| Humor is extensively studied in humanities, with philosophy, aesthetics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, post-Freudianism, film and literary criticism having abundant literature on the subject, and with each staring from a different set of preconceptions. However, remarkably few of the theoreticians in their particular disciplines have concerned themselves with material from other disciplines. Hence only recently has it been recognized that the fundamental question of what is meant by "humor", "laughter", "comedy", or even "joke" cannot be answered without an interdisciplinary perspective (Palmer, 1994:3).Although there have been attempts to be comprehensive, interdisciplinary studies of humor present a problem, i.e., how theories from different disciplines can be integrated and consequently how a more convincing and rational (less introspective) outlook can be effected. Recently, humor has come within the scope of linguistics, which is understandable, for any joke (and other humorous genres included), whether it contains a pun or not, by the every (Chiaro, 1992:15). Humor and language are interdependent in two important ways (Apte, 1985:178-179). First, language itself becomes the subject matter of humor. Its phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic elements and their interrelationships may be exploited in creating humor. Second, the development, comprehension, and appreciation of humor are determined, to a considerable degree, by the use and function of language in society and by the cultural attitudes and values associated with it. Linguistics has developed considerably within the 20th century, where concepts have been revolutionized in every area of the discipline from sounds, words and sentences to meaning, use, texts and through discourse itself. Thus a linguistic study of such culturally or socially bound phenomena as humor can be conducive to the study of humor generally. This study, taking into account the practices and theories of various disciplines, focuses on the Hallidayan linguistic framework which sheds light over the general design of this research. Halliday's systemic-functional linguistics sees language in social context and considers it to be a resource used for communication instead of a set of rules. Its essential assumption is that each time language is used (in any situation), the user is making conscious choices in meaning, which are expressed through intonation, words and grammatical structures.Although discursive analyses have proved to be convincingly effective in both literary criticism and lawsuits, their application to the study of humor has so far been scarce. It seems that people have avoided the study of humor from the perspective of discourse or language, because it has been perceived that humor does not emanate purely form language; indeed it seems to be the product of a cluster of contribtuting factors, thus requiring theories, research methods and fruits of different fields. The linguistic devices contributing to humor alone will appear to confound many linguists, for such may occur on any level of language (as both "langue" and "parole" in the Saussurean sense); indeed, linguistic theories alone may be inadequate in resolving the mysteries of humor. Hence one may make a detailed analysis of a humorous text but still fail to explain why it is humorous. However, as many psychologists, philosophers and anthropologists have concentrated upon studying the phenomenon of humor, their findings will undoubtedly be beneficial to linguists generally. After all, humor as a human phenomenon embodied in language, art and drama must be approached simultaneously from the psychological, linguistic and social perspectives. Certainly, an application of linguistic theories to the study of humor will an application of linguistic theories to the study of humor will undoubtedly be challenging.The ultimate aim of this paper is to explore the mechanism of linguistic humor from a discursive perspective (in the Hallidayan sense as opposed to the... |
PDF Full Text Request