Universität Hannover
Englisches Seminar

The American Way of Comedy
A Comprehensive Analysis of Humor on the Basis of the US Sitcom Friends

Magisterarbeit

vorgelegt von: Inga Walte
vorgelegt am: 22.März 2007

Table of contents

Introduction ... 5

Aims and scope of the study ... 6
Structure ... 7

Part I: Theoretical Background ... 8

1.) Humor and related research ... 8

1.1) That’s funny ... 8
1.2) Historical development - an outline ... 11
1.3) Conditions for humor – the context ... 13
1.4) Laughter ... 14
1.5) Jokes ... 15
1.6) Conversational joking ... 17

2.) Theories of humor ... 19

2.1) Conventional theories ... 20
2.1.1) Superiority Theory ... 20
2.1.2) Incongruity Theory ... 23
2.1.3) Relief Theory ... 26

2.2) Humor research in the linguistic field ... 30
2.2.1.) Semantic script-based theory of humor (SSTH) ... 30
2.2.2) General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) ... 34

Part II: Method and Aims ... 41

3.) Theoretical base for the analysis ... 41
4.) Analysing humor – the content analysis ... 43
5.) Poll ... 46

Part III: Data Base - An American Sitcom ... 48

6.) Humor in US- sitcoms ... 48

6.1) The history of sitcoms ... 49
6.2) Characteristics of sitcoms ... 50

7.) Friends ... 55

7.1) “Clanning” ... 55

7.2) Background: characters, story, and concept ... 57
7.2.1) The actors/ characters ... 59
7.2.2) Running gags ... 60

7.3) The secret behind Friends’ success ... 61

Part IV: Case Study ... 63

8.) Interest of research ... 63

8.1) Targets and initiators of humor in Friends ... 64
8.2) Sexuality, gender, and development ... 66

9.) Research questions RQ1-RQ6 ... 68

10.) Approaches to humor in sitcoms ... 70

10.1) Definition of humor for this analysis ... 71
10.2) Sampling ... 72

11.) Categories and coding ... 73

12.) Results ... 79

12.1) RQ1: The target of jokes in Friends ... 79
12.1.1) Non-targeted humor ... 81

12.2) RQ2: The initiator of jokes in Friends ... 83
12.2.1) Humor at another person’s expense ... 85
12.2.2) Humor at one’s own expense ... 88

12.3) RQ3: Initiator of jokes and the choice of target referring to sexuality ... 89

12.4) RQ4: Jokes referring to sexuality ... 92
12.4.1) Indirect and direct jokes including sexuality ... 93
12.4.2) Breaking taboos ... 94
12.4.3) Visualization ... 96

12.5) RQ5: The role of gender in Friends ... 96

12.6) RQ6: The development of humor over ten years ... 101

12.7) Superiority, Incongruity, and Relief ... 105

12.8) Summary of the results ... 107

13.) Conclusion and Discussion ... 112

14.) References ... 120

15.) Appendix ... 124

15.1) Analyzed episodes conferring to target/initiator ... 124
15.2) Analyzed episodes conferring to sexuality ... 124
15.3) Analyzed episodes conferring to gender ... 125
15.4) Analysis of humorous development in Friends/ diagram/ chi square ... 126
15.5) Superiority, Incongruity, and Relief in Friends/diagram ... 128
15.6) Poll ... 129
15.7) German Version ... 131

Introduction

“I’m no longer a bride. I’ll never be a bride again. Now, I’m just someone’s wife.”
(Monica in “The One With The Red Sweater”/ 1min)

“Seriously, why do you laugh?” Explaining why something is funny, can be very difficult. However, isn’t it strange that people react to some situations or comments, even though it is nonsense, with strange noises, strained facial muscles, and weird expressions? Humor is a wide-ranging field and many people claim that it is quite intangible. From satire over joking as a way of excluding others to humor as a sign of membership – humor is quite powerful. The ability to enjoy humor and to laugh is a unique capacity of human beings and has been discussed since the times of Aristotle. It is a topic which everyone comes in contact with. Broadcasting and literature, as well as philosophy and psychology – humor has relevance for our everyday life, our social interactions and our mental disposition. In fact there is hardly ever a day where we do not laugh at all. The question is why? What are the triggers that cause us to show our teeth, hold our stomach, and sometimes even start to cry? Over the years, a lot of different theories have appeared. There are conventional theories like the incongruity theory, the superiority theory, and the relief theory. These theories already came up in the antique and are may be old-fashioned because the sense of humor might have changed. In 1985, Raskin developed a new theory: the semantic script-based theory of humor (SSTH). He examined the semantic side of humor. This theory was extended by Raskin and Attardo (1991) who developed the general theory of verbal humor (GTVH). Researchers mainly concentrated on the analysis of written humor or humor occurring in real conversations. This paper, though, looks at verbal and rehearsed humor in the American sitcom Friends. Television does not reflect real interactions; rather it tries to create an idealized little community. Laugh tracks or canned laughter invite the viewers to feel at one with the few dozen people he hears laughing. The reality is ignored; instead, an ideal, perfect world is shown. However, comedy, like we know it today, has not always been like that. It has been developed over many years: a struggle for acceptance and appreciation. For a long time, the subject humor has not been taken seriously. In this paper comedy will be examined from a serious angle. The construction of interpersonal relations via humor will be in the focus. The purpose of my paper is to learn more about the subject of laughter (target) and those who produce the messages (initiator). Additionally, target and initiator are particularly evaluated conferring to sexuality. The US-sitcom Friends serves as my data base because of its popularity. It has a great target audience which ranges from teenagers to mid-thirteenth. Friends is not an academic and profound sitcom, but I chose it as my data base because I think that it may mirror humor in the American society. Over ten years, the sitcom was popular and in the end, the actors earned one million US-dollars per episode. Not only Americans watched the show but people all around the globe. As the title indicates, the show deals with friendship and relationships. This is established and maintained through talk. Three male and three female characters make up Friends. Consequently, it is not a one-sided analysis, but multilayered and gender differences may become apparent. Men-targeted or women-targeted humor will be analyzed, as well as the handling of sexuality. As a matter of fact, scripted screen talk and naturally occurring conversations among friends, differ. On TV, all characters are quick-witted, funny, and not resentful at all. This paper does not intend to analyze reality; instead it investigates how sexuality and jokes about others are realized on TV and which consequences it may involve. Furthermore, I developed a poll including questions about the sitcom Friends. I asked German and American students which characters they like, what they think about the sitcom in general, and whether or not they like canned laughter. With the aid of this poll I want to see if the role of target/initiator can be pulled together. Besides, it may help me to get an idea of what other people think about the sitcom and whether or not my results can be supported by the poll.

Aims and scope of the study

The general aim of this paper is to analyze humorous scripts in a sitcom. This paper discusses the sitcom from different points of view. At first, it shows the insight of the genre situation comedy. For the next, the concept of situation comedies is going to be worked out on the basis of Friends. The emphasis lies on targets and initiator of humorous acts. Questions like who is mainly the object of laughter and who initiates jokes will be resolved. Then, I will look at one particular humorous field in detail. I decided to examine humor and sexuality. What kinds of jokes conferring to sexuality are made and again, are there differences between the male and the female characters? Thus, another subject is if male and female characters of the show have a different sense of humor. Besides, the development of humor will be analyzed. Friends was broadcasted over ten years and I assume that the sense of humor, the topics, and characters have changed. Focusing on sexuality, I would like to find out whether or not this is true. In addition, the issue of target and initiator is examined regarding its development. Do the targets change as well? Maybe women became more independent and self-confident so that they began to make more jokes rather than to be the subject of laughter.

In the end, the relations between the characters will be examined. Lovers, siblings, and best friends make up the characters of the show. Do the relations between the characters have an effect upon humor? And what does the development of humor, choice of target and initiator say about society? Is there a correlation between developments and changes in the show and the changes in reality? Can the role of target and initiator be associated with the characters popularity?

Structure

I subdivided the paper into four main categories: theoretical background, method and aims, data base, and case study. The theoretical background explores and evaluates humor and related research, such as its development throughout history, conditions for humor, or possible reactions to it like laughter. Furthermore, I will present the structure and diversity of jokes. Jokes are a very common tool of humor and do build a contrast to situational humor. Besides, the different approaches to humor will be explained to get a basic knowledge, which is essential for my empirical study. The method I use for my analysis in particular will be presented in the second part of the paper.

The data base of this paper is introduced in the third part of the paper: the US sitcom Friends. The development of American sitcoms is investigated as well as characteristics of Friends. Its success and the concept of the sitcom will be discussed, as well as the image the show has, its characters, and the humor it provides.

The fourth section, the case study, constitutes the empirical part of the paper. It is subdivided into five individual fields of analysis (target, initiator, sexuality, gender, and development), each presenting detailed analysis of excerpts from the Friends corpus. In order to answer my research questions about the construction and expression of sexuality, target/initiator, gender, and its development the content analysis will be applied. I develop a framework of categories that can be useful to any sitcom in order to evaluate humorous comments. To support my results, conventional theories as well as my poll may be consulted, too.¹

Part I: Theoretical Background

In order to get a basic knowledge about humor, different theories are introduced in the following chapter. Besides, conditions for humor as well as reactions to it are illustrated. The first part of this paper provides the basis for the analysis.

[...]

1 To simplify matters, only the male pronouns “him” and “he” will be used throughout the paper.