Arguably, using humor in everyday conversation offers several positive effects on relationships and the general atmosphere. For example, it helps in self-representation and in communicating messages that would sound harsh when spoken out directly. However, as useful a tool conversational humor might be, a usual occurrence is its failure. When trying to be funny while talking to others, there is always the possibility to offend, be misunderstood, or for the humor not to be perceived at all.
Many of these failures in conversational humor seem to arise from wrong estimations of shared context on the speaker's side. An example: Someone makes a joke about politics, proceeding on the assumption that the listener is well versed in the topic, while, in fact, she is not; consequently, she probably will not find the joke funny because she lacks the background information the joke teller erroneously ascribed to her. People not understanding conversational jokes (or even noticing that an utterance was intended to be funny) is something that happens to people on a daily basis and still, we cannot always tell where they went wrong. The challenge and main objective of this thesis is to find out which steps in the whole process of generating and perceiving conversational humor are crucial for the failure.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Humor
2.1 Defining humor
2.1.1 Superiority Theory
2.1.2 Release Theory
2.1.3 Incongruity-Resolution Theory
2.2 Relevance Theory and conversational humor
2.2.1 Grice's Cooperative Principle and humor
2.2.2 Yus' Relevance-Theoretic claims regarding humor
3. Humor in conversation
3.1 Purposes of conversational humor
3.2 Narrative jokes, conversational jokes, and play frame
3.2.1 Narrative jokes
3.2.2 Conversational jokes
3.2.3 Play frame and its markers
3.3 Importance of context and common ground
4. Failed Conversational Humor
4.1 Defining failure
4.1.1 Humor versus laughter
4.1.2 The speaker's judgment
4.2 Recognition, understanding, and appreciation
4.3 How to fail
4.3.1 Humorous framing and joke incongruity
4.3.2 Failure reasons derived from RT
5. Analysis
5.1 Two cases of failed conversational humor
5.1.1 "I'm still working on it."
5.1.2 "Chances are you're peeing."
5.2 Review
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
This thesis investigates the causes of failure in conversational humor, specifically focusing on the speaker's incorrect predictions regarding the listener's inferential processes. It explores why, despite the ubiquity and social utility of humor, conversational jokes frequently fail to elicit the intended humorous effect, utilizing Relevance Theory and Incongruity-Resolution Theory to analyze these communicative breakdowns.
- The cognitive mechanisms behind humor perception and generation.
- The role of context and common ground in successful and failed conversational joking.
- The categorization of humor failure into levels of recognition, understanding, and appreciation.
- The impact of speaker predictions and the ranking of interpretations in the listener's mind.
- Practical analysis of conversational humor failure through real-world case examples.
Excerpt from the Book
The Inferential Gap
In his book, a recurring topic is the gap between what S says and intends to communicate and what is perceived by L (see 2.2.2 above). "These gaps," says Yus, "are filled by inference" (Yus 2016, p. xvi). It is exactly that gap in which a joke will eventually fail if S falls victim to wrong estimations and thus does not provide an appropriate input for L to process as intended. Everything that happens in this gap needs to be entirely predicted by S. If she is being straightforward, she will say something and expect L to fill the gap with the most obvious, relevant and therefore effort-saving inference. This has been explained in detail in chapter 2 above.
For the purpose of humor, on the other hand, it is accepted that a bit more effort is required. Following the theory of incongruity-resolution, L will first ascribe the most likely interpretation to the input that she was provided, then notice that there is a contradiction, and be forced to backtrack, try the second most likely interpretation and so on, until the incongruity is resolved. The process just described gives rise to an interesting thought: since it is the list of possible interpretations, ranked by relevance, that provides the base for L’s whole process of resolving the incongruity, could it be that this list is the crucial aspect that must be estimated correctly by S?
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the motivation for studying humor failure in everyday conversation, introducing the core challenge of identifying the steps where humor generation and perception misalign.
2. Humor: Examines foundational humor theories including Superiority, Release, and Incongruity-Resolution, and integrates Gricean pragmatics and Relevance Theory to model humor processing.
3. Humor in conversation: Explores the social purposes of humor, distinguishes between narrative and conversational jokes, and emphasizes the critical importance of the "play frame," context, and common ground.
4. Failed Conversational Humor: Defines humor failure, establishes a hierarchical framework based on recognition, understanding, and appreciation, and reviews triggers like humorous framing and prediction errors.
5. Analysis: Applies the theoretical framework to two specific case studies taken from YouTube videos, systematically evaluating where and why speaker predictions failed.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes findings, affirming that the internal ranking of interpretations is a vital, albeit complex, factor in conversational humor success or failure, and suggests directions for future research.
Keywords
Conversational humor, Humor failure, Relevance Theory, Incongruity-Resolution, Inferential steps, Speaker predictions, Common ground, Play frame, Pragmatics, Cognitive communication, Interpretation ranking, Humor support, Miscommunication, Mind-reading, Interpersonal dynamics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
This work explores the reasons why conversational humor fails, specifically focusing on the speaker's inaccurate predictions about how a listener will process and infer the meaning of a joke.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The research bridges cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, covering humor theories, the structure of conversational interactions, and the psychological processes involved in humor perception.
What is the main research goal?
The aim is to identify the crucial points where the generation and perception of conversational humor diverge, providing readers with insights to anticipate potential failures and avoid awkward social interactions.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The thesis employs a combination of theoretical analysis—primarily using Relevance Theory and Incongruity-Resolution Theory—and qualitative case study analysis of recorded conversational excerpts.
What content is addressed in the main body?
The main body defines humor theories, explains conversational structures like the "play frame," categorizes failure types, and conducts a detailed inferential analysis of real-world humor failures.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key concepts include conversational humor, Relevance Theory, inferential steps, common ground, play frame, and the ranking of interpretations.
How does the author define humor failure?
Failure is defined from the speaker's perspective based on the listener's reactions; if the listener is not amused—regardless of whether they overtly show it—the humorous attempt is considered to have failed.
What role does the "ranking of interpretations" play?
The author argues that listeners rank potential meanings of an utterance by relevance. A joke often fails because the speaker incorrectly assumes the listener will prioritize the humorous interpretation over the literal or standard one.
Can humor failure be intentional?
Yes, the analysis indicates that some speakers may deliberately create "failed" humor as part of a larger social structure, such as a running gag or a specific joint activity among friends.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Nina Godenrath (Autor:in), 2019, Why no one's laughing at your jokes. Wrong predictions in conversational humor, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/510098
