The Cross-Cultural Pragmatics of Humor

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Humor and cross-cultural pragmatics
3.1 The play frame as trigger of humorous talk
3.2 Who initiates the play frame or humor in general?
3.3 Cross-cultural considerations on starting humor
3.4 Possible reactions to humor: (lack of) comprehension
3.5 Possible reactions to humor: mind if I join in?
3.6 (Social) functions and effects of humor
3.7 Humor in intercultural settings

4. Concluding remarks

List of works cited:

1. Introduction

The phenomenon of humor is present in every form of human society, and presents a difficult challenge for linguists. As will be shown below, it cannot be explained in absolute terms, a sentence that appears boring and dull in one context can become a witty and funny punchline when put into another. This dependency on the context and on the relationship between speaker and hearer make humor a case for pragmatics, as opposed to other branches of linguistics. To make matters even more complex, these aspects (context and speaker-hearer- relationship) are heavily influenced by the cultural norms and values of the place where the interaction takes place. It is for this reason that, as I will lay out in a more detailed manner below, not to include a decidedly cross-cultural perspective would lead to false universalisms that impede true understanding of the topic. But even if this perspective is added, the question of how each culture influences the humorous speech patterns, the taste and the overall humor profile of its members may never be answered with mathematical precision, since the number of interdependencies and variables is almost endless. This is why this paper does not opt for a strictly empirical, number-based approach, but for indicating possible cultural influences on humor patterns by showing underlying cultural scripts, an approach that Wierzbicka (2003) used to discuss more general questions of pragmatics. Here, this discussion will be humor- specific.

2. Methodology

In 2008, American psychologist Jeffrey Arnett compiled a set of statistics about the participants in experiments published in the top six research journals in the area of psychology. Its staggering content was what made me mention a psychology paper in my work on cross-cultural pragmatics: over 70% of the participants in psychological research experiments were citizens of the United States, a country that represents only 5% of the world’s population, while Asians, Latin Americans and Africans accounted for only about 4% of the participants (Arnett, 2008: p.605). The implications of these findings are clear: conclusions drawn from experimental findings need to be examined cautiously on their validity across cultures, the findings do not give the researcher information on human nature, but merely on the nature of the participants: Americans, or, as in most cases, predominately white, middle-class, college-aged persons, since university students are the most popular subject group.

Most of the world’s prestigious and well-equipped research universities are located in the G8 countries. In areas like physics and chemistry, this has little impact on the way results of experiments should be treated. But in a field like psychology or linguistics, in which researchers observe, quantify and investigate human behavior and interaction, it is absolutely necessary to consider the impact of cultural values and norms, and to always ask the question if the observed phenomenon is in fact some universally shared human behavior, or restricted to the culture the subjects come from. Wierzbicka (2003: p.IX-X) points out that scholars have gradually become aware of this, but the problem mentioned above remains: if the majority of linguistic research is done in the West, it is obvious that the data sets used in research reflect this reality. Another aspect is that the studies that were carried out in a cross- cultural setting tend to have foreign exchange students or other academically educated individuals as test persons – given the existence of sociolects and other class- and education- related phenomena, this could also lead to some misinterpretation. This is important to mention, since these restrictions apply to the majority of works cited.

For this paper, various research publications on humor and irony were analyzed. Since there a few publications that examine humor and irony from a decidedly cross-cultural standpoint, the majority of publications stem from the United States. Drawing from Wierzbicka’s 2003 publication Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction, I will discuss these works, evaluating how cultural differences could influence the specific aspect of humor that is discussed. This is a decidedly non-empirical method that hopes to give some general insight on the topic. To use an example: my approach does not ask directly whether the Japanese or the Australians are more likely to use sarcastic irony in a conversation with a friend, but inquires the following: which cultural values and scripts could encourage or discourage the use of sarcastic irony?

3. Humor and cross-cultural pragmatics

According to Attardo (1994: p.2-3), humor is a linguistic phenomenon that escapes a clear-cut definition, instead he states that “linguists, psychologists, and anthropologists have taken humor to be an all-encompassing category, covering any event or object that elicits laughter, amuses, or is felt to be funny.” (ibid.: p.4). But the same author states that the relationship between humor and laughter is more complicated than earlier research tended to assume, and that laughter isn’t necessarily triggered by humor, as well as that humor doesn’t always provoke laughter (ibid.: p.10-11). Despite the lack of a sharp definition, the phenomenon of humor has been investigated by a large amount of scholars proceeding from different scientific fields. But in the context of a paper on cross-cultural pragmatics, linguistic research and theory on humor in its context will of course predominate. In what situations does humor occur, who initiates it, what are the responses to it, and which humorous techniques and devices are used? These are, among others, the questions of interest. A comparison of intercultural similarities and differences in the usage of humor, as well as an inquiry into humorous situations involving speakers from different cultures add the cross-cultural aspect. Comprehension of humor is another line of inquiry that contributes to our understanding of humor in cross-cultural settings, as these situations often involve non-native speakers, which face additional difficulties in understanding and participating in humor. The following subchapters will not be sufficient to discuss the phenomenon in its entirety, but will comment on three important aspects of humor in context: what triggers humorous talk, the reactions to it, and the potential functions of humor. In all subchapters, a descriptive part will be followed by an interpretative part, using the technique of discussing cultural scripts, as does Wierzbicka (2003) in Cross-cultural pragmatics.

3.1 The play frame as trigger of humorous talk

Coates (2007) examines an important concept in the area of conversational humor, the so- called play frame, which was introduced by Bateson in 1953. It states that participants in a conversation can designate their speech contributions as serious or humorous, without being restricted to a certain topic, since, as Coates (2007: p.31) points out, “potentially anything can be funny”. After the establishment of a play frame by one of the speakers, the other persons involved in the conversation can either choose to maintain it or to revoke it – but first it is necessary that they recognize that it has been established. This is why playful talk and the construction of conversational humor are considered highly cooperative activities, causing the participants to experience a form of solidarity. Coates concludes that maintaining a play frame is “a strong demonstration of in-tune-ness” (ibid.: p.46). Switching from the serious mode into the play frame can potentially be done anytime and is therefore unpredictable. Play frames do not only occur in conversations among friends and acquaintances, but are also found in formal situations like business meetings (ibid.: p.31-33).

Inside the play frame, speech patterns differ considerably from those found in serious talk. Again, the aspect of collaboration through speech acts is a key element, because playful talk is constructed by various participants, drawing comparisons to Jazz music (Davies, 2003: p.1368). It is possible, but not necessary, to draw on a topic that was discussed in the serious mode earlier. Coates (2007: p.38-46) describes five characteristic speech patterns that are typical of speech in a play frame. These are overlapping speech, the co-construction of utterances, repetition, laughter and the use of metaphors.

3.2 Who initiates the play frame or humor in general?

Coates’ article mentions that any speaker can initiate a play frame, using any topic – at least potentially. In practice, it is clear that the social relationship between the speakers, as well as cultural connotations have a large influence on who is entitled to start humor, and what topics can be treated with it. Douglas (1968: p.366) points out that, apart from being recognized, jokes have to be socially permitted. Palmer (2003: p.13-14) provides some accounts of joking behavior by natives from different parts of the Americas that would be considered outrageous in every Western culture, such as obscene jokes at a relative’s funeral.

Fine (1983:p.166) remarks that “joking must be understood in light of the presentation of self that one is displaying in the joke and in light of the expectation of one’s audience”. If the humor has a direct target, it is far more frequent to be directed downward in the social hierarchy than upward (ibid.: p.166). The workplace is an area where people interact with a certain degree of formality, and where power differences in a hierarchical structure are present – at least in the majority of cases. The social distance between the persons that interact is also far greater than in a family or in a group of friends. This makes this environment an interesting object of study in the field of humor research, particularly when it comes to the influence of power structures on the phenomenon. Regarding the question of who initiates humor (considering that the person that does needs to feel entitled to do so in the given social context), Duncan (1985: p.558-559) resumes that most research on humor in the workplace supports the theory that persons in high-status positions are more likely to initiate humor. In the same paper, the author compared work groups in different fields, concluding that in groups of health professionals that were composed entirely of physicians (some physicians had an additional manager status), the distribution of humorous acts was more equal than in business work groups, where status and qualification varied more (ibid.: p.562-563). In his publication, Eisterhold et al. (2006: p.1253) show that in a university setting, irony is a resource primarily used by teachers and directed at students, not vice versa, which is in line with the findings of the other authors.

3.3 Cross-cultural considerations on starting humor

In her 2003 book on cross-cultural pragmatics, Wierzbicka makes use of cultural scripts in order to explain and highlight different sets of culturally transmitted beliefs and thought patterns. One example is her proposed representation of open self-assertion which, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon culture, is not viewed negatively among African Americans:

“I know: I can do good things. Other people can’t do the same.

I feel something good because of this.

I want people to think good things about me because of this.”

(Wierzbicka, 2003: p.84)

In the following I will expose how different cultural scripts could influence the decision whether or not to make an attempt at humor. In various works of scientific analysis of cultures, the authors tends to focus on specific cultural values, investigating if these are considered important in a certain culture. Often, an opposing value is found, so that an easily understandable juxtaposition emerges. Examples of this are the pair of indirect and direct communication (typically ascribed to Japanese and German culture, respectively), or the division into hierarchical and egalitarian cultures. The problem with this approach is that anglocentric categorizations are used (as an example, Wierzbicka (2003: p.70) affirms that numerous languages do not possess words for the concept of self-assertion, widely used in cross-cultural research), which is why Wierzbicka advocates using cultural scripts written in terms that exist in every language, such as good, bad, want, know, etc. (ibid.:p.71-72). The following paragraphs will demonstrate how her more general research can be applied to the topic of this chapter: Who initiates humor?

Wierzbicka comments on cultural scripts developed to illustrate very general speech and behavior patterns. The high value Japanese culture places on considering other people’s feelings is expressed by this script:

“If I do/say something, someone could feel something bad because of this.

I don’t want this.

I have to think about it before I do it.”

(Wierzbicka, 2003: p.85)

On the other hand, a script of Black American culture reads:

“I want/think/feel something now.

I want to say it. […]

I want to say it now.”

(Wierzbicka, 2003: p.83)

Additionally, in the script that was quoted on the previous page, it is possible to replace “I know: I can do good things” by the more specific “I know: I can make people laugh.” (ibid.).

The Japanese cultural script would have an inhibitive effect on jokes and humor that are directed at someone or are supposed to make fun of someone, even if the joke might not be considered offensive in other cultures. This could also be true for jokes about situations, since it could trigger feelings of guilt and shame in the person that feels responsible for a particular situation. On the other hand, the cultural script Wierzbicka attributes to African American culture is highly supportive of starting humor and establishing a play frame, since it entitles the potential speaker to express himself or herself more freely.

The cultural scripts that were discussed in the last paragraph could be viewed as contrast between restraint and self-expression, to use two imprecise and anglocentric concepts. But there are more possibilities to apply Wierzbicka’s work to the topic of initiating humor, as the author also comments on the characteristics that lead a culture’s specific way of communication to be considered formal or informal. She proposes the following script to characterize Anglo-Saxon, informal culture:

“You don’t have to show overt respect for me.

I want you to speak to me as people do when they think:

we know one another well

we feel something good towards one another

we can speak to one another in the same way.”

(Wierzbicka, 2003: p.112)

To which one could add the more humor-specific lines:

“I can say something funny to you or about you.

I know that you won’t think anything bad about me because of this.

You can say something funny to me or about me.

You know that I won’t think anything bad about you because of this.”

[...]