Abstract

HUMOUR IN THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH COMEDY EPISODES: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS STUDY

Amna Abdul Kareem Mohammed, Asst.Prof. Bushra Nima Rashid

Volume: 10 Issue: 2 2020

Abstract:

The present study investigates humour in the American ‘Friends’ and the British ‘The Vicar of Dibley’ sitcoms from a discourse analysis study point of view. This study is expected to answer the following questions: Does humour represent direct or indirect speech acts? What are the different types of humour used by the characters in the selected sitcoms under study? This study aims at investigating humour in terms of Searle’s Speech Acts Theory to show whether humour is direct or indirect speech act, and showing the role played by different cultures in using, understanding and enjoying humour. The study hypothesizes that: there is a relation between humour and speech acts; humour is being used more among the British people rather than the American ones. The study combines four models of analysis concerning forms and functions of humour. There is also a relation between humour and speech acts because humour sometimes indicates direct or indirect speech acts. Moreover, it seems obvious that the forms (types) of humour in the American situation comedy ‘Friends’ are more intensive than the forms of humour found in the British sitcom ‘The Vicar of Dibley’.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrssh.v10i02.005

Back Download

References

• Anand, K. M. (2014). ‘Discourse Analysis of Indian Parliamentary Debates with Special Reference to Wit and Humour’. Aundh: Savitribai Phule Pune University.
• Attardo, S. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Audrieth, A. L. (1998). The Art of Using Humor in Public Speaking. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www:squiresail.com/auh.html#types.
• Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media. Media Psychology, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2
• Chadwick, D. D. (2018). Investigating Humor in Social Interaction in People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review of the Literature. United Kingdom: University of Wolverhampton.
• Crystal, D. (2011). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. (6th ed.). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
• Ermida, I. (2008). The Language of Comic Narratives, Humor Construction in Short Stories.
• Gruner, C. R. (1997). The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why We Laugh. Transaction Publishers.
• Keith, N. Z. (2015). Engaging in Social Partnerships: Democratic Practices for Campus-community Partnerships. New York: Routledge.
• Lefcourt, H. (2001). Humor: The Psychology of Living Buoyantly. NY: Kluwer/Plenum 2001.
• Long, D. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing. Discourse Processes.
• Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous Communication: Finding a Place for Humor in Communication Research. Wiley Online Library.
• Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier academic press.
• Martin, R. A. (2010). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach (3rd ed.). Burlington, US: Academic press.
• Mulder, M. P., & Nijholt, A. (2002). Humour Research: State of the Art. Netherlands: Univeristy of Twente.
• Nilsen, A. P. & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of 20th -Century American Humor. Indian University.
• Schaeffer, N. (1981). The Art of Laughter. NY: Columbia University Press.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse Analysis in Society. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• White, E. B. (1977). Essays of E. B. White. NY: Harper & Row.
• Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. US: Sage Publications.
• Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.663.
• Yule, George (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.