s - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna we Wrocławiu

80
Dorota Buszyńska
procedure might be aimed at ascertaining the positions of the selves and of the
others in the society. 16 The mechanisms may be based predominantly on surprise
and dashing the addressee’s expectations, as postulated by Incongruity
Theory (Kant 2008 [1790]), and result mainly from violating appropriateness
rules (e.g., the Camel joke). It may also employ a form of disparagement, argued
for by Superiority Theory (Hobbes 1651; Bergson 2008 [1900]; Zillmann
& Cantor 1976), either directed at oneself (the Shakespeare joke) or at the other
group (the Clanford joke). This type of humor may also refer to both ways of
raising laugher in an equal manner (the Supplies joke). The above mechanisms
cause a tension in the addressee, which, according to Release Theory (Freud
1963 [1905]; Mindess 1971) is being relieved along with grasping the punch
line (e.g., the Supplies joke), or the whole sequence of jab lines in the case of
longer humorous stories (e.g., the Divorce joke).
Furthermore, the analysis based on the above classification indicated that
humor, despite being a non-bona fide mode of communication, is no different
from other discourses with respect to the necessity of obtaining proper communicative
competence (humor competence – see Introduction) for retrieving the
intended message. Both the joke originator and its receiver, if they should assign
the same referential value to verbal expressions, need to share the knowledge
of cultural cues, for which ambiguity, intertextuality, or puns provide a
vehicle. In other words, humor transmits the elements of culture in disguise of
unserious statements.
What additionally emerged in the analyzing process were the three functions
of humor, performed in connection with its ethnic significance: the descriptive
function on the textual level, and on the extratextual level: the phatic
function and the group-identifying function. The first function is inherent to
language and relies on transmitting the elements of culture on the level of phonemes
to texts purely via their referential value (explicit culture expression).
The descriptive function, thus, is connected with the meaning-bearing power of
words and their function as ethnolinguistic markers, ranging from single phonemes
and words to whole texts and contexts. Ritchie (2005: 11) believes that
“a good joke should express … at least partially suppressed social truth,” which
in turn may be subversive – contradicting the ordinary everyday social conduct.
It needs to be remembered that, as rightly pointed out by Raskin (1985: 180),
the actual deprecatory or disparaging element of ethnic humor may not (and, in
fact, frequently does not) have a real-life counterpart, and it might simply derive
from a stereotypical image held for a given group. Even though the image
and/or situation may be entirely invented, the choice and the way of presenting
the disparaged ethnic group are evidence for the attitudes and assumptions operating
in the joke originator’s group.
16
To be verified in the future study.