Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics, Humour and the Internet
Edited by Francisco Yus
[Internet Pragmatics 4:1] 2021
► pp. 12–27

The internet and social media as a theme and channel of humor

| The University of Warsaw
This paper deploys the tools of relevance theory to establish a common pragmatic mechanism operating in humorous texts (stand-up comedy, jokes, sketches) themed on the omnipresence of the Internet and social media in human life. It is postulated that this mechanism resides in incongruity between shared cultural assumptions expressing high esteem for rational actions and informative communication, and private assumptions endorsed by internet application users, who find phatic communication pleasurable. It is claimed that incongruity so understood is not a central but additional pragmatic mechanism in various humorous genres, and it tends not to be resolved, as tension between these two sets of assumptions lingers on.
Keywords: cultural representations, incongruity, normative bias, private beliefs, phatic internet, relevance theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Internet-themed humor: Concise analysis of selected examples
  • 3.Private and collective representations in humor production and comprehension
  • 4.Tension between private and collective representations as incongruity
  • 5.Incongruity resolution and implicated conclusions
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00059.pis
References (27)
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 2001. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin. 1991. “Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4): 293–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carr, Alan. 2004. Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Human Strengths. Hove: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiaro, Delia. 1992. The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London: Routlege. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2012. “Garden paths, red lights and crossroads: On finding our way to understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying jokes.” Israeli Journal of Humor Research 1(1): 6–28.Google Scholar
Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 2008. “Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research?” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics: 45–62.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 31, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria. 2015. The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, Roger J., and Sam Glucksberg. 1989. “How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1181: 374–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morreall, John. 1983. Taking Laughter Seriously. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Pilkington, Adrian. 2000. Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka, and Maria Jodłowiec. 2018. “Weak communication, joke targets and the punch-line effect: A relevance-theoretic account.” Studies in Polish Linguistics 131: 25–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Ritchie, Graeme. 2004. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedikides, Constantine, Tim Wildschut, Jamie Arndt, and Clay Routledge. 2008. “Nostalgia past, present, and future.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(5): 304–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suls, Jerry M. 1972. “A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons.” In Psychology of Humor, ed. by Jeffrey. H. Goldstein, and Paul.E. McGhee, 81–100. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thai, Michael, Alex Borgella, and Melanie S. Sanchez. 2019. “It’s only funny if we say it: Disparagement humor is better received if it originates from a member of the group being disparaged.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 851: 103838. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2002. “Truthfulness and relevance.” Mind 1111: 583–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Relevance and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2004. “Pragmatics of humorous strategies in El club de la comedia .” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez-Reiter, and María Elena Placencia, 320–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “An inference-centered analysis of jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of humorous communication.” In Irony and Humor: Highlights and Genres, ed. by Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, and M. Belén Alvarado Ortega, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic internet.” In Emotion in Discourse, ed. by Laura Alba, and Lachlan Mackenzie, 161–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Avner. 2009. “The social function of humor in interpersonal relationships.” Society 47(1): 11–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar