gtvh

Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms:A new approach to the issue of identity

construction via humor

ARGIRIS ARCHAKIS and VILLY TSAKONA

Abstract

The central aim of this paper is to apply the General Theory of Verbal Hu-

mor (henceforth GTVH; Attardo 2001) to conversational narratives and to

integrate it with sociopragmatic approaches. We consider script opposition

as a necessary prerequisite for humor and its perlocutionary e¤ect (i.e. elic-

iting laughter) as a secondary criterion for the characterization of a narra-

tive as humorous. Despite the fact that one of the most common social func-

tions of humor is the construction of solidarity and in-group identity, there

is relatively little sociolinguistic research on this issue. Thus, a more partic-

ular aim of this paper is to illustrate how humor can be a flexible discourse

strategy to construct particular aspects of social identities by focusing on a

particular aspect of humor encoded in GTVH terms as the knowledge re-

source of ‘‘target’’. It will be shown that, in our conversational data coming

from a cohesive group of young Greek males, interlocutors select targets ei-

ther outside or inside their group and that, while in the first case humor

criticizes the ‘‘other’’ behavior, in the latter case it serves as a correction

mechanism of in-group behavior in a rather covert manner. In both cases,

the target of humor reinforces the already existing bonds among group

members, while bringing the evaluative dimension of humor to the surface.

It is therefore suggested that the target of humor is an important heuristic

tool for describing its social function, revealing how it is exploited by con-

versationalists to project their shared beliefs and values, i.e. their social

identity.

Keywords: General Theory of Verbal Humor; identity construction; humor-

ous conversational narratives; target; group identity; laughter.

Humor 18–1 (2005), 41–68 0933–1719/05/0018–00416 Walter de Gruyter

1. Introduction

In a number of recent studies, it has been suggested that humor does not

occur accidentally in discourse aiming solely at the participants’ amuse-

ment, but rather that it can be a very e‰cient means of the expression of

identity, i.e. ‘‘a person’s sense of inclusion in (or exclusion from) a range

of social roles and ways of being’’ (Liechty 1995: 167). As Norrick sug-

gests (1993: 52, 107–109, 128–130), humor allows conversationalists to

demonstrate and test a wide variety of shared knowledge and attitudes.

Along the same lines, Brown and Levinson (1987: 124) remark that

‘‘since jokes are based on mutual shared background knowledge and

values, jokes may be used to stress that shared background or those

shared values’’ (see also Cutting 2000: 24, 118). In short, it is arguable

that one of the most common social functions of humor is the construc-

tion of solidarity and in-group identity, i.e. the sense of belonging to a

group (see Holmes 2000: 159).

In this paper, we draw upon the social constructionist paradigm (see

Sarbin and Kitsuse 1994) in order to discuss the construction of identity.

Our basic assumption is that identity is not an independent and discrete

category, but rather that ‘‘human social identities tend to be indetermi-

nate, situational rather than permanent, dynamically and interactively

constructed’’ (Duszak 2002: 2–3). In other words, identity is something

that people negotiate and co-construct in interactions, and not something

they are. From this perspective, linguistic and conversational humorous

choices can be seen as acts of identity, i.e. as discursive strategies by

means of which people can construct their situated sense of social identity

(see Holmes and Marra 2002a: 378).

While humor serves a wide range of functions in everyday social inter-

actions (e.g., Holmes and Marra 2002b), there have been few attempts

to study the complex functions of humor in particular social settings

(see Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997) and illustrate how humor can be a

flexible discourse strategy to construct specific aspects of social iden-

tities. In relation to these issues, the work of Holmes (2000) and

Holmes and Marra (2002a, 2002b) stand out, where the functions of

humor are examined mainly within professional workplaces and are con-

trasted to functions within other types of settings. Regarding the classi-

fication of humorous functions, an interesting distinction has been

put forward by Holmes and Marra (2002b: 70–71), based on a critical

discourse analytic approach (e.g., Fairclough 1995); they distinguish

42 A. Archakis and V. Tsakona

between ‘reinforcing’ and ‘subversive’ humor. The former reinforces exist-

ing power or solidarity relationships, whereas the latter challenges exist-

ing power relationships.

The central aim of this paper is to contribute to this line of research, by

applying the GTVH (see Attardo 1994, 2001) to an appreciation of the

social interaction of everyday talk. More specifically, we will concentrate

on the functions of conversational humor in the oral narratives of a group

of young Greek males. We will present an analysis of that part of our

data which we consider revealing for the particular ways in which humor

serves as a means of constructing youth identity and we will argue that

our young informants build up their humorous narratives around one or

more deviations from what they consider to be ‘‘normal’’ behavior, thus

criticizing the deviation(s) presented. By focusing on the target of their

humorous extracts (which is one of the six knowledge resources proposed

by the GTVH for analyzing humor; see next section), we will identify

who are the ‘‘incongruous others’’ these young people make fun of. We

will conclude by suggesting that their humor is mostly (but not exclu-

sively) reinforcing and, therefore, that it has a positive e¤ect on the unity

and solidarity of the group members through constructing and reinforcing

group boundaries.

2. Defining conversational humor

We begin our investigation by discussing the nature of humor and the cir-

cumstances under which an utterance (or a text) can be characterized as

‘‘humorous’’.

Various criteria have been proposed to identify humor and humorous

utterances in analyzing spontaneous conversational data. Hay suggests

that humor is ‘‘anything the speaker intends to be funny’’ (2000: 715,

2001: 56). However, she admits that this is not an objective approach,

and she adds that background knowledge, tone of voice, audience reac-

tion, and verbal clues all play an important role in establishing the hu-

morous intention of the speakers. In a similar vein, Holmes supports the

claim that humorous utterances are identified by the analyst ‘‘on the basis

of paralinguistic, prosodic and discoursal clues, as intended by the speak-

er(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some par-

ticipants’’ (2000: 163; see also Holmes and Marra 2002a: 380). Despite

their polysemous and multifunctional nature, all these paralinguistic and

Identity construction via humor 43

prosodic devices undoubtedly play an important role in the transmission

of the speakers’ humorous intent.

The most common of these devices is laughter. Humor is directly

(though not necessarily; see next paragraphs) related to laughter, since it

aims at provoking laughter. More specifically, the presence of laughter is

used in order to characterize an utterance or a text as humorous (Hay

2001: 56). Laughter may come from the speaker while producing his/her

own text or from the audience as a reaction to what is being said. Je¤er-

son (1985) claims that laughter is not always a matter of flooding out, but

that it is rather a systematic activity, a ‘‘methodic device’’ that has to be

examined in order to define how and where it occurs. Moreover, Kottho¤

supports that laughter is ‘‘the contextualization cue for humor par excel-

lence’’ (2000: 64). It seems, therefore, that laughter can at least establish

a humorous frame of interpretation for the utterance with which it

occurs.

It is obvious that laughter should not be overlooked, especially when

analyzing oral data. However, humor researchers have to be careful in

the examination of their data since it has been established that the pres-

ence of laughter does not necessarily imply the presence of humor. The

relationship between the two is not a symmetrical one. Humor does not

always result in laughter and laughter is not always an outcome of humor

(Attardo 1994: 10–13; see also Chapman and Foot 1996: 3; Morreall

2001: 294; Attardo 2003: 1288; for the variety and the polysemy of laugh-

ter see Poyatos 1993). Moreover, the absence of laughter is actually one

of several possible reactions to humor and does not necessarily mean fail-

ure to understand the humorous import of the utterance. In her analysis

of conversational data, Hay claims that the absence of any reaction to

humor may imply either support of the speaker’s humorous intent, since

no interruptions occur (2001: 65), or understanding but not appreciating

the humor in certain cases (2001: 70).

Moreover, a humor researcher has to take into consideration the facts

that humor is based on incongruity and that people react to incongruity

in various ways, only one of which is laughing. Fear, pity, moral dis-

approbation, indignation, disgust, confusion and problem solving are

equally possible reactions to incongruity (see Morreall 1983: 19; Lewis

1989: 8–11; Schulz 1996: 26–27). By contrast to the above, laughter

reveals that people choose to adopt a ‘‘playful’’ (i.e. humorous) attitude

towards incongruity, rather than a serious one.1 The presence, there-

fore, of laughter in the production and/or the reception of humorous


utterances reveals that they are presented and/or perceived as humorous

rather than serious.

In sum, laughter by itself cannot be considered as an adequate criterion

for defining a humorous utterance or text. It may reveal the conversation-

alists’ intention to face incongruity in a humorous way, but this is not

always the case. In addition, laughter is not the only possible reaction to

humor. To use Norrick’s terms (2000: 172), laughter is the ‘‘desired ef-

fect’’ of humor.

A di¤erent basis for defining humor and identifying humorous texts

is provided by the GTVH (in Attardo 1994, 2001), which defines humor

by focusing on the semantic/pragmatic content of humorous utterances

and texts and not on their paralinguistic or prosodic aspects. So far, the

GTVH has been applied to the analysis of jokes and, most importantly,

humorous narrative texts longer than jokes, such as poems, sitcoms, short

stories, novels etc. (see Attardo 2001). Attardo claims that ‘‘the GTVH is

broadened to include (ideally) all humorous texts, of any length. Specifi-

cally it is not limited to narrative texts, but also to dramatic and conver-

sational texts, in which there is no narrator (or there isn’t one in the text)’’

(2001: 28).

The GTVH suggests that humorous texts are divided in two classes.

The first class includes texts which are structurally similar to jokes and

end with a punch line. The second class includes texts in which humor is

not necessarily restricted to their end, but may be di¤used throughout

those texts, encoded through words, phrases or sentences. In the first

case, humor is based on the punch line that brings a script opposition2 to

the surface and causes the reinterpretation of the whole text (for the defi-

nition and the function of the script opposition in a text, see Raskin 1985

and Attardo 2001). The texts in the latter case contain a humorous com-

ponent and a non-humorous one called serious relief (Attardo 2001: 89).

The GTVH aims at describing and analyzing humorous texts of both

types, with stronger emphasis on the second one. This is the reason why

Attardo introduces a second kind of humorous line, the jab line (the first

one being the punch line). A jab line is a word, a phrase or a sentence in-

cluding a script opposition. Thus, jab lines are semantically identical to

punch lines. Their main di¤erence is their position: punch lines are always

final in a humorous text, while jab lines may occur in any part of it except

for the end. Therefore, their function is also di¤erent: punch lines disrupt

the flow of the humorous text, while jab lines are fully integrated in it and

indispensable to the development of its plot (Attardo 2001: 82–83).


Both kinds of humorous lines can be analyzed using six knowledge

resources:

– the script opposition, which is the necessary requirement for humor: a

humorous text is fully or partially compatible with two di¤erent and

opposed scripts (see also Raskin 1985);

– the logical mechanism, presenting the distorted and playful logic that

causes the script opposition;

– the situation, including the objects, participants, activities, places etc.

presented in the humorous text;

– the target, involving the persons, groups or institutions ridiculed by

humor;

– the narrative strategy, referring to the text organization of the humor-

ous text (narrative, dialogue, riddle etc.); and

– the language, which is responsible for the exact wording of the humor-

ous text (for a detailed discussion of all the knowledge resources, see

Attardo 2001: 1–28).

In the present study, we will use the GTVH in order to define and

analyze humorous utterances coming from natural conversations, i.e.

spontaneous speech produced by one or more participants in an interac-

tion. More specifically, our data consist of humorous oral narratives.

Since the GTVH has so far been applied exclusively to written narrative

material produced by a single narrator, we will attempt to take a prelimi-

nary step towards broadening the theory’s scope and, thus, reinforcing its

explanatory power.

In addition, for the purposes of the present study, the presence of

laughter (whether produced by the speaker or by the audience) is con-

sidered and used as a secondary criterion for the characterization of the

oral narratives under investigation as humorous. Therefore, narratives

that contained one or more script oppositions (in the form of jab lines),

but no laughter, either in their production or in their reception, were not

included into the corpus used for the present study.

To sum up, script opposition is considered here the necessary pre-

requisite for humor. However, at least in the analysis of oral con-

versational data, where laughter can be recorded and studied, laughter

can be considered as an additional, secondary criterion for the cha-

racterization of an utterance or a text as humorous, since it reveals

the conversationalists’ intention to adopt a humorous attitude towards

incongruity.


Finally, it should be pointed out that the identification of the inter-

pretation processes undertaken by the audience of a humorous narra-

tive is a very di‰cult problem, the solution of which lies outside the scope

of the present study. For practical purposes, we can apply the old distinc-

tion proposed by Pike (1967; see also Taylor and Cameron 1987) between

‘‘etic’’ and ‘‘emic’’ analysis to the two criteria already proposed and con-

sider the script opposition as a more etic, i.e. analyst oriented, criterion

and the presence of laughter as a more emic, i.e. participant oriented,

criterion for identifying humorous narratives.3 Thus, we adopt a princi-

pled analysis using reliable criteria: one may not get all the humor, but

one can be relatively certain that the extracts included are intended as

humorous.

3. The target of humor

The general aim of the present study is to analyze data from everyday

talk in GTVH terms. The more specific aim is to establish the social iden-

tity of a group of adolescents, by analyzing their conversations and their

humorous narratives in particular. We intend to accomplish that by using

the GTVH and, more specifically, by focusing on the target, one of the

knowledge resources proposed by the theory. We assume that a careful

examination of the target of these adolescents’ humor would help us es-

tablish what it is exactly that they actually laugh at. Thus, it will be sup-

ported that such an approach can reveal important aspects of humor ex-

ploitation in the direction of social identity construction.

The presence of a target in humor implies that humor can be consid-

ered as the expression of an aggressive intention. The superiority/hostility

theory of humor (see Raskin 1985: 36–38; Attardo 1994: 49–50, among

others) maintains that laughter results from a comparison between us

and the others or between our former self and our present self. Humor

(and laughter) occurs when this comparison reveals that we are in some

way ‘‘superior’’ to the others or that our present self is ‘‘superior’’ to our

former self. Through humor, the ‘‘superior’’ person can ‘‘attack’’ and at-

tempt to modify the behavior of the ‘‘inferior’’ one.

Since humor is based on incongruity, a humorous event has to deviate

from the norm, i.e. to contradict what is expected or normal in given

circumstances. In other words, a humorous event may usually be seen as

violating the conditions of the real world (or of a world perceived as


‘‘real’’). Since humor presents (sometimes even highlights) deviation from

the norm, it is directly related to and results from evaluation or criticism

procedures. Thus, humor can actually be used as a means of criticism.

Moreover, since humor is related to laughter, it becomes a means of atte-

nuated or covert criticism. Therefore, this kind of criticism originates in

someone who considers him/herself ‘‘superior’’ and is directed towards

someone or something considered ‘‘inferior’’. In this sense, the target of

humor may be a person, an institution or, generally, whatever causes an

incongruity and is attacked via humor for exhibiting this kind of ‘‘infe-

rior’’ behavior. Conversationalists laugh at the expense of whoever has

caused the incongruity with his/her deviant or abnormal behavior or

action. Besides, Bergson (1998) claims that laughter (which can be di-

rectly connected to humor, as mentioned above) has social meaning: it

aims at correcting our way of behaving, whenever this behavior deviates

from what is socially expected or approved.

In sum, people who become targets of humor are presented as being

responsible for incongruous/deviant actions. It will be shown that, in

our data, interlocutors select targets either outside or inside their social

group. It will be supported that, in the first case, humor criticizes the

‘‘other’’ behavior, while, in the latter case, it attempts to correct in-group

behavior in a rather covert manner. In both cases, humor and the target

of humor in particular, highlights what is considered ‘‘inappropriate’’

for the members of this group. Therefore, their common beliefs and

norms, which constitute basic aspects of their social identity, come to the

surface and humor reinforces the already existing bonds among group

members.

4. The data

This paper is part of a large-scale ethnographic study of everyday interac-

tion of youth groups in Patras (Greece).4 We have examined 30 conver-

sations ranging between 30 and 80 minutes. From these conversations

we have extracted 218 humorous narratives (as defined in Attardo 2001,

see previous section).5 Out of those, 46 were focused upon, because they

come from a single cohesive group of four young men. As our discussion

will show, these particular young men are very sensitive in doing in-group

identity via humor, targeting both out-group persons and institutions and


group members. Since our study is intended to be a small-scale one, aim-

ing mainly at testing the GTVH in natural conversations and integrating

it with sociopragmatic approaches, we will restrict ourselves to this piece

of data without making any unwarranted generalizations.

The data specifically analyzed in this paper are humorous narratives

coming from two conversations among four young males of 18 and two

researchers who are university students of about the same age, i.e. 20

years old. The researchers spent two months visiting the school of the in-

formants at least three times per week. They attended the school-courses

pretending that they were gathering material for their own university es-

says. During the breaks they tried to get acquainted with the students.

They managed to develop a fairly strong bond with our four informants

and tried to become their friends as peripheral members of the same

group. They spent their leisure time together (mainly weekends), exchang-

ing visits, going out for dinner or for a drink, etc. The recordings took

place in one of the researchers’ home after a long period of frequent inter-

actions. This place was chosen for convenience, since it provided a fairly

noise-free environment for the recordings.

The two conversations last 120 minutes and consist mostly of a succes-

sion of narrative performances (as defined in Georgakopoulou 1997), re-

volving around the school, family and religious life of the young friends.

In this way the adolescents try to introduce the researchers into their

everyday life. At the same time, the researchers try to keep their conver-

sational contributions down to a minimum, by showing interest in the

adolescents’ life and by maintaining a friendly supporting key (Hymes

1974). Notice that, as Blum-Kulka points out (1993: 391), the presence

of a new audience (in this case the researchers) may sometimes trigger

the narration of memories from a shared past.

Our knowledge about our informants comes from their own linguistic

representation of themselves in combination with the researchers’ ethno-

graphic observations about them: we know that they wear their hair long,

dress casually, wear earrings and badges of rock or punk groups and are

usually scru¤y. They are also reported to often act in a way that gets them

into trouble with their relatives, teachers, schoolmates, as well as the par-

ish priests and the local policemen. The rock-band they have created is

of special importance for them. Generally speaking, they systematically

choose to ‘‘refrain from’’ the way their peers are expected to think and

behave. All their claimed or inferred common beliefs and practices

show their common mode of socialization and their shared frames of


identification, as well as the close-knit relationship developed among

them. In Eckert and McConnell-Ginet’s terms (1992: 464), the four

friends form a ‘‘community of practice’’, since their group is defined

simultaneously by its membership and by the practices in which that mem-

bership engages. The informants’ appearance, reported actions and beliefs

indicate a prevalent group identity which, according to van Dijk (1988:

123), ‘‘involves a complex array of typical or routine practices, collective

action, dress, objects [ . . . ] and other symbols’’. As we will see in the anal-

ysis of the data, our informants dynamically and selectively invoke ele-

ments of their youth (sub)culture in their discourse while doing their

group identity (see also Georgakopoulou 1999: 125).

Previous research on these particular conversational data has revealed

the correlation between our informants’ discourse behavior and their

identity. Specifically, it has shown how their projected identity was the

result of specific discourse choices (see Archakis 2002; Archakis and

Vrakatseli 2002). In these papers, it has been supported that these adoles-

cents express their identity as group members during their story telling ac-

tivities, i.e. by ‘‘the act of narrating in real time, the actual performance

of a story before an audience’’ (as defined in Blum-Kulka 1993: 363).

More particularly, these adolescents have been found to use first-person

plural endings, to co-construct their narratives by using a collaborative,

polyphonic floor full of interruptions, and to perform successive narra-

tives with congruent structure and evaluation. This (sequential) organiza-

tion of narratives with a high involvement style and, therefore, a positive

politeness orientation (see Brown and Levinson 1987), presumably in-

dicates that the four adolescents are close friends who share common

experiences and values. On the other hand, in their tales involving ‘‘the

real-world building blocks used for the construction of the story’’ (Blum-

Kulka 1993: 364), the informants define the characteristics and the behav-

ior of people who do not belong to the same group with them, by using

implicit or explicit negative evaluation. Such people are usually their rel-

atives, teachers, priests or policemen, who appear in their stories and are

portrayed as ‘‘opponents’’.

In what follows, it will be shown that our informants often select either

the ‘‘opponents’’ or themselves to become the targets of their humor.

Thus, we will attempt to describe the way humorous narratives contribute

to the construction of our adolescents’ situated sense of group identity

and more particularly to the construction of salient social boundaries (cf.

Holmes and Marra 2002a: 379).


5. The analysis of the oral humorous narratives

All the humorous narratives examined for the purposes of the present

paper are personal anecdotes, i.e. narratives relating authentic personal

experiences or recycling a witty story heard elsewhere (for a detailed

description, see Norrick 1993: 45–57, 1994: 412). Almost half of them

(22 out of 46; see table 1) are jointly produced narratives (co-narrations):

usually two speakers participate more or less equally in the construction

of the narrative (as described in Norrick 1993: 57–59). Moreover, in

GTVH terms, all of these narratives belong to the second type of humor-

ous texts mentioned in the preceding section: they usually include two or

more jab lines. No narrative ending with a punch line has been found in

our conversational data (cf. Norrick 1993: 125).

A close examination of the humor in our data shows that all the hu-

morous utterances included in this corpus have a target.6 Furthermore, it

seems that there are two kinds of targets in these adolescents’ humorous

narratives: the out-group targets and the in-group ones. The out-group tar-

gets found in our data are some absent ‘‘others’’, like the interlocutors’

parents, their relatives, their school teachers, school in general, the

priests, the Church as an institution, the policemen, some of their fellow

students who do not belong to the same peer group, or even ‘‘unknown’’

people who happened to be present when the narrated events took place.

All those out-group targeted persons are considered to be the ‘‘oppo-

nents’’ for the members of this peer group (see previous section). In-group

targets found in the humorous narratives are present or absent members

of the same peer group, the whole peer group, or even the narrator him-

self. Finally, some narratives contained more than one in-group or out-

group target and some of them (12 out of 46; see table 1) contained both

kinds of targets at the same time (but not in the same jab lines).

Table 1. Description of the data

Narratives

including

out-group target(s)

Narratives

including

in-group target(s)

Narratives

including both

out-group and

in-group targets

Total

Monologic narratives 20 1 3 24

Co-constructed

narratives

12 1 9 22

Total 32 2 12 46


5.1. Out-group targets

We will now present five of these narratives, in order to describe the func-

tion of the target and of humor in general.7 In example (1), Yannis is the

main narrator, while Nikos and the two researchers comment on various

points of the narration. There is a single out-group target, Maria. Maria

is one of Yannis’ schoolmates, she is described as a fairly good student

and she does not belong in the specific peer group. It seems that Yannis

and Nikos do not like her. During a biology test, for which Yannis came

unprepared, he asked Maria to help him:

(1) Yannis: Now see, I was taking a biology test on Monday, it was my

first class; there were me, Filippos and Anna and the teacher puts

the three of us at the very back desks, one by one//

Res(earcher)1: Ahaa.

Yannis: I sit down and in front of me was Maria//

Nikos: Oh, fuck ( )//

Yannis: I was absolutely unprepared. As the teacher asks me to start

writing, I see the questions on the paper, elliptic circle, I push her,

Maria what is elliptic circle? Hurry up Maria, hurry up, hurry up Ma-

ria.8 And as I am writing now, on my desk there is only a piece of

paper and a pen, nothing else, she gives me her whole notebook.

Copy, she says to me and she puts it on my desk and she leaves.9

((everybody laughs)). She turns her back on me putting the notebook

open on my desk//10

Res.2: Oooh//

Yannis: I throw it back to her, take it11 fucking asshole I tell her,

what are you doing?12 And then//

Res.1: Why didn’t you take it? Couldn’t you do that in view of every

one?

Yannis: I couldn’t do it. The teacher would see me. It was the whole

notebook, I couldn’t hide it. A very small piece of paper was all I

needed, not to mention that the answer wouldn’t be right anyway//13

Res.1: Yes, the answer wouldn’t be right anyway14

Yannis: Sure, she might have written down something else.

Res.1: ( )

Yannis: Maria, Maria what is the elliptical circle? I asked her. And

could you believe it? She passes back to me a small piece of paper

and what does she write on it? What do you want, she says to me,


why are you bothering me?15 Please stop doing that. Are you out of

your mind, I write to her, write down what is an elliptical circle. And

what does she say to me? I’ll tell you later.16

Nikos: ((laughter)) She will tell you later ((laughter))17

Yannis: The bell rings. The teacher comes in//

Nikos: ((laughter))//

Yannis: She ((the teacher)) was behind my back, I was the only one,

nobody else was in the classroom. Me and Maria. Maria was still in

the classroom. Maria was sitting in front of me, the teacher was be-

hind my back. Maria turns back to me and what does she say to me?

Elliptical circle is. And the teacher can hear her.18 ((laughter from the

audience)). And the teacher has her eyes on her, while Maria hasn’t

realized what is going on.19

Res.2: ( )

Yannis: Though I was trying to write, I throw the pen and I sit like

this, and I say to myself let her talk and she had turned behind with-

out the teacher seeing her and she keeps on saying.20 Elliptical circle is

the cells which cause this ee:: e: and she keeps on talking, talking,

talking and the teacher is watching her,21 well she is absolutely mad.

Res.2: ((laughter)) Oh God.

The analysis of the jab lines found in this narrative suggests that the hu-

mor is based on Maria’s incongruous actions: she was slow to give an an-

swer to Yannis, while there was actually no time to waste (notes 8, 16 and

17); she left a notebook on the desk while they were having a test, instead

of writing the answer on a small piece of paper and handing it to him fur-

tively (notes 9–12). Yannis and one of the researchers also think that

Maria would not know the correct answer anyway (notes 13 and 14).

Although Maria was not sure about what Yannis wanted from her (note

15), she finally gave him the correct answer while the teacher was near

them and was watching them (notes 18, 19 and 21).

Even before the first humorous utterance (see note 8), it is obvious that

Maria is a possible target of humor: Nikos’ comment ‘‘Oh fuck’’ at the

beginning of the narration indicates that they do not like her. All the jab

lines appear to have the same target, i.e. Maria (there is a single exception

in the jab line analyzed in note 20, where the teacher becomes the target

of humor; needless to say, the teacher is also an out-group target). The

audience seems to agree on the selection of the main target by making hu-

morous contributions to the narrative (notes 14 and 17) and also by


laughing at Maria’s ‘‘incompetence’’. Thus, they align themselves with

the narrator’s view about her behavior. Therefore, it can be argued,

firstly, that the narrator evaluates the behavior of an out-group person

via humor and, secondly, that the participants display and reinforce their

common beliefs by commenting on the narrative and by showing their

agreement with the narrator’s choice of target.

Our next example (2), a jointly constructed narrative by Yannis and

Nikos, describes the way Yannis’ uncle and father behaved when the Ec-

umenical Patriarch had visited Patras. It therefore includes two out-group

targets:

(2) Nikos: His uncle/ who was the one that//

Yannis: Well my uncle/ the Ecumenical Patriarch had come to Pa-

tras a month or so ago and/ my uncle was going to Saint-Andreas

church and as he was trying to get into the church, well all around

there was a regular crowd of policemen, a lot of security, and I see

my uncle now//

Nikos: On T.V. you mean.

Yannis: On Channel Super B, crawling through the feet of the police-

men22 and//

Nikos: pushing forward 23

Yannis: tearing down24 ( ) doing all sorts of crap and he comes

up to the Ecumenical Patriarch, and he moves, he touches him and

starts crossing himself like this //25

Nikos: As if the Patriarch were God himself.26

Yannis: Well, y’ know some two days later my father bumps into my

uncle, ah he says to him I touched/ I touched the Ecumenical Patri-

arch.27 I got holiness.28 And my father goes like this, really? Give me

some, will you29 ((laughter))

The humor of narrative (2) is based, first of all, on the excessive enthusi-

asm of Yannis’ uncle to get close to the Patriarch and touch him (notes

22–24). Another script opposition emerges from the fact that both Yan-

nis’ uncle and father treat the Patriarch as if he were a saint (notes 25–

27) and they appear to believe that they will be blessed only by touching

him and then by touching each other in order to ‘‘share’’ the blessing

(notes 28 and 29). Yannis and Nikos seem to think that this kind of be-

havior is incongruous and worth laughing at. Thus, they ridicule two re-

spectable figures and appear to challenge their status. The co-narration of

the story in example (2) indicates that at least two members of the group


agree on their evaluation regarding the behavior of the out-group targets.

In such cases, the common targets of humor are chosen by more than one

of the participants who build their contributions collaboratively.

In our data all four friends were found to criticize in a humorous

manner the ‘‘incompetent’’, ‘‘ignorant’’ or ‘‘deviant’’ behavior of out-

group figures of respect and/or authority, like teachers (see also example

5), priests and policemen (cf. Schrauf 2000: 131).

5.2. In-group targets

We will now present cases where one or more members of the group

become the targets of humor, i.e. where one or more in-group targets are

present in a single oral narrative. The following narrative (3) refers to the

way some members of the group behaved while attending mass at church.

Nikos and Yannis become co-narrators:

(3) Nikos: Well, we reach the church, there is a crowd all around, actu-

ally a very large crowd, how shall we get in we wonder, how shall we

get in, ((and we tell him)) Yannis you go first and tell them that we

are members of Saint-Andreas church //30

Yannis: Please, please we are for the holy bread, let us through //31

Nikos: Now hear this, the old ladies open up a passage by falling

back one upon another, y’ know, we squeeze through32 and we cross

ourselves and get to the icon of Jesus, such a big icon where Jesus

was not on the crucifix//

Yannis: It was Jesus with the mantle, the holy wreath

Res.: I see, I see

Yannis: The stick/ well where he holds the lance and seems to be

leaning forward somehow, pondering over the blood. So I go and

kiss the icon, so does Kostas, and I hear now Nikos, well guys, ask-

ing loudly in the middle of the church of Saint-Andreas who on earth is

this?33 The asshole was confused, I don’t know what was wrong with

him, he hadn’t realized it was Jesus [Christ]34

Nikos: [((laughter))]

Yannis: You asshole I tell him, do wake up, it’s Jesus Christ I tell

him, can’t you see that?35 What’s that you are saying guys, this can’t

be Jesus.36

Nikos: ((laughter))


Yannis: Look man I tell him, it’s Jesus all right, and he stood

gaping.37

Nikos: I was stuck, man!38

Yannis: It was Jesus Christ, you asshole.

Nikos: I’ll go have a second look.39

The script oppositions in (3) are based on the following facts: firstly, the

young men pretend to be carrying holy bread, in order to pass through

the crowd and get inside the over-crowded church (notes 30–32); sec-

ondly, one of them, Nikos, does not recognize Christ’s figure on an icon

(notes 33–39). In jab lines 30–32, there is an out-group target of humor,

since the adolescents laugh at the people they tried to fool by pretending

to be carrying holy bread. However, in the majority of jab lines (notes

33–39), the target is Nikos, a group member, who is also a co-narrator

and is actually recorded to be laughing at himself.

The most important aspect in such cases is the fact that, at least in our

data, no in-group targeted humor actually results in a row or a fight be-

tween the group members. Since one or more group members laugh at the

expense of another one (whether absent or present), a quarrel would be a

possible and even expected outcome if the participants were not close

friends but some socially unintegrated individuals. However, the absence

of a quarrel does not mean that humor loses its evaluative force (as de-

scribed above). On the contrary, it shows that the bonds between the

group members are so strong that they cannot be threatened by such an

evaluation or criticism. Therefore, the in-group target of humor and the

laughter caused by it eventually highlight the intimacy shared by the

group members and the safety they feel while ‘‘attacking’’ their friend’s

deviant behavior. Conversationalists who share an intimate relationship

commonly use humor in their attempt to correct or modify each other’s

behavior without jeopardizing the already existing close relationship (see

also Norrick 1993: 56–57; Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997: 280; Holmes

2000: 174).

Sometimes the whole group becomes the target of humor. Their com-

mon features and actions are presented in the narrative and become the

source of humor. This can be illustrated in following narrative (4), which

is about the friends’ musical performance at a school event:

(4) Res.1: O.K., you are really a nice group, the thing is in the school

celebration you didn’t sound too good.

Nikos: O.K., sure, we should have special instruments // [to]


Res.1: [of course]

Res.2: The guy who was singing//

Res.1: Well, you ((the musicians)) were O.K., but the singer couldn’t

be heard//

Res.2: [yes]

Nikos: [Mmm]

Res.1: You could be heard all right.

Nikos: Well, in the first piece one of the guitars was out and we didn’t

finish the song properly,40 in the second piece I don’t know what actu-

ally happened, but I had my fingers benumbed and I couldn’t play, I

couldn’t hold the tempo ((of the guitar)) properly.41

Res.1: ((laughter))

Res.2: And what about the third song//

Nikos: We were afraid that the third song would be a total disaster,

and that the audience wou/ would boo us, well we did perform this

one perfectly,42 but I don’t know how this happened.

Res.1: ((laughter))

In GTVH terms, the first two script oppositions are based on the fact

that the sound of the group playing was good, although one of the guitars

was broken (note 40) and the guitarist was out of tempo (note 41). The

third script opposition (note 42) is based on the fact that the third song

was well performed, even though everybody had fears for the opposite.

In these jab lines, the whole group becomes the target of humor and the

narrator focuses on the shared experience and responsibility for what

happened. Thus, he is confirming and strengthening the bonds between

the group members.

Finally, there are a number of narratives where the narrator

becomes the target of humor, i.e. he is ‘‘attacking’’ himself in a typical

self-disparaging manner. This can be illustrated in narrative (5), which is

about a school visit to the new Metro of Athens. Yannis relates a funny

incident involving his teacher of English and himself. Nikos contributes

to the narration (but not to the humor of the story) by adding some de-

tails of the narrated event:

(5) Yannis: Well, what a funny turn, Anastasopoulou, the teacher came

up to me//

Nikos: Hm, hm ((the teacher)) of English//

Yannis: of English

Res.1: She had come along??


Yannis: [Well I in the mean time]

Nikos: [yes]

Yannis: Well I in the meantime I had that return ticket, I get onto

the Metro and start chewing it, I practically ate the whole thing //43

Res.1: You mean you swallowed it?

Yannis: No//

Nikos: He spat it out, man.

Res.1: ( )

Yannis: So upon getting o¤ on arrival, I spit it all out. After, errh,

after about a quarter the teacher comes up to me, in front of quite

a crowd of first graders, you know, and she says to me, Yannis I

think I saw something, she says//

Res.1: ( )//

Yannis: No, she says I think I saw something she says, and I didn’t

like it at all. You gonna say some crap again, I say,44 please, she says

( ) in front of the first graders ((in a low voice)). Come on now I

say, out with it;45 I saw you spitting she says, it wasn’t me spitting I

say, I just ate the ticket;46 the ticket she says, and how are we sup-

posed to get back, she says, I don’t know, I tell her, I was hungry,47

why didn’t you buy me anything to eat,48 I was hungry, I am hungry

now, I am famished,49 go away I tell her or I’ll eat you up,50 I am

starving, starving //51

Res.2: Poor teacher//

Res.1: ((laughter))

The jab lines in narrative (5) are based on the following script opposi-

tions: the student chewed his ticket, while he still needed to use it in the

Metro (notes 43 and 46); his excuse for chewing the ticket was that he

was very hungry and he wanted to satisfy his appetite (notes 47, 49, and

51); he also spoke to his teacher very rudely while at the same time trying

to make fun of her (notes 44–45); he claimed he had expected from his

teacher to provide food for him, rather than having made his own ar-

rangements (note 48) and, finally, he threatened to eat her so as to ap-

pease his pangs of hunger (note 50). All these script oppositions form the

humorous component of this oral narrative.

The analysis of the jab lines shows that example (5) contains both kinds

of target: the narrator’s teacher is the out-group target (notes 44, 45 and

50), and he himself is the in-group one (notes 43, 46–49 and 51). It is ob-

vious that humor allows conversationalists to show that they can laugh


not only with what other people do, but also with their own incongruous

actions. And to the extent that a group values humor, its e¤ective self-

deprecatory use can add to a person’s prestige (cf. Holmes 2000: 169). In

this sense, humor enables conversationalists to express and verify their be-

liefs and values and to present their social identity in a pleasant and

amusing way. Consequently, humor can bring the group members closer

to each other, since the narrator makes everybody laugh at his own ab-

normal behavior by relating his story.

Discussion

Based on the analysis above we can argue that our young informants use

conversational humor as a means for the construction of their identity.

More specifically, the humor targeting out-group people and institutions

(prevailing in our data, see table 1) highlights the kinds of behavior these

adolescents do not accept or strongly disapprove of. So, the ‘‘others’’ are

ridiculed via humor. Since in our data the ‘‘others’’ are usually figures of

respect and/or authority (e.g. parents, relatives, teachers, good students,

policemen, priests), this sort of out-group targeting humor becomes a dis-

course device encoding critical intent, namely a means of ‘‘delegitimat-

ing’’ the figures that are invested with power in the status quo (cf. van

Dijk 1988: 259). From this perspective we can characterize this kind of

humor as ‘‘subversive humor,’’ i.e. humor which challenges the status

quo, using Holmes and Marra’s term (2002b: 70). However, we have to

make clear that, since the focus of humor is not a present participant,

the humorist is in a much safer position. On the other hand, the accep-

tance of humor targets by the rest of the participants, through laughter

or through their contribution to the current narrative (in cases of co-

narrations), indicates the group membership of these adolescents. It

should be stressed here that most of the co-constructed humorous nar-

ratives, where the participants build on the contribution of others, are

found in out-group targeting (see table 1). In this way, our young in-

formants do collegiality by laughing at the respectable and authoritative

figures outside their peer group. As Boxer and Cortes-Conde point out,

‘‘what makes us part of an in-group is having in common an ‘out-group’ ’’

(1997: 283). Thus, in our data the reinforcing-solidarity function of out-

group targeting humor is gained via ridiculing the ‘‘others’’.


In-group members also become the target of humor. In-group targets

are not preferred in our data and usually are co-present with out-group

targets in the same narrative (see table 1). In this case, the identity of our

young informants as members of this particular group is also strength-

ened in a very interesting way: As the narrator’s target comes from inside

the group, it is expected to threaten his positive face (Brown and Levin-

son 1987) or that of someone else from the same group. However, the hu-

morous ‘‘shots’’ seem to be blank, after all, since they do not result in a

rude or violent reaction by anyone of the participants in none of the hu-

morous narratives of our data including in-group targets. It seems that

this feeling of bonding between group members gives them the opportu-

nity to shoot their humorous ‘‘arrows’’ even towards their fellow partici-

pants. Holmes (2000: 174), elaborating on a similar issue, suggests that

‘‘[ jocular] insults between those who know each other well are also sig-

nals of solidarity and markers of in-group membership (i.e. ‘we know

each other well enough to insult each other without causing o¤ence’)’’

(see also Antonopoulou and Sifianou 2003).

Hence, in-group targeting humor can encode critical evaluation or cor-

rective intent regarding the assumed as deviant behavior of the co-present

friends without risk. In this way humor becomes a means of attenuated or

covert criticism, a flexible device for reconciling criticism with solidarity.

In Norrick’s terms (1994: 423, 2003), even if there is aggression in the

message, there is solidarity in the humorous meta-message. Therefore,

the in-group targeting humor between the equal members of our group,

despite its critical load, has a positive influence on the unity and solidarity

of the group, by raising and reinforcing the already existing bonds be-

tween them, and, at the same time, by adding an amusing tone in the con-

versation (see among others Pizzini 1991: 477; Holmes 2000).

In addition, of special importance is the fact that, in our data, there

is some sort of ‘‘showing o¤ ’’ of the unity and solidarity of the group.

This is evident in the cases of the co-constructed narratives, where the

co-narrators capitalize on their common background and beliefs. But,

most of all, it is evident in that, most of the times, in-group targets co-

occur with out-group targets (see table 1). In such cases, the risk of

‘‘attacking’’ a group member is balanced out through the common

‘‘attack’’ at an ‘‘opponent’’.

To sum up, in our data, humor can function at least in two parallel and

opposing ways: a) as a device of criticism towards people either inside or

outside the group, and b) as a positive politeness strategy (see Brown and


Levinson 1987) reinforcing the group bonds. The critical function of hu-

mor highlights the deviation that can be observed inside or outside the

group and, hence, indicates what is considered ‘‘accepted’’ behavior by

the humorist(s). The reinforcing-solidarity function of humor is closely re-

lated to and actually results from the critical function: When the target is

a respectable or authoritative person or an institution outside the group,

the young friends form a unity against this particular person or institu-

tion. When the target is a person inside the group, the threat is avoided

due to the raised protective solidarity among the four friends (cf. what is

said about inclusive and exclusive humor in Attardo 1994: 50).

More generally, these findings seem to reveal how humorous narratives

can function as an index of the identity of the narrators, namely as a lin-

guistic lens through which to discover peoples’ portraits, i.e. their views of

themselves and of others as situated in a social structure (cf. Schi¤rin

1996: 170, 199). This analysis, as Schi¤rin (1996: 199) would claim,

‘‘forces us to attend to speech activities, and to the interactions in which

they are situated, as a frame in which our social roles are realized and our

identities are displayed’’.

7. Concluding remarks

Previous research on conversational humor has come to conclusions rele-

vant and similar to ours (see Pizzini 1991; Norrick 1993, 1994; Boxer

and Cortes-Conde 1997; Kottho¤ 1999, 2000; Holmes 2000; Hay 2001;

Holmes and Marra 2002a, 2002b, among others). However, what we pro-

pose in the present paper is a new methodology for analyzing humorous

conversational data. The present study attests that the GTVH can actu-

ally be applied not only to written texts, but also to oral, conversational

data. The GTVH forms a useful tool firstly for recognizing humorous ut-

terances or turns on the basis of their semantic/pragmatic content rather

than their paralinguistic features, and secondly for analyzing such utter-

ances in a principled manner. Furthermore, this new approach constitutes

an important heuristic tool for describing the social meaning and function

of humor more accurately, namely by elaborating on the characteris-

tics of its target. And it is this knowledge resource that can reveal the

‘‘bonding’’ and ‘‘biting’’ — in Boxer and Cortes-Conde’s (1997) terms —

function of humor, which renders it a very flexible device for the con-

struction of participants’ identity.


In our research, we have focused on the target as the most useful

knowledge resource for our purposes, because it brings the evaluative di-

mension of humor to the surface and, hence, distinguishes between what

our young informants consider ‘‘appropriate’’ behavior from what they

consider ‘‘inappropriate’’ behavior. Thus, humor reveals information re-

garding the humorists’ shared beliefs and values, and proves to be a very

e‰cient means for the participants to construct their situated sense of so-

cial identity.

Our socio-linguistic perspective reveals that two basic theories of hu-

mor, i.e. incongruity theory and superiority/hostility theory, are actually

combined in the GTVH frame of analysis. In other words, the GTVH not

only succeeds in describing the cognitive nature of humor (i.e. humor as

incongruity), but can also highlight at least some of its social aspects (i.e.

humor as hostility or social corrective). This social corrective function of

humor emerges clearly from the study of the target knowledge resource.

Consequently, the application of the GTVH to the analysis of conversa-

tional data can actually be a systematic theoretical tool for analyzing data

and lead to some very interesting conclusions regarding the use of humor

in natural settings and interactions.

University of Patras

University of Athens

Notes

Correspondence address: [email protected]

The authors wish to thank Eleni Antonopoulou for insightful discussions, the anonymous

reviewers for helpful suggestions and Athena Apostolou-Panara, Stella Lambropoulou, and

Anna Roussou for reading an earlier version of this paper.

1. Mulkay (1988) argues that there are two distinct ways to construct and interpret real-

ity: the humorous mode and the serious mode. The selection between the two modes de-

pends on the social context in which this reality is to be constructed and/or interpreted.

2. The terms ‘‘incongruity’’ and ‘‘script opposition’’ have practically the same meaning in

this context. Script-based theories for humor (the GTVH included) have been classified

as incongruity theories (Attardo 1994: 49).

3. This perspective is compatible with Attardo’s claims about the GTVH, namely that

this is ‘‘a theory of the speakers competence [in the Chomskyan sense] at producing/

interpreting longer humorous texts, not a theory of their performance doing so’’

(italics in the original; 2001: 30). The GTVH emphasizes the ‘‘potential’’ production/

interpretation, not the ‘‘actual concrete’’ interpretation of a humorous text; it is neither


a theory of the audience nor a theory of the speaker (Attardo 2001: 30–35; see also

Attardo 2003).

4. This project (K. Karatheodoris, 2425) is funded by the Research Committee of the Uni-

versity of Patras (Greece).

5. It should be pointed out that the humorous narratives on which our analysis has been

based were not the only humorous genres found in our data. There were also teases,

humorous fictionalization (as described in Kottho¤ 1999; see also fantasy humor in

Hay 2001), and irony. However, in this paper we focus on the humorous narratives.

6. However, it should be noted that the target is considered to be an ‘‘optional parame-

ter’’ (Attardo 2001: 23–24).

7. The narratives presented are translated from Greek by the authors. For the transcrip-

tion of our data, we use the following conventions:

// indicates interruption

/ indicates self-correction

[xzx] indicates simultaneous talk

( ) indicates the incomprehensible parts of utterances

((xzx)) includes comments of the authors

All the jab lines included in the five humorous narratives presented in this paper are

marked in italics in the text and they are defined and analyzed in the notes following

the GTVH (as presented in Attardo 2001). Attardo uses the following abbreviations

for the six knowledge resources analyzing humor: SO for ‘‘script opposition’’, LM for

‘‘logical mechanism’’, SI for ‘‘situation’’, TA for ‘‘target’’, NS for ‘‘narrative strategy’’

and LA for ‘‘language’’.

It should be noted that the careful analysis and identification of the knowledge re-

sources other than the target also contribute to the clear appreciation of the target of

humor. Especially the script opposition knowledge resource is directly related to the

content of the butt of the joke, thus contributing to a systematic, principled analysis

of what participants laugh at.

8. SO: normal/abnormal, Maria should give the answer quickly/Maria does not reply

immediately, LM: juxtaposition, SI: Yannis asked for Maria’s help in a biology test,

TA: Maria, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

9. SO: normal/abnormal, Maria should tell him the answer/Maria leaves a notebook on

his desk, LM: faulty reasoning, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

10. See note 9.

11. SO: normal/abnormal, Yannis uses the notebook/Yannis throws the notebook back at

her, LM: juxtaposition, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

12. See note 9.

13. SO: actual/non actual, Maria knew the answer/Maria would not know the answer,

LM: faulty reasoning, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

14. SO: actual/non actual, Maria knew the answer/Maria would not know the answer,

LM: faulty reasoning, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: audience’s comment, LA: irrelevant.

15. SO: normal/abnormal, Maria understands what Yannis wants/Maria does not under-

stand what Yannis wants, LM: ignoring the obvious, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: nar-

ration, LA: irrelevant.

16. See note 8.

17. SO: normal/abnormal, Maria should give the answer quickly/Maria does not reply

immediately, LM: juxtaposition, SI: Yannis asked for Maria’s help in a biology test,

TA: Maria, NS: audience’s comment, LA: irrelevant.


18. SO: actual/non actual, Maria should give the answer while not attracting the teacher’s

attention/Maria talks to Yannis while the teacher is watching them, LM: ignoring the

obvious, SI: co-text, TA: Maria, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

19. See note 18.

20. SO: actual/non actual, Maria should give the answer while not attracting the teacher’s

attention/Maria talks to Yannis while the teacher is watching them, LM: ignoring the

obvious, SI: co-text, TA: teacher, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

21. See note 18.

22. SO: normal/abnormal, normal behavior/exaggerated behavior, LM: exaggeration, SI:

Yannis’ uncle wanted to get close to the Ecumenical Patriarch, TA: Yannis’ uncle, NS:

narration, LA: irrelevant.

23. See note 22.

24. See note 22.

25. SO: actual/non actual, the Ecumenical Patriarch is human/the Ecumenical Patriarch is

God, LM: false analogy, SI: co-text, TA: Yannis’ uncle, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

26. See note 25.

27. See note 25.

28. SO: actual/non actual, holiness is not contagious/holiness is contagious, LM: reason-

ing from false premises, SI: co-text, TA: Yannis’ uncle, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

29. SO: actual/non actual, holiness is not contagious/holiness is contagious, LM: reason-

ing from false premises, SI: co-text, TA: Yannis’ uncle and father, NS: narration, LA:

irrelevant.

It should be noted here that, in our data, conversationalists often make fun of their

relatives who are (or are presented to be) conservative, religious and superstitious peo-

ple. In this context, it is possible that the father is sharing the uncle’s beliefs about ho-

liness, i.e. that he is being serious in asking the uncle for holiness. In other words, our

analysis is based on the assumption that the father and the uncle have common beliefs

and attitudes.

The anonymous reviewers pointed out that another interpretation of this jab line is

more likely: not only the two narrators, but also the father may be laughing at the

uncle’s behavior. In this case, the only out-group target is the uncle and the two narra-

tors happen to agree with the father’s assessment. However, it should be taken into ac-

count that, in the rest of our data, group members do not usually share their relatives’

and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. Nevertheless, it is not impossible for the two narra-

tors to construct a figure in such a way that s/he can support their own communicative

point. In other words, our group members might have acted as authors, i.e. as persons

who edit the story by re-sequencing the events and shaping the dialogues (cf. Go¤man

1981: 144–5). Thus, they might have constructed the father’s figure and words in line

with their own way of thinking, in order to ridicule the religious and superstitious be-

havior of the uncle more e¤ectively.

30. SO: actual/non actual, they were not from St. Andreas’ church/they pretended to be

from St. Andreas’ church, LM: ignoring the obvious, SI: the adolescents tried to enter

a very crowded church, TA: people around them, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

31. See note 30.

32. See note 30.

33. SO: normal/abnormal, people recognize Christ’s figure/Nikos did not recognize it,

LM: exaggeration, SI: co-text, TA: Nikos, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

34. See note 33.

35. See note 33.

36. See note 33.


37. See note 33.

38. SO: normal/abnormal, people recognize Christ’s figure/Nikos did not recognize it,

LM: exaggeration, SI: co-text, TA: Nikos, NS: statement, LA: irrelevant.

39. See note 38.

40. SO: normal/abnormal, the group’s sound was very good/the guitar was broken, LM:

contradiction, SI: the rock group played in a school celebration, TA: the group, NS:

narration, LA: irrelevant.

41. normal/abnormal, the sound of the group was very good/the guitarist was out of

tempo, LM: contradiction, SI: co-text, TA: the group, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

42. normal/abnormal, they expected the third song to be a disaster/the third song was well

performed, LM: reversal, SI: co-text, TA: the group, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

43. SO: normal/abnormal, people do not eat tickets/Yannis ate his ticket, LM: reasoning

from false premises, SI: the teacher tells Yannis o¤, TA: Yannis, NS: narration, LA:

irrelevant.

44. SO: normal/abnormal, students speak politely to their teachers/Yannis spoke to her

rudely, LM: exaggeration, SI: co-text, TA: teacher, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

45. See note 44.

46. See note 43.

47. SO: normal/abnormal, people eat food when hungry/Yannis ate his ticket, LM: rea-

soning from false premises, SI: co-text, TA: Yannis, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

48. SO: normal/abnormal, Yannis should have bought himself something to eat/Yannis

expected his teacher to buy him something to eat, LM: reasoning from false premises,

SI: co-text, TA: Yannis, NS: narration, LA: irrelevant.

49. See note 47.

50. SO: normal/abnormal, people eat food when hungry/Yannis wanted to eat his teacher,

LM: reasoning from false premises, SI: co-text, TA: teacher, NS: narration, LA: irrele-

vant.

51. See note 47.

References

Antonopoulou, Eleni, and Maria Sifianou

2003 Conversational dynamics of humour: The telephone game in Greek. Journal

of Pragmatics 35 (5), 741–769.

Archakis, Argiris

2002 Narrative and identity: Evidence from the analysis of youth conversations

[in Greek]. Glossologia 14, 137–154.

Archakis, Argiris, and Sofia Vrakatseli

2002 The contextual identification of interruptions: Evidence from the analysis of

youth conversations [in Greek]. Glossa 55, 29–50.

Attardo, Salvatore

1994 Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

2001 Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin/New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

2003 Introduction: The pragmatics of humor. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9), 1287–

1294.


Bergson, Henri

1998 The Laughter [Greek translation by Vasilis Tomanas]. Athens: Exantas.

Blum-Kulka, S.

1993 ‘You gotta know how to tell a story’: Telling, tales, and tellers in American

and Israeli narrative events at dinner. Language in Society 22 (3), 361–402.

Boxer, Diana, and Florencia Cortes-Conde

1997 From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal

of Pragmatics 27 (3), 275–294.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson

1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Chapman, Antony J., and Hugh C. Foot (eds.)

1996 Humor and Laughter. Theory, Research and Applications. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cutting, Joan

2000 Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

van Dijk, Teun A.

1988 Ideology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications.

Duszak, Anna (ed.)

2002 Us and Others, Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet

1992 Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-

based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 461–490.

Fairclough, Norman L.

1995 Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. Lon-

don: Longman.

Go¤man, Erving

1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra

1997 Narrative Performances: A Study of Modern Greek Storytelling. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

1999 Doing youth in and through conversational narratives. In Verschueren, Jef

(ed.), Language and Ideology, Selected papers from the 6th International

Pragmatics Conference, vol. 1. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Associa-

tion, 125–142.

Hay, Jennifer

2000 Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of

Pragmatics 32 (6), 709–742.

2001 The pragmatics of humor support. Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research 14 (1), 55–82.

Holmes, Janet

2000 Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the work-

place. Discourse Studies 2 (2), 159–185.

Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra

2002a Humor as a discursive boundary marker in social interaction. In Duszak,

Anna (ed.), Us and Others, Social Identities across Languages, Discourses

and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 377–400.

2002b Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor:

International Journal of Humor Research 15 (1), 65–87.


Hymes, Dell A.

1974 Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Je¤erson, Gail

1985 An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In van Dijk, Teun

A. (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3, Discourse and Dialogue.

London: Academic Press, 25–34.

Kottho¤, Helga

1999 Coherent keying in conversational humor: Contextualising joint fictionalisa-

tion’’. In Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk, and Ejia Ventola (eds.), Coherence in

Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create it and How to Describe it. Se-

lected Papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24–

27 April 1997. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 125–150.

2000 Gender and joking: On the complexities of women’s image politics in hu-

morous narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (1), 55–80.

Lewis, Paul

1989 Comic E¤ects. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Humor in Literature. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Liechty, Mark

1995 Media, markets and modernization: Youth identities and the experience of

modernity in Kathmandu, Nepal. In Amit-Talai, Vered, and Helena Wul¤

(eds.), Youth Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. London: Routledge,

166–201.

Morreall, John

1983 Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.

2001 Sarcasm, irony, wordplay, and humor in the Hebrew Bible: A response to

Hershey Friedman. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 14

(3), 293–301.

Mulkay, Michael

1988 On Humor. Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Basil

Blackwell.

Norrick, Neal R.

1993 Conversational Joking. Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-

versity Press.

1994 Involvement and joking in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (3/4),

409–430.

2000 Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

2003 Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9), 1333–1359.

Pike, Kenneth L.

1967 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Human Behaviour. The Hague:

Mouton.

Pizzini, Franca

1991 Communication hierarchies in humour: Gender di¤erences in the obstetri-

cal/gynaecological setting. Discourse and Society 2 (4), 477–488.

Poyatos, Fernando

1993 The many voices of laughter: A new audible-visual paralinguistic approach.

Semiotica 93 (1/2), 61–81.

Raskin, Victor

1985 Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.


Sarbin, Theodore R., and John I. Kitsuse

1994 Constructing the Social. London: Sage Publications.

Schi¤rin, D.

1996 Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic construction of identity. Language

in Society 25 (2), 167–203.

Schrauf, Robert W.

2000 Narrative repair of threatened identity. Narrative Inquiry 10 (1), 127–145.

Schulz, Thomas R.

1996 [1976] A cognitive-developmental analysis of humour. In Chapman, Antony J.,

and Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humor and Laughter. Theory, Research and Appli-

cations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 11–36.

Taylor, Talbot J., and Deborah Cameron

1987 Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.


gtvh

Documents