Language & Humor

Final Exam

Spring 2008

Choose one question from each category. Answer each question thoroughly in one page or less. Please write legibly, since I won’t be able to grade it otherwise. Provide thoughtful analysis and examples where necessary or appropriate.

1. Political Humor (30 pts.)

   1. Explain the difference between targeting an individual and targeting an institution in political humor.

   2. Compare and contrast supportive and benign types of humor.

   3. Is a show such as The Daily Show a valid source of news? Explore the boundary between news media and comedy media.

2. Bilingualism & Formulaic Language (40 pts.)

   1. Identify and define the SOURCE and TARGET of the following metaphor:

ARGUMENT is WAR.

2. 2. Compare and contrast code switching and Mock varieties of language.

   3. How do formulaic language chunks develop?

3. Satire (30 pts.)

   1. Give a concise explanation of the purported role of satire in society.

   2. Define irony. Explain its relationship to sarcasm.

   3. Explain the social commentary relayed by the satire in the Wall-Mart episode of South Park we watched.

i had to pick two out of these four:

• What is the difference, with respect to idioms, between compositionality and conventionality? Why is it a mistake to confuse the two?

• How are the questions of whether or not idioms are compositional, and whether or not they’re metaphorical, related?

• Nunberg, Sag, & Wasow make a distinction between Idiomatically Combining Expressions and Idiomatic Phrases, while Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor make a distinction between encoding vs. decoding idioms. Are the making the same distinction?

• Construction Grammar explains idioms using the same apparatus that it uses to explain words and sentences. How does that work, exactly?

I chose questions 1 & 4. Following are my answers:

1. The study of idioms has expanded our understanding of processes that work together in dynamic and deeply interrelated ways. This constant discovery of mechanisms accumulates in a large body of work that consists of the observation of and explanation for many overlapping phenomena. The terminology in Linguistics is dense, to be sure. Using words to describe words is a particular challenge because of the nature of words. The ability of language to reproduce itself and create new levels of understanding spontaneously also prohibits consistently translucent definitions. A good example of this threat for confusion is the difference between compositionality and conventionality. Both refer to characteristics of idioms, but the end results in the type of idiom described are different when using these two terms. One of the challenges in understanding these differences is the fact that each author does his or her best to explain their understanding as best they can, and are rarely are successful in sharing exactly what they mean. With this sense of self-awareness I will attempt to describe the difference between the two. Compositionality describes the way an idiom interacts with the language around it. As idioms become less compositional, they become idiomatic phrases (Nunberg & Wasow, 497). Idiomatic phrases are used in such a way that there is no separation of the parts from each other. Phrases such as “jump the gun” are rarely, if ever, seen separated by another part of speech. This reflects the phrasal nature of the idiom, as well as the fact that this phrase only occurs in contexts where the meaning is “one got ahead of one’s self.” At the other end of the spectrum exist idiomatically combining expressions (ICEs) which, although understood at the conceptual level, can be altered via the use of topicality, VP-ellipsis and other arrangement strategies to further specify the conceptual domain of the idiom. An example might be “his opinion pushed a button or two.” The expansion of expression is reflected at the surface level and has a matching correlation at the conceptual level. The literal meaning of the expression is not applicable in either case. The relationship of Conventionality to Compositionality rides on the distinction between idiomatic phrases and ICEs. The conventionality of an idiom is measured in part by its noncompositionality, that is, its status as an idiomatic phrase. These are the phrases that function in speech and in society as normalized nonliteral expressions that the least likely to be used in a manner not in keeping with their commonly understood conceptual message. Conventional idioms are more often used as examples of idioms since they are standardized to a degree. On the other hand, compositional idioms are more often used in spontaneous conversation, since they are more productive.

4. Humans understand language more holistically than any analysis will ever convey. In studying language, the scientist isolates and labels parts, and seeks to explain every level of language as thoroughly as possible. However, this approach stands intrinsically at odds with the way people produce and perceive language. As a result, in our continuing quest to understand it, we have had to overcome certain perceptions which although seemingly intuitive, are incorrect and based on assumptions which do not take into account the holistic nature of linguistic patterns. Construction Grammar (CG), instead of forcing idiomatic expressions into categories in which they do not fit, such as the lexicon or a set of transformational rules, approaches them as indivisible, recognizable linguistic units. In this manner, the parts of an idiom, although separable like the morphemes of a word, cannot be considered meaningful parts on their own. Also at the sentential level, the whole meaning cannot be deciphered when the semantic relationships between the components of the sentence are attended to individually. In separating language across finer distinctions, to the level of allophones, the scientist becomes further removed from the meaning of the whole. The value of approaches like CG is that they address the trends and patterns that comprise the highly regulated structures in language. This is an opposing view to the traditional approach that requires the disassembling of linguistic units, and the subsequent effort to put them back together analytically, as dissected, isolated units with a proper name via the use of rules that often wind up with more exceptions than examples. The inexplicable nature of idioms within this paradigm forced the scientist to consider alternative approaches to the analysis. By accepting and studying idioms as units, many more patterns become visible. By focusing on the observation of linguistic patterns, instead of forming arbitrary criteria to which language must conform, CG can provide a deeper, richer set of explanations regarding the overall nature of language and how it is used to communicate. These explanations reflect the cognitive process more accurately than any set of transformational rules. CG shows us that the mind stores and uses linguistic units of varying length that bear a range of relationships between form and meaning. This ability is then used to efficiently convey meaning in one of the many ways we use to express ourselves. CG allows us to embrace a wider range of language usage than before. By looking at grammatical units as constructions rather than individual words, CG can account for the regular usage of phrases and collocations that before could only be labeled as “special” due to their seemingly contradictory use of duality of patterning while not adhering to the established convention of words as the only recognized meaningful linguistic unit. This is the same dual articulation that has been explored both at the sentential and word levels in the past, and which is at the core of the similarities between words, constructions, and sentences. CG, by establishing the construction as a meaningful unit of language, can more accurately reflect linguistic patterns and explain more holistically the use of language by speakers.

1. Apostrophe use: some simple guidelines.

• Apostrophes do not mark plural. Do not use them to mean more than one of anything.

• Ex: cars NOT car’s; CDs & DVDs NOT CD’s & DVD’s.

• Apostrophes are not used to mark possessives in pronouns.

• Ex: “Poor dog, its tongue was hanging out.” vs. “It’s time to leave.”; “Whose book is this?” vs. “Who’s going to the show?”

• Apostrophes are used to mark possessive on nouns.

• Ex: “Yes, I have Mary’s phone.” or “The car’s tires need to be rotated.”

• Apostrophes are used to contract the verb “BE” as IS.

• Ex: it’s = it is; who’s = who is

2. Who vs. Whom: when and why.

• The –m in WHOM is a leftover from the regular use of the dative case in the past. Same roots as the –m in HIM. This means very little to most. Just remember that

• WHOM is only used after prepositions:

• Ex: To WHOM it may concern; For WHOM the bell tolls.

• In every other situation, WHO is the correct choice.

3. Irregardless is not a word. It’s a redundant construction. Don’t use it

4. Relevancy is not a word. It’s a redundant construction. Don’t use it.

5. For any questions on spelling, I recommend Dictionary.com. Use it. I do.

Ruth E. Cisneros | LING 590 | Formulaic Language

Formulaic Language & Humor:

An overview of idiomatic language usage in comedy

I. Introduction

The initial focus of this paper was to explore the intersection between formulaic language and humor by exposing the former in the latter. However, with both humor and formulaic language having broad definitions, the overlap is large and open to a lot of discussion.

Difficulties:

• Lack of availability in transcriptions.

Another avenue of analysis became obvious. It didn’t take long to find examples of formulaic language being exploited to humorous ends in three different skits on Saturday Night Live. Following is an analysis of these three contexts. I hope to pick out some of the nuances of formulaic language as we’ve learned about it this semester via this look at the data.

II. Interesting side note

When thinking about formulaic language & discussing it with others, three or four very prototypical phrases were suggested as formulaic language to look for:

1. “Is this thing on?”: 332,000 Google hits, most titles to blogs or podcasts
2. “Don’t forget to tip your waitress”: 942 hits
3. “I’ll be here all week”: 64,900 hits
4. “Try the veal”: 50,100 hits

These were overall infrequent collocations and constructions on Google, appearing only as self-aware usage to indicate the specificity of the comedy genre. Overall, however, they do not occur within the genre all that often. None of them appeared in the stand up comedy routines I listened to for this project.

I noticed the same thing with many of the examples used in class. While “kick the bucket” may not be in heavy rotation in spoken language, it is a particularly expressive construction, making it a good example; a representative for the myriad other expressions that fall under the term constructions.

III. Data

Collected from two different episodes of Saturday Night Live, these skits employ and exploit formulaic language in different ways. Their value lay in different aspects of constructions, how they’re used, and the level of awareness we have of them. It is this understanding that allows us to “get it” as a joke.

1. Travel Writer Judy Grimes: uses “just kidding” between different jokes, original content between each use.

1. Just kidding:

a. speech act indicating the transition between a joke and normative discourse.

b. fulfills pragmatic role – announces change of register

c. fulfills grammatical role – complex construction used as one unit in utterance.

2. Google raw count for “just kidding:” 11,500,000

3. Intuitively & anecdotally labeled formulaic language.

a. allows for the change in topic

b. used as a self-aware mechanism to keep the joke going.

2. Political Humorist Nick Fehn: uses many different constructions, collocations, and idioms without original content between them. Following are some of the chunks he uses.

1. it’s the reason: 63,400 Google hits

2. I wake up: 1,010,000 hits

3. most Americans: 5,710,000 hits

4. the very idea: 2,050,000 hits

5. any publication: 612,000 hits

3. Death by Chocolate: acted out literally, casts the chocolate bar in a different light. The lack of language is as powerful a medium when using a structure as familiar as “death by chocolate.” Its metaphorical underpinnings are explored by juxtaposing our understanding of the saying against the literal meaning being played out.

1. Raw Google hits: 295,000 hits

IV. Discussion

The value of this data lies in its commonplace nature. The constructions used as the premise of the jokes are easily recognizable. In all three cases the premise is humorous based on the fact that the dialog is completely overtaken by the prefab pieces, all of which are used daily by speakers in non-humorous contexts.

• In the first skit, Judy Grimes perpetuates a long, self-deprecating joke by repeatedly attaching the construction “just kidding” to everything she says. The relationship between idiomatic language and creative content (original utterances) is obvious in the way she relates occurrences to “just kidding.”

• In the second skit, Nick Fehn uses a variety of prefab chunks commonly used as introductions or sentence-starters. The joke lies in he not moving past the introduction and instead putting forth another generic chunk.

• The third skit was a performance of a collocation being interpreted literally, which creates incongruity in understanding. In this case, the construction is metaphorical in nature, and well-known enough to stand in contrast to a life-size chocolate bar committing murder.

Overall, the role of formulaic language is highly useful, widely used, and a category of language with enough recognizable characteristics that we know how to manipulate them in both normative discourse as well as for humorous purposes.

I. Judy Grimes, Travel Writer – Use of “just kidding:”

first way of reading transcription of an incantation by a Taoist healer in Taipei is as text. However, “dislocated from this primary context, assertions about the significance of particular words or phrases are dubious at best.” (144).

as text, many questions are left unanswered. those interested on Chinese religion will not be able to get all their questions answered.

reading naively causes the anthropologist to see what they are looking for while missing many details that a scientist trained in phonology, syntax and/or prosody might capture. fundamental difference between the two disciplines: the texts/rituals/experiences that anthropologists deal with are inherently (primarily?) linguistic.

notes Bauman’s observation on performance, and points out that in addition to ritual, these are performances. without understanding the basic premises of performance, eg communicative excellence on the part of the performer, among others listed by Bauman, there is certain amount of data outright missing from an ethnographic study.

the anthropologist is successful in capturing many of the nonverbal aspects of the performance. “if anything, our danger is that of drowning in relevant facts; the issue is how to use them. How can we distinguish valid discovery from illusion produced by projecting concepts onto the text that have no solid base -within- the text?” (145).

attempts a middle ground between structuralist/semiotic approaches and process/performance orientation. sharp focus on aesthetic detail, “logic in tangible quantities” (Levi-Strauss 1969: 1). special attention paid to the sequences of rituals, along to type (syntagmatic/paradigmatic) as “properties of ritual language adds force to interpretation.” (145).