An investigation into humor linguistic strategies in english speeches in the online channel of te

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

CHÂU BÁCH NHÃ

AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMOR LINGUISTIC
STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE
ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED TALKS FROM
PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVES
Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 822.02.01

MASTER THESIS IN
LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL STUDIES OF
FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Da Nang, 2020


THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

CHÂU BÁCH NHÃ

AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMOR LINGUISTIC
STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE
ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED TALKS FROM
PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVES
Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 822.02.01

MASTER THESIS IN
LINGUISTICS AND CULTURAL STUDIES OF
FOREIGN COUNTRIES

SUPERVISOR: TRẦN QUANG HẢI, Ph.D
Da Nang, 2020


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains
no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole, or in part from a study for
which I have qualified or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person's work has been used without due acknowledgement in the
thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma
in any other tertiary institution.

Danang - 2020

-----­
Chau Bach Nha

'


ii

ABSTRACT

The study has been carried out in an attempt to examine the most humor

strategies adopted in English speeches in TED TALKS. The data of the study were
collected from 100 English speeches in random from TED TALKS. Thirteen
segments were chosen to be analyzed in detail in terms of humor strategies. Under
qualitative and quantitative approaches, the data were described and analyzed on
humor strategies and violating Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle in order to
yield more precise points on humor strategies in English speeches in TED TALKS.
On a close analysis, the thesis tried to find out some frequently used humor
strategies which stems from flouting or violating Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The
results demonstrate a close relationship between humor and the violation of Grice’s
Cooperative Principle.
It is obvious to see that violating or flouting Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative
Principle created humorous situation. The speakers in TED TALKS took advantage
of various humor strategies to cause laughter or amuse the listeners. With the hope
of contributing to better teaching and learning English as a foreign language,
especially to better the awareness of learners in understanding and making an
impressive speech by using their sense of humor, some suggested ideas were also
included.
As for learners, theoretically, it equips them with some basis knowledge of the
nature of humor. These English speeches contain humor strategies which are used in
reading and listening skills . This gets attention from the audience more effectively.
English learners should recognize the humor strategies that the speakers use to
apply humor in their daily conversation or in English speeches. Moreover, English
learner can make a suitable choice of humor strategies to communicate effectively


iii

Humor is one of the most difficult aspects in making an effective speech in
front of the audience. Therefore, handling the knowledge of humor and applying
humor is a challenge.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement Of Authorship ......................................................................................... i
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii
Table Of Contents ................................................................................................... iv
List Of Tables ......................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
1.1. RATIONALE ...................................................................................................1
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................3
1.2.1. Aims ...........................................................................................................3
1.2.2. Objectives ...................................................................................................3
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..............................................................................3
1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................4
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY...............................................................4
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
.....................................................................................................................................6
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................6
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...............................................................11
2.2.1. Public speeches.........................................................................................11
2.2.2. Humor .......................................................................................................12
2.2.2.1. Definition of humor ............................................................................12
2.2.2.2. Humor in English speeches ................................................................13
2.2.2.3. Humor strategies in public speaking .................................................14
2.2.3. Pragmatics Theory....................................................................................19
2.2.3.1. Definition of Grice’s Cooperative Principle .....................................19
2.2.3.2. Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle .........................................20

2.2.3.3. Humor as a violation of Grice’s Cooperative Principle....................21
2.2.3.4. Violating Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle .........................21


v

2.2.4. Ted Talks ..................................................................................................24
Chapter 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................25
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................25
3.2. RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................25
3.3. DATA SAMPLING ........................................................................................25
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................26
3.5. PROCEDURES OF DATA COLLECTION ..................................................27
3.6. RELIABLITY AND VALIDABILITY..........................................................27
3.7. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................27
Chapter 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.......................................................29
4.1. HUMOR STRATEGIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATING MAXIM OF
QUALITY IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED
TALKS...................................................................................................................30
4.1.1. Irony strategy in English speeches in the online channel of TED TALKS
............................................................................................................................31
4.1.2. Exaggeration strategy in English speeches in the online channel of TED
TALKS ...............................................................................................................34
4.1.3. Understatement strategy in English speeches in the online channel of
TED TALKS ......................................................................................................37
4.2. HUMOR STRATEGIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATING MAXIM OF
QUANTITY IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED
TALKS...................................................................................................................38
4.2.1. Too much unnecessary information strategy in English speeches in the
online channel of TED TALKS .........................................................................39

4.2.2. Less information response strategy in English speeches in the online
channel of TED TALKS.....................................................................................40
4.2.3. Repetition strategy in English speeches in the online channel of TED
TALKS ...............................................................................................................41


vi

4.3. HUMOR STRATEGIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATING MAXIM OF
RELATION IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED
TALKS...................................................................................................................43
4.3.1. Incongruity strategy in English speeches in the online channel of TED
TALKS ...............................................................................................................44
4.3.2. Inversion strategy in English speeches in the online channel of TED
TALKS ...............................................................................................................45
4.4. HUMOR STRATEGIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATING MAXIM OF
MANNER IN ENGLISH SPEECHES IN THE ONLINE CHANNEL OF TED
TALKS...................................................................................................................48
4.4.1. Phonological ambiguity strategy in English speeches in the online
channel of TED TALKS.....................................................................................49
4.4.2. Morphological ambiguity strategy English speeches in the online channel
of TED TALKS ..................................................................................................50
4.4.3. Syntactic ambiguity strategy English speeches in the online channel of
TED TALKS ......................................................................................................51
4.4.4. Lexical ambiguity strategy English speeches in the online channel of
TED TALKS ......................................................................................................52
Chapter 5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...........................................56
5.1. SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY .........................56
5.2. CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY .................................................................56
5.3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ...............................................................58

5.4. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .................................................................60
5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................60
REFFERENCES .....................................................................................................62
SOURCES OF DATA .............................................................................................64
QUYẾT ĐỊNH GIAO ĐỀ TÀI (bản sao)


vii

LIST OF TABLES

Number
4.1

Name of Tables
Frequency of humor strategies caused by violating

Pages
29

Maxim Of Quality in English speeches in TED
TALKS
4.2

Frequency of humor strategies caused by violating

38

Maxim Of Quantity in English speeches in TED
TALKS

4.3

Frequency of humor strategies caused by violating

42

Maxim Of Relation in English speeches in TED
TALKS
4.4

Frequency of humor strategies caused by violating

47

Maxim Of Manner in English speeches in TED
TALKS
4.5

Frequency of linguistic humor strategies and
violating/flouting maxims in English speeches in TED
TALKS in total

53


1

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. RATIONALE

It is undeniable that humor is not only a taste of knowingness about lifestyles
and cultures, but it also plays an indispensable part in every different field of life.
“Humor is a weapon of unarmed people. It helped people who are oppressed to
smile at the situation that pains them.” (Simon Wiesenthal, 1901).
When we know how to cause laughter in one language, it means that we
obtain the master level in that language. Humor found in everyday talks, speeches,
funny stories, or comedies is considered as a fundamental component of human’s
psychology. It brings about a positive emotion for listeners or readers. Different
types such as sitcom, comedy, funny stories, or speech have been studied
extensively in not just one but various aspects involving psychology or linguistics.
Of many kinds of humor above, humor in speech is rather difficult to understand
and analyze because sometimes it is just called wittiness. However, the deeper I dip
into it, the more curious it drives me.
Raskin (1985) said that speech has a great power. It is really important to
businessmen, managers, professors, lawyers, or salesmen. That some factors usually
contribute to a successful speech is audience, speaking occasion, purpose of the
occasion, topic, materials, combination of verbal language and body language,
confidence or elements of humor.
There are many aspects of speeches, especially English speeches, but
speeches in TED TALKS get my attraction best. TED TALKS, an online channel, is
the destination where well-known people share their experiences of life, tell their
stories, or give the audiences some advice about one aspect of our life. In order to
enhance the appeal of audiences, the speakers use their sense of humor to express
points of view or opinions in the most effective and impressive way, which is of


2

great importance. This leads to the fact that it may create more persuasion or decide
more effectiveness of the information given to the audience.

Let us take some examples to figure out the orientation of the study.
Well, it turns out the prefrontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most
important things it does is it's an experience simulator. Pilots practice in flight
simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. Human beings have this
marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they
try them out in real life. This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no
other animal can do quite like we can. It's a marvelous adaptation. It's up there with
opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our
species out of the trees and into the shopping mall. (laughter)
In this example, the main humor linguistic strategy that the speaker uses here is
Overstatement or Exaggeration . Everyone knows that language itself could not get
anything, but the speaker exaggerates language which can get our species out of the
trees and into the shopping mall. The speaker overstates the features of language, which
causes laughter in his presentation. By breaking the Maxim of Quality, humorous
situation is created and it makes the audiences laugh.
Have a look into another example: And the strange thing is, when I watch the
film -- I have the eerie sensation of seeing it -- I saw myself literally disappear.
What I saw was my teachers coming through me. I saw my geometry teacher in high
school, Mr. Rucell's wry smile under his handlebar mustache. That's the smile I use
-- that's his smile. I saw Jan Polo's flashing eyes. And they weren't flashing in
anger, they were flashing in love, intense love for her students. And I have that kind
of flash sometimes. And I saw Miss Ethel J. Banks who wore pearls and high-heels
to elementary school every day. And you know, she had that old-school teacher
stare. You know the one. (Laughter) "And I'm not even talking about you behind
me, because I've got eyes in the back of my head." (Laughter) You know that
teacher? I didn't use that stare very often, but I do have it in my repertoire. And
Miss Banks was there as a great mentor for m In this example, the main humor


3

linguistic strategy that the speaker uses here is Irony. Everyone knows that we cannot
have eyes in the back of our head. In the speaker’s mind, although he said he had eyes
in the back of my head, he didn’t believe what he said is true, which causes laughter in
his presentation. By breaking the Maxim of Quality, humorous situation is created to
evoke laughter.
The appearance of pragmatics can, in my opinion, help me to identify the
way speakers use their sense of humor. Moreover, pragmatic theories of humor
provide us with a vision of pragmatic devices which can cause laughter.
Besides, there are a lot of researchers, as well as post-graduate learners who
have carried out research on this issue but none of them pay further attention to
analyze humor as far as speeches in TED TALKS are concerned. This has taken my
focus of attention and aroused my interest in researching the topic “An
investigation into humor linguistic strategies in English speeches in the online
channel of Ted Talks from pragmatic perspectives”
I hope that the research result will provide useful knowledge of how to cause
laughter and appeal to other people when we make speeches.

1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1. Aims
This study is aimed to investigate elements of humor used in English
speeches delivered by well – known speakers in TED TALKS. The thesis intends to
shed light on our understanding of humor as well as it helps teachers, learners,
translators and those who keen on public speaking better their oral presentation or
achieve a successful and persuasive writing.

1.2.2. Objectives
It helps researchers recognize what are the main factors in English speeches
which cause laughter. The purpose is to find out humor linguistic strategies which
are often used to make a speech humorous. Moreover, it enables English learners to

discover an interesting part of English besides complicated grammar points or long


4

complex reading passages. Finally, it suggests some implications for teachers and
learners of English, especially for those who desire to make English speeches more
impressively.

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on research objectives, this research is restricted in the following
questions:
1. What are humor linguistic strategies which cause laughter in English
speeches in TED TALKS from pragmatic perspectives?
2. How are Grice’s Maxim of Cooperative Principles related to these humor
linguistic strategies?
3. What are implications of the study?

1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The types of humor linguistic strategies can be cartoons, funny stories, plays,
funny pictures. However, this study is limited to the verbal humor. This research is
limited to investigate the figure of speech as the pragmatic devices which cause
laughter in English speeches in TED. Within the scope of the study, no attention is
paid to phonetic factors, nonverbal signals used by the speakers.

1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This thesis consists of five chapters structured as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, presents the rationale of the study, aims and
objectives, research questions, scope of the study. The organization is also
presented in this chapter as an outline of the study.

Chapter 2, Literature review and Theoretical background, concerns with
previous research and the theoretical background of the study on the concepts of
humor devices.


5

Chapter 3, Research design and Methodology, presents the research design
and methodology, the procedure of the study, method of data collection and analysis
for the study to be carried out.
Chapter 4, Findings and Discussions, concentrates on analyzing elements of
humor from English speeches in TED.
Chapter 5, Conclusions and Implications, summarizes the main results of
the whole work. Some implications and suggestions for further research are also
discussed in this chapter.


6

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past, there are many researches related to the study. Researches were
done by the humor of scholars, humorists, philosophers and psychologists such as
Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, to Darwin and Freud, Eastman and Pittington, as well
as Koestler and Midess.
This is the most remarkable approaches is superiority theory. The superiority
theory is considered as an effort to contain all theories of humor. Adrian Bardon
claims that it is the superiority theory that we discover in comedies and around us. It
depends on ridicule, or the object of amusement is considered as inferior and/or

ourselves as superior (2005). “According to the principle of superiority, mockery,
ridicule, and laughter at the foolish actions of others are central to the humor
experience” (Raskin, 1985).
The representative of this theory is Thomas Hobbes. He claims that humor
stems from a “sudden glory”. Apart from Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Aristotle, there
are other researchers of humor that see humor as aggressive sense. Plato and
Aristotle are the initial humorists for this theory, but Hobbes introduces a basic
statement with this theory.
Plato indicates that humor is just like a guilty for people who have no power.
For Hobbes, someone’s misery or someone’s disadvantages are the main matters for
people to laugh at and that is the reason why humorous situation is created.
According to Aristotle, humor is also created when we feel a fun at feeling superior
to people who have ugly appearance (Mulder & Nijholt, 2002). Alexander Bain
(1818 – 1903) confirms this point of view that all aspects of humor are relevant to
the degradation of something. Bain develops Hobbes in the two main directions.
There are many other factors that the superiority theory needs to give us
about the reason why we laugh at such jokes. That is because someone is under


7

stupid situation, and other people feel him look stupid in that circumstance. “The
superiority theory is relevant to the affective response that often gets along with
comic amusement, which it maintains is an enjoyable feeling of superiority to the
object of humor”. (literacy device)
To sum up, superiority theories refers to some circumstances we laugh
at people since they have some failure or defect or since they discover themselves
as a weakness in some way or suffer some small misfortune. This approach puts
emphasis on laughter produced as the result of the awareness of one’s superiority.
The incongruity theory or incongruity – resolution theory is regarded as the

leading approach in laughter. Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkeard or Aristotle are three
famous humor of scholars in this theory. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) confirms
that humor stems from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into
nothing. What we understand about incongruity theory is when we feel surprised at
something out of the world, and that makes us laugh at. In other words, many
humorous circumstances are concerned with ideas that go out of the place. Avro
Krikmann states that some scholars regarded this as the incongruity – resolution
theory or contradiction. This theory talks about verbal punch lines, slapstick, and
other humor, like April Fool’s pranks. We laugh at surprises, our expectations are
violent. Kant is the popular scholar to have the most famous version of the
incongruity theory, who claimed that “the comic is the sudden transformation of a
strained expectation into nothing.” (Raskin, 1985)
For this concept, “humorous situation would arise when two or more real
objects are thought through one concept, and the identity of the concept is
transferred to the objects, that the concept was only applicable to them from a one –
sided point of view” (Schopenhauer, 1970)
Alison Ross states that humor is caused out of a conflict between what is
expected and what actually occurs in the joke. The listeners laugh because they can
find the inappropriate within appropriate.


8

Apart from some foreign scholars in the world, Nguyen Duc Dan (1977), a
Vietnamese humorist also makes a contribution for theories of humor. He claims
that causing laughter needs to require three stages such as the opening, the
development and the closing. In the part of opening, everything happens smoothly.
However, in the part of the development, they expect the result A but the end of the
story or the part of closing is result B. The humorous situation is created when
everything is out of expectation. That is to say, this theory concentrates on the

factor of surprise.
Raskin (1985) enhanced this theory to make the laughter “an affection
arising from sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing”
To sum up, according to incongruity theories, humor is the combination of
appropriate within inappropriate. Incongruity theory emphasizes cognition or the
ability to perceive and understand incongruous patterns of the situation.
Except from theories of humor mentioned above, relief theory is typically
accompanied by Sigmund Freud and Herbert Spencer. Sigmund Freud is considered
as the representative of this theory. It is focused on the idea that humor is used to
release tension and bring relaxation. Freud indicates that humor is more than they
seem. He claims that jokes and dreams have something in common, which is
unconsciousness. This insists him to connect his theory of humor with his theory of
dream interpretation: dreams are also a means of eluding the censor This theory puts
more focus on how humor acts as a tension relief factor in different situations.
Because humor often calls conventional social requirements into question, it
may be considered as affording us relief from the restraint of conforming to those
requirements.
We can find out two versions of the relief theory: (1) the strong version
suggests that a release of excessive energy leads to all humorous situation; (2) the
weak version holds that it is often the situation that laughter is relevant to a release
of tension or energy.


9

Spencer makes a contribution on a theory of laughter that closely involves
his "hydraulic" theory of nervous energy, whereby excitement and mental agitation
produces energy that "must expend itself in some way or another." He concludes
that "nervous excitation always tends to beget muscular motion."
To sum up, people having a strain will sometimes burst into laughter if the

strain is suddenly removed. The factor causes laughter which is neither a feeling of
superiority nor a feeling of incongruity is a feeling of relief.
Victor Raskin introduced this theory of Humor in his research as Semantic
Mechanisms of Humor in 1985. It is one of the first leading theories of humor
released with the purpose of presenting ―the essential and effective conditions, in
semantic terms, for a text to be humorous. That is to say, what semantic features a
speech are recognized as a joke. Raskin claims that he describes the speech as a
single-joke-carrying speech if both of the conditions in 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)

Raskin also suggests that they are the important factors for a text to be a
humorous situation. When Raskin applied this framework to more complex texts in
principle, he is adamant that an analysis of jokes formulated this theory and it only
concerns itself with sources of humor that can be discovered through semantic
analysis in theories of humor.
“SSTH explains the meaning of every sentence in every context it occurs. The
theory recognizes the existence of the boundary between the knowledge of language
and knowledge of the world. A linguistic theory, SSTH doesn’t account for what is
on the other sides of the boundary. However, it pushes the boundary much further
out than any other available formal semantic theory.” ( Raskin [25, p.67])
“GTVH is presented as a theory that allows us to relate perceived
differences between jokes to six hierarchically ordered Knowledge Resources

10

namely knowledge concerning Language; Narrative Strategies; Target; Situation;
Logical Mechanism; Script Opposition” (book depository)
The General Theory of Verbal Homor was proposed by Vitor Raskin and
Salvatore Attardo. The hierarchy of the knowledge resources is as follows:
Language (LA) “It includes all the choices at the phonetic, phonologic,
morphophonemic, morphologic, lexic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels of
language structure that the speaker is still free to make, given that everything else
in the joke is already given and cannot be tinkered with”
Narrative strategy (NS) addresses the narrative format of the joke as either a
simple narrative, a dialogue, or a riddle. It attempts to classify the different genres
and subgenres of verbal humor. In a subsequent study Attardo expands the NS to
include oral and printed humorous narratives of any length, not just jokes.
Script Opposition (S0) This is the only level of Raskin’s SSTH incorporated into
the GTVH model. The authors find the oppositions of the lowest level in SSTH not to
be equal in generality and put forward proposals to overcome this shortcoming.
Logical Mechanism (LM) This has proved the problematic element in GTVH
model. Here, “logical” does not stand for deductive logic.
Situation (SI) This consists of the rest of the content constituents of the joke, like
other participants beside the target, activities, objects, instruments, etc.
Target (TA) This is the personalized “object” of the joke.
( Book depository)
As seen above, it is discovered that there are many humor researches all over the
world whereas there are hardly many linguistic studies on humor made by
Vietnamese researchers.
Some typical Vietnamese humorists are Pham Thi Hang, Trieu Nguyen, Nguyen
Thi Quynh Hoa, Huynh Thi Hoai, Pham Thi Thanh Ly, or Hoang Thi Xuan Quy.

11

2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1. Public speeches
Public speeches are speeches delivered in public, including various genre,
such as open- class lectures or seminars in universities, religious preaches in a
church, speeches delivered by leading body at a meeting or conference, the
inaugural address by president – elect and so on.
Public speeches bear some characteristics of spoken language. According to
Locus (1983), there are many similarities between public speeches and daily
conversations. They share the same major goals, to reform, to follow and to make
advertisement. Similarly, the speaker must organize his ideas and present in a
persuasive manner, adjust his message to the audiences, and adapt to the feedback
from the listeners. Despite these similarities, there are certainly many differences
between public speeches and daily conversations. “A public speech is more highly
structured and more formal than a daily conversation. The speaker’s time is strictly
limited and he has to make detailed preparations, distracting manners and verbal
habits should be avoided in public speaking.”
(Internet 4)
Although public speeches are delivered orally, they are often well- prepared
in writing and delivered on formal occasions. So they also share the virtues of
written language. They are often more polite in tone, and formal in style. Abstract
words, noun phrases, full sentences, complicated sentences structures, parallelism
and rhetoric devices are often employed in public speeches.
Public speeches are well – organized and structured in order to give the
audience a clear picture of what the speaker is going to say. Rhetorical devices and
verbal images are frequently used for special effects. Direct address to the audience,
or even summons often occur in order to mobilize the audience to act upon the
speaker’s words, and the first person plural is used to find out himself with his

viewer.


12

Basically, the presentation is given live in front of people. Public speeches
can provide a wide variety of different topics.

2.2.2. Humor
2.2.2.1. Definition of humor
Humor has got attraction from linguists, and the origin of humor is one of the
wonderlands for them. There have been several scholars who tried to find out
something about humor. Avner Ziv from Israel gives on example to define humor
“Humor is defined as a social message intended to produce laughter or smiling. As
with any social message, it fulfills certain functions, uses certain techniques, has
content, and is used in certain situations. These aspects of humor can be understood
as relating to the questions of why people use humor, how it is transmitted, what it
communicates, and where and when it is communicated. Some of these aspects of
humor are universal, characterizing humor everywhere. Others are more influenced
by culture.”
(Internet 5)
Some people defines humor as the mental faculty of discovering, expressing
or appreciating the amusingly laughable aspects or absurd inconsistence with itself.
Doctor Jarvis gives definition of humor as a painful thing told playfully as well as a
tragedy separated by time and place.
Besides, humor is a medium that serves for many purposes in social
interactions in our daily life: it either represents friendliness and politeness (Brown
and Levinson, 1987) or reduces threat and criticism (Holmes, 1998). Veatch in his
study in 1998 described humor as “Humor, that certain psychological state which
tends to produce laughter”. Wei Liu (2010: 1) defined humor as communication

(written or verbal), including the teasing, joke, wittiness, satire, cartoon, pun, which
induces (or is intended to induce the amusement, with or without laughing and
smiling. In general, it is not easy to define humor because humor and others


13

involved in “mental phenomenon (humor) with a complex neuro – physiological
manifestation (laughter)” (Salvator Attardo & Victor Raskin, 1994, p.17)

2.2.2.2. Humor in English speeches
Humor is a great way to engage the audience in your speech. Miller (2011)
claims that English speeches are regarded as one of the most factors causing fear
and the main reasons of stress for most speaker. However, in a practical basis, it is
easy to avoid through the process of one’s daily life. Hancock et al (2010) said that
on the whole, public speaking anxiety is obviously the most prevalent kind of social
phobia. Humor is extremely useful in public speaking because associating humor
with people can make reduction to the amount of anxiety they feel, can relieve
stress and change negative thought (Sultanoff, 1994; Wooten, 1996; Rashidi et al,
2014). Moreover, it plays a crucial part in contributing on the effectiveness of the
speeches (Davidson, 2003). As Freud (1989) stated that jokes and laughter permit
people to show hidden feelings. In the case of English speeches, both the speakers
and the listeners are able to show feelings through the projection and reception of
jokes. Mulholland (1994) believed that humor which transmits amusement is
powerfully easy to persuade. It in turn adds to the speaker’s credibility. Welker
(1977) claims that humor is considered as getting an attention and reducing tension.
Humorists have studied humor in different types of public speaking in
different ways, Smyth (1974) believed that any speaker who has intention to give a
speech should add a little humor or levity into it. Gruner (1985) pointed out that
there is a proof to express that humor may be a smart communicative strategy for

public speakers to use. Gruner et al (1993) studied the hypotheses that the
audience’s laughter tends to inspire other laughter and hypothesized that the
speakers using humor that uses laughter by an audience would be appreciated on
“character”,“ authoritativeness”, and “dynamism”.
Bjorklund (1985) did a survey of the humor that happens during meeting of a
club which gets together weekly to practice public speaking. In this field where
humor is expected as part of a good speaking performance, she assumed that the


14

usage of humor can set up rapport with an audience and assistance in persuasion.
Deming (2001) suggested several strategies that speakers or lecturers can use when
lifting up learning among trainees are consisting of incorporation of humor in
lecture presentations.
Henderson (2003) explained “effective public speaking strategies for
chemical engineers with a recommendation for enlivening communication tools
with contrast, funny stories and self- deprecating humor.” Bippus (2007) found that
most of the fluctuation in the perceived effectiveness of the political candidates’
humor may be made explanation by whether he jokes about himself or his rival, the
humor and timing of the humor, and the audience believed that the candidate took
advantage of humor to make a serious landmark in a sensitive way or to transmit the
different perspective on an issue in the debate.
“The presentation and media skills training conducted to help farmers
overcome the fear of public speaking to influence their own business and
agriculture and said that people often feel the necessity to include some humor into
their talk.”
(Internet 6)
Hobb (2007) examined lawyer or prosecutor used humor to ridicule a civil or
criminal defendant’s defense. Stewart (2012) has an analysis of humor used by

presidential candidates during debates of an electoral season and concluded that
humor as exercised by presidential candidates. In the 2008 primaries played a
crucial part in develop electoral status, and likely will continue to play an important
part in making candidates more likeable and hence more electable in future
elections.

2.2.3. Humor strategies in public speaking
 Irony
“Irony is a contrast or incongruity for a situation and what is reality. This
can be a difference between what might be expected to happen, and what actually


15

occurs. The definition of irony can further be divided into main types: verbal,
dramatic, and situational.” (Internet 7)
Irony happens whe6n there is a difference between their original meaning
and the real meaning of the words. It is a circumstance that there is an ending in
quite a contrast way than what is generally expected. In particular, appearance
distinguishes reality.
The word “irony” stems from the Greek character iron, who was un
underdog and used his wit to overcome a stronger character. The Greek word goes
back to this character and came to mean “dissimulation” or “purposely affected
ignorance”. This is Latin word just like ironia and consequently became wellknown as a figure of speech in English in the 16th century.
Verbal irony is the aspect that what you mean to say and the words you
handle has no in common. It is often confirmed in the field of a metaphor or
similarly used in general conversation as well as in media.
Situation irony makes comparison to what is anticipated to occur and what
really does occur. It happens when the result of a certain circumstance differentiate
from what was originally expected.

Dramatic irony presents a story to supply the audience with more details
about the narrative than the character knows. It happens when there is
misunderstanding in a book, play or movie and the audience is more intelligent than
the characters.
“Like all other figures of speech, irony brings about some added meanings to
a situation. Ironical statements and situations in literature develop readers’
interest. It makes a work of literature more intriguing, and forces the readers to use
their imaginations to comprehend the underlying meanings of the texts.”(Internet 8)

 Exaggeration (Overstatement)
Also called hyperbole, exaggeration may be defined as purposeful
overstatement, implying extreme formulation associated with counterfactual


16

context. Exaggeration is the aspect used in a way that the speaker overstates the
characteristics, defects or the magic of someone or something.
“Expanding or diminishing proportions can be a fun way to create humor in
a public speaking engagement. It's similar to a caricature artist that outrageously
exaggerates the features of an individual, while still keeping the person
recognizable.”
“Exaggeration is a way of over-emphasizing something, either making it
better or worse than it really is. Exaggeration can be used to communicate the
importance of something, to create a lasting impression, or to evoke stronger
feelings than otherwise.”
(Internet 9)

 Understatement
As you can see, anything that is made less important than it really is can be

identified as an understatement. Exaggerations and understatements are the
complete opposite, where something is blown out of proportion. An understatement
is a common figure of speech. It may be used in literature, poetry, song and daily
speech. Creating an understatement reduces with the minimum level about the
severity of a background, draws in the listener and may be used to force others feel
better. An understatement can also give addition a touch of jokes to something quite
serious.
Understatement is intentionally downsizing something to make it appear
smaller or less severe.
“Understatement is a way of speaking which minimizes the significance of
something. When using understatement, a speaker or writer often employs restraint
in describing the situation at hand and uses an expression with less emphasis or
strength than would be expected”.
(Internet 10)

 Too much unnecessary information and less informative response