本論文探討美國情境喜劇《宅男行不行》中與刻板印象相關的幽默及笑點。本劇主角為四位「宅男 」(nerds)以及一位活潑的女性，宅族與非宅族間的互動，以及宅男的刻板印象再現為本劇主要的幽默來源。根據Bucholtz (2001)的研究，美國社會中nerd的主要刻板印象為「社會適應不良」及「智力高於常人」。在本劇中，宅男同時被再現為科幻迷、漫畫書迷、以及電玩迷。
本劇中的宅男「社會適應不良」在於無法理解語言中語用及社會語言學的重要性：對於語用中禮貌、諷刺、蘊含意義難以理解，以及社會語言學中禁忌話題及對話情境時常忽略。宅男在本劇中「智力高於常人」層面來自於不論情境時常使用正式語或書面語，以及時常對他人展現自己高超的智力，也透過自己對科學、科技的精通展示自己的男性氣概。另外，劇中的宅男被再現為科幻迷、漫畫書迷、以及電玩迷，時常引用及背誦科幻作品中的台詞，以及討論科幻作品情境及角色設定。
族裔的刻板印象也是本劇的幽默來源。在五位主角中，一位是猶太人，另一位是印度人，此二族裔的刻板印象也在本劇中出現。另外三位白人主角的刻板印象(例如美國鄉下的成長背景)同樣也是本劇的幽默來源。
在《宅男行不行》中，「宅」即是相對於「不宅」，因此許多情境都需要參照角色來反襯宅男與「一般人」的不同之處，通常不宅的那位女性為參照角色，但是隨情境需要可能調整。

This thesis aims to explore the stereotype-related humor in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The sitcom centers around four male physicists who are considered as “nerds/geeks.” One day, a beautiful and perky girl comes into their lives, and humor ensues from the interaction between the nerds and the non-nerd. The stereotype of nerds is the main humor source of this sitcom. Based on the research of Bucholtz (2001), the stereotype of nerds can be divided into two main dimensions: nerds as social underachievers and nerds as intellectual overachievers. In this sitcom, nerds are also represented as sci-fi, comic book and video games fans.
Nerds are considered as socially underachieved because they are represented as underperforming in pragmatic and sociolinguistic dimensions of language. They have trouble adhere to the politeness theory; they have difficulty in comprehending implicature and irony; they are not aware of taboo topics and often fail to consider the setting and scene of a conversation.
Nerds are considered as intellectually overachieved because they tend to employ “superstandard” language, i.e., they employ written and formal register across contexts. They are also represented as constantly demonstrating their intellect and knowledge on various topics. They are also likely to demonstrate their mastery in scientific and technological fields.
Nerds are represented as sci-fi, comic books, and video games fans in this sitcom. They engage in sci-fi works and activities with strong fervor, and they often can recite and quote the lines of sci-fi movies, and constantly debate on the events in the hypothesized universe in sci-fi works.
Ethnic stereotypes are another source of humor in The Big Bang Theory. Since one of the five main characters is Jewish, and another is Indian, the stereotype of their respective ethnicities serves as humor resources. However, the other three Caucasian characters are also parodied in terms of their rural upbringings.
In The Big Bang Theory, nerdiness is often represented as being different to non-nerds. The non-nerd girl character often serves as a reference point to nerds in order to demonstrate how deviated from normalcy the nerds are, but in some scenes some of nerds become reference points to contrast extreme nerdiness.

Anderton, Roger J. 2010. The reaction to Einstein was World War II. The General Science Journal, September 8, 2010. <http://wbabin.net/weuro/anderton68.pdf> Accessed on February 1, 2011.
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. 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. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor, 15.1: 3-46.
Bahtkin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination, ed. M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Benor, Sarah. 2001. The learned /t/: Phonological variation in Orthodox Jewish English. In Tara Sanchez and Daniel Ezra Johnson (eds.) Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 2000, 1-16. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Department of Linguistics.
Berman, Ronald. 1987. How Television Sees Its Audience: A Look at the Looking Glass. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
The Big Bang Theory official website, About The Big Bang Theory. <http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_bang_theory/about/> Accessed on February 17, 2011.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, Stephen. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, Mary. 1998. Geek the girl: language, femininity, and female nerds. In Natasha Warner et al. (eds.), Gender and Belief Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 119-131. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28: 203-223.
Bucholtz, Mary. 2001. The whiteness of nerds: Superstandard English and racial markedness. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11: 84-100.
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2007. Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech, 82: 32-64.
Carrell, Amy. 1997. Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10(2):173-185
Chui, Kawai. 2002. Discontinuity of Conversational Topics. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 28(2):149-174
Cockburn, C. 1985. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-how. London: Pluto.
Denhart, Andy. 2009. For ‘Big Bang’s Sheldon,’ the nerd is the word. MSNBC.com. <http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33523728> Accessed on February 1, 2011.
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4): 453-476.
Eglash, Ron. 2002. Race, sex, and nerds: From black geeks to Asian American hipsters. Social Text, 71(20-2): 49-64.
Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, Peter. 2008. Doing Pragmatics. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
Heyman, Karen. 2008. Talk nerdy to me. Science, 320: 740-741.
Hung, Stephanie Hui-Ru. 2002. A Linguistic Analysis of Mandarin Cold Jokes. MA Thesis, Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
Hymes, Dell H. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Irvine, Judith T. and Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, 35-83. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Josefowitz Siegel, Rachel, Ellen Cole and Susan Steinberg-Oren. 2000. Introduction. In Rachel Josefowitz Siegel, Ellen Cole, Susan Steinberg-Oren (eds.) Jewish Mothers Tell Their Stories: Acts of Love and Courage. Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Kendall, Lori. 2000. “OH NO! I’M A NERD!”: Hegemonic masculinity on an online forum. Gender & Society, 14(2): 256-274.
Kiesling, Scott F. 2004. Dude. American Speech, 79(3): 281-305.
Labov, William. 1971. The study of language in its social context. In Joshua A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language, Vol. 1, 70-109. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Leech, Geffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Rod A.. 2007. The psychology of humor: an integrative approach, Elsevier Academic Press.
Moore, Emma and Robert Podesva. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38: 447-485.
Nasar, Sylvia. 2001. Introduction. In Kuhn, Harold W. and Sylvia Nasar (eds.), The Essential John Nash, xi-xxv. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Podesva, Robert J., Sarah J. Roberts and Kathryn Campbell-Kilber. 2002. Sharing resources and indexing meanings in the production of gay styles. In Kathryn Campbell-Kilber, Robert J. Podesva, Sarah J. Roberts and Andrew Wong (eds.) Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice, 175-190. Stanford, CA: CSLI Press.
Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor (Syntheses Language Library 24). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Rey, Jennifer M. 2001. Changing gender roles in popular culture: Dialogue in Star Trek episodes from 1966 to 1993. In Susan Conrad and Douglas Biber (eds.) Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies, 138-155. London: Longman.
Seuss, Dr. 1950. If I Ran the Zoo. New York: Random House.
Shu, Yi-Chih. 2007. Linguistic Strategies Adopted in the American Sitcom Friends. MA Thesis, Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz and Richard Palmentiers (eds.) Semiotic Mediation, 219-259. New York: Academic Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialects of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23: 193-229.
Suls, Jerry M. 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In Goldstein, J. H. and P. E. McGhee (eds.), The Psychology of Humor. New York: Academic Press, 81-100.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Turkle, Sherry. 1984. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Vološinov, V. N. 1973. Philosophy and the Philosophy of Language, translated by L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York: Seminar Press. Original publication in Russian, 1929.
Wen, Yung-Li. 2006. A Pragmatic Analysis of Waiting for Godot. MA Thesis, Department of English, National Chengchi University.
Winzenburg, Stephen M. 2004. TV’s Greatest Sitcoms. Frederick, MD: PublishAmerica.