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


1

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


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
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.


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


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


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
SOURCES OF DATA
QUYẾT ĐỊNH GIAO ĐỀ TÀI (bản sao)

64


LIST OF TABLES

Numbe
r 4.1

Name of Tables

Frequency of humor strategies caused by violating

Pag
es 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


2

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.

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.


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 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.
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.
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 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.

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.
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 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
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 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 well- known 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 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
Two strategies given to create humor are too much unnecessary information
and less informative response. A speaker that makes a speech in front of the audience
should give enough information. If the speaker provides too much unnecessary
information, he makes amazement for the audience out of the expectation. As a result,
humor situation is created.
In addition to this strategy, giving less informative response also causes
laughter because it goes beyond the audience's expectation.

• Repetition
According to Galperin [9, p.211]: “Repetition is also one of the devices having its
origin in the emotive language. Repetition when applied to the logical language
becomes simply an instrument of grammar. Its origin is to be seen in the excitement
accompanying the expression of a feeling being brought to its highest tension.”
The purpose of using repetition is to emphasize strong emotion. When used as a
means of language to create humor, repetition creates a direct emotional effect and
logical emphasis as well. Tannen (1987- 1989) confirms that “the functions of
repetition include humor,” by arguing that repetition with slight variation catches
laughter. Ide (1998, 2005) and Iwata (2010), agreeing with Tannen’s argument,

suggest that rhythmic synchrony from repetition as well as a feeling of involvement
produce laughter.

• Incongruity
Incongruity is the factor to the completion of the basic mechanisms of humor,
and hence it is really essential to make a decision just what the terms "incongruous"


and "incongruity" are. In researching field, a theorist who takes advantage of terms
which are in common currency might, of course, have condition to give their
meanings in novel ways. Nowadays, however, it will seem instructive to begin by
examining the standard meanings. Incongruity is defined as lacking congruity or lack
of harmony, consistency, or compatibility with one another, disagreement or lack of
conformity with something . Moreover, we laugh at things that surprise us because
they are out of place and listeners cannot guess what speakers said.

• Inversion
Inversion is also regarded as one of the most popular humor strategies. The
speakers who want to make an impressive speech utilize Inversion Strategy in their
speech. They take a recognizable character type or situation. Then, they give the
audience enough to set up expectations. Eventually, they violate those expectation
with a contradictory conclusion.

• Pun
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defined a pun as an
humorous usage of a word or phrase that has two or more various meanings which is
called polysemy or of words with sound and spelling but various meanings called
homonymy. The Collins English Dictionary defines the puns as the usage of word that
have more than one meaning, or words that have the same sound but various meaning
and cause laughte . The American Dictionary of the English language says it is a play

on word, sometimes on various meaning of the identical word or sometimes on the
same sounds of different words. Also called paronomasia.
According to the Webster's Third International Dictionary, a pun can be
defined as “a humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest different meanings
or applications, or of word having the same or nearly the same sound but different
meaning: a play on words”
Pun, also called wordplay, is a literacy technique and a form of wit in which
the words that are used become the main subject of the work, primarily for the
purpose of available influence or humor.


- Phonological ambiguity
One of the favorite ways to make fun with communication is phonological
ambiguity. Phonological ambiguity is a pair of words produced has the same sound
but different meanings.

- Morphological ambiguity
“Both word- formation process of compounding and derivation were exploited
for the purpose ofproducing ambiguity” (Jojic)
Morphological structure is consciously destructed by way of their ungrammatical
segmentation, or it can also be caused because of the way the sentence is structure
(syntactic)

- Syntactic ambiguity
Syntactic ambiguity bases on the presence of two or more possible meanings for a
sentence or sequences of words. Syntactic ambiguity is sometimes used deliberately
to create puns and other types of wordplay.

- Lexical ambiguity
Ambiguity happens as a sentence has more than one meaning. Ambiguity can

be created by the ambiguous lexicon in which one word has more than one meaning.
The context also decides if the sentence can be understood variously and become
ambiguous. Ambiguity often leads to confusion, and has been the phenomenon in
language research, especially semantics. This survey investigates ambiguity in
creating humors. The data comes from electronic sources in forms of newspaper
headlines, jokes, riddles and anecdotes. “Lexical ambiguity is the language device
used to create puns in humor. The ambiguity could be an effective source of humor
when it particularly involves dual interpretations in which one interpretation gives a
serious meaning and tone, whereas the other interpretation gives a humorous
meaning which is not likely to occur in normal contexts. ” (Internet 11)

2.2.3. Pragmatics Theory
2.2.3.1. Definition of Grice's Cooperative Principle
So as to interact with people successfully, participants should regulate their