國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	洪慧如 Stephanie Hui-Ru Hong
論文名稱：	中文冷笑話之語言分析 A Linguistic Analysis of Mandarin Cold Jokes
指導教授：	張妙霞 Chang, Miao-Hsia
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2003
畢業學年度：	91
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	99
中文關鍵詞：	冷笑話
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：415 下載：247
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

中文摘要
冷笑話和傳統笑話最大的不同在於他們所運用的幽默類型。依據本研究所收集的笑話，發現冷笑話所運用的幽默類型有次級幽默、荒謬幽默、及失諧─解困型幽默。其中荒謬型幽默又可細分為：部分解困型幽默、無解困型幽默、及產生新失諧型幽默。上述這些冷笑話幽默類型中，只有失諧─解困型幽默和部分解困型幽默運用在傳統笑話中。
即使冷笑話和傳統笑話都有運用到失諧─解困型幽默，這一類型的冷笑話比傳統笑話佔有較高的比例談及有關性或是其他粗俗的話題。另外，這一類型的冷笑話也廣泛地運用語言模糊性。既然有關性或是其他粗俗的話題常被社會大眾視為禁忌話題，大量的笑話談及這些話題容易造「冷」效果。同樣地，既然語言是規則化的系統，經常性地破壞語言規則也可能不會營造出笑果。
雖然冷笑話和傳統笑話都有運用到部分解困型幽默，這類型的冷笑話之所以被認為「冷」乃在於這些笑話描述無生命的物體有人類般的行為；這種情況在現實中非常不可能發生。
本研究的研究重點則是試著以語言學的觀點來探討上述冷笑話的幽默類型為何「冷」或不好笑的原因可能是因為它們違反了部分的笑話準則。於是本研究以賴斯金的主要假設及吉歐拉的標準笑話三要件為測試基準，結果發現除了失諧─解困型幽默和部分解困型幽默外，其他冷笑話的幽默類型都違反了賴斯金和吉歐拉對標準笑話所提出的基本原則。
總而言之，冷笑話具有幾點特色。第一，冷笑話大量談及禁忌話題。第二，冷笑話廣泛運用語言模糊性。第三，冷笑話所運用的幽默類型大都違反了某些標準笑話的準則。
上述這些冷笑話的特色可能存在著一些涵義。這些冷笑話的特色似乎是反映了現代人在社會和心理上的狀態：現代人正試著去打破規範，不論這規範是有關於社會的禁忌，語言或是幽默。冷笑話因此不只是一種新興的笑話類型，同時也反映了現代人的社會和心理狀態。

ABSTRACT
Cold jokes and traditional jokes differ in the types of humor they exploit. According to the data collected in the present study, cold jokes are found to make use of several types of humor: Metahumor, Nonsense Humor, and Incongruity-Resolution Humor. The Nonsense Humor in cold jokes can be further classified into three subtypes—Partial Resolution, No Resolution, and Creating New Incongruity. Among these types of humor in cold jokes, only the humor of Incongruity-Resolution and Partial Resolution are employed in traditional jokes.
Although Incongruity-Resolution Humor is exploited in both traditional jokes and cold jokes, cold jokes cover a higher percentage of sexual or other vulgar topics than traditional jokes. In addition, linguistic ambiguity is extensively employed in this class of cold jokes. As sexual or other vulgar topics are usually considered taboos by the society, large number of jokes addressing these topics tend to strike one as “cold". The same is also true of linguistic ambiguity. Since language is a rule-governed system, frequently breaking the linguistic rule may not evoke humor.
While the humor of Partial Resolution is employed in both traditional jokes and cold jokes, the cold jokes employing Partial Resolution are perceived as “cold” in that these jokes depict inanimate entities behaving like humans; the situation is very improbable in reality.
From a linguistic perspective, this study aims to explore the reason why the types of humor in cold jokes are perceived as “cold” or unfunny: they may violate certain rules of well-formed jokes. To see whether these cold jokes abide by the rules of well-formed jokes, two filters are used: Raskin’s Main Hypothesis and Giora’s three conditions for joke well-formedness. The result shows that exceptthe humor of Incongruity-Resolution and Partial Resolution, other types of humor in cold jokes violate to a great extent the requirements posited by Raskin and Giora.
To sum up, cold jokes can be characterized in several ways. First, cold jokes cover a large number of taboo topics (i.e. sexual or other vulgar topics). Second,linguistic ambiguity is widely exploited in cold jokes. Third, most of the humor types in cold jokes violate certain rules of well-formed or funny jokes.
The above characteristics of cold jokes may have some implications. They seem to reflect the social and psychological state of modern people: they are trying to break the norm, be it related to taboos, language or humor. Cold jokes thus are not only a newly arising joke type, but also a reflection of the social and psychological state of modern people.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRCT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------iii
LIST OF ABBREVIAIOTNS-----------------------------------------------------------------iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES--------------------------------------------------------viii
Chapter One Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.1 Motivation------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Definition of Cold Jokes and Purpose of the Present Study---------------------2
1.3 Organization of this Thesis ----------------------------------------------------------4
Chapter Two Literature Review----------------------------------------------------------------5
2.0 Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5
2.1 Incongruity-Resolution Theory------------------------------------------------------5
2.2 Semantic Script Theory of Humor and General Theory of Verbal Humor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
2.2.1 Semantic Script Theory of Humor--------------------------------------------8
2.2.1.1 Script-Based Lexicon-------------------------------------------------8
2.2.1.2 Combinational Rules------------------------------------------------10
2.2.1.3 The Main Hypothesis-----------------------------------------------11
2.2.1.4 Script Oppositeness-------------------------------------------------12
2.2.1.5 Semantic Script-Switch Triggers----------------------------------13
2.2.1.6 Non-Bona-Fide Mode of Communication-----------------------13
2.2.2 General Theory of Verbal Humor-------------------------------------------15
2.2.2.1 An Alternative Formulation of Script Opposition (SO)--------16
2.2.2.2 A Taxonomy of Logical Mechanism (LM) ----------------------17
2.3 Giora’s Informative Requirement--------------------------------------------------18
2.3.1 On Defining Informativeness------------------------------------------------18
2.3.2 The Conditions for Text Well-Formedness--------------------------------21
2.3.3 The Conditions for Joke Well-Formedness--------------------------------24
Chapter Three Methodology and Theoretical Framework--------------------------------28
3.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------28
3.1 Data Collection-----------------------------------------------------------------------28
3.2 Theoretical Framework--------------------------------------------------------------29
        v
3.2.1 Types of Humor Used in Jokes----------------------------------------------29
3.2.1.1 Metahumor-----------------------------------------------------------29
3.2.1.2 Nonsense Humor----------------------------------------------------31
3.2.1.2.1 Nonsense Humor: No Resolution----------------------31
3.2.1.2.2 Nonsense Humor: Partial Resolution------------------31
3.2.1.2.3 Nonsense Humor: Creating New Incongruity--------32
3.2.1.3 Incongruity-Resolution Humor------------------------------------33
3.2.2 The Conditions of Well-Formed Jokes-------------------------------------33
Chapter Four Results and Discussion--------------------------------------------------------36
4.0 Introductory Remarks---------------------------------------------------------------36
4.1 A Comparison between Traditional Jokes and Cold Jokes---------------------36
4.1.1 Metahumor---------------------------------------------------------------------38
4.1.2 Nonsense Humor--------------------------------------------------------------39
4.1.3 Incongruity-Resolution Humor----------------------------------------------43
4.1.3.1 Sexual Topics------------------------------------------ --------------45
4.1.3.2 Other Vulgar Topics-------------------------------------------------46
4.1.3.3 Linguistic Ambiguity-----------------------------------------------46
4.1.3.3.1 Classification of Linguistic Ambiguity---------------47
4.1.3.3.2 The Linguistic Strategies Used in Traditional Jokes
 and Cold Jokes-------------------------------------------50
 4.1.3.3.2.1 Phonological Strategies-------------------52
 4.1.3.3.2.2 Morphological Strategies-----------------56
 4.1.3.3.2.3 Syntactic Strategies------------------------58
 4.1.3.3.2.4 Pragmatic Strategies-----------------------60
 4.1.3.3.2.5 Other Strategies----------------------------63
4.1.4 Summary-----------------------------------------------------------------------64
4.2 The Degree of Joke Well-Formedness in Cold Jokes---------------------------66
4.2.1 Metahumor--------------------------------------------------------------------68
4.2.2 Nonsense Humor-------------------------------------------------------------71
4.2.2.1 Nonsense Humor: Partial Resolution----------------------------71
4.2.2.2 Nonsense Humor: No Resolution--------------------------------75
4.2.2.3 Nonsense Humor: Creating New Incongruity------------------78
4.2.3 Incongruity-Resolution Humor--------------------------------------------81
4.2.4 Summary----------------------------------------------------------------------86
              vi
Chapter Five Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------89
5.1 General Summary and Implications ----------------------------------------------89
5.2 Suggestions for Further Research--------------------------------------------------91
References---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------93
Appendix I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------99
           vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 2.1 Incongruity-Resolution Model----------------------------------------------------6
Table 2.1 List of all known LMs--------------------------------------------------------------18
Table 4.1 Types of humor employed in traditional jokes and cold jokes----------------37
Table 4.2 Topics and linguistic ambiguity of Incongruity-Resolution Humor in
traditional jokes and cold jokes---------------------------------------------------44
Table 4.3 The linguistic strategies used in traditional jokes and cold jokes------------51
Table 4.4 The degree of joke well-formedness in the joke of Metahumor--------------70
Table 4.5 The degree of joke well-formedness in the joke of Partial Resolution------74
Table 4.6 The degree of joke well-formedness in the joke of No Resolution----------77
Table 4.7 The degree of joke well-formedness in the joke of Creating New
Incongruity--------------------------------------------------------------------------81
Table 4.8 The degree of joke well-formedness in the joke of Incongruity-Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------86
Table 4.9 The degree of joke well-formedness in each type of humor------------------86
          viii
                                

References
Attardo, Salvatore and Victor Raskin. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke
similarity and joke representation model. Humor 4.3/4: 293-347.
Attardo, Salvatore and Jean Charles, C. 1992. Joke as a text type.
Humor 5.3: 131-147.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1997. The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of
humor. Humor 10.4: 395-420.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1998. The analysis of humorous narratives.
Humor 11.3: 231-260.
Attardo, Salvatore. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling
incongruities and their resolutions. Humor 15.1: 3-46.
Carrell, Amy. 1997. Joke competence and humor competence.
Humor 10.2: 173-185.
Chan, Hui-chen. 2001. Concocting absurdity. Paper presented at the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Chapman, A. J. and H. C. Foot (eds.) 1976. Humor and Laughter: Theory,
Research and Applications. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Chiaro, Delia. 1992. The Language of Joke: Analyzing Verbal Play. New York:
Routledge.
Chiou, F. D. 1993. The Structure of a Theory of Comprehending Jokes.
Unpublished MA thesis. National Tsing-Hua University.
Curco, Carmen. 1998. Indirect echoes and verbal humor. In Villy, R. and
A. H. Jucker (eds.) Current Issues in Relevance Theory. 305-325.
Amsterdam: John Bejamins Publishing Co.
Deckers, Lambert and P. Avery. 1994. Altered joke endings and a joke structure
schema. Humor 7.4: 313-321.
Dienhart, John M. 1998. A linguistic look at riddles. Journal of Pragmatics
31: 95-125.
Dolitsky, Marlene. 1992. Aspects of the unsaid in humor. Humor 5.1/2: 33-43.
Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1992. Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The
concept of incongruity. Humor 5.1/2: 45-68.
Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1994. Seriality and appreciation of jokes.
Humor 7.4: 351-375.
Freud, Sigmund. 1960. Jokes and their Relations to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton Co.
Giora, Rachel. 1988. On the informativeness requirement.
Journal of Pragmatics 12: 547-565.
Giora, Rachel. 1991. On the cognitive aspects of the joke.
Journal of Pragmatics 16: 465-485.
Goldstein, J. H. and P. E. McGhee (eds.) 1972. The Psychology of Humor. New
York: Academic Press.
Goldstein, J. H. and P. E. McGhee (eds.) 1983. Handbook of Humor Research.
Vol. I. Berlin: Springer.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In D. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.)
Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. 45-58. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, Binsted and Graeme Ritchie. 1997. Computational rules for generating
punning riddles. Humor 10.1: 25-76.
Kim, Binsted and Graeme Ritchie. 2001. Toward a model of story puns.
Humor 14.3: 275-292.
Kreitler, Shulamith, et al. 1988. How to kill jokes cognitively? The meaning
structure of jokes. Semiotica 68.3/4: 297-319.
Larson, Gary. 1983. The Far Side. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel.
Lefort, Bernard. 1996. Structure of verbal jokes and comprehension in young
children. Humor 5.1: 149-163.
Marino, Matthew. 1987. Victor Raskin: Semantic Mechanism of Humor.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 65: 115-120.
Nash, W. 1985. The Language of Humor. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Nerhardt, F. K. 1976. Incongruity and funniness: Toward a new descriptive
model. In A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot (eds.), 55-62.
Norrick, Neal R. 1986. A frame-theoretical analysis of verbal humor: Bisociation
as schema conflict. Semoitica 60.3/4: 225-245.
Norrick, Neal R. 2001. On the conversational performance of narrative jokes:
Toward an account of timing. Humor 14.3: 255-275.
Palmer, Jerry. 1996. Permission to jokes: Some implications of a well-known
principle. Semoitica 110.1/2: 23-36.
Paolillo, John C. 1998. Gary Larson’s Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense!
Humor 11.3: 261-290.
Pepicello, William J. and R. Weisberg. 1983. Linguistics and humor.
In J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee (eds.), 59-83.
Pepicello, William. J. and Thomas A. Green. 1984. The Language of Riddles:
New Perspectives. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Pepicello, William. J. 1987. Pragmatics of humorous language.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 65: 27-35.
Perlamutter, Dedre D. 2002. On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in
humor: The delicate balance. Humor 15.2: 155-168.
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanism of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Raskin, Victor. 1987. Linguistic heuristics of humor: A script-based semantic
approach. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 65: 11-25.
Rothbart, Mary K. 1976. Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A. J.
Chapman and H. C. Foot (eds.), 35-54.
Ruch, Willibald, Salvotore Attardo, and Victor Raskin. 1991 Toward an empirical
verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor 6.2: 123-136.
Ruch, Willibald. 1992. Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the
3WD humor test. In Spielberger, Charles D. and James. N. Butcher (eds.)
Advances in Personality Assessment. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W. and S. Rath. 1993. The nature of humor appreciation: Toward an
integration of perception of stimulus properties and affective experience.
Humor 6.4: 363-384.
Russsel, Roy E. 2000. Humor’s close relatives. Humor 13.2: 219-233.
Shultz, Thomas R. 1976. A cognitive-developmental analysis of humor.
In A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot (eds.), 11-34.
Sperber, D and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Suls, Jerry M. 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and
cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein and
P. E. McGhee (eds.), 81-100.
Suls, Jerry M. 1983. Cognitive processes in humor appreciation.
In J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee (eds.), 39-57.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
New York: Longman Group Limited.
Tsai, S. M. 1996. A Linguistic Analysis of Chinese Punning Jokes. Unpublished
MA thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Veatch, Thomas C. 1998. A theory of humor. Humor 11.2: 161-215.
Wang, C. Y. 1998. Did You Get It?: A Linguistic Analysis of Chinese
Students’ Comprehension and Appreciation of Jokes in English. Unpublished
MA thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Weiner, E. Judith and Paul de Palma. 1993. Some pragmatic features of lexical
ambiguity and simple riddles. Language and Communication 13: 183-193.
Wilson, C. P. 1979. Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Function. New York:
Academic Press.
Yamaguchi, H. 1988. How to pull strings with words. Journal of Pragmatics
12: 323-337.
Zajdman, Anat. 1992. Did you mean to be so funny? Well, if you say so…
Humor 5.4: 357-368.
Zajdman, Anat. 1995. Humor face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy.
Journal of Pragmatics 23: 325-339.
中文參考書目
黃宣範譯 (Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson 原著). 1992. 漢語語法.
台北：文鶴出版社。
陳學志. 1991. 「幽默理解」的認知歷程. 國立台灣大學心理研究所博士論
文。
沈芸生. 1990. 龐克笑話. 台北：號角出版社。
----------. 1990. 笑話電台. 台北：號角出版社。
李文東. 1990. 笑話易開罐. 台北：太雅出版社。
---------. 1993. 笑話一籮筐. 台北：晨星出版社。
天游. 1995. 人間幽默集. 台北：業強出版社。
陳萱薇. 1993. 說個笑話給你聽. 台北：太雅出版社。
---------. 1994. 掰個笑話給你聽. 台北：太雅出版社。
司馬不笑. 1991. 啼笑皆非集. 台北：晨星出版社。

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文