The Language of Jokes

Analyzing Verbal Play

Delia Chiaro

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134970094
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

In this highly readable and thought-provoking book, Delia Chiaro explores the pragmatics of word play, using frameworks normally adopted in descriptive linguistics. Using examples from personally recorded conversations, she examines the structure of jokes, quips, riddles and asides. Chiaro explores degrees of conformity to and deviation from established conventions; the `tellability' of jokes, and the interpretative role of the listener; the creative use of puns, word play and discourse. The emphasis in her analysis is on sociocultural contexts for the production and reception of jokes, and she examines the extent to which jokes are both universal in their appeal, and specific to a particular culture.

1 About word play

The term word play conjures up an array of conceits ranging from puns and spoonerisms to wisecracks and funny stories. Word play is, in fact, inseparably linked to humour which in turn is linked to laughter; so in a book which sets out to explore such a subject, it is hard to resist not to begin by pointing out the obvious analogy which exists between language and laughter, the fact that both are human universals.

In all its many-splendoured varieties, humour can be simply defined as a type of stimulation that tends to elicit the laughter reflex. Spontaneous laughter is a motor reflex produced by the coordinated contraction of 15 facial muscles in a stereotyped pattern and accompanied by altered breathing. Electrical stimulation of the main lifting muscle of the upper lip, the zygomatic major, with currents of varying intensity produces facial expressions ranging from the faint smile through the broad grin to the contortions typical of explosive laughter.

(Koestler, 1974)

The physiological processes involved in the production of laughter described above are identical in men and women the world over. Equally complex physiological processes underlie the formation of speech sounds. In fact, from Birmingham to Bombay the formation of speech sounds is simply variations of identical physical procedures involving the various speech organs; in other words, as far as laughing and speaking are concerned, we all do it in the same way. However, the comparison between laughter and language cannot be developed any further, for, if it were, then, just as different languages are simply manifestations triggered off by the universal blueprint of a single grammatical matrix, it should follow that all laughter has a single stimulus. Where laughter is concerned, however, the process is reversed; while the physical manifestation of laughter is the same the world over, its stimulus differs from culture to culture.

It is a well-known fact that the same things are not funny to everybody. We have all at some time made what we consider to be a witty remark at the wrong time and in the wrong company and have consequently had to suffer acute embarrassment to find the joke falls flat. Tacit rules underlie where, when and with whom it is permissible to joke. What is more, what may appear to be funny at a certain moment in time may cease to be so a few months later. If we then begin to consider the exportability of funniness, we will soon find that a traditional vehicle of humour such as the joke does not generally travel well. The concept of what people find funny appears to be surrounded by linguistic, geographical, diachronic, sociocultural and personal boundaries.

The notion of humour and what makes people laugh has intrigued scholars of various disciplines for centuries. Philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have attempted to define the whys and wherefores of humour and, above all, its essence. Such studies have resulted in numerous theories on the subject, some of which are more convincing than others; yet in their quest for a reason why, students of humour have tended to lose sight of the ways in which humorous effects are achieved. In fact, while considerable interest has been aroused by the subconscious processes concealed behind a burst of laughter or a smile, the stimulus itself has been largely ignored, rather as though unworthy of serious consideration.

Word play, the use of language with intent to amuse, is, of course, only one of numerous ways of provoking laughter. Although at first sight it may appear to be convenient to detach it from non-verbal stimuli, this soon proves to be an impossible task due to the fact that word play is inextricably linked to circumstances which belong to the world which exists beyond words. While it is perfectly possible to stimulate laughter without words, once words become part of the stimulus, whatever the type of verbal conceit, it is bound to be the verbalization of a state, an event or a situation. Over and above this, although the manipulation of the language itself may well be involved in the creation of a stimulus, instances of word play in which the language is used as an end in itself with the aim of amusing would be a contradiction in terms.

BEYOND WORDS

Everyone is capable of producing laughter, yet different people are amused by different things, so let us try to identify what, if anything, may be considered funny universally. There are situations which may be seen as funny in all western societies. Practical jokes such as pulling a chair away when someone is about to sit down are a pretty universal source of amusement to schoolchildren, while other stock examples include seeing someone slip on a banana skin or receive a custard pie in the face.

Henri Bergson, in his famous essay Le Rire, in an attempt at explaining why we laugh, concluded that we always laugh at ‘something human’, at ‘inelasticity’, at ‘rigidity’ and ‘when something mechanical is encrusted on something that is living’. In this light we can perhaps explain the laughter triggered off by the clumsiness of a clown or the mishaps of a comic like Buster Keaton. Yet on the other hand, it may be equally feasible to suggest that laughter is triggered off by something which is not at all funny in itself, but which symbolizes a well-established comic pattern. After all, is there any real reason why Groucho Marx’s cigar and raised eyebrows should make us laugh? Yet they do and they do so universally. Are we really simply laughing at his mechanistic movements? If we try to trace such a stimulus back to its source or primeval association in order to find an explanation we soon find ourselves involved in a complicated and possibly hopeless task.

Like Groucho Marx, Charlie Chaplin with his ill-fitting suit and rickety walk, the antics of Laurel and Hardy, and more recently the lecherous Benny Hill chasing lightly clad ladies around fields have all succeeded in amusing audiences despite geographical boundaries; yet where slapstick (and lewdness in the case of Benny Hill) stimulates laughter universally, other situations are only amusing well within the borders of their country of origin.

In Italy, for example, where most television situation comedies are imported from either Britain or the United States, a series is only successful if the situation depicted is not too culture-specific. For example, in the early 1980s the series George and Mildred and Different Strokes became extremely successful in Italy. Both programmes are basically farcical in structure with dramatic irony used as an indispensable feature in each episode. The main character is usually responsible for a misdeed which is worsened when he tries to remedy it. This results in situations which are not too different from the ‘fine messes’ in which Stan Laurel constantly involved Oliver Hardy. On the other hand, the problems of a priest trying to outdo his Anglican counterpart in a parish somewhere in England (Bless me, Father) are far too culture-specific to hope to amuse Roman Catholic Italy. In fact, the latter series was quickly relegated to off peak viewing time on one of the country’s minor commercial channels.

Situation comedy frequently plays on stereotypes. John Cleese’s bowler-hatted business man (Monty Python) and hotelier (Fawlty Towers), members of the French resistance (’Allo, ’Allo) and typical British civil servants (Yes, Prime Minister) are all figures belonging to British culture which are instantly recognized in their inflated parodied forms by home audiences. Outside the British Isles, the stereotypes do not necessarily correspond as being comic in intent.

Situation comedies involve someone getting into some kind of mess. From the intricate farces of Plautus, through to the court jester and then the clown, from boss-eyed Ben Turpin to John Cleese’s ‘Silly Walks’, from the ill-treated guests at Fawlty Towers to the painfully embarrassing situations created by Candid Camera, it would appear that people’s misfortunes have always been a laughing matter. As far back as Philebus we find Plato claiming that:

when we laugh at the ridiculous qualities of our friends, we mix pleasure with pain

(1925: 338–9)

while Aristotle declares that:

Comedy … is a representation of inferior people, not indeed in the full sense of the word bad, but the laughable is a species of the base or ugly. It consists in some blunder or ugliness that does not cause pain or disaster, an obvious example being the comic mask which is ugly and distorted but not painful.

(1927: 18–21)

COMMON DENOMINATORS IN VERBAL HUMOUR

If we now turn to the field of verbal humour, we will find that the intrusion of language will restrict the stimulus to a smaller audience. Nevertheless, the topics of jokes tend to be universal. Degradation, for example, is the subject of an entire category of jokes. Physical handicaps which are the topic of ‘sick’ jokes may well appeal to feelings of repressed sadism, while most western societies possess a dimwitted underdog who is the butt of a whole subcategory of derogatory jokes which possibly allow their recipients to give vent to equally repressed feelings of superiority. The Irishman in England is transformed into a Belgian in France, a Portuguese in Brazil and a Pole in the United States. All of them are victims of jokes in which they clearly become ‘inferior people’ in unlikely situations in which they display pure stupidity. The Polish captain in the following joke can be substituted by a captain of the inferior’ group of one’s choice in order to adapt it to a non-American audience:

J1

A Polish Airline passenger plane lands with difficulty on a modern runway just stopping short of disaster. The Polish captain wipes his brow after successfully braking the plane. ‘Whew!’ he says, “that’s the shortest runway I’ve ever seen.’

‘Yes’, says his copilot, looking wonderingly to his left and then to his right. ‘but it sure is wide.’

Why it is that any minority ethnic group can find itself becoming the subject of a derogatory joke (and consequently laughed at by its recipients) may not, however, necessarily depend upon the inventor’s hidden feelings of superiority. Over the years, practically every ethnic group in the United States has taken its turn at being the underdog. Recent literature on the subject (Bier, 1979 and 1988) suggests that it would be equally feasible to suggest that Blacks, Jews, Italians and Puerto Ricans may have presented both an economic and phallic threat to the white middle-class American, thus suggesting that such jokes conceal repressed feelings of fear and anxiety rather than superiority.

Minority groups do not however necessarily have to be of the ethnic variety in order to qualify as joke material. In Italy, the carabinieri, one of the country’s three police forces, replace the ethnic stooge, while in Poland the role is played by the secret police. Other types of derogatory jokes involve cripples, the mentally sick, homosexuals, wives, mothers-in-law and women in general. Only recently, after the advent of feminism, have we begun to hear jokes in which men are the butt of derogatory humour:

J2

Q. Why are women bad at parking?

A. Because they’re used to men telling them that this much (joker indicates an inch with thumb and forefinger) is ten inches.

This joke of course combines the put-down joke with another western joke universal: sex. Generally speaking, in ‘civilized’ societies dirty jokes are considered amusing especially if they concern newly-weds or sexual initiation. However, such jokes undergo variations from culture to culture. In many cultures, male prowess and penis size are a common feature of the ‘dirty’ joke, while in others, seduction, adultery and cuckolded husbands appear to amuse, and let us not forget that many people find other bodily functions funny too, so that ‘lavatorial’ jokes are far from being unusual, both among children and adults.

Many people would agree with Charles Lamb when he claims that: ‘Anything awful makes me laugh’ (letter to Southey, 9 August 1815); and Freud’s idea of the child born free but who is forced into a state of repression within months of birth certainly rings true if we consider that by playground age a child is ready to giggle guiltily at a scurrilous remark. Later on in life we see that an important aspect of male camaraderie lies deeply ingrained in traditions in which the dirty joke reigns supreme – the rugby song and the banter and repartee of the working man’s club and the stag night are just two examples. J2 upsets a rather male-centric tradition of dirty jokes by poking fun at the male. He is now forced to laugh at himself and his over-preoccupation with penis size and sexual performance. As for laughing at the underdog, who in this example is the male, surely here we laugh the self-satisfied laugh of he or she who knows better?

Alongside the topics of sex and underdogs, another common denominator which is universally present in jokes is what we shall term the ‘absurd’ or ‘out of this world’ element. Jokes containing such elements can be easily compared to fairy tales as both may be inhabited by humanized objects and talking animals. Throughout the duration of these jokes, the recipient’s disbelief must be suspended in the same way as it is suspended in order to watch an animated cartoon in which famous cats like Tom and Sylvester get flattened by steamrollers, hit over the head by gigantic hammers and pushed off mountains, yet, nevertheless, always manage to survive and return for another episode.

J3

Jeremy Cauliflower is involved in a very bad car accident; sprigs are scattered all over the road and he is immediately rushed to hospital where a team of surgeons quickly carry out a major operation. Meanwhile, his parents, Mr and Mrs Cauliflower sit outside the operating theatre anxiously waiting for the outcome of the operation. After five hours one of the surgeons comes out of the theatre and approaches Jeremy’s parents.

‘Well,’ asks Mr Cauliflower, ‘will Jeremy live?’

‘It’s been a long and difficult operation’, replies the surgeon, ‘and Jeremy’s going to survive. However I’m afraid there’s something you ought to know.’

‘What?’ask the Cauliflowers.

‘I’m sorry, ‘replies the surgeon, ‘we’ve done our best but … but I’m afraid your son’s going to remain a vegetable for the rest of his life.’

The recipient of J3 does not question the fact that vegetables are referred to by name, are involved in car accidents and undergo major surgery. Being game to a world in which anything goes but which would be totally out of the question in reality by even the wildest stretches of the imagination, appears to be a tacit rule between joker and recipient.

THE CONCEPT OF SHARED KNOWLEDGE

We have already seen that when a comic situation is too culture-specific it wi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series editor’s introduction to the Interface series
• Introduction
• 1 About word play
• 2 Inside word play
• 3 Framing word play
• 4 Translating word play
• 5 Word play in action
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index