s - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna we Wrocławiu

Laughing at or with? Humor as no laughing (cultural) matter 77
(2) Ethnolinguistics and findings on the language-culture relations, as well
as a choice of ethnolinguistic markers (Anderson & Trudgill 1990; Duranti
1990 /1988/; Goddard 2006; Hymes 1972; Kluckhohn 1967 /1949/; Tabakowska
2001, and others)
(3) Humor theories, and most significantly:
– Superiority Theory, approaching jokes as results of hatred, hostility, disregard
(Hobbes 1651; Bergson 2008 [1900]) or an attack performed by the teller on the
target (Zillmann & Cantor 1976);
– Release Theory, treating humor as a way of releasing the tension accumulated
due to abiding by socio-cultural bans (Freud 1963 [1905]; Mindess 1971);
– Incongruity Theory, arguing for the contrast between the expected and the
actually encountered situation to be a trigger of laughter (Kant 2008 [1790]);
this theory is also crucial, because it lies at the foundations of the addressed
linguistic theories, based on script opposition (Raskin 1985), frame-shifting
(Ritchie 2005), the Isotopy-Disjunction Model (Attardo 1994, 2001), ambiguity
(Lew 2000), the relevance theory (Yus 2003, 2008), or narrative studies
(Chłopicki 2004).
The future study shall be based on two main assumptions. First, whether
reflecting real or invented features ascribed to the butts of jokes, ethnic humor
does reveal inter-cultural relations and attitudes, being in this way no different
from any other discourse type. The statement is supported with Blake’s (2007:
22) observation that the majority of jokes require a shared culture so that the
joker may take certain knowledge for granted and be certain that a particular
subject is appropriate for ridicule. The second assumption is associated with the
very nature of language. Language reflects emotions and values at all its levels,
and, at the same time, it acts as both their source and a safety lifebelt. And, in
line of my argument, humor is no different in this respect. If humor is linguistic,
then it simultaneously has a culture-bearing function. Hence, it accounts for the
ethnic features of the analysed group. The ethnolinguistic approach to humor,
therefore, predicts developing a method of analysis, exploiting the unserious as
both a source and a product of culture, equal in this respect to other forms of
discourse. The following figure (Figure 1) depicts the proposed position of humor
in relation to discourse, language, and culture.
The process of creating the draft version of the method demanded that the
study material be narrowed down to the verbal 9 variety of ethnic humor, 10 and
9
10
The term denotes humor expressed by means of linguistic system (and not pantomime or
drawings, for example). Graeme Ritchie (2004: 13) substitutes it with VEH (Verbally Expressed
Humor), while Attardo (1994: 96) refers to it as verbalized humor.
Ethnic humor is understood throughout the study in the way Victor Raskin (1985: 207)
defines it, that is – as a humor including at least one truly ethnic script.