Sorry. It just popped into my head when I saw the Statue of Liberty holding that paintbrush.



Haley: Oh. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

[Alex is in disbelief that her siblings are that dumb] (S08E01)

Besides communicating the conflict avoidance function, Alex’s lack of reaction performs more

communicative functions: disclosing character-specific information (Haley and Luke are

stupid), defending, showing off (Luke’s mental power), advising (it is sometimes better not to

react) and highlighting shared experiences.

5.7.1.3. Cognitive benefits: psychological

The last group of functions communicated by means of humour is the one in which the recipient

entertains humour as an intellectual activity “that accompanies the production and enjoyment

of humor” (Ziv 1984: 70) (in the present work, it is a comprehension/ enjoyment end that is

taken into consideration). The functions offering cognitive benefits can be also referred to as

psychological functions and include releasing tension/ coping, providing a puzzle (which

further bifurcates into a linguistic and non-linguistic play), providing a cultural reference,

showing off and conveying a serious message. The cognitive benefit functions are connected

to putting the televisual recipients in a pleasurable mood (Martin 2007) that can broaden/ build

one’s intellectual, social and psychological resources (Fredrickson 2009).

Releasing tension/Coping

Some functionalist analyses, i.e. Ziv (1984), Attardo (1994), Hay (1995, 2000), Martin (2007),

indicate that “the cognitive play of humor has been adapted as a means of dealing with

difficulties and hardships, contributing to the resilience and coping potentials” (Martin 2007:

20). In my opinion, any entertainment discourse is a place where the recipient is set at ease and

keyed to be in a positive emotional state in order to deal with adversity and distress. More

specifically, Hay (1995, 2000) reckons that humour can help to deal with a contextual problem

(emergent during the conversation) and non-contextual problem (more serious one, such as

illness or death). Granted that humour rarely occurs on the fictional layer, the function of

tension relief and coping needs to be adjusted the way it is fulfilled on the recipient’s layer.


- 259 -

In Modern Family, the function of releasing tension/ coping was marked in three cases.

First, following the Freudian tradition, tension is relieved when there is aggressive or sexual

content in a humorous segment, for example criticism that is not expected. Second, any

representation of a character’s behaviour that is not socially acceptable can be used to release

the viewer’s tension in the form of laugher. As Mills (2009: 89) maintains, aggressive jokes

“can be read as criticising the characters’ inability to conform to social expectations”. Third, a

character shows how s/he has managed to cope with a problematic situation. In example (22)

(example 104 in Appendix), Jay releases a number of (sexist) aggressive remarks directed at

Mitchell, which are used to communicate that his son behaves like a woman in his single-sex

relationship, i.e. he is referred to as Mrs. It may also be noticed that Jay employs aggressive

humour in order to release his pent-up energy given his ex-wife’s personality and his son’s

homosexuality (which he has never accepted through and through).

(22) Context: Mitchell complains to his father about being stressed out about day-to-day chores.

Mitchell: Leave me alone, okay? Everybody, leave me alone.

Jay: Hey! What’s all that?

(…)

Mitchell: Okay. It’s just it’s been a lot recently, you know, coming off of a really long trial, Cam’s

spring cleaning frenzy, hauling Lily all over for softball, pretending to care about

softball.

Jay: Oh, I get needing time away. I was married to your mother. Like you are now.

Mitchell: I have it all planned out. I drive to the desert. I check into the Markham a few hours by

the pool, massage, then I head downstairs for a juicy steak frites, just me and my book,

which can’t talk to me.

Jay: So do it.

Mitchell: [sighs] Asking Cam to go away alone is three weeks of wounded crazy that I... I don’t

want to deal with right now.

Jay: Don’t ask, tell. Isn’t that what you fought for?

Mitchell: Okay, I don’t know what to address first.

[Cameron walks in]

Cameron: Uh, Jay, Gloria’s ready to go.

Jay: All right. Take it easy. You have a good one too, Mrs. Tucker.

[Jay closes the door]

Cameron: [pretending to be amused] Why’d he call you Mrs. Tucker?

Mitchell: Why does he wear those boxy jeans? I don’t know. (S08E21)

Humour is dependent upon deriving the implicit meaning on the basis of Jay’s three teasing

remarks. First, Jay compares Cameron’s personality to his ex-wife’s, the implicature of which

is that Mitchell needs to go through a real ordeal with Cameron. This is supported by the

background assumption about Jay’s former wife with whom Jay was were constantly fighting


- 260 -

over unimportant things. Second, Jay’s statement that the marriage with Cameron is what

Mitchell fought for implicates that Mitchell should not feel afraid of being honest with his

partner as he wanted to share his life with this partner. Third, Jay’s referring to Mitchell as Mrs.

Tucker requires two processes: first, the recipient needs to construct an ad hoc concept MRS.

TUCKER* denoting a stereotypical housewife, and second, the recipient needs to extract the

implicature that Mitchell acts like a woman who is too weak to object to his partner.

If we understand relief theories in Ziv’s (1984) terms where humorous experience results

from the comprehender’s release from regular thought, then the function of tension release

would encompass all the instances that hinge upon linguistic incongruities.

Providing a puzzle

Humour is primarily a cognitive endeavour, which actively engages the comprehenders’ mental

processes in the recovery of the intended meaning(s). The function of humour in which the

viewer is provided with a (non)-linguistic puzzle leads to a psychological shift that should be

pleasurable (Morreall 1983). Humour as “the comraderie generated through such play may

function to strenghten social bonds and foster group cohesiveness” (Long and Graesser 1988: 57,

in Attardo 1994: 324). Most of the viewers flock in front of the TV screen just to be entertained

and thus “humor can also be enjoyed purely for its own sake as a pleasurable form of social

play” (Apter 1985, in Martin 2007: 126) (in Dynel’s parlance (2018), it is autotelic humour).

Besides the regular audience (watching sitcoms for having a laugh), there are metarecipients

and fan recipients, both of whom can watch the sitcom for other reasons, not necessarily the

ones connected with pure enjoyment.

The function of providing a puzzle for the recipient is captured by the workings of

incongruity mechanisms given the fact that there needs to be some kind of incongruity in order

to offer an intellectual puzzle. The humorous units as offering a puzzle are divided into two

subtypes: linguistic and non-linguistic plays. As mentioned in Section 5.5.3., comic effects do

not always result from purely linguistic incongruities but these may well be contingent upon

non-linguistic incongruities, such as the clash between what the characters utter during

confessions into the camera and what they utter to other conversationalists.

A linguistic play

Humour, as underlined in Chapter I, is commonly contingent upon incongruity, which is in turn

linked with surprise. The analysis of the sitcom data indicates that the effect of novelty and surprise

is prompted by what Partington (2006) dubs colourful language that refers to all the means that the


- 261 -

audience finds “striking and memorable” (ibid.: 80). Such uses of language are creative and

innovative, which may encompass metaphors, similes, puns, sarcasm or irony. My data comprises

many instances of wordplay, which can be further divided into syntagmatic (these entail only one

sense of a linguistic expression) and paradigmatic (these entail two senses of a linguistic expression,

one of which is absent in the form) (Attardo 1994: 115; Solska 2012a, 2012b). The presence of

paradigmatic puns in fictionalised discourse requires from the recipient to spend more mental effort

since not every chunk generating humour is provided but needs to be inferred.

The linguistic humor in the sitcom under analysis is based upon lexical, syntactic and/ or

phonological incongruities. The majority of this humour resides in neologisms/ word or phrase

coinages, which are created for this particular occasion. Their meaning requires the process of

lexical adjustment, which “may be a one-off process, used once and then forgotten, creating an

ad hoc concept tied to a particular context that may never occur again” (Wilson and Carston

2007: 238). One important feature of neologisms in the sitcom is that their existence is short-

lived and thus these will never enter the lexicon in order to be widely used by society. The

internal structure of these neologisms is quite transparent as it explicitly refers to the original

phrase or word that the recipient can easily associate giving rise to a new concept. Other

language-based puzzles require the relevance-theoretic processes aimed at the recovery of

implicit and explicit content.

The sitcom data reveals that the production crew’s creativity predominantly results from

humour constructed at a lexical and phonological level. First, the recipient may be led to extract

double meaning of a word or phrase (for instance, examples 24, 30, 33, 34, 44, 49, 54, 61, 65,

80, 81, 100, 104 in Appendix). Another strategy employed by the production crew is the

assignment of a new meaning to an existent phrase/ word. For instance, in example 87 (in

Appendix), Cameron states that Mitchell looks a little bit ashen and he intends his partner to

glean that Mitchell has ashes of Cameron’s piglet on his face (the standard meaning of ashen

being “looking pale”). In example 51, Jay responds to Phil’s numerous suggestions to go out

together by stating that he is bowled out, which means that he has enough of watching bowling

(again, the standard meaning of bowled out denotes the situation in cricket when every member

of the team has had to leave the field and there is no one left to bat). The next common strategy

of generating lexical incongruity is a play between a literal and metaphorical/ idiomatic senses

of a word/ expression, both of which need to be recovered for humorous effects. For instance,

in example 41 (in Appendix), Manny tells a girl that Dalton Trumbo wrote in a bathtub because

Trumbo knew he would take a bath at the end, which means that Trumbo would lose money or

take a shower (similar examples include 19, 57, 78, 108). The last interesting strategy to induce


- 262 -

humour at a lexical level is the blending of two expressions to give rise to a new expression,

the meaning of which results from a combination of the meaning of those expressions. For

instance, in example 55 (in Appendix) Luke wants to point out Manny’s mistake by uttering

that the dunce cap is on the other foot, meaning that Manny is finally a person to be scolded for

bad actions and hence he should wear the dunce’s cap.

There are also numerous cases of humour as an intellectual play where comic effects

occur at a phonological level leading to a punning effect (Solska 2012b). In extract (23)

(example 38 in Appendix), humour is contingent upon the homophonic and homographic

relations between the names of real people and the names provided by Jay:

(23) Context: Manny is dressed up as Dalton Trumbo in a bathtub and asks Gloria, Jay and Joe to guess the

costume.

Manny: You get who this is, right?

[Manny pretends to be writing on a typewriter]

Jay: Harriet Tub Man?

[Manny pretends to be writing on a typewriter implicating that it’s a wrong answer]

Jay: Oh, Joyce Carol Floats.

[Manny taps cigarette ash]

Jay: Farrah Faucet, spelled F-A-U

Manny: Yeah, I get it. And why are you only guessing women? I’m Dalton Trumbo, blacklisted

screenwriter, wrote in a bathtub. (S08E05)

First, the homograph Harriet Tub Man requires from the viewer the construction of two

concepts: Harriet Tubman* (she was an American abolitionist and political activist; her

achievements are not relevant to Manny’s costume) and Harriet Tub Man* (purposefully

separated words tub and man indicate that Manny is carrying a tub). Second, the homophone

Joyce Carol Floats requires the construction of two concepts: Joyce Carol Oates* (an American

writer) and Joyce Carol Floats* (indicating that Manny floats in the tub). Third, the humour in

the homophone Farrah Faucet is contingent upon two concepts: Farah Fawcett* (an American

actress) and Farrah Faucet* (containing a water-related word faucet). The explicatures that the

recipient is able to construct is that Jay intends to connect the person Manny is dressed up as

and the visual characteristics of the costume. On an implicit level, Jay may want to inform

Manny that his costume is not suitable for a teenager.

There are other appealing instances that introduce a punning effect. In example 21

(Appendix), an advertiser advises Phil that in order to sell a problematic property where

someone was stabbed, Phil may name the property Downton Stabby (built upon the name of


- 263 -

drama series Downton Abbey) or Charles Mansion (built upon the name of a famous serial killer

Charles Manson). Excerpt 37 (in Appendix) shows the situation in which Jay convinces Gloria

that he should wear the costume of Jesus at Halloween as there is a resemblance between his

name Jay and the name Jaysus (built upon Jesus). The last example to be mentioned is extract

68 (in Appendix) in which Jay gets angry at receiving redundant mail, saying it is Crappacino

(built upon a name of a famous actor Al Pacino) or Charlie Craplin (built upon a name of a

famous actor Charlie Chaplin), which is imitated by little Joe (example 74 in Appendix) who

says Crapola (built upon the name of a film director and producer Coppola) or Crapinski (built

upon the name of an addressee Krasinski).

The humorous segments that pose a cognitive challenge to the viewers can sometimes overlap

with the function of providing a cultural reference, which is discussed in the next main section.

A non-linguistic play

Humour is not always consequent upon language but may also result from the creation of non-

linguistic incongruities. These instances therefore are still puzzling or surprising, catching the

viewer off-guard. Martin (2007: 124) claims that comic effects are created by “playing off one

another, they amuse themselves with the multiple meanings of words and ideas”, which means

that multiplicity does not always need to result from language. Mulkay (1988) reckons that

humour may be generated from incongruity out of unstructured situations where interactants

utter something that is less expected and predicted.

As regards my data, it is difficult to find any recurring pattern with respect to its prevalence

in the sitcom. The non-linguistic incongruities are highly varied and cannot be categorised into

groups. An intellectual puzzle that is based upon other than linguistic means encompasses, for

instance 1) the clash between a traditional manner of contracting mononucleosis and the one

through kissing the same pillow (implicating that scientists can only catch the disease by kissing

the pillow with other fellow scientists) (example 11 in Appendix), 2) the clash between the

correlation between being a homosexual and lisping (implicating that Mitchell is a homosexual

because he used to lisp) (example 25 in Appendix), 3) the clash between having a small bladder

that results in a big brain (great intelligence) (implicating that Luke has a small organ that is

compensated with wisdom) (example 32 in Appendix), or 4) the clash between Gloria’s

attachment to old things and this quality being an asset to Jay (Manny implicates that since Gloria

is keen on old things, she will never break off the relationship with Jay) (example 96 in

Appendix). The conclusion from the study of non-linguistic incongruities is that the majority

of these require the process of the extraction of implicature for their humorous effects.


- 264 -

In extract (24) (example 105 in Appendix), Cameron introduces the clash between getting

horse’s blood transfused when he was a child and his getting super powers like superheroes in

Marvel Comics. Given general knowledge concerning blood transfusion, it is not possible to

receive blood from an animal.

(24) Context: Given the fact that Mitchell decided to go on a trip alone, Cameron is looking for something

to pass time. He shows up at Gloria’s to watch some movie with her.

Gloria: It’s a bad time, Cam. Turns out, it wasn’t the allergies. I feel terrible. You shouldn’t be

close to me. I don’t want to get you sick.

Cameron: Oh, gosh. No danger of that. I have the immune system of a horse. When I was a kid, I

needed a transfusion, and there was a mix-up with the vials. I’ve contacted Marvel

Comics repeatedly, but they don’t seem interested. (S08E21)

In order to extract humorous effects, the viewer needs to possess background information about

Marvel Comics and the superheroine She-Hulk, who got Hulk’s blood transfused and she acquired

super powers from him. The recipient needs to derive the implicature that Cameron gained super

powers like the superhero from Marvel Comics and he could become one of famous superheroes.

Besides offering amusement on the strength of non-linguistic clashes, the dialogue

performs the following functions: highlighting shared experiences, defending, disclosing

character-specific information (Cameron believes in impossible things), providing a cultural

reference, showing off and sharing.

What this dialogue also illuminates is that humour can be premised on a cultural artefact,

which may be particularly compelling to the audience as it shows that the content of the sitcom

is set in a cultural context. This function of humour is discussed in the next section.

Providing a cultural reference

Modern Family abounds in humour serving the function of deploying cultural information,

which may take the form of stereotypes that perpetuate in culture (Mulkay 1988) or of cultural

artefacts, such as films, book, famous peoples, etc. Humour is a phenomenon “embedded in

cultural context” (Davies 2003: 1363) and sitcoms, in particular, are a valuable medium to

demonstrate cultural capital (Mills 2009). The motivation behind positing this function is Yus’

(2004, 2005) joy of mutual manifestness entertained by the recipients whose awareness of

cultural stereotypes is strengthened by the content of fictional discourse. The recipients’ being

cognisant that some private representations are held collectively serves the function of

corroborating the common ground, which in turn builds cohesiveness. A detailed discussion of

cultural representations and their spread in an RT perspective is offered in Section 2.4.2.


- 265 -

My sitcom data reveals two ways in which cultural representations are spread (Sperber

1994, 1996): first, strengthening or revising stereotypes, and second, hinging upon cultural

artefacts. As for the former group, some cultural representations get strengthened, forming

reflective beliefs (Yus 2002), by the fictional characters so that the viewer’s private and

production crew’s metarepresented cultural assumptions are similar. This helps to cement

positive relationships, as the point where their cognitive environments cut-cross each other is

constantly updated and reminded (Yus 2004). The production crew also revises the viewers’

store of representations by intending the audience to change their opinion about socially valid

issues. As for the latter group, referring to a cultural artefact makes the sitcom more realistic as

it is more embedded in real events. Therefore, a claim can be put forth that not only

mockumentary aesthetics fosters authenticity but also referring to cultural artefacts help to

create a more genuine world.

There are many compelling humorous segments that are based upon both stereotypes and

references to cultural artefacts, for instance extracts 63, 72, 73, 77, 80, 89 and 101 in Appendix.

For example, Jay derides Phil for not throwing a bachelor party the way it should be (there is a

stereotype that fathers-in-law usually hate their sons-in-law) as well as Jay refers to the American

TV series called The Bachelor (example 80 in Appendix). As regards the instances where

stereotypes are strengthened, there is one stereotype that is reinforced on numerous occasions,

which deals with the treatment of homosexuals as if they were women-like individuals.

The humour in examples (25) (example in 110 Appendix) and (26) (example 116 in

Appendix) is premised on the same stereotype that Colombian doctors are not medically trained.

More specifically, the recipient gleans the meaning that only doctors who perform operation on

heart or brain need to undergo training (example 25), whereas radiologists in Colombia are

ready to work in hospitals as soon as they finish secondary schools (example 26). Granted that

Colombia is considered a third-world country, the viewer’s individual and the production

crew’s metarepresented cultural representations overlap.

(25) Context: Jay, Gloria and Manny are in the kitchen while Manny’s biological father (Javier) comes into

their home in order to take Manny to town to celebrate his achievements and graduation.

Gloria: [positively shocked] You came!

Javier: I said I’d come.

Gloria: I know, but you came!

Javier: How could I miss it? Manny, the first member of my family to ever graduate from high school.

Jay: Wait a minute. Don’t you have a brother in Colombia who’s a doctor?

Javier: Yes.

Gloria: He just does orthopedic surgery, no brain or heart. (S08E22)


- 266 -

The humorous effects are based on the clash between the information that Manny’s father’s

brother is an orthopaedist and the information that no person in Javier’s family has ever

graduated from high school. The contextual assumption that is communicated by Javier and

Gloria includes: his brother is an orthopaedic doctor that has never attended high school. It is

Gloria’s additional explanation that brings about more comic effects since the recipient needs

to derive the implicated premise that when a doctor does not perform brain or heart surgeries,

s/he does not need to undergo professional medical training in Colombia. As a result, the

implicated conclusion extracted by the viewer should be tantamount to the interpretation that

orthopaedists in Colombia are underqualified since they do not need to perform “serious”

operations.

(26) Context: Jay makes an inside joke to Manny on doctors in Colombia. Earlier Gloria admitted that

Javier’s brother is an orthopaedist in Colombia without having taken any medical preparation.

Jay: [to Manny, smiling] Congratulations on the first of what I’m sure will be many diplomas. Unless

you want to skip all that and move to Colombia and become a radiologist. (S08E22)

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s making a solidarity-based tease when he refers to radiologists

in Colombia. The implicated premise is that a person can become a radiologist without medical

training after graduating from high school. The implicature is that Manny can go to Colombia

to become a doctor right after having finished high school. Jay’s turn can be understood as a

form of teasing on doctors’ low level of education in Colombia.

The fictional characters’ reference to cultural artefacts was mentioned in passing in the

linguistic play function. Others examples include references to the Sistine Chapel (example 16

in Appendix), the films of Days of Wine and Roses (example 40 in Appendix) and A Streetcar

Named Desire (example 52 in Appendix), famous people, such as Oscar Wilde, Michael

Fassbender and Kathy Griffin (example 53 in Appendix), Martin Luther King (example 56 in

Appendix), the Wright Brothers and Oprah Winfrey (example 79 in Appendix), Britney Spears

(example 82 in Appendix), Jennifer Lopez (example 92 in Appendix) and Marie Curie (example

101 in Appendix).

Showing off

Humour can also be a technique whose prime goal is to show off one’s wisdom, intellect,

cleverness etc. Its potential result may be either fostering solidarity (and hence amusing the

audience) or initiating aggression (and hence diminishing positive relations). As regards the

former case, the fictional characters wish to fulfil “the underlying goal of impressing others


- 267 -

with their wittiness and gaining attention, prestige, or approval” (Martin 2007: 17). As regards

the latter case, the use of humour is tightly connected to one’s wish to display superiority

(appear to be more intelligent or witty) and hence humour “is not used to engender closeness;

it is used to make yourself look superior” (Gibson 2019: 189). Consequently, showing off can

be marked as a pro-social or aggressive tool depending on the particular audience’s reception.

Intuitively, it was first presumed that the function of showing off would overlap with all

the examples which serve the function of providing a linguistic puzzle since the characters

display their ingenuity. Nonetheless, not every instance of linguistic humour draws upon

cleverness that the fictional character shows to other interactants and/ or to the recipient, for

example extract 4 in Appendix (humour is based on assigning two different referents for the

pronoun it). In Modern Family, showing off was identified in two types of conversations: an

actor exhibits either genuine wit and wisdom or quasi wit. Quasi wit is the one that puts the

character in the position of a target as s/he has said that that s/he reckons intelligent, which

rather attests to his/her stupidity. Excerpt (27) (example 6 in Appendix) illustrates the first

showing off occurrence in which Jay reflects his genuine wisdom. In particular, Jay employs a

creative metaphor, the meaning of which is transparent, showing his creativity and cleverness:

(27) Context: Jay prepares his favourite food for Father’s Day since he is convinced that none of his children

would prepare something delicious to make him happy.

Jay: [into the camera] When I think of the last few Father’s Days, I quake with rage. Hey, maybe put

a little thought into it. Maybe we don’t order the pizza. And if we do, maybe we get enough

crazy bread for everybody. I’m sorry, but who made Father’s Day the dirty stepchild of

holidays?! We don’t even have a song. (S08E01)

Humour is based on Jay’s creative metaphor in which he claims that Father’s Day is the dirty

stepchild of holidays. Through the process of lexical adjustment, the viewer is required to

construct two concepts that are encoded in the word stepchild: STEPCHILD* (a child born to a

wife or husband during a previous relationship, frequently considered less important) and

STEPCHILD** (a holiday that is perceived to be less significant by the children). The initial

concept is the viewers’ background information about who a stepchild is, whereas the second

one refers to Jay’s intentions. The explicature that Jay communicates is that Father’s Day is the

worst celebrated day by children.

Extract (28) (example 25 in Appendix) represents Gloria’s attempt to show off her

intellect as she intends to appear to be wise, which in practice results in airing a ridiculous

statement:


- 268 -

(28) Context: Gloria worries that her little son Joe does not pronounce words correctly.

Gloria: Did you hear that? “Bweakfast.” It’s a good thing that we’re taking him to speech therapy. I

want everybody to understand every single thing he says. [to Jay with thick accent] Do you

want marmalade on your brioche toast?

Jay: Not a clue. [after a second] You’re probably right to nip that speech problem in the bud.

Mitchell had a lisp we let slide. Now we got a lifetime of “What if?”

Gloria: That is so offensive. A lisp doesn’t make you gay. Being gay makes you lisp.

[Jay looks as if he did not understand her train of thought] (S08E04)

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s derogatory witty remarks concerning what might have caused

Mitchell’s homosexuality and Gloria’s attempt to produce a wittier explanation concerning this

occurrence. On the basis of the background information that Jay does not approve of Mitchell’s

sexual orientation and that Jay needs to answer the big “what if”, the recipient needs to derive

the implicature that Jay believes that given the fact that he did not take a good care of Mitchell’s

pronunciation, his son is a homosexual. Second, the recipient needs to find the relevance in

Gloria’s statement, i.e. A lisp doesn’t make you gay. Being gay makes you lisp, which

communicates the implicature: Gloria reckons that child’s lisping does not condition his/ her

sexual orientation but it is gayness that can cause lisping.

There is an array of various functions served by means of the dialogue: avoiding conflict

(instead of a heated argument, they choose to offer a reasonable explanation for Mitchell’s

homosexuality), defending, conveying social norms, challenging social norms (it is not a

pronunciation problem that lead to homosexuality), providing a puzzle (non-linguistic play; a

clash between being a homosexual and lisping), providing a cultural reference, sharing (Jay

explicates his fears what could have caused Mitchell’s sexual orientation), criticising,

highlighting shared experiences, disclosing character-specific information, controlling one’s

behaviour, conveying a serious message, discourse management and releasing tension/ coping

(relieving tension by finding a reasonable explanation for a difficult topic).

Conveying a serious message

The last function communicated by means of humour discussed in the present thesis is when it

relays a serious or difficult message to the televisual recipients. As Cook (1982, in Mills 2005)

maintains, comedy discourse calls for duality reading, where one is connected to the humorous

layer (and hence deriving pleasure) and the other to the serious layer since humorous

manifestations “have a serious component” (Hay 2001: 72) attached to them. Mulkay (1988:

71) believes that “humour can have serious consequences, in that recipients can attribute to it

serious motives, infer from it serious meanings and react to it in a serious manner”.


- 269 -

In my opinion, all the functions that can be possibly fulfilled by dint of humour are

connected to the serious import of the sitcom. The function of conveying a serious message

would, as a result, greatly overlap with the functions discussed in this thesis. In order to

circumvent this problem, the seriousness-based effect would refer to the moral/ important

message that a humorous dialogue communicates. It is mainly concentrated on representing the

behaviour of people, that is, how people generally act and react in a variety of situations and

predicaments. For instance, Mitchell’s misunderstanding that people have praised his clothes,

not the fact that he let a member from Cameron’s team to sleep in their home, conveys the moral

that one’s outward appearance should not be of paramount importance (example 22 in

Appendix). Another interesting example is 21 (in Appendix), in which it is communicated that

humour can be a successful selling technique.

My data reveals that all the conversational units convey serious or difficult information,

except for example 31 in Appendix. This shows that the audience may discover what lies

beneath humour. In example (29) below (example 47 in Appendix), Claire seems to be reluctant

to reveal that her euphemistic expression to visit wine country refers to drinking wine on a

trampoline, which sends a message to the recipient that mothers/ women do not want to admit

that they enjoy drinking alcohol.

(29) Context: Claire, Gloria, Phil and Jay are asked by one of the parents from the PTA (Parent-Teacher

Association) to look after the high school children at the ball. The men are reluctant to join the party.

Claire says that there is one condition under which she can go with Gloria alone.

Claire: Sure, it’s the least I could do, because tomorrow you are going to help Luke with his

homework while I visit wine country.

Gloria: [gasps] I want to go.

Phil: That’s just what she calls lying on the trampoline drinking Chardonnay.

Gloria: Ah. (S08E09)

Humour is contingent upon the double meaning of Claire’s wine country in which there is a

clash between the existing meaning in a language and the new assigned by Claire. The recipient

would not be able to infer its meaning as in lay language user’s terms, it would mean a place

where you can taste wine. As soon as Phil explains what Claire has in mind, the viewer can

entertain humorous effects that a usual activity of drinking is named in a creative manner. On

the basis of the background assumption about Claire that she frequents drinking wine, which

connects with the ongoing contextual assumption, the viewer can access a number of weakly

communicated implicatures: the recipient’s knowledge about Claire is strengthened that she


- 270 -

likes alcohol, Phil does not want Gloria to know that Claire intends to drink wine, drinking is

not socially approved, especially when it is women who overuse alcohol.

The humorous dialogue serves the following functions: highlighting shared experiences

(when a parent needs a drink), advising, challenging social norms (it may not be socially

acceptable when mothers drink alcohol), disclosing character-specific information (Claire likes

drinking wine), controlling one’s behaviour (it may not be socially acceptable when parents are

keen on drinking wine), providing a puzzle (linguistic play in the phrase to visit wine country),

showing off, sharing (about a difficult issue), providing a cultural reference (reversing a

stereotype that mothers do not drink wine), conveying a serious message (mothers do not want

to admit that they like wine), discourse management and releasing tension/ coping.

5.8. Conclusions

The principal objective of the present chapter has been to delineate humour as a multifunctional

strategy designed to carry a number of propositional meanings intended for the recipient of the

sitcom Modern Family. Granted that the viewers are as diversified as the number of people in

the world, it was my intention to present the totality of meanings that are potentially

communicated by means of humour, some of which can become full representations in the

recipients’ mind or will never acquire this status. To attain this goal, my study, among others,

resorts to the relevance-theoretic tool of weak implicatures, which would explain the emergence

of not only intended interpretations but also emergent ones (Solska 2012b, see Piskorska and

Jodłowiec 2018). One of the reasons for the production crew’s implicitly communicating a

plethora of meanings is to provide the material that may appeal to a large audience.

A number of studies have already corroborated that humour can used as “a vehicle for

serious meanings and as a cover for serious motives” (Mulkay 1988: 67) with a view to

“expressing serious intent and (...) serious information without appearing to do so” (ibid.: 69).

As regards the potential of humour to communicate meanings besides the humorous meaning,

Zillmann and Bryant (1991) assert that comedy discourse chiefly works on the funny characters

in funny situations basis but also contain elements of drama discourse. This may, in my opinion,

explain the lure of sitcoms that despite the intention to amuse the audience, sitcoms also touch

upon serious issues.

Returning to the research hypotheses posed at the beginning of this chapter, it is now

possible to present the conclusions, which would answer the research questions and discuss the

hypotheses. Firstly, the classification of meanings conveyed by means of humour endorses


- 271 -

Hay’s (1995, 2000) initial three-fold grouping of functions into affiliative humour (solidarity-

based functions), disaffiliative humour (power-based functions) and cognitive benefits

(psychological functions). Nonetheless, the functions that have been discerned on the basis of

the sitcom also reflect other categories distinguished in the functionalist literature summarised

in Chapter IV.

The solidarity-enhancing functions are classified into highlighting shared experiences,

disclosing character-specific information, sharing, advising, soliciting support, defending,

metalinguistic humour and discourse management. The power-based functions are categorised

into controlling one’s behaviour, criticising, conveying social norms, challenging social norms,

avoiding conflict, reducing conflict/ tension and fostering conflict. Finally, the cognitive benefit

functions are grouped into releasing tension/ coping, providing a puzzle (which are further

divided into a linguistic play and non-linguistic play), providing a cultural reference, showing

off and conveying a serious message.

Secondly, it needs to be acknowledged that the functions may sometimes slightly overlap

not only with respect to propositional information that they make mutually manifest but also

when it comes to being grouped to the general category of functions. For instance, the function

of showing off has been classified to the psychology functions group, however it can also be

classified to the ones that foster positive relations with the recipients.

The next research hypothesis (and question) refers to the disparity between the functions

that are teased out in my data and the ones provided in the functionalist analyses. First of all,

some of the functions required to undergo minor modifications, which were consequent upon

the nature of the data taken into analysis and the reception end that was studied. That is to say,

many of the classifications summarised in the previous chapter are proposed on the basis of the

study of spontaneous communication and/or data that is not explicitly described, while my data

is culled from the sitcom. The difference in the data studied naturally entails the difference in

the results. The modification of the functions were generally executed with respect to the

viewer’s perspective, that is some of the functions are intended to affect the recipient, for

instance how to avoid or foster conflict in a real life by dint of humour. Furthermore, the

functions of humour in the classifications in Chapter IV were proposed on the strength of the

recipients at whom a conversational unit is directed, which converges with the fictional layer

in the participation framework. My study, however, undertakes the research into the recipient’s

entertainment of positive cognitive effects on the collective sender’s layer.

Another interesting result connected to the differences between my research and other

categorisations is that some functions offered in the literature were not found in my data. This


- 272 -

discrepancy could be attributed to different functioning of some effects in my data. For

example, Martineau’s (1972) solidifying the group, Attardo’s (1994) and Martin’s (2007)

ingratiation (boosting positive affect) and Ziv’s (1984) increasing group cohesion are too

general for sitcom discourse as every conversational unit can be interpreted as promoting

positive relations with the audience. In my classification, there are a number of means that the

fictional characters can employ in order to affiliate with the audience. Moreover, Hay’s (1995,

2000) categorisation contains the category dubbed ‘other’, which was not included in my study.

It can be explained by the fact that it was not my intention to assign one function to one

humorous turn and consequently, there were at least three functions served with the use of

humour in the dialogue.

The last point associated with the disparities between the reviewed functions and the

functions discerned in Modern Family concerns the new effects that emerge in the course of

undertaking the bottom-up analysis, which includes disclosing character-specific information,

metalinguistic function, providing a linguistic and non-linguistic play and providing a cultural

reference. The disclosing character-specific information function helps the viewer get inside

the fictional characters’ minds to determine what motivates their behaviour and what they really

feel about painful situations and hence to construct a complete image of a character. The

providing a linguistic and non-linguistic play function refers to the incongruity mechanisms,

the paramount role of which is to offer some striking juxtaposition of meanings/ behaviours,

etc. The providing a cultural reference function encompasses the instances in which the humour

hinges upon the recipients’ knowledge of stereotypes and cultural artefacts. It should be added

that providing a cultural reference can be both an intended goal itself as well as a means

conducive to achieving the affiliative function.

Having included the production crew’s references to the cultural context in my results

makes the research into the humour of the sitcom more wide-ranging. As Bowes (1990, in

Casey 2002 et al.) maintains, treating “comedy only as ‘light entertainment’ diverts our

attention from its content, which often works on the basis of stereotypes that may fail to

challenge, or indeed may reinforce or legitimate, dominant ideological positions” (ibid.: 21).

The humour in Modern Family is not different with being contingent upon stereotypical

assumptions. The viewer’s knowledge of stereotypes is divided into the cases when humour

either strengthens or revises already existing assumptions, which is greatly conditioned by the

recipients’ private beliefs and the production crew’s metarepresented beliefs. Both the

assumption’s being strengthened and revised should be pleasurable to the recipients, i.e. finding

out that some private assumptions are held collectively (Yus 2016) or finding out that other


- 273 -

people hold quite contrasting assumptions. Nonetheless, many modern situation comedies have

the pedagogical dimension as they intend to challenge common social stereotypes, promote

diversity and “tame” controversial topics.

One of the most interesting observations to emerge from the data is the considerable

wealth of coinages and word/ phrase neologisms. Their meanings are not opaque and thus can

be easily deduced as their linguistic forms allude to the original form, for example the song

entitled Sweet Home Ala-Gramma (extract 2 in Appendix) clearly refers to the song Sweet

Home Alabama (inexact homonymy). The recipient needs to activate the process of lexical

adjustment as the comprehension of neologisms mostly require the development of two

different concepts. As already mentioned, the present work does not deal with the analysis of

puns, nevertheless some generalisations about neologisms needed to be made, i.e. syntagmatic

puns were marked with one asterisk next to each concept informing the readers that the concepts

derive from different words. What is most important in the case of neologisms is that their role

in the creation of humour is to lead to a punning effect, which can be best characterised as the

occurrence of different concepts in the viewer’s mind.

All in all, it is apparent from the above analysis that humour is a strategy that can be used

to achieve multifarious communicative goals besides serving amusement to the telecinematic

recipients. The list of the functions proposed in this work is by no means exhaustive, which

may be further extended by adding, for example, more parameters that condition the reception

of humour. Nevertheless, it must be underlined that the collected data used for the sake of the

present analysis is illustrative of the humour in the sitcom. Thus more examples would rather

confirm than negate the proposals put forth in the chapter. It needs to be stated again that the

framework of RT offers the conceptual tools to comprehensively characterise the occurrence of

humour on the part of the viewers.

- 274 -

Conclusions

The study undertaken in the present thesis was designed to give a considerable insight into the

propositional meanings and communicative functions that were conveyed with the use of

humour. While, without a shadow of doubt, the primary goal of the interlocutor’s engagement

in humorous communication is to amuse others, the strong emphasis here was laid on a host of

propositional and non-propositional effects communicated by dint of humour to the recipient.

The theoretical assumptions were illustrated with extracts from the sitcom Modern Family. The

point of reference for the qualitative analysis was the participation framework relevant to

communication in sitcom discourse, where the two communicative levels were discerned, viz.

characters’ and recipients’. The focus of the analysis was on the latter, with the production crew

considered as the communicator. Furthermore, the study drew upon RT, which proved to

provide appropriate conceptual tools for the account of interpretations recovered by television

audience on the basis of the comedic input.

Chapter I discussed a number of humour-related notions, such as humour, verbal humour

and conversational joking, with special attention to the differences between them, which

systematised the basic knowledge concerning nomenclature used in humour studies. Then, it

concentrated on the manifestations of conversational humour since the collected extracts from

the sitcom were classified as instances of CH. A new classification of the types of CH was

proposed, introducing a three-fold division into humour characterised by the use of narrative

forms, humour resulting from the use of formal structures and that including the elements of

linguistic aggression. The classification, though not intended to mark clear-cut boundaries

between forms of CH, can become a starting point for further analysis. The second part of

Chapter I put forth a description of the three families of theories of humour, i.e. superiority,

relief and incongruity, all of which explain the origin and occurrence of humour in a different

manner. It has been argued that all these three perspectives when taken together can become a

basis for a comprehensive account of humour (Graham, Papa and Brooks 1992). A similar

approach was adopted here since studying fictional data in the light of all the effects that can

be possibly created upon the viewers made it imperative to consider all the interpretational paths

Conclusions

- 275 -

leading to comic effects, such as those contingent upon incongruity, superiority and relief,

which were found to be not mutually exclusive.

Needless to say, the incongruity-based approaches were granted priority since the main

tenets of those frameworks and of RT converge to some extent. In other words, it is cognitive

machinery that lies at the heart of both IR models and RT. It has been shown that the

mechanisms offered by many IR models to explain the recovery of humorous interpretations in

jokes are also pertinent to sitcom discourse. Apart from presenting an outline of incongruity-

based theories, the chapter also tested their explanatory potential against my data. Nevertheless,

since the approach used in the analysis of the main body of data is Relevance Theory, the

application of other incongruity-based approaches to sitcom dialogues is confined to the

verification of their main assumptions and their basic workings. Moreover, although the IR

theories were predominantly proposed to deal with short humorous texts (jokes), the majority

of theories summarised in Chapter I were found applicable to conversational humour. It was

feasible because the internal structure of many fictional dialogues followed a two-fold division

into the setting and the punchline. One of the theories stood out as the one that very accurately

described humorous effects in the sitcom, which was Attardo and Raskin’s GTVH. This stems

from the fact that GTVH accounts not only for incongruity emerging upon the viewer, but it

also includes other parameters related to various facets of humorousness, for instance situation

or narrative strategy, which manifest themselves in sitcom discourse through the visual and

verbal channel.

As regards the relevance of incongruity-resolution workings to the functions of humour,

incongruity gave rise to the two functions of humour, viz. providing a linguistic and non-

linguistic puzzle. The other two mechanisms of humour, superiority and relief, were also

efficiently incorporated into the analysis of the data (see the heading “Humour mechanisms” in

Appendix). In addition, these mechanisms contributed to the emergence of the functions

deployed by the production crew. That is, the superiority mechanism gave rise to the functions

communicated by dint of humour, which were classified as instances of disaffiliative humour,

such as criticising, fostering conflict and controlling one’s behaviour. The relief mechanism

came into existence when tension was relieved, which could be pinpointed in the function of

releasing tension/ coping. It was possible for some tension to be released in the form of laughter,

when, for instance, the function of providing a puzzle was satisfied.

Chapter II presented the main assumptions of RT concerning cognition, communication,

inference and comprehension, and then went on to discuss the conceptual tools proposed within

RT that were essential to adequately describe the extraction of humorous effects by the recipient

Conclusions

- 276 -

of the sitcom. In general terms, one of the most powerful concepts that detailed the functions

conveyed with the use of humour is that of weak communication. While the entertainment

function of humour may be carried out both explicitly and implicitly, other functions, such as

advising and criticising, were primarily communicated by means of weak implicatures. Their

derivation is closely related to the recipient’s accessing of comic effects. Moreover, weakly

communicated meanings were considered to be largely conditioned by a number of factors

behind specific audiences, which converged with the main idea of weak implicatures.

The chapter aimed to draw a broader context for the analysis of sitcom humour. For this

reason, Sperber’s (1996) view on the epidemic spread of cultural representations was

summarised, which fitted into the discussion of sitcoms as artefacts of culture. Furthermore,

Sperber et al. (2010: 379) belief that “[h]uman communication always carries cultural features”

was also reflected in the analysis. In my taxonomy, all the conversational episodes that hinged

upon the cultural context were established to fulfil the function of providing a cultural reference,

which was classified as a psychological benefit and at the same time a solidarity boosting

mechanism. Another concept needed for an account of communication between the production

crew and the viewers was the mind-reading ability. As was posited, it is pertinent both to the

production crew who need to design a stimulus that would exert a desired effect upon the

audience, and to the latter as they need to recognise the communicator’s intentions. The RT

concepts were illustrated with the extracts from the sitcom, which served as a preliminary

indication that relevance-theoretic tools can be grafted upon the study of sitcom discourse.

Chapter III was devoted to discussing various aspects of situation comedy discourse. One

of the possible ways of defining sitcoms is to distinguish their characteristic features, such as

setting, aesthetics, casting, shooting style and the presence/ lack of canned laughter or studio

audience. Modern Family can be subsumed under the category of new comedy, the most

noticeable feature of which is the lack of canned laughter. This grants the viewers permission to

produce their own emotional reaction, such as to become amused but also possibly surprised or

saddened. Another feature of some new comedies, viz. absence of a protagonist, was explained

in terms of the fact that a great deal of sitcoms concentrate on family ties (or a variety of it, such

as friends) and hence all the family members are equally important and influence the dynamics

of the plot.

The chapter also aimed to demonstrate how a family unit was pictured in sitcoms, which

naturally started from the model nuclear family as being the most socially acceptable variant in

the 1950s. The array of families portrayed in Modern Family varies from very traditional (The

Dunphy Family) to what can be regarded non-prototypical (The Pritchett-Tucker Family and

Conclusions

- 277 -

The Pritchett Family). The last crucial part of the chapter was the participation framework,

which discerned the whole gamut of participants on the two communicative layers.

Considerable interest lied in the audience design, i.e. the place of the televisual recipients with

regard to fictional discourse. The view that has been endorsed in the thesis is that a viewer was

devised as an active participant, whose role was defined and redefined in the course of

communication, which converged with the fictional characters’ looking or glimpsing into the

eye of the camera or holding traditional conversations with each other. As regards the

specificity of communication in sitcoms (purely diegetic, non-diegetic and the mixing of the

two), one function in my classification was assigned only when the fictional characters looked

into the camera, which was soliciting support. It was premised on the assumption that the

function of soliciting support could be pinpointed in the instances when a viewer felt to be a

fictional character’s bosom friend and the only person to bring him/ her some comfort.

The central focus of Chapter IV was on functionalist literature, which dealt with the

effects that can be achieved via humorous communication. Those works concentrated on

humour occurring in natural conversation or made-up context (hence the functions rested upon

the researcher’s conceptualisation). On a general note, research into the functions of humour in

fiction has been neglected, which can be attributed to the reasons enumerated above of why

sitcoms were claimed to be unworthy of scientific investigation. What has been noted in the

analysis of those functionalist writings was that the solidarity function was discerned in most

of the studies. This squarely coincided with the principal function of humour, i.e. to amuse,

since through one’s intention to amuse and entertain others, a communicator may also intend

to boost cohesion, notwithstanding achieving other effects of the opposite nature. In other

words, humour was established to be of a dual nature, where the solidarity function did not

preclude disaffiliation. All those classifications provided a starting point for the analysis of

language in sitcom discourse, as it anchored my studies with previous research, nevertheless, a

possibility of teasing out functions specific to fictional discourse was never ignored.

Chapter V presented the results of the analysis of the conversational segments gathered

from the sitcom. Instead of having regarded humour as serving one function at a time, it was

construed as a multifunctional instrument capable of fulfilling contrasting goals, that is

solidifying and jeopardising positive relations. Given the fact that the crux of the matter was

the viewer’s judgment concerning possible effects of humour upon him/ her, some functions

that had been proposed in the literature needed to be adjusted to suit on-screen dialogues. For

example, it was assumed that the television production crew would be highly unlikely to foster

a conflictive situation with the viewers. As a result, the conflict-based functions are exploited

Conclusions

- 278 -

in such a way that the recipient is shown how conflict and tension can be dissolved in a

conversation. The results were presented in the form of a taxonomy, whose initial division was

into three groups: affiliative humour fulfilling solidarity functions, disaffiliative humour

serving power functions and humour performing psychological functions, which gave rise to

cognitive benefits. The intention behind offering a classification was to present the totality of

the functions in the sitcom. Furthermore, the functions enumerated in each main group may

overlap with those from another group. Such was, for instance, the case of the function

“showing off”, which was categorised to a “cognitive benefit group”, while at the same being

equally suitable for inclusion in the other groups.

My research substantiated many of the proposals advanced in the functionalist studies

summarised in Chapter IV. In particular, humour could be used as frequently with a view to

promoting solidarity and cohesion as to exercising power and authority, the two extremes of

which were not mutually exclusive. As a consequence, the audiences were granted the

possibility to react freely to the humour in the sitcom, that is to feel as part of in-group formed

by the Pritchett-Tucker-Dunphy clan (solidarity functions), or out-group (power functions). The

approach adopted here to mark various meanings in one unit enabled the researcher to compile

a list of possible assumptions gleaned by the audience. In other words, the present analysis

featured humour as a carrier of various meanings in sitcom discourse.

One of the significant findings to emerge from the bottom-up qualitative analysis was a

host of novel functions served by means of humour on the recipient’s part. Those new effects

encompassed the functions of disclosing character-specific information, metalinguistic

function, providing a linguistic and non-linguistic play and providing a cultural reference. To

recapitulate the gist of the new functions, the function of disclosing character-specific

information was assigned when a fictional character granted access to his/ her beliefs to the

viewers and sometimes other co-conversationalists. Providing a (non)linguistic play was a

result of the general mechanism of incongruity, which may hinge upon language and other

disparities, such as behaviour, actions, system of beliefs. The providing a cultural reference

function was marked when the viewer’s cultural knowledge was strengthened or revised, where

cultural reference was assigned a broader meaning to include not only stereotypical information

but also knowledge of cultural artefacts. The metalinguistic humour function was the one where

the fictional characters “advised” others how to use the English language.

As regards the newly discovered effects, the claim can be put forth that they may be

extrapolated to any sitcom. Situation comedies are frequently characterised in terms of their

“cultural overload” and thus the providing a cultural reference function would always be

Conclusions

- 279 -

assigned. Furthermore, it was shown that providing a cultural reference could be coupled with

other functions, such as providing a linguistic and non-linguistic play, the presence of which

was tightly connected with incongruity, being a universal mechanism responsible for comic

effects. Consequently, the recipient’s recognition that there is some play is likely to occur in

other sitcoms. In addition, any fictional character may self-disclose while uttering a turn, which

may provide information about his/ her system of beliefs.

The present research has also revealed that there are many questions in need of further

investigation. The first strand of research that seems legitimate is the comparative analysis of

natural conversation and fictional one. It would be interesting to examine whether the newly

proposed functions communicated by dint of humour in fictional discourse are also present in

natural discourse, which would help to gain an invaluable insight into the effects that humour

may have upon communication.

Other possible areas of future research would be the branches of socially-oriented macro-

pragmatics, viz. sociopragmatics, cultural pragmatics, cross- and inter-cultural pragmatics,

which is premised on the abovementioned assumption that humour in sitcoms draws upon

cultural context. Such studies, among others, could determine variations in the reception of

humorous units among representatives of different cultures speaking distinct languages. It

would then be possible to expound on sociocultural factors and cultural assumptions that either

facilitate or constrain the intended comprehension process.

References

Abelson, Robert P. 1981. “Psychological Status of the Script Concept.” American Psychologist 36

(7): 715-729.

Alden, Dana L, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D. Hoyer. 2000. “Extending a Contrast Resolution

Model of Humor in Television Advertising: The Role of Surprise.” Humor 13 (2): 193-217.

Alexander, Richard J. 1997. Aspects of Verbal Humour in English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Antonopoulou, Eleni and Maria Sifianou. 2003. “Conversational Dynamics of Humour: The

Telephone Game in Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (5): 741-769.

Apte, Mahadev L. 1985. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, London:

Cornell University Press.

———. 1988. “Disciplinary Boundaries in Humorology: An Anthropologist’s Ruminations.” Humor

1 (1): 5-25.

Apter, Michael J. 1982. The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals.

London: Academic Press.

Archakis, Argiris and Villy Tsakona. 2005. “Analyzing Conversational Data in GTVH Terms: A New

Approach to The issue of Identity Construction via Humor.” Humor 18 (1): 41-68.

Attardo, Salvatore. 1990. “The Violation of Grice’s Maxims in Jokes.” In Proceedings of the 16th

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by Kira Hall, Michael Meacham and

Richard Shapiro, 355-362. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

———. 1993. “Violation in Conversational Maxims and Cooperation: The case of Jokes.” Journal

of Pragmatics 19 (6): 532-558.

———. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton.

———. 1996. “Humor Theory beyond Jokes: The Treatment of Humorous Texts at Large.” In

Automatic Interpretation and Generation of Verbal Humor, edited by Joris Hulstijn and Anton

Nijholt, 87-101. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.

———. 1997. “The Semantic Foundations of Cognitive Theories of Humor.” Humor 10 (4): 395-420.

———. 2001a. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. New York, NY: Mouton de

Gruyter.

———. 2001b. “Humor.” In Discursive Pragmatics, edited by Jan Zienkowski, Jan Östman and Jef

Verschueren, 135-155. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2002. “Cognitive Stylistics of Humorous Texts.” In Cognitive Stylistics: Language and

Cognitive in Text Analysis, edited by Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper, 231-250.

Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2008a. “A Primer for the Linguistics of Humor.” In The Primer for Humor Research, edited

Victor Raskin, 101-155. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

———. 2008b. “Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (6):

1203-1215.

———. 2015. “Humorous Metaphors.” In Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research, edited by

Brône Geert, Kurt Feyaerts and Tony Veale, 91-110. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter .

———. 2017. “Humor and Pragmatics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, edited

by Salvatore Attardo, 174-188. New York, London: Routledge.

References

- 281 -

Attardo, Salvatore and Jean-Charles Chabanne. 1992. “Jokes as a Text Type.” Humor 5 (1/2): 165-

-176.

Attardo, Salvatore and Victor Raskin. 1991. “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke

Representation Model.” Humor 4 (3/4): 293-347.

Attardo, Salvatore, Donalee Hughes Attardo, Paul Baltes and Marnie Jo Petray. 1994. “The Linear

Organization of Jokes: Analysis of Two Thousand Texts.” Humor 7 (1): 27-54.

Attardo, Salvatore, Christian F. Hempelmann and Sara Di Maio. 2002. “Script Oppositions and

Logical Mechanisms: Modeling Incongruities and their Resolutions.” Humor 15 (1): 3-46.

Bartlett, Frederick C. 1932 [1995]. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bateson, Gregory. 1952 [2003/ 2016]. “The Position of Humor in Human Communication.” In

Cybernetics: The Macy Conferences 1946-1953, edited by Claus Pias, 541-574. Berlin-Zurich:

Diaphanes.

———. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to Man’s Understanding of

Himself. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bednarek, Monika A. 2005. “Frames Revisited–The Coherence-Inducing Function of Frames.”

Journal of Pragmatics 37 (5): 685-705.

———. 2010. The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London & New York:

Continuum.

Berger, Arthur Asa. 1993. An Anatomy of Humor. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.

Berger, Peter L. 1997. Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience. Berlin

& New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Bergson, Henri. 1905 [2010]. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. Digireads.com

Publishing.

Berlyne, Daniel E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

———.1969. “Laughter, Humor, and Play.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 3, edited

by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, 795-852. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

———. 1972. “Humor and Its Kin.” In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and

Empirical Issues, edited by Jeffrey Goldstein and Paul E. McGhee, 43-60. New York:

Academic Press.

Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language in Society 13 (2): 145-204.

———. 1991. The Language of News Media. Oxford, Malden: Blackwell.

———. 2001. “Back in Style: Reworking Audience Design.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation,

edited by Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 139-169. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Biegajło, Magdalena. 2011. “A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Humour: A Pragmatic Study of

Selected Types of Jokes.” MA thesis, Uniwersytet Warszawski.

———. 2013. “Relevance at the Centre of Humorous Communication: On Finding the Conceptual

Tools which Carry Explanatory Power in the Model of the Comprehension of Jokes.” Acta

Philologica 44: 31-41.

———. 2014. “”From which Position should I Get this Joke?!” A Relevance-Driven Joke

Interpretation: Naive Optimism, Cautious Optimism, Sophisticated Understanding?”

International Studies in Humour 3 (1): 2-14.

Billig, Michael. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage

Publications.

Binsted, Kim and Graeme Ritchie. 2001. “Towards a Model of Story Puns.” Humor 14 (3): 275-292.

References

- 282 -

Booth-Butterfield, Steven and Melanie Booth-Butterfield. 1991. “Individual Differences in the

Communication of Humorous Messages.” Southern Communication Journal 56 (3): 205-218.

Boxer, Diana and Florencia Cortés-Conde. 1997. “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking

and Identity Display.” Journal of Pragmatics 27 (3): 275-294.

Brock, Alexander. 2011. “Bumcivillian: Systematic Aspects of Humorous Communciation in

Comedies.” In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Langauge of Films and Television

Series, edited by Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek and Fabio Rossi, 263-280. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2015. “Participation Frameworks and Participation in Televised Sitcom, Candid Camera and

Stand-up Comedy.” In Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions, edited by Marta

Dynel and Jan Chovanec, 27-47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978 [1987]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brône, Geert and Kurt Feyaerts. 2004. “Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A View from Cognitive

Linguistics.” Humor 17 (4): 361-372.

Bubel, Claudia. 2006. “The Linguistic Construction of Character Relations in TV Drama: Doing

Friendship in Sex and the City.” PhD diss., Universitat des Saarlandes Saarbrucken.

———. 2008. “Film Audiences as Overhearers.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (1): 55-71.

———. 2011. “Relationship Impression Formation: How Viewers Know People on the Screen are

Friends.” In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television

Series, edited by Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek, Fabio Rossi, 225-247.

Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Butler, Jeremy G. 2010. Television Style. New York, London: Routledge.

Canestrari, Carla. 2010. “Meta-Communicative Signals and Humorous Verbal Interchanges: A Case

Study.” Humor 23 (3): 327-349.

Canestrari, Carla and Ivana Bianchi. 2013. “From Perception of Contraries to Humorous

Incongruities.” In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, edited by Marta Dynel, 3-24.


Carrell, Amy. 1997. “Humor Communities.” Humor 10 (1): 11-24.

———. 2009. “Historical Views on Humor.” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by Victor

Raskin, 303-332. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Carston, Robyn. 1988. “Implicature, Explicature and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” In Mental

Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, edited by Ruth Kempson, 155-

-181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford,

Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

———. 2004. “Relevance Theory and the Saying/ Implicating Distinction.” In The Handbook of

Pragmatics, edited by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 633-656. Oxford: Blackwell.

Casey, Bernadette, Neil Casey, Ben Calvert, Liam French, and Justin Lewis. 2002. Television Studies:

The Key Concepts. London & New York: Routledge.

Chafe, Wallace. 1977. “Creativity in Verbalization and its Implication for the Nature of Stored

Knowledge.” In Discourse Production and Comprehension, edited by Roy O. Freedle, 41-56.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

———. 2007. The Importance of not being Earnest: The Feeling behind Laughter and Humor.


Chiaro, Delia. 1992. The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London, New York: Routledge.

References

- 283 -

Chłopicki, Władysław. 1987. “An Application of the Script Theory of Semantics to the Analysis of

Selected Polish Humorous Short Stories.” M.A. thesis, Purdue University.

———. 1997. “An Approach to the Analysis of Verbal Humor in Short Stories.” Humor 10 (3): 333-

-347.

Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press & Center

for the Study of Language and Information

———. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson. 1992. “Hearers and Speech Acts.” In Arenas of Language

Use, Herbert H. Clark, 205-247. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press & Center for the

Study of Language and Information.

Clark, Herbert H. and Edward F. Schaefer. 1992. “Dealing with Overhearers.” In Arenas of Language

Use, Herbert H. Clark, 248-273. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press & Center for the

Study of Language and Information.

Coates, Jennifer. 2007. “Talk in a Play Frame: More on Laughter and Intimacy.” Journal of

Pragmatics 39 (1): 29-49.

Crawford, Mary. 2003. “Gender and Humor in Social Context.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9): 1413-

-1430.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3):

349-367.

———. 1998. “(Im)Politeness in Dramatic Dialogue.” In Exploring the Language of Drama: From

Text to Context, edited by Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short and Peter Verdonk, 83-95. London

and New York: Routledge.

———. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.”

Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 35-72.

Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield and Anne Wichmann. 2003. “Impoliteness Revisited: With

Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10-11): 1545-

-1579.

Cundall, Michael K. Jr. 2007. “Humor and the Limits of Incongruity.” Creativity Research Journal

19 (2-3): 203-211.

Curcó, Carmen. 1995. “Some Observations on the Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations.

A Relevance Theoretic Approach.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 27-47.

———.1996a. “The Implicit Expression of Attitudes, Mutual Manifestness, and Verbal Humour.”

UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 89-99.

———. 1996b. “Relevance Theory and Humorous Interpretations.” In Automatic Interpretation and

Generation of Verbal Humor, edited by Joris Hulstijn and Anton Nijholt, 53-68. Enschede,

Netherlands: University of Twente.

———.1997. “The Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations. A Relevance Theoretic Approach.” PhD

diss., University College London.

Dalton, Mary M. and Laura R. Linder, eds. 2005. The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

———. 2016. The Sitcom Reader: America Re-viewed, Still Skewed. New York: State University of

New York Press.

Davies, Catherine Evans. 2003. “How English-Learners Joke with Native Speakers: An Interactional

Sociolinguistic Perspective on Humor as Collaborative Discourse across Cultures.” Journal of

Pragmatics 35 (9): 1361-1385.

Davies, Christie. 1996. Ethnic Humor around the World: A Comparative Analysis. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

References

- 284 -

———. 2004. “Victor Raskin on Jokes.” Humor 17 (4): 373-380.

———. 2011. “Logical Mechanisms: A Critique.” Humor 24 (2): 159-165.

Davis, Murray S. 1993. What’s so Funny? The Comic Conception of Culture and Society. Chicago,

London: The University of Chicago Press.

Deckers, Lambert. 1993. “On the Validity of a Weight-Judging Paradigm for the Study of Humor.”

Humor 6 (1): 43-56.

Deckers, Lambert and Robert Thayer Buttram. 1990. “Humor as a Response to Incongruities within

and between Schemata.” Humor 3 (1): 53-64.

De Palma, Paul and E. Judith Weiner. 1992. “Riddles: Accessibility and Knowledge Representation.”

Proceedings of COLING ’92: 1121-1125.

Dolitsky, Marlene. 1992. “Aspects of the Unsaid in Humor.” Humor 5 (1-2): 33-43.

Douglas, Mary. 1968. “The Social Control of Cognition: Some Factors in Joke Perception.” Man 3

(3): 361-376

Dynel, Marta. 2008. “There is Method in the Humorous Speaker’s Madness: Humour and Grice’s

Model.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1): 159-185.

———. 2009a. Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study. Newcastle: Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

———. 2009b. “Beyond a Joke: Types of Conversational Humour.” Language and Linguistics

Compass. Semantics and Pragmatics 3/5: 1284-1299.

———. 2010a. “Not Hearing Things – Hearer/ Listener Categories in Polylogues.” medi-Azioni 9.

http://www.mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it/images/stories/PDF_folder/

documentpdf/2010/dynel_2010.pdf (accessed 1 September 2017).

———. 2010b. “How do Puns Bear Relevance?” In Relevance Studies in Poland. Exploring

Translation and Communication Problems, edited by Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Agnieszka

Piskorska and Ewa Wałaszewska, 105-124. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.

———. 2011a. “Blending the Incongruity-Resolution Model and the Conceptual Integration Theory:

The Case of Blends in Pictorial Advertising.” International Review of Pragmatics 3 (1): 59-83.

———. 2011b. “Revisiting Goffman’s Postulates on Participant Statuses in Verbal Interaction.”

Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7: 454-465.

———. 2011c. “Stranger than Fiction? A Few Methodological Notes on Linguistic Research in Film

Discourse.” Brno Studies in English 37 (1): 41-61.

———. 2011d. ““You Talking to me?” The Viewer as a Ratified Listener to Film Discourse.” Journal

of Pragmatics 43 (6): 1628-1644.

———. 2011e. “”I’ll be There for you!” On Participation-Based Sitcom Humour.” In The Pragmatics

of Humour across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 311-333. Amsterdam/


———. 2011f. “Joker in the Pack: Towards Determining the Status of Humorous Framing in

Conversations.” In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta

Dynel, 217-241. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2011g. “Entertaining and Enraging: The Functions of Verbal Violence in Broadcast Political

Debates.” In Studies in Political Humour: In between Political Critique and Public

Entertainment, edited by Villy Tsakona and Diana Elena Popa, 109-133. Amsterdam/


———. 2012a. “Garden-Paths, Red Lights and Crossroads: On Finding our Way to Understanding

the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Jokes.” Israeli Journal of Humor Research: An

International Journal 1 (1): 6-28.

References

- 285 -

———. 2012b. “What RT Cannot Do, IR Can – On the Incremental Interpretation of Jokes in

(Non)Relevance-Theoretic Terms.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, edited by

Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 147-166. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

———. 2012c. “Setting our House in Order: The Workings of Impoliteness in Multi-Party Film

Discourse.” Journal of Politeness Research 8 (2): 161-194.

———. 2013a. “Impoliteness as Disaffiliative Humour in Film Talk.” In Developments in Linguistic

Humour Theory, edited by Marta Dynel, 105-144. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

———. 2013b. “Humorous Phenomena in Dramatic Discourse.” European Journal of Humor

Research 1 (1): 22-60.

———. 2014. “Isn’t it Ironic? Defining the Scope of Humorous Irony.” Humor 27 (4): 619-639.

———. 2015. “Impoliteness in the Service of Verisimilitude in Film Interaction.” In Participation in

Public and Social Media Interaction, edited by Marta Dynel and Jan Chovanec, 157-182.


———. 2016a. “Pejoration via Sarcastic Irony and Sarcasm.” In Pejoration, edited by Rita

Finkenbeiner, Jörg Meibauer and Heike Wiese, 219-239. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2016b. “Conceptualizing Conversational Humour as (Im)Politeness: The Case of Film Talk.”

Journal of Politeness Research 12 (1): 117-147.

———. 2018. Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert

Untruthfulness. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, Gabriella. 1990. “Tamil Jokes and the Polythetic-Prototype Approach to

Humor.” Humor 3 (2): 147-158.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. and Martin D. Lampert. 2009. “The Occasioning of Self-Disclosure Humor.”

In Humor in Interaction, edited by Neal R. Norrick and Delia Chiaro, 3-27. Amsterdam/


Ferguson, Mark A. and Thomas E. Ford. 2008. “Disparagement Humor: A Theoretical and Empirical

Review of Psychoanalytic, Superiority, and Social Identity Theories.” Humor 21 (3): 283-312.

Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “”Minister, we will See how the Public Judges you.”: Media References in

Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180-195.

Feuer, Jane. 2001. “Situation Comedy, Part 2.” In The Television Genre Book, edited by Glen Creeber,

67-70. London: British Film Institute.

Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1992. “Cognitive Aspects of the Humor Process: The Concept of

Incongruity.” Humor 5 (1-2): 45-68.

———. 2008. “Is the Concept of Incongruity Still a Useful Construct for the Advancement of Humor

Research?” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1): 45-62.

Fredrickson, Barbara. 1998. “What Good are Positive Emotions?” Review of General Psychology 2

(3): 300-319.

———. 2001. “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build

Theory of Positive Emotions.” American Psychologist 56 (3): 218-226.

———. 2004. “The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B 359 (1449): 1367-1377.

———. 2009. Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the Hidden Strength

of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity, and Thrive. New York: Crown Publishers.

Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Christine Branigan. 2005. “Positive Emotions Broaden the Scope of

Attention and Thought-Action Repertoires.” Cognition and Emotion 19 (3): 313-332.

References

- 286 -

Fredrickson, Barbara L., Roberta A. Mancuso, Christine Branigan, and Michele M. Tugade. 2000.

“The Undoing Effect of Positive Emotions.” Motivation and Emotion 24 (4): 237-258.

Freud, Sigmund. 1905 [1976]. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Translated and edited by

James Strachey. Penguin Books.

Fry, William F. 1963. Sweet Madness: A Study of Humor. New Brunswick, London: Transaction

Publishers.

Furlong, Anne. 1995. “Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation.” PhD diss., University College

London.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1989. “Understanding and Literal Meaning.” Cognitive Science 13 (2): 243-251.

Gibson, Janet M. 2019. An Introduction to the Psychology of Humor. London & New York:

Routledge.

Giles, David C. 2002. “Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future

Research.” Media Psychology 4 (3): 279-305.

Giora, Rachel. 1988. “On the Informativeness Requirement.” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (5-6): 547-

-565.

———. 1991. “On the Cognitive Aspects of the Joke.” Journal of Pragmatics 16 (5): 465-485.

———. 1997. “Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis.”

Cognitive Linguistics 8 (3): 183-206.

———. 1998. “When is Relevance? On the Role of Salience in Utterance Interpretation.” Revista

Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 85-94.

———. 1999. “On the Priority of Salient Meanings: Studies of Literal and Figurative Language.”


———. 2002. “Literal vs. Figurative Language: Different or Equal?” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (4):

487-506.

———. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

———. 2011. “Will Anticipating Irony Facilitate it Immediately?” In The Pragmatics of Humour

across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 19-31. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


Giora, Rachel and Ofer Fein. 1999a. “Irony: Context and Salience.” Metaphor and Symbol 14 (4):

241-257.

———. 1999b. “On Understanding Familiar and Less-Familiar Figurative Language.” Journal of

Pragmatics 31 (12): 1601-1618.

Glenn, Phillip. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goatly, Andrew. 2012. Meaning and Humour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings.

New York: The Free Press.

———. 1964. “The Neglected Situation.” American Anthropologist 66 (6): 133-136.

———. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and

Row.

———. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Graham, Elizabeth E., Michael J. Papa and Gordon P. Brooks. 1992. “Functions of Humor in

Conversation: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Western Journal of Communication 56

(2): 161-183.

Gregory, J.C. 1924. The Nature of Laughter. London: Routledge.

Grice, Paul H. 1957. “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377-388.

References

- 287 -

———. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts, edited by

Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41-59. New York: Academic.

———. 1978. “Further notes on logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9, edited by

Peter Cole, 113-127. New York: Academic Press.

———.1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grotjahn, Martin. 1957. Beyond Laughter: Humor and the Subconscious. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Gruner, Charles R. 1978. Understanding Laughter: The Working of Wit and Humor. Chicago: Nelson-

-Hall.

———. 1997. The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why We Laugh. New Brunswick

& London: Transaction Publishers.

Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1992. “Contextualization and Understanding.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an

Interactive Phenomenon, edited by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 229-252.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Habib, Rania. 2008. “Humor and Disagreement: Identity Construction and Cross-Cultural Enrichment.”

Journal of Pragmatics 40 (6): 1117-1145

Haddad, Jay N. 1973. “A Vicarious Superiority Theory of Humour: Membership vs. Reference

Groups and Identification Classes.” MA thesis, University of Windsor.

Hartley, John. 2001. “Situation Comedy, Part 1.” In The Television Genre Book, edited by Glen

Creeber, 65-67. London: British Film Institute.

Haugh, Michael. 2016. “”Just Kidding”: Teasing and Claims to Non-Serious Intent.” Journal of

Pragmatics 95: 120-136.

Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield. 2012. “Mock Impoliteness, Jocular Mockery and Jocular

Abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (9): 1099-1114.

Hay, Jennifer. 1995. “Gender and Humour: Beyond a Joke.” MA thesis, Victoria University of

Wellington.

———. 2000. “Functions of Humor in the Conversations of Men and Women.” Journal of

Pragmatics 32 (6): 709-742.

———. 2001. “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” Humor 14 (1): 55-82.

Hempelmann, Christian F. 2004. “Script Opposition and Logical Mechanism in Punning.” Humor

17 (4): 381-392.

Hempelmann, Christian F. and Salvatore Attardo. 2011. “Resolutions and their Incongruities: Further

Thoughts on Logical Mechanisms.” Humor 24 (2): 125-149.

Hempelmann, Christian F. and Willibald Ruch. 2005. “3 WD Meets GTVH: Breaking the Ground for

Interdisciplinary Humor Research.” Humor 18 (4): 353-387.

Higashimori, Isao. 2008. “New Perspectives on Understanding Jokes: A Relevance-Theoretic

Account.” 龍谷大學論集 471: 52-69.

Hight, Craig. 2012. “Experiments in Parody and Satire: Short-Form Mockumentary Series.” In Too

Bold for the Box Office: The Mockumentary from Big Screen to Small, edited by Cynthia J.

Miller, 73- 90. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press.

Hobbs, Pamela. 2007. “Judges’ Use of Humor as a Social Corrective.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (1):

50-68.

Hockett, Charles. 1972 [1977]. “Jokes.” In The View from Language: Selected Essays 1948-1974,

257-289. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Holland, Norman N. 1982. Laughing: A Psychology of Humor. Ithaca & London: Cornell University

Press.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Grotjahn%2C+Martin&cm_sp=det-_-bdp-_-author

References

- 288 -

Holmes, Janet. 2000. “Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the

Workplace.” Discourse Studies 2 (2): 159-185.

———. 2006. “Sharing a Laugh: Pragmatic Aspects of Humor and Gender in the Workplace.”


Holmes, Janet and Jennifer Hay.1997. “Humour as an Ethnic Boundary Marker in New Zealand

Interaction.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 18 (2): 127-151.

Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002a. “Over the Edge? Subversive Humor between Colleagues

and Friends.” Humor 15 (1): 65-87.

———. 2002b. “Having a Laugh at Work: How Humour Contributes to Workplace Culture.” Journal

of Pragmatics 34 (12): 1683-1710.

———. 2006. “Humor and Leadership Style.” Humor 19 (2): 119-138.

Horton, Andrew S., ed. 1991. Comedy/ Cinema/ Theory. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University

of California Press.

Hu, Shuqin. 2012. “An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatics Perspectives.”

Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (6): 1185-1190.

———. 2013. “A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of Verbal Humor in The Big Bang Theory.” Studies

in Literature and Language 7 (1): 10-14.

Huisman, Rosemary. 2005. „Aspects of Narrative in Series and Serials.” In Narrative and Media,

edited by Helen Fulton, Rosemary Huisman, Julian Murphet and Anne Dunn, 153-171.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hurley, Matthew M., Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams Jr. 2011. Inside Jokes: Using Humor

to Reverse-Engineer the Mind. London, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1972. “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” In Directions in

Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by John J. Gumperz and Dell

Hymes, 35-71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

———. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Tavistock

Publications.

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, edited

by Thomas Sebeok, 350-377. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Jefferson, Gail. 1979. “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance

Declination.” In Everyday Language. Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited by George Psathas,

79-96. New York, NY: Irvington.

Jodłowiec, Maria. 1991a. “What Makes Jokes Tick.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 241-253.

———. 1991b. “The Role of Relevance in the Interpretation of Verbal Jokes: A Pragmatic Analysis.”

PhD diss., Jagiellonian University.

———. 2008. “What‘s in the Punchline?” In Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives on Language,

Translation and Relevance Theory, edited by Ewa Wałaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk,

Aniela Korzeniowska and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska, 67-86. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

———. 2015. The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication: A Relevance-Theoretic

Approach. Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.

Jones, Gerard. 1992. Honey, I’m Home! Sitcoms: Selling the American Dream. New York: Grove

Weidenfeld.

Jorgensen, Julia. 1996. “The Functions of Sarcastic Irony in Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 26 (5):

613-634.

Kaczorowski, Maciej. 2011. “Parody in the Light of the Incongruity-Resolution Model: The Case of

Political Sketches by Monty Python’s Flying Circus.” In The Pragmatics of Humour across

References

- 289 -

Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 291-308. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


Keith-Spiegel, Patricia. 1972. “Early Conceptions of Humor: Varieties and Issues.” In The

Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, edited by Jeffrey H.

Goldstein and Paul E. McGhee, 3-39. New York: Academic Press.

Knox, Israel. 1951. “Towards a Philosophy of Humor.” Journal of Philosophy 48 (18): 541-548.

Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson.

Kornhaber, Spencer. 2015. “The Modern Family Effect: Pop Culture’s Role in the Gay-Marriage

Revolution.” The Atlantic, June 26, 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/

archive/2015/06/gay-marriage-legalized-modern-family-pop-culture/397013/.

Korostenskiene, Julija and Aurelija Lieponyte. 2018. “Funny as It May Be: Humour in the American

Sitcoms I Love Lucy and Modern Family.” Studies about Language 33: 57-73.

Kosińska, Katarzyna. 2008a. “Conversational Humour: Its Functions and Uptake in Discourse.

A Data-Based Study.” PhD diss., University of Warsaw.

———. 2008b. “Conversational Humour as a Power Game.” In Relevant Worlds: Current Perspectives

on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, edited by Ewa Wałaszewska, Marta

Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska and Małgorzata Grzegorzewska, 87-104. Newcastle:

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kotthoff, Helga. 1996. “Impoliteness and Conversational Joking: On Relational Politics.” Folia

Linguistica 30 (3-4): 299-324.

———. 2000. “Gender and Joking: On the Complexities of Women’s Image Politics in Humorous

Narratives.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (1): 55-80.

———. 2006. “Pragmatics of Performance and the Analysis of Conversational Humor.” Humor 19 (3):

271-304.

Kozloff, Sarah. 2000. Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of

California Press.

Kuipers, Giselinde. 2008. “The Sociology of Humor.” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by


Kutulas, Judy. 2005. “Who Rules the Roots: Sitcom Family Dynamics from the Cleavers to the

Osbournes.” In The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, edited by Mary M. Dalton

and Laura R. Linder, 49-59. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lacey, Nick. 2000. Narrative and Genre: Key Concepts in Media Studies. Basingstoke, New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2002. Media Institutions and Audiences: Key Concepts in Media Studies. Basingstoke, New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Larkin Galiñanes, Cristina. 2000. “Relevance Theory, Humour, and the Narrative Structure of

Humorous Novels.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 13: 95-106.

Latta, Robert L. 1999. The Basic Humor Process: A Cognitive-Shift Theory and the Case against

Incongruity. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

La Fave, Lawrence. 1972. “Humor Judgments as a Function of Reference Groups and Identification

Classes.” In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, edited

by Jeffrey H. Goldstein and Paul E. McGhee, 195-210. New York, London: Academic Press.

———. 1977. “Ethnic Humour: From Paradoxes towards Principles.” In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour,

edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 237-260. Oxford, New York, Toronto,

Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

La Fave, Lawrence, Jay Haddad and William A. Maesen. 1976. “Superiority, Enhanced Self-Esteem,

and Perceived Incongruity Humour Theory.” In Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research and

Applications, edited by Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 63-91. London: Wiley.

References

- 290 -

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

Levinson, Stephen. 1988. “Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman’s

Participation Framework.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, edited by Paul

Drew and Anthony Wootton, 161-227. Cambridge: Polity Press.

———. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.

Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Linder, Laura R. 2005. “From Ozzie to Ozzy: The Reassuring Nonevolution of the Sitcom Family.”

In The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura R.

Linder, 61-71. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ma, Zejun and Man Jiang. 2013. “Interpretation of Verbal Humor in the Sitcom The Big Bang Theory

from the Perspective of Adaptation-Relevance Theory.” Theory and Practice in Language

Studies 3 (12): 2220-2226.

Maier, Norman R.F. 1932. “A Gestalt Theory of Humour.” British Journal of Psychology 23 (1): 69-

74.

Marc, David. [1989] 1997. Comic Visions: Television Comedy and American Culture. New York:

Blackwell.

———. 2005. “Origins of the Genre: In Search of the Radio Sitcom.” In The Sitcom Reader: America

Viewed and Skewed, edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura R. Linder, 15-24. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Martin, Rod A. 1998. “Approaches to the Sense of Humor: A Historical Review.” In The Sense of

Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic, edited by Willibald Ruch, 15-60. Berlin,

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

———. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier

Academic Press.

Martineau, William H. 1972. “A Model of the Social Functions of Humor.” In The Psychology of

Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein and Paul

E. McGhee, 101-125. New York, London: Academic Press.

Martínez Sierra, Juan José. 2009. “The Relevance of Humour in Audio Description.” Intralinea 11.

http://www.intralinea.org/archive/article/1653.

Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber. 2009. “The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of

Children’s Vigilance towards Deception.” Cognition 112 (3): 367-380.

Mateo, José and Francisco Yus. 2000. “Insults: A Relevance-Theoretic Taxonomical Approach to

their Translation.” International Journal of Translation 12 (1): 97-130.

———. 2013. “Towards a Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Taxonomy of Insults.” Journal of Language

Aggression and Conflict 1 (1): 87-114.

Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. “‘Optimal Relevance’ as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic

Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20-45.

Mazzone, Marco. 2015. “Pragmatics and Mindreading: Forward and Backward Inferences in Shared

Intentional Contexts.” Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (3): 289-307.

———. 2018. Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Inferences, Consciousness. Boston, Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

McGhee, Paul E. 1972. “On the Cognitive Origins of Incongruity Humor: Fantasy Assimilation versus

Reality Assimilation.” In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical

Issues, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein and Paul E. McGhee, 61-80. New York, London: Academic

Press.

———. 1977. “A Model of the Origins and Early Development of Incongruity-Based Humour.”

In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour, edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 27-36. Oxford,

New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

References

- 291 -

———. 1979. Humor, Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

McKeown, Gary. 2017. “Humor as an Ostensive Challenge that Displays Mind-Reading Ability.”

In Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions, edited by Norbert Streitz and Panos

Markopoulos, 627-639. Berlin: Springer.

Messerli, Thomas C. 2016. “Extradiegetic and Character Laughter as Markers of Humorous

Intentions in the Sitcom 2 Broke Girls.” Journal of Pragmatics 95: 79-92.

———. 2017a. “Sitcom Humour as Ventriloquism.” Lingua 197:16-33.

———. 2017b. “Participation Structure in Fctional Discourse: Authors, Scriptwriters, Audiences and

Characters.” In Pragmatics of Fiction, edited by Miriam A. Locher and Andreas H. Jucker, 25-

54. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Meyer, John C. 2000. “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in

Communication.” Communication Theory 10 (3): 310-331.

———. 2015. Understanding Humor through Communication: Why be Funny Anyway? Lanham,

Boulder, New York, London: Lexington Books.

Mills, Brett. 2005. Television Sitcom. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

———. 2009. The Sitcom. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Milner, George B. 1972. “Homo Ridens. Towards a Semiotic Theory of Humour and Laughter.”

Semiotica 5 (1): 1-30.

Mindess, Harvey. 1971. Laughter and Liberation. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.

Minsky, Marvin. 1975 [1980]. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In Frame Conceptions

and Text Understanding, edited by Dieter Metzing, 1-25. Berlin & New York: Walter de

Gruyter.

Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-Propositional Effects: Can a Theory

of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science

Information 48 (3): 447-464.

Monro, David H. 1951 [1963]. Argument of Laughter. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mooney, Annabelle. 2004. “Co-operation, Violations and Making Sense.” Journal of Pragmatics 36

(5): 899-920.

Morreale, Joanne. 2003. Critiquing the Sitcom: A Reader. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Morreall, John. 1983. Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York.

———. 1987. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State University of New York Pres.

———. 1989. “Enjoying Incongruity.” Humor 2 (1): 1-18.

———. 1997. Humor Works. Amherst, Massachusetts: HRD Press, Inc.

———. 2008. “Philosophy and Religion.” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by Victor

Raskin, 211-242. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

———. 2009. Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mulkay, Michael. 1988. On Humor: Its Nature and its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Basil

Blackwell Inc.

Nash, Walter. 1985. The Language of Humour: Style and Technique in Comic Discourse. London,

New York: Longman.

Neale, Steve and Frank Krutnik. 1990. Popular Film and Television Comedy. London, New York:

Routledge.

Nerhardt, Göran. 1970. “Humor and Inclination to Laugh: Emotional Reactions to Stimuli of Different

Divergence from a Range of Expectancy.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 11 (1): 185-195.

References

- 292 -

———. 1977. “Operationalization of Incongruity in Humour Research: A Critique and Suggestions.”

In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour, edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 47-51. Oxford,

New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

Norrick, Neal R. 1986. “A Frame-Theoretical Analysis of Verbal Humor: Bisociation as Conflict

Schema.” Semiotica 60 (3-4): 225-245.

———. 1987. “From Wit to Comedy: Bisociation and Intertextuality.” Semiotica 67 (1-2): 113-125.

———. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

———. 1994. “Involvement and Joking in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 22 (3-4): 409-430.

———. 2001. “On the Conversational Performance of Narrative Jokes: Toward an Account of

Timing.” Humor 14 (3): 255-274.

———. 2003. “Issues in Conversational Joking.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9): 1333-1359.

———. 2004. “Non-Verbal Humor and Joke Performance.” Humor 17(4): 401-409.

———. 2010. “Humor in Interaction.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4 (4): 232-244.

Norrick, Neal R. and Claudia Bubel. 2009. “Direct Address as a Resource for Humor.” In Humor in

Interaction, edited by Neal R. Norrick and Delia Chiaro, 29-47. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


Norrick, Neal R. and Delia Chiaro. 2009. Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John


Norrick, Neal R. and Alice Spitz. 2008. “Humor as a Resource for Mitigating Conflict in Interaction.”


O’Hara, Mary. 2016. “How Comedy Makes us Better People.” BBC, August 30, 2016.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160829-how-laughter-makes-us-better-people.

Oring, Elliott. 1989. “Between Jokes and Tales: On the Nature of Punch Lines.” Humor 2 (4): 349-364.

———. 1992. Jokes and their Relations. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

———. 1997. The Jokes of Sigmund Freud: A Study in Humor and Jewish Identity. Lanham, Boulder,

New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

———. 2003. Engaging Humor. Urbana/ Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

———. 2008. “Humor in Anthropology and Folklore.” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by


———. 2011. “Parsing the Joke: The General Theory of Verbal Humor and Appropriate

Incongruity.” Humor 24 (2): 203-222.

Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2012. “Epistemic Vigilance, Cautious Optimism and Sophisticated

Understanding.” Research in Language 10 (4): 365-386.

Palmer, Jerry. 1987. The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy. London: BFI

Publishing.

———. 1994. Taking Humour Seriously. New York, London: Routledge.

———. 2005. “Parody and Decorum: Permission to Mock.” In Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour,

edited by Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering, 79-97. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Partington, Alan. 2006. The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk.

London, New York: Routledge.

Paulos, John Allen. 1977. “The Logic of Humour and the Humour in Logic.” In It’s a Funny Thing,

Humour, edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 113-114. Oxford, New York,

Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

———.1980. Mathematics and Humor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Perks, Lisa Glebatis. 2012. “The Ancient Roots of Humor Theory.” Humor 25 (2): 119-132.

References

- 293 -

Piazza, Roberta. 1999. “Dramatic Discourse Approached from a Conversational Analysis

Perspective: Catherine Hayes’s Skirmishes and Other Contemporary Plays.” Journal of

Pragmatics 31 (8): 1001-1023.

Picone, Jack. 2014. “The Evolution of the Sitcom: The Age of the Single Camera.” New York Film

Academy, September 24, 2014. https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/evolution-sitcom-part-

2/.

Pien, Diana and Mary K. Rothbart. 1976. “Incongruity and Resolution in Children’s Humor:

A Reexamination.” Child Development 47 (4): 966-971.

Pilkington, Alan. 1989. “Poetic Effects: A Relevance Perspective.” UCL Working Papers in

Linguistics 1: 119-134.

———. 1994. “Poetic Thoughts and Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Account of the Literary Use

of Rhetorical Tropes and Schemes.” PhD diss., University College London.

———. 2000. Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


Piskorska, Agnieszka. 2005. “Can we Have a Recipe for Humour in Relevance Theory?” In

Pragmatics Today, edited by Piotr Cap, 245-254. Frankfurt and Mein: Peter Lang Publishing.

———. 2016. Po Co Rozmawiamy? O Funkcjach Komunikacji w Ujęciu Teorii Relewancji. Kraków:

Tertium.

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.

Pollio, Howard R. 1983. “Notes toward a Field Theory of Humor.” In Handbook of Humor Research,

edited by Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 213-230. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Popescu, Carmen. 2011. “Understanding Ethnic Humour in Romanian Jokes.” In The Pragmatics of

Humour across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 173-190. Amsterdam/


Provine, Robert R. 2000. Laughter: A Scientific Investigation. New York: Penguin Books.

Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation.


Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1940. “On Joking Relationships.” Africa: Journal of the International

African Institute 13 (3): 195-210.

Raney, Arthur A. 2003. “Disposition-Based Theories of Enjoyment.” In Communication and

Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman, edited by Jennings Bryant, David R. Roskos-

-Ewoldsen, and Joanne Cantor, 61-84. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Rapp, Albert. 1951. The Origins of Wit and Humor. New York: Dutton.

Raskin, Victor. 1979. “Semantic Mechanisms of Humor.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting

of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by Christine Chiarello, Henry Thompson, Farrell

Ackerman, Orin Gensler, John Kingston, Eve C. Sweetser, Anthony C. Woodbury, Kenneth

Whistler, and Jeri J. Jaeger, 325-335. Berkeley: Berkeley Lingustics Society.

———. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

———. 2011. “On Oring on GTVH.” Humor 24 (2): 223-231.

Raskin, Victor and Salvatore Attardo. 1994. “Non-Literalness and Non-Bona-Fide in Language: An

Approach to Formal and Computational Treatments of Humor.” Pragmatics and Cognition 2 (1):

31-69.

Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Respers France, Lisa. 2010. “The Evolution of the TV Family.” CNN, Septermber 1, 2010.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html.

References

- 294 -

Richardson, Kay. 2010. Television Dramatic Dialogue. A Sociolinguistic Study. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ritchie, Graeme. 1999. “Developing Incongruity-Resolution Theory.” In Proceedings of the AISB’

99 Symposium on Creative Language, published by The Society for the Study of Artificial

Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 78-85. Ediburgh: University of Edinburgh.

———. 2000. “Describing Verbally Expressed Humour.” In Proceedings of AISB’00 Symposium on

Creative and Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI and Cognitive Science, published by The

Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 71-78.

Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

———. 2002. “The Structure of Forced Reinterpretation Jokes.” In Proceedings of April Fool’s Day

Workshop on Computational Humour, edited by Oliviero Stock, Carlo Strapparava and Anton

Nijholt, 47-56. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.

———. 2004. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Routledge.

———. 2006. “Reinterpretation and Viewpoints.” Humor 19 (3): 251-270.

———. 2009. “Variants of Incongruity Resolution.” Journal of Literary Theory 3 (2): 313-332.

———. 2014. “Logic and Reasoning in Jokes.” European Journal of Humour Research 2 (1): 50-60.

Roscoe, Jane and Craig Hight. 2001. Faking It: Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality.

Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Ross, Alison. 1998. The Language of Humour. London, New York: Routledge.

Rossen-Knill, Deborah F. and Richard Henry. 1997. “The Pragmatics of Verbal Parody.” Journal of

Pragmatics 27 (6): 719-752.

Rossi, Fabio. 2011. “Discourse Analysis of Film Dialogues: Italian Comedy between Linguistic

Realism and Pragmatic Non-Realism.” In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the

Langauge of Films and Television Series, edited by Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek and

Fabio Rossi, 21-46. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rothbart, Mary K. 1973. “Laughter in Young Children.” Psychological Bulletin 80 (3): 247-256.

———. 1976. “Incongruity, Problem-Solving and Laughter.” In Humour and Laughter: Theory,

Research and Applications, edited by Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 37-54. London,

New York, Sydney, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

———. 1977. “Psychological Approaches to the Study of Humour.” In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour,

edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 87-94. Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney,

Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

Rothbart, Mary K. and Diana Pien. 1977. “Elephants and Marshmallows: A Theoretical Synthesis of

Incongruity-Resolution and Arousal Theories of Humour.” In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour,

edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 37-40. Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney,

Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

Ruch, Willibald. 1992. “Assessment of Appreciation of Humor: Studies with the 3WD Humor Test.”

In Advances in Personality Assessment, Vol. 9, edited by Charles D. Spielberger and James N.

Butcher, 27-75. New York & London: Routledge.

———. 2008. “Psychology of Humor.” In The Primer of Humor Research, edited by Victor Raskin,

17-100. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ruch, Willibald and Franz-Josef Hehl. 1998. “A Two-Mode Model of Humor Appreciation: Its

Relation to Aesthetic Appreciation and Simplicity-Complexity of Personality.” In The Sense of

Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic, edited by Willibald Ruch, 109-142.

Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ruch, Willibald, Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin. 1993. “Toward and Empirical Verification of

the General Theory of Verbal Humor.” Humor 6 (2): 123-136.

References

- 295 -

Sacks, Harvey. 1974. “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” In

Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 337-

-353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the

Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696-735.

Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959 [2011]. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Perry Meisel and Haun

Saussy. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: Columbia Unidersity Press.

Savorelli, Antonio. 2010. Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy. Jefferson,

North Carolina; London: McFarland & Company.

Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry

into Human Knowledge Structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schnurr, Stephanie. 2009. “Constructing Leader Identities through Teasing at Work.” Journal of

Pragmatics 41 (6): 1125-1138.

Schnurr, Stephanie and Janet Holmes. 2009. “Using Humor to Do Masculinity at Work.” In Humor

in Interaction, edited by Neal R. Norrick and Delia Chiaro, 101-123. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schnurr, Stephanie and Barbara Plester. 2017. “Functionalist Discourse Analysis of Humor.” In The

Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, edited by Salvatore Attardo, 309-321. New

York, London: Routledge.

Seewoester Cain, Sarah. 2013. “Giving Voice to the Studio Audience: Ratified and Dynamic

Participation Statuses in a Television Stand-up Performance.” In Developments in Linguistic

Humour Theory, edited by Marta Dynel, 145-178. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Selby, Keith and Ron Cowdery. 1995. How to Study Television. Houndmills, Basingstoke and

London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Shannon, Claude E. and Warren Weaver. 1949 [1964]. The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

Urbana: University of Illinois.

Shelley, Cameron 2003. “Plato on the Psychology of Humor.” Humor 16 (4): 351-367.

Sherzer, Joel. 1985. “Puns and Jokes.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3., edited by Teun

van Dijk, 213-221. London: Academic.

Shultz, Thomas R. 1972. “The Role of Incongruity and Resolution in Children’s Appreciation of

Cartoon Humor.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 13 (3): 456-477.

———. 1974. “Development of the Appreciation of Riddles.” Child Development 45 (1): 100-105.

———. 1976. “A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Humour.” In Humor and Laughter: Theory,

Research and Applications, edited by Anthony Chapman and Hugh Foot, 11-36. London, New

York, Sydney, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Shultz, Thomas R. and Frances Horibe. 1974. “Development of the Appreciation of Verbal Jokes.”

Developmental Psychology 10 (1): 13-20.

Sifianou, Maria. 2012. “Disagreements, Face and Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1554-

-1564.

Singh, Maanvi. 2015. “How Shows like ‘Will & Grace’ and ‘Blackish’ Can Change your Brain” NPR,

August 31, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/08/31/432294253/how-shows-

like-will-grace-and-black-ish-can-change-your-brain.

Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2013. “Decoding Encoded (Im)Politeness: “Cause on my Teasing you can

Depend.” In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, edited by Marta Dynel, 263-287.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Smith, Evan S. 2009. Writing Television Sitcoms. New York: A Perigee Book.

References

- 296 -

Smith, Patrick. 2010. “Modern Family Series 2: Creator Christopher Lloyd on why It Won an Emmy.”

The Telegraph, October 2, 2010. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8032812/

Modern-Family-series-2-creator-Christopher-Lloyd-on-why-it-won-an-Emmy.html.

Solska, Agnieszka. 2012a. “Relevance-Theoretic Comprehension Procedure and Processing Multiple

Meanings in Paradigmatic Puns.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, edited by

Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 167-182. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

———. 2012b. “The Relevance-Based Model of Context in Processing Puns.” Research in Language

10 (4): 387-404.

———. 2017. “Degrees of Punniness? A Relevance-Theoretic Account of Puns and Pun-Like

Utterances.” In From Discourse to Morphemes: Applications of Relevance Theory, edited by

Agnieszka Piskorska and Ewa Wałaszewska, 198-222. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

Sorlin, Sandrine. 2016. Language and Manipulation in House of Cards: A Pragma-Stylistic

Perspective. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Spencer, Herbert. 1865. Illustrations of Universal Progress: A Series of Discussions. New York:

D. Appleton and Company.

Sperber, Dan. 1993. “Interpreting and Explaining Cultural Representations.” In Beyond Boundaries:

Understanding, Translation and Anthropological Discourse, edited by Gísli Pálsson, 162-183.

Oxford, Providence: Berg.

———.1994. “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In What is Intelligence?, edited by Jean

Khalfa, 179-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1996. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

———. 1997. “Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs.” Mind and Language 12 (1): 67-83.

———. 2005 [2010]. “The Guru Effect.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (4): 583-592.

Sperber, Dan and Nicolas Claidière. 2008. “Defining and Explaining Culture (Comments on

Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone).” Biology and Philosophy 23 (2): 283-292.

Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi,

and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359-393.

Sperber, Dan and Lawrence Hirschfeld. 2007. “Culture and Modularity.” In The Innate Mind: Culture

and Cognition, Vol.2, edited by Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence and Stephen Stich, 149-

164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1981. “Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction.” In Radical

Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, 295-318. New York: Academic Press.

———. 1986 [1995]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.

———. 1987. “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences

10 (4): 697-754.

———. 1997a. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” UCL Working Papers

in Linguistics 9: 1-20.

———. 1997b. “Remarks on Relevance Theory and the Social Sciences.” Multilingua 16 (2-3): 145-

-151.

———. 2002. “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-reading.” Mind & Language 17 (1-2): 3-23.

———. 2008. “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor

and Thought, edited by Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., 84-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

———. 2012a. “Rhetoric and Relevance.” In Meaning and Relevance, Deirdre Wilson and Dan

Sperber, 84-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

- 297 -

———. 2012b. “Introduction: Pragmatics.” In Meaning and Relevance, Deirdre Wilson and Dan

Sperber, 1-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (2): 117-149.

Spitz, Alice. 2005. “Power Plays: The Representation of Mother-Daughter Disputes in Contemporary

Plays by Women: A Study in Discourse Analysis.” PhD diss., Universität des Saarlandes.

Staiger, Janet. 2000. Blockbuster TV: Must-See Sitcoms in the Network Era. New York, London: New

York University Press.

Staley, Rosemary and Peter Derks. 1995. “Structural Incongruity and Humor Appreciation.” Humor 8 (2):

97-134.

Streiker, Lowell. D. 1998. An Encyclopedia of Humor. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Suls, Jerry M. 1972. “A Two-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons: An

Information-Processing Analysis.” In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and

Empirical Issues, edited by Jeffrey H. Goldstein and Paul E. McGhee, 81-100. New York,

London: Academic Press.

———.1977. “Cognitive and Disparagement Theories of Humour: A Theoretical and Empirical

Synthesis.” In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour, edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot,

41-45. Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.

———. 1983. “Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation.” In Handbook of Humor Research,

Vol. 1, edited by Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 39-57. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tannen, Deborah. 1985. “Frames and Schemas in Interaction.” Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2): 326-

-335.

———. 1993. “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender

and Dominance.” In Gender and Conversational Interaction, edited by Deborah Tannen, 165-

188. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thielemann, Nadine. 2011. “Displays of “New” Gender Arrangements in Russian Jokes.” In The

Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel, 147-171.

Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Thom, René. 1975. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis: An Outline of a General Theory of

Models. London, Amsterdam: W. A. Benjamin, INC.

Tsakona, Villy. 2013. “Okras and the Metapragmatic Stereotypes of Humour: Towards an Expansion

of the GTVH.” In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, edited by Marta Dynel, 25-48.

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2017. “Genres of Humor.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, edited by

Salvatore Attardo, 489-503. New York, London: Routledge.

Tueth, Michael V. 2005. “Breaking and Entering: Transgressive Comedy on Television.” In The

Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura R. Linder,

25-34. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Vande Wiele, Héloïse. 2016. “The Loss of Poetic Effects: From Indeterminate to Conventionalised

Meaning.” Language and Literature 25 (1): 54-71.

Veale, Tony. 2004. “Incongruity in Humor: Root Cause or Epiphenomenon?” Humor 17 (4): 419-428.

Venour, Chris, Graeme Ritchie and Chris Mellish. 2011. “Dimensions of Incongruity in Register

Humour.” In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, edited by Marta Dynel,

125-144. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wagg, Stephen.1992. “You’ve Never had it so Silly: The Politics of British Satirical Comedy from

Beyond the Fringe to Spitting Image.” In Come on down? Popular Media Culture in Post-War

Britain, edited by Dominic Strinati and Stephen Wagg, 254-284. London, New York:

Routledge.

References

- 298 -

Weiner, E. Judith. 1996. “Why is a Riddle not Like a Metaphor?” In Automatic Interpretation and

Generation of Verbal Humor, edited by Joris Hulstijn and Anton Nijholt, 111-119. Enschede,

Netherlands: University of Twente.

———. 1997. “The Incongruity of Jokes, Riddles and Humorous Situations.” In Towards a Social

Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, Vol 2, edited by Gregory R. Guy,

Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin and John Baugh, 139-151. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, NY,

US: Cambridge University Press.

Wieczorek, Magdalena. 2016. “Participation Framework in Sitcom Discourse: Roles of the Viewer.”

In (Re)Interpretacje (Nie)Literackie, edited by Katarzyna Kozak, Roman Mnich, Agnieszka

Rzepkowska, 299-310. Siedlce: Instytut Kultury Regionalnej i Badań Literackich im.

Franciszka Karpińskiego. Stowarzyszenie: Instytut Neofilologii i Badań Interdyscyplinarnych.

Uniwersytet Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach.

———. 2017. “Norm and Anomaly in Humour: Types of Verbalisations in Sitcom.” In Norm and

Anomaly in Language, Literature, and Culture, edited by Jarosław Wiliński and Joanna

Stolarek, 75-88. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

———. 2018. “Different Shades of Viewership: A Pragmatic Analysis of Humour in Sitcom

Discourse.” In Forum for Contemporary Issues in Language and Literature, Vol. 3, edited by

Katarzyna Kozak and Iwona Świątczak-Wasielewska, 101-117. Siedlce: Uniwersytet

Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach.

———. 2019. Humour in Relevance Theory: A Pragmatic Analysis of Jokes. Siedlce: Siedlce

University of Natural Sciences and Humanities

Wilson, Christopher P. 1979. Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Function. London, New York:

Academic Press.

Wilson, Deirdre. 1999. “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” UCL Working Papers in


———. 2000. “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” In Metarepresentations: A

Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by Dan Sperber, 411-448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2005. “New Directions for Research on Pragmatics and Modularity.” Lingua 115 (8): 1129-

-1146.

———. 2009. “Irony and Metarepresentation.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 183-226.

———. 2011. “Relevance and the Interpretation of Literary Works.” UCL Working Papers in


———. 2018. “Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation.” In Reading beyond the Code:

Literature and Relevance Theory, edited by Terence Cave and Deirdre Wilson, 185-204.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 1992. “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua 87 (1-2): 53-76.

———. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90 (1-2): 1-25.

———. 2002. “Truthfulness and Relevance.” Mind 111 (443): 583-632.

———. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence R. Horn

and Gregory Ward, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell.

———. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance,

Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230-259.

Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

———. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics

145: 31-38.

References

- 299 -

Wyer, Robert S. and James E. Collins. 1992. “A Theory of Humor Elicitation.” Psychological Review

99 (4): 663-688.

Yamaguchi, Haruhiko. 1988. “How to Pull Strings with Words: Deceptive Violations in the Garden-

Path Joke.” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (3): 323-337.

Yus, Francisco. 1998. “Relevance Theory and Media Discourse: A Verbal-Visual Model of

Communication.” Poetics 25 (5): 293-309.

———. 2002. “Stand-up Comedy and Cultural Spread: The Case of Sex Roles.” Babel A.F.I.A.L. 11:

245-292 (special issue on humour studies).

———. 2003. “Humor and the Search for Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9): 1295-1331.

———. 2004. “Pragmatics of Humorous Strategies in El Club de la Comedia.” In Current Trends in

the Pragmatics of Spanish, edited by Rosina Márquez Reiter and María Elena Placencia, 320-

-344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 2005. “Dave Allen’s Stand-up Monologues: An Epidemiological Approach.” In Thistles.

A Homage to Brian Hughes. Volume 2: Essays in Memoriam, edited by José Mateo and

Francisco Yus, 317-344. Alicante: University of Alicante.

———. 2008. “A Relevance-Theoretic Classification of Jokes.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1):

131-157.

———. 2012a. “Relevance, Humour and Translation.” In Relevance Theory: More than

Understanding, edited by Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 117-145. New Castle

upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

———. 2012b. “Strategies and Effects in Humorous Discourse. The Case of Jokes.” In Studies in

Linguistics and Cognition, edited by Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar, 271-296. Berlin: Peter Lang.

———. 2013a. “Analyzing Jokes with the Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous

Communication.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 9 (1): 3-24.

———. 2013b. “An Inference-Centered Analysis of Jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of

Humorous Communication.” In Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse, edited by

Leonor Ruiz-Gurillo and M. Belén Alvarado-Ortega, 59-82. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John


———. 2016. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

———. 2017a. “Contextual Constraints and Non-Propositional Effects in WhatsApp

Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 114: 66-86.

———. 2017b. “Incongruity-Resolution Cases in Jokes.” Lingua 197: 103-122.

———. 2018a. “Attaching Feelings and Emotions to Propositions. Some Insights on Irony and

Internet Communication.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 94-107.

———. 2018b. “Positive Non-Humorous Effects of Humor on the Internet.” In The Dynamics of

Interactional Humor: Creating and Negotiating Humor in Everyday Encounters, edited by

Villy Tsakona and Jan Chovanec, 283-304. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

———. 2018c. “Relevance from and beyond Propositions. The Case of Online Identity.” In

Relevance and Irrelevance: Theories, Factors and Challenges, edited by Jan Strassheim and

Hisashi Nasu, 119-140. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Zajdman, Anat. 1995. “Humorous Face-Threatening Acts: Humor as Strategy.” Journal of

Pragmatics 23 (3): 325-339.

Zillmann, Dolf. 1980. “Anatomy of Suspense.” In The Entertainment Functions of Television, edited

by Percy H. Tannenbaum, 133-163. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

———.1983. “Disparagement Humor.” In Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 1, edited by Paul E.

McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 85-107. New York: Springer-Verlag.

References

- 300 -

———. 2000. “Humor and Comedy.” In Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal, edited

by Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, 37-57. Mahawah: Lawrence Erblaum.

———. 2003. “Theory of Affective Dynamics: Emotions and Moods.” In Communication and

Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillmann, edited by Jennings Bryant, David R. Roskos-

-Ewoldsen, and Joanne Cantor, 533-567. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Zillmann, Dolf and Jennings Bryant. 1991. “Responding to Comedy: The Sense and Nonsense in

Humour.” In Responding to the Screen: Reception and Reaction Processes, edited by Jennings

Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, 261-279. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, Dolf and Joanne R. Cantor. 1972. “Directionality of Transitory Dominance as a

Communication Variable Affecting Humor Appreciation.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 24 (2): 191-198.

———. 1976. “A Disposition Theory of Humour and Mirth.” In Humor and Laughter: Theory,

Research and Applications, edited by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 93-115. London:

John Wiley & Sons.

———. 1977. “Affective Responses to the Emotions of a Protagonist.” Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 13 (2): 155-165.

Zillmann, Dolf and S. Holly Stocking. 1976. “Putdown Humor.” Journal of Communication 26 (3):

154-163.

Zillmann, Dolf, Kay Taylor and Kelly Lewis. 1988. “News as Nonfiction Theater: How Dispositions

toward the Public Cast of Characters Affect Reactions.” Journal of Broadcasting and

Electronic Media 42 (2): 153-169.

Ziv, Avner. 1984. Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.

———. 2010. “The Social Function of Humor in Interpersonal Relationships.” Society 47 (1): 11-18.

Appendix

Season 8 of Modern Family

Episode 1. A Tale of Three Cities

1. Claire, Phil and their children are together in New York. When the children and the parents

say goodbye to each other, the children promise to come back on their own by plane, while

Phil and Claire continue their journey to the wardrobe convention. Neither the children nor

the parents intend to keep their promises.

[Haley, Alex and Luke have just said goodbye to their parents]

Haley: Okay, here’s the deal. We’re staying another night.

[Luke and Alex scoff at this idea]

(…)

Haley: Oh, come on. Andy and I just broke up. I’m not ready to go back and face life.

Alex: Come on, how would we even pay for the hotel?

Haley: We can use Luke’s carnival settlement money.

Luke: No way! I earned that.(…) [Luke keeps stern face as if he was offended by Haley’s idea]

We can’t use that money. It’s for college. [after a few seconds, all burst into helpless

laughter]

(…)

[Claire and Phil are in the car driving to the closet caucus]

Claire: Oh, look, that sushi restaurant we never made it to.

Phil: Oh, yeah. We tried. They just never had a table for five.

Claire: Mnh-mnh. Hm. We had a lot of fun, though, didn’t we?

Phil: Yes, we did.

Claire: Yeah. Never got to get on one of those horse-drawn carriages through the park. Alex’s

allergies.

Phil: Didn’t know you could be allergic to carriage leather. Still, just so much good family

time.

Claire: Family time. [they are wondering for a few seconds] Are you thinking what I’m

thinking?

Phil: You could blow off the convention. We could stay here for a romantic few days but

never tell the kids because we just made them go home?

Claire: Yes! That is the first time you’ve ever answered that question right. [laughs]

Fictional

layer

The children draw up their travel plans, which includes staying in New York for a

few days (just as many days as Claire and Phil will spend at the convention).

Humour occurs in their conversation when Luke takes seriously Haley’s suggestion

to use his settlement money for college implying that he will never need it. They all

burst into laughter, which is an indication of disbelief in Luke’s college perspective.

Claire and Phil express their regrets concerning a few things they could not have

done as the parents of three.

Appendix

- 302 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is premised on the parents’ regrets as well as the children’s teasing of Luke,

both of which require the derivation of implicature. Additionally, there is the

implicit meaning behind the totality of two conversational episodes. First, on the

basis of the contextual assumption (the children’s collective laughter) and

background assumptions about Luke that he is not too talented, the recipient is

supposed to derive the implicature that Luke will not attend college. Second, Phil

and Claire’s conversation gives rise to the implicature that irrespective of

appreciating family time, the parents wish to spend some time alone, whereas the

children would like to stay in New York. As regards the totality of the meaning

gleaned by the viewer, the assumptions conveyed by the children and those

communicated by the parents give rise to a number of weakly communicated

propositions about family life: children feel the need to become more independent,

whereas parents would like to spend time alone, despite being happy with their

children.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between what children say to the parents and

what they actually do; 2. Incongruity between what the parents say to the

children and what they actually do; 3. Incongruity between parents’ love of

their children and feeling the need to spend time alone

- Relief: when viewers acknowledge the fact that they act as either Phil and

Claire or the children and conceal their feelings or actions

- Superiority: disparagement of Luke

RT tool - implicature

Strategy - teasing (solidarity) (the children’s layer)

- personal (jointly produced) anecdote (the parents’ layer)

Functions

- avoiding conflict (by being untruthful)

- reducing conflict/ tension (laughter indicating a humorous intention)

- highlighting shared experiences (between viewers and fictional characters;

any parent / child is the same)

- defending

- conveying social norms (siblings are entitled to tease each other to show

solidarity)

- challenging social norms (parents admit that they are exhausted by

parenthood)

- disclosing character-specific information

- conveying a serious message (parenthood may be tiring)

- providing a puzzle (non-linguistic play)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- conflicts can be avoided and other peoples’ feelings can be respected by

concealing and pretence

- any parent is the same: they love their children dearly but still they need time

for themselves

- any child is the same: they deceive parents in order to entertain themselves

- siblings are eager to tease each other to show solidarity

- laughter is an indicator of not taking things seriously

- some allergies can be very odd, such as being allergic to carriage leather

Appendix

- 303 -

2. Cameron tries to convince Mitchell to visit his grandmother, who is on her deathbed, and

spend some time with her.

Cameron: Have you even taken your turn sitting with Gram?

Mitchell: No, she doesn’t want me there. She hates me.

Cameron: This again.

Mitchell: Cam, she refers to me as “the sissy”.

Cameron: You heard that wrong. She’s hard to understand because of the dentures she

inherited. You know they were made from the keys of a child’s piano.

Mitchell: [scoffs] What do you even say to someone in a coma?

Cameron: Well, Mama’s reading her poetry. Lily’s reciting scripture. Pam and I are gonna sing

a song we wrote when we were younger, “Sweet Home Ala-gramma.”

Mitchell: Okay, yeah, t...teach me that.

Cameron: Oh, I’m sorry … Is she your Ala-gramma?

Fictional

layer

Cameron reproaches Mitchell for not keeping a vigil by his grandmother’s bedside.

Mitchell defends himself by saying that Cameron’s grandmother calls him a sissy.

Cameron, in turn, makes up a story that Mitchell must have misheard the

grandmother as she had her teeth made of the keys of a child’s piano. Out of a few

things that Cameron mentions that the family does for the woman, Mitchell would

like to learn the song titled “Sweet Home Ala-gramma”, which is negatively assessed

by Cameron since Mitchell is not entitled to sing a song about a “gramma”.

Recipient

layer

There are two humorous lines which serve to induce enjoyment on the recipient’s

part, each of which require different pragmatic mechanisms. First, Cameron’s

belief that his grandmother could not have called Mitchell a sissy because of the

dentures conveys the implicit meaning that Cameron tries to deceive Mitchell by

ascribing truthful intentions to his grandmother. Moreover, Cameron seems to do

anything to protect his family. Second, the viewer needs to activate the process of

lexical adjustment to construct two distinct concepts while analysing Cameron’s

reference to the song (the paronym) (a syntagmatic pun): the first concept encoded

by the punning element is ALA-GRAMMA* (being a perfect song for a

grandmother sung by grandchildren), while the other concept is ALABAMA* (being

reference to the song in which one of the states is mentioned).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the words “Sweet Home Alabama” and

“Sweet Home Ala-gramma”; 2. Incongruity between being called a sissy

because of false teeth and being called a sissy because of one’s anti-gay

prejudice

- Release: when Cameron manages to fool Mitchell into believing his story about

the grandmother’s dentures and making a fool out of Mitchell

- Superiority: homosexuals are treated as the weak party by being called a sissy

RT tool - implicature: related to the dentures and being called a sissy

- explicature: lexical adjustment in the paronym: “Ala-gramma” and “Alabama”

(punning effect)

Strategy - incongruous link (dentures made of piano keys)

- punning element (Ala-gramma)

Functions - controlling viewer’s behaviour

- challenging social norms

- criticising


- highlighting shared experiences

- fostering conflict

Appendix

- 304 -

- reducing conflict/ tension

- defending

- providing a puzzle (linguistic play) (Ala-gramma)

- providing a cultural reference (Sweet Home Alabama)



- showing off


Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexuals may not be accepted by all family members

- homosexuals are sometimes regarded as effeminate individuals

- homosexuals struggle to change others’ point of view not to be judged on the

basis of their orientation

- family members tend to defend their “own”

- it is strange to sing the song Sweet Home Ala-gramma to the person in coma

since s/he will not hear

- it is highly improbable that one has false teeth made from the keys of a piano

(maybe it was probable in the Ancient times)

3. Mitchell comes to Cameron’s grandmother to maintain the vigil.

Mitchell: Oh, my God. Oh, my God! A...Are you trying to say something?

The grandmother: Aww. Ow.

Mitchell [the grandmother grabs Mitchell’s hair] Ow! Grams. Ow, that hurts. Let,

let go. Grams, l...let go. Let go, Grams. Let go, Grams!

[Cameron’s mother and sister, Pam, walk in]

Cameron’s mother: What the hell are you telling her?

[the life-support machine makes a sound indicating that the patient is dying]

Pam: What happened?!

Cameron’s mother: [crying] I just walked in, and Mitchell was telling her to let go, and she

did!

Mitchell: Oh, let go, let go of my hair.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell notices that Cameron’s grandmother is murmuring something as if she wants

to communicate and hence Mitchell comes closer to hear her whispering. She stretches

her arm and pulls his hair. Mitchell asks the dying grandmother to stop pulling his hair.

Having heard these words, Cameron’s mother and sister storm into the room screaming

why Mitchell wants the grandmother to end her life.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on a double interpretation of the phrase let go, which can be

understood as Mitchell’s request directed at the grandmother to stop pulling his hair

and/ or his supposed request to end her life. The viewer should activate the process of

enrichment in order to become aware of the misunderstanding occurring on Pam and

mother’s part. The explicature is that Cameron’s family believes that Mitchell is a

horrible person capable of persuading a dying person not to clutch to life.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the phrase let go

- Relief: a switch from one interpretation to the other

RT tool - explicature: enrichment: as an intransitive verb meaning to let go (let yourself

die) or transitive verb which is enriched as “let go hair”

Strategy - incongruous link

Appendix

- 305 -

Functions - highlighting shared experiences




Propositional

meaning(s)

- people tend to assess others on the basis of their aversion to homosexuals (as if it

was one’s fault why a person is a homosexual)

- homosexuals are sometimes regarded as strange and unpredictable individuals on

many levels and hence may wish to cause one’s death, which is obviously not

true (social corrective)

- we should not make groundless accusations

- homosexuals are frequently victims of stereotypical judgements

4. At the funeral, Mitchell and Cameron continue the disagreement about the grandmother’s

treatment of Mitchell when the coffin is being lowered into the grave.

Mitchell: I can feel your family staring daggers at me. Can’t believe they think I killed Grams.

Like I’d really be telling her to let go of life.

Cameron: Well, you can see how they’d wonder after you put your suitcase in her room.

Mitchell: It sounds like you’re taking their side.

Cameron: You can’t blame them for questioning your story about a comatose arthritic woman

pulling your hair.

Mitchell: Not a story. A thing that happened.

Cameron: Fine.

Mitchell: Fine.

Cameron: And you didn’t help your case by accidentally erasing her “Matlocks”.

Mitchell: Oh, my God! Just drop it!

Fictional

layer

The mourners understand Mitchell’s it as referring to the coffin, that is he asks the

gravediggers to speed up lowering the coffin. In fact, Mitchell wants Cameron to stop

blaming him for not liking Cameron’s grandmother.

Recipient

layer

Humour is delivered by Mitchell’s last turn, which is differently interpreted by

Cameron and the mourners. The viewer needs to activate the process of reference

assignment to acknowledge the disparity in the meanings gleaned by Cameron and the

people gathered: it refers to Cameron’s termination of the discussion that Mitchell

could have caused the death of his grandmother and it refers to Mitchell’s request to

lower the coffin quickly, respectively.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two possible referents for the pronoun it


RT tool - explicature: reference assignment


Functions - avoiding conflict/ tension (Mitchell’s asking for dropping the )

- conveying social norms (it is not socially appropriate to argue during a funeral)

- advising (to behave properly)

- criticising (this type of behaviour)

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron would rather blame

Mitchell than face the truth about his grandmother)


- controlling one’s behaviour




Appendix

- 306 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- ties with one’s family may turn out to be stronger than ties with one’s partner

at emotional moments

- it is the black sheep of the family who is to blame for everything- even if

something is beyond one’s power

- people tend to blame a homosexual since he is believed to be prone to quirks

- people tend to blame someone who is not their family (Mitchell)

- funeral is not an appropriate time to have arguments

- participants of a funeral may not obey the code of behaviour

5. Luke, Haley and Alex pretend to be at home while they are still in New York. The scene is

shot next to the Statue of Liberty.



Luke: Sorry. It just popped into my head when I saw the Statue of Liberty holding that

paintbrush.



Haley: Oh. Mm-hmm... Yeah.

[Alex is in disbelief that her siblings are that dumb]

Fictional

layer

Luke gives his father a promise that he will paint the mailbox, which is prompted by

looking at the Statue of Liberty. As believed by Luke, the Statue holds a paintbrush

with the use of which she painted freedom in America. It is further validated by Haley’s

interjection Mm-hmm, while Alex just rolls her eyes showing her disappointment with

the level of intelligence of her siblings.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Luke’s stupidity and his obliviousness of it. The viewer’s

background knowledge concerning the Statue of Liberty is that the figure of goddess

in the Statue holds a torch, which clashes with the contextual assumption that the Statue

holds a paintbrush. The recipient needs to access the implicated premise that some

people lack elementary knowledge concerning American history and culture and

depend upon visual aspects that a torch resembles a paintbrush. The implicit meaning

is that Luke is quite dumb.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the Statue of Liberty holding a torch and a

paintbrush (relevance/ proper meaning and irrelevance/erroneous path of

comprehension); 2. Incongruity between smart Alex and stupid Haley and Luke

- Superiority: both the viewer and Alex entertain a feeling of superiority over the

stupidity of Luke and Haley

- Relief: any viewer who thought of the Statue of Liberty as holding a paintbrush can

laugh together with Alex


Strategy - self-denigrating humour

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (that Haley and Luke are stupid)

- defending

- showing off (Luke’s mental power)

- avoiding conflict (it is sometimes better not to say anything: Alex’s attitude)

- advising



- providing a cultural reference

Appendix

- 307 -



- showing off


Propositional

meaning(s)

- similarity between a torch and paintbrush can cause misapprehension on the part of

people who are not interested in American history

- stupidity or ignorance can be amusing

- communication between smart people and dumb ones can result in disparity

6. Jay prepares his favourite food for Father’s Day since he is convinced that none of his

children would prepare something delicious to make him happy.

Jay: [into the camera] When I think of the last few Father’s Days, I quake with rage. Hey, maybe put

a little thought into it. Maybe we don’t order the pizza. And if we do, maybe we get enough

crazy bread for everybody. I’m sorry, but who made Father’s Day the dirty stepchild of

holidays?! We don’t even have a song.

Fictional

layer

Jay shares his personal harrowing experience concerning the celebration of Father’s

Day for the past few years, which makes him embittered. He believes that Father’s Day

is the dirty stepchild of holidays and regrets that fathers do not have their own special

song.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Jay’s creative metaphor in which he claims that Father’s Day is

the dirty stepchild of holidays. Through the process of lexical adjustment, the viewer

is required to construct two concepts that are encoded in the word stepchild (a

paradigmatic pun): STEPCHILD* (a child born to a wife or husband during a previous

relationship, frequently considered less important) and STEPCHILD** (a holiday that

is perceived to be less significant by the children). The initial concept is the viewers’

background information about who a stepchild is, whereas the second one refers to

Jay’s intentions. The explicature that Jay communicates is that Father’s Day is the

worst celebrated day by children.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the literal meaning and figurative meaning of

the metaphor; 2. Incongruity between laid-back Jay who does not mind preparing

Father’s Day on his own and irritated Jay who is fed up with ruining his day by the

lack of engagement on the part of his children

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment

Strategy - metaphor / personal anecdote

Functions

- highlighting similarities

- conveying social norms

- sharing

- avoiding conflict

- providing a puzzle (linguistic play) (Father’s Day is a stepchild of holidays)

- soliciting support

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay can be hurt)

- criticising

- advising

- showing off




Appendix

- 308 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father does not want to hurt anyone’s feelings by complaining about his

children’s not holding any special celebration

- any father is aware of the fact that it is Mother’s Day or Children’s Day that are

more important than Father’s Day

- any father does not have heightened expectations concerning children’s

involvement in order to spend a perfect Father’s Day

- any father would like to be as much important to a child as a mother

- some fathers may become sad or irritated when mothers are praised even when

they put as much effort as mothers to bring up their children

- the very fact that children can sing a song on Mother’s Day supports Jay’s envy

7. Cameron and Lily come back from Cameron’s family in order to celebrate Father’s Day with

Mitchell.

Cameron: Surprise!

Lily: Happy Father’s Day!

Mitchell: Wait, you guys flew in?

Cameron: Yeah, I just wanted us to all be together today.

Mitchell: Aww!

Cameron: In spite of your thoughtlessness and insensitivity.

Mitchell: Okay, those mean the same thing, but okay.

(…)

Lily: Grams left us all something in her will, even you.

Mitchell: She left me something! Aww.

Cameron: Even though you’re stubborn and pigheaded.

Mitchell: Okay, again.

Fictional

layer

Cameron, for no particular reason, employs synonyms, which angers Mitchell. He

rebukes Cameron but his partner still does this.

Recipient

layer

Humour is hinged upon Cameron’s use of synonymous words, which in Mitchell’s

opinion, is redundant or even irritating. The recipient needs to engage in the process of

the implicature derivation to be amused by the dialogue. The implicated premise is that

using synonyms has communicative consequences which cannot be communicated

otherwise, for instance a person would like to emphasise the meaning of the message.

This is probably the effect that Cameron wanted to achieve, i.e. highlight Mitchell’s

negative qualities. Then, the recipient needs to derive the implicature that Cameron

intends to underline the “strength” of his turns that Mitchell is really insensitive and

stubborn.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: Incongruity between using one descriptive adjective and employing

two synonymous descriptive adjectives

- Superiority: disparagement of Mitchell


Strategy - metalinguistic humour

Appendix

- 309 -

Functions - controlling one’s behaviour


- advising

- criticising



- conveying a serious message (to avoid using redundant words)



- providing a puzzle (a non-linguistic play)

- metalinguistic humour

Propositional

meaning(s)

- deploying synonyms in one’s message may be used to emphasise a particular

negative quality, such as stubbornness and pigheadedness (unmitigated face

threat)

- additionally, one’s underlining of negative characteristics may be used to make

other person ashamed or terminate misbehaviour, i.e. Mitchell should stop

behaving in a stubborn manner

- using similar words may be a communicative strategy for some people but for

others it may just seem redundant

8. Cameron and Lily have started unpacking gifts from Cameron’s grandmother. Lily, by

accident, took Mitchell’s present.

Lily: “Enjoy all my old lipstick, you big sissy.” Why did she call me a sissy?

Cameron: I … She doesn’t

[Mitchell enters]

Mitchell: Oh! We’re opening Grams’ gifts, huh?

(…)

Mitchell: “When Cam first brought you here, I thought I’d never get used to you. I was raised to

hate your kind. But seeing how happy you make my grandson, I couldn’t help but come

to care for you.” (…) “Who else but you should inherit my beloved Oriental fan? I hope

it don’t make you homesick.” [takes the fan out of the box]

Fictional

layer

Lily reads the note from her grandmother and thinks that she was given a set of old

lipsticks, however she does not understand why she was called a sissy. Mitchell, on the

other hand, considers the grandmother’s note to be a great compliment on being

accepted by a narrow-minded person. When he continues reading the note, Mitchell

becomes appalled because he figures out that this is Lily’s note given the fact that

Mitchell is not of eastern origin and hence will not be homesick when looking at an

Oriental fan.

Recipient

layer

Humour hinges upon Mitchell’s and Lily’s belief that they are reading the notes that

were intended for them. The viewer is aware that they labour under a misapprehension.

The first premise that helps Mitchell deduce that he is reading Lily’s note is that

Cameron’s grandmother would never have called Lily a sissy. The second premise is

that Mitchell is not from Asia and hence would not feel homesick when looking at the

Oriental fan. The implicature is that Cameron’s grandmother did not approve of her

grandson’s partner and her granddaughter’s ancestry.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the note written for Lily and the note she

receives; 2. Incongruity between the note written for Mitchell and the note he

receives

- Superiority: disparagement of homosexual people

Appendix

- 310 -


Strategy - put down humour

Functions - criticising

- advising


- fostering conflict (by regarding to people in terms of stereotypes)







Propositional

meaning(s)

- some members of the family subscribe to stereotypical information that

homosexuals are effeminate individuals

- some members of the family do not regard their own members who are

homosexuals as sissies (as a grandmother respects her grandchild)

- some people subscribe to stereotypes about homosexuals who are considered to

be “sissies” and thus be eager to use female makeup products, such as lipsticks

- people are prejudiced not only against homosexuals but also against immigrants

- people sometimes change their negative affect into positive one under some

circumstances, i.e. making his/ her family member happy

- grandmother’s note to Lily offers the viewers some hope that any person can be

accepted, irrespective of that person’s origin

- grandmother’s note to Mitchell indicates that some negative views and

stereotypes do not change

9. Everyone starts arguing at the dinner table on Father’s Day since Luke admitted that he and

his sisters had stayed longer in NY. Jay gets angry since he has always dreamt of having a

perfect family Father’s Day.

Jay: I’ll tell you what else we’re glossing over, how bad you all are at Father’s Day. I’ve got

one son who’s a kleptomaniac [pointing to Joe], the other who’s in love with his own

aunt [pointing to Manny], creepy even by your standards, and a daughter who I was

forced to see naked as the day she was born [pointing to Claire].

Mitchell: [enters with red lipstick on] Come on, Cam. Kiss me like the sissy I am!

Jay: Right on cue. Happy Father’s Day to me. Icing on the cake ....I just found out my own

wife has major daddy issues. Makes me wonder if that’s the whole reason she’s with me.

Fictional

layer

The Father’s Day drama continues at Jay’s home. He decides to give vent to his

nervous state and points out all the situations when his children and grandchildren

disappointed him. In his opinion, the icing on the cake is Gloria’s emotional state – she

misses her dead father badly as she was daddy’s girl (something that she was not aware

of before), which provokes Jay into thinking that Gloria married Jay because of his

mature age.

Appendix

- 311 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Jay’s belief that his wife married him because she has unresolved

issues with her father. The recipient needs to derive the implicated premise of what

Jay’s anger entails: a much older husband wonders if young wife’s love is caused by

her need to gain personal interest from a mature man. This premise connects with the

background assumption that for example, Claire has frequently made critical

comments concerning the fact whether Gloria’s love is genuine. This implicature is

evidenced by a popular belief that a young wife loves either older husband’s money or

mature age.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: Incongruity between Jay’s wife’s love of his mature age and love of

the person he is

- Superiority: disparagement of older husbands


Strategy - self-mockery

Functions - criticising (when a young wife wants an older husband because of her daddy

issues)


- sharing











Propositional

meaning(s)

- an older husband is always doubtful whether his young wife really loves him, his

money or advanced age

- there is no family that is perfect and does not face various acute or minor problems

- it happens that women choose an older husband as they experienced rejection

from her fathers and hence look for a father-like figure

- society may hold negative views on marriages/ relationships in which there is a

significant age gap

10. As a perfect celebration of Father’s Day, Jay decides to prepare special dinner.

Jay: [adopting a solemn voice] You each have a sausage on your plate I selected based on

your individual personality and temperament.

Cameron: Is this blood sausage? Because mine’s pink.

Mitchell: Oh, my mine’s pink, t... Oh. Very funny, Dad.

Jay: Now take a bite of bread, a sip of water to cleanse the palate.

Gloria: Mine smells spicy.

Jay: Show of hands. Who heard me say “Smell your sausage”?

Fictional

layer

Jay takes the Father’s Day celebration seriously and decides to serve what he likes

most, i.e. sausage. He believes that this type of food can be used to describe the

type of personality of his guests, such as pink sausage represents Mitchell and

Cameron, whereas spicy sausage characterises Gloria’s Colombian heritage.

Appendix

- 312 -

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects derive from the implications that Jay intends to produce

upon the viewers’ and family’s part. Not only do the viewers but also Mitchell and

Cameron deduce Jay’s intention that the colour of their sausages is not random.

The recipient needs to access the implicated premise that if one is a homosexual,

one’s identifying colour is pink. The background assumption is that Jay likes

targeting Mitchell and Cameron for being homosexuals. The implicature is that Jay

chose the pink colour of sausage as it is stereotypically associated with

homosexuality and hence it best describes Cameron’s and Mitchell’s personalities.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the colour of sausage and people’s

personalities

- Superiority: Jay’s attitude towards Mitchell and Cameron (they are inferior

because of their sexual orientation)


Strategy - teasing (power)

Functions - fostering a conflict

- advising

- criticising

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay does not like homosexuals)



- showing off







Propositional

meaning(s)

- seemingly two different phenomena, i.e. sausages and people, have something

in common in the way that sausage can implicitly describe one’s personality

- all homosexuals are stereotypically represented as being fond of pink colour,

and as such this is their indentifying colour

- it is sexual orientation that is sometimes treated as a defining criterion by

many people

- it is sometimes one’s descent that defines a person, that is Gloria is defined by

a spicy sausage as she is a sharp-tempered person

- homosexuals are fed up with their sexual orientation being the target of

humour

- a father (or parent) may never be able to accept his son’s inclination towards

men, which makes a father-son relationship uneasy

Episode 2. A Stereotypical Day

11. Alex has contracted infectious mononucleosis, which is also known as “the kissing

disease” since it spreads through saliva. Her sister wonders how it is possible that Alex

has acquired the infection as she is only interested in her studies at California Institute of

Technology.

Haley: How do nerds even get mono? Did you all practice by kissing the same pillow?

Alex: Shouldn’t you be at work by now?

[Haley speaks alone into the camera]

Appendix

- 313 -

Haley: I got fired. My plan was to hide it from my parents until I got a new job, but with smarty-

pants Alex home, I had to be more careful, or she was going to figure it out. Her being

super-sick is coming at a really bad time for me.

Fictional

layer

Haley is surprised that Alex has caught a disease transmitted through saliva. Haley

cannot imagine that Alex was kissing a boyfriend and thus a more probable scenario

is that Alex was kissing the same pillow with other fellow researchers.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Haley’s question about how her sister could have got

mono. The viewer probably creates the initial expectations that Haley’s first question

would be answered by Alex who could say that she has a boyfriend. Instead, Haley

continues, suggesting that there is another way of contracting mono – by kissing the

pillow that an ill person was kissing. The viewer is supposed to formulate the

implicature that scientists (like Alex) do not have partners and thus mononucleosis

can be contracted by kissing the same pillow.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between an unreal scenario of kissing a pillow and a real

scenario of contracting mono

- Superiority: Haley’s question about getting mono from kissing the same pillow is

a sign of her feeling of superiority



Functions - disclosing character-specific information

- showing off (that Haley is clever to comment upon Alex’s disease)


- conveying social norms (siblings tease each other)








Propositional

meaning(s)

- the viewer unfamiliar with the disease called “mono” is able to deduce how it is

transmitted, for example by kissing

- scientists are believed to be unable to build personal social life as they are utterly

devoted to research

- scientists are frequently butts of humorous comments as they are treated as

outsiders

- the only romantic relationship scientists are able to establish is with a lifeless object

- sister relationship is not always easy as some tension may build up, which may

result from a different level of intelligence

- a disparity between a smart and dumb person can result in dumb person’s making

biting comment to compensate for his/ her lack of scientific achievements

12. Little Joe wants to persuade his parents into letting him live in the woods like Mowgli in

the Jungle Book.

Gloria: Jay, tell him he can’t.

Jay: [smiling, feeling proud] First time I saw Tarzan, I wanted to live outside. Dad said fine.

I walked in the woods, met a hobo. Taught me how to open a can with a bird’s beak.

Gloria: [irritated] That story’s not helping!

Appendix

- 314 -

Fictional

layer

Gloria wants Jay to help her convince Joe that he is not allowed to sleep in the

woods like a character in the story The Jungle Book. Instead of being a caring

father, Jay implicitly permits Joe to sleep outside. Jay recalls his experience when

he was young and his father allowed him to sleep in the wood. He regards it as a

rewarding experience since he met a homeless man who taught Jay to open a tin

can with the use of a bird’s beak.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon reversing the recipient’s expectations about a proper

reaction of the father as to whether his child can sleep outside. One’s personal

background assumption is that a parent is usually protective towards children and

does not let do anything that may involve danger. The viewer’s (and Gloria’s)

expectations become invalidated when Jay gives permission to Joe to sleep in the

woods. The recipient should derive the implicature that it is not safe to sleep in the

woods when one is a child as one can meet a drunken homeless person.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between expectations what Jay should say to a four-

year child (i.e. forbid Joe to sleep in the woods) and what Jay implicitly does (i.e.

lets Joe act like Mowgli); 2. Incongruity between being taught by a tramp and

being well-looked after


Strategy - personal anecdote


- defending

- criticising

- avoiding conflict (with a child)

- fostering conflict (with Gloria)

- advising (it is safe to let a child sleep in the woods)









Propositional

meaning(s)

- fathers often let their children undertake quite dangerous activities, which would

not be permitted by mothers

- mothers frequently anticipate that fathers would share their views on raising a

child

- when fathers let their children do something against their mother’s will, this is

uttered indirectly

- opening a tin can with a bird’s beak is not a skill that a little child should master

- being taught by/ meeting a tramp is not safe as anything could have happened (as

opposed to how Jay pictures it, that is as being a pleasant experience)

13. Manny has decided to live a simple life to increase the chances of having a romantic

relationship with one of his relatives, who is in favour of communism.

[Manny speaks alone into the camera]

Manny: Over the summer, I went to a wedding in JuÃrez and met Frida, this amazing girl who

enlightened me to how Communism can rid the world of injustice. (…) I live simply now,

and it’s good for me. Might it also help my chance of kissing her one day? Yes. And if

that requires living in a world where the government chooses all our songs, so be it.

[Jay, Gloria, Joe and Manny are in the kitchen]

Appendix

- 315 -

Jay: I’m gonna take a coffee to the guy putting up the security cameras.

Manny: It’s not coffee the laborers need, Jay. It’s dignity. And I’m going to fight for that until

my fingers are raw and my back is bent.

Jay: Six months ago, we took you to the dermatologist for taking too many bubble baths.

Fictional

layer

Manny vows that he resigns from basic amenities in order to live a simple life. He

even starts believing that communism is a perfect political system. Jay implicitly

criticises Manny’s attempt to become a tough man by reminding him of his recent

visit at the dermatologist’s, who needed to examine his rash caused by the excess of

bubble baths.

Recipient

layer

The comic effects result from Manny’s strong belief that communism is a favourable

political system and his getting skin irritation after taking many bubble baths. The

contextual assumption communicated in Manny’s monologue is that he is inclined to

opt for communism to kiss a girl, whereas the assumption communicated by Jay is

that Manny is oversensitive. The implicated premise is that when one is used to have

luxurious life (many bubble baths), one is unsuitable to become a communist. The

implicature covers the interpretation of Jay’s bite: Manny’s suitability as a supporter

of communism is questioned since Manny is not powerful enough to fight for

people’s dignity. The comprehender’s background assumptions about Manny support

this interpretation since on a number of occasions, Manny has engaged in crazy

activities to earn girl’s love.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between having a simple life without amenities and

Manny’s proneness to luxurious life; 2. Incongruity between Manny’s sacrifice

of freedom of action and his enhancing chances to foster a romantic relationship

with a girl; 3. Incongruity between believing in the advantage of communism in

fighting injustice and what actually communism is

- Superiority: disparagement of Manny


Strategy - teasing (power) / sarcastic irony


- sharing

- defending


- advising (how to indirectly advise a child not to undertake something stupid)

- criticising

- controlling one’s behaviour (one should not change one’s system of belief

because of love)








- showing off


Propositional

meaning(s)

- a person in love is often blindsided and hence s/he is capable of doing crazy

things, such as changing his/ her system of beliefs

- a person who tries to support a political system may have stood for different

principles in the past

- people are irritated with the disparity between individuals’ behaviour in the past

and present

Appendix

- 316 -

14. Jay tries to explain to Gloria the predicament connected to installing security cameras.

Jay: Guess what. A black family’s moving in right across the street the same day my security

cameras are going up. Well, what am I supposed to do? I made the appointment weeks

ago right after the break-in down the street. But they’ll think I made the call the minute I

saw them because I’m a racist old man.

Gloria: Why would the neighbors just assume that you’re a racist?

Jay: Gloria, Gloria, Gloria. You’ll never understand the stereotypes old white men face.

Fictional

layer

Jay set up security cameras in his front garden because of an increased number of

robberies in the neighbourhood. He is afraid of being accused of racism since

installing of camera converges with moving in of the black family. Gloria does not

see a problem. Jay retorts that she will never be able to understand a stereotype that

Jay, as a white male, can be accused of.

Recipient

layer

Humour is located in Jay’s last turn. The beginning of his second turn, i.e. Gloria,

Gloria, Gloria. You’ll never understand the stereotypes…, creates in the viewer

certain expectations what Jay would say. It could be hypothesised that he would refer

to the stereotypes about black people. The subsequent chunk of his turn challenges

the viewer’s stereotypical thinking. The assumptions communicated by Jay make the

recipient extract the implicature that he is an inferior burdened with an array of

negative stereotypes that he needs to fight. Moreover, he implicates that Gloria is not

able to understand white male stereotypes since she is not white.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: Incongruity between existing (more popular) stereotypes (about black

people) and non-existing (less popular) stereotypes (about white people)

- Superiority: disparagement of Gloria


Strategy - reversal + sarcastic irony

Functions - highlighting similarities (when viewers and Jay have similar experiences)


- sharing

- defending

- fostering conflict (when you underline racial differences)

- advising


- providing a cultural reference (stereotypes)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- when a man is married to a woman from a different cultural background, she is

not aware of different stereotypes

- a person wants to justify his/ her unacceptable behaviour by regarding oneself as

an inferior

- a Caucasian can also suffer from racial prejudices, i.e. s/he can be unfairly accused

of the same stereotypes as Afro American people, and vice versa

- a person from a different racial background cannot fully comprehend people from

other backgrounds

Appendix

- 317 -

15. Cameron and Mitchell are proud of raising Lily to be a rational and accepting person.

During the play time with a school friend, who has recently had a sex change operation,

Lily calls him a weirdo. The parents ponder why it happened.

Cameron: Well, this bothers me. They’re getting along great, and then one little spat, and her

instinct is to go all baby bigot on him?

Mitchell: Well, and I say this with love, she did just get back from spending a full summer with

your family in Missouri.

Cameron: Oh. So we’re blaming my family, then?

Mitchell: I’m…I’m just saying maybe when she gets back from there, she needs to be reminded

of our values. You know … un-hick her.

Cameron: Oh, the H-bomb! Possibly the most offensive slur ever thrown around in the South.

Mitchell: Well y.. Look, I...I love those people, too, but you did just admit they can be a little

close-minded down there.

Fictional

layer

Cameron and Mitchell deliberate over the reason for Lily’s misconduct. Mitchell has

a ready answer: Lily spent too much time with the uneducated people from

Cameron’s family, who are believed to be narrow-minded, prejudiced and bigoted

and hence unable to accept other races or gender.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Mitchell’s invention of a new verb. The recipient needs

to find the link between a newly coined word un-hick and the reason why Lily

behaved in an unfavourable manner. The noun hick, which is a derogatory term for a

person living in the countryside, has been changed into the verb. As a result, the word

to unhick can be disambiguated in the following manner: when a person lives or has

spent some time in the countryside, s/he has acquired some manners typical of a rural

person, such as being impolite (stereotypical information). In other words, Mitchell

advises that Lily should behave in an opposite manner from rural people.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the new verb to un-hick somebody and Lily’s

verbal abuse; 2. Incongruity between living in the countryside and narrow-

mindedness (stereotype)

- Superiority: disparagement of people living in the countryside

RT tool - explicature: ambiguity resolution



- challenging social norms (about village people who may behave in an

unfavourable manner)


- sharing

- fostering conflict (by open criticism)

- criticising



- showing off





Propositional

meaning(s)

- many people commonly believe that countrymen are narrow-minded and

backward and hence their system of values is outdated

- there is a disparity in mindsets between people from villages and people from

cities

- countrymen do not approve of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality

- countrymen are fed up with degrading treatment by people from cities

Appendix

- 318 -

16. Cameron and Mitchell want to talk to Lily about her argument with her transgender

friend whom she called a weirdo.

Lily: He called you guys weirdos for putting that painting up, so I called him a weirdo.

Mitchell: Well, honey, why didn’t you tell us?

Lily: ‘Cause I didn’t want your feelings to get hurt.

Cameron: Get hurt? How? Because that rube Tom knows nothing about art?

Mitchell: Cam, she was protecting us. But you don’t have to, sweetie, okay? Don’t feel like you

can’t be honest with us just to protect our feelings.

Lily: Really?

Cameron: Really. Hey, you can tell us anything.

Lily: Okay. I hate the painting, too. [Cameron whimpers]

[Mitchell and Cameron are talking to the camera]

Mitchell: It was hard for us to hear, but in the spirit of tolerance, we accepted the fact that a 9-

year-old might not want to fall asleep under the watchful eyes of her half-naked

fathers.

Cameron: Call the Sistine Chapel. I guess art is out.

Fictional

layer

Lily reveals the reason why she called her friend a weirdo: he laughed at the paining

of half-naked Cameron and Mitchell in Lily’s room. Then, Lily admits that she does

not like the paining too, which makes her parents sad as if she did know nothing

about art.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Lily’s stating that she hates the painting of her half-naked fathers

and Cameron’s wish to call the Sistine Chapel that art is no longer appreciated. The

viewer needs to construct implicated premise: the Sistine Chapel is regarded as one

of the most impressive works of art in Europe. By Cameron’s exclamation that a

person (viewer) is asked to call the Sistine Chapel, he wants to implicate that her

daughter does not know anything about a spellbinding piece of art, i.e. the painting of

her parents. This interpretation is further supported by the background information

that Cameron is very sensitive about being criticised and that he loves the paining in

Lily’s room as Cameron and Mitchell in the painting are her “guarding angels”.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Lily’s inability to hurt her parents’ feelings

and Lily’s ability to hurt their feelings easily; 2. Incongruity in the sense of

aesthetics


Strategy - hyperbole (the painting in Lily’s room is as beautiful as in the Sistine Chapel)

(allusion to the nudity of Cameron and Mitchell and in the Sistine Chapel)


- sharing (only to the viewers)



- soliciting support (especially, Cameron)

- defending

- advising

- avoiding conflict (Cameron and Mitchell avoid conflict with their daughter)



- providing a cultural reference (Michelangelo was asked to paint clothes to the

naked bodies in the Sistine Chapel)



Appendix

- 319 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- even when people say that their feelings cannot be easily hurt, in practice it is

quite easy

- homosexual people are stereotypically regarded as quite sensitive and any

critical remark is taken personally

- the dialogue shows that what an adult may think of as a piece of art (or

something valuable), a child may assess it as a piece of garbage

- we should accept each other’s choices if we want to be accepted

- homosexual people, particularly sensitive to the issue of acceptance, would like

to raise their children as understanding human beings

- parents usually hide the fact when their child hurt their feelings

Episode 3. Blindsided

17. Phil receives the phone call from the client who is interested in buying the house. Claire

and Alex have an expression of disgust on their faces because of Phil’s way of talking to

the potential customer.

Phil: [on the phone] I’m so glad you like the house! Hey, so a few things. One, all the appliances are

included, two, the previous residents were murdered there, and three, it just passed mold

inspection. So, when should we… [suddenly Phil changes his cheerfulness into disappointment]

Uh-huh. Yeah. I get it. Well, we’ll …we’ll just keep looking. Although it does give the house

character. If those walls could talk. [laughing] I agree. It’s not funny. Bye-bye.

Fictional

layer

Phil is excited that he almost managed to sell the house in which a person was

murdered. He unfortunately makes a mistake of revealing it to a potential client

who is no longer interested in buying a murder-related house.

Recipient

layer

The recipient derives the humorous effects from Phil’s attempt at jocularity, which

is meant to release the tension connected to the murder in the house, stating that

the walls in the house could really tell an interesting story (or the ghost of the

person murdered in the property). On the basis of Phil’s subsequent conversation,

the viewer can deduce that “talking walls” could make living in this house

unbearable and scary for a client. In order to derive humour, the recipient needs to

grasp the punning effect between the metaphorical meaning of the phrase intended

by Phil and the literal meaning arrived at by the buyer.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: the clash between the metaphorical meaning of the phrase if

these walls could speak (= that something interesting has happened in the

house/room) and the literal meaning (=the ghost of the person living in the

house could tell a scary story)

- Relief: relieving tension because of the scary story behind selling the house

RT tool - explicature: ambiguity resolution (leading to a punning effect)

Strategy - metaphor

Functions - providing a puzzle (linguistic play)

- disclosing character-specific information (that Phil is an unsuccessful real

estate agent)


- criticising

- advising (to other real estate agents what should not tell anything scary to

potential buyers)

- showing off



Appendix

- 320 -




Propositional

meaning(s)

- a real estate agent uses humour to persuade a client into buying a house

(humour relieves tension and reduces the boundary)

- humour is not always a good persuasive tool in the property business

- a real estate agent believes that when the property for sale has a distinctive

feature, it will rather be an advantage (the house distinguishes itself from

other “normal” properties)

- a real estate agent wants to have control over the process of selling and has

chosen to inform the client about anything that may discourage the client

from buying the house

- a real estate agent knows when to pass on bad information, i.e. the fact that

someone was murdered in the property is mentioned as the second piece of

information, which can be read as a way of concealing of the worst

information

- a real estate agent makes a number of tireless efforts to sell the house and

then tries to joke about the wall telling a story

18. Haley wants to set up her own business in which she and her friends would promote

different clubs on social media. She asks the parents for help. Alex is the third party.

Haley: We made $500 last night for promoting a hookah bar.

Claire: [regretfully] I remember when you were a little girl. You told me you wanted your job

to be “princess” I would kill for those days.

Alex: [writing on paper since she cannot talk because of mononucleosis] “Is that why you’re

dressed like a hookah?”

Fictional

layer

Haley is proud of herself that she earned $500 at promoting a hookah bar last

night. Claire misses the days when Haley’s dream job was to become a princess (a

non-existent profession in the real world) since promoting clubs on social media is

not a high-powered job. Alex, on the other hand, always uses the opportunity to

tease her sister.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Alex’s personal opinion about Haley’s new profession. The

viewer might be amused when Alex utters the word hookah, which is phonetically

similar to the hooker. Alex’s tease requires the process of lexical adjustment,

which gives rise to two different concepts (a syntagmatic pun) HOOKAH* (a bar

where customers can smoke water pipe used for smoking tobacco) and HOOKER*

(a term for a prostitute). These two concepts that arise out of two encoded

concepts are responsible for the creation of a punning effect. The recipient needs

to formulate the implicature that Haley’s promotional job is not decent as she

looks as though she sleeps with men for money.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: the clash between promoting a hookah bar and being dressed up

like a hooker (both share a phonetic segment)

- Superiority: Alex’s feeling of mental superiority

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (punning effect) + implicature (Alex

implicated that Haley’s job is not decent)


Functions - showing off (Alex’s wit shown to the parents and viewers)


- advising (not to be preoccupied with an undemanding work)

- criticising

Appendix

- 321 -

- controlling one’s behaviour (to dress up well)




- disclosing character-specific information (Alex is smart)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- teasing is used to comment upon Haley’s business idea: it is a ridicule of her

idea of how to earn a living

- teasing may also be used to discourage a person from engaging in a

particular type of activity

- showing that a sister-sister relationship is not all roses

- the smartest of siblings is the one who takes advantage of his/ her

intelligence and targets siblings with the use of wisdom

19. Manny runs for the school president and has just found out that Luke intends to do the

same. Manny and Jay are in the kitchen.

Manny: Hey, Jay, do you need to julienne any vegetables?

Jay: What?

Manny: If so, you can use the knife your grandson jammed in my back.

Jay: Well, that was worth the journey.

Fictional

layer

Humour appears on the two layers. Jay explicitly appreciates Manny’s reference of

the act of julienning vegetables with the use of the proverbial knife that Manny has

in his back. Nevertheless, Manny did not attempt to amuse Jay but to give vent to

nervous energy caused by Luke’s running for school president.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Manny’s offer that if Jay wants to cut vegetables, he

can take the knife that Many has in his back. The recipient may appreciate the fact

that Manny makes a reference to the idiom to stab someone in the back, which

means that someone you know and trust has hurt you (usually without an actual

knife). He speaks of the knife as if it could be taken out of his back by Jay and used

to julienne vegetables. The viewer needs to derive the implicature that Manny’s

trust has been betrayed by Luke and he intends to inform Jay about it in a creative

manner.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: a clash between the literal and idiomatic meanings of the phrase

to stab someone in the back (move from idiomaticity to literalness)

- Relief: Manny makes a comment to channel restless energy


Strategy - metaphor (idiom)

Functions - conveying a serious message

- disclosing character-specific information (Manny is creative)

- advising




- showing off

- sharing (about innermost feelings)

- criticising (Luke’s attitude)

Appendix

- 322 -




Propositional

meaning(s)

- there are children who do not behave like others their age and cannot express

their feelings in a standard way but need to be more creative

- the use of a metaphorical expression can be used to convey more meaning,

i.e. a person is really hurt that a member of his/ her family also runs for

president

- one’s quirky behaviour, i.e. Manny’s first question, is not always understood

by the closest family

- the use of a metaphorical expression can be appreciated by others

20. Gloria and Jay bought new clothes for Manny, which are more suitable for a person his

age, and they give him a few pieces of advice about how to be a typical teenager.

Jay: Look, you’re a great kid. All we’re saying is be a little more Casual Friday, a little Ash

Wednesday.

Gloria: Yeah. Go up there and be like, “Yo! What’s up, ballers?!” [chuckles] “Mondays off.

Like, pizza and whatever.”

Fictional

layer

As shown on many occasions, Manny likes clothes/ activities/ hobbies that are not

typical of teenagers. Gloria and Jay give him a piece of advice to be a little more

Causal Friday, a little Ash Wednesday, which is a metaphor comprehensible by

Manny.

Recipient

layer

The recipient is intended to be amused with the use of a creative metaphor uttered

by Jay, the purpose of which may be to communicate more weak implicatures

connected to the person Manny is supposed to become. In the process of concept

construction for this particular occasion, the viewer needs to entertain two

interpretations (paradigmatic puns): CASUAL FRIDAY* (the day in many

organisations when employees are allowed to wear casual clothes) and CASUAL

FRIDAY** (this is used to describe Luke’s laid-back clothes and behaviour) as well

as ASH WEDNESDAY* (the first day of Lent) and ASH WEDNESDAY** (this is

used to describe Manny’s uptight/ formal clothes and behaviour). The viewer

should formulate the interpretation that if Manny wants to run for president, he

needs to be more like other teenagers. In other words, his personality should be

something between his own and Luke’s.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Manny and Ash Wednesday as well as

Luke and Casual Friday

- Superiority: Gloria’s and Jay’s feelings of superiority over Manny as they

know better how a teenager should behave and what s/he should wear


Strategy - metaphor

Functions - advising

- showing off

- disclosing character-specific information (Manny is perceived by his family

as being different)







Appendix

- 323 -





Propositional

meaning(s)

- being compared to causal Friday means that your way of clothing is informal

- being compared to Ash Wednesday means that your clothes are as if you

mourn death hence they are too formal

- to achieve success (for example, when running for a school president) one is

advised not to wear too ordinary or too smart clothes

- to achieve success one is advised to use teenage language

21. Phil visited Merv, a promotion guy, to collect the promotional material. Merv starts

talking about the house Phil has problems selling.

Merv: Oh! I had a brainstorm on that property of yours that you’re trying to unload. You know,

where the people [showing throat cutting] Ckkk!

Phil: Yeah.

Merv: You lean into it.

Phil: Hmm?

Merv: You…You call it “Massacre Manor,” “Downton Stabby,” “Charles Mansion.” I mean, like,

I...I got a million of them.

(…)

Phil: Merv, meet my daughter Haley.

Merv: Nice to meet you. Your daddy tells me that you have come down with the Madison Avenue

flu.

Haley: I don’t understand anything that’s happening here.

Fictional

layer

Humour emerges on the two layers: Phil is amused with Merv’s ingenuity of

naming the property where a person was murdered. Merv also refers to Haley’s

intention to go into promotion business by stating that she suffers from the

Madison Avenue flu.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon first, Marv’s creativity concerning the names that could be

given to the property in which someone was stabbed and second, his naming the

profession invented by Haley. In all the italicised phrases, the viewer must activate

the process of lexical adjustment, which aims to analyse their punning elements

(syntagmatic puns).

First, Massacre Manor requires the formulation of two concepts MASSACRE

MANOR* (a house of horrors where visitors can experience fear) and MASSACRE

MANOR* (the property where a person was massacred). Second, the name

Downton Stabby, being a paronym, communicates two concepts: the first emerging

on the surface structure Downton Stabby* (the place where a person was stabbed)

and Downton Abbey* (the title of drama television series). Third, Charles Mansion

communicates two concepts of Charles Manson* (the name of a famous serial

killer and cult leader) and Charles Mansion* (the place/ mansion where a killer

stabbed a victim). The explicature that the viewer can derive is that there is a way

to improve the chances of selling the property where a person was stabbed/

murdered.

Fourth, the name of the disease called Madison Avenue requires from the recipient

to activate the process of lexical adjustment. The two concepts that need to be

formulated by the viewers include Madison Avenue* (the street in New York

Appendix

- 324 -

associated with advertising industry) and Madison Avenue* (it denotes the disease

when a person is inclined to advertising).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the names the marketer suggests and the

real names

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (punning effects)

Strategy - punning elements

Functions - providing a cultural reference


- showing off

- advising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- a marketer knows that some disadvantages can be turned into advantages: the

name of the property would stand out and hence draw attention of potential

buyers

- a characteristic feature of the property can increase chances of selling it

- catchphrases are highly important in advertising

- humour is a useful persuasive tool – some buyers may appreciate being

amused

22. Cameron and Mitchell decided to help one of the footballers in Cameron’s team to stay at

their home as his family is transferred to another corner in the world. Now Mitchell is

watching the game in the stand.

The woman: I just want to say…I love what you’re doing.

Mitchell: Well, thank you. I...I wear this sweater with these trousers a lot. When you’re

high-waisted, it is very difficult finding pieces that work together, so

The man: Yeah, you look really nice, but what she means is it’s great that you’re letting

Dwight live with you.

Fictional

layer

There is a misunderstanding on the part of Mitchell and the people in the stand.

The woman by using what means the fact that Mitchell and Cameron give shelter

to one of the members of the football team. Mitchell believes that the woman pays

him a compliment on his outfit.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent on the misunderstanding occurring on Mitchell’s and the

couple’s part. The recipient needs to activate the process of reference assignment in

order to discover two meanings of the word what: caring about the member of the

football team living in their home (the couple’s meaning) and being interested in

the clothes and whether Mitchell looks good at the match (Mitchell’s meaning).

The explicature covers the viewer’s interpretation that Mitchell is driven by

narcissism and expects compliments.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two possible interpretations of the word

what meaning “Mitchell clothes” and “letting someone to live in their home”




Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell is egotistical)

- advising



- challenging social norms (it is not appearance that is the most important)

Appendix

- 325 -


- criticising


Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexuals care about their clothes and hence like to be complimented on

their outfits

- homosexuals’ behaviour is stereotypically viewed as woman-like, as there is

a sweeping statement that women are passionately interested in clothes

- people find in themselves strange defects, such as being high-waisted

- people excessively care about their outward appearance

Episode 4. Weathering Heights

23. Phil is going to be on the news so he decides to put on make-up. Claire, Phil, Alex and

Haley are in the kitchen.

Claire: [startled] What did you do to your face?

Phil: Just a little color to make my eyes pop. [all the family stand with their jaws wide open]

Like yours are now.

Haley: Is this how we find out you’re transitioning? Oh, please don’t pick a young name. The

world doesn’t need a 50-year-old Jasmine.

Phil: Trust me, this’ll look completely normal on camera.

(...)

Phil: Oop. [noticing that he left a lipstick mark on the mug] Looks like I need to reapply.

Claire: To clown college?

Fictional

layer

Phil applies heavy stage make-up so that he looks perfect on the news. Putting on

red lipstick, blush on cheekbones and dark eyeshadow on eyelids is not positively

assessed by Claire and Haley. Haley compares Phil to a person who has just decided

to undergo a sex change operation and mocks about not choosing the name Jasmine.

Claire compares Phil to a clown who should go to a special clown college.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Haley’s comparison of Phil to a person who has just

decided to undergo a sex change operation (implicature) and Claire’s reversal of

meaning that Phil wanted others to glean. Phil’s complaint that he should reapply

requires the process of lexical enrichment, which can be enriched in accordance

with Phil’s intention: “to reapply make-up” or Claire’s intention: “to reapply to

clown college”. The interpretation ascribed to Claire carries additional

information about her attitude towards Phil’s make-up: she wishes that Phil would

remove the make-up as it does not suit a grown-up man.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: clash between “applying more make-up” and “applying to

college which teaches how to become a clown”

- Superiority: Claire’s and Haley’s feelings of superiority as Phil put himself

in the position of the target when putting on make-up

RT tool - explicature: enrichment: apply for [clown college] and apply what [make-up]

- implicature

Strategy - put-down humour

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when a viewer has needed to rebuke a

family member)

- disclosing character-specific information (Phil is not very clever)

- controlling one’s behaviour (through verbal aggression)


Appendix

- 326 -




- advising

- showing off


- criticising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- put downs can be used as a social corrective to urge a person to alter deviant

behaviour (to remove make-up)

- applying make-up by a man can be understood his desire to become a woman

- people excessively care about their outward appearance

- there is a popular myth that everything looks differently in the television,

hence heavy make-up will become no-make-up make-up

24. Alex has problems with her concentration after having suffered from mononucleosis.

Alex: [failing to solve a crossword] Ugh. What is wrong with me? I feel so fuzzy.

Haley: Oh, stop being so hard on yourself. It’s just arm hair.

Alex: [sighs] I can’t figure out this crossword puzzle. I...I think mono turned my mind to mush.

Fictional

layer

Alex calls herself fuzzy as she cannot guess a crossword puzzle. Haley

misunderstands Alex’s message as she derives the meaning of fuzzy that Alex’s

skin is covered with hair. Then, Alex explains that it is her concentration that she

has problems with.

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects derive from Haley’s having misunderstood Alex’s

complaint about being fuzzy. The recipient needs to establish the relevance

between Alex’s complaint of feeling fuzzy and Haley’s comment that she should

not criticise herself as it is only arm hair. The word fuzzy, being a homophone,

requires from the viewer the construction of two concepts, each of which is

relevant to the intentions of Alex and Haley: FUZZY* (being confused) and

FUZZY** (covered with soft short hair), respectively (a paradigmatic pun). The

recipient can formulate the interpretation that people’s communication is

sometimes at cross-purposes and that Haley frequently fails to understand what is

meant.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the word fuzzy

- Superiority: Alex’s cognitive superiority over Haley




- disclosing character-specific information (Alex is very smart, Haley is quite

dumb)

- avoiding conflict (there is no point in arguing)

- advising (how to carry on positive family relationship)





Appendix

- 327 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- a clash between a smart person who is irritated when fails to do a crossword

and a dumb person who accepts the first interpretation that comes to her/ his

mind (in Sperber’s (1994) terms, Haley is a naïvely optimistic hearer)

- a dumb person will always fail to ascribe deliberate intentions

- sniping at other person would not always succeed and you may put yourself

in the position of the butt

- a sister-sister relationship can sometimes be peaceful, where one complains

about being too hairy, while other tries to comfort her

- mononucleosis may have negative long-term effects upon one’s

psychological capabilities

25. Gloria worries that her little son Joe does not pronounce words correctly.

Gloria: Did you hear that? “Bweakfast.” It’s a good thing that we’re taking him to speech

therapy. I want everybody to understand every single thing he says. [to Jay with thick

accent] Do you want marmalade on your brioche toast?

Jay: Not a clue. [after a second] You’re probably right to nip that speech problem in the bud.

Mitchell had a lisp we let slide. Now we got a lifetime of “What if?”

Gloria: That is so offensive. A lisp doesn’t make you gay. Being gay makes you lisp.

[Jay looks as if he did not understand her train of thought]

Fictional

layer

Gloria is glad that her son, Joe, has an appointment at the speech therapist’s. She

asks Jay if he feels like eating marmalade on a brioche toast, which makes Jay

clueless as he does not understand the question. This conversation boils down to

Jay’s recollection of past events when Jay and his wife did not pay enough heed to

Mitchell’s lisping and now Jay wonders what if Mitchell had visited a doctor.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s derogatory witty remarks concerning what might

have caused Mitchell’s homosexuality and Gloria’s attempt to produce a wittier

explanation concerning this occurrence. On the basis of the background

information that Jay does not approve of Mitchell’s sexual orientation and that Jay

needs to answer the big “what if”, the recipient needs to derive the implicature that

Jay believes that given the fact that he did not take a good care of Mitchell’s

pronunciation, his son is a homosexual. Second, the recipient needs to find the

relevance in Gloria’s statement, i.e. A lisp doesn’t make you gay. Being gay makes

you lisp, which communicates the implicature: Gloria reckons that child’s lisping

does not condition his/ her sexual orientation but it is gayness that can cause

lisping.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between one’s sexual orientation and a lisp (that is,

a lisp is conditioned by sexual orientation)



Strategy - put-down humour (Jay)

- witticism (nonsense) (Gloria)

Functions - avoiding conflict

- defending


- challenging social norms (it is not a pronunciation problem that lead to

homosexuality)

- providing a puzzle (non-linguistic play) (Gloria’s statement)


- sharing (Jay explicates his fears what could have caused Mitchell’s sexual

orientation)

Appendix

- 328 -

- criticising

- showing off







Propositional

meaning(s)

- it is believed that foreigners do not usually master the pronunciation of

English words, which sometimes makes the meaning of their utterance

incomprehensible

- there is prejudice against homosexuals when it is believed that their sexual

orientation results from unrelated things, such as disregarding the problem of

child’ lisping

- a person sometimes strains to make an intellectually complex statement but

instead, makes a nonsensical assertion

- homosexuality is a topic which can generate fear in some people and so as to

find a way to accept it, they try to come up with a credible reason (Mulkay

1988)

26. Manny wants to attend an art school and thus he has made a college application. He

shows it to Gloria and Jay.

Jay: You copied that from that play “Hamilton,” right?

Manny: I’m not sure “copied” is the word. It’s more of an homage.

Jay: Well, I homaged it about two weeks on “Jay Talking.” You saw that episode, right?

Gloria: [rolling her eyes] Okay.

Jay: I rhymed “rice pudding” with “Cuba Gooding.” Both delicious, by the way.

Manny: Oh, good God. There are thousands of “Hamilton” parodies, and half of them are college

applications.

Gloria: It’s okay, Papi. Maybe the people in New York haven’t heard about “Hamilton.”

[Jay is clearly amused]

Fictional

layer

Seeing Manny’s school application based on Hamilton, Jay claims that this is

plagiarism, whereas Manny thinks of it as an homage. Humour emerges on the two

layers: Jay and the recipient laugh at Gloria’s belief that New Yorkers have not

heard about the play Hamilton and this is the reason why Manny has an excellent

chance of being accepted to the art college.

Recipient

layer

The comic effects result from Gloria’s last turn in which she comforts her son that

Manny should not be sad about preparing the video on the basis of the Hamilton

musical since New Yorkers might not have heard about this musical. The recipient

is required to have relevant background knowledge about the musical, which,

together with the knowledge about Gloria who is a foreigner, help him/ her derive

the implicature that Gloria lacks basic knowledge concerning American cultural

artefacts. Moreover, it could be speculated that Gloria knows about the musical,

but instead of discouraging her son, a mother would always choose to say

something positive.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: the clash between the meaning that people from New York have

not heard about the musical and the meaning that the musical is shown on

Broadway

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Gloria

RT tool - Implicature

Appendix

- 329 -


Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when viewers needed to dealt with

foreigners’ lack of knowledge of cultural artefacts)

- disclosing character-specific information (Gloria is a foreigner unaware of

cultural aspects)


- advising (how a caring parent should behave: not to openly criticise a child;

how a caring husband should behave: not to openly criticise his wife)

- defending






Propositional

meaning(s)

- foreigners lack cultural background, for example they are oblivious to the

fact that the musical Hamilton is one of the most popular plays shown on

Broadway (New York)

- a mother will always find a way to cheer a child up

- there is a thin line between plagiarism and being inspired by a work of art

27. Manny is desperate to prepare a new application for an art school.

Manny: The deadline for early admission is tomorrow. I’ll never come up with something great by

then.

Jay: Yes, you will, and I’ll help.

Manny: You’d do that for me?

Jay: Anything for you, kid.

[Visibly angry, Jay talks into the camera]

Jay: I got to get this kid out of the house. All his crazy quirks. The farther away, the better. I

keep leaving brochures around for schools at sea.

Fictional

layer

Jay promises Manny that he would do anything for him, which includes preparing a

video that would be memorable. Then in the monologue, Jay reveals to the viewer

his true hidden agenda that the reason for helping Manny is to get rid of him as he

cannot stand his strange habits.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the disparity between the meanings communicated by

Jay either to Manny or the viewers. The recipient’s expectations of relevance are

not satisfied given the fact a different meaning is communicated by Jay when he

has a conversation with Manny (he is eager to help him out of the goodness of the

heart) and a different meaning is gleaned on the basis of Jay’s monologue (he is

eager to help in order to get rid of Manny). Taking these two pieces of information

into consideration, the viewer is supposed to extract the implicature that Jay is

willing to help his stepson to make him move out of the house.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the meanings communicated to Manny and

to the recipient

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Manny


Strategy - contradiction

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Jay frequently shows that he is not

emotionally attached to his children)

- advising

- criticising

Appendix

- 330 -

- defending

- avoiding conflict (when a father conceals his true feelings)

- challenging social norms (parents do not always want their children to live

with them)

- sharing (sensitive information that Jay is sneaky)

- soliciting support (the fact that Jay reveals his emotions to the recipient is an

index of believing the viewers)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- any parent loves a child but also wants a child to be more self-reliant

- when a child becomes an adult, a parent wants his/ her home to become a

haven of peace and tranquillity without children in it

- when people are eager to help you, they may sometimes be inspired by an

ulterior motive

- the greater the desire to help, the more negative the motive is

- it is difficult to live with a person under the same roof, who has an odd pattern

of behaviour

- the love between a step child and a step parent is not so strong

- a father usually does not love a child as much as a mother

28. Phil meets a well-known weatherman on the news, which makes Phil very excited.

Rainer, a weatherman, finds out that Phil is a real estate agent and tries to find the

common language with him.

Rainer: You know, I think you sold my neighbor’s house, Doris Jacobs.

Phil: [trying to recall] Uh, white, mid-century, big back porch?

Rainer: That’s her.

Fictional

layer

Rainer tries to bond with Phil by recalling his neighbour to whom Phil sold the

property. Phil wants to make sure that they talk about the same person so he

mentions a few characteristic features of the house: the house’s exterior is white,

built or designed in mid-century, with a big porch behind the house. Rainer

humorously switches the referent for Phil’s description as these features may suit

the description of the woman.

Recipient

layer

Humour is hinged upon the joke-like format in which Phil’s turn can be treated as

the setting and Rainer’s last turn as the punchline. Following RT procedure, the

viewer needs formulate the first interpretation on the basis of Phil’s recollection in

which the implied referent is the house. Rainer subverts this meaning by making

the viewer (and Phil) formulate the second interpretation that Phil’s recollection

can be used to describe the woman: she is Caucasian, in her mid-50s, with plump

buttocks.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the description of the house and the

description of the woman

- Superiority: disparagement of Phil’s neighbour



Functions - challenging social norms (it is not the way women should be talked about)


- advising

Appendix

- 331 -




- showing off

- highlighting similarities (between men)

- criticising (men should not talk in this way)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- in a stereotypical men’s talk, women are described in terms of objects

- it is typical of some men that they ridicule women and hence show their power

- by drawing attention to the way in which men talk, the production crew may

wish to alter undesirable behaviour in which women are treated as an object of

affection and nothing more

- humour can be used to establish the common ground

29. Haley is with Phil in the recording studio.

Haley: I need to wash my hands. Where’s the restroom?

Rainer: Oh, of course. You’re gonna want to go down that hallway, push through the big double

doors. You’re gonna see some air vents on the way there. It’s just past that cold-air

system. Bring a sweater. It tends to get a little chilly in that neck of the woods.

Haley: Wow.

Fictional

layer

Rainer is asked to give Haley directions to the toilet. Since he is a weatherman,

Rainer explains the way as if it were a weather forecast. Talking about air vents

producing strong icy wind, he advises Haley to put on a sweater as it is the coldest

region in a recording studio.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Rainer’s creative way to describe the way to the loo,

which necessitates the derivation of the implied meaning. In order to extract the

implicature, the viewer is required to access the background information about

Rainer’ fondness of being in the centre of attention. All these assumptions give rise

to the implicated premise that if a much older man says something creative or

amusing to a much younger woman, he may want to make advances to her and be

noticed or remembered by her (as a good sense of humour is alluring). The

implicated conclusion is that Rainer intends to impress Haley and that he never

steps out of his role of a “television figure”.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between giving directions to the place in a building

and providing the weather forecast

- Superiority: disparagement of Rainer (an older man wanting to impress a

young woman)



Functions - advising (how to impress a young girl)






- showing off



Appendix

- 332 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- an older man wants to impress a younger girl by providing a vivid

description of the way to the toilet

- when a person loves a job, s/he does not want to leave the designated role

- people who work in television believe that viewers (among others, Haley)

expect from them the same behaviour in real and professional life

30. Jay gives Manny a piece of advice about how to make a video application for an art college.

Manny: How about this? We open on a blank sheet of paper. Under a Mozart fugue, we suddenly

see a drop of blood.

Jay: Is it the admissions committee slitting their wrists?

Manny: [sighs] Fine. The year is 18…

Jay: No! You’re on the wrong track here. They’re gonna get a million applications from artsy

little snots. You’ve got to stand out. When everybody else zigs, you’ve got to zoink.

Manny: Isn’t it “zag”?

Jay: Exactly. [proud]

Fictional

layer

Manny faces problems with the preparation of a decent video. Jay claims that the

video should not be too artistic as it is the obvious way of doing the admission

video. Jay invents a new phrase zigzoink on the basis of the existing noun zigzag,

which is his advice about the application to Manny.

Recipient

layer

Humour resides in Jay’s piece of advice, which introduces unexpectedness. Both the

recipient’s and Manny’s expectations of relevance are not fulfilled when Jay utters an

unknown noun zigzoink. In order to derive Jay’s meaning, one needs to formulate the

implicature: there will be plenty of ordinary admission videos, epitomised by zigzag,

while Manny’s video should not be predictable, exemplified by zigzoink. In other

words, Manny should be more creative and his video be unexpected.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the existent word zigzag and the non-existent

word zigzoink


Strategy - reversal


- advising (in order to be noticed, one needs to be creative)


- showing off (Jay)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- in order to increase one’s possibilities of being admitted to college, you should

prepare the video that the committee does not expect

- Jay’s turn may also be treated as a piece of advice for life, not only college life,

that is, to achieve success, you need to do something that is unexpected

- a father is a parent who can criticise a child for not doing the best thing in a

given situation

Appendix

- 333 -

31. Lily tries to get rid of Dwight, a member of Cameron’s football team, from their home and

plants empty alcohol bottles, which should persuade Cameron and Mitchell that Dwight

abuses alcohol. Cameron and Mitchell find out about Lily’s deceit and try to give her a

lesson, so that she will not make making groundless accusations in future. There is a police

officer at the door.

A police

officer:

I’m here to arrest Dwight Bullock for underage drinking.

[Cameron and Mitchell talk into the camera]

Mitchell: We wanted to give Lily a chance to come clean on her own.

Cameron: Luckily, we have a friend of a friend who dresses as a cop for work.

Mitchell: He also undresses as a cop for work.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell and Cameron asked their friend, who dresses and undresses as a cop for

work, to frighten Lily to make her confess that she was the one who dropped

empty alcohol bottles in order to frame Dwight into underage drinking.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon a joke-like structure in which Cameron’s turn about a

friend is the setting, while Mitchell’s explanation is the punchline. The recipient

should become suspicious when Cameron makes a statement about their friend

who dresses as a cop for work, which implicates is that he is not a real police

officer (then, Cameron would say that they have a friend who is a police officer).

Mitchell’s further elucidation forces the recipient to extract the implicature that

their friend is a stripper, which is supported by the implicated premise that if a

person dresses and undresses himself/ herself for work, one receives money for

striptease.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a friend who dresses and undresses as a

police officer for work and a friend who is a real police officer



Functions - sharing


- highlighting shared experiences (if viewers needed to act in the same way)


- providing a puzzle (non-linguistic play) (to deduce that a person undressing

for work can be a stripper)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexuals do not stereotypically have “normal” (as assessed by the

society) friends but among them, there are strippers

- parents would like to alter unacceptable behaviour of their children and

hence they hire a make-believe police officer as a deterrent

- parents frequently use this technique to teach their children a lesson

32. Claire is in the toilet helping Luke win a Scrabble game with Alex.

[Alex and Luke sit at the table]

Alex: Oh, my God. Again?

Luke: Small bladder, big brain. That’s why we’re tied.

[Claire and Luke are in the bathroom]

Luke: I need a “T,” an “L,” and a “W.”

Claire: “T,” “L”. Hopefully she’s too sleepy to notice that she got three W’s on her board.

Luke: Also, can I take a pee?

Claire: Yeah. Coming right up.

Appendix

- 334 -

Fictional

layer

Alex is irritated about Luke’s leaving the table all the time. She is given the

explanation that there is a strong correlation between his small bladder and big

brain. In the bathroom, Claire gives him letters so that he can make a longer entry.

Luke states that he needs to take a pee, which is misunderstood by Claire as a

request for the letter “P”.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the homophone pee vs P. On the basis of background

assumptions about Luke that he is unintelligent and the contextual assumption that

his small bladder is compensated in terms of a big brain, the recipient needs to

extract the implicature: Luke wants to offer a valid excuse about leaving the table.

Second, the recipient needs to form two concepts on the basis of the homophone.

The concept encoded in Luke’s statement is PEE*, which is used to communicate

that he needs to use the toilet. Claire’s understanding requires from the recipient to

construct the concept of P* in which Luke asks her for another letter.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between having a small bladder resulting in a big

brain (or vice versa); 2. Incongruity between the letter P and the noun pee

RT tool - implicature (bladder and brain)

- explicature: lexical adjustment: to take a pee/ take a P (a punning element)

Strategy - Luke: witticism (small bladder = big brain)

- Luke: punning element

Functions - challenging social norms

- providing a puzzle (linguistic play) (pee vs P)


- defending

- showing off

- disclosing character-specific information (Claire is sometimes eager to help;

Luke is not a very bright person)

- sharing (the information that Alex does not know)


- fostering conflict (felt by Alex)

- reducing conflict/ tension (implied by Luke)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- a sister-brother relationship: a brother teases his sister when there is an

occasion to do so

- when a parent is aware of the fact that there is a disparity in his/ her

children’s cognitive capabilities, s/he is eager to help the dumbest (so that to

comfort this child) and hence deceive others

33. Phil is angry that the weatherman Rainer, an older man in his late 40s, dates Haley. He

wonders how it is possible that Rainer has not asked Phil about the permission to date his

daughter.

[Phil recollects his meeting with Rainer at the bar]

Rainer: [laughing] Anyway, I dated my makeup girl for a while, but, uh, then she had to leave

town.

Phil: Oh. Wow. Well, if …if it’s not crossing a line, can I give you my daughter Haley’s

number?

Rainer: Really?

Phil: Yeah, she’s available, and she actually expressed some interest.

Rainer: Well, I’m definitely interested.

Appendix

- 335 -

Fictional

layer

Both Phil and Rainer work under a misapprehension. Phil wants to communicate

to Rainer that Haley evinced her interest in becoming his make-up artist, while

Rainer believes that Haley is interested in becoming his girlfriend.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon mutual misunderstanding of each other’s intentions.

The viewer needs to enrich the word interest which, according to Phil, would refer

to Haley’s eagerness (interest) to be employed as Rainer’s make-up artist (interest

in [what]), while according to Rainer, would refer to Rainer’s excitement (interest)

about being involved in a romantic relationship with Haley (interest [in whom]).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity in the word interest differently understood in the

context of dating and in the context of employment

- Superiority: disparagement of Phil (his stupidity)

RT tool - explicature: enrichment

Strategy - incongruous link/ misunderstanding


- sharing

- advising



- disclosing character-specific information (Phil is impressed when talking to a

well-known person and hence does not control the meaning gleaned by his

listener)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- an older man is honoured that the father of the girl he adores reveals his

daughter’s affection

- a typical conversation of men: they talk about women

- misunderstanding of each other’s intentions can lead to quarrels later

Episode 5. Halloween 4: The Revenge of Rod Skyhook

34. Mitchell gives Luke Cameron’s karaoke machine.

Luke: The karaoke machine. Thanks, Uncle Mitch.

Mitchell: It’s Cam’s, and he loves it. He’s never more than two glasses of wine away from

treating us all to an impromptu concert. It’s 100 bucks if you break it.

Luke: Really?

Mitchell: Do you want more?

Fictional

layer

Mitchell gives Luke Cameron’s karaoke machine stating that Cameron needs to

drink two glasses of wine to stage an impromptu concert. Mitchell tells Luke that

he needs to pay 100 bucks if he breaks it, which is understood as a warning. Then,

Mitchell shows his intention to skyrocket the price for Luke’s breaking the

machine, which is an indication of Mitchell’s hatred of Cameron’s concerts.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on the divergent perspectives on what it means that a person can

get or pay some money. The contextual assumption that Mitchell wants to

communicate is that he offers Luke money if he breaks the karaoke machine,

however, Luke constructs the interpretation that Mitchell warns Luke not to break

the machine. Then, the further contextual assumption concerning Mitchell’s

eagerness to a rise in price for breaking the machine, which together with his tone

of voice, require from the recipient to derive the implicature that he finds

Appendix

- 336 -

Cameron’s singing nerve-racking. Mitchell’s deceit is supported by the viewer’s

background information about Cameron’s sensitivity to criticism, which helps the

recipient to gain additional implicatures that Mitchell does not want to hurt

Cameron’s feelings.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between 100 bucks treated as a punishment or

reward for breaking the karaoke machine

- Superiority: disparagement of Cameron





- criticising

- defending

- avoiding conflict

- disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell has problems with

confronting his partner)

- challenging social norms (it is better to talk openly)

- sharing







Propositional

meaning(s)

- a way of dealing with a contextual problem: not liking Cameron’s karaoke

machine because of concerts he may give is solved by paying somebody else

to break it

- there is always a way to circumvent the problem without hurting one’s

feelings

- people would rather deceive their partners than hurt their feelings

- people take advantage of others in order not to feel guilty (like Mitchell takes

advantage of Luke)

- dumb people are the easiest targets who can be exploited

35. Claire and Phil do not want to leave Luke unsupervised at home at the Halloween party.

Claire shares her doubts with Luke and Phil (Alex is shown later lying on the couch).

Claire: I just heard a story about a kid who had an unsupervised party and one of the guests

broke his leg because he jumped off the roof onto a trampoline and sued the parents.

Luke: We have a trampoline. And a roof.

Claire: I need to know that you’re joking.

Luke: Mom, I have everything under control.

Phil: [laughing] Claire, come on! He’s a responsible young man! Have a little faith in your

son.

[Luke leaves while Claire starts looking for something, and Phil goes up to Alex]

Phil: These are all the emergency numbers. That’s Fire, Police, Poison Control, Homeland

Security.

Fictional

layer

Phil wants to make Claire believe that Luke is a responsible man and hence there

will not be any unforeseen emergencies. Then, when Claire and Luke are out of

earshot, Phil gives Alex the emergency numbers to a fire department, police

department, poison control centre and homeland security.

Appendix

- 337 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon divergent meanings communicated by Phil to Claire

and to Alex. The recipient entertains the clash in two micro dialogues: when

talking to his wife, Phil is certain that Luke can handle any difficulties during the

party, while when talking to Alex, Phil gives Alex a set of emergency calls. Phil’s

behaviour implicates that he does not believe that Luke can cope with the

difficulties that can emerge during the party. An array of emergency calls

additionally implicates that anything can happen when Luke is a host of the

Halloween party.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the father’s trust in his child’s ability to

throw a safe party and the father’s distrust in his child’s ability to throw a

safe party

- Relief: the viewer’s emotions may be released in the form of laughter when

s/he perceives that s/he is not the only one that treats children in a distrustful

way



Functions - avoiding conflict

- disclosing character-specific information (Phil is not always laid-back)


- highlighting shared experiences (when one was terrified to leave a child

alone as Phil)

- advising (it is better not to leave a child unsupervised)

- sharing

- avoiding conflict





Propositional

meaning(s)

- any parent is the same: first, s/he swears that s/he believes in his/ her child’s

sensibility, and then s/he does something that negates this view

- the world from the perspective of a child: first, a child is given permission to

do something that may be above his/ her ability and then is supervised,

which shows a lack of trust

- the world from the perspective of a parent: the employment of the strategy of

coping with a contextual problem, the viewer gets the information on how to

deal with the children’ need to be trusted

- parents have vivid imagination towards what may happen during a home party,

i.e. even Homeland Security can be needed (in the case of terrorism)

- it is the smartest child that needs to be responsible and is trusted most

- a father is a parent that gives more freedom to children

36. Phil slipped over the wet floor (that Mitchell left while playing a prank on Claire).

Mitchell: [clearly shocked and worried] Phil, are you okay?

Phil: I’m fine. Yeah. Hey, you know what the beaver said when he slipped in water?

Mitchell: Damn it?

Phil: Damn it.

Fictional

layer

When Phil slipped over the wet floor, Mitchell is worried that Phil could have

broken a leg. Instead of complaining, Phil chooses to make a pun that is suitable to

the current situation, which is a play between two phonetically similar words:

Appendix

- 338 -

damn /dæm/ it vs dam /dæm/. The wordplay is well understood by Mitchell who

quickly pops up the answer.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Phil’s intention to tell a riddle to Mitchell. Since

damn/ dam is a homophone, the viewer should construct two concepts relevant to

the riddle (a syntagmatic pun): the interjection DAMN IT* is used to communicate

annoyance because of slipping on the floor, whereas the verb DAM* refers to

building by beavers a special wall to stop river from flowing. The viewer is forced

to entertain two different ad hoc concepts that are consequent upon two different

encoded concepts.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between damn /dæm/ it and to dam /dæm/

- Relief: laughter occurring after falling (hence, transition from a dangerous into

laughable situation)


Strategy - punning element (intentional)

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Phil is eager to amuse others)


- reducing conflict/ tension (instead of being angry, Phil chooses to laugh at

himself)

- showing off





Propositional

meaning(s)

- it is in the nature of some people to say something amusing, even when the

situation is not amusing in itself

- one’s humorous line in a dangerous situation is an indicator of letting others

know that a persona is all right and ready to have fun

- it is also possible that a person values more his/ her sense of humour than

physical pain and this is the way to deal with pain (contextual problem)

37. On the Halloween night, Gloria, Jay and little Joe are dressed up as Mary, Jesus and Joseph

in the Nativity play.

Gloria: Jay, as a Catholic, I do not feel right about this.

Jay: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. [the names are used as an exclamation]. It’s the perfect family

costume.

Gloria: It doesn’t even make sense. Joe should be the Jesus.

Joe: Yeah!

Jay: “Joe” short for “Joseph.” “Jay” short for “Jaysus.” It’s the only way it makes sense.

Fictional

layer

Gloria harbours personal doubts concerning the costumes prepared for the

Halloween party. While Gloria does not want to wear the costume of Mary as she

is no saint, Jay feels good in the costume of Jesus. The reason why him, not little

Joe, should be Jesus is that there is a resemblance between the word Jesus and

Jaysus.

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects result from Jay’s explication why he is dressed up as Jesus

and Joe is dressed up as Joseph in the Nativity play. The viewer needs to find the

relevant link in the homograph of the real name JESUS* (the most important child

in the Nativity play) and the one made up by Jay: JAYSUS* (the name possesses

the phonetically similar constituent part Jay, which is the reason why he needs to

be Jesus) (a syntagmatic pun). Second, little Joe can become Joseph as there is a

corresponding element in the name. The recipient needs to derive the implicature

Appendix

- 339 -

concerning Jay’s eagerness to become Jesus: Jay is a patriarch and hence wants to

be dressed up as the most important person from the Bible.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the existing word Jesus and non-existent

word Jaysus

- Superiority: when Gloria does not accept or get the reasonable explanation

provided by Jay, she puts herself in the position of the butt and Jay is superior

- Relief: release from an ordinary path of comprehension

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment Jaysus vs Jesus (phonetic similarity) (punning

effect) + implicature

Strategy - punning element

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Jay wants to have the upper hand)

- defending


- showing off (Jay’s mental power)

- reducing conflict/ tension (by providing a reasonable explanation)

- challenging social norms (Jay is no saint and hence should not be Jesus)

- criticising (Jay’s eagerness to become Jesus)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- when a man really wants something (as in the dialogue, to be dressed up as

Jesus), he will his use twisted logic to explain this occurrence in logical terms

- it is easier to employ the technique of twisted logic to a foreigner as s/he will

not fully understand

- a man, who wants to become Jesus, feels to be the head of the family or feels

superior

38. Manny dressed up as Dalton Trumbo in a bathtub and asks Gloria, Jay and Joe to guess the

costume.

Manny: You get who this is, right?

[Manny pretends to be writing on a typewriter]

Jay: Harriet Tub Man?

[Manny pretends to be writing on a typewriter, implicating that it’s a wrong answer]

Jay: Oh, Joyce Carol Floats.

[Manny taps cigarette ash]

Jay: Farrah Faucet, spelled F-A-U

Manny: Yeah, I get it. And why are you only guessing women? I’m Dalton Trumbo, blacklisted

screenwriter, wrote in a bathtub.

Fictional

layer

Manny believes that his costume is easy to guess and asks Gloria and Jay to

provide the name of the person he is dressed up as. Instead of providing the

answer, Jay teases Manny by inventing the names of people, the parts of which are

connected to the costume: Harriet Tub Man, Joyce Carol Floats and Farrah

Faucet.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon the homophonic and homographic relations between

the names of real people and the names provided by Jay (syntagmatic puns).

First, the homograph Harriet Tub Man requires from the viewer the construction of

two concepts: Harriet Tubman* (she was an American abolitionist and political

activist; her achievements are not relevant to Manny’s costume) and Harriet Tub

Appendix

- 340 -

Man* (purposefully separated words tub and man indicate that Manny is carrying a

tub). Second, the homophone Joyce Carol Floats requires the construction of two

concepts: Joyce Carol Oates* (an American writer) and Joyce Carol Floats*

(indicating that Manny floats in the tub). Third, the humour in the homophone

Farrah Faucet is contingent upon two concepts: Farah Fawcett* (an American

actress) and Farrah Faucet* (indicating a water-related word faucet).

The explicatures that the recipient is able to construct is that Jay intends to connect

the person Manny is dressed up as and the visual characteristics of the costume. On

an implicit level, Jay may want to inform Manny that his costume is not suitable

for a teenager.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between actual names and the names suggested by

Jay



Strategy - teasing (solidarity)

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Jay frequently teases Manny)

- controlling one’s behaviour (Manny should change the costume)

- advising



- showing off






Propositional

meaning(s)

- inventing the names of people that Manny could be dressed up as is a way of

showing that he should have put the costume that anyone can recognise

easily

- proving the names of women is an indicator of the stepson’s sensitive nature

- a stepfather-stepson relationship: teasing is on a daily basis

- making up the names which are thematically connected with the costume is a

factor of Jay’s creativity

- humorous teasing is a way to amuse others

- humorous teasing conveys the social corrective function, which should force

a person to change this behaviour (that is, to change the costume)

- humorous teasing can indicate that a person does not know the answer (that

is, the name of the person) but does not want to admit this fact

39. Manny wants to attend Sophia’s (the girl he adores) Halloween party instead of going to

Luke’s. Gloria orders Manny to go to Luke’s party and leaves the kitchen. Jay wants Manny

to go to Sophie’s as her grandfather stole Jay’s business plans.

Jay: [whispering] You’re going to Earl’s.

Manny: What?

Jay: You’re gonna put dead fish in his shoes. And I’m gonna cover for you if your mother

gets suspicious.

Manny: Where am I going to hide fish?

Jay: You’re in a bathtub!

Appendix

- 341 -

Fictional

layer

Jay wants to persuade Manny to put a dead fish in one of Jay’s enemies’ shoes.

Manny is not sure as he does not know where to put the fish. Jay underlines the

fact that Manny is in the bathtub (the costume) and hence implicates that he may

put the fish into the bathtub.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Jay’s advice about the place where Manny can

possibility hide a dead fish. The contextual assumption made manifest by Jay

requires from the recipient to entertain the clash between the doable activity of

putting a fish in a real bathtub and undoable/ unrealistic activity of putting a fish

in a fake bathtub, which should be processed together with the visual context of

Manny’s wearing a bathtub as a Halloween costume. All of these assumptions

give rise to the implicature: Jay’s eagerness to take his revenge on a rival clouds

his judgment where Manny may really hide a fish.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a real bath where there is water so that a

fish can be put there and a fake/ costume bath where there is no water and

hence a fish cannot be put there


Strategy - fantasising

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when they have the same bitter feelings

towards their opponents)

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay knows best)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- people are sometimes driven by negative feelings that overshadow their

judgment (a fish cannot be put in a costume bath)

- a father is the parent who lets his child take an unfavourable action

- people sometimes tend to give a piece of advice that is not always a valuable one

40. Cameron, Mitchell and Lily are waiting at their doorstep for children to give them sweets

as part of a trick-or-treat game. Mitchell notices that Cameron secretly snacks sweets.

[Mitchell and Cameron talk into the camera]

Mitchell: Cam doesn’t react well to candy.

Cameron: Which is why I never eat it. Except on Halloween. And I admit, in years past, I may

have overindulged.

Mitchell: Which leads to a crazy high followed by a tearful, self-loathing crash. It’s a Days of

Red Vines and Roses.

(…)

[one child takes handful of sweets, which angers Cameron]

Cameron: There is a social contract. You say “trick or treat,” you get one piece of candy. That

breaks down, we’re just a hop, skip, and a jump to a lawless wasteland where we use

beads and teeth for money!

Mitchell: That was your first candy bar, you say? You think maybe you should have a little

protein to balance that out?

Fictional

layer

Mitchell informs the audience that Cameron has problems with sweets as, when he

eats candies, his emotional state can be dubbed Days of Red Vines and Roses. An

example of Cameron’s emotional attachment to sweets is demonstrated when he

complains about a little child who took too many candies, which he compares to an

unlawful world.

Appendix

- 342 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Mitchell’s creative metaphor used to describe Cameron’s

addiction to sweets as well as Cameron’s use of hyperbole to describe what he feels

about the boy who stole his sweets. First, the phrase Days of Red Vines and Roses

is a connection of the two references: Days of Wine and Roses (the film about a

man addicted to alcohol marrying a woman addicted to chocolate, who quickly

addicts herself to alcohol) and Red Vines (a brand of red licorice candy). The

knowledge of what these names implicate helps the viewer to derive emergent

properties in the process of lexical adjustment: Cameron is addicted to sweets in

the same way as alcoholics. Another implicature that the viewer is supposed to

derive is the one on the basis of Cameron’s hyperbole that he claims that taking too

much sweets on a trick-and-treating is an unlawful activity, which strengthens the

already extracted meaning that Cameron is addicted to sweets.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the existing phrases of Days of Red

Wine and Roses and Red Vince and the non-existing phrase Days of Red

Vines and Roses; 2. Incongruity between a lawful world (when a child takes

one candy) and an unlawful world (when a child takes too many candies)



- implicature

Strategy - Mitchell: metaphor (personal anecdote)

- Cameron: hyperbole

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (if a similar situation occurred to a viewer)

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is sensitive and gets

easily addicted)

- advising

- controlling one’s behaviour (it is better not to succumb to addiction)

- conveying/ challenging social norms





- showing off

- sharing (in the confession)


- criticising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- any person may easily relate to Cameron’s addiction to sweets (or any other

substance) that it is difficult to get rid of addiction

- one’s addiction may become an object of ridicule (corrective function)

- Mitchell’s metaphor may be used to underline the seriousness of addiction,

even to sweets

- Cameron’s hyperbole provides further information about addictive

personality

41. A girl at the party does not understand why Manny wears the Trumbo costume.

A girl: Rambo?

Manny: No, Trumbo. Dalton Trumbo. He wrote in the bathtub.

A girl: Why?

Manny: Maybe, as a screenwriter, he knew he was going to take a bath on the back end.

[chuckles]

Appendix

- 343 -

Fictional

layer

The girl wants to find out why Dalton Trumbo wrote screenplays/ novels in a

bathtub. Manny responds that the reason for this is that Trumbo was convinced

that he was going to take a bath at the end of screenwriting.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Manny’s last turn in which he airs the phrase which can

possibility be understood in a double way. The recipient needs to discover a pun in

Manny’s turn, which should activate the process of lexical adjustment in the

phrase to take a bath. It requires the activation of two concepts, both of which are

relevant to Manny’s turn: TAKE A BATH* (to have a shower) and TAKE A

BATH** (to lose money, especially in a business deal) (a paradigmatic pun). On

the surface, Manny wanted the girl to construct the second concept, which is the

explicature. The implicature that the recipient may derive is that Manny intends to

impress the girl at the party and show his wit.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the literal and idiomatic meaning of the

phrase to take a bath

- Superiority: it is the cognitive superiority that Manny has over other

teenagers

- Relief: Manny is nervous when talking to a pretty girl and his attempt at

amusement is used to release energy

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment + implicature


Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when the recipient wanted to impress

somebody)

- disclosing character-specific information (Manny is unlike his peers)

- showing off


- advising (humour is one way to pick up a girl)

- conveying social norms (you may use humour to impress other people)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- employing the phrase with a double meaning is the technique used to induce

humour on the part of hearer

- people sometimes employ humour to show their cognitive mastery

- some teenagers are quite intellectually advanced and are able to make a

humorous remark relevant to the ongoing conversation

- many teenagers lack knowledge concerning prolific screenwriters

42. Cameron found the child who had thrown an egg at him, and reprimanded him for this

action. Mitchell stood up for Cameron, instead of diminishing Cameron’s problem, which

deeply moved Cameron. Earlier, Mitchell criticised Cameron for being petty.

Cameron: [voice breaking] Sometimes I just feel like it’s me versus the entire world. It’s just

nice to know that we really are a…a dynamic duo.

Mitchell: All right. Now we play candy crash.

Fictional

layer

Cameron is greatly touched by Mitchell’s support. Mitchell comments upon

Cameron’s tearfulness that he plays candy crash, which should be interpreted on a

metaphorical level.

Recipient

layer

Humour is hinged upon Mitchell’s metaphorical turn used to describe Cameron’s

current emotional state. The recipient needs to establish the relevance between

two meanings of the phrase to play candy crash in the course of the process of

lexical adjustment. The viewer needs to construct two concepts, which relate to

Appendix

- 344 -

the literal and metaphorical meanings, respectively: PLAY CANDY CRASH* (to

play the game called Candy Crash) and PLAY CANDY CRASH** (a person has an

emotional breakdown because of the drop of sugar in blood) (a paradigmatic pun).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity in the phrase to play candy crash



Strategy - metaphor




- soliciting support (people who are addicted to sweets)

- showing off

- fostering/ reducing conflict/ tension (by uttering something amusing)

- controlling one’s behaviour (by drawing attention to one’s poor emotional

state)

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is quite sensitive)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexuals are viewed as very sensitive and easily moved by words or

actions of others

- sometimes one’s outburst of emotions is caused by other factors (such as

eating too much sugar)

- any person needs to receive wholehearted support from his/ her partner, no

matter what

- instead of uttering criticism bluntly, it is advisable to use a figure of speech,

which can be a means of mild criticism (dealing with a contextual problem)

Episode 7. Thanksgiving Jamboree

43. Phil and Claire are talking about their neighbour, Jerry, who goes through a rough divorce

and they decided to invite him to the Thanksgiving country jamboree organised by

Cameron and Mitchell.

[Phil and Clare talk into the camera]

Phil: Jerry used to live next door. He’s been going through a brutal divorce for years, and he

was gonna spend Thanksgiving alone.

Claire: Phil thought it’d be a good idea if he spent the day with a happy, functional family. [after

a few seconds] We couldn’t find one, so he’s coming with us.

Fictional

layer

Phil and Claire appear to be very compassionate as they wanted their neighbour,

who undergoes a harrowing experience of divorce, to celebrate the Thanksgiving

day together. The reason why it is their family that the neighbour spends the day

with is that they could not find a functional family.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Claire’s turn in which the initial part creates certain

expectations about what she will say next, i.e. she will admit that they are a

functional family. When Phil admits that their neighbour stays with them and

Claire adds that they were looking for a functional family for their neighbour, the

recipient formulates the first interpretation that the Pritchett-Dunphy-Tucker clan

is functional (meaning, for example, psychologically stable). The second part of

Appendix

- 345 -

Claire’s turn invalidates the recipient’s expectations and forces the recipient to

backtrack in order to extract the implicature that they are not a functional family.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a functional family (what Claire first

implicates) and a non-functional family (what Claire underlines)


- Superiority: disparagement of the members of the Pritchett-Dunphy-Tucker

clan




- conveying a serious message (Claire and her family are not normal)

- controlling one’s behaviour (we should be compassionate)


- advising

- sharing (in the confession)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- there is no perfect functional family in the world as any family face

tribulations and is twisted in its own way

- Claire and Phil are a role model as they are compassionate people whose

behaviour should be followed (corrective function)

- we should overcome flaws that any family exposes

- it is better to spend the Thanksgiving day with imperfect people than to be

alone

- there are many sympathetic people in this world

Episode 8. The Alliance

44. In the kitchen, Phil is kissing Claire’s neck while Luke is texting. Alex walks in.

Phil: Flapjacks for mi amore?

Claire: Oh, grazie.

Alex: Ugh. I don’t know what’s more syrupy you two or Luke’s chin.

Luke: That’s weird. I haven’t had breakfast yet.

[Alex frowns]

Fictional

layer

Alex comments upon Phil and Claire’s openly displaying warm feelings towards

each other by stating that they are syrupy, which is misunderstood by Luke.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Alex’s comment that, as exemplified by Luke, can introduce a

double path of comprehension. The viewer ought to activate the process of lexical

adjustment in order to find a relevant connection between Phil and Claire’s

affection and Luke’s chin, both of which are syrupy. As a result, the recipient

needs to construct two concepts for the homonym syrupy: the concept

communicated by Alex of SYRUPY* is used to show her disapproval at their

parents’ being too kind to each other, whereas the concept of SYRUPY** gleaned

by Luke is that his chin is covered in something thick and sticky like syrup (a

paradigmatic pun).

Appendix

- 346 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the adjective syrupy

- Superiority: Alex’s cognitive mastery


Strategy - sarcastic irony

Functions - controlling one’s behaviour (by children)

- criticising (undesirable behaviour)

- advising

- fostering conflict (by making a bitter comment)

- showing off (Alex’s mental power)



- challenging social norms (children do not approve of their parents’ affection)

- disclosing character-specific information (Alex’s criticism is not made

directly)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- a child does not like or approve of watching their parents kiss or show any

sign of affection (corrective function from the point of view of children)

- the reason why parents show their love in front of children is to show that

older people can also love each other and show this love

- a dumb sibling would always fail to recognise the intended meaning (that the

comment is not directed at him/ her) and hence put himself/ herself in the

position of the butt

45. Phil’s job is to delay Mitchell’s coming back home since Cameron and Gloria want Russian

squatters living on the first floor of Mitchell and Cameron’s house to move out. Phil runs

into Mitchell who has just gone out of the gym.

Phil: I was just heading into the post office. You mind keeping me company? They’re always

quick.

Mitchell: Oh, well, actually, I gotta... I don’t have my keys. Oh, I must have dropped them.

Phil: Oh, no. Well, I’ll... I’ll help you check the gym. You remember what machines you

were using?

Mitchell: [hesitates] All of them.


Phil: We scoured that gym. It actually did take a crazy long time, because Mitchell kept

getting lost. But I still needed a little more time.

Fictional

layer

Phil tries to delay Mitchell’s coming back home by asking him to go with him to

the post office. Mitchell notices that he has lost the car key and Phil volunteers to

help him find it. To improve the search, Phil asks Mitchell to tell him the type of

machine/ equipment Mitchell used but unfortunately, he could not name any and to

make matters worse, Mitchell kept getting lost.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon the clash between Mitchell’s statement that he does

exercises at the gym and Phil’s statement that Mitchell kept getting lost there. The

recipient needs to read between lines and derive the implicature that when Mitchell

cannot name the gym machines he used and he kept getting lost, he did not do any

exercises in the gym. These contextual assumptions gleaned by the audience,

together with background assumption about Mitchell who is quite sensitive and

does not like sweating, make the recipient derive weakly communicated

implicatures that Mitchell frequents gyms just because being fit is attractive.

Appendix

- 347 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Mitchell’s attending the gym to work out (and

hence he should know all the machines there) and Mitchell’s attending the gym

for other reasons than a work-out (and hence not knowing any of the machine)



Functions - avoiding conflict (Phil implied that Mitchell did not use any of the gym machine

to the viewer)


- advising



- controlling one’s behaviour (cheating is an unfavourable feature of one’s

personality)

- reducing conflict/ tension (that Phil did not approach Mitchell that he did not use

gym machines)

- sharing



Propositional

meaning(s)

- it may happen that people go to the gym in order to show up in stylish places,

take the photo that can be put on social media

- creating the utopian picture that a person takes care of his/ her physical health,

which is important in a modern world

- people like creating appearances, which are not necessarily true

- the act of deception can be easily verified

46. Haley is supposed to look after Rainer’s teenage daughter. She notices the daughter is

dressed up in a short dress and is about to leave the house.

Haley: What is this?

Rainer’s daughter: Clothes that don’t come from a mall.

Haley: Hold on, hold on. I’m supposed to be watching you.

Rainer’s daughter: I’m going to Betsy’s. My Uber’s out front.

Haley: Who is this Betsy? Are her parents even home? And you’re 14. You’re not

Ubering anywhere. Also, you you can lose the makeup because you look like a

prostitute at an electronics convention. Now, go wipe it off and help set the

table.

[Rainer’s daughter slams the door]

Claire: Huh.

Haley: What? I’m... I’m not used to being all parenty, okay?

Fictional

layer

When Haley sees that Rainer’s daughter is dressed up inappropriately and wants to

use Uber, she acts like a parent and scolds her for such an irresponsible behaviour.

Haley’s attitude positively amazes Claire.

Recipient

layer

The recipient should entertain the clash between two versions of Haley. The

viewer’s background assumption about Haley is that she is frequently pictured as a

typical teenager keen on sexy clothes, parties and sleeping until afternoon. This

representation of Haley is put in opposition to the viewer’s contextual assumption

that she acts as a responsible girl (capable of instructing his partner’s daughter).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Haley as a typical irresponsible teenager

and Haley as a responsible quasi-stepparent

- Superiority: disparagement of Rainer’s daughter


Appendix

- 348 -


Functions - conveying social norms (what a teenage girl can wear and how she can

behave)

- disclosing character-specific information (Haley wants to impress her

boyfriend by being a good stepmother)

- sharing

- controlling one’s behaviour (by scolding)







Propositional

meaning(s)

- when children grow up, they become the versions of their parents, who are

capable of scolding and instructing others

- even though children complain about restrictions given by their parents, they

can appreciate these after a while

Episode 9. Snow Ball

47. Claire, Gloria, Phil and Jay are asked by one of the parents from the PTA (Parent-Teacher

Association) to look after the high school children at the ball. The men are reluctant to join

the party. Claire says that there is one condition under which she can go with Gloria alone.

Claire: Sure, it’s the least I could do, because tomorrow you are going to help Luke with his

homework while I visit wine country.

Gloria: [gasps] I want to go.

Phil: That’s just what she calls lying on the trampoline drinking Chardonnay.

Gloria: Ah.

Fictional

layer

Claire agrees to go alone to the snow ball as long as Phil would help Luke do the

homework, while Claire would visit a wine country. On hearing this, Gloria

expresses her eagerness to join Claire but Phil provides the explanation of what

wine country means: lying on the trampoline drinking Chardonnay.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon the double meaning of Claire’s wine country in which

there is a clash between the existing meaning in a language and the new assigned

by Claire. The recipient would not be able to infer its meaning as in lay language

user’s terms, it would mean a place where you can taste wine. As soon as Phil

explains what Claire has in mind, the viewer can entertain humorous effects that a

usual activity of drinking is named in a creative manner. On the basis of the

background assumption about Claire that she frequents drinking wine, which

connects with the ongoing contextual assumption, the viewer can access a number

of weakly communicated implicatures: the recipient’s knowledge about Claire is

strengthened that she likes alcohol, Phil does not want Gloria to know that Claire

intends to drink wine, drinking is not socially approved, especially when it is

women who overuse alcohol.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings that a wine country can

denote


Strategy - metaphor

Appendix

- 349 -

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when a parent needs a drink)

- advising


- disclosing character-specific information (Claire likes drinking wine)



- showing off

- sharing (about a difficult issue)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- as a parent you become creative and try to appreciate little things: you

organise your alone free time on a trampoline

- a parent does not want to appear to be an alcoholic in front of the family or

society, hence chooses to refer to drinking wine in a more sophisticated

manner

- drinking alcohol is negatively assessed by the society, hence it is better not to

refer to it in a direct blunt way

- some people want to be more enigmatic

- parents do not always set a good example

48. Mitchell and Cameron are at the winter ball. The principal of school has just informed

Cameron that the children from the sports team want to prank Cameron.

Cameron: Oh, my God, I hate pranks so much. Now I’m gonna spend the whole dance paranoid

wondering what they’re gonna do. Is it gonna hurt? Am I gonna cry?

Mitchell: You’re a clown. Isn’t that mostly just pranking people?

Cameron: No, it is not. Clowns are loving and joyful. You know what? I was warned about this

kind of ignorance. Don’t make me regret marrying outside the big top.

Fictional

layer

Cameron shows his contrasting characteristic features that on the one hand, he is a

clown and wants to make harmless pranks to other people, and on the other hand,

he is afraid of being the target of a prank made by the members of the sports team.

When Mitchell makes a comment upon this contradictory nature, Cameron makes

a barb that he was advised not to marry a person who is outside the big top.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon two lines: Mitchell’s pointing out that it is

contradictory that Cameron is a clown but hates being pranked and Cameron’s

taking offence. The recipient is required to establish relevance between the

background assumption about Cameron that he makes pranks as a clown and the

contextual assumption that he is not fond of pranks being made to him. Mitchell

explicitly refers to Cameron’s features which are mutually exclusive. Cameron’s

biting comment implicates that he made a mistake when marrying Mitchell as he

is not an acknowledged clown. There are some weak assumptions that the

recipient can extract: Cameron’s anger is caused by his hurt feelings, he treats his

“clowning” seriously, etc.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Cameron’s being keen on making

pranks as a clown and Cameron’s reluctance to be made a prank; 2.

Incongruity between Mitchell’s comment that Cameron is a clown and

Cameron’s advice not to marry anyone outside the big top


RT tool - explicature

- implicature

Appendix

- 350 -

Strategy - mockery (Mitchell)

- put down humour (Cameron)


- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is sensitive)


- defending

- sharing

- advising (it is better to be more considerate)


- criticising

- fostering conflict (by referring to being a clown in negative terms)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- a barb (or rebuttal) is frequently a sign of agreeing (that Cameron should not

be afraid of pranks) but not wanting to admit it

- the best defence is a good offence

- people sometimes treat themselves too seriously and fight back

- we need to be careful not to hurt anyone’s feelings by defending ourselves

- there is a possibility that people have contradictory characteristic features,

for example being shy and confident

49. Claire and Gloria are being constantly reprimanded by a PTA mother at the ball for not

guarding the high school teenagers. They agree that if the woman finds a man, she will not

torment the ladies.

Claire: That is a very old-fashioned attitude, which in this case, seems pretty accurate.

[sighs]

Gloria: A man, a man, a man. Where can we find one.

The principal: [to the phone when passing Claire and Gloria] Hey, Siri, record “Antiques

Roadshow.” [cellphone chimes]

Gloria: I can’t think of anyone.

Claire: Principal Brown. He’s single. We could fix them up.

Gloria: [excited] At the Winter dance.

Claire: Mm-hmm.

Gloria: That’s so romantic.

Claire: Yes, and maybe she’ll get off our backs if she spends more time on hers.

Gloria: You really are your father’s son.

Fictional

layer

Claire and Gloria are fed up with a PTA mother who makes sharp rebukes to

them. Claire is convinced that when the PTA mother would have sex with a man,

she will not be interested in keeping an eye on them. Gloria comments on Claire’s

attitude that she is a typical son of Jay.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Claire’s biting comment and Gloria’s statement that

Claire’s comments resemble her father’s. On the basis of Claire’s inappropriate

comment, the recipient needs to construct the explicature formed from the

idiomatic expression to get off someone’s back: Claire wishes that the PTA would

stop criticising them and leave them alone. As soon as Claire provides the second

idiom to spend time on somebody’s back, it forces the recipient to backtrack the

first idiom and derive the literal sense of this interpretation, the result of which are

Appendix

- 351 -

two concepts (a paradigmatic pun): GET OFF ONE’S BACK* (to literally take

something off one’s back) and GET OFF ONE’S BACK** (to stop nagging). As

regards the idiom to spend time on back, the viewer constructs two concepts

(literal and figurative meanings) (a paradigmatic pun): ON BACK* (take some

time laying on the back) and ON BACK** (to have sex).

The second humorous turn provided by Gloria necessitates the extraction of

implicature. The expression to be somebody’s father son used in reference to a

woman cannot communicate that she is literally a son. Hence, the viewer (and

Claire) is supposed to glean the meaning that Claire is a tough girl and thus her

personality is comparable to a man. Additionally, Gloria’s turn weakly

communicates some assumption about Mitchell that he is effeminate (the

background assumption is that Jay has two children: Mitchell and Claire).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between two idiomatic phrases, the common

denominator of which is the word back; 2. Incongruity between Claire’s

being a woman and Gloria’s comment of Claire’s being a son


- Superiority: disparagement of Claire


- implicature

Strategy - witticism (Claire)

- metaphor (Gloria)

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when sexist comments were made by

women)

- disclosing character-specific information (Claire is like a stereotypical man)

- controlling one’s behaviour (Gloria’s scolding)

- challenging social norms (Claire’s comment)



- criticising





Propositional

meaning(s)

- there are certain comments that are stereotypically typical of men, like

referring to sex and that a woman needs it to be less crotchety

- it is not socially acceptable to pass sexist comments by women (social

corrective)

- homosexuals are effeminate individuals and hence can be compared to

daughters

- when a woman has a man-like personality, she is assessed in terms of being

more like a man

- women are also capable of making sexist comments

50. Manny looks deeply offended because Luke does not appreciate Manny’s effort to organise

the memorable winter dance.

Manny: Do you have any idea how hard it is doing all this for $8,000? Yeah, of course not,

because

Luke: Wait, wait, wait. The budget for this was $800. You spent $8,000? That’s the budget

for the whole year.

Manny: I texted you, “What’s my budget for the Snow Ball.” You replied $8,000, followed

by a gratuitous gif of a guy getting hit in the nards.

Luke: It’s like just don’t skateboard down a railing, right? [chuckles]

Appendix

- 352 -

Manny: Principal Brown.

P. Brown: Yep?

Manny: If we were to go over with the student council budget, how hard would it be to get a

little extra money?

P. Brown: Oh, no problem. We would just sell the Rembrandt in the faculty lounge.

Luke: See? Problem solved.

Fictional

layer

Manny and Luke are aware of the fact that spending $8,000 instead of $800 on the

party would create a problem. When they ask Principal Brown what if they would

have spent a hefty sum of money, he replies that the problem could be easily got

around by selling the painting by Rembrandt that is situated in the faculty lounge.

Manny knows that the school does not possess the painting, while Luke believes

that the money problem is solved.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Luke’s misunderstanding of what the principal has said to

him. The recipient needs to access Principal Brown’s intentions and the contextual

assumption communicated by him: his sarcastic comment conveys the meaning

that the problem with spending too much money on the winter ball is quite knotty

to be overcome as schools do not have such expensive paintings to cover the

spending. This assumption clashes with the contextual information that Luke

conveys: they would get additional funding to a party, which is in accord with the

background assumption about Luke that he lacks intelligence. The recipient’s

implicature consists of strengthening his/ her knowledge about Luke that he is not

able to work out the implicit meaning and anything is taken at face value.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the principal’s intention to communicate

that school would not deal with spending too much money on the winter ball

and the meaning gleaned by Luke

- Superiority: disparagement of Luke (implicit)



Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when a viewer needs to deal with one’s

stupidity)

- disclosing character-specific information (Luke cannot read between lines)


- reducing conflict/ tension (when one employs teasing/ sarcasm)

- showing off (principal’s wit)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- dumb people have problems to understand a message that is directed towards

them

- dumb people would believe in anything they are said

- sarcasm can sometimes communicate more weakly communicated

information, such as the school’s budget is tight and the school cannot handle

any overspending

- throwing parties/ balls is not of paramount importance to school officials and

thus little money is spent on parties

51. Since Jay and Phil did not go to the winter ball as chaperons, Phil makes a few suggestions

to Jay what they can do instead together.

Phil: Okay, we could go bowling.

Jay: Hmm. Had my league last night. I’m a little bowled out.

Phil: Fair enough. Round of mini golf?

Appendix

- 353 -

Jay: Great idea. Wait up. I’ll go get my frog and my slingshot. We’ll hop on our bikes and go down

there.

Phil: We could get something to eat.

Jay: Already ate.

Phil: Go to the movies?

Jay: Hate the lines.

Phil: How about a bar?

Jay: So, we drive across town, pay a 200% markup on the same glass of scotch I’m holding in my

hand right now just so some drunken old broad can stagger over and tell me I look like Ernest

Borgnine.

Fictional

layer

Phil agreed to stay with Jay at home and he is happy to spend quality time with his

father-law while the wives went to the snow ball. However, Jay has other plans, that

is to drink his scotch in a peaceful environment. Phil offers a number of suggestions

but Jay is reluctant and declines any offer.

Recipient

layer

Humour can be derived by the recipient when the first suggestion put forward by Phil

is negated by Jay. Jay employs an ambiguous phrase to be bowled out, the term of

which requires the construction of two concepts (a paradigmatic pun): BOWLED

OUT* (in cricket, the situation when every member of the team has had to leave the

field and there is no one left to bat) and BOWLED OUT** (when the viewer of

bowling has enough of watching this sports), with the latter being intentionally

communicated. Moreover, the recipient can derive the implicature on the basis of the

contextual assumption, viz. Phil makes effort to spend time with Jay, while Jay

declines his offers, which is in accord with the recipient’s background knowledge

about the relationship between Jay and Phil (Phil always tries hard, whilst Jay is very

reluctant). All these assumptions lead the recipient to derive the implicature: Jay

disapproves of Phil.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between two concepts created by the phrase to be

bowled out; 2. Incongruity between Phil’s eagerness to spend time with Jay

and Jay’s indifference

- Superiority: disparagement of Phil (implicit)


- implicature



- challenging social norms (a father-in-law should be more considerate)

- disclosing character-specific information (about Phil and Jay)



- conveying a serious message (Jay hates Phil)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- inventing a new meaning to the existing phrase may be used to amuse his/ her

audience (that is, Phil who is known to like jokes, pranks)

- a person’s repeated suggestions which are instantly declined shows that there are

people who cannot be satisfied or their personality is more of an introvert person

- some people do not see anything bad in openly showing another person that

they do not like him/ her

- a father-in-law/son-in-law relationship: it is sometimes quite difficult, although

a son-in-law tries hard to be accepted

- well-off people are frequently stingy

- some people are hard to be satisfied

- a daughter’s husband is not easily accepted by a father

Appendix

- 354 -

52. One of the school bullies approaches Manny in order to pour himself a glass of punch.

The bully: Hey, Delgado. I hope this punch isn’t as watered down as your performance in

“A Streetcar Named Desire to Hang Myself.”

Fictional

layer

A school bully likes teasing everyone he meets at the school winter dance. He

decided to target Manny, the organiser of the ball, to comment upon the taste of

fruity alcoholic drink as he expects that the punch is not watered as Manny’s

performance in A Streetcar Named Desire to Hang Myself.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon a biting comment that contains the cultural artefact. To

find the bully’s bite relevant, the recipient needs to activate the process of reference

assignment in order to extract two interpretations of the beginning of the phrase A

Streetcar Named… First, the viewer is manipulated into assigning reference to the

famous play named A Streetcar Named Desire (the play by Tennessee Williams

about a mentally unstable woman addicted to sex), which needs to be dropped as

soon as the bully finishes with the phrase to hang myself in order to identify some

imagined play under this title. The twist in the interpretation involves not only

switching from the real (famous and critically-acclaimed) play to some imagined

play (unknown and probably bad) but also from Manny’s expectation to be famous

and win critics’ favourable opinions to what he really is according to the bully.

These contextual assumptions, together with the background assumption about

Manny who is quite sensitive and different from other peers, help the recipient to

construct the interpretation that Manny’s performance in a supposed play (or at the

winter ball) was poor.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the original title and the made-up title;

2. Incongruity between acceptable conduct and unacceptable one

- Superiority: the bully’s supposed/ presumed feeling of mental superiority

RT tool - explicature: reference assignment + implicature



- disclosing character-specific information (the peers could have noticed that

Manny is intellectually different and hence can be easily targeted)


- criticising





- showing off (presupposed wit of a bully)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- a biting comment may be used to inflict one’s face damage

- adding the phrase “to hang myself” to the title of the play implicates that a

person is advised to commit suicide

- it is not the fault of victims that their behaviour or outward appearance is

negatively assessed or aggressively targeted by bullies

- bullies attack other people without any reason

Appendix

- 355 -

53. Mitchell was told that the school bully is a homosexual and his behaviour can be

explained by this “stigma”. Mitchell intends to impose order on the bully.

Mitchell: I know what you’re doing.

The bully: Excuse me?

Mitchell: I know how hard it is to be a gay teen. In high school, I only had one friend.

The bully: Really? What was Oscar Wilde like?

Mitchell: You’re lashing out. Because you’re angry and you’re insecure, and you just want

everyone else to feel as bad as you do.

The bully: Maybe. But come on. It must’ve been easier for you looking like Michael

Fassbender.

Mitchell: [clearly fishing for more compliments, tidying his hair] I do not look like. You think

I look like Michael Fassbender?

The bully: Yeah, if he were older and shorter and played by Kathy Griffin.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell tries to calm the bully down. He tries to relate to him by saying that he

was also angry when he was young. Showing disbelief, the bully claims that

Mitchell’s only friend was Oscar Wilde but his school times should have been

easier as he looks like Michael Fassbender, which clearly delights Mitchell.

Recipient

layer

Humour hinges upon the bully’s inventiveness to insult Mitchell, which is

interpreted by him as praise. The recipient needs to possess cultural knowledge to

find those lines laughable. By using the name of Oscar Wilde, the bully implicates

that Mitchell is old and he had only one homosexual friend (or there were not many

homosexual people during Mitchell’s school years). Then, the bully comforts

Mitchell by saying that he resembles Michael Fassbender (the viewer needs to

know that Fassbender’s hair is red), which aims to have a positive effect upon

Mitchell and make him drop the topic. It is also possible that the bully resorts to the

strategy of teasing as Mitchell may resemble Fassbender’s positive qualities, such

as a good look, wit, or negative qualities. Mitchell is also compared to Kathy

Griffin that is not a very good-looking comedienne. The humour results from the

viewer’s knowledge that these biting comments are not genuine compliments.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the treatment of homosexual community in

the XIX century and during present time

- Superiority: the bully’s supposed feeling of mental superiority


Strategy - sarcastic irony/ mockery

Functions - providing a cultural reference


- disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell likes being complimented)

- advising


- challenging social norms (mockery is not socially acceptable)

- showing off (bully’s wit)


- discourse management (a topic change)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- biting is used to inflict a face damage

- a bully is not a trustworthy person (the bully makes fun of Mitchell’s trust

that he resembles Michael Fassbender)

Appendix

- 356 -

- compliments are sometimes not a sign of affection but dislike and should be

read as sarcasm

- one of the ways to deal with conflict is to try to avert continuing conflict

- an attempt to find the common ground may positively affect an angered person

- a grown-up should be emotionally mature to know that teenagers may be

angry because of finding out about their sexual orientation

- when teenagers find out that they are not heterosexual, they may be nervous

and try to lash out

54. Jay and Phil decided to join their wives at the winter ball. They talk in the car. In an earlier

scene, Gloria and Jay wear matching Christmas sweaters: Gloria’s sweater has the head

and part of trunk of a reindeer, while Jay’s has the back of a reindeer.

Phil: Well, you can’t have your first kiss again, but you can have your next one right in there.

Jay: Oh, what the hell. Give Gloria a thrill.

Phil: That’s great, Jay, ‘cause you complete her.

Jay: [moved by Phil’s words] Oh, Phil.

Phil: [takes the Christmas sweater with the legs of the reindeer] No, literally. You complete her.

[chuckles] You’re the butt of this joke.

Fictional

layer

Phil explains to Jay why he thinks that he should attend the winter ball: he

completes his wife. Jay is profoundly moved by Phil’s words, however, Phil

clarifies that Jay literally completes his wife because of the sweater and he is the

butt of this joke.

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects result from the double meaning of the verb complete and the

noun butt (paradigmatic puns). Phil’s polysemic expression that Jay completes his

wife requires the construction of two concepts, both of which are relevant in the

present context: COMPLETE* (when a husband is with his wife, they make the

whole, that is, he makes her perfect) and COMPLETE** (a husband supplies the

missing part of the sweater). In its literal sense, Phil believes that Jay’s sweater

completes Gloria’s, whereas in the metaphorical sense, Phil implicates that Jay

and Gloria are a unity. Second, the recipient needs to lexically adjust the

homonym butt, which gives rise to two interpretations (being contextually

sanctioned in the conversation): BUTT* (the target of this joke) and BUTT**

(a buttock of a rainier on the sweater).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between literally completing somebody and

metaphorically completing somebody (a person is incomplete without his/

her better half); 2. Incongruity between literally being the butt because of

wearing the butt of a reindeer on the sweater and metaphorically being the

target of joking

- Superiority: disparagement of Jay


Strategy - teasing (solidarity)/ banter

Functions - conveying social norms (a father-in-law and a son-in-law enjoy a harmonious

relationship)

- disclosing character-specific relationship (Jay approves of Phil’s humorous

comments)

- advising


- showing off (Phil’s wit)



Appendix

- 357 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- in every family, there is a person who does his/ her best to amuse others

- communication sometimes goes at cross-purposes and some explanation is

required to understand each other’s intentions

55. Luke enlightens Manny that it is Manny who made a mistake in the sum of money, which

can be spent to organise the winter ball.

Luke: You were texting me while I was live streaming my breakfast, and wait a minute. I did

say $800. Look.

Manny: Oh, my God, this is all my fault.

Luke: Well, well, well. Looks like the dunce cap is on the other foot.

[Manny looks as though he cannot comprehend Luke’s turn]

Fictional

layer

Manny acknowledges that he did not read properly the message from Luke, in

which he had explicated the sum of money allocated for the ball. Luke is amused

that Manny failed to do something better than him.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon the connection of two idioms in order to give rise to a new

meaning, which is also a testimony of the fictional character’s lack of linguistic

competence. Luke’s attempt at scolding Manny forces the viewer to disambiguate

the newly coined idiom however, Luke is unaware that there is no such fixed

expression in the English lexicon. The phrase the dunce cap is on the other foot is

a blend of two idioms, viz. the dunce’s cap (a tall pointed hat that a stupid student

had to wear in the past) and the boot/ shoe is on other foot (the situation is reverse

of what it was). As soon as the recipient lexically adjusts the new idiom, s/he

should formulate the explicature that Luke wanted to communicate that it is

Manny who is dumb and causes problems now, not Luke who usually plays this

role. These contextual assumptions made manifest by Luke together with the

background assumption about him (Luke is not very clever), can lead to the

extraction of the implicature that Luke’s turn is an indicator of his stupidity.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the proper idiom vs the idiom employed by

the character

- Superiority: Manny’s supposed/ presumed feeling of mental superiority


Strategy - self-denigrating humour (Luke puts himself in the butt’s position)

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Luke is quite dumb)




- showing off (Luke’s wit or lack of thereof)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- an attempt at teasing in order to serve the social corrective function can be

unsuccessful, and point to one’s stupidity

- teasing can be used to show power and inflict a face threat

- a person derives pleasure when s/he is not the target and the problem is

caused by somebody who is perceived by society to be more intelligent,

wealthy or higher on a social ladder (Manny is believed to be wise)

- some foreigners have a better command of English than native speakers

Appendix

- 358 -

56. Mitchell cannot let the bully make another person suffer emotional harm.

Mitchell: Hey. Another proud moment for the struggle.

The bully: Ugh. Here she comes. Martin Luther Queen, yes. By all means, tell me about the

struggle.

Fictional

layer

The bully continues making biting comments to the people met at the winter ball,

which irritates Mitchell as he thinks the bully carries on an internal struggle of

fighting his sexual orientation. The bully is fed up with Mitchell’s nagging him by

addressing him as Martin Luther Queen.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the bully’s invention of a new name on the basis of the

existing one. The recipient needs to extract two concepts encoded by the paronym

Martin Luther Queen, both of which are relevant to the meaning emergent upon

the viewers (a syntagmatic pun): Martin Luther King* (an activist fighting for

civil rights of Afro-American people) and Martin Luther Queen* (an activist

fighting for the rights of homosexual people). The viewer is supposed to formulate

the explicature that the school bully wanted Mitchell to glean the meaning that he

is a gay rights pseudo-activist (Mitchell wants to think of himself as a real activist

that wants to come to terms with his own gay identity). There is also the

implicature that Mitchell and the viewer need to derive on the basis of the word

queen and the background assumption about calling a homosexual a queen:

Mitchell is treated as a stereotypical homosexual, who is effeminate.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the real name Martin Luther King vs the

made-up one Martin Luther Queen

- Superiority: the bully’s supposed/ presumed feeling of mental superiority


Strategy - put down humour/ sarcastic irony


- sharing

- advising

- criticising






- showing off (bully’s wit)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- teasing/ biting is used to inflict a face damage

- a perfect name for homosexual people is the word queen, which shows their

effeminate nature

- many people think of the personality of homosexuals as being more like

women, as they are sensitive and prone to displaying emotions

- homosexuals’ struggle for their rights can be compared to the fight for the

rights of Afro-American people (which was long and arduous)

Appendix

- 359 -

57. Manny is angry at himself that he did not read the message about how much money can be

spent on the ball. He talks to Luke while walking towards the principal’s office to reveal the

truth.

Manny: The piper needs to be paid.

Luke: You hired a piper?

Manny: No. I made a mistake, and I need to accept the consequences.

Fictional

layer

Manny wants to bear the unfavourable consequences of spending too much money.

When Manny (a non-native speaker) talks to Luke (whose mother tongue is

English), he uses the idiom the piper needs to be paid. Luke understands the idiom

in its literal sense that Manny hired the piper to play a pipe at the ball.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the literal/ idiomatic meaning dichotomy of the phrase

pay the piper. The viewer needs to construct two concepts on the basis of Manny’s

idiom, which reflect a double meaning of this expression (treated as a homonym) (a

paradigmatic pun): PAY THE PIPER* (to accept/ suffer repercussion for one’s

actions) and PAY THE PIPER** (to pay the person who plays a pipe during some

event). Luke’s misunderstanding is caused by accessing the second concept, whilst

Manny’s use of expression was meant to be understood on the idiomatic level (the

first concept).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the literal and idiomatic meanings of the

phrase to pay the piper

- Superiority: implicit superiority of Manny who needs to explain the idiom to a

native speaker of English




- disclosing character-specific information (Luke is always the dumb one)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- it happens that a non-native speaker has a better command of the English

language

- a dumb person is always the target and needs to be explained everything or

just misses the meaning

- when a person, being an organiser of a party, does not know whether other

organisers have hired a piper, s/he did not care about the quality of the ball or

did not organise a ball at all

Episode 10. Ringmaster Keifth

58. Cameron and Mitchell volunteer to prepare food on the Thanksgiving Day. Cameron

decides that it is not the time to cook complex dishes.

[Cameron and Mitchell are talking into the camera]

Cameron: I did Thanksgiving dinner last year, and it didn’t go well.

Mitchell: Cam blew up the turkey and made the goat kill itself.

Cameron: Anyhow, today is my comeback meal, and I decided to keep it simple and roast a pig.

So, you just dig a hole, you put down a bed of coals, then a layer of banana leaves,

Appendix

- 360 -

lower the pig, cover it with burlap and tin foil, and bam! Six hours later, you dig it all

up, put it on a platter, and bam! Dinner is served.

Fictional

layer

The last Thanksgiving dinner prepared by Cameron and Mitchell was a disaster.

This year, Cameron cannot let himself fail again and decides to prepare something

simple. Then, he provides quite a time-consuming recipe, which is far from being

simple. It requires digging a hole and then putting a pig in it and then waiting for

six hours.

Recipient

layer

Humour is placed in Cameron’s second turn that introduces the clash between a

simple and complex recipe. The initial contextual assumption explicitly makes

manifest that Cameron’s dinner will be simple as he cannot fool himself in front

of the family. The subsequent contextual assumption invalidates the viewer’s

initial expectations of relevance: Cameron provides a complex recipe. The viewer

needs to derive the implicature that Cameron’s dinner is far from undemanding.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a simple way of preparing a dish and a

complex way of preparing food


Strategy - reversal

Functions - sharing (Cameron always does his best to prepare an unforgettable dinner)

- highlighting shared experiences (when viewers needed to act in a similar

manner)

- conveying social norms (it is socially expected that members of family do

their best to be liked)


- advising (it is good to take care of family ties)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- when a person does his/ her best to impress the family, s/he puts his/ her

heart into it and does not choose the easiest path

- homosexual people always want to be accepted and hence are on their best

behaviour to satisfy the family

- people are afraid that they will not get the second chance, and whether they

do something, they need to satisfy everyone’s expectations

- when there are people in family, who are difficult to be satisfied (like Jay),

a person is stressed because something can go wrong

59. Cameron gets a present from Jay and Gloria on the Thanksgiving day, which is a cow-like

apron with bells on it.

Cameron: [apparently excited] Okay, me next. Me next. Oh it’s an apron with… with bells on it.

Gloria: And it says, “Cam and get it!”

Cameron: Oh, so that’s not a mistake?

Jay: We spent extra cash to get that custom made. Came to me in a dream.

Fictional

layer

Cameron is excited about getting a present but as soon as he unpacks it, he is

visibly disappointed that the apron looks like a black-and-white spotted cow.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Gloria’s turn comprising homophony present on the

apron. The recovery of the comic effects requires from the recipient the

construction of two concepts, which are not lexically or logically connected (a

syntagmatic pun): COME AND GET IT* (it may refer to getting milk) and CAM

Appendix

- 361 -

AND GET IT* (it may refer to getting milk from Cameron’s cow-like apron).

Hence, the viewer needs to derive the implicit meaning that Jay and Gloria wanted

to give Cameron something that reminds him of his beloved homeland. On the

basis of Cameron’s baffled expression, the recipient may construct the

interpretation that Gloria and Jay intended to make fun of Cameron’s place of

origin, which is also a result of accessing background assumption that he comes

from countryside and his family keeps livestock.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the sign Cam and get it and Come and get

it


RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (punning effect) + implicature


Functions - reducing/ fostering conflict

- highlighting shared experiences (when a family member teased the viewer)


- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron does not like surprises

and being teased)

- controlling one’s behaviour (not every member of family likes attempts of

being amused)


- showing off (Jay’s wit)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- any person living in the countryside is believed to have a herd of cows (a

cow-like apron refers to Cameron’s place of origin)

- coming from countryside is often stigmatised as if those people are worse

class citizens

- a person who is teased does not feel comfortable and wishes it were a

mistake in language (as Cameron thought that the sign on the apron was a

typo)

- homosexual people are always teased by the family, especially by those

members who do not approve of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality

60. Cameron was responsible for preparing the Thanksgiving dinner but he noticed that the

pig, which was supposed to be ready, is cold. He calls Mitchell to inform him about this.

Cam is wearing the apron he got from Jay and Gloria.

Cameron: Just be cool.

Mitchell: Be cool? You just jangled across the yard like a big country tambourine.

Cameron: All right, well, apparently, the fire went out and I didn’t notice, and now this pig is

as cold as your family is gonna be when they figure out I ruined another meal.

Mitchell: Okay, this is bad. My dad does not like to be pork teased.

Fictional

layer

Cameron is panicking as he has just found out that the meal he was supposed to

prepare for the Thanksgiving dinner is cold. He compares the temperature of pig

to the feelings of the family as both are/ will be cold. Then, Mitchell makes a

warning that his father does not like being pork teased.

Recipient

layer

Humour results from first, Cameron’s use of the word cold to refer to two

phenomena (family and animal) and second, Mitchell’s creation of a new phrase.

The recipient needs to analyse Cameron’s turn, which requires the process of

lexical adjustment, the result of which are two concepts of the homonym cold,

being equivalent to literal and metaphorical readings (a paradigmatic pun):

Appendix

- 362 -

COLD* (low temperature) and COLD** (being unfriendly). Cameron wanted

Mitchell (and the recipient) to derive the explicature that the Pritchett-Dunphy

clan would be disappointed when they find out that after six hours of cooking, the

dinner is still not ready. Second, Mitchell’s newly coined phrase to be pork teased

requires the process of ambiguity resolution, which can mean that a person (Jay) is

not fond of being shown pork meat that is taken away without eating it. In other

words, Mitchell wants to communicate that Jay will be furious when he finds out

that he will not eat the dish made of pork as if Cameron was teasing him.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between two meanings of the word cold; 2.

Incongruity in the newly coined phrase to be pork teased


- explicature: ambiguity resolution

Strategy - Cameron: punning element

- Mitchell: witticism


- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron gets easily into a

panic)


- showing off (Mitchell’s wit)

- sharing



Propositional

meaning(s)

- when a person is emotional (as Cameron), any warning is treated seriously

- a homosexual person is easily moved by any failure and ruining a dish is

treated in terms of catastrophe

- what should matter in life is spending family quality time, not the actual

food

61. Jay and Gloria wonder who may take care of Joe if something bad happens to them.

Jay: If someone other than us needs to raise Joe, I vote Mitch and Cam. Nice balance. Mitch is,

uh, responsible, he knows culture, and Cam is basically a mom who played college football.

Plus, Joe and Lily are close in age.

Fictional

layer

If Gloria and Jay are not able to take care of Joe, Jay prefers Cameron and

Mitchell to bring up Joe as their personalities are in harmony: Mitchell is a very

responsible man keen on art, while Cameron is an emotional person, the

personality of whom are sought for in a caring parent.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Jay’s comparison of Cameron’s personality to a

mother, the humorous effects of which necessitate the process of lexical

adjustment (a paradigmatic pun): mom (literally a female parent of a child) and

MOM** (a homosexual male parent). Contextual assumptions together with the

background assumptions about Jay’s poor opinion about homosexuality give rise

to the explicature: Jay considers Cameron a caring and responsible parent. There

is also the implicature, which is a result of the clash between the background

information about Jay and the explicature: Jay values Cameron’s positive

emotions, which are typical of women, and hence he is a perfect candidate for

raising his son.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a woman being referred to as a “mom”

and a man being referred to as a “mom”



Appendix

- 363 -


Functions - conveying a serious message

- avoiding conflict


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay still thinks of homosexuals

in terms of women-like individuals)



- advising



- sharing (despite being tough, Jay is afraid of death)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- some homosexual people are treated like women-like individuals as they

possess characteristic features associated with women, such as being more

emotional, sympathetic, and empathetic

- any person thinks of what will happen with their children when they face

unexpected death (dealing with a contextual problem)

- on a more general level, every person contemplates death, especially an

older parent who has a small child

- showing a double nature of people: on the one hand, they tease

homosexuals as if they do not approve of their different sexual

orientation, and on the other hand they value their sensitivity

62. Cameron corrects Mitchell’s pronunciation mistake in the name Keith.

Mitchell: Uh, da how am I saying it wrong? His name is Keith.

Cameron: No.

Mitchell: Keef?

Cameron: It couldn’t be simpler. K-E-I-F-T-H. Keifth. Fth. Fth. A remarkable name for a

remarkable man.

(…)

Cameron: I’m gonna forget the velvety baritone that abandoned me in the middle of the night?

And plus, he walks in here, I lose it, I don’t want Lily to see that.

Mitchell: Oh, she’s not here. She has that sleepover, and she already leffffth.

Fictional

layer

Cameron insists upon Mitchell’s correct pronunciation of his former lover’s name

Keith. Cameron is passionate when talking about Keith, which visibly irritates

Mitchell who refers to Cameron’s correction when uttering the word lefffth.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Cameron’s terms of endearment used to describe his

former partner and Mitchell’s reference to one of Cam’s remarks. The search for

the relevance in this dialogue requires the process of implicature derivation. The

viewer needs to find the relation between Cameron’s underlining of the correct

way of pronunciation of the ending of name Keith and Mitchell’s referring to this

correction in the word left. This contextual assumption needs to activate one’s

extraction of implicated premises: if one excessively corrects one’s pronunciation,

for example of a former lover’s name, there may be a hidden motif why one does

that. This premise helps to extract the implicated conclusion that Cameron has

experienced intense feelings for the former lover. Second, Mitchell’s underlining

of the pronunciation in the word left requires the derivation of implicature that he

Appendix

- 364 -

feels jealous of Cameron’s feelings (and that is why he is poking fun at Cam’s

pronunciation).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the proper and improper pronunciation of

the word leffffth (left)

- Relief: Mitchell’s nervous energy is released in underlining the

pronunciation of the word lefffth

- Superiority: disparagement of Cameron (implicit)


Strategy - metalinguistic humour

Functions - discourse management



- disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell is jealous; Cameron

worships his former lover)

- advising

- controlling one’s behaviour (done by Mitchell)

- criticising

- challenging social norms (people are not usually supposed to talk about

former lovers with their current partners)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- a partner can still be in love with his former lover when s/he refers to him

in favourable terms

- homosexual and/or heterosexual people are constant when it comes to

feelings (as opposed to the stereotypical view that homosexuals change

their partners quickly and are not interesting in long-term relationships)

- it is better not to raise an issue of a former lover, which may be sensitive to

the present partner

- partner’s underlining of the pronunciation of the word leffffth (drawing

similarity to the name Keith) is a sign of jealousy

Episode 11. Sarge & Pea

63. Jay, Mitchell and Claire attend the wedding reception of their relative. Jay bought a wine

fridge, which makes him get a great pride, as in the past he was once called a “deep pocket”.

Claire and Mitchell have just noticed their mother (Jay’s ex-wife) and are afraid of having

another family drama.

Mitchell: Oh God, I...I don’t want to be the make-a-scene family. Again.

Claire: Well, Dad’s not leaving until they award him CNN Hero for bringing the wine fridge,

so maybe we just each take a parent and try and keep them apart as much as possible?

Mitchell: Probably our best shot at an uneventful day.

Fictional

layer

In order to prevent Jay and his ex-wife seeing each other, Claire thinks that her

and Mitchell should take care of one parent. They cannot leave the party earlier

since Jay is waiting for being awarded the CNN Hero prize.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Claire’s remark concerning Jay’s waiting for getting the CNN

Hero prize at the wedding reception. Claire’s comment requires the process of

Appendix

- 365 -

explicature derivation and more specifically the construction of an ad hoc concept

for its humorous effects. The concept CNN HERO* results from the interpretation

of Claire’s hyperbole that should be understood that Jay should be given a prize

because he has made a generous gesture of buying a wine fridge. As a result, the

recipient can formulate the explicature that Jay cannot wait for being praised for

buying the wine fridge for the newlyweds.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the prize given to a real hero who makes

sacrifices to help others (encoded meaning) and the prize given to a hero who

buys a wine fridge (hyperbolic interpretation)

- Superiority: disparagement of Jay

RT tool - explicature: ad hoc concept

Strategy - hyperbole


- providing a cultural reference (CNN Hero)



- advising

- criticising


- disclosing character-specific information (Claire is very critical)


- showing off (Claire’s wit)

- conveying a serious message (one does not need to boast about the gift s/he

bought)

- criticising



Propositional

meaning(s)

- there is no point in boasting about all wonderful gifts that we buy as it may

not be socially acceptable (social corrective function)

- a well-off person is frequently quite stingy and makes a fuss of spending his/

her money

- by making humour about the absent party, a person would like to achieve

several goals: amuse a co-conversationalist and belittle others, implicitly

show that s/he does not have courage to openly criticise others, say that some

presents for the newlyweds are not attractive

64. Gloria, Manny, Phil and Luke go on a college tour. Gloria uses any chance to prank Manny

so that he is prepared for pranks made by college friends.

Gloria: [running into Luke and Phil’s room] Guys, come look! I did something very bad.

[They enter Gloria and Manny’s room; Gloria laughs and whispers]

Gloria: Manny is taking a nap, [normal voice] so I put a pig-a-let in the bed! [stifles laugh]

Luke: Oh, my God. Where’d you get that?

Gloria: You remember those farmers that we met? [giggles] You’ll be surprised what they’ll

do for a couple of big tips.

Phil: [whispering to Luke] What did you hear?

Fictional

layer

Gloria pranks her son by putting a piglet into his bed while he was sleeping.

Tremendously proud, Gloria calls Phil and Luke to come and see this. In fact, they

are shocked that a parent can be that horrible and wonder how she got a pig.

Gloria explains that the farmers they met gave it to her for a big tip.

Appendix

- 366 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Phil’s misunderstanding of Gloria when she explains

him how she got a piglet. The viewer needs to activate the process of lexical

adjustment to derive two concepts of the homophone (a syntagmatic pun): TIPS*

(Gloria gave the farmers money in order to get an animal) and TITS* (Gloria

showed the farmers her breasts in order to get an animal). Accordingly, the

recipient can derive the explicature that Gloria wanted to communicate that she

gave the farmers a tip, whereas Phil wonders whether Gloria showed the farmers

her tits, which is validated by the recipient’s background assumptions concerning

Gloria’s sensual body and Phil’s secretly loving her.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two possible readings of the word tips

which phonetically similar to the word tits

- Superiority: mild disparagement of Gloria who makes pronunciation

mistakes


Strategy - punning effect


- challenging social norms (it is not socially acceptable that a husband is

interested in another woman)

- disclosing character-specific information (Phil adores Gloria)







Propositional

meaning(s)

- men’s lust is never satisfied, despite being married to beautiful women

- some men are always on the lookout for a sexual conquest

- some men wish to be womanizers

- it is sometimes difficult to know what a foreigner means as s/he is not aware

of slight pronunciation differences

- it is better to ask somebody else about the meaning communicated by

another person (dealing with a contextual problem)

- the reason for parent’s making pranks to his/ her child is to provide vent for

his/ her nervous energy (a parent is panicking)

65. During Lily’s ballet recital, a woman sitting in front of Cameron stood up and covered

Cameron’s sight on Lily, which makes Cameron sad and angry.

Cameron: [into the camera] Last night, I was robbed. That’s right. There I was at Lily’s

dance recital, breathlessly anticipating my baby’s first-ever ballet solo. (...) That

horrid woman robbed me of my proud daddy moment and forced me to lie to my

daughter. “You danced beautifully, Lily!” But did she? [screaming] I have no

idea!

Fictional

layer

Cameron complains about the woman who made him unable to watch Lily’s first

ballet dance. Cameron is deeply saddened and he claims that he was robbed of his

daddy moment.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Cameron’s use of hyperbole about being robbed the

other night. There is a play with the viewer’s expectations created on the basis of

retrieving contextual assumptions. The viewer constructs two concepts on the

basis of the homonym robbed, both of which are relevant to analyse his turn (a

Appendix

- 367 -

paradigmatic pun): ROBBED* (to be physically assaulted and robbed of

possessions at the street) and ROBBED** (to deprive a person of being able to do

something). These two concepts are not created simultaneously. The former is

created as soon as Cameron starts discussing this robbery, whereas the latter

concept is accessed when Cameron provides an explanation about the robbery.

The recipient is supposed to formulate the explicature that Cameron values his

daughter’s performances and feels furious about the fact that he was made unable

to see her dance at the recital.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between being physically robbed and being

mentally robbed



Functions - sharing (to the viewer)

- advising


- soliciting support (that viewer agrees with him)




- criticising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexuals are considered to be very sensitive and prone to sobbing

- a parent particularly values any proud moment in his/ her child’s life and

wants to experience it

- a parent undergoes a rough time when for some reasons, s/he is prevented

from seeing/ knowing about a crucial point in the child’s life

- any person should think of other human beings and hence stop being selfish

and egotistical (corrective function)

66. Claire, Jay, Mitchell and DeDe (Jay’s ex-wife) are at the wedding table. Since Jay and

Dede are known to fight all the time, Claire tires to calm the situation down by asking

Mitchell to tell about Lily’s recital or his recent diet.

DeDe: [to Claire] Sweetie, I see what you’re doing, but this whole controlling thing it’s

challenging.

Jay: Works good in the office, but sometimes she’s as tight as a camel’s ass in a sandstorm.

Claire: Ooh, this seems aggressive.

Fictional

layer

Claire tries to control her divorced parents. Her mother calms her down as if the

mother’s peaceful emotional state is the moment of calmness before the storm. Jay

makes a biting comment in the form of a humorous simile, which is negatively

assessed by the addressee.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s humorous simile, which aims to criticise Claire’s

attitude and amuse others. The recipient needs to engage in the process of

implicature derivation on the basis of the simile to be tight as a camel’s ass in a

sandstorm that Jay uses to creatively describe Claire’s feature of character of

being too uptight both in personal and professional life. This contextual

assumption is strengthened by the viewer’s background assumption about Claire

who has a domineering personality.

Appendix

- 368 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Claire’s behaviour at the wedding and a

camel’s ass in a sandstorm

- Relief: Jay’s comment upon Claire’s attempt to control any possible

disagreement

- Superiority: disparagement of Claire


Strategy - teasing (solidarity)/ simile

Functions - controlling one’s behaviour (we should try to calm down)

- criticising

- advising

- fostering conflict (when one is criticised)


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay is always ready to tease or

put down his children)

- challenging social norms (people do not like being criticised in public)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father is a parent who is ready to criticise his child in front of everyone

as he is less empathetic and hence does not mind the child’s emotional

state

- a humorous simile, which is a biting comment, can be intended to relax

everyone at the table (release of tension through laughter)

- a father wants to inform everyone at the table that he and his wife will

behave like civilised people and hence will not dish the dirt

- any family has its drawback and members laugh at each other or at one

person’s expense

- an uptight person should calm down and do not mind controlling

everything around (social corrective function) (dealing with a contextual

problem)

67. In the bar, Cameron notices the woman who covered the view on Lily while she was

having a dance recital. He decides to talk to her and quickly finds out that she is waiting

for a man on blind date. As soon as the man walks into the bar, Haley wants to help

Cameron by impersonating the man’s date so that Cameron can voice his anger to that

woman. Alex is the third party.

A guy: How are you 36? I just can’t get over how young you look.

Haley: The trick is to not smile too hard.

A guy: [laughs] You’re funny.

[Haley chuckles uneasily]

A guy: I did not expect that from a seismologist. Which, by the way, how did you get into that?

Haley: Oh, um, it’s just always come easy for me. You know? I look at people and I just

instinctively know their size. People are like, “Oh, I’m a 4,” and I’m like, “Who you

foolin’, girl? You a 10.” [laughs]

Alex: [gives a napkin to Haley with the explanation of who a seismologist is] Ma’am, here is

that napkin you asked for.

Haley: Oh, thanks. [reads the note] Ha ha. Fooled you. I was just joking about clothing stuff.

The real reason why I got into studying earthquakes is because I love nature.

Appendix

- 369 -

Fictional

layer

Haley is informed that “her” occupation is a seismologist and she thinks that it is the

profession of guessing a person’s size on the basis of outward appearance. When

Alex passes her a napkin with the explanation, Haley turns everything into a joke and

comes away unscathed from this predicament.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the homophone which requires the formulation of two

concepts, both of which are relevant in the present context (a syntagmatic pun):

SEISMOLOGIST* (studies seismic waves in geological materials; intended by the

guy) and SIZEMOLOGIST* (studies concentrated on guessing one’s size of clothes

by looking at a person; intended by Haley). The recipient can construct the

explicature that Haley lacks elementary knowledge as well as clothes are her

specialty.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between seismologist and seizemologist; 2.

Incongruity between smart Alex and dumb Haley


- Superiority: Alex’s part in a conversation




- disclosing character-specific information (Alex is smart, while Haley is not

talented)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- a dumb person always puts himself/ herself in the position of the butt

- a dumb person cannot handle any situation easily

- a dumb person needs to be “rescued” from being embarrassed

- a sister-sister relationship: a sister is always ready to help to save the face of

her sister

Episode 12. Do You Believe in Magic

68. Jay is looking over the mail, which he considers redundant. Gloria is listening to his anger.

Jay: Crap. Crap. Crappacino. Charlie Craplin.

Gloria: In Colombia, when the old man starts yelling at the mail, we put them on a sandbar and

wait for the tide to come in.

Fictional

layer

Jay is irritated with getting unnecessary mail, each of which is given a

commentary “crap”, “crappacino”, “Charlie Craplin”. Gloria does not understand

Jay’s annoyance as the Colombians would put Jay on a sandbar and wait for the

tide to wash him away.

Recipient

layer

Humorous effects result from the use of paronyms, the meanings of which

oscillate between the names provided by Jay and the real-life names (syntagmatic

puns). The first paronym which requires the emergence of two concepts is

Crappacino: CRAPPACINO* (a made-up name consisting of the word crap) and

AL PACINO* (the name of a famous actor). The second paronym also necessitates

two concepts: CHARLIE CRAPLIN* (a made-up name consisting of the word

Appendix

- 370 -

crap) and CHARLIE CHAPLIN* (an English comic actor). The recipient can

formulate the explicature that Jay is furious about getting too many leaflets and

brochures, which he considers to be crap.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the word Crappacino and Al Pacino as

well as the name Charlie Craplin and the actual name Charlie Chaplin

- Relief: Jay’s nervous energy released when proving the made-up names

for the mail


Strategy - witticism


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay is keen on criticising)

- controlling one’s behaviour (some companies should stop sending

unnecessary brochures)


- showing off




Propositional

meaning(s)

- people are exasperated with receiving junk mail and they need to spend a

lot of time checking whether there are some letters that need to be

checked

- some people (like Gloria) do not understand the problem of getting

unnecessary letters and getting angry at a postman

69. Manny cannot decide which girl he wants to date on Valentine’s Day and tells Gloria and

Jay about his problems.

Manny: Well, Delgado’s got a doozy of a Valentine’s dilemma. I texted out feelers for two

dates. Vicky Noh is top choice, but Alexa Potts has been doing this bad-girl thing lately

I’m into. So, while I wait for a yes from Noh, I’ve got to keep Potts on the back burner.

Jay: Oh, my God. Is it still talking?

Gloria: Jay, that’s so rude!

Jay: He overthinks everything.

[Gloria’s phone starts ringing and she answers it]

(...)

Jay: If you don’t come home smelling of light beer and chlorine, do not come home at all.

Fictional

layer

Manny considers a girl-related problem, i.e. which girl to dat, which is basically

created by him. Jay does not understand Manny and he is frustrated with Manny’s

behaviour. One piece of advice that Jay gives to Manny is to go to the party and come

home smelling of light beer and chlorine, otherwise he should not come home at all.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the father’s piece of advice about how to pick up a

girl. The contextually facilitated assumptions concerning Jay’s advice is that

Manny should drink a lot of alcohol at the party, which will make him relaxed and

this will help him pick up a girl. This contextual assumption converges with the

viewer’s background assumptions about Jay who always tells what he thinks. All

these assumptions clash with one’s private assumptions, which may also be

collectively held, that a parent would never advise a teenager to drink alcohol. As

a result, the viewer can access the implicature that Jay thinks that drinking (or

overdrinking) is a key to Manny’s girl problems.

Appendix

- 371 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Manny’s responsible behaviour and

inventing problems and Manny’s drinking alcohol which would make

problems disappear

- Superiority: Jay puts himself in the position of an authority figure


Strategy - reversal



- sharing

- advising





- showing off



Propositional

meaning(s)

- it is better not to analyse problems too much, just be yourself and have fun

- we should not make up problems as we should pursue a natural course of

action

- a stepfather-stepchild relationship: a father will always be truthful with a

child and will not care about the child’s sensitive emotional state

- a piece of advice which involves drinking a lot of alcohol as a prerequisite

for being allowed to come back home can be given to a boy, not a girl (as

socially acceptable)

- people can get irritated when they need to deal with imaginary problems of

others, who do not behave like other people their age

70. As a present for Valentine’s Day, Phil brings home a porch swing on which Phil and Claire

first kissed.

Claire: Oh, honey, this is gonna look so great out on our porch. I can’t believe you did this.

Phil: [laughs] Wow. It was nothing. I made a few calls, drove half a day...

Claire: Uh-huh.

Phil: ...had Campari and haggled with a handsy gay landlord, took the swing apart, loaded it

in a van, ran out of gas in the desert, got harassed by a shady state trooper, and drove

back with a blinding migraine. But easy-peasy.

Fictional

layer

Claire praises her husband for being so romantic. Phil acknowledges the fact that

putting the swing in their living room was not a challenging task, which is then

negated when he explicates a number of tasks that needed to be performed.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon the clash between an easy and difficult way of

undertaking an activity. Phil’s first turn communicates a contextual assumption

that bringing a porch swing to their living room was a piece of cake. As soon as

Claire makes an interjection conveying the message that Phil may continue his

turn, he provides his wife with a long to-do list in order to make Claire’s dream

come true. The recipient is required to access the implicated premise: if one first

states that undertaking an activity is easy but then numerous steps needed to be

taken, one contradicts the initial meaning. Accordingly, the implicated conclusion

is that bringing the swing was quite a challenge and this is Phil’s way to fish for

more compliments.

Appendix

- 372 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between undertaking a simple task and doing a

complex task


Strategy - reversal

Functions - conveying social norms

- advising

- disclosing character-specific information (Phil is inventive)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- any person would like to underline how much effort has been put to

satisfy a beloved person

- when we enumerate all the things that we needed to do in order to give a

superb present, we want to be appreciated by that person

- a person saying that something was easy but then enumerates multiple

things implicates that it was not easy at all

- a man in love is very romantic and wants to show a sign of affection

71. Mitchell and Cameron decided to go out together on Valentine’s Day. Suddenly one of

their friends, Sal, storms into their house and tries to ruin their plans. They are talking at

the fireplace.

Cameron: Hey, so what about our plans?

Mitchell: Look, you know Sal. She’s not gonna leave until we agree to this. So, look, we’ll just

get the two of them drinking. They won’t even notice when we slip away and, you

know, get back to our list.

Cameron: That’s a good plan.

Mitchell: Yeah.

Cameron: You know what? I didn’t even want to do number one anyway. It makes me feel dirty

and ashamed.

Mitchell: Okay, well, bye bye Cheesecake Factory.

Fictional layer Cameron and Mitchell need to reconsider their Valentine’s plans as they need

to spend some time with Sal. While revising the plans, Cameron makes a

suggestion that they should cross out number one as it makes him dirty and

ashamed. Mitchell is puzzled but agrees to cross out their visit at Cheesecake

Factory.

Recipient layer Humour is based on playing with the recipients’ expectations. The recipient

formulates the first interpretation on the basis of Cameron’s last turn:

Cameron resigns from having sex with Mitchell (or to engage in any other

activity that is considered unusual, which makes him dirty and ashamed).

There are two implicated premises for this implicature: first, when talking

about spending Valentine’s Day – the day of love – the most stereotypical

thing that couples do is to have sex; second, it is the activity which is

described ‘dirty’ (meaning ‘impure’). This stereotypical interpretation is

reversed when Mitchell agrees to cross out a visit at the Cheesecake Factory.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity in the phrase number one, which can mean

“having sex” and “eating sweets in Cheesecake Factory”




Appendix

- 373 -

- sharing

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is addicted to

sweet things; Mitchell tries to agree with his partner)

- challenging social norms (or stereotypical thinking)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- couples in love have sex on Valentine’s Day (challenging/ reversing

of this stereotype)

- sex is not the only way to celebrate Valentine’s Day (corrective

function)

- it is better to resign from visiting a confectionery shop when you need

to cut down on sweet things

- there are many other activities in which a couple may be engaged to

show their commitment and affection

72. Jay and Gloria are called by Joe’s kindergarten teacher, Ms. Clarke.

Ms. Clarke: I asked you guys to come in today because Joe has given me a very, um,

inappropriate Valentine’s Day gift. [the teacher shows sexy lingerie] [Gloria gasps]

I assume that he got this from home?

Gloria: Ms. Clarke, I am so sorry. I’m sure that Joe doesn’t even know what he was doing.

[Joy peeps from the other room]

Jay: [proudly laughs] Oh. Looks like I’m finally gonna get to fight with one son over the

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Gloria: Jay, this is not funny. I come from a very long line of overly sexy men. My cousin

Ricardo, he had a sex addition.

Jay: You mean “addiction.”

Gloria: Uh, yeah, sorry. He built an addiction onto his house for making love to his many

girlfriends.

Fictional

layer

The reason why Gloria and Jay are called by Joe’s teacher is that Joe gave a

teacher a piece of sexy underwear stolen from Gloria. While Gloria is embarrassed

and starts apologising the teacher, Jay is immensely proud and comments that he

and Joe would fight over who is going to read the magazine showing models

wearing swimsuits in the near future.

Recipient

layer

Humour is hinged upon Jay’s positive feelings about Joe’s lingerie present and his

alleged fight over the magazine as well as Gloria’s slip of the tongue. The

contextual assumption communicated by Jay together with the background

assumption about him (that he is pretty laid-back) give rise to the explicature that

Jay is proud of his son that at such a young age he takes interest in women and

women lingerie. In addition, Jay’s reference that it is Joe who will fight with Jay

over the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue requires deriving additional background

assumption that Jay has two sons, one of whom is a homosexual. The implicature

is that Jay is not proud of his older son’s disinterest in women. As regards Gloria’s

supposed slip of the tongue, it requires the process of ambiguity resolution as

Gloria by uttering sex addition means the addition built next to the house in which

her cousin had sex with many girls.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Jay’s pride in one child (Joe) and

Jay’s regret in another child (Mitchell); 2. Incongruity between praising

his kindergarten son that gave lingerie to a teacher and what Jay should

Appendix

- 374 -

do, that is rebuke his son; 3. Incongruity between Jay’s and Gloria’s

approaches towards raising their child; 4. Incongruity between sex

addition and sex addiction


RT tool - explicature (Jay is proud of his son)

- implicature

- explicature: ambiguity resolution (sex addition)


- metalinguistic humour (house addition/ sex addition)

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when parents were called by a school

teacher/ principal)

- sharing

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay always targets his

homosexual son)

- advising



- criticising








Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father-son relationship: a father would like to talk with his son about

topics that are considered to be manly

- a father could not be prouder when he finds about that his little son is

already interested in a female body and wants to pick up a teacher at such

an early age

- a father regrets that one of his sons is a homosexual and hence they do not

have certain things in common, such as excitement over women’s body

- there are situations in which a mother is embarrassed and a father is proud

of the child’s behaviour

- foreigners are believed to make many linguistic mistakes

73. Haley, Mitchell, Cameron and Sal are at the pub while Haley notices her boyfriend Rainer

kissing another girl. She decides not to react.

Mitchell: So, what’s it like touring the world with other Canadian acrobats?

Haley: What?

Cameron: We just assumed you were a member of Cirque du Soleil.

Mitchell: Yup, because you’re bending over backwards to avoid standing up for yourself.

Cameron: And setting a good example for other [Cameron and Mitchell say it together]

women.

Fictional

layer

Since Haley decides not to react to her boyfriend’s betrayal, Mitchell asks her

whether she likes touring with Canadian acrobats. Haley cannot make the

connection between her boyfriend and Mitchell’s query. Cameron explains that

Haley acts like an acrobat of Cirque du Soleil. Mitchell provides a further

explanation that Haley would rather bend over backwards than stand up for

herself.

Appendix

- 375 -

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects result from Cameron and Mitchell’s extended metaphor.

The initial accusations of Haley that she is a member of the Canadian acrobat

group called Cirque du Soleil seems irrelevant in the context of her boyfriend’s

kissing a woman. As soon as Mitchell provides the explanation (his second turn),

the recipient needs to backtrack and construct two concepts, each of which is

relevant of Haley’s and Cameron’s turns (which provide the literal and

metaphorical meanings) (a paradigmatic pun): member of cirque du soleil (Haley

is considered to be an acrobat being able to do difficult physical actions) and

MEMBER OF CIRQUE DU SOLEIL* (Haley bends fundamental rules concerning

facing the problem). The viewer needs to construct the interpretation that

Cameron and Mitchell believe that Haley should not behave as if she needs to turn

a blind eye to her boyfriend’s affair just for the sake of being with him.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the literalness of an acrobat in Cirque du Soleil

(who literally bends over) and the metaphor used to describe Haley’s attitude


- Superiority: disparagement of Haley


Strategy - metaphor / teasing (solidarity)

Functions - conveying social norms

- criticising



- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron and Mitchell like advising

others)

- advising



- showing off (Mitchell and Cameron’s wit)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- when we are disappointed or betrayed, we should not simply sit and watch but

to produce emotional reaction (corrective function)

- a lack of reaction, when some reaction is expected, is not setting a good

example for women; it rather shows that a woman ought to be submissive

- women should feel empowered to react whenever they disagree with what a

man does

74. Gloria is frustrated at Jay since he did not scold Joe for giving a piece of underwear to his

kindergarten girlfriend. In the distance, little Joe looks over the mail.

Gloria: I knew I shouldn’t have trusted you talking to him, because you will let him get away

with murder because he’s a mini you and you like it. And you know what’s worse? That

you’re so mean to Manny because he’s different than you.

Jay: First off, Joe is not a mini me.

Joe: Crap. Crapola. Crapinski.

Jay: Well, maybe a little, and maybe I kind of like it. But why would you want to knock the

Jay out of Joe? Instead of one trophy, you get two.

Fictional

layer

Gloria reproaches Jay for letting their little son Joe do unacceptable things and she

claims that Joe’s behaviour resembles Jay’s. While Jay firmly denies those

accusations, Joe is looking over the mail, commenting upon it using the words

Appendix

- 376 -

crap, crapola, crapinski, which resemble the commentary provided by Jay earlier

(see example 68).

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Joe’s imitation of his father’s method of reading through the

letters. As soon as Jay negates Gloria’s opinion that Joe is a small version of him,

Joe starts acting like his father. The recipient needs to derive two concepts on the

basis of Joe’s paronyms Crapinski and Crapola: Crapinski* (a made-up name

consisting of the word crap) and Krasinski* (probably the name of the sender) as

well as Crapola* (a made-up name consisting of the word crap) and Coppola*

(the name of a film director/ producer) (syntagmatic puns). The contextual

assumption gleaned by the viewer encompasses the information about what little

Joe thinks about the mail they got, which should be connected with the

background assumption that Jay went through the mail in the same manner. These

two sets of assumptions enable the recipient to construct the implicature, which is

particularly relevant in their argument about Joe’s behaving like his father, that

little Joe regards Jay to be his role model.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Joe’s and Jay’s (example 68) alliterative

phrases




- disclosing character-specific information (Joe wants to be like his father)


- challenging social norms (it is not socially acceptable that a child uses the

word like crap)

- advising



- showing off (Joe’s wit)


Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father-son relationship: any son aspires to follow their father’s footsteps

- when a child, especially a boy, is young, his father is his role model

- a child cannot differentiate between socially acceptable behaviour and

socially unacceptable behaviour

Episode 13. Do It Yourself

75. Lily hired a cleaning lady using Mitchell’s app. Her parents are angry at her since she needs

to clear her room herself. Lily accuses Mitchell and Cameron of using apps for everything,

e.g. Uber, Postmates, TaskRabbit, Washio, ParkMe, LogBuddy. Lily, Cameron and

Mitchell are at the front yard. Cameron is carrying the garden equipment on the

wheelbarrow.

Cameron: All right, you are about to get an important lesson on self-reliance, young lady.

Lily: I know he’s serious when he calls me “young lady.”

Mitchell: My dad did the same thing.

Fictional

layer

There is a typical conversation between a daughter and a father, in which a father

wants to set a positive example. Lily understands the seriousness of this lesson on

the basis of Cameron’s tone of voice and being called young lady. Mitchell agrees

with her as his father also called him a young lady when wanted to be solemn.

Appendix

- 377 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Mitchell’s stating that his father called him a lady

when he wanted to have serious conversation with him (the contextual

assumption). The recipient needs to access background assumptions about Jay’s

attitude towards Mitchell: Jay is not very proud of Mitchell’s sexual orientation

and very frequently cannot go without making a bitter comment. Hence, there are

two concepts that are required: LADY* (referring to women, especially those who

behave well) and LADY** (referring to homosexual men in order to convey a

derogatory meaning) (a paradigmatic pun), with the former referring to Lily,

whereas the latter referring to Mitchell. The viewer needs to formulate the

explicature that Jay disapproves of Mitchell.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the standard meaning of the word lady

(referring women) and its implicit meaning (referring to men)

- Superiority: Jay’s implicit attitude of disparagement towards Mitchell


Strategy - sarcastic irony/ personal anecdote


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay is homophobic)

- controlling one’s behaviour (it is socially acceptable to bully a

homosexual)


- sharing

- criticising

- advising






Propositional

meaning(s)

- people think of homosexuals as ladies – effeminate men – and they

choose the terms which best describe their attitudes

- given the fact that homosexuals are pictured in the sitcom as caring

parents, the production crew may wish to positively influence the

behaviour of the audience in order alter one’s deviant behaviour towards

homosexuals

- some people find it extremely difficult to change their mindsets

- a father-son relationship: a father cannot come to terms with the fact that

his son is a homosexual

- homosexuality is not only difficult for a child when s/he finds out about

his/ her sexual orientation but also for a parent

76. Gloria bought private baseball lessons for Joe, which angers Jay as he thinks it is a job for

a father. Then, Gloria asks coach Garry to help her with all the house chores that Jay was

reluctant to do.

[Gloria, Jay and the coach are in the kitchen]

Jay: I was gonna fix that, anyway.

Gloria: Ay. Like you were going to clean the gutter? Coach Gary did it already.

The coach: It really wasn’t a problem. I’m not afraid of heights, and I’ve got big hands.

Jay: Those are fun details.

[Jay talks into the camera]

Jay: It’s like the guy was trying to steal my life. I wish he’d shown up when I was married

to Dede. I would have made him a key.

Appendix

- 378 -

Fictional

layer

Jay feels insecure and jealous of Gloria’s hiring a baseball coach for their son,

who turns out to have other useful skills, such as being able to clear the gutter.

Then, Jay states that he would not have minded if the coach had wished to steal

his previous life and ex-wife. He would have even helped him by making an extra

key.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Jay’s wish that coach Garry hadn’t made advances to his

ex-wife. The contextual assumption is that Jay would have helped coach Garry to

win his former wife’s love by providing him with a spare key to their house. The

background assumption that the viewer needs to extract is that Jay and his ex-wife

led a cat-and-dog life. The recipient is able to extract the implicature that Jay was

unhappily married to DeDe. Moreover, there is another implicature about his

current marriage with Gloria: Jay is passionately in love with Gloria and is

envious when he sees other man doing the things that he is supposed to do.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between having an exciting life with the second

wife and hence being jealous vs having a miserable life with the first wife

and hence wishing for other man to pick her up

- Superiority: disparagement of his ex-wife



Functions - sharing



- disclosing character-specific information (Jay loves Gloria very much)

- challenging social norms (a husband should get divorced instead of

waiting for other man to pick his wife up)

- conveying a serious message (Jay is jealous)



- showing off


Propositional

meaning(s)

- a man feels threatened when other man is overly interested in his wife or

does house chores

- the easiest way to get divorced is not done by constant disagreements but

persuading other man to steal his life

- some men do not have courage to apply for divorce but would rather other

men pick up their wives

77. Since Jay is jealous of coach Garry’s attempts to steal his wife, he insists on fixing the

satellite dish on the roof. Unfortunately he gets stuck as he accidentally moved the ladder.

Jay: [into the camera] I don’t know how I got stuck. I’ve been on roofs since I was 14 and

discovered it was the best way to see into Ethel Burkin’s bedroom. Older gal, 50s I think.

Today you probably wouldn’t give her a second look, but this was before the Internet. It

was either that or a Sears catalogue.

Appendix

- 379 -

Fictional

layer

Jay is angry with getting stuck on the rooftop, which makes him recollect his

adolescence when he was peeping into the neighbour who was much older than

Jay. He admits that he did not have much choice in a pre-Internet era as he could

have either hidden on the roof or gone through a Sears catalogue.

Recipient

layer

The recipient needs to find Jay’s reminiscences about his early life relevant when

s/he perceives the disparity between a pre- and post-Internet era. In the former

times, a man needed to be quite genuine and resourceful (and fit to climb the

rooftop) so as to look at a naked woman, hence the implicature is that nowadays

an adolescent can just, for example, surf the Web.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Jay’s young age and ability to peep

into the neighbour and Jay’s old age and hence inability to climb the

rooftop; 2. Incongruity between an Internet era when you can find half-

naked women online and a pre-Internet era when a person needed to find

naked women at the window


Strategy - personal anecdote

Functions - sharing



- defending






Propositional

meaning(s)

- any man is the same: he is interested in a female body and thus he is, by

this very nature, a peeping Tom

- there were times when there was no Internet and people needed to find

pleasure in real life

- a canon of beauty changes in time: what was regarded beautiful a long

time ago, it would not be assessed as attractive nowadays

- a young boy is interested in sex-related issues

- a young boy needs to find a way to satisfy his sexual needs either by

looking at a neighbour or going through a magazine or catalogue

- people sometimes like recollecting their early age

78. The clothes dryer at the Dunphys’ is out of order and Phil decides to fix it. After a few

hours of trying, Phil fails to mend it.


Phil: I come from a long line of handy men. My dad used to fix everything, lawnmowers, cars,

our cat. So it made sense that I tackled the clothes dryer after the repair guy tried to rip

me off.

(...)

[Phil and Luke are in the basement]

Phil: [to the dryer] Please work. Yes! [dryer’s rumbling] Maybe.

Luke: [sniff] What’s that smell?

Phil: Failure.

[Phil walks out]

Appendix

- 380 -

Fictional

layer

Phil strives to fix the dryer on his own in order to show his family that he is a

skilful man. After Phil’s numerous attempts to mend it, Luke asks about what can

possibly be producing the horrible smell in the basement, to which Phil answers

that it is his failure.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Luke’s question about what can cause the vile smell

and Phil’s answer (a riddle structure). In the context of failing to fix the dryer, the

recipient constructs the concept of SMELL*, which encompasses the interpretation

that Luke wanted to find out the source of the smell, which is probably produced

by the broken dryer. When Phil provides his answer, the viewer is required to

construct the concept of SMELL** that Luke can smell Phil’s feeling of failure in

fixing the dryer (a paradigmatic pun). Accordingly, the recipient gets the

explicature that Phil’s failure smells. It leads to the derivation of implicature that

Phil is upset about not fixing the appliance.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between smelling something that can produce an

unpleasant smell and something that cannot produce a smell (such as,

feelings or emotions)


Strategy - metaphor


- disclosing character-specific information (Phil’s personality is sometimes

child-like as he is easily discouraged)


- showing off

- sharing




Propositional

meaning(s)

- there is a common view that men are supposed to be capable of fixing

things at home (a sign of masculinity)

- when a man fails to mend something, he regards it in term of defeat

- people hate the feeling of failing doing something, especially when s/he

strongly believes in success

- people sometimes start doing something even when knowing that it is not

a good idea

Episode 14. Heavy is the Head

79. Phil decides to make his dreams come true and build Dunphy Tower. Phil, Alex and Haley

are at the construction site. Phil hugs them.

Phil: Breathe it in, girls. My journey begins today. Finally bringing something into this

world I can be proud of. [the girls look discontent]


Phil: As children, the Wright Brothers dreamed of flying machines. Oprah dreamed of

hiding presents under chairs. And I dreamed of building something magnificent.

Well, recently, Jay and I bought a vacant lot on which we are building Dunphy

Tower.

Appendix

- 381 -

Fictional

layer

Phil dreams big and he finally manages to start building the so called Dunphy

Tower. At the construction site, there is the inauguration and Phil is so blinded by

his success that he states that Dunphy Tower is the first thing brought by him into

this world that makes him truly proud. He also compares his Dunphy Tower to

other important achievements.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon two micro-turns: Phil’s greatest pride in Dunphy

Tower and his metaphor about the importance of the Tower. First, the recipient

needs to formulate the implicature that Phil has never thought of his children as

his achievement because his pride in building the Tower overshadows his

children, Alex and Haley, as achievement. The subsequent part of Phil’s

confession requires the process of deriving the implicated premise that the Wright

Brothers’ flying machine or winning a car by everyone in the audience of Oprah

Winfrey’s show are significant achievements. Accordingly, the implicated

conclusion that can be extracted encompasses the interpretation that Phil considers

his Tower to serve something good to humanity.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between being proud of the children and being

proud of being able to erect a building; 2. Incongruity between the

importance of a building and a flying machine

- Superiority: disparagement of Phil’s children


Strategy - reversal

- hyperbole and metaphor (Phil’s comparison)


- sharing

- defending



- disclosing character-specific information (Phil frequently says something

awkward)

- advising

- criticising


- controlling one’s behaviour (it is distressing to children when they are not

valued by parents)





- showing off


Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father-daughter relationship: a father ought to be proud of his children,

not a building

- a person sometimes says something inappropriate, which may hurt other’s

feelings

- a dumb person would always show his/ her stupidity

- one’s unfavourable behaviour can be caused by stress or strong emotions

(Phil is stressed)

Appendix

- 382 -

Episode 15. Finding Fizbo

80. Phil throws a bachelor party for his father Frank and he invites Jay. Phil prepared

customised T-shirts with Frank’s face on it.

Phil: Dad’s bachelor party’s gonna be epic. (…) Boom! Chicken wraps, white wine, fudge.

Jay: Is this a bachelor party or a party where ladies sit around watching “The Bachelor”? And

why did you get me a triple XL?

Phil: The lady said it’d shrink in the wash.

Jay: How’s it gonna do in the trash?

Phil: Jay.

Jay: Kidding. I’ll use it to wash my car.

Fictional

layer

Jay implicitly criticises Phil’s choice of food as though it were a party for women

watching “The Bachelor”. Then, Jay asks Phil why he ordered such a large size of

a shirt, to which he answers that the shirt may shrink in the wash (and thus Jay

will be unable to wear it). Jay implicates that he will not wear it as it will be either

thrown away or used to wash his car.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on two humorous lines: Jay’s misunderstanding of what kind of

party he attends and Jay’s complaint about the shirt. The first humorous line is

Jay’s question, which requires that the recipient first resolves ambiguity (syntactic

one) and then derives two concepts on the basis of the double meaning that Jay

explicitly mentions: BACHELOR PARTY* (being at a real stag party) and

BACHELOR PARTY** (preparing for watching a dating television series called

The Bachelor) (a paradigmatic pun). The recipient can construct the explicature

that in Jay’s opinion, Phil has prepared a party for women with chicken wraps and

white wine. This is indirect criticism over Phil’s throwing a dull stag party. This

explicit meaning can lead the audience to derive the implicature that Jay probably

wishes that the stag party will be in its usual stereotypical form (probably

evidenced by the viewer’s individual store of assumptions): lots of alcohol and

junk food, going from one strip club to other and ideally, not remembering

anything when being woken up in the morning. The second humorous part of the

conversation is Jay’s concerns what to do with the shirt. The recipient is supposed

to derive the implicated premise that if one wants to throw away a shirt or use it to

clean the car, one does not like the shirt. As a result, the implicature conveyed by

Jay is that he considers the shirt useless.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between a usual stag party and women-like

party; 2. Incongruity between appreciating a gift and openly manifesting

that it will be thrown away

- Superiority: disparagement of Phil

RT tool - explicature: ambiguity resolution, lexical adjustment

- implicature

Strategy - teasing (power) (Jay’s question)

- sarcastic irony (Jay’s wish to throw out the shirt)

Functions - controlling one’s behaviour (Jay does not appreciate Phil’s attempt to

throw a memorable party)


- advising


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay likes criticising)


Appendix

- 383 -


- criticising








Propositional

meaning(s)

- there is a common view on how a proper stag party should look like: no

chicken wraps, white wine and fudge as these are more appropriate for

women to spend free time together

- a father-in-law- son-in-law relationship: a father-in-law frequently finds it

difficult to accept his daughter’s choice of a husband as any father wants

best for his child (hence, a father-in-law uses any possibility to criticise

his son-in-law)

- it is very difficult to satisfy some people

- older people are usually highly critical

- we should be more considerate towards other people in order not to hurt

their feelings (social corrective function)

81. It has been shown on numerous occasions that Phil is a typical son of his father as they like

to make fun together, frequently deploying puns in their turns. Frank (Phil’s father) comes

to the room in which his bachelor party is thrown.

[rhythmic knocking on the door]

Frank: Excuse me. Do you serve crabs here?

Phil: We serve anyone.

Fictional

layer

When Frank asks Phil whether the people present at the bachelor party serve crabs, the

humorous pun is quickly picked up by Phil who answers that the gusts serve anyone.

Recipient

layer

The recipient needs to activate the process of lexical adjustment to derive humour

from Frank’s intentional attempt at play, which is instantly picked up by his son.

There are two concepts communicated by the polysemous phrase, which are

responsible for the humorous effects (paradigmatic puns): SERVE * (to give food

to customers) and SERVE** (to serve food to crabs/ animals) as well as by the

homophonic word crabs: CRABS* (animals) and CRABS** (customers making a

fuss about anything). There is a number of explicatures that the recipient can

access: Phil’s father asks whether they give food to crabs, whether they give crabs

to customers or whether they give food to annoying customers.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the words serve and

crabs


RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (homophone)






- showing off



Appendix

- 384 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father-son relationship: some fathers and children are on the same

wavelength and are keen of making jokes and amusing each other (and

keen on ping-pong punning, Chiaro 1992)

- picking up a pun in one’s turn is an indicator of one’s current emotional

state (that a person is in mood)

82. Mitchell and Cameron meet their opponent, Martin, in a bowling contest at the parking lot.

Cameron: Hello, Martin.

Martin: Hello, Cameron. Hello, Mitchell. Where’s the rest of Britney Queers?

Cameron: It’s the Britney Spares, Martin.

Mitchell: The Britney Queers were eliminated weeks ago.

Martin: Yes, by us. Eventually, all will fall to The Gay City Bowlers.

Mitchell: I forget. Do all the names have to be puns?

Martin: Yes. It’s like hair salons.

Fictional

layer

Cameron and Mitchell’s rival, Martin, intentionally distorts the name of their

team: instead of the proper name Britney Spares, Martin uses Britney Queers.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon different names of a football team, some of which are

distorted. The recipient needs to find the relevance in the names of Cameron’s

bowling team. All of these names require the process of lexical adjustment as they

are connected along paronym-based relationships. There are three names that

require the construction of concepts (syntagmatic puns): BRITNEY SPEAERS* (a

real name of an American singer), BRITNEY QUEERS* (queer is an offensive

word for homosexuals; queers is phonetically similar to spears) and BRITNEY

SPARES* (spare is used in bowling when all the pins are knocked down). The

recipient can derive the implicature that Martin wants to be inventive in the names

and amuse his opponents. On the implicit level, Martin wants to discourage their

opponents from winning in a bowling contest by distracting their attention.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: Incongruity between Britney Spears, Britney Spares and

Britney Queers

- Superiority: disparagement of Cameron’s team


Strategy - mockery

Functions - fostering conflict





- showing off



Propositional

meaning(s)

- there are many names of clubs or hair salons, which contain a pun (puns

make the names more memorable)

- distorting the name may be used to weaken the opponent (as if disturbing

one’s concentration)

- homosexual people are keen on the names which refer to their sexual

orientation

Appendix

- 385 -

Episode 16. Basketball

83. At the grocery store, Gloria meets a pupil’s mother, Donna, from Manny’s school with

whom she has problems.

Donna: Gloria! What a surprise!

Gloria: Hola, Donna.

Donna: Did you wander in by mistake? You know they don’t sell shoes here.

Gloria: [seeing Donna’s trolley] Oh, no, I see you buy a lot of hot dogs. It’s so sad when

someone just gives up.

Donna: I’m selling these at the high school charity basketball game. Poor Mrs. Martin. This year

we’re raising money to get her a new kidney. So, can we count on you?

Gloria: [sad] For the kidney?

Donna: To write a check, like you always do.

Fictional

layer

On seeing Gloria in one of the aisles, Donna makes a biting comment that Gloria

has probably got lost as it is not the place where she can find shoes. Gloria retorts

that it is sad that Donna has given up on her diet and bought hot dogs. The second

part of the conversation concerns Donna’s request for helping to raise money to

get a kidney for Mrs. Martin. Gloria misunderstands the question as if it were a

request for her donating own kidney.

Recipient

layer

Humour bases its comic effects upon the women’s verbal fight intended to show

their power as well as Gloria’s misunderstanding. There are two biting comments

made by the two women, which require the derivation of the implicit import of the

message. Donna’s second turn aims to implicate that Gloria’s only interest is in

shoes and she goes only to the part of shops that sell those products. Gloria’s

rebuttal also requires the derivation of the implicit meaning that Donna was on

diet (she bought a lot of junk food which is regarded unhealthy) and she resigned

from being skinny. The subsequent part requires the process of enrichment in the

phrase to count to somebody: “to count to give a new kidney” and “to count to

help raise money by writing a cheque”.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between helping a person by donating a kidney

and by writing a cheque

- Superiority: disparagement of Gloria and Donna


- explicature: enrichment

Strategy - put down humour + misunderstanding

Functions - fostering a conflict


- conveying/ challenging social norms


- criticising

- disclosing character-specific information (Gloria sometimes does not

understand what is said)

- sharing




- showing off




Appendix

- 386 -

Propositional

meaning(s)

- women are quite competitive and cannot unite

- when women, for some inexplicable reasons, feel threatened by each

other, they make biting comments to underestimate one’s social

significance

- when a woman is beautiful and sensual, she is regarded as a bimbo

- many women are jealous of other women’s beauty

- foreigners have problems to communicate because of lack of linguistic

abilities or stress caused by biting comments

84. Mitchell and Haley have the tradition of meeting for a cup of tea once a year at the

restaurant.

Mitchell: What’s going on with you and that handsome weatherman?

Haley: Things are great, mostly. Yeah.

Mitchell: Mm! Oh.”Mostly”? Well, what’s...what’s going on?

Haley: I mean, do you think it’s okay for your partner to ask you to do anything?

Mitchell: Mm, no. Not anything anything. I mean, we all have our boundaries. I mean, there are

still things I wouldn’t ask Cam to do.

Haley: Okay. So, um, Rainer and I were in bed the other night, and

Mitchell: And?

Haley: He asked me to do something I’m not totally comfortable with.

Mitchell: What’d he ask you to do? No...no judgments. Just whenever you’re ready.

Haley: So, he was lying on his side, and he said that that was part of it, and then he asked me

to c...[later she discloses that she is “forced” to candle her lover’s ear]

Fictional

layer

Mitchell asks Haley about her relationship with Rainer to which she replies that

the time spent with him is mostly great. The word mostly is instantly picked up by

Mitchell who starts dwelling upon the reason for saying that. Haley asks Mitchell

whether he would agree to do anything to Cameron as she was with Rainer in bed

yesterday and he asked to do something Haley is not comfortable with.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Haley’s playing with Mitchell’s and viewer’s

accessing of contextual assumptions, which help to built one’s interpretation.

These assumptions, which include Haley’s implicit question about what Mitchell

would do if that had happened to him, Haley’s being in bed with Rainer, her being

forced to do something uncomfortable, lead to the extraction of implicature that

Haley refers to engaging in a sexual activity. Later Haley says that this activity

involves candling his boyfriend’s ear.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between a sex-related interpretation and

candling-of-an-ear interpretation (it is later revealed)

RT tool - implicature (looking for an optimally relevant interpretation)

Strategy - reversal (personal anecdote)


- disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell is curious about sex-

related issues; a young girl may have problems with her older man)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexual people are stereotypically viewed as women and hence are

keen on gossiping

Appendix

- 387 -

- people like talking about sex-related issues, which Haley implicates

(activity that you may ask your partner, lying in bed – all the lines have

been marked in italics)

- people are generally more comfortable when talking to a homosexual

person about sex as if they were sex coaches

- sex is the topic which generates controversy as people think that it is too

private to be brought up hence it will not be dealt with directly and openly

Episode 17. Pig Moon Rising

85. Cameron has just seen that Lily was cuddling the cat in her bedroom, which reminds him

of cuddling the beloved piglet Lily when he was a child. Cameron tells Mitchell about his

pig that was so important to him that he still has her ashes in the garage.

Cameron: Hey, I just peeked in on Lily, and guess who she was curled up with on her bed?

Mitchell: If it’s not the cat, I’m gonna be really upset about how you’re teasing this out.

Cameron: I love that she has a pet that she’s close to like I was with my pet pig Lily.

Mitchell: Still no guilt, I see, after tricking me into naming our daughter after bacon.

Cameron: I was very close to that pig…For heaven’s sakes, I still have her ashes in the garage.

Mitchell: True.

[Mitchell talks directly into the camera]

Mitchell: I recently started exercising in the garage, and on the first day, I, uh I dropped a

couple of pounds.

[Mitchell is shown exercising in the garage and throwing off the urn with the pig’s ashes]

Fictional

layer

Mitchell cannot get over being manoeuvred into naming the daughter after

Cameron’s livestock. Cameron is attached to the piglet so that he keeps its ashes

in the garage. Then, Mitchell confesses that he has been exercising in the garage

lately and luckily he managed to decrease a few pounds.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Mitchell’s disclosing why their daughter is named Lily as

well as Mitchell’s information about his progress in exercising. The first

humorous line is provided by Mitchell’s second turn when he comments upon the

same name given to their daughter and Cameron’s piglet (which is referred to as

bacon). The recipient needs to derive the implicit meaning that Mitchell is furious

with Cameron about being manipulated to name their daughter after the pig. The

second humorous episode is Mitchell’s confession that he has started doing

physical exercises, which caused him to drop a few pounds. The analysis of the

word pound requires lexical adjustment to derive two concepts: DROP POUNDS*

(to lose weight) and DROP POUNDS** (to throw off the urn) (a paradigmatic

pun). Mitchell’s monologue leads to the recovery of the first concept about his

ability to lose some weight on the first day of doing exercises, whereas the visual

on Mitchell leads to the recovery of the second concept as Mitchell threw off the

urn while doing exercises.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between naming the daughter and the piglet in the

same manner; 2. Incongruity between two meanings of the word pound

(weight vs throw off the urn); 3. Incongruity between treating a pig as a

family member and as bacon



- explicature: lexical adjustment

Appendix

- 388 -


- reversal


- defending




- controlling one’s behaviour (by teasing)

- sharing



- criticising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexual people are regarded as very sensitive and get attached to their

animals; it may happen that they can name their children after their animals

- it is not socially acceptable to name a human after an animal (Mitchell’s turn)

(social corrective function)

- people find it difficult to forgive others

86. Manny walks into the kitchen where there are Gloria and Jay. He wants to inform them of

his being accepted to college.

Manny: Oh, what a B-U-tiful morning. I joke because I’ve been accepted to B.U.

Gloria: Oh, Manny, I’m so proud of you!

Manny: I’m six for six. So many suitors not sure which to choose from. I feel like Lady Mary in

the last season of “Downton Abbey.”

Jay: I’d avoid the big football schools.

Fictional

layer

Manny walks into a kitchen in order to praise himself that he has been accepted to

B.U (Boston University), but he does it in a creative way of spelling the first two

letters of the word beautiful. His being accepted to every university is compared

Lady Mary’s predicament in the last season of Downton Abbey, as she had many

suitors. Jay advises Manny not to go to football schools.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Manny’s creative way to break the news to everyone,

his creative comparison as well as Jay’s advice given to Manny. First, the recipient

needs to construct two concepts for the homophonic expression: B-U-tiful* (BU

stands to Boston University to which Manny has been accepted) (/biː juː/) and

BEAUTIFUL* (Manny’s opinion about today’s morning or it is a greeting)

(/bjuːtəfəl/) (a syntagmatic pun). Second, Manny’s simile that he and Lady Mary

(Downton Abbey) are similar as Manny has many suitors (universities) requires the

construction of the explicature is that he feels that he is seduced by good

university offers. Third, Jay’s comment that he would avoid going to football

schools requires the extraction of implicature that Manny is unsuitable to attend a

football school because of his sensitivity.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the word beautiful and BU-tiful; 2.

Incongruity between having a lot of suitors like Lady Mary and being

accepted to many universities; 3. Incongruity between enjoying Downton

Abbey and being unsuitable for a football university


Appendix

- 389 -

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (beautiful vs BU-tiful) (punning effect)

- implicature (being like Lady Mary)

- implicature (being like Lady Mary vs not going to football schools)

Strategy - punning element (Manny)

- simile (Manny’s having suitors)

- teasing (solidarity)



- disclosing character-specific information (Jay is highly critical; Manny is

not like other teenagers his age)

- controlling one’s behaviour (Jay’s comment)

- criticising


- showing off (Manny’s wit)


- providing a puzzle (linguistic play) (BU)


- providing a cultural reference (Downton Abbey)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- some teenagers do not behave like others their age

- teenagers are normally not interested in historical drama series, which is a

reason why those who are interested may be outcasts

- some teenagers are creative when it comes to announcing their being

accepted to university

87. Cameron knows that Mitchell is not honest with him about the pig’s ashes. Earlier this

morning Cameron found out that Mitchell dropped off the ashes while doing exercises in

the garage. He sneaks behind the urn in the garage while Mitchell pours ashes from the

fireplace to the urn.

Cameron: Hello, Mitchell.

Mitchell: Oh, God! [gasps, scattering the ashes around] [coughs]

Cameron: Is everything okay? You’re looking a little ashen.

Mitchell: I’m fine. I...I... I accidentally spilled pig Lily’s ashes, and I... I thought that I would

Cameron: You would just replace them with Morris Pasternak’s?

Fictional

layer

Cameron intentionally scares Mitchell while he was pouring the ashes from the

fireplace into the urn with pig’s ashes. Cameron claims that Mitchell looks a little

bit ashen. Mitchell does not have a choice but to come clean.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon attributing a new meaning to the adjective ashen. The

viewer needs to activate the process of lexical adjustment, which gives rise to two

concepts: ASHEN* (looking very pale) and ASHEN** (being covered with ashes)

(a paradigmatic pun). These two concepts need to be constructed simultaneously on

the basis of Cameron’s second turn, both of which are relevant to describe

Mitchell’s face: frightened and covered with ashes (metaphorical and literal

meanings, respectively).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the adjective ashen




Appendix

- 390 -

Functions - reducing conflict/ tension


- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is sensitive about his

pig’s ashes)



- showing off



Propositional

meaning(s)

- the phrase to look a little ashen is used to criticise a person in a creative

way, i.e. to indicate that s/he is responsible for throwing off the ashes

- people have problems to admit when they have done something wrong so

as not to suffer consequences

- people sometimes conceal the truth in order not to hurt others’ feelings

- assigning a new meaning to the existing phrase can be a way of displaying

one’s creativity

88. Gloria and Manny are in the shop. Gloria starts bragging to the shop clerk about Manny’s

getting accepted to every prestigious university.

Manny: [after having answered the phone] Damn it! Wow. I just got super accepted to Michigan.

Gloria: He’s the second Delgado to go to college. My cousin went to the best medical school in

Colombia. They would not just accept any cadaver.

Fictional

layer

Gloria is very proud of her son, commenting that he is the second Delgado to be

going to university. The first Delgado was her cousin who was donated as a

cadaver and thus used by young doctors to study a human body.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the viewer’s accessing divergent contextual

assumptions on the basis of Gloria’s turn. The information about her cousin that

he went to the best most prestigious medical school in Colombia creates certain

expectations in the recipient’s mind that the cousin was a medical school student.

The continuation of her turn, i.e. that the Colombian medical school does not

accept any cadaver, invalidates the initial interpretation and communicates the

meaning that the cousin’s corpse was used by medical students to learn how to

perform operations.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between being accepted to university as a regular

student or as a research subject


RT tool - explicature: narrowing (went narrowed into the sense attended)

Strategy - reversal

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Gloria frequently says something

awkward)

- defending


- showing off



Non-

propositional

meaning

- the only way some people may get to a medical school is when their bodies

are used as cadaver

- there is no point in bragging about being accepted to a university when a

person is dead

- some people seem to see no difference between being a student and being a

cadaver and thus express the same great pride

Appendix

- 391 -

89. Jay asks Mitchell to help him buy tickets for Gloria Estefan’s concert, which he was

supposed to buy, but missed the moment when it was his turn to get them online.

Jay: You can get me Gloria Estefan tickets, right?

Mitchell: Dad, that is offensive. Not every gay person is connected to Gloria Estefan.

Jay: But you are, right?

Mitchell: [inhales deeply] It’s complicated.

[Mitchell talks into the camera]

Mitchell: Cam briefly dated a member of Gloria Estefan’s band, The Miami Sound Machine. He

doesn’t talk about it much. Just whenever someone mentions her or Miami. Or

humidity.

(...)

[Cameron talks into the camera]

Cameron: He [his former lover] owns a mobile dog grooming business called Miami’s Hound

Machine. In retrospect, I didn’t need to be as alarmed with his collection of leashes

and collars.

Fictional

layer

Jay is certain that Mitchell can help him to get two tickets for Gloria Estefan’s

concert. Mitchell is outraged by Jay’s implication. In an interview, Mitchell

admits that Cameron dated a member from Estefan’s band called The Miami

Sound Machine. This fact makes Cameron swell with pride and any stimulus may

cause Cameron’s personal anecdote about the dating. Cameron confesses that the

guy he dated was from Miami’s Hound Machine.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Mitchell’s disclosure what triggers Cameron to

mention his relationship with a famous person as well as Cameron’s admitting that

he might have made a mistake when thinking about his former partner as

somebody famous. There are two different processes at work to derive humorous

effects in the dialogue/ monologue. First, Mitchell’s stating that Cameron does not

bring up the topic of his former lover at all and stating that even humidity may

trigger Cameron’s confession requires the derivation of implicit meaning. The

implicated premise is that if a person mentions that one had a romantic

relationship with a famous person whenever one mentions Miami or humidity, a

person brings up the topic constantly. Hence, the implicature that arises is that

Cameron does not need a powerful stimulus to talk about his well-known partner.

Second, the viewer needs to activate the process of reference assignment in order

to obtain the relevant interpretation on the basis of phonetically similar words

Miami Sound Machine and Miami’s Hound Machine. The former is the real name

of Gloria Estefan’s band, while the latter is the name of a dog grooming business.

The recipient can derive the explicature that Cameron assigned the improper

referent to the to the misheard name of his former lover’s business. This can lead

to the implicature that Cameron subconsciously misheard the name of the business

because he was proud of being in a relationship with a famous person.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between not being keen on mentioning a subject

at all vs mentioning the subject when talking about humidity; 2. Incongruity

between the word sound vs hound


- Superiority: mild disparagement of Mitchell (by Jay)

RT tool - implicature (bringing up that subject on all occasions)

- explicature: reference assignment + implicature


- punning effect

Functions - highlighting shared experiences (when they made a mistake)

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron likes bragging about)

Appendix

- 392 -



- avoiding conflict




- advising (it is better to check whether we understand others well; it may be

tiring for listeners to hear about the same thing)



Propositional

meaning(s)

- when people want something very much, they do not pay enough attention to

specifics which turn out to be important

- some people are eager to know well-known people, which makes them feel

better and more valuable

- some people feel the need to brag about anything

- some people get excited about something even when they are not certain that

they are right, like Cameron bragged about knowing a member from Gloria

Estefan’s band

Episode 18. Five Minutes

90. Mitchell and Cameron are afraid of flying, hence they took the medicine from their friend

Ronaldo, on the label of which there is a sign “Cuidado”. They run through the airport to

catch their flight but, because of the medication, they have problems with concentration

and finding the right gate.

Mitchell: If we’re gonna have any chance of getting to Dallas and then surviving there, we are

going to need hats.

Cameron: Hats. Hats.

Mitchell: [approaching the clerk] Excuse me, sir, sir, sir, sir, are you the proprietor of this

haberdashery? Can you point me in the direction of your finest sports caps?

The clerk: What team?

Cameron: Gay. I’m not sure why that’s relevant.

Mitchell: Oh. Okay.

Cameron: I’ll just Hey, I have a question for you. When you’re outside the workplace, do you

wear hats? Or does that just kind of make you feel like you’re always in the office?

Fictional

layer

Mitchell and Cameron are bewildered because they have taken sedative drugs.

Mitchell believes that they need to buy hats in order to endure their travel to Dallas.

When they ask a shop clerk to show the best sports hats, the clerk asks about the

team. Cameron is offended and utters that they need hats of the gay team. Then,

Cameron ponders upon another issue concerning the clerk’s wearing hats and

whether he feels as if being at work all the time.

Appendix

- 393 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the misunderstanding occurring on the fictional layer.

In order to recover humorous effects, the recipient needs to employ the process of

lexical adjustment since there is the polysemous word team (a paradigmatic pun):

TEAM* (sports team) and TEAM** (sexual orientation). The contextual assumption

that the viewer accesses on the basis of the clerk’s question is that his question is a

request for information about whether a client is a fan of any specific sports team.

The contextual assumption gleaned by Cameron is that the clerk wants to find out

their sexual orientation. The viewer needs to recover the explicature: Cameron felt

that he was asked about his sexual orientation but there is no relevance between

one’s sexual orientation and the intention to buy a hat.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between being a fan of a sports team and one’s sexual

orientation



Strategy - misunderstanding


- advising

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is sensitive)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexual people are described as people who always think that others refer

to their sexual orientation as if they are judged on the basis of homosexuality

- homosexual people divide the society on the basis of sexual orientation

(teams): heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.

- homosexual people are always ready to fight for their dignity as they expect to

be physically abused

- people behave in a strange manner when they take some unknown medicine

91. Manny is driving Jay and Gloria to the cinema.

Jay: Speed it up, Manny. The movie starts in five minutes.

Manny: Sorry, but I’m not going over 20 miles an hour with this cappuccino machine not

strapped in. Once I perfect my foam art skills, my freshman dorm will be the place to be.

Jay: I think we can put off that talk about using protection.

Gloria: Mm, look, there’s a spot right there.

Fictional

layer

Jay hurries Manny up as he and Gloria would miss the film. Manny is reluctant to

speed up as his cappuccino machine is not secured with a seat belt. The reason why

the coffee machine is in the car is that he takes it to his hall of residence in order to

master foam skills. Jay reckons that he and Gloria does not need to talk about

protection.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon the clash between Manny’s statement that when he hones

his skills at making foam on cappuccino and Jay’s need to postpone the

conversation about Manny’s using protection. In order to derive comic effects, the

recipient needs to access the implicated premise is that as long as one is interested

in such strange matters, such as perfecting foam skills, one would not have a sex

partner at university. The conclusion is that Manny would not find a girl with

whom he can have sex.

Appendix

- 394 -

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between perfecting foam skills and not having to

talk about using protection

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Manny




- reducing conflict


- advising

- showing off

- disclosing character-specific information (Manny is not a typical teenager;

Jay uses any opportunity to tease Manny)







Propositional

meaning(s)

- some teenagers are not interested in partying or dating but they have “more

serious” problems, such as making the best foam on cappuccino

- if you are not a typical teenager, you do not have a chance to have a

partner

- some teenagers behave as if they are older

- many teenagers commonly start engaging in sexual intercourse as soon as

they study at university

Episode 19. Frank’s Wedding

92. The Dunphys complain about Phil’s stupid behaviour, which makes them feel embarrassed.

Hence, they ask him to be on his best behaviour at his father’s wedding.

Phil: No more embarrassing the Dunphys today. I heard what you guys said, and I’m... I’m

truly sorry.

[Phil’s phone is ringing]

Phil: Oh, quick. What nickname did Jennifer Lopez steal from Jon Lovitz? J.. Never mind.

Hello? Yes, the rings.

[Phil leaves the room]

Luke: Wow. He didn’t say “J-Lo.”

Haley: He also heard that siren and didn’t say, “There’s my ride.” Did we break Dad?

Claire: And when was the last time you saw him pick up a can of whipped cream and not do his

“I’ve got rabies” gag?

Fictional

layer

In the spirit of not embarrassing his family, Phil gives up on finishing the riddle

upon answering the phone with the words J-Lo. When Phil leaves the room,

Claire, Haley and Luke recollect his exemplary behaviour, viz. when he answers

the phone he says “J-Lo”, when he hears sirens he says “that’s my ride” and when

he puts whipped cream on the face he pretends to suffer from rabies.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Claire’s and children’s reminding of Phil’s standard

humorous behaviour. The first humorous episode is the riddle reminded by Luke.

The answer J-Lo is based on the paronym, which requires lexical adjustment to

Appendix

- 395 -

derive two concepts: J-Lo* (a nickname of the singer Jennifer Lopez) and

HELLO* (a friendly greeting on the phone) (a syntagmatic pun). When Haley and

Claire recollect Phil’s practical jokes/ spoofs (hearing sires and screaming There’s

my ride or pretending to have contracted rabies by putting fake saliva), the viewer

should derive the implicature that Phil’s silly behaviour was aimed to amuse

others.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between J-Lo and hello; 2. Incongruity

between humorous behaviour as a source of embarrassment and a source

of pleasure


RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (hello vs J-Lo) (punning effect)

- implicature (that’s my ride, the rabies gig)





- showing off (Phil’s wit)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- when you complain about somebody’s humorous behaviour (which is not

disruptive), a person is disappointed and stops amusing others

- the person’s intention is to amuse his/ her family or friends, not to

embarrass

- the person’s amusing behaviour is not a negative characteristic feature and

hence should be appreciated

- people starts appreciating something when they lose it

93. The newly weeded couple, Phil’s father and his wife Lorraine, has a room next to the

Dunphys.

Haley: Ew, they’re spending their wedding night right next door?

Luke: Calm down. The loudest noise you’re gonna hear is grandpa getting out of a chair.

Fictional

layer

Haley is disgusted with having her bedroom next to her grandfather and his wife

because she does not want to listen to sex noises coming from their bedroom on the

wedding night. Luke does not see a problem as he is convinced that Haley will only

hear chair’s cracking when the grandfather gets up.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Luke’s claim that Haley would hear the grandfather’s

getting out of a chair on the wedding night. The contextual assumption

communicated by Haley is that the newly wedded couple would have sex on the

wedding night, which she finds revolting. In order to find relevance in Luke’s turn,

one needs to make inferences to derive the implicit meaning that Luke believes that

such old people will not have sex.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between older newlyweds having sex on the

wedding night and the impossibility of that occurrence

- Superiority: disparagement of old people


Strategy - mockery


- relation to the audience


Appendix

- 396 -



- showing off

- criticising






Propositional

meaning(s)

- old people are stereotypically believed not to have sex and the society

claim that sex is not an appropriate activity for the old

- children find sex at advanced age obnoxious

- children think that older people are not engaged in pleasurable activities

- people have sex on their wedding nights

94. The bride-to-be, Lorraine, asked Claire to talk privately before the wedding.

Claire: How are you feeling?

Lorraine: Well, you’d think on my fourth marriage, I wouldn’t be this nervous.

Claire: Ah, I guess it never gets easier. I remember my wedding. My stomach was filled with

butterflies. And Haley.

Fictional

layer

Claire wants to calm the bride down by saying that she was also nervous during

her wedding day. She admits that butterflies were not the only thing in her

stomach as she also had Haley.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Claire’s stating that she metaphorically had butterflies and

literally Haley in her stomach on the wedding day. More specifically, the

humorous line is delivered by Claire who recollects her wedding day, which she

compares to having stomach filled with butterflies and Haley. For the sake of the

recovery of humorous effect, one needs to construct two concepts: HAVE

BUTTERFLIES IN ONE’S STOMACH* (to feel nervous before an important

event) and HAVE A CHILD IN ONE’S STOMACH* (to expect a baby) (a

paradigmatic pun). The explicature is that Claire was nervous before her wedding,

which could have been caused by being pregnant. Her claim that Haley was in her

belly forces the viewer to reanalyse the idiom as if it were a literal expression, i.e.

real butterflies could have been in one’s stomach. There is the meaning that she

literally had two things in her stomach: butterflies and her daughter Haley.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the phrase to have butterflies in one’s

stomach (idiomatic) and to have (a child) in one’s stomach (literal)

RT tool - explicature: lexical adjustment (zeugma → punning effect)

Strategy - reversal


- sharing

- conveying social norms (entering into marriage because of pregnancy)




Propositional

meaning(s)

- some people marry each other because a baby is on the way

Appendix

- 397 -

95. Phil is a vicar conducting the wedding of his father.

Phil: Do you, Frank Dunphy, the silliest man I know [laughs], take Lorraine to be your long-

suffering wife?

Frank: I do.

Claire: Ohh.

Phil: You may kiss the tomato.

Fictional

layer

Phil introduces a few changes to his father’s wedding ceremony to make it more

amusing. In particular, he adds the descriptive phrase of his father the silliest man

I know when addressing Frank and the phrase your long-suffering wife when

addressing his wife. Then, Phil allows his father to kiss the tomato.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Phil’s rewording of marriage vows. For deriving jocular

effects, one needs to activate the process of lexical adjustment to acknowledge the

disparity between the proper and funny wordings of marriage vows. The first

expression that gives rise to two concepts is your long-suffering wife: LONG-

SUFFERING WIFE* (Phil’s solidarity-based teasing to implicate that Frank’s

wife would have a tough time with her husband) and LAWFULLY WEDDED

WIFE* (the minister’s stating that from this time, a woman becomes a wife

according to the law). The second phrase requiring two concepts is Phil’s

permission granted to his father that he may kiss his wife: THE TOMATO* (an

informal term for a woman; Phil’s solidarity-based teasing to reverse the standard

course of ceremony) and THE BRIDE* (the minister’s stating that a husband is

entitled to kiss his newly wedded wife).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the standard course of a wedding

ceremony and the one distorted by Phil



Strategy - teasing (solidarity) + reversal



- disclosing character-specific information (Phil wants to amuse others)


- showing off



Propositional

meaning(s)

- a father-son relationship: they are on the same wavelength and are keen of

amusing each other and other people who are around

- a father-son relationship: they understand each other without explicitly

uttering their intentions

- a loving son would always be ready to make his parent happy

- a friendship between a father and a son can be as powerful a relationship

as between a mother and a daughter

- people gain great amusement from making others happy

96. Jay complains to Manny that Gloria is a hoarder and keeps all the useless thing in the

garage, especially those that belong to little Joe.

Jay: Your mother won’t even let me get rid of this sticky, old tarp. She’s attached to

everything.

Manny: Someday soon, that will work in your favour.

[Jay chuckles]

Appendix

- 398 -

Fictional

layer

Jay complains to his stepson that his mother becomes emotionally attached to

Joe’s things. Manny retorts that Gloria’s habit will be valuable to him with the

passing of the time.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Manny’s claim that with time Jay will like Gloria’s feature

of character that she gets attached to old things. The viewers need to find the

relationship between Gloria’s hoarding old things and Manny’s answer that Jay

will like that specific quality. The implicated premise is that when a person likes

collecting old things, s/he will not abandon them easily, whereas the implicated

conclusion is that Manny teases his stepfather about his mature age. That is to say,

Manny implicates that Gloria will not leave her older husband.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between getting attached to old things as a bad

feature and getting attached to old things as an asset to an old husband

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Jay



Functions - highlighting shared experiences (similar relationship between a parent and

child)

- advising


- disclosing character-specific information (Manny is also able to tease/

make bantering comments)

- showing off

- reducing conflict





Propositional

meaning(s)

- a stepson-stepfather relationship: when a son obtains sufficient leverage,

he is eager to use it

- a stepson-stepfather relationship: when a father is keen on teasing his son,

his son uses any opportunity to tease back

- teasing can be a sign of positive relations so that people feel relaxed to

harmlessly pose a face threat to each other

- people find it difficult to accept that the relationship between an older man

and a young woman can be harmonious

- a huge age gap is not always a disadvantage and dooms the relationship to

failure

Episode 20. All Things Being Equal

97. Haley, Alex, Lily, Gloria and Claire are going to women’s march by car to attend a

demonstration about gender’s equality.

Haley: So, how hard-core is this march going to be?

Alex: Just a peaceful gathering of women working towards the same goal of equality. We’re

not burning bras or anything.

Lily: Good, ‘cause I just got my first one. I’m not torching it before Naomi’s sleepover.

Claire: This is a really exciting time for you, Lily. This is your first taste of feminism. We’re all

here as your mentors or “womentors”.

[the girls in the car are clearly not amused with Claire’s inventiveness]

Appendix

- 399 -

Claire: Hmm? Come on, I just coined that.

Haley: We fake-laughed at “sheroic.”

(…)

[they got the flat tire]

Lily: I wouldn’t know about “flat.”

Fictional

layer

When talking about bras, Lily shows her excitement about having bought a bra,

which she needs to have during the sleepover in her friend’s house. As soon as

they got the flat tire, Lily smirks that she is lucky not to know anything about flat.

Claire claims that this march is Lily’s first experience of feminism and the female

part of the family should be Lily’s womentors. Claire awaits for others’

appreciation of coining a new word while Haley has already shown fake

amusement when Claire used the word sheroic.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon first, Claire’s comment about Lily’s involvement in the

march, second, her invention of new terms and third, Lily’s reference to flatness.

First, Claire refers to the march as Lily’s first taste of feminism. The recipient

needs to derive that implicature that Claire refers to Lily’s being raised by gay

parents and hence she knows little about women cause. Then Claire coins a new

notion womentors (a blend of women and mentors), which requires from the

viewer to formulate the explicature that womentors are women who can become

ones’ mentors. The second notion made up by Claire is sheroic (a derivative from

the word heroic with the change to a female prefix), which requires the

explicature that these are woman heroes. The last humorous line is Lily’s

acknowledgement that she does not know anything about flatness, which requires

lexical adjustment to derive two concepts FLAT* (without raised areas, about

surface) and FLAT** (without breasts) (a paradigmatic pun).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Lily’s first taste of feminism and

being raised by gay parents; 2. Incongruity between womentors and

mentors; 3. Incongruity between sheroic and heroic; 4. Incongruity

between having no breasts (flat) and getting a flat tire

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Lily

RT tool - implicature (first taste of feminism)

- explicature (womentors and sheroic)

- explicature: lexical adjustment (flat)

Strategy - teasing (solidarity) (feminism)

- inventiveness

- punning effect (flat)



- providing a puzzle (linguistic play) (new words)


- showing off (Claire’s wit)

- challenging social norms (about feminism)

- sharing




Propositional

meaning(s)

- a person’s creative use of words can be found unhumorous by the

audience

- members of the same family may have different senses of humour and

hence are not amused by some attempts at humour

- when a child is brought up by male homosexual parents, she does not

have feminist role models (that it is Lily’s first taste of feminism)

Appendix

- 400 -

- it is an emotional moment in every girl’s life when a child reaches puberty

and hence has breasts

- some people think that conventional and same-sex marriages can raise

children differently (as Claire implies)

- people (or just women) strive to coin phrases, such as herstory instead of

history, which contain a female prefix/ suffix

98. Cameron’s sister, Pam, has just delivered a baby and has problems with being a full-time

mother since she is sleep-deprived.

Pam: Baby’s crying.

Cameron: Okay, why don’t I put this on pause. I’ll come up and help you out for a little bit.

Pam: Oh, maybe Mitchell should help. He’s just so good with baby Calhoun.

Mitchell: Aww.

Pam: I ought to call you “Uncle Secret Touch”.

Mitchell: That seems like a “500 feet away from a playground” kind of nickname.

(...)

Pam: You know, you try to hide it, but you are a sensitive soul “Uncle Sneaky Feeler”.

Mitchell: Yeah, before we go wide with that...

Fictional

layer

Pam commends Mitchell for being a good babysitter for her son. She invents

descriptive titles characterising Mitchell’s calming influence upon the baby, which

include Uncle Secret Touch and Uncle Sneaky Feeler. Mitchell comments upon

the former title that it sounds as if he was the one who should not come nearby the

playground.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon literal and metaphorical interpretations of Mitchell’s

nicknames. The first term of endearment uttered by Pam is Uncle Secret Touch

that gives rise two concepts, demonstrating the interpretation gleaned by Mitchell

and the one assigned by Pam: UNCLE SECRET TOUCH* (Mitchell’s magical

ability to touch a child so that he falls asleep quickly) and UNCLE SECRET

TOUCH** (Mitchell secretly touches child’s sexual regions and can be called an

uncle). Pam would like Mitchell to construct the explicature consisting of the

former concept, whereas Mitchell takes the nickname metaphorically and derives

its implied meaning that he feels as if he were a paedophile. The second phrase

Uncle Sneaky Feeler also requires lexical adjustment: UNCLE SNEAKY

FEELER* (Pam believes Mitchell engages in a sneaky action to calm a baby

down) and UNCLE SNEAKY FEELER** (Mitchell uses deception to sexually

abuse a child).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the double meaning of the phrases Uncle

Secret Touch and Uncle Sneaky Feeler; 2. Incongruity in the name 500 feet

away from a playground


- Superiority: unintended disparagement of Mitchell


Strategy - metaphor



- controlling one’s behaviour (it is better not to describe a homosexual in this

way)


- showing off (Pam’s wit)

- criticising (such nicknames)

Appendix

- 401 -






Propositional

meaning(s)

- by uttering creative names to describe a person, a mother wants to praise a

person who helps her with a child

- on the one hand, these phrases are used to compliment, on the other hand,

these may be used to describe a paedophile

- a homosexual person has a natural maternal instinct and hence is good with

children

- a homosexual person is afraid of being accused of being a paedophile

- some people think that homosexual people are eager to adopt a child in order

to abuse him/ her

- there is increasing sensitivity to the issue of child molestation

99. Luke and Manny are volunteers at the women’s march.

Luke: It’s funny we’ve only been volunteering here at the women’s march for an hour

Manny: Five minutes.

Luke: but it already feels like I’m part of something big, something really special. Would you

snap a picture?

Manny: So you can prove you were here and get school credit, and be home faster than the ink

dries on that poster you just misspelled? “Women Untie”?

Luke: Still works.

Manny: Luke, these women deserve our respect. They’ve had to overcome biases and challenges

we’ve never had to face. They’re the granddaughters of the suffrage movement.

Luke: Sitting through your little speech that’s suffrage.

Fictional

layer

Luke gets excited about being five minutes at the demonstration, which irritates

Manny. Manny is reluctant to take a photo of Luke and points to a spelling

mistake on Luke’s poster. Luke does not mind the mistake as he believes that it is

still a meaningful catchphrase. Manny tries to give him a lecture about women’s

rights and the suffrage movement but Luke is not interested in it.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Luke’s misspelling of the word on his banner as well

as his linguistic mistake. The recipient first needs to disambiguate the phrase on

Luke’s poster through lexical adjustment since it is a paronym activating two

concepts (a syntagmatic pun): WOMEN UNTIE* (an appeal to women to undress)

and WOMEN UNITE* (an appeal to women to unite to fight together for good

cause). Luke’s reaction that the phrase still works implicates a men’s attitude

towards women: they are good for showing their physical charm. Second, Luke’s

reaction to Manny’s lecturing contains another mistake, requiring lexical

adjustment (paronym) (a syntagmatic pun): SUFFRAGE* (the right to vote in

elections; it is not what Luke wanted to utter) and SUFFERING* (it was

undesirable for Luke to listen to the lecture).

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between the intended spelling Women unite and

unintended one Women untie; 2. Incongruity between the word suffrage and

suffering


- Superiority: disparagement of women


Strategy - self-mockery (of Luke)

- punning effect (suffrage vs suffering)

Appendix

- 402 -


- disclosing character-specific information (Luke is poorly educated)






Propositional

meaning(s)

- some people do not understand the idea of some demonstrations, marches, or

gatherings but still they join them for the sake of showing up

- a great deal of teenagers are not aware of the ordeal women faced when their

rights were infringed

- a stupid person would always show his/ her stupidity

- a man still sees no difference between the act of supporting women (Women

unite) and disparaging them (Women untie)

- a person should be more considerate about others’ rights (social corrective

function)

100. Luke is impressed with Manny’s beautiful girl friend at the women’s march.

The friend: If you guys are making signs, here are some of the issues: women make 79 cents on

the dollar, and the government wants to tell me what I can do with my body. I mean,

how would you feel if...

[Luke talks into the camera]

Luke: Whoa! She blew my mind. Society treats girls like second-class citizens. I’ve spent a

lot of time on women’s websites, but none of this stuff ever came up.

Fictional

layer

Manny’s friend tells Luke about the unequal pay that women get and that they are

made do what they are told by the government. In the monologue, Luke describes

his feeling of being impressed with Manny’s friend, however he has not noticed

the problem of women’s being treated as second-class citizens as he has spent

much time on women’s website.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon a double meaning of the phrase women’s websites in

Luke’s turn. In order to derive comic effects, the recipient needs to activate the

process of disambiguation. The interpretation that Luke intends to communicate is

that he frequents website’s where naked women show their bodies for men’s

pleasure and these women do not complaint about inequality. The second

interpretation that the viewer may construct is that he should visit websites for

women where they may express concern about gender bias.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between websites for women and website with

naked women


- Superiority: implicit disparagement of women

RT tool - explicature: ambiguity resolution (websites for women and with women)

Strategy - self-mockery/ self-disparagement

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Luke is quite dumb)

- sharing



- defending

- showing off


Appendix

- 403 -



Propositional

meaning(s)

- many men are more concentrated on visual things, not what they are told

- a stupid person would always show his/ her stupidity as s/he thinks that

women’s websites are websites in which women may raise the issue of

inequality

101. Gloria’s car broke down and Alex, Haley, Lily and Claire decide to fix it in order to show

Lily that women can be self-reliant. After a few hours, Haley calls for giving up on the

mission of changing a flat tire.

Haley: I would like to revisit Gloria’s idea about giving up.

Alex: Oh, that’s setting a great example. What do you think would’ve happened if Marie Curie

had given up?

Haley: She wouldn’t have died of radiation poisoning.

Alex: How on Earth did you know that?

Haley: You talk about her a lot. Until I saw her on that stamp, I thought she was your girlfriend.

Fictional

layer

Haley does not want to change a flat tire. Alex reprimands her for what would

have happened if, for example, Marie Curie had given up on her research. Haley is

smart enough to know that Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning, which shocks

Alex. Haley admits that she first thought that Curie was a friend of Alex.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon the viewer’s entertaining the clash between the

background assumption about Haley and the contextual assumption made manifest

in the dialogue. The background assumption concerning Haley is that she has

proved to be unknowledgeable and uninterested in school subjects, as fashion is

her cup of tea. The contextual assumption communicated by Haley’s verbal

behaviour is that she knows who Marie Curie was. The explicature is that Haley

can say something intelligent.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between thinking that Curie is alive and is a

friend of her sister and knowing that Curie died of radiation poisoning

- Superiority: Alex’s attitude to Haley


Strategy - reversal

Functions - highlighting shared similarities

- showing off

- disclosing character-specific information (Haley does not always play

dumb)

- advising

- sharing






Propositional

meaning(s)

- a stupid person does not always show her/ his stupidity and thus not

always become the butt of biting comments

- we should not take one’s intelligence/ stupidity for granted

- a person should not give up on undertaking a difficult activity (as

humankind would not have developed and will not develop) (social

corrective function)

Appendix

- 404 -

102. Jay and Phil have small business: a parking lot. They interviewed two candidates to hire

for the position of a parking attendant. Phil would like to hire a chatty woman (as she is

like him), whereas Jay prefers to hire a man of few words (who is like him). They made

the decision to hire Phil’s candidate but then Jay finds out that she talks to clients too

much and hence he dismissed her.

Phil: Where’s Joan?

Jay: You were supposed to handle it, but you didn’t, so I had to take time out of my extremely

busy day and try to straighten her out. But she didn’t go along with the program, so she’s

gone.

Phil: You did this without talking to me? We’re supposed to be partners.

Jay: We’re gonna hire that Tibor guy. He barely speaks English, but there’ll be no chattiness

although I did try that with Gloria, and eventually they watch so much TV they figure it out.

Fictional

layer

Jay decided to dismiss a parking attendant, who was Phil’s favourite, as she was

talking to clients, which made potential clients lining up in a long queue. Phil is

slightly frustrated at Jay’s decision since he should have made the decision on his

own. Jay believes that his candidate is better since he does not know English and

hence will not talk to clients. He reminds him of Gloria who at first did not speak

the language but then she watched TV and managed to learn it.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s hopes for his wife’s chattiness, or rather lack of

thereof. The recipient needs to derive the implicature on the basis of Jay’s last turn

in order to establish the relevance between Jay’s eagerness to hire a taciturn guy

and his wife’s chattiness. The contextual assumption is that his wife first could not

speak English but through the exposition to television, Gloria succeeded in

learning the language. Accordingly, the implicated premise that the viewer may

derive is that many husbands hope that their wives would not be able to speak a

lot, which connects with the background assumption about what Jay thinks about

his wife’s chattiness: he hates it when Gloria talks too much. All these

propositions help the recipient arrive at the implicated conclusion: Gloria’s

chattiness makes Jay irritated as he hoped that she will not be a talkative person.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Tibor’s taciturnity and Gloria’s

chattiness; 2. Incongruity between Jay’s wish that Gloria would not be

talkative and the way she is now






- criticising

- sharing (Jay’s feelings + Phil’s feelings)

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay likes quietness)



- avoiding conflict






Propositional

meaning(s)

- there is a common view that any woman is chatty and torments her man by

talking too much

Appendix

- 405 -

- foreigners do not command a foreign language properly until they watch a

lot of TV

- the English language can be acquired through watching TV

- men look for wives who are not talkative since men want peace and

tranquillity

- a father-in-law – son-in-law relationship: it is the father who is superior to

his son-in-law because he thinks that his wisdom comes with age

- a father-in-law – son-in-law relationship: a son-in-law does not challenge

his father-in-law’s decision as he is afraid of him

Episode 21. Alone Time

103. The Pritchett family is at Cameron and Mitchell’s to take Lily to their home.

Joe: I’ll fly there. [wearing a cape]

Mitchell: Mm-hmm.

Gloria: Okay, vamanos!

[Jay and Mitchell are alone in the room]

Jay: Kid loves that cape.

Mitchell: So, I see your stance on sons’ wearing accessories has evolved.

Jay: The cape gives him superpowers. What did leg warmers give you?

Mitchell: Flair. They gave me flair.

Fictional

layer

Jay admits that little Joe likes wearing his cape, which makes Mitchell comment

that there is a change in Jay’s acceptance of his sons’ accessories. Jay explains that

the cape provides Joe with superpowers, whereas Mitchell reckons that the leg

warmers gave him flair.

Recipient

layer

Humour is premised on the disparity between two parental approaches presented

by Jay: he forbade Mitchell to wear leg warmers, while he is amused with Joe’s

cape. The contextual assumptions communicated in the conversation between Jay

and Mitchell is that Mitchell bears grudge against his father’s way of raising him as

he could not accept his leg warmers in the same way he accepts Joe’s cape. The

background assumption is that Jay has never approved of Mitchell’s sexual

orientation and these leg warmers appeared to him feminine. Therefore, the

implicated premise is that when a father did not let his child wear female clothes is

that he probably started noticing first symptoms of homosexuality. The context-

based proposition, together with background assumption and implicated premise

give rise to the implicature that Jay did not want Mitchell to become a homosexual.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between not letting a homosexual son wear leg

warmers and letting his little son wear a cape; 2. Incongruity between a

young father (when Jay had Mitchell) and an older father (when Jay has

Joe) (strict vs permissive/ tolerant parent)



Strategy - reversal

Functions - reducing conflict

- criticising



Appendix

- 406 -


- advising


- sharing






Propositional

meaning(s)

- an older parent is more permissive and understanding when it comes to

child’s needs

- a father-son relationship: a child may be envious of not being allowed to

do something other child is allowed

- a child is attentive to unequal treatment

104. Mitchell complains to his father about being stressed out about day-to-day chores.

Mitchell: Leave me alone, okay? Everybody, leave me alone.

Jay: Hey! What’s all that?

(…)

Mitchell: Okay. It’s just it’s been a lot recently, you know, coming off of a really long trial,

Cam’s spring cleaning frenzy, hauling Lily all over for softball, pretending to care

about softball.

Jay: Oh, I get needing time away. I was married to your mother. Like you are now.

Mitchell: I have it all planned out. I drive to the desert. I check into the Markham a few hours

by the pool, massage, then I head downstairs for a juicy steak frites, just me and my

book, which can’t talk to me.

Jay: So do it.

Mitchell: [sighs] Asking Cam to go away alone is three weeks of wounded crazy that I... I don’t

want to deal with right now.

Jay: Don’t ask, tell. Isn’t that what you fought for?

Mitchell: Okay, I don’t know what to address first.

[Cameron walks in]

Cameron: Uh, Jay, Gloria’s ready to go.

Jay: All right. Take it easy. You have a good one, too Mrs. Tucker.

[Jay closes the door]

Cameron: [pretending to be amused] Why’d he call you Mrs. Tucker?

Mitchell: Why does he wear those boxy jeans? I don’t know.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell complains about having too much on his plate. He tells his father that he

has planned going to the hotel which is in the middle of nowhere but he is afraid

of informing Cameron about it as he knows that Cameron will hold a grudge for a

long time. Jay understands Mitchell’s need to get away from it all as he was

married to Mitchell’s mother, who is similar to Cameron. Jay is surprised as

Mitchell fought for having a male partner so he should get on with him easily,

which insults Mitchell. As soon as Cameron comes home, Jay says goodbye to

Mitchell by calling him Mrs. Tucker.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon deriving the implicit meaning on the basis of Jay’s

three teasing remarks. First, Jay compares Cameron’s personality to his ex-wife’s,

the implicature of which is that Mitchell needs to go through a real ordeal with

Cameron. This is supported by the background assumption about Jay and his

former wife, with whom he was constantly fighting over unimportant things.

Appendix

- 407 -

Second, Jay’s statement that the marriage with Cameron is what Mitchell fought

for implicates that Mitchell should not feel afraid of being honest with his partner

as he wanted to share his life with this partner. Third, Jay’s referring to Mitchell as

Mrs. Tucker requires two processes: first, the recipient needs to construct an ad

hoc concept MRS. TUCKER* denoting a stereotypical housewife, and second, the

recipient needs to extract the implicature that Mitchell acts like a woman who is

too weak to object to his partner.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between Mitchell’s having a male partner and Jay’s

referring to Cameron’s personality as being similar to his former wife’s; 2.

Incongruity between Jay’s belief that homosexual people do not have

disagreements and Cameron’s feeling resentful

- Superiority: Jay’s behaviour

RT tool - implicature (simile)

- explicature: lexical adjustment + implicature



- criticising

- advising


- disclosing character-specific information (Jay disapproves of homosexuals)


- showing off (Mrs. Tucker)

- reducing conflict






Propositional

meaning(s)

- a homosexual relationship is no different from a heterosexual relationship:

they experience ups and downs and need time alone

- some people believe that homosexual people do not face problems with getting

on with each other

- if a homosexual does not want to talk openly with a partner, s/he is the weak

party in a relationship (effeminate) (Jay’s calling his son Mrs. Tucker)

- one homosexual in a couple is treated like a stereotypical homosexual

possessing women-like characteristic features (Mitchell is married to a woman)

- when people are engaged in a relationship, they do not want to hurt each

other’s feelings

105. Given the fact that Mitchell decided to go on a trip alone, Cameron is looking for

something to pass time. He shows up at Gloria’s to watch some movie with her.

Gloria: It’s a bad time, Cam. Turns out, it wasn’t the allergies. I feel terrible. You shouldn’t

be close to me. I don’t want to get you sick.

Cameron: Oh, gosh. No danger of that. I have the immune system of a horse. When I was a kid,

I needed a transfusion, and there was a mix-up with the vials. I’ve contacted Marvel

Comics repeatedly, but they don’t seem interested.

Fictional

layer

Gloria advises Cameron not to come close to her as she is ill. Cameron calms her

down as he is sure that he will not contract any disease because when he was a

child he got horse’s blood transfused and he is super immune to any diseases.

Appendix

- 408 -

Cameron even acknowledges the fact that because of getting horse’s blood, he

once contacted Marvel Comics but they did not express any interest.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on the implicit import of Cameron’s acknowledgement that

having horse’s blood transfused makes him a superhero from Marvel Comics. The

viewer needs to possess background information about Marvel Comics and

superheroine She-Hulk, who got Hulk’s blood transfused and she acquired super

powers from him. The recipient needs to derive the implicature that Cameron

believes that he gained super powers like the superhero from Marvel Comics and

he can become one of famous superheroes.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Cameron’s getting horse’s blood and his

getting super powers

- Superiority: implicit disparagement of Cameron


Strategy - hyperbole/ personal anecdote


- defending

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron believes in impossible things)

- sharing





Propositional

meaning(s)

- some people are naïve as they think that getting horse’s blood transfused gives

them super powers

- some people would like to feel like cartoon heroes

- some people mix reality with fiction (that the same processes operate)

106. Gloria is preparing her grandmother’s secret mixture to cure her illness when Cameron

comes.

Cameron: Okay, missy, whatever you’re working on over here, let me take over.

Gloria: No, no, no. You can’t. This is my abuela’s special fever cure. Please hand me the

dried scorpion.

Cameron: You’re gonna eat this?

Gloria: No, don’t be stupid. I am gonna wrap it in a rag and I am gonna let it soak into my

head.

Cameron: Okay. You know what? Let’s get you to bed, and I will bring it to you. I can follow a

recipe. Go on.

Gloria: No, no, no. It’s...

Cameron: Go on.

Gloria: Be careful.

Cameron: All right. Ground chicken beak. Mashed crickets. [gasps] Ew! Cilantro? Ugh.

Fictional

layer

Gloria would like to prepare a mixture of strange things, which would make her

healthy. When Cameron wonders if Gloria wants to eat a dried scorpion that is an

ingredient of the mixture, Gloria calls him stupid as a dried scorpion needs to be

wrapped in a cloth and put on the forehead to let it soak. Cameron offers his help

to prepare the mixture.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon one’s belief in folk medicine. The recipient entertains

the clash between Gloria’s belief that a dried scorpion would soak into her head

reducing the fever and the viewer’s background assumption that a dried scorpion

Appendix

- 409 -

or ground chicken beak would not soak into one’s system and hence would not

reduce fever. The contextual and background assumptions give rise to the

implicated premise that the healing effects of folk medicine is not medically

proven, which leads to the extraction of implicated conclusion about Colombians’

deep erroneous conviction about the power of various things.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between Gloria’s belief in folk medicine and the

recipient’s belief in standard cures

- Superiority: mild disparagement of Gloria as she believes in the power of

dried scorpion, etc.




- disclosing character-specific information (Gloria is attached to her

Colombian heritage)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- some people believe in the power of folk medicine, for instance that a

dried scorpion would soak into the head and hence reduce fever

- Colombians believe in the healing properties of complicated mixture, such

as dried scorpion, ground chicken beak, mashed crickets, cilantro

- when there is no cure for a disease, people use various methods to combat

a disease

107. Phil and Claire are running away from their home since their children have started

complaining about the problems they face, which makes the parents irritated as they think

their children are old enough to deal with their problems on their own.

[They are in the car]

Phil: We’re basically landlords in an apartment building. We’re the Ropers!

Claire: Yes! Yes! We could just drive and drive.

Phil: Exactly! We’ve earned the right to live the empty-nesters’ life, even though we’re still

full-nesters.

Claire: Oh, my God! Do you remember that bottle of wine we put aside the night Haley was

born?

Phil: Yes! We were gonna open it the night all three of them moved out.

Claire: Uh-huh.

Phil: And watch one of the thousands of movies we missed ‘cause they were sick or hungry or

choking on the head of a Power Ranger.

Claire: I am a woman who has never seen “Thelma and Louise.”

Phil: That’s the only Harvey Keitel movie I’ve missed!

Claire: Where are we going?

Phil: Let’s let the universe decide. [Phil opens up a fortune cookie] “Family is a gift you

receive every day.”

Claire: So they’re making sarcastic ones now? [both laugh]

Fictional

layer

Clearly clueless, Phil and Claire cannot decide where they should go so as not to

be found by their children. Phil reaches for a fortune cake to let the universe offer

a suggestion. It says that it is a family who is a gift that a person receives every

day. Claire comments that those manufacturers produce fortune cookies with

sarcastic aphorisms.

Appendix

- 410 -

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon the clash between the aphorism from a fortune cookie,

which says that family is a gift, and Claire’s statement that the aphorism is

sarcastic. The contextual assumption communicated with the use of the aphorism

as assessed on the basis of Claire and Phil’s running away from home leads to the

construction of the interpretation that they should value their family more, despite

their urge to be alone. As a result, the recipient holds high expectations that the

aphorism will make the parents sorry for misbehaviour and they would come back

home. The hearer’s expectations are reversed when Claire offers her view on the

aphorism. The implicated premise is that when a person believes that a proposition

is sarcastic, the meaning is opposite. The implicated conclusion is that Claire

denies the truth lying behind this aphorism as she does not believe that a family is

always a gift.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between the aphorism’s truth that a family is a

gift and the aphorism’s sarcastic undertone that a family is not a gift


Strategy - reversal / meta-linguistic humour (an aphorism can be reinterpreted as a

person wishes)


- advising

- showing off

- sharing (parents may feel exhausted because of their parenthood)


- disclosing character-specific information (Claire shows that she is not

emotionally attached to her children)


- challenging social norms (parents are not expected to behave in this way)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- parenting requires a lot of sacrifice, for example one cannot watch all

films

- there is a moment in parents’ life when they expect their children to dealt

with their own problems or more importantly, when they expect that

children move out at appropriate age

- it is rare for women to speak about families in negative terms (it is not

socially expected that women have enough of their families)

- no matter how hard people wish to escape their problems, they would get

a clue from the universe

Episode 22. The Graduates

108. Gloria is cooking in the kitchen while Jay walks in sniffing appreciatively.

Jay: What’s cooking?

Gloria: My mother’s recipe, guinea-pig pie.

Jay: Smells good.

Gloria: You just accept that? It’s pecan. How cuckoo do you think my country is?

Jay: It’s come to this “What’s cooking” and “smells good” gets me in trouble?

Appendix

- 411 -

Fictional

layer

Gloria is baking a guinea-pig pie, which Jay compliments by saying that it smells

good. Gloria believes that Jay thinks that it is a cake made from guinea pigs,

which makes her irritated that the Colombians are disparaged. The husband is

surprised that his compliments are negatively assessed by Gloria.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon two conversational episodes, i.e. one about the pie and

the other about Jay’s compliments, both of which require the activation of two

different pragmatic mechanisms by the viewer. First, Jay’s and Gloria’s intentions

concerning the guinea-pig pie seem to be at cross-purposes. The process of

implicature derivation gives rise to the interpretation in which Gloria attributes a

certain thought to Jay that he would not mind eating a pie made from guinea pigs.

Gloria’s reaction is caused by her belief that Jay thinks that the Colombians are

crazy enough to bake guinea pigs. Second, Jay’s bewilderment that compliments

are not received well by Gloria communicates the implicature that some women,

including Gloria, are not easily satisfied and there is a disparity between men and

women.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between a pie made from guinea pigs and a

pie which has a peculiar name; 2. Incongruity between believing that the

Colombians are cruel to make a pie from guinea pigs and no such

intention to disparage them


RT tool - implicature (eating a guinea pig)

- implicature (disparity between men and women)

Strategy - misunderstanding





- advising




Propositional

meaning(s)

- some females are sometimes irritated for no specific reason

- a good husband is always ready to compliment his wife’s cuisine, despite

the name of a dish sounds strange

- this dialogue may also be a lesson for husbands: it is better to remain

silent as some compliments may be received by wives not as intended

- some compliments may be understood as derogatory comments

- foreigners are always ready to defend a good name of their country

109. Gloria is preparing food in the kitchen on the occasion of Manny’s graduation. Manny

and Jay are in the kitchen.

Manny: [to Gloria] Don’t make a big deal.

Gloria: My baby’s graduating. He won the award for Integrity and Character. “No absents, no

tardies, respectful to students and teachers alike.”

Jay: My school had an award like that, but instead of a sash, that kid got a punch in the

mouth. Proud of you, though.

Manny: Why do all your stories involve a punch in the face, a shifty European, or a broad who’s

been around the block?

Jay: That reminds me of when I had to rough up this Italian kid because he didn’t want me

dating his sister. She was no nun!

Appendix

- 412 -

Fictional

layer

Gloria takes great pride in Manny’s award for Integrity and Character. Jay makes

a comment that those students who were role models in his school got a special

prize of being punched in the face. Manny notices that Jay’s every story involves a

punch, dishonest European or promiscuous woman. This makes Jay recollect

another story.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on different perspectives on a prize that a pupil/ student can get

for good behaviour and grades. The viewer needs to engage in the process of

lexical adjustment, which would correspond to Gloria’s and Jay’s idea of a prize:

AWARD* (the prize denotes something positive given to a person in order to

approve of one’s achievement) and AWARD** (the prize denotes something

negative of being verbally and/ or physically abused by other pupils) (a

paradigmatic pun). The explicature that the recipient may formulate is that a prize

is not always something positive and thus good behaviour can be awarded in the

way that runs contrary to what people expect. The implicature is that there is a

disparity between the past and present.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between being a model student awarded with

an honour and being a model student “awarded” with a punch; 2.

Incongruity between an ordinary/ down-to-earth personal anecdote and

the one which is twisted

- Superiority: disparagement of Manny, who could have been punched for

being a good student if he lived in Jay’s times


Strategy - reversal/ teasing (power)


- sharing

- advising


- controlling one’s behaviour (it is not always a good thing to brag about

being an exemplary student)

- disclosing character-specific information (Jay is always ready to tease)

- conveying a serious message (people do not like when others are more

fortunate)







Propositional

meaning(s)

- school children do not like when their friends are better or set a great

example to be followed

- some people always recollect their personal stories in a way to add a

flicker of excitement

110. Jay, Gloria and Manny are in the kitchen while Manny’s biological father (Javier) comes into

their home in order to take Manny into the town to celebrate his achievements and graduation.

Gloria: [positively shocked] You came!

Javier: I said I’d come.

Gloria: I know, but you came!

Javier: How could I miss it? Manny, the first member of my family to ever graduate from high school.

Jay: Wait a minute. Don’t you have a brother in Colombia who’s a doctor?

Javier: Yes.

Gloria: He just does orthopedic surgery, no brain or heart.

Appendix

- 413 -

Fictional

layer

Javier comes to Gloria and Jay’s to celebrate his son’s award, which positively

shocks Gloria. He is proud that his son is the first person to have become a high

school graduate. Jay finds some inaccuracy in Javier’s testimony since he was

convinced that Javier’s brother is a doctor. Gloria does not find anything

suspicious as the brother is an orthopaedist and thus does not perform any brain or

heart surgeries.

Recipient

layer

The humorous effects are based on the clash between the information that

Manny’s father’s is an orthopaedist and the information that no person in Javier’s

family has ever graduated from high school. The contextual assumption that is

communicated by Javier and Gloria include: his brother is an orthopaedic doctor

that has never attended high school. It is Gloria’s additional explanation that

brings about more comic effects since the recipient needs to derive the implicated

premise that when a doctor does not perform brain or heart surgeries, s/he does not

need to undergo professional medical training in Colombia. As a result, the

implicated conclusion extracted by the viewer should be tantamount to the

interpretation that orthopaedists in Colombia are underqualified since they do not

need to perform “serious” operations.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between being the only person in a family,

who has ever graduated from high school and having a brother who is an

orthopaedist; 2. Incongruity between being a orthopaedist and a

cardiologist or neurologist in Colombia

- Superiority: disparagement of Colombian doctors


Strategy - self-denigrating

Functions - disclosing character-specific information (Gloria does not see a problem

in the fact that doctors in Colombia are not qualified)



- conveying a serious message (it is better not to undergo any treatment in

Colombia)

- advising





Propositional

meaning(s)

- some people think that a real doctor is the one who is qualified to perform

heart or brain operations

- it is the family who disregards member’s professional achievements (by

saying that he is just an orthopaedist)

- Colombian doctors are not medically qualified to perform serious

surgeries

111. Claire and Phil give a present to Luke on the graduation day.

Claire: There he is the graduate.

Phil: I have one word for you, Luke… [normal voice] plastics.

Claire: I don’t think he knows that movie, honey.

Phil: Mrs. Dunphy, you’re trying to seduce me.

Claire: Okay, let’s just give him the gift, all right?

Phil: Okay, but first, gather around, everybody! Riddle me this. What has two hands, is wound

tight, and has a lot of ticks?

Luke: [laughs] Alex?

Phil: Good guess, but no. This was made in Switzerland, not in the Disneyland Hotel.

Appendix

- 414 -

Luke: Awesome! A watch!

Phil: We wanted to give it to you early so you could wear it to graduation today.

Claire: Yeah. It’s shockproof.

Alex: Oh, good. You can show it your grades.

Fictional

layer

Phil, as always, wants to amuse others. He makes up a riddle to guess Luke’s

present: it has two hands and a lot of ticks as well as is tight. Luke believes that

these characteristics describe Alex. Phil tries to correct him that the thing from the

riddle was not made in the Disneyland Hotel but in Switzerland. This helps Luke

guess that the parents bought him a watch. Claire underlines one of merits of the

watch: it is shockproof, which makes Alex comment that the watch will not be

shocked as soon as it sees Luke’s grades.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon double meanings conveyed by Phil and Alex, both of

which require lexical adjustment. Phil’s riddle communicates two concepts on the

basis of the homonyms (paradigmatic puns): HANDS* (of a watch: a long piece of

metal) and HANDS** (of a person: body part); BE TIGHT* (a watch that fits

closely) and BE TIGHT** (a person eager to control strictly); TICKS* (a watch

that makes short repeated sounds) and TICKS** (a person that has sudden

movement of muscles). The explicature is that Phil’s riddle can be used to

describe two disparate phenomena and hence communicates two different

explicatures: one about Alex and the other about a watch. The second line

requiring lexical adjustment is Alex’s biting comment on the shockproofness of

the watch: SHOCKPROOF* (a watch that cannot be easily damaged) and

SHOCKPROOF** (a watch that will not be shocked by Luke’s poor grades). The

explicature is that Alex wanted to offend her brother.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between two meanings of the words hand, tick,

be tight, shockproof

- Relief: Alex’s and Luke’s teasing may be used to give vent to nervous

energy

- Superiority: disparagement of Luke (by Alex) and Alex (by Luke)


- explicature: lexical adjustment



- sharing


- disclosing character-specific information (Phil is witty; Alex is cynical)



- showing off (both Phil’s and Alex’s wit)





Propositional

meaning(s)

- a sister-brother relationship: siblings are eager to engage in mutual teasing

- teasing within siblings is used to issue face threat, which is not serious

- it is not always the smartest child who takes advantage of the sibling’s

stupidity and the stupid child can also show her/ his wisdom

- in every family, there is a person who plays the role of a clown being keen

on making others amused

- any film lover makes frequent references to well-known lines from films

to test others’ knowledge of the films or find the common ground (when

Phil talks about plastic)

Appendix

- 415 -

112. Cameron and Mitchell are choosing the colour of paint in the living room.

Mitchell: So, I’ve narrowed it down to Swiss Coffee and Whispering White. But I can’t decide

between matte or satin.

Cameron: I thought we landed on eggshell.

Mitchell: We decided against eggshell. W...why don’t we just sell the house?

Cameron: Why don’t we just paint the floor eggshell since that’s what I’m walking on.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell wonders which colour to choose for the living room: Swiss coffee or

whispering white. Cameron thought that they have already chosen the colour

which is eggshell. Mitchell is certain that they voted against this colour and

suggests selling the house. Cameron is irritated and suggests painting the floor

eggshell as he is walking on eggshells when talking to Mitchell.

Recipient

layer

Humour is contingent upon Cameron’s last turn, in which he decides to paint the

floor eggshell because he walks on eggshells. There is the clash between the literal

meaning of paining the floor in the colour of eggshell and the idiomatic meaning

of walking on eggshells. The latter expression means that Cameron needs to

become overly careful when dealing with Mitchell as he gets irritated quite easily.

Cameron’s choice of metaphorical (walking on eggshells) and literal (painting the

floor eggshell) expressions requires from the recipient to backtrack to the idiom

and analyse it on the literal sense that Cameron literally walks on eggshells. The

explicature that the viewer needs to derive is that Cameron motivates the choice of

the paint by resorting to the part of the idiom.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between choosing the eggshell colour on the

floor and walking on eggshells




- advising

- disclosing character-specific information (Cameron is very sensitive)


- showing off



Propositional

meaning(s)

- people subscribe to stereotypical information about homosexual people

that they are very sensitive and meticulous (when pondering about the

colour of paint)

- male homosexual people commonly display a heightened sense of

awareness of colour (hence, they are like women)

- it seems that choosing the colour can be very hard and hence selling the

house is the easiest option

- a stereotypical homosexual can become easily offended

113. Lily’s positive grade record astonishes Cameron and Mitchell as they expected that it

should have been much worse. The school principal advises her parents to move Lily to

a more challenging curriculum and thus skip one grade.

Mitchell: I know! All these years we thought that she was, uh God, what’s the word?

Cameron: Different? Peculiar? Odd? Mean?

Mitchell: So many words. But she was just really smart. Holed up in her room every day after

school, she wasn’t …

Appendix

- 416 -

Cameron: …plotting to kill us?

Mitchell: I was gonna say daydreaming.

Fictional

layer

Mitchell admits that they have always thought that Lily is not so talented.

Cameron tries to help Mitchell find the right word to describe Lily’s character and

provides a few descriptive adjective: different, peculiar and mean. Mitchell

believes that when Lily spent time in her room after school, she was not

daydreaming. Instead of daydreaming, Cameron would use the phrase plotting to

kill them.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon the viewer’s failed expectations of relevance

concerning Mitchell’s inability to find proper words to describe Lily and

Cameron’s offering a few negative terms. Whilst the recipient presumes that

Mitchell’s turns would prompt Cameron’s defence of Lily that he thinks that she is

smart or considerate and that Lily was certainly learning after finishing school

classes, Cameron claims the opposite. The clash between the recipient’s

expectations is strengthened by the background assumption about Cameron as a

parent: Cameron is blindly in love with Lily and cannot see her flaws. The

implicature that the recipient should construct is that Cameron perceives Lily’s

negative features but refrains from stating them until a proper moment.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between parents’ expectations that their child

is dumb and the actual state of affairs that a child is smart; 2. Incongruity

between parent’s teasing out the child’s negative personality features and

viewer’s expectations that positive characteristics should be highlighted;

3. Incongruity between child’s plotting to kill his/ her parents and child’s

studying


- Superiority: disparagement of Lily


Strategy - reversal

Functions - sharing





- avoiding conflict






Propositional

meaning(s)

- some parents are aware of their children’s negative qualities (being

different or peculiar) and do not feel bad to point them out

- a parent does not always think that his/ her child is the smartest and hence

is surprised at good grades

114. Manny celebrated his graduation together with his father. He has drunk too much alcohol

and he complains to Jay.

Jay: How was your big night with Javier?

Manny: [groans] I overindulged.

Jay: Booze or burgers?

Manny: Booze. I drank so much, I had an angry slap fight with what turned out to be a mirror.

[Jay chuckles]

Appendix

- 417 -

Gloria: [shouting from the other room] Do I hear my Manny?!

Jay: [whispering to Manny] When you’re hungover, it’s like a car alarm.

Gloria: Ay. iHola, papi! Happy graduation day! [blows a party horn, laughs]

Manny: That’s delightful.

Gloria: I need your sash and your gown. So that I can press it. I don’t want anyone looking

wrinkly. [to Jay, chuckles] I don’t mean you, but it’s fun that you’re right there.

Fictional

layer

Manny has a terrible hangover. As soon as he hears Gloria’s shouting from the

other room, Jay compares her voice to a car alarm. Then, Gloria asks Manny

where his gown is as she wants to press it so that it does not look too wrinkly.

Suspecting that Jay may think that Gloria refers to him as wrinkly, she comforts

him that Jay does not look too wrinkly.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based upon Jay’s use of simile and Gloria’s giving rise to the punning

effect. First, Jay’s comparison of Gloria’s voice to a car alarm communicates the

implicature that Jay reckons that Gloria has high-pitched voice that can make

Manny’s hangover become worse. In other words, Manny and the viewers can

actually confront her shouting with the sound of a car horn. Second, Gloria’s use

of the term wrinkly, which is relevant in the context of pressing Manny’s gown

and Jay’s advanced age, gives rise to two concepts: WRINKLY * (creases in a

piece of clothing) and WRINKLY** (wrinkles on one’s face) (a paradigmatic pun).

The recipient needs to formulate the explicature that Gloria intends to amuse Jay

and Manny by using one concept to refer to two different phenomena.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: 1. Incongruity between a real car alarm and a woman’s voice

being like a car alarm; 2. Incongruity in the word wrinkly: wrinkles on a

face (and hence being old) and untidy folds in a piece of clothing

- Superiority: disparagement of Gloria (by Jay) and Jay (by Gloria)

RT tool - implicature (simile)

- explicature: lexical adjustment (wrinkly)

Strategy - simile + punning element


- sharing

- avoiding/ fostering conflict





- showing off





Propositional

meaning(s)

- Colombian women are quite noisy, which might irritate men, especially

those who have drunk too much alcohol last night

- there are women who express their emotions in an annoying manner

- some women do not understand the serious state men are in when they

suffer from a terrible hangover

- women are not considerate towards men’s needs

- when a woman is much younger than her husband, the difference in an

outward appearance is quite noticeable

Appendix

- 418 -

115. Mitchell, Cameron and Lily visit the school principal since Lily is advised to skip one

grade because she is too smart for the current curriculum.

Mitchell: Uh, Mr. Peterson, we just want to be certain that this environment’s the right fit

for Lily.

Mr. Peterson: We have a lot of experience dealing with accelerated students.

Mitchell: But if Lily really is gifted, then maybe there’s another path private schools.

Although, I do love the diversity of a public school. On the other hand, I do

wonder …

Cameron: Okay, you know what? We’re just deciding if she’s gonna skip a grade. We’re

not charting out the next 20 years of her life.

Mitchell: Well, no, choices have consequences. If we don’t do this right, she could lose all

interest in school and drop out, and the next thing you know, we’re supporting

her and her deadbeat boyfriend and our savings are drained, and then we have

to sell the house!

Cameron: Okay, why do all your meltdowns have to do with us selling the house?

Fictional

layer

Mitchell and Cameron are talking to a school principal as it is the school that they

want Lily to attend next year. Mitchell goes into a mounting panic as he connects

choosing the school with Lily’s living with a deadbeat boyfriend whom Cameron

and Mitchell would need to support, which consequently would make their bank

account empty.

Recipient

layer

Humour is based on Mitchell’s meltdown concerning what can happen if they

make up an irrational decision about Lily’s school. Mitchell’s concerns are

groundless and far-fetched as there is quite a long time between skipping a grade

(while a child is ten) and living without money with a boyfriend. The recipient

needs to extract the implicated premise that if a person wants to sell the house

because of the inability to solve a problem, a person is melodramatic and

psychologically sensitive. Then, the implicature is that Mitchell prefers to escape a

problem than face it.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between choosing an appropriate school for their

daughter and eagerness to sell the house

- Superiority: disparagement of Mitchell (implicit)






- disclosing character-specific information (Mitchell is also sensitive)

- advising

- sharing





Propositional

meaning(s)

- homosexual people are always emotional and dramatic; they tend to

exaggerate simple issues

- any parent can easily relate to Cameron and Mitchell’s attitude since a

parent would like to make a rational decision on child’s future life

- the idea of selling a house whenever a problem occurs (choosing a school

for Lily or the colour of paint for the living room) can be a defence

mechanism

- any choice can have a tremendous impact upon one’s life

Appendix

- 419 -

116. Jay makes an inside joke to Manny on doctors in Colombia. Earlier Gloria admitted that

Javier’s brother is an orthopaedist in Colombia without having taken any medical

preparation.

Jay: [to Manny, smiling] Congratulations on the first of what I’m sure will be many diplomas.

Unless you want to skip all that and move to Colombia and become a radiologist.

Fictional

layer

Jay expresses congratulations to Manny and states that as soon as Manny

graduated from high school he can become a radiologist in Colombia.

Recipient

layer

Humour is dependent upon Jay’s making a solidarity-based tease when he refers

to radiologists in Colombia. The implicated premise is that a person can become a

radiologist without medical training after graduating from high school. The

implicature is that Manny can go to Colombia to become a doctor right after

having finished high school. Jay’s turn can be understood as a form of teasing of

doctors’ low level of education in Colombia.

Humour

mechanisms

- Incongruity: incongruity between doctors who need to undergo

professional training to work as doctors and doctors who do not have to

have a diploma to work as doctors (in Colombia)

- Superiority: disparagement of doctors in Colombia





- disclosing character-specific information (Jay likes teasing others)


- showing off

- advising





Propositional

meaning(s)

- doctors in Colombia (or in other countries of South America) are

underqualified

- a stepfather-stepson relationship: they are keen on joking or teasing and

not taking offence (solidarity-enhancing)

- Colombia is a third world country and hence the level of education is

much lower

A Data-Based Study from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspect

Documents