LINGUISTICS 1

Week 2
Theories of Humor
(Incongruity Theory)
The Incongruity Theory

The incongruity theory suggests that humour

arises when things that do not normally go
together replace logic and familiarity. For example,
a joke becomes funny when we predict an
outcome and another happens. When we receive
jokes from others, our minds and bodies are
already anticipating what is going to happen and
how it is going to end.
The incongruity theory
This is the part where our minds started
experiencing a change as the joke goes
into an unexpected direction because we
knew that the boy can not speak but in
the last line we realise that we only open
his mouth to speak because the food did
not taste good, in other words he can
speak after all. This is where the two sets
of incompatible thoughts and emotions
come in.
The Script Semantic Theory of Humor
Victor Raskin presented his Semantic Script Theory of Humor in his
landmark work Semantic Mechanisms of Humor (Raskin, 1985). It is
the first formal theory of humor developed (Attardo, 1994) with the goal
of presenting ―the necessary and sufficient conditions, in purely
semantic terms, for a text to be funny‖ (Raskin, 1985, p. xiii). In other
words, what semantic properties a text needs to be recognized as a
joke. The Main Hypothesis of the theory is this: ―A text can be
characterized as a single-joke-carrying text if both of the conditions in
(108) are satisfied. (i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two
different scripts (ii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are
opposite (Raskin, 1985. p. 99)
The General Theory of Verbal Humor
The GTVH is commonly seen as a case of incongruity
theory (Oring 2016; Simpson 2003), a label which their
main theorists themselves have resisted due to the informal
character of other incongruity theories (Raskin, & Attardo,
2017). Attardo (1997) indicates that the concept of
incongruity closely corresponds to the concept of script
opposition. The introduction of Knowledge Resources in the
GTVH borrows and includes certain aspects from hostility
theories and release theories as well as being based on a
model similar to incongruity theories. (p. 55)
 41 17

General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)

1. Script Opposition (SO)

2. Incongruity & Resolution

3. Situation (including props)

4. Target (butt of the joke)

5. Genre (joke, riddle, etc.)

6. Language (compatible with both scripts)

(Attardo [2007] 108)
 Knowledge Resources
• Within the GTVH framework of analysis, Attardo and Raskin (1991) define
six KRs to account for the humorous effect of a text. That is, the theory
proceeds within a set of information to describe humorous texts. That is, all
the six KRs must be present in the following hierarchy:
• (a) The SO (Script Opposition): describing humorous texts within two
different and opposed scripts.
• (b) The LM (lexamatic handle): basing the humor on logical order and
coherent description that results in script opposition.
• (c) The SI (situation): the circumstances surrounding the joke including the
objects, participants, activities, etc.
• (d) The TA (target): Who is ridiculed by humor (i.e., the butt of humor)
involving groups, individuals, institutions, etc.
• (e) The NS (narrative strategies): The narrative organization of a humorous
text, whether simple narrative, dialogue, or a riddle).
• (f) The LA (Language): words and lexical choices used to verbalize the
humor in a text.
 Knowledge Resources
Such KRs, according to Attardo and Raskin (1991), provide the necessary

information for coding and decoding the humorous elements in the texts.First

and foremost, script is the focal point of GTVH. Script repertoire envisages

the knowledge about the world and it is only through such manifestation of

scripts that communication is made possible. It is when two scripts oppose

each other, humor is triggered.

 Knowledge Resources

What triggers the script is what Attardo (2001) calls “lexamatic handle‟.

Such lexical items activate the script and contain the required

information about how the whole script context actually is. According to

GTVH, oppositions of scripts take many forms, such as real/unreal,

actual/non-actual, normal/abnormal, good/bad, and life/death etc. To

switch from one script to another, there must be textual elements that

switch between the alternative scripts.

 Knowledge Resources
While SO and LM are the abstract parameters in GTVH, both NS
and SI are tangible and can be evaluated in the text. The TA is
stereotyped objects, people, individuals, institutions. Ideology
controls the choice of targets and is highly reflected by it. The LA is
the KR that comprises “…all choices at the phonetic, phonological,
morphophonemic, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, and
pragmatic levels of language" (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p.298).
LA is also responsible for the positioning of both „punch-line‟
(coming at the end of the joke) and „jag line‟ (integral element in
initial or middle position of the joke)
 “Punch-line” & “Jab line”

• Both are semantically the same but they are different in their
position, where the former terminates the joke and the latter
occurs in any position except its end. According to Attardo
(2001), punch-lines disrupt the flow of humorous texts, while
jab lines are catalyst for its development if not its plot.
 41 23

Humor Enhancers
• Katrina Triezenberg notes that humorous
discourse also has humor enhancers.

• “A humor enhancer is a narrative technique

that is not necessarily funny in and of itself,
but that helps the audience to understand that
the text is supposed to be funny, that warms
them up to the author and to the text so that
they will be more receptive to humor, and that
magnifies their experience of humor in the
text.”
(Triezenberg [2008]: 537-538)
 41 24

• These humor enhancers allow a piece of humor to be

instantaneous and epiphinal. They include:

• Shared stereotypes,
• Cultural factors (prejudices, hang-ups, taboos, etc.),
• Familiarity (as with a good impersonation, or as with something
that is “spot-on”), and
• Repetition and variation

(Triezenberg [2008]: 539)

Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)
Examples

El-Falaky (2018)