11PDAVIS@GALLUA.BITNET (Pete Davis) (04/12/91)
Index Number: 14777
OK. I really should be copping some badly needed REM time, but I
gotta respond to this. I maintain a firm "No Comment" on the
emotional issues in this string, but I want to try to clear up a
factual misunderstanding.
Flame shields up, Mr Sulu.
Stephen White responds to James Womack:
SW> JW> Humor is a cultural experience.
SW>
SW> Humour is culturally independant. Culture merely provides a
SW> "database" of known things to ensure understanding of the joke.
Humor is not culturally independent, because (with some exceptions,
like slapstick) humor is intimately based on language, and language
and culture are inseparable.
What does or doesn't make a joke funny is *how* it more a question
of *how* it done, rather than *what* is done. The artistry in humor
consists of being able to set up a plausible situation, with a
plausible and unremarkable outcome, then providing an unanticiated
but still plausible outcome. (Gawd, that sounds pompous).
The art comes from manipulating the rules of language/culture,
which must be shared by the joker and the jokee. That's why
6-year-old English speakers love knock-knock jokes, but puns fly
right over their heads. They haven't developed enough awareness of
the rules of the language. For example:
"Do me a flavor and help me finger this out."
(I wish my ASL/Deaf-culture were good enough to give an equivalent
example in sign. Anyone else want to try?)
A six-yr-old will think, "That's stupid; it doesn't make any
sense." But an adult will understand the wordplay involved, the
intent of the pun, and might still think "That's stupid." Humor is
relative, not absolute.
To someone who knows ASL, but doesn't know enough about English to
be able to play with it, that isn't funny either. It's
English-funny, but it's not ASL-funny.
The crititical part of a lot of humor is the *wordplay*. Being able
to really play with words (which is a lot like playing with
reality) means being able to understand the literal meaning of
what's signed/said, and the way the rules were twisted to get from
the Set Up to the Punchline. "Funniness" is in the way language is
used to misrepresent reality.
Culture also influences humor. Henny Youngman could say, "Take my
wife. Please" or Rodney Dangerfield can say, "I don't get no
respect." and English-speaking Americans, who grew up in the
post-WWII, television culture will "get it", a Russian or a
Namibian or an ASL-signer won't, because those two lines are
cultural institutions. Their funniness is in shared cultural
experience.
Anyhow, I just wanted to clear up a confusion of facts. I really
*REALLY* don't want to get involved in arguements over beliefs or
feelings. (Oh, I knew I shoulld have kept my hands in my lap, and
my big mouth shut.) Make any kind of claims you want about
communication brand names; just don't say anything insulting about
humor. It's an artform I love; in ASL AND English.
Besides, it seems that Stephen and James probably agree on a lot of
points here. Hopefully this thread won't develop into FLAME WARS Pt
99. May the farce be with you both. (Couldn't resist)
Have fun!
Pete Davis
11PDAVIS@GALLUA.BITNETStEpHeN.wHiTe@p1.f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org 11PDAVIS GALLUA.BITNET (StEpHeN wHiTe) (05/04/91)
Index Number: 15392
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
From: 11PDAVIS@GALLUA.BITNET (Pete Davis)
(I hope the above is the correct way of replying)
JW> Humor is a cultural experience.
SW> Humour is culturally independant. Culture merely provides a
SW> "database" of known things to ensure understanding of the joke.
PD> Humor is not culturally independent, because (with some
PD> exceptions, like slapstick) humor is intimately based on language,
PD> and language and culture are inseparable.
So make language part of the cultural database, and what I said
still remains true.
The reason that I maintain this viewpoint is because it is the most
comprehensive in explaining humour. Trying to say that language is
the main provision for humour doesn't explain visual jokes,
laughter at near accidences, jokes about stuffups, and funny
situations.
I told this joke in sign language at the Deaf Youth group in
Canberra, and it was perfectly understood and well-received.
A little boy wanted to go to the toilet. He asked his grandma to
take him, but his mother offered to take him instead.
The little boy said "No, I want Grandma to take me."
The mother was hurt, and asked, "Why do you want Grandma to take
you?"
The little boy replied, "Because her hand shakes."
There is no language dependency in this joke - the basis for
understanding this joke lies in being a sexually aware human
being.
The key lies in understanding. Nobody can really laugh at something
they have no conceptualisation thereof.
People in SilentTalk have been asking for "Deaf Humour" classes. To
teach humour, the participants will have to incorperate the deaf
culture into their understanding, and ASL is an integral part of
deaf culture. ASL isn't _seperated_ into component units of
language and culture.
Take away language and culture, and the person will still be able
to laugh. This pretty much summarises my viewpoint that humour is
culturally independant.
Of course, you could go to the other extreme, and claim that being
human is a cultural experience. That would make your viewpoint
correct, however you did claim that humour is intimately based on
language, which I do not agree with.
I do appreciate your viewpoint though.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!681!853.1!StEpHeN.wHiTe
Internet: StEpHeN.wHiTe@p1.f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org