Endre Lendvai
1. Lexicosemantic jokes
1.1. Antonymy 7 3,36%
1.2. Homonymy 14 6,78%
1.3. Polysemy 71 34,34%
1.4. Paronymy 13 6,30%
1.5. Extralexical 6 2,90%
1.6. Lexicosemantic Innovation 17 8,16%
2. Syntactic and contextual jokes
2.1.Syntactic Polysemy 18 8,70%
2.2. Implication, Presupposition 16 7,74%
2,3. Zeugma 7 3,36%
3. Culture-specific jokes 7 3,36%
1. Lexicosemantic jokes
Linguistic analysis shows that most jokes are of complex character. Thus, in their description it will be necessary to indicate the way the label phenomenon is combined with other issues.
1.1. Antonymy
Jokes having in their punch lines antonymic relations usually work on antono- masia, which is “the interplay between the logical and nominal meanings of a word” (Galperin 164). It must be interesting why this group (and synonymy, too) participates in joke creation at such a low percentage. Hypothetically, one can as
sume that these lexicosemantic phenomena do not maintain semantic tension as well as the other types do.
(1) “Have you noticed the latest thing in men’s clothes?”
“Yes. Women.” (Flier 10)
The punch line works on the antonymous pair of “men” - “women”. Parallel to this, a syntactic implication takes place in (12). The second speaker intentionally misinterprets the first speaker’s question. Pocheptsov’s theoretical explanation may be applied here: “By means of linguistic items, two situations are projected, an or
dinary, normal one and a ‘wrong’ one (due to confusion, non-discrimination or er
roneous interpretation of linguistic items). The wrong situation may be generally possible but for some reason inappropriate or entirely fantastic in the given situa
tion” (1990: 13).
In (12) the source of funniness is ambiguity which emerges as a result of the interplay of the above phenomena. As a matter of fact, the second speaker’s impli
cation is due to a morphosemantic misuse (distortion, he ignores that “women”
cannot be interpreted as “things”.) 1.2. Homonymy
In the punch line of this type of jokes two phonetically identical but semanti
cally different words are brought together with the aim to create a humorous effect.
(2) Wife: “Do you love me still?”
Hubby: “I might if you’d stay still long enough.” (Flier 4)
“Still” (adverb) and “still” (adjective) represent two different scripts in (2).The punch line explodes when “still” is used by the second speaker. Homonyms, unlike synonyms, are fit for making up a humorous effect based on semantic distance.
Joke tellers usually make use of distorted homonyms, too. As Potcheptsov puts it,
“apart from true homonyms, there are homonoids, in particular, homophonoids - words which can be taken, because of considerable phonetic similarity, for homonyms”
(1990 35: emphasis is mine - E.L.).
(3) After looking over his son’s report card, father says:
“Bob, if you had a little more spunk, you’d stand better in your grades.
And by the way, do you know what spunk is?”
“Sure, Dad. It’s the past participle of spank.”(Potcheptsov 36)
Bob pretends to be a clever pupil and intends to give a correct answer to his fa
ther’s question. He fails to be so on account of misinterpreting the noun “spunk”
and considering it as an irregular verb’s past participle form. Linguistic distortion, in this case, provides not only the switch into a non-bona-fide mood of communi
cation but it reveals the bad student, too. (4) relies on homonymy and antonymy at the same time.
(4) Guest: “And the flies are certainly thick around here.”
Hotel manager: “Thick? What can you expect for two dollars a day?
Educated ones?”(Flier 28)
The listener of (4) can properly distinguish the two meanings of “thick” at the very end of the joke. The recognition of the two different meanings (1. ‘having a large number of something together’, 2. ‘stupid, dull’) is motivated by the second speaker’s exclamation “Educated ones?”. “Educated” and “thick” are antonyms.
Funniness in (4) is stimulated in two steps: 1. “Educated” triggers the switch from the realistic “thick” into the unrealistic “thick”. 2. The absurd idea about “stupid and educated flies” emerges.
1.3. Polysemy
(5) exemplifies the co-occurrence of two meanings of the verb “please”;
1. ‘to think something desirable or appropriate’, 2. ‘to make somebody happy’.
(5) She: “It’s no use bothering me, Jack. I shall marry whom I please.”
He: “That’s all I’m asking you to do, my dear. You please me well enough.” (Flier 20)
Endre Lendvai
The two meanings of “please” have semantic content in common (cp. ‘appro
priate’ -’happy’), they do not seem different enough for making up semantic ten
sion. It is the differences of syntactic structures that increase the semantic distinc
tion: “please” in the first sentence is positioned in a subordinate clause, but the second sentence is a simple one. Thus, polysemy co-operates with a meaningful syntactic structure for the sake of funniness.
(6) “Have you heard my last speech?” asked a political haranguer of a wit.
“I sincerely hope so.” was the reply. (Flier 35)
In (6) “last” appears in two meanings: 1. ‘most recent’, 2. ‘final’. Both of them represent different scripts. The first speaker asks a common question but the other party has different implication. His reply serves as a trigger into a non-bona-fide mood of communication. As it is usual, the “hidden” meaning ‘final’ becomes clear at the end of the joke. The second speaker’s reply “I sincerely hope so.” operates here as anaphor and gives a feedback to the word “last”. Influenced by this, the hearer reinterprets the key word. Contextual elements also participate in the joke organisation. “Political haranguer”, possessing negative semantic overtones helps the hearer to switch into the non-bona-fide script.
Polysemantic jokes make up the largest group in the corpus analysed in our pa
per. It is not by chance, since English is known as a highly polysemantic language.
Besides, theoretically there are many possibilities for creating distant semantic op
positions, in other words, funny linguistic coincidences, among the innumerable meanings of polysemantic lexical units.
In reality, between polysemy and homonymy (the latter is also characteristic of English) one can find rather nebulous, however crucial, boundaries.
1.4. Paronymy
Paronymy is a lexicosemantic phenomenon which relies on the interaction of formal similarity of lexical items and their (more or less) distant semantic content.
Words sharing these features are called paronyms. The intentional interplay on the features mentioned above is called paronomasia.
(7) The foreman looked the applicant for work up and down.
“Are you a mechanic?” he asked.
“No, sir,” was the answer, I’m a McCarthy.” (Flier 18)
(8) Two ladies were attending a concert or something at the Civic Auditori
um. Seated in the parquet, they looked about them.
“Nice building”, said one lady. “What style of architecture is it?”
“I’m not quite sure, said the other lady, but I think it’s Reminis
cence.” (Flier 29)
The humorous effect of (7) comprises paronomasia built up from two words with similar phonetic appearance. It is noteworthy that there might be a slight dif
ference between the oral and written versions of (7). When perceived auditively, the punch line is easier to catch. Contrary to this, the similarity of words “me
chanic” and “McCarthy” is a little bit harder to perceive in their written form. In
terms of semantics it means that the written version causes more significant com
municative tension, consequently, may produce funniness of higher value than the oral one.
Some structural elements of (7) also participate in the creation of humour. The second part of the interrogative sentence and that of the negative-declarative one constitute a parallel construction, which helps in the positioning of the punch line.
Besides, the phrase “was the answer” is placed also appropriately. This structural arrangement provides the best timing of the punch line that explodes at the very end of the joke.
The funniness of (7) obtains a further increase by the intertwining of factors mentioned above and culturally based semantic factors connected with national stereotypes. “McCarthy”, being a telling name, refers to the ‘Scottish people’. It must be also added that the Scottish are considered as ‘thick men’ which fully fits into the underdog role of the figure in (7).
(8) is peculiar by one of the paronyms being omitted. The right word
“Renaissance” is mistakenly replaced with the wrong one (semantic distortion).
The audience can guess the word “Renaissance” with the help of the other per
son’s indication ‘style of architecture’. The punch line culminates at the end of the joke because the above indication is not completed. It is the word “Reminiscence”
that triggers the switch from one script into the other.
1.5. Extralexical jokes
The interaction of peripheral and central semes of a word provides adequate se
mantic tension being due to weak associative bounds.
(9) Movie Director: “Unmarried?”
Applicant: “Twice”(Flier 26)
(10) Sergeant: “What was your occupation before entering the Army?”
Rookie: “Travelling salesman, sir.”
Sergeant: “Stick around, you’ll get plenty of orders here.” (Flier 35)
In (9) the lexical item “unmarried” evokes the word “divorced”. They share the seme ‘being out of marriage’. The latter semantic feature is not necessarily includ
ed in the conceptual part of the above lexical units. The main point is that the ap
plicant puts together two words that are somehow associated with each other. This mental manipulation becomes known through his/her respond given to the ques
tion. Thus, he/she has been revealed as a consequence of his/her inappropriate an
swer. One more detail can be significant here. In job interviews it is unusual to ask
“Are you unmarried?” The request commonly used in this situation is “Are you married?”. Thus, there is an additional contextual twist in (9) used for adjusting the situation for a better joke.
Joke (10) plays purely on peripheral semes. “Salesman” is ‘a person whose job it is to sell goods, e.g. in a shop or in people’s homes’. “Orders” are not mentioned in this definition, but they are associated with the given word in our consciousness.
Naturally, the sergeant means “commands” when mentioning “orders”. As a result the hearer of the joke witnesses a shift based on homonymy.
Endre Lendvai
1.6. Lexicosemantic innovation
When the meaning of a certain lexicosemantic item sets up the centre of the humorous effect, it also can happen as a result of deviance against the existing lexi
cosemantic rules. In (11) the second speaker confuses the slang word “noodle”
‘head’ with the parts of the car.
(11) Traffic Cop: “Use your noodle, lady! Use your noodle!”
Lady: “My goodness! Where is it? I’ve pushed and pulled everything in the car. (Flier 23)
The narrator of (12) creates a new lexical item providing it with a funny inter
pretation.
(12) Worker to his friend: “I’m taking a honey-day vacation this year. You know that is when you stay home and the whole time your wife says:' Honey, do this and Honey, do that.'” (Flier 28)
Joke (13) relies on the seeming contradictions of the English word formation system.
(13) A reader of a newspaper doesn’t understand: “Why goods sent by ship constitute a cargo, while goods sent in a car are a shipment?”
(Flier 35)
The slang lexical item occurs for the lady like an unknown technical term.
A “Honey-day” and its humorous interpretation serve as a funny lexical innova
tion. The reader in (13) seemingly does not understand the arbitrariness of many lexical units that exist in language. All the manipulations of the given collection of jokes in this section make use of the interrelations between signifiers and their meanings, be it in reality or in the joke teller’s fantasy.
2. Syntactic and contextual jokes
As a matter of fact, all jokes are contextual. We have learned that lexicoseman
tic jokes occur in certain contexts. It is the context where the constituents of hu
morous effect are situated. It is the contextual elements that maintain proper links among joke-constituents.
On the other hand, there are special syntactic and contextual devices that serve as a means of humorous effects, too. This is why we have the grounds to make up some groups due to syntax and context.
2.1. Syntactic polysemy
Syntactic structure provides the possibility for different perception of the mes
sage conveyed. Let us consider some examples of the given model.
(14) He (dejectedly): “You’ve played the deuce with my heart.”
She (archly): “Well, didn’t you play the knave?” (Flier 7)
(15) An officer was halted on his approach to the boot camp by a greensent- ry. In disgust over sentry’s challenge of “Who is here?” the officer shouted: “Me, jackass.”
“Advance, jackass,” was the solemn reply, “to be recognised.” (Flier 18) (16) Patron: “Do you ever draw pictures in the nude?”
Artist: “No, I usually wear a smoking jacket.” (Flier 19)
Usually it is unintentional that the first speaker produces a sentence which can prove ambiguous, interpretable correctly or erroneously. But it is usually intention
al that the second speaker chooses the wrong interpretation of the original state
ment and formulates his response in order to create a joke. Polysemy, in this case, emerges as ambiguity. The misinterpretation serves like a trigger of funniness.
In (14) the first speaker utilises the set phrase “to play the deuce with some
body’s heart” in its figurative sense ‘You have made me heart-broken’. The second speaker catches the message and gives a witty response playing, partly, on the syn
tactic structure of the previous utterance. Her answer includes the same syntactic pattern. At the same time, she benefits from the phrase “to play the knave” that conveys simultaneously both of its meanings: the one connected with card-playing
‘to play the card between the ten and the queen’, and the other in the sense ‘to act as a dishonest man’. Additionally, the wittiness increases on account of the second speaker’s allusion to the card-playing term “to play the deuce”.
(15) plays on the misinterpretation of the sentence “Me, Jackass”. As a result, there is a switch from “jackass” ‘You are a jackass’. (“Jackass” - form of address) into “jackass” ‘I am a jackass’, (“jackass” - apposition). The second speaker retorts to the first one accepting his utterance as a form of self-recognition.
As for (16), “in the nude” has two interpretations at a syntactic level: 1. ‘to draw naked human figures’, 2. ‘to draw pictures having no clothes on’. It is the artist who switches into a grotesque script evoking laughter.
One last remark needs to be made concerning syntactic polysemy. If to have a strict approach to the issues in analysis, polysemy can be also regarded as syntac
tic homonymy. This case takes place, for instance, in (15) and (16). Forms of ad
dress can be distinguished clearly from appositions. Semantically they are distinct enough to be recognised as homonyms.
2.2. Implication and presupposition
Depending on context and situation, sentences can convey a great variety of communicative content. So far we have seen kinds of misinterpretation based on the opposition of typical and non-typical (deviant) interpretations of certain sen
tences.
Implicational issues differ from the latter by being more contextual and situa
tional. “The implied idea can be ignored, overlooked or, most commonly, wrongly interpreted by a person perceiving the statement. This is usually revealed by what he says in reaction to the sentence with implication.” (Potcheptsov 21)
(17) “What did you divorce your husband for?”
“Two hundred dollars a month.” (Flier 9)
Endre Lendvai
(18) A man met another in a hotel lobby. While not remembering who he was, feeling certain that he was acquainted with him, he held out his hand and said: “I’m sure I have met you some where”. “No doubt”, was the reply, “I have been there often.” (Flier 10)
(19) “I whish I had enough money to buy an elephant”.
“What on earth do you need an elephant for?”
“I don’t. I just need the money.” (Flier 12)
According to the standard usage, the first speaker in (17) in inquires the hu
man, moral or psychological reasons of the given divorce. Comparing to this, the response is surprising for being too plain and ordinary. Concerning (18), the sen
tence “I have met you somewhere.” is almost idiomatic in its pragmatic meaning
‘I must remember you’ or ‘We are certainly acquaintances’. The second speaker ig
nores this conventionalism, he switches into non-bona-fide mood of communica
tion. The whole manipulation has its grammatical background. The pronoun
“there”, possessing a deictic function, usually indicates specific places. By that rea
son it is not compatible with indefinite pronouns.
In (19) the first speaker intends to express his desire to have a great amount of money. “To buy an elephant” plays the role of a simile with the meaning ‘a lot’.
Since this is not recognised as a usual way of expressing great amounts, it may well be misunderstood. As a result, the message implicated in the first speaker’s utter- anceter having been wrongly interpreted.
In practice there might be controversial specimens concerning the distinctions between implications and presuppositions. As a rule, they co-occur in many jokes.
2.3. Zeugma
“Zeugma is the use of a word in the same grammatical but different semantic relations to two adjacent words in the context, the semantic relations being, on the one hand, literal, and, on the other, transferred.” (Galperin 150)
(20) “That’s Mrs. Fitz-Jones. You never see her without her husband and her Dachshund.”
“Well, they make a very good pair.” (Flier 16)
(21) “There is a man outside with a wooden leg named Smith.”
“What’s the name of his other leg?” (Flier 21)
(22) From Atlanta Journal: “Wanted a mahogany living room table, by a lady with Heppelwhite leg.” (Flier 27)
In (20) “husband” and “Dachshund” have the same grammatical but different semantic relations. By this reason, it is ambiguous who makes a very good pair. In terms of the joke telling mood one might think of the husband and the dog. In (21), once again, the confusion arises as a result of the contradictory relation be
tween the syntactic and the semantic structures. The given word order provides the possibilities for constructing collocations as follows: a) “a man with a wooden leg”, b) “a man named Smith”, c) “a wooden leg named Smith”. All the versions are correct grammatically, while semantically c) is erroneous. It is so bizarre, it makes
people laugh. (22) is created by the same model that takes place in (21), but it is more realistic because of being an advertisement. Ads differ from usual texts by their laconic style.
Zeugmatic constructions are used often in wisecracks and gags as well.