Since the 1970s, humor research has begun to develop, and to this day, it is now
an independent discipline of study itself. The most established humor theories are:
Incongruity-Resolution Theory, Raskin’s (1985) Semantic Script Theory of Humor,
and finally Raskin and Attardo’s (1991) General Theory of Verbal Humor. See Hung
(2002) and Shu (2007) for a more detailed account on these theories.
The original Incongruity-Resolution Theory (IRT) is proposed in the 1970s, and
it explains how a joke works: the joke consists of two parts, namely the set-up of the
joke and the punchline of the joke. There is always some level of discrepancy, known
here as incongruity, between the set-up and the punchline of a joke; when the hearer
of the joke detects such incongruity, his or her cognition will try to resolve such
incongruity. If the incongruity is resolved, that is, the hearer reinterprets the set-up,
and the less obvious interpretation is evoked, and so is the humor. If the incongruity is
not solved, the hearer will not be able to reinterpret the set-up, and no other
interpretation will be evoked, and neither is humor. When this situation happens, the
hearer will not regard the joke as funny, or feel puzzled and lost, or even question the
validity of the said joke. The model of incongruity resolution is represented in the
following figure (cited from Hung 2002: 6):
Figure 2: Incongruity-Resolution Model (adopted from “A Two-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons”, by J. Sul 1972)
In Figure 2, when one reads a story or a cartoon set-up, one would predict the
ending. If the ending is just like what is predicted, then there is no surprise, hence no
humor. If the ending is not like what is predicted, incongruity ensues. At this stage,
one must find a solution to the surprise in order to make sense of the whole story. If a
rule is found to explain the joke, one laughs at this joke; if no such rule is found, one
would feel puzzled, and don’t “get” the joke. This model is essentially a cognitive
approach into humor.
In Raskin’s Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH), the notion of “scripts” is
brought into the analysis of joke. SSTH is the first effort to theorize verbal humor. It
does not concern non-verbal humor, i.e. humor without a text, such as funny costumes,
Prediction
poses, facial expressions or movements. Likewise, the non-verbal humor of The Big
Bang Theory will not be part of the data. SSTH focuses on the joke hearer’s cognition
of two compatible yet somewhat conflicting scripts. Jokes consist of two overlapping
scripts, and only one of them is revealed at the beginning of the joke. The other script
is hidden until the punchline appears. Once the punchline appears, the joke hearer will
activate another script. That is, the set-up of a joke begins with a script, but the
punchline forces the hearer to backtrack and reinterpret the joke text with another
script (De Mey 2005: 73). According to Raskin, ambiguity and contradiction triggers
the switch of semantic script.
Attardo & Raskin (1991) and Attardo (1994) further revise the SSTH into
General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). GTVH introduces six Knowledge
Resources (KR) that serve as parameters of jokes. These parameters are:
(1) Script Opposition (SO)
A script is an interpretation of a joke. SO refers to the fact that there must be
two opposing yet compatible script in a joke. Lack of SO will not produce
any humor. This parameter is also required in SSTH.
(2) Logical Mechanism (LM)
This parameter deals with how the two scripts in the joke are brought
together.
(3) Situation (SI)
Jokes must set a situation: who the participants are and when and where the
event takes place.
(4) Narrative Strategy (NS)
NS concerns with the narrative organization of the joke: a story, a riddle, a
dialogue, etc.
(5) Target (TA)
Target refers to the individual, or the group, that the joke makes fun of.
(6) Language (LA)
This parameter refers to all levels of linguistic elements when verbalizing a
joke.
By combining the different values of these parameters, one can (theoretically)
generate an infinite number of jokes, i.e.
Joke: {SO, LM, SI, NS, TA, LA}
Attardo (1997) argues that Incongruity-Resolution Theory can be mapped onto
GTVH. The parameter of Script Opposition corresponds to the incongruity part, while
the parameter of Logical Mechanism corresponds to the resolution part. These two
parameters are crucial in making a joke. If these two parts are omitted, then the
produced text can hardly be understood as a joke. Attardo (2002) further delves into
the parameter of Logical Mechanism, and proposes a list of all known logical
mechanisms:
Role reversals Potency mappings Role exchanges Vacuous reversal Chiasmus Juxtapositions
Garden path Faulty reasoning Figure ground reversal Almost situations Self-undermining Analogy
Inferring consequences Missing link Reasoning from false premises
Coincidence Implicit Parallelism Parallelism
Proportion False analogy Ignoring the obvious
Exaggeration Cratylism Field restriction
Metahumor Referential Ambiguity Vicious cycle
Table 1: List of all known Logical Mechanisms (Attardo 2002, cited in Shu 2007:
21-22)
In the data, example of some Logical Mechanisms can be found, such as
“Exaggeration,” “Role reversals,” and “Ignoring the obvious” can be found. But in
The Big Bang Theory, very often the Target of the joke is nerd, and it is framed that
these Logical Mechanisms are indexical to nerds, that is, these are the behaviors nerds
tend to do. Of course, the Target can shift to non-nerds (as a comparison between
nerds and non-nerds) or people of certain ethnicity, but the main focus is the nerds.