examining linguistic ambiguity as a source of constructing funniness in english verbal jockes = khảo sát hiện tượng mơ hồ ngôn ngữ với vai trò là một nguồn tạo nên tính hài hước của các câu chuyện tếu tiếng anh

VNU UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





NGUYỄN HẢI HÀ




EXAMINING LINGUISTIC AMBIGUITY AS A
SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTING FUNNINESS
IN ENGLISH VERBAL JOKES

(KHẢO SÁT HIỆN TƯỢNG MƠ HỒ NGÔN NGỮ VỚI VAI TRÒ
LÀ MỘT NGUỒN TẠO NÊN TÍNH HÀI HƯỚC CỦA
CÁC CÂU CHUYỆN TẾU TIẾNG ANH)



M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15

HANOI- 2011










VNU UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




NGUYỄN HẢI HÀ

EXAMINING LINGUISTIC AMBIGUITY AS A
SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTING FUNNINESS
IN ENGLISH VERBAL JOKES

(KHẢO SÁT HIỆN TƯỢNG MƠ HỒ NGÔN NGỮ VỚI VAI TRÒ
LÀ MỘT NGUỒN TẠO NÊN TÍNH HÀI HƯỚC CỦA
CÁC CÂU CHUYỆN TẾU TIẾNG ANH)



M.A. COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Võ Đại Quang








HAnOi- 2011




TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
PAGE


ABSTRACT
i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ii
LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS
ii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of problems and rationale
1
1.2. Objectives of the study
3
1.3. Scope of the study
4
1.4. Significance of the study
5
1.5. Structure of the thesis
5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Linguistic ambiguity

7
2.1.1. Linguistic semantics
7
2.1.2. Linguistic ambiguity
8
2.1.3. Types of linguistic ambiguity in English
9
2.2. English verbal jokes
11
2.2.1. The notion of Humor
11
2.2.2. What counts as “verbal jokes”?
12
2.2.2.1. Definitions of verbal jokes
12
2.2.2.2. Types of verbal jokes
14
2.2.2.3. Verbal jokes versus other types of humor
14
2.2.3. What makes a joke a joke?
18
2.2.3.1. The role of linguistic ambiguity in verbal jokes
18
2.2.3.2. Factors towards appreciating verbal jokes’
funniness
19
2.2.4. Social functions of verbal jokes
20

2.3. Reviewing studies on the practice of linguistic ambiguity in
humor and other registers
21
CHAPTER 3: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

3.1. Research methodology
23
3.1.1. Analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity in
English
23
3.1.2. Selection of data
26
3.1.3. Research design
27
3.2. Types of linguistic ambiguity used as a source of constructing
funniness in English verbal jokes
27
3.2.1. Lexical ambiguity
28
3.2.1.1. Polysemy and homonymy
28
3.2.1.2. Homophones
34
3.2.1.3. Obscure deictic references
36
3.2.1.4. Specific and general word meaning
38
3.2.2. Structural ambiguity
38
3.2.2.1. Word class shift

39
3.2.2.2. Structural confusion
40
3.2.3. Phonological ambiguity
42
3.2.4. Pragmatic ambiguity
45
3.2.4.1. Violating the maxim of Quantity
46
3.2.4.2. Violating the maxim of Quality
48
3.2.4.3. Violating the maxim of Manner
48
3.2.4.4. Violating the maxim of Relation
49
3.2.5. Other types of ambiguity
50
3.2.5.1. Mixed ambiguity
50
3.2.5.2. Idiom and complex language
52
3.3. Classification of English verbal jokes based on types of
53


ambiguity involved
3.3.1. Types of English verbal jokes based on linguistic
ambiguity
53
3.3.2. Frequency level of English verbal jokes based on

linguistic ambiguity
53


CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

4.1. Recapitulation
56
4.2. Concluding remarks on each of the set forth objectives
56
4.3. Limitations of the study
63
4.4. Suggestions for further studies
64


REFERENCES
66


APPENDICES

Appendix 1
List of jokes chosen for the paper
I
Appendix 2
Model of Grice’s cooperative principles
VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ELT
English language teaching
ST
Source language
TL
Target language




LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS

FIGURES
PAGE


Figure 1: Jakobson’s general model of communication
21
Figure 2: Types of ambiguity (adapted from Walton 1996)
25

Figure 3: Analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity in English
26
Figure 4: Types of linguistic ambiguity exploited in English verbal jokes
58


CHARTS



Chart 1: Frequency level of five types of English verbal jokes
based on linguistic ambiguity
54







- 1 -
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of problems and rationale
It is a linguistic convention that language is used not only to convey information
among participants but also to create rapport and personal attitudes of each participant in
the communicative event, which is called the transactional and interactional functions of
language. In other words, language, in both spoken and written forms, is message-oriented
and serves a specific intended function so as to “pass on information” and “maintain social
relationships” (Nguyen Hoa, 2004:16). Verbal humor is such a kind of language function
aiming at the cooperation between Speaker (teller) and Hearer to see its funniness.

The issue of verbal humor, along with its most common representative, verbal jokes,
has been the focus of various studies in philosophical, psychological, social logical and
cognitive linguistics fields. Unlike non-verbal humor, which is related to extralinguistic
features, verbal humor is perceived as that primarily constructed by means of language in
the form of a single-joke-carrying text (Raskin, 1985). As a product of language, verbal
humor is, undoubtedly, an exclusively human domain that no other creatures or entities can
possess. In his work on the theory of linguistic verbal jokes in English, Lew (1996) asserts
the fact that contrary to its abundant resources, humor in general is not equally available to
all humans in the way that it requires “sense of humor” and language competence to
appreciate its funniness, which apparently not everyone can possess, especially when the
hearers of the humor can acquire modestly the language of the humor.
Below is a very notable verbal joke:
(1) In the diner of a southbound train, a honeymoon couple notices two nuns at another
table. When neither could identify the religious habit, the husband volunteered to
settle the question.
“Pardon me, Sisters,” he said, pausing politely before the nuns‟ table, “but would
you mind telling me your Order?”
One of the nuns smiled at him. “Not at all,” she said cheerfully. “Lam chops- and
they‟re delicious!”
(Hoke, 1965:194)

- 2 -
It is obvious that the funniness of the joke can only be revealed when two different text-
readings are accessed, one by the husband to refer to the religious rank of the nuns; and the
other by the two nuns to respond to the enquiry about their food selection. Clearly, it has
nothing to do with the lack of context in this piece of humor but it is more of the problems
of one word denoting two possible referents or antecedents in the context. To be more
specific, it is the noun “order” with its double meanings of “a group of people, especially
monks or nuns, living under religious rules” and “a request for food and drinks in a hotel,
restaurant, etc.” that causes the contradiction between the two responses, thus, creates the

humor or funniness of the joke.
Let us now look at another example of verbal joke and examine what its humor is:
(2) A man eating a kebab goes up to a lady who has a yapping Chihuahua at her heels.
“Can I throw your dog a bit?” he asked politely.
“Certainly,” came the reply.
So he scooped the dog up and flung it a hundred yards.
(Lew, 1996:33)
Like in (1), the original text can be interpreted in two different ways, either “your dog” is
the indirect object and “a bit” is the direct object of the ditransitive verb “throw”, which
can be rephrased as:
(2a) “Can I throw a piece of kebab to your dog?”
or “your dog” is the direct object and “a bit” is the adverb of the monotransitive verb
“throw”, which also means:
(2b) “Can I pick up your dog and fling it away a bit?”
As the story proceeds, it is easy to conclude that one and the same question of the man is
understood as (2a) by the lady and meant as (2b) by the man himself, and the final
reaction, which is unexpected, has created the funniness herein.
The two examples above have partially revealed one of the most favorite
mechanisms of inventing a verbal joke, which lies in the different possible interpretations
attached to one and the same word or phrase, i.e. linguistic ambiguity- known as the major
humorous stimulus (Bucaria, 2004).

- 3 -
The issue of ambiguity in English texts, in fact, has always been attracting scholars
and linguists worldwide; nevertheless; compared to a good number of papers on ambiguity
in other disciplines such as headlines and advertisements (Kess and Hoppe, 1981; Leno,
1990 and 1992; Oaks, 1994; Bucaria, 2004; Hoenisch, 2004; among many others), studies
on ambiguity in the field of humor are much less numerous, which may be resulted from
the fact that in previous studies, much attention has been devoted to analyzing the
mechanism that generates the ambiguity or the one that helps to resolve the ambiguity.

This, to a large extent, can contribute to ruining the ambiguous and funny features of the
humorous texts. As warned by W.H. Auden, a famous English poet, the study of the humor
can threaten the humor to dead.
Stimulated by this recognition as well as personal interests, the researcher has
conducted the paper entitled “Examining linguistic ambiguity as a source of constructing
funniness in English verbal jokes”, with the view to exploring English verbal jokes in a
deeper sense, without damaging the humor nature of the jokes. In short, the paper places a
strong emphasis on analyzing how one particular type of linguistic ambiguity becomes the
humorous stimulus of various English joke-carrying texts, then, makes up one type of
linguistically ambiguous English verbal jokes.
The findings of the paper, hopefully, can bring about a closer look into the being
discussed matter together with a holistic picture of how a joke is ambiguously humorous.
Furthermore, with its merits and drawbacks, the study is expected to contribute a stronger
voice into the modest number of studies on the same field and be a helpful and sufficient
reference for future studies.
1.2. Objectives of the study
As mentioned clearly earlier, the current paper aims at tackling the existing
shortcomings of previous studies on the application of linguistic ambiguity in verbal jokes.
To be more specific, through extracting and linguistically analyzing 50 verbal-joke texts
collected for the paper in detail, some rules that govern humorous stimuli of linguistic
ambiguity-based English verbal jokes are expected to be captured, concurrently, some
categories and subcategories of English verbal jokes involving linguistic ambiguity can

- 4 -
also be proposed. Additionally, the results of the paper can help to reveal an overall trend
about the frequency of each type of ambiguity-based English verbal jokes. In the final
place, from the analysis of the chosen joke texts, some implications for teaching and
learning the English language and for proper translation of those texts into Vietnamese can
be drawn.
These objectives, shortly speaking, can be elaborated into the following research

questions:
1. What types of linguistic ambiguity can be used as a source of constructing
funniness in English verbal jokes?
2. In what way can English verbal jokes be categorized in accordance with the types
of linguistic ambiguity involved?
3. What is the frequency level of each type of ambiguity-based English verbal jokes?
1.3. Scope of the study
As suggested by the title of the paper, it targets at English verbal jokes, one type of
English humor, conveyed primarily by means of language. Henceforth, visual humor (as in
cartoons and clowning) and any non-verbal joke-carrying acts like in silent films should
and must be excluded from the paper. Also, by “verbal jokes”, the texts collected for the
study are mainly in written form as spoken jokes in fact depend chiefly on features of
quality and tone of voice and need sophisticated phonetic analysis, which should be treated
as beyond the scope of this study.
In addition, at this point, the researcher wants to make a clear cut between “verbal
jokes” and its commonly heard counterpart of “verbally expressed jokes” or “verbalized
jokes”, defined as every way in which language is used to create amusement (Chiaro 1992,
Ritchie 2004). Similar as they may appear, verbal jokes and verbalized jokes actually have
the relationship of hyponym-superordinate with the former concerned with verbal matters
(specific properties of a language) and much narrower a term than the latter. As the joke
texts in this study are analyzed linguistically in terms of the types of ambiguity that they
involve, the complex forms of jokes seem unnecessary. Therefore, the term “verbal jokes”
is used in this paper.

- 5 -
Another note-worthy point at this stage is that due to the small number of the data
(50 English verbal jokes) as well as time constraints, the study, admittedly, has not yet
been able to cover all expected issues. These self-conscious limitations, which are going to
be discussed in details in the final chapter, hopefully can help to raise some innovative
ideas for later studies on the same research area.

1.4. Significance of the study
In the first place, the study, once accomplished, is expected to be an informative,
useful and interesting source for both linguistic and non-linguistic readers. More
specifically, equipped by the outcomes of the paper, linguists and teachers of linguistics
can find another simple but effective aspect to deal with the matter of linguistic ambiguity,
a puzzle in semantic, structural and pragmatic fields. Similarly, students of English, with
the help of humorous examples and detailed explanations in the paper, can access similar
linguistically ambiguous texts and analyze those texts in an easy and motivating manner.
Secondly, with regards to social interaction purposes, the study hopefully can assist
readers, especially students of English and those whose language competence is modest to
confidently get involved in or even successfully initiate, maintain and close any
communicative event. Obviously, with more or less linguistic strategies related to humor,
social interactions can easily be established and reserved. Communication breakdowns and
culture shocks, consequently, can be minimized (Pepicello and Green, 1984).
Last but not least, will all attempts of the researcher at presenting the study in a
systematic, thorough and reader-friendly way, the paper would expectedly contribute to the
few studies on linguistic ambiguity as a source of English humor in general. Most
importantly, the findings of the paper may receive recognition from those interested and be
appreciated as a reliable and comprehensive reference in linguistic aspects, particularly in
ambiguity-related issues.
1.5. Structure of the thesis
The study is presented in four chapters. Chapter 1 provides a general introduction
to the topic as well as the stimuli for conducting the paper. In this chapter, objectives of the

- 6 -
paper and research question are raised, followed by a summary of scope and significance
of the study. Implied by the title “Literature review”, chapter 2 deals with exploring the
theoretical notions of Linguistic ambiguity and English verbal jokes. Previous studies on
the ambiguity-based theories of English humor are also examined in this chapter. Chapter
3, also the focus of the entire paper, presents a full answer to the proposed research

question, accompanied by logical and well-supported interpretations and explanations of
data collected. Finally, chapter 4 is the summary of the findings and discussion about
major issues, limitations and recommendations for future studies. Also in chapter 4, some
implications for teaching English language, especially teaching ambiguous vocabulary, and
ambiguous joke translation can be found. Attached to four chapters of the study are the list
of references and appendices with the full collection of 50 English verbal jokes.













- 7 -
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Serving as the theoretical framework for the research, the chapter sheds lights on the way
in which the key notions of the paper should be perceived and how the current paper is
compatible and related with previous ones in the same field.
2.1. Linguistic ambiguity
Of the two key terms expressed in the title of the paper, Linguistic ambiguity seems
to attract attention of readers first and foremost, which should be made clear right away in
order to easily follow the progress of the whole paper. Generally speaking, the term
Linguistic ambiguity targets at the phenomenon of Ambiguity in the field of Linguistic
semantics. Consequently, both the broader term of Linguistic semantics and that of

Ambiguity are about to be the focus of denotation in this part of the paper.
2.1.1. Linguistic semantics
Dated back from nearly a century ago, the term Linguistic semantics has triggered a
hot debate on how it should be perceived and to what nature it is attached. With precious
contributions to the studies of linguistics, Frawley (1992:xiii, xiv) asserts that “Linguistic
semantics concerns the relation between semantic structure and overt linguistic form. More
technically, it is about grammaticalization patterns or how languages carve up and express
universal semantic space in grammatical form.” In a deeper sense, this eminent linguist
defines Linguistic semantics as “the study of literal meanings that are grammaticalized or
encoded.” (p.1) Viewing the issue from the same angle, Lyons (1995) additionally
emphasizes the ambiguity of the term Linguistic semantics in that it refers either to “the
study of meaning in so far as this is expressed in language” or “the study of meaning
within linguistics” (p.11). Jackendoff (1983), on the other hand, takes the view that
linguistic semantic can be defined as central to conceptual semantics. The term, for
Jackendoff, should primarily be concerned with the grammatical meaning and obviously
exclude the so-called lexical meaning in linguistics.
In its nature, Linguistic semantics is classified as a branch of linguistics just as
philosophical semantics of philosophy or logical semantics or logic, which are generally

- 8 -
considered non-linguistic semantics. While it is normally easy to figure out the differences
in the focus of Linguistic semantics and its counterparts in other disciplines, only in
Frawley (1992) can Linguistic semantics be distinguished from its partner in the field of
linguistics, which is Philosophical semantics. According to Frawley (1992:4),
Philosophical semantics attempts to solve the problem “(a) whether and how meaning is at
all possible, and (b) the kinds of meanings that are in principle possible.” Primarily,
Philosophical semantics is deductive, which spins around the principle based on which the
meaning of the language arises. On the contrary, Linguistic semantics is an “empirical
discipline” (Frawley, 1992:5) which is inductive and concerns more of the actual meanings
that the language produces rather than following any model patterns.

All of the above have reflected the difficult task to define Linguistic semantics in a
satisfying manner. Thus, in this paper, the researcher would unconditionally follow the
simple definition of Linguistic semantics proposed by Nguyen Hoa (2004), who remarks
“semantics […] is the systematic study of meaning…the study of how language organizes
and expresses meaning”(p.32). Also, this author suggests that “every word combines
grammatical and lexical meanings” (p.67). Another state of art the triggers this study is the
view that “pragmatics is just a further stretch of semantics” (Nguyen Hoa, 2004:27) with
the former dealing with the meaning of an utterance on the ground of the speaker‟s
background knowledge or context and the latter concerning the sentence meaning as
mentioned earlier. That is simply to say there is a close interrelation between Linguistic
semantics and other branches of Linguistics including Pragmatics and Syntactics.
2.1.2. Linguistic ambiguity
As suggested in Hurford and Heasley (2001:128), “ambiguity of various kinds is
never far from the centre of our attention in Semantics” and by Semantics, we first and
foremost target at Linguistic semantics. Henceforth, the term “Linguistic ambiguity” or the
shortened “Ambiguity” hereafter actually refers to one and the same phenomenon of
ambiguity in Linguistic semantics (or Semantics as in this study), which describes any case
exploiting linguistic devices potentially understood in two or more ways or conveying at
least two incompatible interpretations- “having more than one sense” as stated by Hurford
and Heasley (2001:121).

- 9 -
Regarding paraphrasing, Hurford and Heasley (2001) assert that a word or sentence
is considered ambiguous if and only if it has at least two paraphrases that are not
themselves paraphrases of one another. A good case in point can be found in:
(3) The chicken is ready to eat.
It is possible to give two paraphrases of this original sentence, which are shown in (3a) and
(3b) below:
(3a) The chicken is ready to be eaten.
(3b) The chicken is ready to be fed/ to eat its food.

Sentence (3a) does, clearly, not share the same meaning as sentence (3b) and vice versa as
they mention two different events. Therefore, they are not paraphrases of each other, which
then makes it linguistically reasonable to conclude that sentence (3) is ambiguous.
Let us note that ambiguity should and must be distinguished from vagueness. While
the former has several denotations (as can be seen through various examples in the paper),
the latter consists of ONE denotation which is indefinite. Consider the use of “red” in the
following sentence:
(4) Sarah has bought a red dress.
The underlined expression herein is vague as dark pink or dark orange can both denote the
color red of the sentence. It is obvious that vagueness has nothing to do with lack of
knowledge as we all know how the expression is and the sentence‟s truthvalue is neither
true nor false.
2.1.3. Types of linguistic ambiguity in English
Also in their linguistic works, Oaks (1994), Walton (1996) and Hurford and Heasley
(2001) clearly categorize ambiguity into two main strands, making up a well-built
framework for English language in terms of ambiguity, namely lexical ambiguity, which
results from the ambiguity of a word or any lexical constituents within the sentence, and
structural (or grammatical) ambiguity, in which the lexical items of a sentence are
realized to relate to each other in various ways, even though none of the individual items
are ambiguous. This can be well exemplified in sentence (5) below:

- 10 -
(5) John lives near the bank.
Apparently, the word “bank” herein, due to its multiple meanings of either “an
organization or a place that provides a financial service” or “the land sloping up along each
side of a river or canal”, has created two separate interpretations of sentence (5) which,
consequently, is considered an ambiguous sentence. More specifically, sentence (5) is a
case of lexical ambiguity.
Another example of lexically ambiguous sentence can be found in (6):
(6) She can‟t bear the children.

In any dictionary, the verb “bear” can be defined as either “to give birth to somebody” or
“to accept something unpleasant without complaining”, which results in the fact that
sentence (6) can be understood as either:
(6a) She is not able to give birth to children.
or (6b) She is not able to tolerate the children.
Similarly, the sentence (7):
(7) Visiting relatives can be boring.
(Hurford and Heasley, 2001:121)
can be interpreted in two ways:
(7a) It can be boring to visit relatives.
or (7b) The relatives who are going to visit [us] can be boring.
It is clear that one surface structure in sentence (7) can make up two deep structures in
sentence (7a) and (7b), which then create two sentences totally distinguished from each
other in terms of meaning. It is the different grammatical interpretations of sentence (7)
that make it confusing, thus, sentence (7) is structurally or grammatically ambiguous.
Sentence (8) below can help to further explain this type of ambiguity in English.
(8) Every man loves a woman.

- 11 -
Apparently, there are two distinct readings attached to this sentence: for each man on
earth, there is woman of his own and he loves her, or, alternatively, there exists a special
woman who is loved by all (of the) men.
In a nutshell, this framework of lexical and grammatical ambiguities has surely
conditioned the current paper to be conducted and serves well as a firm ground, on which
the answers to the research question are expected to be revealed in next chapter.
2.2. English verbal jokes
An essential preliminary step to the discussion of any application of linguistic
research to verbal jokes should be to specify what is meant by the broader key term of
“humor” and how verbal jokes differ from some other types of humor. This section is
entirely devoted to giving a clear and thorough image of this.

2.2.1. The notion of Humor
Humor is mysterious (Lew, 1996), which has been the focus of a good number of
scholarly studies in the perspectives of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology
and linguistics. While the other fields see humor as one and the same phenomenon,
linguists analyzing it potentially operate its semantic and sociolinguistic (or pragmatic)
mechanisms (Dynel, 2009).
Nevertheless, as found out by Keith-Spiegel (1972), when it comes to the field of
linguistics, humor has posed a difficulty in finding a theoretical definition in the most
general sense, thus, the argument that humor is undefinable has been advanced several
times (Escarpit, 1960). There are three possible reasons to account for this “hard nut”.
First, there has been no general agreement on how to give a full definition to this notion.
Second, humor research has such a long tradition that throughout periods of time, the
findings of previous papers are revised and refuted. Finally, as stated clearly earlier in this
paper, humor has attracted considerable interests from various disciplines, each of which
has applied a specific set of definition and methodologies of humor.

- 12 -
From this recognition, this current paper has no ambition to propose any expectedly
more insightful definition of Humor but rather aims at exploring types of humorous
stimuli, in which “verbal jokes” is regarded as one set.
2.2.2. What counts as “verbal jokes”?
2.2.2.1. Definitions of verbal jokes
Of various humorous stimuli, linguists including Raskin (1985), Attardo and Raskin
(1991), Chiaro (1992), Attardo (1994), Norrick (1993), Lew (1996), Alexander (1997),
among many others, have paid much attention to verbal humor due to various means of
language or text that the humor exploits. However, the clearest and most tangible
representatives or prototypical forms that are used to measure verbal humor are verbal
jokes, orally produced in conversations or published in collections. Thus, talking about
verbal humor is, for most of the time, to mean verbal jokes rather than any other of its
manifestations (allusion, puns and the likes).

The sense of “joke” can intuitively be grasped by both linguists and non-linguists for
its familiarity in everyday conversational situations. However, it is doubtful to say that the
term itself is not far from straightforward just as the case of the notion “Humor”. Most
frequently, verbal jokes are defined on the basis of its constituents. Hockett (1972) and
Sherzer (1985) agree that the so-called verbal jokes are texts conveyed primarily by means
of language rather than any non-verbal acts like visual or graphical mode of presentation
like cartoons or silent films. These two big figures in linguistic field also stress that verbal
jokes involve the situation of a narrative or conversation presented in a build-up (or set-up)
and the final constituents of the text which trigger surprises by shedding new light on the
build-up called punchline or punch (with the former commonly heard in everyday
language). This may be well illustrated in the example below:
(9) “Do you believe in clubs for young people?”
“Only when kindness fails.”
(Pepicello and Weisberg, 1983:79)

- 13 -
It is rational to understand the word “clubs” in the first line intends to mean “a group of
people who meet together regularly for a particular activity” but the response after that
shows its reference to “weapons”. As a result, between what is expected in the dialogue
and what actually happens in the situation, there exists a conflict that potentially makes
people laugh or at least astonished. This is called “incongruity theory” by Keith-Spiegel
(1972:7) and Nash (1985:7) and simplified by Helzron (1991) into a more concise
definition of verbal jokes- “a short humorous piece of oral literature in which the funniness
culminated in the first sentence, called the punchline” (pp.65- 66). Attardo and Chabanne
(1992:169) further elaborate:
[…] jokes are very short narrative fictions reduced to the most economical form. The
narratives are most generally focused on a short dialogue (often not more than two lines)
between rarely more than two characters (never more than four). The essential pattern is that
the verbal joke is oriented to and by a punch line, which lies at the end of the text. The
function of the narrative is that of providing enough contextual information for the punch lie

to build upon, or rather to be incongruous with. (cited in Lew, 1996:11)
On the ground of Incongruity theory, Raskin (1985) proposes his Script-based
Semantic Theory of Humor, claiming, “…a text can be characterized as a single-joke
carrying text if both of the conditions in (108) are satisfied.
(108) (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 in a special
sense […]” (p.99)
Herein, verbal jokes are seen from their different interpretations that two hearers of the
jokes may arrive at.
For the purposes of the current paper, Helzron‟s concise definition and Incongruity
theory by Keith-Spiegel (1972) appear to be the most suitable lodestar assuring that the
research process is scientifically approved.



- 14 -
2.2.2.2. Types of verbal jokes
Attardo (1994) affirms in Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis that
the prominences of verbal jokes in particular and jokes in general are resulted from the fact
that they are distinctively short, popular in everyday talks, easy to collect and quite simple
as they seem to use only one source of humorous stimuli. Also in this outstanding piece of
work, Attardo categorizes any verbal-joke-carrying text into two subsets: canned (or
narrative) jokes and conversational jokes, which are distinguished from one another by the
level of contextual (and co-textual as well) support that the two types of text involve.
Specifically, canned jokes are said to be context-free in that whenever it comes to a
certain situation, it matters little which certain joke should be told. By contrast,
conversational jokes show up spontaneously in conversational events and are
comparatively context-bound. That is to say, canned jokes are available to be used
repeatedly in various contexts, while their counterpart is typically limited to the events that
they originate from.

For a more detailed description of the canned and conversational jokes, see Fry
(1963), Raskin (1985), Attardo (1994) and Paakkinen (2010).
It should also be noted in this part that as the data used for this specific research are
published verbal-joke-carrying texts, there is no risk of confusion between the two types of
jokes as all of them are context-free, and thus, are merely canned jokes.
2.2.2.3. Verbal jokes versus other types of humor
“Jokes” forms a specific type of humorous stimuli; consequently, “verbal jokes” is
one type of verbal humor. Henceforth, it is clear that we are able to differentiate verbal
jokes from at least one other type of humor. Alexander (1997) says, in fact, there are
fifteen types of humor including joke, gag (practical joke), crack (a biting comment),
epigram (a short witty poem or saying), pun (wordplay), howler (flower of speech),
spoonerism (transposition of the first sounds of spoken words), irony, sarcasm, satire,
parody, caricature, impersonation, sardonic (heartless, bitter) humor and misprint. This

- 15 -
section will examine attempts at briefly presenting basic differences between jokes and
some commonly heard subsets of humor.
Laughter
One widely held belief of research on humor in general and on jokes in particular is
that they are assumed to be accompanied implicitly and sometimes explicitly by laughter.
In other words, what is funny makes us laugh and hence, what makes us laugh is funny
(Bergson 1901, Freud 1905, and Milner 1972). In a similar way, Lewis (1989) clearly
considers jokes and laughter to be intertwined. Nevertheless, it is not always the case due
to some arguments below, which should be noted critically:
1) Laughter is not limited to conveying amusement and/or funniness. Attardo (1994)
points out laughter can also be a sign of embarrassment and bewilderment.
2) Laughter can originate from humor but it can also be stimulated naturally (through
some chemicals like hallucinogens).
3) Humor exhibits sometimes laughter, sometimes smiles or mild responses or even
no responses (in the case that no funniness appreciation is reached) (Lew, 1996).

4) Laughter can be observed overtly but for many times, it is simulated (Jefferson,
1985).
Puns
Puns or wordplay is considered by Ritchie (2004) as one of the simplest form of
jokes, which, in the most common sense, is associated with the sound of the word.
Consider the following example of puns:
(10) Why did the cookie cry?
Because its mother had been away for so long.
(Pepicello and Green, 1984:59)
For this specific pun, it matters very little in terms of humorous stimuli if the pun is not
read aloud. In its oral presentation of the text, the pun raises two conflicting strings

- 16 -
between “away for” and “a wafer”, with the latter related more directly to the “cookie” in
the first line.
Other instances of this kind of joke can be found in:
(11) A gossip is someone with a great sense of rumor.
And (12) At a pizza shop: 7 days without pizza makes one weak.
In the two puns, it is the clever use of language (sense of humor vs. sense of rumor and 7
days one week vs. 7 days one weak) that makes the puns interesting.
A note-worthy point to make herein is proposed from recognition that while jokes
often bring about laughter, puns do not require themselves to be funny all the time.
Satire, irony and sarcasm
While puns and jokes can be appreciated in any situation, satire, irony and sarcasm
can only engender laughter if taken into specific contexts. That is to say, they are typically
context-bound.
Satire is most frequently used in literature, which, according to Blake (2007), “aims
to ridicule, to prick pretensions, to expose hypocrisy…Satire distorts and
exaggerates.”(p.16) To illustrate this point, the scholar gives an example from a TV show
about the armed conflict between USA and Iraq:

(13) Now there are reports from Baghdad that officials are taking brides for favors,
giving jobs to their relatives, taking money under the table from contractors. You
know what this means? The war is less than a weak old, and already they have an
American-style democracy (p.17)
This is a very good case in point of satire as it both exaggerates the degree of corruption
and presents a bitter criticism towards those holding power.
Irony and sarcasm can be treated together as in many cases and for many times, one
is made use of to explain the other. Alexander (1997) defines Irony as a word or group of
word whose intended meaning is opposite to its usual sense. Paakkinen (2010) sees the

- 17 -
matter from the same angle when saying irony is an event or a result that contradicts what
is expected from the word use. Take the expression: “Good boy” when one breaks the vase
while playing football inside as an example of this.
Likewise, sarcasm, in Blake‟s word (2007), “usually involves someone saying
something that is the opposite of what is appropriate, often in a derisive or mocking tone.”
(p.21) All in all, irony and sarcasm refer to the same phenomenon (a comment opposite to
what is meant), yet, sarcasm is often escorted by a mocking tone. As a result, “sarcasm is
not a very effective vehicle for communication”, as suggested by Jorgensen (1996:619).
Allusion
Allusion, as defined by Sager (n.d.), refers briefly, explicitly or implicitly, to a
person, place or event, or any other literary work or passage, which may be both humorous
and humorless. The following example may help to clarify his point better:
(14) Loving him too deeply is her Achilles heel.
The “Achilles heel” in here is an allusive image referring to a hero of Greek mythology
called Achilles who could only be defeated when hit by his heel. Therefore, “Achilles
heel” associates with weaknesses or shortcomings. In the example above, the fact that she
loves him too deeply is her weakness. In short, allusions in humor are concerned with
extra-linguistic knowledge (knowledge about the world) that requires speakers and hearers
to arrive at the same awareness of this in order to reach the intended meaning.

2.2.3. What makes a joke a joke?
2.2.3.1. The role of linguistic ambiguity in verbal jokes
Both Incongruity theory and Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor described in
previous section have accounted for the most apparent feature and humorous mechanism of
many verbal jokes: double meanings, which misleads the hearer, followed by the punch-
line (Nash, 1985).
Refer to jokes (1), (2) and (9) for a detailed analysis of their double meanings.

- 18 -
This diversity of semantic interpretation actually takes on the form of linguistic
ambiguity. As Shultz and Horibe (1974) find out, “a thorough analysis of hundreds of
verbal jokes by the authors indicated that many of them depend on some sort of linguistic
ambiguity for a successful resolution” (p.13). Similarly, Paulos (1980:85) asserts: “a joke
can thus be considered a kind of structured ambiguity, the punch line precipitating the
catastrophe of switching interpretations.”
It should, perhaps, be noted not only that verbal jokes commonly exhibit linguistic
ambiguity but also that in a well-built joke, the clue signaling the realization of ambiguity
should coincide with the punch of the joke. However, the ambiguous string does not need
to be so placed. In fact, many cases have proved that this appears at an earlier point in the
text of the joke. Attardo (1994) reaches the conclusion when finding out 80% of his data
exhibit such a pattern.
2.2.3.2. Factors towards appreciating verbal jokes’ funniness
Ambiguity theories in verbal jokes also suggest the major reasons for not seeing a
joke as funny, which reckon that the joke recipients (readers or hearers), especially the
language learners, may not perceive the linguistic ambiguity involved in the joke as their
vocabulary and knowledge of interpretation are limited. Lew (1996) further comments on
this issue that “whether a given recipient evaluates a joke (or other stimulus) as funny, and
to what degree, depends on a wide range of factors, including the following: cultural and
ethnic identity, set of attitudes, identification with characters and subject, mode of delivery
of the stimulus, mood, sex, age, family traditions, situational setting, and most certainly a

host of other factors. Moreover, different factors contribute with different weight for
different people. Social and personality differences in humor appreciation are important
and active fields of humor studies” (p.57). This linguist also cites the works of various
outstanding scholars on the same field that share his view. Cunningham 1962, Zippin 1966,
Leventhal and Mace 1970, Chapman 1973, Cantor 1976, Suls 1977, Lundell 1993 are as
such.
Besides, according to Nash (1985:4), personal taste is a “crucial aspect of humor, so
it is unlikely that any two people will coincide in their raking of the jokes.” Temporary

- 19 -
mood, taboo subjects or words, the joke type and style also contribute a great deal to the
appreciation of the joke, which psychologically explains the fact that one acknowledges
the text as “joke but not a funny one” (Nash, 1985:8). Additionally, Nash (1985) realizes
that for many times, the humor in general and the jokes in particular make us laugh even
though it is hard to explain why, like the case of (15) below:
(15) Weather forecast for tonight: dark
(Nash, 1985:4)
Sentence (15) states the obvious, which is odd of a forecast; but then again, it is ridiculous
that the weather forecast does state the obvious things. Perhaps, this could be the comment
on this joke.
In general, from the findings of previous studies, determinants towards the joke
understanding and seeing the joke texts as funny can be divided into some branches as
follows:
a. Cultural and ethnic identity: referring to the social differences between people of
different ethnicities in one country as well people of different nationalities. This
factor actually aims at the key feature of verbal jokes, which is culture-based.
b. Personal taste or the so-called “personal differences” by Lew (1996): including
identification with the subject, set of attitudes, mood, sex, family tradition and the
likes. Those factors, in fact, can change over time and situations, affecting greatly
the way one and the same person appreciates a single joke.

c. Mode of delivery: referring to the types and forms of the joke, whether it is written
or spoken. Quality and tone of voice, pace and speed of speaking and intonation are
also considered governing factors. Nevertheless, they are all related to spoken
jokes, which need a detailed phonetic analysis, therefore, should be treated as out of
the scope of this paper. In addition, context of delivery is included in this type,
which states that when told in different places, in different situational settings, a
certain joke may receive different reactions.
d. Clever use of language: this factor in fact targets at the language ability of the joke
recipients, which asserts that the jokes‟ funniness can be appreciated only when the