ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

Humor
Studies
Editorial Board

Editor
Salvatore Attardo
Texas A&M University–Commerce

Managing Editors
Audrey C. Adams
Texas A&M University–Commerce
Hilal Ergül
Texas A&M University–Commerce

Editorial Board
Thomas E. Ford
Western Carolina University
Sharon Lockyer
Brunel University
Owen Hanley Lynch
Southern Methodist University
Moira Marsh
Indiana University–Bloomington
Jessica Milner Davis
University of Sydney
John Morreall
College of William & Mary
Victor Raskin
Purdue University
 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

Humor
Studies

Editor
Salvatore Attardo
Texas A&M University–Commerce

1
 Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

FOR INFORMATION: All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
SAGE Publications, Inc. and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
2455 Teller Road publisher.
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com Printed in the United States of America.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
55 City Road
Encyclopedia of humor studies / editor, Salvatore
London, EC1Y 1SP Attardo, Texas A&M University.
United Kingdom
volumes cm
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Includes bibliographical references and index.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 ISBN 978-1-4129-9909-0 (hardcover)
India
1. Laughter–Encyclopedias. 2. Wit and humor–Encyclopedias.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. I. Attardo, Salvatore, 1962- editor of compilation.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub BF575.L3E53 2014
Singapore 049483 809.7–dc23 2013036046

Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson

Developmental Editors: Diana E. Axelsen,
Shirin Parsavand
Production Editor: Tracy Buyan
Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez
Reference Systems Coordinators: Anna Villaseñor,
Laura Notton
Copy Editors: Diane DiMura, Colleen Brennan
Typesetter: Hurix Systems (P) Ltd.
Proofreaders: Lawrence W. Baker, Kristin Bergstad
Indexer: Virgil Diodato
Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta
Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire 14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents

Volume 1
List of Entries vii
Reader’s Guide xi
About the Editor xix
Contributors xxi
Foreword xxvii
Introduction xxix

Entries

A 1 F 225
B 75 G 253
C 103 H 277
D 193 I 377
E 207 J 407

Volume 2
List of Entries vii
Reader’s Guide xi

Entries

K 431 S 657
L 435 T 747
M 467 U 779
N 541 V 783
O 547 W 793
P 551 X 807
R 619

Appendix A: Chronology 815

Appendix B: Humor Associations and Publications 831
Index 837
List of Entries

Absurdist Humor Burlesque

Advertisement Byzantine Humor
Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
Aesthetics Caricature
African Humor. See Akan Humor; Igbo Humor; Carnival and Festival
South African Humor Carnivalesque
Aggressive and Harmless Humor Cartoons
Aging and Humor Cervantes, Miguel de
Akan Humor Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor
Ambiguity Children’s Humor and Giftedness
American Indian Cultures, Humor in Children’s Humor Research
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Children’s Humor Stages
Ancient Greek Comedy Christianity
Ancient Roman Comedy Cinema. See Movies
Anecdote, Comic Clergy
Animal-Related Humor Clowns
Anthropology Clowns in Medical Settings
Anti-Proverb Cognitive Aspects
Anxiety College Humor
Aphorism Comedy
Appreciation of Humor Comedy Ensembles
Arabic Culture, Humor in Comedy of Manners. See Genres and Styles of
Aristophanes Comedy; High Comedy
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Comic Books
Arousal Theory (Berlyne) Comic Frame
Art and Visual Humor Comic Opera
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Comic Relief
Audience Comic Strips
Audiovisual Translation Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews
Comic World
Benign Violation Theory Commedia dell’Arte
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic Complexity
Biblical Humor Comprehension of Humor
Bisociation Computational Humor
Blackface. See Race, Representations of Confucianism
Blason Populaire Conservatism. See Personality, Humor and
Boccaccio, Giovanni Conversation
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor Cooperation, Principle of. See Maxim
Buddhism Coping Mechanism

vii
viii List of Entries

Coulrophobia HBQD. See Humor Styles Measurement

Creativity Health Benefits of Humor, Physical
Cross-Cultural Humor Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological
Crosstalk. See Xiangsheng; Xiangsheng, Heritability
History of High Comedy
Culture High-Context Humor
History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
Defense Mechanism History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
Depression History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Design History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Development of Humor China
Dialect Humor History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Disparagement. See Aggressive and Harmless Europe
Humor History of Humor: Modern Japan
Doggerel History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Education, Humor in History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
Epigram History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Ethnic Jokes Contemporary
Ethnicity and Humor Hoax and Prank
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor Hobbesian Theory
Exaggeration Homosexuality, Representation of
HSQ. See Humor Styles Measurement
Fabliau Huaji-ists, The
Factor Analysis of Humor Items Humor, Computer-Generated
Factor Analysis of Humor Scales Humor, Etymology of
Failed Humor Humor, Forms of
Farce Humor and Relational Maintenance
Feast of Fools Humor Content Versus Structure
Film. See Movies Humor Detection
Folklore Humor Generation. See Computational Humor
Fools Humor Group
Foolstowns Humor Markers
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Humor Mindset
Jestbooks Humor Production
Framing Theory Humor Styles
Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory Humor Styles Measurement
Humor Styles Questionnaire. See Humor Styles
Gag Measurement
Gallows Humor Humor Theories
Gelotophobia Humorist
Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck. See Humor
Gender Roles in Humor Styles Measurement
General Theory of Verbal Humor. See Linguistic Humorous Names
Theories of Humor Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of
Genres and Styles of Comedy
Goldoni, Carlo Identity
Graffiti Igbo Humor
Greek Visual Humor Improv Comedy
GTVH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor Incongruity and Resolution
 List of Entries ix

Insult and Invective Movie Humor Types

Intercultural Humor Movies
Internet Humor Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale.
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy See Factor Analysis of Humor Items
Irony Music
Islam Music Hall
Musical Comedy
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Jewish Humor National and Ethnic Differences
Joke Cycles Native American Cultures, Humor in. See
Jokes American Indian Cultures, Humor in
Joking Relationship Nonsense
Journalism
Judaism Obscenity
Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor. See
Linguistic Theories of Humor
Kyōgen
OSTH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor

Lampoon Paradox
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing Parody
Laughter, Psychology of Pastiche
Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of Pattern Recognition
Lazzi Pedagogy
Legal Education Personality, Humor and
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor Persuasion and Humor
Limericks Philogelos
Linguistic Theories of Humor Philosophy of Humor
Linguistics Phonological Jokes
Literature Pirandello, Luigi
Low Comedy Platonic Theory of Humor
Plautus
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S. Play and Humor
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the Poetry
United States Pointe
Management Politeness
Marriage and Couples Political Humor
Masks Positive Psychology
Mathematical Humor Postmodern Irony
Mathematics and Humor Practical Jokes
Maxim Prejudice, Humor and
Mechanisms of Humor Presidential Humor
Medieval Visual Humor Psychiatric Disorders
Menander Psychological Distance
Metaphor Psychology
Mime Psychotherapy, Humor in
Mirth Punch Line
Misdirection Puns
Mock Epic Puppets
Mockumentary
Molière Rabelais, François
Monty Python Race, Representations of
x List of Entries

Rakugo Southeast Asia, Cartooning in

Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Speech Play
Reception of Humor Spoofing
Reframing Spoonerism. See Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Puns
Relationships, Nonromantic Sports
Release Theories of Humor SSTH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor
Religion Stand-Up Comedy
Resolution. See Incongruity and Resolution Stereotypes
Reversal Theory Stress
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Subversive Humor
Riddle Supreme Court
Ritual Clowns Surprise. See Incongruity and Resolution
Rituals of Inversion
Rituals of Laughter Tall Tale
Roman Visual Humor Taoism
Romantic Comedy. See Comedy; Genres and Targets of Humor
Styles of Comedy; Tragicomedy Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in
Classroom on
Sanskrit Humor Teasing
Sarcasm. See Irony Test Measurements of Humor
Satire Testing and Evaluation
Satire News 3 WD Humor Test
Satyr Play Tickling
Scatology Tom Swifty
Schwank Tragicomedy
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor Translation
Screwball Comedy. See Movies Travesty
Script Opposition. See Linguistic Theories of Trickster
Humor
Script-Based Semantic Theory of Humor. See Urban Legends
Linguistic Theories of Humor Uses and Gratifications Theory
Second Language Acquisition
Semantic Script Theory of Humor. See Linguistic
Variety Shows
Theories of Humor
Vaudeville. See Comic Opera; Music Hall;
Semantics
Musical Comedy; Sketch Comedy Shows;
Senryū
Travesty; Variety Shows
Sense of Humor, Components of
Verbal Dueling
Sexuality
Verbal Humor
Shakespearean Comedy
Share
Sick Humor Wellerism
Simple Form Witz
Sitcoms Workplace Control
Sketch Comedy Shows Workplace Humor
Slapstick Workplace Productivity
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns Workplace Resistance
Social Interaction
Social Network Xeroxlore
Sociology Xiangsheng
South African Humor Xiangsheng, History of
South American Literature, Humor in Xiehouyu
Reader’s Guide

Anthropology, Folklore, and Ethnicity Greek Visual Humor

Animal-Related Humor Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Anthropology Menander
Anti-Proverb Mime
Blason Populaire Philogelos
Carnival and Festival Platonic Theory of Humor
College Humor Plautus
Dialect Humor Roman Visual Humor
Ethnic Jokes Sanskrit Humor
Ethnicity and Humor Satyr Play
Feast of Fools
Folklore Components of Humor
Fools Ambiguity
Foolstowns Bisociation
Hoax and Prank Cognitive Aspects
Insult and Invective Complexity
Jewish Humor Creativity
Joke Cycles Humor Content Versus Structure
Joking Relationship Humor Mindset
National and Ethnic Differences Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of
Philogelos Incongruity and Resolution
Practical Jokes Maxim
Race, Representations of Mechanisms of Humor
Rituals of Laughter Misdirection
Social Network Nonsense
Stereotypes Play and Humor
Targets of Humor Punch Line
Trickster Reframing
Urban Legends Sense of Humor, Components of
Verbal Dueling Targets of Humor
Xeroxlore
Culture
Antiquity Anthropology
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Carnival and Festival
Ancient Greek Comedy Cross-Cultural Humor
Ancient Roman Comedy Culture
Aristophanes Education, Humor in
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Fools
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Foolstowns

xi
xii Reader’s Guide

Gallows Humor Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese

High-Context Humor Jestbooks
Humorous Names Greek Visual Humor
Intercultural Humor History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
Jewish Humor History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
Obscenity History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Puppets History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Race, Representations of China
Ritual Clowns History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Rituals of Inversion Europe
Scatology History of Humor: Modern Japan
Sick Humor History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
Sports History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Stereotypes History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
Verbal Dueling History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
Xiangsheng History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
Xiangsheng, History of Huaji-ists, The
Islam
Entertainment Industry Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Audience
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the
Audiovisual Translation
United States
Clowns
Masks
Comic Books
Medieval Visual Humor
Comic Frame
Menander
Comic Strips
Mock Epic
Internet Humor
Molière
Journalism
Philogelos
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Plautus
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the
Rabelais, François
United States
Sanskrit Humor
Mockumentary
Satire
Monty Python
Shakespearean Comedy
Movie Humor Types
Sitcoms
Movies
Sketch Comedy Shows
Music
Slapstick
Music Hall
Stand-Up Comedy
Puppets
Tall Tale
Satire News
Tragicomedy
Sitcoms
Travesty
Spoofing
Xiangsheng, History of

History
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Humor Theory
Arabic Culture, Humor in Aristotelian Theory of Humor
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Arousal Theory (Berlyne)
Biblical Humor Benign Violation Theory
Buddhism Bergson’s Theory of the Comic
Christianity Bisociation
Confucianism Evolutionary Explanations of Humor
Fabliau Framing Theory
Feast of Fools Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory
 Reader’s Guide xiii

Hobbesian Theory Semantics

Humor, Forms of Speech Play
Humor Theories Teasing
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy Tom Swifty
Pattern Recognition Translation
Platonic Theory of Humor Verbal Humor
Release Theories of Humor Wellerism
Reversal Theory Witz
Simple Form Xiehouyu
3 WD Humor Test
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Literature and Major Literary Figures
Absurdist Humor
Linguistics Ancient Greek Comedy
Ambiguity Ancient Roman Comedy
Anti-Proverb Anecdote, Comic
Aphorism Aphorism
Audiovisual Translation Aristophanes
Computational Humor Boccaccio, Giovanni
Conversation Carnivalesque
Cross-Cultural Humor Cervantes, Miguel de
Culture Comedy
Dialect Humor Comic Relief
Epigram Commedia dell’Arte
Exaggeration Doggerel
Failed Humor Epigram
Gender Roles in Humor Exaggeration
Humor, Computer-Generated Fabliau
Humor, Etymology of Farce
Humor, Forms of Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese
Humor Markers Jestbooks
Humorist Genres and Styles of Comedy
Incongruity and Resolution Goldoni, Carlo
Irony High Comedy
Jokes Humorous Names
Joking Relationship Inversion, Topsy-Turvy
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Linguistic Theories of Humor Kyōgen
Linguistics Lampoon
Maxim Limericks
Mechanisms of Humor Literature
Metaphor Low Comedy
Misdirection Menander
Phonological Jokes Mime
Pointe Mock Epic
Politeness Molière
Punch Line Nonsense
Puns Parody
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Pastiche
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Pirandello, Luigi
Riddle Plautus
Second Language Acquisition Poetry
xiv Reader’s Guide

Postmodern Irony History of Humor: Modern Japan

Puns History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Rabelais, François Huaji-ists, The
Rakugo Islam
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Kyōgen
Satire Rakugo
Satyr Play Senryū
Schwank Share
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
Senryū Taoism
Shakespearean Comedy Xiangsheng
Share Xiangsheng, History of
Simple Form Xiehouyu
South American Literature, Humor in
Tall Tale Europe
Tragicomedy Ancient Greek Comedy
Travesty Ancient Roman Comedy
Trickster Byzantine Humor
Witz Commedia dell’Arte
Fabliau
Greek Visual Humor
Mathematics, Computer Science,
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
and the Internet
History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Computational Humor History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China Europe
Humor, Computer-Generated History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
Internet Humor Lazzi
Mathematical Humor Medieval Visual Humor
Mathematics and Humor Pointe
Satyr Play
National, Ethnic, and Regional Humor Schwank
Witz
Africa
Akan Humor Middle East
Igbo Humor Ancient Egypt, Humor in
South African Humor Arabic Culture, Humor in
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor
Americas Byzantine Humor
American Indian Cultures, Humor in Islam
History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
South American Literature, Humor in Performing Arts
Ancient Greek Comedy
Asia Ancient Roman Comedy
Buddhism Burlesque
Confucianism Carnivalesque
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China Clowns
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Comedy
Jestbooks Comedy Ensembles
History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China Comic Opera
History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Commedia dell’Arte
China Farce
 Reader’s Guide xv

Gag Health Benefits of Humor, Physical

High Comedy Heritability
Improv Comedy Laugh, Laughter, Laughing
Lazzi Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of
Low Comedy
Masks Politics
Mime
Journalism
Music
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor
Music Hall
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Musical Comedy
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United
Parody
States
Pastiche
Political Humor
Puppets
Presidential Humor
Satyr Play
Satire News
Shakespearean Comedy
Subversive Humor
Sketch Comedy Shows
Slapstick
Stand-Up Comedy Professions
Tragicomedy Business World
Travesty Advertisement
Variety Shows Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
Design
Philosophy and Religion Management
Aesthetics Subversive Humor
Aphorism Workplace Control
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Workplace Humor
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic Workplace Productivity
Biblical Humor Workplace Resistance
Buddhism Xeroxlore
Christianity
Clergy Education
Comic Frame College Humor
Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews Education, Humor in
Comic World E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China
Confucianism Legal Education
Epigram Pedagogy
Feast of Fools Second Language Acquisition
Hobbesian Theory Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in
Islam Classroom on
Jewish Humor
Judaism Law
Paradox Legal Education
Philosophy of Humor Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor
Platonic Theory of Humor Supreme Court
Religion
Rituals of Laughter Psychology
Taoism Clinical and Counseling Psychology
Anxiety
Physiology and Biology Coulrophobia
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor Depression
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor Gelotophobia
xvi Reader’s Guide

Psychiatric Disorders Mirth

Psychotherapy, Humor in Reversal Theory
Reframing Stress
Tickling
Cognition
Benign Violation Theory Neuropsychology
Cognitive Aspects Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor
Comprehension of Humor Comprehension of Humor
Humor Mindset Laughter, Psychology of

Developmental Psychology Personality and Social Psychology

Aging and Humor Aggressive and Harmless Humor
Children’s Humor and Giftedness Defense Mechanism
Children’s Humor Research Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory
Children’s Humor Stages Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of
Development of Humor Personality, Humor and
Persuasion and Humor
General Psychology Prejudice, Humor and
Appreciation of Humor
Failed Humor Tests and Measurement
Humor Detection Factor Analysis of Humor Items
Humor Production Factor Analysis of Humor Scales
Humor Styles Humor Styles Measurement
Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of Test Measurements of Humor
Identity Testing and Evaluation
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing 3 WD Humor Test
Pattern Recognition
Psychological Distance
Psychology Sociology
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Aggressive and Harmless Humor
Reception of Humor Carnivalesque
Release Theories of Humor Conversation
Sense of Humor, Components of Cross-Cultural Humor
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns Culture
Dialect Humor
Health Psychology Ethnic Jokes
Clowns in Medical Settings Ethnicity and Humor
Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews Failed Humor
Coping Mechanism Gallows Humor
Health Benefits of Humor, Physical Gender Roles in Humor
Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological High-Context Humor
Positive Psychology Homosexuality, Representation of
Humor Group
Interpersonal Relationships Identity
Humor and Relational Maintenance Insult and Invective
Marriage and Couples National and Ethnic Differences
Relationships, Nonromantic Obscenity
Sexuality Play and Humor
Presidential Humor
Motivation and Emotion Race, Representations of
Arousal Theory (Berlyne) Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter
Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor Reception of Humor
 Reader’s Guide xvii

Roman Visual Humor Caricature

Scatology Cartoons
Sick Humor Comic Books
Social Interaction Comic Strips
Social Network Design
Sociology Exaggeration
Stereotypes Graffiti
Targets of Humor Greek Visual Humor
Teasing Medieval Visual Humor
Roman Visual Humor
Visual Humor Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
Art and Visual Humor
Audiovisual Translation
About the Editor
Salvatore Attardo was born in 1962 in Belgium.
He was trained as a linguist at the Catholic Univer-
sity of Milan, Italy, where he graduated in foreign
languages and literature (French), with a disserta-
tion on the linguistics of humor, in 1986. In 1988,
he moved to the United States to attend Purdue
University.
In 1991, together with Victor Raskin, Attardo
published a long article that developed Raskin’s
own semantic theory of humor into the general
theory of verbal humor (GTVH). Later that year he
received a PhD in English from Purdue University,
with a specialization in linguistics and a disserta-
tion on the linguistics of humor, which was pub-
lished in 1994 as his first book, Linguistic Theories
of Humor.
Attardo was professor of linguistics at Youngs-
town State University from 1992 to 2007. He
coauthored, with Steven Brown, a sociolinguistics
textbook, Understanding Language Structure,
Interaction, and Variation (2000) and authored
Humorous Texts (2001). He served as editor-in-
chief of HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
xix
Research from 2001 to 2011. With Diana Elena
Popa, he coedited the book New Approaches to
the Linguistics of Humor (2007), and with Manu-
ela Maria Wagner and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, he
coedited Prosody and Humor (2013). In 2007, he
became chair of the Department of Literature and
Languages at Texas A&M University–Commerce.
In 2010, he became dean of the College of Human-
ities, Social Sciences, and Arts at Texas A&M Uni-
versity–Commerce, where he is also professor of
linguistics.
Attardo’s research is focused primarily on humor
studies and pragmatics. He has published more than
100 articles and book reviews in scholarly journals.
He serves on the editorial board of the Journal of
Pragmatics and other journals. In the past decade,
his interests have broadened to include the prosody
and gestures accompanying humor, mainly work-
ing in collaboration with his wife, Lucy Pickering.
In non-humor-related topics, Attardo has published
in the fields of semantics, pragmatics, Italian stud-
ies, grammar, the pedagogy of linguistics, stylistics,
cognitive linguistics, and computational linguistics.
Contributors

Goh Abe Doris Bergen

Kagawa University Miami University (Ohio)
Audrey C. Adams Arthur Asa Berger (Professor Emeritus)
Texas A&M University–Commerce San Francisco State University
David Adu-Amankwah Daniela Bini
Indiana University University of Texas at Austin
József Andor Amy M. Bippus
University of Pécs California State University, Long Beach
Michael Apter Lorene M. Birden (deceased)
Independent Scholar IUT de Dijon
Salvatore Attardo Barbara C. Bowen
Texas A&M University –Commerce Vanderbilt University
Giulia Baccini Ian Brodie
Ca’Foscari University of Venice Cape Breton University
Peter Bailey Simon J. Bronner
University of Manitoba Pennsylvania State University
Angela Bartolo Adam T. Cann
Université de Lille Nord de France Texas Tech University
Martha Bayless Arnie Cann
University of Oregon University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Fred K. Beard Alexander Carpenter
University of Oklahoma University of Alberta, Augustana Campus
Bart Beaty Donald Casadonte
University of Calgary Columbus State Community College
Ursula Beermann Wallace Chafe
University of California, Berkeley University of California, Santa Barbara
Nancy Bell Jocelyn Chey
Washington State University University of Sydney
Mary P. Bennett Delia Chiaro
Western Kentucky University University of Bologna
Janetta Rebold Benton Miriam M. Chirico
Pace University Eastern Connecticut State University

xxi
xxii Contributors

David M. Christenson Bill Ellis

University of Arizona Pennsylvania State University
Alastair Clarke Hilal Ergül
Independent philosopher Texas A&M University–Commerce
John R. Clarke Michael Ewans
University of Texas at Austin University of Newcastle, Australia
Conal Condren Kristy Beers Fägersten
University of Queensland Södertörns högskola
Florencia Cortés-Conde Joseph Farrell
Goucher College University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Franco D’Agostino David Feltmate
Università La Sapienza Roma Auburn University at Montgomery
Catherine Evans Davies Giovannantonio Forabosco
University of Alabama CRU—Centro Ricerca Umorismo
Andrew Davis Thomas E. Ford
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Western Carolina University
Chelsey Delaney Edward Forman
Catalyst Group University of Bristol
Peter Derks Matt Fotis
College of William & Mary Albright College
Daniel Derrin Hershey H. Friedman
Macquarie University Brooklyn College
Mitzi Desselles Linda Weiser Friedman
Louisiana Tech University Baruch College
Loredana Di Martino Richard A. Gardner
University of San Diego Sophia University
Rachel L. DiCioccio Randy Garner
University of Rhode Island Sam Houston State University
Alberto Dionigi Lewis Gilnert
University of Macerata, Italy Dartmouth College
Sibe Doosje Rachel Giora
Utrecht University Tel Aviv University
Norah E. Dunbar Leon Golden
University of Oklahoma Florida State University
Kenneth R. Dutton Mordechai Gordon
University of Newcastle, Australia Quinnipiac University
John DuVal Tarez Samra Graban
University of Arkansas Florida State University
Mitch Earleywine Gil Greengross
University at Albany, SUNY University of New Mexico
Janis L. Edwards Joshua Gregson
University of Alabama Cognitive Dynamic Therapy Associates
 Contributors xxiii

Samuel Grimes Martin Daniel Lampert

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Holy Names University
Lawrence W. Gross Charmaine Lee
University of Redlands University of Salerno
Peter Grzybek John A. Lent
Graz University Publisher, International Journal of Comic Art
Christine R. Harris Terry Lindvall
University of California, San Diego Virginia Wesleyan College
Max Harris Anna T. Litovkina
University of Wisconsin–Madison Tischner European University
Sonja Heintz Laura E. Little
Zurich University Temple University
Christian F. Hempelmann Mike Lloyd
Purdue University Victoria University of Wellington
Karina Hess Zimmermann Sharon Lockyer
Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, México Brunel University
Vanessa de Macedo Higgins Joyce Christopher Lynch
Independent Scholar DePauw University
Craig Hight Owen Hanley Lynch
University of Waikato Southern Methodist University
Jennifer Hofmann Jim Lyttle
University of Zurich University of Minnesota Duluth
R. Lance Holbert Ryan A. Malphurs
Ohio State University Tara Trask & Associates
Samuel Joeckel Przemysław Marciniak
Palm Beach Atlantic University University of Silesia in Katowice
David Kirby Peter Marks
Florida State University University of Sydney
Sheri R. Klein Rodney Marks
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth www.comedian.com.au
Aaron Kozbelt Meredith Marra
Brooklyn College, CUNY Victoria University of Wellington
Roger J. Kreuz Moira Marsh
University of Memphis Indiana University–Bloomington
Arvo Krikmann Kelli Marshall
Estonian Literary Museum DePaul University
Nicholas A. Kuiper Rod A. Martin
University of Western Ontario University of Western Ontario
Giselinde Kuipers Gerard Matte
University of Amsterdam Australian Catholic University
Liisi Laineste Nancy Cassell McEntire
Estonian Literary Museum Indiana State University
xxiv Contributors

A. Peter McGraw Don Lee Fred Nilsen

University of Colorado Boulder Arizona State University
Robert F. McMorris Will Noonan
University at Albany, SUNY Université de Bourgogne
Whitney Meers Neal R. Norrick
Independent Scholar Saarland University
Aubrey Mellor J. O. J. Nwachukwu-Agbada
Lasalle College of the Arts, Singapore Abia State University, Uturu
Nancy P. Michael Dallin D. Oaks
Indiana University Brigham Young University
Nathan Miczo Michael J. Owren
Western Illinois University Emory University
Wolfgang Mieder Metin Özdemir
University of Vermont Middle East Technical University
Brett Mills John Parkin
University of East Anglia University of Bristol
Jessica Milner Davis Louise Peacock
University of Sydney University of Hull
Mustansir Mir Robert Phiddian
Youngstown State University Flinders University
Alexandre G. Mitchell Ed Piacentino
Institute of Archaeology, Oxford High Point University
John W. Morehead Michael Pickering
Western Institute for Intercultural Studies Loughborough University
John Morreall Tracey Platt
College of William & Mary University of Zurich
John Morton Diana Elena Popa
La Trobe University Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
David Moser René T. Proyer
CET Beijing Chinese Studies University of Zurich
Ralph Müller Jacquelyn Rahman
University of Fribourg Miami University
Javier Muñoz-Basols Victor Raskin
University of Oxford Purdue University
Robin L. Nabi Walter Redfern
University of California, Santa Barbara University of Reading
Carlos M Nash Monica A. Riordan
University of Kansas Chatham University
Attila L. Nemesi Graeme Ritchie
Pázmány Péter Catholic University University of Aberdeen
Alleen Pace Nilsen Christopher Robert
Arizona State University University of Missouri
 Contributors xxv

Ritchie Robertson Eduardo E. Parrilla Sotomayor

University of Oxford Tecnológico de Monterrey
Gillian M. Rodger Ronald Stewart
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Prefectural University of Hiroshima
Jon Edward Roeckelein Beverly J. Stoeltje
Mesa College Indiana University
Margaret A. Rose Megan Strain
University of Cambridge Kansas State University
Willibald Ruch Nina Strohminger
University of Zurich University of Michigan
Andrea C. Samson Sven Svebak
Stanford University Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Vassilis Saroglou Joan Swann
Université catholique de Louvain The Open University
Robert A. Saunders Sandra Swart
Farmingdale State College Stellenbosch University
Zachary A. Schaefer Georges Tamer
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Dan Schill Julia M. Taylor
Southern Methodist University Purdue University
Carl Schimmel John M. Tchernev
Illinois State University Ohio State University
Stephanie Schnurr Yen-Mai Tran-Gervat
University of Warwick Université Sorbonne Nouvelle—Paris 3
Debra A. Schwartz Elizabeth Tucker
Arizona State University Binghamton University
Paul Seaver (deceased) Katalin Vargha
Franklin and Marshall College Institute of Ethnology (Hungary)
Margaret Semrud-Clikeman W. Larry Ventis
University of Minnesota Medical School College of William & Mary
Cameron Shelley Amadeu Viana
University of Waterloo Universitat de Lleida
Benjamin Shepard Giordano Vintaloro
Hunter College, CUNY University of Trieste, Italy
Dina Sherzer Ben Voth
University of Texas Southern Methodist University
Joel Sherzer Stephen Wagg
University of Texas Leeds Metropolitan University
Limor Shifman Yu Wang
Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Open University
David E. E. Sloane Melissa Bekelja Wanzer
University of New Haven Canisius College
xxvi Contributors

Zachary B. Warner Daniel Wickberg

University at Albany, SUNY University of Texas at Dallas
Caleb Warren Lawrence E. Williams
Bocconi University University of Colorado Boulder
Simon Weaver Wei He Xu
Brunel University Middlebury College
Rainer Wehse Hye Jin Yoon
Munich University Southern Methodist University
Eric Weitz Haiqing Yu
Trinity College Dublin University of New South Wales
Marguerite Wells Xiao Dong Yue
Australasian Humour Studies Network City University of Hong Kong
Foreword
A project of the size and complexity of the Ency-
clopedia of Humor Studies demands enormous
imagination, devotion, patience, collaboration,
and capacity for amusement. For this unique and
unprecedented reference work, humor scholars from
around the world have contributed more than 300
entries, with a wide range both historically (from
the Egyptians and the Sumerians to modern times)
and geographically (with entries on Chinese, Japa-
nese, African, Amerindian, Arabic, and Sanskrit
humor). Moreover, the encyclopedia does not limit
itself to traditional academic subjects. Readers will
find entries on comics, cartoons, burlesque, graf-
fiti, improv comedy, clowns, music halls, and much
more. These entries, totaling more than half a mil-
lion words, represent the thinking of 200 contribu-
tors, and the results of all this creative endeavor have
been ably assembled under the leadership of the
editor and the editorial board members, who have
guided this mega-vessel from conception through to
publication.
Humor—the subject that commands such an
effort as the undertaking of the Encyclopedia of
Humor Studies—is not a frivolous, trivial sector of
the human experience. It summons our attention. It
absorbs large proportions of our lifetime energies.
The various aspects of humor, including our own
senses of humor, are important parts of the lives of
all human beings. The entire universe—everything
we think we know, everywhere within the human
experience—has some relevant connection to humor.
Attention to humor is evident in all languages and
cultures, even the most remote. Some languages are
familiar; others may be obscure, but the conceptual
and verbal webs underlying humor are consistent,
no matter the native tongue. Whether one uses the
term Witz, schwank, joke, or blason populaire—and
xxvii
there are differences among these terms—ultimately,
the connections to the roots of humor are the same.
Indeed, the ability to create and recognize humor
has a biological basis, and its many positive effects
on physical and mental well-being suggest that from
an evolutionary standpoint, laughter can be under-
stood as an adaptive behavior.
Humor customarily supplies benefits beyond
what is usually anticipated from communication.
When significant rapport is discovered through
humor, the pleasures of conviviality—shared laugh-
ter, unified insights, joint sympathies—are the result.
Humor does not customarily shrink from challenge
(thus political cartoons take on all manner of con-
troversial topics), and it is not limited to simple
“yes” or “no” responses. In addition, it reveals and
encompasses a multiplicity of viewpoints. Tradition-
ally, amusement is evoked in tense circumstances
(e.g., where resolution or compromise may seem to
be unattainable) to alleviate the tension. Humor even
has the potential for disarming militant hostilities
and modifying feelings of resentment or anger that
may linger as disruptive reminders of controversy.
Humor, thus, is an apt subject for extended,
searching discussion and study—in concordance, in
tense dispute or debate, or in scholarly examination.
As one can see, humor has much to recommend
it as a worthy companion, for our studies, for our
entertainment, for our explorations, and for our dis-
coveries. Humor is richly endowed with the capacity
for learning, for disputation, and for resolution. It
is a unique factor of human nature with so much to
contribute in the positive zones of human life—for
oneself and for interpersonal experience.
William F. Fry
Stanford University
Introduction
As any encyclopedist most assuredly does, I used to
lie awake at night fearing having unwittingly become
the epigone of the Chinese encyclopedia conjured by
Jorge Luis Borges in “El idioma analítico de John
Wilkins” (The Analytical Language of John Wilkins;
in Otras inquisiciones [Other Inquisitions]), which
classifies animals as follows:
(a) those that belong to the Emperor,
(b) embalmed ones,
(c) those that are trained,
(d) suckling pigs,
(e) mermaids,
(f) fabulous ones,
(g) stray dogs,
(h) those that are included in this classification,
(i) those that tremble as if they were mad,
(j) innumerable ones,
(k) those drawn with a very fine camel brush,
(l) others,
(m) those that have just broken a flower vase,
(n) those that resemble flies from a distance.
Borges’s humor is as usual multifaceted, but let us
linger on the sublime touches of a list that continues
after “others;” on the weary but wise worldliness of
a list that begins with “those that belong to the
Emperor;” on the metalinguistic paradox of “those
included in this classification” (and if you don’t see
it, read the entry on Paradox); and the surreal
poetry of “those that resemble flies from a distance”
(Don’t we all? Or is it ants?). For all its amusing
qualities, captured in Michel Foucault’s preface to
Les mots et les choses (Words and Things), Borges’s
list makes a serious point: There is no end to the
ways in which we can classify what exists in the
world or what the world is, for that matter.
As I implied, the experience of editing an ency-
clopedia quickly led me to accept that many tax-
onomies and classifications, all incompatible and
orthogonal to each other, necessarily proliferate in
xxix
any encyclopedia that takes seriously its mission,
or at least aspirations, to achieve universality. One
could come up with exceptionless universal schemes
of classification, but they would naturally not
reflect usage. So, caught between the rock of com-
mon usage and the hard place of systematicity, an
encyclopedia must abandon the dream of becom-
ing an exhaustive systematic classification of the
matter and resign itself to being a jumble of partial
classifications that reflect the interests and disciplin-
ary priorities of the scholars and students who will
use it. To be sure, by using blind entries and cross-
references, we have designed a web of intercon-
nections that will facilitate finding one’s interests,
regardless of the classification adopted. While striv-
ing to be comprehensive, an encyclopedia can never
be exhaustive. Not every conceivable topic related to
humor could be included. The most painful exclu-
sion was the decision, made early on, to leave out
literary humorists, unless their influence had been so
great that one could speak of Aristophanic, Plautine,
or Shakespearean comedy, for example.
Conversely, readers should be aware that some
humor is obscene, aggressive, and sexual in nature.
Humor researchers know and expect this, but some
readers may be offended or shocked by some of the
materials examined or even by the language used to
describe it.
The encyclopedia is unabashedly an American
(in the narrow sense of United States) work; see,
for example, the entry Presidential Humor, which
deals with humor about and in the presidency of the
United States. However, it also makes a deliberate
effort to expand its coverage to Western civilization
and beyond to include Asia and Africa. The reader
will find for the first time, a multidisciplinary refer-
ence work that covers not only European genres of
humor, but also Chinese, Japanese, and a few Afri-
can genres. For Japanese names and titles, a modi-
fied version of the Hepburn system of romanization
is used, whereby macrons mark long vowels (e.g.
xxx Introduction
“ō” for “oo”). Chinese names and titles are rendered
in pinyin.
Much work went into broadening the coverage
of the encyclopedia beyond the traditional Western
culture. It is largely due to the hard work of the
editorial board that the encyclopedia could range
so widely. In fact, in some cases we had to literally
codify a field for the first time. This is a difficult and
delicate matter. Witness, for example, the following
e-mail that Dr. Lawrence Gross, a professor at the
University of Redlands, in California, sent me dur-
ing the process of preparing and editing his entry on
American Indian humor:
You asked for a very difficult assignment in that
there are many American Indian nations—523 in the
United States alone—covering thousands of years.
Also, there are many American Indian comedians
and writers active today. In order to demonstrate the
ongoing vitality of American Indian cultures, I
needed to cover as many of those individuals as pos-
sible. Also, I sent out a request to a Native professors
listserv asking for their input. The overwhelming
consensus was that I should include as many mod-
ern-day American Indian comedians and writers as
possible. So, I feel I have the support of the commu-
nity of Native American professors behind me.
The e-mail is emblematic of the problems that all
the authors encountered when having to synthesize
an entire field, with literally hundreds of authors,
ideas, theories, and points of view, in a few thousand
words. However, the e-mail also shows the meticu-
lous process whereby the authors built a consensus
of what other scholars and practitioners in the field
recognize as their field. In this case, there was no
standard comprehensive treatment of the subject.
In some cases, there just was no way to provide
an overall encompassing view. Simply put, the field
is just not there (yet). A good example is African
humor. In this case, we had to resort to commis-
sioning partial articles from experts in some areas
and using blind entries to stitch together a some-
what coherent and comprehensive view. These
areas are obviously in need of further research, and
I hope that the encyclopedia will generate enough
interest that a new generation of scholars will take
up this work, if for no other reason than to prove
me wrong.
It should also be made abundantly clear that
the length limits imposed by the print medium
are a positive feature and not a limitation. When
Wikipedia dedicates more than 30 entries to Buffy
the Vampire Slayer with the main entry on the
TV series an astonishing 12,000 words, synthesis
becomes a virtue. For someone interested in finding
out what is important about, say, humor in Juda-
ism, a 12,000-word entry is merely confusing. A
3,000-word entry will, out of necessity, focus on
what is crucial. Or, consider the show The Big
Bang Theory, which gets a whopping 14,000 words
in the main Wikipedia entry, and is mentioned, as
an example, in the Cross-Cultural Humor entry,
where it gets a 60-word treatment. But what, you
may ask, if I am a fan of The Big Bang Theory and
I want to know in what episode Sheldon’s work
is refuted by Stephen Hawking? Then you are
reading the wrong book. (Episode 21, Season 5, if
you must know.) To be sure, concision is difficult;
witness the many requests I received, and mostly
resisted, for increased word counts, from semi-
desperate authors.
The Field of Humor Studies
Most people, when first encountering humor stud-
ies, react with incredulity. Humor appears to be
so simple, so easy. Surely it can be defined and
explained in a few well-chosen sentences. This
attitude is common in the media: Generally speak-
ing, journalists first encounter humor studies when
they cover a humor studies conference or in the
rarer occasions in which humor-related news hits
the media news cycle. Inevitably the old saying by
Elwyn B. White, among whose works include Char-
lotte’s Web and, with William Strunk Jr., The Ele-
ments of Style, about dissecting humor and a frog,
and the frog dying under dissection much like the
humor, gets trotted out to ridicule the endeavor. The
problem with that view, however, is that if one asks
those skeptical about humor studies to provide their
definition and explanation of humor, the results are
hopelessly naive, open to refutation from several
sides, and, at best, partial and incomplete.
Truth is, things that appear to be simple, are often
vexingly complex: What could be easier than walk-
ing upright? Plenty of things, as robotics professors
will be happy to explain to you. To this day, we do
not have a robot capable of walking unassisted with
anywhere near the skill of a 10-year-old kid.
In fact, there are so many terms, synonyms,
partial synonyms, and overlapping definitions of
humor and humor-related subjects (e.g., comic, ridi-
cule, irony, mirth, laughable, jolly, funny, ludicrous,

merry, etc.) that a common understanding has been
reached in the field of using the word humor as an
umbrella term to cover all the synonyms. The word
itself comes from the medieval theory of humors,
which explained disease as a mixture of four prin-
ciples (see the Humor, Etymology of, entry for more
details), but that is irrelevant in the technical sense
just discussed. I should add that even this defini-
tion is far from being accepted by all. For example,
literary theorists insist that humor and the comic
be kept distinct, the latter being properly applied to
theatrical comedy. I should also add that some of
my best friends are literary theorists.
Needless to say, different disciplines address
different aspects of humor. As would be expected,
cognitive psychology deals with the cognitive
mechanisms that trigger humor, social psychology
with the social effects and mechanisms of humor,
linguistics with the semantic and pragmatic aspects
of language that produce humor, sociology with the
social aspects, folklore with the ways that people of
different groups produce humor or different kinds
of humor, and so on. Literary theorists deal with
humor in literature, musicologists with humor in
music, film critics with humor in film, art critics
with humor in art, design, and so forth.
However, the defining feature of humor studies is
the interdisciplinarity of the field. What that means
is that it is not uncommon to see psychologists bor-
rowing ideas from linguists, sociologists debating
philosophers, literary theorists using psychological
theories, computer scientists working on folk genres
such as riddles, and medical doctors being inspired
by folklore (clowning being a prime example). It
may be objected that interdisciplinarity is also to
be found in other areas, computer science being
an excellent example. This is true but misleading.
Whereas computer science is applied to many areas
(e.g., social media), there is virtually no feedback
(there are no computer languages based on Twit-
ter). This is not the case in humor studies: Linguists
borrow back ideas from psychologists, philosophers
discuss sociologists’ ideas, folklorists analyze com-
puter humor, and so on.
It is tempting to date the start of the field of humor
studies from Plato and Aristotle, who provided the
first systematic thinking about comedy; or with the
Renaissance treatises (the 16th-century Italian and
French literary theorists who defined neoclassical
comedy, but also Laurent Joubert’s Traité du ris
[Treatise on Laughter] 1579); or with the humor-
studies trifecta of Henri Bergson (1900), Sigmund
Introduction xxxi
Freud (1905), and Luigi Pirandello (1908); or with
William Fry’s epochal Sweet Madness (1963); or
perhaps with the blossoming of the psychology of
humor in the 1970s.
However illustrious the precedents one might
invoke, the idea of a field of humor research
coalesces around the humor conferences started in
Cardiff, Wales, in 1976, by Anthony Chapman and
Hugh Foot. The most salient aspect of the confer-
ence was its interdisciplinary nature, which would
define humor research. Psychology, to be sure the
leading discipline, appears alongside with literary
theory, anthropology, folklore, and other related
disciplines.
The first conference was followed by others, in
1979 (Los Angeles), 1982 (Washington, DC), 1984
(Tel Aviv), and 1985 (Cork, Ireland). Also, in 1982
Don and Alleen Nilsen started the World Humor
and Irony Membership (WHIM), which held annual
meetings at the University of Arizona, the Nilsens’
home base, until 1987. WHIM published extended
abstracts, called the WHIM Serial Yearbook
(WHIMSY). Besides the cute name, the WHIMSY
books provided the first periodical humor research
publication. In 1987, the International Society of
Humor Studies (ISHS) was created. In 1988, WHIM
was held at Purdue University, and at the same
time HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research started its publication, with Victor Raskin
as its editor-in-chief. The last WHIMSY appeared in
1989. The ISHS has held annual conferences since
1988, during odd years in the United States and in
the rest of the world in even years. A French publica-
tion, Humoresques, also was started in 1988 and
is still active. Other humor journals have appeared
recently, mostly as online publications.
The 1980s saw the publication of the first dis-
ciplinary syntheses: John Morreall’s 1983 Taking
Laughter Seriously; Avner Ziv’s 1984 Personality
and Sense of Humor; Mahadev Apte’s 1985 Humor
and Laughter and, in the same year, Victor Raskin’s
Semantic Mechanisms of Humor; and bringing the
decade to an end, Christie Davies’s 1990 Ethnic
Humor Around the World. These were later fol-
lowed by Salvatore Attardo’s 1994 Linguistic Theo-
ries of Humor; Rod Martin’s 2007 The Psychol-
ogy of Humor; and, finally, the Primer of Humor
Research, edited by Victor Raskin in 2008, with a
much broader disciplinary range. The 1990s also
saw the first book series dedicated to humor: Mou-
ton de Gruyter, Transaction Publishers, Wayne State
University Press, and Gordon and Breach all publish
xxxii Introduction
humor book series that started in that decade. Other
series have appeared since then.
From a disciplinary perspective, the dominance
of psychology as the leading discipline is unassail-
able. Psychologists dominate the debate by defining
the main theories (incongruity theory and relief,
or liberation, theory) and by setting standards of
empirical verification. The only major theory not
completely psychological at the root is the superior-
ity/hostility theory, which is more grounded in social
status/interactions and hence more sociological than
psychological. The research from sociology, folklore,
anthropology, philosophy, linguistics, and commu-
nication taken together do not even come close to
matching the output of psychological research. Lit-
erary studies is a special case to itself, as it freely bor-
rows ideas and terminology from other disciplines
but remains largely unaffected in its methodologies
and outlooks on the field (historical, postmodern,
Marxist, to name just a few). Other disciplines, such
as mathematics and computer science, occasionally
contribute but are definitely marginal to the field.
Rationale for the Encyclopedia
The field of humor studies has grown and matured
into a respected interdisciplinary area. Examples of
the field’s respectability can be easily gleaned. To
name just one, the HUMOR journal has had an
impact factor (a measure of the average number of
citations to articles in the journal) since the mid-
2000s. In the 1980s, one could, with some degree of
reasonableness, aspire to read all that was being pub-
lished in humor studies. Nowadays, this is no longer
feasible at the level of a single discipline, such as psy-
chology, within humor studies, let alone the entire
field. Dissertations on humor studies are written and
defended all the time. Yet, despite all this growth,
there was no single resource available that would
provide a comprehensive, broad-based introduc-
tion to the entire field of humor studies. Moreover,
because of the increased specialization within the
disciplines that contribute to humor studies, scholars
and students from different areas increasingly find
themselves unfamiliar with the methods and find-
ings of other, perhaps adjacent areas. The Encyclo-
pedia of Humor Studies fills these two gaps, afford-
ing a relatively easy path of approach to students
and scholars who want to be informed about the
research and findings in a given area. Given its sub-
ject matter, the encyclopedia may also fulfill another
goal, by providing the general public with reliable
information about humor-related subjects, which are
the subject of much curiosity but unfortunately gener-
ally appallingly poor-quality online and media cover-
age, as mentioned before. Incidentally, I should men-
tion that some of my best friends are in the media.
I should also mention that there are some positive
exceptions, such as Jim Holt, who has done some
coverage of humor studies for The New Yorker, and
Joel Warner, who has covered several humor confer-
ences for Wired and other publications.
Content and Organization
The selection of the topics in the more than 300
entries reflects a deliberate attempt to cover current
areas of research in humor studies. However, an
attempt at systematic coverage was also made, with
mixed results. In some cases, there are no works of
synthesis because not enough specific cases have
been studied. Nonetheless, we expanded the cover-
age of the encyclopedia to numerous areas that do
not normally see themselves as part of humor stud-
ies. Examples are the entries on ancient humor (e.g.,
Ancient Egypt, Humor in; Assyrian and Babylonian
Humor; Sanskrit Humor) and the entries on music
and humor and the visual arts and humor.
The encyclopedia is designed to be accessible to
college students. As such, the entries are designed to
be comprehensive but not exhaustive treatments of
a topic. However, some of the more technical entries
may require familiarizing oneself with some of the
entries that provide broader introductions to the
fields that contribute to humor studies. The reader
will easily spot those, because they contain the name
of the discipline as the title, such as Sociology, Liter-
ature, Pedagogy, Poetry, Psychology, Anthropology,
Linguistics, Religion, Music, and so on. In some rare
cases, it became clear that the encyclopedia entry
would be the first systematic treatment of a given
subject. Those entries have a broader set of biblio-
graphic references.
The encyclopedia also provides the readers with
cross-references (“See alsos”) at the end of each
entry that guide them to related entries. In addi-
tion, the front matter of the encyclopedia contains
a Reader’s Guide that lists all entries related to a
given topic or that belong to a subdiscipline. For
example, the subcategory of Asia in the Reader’s
Guide includes all the entries dealing with Asia,
regardless of period, genre, or language. The
Reader’s Guide can be found at the front of both
volumes of the encyclopedia.

The chronology is another example of ground-
breaking work included in the encyclopedia. This is
the first ever synoptic chronology of humor span-
ning over 4 millennia (from 2000 BCE to present
day) and identifying significant events in the history
of humor from Europe, Asia, America, and Africa.
This allows one to see, for example, that Laurence
Sterne, the author of The Life and Opinions of
Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, and Carlo Goldoni,
the great Italian dramatist, were active roughly at
the same time (and couldn’t be any more differ-
ent, which is why this is interesting) but also that
some of the earliest Chinese humor was written at
the same time of some of the earliest Babylonian
humor, or that the Forest of Laughter, the first
Chinese collection of jokes, was written roughly at
the same time that Menippus wrote his satires and
the Romans enjoyed the Atellan farces. Needless to
say, the chronology is not intended to be exhaustive
either.
How the Encyclopedia Was Created
The editorial board was chosen with the goal of
including both some of the major figures in the field
and some of the younger “up and coming” scholars,
as well as representing as many as possible of the
disciplines in the field.
The editor then developed a list of potential entry
topics. The major works of synthesis in the field
were consulted, and lists of topics were extracted.
The complete 25 years of the journal HUMOR were
likewise mined for potential topics. The first list of
topics thus prepared was then circulated to the edi-
torial board for comments, additions, and general
advice. Moreover, major scholars in the field were
also consulted. The list underwent several revisions,
and advice from the SAGE editorial team was also
incorporated. On occasion, individual suggestions
from potential contributors were also included if
they met the approval of the board.
This deliberate attempt at comprehensiveness
went far beyond the disciplines and topics that
typically appear in mainstream humor studies pub-
lications. This made it sometimes difficult as non-
academics were at times bewildered by academic
practices (“Bibliography? You want a bibliogra-
phy?”). The authors were given general guidelines of
accessibility and readability as well as a few sample
entries. All of the entries were reviewed at least by
the section editor and by the lead editor, but often
other readers were brought in, especially if the lead
Introduction xxxiii
editor had commissioned the entry directly. Each
entry was then edited for style and language. Sig-
nificant revisions were approved by the authors, and
the entries were then finalized. Some of the signifi-
cant iconographic materials were provided by the
authors of the entries and are acknowledged in the
entries themselves, but the majority was the fruit
of archival research by SAGE developmental editor
Diana Axelsen and the project’s second managing
editor, Hilal Ergül.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all of the more than 200
authors who contributed one or more entries to
the encyclopedia. Without them, there would be
no encyclopedia, and without their knowledge and
expertise, the quality of the entries would not be as
high as it is.
I would also like to thank all the scholars who
selflessly took time to advise the editorial board
and me on what topics to include, comment on the
entries, and make suggestions to improve them. In
particular, Rod Martin and Christie Davies provided
extensive suggestions and help in the preparatory
stages of the work. William (Bill) Fry graciously
accepted to honor the project with his Foreword.
I would also like to remember Avner Ziv, who passed
away soon after having agreed to serve on the edito-
rial board and after having given me the privilege of
his advice on his field. I treasured his friendship, and
I will never forget his exquisite hospitality. I was sad-
dened of learning of the death of Lorene Birden, a
long-time friend and collaborator, right before going
to press. Lorene and I co-organized the ISHS confer-
ence in Youngstown, Ohio. I also cherish the time
we worked together. Then, a few days later, I was
again saddened by the passing away of Paul Seaver,
founding president of the International Society for
Luso-Hispanic Humor Studies, the author of the
Cervantes entry in the encyclopedia, and a supporter
of the project who had lent his knowledge and wis-
dom to it on many occasions.
I would also like to thank the editorial board,
most of them close friends, Thomas E. Ford, Sha-
ron Lockyer, Owen Hanley Lynch, Moira Marsh,
Jessica Milner Davis, John Morreall, and last but
not least, Victor Raskin, for taking on with good
humor and formidable patience the usually thank-
less task of reviewing, editing, and often cutting
down to size of the entries. I also would like to thank
Audrey C. Adams, who was the project’s managing
xxxiv Introduction
editor for the first 2 years, and Hilal Ergül, who
took her place for the last 7 months of the task.
It was a pleasure to work with the SAGE editorial
team: Jim Brace-Thompson, Diana Axelsen, Shi-
rin Parsavand, and Anna Villaseñor. I also would
like to thank Gaia Attardo, Aaron Westmoreland,
and Hilal Ergül, who helped prepare the chronol-
ogy, and Audrey C. Adams, who prepared the list
of associations and journals. I also would like to
thank Texas A&M University–Commerce for sup-
porting me in this project by providing funding
for research assistants. Most of all I would like to
thank my wife, Lucy Pickering, who put a smile on
my face throughout the 3 years it took to complete
the project and never lost her patience when she
heard me say over and over: “Next time I will not
make this mistake again!”
Salvatore Attardo
 A
ABSURDIST HUMOR
Closely related to black humor, nonsense, and
incongruity, absurdist humor can be understood in
broad terms as humor concerned with the absence
or refusal of meaning. Etymologically, the term
absurd is linked to the musical discord generated
absurdo (by a deaf person). In humor, as in nonsense
and incongruity, it can be seen as opposed to con-
ventional or serious discourse. While this negative
status suggests that the absurd can manifest itself
in many ways, it is useful to distinguish between
two main strands. First, the rational absurd is con-
cerned with the breakdown of logic and exemplified
in the technique of reductio ad absurdum, in which
a logical proposition is led to a nonsensical or con-
tradictory conclusion. Second, the existential absurd
is concerned with the apparent meaninglessness
of human existence, often associated with French
existentialist philosophy and the postwar theater
of the absurd. Not all humor is absurd, and not all
absurdity is funny; however, both strands function
as rich sources of humor, with the rational absurd
tending toward formal playfulness and nonsense,
and the existential absurd toward darker humor.
These two strands often occur in combination, and
examples ranging from the zany comedy of a Marx
Brothers or Monty Python sketch to the hollow
laughter elicited by the plays of Eugène Ionesco or
Samuel Beckett show that absurdist humor can take
many forms. While it is most often thought of as a
20th-century phenomenon, associated particularly
with vaudeville, film, and television comedy; with
1
the theater of the absurd; and with modernist avant-
gardes, absurdist humor has in fact a long history
running across a variety of genres.
Absurdity, Incongruity, and Nonsense
The specific characteristics of absurdist humor are
best understood with respect to neighboring con-
cepts such as incongruity and nonsense, although
there is a risk of overstating what are sometimes
nebulous distinctions. The absurd appears as a
key ingredient of humor in Immanuel Kant’s 1790
Critique of Judgment, a text that has strongly influ-
enced the modern understanding of humor as being
less a mode of aggressive ridicule than a species of
incongruity: “In everything that is to excite a lively
convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in
which the understanding, therefore, can find no sat-
isfaction). Laughter is an affectation arising from the
sudden transformation of a strained expectation into
nothing” (Kant, 1790/2007, p. 161). But while the
incongruity implied in Kant’s “something absurd” is
capable of being resolved or negated, Elliott Oring
(2003, Ch. 2) makes a useful distinction between
the “appropriate” incongruity characteristic of most
humor, and the extra level of incongruity character-
istic of absurdist humor, which typically cannot be
resolved into any situation compatible with normal
experience. As a case in point, Oring cites the exam-
ple of elephant jokes (e.g., “Why do elephants paint
their toenails red? To hide in cherry trees”), which
violate the usual conventions of (non-absurdist) rid-
dles since the answer offers a situation that is no less
absurd than the initial question.
2 Absurdist Humor
The example of elephant jokes is also helpful in
distinguishing between absurdist humor and non-
sense humor, since incongruity resides here not in the
structure or linguistic expression of the joke but in
its content. While absurdist humor implies a break-
down in meaning on a referential (logical or existen-
tial) level, the incongruity of nonsense humor resides
within language itself. Noting a tendency to conflate
the two categories, Wim Tigges argues that “in non-
sense, language creates a reality, in the absurd lan-
guage represents a senseless reality” (1988, p. 128).
Thus the made-up language of a text like Lewis
Carroll’s famous poem, “Jabberwocky,” constitutes
(a highly suggestive form of) nonsense; but in chap-
ter 5 of the novel from which it is taken (Through
the Looking-Glass, 1871), the decision of the Queen
of Hearts to punish the king’s messenger before trial,
and even before he has committed a crime, exem-
plifies absurdist reasoning. While Carroll’s world is
essentially humorous and lighthearted (it can also
be read as an exploration of his interest in formal
logic), the messenger’s punishment anticipates the
more troubling absurdism of later writers such as
Franz Kafka (1883–1924): It demonstrates how a
breakdown in logic can lead to senseless and poten-
tially threatening existential situations.
Normal usage of the terms humor and absurd
involves a considerable degree of conceptual over-
lap, but they can also be understood as subtly
contrasting perceptual modes. Taking humor in its
narrower sense (prevalent in languages like French
and German, and formerly so in English) of a pre-
dilection for whimsical, self-conscious eccentricity,
Jean-Jacques Mayoux (1973) argues that a humor-
ous outlook implies the assumption that “I am ridic-
ulous,” whereas an absurdist outlook implies the
assumption that “the world is ridiculous.” Mayoux
explores the distinction between (English) humor
and (French) absurdism primarily as a function
of cultural attitudes—reflected in the strong
absurdist strain in 20th-century French philosophy
and literature—but his argument is also helpful in
framing absurdist humor as a response not to the
self but to the external world.
Absurdist Humor Before 1900
Absurd humor in various forms can be found
throughout the history of comedy, often serving as
a frame or counterpoint to more serious or satiri-
cal elements. Early examples include the plays of
Aristophanes, whose Frogs (404 BCE), for example,
presents the effeminate god Dionysus incongruously
dressed in the lion-skin of Heracles/Hercules in order
to emulate the latter’s voyage to the underworld.
There Dionysus presides over an absurd poetic con-
test in which the dead poets Aeschylus and Euripides
have their lines evaluated by being weighed on a
giant set of scales.
Jokes built specifically around absurdist reason-
ing recur down the centuries. Dionysus’s advice to
his slave at the beginning of the Frogs—to stop com-
plaining about carrying heavy baggage while riding
a mule, and instead, load the bags onto the mule
and carry that on his shoulders instead—is echoed,
for example, in Petruchio’s tricking Katharina into
stating that “the moon . . . is the blessed sun” in
Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew (ca. 1592, Act
IV, Scene 5); and also in the Queen of Hearts’s
refusal to allow Alice to eat a leg of mutton before
(or after) being introduced to it (Through the
Looking-Glass, chap. 9). A tradition of wordplay
verging on nonsense humor can be traced from
French medieval Fatrasies (poems in which sound
associations generate absurd images or contradic-
tory statements) through the coq-à-l’âne (the cock
follows the ass) humor of François Rabelais and
French poet Clément Marot (1496–1544) in which
unrelated topics are made to follow each other with
no apparent logic, to the works of Carroll and of
Edward Lear (1812–1888).
Absurd plots and situations are a staple of comic
genres ranging from farce to the shaggy-dog nar-
ratives of Menippean satire, named for the 3rd-
century BCE Cynic Menippus. This comic genre is
exemplified in Laurence Sterne’s Life and Opinions
of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (1759–1768), in
which the narrator’s attempt at an unabridged auto-
biography becomes mired in digression as his lived
experience elapses much faster than he can narrate.
While Sterne’s highly erudite novel derives much of
its humor from rational absurdism, it also displays a
darker vein of existential humor, seen in a late pas-
sage (Book 7, chap. 1) in which the narrator is vis-
ited by the figure of Death while telling a digressive
story, prompting him to abandon his autobiography
and sidestep a growing sense of mortality by travel-
ing to France.
Absurdist humor sometimes serves a deeply
satirical purpose. Desiderius Erasmus’s Praise of
Folly (1509) and Panurge’s encomium of debt
in Rabelais’s Tiers livre (Third Book, 1546, chap.
3–4) parody the absurdities of medieval scholastic
reasoning; and Jonathan Swift’s pseudopolitical

pamphlet A Modest Proposal (1729) deploys an
outwardly rational argument to reach the darkly
absurd conclusion that poverty and overpopulation
in contemporary Ireland could be solved by farming
babies for meat. Although absurdist humor is often
associated with the late 19th-century-nonsense tra-
dition of Carroll and Lear, it can also be an aggres-
sive weapon against the pretensions of rationalist
discourse or existential certainty.
Modernism, Dadaism, and Surrealism
The turn of the 20th century was a significant turning
point for the absurd both in terms of its expanding
influence and in a shift in emphasis from a primarily
comic mode to a tool for questioning conventional
modes of understanding. Alfred Jarry’s 1896 play
Ubu roi (Ubu the king) influenced both the post-
war theater of the absurd and a range of modern-
ist avant-gardes. It gleefully attacked the established
assumptions of representational drama, presenting
grotesque and foul-mouthed characters, disjointed
plots (including travesties of Shakespeare’s Macbeth,
among other sources) and senseless violence, all
conspiring to undermine meaningful interpreta-
tion. Although Jarry died in 1907, his iconoclastic
brand of absurdist humor is linked to art move-
ments such as Dadaism and surrealism, reflected by
iconic examples such as Marcel Duchamp’s ready-
made urinal Fountain (1917) and René Magritte’s
1928–1929 painting famously captioned “Ceci n’est
pas une pipe.”
Existentialism and the Theater of the Absurd
Humor is rarely associated with the philosophy
of existentialism most famously represented by
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) and Albert Camus
(1913–1960)—although Camus’s representation of
existentialist absurdism in The Myth of Sisyphus
(1942) can be construed as a form of defensive
humor in the face of meaninglessness, with a titu-
lar figure who ultimately attains happiness by real-
izing and accepting the absurdity of his never-ending
task. By contrast, humor is central to the theater of
the absurd, a term coined by critic Martin Esslin to
describe the work of postwar dramatists, including
Beckett, Ionesco, Arthur Adamov, and Jean Genet,
all of whom used absurdist humor in combination
with other destabilizing techniques to explore the
demise of existential certainties.
Described by its author as an “anti-play,”
Ionesco’s The Bald Prima Donna (La Cantatrice
Absurdist Humor 3
Chauve, 1950) opens with a superficially ordinary
but essentially meaningless conversation in the liv-
ing room of a stereotypically “English” couple. The
dialogue is inspired by the banal repetitions of a
language-learning record, but this initially mundane
absurdity is disturbed by a series of increasingly
bizarre events (the arrival of a fire chief, a recogni-
tion scene between two people presented as husband
and wife) that culminates in the characters repeat-
ing a series of meaningless syllables while failing to
notice any incongruity. In a slightly different vein,
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1953) presents
a pair of tramps, who may or may not remember
each other and are unsure of why or how long they
have been waiting, in two almost identical acts
where the dialogue alternates between existential
musing and self-conscious set-piece comic routines
in the style of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. This
characteristic “radical devaluation of language”
(Esslin, 1974, p. 26) has particular resonance for
Beckett, whose characters often appear uncon-
vinced that their dialogue is meaningful. Such ref-
erential confusion frequently leads back to a comic
and self-conscious expression of existential absurd-
ism. To quote Beckett’s Endgame (1957)—a play
that wryly anticipates debates over deconstruction
and postmodernism, and whose postapocalyptic
setting recalls a common feature of later absurdist
texts—“We’re not beginning to . . . to . . . mean
something?” (p. 26).
Coda: Humor Beyond the
Theater of the Absurd
Characterized by Neil Cornwell (2006) as lying
“beyond the absurd,” much canonical literature of
the later 20th century followed the pattern of som-
ber humor established by Beckett and his contem-
poraries and reflecting the zeitgeist of their times.
Inspired partly by Jaroslav Hašek’s The Good Soldier
Švejk (1923), a rambling and unfinished comic nar-
rative dramatizing the absurdity of the First World
War, the title of Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel Catch-
22 has become a byword for a situation to which
there is no satisfactory solution. Flann O’Brien’s The
Dalkey Archive (1964) shows a delight in erudite
incongruities reminiscent of Rabelais and Sterne,
but its presentation of a mad scientist bent on world
destruction equates to a darker joke on the real-
world threat of nuclear war. Thomas Pynchon’s The
Crying of Lot 49 (1966) and Gravity’s Rainbow
(1973) feature characters struggling to make sense
4 Advertisement
of worlds characterized by both logical and existen-
tial uncertainty; while Stanley Kubrick’s black com-
edy film Dr. Strangelove (1964) offers a statement
whose irrational logic is only overshadowed by that
of the existential threat it dramatizes: “Gentlemen,
you can’t fight in here. This is the war room!”
Notwithstanding these examples, the appeal of
more lighthearted forms of absurdist humor is ongo-
ing, evinced by many examples of contemporary
stand-up, film, and television comedy, as well as
by forms such as video games and Internet memes,
where the logic of virtual worlds contrasts incongru-
ously with that of external reality. Whether rational
or existential in nature, absurdist humor can in fact
help bring out the brighter side of the lack of mean-
ing that it typically highlights—as affirmed by a
chorus of the newly crucified in the closing scene of
Monty Python’s film The Life of Brian (1979):
For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin—give the audience a grin
Enjoy it—it’s your last chance anyhow.
Will Noonan
See also Aristophanes; Farce; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Early Modern Europe;
History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Europe; History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Contemporary; Incongruity and Resolution;
Limericks; Literature; Monty Python; Movie Humor
Types; Nonsense; Paradox; Philosophy of Humor;
Rabelais, François; Tragicomedy
Further Readings
Aristophanes. (1996). Frogs. (A. Somerstein, Ed. & Trans.).
Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips.
Beckett, S. (1958). Endgame. London, UK: Faber & Faber.
Beckett, S. (1965). Waiting for Godot. London, UK: Faber
& Faber.
Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays.
New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cornwell, N. (2006). The absurd in literature. Manchester,
UK: Manchester University Press.
Esslin, M. (1974). The theatre of the absurd (3rd ed.).
London, UK: Eyre Meuthen.
Ionesco, E. (1966). The bald prima donna [La cantatrice
chauve] (D. Watson, Trans.). London, UK: Calder &
Boyars.
Jarry, A. (1994). Ubu (K. McLeish, Trans.). New York, NY:
Grove Press.
Kant, I. (2007). Critique of judgement. (J. C. Meredith,
Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(Originally published 1790)
Mayoux, J.-J. (1973). L’humour et l’absurde: Attitudes
anglo-saxonnes, attitudes françaises [Humor and the
absurd: Anglo-Saxon attitudes, French attitudes].
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Palmer, J. (1987). The logic of the absurd: On film and TV
comedy. London, UK: British Film Institute.
Sterne, L. (2003). The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy,
gentleman. London, UK: Penguin.
Tigges, W. (1988). Anatomy of literary nonsense.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
ADVERTISEMENT
Because most consumers are exposed to a large num-
ber of advertisements on a daily basis, humorous
advertisements may be the most frequent way that
many come into contact with intentional humor.
Traditional advertisements are typically defined as
persuasive, nonpersonal communications delivered
to consumers via the mass media on behalf of identi-
fiable sponsors. Advertisers use humor as a message
tactic, with the intent of enhancing an advertise-
ment’s potential for achieving various strategic objec-
tives. Humor was used rather infrequently during
the early years of modern advertising; researchers,
however, have confirmed that its use in contempo-
rary advertising is prevalent, especially in the broad-
cast media. Although this is generally true for most
industrialized, First World countries, humor is found
somewhat more frequently in the advertising of
Western countries and cultures than in Eastern ones.
This entry first reviews the history of humor in
advertising and explains how and why many adver-
tisers became increasingly confident during the 20th
century that it would enhance the effectiveness of
their messages. Next, the entry describes the most
important theoretical explanations for how humor
is believed to help advertisers achieve important
advertising objectives, which include the consumer’s
comprehension and recall of the message, as well
as persuasion that leads the consumer to form an
intention to buy the product or service. The entry
discusses the cognitive response theory of advertis-
ing as a framework for understanding the contribu-
tion of humor to comprehension and recall. Both
the affect-transfer hypothesis and cognitive response

theory are also presented as possible frameworks for
understanding the role of humor in persuasion.
Lastly, the entry describes several typologies of
humorous advertisements, including one widely
researched typology that shows they can be validly
and reliably described and explained using one or
more of the cognitive and semantic one- and two-
stage incongruity theories, the social theory of
disparagement, or the affective and physiological
release and arousal-safety theories. The two-stage,
incongruity-resolution theory explains how the pre-
sentation of two normally incompatible or incongru-
ous message elements, which also share a common
meaning, generates humor when a punch line or
trigger enables people to recognize the shared mean-
ing and resolve the incongruity. Incongruity and its
resolution are at the heart of most humor that passes
as “wit” (for example, jokes, puns, and parodies).
Humor generated by the ridicule of another person,
group, institution, or even idea—which is explained
by disparagement theory—is also frequently found
in advertisements that take the form of satire. The
arousal-safety version of the release or relief theories
proposes that people find something funny when they
experience a physiological state of arousal regarding
the safety of themselves or someone else. If people
can make a safety judgment that enables them to
conclude that the object of the anxiety is either safe
or that the negative consequences are insignificant,
the resulting physiological release is experienced as
humor (often in the form of nervous laughter).
A History of Humor in Advertising
Some advertising scholars have pointed to the pub
signs of 16th-century England or the street criers of
the 19th century as the earliest examples of the use
of intentional humor in sales messages. Historians
confirm that humor made its way into the print
advertisements of the late 19th century in both
Europe and the United States, typically in the form
of outrageous claims, limericks, jokes, and slogans
combined with gag cartoons. Most historians also
agree that the modern era of advertising emerged
around 1900, along with the expansion of the print
media, improved technologies of mass production
for consumer goods, and the emergence of the mod-
ern advertising agency. Up to that time, advertisers
mainly relied on either announcement advertising
or the simple repetition of a product name and
logo. Almost all the pioneers of modern advertising
in the United States—such as John E. Powers,
Advertisement 5
Albert Lasker, John E. Kennedy, Claude Hopkins,
and Theodore F. MacManus—rejected humor. They
were almost entirely convinced consumers were
more likely to be persuaded by rational appeals to
logic or an “atmospheric” emphasis on elegance
and quality, rather than mere entertainment or nov-
elty. However, humor did appear occasionally in
early-20th-century advertising in the form of mild,
sentimental humor that often relied on illustrations
of children. Among a small handful of other inten-
tionally humorous advertisements were jingles and
limericks. The most famous of the limerick cam-
paigns consisted of the hundreds written by early
copywriters Minnie Maude Hanff and Earnest E.
Calkins, featuring “Jim Dumps” and “Sunny Jim,”
for Force cereal.
During the late 1920s and Depression years
of the 1930s, advertisers relied so extensively on
humor in the form of cheap cartoon and comic-strip
advertisements that the cost of advertising space in
William Randolph Hearst’s Sunday Comic Weekly
actually surpassed the more mainstream competitors
Saturday Evening Post and Ladies’ Home Journal.
During the same period, radio emerged as an impor-
tant advertising medium in the United States. The
influential advertising agency Lord & Thomas was
among the first to employ comedians to endorse
products. Bob Hope, Jack Benny, and other famous
comedians of the day seamlessly integrated humor-
ous programming and advertising—a formula that
would similarly be applied to television in the late
1940s and early 1950s. At the end of the 1940s,
humor in advertising reached a watershed moment
with the debut of World War I flying ace, novel-
ist, and South Carolina businessman Elliot White
Springs. Springs’s risqué style—which combined
racy, humorous illustrations with sexy puns and
double entendre headlines—stretched the period’s
envelope of propriety to the breaking point. One
of his advertisements, the infamous “A Buck Well
Spent on a Springmaid Sheet,” placed 69th on
industry trade journal Advertising Age’s list of the
Top 100 Advertising Campaigns of the 20th century.
The use of humor in mainstream advertising was
prevalent by the 1960s, as evidenced by the efforts
of some at the forefront of the industry’s creative
revolution. William Bernbach’s revolutionary
Volkswagen Beetle advertisements of the 1960s—
produced by Bernbach and written and designed
by Julian Koenig and Helmut Krone—com-
bined photos of the Beetle with such incongruous
and self-deprecating headlines as “Ugly,” “Lemon,”
6 Advertisement

Advertisement for Springs Mills, Inc., Springmaid Sheets with the tagline “A buck well spent on a Springmaid Sheet.” The
advertisement features an American Indian man wearing a headdress lying in a Springmaid Sheet slung between two
birch trees. An American Indian woman is standing halfway out of the sheet. She is wearing a short blue skirt with
matching short blue lace-up shirt. She holds a feathered fan in her left hand. In the distance, nine American Indian men
clad in loincloths dance in a circle.
Source: Advertisement, Springs Mills, Inc., Springmaid Sheet (9294), Balch Institute Ethnic Images in Advertising Collection
[3238], Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Used by permission.

and “Think Small.” The approach of Chicago adman
Leo Burnett often relied on humor and animated
spokescharacters, such as the Pillsbury Doughboy
and the Keebler Elves. Other notable advertising
humorists of the period included San Francisco
adman Howard Luck Gossage, who created
humorous ads for Rover cars and Eagle shirts; Mary
Wells Lawrence, who was responsible for humorous
campaigns on behalf of clients Alka-Seltzer, Benson &
Hedges, and Braniff Airlines; and the self-styled
“guerrilla-satirist” of U.S. advertising, Stan Freberg,
who created humorous campaigns for Contadina

Foods, Chun King, and Pacific Airlines. Freberg’s
famous campaign for Sunsweet Prunes (“Today
the Pits, Tomorrow the Wrinkles!”) placed 63rd on
Advertising Age’s list of the Top 100 Advertising
Campaigns of the 20th Century.
Some advertisers and industry observers suggest
that advertising in the 1970s returned to the hard-sell
style of the 1950s, influenced in part by economic
recession and the widely adopted “positioning”
approach of Al Ries and Jack Trout. But by the
1980s, there were signs of another creative revolu-
tion, including the increasing use of humor, and in
1985, legendary adman David Ogilvy recanted his
famous admonition that humor would not sell. The
continuing influence of Howard Gossage’s witty, wry,
and occasionally satirical conversations with con-
sumers was seen in the work of agencies headed by
Cliff Freeman; Hal Riney; Jeff Goodby, Andy Berlin,
and Rich Silverstein; and Dan Wieden and David
Kennedy. Humorous advertisements created by Cliff
Freeman & Partners for client Outpost.com—in
which a high school marching band was set upon by
a pack of hungry wolves and gerbils were fired from
a cannon—are examples of the kind of aggressive,
arousal-safety humor that began appearing in the late
1980s, and which became quite prevalent throughout
the remainder of the 20th century and into the 21st.
The emergence and maturation of modern adver-
tising during the 20th century are characterized by
an obvious trend in regard to humor—the century
began with the professional belief that humor should
rarely, if ever, be used and ended with the widely
held belief that humor can be an appropriate mes-
sage tactic for almost any product, service, or selling
situation. Among the most important explanations
for this trend are advertisers’ recognition that humor
effectively attracts attention; that consumers often
purchase products and services for emotional rea-
sons rather than rational ones; that advertising can
contribute to marketing objectives without sell-
ing products directly; that advertisements should
reflect the same content and tone as the entertain-
ment media; and that humor need not necessarily
be distracting if it is related somehow to products,
services, and the reasons people purchase them.
Advertising Objectives and Humor
Getting people to pay attention to advertisements is
very important, and it is one of the first and most
obvious reasons why advertisers originally began
employing humor as a message tactic. Empirical
Advertisement 7
research has almost overwhelmingly confirmed that
humorous advertisements attract more attention
than nonhumorous ones. Surveys have shown that
the majority of advertising creative professionals also
agree humor is effective at gaining attention, supe-
rior to nonhumor in gaining attention, and especially
effective for achieving both attention and awareness
when used in advertising for a new product.
Comprehension and Recall
Once consumers pay attention to an advertise-
ment, advertisers hope that they will process the
information in the ad and be able to remember it
later. These hoped-for outcomes are called com-
prehension and recall. There is, however, some
disagreement as to whether humor in an advertise-
ment enhances or detracts from comprehension. The
influential cognitive response theory of advertising
effects proposes that humor encourages consum-
ers to process advertising messages by first getting
their attention. The distraction hypothesis, however,
raises the possibility that humor could successfully
attract attention but inhibit comprehension and
recall by distracting consumers’ attention away from
an advertisement’s information, claims, or argu-
ments. This explains why many advertisers over the
years have expressed the concern that consumers
will remember the humor in an advertisement but
fail to recall what was advertised.
The most recent studies show that humor can
be positively related to recall and comprehension
in TV, radio, and magazine advertising, especially
for expressive products (those consumers usually
buy because of the way they make them feel) and
low-risk or low-involvement products (routine pur-
chases that don’t cost much or for which there is
minimal risk resulting from making a poor purchase
decision). Advertising professionals’ views regard-
ing comprehension are mostly consistent with the
findings of empirical research. Most view humor as
no more harmful to comprehension and recall than
nonhumor; not particularly effective at register-
ing (i.e., getting people to comprehend and recall)
complex copy points; but at least as effective as
nonhumor for gaining brand name registration and
retention, and for registering simple copy points.
Persuasion/Purchase Attention
Concerns about the effects of a humorous adver-
tisement on persuasion pick up where concerns
about attention, comprehension, and recall leave off.
8 Advertisement
Persuasion generally means consumers have devel-
oped a positive attitude toward an advertised prod-
uct, service, or brand, although it is often defined
as purchase intention (i.e., the likelihood consumers
will make a purchase in the future).
Affect-Transfer Hypothesis (Classical Conditioning)
When persuasion is defined as purchase intention,
then humor seems to affect it by first causing con-
sumers to like the advertisement itself (an outcome
and variable called attitude toward the ad) and this
liking, in turn, causing them to like the brand (an
outcome and variable called attitude toward the
brand). The effects of a humorous advertisement on
purchase intention by way of attitude toward the
ad and brand are predicted by the affect-transfer
hypothesis. The transfer of affect (liking as well as
other emotional responses) from an ad to a brand is
based on classical conditioning. Humor is an uncon-
ditioned stimulus and liking is an unconditioned
response. They are connected by an unconditioned,
or naturally occurring, relationship. When a new
or conditioned stimulus—such as the name of a
product, service, or brand—is repeatedly delivered
with the original stimulus (i.e., humor), this creates
a conditioned relationship between the new stimu-
lus and the old response. Consequently, consumers
will transfer their old response (i.e., liking) to the
new stimulus (i.e., the advertised product, service, or
brand). Empirical research has confirmed that this
positive affect toward products, services, and brands
has a direct effect on purchase intention.
Cognitive Response Theory
A second theoretical explanation for how humor
affects persuasion and purchase intention relies on the
cognitive response theory of advertising effects, rather
than the affect-transfer hypothesis. Theoretically,
humor can distract consumers from processing the
claims or arguments in an advertisement and, in
some cases, make it more persuasive. This conclusion
is also based on the distraction hypothesis, which
predicts that an advertisement with a message that
contradicts prior consumer perceptions or beliefs
will be more persuasive if consumers are distracted
from thinking about the advertisement’s arguments.
In this scenario, the distraction hypothesis predicts a
positive effect on favorable attitudes and persuasion,
as consumers are distracted from rational arguments,
encouraging them to accept an advertisement’s
message and to be persuaded by it.
Research Conclusions
Early empirical research generally supports
an overall conclusion that the effects of a humor-
ous advertisement on persuasion probably aren’t
any greater than the effects of a serious or nonhu-
morous one. However, more recent studies offer
growing confirmation that humor often affects
persuasion in the form of purchase intention and
does so via its effects on attitude toward the ad
and attitude toward the brand. Advertising profes-
sionals’ views are somewhat consistent with these
research findings. The majority generally agree that
humor can enhance positive mood and that a posi-
tive mood enhances persuasion, and they disagree
that a humorous advertisement likely has a more
positive effect on persuasion than a nonhumorous
one. However, advertising professionals mostly dis-
agree that humor is effective at increasing purchase
intention. And although academic researchers have
entirely ignored the question of whether a humor-
ous advertisement is likely to directly cause a sale,
advertising professionals are generally skeptical
that humor is an effective tactic for gaining actual
purchase, and very few of them agree a humorous
advertisement creates a greater sales effect than a
nonhumorous one.
Relevance of Type of Product Being Advertised
Both researchers and advertising professionals
have also directed their attention to the important,
strategic possibility that the effects of humorous
advertisements might vary based on the type of
product for which they’re being used. Research has
consistently shown that humor is used most often
for expressive and low-risk or low-involvement
products, and it also seems to be more effective
for them. Advertising researcher Dana Alden and
his colleagues found a similar pattern of use holds
not just in U.S. advertising, but in Korea as well,
and that humor is used more often in advertise-
ments for pleasure-oriented products (similar to
expressive products) versus functional products
(those consumed for practical reasons) in all but
one of the five countries they studied. Research
has shown humor is rarely used for expressive/
high-risk products (e.g., jewelry) and functional/
high-risk products (e.g., household appliances) in
U.S. radio, TV, and magazine advertising. Although
advertising professionals agree consumer nondu-
rables are the products best suited to humorous
advertising, a survey conducted in 2006 found they

believe a humorous advertisement could be effec-
tive for almost any product, service, or advertising
situation.
Humorous Advertisement Typologies
Researchers have proposed several typologies to
categorize and describe different types of humor-
ous advertisements. Some categorize humorous
advertisements along two dimensions—content
(e.g., sexual humor) and technique (e.g., puns). As
an example, one mixed typology used in a study of
American, British, and German trade magazines by
researchers Lynette McCullough and Ronald Taylor
consisted of aggressive, sexual, nonsense, warm, and
pun humor. Advertising theorist Barbara B. Stern
proposed the most unique typology of humorous
advertisement types; it was based on Henri Bergson’s
1900 theory of laughter, which categorizes comedy
into four types along two dimensions—verbal versus
physical and romantic versus satiric.
Arguably, the typology created by Paul S. Speck
as part of his doctoral dissertation at Texas Tech
University, the Humorous Message Taxonomy
(HMT), has had the most far-reaching influence on
the study of humorous advertisements. The HMT
proposes that humorous stimuli consistent with
the incongruity, disparagement, and arousal-safety
theories work sometimes alone and sometimes
together to generate the humor in five types of
humorous advertisements—satire, comic wit, full
comedy, sentimental humor, and sentimental wit.
Incongruity alone produces a comic wit advertise-
ment. Disparagement appears in advertising only
when it is combined with an incongruity—a combi-
nation that produces satire. When an incongruity is
combined with an arousal-safety stimulus, warmly
empathetic or aggressively shocking, it produces
sentimental humor. An arousal-safety stimulus
alone—which may arouse feelings of sentimentality,
empathy, or anxiety—produces a type of advertise-
ment that Speck calls sentimental comedy. When all
three humor stimuli are present simultaneously, the
result is a full comedy advertisement.
Empirical research leaves little doubt that incon-
gruity-resolution is the most frequent source of
humor found in humorous advertisements through-
out the world. Researchers Dana Alden, Wayne
D. Hoyer, and Choi Lee confirmed that humorous
advertisements in several countries—including the
United States, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and
Germany—depend on an incongruity most of the
Advertisement 9
time. Moreover, they also found that two of the
types of contrasts found in humor scholar Victor
Raskin’s influential semantic script theory of
humor—expected versus unexpected and possible
versus impossible contrasts—also explained the
humor in the majority of the advertisements they
analyzed.
Humor Relatedness
Advertisers have often worried that consumers will
be amused by a humorous advertisement but fail to
recall anything else about it. Historically, the belief
that the humor in a humorous advertisement should
be “relevant” quickly emerged along with the more
frequent use of humor. In the academic research lit-
erature, humor relevance is referred to as thematic
relatedness, one of three types of advertising humor
relatedness. Intentional relatedness is based on the
branch of semiotics called pragmatics and has to do
with whether a humorous advertisement’s message
or the humor itself is dominant (i.e., whether the
humor is subordinate to the advertising message).
Structural relatedness, on the other hand, is based
on the branch of semiotics called syntactics and
refers to the relationship between humor and mes-
sage elements, that is, how closely connected they
are or where they are located in the context of a
specific advertisement.
Thematic relatedness, which is based on the
branch of semiotics called semantics, is the most
important type of advertising relatedness and is syn-
onymous with what advertising professionals have
been referring to over the years, when they argued
that the humor in an advertisement should be rel-
evant. Thematic relatedness means the humor is
directly related to the product or service, its uses,
benefits, brand name, or users. It seems fairly obvi-
ous why thematic relatedness should encourage
comprehension and recall; for example, it would be
fairly unlikely that anyone in the United States who
has ever seen or heard the Aflac duck doesn’t also
know the name of the advertisement’s sponsor. The
findings of empirical research, a little surprisingly,
have been somewhat mixed on the topic of thematic
relatedness and its direct effects on advertising out-
comes, suggesting they may vary depending on the
advertising medium. However, by far the majority
of advertising professionals believe that thematically
related, or relevant, humor is more effective than
unrelated humor.
Fred K. Beard
10 Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
See also Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in; Arousal
Theory (Berlyne); Incongruity and Resolution;
Persuasion and Humor
Further Readings
Alden, D., Hoyer, W. D., & Lee, C. (1993). Identifying
global and culture-specific dimensions of humor in
advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of
Marketing, 57(2), 64–75.
Beard, F. K. (2006). Practitioner views of humor in
advertising: A twenty-year update. In W. J. Kehoe &
L. K. Whitten (Eds.), 2006 SMA proceedings:
Advances in marketing: Linking organizations and
customers (pp. 16–17). Mobile, AL: Society for
Marketing Advances.
Beard, F. K. (2007). Humor in the advertising business:
Theory, practice, and wit. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in
advertising: A comprehensive analysis. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Madden, T., & Weinberger, M. G. (1984). Humor in
advertising: A practitioner view. Journal of Advertising,
24(4), 23–29.
Speck, P. S. (1987). On humor and humor in advertising
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech
University, Lubbock.
Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy:
A framework for the study of humorous ads. In J. H.
Leigh & C. R. Martin, Jr. (Eds.), Current issues &
research in advertising (pp. 1–44). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Stern, B. B. (1996). Advertising comedy in electronic
drama. European Journal of Marketing, 30(9), 37–60.
Weinberger, M. G., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., & Parsons,
A. L. (1995). The use and effect of humor in different
advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research,
35(3), 44–56.
ADVERTISING, EFFECTIVENESS OF
HUMOR IN
Over the years, humor has been used as a popular
strategy in advertising. Humor is generally assumed
to be effective, but much research in the advertis-
ing field has come to the conclusion that humor
effects in advertising may not be universal and that
a wide variety of factors need to be considered.
This entry first describes the three most common
processes in which humor is created. It then dis-
cusses possible humor effects in advertising and the
factors tied to execution, audience, and product
categories that would likely have an impact on the
advertising effectiveness. Humor is a powerful tool
that can be employed to enhance ad effectiveness,
but effective advertising strategy requires careful
consideration of the target and the relevant aspects
of implementation.
Humor Theories: How Humor Is Created
Humor theorists have often listed three processes in
which something may be perceived as funny.
In arousal-safety humor, a discomforting situa-
tion (e.g., something moving in the bushes, possibly
a poisonous snake) is subsequently judged to be
safe (e.g., it turns out to be a frog). The heightened
tension will be released when safety judgments are
made, which will be accompanied by feelings of joy,
amusement, and humorousness.
In the incongruity-resolution process, an incon-
gruity arises when we are presented with informa-
tion that is discrepant with what we have known
in the past (e.g., a man lies in bed with a human-
sized bug next to him), followed by resolution of
the incongruity, during which we learn an alterna-
tive meaning of the depiction (e.g., the man’s wife
says on the phone that “he cannot make it to the
office today, he’s in bed with a bug”). The resolution
that comes after the incongruity brings realization or
understanding, which generates pleasurable sensa-
tions and possibly laughter. Without a resolution,
discomfort and frustration may ensue.
The third kind of humor-generating process is
humorous disparagement or attack humor, which is
based on the premise that as human beings, we enjoy
feeling superior to others. In order for this humor to
be funny, we need to justify the disparagement (e.g.,
“the ridicule was justly deserved,” “I am not the
joke teller; thus, I have no control over others being
ridiculed”). Due to the attacks, this form of humor
has the highest risk of offending joke hearers if the
justification cannot be established. Such humor pro-
cesses can be utilized in advertising to achieve posi-
tive effects. The following discusses possible humor
effects in advertising.
How Humor Works in Advertising
Because advertising is intended to persuade con-
sumers to buy specific brands of products, the use
of humor in advertising needs to go beyond just
making people laugh.
 Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in 11

Initially, humor attracts attention to the ad by When Humor Fails in Advertising

means of a process involving arousal, incongruity,
As with any creative message strategy, humor in
or disparagement that evokes responses of surprise.
advertising may fail to work. First, we discussed
The attention to humor frees up cognitive resources,
humor’s ability to bring in more attention. However,
giving more opportunity for further processing of
cognitive elaborations do not always equal posi-
the ad and brand information. We further engage in
tive elaborations; people might negatively judge
trying to understand the surprising element in humor
the humor. An example of this was an ad for
because it is human nature to seek closure; we desire
Snickers bars that aired during the Super Bowl in
to finish what we have started, and when tasks are
2007. Although the ad was ranked in the year’s
incomplete, constant thoughts regarding the unfin-
top 10 Super Bowl commercials on some websites,
ished task will be retained in memory, resulting in
it was perceived as homophobic and attacked by
higher recall and recognition of the components.
the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest
Such stimulation may be sufficient to attract
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights
attention and increase memory, but successful reso-
organization. The ad, which depicted an awkward
lution is likely needed to generate humor responses,
moment between two males biting into a Snickers
which could transfer into positive outcomes for the
bar from opposite ends, was pulled by the manu-
advertisers. For the humor to be perceived as funny,
facturers one day after the Super Bowl. Those who
a sense of closure has to come from a safety judg-
had strong objections to the humor would have had
ment (arousal-safety theory), resolution of incongru-
high levels of cognitive processing related to the ad;
ity (incongruity-resolution theory), or justification
however, these thoughts were negative and resulted
of the disparagement (disparagement theory). The
in negative attitudes toward the ad and the brand.
assumption is that successful use of humor will lead
Second, the use of humor as distraction, the persua-
to positive evaluations of ads, positive attitudes
sion mechanism aforementioned, can also backfire
toward the product advertised, and, eventually,
when the humor distracts too much from the ad
intentions to purchase the advertised product.
claims and brand name. This has been found to be
There are two main mechanisms by which
the case for humor that is unrelated to the context of
humor may enhance ad effectiveness. The first takes
the ad, the product, or the brand. Only the humor-
place by way of distraction. Attentional resources
elicited feelings or thoughts might be remembered,
drawn in by humor will be used to follow the plot
without any memory of what product or brand was
of the humorous ad. Unless the ad claim and brand
advertised. Third, the emotional effects of humor
names are carefully woven into the plot, the humor
may be insufficient to create affect transfer when
itself may receive all the focus and other ad claims
the humor employed in the ad is mildly humorous
might be peripherally processed. Although this
or not funny at all. Negative affect can also be gen-
may not be the most ideal for ad claim and brand
erated through humor. As observed in the Snickers
name memory, the distraction may lead consumers
example, certain types of humor may be offensive to
to process attribute claims less critically, resulting
some individuals or inappropriate for the product.
in fewer or weaker counterarguments and greater
acceptance of the ad claims if the information in the
claims is processed. The second mechanism involves Factors That Can Increase the Success
the emotional effects of ads. Humor is known to of Humor in Advertising
create positive emotions such as mirth, joy, and
A number of factors related to execution, audience,
happiness. Affect transfer theory proposes that the
and product are likely to have an impact on the suc-
positive emotions created by humor may directly
cess of humor in advertising. Among them are the
transfer to the ad and brand. Affect-as-information
following.
theory explains how the positive emotions gener-
ated through humor can be taken as additional
Positive Cues
information when evaluating the ad and brand.
When consumers ask themselves how they feel, they In their experimental research of humor adver-
may (mis)attribute the positive emotions resulting tising in television, Dana Alden, Ashesh Mukherjee,
from humor as positive emotions toward the ad and and Wayne Hoyer (2000) found that embedding
brand, ultimately leading to positive attitudes and positive cues such as playfulness and warmth in
purchase intentions. the ads was important in generating perceived
12 Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
humor. Surprise resulting from incongruity may
be successfully resolved without necessarily being
humorous. The presence of positive factors cues the
consumer to interpret the situation in a humorous
way. Failure to provide such playful cues may lead
to failure of a humorous response, which will lead
to failure of positive humor effects on ad and brand
attitudes.
Placement of Humor
A moment-to-moment humor ad response analy-
sis conducted by Josephine Woltman Elpers, Ashesh
Mukherjee, and Wayne Hoyer (2004) discovered
another important element in the execution of suc-
cessful humor ads—the placement of the humor in
the ad. Mainly with respect to audio or visual ads,
they observed humor to be more effective when the
punch line was placed approximately 90% of the
way into the ad. This is explained by human pro-
pensity to want to save the reward for the end, as
in mystery novels or game shows. Giving away the
peak too soon may result in lower perceived humor-
ousness, which will result in lower levels of positive
ad outcome.
Need for Cognition and Need for Humor
In terms of individual propensity, the need for
cognition (NFC) and the need for humor (NFH)
are strongly related to humor advertising. NFC is
the degree to which an individual enjoys engaging
in cognitively challenging information, with high
NFC associated with greater enjoyment of chal-
lenging thinking. In his 1996 research, Yong Zhang
observed that humorous ads worked better for
low NFC individuals than high NFC individuals,
because high NFC individuals valued valid, strong
arguments over any other message strategy. Low
NFC individuals would welcome the entertain-
ing facet of humor and thus evaluated the ad and
brand more positively than did high NFC indi-
viduals. NFH is the propensity to enjoy levity and
humor in everyday life. Researchers Thomas Cline,
Moses Altsech, and James Kellaris (2003) found in
their studies that high NFH individuals responded
more positively to humor ads than low NFH
individuals, while low NFH individuals tended to
rate ads without humor more positively than high
NFH individuals. This may be due to the fact that
high NFH individuals may demand humor more
often, so when it is absent, they judge ads less
favorably.
Prior Brand Evaluation
Another audience factor is prior brand evalua-
tion, with positive prior evaluations resulting in
more positive outcomes than negative prior evalu-
ations for humor ads. The attention to humor frees
up cognitive resources and prompts further elabora-
tions on the ad. When prior brand evaluations are
positive, elaborations on the humor ad will bring
salience to the prior positive attitude. In these cases,
using humor related to the brand and product in the
ad will be beneficial for the advertisers. Conversely,
when prior brand evaluations are negative, further
elaborations will give reminders of the preexist-
ing negative attitudes. In this case, it is suggested
that ancillary and unrelated humor be used to
distract attention from central ad claims or brand
information.
Consumer Involvement With Products
Lastly, product involvement—the degree to
which a product meets a consumer’s psychologi-
cal needs and which requires careful consideration
before a purchase—is an influential product factor
in humor advertising. Research suggests that humor
strategies will work better with products inherently
low in involvement, such as those with a low price,
low risk, and low importance of quality distinction
between brands, than with high-involvement prod-
ucts, that is, those that have a high price or high risk,
or for which quality distinctions between brands
are important. High-involvement products elicit
thoughtful information processing before decision
making. Emotional effects do not easily persuade
people engaged in critical thinking. In such cases,
strong arguments of the quality or benefits of the
brand might be more effective. For low-involvement
products, consumers would not be strongly moti-
vated to critically process relevant information; thus,
the entertaining and emotional effects of humor
could be successful in persuading them.
Hye Jin Yoon
See also Advertisement; Humor Theories; Laughter,
Psychology of; Persuasion and Humor
Further Readings
Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The
effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators
on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 29(2), 1–16.

Beard, F. K. (2008). Humor in the advertising business:
Theory, practice, and wit. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Chattopadhyay, A., & Basu, K. (1990). Humor in
advertising: The moderating role of prior brand
Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4),
466–476.
Cline, T. W., Altsech, M. B., & Kellaris, J. J. (2003). When
does humor enhance or inhibit ad responses? The
moderating role of the need for humor. Journal of
Advertising, 32(3), 31–45.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in
advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37(2), 191–203.
Gulas, C. S., & Weinberger, M. G. (2006). Humor in
advertising: A comprehensive analysis. New York, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Speck, P. S. (1990). The humorous message taxonomy:
A framework for the study of humorous ads. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 13(1), 1–44.
Woltman Elpers, J., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004).
Humor in television advertising: A moment-to-moment
analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3),
592–598.
Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The
moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of
Advertising, 25(1), 15–32.
AESTHETICS
According to one traditional definition, aesthetics
is the branch of philosophy that deals with beauty,
especially beauty in the arts. Examining the pleas-
ing features of the Mona Lisa or a snow-capped
mountain, for example, would come under aesthet-
ics. That definition seems too narrow, however, since
works of art and natural objects may interest us in
other ways than by being beautiful. Instead of evok-
ing admiration of beauty, artists may evoke puzzle-
ment, shock, and even disgust. Consider Picasso’s
Guernica, a huge (11-ft. × 25.6-ft.) painting in
black, white, and grey that he made in response to
the slaughter of Spanish civilians by German and
Italian warplanes during the Spanish Civil War.
Images of disjointed corpses and people screaming
dominate the canvas. This work is widely admired
but not for being beautiful. So a better definition of
aesthetics would be that it is the branch of philoso-
phy that deals with the ways things please people
in being experienced. Humor is prominent among
the experiences we enjoy, and so the study of humor
Aesthetics 13
fits naturally under aesthetics. This entry examines
the relation between humor and aesthetic experience
and compares humor with other kinds of aesthetic
experience.
Aesthetic Experience
A standard distinction in aesthetics is between aes-
thetic experiences—enjoying the way things look
and sound and feel—and experiences in which we
enjoy something because it is associated with some-
thing else we value. A rich man might enjoy looking
at tall piles of $100 bills on his desk, for example,
because they remind him how wealthy he is. But he is
not enjoying the color, shape, texture, and other per-
ceptible features of those bills, and so his experience
is not aesthetic. In aesthetic experience, our inter-
est in things is not practical; it is not in what those
things can help us get or achieve. And our interest is
not cognitive: We are not out to gain information.
Instead we simply enjoy experiencing things.
While much of aesthetic experience is visual, hear-
ing and touch can also be aesthetic. The sound of rain
on the roof can please us, as can music. If we are emo-
tionally struck by a piece of sculpture in a museum,
we may want to run our fingers over its surface.
If the arts were limited to painting, drawing, sculp-
ture, music, and dance, then we might think of aes-
thetic experience as a subset of perception. But there
is also literature. In reading a novel or in listening to
someone read poetry, much more is involved than
the shapes of the letters on the page and the sound
of the words being recited. Mostly what we enjoy
are the thoughts evoked by those words; so aesthetic
experience includes thinking as well as perceiving.
Humor as Aesthetic Experience
Although humor may seem like an obvious case
of aesthetic experience, it was widely neglected
in traditional aesthetics. Immanuel Kant, one of
the first philosophers to analyze aesthetic experi-
ence, dismissed the pleasure we take in jokes as a
nonaesthetic enjoyment of the physical stimulation
of laughter. There is nothing to gratify the mind in
jokes, he insisted, and so enjoying them is not aes-
thetic experience. Starting in the late-20th century,
humor received more respect from philosophers,
and today many of them hold that humor is often an
aesthetic experience.
The similarities between humor and aesthetic
experience are numerous. One is that things we
find funny, as well as the things we find beautiful
14 Aesthetics
or otherwise interesting, may be something natural
such as a rock, or something made for aesthetic
appreciation such as a song. Funny objects, as with
other aesthetic objects, may also have been made for
a practical purpose that happened to have interest-
ing features, such as certain lawn sprinklers.
Another similarity is that both humor and aes-
thetic experience put a premium on imagination and
surprise. In the visual and performing arts, litera-
ture, and comedy, we seek out unusual perspectives,
unexpected similarities, and creative ideas.
Beyond looking for similarities between humor
and aesthetic experience, we can examine works of
art that are instances of humor. Consider Marcel
Duchamp’s version of the Mona Lisa on which
he painted on a mustache and which he titled
L.H.O.O.Q. In French, that is pronounced like
“Elle a chaud au cul”—“She has a hot ass.” While
few art critics say it, this work is a joke. So, too,
it can be argued, was Duchamp’s submission of a
store-bought urinal to the Society of Independent
Artists, which he signed “R. Mutt 1917” and titled
Fountain. Later in the century, Jean Tinguely exhib-
ited his Homage to New York for the first and last
time simultaneously at the Museum of Modern Art.
It was a large self-powered contraption that self-
destructed in flames and smoke—to the laughter
and cheers of patrons.
A more respectable example of a humorous
work of art is the Divertimento for two horns and
string quartet by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart called
A Musical Joke. As many critics have said, this work
sounds like a parody of incompetent composers.
Several passages are mechanical and clumsy, rep-
etition is overused, and some of the harmonies and
rhythms just sound wrong.
Clear examples of humorous artworks can also
be found in literature. Shakespeare’s plays are clearly
works of art, and 18 of them are comedies. Mark
Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, which is full of humor,
is counted among the greatest works of American
literature.
Comedy as the Arts That Evoke
Humorous Amusement
One way to understand the overlap of works of art
with humor is to classify works of art according to
the responses they evoke and treat humorous amuse-
ment as one of those responses. The oldest art form
designed to evoke amusement is dramatic comedy. It
was created by the Greeks in the 5th century BCE,
slightly after they invented tragedy. The characteristic
responses to tragedy, according to Aristotle, are pity
and fear, and the characteristic response to comedy
is laughter. As drama developed over the centuries,
comedy divided into genres, such as farce, satire, par-
ody, slapstick, commedia dell’arte, burlesque, com-
edy of manners, comedy of errors, character comedy,
spoof, romantic comedy, and musical comedy. The
20th century saw new forms, such as sketch comedy,
improvisational comedy, and stand-up comedy—
which itself subdivided into observational comedy,
black comedy, insult comedy, and so on. Movies and
television introduced new genres, such as screwball
comedy, situation comedy, and mockumentary.
Beyond the performing arts, film, and television,
there has been humor in the graphic arts for centuries,
in such forms as cartoons and caricatures. A simple
way to categorize all of these kinds of humor is to use
the term comedy for all art forms designed to evoke
amusement.
Humor and Other Aesthetic Categories
To understand humor better, it is helpful to consider
how it is related to other aesthetic experiences. Here
the incongruity theory of humor is useful. According
to the most general version of that theory, humor-
ous amusement is the enjoyment of incongruity. To
be amused by some thing, event, or thought is to
have it violate our concepts and our expectations
and to take pleasure in that violation. In humor we
undergo a mental shift and like it.
The idea that we can enjoy incongruity may at
first seem counterintuitive. How could we take
pleasure in having our expectations violated? Don’t
we react to incongruity with negative emotions like
fear, disgust, anger, and sadness? Yes, we do, but not
always. Like all animals, we want to be secure in
our surroundings, so we want to know what things
are and how they will behave. But like other higher
mammals, we do not want our experience to be
totally predictable—that’s boring. We like surprises,
even ones that evoke negative emotions such as fear.
That is the fun in things like roller coasters and hor-
ror movies. Some people even devote months or
years to dangerous activities they call “adventure.”
Incongruity is a staple of the fine arts, and it
often evokes negative emotions in a way that is
on balance pleasurable. The oldest genre to do
this is tragedy, which, as Aristotle said, is based on
pity and fear. When, for example, in Sophocles’s
Oedipus the King, Oedipus vows to bring the killer

of King Laius to justice, we in the audience enjoy
the irony, knowing that he is himself that killer.
Similarly, when we stand before Picasso’s Guernica,
the corpses may shock and disgust us, but we take
overall satisfaction in the experience.
These examples show that the generalized ver-
sion of the incongruity theory above is not detailed
enough. It is incorrect to say that humor is the
enjoyment of incongruity, because there are other
aesthetic modes in which we enjoy incongruity. They
include the tragic, the grotesque, the macabre, the
horrible, the bizarre, and the fantastic. In all of them,
our expectations are violated in a pleasurable way.
What distinguishes humor from these other ways of
enjoying incongruity are two main things: emotional
disengagement and the tendency to laugh. In amuse-
ment, we are disengaged from negative emotions like
fear, disgust, and puzzlement: What we enjoy is just
the mental jolt of the incongruity. In the other six
aesthetic categories, by contrast, part of what we
enjoy is one or more negative emotions. In tragedy,
it may be pity or fear. In the grotesque, macabre, and
horrible, disgust is usually involved. In the bizarre and
fantastic, we are typically puzzled or confused.
Negative emotions like these long ago prompted
the puzzle called the paradox of tragedy. Why do
we enjoy experiences in art that we avoid in real
life? Why, for example, do we pay good money for
theater tickets to watch people suffer and die? This
puzzle extends to the other five aesthetic catego-
ries above, but it does not apply to humor because
amusement is a positive experience with no negative
emotions. There is no paradox of comedy.
The second distinguishing feature of humor, the
tendency to laugh, may well be linked to emotional
disengagement. The most widely accepted theory
of the origin of human laughter is that it evolved
from a relaxed, open-mouth facial display in earlier
apes, a facial display that served as a “play signal.”
Even today, most play among apes consists of mock
aggressive activities like chasing, grabbing, wrestling,
and pretend biting. Without some signal to indicate
that they intended no harm, such play would have
been impossible because the ones being “attacked”
would have responded with deadly force. By relax-
ing their jaws and opening their mouths, early apes
signaled to each other that they were not feeling rage
or other negative emotions but were only playing.
Chimpanzees and gorillas even have a laugh-like
breathing pattern to accompany their play face, only
it consists of inhalation rather than our exhalation—
“Ah ah ah” instead of “Ha ha ha.”
Aggressive and Harmless Humor 15
Though they do not involve the tendency to
laugh, the last two aesthetic modes, the bizarre and
the fantastic, seem to be the most similar to humor
as ways of enjoying incongruity. They evoke what
psychologists call the orienting reflex, the motiva-
tion to make sense of what is experienced. But the
puzzlement involved is typically not as strong a
negative emotion as those in tragedy or horror. The
bizarre emphasizes the recalcitrance of the object
to fit our mental patterns—think of a painting by
Salvador Dali of melting watches or a burning
giraffe. The fantastic emphasizes imagination, both
that of the creator of the artwork and our own in
trying to make sense of it. In the literary and artistic
movement called surrealism, there are many exam-
ples of the bizarre and the fantastic, and many of
them come close to humor.
John Morreall
See also Art and Visual Humor; Comedy; Comic Versus
Tragic Worldviews; Philosophy of Humor
Further Readings
Hoof, J. A. R. A. M. van. (1972). A comparative approach
to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling. In R. A.
Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication (pp. 209–241).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Morreall, J. (1983). Humor as aesthetic experience. In J.
Morreall, Taking laughter seriously (pp. 85–100).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Morreall, J. (1989). Enjoying incongruity. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 2, 1–18.
Morreall, J. (2009). That Mona Lisa smile: The aesthetics
of humor. In J. Morreall, Comic relief: A comprehensive
philosophy of humor (pp. 69–89). Oxford, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
AFRICAN HUMOR
See Akan Humor; Igbo Humor; South
African Humor
AGGRESSIVE AND HARMLESS
HUMOR
Within the area of humor research, there are two
broad characterizations of humor that are studied
in terms of their interpersonal and intrapersonal
16 Aggressive and Harmless Humor
outcomes. One characterization, harmless humor,
is good natured and usually results in positive
outcomes (e.g., enjoyable social interaction). The
other characterization, aggressive humor, is used
with malicious intent and is much more likely to
result in negative outcomes (e.g., disparagement)
than harmless humor. This entry discusses the basic
information that is known about both of these
broad types of humor and addresses some of the
potential outcomes associated with each.
Harmless Humor
The term harmless humor is somewhat ambiguous
in its conceptualization. It may be used colloqui-
ally to describe light-hearted joking among friends,
family, or colleagues. While these behaviors have
been the subject of some studies relating to humor
and its many uses, researchers may also use harm-
less humor to refer to other forms of humor. These
forms may include benign humor which does not
target a certain person or individual (e.g., puns such
as “Did you hear the news about corduroy pillows?
They’re really making headlines.”), or affiliative
humor, which is used to relate to others and build
relationships.
According to Rod Martin, Patricia Puhlik-Doris,
Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir’s 2003
work on humor styles (or individual differences in
humor use), people who tend to use harmless humor
in their day-to-day interactions have an affiliative
humor style. They tend to make humorous remarks
and use both planned humor (e.g., prepared/
rehearsed jokes) and spontaneous humor (e.g.,
unplanned humor in a conversation) to amuse oth-
ers and enable positive interactions with them.
Generally speaking, humor that is used in this
manner has positive effects. On a very basic level,
it arouses mirth, a positive emotion associated with
humor that is likely to result in laughter. This pro-
cess is enjoyable in and of itself but also tends to lead
us to form positive perceptions about the humorous
individual, which then increases our liking of him
or her. In addition to facilitating positive interac-
tions and building relationships, this may also foster
attraction as either a friend or romantic partner,
especially when individuals’ senses of humor are
similar.
On a more complex level, harmless humor fre-
quently functions as a communication tool. It does
so by allowing individuals to convey a message
without having to explicitly state what that message
is, which in turn allows individuals to impart infor-
mation that may be socially uncomfortable. In
essence, harmless humor smoothens social interac-
tion. By presenting the information in a humorous
manner, an individual can “soften the blow” of a
potentially awkward or offensive message and pos-
sibly avoid confrontation. For example, imagine
the awkward scenario in which a political (or oth-
erwise touchy) issue comes up among individuals
who may disagree on the matter. There are a couple
ways in which humor could be used in such a situa-
tion as a way of maintaining a positive interaction.
Introducing one’s opinion by joking about the topic
may convey not only one’s perspective but also one’s
openness to discussion. It also indicates lightheart-
edness and an effort to avoid offending anyone
who may disagree (i.e., it allows the speaker to test
the waters). Likewise, an individual may also use
humor to respond to a touchy subject. Rather than
conveying transparent disagreement, ambivalence,
or apathy, one can respond with humor to indicate
that the individual does not want to continue the
discussion or is not comfortable doing so. This
allows for the avoidance of confrontation and can
prevent awkward interaction.
In addition to its multifunctionality, harmless
humor has been associated with numerous positive
outcomes. Individuals who prefer this type of humor
tend to have stronger long-term relationships and
healthier attachment styles in friendships and family
relationships. They are better able to use humor to
cope with life stress, major illness, and loss. Further,
the ability to use harmless humor successfully may
be related to greater emotional well-being, as well
as a more positive, stable, and realistic self-concept.
Given that all of these outcomes contribute cumu-
latively to one’s overall well-being and life satisfac-
tion, we can generally conclude that using harmless
humor is a positive behavior in which to engage,
though further research is needed in order to deter-
mine directions of causality among these patterns.
Overall, harmless humor is characterized by
positive humorous interactions in which the purpose
of the humor is prosocial. Specifically, it serves to
smooth social interaction or provoke enjoyment,
and it is done with positive intention.
Aggressive Humor
Unlike harmless humor, aggressive humor is much
more straightforward in terms of its meaning.
While it may occur in multiple forms (e.g., sarcasm,

disparagement, or teasing used in a humorous
manner), all aggressive humor is used to ridicule
or mock a target, which is most often a person or
group. This type of humor can have some positive
effects in certain cases, but in general, the effects of
aggressive humor tend to be negative.
Individuals who demonstrate a tendency to use
this type of humor in their day-to-day interactions
are, unsurprisingly, described as having an aggres-
sive humor style. Broadly speaking, individuals
who prefer this use of humor tend to use it with-
out regard for its potentially negative impact and
may have a hard time preventing themselves from
making humorous comments that are likely to hurt
others.
It may be the case that such humor not only
results in negative outcomes for the individual or
group being targeted by the humor, but it may also
reinforce hierarchies in which one group or indi-
vidual maintains power over another. In Leslie Janes
and James Olson’s (2000) research on what they
have labeled “jeer pressure,” it was found that when
individuals witness another person being teased,
it affects their own behavior on subsequent tasks,
such that they display greater conformity and fear
of failure or rejection and withdraw from behav-
iors that could make them stand out as a target. In
a somewhat similar manner, it has also been found
that exposure to such humor may actually perpetu-
ate negative stereotypes or increase the expression of
prejudice.
In their development of prejudiced norm theory,
Tom Ford and Mark Ferguson (2004) identified a
process by which disparaging humor—that which
mocks or belittles an individual or social group—
may increase the likelihood of discrimination toward
the group being targeted. Specifically, when indi-
viduals who have negative attitudes toward a group
(e.g., women) are exposed to humor that belittles
that group (e.g., sexist humor), they enter a noncriti-
cal mindset in which they perceive that the expres-
sion of negative attitudes (e.g., sexism) is acceptable
for that situation. As a result, they become more
likely to tolerate and even express prejudice and dis-
crimination toward the targeted group.
In addition to this, individuals who use dispar-
agement humor against a marginalized group may
do so because it allows them to express the prejudice
they are normally expected to suppress. For exam-
ple, someone who feels constrained by pressures of
societal expectations (e.g., political correctness) may
enjoy the opportunity to make a joke about a group
Aggressive and Harmless Humor 17
toward whom they hold negative attitudes because
it provides a temporary opportunity to express their
true sentiment—it functions as a release from social
pressure. But if or when they are met with resistance
for expressing such sentiment, they can invoke the
“I was only joking!” defense and possibly avoid
social punishment.
Given the social struggles that marginalized
groups continue to face, it is important to consider
and continue to study the potential for aggressive
humor to perpetuate negative attitudes and its role
as a mechanism for the expression of prejudice. In
his 2005 book on racial, ethnic, and sexist humor,
Leon Rappoport describes this function of aggres-
sive humor as a “sword” because of its potential to
harm. But he also suggests that it may be used as
a “shield” by which to cope with or even defend
one’s group against negative stereotypes. In fact,
some authors have suggested that humor naturally
lends itself to rebellion and can be a tool used to
fight norms or restrictions that are unfair to some
groups. Emerging research is beginning to find that
humor that mocks stereotypes or oppressive societal
institutions (such as that used on Comedy Central’s
The Daily Show and Key and Peele and in other
forms of satirical media) may provide a helpful cop-
ing mechanism for marginalized groups to manage
the effects of their social status. It may also act as
a tool for implementing social change by drawing
attention to the ridiculousness of a given group’s
marginalization, which could prompt further discus-
sion of social issues and intergroup relations.
Generally speaking, aggressive humor is most
often characterized by negative humorous interac-
tions in which the purpose of the humor is typically
antisocial. In some instances, it may be used to tar-
get and challenge social issues, which may result in
positive outcomes for the individuals affected by
those issues. But in its most common form, aggres-
sive humor is used as a way to degrade a particular
social group or its members and may result in the
perpetuation of negative attitudes or the expression
of prejudice.
Conclusion
In sum, both harmless and aggressive humor provide
illustrations of the complex role that humor may play
in social interaction. Both may be used as a tool to
communicate information that individuals may not
be able or willing to state explicitly, and both have
significant influence on interpersonal interactions,
18 Aging and Humor
whether in personal relationships or intergroup rela-
tions. Regardless, research on both types of humor
informs us that it’s never really “just a joke.”
Megan Strain
See also Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Humor Styles; Jokes; Prejudice, Humor and;
Relationships, Nonromantic
Further Readings
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences
of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–94.
Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The
behavioral effects of observing ridicule of others.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 474–485.
Kuiper, N. A., & Borowicz-Sibenik, M. (2005). A good
sense of humor doesn’t always help: Agency and
communion as moderators of psychological well-being.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 365–377.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal
of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
Rappoport, L. (2005). Punchlines: The case for racial,
ethnic, and gender humor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
AGING AND HUMOR
While there is an extensive amount of scholarship
on the relationship between humor and health
in young adult populations, there appears to be
less available on the complex associations among
humor, health, and aging. Extant research indicates
that aging adults, loosely defined as those individu-
als 65 and older, reap a variety of intrapersonal and
interpersonal benefits from using humor; however,
as adults age, their ability to cognitively and affec-
tively process humorous content deteriorates. This
entry discusses the approaches that have been taken
to studying the effects of humor on individuals, the
benefits researchers have found for humor use and
appreciation in older adults, and the challenges for
older adults in using and understanding humor.
Source and Receiver Approaches
to Humor Research
Much of the scholarship on humor focuses on the
benefits derived from either enacting humor, hereafter
referred to as a source approach to humor, or being
exposed to humor, labeled a receiver or general effects
approach. It is important to distinguish between these
two perspectives because while both are valuable,
they do not address the same constructs and often
use different study methodologies. When utilizing a
receiver or general effects approach, researchers might
explore the effects of humor exposure on study par-
ticipants. When researchers adopt a source approach,
they might study the myriad ways that individuals
differ in processing and producing humorous content
as well as the benefits they derive. Research exploring
humor, health, and aging has been conducted from
both perspectives and has identified a number of
intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits.
Intrapersonal Benefits
Both exposure to humorous stimuli and humor pro-
duction appear to elicit a number of intrapersonal
benefits. The intrapersonal benefits associated with
humor can be grouped into two main types: physi-
ological and psychological.
When comparing participants’ anxiety levels after
exposure to brief sorrowful, humorous, or hopeful
videos, those who were exposed to the humorous
videos reported the greatest reduction in anxiety
levels. Thus, exposure to humorous stimuli, such
as videos, cartoons, or stories, may aid in reducing
anxiety related to the aging process.
Research comparing nursing home residents who
participated in a humor therapy group with those
who did not found that residents who completed
the interactive program experienced significant
decreases in pain (physiological) and perceptions of
loneliness and significant increases in happiness and
life satisfaction (psychological).
Humor may play a role in helping individuals to
age successfully by enhancing their perceived control
over the aging process and their life circumstances.
For some individuals, laughing or joking about
negative occurrences creates a feeling of being able
to manage or even prevent further negative affective
states.
Individuals identified as humor oriented tend
to use humor frequently and effectively, employ
humorous coping strategies and, as a result of this
use, seem to feel that they cope better with stress.
Researchers have studied the complex relationships
among aging adults’ use of humor, coping efficacy,
and life satisfaction. The relationship between
aging adults’ humor orientation and life satisfaction

appears to be influenced by their ability to cope
with stressful situations. Also, when researchers
compared aging adults’ abilities to enact humor to
younger and middle-age individuals, aging adults
reported using humor less often and less effectively
than the other two groups. These findings illustrate
the need to study individual differences in humor
production across the lifespan.
Interpersonal Benefits
Individuals who are more proficient at producing
humor and employ humor more often seem to reap
a number of interpersonal rewards. For example,
older adults who regularly use humor to cope report
greater perceived social support.
Qualitative research on older adults’ narratives
reflects the complex use of humor in different social
contexts. Four types of humor emerged in the nar-
ratives: affiliative, self-enhancing, self-defeating, and
authentic. Humor was used consistently by aging
adults to maintain strong social connections with
peers and family members, to express and manage
their identity, and to adapt to difficult experiences
associated with aging such as deteriorating health.
Similar scholarship has examined the cognitive,
affective, and behavioral elements of humor in the
lives of older adults. Aging adults were interviewed
about how they used humor to cope with difficult
situations as well as their perceptions of the impor-
tance of humor in their lives. Humor was used as
a means of understanding the world and relating
competently to others. It was also identified as an
essential behavioral skill that helped aging adults
manage highly stressful situations by accommodat-
ing to those around them.
Aging individuals who are able to use humor
appropriately and effectively benefit from better cop-
ing skills, increased life satisfaction, and enhanced
social support; however, there are some challenges
associated with humor use.
Impediments/Challenges
The ability to understand and enact humor requires
a combination of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
skills. As individuals age, their capability to process
information affects both the ability to formulate
humorous messages and the ability to understand
them.
When researchers compared younger, middle-
age, and older adults’ ability to interpret and com-
plete joke punch lines, they found that aging adults
Aging and Humor 19
selected significantly fewer correct punch lines and
were poorer at answering questions that require
reasoning than other groups. The three age groups
were also compared based on their ratings of joke
funniness. Older adults perceived the jokes as less
funny than the other groups. These findings seem
to support the “frontal aging hypothesis,” which
states that the prefrontal cortex is especially sus-
ceptible to age effects. The prefrontal cortex, which
is the gray matter of the front part of the brain
that regulates cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
functioning, is also important for humor process-
ing. Future studies that examine the relationships
among humor, health, and aging should continue
to examine how different forms (i.e., visual, audi-
tory, written) of humor are cognitively and affec-
tively processed by aging populations and identify
specific types associated with mental and physical
health.
Melissa Bekelja Wanzer
See also Coping Mechanism; Health Benefits of Humor,
Physical; Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological
Further Readings
Damianakis, T., & Marziali, E. (2011). Community-
dwelling older adults’ contextual experiencing of humor.
Ageing and Society, 31, 110–124.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J.
(1987). Age differences in stress and coping process.
Psychology and Aging, 2, 171–184.
Marziali, E., McDonald, L., & Donahue, P. (2008). The
role of coping humor in the physical and mental health
of older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 12, 713–718.
Moran, C. C. (1996). Short-term change, perceived
funniness, and the effect of humor stimuli. Behavioral
Medicine, 22, 32–38.
Solomon, J. C. (1996). Humor and aging well: A laughing
matter or a matter of laughing? The American
Behavioral Scientist, 39, 249–271.
Sparks-Bethea, L. (2001). The function of humor within the
lives of older adults. Communication Research Reports,
2, 49–56.
Tse, M. M., Lo, A. P. K., Cheng, L. Y., Chan, E. K. K.,
Chan, A. H. Y., & Chung, H. S. W. (2010). Humor
therapy: Relieving chronic pain and enhancing
happiness for older adults. Journal of Aging Research,
2010, 1–9.
Uekermann, J., Channon, S., & Daum, I. (2006). Humor
processing, mentalizing, and executive function in
normal aging. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 12, 184–191.
20 Akan Humor
Wanzer, M. B., Sparks, L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009)
Humorous communication within the lives of older
adults: The relationships among humor, coping efficacy,
age, and life satisfaction. Health Communication, 24,
128–136.
AKAN HUMOR
It has not been easy to come up with an all-
encompassing definition of humor, but researchers
seem to agree that humor must be funny or amus-
ing. Simply put, anything devoid of this feature can-
not qualify as being humorous. Very little research
work has been done on African humor in general
and Akan humor in particular, though joking con-
stitutes a prominent sociocultural activity among
the Akan people of Ghana. Owusu Brempong
makes an indirect reference to the joke genre in his
folkloristic study of verbal insults among the Bono,
a subgroup of the Akan people. Brempong indi-
rectly connects jokes with insults, indicating that
some insults and youth game songs are known to
exist in joke form. He goes on to mention that most
of the comedy series on American television would
not be humorous without insults. Broadening the
scope to cover other ethnic groups in Ghana, West
Africa, we may mention Daniel K. Avorgbedor,
who illustrates in his essay on haló performance
among the Anlo-Ewe people of Ghana how humor,
open confrontations, and insults may be achieved
through song.
The Akan people possess an extraordinarily rich
tradition of folklore, comprising elements such as
tales, riddles, proverbs, songs, and poems. First of
all, they have various poems and songs in praise
of their kings, heroes, and loved ones. The evening
constitutes an opportune time for the performance
of folktales and riddles. Drumming and dancing
are two of the common traditional activities of the
people on special occasions, such as funerals, festi-
vals, and durbars, or gatherings of chiefs. Last but
not least, εbε (roughly translated as “proverb”) and
jokes constitute a common feature of Akan verbal
and nonverbal communication.
In fact, the Akan people are known to have
always lived with a strong tradition of “jokelore”
according to Ronald L. Baker (1986). Humor seems
to permeate almost all interactive engagements of
the people. There is a popular Akan saying, sε yεresu
mpo a, yεgyae hem (“one pauses to blow one’s nose
even when one is mourning”). The meaning often
attached to this wise saying is that no matter how
difficult the situation in which one finds oneself,
there is always the provision to attend to other less
pressing issues. Put differently, people are free to
tell jokes. The pervasiveness of joke performance
among the people may, therefore, be explained by
this freedom.
The people have two related terms—aseresεm
and nsεnkwaa—to describe what the English
speaker will simply refer to as “joke.” The ultimate
goal of the nsεnkwaa performer is to cause laugh-
ter in the audience, whereas the aseresεm performer
does not necessarily have laughter in mind. To put
it in another way, nsεnkwaa is a ka-ma-yεnsere (lit.,
“say-it-and-let’s-laugh”) sort of performance, while
aseresεm may be a serious statement turned funny.
Custodians of Akan culture seem to agree that
aseresεm and nsεnkwaa are different but related. The
relationship is with regard to the humorous element
in each of them. It may be argued that the initiator
of nsεnkwaa has laughter in mind. This person sets
off to make a humorous statement to attract laugh-
ter from the audience, but the initiator of aseresεm
does not necessarily think about humor or laughter.
Rather, the main aim is to make a serious statement.
It is by sheer coincidence that the audience finds
some humorous elements in the serious statement
made. However, the Akan people seem to agree that
“toli” or “late (news)” refers to a statement or nar-
ration that is meant to draw laughter from the audi-
ence. The statement, “hye toli” or “hye late” may
readily translate “to make a humorous statement or
narration.”
Akan humor has often been transmitted through
jokes, which have been derived from a multiplic-
ity of sources, including casual conversations, folk
drama, festival, folk narrative, traditional games,
graffiti, traditional medicine peddling, religious
sermons, and concert parties (“comedian joking”).
Akan jokes performed by comedians from concert
parties on the national television have in recent times
come to constitute a rich source of entertainment
to Ghanaians in general. Individual comedians and
groups of entertainers combine to entertain viewers
each Saturday evening at 8:30 p.m. in a program
dubbed “Concert Party.” It must be mentioned that
though these performances are basically meant to
entertain viewers, they occasionally touch on sen-
sitive issues and send out useful messages to the
audience. The performers thus kill two birds with
one stone since they entertain as well as educate the
audience.

Competence in Akan Joke Performance
The Akan people seem to agree that there is virtually
no organized way in the society to teach or learn
joke performance. Rather, every Akan is believed
to have a sense of humor within, which is auto-
matically activated whenever something humorous
happens around that person. Humorous events are
often stored in the memory of the individual to be
released at appropriate times in future interactions
with other members of the community. In other
words, joking is a universal phenomenon among the
Akan. Narrative styles, however, differ from person
to person; and the expression akoa yi ho yε anika
(“this person has a good sense of humor”) is often
heard about those who excel in joke performance.
It must be mentioned that excellence here is not
necessarily equivalent to frequency of performance,
since people who seem to crack jokes in almost all
the utterances they make are often not taken seri-
ously. It becomes extremely hard to tell when such
persons are making serious points and when they are
not. Competent performers are thought to be those
who are able to strike a sensible balance between
jokes and serious points in their talk. Much as jokes
are humorous and often evoke laughter, performers
are very careful about when and where to perform
them. A joke performed at the wrong time or place
not only impoverishes discourse, but also it consti-
tutes a mark of incompetence and degradation on
the part of the performer. In an emergency situation
such as fire outbreak, sudden collapse of a person,
death, and so on, joke telling can hardly have any
positive effect, and it may even pose problems to
the teller.
Functions of Akan Jokes
Research has revealed that jokes perform numerous
functions, including the reflection of societal con-
cerns, promotion of satirical statements against indi-
viduals who violate ethnic group boundaries, and
making light of a serious problem. These functions
(and other minor ones, such as the buttressing of
points in conversation, counseling, and getting peo-
ple to do things) are clear among the Akan people,
but the picture cannot be complete without empha-
sizing one strategy of addressing societal concerns
through humor—the art of writing on vehicles. The
phenomenon of writing on vehicles is common in
Ghana and other African countries. Some of these
inscriptions carry little or no seriousness, but oth-
ers may have inherent serious messages and stories
Akan Humor 21
woven around jokes. Individuals or groups of people
may have some delicate issues to deal with and, to
avoid open confrontations with other people (espe-
cially those in authority), they choose to handle these
issues through jokes that end up as inscriptions on
vehicles.
An example of this is the popular joke about a
young Akan called Kwame Atoapoma who was
very appalled by the wicked and selfish manner in
which the elders in leadership positions were run-
ning the affairs of his village. He was very concerned
about how to react, but he could not readily identify
any outlet through which he could voice his feel-
ings. One day, Kwame’s nephew, who lived and
worked abroad, sent a van down to him. As soon
as he cleared the van from the port and licensed it,
Kwame wrote at the back, “Some elders are damn
wicked.” The villagers noticed what was going on
and agreed perfectly with Kwame’s statement. The
elders, however, became offended as they thought
about the inscription, and they summoned Kwame
to the chief’s palace. By a unanimous decision,
Kwame was ordered to get rid of the inscription.
To show respect to the elders, Kwame erased what
he had written, but in its place he wrote, “Still the
Same,” thus emphasizing to the people that the
original inscription (i.e., “Some elders are damn
wicked”) was still valid. “Still the Same” may be
meaningless to somebody who sees it for the first
time, but to Kwame and the rest of the villagers, it
made a lot of sense—it addressed a delicate matter
of the village.
Sequential Organization of
Akan Joke Narration
In his analysis of the sequential organization of
the telling of a dirty joke in conversation, Harvey
Sacks (1989) states that the telling of the joke is
composed of three serially ordered and adjacently
placed sequences: the preface, the telling, and the
response. The Akan situation, however, adds a
fourth element—stimulus or prompt sequence—to
the equation. In fact, it is this stimulus or prompt
sequence that links up old humor with the current
discourse by serving as a prompt for the joke and
an enhancement on its contextual meaning.
The preface sequence involves the intending
teller making an offer to tell the joke, some refer-
ence to when the events in the story happened or
when the joke was heard, and a reference to whom
it was received from, if its prior teller is known. If
22 Ambiguity
the intended recipient of the joke accepts or requests
the telling, then the teller reacquires the floor for the
telling sequence to begin, followed eventually by the
response from the audience. Contrary to the organi-
zation of the preface sequence, the telling sequence
need not provide recipients with opportunities to
respond during the talk. The teller has the entire floor
and if recipients choose to talk at that time, they may
have to do it through interruption. They only get the
chance to have the floor within the organization of
the response sequence after the teller is done with the
telling. The prompt or stimulus sequence often pre-
cedes the preface sequence and, as the label implies,
it is actually the element that prompts or serves as
stimulus for the telling of the joke in conversation.
The prompt for joke discourse is similar to what
Kwesi Yankah (1989) identifies as proverb cue in his
discussion of the Akan proverb. Just as proverbs used
in discourse are often replies to proverb cues, jokes in
current discourse are often responses to joke prompts
that help discourse participants to remember, in the
course of their talk, relevant jokes already stored in
their memories. Yankah also mentions that one prov-
erb may serve as the contextual prop for another.
This is equally true for Akan jokes since one joke may
trigger off another from either the current speaker
or a listener. It must be mentioned, however, that
whereas some joke prompts are clear from the ongo-
ing discourse, others are not so explicit, thus making
it crucial to distinguish between joke prompts.
Types of Joke Prompts: Explicit Versus Implicit
Two main types of joke prompts may be identified—
namely explicit and implicit joke prompts. The
stimulus to a joke in conversation is sometimes clear
from the context of the conversation and discourse
participants have no trouble whatsoever identifying
it. What this suggests is that the prompt (i.e., the
stimulus) of the joke is explicitly stated and therefore
readily identifiable within the discourse sequences.
The opening expressions such as Moate wei? (“Have
you [plural] heard this one?”); Baako nso . . .
(“Another one is . . . ”); and Wei deε, εte sε . . .
(“This is just like . . . ”) may constitute a few clues
for the identification of explicit prompts. Unlike
explicit prompts, implicit prompts have no direct
relationship with arguments or concepts previously
verbalized in the interaction.
David Adu-Amankwah
See also Folklore; Jokes; Joking Relationship
Further Readings
Adu-Amankwah, D. (2003). An ethnopragmatic study of
jokes and joking in an Akan community (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Adu-Amankwah, D. (2004). Jokes and humor. In P. Peek &
K. Yankah (Eds.), African folklore: An encyclopedia
(pp. 195–197). New York, NY: Routledge.
Avorgbedor, D. K. (1994). Freedom to sing, license to
insult: The influence of Haló performance on social
violence among the Anlo-Ewe. Oral Tradition, 9,
83–112.
Baker, R. L. (1986). Jokelore: Humorous folktales from
Indiana. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Brempong, O. (1978). Attacking deviation from the norm:
Insults in Bono—Ghana (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Indiana University, Bloomington.
Sacks, H. (1989). An analysis of the course of a joke’s
telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer
(Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking
(2nd ed., pp. 337–352). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Yankah, K. (1989). The proverb in the context of Akan
rhetoric: A theory of proverb praxis. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
AMBIGUITY
One of the most important contributing factors to
humor is ambiguity. Ambiguity in its most funda-
mental characterization is the possibility of a given
utterance, text, or even discourse situation to be
interpreted in more than one way. The significance
of ambiguity to humor is found in the prominent
role that ambiguity occupies in different theories
about the nature and composition of humor. Rather
than consider how ambiguity figures into differ-
ent theoretical approaches to humor, however, this
entry instead briefly considers some types of ambi-
guity, showing how they can be manifested in some
humorous texts.
All humor, indeed all communication, depends
upon larger contextual factors for its meaning. So
when we look at a humorous text and identify an
ambiguity with a specific word, phrase, clause, or sit-
uation, we must remember that ambiguity, at what-
ever linguistic level it seems most directly evident, still
relies on a significant interplay of contextual factors,
including world knowledge and expectations, in order
for us to see both meanings. Consider, for example,
the following line from Roseanne Barr: “You get a
lot of tension. You get a lot of headaches. I do what

it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two and keep away
from children” (That’s Funny, 1996, p. 78).
In this example, we may note the crucial role of the
ambiguous utterance “Take two and keep away from
children.” But the humor of the joke still depends
not only on our world knowledge about what causes
headaches, how children can be especially noisy, and
how they shouldn’t be given unsupervised access to
medication, but also on the common grammatical
custom of product labels to omit the direct object of
a verb. This last expectation we have about labels
accounts for how in this setting we can interpret
“keep away from children” as being ambiguous with
“keep the aspirin away from children.”
Some ambiguities are highly dependent on spe-
cific language forms for their occurrence, while other
ambiguities are much more independent of a specific
form. We shall begin by looking at the former, which
may be divided between lexical and structural ambi-
guities. Lexical ambiguity results from the possibility
of a word (or word phrase) to carry more than one
meaning in a particular context. An example of this
would be a brief dialogue provided by Milton Berle:
“Did you hear my last speech in Congress?”
“Senator, I hope so!” (1989, p. 592)
This example depends on the meaning difference of
last as “most recent” or, alternatively, “final.”
In contrast to lexical ambiguity, a structural
ambiguity results from the possibility of more than
one structural, not merely word, interpretation in
a given context. Among the structural ambigu-
ity types we might identify are those involving the
“part of speech” (or as some linguists might say, the
lexical category), the grammatical function (such
as whether a word or phrase is a subject, direct
object, modifier, etc.), and the scope of modifica-
tion. The structural ambiguities involving a part of
speech (or lexical category) ambiguity are distinct
from simple lexical ambiguities because the differing
part of speech meanings also correspond with vary-
ing interpretations about the grammatical structure
involved. Some categories of structural ambiguity
are represented in the following jokes:
1. What has four wheels and flies?
A garbage truck. (Clark, 1968, p. 165; ambiguous
part of speech)
2. “Call me a doctor.”
“Why, are you sick?”
Ambiguity 23
“No, I just graduated from med school.” (Helitzer,
1987, p. 57; ambiguous grammatical function)
3. Why did the Amish couple get divorced?
He was driving her buggy. (Minnesota Public
Broadcasting, 2003, p. 102; ambiguous part of
speech and grammatical function)
4. A lady went into a clothing store and asked,
“May I try on that dress in the window?”
“Well,” replied the sales clerk doubtfully, “don’t you
think it would be better to use the dressing room?”
(Clark, 1968, p. 239; ambiguous modification)
In example 1, we have an ambiguity about whether
the lexical category of flies is a noun or a verb. In
example 2, we have no trouble with the lexical cat-
egory of the various words, but we can be confused
about the grammatical function of the pronoun me
and the phrase a doctor. If we understand that the
speaker is asking for a doctor, then the pronoun me
is serving as an indirect object, and the phrase a doc-
tor is a direct object. In the alternative interpretation
where the speaker wants to be identified as a doctor,
the pronoun me is a direct object, and a doctor is an
object complement (a sentence element describing
the direct object). Example 3 with its uses of her and
buggy illustrates that structural ambiguities may
display features of more than one of the types men-
tioned above. Example 4 illustrates a modifier ambi-
guity as the prepositional phrase “in the window”
may modify or describe both the noun phrase “the
dress” and the verb “try on.”
The examples above only represent a small
sample of the variety of ways in which structural
ambiguity manifests itself. For more examples of
structural ambiguity types as well as the features of
the English grammatical system that contribute to
their formation and how these can be deliberately
manipulated for creating humor, one may consult
the work of Dallin D. Oaks.
Beyond lexical and structural ambiguities that
are so closely tied to specific linguistic forms, we
can see other ambiguities that result more from the
attendant circumstances or expectations associated
with a particular discourse situation. This is the
case, for example, with ambiguities surrounding the
type of speech act that is intended. Speech acts are
the functions of those things we express. When we
interpret an utterance, we don’t merely process the
surface meanings of the words and structures, but
we also make inferences about whether the speaker’s
24 American Indian Cultures, Humor in
intention is to inform, apologize, command, insult,
request something, and so forth. When the intended
speech act is ambiguous, we can often find humor,
as in the following example from Steven Wright:
“When I was crossing the border into Canada, they
asked if I had any firearms with me. I said, ‘What do
you need?’” (Brown, 2001, p. 108).
A speech act ambiguity may, of course, be closely
tied to a specific language form if the speech act is
typically expressed through an idiomatic expression.
Note the crucial nature of the specific phrase “Don’t
mention it” in the following speech act ambiguity:
“A bribe is a gift with which the giver says, ‘Thanks,’
and the receiver says, ‘Don’t mention it!’” (Berle,
1989, p. 474).
Ambiguities can defy easy classification systems.
For example, among the previously identified ambi-
guity types we can find ambiguities that are possible
only in writing, while others are found exclusively
in speech. And beyond these, some ambiguities are
conveyed visually rather than linguistically.
Dallin D. Oaks
See also Linguistics; Phonological Jokes; Puns;
Reframing; Semantics; Speech Play; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Aarons, D. (2012). Jokes and the linguistic mind. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Berle, M. (1989). Milton Berle’s private joke file (M. Rosen,
Ed.). New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Brown, J. (2001). 1,349 hilarious jokes. New York, NY:
Barnes & Noble.
Clark, D. A. (1968). Jokes, puns, and riddles. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Helitzer, M. (1987). Comedy writing secrets. Cincinnati,
OH: Writer’s Digest.
Minnesota Public Broadcasting, & Prairie Home
Companion. (2003). A Prairie Home Companion pretty
good joke book (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
Highbridge.
Oaks, D. D. (2010). Structural ambiguity in English: An
applied grammatical inventory (Vols. 1–2). London, UK:
Continuum.
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London,
UK: Routledge.
Stageberg, N. C. (1971). Structural ambiguities in English.
In L. C. Deighton (Ed.), The encyclopedia of education
(Vol. 3, pp. 356–366). New York, NY: Macmillan &
The Free Press.
That’s funny! Over 1000 great jokes from America’s funniest
comedians. (1996). New York, NY: MJF Books.
AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURES,
HUMOR IN
There are a large number of American Indian
nations, or tribes, in North, Central, and South
America. It is impossible to make general statements
about humor in American Indian cultures that
would pertain to them all. However, even though
American Indians are stereotypically seen as being
stoic, in actuality, humor is an extremely important
part of most American Indian traditions. This entry
focuses on American Indian people in what is now
the United States and the First Nations in Canada.
Two fundamental bases of American Indian humor
will be discussed, the trickster tradition and teas-
ing. Current expressions of humor among American
Indians will also be covered.
The Trickster Tradition
The trickster is a character who appears in the oral
tradition of most American Indian nations. The
tricksters take various forms. For example, among
the Algonquian people of the eastern woodlands,
he usually appears as a human male. In the west-
ern United States and western Canada, the trick-
ster is often the Coyote. In the Pacific Northwest,
the Raven usually serves as the trickster figure.
Other notable examples are Iktomi, the spider, in
the Lakota (Sioux) tradition and Gluskabe, the
rabbit trickster of the Abenaki in the northeast
United States.
The trickster character is generally not a creator
being. Instead, the trickster usually helps shape a
preexisting world into its present form. There are
many types of stories about the trickster. In some
stories, the trickster is a serious character, bringing
fire, medicine, art, dance, and music, among other
things, to human beings. There is a tragic side to the
trickster as well in that the trickster is often respon-
sible for introducing death into the world. However,
most of the stories about the trickster are humorous
in nature, often involving anal humor. Sexuality is
another important component of trickster stories.
The trickster will also display the worst excesses of
human frailties, such as licentiousness, greed, glut-
tony, laziness, and stupidity. The trickster is a shape-
shifter as well, being able to change form as well as
gender. The hallmark of the trickster, though, is his
ability to use his wits to survive, although, the trick-
ster is outwitted on a regular basis as well.

Since trickster stories involve relating how the
world came to be, they are usually seen as being
sacred. The sacred nature of trickster stories has
several implications. Most American Indians take
trickster stories to be morality tales about how one
should not behave. Sacred characters often provide
a model of being for people in a culture, though,
too. Thus, while working to avoid the negative
aspects of the trickster, the ability to think quickly
and use one’s wits to survive is seen as an important
character trait among many American Indians. The
ability to laugh at oneself and not take oneself too
seriously is another important lesson garnered from
trickster stories. By being able to laugh at oneself,
trickster stories also teach the importance of for-
giveness of self and others. Trickster stories are also
focused on this world. Trickster stories therefore
teach American Indians how to live in this world
just as it is, with all the nobility and weaknesses
that make up the human character. Trickster stories
instruct American Indians to maintain a positive
attitude in the face of even the most severe suffer-
ing. A key element of having a positive attitude is
maintaining a sense of humor. Thus, the importance
of having a sense of humor is something that is
taught by the trickster stories of American Indians,
and as a result, humor is an important part of their
cultures.
Teasing
Both historically and in the modern era, teasing
is an important component of American Indian
humor. In earlier times, it was not unusual for dif-
ferent tribal cultures to have specific rules govern-
ing teasing behavior, centered on what is generally
referred to as “teasing relations” or “teasing rela-
tionships.” Teasing relations refer to the class of
relatives for whom it is socially acceptable to tease
an individual, and, just as importantly, the class
of relatives for whom it is not socially acceptable
to tease an individual. The class of relatives varies
from tradition to tradition. For example, among the
Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Chippewa) of the northern
forests, teasing relatives were “cross cousins,” that
is, one’s father’s sister’s children, or one’s mother’s
brother’s children. It was the expectation that cross
cousins would tease each other, often in a sexually
suggestive manner. Cross cousins were considered
potential marriage partners. So, cross cousin rela-
tions were seen as being sexually charged. Another
example of teasing relations exists among the Crow
American Indian Cultures, Humor in 25
of Montana. The Crow have matrilineal descent.
As a result, the relatives on one’s mother’s side are
expected to act as mentors and guides to an indi-
vidual, especially in spiritual matters. However, the
relatives on one’s father’s side do not have the same
obligations. Instead, they are free to tease an individ-
ual. Depending on the tradition, teasing was and still
is often seen as a way of helping to keep individuals
in their place. Although it is recognized people have
different talents and skills, social norms among most
American Indian cultures dictate that one should
not feel that one is somehow intrinsically superior to
other people. As a result, whatever the rules govern-
ing teasing behavior, the social expectation among
traditional societies was and is that one should
accept teasing gracefully. By the same token, one is
also expected to be able to engage in teasing behav-
ior oneself. So, there is a continual social dynamic
in which teasing goes back and forth. When done
properly, teasing acts to cement social relations and
strengthen the bonds within the group.
In certain traditions such as the Crow, traditional
teasing relations still remain very much in force. In
other traditions, the rules governing teasing have
become more relaxed in the modern era. Also,
there is much more cross-national, or cross-tribal,
contact nowadays as compared to earlier times, so
the nature of teasing among Indians has undergone
some changes. The fundamentals of teasing have
remained largely in place. However, cross-national
contact has added additional layers to the nature
of teasing in Indian country. Much of this teasing
occurs among individuals who belong to nations
that are traditional enemies, as, for example, the
Anishinaabeg and the Dakota. This type of teasing
often focuses on stereotypes or specific cultural prac-
tices of the nation of the individual being teased. But,
cross-national teasing can also be seen as a way of
showing respect for other nations. That is, in order
to tease someone from a specific nation, one has to
know the traditions and practices of that nation well
enough to engage in teasing behavior. Oftentimes,
an individual exercising cross-national teasing will
take clues from the teasing that occurs within the
targeted tradition. An example of this relates to the
Diné, or Navajo, people. The Diné are well known
for being sheep herders, and among themselves will
make light of the role of sheep in their culture. The
role of sheep in Diné culture has thus become a
standard trope for other Indians wanting to tease
the Diné. In demonstrating an understanding of the
targeted culture, this type of teasing can express
26 American Indian Cultures, Humor in
solidarity in the fact that the individuals involved
share the common experience of being Indians in the
larger dominant society.
In the modern age, teasing can also be a way
for an individual Indian to express affection for
another individual, especially for non-Indians. It is
not uncommon for Indians to treat a person from
a different culture very seriously at first. Although
this behavior has the surface appearance of showing
respect for the non-Indian, in fact, it displays a wari-
ness toward the individual. It is only after the Indian
has gotten to know the other person well enough
and come to like the person as an individual that the
Indian might make a change in behavior and start to
tease the non-Indian person.
Another important aspect of teasing is the ability
of an individual to tease oneself, that is, to engage
in self-deprecating humor. Making light of oneself
demonstrates that one understands one’s place in
society and seeks to maintain social equality and
harmony, two goals of teasing behavior among
American Indians. If one is able to make light of
oneself, there is also more of a willingness on the
part of others to accept teasing from that individual.
Thus, self-deprecating humor is an important aspect
of humor in American Indian cultures.
Modern American Indian Humor
American Indians have been using the communica-
tion tools of mainstream society since the time of
initial contact. Once the reservation period started,
American Indians continued to express their respec-
tive comic traditions. In the early 20th century, this
expression was most commonly found in newspaper
columns. One of the most famous early American
Indian newspaper columnists was Alexander Posey,
who wrote under the pen name of Fus Fixico.
Posey was a Muskogee from Oklahoma. Adopting
a stereotypical Muskogee accent for his writing,
his columns commented on the issues of the day
using a heavy dose of humor and satire. Other early
American Indian newspaper columnists include
the Northern Shoshone writer Willie Ottogary and
the Winnebago author Charles Round Low Cloud.
The history of humorous American Indian newspa-
per columnists continues into the present day, with
one notable example being the Anishinaabe writer,
Kristine Shotley, who writes under the pseudonym
Ricey Wild. Her column, “It Ain’t Easy Being
Indian,” appears in The Circle newspaper out of
Minneapolis.
Outside of newspaper columns, Indian comedi-
ans have also entered the stage. The most famous
early American Indian comedian was Will Rogers,
a Cherokee from Oklahoma. During the 1920s
and 1930s, in addition to his work as a newspaper
columnist, he appeared in many movies and often
appeared on the radio as well. From the 1940s to
the 1960s, not many American Indian comedians
were active. However, in the 1970s, American
Indian comedians began a sustained push to remain
in the public eye. The American Indian comedian
who initiated this process was the Oneida enter-
tainer Charlie Hill. He began his performance
career in the late 1970s in Southern California.
One of Hill’s early works included a lead role in
the movie Harold of Orange, written by Gerald
Vizenor. Sandra Osawa made a documentary about
Hill, On & Off the Res’ w/Charlie Hill, in 2000.
Another important early American Indian comedian
was the late Vincent Craig, a Diné from Arizona.
Craig was a Vietnam veteran and head parole offi-
cer for the Navajo nation. He pursued comedy as
an avocation, becoming famous throughout Indian
country for his family-friendly brand of humor.
He also had a cartoon strip, Muttonman, and his
Muttonman Productions released his recordings.
His song “Rita” is much beloved by Indians and is
considered a classic. The song, sung in a stereotypi-
cal Navajo accent, tells the story of one man’s love
for Rita, and how her request that he steal a candy
bar for her resulted in the poor fellow going to jail.
An important First Nations humorist from Canada
is Don Burnstick, a Cree who emerged in the 1990s.
Adapting Jeff Foxworthy’s routine of “You might
be a redneck if . . . ,” Burnstick talks about how
“You might be a Redskin if . . .” in his shows.
At present, the Internet and casinos run by
American Indians are providing outlets for an ever
growing crop of American Indian comedians. As
such, there are now many American Indian come-
dians who are active and finding good success.
These include such figures as James Junes, Ernest
“Ernie” David Tsosie III, Tatanka Means, Pax
Harvey, and Adrianne Chalepah from the 49 Laughs
comedy group. Another comedy group is the 1491s
out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, whose American
Indian members include Dallas Goldtooth, Migizi
Pensoneau, and Ryan Red Corn. They have posted
a number of videos on their website, 1491s.com,
that have gained wide exposure in Indian country,
such as their “New Moon Wolf Pack Auditions.”
One more group of American Indian comedians is

called Another Indian Uprising, with members Jim
Ruel, Gilbert Brown, and Shishonia Francesca. On a
more individual basis, Larry Omaha, Howie Miller,
Marc Yaffee, Vaughn EagleBear, Jim Ruel, and J.R.
Redwater are a set of American Indian comedians
who appeared in the American Indian Comedy
Slam: Goin’ Native: No Reservations Needed tele-
vision show, which was released on DVD in 2011.
Other notable American Indian comedians include
Drew LaCapa, an Apache from Arizona, and Abel
Silvas from San Diego, California.
In addition to American Indian comedians,
humor is also evident in the work of many current-
day American Indian writers. The late controversial
figure Vine Deloria Jr. was an early and important
practitioner of using humor in his writing. His
first book, Custer Died for Your Sins, which was
published in 1969, includes a chapter on American
Indian humor. He mainly discusses the importance
of humor as a survival mechanism for American
Indians. Deloria is controversial in that his biting
wit and no-holds-barred approach to telling it the
way he saw it can be alienating for some readers.
Others, though, appreciate the satire involved in his
writing. Gerald Vizenor, an Anishinaabe writer from
Minnesota, was perhaps the first American Indian
author to consciously incorporate the trickster tradi-
tion in his novels. His 1978 work, Darkness in Saint
Louis Bearheart, occurs in an America deprived of
oil resources as a set of pilgrims travel through a dev-
astated landscape. The manner in which the book
challenges notions of sexuality and identity echo the
trickster tradition. For example, one character, Pio
Wissakodewinini, undergoes a forced gender change
from male to female for committing a rape. Stories of
the trickster undergoing gender change can be found
in many traditions. Louise Erdrich draws heavily on
the trickster tradition of her Anishinaabe heritage,
too, although her novels are not strictly written in a
comedic style. For example, one of the lead charac-
ters in her novel Tracks is named Nanapush after the
trickster figure in the Anishinaabe tradition. True to
his namesake, the character Nanapush uses his wits
to outsmart other characters in the novel, often to
humorous effect. Thomas King, a Cherokee who
currently resides in Canada, incorporates American
Indian humor and the trickster tradition in his nov-
els. One example is Green Grass, Running Water,
set primarily on the Blackfoot reserve in Canada.
Coyote, the trickster, plays a prominent role in the
novel. Sherman Alexie, from the Spokane reserva-
tion in the state of Washington, is another American
American Indian Cultures, Humor in 27
Indian writer who regularly incorporates humor and
the trickster tradition in his writing. One of his most
important works is The Lone Ranger and Tonto
Fistfight in Heaven, published in 1993. The book
was the basis for the popular film Smoke Signals. In
Canada, the author and playwright Drew Hayden
Taylor has used humor to write extensively about
his experience as a mixed-blood Ojibwe.
Lawrence W. Gross
See also Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews; Cross-
Cultural Humor; Ethnicity and Humor; Joking
Relationship; Race, Representations of; Teasing;
Trickster
Further Readings
Alexie, S. (1993). The Lone Ranger and Tonto fistfight in
heaven. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Babcock-Abrahams, B. (1975). “A tolerated margin of
mess”: The trickster and his tales reconsidered. Journal
of Folklore Institute, 11, 147–186.
Basso, K. H. (1979). Portraits of “The Whiteman”:
Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the Western
Apache. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, S. (Ed.). (1995). Indian Humor. San Francisco, CA:
American Indian Contemporary Arts.
Bruchac, J. (1987). Striking the pole: American Indian
humor. Parabola, 12, 22–29.
Clark, W. L., Round Low Cloud, C., & Wyman, W. D.
(1973). Charles Round Low Cloud: Voice of the
Winnebago. River Falls: University of Wisconsin-River
Falls Press.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1969). Custer died for your sins: An Indian
manifesto. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Doty, W. G., & Hynes, W. J. (1993). Historical overview of
theoretical issues: The problem of the trickster. In W. J.
Hynes & W. G. Doty (Eds.), Mythical trickster figures:
Contours, contexts, and criticisms (pp. 13–32).
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Erdrich, L. (1988). Tracks. New York, NY: Holt.
Eyre, C. (Director). (1998). Smoke signals [Motion picture].
United States: Miramax (Distributor).
Film in the Cities (Producer), & Weise, R. (Director).
(1984). Harold of Orange [Video recording]. St. Paul,
MN: Film in the Cities.
Gross, L. W. (2003). The comic vision of Anishinaabe
culture and religion. American Indian Quarterly, 26,
436–459.
Gross, L. W. (2007). Silence as the root of American Indian
humor: Further meditations on the comic vision of
Anishinaabe culture and religion. American Indian
Culture and Research Journal, 31, 69–85.
28 Ancient Egypt, Humor in
King, T. (1993). Green grass, running water. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Lincoln, K. (1993). Indi’n humor: Bicultural play in Native
America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
LOL Comedy, Montoya, S. L. (2011). American Indian
Comedy Slam: Goin’ Native: No Reservations Needed
[DVD]. United States: LOL Comedy.
Osawa, S. (Director). (2000). On & Off the Res’ w/Charlie
Hill [DVD]. United States: Upstream Productions.
Ottogary, W., & Kreitzer, M. E. (2000). The Washakie
letters of Willie Ottogary, northwestern Shoshone
journalist and leader, 1906–1929. Logan: Utah State
University Press.
Posey, A. L., Littlefield, D. F., & Hunter, C. A. (1993). The
Fus Fixico letters. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Price, D. L. P. (1998). Laughing without reservation: Indian
standup comedians. American Indian Culture and
Research Journal, 22, 255–271.
Price, D. L. P. (2001). Red wit in the city: Urban Indian
comedy. In S. Lobo & K. Peters (Eds.), American
Indians and the urban experience (pp. 231–246).
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Radin, P. (1956). The trickster: A study in American Indian
mythology. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Taylor, D. H. (2002). Furious observations of a blue-eyed
Ojibway: Funny, you don’t look like one two three.
Penticton, BC: Theytus Books.
Taylor, D. H. (Ed.). (2006). Me funny. Vancouver, BC:
Douglas & McIntyre.
Vizenor, G. R. (1978). Darkness in Saint Louis Bearheart.
Saint Paul, MN: Truck Press.
Vizenor, G. R. (1993). Trickster discourse: Comic
holotropes and language games. In G. Vizenor (Ed.),
Narrative chance: Postmodern discourse on Native
American Indian literatures (pp. 187–211). Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
ANCIENT EGYPT, HUMOR IN
Contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of ancient
Egyptian humor has been preserved. While there is
some controversy as to how some texts are exactly
to be understood, and some documentary testimo-
nies are ambiguous, by and large, the consensus is
that the ancient Egyptians had a sense of humor and
some of it is surprisingly modern.
In sculpture, as in other mediums, one com-
mon source of humor was animals behaving like
humans. Ancient Egyptians depicted humorously
their own people as monkeys, baboons, foxes, for
example. However, other types of humor appear
as well. In the Deir el-Bahri Temple Complex built
by Pharaoh Hatshepsut in the 15th century BCE,
there is a bas-relief depicting an embassy between
the Egyptian ruler and the Queen of Punt, who is
figured as obese. In a related image, a small donkey
is figured with an inscription saying, “The Donkey
that carries the queen” (Ward, 1968). Another
example reproduces what must have been a fairly
typical scene involving lazy coworkers, here in
William Ward’s description:
In a tomb at Thebes there is a delightful panel
showing an overseer following four porters carrying
jugs of wine fresh from the winepress to the
storehouse. Inside, the storekeeper is rubbing his
eyes, having obviously fallen asleep on the job.
Everyone has something to say and, while the text is
somewhat damaged, the general drift of the
conversation is clear. The overseer, anxious to get the
day’s work done, says, “Hurry up! It’s getting hot
out here in the sun!” Each of the porters adds his
own remark. The first mutters, “The load’s getting
heavy.” The second offers the equivalent of “That’s
for damn sure.” The fourth, who has knocked at the
door of the storehouse, announces, “The storekeeper
is asleep.” The third has other ideas: “He’s just
drunk on the wine.” From inside comes the muted
defense: “I haven’t been sleeping at all!”
Even self-referential humor, often taken to be a
characteristic of postmodern humor, appears in
Egyptian tomb wall decorations. In one instance,
the chief sculptor portrayed himself, a very unusual
choice, but at the margins of a fight. In another
instance, the crew carving the bas-reliefs is shown,
in the very carvings they are producing, augmented
by a series of mishaps, such as dropping a mallet
on a coworker’s foot, or being asleep on the job. In
yet another example, we see two carvers working
side-by-side on two statues. The first one says, “It’s
been a month that I have been working on this
statue!” and the second carver replies, “Because
you are an idiot regarding how you calculate your
effort. Didn’t you say to me, ‘stone is like wood to
me’?” (Guglielmi, 1979b, p. 192). This example is
interesting on several levels: First, it shows self-
referential humor (carvers carving carvers); sec-
ond, it shows the use of hyperbole (the boast of the
first carver: “stone is like wood”); third, it shows
the careful capture of a scene of ordinary life, used
to decorate a funerary chamber. Besides, it shows
that contractors’ estimates were just as unreliable
in ancient Egypt as they are nowadays.

According to Silvio Curto, the god Bes was a “laughing”
deity, the result of a fusion between humor and religion
that took place in the New Kingdom. Always represented
as a grotesque dwarf, Bes was the protector of pregnant
women, childbirth, the family, cleaning and grooming,
singing, music, sex, and generally of good things. It was
believed that his grotesque appearance kept demons away.
Source: The Louvre, France.
There are many examples of humorous scenes
from papyri, and a lot of them have to do with the
world-upside-down theme. Examples include cats
attending a lady mouse in her toilette, foxes herd-
ing goats, a lion and a mouse-as-pharaoh on a cart
dragged by dogs (Houlihan, 2001, pp. 63–65).
Humor in papyri is also sexual and obscene in
nature, as in the Turin papyrus, so called because it
is on display at the Egyptian museum in Turin, Italy.
Dating back to the Ramessid period (1292–1069
BCE), it contains various vignettes, some of animals
performing human tasks, but also several of explicit
sexual imagery, including a disheveled older man
with exaggerated genitalia engaging in incongruous
sexual positions with a courtesan (including one in a
chariot). The tenor of the representation is believed
to be satirical.
Ostraca, pottery shards that were used for note
taking, sketching, for example, survive by the thou-
sands, and some of them are humorous. Many
figured limestone ostraca can be seen in museums
Ancient Egypt, Humor in 29
today, with animals dressed in human attire and act-
ing like humans—for example, a monkey sailing a
boat, or a lion and an antelope playing a chess-like
board game. Ostraca show the same kinds of themes
as the wall and sculptural decorations, but they also
have grotesque imagery that is rarer in more formal
genres, such as a bald unshaved man or an over-
weight woman. The books of Patrick F. Houlihan
and Silvio Curto (especially those of the latter)
provide numerous photographic reproductions and
drawing reconstructions from papyri, which allow
the reader to appreciate the humorous nature of
these images.
Literary humor was also abundant in ancient
Egypt. Waltraud Guglielmi documents the presence
of some of the rhetorical figures and linguistic mech-
anisms we are accustomed to finding in modern
literary humor: paronomasia, hyperbole, zeugma,
oxymoron, synecdoche, nonsense, stylistic clash
(high/low varieties; dialectal; linguistic, as in code-
switching; and diachronic, as in archaisms), and
irony. Some humorous forms are not found in mod-
ern day humor, such as humorous compound nouns
(“chest of books” [= scholar] or “writing reed”
[= scribe], and we find forms of humor that have
disappeared, such as the grotesque representation
of cripples and dwarves. Vulgarity and scatological
language are common but not generally connected
with women.
However, there are complications: Exaggeration
is often the cause of humor, as in this example,
taken from the Setne 1 story “[The king] opened his
mouth down to the ground” (Jasnow, 2001, p. 66).
However, as Richard Jasnow comments, we cannot
be sure that even this obvious hyperbole was not
merely an unremarkable turn of phrase of the ancient
Egyptians. There are cases, nonetheless, in which we
can be sure that the text was meant as a joke. Andrea
G. McDowell (1999) translates a letter in which the
writer, whose name has not been preserved, apolo-
gizes for telling a joke. The apology takes the form
of another joke, which is preserved: “You are [tells
the writer of the letter to his addressee] like the story
of the woman blind in one eye who was in the house
of a man for twenty years, and he found another,
and he said to her ‘I will divorce you! Why you are
blind in one eye!’ ( . . . ) And she said to him, ‘Is
this the discovery you have made in these twenty
years that I have spent in your house?’” (McDowell,
pp. 31–32).
The best preserved literary text is the Satire of the
Trades, or The Instruction of Dua-Kheti, in which a
30 Ancient Egypt, Humor in
scribe instructs his son in the ways of people in vari-
ous trades in comparison to scribes, using a great
deal of hyperbole, essentially mocking other profes-
sions and justifying the choice of trade of the scribe.
It is believed to have been a textbook used to teach
scribes how to write.
The Satire of the Trades exists in many copies
and it has been said that it was the most copied text
of its period. It should be noted that, as Nikolaos
Lazaridis (2010) points out, “[t]he main purpose of
education and apprenticeship in ancient Egypt was
the training of scribes and of specialist craftsmen”
(Lazaridis, p. 1), which explains the significance
of the document to its original readers. The Satire
of the Trades was frequently imitated in the New
Kingdom (1550–1070 BCE). Several examples can
be found in Houlihan’s work.
Humor is found in other literary texts; for exam-
ple, Richard Jasnow shows that the Setne 1 story,
written in demotic (popular) Egyptian between the
4th and 1st century BCE, contains numerous humor-
ous elements, along with the “love story” and even-
tual reunion of the lovers, which parallels Hellenistic
Greek romances. In The Lion in Search of Man,
another Demotic story, we find anthropomorphic
animal characters and the familiar tale of the “Lion
and the Mouse” told by Aesop. A Demotic invective
against a harp player, named Harudja, includes the
lines “he cannot sing, except one [song] / since he was
born / I am hungry, I want to drink / is there anything
to eat?” (Thissen, 1989, p. 230). Patrick F. Houlihan
(2001) notes the humor in how the draughtsman
Prehotpe of the 19th Dynasty addresses his superior
in an aggressive letter:
The draughtsman Prehotpe communicates to his
superior, the scribe Kenhikhopeshef: In life,
prosperity and health! What’s the meaning of this
negative attitude that you are adopting toward me?
I’m like a donkey to you. If there is work, bring the
donkey! And if there is fodder, bring the ox! If there
is beer, you never ask for me. Only if there is work
(to be done), will you ask for me! (p. 2)
Needless to say, with any analysis of the humor
in ancient Egypt, one must always be very careful
about attributing humorous intentions to the
authors of the texts or images. For example, the
very satirical nature of the Satire of the Trades text
has been questioned. It has to be admitted that this
is a problem common to most of the texts and
imagery that have been interpreted as humorous.
The humorous nature of the text or image is not
always unambiguous. Identifying puns is very dif-
ficult, due to our limited understanding of the lan-
guage and the state of preservation of the texts.
However, a preponderance of opinion and textual
clues leans toward recognizing the humorous nature
of these examples, however remote in time and dif-
ferent in culture they may be from present-day
scholars.
Salvatore Attardo and Hilal Ergül
See also Animal-Related Humor; Assyrian and
Babylonian Humor; Obscenity; Satire; Sexuality
Further Readings
Curto, S. (2006). Umorismo e satira nell’egitto antico
[Humor and satire in ancient Egypt]. Torino, Italy:
Ananke.
Guglielmi, W. (1979a). Probleme bei der Anwendung der
Begriffe “Komik,” “Ironie,” und “Humor” auf die
altägyptische Literatur [Problems in the application of
the terms “comedy,” “irony,” and “humor” on the
ancient Egyptian literature]. Göttinger Miszellen, 36,
69–85.
Guglielmi, W. (1979b). Humor in Wort und Bild auf
altägyptischen Grabdarstellungen [Humor in texts and
pictures in ancient Egyptian tomb displays]. In H.
Brunner, R. Kannicht, & K. Schwager (Eds.), Wort und
Bild. Symposion des Fachbereichs Altertums-und
Kulturwissenschaften zum 500jährigen Jubiläum der
Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen [Text and pictures.
Symposium of the Department of Antiquities and
Cultural Studies for the 500th anniversary of the
Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen] (pp. 181–200).
Munich, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Houlihan, P. F. (2001). Wit & humor in ancient Egypt.
London, UK: The Rubicon Press.
Jasnow, R. (2001). “And pharaoh laughed . . .”: Reflections
on humor in Setne 1 and late period Egyptian literature.
Enchoria, 27, 62–81.
Lazaridis, N. (2010). Education and apprenticeship. In
E. Frood & W. Wendrich (Eds.), UCLA encyclopedia of
Egyptology. Retrieved from http://digital2.library.ucla.
edu/viewFile.do?contentFileId=1714458
Lichtheim, M. (1980). Ancient Egyptian literature. A book
of readings. Volume III: The late period. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
McDowell, A. G. (1999). Village life in ancient Egypt:
Laundry lists and love songs. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Morenz, L. D. (1999). Humor [Humor]. Studien zur
altägyptischen Kultur, 27, 261–269.
 Ancient Greek Comedy 31

Rollston, C. A. (2001). Ben Sira 38: 24–39:11 and the spectating at, an intense theatrical performance. His
Egyptian Satire of the Trades: A reconsideration. Journal festivals also affirmed the ideology of the democracy
of Biblical Literature, 120(1), 131–139. through commemorations and displays before the
Thissen, H. J. (1989). Der verkommene Harfenspieler plays began, which were designed to enhance civic
[The depraved harp player]. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie pride and celebrate the city’s achievements.
und Epigraphik, 77, 227–240. At the festivals during the period of free democ-
Walle, B. van de. (1969). L’humour dans la littérature et racy when old comedies were being written and
dans l’art de l’ancienne Égypte. [Humor in the literature performed, there was freedom of speech for both
and art of ancient Egypt]. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut
comic and tragic dramatists—though one of
voor het Nabije Oosten.
Aristophanes’s principal targets, the leading politi-
Ward, W. (1968). Humor from the tombs. Saudi Aramco
cian Cleon, attempted without success to prosecute
World, 19(3), 30–33. Retrieved from http://www
Aristophanes in the courts for the satire and abuse
.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196803/humor.from.the
.tombs.htm
heaped on him in Acharnians (425 BCE) and espe-
cially Knights (424 BCE). This was because the
festival performances were held in a theater over
Websites a kilometer away from the centers of Athenian
The Instruction of Dua-Kheti: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ political and legal life and during a public holiday.
ad/egypt/texts/instructions_of_kheti.htm These two factors enabled the playwrights to see
the burning issues of Athenian life from a distance,
literally and metaphorically detached from the cut-
ANCIENT GREEK COMEDY and-thrust of daily politics and judicial proceedings
in the Assembly and the law courts. Aristophanes
tells us in Frogs that he sees it not merely as the
The first known comedies were performed at the
right, but as the duty of tragic and comic poets,
Festival of Dionysus in Athens in 487–486 BCE,
to “teach what’s right” (Trans. 2010, 205); and if
perhaps as a cultural celebration and self-affirmation
his surviving output is characteristic, Old Comedy
after the Athenian victory over the Persians at
was a remarkable blend of a wide range of types of
Marathon in 490 BCE (the theatrical competitions
at the festival had started with tragedy, probably in
501 BCE). Ancient Greek comedy is traditionally
divided into three periods or styles; Old Comedy
(487–486 to 404 BCE), Middle Comedy (403 BCE
to ca. 321 BCE), and New Comedy (from 321 BCE,
reaching its peak in the mid-3rd century BCE). Nine
complete old comedies and two middle comedies
by one playwright, Aristophanes, survive; and one
complete new comedy, and substantial fragments
of seven more, survive—all of them written by
Menander. In addition, there are fragments of lost
plays both by these two playwrights and by their
predecessors and contemporaries.

Comedy at the Festivals of Dionysus

Comedies were performed at Athens at two festi-
vals of the god Dionysus: the winter festival of
the Lenaea (January) and the Great Dionysia held
at the start of the sailing season in March, which
attracted visitors from elsewhere in the Greek world. Thalia, one of the nine Greek muses, in an image from the
Dionysus was the god of ekstasis—literally, “stand- 2nd century CE. She presided over comedy and idyllic
ing outside yourself”—an elevated state which could poetry.
be attained by ritual, by the consumption of alcohol, Source: National Archaeological Museum of Tarragona in
and most importantly by either taking part in, or Spain; Wikimedia Commons.
32 Ancient Greek Comedy
humor with outspoken comment on serious politi-
cal and social issues.
Performance Conditions
Like tragedies, comedies were presented by a num-
ber of playwrights (this number varied between
three and five), competing for a prize. The actors
performed in a rectangular orchēstra around
20 meters in length on each side; on three of these
sides, it was surrounded by spectators whose seats
rose steeply up the hillside in a natural amphitheater.
On the fourth, the back side of the orchēstra was a
long, low building called the skēnē, with a pair of
doors opening onto the back of the playing space,
and several windows. (By the time of New Comedy
there were three doors or sets of doors in the front of
the skēnē). The actors used this building to change
masks and costumes, since between three and five
actors played all the speaking roles—apart from
the chorus. There were also “dumb masks”—silent
extras.
The chorus of 24 played a collective character,
often in comedy a fantastic one—for example wasps
in Aristophanes’s play of that name (422 BCE),
who symbolized vividly by their yellow- and black-
striped costumes and their stings, the Athenian
jurors’ love of a guilty verdict; or birds, in the fan-
tasy play set in Cloudcuckooland (414 BCE), the
kingdom of the birds. In Birds, the dialogue makes
plain that Aristophanes’s sponsor spared no expense
on elaborate costumes, as each of the 24 chorus
members plays a different identifiable bird. By the
time of the New Comedy, the chorus had declined in
importance; in Old Comedy, their reactions in each
scene and the sharp political and social commen-
tary in their parabasis (the audience address often
placed at the midpoint) were a very important part
of the plays. But in Menander, whose New Comedy
wholly lacks the barbed sociopolitical commentary
of Aristophanes, the chorus does not play a specific
character in dialogue with the solo actors; and the
choral odes of Old Comedy, which were specifically
written for each scene of each individual play, have
been replaced simply by moments where a “choral
interlude” is specified without being written out.
Presumably, the director chose an appropriate song
for each interlude, which might even have been
originally used previously in another play.
All of the actors were male; they wore pad-
ded costumes and full head-covering “faces” (the
Greek word prosōpon does not imply concealment,
as does the modern word mask), about two to
two-and-a-half times life size. The origins of the
mask are much disputed; what is not in dispute
is that when plays were performed before up to
17,000 people in the Theatre of Dionysus, these
larger-than-life sized “faces” were essential to con-
vey basic information about the gender and age of
each character to audience members who might
be seated up to 100 meters away from the action.
In Old Comedy, there were also portrait masks,
representing (with appropriate caricature) named
individuals who were being satirized in person in
the plays. By the time of the New Comedy, a wider
variety of masks had been developed to represent
stock characters, such as the ardent young lover, the
cunning slave, the grumpy old man, and the beauti-
ful young woman who was often the object of the
young lover’s thwarted but eventually triumphant
affections.
In Old Comedy, actors playing the parts of males
wore a short chitōn, a costume extending only to
midthigh; under it they wore a large artificial leather
penis or phallus, in keeping with the humor of these
plays, which is often bawdy and occasionally quite
obscene. It would appear that at some time during
the evolution toward the more gentle style of New
Comedy, which is wholly without obscenity, the
phallus disappeared from use.
Old Comedy
Old Comedies were based either on contemporary
settings with bizarre twists or on send-ups of myth-
ological situations. Though the extant titles and
fragments suggest that the second of these types
was quite common, it happens that the nine sur-
viving Old Comedies by Aristophanes all conform
to the first model. In each of them, the playwright
invents a fantasy-idea, which though unattainable
in real life is treated in the comedy as if it were
perfectly achievable, and the hero or heroine sets
out on a quest to achieve it. From the first play to
the last, Aristophanes’s surviving plays thrive on
the excellence of these fantasy-ideas, which provide
not so much a coherent plot in any normal sense of
that word as a set of pegs on which humorous epi-
sodes may be hung. For example in Acharnians the
hero, fed up with the belligerence and corruption
of the leading Athenians, decides to make a private
peace with Sparta, and in the second half of the
play he fends off assorted freeloaders who attempt
to profit from his peace; his happiness is contrasted

with the misery of the Athenian general Lamachos.
In Peace the hero, Trygaios, flies up to heaven on a
giant dung beetle (mounted on the crane which was
by then part of the stage machinery) to confront
Zeus and excavate the goddess Peace from the cave
in which War has buried her. He returns to earth
with two charming girls, Harvest and Festival; he
marries the first and gives the second to the Council
of Athens.
In the justly famous Lysistrata (411 BCE), the
heroine persuades the other wives of Athens, and
representatives from the enemy states of Sparta,
Boeotia, and Corinth, to abstain from sex until
their husbands make peace. In the second half of
the play, as the sex strike starts to make an impact,
Aristophanes has great fun with assorted frustrated
males entering with giant erect phalluses protrud-
ing under their chitōns; not surprisingly, Lysistrata
is then able to enforce peace between the warring
states, and the play concludes with a kōmos or scene
of revelry; the men receive their wives back and they
dance together to a Spartan song, symbolizing a rec-
onciliation after 20 years of almost continuous war-
fare (everyone in the audience knew too well that
this reconciliation was unlikely in real life).
In the last surviving Old Comedy, Frogs (405
BCE), Dionysus himself, shortly after the deaths
of Sophocles and Euripides, despairs of the quality
of the poets who are still alive and presenting trag-
edies at his festival; he embarks on a quest down
to Hades to bring back Euripides. Much of the
humor of the first half of this play—the journey to
Hades—depends on the comic interaction between
Dionysus, who is here presented not as the awe-
inspiring power he is in tragedy, but as a fat, cow-
ardly, lecherous, and none-too-intelligent buffoon,
and his witty and ingenious slave Xanthias; the two
alternate between “straight man” and “gag man”
effortlessly. (Aristophanes must have had a great
comic duo of actors at his disposal that year.) In the
second half, there is a contest between Aeschylus,
the long-dead grand old man of tragedy who is
made to symbolize the upright, courageous Athens
of the wars against Persia early in the 5th century
BCE, and Euripides, who is made responsible for
the moral decay that Aristophanes diagnoses in con-
temporary Athens. Euripides loses and Aeschylus
goes back with Dionysus to save the city. The
play includes a remarkable parabasis, a powerful
plea for reconciliation between the bitterly divided
factions at Athens, and indeed it not only won
the first prize but was also revived the year after
Ancient Greek Comedy 33
its first performance (an unparalleled honor for a
comedy) because its message was so topical and
pertinent. One month after the revival, Athens was
conquered by Sparta, and the vigorous, indepen-
dent, and highly participatory democracy that had
nurtured this remarkable art form was brought to
an end.
Middle Comedy
Our only two surviving examples of this style are by
Aristophanes. In Assemblywomen (392 BCE) and
Wealth (388 BCE), it is as if much of the life has
been taken out of Aristophanes’s writing, as well as
out of the democracy, with the defeat of Athens in
404 BCE. Assemblywomen involves an infiltration
of the Assembly by women disguised as men, who
get the Athenians to hand power over to them. They
then establish a communist state in which everything
is shared equally among all; in one of the best scenes,
a young man is forced to sleep with three ugly
old hags before he is allowed to make love to the
girl of his dreams. But elsewhere, the fantasy-idea
is pursued with much less vividness and effective-
ness than in the play with which Assemblywomen
must inevitably be compared, Lysistrata. Wealth
is a gentle satire of human greed; the god Wealth
receives his sight back and distributes wealth only to
good people, instead of to scoundrels as he had done
when he was blind. In both plays, the sharp social
and political commentary of Aristophanes’s war-
time Old Comedies has disappeared; there are no
real-life Athenians in the cast of characters, though
Assemblywomen has frequent humorous references
to actual citizens—members of Aristophanes’s audi-
ence. The importance of the chorus has also been
diminished; there is no parabasis in either play, and
in several places where there should be a purpose-
written choral song, there is simply a mark “song by
the chorus.”
Middle Comedy is the beginning of a transi-
tion toward New Comedy. Puns, bawdy, lazzi,
and the other comic devices that are characteris-
tic of Old Comedy are already less prominent in
Aristophanes’s two surviving late works than in Old
Comedy; in the New Comedy, they were to disap-
pear altogether. It would appear from the fragments
that some political comedy was still practiced, for
example by Eubulus and Mnesimachus; and that
many plays were either burlesques of a myth or
parodies of a tragedian’s version of a myth. But
the gentle mocking of contemporary manners in
34 Ancient Greek Comedy
ordinary daily-life situations, which became domi-
nant in New Comedy, also emerged in the Middle
Comedy period.
New Comedy
In New Comedy, the chorus no longer plays any part
in the action; it simply supplies choral interludes
between the five acts. Realistic, often complex plots,
realistic (though stereotyped) characters, and gently
humorous situations replace the predominant, grand
fantasy-idea, outrageously larger-than-life characters
and robust humor of Old Comedy. Because of the
conquest of Greece by the Macedonians, and the
imposition of rulers chosen by them, there was now
almost no political comedy.
Only one author of New Comedy survives,
Menander—and only in papyrus fragments. But the
Roman plays of Plautus and Terence take themes,
and often whole plots, from New Comedy; and the
one play by Menander which survives complete (The
Bad-Tempered Man), and the substantial fragments
of seven others, confirm the impression that we gain
from the Latin adaptations. The other two leading
practitioners were Diphilus and Philemon—who
was actually more successful in competition than his
contemporary Menander—who was not recognized
as the leading New Comedy playwright until after
his death. Both survive only in short fragments.
New Comedy laid the foundations for the main-
stream of comedy, both in ancient Rome and subse-
quently in the whole of Europe from the Renaissance
to the present day. For example, Shakespeare’s early
comedies are much indebted to Plautus and Terence,
and therefore through them to New Comedy;
Molière’s comedies would have been very different
without his use of devices from New Comedy; and
Oscar Wilde exploits the conventions and themes of
New Comedy to brilliant effect.
The characters in New Comedy are realistic, fic-
tional individuals—ordinary Athenians—caught up
in complex circumstances, frequently generated by
rape, seduction, or the separation of infants from
their parents. The complex plots often create scenes
involving mistaken identity or ironic situations in
which a character onstage knows less than the audi-
ence, and misunderstandings—sometimes severe—
develop between characters. It is no surprise that the
goddesses Misapprehension and Chance speak the
prologues of Menander’s The Shorn Girl and The
Shield; they may be said to preside over the course of
the plots of the surviving plays.
Scenes are often generated by social tensions—
especially between rich and poor, fathers and sons,
townsmen and country folk, and free men and
women and slaves; and heterosexual love, triumph-
ing eventually over obstacles, frequently plays a
prominent part. There were recurrent stock char-
acters (including plotting slaves, vain and abusive
cooks, and boastful parasites) and stock situations;
Menander once ingeniously arranged, in The Shorn
Girl, for the recognition of long-lost children to
coincide with the removal of obstacles between lov-
ers, so the play ends in celebration both of a rec-
ognition and of a forthcoming wedding. A similar
dénouement is achieved in The Girl from Samos.
Unlike Old Comedy, New Comedy only rarely
referred to contemporary political issues, almost
never made jokes that would only be appreciated by
one Athenian audience in one particular year (there
is however a reference to two audience members in
The Girl from Samos), and never (as far as we know)
introduced caricatures of real individuals from the
audience. In consequence, it provided an attractive
export industry; travelling companies toured New
Comedy throughout the Greek-speaking world. And
this kind of comedy possesses the lasting capacity
to appeal to a wide audience, since it gently mocks
universal features of human nature. As a result, New
Comedies could be—and were—readily adapted for
their own purposes by subsequent playwrights. The
absence of slavery from the Elizabethan world, for
example, gave Shakespeare no problem when he
adapted The Comedy of Errors from Plautus’s The
Brothers Menaechmus; that play was itself adapted
from a lost New (or possibly Middle) Comedy that
had originated the fundamental idea of mistaken
identity between identical twins. Twins separated
in infancy, this time of opposite sexes, are also cen-
tral to Menander’s The Shorn Girl; and this second
device was brilliantly reused (and parodied) by Joe
Orton, over two millennia later, in What the Butler
Saw (1969).
Michael Ewans
See also Aristophanes; Menander
Further Readings
Aristophanes. (1996). Three plays by Aristophanes: Staging
women (J. Henderson, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Aristophanes. (2010). Lysistrata, the women’s festival and
frogs (M. Ewans, Ed. & Trans.). Norman: Oklahoma
University Press.

Aristophanes. (2011). Acharnians, knights and peace (M.
Ewans, Ed. & Trans.). Norman: Oklahoma University
Press.
Arnott, W. G. (1975). Menander, Plautus, Terence. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon Press.
Dover, K. J. (1972). Aristophanic comedy. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hunter, R. L. (1985). The new comedy of Greece and
Rome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McLeish, K. (1980). The theatre of Aristophanes. London,
UK: Thames and Hudson.
Menander. (2001). The plays and fragments (M. Balme,
Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Robson, J. (2009). Aristophanes: An introduction. London,
UK: Duckworth.
ANCIENT ROMAN COMEDY
Although no contemporaneous physical evidence
for the floruit of Roman comic theater (ca. 210–160
BCE) survives, the extant plays of Plautus (d. 184
BCE) and Terence (d. 159 BCE), later artistic rep-
resentations of Roman theater, and other testimony
suggest that a large part of its humor was immedi-
ate and visual. Roman comedy’s elaborate semiotics
of masks, costumes, and associated stock characters
instantly marked a performance as comic, specifi-
cally in the tradition of the palliata or “play in Greek
dress,” as Roman comedies based on Greek New
Comedy models were called, and so neither tragic
nor a form of native Italian Comedy. For example, at
least some of Roman comedy’s clever slaves sported
grotesque masks with megaphone mouths, red hair,
and clown’s feet, while old men might be instantly
recognizable from their walking sticks and exagger-
atedly slow gait, and pimps by their colorful attire
and goatish beards. Unusual plays, such as Plautus’s
Amphitryon, the sole surviving ancient example
of mythical travesty, called for unusual measures:
There the extremely pregnant Alcmena, played by
a male actor (as was the case for all roles in the pal-
liata), was costumed accordingly and is made the
target of a barrage of pregnancy and satiety jokes
whenever she appears onstage.
Use of Stage-Space in Roman Comedies
The painted backdrops of the temporary Roman
stages of this period featured one to three houses
and could have humorously highlighted differences
between, for example, the domiciles of pimps and
upstanding citizens that often were juxtaposed in
Ancient Roman Comedy 35
the comedies. The stage space, whatever its precise
configuration, and the audience’s area themselves no
doubt were manipulated for humorous effect, as in
Roman comedy’s ubiquitous eavesdropping scenes,
or in the comic routine featuring a “running slave,”
who probably moved through the theater and onto
the stage to bombastically and sometimes metacomi-
cally (e.g., Plautus, Amphitryon 984–990) demand
that audience members give way so that he can deliver
a message from town, the harbor, for example.
Broad and physical humor was regularly enacted
at center stage, as when Roman comedy’s über-pimp
Ballio in Plautus’s Pseudolus repeatedly cracks his
whip as he orders the members of his household
to celebrate his birthday in an absurdly tyranni-
cal song (133–229), or when the enforcers Sparax
and Turbalio forcefully keep the pimp Labrax from
absconding with Ampelisca and Palaestra in Plautus’s
Rope (706–891). Even in Terence’s generally less
boisterous comedy, there is considerable commotion
onstage, as when in Adelphoe, the sanctimonious
pimp Sannio is pummeled there (155–253), or with
the arrival of the braggart soldier’s mock-heroic
brigade of slaves armed with household implements
at Eunuch 771ff. Three plays of Plautus—Persian
(753ff.), Pseudolus (1246ff.), and Stichus (641ff.)—
end in scenes of drunkenness and dancing. While
details are largely lost, it is clear that the complex
synesthesia created by Roman comedy’s stage busi-
ness amused its audiences in myriad ways.
Plots of Roman Comedy
The plots of Roman comedy, along with the char-
acters it inherited from Greek New Comedy, were
stereotypical and offered limited options for devel-
opment, circumscribed as they were by established
motifs, patterns of action, conventions, and expected
behaviors that could be endlessly repeated. Maurizio
Bettini reduces the plots of the 20 extant plays of
Plautus to a fundamental opposition between pos-
session and desire, which involves a transfer of goods
and articulation of two basic themes: the distribution
of women and the distribution of wealth. Most com-
monly, a female (a prostitute or a potentially free,
marriageable person) is sought by a young man in
love (adulescens) with the aid of a clever slave (ser-
vus callidus), a trusted subaltern who eagerly trans-
gresses social norms to help secure his young master’s
beloved. The typical obstacles to this “acquisition”
include a pimp (leno), a soldier (miles) or some other
rival, as well as a parsimonious patriarch (senex).
36 Ancient Roman Comedy
While the outcomes of plots were fixed and pre-
dictable, there was scope for creative reworking of
some plot elements and especially the character types
themselves, in that those stock characters always
could be written still larger than their real-life coun-
terparts. Thus, in Plautus’s Merchant the adulescens
Charinus mawkishly delivers a catalogue of love’s
vices, which include not only “Anxiety, pain, and
over-refinement” (19), but also “Insomnia, work,
wandering, fright, and flight; / Foolishness, stupidity,
and irrationality on top of all that, / Brainless insen-
situde and lack of control, / Recklessness and pas-
sion, spitefulness, / Slacking, greed, sloth, injustice,
/ Poverty, abuse, and financial loss, / And both non-
and hyper-talkativeness” (25–31). Ballio ratchets up
the stereotype of the avaricious pimp to new levels
in a famous scene of ritualistic abuse (Pseudolus
357ff.) by welcoming a bombardment of insults
with shocking aplomb, for example: CALIDORUS
“Father-and-mother-beater!” BALLIO “Correction:
father-and-mother-murderer. / Better that than hav-
ing to feed them. Now, was that wrong?” (367–368).
Plautus’s conventionally manipulative prostitute
Phronesium in Truculentus is so mercenary that she
vigorously asserts in song: “When I ponder it over
in my heart, it’s a terrible lie that’s told about us
women: / We are given far too little credit for being
as wicked as we naturally are” (451–452). The vain-
glorious soldier is absurdly represented by Plautus’s
Pyrgopolynices in Miles Gloriosus, who when asked
the simple question, “Do you want anything else?”
replies: “Yes, that I be no more handsome than I
am, / seeing that my good looks bring me only trou-
ble” (1086–1087). The senex Euclio in Plautus’s
Pot of Gold is said to be so miserly that he places
a bag over his mouth when sleeping, lest he suffer
the loss of any air (302–303), for example. In addi-
tion to these well-over-the-top stereotypical charac-
ters, Roman comedy employed an assorted pack of
clowns (bomolochoi), most often clever slaves or
parasites, who were at hand to deflate an emotion-
ally intense scene, as Sosia in Amphitryon, whose
irreverent asides to the audience about Alcmena’s
pregnant state undercut the seriousness of her hus-
band Amphitryon’s charges of adultery against her
and her earnest defense of her chastity throughout a
potentially discomfiting scene (633–860).
Metacomedy
Metacomedy is an extensively utilized source of
humor in Roman comedy. Literary self-awareness is
a defining feature of Latin literature from its begin-
nings, given its derivative status from Greek litera-
ture, and the impulse to expose fictional constructs
is perhaps all the stronger in a tightly circumscribed
genre like Roman comedy. Plautine comedy has an
especially pronounced tendency to broadcast its
status as theater-in-the-process-of-being-performed:
Characters often explicitly refer to the stock roles
they are playing (e.g., Comedy of Asses 174–175;
Pseudolus 1081–1083); comment on the audi-
ence’s reception of the play (e.g., Merchant 160;
Carthaginian 1224); and directly refer to details
of theatrical production (e.g., Curculio 462–466;
Menaechmi 402–404). In Plautus’s Persian, the
clever slave Toxilus enlists a parasite (Saturio) to lend
him the use of his daughter in a scheme to entrap a
pimp. When Saturio asks where he can obtain her
necessary costume, Toxilus quips: “Get it from the
stage-manager. / He’s obligated to provide it, as per
the contract with the aediles” (the Roman officials
who funded theater at public festivals) (160–161);
the mise-en-abyme structure of this deceitful play-
within-the-play could not be clearer. Chrysalus in
Plautus’s Two Bacchises unexpectedly merges a friv-
olous remark about a fellow actor’s skill with a cri-
tique of the performance of a famous contemporary
actor in a previous play of Plautus’s: “It’s not hear-
ing of his success that hurts me—it’s your acting. /
Even though I love Epidicus as much as I do myself, /
there’s no play I’d rather not see if Pellio’s in it”
(213–215).
There are marked differences between Terence
and Plautus in their employment of metacomic
effects. As the examples immediately above illus-
trate, Plautine characters reveal their theatrical
underpinnings more frequently and explicitly than
those of Terence, whose metacomic moves are
more subtle. In Terence’s Andria, the senex Simo
believes—mistakenly it turns out—that he is being
duped by his clever slave Davus into believing that
his son has impregnated another woman so that
the son can escape marrying his father’s choice of
a wife. Hearing her (actually) give birth offstage,
a stock situation in New Comedy, Simo exclaims:
“What! So soon? Ridiculous! Once she heard
me / In front of the door she stepped it way up. /
Your timing is a little off there, Davus” (474–476).
Similar metacomic subtlety surrounds the figure
of Parmeno, an aspiring clever slave in Terence’s
Eunuch. Parmeno misjudges the character of Thais,
Terence’s skillfully drawn “hooker with a heart of
gold,” and arranges an elaborate ruse to allow his

master Chaerea to gain access to Pamphila, a girl
Thais has placed under her protection. The scheme
results in the rape of the girl, which is brutally
described by Chaerea during the play (580–605),
and Parmeno is exposed as a bumbler when Thais’s
slave Pythias misleads him into believing that
Chaerea is being tortured and so tricks him into
betraying his young master to his father, an egre-
gious violation of the clever slave’s code (982–996).
Adding metacomic insult to injury, Pythias point-
edly gloats: “I actually used to think you were a
very clever fellow” (1011), where the adjective cal-
lidus marks Parmeno’s utter failure to win the day
as a clever slave directing an internal play.
Illusion of Improvisation
Another form of metacomedy that is widespread
in Roman comedy, especially Plautus’s, is improvisa-
tion or, more precisely, the creation of an illusion of
it within scripted drama. This device is most clearly
illustrated by Plautus’s Pseudolus, a typical comedy
in which the clever slave and the play’s namesake
plot to obtain a beloved prostitute for his young
master (Calidorus). The play opens with Pseudolus’s
blustery promise to Calidorus that he has a fool-
proof plan to purchase the girl from Ballio, who has
arranged to sell the girl to a soldier. Left alone on
stage, Pseudolus informs the audience that he is clue-
less and must improvise: “Where to start weaving
your web of deceit, / Or how to bring that design
to completion? / But I’ll have to be just like a poet: /
He takes up his tablet and though he searches for /
What doesn’t exist at all, he still finds it, and / Makes
complete fiction seem like the truth. / That’s it! I’ll
become a poet and find / The twenty minae which
are nowhere!” (399–405). “Poet” (poeta) here is
both a generic word for “poet” and “playwright” in
particular and points to Pseudolus’s larger theatrical
power. Even though an abundance of stereotypical
plots to “get the girl” is available to him, Pseudolus
instead stresses the need for novelty within a circum-
scribed tradition, or as he puts it in a subsequent
address to the audience: “Now, it’s the duty of every
actor to be original / Enough to bring something
original on stage: / If he can’t, let him step aside
for someone who can” (568–570). Pseudolus even
warns Calidorus’s father—the usual target for trick-
ery of this kind—to be on the lookout for a scheme
to defraud him of the needed cash (508–509). At
roughly midplay, Pseudolus again playfully informs
the audience that he has no plan: “I have a sneaking
Ancient Roman Comedy 37
suspicion that you all suspect / I’ve only promised
to do these daring deeds / In order to entertain you
during this play, / And there’s little chance I’ll do
what I promised . . .” (562–565). He then prom-
ises to devise a surefire scheme and leaves the stage
empty, only to reappear shortly to triumphantly
announce that he now has a concrete plan that is
guaranteed to succeed (574–594). But as soon as
Pseudolus’s celebratory song is finished, the soldier’s
assistant fortuitously arrives, inspiring the slave to
declare: “This new and sudden situation calls for a
new and sudden solution. / First order of business:
all my previous plans just flew out the window!”
(601–602). A richly metatheatrical and ultimately
successful play-within-the-play commences, and we
never learn what Pseudolus’s supposedly ingenious
plan was. Plautus has brilliantly duped his audience
into believing that a scripted comedy is being impro-
vised before their eyes. An equally vivid example of
seeming improvisation on a smaller scale, and with
a different tone and effect, occurs in Plautus’s Pot
of Gold when the miser Euclio pathetically turns
to audience members for information about his
stolen treasure and even accuses them of the theft
(713–725).
Tragedy as a Target of Humor
Tragedy based on Greek models flourished simul-
taneously with early comedy at Rome and so is a
ready target of metatheatrical humor in Plautus and
Terence. Plautus’s Rope even moves beyond mere
mockery of the stilted language and sententiousness
of tragedy (as it is seen through comic eyes) and
engages it in a kind of dialogue, appropriately so
in that Rope overtly addresses questions of human
justice and fate (see especially the prologue). This
process of pointedly juxtaposing the two genres is
initiated in the opening scene when the gruff and
uneducated country slave Sceparnio assesses the
damage of the previous night’s storm through a ref-
erence to a scene from a lost tragedy of Euripides:
“The wind unroofed the cottage! Did I say ‘wind’? /
Hardly a wind, but it must have been an Alkmene
of Euripides / That blew every last tile off the roof /
And created all new light and windows for us!”
(85–88). Throughout Rope, characters unexpect-
edly launch into tragic diction, as when the pimp’s
friend and fellow shipwreck victim Charmides direly
speculates about the girls they presume are lost at
sea in the pronounced style of early Roman tragedy:
“I believe they’re providing piscine provisions in the
38 Ancient Roman Comedy
deep” (513). The question of whether or not com-
edy can, as with tragedy, engage in serious discourse
about the human condition is eventually raised in a
later dialogue (1235–1253). Terence, who parodies
tragedy less frequently than Plautus, in a moment
of extremely dark humor in Eunuch powerfully has
Chaerea, in his detailed description of his rape of
Pamphila, quote a Roman tragedian’s line about the
omnipotence of Jupiter (the arch-sexual predator)—
“He whose thunder rattles the lofty foundation of
the sky” (590)—which clearly had empowered him
to carry out the rape.
Fathers as Targets of Humor
While Roman institutions (e.g., legal, military, reli-
gious, culinary) and their associated figures are
sometimes targets for parody or satire in Roman
comedy, the most pervasively mocked figure in the
genre is the senex, who as the champion of conserva-
tive moral values is closely associated with the all-
powerful paterfamilias of everyday Roman life.
Roman tradition granted absolute power over legal
offspring to the eldest living male, including the right
to sentence them to death. The paterfamilias only
relinquished this power over his descendants at death
(or marriage in the case of females who transferred
their fathers’ power to their husbands), until which
time the descendants technically owned no property.
The legal status of Roman children thus differed little
from that of slaves. Not surprisingly, much of extant
Roman comedy reflects the tensions that informed
relationships between patriarchs and their children,
especially their sons. A good portion of Roman com-
edy’s humor comes at the expense of the father of the
family, as in the standard plot wherein a son seeks to
fleece his father to finance his love affair.
Three extant plays of Plautus (Comedy of
Asses, Casina, and Merchant) in fact focus on
sexual rivalries between fathers and sons (cf. also
Two Bacchises, where the motif is less central,
especially its epilogue: “And we certainly wouldn’t
have performed this play, if we hadn’t previously /
Seen fathers become their sons’ rivals at brothels,”
1209–1210). In these amorous contests, the senex,
in accordance with a comic code that makes love
the province of the young, is doomed to failure, and
he is typically depicted as physically and morally
repulsive in his quest. Lysidamus, who lusts after a
16-year-old household slave in Casina, is persistently
portrayed as a goat-like figure, associated with
foul smells and insatiable lust, and at play’s end is
hilariously humiliated by his wife’s devising a trans-
vestite play-within-the-play to sexually denigrate
him. In Merchant, Demipho initially is presented as
a stereotypically harsh father, raised on the farm and
allegedly endowed with its idealized, old-fashioned
values. But counter to both tradition and the con-
ventional wisdom of comedy, Demipho celebrates
his uncontrollable passion for his son’s girlfriend as
age appropriate: “Once you’re an old man, that’s the
time / For love and leisure, while you’re still capable”
(552–553). He eventually is chastised by his son’s
friend Eutychus: “The idea that a man your age /
Would steal your lovesick young son’s girlfriend that
he bought with his own money!” (972–973), and,
in reference to his behavior, the elderly slave Syra
delivers a monologue denouncing the double stan-
dard for males and females in Roman sexual mores
(817–829). A metatheatrical resolution (“this play
will be shorter,” 1006) saves Demipho the further
shame of his wife’s censure, and the play closes with
the proposal of a comic law banning old men from
love affairs and requiring them to support their sons’
affairs with prostitutes (1016–1024). The senex
Demaenetus in Comedy of Asses, by contrast, is a
milder father than Demipho but still appears ridicu-
lous from the instant he calmly decides to support
his son’s financially debilitating affair with a pros-
titute instead of raging about it “as other [typically
comic] fathers do” (50). The ridiculous Demaenetus
eventually insists on “a meal and a night” (736) with
his son’s lover, a tryst that demands the son’s com-
plicity against his mother, who nonetheless learns
of her husband’s plan and prevents its realization
by leading him home (937), that is, in language that
playfully reverses traditional gender roles in Roman
marriage ritual. In Adelphoe, Terence presents less
farcical, and more psychologically nuanced Roman
fathers, of both the harsh (Demea) and mild (Micio)
varieties, and the play offers its audience a richly
dialectical examination of competing parental phi-
losophies, but Adelphoe nonetheless participates in
the interrogation of traditional paternal authority
that is so characteristic of Roman comedy.
David M. Christenson
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Aristophanes; Clowns;
Comedy; Comic World; Commedia dell’Arte; Genres
and Styles of Comedy; Greek Visual Humor; History
of Humor: Renaissance Europe; Insult and Invective;
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Masks; Menander; Mime;
Plautus; Roman Visual Humor; Shakespearean
Comedy; Stereotypes

Further Readings
Augoustakis, A., & Traill, A. (Eds.). (2013). A companion
to Terence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bettini, M. (1991). Verso un’antropologia dell’intreccio e
altri studi su Plauto [Toward an anthropology of the
plot and other Plautine studies]. Urbino, Italy:
QuattroVenti.
Christenson, D. (in press). Metatheatre. In M. Dinter (Ed.),
The Cambridge companion to Roman comedy.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Konstan, D. (1983). Roman comedy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Marshall, C. W. (2006). The stagecraft and performance of
Roman comedy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
ANECDOTE, COMIC
Anecdotes are short narratives that recount remark-
able events that may have happened to a historical
person and are remembered because of their witty or
humorous ending. Despite the regular references to
historically important persons or historically docu-
mented events, anecdotes are not necessarily factual
reports. In fact, the anecdote’s function as a form
to narrate something symptomatic or characteristic
of a historical personality, a social prototype, or a
historical situation is more important than the repre-
sentation of authentic events.
Comic anecdotes evolved from a genre of histori-
ography. The following explanations will, therefore,
differentiate between historiographic anecdotes and
comic anecdotes.
Historiographical Anecdotes
In Greek, the word anecdota originally meant
“unpublished writings”: In its original sense, it was
used to refer to texts that had never been published
before. In particular, it was used to refer to the
Historia Arcana (“Secret History”) by the Byzantine
historian Procopius (500–565). The Historia Arcana
was not published during Procopius’s life time, as it
told the unofficial story of Emperor Justinian’s cru-
elty and his wife Theodora’s licentious behavior.
As can be seen from the etymology, the
word existed before the genre was developed.
Nevertheless, the particular notion of the unofficial
and secret historical record provided by Procopius’s
Historia Arcana was very influential in making the
word fashionable again in aristocratic France in the
Anecdote, Comic 39
17th century. For instance, Antoine de Varillas’s Les
anecdotes de Florence ou L’histoire secrète de la mai-
son de Médicis (1689) provided an account of lesser
known events surrounding the Medici family, who
had ruled Florence for several centuries and also
had ties to French royalty. However, de Varillas’s
use of the plural anecdotes is no longer related to
the editorial history of his text but to his report of a
variety of incidents: such historiographic anecdotes
which, according to Sonja Hilzinger (1997), tell a
“true, previously unknown, curious event” typically
centered on biographical details. This historico-
biographical interest can also be found in Horace
Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England (1762).
Nevertheless, in general there is a notable shift
away from anecdotes about important persons to
what we today might call “human interest stories.”
Anecdotes as human interest stories (or fait divers,
as discussed in works by Roland Barthes and Lionel
Gossman) contain within themselves all the infor-
mation necessary to cause astonishment but provide
little contextually valuable information. Moreover,
they have also developed into independent textual
units that increasingly take as their subject matter
individual events that do not need to be presented
in any particular chronological or causal order. This
co-textual independence of anecdotes allows, for
instance, encyclopedic formats ordered in terms of
themes or personalities, for example, in Guillaume-
Thomas Raynal’s (1750) Anecdotes littéraires: Ou
Histoire de ce que est arrivé le plus singulier, &
de plus intéressant aux Ecrivains François Vol. 1
(Literary Anecdotes or History of the Most Unique
and Interesting Events That Happened to French
Writers Vol. 1).
Comic Anecdote
The growing association of anecdotes with human
interest stories had a lasting influence on the devel-
opment of the genre. Since the end of the 18th
century, collections of anecdotes have tended to
provide more amusement and entertainment than
information. This development from historiographic
anecdote to entertaining anecdote was described
by Hilzinger in terms of a gradual decline into an
“epigonic period.” This disdainful view of the fur-
ther development of the anecdote during the 19th
century is particularly pronounced in German stud-
ies (German literature contains anecdotes written
by canonical authors such as Heinrich von Kleist,
1777–1811). To some extent, such judgments might
40 Anecdote, Comic
indeed be justified by the growing lack of differen-
tiation between anecdotes and obviously fictional
jokes. Nevertheless, this development can be seen
to be at the root of the comic anecdote, one of the
dominant humorous narrative forms of the 19th
and 20th centuries.
Comic anecdotes typically appear in collections
(e.g., George Ramsay’s Encyclopedia of Anecdotes:
Illustrative of Character and Events From Genuine
Sources, 1828; Karl Müchler’s Anekdotenalmanach
[Almanac of Anecdotes], 1808–1840); frequently,
collections of anecdotes are focused on a particular
theme (e.g., Daniel Okrent and Steve Wulf’s Baseball
Anecdotes, 1989). Characteristically, the comic
anecdote is typographically singled out: Each text
tells a simple, self-contained story, as in the follow-
ing example noted by Peter Wenzel (1989):
Once when […] Barry Sullivan was acting Richard
III in Glasgow, he came to the scene in which, after
the battle, the King cries, “A horse! A horse! My
kingdom for a horse!” A voice from the balcony
shouted, “Will an ass do?”
Sullivan answered, “Yes, come down at once.”
(p. 88)
This text follows a formulaic pattern: A short intro-
duction describes the occasion at which the event
happened. It is followed by a provocation, a per-
son violating his role as a passive spectator, which
is finally followed by a dictum, a witty remark that
forms the punch line. This typical internal structur-
ing of anecdotes has also been described by Suzanne
Eggins and Diana Slade (1997) as a prevalent generic
structure in conversation analysis which consists
of (Abstract) ^ Orientation ^ Remarkable Event ^
Reaction ^ Coda (p. 243). Furthermore, it is typi-
cal for an anecdote that a historically documented
person, the actor Barry Sullivan (1824–1891), is
at the center of the story, and that the plot is fairly
simple (simplicity of anecdotes represents an impor-
tant contrast to short stories). However, Sullivan’s
witty remark has also been attributed to other
actors, such as the German actor Ludwig Devrient,
a fact that undermines the historical credibility of
this anecdote. It seems that very funny stories may
be attributed to a variety of different people caus-
ing the anecdote to lose historical verisimilitude,
which in turn creates the problem of differentiating
between jokes and anecdotes. This gradual erosion
of differentiation between obviously fictional jokes
and anecdotes can also be observed in the titles of
collections that appeared during the 19th century,
which mention anecdotes alongside jokes, jests, and
other short forms of humor like The Jest Book: The
Choicest Anecdotes and Sayings, edited by Mark
Lemon (1865).
Differentiation of Anecdote and Joke
The development of the genre during the 19th
century may actually have triggered the question
whether the anecdote had merged into the joke or
not. In fact, in some languages such as Russian the
word anecdote (анекдоты/ anekdoty) denotes a con-
cept that is very similar to the concept of a fictional
joke. Moreover, it seems in general that anecdotes
no longer belong to historiography text types to the
extent that they are required to exhibit “authentic-
ity” or “factuality.” As a consequence, authenticity
or factuality cannot be used as means to differentiate
anecdotes from obviously fictional jokes.
Nevertheless, it still seems appropriate to under-
stand anecdotes at least as a characterization of a
factual element of reality by virtue of a metonymi-
cal relation in which the event recounted is seen to
characterize either somebody or something more
general. This view is consistent with various quotes
about anecdotes, for example, Friedrich Nietzsche’s
(1964) statement: “It is possible to present the image
of a man in three anecdotes” (p. 25). Similar views
have also been put forward in humor studies. For
instance, Elliott Oring (1992) considers chizbat sto-
ries, which have been told about the early Jewish
settlements in Palestine, as anecdotes that tell char-
acteristic stories about the settlers (pp. 42–51). As a
consequence, anecdotes may be differentiated from
jokes by virtue of revealing something character-
istic about a real historical referent. However, its
relationship to factuality is rather loose, as can be
observed in the frequent juxtaposition of anecdote
and evidence in academic prose.
Ralph Müller
See also Jokes; Punch Line
Further Readings
Barthes, R. (2000). Structure of the fait-divers. In Critical
essays (R. Howard, Trans., pp. 185–196). Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual
conversation. London, UK: Cassell.
Gossman, L. (2003). Anecdotes and history. History and
Theory, 42(2), 143–168.

Hilzinger, S. (1997). Anekdotisches Erzählen im Zeitalter
der Aufklärung. Zum Struktur-und Funktionswandel
der Gattung Anekdote in Historiographie Publizistik
und Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts [Anecdotical telling
in the age of enlightenment. On the change of structure
and function of the genre anecdote in historiography,
journalism, and literature of the 18th century]. Stuttgart,
Germany: M&P.
Müller, R. (2002). The anecdote—More than punch-lines?
In S. Csábi & J. Zerkowitz (Eds.), Textual secrets: The
message of the medium: Proceedings of the 21st PALA-
Conference, April 12–15, 2001 (pp. 119–123).
Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Loránd University.
Nietzsche, F. (1964). Philosophy in the tragic age of the
Greeks (M. Cowan, Trans.). Washington, DC: Regnery.
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Wenzel, P. (1989). Von der Struktur des Witzes zum Witz
der Struktur. Untersuchungen zur Pointierung in Witz
und Kurzgeschichte [From the structure of the joke to
the joke of the structure. Studies on the pointedness in
jokes and short stories]. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
ANIMAL-RELATED HUMOR
Animal-related humor is abundant in every language
culture. It is manifested in various types of text and
discourse, most frequently in verbal jokes and rid-
dles, but it also occurs in textual representations of
folklore, such as tales, proverbs, genres of literature,
in animated cartoons such as Disney films, and even
in ordinary conversational discourse. This entry
discusses animal jokes, with primary emphasis on
the nature of their topical range and their textual
representation, as well as factors influencing their
comprehension. Finally, a sample animal joke will
be given and analyzed for demonstration.
Animals are part of everyday life for many peo-
ple. This is the primary reason for their abundance
in our humor culture. We know much about the
appearance and behavior of the types of domesti-
cated animals that live with us and even about some
of the wild animals sharing their territorial habitat
with us. On such grounds, we have acquired a rich
body of stereotyped knowledge about them consti-
tuting our common ground, or background knowl-
edge, activated during our comprehension of various
types and genres of discourse about them, includ-
ing tales and jokes, as well as riddles. Therefore,
not surprisingly, the folklore and humor of various
cultures show similarities in the choice of animal
Animal-Related Humor 41
participants and the mode of their representation.
During comprehension of verbal humor or upon
reading humorous texts about animals, we rely on
the knowledge acquired about them based on direct
exposure, our knowledge based on our acculturation
and education, and also on our knowledge about
the schematized settings and behavioral patterns
of their social role and actions performed among
themselves, in their own communities, and with
us. These types of background knowledge may be
overlapping depending on the depth of our educa-
tion and acquisition of the standards of our culture.
Background knowledge is stored in the brain in the
form of “frames” or “scripts,” which are organized
clusters of information.
Jokes about domesticated versus wild animals
show a balanced frequency of occurrence in practi-
cally every culture. However, in verbal humor about
domesticated animals, representation of the behav-
ior-related relation between animals and humans is
typically highlighted, whereas in jokes purely about
wild animals or domesticated versus wild animals
their appearance and behavioral features seem to
be more outstanding and salient. In jokes lacking
human participants the animal actors are typically
provided and are endowed with human-related
types of behavioral features and abilities—they are
able to use language, argue, inquire verbally, give
advice, mock and criticize, lie, and give orders, for
example—and this feature considerably enhances the
humorous potential of such textual representations.
Animal jokes are usually short, as most jokes are.
They usually start with a setup including keywords
spontaneously activating background knowledge,
followed by the discourse of the participating figures
of the joke. Usage of the present tense and definite
determiners in nominal phrases, even upon first
mention, are typical grammatical features in a large
number of even typologically unrelated languages
and seem to be a universal feature of this type of
text. Another universal feature is that the punch line
is placed at the end of the text and commonly con-
stitutes part of the direct speech of the topically key
figure of the joke. A major characteristic feature of
animal jokes is the occurrence of a large number of
incongruities conceptually clashing with knowledge
(e.g., talking animals), causing frame/script shifting
and the frequent occurrence of a frame/script oppo-
sition that results in surprise effects. The higher the
quantity and grade of incongruities inferable and
the lower the degree of conceptual load required to
identify them, the better the appreciation of the joke.
42 Animal-Related Humor
Incongruities resulting from clashes with behavior-
related stereotypes and background knowledge are
usually more effective than those related to humor-
evoking features of appearance. The joint represen-
tation of these two common features serves as an
even more powerful humorous trigger.
Frame/script shifting and opposition are typically
activated by the reversal of well-known behavioral
standards, especially in cases where they occur with
reference to animals having a conceptually and cul-
turally fixed symbolic status. Lions, for instance,
symbolically embody brevity, robustness, strength,
and consequent domination in the animal kingdom,
whereas rabbits, piglets, and other animals of smaller
size are loved for their kind manner of behavior,
including the expression of shyness, innocence, and
consequent defenselessness. Such behavioral and
appearance-related stereotypes are often radically
reversed in animal-related humor demonstrating, for
instance, brave, shrewd, and clever rabbits outwit-
ting even their lethal enemies.
The sample joke below illustrates the role of vari-
ous conceptually evoked incongruities.
The aggressive piglet is sitting high up in a tree.
The giraffe walking by asks
“What on earth are you doing up there?”
“I’m eating pears.”
“How come, piglet, at winter time?”
“I have brought some with me.”
The reader is struck by a large number of concep-
tually based incongruities clashing with the stan-
dards of expected background knowledge in the
above joke. According to the cultural standards of
our mentally stored background knowledge, piglets
are considered as kind and playful, lovable, shy
beings rather than aggressive animals. However, in
folkloristic discourse they tend to show off, brag,
and boast. They live on the ground, and under no
circumstances would they climb trees. The appear-
ance of the giraffe (the prototype of tall animals
with a long neck) in their habitat is strictly incon-
ceivable. To our knowledge, neither of these animals
would tend to love pears as part of their diet.
Neither of them would tend to communicate using,
and relying on, reasonable ways of thinking. The
piglet’s wit manifest in the punch line, therefore,
brings about a surprise effect evoking the perception
of humor on the part of the reader. The use of defi-
nite rather than indefinite reference in the noun
phrase naming the two main figures is yet another
important feature manifested in this type of joke,
which assumes prior knowledge of the referent. This
grammatically based maneuver places the reader
into the conceptual frame of joke comprehension.
As noted, animal-related humor is frequent in
literary texts as well, including traditional fables,
and also fiction. The traditions of representing
humor about animals date back to works from
antiquity, including the beast fables of ancient India
(Panchatantra), the classic, didactically biased ani-
mal fables of Aesop and Phaedrus from Greece and
Rome, Jean de La Fontaine’s fables from France,
and the animal stories of Ivan Krylov from Russia.
In all of these fables, animals are depicted as witty
creatures, and the purity of their moral behavior
in opposition to moral weaknesses are highlighted
allegorically. Outstanding examples of literary prose
satirically criticizing social relations as well as social
constitution with expressed, sarcastic humor are the
satirical fables of Jonathan Swift and Animal Farm
by George Orwell, a harsh, allegoric criticism of the
pitfalls of Soviet moral values.
József Andor
See also Cognitive Aspects; Comprehension of Humor;
Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes; Linguistic Theories
of Humor; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Andor, J. (2003). On the cohesion and coherence of animal
jokes: A frame-semantic analysis of narrative structure.
In S. Csábi & J. Zerkowitz (Eds.), Textual secrets: The
message of the medium: Proceedings of the 21st PALA-
Conference, April 12–15, 2001 (pp. 90–101). Budapest,
Hungary: Eötvös Loránd University.
Beard, W. H. (2004). Humor in animals. Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger. (Originally published 1885)
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Davies, C. E. (2004). Victor Raskin on jokes. Humor,
17(4), 373–380.
Holzberg, N. (2002). The ancient fable. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Leyburn, E. D. (1962) Animal stories. In A. Kernan,
Modern satire (pp. 213–221). New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Raskin, V. (Ed.). (2008). The primer of humor research.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

ANTHROPOLOGY
Conventionally defined as “the study of human-
ity,” anthropology has always been a highly diverse
discipline. It was once described by one of its
practitioners, Clyde Kluckhohn, as an intellectual
poaching license, partly because of its “four field”
approach encompassing biological anthropology,
cultural anthropology, archaeology, and linguis-
tics. Because the discipline spans the physical sci-
ences and the humanities, anthropologists draw
freely upon everything from philosophy and his-
tory to psychology and biology. Hence, anthropol-
ogists interested in humor employ a wide variety
of approaches in their work, although most would
claim that field study and ethnography are their
forte. An anthropological account of joking, laugh-
ter, or carnival is as likely to draw on Sigmund
Freud (a psychoanalyst), Henri Bergson (a philoso-
pher), or Mikhail Bakhtin (a semiotician) as it is on
anthropology per se. This makes the character of
a specifically anthropological approach to humor
somewhat difficult to define. However, anthropol-
ogists have shared some common approaches to
the study of humor, and this entry reviews these
approaches and discusses how they have developed
over time.
Most practicing anthropologists identify their
expertise as being in cultural anthropology, so
anthropologists are generally best known as stu-
dents of cultural diversity—although it is something
of an in-joke among them that they are regularly
thought by taxi drivers, hairdressers, and neigh-
boring passengers on long-haul flights to chiefly
study skeletal remains. There are other confusions
about anthropology. For example, a session on
“Ethnographic Perspectives on Fun and Laughter”
at an anthropology conference in Australia in 2006
contained a presentation that brought its audience to
paroxysmal laughter by narrating the true story of
an unemployed cultural anthropologist taking a job
at an open range zoo, where, dressed in a safari suit,
he treated visitors to an “authentic” African safari.
This absurd situation also evokes a Gary Larson
cartoon well known to anthropologists and often
used ironically when introducing students to the dis-
cipline. It depicts two pith-helmeted anthropologists
approaching a tribal village, while one grass-skirted
native raises an alarm, prompting others to rush to
hide their household electrical goods—the emblems
of their secret modernity.
Anthropology 43
These examples illustrate something general
about humor and the way anthropologists think
about it in terms of social relations and cultural
identity. The examples portray anthropologists as
stereotypes, in situations that appear highly amus-
ing to them. It is as if anthropologists want to say:
“You think that’s us digging up bones or adventur-
ing in wild, exotic places? Don’t make me laugh!”
Yet anthropologists laugh a great deal when they
get together to discuss the stereotypes and the more
the erroneous assumptions are shared by those who
“know better,” the funnier they become. At the
same time, anthropologists reassert their collective
identity against others. Most anthropological com-
mentary on humor involves similar consideration of
how humor acts as social control.
Although humor is found in all cultures, anthro-
pologists have tended to marginalize it as a discrete,
general object of attention. For the most part, eth-
nographers have approached the topic in piecemeal
fashion, noting that some particular group of people
has institutionalized a form of comedy—say, a jok-
ing relationship or ritual clowning—and endeav-
oring to explain it by contextualizing it within
the relevant social and cultural situation. The best
known early attempt to move beyond this narrowly
idiographic approach to humor was A. R. Radcliffe-
Brown’s 1940 comparative study of joking relation-
ships in Africa and elsewhere, where he sought to
move toward a general theory of the social function
of institutionalized teasing, raucous obscenity, and
horseplay. While this work spawned further attempts
to generalize about the social and cultural dimen-
sions of comedic forms, it remains true to this day
that the favored anthropological method of inter-
preting humor is to link a particular comic episode
or institution to its local setting. Anthropologists
generally side with the commonplace observation
that humor does not travel well from place to place;
hence, translating humor adequately requires what
Clifford Geertz (1973) called “thick description”—
the lengthy teasing out of a local culture’s complex
web of meanings. This makes the kind of general-
izing undertaken by Radcliffe-Brown decidedly
challenging.
Mahadev Apte’s book, Humor and Laughter: An
Anthropological Approach, was published in 1985
and seeks to give a general account of comedic forms
within a fully comparative framework. Evoking
anthropology’s multilayered approach to human
life, he divides his account into three sections—the
first on humor and social structure, the second on
44 Anthropology
cultural expressions of humor (including a chapter
on language), and the third on behavioral responses
to humor (a single chapter devoted to relevant work
in biology). Aside from the marginal reference to
evolutionary biology, the themes covered include
joking relationships, gender, childhood, ethnicity,
inequality, ritual, folklore (including mythology),
and verbal play—a list that would still largely cover
anthropology’s characteristic concerns when looking
at humor. However, Apte’s approach was relatively
conservative, even for 1985. Were his book to be
updated, it would now likely include more discus-
sion of the role of humor in situations of domination
or adversity, particularly in relation to processes of
globalization, postcolonialism, and identity politics,
which have become anthropological stock in trade
in recent decades. Nevertheless, Apte’s division
between themes pertaining to social structure and
cultural expression provides a convenient hook on
which to hang a summary account of anthropologi-
cal ideas about humor.
Humor and Social Structure
Radcliffe-Brown’s much cited early study of joking
relationships was framed by structural functionalist
theory. When he undertook that study, anthropolo-
gists mostly looked at non-Western societies, partic-
ularly those that were predominantly organized by
kinship and marriage, so Radcliffe-Brown’s atten-
tion was on the many reports of particular joking
relationships between specified kinsmen, in-laws,
clans, tribes, and so on. His primary concern was
not the form of the joking itself, which varies from
light, witty banter to tolerated insult or abuse, but
the relationships in which obligatory joking takes
place and how it organizes sentiment in such a way
as to stabilize those relationships. His basic obser-
vation was that joking relationships tend to obtain
where “conjunctive and disjunctive” aspects of a
social system are necessarily combined—in other
words, where people purposefully enter relation-
ships containing elements of strangeness, fear, and
hostility (e.g., through marriage or trade).
Radcliffe-Brown recognized that joking relation-
ships are very closely related to other relationships
articulated by formal respect and avoidance, since
each is a way of diminishing potential conflict. While
joking relationships are cathartic, relationships of
respect and avoidance have the opposite effect, but
to the same end. Radcliffe-Brown named that end
as friendship, by which he meant negotiated alliance
for mutual interest. While respectful relationships
determine alliance through knowing one’s place and
formally keeping to it, joking relationships are a kind
of enforceable familiarity. In tribal societies, such
relationships might exist within the same genera-
tion (e.g., between cross-cousins or siblings-in-law),
across adjacent generations (e.g., between a mother’s
brother and a sister’s son), or across alternate gen-
erations (e.g., between grandparents and grandchil-
dren), as well as between regularly transacting clans
and tribes. The types of joking in these relationships
vary enormously. In some cases, they are sym-
metrical, taking the form of banter, while in others
they are asymmetrical, with one party bearing the
brunt of ridicule or abuse. Sometimes a relationship
may change from joking to respect, depending on
age. However, not all joking relationships in tribal
societies take a categorical social form, since some
arise spontaneously between individuals whose well-
defined relationship to each other (e.g., as part of the
same age set) does not make humor obligatory.
The idea that joking relationships regulate hostil-
ity or encourage solidarity has remained a standard
one in anthropology, but the structural functional-
ist approach no longer has great appeal within the
discipline. Neither does Radcliffe-Brown’s vision
of anthropology as the comparative study of the
regulatory frameworks of small scale (“primitive”)
societies. Anthropology has undergone a major
revolution since the middle of the 20th century.
Where anthropologists once predominantly studied
colonized peoples, portraying them as premodern,
rule bound, and mostly static (“people without his-
tory”), the discipline is now acutely aware that the
world has become post-imperial and that colonized
peoples are rapidly changing and engaged in post-
colonial struggles that continue to shift the distri-
bution of power across the globe. Hence, structural
functionalism, with its bracketing of history and
agency, has become a largely redundant paradigm.
While the analysis of social structure in terms of
rules has remained critical, the idea of regulation is
now prone to evoke notions of power, conflict, con-
testation, and strategy. Unsurprisingly, this shift in
thinking has had a large impact on the way humor is
observed and modeled.
Contemporary anthropological analyses of
humor now tend to emphasize the intentionality
present in relevant social situations. For example,
some have adopted a more transactional approach
to joking relationships, suggesting that people
require a “license to joke” in comedic action and

that this license always establishes a corresponding
“frame,” a set of rules determining the types and
limits of permissible behavior. These rules vary in
strength and in how they elicit emergent behavior,
such as jokes or pranks, which may be played out
in either stereotypical or original fashion. Moreover,
it is evident that framing organizes not only social
situations, but also the very experience of those
situations. Signals are communicated between actors
that in effect say that a situation is not to be taken
seriously, something that Gregory Bateson (1972)
captured in his example of the difference between
a playful nip and an aggressive bite. The fine line
between stably and unstably framed humorous pre-
dicaments is illustrated by the way that aggrieved
parties in African joking relationships have some-
times sought legal redress for insult, only to find
that those accused of abuse have invoked a specific
kinship relationship with the plaintiff by way of
defense. Hence, situational analyses of humor do not
fundamentally depart from Radcliffe-Brown’s sug-
gestion that humor is a form of social control. They
do, however, give actors equal weight alongside the
rules that define play. This negotiability of rules gov-
erning jocularity is akin to the idea of “pragmatics”
in verbal humor.
Another significant shift in anthropological anal-
yses of humor lies in a current tendency to model
humor as a reaction to adverse conditions. In an
influential paper, Mary Douglas (1968) argued that,
as a play on form, a joke is intrinsically subversive,
but that the form in question is rarely, if ever, in the
joke itself, but rather in some more complete social
predicament, much of which is only tacitly realized
by those involved. Hence, she modeled humor as
the destruction of hierarchical and orderly relations
and the denigration and devaluation of associated
dominant values. Related modeling is now often
employed by anthropologists to describe subaltern
humor under colonial or postcolonial conditions or
humor practiced by, or in relation to, stigmatized
groups.
Subaltern humor is usually a variant of ethnic
humor, about which Apte wrote a good deal in
1985, except that its range tends to be restricted to
colonial situations defined by the history of race.
A good example can be found in Keith Basso’s cel-
ebrated 1979 study of satire in Apache portrayals of
“the Whiteman,” which sit within a general domain
of joking activity where anthropologists themselves
are far from exempt from ridicule. Another example
is Vine Deloria’s quip in Custer Died for Your Sins
Anthropology 45
that all Indians know that anthropologists must
have been advising Christopher Columbus’s discov-
ery of the New World in 1492 because Columbus
had no idea where he was.
Humor in relation to stigmatized groups may
also be ethnic or racial, but it is often self-directed
and supportive—for example, the Black humor
practiced by some HIV-infected Zulu speakers in
South Africa, one of whom wrote in his life story
that his message to the world was to learn to laugh
“with him” rather than “at him.” Again, anthro-
pologists, as well as others working with indigenous
communities, are familiar with this style of humor
since they are increasingly defined by what has been
called “the stigma of Whiteness” (caused by car-
riage of the sins of colonialism). While this stigma
has taken a particular form in postcolonial times,
it has antecedents in the many colonial fieldwork
encounters where anthropologists have been deliber-
ately made to feel inept and ridiculous by those they
are studying. The best known example is Richard
Lee’s description of !Kung Bushmen’s mockery of his
extravagant Christmas gift to them of an ox, their
derision being payback for Lee’s longtime arrogance
in the field. This account has become a classic in the
teaching of anthropology and cross-cultural under-
standing, but, as one of the best known funny stories
about anthropological fieldwork shared by lecturers
and students, it has also functioned as a supportive
text holding forth the promise of a kind of universal
redemption in the face of inevitable cross-cultural
naïveté.
Humor and Cultural Expression
Although anthropologists have paid most atten-
tion to the sociological dimensions of humor, some
have been equally interested in its expressive char-
acter and its communicative structures, particu-
larly in ritual and myth. Dramatic humor is found
in various forms across the globe and can be wit-
nessed in both calendrical rites (such as annual car-
nivals) or rites of passage (such as initiations and
marriages), while many of the world’s narratives,
both sacred and mundane, contain humorous pas-
sages and characters—for example, the Winnebago
trickster described by Paul Radin, whose right and
left hands argue, who punishes his own anus with
a fire-stick, and whose penis gets eaten by a chip-
munk. Both ritual and myth may employ language
as a means of communication, but they also use a
repertoire of gestures and other bodily movements
46 Anthropology
to give dramatic effect to humor. Jesters and clowns,
for example, act as licensed fools by using a host
of subversive techniques embodied in sound effects,
song, storytelling, joking, riddling, punning, clown-
ing, mime, prestidigitation, juggling, and acrobatics.
While both ritual and myth are often analyzed in
terms of social control, the various types of com-
munication employed therein and in other contexts
may also be subjected to styles of structural analysis.
It is apparent, for example, that the potential for
verbal humor in any particular culture is conditioned
by the precise forms, phonemic and semantic, of its
language. It is equally true that the potential for non-
verbal forms of humor in a culture is conditioned by
a host of other styles and conventions. Although it
is rarely fully achieved, cultural competence, includ-
ing linguistic competence, is the ideal target set for
field researchers in anthropology and it is often said
that being able to participate fully in local humor is
the sign that one has “made it.” However, “getting”
local humor is also the precondition for explaining
it, even if the funny side of things is usually lost in
lengthy exegesis. Making explicit what is implic-
itly understood in a humorous moment inevitably
involves an unpacking of the relevant circumstances
and a componential analysis of the relevant material
to reveal a complex chain of semantic associations
embedded in the culture. Edmund Leach’s (1964)
exploration of the connections between animal cat-
egories and verbal abuse in English and Kachin is a
case in point, where he illustrates the weave existing
in the categories of those languages pertaining to sex
and eating, and the way that it generates the kinds
of obscenities commonly found in bawdy humor.
Written in an occasionally impish, subversive vein,
among other things revealing unexpected connec-
tions between the symbolism of Playboy Bunnies
and one of the most obscene words in the English
language, Leach’s paper unusually combines formal
analysis of humor with something of its spirit.
The notion of “spirit” is of some significance in
the cultural analysis of humor, since the word culture,
as generally employed by anthropologists, is closely
associated with the German word Geist, whose
semantic field covers both mind and spirit in English.
The word Volksgeist—“the spirit of the people”—
has been used to describe the unique configuration of
traditions that exists in every society, lending it a kind
of wholesome coherence based on shared meanings.
One sometimes hears the related phrase “folk wit”
to describe aspects of a people’s characteristic style,
the implication being that one needs to be completely
“inside” a culture in order to intuit the connections
made in its humor. Such relativism is a powerful force
in anthropology and is sometimes used to deny the
possibility of cross-cultural comparison. Yet, while
many anthropologists might agree that the content
of humor is invariably culturally specific, they have
not always given up the search for authentic terms by
which types of folk wit can be formally compared.
Douglas’s abstract definition of humor as a play
on form is a case in point; and she, as well as some
other theorists (e.g., Bergson, Freud, and Arthur
Koestler), depends fundamentally on a universal cul-
tural account of humor as “bisociation”—the staged
or chance conflation of two states (words, images,
actions, etc.) that would normally be separated.
The standard example of bisociation in humor is
punning, which depends on the phonemic structure
of particular languages, yet can be performed in all
of them. Similar universal structural properties can
be found in other humor registers. Anthropologists
have made a significant contribution to the under-
standing of collective forms of ritual humor through
the notion of anti-structure, which Victor W. Turner
(1969) used extensively to describe the state of being
“betwixt and between” (liminality) characteristic
of rites of passage. In her description of the joke as
bisociative play, Douglas drew explicit attention to
the anti-structural properties of humor, while Leach
suggested that comic role reversal or inversion—
men acting as women, the rich appearing as beggars,
masters acting as servants, for example—is in many
ways the typical state of ritual liminality, marking it
off from formal occasions or serious rituals where
everyone has a strictly prescribed place and rank.
Such observations have proven productive in the
anthropological modeling of the ritual calendar in
modern nation states, where it has been shown, for
example, that Brazilian Carnival and the Sydney
Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras are ideologically
paired with nationalistic events involving military
parades—Independence Day in Brazil and Anzac
Day in Australia. According to Roberto DaMatta
(1991), Brazilian Carnival and Independence Day
are key dramatizations of national character, but
he models that character in terms of an ongoing
contradiction between hierarchical and egalitarian
forces. The same formal contradiction is at work in
the Australian situation, even though the histories
and characters of the two nations differ markedly.
Hence, Carnival and Mardi Gras dramatize one
side of a general contradiction between “society”
and “state,” by infusing life with what Turner calls

communitas or what Bakhtin calls a universal spirit.
Parody and satire, employing all manner of reversals
and inversions to subvert rules and regulations, are
some of the typical codes by which this communitar-
ian universal spirit is achieved.
John Morton
See also Bergson’s Theory of the Comic; Bisociation;
Carnival and Festival; Culture; Folklore; Framing
Theory; Joking Relationship; Linguistics; Puns;
Religion; Ritual Clowns; Rituals of Inversion;
Sociology; Subversive Humor; Translation
Further Readings
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An
anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Basso, K. H. (1979). Portraits of ‘the Whiteman’: Linguistic
play and cultural symbols among the Western Apache.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected
essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and
epistemology. New York, NY: Chandler.
Black, S. P. (2012). Laughing to death: Joking as support
amid stigma for Zulu-speaking South Africans living
with HIV. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22,
87–108.
DaMatta. R. (1991). Carnivals, rogues, and heroes: An
interpretation of the Brazilian dilemma. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Douglas, M. (1968). The social control of cognition: Some
factors in joke perception. Man, 3, 361–376.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Handelman, D., & Kapferer, B. (1972). Forms of joking
activity: A comparative approach. American
Anthropologist, 74, 484–517.
Johnson, R. (1978). Jokes, theories, anthropology.
Semiotica, 22, 309–334.
Leach, E. R. (1961). Two essays concerning the symbolic
representation of time. In E. R. Leach, Rethinking
anthropology (pp. 124–136). London, UK: Athlone
Press.
Leach, E. R. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language:
Animal categories and verbal abuse. In E. H. Lenneberg
(Ed.), New directions in the study of language (pp.
23–63). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lee, R. B. (1969, December). A naturalist at large: Eating
Christmas in the Kalahari. Natural History, 78, 14–22,
60–64. Also available in slightly revised form at http://
www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/index_
archivepicks.html
Anti-Proverb 47
Musharbash, Y., & Carty, J. (Eds.). (2008). You’ve got to
be joking! Anthropological perspectives on humour and
laughter [Special Issue]. Anthropological Forum, 18,
209–308.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940). On joking relationships.
Africa, 13, 195–210.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1949). A further note on joking
relationships. Africa, 19, 133–140.
Radin, P. (1956). The trickster: A study in American Indian
mythology. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-
structure. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
ANTI-PROVERB
An anti-proverb is an innovative alteration or trans-
formation of a traditional proverb. These deliberate
proverb innovations are also known as alterations,
mutations, parodies, transformations, variations,
wisecracks, or fractured proverbs. The term anti-
proverb was coined by Wolfgang Mieder (1982)
and has been widely accepted by proverb scholars
all over the world as a general label for such innova-
tive alterations of and reactions to traditional prov-
erbs. Anti-proverbs are frequently satirical, ironic,
or humorous. This entry gives a definition of the
anti-proverb, discusses its occurrence, and addresses
topics emerging in anti-proverbs and different mech-
anisms of proverb variation.
The vast majority of anti-proverbs are the prod-
ucts of the playfulness of a solitary author; they
do not catch on, and thus will be found in just
one source. There are some texts, however, that
appear in many sources, exactly in the same form.
Some anti-proverbs have even become proverbial
in themselves: A new broom sweeps clean, but
the old one knows the corners. There are cases in
which an internationally spread proverb inspires
parallel anti-proverbs in a number of languages:
To err is human—to totally muck things up needs a
computer.
Some anti-proverbs question the truth of a prov-
erb by employing antonyms (An exception disproves
the rule), transforming the proverb into its opposite
(Crime pays—be a lawyer), or posing a naive ques-
tion (If love is blind, how can there be love at first
sight?). Most anti-proverbs put the proverbial wis-
dom only partially into question, primarily by relat-
ing it to a context or thought in which the traditional
wording does not fit (Money isn’t everything—but
it’s way ahead of what’s in second place).
48 Anti-Proverb
Typically, an anti-proverb will elicit humor only
if the traditional proverb upon which it is based is
also known, thus allowing the reader or listener to
perceive the incongruity (violation of expectation)
in the juxtaposition of the old and “new” proverbs.
The juxtaposition of the traditional proverb text
with an innovative variation forces the reader or lis-
tener into a more critical thought process. Whereas
the old proverbs acted as preconceived rules, the
modern anti-proverbs are intended to activate us
into overcoming the naive acceptance of traditional
wisdom.
Like traditional gems of wisdom, anti-proverbs
appear in many generic contexts, from personal let-
ters to philosophical journals, from public lectures
and sermons to songs, from science fiction to comics
and cartoons. Anti-proverbs are also found in great
abundance on the Internet, in advertising slogans, in
the titles of books and articles, and in magazine and
newspaper headlines; there is no sphere of life where
they are not used. In Europe and North America,
the genre of transformed proverbs is becoming more
and more popular, especially due to the Internet,
where omnipresent lists of anti-proverbs circulate.
The anti-proverb, however, is not a new genre born
in the digital era; rather, proverb alterations are
as old as proverbs themselves. They flourished in
classical times and in all subsequent eras.
All’s fair for anti-proverbs: There is hardly a
topic that they do not address. Just as proverbs con-
tinue to comment on all levels and occurrences in
our daily life, so anti-proverbs react with alienating
and shocking linguistic strategies to everything that
surrounds us.
Nothing is too valuable or sacrosanct to avoid
exposure to proverbial ridicule. The sensitive and
controversial topics of anti-proverbs may make
them “one man’s meat and another man’s poison.”
Anti-proverbs may contain elements not only of
funniness but also of offensiveness, hostility, and
aggression directed toward various social groups,
including homosexuals (Buggers can’t be choos-
ers), and people of different professions (The lawyer
agrees with the doctor that the best things in life
are fees). Many anti-proverbs are antifeminist and
demeaning to women: Women should be obscene
and not heard; Man proposes, and his mother-in-
law opposes. Numerous texts of anti-proverbs are
sexually oriented: It is better to copulate than never.
The humor of many anti-proverbs is based upon
the incongruous use of the vulgar or taboo word, as
well as on the contrast between an innocent text of a
proverb and the sexually loaded reinterpretation of
it: The penis is mightier than the sword.
One of the most popular techniques of prov-
erb alteration is punning. Puns most frequent
employed are
• paronyms (words with similar but not identi-
cal pronounication and spelling): Matrimony is the
root of all evil;
• homonyms (puns based on word having
identical graphemic and phonemic representation):
Figures don’t lie—except on the beach;
• homophones (words pronounced the same
but spelled differently): The ascetic says: No thyself.
There are a number of other mechanisms of
proverb variation (which are by no means mutually
exclusive):
• Replacing a single word: He who hesitates is
constipated.
• The substitution of two words: One man’s
drive is another man’s funeral.
• The second part of the proverb is entirely
changed: If at first you don’t succeed, blame it on
your wife.
• Adding new words to the actual text of the
proverb: Fine feathers make fine birds . . . extinct.
• The meaning of a metaphorical proverb is
narrowed by putting it in a context in which it is
to be interpreted literally: When one door shuts,
another opens . . . which means that you live in a
drafty house.
• Word order reversal or a reversal of sounds:
Let sleeping gods lie.
We laugh at anti-proverbs because they skew
our expectations about traditional values, order,
and rules. We may be struck by the absurdity of
the situations portrayed in proverb parodies, espe-
cially when they rely purely upon linguistic tricks
employed for the sole purpose of making punning
possible. And even if one finds some anti-proverbs
to be obscene or vulgar, they are proof of human
creativity and playfulness.
Anna T. Litovkina
See also Parody; Puns; Speech Play; Wellerism

Further Readings
Litovkina, A. T., & Lindahl, C. (Eds.). (2007). Anti-
proverbs in contemporary societies [Special issue]. Acta
Ethnographica Hungarica, 52(1).
Litovkina, A. T., & Mieder, W. (2006). Old proverbs never
die, they just diversify: A collection of anti-proverbs.
Burlington: University of Vermont & Veszprém,
Hungary: Pannonian University.
Mieder, W. (1982–1989). Antisprichwörter [Anti-Proverbs]
(Vols. 1–3). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag fur deutsche
Sprache.
Mieder, W. (2003). Wisecracks! Fractured proverbs.
Shelburne, VT: The New England Press.
ANXIETY
Anxiety figured quite prominently in early theory
about humor. Sigmund Freud focused on sex and
aggression as both biological drives and content that
were presumably repressed in order to minimize
anxiety. Wit, which for Freud consisted largely of
jokes, was hypothesized to enable a person to release
repressed energy and enjoy these otherwise prohib-
ited topics without arousing anxiety because of the
mechanisms in joke work, such as displacement. His
theories on humor have not been well supported
in research, but his emphasis on anxiety predates
considerable research interest on how humor and
anxiety relate to each other. Arthur Koestler (1964)
argued that some element, “an impulse, however
faint of aggression or apprehension,” was necessary
for experiencing humor (p. 51). In this approach, it is
hypothesized that in a typical joke the listener iden-
tifies with the characters as the narrative unfolds.
There will typically be some vicarious arousal due
to uncertainty about the outcome, such as threat
to the protagonist. At the punch line, suddenly the
cause for the arousal or anxiety disappears as the
punch line puts the account into some new context.
Koestler argued that at this point, the arousal, now
without any cognitive reason for being, is dispelled
in the laughter response. To illustrate, consider the
following joke:
A man goes to a Buddhist hamburger stand and
orders a hamburger. The counter man prepares the
burger, wraps it, and places it on the counter for the
customer. The customer has only a $20 bill and
hands it over. The counter man places the bill in the
register drawer and closes the drawer. The customer,
taken aback, cries, “Wait! That was a $20 bill.
Anxiety 49
Where’s my change?” The counter man replies, “Ah,
change comes from within.”
According to Koestler, the listener would presum-
ably identify with the customer, feel some moderate
apprehension or anxiety that he might be cheated,
and at the punch line, which shifts to a religious
context via the dual meanings of change, any appre-
hensive arousal would be laughed away. Although
appealing, there is currently little, if any, empirical
support for the idea that anxiety, or arousal more
generally, is dispelled via laughter.
Research on Humor Exposure and Anxiety
Research on the relationship between humor expo-
sure and anxiety has emphasized consequences of
exposure to humorous stimuli such as video clips
from performances or television comedy shows.
Modest support has emerged for the short-term
impact of brief exposure to humor yielding decreases
in self-reported anxiety measures. However, when
multiple exposure sessions and longer-term assess-
ment of impact on anxiety have been implemented,
this moderating effect of humor on anxiety has not
been supported.
Trait Humor Measures and Anxiety
Measures assumed to assess humor as a relatively
stable personality attribute (e.g., Coping Humor
Scale, Situational Humor Response Questionnaire,
etc.) have also been used in correlation studies to
examine the relationships between humor and the
experience of anxiety. Results of this research often
yield weak negative correlations between such
humor measures and reported experience of anxiety.
A possible reason for such relatively weak correla-
tions could be the fact that humor, until very recently,
was largely treated as a unified construct. However,
given the complexity of humor, some forms might
well be associated with beneficial consequences and
other forms with negative consequences. This fact
constitutes a relatively new direction for research.
Humor Styles and Anxiety
Although the complexity of the construct of humor
has been acknowledged in humor assessment via a
focus on variables including specific contents (e.g.,
sex) or structure (incongruity resolution, nonsense),
until recently there was no formal attempt to differ-
entiate relatively adaptive from maladaptive humor.
Adaptive versus maladaptive humor is the focus
50 Aphorism
of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. This measure
identifies self-enhancing and affiliative humor as
two adaptive styles and aggressive and self-defeating
humor as two maladaptive styles. Briefly summa-
rizing, self-enhancing and affiliative humor typically
correlate negatively with measures of anxiety, and
self-defeating humor correlates positively with anxi-
ety measures; however, these generalizations may
be qualified due to influences such as situational or
sample specifics.
Gelotophobia
A dramatic exception to a range of findings that
various measures of humor are negatively associated
with anxiety is the construct of gelotophobia, or fear
of being laughed at. Research suggests that for some
individuals, humor and the prospect of laughter by
others is an intense source of fear and shame-bound
anxiety. The construct has generated recent exten-
sive research and appears to be a distinct and intense
form of social anxiety for some.
W. Larry Ventis
See also Bisociation; Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory;
Gelotophobia; Humor Styles
Further Readings
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London, UK:
Hutchinson & Co.
Lefcourt, H., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and life
stress: Antidote to adversity. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75.
Ruch, W. (2009). Fearing humor? Gelotophobia: The fear
of being laughed at: Introduction and overview.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
22(1/2), 1–26.
APHORISM
An aphorism belongs to the large group of words
called “sayings”—a strange term, for we say many
things such as “hello” or “scram”; all speech is
saying. Etymologically, aphorism has the basic
meaning of “definition.” It is itself usually defined as
a pithy statement of a (would-be) general truth. It is
as old as literate humanity and virtually worldwide
in occurrence. It is a key part of what is often called
“wisdom literature,” whereas much literature in fact
teaches unwisdom, fantasy, and nonconformism.
Leading aphorists include: Michel de Montaigne
(1533–1592), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Nicholas
Chamfort (1741–1794), Samuel Johnson (1709–
1784), Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), and
Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880). This entry discusses
different types of aphorisms and their purposes.
Its close relatives are, firstly, “apothegm,” defined
as a pithy, instructive saying; secondly, “gnome,”
which veers in meaning between “opinion” and
“enigma”—hence the adjective “gnomic.” Short
forms such as the aphorism often mystify, indeed,
by virtue of their very conciseness. For instance, the
19th-century American poet and essayist Emerson:
“Language is fossil poetry.” Even when not mystify-
ing, aphorisms can pull you up short and make you
think or rethink, as in Johnson’s 18th-century com-
ment on dictionaries: “I am not so lost in lexicogra-
phy as to forget that words are the daughters of earth,
and that things are the sons of heaven.” Thirdly, the
“saw”: Here the emphasis falls on the triteness of
the wisdom on offer. Fourthly, the “adage,” a blood
relative of the aphorism (Desiderius Erasmus, the
Dutch humanist scholar: “In the country of the blind
the one-eyed man is king”). The “maxim,” lastly,
is a first cousin. One of the most accomplished and
celebrated coiners of maxims was the 17th-century
French aristocrat François de La Rochefoucauld
(“Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue”).
His collection of maxims was the suave product of
a high-society game in which participants took turns
at polishing or rephrasing the original statements.
A maxim (like the Maxim gun) sets itself up as more
unarguable than an aphorism—though of course
bullying can take many forms, including subtle ones.
At least in intention, there is something conclusive or
would-be domineering about a successful aphorism.
It can cinch an argument.
Like the epigram, the aphorism is a device of
economy. This “word to the wise” (verbum sapienti-
bus, in the original Latin) does not waste its breath.
“Neither the sun nor death can be stared at directly”
(La Rochefoucauld). The 19th-century radical
thinker Friedrich Nietzsche, who called himself
the first master of the aphorism among Germans,
declared (and the sentiment should chasten all

writers): “My ambition is to say in ten sentences
what everyone else says in a book.” Even when
totally sober in expression and intention, aphorisms,
being condensed narratives (like jokes), tend to con-
tain the potentiality of humor, for “brevity is the
soul of wit” (according to Polonius in Shakespeare’s
Hamlet).
An anonymous variant or rival of the aphorism
has always been the proverb, together with its
mock and twisted offshoot, the “perverb,” or per-
verted proverb. The latter updates and rewrites the
worldly wise or wiseacre message of the original,
as in “Many are called but few get the right num-
ber.” In this way, sayings for a long time inert can
be reactivated and like trampolines lend bounce to
ideas. Many proverbs and aphorisms too are akin
to cracker-barrel philosophy. Proverbs, more than
aphorisms, are ready-mades and seek to be equip-
ment for living (“Patch grief with proverbs,” as a
Shakespeare character has it). Like aphorisms, prov-
erbs teach economy: of expression, effort, expense,
or suffering. Both forms sound comic when extended
into long-windedness. Proverbs differ most from
aphorisms when considered as a total body, and
individual examples contradict each other, which
more rarely happens between separate aphorisms:
“Absence makes the heart grow fonder” gainsays
“Out of sight, out of mind.” While proverbs con-
centrate heavily on the more mean-spirited sides of
experience, an aphorism can point up how hard it
is to evoke happiness convincingly: “The pencil of
the Holy Ghost hath laboured more in describing
the afflictions of Job than the felicities of Solomon”
(Francis Bacon, English philosopher and statesman).
Aphorisms are generally expressed in written
form, though at times they can be spoken, and
indeed performed, by raconteurs and certain kinds
of stand-up comedians commenting seriously but
wittily on human affairs (e.g., the American W. C.
Fields or the multinational Peter Ustinov).
Many an aphorism is in fact a truism, that is, it
tells readers or listeners what they already know,
as in Bacon’s “All colors will agree in the dark.”
Of course, the aphorist could counter such a com-
plaint by adducing the 18th-century poet Alexander
Pope’s line, “What oft was thought, but ne’er so
well expressed.” Many aphorists wish to be Dutch
uncles delivering homilies, moralizing minilectures.
Aphorisms smack often of the schoolmaster or school-
marm dealing in generalization that curse of human
affairs and the desire to be authoritative. Hence the
tendency to fixity in the form, centered on an effort
Aphorism 51
toward conclusiveness and all-embracingness. The
great questioner of all orthodoxies, the 18th-century
French thinker Denis Diderot, once asked the cru-
cial question about the creation and reception of
literature: “Who shall be the master, the writer or the
reader?” This calls to mind the 16th-century French
essayist Montaigne’s bemused remark that, when he
plays with his cat, who can tell if he is playing with
her, or she with him? The best aphorisms teach us to
beware of teaching. As Emerson said, “One must be
an inventor to read well.” Perhaps necessarily—else
why publish?—aphorists act as if they knew better
than the rest of us, and so what they present is news
to us, though, as the 20th-century American poet
Ezra Pound propounded, “Literature is news that
STAYS news.” Aphorisms seek to be memorable, if
not memorizable, for they are probably less catchy
than proverbs, say. As the 20th-century English poet
W. H. Auden astutely noted, “The aphorist does not
argue or explain, he asserts; and implicit in his asser-
tion is a conviction that he is wiser and more intel-
ligent than his readers.”
The aphorism has its critics, then. As 20th-century
American critic and journalist Anatole Broyard has
said, “There is something anachronistic about the
very idea of aphorisms or maxims. Contemporary
culture isn’t stately enough, or stable enough, to sup-
port them.” Much the same could be said of prov-
erbs. Today, we have sound bites and throwaway
gags, although the Humpty-Dumpty preference for
“knock-down” arguments will probably die hard.
Aphorisms often sound like the last word on a topic,
but their more honest practitioners know them to
be merely the first, the opening gambit rather than
checkmate. Brevity, besides, forces home an aware-
ness of what has been left out so that any reasonably
alert reader or listener feels emboldened, compelled
to expand, or indeed reject, the seemingly didactic
statement. Montaigne likened aphorisms to a trum-
pet: Blowing into a narrowed space enables more
piercing resonance. If aphorisms are the fruits of
experience, aphorists should remind themselves
that empiric long meant quackery. In Flaubert’s
19th-century Dictionary of Clichés, the very act
of opinionating is itself made to self-destruct. The
20th-century English poet James Fenton comments
poignantly on the whole business: “Windbags can be
right. Aphorists can be wrong. It is a tough world.”
Walter Redfern
See also Anti-Proverb; Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews;
Epigram; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Irony; Maxim
52 Appreciation of Humor
Further Readings
Flaubert, G. (1994). The dictionary of received ideas (G.
Wall, Trans.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Moret, P. (1997). Tradition et modernité de l’aphorisme
[Tradition and modernity of the aphorism]. Geneva,
Switzerland: Droz.
Redfern, W. (2000). Puns: More senses than one (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Penguin.
APPRECIATION OF HUMOR
Humor appreciation is a psychological response that
occurs when a situation or a stimulus is perceived to
be humorous. The situations or stimuli can be quite
varied, ranging from the physical (tickling, slapstick)
to the intellectual (jokes, witticisms) to the absurd
(black comedies, Internet memes). Appreciating
something as humorous produces at least one of three
responses: behavioral (laughing), cognitive (judging
something as “funny”), or emotional (experiencing
the positive emotion of amusement). Although any
one response indicates humor appreciation, two or
more suggests greater appreciation. For example,
a person who finds a pun funny, feels amused, and
laughs would be experiencing more humor than a
person who only judges the pun as funny.
For thousands of years, scholars, entertainers, and
everyday people have tried to explain what leads to
humor appreciation. The resulting theories take on
many names (incongruity, superiority, release, etc.)
and highlight varying eliciting conditions. A broad
examination of the literature reveals four commonly
proposed conditions: (1) surprise, (2) simultaneity,
(3) a violation, and (4) a benign appraisal.
Surprise
Most people believe that humor appreciation occurs
when something is unexpected—an idea often labeled
incongruity theory. Blaise Pascal wrote, “Nothing pro-
duces laughter more than a surprising disproportion
between that which one expects and that which one
sees.” (Note: The term incongruity is loosely defined
and also describes other conditions below.) A major
limitation of humor theories based on surprise is
that many surprises—for instance, getting mugged in
broad daylight—do not produce humor. Another lim-
itation is evidence that some jokes, gags, stories, and
films remain funny even after they cease to be novel.
Finally, empirical studies reveal that jokes are more
humorous when their punch lines are less surprising.
Simultaneity
A common proposal suggests that humor apprecia-
tion requires holding contrasting interpretations at
the same time. The condition goes by many names,
including incongruity, synergy, bisociation, juxtapo-
sition, and script opposition. James Beattie advo-
cated for simultaneity when he wrote, “Laughter
arises from the view of two or more inconsistent,
unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances,
considered as united in one complex object or assem-
blage.” Consider this joke: Did you hear about the
guy whose left side was cut off? He’s all right now.
Simultaneity is present in the sense that the punch
line can be interpreted both to mean that the victim
has recovered or that only the right side of his body
remains.
Simultaneity sometimes produces art or inno-
vation instead of humor. For example, consumers
considered the first smartphones, which combined
previously disparate cell phones and Internet brows-
ers, cool and useful rather than funny. Other times,
instances of simultaneity seem tragic rather than
humorous. For example, a surgeon who is a serial
killer both saves lives and takes lives but would likely
inspire fear rather than humor. Consequently, many
theorists argue that not all instances of simultaneity
produce humor. For example, Victor Raskin sug-
gests that humor occurs in verbal stimuli that feature
specific oppositions, such as good and bad, living
and dead, wealth and poverty, and acting slutty and
prudish.
Violations
Many humor theories make the counterintuitive
suggestion that humor requires something poten-
tially negative like a well-timed insult or slipping
on a banana peel. Mark Twain articulated the idea
when he wrote in Following the Equator, “the secret
source of humor itself is not joy but sorrow.” Humor
theories discuss a variety of negative antecedents
of humor, including something bad or demeaning
happening to someone else (superiority theory); the
release of repressed sexual, aggressive, and other
antisocial drives (Sigmund Freud’s theory); reinter-
preting an initial impression as less valued than it at
first seemed (reversal theory); and perceiving a threat
(false-alarm theory). Each of these negative anteced-
ents is an example of a violation, or something that
threatens one’s sense of how things should be.
Violations include both physical threats like
violence and disease as well as identity threats like

negative stereotypes and humiliating behaviors.
Violations also include social and cultural taboos
(e.g., bad manners) as well as breaches of logic
(e.g., things that do not make sense), communica-
tion (e.g., irony), and linguistic (e.g., an unusual
accent) norms. A violation is not the same as saying
something is abnormal or that it differs from expec-
tations. To qualify as a violation, it must part from
expectations or the norm in a negative way. As with
the previous conditions, violations do not always
produce humor appreciation. Contracting syphilis is
a violation, but it would probably not be humorous.
A Benign Appraisal
Most humor theories acknowledge that the afore-
mentioned conditions are not enough to produce
humor and require one or more of the following: a
playful motivational state, resolution, misattribution,
safety, distance, or low commitment. Although often
described separately, each concept is similar in that it
makes it easier to perceive a situation or stimulus as
sensible, acceptable, OK, or, in other words, benign.
Playful Motivational State
Theorists who take an evolutionary approach
often describe humor as a response to play. Laughter
observed in apes, for example, typically occurs
during nonserious activities like play fighting and
tickling. Play refers to a state in which people are
disinterested in things that otherwise seem serious,
something psychologist Michael Apter (1982) calls
a paratelic state, where people are concerned with
immediate pleasure rather than long-term goals.
A playful motivational state generally facilitates
humor appreciation. For example, playful cues,
such as happy music or animated frogs, increase the
humor perceived in surprising ads.
Resolution
Theorists who contend that humor comes from
something that is unexpected often argue that
humor appreciation requires that the surprise be
explained, or resolved. By making sense of some-
thing that initially seems illogical, misleading, or
incorrect, resolution can elicit humor appreciation
from stimuli that might otherwise seem confusing
or frightening. Consider this joke: “Why do gorillas
have big nostrils? Because they have big fingers!”
The otherwise illogical relationship between finger
and nostril size can be resolved by recognizing that
gorillas are notorious nose pickers. Resolution is
Appreciation of Humor 53
most frequently described in the context of canned
jokes (setup then punch line), but it can be defined
as any alternative explanation capable of justifying,
explaining, or making something that seems illogi-
cal, surprising, or wrong seem appropriate.
Misattribution
Theorists who suggest that humor comes from
demeaning, aggressive, sexual, or otherwise taboo
behaviors often argue that these violations are more
humorous if the source of humor is misattributed to
something socially acceptable. Freud, for example,
argued that jokes contain linguistic or logical tricks
(i.e., joke work) that disguise the provocative ele-
ments of a joke and allow the antisocial aspects
of the joke to seem humorous. Consider this joke:
“Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the
other, ‘Does this taste funny to you?’” Rather than
attribute the humor to the taboo act (cannibalism),
the audience can instead attribute it to the double
meaning of the phrase “does this taste funny.”
Safety
Theorists who advocate arousal-safety or false-
alarm explanations of humor suggest that cues that
a situation is safe can help transform otherwise
threatening or alarming stimuli into humorous
ones. For example, whereas the prospect of being
assaulted with a large knife would likely seem ter-
rifying, the prospect of being assaulted with a safe,
harmless object like a feather or a wet noodle might
seem humorous. Building on this idea, several theo-
rists have argued that one function of laughter is to
signal to others that a situation is safe.
Distance
Theorists from several different perspectives have
suggested that a real or perceived sense of feeling
removed from something unexpected, demean-
ing, disgusting, or otherwise aversive can facilitate
humor appreciation. Things that seem far away due
to physical distance, social distance, the passage of
time, or an absence of reality feel less threatening;
therefore, distance may facilitate humor appre-
ciation by increasing felt safety. Recently, empirical
studies have supported this assertion by showing
that people experience more humor in highly aver-
sive incidents—for instance, losing a lot of money or
getting hit by a car—when the incidents occurred in
the distant past and victimized strangers were hypo-
thetical or appeared farther away.
54 Appreciation of Humor
Commitment
Theorists who argue that humor comes from
disparagement or other types of violations highlight
how not being committed to a norm that is being
violated or to a person being demeaned can increase
humor appreciation. For example, insulting ethnic
jokes are funnier to people who care little for the
well-being of the disparaged race, just as taboo
religious behaviors are funnier to people who are
less religious. As with other benign appraisals, an
absence of commitment makes it easier to accept
behaviors that break a norm or disparage a person.
Integrating Conditions: The Benign
Violation Hypothesis
Most humor theories recognize that humor
appreciation requires more than one of the preced-
ing conditions. However, they disagree on which
mix is best. For example, superiority theories
argue that humor requires a violation, surprise,
and either social or temporal distance, whereas
surprise (i.e., incongruity) theories typically suggest
that the surprise must be accompanied by a play-
ful state, resolution, safety, or distance. A promising
recipe for humor appreciation comes from Thomas
Veatch (1998). According to his account, which is
also referred to as the benign violation hypothesis,
humor appreciation occurs when and only when a
person appraises something as a violation, appraises
the violation as benign, and both of the appraisals
occur simultaneously.
Because a violation appraisal, a benign appraisal,
and the ability to experience both simultaneously
vary substantially across individuals, cultures,
and contexts, the same stimulus or situation may
seem funny to some people at one time, but not
to other people or even to the same people at a
different time. The benign violation hypothesis
identifies three possible reasons humor may fail.
One possibility is that the person may not perceive
a violation. In this case, everything seems normal
or good rather than funny. The second possibility is
that a person may perceive a violation but not see
it as benign (i.e., a malign violation). Malign vio-
lations typically seem unambiguously wrong, bad,
disturbing, or confusing rather than humorous.
Finally, humor may fail even when a person both
sees a violation and appraises it as benign because
the appraisals do not occur at the same time (i.e.,
there is no simultaneity). In this case, a person can
logically see the two interpretations but does not
intuitively experience both. For example, consider
explaining a joke to someone who doesn’t get it
at first. The explanation may help the audience
see both the violation and benign elements in the
joke but fail to produce laughter and amusement.
Surprise likely facilitates humor in many situations
by making it easier to simultaneously perceive
something as both a violation and benign.
By incorporating the four conditions most fre-
quently discussed in other humor theories (i.e., a
benign appraisal, a violation, simultaneity, and
surprise), the benign violation hypothesis provides
a plausible, general explanation of humor appre-
ciation. Additionally, it suggests several unique
predictions. One is that moral violations, or things
people consider wrong, may produce mixed emo-
tions of both humor and negative feelings when
the violation simultaneously seems benign. Indeed,
recent experiments illustrate that taboo behaviors
tend to elicit both amusement and disgust when the
behavior seems harmless and when the person feels
distant or not strongly committed to the violated
norm. An example was an experiment involving
reactions to a scenario in which a man rubbed his
bare genitals on his pet kitten; the scenario pro-
voked disgust in nearly all participants; but it was
more likely to also cause amusement in participants
if they were told that the kitten was not harmed.
Recent studies also support a second new predic-
tion: The effect of psychological distance on humor
appreciation depends on the extent to which a
stimulus is threatening or aversive (i.e., a violation).
Distance increases the humor perceived in tragedies,
for example, falling into an open sewer by making
the severe violation seem more benign, but distance
reduces the humor perceived in milder mishaps, as
in stumbling on a curb, by completely eliminating
the perceived violation. Thus, the benign violation
hypothesis explains why “you have to be there” to
appreciate the humor in milder mishaps, but trag-
edies become more humorous over time or when
afflicting someone else.
Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw
See also Humor Mindset; Humor Production; Mirth;
Psychology
Further Readings
Apter, M. J. (1982) The experience of motivation: The
theory of psychological reversals. London, UK:
Academic Press.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representation model.

HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 4,
293–348.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations:
Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science,
21, 1141–1149.
McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L. E., & Leonard, B.
(2012). Too close for comfort or too far to care?
Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps.
Psychological Science, 25, 1215–1223.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive
philosophy of humor. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 11, 161–215.
ARABIC CULTURE, HUMOR IN
In a broad sense, Arabic culture includes all kinds
of literary and artistic production in Arabic. This
includes also Islamic religious literature, such as
the Qur’an and statements ascribed to the prophet
Muhammad.
In regard to literature, humor is mostly found in
jocular tales with satirical or ridiculing features. In
these tales, humor is usually connected to the devia-
tion from the ordinary and conventional, which
causes relief from the psychological and social
restrictions imposed on man. Humorous anecdotes
have different Arabic names indicating different
qualities that are difficult to be separated from each
other. Some of these names are nādira for a short,
witty amusing anecdote, .turfa for an elegant anec-
dote, and fukāha for a funny, humorous anecdote.
The term al-adab al-hazlī (jocular literature) is the
most used name for this genre of Arabic literature.
In addition, humorous formulations and ironic or
funny expressions can also be found in numerous
poems and prose texts in the classical and modern
period. In order to avoid the critique of religious
authorities against entertaining literature not clearly
showing articulated moral values, classical authors
of Arabic literature tend to combine the jocular ele-
ment (hazl) with seriousness (jidd).
While dealing with humor in Arabic culture, one
cannot disregard the cultural and historical context,
and beyond that, the social and political circum-
stances, which widely affect the taste of humor.
What was considered humorous in earlier Arab soci-
eties might well lose this quality in our time, due to
Arabic Culture, Humor in 55
the sheer variability of cultural-historical standards
of humor. So is the case, for instance, in regard to
jokes that caused caliphs to fall on their backs from
laughing; today, such jokes may sound rather silly,
vulgar, and disgusting.
Humor in Medieval Arabic Literature
There is a wide range of medieval Arabic litera-
ture that uses different forms of humor as stylistic
device. One example is 1001 Nights, where laugh-
ter carries the existential weight of saving lives.
Similar to the storyteller Shahrazad herself, some
of her protagonists have to amuse a ruler by nar-
rating their stories in an exciting and thrilling way.
If they manage to make the ruler laugh, they avert
their own death sentence. While humor appears as
a distinctive way of survival here, it functions as a
vehicle of critique addressing social groups and pat-
terns of behavior in the early Abbasid period in the
writings of al-Jāhiz (d. 868), known for his sharp
observations, comic sense, and satirical arguments.
In his famous Book of Misers (Kitāb al-Bukhalā’),
he tells funny stories illustrating the meanness of his
greedy protagonists, many of whom are Persians.
In doing so, al-Jāhiz seems to indirectly emphasize
the proverbial generosity of Arabs. Here and in
his ironic letters or treatises about the superiority
of the Black races to the White, or expressing his
disdain of homosexuality, al-Jāhiz employs humor-
generating techniques in order to seriously criti-
cize deep cultural phenomena. Furthermore, the
maqāmāt of al-Hamadhānī (d. 1008) and al-Harīrī
(d. 1122), a specific genre of fictive stories writ-
ten in rhyme prose, extensively include humorous
phrases and satirical descriptions of funny protago-
nists and events.
As an example for humor in medieval Arabic
poems, we can point to the love poetry of the
Umayyad ‘Umar Ibn Abī Rabī’a (d. ca. 712). Humor
and even satire can be found in his verses, includ-
ing narratives, with which he expresses distance
and self-mockery, especially regarding his view on
the other gender. Using stylistic techniques, such as
exaggeration, funny descriptions, and reversing of
roles, ‘Umar transcends the conventional style of
passionate love poetry through creating an amus-
ing atmosphere. However, it is Abu Nuwas (d. 814)
who deserves to be considered the most prominent
figure of humorous Arab poetry. In his poems, he
expresses his critique of literary customs and social
habits. By means of satire, mockery, and irony, he
rejects the way pre-Islamic Arab poets traditionally
56 Arabic Culture, Humor in
start off their poems by remembering the ruins of the
beloved’s dwellings and weeping over past times. He
also made fun of the poets’ pride in ancestors and
tribal identity. Another poet whose poetry includes
amusing metaphors is the Abbasid as-Sanawbarī
(d. 945). We find in his diwān poems dedicated to
comic descriptions of unusual topics, such as fleas
and scabies. Furthermore, through employing
ridiculous hyperbolic language, Sanawbarī creates
impressive humorous effects. Finally, several poems
and prose texts of Abu al-’Alā’ al-Ma’arrī (d. 1057)
reflect his deep irony and sarcasm in mocking reli-
gious teachings and authorities, criticizing the vices
of his age and accentuating the vanity of the world.
His sense of humor in dealing with the difficul-
ties caused by his blindness is shared by the great
Egyptian author Taha Hussain (1889–1973).
Humor in the Qur’an
The Qur’an, the oldest preserved and most impor-
tant text of Arabic and Islamic literature, includes
striking forms and meanings of humor with stylis-
tic devices such as irony and periphrases, or the use
of strange depictions and images. In the Qur’an,
humor is neither bidden nor forbidden; rather, it
appears as a means of communication to convey
important ideas in a powerful way from a superior
standpoint, which suits the cultural context of pre-
Islamic Arabia.
What is striking, however, is that the early pas-
sages of the Qur’an seem to be characterized by a
seriousness of God’s words. Laughter is widely
discredited as a signal of disbelief. Several verses
corroborate this: for example, 21:16–17, where it
reads that God did not create the world playfully. In
another passage, the reaction of the unfaithful, who
just learned about the pending Judgment, contrasts
the seriousness of God’s statement: The unfaith-
ful marvel and laugh in doubt of the truth of this
announcement (53:57–62).
Furthermore, laughter is mentioned in the Qur’an
as an expression of joy. God appears as the creator
of laughter and crying, of life and death. It is He
who created the pair, the male and the female, from
an emitted sperm (53:43–46). By outlining three
parallel pairs, in the first of which God makes peo-
ple laugh and cry, a central theological theme comes
to the fore: Everything in human life and history is
under God’s control.
Laughter is also used in the Qur’an to indicate
the unbelievers’ temporary state of well-being in the
present world, which is bound to perish in the here-
after (83:29–35). Often in the Qur’an, laughter has
the function of laughing at somebody. The stronger
ridicules the weaker with his laughter. This form of
humor can be referred to as humor of superiority
and is directed against the unbelievers, including the
Jews. A parable addressing the Jews goes as follows:
The likeness of those who have been loaded with the
Torah then they have not carried it, is as the likeness
of an ass carrying books. (62:5)
According to the Qur’an, the Jews who rejected fol-
lowing Muhammad did not understand the teach-
ings of the Torah, which includes indications about
his prophecy. In this image, they are portrayed as an
ass carrying books without learning how to benefit
from their content. This example is considered
extremely humorous, because it alludes to a com-
mon Arab symbol for ignorance—the donkey.
Nothing is considered more ignorant than a donkey
with books on his back whose content he does not
understand.
Another instance of humor in the Qur’an is the
unbelievers’ mockery of the Last Judgment. In the
Qur’an, the Last Judgment is the most powerful
metaphysical idea to threaten opponents. Not sur-
prisingly, unbelievers react with mockery to express
their disbelief in the Judgment and to ridicule
Muhammad’s proclamation:
Shall we show you a man who will tell you that even
when you are all scattered to pieces in disintegration,
you will be raised in a new creation? (34:7)
The unbelievers argue as if they believed in
resurrection—but, in fact, they do not. The
statement is an ironic device.
A different kind of humor in the Qur’an is the
sinful and arrogant Satanic humor. Satan refused to
prostrate before the newly created Adam with the
biting comment: Shall I prostrate myself before one
you have created from clay? (17:61; Cf. 15:33). To
his mind, the fact that he is created from fire con-
stitutes his superiority over Adam (7:12; 38:76).
Satan’s conviction of this superiority and his
according arrogance breeds a form of fierce humor
culminating in his indignation toward God, who
commands the angels to prostrate before a creature
inferior to them.
The humorous statements of Abraham in the
Qur’an are also worth taking a look at. Of all the
prophets, Abraham is unique in his humor. His faith

in God gives him a sense of superiority over his peo-
ple. In several Qur’anic accounts, he renounces the
idols of his people after having discovered monothe-
ism. To name but one example, the situation where
he was urging his people to dispel polytheism and
worship God is particularly striking. The question
Do you worship what you hew? (37:95) indicates
Abraham’s pejorative attitude toward a deification
of idols created by the people themselves. Instead
of worshipping man-made idols, he suggests they
should rather worship God who made men (37:96).
The case of Abraham is very special, because of the
reverse employment of the humor device. Usually
the prophets and messengers of God are the ones
who fall victim to mockery and laughter by their
powerful opponents, and not vice versa.
A special humor of women can be found in the
Qur’anic story of Sarah, Abraham’s wife: The angels
visit Abraham with the good news of the expected
birth of his son (11:69–73). Sarah listens and laughs
out loud in sheer disbelief: She was a very old
woman and beyond the age of natural pregnancy:
Woe is me! Shall I bear a child while I am an old
woman, and this, my husband, is an old man too?
This is truly amazing! (11:72)
Shocked by the news, she laughs and mocks herself
and her old husband.
Theological humor is yet another element of the
Qur’an. This can be demonstrated at three pas-
sages ascribed to the Meccan period (53:21–22;
16:57–59; 37:149–157). All of them deal with the
Qur’anic rejection of a polytheistic belief that sees
God as father of three daughters, al-Lat, al-’Uzza,
and Manat (53:19–20)—all names of former idols
or goddesses worshipped in Mecca and elsewhere
in the Hejaz, a region of present-day Saudi Arabia,
before the emergence of Islam. Arguing against this
misconception, the Qur’an alludes to an Arab cus-
tom of that time, namely the killing of unwanted
female infants. The passages in the Qur’an criticize
this custom, but the social critique is, in fact, embed-
ded in a theological argument against God’s sup-
posed daughters. For the purpose of illustration, we
look at 37:149–150, where God is the speaker:
So ask them for a pronouncement—Has your Lord
daughters, and they sons? Or did We create the
angels females, while they were witnesses?
The prophet Muhammad is commanded to ask the
pagans how they can possibly ascribe to God what
Arabic Culture, Humor in 57
they actually reject for themselves: daughters. The
humor lies in beating the pagans at their own game:
a very clever way of convincing them of their own
defective theological outlook, while, at the same
time, subtly criticizing the custom of infanticide.
The employment of humor in the Qur’an seems
to alter and augment as the prophet Muhammad
becomes a powerful leader after migrating to
Medina. An increasingly humorous approach to
the confrontation with pagans, the relation to Jews,
and the internal affairs of the Muslim community is
unfolding. Humor is also applied to treating the hyp-
ocrites who consider themselves powerful enough
to deceive Muhammad and his community. They
pretend to accept Muhammad’s teachings, while, in
fact, remaining faithful to their devils (2:14). The
Qur’an describes God’s attitude toward this behav-
ior as follows: God mocks them and gives them the
latitude to wander aimlessly in their intransigence
(2:15). While declaring God’s special rejection
through mockery, the Qur’an does not invite the
believers to mock just as much. Quite the contrary,
as the following verse illustrates:
He has sent down upon you in the Book that when
you hear God’s signs (or: verses) being disbelieved
and made mock of, do not sit with them until they
plunge into some other talk, or else you will surely
be like them. (4:140)
The believers are urged to avoid meetings in
which God’s signs are subject to disbelief and
mockery, because mockery is an attractive danger,
especially if its subject is the Divine. In addition,
it is also forbidden for Muslims to mock each
other because the scoffed may be better than the
scoffers (49:11).
The Qur’an as Subject of Humor
in Arabic Jocular Literature
The Qur’an virtually lends itself to the develop-
ment of a certain kind of Arabic jocular literature.
While this literature deals with religious topics from
a funny and humorous perspective, the Qur’an itself
is never ridiculed and the claim of revelation never
challenged. Thus, we find numerous humorous
anecdotes and stories that have been compiled ever
since the 9th century. Very popular are intentional
misquotes and messed up citations of the Qur’an,
for example through combination of random parts
of different verses or the substitution of words with
other words for funny results. Apart from that, we
58 Arabic Culture, Humor in
also find Qur’anic parodies, as well as imitations of
suras to serve comic purposes. Sometimes, Qur’anic
statements are applied to a totally alien context so
that the meaning changes completely in a comic way.
For example, a thief would deduce from 3:161, who
defrauds shall bring the fruits of his fraud on the
Day of Resurrection, to steal perfume bottles only,
as they are light to carry on the Day of Judgment.
Another literary category contains Bedouin
jokes and anecdotes on violation of religious rules.
In those jokes, pointedly naive protagonists evade
religious rites in a playful manner. One anecdote
that illustrates this kind of humor is about a stu-
pid man who did not feed his donkey but instead
would recite the verse Say: He is God, One (112:1)
above the donkey’s nosebag. As the donkey starved
to death, the man got angry at the verse and shouted
By God, I never would have thought that the verse
“Say: He is God, One” kills donkeys! By God, I am
sure it is even more lethal for humans, so I will not
recite it again as long as I live!
The joke makes fun of the stupidity of the donkey’s
owner; while, at the same time, leaving the central
Islamic doctrine of God’s oneness untouched.
In addition, there are anecdotes about people
who pretend to be prophets, escaping from seem-
ingly desperate situations by means of repartee
and wit. For example, these people use a Qur’anic
verse in order to justify their pretense of prophecy.
Furthermore, there are satires on religious dignitar-
ies, as for example jokes and anecdotes on incapable
judges or Sufis who are not as pious as they pretend.
The humor used in these jokes could be described
as Islamic humor, because the stories deal with spe-
cifically Islamic topics and peculiarities. There are
also common jokes about Jews and Christians that
do not target their beliefs but instead focus on their
characteristics.
Humor in Hadith Literature
In the hadith literature, a compilation of alleged
statements and actions of the prophet Muhammad
in Arabic, the use of humor is more frequent than
in the Qur’an. Basically, two images of the prophet
exist: One that portrays him as a serious, humorless
person—an image that comes in handy for ascetic
circles to criticize and forbid laughter and joy—and
another that describes him as joking, playing with
his grandchildren, admitting singing, and allowing
the believers to play in the mosque on feast days.
Humor in Islamic Jurisprudence
Debating everyday life situations in Islamic jurispru-
dence, such as pastime, amusement, and jesting, the
jurists distinguish the lawful from the prohibited.
Everything that leads to sociability and temporary
rest from work is recommended, whereas everything
that breaks the rules of sincerity, chastity, and tem-
perance is prohibited. These considerations guide
what types of humor are considered acceptable
under Islamic law.
Humor in Modern Arabic Literature
In the works of several modern Arab authors, humor
extensively arises in different ways from the lan-
guage used as well as how situations are described
and characters act. In the following, only a selective
overview shall be provided.
Extensive use of humor is a major quality of
the literary work of the Lebanese author Māroun
Abboud (d. 1962), who succeeded in writing didac-
tic narratives inspired by rural folk literature. For
his part, Ibrāhīm al-Māzinī (d. 1949) describes in
a funny way the unsuccessful love affairs that his
male protagonist “Ibrahim the writer” had with
several women, which led him to think of suicide;
the voice of his late wife, however, urged him sar-
castically to remain alive—but in order to remem-
ber her.
Humor penetrates Tawfīq al-Hakīm’s (d. 1987)
novels and plays. His characters interact with each
other in a witty, lively way. He describes in his book
‘Awdat ar-Rūh [The return of the soul] the life of
the Egyptian middle class after World War I, uti-
lizing various techniques generating humor. In his
novel Yawmiyyāt nā’ib fi al-aryāf [The diary of a
deputy public prosecutor in the country], he presents
ironic observations of the peasant life in Egypt as
well as comic situations caused by misunderstand-
ings between the administration and peasants whose
drastic poverty strongly intensifies the effects of
humor. The author’s goal is to mock social injustice
and attack the corruption of officials, criticizing, at
the same time, in a humorous way the deep dichot-
omy in Egyptian culture between urban government
and rural peasantry. In his and Yūsuf Idrīs’s (d. 1991)
plays, Egyptian theater became a political arena in
which the critique of regime took place. Irony is an
essential element of the latter’s works.
The sense of humor reflected in short stories by
modern Arab writers, such as the Iraqi Dhū’n-Nūn
Ayyoub (d. 1988), serves as a vehicle to articulate

social-reformist ideas without falling into the pitfall
of preaching. Another example of humor in mod-
ern Arabic literature is the satirical short stories of
the contemporary Syrian author Zakariyya Tāmir
(b. 1931). With topics such as poverty, frustration,
quest for identity, national independence, politi-
cal arbitrariness, and repression in an authoritar-
ian state, he draws a somber, apocalyptic, almost
Kafkaesque worldview that can be described as
bitter and pessimistic.
The genre of political humor in modern Arabic
culture consists of a wide range of jokes, caricatures,
comics, and satirical theater that overtly make fun
of the political reality. Here humor serves as a cen-
tral factor of liberation, enabling the people in most
cases to avoid the pitfalls of censorship.
Limits of Humor
By examining the humorous aspects in Arabic litera-
ture, we notice a far-reaching tolerance. However,
the core contents of faith, such as God, the Qur’an,
and the prophet Muhammad, never are subject to
ridicule or scoff. Certain lines regarding the basic
values of Islam are not to be crossed and jokes are
rarely provocative, let alone aggressive. Religious
norms, the oneness of God, and the Qur’an as God’s
revelation are placed outside the realm of popu-
lar amusement and remain exempt from mockery.
In a historical perspective, another limit to humor
was the maintenance of social peace. By contrast,
jokes on the naïveté or stupidity of Muslims are still
very popular. These jokes include topics such as the
pillars of religious praxis like charity, fasting, and
the pilgrimage, as well as controversial theological
questions.
Georges Tamer
See also Islam
Further Readings
Marzolph, U. (1992). Arabia ridens: Die humoristische
Kurzprosa der frühen adab-Literatur im
internationalen Traditionsgeflecht [Arabia ridens:
Humorous short prose texts in early adab-literature in
the international nexus of traditions] (Vols. 1–2).
Frankfurter wissenschaftliche Beiträge:
Kulturwissenschaftliche Reihe 21. Frankfurt am Main:
V. Klostermann.
Malti-Douglas, F. (1985). Structures of avarice: The
Bukhalā’ in medieval Arabic literature (Studies in Arabic
Literature 11). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Aristophanes 59
Rosenthal, F. (1956). Humor in early Islam. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill.
Tamer, G. (Ed.). (2009). Humor in Arabic culture. Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
ARISTOPHANES
Aristophanes (ca. 447–ca. 380 BCE) is rightly hailed
as the “father of comedy” in the West. Only frag-
ments survive of the plays by the other creators of
Old Comedy, while 11 out of Aristophanes’s known
output of 44 comedies survive complete. They are
distinguished by a zany, anarchic sense of humor
and a combination of witty poetry, satire, politi-
cal attacks, and obscenity; and they demand a very
physical performance style for the many sight gags
and lazzi that are implied by the text.
Aristophanes’s work was greatly shaped by his
times. He lived and wrote at Athens throughout the
turbulent period of the Peloponnesian War, which
began in 431 BCE and proceeded, with a brief inter-
lude of peace, down to the eventual defeat of Athens
in 404 BCE. The nine plays that survive from the
war period insist repeatedly on the madness of
warmongers—especially in Acharnians (425), Knights
(424; an attack of unparalleled venom against Cleon,
the principal promoter of the war), Peace (421),
and the great comedy of sex, Lysistrata (411). They
satirize many targets, including Socrates and the phi-
losophers of the contemporary sophistic movement
(Clouds, 423), litigants and jurymen (Wasps, 422),
and tragic poets (The Women’s Festival, 411; Frogs,
404). The ninth play from this period, Birds (414), is
a fantasy play in which the birds, with human help,
establish the kingdom of Cloudcuckooland and bring
both men and gods to heel.
After the defeat of Athens, the political struggles
between warmongers and their opponents, and
between democrats and aristocrats, which had con-
vulsed the democracy during the war period, were
over, and it is as if the lifeblood has been drained
from Aristophanes’s comic writing in a new climate
of doom and austerity. His last two surviving works,
Assemblywomen (ca. 392) and Wealth (388), are the
only extant examples of Middle Comedy, and they
altogether lack the edge and bite of Aristophanes’s
earlier, socially and politically engaged plays. They
are relative gentle satires of human foibles, which
pave the way for the New Comedy of Menander
later in the 4th century BCE.
60 Aristotelian Theory of Humor
In all nine of the Old Comedy plays, a star-
tling fantasy-idea, quite unrealizable in real life, is
treated as if it could happen, and the consequences
are then worked out in the comedy. For example
in Lysistrata, the wives of Athens embark on a sex
strike from which they will not relent until the men
of Athens and Sparta make peace (in the play this
is wholly successful, regardless of the ready avail-
ability of slave girls and prostitutes if such a strike
had been attempted in real life); and in Frogs, the
god Dionysus, weary of the second-rate poets now
performing in his drama festival, journeys down
to Hades to fetch the recently dead Euripides back
to Athens. While in the underworld, he referees a
poetic agōn (contest) between the grand old man of
tragedy, Aeschylus—who had lived in the glory days,
early in the 5th century BCE, when Athens twice
fought off invasions from Persia—and Euripides,
who is made to stand for the moral corruption
endemic in contemporary Athenian society. After
the contest, Dionysus decides to take Aeschylus back
with him instead.
The dominant fantasy-idea is used as a peg on
which to hang episodes of shorter or greater length,
each worked out with superb comic timing so that
the underlying joke of each scene or subscene is
exploited for all it is worth, and then abandoned
before there is any danger of tedium. There is virtu-
ally no plot, in the normal sense of that word—
simply a quest by the heroes and heroines to fulfill
their fantasy ideal. Aristophanic comedies are how-
ever shaped around certain formal elements, in
particular the agōn between opposing characters,
which can occur either in the first or the second
half of the comedy; the parabasis, usually around
the halfway point—an interlude in which the cho-
rus members step out of the drama, but remain in
character, as they address the audience on behalf
of the poet, usually with specific political or social
commentary on how the city might improve itself;
and the kōmos, or scene of revelry, which closes
most of the comedies on a high note, with victory
for the hero or heroine and an often erotic final
celebration.
For many centuries after his death, Aristophanes
was relatively disregarded in favor of the more for-
mal comic tradition founded by Menander nearly a
century later, which is characterized by complicated
plots, intrigue, humor generated from relatively
realistic situations and characters rather than from
a fantasy-idea, a total absence of political and social
critique, few comic lazzi and almost no obscenity.
And of course Aristophanes was heavily frowned
on during the Victorian and Edwardian periods, in
which he was virtually unread, translated only in
heavily bowdlerized versions and unperformed. But
performances of his plays have blossomed since the
1970s, and in the meantime his anarchic, politically
and socially charged humor has inspired occasional
eruptions of an alternative comic tradition—for
example in the work of Ben Jonson (especially
Volpone); worthy 20th- and 21st-century exponents
of sharp-edged Aristophanic comedy include Joe
Orton, the Monty Python team, and Trey Parker
and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park.
Michael Ewans
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Carnival and Festival;
Lazzi; Menander; Monty Python
Further Readings
Aristophanes. (2010). Lysistrata, the women’s festival, and
frogs (M. Ewans, Ed. & Trans.). Norman: Oklahoma
University Press.
Aristophanes. (2011). Acharnians, knights, and peace (M.
Ewans, Ed. & Trans.). Norman: Oklahoma University
Press.
Dover, K. J. (1972). Aristophanic comedy. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
McLeish, K. (1980). The theatre of Aristophanes. London,
UK: Thames and Hudson.
Robson, J. (2009). Aristophanes: An introduction. London,
UK: Duckworth.
ARISTOTELIAN THEORY OF HUMOR
The only certain basis for developing an Aristotelian
comic theory, given the fact that Aristotle did not
devote a specific treatise to this topic, is to make use
of evidence from indisputably authentic works of
Aristotle that are relevant to this subject: the Poetics,
Nicomachean Ethics, Politics and Rhetoric. For
this purpose the Poetics is of primary importance,
because in the course of its argument, it makes spe-
cific reference to comedy and because Aristotle’s
influential theory of tragedy has at its core impor-
tant general concepts that apply to comedy as well
as tragedy. Key issues raised by Aristotle about trag-
edy continue to have a vital resonance in contempo-
rary tragic theory and practice. Comic theory and
practice has developed over time in a number of
directions from the high point it reached in Classical

Greece but aspects of Aristotle’s judgments about
comedy still offer significant illumination about this
genre.
Comic Mimesis (Imitation)
In the Poetics, Aristotle defines both tragedy and
comedy as forms of mimesis but differentiates them
on the basis of their representing different kinds of
subjects: tragedy representing characters who are
generally better and comedy representing characters
who are generally worse than we are. For Aristotle,
the factor that is responsible for comic characters
being “worse” is that they are guilty not of every
kind of vice but of a deformity of character or intel-
lect that makes them ridiculous. The ridiculous is
a flaw that creates vulnerability to scorn or laugh-
ter but is otherwise painless and not destructive.
Aristotle gives us as an example of the ridiculous
the comic mask, which is ugly and distorted, but
not a source of pain. The nature of comic mimesis
must be extrapolated from Aristotle’s discussion of
the nature of tragic mimesis since Aristotle did not
explicitly address the question of comic mimesis in
his extant work. According to Aristotle, mimesis is
natural to mankind from childhood on and human
beings are differentiated from all other animals
because they are most prone to imitation.
Aristotle argues we learn our first lessons though
imitation and that all human beings find pleasure in
imitations. His proof of this point is that there are
objects that distress us when we see them in reality,
but we view the most accurate artistic representa-
tions of these same objects with pleasure. Accurate
artistic representations are instrumental in the learn-
ing process and the act of learning is not only most
pleasant to philosophers but is pleasant to others as
well, only in a somewhat diminished way. Thus the
goal of artistic mimesis is to bring about a learn-
ing experience with its attendant cognitive plea-
sure. This pleasure is inherent in our human nature
because, as Aristotle says in the Metaphysics, “all
human beings desire to know.” In tragedy, the learn-
ing process is triggered by the audience experiencing
the related emotions of pity and fear. In the Poetics
and the Rhetoric, Aristotle defines pity as the feeling
that we have toward anyone who experiences unde-
served misfortune. In the Rhetoric, he defines the
opposite of pity to be “indignation” in witnessing
a character achieve undeserved good fortune, often
involving success without merit. Plots manifesting
these characteristics broadly delineate the territories
Aristotelian Theory of Humor 61
of tragic and comic mimesis. Working within the
scope of a plot commonly evoking the theme of
undeserved good fortune, comic mimesis has a dual
purpose: (1) to represent the “ridiculous,” by which
Aristotle means action and behavior that is worse
than the norm because it involves some deformity of
intellect or character that does not cause pain or is
destructive and (2) to evoke cognitive pleasure from
this kind of representation. In the Poetics, Aristotle
recognizes that a double structure of events can
occur in comedy that reaches its conclusion in oppo-
site ways for the better and worse characters. Just as
tragic mimesis reaches its climax in tragic catharsis,
we must expect that comic mimesis will reach its
climax in a comic catharsis.
Comic Katharsis (Catharsis)
For a long period of time, Aristotelian catharsis in
tragedy was interpreted in only two ways: (1) as the
mechanism involved in medical purgation by which
the audience exposed to pity and fear in tragedy
is relieved of those oppressive emotions and (2) as
moral purification by which the audience is con-
ditioned to feel the emotions raised in a dramatic
performance neither excessively nor deficiently
but in accordance with the proper mean. Neither
of these two senses of catharsis, however, provides
a cognate climax for the process of tragic mimesis
which, as we have seen, has as its goal achieving a
state of cognitive pleasure for the audience. For this
and other reasons, a number of critics and scholars
in the 20th century increasingly followed a different
interpretative path from the ones that led to the con-
cepts of purgation and purification. On philological,
philosophical, and intuitive grounds, they argued for
interpreting catharsis as some form of “intellectual
clarification.” This alternate interpretation makes a
meaningful connection with mimesis as a process of
achieving cognitive pleasure. While various sugges-
tions have been made as to what Aristotle’s concept
of comic catharsis would be, our procedure will be
to develop a theory of Aristotelian comic cathar-
sis that is in harmony with the Aristotelian view of
comic mimesis.
We have stated that for Aristotle, tragedy and
comedy are differentiated by the arousal of pity or
fear when a superior type of person suffers unde-
served misfortune and by the arousal of indignation
when an inferior type of character attains undeserved
good fortune. In the Nicomachean Ethics, we find a
catalog of vices that, when treated by the Aristotelian
62 Arousal Theory (Berlyne)
rules of comic mimesis, becomes the basis of a num-
ber of comic archetypes, such as cowards, braggarts,
lechers, curmudgeons, misers, parasites, and hypo-
crites, among others. It is the behavior and action of
such archetypal comic characters that comic cathar-
sis illuminates. The Aristotelian theory of comedy
thus laid the foundation for the Superiority Theory
of comedy and laughter, which continues to play an
influential role in comic theory today.
Leon Golden
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient Roman Comedy
Further Readings
Cooper, L. (1924). An Aristotelian theory of comedy. New
York, NY: Oxford.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1975). Aristotle on emotion. London,
UK: Duckworth.
Golden, L. (1984). Aristotle on comedy. Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 42, 286–290.
Golden, L. (1992). Aristotle on tragic and comic mimesis.
Atlanta, GA: ScholarsPress.
Heath, M. (1989). Aristotelian comedy. Classical Quarterly,
39, 344–354.
AROUSAL THEORY (BERLYNE)
Daniel Berlyne’s arousal theory, which was popular
during the 1960s and 1970s, describes enjoyment of
humor as a function of modulations to the individ-
ual’s psychological and physiological arousal level.
Berlyne was not the first to link humor with
arousal level, though earlier theorists tended to con-
ceptualize humor’s function as a release from pent-
up tension. In the 19th century, Herbert Spencer
postulated that the muscle spasms induced by laugh-
ter were designed to relieve physiological stress.
Sigmund Freud elaborated on this idea, arguing that
the expulsion of negative impulses in the form of
jokes creates a sensation of relief, akin to opening
a control valve on a hydraulic system under excess
pressure.
Arousal theory was inspired by mid-20th-century
theories of learning and motivation. These theories
characterized behavior as a means for both up- and
down-regulating arousal levels. Clark Hull’s drive
reduction theory described behavior as a function
of homeostasis maintenance: Drives like hunger or
thirst create heightened arousal states, which the
organism takes measures to reduce. Donald Hebb
suggested that arousal and pleasure form an inverted
U-shaped curve, where too little or too much stimu-
lation is unpleasant, and a moderate amount is opti-
mal. Learning and exploration behavior can thus be
explained in terms of arousal regulation: A bored
animal with low arousal is seeking additional stimu-
lation in order to return to an optimal arousal state.
Berlyne viewed these newer theories—which
were intended to explain motivation in animals—as
having the potential to explain human interest and
curiosity, and the pleasure we derive from the world
around us. Thus, arousal theory was initially devel-
oped as a general theory of aesthetics; it was only
later that it was applied to humor.
According to arousal theory, the stimuli that
comprise a humorous utterance, called collative
variables, increase arousal, leading to mild pleasure
(see A in Figure 1). Note the departure here from
Freud, who would have claimed that any increase
in arousal leads to aversive tension. As the joke
progresses, arousal surpasses the optimal level
(B) and becomes unpleasant. The punch line pro-
vides a relief to that tension (C), and arousal returns
to baseline; this dip in arousal is referred to as the
arousal jag. The pleasure afforded by the arousal
jag results in laughter. Again, note how Berlyne’s
theory departs from its predecessors: Rather than
laughter and mirth releasing tension, they are an
expression of it.
C
A
Arousal
B
Time
Figure 1 Schematic Diagram of Berlyne’s Arousal
Theory of Humor
The solid black line indicates arousal level over the course
of a joke, while the dotted line represents enjoyment
over the same time frame. The horizontal gray line is the
optimal level of arousal, and the vertical dashed line is the
moment the punch line is delivered. Enjoyment is
maximized when arousal hews close to the optimal level.
Source: Nina Strohminger.

Thus, Berlyne’s theory makes specific predic-
tions about the relationship between arousal level
and enjoyment across the time course of a joke.
First, that arousal increases up to the point of the
punch line, decreasing thereafter. Second, though
this arousal boost is initially enjoyable, it reverses in
hedonic impact as arousal passes the optimal thresh-
old, only to become enjoyable again once we “get”
the joke.
Subsequent research has found support for
Berlyne’s claim that humor increases arousal levels
and that increased arousal levels lead to laughter
and amusement. For example, reading high arousal
negative or positive stories causes people to rate
subsequent cartoons as funnier. Another experi-
ment found that when subjects were injected with
epinephrine (an autonomic arousal agonist), they
showed greater signs of amusement than when they
were injected with chlorpromazine (a central ner-
vous system depressant).
Studies have failed, however, to uncover evi-
dence that there is any upper bound for the amount
of pleasure that high levels of arousal can deliver,
contradicting Berlyne’s prediction that there is an
optimal arousal level in humorous contexts. In one
experiment, students were instructed to either handle
a docile rat (low anxiety condition), extract a blood
sample from a rat (moderate anxiety condition), or
extract a large amount of blood from a rat described
as prone to biting and running away (high anxiety
condition). When the cage opened and the rat was
revealed to be a toy, subjects thought this was funni-
est in the high anxiety conditions. Furthermore, their
amusement was correlated with subjective reports of
anxiety and surprise. Since the arousal provoked by
the prospect of extracting a syringe of blood from
an aggressive rat is presumably as high as anything
experienced during a typical humorous exchange,
the relationship between arousal and amusement
may be viewed as monotonic rather than U-shaped.
Nor is there evidence for a downward arousal jag
after a joke’s punch line. Studies indicate that corti-
sol and epinephrine levels, measures of physiological
stress and arousal, increase immediately after watch-
ing comedy films, rather than returning to baseline.
When arousal is measured during the setup and
punch line of jokes, arousal increases for the entirety
of the joke, with heart rate and skin conductance
at their peak immediately following the punch line.
These findings are consistent with the view that
mirth and arousal are monotonically related: No dip
in arousal is required to enjoy a punch line.
Art and Visual Humor 63
Despite its weaknesses, Berlyne’s theory repre-
sents an improvement over previous arousal-based
theories, especially in its recognition that heightened
arousal can be a source of pleasure. While subse-
quent conceptualizations of humor have variously
focused on the cognitive, linguistic, and social deter-
minants of humor, arousal theory is one of the few
that provides a biological account for why humor
is enjoyable. Arousal theory has also left its mark
in theories that recognize humor as part of a set of
related aesthetic and learning phenomena, an idea
that still has traction today.
Nina Strohminger
See also Aesthetics; Ambiguity; Anxiety; Comic Relief;
Complexity; Coping Mechanism; Freudian/
Psychoanalytic Theory; Laughter, Psychology of; Mirth
Further Readings
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Academic Press.
ART AND VISUAL HUMOR
Art has long had a social function to express a
wide range of human emotions. When one thinks
of humor and art, cartoons and the “funnies” may
easily come to mind. Yet, a look at the history of
art reveals that humor comes in many shapes and
forms, from biting satire to wit and whimsy, to puns
and parodies and in compelling works that include
painting, sculpture, photography, site-specific works,
performance art, and of course, comic art. Both his-
torical and contemporary artists have captured our
attention and seduced us through the use of comic
imagery and stylistic devices by skillfully manipulat-
ing our sense of the plausible. Artists who are able to
invite us into laughter through visual and conceptual
twists and turns of language and form uniquely con-
tribute to the history of art.
One common misconception about humorous art
is that it only has entertainment value. Moreover,
the humorous components of art have not been fully
considered and addressed by art historians until
recently. Art historians, as well as critics and artists,
are now taking a closer look at art that generates a
64 Art and Visual Humor
smile. This may in part be due to a predominance
of contemporary artists who are creating humor-
ous works. Contemporary artists are using a wide
variety of humor, such as parody, satire, wordplay,
irony, slapstick, and gag humor. Central to many
recent performances, video and comic art is the use
of self-effacing humor with a focus on human short-
comings and failures.
The growing number of art exhibitions that are
devoted to the subject of humor suggest that humor
is beginning to be taken seriously by the art world:
Maira Kalman (Jewish Museum, New York City,
2011); Terminal Jest: Dark Humor in Recent Art
(traveling, 2011); Humor, Wit and Satire (Delhi,
India, 2011); Kuniyoshi (Honolulu Academy of
Arts, 2010); Humor, Irony and Satire (Kemper
Art Museum, Kansas City, 2010); Disinhibition:
Black Art and Blue Humor (Hyde Park Art Center,
Chicago, 2008); Exploring Humor in Drawing (J.
Paul Getty, Los Angeles, 2008); Situation Comedy
(traveling exhibit, 2007); Humor & Mischief in New
Taiwanese Art (2007); and Funny Bones (Laguna
Art Museum [California], 2004).
Techniques and Kinds of Humor
Historically, some of the earliest examples of visual
humor include the erotic graphic drawings on the
walls of Pompeii. Certainly, the drawings by chil-
dren also provide some of the most primal examples
of visual humor through the manipulation and exag-
geration of scale, contradictory uses of color and
materials, and the creation of whimsical and inven-
tive narratives or objects. The works by naive art-
ists share many of these characteristics but up until
recently were not considered “art.”
If one were to look for examples of humor in
art history, we can find numerous examples from
the medieval times, the Renaissance, and through
the 19th century in both lesser known and well-
known works. The relationship between the comic
and grotesque has its roots in medieval art (illumi-
nated manuscripts and architectural gargoyles), and
the creation of fantastic images of monsters and
anthropomorphic hybrids found in the paintings
of Hieronymus Bosch and Brueghel. The grotesque
as comic would later take root in the work of cari-
caturists beginning in the 16th century and can be
traced in later social and political satirical cartoons,
the surrealist and pop surrealist art movements,
and the work by 20th-century photographer Cindy
Sherman.
Many kinds of humor can be associated with
contemporary modern and postmodern fine art
(1950–present): parody, satire, pun, paradox, irony,
dark humor, sarcasm, and nonsense or gag. Humor
can range from subtle to bawdy and caustic, and
visual artists create the opportunity for humor
through the creations of visual and conceptual
incongruities. Visual humor is the result of the jux-
taposition of two or more incongruous elements
that result in pleasant jolt.
Artists create incongruities through the juxtaposi-
tion of images, materials, design elements, and text.
Incongruity can be achieved by placing images, or
objects, in a new context; combining two or more
different forms together to create a hybrid form; dis-
torting an image by making it bigger or smaller in
scale; disguising or concealing a form; or appropriat-
ing a cultural icon and altering it for new meanings,
as in the Mona Lisa parodies. Parody and satire are
the most widely recognized and understood forms
of humor associated with art. Parody results in the
endless variations on appropriated recognizable cul-
tural icons or images, but more recently artists have
utilized parody as a method of social critique.
Satire can gently, or rather aggressively, mock,
sting, or bite depending on the degree of the exag-
geration and the distortion of the recognized image.
Satire is associated with the superiority theory, in
that we find something funny, because we take
pleasure and feel superior in seeing someone else in
a compromising position. Visual pun is an image
embodied with two or more meanings or interpreta-
tions and is often created with wordplay between an
image and title, or through the creation of a visual
hybrid of anthropomorphic forms.
While associated with verbal and literary humor,
irony also utilizes images and text that result in con-
tradictory meanings and associations through use
of juxtaposition. Dark humor relies on the effect of
morbidity and confronts topics such as death, chaos,
violence, disasters, and personal crises with humor.
Dark humor utilizes techniques of exaggeration and
transposition and is associated with art movements
such as pop surrealism, as well as kitsch, television
culture, tattoo art, and tiki art. Sarcasm, as a harsh
mocking that utilizes irony and relies on the spoken
voice, is a form of humor that may be more likely
found in the work by performance or video artists.
Nonsense and gag humor has its roots in vaudeville
and the carnival and is also representative of humor
associated with contemporary performance art,
installation art, and video art.

While it is helpful to explain the various kinds of
humor separately, many art works contain multiple
forms of humor. For example, an artwork can be
parody and satire, include visual and verbal (text)
puns, or be ironic and dark at the same time. In
addition, some artists employ humor consistently in
their work, while others employ it sparingly within
individual works within their genre. Some artists
may be better known for their comic infused art,
while others are not. For example, parody and satire
appear throughout most works by contemporary
artist Red Grooms, while some of the many works
of Picasso may be perceived as humorous.
Humor in Contemporary Art
A 2003 episode of the PBS documentary series Art
in the Twenty-First Century was devoted to the topic
of humor and explored how artists use irony, goof-
iness, satire, and sarcasm and how the funny can
also be critical. There is a wide range of humor in
contemporary art from the goofiness and playful-
ness of the arrangement of shapes and forms, as in
Elizabeth Murray’s paintings, to more biting humor
found in social satire and critical works of Raymond
Pettibon. Some of the 20th-century art movements
associated with humorous art include Dada and sur-
realism (Europe), California Funk (U.S.), Chicago
Imagists (U.S.), Fluxus, pop art (U.K. and U.S.), neo-
pop or pop surrealism, and the feminist art move-
ment (global).
Many contemporary artists have used words as a
visual element like other artists may use line, shapes,
or colors. In contemporary and postmodern art, we
find examples of artists who manipulate words for
aesthetic or comic effect. Purposefully misspelling
and exaggerating words, phrases, and titles, these
artists compel us to laugh through their use and
abuse of language.
Drawing on techniques of advertising, contem-
porary artists have used clichés, aphorisms, and
truisms to explore humor with language. Jenny
Holzer in the mid-1980s displayed her infamous
“truisms,” such as “Protect Me From What
I Want,” and projected them in public, urban
spaces. Similarly, Barbara Kruger’s paintings and
posters, drawing on advertising, touted sayings like
“I Shop Therefore I Am.”
Other artists, such as Kay Rosen, Patty Carroll,
David Shrigley, and Michael Hernandez de Luna,
appropriate words, letters, and phrases in vary-
ing degrees with the intent of playing with our
Art and Visual Humor 65
perceptions and meanings. Drawing upon surreal-
ist approaches, these artists use language to disrupt
logic and rationality and to explore the absurdities
of language. These artists share an appreciation
for humor to gently nudge us out of our taken-for-
granted assumptions about language and art. The
following are some examples of contemporary art-
ists who are using pun, parody, satire, irony, and
dark humor as integral to their artistic statements.
Kay Rosen creates language-based works that
some might describe as visual jokes. With formal
studies in linguistics, performance, and painting,
Rosen was influenced by conceptual and minimal
art and artists who relied on patterning, repetition
of modules or units, and use of text in art. Rosen
uses the module/unit of the letter in works that are
primarily small scale and groups them together to
create new meanings. Her use of puns and one-
liners characterize her work. In a 1989 work titled
Thwart, Rosen phonetically spells out each letter
on a canvas, making the viewer sound out each
letter. The puns in Rosen’s work are exemplified
in her large-scale wall paintings titled HalfFull and
Blurred. She uses typographical, grammatical, and
artistic strategies in her work to create her wordplay.
Taking delight in Duchamp, Rosen’s work displays
homage to the Dadaists who frequently played with
words and word associations. What Rosen does is
make us conscious of the intricate relationships and
spaces between letters and words and how words
can be “read” as humorous.
Patty Carroll, a Chicago-based photographer,
often combines photographs and writing. In her
series Movie Posters, she combines photographs
of places with posed actors, vintage-style graph-
ics, and text to create posters for imagined movies.
The movie posters contain witty sayings and puns,
such as the names of her imagined cast of actors:
Larry Luser, Dan Demand, or Stella Stale. The post-
ers are full of color, glossy, large scale, and digitally
mastered. Movie titles such as Bliss to Blood, No
Second Chance (starring Tuff Kooky), and Two Bad
(starring Red Dee and Gree Dee) recall the crime
and romance novelettes of the 1950s and 1960s,
with women characters who somehow meet their
fate. The posters are both a parody of the genre of
movie posters in terms of their content and stylistic
formats, as well as a satire of mystery and romance
films and novels.
Michael Hernandez de Luna combines the
parody, satire, and the political in his postage-size
artworks. His work may be described as mail art,
66 Art and Visual Humor

performance art, conceptual art, or a combination of

all three. Since the 1990s, de Luna has created pages
of fake postage stamps, sometimes collaborating
with Michael Thompson and sometimes working
solo. The pages of stamps that he creates and signs
look just like stamps from the post office, complete
with the perforated page and amount of postage
due. He removes one stamp, attaches it to a recycled
envelope, or a new envelope with a fictitious return
address and he mails it to himself. Sometimes he has
friends mail his letters from locations around the
world. After de Luna receives his “letter” complete
with the cancellation mark from the Postal Service,
he displays it with the page of stamps, minus the
one stamp. The pages of stamps are themed and no
subject is taboo; he covers current events in religion,
politics, entertainment, and art. Some examples of
his themes are McBarbies, photographs of Barbies in
lewd positions, Infidelity Stories, photographs of the
mistresses of famous artists, and American Beauty,
photographs of lynching in the South.
David Shrigley, a U.K.-based artist, documents
his in-the-street gags. In one instance, a sheet of
paper is posted on a tree in a city park and informs
passersby that a pigeon has been lost: “Normal size.
A Bit Mangy Looking. Does Not Have a Name. A taxidermic Jack Russell artwork titled “I’m Dead,”
photographed at a press viewing on January 31, 2012, of
Call 257-1964.” In another, a wooden sign has been
the exhibition “Brain Activity,” by British artist David
stuck in a lush grassy lawn. It states, “Imagine the Shrigley. For the exhibit, mounted at the Hayward
green is red.” A third depicts an empty urban lot on Gallery, London, Shrigley was nominated for the 2013
which the artist has placed a refrigerator-size box. Turner Prize, the United Kingdom’s most prestigious
On the front of his make-believe building he has cut contemporary art award.
a door and painted “Leisure Centre.”
Source: Ben Cawthra/London News Pictures/ZUMAPRESS
Similarly, Tom Friedman has the mind of a comic
.com.
who is able to see the potential and the poetry in
the ordinary and commonplace. He does this well in
two self-portraits. Untitled (1994) is a self-portrait
that is carved with great detail on the face of an aspi- and nontraditional media and inviting us into public
rin tablet. Untitled (2000) is quite the visual prank: a spaces with humor. Their intent is to engage us and
life size “portrait” composed of construction paper challenge our beliefs and attitudes about humor and
cut-outs of the artist literally flattened out as if in public art through the use of scale. Along these lines,
a motorcycle accident. All of his “body parts and there are several examples of public art and sculp-
interior organs” are created out of colored paper, ture that may be described as humorous.
complete with torn ligaments, broken bones, and Husband-and-wife team Claes Oldenburg and
blood spatters. While this would be gruesome as a Coosje van Bruggen create monumental sculptures
photograph or a painting, the use of children’s con- with everyday objects in mind, such as Spoonbridge
struction paper transports it into the realm of funny and Cherry (1985–88) at the Walker Art Center in
through the use of dark humor. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Giants have been the sub-
ject of laughter and mockery, as noted in François
Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel, and contem-
Public Art
porary artist Fernando Botero’s figures and land-
Contemporary artists are also choosing to explore scapes bear the mark of solid yet buoyant, volumet-
their subjects humorously using both traditional ric, abundant forms that take on mythic proportions.

Botero has also taken on art history in his parodies
of Italian masters, such as Mona Lisa at the Age of
12 and other icons of art, like Jean-Auguste-Dom-
inique Ingres’s Mademoiselle Riviere (2001), Din-
ner With Piero and Ingres (1968), Rubens With His
Wife (1965). Like Botero, Niki de Saint Phalle is best
known for her voluminous public art sculptures of
larger-than-life exuberant female figures. These god-
dess-like creatures painted in stylized and free flow-
ing patterning recall the works of Antonio Gaudi
and Jean Dubuffet’s outdoor sculptural installations.
One of her goddess, or Nana, figures was an interac-
tive piece where viewers were able to enter the Nana
through her vagina-as-doorway. Once inside, they
were able to visit a bar, an aquarium, and a cinema,
all of which were operational.
Subversive Humor
Many contemporary artists are also explicitly
exploring social, political, and feminist issues with
humor, using it as a means for generating social cri-
tique, and the disruption of assumptions surround-
ing issues of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and beauty.
It is clear that more and more contemporary artists
are using humor techniques and stylistic conventions
in ways that utilize incongruities to confront social,
political, and art world incongruities as well as
issues relative to cultural identity, assimilation, vio-
lence, the environment, consumerism, globalization,
and stereotyping of beauty, gender, culture, race, and
ethnicity. Subversive humor, which includes satire,
dark humor, and sarcasm, is a strategy that utilizes
techniques of exaggeration, contradiction, and jux-
taposition and is used by feminist artists, pop sur-
realist artists, comic and graphic novel artists, and
First Nations artists.
Pop surrealist artists (Gary Baseman, Tim Biskup,
Joe Coleman, Charles Krafft, Liz McGrath, Mark
Ryden, Isabel Samaras, Shag [Josh Nagle], Todd
Schorr, and Marc Bell among others) address pop
culture and the blending of “lowbrow” art and
street culture with contemporary culture issues. The
Guerrilla Girls are a performance-activist group
known for addressing gender inequity with satire.
Ladydrawers is a collaborative comic artist team
who address gender inequity in the comic industry
using satire and by combining research/statistics and
drawing. Many First Nations artists are using satire
and dark humor to address issues of discrimination
and cultural assimilation; Kay Walkingstick and
Brian Jungen are two examples.
Art and Visual Humor 67
In recent years, comic art has entered into art
world venues with the growing popularity of
graphic novels and autobiographical comics. Daniel
Clowes’s dark-humored comics about art schools
and everyday life as well as Robert Crumb and Aline
Kominsky-Crumb’s self-satirizing autobiographical
comics helped to pave the way for comic artists to
speak about personal issues in an art form that has
been not readily accepted as serious or as art.
The paucity of scholarship on humor and design,
other than graphic design, may also account for
the fact that humor is not seen as an objective for
designed objects with the exception of toy design.
However, Michael Graves’s designs for the home and
Frank Gehry’s jewelry designs could be described as
whimsical, fanciful, and amusing with their anthro-
pomorphic design qualities. Contemporary visual
art and design might be described as pluralistic,
contradictory, humorous, and where the boundaries
between art and design are continually blurring.
Sheri R. Klein
See also Cartoons; Design; Rabelais, François
Further Readings
Cattelan, M., Molon, D., Richards, J., & Rooks, M.
(2005). Situation comedy: Humor in recent art.
New York, NY: Independent Curators International.
Chute, H. (2010). Graphic women: Life, narrative &
contemporary comics. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Critchley, S. (2002). On humour. London, UK: Routledge.
Gibson, W. (2006). Peter Brueghel and the art of laughter.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gray, F. (1994). Women and laughter. Richmond:
University of Virginia Press.
Heller, S. (1991). Graphic wit: The art of humor in design.
New York, NY: Watson-Guptill.
Heller, S. (2002). Design humor: Art and graphic wit.
New York, NY: Watson-Guptill.
Higgie, J. (2007). The artist’s joke: Documents of
contemporary art. London, UK: Whitechapel Gallery &
MIT Press.
Hutcheon, L. (2000). A theory of parody: The teachings of
twentieth-century art forms. Champaign: University of
Illinois Press.
Klein, S. (2007). Art and laughter. London, UK: IB Tauris.
Kominsky-Crumb, A. (1990). Love that bunch. Seattle,
WA: Fantagraphics.
Kominsky-Crumb, A., Crumb, R., & Crumb, S. (1992).
The complete dirty laundry comics. San Francisco, CA:
Last Gasp.
68 Assyrian and Babylonian Humor
Lunn, F., & Munder, H. (Eds.). (2006). When humor
becomes painful. Zurich, Switzerland: Ringer.
Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of
20th century humor. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Marling, K. A. (1996). As seen on TV: The visual culture of
everyday life in the 1950s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Roukes, N. (1997). Humor in art. Worcester, MA: Davis.
Roukes, N. (2003). Artful jesters. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed
Press.
Strömberg, F. (2003). Black images in comics: A visual
history. Seattle, WA: Fantagraphics.
Taylor, D. (Ed.). (2005). Me funny. Vancouver, BC: Douglas
& McIntyre.
Ziv, A. (Ed.). (1998). National styles of humor. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Websites
David Levine Gallery: http://www.nybooks.com/galleries/
david-levine-illustrator
Guerrilla Girls: http://www.guerrillagirls.com
Ladydrawers archive: http://truth-out.org/index.php?
option=com_k2&view=item&id=2467:ladydrawers
Ladydrawers Comics Collective: http://ladydrawers.word
press.com
MAD magazine: http://www.madmagazine.com
ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN
HUMOR
Being a cultural attitude with a specific history and
development, humor can be appreciated and under-
stood only inside the cultural references, and the
psychological frame, of a given tradition. In this
respect, and in order to avoid any possible superim-
position to the ancient Mesopotamian mentality by
the modern reader, it is proposed here to consider
humor in its most basic evidence as the representa-
tion of a deviation from a given norm. This means
that the best way to appreciate a humorous situation
in a Mesopotamian text is by highlighting the way
in which that situation represents an “unexpected”
behavior and collides with other, known situations
representing the “expected,” “right” way to behave.
Humor in Mesopotamian Tradition
If humor is a cultural trait with its own history and
specific relation to the tradition it represents, then the
chronological and cultural gap that divides the mod-
ern reader from the texts written in Mesopotamia
from the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE to the
first 2 centuries of the Common Era must always be
kept in mind in order to fully appreciate the degree
of our understanding of the humorous aspects of
that tradition. All the more so if we consider that
our linguistic knowledge of the tradition involved
in the cultural development of Mesopotamia, espe-
cially as far as the Sumerian language is concerned,
is not adequate to understand in all nuances the
etymological and rhetorical twists that occur when
humor is at stake.
Secondly, it must be stressed from the very begin-
ning that the word humor does not exist as such in
the languages of ancient Mesopotamia (Sumerian,
Babylonian, and Assyrian). The same meaning of “to
laugh” only partially overlaps our modern use of the
word. The literary verb zu2—bir9 (also read li9) in
Sumerian, “to show one’s teeth” or so, has a general
meaning of “to show one’s feeling also by laughing”
(sometimes used in the literary texts in antithesis
to the verb ir2—še8, which means “to show one’s
feeling also by crying”) and offers no indication
whatsoever as to the way in which the laugh could
have been excited (having in mind the wide range of
possibilities from sarcasm to satire). The same can
be said of the Akkadian (that is, Assyro-Babylonian)
verb sâhu, translated in the scientific literature as “to
laugh, to smile, to be alluring, to act coquettishly,”
where the plethora of the proposed translations is
a hint to the difficulty of understanding the meta-
linguistic aspects evoked by the verb.
Thirdly, notwithstanding the tight unit repre-
sented by the Mesopotamian culture during its
over three millennia of development, it is clear that
differences among the three linguistic components
and main traditions of the area, Sumer, Babylonia,
and Assyria, have existed, and we cannot a priori
consider unique and identical the relationship with,
and the reaction to, the humorous attitude of, say, a
Sumerian, a Babylonian, or an Assyrian.
Humor and the Mesopotamian Society
Very little information is offered in texts on the
everyday life of the Mesopotamian man, the docu-
mentation being focused mainly on the economic
aspects, on religion, and on the official apparatus of
the king and the court. So no data is available as to
how humor was felt and appreciated in family life or
in popular meeting places such as taverns and broth-
els. Moreover, as for the social place of humor in the
Mesopotamian society, it is important to stress that

no public ceremony, festivity, or religious occasion is
known with certainty in the texts, where humor (in
whatever form it could appear) played a significant
role.
The only professional who has possibly, as part
of his duties, the characteristic of exciting laughter is
the Babylonian aluzinnu (in Sumerian ud-da-tuš), a
figure that is attested from the end of the 3rd millen-
nium BCE and who is the protagonist of a fragmen-
tary text in Babylonian dated to the 1st millennium
BCE, called Text of the Aluzinnu, which is not
completely reconstructed or understood in its raison
d’être. In this document, the aluzinnu, pretending to
perform activities needing a long technical prepa-
ration and for which he is not trained (physician,
exorcist etc.), generates disasters, which could prob-
ably excite laughter in listeners. It seems clear that in
the Sumerian time (3rd millennium BCE) ud-da-tuš,
showing in the documentation an evident relation
with bear cubs especially delivered for them, is to
be translated as “bear tamer,” more than “clown”
or “jester,” as it is often the case. Be that as it may,
the aluzinnu shares his professional skills together
with a series of other figures related to clownery and
funambulism and somehow to the music and has a
direct connection with the religious sphere. All this
does not allow us to consider him tout court as a
Spaßmacher (comedy-maker).
Humor in the Popular Tradition
The genre of the popular humoristic tale, with a clear
moralistic scope, is represented in Mesopotamia by
very few texts, given the official character of the
extant documentation, which does not tend to pre-
serve literary tradition outside the mainstream of the
established curriculum. The most clear example of
this type of text is The Poor Man of Nippur, a story
in Babylonian language documented from the 2nd
millennium BCE in which a certain Gimil-Ninurta,
a very poor man of the holy city of Nippur, sells all
his miserable properties to buy an old and emaci-
ated goat and give it as a present to the mayor of the
city in the hope of getting some reward. The mayor,
instead of thanking Gimil-Ninurta with gifts, lets
him be beaten by his servants and throws him out
of his palace. While going out of the gate, the poor
man promises to get revenge three times for the one
offense he had received by the burgomaster. As it
is to be expected, with intelligence and wit, and a
bit of violence, Gimil-Ninurta gets his revenge and
becomes rich.
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor 69
It must be stressed that the story has clear
sociopolitical overtones: The city in which it takes
place, Nippur, always had a special status in the
Mesopotamian tradition because of its religious
character, making its inhabitants proud and win-
ning the envy of other cities. Moreover, in order
to get his revenge on the mayor, on one occasion
Gimil-Ninurta even obtains the help of the king—an
evident hint to the constant subterranean struggle
between the crown and the local notables.
Notwithstanding this, the text of the poor man
of Nippur is clearly a product of a humorous lit-
erature that must have known a certain fortune in
Mesopotamia but rarely found its way into writing.
Humor in the Academy
It is generally considered that a group of few texts
describing the life in a Babylonian school called in
Sumerian, e2-dub-ba-a, “House where tablets are
delivered” (or tout court “House of the tablet”),
and in Babylonian bīt ţuppi, “House of the tablet,”
contain a certain degree of humor—the dialectical
quarrel between two scribes, accusing each other
of incompetence, or the complaints of a father to
his lazy son can of course be interpreted as such.
Our poor knowledge of the life in a Mesopotamian
school, though, does not allow us to understand the
real value of this category of texts (they are often
considered as representing an idyllic way of life
inside the Mesopotamian school).
There exists a text in Babylonian of the 1st mil-
lennium BCE, generally called The Illiterate Doctor
of Isin, which was written “in order to be read
(into a class),” as it is stated in the colophon, and
is clearly a product of the academic world. In it, a
certain Ninurta-pāqidāt is bitten by a dog and turns
to Amēl-Baba, a famous doctor in the city of Isin,
for a cure. Once healed, he invites the doctor to his
house in Nippur so that he can reward him properly.
The instructions on how to reach his house once the
physician arrives in Nippur are easy: He must ask
the way from a poor woman who sells vegetables on
the street whose name is Nišū-ana-Ea-taklā. Now,
when the doctor meets the woman, he is completely
unable to understand her Sumerian and exacerbates
the situation with the old woman to the point that
she wants the pupils of the local school to drive him
out of the city by throwing their little clay exercise
tablets at him.
This is a unique example of humor used for
didactical purposes. The intent of the teacher was
70 Audience
to let the students memorize how to write the com-
plicated Sumerian names of the tale, which is part of
their scribal curriculum, by putting this information
in a humorous tale. The pun lies in the fact that the
doctor who has healed a man by speaking Sumerian
during an exorcism, when obliged to speak it in the
real life, is unable to do it.
Also in this case, the presence of Nippur (pretending
to represent the “good” Sumerian tradition after the
death of the language) and of the dog, which is the ani-
mal holy to the healing goddess Gula of Isin, the city
where the doctor comes from, are a hint to a complex
net of cultural and social references that hide behind
the simple telling of the story.
Franco D’Agostino
See also Ancient Egypt, Humor in; Ancient Greek
Comedy; Ancient Roman Comedy; Greek Visual
Humor; Roman Visual Humor; Sanskrit Humor
Further Readings
D’Agostino, F. (1998). Some considerations on humor in
Mesopotamia. Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 72,
273–278.
D’Agostino, F. (2000). Testi umoristici babilonesi e assiri
[Humorous lyrics Babylonians and Assyrians] (Testi del
Vicino Oriente antico Series). Brescia, Italy: Paideia.
D’Agostino, F. (in press). Some considerations on u4-da-tuš
(bear tamer) and jugglery in Ur III [Hommage à Paolo
Matthiae]. Revue d’Assyriologie.
Foster, B. R. (1975). Humor and cuneiform literature.
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 6, 69–81.
Foster, B. R. (1995). Humor and wit in the ancient Near
East. In J. Sasson (Ed.), Civilizations of the ancient Near
East (Vol. IV, pp. 2459–2469). New York, NY: Scribner.
Frahm, E. (1998). Humor in assyrischen Königsinschriften.
In J. Prosecký (Ed.), Intellectual life of the ancient Near
East: Papers presented at the 43rd Rencontre
assyriologique internationale, Prague, July 1–5, 1996
(pp. 147–162). Prague: Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic, Oriental Institute.
George, A. R. (1993). Ninurta-Pāqidāt’s dog bite, and notes
on other comic tales. Iraq, 55, 63–75.
Michalovski, P. (2006). Love or death? Observations on the
role of the Gala in Ur III ceremonial life. Journal of
Cuneiform Studies, 58, 49–65.
Reiner, E. (2003). The tale of the illiterate doctor in Nippur.
Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, 3, 62,
note 54.
Römer, W. H. P. (1978). Der Spassmacher im alten
Zweistromland: zum Sitz im Leben altmesopotamischer
Texten [The jester in the ancient Mesopotamia: The seat
of life in ancient Mesopotamian texts]. Persica, 7,
43–62.
Shehata, D. (2009). Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire.
Untersuchungen zu Inhalt und Organisation von
Musikberufen in altbabylonischer Zeit [Musicians and
their vocal repertoire. Studies on the content and
organization of musical professions in Old Babylonian
period]. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag
Göttingen.
AUDIENCE
An essential concept in communication study is the
idea of audience. An audience is the intended recipi-
ent of a message. Classic models of communication
suggest a linear progression of a process from the
sender, to message composition, to reception by an
audience. Given this primacy, scholarly understand-
ing of audience is a premium in all theoretical studies
and case studies of communication. From the stand-
point of humor, the amusement and even laughter
of an audience constitutes a fruition to a humorous
communication act.
Classical Notions of Audience
The earliest Greek construction of communication,
most often related to Aristotle’s notion of rhetoric,
organized explanations around potential audiences
that were well understood at the time. Classical cat-
egories such as deliberative and forensic assumed
respective audiences of a legislative body and a judge
in a court. The concept of the audience was the basis
for establishing rules on how to approach communi-
cation effectively. Greek notions of comedy utilized
the matrix of an audience to construct models of
how to use comedy.
Contemporary Studies of Audience
More currently, argumentation studies offer a semi-
nal insight to the function of audience in the per-
suasion process. Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) model of
argumentation suggests that the audience supplies
the critical ingredient in the three elements neces-
sary for the existence of the argument: (1) data,
(2) claim, and (3) warrant. According to Toulmin,
audiences mentally provide an unstated warrant to
complete the reasonable connection between data
and claim. Here again the key stature and essence
of the audience in the larger process of communica-
tion is apparent and central. This reasoning process

is integral to calculations of humor. What rational
connections are there between evidence and public
claims? These warrant connections are scrutinized in
the processes of comedy.
Studies of public address identify various types of
audience such as the hostile or sympathetic audience.
The disposition of an audience shapes the strategic
options in constructing messages. Theorists tend to
believe that humor is an ideal strategy for addressing
hostile audiences because it tends to disarm hostil-
ity in the hearer and open the listener to additional
points of view.
Technology and Audience
The reliable and stable conceptualization of audi-
ence has become more diffuse with the advent of
technology. We now recognize the existence of a
primary audience—those physically present at the
delivery of a message. This presumes a variety of
secondary audiences who now see messages dis-
seminated through technologies, such as radio,
television, film, and the Internet. We now speak
of many messages—especially humorous ones—as
“going viral.” Our most advanced and state of the
art studies on communication seek to master the
peculiar diffusions of the audience that is excep-
tionally connected by technology in a global infor-
mation environment. Advanced techniques such
as “dial testing” allow politicians to know almost
instantly how audiences are responding to messages.
Focus group methodologies allow communication
experts to discern how humorous messages might
be interpreted or misinterpreted before reaching a
wider audience. Communication experts can deftly
define and categorize various parts of an audience
by ideology, age, income, gender, and other discern-
ible factors. The instantaneous nature of audience
feedback through mediums such as Twitter have to
some extent reversed the classic flow of communica-
tion from sender to receiver, creating an audience
feedback mechanism that can now be overwhelming
to the speaker.
Audiences as Social Movements
Audiences can, more than ever, constitute them-
selves rather than be constructed by a speaker. Social
movement theory suggests that individuals can
mobilize into groups and seek public change. In so
doing, these groups constitute audiences for insti-
tutional structures such as political office holders.
Presently, groups like the Tea Party and the Occupy
Audiovisual Translation 71
Wall Street movement are examples of such audi-
ence phenomena. Humor often plays an integral
part in movement formation and identification. In
essence, an inside joke becomes a premise to group
action. The joke identifies the argument instability
of the establishment and a proposed communication
opening for the insurgent movement.
Regardless of communication context or medium,
there is an active interest in reaching and affecting
the audience. Communicators seek to influence their
audiences’ purchasing decisions, voting decisions,
personal habits, and moral dispositions. The amuse-
ment of an audience in the communication act of
humor offers profound significance to this larger
study. The ideal construction of what an audience is,
consequently, is formative to successful communica-
tion like that found in humor.
Ben Voth
See also Comedy; Movie Humor Types; Movies;
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter; Rhetoric and
Rhetorical Devices; Sociology; Stand-Up Comedy
Further Readings
Burke, K. (1984). Comic correctives. In K. Burke, Attitudes
toward history (Rev. ed.). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Stewart, C. J., Smith, C. A., & Denton, R. E., Jr. (2007).
Persuasion and social movements (5th ed.). Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION
Verbally expressed humor does not only transpire
in the form of jokes and asides recounted by come-
dians and in naturally occurring conversation any
more than it does in comic literature or printed col-
lections of jokes. A great amount of verbal humor
takes place in an assortment of audiovisual texts that
range from films, TV programs, DVDs, and video-
games, to theatrical plays and opera. These texts are
polysemiotic in nature; in other words, their verbal
content is inextricably bound to a series of images
and extralinguistic acoustic features, which together
form a meaningful whole. Needless to say, the inter-
lingual translation of humorous occurrences within
audiovisual texts is especially problematic owing to
the tight interdependence of more semiotic systems,
72 Audiovisual Translation
according to Delia Chiaro. Audiovisual transla-
tion (AVT) falls beneath the all-inclusive umbrella
term multimedia translation, as most AVTs are con-
structed and also accessed through one or more
electronic devices. For example, subtitles are created
by means of sophisticated software and dubbing
requires specific hardware. Furthermore, consumers
access these translations via cinema and television
screens, computers, video-game consoles, and smart
phones—hence via “multi” media.
Screen translation has been studied at great
length (e.g., by Jan Ivarson, Raffaella Baccolini and
colleagues, Rosa Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli, Chiara
Bucaria, and Delia Chiaro). Significantly, when we
go to the movies, not only do we watch the action
and listen to the dialogues, but we also absorb writ-
ten information (e.g., street signs, newspaper head-
lines, letters); we hear noise from surroundings (e.g.,
traffic, birdsong, white noise); body sounds such
as breathing and crying; and background music.
We also partake in actors’ facial expressions and
movements, their clothing, makeup and hairdos;
we are exposed to the scenery. Films often contain
songs whose lyrics are significant to the storyline.
Thus, according to Chiaro, the dialogic content of
filmic products is strongly determined by substan-
tial amounts of verbal and nonverbal or visual and
auditory components to which they are indissolubly
linked.
The two most widespread modalities adopted in
screen translation are dubbing and subtitling. The
choice of modality varies across the world for a
variety of historical, traditional, or socioeconomic
reasons, and while the endless debate regarding the
superiority of one modality over the other remains
unfruitful, the linguacultural difficulties involved in
translating dialogues strictly connected to a series
of images that are simultaneously linked to a set of
visual-verbal elements that are in turn interrelated to
a series of verbal and nonverbal sounds are largely
the same whether the chosen option is dubbing or
subtitling.
Humor presents one of the greatest obstacles
in AVT. Sociolinguistic markers such as accent,
variety, and slang are frequently adopted to create
comic effects. Transferring variation from language
to language is, of course, awkward, thus transla-
tors may resort to substituting the source language
variety with another variety pertaining to the target
language. This is quite a commonly adopted strategy
in dubbing regions such as France, Italy, Germany,
Spain, China, and Latin America. However,
substituting a nonstandard variety in Language A
with a nonstandard variety in Language B may prove
to be inappropriate because of the connotations
attached to specific varieties. In the Italian dubbed
version of the U.S. film Chicken Run (2000), written
and directed by Peter Lord and Nick Park, the origi-
nally Scottish hen speaks with a marked German
accent, thereby transforming her from Scottish spin-
ster to stereotypically cruel German. Both hens are
equally funny, but the underlying implications differ
greatly. Similarly, the accent of Fran (played by Fran
Drescher), the Jewish nanny from Queens in the
U.S. sitcom The Nanny (CBS 1993–1999), is heavily
New Yorkese, but in the Italian dub of the sitcom,
the accent becomes “Ciocaro”—an accent typical of
the southern Italian town of Frosinone. Admittedly
the solution works as it partly retains the source
humor through a well-known nonstandard accent.
But if on the one hand, the series was extremely suc-
cessful in Italy possibly owing to the fact that the
“Ciociaro” accent is perceived as being funny, on
the other hand, it created numerous translational
problems with regard to the culture specificity of
references to all that is New York Jewish, such as
food, festivities, and especially Yiddish expressions
conveyed in the original. Chiaro points out that
assigning highly specific New York–Jewish cultural
references in a variety of southern Italy may be per-
ceived as somewhat strange, incomprehensible, and
to some, even comical, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Countries that use subtitling, such as Belgium,
the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece,
Hong Kong, and Israel, are unlikely to project the
subtitles of an entire film in a nonstandard variety
because subtitles need to be read quickly and easily,
and reading dialect requires a certain amount of skill
and aptitude. So, what often happens in subtitles,
according to Maria Pavesi (1996), is that the speech
of a speaker of a nonstandard variety will be con-
noted in a way that viewers will recognize the actor’s
speech as being different from that of others.
However, dealing with sociolinguistic variation
is simply the tip of the humor-translational iceberg.
Typically, verbal humor on screen will be visually
anchored. If we apply Salvatore Attardo and Victor
Raskin’s (1991) concept of overlap and opposi-
tion, we find that they cannot be restricted to the
humorous utterance alone. While the overlap and
opposition will be contained within the dialogue, the
utterance including the gag will point outside itself
to another element that may be simply visual. When
the utterance refers to a visual element on screen, the

knowledge resources (KRs) called upon cannot be
retrieved entirely from the recipient’s (in this case the
viewer’s) encyclopedic knowledge of language, cul-
ture, and, in general, how humor is created. When
the necessary KR is contained within a feature of the
visual paradigm of the text, the viewer needs to link
the humorous utterance contained in the dialogue
with this visual element. The translators can only
work on the dialogues by changing the words; they
cannot alter the images, rendering translation for the
screen highly constrained.
John Denton (1994) provides an example of
a complex occurrence of visually anchored verbal
humor from the 1988 comedy A Fish Called Wanda
directed by Charles Crichton. Otto (played by Kevin
Kline), Wanda’s (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) dim-
witted American lover, detests the British. In the
scene in question, he is loudly criticizing them: “[the
British] . . . counting the seconds to the . . . weekend,
so they can dress up as ballerinas and whip them-
selves into a frenzy at the . . .” when he stops short at
the sight of a note addressed to Wanda. Notoriously
jealous of Wanda, he begins to read the note out
loud. As he reads, both he and the audience can see
the following note:
So see you at Flat 4.
It’s 2B St. Trevor’s Wharf E.1.
All my love,
Archie.
However, Wanda is off camera in another room as
Otto begins to read the note out loud. So as not to
allow Wanda to understand that he is privy to her
alleged affair, Otto reads the note as follows:
. . . counting the seconds to the . . . weekend, so they
can dress up as ballerinas and whip themselves into
a frenzy at the (READS NOTE THAT AUDIENCE
CAN SEE) flat at 4, 2B st . . . to be honest I er . . .
hate them.
Thus translators need to manage the “2B/to be hon-
est” overlap, bearing in mind that the audience can
actually see the address. The strong visual constraint
in this scene leaves little room for translational
maneuver. The Italian solution, however, is successful:
. . . contano i secondi che mancano all’arrivo del
fine settimana per potersi vestire come delle ballerine
e andarsi ad ubriacare . . . (READS NOTE THAT
AUDIENCE CAN SEE) nell’appartamento 4 al
2B . . . due bi . . . cchieri e poi crollano.
Audiovisual Translation 73
[back-translation: they count the seconds till the
weekend so they can dress up like ballerinas and get
drunk . . . in apartment 2B . . . two gl . . . glasses and
they drop].
The Italian links the wordplay on “2B” to Otto’s
rant about the British love of alcohol. “2B’”is trans-
formed into “due bi . . . cchieri”—“two glasses”—
which allows for the comic peak with “they [the
drunken British] drop.”
Another example can be found in a well-known
scene from Lawrence Kasdan’s U.S. film The Big
Chill (1983). Meg (played by Mary Kay Place), des-
perate to have a baby, asks dimwitted Sam (played
by Tom Berenson) to father her child. Reluctant to
do so, Sam tells her that she is giving him “a mas-
sive headache.” Meg tells him that he is just making
excuses; after all he has “good genes.” Sam looks
down at his trousers and touches them with a bewil-
dered expression on his face. Being obtuse, the only
“genes” Sam recognizes are trouser-style jeans. In
the dubbed Italian version the scene is infelicitous.
Despite an adequate translation of the dialogue, no
attempt was made at replacing the pun. Replacement
with a similar pun would have been impossible
as the Italian for genes/jeans is not homophonic
(geni /dʒeni/ - jeans /dʒinz/) so, clearly the quip
required substitution with a different joke. As the
Italian version of the film stands, the actor simply
looks at and touches the legs of his trousers and looks
nonplussed, without audiences really understanding
why. Yet, the reference to genes could have been
substituted with the idiom “perché sei in gamba”
which means “because you’re smart”—where the
item gamba means “leg.” This solution could have
added meaning to the scene by (a) supplying a rea-
son for Sam’s action and (b) by underscoring Sam’s
lack of elementary brainpower.
When verbal humor is not visually anchored or
strongly connoted in sociolinguistic terms, the trans-
lators’ job is a little easier. What is to be avoided at
all costs is a mismatch between what can be seen on
screen and verbal content. Famously, in an episode
of the U.S. TV series The Sopranos, Tony Soprano
(played by James Gandolfini) sends his analyst Dr.
Melfi (played by Lorraine Bracco) a gift basket con-
taining a packet of Tide-brand detergent with a gift
tag reading “Thinking of you, your prince of Tide.”
Even if foreign audiences catch the reference to the
well-known film about a man and his psychoanalyst,
the visual pun conveyed by the brand of detergent
clearly cannot be understood as humorous by view-
ers who are unfamiliar with this laundry detergent.
74 Audiovisual Translation
There are numerous strategies that AVT opera-
tors adopt in order to deal with humor, and these
obviously vary according to whether the chosen
modality is subtitling as investigated by Bucaria
or dubbing as investigated by Chiaro. However, as
with the translation of humor in general, what is
essential is that the target humor is perceived as
such in intent, and in this sense, the means justifies
the end.
Delia Chiaro
See also Cross-Cultural Humor; Intercultural Humor;
Movies; Sitcoms; Translation
Further Readings
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representation model.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(3–4), 293–347.
Baccolini, R., Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M., & Gavioli, L.
(Eds.). (1994). Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche e
culturali [Dubbing: Linguistic and cultural
transpositions]. Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.
Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. (1994). Film dubbing: Linguistic
and cultural issues. Il traduttore nuovo, 42(1), 7–28.
Bucaria, C. (2005). The perception of humour in dubbing
vs. subtitling: The case of Six Feet Under. ESP Across
Cultures, 2, 34–46.
Bucaria, C. (2007). Top 10 signs your humour has been
subtitled: The case of the Late Show with David
Letterman. In D. Popa & S. Attardo (Eds.),
New approaches to the linguistics of humour
(pp. 72–87). Galati, Romania: Dunarea de Jos
University Press.
Chiaro, D. (2008). Issues of quality on screen translation.
In D. Chiaro, C. Heiss, & C. Bucaria (Eds.), Between
text and image: Updating research in screen translation
(pp. 241–253). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Chiaro, D. (2008). Where have all the varieties gone?
The vicious circle of the disappearance act in screen
translations. In I. Helin (Ed.), Dialect for all seasons
(pp. 9–25). Münster, Germany: Nodus Publikationen.
Chiaro, D. (2009). Issues in audiovisual translation. In
J. Munday (Ed.), The Routledge companion to translation
studies (pp. 141–165). London, UK: Routledge.
Chiaro, D. (Ed.). (2010). Translation, humor and the
media. London, UK: Continuum.
Chiaro, D. (2013). Audiovisual translation. In C. A.
Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics
(pp. 290–295). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Denton, J. (1994). How “A Fish Called Wanda” became
“Un pesce di nome Wanda.” Il traduttore nuovo, 42(1),
29–34.
Ivarsson, J. (1992). Subtitling for the media. A handbook
of an art. Stockholm, Sweden: Transedit.
Pavesi, M. (1996). L’allocuzione nel doppiaggio dall’inglese
all’italiano [Forms of address in English to Italian
dubbing]. In C. Heiss & R. M. Bollettieri Bosinelli
(Eds.), La traduzione multimediale per il cinema, la
televisione e la scena [Multimedia translation for
cinema, television and the stage] (pp. 117–130).
Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.
 B
BENIGN VIOLATION THEORY
Humor is a psychological state characterized by the
positive emotion of amusement and the tendency to
laugh. Humor can be evoked by a broad range of
circumstances, from a simple pun to a devastating
tragedy. Most attempts to create a theory of humor
begin by explaining when a specific circumstance,
such as a scripted joke, put-down, or play fighting,
is amusing. Theorists identify the conditions and
apply them to other circumstances with the hope
of extracting a more general explanation of when
humor will occur. A problem with this approach is
that it often produces a theory that does a good job
explaining humor appreciation in certain circum-
stances (e.g., jokes), but not others (e.g., play).
This entry describes a relatively new theory
designed to explain humor across a broad range of
circumstances. The theory builds on the idea that
humor involves positive emotion and laughter. In
general, positive emotions tend to occur in situa-
tions that feel safe or OK (i.e., benign), but laughter
doesn’t occur in all benign circumstances. Most of
the time there is no value in communicating to oth-
ers that everything is OK, but it is valuable when the
circumstance otherwise might seem threatening or
wrong (i.e., a violation).
The theory proposes that humor occurs when
(1) a circumstance is appraised as a violation, (2) the
circumstance is appraised as benign, and (3) both
appraisals occur simultaneously. (See Figure 1.)
A violation refers to anything that threatens one’s
beliefs about how things should be. Humorous
75
Benign
Benign Violation
violation
Figure 1 Visual Depiction of the Benign Violation Theory
Source: A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren.
violations likely originated as threats to physical
well-being. Indeed, laughter in nonhuman primates
and babies often results from behavior that feigns
aggression, such as rough and tumble play and
tickling. As humans evolved to develop a sense of
self, culture, language, and a system of logic, viola-
tions likely expanded to include threats to identity
(e.g., insults), social norms (e.g., flatulence), cultural
norms (e.g., awkward greetings), linguistic norms
(e.g., puns, malapropisms), logic norms (e.g., absur-
dities), and moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behav-
ior). In sum, violations include anything that seems
threatening or departs from a norm in a potentially
negative way.
Most violations do not amuse people and make
them laugh. For a violation to produce humor, it
also needs to seem OK, safe, acceptable, or, in other
words, benign. Just as there are many types of viola-
tions, there are many factors that make things seem
76 Benign Violation Theory
benign, including a playful motivational state, cues
that a situation should not be taken seriously, the
presence of an alternative norm or explanation sug-
gesting the violation is acceptable (i.e., resolution),
a safe environment, psychological distance (i.e., the
feeling that the violation is far away physically, tem-
porally, socially, or hypothetically), or a low com-
mitment to the person or norm threatened by the
violation.
Finally, both the appraisal that there is a viola-
tion and the appraisal that everything is benign need
to occur simultaneously. This explains why timing,
brevity, and surprise are so important in comedy.
If humor occurs when there is both something that
seems wrong and something that seems OK, remov-
ing either appraisal will cause a humor attempt to
fail. Sometimes people don’t perceive a violation,
in which case they tend to feel fine (or possibly
bored). Other times people don’t perceive things to
be benign, in which case they tend to feel confused,
offended, or disturbed.
Consider the following examples:
• Puns and other wordplay break one linguistic
norm, convention, or rule (violation), while simul-
taneously adhering to another norm, convention,
or rule (benign). It is no surprise that bookish
people like puns, as bookish people are both threat-
ened when language is misused, yet they possess the
knowledge to recognize the alternative norm or
rule that allows for a correct interpretation.
• Sarcasm involves saying one thing but mean-
ing the opposite. Saying the opposite of what you
mean violates a common conversational norm
(violation), but often the person saying the sarcas-
tic comment is able to communicate the intended
meaning through other cues like an obviously
exaggerated tone (benign). Sarcasm isn’t funny to
people who don’t detect the speaker’s true inten-
tion. Nor is it funny to people who don’t approve
of the speaker’s true intention.
• Setup or punch line jokes work either when
the setup that seems illogical or incorrect (viola-
tion) is resolved or explained (benign) by the
punch line, or when an innocent observation
(benign) is succeeded by a disparaging answer (vio-
lation). Jokes that lack a violation sound like nor-
mal sentences. Jokes that are not benign don’t
make sense or seem stupid or offensive.
• Tickling and rough and tumble play are
physical attacks (violation) that don’t hurt or cause
harm (benign). Tickling oneself doesn’t elicit laugh-
ter because there is no threat of an attack (i.e., no
violation). On the other hand, tickling and aggres-
sive play also don’t produce laughter if the victim
(i.e., the one being tickled or chased) doesn’t trust
the aggressor. There is nothing benign about being
tickled by a creepy stranger.
• Slapstick creates painful circumstances (vio-
lation) that are not painful (benign), at least for the
person who experiences humor. The victim who is
crushed with an anvil or slips on a banana peel is
not actually hurt (it is often just an act) or the
viewer does not care about the victim’s well-being,
or both. When an audience cares about the person
who is hurt, the situation doesn’t seem benign and
probably won’t elicit laughter. On the other hand,
casually walking past a banana peel is unlikely to
provoke laughter because there is no violation.
Finally, the benign violation theory can help
explain individual differences in what people find
funny. Both what seems wrong and what seems
OK depend on people’s physiological vulnerabili-
ties, desired identity traits, values, cultural back-
ground, language, and understanding of logic.
This is why a baby farting at a fancy dinner might
seem normal to the baby, hilarious to the ram-
bunctious older brother, and embarrassing to the
mother who wants to make a good impression on
others.
A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren
See also Appreciation of Humor; Laughter, Psychology
of; Play and Humor; Psychological Distance
Further Readings
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3),
218–226.
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and
functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach.
Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 395–430.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations:
Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science,
21, 1141–1149.
McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L., & Leonard, B.
(2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care?

Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps.
Psychological Science, 25, 1215–1223.
Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). The neurology and evolution
of humor, laughter, and smiling: The false alarm theory.
Medical Hypotheses, 51, 351–354.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 11, 161–215.
BERGSON’S THEORY
OF THE COMIC
Henri Bergson’s theory of the comic, set out in Le
Rire (Laughter, 1899–1900) and other texts, has not
been highly regarded in humor scholarship and is
often misinterpreted as either a theory about incon-
gruity or about superiority. It is however an impor-
tant contribution to the understanding of comic
mechanisms and in particular stage comedy. To
understand it correctly, it needs to be seen in the con-
text of his life, work, and historical circumstances.
Although chiefly known as a French philosopher,
Henri-Louis Bergson (1859–1941) was the 1927
Nobel laureate in literature. He also played a major
role between 1921 and 1926 as a cultural diplomat
for the League of Nations, forerunner to the United
Nations. Despite his strenuous efforts to coordi-
nate the League’s new Commission for Intellectual
Cooperation, the structure fell victim to Franco-
German tensions. In particular—much to Bergson’s
disappointment—his efforts to retain Albert Einstein
as the sole German member of the commission were
frustrated, partly by an intellectual dispute between
the two men.
Bergson’s career was nevertheless remarkable in
that era, given that his father was a Jewish musician
and his mother English. After graduating from the
Parisian École Normale Supérieure (ENS) in 1881,
he was a schoolmaster, but in 1898 gained appoint-
ment to the ENS itself and in 1900 (on his second
attempt) was elected to the chair of ancient philoso-
phy at the prestigious Collège de France. He became
a member of the Académie Française in 1914.
In his presentation speech, President Per Hallström
of the Swedish Academy’s Nobel Committee
described Bergson’s principal work L’Évolution
créatrice (Creative Evolution, 1907)—better known
at the time than Le Rire—as “a poem of striking
grandeur, a cosmogony of great scope and unflag-
ging power . . . a sort of drama.” Hence his literary
prize. Hallström praised Bergson’s support for the
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic 77
mental aspirations of all humans toward freedom
and toward experiencing “living time” (also called
“duration”) where cause and effect are fused and
thus cannot be foreseen. Bergson saw this state of
experiencing time as a way to escape the control of
mechanically measured time that brought the expe-
rience of something being uniquely produced or felt,
never to be repeated in quite the same manner, and
affording free choice and creativity.
Thus, for Bergson, the world is bifurcated into
Matter and Life, with life embodying the innate
sentiment of freedom and its accompanying creativ-
ity. He called this l’élan vital—the human spirit that
transcends servitude imposed by matter and makes
possible idealism. With such beliefs, it is not surpris-
ing that, during World War II, Bergson refused the
dispensation granted him from compulsory registra-
tion as a Jew and demonstrated his opposition to the
French Vichy regime. Ailing for many years, he died
in the harsh winter of 1941, possibly of pneumonia,
after lining up in the Paris streets to register. Since
memoirs and papers were destroyed by his wife in
accordance with his will, many details of his passing
remain unverified.
During his lifetime, Bergson’s ideas proved
popular but controversial. The Roman Catholic
Church placed his books on the Index Librorum
Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in 1914.
British philosopher Bertrand Russell, with typi-
cal bombast, ridiculed him as a “cosmic poet”
who sought to displace rational intelligence with a
“heaving sea of intuition” (1914, p. 36), claiming
that “instinct is seen at its best in ants, bees, and
Bergson” (p. 3). After the war, Hegelianism (“the
rational alone is real”) soon displaced his ideas from
French universities. Einstein himself denounced
the way in which Bergson’s Durée et simultanéité
(Duration and Simultaneity, 1922) dealt with
relativity—although recent reevaluations suggest
that the jury is still out between the two men on at
least some points.
Reappraisal
Starting with Gilles Deleuze (1966/2004), Bergson
has come to be seen as a precursor of poststruc-
turalism who also offered “re-engagement with
the concreteness of the real” (Guerlac, 2006, p. 4).
In scientific thinking, recent advances in cognitive
psychology and the theory of mind, memory, and
consciousness also favor Bergson’s ideas, as dem-
onstrated in studies such as Stephen E. Robbins’s
78 Bergson’s Theory of the Comic
“Bergson and the Holographic Theory of Mind”
(2006), and, significantly, Joel Dolbeault’s “From
Mind to Matter: How Bergson Anticipated
Quantum Ideas” (2012).
In the same spirit, Laughter itself deserves revis-
iting, especially as it is traditionally regarded by
humor theorists as “limited mostly to literature”
(Attardo, 1994, p. 57). To understand its meaning
in humor studies, the circumstances and date of its
compilation are important. First delivered as three
lectures at the Collège de France (Bergson had begun
to explore the subject some years before while teach-
ing at the prestigious Lycée Henri IV, where students
included the pioneering absurdist playwright Alfred
Jarry), it appeared in installments in Révue de Paris
(1899, February 1, 15, and March 1). Its 1900 book
form reflects this tripartite structure; in the 23rd edi-
tion (1924), there is an important appendix titled
“Sur les définitions du comique et sur la méthode
suivie dans ce livre” (On defining the comic essence
and on the method followed in this book). This was
Bergson’s response to contemporary press debate
misinterpreting his ideas. The three main sections
deal not so much with laughter as with the comic
expressed in forms and movements, in situations
and words, and in characterization—in other words,
with comedic humor.
Comedy, the Comic, and Humor
Throughout Laughter, Bergson uses the term le
comique, best translated as “the essence of com-
edy” rather than as “humor” or even “comedy.”
Humour was (and still is) a French term identifying
a specifically English form of gently wry and self-
reflexive humor, while comédie (comedy) means
a stage play. In fact, Bergson was greatly influ-
enced by the theater he witnessed at the turn of the
19th century, when the Parisian stage was domi-
nated by hugely popular and elegantly constructed
extended farces by master playwrights, such as
Georges Courteline (1858–1929), Eugène Labiche
(1815–1888), and Georges Feydeau (1862–1921),
as well as by the comedic tradition of Molière.
What Bergson observed (including the audiences’
gales of laughter) clearly informed his theorizing,
allowing him to identify and name many recurring
devices that shaped both plays and comic events in
real life. In fact these structures, large and small,
are characteristic of farce and low comedy—indeed
of much comedy in general, as pointed out by theo-
rists including Barbara Bowen (1964) and Jessica
Milner Davis (2003). Thus, while not amounting
to a theory of humor, they are nevertheless highly
important for understanding comedy.
In his appendix in Laughter, Bergson (1900/1999)
claimed that he had sought to find in comedy, farce,
and the art of the clown, for example, “the pro-
cesses of constructing the comic” and also “what
is society’s intention when it laughs” (p. 205). His
conclusions on the first point are better known to
students of the theater than to humor scholars and
are further examined below. On the second point,
his conclusion is well known: that social (not pri-
vate) laughter appears to be a defensive response to
something threatening or detrimental to social life;
that is, that communal laughter is socially correc-
tive. For this reason, he is sometimes regarded as a
superiority theorist of humor.
Bergson was the first to draw together and ana-
lyze such ageless comic devices as repetition and
duplication, inversion and the trope of the robber
robbed, the quiproquo (mistaking one thing or
word for another), and the reciprocal interference
of series (prolonged quiproquos in which two or
more characters continually misinterpret the same
signal—think of William “Bud” Abbott and Lou
Costello and their “Who’s on First?” routine). He
noted the rigid nature of type or stock characters
whose fixed ideas and lack of adaptability often
make them resemble jack-in-the-boxes or mari-
onettes rather than human beings. He dissected the
comic effect of literal renderings of metaphor (deg-
radation or reification), the importance of tempo
(pace) in comedy, and the operation of devices such
as the snowball (boule à neige) in which dramatic
events sweep all characters into a comic maelstrom
of sound and fury. From such observations of how
dramatists and actors construct their laughter-
producing works, Bergson extracted the key impor-
tance of lack of flexibility—a rigidity (raideur) of
thought, words, and action and self-awareness in
comic characters. If a theory of the comic or of
humor can be assigned to him, it should be termed
the theory of the mechanical.
Theory of the Mechanical
Despite this, Bergson is usually seen as another
theorist of incongruity. It was in fact one particular
aspect of incongruity that he stressed—the mismatch
between the rigid mechanical and the flexibility that
characterizes life’s ever-evolving dynamic vitality.
The mechanical is often imagined by Bergson as an

actual machine, especially that ubiquitous symbol
of the modern urbanized world, a clock. Thus he
noted, the mechanical that is dominant in everyday
life can construct in human beings a kind of phan-
tom self so that a person thinks and behaves for
practical purposes in “mechanical time” rather than
transcending their circumstances to experience liv-
ing, reflective time. At the center of the comic, Berg-
son (1900/1999) argued in Laughter, is the image of
a person acting more like a machine, with “some-
thing mechanical encrusted on the living” (du méca-
nique plaqué sur du vivant). The art of comedy is to
draw the audience’s attention to this image so that it
functions as “a cross[roads] at which we must halt, a
central image from which the imagination branches
off in different [comic] directions” (p. 26).
Role of Laughter
Despite his book’s title, Bergson does not really dis-
cuss laughter, certainly not in its evolutionary con-
text. As John Parkin notes (2006, pp. 120–121),
various types of laughter are simply omitted: tick-
ling, hysteria, laughter induced by shock, politeness,
glee, and so forth. Bergson is concerned only with
laughter produced by what is specifically comic for
which his famous requirement for a temporary anes-
thesia of the heart is necessary for the audience to
enjoy the fun (une anesthésie momentanée du cœur,
in Laughter, 1900/1999, pp. 3–4). This is of course
a very French view, appropriate to laughter that
greets witty rather than gentle, sympathetic (English)
humor. But it is misleading to rely solely on what
Bergson has to say on the subject in Laughter: A
fuller understanding emerges from reading it along-
side his later books, especially Time and Free Will
(1922).
In fact, Bergson saw laughter as essentially
redemptive. He noted in Laughter (1900/1999)
that it strikes unpredictably like lightning, not as a
kind of galvanic response to mechanical stimuli, and
at its best it helps restore a free living self to those
trapped in a mechanized life, both for the laugh-
ers and potentially for their targets and above all,
for those who can laugh at themselves: “The chief
cause of rigidity is the neglect to look around—and
more especially within oneself” (p. 147). Because no
one likes to be laughed at, comedy in real life and
especially as constructed on the stage, has, according
to Bergson, serious social significance: It acts as a
corrective to bring us more into touch with human-
ity. As Suzanne Guerlac (2006) points out, Bergson
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic 79
“argues against the application of mechanistic modes
of thinking to living beings” (p. 8). He rejected the
idea of “imprisoning the comic within a definition”
because it is “a living thing . . . however trivial . . .
we shall treat it with a respect due to life” (Bergson,
1900/1999, p. 11).
Time and Freedom
Lydia Amir (2010) notes that “experiential time, as
Bergson insisted, is not even-handed; it has depths
and shallows; it runs sometimes wide and sometimes
deep. It is well known that the subjective experience
of the passage of time is influenced . . . especially
by our desires and our normal or abnormal way of
handling inward conflicts” (Hartocollis, 1983). It
is conventional time and mechanistic thinking that
blind one to the alternative experience of an infi-
nitely unfolding “duration” that is only accessible
through intuition and can perhaps be recaptured by
the defensive act of laughter at others and at one-
self, equally trapped in stifling rigidities. While these
perspectives become more apparent in later works
such as Time and Free Will, they are prefigured in
sections of Laughter such as that on the comic in
language. Words, thought Bergson, solidify fluid
human feelings into static, neat, little packages: Such
things are dangerous.
Bergson’s Influence in China
These ideas found particularly ready reception in
modern China in the 1920s and 1930s, as Diran
John Sohigian has shown (2013). By 1925, all
Bergson’s major works were translated into Chinese:
in 1921, a special “Bergson issue” of the leading
philosophical reformist periodical, Minduo (The
People’s Bell), was published with 18 articles and
translations. “Bergson fever” (Bogesen re) took hold
of intellectual life and here, at least, his influence
overshadowed Bertrand Russell (who visited China
to lecture). Among many comic novels that inter-
nalized his ideas at that time was the masterpiece
by novelist and critic Qian Zhongshu (1910–1998),
Wei cheng (Fortress Besieged, 1947), about the
aspirations and failures of its antihero, a modern-
izing young university professor. In 1990, this ever-
popular novel was made into a 10-part TV series
by Shanghai Film Studios (director Huang Shuqin;
released on DVD in 2002). Bergson’s insights about
the comic and the mechanical, about freedom and
the redemptive power of laughter, continue to
80 Biblical Humor
resonate with contemporary audiences around the
world. Perhaps after all, his theory is a liberation
theory.
Jessica Milner Davis
See also Carnival and Festival; Carnivalesque; Comedy;
Farce; Genres and Styles of Comedy; Incongruity and
Resolution; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Philosophy of
Humor
Further Readings
Amir, L. B. (2010, October 1–3). Humor and time. Paper
presented at the Monash University conference on
time.transcendence.performance, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved from http://arts.monash.edu.au/ecps/
conferences/ttp/#proceedings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bergson, H. (1928, December 10). Nobel Prize for
Literature 1927 Banquet Speech. Retrieved from http://
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/
1927/bergson-speech.html
Bergson, H. (1998). Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.).
London, UK: Dover. (Originally published 1907)
Bergson, H. (1999). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of
the comic (C. Brereton & F. Rothwell, Trans.). Los
Angeles, CA: Green Integer. (Originally published 1900)
Bergson, H. (2001). Time and free will: An essay on the
data of immediate consciousness (F. L. Pogson, Trans.).
London, UK: Dover. (Originally published 1889)
Bowen, B. C. (1964). Les caractéristiques essentielles de la
farce française et leur survivance dans les années 1550–
1620 [The essential features of the French farce and
their survival in the years 1550–1620]. Urbana: Illinois
University Press.
Canales, J. (2005). Einstein, Bergson, and the experiment
that failed: Intellectual cooperation at the League of
Nations. Modern Language Notes, 120, 1168–1191.
Davis, J. M. (2003). Farce. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Deleuze, G. (2004). Bergsonism (H. Tomlinson &
B. Habberjam, Trans.). New York, NY: Zone Books.
Dolbeault, J. (2012). From mind to matter: How Bergson
anticipated quantum ideas. Mind and Matter, 10(1),
25–45.
Guerlac, S. (2006). Thinking in time: An introduction to
Henri Bergson. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hallström, P. (1928, December 10). Presentation speech for
the 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature to Henri Bergson.
Retrieved from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/
literature/laureates/1927/press.html
Hartocollis, P. (1983). Time and timelessness: The varieties
of temporal experience. Madison, WI: International
Universities Press.
Howarth, W. D. (1999). Bergson revisited: Le Rire a
hundred years on. In J. Parkin (Ed.), French Humour
(pp. 139–56). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Lawlor, L., & Moulard, V. (2013, Summer). Henri Bergson.
In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2013/entries/bergson
Parkin, J. (2006). The power of laughter: Koestler on
Bergson and Freud. In J. Phillips & J. Parkin (Eds.),
Laughter and power (pp. 113–143). Bern, Switzerland:
Peter Lang.
Pearson, K. A., & Mullarkey, J. (Eds.). (2002). Bergson:
Key writings. London, UK: Continuum.
Robbins, S. E. (2006). Bergson and the holographic theory
of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences,
5(3), 365–394.
Russell, B. (1914). The philosophy of Bergson. Cambridge,
UK: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/
stream/philosophyofberg00russ/
philosophyofberg00russ_djvu.txt
Sohigian, D. J. (2013). The phantom of the clock: Laughter
and the time of life in the writings of Qian Zhongshu
and his contemporaries. In J. Milner Davis & J. Chey
(Eds.), Humour in Chinese life and culture: Resistance
and control in modern times (pp. 23–45). Hong Kong,
China: Hong Kong University Press.
Worms, F. (2005). Time thinking: Bergson’s double
philosophy of mind. Modern Language Notes, 120(5),
1226–1234.
BIBLICAL HUMOR
Is there humor in the Bible? If so, how much? Those
questions seem simple, but there are widely diver-
gent answers. Hershey Friedman (2000) says that
humor permeates the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
and presents over a hundred examples to prove
it. Elton Trueblood and others find humor in the
sayings of Jesus. Alfred North Whitehead and oth-
ers, however, have said that there is no humor in
the Bible. This article examines both sides of the
debate.
Biblos is the Greek word for “book,” but the
Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of dozens
of texts written in different centuries for different
purposes and different audiences. According to a
standard count, there are 39 books in the Hebrew
Bible (Old Testament) and 27 books in the New
Testament.
What does it mean to say that there is humor in
texts? The basic phenomenon is that some authors
intend to amuse readers by what they write, while

others do not. The texts whose authors intended
to amuse readers have humor in them, or at least
attempts at humor.
There are two main ways to amuse readers. One
is to describe funny events—things happening in a
narrative that make people in that narrative laugh.
The other is to write in a funny way, as with witti-
cisms, so that readers are amused even if no funny
events are described. As we look for humor in the
Bible, then, we can look for (1) narratives in which
someone is said to be amused and (2) writing that
seems intended to amuse readers. What we won’t
find in the Bible are the words humor, humorous,
amuse, amusement, and funny. None of these had
their current meanings before the 17th century. The
word we use for humor that is found in the Bible is
laugh. So the most promising things to look for are
narratives about events that make people in those
narratives laugh and words and phrases that biblical
writers used to make readers laugh.
Laughter is not the same as humor, of course.
Being tickled, winning the lottery, and running into
an old friend on the street make people laugh, but
nothing humorous need be occurring. So finding
descriptions of people laughing is not the same as
finding descriptions of humor. Where we find laugh-
ter mentioned in the Bible, then, we need to ask
whether someone was amused by something.
Humor in the Hebrew Bible
Scholars like Friedman claim that there is a sub-
stantial amount of humor in the Hebrew Bible (Old
Testament). Friedman cites dozens of passages from
the Hebrew Bible under six headings: sarcasm,
irony, wordplay, humorous names, humorous imag-
ery, and humorous situations. We can consider a
few examples of sarcasm and irony. Seven days after
Moses led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt,
they saw Pharaoh’s army approaching and com-
plained to Moses with the sarcastic line: “Was there
a lack of graves in Egypt that you took us away to
die in the wilderness?” (Exodus 14:11). God also
speaks sarcastically in the Bible, as in response to
Job’s complaint about his undeserved suffering:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the
earth?” (Job 38:4).
Irony is also prominent in the Hebrew Bible.
Chapter 11 of Numbers, for example, says that
when the Israelites wandered in the desert after the
Exodus, they complained about the manna God
provided as food and they demanded meat instead.
So God told Moses to assemble the people and tell
Biblical Humor 81
them, “Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and
you shall eat. You shall eat not only one day, or
two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days,
but for a whole month—until it comes out of your
nostrils and becomes loathsome to you.” God then
dropped millions of quails onto the camp of the Isra-
elites: “the least anyone gathered was ten homers [65
bushels]. . . . But while the meat was still between
their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the
Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord
struck the people with a very great plague.”
Friedman has over a hundred more instances
he classifies as humor in the Bible, but these three
reveal a problem common to many of them: It is
not clear that any of the participants in the events
described laughed or were amused, or that the
authors of these passages intended to amuse their
readers. The sarcasm and irony seem thoroughly
mean-spirited, with none of the playful attitude
associated with humor.
That seems true also of many biblical passages
in which someone is said to laugh out of hostility.
Consider God’s laughter in the second Psalm:
The kings of the earth stand ready, and the rulers
conspire together against the Lord and his anointed
king. . . . The Lord who sits enthroned in heaven
laughs them to scorn; then he rebukes them in anger,
he threatens them in his wrath.
Here there seems to be no amusement in anyone,
just anger. A more complex case is described in the
First Book of Kings 18:21–40, where the prophet
Elijah wanted to show the worshippers of Baal that
their god was powerless compared with Yahweh. So
he had them prepare two sacrifices of bulls, doing
everything except lighting the fire. In this competi-
tion, the prophets of Baal would ask him to light
their sacrifice, then Elijah would ask Yahweh to
light his sacrifice. After the prayers of Baal’s proph-
ets yielded no flames, Elijah mocked them. Maybe,
he said, Baal “has wandered away, or he is on a
journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awak-
ened”(18:27). This sarcasm presumably evoked
laughter in the audience. Then Elijah prayed to
Yahweh, and fire consumed his sacrifice. The peo-
ple “fell on their faces and said, ‘The Lord indeed is
God; the Lord indeed is God.’” Immediately, Elijah
told them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let
one of them escape.” Elijah then slaughtered all 450
of those prophets. While Elijah’s mockery may have
evoked laughter in his audience, he seems uniformly
serious, indeed, hostile.
82 Biblical Humor
The Bible links laughter and hostility in a different
way in the second Book of Kings (2:23–24), when
Yahweh’s prophet Elisha is mocked by children:
Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at
him, saying “Go away, baldhead! Go away,
baldhead!” When he turned around and saw them,
he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two
she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-
two of the boys.
Here the boys may have been amused by Elisha’s
baldness, but the prophet and God were not. Nor
was the writer of this biblical passage. So although
the writer describes the boys as being amused by
Elisha’s baldness, that writer is not trying to amuse
his readers. His perspective on this event is uni-
formly serious. So this is not “humor in the Bible”
because the Bible condemns rather than endorses the
amusement being described.
If we look through the rest of the Hebrew Bible
for references to people laughing, similarly, we find
that either they are laughing in scorn rather than
amusement or they are laughing in amusement, but
in a way that God, God’s prophet, or the biblical
writer condemns. In no passage in the Hebrew Bible
is a person laughing in amusement presented as
someone to emulate. Instead, laughter is presented
as at least foolish and, perhaps, immoral.
Good examples of foolish laughers are Abraham
and Sarah when God reveals that they will have a
child in their old age (Genesis 17:15–17; 18:9–15).
Ecclesiastes 7:3–6 explicitly associates the laughter
of amusement with foolishness.
Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of
countenance the heart is made glad. The heart of the
wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of
fools is in the house of mirth. It is better to hear the
rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools. For
like the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the
laughter of fools.
We have not examined Friedman’s examples of
wordplay, humorous names, humorous imagery,
and humorous situations. But with the vast major-
ity of them, it is not clear that they were intended
to make readers laugh in amusement. One excep-
tion is the Book of Jonah, which Friedman and
others, such as Conrad Hyers, have argued is a
satire about a totally uncooperative prophet.
God wants Jonah to do something simple: Travel
to Nineveh and warn the people there to repent. Not
wanting to help the Ninevites escape God’s wrath,
Jonah boards a ship headed in the opposite direc-
tion, as if he could hide from God. During a storm,
Jonah jumps into the sea but is swallowed by a
whale and spit up on a beach. So he finally goes to
Nineveh and utters one sentence: “Yet forty days,
and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Though the city
is huge—“three days journey across”—all its people,
including the king, immediately put on sackcloth
and begin to fast. When God spares the city, Jonah
sulks and says, “This, O Lord, is what I feared. . . .
And now, Lord, take my life: I should be better dead
than alive.”
This story does seem to use comic exaggeration
to make readers laugh at Jonah for being stubborn
and resistant to the will of God.
Humor in the New Testament
The negative characterizations of laughter in the
Hebrew Bible continue in the New Testament.
Neither Jesus nor any of his disciples is described
as laughing or trying to make anyone laugh. In the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns, “Woe to you
who are laughing now, for you will mourn and
weep” (Luke 6:25). The Epistle of James 4:9 encour-
ages Christians to “Lament and mourn and weep.
Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your
joy into dejection.”
Beginning with Elton Trueblood, several scholars
have argued that many of the clever sayings of Jesus
in the Gospels can be considered humorous. When
Jesus said to his followers that “it is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man
to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24), or
when he says, “Do not throw your pearls before
swine” (Matthew 7:6), isn’t it reasonable to think
that he was trying to make his followers laugh? And
weren’t the Gospel writers trying to make readers
laugh in telling of these events? Other verses cited
as humorous are Jesus’s talk of noticing the speck
in the neighbor’s eye but not the log in one’s own
eye (Matthew 7:34; Luke 6:37), straining a gnat but
swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24), and building
a tower without a plan (Luke 14:28–32).
The main difficulty in counting these lines as
humorous is that not all incongruous images are
intended to amuse; some are intended to warn or
condemn. All of the examples above are found in
warnings. In some, Jesus is close to condemning
his listeners, as he does when he calls the Pharisees
“whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look
beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the

dead and of all kinds of filth” (Matthew 23:27). If
Jesus intended to amuse his listeners with lines like
these, and the writers of the Gospels intended to
amuse their readers, why did Christians not notice
that for almost 2,000 years?
John Morreall
See also Christianity; Irony; Judaism
Further Readings
Bonham, T. D. (1988). Humor: God’s gift. Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press.
Friedman, H. (2000). Humor in the Hebrew Bible.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
13, 257–285.
Good, E. M. (1965). Irony in the Old Testament.
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.
Hyers, C. (1987). And God created laughter: The Bible as
divine comedy. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.
Jemielity, T. (1992). Satire and the Hebrew prophets.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.
Jonsson, J. (1985). Humour and irony in the New
Testament. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
Miles, J. R. (1990). Laughing at the Bible: Jonah as parody.
In Y. Radday & A. Brenner (Eds.), On humour and the
comic in the Hebrew Bible (pp. 203–215). Sheffield,
UK: Almond Press.
Morreall, J. (1999). Western religions. In J. Morreall,
Comedy, tragedy, and religion (pp. 73–129). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Morreall, J. (2001). Sarcasm, irony, wordplay, and humor
in the Hebrew Bible: A response to Hershey Friedman.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
14, 293–301.
Radday, Y., & Brenner, A. (Eds.). (1990). On humour and
the comic in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, UK: Almond
Press.
Trueblood, E. (1975). The humor of Christ. San Francisco,
CA: Harper & Row.
BISOCIATION
Bisociation, or the mental association of an idea
or object with two separate fields that are ordinar-
ily seen as unrelated, is the key concept in Arthur
Koestler’s (1905–1983) theory of humor in his book
The Act of Creation (1964). This work is, along-
side Sémantique structurale (Structural Semantics)
by Algirdas Julien Greimas (1966), one of the two
significant attempts that were made in the 1960s to
Bisociation 83
embed units with twofold planes of meaning, includ-
ing humor and figurative speech, into the broader
supersystems of theories of creativity and general
semantics.
Greimas’s interests were not specifically focused
on the theory of humor or the theory of figurative
speech, but on establishing a deductive theory of
general semantics. One of the basic concepts of his
theory is the notion of isotopy, which means differ-
ent readings of ambiguous expressions, for which
Greimas aims to develop a unified procedure of
semantic disambiguation wherever necessary, be
it for ordinary language, metaphoric language, or
humor.
Koestler’s book, in turn, is an exposition of his
general theory of creativity; the treatise of humor
constitutes only about one seventh of the book.
According to Koestler, the fundamental forms
of the revelation of creativity constitute a kind of
triptych—humor, discovery, and art. All of these are
founded on bisociation (a.k.a., bisociativity), that
is, the specific, conceptually two-planed nature of
any creative act. In the case of humor, this means a
comic collision of or oscillation between two frames
of reference, worlds of discourse, codes, or associa-
tive contexts; in the case of scientific discovery—
objective analogy; and in the case of art—the image.
The three types of creator are respectively the jester,
the sage, and the artist, and the three “emotional
moods” corresponding to the types of creativity are
aggressive in the case of humor, neutral in the case
of discovery, and sympathetic, admiring, or tragic
in the case of art. Whether the bisociative collision
and switch result in a joke, solution of a logical
problem or scientific discovery, a metaphor, or sub-
lime or tragic experience depends on the specificity
of the situation, content of the recipient’s memory,
personal emotional state, and structure of values, for
example.
To Koestler’s mind, humor involves a paradox
because laughter is a universal physiological reac-
tion to a very great variety of different complex
intellectual and emotional stimuli. So he evidently
seems to share the view that humor cannot be
grasped a single conception or theory. Nor is
Koestler’s own theory of humor purely bisocia-
tive but includes obvious elements of superiority/
degradation theory, as well as psychoanalytic
theories. Koestler argues that humor is motivated
by aggressive or apprehensive, self-defensive, or
assaulting impulses, and laughter is said to be an
act of overt or covert unloading of these impulses.
84 Bisociation
Our biological evolution, he says, has fallen
dangerously behind our mental development.
Aggressive-defensive emotions descend from our
neurobiological “deep layers” and have greater
persistence and inertia than our evolutionarily later
developed flexible reasoning. Therefore, a sudden
bisociation of a mental event with two habitually
incompatible matrices/associative contexts/frames
of reference causes a sudden jump from one matrix
to another, but our emotions cannot follow such
quick togglings and so our psychological tension
finds the solution in laughter, that is, along the
“channel of least resistance.”
The major achievement of Koestler’s book
is pointing out the idea of bisociation itself—
discovering the enormous importance and universal
role that projections between different regions of
experience play in human thinking and communi-
cation. It is not difficult to notice a deep analogy
between humor and metaphor. With all possible
reservations, Koestler’s bisociation of two incom-
patible frames of references and the jump from one
matrix to another, as well as Greimas’s shift from
one isotopy to another, seem to be obviously evoca-
tive of, or in some cases synonymous with, the con-
cepts and patterns used by other contemporary and
later authors when speaking about humor or meta-
phor as in the transition from one overlapping and
opposed script to another in Victor Raskin’s seman-
tic script theory, Seana Coulson’s (2001) semantic
leaps and frame shifting, or Graeme Ritchie’s mis-
direction. For example, Koestler figures promi-
nently among the intellectual precursors of Gilles
Fauconnier and Mark Turner and in other cognitive
linguists, such as Coulson, Geert Brône, and Kurt
Feyaerts (2003), and in much earlier efforts by lin-
guist G. B. Milner (1972) and social anthropologist
Ragnar Johnson (1976).
Rather, it is surprising that Koestler has received
so little attention on the side of the “proper” humor
theory, even though the latter has been permanently
in short of some broader theoretical framework
to locate itself, and the common denominators
creativity and bisociativity of Koestler’s construc-
tions could well have been promising keywords
for pursuits of the kind and, perhaps, would have
facilitated recognizing the deep proximity between
humor and metaphor and initiated the study of their
relationships much earlier. Among the few authors
who credit Koestler’s contribution to inquiring into
the more general cognitive roots of humor are, for
example, Peter L. Berger and Roy E. Russell. Only
the monographs by Michael Mulkay and Robert L.
Latta include extensive parts dedicated to Koestler’s
work. Mulkay willingly accepts the very idea of
bisociation, but finds Koestler’s theory incapable
of fulfilling the role of a general theory of laughter:
Laughter is not so uniform, reflective, or automatic
a response to various stimuli as Koestler suggests
but much more variegated in many respects, often
socially regulated, often altogether not aggressive
or apprehensive, and so on. Latta has proposed a
so-called Theory L that can be qualified as a late
variant of release theories. Latta’s stance toward
Koestler is remarkably ambivalent. On the one
hand, Latta directly admits that his own theory
originates in Koestler’s theory of humor. Yet on the
other hand, all the impetus of his book is directed
against incongruity as a term and concept; instead
of the opposition or “clash” between the two biso-
ciated planes of meaning, he prefers to see merely
cognitive shift from one to another.
The theory of humor is the only area of research
where Koestler’s work is considered classic. In the
theories of literature, philosophy, and even creativ-
ity, he is ignored. The reasons are partly hidden in
his extraordinary personality and biography. David
Cesarani, one of Koestler’s biographers, has called
him “the homeless mind.” The same seems to apply
to The Act of Creation in the world of humanities.
Arvo Krikmann
Note: Portions of this entry are adapted from Krikmann, A.
(2006). “Contemporary linguistic theories of humor,”
published in Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 33,
27–58.
See also Creativity; Humor Theories; Incongruity and
Resolution
Further Readings
Berger, P. L. (1997). Redeeming laughter: The comic
dimension of human experience. Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter.
Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2003, July 20–25). The
cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked
reference-point structures in humor. Paper presented at
the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,
University of La Rioja, Logroña, Spain. Retrieved from
http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/iclc/Papers/
BroneFeyaerts.pdf
Cesarani, D. (1999). Arthur Koestler: The homeless mind.
New York, NY: Free Press.

Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and
conceptual blending in meaning construction.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think:
Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden
complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Greimas, A. J. (1966). Sémantique structurale: Recherche
de méthode [Structural semantics: Research Method].
Paris, France: Larousse.
Johnson, R. (1976). Two realms and a joke: Bisociation
theories of joking. Semiotica, 16 (3), 195–221.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London, UK:
Hutchinson & Co.
Latta, R. L. (1999). The basic humor process: A cognitive-
shift theory and the case against incongruity. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Milner, G. B. (1972). Homo ridens: Toward a semiotic
theory of humor and laughter. Semiotica, 5(1), 1–30.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in
modern society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Ritchie, G. (2003). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London,
UK: Routledge.
Russell, R. E. (2000). Humor’s close relatives. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 13(2),
219–233.
BLACKFACE
See Race, Representations of
BLASON POPULAIRE
Blason populaire is an umbrella genre in the field
of folkloristics used to designate any item of any
genre that makes use of stereotypes of a particular
group. These stereotypes are usually, but not always,
negative ones. The term blason populaire was first
used by the French folklorist Alfred Canel (1859)
in his collection Blason populaire de la Normandie
(Blason populaire of Normandy). Blason populaire
is expressed in a variety of folkloric genres, includ-
ing proverbs, sayings, rhymes, nicknames, folktales
and folksongs, jokes, anecdotes, schwanks (humor-
ous tales), contemporary legends, and, to a lesser
extent, traditional customs. The same motives also
give rise to nonfolkloric expressive forms such as
aphorisms, cabaret, satire, caricature, movies, and
Blason Populaire 85
cyberspace, all of which often draw from folklore.
Some blason populaire of individual authorship
may become anonymous and traditional; a case in
point is Mark Twain’s observation in Following
the Equator, “There are two times in a man’s life
when he should not speculate: when he can’t afford
it and when he can,” which is directed against stock-
brokers. Perhaps because of the extreme diversity
of forms in which blason populaire occurs, there is
little scholarly literature about the phenomenon as a
whole.
Blasons populaires express thoughts normally
prohibited by taboos or political correctness. They
play with the forbidden. Their humor reflects the
tastes and perceptions of ordinary individuals and
is thus a preeminently social phenomenon. It is,
however, impossible to deduce from the content of
an individual item alone the motives and feelings of
those who share it, for these can only be discovered
by examining the way it is performed, the context
of the performance, and a good deal of other inde-
pendent data about the individuals involved and
the relationships between them. Tone and context
are highly variable, and it is the tone that makes
the music. Most blasons populaires occur as per-
formance, which is an end in itself. Generally,
texts are too ambiguous and frivolous to be moral
statements.
Most blasons populaires are concerned with eth-
nophaulism, namely the denigration of ethnic groups
other than the speaker’s own. Consciousness of eth-
nic identities and differences is often greatest at the
boundaries between groups. Local boundaries are of
greater significance than national cultures when it
comes to making distinctions in the construction of
cultural identities. They are not so much geographic
as cultural boundaries. Many traits of self-definition
are mirror images of the traits attributed to the
opposed and derided group. Boundaries between
contiguous ethnic groups and their opinions about
each other tend to persist through time. Most topics
concern the undesirable.
Most topics in blason populaire concern the
undesirable. Such is frequently the case with family
names or nicknames. For instance, when surnames
became compulsory in Europe and East European
Jews resisted acceptance, they were forced to accept
names that marked their ethnic identity unfavorably,
such as Bleifuß (Leadfoot), Stiefelschaft (Bootleg),
and Leichentritt (Corpse-kick).
Another field for blasons populaires is symmetri-
cal or asymmetrical joking relationships between
86 Blason Populaire
individuals, especially in ritual insult traditions such
as the African American genre called “playing the
dozens.” In the context of a joking relationship, bla-
son populaire enhances solidarity.
Blason populaire about certain professions has
a long tradition in folk narratives and jokes. An
older layer in European folk tradition depicts mill-
ers as thievish, tailors as lightweight and unmanly,
and clergymen as adulterous. According to modern
stereotypes, psychoanalysts are crazy, plumbers for-
getful, actresses vain, and Roman Catholic priests
are child molesters. Sometimes stereotypes change:
Formerly, students were depicted as outwitting their
opponents, whereas in contemporary stereotypes
they are lazy and late risers. Besides the above tar-
gets, we have individuals like troublesome mothers-
in-law, cruel stepmothers, dumb blondes, and others
who are stock characters in jokes and stories.
National groups are also the targets of blason
populaire. The French joke about the Belgians, the
Belgians about the Dutch, the British about the
Irish, Bavarians about Austrians, Brazilians about
Portuguese, Indians about Sikhs, Greeks about
Pontians, North Americans about Poles, and so on
all over the world. All Finns are regarded as drunk-
ards and all Muslims as suicide bombers. Sometimes
regional groups are mocked because of their dia-
lects, as is the case with the Pennsylvania Dutch or
the “Ch’tis” in the Flemish north of France (as in
the movie Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis, France 2008;
Welcome to the Sticks, English title).
Also popular are blasons populaires about cer-
tain towns whose inhabitants are characterized as
dull or otherwise deprived. Some of the towns are
fictitious like the British Gotham or the German
Schildburg, but most of them really exist. License
plates of German cars start with up to three letters,
which are interpreted as abbreviations of negative
statements concerning the district from which they
come. To save heat in winter, the stingy inhabitants
of the Bulgarian village of Gabrovo allegedly cut
off their cats’ tails so that they can shut the door
more quickly when they let them in. This particular
blason populaire was invented by the communist
regime to amuse people and divert them from the
miserable situation of communism. During com-
munist times in Eastern Europe, jokes about the
shortcomings of the system flourished. They had to
be told secretively in order to avoid punishment.
Occasionally the derided places turn the tables
and earn money by selling products such as half-
cups in Gabrovo, Bulgaria, or square rolling pins
in Newfoundland (they have the advantage of not
rolling off the table).
The main genre for blason populaire is the joke.
The worldwide ethnic revival that took place in the
1960s and 1970s was accompanied by a boom in
ethnic jokes. They cover the entire field of all the
hitherto mentioned stereotypes, including boast-
ful Americans, crafty Jews, coarse Australians, and
promiscuous Blacks. The targets of blasons popu-
laires are not only people, but also buildings that
deviate from the stereotype of ordinary specimen.
An office building in the center of London is called
the “Gherkin,” the Congress Hall in Berlin the
“Pregnant Oyster.”
Last but not least, the deriding chants of sports
fans in stadiums are part of the scene. They carry
a playful element, although the encounter of rival
groups may end in a brawl, whereas war propa-
ganda creating or using blasons populaires is dead
serious. French propaganda during the First World
War included the claim that Germans ate babies.
The entire populations of nations are given names
derived from what is allegedly their favorite food.
Thus the French are called “Frogs,” the Germans
“Krauts,” and the British “Limeys.” In Libya, the
people of Lake Mandara are called “Worm Eaters”
because they feed on a kind of shrimp. The Scottish
are characterized as tightfisted, Italians as cowardly
(their tanks are said to have only one forward gear
but five reverse). Seen from a central European per-
spective, Poles steal cars (slogan of the Polish Travel
Agency: “Visit Poland—Your car is already here!”).
German car insurance company statistics show that
the highest rates of auto theft occur in the German
states closest to the border with Poland, which may
show that there is some truth in this particular ste-
reotype. Blasons populaires are partly based on real
facts. Stereotypes are, in some cases, partially factual.
Rainer Wehse
See also Cross-Cultural Humor; Ethnic Jokes; Folklore;
Foolstowns; Humor Group; Humorous Names;
Identity; Jokes; Joking Relationship; Schwank; Targets
of Humor
Further Readings
Davies, C. E. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Dundes, A. (1971). A study of ethnic slurs: The Jew and
the Polack in the United States. Journal of American
Folklore, 84, 186–203.

Dundes, A. (1975). Slurs international: Folk comparisons of
ethnicity and national character. Southern Folklore
Quarterly, 39, 15–38.
Gaidoz, H., & Sébillot, P. (1884). Blason populaire de la
France [Blason populaire of France]. Paris, France: L.
Cerf.
Grzybek, P. (1994). Blason populaire. In W. A. Koch (Ed.),
Simple forms: An encyclopaedia of simple text-types in
lore and literature (pp. 19–25). Bochum, Germany:
Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer.
Luhrs, J. (2008). Football chants and “blason populaire”:
The construction of local and regional stereotypes.
In E. Lavric, G. Pisek, A. Skinner, & W. Stadler (Eds.),
The linguistics of football (pp. 233–244). Tübingen,
Germany: Narr.
Roback, A. A. (1979). A dictionary of international slurs
(ethnophaulisms) with a supplementary essay on aspects
of ethnic prejudice. Waukesha, WI: Maledicta Press.
(Originally published 1944)
BOCCACCIO, GIOVANNI
Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375; born in Certaldo
or Florence, died in Certaldo) is one of the major
Italian writers of the later Middle Ages. He is
best remembered for his collection of tales, the
Decameron. This entry gives a brief overview of his
life and work and discusses the way in which humor
functions in the tales.
Life and Works
Boccaccio wrote both in Italian and Latin during
a period that saw the dawn of humanism, which
emphasized the dignity and worth of the individ-
ual and the study of classical culture. He probably
would have preferred to be remembered for his
Latin works, but he is better known for his Italian
works and for the Decameron in particular. Though
from Florence, Boccaccio’s “literary” training took
place mainly in Naples, where he lived for several
years as a young man (1327–1340/1341) and was
profoundly influenced by the French culture at the
court of the Angevin kings who ruled the Kingdom
of Naples from 1266 to 1442. His early works—
Caccia di Diana (Diana the Huntress, 1334–1337),
Filocolo (1336–1339), Teseida (1339–1340), and
Filostrato (1340)—were written in Naples and most
of his subsequent works were influenced by what
he learned or whom he met while there, down to
later works in Latin such as De mulieribus claris
Boccaccio, Giovanni 87
(1361–1375), a collection of biographies of famous
women ending with Queen Joanna I of Naples, to
whom Boccaccio had intended offering the work
before dedicating it to Andreina, sister of the Grand
Seneschal of the Kingdom, Niccolò Acciaiuoli. De
casibus virorum illustrium (On the Fate of Famous
Men) was dedicated to Mainardo Cavalcanti, mili-
tary commander of the Duchy of Amalfi, in 1373
and, on his final visit to Naples in 1370–1371,
Boccaccio gave a copy of the Genealogie deorum
gentilium (Genealogies of the Pagan Gods) to his
Neapolitan friend, Pietro Piccolo da Monteforte,
who helped revise it. Boccaccio’s masterpiece, the
Decameron, would not have been possible if he had
not come into contact with the French literary tradi-
tion while in Naples, which forms the main intertext
of the Decameron.
The Decameron
The Decameron (1349–1351) is a collection of
a hundred tales, inserted into a frame-story set in
Florence during the Black Death of 1348. The frame
story focuses on 10 young men and women who flee
the plague-stricken city (a metaphor for the ills of
Florence) and take refuge in a villa in the hills near
Fiesole, where they decide to pass the time telling
tales. The storytelling lasts 10 days with 10 tales told
every day, thus Decameron, from the Greek meaning
“10 days.” As is customary for medieval literature,
most of the tales derive from a previous text, usually
from the French or Latin traditions, and many must
have been written earlier and then arranged within
the frame story. The Decameron laid the bases of a
new literary genre, the novella (short story), which
would be characteristic of the Italian Renaissance,
but also provided much material for writers such as
Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare.
Humor in the Decameron
Not all the tales in the Decameron are humorous
but many are, and indeed, Boccaccio is probably
now best known for these. Humor depends very
much on the type of source Boccaccio rewrites in
the different tales. Sometimes, these are already
humorous such as the Old French genre of the
fabliau or Medieval Latin exemplum, usually con-
sisting of tales of cuckoldry. In other tales, humor
derives from stories of practical jokes played on
characters living in Florence in Boccaccio’s day. In
both these types of tale, the comic pointe is often
reached through the protagonists’ quick wits as they
88 Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor
“talk” their way out of difficult situations, thus
foregrounding the use of language in a genre that
from its beginnings stresses the importance of
bel parlare, which may translate as “appropriate
speech.” This concern for the use of language also
emerges in other tales where the source material
belongs to the more serious, courtly literary genres
and Boccaccio transforms both style and content,
frequently with recourse to parody and wordplay.
An example is the use made of the nightingale in
Day V, tale 4, where the courtly premises are sud-
denly overturned, thus frustrating the audience’s
or reader’s expectations, by shifting the focus from
the nightingale as courtly motif to sexual symbol.
The nightingale is a bird and in Italian popular cul-
ture uccello, “bird,” also means “penis,” which is
clearly the meaning now given to it in the tale. This
play on the meaning of the word suddenly intro-
duces a comic element and serves to bring the tale
to a happy ending, which would not have been
the case in the courtly source material that would
have had a tragic outcome. Double entendre then
is often a source of humor as illustrated by the
use of the term uccello. Here and elsewhere, the
verb uccellare means “to hunt or snare birds,” an
activity typically associated with courtly and aris-
tocratic pastimes, but which obviously lends itself
to other, humorous interpretations. From the out-
set, Boccaccio claims to write his book for ladies
who are unable to find comfort in love, while men
may find relief in other activities, the first of which
is uccellare, which, given the context, provides a
comic contrast. Boccaccio’s use of humor in the
Decameron is not an end in itself, but rather a
means of creating the new genre of the novella, a
genre that, through the double coding inherent in
parody, is both concerned with the events narrated
and the act of narrating them.
Charmaine Lee
See also Carnivalesque; Fabliau; History of Humor:
Medieval Europe; Parody; Pointe; Puns; Speech Play;
Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Boccaccio, G. (1980). Decameron (V. Branca, Ed.). Turin,
Italy: Einaudi.
Boccaccio, G. (1993). The Decameron (G. Waldman,
Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lee, C. (2010). Rewriting the French tradition: Boccaccio
and the making of the novella. In D. Chiaro (Ed.),
Translation, humour and literature (Vol. I, pp. 121–133).
London, UK: Continuum.
Wallace, D. (1991). Boccaccio: Decameron. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Websites
Decameron Web: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/
Italian_Studies/dweb/index.php
BRAIN, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
OF HUMOR
In the past few decades, the development of innova-
tive methods to examine brain activity has enabled
us to elucidate on and better understand neural
underpinnings of humor-related processes like tick-
ling sensations, humor comprehension and appreci-
ation, smiling, and laughing. Studies of humor using
noninvasive brain-scanning techniques such as elec-
troencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) have largely involved
healthy populations; however, a small group of stud-
ies have focused on individuals who, due to a neuro-
logical disorder or specific brain lesion, are incapable
of processing or enjoying humor. Taken together,
these studies provide evidence that humor process-
ing (i.e., cognitive comprehension) and enjoyment of
humorous stimuli (i.e., emotional appreciation) are
attributed to a complex network that connects vari-
ous regions in the brain.
Indeed, humor is a complex information-
processing task that, similar to problem solving,
requires a certain level of insight into the situation
at hand for successful processing to take place. Most
cognitive humor theories postulate that the process
of incongruity resolution, or frame shifting, is key
to successful humor comprehension. In this (at least)
twofold process, an incongruent or surprising ele-
ment must first be detected. Second, establishment
of coherence between the two initially incongruous
or ambiguous information units (i.e., scripts) fol-
lows. Optimally, incongruity resolution is accompa-
nied by or results in a positive emotional state, called
humor appreciation, involving feelings of amuse-
ment, mirth, or exhilaration.
Successful humor processing is quite complex
and involves a number of steps and stages, each of
which are assumed to be associated with distinct
neural underpinnings. The different perspectives and

collective results of the innovative neuroscientific
methods that enable the examination of this complex
process are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging and Its Findings
In the past few decades, several noninvasive meth-
ods have been developed that permit researchers
to study brain activation in vivo. The most widely
used of these techniques is fMRI. With this method,
neural activation can be measured with high spatial
and low temporal resolutions. Measurements are
based on the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD)
contrast, a hemodynamic response that indicates
changes in oxygenated blood related to neural acti-
vation in specific areas of the brain. Changes in the
BOLD response must be interpreted in contrast to
another task or condition; therefore, at least two
different task conditions must be presented to each
participant. The resulting brain activation pattern is
strongly dependent on the contrast between the two
stimuli conditions; therefore, the selection of control
conditions is highly relevant in both designing the
experimental task and interpreting the fMRI results.
The selection of the control or contrast stimuli in
humor studies determines which humor-processing
activities (e.g., general or specific emotional and cog-
nitive processes, such as joke comprehension, incon-
gruity detection or incongruity resolution, insight,
or ambiguity processing) are the primary focus and
what resulting brain activation patterns may be
observed. As such, the selection of stimulus material
is very important in studying humor processes using
fMRI.
A growing body of fMRI studies has suggested
that a widespread network is activated during humor
processing, particularly in the left hemisphere (LH).
This includes frontal areas (e.g., anterior medial pre-
frontal cortex [PFC], inferior frontal gyrus, [IFG]),
temporal areas (anterior superior temporal sulcus
[aSTS]), and temporoparietal areas (posterior pSTS
and temporoparietal junction [TPJ]), the anterior
cingulate, and precuneus. Failure to understand
humor (or to resolve incongruities meaningfully)
was associated with higher activations in the rostral
cingulate zone, an area involved in error processing.
Research suggests that the above-mentioned regions
are involved in cognitive aspects of humor process-
ing, while more subcortical, mesolimbic regions (see
below) are associated with emotional and affective
correlates of humor.
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor 89
The complexity of humor processing is especially
apparent when considering that the cognitive aspects
of humor processing and its neural underpinnings
can vary in relation to the experimental designs of
the studies and the stimuli used. Investigations of
different types of humorous stimuli using fMRI have
shown that the modality (e.g., verbal, visual), the
length and complexity of the stimuli (e.g., short ver-
bal or visual puns, funny movies), and type of jokes
and cartoons (e.g., verbal or visual puns, seman-
tic jokes and cartoons, film clips, stimuli whose
incongruity is more or less resolvable, and theory
of mind cartoons, which are based on false beliefs
and require social cognition processes) all affect the
network involved in processing humor. Additionally,
studies have suggested that language-based humor
activates more classical language processing areas,
while higher order visual areas are activated in
visual-dependent humor. Furthermore, several stud-
ies have suggested that the pSTS/TPJ reacts sensi-
tively to stimulus characteristics that influence the
incongruity-resolution process. It is thought that this
area is generally involved in the perspective shifting
process during incongruity resolution because it is a
multisensory convergence zone that pulls informa-
tion together from several sources. It is, for example,
more strongly activated in verbal versus visual
humor, in incongruity-resolution versus nonsense
humor, and in semantic versus phonological humor.
This area is also more strongly activated in jokes
that require stronger attribution of mental states to
the characters portrayed in the humor stimulus (i.e.,
theory of mind).
Up to this point, we have focused on the brain
areas involved in cognitive processing of humor;
however, the areas involved in the emotional experi-
ence of humor are equally important and are sum-
marized below. Various subcortical and mesolimbic
structures involved in positive reward experiences
are more strongly activated with an increased amuse-
ment response (i.e., mirth, exhilaration). These
include the amygdala, nucleus accumbens, ventral
tegmental area, and hypothalamus, and research
suggests that these areas are indeed more activated
during humor appreciation. Interestingly, cortical
areas are also more strongly activated in material
that is perceived to be more humorous. It is pos-
sible that material perceived to be more humorous
incorporates specific cognitive processes that lead to
an increased humor response. Finally, areas in the
PFC (anterior and ventral medial PFC) are also more
strongly activated during more amusing stimuli.
90 Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor
While most studies have focused on differences in
the structure of humorous stimuli, one study exam-
ined differences in the content of humorous stimuli
(e.g., social acceptability). In line with findings that
individual differences exist regarding enjoyment
of more or less offensive or aggressive humor, this
study found interactions between social appropriate-
ness and humor responses. Lower activation in the
ventral medial PFC and higher activation in the right
hippocampus were found in individuals who judged
the jokes to be more socially inappropriate and less
funny, while the opposite neurological response pat-
tern was found in individuals who judged them to
be less socially inappropriate.
In addition to differences between brain struc-
ture and content, a limited number of fMRI studies
have utilized individual differences in personality
and humor-related measures in understanding
humor processes. Trait cheerfulness, for example,
is correlated with stronger activation in the right
inferior parietal lobule but not with limbic and pre-
frontal areas. It is thought that this activation pat-
tern is associated with the readiness or tendency to
be amused, rather than the emotional processes of
humor appreciation. Additionally, extraversion and
neuroticism have been linked to neural correlates
of humor processing and both personality dimen-
sions influence emotional reactivity to humorous
stimuli. Extraversion has been correlated with
stronger BOLD signals in the right orbitofrontal
cortex (OFC), ventrolateral PFC, and bilateral tem-
poral cortices. In contrast, introversion has been
correlated with other areas, such as the amygdalae,
while the inverse of neuroticism (i.e., emotional
stability) has been correlated with increased acti-
vation in mesocortical-mesolimbic reward areas.
Overall, these correlations suggest that individual
differences affect how humor is processed in
the brain.
In addition to individual differences, two addi-
tional studies suggest that gender differences in
humor processing exist as well. Studies have shown
that males and females use largely the same net-
work to process humor. However, subtle differences
between the two do exist. Results from one study
suggest that females activate the left PFC more,
which may imply stronger executive processing and
language-based decoding. In addition, stronger acti-
vation in the mesolimbic regions in females may be
related to greater reward responses and less reward
expectation. Another study also found evidence for
stronger limbic activity in females during humor
processing, while in men, evidence for stronger acti-
vation in areas associated with evaluative, executive
processes was found.
Although not investigating humor directly, an
additional study focused on subcortical areas asso-
ciated with tickling and laughter. This study found
that hypothalamic activation plays a crucial role in
eliciting ticklish laughter, suggesting that the path-
way generating ticklish laughter is different from
the one involved in humor processing. In the latter,
more cortical areas seem to be involved.
Electroencephalography and Its Findings
Electroencephalography (EEG) is another noninva-
sive method that is frequently used to understand
neural underpinnings of humor. EEG electrodes on
the scalp record electrical activity in the brain result-
ing from ionic current flows within neurons. With
event-related potentials (ERP), brain responses to
specific sensory, cognitive, emotional, or motoric
events are measured.
Previous EEG studies have focused mainly on
the cognitive components of humor processing. The
N400 event-related potential component (i.e., nega-
tive waves at about 400 milliseconds [ms]) is part
of the brain’s response to language and other mean-
ingful stimuli. It appears to be stronger in response
to jokes than in response to non-jokes and is likely
to be involved in the process of establishing coher-
ence or resolving incongruities. This is followed by
a larger positive wave at about 600 ms (i.e., P600).
Some, but not all, EEG studies have found a stron-
ger N400 in the right hemisphere (RH). One study
using visual material found positive waves at 300
and 400ms (reminiscent of the P3b and late positive
potential [LPP] components). The P3b subcompo-
nent of the P300 is elicited in improbable events.
The LPP is an index of emotional perception. The
LPP was larger, reflecting greater attentional and
processing resources, when subjects were tested with
humorous visual material versus nonhumorous,
neutral visual material. A more recent study found
a diminished LPP during expressive suppression of
smiles and laughter by comparable enjoyment of the
humorous pictures.
In addition to the analysis of ERPs, researchers
are able to use EEG to compute hemispheric domi-
nance or determine levels of coherence (i.e., cou-
pling) between different brain regions. It is thought
that the relative alpha band activation of prefron-
tal portions of the LH and RH are differentially

involved in modulating affective responses to emo-
tional challenges.
In laterality research of emotions, the LH has
been more strongly associated with approach behav-
ior and positive emotions and stimuli, while the RH
has been more strongly associated with avoidance
behavior and negative emotions and stimuli. This
was also examined in relation to humor process-
ing. Prefrontal brain asymmetry in alpha activity
measured by EEG in resting conditions influenced
individuals’ affective flexibility. Relatively greater
activity during rest in the left PFC (particularly in
ventrolateral portions) was associated not only with
more pronounced cardiac responses while process-
ing the punch line of cartoons, but it also led par-
ticipants to indicate their funniness response more
quickly.
A recent, methodologically innovative study
assessed prefrontal-posterior EEG coherence. Loose
prefrontal-posterior coupling reflects the propensity
for deeper emotional involvement. This study found
that greater decreases of state-dependent coherence
between prefrontal and posterior portions of the
brain during attendance to auditory expressions of
cheerfulness predicted greater positive emotional
responsiveness (i.e., higher funniness ratings) to
humorous stimuli. This suggests that many various
brain activations and mechanisms influence a per-
son’s susceptibility and ability to process and appre-
ciate humor.
Lesion Studies and Electrode Brain Activations
Lesion studies allow correlations between functional
deficits and regions of damage in the brain. Studies
examining individuals with brain lesions following
traumatic loss or surgical removal of brain tissue
provide evidence that damage in the RH, especially
the right frontal lobe, most severely affects humor
appreciation. Indeed, damage in the RH affects
humor processing in multiple ways. RH patients
seem to have difficulties in resolving incongruities
in that they are unable to shift from their initial
interpretation to a more humorous interpretation.
These patients also have a reduced ability to give
reasonable explanations for punch lines and less
ability to select the correct joke ending when mul-
tiple response options are present. Finally, damages
in the right frontal lobe seem to disrupt the ability
to appreciate humor and lead to less strong emo-
tional or physical responses. Interestingly, damage
in mesial orbital parts of the frontal lobe affects
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor 91
personality and sense of self. It has been observed
that patients with lesions in this region portray
Witzelsucht, which is manifested in the addiction to
telling jokes, usually inappropriate to the context; in
silly, euphoric behavior; and inappropriate laughter.
Further evidence suggests that individuals with
lesions in the brain stem (e.g., pseudobulbar palsy
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and patients with
gelastic seizures or other neurological disorders may
suffer from uncontrollable, pathological laughter
(and/or crying), which is often incongruent with
their current emotion or mood. Such uncontrol-
lable laughter can be distinguished from laughter as
a result of humor appreciation. Damage in several
brain regions may be related to these incongruent
displays of laughter. For instance, damage of path-
ways that arise in the motor areas of the cerebral
cortex and descend to the brainstem in order to
inhibit a putative center for laughter and crying
may result in incongruent laughter. It has also been
suggested that lesions occurring in the cerebro-
ponto-cerebellar pathways, involved in contextually
appropriate adjustments of the execution of laughter
(or crying), may also result in inappropriate and
emotion-incoherent behavior due to incomplete
information about the context at hand.
Using electrodes, direct tissue stimulation in
specific areas of the brain offers a rare possibility
to examine neural correlates of humor and laughter
without the presence of brain damage or legions.
Activation in several areas (e.g., middle temporal
gyrus, cingulate cortex) during clinically necessary
open-skull procedures can evoke laughter; however,
the elicited laughter is related to feeling merriment
and mirth only in a few areas, such as the anterior
part of the supplementary motor area (SMA), infe-
rior temporal gyrus, ventral subthalamic nucleus,
and nucleus accumbens. In particular, electrical stim-
ulation in the left superior frontal gyrus, a part of
the SMA, not only evoked mood congruent laughter
but was accompanied by the patient’s ability to asso-
ciate the source of that laughter to whatever external
stimulus was present.
Concluding Comments and Debate
on Hemispheric Differences
It is clear that a large network, rather than a single
region in the brain, is involved in humor process-
ing. Results from studies using a number of differ-
ent methods provide evidence for the importance
and dominance of various regions in the brain.
92 Buddhism
Controversy exists about the dominance of the
left or right hemisphere in humor processing. As
reviewed above, lesion studies and some (but not all)
of the EEG studies suggested that the RH is more
involved and is more important for humor process-
ing. However, several of the fMRI studies on healthy
participants showed more pronounced activations in
the LH (e.g., IFG, TPG), perhaps due to the domi-
nance of the LH in language and interpretation
processes. The LH is also often associated with posi-
tive emotions and approach-related behavior, while
the RH is associated with avoidance and negative
valence. However, it has to be mentioned that domi-
nance of one over the other hemisphere depends on
many characteristics, such as the method used, the
experimental design, type of stimuli, and focus of
interest (emotional or cognitive processes). Also,
comparing the results of lesion studies to findings of
noninvasive methods is difficult. Because the brain
is best understood as a network, lesions in one par-
ticular brain region can affect not only the processes
associated with that specific area but other processes
associated with other regions as well. As such, it is
best to understand humor as a complex process that
includes cognitive, affective, and motoric compo-
nents and involves both hemispheres in a wide neu-
rological network.
Andrea C. Samson
See also Cognitive Aspects; Comprehension of Humor;
Incongruity and Resolution; Mirth
Further Readings
Marinkovic, K., Baldwin, S., Courtney, M. G., Witzel, T.,
Dale, A. M., & Halgren, E. (2011). Right hemisphere
has the last laugh: Neural dynamics of joke
appreciation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience, 11, 113–130.
Papousek, I., Reiser, E. M., Weiss, E. M., Fink, A., Samson,
A. C., Lackner, H. K., & Schulter, G. (2013, June).
State-dependent changes of prefrontal-posterior EEG
coherence in the context of affective processing:
Susceptibility to humor. Cognitive, Affective, &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 252–261.
Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. (2008). Cognitive
humor processing: Different logical mechanisms in non-
verbal cartoons—an fMRI study. Social Neuroscience, 3,
125–140.
Wild, B., Rhodden, F. A., Grodd, W., & Ruch, W. (2003).
Neural correlates of laughter and humour. Brain,
126(10), 2121–2138.
BUDDHISM
Since its origin on the Indian subcontinent,
Buddhism has been transmitted to a diverse range
of cultures throughout Asia and more recently
throughout the world. Buddhist thought and prac-
tice have thus been expressed in a variety of different
languages and interacted with a variety of different
cultures and religions. Because of its accommodative
stance to other religions, Buddhism has often com-
bined with or assimilated a range of religious tradi-
tions throughout Asia. It is thus difficult to reach
any overarching generalizations about the role of
humor in Buddhism. This entry focuses mainly on
Buddhism in East Asia. This is not because humor
is necessarily more prominent in this cultural area.
It is mainly because studies of Buddhism and humor
have focused primarily on East Asian sources and
traditions.
Buddhist Ambivalence About Humor
As in the case of Christianity, the attitude to humor
within Buddhism has often been ambivalent. In
early Buddhist texts such as Buddhacarita and
Dhammapada, the Buddha himself questioned how
people could laugh given that human existence is
marked by old age, disease, death, and suffering. The
precept concerning right speech, a part of the noble
eightfold path the Buddha taught as being the path
to enlightenment, can also be read as discouraging
at least some forms of humor, laughter, and mirth.
As did some early Christian theologians concerning
Jesus, some early Buddhist scholastics questioned
whether the Buddha ever laughed. Some concluded
that the Buddha never went beyond the faintest of
smiles. This is perhaps the peaceful smile expressed
in many Buddha images where the corners of the
Buddha’s mouth are ever so slightly upturned.
While these observations suggest that humor
has only a marginal role in Buddhism, the matter
is not so simple. It is difficult, first of all, to deduce
a religion’s attitudes to humor by relying solely on
its central sacred texts. In addition, there may well
be openness to a range of types of humor embodied
in that faintest of smiles the Buddha is said to have
engaged in. Many who have followed the path of
the Buddha and attained some degree of realization
or enlightenment seem to have openness to at least
some types of humor. A taste or glimpse of enlighten-
ment, which involves at least a partial transcendence

of the ego and a realization of the limitations of
much human thought, seems to open the way for
some Buddhists to perceive both themselves and
the world around them with a degree of irony and
humor. Many Buddhist figures, such as the present
Dalai Lama, have been known to possess a marked
sense of humor.
Chan/Zen Buddhism
Considerable attention has been given to the role
of humor in the school of Chan (in Japanese, Zen)
Buddhism that arose in China in 6th century CE as
a result of the interaction of Buddhism with Chinese
modes of thought and religion. Many have argued
that Taoism played a major role in the Chinese
transformation of Buddhism. As seen in one of
its major texts, Zhuangzi (Master Zhuang), some
Taoist thought exhibits considerable appreciation of
humor and makes extensive use of paradox, irony,
and amusing anecdotes to illustrate the inability
of language and concepts to fully grasp the truth.
Taoism viewed society, the state, and overly ratio-
nal forms of philosophy as imposing unnatural con-
straints on the individual and made use of humor
and a comic perspective to free one from these con-
straints in order to attain a more natural mode of
being in the world. Given its distrust of society, the
state, and common sense, it is not surprising that
Taoism also produced and celebrated a number
of “holy fools” known for their often humorous
eccentricity.
Buddhism, and Chan in particular, share with
Taoism a sense of the inability of language and
concepts to express and describe reality. In Chan
traditions, this attitude was expressed in the warn-
ing not to take the finger (or symbol) pointing at
the moon (the truth or enlightenment) as the moon.
Many dialogues between masters and disciples,
kôans (questions or “riddles” to be used as an object
of meditation such as the question of “what is the
sound of one hand clapping”), and tales of eccentric
behavior in Chan traditions aimed to teach or illus-
trate the limits of conventional teaching, concepts,
and understanding. Humor makes not infrequent
appearances in such sources as one technique for
undermining the tendency to mistake the finger, even
if it be a Buddhist symbol, for the moon.
A tale about the Chinese Chan master Yangqi is
illustrative. About to formally lecture his disciples
about the path to enlightenment, he suddenly burst
out laughing and said something to the effect of:
Buddhism 93
“What is the point of all this?” He then told his stu-
dents to go to the back of the lecture hall and have
some tea. Yangqi found the idea of expressing the
Buddhist teaching in conventional Buddhist terms
laughable. Many readers of the tale, if not Yangqi’s
disciples themselves, have no doubt found the tale
itself humorous to a degree.
Like Taoism, Chan/Zen has produced a number
of teachers or figures, whether legendary or his-
torical, who exhibit a range of eccentric behaviors
and might be considered as holy fools or clowns.
In China, the reclusive, eccentric figures Hanshan
(Cold Mountain) and Shide appear in both tales and
paintings. Paintings of Hanshan often depict him
laughing. In Japan, the Zen figures such as Ikkyû,
Ryôkan, and Hakuin were known for their appre-
ciation of humor as well as their foolish, eccentric
behavior. A more recent Zen master, Harada Sogaku
(1871–1961) recommended his disciples become
“great fools” and even described the Buddha himself
as having been a great fool. The foolishness of Chan/
Zen figures aims not only to counter common sense
assumptions about reality but also the rigidity of
Buddhist teachings.
In the West, Chan/Zen has often been celebrated
for its appreciation and use of humor. Daisetsu
Suzuki, who was of great importance in introduc-
ing Zen to the West in the mid-20th century, argued
that no religion except Zen made room for laughter.
While this is clearly an overstatement, it does indi-
cate the way in which many have seen a particu-
larly strong connection between Zen and humor. It
should be noted, however, that some traditional and
contemporary accounts of the Zen training in Japan
suggest that humor plays about the same role in the
training of priests as it plays in military boot camps
(at most, a minor role in the austere training). This
is not to say that one could not emerge from such
training with an increased sense of humor.
The Laughing Buddha
In East Asia, special mention must be made of the
Chinese figure Budai (in Japanese, Hotei) who is
often referred to as the Laughing Buddha. Legends
and folklore concerning Budai are based, at least by
some accounts, on the life of a Chinese monk who
lived in the 9th to 10th centuries and left the monas-
tic life to wander the countryside, frequently paus-
ing to play with children. Meaning “sackcloth,” the
name Budai was given to the monk because of his
habit of carrying his few possessions, as well as gifts
94 Buddhism
for children, in a sackcloth slung over his shoulder.
In sculpture and painting, Budai is depicted as a fat,
jolly monk with a large stomach clearly visible and
protruding from his robes. His eccentricity has been
understood as symbolizing the freedom and joy of
enlightenment.
Budai eventually came to be regarded as an
incarnation of the future Buddha Maitreya, both
popularly and by some schools of Chan/Zen
Buddhism. Statues of Budai as Maitreya often por-
tray him as widely grinning if not actually laugh-
ing. The contrast with the more refined smile seen
in depictions of the historical Buddha is striking.
Some Chan/Zen temples enshrine images of Budai
as Maitreya. The identification of Budai with
Maitreya is, however, widespread throughout East
Asia and statues of Budai as Maitreya can be found
in various settings.
In Japan, Budai is known as Hotei and also
counted as one of the Seven Gods of Good Fortune
(Shichifukujin) who became widely and popularly
revered and celebrated during the Edo period (17th
through mid-19th century). Included among the
seven gods are deities from India, China, and Japan.
This illustrates how Buddhism and Buddhist figures
were combined with local gods in China and Japan
as well as throughout Southeast Asia. As Buddhism
and Shinto were not distinct, exclusive religions dur-
ing the Edo Period, Hotei and the other gods were
celebrated by most if not all throughout Japan.
Though still recognizable as a Buddhist monk,
Hotei is classified here as a god of good fortune and
regarded as the patron deity of fortune tellers and
liquor merchants. Rather than a few meager pos-
sessions, his sackcloth now contains an inexhaust-
ible amount of material goods that he can distribute
to all.
Buddhism, Humor, and the Arts
An appreciation of the links between Buddhism
and humor also requires taking into account the
vast range of Buddhist-related visual arts, literature,
tales, and performing arts to be found throughout
Asia. While many of these artistic expressions were
produced by lay Buddhists rather than the monastic
community and often reflect an interaction and com-
bination with non-Buddhist indigenous traditions,
they nevertheless must be counted as Buddhist.
The comic, medieval Japanese Kyôgen theater
provides an example of how the performing arts
often approached Buddhism with an appreciation
of humor. Monks, religious figures, gods, and even
bodhisattvas were at times portrayed in comic fash-
ion. In the play Asaina, Enma (the Buddhist god of
the underworld) is confronted with the task of judg-
ing a hunter guilty of the crime of killing animals.
While this might seem like an open and shut case
given the Buddhist precept against taking life of any
sort, the hunter manages to get Enma to at least try
some roasted meat. Delighted with its taste, Enma
lets the hunter off lightly. While such humor might
be seen as a critique of Buddhism in some sense,
it should not be seen as a rejection of Buddhism.
Many plays making fun of religious figures were, at
times at least, understood as offerings to entertain
the gods and buddhas.
There are also many examples of humor at work
in Buddhist-related visual arts. Throughout China,
Korea, and Japan, there are a variety of paintings
depicting Buddhist monks in a humorous mode.
One example here is the motif of depicting meditat-
ing monks as sitting frogs. Another example is paint-
ings depicting the subject of the Three Doctrines
that show the Buddha, the Taoist figure Laozi,
and Confucius standing next to one another. The
theme illustrates the compatibility, if not unity, of
Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism and thus also
the difficulties of treating religions as discrete, sepa-
rate traditions throughout much of Asia. In some
treatments of the theme the Buddha and Laozi, if
not Confucius so clearly, are depicted as smiling, if
not laughing or about to laugh.
Richard A. Gardner
See also Ambiguity; Aphorism; Clergy; Confucianism;
Education, Humor in; Fools; Forest of Laughter and
Traditional Chinese Jestbooks; History of Humor:
Classical and Traditional China; History of Humor:
Premodern Japan; Kyōgen; Rakugo; Religion; Rituals
of Laughter; Taoism; Trickster
Further Readings
Davis, S., & Gardner, R. A. (2004). Humor and religion in
East Asian contexts. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
religion (2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 4205–4210). Detroit, MI:
Macmillan Reference USA.
Gardner, R. A. (2005). Humor and religion: An overview.
In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (2nd ed.,
Vol. 6, pp. 4194–4205). Detroit, MI: Macmillan
Reference USA.

Hyers, C. (1989). The Laughing Buddha: Zen and the
comic spirit. Wolfeboro, NH: Longwood Academic.
Suzuki, D. T. (1971). Sengai: The Zen master. London, UK:
Faber & Faber.
Tanahashi, K. (1984). Penetrating laughter: Hakuin’s Zen
& art. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press.
BURLESQUE
Burlesque is an absurd or grotesque imitation of
what is intended to be dignified or pathetic. The
humor of burlesque comes out of a juxtaposition
of high and low style or an incongruity of style and
subject matter. It is achieved in one of two ways:
by treating a serious subject in an overly familiar
manner—low burlesque or travesty—or treating a
relatively trivial subject in a grandiose way—high
burlesque or parody. The term has been used over
the centuries interchangeably with parody, trav-
esty, burletta, pantomime, extravaganza, and most
recently striptease. This entry traces the evolution of
burlesque from being recognized as a literary genre
in England during the Restoration (1660) to its pres-
ent-day association with erotic entertainment.
Burlesque has elements of both parody and sat-
ire but is distinct from each. Like parody, burlesque
mimics some well-known work of literature, oratory,
or drama. However, burlesque does not stick closely
to the original text but uses characters and incidents
from a story as means to comment on unrelated top-
ics. Like satire, burlesque employs laughter as criti-
cism, but burlesque finds humor primarily in artistic
pretentions and moral posturings, not in the faults
and foibles of individuals. While satire can be savage
and bitter, burlesque delights in human frailties and
sentimentality. As such, burlesque has been a tactic
of the low, ridiculing pomposity, false dignity, and
the moral posturing of high culture.
Humor that is recognizably burlesque goes back
to the earliest forms of Western theater. It is the basis
of the satyr plays of early Greek theater, which were
burlesque treatments of mythological stories. It is
found in the medieval Feast of Fools, with its bur-
lesque of the Catholic mass. Both Geoffrey Chaucer
and Miguel de Cervantes burlesqued chivalric
romances in their greatest works. In the Elizabethan
theater, it is evident in “Pyramus and Thisbe,” the
play-within-a-play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,
and in Francis Beaumont’s Knight of the Burning
Burlesque 95
Pestle (1607), which was in fact the first full-length
theatrical burlesque.
The term derives from the Italian burla, mean-
ing a joke, ridicule, or mockery. Popular in Italy and
France during the 17th century, burlesque was intro-
duced to England by Royalist poets and dramatists
who had spent the Commonwealth years abroad
(1642–1660). Early burlesques were travesties of
literary epics, influenced particularly by French
satirist Paul Scarron’s Le Virgile Travesti (written
between 1648 and 1652), a burlesque of the Aeneid.
The most notable burlesque poems in English
are Samuel Butler’s Hudibras (1663–1678)—a
low burlesque about a Puritan knight written in
doggerel—and Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the
Lock (1712–1717)—a mock tragedy that treats a
trivial incident involving cutting a lock of hair in the
epic style of the Iliad.
Burlesque found its most enduring home in
the theater, ridiculing the literary weaknesses of
romantic and heroic drama, as well as the badly
executed stage effects and overwrought acting that
often marred performances. The first play labeled
a burlesque was William Davenant’s Play-House to
Be Let (1663), which presented several short plays
being auditioned at a theater, including a travesty of
Antony and Cleopatra. A more important work was
The Rehearsal (1671), by Charles Villiers, duke of
Buckingham, which used the setting of a rehearsal to
ridicule the neoclassical dramas of the time. Thomas
Duffett burlesqued productions of Shakespeare
in Mock-Tempest (1674) and of opera in Psyche
Debauch’d (1675) because they were staged at a
competing theater.
Burlesques have generally been most effective
in a one- or two-act form and, in the 18th century,
the introduction of afterpieces—short plays, usually
comedic, that followed the regular production—
created additional opportunities for burlesque. John
Gay (1685–1732) wrote burlesque poems and after-
pieces, putting noble sentiments into the mouths
of disreputable characters, a technique he used to
best effect in The Beggar’s Opera (1728). Intended
to satirize the Italian opera just then becoming
popular in England, Gay used spoken dialog and
set his lyrics to English folk tunes, thus creating a
new musical genre, the ballad opera. Henry Fielding
burlesqued heroic dramas in Tom Thumb (1731),
a mock-epic treatment of the well-known fairy tale
character. Richard Brinsley Sheridan revived the
rehearsal device in The Critic (1781) in order to
96 Burlesque
lampoon the sentimental dramas that had come into
vogue. During this period, burlesque developed sev-
eral lasting conventions: dialogue written in rhymed
couplets, the use of musical numbers set to popular
tunes, a reliance on puns and wordplay, and a gen-
eral spirit of light-hearted vulgarity.
In the 19th century, burlesques moved in two
distinct directions: extravaganzas and topical bur-
lesques. Extravaganzas were grand productions,
related to modern British pantomime, which relied
on elaborate staging and costumes and a mixture
of song, ballet, and spectacle. Extravaganzas by
J. R. Planché (1796–1880), H. J. Byron (1834–1884),
and others were inspired by fairy tales, classic
mythology, and historical events, although their
plots often departed significantly from the source
material. Nonsense humor and whimsical wordplay
predominated, which the actors played with utter
seriousness. Topical burlesques were travesties of
particular plays and productions and had a satirical
edge. The humor was created by resetting the play in
Portrait of English actress Lavinia Fenton, later duchess of
Bolton (1710–1760), as Polly Peachum in John Gay’s The
Beggar’s Opera. Oil on canvas portrait by Charles Jervas
(1675–1739).
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
contemporary times, with characters who spoke in
local street slang, commenting satirically on current
events and fashion. This device was also a feature of
the genre of cartooning then coming into vogue.
Topical burlesques found a ready home in
America, where audiences were eager to see local
life portrayed onstage, while making fun of the
upper crust’s preoccupation with European fashion
and culture. William Mitchell operated the Olympic
Theatre in New York City through the 1840s, offer-
ing evenings of several short comedies that mixed
English farces and extravaganzas with burlesques
of recent stage successes, a formula that William
Burton used at his theater with similar success in
the 1850s. The most notable author of topical bur-
lesques on American themes was John Brougham
(1810–1880), who lampooned romantic melodra-
mas about noble savages with Metamora; or, The
“Bon-Ton Burlesquers—365 days ahead of them all.”
Poster of U.S. burlesque show, 1898, showing a woman
holding a number of men in formal dress on strings.
Source: H. C. Miner Lithography Company. Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington,
DC, Reproduction Number LC-USZC2-1401.

Last of the Pollywogs (1847) and Po-ca-hon-tas; or,
The Gentle Savage (1855); American history with
Columbus el Filibustero (1857); and Shakespeare
with Much Ado about a Merchant of Venice (1867).
Burlesque was an important source of humor in
blackface minstrelsy. The minstrel show’s distinctive
three-part structure comprised an opening concert,
an “olio” of variety acts, and a closing plantation
scene. The concert burlesqued visiting European
folk musicians like the Tyrolese Minstrels, who
were greatly admired by American elites. A distinct
feature of the olio, which offered a medley of sing-
ing, dancing, and comedy specialties, was a “stump
speech” on temperance, women’s rights, or other
topics, delivered in stereotypical dialect with garbled
syntax and malapropisms. The plantation scene was
later replaced with a farce or burlesque afterpiece
that consisted of blacked-up versions of popular
plays and operas. Use of the afterpiece in legitimate
theaters declined around the time of the Civil War,
but it remained a mainstay of minstrelsy and variety
entertainment. At the better variety halls, manag-
ers like Tony Pastor (1837–1908) hired writers to
pen original farces, melodramas, and burlesques of
current hits. At the smaller halls or “honky-tonks,”
performers modified and recycled old minstrel after-
pieces such as “Irish Justice,” a courtroom scene
featuring a bladder-wielding judge.
Burlesque’s association with erotic entertainment
began shortly after the Civil War when a British
company led by Lydia Thompson (1836–1908)
brought a three-act burlesque extravaganza titled
Ixion, by Francis Burnand, to New York City.
Cross-dressing had been a convention of English
burlesque and pantomime, but the short tunics worn
by Thompson’s “British Blondes” in their send-up
of a Roman tragedy had a more erotic effect than
normal “breeches” roles. Soon, “leg shows” were
touring concert saloons and variety halls across the
United States, most of them offering two one-act
burlesques separated by an olio—an adaptation of
the tripartite minstrel show structure. Burlesque
absorbed the traditions and working methods of
popular entertainment forms, notably in its reli-
ance on stock comedic materials that were passed
on orally. Later successful ventures in the burlesque
form for mainstream audiences included George
L. Fox’s burlesque of Hamlet, which was a hit on
Broadway in 1870; E. E. Rice’s long-running hit
Evangeline (1874), based loosely on the Longfellow
poem; and the comedy team of Joe Weber and Lew
Fields, who parodied turn-of-the-century musicals at
Burlesque 97
their Broadway Music Hall. But attempts to appeal
to a mainstream audience were hurt by burlesque’s
association with erotic display.
Burlesque is usually paired with vaudeville, but
20th-century burlesque in fact had more in common
with musical revue. A vaudeville show was made up
of independent variety acts, whose artists performed
their specialty once during the show. Acts toured
separately and were booked into a theater for a
week-long run before heading their separate ways to
the next engagement. Burlesque troupes operated as
companies. In the early 20th century, troupes toured
on circuits called “wheels,” so named because shows
followed one another from city to city like spokes on
a wheel. Following the success of the Ziegfeld Follies
(1907–1931), wheel operators adopted the format
of the musical revue, alternating comedy sketches
with chorus line numbers and singing and dancing
solos. Comedy was divided into “body scenes,”
which involved a large number of cast members and
are related to the afterpiece, and scenes “in one,”
typically played in front of the curtain by a comic,
straight man, and (sometimes) a talking lady.
Wheel operators were eager to improve the status
of burlesque, hoping to attract a wider audience.
But independent producers like the Minsky Brothers
in New York offered a rawer form of entertain-
ment featuring “cooch dancing “ and the bump-
and-grind. The striptease itself was not introduced
until the late 1920s, several years after Broadway
producers began putting topless showgirls onstage
in tableaux. Once introduced, the striptease quickly
became the defining feature of burlesque, replac-
ing the singing and dancing specialties, and led to a
decade-long effort by Mayor Fiorello La Guardia to
ban burlesque in New York City, which eventually
happened in 1942.
While the burlesque show has been criticized as
violating the true spirit of burlesque, much of that
spirit in fact remained. The burlesque show was a
travesty of Broadway revues, specifically promoted
as “the working man’s musical comedy.” While
Ziegfeld “glorified the American girl,” putting
scantily-clad showgirls onstage in “artistic” tab-
leaux, burlesque played up the vulgarity. The vul-
garity of burlesque was certainly a tradition going
back to the 17th century. While much of the comedy
in burlesque shows was not specifically burlesque,
sketches from the period do include burlesques of
Antony and Cleopatra and of contemporary dramas
like the tropical play White Cargo (1923). Audiences
are not always aware of the source material being
98 Byzantine Humor
lampooned: The classic “Niagara Falls (Slowly
I Turned),” for example, is a send-up of the once-
familiar melodrama soliloquy. Considered more
broadly, these sketches burlesqued formal or digni-
fied occasions, introducing low-life characters into
relatively dignified or serious proceedings, including
courtroom scenes, schoolroom sketches, restaurant
scenes, and doctors’ offices.
Burlesque is remembered mostly as a training
ground for American comedians who went on to
work in the big revues: W. C. Fields, Fanny Brice,
Eddie Cantor, and Will Rogers all toured in bur-
lesque before becoming stars in the Ziegfeld Follies.
A later generation made its mark in film and tele-
vision: Bert Lahr, Phil Silvers, Pinky Lee, Jackie
Gleason, and Red Buttons. Nobody made more use
of this tradition than William “Bud” Abbott and
Lou Costello, who became box office stars in the
1940s and 1950s using routines that had had a long
life on the burlesque stage. Their signature routine—
“Who’s on First”—evolved out of earlier bits like
Weber and Fields’s “Watt Street,” in which an immi-
grant comic tries to get directions to “what street?”
To avoid identification with striptease, theatrical
productions that are classically burlesque rarely bill
themselves as such. The satirical revue Forbidden
Broadway (1982+) in its various incarnations con-
tinues the tradition of the topical burlesque, but
without explicitly saying so. There are elements of
extravaganza in Steven Sondheim’s Into the Woods
(1986) as well as in the tradition of Christmas pan-
tomime (now seen as rather old-fashioned but still
appealing to children’s audiences). The Reduced
Shakespeare Company’s Complete Works of
William Shakespeare (Abridged) (1987) continues
the fine tradition of Shakespeare burlesque.
Andrew Davis
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Comedy; Comedy
Ensembles; Feast of Fools; Gag; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Medieval Europe;
History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe; History of
Humor: Renaissance Europe; History of Humor: U.S.
Modern and Contemporary; Improv Comedy; Low
Comedy; Mock Epic; Movies; Music Hall; Musical
Comedy; Parody; Satire; Sexuality; Spoofing; Travesty
Further Readings
Allen, R. C. (1991). Horrible prettiness: Burlesque and
American culture. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina.
Bond, R. P. (1964). English burlesque poetry 1700–1850.
New York, NY: Russell & Russell.
Clinton-Baddeley, V. C. (1952). The burlesque tradition in
the English theatre after 1660. London, UK: Methuen.
Davis, A. (2011). Baggy pants comedy: Burlesque and the
oral tradition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jump, J. (1972). Burlesque. London, UK: Methuen.
Schoch, R. W. (2002). Not Shakespeare: Bardolatry and
burlesque in the nineteenth century. New York, NY:
Cambridge.
BYZANTINE HUMOR
Byzantium is the name conventionally given to the
Eastern Roman Empire, which lasted from 330 CE
to 1453 CE. The state’s inhabitants called them-
selves Romans and perceived themselves as heirs
to the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman tradition.
Their spoken language was Greek and official docu-
ments as well as most high-brow literary works used
the Attic dialect of ancient Greek or, in some cases,
the less refined koine, whose best-known example is
Biblical Greek.
Unjustly negative opinions about Byzantium,
born during the Enlightenment and reinforced by
19th century historians, projected a vision of a grim
society lacking literature, poetry, fiction, or drama.
Edward Gibbon’s (1737–1794) harsh judgment
on Byzantine literature still reverberated almost
two centuries later (Jenkins, 1940, p. 57): “The
Byzantine Empire remains almost the unique exam-
ple of a highly civilised state, lasting for more than
a millennium, which produced hardly any educated
writing which can be read with pleasure for its liter-
ary merit alone.”
Similarly, until very recently, scholars refused
to see any humorous elements in Byzantine texts.
This has led Margaret Alexiou (1986) to won-
der if it might be Byzantinists themselves, not the
Byzantines, who lacked a sense of humor (p. 31).
The work of contemporary scholars such as Lynda
Garland and John Haldon has helped bring about
a better appreciation of Byzantine humor. This was
multifaceted: Sources show that the Byzantines liked
simple, slapstick-like, sometimes physiological jokes
(kicking somebody’s butt, throwing excrement, the
emperor’s guests falling into his pond, etc.). Yet they
also appreciated more subtle jokes drawing on hom-
onyms and ancient traditions.
Reconstructing the Byzantine sense of humor is
limited to literary sources. Unlike ancient Greece

and Rome, iconographical sources are virtually
non-existent. The few examples—such as the depic-
tion of the liturgical parody by Emperor Michael III
(842–867, called the Drunkard) in the manuscript
Skylitzes Madridensis, and figures in the mid-9th-
century Chludov Psalter identified as taken from
ancient comedies—are too specialized to contribute
much to our understanding of Byzantine humor.
The literary sources however include chronicles
recording amusing events, letters, poetry, and satires,
where the humor is sometimes but not always subtle
and linguistic in nature.
The heterogeneity of these genres is challenging.
Humorous anecdotes recorded in the chronicles and
described by their authors as funny certainly pro-
vide testimony of what was considered comical, but
extrapolating humor from the satires is much more
difficult. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (in
the entry Satire) asserts: “[Satire] could take many
forms, including parody and allegory. Intentionality
and not literary form determine what is satire.”
Especially in the 12th century, such satire may be
entirely decontextualized—written in Attic, using
imagery that involves mostly or only pagan ele-
ments. But contextual jokes are understandable
only after identification of a targeted person (for
example, Theodore Prodromos’s satire, Ignorant
or the Grammarian). In The Material for History,
a 12th-century writer and aristocrat, Nikephoros
Bryennios, recorded the following story. When
Alexios Komnenos, a future emperor, gave his army
to the Protovestiarios John (who happened to be a
eunuch), Alexios performed a farewell equestrian
exercise for the troops. When John galloped after
Alexios, everyone started laughing and mocked him
with the usual “klou klou” for eunuchs. Clearly this
situation was read as funny by the soldiers; yet for a
modern reader of Bryennios, the humor is lost.
On the other hand, Byzantine historiographical
sources do provide us with puns, jokes, and sayings
where understanding does not necessarily depend
on knowledge of Byzantine reality. An example is
Andronikos I Komnenos’s (12th century CE) maca-
bre remark when told that the young emperor,
Alexios II, was alive in Sicily—although he had had
him strangled, head cut off and hidden, and body
dispatched to the bottom of the sea in a lead coffin.
The new emperor commented, “He must indeed be
a very fine swimmer if, after tumbling to the bot-
tom of the sea at Constantinople, he was able to
slip away by that route without drawing breath”
(Garland, 1990, pp. 21–22).
Byzantine Humor 99
An important yet under-studied part of Byzantine
humor is occupied by mimes and the so-called
jesters, although the difference between those two
categories of entertainers remains unclear. There
was at least one 15th-century-female mime called
Salmone and Byzantine sources clearly indicate the
presence of mimes in the imperial and aristocratic
households. It seems that mimes also performed for
a wider public during feasts and other occasions.
Byzantine society was thought to be humorless
because laughter and humor were strongly criticized
by the Church Fathers. A handbook on Byzantium
summarizes their attitude:
[W]hile tears were habitual and honourable, smiles
and laughter were rejected by the church fathers and
were regarded by the Byzantines as signs of lewdness
and obscenity. The gods of Antiquity laughed
frequently and noisily, but Christ can only be
imagined weeping. The words of the Gospel ‘woe
unto you that laugh now! for you shall mourn and
weep!’ give a clue to understanding the Byzantine
attitude toward laughter. (Kazhdan & Constable,
1984, p. 62)
The most important reason for this disapproval of
laughter was that in the Bible Christ himself never
laughs. Basil the Great and John Chrysostomos were
among the first Church Fathers to condemn laugh-
ter. Neil Adkin collects the following testimonies
regarding laughter. Basil the Great in The Shorter
Rules condemns laughter, saying it is never appro-
priate for the faithful to laugh. Eusebius of Emesa
wondered if a chaste person should ever laugh and
John Chrysostomos says a virgin must avoid any
manifestation of joy, even the slightest smile. A more
liberal Church Father advises that a virgin’s laugh-
ter “should be soft and radiant with divine beauty,”
but laughter was nevertheless thought to be a “guide
to fornication” (Adkin, 1985, pp. 149–151). Thus
Christian concepts of laughter connected it to the
lustful body, therefore to be condemned.
Nevertheless, Christian writers were well aware
that different types of laughter exist. The 4th-century
work The Longer Rules, by Basil the Great, is prob-
ably the first endeavor to classify laughter. Here
Basil speaks about laughter born of joy or “soul
happiness.” A 6th-century collection of “Q & A’s”
authored by two monastic writers, Barsanuphios
and Joseph, includes a faithful questioner asking
what inappropriate laughter and parrhesia are. The
monks’ answer is that there are two types of laugh-
ter, one being shameful laughter (connected with free
100 Byzantine Humor
speaking and foul language) and the other mirthful
laughter, a result of cheerfulness, but that both are
the offspring of freedom in speech. In other words,
all laughter is the physical representation of a danger-
ous emotion. Basil advises his readers that, as one of
the emotions, laughter should always be controlled.
This negative attitude toward laughter and
humor can be traced throughout Byzantine history,
mostly in religious texts. Garland points out that
anti-laughter statements can be found in the lives
of saints, who often abhorred jokes and laughter as
children, counting them among the sins to be avoided
by a holy man (Garland, 2006, pp. 163–164). On
the other hand, laughter and ridicule as educa-
tional tools could be also employed by saints—for
example, Athanasios of Athos, who cured a monk’s
inappropriate behavior by allowing his brethren to
ridicule him. However, as time progresses, the pas-
sionate anti-laughter warnings fade.
While there is no precise turning point in the
history of Byzantium marking a sudden change of
attitude toward laughter, laughter and humor were
probably more welcome in those periods when the
classical tradition was studied more intensively.
This is certainly true of the 12th century, when
the classical past became an almost indispensable
part of Byzantine culture. Kaldellis assumed that
12th-century statements seeing laughter in a more
positive light signaled a massive shift in psychology:
But this may equally have been due to a massive
“rediscovery of Antiquity.” This changing attitude
is reflected in the view of the 12th-century Bishop
Eustathios of Thessaloniki, who preferred to choose
the laughter of Demokritos rather than the tearful
Herakleitos, since the ability to laugh is peculiar
to man.
The idea that it is better to laugh than to weep
goes back to antiquity (for example Seneca’s huma-
nius est vitam ridere quam deplorare—it is better
for a man to laugh at life than to lament over it). In
fact, the Byzantine bishop is even more understand-
ing than his Western counterpart, the 14th-century
Franciscan John Ridewall, who said very explicitly
that, among philosophers, he preferred the weeping
Herakleitos to the laughing Demokritos (laudo ergo
et approbo plus Eraclitum mundi miserias deploran-
tem quam Democritum cachinanntem). Writing on
Greek laughter, Stephen Halliwell (2008) points out
that Democritus was not recommending laughter at
the misfortunes of others, and similarly the author
of a so-called Carmen morale (ascribed to the
12th-century writer Constantine Manasses) did not
condemn laughter, but rather claimed it is better to
laugh at yourself than to mock the others.
The reality of Byzantine humor did not match
the theories and admonitions put forward by reli-
gious writers. These can be helpful in understand-
ing why misconceptions about Byzantine humor
were born, but they cannot replace endeavors to
describe the humorous in Byzantium. Scholars like
Lynda Garland suggest that Byzantine humor, as in
antiquity, arose mainly from making fun of someone
else, from the feeling of being somehow superior.
Undoubtedly, a taste for abuse was an important
part of the Byzantine sense of humor. A psogos
(vituperation), a way of composing an insult, was
part of progymnasmata (school exercises). Even the
imperial family was not spared: It suffices to men-
tion a famous remark of the 15th-century histo-
rian Doukas, who commented sarcastically on the
appearance of Empress Sophia de Montferrat while
writing, saying that her back looked like Easter but
her face like Lent (Doukas quoted what seems to
be a proverb). One of the most elaborate insults in
Byzantine literature is the 15th-century work entitled
Comedy of Katablattas. The most probable author
of this text, John Argyropoulos, makes fun even of
the name of the person he ridicules, Katablattas,
tranforming it into Skatablattas (alluding to the
Greek word skor, skatos—dung).
However, Byzantine malice was not only directed
toward individuals. Jokes were made about “the
other,” be it an ethnic group inside the empire or
foreigners from outside, reflecting evident social con-
flict between, for instance, the Constantinopolitans
and the provincials (Armenians, Paphlagonians).
Armenians were “sly and excessively villainous,
raging mad, unreliable and slanderous, [and] they
are extremely conceited and full of tricks,” accord-
ing to the poem ascribed to Kassia (9th century).
Cappadocians were stupid, Paphlagonians ignorant.
Niketas Choniates recorded a story of a Turk who
tried to fly through the Hippodrome to impress both
the sultan and the Byzantine emperor. His attempt
ended up tragically: “In the end, he plunged to the
earth and his life was snuffed out, his arms and legs
and all the bones of his body shattered.” Choniates
remarked that the unfortunate aviator’s adventure
caused people to mock the Turks in the sultan’s reti-
nue, and he “could not even pass through the agora
[marketplace] without being laughed at” (Magoulias
[Trans.], 1984, p. 68).
A recurring theme, as in antiquity, was to make
fun of medical doctors. Athenaios’s famous remark,

“Were it not for the doctors, there would be nothing
more stupid than the professors,” was repeated by
Constantine Manasses in his novel Aristander and
Kallithea (preserved in fragments): “There is noth-
ing more stupid in life than schoolteachers, / Did not
the sons of doctors run around on earth” (Jeffreys,
2012, p. 290, fr. 25). Medicine plays an important
role in several Byzantine satires such as Timarion
(12th c.) and Mazaris’ Journey to Hades (15th c.,
both anonymous). A 12th-century satire, The
Executioner or the Doctor by Theodore Prodromos,
tells a horrifying and gory story about an encounter
with a merciless dentist. The Byzantine curse “May
you fall into the hands of doctors” evokes the notion
that doctors, “who depended for their skills on
human rather than divine powers, were an impious
bunch of charlatans” (Haldon, 2002, pp. 63–64).
While mocking religion itself is extremely rare
and must be seen as exceptional, texts could satirize
people—regardless of their position—whose behav-
ior was perceived as undermining religious beliefs
and principles. The imperial official Christopher of
Mytilene (11th c.) derided a monk, Andrew, and his
collection of holy relics, which included 10 hands of
the martyr Prokopios, 15 jaws of Saint Theodora,
eight legs of Saint Nestor, four heads of Saint
George, and the bones of the 12 forearms of Saint
Demetrios. Christopher mocks a real person, whose
love for relics had nothing to do with real piety or
religion. But it is also possible that he directed his
satire against popular beliefs supported especially
by monks. Monastic communities were frequently
mocked and writers (especially in the 11th and 12th
centuries) described in detail monks’ preoccupation
with profane rather than sacred issues.
Satires are perhaps the most obvious surviv-
ing source of the laughable in Byzantium. There
was a true satirical revival in the 11th and 12th
centuries, fuelled by the rediscovery of Lucian and
Aristophanes, both of whom played very important
roles in Byzantine literature, especially from the 11th
century onward. Whether Aristophanic humor influ-
enced the Byzantines, or the Byzantines consciously
appropriated the Aristophanic heritage because they
found his plays funny, is not clear. Eleventh-century
satires are certainly more personal in their style of
invective, while 12th-century texts have a wider
range of topics and employ more genres such as
poem, dialogue, and drama.
One of the numerous works by 12th-century
writer Theodoros Prodromos is Katomyomachia
(The Cat and Mice War). The text opens with the
Byzantine Humor 101
prologue given by a mouse called Kreillos, who
complains about the miserable state mice are in,
threatened by a cat. Both Kreillos and his friend,
Tyrokleptes (“cheese thief”), have lost their off-
spring—eaten by the cat, we assume. Kreillos says
that the mice are bound to take revenge on the all-
devouring creature and have decided to challenge it
to a battle. Kreillos recounts a dream in which he
spoke with Zeus, king of the gods, who was forced
to promise his help. The army is summoned and a
herald announces the arrival of the mice warriors,
to whom Kreillos delivers a speech. Tyrokleptes
and Kreillos encourage them to take a rest before
the next day’s battle. At the beginning of the satire’s
third part, the two mice leaders speak about a sacri-
fice to the gods, following which a choir appears in
dialogue with Kreillos’s wife. Two messengers arrive
to reveal what happened on the battlefield and the
first brings horrible news: Psiharpax, Kreillos’s son,
has perished, devoured by the cat. His mother starts
lamenting. After some time, the second messenger
arrives announcing victory: The cat is dead, killed by
a piece of wood that fell from the roof.
Katomyomachia is considered an excellent
parody of ancient Greek tragedy. Prodromos uses
an elaborate net of quotations and paraphrases
from sources such as the Iliad, Old Comedy, and
the Greek mock-heroic poem Batrachomyomachia
(The Battle of Frogs and Mice). Some scholars
have interpreted this text as a more or less explicit
political satire—though it is difficult to say with
absolute certainty exactly what it was supposed to
satirize. There is however no reason to doubt it was
meant to be humorous, regardless of what other
functions, didactic or political, it was also intended
to serve.
Theodore Prodromos also authored Bion Prasis
(The Sale of Poetical and Political Lives). This text
is a sequel to a work with the same title written cen-
turies earlier by satirist Lucian, who wrote in Greek.
In Lucian’s work, Zeus and Hermes auction the
lives of famous philosophers. The Byzantine sequel
takes place during the second day of the auction,
when Zeus and Hermes sell the following celebri-
ties of the ancient world: Homer, Hippocrates,
Euripides, Aristophanes, Pomponius Sextus, and
Demosthenes. These important writers talk with
their potential buyers using quotations from their
own works. Accordingly, they behave like the
embodiments of their texts, or just as we might pic-
ture them while reading their works. Thus, when it
is time to sell Aristophanes, he acts like one of his
102 Byzantine Humor
own characters—quoting himself as he curses and
offends the prospective buyer (“From your appear-
ance, I just thought you were a difficult man. And
by heaven, I dare say you’re circumcised! / I shat
myself from fear, I shat myself!”—all lines from
Aristophanic comedies). This work successfully uni-
fies the Byzantine predilections for both crude and
sophisticated jokes.
Of all its satire, invective is what outlived the
Byzantine civilization; the very word Byzantine in
everyday speech became synonymous with insult.
When former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt
wanted to abuse then-president Woodrow Wilson,
he described his congressional address in 1915 as fit
for a Byzantine logothete, or functionary.
Przemysław Marciniak
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient Roman
Comedy; Aristophanes; Clergy; Fools; Genres and
Styles of Comedy; Greek Visual Humor; Insult and
Invective; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Parody;
Philogelos; Poetry; Puns; Religion; Roman Visual
Humor; Satire; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Adkin, N. (1985). The fathers on laughter. Orpheus 6,
149–152.
Alexiou, M. (1986). The poverty of écriture and the craft of
writing: Towards a reappraisal of the Prodromic poems.
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 10, 1–31.
Garland, L. (1990). His bald head shone like a full moon . . .:
A note on the Byzantine sense of humour as reflected in
eleventh- and twelfth-century historical sources.
Parergon: Bulletin of the Australian and New Zealand
Association for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ns 8,
1–31.
Garland, L. (2006). Street-life in Constantinople: Women
and the carnivalesque. In L. Garland (Ed.), Byzantine
women: Varieties of experience, AD 800–1200
(pp. 163–176). London, UK: Ashgate.
Haldon, J. (2002). Humour and the everyday in Byzantium.
In G. Halsall (Ed.), Humour, history and politics in late
antiquity and the early Middle Ages (pp. 48–71).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Halliwell, S. (2008). Greek laughter: A study of cultural
psychology from Homer to early Christianity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jeffreys E. (2012). Four Byzantine novels. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool University Press.
Jenkins R. J. H. (1940). Dionysius Solomos. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaldellis, A. (2007). Hellenism in Byzantium: The
transformations of Greek identity and the reception of
classical tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kazhdan, A., & Constable, G. (1982). People and power in
Byzantium: An introduction to modern Byzantine
studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for
Byzantine Studies.
Magoulias, H. J. (1984). O city of Byzantium: Annals of
Niketas Choniates. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University
Press.
 C
CARICATURE
Caricature is a term derived from the Vulgar Latin
word carricare, the Italian word caricatura meaning
“act of loading, burdening, or exaggerating” and
that is derived from the Gaul word karros mean-
ing “cart.” Caricatures are a genre of drawings,
cartoons, and prints that include images of human
faces and physiques that are grossly distorted and
exaggerated for the purposes of a satirical or comic
effect. While some caricatures were created for pri-
vate viewing, such as during the Baroque period,
most caricatures were created with the intent to be
publicly viewed. The humor associated with carica-
ture is satire, biting witticism, parody, and sarcasm
and whose functions are to influence public percep-
tion about public figures or social, economic, and
political events and issues.
Charles Baudelaire’s essay on caricature offered
the first sustained defense of the value of caricature
as a serious art and worthy of study in its own right.
In his theory of the comic and elaborated on in De
L’essence du Rire (1855, The Essence of Laughter),
Baudelaire illuminates the caricature as a complex
and contradictory art form that is ironic, farcical,
beautiful, yet grotesque—and both a subject and
object of laughter.
There have been many associations made
between the grotesque and the comic and that can
be traced to the Greek comic/satirical/dramatic
plays of Aristophanes who utilized masks and the
mocking of moral and physical deformities relative
to contemporary religious and political issues of the
103
day. The genesis of the art of caricature as we have
come to understand it today also has its roots in
medieval social life and art. Festivals and carnivals
were the sites of peasant rituals that centered on
clowning, wearing of masks, excessive behavior, and
poking fun at feudal and ecclesiastical oppressors.
The upper classes were mocked in a reversal of order
and where the sacred elite became the subject of
obscene, grotesque, yet comic mocking. Peasants, on
the other hand, were often depicted in fine art, for
viewing by the elite classes as deformed, disfigured
fools engaged in acts of boorishness. The superiority
and social order of the ruling class were maintained
through mockery and the depiction of the lower
classes in grotesque and compromising positions.
A reversal of social order, position, or status
through various degrees of mockery is central in the
creation of caricature. It is an art form that can turn
the glorified into ugliness and also where ugliness
can be glorified. We can turn to François Rabelais’s
book Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532) to see
where the concept of the glorification of obscenity
took hold in the consciousness of artists and writers,
and how it continued throughout the Renaissance
and into modern art history. In Karl Rosenkranz’s
Aesthetics of Ugliness (1853), he suggests that cari-
cature is the embodiment of the ugly and repugnant
as well as the comic that is created not just through
exaggeration but through disproportion. He argued
that disproportion enables the comparison to a stan-
dard that allows for the comic to emerge.
Caricature is part of a larger genre of visual satire
that aims to mock a social issue, as in social satire,
or mock a political figure or event, as in political
104 Caricature
A caricature by artist George Cooke of the comic duo
Burns & Evans performing in 1904 at the Grand Theatre
of Varieties in Stokes-on-Trent, England. The image is
among many caricatures Cooke drew of Edwardian music
hall performers.
Source: Theatre and Performance Collection, Victoria and
Albert Museum. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
satire. The advancement of printmaking in the 16th
century fueled the distribution of satirical prints.
Cartoons and drawings comprise many of the con-
temporary examples of caricature, while engravings
and lithographs are representative of caricatures
produced between the 16th and 19th centuries.
The power of the caricature lies in the ability of
the artist to manipulate recognizable human features
and to rely on the social knowledge of the members
of a community to “get the joke.” Caricatures may
include a wide range of facial expression—from
grimaces, looks of surprise and bewilderment, to
smiles. Techniques used for a comic effect include
exaggerating the scale of the human body by making
features larger or smaller, fat or skinny, and hybrid-
ization, the combining of human body forms with
animal or plant forms. Other techniques used in
caricature are parody and double entendre—where
text and images can have multiple meanings.
Some of the earliest exaggerated faces can be
found on the walls of Pompeii and in Greek theater
masks and vase paintings. Historically, the subjects
of caricatures have included clergy, royalty, politi-
cal figures, and members of the elite classes. The
caricature may be found in almost every art move-
ment and genre of works by notable artists, such
as Leonardo da Vinci, Eugène Delacroix, Francesco
Goya, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Claude Monet,
Leonard Baskin, Saul Steinberg, and Kara Walker.
However, most caricaturists were illustrators and
engravers, such as George Cruikshank, Honoré
Daumier, Gustave Doré, André Gill, James Gillray,
William Hogarth, Thomas Nast, and Thomas
Rowlandson. Daumier is considered to be one of
the most prolific caricaturists, creating thousands of
lithographs that were published in the daily French
newspapers. American Thomas Nast (1840–1902)
is considered by some to be the father of American
political cartooning and is credited with creating the
caricatures of the U.S. Democratic and Republican
parties (donkey and elephant) as well as the now
infamous Santa Claus as a white-bearded man in a
red suit.
The first book on caricature to be published in
England was Mary Darly’s A Book of Caricaturas
(ca. 1762). The wide distribution of the social cari-
cature was enabled through magazines such as La
Caricature in 18th-century France and popular
publications in Britain, such as The Comic Almanac
(1835–1853) and Omnibus (1842). Newspapers
also allowed caricatures in the form of political car-
toons to be mainstreamed into the popular culture
for the enjoyment of the masses.
Caricatures are well-chronicled 20th-century art
form because of their regular appearances on edi-
torial pages, in popular magazines such as Vanity
Fair and MAD magazine, and in exhibitions. Some
of the more well-known caricaturists include Al
Hirschfield, Saul Steinberg, Miguel Covarrubias,
and David Levine, who have satirized celebrities and
other prominent people in their signature graphic
styles.
Recent exhibitions such as Caricatura VI
(Germany) and Infinite Jest (Metropolitan Museum
of Art), as well as exhibitions organized at the
Swann Collection of Caricature and Cartoon at the
Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.), Museo de
la Caricatura (Mexico City), and the Aydin Dogan
Foundation (Turkey), have helped promote the

understanding of caricature as an art form around
the world. Comic collections such as those found
in the Library of Congress offer researchers excep-
tional opportunities to study this art form.
Within the fine art world, the Guerrilla Girls, a
feminist artist group, mock and satirize the inequi-
ties within the art world wearing “guerrilla masks,”
and they are an example of how performance art
can use techniques of caricature to raise awareness
of gender issues in the art world. Within the cartoon
world, Aline Kominsky-Crumb’s autobiographical
and self-satirical comics are well-known gross exag-
gerations of facial and body features as she pokes
fun at her looks, weight, and lifestyle. In popular
culture venues, caricaturists can also be found at
carnivals, art fairs, and festivals where tourists can
purchase a caricature of themselves complete with a
wide-tooth grin, small eyes, and a large head.
Sheri R. Klein
See also Cartoons; Satire
Further Readings
Baudelaire, C. (1855). De l’essence du rire [The essence of
laughter]. Retrieved from http://baudelaire.litteratura.
com/ressources/pdf/oeu_27.pdf
Cox, B. J. (1985). Miguel Covarrubias caricatures.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Crumb, A. K. (1990). Love that bunch. Seattle, WA:
Fantagraphics.
Eco, U. (2007). On ugliness. New York, NY: Rizzoli.
Hanoosh, M. (1992). Baudelaire and caricature: From
comic to an art of modernity. University Park: Penn
State Press.
Hillier, B. (1970). Cartoons and caricatures. London, UK:
Studio Vista.
Katz, H. (2006). Cartoon America: Comic art in the
Library of Congress. New York, NY: Abrams.
Lucie-Smith, E. (1981). The art of caricature. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
McPhee, C., & Orenstein, N. (2011). Infinite jest:
Caricature and satire from Leonardo to Levine.
New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
CARNIVAL AND FESTIVAL
Festival and carnival are collective celebrations,
rooted in themes related to the social life of communi-
ties that host them. On approximately the same date
each year, a festival or carnival recurs, emphasizing
Carnival and Festival 105
its significance to all who attend as they are equally
affected by the calendar. Characterized by a wide
range of performance forms that enact ideas and rela-
tionships central to a people’s definition of themselves
and their cosmos, festival and carnival are also laced
with humor. This entry provides a definition of these
celebratory events.
Resilience
Festival and carnival, such as the Nottingham
Carnival in London or the Trinidad Carnival, are
prevalent in small communities and large urban
areas, but their roots reach back to ancient forms
of celebration. As they have been documented for
centuries and occur in societies on every continent,
they are at times described with the terms ritual,
the ritual genres, folk drama, fiesta, fete, feast day,
Fasnacht spectacle, and more. Those events with
premodern origins or deep social bonds in a commu-
nity have a unique name. From the classical period,
we know that the Romans celebrated the winter
solstice in December with Saturnalia, when masters
served their slaves, inverting the social hierarchy.
Contemporary festivals with long histories include
the Hindu festival of love in India, called Holi; the
Jewish celebration of Purim honoring Esther and the
liberation of the Jews; the Asante Odwira festival
in Ghana celebrating the yam harvest; the Atsuta
Shinto festival in Nagoya, Japan, honoring the Sun
Goddess Amaterasu and the sacred sword of the
nation; and the Palio of Siena, Italy, honoring the
Virgin Mary with a horse race in the piazza.
The term carnival applies to a week of celebra-
tion that precedes the period known as Lent, in the
Catholic religious calendar, forty days before Easter
Sunday (Easter Sunday is determined by the first full
moon that follows the vernal equinox). Though ori-
gins for Carnival are difficult to ascertain, scholars
now believe that it was introduced as an urban and
courtly response to Lent and over time, it attracted
pre-Christian agricultural and social practices from
Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and Roman peoples.
It is these practices that constitute the topic of
Francois Rabelais’s controversial novel, Gargantua
and Pantagruel. Mikhail Bakhtin argues in his ana-
lytical work on the novel that the source Rabelais
(1494–1553) drew upon was the tradition of pop-
ular-festive laughter in the Middle Ages, grotesque
images, and examples of hyperbole. These images
made their way into the literature of the Renaissance,
and, according to Bakhtin (1968), the 16th century
106 Carnival and Festival
represents the summit in the history of laughter. He
considered laughter a force that would liberate per-
sons “from fanaticism and pedantry, from fear and
intimidation, from didacticism, naïveté and illusion,
from the single meaning, the single level, from sen-
timentality” (p. 123). Yet as Pieter Bruegel’s 1559
painting “The Fight Between Carnival and Lent”
suggests, a struggle was taking place. Bakhtin sees
the expression of laughter and festivity in a struggle
with a new culture of absolute monarchy in which
prevailing concepts emphasized a single meaning of
seriousness. From the 17th through the 20th cen-
tury, authorities of religious and economic institu-
tions directed social life toward practices consistent
with modern ideologies—those considered rational,
productive, and singular in meaning, denying humor
a space. Yet, as Bakhtin points out, “popular-festive
carnival is indestructible,” and therefore it con-
tinued to fertilize various areas of life and culture
(pp. 33–34). These resilient forms survived upheav-
als in empires and states, maintaining continuity in
the shadows of those institutions eager to abolish
“pagan rituals” until their resurgence in a more plu-
ralist world of the late 20th century.
Symbolic Inversion
The expansion of knowledge and increase in mobil-
ity created a more favorable environment for festival
and carnival in the late 20th and 21st centuries. In
Brazil, China, Egypt, England, and elsewhere, people
shift from their usual routines to a reality dominated
by costumes and competitions, feasts and fireworks.
Drums and music fill the air while bizarre and comic
sights share space with the treasured and familiar.
People, animals, and inanimate objects on various
forms of transport trespass through city streets and
village squares, claiming the space with their move-
ment. This transformation of reality creates a sense
of exhilaration and equality as individuals become
participants in a multiplicity of scenes.
To comprehend this alternative reality, Arnold
Van Gennep introduced a three-part model of
ritual in 1960: beginning with separation from
routine; secondly, the liminal; and the third, the
reincorporation into the everyday. Victor Turner
(1969) further defined the concept of the liminal
as a space “betwixt and between” the ordinary, a
special time and place located on the threshold or
margins of everyday life where communication is
accomplished through symbolic forms. The funda-
mental feature of the liminal is the pairing of time
and space. These liminal events mark the passage of
time as they occur on approximately the same date
each year, yoking participants to the cosmos and a
sense of the eternal. The designated space marks the
area where the routines of everyday life have been
forgotten. Characterized by the license to overturn
norms, the liminal is saturated with potential for
the unexpected; for combinations of the incongru-
ous; and for romance, risk, reversal, and sometimes
danger. Combining the strange and the exotic with
the known and familiar, participants are often led to
question their logics.
Under these conditions humor finds fertile
ground for expression: performances that juxtapose
the sacred and profane, or challenge relationships
between humans and animals, or violate taboos
governing sexual relations. These performances pro-
duce cognitive mayhem and are best described as
symbolic inversions or reversals. They shift people,
animals, and concepts that seem to belong in one
category into another from which they are normally
excluded. Bringing together what is normally sepa-
rate disrupts systems of classification that underlie
the social order in every society. These conjunctions
turn the social and cosmological order upside down,
eliciting all the emotions of humor
Most recognizable as a figure of symbolic inver-
sion is the ritual clown who has license to violate
taboos and insult everyone including authorities. In
this context, the clown crosses boundaries, physical
and conceptual, wearing a costume that disguises
identity, often riding a donkey, announcing that he
or she is not like other participants. In this unique
role, the clown elicits laughter and causes embar-
rassment at times in the targeted audience. Though
appearing foolish, the clown possesses the extraordi-
nary power of the liminal.
In the performance of opposites, symbolic inver-
sions identify fundamental categories and rearrange
them. Given that all societies make discriminations
of gender, it is no surprise that this category, the least
ambiguous example of symbolic inversion, is the
most common subject for the enactment of reversals
around the globe. The majority of cross-dressers are
males enacting the role of females, but some events
also display females in male roles, and others enact
reversal of both genders together. In the Melanesian
societies of Papua New Guinea, for example, the
Wape people concentrate on curing in their great-
est festival known as the Niyel. However, this event
climaxes with a carnival featuring men cavorting
in women’s skirts and women dancing with men’s

weapons in a ritual performance that parodies every-
day life, much to the amusement of the community.
This episode reverses gender roles for both males
and females, evoking the laughter of recognition
from other members of the community. Recognizing
the power of humor and clowning to disengage the
logic of everyday structures and political relations,
William Mitchell (1992) argues that performance
humor can be understood as critical practice as the
images may linger in the human imagination.
On the other side of the world, the residents of
Laza, a rural village in Galician Spain, celebrate
Carnival for several days with masquerades, floats
that dramatize contemporary social conditions, and
individuals costumed in animal masks. In this local-
ized celebration of carnival, symbolic inversions take
a wide variety of forms that are enacted as well as
displayed. Most common among the varied cos-
tumes are men dressed as women. In an individual
enactment of the female role, one man, costumed
in a woman’s wig and bathrobe runs into the plaza,
groaning that he’s about to give birth, and he finally
does—to a dog. In this case, he has not only dressed
as a woman but has assumed a woman’s role in pre-
tending to give birth; to intensify the inversion, the
delivery proves to produce a dog rather than a baby.
He has inverted male and female roles, not only in
costume, but in reproductive capability. Further, he
created a conjunction of separate categories when
he substituted a dog for a baby, placing an animal
in the category of human, creating an unexpected
outcome and comic inversion. Other participants
also engaged in identity reversals. A “priest” read-
ing Playboy meets a “devil” quoting scripture, and
they skip away together. In the text they are read-
ing, each of them has brought together categories
that normally remain separate; when they skip off
together, they have multiplied the conjunctions:
priest plus sex magazine and scripture plus the devil,
added together, produce two sets of paradox. A
mocking recounting of community events called the
testamenteiro concludes Carnival. The reader of this
satirical commentary (in rhymed verse) is seated on
a donkey and makes his way through the crowd of
maskers. As Kenneth Burke observed in 1989, “the
comic frame is best suited for making disclosures . . .
which are necessary to counteract the dangers of
‘mystification,’ so momentous in their tendency to
shunt criticism into the wrong channels” (p. 262).
In the village of Tierra Blanca in the state of
Guanajato, Mexico, the comic frame is employed to
good effect in a religious play. The fiesta honoring
Carnival and Festival 107
San Isidro Labrador, the patron saint of the villag-
ers, prominently features an all-night folk drama
depicting the journey of a group of shepherds to
Bethlehem to worship the Christ child and the
efforts of Luzbel (Lucifer) to prevent them from
doing so. Accompanying the shepherds is the Hermit
(Hermitano), an aged holy man. The villagers pro-
duce the religious play according to the script, except
for the Hermit. In contrast, the Hermit engages in a
burlesque (a nearly universal convention in the per-
formances of this popular drama known as a colo-
quio). The script is read, line by line for the actors
from behind the stage but within hearing of the
audience. While the script provides the Hermit with
expressions of piety, in his performance the Hermit
turns the script upside down. With carnivalesque
elements, the most prominent of which is bawdy
sex, the Hermit creates a parody of piety (Bauman,
1996). As the play continues from dark until dawn,
the Hermit’s lines violating taboos regarding an aged
hermit having sex and naming young women in the
play as his partners awakens the audience who are
nodding off, bringing them to life with laughter at
the Hermit’s subversion of the script. Not unusual in
festival and carnival, the inversion represented by the
Hermit’s performance has been noted by A. David
Napier in 1986 when he observed “that the sacred
and profane may be less segregated than we gener-
ally think” and commented further on the “myste-
rious capacity to bring together categories that are
often assumed to be radically opposite” (p. 24).
In another form of symbolic inversion, the
familiar may be stretched until it becomes strange,
and the strange familiar, generating deep laugh-
ter from those who recognize the transformation.
A popular performance in the United States known
as rodeo is the centerpiece of a festival of cattle peo-
ple that often occurs on July 4, Independence Day.
In an event called the Wild Mare Race, the image of
the cowboy as a heroic figure who rides a horse is
turned upside down as three teams of three cowboys
each enter the arena with three wild mares. Each
team of cowboys attempts to saddle and ride their
mares across the finish line. The three mares utilize
their energy to resist this project, while the nine
cowboys struggle to saddle a mare and ride it. Even
if saddled, however, a mare can win this match by
falling down on the ground and refusing to move.
Should a team succeed in placing a cowboy in the
saddle, the horse will likely buck him off. Having
witnessed not one but nine cowboys attempting to
saddle an untamed mare and ride it, the audience is
108 Carnival and Festival

convulsed in laughter. The humor rests in the con-

trast with the other rodeo events in which a cowboy
is seated on the back of a horse when he enters the
arena. In this event, the “Wild Mares” defeat the
cowboys. This symbolic inversion is tripled by the
chaos created when all three mares and their nine
cowboys are chasing each other around the arena
with one cowboy dragging a saddle. The cowboys
are defeated by female horses, an added amusement
for those who know the difference (Stoeltje, 1987).
Across the Atlantic in Basel, a mainly Protestant
city in Switzerland, more than 20,000 maskers
celebrate carnival as Fasnacht. Participants march
through the streets in grotesque images and cos-
tumes in which every feature represents hyperbole
during the carnival, reminiscent of Rabelais and
revived in the 19th century by immigrants from
Cologne, Germany. The majority of marchers today
are organized into groups, and all march to the
music of drums and piccolos. Characters of these
cliques include the traditional figures, Harlequin and
jesters, and exaggerated French soldiers and Waggis
(a caricature of French Alsatian farmers). The group An “old aunt” of a guggenmusik band at the carnival of
known as Alti Dante (“old aunt”) represents an Basel, Switzerland, 2013. The old aunt character is also
important in the carnival of Cologne, Germany.
elegant old woman with pointed nose, costumed
in a fashionable 19th-century dress with hat and Source: Wikimedia Commons.
purse. A parody of old maids, this group of mask-
ers are often males in feminine dress. The strange
and familiar converge in these figures that embody sun. From the cemetery, he goes to see his “wife” at
satire, hyperbole, parody, and reversals as symbolic her house, followed by the crowds. Here he enacts
inversions, competing with each other for the most a narrative juxtaposing life on earth with life after
humorous during three days and nights of carnival. death. She leans out of the second-story window
In a very unusual variation of symbolic reversal and inquires what he has brought her after his
the small city of Aksehir in southern Turkey focuses long absence. He explains that he could not bring
its annual July festival on a 13th-century figure anything “because there are no sales on the other
considered by many to be a protective Sufi saint. side.” In this short enactment, Nasreddin creates a
Nasreddin Hodja is familiar to Muslims from the paradox juxtaposing life and death. His wife fails to
Balkans to China through narratives in which he acknowledge that he has been in the land of death
challenges norms using satire, inversion, metaphor, and expects a gift since he has been away; in his
irony, and other tropes to illustrate his wisdom response, he makes no mention of the fact that he
and wit. Aksehir celebrates Nasreddin Hodja in its has returned from the dead, but simply places death
annual festival because it is widely believed that he in the category with life by suggesting that there
lived in this region and his tomb is located in the are no sales there, implying that there is commerce
local cemetery. (An opposing view among Muslims there, but no sales. The crowds are entertained by
in Central Asia argues that his origins are to be his joke as it is characteristic of his humor.
found there.) A much beloved figure, Nasreddin This festival presents a wealth of symbolic inver-
emerges from his tomb for the Aksehir festival. An sion, bringing the 13th century forward into the
actor representing Nasreddin, wearing the white present and defying death by bringing Nasreddin
turban and 13th-century dress of a Sufi, rides from back to life in the performance of the actor. However,
the tomb deep inside the cemetery, sitting backward like other popular inversive figures, Nasreddin is
on a donkey, to arrive at the gates where the cheer- costumed differently from everyone else. His entire
ing crowds have been waiting patiently in the hot performance, including his ride from the tomb on a

donkey, enacts inversion. Paralleling the narratives,
Nasreddin of the festival performs humor by invert-
ing categories and confusing concepts, arriving at
unexpected outcomes and introducing new perspec-
tives on social life.
Conclusion
Through multiple frames of performance utilizing
symbolic inversions (excess, reversal, parody, jux-
taposition, hyperbole, satire), festival and carnival
generate laughter in its many variations. For those
who know and respond the experience of humor
reveals perspectives that foster a pluralism of mean-
ings, creating enchantment, excitement, transfor-
mation, and regeneration, liberating them from
ever-present mystifications.
Beverly J. Stoeltje
See also Clowns; Comic Frame; Gender and Humor,
Psychological Aspects of; Humor Theories; Islam;
Metaphor; Parody; Rabelais, François; Rituals of
Inversion
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. (1968). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky,
Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Basgoz, I., & Boratav, P. N. (1998). Hoca Nasreddin, never
shall I die: A thematic analysis of Hoca stories (Turkish
Studies Publication Series). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Bauman, R. (1996). Transformations of the word in the
productions of Mexican festival drama. In M.
Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of
discourse (pp. 301–327). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Burke, K. (1989). Perspectives by incongruity: Comic
correctives. In J. Gusfield (Ed.), Kenneth Burke: On
symbols and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Cowley, J. (1996). Carnival, canboulay and calypso:
Traditions in the making. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
DaMatta, R. (1991). Carnivals, rogues, and heroes: An
interpretation of the Brazilian dilemma. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Gurkas, H. (2010). Turkish secular Muslim identity on
display in Europe. In G. Marranci (Ed.), Muslim societies
and the challenge of secularization (pp. 113–129).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
Mitchell, W. E. (Ed.). (1992). Clowning as critical practice:
Performance humor in the South Pacific. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carnivalesque 109
Najera-Ramirez, O. (1997). La fiesta de los tastoanes:
Critical encounters in Mexican festival performance.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Napier, A. D. (1986). Masks, transformation, and paradox.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Regalado, M. (with Carrion, A. M.). (2004). Entroido in
Laza, Spain. In B. Mauldin (Ed.), Carnival (pp. 21–43).
London, UK: Thames & Hudson.
Schnell, S. (1999). The rousing drum: Ritual practice in a
Japanese community. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i
Press.
Stoeltje, B. J. (1987). Riding, roping, and reunion. In
A. Falassi (Ed.), Time out of time (pp. 261–271).
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Stoeltje, B. J. (1992). Festival. In R. Bauman (Ed.), Folklore,
cultural performance, and popular entertainments (pp.
261–271). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tofoksky, P. (2004). Fasnacht in Basel, Switzerland: A
carnival of contradictions. In B. Mauldin (Ed.), Carnival
(pp. 93–119). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-
structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
CARNIVALESQUE
Carnivalesque is a term that refers to the license,
merrymaking, conviviality, and overturning of hier-
archies often associated with Carnival. The concept
was first formulated by the Russian literary scholar
Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975), who saw the carni-
valesque as a vital force in historical resistance to
oppression. Bakhtin viewed the carnivalesque in a
Marxist political framework, but critics have since
expanded the concept to the joyous subversion of
any kind of status quo, whether in literature, man-
ners, social roles, or other realms.
What all definitions have in common is a view of
the carnivalesque as high-spirited and transgressive,
generally festive in nature. This does not mean that
the carnivalesque is enacted only in times of formal
festivals, but rather that the carnivalesque kindles a
festive air whenever it is produced. Bakhtin himself
described three occasions that embodied the carni-
valesque, though he most likely did not intend to
limit the phenomenon to only three. His examples
were ritual spectacles, comic verbal compositions,
and imprecations. In discussing the carnivalesque,
he identified a number of medieval ritual spectacles
that exemplified the form, including Carnival itself,
110 Carnivalesque
the Feast of Fools, and other specific Church festi-
vals, as well as agricultural festivals, comic plays,
and a variety of festive secular ceremonies. Thus
Bakhtin’s conception of the carnivalesque had a
strong social and performative component. This
view aligns Bakhtin’s ideas with those of anthropol-
ogists such as Victor Turner, who developed an idea
of social or personal transformation that takes place
by means of a ritual temporary inversion of norms, a
kind of structured mini-carnival. In Turner’s (1969)
examples drawn from the Nbembo of Africa, to
bring about the passage of an individual from one
life stage to another the person might be metaphori-
cally suspended between different states. This puts
the initiate in a liminal zone, considered, for exam-
ple, neither alive nor dead, neither child nor adult,
neither male nor female, and so forth. This liminal
state helps effect the individual’s transformation and
is often accompanied by grotesque and exaggerated
symbols and representations. Hence, the ritual is not
comic as such, but might be called playful or ludic.
This entry discusses the debate over the role of the
carnivalesque in society and its appearance in litera-
ture, theater, and contemporary culture.
Instrument of Subversion
or Stabilizing Influence?
Since Bakhtin first formulated the concept of the
carnivalesque, debate has centered on whether the
carnivalesque is as genuinely resistant to oppression
as Bakhtin claimed. Bakhtin saw the carnivalesque
as a refuge of the oppressed classes, a way of sus-
taining resistance until the forces of history resulted
in the overthrow of oppression and the liberation
of the oppressed. Thus, in his view, the oppressed
classes were denied ample food, power, and free
expression, but occasions such as Carnival allowed
them periods of abundance in which they could
enjoy the things they were otherwise denied: plenti-
ful food and other carnal pleasures, the overturn-
ing of hierarchies, and the freedom to act as they
pleased. In Bakhtin’s analysis, this mini-Utopia acted
as a reminder of their former freedoms and served as
a foretaste of the situation they would regain later in
history.
Some subsequent critics have argued that the car-
nivalesque actually functions as a safety valve for
oppressed groups and therefore ultimately serves the
forces of oppression. In their view, the relief avail-
able in the carnivalesque means that the dissatisfac-
tion of the oppressed never grows great enough for
them to rebel against their oppression. This in turn
has led critics such as Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie
and Chris Humphrey to examine actual historical
examples of the carnivalesque to see whether they
functioned as subversive or as a stabilizing influence.
Le Roy Ladurie (1979) has examined the Mardi
Gras festivities in the French town of Romans,
where in 1580 the annual Carnival masquerades
and overturning of hierarchies erupted into a popu-
lar uprising against increasing taxation and oppres-
sion. The revolt ended with the murder of many of
the leaders and participants by the municipal pow-
ers. Chris Humphrey (2001) examines two further
English historical examples, one from Norwich in
1443 and another from Coventry in 1480. In the
Norwich example, known to history as Gladman’s
Riding, a man named John Gladman led a festive
seasonal procession with a “mock king” and was
subsequently charged with having tried to under-
mine the rule of King Henry VI. The town powers,
defending Gladman, argued that the procession was
an unexceptional instance of seasonal festivities
without any larger meaning, and it quickly became
clear that participants in political disputes were
using the procession as a vehicle to charge Gladman
and undermine his interests. Although the proces-
sion may well have had content particular to the cur-
rent political situation, it is undeniable that it had no
noticeable subversive effect other than attracting the
notice of the local powers. Thus in some instances,
the genuine subversive effect of the carnivalesque is
less than even its opponents estimate. In the debate
over whether the carnivalesque is destabilizing, the
most accurate conclusion seems to be that the situa-
tion is variable. Some instances of the carnivalesque
genuinely do result in long-lasting transformation;
others do not.
The carnivalesque has traditionally been regarded
as an expression of “the people,” in festive rebel-
lion against the constraints imposed by religious and
secular powers. More recently, these assumptions
too have come into question. One of the conven-
tional sites of the medieval carnivalesque has been
the Feast of Fools, a holiday celebrated by the clergy,
and possibly by the laity, in many parts of medieval
Europe around New Year’s Day. It has been widely
regarded by historians as an exuberant, transgres-
sive festival of buffoonery and merriment. The feast
first became widely known to the modern world
when it made an appearance in Victor Hugo’s 1831
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. In 1903, E. K.
Chambers published more than 150 pages of records

from medieval fools’ festivals in the first volume of
his monumental work, The Mediaeval Stage. This
has shaped scholars’ views of fools’ festivals ever
since. More recently, however, Max Harris in 2011
has argued that the Feast of Fools proper was a sol-
emn occasion celebrating the holy aspects of inver-
sion, in keeping with the Biblical injunction “The
last shall be first” (Matt. 20:16). In this instance,
then, the raising of the lowly need not be comical
or profane. At the same time, it is clear that many
of those who celebrated the comical lowering of
the mighty and cherished religious parody and sat-
ire were among the most elevated and educated of
the Church. It cannot be said, therefore, that enjoy-
ment of the carnivalesque was restricted to the lowly
and oppressed. At times, the lowly were pious and
orderly and it was the powerful classes who prized
the carnivalesque.
Carnivalesque in Literature, Theater,
and Contemporary Culture
The carnivalesque shares many features with the
comic, including the mirthful exaltation of the trivial,
the comical inversion of hierarchies, exaggeration
and grotesquerie, and a focus on the bodily, particu-
larly the things of the lower body, which Bakhtin
identified as the seat of the carnivalesque. Bakhtin
focused on the exuberant ribaldry and exaggeration
of François Rabelais, whose 16th-century master-
piece Gargantua and Pantagruel was a landmark
in carnivalesque literature. It could be argued that
all comic literature partakes of the carnivalesque,
but the term is particularly appropriate for texts
that evince a joyful subversion of social, literary, or
aesthetic norms, such as certain kinds of theater, or
Laurence Sterne’s proto-postmodern novel Tristram
Shandy (1759–1767), itself influenced by Rabelais.
In the late 1980s and 1990s in particular, literary
critics found the idea of carnivalesque literary sub-
version especially helpful and identified a number
of texts that utilized it, ranging from Chaucer to
James Joyce and Thomas Pynchon. Theater has also
proven a fruitful field for investigation of the car-
nivalesque, particularly because of its performative
and social aspects. That is, like Carnival itself, the-
ater is a public, community event.
Carnival itself remains important in many cul-
tures and places, such as modern Brazil and New
Orleans. In addition, carnivalesque strategies
have been deliberately recruited to aid in modern
political struggles such as the opposition to global
Carnivalesque 111
capitalism or to other constraints or conventions.
One prominent satirist active in this tradition is the
Italian playwright Dario Fo (b. 1926), who has used
the traditions of the ancient form of the commedia
dell’arte, a popular theatrical form often performed
at fairs and during Carnival. Fo won the Nobel Prize
in 1997, the committee praising him as a writer
who “emulates the jesters of the Middle Ages in
scourging authority and upholding the dignity of the
downtrodden.”
Another influential individual in the development
of the theater of subversion is the Brazilian theater
director and politician Augusto Boal (1931–2009),
founder of the Theatre of the Oppressed, a form of
theater used in movements to empower the poor
and subvert the dominant paradigm. Boal’s books
Theatre of the Oppressed (1979) and Games for
Actors and Non-Actors (1992) championed the-
ater as a thinking process and introduced the idea
of Invisible Theatre, a public form of theater in
which no one but the actors knows that the event is
staged. The introduction to Games for Actors and
Non-Actors gives the example of a man who went
to a shop in Brazil and began trying on women’s
dresses; a second actor criticized this “perversion”
while a third actor, seemingly unrelated, defended
the first man’s right to do as he liked. A debate
ensued among the public onlookers. Although the
event does not appear festive, the theatrical over-
turning of gender norms here bears a particular
resemblance to the carnivalesque. More ludic are
a number of Boal’s “gamesercises,” ideas for the-
atrical games between the actors and the audience
(“spect-actors”), presided over by a figure called
“the joker,” and specifically focused on the subver-
sion of oppression. Many of these games are based
on traditional games from various cultures, and
so the carnivalesque is deliberately updated. Boal’s
work has inspired politically active carnivalesque
theater in many nations, and theaters across the
world continue to operate under the umbrella
of the International Theatre of the Oppressed
Organisation.
Television has also seen some degree of carni-
valesque entertainment, perhaps most memorably in
shows of comic mayhem such as Monty Python’s
Flying Circus. A more political example is Michael
Moore’s political-activist TV series The Awful
Truth, which aired in the United States and the
United Kingdom in 1999 and 2000. Moore targeted
corporate and political malfeasance and employed
comedy and disruption in equal measure.
112 Cartoons
On the whole, recent Western scholars have paid
more attention to the carnivalesque of the past and
in literature than to modern examples as they may
be unfolding in the present day. Bakhtin would say
that this is the nature of the carnivalesque: to serve
as a reservoir of lightheartedness and revelry that
may be overlooked by those in power but that will
continue to enliven its practitioners.
Martha Bayless
See also Carnival and Festival; Feast of Fools; Inversion,
Topsy-Turvy; Monty Python; Rabelais, François;
Subversive Humor
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. (1968). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky,
Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the oppressed (C. A. &
M.-O. L. McBride, Trans.). New York, NY: Urizen
Books.
Boal, A. (1992). Games for actors and non-actors (A.
Jackson, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.
Chambers, E. K. (1903). The mediaeval stage (2 vols.).
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Harris, M. (2011). Sacred folly: A new history of the Feast
of Fools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Heers, J. (1983). Fêtes des fous et carnavals [Feasts of fools
and carnivals]. Paris, France: Fayard.
Humphrey, C. (2001). The politics of carnival: Festive
misrule in medieval England. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1979). Carnival in Romans: A people’s
uprising at Romans 1579–1580 (M. Feeney, Trans.).
New York, NY: Braziller.
Moser, D.-R. (1986). Fastnacht, Fasching, Karneval: das
Fest der “Verkehrten Welt” [Fastnacht, Fasching,
Carnival: The Festival of the “Inverted World”]. Graz,
Austria: Edition Kaleidoskop.
Moser, D.-R. (1990). Lachkultur des Mittelalters? Michael
Bachtin und die Folgen seiner Theorie [Culture of
Laughter of the Middle Ages? Mikhail Bakhtin and the
implications of his theory]. Euphorion. Zeitschrift für
Literaturgeschichte [Euphorian: The Journal of Literary
History], 84, 89–111.
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-
structure. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
CARTOONS
If we take the most basic drawings definition of
cartoons—a simplified drawing intended to represent
a more detailed object or idea—then the history of
cartooning parallels human history. When prehis-
toric humans first made rock and cave drawings of
animals and hunters, their results were, basically, car-
toons. When the ancient Greeks decorated pottery
and walls with figures of athletes and water carriers,
they drew cartoon forms. Cartoons were the name
of preliminary art that great classical painters such
as Leonardo da Vinci executed when planning large
murals and friezes. In that context, the cartoon was
a simplified version and visualization of an intended
end product, rather than an end product in itself.
Our more modern definition of cartooning refers
to an intended end product, one that incorporates
humor that is often directed at the subject depicted.
Here, too, the history of the cartoon must be as
long as the human propensity to lampoon others
around them and express those thoughts as funny
caricatures or drawings. The schoolboy’s cartoon
of his teacher, whether made for private or pub-
lic consumption, surely has been a familiar form
of cartooning for centuries. But cartoon is a term
that could also fit Shepard Fairey’s famously—and
seriously—rendered image of Barack Obama’s 2008
presidential campaign slogan, “HOPE,” as well as
the many parodies produced in its wake. Cartoons
seem like simple illustrations, but they have a long
human history connected with humor but are not
confined by humor. That is to say, cartoons also
project very serious interpretations of the cultural
zeitgeist of their times that is historically connected
to humor’s social functions but sometimes eludes
humor. This entry discusses the history and use of
cartoons and how cartoonists have approached
topical issues in recent years.
Cartooning encompasses a variety of expressions
and professional graphic arts endeavors that exist in
contemporary visual discourse, each with its own
relationship to humor. Graphic novels, comic strips,
and comic books, for example, are extensions of
cartooning. In these cases, the cartoon is utilized as a
building block to construct a sequenced visual story.
Historically, cartooning is connected to the develop-
ment of comics in the use of drawings that combine
commentary and humor to make a point. This entry
defines cartoons as two particular types of humor-
ous drawing. One is the panel cartoon, a drawing
intended to amuse and provoke a laugh. Panel
cartoons are the familiar entertainment features of
newspapers, magazines, and social media that are
formatted in one or more frames and positioned
as entertaining features in various periodicals and

social media. Panel cartoons may address political
topics, but the political cartoon, or editorial cartoon,
is a special feature of news commentary that still
has resonance in contemporary society. Both types
of cartoons have a particular relationship to humor,
both are rooted in historical forms, and both are
tangled in the history of comic art.
Early Graphic Commentary
One of the earliest examples of American rhetoric
is a 1754 cartoon, usually attributed to Benjamin
Franklin, which appeals to the importance of unity
between the colonies. It shows (see the Presidential
Humor entry, Vol. 2) the colonies as parts of a snake
that must “join or die,” suggesting that the states are
intrinsically functional if united together. Another
Colonial image uses a familiar female archetype to
represent the New Republic. Similarly, her body has
been segmented into parts, again suggesting that a
lack of unity is detrimental to the cause of democ-
racy in the New World. In these two historical
images, we can see the roots of cartoon commen-
tary, although humor is seemingly absent.
However, humor was definitely ingrained in the
origins of the kind of cartoon commentary that
depicted the American colonies in these two impor-
tant examples. Today’s political cartoons are a direct
descendent of the art of European caricature, which
was especially popular in the 18th and 19th cen-
turies. These caricatures lampooned the powerful,
with royalty a common object of ridicule. Faces and
bodies were often exaggerated and visual metaphors
employed to ridicule their characteristics and, by
extension, their characters. A portly elite might be
made even larger in girth and given the face of a pig,
for example. The connection of humor to such paro-
dies is profound. Humor aids in the task of ridicule,
but it also neutralizes hostility. The graphic satire
print may have had its roots in monarchal Europe,
but it is inherently democratic. Like the child’s draw-
ing that mocks the teacher, the graphic satire was
an art form that reduced the perception of power
among rulers, but more safely than a true revolution.
Thomas Nast, a cartoonist who worked in the late
19th century, is often cited as creator of the image of
the crusading cartoonist and proof of the powers
of the cartoon. An avid critic of Tammany Hall’s
New York machine politics, Nast frequently lam-
pooned its boss, William Marcy Tweed. Historical
lore describes Boss Tweed’s flight from prosecution
and capture overseas as a result of the familiarity of
Cartoons 113
his image in Nast’s cartoons. Thomas Nast is also
credited with creating our present-day interpretation
of Santa Claus and introducing the visual symbolic
representations of the Democratic Party as a donkey
and the Republican Party as an elephant.
European graphic satire also took on socially
sanctioned events. Any person or institution per-
ceived as part of the established power structure was
open to ridicule. For example, the Paris Salon, an
annual state-sponsored exhibition that presented
the finest art works of the time from the Académie
des Beaux-Arts (the Academy of Fine Arts), was
the annual subject of cartoon attentions in the mid-
19th century. Cartoonists responded by producing
“caricatural salons” in humor-oriented journals.
Cartoonists might lampoon a specific painting that
caused controversy or the more general aims and
methods of the salon. Just as with satiric rendi-
tions of human elites, cartoonists used tactics such
as replacement and metaphor to comment on tra-
ditionally styled paintings at the salon. While such
cartoons were intended to demean the works on
display, such humorous “restaging” both enhanced
criticism through ridicule and neutralized it through
comedic artifice. Thus, as one scholar has argued,
not only were serious artworks transformed from
classic icons to objects of ridicule, the nature of art
was itself transformed in the process, to a more
modern state.
The production of early political cartoons repre-
senting Colonial America was undoubtedly a con-
tinuation of European graphic satire. Even if the two
examples cited above were devoid of a specifically
humorous perspective, humor would emerge as an
important factor in cartooning in another phase of
early graphic art, the comic.
Panel cartoons like comic strips mushroomed
in popularity as print technology allowed for the
widespread circulation of periodicals and broadsides
in the late 19th century. Because photo technology
lagged behind printing tech, cartoons provided pos-
sibilities for illustrated material for popular con-
sumption. Comics became very popular features of
newspapers, and cartoons became useful means of
propaganda in partisan publications. In the highly
competitive environment of the news business,
a popular cartoon feature could make or break a
newspaper’s viability on the market. The importance
of a ritual of reading the day’s most popular comic
strips extended from early days to recent times and
emphasized the social significance of comics and
cartoons.
114 Cartoons
Important among early comics characters, The
Yellow Kid began in 1895 as a character in a strip
named Hogan’s Alley about slum kids and their
adventures. The Yellow Kid was so named because
of the new technology of color-capable printing that
gave him his yellow sackcloth garment. The Yellow
Kid was not a central character in the strip, but he
evolved into an avenue of commentary, as his cre-
ator, Richard Felton Outcalt, began to inscribe say-
ings and commentary on his yellow garment. While
the strip itself mingled humor and storytelling, in the
manner of today’s comic strips, The Yellow Kid pro-
vided an early example of cartoon commentary that
not only informed contemporary editorial cartoons
but accentuated the editorial potential of cartoons
in general. Strips such as Pogo and Doonesbury are
well-known examples of the type, but editorial com-
mentary was also apparent in cartoons that ran in
partisan periodicals.
The late suffrage movement provided examples
of commentary cartooning, especially in their presuf-
frage periodicals, such as The Woman Citizen. Anti-
suffrage factions responded with their own cartoons
that warned, in exaggerated and humorous terms,
of the woes that would befall domestic stability if
women gained the right to vote. These cartoons
enforced gender identities and ideologies. The com-
peting controversies of the suffrage issue were also
evident in the popular press, including the humor-
oriented (at the time) magazine Life, which was allied
with liberal and reform ideals in the early 20th cen-
tury. Between 1909 and 1914, Life published more
than 200 cartoons on the topic of women’s suffrage;
these varied between pro-suffrage and anti-suffrage
viewpoints. Their expressions of the social signifi-
cance of suffrage parallel those of cartoons published
in partisan journals. Suffragists were lampooned for
being unattractive and unmarriageable and for disen-
franchising men. Cartoons sympathetic to suffragists
tended to employ less humor. Instead of mocking
the status quo, they were based on arguments that
aligned suffrage goals with patriotic ideals. Unlike
in the tradition of satire in graphic prints in Europe,
in these American anti-suffrage cartoons the satirical
arrow was directed at the out-group struggling for
change, rather than the status quo. But humor is still
central to making the anti-suffrage point.
Cartoons Today
Historically, comics were intertwined with both
panel cartoons and editorial cartooning. Today,
comics are generally considered as a separate
enterprise from cartoons, although practitioners
may produce both. Cartoons exist in two general
formats today: the panel cartoon that is primarily
entertainment oriented and is published primarily
in magazines, and the editorial or political cartoon
that provides commentary on political and social
affairs and is a fixture on newspaper editorial pages.
Although the daily newspaper is seen by many as
in a state of decline, and the number of full-time
practitioners of editorial cartooning has declined,
the art form has been moving to an online status.
Cartooning may be momentarily eclipsed in public
consciousness by television and Internet satire, but
its importance in the public discourses of the past
two centuries is undeniable.
Panel Cartoons: Humor and Social Understanding
Panel cartoons remain popular today. For many,
the ritual of reading panel cartoons demonstrates
a path to social significance. Perhaps the clear-
est example of the position of panel cartoons in
public discussion today is The New Yorker and its
cartoon features. The New Yorker’s reputation as
a locale for cartoons is best demonstrated by the
publication, in 2006, of its complete set of car-
toons published over the years. The cartoons are
categorized, as if to acknowledge that they offer
an aggregate view of American life and social sta-
tus. The mythology surrounding The New Yorker
cartoon is further enhanced by its contest inviting
readers to supply captions for cartoon illustrations
and then vote for the most appropriate and humor-
ous. While New Yorker cartoons occupy the pin-
nacle of today’s panel cartoons, they are as known
for humor (or sometimes obfuscation) as for social
significance. A panel cartoon always offers implicit
commentary, even if the substance and meaning of
that commentary is relatively masked by humor.
Because of this quality, cartoons are often studied
as a chronology of recognition on a quotidian
subject: suburban living, health, the environment,
television, the Internet, global warming, gender
relationships, and the like.
Editorial cartoons are more overt in providing
commentary on the political and cultural scene,
although their shared roots with satiric prints are
often evident. Although entertaining, their functions
transcend amusement and entertainment and over-
lap with other forms of journalistic commentary.
Many cartoonists traditionally sit on the editorial

boards of their home newspapers and their work,
which used to be located in various sections of the
newspaper, now is confined exclusively to the edi-
torial pages. While editorial cartoons frequently
employ the strategies of satire, irony, inversion, and
other humor forms that are found in lampooning
satire prints, today’s editorial cartoon may also be
poignant and serious.
Satire clearly does not equate with lighthearted.
When a Danish newspaper published cartoons lam-
pooning the Muslim prophet Muhammad in 2005,
extremists responded violently around the world.
Reverberations from that transgression against
religious beliefs prohibiting the visual depiction of
Muhammad continued for years after the publica-
tion. U.S. cartoonists have received death threats for
cartoons perceived as unfavorable to government
authorities or challenging to individuals’ deeply felt
identities.
Cartoonists have been enlisted in the nation’s
propaganda efforts, most notably in World War II.
Recruited by the war office, many cartoonists joined
in an effort to promote the aims of war. Children’s
author and cartoonist Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss)
was one example of a cartoonist who published
works ridiculing and stereotyping the Japanese. In
recent years, cartoonists have organized themselves
to comment on world hunger. Humor plays a varied
role in these cartoons, but the aims of commentary
are consistent.
Political Cartoons and Style
Political (editorial) cartoons have had a dicey rela-
tionship with authority. Through their history, they
have sometimes supported and sometimes opposed the
official ideologies of the status quo. In current times,
most cartoonists maintain that their chief mission is to
shake up events and leaders and make a point about
current events. But cartoonists also support the status
quo in other ways, such as marginalizing women in
politics or employing gender stereotypes—a habit that
seems to be dissipating although cartooning remains
a male-dominated profession. And although cartoon-
ists say they dislike drawing obituary cartoons that
honor the deaths of notables, they respond to edito-
rial requests for such cartoons. In both their critiques
and their honors, cartoonists do tend to reach out to
national unity, much as did Ben Franklin’s “Join or
Die” cartoon. During political elections, however,
cartoonists use and reflect the same partisanship that
exists in the discursive environment.
Cartoons 115
Cartoonists may be painted with the same brush
that positions all media as “liberal” and even anti-
establishment. Perhaps the sharper edges of satiric
humor are implicated, but there are ways in which
cartoonists defend and support the establishment,
and they most certainly are not all on one side of
the political spectrum. A review of cartoons appear-
ing in anthologies or on websites such as The Cagle
Post, Daryl Cagle’s collection of political cartoons
indicates that cartoonists are as likely to repre-
sent one end of the political spectrum as another.
Moreover, the crusading aspect of the profession
seems inclined to support the acceptable common
good. During many recent religious controversies,
such as pedophilia in the Catholic church and tel-
evangelists enriching themselves through donations,
cartoonists were accused of opposing religious
values. But, as one study has pointed out, cartoon-
ists commonly contrasted the words and actions of
people with socially acceptable moral platitudes or
texts (such as the Bible), thereby enforcing common
views of morality.
9/11 and Humor’s Loss
Following the events of September 11, 2001, in
an environment defined by shock and grief, irony
was declared dead, and jokes about the attack—and
almost anything else—were practically nonexistent.
“After Sept. 11th, you just couldn’t use humor,”
noted editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich in a 2001
interview with a journalism website. “It’s almost
like you have to come up with cartoons using a dif-
ferent part of your brain.” The political cartoon’s
association with humor and satire might have
obliterated its importance if not for other strate-
gies that position cartoons at the forefront of public
interpretation. While some researchers have argued
that humor is a necessary component of a cartoon,
especially a political cartoon, others recognize that
cartoons also are cultural artifacts and can function
to sustain public narratives in times of national sig-
nificance. Cartoons that commented on September
11 may not have exhibited broad strokes of humor,
but irony was implicit in the way they depicted and
interpreted the event.
A key illustration of irony occurred when car-
toonists eschewed depiction of the familiar scenes of
the attack on the World Trade Center in favor of his-
torical images associated with World War II. While
some cartoons used a backdrop of the World Trade
Center rubble while Uncle Sam and the Statue of
116 Cervantes, Miguel de
Liberty wept, others associated the events with the
1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In doing so,
cartoonists echoed newspapers and some political
leaders in framing the carnage as war. In fact, such a
frame was controversial, since there was no evidence
of a single state’s involvement, and the nation’s
resources were marshaled against Iraq for a long war
on the basis of false and ambiguous evidence. More
ironically, cartoonists evoked the well-known image
of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima in portray-
ing the first responders hoisting the flag at Ground
Zero. Again, the nation’s “good war” was recalled
in connection with 9/11 against the World Trade
Center image that many claimed would become the
“Iwo Jima image” for a new generation.
These cartoons, like many cartoons about the
suffrage movement, were directed at preserving
social stability but not by debunking persons and
institutions in power. A few cartoonists responded
to 9/11 with more iconoclastic images, but they were
roundly criticized for countering a rapidly develop-
ing narrative about American innocence in the face
of aggressors.
Cartooning’s Many Faces
It is not inappropriate to think about cartoons
as intrinsically humorous. Although their anteced-
ents may have been cave paintings, they owe their
common historical development to satiric prints and
laugh-inducing comics. Panel cartoons almost always
turn on a joke. Editorial cartoons still employ satire,
irony, and metaphor to present a scenario as surpris-
ing and amusing. But not all cartoons—especially
editorial cartoons—traffic in laughter. Some display
commentary that is serious yet allied with what we
see as funny. Perhaps the most general thing we can
say about cartoons is that they invert and transform
the world with clarity. Humor is ingrained in the
process but is not always evident.
Janis L. Edwards
See also Caricature; Comic Books; Comic Strips; Irony;
Satire
Further Readings
Dewey, D. (2008). The art of ill will: The story of American
political cartoons. New York, NY: New York University
Press.
Edwards, J. L. (1997). Political cartoons in the 1988
presidential campaign: Image, metaphor, and narrative.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Fischer, R. A. (1995). Them damned pictures: Explorations
in American political cartoon art. New York, NY:
Archon Books.
Hess, S. (1996). Drawn and quartered: The best of
American political cartoons. New York, NY: Elliott &
Clark.
JournalismJobs.com. (2001, November). Interview with
cartoonist Mike Luckovich. Retrieved from http://www.
journalismjobs.com/interview_luckovich.cfm
Lamb, C. (2004). Drawn to extremes: The use and abuse
of editorial cartoons. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
McAllister, M. P., Sewell, E., Jr., & Gordon, I. (Eds).
(2001). Comics and ideology. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Websites
Daryl Cagle’s The Cagle Post, Cartoons and Commentary:
http://www.cagle.com
CERVANTES, MIGUEL DE
Hispanic literature is not commonly viewed as char-
acterized by humor; rather, it is generally described
as sober and serious. Nonetheless, a Spaniard,
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547–1616), created
a body of work that ranks him as perhaps the great-
est writer of comic fiction. Author of La Galatea,
a pastoral novel (an artificial work detailing the
lives of shepherds in an idealized and unreal way),
several Exemplary Novels (short stories designed
to teach a moral lesson), Persiles y Segismunda, a
tale of adventurous pursuit of perfect love, and sev-
eral plays, Cervantes is best known for his two-part
novel Don Quijote (Don Quixote). Published in
1605 and 1615 respectively, Don Quijote is consid-
ered by many as the first modern novel. As such, it
combines comic genius with serious reflection on a
broad range of matters in a work of universal appeal
transcending such considerations as language and
historical period. Such is its continuing interest and
relevance 400 years after Cervantes’s death that it
remains one of the world’s most widely sold books.
Each year, hundreds of books and articles are pub-
lished about it. Even the English language reflects its
linguistic debt to the Quijote, as the adjective quix-
otic has become a standard term springing from the
iconic figure of Don Quijote, the title character.
Although Cervantes did not leave a detailed trea-
tise on comic writing, he does reflect on the comic in

Don Quijote, the nature of which one can observe
throughout his works. Seen as a socio-literary docu-
ment, Don Quijote encompasses a loving vision of
the vices and virtues of 17th-century Spanish society
and its literary currents embedded in a comic frame-
work that, as in Spain today, involves a broad swath
of acceptable objects for humor. Moreover, it can
also be regarded as a template for writing comic fic-
tion. Hence, Cervantes obviously understands what
is humorous but also, and very importantly, the psy-
chology of creating laughter.
Although scholars differ on whether humor is
central to understanding Don Quijote, it is undeni-
able that humor is constant throughout the work.
As Cervantes posits, his purpose is both to instruct
and to delight. That said, however, readers who
approach the work from the perspective of humor
studies do so with nearly a century’s accumulated
body of thought and research. Readers today will
see the book in different ways than did Cervantes’s
contemporaries. Thus, it would be better to place
Cervantes in the context of laughter studies, as the
concept we now refer to as humor is a relatively
modern construct. Indeed, Cervantes rarely uses the
word humor in Don Quijote. More often, one reads
words such as wit, comical, joy, merriment, amuse-
ment, hilarity, cleverness, and especially, laughter.
Moreover, for Cervantes and his contemporaries,
laughter was connected to the traditional Four
Humours construct of the bodily fluids understood
as responsible for the body’s health, whose differing
mixtures created four conditions of the body and
mind: the sanguine, the phlegmatic, the choleric,
and the melancholic. In that regard, Cervantes says
in the prologue to Part One that his book should
move those afflicted with melancholy to laughter.
Thus, he recognizes the therapeutic value of laugh-
ter in restoring equilibrium to one’s disposition.
Consequently, he anticipates 20th-century research
confirming the curative power of laughter, although
from a completely different perspective.
The comic objective of Cervantes in writing Don
Quijote springs from his desire to debunk novels of
chivalry, with special emphasis on Amadís de Gaula
(1508), because of their absurdities and fantastic ele-
ments. To attack their credibility, Cervantes decides
to fight nonsense with nonsense. In a framework of
anti-chivalry parody, rather than heroes and great
adventures, Cervantes portrays Don Quijote and
Sancho, his squire, as engaging and real individuals
with normal human frailties; their continual search-
ing for extraordinary adventures and Don Quijote’s
Cervantes, Miguel de 117
idealistic desire to do good inevitably lead only to
misadventures and mishaps, which result in harm
and derision. During all their sallies, as well, Don
Quijote and his uneducated squire incongruously
discuss important questions such as transcendent
issues, moral and ethical matters, cultural values,
aesthetics, literature, historical and social issues,
reality versus illusion, and minorities and gover-
nance. Yet despite their absurd qualities and expe-
riences, because of Cervantes’s accepting, tolerant
laughter, Don Quijote and Sancho remain endearing
to readers.
Cervantine laughter in Don Quijote is complex,
wide ranging, and multileveled. There is the laughter
of the characters toward one another, which varies
by social standing; the laughter of the narrator; and
the reader’s own. The response by the various enti-
ties ranges from guffaws and uncontrolled hearty
laughter to smiles and mental pleasure. Frequently
playing with the reader, Cervantes’s parody employs
a wide spectrum of techniques and devices domi-
nated by irony and satire that include buffoonery,
verbal witticisms, jokes and jests, mockery, farce,
the festive, comic situations, absurdities, and visual
comedy. From the always-decorous bawdy, base,
vulgar, scatological, and erotic to sophisticated and
Don Quijote and Sancho Panza returning to their village.
This 1866 illustration by the 19th-century English artist
Sir John Gilbert shows the moment in Part I, Book 1,
Chapter 1, of the novel Don Quijote when Don Quijote
recruits Sancho Panza as his companion. Gilbert
specialized in subjects related to the novel, and the
collector Henry Spencer Ashbee assembled a large
number of works inspired by it.
Source: Prints, Drawings, and Painting Collection, Victoria
and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum,
London, UK.
118 Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor
subtle highbrow laughter, Cervantes employs comic
circumstances that have wide appeal. As for the pur-
poses and origins of laughter by Cervantes and by
his characters, there is something that can confirm
almost any humor theory. The result is a catalogue
of reasons why people laugh and laughter’s objec-
tives, among them incongruities, the unexpected,
ridicule, literary debunking, social commentary, cen-
sure, relief of tension, responses of liberation and tri-
umph, unmasking the false, trivializing the elevated
and grandiloquent, making a message more palat-
able, revealing truths, and simple playfulness. Above
all, laughter in Cervantes is a manifestation of his
joy in living and a celebration of the wonder of life.
Thus, while Don Quijote is a funny book, Cervantes
reminds us that humor can be very serious.
Paul Seaver
See also Genres and Styles of Comedy; Health Benefits
of Humor, Physical; History of Humor: Renaissance
Europe; Irony; Laughter, Psychology of; Literature;
Parody; Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter
Further Readings
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. (2003). Don Quixote
(E. Grossman, Trans.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Close, A. (2000). Cervantes and the comic mind of his age.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Trueblood, A. (1984). La risa en el Quijote y la risa de don
Quijote [Laughter in the Quijote and the laughter of
don Quijote]. Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of
America, 4, 3–23.
CHEERFULNESS, SERIOUSNESS,
AND HUMOR
Researchers have claimed that humor involves a
non–bona fide (rather than bona fide) mode of com-
munication, and people need to process and con-
sume humor in a playful (rather than serious) frame
of mind. While habitually serious people will be less
likely to process humor, people in a cheerful mood
will be more ready to laugh or be amused and peo-
ple with a cheerful temperament will have a lower
threshold for smiling and laughter and getting into
a cheerful state. Further, there is the claim that pro-
found and mature humor is based on the presence
of both cheerfulness and seriousness. There is ample
evidence that cheerfulness and seriousness (but also
bad mood, as a further marker of humorlessness) as
states and traits should play a role in understanding
humor. Indeed, due to the shortcomings associated
with the folk concept of the sense of humor, a state-
trait model of cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad
mood was introduced to describe the temperamental
basis of humor. Cheerfulness represents an individ-
ual’s actual or habitual disposition for amusement,
laughter, and seeing the bright side of life. Trait seri-
ousness and trait bad mood represent dispositions
for different forms of humorlessness and lower the
threshold for engaging in humor and displaying
smiling and laughter, though for different reasons.
This entry discusses how cheerfulness and serious-
ness relate to humor and how this relationship has
been assessed.
The State-Trait Model of Cheerfulness,
Seriousness, and Bad Mood
Willibald Ruch and colleagues conducted a series
of studies based on the observation of interin-
dividual and intraindividual variation in humor
behavior. Certain individuals tend to habitually
appreciate, create, or laugh more easily and inten-
sively at humorous stimuli than others do. Besides,
there are also actual dispositions for humor, varying
across situations and time. In their model, state and
trait cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood are
operationalized with the help of facets. The model
does not claim comprehensiveness for all kinds of
humor-related behaviors, but while the expression
of humor may be culture specific and differ over
time, the affective and mental foundations of humor
will more likely be universal.
Trait cheerfulness (CH) was derived (e.g., litera-
ture, prior factor analytic studies) to consist of five
intercorrelated components, namely a prevalence of
cheerful mood (CH1), a low threshold for smiling
and laughter (CH2), a composed view of adverse life
circumstances (CH3), a broad range of active elici-
tors of cheerfulness and smiling or laughter (CH4),
and a generally cheerful interaction style (CH5).
State cheerfulness is defined by the presence of
(1) a cheerful mood state (tranquil and composed),
as well as by the presence of (2) hilarity, which is a
merry mood state, shallow, and outwardly directed.
Moreover, the likelihood of a person responding to
a humor stimulus with exhilaration also depends
on the frame of mind. The concept of seriousness
(SE) consists of the prevalence of serious states
(SE1); a perception of even everyday happenings

as important and considering them thoroughly and
intensively (SE2); the tendency to plan ahead and
set long-range goals (SE3); the tendency to prefer
activities for which concrete, rational reasons can be
produced (SE4); the preference for a sober, object-
oriented communication style (SE5); and a “humor-
less” attitude about cheerfulness-related behavior,
roles, persons, stimuli, situations, and actions (SE6).
For people in a serious frame of mind, the threshold
of getting amused is enhanced, and for people in low
serious state (i.e., playful), this threshold is lowered.
However, while cheerfulness refers to an affective
state, seriousness denotes a quality of the frame of
mind, allowing all combinations of both to occur.
The combination of noncheerful and serious cer-
tainly contributes to the perception of a person
as being humorless, and the combination of both
nonserious and cheerful would depict a playful, fun-
loving person and predict a high susceptibility for
that person to laugh at humorous stimuli and situ-
ations. Still, a cheerful temperament might go along
with a serious frame of mind, building the basis for
a philosophical form of sense of humor. Similarly,
there may be the absence of both, as in nihilistic indi-
viduals characterized by pessimism or low degree of
cheerfulness and low degree of seriousness.
Assessment
In order to provide a reliable, valid, and economi-
cal assessment of cheerfulness and seriousness (as
well as bad mood) as a trait and as a state, Ruch,
Gabriele Köhler, and Christoph van Thriel (1996–
1997) developed the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-
Inventory (STCI) by pursuing a rational-theoretical
construction strategy. The STCI is available in 13
languages and different versions for children, youth,
and adults, as well as self- and peer-report versions.
Ruch and Köhler report high internal consistencies
for the traits (Cronbach’s Alpha range between α
= .88 and .94) and the 1-month retest-stability was
high for the traits (between .77 and .86) but low
for the states (between .33 and .36), confirming the
nature of enduring traits and transient states. It was
shown that the STCI State Part items sensitively
reflected changes in altered mood covering natu-
rally occurring mood changes (e.g., diurnal varia-
tions due to type of weather, success, or failure),
unobtrusively induced mood changes (e.g., expos-
ing subjects to rooms of different “atmosphere”),
more or less obtrusively induced mood changes
(e.g., experimenter’s social behavior), and chemically
Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor 119
induced mood changes (i.e., “laughing gas”), as well
as mood alterations due to humor interventions.
The Role of Cheerfulness and
Seriousness in Humor
Trait cheerfulness represents a disposition for exhil-
aration (an affect defined by a sudden increase in
hilarity and cheerful state followed by a fading out),
amusement or mirth; that is, any humor that people
appreciate will lead to more laughter and positive
affect among the trait cheerful. It is also a dispo-
sition for easy induction and robustness of cheer-
ful mood. In this sense, trait cheerfulness underlies
humor, as typically in everyday conversations a
“good sense of humor” would be used to explain
why these behaviors occur in some people but not
in others. State and trait cheerfulness are more likely
to account for humor-induced positive affect than
either more general personality traits (e.g., extra-
version) or broader mood states (e.g., elation or
positive affect). Ruch and Jennifer Hofmann (2012)
summarized that trait cheerfulness predicts most
facets of sense of humor, including those conceptu-
alized by Paul McGhee and the styles of everyday
humorous conduct conceptualized by Ken Craik,
Martin Lampert, and Arvalea Nelson. Moreover,
state and trait cheerfulness also account for a vari-
ety of phenomena, such as appreciation of types of
humor, quantity of humor production, and keeping
or losing humor when facing adversity, and have
been shown to be a moderator of stress. Low trait
seriousness is represented in socially cold, earthy,
and repressed humor styles, and in affiliative, self-
enhancing, and aggressive humor. Furthermore, trait
seriousness has incremental validity to facets linking
to humor as a worldview. For example, “laughing at
oneself,” a core facet of the sense of humor, is high-
est among those cheerful individuals who do face
things seriously but also communicate humorously.
Cheerfulness and seriousness also turned out to be
markers of two main factors typically derived from
intercorrelating sense of humor scales.
Jennifer Hofmann and Willibald Ruch
See also Appreciation of Humor; Humor Mindset
Further Readings
Ruch, W. (2009). Amusement. In D. Sander & K. Scherer
(Eds.), The Oxford companion to the affective sciences
(pp. 27–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
120 Children’s Humor and Giftedness
Ruch, W., & Hofmann, J. (2012). A temperament
approach to humor. In P. Gremigni (Ed.), Humor and
health promotion (pp. 79–112). New York, NY: Nova
Science.
Ruch, W., & Köhler, G. (2007). A temperament approach to
humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:
Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 203–230).
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zweyer, K., Velker, B., & Ruch. W. (2004). Do
cheerfulness, exhilaration, and humor production
moderate pain tolerance? A FACS study. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 67–84.
CHILDREN’S HUMOR
AND GIFTEDNESS
When children are assessed for giftedness, one char-
acteristic usually evaluated is “sense of humor”
because this is a quality that children who are gifted
often display. The ability to recognize inconsisten-
cies in daily life experiences and to deal with them
through humor is a major coping strategy for many
gifted children. Appreciation and generation of
incongruity humor is also a characteristic of gifted
adults, who use wit and satire to interpret the world.
It may be that the greater knowledge these individ-
uals possess makes them more aware of inconsis-
tencies in life events, or it may be that their ability
to compare and analyze situations within context
makes them see incongruity as humorous rather than
threatening. Studies of children’s humor develop-
ment report that gifted children are often advanced
in the types of humor they enjoy and understand.
This entry briefly reviews the typical humor devel-
opment stages that children experience and then
describes how gifted children’s humor is manifested.
It concludes with suggestions for fostering humor
development in gifted children.
There have been well-documented descriptions
of the humor development of typically developing
children, some of which are discussed elsewhere in
this encyclopedia. However, less research attention
has been paid to individual differences in humor
development displayed by children of varied abil-
ity levels. Humor researchers have described two
major types of humor usually exhibited by young
children: nonsense humor and incongruity humor.
Laughter generated by nonsense humor seems to
be present even in infancy, and such humor often
generates spontaneous laughter throughout life. In
contrast, incongruity humor shows a well-defined
set of developmental changes, beginning at 6 to 9
months with infant laughter at incongruous actions
like peek-a-boo, progressing to finding humor in
“wrong behavior” such as putting a hat on the dog
or calling a known person or object by an incorrect
name, and finally creating or laughing at deliberate
or unexpected cognitive mix-ups. Some researchers,
however, say that infants don’t understand humor,
and instead use the word “delight” to refer to infants’
reactions to games such as peek-a-boo. A 4-year-old
might answer questions with the “wrong” answer
and find that very funny. In 1976, Diana Pien and
Mary K. Rothbart labeled such behaviors as mis-
expected not unexpected. That is, the child knows
the correct action or language but deliberately uses
an incongruous response or recognizes an incongru-
ous response of another person, animal, or object.
A common type of early cognitive incongruity is a
child mixing up words of a song or poem and laugh-
ing at the changes in meaning. An example of find-
ing humor in an object’s action is a child laughing at
cars that seem to disappear over a hill because the
road is very steep. Because the child knows cars do
not disappear quickly, the incongruity of the cars’
seeming disappearance is funny to the child.
Later well-documented stages of humor develop-
ment include the typical 4- or 5-year-old telling what
Deena K. Bernstein called pre-riddles, which have
the form of the riddle but are missing the incongru-
ous element, and by age 6 or 7 being able to produce
true riddles and simple joke-like stories. The same
process occurs with joke telling because elementary
age children can give a joke-like narrative but often
mix up the punch line. Even when children can tell a
riddle or joke correctly, they usually cannot explain
why it is funny until about the age of 10. By middle
school age, however, most children can use more
sophisticated wordplay with double meanings and
can tell a joke well. Both boys and girls seem equally
capable of understanding and performing humor,
although girls often act as the audience rather than
the performers at later ages. Because of the studies of
how typically developing children’s humor changes
over time, there is a relatively clear understanding of
its developmental progression. Studies of gifted chil-
dren’s humor, while not as numerous, show an accel-
erated rate of humor understanding and expression.
By age 5, many gifted children have a wide range
of humor manifestations and show understanding of
conceptual incongruity and levels of multiple mean-
ing. Their riddle production is greater and they also

make up riddles that have not only the form but also
the function of a complete riddle. This accelerated
level of humor type use continues throughout the
elementary age level and by age 10, many gifted
children understand and express humor that is com-
parable in form and function to that of adults. The
topics may differ, of course, since their experiential
base is still limited. However, they are able to appre-
ciate satire in books and some political cartoons.
When peers rate gifted children’s humor, however,
there may be a dichotomy, with some gifted children
rated high and others exceptionally low. Low rat-
ings may occur especially for gifted girls. Although
research shows that both gifted boys and girls have a
high level of ability to comprehend and enjoy incon-
gruity types of humor, and children of both genders
rate themselves similarly as to their sense of humor
on self-report scales, parents and teachers often rate
gifted boys as having higher senses of humor than
gifted girls. In a study of gifted children’s humor
that compared two age levels (7–9 and 10–12),
Doris Bergen found that, contrary to the humor
level exhibited by the younger age group in earlier
studies, the younger gifted age group were already
exhibiting the whole range of humor types, which
suggests that humor development in gifted children
is accelerated. Gifted children are similar to other
children in that they find humor in many different
settings, including home, school, books, and other
media. However, they are more adept at producing
jokes and riddles and in explaining why their humor
attempts are funny.
Although humor expression and understanding
are more advanced in many gifted children, adults
are often surprised by this sophistication and do not
encourage its expression. However, parents of such
children and teachers working with this population
of children can extend their humor development even
more by providing a variety of types of humor exam-
ples, including satire in drama or literature, politi-
cal cartoons, and creative humor expressions about
daily events, and, most importantly, by responding
positively to gifted children’s humor attempts.
Doris Bergen
See also Children’s Humor Stages; Development of
Humor; Humor, Forms of; Incongruity and Resolution
Further Readings
Bergen, D. (1998). Development of the sense of humor. In
W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a
Children’s Humor Research 121
personality characteristic (pp. 329–358). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bergen, D. (2004). Humor development of gifted and
typically developing children: A synthesis of present
knowledge. Revue quebecoise de psychologie, 25(1),
1–21.
Bergen, D. (2007). Humor as a facilitator of social
competence in early childhood. In B. Spodek & O.
Saracho (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early
childhood education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bergen, D. (2009). Gifted children’s humor preferences,
sense of humor, and comprehension of riddles.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
22(4), 419–436.
Bernstein, D. K. (1986). The development of humor:
Implications for assessment and intervention. Topics in
Language Disorders, 6(4), 65–71.
Luftig, R., & Nichols, M. L. (1999). An assessment of the
social status and perceived personality and school traits
of gifted students by non-gifted peers. Roeper Review,
13(3), 148–153.
McGhee, P. E. (2002). Understanding and promoting the
development of children’s humor. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity and
resolution in children’s humor: A reexamination. Child
Development, 47, 966–971.
CHILDREN’S HUMOR RESEARCH
Humor development has been studied theoretically
and empirically for the last four decades. Studies on
the development of humor agree on the fact that
the acquisition of humor involves the development
of cognitive, social, linguistic, and emotional abili-
ties. First, children tend to appreciate and produce
humor that goes hand in hand with their cognitive
development. Besides, children have to learn to use
humor appropriately in different social contexts and
for diverse social purposes. Additionally, they have
to learn to interpret words and language structure
in humorous ways. Finally, humor development will
be related to the acquisition of emotional abilities in
order to allow individuals to use it to enable them to
cope with negative emotions.
Cognitive Approaches to Children’s Humor
Cognitive approaches have been predominant in
research on humor development since the 1970s.
They take a developmental perspective on humor
acquisition and in general terms propose that
122 Children’s Humor Research
cognition triggers humor. Under these approaches,
humor is directly related to the individual’s capac-
ity to recognize incongruities in the world.
Developmental changes in cognitive schemas that
allow children to interpret the world in different
ways as they mature will lead them to consider dif-
ferent objects and events as incongruous, and there-
fore, humorous. This way, humor production and
appreciation will be directly related to cognitive
development.
The first predominant proposal in literature that
relates the development of humor to cognition was
introduced by Paul McGhee in 1979. According to
this author and other researchers under the cognitive
perspective, all children go through four stages in the
development of humor that coincide with the stages
of cognitive development proposed by the Swiss psy-
chologist Jean Piaget. During the first stage, at about
18 months of age, children are able to represent
objects with mental schemas and humor consists of
assigning objects to a schema that does not belong
to it. Hence, children this age will enjoy carrying out
incongruous actions toward objects, such as offer-
ing an adult a sip from their bottle of milk and then
laughing. The second stage, occurring in 2-year-old
children, is determined by the children’s first use of
language in playful ways. Children at this age will
enjoy mislabeling objects to create humor (i.e., call-
ing a horse “cat”). In the third stage, starting at
about 3 years of age, cognitive development will
allow children to notice that words refer to certain
classes of objects or events that share some charac-
teristics. Therefore, humor will consist of violating
one of these attributes, such as laughing at a cat with
two heads. During the school years, beginning with
age 7, humor will be based on the capacity to infer
that words can have more than one meaning. This
ability is linked to the acquisition of new cognitive
schemas that allow children to relate objects and
events in more complex ways because logic and
inferential reasoning appear. At this stage, humor
will depend mainly on linguistic ambiguity (phono-
logical, lexical, and morphological) frequently found
in jokes, riddles, and puns.
Other studies using cognitive approaches have
tried to establish the relationship between cogni-
tive abilities and the appreciation of certain types
of humor over others. They have found that chil-
dren prefer humor that goes hand in hand with their
cognitive development at a certain stage of devel-
opment. This means that children will enjoy humor
that is moderately challenging in cognitive ways and
have less appreciation for humorous manifestations
that are too easy or too complex to understand.
The relationship between specific cognitive
factors—such as class inclusion and creativity—and
humor development has also been studied by some
researchers. Results on various studies with school-
age children and adolescents show that important
correlations exist between sense of humor and
creativity: Individuals with more creativity show
a greater sense of humor. Nevertheless, during
adolescence the relationship between humor com-
prehension and cognitive factors seems not to be
as determinant as in previous stages. In general,
studies under this perspective exhibit that the abil-
ity to express if something is humorous or not is
favored by cognition, but the capacity to establish
how funny something is, is not.
Social Approaches to Children’s Humor
Because humor is an important social phenome-
non, the relationship between humor development
and social interaction has been widely studied dur-
ing the last decades. Under this perspective, humor
is seen as an important mean by which children
become socially accepted individuals and acquire
sociocultural abilities. Furthermore, humor plays
an important role in the socialization process, in the
establishment of social norms, and in the social posi-
tioning of the individual in a group. Even though
humor emerges in early infancy, it is not until the
later school years that children learn to use it ade-
quately in different social situations and as a tool
to create social relationships, to establish and main-
tain group cohesion, as a way to save face, and to
express aggression in a socially accepted manner.
Many studies under a social perspective have
tried to explore the relationship between humor
development and laughter. They have found that
laughter appears as a social process with an impor-
tant communicative function during the individual’s
first social interactions, at 2 to 3 months of age.
They show that during the first year of life, laughter
is modeled by the mother, and during the second,
when children learn to laugh at their own humor-
ous manifestations as well as on humor produced
by others, its use stabilizes. Additionally, it has been
found that children will often use laughter in humor-
ous situations for social purposes, even if they do
not fully understand the incongruity behind humor.
Other studies have discovered that laughter is influ-
enced by social situations because children laugh

more with others and as a response to others than
when they appreciate humor by themselves.
Other studies using a social approach have cen-
tered their attention on establishing the relationship
between humor development and play. Their find-
ings show that humor emerges in contexts of play,
because it implies playful manipulations of actions,
events, and language. Some studies have found that
children with more sense of humor get involved
more easily in play situations. Others have discov-
ered that the use of repetitive and scripted structures
during play with others allows children to develop
more and more complex humorous interactions.
This way, humorous play interactions in which chil-
dren play with language structure and functions will
lead them to produce creative improvisations and
humorous games that are appreciated in their social
context. In general, play with language is a highly
valued activity in social settings and therefore the
development of verbal play is encouraged by peers
and adults.
Interpersonal aspects of humor have also been
studied during recent years but much more scarcely.
These studies suggest that humorous interactions
established between children and their parents favor
social and emotional development. It has also been
found that, as children learn to use and appreci-
ate the humor manifestations that are accepted in
their social environment, they become more easily
accepted by their counterparts. In this vein, other
researchers have analyzed the relationship between
humor, bullying, and peer acceptance. Their results
show that some children and adolescents tend to use
more adaptive styles of humor (humor that helps
individuals face problems in positive ways, mini-
mizes negative emotions, establishes social relation-
ships, and reduces conflicts with others), while others
prefer negative styles of humor that are maladaptive
(humorous manifestations that denigrate the self or
others). Individuals who use more adaptive styles of
humor tend to be more accepted by their peers; indi-
viduals engaging in maladaptive humor are often
considered bullies or victims of bullying.
Studies on humor and teasing have explored the
development of aggressive forms of humor in chil-
dren. Their findings suggest that at a very young age
(3-year-olds) children are aware of the aggressive
uses of humor. Boys this age will prefer humor that
disparages girls, and children 6 to 7 years of age will
favor humor that disparages other ethnic groups.
During the school years, children will use humor to
tease peers that show characteristics different from
Children’s Humor Research 123
the group members (mainly of physical appearance,
or intellectual or physical achievement) by calling
them names or laughing at them. In general terms,
teasing will derive from socially dominant individu-
als toward children with less social status or children
who do not follow the group’s norms. Teasing is
also used by children and adolescents to acquire or
maintain status in a group. As children mature, teas-
ing becomes less violent and explicit because they
learn to use humor in more subtle and concealed
ways (i.e., with irony and sarcasm).
Studies on humor development in naturalistic
settings are very rare. Some of them have tried to
establish common humorous manifestations in ado-
lescents, mainly in school settings. They have discov-
ered that adolescents that use humor are more easily
accepted by their peers and that teachers perceive
them as more adapted. The findings also suggest
that during adolescence, joking insults and ridicule,
as well as spontaneous humor, will become domi-
nant. Laughter, giggling, and spontaneous humor-
ous behavior with sexual topics will be important
for girls, because it gives them group membership.
Between boys, on the contrary, memorized jokes will
be frequent between adolescents who do not know
each other well, while funny stories about viola-
tions of social norms—especially adult norms—will
be favored between members of a group of close
friends. In general, adolescents will enjoy humor
that helps them challenge authoritative figures and
these will become important targets of jokes and
other humorous manifestations.
Linguistic Approaches to Children’s Humor
In recent years, humor development has also
been studied under a linguistic perspective. This
approach considers that during language acquisi-
tion, children learn to manipulate language creating
new words, meanings, and structures in order to be
funny. These different modes of language play are
the bases to comprehend and produce language in
humorous ways.
In general terms, researchers using linguistic
approaches agree on the fact that development of
linguistic humor involves the acquisition of social,
cognitive, linguistic, and metalinguistic abili-
ties. During the early school years, between 6 and
9 years of age, these abilities will have developed
enough to allow children to understand and produce
basic linguistic humor. During that stage, children
start to comprehend the linguistic incongruities in
124 Children’s Humor Research
ambiguous words or structures and begin to reflect
on diverse types of humor manifestations. But it
will not be until the later school years (9 to 12 years
old) that children will fully comprehend humor and
be able to reflect on more sophisticated humorous
manifestations such as irony and sarcasm.
From a linguistic perspective, humor has been
studied under two important approaches: the prag-
matic and the semantic. Pragmatic views study the
way in which children learn to use humor as an
important communicative element in everyday con-
versation, taking into account the important social
role that humor plays in communicative interac-
tions. Semantic approaches center their attention on
humor processing and why humor manifestations
are interpreted by children and adolescents as funny.
Many different humor manifestations have been
a center of attention for researchers on linguistic
humor. Some studies have tried to understand the
way in which children start to understand riddles.
They have found that 6- to 9-year-olds use the struc-
ture or frame of riddles but are not conscious of
why these are funny because they do not understand
the incongruity. At the age of 9 or 10, children are
able to determine why a riddle is funny, but their
appreciation still relies on the context and not on
the words for themselves. At the age of 11 or 12,
adolescents begin to understand that the humor of
riddles is embedded in words.
Some other researchers have studied joke com-
prehension in children. Their findings suggest that
jokes based on ambiguity are understood during
different stages of development depending on the
type of ambiguity involved. Jokes due to phonologi-
cal ambiguity will be the first to be comprehended
by children at about 7 to 9 years of age. Lexical
ambiguity in jokes will be understood at about 9 to
12 years of age, and jokes that imply syntactic and
metalinguistic ambiguity, as well as those that con-
tain non-literal language (idioms, metaphors), will
be comprehended during adolescence. Other studies
on joke comprehension in normal and disabled chil-
dren show encouraging results because they suggest
that joke appreciation and production can be taught
in educational settings.
Other studies under a linguistic approach have
based their attention on the presence of idioms in
humorous contexts. Their findings indicate that
comprehension of idioms is related to the acquisi-
tion of a series of metalinguistic abilities, as well
as to academic and social skills. Comprehension
growth in humor involving idioms also depends on
the frequency of use of the idiom and on how trans-
parent or opaque it is.
So far, the most important research under a
linguistic perspective has been concerned with the
acquisition of verbal irony in children. These stud-
ies consider that humorous manifestations are
embedded in natural communicative contexts, and
that, therefore, the acquisition of humor cannot be
explained only with studies carried out in experi-
mental situations. Therefore, the acquisition of ver-
bal irony is studied in more conversational settings.
In general, studies on the acquisition of verbal
irony have found that in order to comprehend irony
and sarcasm, children have to carry out complex
linguistic and social processes. They have to be able
to make inferences on the speaker’s words, judge the
speaker’s attitude in regard to the communicative
situation, and assess the way in which the speaker
intends others to interpret or perceive the words.
Even though children of 5 to 6 years of age start
to comprehend that an ironic remark intends to
mean something different from the literal words, full
appreciation and production of irony and sarcasm
starts at a later stage, at around ages 8 to 9. A full
knowledge of verbal irony and its social functions
will develop during the adolescent years.
Other studies on the acquisition of verbal irony
have tried to explain the relationship between irony
comprehension and the ability to establish second-
order intentions in others (i.e., the capacity to take
into account what the speaker wants the listener
to believe). They have found that in order to com-
prehend irony, children have to be able to establish
second-order intentions. They have also discovered
that intonation does not help school-age children to
distinguish irony from other humorous manifesta-
tions or deception, and that sarcastic intonation is
considered by children to be less humorous than
nonsarcastic intonation.
The way in which children learn the meanings
and social functions of verbal irony has been a point
of interest of other researchers. Their studies sug-
gest that children ages 5 to 6 years are not able to
understand ironic remarks, but that they see that
irony is a mechanism to produce negative remarks
in a less aggressive manner than by direct criticism.
Additionally, their results show that the humorous
function of irony is understood at about 8 to 9 years
of age and that this capacity grows rapidly during
the later school years and adolescence. In general
terms, studies on verbal irony acquisition indicate
that children and adults use and comprehend irony

for different purposes: Children will favor the use
of irony to criticize others, while adults will employ
irony both to criticize and to be funny.
Emotional Approaches to Children’s Humor
The relationship between children’s humor and
emotional development has not been widely stud-
ied. The few studies in this regard take a psychoana-
lytical perspective and view humor as an affective
phenomenon that helps individuals cope positively
with anxiety and emotional distress and helps them
maintain mental health. Therefore, the development
of humor under this perspective states that children
acquire humor as a way to confront emotionally
arousing and threatening topics and as a search for
emotionally positive interactions with others.
The first study of humor development under
an emotional approach was conducted by Martha
Wolfenstein in 1954. She studied children’s pref-
erences on jokes and found that at around age 6,
children will frequently use ready-made jokes, but
that around 11 or 12 years of age they will favor
anecdotal jokes. During the adolescent years, indi-
viduals prefer puns or language games that include
ambiguity and that help them express taboos in
socially harmless ways. Wolfenstein also found that
an important part of children’s humor is concerned
with topics that are painful or create anxiety, such
as violence, destruction, punishment, sickness, body
functions, sexuality, and death. These topics are
related to age because they correspond to aspects
that cause anxiety in each stage of emotional devel-
opment. This is the reason why scatological themes
will appear during the preschool years, topics about
intellectual development, irrational behavior, and
stupidity are frequent during the school years, and
sexual topics will be the most common during
adolescence.
More recently, studies on the relationship
between humor and emotional development have
confirmed that humor appears in infancy during
play and that preschoolers use it frequently to mark
absurdity. They have found that during the school
years and adolescence, humor starts to play a very
important role as a mechanism that allows individu-
als to express feelings that are not socially accepted,
such as anxiety and sexuality, in a veiled manner.
This way, scatological, violent, crude, and aggressive
topics can be expressed in humorous ways that are
accepted by peers and adults.
Karina Hess Zimmermann
Children’s Humor Stages 125
See also Children’s Humor and Giftedness; Children’s
Humor Stages; Development of Humor; Education,
Humor in
Further Readings
Ashkenazi, O., & Ravid, D. (1998). Children’s
understanding of linguistic humor: An aspect of
metalinguistic awareness. Cahiers de Psychologie
Cognitive, 17, 367–387.
Bariaud, F. (1983). La genèse de l’humour chez l’enfant
[The child’s development of humor]. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development.
San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Pexman, P. M. (2008). The cognition of verbal irony. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 286–290.
Tennison, J. M. (1993). Cognitive development and humor
of young adolescents: A content analysis of jokes
(Doctoral dissertation). Available at Dissertation Express
database (UMI No. 9401986).
Wolfenstein, M. (1954) Children’s humor: A psychological
analysis. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
CHILDREN’S HUMOR STAGES
According to studies on humor development, in
order to appreciate and produce humor children go
through many stages. In general, it is agreed that
humor emerges at around age 2, when children
begin to interact with others in humorous ways.
During the preschool years, children will start to
produce humor based on the incongruity of actions
and objects, but not until the school years will lin-
guistic ambiguity be favored in children’s humorous
manifestations. Finally, during adolescence, indi-
viduals will commence to enjoy more sophisticated
humor and to use it for social purposes.
Humor in Infancy
It is difficult to determine when children begin to
enjoy humor. However, researchers have determined
that early smiles and laughter in interaction with
others starting at about 3 months of age, and games
resulting from appearance and disappearance of a
familiar face (e.g., playing peek-a-boo) during the
last part of the first year of age and the beginning of
the second, are signs of delight rather than humor
appreciation.
126 Children’s Humor Stages
Most humor researchers agree that first experi-
ences with humor appear during early childhood
(around age 2), when children become able to rep-
resent objects with internal mental schemes and
therefore play with objects in humorous ways.
Furthermore, they learn to intentionally distort real-
ity or to behave in unusual or exaggerated ways in
order to make others laugh. Children this age will
also enjoy humor related to body contact (tickling,
bumping against objects).
At the beginning of the third year, children begin
to play with language. They start to use words
to create incongruities because they understand
what socially accepted speech is. An inconsistence
between the word, the real object, and the object’s
image will therefore be combined to create humor.
Children will mislabel objects and events in order to
be humorous. For example, they will use the word
cow for a dog.
Humor in the Preschool Years
At around ages 3 to 5, children realize that words
refer to categories of objects or events that share
certain characteristics. Therefore, humor at this
stage is based on the incongruity that occurs when
these characteristics, mainly of physical appearance,
are infringed. For example, a child will laugh when
looking at a picture of a bicycle with square wheels.
Additionally, the acquisition of more sophisticated
linguistic skills will allow children this age to partici-
pate in various types of language play and therefore
the rhythmic repetition of words and the creation of
nonsense words will become frequent. Children will
also enjoy breaking pragmatic rules, for example, say-
ing “Good-bye” when arriving. Taboo words, clown-
ing, performing incongruous actions, and toilet talk
will become frequent and delightful for children this
age too, because discrepant situations will be favored.
In general, during the preschool years, humor
appreciation and understanding will depend on
incongruities of actions or pictures, rarely on incon-
gruity based on language. Even if children will
engage in activities such as telling jokes or riddles,
they will use the text structure without the punch
line, that is, without full humor comprehension.
Humor During the School Years
During the school years, children develop from non-
linguistic to linguistic humor. This development is
directly related to the acquisition of new cognitive,
linguistic, metalinguistic, and social abilities.
At around age 7, children realize that meanings
of words can be ambiguous. At this period children
start to produce and enjoy humor that involves
phonological, morphological, or lexical ambigu-
ity. Additionally, they fully understand the effects
of humor due to linguistic incongruity. Verbal play
increases rapidly in sophistication and comprehen-
sion, and production of language games such as
riddles and ready-made jokes will be frequent.
During the early school years, in addition, chil-
dren begin to assess the prevailing social models
of their culture, as well as the logical incongru-
ences and the breakdown of social conventions, in
order to understand and produce humorous events.
Therefore, humor will become a means to establish
positive social relationships but also to make fun of
the social world and to obtain control and advan-
tages over peers and adults.
In later childhood, around 9 to 10 years of age,
children start to enjoy more conventionalized humor,
such as puns, language games, idioms and teasing, as
well as humorous games including ridiculing others.
Other humorous manifestations, such as anecdotic
jokes and verbal irony, will emerge. Moreover, it is
at this stage that children are able to reflect on the
linguistic bases of humor, to understand ambiguity
due to syntactic structure, and to give higher quality
explanations about humor.
Humor in Adolescence
During the adolescent years humor will play an
important role in the social acceptance of individu-
als by their peers or as a way to express behaviors
that could bring them into conflict with authority
figures if not produced in humorous ways.
During this stage individuals will establish prefer-
ences for certain types of humor over others, mainly
those corresponding to common humor behaviors in
their social groups. Adolescents will prefer jokes that
are not as formulaic as riddles and favor more sophis-
ticated forms of humor. Humor will become more
spontaneous, creative, original, and less stereotyped.
Humorous manifestations involving higher cognitive
and social challenges, such as irony and sarcasm, will
be widely enjoyed by adolescents. In general, humor
production and appreciation will depend on the
individual’s personality, education, gender, and emo-
tional maturity. Joking insults and ridicule in public
places will be common for some groups. Other types
of humor, such as sick and dirty jokes, will appear
in others. Topics of humorous productions during

adolescence will often include social conflicts and
taboos, such as sexuality and racism.
Karina Hess Zimmermann
See also Children’s Humor Research; Development of Humor
Further Readings
Bariaud, F. (1983). La genese de l’humour chez l’enfant
[The child’s development of humor]. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development.
San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
CHRISTIANITY
Christianity is an Abrahamic religion centered on
the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Its fun-
damental beliefs are seminally founded on the Old
Testament, New Testament, and the Church Fathers,
those theologians who helped develop and codify
the doctrines of the faith during the first five centu-
ries after Jesus’s crucifixion.
By most accounts, these sources of authority make
Christianity incompatible with humor. However, a
few passages of the Bible, creative interpretations of
Jesus’s words in the Gospels, some traditions of the
early Church, and certain theological orientations
suggest that Christianity and humor might share a
kinship.
The Old Testament
One of the very first instances of recorded laughter
in history can be found in Genesis 17. When God
informs Abraham that his wife Sarah will give birth
to a son, Abraham falls to the ground in laughter
since Sarah is well past childbearing years. Abraham
seems amused by the humorous discrepancy between
God’s proclamation and a biological impossibil-
ity. Abraham’s laughter betrays a lack of faith.
Nevertheless, God seems to join Abraham in the joke,
announcing that the son born from this unlikely preg-
nancy will be called Isaac, which means “he laughs.”
Indeed, in the next chapter of Genesis, Sarah shares
the laughter when she overhears the Lord once again
inform Abraham that she will produce an offspring;
in fact, she acknowledges God as the source of her
laughter. This early record of laughter proceeds from
Christianity 127
a perception of incongruity coupled with a sense of
joy in experiencing God’s good favor.
Some of the stories in later books of the Old
Testament show connections to the superiority theory.
According to this theory, humor comes at the expense
of a stupid, clumsy, misguided, or in some way infe-
rior individual, whose misfortunes amuse a supe-
rior individual. Laughter becomes associated with
mockery and taunts. Some of this scoffing laughter is
directed toward God’s enemies, thereby establishing
God’s superiority over rivals. For instance, in 1 Kings
18, Elijah makes fun of the prophets of Baal when they
pit their god against Yahweh in a contest of miracles.
When the 450 prophets of Baal are unable to produce
fire on their altar, Elijah ridicules them. After God
successfully ignites his altar, Elijah commands that all
450 Baal prophets be killed. The tables of the superi-
ority theory are turned in 2 Kings 2 when a prophet of
God is the object of derisive laughter, rather than the
perpetrator. The prophet Elisha is jeered by a group of
young people, who make fun of his bald head. When
Elisha curses them, God sends a bear to maul all 42 of
the youths. Laughter is associated with the mocking
of God in Psalm 1, which describes sinners who scorn
God and will consequently receive the just penalty of
death. In Psalm 2, the tables are turned once again as
God is the one who laughingly scoffs at pagan kings
and rulers. The same phenomenon occurs in Psalm
37 and Psalm 59 where the Lord is depicted as laugh-
ing at the wicked.
Passages such as these endowed humor with
negative connotations. Involving mockery and scorn,
humor was the divine prerogative of God, whose
own laughter was directed toward enemies. Laughter
was furthermore associated with death and destruc-
tion: death and destruction of those at whom God
laughed or those who dared to laugh at God. In this
respect, the Hebrew world mirrored the Greek world.
In around 750 BCE, Homeric laughter came to des-
ignate the cruel laughter of the gods who mocked,
for instance, the disabled god Hephaestus. For this
reason, Plato in the Philebus registered the dangers
of laughter as a morally reprehensible activity.
The overall attitude of the Old Testament
toward humor might be summed up in the book of
Ecclesiastes, which associates foolishness with plea-
sure and wisdom with mourning.
The New Testament
Jesus is never recorded as laughing anywhere in the
New Testament, let alone the four Gospels. However,
128 Christianity

he occasionally speaks about laughter, though often strong, and those who serve shall be the greatest, for
obscurely. For instance, in Luke 6:21, Jesus tells his example. Paul dramatically inscribes the paradox of
disciples, “Blessed are you who weep now, for you Christianity in his description of the folly of the cross
will laugh.” However, in verse 25, he says, “Woe to in 1 Corinthians 1:18–31. Paul explains that God
you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.” chose the fools to outsmart the wise and the weak to
In John 16:22, Jesus likewise informs his disciples overpower the strong. This paradoxical formulation
that now is the time for mourning. Indulgence in helped establish a tradition of humor that stretches
laughter seems to be reserved for some eschatological from Desiderius Erasmus’s Praise of Folly and William
future. The asceticism that came to characterize the Shakespeare’s comedies to modern-day sitcoms.
early and medieval church finds expression in James
4:9–10 with “Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your The Church Fathers
laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble
Many influential theologians and clergy of the early
yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
Church emphasized the incompatibility between
Relatively recent reinterpretations of the New
Christianity and humor. In the 3rd century, for
Testament, however, have purported to uncover pre-
instance, St. Ambrose insisted that all joking should
viously unacknowledged instances of humor in the
be avoided. At around the same time, St. Jerome
Gospels. When Jesus, for instance, claims that it is
maintained that laughter was inappropriate for
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
the Christian; appealing to Jesus’s blessing in John
than for a rich man to enter heaven, the hyperbole
16:20 upon those who weep, Jerome established the
may have struck his 1st-century Palestinian audience
earthly life as a crucible of sanctified suffering and
as funny. Jesus may have used humorous exaggera-
thus reserved laughter for the afterlife. Jerome’s con-
tion as a rhetorical device: a lighthearted oratorical
temporary St. John Chrysostom likewise used John
method for conveying a serious point. A similar
16:20 to cast the Christian life as one of solemnity
hyperbole occurs in Jesus’s exhortation to hypo-
and austerity. Chrysostom, in fact, rebuked those
crites about removing the plank from their own eyes
who laugh, implying that such lightheartedness is an
before calling attention to the speck of dust in other
affront to the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
people’s eyes. Jesus reserved some of his strongest
St. Augustine, perhaps the most influential Church
exhortations for the Pharisees, whom he bitingly
Father of this period, was a bit more optimistic
and humorously calls “white-washed tombs” in
about humor, admitting that there is a time and
Matthew 23:27. Perhaps Jesus here makes use of
place for laughter. However, like many of his con-
the aggression theory of humor, a strategy Christians
temporaries, he also held that the mortal life is one
such as G. K. Chesterton and Flannery O’Connor
of trial and tribulation, and that sadness—suffering
would use with acerbic and humorous effect to cri-
with Christ—is more appropriate for the Christian
tique their societies from their Christian perspectives.
than mirth. One century later, the Benedictine Rule
Other reinterpretations find the incongruity the-
forbade laughter from the holy and devout life.
ory of humor operating elsewhere in the Gospels: For
St. Benedict insisted that followers of Jesus should not
instance, when Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter
engage in any speech that might produce laughter.
or, more literally, Rocky. Despite his zeal, Peter will
The Church Fathers thus established a model for
not, after all, remain steadfast—or rock solid—in
Christianity that militated against humor. Humor
his faith. The discrepancy between Jesus’s nickname
was perceived to be obscene, irreverent, and flippant.
for Peter and Peter’s later betrayal of Jesus (denying
For most of them, life was seen as a vale of suffering
him three times) provides an obvious example of the
and tears, a training ground to make Christians fit
incongruity theory of humor. In addition, some of
for heaven, the only place where joy could truly be
Jesus’s beatitudes, uttered during his Sermon on the
realized. This deferment of joy created a Christianity
Mount, make use of the basic elements of the incon-
characterized by asceticism, a lifestyle of self-denial,
gruity theory: The meek will incongruously inherit
which left little to no place for humor.
the earth; enemies should incongruously be treated
with love, and so forth.
The Medieval Church
Christianity thus shares a conceptual kinship with
the incongruity theory of humor, especially when The asceticism of the early church carried over into
considering the centrality of paradoxes in the New the medieval church. However, a few exceptions
Testament: The last shall be first, the weak shall be highlight possible intersections between Christianity

and humor. At the conclusion of the somber Lenten
season in the church’s liturgical calendar, Easter
laughter (risus paschalis) was permitted in the church
as an expression of joy in the resurrected Christ.
To facilitate such laughter, priests were known to
tell jokes and humorous anecdotes, some of which
verged on the obscene and risqué.
Other humorous festivals in the church calen-
dar existed. Christmas laughter followed the same
pattern as Easter laughter: priests and parish-
ioners engaged in normally taboo behavior—
joking, lightheartedness, merry singing. The medi-
eval church also celebrated Twelfth Night, the first
day of Epiphany, the day that marks Christ’s bap-
tism. Celebrations involved raucous revelry, a festi-
val not unlike modern-day Mardi Gras.
Other exceptions to medieval asceticism existed.
St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, maintained that
some pleasures are necessary to rest the soul; humor
could be a tool for the soul’s pleasure. It is also sig-
nificant that in the Inferno, Dante placed the sullen
in his fifth circle of hell; doing so implied that joy
was a virtue and misery a vice.
Dogmatism, Sacredness, and Messianic Joy
Other qualities seem to put Christianity at odds
with humor. The dogmas of the faith may produce
a close-mindedness and rigid worldview detri-
mental to the flexibility and playfulness of humor.
Moreover, like other religions, Christianity concerns
the sacred. Is the sacred amenable to humor? The
central image of Christianity is the cross, a symbol
of suffering and death. Necessitating a serious com-
mitment to this symbol, Christianity places most of
its dogmas beyond the reach of humor. In short, the
central beliefs of Christianity are not intended to be
something to joke about. In addition, insofar as it
revolves around vice—licentiousness and drunken-
ness, for instance, as is often the case—humor con-
flicts with Christianity. Here too exceptions exist.
For instance, St. Francis de Sales joked about the
low-cut dresses of a nun, and Martin Luther once
quipped that getting drunk would be the best way
for him to prepare for a sermon on drunkenness
the next day. Nevertheless, the often transgressive
nature of humor clashes with the sacred truths and
moral seriousness of Christianity.
The cross, however, is also the symbol of joy, of
the promise of the resurrection. This Messianic joy
is amenable to laughter. Humor producing this sort
of laughter engages the relief theory. According to
Clergy 129
Christianity, because of sin, humankind is separated
from God. Because of his death on the cross, how-
ever, Jesus reconciled God and humankind. Released
from this burden of sin, the Christian is liberated
from an existential crisis and the fear of damnation.
This process accords with the relief theory: The
relief from anxiety and tension results in laughter.
The central image of Christianity can thus both
discourage and encourage laughter, highlighting the
religion’s vexed relationship with humor.
Samuel Joeckel
See also Biblical Humor; Carnival and Festival; Clergy;
Feast of Fools; History of Humor: Medieval Europe;
Judaism
Further Readings
Hyers, C. (1981). The comic vision and the Christian faith:
A celebration of life and laughter. New York, NY:
Pilgrims Press.
Joeckel, S. (2008). Funny as hell: Christianity and humor
reconsidered. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 21(4), 415–433.
Kuschel, K.-J. (1994). Laughter: A theological essay.
New York, NY: Continuum.
Martin, J. (2011). Between heaven and mirth: Why joy,
humor, and laughter are at the heart of the spiritual life.
New York, NY: HarperOne.
Morreall, J. (2008). Philosophy and religion. In V. Raskin
(Ed.), The primer of humor research. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and sense of humor: An a
priori incompatibility? Theoretical considerations from a
psychological perspective. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 15(2), 191–214.
Trueblood, E. (1964). The humor of Christ. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
CINEMA
See Movies
CLERGY
Many of the world’s religions train people—usually
men—for leadership roles and confer authority on
them in ordination rituals. Those people are called
clergy. Because they wield power over people’s lives,
clergy have always been the subject of joking, and they
sometimes use humor themselves in different ways.
130 Clergy
In Judaism and Christianity, an important part of
clerical training and service is working with scrip-
tures, so rabbis, priests, and ministers must be lit-
erate and educated. Seminary training for Catholic
priests, for example, has typically been 8 years
beyond high school. In medieval Europe, only those
in holy orders were usually taught to read and write.
Clergy and clerk come from the same root, and
clerical means both “pertaining to someone in holy
orders” and “pertaining to a clerk.” Because they are
experts with the written documents of their religion
and more educated than most people in their congre-
gations, clergy have considerable power. They teach
laypeople the doctrines of the religion, they interpret
its moral laws, and they conduct important rituals.
In Catholicism, priests administer sacraments such
as Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist, which are
considered essential to salvation. In Judaism, rabbis
interpret God’s law and so guide people’s lives.
Like leaders in other institutions, such as educa-
tion, politics, and medicine, those with religious
authority are the subject of joking, cartoons, and
comic writing. It is natural for people to poke fun
at those who control their lives, starting with chil-
dren’s humor about their parents and their teach-
ers. This allows them to challenge authority in a
socially acceptable way and to reduce feelings of
being dominated. Because clergy are often thought
to have special supernatural control over people’s
lives, even determining whether they will spend
eternity in heaven or hell, it is understandable that a
considerable body of humor about clergy has devel-
oped over the centuries. In English literature, pok-
ing fun at the clergy starts with Geoffrey Chaucer’s
(ca. 1342–1400) Canterbury Tales.
During the Middle Ages, when popes ruled as
monarchs and sometimes excommunicated not just
political leaders but the people they ruled, virtually
consigning them to damnation, it was common for
preachers to rant about sinful popes. Artists paint-
ing the Last Judgment, such as Andrea Orcagna
(ca. 1308–1368), sometimes painted bishops and
popes in hell, naked except for their miters. In the
first part of The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri
(1265–1321) describes two groups of sinners in
hell, the misers and the greedy, running around a
circle and crashing into each other, only to turn
around and run the other way until they crashed
again, and so on forever. Among the butting heads
are the shaved pates of popes and other clergy. When
Luther, Calvin, and other reformers challenged the
hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church in the
16th and 17th centuries, it was common to see car-
toons of popes and bishops cavorting with demons.
The pope was even drawn as the Antichrist proph-
esied in the biblical Book of Revelation.
In general, the more power clergy have had, the
more humor has been created about them. There
are hundreds of jokes about the pope, for instance,
but few about deacons. There is also less humor
about Protestant ministers and rabbis than about
Catholic clergy, because they have had less power
over people’s lives.
Medieval Europe, particularly France, had festive
days for ridiculing the clergy and their rituals. The
two most famous were the Feast of Fools around
January 1 and the Feast of Asses on January 14. For
the Feast of Fools, the bishop might be replaced by
a boy. Some festivals appointed a Lord of Misrule.
Minor clerics dressed wildly and held their prayer
books upside down; instead of incense, they burned
old shoe leather. The Feast of Asses coincided with
the Feast of the Flight into Egypt (of Mary, Jesus,
and Joseph). A girl holding a baby rode a donkey
through town into the church, right into the sanc-
tuary. In places, the congregation responded to the
priest’s chanting with “Hee-haw.” These anarchic
festivals, which many scholars link to the Roman
Saturnalia, were often condemned by bishops. In
1435, the Council of Basel officially banned them,
though remnants lingered until the mid-17th cen-
tury. Some of their spirit can still be seen in Mardi
Gras and Carnival. In The Hunchback of Notre
Dame, Victor Hugo (1831) recalls the Feast of Fools
and makes Quasimodo the King of Fools.
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there is a milder
kind of humorous festivity on Bright Monday, the
day after Easter. Early theologians wrote about
Paschal laughter at the joke God played on Satan by
raising Jesus from the dead. So on Bright Monday,
the priest tells jokes in church and laypeople may
play practical jokes on him.
As church condemnations of the Feast of Fools
show, religious leaders tend to suppress humor
poking fun at the church. But there are exceptions.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for instance, is both
former Anglican primate of Southern Africa and
an African well aware of the role of the Anglican
Church in colonizing the continent. Tutu once
quipped, “When the missionaries came to Africa,
they had the Bible and we had the land. They said,
‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened
them, we had the Bible and they had the land”
(Gish, 2004, p. 101).
 Clowns 131

The Feast of Fools in the cathedral church of Nîmes, as illustrated in Léon Ménard’s Civil, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History
of the City of Nîmes (1758).
Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Some clergy show considerable humor, not just See also Carnival and Festival; Fabliau; Feast of Fools
about the church but about themselves. Robert
Runcie, retired Archbishop of Canterbury, for Further Readings
example, loved to tell the story of a train trip in
Cox, H. (1969). The feast of fools: A theological essay on
which he looked up to see that everyone else in
festivity and fantasy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
the car was a patient from a mental hospital. The
University Press.
attendant in charge of the patients came into the
Gish, S. (2004). Desmond Tutu: A biography. Westport,
car to make sure he had everyone. Pointing at each
CT: Greenwood Press.
person, he counted “One—two—three.” Getting
Smith, T. W. (2007). Communicating like Jesus.
to Runcie, he asked, “Who are you?” “I’m the Summerville, SC: Holy Fire Publishing.
Archbishop of Canterbury,” Runcie said. “Four—
five—six . . .” the attendant continued (Smith,
2007, p. 98). Angelo Roncalli, Pope John XXIII,
questioned many Catholic traditions and called CLOWNS
the Second Vatican Council to “to let some fresh
air into the Church.” Unlike his predecessor, Pope
The term clown did not come into use until the 16th
Pius XII, Pope John was witty and warm, and
century and has an uncertain etymology. It prob-
reports of his quips circulated widely. One of the
ably comes from the Scandinavian dialect (Icelandic
first places he visited was a prison, where he said
klunni, Swedish kluns, both indicating “clumsy”) or
to the inmates, “Since you could not come to me, I
might come from Latin colonus, “farmer.” The term
came to you.” Speaking to a diplomat, he said, “I
can be defined variously depending on the context
know you are an atheist, but won’t you accept an
of the clown activity or performance. Therefore, this
old man’s blessing?” And when a reporter asked
entry offers a definition of clown as it is found in a
him how many people worked at the Vatican, he
range of societal and performative settings: ritual,
said, “No more than half of them.”
circus, theater, and film. It also discusses the appear-
John Morreall ance and behavior of clowns in each of these frames.
132 Clowns

Wherever clowns appear they are identifiable
through both behavior and appearance. They can
function as truth tellers and social commentators
as well as fulfilling the role of entertainer. Clowns
are anarchic, parodic, and subversive by nature,
transgressing social and performative codes. They
demonstrate variance from normally accepted
behavior; interact with objects, other clowns, and
those watching; experiment with language; indulge
in broad physical comedy; and demonstrate high
levels of physical skill. In appearance, the clown is
marked out as different from everyday members of
society through the use of makeup, mask, or red
nose. The clown’s clothing is also different from the
norm, being too big or too small or of an unusual
color.
Ritual Clowning
Clowns are widely found in the ceremonies of com-
munal societies, for example the Native American
Hopi, Maidu, and Mayo-Yaqui peoples. In such
ceremonies, the clown’s contrary behavior (walk-
ing backward, talking gibberish, doing that which
is usually unacceptable) is sanctioned by society. In
this sense the clown fulfills a positive social role by
facilitating the acknowledgement and expression of
taboos without threatening the usual order. In such
settings, the clowns wear masks or makeup, which
separate them from their everyday selves and from
their audience. The clown is both of and apart from
the society within which it functions.
incompetence. An entrée is the term given to the
clown act that takes place between these two in the
main circus ring. Other clowns, usually Augustes or
Tramps (a variant on the Auguste distinguished by
his shabby costume, painted-on stubble, and down-
turned mouth) may appear as carpet clowns com-
ing out of the ring and into the circus audience to
cover the transitions between specialist acts in the
ring. A further type of clown, the producing clown,
developed in American three-ring circuses where the
larger performance arena demanded larger visual
gags. The circus clown has continued to develop in
Nouveau Cirque since the 1970s and the traditional
types are not so easily identified in newer circuses,
but the typical clown behavior of tripping, fall-
ing, slipping, throwing food and water, and drop-
ping props remains. In an echo of the earlier ritual
clowning, circus clowns interrupt the ringmaster
and parody other acts.

Circus Clowns
The traditional circus clown came into being in the
mid-18th century in both Europe and the United
States and by the end of the 19th century, two key
clown types had been developed. These were the
Auguste and the Whiteface. There is critical debate
about the origin of the term Auguste but these
clowns are widely recognized as incompetent and
incapable. They are always the butt of the joke.
Their clothing is typified by being ill fitting and
gaudily colored. The Auguste clown, as the term is
used now, wears brightly colored face paint, a wig or
wild hair style, and the red nose. The Auguste usu-
ally works with the higher status Whiteface clown. Auguste clowns with children on Pennsylvania Avenue in
This higher status is reflected in the Whiteface’s ele- Washington, D.C., during a 1980s event at the clock
gant face makeup, smart, close-fitting costume, and tower of the Old Post Office Building in the background.
neat conical hat. Together these two clowns formed Source: Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of
the traditional circus double act that entertained the Congress Prints and Photographs Division. Washington,
audience with status interplay, physical comedy, and DC, Reproduction Number LC-DIG-highsm-15456.

Whiteface clown wearing harlequin mask in Venice, Italy,
during Carnival.
Source: Birgit Koch Image Broker/Newscom.
Theater Clowns
While clown characters have existed in plays since
Greek theater, it was the 18th century that saw
the rise of individual performers who became well
known in the role of clown. The first of these was
Joseph “Joey” Grimaldi who performed as a panto-
mime clown at London’s Drury Lane Theatre and
also at Sadler’s Wells, London. He is credited with
introducing clown face paint and from him can be
traced a lineage of theater clowns that descends
through the Austrian clown Grock to Slava Polunin.
The influence of the training of Jacques Lecoq is
critical in the establishment of modern clown the-
ater. Theater clowning in the 20th and 21st centu-
ries is typified by an emphasis on creating striking
images, a sense of play (both on stage and between
the performers and the audience), strong interac-
tion with music and sound effects, and often a
narrative or thematic meaning. Clown performers
make use of a range of techniques such as double
takes, clocks (brief looks to the audience), drops
Clowns in Medical Settings 133
(comments to the audience), and mime to connect
with their audience and to encourage play.
Film Clowns
Clowning on film has existed since the earliest
days of cinema when its broad physical slapstick
lent itself to the visual demands of silent cinema.
Famous clowns from the early days of cinema
include Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and Charlie
Chaplin together with the double acts of Stan Laurel
and Oliver Hardy and William “Bud” Abbott and
Lou Costello. Film clowning created the possibil-
ity of large-scale visual gags and the look to audi-
ence was replaced with the look to camera. Broad,
slapstick comedy approaches to clown on film can
be seen today in the work of performers like Jim
Carrey.
Clowns in Contemporary Society
Clowns now appear in a range of settings beyond
performance arenas, such as in the medical profes-
sion. Clowns Without Borders is an international
organization that sends clowns into war zones and
refugee camps to reach out to traumatized individu-
als through play; the energy and optimism of the
clown can help reconnect individuals with their own
sense of play and enthusiasm for life.
Louise Peacock
See also Clowns in Medical Settings; Coulrophobia;
Fools; Play and Humor; Ritual Clowns; Slapstick
Further Readings
Kerr, W. (1975). Silent clowns. New York, NY: Knopf.
Peacock, L. S. (2009). Serious play—Modern clown
performance. Bristol, UK: Intellect.
Schecter, J. (2001). The pickle clowns: New American
circus comedy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Towsen, J. (1976). Clowns. New York, NY: Hawthorne
Books.
CLOWNS IN MEDICAL SETTINGS
A particular interest in clowns has arisen in recent
decades as clowns have entered medical settings.
This entry defines the role of clowning in medical
settings and examines this approach and its effect on
patients.
134 Clowns in Medical Settings

Clown: From Circus to Hospital
In recent years, there has been an increase in the num-
ber of clowns in medical settings, primarily in work
with children. The clown character comes from the
circus world. In the circus, its role is to amuse specta-
tors and to provide relief from the anxiety caused by
performances by acrobats, lion tamers, and others.
There are two main clown characters: the Whiteface
and the Auguste. One of the most important char-
acteristics of the clown is represented by its ability
to cross all kinds of boundaries. The clown tends to
subvert the order of things in the spatial, temporal,
and moral realms. This figure can easily be linked
to many humor roles: clowns make people laugh
at the ridiculous and about human weaknesses, the
absurd, and rigorous aspects of everyday behavior.
Because of these reasons, and based on the
assumption that humor is associated with both psy-
chological and mental well-being, there has been an
increase in performances by clowns in medical set-
tings. This is becoming a widespread phenomenon
worldwide.
The presence of professional clowns working in
hospitals as part of the healthcare team dates back
to 1986 when Michael Christensen, a famous pro-
fessional clown of the Big Apple Circus, in New
York City, along with Jeff Gordon, founded the Big
Apple Circus Clown Care Unit. Since then, Clown
Care Units have been set up all over the world.
While this work was initially confined to pediat-
ric units, increasingly clowns are now working with
patients of all ages and in all areas of medical settings.
Clowning as Therapy
Clown therapy is defined as the implementation of
clown techniques derived from the circus world to
contexts of illness so as to improve people’s mood
and state of mind. Clowns in medical settings, often
referred to as clown doctors, are people with theatri-
cal training and special competence in working in
hospitals as clowns with children as well as adults.
They are not doctors but performers. They are called
clown doctors in order to parody the doctor figure,
often seen as frightening.
In fact, hospitalization is considered to be an
adverse event in life, usually causing distress that
may become traumatic, especially for children and
the elderly.

Clowns Jamie Lachman (left), also known as “Banjo Max,” Sibongile Tsoanyane (center), “Nkgono,” and Delia Meyer
(right), “Fwing,” perform their clown act for schoolchildren on a dirt soccer field in Malealea, Lesotho, on July 11, 2008.
Clowns Without Borders is an international NGO that uses laughter to help relieve the suffering of all persons,
especially children, who live in areas of crisis, including refugee camps, conflict zones, and territories in situations of
emergency. It has projects around the globe and also has projects in the United States.
Source: KIM LUDBROOK/EPA/Newscom.

One of the main purposes of clowning is to make
people laugh. Clowns aim to build a relationship
with patients, playing with them to foster humor, to
create a light-hearted atmosphere, and to relax them.
Clown doctors usually work in pairs where one has
the role of the Whiteface and the other the role of
the Auguste. It is the dynamic interplay between
them that is the source of much humor. During their
performances clown doctors use theater expressive
techniques with the purpose of changing the emo-
tional state of patients.
Clown doctors must pay attention to the psy-
chological outcome of their actions and to what
the patients really need. Clowns always improvise
according to the patient’s willingness; in this way,
they transform a neutral setting into a funnier one. In
medical settings, clowns work alongside health-care
staff to help reduce patient distress and anxiety, to
support both patients and their families to improve
their coping mechanisms in the face of illness and
hospitalization, and to help patients develop positive
attitudes.
The most significant outcome of the clowns’ visits
is that patients feel calmer and happier. In particular,
children who have to undergo medical procedures
are more cooperative and they need to take fewer
drugs.
Alberto Dionigi
See also Children’s Humor Research; Clowns; Coping
Mechanism; Coulrophobia; Health Benefits of Humor,
Physical; Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Ritual Clowns
Further Readings
Carp, C. E. (1998). Clown therapy: The creation of a
clown character as a treatment intervention. Two
archetypes of human sexuality. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 25(4), 245–255.
Dionigi, A., Flangini, R., & Gremigni, P. (2012). Clowns in
hospitals. In P. Gremigni (Ed.), Humor and health
promotion (pp. 213–228). New York, NY: Nova
Science.
Vagnoli, L., Caprilli, S., Robiglio, A., & Messeri, A. (2005).
Clown doctors as a treatment for preoperative anxiety
in children: A randomized, prospective study. Pediatrics,
116, 563–567.
Warren B. (2008). Healing laughter: The role and
benefits of clown doctors working in hospitals and
healthcare. In B. Warren (Ed.), Using the creative arts
in healthcare and therapy (pp. 213–228). London,
UK: Routledge.
Cognitive Aspects 135
COGNITIVE ASPECTS
How is the mind involved in the humor experience?
This is the leading question when the attention of
the researcher is focused on the cognitive aspects.
From the Latin word cognitio (knowledge), and also
related to the verb cogito (to think), cognition is the
term that indicates the work of the mind itself.
Since ancient times, philosophers and scholars
have proposed observations on this matter. The
Greek philosopher Aristotle noted that laughter for
the comic is generated by a particular form of sur-
prise and deception. Surprise typically is a brief emo-
tional state in reaction to the unexpected. Deception
implies the feeling of being fooled or misled. Both are
connected to a “mental” evaluation of an event that
proved to be inaccurate or incorrect. That in humor
there exists an unusual, and surprising, combina-
tion of events, words, and concepts has in various
ways been emphasized by many, such as Cicero and
Quintilian. Immanuel Kant (1790/1951) stated that
“laughter is an affection arising from sudden trans-
formation of a strained expectation into nothing”
(p. 172). Blaise Pascal and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel stressed the role of a deviation from normal.
All this has prepared the ground for contempo-
rary research work. A turning point took place in
the early 1970s, with the development of the cogni-
tive sciences. In particular, of notable importance has
been the investigation of the concept of incongruity.
This word had actually been previously employed by
Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer among others.
What is new is the theoretical framework in terms of
perceptual cognitive mechanisms and of information
processing. In this perspective, a stimulus is defined
as incongruous when it differs from the model (or
schema, or mental representation) the subject has of
how the stimulus should feature.
A two-stage model has been proposed, mainly
for jokes, and it has become a point of reference for
research and debate. In the first stage, an incongruity
is identified, usually given by an ending of the text
that does not seem to follow from the premises. In
the second stage, the subject engages in a problem-
solving activity to find an element, the cognitive rule
that makes sense of the incongruity. Also, the role of
a previous stage has been stressed: the setup, which
prepares the ending (punch line). The setup may be
implied and not explicitly stated. In addition, the key
role of a final stage has been underlined. This has
to do with the fact that the incongruity resolution
136 Cognitive Aspects
(often indicated as INC RES) does not normally
eliminate the incongruity itself. The odd things and
the absurdities that are represented in jokes, not to
mention the anomalous use of logic and language,
are made acceptable by the cognitive rule but not
normalized. A residual incongruity (RES INC) is
retained in the cognition of the subject. The follow-
ing demonstrates how this works:
John is lighting three little bonfires with some
newspapers in the backyard of his house. His
neighbor asks him, “What are you doing?” “I’m
lighting three little bonfires with some newspapers.”
“What for?” “To keep the lions away.” “But there
are no lions in our town!” “See, it works.”
The setup introduces the story, the ending is an
incongruity, the cognitive rule puts things in order
suggesting that John is using the principle of causal-
ity in a wrong inverted way, and his behavior and
reasoning remain incongruous.
Cognitive Mastery
Humor may be fueled by incongruity in itself.
Caricature, slapstick, and much of children’s humor
do not appear to correspond to a two-stage model.
It has been observed that humor and incongruity are
present in a one-stage pattern. That needs an exten-
sion of the concept of resolution to that of cognitive
mastery. This corresponds to the condition in which
the subject has all elements available, is adequately
processed, and is under control. When a little child
calls a fork a spoon, and laughs, it is most proba-
bly because he is experiencing the cognitive mastery
of knowing which is which and is using the wrong
name in a humorous way. The lack of cognitive mas-
tery is on the other hand one of the main factors for
failed humor.
In some humor expressions, the cognitive com-
ponent is outstanding, for instance, in jokes in
which the problem-solving element is particularly
clear. This may be in such simple forms as riddles
introduced by a question such as “What is the dif-
ference between . . . ?” or in more complex ones. An
example that shows how much cognitive work may
be involved in a joke is the following:
One.
How many psychics does it take to change a
light bulb?
First, the responder needs to be familiar with
the light bulb jokes series, the first of which is
considered to be, in the U.S. version, “How many
Poles does it take to change a light bulb? Five. One
who steps on a table and holds the light bulb and
four to turn the table” (the knowledge requirement).
Second, a change from the typical series to an atypi-
cal joke is needed (a shift to a second level). Third,
the incongruity of the preliminary “One” and of a
seemingly missing ending has to be solved (incongru-
ity resolution). Further, the assumption that a psy-
chic knows things before they happen (or before
they are asked) is to be exploited to make sense of
the joke. An additional element to be grasped is also
the correspondence of the text form (the teller side)
with the character represented.
Like all other aspects involved in humor expe-
rience, the cognitive dimension is also subject to
developmental changes. A joke that is understood
at a certain age may not be understood before. This
does not depend on the growing experience and on
knowledge resources only. The cognitive structures
and capabilities also change. It is not before the
potential for “abstract thinking” is achieved that a
joke such as that of the psychic changing the light
bulb may be adequately processed. Humor compre-
hension has its stages, too, which go along with the
development of the cognitive structures. This also
applies to later phases of life. When cognitive abili-
ties tend to lose their efficiency, the understanding of
jokes may also be reduced. Studies have shown that
an effect of physiological aging is a diminished com-
prehension of some humorous stimuli. However,
elderly people have presented a greater appreciation
of the jokes that they could adequately understand.
What seems to be lost in extension appears to be
retained and even improved in intensity.
Cognitive Aspects and Humor Appreciation
Cognitive aspects have a crucial role in the humor
process in order to recognize a humorous stimulus,
organize its properties, understand it, and eventu-
ally solve the problems they pose. They also are a
source for humorous enjoyment. This component
has become particularly clear and relevant after the
studies on intrinsic motivation. Human behavior is
rewarded by many forms of external motivational
factors, such as money, praise, approval, and other
types of social incentives. But it is well known and
experimentally demonstrated that many activities
are carried out, and even sought, for the sake of the
activity itself. Play, art, and humor are among these.
It is the intrinsic motivation that favors the behaviors

connected with these experiences. An internal moti-
vational factor that has been shown to operate in
many activities, and specifically in humor, is linked
to the cognitive dimension in two main regards. The
first has been identified in the pleasure of perceiv-
ing and dealing with an incongruity as such. It is
functional and safe to live in an environment we
feel we know well—that is, it is congruent with our
knowledge and reserves no dangerous surprises such
as those that could easily happen to our ancestors
in a primordial world. But we also feel the need for
exploring, for new experiences. And this also may
be traced back to positively rewarded conducts.
The unexpected, the unusual, might arouse anxiety,
but it can also be stimulating, exciting, and attrac-
tive to the point of inducing risk-taking behavior.
Humorous incongruity in general appears to be a
mild form of “the unexpected” in a safe framework.
It combines the pleasure of satisfying the need for
something new and different and odd, and the plea-
sure of a comfortable feeling of confidence.
The second is connected with the concept of cog-
nitive challenge that any humorous stimulus poses
in many respects, from information retrieval to
problem solving. The challenge turns into a pleasant
experience, if and when the subject has it under con-
trol. Two conditions are that the difficulty has to be
moderate and the process has to be relatively effort-
less. The level of difficulty is defined by the principle
of congruency, which is both quantitative and quali-
tative. The characteristics of the humorous stimulus
need to be congruent with the cognitive potential of
the subject in order to be properly processed, com-
prehended, and appreciated. If crucial information is
lacking, or the capability for, say, abstract thinking
is not efficient, the humorous response is likely not
to ensue.
Ease of information processing and humor
appreciation appear to be associated. In general,
little mental effort in understanding a humorous
stimulus is a more favorable condition. This seems
to be particularly true when other sources of humor
enjoyment are provided by the stimulus, such as an
aggressive or sexual content. On the other hand,
a brilliant, even highly sophisticated text, such as
Oscar Wilde’s or Karl Kraus’s aphorisms, may elicit
a specific cognitive pleasure. This is mainly pro-
vided by experiencing an insight, often revealing, on
aspects of the world and of life. To this scope, the
subject not only needs to understand the literal sense
of the text but also grasp the implications in their full
significance. This is, again, best accomplished with a
Cognitive Aspects 137
limited effort and the feeling of an adequate cogni-
tive mastery. In addition, it has to be stressed that
individual differences play a role not only for the
level of cognitive competence, but also with regard
to the importance attached to it by the subject, and
hence the motivational value associated. Some dif-
ferences in humor preferences are partly explainable
on this basis: “I mostly like witty, intellectual jokes.”
In other words, the enjoyment of these jokes comes
partly because they make one feel and seem smarter.
Nonsense
Nonsense humor may seem to be an exception to the
model of incongruity resolution. In reality, what dif-
fers is that the resolution is of a particular kind. Take
the following joke: “What is the difference between
the sparrow?” “None, both sides are equal, espe-
cially the left.” There is a cumulative combination of
incongruities. The opening question does not include
a comparison, as would be normally expected.
Furthermore, there is no plausible reason why the
sides should be taken into account. The specifica-
tion “especially the left” is lacking relevance, and
it is paradoxical regarding the previous statement
“both sides are equal.” As a matter of fact, it is a
sort of parody of riddles. Its articulation resembles
the structure of a riddle and imitates its logic, but
the reasoning implied is no logic at all, and it pro-
duces a logic-like, or para-logic, effect. Although the
overall effect and that of any single part is devoid of
sense and therefore incongruous, the resolution is
provided by the reconstruction of the process that
is ordinarily followed in a normal riddle and by the
recognition of the similarities and of the differences.
The appreciation of these forms of humor, as that
of any others, is both the result of the cognitive pro-
cessing and of the individual preferences or taste.
Giovannantonio Forabosco
See also Appreciation of Humor; Children’s Humor
Stages; Comprehension of Humor; Development of
Humor; Failed Humor; Incongruity and Resolution
Further Readings
Deckers, L. (1993). On the validity of a weight-judging
paradigm for the study of humor. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 43–56.
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humor
process: The concept of incongruity. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1–2), 45–68.
138 College Humor
Forabosco, G. (2008). Is the concept of incongruity still a
useful construct for the advancement of humor
research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1), 45–62.
Hillson, T. R., & Martin, R. A. (1994). What’s so funny
about that? The domains—interaction approach as a
model of incongruity and resolution in humor.
Motivation and Emotion, 18(1), 1–29.
Kant, I. (1951). Critique of judgment (J. H. Bernard, Trans.).
New York, NY: Hafner. (Originally published 1790)
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor, its origin and development.
San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1998). The sense of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation
of jokes and cartoons. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E.
McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical
perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81–100). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
COLLEGE HUMOR
Expressing the joy and stress of making one’s way
through higher education, college humor has enter-
tained countless students. Simon J. Bronner (2012)
argues that the inspiration for much college folklore
is students’ transition from childhood to adulthood.
During this in-between stage of life, much memo-
rable expressive behavior occurs. Among the most
common forms of college humor are riddle-jokes,
legends, parodies, and pranks. Although college
humor has evolved over time, with a recent pro-
pensity for Internet use, certain forms have stayed
remarkably similar. This entry looks at some of the
types of humor most popular on college campuses.
Oxford, England’s oldest university, was founded
in the late 12th century; Cambridge followed soon
afterward. At both of these large universities, sharing
daily life in residential colleges gave rise to humor.
Harvard University’s proximity to Cowyard Row
in the early 17th century inspired humorous com-
ments. Walking the same pathways and eating the
same food, students develop a sense of community
that fosters their enjoyment of humor.
Riddle-Jokes
Riddle-jokes articulate students’ sense of their col-
lege’s identity and their rivalry with other institu-
tions of higher learning. This genre’s concise form
and firm establishment in folk tradition make it very
popular. Both in oral tradition and on websites, stu-
dents share such jokes as “What does the average
California State University student get on his SAT?
Drool!” Some riddle-jokes describe students from
other colleges as slow-witted, unpromising, and even
downright criminal, as in the following example:
“What do you say when you see a Bowling Green
grad in a suit? Will the defendant please rise?”
Some of the most beloved riddle-jokes poke fun
at students from different collegiate settings. There
are many light bulb jokes about colleges: “How
many Princeton students does it take to change a
light bulb? Two: One to mix the martinis and one
to call the electrician.” The oldest American univer-
sity receives humorous criticism for its pride: “How
many Harvard students does it take to change a
light bulb? One—he holds the bulb and the world
revolves around him.”
Legends
Campus legends describe memorable, sometimes
surprising events that have a kernel of truth. While
some legends scare the listener, others make the
listener laugh. Stories about professors, for exam-
ple, tend to accentuate professors’ eccentricity and
absent-mindedness. At Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, students said mathematics professor
Norbert Wiener was so deeply immersed in his own
thoughts that he forgot where he lived and could not
remember his own children. Similarly, at Princeton’s
Institute for Advanced Studies, students said that
Albert Einstein’s wife would tie a red string around
one of his fingers to remind him to buy groceries.
Other legends describe outrageous acts by stu-
dents. In a legend that circulated in the 1990s, two
students tell their professor they missed his exam
because their car had a flat tire, and the profes-
sor agrees to allow them to take a makeup exam.
Moving the students to separate rooms, the profes-
sor gives each of them a test booklet with one ques-
tion: “Which tire?” In another exam story, a bold
student exceeds his time limit and challenges the
professor’s objection by asking, “Do you know who
I am?” When the professor answers “No,” the stu-
dent says, “Good!” pushes his exam into the middle
of the pile and runs away.
Inappropriate use of body parts by medical
students comprises another category of campus
legendry. Alan Dundes interprets a legend about
medical students extending a cadaver arm to a toll
booth attendant as an expression of guilt about using
human bodies to make a living; through humor, the
 College Humor 139

students are seeking a socially acceptable outlet for
their guilt.
Parodies
Parodies of a college’s solemn songs give students
a sense of power and control. Mount Holyoke
College’s alma mater, for example, begins with the
line “O Mount Holyoke, we pay thee devotion”;
the song parody begins, “O Mount Holyoke, we
pay thee tuition.” Besides the alma mater, college
fight songs and cheers are likely targets for ruthless
parody.
Students enjoy creating parodies of course names,
such as “Nuts and Sluts” for abnormal psychology
and “Rocks for Jocks” for introduction to geology.
Bogus entrance exams, tests, and editions of cam-
pus newspapers have made many students laugh. At
the University of California and other institutions,
students have performed mock funerals for hated

In a prank at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on September 11, 2006, a red fire truck with the words “MIT
Fire Department” appeared on top of the Great Dome, a 150-foot-high rotunda on the MIT campus in Cambridge.
Source: Wikipedia.
140 Comedy
textbooks. There have also been parodies of tradi-
tional social events, such as Valentine’s Day dances
with black balloons. These parodies and others
have helped students handle inherently stressful
situations.
Pranks
Pranks, also known as practical jokes, offer enor-
mous delight. Removing furniture from a dormitory
room, filling the room with wastepaper, or placing
a bucket of water over a door results in shock and
disorder. One classic prank involves bringing farm
animals into a college building. In the movie Animal
House (1978), members of a fraternity bring a horse
into a hated dean’s office and unintentionally kill
the horse. In such a way, students invert their col-
lege’s expectations of proper behavior and substitute
chaos for order.
Pranks that cause embarrassment have been
especially popular. Panty raids to purloin underwear
were common in the early 20th century. When video
cameras became easily available later in the 20th
century, students began to take away a showering
friend’s clothes and towel and then film the friend
as he or she angrily ran out of the shower stall.
Computer-related pranks have included changing
a friend’s Facebook status and altering the friend’s
identity in various embarrassing ways.
Some college students may have trouble discern-
ing the difference between pranks and behavior that
constitutes bullying or even a criminal offense. In
2010, a gay Rutgers University student commit-
ted suicide after his roommate used a webcam to
secretly view him and another man in an embrace,
then posted comments about it on Twitter. The
roommate, Dharun Ravi, was later convicted of 15
criminal counts, including invasion of privacy, and
served 20 days in jail. While this was an extreme
case, other colleges have had to grapple with so-
called pranks that left students feeling unwelcome or
unsafe and to determine how to prevent dangerous
incidents of bullying and hazing.
Elizabeth Tucker
See also Jokes; Parody; Practical Jokes
Further Readings
Bronner, S. J. (2012). Campus traditions: Folklore from the
old-time college to the modern mega-university. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi.
Dundes, A. (1971). On the psychology of legend. In W. D.
Hand (Ed.), American folk legend: A symposium
(pp. 21–36). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jackson, B. (1972). The greatest mathematician in the
world: Norbert Wiener stories. Western Folklore,
31, 1–22.
Morison. S. E. (1935). The founding of Harvard College.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tucker, E. (2005). Campus legends: A handbook. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
University Light Bulb Jokes. (n.d.). Aaaugh: A humor
archive. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://www
.aaaugh.com/jokes/light_bulb_jokes.html
COMEDY
The word comedy is derived ultimately from a
Greek term denoting revelry. As such its origins were
religious, associated with fertility rituals within the
cult of Dionysus. In a seminal essay, Northrop Frye
(1912–1991) described comedy as the “mythos of
spring,” and the spirit of joy, renewal, and fecundity
remains central to the European comic theatrical
tradition that has now merged with native traditions
of comic theater around the world, including the
Japanese, Chinese, Sanskrit, and Tamil. Although
the Greeks established two important comedic pat-
terns within their drama festivals, namely the Old
Comedy exemplified most richly by Aristophanes
and the new comedy as developed particularly by
Menander, the spirit of comedy spreads far wider
than mere dramatic performance. Any literary or
artistic genre involving character portrayal may take
comic shape: This includes satiric poetry, humorous
short stories, comic novels, caricatures, and spoofs
(whether literary, visual, or practical—in art the
entire Dada movement was profoundly comic in
both intent and effect), along with subliterary genres
such as the stand-up routine, the tall tale, witty
or obscene graffiti, joke collections, and websites;
as well as in the graphic arts, the comic strip and
the newspapers’ daily cartoon, and drama’s direct
descendants in radio, television, film, and video.
This list is scarcely exhaustive, but even so, it
points up two trends in both comedy’s theatrical tra-
dition and its social origins. One can be defined as the
satiric pattern, whereby the comedian purposefully
uses his comic art to provoke thought, often with a
view to social reform. The other relates back to rev-
elry, and to varying degrees, privileges emotion ahead
of reflection, intending to give relief from serious

preoccupations and to celebrate life itself more than
the moral values that civilization imposes on it.
Famous comedies exemplifying these two polarities
are Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest
(1895) and Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play Waiting
for Godot (1949). The first defies serious issues for
all Wilde’s ideological nihilism, while Beckett’s the-
ater remains obstinately life-affirming: However
threatened and doom-laden, his characters do com-
municate, both with one another and with their audi-
ence, and particularly via their sense of humor.
This fundamental bipolarity of humor has helped
ensure that great comic authors within the European
tradition, such as Giovanni Boccaccio, Geoffrey
Chaucer, François Rabelais, William Shakespeare,
Miguel de Cervantes, Molière, Anton Chekhov,
Wilde, and Mark Twain, have been subjected to deep
analysis to facilitate and guarantee fresh approaches
to their work. The same is true of great comic works
in other traditions, such as the famous Honglou
meng or Shitou ji, known in English as The Dream
of the Red Chamber or The Story of the Stone, a
120-chapter novel by Cao Xueqin (ca. 1715–ca.
1763) and Gao E (ca. 1738–ca. 1815). Equally, given
modern trends in reader-response criticism along
with advances in humor theory, more recent studies
have discerned comic patterns in less obvious places
such as the work of Franz Kafka, Thomas Hardy, the
Bible, or Daoist writings. This entry, however, reflects
the roots of comedy, both East and West, by focusing
on performative comedy, that is, comedy that contin-
ues to depend for its full effects on being physically
acted, even though it is impossible to reconstruct
fully the social context in which many pieces from
the past were either mounted or received.
Though it may no longer represent a live tradi-
tion in mainstream theater, Greek Old Comedy
clearly possessed an extraordinary license for irrev-
erence toward social convention, respected author-
ity, and even the sacred rituals from which it had
emerged (hence the comical appearance of Dionysus
in Aristophanes’s The Frogs), exemplifying the
principle of humor as relief or deliberate inversion.
New comedy, by contrast, was less extravagant
and obscene than the preceding form, concentrat-
ing more on real-life situations populated by a series
of stock characters ridiculed for their eccentricity.
These are still recognizable in Renaissance com-
media dell’arte and indeed in 21st-century sitcoms.
They include, for instance, the braggart soldier who
is in reality a coward (Lance Corporal Jones of
BBC’s Dad’s Army, 1968–1977, springs to mind),
Comedy 141
and the domineering (usually male) parent who
seeks vainly to thwart the amorous ambitions of the
younger generation.
This latter figure was adopted by the Roman
playwrights Plautus and Terence, whose influence
on European drama and literature established the
pattern of young love triumphant as standard in
nearly all comedy. Though the juvenile swains may
not actually deserve to achieve their ends, nor indeed
be the most interesting characters in the dramatis
personae, audiences instinctively side with them
against the powers opposing. This plot model was
reinforced by Terence, who also established a stan-
dard of Latin good enough for his works to be used
in Humanist academies in the Renaissance, so creat-
ing an important forum for dramatic performance
to reemerge from the era of itinerant troupes lacking
permanent theaters. Plautus is especially memorable
for developing the role of the clever slave whose wit
and ingenuity outdoes his master’s, and who often
emerges as the principal motor force of the play.
Pierre Beaumarchais’s Figaro (1778), Jules Verne’s
Passepartout (1873), and P. G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves
(1881–1975) are all his direct descendants, and par-
allels can be found in the servant, Taro Kaja, of the
Japanese Kyōgen farces and in other independent
theatrical traditions around the world.
Parallel to the regular Roman comedy were the
so-called atellani and mimi, popular genres per-
formed at periods of celebration (e.g., springtime)
and whose licentious qualities and caustic social
comment echo the pattern of carnival freedom still
observable in any comedy club of today. They also
reflect the irreverence and vitality of Aristophanes’s
licensed relief which grants opportunities for
playwrights and performers to develop comic but
thought-provoking strategies that can be satiric
and potentially subversive. Despite the Christian
Church’s principled opposition to theatrical perfor-
mances (other than those sanctioned by their own
traditional religious drama), this spirit of freedom
and potential challenge remained visible throughout
the European Middle Ages.
It was particularly associated with popular per-
formances set around celebratory dates like the Feast
of Fools and pre-Lenten Carnival, maintaining a
vital tradition to which many if not all social groups
responded, even including the clergy who on particu-
lar days could mock their own rituals and vocations.
Thus, the stunts performed in today’s student rag
parades in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the ritu-
als of Halloween and Weihnachtsfest, or, particularly
142 Comedy
in rural France, in the celebration of St. John’s Day
are modern echoes. By contrast, the genres of moral-
ity and mystery plays were essentially serious cultic
performances mounted at religious festivals. Their
social importance is still reflected in modern folk rit-
uals, but importantly the medieval farce developed
initially from comic interludes inserted within them
(comic relief again) as a way to hold their audiences.
Meanwhile the French sotie, a type of play where
the principal characters (usually masked) are mad,
also reflected a holiday atmosphere in which social
and even political issues could be raised, whether
overtly or surreptitiously.
The European Renaissance witnessed a marked
revival of interest in classical new comedy, which was
widely imitated and indeed performed in a number
of countries, being often seen as in better taste than
the less regular medieval forms. Censorship of car-
nival excess, exerted by both the Reformation and
Counter-Reformation, also worked to the advantage
of more erudite theater, along with the reinstitution
of professional companies and permanent theaters in,
for instance, England, Spain, and Italy. However the
vitality of popular comedy was never quashed com-
pletely, witness how it emerges into Shakespeare’s
festive dramas. Meanwhile professional troupes in
Italy developed the tradition of commedia dell’arte,
a highly stylized and largely unscripted theatrical
mode, with plot structures deriving from neoclassical
theater but reinforced with a wide range of stunts,
gestures, and acrobatic capers designed to amaze
and appeal to audiences beyond the intelligentsia.
Despite performing initially, if not predominantly, in
a variety of Italian dialects, these companies travelled
widely in Europe and commanded support for many
decades beyond the 16th century.
Significantly, commedia dell’arte incorporated
professional troupes, including women, in perform-
ing indoors rather than in public squares or covered
inn-yards, and it dissociated drama from the reli-
gious calendar. However as indicated by its name, it
fiercely downgraded the role of the author by rely-
ing on stock plots and improvisation—its legacy is
a vast range of scenarios rather than written scripts.
That tendency runs largely counter to the emergence
of the great comic playwrights of the 16th and
17th centuries. These include Shakespeare and Ben
Jonson, the Spaniards Lope de Vega, Pedro Calderon
and Cervantes, and Pierre Corneille and Molière in
France; Renaissance Italian theater foreshadowed
the trend via the poet Ludovico Ariosto, reputedly
the author of the first commedia erudita, namely
La Cassaria (1508), and Niccolò Machiavelli, who,
though better known for other works, wrote his the-
atrical masterpiece La Mandragola (The Mandrake)
in 1518, scarcely imagining that it would be success-
fully revived on the American stage in the 1970s and
filmed (not for the first time) in 2008.
Plautine influence on Ariosto and the rest of the
commedia erudita is strong, but more significant is
the way in which successive groups of playwrights
moved beyond it. For instance, in The Comedy of
Errors (ca. 1594), Shakespeare remains close to the
Roman model, but later merges and problematizes
the theme of young love triumphant with a whole
range of variations in plays like Twelfth Night or
The Tempest. Similarly Jonson in Bartholomew
Fair (1614) deliberately travesties the love-plot by
introducing prostitutes alongside reputable matches
and its carnivalesque fairground setting enhances a
return to the unorthodoxies of old comedy.
These major dramatists, plus Lope de Vega and
Molière, were primarily men of the theater rather
than students of the classics and therefore more
concerned with success on stage and its consequent
material returns than with conformity to an erudite
model. Lope’s output was phenomenal, estimated at
one play per month over 50 years, and in his 1609
theoretical work, Arte Nuevo, he formed the con-
cept of comedia nueva that explicitly rejected both
Roman sources and Aristotelian unities. In fact,
this posture was exaggerated, but the success of his
works quashed opposition from both the Church
and the defenders of strict classicism, a fact equally
true of the great French homme de théâtre, Molière.
No less varied, though less prolific in his output
than Lope, Molière developed the satirical trend of
comedy. In several major works, he chose a domi-
nant but ridiculous central figure (often performed
by himself), whose obsessions threaten but fail
before the amorous ambitions of the young. The
glamour of his protagonists creates a crucial ambi-
guity whereby the moral import of his work (which
opposition forced him to stress in various published
Prefaces) is compromised but to decided dramatic
effect. Shakespeare’s Falstaff, Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe’s Mephistopheles, and Tirso de Molina’s Don
Juan (a character also exploited by Molière) possess
an equivalent potential as heroes who defy ethical
norms and tempt their audiences to do likewise.
Seventeenth-century theater also established the
royal court as a site for performance, alongside the
city theater, the town square, and the fairground,
where popular forms of comedy still retained an

audience. As James I patronized Shakespeare, so
did Louis XIV favor Molière. However comedy,
along with the stage itself, remained suspect to more
radical religious authorities, hence the closure of
the theaters in Cromwellian England (1640–1661)
and the French law prohibiting religious burial for
actors. Needless to say, the taste for comedy sur-
vived such censorship and was rewarded after the
reestablishment of the English monarchy under
Charles II with an outburst of libertine plays com-
prising Restoration Comedy or comedy of manners.
Typically, the themes of marital infidelity and stylish
sexual intrigue predominate here. William Wycherly
(1640–1713) and John Vanbrugh (ca. 1664–1726)
exemplify this trend, which perhaps reached its
apogee in the scarcely credible obscenities of Sodom
(1685), a closet drama attributed to John Wilmot,
second Earl of Rochester (1647–1680); among
sundry extravagances, it contains characters named
Buggeranthos and Fuckadilla.
Beyond the obvious characteristic of relief from
suppression, this type of comedy also featured rebel-
lious intent: Sodom is readable as a political satire on
the king himself. Moreover, with the growth of anti-
authoritarian sentiment, particularly in 18th-century
France, this trend was emphasized and exemplified
among writers there, notwithstanding Jean-Jacques
Rousseau’s principled dismissal of all theatrical com-
edy, which he judged (naming Molière in particular)
morally dangerous. However, in the Encyclopédie
(a compendium of Enlightenment thinking and
protest, organized and in major part composed by
Rousseau’s one-time friend Denis Diderot and pub-
lished between 1751 and 1772) one finds important
and less hidebound theoretical writings on comedy,
and indeed the greatest Italian comic playwright of
the 18th century, Carlo Goldoni (1707–1793), an
avowed imitator of Molière, chose to spend his later
years residing and writing in France.
The most important playwright of prerevolution-
ary France, however, was Beaumarchais, whose
Mariage de Figaro (the second element in a trilogy)
clearly goes beyond stock comedy of relief to express
an anti-aristocratic sentiment that was soon to take
dramatic effect in society itself. This excellent play,
first performed in 1784 to amazing success, shows
the Count, master to Figaro and planning to seduce
his intended bride, being thoroughly outwitted by
his hireling, and finally reduced to begging forgive-
ness from his own slighted but vengeful wife. This
infusion of classical comedy structures with humane
sentiment prefigures a later development termed in
Comedy 143
France comédie larmoyante and in England, senti-
mental comedy, essentially a tragicomic combination.
The same pattern appeared in late-18th-century
England, where playwrights Oliver Goldsmith
and Richard Brinsley Sheridan produced plays like
She Stoops to Conquer (1773) and The School for
Scandal (1777). Here, within the so-called comedy of
manners, they balanced lighthearted plots with sig-
nificant social comment, a pattern that would con-
tinue over the next two centuries with playwrights
such as J. M. Barrie (1860–1937) and Noël Coward
(1899–1973). Particularly notable during the 19th
century, however, was the enormous expansion of a
theater that was increasingly accessible to mass audi-
ences. This was served across Europe by comic play-
wrights who may have lacked high literary ambitions
but nevertheless helped create or sustain various
comedic genres, and whose influence has long sur-
vived them. These include the authors of the Viennese
Volkstheater; the German August von Kotzebue
(1761–1819); the Frenchman René-Charles Guilbert
de Pixérécourt (1773–1844, important internation-
ally in the development of melodrama); and Eugène
Scribe (1791–1861), a Parisian playwright special-
izing among other forms in the comédie-vaudeville,
also adopted by Eugène Labiche (1851–1888) and
analogous to the drawing-room comedy of 20th-cen-
tury Britain. Later in the century, Georges Feydeau
(1862–1921) was renowned for his bedroom farces,
yet is now also regarded as a significant precursor
of later experimental theatrical trends. In the same
way, Chekhov (1860–1904), another writer of bril-
liant short farces and longer comedies, can be seen as
transformative for the Russian stage; although subse-
quent political control of art and literature probably
cut short the effects in his home country, his influ-
ence on world theater has been profound.
Public demand for comedy was also served by the
music hall, vaudeville, and comic opera, but above
all by the growth of the film industry, where plots
and characters tended to mirror theater conven-
tions. Nevertheless, theatrical comedy continued
to flourish and significant new developments came
from Irish-born playwrights such as Wilde, George
Bernard Shaw, Sean O’Casey, and John Millington
Synge. A commitment to social commentary and,
in many cases, the introduction of characters drawn
from the lower classes ultimately changed the tone
and nature of the genre. Gone were aristocratic
and drawing-room comedies and in came realistic
middle-class and “kitchen-sink” comedies; Beckett
(1906–1989) is a significant legatee in this context.
144 Comedy Ensembles
So while old fare remained popular, a countercur-
rent of innovation developed in contexts such as
the French café-théâtres; European street theater;
and fora like the Theatre Workshop, founded in
1945; and London’s Royal Court Theatre, where,
alongside important serious dramas such as John
Osborne’s Look Back in Anger (1956), Norman
Frederick Simpson enjoyed the premiere of his
absurdist drama A Resounding Tinkle (1957).
Challenging the predictability and middle-class
preconceptions of other playwrights, the theater of
the absurd, established by writers such as Beckett
and Eugène Ionesco (1909–1994), aimed to amuse
in part by defying the audience’s expectations. The
pattern is foreshadowed in the theory and practice
of Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) and Luigi Pirandello
(1867–1936) and its metatheatrical implications
were extended by later writers including Peter
Handke (b. 1942) and Joe Orton (1933–1967).
Immense freedom of interpretation is allowed to
directors, actors, and audiences, who are invited,
by the nonsensical sequences of events portrayed, to
apply their own critical intelligence to determine an
authorial satiric intention. The spirit of old comedy
and improvisation thus returns in the often offensive
and disrespectful attitude toward authority and tra-
dition, even when a playwright such as Beckett or
Brendan Behan refuses to articulate or acknowledge
the need for a concrete message. Meanwhile the age-
old pattern of young love frustrated and then satis-
fied is comprehensively ransacked.
Given cross-fertilization from other cultures and
media, now even including YouTube, performative
comedy certainly retains its vitality. This depends in
part on the spontaneity and imaginative freedom of
its professional entertainers, in part on the loyalty of
its audiences, but essentially it is inspired by its rich
and varied traditions. Thus in 1974, the American
stage enjoyed an adaptation by Stephen Sondheim
of Aristophanes’s The Frogs, following the example
of Plautus’s Menaechmi which was transformed
via Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors into Richard
Rodgers and Lorenz Hart’s musical The Boys from
Syracuse (1938, later a film). The less regular modes
of farce and mime remain popular in forms such as
children’s puppet shows, modern street theater, hap-
penings, and especially the TV sketch. The mock ser-
mons of the Middle Ages, adapted to literary satire
in Erasmus’s Praise of Folly (1511), are precursors
of today’s stand-up routines on TV, in clubs, and on
video, such as the universally popular sketches and
films of Rowan Atkinson (b. 1955) as Mr. Bean.
The comic fertility pattern latent throughout
Western culture whereby youth triumphs over age
continues to recur both in the established theater
repertoires and in the most banal of sitcoms and tele-
vision soap operas, which demand a regular diet of
weddings in order to retain their audiences. At the
same time, well before absurdism and metafarces
such as Michael Frayn’s Noises Off (a farce about a
farce, 1982), masterpieces such as George Farquhar’s
The Beaux’ Stratagem (1707), or the best works of his
French contemporary Pierre de Marivaux, adapted
and guyed the old traditional model to great effect.
A modern defiance of critical expectations, bourgeois
sentiment, and censorship presented in a comedy
such as Handke’s Offending the Audience (1966)
may not please universally but must be admired for
its defiant brashness. Satirizing the comic formula
itself surely runs true to the spirit of the muse.
John Parkin and Jessica Milner Davis
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient
Roman Comedy; Burlesque; Carnival and Festival;
Carnivalesque; Comedy Ensembles; Comic Relief; Comic
Versus Tragic Worldviews; Comic World; Commedia
dell’Arte; Farce; Feast of Fools; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; High Comedy; Improv Comedy; Inversion,
Topsy-Turvy; Kyōgen; Low Comedy; Masks; Menander;
Movie Humor Types; Music Hall; Pirandello, Luigi;
Plautus; Satire; Shakespearean Comedy; Sitcoms; Sketch
Comedy Shows; Slapstick; Stand-Up Comedy; Subversive
Humor; Tragicomedy; Variety Shows
Further Readings
Charney, M. (Ed.). (2005). Comedy: A geographic and
historical guide (2 vols.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism: Four essays.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Howarth, W. (Ed.). (1978). Comic drama: The European
heritage. London, UK: Methuen.
Salingar, L. (1974). Shakespeare and the traditions of
comedy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
COMEDY ENSEMBLES
A comedy ensemble is a group of comedians made
up of two or more elements, usually acting under a
collective pseudonym and specializing in perform-
ing live or recorded humorous sketches. An ensem-
ble normally utilizes the same artistic procedures
and devices as stand-up comedians and is able to
create articulated humorous situations thanks to its

extended team. In this entry, an overview is given of
the history of ensembles and how they work, and
some particularly famous examples of ensembles in
the history of TV and cinema are discussed.
From the documental evidence that has survived,
the origins of comedy ensembles as we know them
go as far back as those of comedy itself, around
6th century BCE, with the rise of Old Comedy in
ancient Greece. Back then, temporary and permanent
associations of actors performed humorous numbers
and satires for the first time as part of the yearly ritu-
als dedicated to Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and
ecstasy. Comedy was highly regarded also in repub-
lican and imperial Rome and stable companies of
actors regularly staged the works of renowned com-
edy playwrights, such as the Greek Aristophanes and
Menander and the Latin Plautus and Terence.
After a long period of neglect following the fall
of the Western Roman Empire, the rebirth of the-
ater in the High Middle Ages (after the year 1000)
favored the formation of stable companies that
staged at first morality and miracle plays and even-
tually switched to diableries (devilish plays) and
comedies, at the time still carrying a religious moral.
The rediscovery of the ancient Greek and Roman
authors brought about by Humanism and the
Renaissance in 14th-century Italy allowed comedy
to gain strength and to free itself completely from
any residual religious meanings. Comedies began to
be staged by professional companies especially in
Italy, France, England, and Spain. Notably, William
Shakespeare’s companies in Elizabethan England
distinguished themselves for their uncommon ability
in playing both comedies and tragedies. Since then,
the major changes involving comedy ensembles have
occurred starting from the end of the 19th century,
with the inventions of radio, cinema, and TV, which
originated a specialization and a proliferation of
comedy ensembles in the new media.
Today, the most common formation for ensem-
bles is the comedy duo, also called double act, where
two people play the often stereotyped, complemen-
tary roles of the straight man, also known as feed,
dead wood, or stooge, and the comic, also called
banana man or funny man. The straight man is in
most cases the serious, balanced, even deadpan per-
sona who provides the audience with a common-
sense perspective with which one can easily identify,
but can also prove to be sarcastic and poignant in
the remarks made on the comic’s actions, appear-
ances, or words. The comic, on the other hand,
draws upon the framework provided by the straight
Comedy Ensembles 145
man—hence the “feed” nickname of the former—
and disrupts it through a distorted reasoning often
ending in a series of punch lines. These in most of
cases exploit the double meanings of classical rhe-
torical devices such as metaphor, similitude, synec-
doche, or metonymy, thus exposing incongruities
and arousing laughter. In addition to verbal humor,
the ensemble can employ a variety of visual devices
ranging from funny disguises to parodic objects.
The roles of the straight man and the comic can
be fixed (interpreted always by the same comedian)
or interchangeable (taken up by either of the two
equally). Among the most important duos of the
20th century were Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (see
below); William “Bud” Abbott and Lou Costello
(U.S., 1938–1957); Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis
(U.S., 1946–1956); Eric Morecambe and Ernie
Wise (U.K., 1941–1984); Matt Lucas and David
Williams (U.K., 2003–2006); and Vic Reeves and
Bob Mortimer (U.K., 1990– ).
Other types of comedy ensembles can involve
from three people (a trio) up to six or more people.
In these cases, the basic roles of the straight man
and the comic are distributed among the group
members, allowing a wider variety of shades in the
representation of characters and enlarged comic
possibilities. Even though ensembles with numer-
ous members are very rare, if we consider them in
the contexts of long-running shows on radio, TV,
web series, and live shows, there are several deserv-
ing a mention: The Goon Show (Spike Milligan et
al., U.K., 1951–1960) and I’m Sorry, I’ll Read That
Again (Tim Brooke-Taylor, John Cleese et al., U.K.,
1964–1973) radio series; Saturday Night Live TV
show (U.S., 1975– ); M*A*S*H (U.S., 1972–1983),
Blackadder (U.K., 1983–1989), Seinfeld (U.S.,
1989–1998), and Friends (U.S., 1994–2004) TV
series; and the New Kids on the Block group (The
Netherlands, 2007–2011) Web series and films.
Among the longer lasting comedy ensembles in
drama, cinema, radio, and TV, the most prominent
are without doubt the Marx Brothers (see below)
and Monty Python (UK, 1969–1983).
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy
The British Stan Laurel (1890–1965) and the
American Oliver Hardy (1892–1957) formed one of
the most acclaimed and lasting duos in cinema his-
tory in more than a hundred motion pictures, both
silent and sound. The thin, clumsy, and daft Laurel
counterbalanced the large, hot-blooded but equally
146 Comic Books

goofy Hardy in almost all their classic slapstick com- Wilmut, R. (1982). From fringe to flying circus: Celebrating
edy sketches based on an accumulation of misun- a unique generation of comedy. London, UK: Methuen.
derstandings that usually led to a disastrous final
collapse of the comic situation, both metaphorical
and physical. Active as an established comedy duo COMEDY OF MANNERS
from 1921 to 1950, among their most famous films
are the short Music Box (1932) that earned them the
first Academy Award ever given to comedians, Sons See Genres and Styles of Comedy; High
of the Desert (1933), and Way Out West (1937). Comedy

The Marx Brothers

Leonard “Chico” (1887–1961), Arthur “Harpo”
(1888–1964), Julius Henry “Groucho” (1890–1977),
and Herbert Manfred “Zeppo” Marx (1901–1979)
were the four Jewish American brothers that formed
the Marx Brothers comedy ensemble, active from
1907 to 1949 in vaudeville theaters, radio, and cin-
ema. Although Zeppo only acted in some of the first
films the troupe made, from 1929 to 1933, he is usu-
ally remembered as part of the group. Their humor
featured a distinctive assimilation of the classic straight
man–comic opposition in each of them, combined with
an uncommon ability in singing and playing diverse
musical instruments, from guitar to piano, and a body
language highly trained in their vaudeville years. They
used trademark disguises that made them recognizable
in the manner of commedia dell’arte masks: Groucho
featured a thick, black moustache, black-rimmed
glasses, and a stooping walk; Harpo did not speak,
wore a red wig, and always carried a bike horn with
him; Chico impersonated the Italian immigrant with
a deliberately cheesy Italian accent; Zeppo, in his few
appearances, was the silly straight man of the situa-
tion. Among their successes, we remember the films
Horse Feathers (1932), Duck Soup (1933), A Night
at the Opera (1935), and A Day at the Races (1937).
Giordano Vintaloro
COMIC BOOKS
Gag-based humor was the hallmark of the earliest
American newspaper comic strips from their origins
in the mid-1890s. Strips like Buster Brown (Richard
F. Outcault) and The Katzenjammer Kids (Rudolph
Dirks) created the grammar of the daily strip,
which was refined by early-20th-century works like
Krazy Kat (George Herriman), Mutt and Jeff (Bud
Fisher), Bringing Up Father (George McManus),
Blondie (Chic Young), and Li’l Abner (Al Capp).
The earliest comic books were an attempt to cash
in on the success of these strips by collecting them
as magazine-size periodicals. When the easy supply
of prepublished strips dissipated, packagers turned
to original material. Titles like Famous Funnies and
New Comics emerged in the mid-1930s as clear imi-
tators of the comic strip tradition.
In the 1940s, Dell Comics solidified the chil-
dren’s comic book market when it secured the
rights to produce comic book versions of Disney’s

See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Monty Python; Punch

Line; Slapstick

Further Readings
Dalton, M. A., & Linder, L. R. (Eds.). (2005). The sitcom
reader. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Louvish, S. (2007). Stan and Ollie: The roots of comedy:
The double life of Laurel and Hardy. New York, NY:
Thomas Dunne Books.
Mills, J. (2007). A century of the Marx Brothers. The early syndicated comic strip Buster Brown was
Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. translated and published in book form in France in the
Minois, G. (2000). Histoire du rire et de la dérision [A early 20th century.
history of laughter and ridicule]. Paris, France: Fayard. Source: Richard Felton Outcault/Wikimedia Commons.

animation stars. Walt Disney’s Comics and Stories
was launched in 1940 and ran for 22 years, publish-
ing the adventures of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck,
and other characters known from the silver screen.
The success of this title opened the door for works
based on the characters from the Warner Brothers
studio Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies (1941),
as well as Walter Lantz and Hanna-Barbera. By the
1950s, the leading publisher of comics for young
children was Harvey Comics, who had a string of
hits, including Little Audrey (1952), Casper the
Friendly Ghost (1952), and Richie Rich (1960). The
profusion of anthropomorphic characters and ani-
mation visual styles largely defined children’s com-
ics in the post-War period, an era in which some
of the most notable comic book humorists plied
their trade (Carl Barks on Donald Duck, Floyd
Gottfredson on Mickey Mouse, and John Stanley
on Little Lulu).
Humor comic books addressed to an audience
of teenagers have their origins with Archie (1942).
The adventures of the clean-cut, all-American boy
and his friends in Riverdale became a cultural sen-
sation, not only spinning off a variety of titles—
Archie’s Girls Betty and Veronica (1950), Archie’s
Pal Jughead (1949)—but launching a raft of copycat
titles such as Andy (1948), Ernie (1948) and Dudley
(1949). Though they reached their sales peak in the
late 1960s, Archie comics have continued to be pub-
lished uninterrupted to the present, the longest run-
ning comic book character other than superheroes
Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.
The 1950s witnessed a dramatic tonal shift in the
area of humor comics. While previous comics for
children and teens had featured innocent situations
and gags, the creation of MAD in 1952 ushered in
a new kind of biting satire. Created and initially
edited by the influential humor cartoonist Harvey
Kurtzman, MAD began as a full-color comic book
before changing its format in 1954 to become a
black-and-white magazine. MAD cast a skeptical
eye on American media culture, regularly lampoon-
ing film, television, and advertising. With its distinc-
tive satiric tone, MAD fundamentally altered the
landscape of humor comic books, ushering in an era
of cynicism and irony. The success of MAD made
it ripe for imitations, including Crazy (1953), Eh!
(1953), Wild (1954), Panic (1954), Trump (1957),
Cracked (1958), and Help! (1960).
The American comic book industry suffered a
severe contraction in the mid-1950s, the result of the
rise of television, changes to magazine distribution,
Comic Books 147
and the implementation of a self-regulating produc-
tion code. By the 1960s, comic book circulation was
in free fall, and publishers turned toward super-
heroes as the dominant genre. Nonetheless, a gen-
eration of cartoonists raised on MAD and its rivals
began publishing humor comics in university news-
papers and in comic books distributed by the under-
ground press syndicate. The underground period of
the late 1960s and early 1970s was intricately bound
to the counter culture of that period, and cartoonists
such as Robert Crumb (Zap), Gilbert Shelton (The
Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers), Jay Lynch (Bijou
Funnies), and Denis Kitchen (Mom’s Homemade
Comics) were among the notable figures who used
the freedom offered by underground distribution to
develop humor styles that were intended exclusively
for an adult readership.
The end of the underground comics era coincided
with the rise of a new generation of comic book spe-
cialty shops across the United States at the end of
the 1970s. These outlets offered venues where comic
book fans could access a wider range of products,
including small run titles that were sold exclusively
through what is known as the “direct market.”
Many of these titles were parodic of the dominant
superhero and adventure genres, including Dave
Sim’s Cerebus (1977) and MAD veteran Sergio
Aragonès’s Groo the Wanderer (1982). The era of
“alternative comics” saw a diminishing role for
humor, though several notable cartoonists continued
to explore the form, including Peter Bagge (Hate)
and Evan Dorkin (Dork!). The rise of the graphic
novel as a publishing category in the wake of the suc-
cess of Art Spiegelman’s Holocaust memoir, Maus
(1986/1991), marginalized humor as a category,
with the vast majority of long-form graphic novels
tending to focus on serious topics and themes.
Throughout the history of the American comic
book, the daily newspaper comic strip has persisted
as a dominant venue for humor cartooning. Since
at least the 1960s, serialized comics—and adven-
ture comics in particular—have been on the decline
and have been replaced by gag-a-day strips like
Garfield (Jim Davis) and Dilbert (Scott Adams).
The rise of independent weekly newspapers in
major metropolitan areas created a market for
weekly humor strips, of which Life in Hell (Matt
Groening) and Ernie Pook’s Comeek (Lynda Barry)
were the best known. With the rise of the Internet,
many humor cartoonists have turned to that venue
as a support for their work, and webcomics tend
to be predominantly humorous in nature. Several
148 Comic Frame
cartoonists—Kate Beaton (Hark, A Vagrant!), Chris
Onstad (Achewood), and Jerry Holkins and Mike
Krahulik (Penny Arcade)—have built extensive fan
bases while publishing comics online.
Bart Beaty
See also Art and Visual Humor; Cartoons; Comic Strips;
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.; Magazines and
Newspapers Outside the United States
Further Readings
Becker, S. (1959). Comic art in America. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Blackbeard, B., & Crain, D. (1991). The comic strip
century. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: OG.
Estren, M. J. (1974). A history of underground comics.
Berkeley, CA: Straight Arrow Books.
Reidelbach, M. (1991). Completely MAD: A history of the
comic book and magazine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
White, D. M., & Abel, R. H. (1963). The funnies: An
American idiom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
COMIC FRAME
The comic frame represents a distinct and historic
tool in human communication. This entry explains
the concept, contrasts comic and tragic frames, and
examines some contemporary examples from the
standpoint of framing theory.
Frames in Communication Theory
In communication theory, the concept of framing
refers to the role of context in the construction of
meaning. The contextual cues leading the interpre-
tation of a message is centrally important to how
we make symbolic sense. The symbolic structures
humans use to impose order upon their lives are
called frames. The metaphor of a frame is a major
critical tool in understanding 21st-century com-
munication. Communication scholars advance the
basic principles of communication theorist Kenneth
Burke’s communication-based axiology, or philo-
sophical theory of value. The larger notion of frames
is utilized in comedic and noncomedic areas of study.
Chris Smith and Ben Voth note in 2002 that
frames are the constructs humans use to view,
group, and interpret experiences with reality. These
frames, in turn, determine the symbolic actions and
choices humans make from these experiences.
Kenneth Burke argues that humans categorize their
actions and choices through the major poetic frames
of epic, tragedy, comedy, elegy, satire, burlesque,
and the grotesque . . . the symbolic action through
these poetic frames allows people a means of dealing
with life’s inequities through a dramaturgical
perspective. (p. 111)
Tragic and Comic Frames
Contemporary usage and study of the comic frame
depends upon a moral axiology inherent in Burke’s
writing. Burke sought to improve communication
study in a way that would allow human beings
through an interpretive process to transcend the
tragic frame and embrace the comic frame. Fully
understanding the ethical underpinnings of this view
requires an understanding of the tragic frame and its
close relationship to human nature.
The comic constitutes an intuitive alternative to
the tragic frames of rejection that express themselves
most intensely in the forms of violence. Burke spe-
cifically suggests that the comic frame is rhetorically
achieved through a technique termed perspective
by incongruity. In this technique, a communicator
juxtaposes seemingly contrary elements that the
audience would tend to view as unnaturally associ-
ated—hence the incongruity. The unexpected com-
bination produces an ironic effect that provides an
opportunity for a new perspective.
The comic and tragic frames can be used to
interpret the existence of human differences. Using
the comic frame allows these differences to be
portrayed as amusing, rather than as a reason for
violence against “the other.” The human receptivity
to amusement offers a compelling alternative to the
serious win-lose scenarios of war and genocide. The
construct of humor and comedy as a communicative
message offers to an audience a juxtaposition of dif-
ference that invites acceptance rather than oblitera-
tion or denial. This makes Burke’s insights regarding
the comic frame more than a description—they are
a prescription for the tragic frame that ails the com-
municative body of humanity. Tragic messages can
be recast as comedic messages and in so doing, the
audience may resist the symbolic path of tragedy—
the rhetoric of “the Kill.” Burke (1959) described it
this way:
In sum, the comic frame should enable people to be
observers of themselves, while acting. Its ultimate
would not be passiveness, but maximum
consciousness. One would ‘transcend’ himself by
noting his own foibles. He would provide a

rationale for locating the irrational and the
nonrational. (p. 169)
The reflexive capacities of the comic frame enable
human beings to be self-critics who can prevent the
totalizing rejection of our fellow human beings. We
gain a capacity to escape Burke’s definition of man
that notes how we are “rotten with perfection.” Our
devastating human habit of annihilating one another
on the road to the next utopia can be deferred and
held in a form of communicative check. The recog-
nition of our own interpretive weaknesses provides
the gateway of human transcendence in the inherent
moral struggle of communication.
The Comic Frame in 21st-Century
Political Communication
The comic frame constitutes an intuitive alternative
to the tragic frames of rejection that express them-
selves most intensely in the forms of violence noted
earlier. Burke specifically suggests that the comic
frame is rhetorically achieved through a technique
termed “perspective by incongruity.” In this tech-
nique, a communicator juxtaposes seemingly con-
trary elements that the audience would tend to view
as unnaturally associated—hence the incongruity.
The unexpected combination produces an ironic
effect that provides an opportunity for new perspec-
tive. An example of this was seen in a 2007 open-
ing to the comedy show Saturday Night Live. In the
previous week, then–Iranian president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad spoke in New York at Columbia
University. One of the more salient moments of
the politically charged atmosphere of his presen-
tation was a question and answer period where a
Columbia student asked the president about the
status of homosexuals in Iran. The president smiled
and explained that there were no homosexuals in
Iran, so the question was not pertinent to a conver-
sation or answer. Before the president could finish
that sentence, the college students erupted into loud
laughter at the suggestion that there were no homo-
sexuals in Iran. Saturday Night Live opened that
weekend with a musical piece performed by a male
character making romantic appeals to the Iranian
president. In the depiction, the Iranian president
appears in various states of dress suggesting recep-
tivity to a homosexual relationship. In one scene,
the parodied character of the president appears in a
red dress laying on a piano with a large smile on his
face. This perspective of incongruity by portraying
the president of Iran as a gay man opens up a come-
Comic Frame 149
dic interpretation that there may be gays in Iran and
that there are likely additional interpretations of the
president’s remarks at Columbia beyond his own
apparently benign suggestions.
Applications of the comic frame within com-
munication study in the 21st century highlight the
rapid emergence within the United States of the
comic frame with regard to political commentary.
Television shows such as Jon Stewart’s The Daily
Show, Stephen Colbert’s The Colbert Report, and
Saturday Night Live are ascendant forms of com-
munication that clearly operate within a comic
frame. The tragic world of politics where there are
winners and losers is recast by comedic spinners in
these various outlets. The growing public appeal of
these outlets provides some measure of relief from
the political spiral of cynicism noted by communica-
tion scholars such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
The presence and appeal of the comic frame
is not limited to or unique to the United States.
International topics and advocates arise in outlets
such as Trey Parker’s South Park and Sacha Baron
Cohen’s character of Borat. The visual comedic
framing of the prophet Muhammad continues to
produce disturbing moral dilemmas about how the
tragic and comic frames meet globally. Cohen’s iden-
tification of Borat as being from Kazakhstan led the
Kazakh government to block the film Borat from
being shown in theaters there. In the movie, Cohen’s
character leads a country and western honky-tonk
in a rousing anti-Semitic song about throwing the
Jews “down the well.” The eager participation of
the audience to such an offensive message is dis-
turbing while amusing. Young people ages 18 to
29 especially gravitate toward the comic frame and
increasingly utilize comic frame sources to gather
news on current events.
Other Forms of Humor?
As noted earlier, burlesque and satire are delineated
as distinct communication genres despite our ten-
dency to unite them under the umbrella of humor.
Recognizing the differences in types of humor is
important not only as a matter of descriptive accu-
racy but also as a means of discerning functions and
outcomes of humor.
Despite Burke’s idealism, the prospect for the
comic frame to interpret tragedy remains an impor-
tant theoretical consideration. The specific use of
comedic burlesque, mockery, and ridicule may make
audiences receptive to processes of marginalization
that are integral to the public acceptance of the tragic
150 Comic Opera
frame. In the fall of 2008, one of the most noted
comedic framing events was the parody of then-
Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate
Sarah Palin by comedienne Tina Fey. Fey’s uncanny
resemblance and acuity to Palin gestures made her
a smash hit. Saturday Night Live recorded a record
viewing audience in the fall of 2008 when Palin met
her comic framing counterpart on the live stage.
On that evening, more than 17 million American
viewers tuned into the television show—shattering
all previous records for the show, which typically
garners a weekend audience of about 3 million view-
ers. A month later, Palin went on to lose the election
with her presidential running mate John McCain.
Within a month of losing the election, Palin’s church
in Alaska was set ablaze with women and children
inside and temperatures outside at 20 below zero.
Fortunately no one was injured in the arson attack,
but the awkward communal silence following the
attack suggested that comedy functioned in more
of a burlesque exclusionary fashion. In essence,
one could argue that Palin was being expelled from
American political life less than six months after a
blockbuster introduction to the American public in
August 2008.
Ben Voth
See also Comic World; Humor Mindset
Further Readings
Burke, K. (1959). Attitudes toward history. Los Altos, CA:
Hermes.
Burke, K. (1966). Definition of man. In K. Burke,
Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature,
and method (pp. 3–20). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burke, K. (1984). Comic correctives. In K. Burke, Attitudes
toward history (3rd ed., chap. VI). Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Carlson, A. C. (1986). Gandhi and the comic frame: “Ad
bellum purificandum.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72,
446–455.
Morris, J. S., & Baumgartner, J. C. (Eds.). (2008).
Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the
media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in
political argument: How “strategery” and “lockboxes”
changed a political campaign. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 39(2), 110–129.
Totten, S., Parsons, W. S., & Charny, I. W. (2004). Century
of genocide: Critical essays and eyewitness accounts.
New York, NY: Routledge.
COMIC OPERA
Comedy has been an essential element of opera since
its advent at the beginning of the 17th century. While
early Italian court operas were tragedies, they would
quickly begin to incorporate comic characters and
comic scenes; these, along with concomitant musi-
cal developments that facilitated comic timing and
delivery, proved overwhelmingly popular to audi-
ences of all types. Subgenres of comic opera eventu-
ally developed all over Europe, flourishing especially
in the latter half of the 18th century. The gravitas of
19th-century Romanticism and the advent of the high
seriousness of early-20th century modernism lessened
the prevalence and import of comic opera; by the mid-
20th century, the musical comedy had taken its place.
While one of the precursors of opera is the
so-called madrigal comedy of the late Italian
Renaissance, opera at its time and place of origin—
Florence in 1600—was serious courtly entertain-
ment. The earliest operas did not immediately admit
comic elements: As an aristocratic art form, it was
highly mannerist and concerned with the musically
heightened expression of tragic poetry. Tragedy, in
the late Renaissance and early Baroque, was associ-
ated with the ruling classes, and comedy with the
lower classes; moreover, an important social function
of serious opera in its early years was the glorification
of the ruling classes, while the comedic tradition, of
course, includes satire and parody, which often target
and threaten to undermine the powerful: Early seri-
ous opera, therefore, eschewed the comedic.
It was not long after the advent of opera, however,
that comic characters—often drawn from the lower,
servant classes—and scenes began to creep in. By the
early 1630s, operas such as Roman composer Stefano
Landi’s eclectic work Sant’Alessio (Saint Alexis), first
performed in 1631, combined an historical plot con-
cerned with the life of a 5th-century saint with comic
scenes reflecting contemporary life in Rome. Some
years later, in 1637, a work heralded as the first true
comic opera, Chi soffre speri (Who Suffers May
Hope), was also performed in Rome. Composed by
Virgilio Mazzocchi and Marco Marazzoli and desig-
nated a commedia musicale, it featured a serious love
story underpinned by supporting comic servants,
who appear in a majority of the opera’s scenes and
employ low-brow humor: puns, jokes, and sayings
drawn from folk traditions, and singing in dialect.
Some music scholars regard Chi soffre speri as one
of the important forerunners of the later opera buffa

tradition because of its focus on love and contem-
porary domestic situations rather than the gods and
goddesses of earlier serious opera, and also for its
stock characters drawn from the commedia dell’arte
theater tradition of the Italian Renaissance.
In the latter half of the 17th century, Italian
opera contained more and more comic characters
and scenes, so much so that it became possible for
singers to specialize in comedic roles. The increasing
heterogeneity of opera seria (serious opera) with its
admixture of tragedy and decidedly popular comic
elements led, in the late 17th century, to calls for
the reform of Italian opera. Groups such as the
Arcadian Academy and influential poets such as
Metastasio and Apostolo Zeno promoted libretto
reform, calling for an end to genre mixing and for
the purging of comic elements from serious opera.
Opera seria, as a result, became a rigidly structured,
formulaic, and rather narrowly conceived operatic
form that was free of comedy: George Frideric
Handel’s operas of the 1720s and 1730s exemplify
the genre. Comic opera, however, remained popular
and in demand. The solution to this problem was
the creation of a new genre, the intermezzo, a short,
fast-paced work that could be performed between
the acts of a serious opera, thereby satisfying an
audience’s desire for comedy. Typically, an inter-
mezzo (literally, “in the middle”) would comprise
just two or three stock characters, two acts, little
instrumental music, and relatively simple melodies
and harmonies. The intermezzo lacked the grand
scale of serious opera but was lively and fast-paced;
plots focused on mildly erotic domestic intrigues,
such as the wily servant girl who tricks her bum-
bling master into marriage. The intermezzo was an
important genre, for two reasons: It was a precursor
to the full-fledged comic opera—opera buffa—of
the later 18th century and also led—with its peri-
odic phrasing, homophonic textures, strong melodic
emphasis, and simple, slower moving harmonies—
to the advent of what would become known as the
classical style in music.
The spread of Italian comic opera in Europe was
spearheaded by a very important and now-famous
intermezzo called La serva padrona (The Maid as
Mistress), by Giovanni Battista Pergolesi. Composed
in 1733, the work did not receive much attention
until its performance in Paris in 1752, whereupon
it ignited what became known as the Querelle des
bouffons (The War of the Clowns), in which two
factions of French intellectuals fought a vehement
letter and pamphlet battle over the merits of the
Comic Opera 151
Italian comic style versus the French serious style (the
supporters of the Italian comic style, including Jean-
Jacques Rousseau and Denis Diderot, ultimately
triumphed). La serva padrona exemplifies both the
intermezzo genre and the Italian comic opera style
of the mid-18th century. It features two singing roles
and one mute role, stock commedia characters, and
key musical and dramatic elements of the comic
style, which were so appealing to audiences in Italy
and subsequently all over Europe: fast-paced scenes;
tuneful arias reminiscent of folk and popular song;
simple recitative (a singer declaiming text overtop of
very spare keyboard or lute accompaniment, rather
than the more dramatic, orchestra-punctuated
accompanied recitative, associated with the intense
emotions of opera seria); parody of serious opera;
the use of the bass voice for comic effect; and rapid
patter and disjunct melodic lines that jumped freely
into the upper and lower ranges of the voice, shun-
ning the elegant curvilinear contours of the Italian
bel canto singing tradition.
In France, serious opera had a long-standing and
powerfully influential history. Known as tragédie
lyrique, French serious opera was established and
institutionalized by Jean-Baptiste Lully at the French
court in the latter part of the 17th century. Following
the success of Italian buffa works like La serva
padrona, however, French librettists and compos-
ers began to produce intermèdes, which were either
translations of Italian intermezzi or new, homegrown
works modeled on the Italian genre. Around the
middle of the 18th century, the generic designation
opéra comique began to appear, but this term can-
not always simply be equated with “comic opera” as
such, as in the Italian tradition. Rather, it is a some-
what vague term that resonates with the classical
designation of “comedy” as relating to works that
blend the serious and the light-hearted and that may
or may not be amusing; it also designates a work
that combines spoken and sung elements. The key
elements of the 18th-century opéra comique includes
spoken dialogue (something entirely absent from the
courtly tragédie lyrique), humorous and exaggerated
types of singing, stock characters drawn from the
commedia dell’arte tradition, and the use of dialect,
lowbrow humor, and ensembles. The evolution of
opéra comique into a popular and influential genre
can be attributed in large part to the work of the
librettist Charles Favart, whose contributions to the
opéra comique included the incorporation of ele-
ments from Italian intermezzi, satire, and parody, and
the use of popular song. Ultimately, the replacement
152 Comic Opera
of popular tunes, or “vaudevilles,” by short, melodic
songs in the Italian style (ariettes) led to the designa-
tion comédies mêlées d’ariettes (comedy mixed with
little songs) for some French comic operas.
The intermezzo became obsolete as the 18th
century progressed, giving way to full-blown comic
opera, opera buffa, which had originated in Naples
and quickly spread throughout Italy. At the forefront
of this new genre was the librettist Carlo Goldoni,
whose works began to be staged in Venice by the late
1740s and who was largely responsible for codifying
the conventions of opera buffa as the genre began
to rival and then surpass opera seria in popular-
ity. Opera buffa, unlike opera seria, is essentially
dynamic, as it focuses on action rather than emotion
or sentiment. Its musical devices evolved accordingly,
allowing for rapid and energetic interaction between
characters, with a much stronger sense of natural-
ness (despite the fact that comic operas often contain
fantasy elements) as a result. Opera buffa includes
a variety of song types, not just the rigid three-part
da capo aria of serious opera, to keep the drama
moving forward. There is a blending of serious (seri),
semi-serious (mezzi) and comic (buffi) characters and
syllabic text setting is employed, to facilitate rapid
delivery of text. And while the three-act structure of
opera seria is preserved, there is much more momen-
tum, with each act driving toward highly animated
ensemble finales, with frenetic interactions between
characters that proved very popular with audiences.
Comic Opera Reaches Its Peak
Opera buffa reached its zenith with Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart in the late 18th century. Some of
Mozart’s greatest operas were opere buffe, including
Cosi fan tutte and Le nozze di Figaro (The Marriage
of Figaro). By this time, comic opera had surpassed
serious opera in both popularity and prestige. The
growing import, complexity, and range of the comic
opera genre is perhaps best evidenced by Mozart’s
masterpiece of 1787, Don Giovanni. Nominally
a comic opera—a drama giocoso, or humorous
drama—the work in fact explores a wealth of serious
themes and scenarios, including revenge, retribution,
and justice, while at the same time offering many ele-
ments drawn straight from the comic tradition: stock
characters, disguise, mistaken identity, patter song,
and hilariously frenzied and feverish ensemble scenes.
It also includes strong supernatural elements—the
elderly Commendatore, murdered by Don Giovanni
at the very beginning of the opera, returns as an
animated statue at the work’s end, when the gates of
Hell open to drag the unrepentant womanizing Don
to his doom—that derive from the fantastic aspects
of earlier comic opera but also serve as a potent fore-
shadowing of early-19th-century Romanticism.
Mozart also famously composed in the German
comic opera tradition, in the genre known as
Singspiel (literally, “sung play”). Influenced and
shaped by a variety of earlier models, including
hybridized operas that combined serious opera
elements with comic elements in the vernacular,
Viennese musical comedy, English ballad opera—
parodic, vernacular musical plays with comic ele-
ments—and French comédies mêlées d’ariettes,
Singspiel denotes light, popular German musical
dramas that combine songs and spoken dialogue,
with a focus on the lower and middle classes satiriz-
ing the upper classes. The rise in importance of the
Singspiel in the second half of the 18th century can
be attributed in part to a desire to promote German-
language operas and to check the influence of Italian
and French opera, especially in Vienna. Mozart’s Die
Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute) represents the apogee
of the genre; with its adroit musical characterization,
demanding vocal numbers and complex ensembles,
it is really more like a true opera than a piece of light
entertainment. Eventually, Singspiel came to denote
any German work, serious or comic, that combined
music and spoken dialogue.
The 19th century saw the continuation of some
comic opera traditions as well as the advent of some
new ones. The Italian buffa tradition continued in
the operas of composers like Gioachino Rossini,
whose 1816 Il barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of
Seville) is perhaps the quintessential opera buffa,
with its coterie of stock comic characters, rapid-fire
singing, mistaken identity and disguises, and absurd
scenarios. The buffa tradition continued well into the
late 19th century in the works of composers such as
Giuseppe Verdi, whose 1892 comic opera Falstaff—a
commedia lirica, or lyrical comedy—contains many
classic buffa elements, including parody of serious
opera, the use of simple recitative, disguise, use of
vernacular language, and the extensive use of ensem-
bles rather than solo numbers.
In 19th-century France, the opérette evolved
partly as a reaction against the increasing preten-
tiousness and seriousness of the opéras comiques
then being staged. Pioneered by Jacques Offenbach,
opérettes were short, single-act farces designed to
provide pointed social and political satire. As they
grew in popularity and scale, the opérette evolved

A poster by Dudley Hardy for the comic opera Rose of
Persia, which featured a plot centered on dancing girls and
thick with mistaken identities and disguises. This
production by the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company played
at the Savoy Theatre in London’s West End in 1899 and
was a great success. It focused more heavily on dance
than other comic operas. Hardy made his name originally
as a painter and illustrator, but he later became known
for his “artistic” posters. Richard D’Oyly Carte employed
Hardy to design posters for his Gilbert and Sullivan
productions at the Savoy.
Source: Prints, Drawings, and Painting Collections, Virginia
and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
into a larger, full-length operatic version known as
opéra bouffe, which remained very popular until
the last quarter of the 19th century. Offenbach’s
opérettes meanwhile were adapted and popularized
elsewhere, especially in late-19th- and early-20th-
century Vienna by Johann Strauss, famous for Die
Fledermaus (The Bat) of 1874, and by Franz Lehér
for his Die lustige Witwe (The Merry Widow) of
1905. Both composers adapted the opérette tradi-
tion to incorporate Viennese dance music, especially
Comic Relief 153
waltzes; the Viennese operetta also eschewed the
political and satirical element of its French name-
sake in favor of romantic subjects and an emphasis
on the sensual.
Comic opera’s popularity waned in the 20th cen-
tury. There are certainly some excellent examples
of comic opera in the first half of the 20th century,
many of which draw upon the same historical ele-
ments and comedic techniques as their predeces-
sors: Giacomo Puccini’s single-act Gianni Schicchi,
completed in 1918, uses characters derived from
the commedia dell’arte tradition; Richard Strauss’s
slapstick comedy Ariadne auf Naxos (Ariadne on
Naxos) of 1916 was likewise commedia-inspired;
Arnold Schoenberg’s 1929 comedy of manners, Von
Heute auf Morgen (From Today to Tomorrow),
combines light domestic comedy with 12-tone
music and pointed criticism of the ephemeral-
ity and faddishness of contemporary culture; and
Benjamin Britten’s Albert Herring, completed in
1947, is a lighthearted farce mixed with social sat-
ire. Ultimately, comic opera was supplanted by the
musical later in the 20th century.
Alexander Carpenter
See also Commedia dell’Arte; Farce; Goldoni, Carlo;
Music; Musical Comedy
Further Readings
Batta, A. (1999). Opera: Composers, works, performers.
Cologne, Germany: Könemann.
Branscombe, P., & Bauman, T. (n.d.). Singspiel. In Grove music
online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/
subscriber/article/grove/music/25877
Donnington, R. (1981). The rise of opera. London, UK:
Faber & Faber.
Gallo, D. (2006). Opera: The basics. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Grout, D., & Williams, H. (2003). A short history of
opera. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Weiss, P., & Budden, J. (n.d.). Opera buffa. In Grove
music online. Retrieved from http://www.oxford
musiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43721
COMIC RELIEF
Comic relief is commonly defined as the use of
humor in parts of a serious or nonhumorous text, in
particular in tragedy or dramatic texts, to relieve the
tension or dark mood of the main narrative. Comic
154 Comic Relief
relief is not to be confused with tragicomedy, which
is a tragedy with a happy ending or which mixes
tragic and comedic elements. Likewise, comic relief
should not be confused with the widespread use of
humor and irony in postmodern literature, in which
the humor or irony serve to set the tone of the nar-
rative and are an integral part of the narrative’s set-
ting. This entry gives examples of comic relief and
discusses its purposes.
Examples of comic relief can be found in almost
all literary genres. The characters of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern in Hamlet are only one of many
examples in Shakespeare. The character of Thersites
in Homer’s Iliad can also be seen as comic relief, as
can some passages, such as Hera’s seduction of Zeus.
The idiosyncrasies of various detectives like Sherlock
Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Miss Marple can be seen
as comic relief in detective novels, as can the bum-
bling sidekick (e.g., Dr. Watson, at least in some film
versions). In Dante’s Inferno, some of the descrip-
tions of the devils’ behavior provide comic relief, for
example, in canto XXI, the devil Barbariccia signals
to his troop of devils to start “escorting” Dante and
Virgil by “making a trumpet of his ass” (farting). It
should be noted that this occurs at the end of the
canto, which has described the torture of the sinners
guilty of cheating and swindling who are immersed
in boiling pitch.
Humor relief is often found in film: The charac-
ters of the androids R2D2 and C3P0 in the movie
Star Wars as well as Data in the television series Star
Trek the Next Generation often provide comic relief
in the dramatic action of the main texts. It is also
found in violent action films.
Comic relief has also been described outside of
literary texts, for example in academic lectures,
where it relieves the tension and fatigue of classroom
work. Along these lines, humor is seen as a coping
strategy providing relief from stress or hardship. It
has even been argued that comic relief is found in
life, for example in its use by people with disabilities
to defuse awkward situations. In this sense, the con-
cept of comic relief loses any specificity and becomes
a synonym for the “relief theory” of humor, along
the lines of the claim that humor provides a relief
from life’s hardships.
The concept of serious relief has been proposed
to mirror comic relief to indicate serious or nonhu-
morous passages in otherwise comic texts, although
it is not clear if the function of serious relief would
be likewise to relieve the audience of a humorous
text of the tension of too much humor. The example
discussed is a passage of about 2,400 words in
Oscar Wilde’s Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime in which,
unlike in the rest of the story, no obvious humor
occurs.
Salvatore Attardo
See also Coping Mechanism; Education, Humor in;
Kyōgen; Postmodern Irony; Release Theories of
Humor; Tragicomedy; Workplace Control
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2001). Stylistic markers of “serious relief” in
Wilde’s Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime. Stylistika, X,
19–31.
Barksdale, R. K. (1981). Comic relief in Langston
Hughes’ poetry. Black American Literature Forum,
15(3), 108–111.
Bell, R. H. (2007). Homer’s humor: Laughter in the Iliad.
Humanitas, 20(1/2), 96–116.
Donnelly, F. (1949). Comic relief in Oedipus Rex. The
Classical Weekly, 42(16), 246–247.
Dougherty, B. K. (2002). Comic relief: Using political
cartoons in the classroom. International Studies
Perspectives, 3, 258–270.
Draudt, M. (2002). The comedy of Hamlet. Atlantis, 24(2),
71–83.
Frew, E. (2006). The humour tourist: A conceptualisation.
Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 643–646.
Jones, K. C. (1986). Folk humor as comic relief in
Hurston’s Jonah’s Gourd Vine. The Zora Neale Hurston
Forum, 1(1), 26–31.
King, C. M. (2000). Effects of humorous heroes and
villains in violent action films. Journal of
Communication, 50(1), 5–24.
Mindess, H. (1987). The panorama of humor and the
meaning of life. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(3),
82–95.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 79–89.
Phillips, R. (1995). Melville’s Moby Dick. The Explicator,
53(2), 92.
Powell, J. P., & Andresen, L. W. (1985). Humour and
teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 10(1), 79–90.
Seidensticker, B. (1978). Comic elements in Euripides’
Bacchae. The American Journal of Philology, 99(3),
303–320.
Stebbins, R. A. (1979). Comic relief in everyday life:
Dramaturgic observations on a function of humor.
Symbolic Interaction, 2(1), 95–104.
Stebbins R. A. (1996). Defusing awkward situations: Comic
relief as an interactive strategy for people with
disabilities. Journal of Leisurability, 23(4), 3–38.
 Comic Strips 155

Thalmann, W. G. (1988). Thersites: Comedy, scapegoats,

and heroic ideology in the Iliad. Transactions of the
American Philological Society, 118, 1–28.
Westwood, R. (2004). Comic relief: Subversion and
catharsis in organizational comedic theatre.
Organization Studies, 25, 775–795.
Woods, P. (1983). Coping at school through humour. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 4(2), 111–124.
Zeller, L. L. (1978). The dramatic function of comic relief
in Lope de Vega’s Tragicomedia Peribanez. Philological
Quarterly Iowa City, Iowa, 57(3), 337–352.

COMIC STRIPS
The modern incarnation of comic strips can trace its
origins to illustrated novels of the early-19th century,
when graphic art in the form of cartoons and cari-
catures was widely appreciated as post hoc narrative
support. At that time, however, original illustrated
stories were also finding an audience. In Europe,
creations such as Rudolphe Töpffer’s Histoire de
M. Vieux Bois (1827) and Wilhelm Busch’s Max
und Moritz (1865) would prove to have a defini-
tive influence on the production of American comic
art, which in turn would affect the global develop-
ment of the comic strip as a forum for gag humor,
social commentary, political satire, or science-fiction
adventure. This entry gives a brief history of the
popularization of comic strips and presents the key
features of comic strips before concluding with a The Yellow Kid (Micky Dugan), a small, toothless orphan, was
discussion of comic strip humor. the lead character in the comic strip Hogan’s Alley that was
introduced in 1895. The Kid, wearing an oversized yellow
The Popularization of Comic Strips nightshirt with the words “Gee dat must be my conscience
coming back” is standing in a parlor, smoking a cigar and
In an effort to boost sales and circulation, 19th-
drinking absinthe or some other alcoholic beverage. A black
century American newspapers and magazines began
cat rubs against his legs and, in the background, the devil
including weekly supplementary material, such as pokes his head between the curtains. The strip, drawn by
the American Humorist supplement published in Richard Felton Outcault, is widely considered the beginning
W. R. Hearst’s New York Journal in the 1890s. of the U.S. comic strip tradition. First appearing in Joseph
The popularization of comic strips began with The Pulitzer’s New York World, it was later published in William
Yellow Kid, by Richard Felton Outcault, widely Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. The strip became a
credited as the first serial newspaper comic strip national sensation through heavy licensing activity (including
and acknowledged for initiating the crucial devel- appearances in advertising and on Broadway) and through
opment away from text as merely an embellishment the national distribution of Hearst’s Sunday humor section.
to art and toward a cultivation of comic dialogue Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs
reflecting textual and graphical harmony. Division, Washington, DC.
By the early 1900s, comic strips were featured in
daily newspapers, creating a forum for continuous
narrative. By the 1930s, weekday black-and-white The combination of serial and syndicated publica-
comic strips were complemented with Sunday edi- tion, the development of episodic narrative, and the
tion full color comic strip pages, introducing a proliferation of comic strips proved conducive to
format that is maintained today around the world. dedicated following and collecting, which ultimately
156 Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews

led to the comic book as the premier form of comic complex than exclusively verbal or visual sources
strip consumption and established the comic strip as of humor, as it allows for a variety of incongru-
a literary genre. ous combinations for humorous effect: There can
be opposition within the text, within the images, or
Key Features of Comic Strips between text and image.
Comic strip humor is often a function of the incon-
Comic strips can generally be defined as illustra-
gruity provided by visual extravagance or linguistic
tions arranged sequentially, each typically contained
innovation. Unusually large or small body parts,
within a square or rectangular frame known as a
exaggerated actions or reactions, and neologisms or
panel, and accompanied by text in the form of cap-
sound effects contribute to creating or accentuating
tions, dialogue, or a combination of the two to cre-
the humor of comic strips. Both serial and nonserial
ate a humorous narrative. However, not all comic
gag-a-day comic strips also have a history of min-
strips are multipaneled, serial, or episodic in nature,
ing for humor in common and recognizable aspects
nor can they all be rightly understood as comical.
of day-to-day life and social relations, capitalizing
Nevertheless, comic strip serves as the most com-
on an appreciation of the familiar. Examples of such
mon generic term to refer to a genre character-
comic strips include Blondie, Hi and Lois, and Zits,
ized by panel gag comics (see below), but it also
which typically feature human characters, realistic
includes superhero comics such as Superman,
illustrations, and everyday situations. Humor can
adventure comics such as Popeye, dramatic comics
also be conveyed by textually and graphically incon-
such as Mary Worth, or political or editorial com-
gruous proposals that verge on the absurd, illogical,
ics such as Doonesbury. Closely related to comic
or improbable, such as in The Far Side. Finally, a
strips are graphic novels, while cultural variations
common practice in comic strips is to feature ani-
include Japanese manga and Franco-Belgian bandes-
mals as all or some of the recurring characters, giv-
dessinées, the best known of which include The
ing them human features or advanced cognitive and
Adventures of Tintin and Astérix.
linguistic abilities. The humor of comic strips such as
Within their panels, comic strips typically fea-
Calvin and Hobbes, Dilbert, or Non Sequitur often
ture text captions or thought balloons (also called
results from or is at least enhanced by the inherent
bubbles) or make use of speech balloons to indicate
incongruity of their anthropomorphized characters.
dialogue. Comic strip panels also include gutters, the
space between the panel borders, and motion lines Kristy Beers Fägersten
(also known as action lines or zip ribbons) to indicate
movement or velocity. Text is also often manipulated See also Gag; Incongruity and Resolution; Punch Line
physically in terms of type style and size, and ortho-
graphically or grammatically to convey features of Further Readings
pronunciation, intonation, volume or pitch, or to Bramlett, F. (Ed.). (2012). Linguistics and the study of
capitalize on semantic or syntactic ambiguities. comics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eisner, W. (1985). Comics and sequential art. Tamarac, FL:
Comic Strip Humor Poorhouse Press.
The term comic strip reflects the dual nature of the McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics. Northampton,
combined visual and verbal art. Comic refers to the MA: Kitchen Sink Press.
overall communicative goal of conveying humor, Meskin, A., & Cook, R. (Eds.). (2012). The art of comics:
A philosophical approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
while strip is an allusion to the sequential and serial
Saraceni, M. (2003). The language of comics. London, UK:
aspect of the narrative form. The adoption of the
Routledge.
terms comic strips, cartoon strips, or the comics,
reflects the traditional, inherent element of humor. In
fact, comic strips featured in daily or Sunday news-
papers are also colloquially known as “the funny
COMIC VERSUS TRAGIC
pages” or simply “the funnies.” Indeed, traditional WORLDVIEWS
panel gag or gag-a-day comic strips are normally
structured around a punch line or humorous incon- Comedy was invented in ancient Greece shortly
gruity in at least one, usually the final, panel. The after tragedy, and the two forms of drama were
multimodality of comic strips renders them more often performed together. From Aristotle’s Poetics
 Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews 157

on, tragedy has been ranked higher than comedy.

Tragic heroes, Aristotle said, are better than most
people, while comic characters are worse. The
standard assessment is that tragedy is serious and
“heavy,” while comedy is nonserious and “light”: In
tragedy, we feel emotions like pity and admiration
for noble characters, while in comedy we laugh at
the shortcomings and antics of buffoons. This entry
contrasts the comic and the tragic worldviews with
respect to the responses they evoke. It then discusses
the impact of historical changes on the usefulness
of those responses and presents a perspective from
which the comic can be seen as superior to tragedy.
Today, we apply the words comic and tragic far
beyond drama and literature. We see events in our
lives as comic or tragic and can view a person’s
whole life that way. Indeed, we can look at what
philosophers call the human condition as comic or
tragic. Many writers have spoken of the tragic vision A print, probably from the 18th or 19th century, showing a
of life, which some have contrasted with the comic group of four figures, two of them seated, an old man on the
right in contemplative attitude, attended by a female who
vision of life.
holds a comic mask; another female, seated on the left,
Watching comedies and tragedies fosters emo- contemplating a tragic mask, attended by a third woman.
tional responses, not only while we are in the the-
Source: Bequeathed by Rev. Alexander Dyce; Prints,
ater, but also when we face situations in our own Drawings, and Paintings Collection, Victoria and Albert
lives similar to the ones in comic and tragic stories. Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Comedy and tragedy embody worldviews, or philos-
ophies of life, and so they provide a kind of educa-
tion in how to live. This entry focuses on the comic act appropriately. Amusement, by contrast, can be
and the tragic in this broader philosophical sense, about something that does not matter to us, that we
rather than on the narrower concept of comedy and do not care about, such as a cloud that looks like a
tragedy as literary genres. turtle or a silly pun. Not being an adaptation to dan-
gers and opportunities, amusement does not involve
the cognitive and practical engagement of beliefs,
Amusement and Disengagement
desires, and adaptive actions found in emotions.
Emotions evolved early in mammals as practical In emotions, we are serious, focused on dangers
responses to dangers and opportunities, such as a and opportunities, and motivated to do something
predator attacking or a possible mate passing by. to further our interests. The mental framework is
Fear and anger caused animals to fight or flee, sex- “Here/Now/Me/Real/Practical.” Amusement, by
ual attraction caused them to mate and reproduce, contrast, involves cognitive and practical disengage-
sadness caused them to slow down after a loss, pity ment from what is going on. We are not concerned
caused them to help one another, and so forth. In about dangers and opportunities, not motivated to
basic emotions, a human or other animal is practi- act, and in a play state rather than a serious state.
cally engaged with a real situation.
Amusement, on the other hand, evolved very late,
Comic Attitude Versus Tragic Attitude
and only in humans. It is a nonpractical state, and
Toward Incongruities
so need not be about anything real. Amusement not
only lacks practical motivations but blocks them. Tragedy, as everyone knows, is based on failures,
When we laugh heartily, we lose muscle control and disappointments, and catastrophes. It’s less obvi-
cannot do anything at all. ous that comedy is too. Both are based on the vio-
In emotions, something is evaluated as good lation of people’s expectations. Comedy is not
or bad. The person or thing matters to us, either about success and happiness but about shortcom-
positively or negatively, and we are motivated to ings, mistakes, and misunderstandings, and other
158 Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews
discrepancies between what we expect and what
we experience. That’s expressed in the incongruity
theory of humor, which says that humorous amuse-
ment is a way of enjoying things that don’t match
our ideas of how things are supposed to happen.
While tragedy and comedy both focus on viola-
tions of our expectations, they foster opposite atti-
tudes toward those violations. Tragedy encourages
us to be negatively attuned to failures, disappoint-
ments, and catastrophes, and emotionally immersed
in them. When things do not go as we expect, the
tragic response is to adopt a Here/Now/Me/Real/
Practical perspective and feel negative emotions like
sadness. Comedy fosters the opposite attitude of
emotional disengagement. The comic response is to
view situations that violate our expectations with
“mental distance” rather than close up and to laugh
off failures, disappointments, and catastrophes.
When we find something funny, we can see things
“in the big picture” and enjoy the incongruity rather
than be upset by it.
Many events that seem like disasters as they occur
become material for funny stories later on. When
old friends reminisce, some of the events they laugh
hardest about were emotionally disturbing at the
time they happened. That’s expressed in the adage
“Tragedy plus time equals comedy.” People with
a rich sense of humor may even be able to achieve
mental distance and laugh at the time their expecta-
tions are being violated.
As an example, consider Adolf Hitler’s bombing
of Britain in the early part of World War II. Night
after night, German planes dropped tons of bombs
killing thousands of people, destroying homes and
other buildings, and generally making life hell for
the British people. It would have been easy for them
to respond with a tragic attitude, and some did. But
a remarkable number responded with a comic atti-
tude. After one night’s bombing, a shop owner in
London had major damage to his building. Instead
of closing the shop, he put a sign in the window
“Open as Usual.” When the next night’s bomb-
ing destroyed the roof and most of the rest of his
building, he put up a new sign, “More Open than
Usual.” This man could have adopted the tragic
attitude and given in to sadness or despair. But
instead, he rose above negative emotions to create
his playful sign.
The traditional ranking of tragedy over comedy
ignores the value of this kind of emotional disen-
gagement and cheerfulness as a response to prob-
lems. If we look at it closely, however, we can see
reasons for reversing that ranking with respect to the
tragic and the comic worldviews.
Stress and Comic Disengagement
Since Aristotle, critics have evaluated literary works
by considering the attitudes they evoke. A work that
fosters attitudes that are more beneficial to human
beings seems, other things being equal, superior to
a work that fosters attitudes that are less beneficial.
Using that method offers reasons for ranking com-
edy above tragedy. What was helpful at one stage
of human evolution may become harmful at a later
stage. Our biological cravings for sugar and fat, for
example, benefited early hunter-gatherers, when
these nutrients were scarce, but today those cravings
have led to an epidemic of obesity.
Similarly, in early humans, the fight-or-flight
emotions of fear and anger were usually beneficial
because they motivated people to escape or overcome
danger. The release of adrenaline in fear made them
more alert, caused an increase in blood sugar for a
boost of energy, increased their heart rate and blood
pressure to bring more oxygen and nutrients to mus-
cles, redistributed blood away from the surface of
the skin to reduce bleeding in case of injury, stopped
digestion for a saving of energy, and even emptied
their intestines and bladder to lighten the load for
running away. In anger, noradrenaline was secreted,
which energized the muscles and motivated people to
fight off predators and enemies or else escape.
When fear or anger was not enough to save
them from danger and they were injured or had
lost something important, sadness made them
withdraw from activity. That promoted physi-
cal and psychological healing and also motivated
them to avoid similar situations in the future.
Sympathetic sadness for others’ suffering and
losses—pity—motivated them to help kin and
fellow tribal members who were in trouble.
Fear and anger are the main emotions in stress,
which is at epidemic proportions in industrialized
nations. In stress, our bodies and brains react as if
we were in physical danger, as from a predator. The
hormones adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol
increase our heart rate, blood pressure, and muscle
tension. The immune system is suppressed. All these
changes were useful in early humans who faced phys-
ical challenges such as saber-toothed cats and armed
enemies. They are still useful today in places where
people regularly confront armed enemies. But in the
typical stress situation today, there is no predator or

armed enemy, and so the muscle tension, nervous
energy, and hormones are not dissipated in physical
activity. As this arousal and tension is repeated sev-
eral times a day, the circulatory system and immune
system suffer. Stress contributes to four of the lead-
ing causes of death in the United States, the leading
ones being heart disease and cancer. The American
Academy of Family Physicians estimates that stress
prompts two thirds of visits to the family doctor.
The playful, emotionally disengaged attitude fos-
tered by comedy not only makes us feel better but
usually seems healthier psychologically and physi-
cally. After hearty laughter, the stress chemicals epi-
nephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol are reduced.
Blood pressure, heart rate, and muscle tension drop
below normal. The immune system, which is sup-
pressed in fear, anger, and sadness, is enhanced in
laughter.
Psychologically, too, humor is the opposite of
stress. When we react to problems with stress emo-
tions, we feel like passive victims, but when we joke
about problems, we feel more in control. That is
why professions in which there are often emergen-
cies, such as medicine, the military, and police work,
have developed their own kind of humor to reduce
or block fear, anger, sadness, pity, and disgust.
Consider, for example, the use of the verb crump in
hospitals. The standard definition of this word is to
explode heavily, to blow up; but in medical slang, it
means to take an irreversible turn for the worse. In
the jargon of nurses, “code brown” means a bowel
movement deposited in an inappropriate spot, such
as under a bed.
What benefits human beings, then, has changed
over the centuries. Aristotle’s high ranking of tragedy
was understandable in ancient Greece, which was
tribal and militaristic. Then three tragic emotions
were generally beneficial: fear of unforeseen disaster,
admiration for heroic leaders, and pity for group
members. War between tribes was frequent, and
so obedience to military leaders was required, with
fighters willing to kill or die on command. Military
forces are run by men and are hierarchical, so patri-
archy and hierarchical power structures were the
norm. In this social world, tragedy, along with epic,
valorized the virtues of the good soldier—respect for
authority and tradition, blind obedience, a sense of
honor, courage, and stubborn determination. These
virtues can be seen, for example, in Sophocles’s trag-
edies Oedipus the King and Antigone.
In the last two millennia, however, tribalism
and militarism have become harmful to the human
Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews 159
species, especially in the form of nationalism.
Fascism in 20th-century Europe cost millions of lives
and trillions of dollars in harm to property. After
World War II, the nuclear arms race threatened
to wipe out humanity and other life on earth and
cost tens of trillions of dollars. Patriarchy has also
done untold damage, not just to women but to men.
While the emotions and virtues valorized in tragedy
may have benefited some ancient societies, many of
them are now more harmful than beneficial.
Even the ancient Greeks had begun to see that
a tragic worldview, and more generally, the heroic
attitude found in tragedy and epic, was not always
beneficial. That is part of why they developed com-
edy alongside tragedy. For drama festivals in Athens,
writers like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides
submitted both. A trilogy of tragedies was followed
by a satyr play that burlesqued legendary heroes,
some from the preceding tragedies. Instead of a
tragic chorus bemoaning the fate of the hero, there
was a chorus of wise-cracking satyrs—creatures part
human, part goat, and part horse, notorious for
lechery, drunkenness, and cowardice.
Unfortunately, many more ancient Greek trag-
edies have survived than comedies, and the book
Aristotle wrote about comedy in his Poetics has
been lost. The few surviving comedies include works
of Old Comedy by Aristophanes, who was famous
for being bawdy and willing to get a laugh at any-
one’s expense, including Socrates and the gods.
Picking scenes from those comedies, and contrasting
them with the great tragedies, it is easy to justify the
traditional ranking of tragedy above comedy. But a
careful examination of Aristophanes’s comedies and
the many genres of comedy that came later show the
benefits of the comic vision of life.
The problems in comedy have always been simi-
lar to those in tragedy, but instead of the emotions
valorized in tragedy, and the militaristic attitudes
they foster, comedy offers a non-emotional, play-
ful approach to life. The overarching difference in
this approach is that it promotes mental flexibility
in the face of trouble instead of the mental rigid-
ity promoted by tragedy. Tragedy celebrates a nar-
row range of emotional responses to problems, and
with them formulaic patterns of thought and action;
comedy celebrates emotional disengagement and
spontaneous, creative responses to problems. Tragic
heroes feel their way through their problems, while
comic heroes think their way through theirs.
Tragic heroes often use simplistic, standard cat-
egories that divide the world into good and bad.
160 Comic World
In Sophocles’s Antigone, for instance, the heroine
believes she must either obey the state order to leave
her brother’s body unburied, and thereby violate an
ancient family obligation—or bury her brother and
be executed for doing so. A good comedy writer,
however, would tell Antigone that that’s a false
dilemma. Instead of doing either, she could hire
someone to remove the body at night and bury it.
Or she could start a fire to create a diversion and
snatch the body away in the confusion. Or—there
are countless more possible solutions, once you
think comically rather than tragically. And the same
applies to problems in our own lives.
Tragic heroes may be intelligent, but they are
committed to traditions and systems of power and so
are not clever. Comic heroes are both intelligent and
clever. They think on their feet, often in ways that
challenge power structures such as patriarchy and
militarism. In Aristophanes’s Lysistrata, for example,
women from across Greece are sick and tired of the
endless wars between the city-states that take their
husbands and lovers away from them and consume
the wealth of their communities. So they get together
and figure out a way to bring peace to all of Greece:
Hold a sex strike until the men agree to stop fight-
ing. For extra security, they also raid the treasury of
Athens to stop the funding of more battles.
Understandably, Lysistrata is full of sexual innu-
endo and double entendres; in some modern produc-
tions the men have erections throughout the play.
But amid all the sexual banter, there are important
lessons about the relationship of women and men,
about legitimate government, about the dangers
of militarism, and about how people can get along
with each other.
Later comedies have questioned not just mili-
tarism and patriarchy but tribalism, elitism, social
hierarchy, religion, and practically every other
feature of social organization. They encourage us
to think critically any time someone is telling us
to do something in the name of honor, country, or
God. While classical tragedies focus on upper class
nobles like Oedipus and Hamlet, comedy celebrates
diversity. That helps explain how comedy and
democracy started out together in ancient Athens
and have been linked ever since.
The traditional ranking of the tragic worldview
above the comic does not stand up well in the 21st
century. Comic attitudes are more critical, creative,
and rational, and are more beneficial today.
John Morreall
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Aristophanes; Aristotelian
Theory of Humor; Comedy; Comic World; Coping
Mechanism; Health Benefits of Humor, Physical; Health
Benefits of Humor, Psychological; Satyr Play
Further Readings
Morreall, J. (1997). Humor works. Amherst, MA: HRD
Press.
Morreall, J. (1999). Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
COMIC WORLD
A comic world, also known as a comic vision, is
an alternative perspective of life that emphasizes
a happy ending over a tragic one. This world is
funny and joyous. It is where good prevails and evil
is defeated. Comic worlds are hopeful and affirm
the goodness in human beings and their societies,
emphasizing tolerance and acceptance over exclu-
sivity. They can be attributed to an individual or
group (e.g., C. S. Lewis’s comic world or the comic
world of the Christian tradition), and they are fre-
quently expressed in artistic visions as much as they
are explained in logical argumentation. Laughter
leads people into the comic world and invites them
to dwell there, and comic worlds become appar-
ent to us through our sense of humor. They intrude
into our everyday lives and are seen as “more real”
than reality because the comic vision’s insight disin-
tegrates the contradictions that characterize every-
day life. Comic worlds are the aspirations of their
creators who imagine ways of living that are better
than our present state.
Comic worlds are intimately tied into their cre-
ators’ political realities and conflicts. Part of a comic
world’s appeal is its harmonious nature: Lions lay
down with lambs, soldiers put down arms and never
take them up again, lovers are reconciled instead of
irreparably separated, and rulers are just and the
people rejoice. Concurrently, the comic world is cre-
ated in a world in which lions prey upon lambs, sol-
diers slaughter each other, lovers are kept apart by
family politics, rulers exploit their subjects and the
people know it. It is for this reason that we should
see comic worlds not only as the aspirations of one
group of people but also as visions of the good life
that compete with other such visions in society.
Many comic worlds are religious, although reli-
giousness is unnecessary. This entry uses Christianity

to explain the phenomenon of comic worlds. While
Christianity has historically been seen as promoting
a tragic vision in which an omnipotent God sets forth
his plan for all humans who are damned through
original sin, redeems them through the death of his
son, and then expects our obedience as thanks, there
are some who see a comic world in the redemptive
story of a God who became human, died on a cross,
and gives everybody the gift of eternal life. Among
these thinkers, Jesus is often portrayed as a humorous
figure who tells parables with shocking visual imag-
ery (a camel passing through the eye of a needle) and
socially awkward plot twists (a Samaritan helping
a Jew), performs miracles that restore social order
and bring joy into the people’s lives (turning water
into wine at a wedding), skirts social conventions
and disrespects his superiors (spending time with
tax collectors and prostitutes and not with religious
authorities), and ultimately cheats his enemies out of
his death (the resurrection). Those who find a comic
vision in Christianity see human flaws forgiven,
societies restored, and the gulf between human and
divine bridged. God’s kingdom is immanent in these
Christians’ comic worlds, standing in stark contrast
to the image of humans as miserable sinners at the
mercy of a God who forgives us despite our failings
and inability to meet his expectations.
Every saint, scholar, and seeker who proposes a
comic world does so in the context of their time.
Turning once again to Jesus, we can see his ministry
as a social commentary on the Pharisees’ legalism
and the strained relationships among Jews, Romans,
and Samaritans. The parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:25–37) inverts the social relationships of
Jesus’s time because Jews and Samaritans did not
associate with each other. The story of a Samaritan
caring for a Jew who is dying at the side of the road
after being robbed and passed over by Jewish reli-
gious elites would have been socially disruptive to
Jesus’s audience. It inverts social expectations to
prove an inherently comic point; people are brought
together, social barriers crumble, and human love
and kindness lead to a happy ending—the victim
recovers. At the same time, it attacks the religious
authorities of Jesus’s day who opposed Jesus’s
teachings and, later, those of his followers.
Other Jesus stories in which he outwits reli-
gious authorities demonstrate that the comic world
revealed through his teachings draws upon the ten-
sions of his time and resolves them in the interests
of those promoting the comic world. In the Gospel
of Mark, when the Pharisees ask Jesus to whom
Commedia dell’Arte 161
they should pay taxes (12:11–17), he takes a coin
and asks whose head is on it. “Caesar’s” they reply.
To which Jesus responds, “Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that
are God’s” (Mark 12:17). In establishing Jesus’s reli-
gious authority over the Pharisees while not upsetting
the Roman authorities, this comic vision is world
affirming for those who hold Jesus as restoring social
relationships and setting the world aright. For the
Pharisees, it may have been a more tragic moment.
Comic worlds, therefore, are aspirations that arise
from particular social settings as a way of imagining
a more perfect world. They need not always inspire
laughter, but they are built on resolving incongruities
in a way that the audience will find appropriate and
affirming. Reflecting the vision of a group or indi-
vidual, they are entry points into a people’s cultural
and spiritual aspirations and can provide insight into
a people’s sense of humor and their social contexts,
ethics, and cultural aspirations. For these reasons,
we should not ignore a comic world’s grounding in
the mundane world, even though it is presented as
transcending everyday life.
David Feltmate
See also Biblical Humor; Christianity; Comic Versus
Tragic Worldviews
Further Readings
Berger, P. L. (1997). Redeeming laughter: The comic
dimension of human experience. Berlin, Germany:
Walter de Gruyter.
Hyers, C. (1987). And God created laughter: The Bible as
divine comedy. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.
Lindvall, T. (1996). Surprised by laughter: The comic world
of C. S. Lewis. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Morreall, J. (1999). Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
COMMEDIA DELL’ARTE
Paradoxically, the practitioners of what is now known
as commedia dell’arte never used that term, preferring
descriptions such as “improvised comedy,” “Italian-
style comedy” or even, and more helpfully, “actors’
theater.” The present term only became current in the
18th century, when the genre was in its death throes.
The conventions and techniques employed by the tra-
dition influenced the development of theater in many
European countries and some modern directors and
162 Commedia dell’Arte
playwrights have remolded them for their own use,
but the exact nature of the stagecraft involved is still
a matter of dispute.
Commedia dell’arte dominated the Italian stage
for around 200 years, from approximately mid-16th
to mid-18th centuries, when the reform program
introduced by Carlo Goldoni (1707–1793) extin-
guished an already enfeebled tradition. Plainly, it did
not spring into being fully formed nor did it vanish
completely with the reforms of Goldoni. The time
span was sufficiently long for canons and conven-
tions to be stretched, renewed, and altered. Some
precise dates can be given for its birth. Archives
from Padua in 1545 provide the first legal document
testifying to the existence of a commedia dell’arte
troupe, although the statute seems aimed at settling
disputes and the wording justifies the assumption
that other companies were active before that date.
Unlike the contemporary Elizabethan theater in
England, women were allowed on stage at least by
the 1560s, and the Dialogues of Massimo Troiano
(1568) give the first indisputable evidence of impro-
vised performance. Its demise can be dated either
from Goldoni’s theatrical reforms, with his 1750
manifesto-play The Comic Theatre a useful marker,
or it can be made to coincide, symbolically, with the
death of the last of the great Arlecchino (Harlequin)
players, Antonio Sacchi, in 1788.
The specialized terminology can be misleading.
If it is true that the majority of commedia dell’arte
scripts were comic, even farcical, in nature, the
Italian word commedia means “play” rather than
comedy, and some works were dramatic or even
tragic. Crucially, the word arte does not mean “art”
but “guild” or “corporation,” indicating the profes-
sional association that in the Middle Ages protected
the interests of its members and controlled admis-
sion to and standards of a trade or business. The arte
in question was the guild of actors, so the authentic
sense of commedia dell’arte is “professional the-
ater,” as distinct from amateur drama put on as
entertainment in palaces by and for the aristocracy.
The companies were, in other words, associations
of professional actors. There is no way of knowing
how many troupes there were, but the best known
included the Gelosi, whose lead performers were
Francesco and Isabella Andreini; the Fedeli, headed
by their son, Giovan Battista Andreini; the Accesi;
and the Uniti. Like theater companies in every age,
they continually formed, dissolved, and re-formed.
The primary characteristic of commedia
dell’arte is that it was essentially actor-centered, not
writer-centered, theater. Both Isabella Andreini and
her son were also writers, but their work was directed
for performance by their own troupes. Professional
theater emerged in Italy and England at about the
same time, but the two traditions developed along
different lines, with the English companies domi-
nated by a writer and the Italian troupes led by a
capocomico, literally a head actor. Exactly why the
Italian companies should have sidelined the writer
and preferred a style based on the improvisational
skills and imagination of the actor has been the sub-
ject of much inconclusive debate, with scholar Vito
Pandolfi (1969) advancing the view that the oppres-
sive conditions of the Counter-Reformation made it
difficult and dangerous for writers to operate freely.
The essential creative drive in Italian theater was
then entrusted to actors.
Recent critics have forced reconsideration of the
extent and nature of the improvisation that has
traditionally been viewed as central to the style of
commedia dell’arte. Copies of individual actors’
zibaldone (notebooks) that have survived contain
passages of dialogue that had been committed to
memory. Entries include jokes, speeches, witty
asides, exchanges, and appropriate words to be spo-
ken in given situations. As regards the “plot,” the
capocomico established the scenario or canovaccio,
basically a script or outline plot, which was to be
performed on a given day, and this set out the prog-
ress of the work, the development of the individual
scenes, and the entrances and exits of the charac-
ters. Improvisation can only occur within agreed
parameters, otherwise chaos ensues. The storylines
were often worked out in detail, as is clear from
the invaluable anthology of canovacci published in
1611 by Flaminio Scala. However, the canovaccio
does not constitute a finished play, and perhaps is
best viewed as akin to the stage directions or notes
given today by a director to a cast. It acted as a
prompt to stimulate the imagination and creativity
of the performer and left space for the physical act-
ing, the acrobatic histrionics, and lazzi (stage busi-
ness) which were intrinsic to the performance style.
Many of these canovacci were clearly derived
from classical sources, notably the comedies of
Plautus, or from the Renaissance “erudite comedy”
played in the theaters that were, for the first time
since the Roman age, being opened in certain Italian
cities. Commedia dell’arte may have been the popu-
lar entertainment of the age, but it did not exist in a
vacuum and its relations with the official culture of
the time were complex.
 Commedia dell’Arte 163

This was the case too with the characters, more

precisely the stock characters, or maschere in Italian.
The main players could be identified by the mask
and costumes they wore. These stock characters
were later raised, especially by the psychoanalyst
Carl G. Jung (1875–1961), to the status of human
archetypes, but in their origin, they represented
Italian cities and the dialects spoken there, as well
as representative figures in contemporary society:
the avaricious Venetian merchant, the pedant from
the university town of Bologna, the servant from
Bergamo, and the overbearing military officer from
Spain. They can be and were individualized by age,
by class, or by profession and also divided into the
“serious” parts and the comic roles. The principle,
serious parts were the young lovers, who did not
wear masks, while the main comic roles were given
to the four basic stock characters—the two zanni,
Pantalone or Pantaloon, and the Doctor. Pantaloon
was a wealthy Venetian merchant, elderly, prosper-
ous, and lustful, and the Doctor a pompous ped-
Mask of Pantalone/Pantaloon, with the long, hooked nose
ant. Zanni is a word of Venetian origin and is the
typical of this commedia dell’arte character.
origin of the English word zany. The two main
Source: Devor Avi/Wikimedia Commons.
zanni were Arlecchino (Harlequin) and Brighella,
but the character went under many names, includ-
ing Truffaldino, Lelio, and others. They were of the guile, resourcefulness, conceit, and the beatings he
servant class, and Harlequin became the most cele- received before his eventual discomfiture provided
brated of the stock characters, adapted for their own the comic thrust in many performances.
ends by such famous actors as Tristano Martinelli Commedia dell’arte appealed both to the taste
(1556–ca. 1630) and Luigi Riccobono (1676–1753). of the piazzas where the strolling companies put up
Even after he had introduced his reforms, Goldoni their improvised stage and to that of lords, ladies,
retained a fondness for Harlequin, who appears in and bishops. Companies toured widely from early
many guises in his works. In Goldoni’s adaptation of on, going as far afield as Spain, Germany, Poland,
Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, one of his characters, Scandinavia, and Russia, but the main destina-
Ernold, an English knight, declaims tion was France. The Gelosi played for Henri III in
Lyons in 1575, but it was in Paris that they made
Oh, if you could only see what a wonderful mask their mark. A permanent company, the Comédie
Harlequin is! . . . He plays a servant who is both Italienne, was established under the patronage of
clumsy and clever. He dons a ridiculous mask, wears Louis XIV. The company was expelled in 1697 after
a costume of various colours, and will make you die satirizing the royal mistress, Madame de Maintenon,
laughing. Take my word for it, my friends, if you but it returned in 1716 under Luigi Riccobono.
could see him, I don’t care how serious you are, you Its influence on Molière and later on Marivaux
couldn’t help bursting out laughing. He says the (1688–1763) was enormous.
funniest things. He’s always on about eating. He’s a Repetitiveness, staleness, lack of originality, and
sly one with women. . . . (Goldoni, p. 74, translated a lazy preference for scandal and obscenity caused
by Joseph Farrell) the tradition to go into decline, and by the mid-18th
century it was ripe for renewal. Goldoni led this
Each of the stock characters had a distinctive process by reforming from within and still spoke
dress, that of Harlequin consisting of half-mask with approvingly of skillful representatives of the old way.
a long nose on the upper part of his face, and a white Carlo Gozzi (1720–1806), Goldoni’s contemporary
outfit decorated by multicolored lozenges, perhaps and bitter rival, declared his intention of undoing
with a wide-brimmed hat. His insatiable greed, Goldoni’s innovations and restoring traditional
164 Complexity
commedia dell’arte, but the works he produced,
such as Turandot or Love of the Three Oranges,
were actually in line with Goldoni’s reforms and in
many ways contradicted Gozzi’s declared intentions.
In the 20th century, the tradition was revived by
theater innovators such as Edward Gordon Craig,
Vladimir Mayakovsky, and most thoroughly by
Dario Fo (b. 1926), who has proclaimed himself a
modern Harlequin.
Joseph Farrell
See also Comedy; Farce; Gag; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; Goldoni, Carlo; High Comedy; History of
Humor: Renaissance Europe; Improv Comedy; Lazzi;
Low Comedy; Masks; Mime; Slapstick; Stereotypes;
Tragicomedy
Further Readings
Andrews, R. (2008). The commedia dell’arte of Flaminio
Scala: Translation and analysis. New York, NY:
Scarecrow Press.
Duchartre, P. L. (1966). The Italian comedy. London, UK:
Dover Books.
Goldoni, C., & Crotti, I. (Eds.). (1997). Pamela fanciulla;
Pamela maritata [Pamela maiden; Pamela married].
Venice, Italy: Marsili.
Nicol, A. (1963). The world of Harlequin: A critical study
of the commedia dell’arte. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Pandolfi, V. (1969). Il teatro del Rinascimento e la
Commedia dell’arte [The theater of Renaissance and the
commedia dell’arte]. Rome, Italy: Lerici Editore.
Richards, K., & Richards, L. (1990). The commedia
dell’arte: A documentary history. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Richards, K., & Richards, L. (2006). Commedia dell’arte.
In J. Farrell & P. Puppa (Eds), A history of Italian
theatre (pp. 102–126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
COMPLEXITY
It has been suggested that humor appreciation
depends on the humorous material’s complexity, or
how difficult it is to comprehend. To evaluate this
idea, it is important to define complexity. Physical
science has provided a specific suggestion. Physics
has employed entropy, the loss of usable energy, as
an estimate of the disorder in a system. As a corollary
to the second law of thermodynamics, that chaos
is more probable than order and should increase,
complexity is a dominant characteristic of any sys-
tem. This physical definition has been translated
into the more psychological measure of complex-
ity used in information theory. Here, “information”
refers to the number of decisions that need to be
made to bring order into an uncertain system. The
more events there are, and the lower their probabil-
ity, the greater the information and complexity.
As a measure, information has generated consider-
able research relating how such complexity influences
perception, memory, and even group behavior. As
part of this research, complexity has been translated
into a more subjective scale. For the objective mea-
sure, quantity is most critical. The subjective gives
a greater role to relations among elements. Physical
and mathematical measures of complexity are an
important beginning. To truly understand complex-
ity, however, subjective judgments are necessary.
Indeed “information” can measure the quality
of the “good gestalt” based on decisions that must
be made to generate a figure. Furthermore, aesthetic
judgment can be predicted from the information in a
stimulus. Scales of art appreciation have been gener-
ated from complexity measures.
Best known is the work of Daniel Berlyne (1972),
who proposed the classic inverted “U” relating pref-
erence and complexity. Stimuli that are too simple
are boring and not arousing, while extreme com-
plexity can lead to confusion and aversion. Various
theories of motivation and emotion have been built
on this approach.
This relationship has also been generalized to
humor appreciation with intermediate complexity
of jokes and cartoons hypothesized as preferred to
the obvious or incomprehensible. The humor results
from a shift in arousal. Too easy and there is no need
to shift, too hard and the shift cannot occur. Thus,
intermediate complexity should be most effective
in eliciting humor. This hypothesis is important in
many theories of humor appreciation. The support
for this assertion usually comes from work with
children or artificial, not very funny, material.
For children, a typical finding depends on the
reaction to a joke like the one about the person who
wants a pizza cut into six pieces instead of eight.
Eight pieces would be too much to eat. For a 4-year-
old, who does not understand that physical trans-
formations do not affect the overall quantity of an
object, this makes perfect sense and is not funny.
When the 6-year-old has recognized conservation
of mass and realizes that six equals eight for one
pizza, the mistake is humorous. Later on, when such

conservation becomes familiar and trivial, the joke is
not amusing.
An example of artificial stimuli based on varying
information compares the humor ratings of lists of
words with varying structural constraints. A ran-
dom collection of words (trains hive elephants the
simplify) is not funny. A meaningful sentence (trains
carry passengers across the country) is usually not
funny. A sequence of words selected on the probabil-
ity that a word might follow a set of words or selected
randomly to fit grammatical structure (accidents
carry honey between the house) can create odd com-
binations and result in mild amusement. Information
manipulation can create relevant incongruities.
Usually, however, the complexity of humorous
material is judged subjectively. Probably the earliest
finding was in 1942 by Hans Eysenck, who found
that introverts had a greater preference for rela-
tively complex humor, but they are the exception.
Complexity was described as material with a “large
number of relations.” Furthermore, when cartoons
are rated for complexity (how complex), difficulty
(hard to understand), and fit (caption fits the situ-
ation), complexity does not correlate with humor
appreciation but difficulty is negatively related and
fit is positive. A similar relation has been found for
jokes. When multiple panel cartoons are scored by
the accuracy in selecting the “correct” final panel,
fewer accurate choices relate to lower humor. For
comedy routines the more predictable punch lines
are perceived as funnier. The negative correlation
between various subjective ratings of complexity
and humor has been a consistent finding.
Another example of performance and complex-
ity was reported in a study of the television pro-
gram The Daily Show. Episodes were categorized
by expert judges as sarcastic or ironic. Sarcasm is
a sharp or cutting remark that can involve satire
or irony. Irony can refer to a subtle statement that
requires a restructuring of the meaning because of
an incongruity between what is stated and what is
implied. Although college students without the ben-
efit of definitions could not significantly discriminate
sarcasm from irony, they did judge the ironic to be
more complex. Irony was also less well understood
judging from student essays in response to the epi-
sodes. Although humor was not judged, laughter
to host Jon Stewart’s sarcastic thrusts seems greater
than to his ironic witticisms. This casual observation
calls for additional investigation.
For different types of humor, when nonsense and
incongruity resolution humor are compared for “how
Complexity 165
complicated” they are, nonsense is more difficult to
comprehend and less funny. More generally, jokes
that take longer to appreciate are also less funny.
From a processing perspective, material can be
primed to be more salient and, therefore, less com-
plex. As a result, similar material is found more
amusing. Even structure can be primed. Incongruity
resolution and nonsense increase in funniness with
continued presentations. A switch to the differ-
ent structure can, however, disrupt the increased
amusement.
Thus the subjective quality of complexity can be
manipulated. The relevant elements or events in a sit-
uation can have their number subjectively decreased
and their probability and relation increased.
Experience, personality, and mood can all play a role
in lowering complexity and increasing humor.
Peter Derks
See also Aesthetics; Cartoons; Incongruity and
Resolution; Jokes; Nonsense; Personality, Humor and;
Testing and Evaluation
Further Readings
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cunningham, W. A., & Derks, P. (2005). Humor
appreciation and latency of comprehension.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
18, 389–403.
Derks, P., Staley, R. E., & Haselton, M. G. (1998). “Sense”
of humor: Perception, intelligence, or expertise? In W.
Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a
personality characteristic (pp. 143–158). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: An
experimental and theoretical study. British Journal of
Psychology, 32, 295–309.
Hoppe, R. A. (1976). Artificial humor and uncertainty.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 1051–1056.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development.
San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
Polk, J., Young, D. G., & Holbert, R. L. (2009). Humor
complexity and political influence: An elaboration
likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The
Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 17, 202–219.
Staley, R., & Derks, P. (1995). Structural incongruity and
humor appreciation. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 8, 97–134.
166 Comprehension of Humor
Wicker, F. W., Thorelli, I. M., Baron, W. L., III, & Ponder,
M. R. (1981). Relationships among affective and
cognitive factors in humor. Journal of Research in
Personality, 15, 359–370.
Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Collins, J., II (1992). A theory of humor
elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663–688.
COMPREHENSION OF HUMOR
In recent years, cognitive neuroscientists have taken
an increasing interest in the brain mechanisms that
underlie our understanding and appreciation of
humor. Broadly speaking, the challenge for cog-
nitive neuroscience is to find out what part of the
human brain is involved in a given cognitive process
(e.g., reading, remembering, calculating), regard-
less of individual differences. To do so, neuroscien-
tists sometimes investigate normal brain function
during the execution of a specific cognitive task;
in other cases, they look at brain malfunctions or
neuropathology: By giving a cognitive task to stroke
patients with damage to a specific part of the brain,
for instance, they can find out about how the lesion
affects the patients’ performance.
Processing humor requires the coupling of a
cognitive function, the understanding of humor,
with an affective one (i.e., laughter), which reflects
its appreciation. Although the comprehension and
appreciation of humor involves the whole brain, it
is possible to investigate the brain regions that are
more likely to be involved in the different phases of
humor processing. This entry looks at how the abil-
ity to comprehend and appreciate humor has been
illuminated by studies both on neuropathology and
on the normal functioning of the brain.
Incongruity-Resolution Theory
In cognitive neuroscience, the theory that has had
the most success in making sense of experimental
data on humor is incongruity-resolution theory,
in particular the model developed by psychologist
Jerry M. Suls in 1972. According to incongruity-
resolution theory, the understanding of humor criti-
cally depends on resolving incongruity between the
punch line and expectations shaped by the story-
line. The incongruity-resolution theory is based on
separating humor into components: the detection
of incongruity and its resolution. A typical example
of humor based on incongruity resolution begins
with a narrative picture (setup line) and then, in
the punch line, is followed by an unexpected end-
ing: This is the phase of incongruity detection.
However, to get the joke, the perceiver must not
only discern this discrepancy but also formulate a
new, coherent interpretation. This requires engag-
ing in a problem-solving task: The setup and punch
lines must be brought together and an alternative
interpretation found that can reconcile the two ini-
tially incompatible mental sets. This second process
is the incongruity resolution phase.
Once the incongruity is resolved, the perceiver
can appreciate humor and generate a positive emo-
tional response such as laughter.
The Brain in Brief
Typically, in the study of how the brain works, differ-
ent individuals’ brains are assumed to act in similar
ways during the execution of a given cognitive task.
Nonetheless, by grouping together individuals who
belong to a specific population (e.g., an age group
or gender), differences between groups can also be
found. For instance, men and women are sometimes
thought to differ in their performance on verbal and
visual tasks, and aging is associated with a decline in
memory. To investigate these issues, men and women
or younger and older people can be compared using
appropriate cognitive tasks, with the aim of uncov-
ering such differences between groups.
The brain has been functionally divided into
two hemispheres—left and right—but also into four
separate lobes—frontal, parietal, temporal, and
occipital—and into 52 cytoarchitectonic areas (based
on cell structure; these are called Brodmann areas, or
BA for short). It is further divided into cortical and
subcortical regions. Different techniques offer more
or less precise information about which parts of the
brain are activated for a given cognitive function.
Humor Comprehension and Appreciation
in Brain-Damaged Patients
In the 1980s, Howard Gardner, Hiram Brownell,
and their collaborators investigated the processing
of humor in a series of studies with right (RBD)
and left (LBD) brain-damaged patients. The par-
ticipants heard the body of a joke and then were
asked to select which of four alternatives was the
punch line: the correct ending (punch line), a non
sequitur ending, a straightforward neutral ending,
and a straightforward sad ending. The RBD patients
turned out to be particularly attracted to the incor-
rect, non sequitur endings. Moreover, when they

were asked to explain why a joke was funny, they
usually came up with impossible and nonsensi-
cal explanations. In other words, the RBD patients
could detect incongruity, but they had difficulty
resolving it. Conversely, the LBD patients’ sensitiv-
ity to the surprise element of humor was impaired,
but they retained the ability to integrate the different
parts of a narrative. In 1999, Prathiba Shammi and
Donald Stuss found that damage in a specific brain
region, the right frontal cortex, disrupted the ability
to appreciate jokes and led to a weakened emotional
or physical response to humor (laughter or smiling).
Overall, results from studies on brain-damaged
patients show that a lesion in the right brain spares
the ability to detect the surprise element of a story
but not the capacity to reconcile different mental
sets, while a lesion in the left brain generates the
exact opposite pattern. Taken together, these results
suggest that humor comprehension requires the
cooperation of both hemispheres, with the left hemi-
sphere playing a role in the detection of incongruity
while the right is more likely to be involved in its
resolution. Furthermore, the right hemisphere, in
particular the frontal region, seems to be involved in
humor appreciation.
Studying the Normal Brain
In both healthy individuals and brain-damaged
patients, two main noninvasive techniques are used
to study the brain regions involved in humor pro-
cessing: event-related potentials (ERP) and func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The
advantage of ERP is its high temporal resolution,
in the millisecond range, which makes it possible to
precisely quantify the timing of neural activity. Using
this technique, the different phases of processing for
a cognitive task can be distinguished with great pre-
cision. However, its registration of brain activity is
spatially imprecise and is limited to cortical areas
(near the surface of the brain). In one ERP study
on humor, Seana Coulson and Marta Kutas (2001)
found no distinction between the timing of incon-
gruity detection and resolution, suggesting that the
two probably occur within the same time window.
Conversely, the spatial resolution of fMRI is
high and it can thus be used to precisely map out
the brain geography of a cognitive process; however,
its temporal resolution is in the second range, and
therefore it cannot be used to distinguish the acti-
vations associated with processes that occur over a
shorter window of time.
Comprehension of Humor 167
The discussion in the last section of this entry on
fMRI studies therefore focuses on brain structures
that are activated throughout the whole process of
humor comprehension (including both incongru-
ity detection and resolution) and appreciation in
healthy individuals.
Humor Comprehension and
Appreciation in Neuroimaging
The first fMRI study on humor (in the form of
verbal jokes) appeared in 2001 in the prestigious
journal Nature Neuroscience and was conducted
by Vinod Goel and Raymond J. Doland. The two
scanned 14 healthy individuals while they listened
to a series of semantic and phonological jokes (i.e.,
puns). According to Suls’s model of incongruity-
resolution theory, to resolve the incongruity
between these two types of jokes, two different
types of cognitive rules are applied: respectively,
semantic rules and logic. The reasoning behind the
study was that if people use different cognitive rules
to comprehend these two kinds of jokes, then fMRI
should show that different brain areas are activated
when people process them. And indeed, the results
showed that semantic jokes activated the right and
left temporal regions, whereas phonological jokes
led to activation in left frontal structures. The tem-
poral lobe activity seen with semantic jokes fits
with the results of other studies suggesting that this
region is involved in processing and maintaining
alternative scenarios as well as in integrative pro-
cesses requiring global coherence. According to the
authors, these processes are needed for the juxta-
positions of meaning required to resolve the incon-
gruity. Conversely, they argued, the activity in the
left frontal region, which is known to be involved
in language processing, reflects the phonological
processing required to understand puns. Finally,
the authors looked at the affective component of
humor and found that both kinds of jokes activated
frontal brain regions that are known to be part of a
central “reward system.”
In a 2006 fMRI study, an Italian group, Angela
Bartolo, Francesca Benuzzi, Luca Nocetti, Patrizia
Baraldi, and Paolo Nichelli, presented subjects with
a series of cartoon pairs in which the expectations
insinuated by one scene (e.g., a passerby is diving,
apparently to help a person who is drowning) were
incompatible with what occurred in the following
scene (e.g., the person is still drowning and the pass-
erby is coming out of the water with a watch). They
168 Comprehension of Humor
found activity in the frontal and temporal regions
of both hemispheres. These same regions have also
been found to be active during a nonverbal task
requiring subjects to attribute intentions. The results
were therefore taken to suggest that a process of
attributing intentions (known in cognitive science as
a theory of mind ability) is involved in resolving the
incongruity within the pairs of cartoon images: The
supposed intention of the characters involved (i.e., a
passerby diving to help a drowning person) is revised
in order to make sense of the apparent incongruity
depicted in the punch line (i.e., the passerby was in
fact diving to steal the drowning person’s watch).
Attributing intentions to the cartoon characters was
therefore crucial to understanding and appreciat-
ing these cartoon strips. Results on how amusing
subjects found the pairs confirmed the activation of
reward-related brain structures such as frontal and
subcortical regions.
Taken together these results suggest that the brain
reacts in different ways depending on the kind of
comic situation that it is faced with (phonological,
semantic, or so-called theory of mind jokes). The
distinct brain activations seen with these three types
of jokes are probably related to the different cog-
nitive rules employed to resolve the incongruity in
these three types of comic situations.
Another fMRI study by Joseph M. Moran,
Gagan S. Wig, Reginald B. Adams Jr., Petr Janata,
and Willam Kelley (2004) at Dartmouth College,
sought to distinguish the activity associated with
understanding humor from activity related to its
appreciation using videos. By combining dynamic,
real-life content and fMRI, they dissociated humor
comprehension (“getting” and resolving incon-
gruity) from humor appreciation (the emotional
experience of mirth). Their subjects were exposed
to a television sitcom (Seinfeld or The Simpsons);
the period before laughter was taken as the humor
detection/resolution phase, whereas laughter itself
was taken to reflect humor appreciation. The results
showed that the moment of humor detection/resolu-
tion was associated with increased activity in the left
frontal and temporal cortices, whereas brain activ-
ity during humor appreciation occurred in regions
usually involved in emotional processes. Again,
these results reflect the activation of a frontotem-
poral pole during the cognitive processing of humor
and the activation of reward regions during humor
appreciation.
In sum, fMRI results suggest that humor com-
prehension, particularly with cartoons and verbal
semantic jokes, is associated with activation in both
hemispheres, mainly in frontal and temporal areas,
suggesting that both hemispheres play a key role in
humor comprehension. This confirms findings from
studies with brain-damaged patients showing that
humor comprehension requires the integrity of both
hemispheres: the left brain for incongruity detection,
the right for incongruity resolution.
Studies with brain-damaged patients suggest that
functioning right frontal structures are crucial for
humor appreciation. Studies using fMRI have not
shown the appreciation of humor to be lateralized
(specific to one hemisphere), but all agree that fron-
tal structures in particular are activated in humor
appreciation and that these structures are part of
a larger reward system, creating the pleasure that
comes from a good joke.
Angela Bartolo
See also Appreciation of Humor; Brain,
Neuropsychology of Humor; Cartoons; Humor
Detection; Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes
Further Readings
Bartolo, A., Benuzzi, F., Nocetti, L., Baraldi, P., & Nichelli,
P. (2006). Humor comprehension and appreciation: An
fMRI study. Journal of Cognition Neuroscience, 18(11),
1789–1798.
Berns, G. S. (2004). Something funny happened to reward.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(5), 193–194.
Brownell, H. H., Michel, D., Powelson, J., & Gardner, H.
(1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal
humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and
Language, 18, 20–27.
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-
related brain response to jokes in good and poor
comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71–74.
Gardner, H., Ling, P. K., Flamm, L., & Silverman, J.
(1975). Comprehension and appreciation of humorous
material following brain damage. Brain, 98, 399–412.
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). The functional anatomy of
humor: Segregating cognitive and affective components.
Nature Neuroscience, 4, 237–238.
Moran, J. M., Wig, G. S., Adams, R. B., Jr., Janata, P., &
Kelley, W. M. (2004). Neural correlates of humor
detection and appreciation. Neuroimage, 21,
1055–1060.
Samson, A. C., Hempelmann, C. F., Huber, O., & Zysset,
S. (2009). Neural substrates of incongruity-resolution
and nonsense humor. Neuropsychologia, 47(4),
1023–1033.

Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation:
A role of the right frontal lobe. Brain, 122, 657–666.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation
of jokes and cartoons. In P. E. Goldstein & J. H.
McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humour: Theoretical
perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81–100).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., Grodd, W., & Ruch, W. (2003).
Neural correlates of laughter and humour. Brain, 126,
2121–2138.
COMPUTATIONAL HUMOR
The term computational humor refers to an abil-
ity of a computational system to detect or gener-
ate some form of verbal humor. It does not refer
to jokes about computers or any other computer-
based systems. The textual forms of humor are
typically not specified, but due to the complex-
ity of the problem, they are often restricted to
the low-hanging fruit, such as template-based
light bulb or knock-knock jokes. To understand
the nature of the phenomenon of computational
humor, what needs to be discussed is the useful-
ness and applications of computational humor, as
well as some of its dimensions, such as top-down
versus bottom-up approaches and generation ver-
sus detection.
The usefulness and motivations of computational
humor have been argued in many fora, starting
from the 1990s, when the first papers appeared and
the first workshops started to take place, to pres-
ent days. From its inception, there have been two
strands of arguments in its defense against those
who thought it a doubly frivolous idea (humor in
general can be seen by some as frivolous, topped by
computing this frivolity): one based on promoting
it as a method of advancing the knowledge about
human humor competence, or humor theories, and
the other based on the usefulness of computational
humor applications.
Computational Humor as Method
to Advance Theories
The computer is a perfect tool for testing an explic-
itly stated hypothesis: It can only do what it is pro-
grammed to do (provided that it is programmed
correctly), without making any unspecified assump-
tions. What this means is that, in principle, a com-
puter can be more reliable than a human in testing
Computational Humor 169
a theory: Its attention doesn’t wander, it doesn’t get
fatigued, it doesn’t forget—moreover, its knowledge
can be usually traced to the source.
To test a humor theory on a set of jokes, a human
or a machine needs to have access to the knowledge
on which the joke is based. The details of this knowl-
edge will vary from person to person, and it is very
difficult to describe the extent of the knowledge that
one has. Moreover, people may weigh various situ-
ations differently depending on what recently hap-
pened to them or on their personal circumstances.
Again, this is very difficult to trace, but it affects the
response to a joke. A computer, on the other hand,
can always show the exact knowledge that it has
used to process a joke and the weights that it has
assigned depending on previously accessed informa-
tion. Thus, it is possible to see all parameters that
were in play for a computer for the analysis of a
particular form of humor.
At the same time, for a computer to be able to
analyze humor, very specific instructions should be
given, as a machine cannot follow through a vague
command, especially a command that counts on
human intuitive interpretation to implement. Thus,
a true theory must define its terms explicitly and for-
mally to the smallest level of detail. Again, if these
definitions are done correctly, and the system finds,
for example, a text that it classifies as nonhumorous
but a person finds it to be humorous, a counterex-
ample for falsifying a theory has been found. This
means that, in its current shape, the tested theory is
not valid. Similarly, if a text is found to be humorous
by a computer but not by a person, then modifica-
tions to the theory (model) should be made.
This largely cognitive motivation can be extended
from general theories of humor to modeling indi-
vidual humor preferences. A simulation of humor
preferences is likely to shed light not only on the
structure of humor but also on how the human
brain processes humor, in particular, but also other
types of information, in general.
Finally, a successful computational text-based
humor system is the ultimate test result for its suc-
cessful generation or understanding of text. If a sys-
tem understands most types of text-based humor,
it means that it is capable of detecting the salient
meanings of text, an important achievement in text
processing. Similarly, for a system to generate a wide
variety of jokes, it must not only be able to manipu-
late meanings of text but present them in a form that
is acceptable to a native speaker—also not an easy
task in itself. Developed to this point, computational
170 Computational Humor
humor will also provide a suitable testing ground for
the nascent research in computational creativity.
Applications of Computational Humor
The proposed applications (in the sense of pro-
grams) of computational humor vary. Depending
on the dates of the publications, the progression of
arguments ensued based on increasing technological
advances. For example, at the beginning, computa-
tional humor was proposed for smaller task addi-
tions to real-world applications, normally based on
the assumption that systems with embedded humor
would be perceived as more user-friendly. To that
effect, proposals were made for humor-added error
reporting or reports of other generally negatively
perceived events were put forward.
In the later discussions, computational humor has
emerged as a highly desired feature of effective and
natural communication between a computer and a
human. The stress here should be made on natural
as opposed to highly structured interaction from
the earlier days. As such, a computational system
is proposed to handle requests from humans and to
joke around, when appropriate, not as a follow-up
to the “tell me a joke” command, followed by pro-
ducing a prestored canned joke, word for word. In
the same line of reasoning, embodied agents with
some humor ability have been worked on, to add
some human-like personality to them, such as travel
(embodied) agents and embodied museum guides.
The trend to make a computational system
or a robot more human is not new and has been
addressed extensively in science fiction. What the
computational humor field, in part, is attempting to
do now is to turn some of the ideas in science fiction
into reality.
From a theoretical standpoint, such applications
require an understanding of when to insert a joke,
how to deliver it well, and how to create a joke, or,
alternatively, where to find a ready-made joke and
how to use it appropriately. These two problems can
be broken down further. A question of when to insert
a joke can be answered in many ways, not necessar-
ily including the modeling of human understanding.
Several shortcuts can be made, such as, if you can’t
fulfill a request that was given to you by a human,
give a template-based (formulaic) sarcastic response,
or, alternatively, a self-deprecating response.
There are even less tricky ways for a computer
to participate in humor instances. An example of
such techniques is when a person tells a computer
“Knock, knock.” This computational humor fea-
ture of handling knock-knock jokes can be easily
added to any computer once a human analyst real-
izes that a computer doesn’t have to “think” much.
The only response needed by a computer is, again,
the template-based “Who is there?” It is up to a
human participant to provide a response, which
will serve as the pivot of the joke. No matter what a
person provides here, a computer has to detect such
response as a single word or an utterance and insert
it into the beginning of the question that follows by
the word who. At this point, the creative component
of joke generation comes into play—it is up to the
human to generate the punch line. The last thing
that a computer needs to do is to acknowledge the
punch line.
A robot programmed to tell ready-made jokes
generally would not be considered to fall under
computational humor. In general, a basic require-
ment for a computational humor system is the pro-
cessing of some part of humor (text, cartoon, etc.)
with some analytical purpose, which currently is
either detection or generation, but could be broad-
ened further. The system does not have to generate
or detect humor from scratch. It could use existing
and similar types, for example, of jokes to determine
whether a new one is a joke. It could also generate
a new punch line for a previously existing setup, a
new setup for a previously existing punch line, or
add a jab line to an existing joke. All of these tasks
would fall within computational humor.
At the same time, if a robot does tell a person a
joke, acknowledges a joke that a human has told,
or points to something that is humorous, it could
convey the humor more effectively if it was designed
with facial features that reflect the verbal message.
For several decades now, work has been done in cre-
ating computational agents that would appear more
human-friendly and whose actions would be more
similar to that of a human. This includes faces of
the robots, where extensive modeling is done on the
facial muscles that are responsible for showing basic
emotions, including those responsible for humor
response, such as smiling and laughing, the latter
also requiring a certain sound sequence.
Finally, with the development of social networks,
such as Facebook and Twitter, more emphasis is
being put on analyzing information that is there,
whether for advertisement purposes, opinion min-
ing, sentiment analysis, and so on. One of the
applications for computational humor, then, is to
separate serious posts from nonserious ones or at

least meaningfully take humor into account when
analyzing the data. A similar argument can be made
for intelligent search engines and, actually, for any
form of text analytics.
Implementations of Computational Humor
Some of the applications of computational humor
have been implemented, though many of the
thought-up applications are still in the design stage,
at the very best. Implementations of computational
humor can be roughly divided into detection of
humor and generation of humor.
Template-based systems have been very popular
in the early computational generation of humor.
The lowest hanging fruit were some forms of puns,
larger parts of which could be presented without
calculation by a template, and the smaller part could
be generated based on some linguistic techniques.
One of the earliest and better known generators
was JAPE (Joke Analysis and Production Engine),
which produced riddles such as: What do you get
when you cross a murderer with breakfast food?
A cereal killer. An extension of JAPE, STANDUP
(System To Augment Non-speakers’ Dialog Using
Puns), was later developed as a practical application
for language-impaired children.
The techniques that required the production of
such riddles were tried, in the laboratory settings, on
more advanced applications that could be deployed
in the world of commerce, such as one-liner adver-
tisement or funny name or acronym generation, for
example.
Implementations of the humor detectors started
with puns as well, and moved on to the one-liners,
very short jokes, and then to larger humorous texts.
Unlike computer generators that mostly work
within a carefully prescribed template, but neverthe-
less must manipulate some components of linguistic
knowledge (whether it plays on word meaning or
sound), a humor detector cannot be conformed to
a tight template. Even in the case of a knock-knock
joke—the setup of which is very formulaic—to
determine whether the punch line is valid and not
a collection of nonsense, an analysis of the last line
must be done, and the last line itself rarely follows
any prescribed template. On the other hand, the
creator of a system may decide that the probability
that a dialog that starts with “Knock knock” and
is followed by “Who is there?” is a joke is very
high, and it is, then, enough to make the conclu-
sion that it is a joke without actual analysis of the
Computational Humor 171
punch line. What this means is that it is possible to
build a detector that classifies texts into humor and
nonhumor without any understanding what this
text is about. Arguably, it is a valid approach, just
like some people may detect that something is a joke
without understanding what is so funny about it.
Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down Techniques
While all of it falls within the general realm of com-
putational humor, it should be obvious by now
that some of the related functionalities are easier to
implement than others. In general, computational
humor techniques can be looked at as bottom-up or
top-down. Such a distinction is applicable to both
the generation and detection of humor.
Bottom-up techniques concentrate on specific
forms of humor and analyze and implement these
forms to the best of ability possible, given the
available tools. The likelihood that the bottom-
up approach requires a humor theory is slim: A
humor theory is typically used to explain why the
specific form of humor is actually a form of humor
rather than how to implement it computationally.
For example, a knock-knock joke system or a light
bulb joke system qualifies as a bottom-up approach.
Once a number of specific forms of humor are
implemented, these solutions can be generalized,
and the application, then, moves some levels up in
the top/bottom dimension. The closer to the top of
the hierarchy the generalization is, the higher is the
probability of the need of the theory for a successful
computer implementation.
Top-down approaches are supposed to cover
any form of humor, and as such must use humor
theory (in addition to other nonhumor resources)
to generate or detect a humorous text. The reason
for it is that a solution has to be so general that no
finite number of rules outside of humor theory may
cover it. A top-down approach can be enriched by
finer grain-size rules that are designed to deal more
effectively with a less-generic type of joke. However,
in the perfect system, such an improvement is done
for the sake of efficiency only. In practice, top-down
approaches can be very costly to develop and their
testing can take a long time. Nevertheless, more
solidly grounded in the ever improving theories of
humor, they seem to have a better future. The pull
for computational humor, the need for it, is driven
both by theoretical considerations and the emerg-
ing markets for new applications. This makes com-
putational humor a very dynamic, perhaps even
172 Confucianism
somewhat volatile area of research, with much space
for experimentation and innovation.
Julia M. Taylor
See also Humor Detection; Humor Theories; Jokes; Puns
Further Readings
Binsted, K., Bergen, B., Coulson, S., Nijholt, A., Stock, O.,
Strapparava, C., . . . & O’Mara, D. (2006).
Computational humor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(2),
59–69.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2008). Computational humor: Beyond
the pun. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor
research (pp. 333–360). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Nijholt, A. (2002). Embodied agents: A new impetus to
humor research. In O. Stock, C. Strapparava, & A.
Nijholt (Eds.), The April Fool’s Day workshop on
computational humor (pp. 101–111). Trento, Italy:
ITC-irst.
Nijholt, A. (Ed.). (2012, June 8). Computational humor
2012: Extended abstracts of the (3rd international)
workshop on computational humor. Enschede,
Netherlands: University of Twente.
Raskin, V., & Taylor, J. M. (2012, November). Artificial
intelligence of humor. Papers from the AAAI
Symposium (FS-12-02). Palo Alto, CA: Association for
the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Ritchie, G. (2001). Current directions in computational
humour. Artificial Intelligence Review, 16(2), 119–135.
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London,
UK: Routledge.
Strapparava, C., Stock, O., & Mihalcea, R. (2011).
Computational humour. In R. Cowie, P. Petta, & C.
Pelachaud (Eds.), Emotion-oriented systems: The
HUMAINE handbook (chap. 6.4). Berlin, Germany:
Springer.
CONFUCIANISM
Confucianism in this entry refers to the Confucian
ethics of humor, not Confucian humor or humor
with Confucian characteristics. Outlined below,
after a brief introduction of Confucianism at large,
are major beliefs or assumptions behind Confucian
attitude toward humor, Confucian rationale for reg-
ulating it, and general precepts of proper humor. As
a human, social, and cultural phenomenon, humor
raises important philosophical, ethical, and ethnic
questions and therefore should be, as indeed has
always been, approached from these perspectives
as well.
Since the 2nd century BCE, Confucianism—
founded by Confucius (551–479 BCE), his contempo-
rary disciples, and their followers—had predominated
traditional Chinese thought and permeated premod-
ern China. A sociopolitical and ethical philosophy,
it is most concerned with social order, harmony,
peace, and moral cultivation. As far as Confucianism
is concerned, key to all of these are clear social dis-
tinctions, harmonious interpersonal interactions,
and conscientious ritual observance. Thus, an ideal
Confucian state consists of orderly valorized hierar-
chies of human relationships such as husband above
wife, father above son, and ruler above subject so that
all know their proper places and duties in relation
to others high or low, superior or inferior, noble or
humble, and strive to fulfill their familial, sociopoliti-
cal, and moral responsibilities as a husband, a wife, a
parent, a child, a sibling, a friend, a subject, or a ruler.
These distinctions do not mean to divide but instead
to demarcate members of society, since it is equally
imperative that they live and interact with each other
in harmony so as to ensure peace and happiness for
all. In short, the ideal Confucian society depends on
all its members behaving properly or virtuously. The
surest of ways to attain propriety is constant practice
of the mean (zhongyong), a sagely virtue analogous to
the dynamic equilibrium of the yin-yang forces that
produces order, harmony, and health in life, nature,
and the universe. In Chinese, appropriateness (yi
ᐅ), an essential element and sense of propriety, is
homophonous and synonymous with another cardi-
nal Confucian virtue, righteousness (yi ⩏). The arch
cultivator of these virtues is the Rites (li), a body of
rituals and teachings about decorum and virtue. They
are the ultimate social distinguisher (with music act-
ing as the harmonizer), the supreme embodiment of
propriety, and the all-encompassing guidelines of con-
duct, exalted as most effective in ordering and unify-
ing family, state, and the world; in civilizing, refining,
and sublimating human nature; and in regulating and
disciplining all human behaviors from appearance to
deportment to ways of thinking to expressions of feel-
ings, including humor as a mirthful emotion.
The basic Confucian attitude toward humor is
vigilance, owing to its cognizance of emotion’s (espe-
cially passion’s) intractability and susceptibility to
excess and human proneness to overindulging plea-
sure. For intemperance not only violates the doctrine
of constant practice of moderation but often results in
actions that cause interpersonal strife, social unrest,

or downfall of a kingdom. Such ethical and political
asceticism gave rise to wariness about merrymaking
at large in case it leads to frivolity, lapse in rules, and
chaos. Similar concerns also prompted a requirement
of prudent use of words, especially for rulers, because
theirs, according to Confucius, could move heaven
and earth; yet, used carelessly, they, like dissolute
merriments, could spell sociopolitical disaster by stir-
ring up disharmony and disorder. Such preoccupa-
tions culminated in the Rites’s emphasis on gravity
and reverence, since levity, particularly a superior’s
in public, would encourage undue familiarity in his
inferiors that in time could diminish their respect for,
fear of, and obedience to his authority, making his
rule much more difficult, if not impossible.
This vigilance against emotion naturally
extended to humor perceived as a delight (le),
hence a passion and a pleasure. And its verbal
nature could not be more marked in the forma-
tion of an early Chinese character for chaffing,
xue ㅩ = yan ゝ (speech) + nue ⹢ (cruel). Indeed, the
ancient Chinese viewed humor as primarily a verbal
expression of often malice-motivating emotions such
as resentment or anger. Not only was such an expres-
sion cruel but also crude because of its use of shal-
low language to amuse commoners; thus, jokes were
ranked as the lowliest in Chinese letters. Their literary
inferiority was partly caused and greatly exacerbated
by the social inferiority of plebian jokesters or court
jesters who were essentially slaves made of prisoners
of war or criminals and some of whom were also
dwarfs. All of these made a Confucian gentleman
shun association with them or an image of a joker.
The Rites’s stoic emphasis on gravity and reverence,
when internalized, further inhibited his public humor,
since a smiling face or a jester is seldom seen as awe-
inspiring or fearful, due to a dichotomy between
gravity and levity; so much so that some Confucians
even urged that a gentleman make no sport at all,
whether with words or body.
Despite this negativism, however, Confucianism
and the Rites never outright banned humor but in
effect tolerated it—on the belief that as an emotion, it
is part of human nature and thus ineradicable, which
explains why Confucius doubted the possibility of a
mirthless life or that laughter was always repressible.
In fact, he thought that jollity, whether induced by
alcohol or by sport making, was indispensable in life
and politics because it could relax a stressed body or
mind, and that a balance between physical or psy-
chological tension and relaxation was necessary for
both personal and sociopolitical health. He suggested
Confucianism 173
that wise rulers maintain this balance for their sub-
jects by emulating a master archer who keeps his
bow in a good working condition by alternately
stretching and relaxing its string. It is only a short
step from balancing bodily exertion, mental stress,
or emotional strain with amusements to balancing
gravity with humor. Indeed, later Confucians used
this balance to justify humor’s role in Confucian life
and hailed the ability to strike and keep it as a virtue.
After all, Confucius humored from time to time.
The ability to have fun does not necessarily mean
that one can have it whenever or wherever one
pleases; nor does it mean that because humor as a
passion is bound to express itself, its expression can-
not or should not be proper. From the Confucian
standpoint, it can and should be expressed. So rather
than prohibiting it, Confucianism in effect regulated
it; prohibition presupposes its dispensability and reg-
ulation indispensability. And regulation can prescribe
propriety. The Confucian rationale for regulating
humor mirrors that for regulating emotion as follows:
Essential to human nature, emotion is ineradicable,
inevitable, often intractable, and thus potentially
dangerous to personal and social welfare because
of its susceptibility to excess. Yet, emotion is vital
for humankind not only because humanity would
be incomplete without it, but also because it spurs
action necessary for building and bettering the human
world. Therefore, bounds must be set to emotional
expression, limiting it to appropriate times, places,
objects, and ways, and making it conducive to social
order, harmony, and peace. The touchstone of emo-
tional propriety is moderation achievable by balanc-
ing expression on the scales of the Rites. Hence arose
a tacit but effective Confucian etiquette of humor.
There are five inferable precepts of proper
humor. First, it should be private. This means that
instead of pulling a long face all day long, one can
relax it in private. Reportedly, Confucius was infor-
mal, relaxed, and amicable at home, exemplifying
a ritual prescription that at leisure, a gentleman be
mild. Rather than an assumed attitude, this mild-
ness comes from his gentleness at heart that made
him a gentleman who was intrinsically affable
and amiable despite his solemn public mien. After
all, a core Confucian virtue is humaneness (ren)
connoting human fellowship, whose foundation
includes gentleness and goodness. While the Rites’s
requirement of gravity and reverence curbed the
gentleman’s public humor, his inherent gentleheart-
edness and outward friendliness induced a genial
private environment where humor could flourish
174 Conversation
and where a smiling and jocose Confucius emerged
before his students.
Although private humor is permissible and
appropriate, one should not overindulge it—the
second precept. Representing an imbalance between
tension and relaxation, intemperate humor is more
improper and dangerous than a perpetual long face
because it is more likely to lead to frivolity, abuse,
and indecency, as well as cruelty by enabling humor’s
innate malice to come out.
This violates the third precept of proper humor—
that it be good-natured, for hurtful jokes are inhu-
mane, and benevolence, a derivative virtue of
humaneness, calls for kinder and gentler humor by
extracting the embedded spite of joking. Thus, “funny
but never cruel” became a dictum for good humor.
Cruel jokes were also despised as vulgar, insuf-
ferable, and thus opposed to the fourth precept that
jokes be tasteful. This is to say that besides being
private, moderate, and benign, they should not be
too coarse (or, too delicate or subtle to be enjoyed by
many), or they would violate the Confucian virtue of
unremitting self-refinement through ritual discipline.
The final precept is that proper humor serves
practical or didactical purposes: for example, to
relieve fatigue; remove worries; pacify anger; rec-
oncile disputes; admonish commoners; remonstrate
rulers in order to prevent misconduct; rectify way-
wardness; stop violence; avert sociopolitical, diplo-
matic, or military disasters; and restore order and
peace to the world. Moreover, proper humor can
be a potent instructive tool since people are more
partial to humor than homily; used properly, humor
can instill moral beliefs and values, expose vice and
evil, illuminate or help recover innate human good-
ness, and guide people (back) to the Confucian Way.
As such, this last requirement partook of a long
apologetic tradition to justify humor from philo-
sophical, psychological, and pragmatic perspectives
by stressing its ineradicability, its indispensability to
emotional balance, and its utility best illustrated by
the following exemplary anecdote:
Owing to a severe drought, the King of Shu
prohibited people from making wine (in order to
save water). One day the police found distilling
equipment and arrested its owner. Just then, Jian
Yong, one of the king’s advisors, was accompanying
the King on a tour and, noticing a man and a
woman walking in the street, he said to the King,
“Please have that man and that woman arrested, for
they are about to start an affair.” “How do you
know?” asked the King. “Because they both have
the equipment, just like the distilling equipment
owner. That is how I know it.” The King laughed
and ordered the owner of the distilling equipment be
released. (Xu, 2011, p. 65)
The moral of this story in terms of the above apol-
ogy for humor is: Benefits depend on proper usage.
Wei He Xu
See also Development of Humor; Forest of Laughter and
Traditional Chinese Jestbooks; History of Humor:
Classical and Traditional China; Philosophy of
Humor; Rituals of Laughter
Further Readings
Harbsmeier, C. (1989). Humor in ancient Chinese
philosophy. Philosophy East & West, 39(3), 289–310.
Harbsmeier, C. (1990). Confucius ridens: Humor in the
Analects. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 50(1),
131–161.
Hsia, C. T. (1978, Spring). The Chinese sense of humor.
Rendition, 9, 30–36.
Lin, Y. (1966). Kongzi de youmo [Confucius’s humor].
In Y. Lin, Lin Yutang wencong [Essays by Lin Yutang]
(pp. 181–183). Taipei, Taiwan: Zhongxing shuju.
Lin, Y. (1994). Lun Kongzi de youmo [On Confucius’s
humor]. In Lin Yutang mingzhu quanji [A collection of
Lin Yutang’s famous works] (Vol. 16, pp. 22–27).
Changchun, China: Dongbei shifan daxue chubanshe.
Xu, W. (2004). The Confucian politics of appearance—and
its impact on Chinese humor. Philosophy East & West,
54(4), 514–532.
Xu, W. (2011). The classical Confucian concepts of human
emotion and proper humour. In J. Chey & J. Milner
Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese life and letters:
Classical and traditional approaches (pp. 49–71). Hong
Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Zheng, K. (1993). XianQin youmo wenxue [Pre-Qin
humorous literature]. Guangzhou, China: Jinan daxue
chubanshe.
CONSERVATION
See Personality, Humor and
CONVERSATION
Everyday conversation thrives on wordplay, sar-
casm, anecdotes, and jokes. These forms of humor

enliven conversation, but they also help us break the
ice, fill uncomfortable pauses, negotiate requests for
favors, and build group solidarity. Thus, an account
of joking will be a fundamental part of any com-
plete description of conversation. And conversation
is the natural home of punning, allusion, and joking.
We understand these forms of humor only if we can
explain their integration into everyday talk and their
functioning in it. Consequently, an understanding
of humor in everyday conversation is a prerequisite
for a complete account of verbal humor. This entry
discusses differences between conversational humor
and written humor and describes the characteristic
features of conversational humor, bantering, pun-
ning, storytelling, and joke telling.
Humor in Spoken Language
Humor in spoken language is based in interaction,
demanding participation by the listener and recipi-
ent, as with riddle jokes and knock-knock jokes. It
often involves gestures, play-acting, and imitations
of voices and dialects—matters not addressed by
theories of verbal humor. Conversational humor
often plays off patterns of spoken interaction, taking
the form of proverbial phrases, clichés, one-liners,
allusions, stock responses, and puns for recurrent
situations, which we pick up from and weave back
into conversation; instead of initiating a conversa-
tion with a simple and humorless hello, we may
choose from a repository of standard formulas such
as we can’t go on meeting like this under appropriate
circumstances. Again in taking leave, we may pass
over the uncolored goodbye in favor of jocular stock
phrases like see you in the funny papers and don’t
take any wooden nickels. Besides these formulas
for greetings and closings, conversationalists store
and recycle humorous phrases tailored to bridge an
uncomfortable pause or to wrap up an old topic and
to segue into a new one like cat got your tongue?
We have special formulas for effecting the transition
from a joke or period of nonserious talk into a new
topic, namely but seriously, folks and but all kidding
aside.
Characteristic Features of
Conversational Humor
Let us consider a joking episode to give some sense
of the complex interrelation of joking and context.
On a plane loading for the flight from New York
to Chicago, several passengers were politely letting
Conversation 175
each other pass, helping each other stow luggage,
find seats and so on, when a man with an unmis-
takable New York accent said, “What’s everybody
being so nice for? We’re still in New York.” A
second man laughed and replied, “Yeah, we’ll be
back in Chicago soon. Then it’ll be okay again,”
which elicited more general laughter. Now the
first speaker may be poking fun at the stereotypi-
cal brusqueness of his fellow New Yorkers, and he
may be kidding the Chicagoans for their eagerness
to be nice. Or he may readily accept both the New
York and Chicago stereotypes and the associated
behavior patterns as valid, neither good nor bad
in their respective places, yet still be joking about
the clash of customs: “When in New York, be
unfriendly; when in Chicago, be friendly.” What
is funny then is the application of the Chicago rule
while still on New York turf. In any case, the physi-
cal closeness and jostling in the narrow airplane
aisle, the incompatible politeness systems, and per-
haps even some preflight jitters need relief of some
sort, and the two speakers latch onto humor as the
vehicle of choice, laughing about the ambiguity
of the situation itself where neither set of customs
clearly holds sway.
Two strangers can exchange and enjoy jokes
about their differences because they share a wealth
of background information about their respective
habits as well as assumptions about who jokes
with whom, where, when, and about what. The
first speaker must signal both a desire to commu-
nicate and a humorous tone through a set of hints
and cues on a whole range of levels from prosody
and phonology through syntax, lexis, and rhythmic
organization on up to partially formulaic discourse
strategies. While the first speaker signals his status
as a New Yorker with characteristic accent fea-
tures, the second underlines his identification as a
Chicagoan with the phrases “back in Chicago” and
“it’ll be okay again.” This points up the function
of joking as a means of presenting a personal iden-
tity, which becomes a part of the dynamic context.
Joking allows participants to recognize their respec-
tive affiliations and to align themselves in terms of
them or despite them. Humor provides a socially
acceptable vent for hostility toward other people
and their idiosyncrasies. Thus, in our example, it
seems the New Yorker and Chicagoan align them-
selves together to laugh about the clash of conven-
tions and those caught in it. Joking and laughing
together help establish rapport and can lead to fur-
ther involvement.
176 Conversation
This discussion still simplifies context and jok-
ing in several important ways. First, it includes no
conversational context, no talk previous to the
first joking remark. By contrast, most conversa-
tional joking grows out of foregoing talk and much
plays on it directly, with punning and repartee as
the most obvious examples. Second, because the
participants are strangers, they bring with them no
past history of joking or any common interaction at
all. If the context of joking—and really of any talk
exchange—consists in whatever perceptions partici-
pants have of their interaction and their relations to
each other, then this includes their recollection and
evaluation of past encounters and the sorts of joking
they have engaged in together. Some individuals joke
with almost everyone; some people kid each other
whenever they meet; some pairs or larger groups
develop customary joking relationships, in which
teasing and joking are habitual and competitive; and
these histories of joking have much relevance for
any interactions of the people involved.
Banter and Punning in Conversation
The rapid exchange of humorous lines oriented
toward a common theme, though aimed primarily
at mutual entertainment rather than topical talk,
typifies what we generally call banter. It may consist
primarily of sarcastic comments, wordplay, or both
in the usual sense of punning, metaphor, and so on.
No matter what else a set of conversationalists are
involved in, banter seems to occur with this sort of
structure. The passage below illustrates banter sur-
rounding the introduction of a newly arrived guest,
namely a mutual acquaintance Andy, who just hap-
pened to drop by the home of Teddy and Pamela
during a dinner party with their invited guests, Vera
and Jim. Vera initiates a humorous key for the inter-
action with her overstated stress on still and four,
sarcastically suggesting that marriage has perhaps
not been all she thought it might be, as she glances
roguishly around toward her new husband Jim.
Vera: Hi.
Andy: You don’t remember me.
Vera: Yes I DO. Yes I DO.
Andy: I haven’t seen you since you were married.
Vera: That’s true. And we’re STILL married. It’s
been FOUR months.
Teddy: [arriving] It’s not a record YET, but it’s
y’know.
Vera: [laughs]
Andy: [laughs]
Jim: It’s a record for ME.
Vera: Yeah [laughing].
Teddy: [laughing] it’s starting to FEEL like a record.
[General laughter]
Once Vera establishes the humorous tone, Teddy
picks up her lead with a sarcastic comment about
the four-month duration of the marriage as estab-
lishing a record. Both Vera and Andy in turn respond
appropriately with laughter, while Jim moves on into
a joke of his own based on the idea that the marriage
is setting longevity records. Vera agrees to his com-
ment with a laughing “yeah,” while Teddy laughs
and then further builds on Jim’s line, continuing the
banter. The passage illustrates not only how conver-
sationalists use joking to negotiate the introduction
of a new arrival, but also how they weave together
humorous variations on a theme, each building on
foregoing utterances to contribute their own face-
tious comments.
Punning is a special sort of wordplay gener-
ally associated with humor and characteristically
polyphonous and interactive in conversation.
Conversationalists play shifting roles and pretend
misunderstanding to create puns. As the interaction
from above proceeds, Teddy punningly suggests an
unexpected interpretation for the idiomatic phrase see
more of someone, pretending to understand more in
reference to physical quantity. Vera repeats the line
to show her appreciation, then closes the interchange
with an imitation of a drum riff ending in a rimshot.
Vera: I thought I’d get to see MORE of him once
we got married.
Teddy: But there WASn’t any more of him.
Jim: [laughs]
Vera: [laughing] There wasn’t any more of him.
Okay. Bum bi bumbum, CHA.
Teddy’s humorous intrusion not only disrupts
the prevailing turn-taking structure and realigns the
participants to include him, but it also changes the
topic. Since puns are tied into the sequentiality of
turn taking, they can have a wide range of effects
on the organization of the conversation in progress.
This differentiates punning based on intentional
misunderstanding of previous talk from other strat-
egies such as irony, overstatement, and sarcasm for
the creation of conversational joking. Spontaneous
punning here changes the topic and direction of
conversation, moving from information exchange
to group rapport as the goal of talk.
The appropriate initial response to a pun is, of
course, laughter. For narrative jokes, laughter is
expected immediately upon completion of the punch

line. A failure to laugh at the correct juncture belies
a lack of understanding—or, under the right cir-
cumstances, a lack of amusement. Precisely because
laughter is expected, silence counts as something
missing in the turn-taking pattern; but this silence
ambiguously signals either a failure on the part of the
audience for not getting the joke or a failure on the
part of the teller for a poor performance. The same
holds true for spontaneous conversational humor.
Since laughter provides the appropriate response to
any sort of joking, a lack of laughter suggests the
audience either did not get or did not like the joke.
Storytelling, Personal Anecdotes
Conversationalists sometimes relate humorous sto-
ries about their own past successes, say landing a
particularly apt repartee or having outwitted some
more powerful adversary. Up through adolescence,
funny tales in which the speaker puts down an
authority figure are fairly well received, but adults
are more likely to report on the successes of their
family and friends than their own, and even then
they may be faulted for indirectly blowing their own
horn. Adults often tell humorous personal anecdotes
about their own foibles and errors. These stories
enlist others on the side of their tellers; they elicit
sympathy and solidarity with them rather than com-
petition. We all recall funny events from our child-
hoods and we engage in embarrassing behavior from
time to time, so there is never a dearth of tellable
material or a lack of understanding. Funny personal
anecdotes end up presenting a positive self-image
rather than a negative one. First of all, they convey
a so-called sense of humor, which counts as a virtue.
They present a personality with an ability to laugh
at problems and overcome them—again an admi-
rable character trait. Thus, self-effacing personal
anecdotes redound to conversational rapport and
positive face for the teller in several ways at once.
The functioning and dynamics of personal anec-
dotes appear in the short excerpt below. Vera and
Pamela are talking about childhood memories, as
are Jim and Ted, when Vera overhears Jim men-
tion a letter he wrote to a 6-year-old girlfriend. Her
request, “Well tell me about it,” aligns her as recipi-
ent vis-à-vis Jim as teller and serves as a preface to
the story. Jim begins with some background about
the girl in question.
Vera: Were you talking about you having a
girlfriend when you were little and writing
her this letter?
Conversation 177
Jim: Yeah, yeah.
Vera: Well tell me about it.
Teddy: [laughs]
Jim: As I recall, she and I had matching
Superman suits and we’d—[general listener
laughter]—and we’d lie on the back lawn
and pretend to be flying and stuff.
Vera: The basis of true love, yes.
Jim does not really go much beyond describing a
scene from his childhood, but he drawls out the intro-
ductory formula “as I recall” to set up a storytelling
frame, and he delivers the first line rapidly for maxi-
mum effect. When laughter ensues, Jim cuts off his
second sentence, then restarts once the laughter dies
down. So he plays this little scene for all it is worth,
and his wife Vera comments sarcastically on the scene
depicted before Jim even has a chance to finish.
Evaluative comments from listeners, themselves
intended to elicit further laughter, routinely appear at
the close of a funny anecdote or almost any time after
the initial statement of plot or theme, and quite freely
once laughter has interrupted it. Anecdotes disrupt
the flow of conversation less than canned jokes: They
produce almost immediate audience participation,
and thus work less like a practiced performance for a
passive audience than a routine contribution woven
into the ongoing pattern of alternating turns.
The laughter following the initial setup for the
anecdote differs from that which responds to the
punch line of a narrative joke. Narrative jokes are
constructed so as to build up to the final punch line,
which imposes an understanding test on the listener.
The listener then laughs to demonstrate understand-
ing. But personal anecdotes usually have no punch
line as such, and they do not pose an understanding
test. Instead, the anecdote presents an amusing scene
which invites listeners to laugh and offer comments
of their own. Some events, such as this image of two
kids lying on the lawn in Superman suits, automati-
cally elicit laughter if presented properly.
Joke Telling in Conversation
In the following, we examine a conversational joke
performance with its characteristic disfluencies and
listener involvement. Focus on joke telling in its nat-
ural conversational environment sheds light on the
structure and point of humor generally.
Larry: Did—didn’t you tell the one about the—
the guy in the bar who who suddenly
uh—starts hearing these very nice things
said about him?
178 Conversation
Claire: What were the nice things?
Larry: Guy’s standing there at the bar. And he—
and this VOICE says,
“Gee, you’re such a GREAT looking guy.”
And he looks around and there’s nobody
there.
Turns back around and he hears the same
voice say,
“Y’know I just think you’re a really good
person.”
[Several listeners giggle]
Y’know he keeps looking around, he can’t
see anybody talking.
And it keeps happening and he finally
says to the bartender, he says,
“What’s—what’s going on here. I keep
hearing all these—and I look up—and the
bartender says, ‘It’s the peanuts, they’re
complimentary.’”
[general laughter]
Claire: Now that’s [laughing] that’s cute.
Claire is visiting Larry. She just arrived two
days earlier, and Larry thinks he first heard the
joke from her (“did- didn’t you tell the one about
the- the guy in the bar”), so we can assume that
he’s telling it for the first time. Although Claire
first answers that she doesn’t know if she told the
joke, her question “What were the nice things?”
apparently convinces Larry that Claire has no
prior claim to tell it, so he forges ahead with the
performance.
Notice first the characteristic joke syntax, namely
the missing article in “guy’s standing there at the
bar” (line 7); the subjectless clause “turns back
around” (line 9); repetition of says in “he finally
says to the bartender, he says” (lines 14–15); false
starts: “and he- and this voice says” (lines 7–8) and
“what’s- what’s going on” (line 15); and fillers:
“gee, you’re” (line 8) and “y’know” (lines 10 and
13). Note further that interruptive laughter serves to
prolong the buildup as well. And a rapid accumu-
lation of information occurs just before the punch
line, through incomplete structures and the switch of
perspective: “I keep hearing all these and I look up
and the bartender says.”
Maybe the break after “all these” is due to a
planning switch, because the teller intends to say
“all these compliments,” then realizes it would spoil
the punch; but the break after “look up” seems to
reflect a strategy of ending the joke quickly once
enough buildup has been delivered. Larry is telling
this joke for the first time, so he’s feeling his way,
especially at this transitional interval between the
buildup and the punch line. Clearly, he opts to end
the buildup and get on to the punch, even though he
leaves two structures incomplete. In fact, he could
have left out the whole sequence “I keep hearing all
these- and I look up-” without damage to the joke
text. The final sentence puts off the crucial punch
line phrase “they’re complimentary” as long as pos-
sible. The switch to the perspective of the bartender
followed by the initial answer “it’s the peanuts”
serves to make the final segment of the buildup
dense. Then the actual punch line “they’re compli-
mentary” and the clauses leading up to it come off
without a hitch—by contrast with the false starts,
fillers, and repetitions in the build-up. All of these
features work together to constitute timing in joke
telling.
Conclusion
Research on conversational humor has experienced
a steady progression from the time that recordings
and transcriptions of behavior became available in
the 1970s. Methods of analysis developed in con-
versation analysis, discourse analysis, and interac-
tional sociolinguistics have allowed for the detailed
examination of talk-in-interaction, and this has
enabled the description of humorous activities.
Neal R. Norrick
See also Identity; Irony; Jokes; Politeness; Puns; Teasing
Further Readings
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to
biting: Conversational joking and identity display.
Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–294.
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends.
Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1/2), 5–28.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations
of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6),
709–742.
Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of
humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of
Pragmatics, 38(1), 26–50.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work:
How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal
of Pragmatics, 34, 1683–1710.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in
everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N. R. (2001). On the conversational performance
of narrative jokes: Toward an account of timing.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
14, 255–274.

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s
telling. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations
in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Straehle, C. A. (1993). “Samuel?” “Yes, dear?” Teasing and
conversational rapport. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in
discourse (pp. 210–230). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
COOPERATION, PRINCIPLE OF
See Maxim
COPING MECHANISM
It is important to understand coping mechanisms
well because coping may have a regulatory effect
on our emotions, our social relationships, and
sometimes even our physical health. In this entry,
the relationship between coping, stressors, and
stress responses is explained. The role of humorous
coping in this process is also introduced. Finally,
the role of humorous coping with regard to our
well-being is described.
Coping
Coping may be described as an effort by the indi-
vidual to adapt to threatening or difficult situations
called stressors. Stressors (e.g., the sudden encounter
with a fast driving car or a roaring bear) may invoke
the so-called stress response, which is accompanied
by bodily responses preparing an individual to deal
actively with or move away from the stressor (the
fight-or-flight response). Basically the stress response
is an adaptive response aimed at the survival of the
individual, which is especially useful when quick
action as a response to possibly life-threatening or
injuring stressors is required. However, the stress-
ors in modern society are usually not so physical
anymore; they are more of a psychological or social
nature, the loss of home keys, an argument with a
partner, or the loss of face at work, for example.
These stressors do invoke a stress response, which is
usually not needed to physically survive. However,
because of the anxiety, anger, or shame the individ-
ual feels during the stress response, it is usually con-
sidered an unpleasant state. It is this unpleasant state
or emotion that individuals are motivated to avoid
or reduce; this is why James J. Gross (2002) calls
Coping Mechanism 179
this process emotion regulation. Coping responses,
including humorous coping, try to achieve just that.
Humorous Coping
Humorous coping may be defined as the active use
of humorous behaviors or thoughts to adapt to
stressors in order to avoid or reduce the unpleasant
states or emotions accompanying them. Sigmund
Freud (1856–1939) offered one of the first concep-
tions of humorous coping. He considered humor
as one of the more mature defense mechanisms of
which humans are capable. Contrary to other forms
of coping, humorous coping is not only aimed at
stress prevention or stress reduction, but also at
the induction of a pleasant state involving mirth or
laughter. How does the individual accomplish this?
Basically, there are two ways to apply humor to a
stressful situation: a reductive and a preventive way.
The reductive way of humor application is aimed at
a decrease of unpleasant states (i.e., stress) that the
individual already experiences as the consequence of
a stressor. Because it is aimed at reducing the emo-
tional response following a stressful situation, this
type of humorous coping is called response-focused
humorous coping. An example of this type of coping
response is making a joke after one has lost face in a
meeting. The other way is the preventive way, which
is aimed at the prevention of unpleasant emotions
that might occur as a result of certain stressors. This
is what we would call antecedent-focused humorous
coping. An example of this type of coping is when
a car driver takes an illegal shortcut, blocking your
way temporarily and winks at you to soften your
angry response. The difference between these two
types of humorous coping is the phase of the stress
response in which they are applied. Antecedent-
focused humorous coping is used in an early phase
of the stress response and is aimed at the prevention
of stress; response-focused humorous coping is used
in a later phase of the stress response, when unpleas-
ant states have already been evoked. Theoretically
it may be expected that antecedent-focused humor-
ous coping is more beneficial to our well-being than
response-focused humorous coping. This is because
in the latter type stress has already been experi-
enced and cannot be prevented anymore. Although
stress as such is adaptive and not harmful, chronic
stress may result in damage to our psychological or
physical well-being. Therefore, antecedent-focused
humorous coping may contribute positively to our
well-being. Both humorous cognitions and humor-
180 Coulrophobia
ous behaviors may have the comforting effect at
which all coping responses are aimed.
Humorous Coping and Well-Being
It has already been shown that coping mechanisms
have small but significant effects on our psychologi-
cal, social, and physical well-being. This seems also to
be the case for humorous coping, although more evi-
dence from empirical studies is welcome. Although
some studies like Newman and Stone’s in 1996 have
offered experimental evidence that humorous coping
may reduce stress, the social and psychological effects
of humorous coping could well be stronger than the
physical effects. The reason for this probably lies in
the creativity involved in humorous coping. It tries
to transcend everyday reality and offer oneself and
others an alternative view on it. It may therefore be
compared to other transcending human activities like
art or science, as so eloquently described by Arthur
Koestler in 1976. Although humorous responses are
created by individuals, they may also render an alter-
native look at our society, as in cartooning. Political
cartoons, especially, may be considered humorous
coping responses involving societal problems and
tragedies. But cartoons may also portray and com-
ment on the state of affairs in our social relation-
ships. It is this transcending link between the mirth
that humor may bring and the tragedy of our lives
that makes humorous coping so well worth studying.
Sibe Doosje
See also Creativity; Defense Mechanism; Health Benefits
of Humor, Physical; Health Benefits of Humor,
Psychological; Mirth; Personality, Humor and; Stress
Further Readings
Doosje, S. (2010). Sense of humor at work: Assessment and
associations with health (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from Igitur Archive, collection Sociale Wetenschappen
Proefschriften http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/
dissertations/2010-0916-200254/UUindex.html
Freud, S. (1928). Humour. The International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis, 9(1), 1–6.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective,
cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology,
39(3), 281–291.
Koestler, A. (1976). The act of creation. London, UK:
Hutchinson.
Newman, M. G., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Does humor
moderate the effects of experimentally-induced stress?
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18(2), 101–109.
COULROPHOBIA
The term coulrophobia indicates a persistent, abnor-
mal, and irrational fear of clowns. This term has
only recently entered into humor research and it
has an uncertain etymology. It is composed of two
words. The prefix coulro comes from the Ancient
Greek klobathrists, which means “one who goes
on stilts.” In this case, it is used as a synonym for
a clown. The term phobia comes from the Greek
φόβος, phóbos, and means “fear.” Phobia is an irra-
tional and excessive fear of an object or situation
that belongs to a specific type of anxiety disorder,
and to be diagnosed it needs the presence of certain
criteria. Several kinds of phobia exist and according
to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV-TR), coulrophobia
belongs to the category of specific phobia (phobia
related to a specific object or situation). Some of
the major criteria demonstrated by people suffering
from specific phobia are a marked and persistent
fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the
presence or anticipation of a specific object or situ-
ation; an immediate anxiety response provoked by
the exposure to the phobic stimulus (in children, the
anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freez-
ing, or clinging); the recognition by the person that
the fear is excessive or unreasonable (in children, this
recognition may be absent); the avoidance of phobic
situations, or else the endurance of them with intense
anxiety or distress.
Etiology of the Phobia of Clowns
Fear of clowns appears more common in children
ages 2 to 7 even if it can also be found among
teenagers and adults. Many adults see a clown as
a frightening character because of traumatic expe-
riences in their childhood. At the moment, there
is a shortage of studies investigating this particu-
lar phobia and there are no certainties about the
causes, but there are some theories that can explain
coulrophobia.
Two hypotheses are prevalent. For some, coulro-
phobia is rooted in a negative personal experience
with a clown at a young age. Usually, younger chil-
dren are more afraid of clowns. For a child, in fact, a
clown can be an imposing and unusual figure. Many
children are afraid of masked or disguised characters
such as Santa Claus, and they can develop a fear of
clowns after experiencing a dramatic situation with
 Creativity 181

a clown in person. Clown’s clothing and props tend Further Readings

to amplify facial traits and body parts such as hands American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
and feet; these modified elements can appear mon- statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
strous. Clowns are colorful and humorous charac- Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
ters who smile constantly. The white face and the big Bala, M. (2010). The clown: An archetypal self-journey.
smile are the features that can frighten children most. Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, 4(1), 50–71.
The mask or the makeup of the clown serves to hide Durwin, J. (2004). Coulrophobia and the trickster.
the real identity of the subject behind a painted face. Trickster’s Way, 3(1), Article 4.
Because of heavy makeup, a clown’s face looks very Farneti, A., & Tschiesner, R. (2012). Humor and children.
strange and different from the normal face. A child’s In P. Gremigni (Ed.), Humor and health promotion
mental capacity does not allow it to embrace this (pp. 133–148). New York: Nova Science.
incredible novelty and the exaggerated expression
of the clown can be very frightening. To prevent this
fear, and in order to adapt his art to the younger CREATIVITY
audience, the clown should adopt specific precau-
tions: be clean shaven, use light makeup and lighter
The term creativity refers to the phenomenon
colors, and avoid painted faces that can appear sad
whereby a person creates something (such as a
or frightening.
product, an artwork, a scientific theory, or a
Another reason for developing a fear of clowns
joke) that is regarded as both novel and valuable.
could be detected in the fact that clowns often take
Creativity and humor are closely related constructs,
part in children’s parties; thus linking a clown to
with humor usually being seen as a subset of cre-
a crowded and noisy environment can become an
ativity. Both involve some degree of unpredictabil-
overwhelming experience for a child. A clown’s
ity, novelty, incongruity, and surprise, and require
behavior can be seen as foolish and unpredictable.
playfulness, risk taking, and exploiting loose but
If the clown approaches the child too quickly, he can
meaningful associations between concepts. Within
scare the child. The clown should approach slowly
the context of humor research, the topic of creativity
and after a while children will usually warm to
is mainly relevant to humor production, by which
him and realize that he means no harm. If the child
a person produces a novel joke, witticism, observa-
has a bad or frightening experience with a clown
tion, or other creative product that is found funny
at an early age, this can lead to the development of
by others. In this entry, several facets of the rela-
coulrophobia.
tion between creativity and humor are described. In
The second main hypothesis is that fear of
the first section, some general background on how
clowns is due to the media. Over the years, there
researchers conceptualize creativity is provided, with
have been an increasing number of movies featuring
specific links to humor and humor theories. In the
evil clowns. Because of this, even children who are
second section, several issues at the intersection of
not directly exposed to clowns learn to be scared by
humor and creativity are explored. These include
them. In these movies, the clown characters are often
the relation between humor and the “A-ha!” phe-
horrific and frightening and by watching these mov-
nomenon of insight, the relation of humor produc-
ies, children could develop a fear of clowns. These
tion to humor comprehension and appreciation,
hypotheses, especially the latter one, don’t have
and an overview of recent research attributing the
any scientific evidence and future well-established
emergence of humorous and creative abilities to
research studies are needed to test and verify them.
Darwinian sexual selection theory. In each case,
However, the term has become widely used and is
some possible future research directions are outlined,
found in many etymological dictionaries. Humor
to further develop these potentially fruitful but still
scholars should be wary of the concept until more
under-studied topics.
research has confirmed its tenets.
Alberto Dionigi Creativity Research and Its
Relevance to Humor
See also Children’s Humor Research; Clowns in Medical Creativity is by nature a complex, multifaceted,
Settings; Health Benefits of Humor, Physical; Health and interdisciplinary phenomenon. Thus, the sci-
Benefits of Humor, Psychological; Ritual Clowns entific study of creativity presents researchers with
182 Creativity
a number of conceptual and methodological chal-
lenges. While the subject of creativity has been of
broad interest to researchers and laypersons for
centuries, most discussions of this topic tradition-
ally relied on a mix of armchair speculation and
potentially idiosyncratic first-person accounts by
great creators. Beginning in the mid-20th century,
scientific psychology began to address creativity in
a more systematic way. Researchers initially focused
on the construct of divergent thinking, in which, for
instance, a person generates multiple novel uses for
everyday objects. In more recent decades, research
and theorizing about the nature of creativity has
accelerated, research questions on humor have
broadened and deepened, and its methods have pro-
liferated to encompass laboratory experiments, per-
sonality inventories and other survey instruments,
cognitive-historical case studies, archival data
analyses, computer simulations, and neuroscience
techniques.
The Six P’s of Creativity
Amidst the great variety of modern approaches
to creativity, several sets of general principles guide
contemporary research. One useful heuristic is the
so-called six P’s of creativity: the creative person, the
creative product, the creative process, the creative
place, creativity as persuasion, and creative poten-
tial. Different lines of research and creativity theo-
ries pursue varied subsets of these P’s. Depending on
a researcher’s questions and approach, any of these
P’s can also be potentially relevant to the study of
humor as well. For instance, researchers interested
in different styles of humor or their relation to well-
established personality dimensions will likely focus
on the creative person. Those interested in the reli-
able and valid measurement of humor will tend to
highlight the creative product. Cognitive theorists
interested in understanding the mental processes
associated with the genesis of a humorous thought
will emphasize the creative process. More applied
researchers interested in describing or designing
environments to optimize humor or creative produc-
tivity will prioritize understanding the creative place.
Sociologically minded researchers interested in how
new forms of humor arise and take root, or in how
humor can be used to facilitate social change, will
probably stress creativity as persuasion. Educational
researchers interested in identifying untapped cre-
ative or humorous ability will emphasize creative
potential.
Four Levels of Creative Achievement
Another useful framework for understanding
creativity concerns the level of a person’s creative
achievement. Current theories posit four such lev-
els, which progressively build on each other: mini-c,
little-c, pro-c, and Big-C creativity. As with the six
P’s, each of these four levels is directly applicable
to the study of humor. For instance, a mini-c epi-
sode might involve one’s brief, private realization
about some everyday event that is both humorous
and personally novel, which gives the individual a
moment of mirth. A little-c extension could involve
that individual sharing the realization with a friend,
having elaborated the basic idea somewhat and
giving it a pithy delivery in conversation. If that
individual was a professional comedy writer or
stand-up comedian, who then used that insight as
part of a script or act, this would constitute a pro-c
level of achievement. Finally, if that observation
became part of the broader culture and was passed
down as a comedy classic, it would have become an
instance of Big-C creativity. Humorous pro-c and
Big-C creative accomplishments in popular culture
are most closely associated with superstar stand-up
comedians, as well as well-known comic writers,
actors, and actresses. In the fine arts, Big-C-level
humor may be associated with luminaries like
Aristophanes, Plautus, François Rabelais, Miguel
de Cervantes, William Shakespeare, Molière, and
Mark Twain in literature; with visual artists like
Giuseppe Arcimboldo, William Hogarth, Paul Klee,
and Saul Steinberg; and classical composers like
Franz Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,
Ludwig van Beethoven, Camille Saint-Saëns,
Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Prokofiev, and Peter
Schickele. This roster of eminent historical creators
represents another conceptual link between the
study of humor and creativity, since the works of
such individuals are often the focus of creativity
research.
Idea Generation as Conceptual Combination
Another overarching principle in the contem-
porary study of creativity is a heuristic division of
the creative process into two fundamental regimes
of thought: one in which ideas are generated and
another in which those ideas are elaborated into
finished creative products. In many current creativ-
ity theories, the process of generating new ideas is
the primary engine of creativity and consists simply
of combining two or more previously unassociated

ideas. These novel conceptual combinations provide
the raw material for creative thought, even though
most potential combinations are sterile or meaning-
less. However, the process of combining existing
ideas or concepts circumvents the thorny philo-
sophical issue of where new ideas come from; more-
over, theories that assume that such a combinatorial
process undergirds creative productivity have shown
remarkable accuracy in accounting for patterns of
lifespan creative productivity and transhistorical
style changes in the arts.
This view of idea generation as a form of con-
ceptual combination is another notable link between
established theories of creativity and humor. This is
particularly true of incongruity and reversal theo-
ries of humor, in which two contradictory ideas or
concepts regarding the same object are held in
mind at the same time. When a person engages in
this process in a playful way, the combinations or
synergies are generally argued to be enjoyable and
to increase arousal, as in many situations involving
aesthetic appreciation. Despite broad agreement on
the importance of conceptual combination processes
in humor and creativity more generally, some ques-
tions remain unanswered. For example, does most
humor, for instance in a punch line, involve the
simultaneous recognition of incongruous or contra-
dictory viewpoint, or their resolution?
Methods of Assessing Creativity
and Humor Production
Besides the theoretical links between creativ-
ity and humor noted above, the two domains also
share methodological concerns. Since creativity and
humor both can be considered forms of ill-defined
problem solving in which there is no preset cor-
rect answer, but rather a range of better or worse
solutions, researchers must have some way of
determining which outcomes are more creative or
funnier. In creativity research, new ideas or produc-
tions are usually assessed by qualified outside rat-
ers using survey instruments. The quality of humor
production is often assessed by having individuals
generate punch lines or captions to photographs or
cartoons, which are likewise judged for funniness
or other criteria by outside raters. Humor quality is
also sometimes assessed by mirth response, which
involves spontaneous indications of a person finding
something funny. In both domains, ratings need to
achieve adequate interjudge reliability for the mea-
surement to be useful in distinguishing more creative
Creativity 183
or humorous instances from those that are less cre-
ative or humorous. Ideally, the production task also
reflects the way in which such processes play out in
the real world, which would yield a valid measure of
the construct in question. Because value judgments
of creativity and humor are inherently subjective,
interjudge agreement in this line of research is lower
than in some other areas of research, where objec-
tive criteria of success can be better defined. Despite
this, adequate levels of reliability are often achieved
in laboratory research studies. This allows the study
of creativity and humor to be placed on a reasonably
firm footing.
Humor Production and Creativity:
Issues in Current Research
The previous section detailed some general com-
monalities between creativity and humor. In this sec-
tion, several areas of importance in current research
are described.
Humor and Insight
One important aspect of the study of creativ-
ity is phenomenon of insight: an “A-ha!” moment
in which a person has a sudden realization of the
answer to a problem that they were previously
unable to solve. Insight has been linked to numer-
ous episodes of historically important creativity,
and it remains one of the most mysterious aspects
of creativity. Insight has been explicitly linked to
humor—particularly humor comprehension—in
that the same kind of mental restructuring thought
to occur in creative insights can also explain how
people quickly revise a concept in the course of get-
ting a joke. Recent empirical research on humor
comprehension has yielded support for this con-
nection. For instance, when participants are shown
cartoons accompanied by either a correct or incor-
rect interpretation and are asked to say whether a
given interpretation is correct or not, right answers
are made more quickly than wrong answers, and
correct interpretations are identified faster and those
cartoons rated as funnier than cartoons accompa-
nied by incorrect interpretations.
Considering the strong theoretical links between
humor and creativity, as well as the ability of some
people for rapid-fire repartee and wit, both in every-
day conversation and domains such as improv com-
edy, it is not unreasonable to think that something
resembling insight may undergird humor produc-
tion as well as humor comprehension. However,
184 Creativity
little direct evidence has thus far emerged supporting
an insight-based view of humor production. Some
research on humor production has, however, found
indirect support for this view; for instance, when par-
ticipants generate many potentially humorous ideas,
many of the funniest instances emerge rather early in
the session, which could result from quick associa-
tions or from pattern matching to familiar kinds of
jokes in a person’s long-term memory. A stronger link
between insight and humor production could emerge
from studies using a finer grained examination of
the time course of one (rather than many) humorous
ideas, which was not merely called up from memory,
but rather represented a truly novel association for
that person. Alternatively, effective humor produc-
tion may simply rely less on brief, insight-like men-
tal processes than on more protracted elaborative,
metacognitive, or self-monitoring processes. This set
of issues awaits future research.
Humor Production, Humor Comprehension,
and Humor Appreciation
Whether or not humor production stems mainly
from processes that are brief or protracted, an
alternative approach to understanding the nature
of humor production is to construe it as an ability,
which is potentially correlated with other individual-
difference variables. Clearly, some individuals are
more adept at producing humor than others. Are
there other aspects of humor on which such persons
show systematic advantages? The clearest evidence
bearing on this question concerns the relation
between humor production and humor comprehen-
sion. As one might expect, it is probably hard to
produce effective humor if one cannot understand
humor, a point emphasized in several theories of
humor. A number of research studies have shown
positive associations between humor production and
comprehension, even when comprehension is mea-
sured using tasks that have no productive component
whatsoever. Interestingly, humor production ability
is usually found not to be correlated with humor
appreciation—that is, the subjective experience of
finding something amusing. Persons who are very
adept at producing high-quality humor may sim-
ply have standards that are too exacting to yield a
high appreciation score on most laboratory humor
appreciation tasks. Notably, available evidence
also suggests that humor comprehension is posi-
tively correlated with humor appreciation as well
as production, despite the observed weak relations
between appreciation and production. Refining the
relations between these constructs is another avenue
for future research.
The Evolutionary Origins of
Humor and Creativity
One of the most innovative and contentious
aspects of recent humor research revolves around
the question of the origin of the human capacity for
humor (as well as for creativity, intelligence, and
artistry, broadly defined). How did these capaci-
ties emerge? There are several plausible answers.
For instance, the ubiquity of humor and laughter
among humans might implicate the mechanism of
Darwinian natural selection—although this claim
yields little information about the particular selec-
tion pressures that may have favored the evolu-
tionary emergence of humor. Another explanation
concerns the capacity for humor to facilitate social
bonding, including intimate interpersonal relation-
ships—however, this explanation likely entails a
form of group selection, a highly controversial
assertion.
Yet another possibility is Darwinian sexual selec-
tion. Unlike natural selection, which often focuses
on interspecies competition, the mechanism of
sexual selection is concerned with intraspecies com-
petition. Specifically, since females generally must
make greater investments in parenting compared to
males (and are thus more limited than males in the
number of offspring they can produce), they should
be more selective than males in choosing mates with
maximum genetic quality. Males must thus compete
with each other to display indicators of genetic fit-
ness that females will find attractive. In this view,
throughout human evolution, the ongoing sexual
selection dynamic resulted in complex psychological
adaptations like humor, creativity, and intelligence.
Much recent research and theorizing on the rela-
tion between humor and sexual selection is associated
with evolutionary social psychologist Geoffrey Miller.
Miller has argued that humor functions as a reliable
and valid indicator of genetic fitness, since the ability
to produce high-quality humor is difficult and cannot
be faked. Since much the same can be said of creativ-
ity and intelligence, the sexual selection view implies
that all of these abilities should be positively cor-
related, since they all partake of general underlying
genetic fitness that confers an aura of “sexiness” on
males possessing these characteristics. Psychometric
research has corroborated many of the predictions of

sexual selection theory, including positive correlations
between humor production, humor comprehension,
creativity, and intelligence, as well as sex differences
in humor production, with males generally outper-
forming females in controlled laboratory settings. In
addition, research suggests that females prefer males
who are adept at producing humor, while males pre-
fer females who are more appreciative of humor.
Other lines of research have provided additional
converging evidence in support of sexual selection
theory. For instance, when females at peak fertility
in their monthly cycle are asked to choose between
potential mates, the relative desirability of poor
but creative men increases; however, this effect is
specific to short-term mating, rather than long-
term mating. Similar short-term-specific effects of
increased female fertility have been found regarding
the attractiveness of men with high humor-produc-
tion ability. Predictions of such results are unique
to a sexual selection–based explanation for the evo-
lutionary origin of humor, compared to alternative
accounts. It thus seems likely that sexual selection
will remain an important theoretical framework
informing the study of various aspects of humor as
well as creativity more generally.
Aaron Kozbelt
See also Aesthetics; Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor;
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor; Testing and
Evaluation
Further Readings
Apter, M. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory
of psychological reversals. London, UK: Academic Press.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006).
Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected
traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121–130.
Derks, P. (1987). Humor production: An examination of
three models of creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 21, 325–326.
Gick, M. L., & Lockhart, R. S. (1995). Cognitive and
affective components of insight. In R. J. Sternberg & J.
E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 197–228).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2011). Humor ability
reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is
higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.
Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G.
F. (2008). The role of creativity and humor ability in
human mating. In G. Geher & G. F. Miller (Eds.),
Mating intelligence: Theoretical and empirical insights
Cross-Cultural Humor 185
into intimate relationships (pp. 227–262). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Köhler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in
current sense of humor inventories: How much
substance, how much method variance? HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 363–398.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories
of creativity. In J. C Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kozbelt, A., & Nishioka, K. (2010). Humor
comprehension, humor production, and insight: An
exploratory study. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 23, 375–401.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice
shaped the evolution of human nature. New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Turner, R. G. (1980). Self-monitoring and humor
production. Journal of Personality, 48, 163–172.
CROSS-CULTURAL HUMOR
The term cross-cultural humor can refer to one of
three different things: humor that is cross-cultural,
humor that is constructed cross-culturally, or a
cross-cultural perspective on humor as a human cul-
tural phenomenon. Each category suggests its own
set of considerations. This entry discusses each of
these broad categories, providing a definition and
offering examples of humor that fit within the cat-
egory. The entry concludes with some comments
about whether technology and, in particular, access
to international multimedia performances on the
Web open up new ways of thinking about the idea
of cross-cultural humor.
In the first category, humor that is cross-cultural,
several considerations immediately arise. The humor
itself may be somehow cross-cultural in its essence,
that is, so universal that it can be immediately under-
stood by any person from any culture, presumably
without the need to translate from one language into
another. It could also be linguistic humor that is trans-
latable from one language to another. Or it could
be linguistic humor based in a culture for which the
translator must find a comparable cultural category
or phenomenon. We should also consider within the
category of humor that is cross-cultural any humor
within one linguistic or cultural group that draws
on shared stereotypes of other cultures. Finally, we
should include in this category humor that occurs
between two bilingual or bicultural speakers.
186 Cross-Cultural Humor
The category of humor that is constructed cross-
culturally could apply to humor that is created in
interaction in a common language among people
with different cultural or linguistic backgrounds,
with the focus not on the characteristics of the humor
itself, but on the fact that the humor is constructed
cross-culturally, that is, by people from different
linguistic or cultural backgrounds. Given the inevi-
tably limited scope of shared background in such a
situation, we might expect a range of possibilities.
In addition to fully successful occurrences, we might
expect instances in which the humor is experienced
or interpreted differently by the diverse participants,
or in which what appears to be successful humor is
in fact, not successful.
Under the category of a cross-cultural perspec-
tive on humor as a phenomenon of human culture,
we need to consider the possibilities for differences
in how humor figures across sociocultural contexts
in terms of such things as the sociolinguistic reper-
toire for members of the culture and situations of
appropriateness for the deployment of humor.
Humor That Is Cross-Cultural
Nonverbal Humor
In thinking about humor that is cross-cultural,
perhaps the first impulse is toward humor that is
nonverbal. Human responses to humor universally
include smiling or laughter, with humor at the most
abstract level defined as the sudden, unexpected jux-
taposition of ideas. The range of ideas that can be
conveyed by nonverbal humor is necessarily limited,
but nonverbal humor certainly eliminates the need
for linguistic translation. The classic example of
such nonverbal humor is the image of an ordinary
person—who has been walking along normally—
suddenly slipping on a banana peel and falling in a
way that dramatically violates expectations of nor-
mal movement for human beings. Of course, if the
person is dressed in a formal way that suggests that
person is trying to be particularly dignified, then the
humor is heightened by the extent of the incongru-
ity between the expectation of controlled behavior
associated with formality and the complete loss of
control in the process of slipping and falling. Non-
linguistic humor is embodied in the prototype of the
clown; while the mute circus clown who wears an
outlandish costume may be a Western phenomenon,
a comic figure who violates behavioral (i.e., non-
verbal) sociocultural expectations is found in many
cultures.
Linguistic Humor and the Possibility
of Translation Cross-Culturally
It appears that all languages have the potential
to create humor in a range of ways, from narrative
jokes at the discourse level to puns within the lin-
guistic system itself. In the case of narrative jokes,
the humorous premise could be universal (e.g., a
script involving the undermining of authority) but
the way that it is expressed would obviously differ by
language, without the language itself posing a prob-
lem. In contrast, puns, which involve the invocation
through a single word of two semantic fields simul-
taneously, present the greatest difficulty for transla-
tion. The particular—and unique—linguistic system
creates the possibility and context for the humor,
and, in fact, puns focused in lexical items are just
one example of the range of polysemous resources
within any linguistic system. The likelihood that
comparable opportunities would exist in two differ-
ent languages is remote; the best chances would be
found in closely related languages. A classic example
of word-based linguistic humor through blending, as
a form of “condensation” that introduces two ideas
simultaneously, can be found in Sigmund Freud’s
analysis of the joke in Heinrich Heine’s story in
which a huckster character claims to have had dinner
with a wealthy baron, commenting that “I sat beside
Salomon Rothschild and he treated me quite as his
equal—quite famillionairely.” In the original German
the combination of familiär (familiar) and Millionär
(millionaire) yielded familionär as an adverb describ-
ing how the millionaire treated his guest at dinner.
This can be easily translated into the cousin language
of English, with only the addition of the suffix -ly to
mark the adverbial function: famillionairely.
Humor Based in Culture for Which the
Translator Must Find a Comparable
Cultural Category or Phenomenon
It is also possible that a direct translation of a joke
into another language might be recognized as humor
but not understood to be funny. This could occur if
the basic narrative joke script involves the undermin-
ing of authority, but the figure representing author-
ity in the original joke doesn’t serve as an authority
figure in the culture into which the joke is translated.
The challenge in terms of “humor that is cross-cul-
tural” is particularly acute, for example, when movie
subtitles must capture the humor of the dialogue in
situations where the audience would understand nei-
ther the reference nor the entire cultural complex that

constructs the humor in the original language. From
this perspective on “humor that is cross-cultural” we
can consider how a translator might take the premise
of the humor (e.g., gender role stereotypes in both
cultures, or stereotypes associated with local dialects
in both cultures) and find something comparable to
substitute. A comic character might be “translated”
into speaking vernacular or a comparably stigmatized
dialect in the other language. Thus, for example, in
the U.S. TV sitcom The Nanny, the main character
is a Jewish American from New York. In the Italian
translation, she becomes an Italian American from
the southern part of Italy.
Humor Within One Linguistic or Cultural
Group That Draws on Shared Stereotypes
of Other Cultures
If we expand the notion of cross-cultural humor
into the area of a single linguistic or cultural group,
we find the type of joke that creates a list of charac-
ters from different categories and builds the humor
around shared knowledge of cultural stereotypes.
The following is an American example from the
1980s that draws on both stereotypes of other cul-
tures and a stereotype of a subculture within the
United States:
These four guys were walking down the street, a
Saudi, a Russian, a North Korean, and a New
Yorker. A reporter comes running up and says,
“Excuse me, what is your opinion about the meat
shortage?” The Saudi says, “What’s a shortage?”
The Russian says, “What’s meat?” The North
Korean says, “What’s an opinion?” The New Yorker
says, “Excuse me? What’s excuse me?”
In Western industrial societies, another example
would be the “stupid” jokes aimed at immigrant
groups (e.g., in England, the Irish; in the United
States, the Poles) onto which the traits associated
with anxieties about success in a capitalist society
are projected. In the United States with its large
Spanish-speaking immigrant population, the use
of distorted Spanish words to index negative ste-
reotypes indirectly as part of joking among English
speakers (e.g., “no problemo”) could be interpreted
as a form of covert racism.
Humor Between Two Bilingual
or Bicultural Speakers
Perhaps true cross-cultural humor can only occur
between two speakers who are sufficiently bilingual
Cross-Cultural Humor 187
and bicultural to draw on resources from two differ-
ent languages or cultures. The prototype of this sort
of cross-cultural humor is the bilingual pun in which
participants have equal access to the humorous pos-
sibilities of two linguistic systems. Such cross-cultural
humor can also be found in situations in which the
audience for the humor has enough understanding
of a second language to grasp the pun. An example
of this phenomenon can be found in Shakespeare’s
King Henry V (3.429–451) in which bilingual puns
are built on French pronunciations of common
English words to yield taboo words in French (foot
becomes foutre [fuck], gown becomes con [cunt]).
A more modern example can be found in bilingual
comedy routines in which minority and majority
languages are mixed with ambiguous effect depend-
ing on the political perspective of the audience.
Humor That Is Constructed Cross-Culturally
Turning now to the second broad category for
unpacking the concept, we might include humor
that is constructed in interaction between and
among speakers of a common language from differ-
ent cultural backgrounds. The claim is often made
that understanding the humor of another culture is a
true test of communicative competence, but it is also
clear that non-native speakers with varying degrees
of proficiency in a language can engage in joking
and construct humor. Jointly constructed humor,
with scaffolding provided by a native speaker, has
been documented among English learners with very
rudimentary linguistic skills, with the premise of the
humor being their own struggle to communicate
with limited resources.
Consider the following joking interaction from
Catherine Evans Davies (2003): In response to a
question from the American student about misun-
derstandings when the learners first arrived in the
United States, a French student says “The first time
me here I see people Do you ah How are you doing?
Me: yes.” (understood as “When I first arrived and
people greeted me with ‘How are you doing?’ the
only response that I had was ‘yes’”). A Japanese
learner chimes in with “Yes or no” (understood as
meaning that these were the only options she had
at the time). The American then elaborates the
French student’s response with “Yes I am here.” The
Japanese learner then plays on this contribution by
voicing the French student to offer the interpreta-
tion, “I am French: yes.” and then offers another
typical question for the alternative response: “Where
188 Cross-Cultural Humor
do you from: no.” The American then sums up the
joking frame by saying “When in doubt, just say yes,
right?” And finally a second Japanese student speaks
up with “Me no: OK.” Then a third comments with
“Always.” The second replies “OK” (understood to
mean that his all-purpose response in any situation
was “OK” [pp. 1374–1375]).
More fluent speakers of a common second lan-
guage may laugh together at a joke without real-
izing that they are laughing for different reasons,
for example in a postcolonial context using a hybrid
of English in which the humor is potentially linked
both to local history and politics as well as to
broader discourses of Western imperialism, urban
modernity, and globalization. An example might be
joking in Tanzania in Swahinglish about the phrase
“kumaintain figure” (to maintain figure) in rela-
tion to body image. There may also be situations in
which cross-cultural joking appears to happen but
in fact something else is going on, for example in sit-
uations of unequal power (both socially and linguis-
tically) in which a non-native speaker of a language
appears to be engaging in joking with a member of
a majority group but in fact is interpreting the situ-
ation very differently and in a decidedly nonhumor-
ous way. This sort of situation can occur because,
for example, nonverbal signals of humor such as
laughter can also be elicited by embarrassment.
Cross-Cultural Perspective on Humor as
a Phenomenon of Human Culture
In considering this third translation of the con-
cept, we need to consider the possibilities for cross-
cultural differences in terms of such things as socio-
linguistic repertoire for members of the culture and
the rules of appropriateness for the deployment of
humor. Such differences affect the social meaning
of joking interaction or the use of humor in a par-
ticular context. There will be differences concerning
who can joke with whom, when, and about what.
Certain social categories of people may be expected
to be in a “joking relationship” (e.g., mothers-in-law
with sons-in-law). Gender role behaviors may dic-
tate the performer of the humor (e.g., who learns to
tell narrative jokes) and the audience for the humor
(i.e., who learns to be an appreciative audience for
the humor rather than a performer of the humor).
Certain styles of joking like “ritual insults” may be
learned and practiced only by certain groups (e.g.,
young males). Certain topics for humor such as
sex may be taboo in public but enjoyed in private.
“Getting the joke” may be used as a way of demon-
strating membership in a group (e.g., “dirty” jokes
among adolescent boys). Particular contexts may be
considered completely inappropriate for humor. For
many Americans, humor would be unacceptable at
funerals, unless part of a personal reminiscence by
a family member or friend; but certain American
subcultures (e.g., Irish Americans) may hold wakes
where fairly raucous humor may be the norm. The
social meaning of joking interaction may be inter-
preted differently, such as an activity that is shared
only by intimate friends, or as a means of creating
sociability among acquaintances. Americans can
be characterized by other cultures as nonserious
because they customarily use joking interaction as
part of their small talk patterns in establishing infor-
mal sociability among strangers.
At a metalevel, a kind of cross-cultural humor
can also be constructed around complete sociolin-
guistic and cultural incompetence in relation to a
particular culture, in which an audience is forced
to become aware of their own implicit cultural
assumptions. In American popular culture at least,
this type of humor appears to be a perennial pattern,
for example in television situation comedies about
a stock comic character who appears to be socially
incompetent in some way. Some situation comedies
expand on this theme so that the entire premise
of the shows is organized around how an alien of
some sort tries to function in American culture. An
early example was the television series Mork &
Mindy (1978–1982) in which Robin Williams
played a character (Mork) who was an alien from
outer space. Similarly, the television series 3rd Rock
From the Sun (1996–2001) involved an entire group
of space aliens posing as an American family. Big
Bang Theory (2007– ) is a very popular situation
comedy that is also based on the humorousness of
sociolinguitic and cultural incompetence. In this
case, however, the “aliens” are human beings—a
group of highly educated nerds centered around
a physicist who shows characteristics of a form of
autism that would prevent him from understanding
normal human interaction.
New Possibilities for Cross-Cultural
Humor Through Technology
Finally, we also need to consider whether technol-
ogy, and in particular access to international mul-
timedia performances on the Web, opens up new
ways of thinking about the idea of cross-cultural

humor. Within the English-speaking world, exposure
to an increasing number of comedians from different
ethnic backgrounds acquaints larger audiences with
knowledge about subcultures, including expressions
and lexical items from minority languages. Bilingual
comedians offer the opportunity to create new dis-
courses of linguistic and cultural hybridity. An inter-
esting recent example is a comedian born in China
who learned English as a second language and who
was invited to perform at an important annual
dinner in Washington, D.C., to introduce the vice
president of the United States. He began his comedy
routine as follows:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joe
Wong. But, to most people I am known as who?
([hu] with rising tone) which is actually my mother’s
maiden name . . . and the answer to my credit card
security question.
The comedian here plays on the bilingual homo-
phone [hu] together with the prosodic contour of a
rising tone, which in English signals not lexical
meaning but interrogative function, and in Chinese
signals lexical meaning as part of the word
(in contrast with [hu] spoken with another of the
four tones of Mandarin). The monolingual English
audience may not actually realize that the rising into-
nation contour signals not just a question but also a
Chinese tone, but they can certainly understand that
one dimension of the humor is the way the who?
suggests the anonymity (“we all look alike to you”)
and the unintelligibility (“you won’t learn to pro-
nounce my name”) of the immigrant predicament.
An intertextual and sociopolitical resonance here, of
which the comedian and audience may or may not be
aware, is the comedy routine “Who’s on first?” made
famous by the American comedy duo William “Bud”
Abbott (1897–1974) and Lou Costello (1906–1959).
This routine, contextualized in a period of significant
immigration to the United States and the inevitable
multilingual and multicultural encounters that fol-
lowed, was based around linguistic misunderstand-
ing surrounding the name [hu] as the first baseman
(Who’s on first? Yes.). Whereas it is unlikely that the
early-20th-century linguistically based comedy rou-
tine referred to a Chinese name with [hu], the humor
draws on both the notion of “peculiar” names in a
multiethnic environment and also on the potential
opacity even of a shared language.
Catherine Evans Davies
Culture 189
See also Anthropology; Audiovisual Translation; Blason
Populaire; Clowns; Culture; Joking Relationship;
Linguistics; Puns; Translation
Further Readings
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An anthropological
approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor.
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chiaro, D. (Ed.). (2010). Translation, humour and
literature. London, UK: Continuum.
Davies, C. E. (1998). Jokes and their relation to society.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native
speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on
humor as collaborative discourse across cultures.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385.
Davies, C. E. (2004). Developing awareness of cross-
cultural pragmatics: The case of American/German
sociable interaction. Multilingua, 23, 207–231.
Delabastita, D. (2005). Cross-language comedy in
Shakespeare. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 8(2), 161–184.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York, NY:
Norton. (Originally published 1905)
Higgins, C. (2007). Shifting tactics of intersubjectivity to
align indexicalities: A case of joking around in
Swahinglish. Language in Society, 36, 1–24.
Hill, J. H. (1998). Language, race, and white public space.
American Anthropologist, 100(3), 680–689.
Wong, J. (2010, March). Humorous speech at Radio and
Television Correspondents’ Dinner, Washington, DC.
Retrieved January 6, 2013, from http://
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292573-1
Woolard, K. A. (1987). Codeswitching and comedy in
Catalonia. Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 106–122.
CROSSTALK
See Xiangsheng; Xiangsheng, History of
CULTURE
Culture is an essential element for understanding
the complex nature of the humor phenomenon.
Today, the term culture is generally identified
with the sum total of knowledge, attitudes, and
190 Culture
habitual behavior patterns shared and transmitted
by the members of a particular society. Culture is
represented both verbally and nonverbally. While
the former pertains to language, the latter may be
further divided into mental, behavior, and mate-
rial culture. After providing a brief diachronic and
synchronic overview of the concept of culture, this
entry distinguishes between “culture” and “a cul-
ture.” “A culture,” as an abstraction created for
analytical simplification, is further examined in
relation to humor and group identity.
Etymologically, the English word culture comes
from French culture or directly from Latin cultūra,
the act or practice of tilling or cultivating the
soil. This agricultural metaphor was extended in
the early 16th century to include “cultivation (of
the mind, faculties, or manners),” according to
the Oxford English Dictionary. Later on, start-
ing in the 20th century, the term culture no longer
exclusively refers to the development and enlight-
enment of the intellect through training. Culture
has come to be identified with a system of symbols
that renders complex human phenomena commu-
nicable. In other words, culture becomes a uni-
versal capacity to classify, encode, and decode the
total of inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowl-
edge that constitutes the shared bases of social
action. Culture is hence a process that cannot
and should not be reduced to learned behavior.
On the contrary, it is a complex mechanism that
relies heavily on symbolic thought, creativity, and
productivity.
Humor, like culture, is the outward manifesta-
tion of the spirit of the people—their humor is
their spirit. If culture may be perceived both as
a cognitive system organized in individual minds
and as a system of public and collective mean-
ings shared within a community, then humor is
to be defined as a cognitive process in a cultural
experience. The cultural specificity of humor in
its multifaceted forms renders it a useful concep-
tual and methodological tool for gaining insights
into cultural systems. Humor has both universal
and culture-specific characteristics. Humor may,
therefore, unveil the pattern of life within a com-
munity, its recurring activities and material and
social arrangements. Equally important, humor
identifies universal patterns of human nature that
are differently channeled, expressed, and valued
in different cultural traditions. Because humor is
so deeply anchored in a sociocultural framework,
humor may become a prevailing and exclusive
feature of a specific sociocultural environment.
The diverse sociocultural conditions may influ-
ence who is expected or allowed to participate in
the creation and circulation of humor and who
may become its target. Alternatively, these con-
ditions may also influence how certain forms of
humor are to be found in one culture but not in
others; why certain cultures consider humor inap-
propriate in certain social situations, while others
consider it quite appropriate in similar situations;
why humor is institutionalized in given cultures
while in others it is not; why certain roles are more
likely targets of humor in one culture than in oth-
ers; whether specific objects, roles, and individu-
als are routinely recognized as humor-generating
sources; and, last but not least, how patterned
behaviors are routinely considered amusing in a
given culture.
From Joking Culture to Intergroup Humor
“A culture” as opposed to “culture” is more restric-
tive in meaning as it pertains to the ideas, customs,
and social behavior of a particular people, society,
or group. It follows that, in a certain period of time,
in a given society, a certain race, or even a certain
group, life phenomena are rendered by their cultural
significance.
In a group culture, the function of humor is either
inclusive or exclusive. The members of a group, who
share implicit and explicit norms and values and
agree with these values, belong to the in-group by
sharing affiliation, while those who disagree are cast
out from the group. As groups form, they develop
known humorous themes that recur throughout
group interaction. In other words, every interacting
social group develops a joking culture, which is a set
of humorous references known to the members of
the group, to which members can refer and which
serve as the basis of further interaction.
However, the tendency to ridicule and mock
groups other than one’s own has also been wide-
spread in human societies. Humor disparaging other
groups is as old as the contact between cultures. A
group that sees itself and is seen by others as a people
with a common cultural tradition, a real or imagined
common descent, and a distinctive identity is gen-
erally identified as an ethnic group. Ethnic humor,
previously known as intergroup humor, reflects a
group’s perception and evaluation of other groups’
personality traits, customs, behavior patterns, and
social institutions by the standards of in-group

culture, with its positive or negative attitudes toward
others. This is mostly because culture, here, is a
more inclusive notion that points to a worldview;
hence, each ethnic group has a distinct worldview
that is usually incongruous with the worldview of
other groups.
Diana Elena Popa
See also Arabic Culture, Humor in; Cross-Cultural
Humor; Ethnic Jokes; Jewish Humor; Joking
Relationship
Culture 191
Further Readings
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter. An
anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Bremmer, J. N., & Rodenburg, H. (1997). A cultural
history of humour: From antiquity to the present day.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Davies, C. E. (1998). Jokes and their relation to society.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fine, G. A., & De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor
themes as social regulation in group life. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 18(1), 1–22.
 D
DEFENSE MECHANISM
In literature, diverse functions of humor, such
as serving as a lubricant in social interactions or
as a means of coping with adversity, have been
described. Specific functions have also been ascribed
to different types of humor such as disparagement
humor (e.g., emphasizing the distinctiveness of a
group, enhancement of social identity). Historically,
a psychoanalytic standpoint of humor as a defense
mechanism has been highly influential in different
disciplines. However, other perspectives have also
been proposed and studied. This entry gives an over-
view of how the defense mechanism functions and
describes the use of humor as a defense mechanism.
A Psychoanalytic Perspective
In psychoanalytic theory, the term defense mecha-
nism refers to an unconscious strategy employed for
dealing with intrapsychic conflicts and for reducing
distress. Sigmund Freud proposed a structural model
of personality that incorporates different systems:
(a) the id, which incorporates our desires and wishes,
sexual fantasies, but also aggressive drives irrespec-
tive of the principles of the real world (following the
libidinal striving and what Freud called Lustprinzip,
or the pleasure principle); (b) the superego, which is
a form of antagonist to the id, dealing with higher
principles, norms, and rules that people internalize
during their personality development; and (c) the
ego, which follows a reality principle and which is
in constant conflict between the id and the superego.
193
It has been argued that dreams or slips that happen
in everyday communication (the Freudian slip) are
relics of suppressed desires and drives. For managing
these frequently opposing demands, a set of strate-
gies and tactics, the so-called defense mechanisms,
come into play.
Humor is one of these mechanisms. Freud argues
that jokes enable us to obtain pleasure but also to
release tension and experience relief from, for exam-
ple, aggressive or sexual drives (id-related contents).
For a short period of time, the superego is not in
control and id-related contents can be dealt with.
The idea is that this happens unconsciously and
allows deriving pleasure from otherwise repressed
impulses of sexual or aggressive nature, for exam-
ple. Hence the function of humor in that sense is
helping the ego to deal with unpleasant emotions
(e.g., occurring anxiety, aggressive thoughts).
A Social Psychology Perspective
While psychoanalytic theory has inspired scholars
from different disciplines, it has also been criticized,
for instance, for the difficulty of empirically test-
ing basic ideas. However, different standpoints on
humor as a defense mechanism have been put for-
ward in the literature. From a more social psycholog-
ical perspective, humor can also be seen as a factor
defining in- and out-groups. Group members may
use specific types of humor for defining themselves
(their identity) from different groups. Understanding
these jokes and the way humor is used in a specific
group may also be helpful for gaining access to and
recognition within a group. Overall, humor can help
194 Depression
an in-group positively distinguish itself from an out-
group. This can work via devaluation or denigration
of the other group. The defense mechanism in that
sense can be seen more in the sense of fighting back
against or winning over another group.
A recent example of this kind of use of humor
can be found in the Front Deutscher Äpfel (Front
of German Apples, FGA). This is an activist group
that satirically deals with the right-wing extremist
movement in Germany. Its ironic appeal is to oppose
alienation of German fruits by lazy foreign fruits.
Members of the FGA playfully imitate clothing,
logos, symbols, and speeches of the extremists and
organize marches at the same time and same place
where the extremists have their marches. On these
occasions, members of the FGA mock the extremists’
xenophobic slogans with their fruit-related demands
and carpophobic (fear of fruit) slogans. Going back
in time, there are also numerous historical examples
of single people or groups who used humor as a
means of resistance or for enhancing morale, as for
example, against oppressive systems or persons.
A Positive Psychology Perspective
Recently, positive psychology has emerged as a new
discipline within psychology. Its aim is to empiri-
cally study what is best in people. In an influential
classification system of strengths of character and
virtues from this line of research, humor is listed as
a strength assigned to the virtue of transcendence.
Humor as a strength has been shown, for example,
to be positively associated with life satisfaction but
also being beneficial in diverse areas, such as recov-
ery from physical illness. In this sense, humor can
be understood as a resilience factor and a morally
positively valued trait, which helps to buffer against
adversities. Research conducted on the relation of
humor and virtuousness also suggested that humor
can be used for exerting different types of virtues
(e.g., humanity, wisdom, or justice), but also that
negatively connoted expressions of humor can be
used to display justice (e.g., sarcasm, cynicism).
Finally, humor can facilitate the emergence and
experience of positive emotions, which have been
shown to be positively associated with different indi-
cators of subjective well-being.
René T. Proyer
See also Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory; Insult and
Invective; Psychotherapy, Humor in; Targets of
Humor
Further Readings
Beermann, U., & Ruch, W. (2010). How virtuous is humor?
Evidence from everyday behavior. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 22(4), 395–417.
Ferguson, M. A., & Ford, T. E. (2008). Disparagement
humor: A theoretical and empirical review of
psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
21(3), 283–312.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum
Unbewußten [Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious]. Frankfurt, Germany: Fischer.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In P. E.
McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor
research (Vol. 1., pp. 85–107). New York, NY: Springer.
DEPRESSION
It is commonly assumed that there is a strong inverse
relationship between humor and depression. Thus,
if one is very depressed, they will experience little
humor. Conversely, those showing lots of humor
cannot be depressed. This popular belief is reiter-
ated in numerous self-help books, Internet sites, and
blogs, with humor often being cast as the antithe-
sis of depression. Psychiatric writings reinforce this
view by proposing that an ancillary characteristic of
depression is a diminished humor response. Those
with depression lack the motivation and positive
affect to engage in humorous interchanges.
It has been further suggested that humor is a nat-
ural antidote or treatment for depression. Anecdotal
reports of well-known individuals who have fought
depression with humor abound in the popular
media, along with lists of humor-oriented recom-
mendations for dealing with depression. Some of
these techniques involve relatively passive activities,
such as viewing humorous comedy films to combat
depression. Other strategies are more active and
include learning techniques to view the world from
a different, more humorous perspective, thus allevi-
ating stress and depression. Although these beliefs
regarding humor and depression have some merit,
they have often been advanced with little consider-
ation of the contemporary scientific research in these
areas. This entry reviews the current research on the
relationship between depression and humor.

Specificity of the Association Between
Humor and Depression
A perusal of the research reveals several impor-
tant limitations on the actual observed associations
between humor and depression. Furthermore, it is
only within the past few years that we have begun
to see the emergence of more rigorously designed
treatment–outcome studies that allow for appropri-
ate tests of the therapeutic power of humor when
dealing with depression. A robust research finding
is that one of the major aspects of humor, namely,
humor appreciation (typically measured by ratings
of the funniness of cartoons, jokes, or any other
potentially humorous materials or situations), is not
systemically associated with current depression level,
age of onset, or duration of symptoms. Similarly,
two other important aspects of humor (laughter and
humor creativity) also fail to display consistent rela-
tionships with depression levels. It is only the use of
humor as a coping strategy for dealing with stress-
ful events that bears a consistent and strong inverse
relationship with depression. This pattern has been
demonstrated across numerous studies, using a vari-
ety of measures of coping humor and depression
and different groups of participants (e.g., university
students, community samples, clinically depressed
individuals). Taken together, these findings indicate
that only one specific aspect of humor, namely, the
increased use of coping humor, is inversely related
to depression. Those with higher levels of coping
humor consistently show lower depression levels.
This specific role for coping humor is also evi-
dent in a recent personality-based approach that has
documented the existence of several adaptive and
maladaptive humor styles. In this work, individu-
als high on self-enhancing humor (i.e., an adaptive
style akin to coping humor) again showed the lowest
levels of depression. In marked contrast, those dis-
playing the highest levels of self-defeating humor (a
maladaptive style of humorously putting down one-
self to gain acceptance by others) showed the highest
levels of depression. This latter finding is also very
robust, and clearly documents that greater humor
use (of certain styles) is strongly related to increased
depression. This pattern is precisely opposite of the
common perception that greater humor use should
only be associated with less depression. As such, it
is no longer viable to think in terms of one simple
inverse relationship between humor and depression.
Instead, it appears that various types or styles of
humor are related to depression in quite different
Depression 195
ways (e.g., coping humor is associated with lower
depression, whereas self-defeating humor is associ-
ated with higher depression).
Evaluating Humor as a Therapeutic
Tool for Depression
Although humor has long been advocated as a natu-
ral treatment for dealing with depression, the empiri-
cal evidence has mostly been at the anecdotal or case
history level. While this material can be descriptively
rich, it does not provide very compelling evidence
from a scientific perspective. Fortunately, the field
is now moving towards much more sophisticated
research studies that are specifically designed to test
the therapeutic role of humor in alleviating depres-
sion. These contemporary studies typically employ
longitudinal designs to assess the impact of enhanc-
ing humor as a coping skill. Standardized programs
have been developed, with manuals used to train
depressed patients to acquire and use humor skills.
This typically involves finding the humor in a stress-
ful situation, thus providing a change of perspective.
In turn, this distancing from the stressor reduces neg-
ative affect, while the generated humor simultane-
ously introduces positive affect and mirth. Measures
are obtained across time (pre- and post-training;
follow-up) and typically show substantial reductions
in depression levels, along with an increased qual-
ity of life. Further longitudinal research in the com-
munity has also trained nondepressed individuals
to use humor skills. This work includes systematic
training in finding humor in everyday life, as well as
using humor effectively while under stress. Findings
are quite encouraging, as those receiving humor
training are higher on several indices of emotional
well-being when compared to those in appropriate
control groups (e.g., social gathering, noninterven-
tion). Training humor in these types of programs can
typically lead to lower levels of depression, anxiety,
and perceived stress, along with increases in positive
affect, optimism, and perceptions of control over
one’s environment.
Nicholas A. Kuiper
See also Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Humor Styles; Personality, Humor and
Further Readings
Besser, A., Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2011). Do humor
styles mediate or moderate the relationship between
196 Design
self-criticism and neediness and depressive symptoms?
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(10),
757–764.
Crawford, S. A., & Caltabiano, N. J. (2011). Promoting
emotional well-being through the use of humor. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 237–252.
Falkenberg, I., Jarmuzek, J., Bartels, M., & Wild, B.
(2011). Do depressed patients lose their sense of humor,
Psychopathology, 1(44), 98–105.
Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G.
(2004). Humor is not always the best medicine:
Specific components of sense of humor and
psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research, 17, 135–168.
DESIGN
The field of design is organized into various disci-
plines and subdisciplines, such as architecture or
fashion design; thus, design is characterized differ-
ently according to different types of designers. The
following is a generally accepted universal definition:
Design is the structuring of form with the aim to cre-
ate an aesthetically and functionally sound system.
This entry explains the difference between designing
for play and designing for and with humor, gives
an overview of how humor research can be applied
within the stages of the design process, and briefly
discusses how the adoption of different design phi-
losophies regarding design artifacts can affect who
(designer or audience) plays the role of the humorist.
Designing for Play
Designing for play is a term often used to describe
the concept of designing for and with humor; how-
ever, the two concepts differ. Designing for play can
be described as designing to provide an enjoyable
experience by fostering a perception that some sub-
ject matter or activity is void of serious, real-world
consequences. Humor’s role in design encompasses
designing for play—the two concepts overlap when
humor is applied as a playful design approach.
Humor in the Design Process
Humor can have multiple roles within what is
known as the design process. Typically, the process
consists of the following: identifying an opportunity
or context for design and forming a knowledge base
around it, synthesizing a plan for the design, pro-
ducing design concepts and prototypes, and finally,
developing the design artifact. Many designers’ pro-
cesses include a final step in which the artifact is
evaluated and refined after its development. Humor
research has multiple roles for application through-
out the design process.
Identifying an Opportunity and
Forming a Knowledge Base
The first stage of the design process gener-
ally involves some extent of qualitative research.
Designers employ research methods, such as inter-
views and focus groups, to help establish needs,
expectations, and requirements regarding the desired
design artifact.
Humor plays a part at this stage in a few ways.
Most notably, humor may be applied in the form
of improv (improvisational) exercises, with design-
ers acting as facilitators and encouraging research
participants to explore possibilities for innovation
while simultaneously gathering basic insights. One
exercise example is “Yes, and,” in which individuals
in a group continuously build onto one idea at a fast
pace. While this exercise within a comedy setting
leads participants into a range of chaotically humor-
ous directions, its use in design can be directionally
limited to requests for an artifact’s features and func-
tions. Exercises like this one are used because of their
ability to incite creativity and enthusiasm around a
topic, while also making the creative process fun.
Planning a Design and Producing
Design Concepts
A design strategy is developed prior to creating
concepts for a design. It acts as a holistic plan based
on the analysis and synthesis of information and
research gathered during the first stage of the design
process. The strategy may include recommended
requirements, design implications, and design
approaches.
Humor is able to play its most tactical role at this
stage of the design process, specifically in its ability
to be applied as an approach. The type of approach
needed is based on the purpose of the design arti-
fact. For example, if the design artifact’s purpose is
to influence its audience to do something they nor-
mally wouldn’t do, a designer may choose to employ
a persuasive strategy—designing for persuasion is a
goal in which humor is commonly called on as an
approach.
Aside from a persuasive approach, humor can
also be applied (when appropriate) as a rhetorical

approach, an emotional approach (especially for
relieving psychological tension regarding a topic),
and a playful approach—none of which are mutu-
ally exclusive. At a broad level, these approaches
require clever use of contrast within a multitude
of possible axes, such as elemental layout, timing,
and tone.
Another way in which humor can be used during
this stage of the design process is to generate design
ideas and concepts. Similar to the first stage of the
design process, improv exercises may be used to
facilitate brainstorming sessions among designers.
Developing the Design
Humor application may be visible in a design
artifact whether or not a humorous design strat-
egy guided its development. One easily identifiable
humorous element within design artifacts is the
visual pun. A visual pun is a visual element that
simultaneously bears two or more meanings but
delivers a single piece of communication. While
textual puns primarily serve as wordplay in con-
versation or publication, visual puns have a broad
range of functions within design (aside from play):
For example, a visual pun is often used as a design
metaphor, generally to establish audience familiar-
ity. Consider the computer “desktop”—its graphical
representation consists of “files” and “documents.”
Iconographic visual puns help inform the audience
of the computer files’ and documents’ intended use.
The Humorist Role in Design
Use-centered design, human-centered design, and
user-centered design are all design philosophies that
can affect the relationship between the designer
and the audience regarding who occupies the role
of humorist. Use-centered design is a philosophy in
which designs are optimally developed according to
what purposes and tasks they should serve to fulfill
and complete. Human-centered design is a philoso-
phy in which designs are crafted according to the
needs and implications of human actions, thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors. User-centered design is
a philosophy similar to human-centered design, in
that it pronounces the user or audience’s needs as a
top priority. The philosophical difference between
user-centered design and human-centered design is
that user-centered design addresses the usability of
an artifact versus the holistic existence of an artifact.
In regard to all of these philosophies, the designer
most often occupies the role of humorist; however,
Development of Humor 197
human-centered design and user-centered design phi-
losophies offer designers the opportunity to design
wherein the audience occupies the role of humor-
ist. Instead of applying a humorous approach to a
design, a designer can design a context that provides
the audience with tools to apply their own humor-
ous approach. An example of this is the website
LOLBuilder, which sets its users up with a structure
to make their own humorous contribution to serve
their own individual purpose.
Chelsey Delaney
See also Art and Visual Humor; Computational Humor;
Improv Comedy; Persuasion and Humor; Rhetoric
and Rhetorical Devices
Further Readings
Arrasvuori, J., Boberg, M., & Korhonen, H. (2010,
October). Understanding playfulness: An overview of
the revised playful experience (PLEX) framework. Paper
presented at International Conference on Design and
Emotion, Chicago, IL.
Delaney, C. (2011). Humor-centered design: Using humor
as a rhetorical approach in design. Theses, Paper 11.
Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://repository.cmu.edu/
theses/11
Heller, S. (2002). Design humor: The art of graphic wit.
New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Kudrowitz, B., & Wallace, D. (2010, October).
Improvisational comedy and product design ideation:
Making non-obvious connections between seemingly
unrelated things. Paper presented at International
Conference on Design and Emotion, Chicago, IL.
Websites
LOLBuilder: http://builder.cheezburger.com/builder
DEVELOPMENT OF HUMOR
A sense of humor is believed to be important for
healthy development, socially and emotionally.
Many theorists have suggested that humor serves a
social function, including enhancing relationships,
increasing or maintaining group cohesion, reliev-
ing tension, saving face, and expressing aggression
in a socially acceptable way. When humor is used
appropriately it improves communication, provides
an enjoyable interaction, and leads to further social
experiences. Humor can also be used to express
198 Development of Humor
views that are otherwise difficult to communicate.
This entry discusses how children develop a sense of
humor, how disabilities influence individuals’ under-
standing of humor, how humor affects health and
coping with illness, and the regions of the brain that
are involved in humor.
For children, humor is developed over time and
elaborated during adolescence and through adult-
hood. Cognitive development enhances the experi-
ence of humor. Humor styles change with age and
humor that an infant responds to, such as peeka-
boo, a 3-year-old will find tedious. Similarly, there
is an evolution in humor with age as preferences
change. Generally, young children prefer overt slap-
stick comedy, while older children enjoy puns, and
adolescents and adults like jokes that have an unex-
pected ending.
In addition to the social aspects, cognitive aspects
of humor are hypothesized to be related to either
comprehending or producing an incongruity—this
incongruity is the pairing of incompatible elements
or a departure from what was expected. Incongruity
is accepted by most researchers as the main defini-
tion of humor and involves a violation of intention,
convention, or fact. Elena Hoicka, Sarah Justsum,
and Merideth Gattis (2008) state that generally two
cognitive phases are involved in humor appreciation:
perception and identification of an incongruity and
then the attempt to reduce or resolve the incongruity.
Cognitive Development of Humor
As children develop, they become able to enjoy
and produce a wider variety of humor. These skills
are based on an increase in environmental experi-
ences as well as the development of complex cog-
nitive skills. Infants learn about faces through
exposure to parental expressions and other care-
takers. When 4-month-old infants were presented
with pictures and sculptures of faces, they smiled at
the most realistic faces. In contrast, 13-month-old
infants found the most enjoyment in major distor-
tions of the human form. In order to find something
that was different from the “real” world, the infant
had to understand what faces look like first and to
have internalized a schema of a human face. Once
infants have internalized this schema, they are able
to engage in representational thinking that occurs
around 18 months of age.
In their study of library books recommended for
children ages 1 to 2 years, Hoicka et al. found humor
related to the initial stage of incongruity—with two
thirds of the books including humor involving the
ability to understand something is wrong. This cog-
nitive skill has also been linked as a foundational
step in order for the child to understand the intent
of others. To determine whether the mistake was
intentional or accidental is an important aspect to
understanding the actor’s intent and attitude, a skill
related to theory of mind (ToM). In this case, the
child begins to understand that people have inten-
tions that may not be the same as the child’s own, a
skill that occurs at approximately 25 to 36 months
of age. By 4 years of age, the child is able to under-
stand the difference between lying and joking.
Appreciation of humor requires a stable under-
standing of the real world. Thus, prior to the age
of 6 what is funny is generally what is unexpected
or involves physical comedy such as is present in
cartoons. As they develop more sophisticated cogni-
tive abilities, the resolution of the humor becomes
more important to enjoyment and things like knock-
knock jokes, popular with younger children, cease
to be experienced as funny. This transition appears
to occur between the ages of 6 and 8.
When a child is able to respond to more abstract
or conceptual incongruities rather than solely to per-
ceptual incongruities (generally by age 6), the child
is more able to integrate a wider variety of humor.
This ability is due to experience in the real world
as well as a facility with language that informs the
child that something is novel and worthy of fur-
ther cognitive processing. As the ability to join into
playful interaction and engagement in emotional
complicity with a peer develops, the cognitive and
emotional aspects of humor merge to produce a
mutual experience and enjoyment of humor.
Social Development of Humor
Social competence and humor have been linked due
to the connection between humor and peer relation-
ships. According to Françoise Bariaud, theorists
have suggested that humor is both cognitive and
affective as the incongruity, in order to be humor-
ous, needs to be placed within a playful framework.
Language signals that are present through nonverbal
and verbal means lay the foundation for this play-
ful framework by tying together incongruity and
humor. The early experiences with humor that were
described above allow for the development of social
intelligence. This skill allows the child to understand
the other child’s cues of intent and to engage in the
humor framework. Initially, during humorous play

with infants, the adult will use exaggerated faces and
voices that become subtler with development as the
child learns to read the context. This play requires
mutual complicity that builds on the child’s social
and emotional development throughout childhood.
Early experiences prime the pump for such play,
as does language and cognitive development. The
ability to be complicit with another in a socially
appropriate manner through the use of humor is
important to the development of empathy. In order
to participate fully in these exchanges, the child must
share the partner’s humorous intention.
Young children use context rather than language
to understand humor and may not be able to tell
why something is funny. Verbal play with words
begins around the age of 3 with silly rhyming present
by age 4. Carson, Sharpness, Schultz, and McGhee
(1986) found communication competence and tem-
perament to be important in humor development.
In this study, typically developing preschoolers were
rated on frequency of laughter, verbal attempts at
initiating humor, and behavioral initiation of humor,
as well as on measures of temperament. The child’s
activity level and responsiveness to approach of
another was related to a higher frequency of laughter
and behavioral initiation of humor. This finding sug-
gests that the child’s inborn temperament also affects
the experience of humor and social interaction.
Humor production, language comprehension,
and laughter have been found to be linked positively
to academic and social competence. Social aware-
ness or social cognition may mediate humor and
overall social competence. Studies by Gest, Graham-
Bermann, and Hartup and by Dana Klein and
Nicholas Kuiper have found a sense of humor to be
related to higher ratings of popularity, peer accep-
tance, and number of friendships.
Humor has also been linked to peer acceptance
or bullying. Klein and Kuiper, and Martin, Puhlik-
Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir (2002, 2003) have
found two types of bullying in relation to humor:
affiliative and aggressive. Popular adolescents create
group harmony and cohesion using affiliative humor.
Bullies use this type of humor to harass and exclude
children from the group. The use of affiliative humor
requires good social skills. When it is used by bullies,
affiliative humor cements the relationship within the
group to an us-versus-them approach. Inside jokes
are used to emphasize social distance as well as to
enhance the bully’s importance in the group.
In contrast, aggressive humor is almost always
used for peer victimization and is belittling and
Development of Humor 199
demeaning to another person. It can be used directly
or indirectly. Indirectly, the bully spreads rumors
about the rejected person but within the social
mores of the group. Direct aggressive humor is when
the child is directly teased in front of others. Some
children and adults who have been bullied will use
self-defeating humor to try and defuse the situation
as well as to feel part of the group—also at times
classified as the class clown.
Children who experience difficulty with humor
development also appear to have significant social def-
icits as well as problems at older ages with emotional
adjustment. According to Margaret Semrud-Clikeman
and Kimberly Glass (2010), difficulty in labeling
affect, understanding facial expressions, difficulty
with perspective taking, and problems with language
can all contribute to deficits in humor development.
These deficits interfere with the playful framework
and the engagement in emotional complicity necessary
to experience humor. Children with autism spectrum
disorders or nonverbal learning disabilities frequently
experience difficulties with these skills and often
show significant difficulties with social interaction,
particularly with more subtle forms of humor.
Disability and Humor
Children with learning disabilities have been found
to experience difficulty in humor comprehen-
sion, particularly when the joke is language based.
Children with Down syndrome (DS) have been
found to laugh and enjoy humor more than children
with other types of intellectual disabilities. Vasudevi
Reddy, Emma Williams, and Amy Vaughan (2002)
point out that part of the reason may be the child
with DS is more likely to show particular interest in
the other’s emotional response as well as a tendency
to clown around than children with other types of
intellectual disability.
Reddy et al. also found that preschool children
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or DS show
similar frequency of laughter during interactive
games such as peekaboo, tickling, or slapstick.
Children with autism rarely showed enjoyment of
funny faces or socially inappropriate acts. These
children also did not engage with other children
through laughter or through being silly. A study that
compared children with DS or ASD with typically
developing children found that the children with
autism had significant problems interpreting incon-
gruity. This ability is a necessary step for later appre-
ciation of complex humor. Underlying this difficulty
200 Development of Humor
were problems with joint attention particularly in
regard to social responsiveness.
According to a 2004 paper by Viktoria Lyons and
Michael Fitzgerald, further studies of children with
ASD have found that the deficits in supralinguistic
ability—or the ability to understand non-literal
language, infer meaning, and recognize ambigu-
ity—and ToM contribute significantly to problems
with humor appreciation and understanding. Adults
with autism have been found to also have difficulty
understanding humor that involves incongruity.
These adults will generally choose to tell riddles
rather than more sophisticated jokes, even when
functioning at a high cognitive level. Similar to nor-
mal adults, adults with autism who have a sense of
humor were found to be rated as more popular and
to have more positive attributes.
Thus, children with disabilities show differences
in their ability to use humor appropriately. Problems
with language (verbal and nonverbal) as well as an
impulsive style of response interfere with the ability
to share these experiences. These difficulties con-
tinue through adulthood.
Humor and Health
Humor has been linked to social and cognitive well-
being as well as overall health, particularly with
immune functioning and cardiovascular risk. Kuiper
and Andrea Harris (2009) note that humor that is
adaptive and self-enhancing was found positively
related to coping, while aggressive humor was linked
to inflexibility in dealing with the illness through
a change in perspective. When negative affect was
strong, the patient frequently had more physical
symptoms and stronger anxiety. Humor may be an
important coping mechanism when adapting to a
difficult situation.
Humor has been found to be important for mental
as well as physical health. Cognition is an important
part of humor, particularly language and pragmatics.
These abilities develop over time and are important
for a child’s, and later, an adult’s, overall adjustment.
Humor has been linked to popularity and acceptance
as well as to emotional maturity. Andrea Samson
and James Gross (2012) state that it has also been
linked to improved individual and group relations.
Neuroanatomy of Humor
The understanding of the neuroanatomy of humor
is just beginning. Similar to the findings that humor
involves cognition and emotion, Yu-Chen Chan,
Tai-Li Chou, Hsueh-Chih Chen, and Keng-Chen
Liang (2012) have found that brain systems acti-
vate for each of these constructs using different
networks. According to Michelle Neely, Elizabeth
Walter, Jessica Black, and Allan Reiss (2012),
the cognitive component is believed to be in the
temporal-occipital-parietal area, which is generally
important for language processing as well as for
self-processing. This region is generally the poste-
rior two thirds of the brain and has also been impli-
cated in the attentional network, which is important
for the detection of an unexpected event, according
to Simone Vossel, Ralph Weidner, Jon Driver, Karl
Friston, and Gereon Fink. Neely et al. point out
that the emotional component of humor is linked
to the midbrain, the basal ganglia, and an area of
the prefrontal cortex important for processing emo-
tional information. While it is not clear how these
networks develop from infancy through adulthood
from the neuroimaging evidence at this point, the
neuroimaging findings are intriguing as they support
the notion that humor requires social and cognitive
networks in order for mature humor to develop.
Conclusion
From a brief review of the literature, it appears there
is a strong connection among language, cognitive,
and perceptual development and humor apprecia-
tion. Emerging results from neuroscience have found
networks that support the cognitive and affec-
tive aspects of humor. These networks support the
development of humor and map onto development
in intriguing ways. For example, the early ability to
appreciate humor requires cognitive development
and the networks responsible for this skill are gen-
erally in the areas of the brain that mature in early
to middle childhood. The regions of the brain that
mature during adolescence and adulthood, the fron-
tal and prefrontal regions, are important for more
complex understanding of language and the ability
to evaluate complex language.
Humor has been linked to popularity, physical
health, and adaptive well-being. It has also been
linked to the ability to manage and cope with physi-
cal illness. Children with ASD and learning disabili-
ties (LD) have been found to show problems with
the appreciation of humor but for different reasons.
For children with ASD, the problems seem to stem
from more social deficits as well as supralinguistic
aspects. These children are able to understand the
meaning of words but have difficulty translating the

more subtle aspects of the joke. For children with
learning disabilities, the problem is more cognitive in
nature as these children have problems with language
meaning. Very few studies have been conducted with
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Areas that are fruitful for future research are in
the area of neuroscience. The ability to understand
how humor is processed over development through
the use of technology would enrich our understand-
ing of the psychological and developmental under-
pinnings of humor. Neuroimaging may open up new
avenues for not only understanding how typically
developing children process humorous information,
but also how children with disabilities process the
same information. The work may also enrich our
ability to intervene at early stages to assist in the
ability to relate to others in an enjoyable manner.
Humor is a tool that can be used not only to enter
new social experiences but also to develop new ways
to cope with situations and people.
Further study of the role humor can play in help-
ing children and adults cope with physical illness
would also be of importance. Initial findings that
the ability to enjoy humor can improve outcome of
medical procedures are encouraging. There is also
beginning work that indicates providing experiences
that are humorous can distract a child from difficult
and painful procedures, as well as improve outcome
following such procedures. This work is in its infancy
and will likely be important in working with chil-
dren and families with chronic diseases that require
repeated medical procedures and hospital visits.
Margaret Semrud-Clikeman
See also Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor; Children’s
Humor and Giftedness; Children’s Humor Research;
Children’s Humor Stages; Play and Humor
Further Readings
Bariaud, F. (1988). Age differences in children’s humor.
Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(1–2),
15–45.
Carson, D. K., Sharpness, L. R., Schultz, N. W., &
McGhee, P. E. (1986). Temperament and communicative
competence as predictors of young children’s humor.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32(4), 415–426.
Chan, Y.-C., Chou, T.-L., Chen, H.-C., & Liang, K.-C.
(2012). Segregating the comprehension and elaboration
processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study. Neuroimage,
61(4), 899–906.
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W.
(2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features
Dialect Humor 201
of number of friendships, social network, centrality, and
sociometric status. Social Development, 10(1), 23–40.
Hoicka, E., Justsum, S., & Gattis, M. (2008). Humor,
abstraction, and disbelief. Cognitive Science, 32(6),
985–1002.
Klein, D. N., & Kuiper, N. A. (2006). Humor styles, peer
relationships, and bullying in middle childhood.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
19(4), 383–404.
Kuiper, N. A., & Harris, A. L. (2009). Humor styles and
negative affect as predictors of different components of
physical health. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 5(1),
1–18.
Lyons, V., & Fitzgerald, M. D. (2004). Humor in autism
and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 521–531.
Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health:
Methodological issues and research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504–519.
Martin, R.A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir,
K. (2003). Individual differences in the uses of humor
and the relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75.
Neely, M. N., Walter, E., Black, J. M., & Reiss, A. L.
(2012). Neural correlates of humor detection and
appreciation in children. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(5),
1784–1790.
Reddy, V., Williams, E., & Vaughan, A. (2002). Sharing
humour and laughter in autism and Down’s syndrome.
British Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 219–242.
Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion
regulation: The differential consequences of negative versus
positive humor. Cognition and Emotion, 26(2), 375–384.
Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Glass, K. (2010). The relation of
humor and child development: Social, adaptive, and
emotional aspects. Journal of Child Neurology, 25(10),
1248–1260.
Vossel, S., Weidner, R., Driver, J., Friston, K. J., & Fink,
G. R. (2012). Deconstructing the architecture of
dorsal and ventral attention systems with dynamic
causal modeling. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(31),
10637–10648.
Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a
developmental construct. Developmental Review, 3(1),
79–97.
DIALECT HUMOR
Dialect humor refers to a way of creating humor
by using language in a way that highlights non-
standardized aspects of ways of speaking that are
202 Dialect Humor
associated with particular groups of people. Selected
features from all aspects of the linguistic system,
ranging from accent to word choice to grammar to
discourse patterns, can be assembled in an imitation
of a speaker of a particular dialect. This linguistic
stereotype can then be used to index the group of
people being represented and to construct humor
around other non-linguistic stereotypes of the group.
The standardization of English beginning in the 18th
century, along with the rise of literacy, has inevitably
led to the evaluation of nonstandardized language
use as less worthy. Yet, at the same time, diversifi-
cation in language is an inevitable consequence of
linguistic change and social dynamics as groups seek
to define themselves as distinctive. Dialect humor
has traditionally been associated with ethnicity, but
it is also linked to social class. It should be noted
that, while this entry focuses on English dialects, the
phenomenon is widespread, for example in Italy and
France, and probably universal.
This entry considers the use of dialect humor
both in literature and other forms of entertainment
and also in everyday interaction. It will touch upon
the relation of dialect humor to social processes, and
it will conclude by drawing attention to contempo-
rary trends in dialect humor.
In Literature and Popular Entertainment
In forms of literature and popular entertainment,
dialect humor poses the problem of representation.
In spoken forms, such as the theater, language that
is both spoken and embodied allows both accent
and gesture to be included in the stereotypical rep-
resentation. Within the English-speaking tradition,
William Shakespeare used the diversity of British
dialects for comic effect in characterization. In
contrast with a character like Falstaff, who creates
humor through linguistic stylistic effects, the three
military men from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland in
Henry V are represented as speaking English with
influences from their mother tongues. Moving for-
ward in time and across the Atlantic to the United
States, early minstrel shows included comic char-
acters in blackface speaking in stereotyped ways
associated with African Americans. The written
dialect humor that enjoyed a vogue in 19th-century
America was often intended to be recited. Into the
early 20th century and beyond, comedy routines—
beginning in the early vaudeville acts (which used
dialect impersonation to represent ethnic identity for
comic effect) and later in the movies, continuing into
contemporary stand-up comedy—have drawn on
dialect imitations to create humor.
With written forms of dialect humor, in contrast,
the challenging problem is to represent the dialect
in writing without the benefit of sound and gesture
to convey a more complete imitation. Shakespeare
accomplished this by providing spellings to indi-
cate pronunciation (which actors embellish with a
fuller representation of the sound of the dialect),
as well as discourse features written into the text
(for example, Fluellen saying “look you” periodi-
cally in his speeches as a typical discourse marker
in Welsh-influenced English). Charles Dickens
used typifications of two basic dialects, that is, the
standardized London dialect of his time and the
Cockney dialect of London, symbolizing nonstan-
dardized language. Dickens used the former dialect
for leading characters, typically representing moral
good (e.g., Mr. Pickwick). The latter was used for
secondary but colorful characters (e.g., Sam Weller).
Both typified dialects were modified with markers
of different registers (e.g., genteel, occupational)
and then elaborated with distinctive features to cre-
ate unforgettable idiolects. Meanwhile, across the
Atlantic, the humorists of the old Southwest were
creating fictional personas that drew on written
typifications of particular dialects associated with
both ethnic groups (“Dutch” for Germans from
Deutsch) and different social levels (e.g., rustic fron-
tiersman Simon Suggs who used the vernacular).
Mark Twain’s iconic essay “How to Tell a Story”
ends with what Twain calls “a negro ghost story”
that he often performed on the platform and that
was written to represent African American dialect;
Twain advises the reader to practice it for oral deliv-
ery, paying particular attention to pausing for effect
before the punch line.
In Relation to Social Processes
Sensibilities changed between the 19th and 20th
centuries in America in relation to dialect humor. In
the 19th century in the United States, dialect humor
could be used both as a form of mockery and also
as a positive appreciation of diverse groups within
the United States. In addition, it could be used as
a vehicle for expressing social and political critique
that might not have been accepted in the standard-
ized dialect. In the late 19th century and into the
20th century, with urbanization, mass immigration,
and the recognition of the role of public education
in assimilation, linguistic diversity came to represent

the danger of social disintegration. After the Civil
Rights Movement in the 1960s in the United States
and elsewhere, there was a heightened sensitivity to
ethnicity and linguistic diversity in general, bringing
with it an affirmation of the value of dialect diversity
and an awareness of the power of language to both
reflect and shape social attitudes. One consequence
of this has been a decrease in non-in-group dialect
humor; for example, the comedian Margaret Cho,
who speaks standardized American English, can
include an imitation of her Korean mother speaking
Korean-influenced English as part of her stand-up
comedy routine, but a non-Korean would risk disap-
proval to perform similar dialect humor.
Some scholarship suggests certain relationships
between social structures and processes on the
one hand and dialect humor on the other. At the
most basic level, dialect humor can serve as a way
of differentiating between groups and establishing
boundaries, using language as an index. Industrial
societies in which knowledge is power are associated
with dialect humor in which the lower status group
(rural, recent immigrant) is represented as ignorant
or stupid (e.g., Polish jokes in the United States).
Racism, as an issue that the United States contin-
ues to confront, appears in dialect humor mocking
African Americans and other groups assumed to be
“racially” different. In the United Kingdom, because
of the development of the received pronunciation
(RP) accent linked to social hierarchy, language can
be used more effectively than in the United States to
create humor based on social class (e.g., the “upper
class twits” of Monty Python sketches). As aware-
ness increases that such attitudes are socially unac-
ceptable in public discourse, such dialect humor in
everyday life is exhibited only in contexts assumed
to be private. Given that an aspect of some kinds of
humor is that it violates prohibitions, dialect humor
in everyday interaction can be tricky. The humor
mechanism can be valued at the same time that the
content can be disapproved (i.e., “I didn’t approve
of the negative attitude toward that group that was
expressed in the humor, but it was just so FUNNY
that I had to laugh.”)
Contemporary Trends in Dialect Humor
In contrast with the dialect humor of the 19th cen-
tury in which the character is embodied, in the early
21st century, a form of self-reflexivity is emerg-
ing. For example, current cable shows that satirize
political punditry include dialect imitations as part
Doggerel 203
of the satire, but in a highly self-aware fashion that
makes a joke of the poor quality of the dialect imita-
tion. Another significant contrast in contemporary
American society with the sensibilities of the past
can be found between the avoidance of non-in-group
dialect humor in public on one hand and a willing-
ness to use dialect difference as the last acceptable
target of discrimination on the other.
Catherine Evans Davies
See also Anecdote, Comic; Ethnic Jokes; Ethnicity and
Humor; History of Humor: U.S. Frontier; Identity;
Literature; Monty Python; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Blair, W., & McDavid, R. I. (Eds.). (1983). The mirth of a
nation: America’s great dialect humor. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Davies, J. C. H. (1982). Ethnic jokes, moral values and
social boundaries. The British Journal of Sociology,
33(3), 383–403.
Fishkin, S. F. (Ed.). (1996). Mark Twain: How to tell a
story and other essays. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Golding, R. (1985). Idiolects in Dickens. London, UK:
Macmillan.
Kersten, H. (1996). Using the immigrant’s voice: Humor
and pathos in nineteenth century “Dutch” dialect texts.
MELUS, 21(4), 3–17.
Lippi-Green, R. (2011). English with an accent: Language,
ideology, and discrimination in the United States.
New York, NY: Routledge.
DISPARAGEMENT
See Aggressive and Harmless Humor
DOGGEREL
The term doggerel is derived from the word dog,
used in a derogatory sense (as in dog Latin, gone to
the dogs, etc.), the suffix –erel adding further to the
term’s pejorative overtones (cf. mongrel, scoundrel).
While the ways in which doggerel may be distin-
guished from fine poetry are various—either relating
to its departure from formal values such as regular
meter and proper rhyme or because of the triviality
of the sentiments expressed—the term is commonly
used in a general sense, simply meaning bad verse.
204 Doggerel
Not all doggerel is of a humorous nature. It may
be found in nursery rhymes, many popular songs,
and advertising jingles, for instance, as well as in the
mawkishly sentimental banalities of greeting cards
often purporting to be the work of writers bearing
names such as “Patience Hope” and “Prudence
Strong.” Many examples may also be found in mes-
sages of condolence and tombstone epitaphs:
If tears could build a staircase
And memories a lane
I’d climb right up to heaven
And bring you back again.
The extent to which such examples evoke a humor-
ous response varies from case to case. A frequently
quoted example of an epitaph in which doggerel
almost crosses the line into humor is the following:
The final trumpet sounded,
An angel-voice cried ‘Come!’
The golden gates flew open
And in walked Mum.
The abrupt transition in style from the elevated
to the mundane or commonplace is an example of
bathos, which at times takes such a ludicrously
incongruous form as to evoke a humorous response.
Humorous Doggerel
Though some writers deliberately set out to com-
pose amusing doggerel, for example in the form
of limericks and nonsense verse, the most humor-
ous examples tend to be the work of authors who
are not aware that they are writing bad verse. This
disparity or incongruity between pretension and
performance is a leading source of humor in a vari-
ety of fields, such as the contrast, often referred to
by writers on comedy, between the case of a frail,
elderly person who falls over in the street, and that
of a pompous, self-important person who slips on a
banana skin and executes a pratfall. The latter case
is more likely to elicit laughter than the former. In
the case of poetry, the confidence that allows one
to write despite appalling incompetence is a fertile
source of humor for many readers.
Leading Practitioners of Doggerel
Quoted here are a number of writers whose verse, in
general or in a particular instance, is often cited as
illustrating the disparity mentioned earlier.
The Scottish religious writer and preacher
Zachary Boyd (1585–1653) also wrote poetry, an
example being his poem on the battle at Newburn
Ford in 1640 in which the Scottish army seized pos-
session of Newcastle. It contains these lines:
The Scots cannons powder and ball did spew
Which with terror the Canterburians slew.
Balls rushed at random, which most fearfully
Menaced to break the portals of the sky.
In this conflict, which was both swift and surly,
Bones, blood and brains went in a hurly-burly.
Boyd has sometimes been referred to, not without
justification, as a “Scottish prince of bad poets.”
The American poet Julia Ann Moore (1847–1920)
became known for her notoriously bad verse. Here is
the first stanza of her poem titled “Sketch of Lord
Byron’s Life”:
“Lord Byron” was an Englishman
A poet I believe,
His first works in old England
Was poorly received.
A collection of her verse bore the title The Sweet
Singer of Michigan, a term that has since (with con-
summate irony) attached itself to the poet herself.
It is not only obscure versifiers who can be
guilty of a descent into doggerel. Two British Poets
Laureate are often quoted in this context, the first
being William Wordsworth (1770–1850), who
became Poet Laureate in 1843. His poem of 1827
titled “While Anna’s Peers and Early Playmates
Tread” contained the lines:
The presence even of a stuffed owl for her
Can cheat the time.
The banality of these lines was so egregious that they
were taken up in the title of a celebrated anthology
of bad verse (The Stuffed Owl) edited by D. B.
Wyndham Lewis and Charles Lee.
The other Poet Laureate was Alfred Austin
(1835–1913), who was appointed to the post in
1896. The author E. F. Benson, in his 1930 work
As We Were, ascribed to Austin the following lines
concerning the national suspense during the illness
of the Prince of Wales in 1871:
Across the wires the electric message came:
He is no better; he is much the same.

The attribution of these lines to Alfred Austin has
been disputed by some authors.
Undoubtedly the greatest in a long line of Scottish
poetasters was William Topaz McGonagall (1825–
1902). His most celebrated poem is “The Tay Bridge
Disaster” (1880), which commemorates the events
of December 28, 1879, when the Tay Bridge in
Dundee collapsed in a gale, with considerable loss of
life. The final stanza runs as follows:
Oh! ill-fated bridge on the Silv’ry Tay
I must now conclude my lay
By telling the world fearlessly without the least
dismay
That your central girders would not have given
way,
At least many sensible men do say,
Had they been supported on each side with
buttresses,
At least many sensible men confesses,
Doggerel 205
For the stronger we our houses do build
The less chance we have of being killed.
It is not surprising that McGonagall has become
something of a cult figure—with a website dedi-
cated to him—and that collections of his works
have frequently been reprinted.
Kenneth R. Dutton
See also Lampoon; Limericks; Nonsense; Pastiche;
Travesty
Further Readings
Camp, J. E., Kennedy, X. J., & Waldrop, K. (2003).
Pegasus descending: A book of the best bad verse.
New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.
Wyndham Lewis, D. B., & Lee, C. (2003). The stuffed owl:
An anthology of bad verse. New York, NY: New York
Review Books. Retrieved from http://www.mcgonagall-
online.org.uk
 E
EDUCATION, HUMOR IN
Is a funny teacher a better teacher? Educators
everywhere have wondered whether using humor
in the classroom is to their benefit or detriment.
On the one hand, it can make a teacher seem more
sociable or approachable. On the other hand, it
can magnify power differences and even hurt a
teacher’s credibility if humor is overused or jokes
aren’t well received. Most educational humor
research has focused on the positive consequences
of classroom humor, particularly in terms of how
humor increases motivation and reduces anxiety,
enhances the classroom environment, increases stu-
dent responsiveness, creates a positive instructor-
student relationship, improves class attendance and
test performance, and promotes learning. However,
there may be negative consequences for educators
who use humor in the classroom as well. In this
entry, the advantages and disadvantages of using
humor in the classroom are reviewed and a vari-
ety of factors that affect the impact of humor on
educational outcomes are discussed.
Power Differences and Humor
in the Classroom
Humor in the classroom cannot be discussed with-
out acknowledging that there is an inherent power
difference between teachers and students. By virtue
of the structural hierarchy in the classroom, teachers
or professors have the ability to reward and punish
207
certain behaviors and are responsible for assessing
students and assigning grades. Generally, power-
based humor serves to maintain boundaries, create
and maintain status, foster conflict, and influence a
conversational partner. These functions are relevant
in the classroom because instructors can use humor
for a variety of reasons, including coping with stress
or problems in the classroom, creating solidarity
with their students, or raising their own status.
Teachers must be careful not to abuse their power
because the effects of inappropriate humor on the
classroom environment can be disastrous. Students
might withdraw or tune out the lesson or the humor
could cause tension, anxiety, or anger, which also
disrupt the students’ ability to learn. Using sexist
or racist jokes, for example, may cause students
to lose the motivation to participate in classroom
activities (and open the teacher to charges of harass-
ment as well). Students may not speak up in class
and challenge inappropriate humor when they fear
reprisals from their teachers. The power differences
between teacher and student can be especially great
if the class is in a high power-distance culture where
the power difference between teacher and student
is especially pronounced. Students may not expect
instructors to use humor in those more formal set-
tings and the impact on such a violation of student
expectations is not well understood.
In a comprehensive review of humor use in
educational settings, John Banas, Norah Dunbar,
Dariela Rodriguez, and Shr-Jie Liu (2011) identified
two types of humor that are always inappropriate
in the classroom. The first type is offensive humor,
208 Education, Humor in
which can include humor based on the race, ethnic-
ity, sex, political affiliation, or sexual orientation of
another, as well as profanity, vulgarity, and sexual
innuendo. Offensive humor is generally ill-advised in
the classroom. The second type is aggressive or other-
denigrating humor, which is humor that manipulates,
ridicules, mocks, or denigrates others. Nonreciprocal
teasing could also be included in this category because
it may cause anxiety for students. They may not feel
comfortable teasing a professor and may come to
resent being the target of humor without the ability
to respond. These types of humor are presumed to
have a negative effect on the classroom environment
and the attitudes of students.
Power-based humor does not always serve a neg-
ative function, though. Leaders have been known to
use humor to increase group cohesion, soften criti-
cism, and help subordinates cope with stress. In their
review of educational humor, Banas et al. suggested
seven types of humor that are generally considered to
be appropriate and positive in the classroom. These
include affiliative or solidarity-based humor, which
is meant for amusing others or relieving tension;
humor designed for coping or regulatory purposes
(often called self-enhancing humor); power-based
humor designed to establish boundaries; class mate-
rial humor, which includes stories, jokes, or other
humorous content related to class material; funny
stories in which events or activities are related as a
tale; brief humorous comments; and encouraging
humor use in others in a strategy known as seeking
funny others. They also identify 14 other types of
humor that may be appropriate to use in the class-
room, depending on the content or context. When
instructors use appropriate types of humor, the result
can be positive for the classroom environment. It
should be remembered that the classroom is not a
comedy club and so humor should be relevant to the
learning objectives and used sparingly. In doing so,
educators can take advantage of the two main ben-
efits of using humor in the classroom: keeping atten-
tion and interest of students and enhancing recall of
learned material.
Instructional Humor Processing Theory
Instructional humor processing theory (IHPT)
advanced by Melissa Wanzer, Ann Frymier, and
Jeffrey Irwin (2010) seeks to explain why humor is
not always effective for promoting learning in the
classroom. They suggest that students need to per-
ceive and then resolve the incongruity in a humorous
instructional message. If the students do not resolve
the incongruity, they may experience confusion
instead of humor. Further, the IHPT proposes that the
recognition of humor will increase students’ attention
and recall of class material if the humor is relevant.
Although humor can be used as an attention-gaining
strategy and as a means of generating positive affect,
humorous messages might also serve as a distraction
from the instructional message, resulting in reduced
ability to process the learning objectives.
Instructional humor processing theory draws
from three other theories in their explanation of
the utility of instructional humor. First, work-
ing from incongruity-resolution theory, Wanzer et
al. argue that the first step in understanding how
humor is processed in an instructional context
involves heightened awareness of the humorous
stimuli. Incongruity-resolution theorists argue that
the context of the humor is vitally important when
determining whether it is appropriate or not. Once
the humorous stimuli are recognized, they must be
resolved or interpreted by the students. The students
will decide if content of the humor and the target
of the joke are appropriate for the classroom. If the
stimuli are not recognized, and they don’t even rec-
ognize it as a joke, then the students may ignore the
humor attempt. If the stimuli are recognized but not
resolved, then the students may simply be confused
by the attempt at humor. According to IHPT, the
humor attempt must be recognized by the students,
resolved or interpreted as successful, and be per-
ceived as funny in order to be successful.
Second, IHPT is influenced by disposition theory
because this theory posits that the target of the joke
is very important. We are more likely to favor humor
that targets groups or people we dislike or people we
don’t recognize as being part of our group identity.
If an instructor targets groups the students identify
with, such as the students themselves or sororities
and fraternities or even political affiliations the
students favor, then that humor is more likely to
be judged as inappropriate in some way. The IHPT
incorporates this element from disposition theory
because it presumes that once a humor attempt by
an instructor is perceived as humorous, then the
students evaluate that humor for its appropriateness
and determine their response to it.
Third, IHPT draws from the elaboration likeli-
hood model (ELM) in maintaining that in order
to capitalize on the increased attention created by
instructional humor, students needed to have the
motivation and ability to process the instructional

messages. The ELM posits that the two necessary
elements for message elaboration, or deeper think-
ing about a message, are the motivation to pursue
the topic and ability to spend time thinking about
it. Instructional humor, IHPT proposes, should
increase elaboration and then, in turn, increase recall
and learning. Humor that is relevant to the lesson at
hand does not distract from the instructional mes-
sage and can make information more memorable
because it provides students with the motivation to
learn and remember the information. In addition,
the appropriateness of humor influences the affec-
tive response by the receivers and influences the
reaction to the humor by the students. According
to the IHPT, appropriate forms of humor create
positive affect, which enhances motivation, while
inappropriate forms create negative affect, which
decreases motivation.
In their first test of IHPT, Wanzer et al. found
that humor related to both the class material and
teachers’ use of self-disparaging humor enhanced
students’ learning of course content, whereas unre-
lated and inappropriate forms of humor were not
associated with learning because students were not
motivated to process those messages and remember
course content. Furthermore, professors who were
perceived as generally humorous used more varied
types of humor, which the researchers argue sug-
gests funny instructors have a more complex humor
schema and will therefore draw from a number
of different humorous behaviors when attempt-
ing to be funny. Students were able to differentiate
instructors using appropriate and inappropriate
humor and the learning outcomes were more posi-
tive for instructors using appropriate and relevant
humor, especially those who have the skills to use
humor well.
Instructional humor processing theory may also
explain why using humor in tests and assessments
has not been linked to any gains in learning out-
comes. A variety of studies testing whether using
humor in exam items or other assessments enhances
test performance have been conducted, and gener-
ally, the research literature has demonstrated that
humor in assessments does not enhance perfor-
mance. Trait anxiety may affect the relationship
between test humor and test scores but, as IHPT
would suggest, perhaps the difficulty of the testing
situation makes it difficult for students to process the
humor adequately, weigh the appropriateness of the
humor, and elaborate on the message in the midst of
an exam. Or, the importance and the formality of the
Education, Humor in 209
exam may make it difficult for humor to affect the
test outcomes. More research in this area is needed.
Individual Differences in Instructor Humor
Not all instructors use humor equally well, so the
individual differences that lead to varying receptions
of humor should be considered. One variable that
has received significant research attention is gender.
Although the research findings are somewhat mixed,
men tend to use more humor generally and use
more self-disparaging humor than women. Female
teachers on the other hand, use more spontaneous
humor (as opposed to canned jokes and stories) and
are more likely to use humor that is relevant to the
course content. In addition, male and female stu-
dents have different preferences regarding what they
find funny and have different expectations for the
humor used by male and female professors. Many
reasons for the differences between male and female
instructors have been posed but no clear explanation
for these differences has been found in the empirical
research.
Another individual difference variable that influ-
ences the humor used by the instructor is the amount
of teaching experience the instructor has. Several
research studies have compared instructors with more
experience and teaching awards to those with fewer
awards and less experience and have found that the
more experienced and award-winning teachers used
more humor than those with less experience and
without awards. Generally, award-winning teachers
are careful not to attempt too much humor in the
classroom and use significantly more humor that is
relevant to the course material. Their humor is largely
used for the purpose of clarifying course content. It
seems that these instructors have learned through
experience how to use humor to increase the motiva-
tion of their students and their ability to process and
retain the course material.
A third individual difference variable that has
been studied extensively in classroom contexts is the
humor orientation of the instructor. Humor orien-
tation is a communication-based personality trait.
Those who are high in humor orientation have a
predisposition to enact humorous messages and per-
ceive themselves as successfully funny across many
different situations. Instructors who rate themselves
high in humor orientation have a more developed
and complex schema of humor, have a wider rep-
ertoire of humorous communication behaviors to
enact, and tend to use significantly more humor
210 E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China
overall than instructors who rate themselves low in
humor orientation. More humorous professors also
tend to use more varied types of humor, even inap-
propriate types of humor. Perhaps instructors highly
skilled in the use of humor have figured out how
to use inappropriate humor without offending their
students or they are simply better at relating to stu-
dents. Some research has found that students spend
more time outside of class talking with high-humor
orientation teachers and are more likely to discuss
nonclass issues with them.
A final individual differences variable that is rele-
vant to the instructional context is the cultural back-
ground of the instructor and the culture in which the
instruction is occurring. Most studies of educational
humor have been limited to classrooms in the United
States, so the effects of humor use in non-Western
classrooms are unclear. One particular study con-
ducted by Qin Zhang in Chinese college classrooms
found that instructors’ humor orientation exacer-
bated student communication apprehension rather
than reduced it. Zhang explained that humor often
identifies individuals and highlights deviations from
group norms, which students from collectivist cul-
tures may find stressful. In addition, instructional
humor may make the classroom less formal, which
Chinese students find inappropriate given the hier-
archical nature of the instructor-student relation-
ship in Chinese culture. More research is needed on
the relationship between culture and instructional
humor.
Conclusion
The research on humor in educational settings
suggests that there are both positive and negative
consequences when instructors use humor in the
classroom. Generally, when humor is used appro-
priately, it is recognized as humorous by the students
and supports the lesson at hand; it can improve
the motivation of students, enhance the instructor-
student relationship and the classroom environment,
and bolster learning. The individual differences
of the instructors themselves, including their own
humor orientation, their experience in the class-
room, and the culture in which the class is situated
should also be considered.
Norah E. Dunbar
See also College Humor; Failed Humor; Gender Roles in
Humor; Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use
in Classroom on; Testing and Evaluation
Further Readings
Banas, J., Dunbar, N. E., Liu, S.-J., & Rodriguez, D.
(2011). A review of humor in educational settings: Four
decades of research. Communication Education, 60,
115–144.
Booth-Butterfield, M., & Wanzer, M. (2010). Humorous
communication as goal-oriented communication. In
D. Fassett & J. Warren (Eds.), SAGE handbook of
communication and instruction (pp. 221–240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wajtaszczyk, A. M.
(2008). Assessing students’ perceptions of inappropriate
and appropriate teacher humor. Communication
Education, 57, 266–288.
McMorris, R. F., Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J.
(1997). Humor in educational testing: A review and
discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 10,
269–297.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An
explanation of the relationship between instruction
humor and student learning: Instructional humor
processing theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18.
Zhang, Q. (2005). Immediacy, humor, power distance, and
classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college
classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53, 109–124.
Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor:
Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental
Education, 57, 5–15.
E’GAO: CULTURE OF INTERNET
SPOOFING IN CHINA
E’gao (spoofing) is the Chinese name for the prac-
tice of technology-enabled, multimedia online par-
ody and digital communication among Chinese
Internet users. Its techniques range from photoshop-
ping still pictures and remixing found footage from
movies and television programs to lip-synching pop-
ular songs. Its formats range from flash animation
to music video and from original textual rendition
of written words to original video recordings. This
entry discusses the reasons e’gao has become popu-
lar and the role it plays in Chinese culture.
E’gao first appeared in early 2000 but did not
become nationally popular until the mid-2000s fol-
lowing the runaway success of the famous e’gao
movie A Bloody Case Caused by a Steamed Bun
(Yige mantou yinfa de xue’an; a.k.a. the Steamed
Bun spoof) by Hu Ge. This was a sarcastic critique
of the 2005 blockbuster film The Promise (Wuji), by
China’s veteran film director Chen Kaige.

The Promise is a big-budget production about an
epic fantasy of love, betrayal, destiny, and revenge.
Hu’s 20-minute long e’gao video turned the origi-
nal fantasy into a story of criminal investigation,
in the format, style, and language of China Central
Television (CCTV)’s famous program Legal Report
(Zhongguo fazhi baodao), and remixed footage
from the film and the TV program. It tells a story
about the police investigating the murder of a rec-
reation company’s Manager Wang (corresponding
to The King of the original movie), who had been
killed by a mysterious man while under challenge
over the issue of unpaid salaries from Qingcheng
(the movie’s beautiful but ill-fated heroine, here a
migrant sex worker). A stony-faced CCTV anchor-
man reports the murder case in flashbacks (movie
footage from The Promise) and traces the twists
and turns of the detective story. The main charac-
ters’ names and even some sequences from Chen’s
movie are retained in the Steamed Bun spoof but are
given a present-day and humorous spin. Hu himself
dubbed all the characters in his spoof and also its
commercial breaks (typical of CCTV’s legal show),
featuring hair gel, sneakers, sausage, and calcium
supplements “endorsed” by characters from the
movie. To add to the comic effect, he also integrated
into the spoof video soundtracks from Hollywood
blockbusters, well-known Chinese political songs,
folk songs, and popular love songs.
The Steamed Bun’s satire is directed at the
movie and its director (for pretentious production
and meaningless content), at the state broadcaster
CCTV (for its propaganda style, political control,
and full-blown commercialization), and at Chinese
social reality (facts such as the underground sex
industry and underpaid migrant workers). Within
days, the e’gao video became an immediate hit
with millions viewing it, far more than the num-
bers who saw Chen’s original film. This angered
Chen, who threatened to sue Hu for copyright vio-
lation but eventually dropped the case because of
overwhelming popular support for Hu. The e’gao
video initiated a surge of Steamed Bun sequels,
spoofs of the spoof, and other e’gao pieces in early
2006. While Chinese political and cultural elitists
responded to the e’gao phenomenon through criti-
cism, moral condemnation, and attempted control
via licensing and regulation, the business commu-
nity and Internet service providers quickly cashed
in on the fame of Hu Ge and his Steamed Bun by
registering trademarks for and selling Hu Ge buns,
drinks, and other products; by opening special
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China 211
columns to cover topics related to the Steamed
Bun case and other user-generated e’gao products;
and by employing spoofers like Hu for commercial
productions.
The Steamed Bun e’gao case is typical of the
culture and politics of Internet spoofing in China.
E’gao is regarded as a genre of parody, a mode of
humor, a practice of digital communication, an ethos
of amateurism, a culture of youth irreverence and
self-mockery, a shared and communal sentiment
of wicked fun, and an affective and exchangeable
token in guanxi (personal networks) and commu-
nity building. Words and phrases used by many to
describe e’gao are resistance (to high culture, estab-
lishment, orthodoxy), subversion (of authoritative
or mainstream discourses), criticism (of the politi-
cal and commercial mainstream), transgression (of
social norms), iconoclastic (toward the classics), con-
tentious (in its digital formats and channels), anti-
establishment (in both content and digital mode of
production and transmission), catharsis (letting off
steam in the virtual world), empowerment (for the
grassroots), liberating (as a cultural practice), playful
(in social transgression and artistic expression), and
alternative (to normalized practices).
E’gao is situated in specific technological, mate-
rial, sociocultural, and media conditions. Using
parody, irony, and satire to mock those in power or
to make social comments is of course not new; what
is new in the case of e’gao is the availability of digi-
tal technologies that make producing, circulating,
consuming, and collaborating in such innovative
grassroots activities faster, easier, and more conve-
nient. Furthermore, various interactive online plat-
forms enable the majority of e’gao pieces to circulate
across linguistic and geographical borders separating
mostly Chinese-speaking populations. This makes
e’gao not just a Chinese cultural phenomenon but
also a transnational event. The relaxed Chinese
attitude toward copying, cloning, or copycatting—
anything from gadgets to ideas, from TV formats to
fashion brands, from music to cinema—constitutes
the material backdrop to e’gao culture. This explains
its easy acceptance among most Chinese and wide-
spread participation in the production, exchange,
and circulation of e’gao pieces.
The satire of e’gao is targeted at the broader
social ills and discontent and vented in an alterna-
tive space, not in the mainstream media which are
still controlled and sanitized by the party state.
E’gao can thus be viewed as an alternative means of
social engagement, as political critique and cultural
212 Epigram
intervention in an otherwise tightly controlled and
heavily censored discursive environment. But most
e’gao pieces are not political in nature. E’gao spoof-
ers are not “cultural jammers” sharing a common
purpose or common means of social engagement.
They rarely have an identified authorship or any
coherent agenda. They are contained by and part
of the mainstream political and business cultures
that characterize Chinese realities, online and
offline. E’gao seeks laughter, not action, as its out-
come and does not mobilize people into activism or
action, although it can function as an act of dissent
if it invokes a different kind of laughter through
irreverently wicked humor.
Haiqing Yu
See also Cross-Cultural Humor; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Modern and
Contemporary China; Hoax and Prank; Huaji-ists,
The; Internet Humor; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Irony;
Mock Epic; Mockumentary; Parody; Pastiche; Play
and Humor; Postmodern Irony; Satire; Satire News;
Spoofing; Subversive Humor; Travesty
Further Readings
Gong, H., & Yang, X. (2010). Digitized parody: The
politics of egao in contemporary China. China
Information, 24(1), 3–26.
Li, H. (2011). Parody and resistance on the Chinese
Internet. In D. K. Herold & P. Marolt (Eds.), Online
society in China: Creating, celebrating, and
instrumentalising the online carnival (pp. 71–88).
London, UK: Routledge.
Meng, B. (2009). Regulating online spoofs: Futile efforts of
recentralization? In Y. Zheng & X. Zhang (Eds.),
China’s information and communications technology
revolution: Social changes and state responses
(pp. 52–67). London, UK: Routledge.
Meng, B. (2011). From Steamed Bun to Grass Mud Horse:
E Gao as alternative political discourse on the Chinese
Internet. Global Media and Communication, 7(1),
33–51.
Rea, C. G. (2013). Spoofing (e’gao) culture on the Chinese
Internet. In J. M. Davis & J. Chey (Eds.), Humour in
Chinese life and culture: Resistance and control in
modern times (chap. 7). Hong Kong, China: Hong
Kong University Press.
Wallis, C. (2011). New media practices in China: Youth
patterns, processes, and politics. International Journal of
Communication, 5, 406–436.
Yu, H. (2007). Blogging everyday life in Chinese Internet
culture. Asian Studies Review, 31(4), 423–433.
EPIGRAM
The word epigram means essentially an inscription,
for example, on a monument like an epitaph. It has
been used for a valediction, a homage, as in Samuel
Johnson’s 18th-century one for the writer Oliver
Goldsmith: “He touched nothing that he did not
adorn.” In more ways than one, it can finish some-
one off. It can be funny or poignant as in the Irish
comedian Spike Milligan’s (1918–2002) self-chosen
epitaph: “I told you I was ill,” which manages to
both praise himself for his prescience and chide the
unobservant survivors. Inscriptions can of course be
anonymous (“If God had not meant us to write on
walls, he would never have given us an example”).
The English humorist Alan Bennett (b. 1934) com-
ments thus on the widespread instance of such graf-
fiti: “When a society has to resort to the lavatory for
its humor, the writing is on the wall.”
For some millennia, the epigram has flourished
both in verse and prose. Ancient Greek epigrams
were often elegies. The Romans gave the form, and
much else, a brutal twist, especially visible in the
verses of Martial (40–102/4CE): “Your penis is as
large as your nose, Papylus, so you can smell it when
it’s erect.” The 17th-century English playwright and
poet John Dryden nicely illustrates the use of poetry
for epigrammatic comment: “The rest to some faint
meaning make pretence, / But Shadwell never devi-
ates into sense.” The use of deviate is unusual in
such a context, and it settles its target’s hash adroitly,
as the 18th-century English poet Byron does to his
contemporary Coleridge: “. . . explaining metaphys-
ics to the nation / —I wish he would explain his
explanation.”
The central thrust of the epigram lies normally in
its brevity: the pursuit of snappiness. To this end, it
often resembles the comic’s one-liner or wisecrack,
though not always. Listen to the 19th-century
American humorist Mark Twain praising himself
while apparently admitting deficiencies: “My books
are water; those of the great geniuses are wine.
Everybody drinks water.” Even so, such epigrams
know instinctively they must not outstay their wel-
come. The Hungarian-born British 20th-century
humorist George Mikes captures exactly this fact of
life: “Even the best joke necessarily remains the one-
yard sprint.” It is obvious that jokes and epigrams
are on intimate speaking terms. However, it is not
that epigrams are any more obliged than puns to be
amusing; indeed, both can be owl serious, as in the

play The Devil’s Disciple by George Bernard Shaw
(1856–1950): “Martyrdom . . . is the only way in
which a man can become famous without ability,”
or the only-too-true remark attributed to Shaw
(although its origin has been disputed): “England
and America are two countries divided by a com-
mon language.” Although elongated shaggy-dog
stories undoubtedly have their day, it is likely that
the very act of miniaturizing is inherently entertain-
ing. Little, or too little, is said so that the hearer or
reader needs to supply some imagination or sense
of humor to make all clear and pointed. The Irish
wit Oscar Wilde (1854–1900), at his most fatuous,
claimed that he “summed up all systems in a phrase,
and all existence in an epigram.”
Like satire, many epigrams are aimed to hit home,
to wound. With evenly-matched interlocutors (think
of William Shakespeare’s lovers), they can lead to
a duel of repartee and elegant insult. Such mutual
twisting of knives (“Is there no beginning to your
talents?” as British broadcaster Clive Anderson said
to the novelist Jeffrey Archer) can breed cynicism,
as in the 20th-century English writer Angela Carter
(1940–1992), “Comedy is tragedy that happens to
other people.” The epigram revels in irony, as in
the American thriller writer Raymond Chandler
(1888–1959), in a letter: “The Bible is a lesson in
how not to write for the movies.” Both the American
statesman Adlai E. Stevenson (1835–1914; “Man
does not live by words alone, despite the fact that
he sometimes has to eat them,” which literalizes an
idiom), and the American journalist A. J. Liebling
(1904–1963; “Freedom of the press is guaranteed
only to those who own one”) illustrate the simple
truth-telling potentialities of the epigram.
The twisting of set expressions often ensures
that an epigram is not logically true and can indeed
be surrealistic, as in Groucho Marx’s “Outside of
a dog, books are man’s best friend; inside, it’s too
dark to read.” This play on outside of is, in terms
of logic, nonsensical, but it still makes a humorous
point. Woody Allen’s offering is “Not only is there
no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends,”
where the joke resides in the contrasting forms of
help being sought but denied. Like Oscar Wilde, he
is a master of the epigram as paradox (“It’s not that
I’m afraid to die. I just don’t want to be there when
it happens”).
The tone of the epigram is smart, or, if insuffer-
ably so, smart aleck. The 20th-century American
wit Dorothy Parker (1893–1967) freely acknowl-
edged this, in a Paris Review interview, in 1956:
Epigram 213
“Wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words.”
The best instances, however, are perfectly serious
in their concision and verbal nattiness. The French
17th-century aristocrat and aphorist François de
La Rochefoucauld pulls us up short with “No one
would ever fall in love unless he had first read about
it.” Like aphorisms, epigrams do not state a fact but
more often a loaded opinion. The American writer
Ambrose Bierce (1842–c.1914) proposes an irreli-
gious pseudo definition. The Sabbath is “a weekly
festival having its origin in the fact that God made
the world in six days and was arrested on the sev-
enth.” This pun on rested/arrested provides the sting
in the tail of the genuine wisecrack.
Such an essentially verbal form cannot be made
visual. It can be seconded musically, as in the witty
songs of the 20th-century English playwright Noël
Coward, but can hardly be filmed like a pratfall,
a grimace, or even a pun. The suave English aca-
demic Noël Annan declared in 1966 in the House
of Lords, “The day of the jeweled epigram is passed
and, whether one likes it or not, one is moving into
the stern puritanical era of the four-letter word.”
The epigram is not alone in facing criticism. The
American 20th-century humorist Don Marquis
(1878–1937) laments that “writing a book of
poetry is like dropping a rose petal down the Grand
Canyon and waiting for the echo”; but at another,
more optimistic moment: “The art of newspaper
paragraphing is to stroke a platitude until it purrs
like an epigram.” So perhaps after all it can act as a
salvage operation on language.
The epigram, in short, appeals to those, eager
either to praise or to blame, who do not believe in
wasting their breath: the anti-gasbags. It will not go
away.
Walter Redfern
See also Anecdote, Comic; Anti-Proverb; Aphorism;
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Jestbooks;
Irony; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Maxim; Philogelos;
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices; Satire; Verbal
Humor
Further Readings
Anthony, E. (1962). O rare Don Marquis. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Barber, D. (1999). A brief for the epigram. Parnassus:
Poetry in Review, 24(1), 8–58.
Bierce, A. (ca. 1907–1911). The devil’s dictionary.
New York, NY: Neale.
214 Ethnic Jokes
Carter, A. (1991). Wise children. New York, NY: Farrar,
Strauss & Giroux.
Doelman, J. (2005). Circulation of the late Elizabethan and
early Stuart epigram. Renaissance and Reformation
(Renaissance et Réforme), 29(1), 59–73.
Doelman, J. (2005). The religious epigram in early Stuart
England. Christianity & Literature, 54(4), 497–520.
The Epigrams of Theocritus. (1836). Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine (American Antiquarian Society
Historical Periodicals), 40(254), 803–811.
Harris, L. (1977). Satan’s lexicographer. Rockville, MD:
American Heritage.
La Rochefoucauld, F. (1947). Réflexions ou sentences et
maximes morales [Maxims or sayings and moral
maxims]. Geneva, Switzerland: Éditions Pierre Cailler.
(Original work published 1665)
Lund, R. D. (2003). The ghosts of epigram, false wit, and
the Augustan mode. Eighteenth-Century Life, 27(2),
67–95.
Martial, E. (1993). Martial: Epigrams (D. R. S. Bailey,
Trans.; Vols. 1–3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Nisbet, G. (2003). Greek epigram in the Roman Empire:
Martial’s forgotten rivals. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Stevanović, L. (2007). Ridiculed death and the dead: Black
humor epitaphs and epigrams of the Ancient Greece.
Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU, 1, 193–204.
Swift, J. (1989). The complete poems. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin.
ETHNIC JOKES
The word ethnic comes from the Greek ethnos,
which means unbeliever. Early English meanings of
ethnic and race were very similar but now the terms
are often treated as distinct, with ethnic used to refer
to groups with significant cultural or genealogical
difference, rather than the biological categorization
often associated with racial difference. This entry
defines the ethnic joke, provides an outline of the
patterns of ethnic joking that have been recorded in
humor research, and offers some potential explana-
tions for the existence of this joking.
Ethnic jokes are most commonly identified as
jokes in which the butt of the joke is an ethnic group
other than that of the joke teller and target audience
of the joke. Although ethnic jokes can be told and
received by an ethnic group that is the butt of the
joke, most ethnic jokes are structured by, have devel-
oped in, and are specific to an ethnic or national
context where they are told about a neighboring
ethnic or national group that usually has a periph-
eral and colonial relationship to the group that is
doing the telling.
Jokes about ethnic groups have a number of
recurring themes and patterns across societies.
This implies that the ethnic groups involved have
a particular and similar social, economic, or politi-
cal relationship that helps construct the pattern of
joking. Simon Critchley (2002) explains that eth-
nic jokes are based on two contrasting ideas. First,
and most obviously, that the ethnic group is funny.
Second, that the ethnic group does not have a sense
of humor. Christie Davies (1996) has extensively
recorded ethnic jokes and identified some persistent
binaries that shape their appearance and content
in modern or industrial society. In some situations,
ethnic jokes ascribe the characteristics of stupidity
and canniness to different ethnic groups. In other
situations, the characteristics of cowardliness or
aggression (especially militarism) are given to eth-
nic groups through joking. We can see that all of
these characteristics are disparaging because even
canny jokes project negativity through the idea of
an ethnic group seeking personal gain at all costs
and to the detriment of other values. Jokes that label
ethnic groups as stupid or canny, or cowardly or
aggressive, always exist as a binary. For example,
in England, stupidity jokes have been told about
the Irish and canny jokes have been told about the
Scottish and Jewish people. This can be contrasted
with Irish joking where canny jokes have been told
about the same groups—the Scottish and Jewish
people—but stupidity jokes have been told about
an internal target—the Kerrymen, or those from
County Kerry. This shows the internalization of
colonial joking patterns. Stupidity and canny jokes
will not be told about all ethnic groups in a society.
Thus they may have a function for particular social
relations, tension, or conflict.
Christie Davies has argued that ethnic jokes are
especially popular in the modern world due to the
changing demands of rationalization. He argues that
stupidity jokes are aimed at those from undeveloped
or premodern societies and their motive derives
from the need to expel stupidity to the periphery in
a society that sees technological competence as more
significant and stupidity or human error as a greater
risk to personal safety in the modern age. Canny
characteristics are also seen to cause problems in
modern society. Important human values are miss-
ing in the canny individual and such jokes suggest
an ethnic group values personal or monetary gain

to the extent that sacred or ritualized areas of social
life, such as death or marriage, are exploited. This
is also linked to the commodification of loved ones,
emotion, and pleasure. Davies describes these jokes
as a negotiation of the competing demands of work
and leisure in modern society.
Studies of ethnic jokes often distinguish the exis-
tence of “ethnic scripts” and pseudo-ethnic jokes.
Victor Raskin (1985) describes how ethnic jokes
should contain one or two ethnic scripts, which are
stories or stereotypes about the ethnic group in ques-
tion that will be known to the teller and receiver of
the joke and will be subverted by the joke incon-
gruity or the punch line. Jokes that mention ethnic
groups but do not use preexisting ethnic scripts, or
those that describe ethnic groups in a way that could
refer to any group, are labeled pseudo-ethnic jokes
by Raskin. Ethnic scripts are usually disparaging of
the group in question.
An alternative explanation for the existence of
ethnic jokes would suggest they are motivated by
racist or colonial histories and language and so
are the result of intergroup relations imbued with
historical power relations. Through this lens, the
development of modern rationality is difficult to
separate from colonial or capitalist development
and the jokes play an active role in the creation and
communication of stereotypes on the ethnic groups
involved. In many instances, ethnic jokes are depen-
dent on stereotypes. This suggests that ethnic jokes
use the perceived negative characteristics of modern
citizens to ascribe ethnic groups that are situated at
the periphery of society with those characteristics.
This is a periphery that is occupied by ethnic groups
that have been the butt of hierarchical and historical
colonial or class relations, as well as jokes. It can be
argued that, even when the joke teller is not moti-
vated directly by prejudices and stereotypes toward
an ethnic group, the teller of an ethnic joke contrib-
utes to the continued articulation of these prejudices
and stereotypes.
Simon Weaver
See also Ethnicity and Humor; National and Ethnic
Differences; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Critchley, S. (2002). Humour. London, UK: Routledge.
Davies, C. E. (1996). Ethnic humour around the world.
A comparative analysis. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Ethnicity and Humor 215
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
ETHNICITY AND HUMOR
Ethnicity, in its various forms, is a common subject
for humor. Joking and humor about ethnicity have
appeared in many societies at numerous points in
history. This entry discusses ethnicity and humor
by outlining three relationships that have developed
between them. The relationships between ethnic-
ity and humor highlight some of the ways in which
humor can circulate inside a society, but they also
show how laughter is transmitted between societies.
In recent times, the ethics of ethnic humor have been
the subject of much debate and some of these issues
will be discussed as well.
The entry begins with a definition of ethnicity and
then presents the three key relationships one by one.
All of these relationships are theoretical abstrac-
tions and there are contestations, ambiguities, and
complexities involved in each that will be men-
tioned. First, humor that is created about an ethnic
group by those outside of the group is examined.
This first category is best described as ethnic joking.
A description of this humor is developed through a
discussion of Irish jokes and stereotyping. Although
these jokes are dependent on the negative stereotyp-
ing of the Irish, there are some complexities and
ambiguities entwined with this joking that will be
discussed. After that, the entry outlines the humor
that an ethnic group can develop and use from
inside of its group boundaries. This second rela-
tionship between ethnicity and humor is elaborated
via self-deprecating Jewish humor, which is also in
many ways a polysemic form of humor. Lastly, a
final relationship between ethnicity and humor is
discussed, which is humor directed outward from
an ethnic group. This is humor and ridicule that
develops from inside of an ethnic minority group
and is directed toward the majority. The relationship
is expanded via the concept of ethnic resistance and
the image of the Native American trickster.
Definitions of Ethnicity and Humor
Definitions of ethnicity vary, yet all refer to the clas-
sification of a group of people who self-identify as
a people. Most definitions include the possibility of
a shared lineage, ancestry or heritage, and history,
which can be expressed through shared culture or
216 Ethnicity and Humor
cultural practices, territorial claims, language, dia-
lect, and religion. Aspects of lifestyle and culture
help distinguish ethnicities at an everyday level and
there may be shared cuisine, dress, and forms of
entertainment, leisure, or media. In addition, there
are also important bodily elements to an ethnicity
and so groups may have shared mannerisms. All of
these components help construct a self-identifying
group. The factors that make up an ethnic group or
ethnicity will differ from one group or individual to
the next and so not all examples will be constructed
with all of the characteristics that can constitute
ethnicity.
Concepts such as nationalism and race signifi-
cantly overlap with definitions of ethnicity, although
there are significant distinctions. Identifications of
ethnicity are usually not imposed by a dominant
group that exists outside of the ethnic group. Rather,
they are the product of an amount of in-group self-
determination. This helps separate ethnicity from
race, which is usually described as a biological, hier-
archical, or political category that is imposed on a
group of people. An ethnicity will always be defined
in relation to other ethnic, national, or supernational
groups and ethnic groups often find themselves
inside other national spaces, with territorial claims
or connections to a diaspora, as significant elements
of their identity. All of these elements of ethnicity
can become the subject of humor and joking. Due
to the close connection that exists between racial,
racist, and ethnic discourse, there are often overlaps
between definitions of ethnic, race, and racist humor.
The relationships between ethnicity and humor
can be examined through existing theories of humor.
It is generally understood that three historical theo-
ries have dominated thinking on humor. These are
the superiority theory, the incongruity theory, and
the relief theory. The superiority theory—the idea
that through humor we seek to gain a sense of supe-
riority over the butt of the joke—can be employed to
show some of the implicit power relations involved
in joking about ethnicities and ethnic groups on the
periphery of society. This approach brings with it
a strong critique of humor. It can also be used to
explain the self-assertion of the trickster. Incongruity
theory—the idea that humor is created by putting
things together in an unusual and unexpected way—
can be viewed as a method for explaining why it is
that other ethnicities may be seen as humorous, as
ethnic difference is explained as creating incongru-
ity. Relief theory seeks to explain the psychological
release of tension that humor offers. This is an idea
that elaborates on the release of intergroup tension
through humor. Many have used this to explain the
function of ethnic jokes as a form of tension release.
Stereotypes, Ethnicity, and Humor
The first relationship between ethnicity and humor to
be discussed is humor that is directed from a major-
ity or central metropolitan ethnic group toward a
minority or peripheral group. This relationship is
frequently entangled with issues of acceptability and
offense, which is aggravated because of its depen-
dence on the articulation of stereotype. These jokes
are labeled ethnic jokes in humor research and are
told about national, ethnic, or migrant groups who
may have in the past, or even in the present, been
referred to as “ethnics” with a prerogative inflection
by a majority group. Irish jokes are a good example.
In some societies, stupidity and canny jokes are told
about different groups. In a number of societies, the
Irish represent a group that has been given the char-
acteristic of stupidity. In others, such as jokes about
Newfoundlanders in Eastern Canada, it is popula-
tions that have a large Irish ancestry that are the butt
of the joke. In this case all Newfoundlanders are
made fun of even though not everyone is Irish and
some people have mixed heritage.
Such jokes both rely on and create stereotypes.
The presence of stereotyping can be detected if the
ethnic group that is the butt of the stupidity joke is
replaced by a different ethnic group and the joke fails
to make any sense. If the joke fails to make sense, it
is not applicable to all groups and thus connected
to a stereotype of a particular group. Although not
all participants involved in the joking need believe
that a stereotype is true, a stereotype of the group
has to exist in society for the joke to work. This is
also the case for other characteristics given in joking
in addition to stupidity, such as canniness, aggres-
sion, and cowardice. For example, the case of jokes
about cunning or canny Jews is a clear example of a
pejorative, and in certain social contexts, dangerous,
ethnic stereotype that appears in humor.
In relation to Irish jokes, Laura Salisbury (2002)
explains how humor has historically been essential
for the stereotyping of the Irish. The relationship
between humor and ethnicity has seen the English
and British joke about the Irish as stupid alongside
a colonial relationship that subjugates the Irish.
This is a colonialism that is marred by violence and
starvation. The humor has therefore developed in
an historical context that does not favor the Irish.

Salisbury explains how “Paddy” is the image of the
Irishman that becomes a stereotype in this humor.
Paddy is both stupid and nonrational but Paddy also
provokes a number of other semantic associations.
The irrationality and stupidity of the Irish soon leads
to a description of cowardly behavior, unreliability,
and a lack of fit with English or British ways of
life. Christie Davies (1996) sees this style of joking
as directly related to the development of modern
rationality. This can be extended to include colonial-
ism because the colonial and the rational projects
were never distinct. Enlightenment philosophers
of reason, like Immanuel Kant, were keen to make
anthropological comments on other races that were
only possible because of colonial encounters and
only seemed accurate because of colonial paradigms.
The development of modern rationality, capitalism,
and colonialism were very much a part of the same
historical movements in the West. The stereotype of
the Irish focuses on the incongruities of language use
and rationality, particularly the misuse of language.
These stereotypes have also been used to describe
other groups, such as Black people, who were simi-
larly dispossessed by colonial encounters.
Although this humor is a clear expression of
superiority being lauded over the image of the Irish
as colonial subjects with risible dispositions, intel-
ligence, and speech, not all Irish jokes that use the
concept of stupidity will necessarily encourage
stereotype in every interpretation. There are times
when the stereotype is diverted and some resistance
formed. In these jokes, the English are presented as
inelastic and the Irish rise above them through a
paradoxical logic of the absurd that emerges from
their “illogical” expressions.
Self-Deprecation, Ethnicity, and Humor
The second relationship between ethnicity and
humor is one that sees the ethnic group direct humor
inwardly. This style can also employ stereotype but
for the purpose of self-deprecation. Humor research
has most often associated this style with Jewish
humor, frequently with the examples presented by
Sigmund Freud in his writings on humor and the
unconscious.
Freud’s psychoanalysis offers one theoretical
explanation for this relationship. He interpreted self-
deprecating humor as the super-ego (the internalized
authority in the mind) looking down on the ego (the
self) and laughing at the narcissism or self-importance
felt by the individual. This idea allowed Freud to
Ethnicity and Humor 217
separate self-deprecating humor from externally
directed jokes and to see this humor in a more favor-
able light because there is no expression of superi-
ority toward others. Michael Billig (2005) explains
how Jewish humor was one remaining expression or
fragment of Sigmund Freud’s “Jewishness” or ethnic-
ity. This suggests that humor can remain after other
more “serious” aspects of ethnicity have become less
noticeable or have been forced to disappear. Freud
saw the humor as a waste material of the mind that
could be used to make serious points about the social
world and the ethnic.
Jewish jokes provide a useful example of self-
deprecating humor with an ethical potential. Simon
Critchley (2002) explains how this self-deprecating
humor could be liberating and cathartic, and cer-
tainly a more ethical activity than externally directed
joking. To laugh at your own ethnicity is a funda-
mentally different activity than laughing at ethnic
jokes told about another group. In Freud’s interpre-
tation of the self-deprecating joke, where the ego
ideal (or the narcissistic element of the personality)
is made comic by the super-ego, humor may work to
relieve some of the absurdities confronted in the seri-
ous expression of our own ethnicities, nationalisms,
and associated cultural practices. The joke may be
an important way of negotiating the external pres-
sures of stereotype and the internal contradictions
of identity formation. Examples of self-deprecation
appear in Freud’s discussion of humor and also have
a strong presence in Jewish comedy post-Freud.
Recent examples from U.S. comedy include the late
Rodney Dangerfield and his “I get no respect” rou-
tines, and the numerous neurotic and self-abasing
characters of Woody Allen. The latter is, of course,
also significantly influenced by Freud.
Despite these observations, Jewish humor should
not be shoehorned too easily into the category of
self-deprecation. Just as in the example of the Irish
joke, there are ambiguities and complexities in this
form of humor. Many of the Jewish jokes identi-
fied by Freud may appear at first glance to be self-
deprecating but in fact refer to provincialism and
colloquialism and are specifically about eastern
European Jews. This form of humor could therefore
have more in common with the stereotyping ethnic
joke. Much self-deprecating humor may appear to
be about ethnicity, or about an ethnic group com-
menting on itself, yet it can have as much, if not
more, to do with notions of social class, social and
cultural capital, and civility and vulgarity that exist
inside of the ethnic group. Such examples perhaps
218 Ethnicity and Humor
highlight the “imaginary” nature of many ethnic
associations and the cleavages that exist inside of
ethnic groups. These jokes can fit neatly with the
superiority theory of humor that explains how
humor seeks to look down on and create distance
from the butt of the joke. Michael Billig also identi-
fies how much of Freud’s humor was more rebel-
lious than self-deprecating. The humor about Jewish
beggars and matchmakers (or marriage brokers) can
be seen to resist and overturn established ways of
being in the world and so may also have a lot in
common with the next example.
Ethnicity and the Trickster
The final relationship between humor and ethnicity
relates to the idea of the ethnic joker as trickster or
agent of resistance working against the hegemonic
or colonial power of a society. This relationship to
humor is described by Gerald Vizenor (1988) as one
that works against imposed representations to create
an uncertain humor that could counter the restric-
tive translations of minority or peripheral ethnici-
ties by dominant groups. His work develops these
ideas from an understanding of the humor of Native
Americans. Here, humor can be seen to elude domi-
nant ethnic or racial representation through mock-
ery, displacement, and counterexample.
Jonna Mackin (2002) discusses numerous com-
edy tropes in the Native American figure of the
trickster that act as an important political opposi-
tion to relations of domination. The trickster has
developed as this particular expression of ethnic-
ity and humor from a powerful Native American
symbol, which is a mythic and sacred ideal in
some Native American tribes. This is a figure that
is described as asocial. The trickster works and
acts on the outside of social mores. It is a form of
humor that is able to step outside of the box of
conventional or dominant ways of seeing. It is also
a humor that intends to destabilize language, offer
political critique, and act as a site of resistance for
Native Americans. Specifically, it is constructed
through techniques of satire and draws on cartoon-
ing and literary texts to attempt to render political
and territorial disputes humorous.
Similar relationships or patterns between ethnicity
and humor have developed in other ethnic groups.
We saw that much of Sigmund Freud’s Jewish
humor can be read as rebellious. In sociology and
cultural studies, research has also shown how the
humor of Black and Asian comedians can work to
attack racial stereotypes and racism. The U.S. come-
dian Chris Rock is especially good at this in relation
to African American social issues and White politi-
cal domination. Often the humorous techniques that
are most effective in creating resistance humor are
those that can show the absurdities of racism and
racial stereotypes through juxtaposing them with
alternative readings of race relations. This humor
has an aggressiveness and vulgarity to it that is seen
as necessary to overcome what might be described
as the imposed civilities of dominant representa-
tion. This style of trickster humor can be elaborated
through superiority theory because the ethnic come-
dian looks down on the butt of the joke, which is
the majority group. Yet it is also a method of release
for members of the ethnic group, who may not have
other forms of expression available to them. This
relationship between ethnicity and humor can be
seen to move beyond the binary of self-deprecation
and stereotype through the paradoxical assertion of
both group identity and the absurdities and entrap-
ment of group identity. This is best achieved through
the explosion of serious stereotypes and categori-
zations in humor. However, this format is also not
without its failings and trickster humor can also fail
and fall victim to other readings if it does not strike
the correct note. The trickster is not always the best
agent of resistance.
Three relationships between ethnicity and humor
overlap in the telling of humor by those on the inside
and outside of ethnic groups. This means that the
relationships between ethnicity and humor are fre-
quently ambiguous and that humor can be used for
a variety of purposes. Some of these encourage or
challenge our understanding of ethnicity but others
simplify and stereotype.
Simon Weaver
See also Ethnicity and Humor; National and Ethnic
Differences; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Billig, M. (2005) Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social
critique of humour. London, UK: Sage.
Critchley, S. (2002). Humour. London, UK: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1985). Humour. In Art and Literature
(pp. 427–433). London, UK: Penguin. (Originally
published 1927)
Freud, S. (1991). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. London, UK: Penguin. (Originally
published 1905)

Mackin, J. (2002). Trickster-outlaws and the comedy of
survival. In G. Harper (Ed.), Comedy, fantasy and
colonialism (pp. 189–204). London, UK: Continuum.
Salisbury, L. (2002). Laughing matters: The comic timing
of Irish joking. In G. Harper (Ed.), Comedy, fantasy
and colonialism (pp. 158–174). London, UK:
Continuum.
Weaver, S. (2010). The “other” laughs back: Humour and
resistance in anti-racist comedy. Sociology, 44(1),
31–48.
Vizenor, G. (1988). The trickster of liberty: Tribal heirs to a
wild patronage. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
OF HUMOR
The aim of evolutionary explanations is to high-
light aspects of behavior that are deeply rooted in
humans. Evolutionary explanations of humor focus
on the adaptive value of humor and laughter based
on known evolutionary forces, namely natural selec-
tion and sexual selection. Over millions of years of
evolution, humor has been shaped to serve advanta-
geous functions for surviving and reproduction, the
two key features of any trait facilitated by evolution.
This entry explains why there is strong evidence that
humor has an evolutionary basis and how humor
helps humans survive and reproduce. It also reviews
the most common evolutionary theories that explain
the function of humor.
How Do We Know That Humor Evolved?
Researchers have been studying the evolutionary
adaptations behind many human attributes and
behaviors for decades. Biologists have identified sev-
eral key features that indicate whether a certain trait
has an evolutionary basis. This includes universality
of the trait, early developmental onset, and presence
in other species, especially our closest relatives, other
primates. Let us examine how humor fits these gen-
eral criteria for adaptation.
First, humor is a universal human phenomenon,
enjoyed on a daily basis in both tribal and indus-
trialized societies. Mechanisms such as surprise and
incongruity in nonserious social interactions are
ubiquitous and seem to elicit mirth from people
everywhere in the world. Second, smiling and laugh-
ter have been documented not only in all human
societies, but also in other species, especially apes
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor 219
and primates. There are even studies that suggest
that rats can laugh.
In primates, there seem to be two distinct facial
expressions that are homologous to human smiles
and laughter. The silent bared teeth display is
equivalent to the human smile and appears as a sign
of submissive appeasement that leads to an inhibi-
tion of aggression in the receiver, while the relaxed
open mouth display, homologous to human laugh-
ter, appears in social play as a sign of enjoyment.
While these two displays are quite distinct in apes
and emerge only in specific situations, they seem to
converge in humans. Humans smile and laugh in
response to the same stimuli, and the smile or laugh-
ter reflects the magnitude of joy, not the nature of
the interaction as with other apes.
Third, smile and laughter develop around the
same time, early and spontaneously, in every cul-
ture in the world. Babies who are just born smile
reflexively and start laughing vocally at around 2 to
4 months of age. These smiles and laughs develop
before language and have stereotypical expression
and sounds that are easily recognizable by every
culture in the world. If we record laughter or take
pictures of people smiling and laughing in one soci-
ety, and then present them to members of another
society, they will easily recognize them and attribute
the correct emotion to them. Even babies who are
born blind or deaf smile and laugh involuntary, not
needing to see or hear others smile and laugh, lend-
ing support to the notion that smile and laughter are
not restricted by culture.
Evolutionary Mechanisms
That Can Explain Humor
Several evolutionary theories have been offered over
the years to explain the adaptive function of humor.
These theories vary in scope and illuminate differ-
ent facets of humor and laughter. While there is no
consensus among researchers on what evolutionary
theory best explicates humor, all theories fall under
one of two evolutionary mechanisms: natural selec-
tion and sexual selection. Natural selection is the
process by which humans and animals inherit bio-
logical traits that help them to survive and repro-
duce. If humor was shaped via natural selection,
then we can expect that it will contribute to one’s
health, directly or indirectly (for example, by reliev-
ing the tension in a fearful situation). Explanations
that are based on sexual selection theory emphasize
the importance that humor plays in finding a mate
220 Evolutionary Explanations of Humor
and how it can enhance the chances of reproducing
successfully. Let us examine some of these theories
in more detail.
Sexual Selection Theory
Different evolutionary life histories for men and
women helped shape their mate preferences and
behaviors and resulted in some disparities in the way
they enjoy and use humor today. These differences
arise from asymmetry in their reproductive costs
and the amount of time and energy they have to
devote to parental investment. In humans, as with
most other mammals, women bear the heavier costs
of reproduction, such as pregnancy and child rear-
ing, while having a shorter reproductive span. This
leads women to become choosier in selecting a mate,
since the consequences of selecting the wrong part-
ner could be much more costly (e.g., raising a child
alone). Thus, women are more attentive to cues that
indicate high mate value, while men try to signal
that they are high-quality mates.
According to sexual selection theory, many
human traits and behaviors evolved through mutual
mate choice to signal mate quality, including capaci-
ties such as language, creativity, art, music, and sense
of humor. These traits evolved to serve as indirect
signals for individual genetic quality because they
are hard-to-fake indicators and because of their cor-
relation with intelligence, a very important trait that
helped humans survive throughout our evolutionary
history. Humor, therefore, serves as an honest fit-
ness indicator that correlates with underlying genetic
quality. Because women are choosier, one should
expect men to use humor to signal their mate quality
more often and more creatively than women, while
women should be more sensitive to these signals
when selecting a mate.
Research supports the notion that sense of
humor is a very desirable trait for both sexes when
choosing a mate but is more valuable for women.
For example, studies on dating websites show that
women seek a date with a sense of humor twice as
often as men do, and men who use humor in their
ads are more likely to be successful in finding a date.
Moreover, when men and women indicate that they
want a mate with a good sense of humor, they usu-
ally mean different things. Women want a man who
will make them laugh, while men want a woman
who will laugh at their humor, both compatible
with the evolutionary prediction that men signal and
women evaluate. In addition, men score, on average,
higher than women on humor creativity tasks, and
those who have a good sense of humor enjoy bet-
ter mating success—start having sex earlier, have a
higher number of sexual partners, and have more
sex in general—compared to the less funny individu-
als. Studies also show that women tend to smile and
laugh more in general, and particularly in response
to male speakers or when men are around, while
men initiate humor more, especially in the presence
of women, all of this in accordance with sexual
selection theory.
Men can also help their chances of being selected
as a mate if they can achieve higher status among
their male counterparts. Men can utilize humor to
their advantage and suppress potential rivals by
using put-down humor or other forms of aggressive
humor. Research suggests that in some situations,
such other-disparaging humor can be effective in
raising one’s status, but in other cases, it can dimin-
ish the attractiveness of the joke teller in the view of
women.
Humor and Play
Many primatologists have noted that rates of affinity
among chimpanzees and other primates increase fol-
lowing relaxed open mouth display (the equivalent
to human laughter). Relaxed open mouth display
is observed primarily during play, especially chas-
ing and wrestling games, which leads researchers to
hypothesize that humor evolved from social play.
Children all over the world laugh the most dur-
ing play, and similar to what happens with other
primates, laughter largely arises during chase and
fleeing games and wrestling with each other. Play
serves as a safe environment to rehearse and develop
the physical and social skills such as social bond-
ing and cooperation that children will need as
adults and will contribute to their survival. The
laughter that accompanies such play signals to the
participants that the activity is playful, without seri-
ous ramifications, and thus allows them to acquire
important skills in a safe environment. Similar to
the function that scuffling has among children and
other primates, humor may also serve as ritual or
symbolic fighting that has a winner or loser but does
not seriously hurt any of the participants. As adults,
instead of getting involved in a physical fight, people
can use humor as a refined weapon that carries
no physical harm or cost against others, especially
superior authorities. Children and primates practice
play wrestle among themselves, and the tickling and
 Evolutionary Explanations of Humor 221

laughter involved indicates that it is “just for fun.” like a circuit breaker or a safety valve. When people
Laughter therefore indicates, for both children and laugh, they are immediately distracted from anything
adults, that the aggression is not real, and by using else and hence, laughter prevents them from doing
humor effectively, people can poke fun at others things that are counterproductive, damaging, even
without putting themselves at risk. disastrous. In this view, humor is an adaptive mech-
anism whose function is diversion, forcing people
Social Bonding to stop and think and consider their actions before
they do something that might be dangerous to them.
Humor is a phenomenon that serves many social
Physiologically, when people laugh, their muscle ten-
functions. Studies show that humor helps break
sion decreases and they are incapable of doing any-
down interpersonal barriers, can be used as an ice
thing for a short time, thus disabling them from any
breaker in awkward situations or among strang-
effective action. Humor, then, helps to shift the focus
ers, and generally acts as a social lubricant. People
from the external situation inward and causes one to
are much more likely to laugh when they are sur-
evaluate the situation more thoroughly.
rounded by others, a desirable outcome that is plea-
The distraction that laughter evokes not only
surable for all. It was therefore hypothesized that
saves people from trouble and from taking things
humor evolved to facilitate bonding in social groups,
too seriously, but it also sends this message to others.
as a way to promote cooperation, and is especially
It alerts the surrounding people that what is hap-
important when people do not know each other
pening has only trivial consequences, and there is no
very well or when conflicts arise. Humor can aid in
real threat to them in the current situation. Humor
easing the tension before a dangerous situation has
usually involves two ideas that seem incompatible
the potential to deteriorate further, and ultimately,
with each other until the end, when they are able
enhance the survivorship of the individuals involved,
to resolve the incongruity between them, and it all
either directly or indirectly.
makes sense. This ambiguous situation may lead
Throughout our evolutionary history and the
someone to contemplate a serious action when it can
evolutionary history of hominids that preceded
lead to dire consequences. For example, someone
humans, social cooperation among members of the
might go home after work and hear strange voices
group became increasingly important for survivor-
inside the house. He might suspect that there is bur-
ship. At some point, hominids had to rely on each
glar inside and become vigilant. When he carefully
other to survive, since acting completely solitary in
opens the door, he hears a big shout of “surprise”
a harsh environment was too costly and too risky.
from many of his friends and relatives. He starts
Cooperation is one of the most important of the
laughing, realizing that this is a surprise party that
features that make humans so successful as a spe-
his wife arranged. Laughter, therefore, signals that
cies, and it works best when everyone in the group
no one needs to take the situation seriously or allo-
is on the same page regarding the tasks and goals
cate valuable resources and energy to it, thus pre-
at hand. To produce such cooperation, there must
venting the situation from further escalating.
be some social mechanism that can coordinate the
From a psychological point of view, assessing
actions of everyone involved. Laughter can serve
an ambiguous situation correctly enables the indi-
such a function by inducing a playful mindset that
vidual to avoid wasting limited cognitive resources
every member in the group feels at the same time.
that could have been invested elsewhere. The brain
Laughter is contagious, and when everyone in the
is bombarded with information needed to make
group laughs and shares the same feeling, it is easier
sense of all of it and to avoid allocating resources to
to work together and reach the group’s goals. People
process insignificant events. Humor acts as a debug-
needed the group’s cooperation to survive in the hos-
ging mechanism that assists in removing erroneous
tile environment that characterized the better part of
ideas or information that somehow crept into one’s
human evolutionary history. Additionally, there is a
mind and hinders its function. Since our brain has
benefit to the group as a whole, giving it a competi-
limited resources, evolution should favor an effi-
tive advantage over other, less mirthful groups.
cient mechanism that would facilitate removing
this unnecessary and mistaken information before
Humor as a Circuit Breaker
it can cause any damage and direct our resources
One evolutionary hypothesis posits that humor to more fruitful needs. This is best illustrated with
evolved to serve as a disabling mechanism, operating jokes, the basic form of humor. Jokes start with a
222 Exaggeration
setup that introduces a certain idea that leads peo-
ple to believe in one thing, and then the punch line
alters that perception, forcing them to reinterpret
that idea and realize that what they thought was
actually wrong. The reward system that motivates
people to conduct such debugging is manifested by
the emotion of mirth, the good feeling that we get
after a laugh.
Conclusion
It is accepted among researchers that humor and
laughter have an evolutionary basis, but there is no
single evolutionary explanation for humor that is
accepted among all scholars. There are many evo-
lutionary theories, each one emphasizing a different
mechanism by which humor has helped humans to
survive or contributed to their reproductive success.
Since it is impossible to go back to prehistoric times
and see how exactly humor evolved, these sophisti-
cated theories are sometimes no more than educated
guesses. Humor and laughter do not fossilize, and
judgment must be based on observations of humor
among people today, which is then used to infer the
evolutionary function of humor indirectly. There is
a dearth of empirical data for many of the theories,
a gap that is sure to be filled in the future. A good
evolutionary theory will be able to explain the vast
expressions and uses of humor among people today
and make specific and unique predictions that can
be tested empirically. Until then, the jury is still out
regarding the riddle of the origin of humor.
Gil Greengross
See also Appreciation of Humor; Brain,
Neuropsychology of Humor; Creativity; Gender and
Humor, Psychological Aspects of; Humor Production;
Play and Humor; Psychology
Further Readings
Alexander, R. D. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity:
The reproductive significance of humor. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 7, 253–270.
Bressler, E., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006).
Production and appreciation of humor as sexually
selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27,
121–130.
Chafe, W. (1987). Humor as a disabling mechanism.
American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 16–26.
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and
functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach.
The Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 395–430.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2011). Humor ability
reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is
higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.
Hurley, M. M., Dennett, D. C., & Adams, R. B., Jr. (2011).
Inside jokes: Using humor to reverse-engineer the mind.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K.,
Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary
perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest
indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35, 923–936.
Preuschoft, S., & Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. van. (1997). The
social function of “smile” and “laughter”: Variations
across primate species and societies. In U. Segerstrale &
P. Molnar (Eds.), Nonverbal communication: Where
nature meets culture (pp. 171–190). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weisfeld, G. E. (1993). The adaptive value of humor and
laughter. Ethnology and Social Biology, 14, 141–169.
Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic
contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 918–929.
EXAGGERATION
The term exaggeration, from the Latin for “to
heap up,” refers to statements that make claims
beyond the limits of truth or represent something
as greater than it really is. Some definers empha-
size the idea of enlarging or increasing beyond
what would normally be expected, while others
focus on the deliberate and frequently humorous
nature of such statements. Exaggeration often con-
sists of contrasts of degree, particularly in number
(e.g., “thousands”), quantity (e.g., “bucketsful”),
space (e.g., “massive”), time (e.g., “forever”), and
intensity (e.g., “absolute”). Some statements can
be so frequently used they become conventional-
ized and are no longer perceived as exaggerations
(e.g., “I spent a fortune!”). Synonyms include
amplification, embellishment, hyperbole, magnifi-
cation, and overstatement.
Usage and Forms
Exaggeration is typically verbal in nature, but it
can also be purely visual (as in caricature, in which
particular physical features are grossly distorted).
Verbal exaggeration is often marked by the use
of certain grammatical forms, such as by the col-
location of an intense adverb and an extreme
adjective (e.g., “absolutely ridiculous”). It is not

necessary that the exaggeration implies impossibility
(e.g., “I waited forever for you” vs. “I waited hours
for you”) but it often occurs.
The interpretation of exaggeration is embedded in
the context of the speaker and listener (or in the case
of visual exaggeration, the artist and the viewer). To
interpret the statement as exaggeration, the listener
or viewer must possess relevant knowledge about
the situation (e.g., knowing that it is not uncom-
mon for some people to wait for hours or even days
in line to see the premiere of a movie, and that the
same behavior for the premiere of a local play would
be much less likely).
Attempts to measure the frequency of exaggera-
tion have yielded disparate results. One study of
English language use in contemporary short stories
found that exaggeration was the second most fre-
quently used non-literal form (metaphor was most
common). However, another study, which used
corpora of spoken English, found one exaggerated
statement per thousand words.
Empirical research has demonstrated that chil-
dren frequently misunderstand exaggeration, per-
ceiving it as deception or as an error. Perhaps not
surprisingly, therefore, it appears relatively rarely in
language of adults directed at preschool children.
Exaggeration has been shown to be employed in
the service of specific discourse goals, such as to be
humorous, to emphasize, and to clarify. However,
the relationship between these goals is complex.
Highly exaggerated statements are not perceived as
more humorous, but they have been shown to make
the speaker’s communicative goal clearer.
Relationship to Other Non-Literal Forms
Exaggeration is related to verbal irony and can
make irony more obvious, but these two tropes are
distinctly different. While both represent a departure
from reality, an ironic statement is a counterfactual,
whereas an exaggeration is an extreme interpreta-
tion of a truth or nontruth (e.g., on a rainy day, an
ironist might say, “What a lovely day!” whereas
an exaggerator might mutter, “This is the worst
weather ever!”). The two might co-occur in a state-
ment such as “This is the loveliest weather I have
ever seen in my life!” Both exaggerated and ironic
statements may employ specific intonation cues to
make the non-literal aspect more clear (as in the use
of slow speaking rate or heavy stress), but neither
form requires this (deadpan irony avoids the use of
these cues).
Exaggeration 223
As with irony, exaggeration is often found in
metaphor and simile, but again, these tropes can
also exist independently. Metaphors and similes
relate one thing to another, and exaggeration may
be employed to enhance the comparison (e.g., “She
looks like an angel” vs. “She looks like a heavenly
deity of the highest order”). Exaggeration is also
used in satire and parody to achieve certain commu-
nicative effects. For example, Jonathan Swift (1729)
uses exaggeration throughout A Modest Proposal to
ridicule the British aristocracy.
One area of dispute concerns the relationship
between exaggeration and understatement. On one
hand, it may be the case that extreme statements are
comprehended in the same way (i.e., make use of the
same psychological processes). On the other hand,
understatement has been shown to satisfy different
discourse goals, such as to deemphasize and to show
negative emotion. It is also the case that understated
humor and exaggerated humor seem quite different,
both in character and in form.
Roger J. Kreuz and Monica A. Riordan
See also Burlesque; Caricature; Farce; Irony; Parody;
Satire; Tall Tale; Verbal Dueling
Further Readings
Cano Mora, L. (2005). On the verge of impossibility: A
conversational and discourse approach to hyperbole in
interaction. In J. L. O. Campo, I. N. Ferrando, & B. B.
Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to
metaphor and metonymy (pp. 175–186). Costelló de la
Plana, Spain: Universitat Jaume.
Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based
study of exaggeration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative
thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1995). Two cues for verbal
irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor
and Symbolic Activity, 10, 21–31.
Kreuz, R. J., Roberts, R. M., Johnson, B. K., & Bertus, E. L.
(1996). Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence
in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S.
MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and
aesthetics (pp. 83–97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2004). “There’s millions of
them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36, 149–184.
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use
figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159–163.
224 Exaggeration
Sell, M. A., Kreuz, R. J., & Coppenrath, L. (1997). Parents’
use of nonliteral language with preschool children.
Discourse Processes, 23, 99–118.
Stewart, C. O., & Kreuz, R. J. (2003). On the
communicative function of exaggeration: How to be a
million times clearer. Communication Research Reports,
20, 331–340.
Winner, E. (1988). The point of words: Children’s
understanding of metaphor and irony. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
 F
FABLIAU
Fabliaux are short comic verse tales composed for
listening audiences in France during the 12th, 13th,
and early 14th centuries. The date of Watriquet de
Couvins’s “The Three Ladies of Paris” (1321) marks
the approximate end of the genre.
The rapidly recurring rhymes of their octosyllabic
couplets reinforce the swift action that characterizes
the fabliaux. The shortest is 18 lines: “The Priest
and the Sheep,” which tells of a sheep butting an
adulterous priest. The longest is 1,364 lines: “The
Priest and the Knight,” a revenge comedy that grows
longer and funnier with each term of a poor knight’s
revenge against a wealthy priest’s inhospitality.
The comic plots of the fabliaux can be domestic
or courtly, scatological or bawdy, crammed with
double entendres or taboo words. In crudeness, they
range from “The Knight Who Could Make Cunts
Speak” and “The Maiden Who Couldn’t Hear Fuck
Without Having Heartburn” to Henri d’Andeli’s
humorously courtly “The Lai of Aristotle” and the
humorously theological “St. Peter and the Jongleur.”
The fabliau can be considered a parallel genre to the
verse fable (such as those of Marie de France), not
only because the words fable and fabliau are similar,
but also because, like fables, they are short and begin
or end with morals. Fabliau protagonists, however,
are human rather than animal, and while fables are
instructive, the addition of a moral to a scatologi-
cal or bawdy or plain silly fabliau only adds to the
comedy. In one of the versions of “The Young Man
225
With Twelve Wives,” for instance, a bachelor who
has bragged that he will need 12 wives to satisfy him
sexually learns soon after marrying one that he lacks
the endurance to satisfy even her alone; this comical
tale ends with two morals, one of them relevant (a
man should not brag) and one amusingly, irrelevantly
anti-feminist (a man should not trust his wife).
Fabliau plots frequently involve a pretty young
wife, an older husband, and a lecherous student or
priest. The genre is considered to be anti-clerical
because of its many lecherous, greedy, and glutton-
ous priests. It is also often considered anti-feminist
because of the many tacked-on anti-feminist morals
and because most of the married women cheat on
their husbands. However, because the adulterous
women usually act with more energy and intelli-
gence than their husbands and lovers and because
their adultery often partially frees them from the
stifling strictures of man-dominated marriage, many
fabliaux may be interpreted as feminist rather than
anti-feminist. In addition to women’s pervasive intel-
lectual superiority, some fabliaux even grant physi-
cal superiority to women—superior sexual stamina
in fabliaux such as “The Young Man With Twelve
Wives,” or even anatomical superiority in “Berenger
of the Long Ass,” where a wife, disguised as the
knight errant Berenger of the Long Ass, cows her
braggart husband and forces him to kiss her bare
behind. The husband, still believing Sir Berenger is
a man, observes with mistaken amazement the long
line of her vagina and anus and by kissing it implic-
itly acknowledges the superiority of a woman’s
“long ass” to a man’s penis.
226 Factor Analysis of Humor Items
Most fabliaux are structured like jokes, building
throughout the telling to a well-prepared surprise or
comic resolution, as in “The Wife of Orleans,” where
a jealous farm owner’s servants end up beating him in
a trap he has elaborately set for his wife’s lover. Much
of the humor of the longer fabliaux comes from comic
repetition, as in “The Priest and the Knight” and “The
Priest Who is Carried,” aptly subtitled “The Long
Night,” whose first 200 lines describe a man strangling
his wife’s priest-lover in a hot bath, the wife’s maid’s
attempt to conceal the priest in the bathtub under
the mistaken assumption that he is still alive, and the
horror with which both women finally discover he
is dead. After this grim beginning, the length of this
second-longest fabliau (1,164 lines) results from the
numerous, increasingly funny failed attempts to dispose
of the corpse. Some of the fabliau humor is parodic,
mostly of courtly love literature, but also of epic lit-
erature. “Aloul,” the third longest fabliau (986 lines)
begins with a priest’s mock-courtly courtship of a rich
farmer’s wife and continues with a series of mock-epic
battles between the priest and the farmhands who dis-
cover and try to trap him. The epic drinking bout in
Watriquet’s “The Three Ladies of Paris,” with its repeti-
tions of drinking, sallying to the streets, collapsing dead
drunk, and reviving, parodies the heroism of the epics.
The poems are usually anonymous or by other-
wise unknown authors, but the renown of two, Jean
Bodel and Rutebuef, implies that the genre itself was
respected. The fact that over 150 fabliaux survive
in parchment, many in more than one manuscript,
attests to their popularity.
Scholars are not sure why the genre seemed to
die out after “The Three Ladies of Paris.” Fabliaux
were probably superseded among public audiences
by plays, notably farces, whereas with increased
literacy, readers and story collectors came to prefer
the same and similar stories in prose collections
such as Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron. Geoffrey
Chaucer did include a few English-language fabliaux
such as the “Miller’s Tale” in his late-14th-century
Canterbury Tales. In the late 17th century, Jean de la
Fontaine revived the genre with his Tales (Contes).
John DuVal
See also Boccaccio, Giovanni; Clergy; Farce; History of
Humor: Medieval Europe; Jokes
Further Readings
Bédier, J. (1964). Les Fabliaux. Paris, France: Champion.
(Originally published 1893)
Cobby, A. E. (2009). The old French fabliau: An analytical
bibliography. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Cooke, T. D. (1978). The old French and Chaucerian
fabliaux: A study of their comic climax. Columbia:
University of Missouri Press.
DuVal, J., & Eichmann, R. (1992). Fabliaux fair and foul.
Binghamton, NY: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and
Studies.
Noomen, W., & Boogaard, N. V. (1983). Nouveau recueil
complet des fabliaux [New complete collection of
fabliaux] (I–X). Assen, Netherlands: Van Corcum.
Nykrog, P. (1957). Les Fabliaux. Copenhagen, Denmark:
Ejnar Munksgaard.
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF
HUMOR ITEMS
Factor analysis of humor items is used to derive new
concepts (i.e., identify “functional units,” or compo-
nents of humor) in a yet unexplored domain and to
purify scales (i.e., identify items that do not measure
the construct very well and need reformulating or
eliminating). The purpose of the former is to provide
a new structure to a field by deriving single concepts,
or an entire model of humor; the purpose of the lat-
ter is to improve an existing humor scale. Humor
items that have much in common will load on the
same factor, that is, will be markers of a component
(for example, “I enjoy joking around with others”
and “I use humor to foster group morale” can be
markers of social aspects of humor use). Factor
analysis is applied to the intercorrelation of items
and the analysis then helps determine the number
and nature of factors (latent constructs, in this case
“types of humor”) that are needed to statistically
explain humor. This method can be applied to items,
such as behaviors, statements, stimuli, for example,
but also humor scales. In both cases, the aim is to
derive a structural model of humor (e.g., a taxon-
omy of jokes, styles of everyday humor behaviors,
components of the sense of humor). Finding the fac-
tors (or components of humor) and labeling them
is the first of several steps. Further steps are repli-
cating the factors by substituting humor items or
using new samples, also in different countries, and
looking at causes (genetics, environment), correlates,
and consequences (health, workplace behaviors,
etc.) of these humor factors. This entry discusses
the methodological considerations of factor analysis
of humor items, reviews factor analytic studies of
 Factor Analysis of Humor Items 227

humor items, and considers the need for further used as units of analysis. James A. Thorson and
research to determine additional humor factors. Falvey C. Powell developed the Multidimensional
Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS) in 1993 on the
Methodological Considerations basis of 124 statements about humor, which were
reduced to 70 statements correlating with age and
In general, the success of such studies depends on
gender before they were factor analyzed, leading to
how representative the sampled humor items are.
four factors: humor production and social uses of
Ideally, one first defines a universe of humor items
humor, coping/adaptive humor, humor appreciation,
and then draws items from it randomly. Such a uni-
and attitudes toward humor. Kenneth Craik and col-
verse could be, for example, all jokes and cartoons
leagues analyzed the broadest set of nonredundant
in a culture available at a certain time. Not defining
statements regarding everyday humorous conduct
the entire universe, or not drawing randomly, will
and found four to six factors. The authors chose
result in a biased sample and hence not a compre-
a five-factor solution (with bipolar factors), which
hensive model. Another issue determining the out-
allowed them to define 10 styles of humor, namely
come is whether the answer format is unrestricted
the socially warm versus socially cold, reflective ver-
(e.g., a rating scale) or ipsative (e.g., a Q-sort,
sus boorish, competent versus inept, earthy versus
where every person has the same mean). This has
repressed, and benign versus mean-spirited humor
been used in humor statements (to compensate for
styles. Recently, the statements of the Humorous
social desirability, as pointed out by Kenneth Craik,
Behavior Q-Sort Deck (HBQD) have been reana-
Martin Lampert, and Arvalea Nelson in 1996), or
lyzed in a self-and peer-rating format by Willibald
in ratings of jokes to avoid cases where people like
Ruch and Liliane Müller (2013), who found four
everything or nothing, as Raymond Cattell and
factors that separated socially warm/competent,
Lester Luborsky (1947) point out. Further consid-
mean-spirited/earthy, inept/repressed, and reflective/
erations relate to the analysis: the relation of the
benign humor. Comparing the approaches by James
components (independent of each other, orthogo-
Thorson and Falvey Powell (1993) with Kenneth
nal or interrelated, oblique), the hierarchy (general
Craik and colleagues, one can state that the MSHS
or multiple factors), and the arrangement (e.g., a
is mostly accounted for by the latter approach, but
circumplex).
not vice versa. More precisely, one can see a high
A factor (e.g., of humor appreciation) will only
convergence of the socially warm/competent fac-
emerge if at least two markers for the factor are
tor between the approaches. The factor of coping
included in the sampled items. Bloated specifics
humor was not found in the HBQD, maybe due to
occur when a very narrow and unimportant aspect
the fact that it uses nonredundant items. The “lik-
is oversampled; for example, when many variants of
ing of humor” factor contains exclusively negatively
“coping with humor” enter formulations of items, a
scored items and might relate to the inept factor.
very potent factor will emerge that gives the appear-
Appreciation of humor only contained two items
ance of being more important than it actually is.
and it is not represented in the HBQD.
Another issue is that all variables should be roughly
The earliest approach of analyzing humorous
at the same level of abstraction; a global concept,
material (not behaviors or feelings) dates back to
such as appreciation of humor, should not be mixed
Hans-Jürgen Eysenck who, in 1942 was the first
with specific variables, for example liking of a come-
to administer factor analysis to determine catego-
dian, a particular funny film, or a single punch line.
ries of humor. He found a general factor (people
Furthermore, the sample or participants should not
differ in whether they appreciate jokes at all) and
be restricted in variance (or be too homogeneous);
three factors: sexual versus nonsexual, simple ver-
for instance, in a sample of successful comedians,
sus complex, and personal versus impersonal. In
low scores in humor will be missing altogether,
1947, Raymond Cattell and Lester Luborsky fac-
which will lower the intercorrelations among scales
tor analyzed 100 jokes in 100 men and women
and thus distort the factor structure.
and first yielded 13 clusters that later fell into five
factors that the authors considered to represent
Factor Analytic Studies of Humor
general personality, namely (1) good-natured assur-
Items: A Short Review
ance, (2) rebellious dominance, (3) sex repression,
On an item level, questions or statements about (4) passive derision, and (5) sophistication. Cattell,
humor or stimuli such as jokes and cartoons were like Eysenck, believed that humor tests allow for
228 Factor Analysis of Humor Scales
an objective measurement of personality traits (e.g.,
anxiety, extraversion). Cattell yielded more factors
as he used a forced choice answering format, which
eliminates strong factors (e.g., no general factor
could be derived as found in Eysenck’s approach)
and overestimates the importance of weak factors.
Willibald Ruch started with a collection of 600 jokes
and cartoons and in three initial samples found and
replicated three factors, namely two structural and
one content factor (incongruity-resolution, nonsense,
and sexual content), which were later replicated in
different cultures. The results resemble Eysenck’s, in
as much as only sexual content formed a separate
(content) category and as structural features were
proven to be important (complexity vs. simplicity
resembles the distinction into incongruity-resolution
vs. nonsense).
Factor analysis was also applied to ratings of
jokes representing aspects of theory (such as degree
of incongruity, see Wicker, Thorelli, Barron, &
Ponder, 1981) or sheer affective responses (such
as amusement or indignation, as in the studies by
Willibald Ruch). Furthermore, other research-
ers like Robert Abelson and Jacob Levine (1958)
applied factor analysis to jokes in specific groups
of people (e.g., psychiatric patients), and humor-
related words, and there were also factor analyses of
comedians such as the 1976 one by Howard Pollio
and John Edgerly.
Conclusion
Factor analysis as a structure building and testing
tool has contributed to the classification within
domains of humor. There is convergence that state-
ments about humor behaviors, thoughts, and actions
form a strong first factor of socially warm humor
that merges expressing smiling and laughter, positive
emotions, liking to entertain others, for example.
There is also evidence that four or more factors are
needed whose nature is less clear, but one of which
relates to negative views about humor or ineptness
in relation to humor. More studies are needed here,
ideally in different cultures. Humor is a personal-
ity trait, and personality research has achieved some
consensus over the past 50 years on the number and
nature of factors of personality that need to be dis-
tinguished. A systematic effort in humor research
might prove equally effective and help establish the
dimension along which individuals vary in their
humor. Factor analyses of humor stimuli confirmed
that structure and content contribute to funniness,
but there is not yet a consensus across countries on
what the dimensions are.
Willibald Ruch and Jennifer Hofmann
See also Appreciation of Humor; Factor Analysis of Humor
Scales; Humor Styles; Humor Styles Measurement;
Personality, Humor and; 3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Abelson, R., & Levine, J. (1958). A factor analytic study of
cartoon humor among psychiatric patients. Journal of
Personality, 26(4), 451–466.
Cattell, R. B., & Luborsky, L. B. (1947). Personality factors
in response to humor. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 42(4), 402–421.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996).
Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous
conduct. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 9(3), 273–302.
Eysenck, H.-J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: An
experimental and theoretical study. British Journal of
Psychology, 32(4), 295–309.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pollio, H. R., & Edgerly, J. W. (1976). Comedians and
comic style. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),
Humour and laughter: Theory, research and
applications (pp. 215–244). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor:
Studies with the 3 WD humor test. In C. D. Spielberger
& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 27–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W., & Müller, L. (2013). The dimensions of humor:
A hierarchical factor analysis approach. Manuscript
submitted.
Thorson, J. A., & Powell, F. C. (1993). Development and
validation of a multidimensional sense of humor scale.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 13–23.
Wicker, F. W., Thorelli, I. M., Barron, W. L., & Ponder,
M. R. (1981). Relationships among affective and
cognitive factors in humor. Journal of Research in
Personality, 15(3), 359–370.
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF
HUMOR SCALES
Factor analysis explains the relations of several cor-
related variables (in this case, humor scales) through
lower number of factors; that is, it helps identify the

number and nature of the components of humor.
Humor as a trait is most likely a multidimensional
construct, but no existing approach to humor can
claim to be comprehensive. The existing approaches
overlap but also seem to have unique compo-
nents. Arguably, looking at all existing conceptual
approaches simultaneously may result in a more
comprehensive model. One could apply a large vari-
ety of humor scales to the same sample and then
perform a factor analysis at the level of individual
items or at the scale level to detect the commonal-
ity among these humor measures. This entry pres-
ents basic descriptions of factor analysis and general
methodological issues. A review of the current litera-
ture on the factor analyses of humor scales is given,
and conclusions from this research are offered.
Factor Analysis
In factor analysis, every response is accounted for
by a factor score (person-factor relation) and a fac-
tor loading (item-factor relation) of each extracted
factor plus an error term. The main goal of a fac-
tor analysis is data reduction, that is, explaining a
number of observed variables with a lower number
of latent, nonobservable components (in a princi-
pal component analysis, or PCA) or common fac-
tors (in an exploratory factor analysis, or EFA).
PCA and EFA are two kinds of exploratory factor
analytic techniques, in which the number of compo-
nents or factors to be extracted and their composi-
tion (i.e., the variable loadings on each component
or factor) is not set a priori. In contrast to a PCA,
the EFA distinguishes between common factors (that
are loaded by several variables) and specific factors
(that are unique to each variable). The specific fac-
tors are eliminated by estimating the communalities
(i.e., reducing the 1 in the diagonal of the correlation
matrix to the amount of variance explained by the
common factors).
Two essential decisions in conducting exploratory
factor analyses include how many factors to extract
and how to rotate these factors. The Kaiser criterion
demands that the variance of a factor (i.e., its eigen-
value) should exceed the variance of a variable; that
is, only factors with an eigenvalue greater than one
should be retained. This criterion leads to overfac-
toring when many variables are used. More appro-
priate approaches are Raymond Cattell’s 1966 scree
test (determining the elbow in the eigenvalue or scree
plot and dropping all factors that lie beyond) and
John Horn’s 1965 parallel analysis (comparing the
Factor Analysis of Humor Scales 229
empirically derived eigenvalues with those derived
from matrices of random data of the same number
of rows and columns and retaining all factors whose
eigenvalues are greater than the random ones).
Rotation is necessary to achieve a simple structure
that can be easily interpreted, that is, high loadings
of a variable on one factor and low loadings on all
other factors. Orthogonal rotations (like varimax)
lead to uncorrelated factors, while oblique rotations
(like oblimin) allow for intercorrelations.
In addition to these two techniques, there are
factor analytic methods to explain a hierarchical
structure among latent factors (hierarchical fac-
tor analysis; see Lewis Goldberg’s 2006 study for
details). Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test
a priori hypotheses about the relations of observed
variables and latent factors. Correlations, factor
loadings, and variances are set in a theoretically
derived model, which is tested for its fit and which
also can be contrasted with competing models (for
evaluation of model fit, see Li-tze Hu and Peter
Bentler’s 1999 study). In general, readers are advised
to consult books on factor analysis, such as Stanley
Mulaik’s 2009 The Foundations of Factor Analysis.
Methodological Considerations
The quality of the results of factor analysis depends
on the quality of the variables that go into it. A fac-
tor (e.g., of humor appreciation) will only emerge if
at least two variables for the factor are included in
the sample (such as “I enjoy reading cartoons and
jokes,” “I like comedians,” and “I often watch com-
edies”). Another issue is that all variables should be
roughly at the same level of abstraction; a global
concept (e.g., appreciation of humor) should not
be mixed with specific variables (e.g., liking a spe-
cific comedian, a particular funny film, or a single
punch line). Furthermore, the sample of participants
should not be restricted in variance (i.e., it should
not be too homogeneous); for example, in a sample
of successful comedians, low scores in humor may
be missing altogether, which will lower the intercor-
relations among the scales and thus distort the factor
structure.
Furthermore, independent replication of factors
should be obtained through substituting variables
and samples used. Ideally, such research is done in
several countries combining markers (i.e., variables
with the highest loadings on the factors of interest)
from prior studies, but also new material stemming
from each respective country (e.g., humor-related
230 Factor Analysis of Humor Scales

words, liking of humor in that culture). Replication or HSQ, by Rod Martin, Patricia Puhlik-Doris,
of factors in the domain of self-report is not suf- Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir) might
ficient. A confirmation in other domains such as lead to more or different factors.
peer reports, behavior observation, or performance The two studies with the highest number of
tests should be required. For example, self-reports scales used (the 1996 study by Köhler and Ruch
of being witty or competent in humor would gain and the 1998 study by Ruch and Carrell) involved
in validity if they correlated to a reasonable extent 24 subscales of humor inventories. Joint factor
with behavioral tests of wittiness or humor cre- analyses confirmed that all sense of humor scales
ation. Gabriele Köhler and Willibald Ruch’s 1996 available at that time yielded a potent first factor of
pilot study of self-report and performance mea- sense of humor, or alternatively labeled cheerfulness
sures of humor appreciation and creation, however, (i.e., affect-based temperament). This factor was
did not yield high correlations across assessment characterized by components such as a prevalent
approaches, suggesting the presence of method vari- cheerful mood, the tendency to smile or laugh and
ance and low convergent validity for the measures. to be merry, coping humor and cheerful composed-
ness, initiating humor, and liking of humor stimuli.
Factor Analytic Studies of Humor Also Paul McGhee’s (1999) sense of humor com-
Scales: A Review ponents marked this factor well (i.e., enjoyment of
Only a few studies employing factor analyses of humor, laughter, verbal humor, finding humor in
humor scales have been published, all using adult everyday life, laughing at yourself, and humor under
populations: stress). Of the scales published more recently, most
likely the social and self-enhancing humor style (on
the HSQ) and the socially warm vs. socially cold
humorous style (on the HBQD) would load on this
Author Year Name of study
factor as well.
Gabriele 1996 Sources of variance in The second factor, seriousness, involved mental-
Köhler and current sense of humor ity or attitudes like being often in a serious mood
Willibald inventories: How much and displaying a serious/non-playful attitude. In
Ruch substance, how much the 1998 study by Ruch and Carrell, the serious-
method variance? ness factor was bipolar due to the use of McGhee’s
David 1991 An exploratory factor bipolar component of playfulness. In the same study,
Korotkov analysis of the sense of a third factor—bad mood—emerged. The relevance
humor personality of seriousness and bad mood to sense of humor can
construct: A pilot project. be demonstrated only if the inventories sampled
Willibald 1994 Temperament, Eysenck’s also cover humorlessness. Aspects like inept humor
Ruch PEN system, and (from the HBQD) or self-defeating humor (from the
humor-related traits. HSQ) might merge with bad mood, and in several
studies, aggressive humor and an earthy humor style
Willibald 1998 Trait cheerfulness and were antagonistic to seriousness, as can be seen in
Ruch and the sense of humor. the 2011 study by Willibald Ruch, René Proyer,
Amy Carrell Claudia Esser, and Otilia Mitrache.
In sum, traditional humor scales seemed to pri-
marily tap into a two-dimensional system of affect
In accord with humor being multidimensional, (good vs. bad humor) and mentality (serious vs.
two factors were consistently found, namely playful frame of mind). As indicated above, these
cheerfulness and seriousness. Although these stud- results are only temporary and constitute the mini-
ies used representative humor scales available at mum dimensions needed in a comprehensive model
that time, it is important to keep in mind that the of humor. Taking into account newer measures
multidimensional scales developed in the past 15 (such as the HBQD and the HSQ), one can assume
years (such as the five-dimensional Humorous that at least three dimensions are unaccounted for
Behavior Q-sort Deck, or HBQD, by Kenneth by the traditional sense of humor scales (such as
Craik, Martin Lampert, and Arvalea Nelson; and earthy, aggressive, mean-spirited, and self-defeating
the four-dimensional Humor Styles Questionnaire, humor). Thus, future research will need to study

whether those additional factors are replicable and
how they relate to other humor scales. Eventually,
factor analyses of all available humor scales might
lead to a comprehensive multifaceted model of
humor, which would constitute a seminal taxonomy
for further research in the field.
Conclusion
Thirty years have elapsed since the resurgence of
interest in measuring the sense of humor. Yet, no
replicable solution with current humor instruments
has been obtained. Moreover, little progress has
been made in developing a comprehensive taxon-
omy of humor. Instead, researchers have used humor
instruments in a myriad of studies predicting health
or behavior. Such studies have only preliminary
utility and will need to be redone when a compre-
hensive model of the sense of humor becomes avail-
able. Humor researchers should coordinate research
efforts, ideally across cultures, to reach consensus as
soon as possible, rather than taking 90 years as did
the researchers into the structure of intelligence.
Willibald Ruch and Sonja Heintz
See also Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor; Factor
Analysis of Humor Items; Humor Styles; Humor
Styles Measurement; Test Measurements of Humor
Further Readings
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of
factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2),
245–276.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996).
Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous
conduct. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 9, 273–302. doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-
4.273
Goldberg, L. R. (2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The
development of hierarchical factor structures from the
top down. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,
374–358. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.001
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of
factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2),
179–185.
Hu, L.-T, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Köhler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in
current sense of humor inventories: How much
substance, how much method variance? HUMOR:
Failed Humor 231
International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 363–397.
doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.363
Korotkov, D. (1991). An exploratory factor analysis of the
sense of humour personality construct: A pilot project.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 395–397.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90055-G
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal
of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75. doi:10.1016/
S0092-6566(02)00534–2
McGhee, P. E. (1999). Health, healing, and the amuse
system: Humor as survival training. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Mulaik, S. A. (2009). The foundations of factor analysis.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ruch, W. (1994). Temperament, Eysenck’s PEN system,
and humor-related traits. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 7, 209–244. doi:10.1515/
humr.1994.7.3.209
Ruch, W., & Carrell, A. (1998). Trait cheerfulness and the
sense of humor. Personality and Individual Differences,
24, 551–558. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00221-3
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. P., Esser, C., & Mitrache, O. (2011).
Cheerfulness and everyday humorous conduct. In
Romanian Academy, Yearbook of the George Barit
Institute of History, Department of Social Research
(Ed.), Studies and researches in social sciences (Vol. 18,
pp. 67–87). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Argonaut Press.
FAILED HUMOR
A complete theory of humor must take into account
its failure. An attempt at humor may not succeed for
a variety of reasons; due to problems on either the
speaker’s or hearer’s side and because of the impor-
tant role humor plays in the maintenance of human
relationships, its failure presents an interactional
dilemma for both participants. Speakers whose
attempts at humor fail because they were not under-
stood or not appreciated by the audience clearly risk
loss of face for their blunder. Less apparent, perhaps,
are the challenges faced by the audience, whose
failure to recognize or understand a joke may label
them, as well, as interactionally incompetent.
One of the main difficulties in working on
failed humor is in its identification. Distinguishing
a sincere, if poor or corny, attempt at humor from
metahumor, where the speaker makes a joke about a
joke, provides one example of the complexity of this
232 Failed Humor
issue. In this case, however, cues may be present in
the interaction to indicate the status of the utterance,
as humor or metahumor, or a post-hoc interview
may be used to clarify the speaker’s intentions, the
hearer’s perception, or both. However, if an attempt
at humor is not recognized or not acknowledged by
the hearer, nor is the hearer’s lack of reaction com-
mented on by the speaker, the analyst has no way of
identifying the failure. Perhaps for this reason, work
on failed humor has overwhelmingly tended to focus
on failure from the perspective of the audience.
Nancy Bell and Salvatore Attardo’s 2010 typology
represents an attempt to systematically define the
ways that humor can fail. It identified seven levels at
which humor can fail.
1. The audience did not hear or was unable to
process the utterance.
2. The audience did not understand a word(s) or
its connotations.
3. The audience did not understand the pragmatic
force of the utterance and instead understood
only the literal meaning (e.g., an absurd
observation that someone is not very talented at
walking sets that person to practicing in front
of a mirror).
4. The audience did not recognize that the
utterance was delivered within a humorous
frame, instead seeing it as serious.
5. The audience did not understand the
incongruity of the joke (this despite succeeding
in all of the preceding levels—here intercultural
differences may come strongly into play).
6. The audience did not appreciate the humor (the
joke may be too familiar, childish, or offensive,
for instance).
7. The audience was not able to join in the joke.
Derived from the hearers’ perspectives, this is a
competence-oriented framework; however, the
performance in failed humor must also be taken
into account. Most of the levels in this framework
can have correlates from the speaker’s perspective.
For example, a speaker may fail to use appropri-
ate contextualization cues to frame the utterance
as humorous (level 4), or may use professional
jargon that is unknown to the hearer (level 2). For
a full account of the failure of humor, we must
recognize that communication involves both par-
ties in an emergent, finely tuned negotiation of
meaning, involving both competence and perfor-
mance factors.
In keeping with the predominately competence-
oriented perspective on failed humor, the majority
of the empirical research in this area has focused on
responses to failure. The precise interactional and
interpersonal consequences of failed humor have yet
to be thoroughly examined; however, the existing
small body of work suggests that the type of reaction
varies according to the type of failure. Discussions of
offensive humor, which are just one aspect of level 6
in Bell and Attardo’s framework, are by far the most
common type of failure that has been studied. In
these cases, not only does the teller of a joke that was
found offensive risk accusations of prejudice, but in
expressing offense, the hearer, too, faces potential
social stigma in being positioned as humorless. Both
interlocutors also face trouble when an attempt at
humor is found unfunny by its hearers. The speaker
clearly risks being identified as someone with a
poor sense of humor, but hearers must construct a
response that demonstrates their recognition and
understanding of the attempt at humor, while also
communicating their lack of appreciation. A hearer
who simply ignores a joke that he or she does not
find amusing may be seen as lacking a sense of
humor. Humor may also be deliberately designed to
succeed for some audiences, while failing for oth-
ers. Here, too, the reaction of the audience members
will have social consequences, likely creating social
distance between the two groups of recipients.
Many questions regarding failed humor remain.
Noticeably lacking are analyses of failed humor
in naturally occurring discourse. Not only would
such projects allow for the analysis of both compe-
tence and performance, but they would enable us
to identify the conditions and management of fail-
ure and describe who fails, when, and under what
conditions. In contrast, a sociological perspective
could offer insight into the processes of failure
on a broader level. Mass media and the Internet
allow virtually any public (and even some private)
attempts at humor to be spread to wide audiences
that the speaker never intended to reach, virtually
ensuring that the humor will fail for some hearers.
The issue of humor that succeeded in its original
context, but failed when met with a broader audi-
ence, complicates the analysis of failed humor.
Quantitative research into failed humor would
allow us to identify further patterns, such as which
types of failure are most common. Offensive humor,
which has received the most scholarly attention,

is not necessarily the most common type of fail-
ure. Finally, research into the psychology of failed
humor will help us understand how judgments take
place.
Nancy Bell
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Appreciation
of Humor; Comprehension of Humor; Humor
Detection; Insult and Invective; Reactions to Humor,
Non-Laughter
Further Readings
Bell, N. (2009). Responses to failed humor. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 1825–1836.
Bell, N., & Attardo, S. (2010). Failed humor: Issues in non-
native speakers’ appreciation and understanding of
humor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 423–447.
Lockyer, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Dear shit-shovellers:
Humour, censure, and the discourse of complaint.
Discourse and Society, 12, 633–651.
Priego-Valverde, B. (2009). Failed humor in conversation:
A double-voicing analysis. In D. Chiaro & N. Norrick
(Eds.), Humor in interaction (pp. 165–183).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
FARCE
Farce is traditionally regarded as the lowliest of all
dramatic genres, despite the fact that theater pro-
fessionals regard it as the most difficult to perform.
Paradoxically, it is the most violent and physical
style of performed comedy and yet gives the least
social offense. Literary scholars damn it for many
reasons, including its unashamed popular and eco-
nomic success, which has made it a staple of dra-
matic fare throughout history. It is found around the
world—in ancient Greece, Sanskrit dramas of the
1st century CE, medieval Europe (especially France),
and in traditional Japanese theatre of the Edo period
(17th to 19th centuries CE). The actors of the Italian
commedia dell’arte specialized in farce (among other
things) and it dominated the Parisian and London
stages in the late 19th century, flourishing again
with the development of silent movies and then talk-
ies, even in TV sitcoms. Today it is often combined
with other comic genres; but British playwrights
Michael Frayn (b. 1933) and Ben Elton (b. 1959)
and filmmakers Mel Brooks (b. 1926) and Michel
Hazanavicius (b. 1967) are some who have created
contemporary gems of pure farce.
Farce 233
What Is Farce?
Unlike “high comedy” or comedy of manners, which
exploits verbal wit and rounded naturalistic char-
acters, farce depends on physical joking and styl-
ized acting and exploits flat-type characters, often
known as “comic masks.” Carefully balanced plot
structures ensure it treads a fine line between enter-
taining and giving offense. These plot structures are
found in all types of farce from the simplest fair-
ground performances to the fully developed five-act
plays of the late 19th century, and their functioning
is central to the nature of farce.
Farce is essentially conservative. It does not seek
to point to any particular lesson for its audiences and
has little reforming zeal—or even despair—about
the ways of the world and human nature. Socially
respectable victims make it funnier (provided any
moral implications about their humiliation are
avoided), but at the end of the comic upheavals, farce
plots restore conventional authorities—or at least
save their face. This distinguishes farce from other
comic genres or styles such as satire and absurdism’s
“black” or gallows humor (sometimes called meta-
physical or intellectual farce), which are critical in
purpose, as well as from tragicomedy and romantic
comedy, which engage the audience’s empathy.
The fundamental jokes in any farce plot are
first, the inescapable fact that all human dignity is
at the mercy of the human body and its appetites
and needs; and second, an acknowledgment that the
human body itself is imprisoned by the space-time
continuum. If there is any moral message, it is simply
that our common humanity levels all of us down.
Farce is thus best regarded as comedy reduced
to its fundamentals, stripped down to its basics,
designed purely to entertain. Despite—perhaps
because of—its avoidance of social comment and
empathy, farce is a rigorous theatrical form, requir-
ing finely honed performances from its actors, with
speed, precision timing, and plausible interpretation
of stock characters. While farce is a distinct genre,
its structures and techniques can be and often are
fruitfully used in support of other more complex
dramatic purposes and comic styles.
Techniques of Farce
The chief techniques are mechanical patterning in
plots; characters; and actions, such as repetition,
inversion, simplification, and exaggeration; “crossed
wires” of miscommunication; mishaps; and slap-
stick (stylized beatings or other physical humiliation
234 Farce
of humorless targets). Many of these were outlined
by Henri Bergson (1900). Farce often highlights
the role of physical objects that seem to take on a
life of their own. As in dreams, action and time are
either speeded up or slowed down. When charac-
ters are allowed the time and opportunity needed
for self-awareness, they shift toward a more sympa-
thetic type of comedy. So farce plots and actors must
largely debar empathy for their victims while ensur-
ing human interest is not lacking. Above all, the
carefully patterned scenes and characters on stage
must establish a semblance of credibility. It is impor-
tant to note that many of these techniques can be
used for purposes other than those of “pure” farce,
as discussed below.
Farce and Its Comic Structures
The core of any farce plot—indeed of all comedy—
is a conflict between indulgence and restraint or
between flexibility and the norm. Hence the use of
stock character types (every possible negative ste-
reotype, including race, sex, and gender), who must
be broadly recognizable but sufficiently individu-
ated to engage the audience. They usually represent
opposing signifiers whose energies spark the ensu-
ing conflicts: such as Youth versus Age, Inferior ver-
sus Superior, Insider versus Outsider, Female versus
Male, Witty versus Unwitty, and so on.
The immediate recognizability of these stereotypes
allows their behavior and roles to be predicted, with
(later) surprise overturning of expectations. Prediction
and surprise together create incongruity, the key ele-
ment of many theoretical approaches to humor.
The tropes of trickery and aggression in farce plots
also invoke the superiority theory of humor (we
laugh, knowing more than the dupes on stage), and
Freudian-style satisfactions are found in transgression
and Schadenfreude. Moreover farce illustrates the
Bakhtinian spirit of carnival indulgence. Thus all three
so-called principal humor theories—incongruity, supe-
riority, and release theory—can be said to apply to
farce, with Bergsonian analysis particularly relevant.
History and Origins
In Greco-Roman times, farce was known as a sub-
literary kind of comedy associated with Megara
in Greek Doria. There are references to stereotypi-
cal Megaran gluttons, uppity slaves, and scheming
parasites in play texts and vase paintings. Prize-
winning dramatist Aristophanes assured his audi-
ences he would never stoop to using such low jokes,
despite including plenty of them in plays such as
The Frogs and The Wasps. At least one surviving
Roman comedy text, Plautus’s Mostellaria (The
Haunted House), is pure farce: a romp through the
self-indulgent world of silly young lovers guided by
Tranio, a scheming slave who deserves but evades
death at his elderly master’s hands.
Down the ages, itinerant troupes of entertainers
undoubtedly used short farces since they required
few characters but were very funny. Recorded texts
are scarce (the late-13th-century CE Le Garçon et
l’aveugle from Picardy may reflect one), but their
existence can be inferred from traditions inherited
by later theater companies. Molière, for example,
featured clowns in his early more farcical plays,
including one called Sganarelle, whose name and
character point to Italian antecedents. The Sanskrit
prahasana farce texts of the 7th century CE are
much earlier—although their topsy-turvy words are
sometimes interpreted as satiric since they lampoon
holy men as well as the upper class. But these tar-
gets and jokes do not differ in essentials from those
of farce in any age, for example the Japanese Kyo–
gen farces of 14th to 17th century CE, which mock
the local daimyo– (landed gentry), or the tricks of
the Punakawan gluttons and clown-servants who
dominate farcical episodes in the Javanese wayang
(shadow-plays), dating from 10th century CE. Such
short farces might combine with other more serious
dramatic pieces to make a balanced theatrical bill,
as Kyo–gen follows a No– play; or they might serve as
interludes of comic relief within a larger narrative
as in the wayang. Farce is well suited to this role
of comic “stuffing.” Its most likely etymological
derivation is from Latin, farcire or French, farcir (to
farce or stuff), although an alternative heritage relat-
ing to trickery and deception has been proposed.
Combined, they describe the genre very accurately.
European Farce
Most medieval European language groups pos-
sessed their own type of farcical playlets, such
as the mid-14th-century Dutch sotternie, which
accompanied romantic abele spelen, and German
Fastnachtspiele—played at Shrovetide as a final
indulgence before Lent, and chiefly known from
the Nuremberg plays of Hans Sachs (1494–1576).
England’s uniquely surviving example of medieval
farce, the Wakefield Secunda Pastorum (Second
Shepherds’ Play, ca. 1400–1450), was played as part
of a longer religious Miracle Cycle. Both the word

and concept of farce is Romance in origin—farsa
in Italian and Spanish, farce or fars(s)e in French.
An especially rich record survives of about 200 Old
French texts, dating from Le Garçon et l’aveugle
(mentioned earlier) to the 1530s.
In 15th-century France, secular festive societies
perpetuated some aspects of the religious Feast of
Fools (banned in 1435), and the professional guild
of law clerks, the Basoche, took a particular lead in
comic performances. In the hands of these educated
young men, mimicry and satire flourished. In Paris,
a possible sub-branch or affiliate of the Basoche,
known as Les Enfants sans souci (carefree children),
is recorded as having combined forces with a religious
confrèrie to stage drama, both sacred and secular.
Besides serious morality plays, two types of comic
plays were performed: allegorical and satirical sot-
ties, usually played by characters dressed as sots
(fools), mostly designed to critique both Church
and state; and the more realistic farces. These were
defined in Thomas Sebillet’s Art Poétique François
in 1548 as concerned with “badineries, nigauder-
ies et toutes sotties esmouvantes à ris et plaisir”
(p. 65; “bantering, tomfoolery and every kind of idi-
ocy that can give rise to laughter and amusement”
as translated by J. Milner Davis). Such anonymous
masterpieces of trickery as La farce de Maître
Pierre Pathelin and La farce du cuvier (Farce of the
Washtub) have been translated many times and con-
tinue to be produced today.
Despite the preeminence of classical models in the
Renaissance, farce was celebrated for its amusement
value and lack of formal restrictions. One dramatist
wrote, “The Farsa is a new third species between
tragedy and comedy. It enjoys the liberties of both,
and shuns their limitations” (Giovan-Maria Cecchi,
La Romanesca, Prologue, 1585). Characters and
plots were spread by the touring Italian commedia
dell’arte troupes (whose repertoire also involved
gymnastic mime, spectacle, and fantasy). Like
Molière, Shakespeare used farce to evolve his own
comic style and also for comic relief—for example in
The Merry Wives of Windsor episode of fat Sir John
Falstaff as a would-be lover stuffed into a sack, a
standard medieval farce-trope.
Modern and Postmodern Farce
As European public theaters expanded, farce served
in a long theatrical bill as either an invitational draw-
card, or a “farce-afterpiece,” both designed to attract
and retain an audience. The 18th-century Parisian
Farce 235
stage employed the parade, often scatological and
burlesque, staged outside a theater before the house
opened. Afterpieces were played inside, flourishing
with the advent of gaslight and later the music hall.
The most famous British example is John Madison
Morton’s Box and Cox (1846), a tale of two lodgers
uncomfortably sharing the one tiny room, who dis-
cover they are long-lost brothers. Reflecting farce’s
folk roots was the 19th-century Viennese Posse mit
Gesang (a farce with singing), whose masterpiece
was Einen Jux will er sich machen (He’ll go on a
spree) by Johann Nestroy (1801–1862), adapted by
Tom Stoppard as On the Razzle in 1981. Reflecting
farce’s sophistication were the fashionable high-
bourgeois settings of turn-of-the-century Parisian
farces. Many were extended five-acters, but Georges
Feydeau’s series of five one-act farces, Du Mariage
au divorce (1908–1911), is superb. Anton Chekhov’s
earlier short farces reflect a range of social settings
(e.g., The Bear, 1888, which the author termed “a
joke in one-act,” set on a country estate). Both series
are the work of master farceurs.
Farce made the transition from music hall to silent
movie and then to talkies but adapted less well to the
intimacy of TV, a medium demanding more empa-
thetic characters than are usually found in farce. The
mid-20th century saw a critical reevaluation of the
genre with some studies celebrating what they saw as
its wild unreason. More accurately, farce was recog-
nized as an important element used by many drama-
tists and filmmakers for nonfarcical purposes—made
perhaps grotesque, bitter, saccharine, or critically
corrective. Farce lends vitality to theatrical experi-
mentation and comic artists now push “pure” farce
in many different directions, as foreshadowed by the
creation of theater of the absurd in the early-20th
century. Postmodern dramas and films deliberately
play with established genre patterns, using signals
to tilt and shift mood and feeling, undercutting
expectations with reversals, incongruities, dead ends
and pauses, and using self-referential comments
and parodic shadows of well-known genre clas-
sics. Russian theater director Vsevolod Meyerhold
(1874–1940) judged farce to be the lifesource from
which the theater can always renew itself.
Jessica Milner Davis
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Greek Comedy;
Ancient Roman Comedy; Bergson’s Theory of the
Comic; Carnivalesque; Comic Relief; Commedia
dell’Arte; Feast of Fools; Freudian/Psychoanalytic
Theory; Genres and Styles of Comedy; History of
236 Farce
An 1869 advertising card for Cox and Box by the lithographer Alfred Concanen. The Royal Gallery of Illustration was a
19th-century performance venue in London.
Source: Theatre and Performance Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Humor: Medieval Europe; History of Humor:
Renaissance Europe; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Kyo– gen;
Low Comedy; Masks; Molière; Movies; Parody;
Pastiche; Postmodern Irony; Sanskrit Humor; Satire;
Shakespearean Comedy; Sitcoms; Slapstick; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Bergson, H. (2005). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the
comic. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Originally published 1900)
Bermel, A. (1990). Farce: A history from Aristophanes to
Woody Allen. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Chekhov, A. P. (1950). Four short plays: The bear, the
proposal, the wedding, the anniversary (J. West, Trans.).
London, UK: Duckworth.
Denny, N. (Ed.). (1972). Medieval interludes. London, UK:
Ginn.
Enders, J. (Ed. & Trans.). (2011). The farce of the fart and
other ribaldries: Twelve medieval French plays in
modern English. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Kerr, W. (1975). The silent clowns. New York, NY: Alfred
Knopf.
Milner Davis, J. (2003). Farce. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Milner Davis, J., & Wells, M. A. (2006). Kyo– gen as comic
relief: Farce and satire in the Japanese classical theatre.
In J. Milner Davis (Ed.), Understanding humor in Japan
(pp. 127–153). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University
Press.
 Feast of Fools 237

Redmond, J. (Ed.). (1988). Farce. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, N. R. (Ed. & Trans.). (1982). Feydeau, first to
last: Eight one-act comedies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Smith, L. (1989). Modern British farce: A selective study of
British farce from Pinero to the present day. Totowa,
NJ: Barnes and Noble.
FEAST OF FOOLS
The Feast of Fools developed in the late 12th and early
13th centuries as an elaborate and orderly liturgy for
the day of the Circumcision of Christ (January 1).
Celebrating the biblical principle that “God chose
what is foolish in the world to shame the wise”
(1 Cor. 1:27), the feast allowed lower members of
the clergy, particularly the subdeacons, to assume
leadership roles in worship usually reserved for the
cantor or the bishop. Largely confined to cathedrals
and collegiate churches in northern France, the Feast
of Fools flourished in some cities for more than
three centuries before gradually succumbing to pres-
sures of reform. Although it was not the disorderly
clerical revel that scholars have often imagined, the
feast was certainly open to moments of good humor.
The first surviving notices of the Feast of Fools
come from Paris, Beauvais, and Châlons-en-
Champagne between 1160 and 1172. All three
sources testify to a joyous, expansive, but not yet
fully settled liturgy for the Feast of the Circumcision.

Victor Hugo’s novel Notre-Dame de Paris (also known as The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) opens on January 6, 1482, the
occasion of the annual Feast of Fools. The hunchback Quasimodo is elected Pope of Fools and is then paraded through
the streets on a mock throne. Throughout Book 1 of the novel, the crowd taunts church and university officials.
Source: Illustration by Louis Boulanger and William Finden (1878); Wikimedia Commons.
238 Feast of Fools
In Châlons, a procession through the city center
paused for clergy and people to join hands in a cho-
ral circle dance. In Beauvais, a live ass was led into
the cathedral at the start of first vespers, perhaps
recalling the journey of the Holy Family to Egypt.
These communal acts of worship were incorporated
into a divine office that extended over 24 hours,
celebrating the incarnation of Christ, honoring his
mother Mary, and inviting worshippers to set anxi-
ety aside and to enjoy a time of divinely permitted
gladness.
An isolated series of official complaints about
the Feast of Fools at the turn of the 13th century
can be traced to Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) or
his representatives in France. Based on ill-founded
rumor rather than on eyewitness testimony and
motivated at least in part by Innocent’s ongoing con-
flict with the French king, these complaints nonethe-
less prompted a burst of creative liturgical reform. In
1198, the bishop of Paris, Eudes of Sully, established
a settled office for the Feast of the Circumcision in
the cathedral of Notre-Dame. An even more elabo-
rate office of the Circumcision was drawn up by Peter
of Corbeil, archbishop of Sens between 1200 and
1222. The Sens office is a dignified and often beau-
tiful score for corporate worship, deeply indebted
to the biblical text and rich in musical variation. It
remained in use in Sens cathedral until the mid-16th
century. Similarly elaborate offices were established
in Beauvais and Le Puy-en-Velay for the feast of the
Circumcision and in Laon—which honored its sub-
deacons five days later—for the feast of Epiphany.
In 13th-century Beauvais and Laon, the Feast of
Fools was also the occasion for elaborate liturgical
plays. Although serious in intent and conducive to
worship, these plays were not afraid to invite laugh-
ter. The Laon Office of Joseph found comic poten-
tial in the economic shrewdness of the Ishmaelite
merchants who bought Joseph for a low price in
Canaan and sold him for a high price in Egypt and
in the mimed antics of Potiphar’s wife (convention-
ally played by a male cleric) as she tried to seduce
Joseph. The Beauvais Play of Daniel briefly invited
its audience to join in the laughter of the Babylonian
court, thereby implicating the townspeople’s own
amusement at supposedly pagan New Year activities
outside the church.
Over the next two centuries, the Feast of Fools
expanded to some 20 further cathedrals and colle-
giate churches in northern France. Unaccompanied
polyphonic chant, simultaneously joyous and
disciplined, accommodated occasional inversions
of hierarchy. In Autun, participant laughter during
the procession of the ass was considered a mea-
sure of piety. In 14th-century Rouen, a prophet
play included an episode of Balaam and his talking
donkey. Some churches elected a “bishop of fools,”
whose role was to preside over the divine office dur-
ing the feast and to maintain order among his subor-
dinate “fools.” Others elected a “pope,” “cardinal,”
or “cantor of fools.”
The first half of the 15th century saw a series of
sustained attacks on the Feast of Fools, initiated by
Jean Gerson in 1400 and sustained by the ecumeni-
cal council of Basel in 1435, the Pragmatic Sanction
of Charles VII of France in 1438, and a letter issued
by the faculty of theology at the University of Paris
in 1445. Once again, such condemnations relied on
rumor rather than on eyewitness reports and can
best be understood as an early skirmish in the long
and often negative reform of public culture that
reached its zenith in the aristocratic neoclassicism of
the 18th century.
While the liturgical Feast of Fools struggled for
survival inside the churches, the unrelated festivi-
ties of bourgeois confraternities of fools outside the
churches burgeoned. Dressed in motley costumes
with ass’s ears, secular fools had their own distinct
traditions of parades, comic performances, and
mimicry. Liturgical fools never dressed in motley;
the bourgeois never referred to their own festivi-
ties as a Feast of Fools. Despite such clear markers
of difference, subsequent scholarship confused the
two traditions, prompting considerable misreading
of the records and culminating in E. K. Chambers’s
influential 1903 account of the Feast of Fools as a
kind of low-class clerical folk custom. A more sym-
pathetic historian, Aimé Chérest, noted in 1853 that
such scholarly narratives of disorder are incompat-
ible with the prolonged financial and moral support
provided for the feast by eminent cathedral chapters.
The Feast of Fools was worshipful, joyous, good
humored, and sometimes comic.
Max Harris
See also Biblical Humor; Carnivalesque; Christianity;
Clergy; Fools; Religion; Rituals of Inversion
Further Readings
Chambers, E. K. (1903). The mediaeval stage (Vol. 1).
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 274–335.

Chérest, A. (1853). Nouvelles recherches sur la fête des
innocents et la fête des fous [New research on the Feast
of the Innocents and the Feast of Fools]. Bulletin de la
Société des sciences historiques et naturelles de l’Yonne
[Bulletin of the Society of the Historical and Natural
Sciences of the Yonne], 7, 7–82.
Harris, M. (2011). Sacred folly: A new history of the Feast
of Fools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
FILM
See Movies
FOLKLORE
The term folklore in scholarly usage is used in a
broad sense to refer to all forms of traditional knowl-
edge, that is, culturally expressive material gained
through word of mouth, imitation and demonstra-
tion, and custom. In the narrower sense of popular
usage, folklore frequently refers to oral expressions
such as jokes, legends, songs, and proverbs. As folk
modifies lore as a type of culturally derived knowl-
edge to describe a learning process and social con-
text suggested by tradition, so too can folk describe
humor to distinguish those items—visual, material,
or oral—that have circulated among members of
a group. The professionals who focus their study
on folklore have used the label of folklorists since
the 19th century, and in the 20th century, a num-
ber of them, such as Ronald L. Baker, Alan Dundes,
Gershon Legman, and Elliott Oring, established
humor as a specialization within folklore studies
(or folkloristics, ethnology, or folklife studies as it is
sometimes called).
Historical Background
The use of folklore to signify traditions and their
study dates back to 1846 when the British antiquar-
ian William John Thoms coined the term for what
had been previously been referred to in English
as “popular antiquities” or “popular literature.”
Thoms described folklore both as a connected
whole—“The Lore of the People”—and as separa-
ble parts—“manners, customs, observances, super-
stitions, ballads, proverbs.” These were the genres of
primary interest in the early history of folklore stud-
ies. Notably absent from his list were humor genres
Folklore 239
such as jokes, pranks, and parodies, which began
drawing attention from folklorists in the latter half
of the 20th century. Thoms wanted to accomplish
for Britain what the Brothers Grimm had done for
Germany since the early 19th century in their use
of das Volk (“the folk” or “the people”) and their
collections of folk narratives. In response to his call,
the magazine Athenaeum established a department
of folklore and during the 1850s, books began to
appear using folklore in their titles. In 1878, the
Folklore Society was established in Great Britain,
followed 10 years later by the American Folklore
Society, thus institutionalizing the term describing
the broad subject area of folklore.
Early approaches to folklore suggested atten-
tion to isolated, marginalized groups as the kind
to perpetuate folklore. Many of these supposedly
primitive or peasant groups were thought not to
have humor, either because it was an attribute of
higher civilization or because these “folk” groups
were too engaged in subsistence and superstition to
engage in the leisure of humor. In the United States,
20th-century folkloristic collections from marginal-
ized groups such as Jews, mountaineers, and African
Americans included narratives described as “tales”
that were distinguished from legends and fairy tales
by their humorous content or by the appearance of
trickster figures. Rather than dismissing the humor,
folklorist Richard Dorson (1956), who later became
influential as head of a degree-granting folklore
department at Indiana University, noted the signifi-
cance of humor’s social functions in folk stories of
“Old Marster and John.” In these tales set in the
slavery era, the slave John outsmarts with cunning
the physically imposing and symbolically repres-
sive Old Marster. The frame of humor allowed for
suggestions of protest that would not be condoned
in everyday conversation. Dorson also entered into
folkloristic analysis and debate with other folklor-
ists as to whether such tales have an African or
European genesis. Such comparative work also led
him to posit that many hero legends told in America
differ from European counterparts in their comical
characterizations. He suggested that the humor in
“tall tales” of Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone mer-
ited analysis for its relationship to national as well as
regional identity.
The concern with questions of origin and diffu-
sion in early folkloristic approaches was formalized
as the “historic-geographic” or “Finnish school”
approach, which was primarily concerned with the
240 Folklore
classification of multiple texts into systems of motifs
and types as tools to compare versions and deter-
mine their “ur” or original forms. Although much
of this analysis was devoted to myths and wonder
tales, Stith Thompson recognized the relationship
of jokes to folktales when he included a category
for humor in his standard folkloristic reference, the
Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of
Narrative Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths,
Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux,
Jest-Books, and Local Legends (1932–1937,
revised 1955–1958). His subcategories included
“Humor of Discomfiture,” “Humor of Disability,”
“Humor of Social Classes,” and “Humor of Lies
and Exaggerations.” Critics have pointed out that
he placed humor last in his index even though
it is potentially the largest and most current cat-
egory of oral tradition, and that he omitted what
he called “thousands of obscene motifs,” leaving
space between motifs X700 and X749 for the erotic
material.
Thompson’s inclusion of a humor category
opened the door for folklorists to globally survey
national and regional traditions for humorous nar-
rative motifs. With loosened censorship, folklorist
Frank Hoffmann in 1973 filled the gap of X700
to X749 with a separate type and motif index for
Anglo-American traditional erotica and William
Clements created a unique classification system
for the “Polack Joke,” a type totally left out of
Thompson’s motif index.
Folklore and Humor in Context
Humor moved to the foreground of folkloristic con-
cerns beginning in the 1960s, when many folklorists
shifted focus from an emphasis on finding origins
and tracing diffusion from comparison of multiple
texts to an understanding of the process of creating
and performing folklore situated in and explained
by local contexts. At a time when modernization
was presumed to displace folklore and folk groups,
folklorists found ample evidence of living traditions
in the performance of jokes, comic songs, pranks,
gestures, and puns that could be categorized as folk
humor. About this time also, many folklorists began
studying “jokes” explicitly rather than jocular tales.
Alan Dundes expanded the view of folk humor
as oral transmission by drawing attention to
Xeroxlore—photocopied comic illustrations and
memos. Dundes argued that these humorous texts
should be considered as folklore because they
resembled other folk material by exhibiting varia-
tion and repetition. He showed that the folk process
applied to visual and material phenomena, even
those mediated by new technology. The “folk” he
described was not an illiterate lower caste or class
of society, but what he defined in his work as “any
group of people whatsoever who share at least one
common factor.”
Also influential was Dan Ben-Amos (1982),
who emphasized the dynamic nature of folklore as
an emergent process subject to change in different
social contexts and as enacted by different perform-
ers. His definition of folklore as “artistic communi-
cation in small groups” underscored the emergence
of folklore as communicative forms that draw atten-
tion to themselves and provide identity to people in
social interaction. Thus folklore was emphasized
not as some relic or survival of the past but as living
traditions that continue to provide important social
and psychological functions for people as members
of groups and society. The assumption that folklore
was transmitted only in face-to-face encounters
was also overhauled with considerations of humor
shared over the telephone and in the mail, such as
chain letters and parodied recipes.
The orientation toward action and process in
contemporary folkloristics suggested that folklorists
should study the style and delivery of material as well
as its content. Folklorist Elliott Oring encouraged
folklorists to rethink legends and tales, for example,
in terms of the intention of the performers and the
surrounding conditions rather than focusing on the
face value of the narratives. He suggested that jokes
depend on “appropriate incongruity”—that is, the
perception of an appropriate relationship between
categories that at first sight would be considered
incongruous. Further developing the idea of folklore
emerging from social interaction, he advocated for
ethnographic methods, that is, the analysis of sym-
bolic communication within a bounded cultural
scene, to determine the social functions of joking
and the perception of humor or offense in various
situations and in different types of expressive mate-
rial such as pranks, gestures, songs, and cartoons.
Folklorists have given special attention to the
performance strategies of individuals in joke telling
and conversational joking. This approach includes
case studies that consider why individuals choose to
repeat certain jokes and the different performance
styles of the same joke by members of the same
family who learned them from the same source.
Folklorists have also made detailed ethnographic

observations of joking relationships in which indi-
viduals engage in improvised joking behavior, usu-
ally involving teasing or even insulting, rather than
the repetition of a repertoire of jokes. Ethnic and
social context can also come into play in folkloris-
tic consideration of inflection and dialect to render
material appropriate as in-group humor or depreca-
tory to other groups.
Folkloristic analysis can also draw on psycho-
logical interpretation, especially Freudian-based
analysis, to decode the symbolism in jokes and jok-
ing relationships. One source of debate concerned
folkloristic attention to humor popularly known as
“gross,” “cruel,” or “sick” jokes. Often circulating
in short-lived cycles, the transmission of these jokes
epitomized for many folklorists the idea of folklore
as emergent practices. These jokes tend to be stated
as riddles and have an absurd or shocking response
that does not always result in laughter, but perhaps
in a reply of “oh how gross” or “that’s disgusting.”
Such jokes are often considered too edgy to repeat
in formal situations. An example is a type of humor
identified as “dead baby” jokes: “What’s red and
sits in the corner—a dead baby chewing on razor
blades.” Folklorists can trace it to some precedents
such as the riddle joke of “What’s black and white
and red (read) all over?—a newspaper,” but the dead
baby joke cycle appears to have arisen anew during
the 1960s. Alan Dundes suggested that joke cycles
stem from the symbolic projection of anxieties onto
the fictive plane of folklore and interpreted the dead
baby jokes as responses by youth to contemporary
debates about abortion.
Together with Roger Abrahams, Alan Dundes
also analyzed the rage for elephant jokes during the
time of the civil rights movement as a response to
the anxiety of integrating African Americans. This
interpretation is based on the symbolism of the
elephant as large and differently colored, yet appar-
ently neglected: “How do you hide an elephant
on your pool table?—Paint its toenails green.” A
new elephant joke cycle arose during the women’s
movement and Simon J. Bronner has pointed to
the recasting of the symbolism to women because
the humor in the new cycle referred to the animal’s
menstruation: “How do you know your elephant is
having her period?—There’s a quarter on the dresser
and your mattress is missing.”
Attention to the identity-forming attributes of
folklore also led to sociological interpretations
of different uses and perceptions of humor by
various groups. Folklorist William Hugh Jansen
Folklore 241
differentiated between humor used by a group to
describe themselves and the kind of humor told by
a group about others. The former he labeled esoteric
and the latter he designated exoteric. This terminol-
ogy has persisted into the 21st century to interpret
the uses of folklore to create social boundaries by
comparing one’s group to what it is not. The termi-
nology is also applied to humor told within a group,
such as Poles and African Americans, that responds
to humor told about the group by outsiders. For
example, W. K. McNeil (2005) collected and ana-
lyzed the apparently self-deprecating folk humor
of Ozark mountaineers that shows the absurdity of
stereotypes by making the “city slicker” character
comical in his characterization of the mountaineer
as stupid, indolent, or oversexed.
Another social category of great concern with
contextual approaches is the role of gender, espe-
cially testing the popular perception that joking is a
male domain. Applying psychoanalytic perspectives,
Gershon Legman (1968) posited that “dirty jokes”
are told primarily by men and express aggressive-
ness toward women to displace their anxieties about
sexual inadequacy. Folklorist Carol Mitchell (1985)
used quantitative methods to challenge this hypoth-
esis and point out behavioral patterns evident in
male and female joketelling. She hypothesized that
women engage in folk humor to bond and equalize
one another in a group, whereas men tell jokes to
gain separation and show their superiority. Another
issue of gender arises when men and women per-
form humor for one another in formal and informal
settings. In 2010, Giovanna P. Del Negro, for exam-
ple, considered the performance of bawdy humor
by Jewish female professional comics to primarily
male audiences. She found that the bawdry was tol-
erated when the women used traditional material
and adopted self-deprecatory persona. Other studies
of folkloric performance and practice examine how
the body is used or symbolized to be funny, not only
in the use of gestures and positions, but also in refer-
ences to certain body images as laughable.
Technology, Modernity, and Folklore
With the expansion of the definition of folklore
in context, questions arise as to the boundaries
between folk and nonfolk material and whether the
designation of humor as folkloric is useful analyti-
cally. Folklorists today avow that everyone has folk-
lore in combination with influences from popular
culture. Folklorists often identify traditional aspects
242 Folklore
of content of which performers themselves may not
be aware. To be sure, folklorists utilize ethnogra-
phy to find rhetorical cues to folkloric framing in
joke-telling exchanges such as “this is an old one,”
“stop me if you’ve heard this,” or “as they say
around here.” These references indicate precedent
and variation not typically found in the fixed and
commercially distributed forms of popular or elite
culture. The designation of humor as folklore places
it in the realm of social interaction and characterizes
it as a learning process based on custom and partici-
pation in tradition. Analytically, reference to humor
as folklore suggests making connections to patterns
of identity formation, cultural practices and enact-
ments, and social contextualization, all of which
separate it from humor disseminated in commercial
culture.
This is not to say that the tools of industrial-
ized society such as computers and personal digi-
tal devices negate folkloric processes. Folklorists
examine expressive culture in Internet communities
in the form of parodies, “inside” jokes, and comic
“Photoshopped” assemblages. In 1991, folklorist
Paul Smith drew attention to the folkloric processes
at work in the generation of humor on the computer
by calling it the “joke machine.” Since then folklor-
ists have analyzed what has come to be labeled mass-
mediated lore in the global reach of social media
and video gaming. A theme that has been developed
is the tension between a folk and corporate web
observable in the humorous responses to corporate
control of the Internet. Parodies of official news
and Photoshopped visual creations are comparable
to the photocopied humor of an earlier technology.
Folklorists also watch for the adaptation of humor-
ous tropes and images in circulating reactions to
disasters that have, in the folk speech of the Internet,
“gone viral.” Social media “status messages” (e.g.,
the anti-proverb “I doubt therefore I might be”) and
initialisms (e.g., LOL for “Laugh Out Loud”) may
be considered emerging folk humor genres.
As a group, folklorists express a concern for the
vitality of cultural traditions, querying people in their
communities—virtual and real—about the meaning
of their expressions and their relations to identities
and contexts. With the awareness of folklore as
emergent enactments of tradition, jokes and joking
behavior—especially the framed practices that signal
what is funny and what is not—have become more
central to folkloristic inquiry.
Simon J. Bronner
See also Anthropology; Anti-Proverb; Carnival and
Festival; Conversation; Insult and Invective; Jokes;
Joking Relationship; Practical Jokes; Riddle;
Schwank; Tall Tale; Trickster; Urban Legends;
Xeroxlore
Further Readings
Baker, R. L. (Ed.). (1986). Jokelore: Humorous folktales
from Indiana. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ben-Amos, D. (1982). Folklore in context: Essays. New
Delhi, India: South Asian.
Blank, T. J. (Ed.). (2012). Folk culture in the digital age:
The emergent dynamics of human interaction. Logan:
Utah State University Press.
Bronner, S. J. (2011). Explaining traditions: Folk behavior
in modern culture. Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Bronner, S. J. (2012). Campus traditions: Folklore from the
old-time college to the modern mega-university. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi.
Clements, W. M. (1969). The types of the Polack joke
[Folklore forum bibliographic and special series, number
3]. Bloomington: Folklore Institute, Indiana University.
Del Negro, G. P. (2010). From the nightclub to the living
room: Gender, ethnicity, and upward mobility in the
1950s party records of three Jewish women comics. In
S. J. Bronner (Ed.), Jews at home: The domestication of
identity (pp. 188–213). Oxford, UK: Littman.
Dorson, R. (Ed.). (1956). Negro folktales in Michigan.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dorson, R. (1982). Man and beast in American comic
legend. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dundes, A. (1987). Cracking jokes: Studies of sick humor
cycles and stereotypes. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Dundes, A. (2007). The meaning of folklore: The analytical
essays of Alan Dundes (S. J. Bronner, Ed.). Logan: Utah
State University Press.
Dundes, A., & Pagter, C. R. (1978). Work hard and you
shall be rewarded: Urban folklore from the paperwork
empire. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmann, F. (1973). Analytical survey of Anglo-American
traditional erotica. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green
State University Popular Press.
Leary, J. P. (Ed.). (2001). So Ole says to Lena: Folk humor
of the upper Midwest (2nd ed.). Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Legman, G. (1968). Rationale of the dirty joke: An analysis
of sexual humor. New York, NY: Grove Press.
McNeil, W. K. (2005). Mountain masculinity: Jokes
southern mountain men tell on themselves. In S.J.
Bronner (Ed.), Manly traditions: the folk roots of
American masculinities (pp. 261–273). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Mitchell, C. (1985). Some differences in male and female
joke-telling. In R. A. Jordan & S. J. Kalĉik (Eds.),
Women’s folklore, women’s culture (pp. 163–186).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Oring, E. (Ed.). (1984). Humor and the individual. Los
Angeles: California Folklore Society.
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Smith, P. (1991). The joke machine: Communicating
traditional humour using computers. In G. Bennett
(Ed.), Spoken in jest (pp. 257–278). Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Thompson, S. (1955–1958). Motif-index of folk literature:
A classification of narrative elements in folktales,
ballads, myths, fables, mediaeval romances, exempla,
fabliaux, jest-books, and local legends (Rev. and
enlarged ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Thoms, W. (1965). Folklore. In A. Dundes (Ed.), The study
of folklore (pp. 4–6). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
FOOLS
In general terms, a fool is a personage who invites
amusement through mental deficiency or its appear-
ance, or through insufficient awareness of the world
and its workings. The broad ranks of the fool have
included real people, professional entertainers, and
folk figures, and in some cases uncertainty may
remain as to which accounts are fact, fabrication,
or a mingling of both. With notions of defect and
inadequacy at the heart of their humorous agency,
fools often find themselves in generic overlap with
clowns, tricksters, and, as noted later, jesters in par-
ticular. Accounts of male fools greatly outnumber
those of females, reflecting a gender imbalance com-
mon to all these figures.
Fools have been identified with amusement
and entertainment in cultural histories around the
world. Concepts of folly and foolishness are cul-
turally driven, and it is not surprising that those
who fall conspicuously shy of sociocultural norms
should become objects of derisive laughter. Fools
also have offered entertaining diversion as acrobats,
jugglers, or poets, sometimes serving as compan-
ions, advisors, and scapegoats. The propensities to
amuse and entertain lead to a customary distinction
between the “natural” fool, whose mental, physical,
or social shortcomings account at least in part for
his or her entertainment value, and the “artificial”
Fools 243
fool, who assumes the guise of folly in pursuit of
profit, security, or status.
Natural Fools
An historically aware concept of the fool embraces a
range of actual people reaching back to the Middle
Ages and earlier, often associated with mental defi-
ciency, but who also may have deviated physically
(such as dwarves and hunchbacks) or through aber-
rant behavior. A fascination with fools led to their
keeping at courts or in private households, with
the first recorded instance of a pygmy kept by an
Egyptian pharaoh toward the end of the 3rd millen-
nium BCE.
Natural fools are seen as inescapably them-
selves to a striking degree—the absence of guile or
the inability to conform may go some way toward
explaining their strange allure over and above their
easy targeting for ridicule. The fool’s cultural reso-
nances have included correlation with magic, luck,
sin, misfortune, protection from evil, clairvoyance,
and the divine. Folly also has found common ground
with madness; in both cases, irrational thoughts or
actions produce the kinds of incongruous or inap-
propriate frame breaks capable of generating laugh-
ter. At the same time, these perceived mental states
have been associated with a sort of shadow wisdom
or clarity of vision.
The fool figure also maintains a moral ambiva-
lence, a natural agent of neither good nor evil. An
ambiguous mix of the pathetic and laughable, the
real-life fool might be simultaneously revered and
reviled. Fools under court or household protection
might have been lavishly kept, physically mistreated,
or both.
Artificial Fools
Fools and folly gained prominence in European
thought of the 14th and 15th centuries, increas-
ing opportunities for artificial fools to exploit the
alternative sense-making and protected status of
natural fools and thereby make livings in courts,
public places, and private households. The artificial
fool figure is strongly aligned with the function of
the court jester, to the extent that the terms were
used interchangeably in the past. Fools were kept
to provide amusement on command, privately or
socially. The artificial fool directed ridicule at life,
society, at a patron’s guests or rivals or—daringly—
at the patrons themselves. They could impress with
sharp insights and audacious put-downs, sometimes
244 Fools
veering toward the coarse or offensive, and occa-
sionally suffering dismissal, banishment, or execu-
tion as a result. Beatrice Otto (2001) finds histories
of jesters in China, India, the Middle East, Japan,
Africa, and the Americas, with later sightings in
New Zealand and Polynesia. Otto describes mod-
ern-day instances of wealthy business figures who
English actor Henry Compton (1805–1877) as
Touchstone in William Shakespeare’s As You Like It at the
Theatre Royal Haymarket. The illustration, engraved after
a photograph by John Mayall, was published with a
biographical article about Compton in the Illustrated
London News, December 26, 1857. Touchstone, the court
jester for Duke Frederick, is witty and insightful, not a
buffoon; though a fool, he is a man of considerable
learning. In his book The Fools of Shakespeare, Frederick
Warde describes the character of Touchstone as
embodying a “positive and complete conception” of the
medieval jester.
Source: Theatre and Performance Collection, Victoria and
Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
retain employees charged with providing jester-like
distraction.
In a broader sense, permitted foolishness has
functioned as an institutionalized relief valve
through, for example, the medieval Feast of Fools,
as well as Chinese and Japanese “holy fools” and
European “priest fools,” who might draw upon
humorous logic to impart spiritual lessons, in
some cases going so far as to unsettle conservative
teachings.
Fools in Folklore, Literature, and Drama
Foolishness appears in many oral literatures as an
alternative path to wisdom or insight, a toying with
cultural notions of intelligence and sophistication.
Fools and folly in folk tales include the likes of Ivan
the Fool from Russia, the Turkish-born Nasreddin,
and the Wise Men of Chelm from Jewish lore. Some
best-known examples of “fool literature,” espe-
cially popular during the Middle Ages and into the
Renaissance, are Sebastian Brant’s Ship of Fools
(1494) and Desiderius Erasmus’s Praise of Folly
(1515), literary texts that implicate the reading audi-
ence in the habits and behaviors of foolishness by
way of moral admonition.
Fools and folly have been pressed into service
for a variety of dramatic purposes and from a
range of critical angles: French sotties and German
Fastnachtsspiele represent the products of medieval
“fool societies,” whose members historically donned
jester garb to render satirical attacks. The vidusaka
amounts to a quick-thinking jester-like character
in classical Sanskrit drama; in Shakespearean the-
atre, the Fool in King Lear (1605–1606) wraps
blunt criticism in witty banter. William B. Yeats in
On Baile’s Strand (1906) makes use of a character
called the Fool to symbolize innocence. In Bertolt
Brecht’s Schweyk in the Second World War (1944),
which derives from Jaroslav Hašek’s novel, The
Adventures of the Good Soldier Švejk (1926), the
title character’s idiocy (whether genuine or feigned)
exerts a disruptive effect upon the hair-trigger threat
of Nazi occupation. The 1998 French film Le Dîner
de Cons and its 2010 American adaptation, Dinner
for Schmucks, revolve around modern-day natural
fool figures as objects of cynical amusement for the
corporate classes.
Eric Weitz
See also Carnival and Festival; Clowns; Feast of Fools;
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Trickster

Further Readings
Otto, B. K. (2001). Fools are everywhere: The court jester
around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Welsford, E. (1935). The fool: His social & literary history.
London, UK: Faber & Faber.
Willeford, W. (1980). The fool and his scepter: A study in
clowns and jesters and their audience. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University.
FOOLSTOWNS
In times before ethnic and national associations and
boundaries were at the forefront of popular iden-
tity, foolstown jokes, tales, and myths provided an
early method by which undesirable characteristics
could be ascribed to an outsider through humor.
The foolstown represented a town whose residents
would be depicted as fools in jokes and stories. This
entry explains the connection between foolstown
jokes and later forms of ethnic joking. It then offers
two examples of foolstowns: first, through a focus
on Chelm in southeast Poland, and second, with a
discussion of Gotham (which is actually a village) in
Nottinghamshire, England.
In the modern age, ethnic jokes have regularly
described different groups as either stupid or canny,
among other characteristics. The ethnic groups
labeled stupid or canny in joking are usually ones
that exist as a peripheral concern to the jokers of
the center, with the periphery being defined through
power or colonial relations. Such jokes also form a
clear method of stereotyping. Foolstown joking rep-
resents a premodern variety of ethnic jokes on stu-
pidity, thus the existence of the foolstown exhibits
how humor had a role in “othering” that predates
the onset of modernity. The foolstown was usually
of the periphery and, from the center, appeared less
sophisticated. The connection and overlap between
premodern joking and modern ethnic joking does
not end there. Jokes also existed about towns whose
residents had supposed canny characteristics, thus
completing the enduring dichotomy. Many of the
targets of both canny-town and foolstown joking
were also residents with an ethnic or religious differ-
ence to that of the center, thereby laying the founda-
tion for modern ethnic joking.
“Wise” men often lived in the foolstown and
these wise men would offer the townspeople “solu-
tions” to various problems when called upon. One
Foolstowns 245
tale about Chelm, retold for children by Florence
Freedman in 1990, describes how the Polish town
boasted seven wise men. In the tale, the town’s
shops are robbed by bandits by night and so the
shopkeepers call on the wise men to prevent future
robberies. First, the wise men suggest sleeping by
day and opening the shops by night. This proves to
be not so good for business. They deliberate further,
leading to the appointment of a night watchman.
This solution is also flawed because the watchman
is beset by problems that prevent him from watch-
ing the town. First, he is too cold. Next, his new
sheepskin coat attracts wolves. Later, he cannot ride
the horse he sits upon to escape from the wolves.
Finally, he cannot stop the bandits because the horse
is tied to a tree.
This story uses false reasoning to construct
humor. Other examples of stories about Chelm see
the townsfolk try to capture the light of the moon
in a bucket and attempt to create more space in the
town by pushing back the mountains that surround
them. The foolstown jokes of Chelm have been
described as a part of the tradition of Jewish humor,
and may well have been told by Western European
Jews toward their Eastern European neighbors, thus
mocking the provincialism of those on the periphery.
They may also have been told by many non-Jewish
individuals, with or without anti-Semitic intent.
Gotham, in Nottinghamshire, would have sat
in a peripheral relationship to the historic city of
Nottingham. Foolstown joking in relation to Gotham
thus also draws on the idea of parochialism, with the
yokel as the butt of the joke. There were wise men
in Gotham too. Kevin Crossley-Holland retells how
two wise men from Gotham met on Nottingham
Bridge and argued over imaginary sheep. A third
wise man arrives and empties his sack of meal into
the river to show the men that their heads are as
empty as his sack. In other tales, boys from Gotham
build a trap that has no lid for a bird, a man expects
his cheeses to roll unaided to Nottingham market,
and a woman mistakes the reflection of the moon in
a river for a large cheese. One final foolstown myth
from Gotham takes a slightly different slant. The
story goes that King John was due to pass through
Gotham on the way to Nottingham. At the time,
any road the king traveled automatically became
a public highway. This displeased the residents of
Gotham, who did not want to lose their toll income.
They set about acting as fools to block the king’s
entrance. The villagers tried to drown eels in water,
protect a barn from the harsh sun, and again, roll
246 Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Jestbooks
cheese unaccompanied to market. The king opts for
another route to Nottingham. This story tells of a
different type of foolery, as the yokels of Gotham
outwit the power holder from the center.
Foolstown joking can be discussed using ideas
that also unpack the meaning of modern ethnic
joking and is the premodern predecessor to it. This
shows that the urge to expel unwanted characteris-
tics to groups not our own is not a modern invention.
Before the onset of globalization, ethnic nationalism
and large scale migration, the management of differ-
ence and the other was a far more local affair. It is
a difficult hermeneutic task to understand the social
or political uses of these humorous stories. The jokes
may have provided a discussion and transference
of stupidity onto the other and may well also have
prevented a few people from trying to capture the
moon in a bucket.
Simon Weaver
See also Ethnic Jokes; Ethnicity and Humor; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Crossley-Holland, K. (1987). A village of fools. In K. Crossley-
Holland, British folk tales: New versions (pp. 36–37).
London, UK: Orchard Books.
Crossley-Holland, K. (1987). The wise men of Gotham. In
K. Crossley-Holland, British folk tales: New versions
(pp. 347–352). London, UK: Orchard Books.
Davies, C. E. (1996). Ethnic humour around the world:
A comparative analysis. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Freedman, F. B. (1990). It happened in Chelm. A story of
the legendary town of fools. New York, NY: Shapolsky.
FOREST OF LAUGHTER AND
TRADITIONAL CHINESE JESTBOOKS
The Xiaolin (Forest of Laughter) is considered the
first collection of jokes in the history of Chinese
literature. This entry describes its textual history
and contents and gives an overview of subsequent
Chinese collections of jokes in premodern times.
The traditional Chinese literary view bestowed
value mainly on those texts that pursued a didac-
tic and moral purpose; however, several scholars
in Chinese history composed works, recording and
gathering anecdotes, to be enjoyed in leisure time.
The Xiaolin appeared in the literary panorama
during the end of the Han period and beginning
of the Wei period (3rd century CE) when, among
the educated elite, being able to entertain someone
with witty conversation was praised. A society well-
disposed toward humor-related practices was the
perfect background for the appearance of entertain-
ing literature with humorous features. The Xiaolin
has not been preserved in its entirety, and only a few
fragments remain, but it had an undoubted influ-
ence on the subsequent literary panorama, becom-
ing a source of inspiration for literati across the ages.
Textual History
The text is recorded for the first time in the bib-
liographical chapter of the Suishu (History of the
Sui Dynasty, 7th century CE), under the “Lesser
Sayings” (xiaoshuo) category. Here it is ascribed to
Handan Chun (fl. 150–225), a scholar renowned for
his calligraphic skill, who held office at court during
later Han times. The Suishu records the text as com-
posed of three juan (scrolls); the later bibliographical
chapters of both the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu
(The Old History of the Tang Dynasty and The New
History of Tang Dynasty) still record three juan.
Thereafter, the name of the book does not appear
in any other dynastic history, but a Gu Xiaolin (Old
Forest of Laughter) in 10 juan is mentioned in Wu
Zeng’s (fl. 1153–1157) Nenggaizhai manlu (Casual
Notes From the Nengai Studio), so it seems that
the text was still available during the Song dynasty
(960–1279) and probable that the original edition
had been expanded. Afterward the book was lost,
and its anecdotes were scattered and preserved in
various compendia so that now it is impossible to
determine its original structure.
Only during the Ming period (1368–1644), when
collections of humorous anecdotes became a beloved
genre among the literati, did scholars start to gather
the book’s fragments. Today the most complete col-
lection of items is the one compiled by the modern
scholar Lu Xun (1881–1936) and preserved in his
Guxiaoshuo gouchen (Ancient Stories Uncovered),
which includes a total of 29 stories.
Content
The anecdotes ascribed to the Xiaolin appear to be
quite heterogeneous in their topics and forms. Some
anecdotes have as protagonists historical or quasi-
historical members of the educated elite, whose
characters are typified in order to show traits of their
personalities. The anecdotes resemble very closely
 Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Jestbooks
those of the Shishuo xinyu (New Account of Tales
of the World), a 6th-century text recording the deeds
of famous people from the 3rd to 5th centuries CE
that is considered a summa of the Wei-Jin era life-
style, which valued the quality of being true to one’s
own nature. The following story is an example. The
younger brother of Shen Heng, Jun (both lived early
3rd century CE), was a prestigious and famous man
but by nature he was frugal and stingy. When Zhang
Wen (192–? CE) was about to leave on a diplomatic
mission to Shu, he went to visit Jun to bid him fare-
well. Jun disappeared inside his house for a long
time; when he came out, he said to Wen: “I wanted
to pick out a piece of cloth to give you as a present
but there weren’t any rough ones left.” Zhang Wen
praised Shen’s honest display of his faults.
Some anecdotes are borrowed almost verbatim
from previous historical or philosophical texts. In
other stories, the protagonists are generic characters
who are nameless (“A” and “B”) or are convention-
ally addressed by the name of their homeland (“a
man of Wu,” “a man of Chu,” or “a man of Qi”),
as in the following:
At Lu there was a man carrying a long bamboo pole
who tried to get through the gate of the city. First he
held it vertically, but couldn’t get in; then he held it
horizontally, and again couldn’t go through, so he
was baffled how to do it. At that moment an old
gentleman arrived who said: “I’m not a sage man
but I’ve seen a lot over the years. Why don’t you saw
it in half so you can get in?” So, implementing the
old man’s advice, he cut his pole in two.
These stories, which mock foolish behavior
such as destroying a valuable pole, resemble the
numbskull tales found in other traditions. In the
Chinese literary tradition, this kind of narrative is
often found embedded in the works of the masters
of preimperial times, such as the Confucian text,
the Mengzi, and the Daoist Zhuangzi, in which
they are used instrumentally as yuyan (allegories)—
that is, tales used to convey teachings and ideas.
The author of the Xiaolin probably collected,
rather than created, tales that were already famous
and that he regarded as funny. The language
employed to record the stories is the same literary
language used for philosophical and historical
texts, so this collection was likely addressed to the
audience of the educated elite in later Han-Wei
times. The morphology of Xiaolin anecdotes does
not show any particular features that could
247
differentiate them as a specific literary genre, but
the stories are apparently collected together to
entertain the reader. Considering the specific con-
text of the Later Han and Wei-Jin eras, they could
well have been told as “jokes” during social
conversation.
The Legacy of the Forest of Laughter
There are no traces of a preexisting tradition of col-
lections of jestbooks before Handan Chun’s text. The
existence of this kind of text was never mentioned
in previous literary material, nor even ascribed to
professional entertainers at court. However, the
Xiaolin certainly influenced the subsequent literary
panorama, inspiring later scholars to compile collec-
tions of humorous stories. Several collections from
the Tang, Song, and even Ming dynasties bear the
same title, as if they acknowledge the legacy.
The next collection was the Qiyan lu (Record of
Bright Smiles). It is ascribed to Hou Bai, an early Sui
dynasty (581–618) official, probably because he was
renowned for his witty nature, but the attribution
is not certain. Today, it exists in different versions
(mostly compiled by collecting passages from mis-
cellanies and encyclopedias), of which the edition
found in the caves of Dunhuang (Gansu province)
and dated 723 is the earliest—perhaps the original.
Here the stories are divided into four categories,
arranged according to the content: “Lun nan” (On
debating), “Bian kang” (Quick to argue), “Hun
wang” (Confused and forgetful), and “Chao qiao”
(Mockery and blame), showing close similarity to
the structure of the Shishuo xinyu mentioned ear-
lier. The Qiyan lu contains anecdotes about real
people of the past, such as two first recorded in the
Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian) about the
“huaji-ist” (huaji, formerly pronounced guji) Jester
Zhan, or about Hou Bai’s contemporaries. Buddhist
monks are often the protagonists in quick crosstalk,
but they always lose in contests of wit and several
scholars believe this text had a strong impact on the
literary panorama.
In the bibliographical lists found in dynastic histo-
ries, only a few texts are ascribed to the Tang period
(618–907), and nothing remains of their content. In
contrast, during the Song period, the number of col-
lections of humorous anecdotes increased. However,
again, the original texts are lost and few fragments
can be found, as is the case for Lü Benzhong’s
(1084–1145) Xuanqu lu (Records of Laughing) or
Tian Hezi’s Shanxue ji (Collection of Good Jokes),
248 Framing Theory
both preserved in the Shuofu (Outskirts of Texts), a
Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) collectanea.
In Ming times (1368–1644), jestbooks flour-
ished. Ming literati, favored by the publishing mar-
ket, greatly enjoyed reading and writing humorous
stories. Not only did they copy anecdotes from
already existing textual material, they probably
also recorded famous stories transmitted orally
and circulating widely. It is easy to understand why
many overlapping stories appear in these works.
One of the reasons for the rise of interest in jest-
books can be ascribed to the work of a retired offi-
cial, Tan Kai (1503–1569). In his spare time, he
edited and then published (1566) the Song compen-
dium Taiping guangji (Extensive Records From the
Taiping Era), which collected stories and anecdotes
of already lost texts, up to Tang times. A multitude
of forgotten textual material, jestbooks included,
was reintroduced in the literary panorama and
became a source of inspiration for Ming authors.
Among the numerous collections produced in this
period, there are Jiang Yingke’s (1555–1605) Xue
Tao xiaoshuo (Xue Tao’s Stories), Zhao Nanxing’s
(1550–1627) Xiaozan (Appraisal of Jokes), and
Yu Lüxing’s Xuelang (Unrestrained Jokes). But
the most famous is Feng Menglong’s (1574–1646)
Xiaofu (Treasury of Laughs). The collection was
composed of more than 700 jokes, gathered from
previous and contemporary sources and written in
simple classical Chinese. The jokes are arranged
thematically and play with language and mock
those who fail to understand social mores; several
are erotic. Some stories show sympathy toward
their object of ridicule; others push the audience to
take a critical stance. In general, they reflect popu-
lar taste of the time and might have appealed to a
broad audience.
The Xiaofu then disappeared in China but was
preserved in Japan, where it was well received by
Japanese readers. In China, during the Qing dynasty
(1644–1912), its original material was adapted and
merged in the Xiaolin guangji (Extensive Records
of the Forest of Laughter), a collection of jokes
that enjoyed great popularity and is still published
today.
Giulia Baccini
See also Anecdote, Comic; Confucianism; Fools; History
of Humor: Classical and Traditional China; Huaji-
ists, The; Irony; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Jokes;
Philogelos; Tall Tale; Taoism; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Baccini, G. (2011). The Xiaolin (Forest of Laughs) as a
paiyou xiaoshuo: The origins and the changing of
meaning of the term paiyou. In J. S. Rošker & N. V.
Suhadolnik (Eds.), The yields of transition: Literature,
art and philosophy in early medieval China (pp. 157–
180). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Hsu, P.-C. (1998). Feng Meng-lung’s treasury of laughs:
Humorous satire on seventeenth-century Chinese culture
and society. The Journal of Asian Studies, 57(4), 1042–
1067.
Knechtges, D. R. (1970–1971). Wit, humor, and satire in
early Chinese literature (to A.D. 220). Monumenta
Serica, 29, 78–98.
Kowallis, J. (Trans.). (1986). Wit and humor from Old
Cathay, Beijing, China: Panda Books.
Myhre, K. (2001). Wit and humor. In V. H. Mair (Ed.),
Columbia history of Chinese literature (pp. 132–148).
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wang, L. (1956). Lidai xiaohua ji [Collections of jokes
through the ages]. Shanghai, China: Shanghai gudian
wenxue.
FRAMING THEORY
Framing theory deals with the structures and organi-
zation of a communication text and how they may
affect the definition and understanding of issues and
our social world. Framing is a process that selects
and emphasizes certain aspects and perspectives
of reality when presenting them in a communica-
tion text and organizes how the audience perceives,
remembers, and judges them. Structure in a com-
munication text can have humor be the organizing
principle surrounding it, as often occurs in infotain-
ment communication (or programs intended for
both entertainment and information). But humor
as frames need not be restricted to the increasingly
popular infotainment segment and is used in other
communication segments to achieve specific effects.
This entry provides a definition of framing theory
and explains where frames reside and how they
work, specifically relating framing to humor and the
intersection of entertainment and information.
Framing has been called a fractured paradigm
and several scholars have attempted to provide a
definition for it and craft appropriate methods for its
analysis. As a communication theory that embraces
both quantitative and qualitative methods that can
be understood to reside in messages or in audience’s
mind, framing is an emerging area of media effects

research, one that can have multiple applications.
Framing, as a communication theory, relates to and
complements several other theories of media effects,
but perhaps more closely to agenda setting, prim-
ing, and persuasion. Framing is a flexible theory
that has provided much insight in communication
research, but this characteristic has also resulted in
lack of unity as a research domain. A champion of
the theory’s potential fluidity, Stephen Reese (2003),
has defined frames as “organizing principles” that
are both “socially shared” and stable over time,
that structure symbolically the social world. Reese
emphasizes how framing acts to structure the text
or information. Thus, humor as a frame would pro-
vide a way to understand an issue within the humor
perspective with varying degrees of success.
Framing can thus occur in several locations, as
framing theorist Robert Entman has indicated in
1993. Frames can occur within the communicator,
in how an individual who is presenting the commu-
nication organizes the issue to be presented, and in
what this individual selects to emphasize and deem-
phasize. Frames can occur within the text itself, be
it visually, orally, or in writing. This is where most
framing studies are able to measure the frames.
Frames also can occur in the audience, the receiver
of communication, in how that individual is drawn
to interpret an issue. Frames can have, thus, individ-
ual and societal implications. Societal implications
are drawn when frames occur within social groups.
A frame can be identified and measured through
framing devices. These devices are textual and visual
elements or how the selection and emphasis of issues
are represented. That can be seen in the source selec-
tion, specific terms chosen to portray information,
keywords, stereotyped images, and quotes that are
organized to give meaning to the communication.
With inclusion and exclusion, placing certain infor-
mation in a more prominent location or emphasiz-
ing it in other ways, communicators can frame an
issue. A communication structured and organized
with humor as its frame would thus include certain
information that would emphasize humor, using
language devices that would allow for such frame,
while omitting other information. Studies have
indeed found that messages in news, and especially
in television, often emphasize emotional themes.
Television, as a medium, often presents media
messages that are framed with humor. This is per-
haps due to its inherent function of entertainment
and information. It is fair to say, though, that the
lines between entertainment and information
Framing Theory 249
are ever so blurred. Late night shows often mix
these two functions and are increasingly popular.
Programs such as The Colbert Report, where a fake
newscaster presents the issues of the day in comedic
sketches, have been shown to draw viewers who
seek higher levels of information.
There is also increased use of humor in infor-
mation segments on television. Paul E. McGhee
(1980), a pioneer of humor research, has indicated
that humor contributes to the enjoyment of the
televised program, be it entertainment or informa-
tion. However, that enjoyment can result in different
types of cognitive change: It can distract as much as
it can motivate viewers and lower barriers to learn-
ing. It can facilitate how a message is retrieved from
memory but also act as a distraction to what infor-
mation ends up being stored. It is no wonder that
messages organized within a humorous frame have
found their way into educational settings, political
communication, and the news.
The effects on the audience’s political attitudes
from programs framing news with humor have been
identified. Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris
study the effects of humor on political attitudes and
have found that information framed with humor in
The Colbert Report, for example, affects attitudes
toward political candidates by making it less likely
the receiver of information would disagree with
the message and making it less likely that someone
would present a counterargument. While these
effects might be short term, they are still significant.
Framing theory helps us identify how a commu-
nication message has been organized and provides
us with a perspective for understanding issues and
our social system. Seeing and understanding an issue
within a humor frame may affect how we process that
information, making us more interested in receiving
the message but also having the potential of influenc-
ing what aspects of that issue we use to evaluate it.
Vanessa de Macedo Higgins Joyce
See also Audience; Humor, Forms of; Humor Mindset;
Political Humor; Stereotypes; Uses and Gratifications
Theory
Further Readings
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory.
Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a
fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4),
51–58.
250 Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory
McGhee, P. E. (1980). Toward the integration of
entertainment and educational functions of television:
The role of humor. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The
entertainment functions of television (pp. 183–208).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reese, S. D. (2003). Prologue—Framing public life: A
bridging model for media research. In S. D. Reese, O. H.
Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the
social world (pp. 7–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
FREUDIAN/PSYCHOANALYTIC
THEORY
For Sigmund Freud, the personal aggressive drives
and instincts of the unconscious (id) must appear
less overt and avoid being directly offensive when
revealed in the public and less personalized face
of the conscious (ego, super ego). In other words,
unacceptable unconscious content is reworked into
acceptable, yet ambiguous, expressions within the
conscious. For comedy, this occurs through the spe-
cific way joking is structured. This enables the ambi-
guity, or what Freud also calls “the uncanny,” to be
understood as “unthinking” or a “trick” because
the joke is simultaneously and irrationally perceived
as both of unconscious and conscious content. Jokes
that are “non-tendentious” (innocuous) are more
uncanny than socially critical “tendentious” (satiri-
cal) jokes. Satirical jokes are less ambiguous than,
and expose more unconscious material than, innoc-
uous jokes. Freudian theory and discourse offers a
toolbox for analyzing the structure and meaning of
humor. This entry looks at how Freud’s theories and
related theories apply to the study of humor.
When looked at in the context of comedy,
Freudian psychoanalysis is usually discussed in terms
of the relief theory of comedy. Because the uncon-
scious contains the sexual instincts and aggressive
drives, the joke allows a measure of these instincts
and drives that are usually repressed to be released.
Others have argued that psychoanalysis is compatible
with three theories of comedy. The Freudian ideas of
the bifurcated unconscious and conscious dynamic
of the joke can be discussed as part of incongruity
theory. The idea that jokes spring from unconscious
aggression and their release in the conscious can be
discussed as part of the relief and superiority theories.
The interplay of the three theories can be understood
by examining the following joke:
Parent: “Doctor come at once! The baby has a
swallowed a fountain pen!”
Doctor: “I’ll be right over.”
Parent: “What should we do in the meantime?”
Doctor: “I’m afraid you’ll have to use a pencil.”
The exchange between the doctor and parent dis-
plays the parent’s aggressive unconscious attitude
toward the doctor’s competence, which is released in
the conscious through the incongruous structure of
the joke. The parent’s unconscious and superior atti-
tude is subtly confirmed by the doctor’s ambivalent
punch line that is both comical and yet profession-
ally inappropriate.
For some, the Freudian perspective of jokes
springing from unconscious aggression needs quali-
fication because many jokes are purely intellectual
and enjoyed because of the way language and other
forms of expression are deployed. Placing a bowling
ball in a refrigerator, for example, might make some-
one laugh because of the incongruity of seeing the
ball where it doesn’t belong, but the humor would
seem to have little to do with aggression and drives.
Object relations theory, whose proponents in-
cluded Melanie Klein and Ronald Fairbairn, em-
phasizes childhood relationships in the development
of the psyche. Unconscious and conscious motives
are based on healing and personal cohesion rather
than attempts at repressing unacceptable drives and
instincts. This theory can be applied to the humor
of comedian Bill Cosby and quadriplegic cartoonist
John Callahan. In terms of object relations theory, the
two men’s work, with one joking about childhood
and the other about his disability, can be interpreted
as the attempt to heal and recover the unconscious
loss of the all-encompassing loving mother experi-
enced in the very formative stages of childhood.
A corollary to the object relations view is the
therapeutic application of humor and laughter.
Freud himself noted how jokes often had a narcis-
sistic motive that made the joke maker feel powerful
and confident. Norman Cousins was one of the first
to empirically attempt to chart the possible chemical
and psychological effects of humor. Told that he had
little chance of surviving, Cousins developed a recov-
ery program that included “doses” of laughter from
viewing the films of the Marx Brothers. The laugh-
ter club movement, which promotes humor as ben-
eficial for mental and spiritual health, has become

a worldwide phenomenon since its beginnings in
India in 1995 by the physician Madam Katari. The
Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor
(AATH) is a professional society of individuals inter-
ested in the application of humor and laughter in
medicine, social work, psychotherapy, and educa-
tion, for example.
Aligned to this therapeutic application of humor
is its motivational use. This can be found in the areas
of business, the workplace, and educational learning.
John Cleese, a member of the comedy team Monty
Python, and the key character in the television
comedy Fawlty Towers and the film A Fish Called
Wanda, is also the creator of a series of humorous
videos geared to the business community. These deal
with customer relations, product selling, and how to
conduct a job interview, for example. Comedians are
often used at business conferences to provide specific
routines pertaining to the subject of the conference.
Research dealing with workplace and education
humor has focused on the use of jokes in limiting
workplace stress, making teaching more effective by
the use of humor, the effects of humor on cognitive
learning, and types of workplace humor.
Freud avoided the role of narcissism in how it
can be incorporated into the unconscious. Since
the 1960s, psychoanalysts like Heinz Kohut have
considered narcissism of the self as a key factor in
individual motivation and examined the different
levels in the way the self is asserted in conscious nar-
cissistic activity. This self-psychology can be useful
in understanding the success of outrageous comedy
performers such as Joan Rivers and Richard Pryor,
who are known for breaking particular socially
sensitive taboos. Certainly the ability of female and
Black comedians, who are able to joke about issues
that others are excluded from, needs to be consid-
ered, but an inflated sense of narcissism among both
performer and audience can also be a factor when
considering why such social boundaries are jokingly
and surprisingly circumvented and enjoyed. Freud
has shown how there is a need for a psychic compat-
ibility between performer and audience for perfor-
mance to occur.
Lacanian psychoanalysis, based on the ideas of
Jacques Lacan, also asserts the key role of the self or
what Lacan calls the “I” in the conscious. However,
it radically overturns Freud by claiming its language
subverts self-desire. The conscious self can only
be a “mask” that disguises the permanent conflict
between the “symbolic” order of the “other” and the
Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory 251
“real” of the “I.” For the Lacanian, joking is the nat-
ural problematical feature of the social order, unlike
Freud, who interprets joking as only a temporary
condition. The series of physical or linguistic gags in
the Three Stooges, Jerry Lewis, and Charlie Chaplin
films are psychic repetitions of the permanent but
impossible attempt at healing the existential conflict
between I and the Other. Understandably Lacanians
are drawn to absurd or black humor that is “not
funny.” Slavoj Žižek, the Hegelian and Lacanian
philosopher and social critic, who has been referred
to as the Elvis of Cultural Theory, uses jokes not to
be funny but because they pose serious questions.
Gerard Matte
See also Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Postmodern Irony; Psychiatric Disorders; Psychology;
Psychotherapy, Humor in; Reframing
Further Readings
Dundes, A. (2003). Parsing through customs: Essays by a
Freudian folklorist. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Freedman, B. (1991). Staging the gaze: Postmodernism,
psychoanalysis, and Shakespearean comedy. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 9, 1–6.
Freud, S. (1973). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. London, UK: Hogarth Press. (Originally
published 1905)
Gay, P. (1991). Reading Freud: Explorations and
entertainments. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hewitson, M. (2012). Black humor: Caricature in wartime.
Oxford German Studies, 41(2), 213–235.
Horton, A. S. (Ed.). (1991). Comedy/cinema/theory.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lippitt, J. (1995). Humor and release. Cogito, 9(2).
Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1302861/
Humour_and_release
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Matte, G. (2001). A psychoanalytical perspective of humor.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
14(3), 223–241.
Oring, E. (1984). The jokes of Sigmund Freud: A study in
humor and Jewish identity. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Paul, W. (1994). Laughing screaming: Modern Hollywood
horror and comedy. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
 G
GAG
Indicating a humorous action or remark intended to
provoke laughter, the word gag is commonly inter-
changeable with joke. Gag is idiomatic to profes-
sional comedians, who use it in preference to the
layman’s term joke to describe the main elements
in comic routines. It describes comic expressions,
whether verbal or physical. Both involve the buildup
of an expected outcome with a surprising but under-
standable (comic) detonation. As with jokes, gags
can be “canned” (built on preexisting jokes) or
“spontaneous.’” Improvisation (or the illusion of
it) is a distinct feature of all stand-up comedians.
The etymology of gag is unclear, though some have
claimed connection with a joke’s ability to make
people struggle for breath (i.e., “to gag”). This entry
discusses verbal and physical gags and how they
have been used in various sorts of entertainment
throughout history.
Partly because of the popularity of the French
Canadian television series Just for Laughs: Gags
(first aired on Télé-Québec in 2000), the term today
is often understood to refer to a visual joke or “sight
gag,” without any text at all. Using a hidden (“can-
did”) camera technique, with silent format and no
translation required, the original series has been used
internationally, purchased for airlines, and much
copied in other countries. As with verbal jokes, the
two constants of humor (situation and character)
characterize sight gags and an implied narrative
is communicated without words. All great stage
253
and screen comedians have employed visual gags
as part of the time-honored traditions of comedy,
from Aristophanes and Plautus, through commedia
dell’arte to the greats of silent film, such as Buster
Keaton, Harry Langdon, and Charlie Chaplin, fol-
lowed by Laurel and Hardy, the Marx Brothers, and
the British Monty Python team. According to Noël
Carroll (1996), Thomas Edison’s first peepshows
included clowning, and the first Auguste and Louis
Lumière film (1895) featured a prankster who hosed
the gardener’s face. Increased mayhem in sight gags
followed in early films, exemplified by the comic
debacles of the Keystone Cops and the ubiqui-
tous pie-in-the-face routine. A favorite film gag of
Australian actor-comedian Geoffrey Rush (b. 1951)
is taken from Chaplin’s short film The Idle Class
(1921). This classic example involves the actor being
told by his wife to give up drinking or she will leave.
A back shot of Chaplin shows his shaking shoulders
as he (presumably) weeps—but as he turns to the
camera, he is revealed to be smiling happily while
shaking himself a cocktail.
Physical dexterity is necessary for all sight gags
and for visual comedy in general. Today this is
exemplified on screen by actors such as John Cleese,
Jim Carrey, Eddie Murphy, Jackie Chan, and Johnny
Depp, all of whose mime skills and modern slap-
stick style are very evident. Similar physical humor
is also found across Africa, where sight gags and
physical comedy are a traditional part of several
dramatic forms. Equally, modern stand-up comedy
has its place in Japan alongside manzai, a traditional
style of double-act comedy involving a straight man
254 Gag
(tsukkomi) and a funny man (boke), who speedily
swap exclusively verbal gags around misunderstand-
ings, double-talk, and puns. The contemporary
Japanese solo stand-up act has its own traditional
monologue form, rakugo, or “sit-down comedy”
which involves the narration of both visual and ver-
bal gags.
Comic banter is also found in Chinese and Korean
traditional theatre and in Japan’s Kabuki drama and
Kyo–gen comedy, all of which echo both commedia
and modern TV sitcoms. Gags are in fact found in
all cultures, within folk and village comedy, and fre-
quently are the mainspring of a community’s enter-
tainment, as is demonstrated by local comedians
such as the late Norman Toru, who during the 1990s
regaled Papua New Guinea with his folk-based Big
Balls routines, sending entire villages, across all ages
and languages, into uproar as he cavorted with two
coconuts hung between his legs.
Visual gags are in fact often pranks: tricks with
a humorous intent. They sometimes involve elabo-
rate setups, with a number of people complicit in the
deception in order to fool the innocent bystander.
Situations may be funny in themselves—for exam-
ple, a live cow that appears to squirt a stream of
milk onto a passerby. Here the “tag” or “punch”
of the joke is actually the physical expression of the
gulled innocent in a genuine “take” or “double-
take” reaction. Thus the bystander, with whom the
audience partly empathizes, becomes the butt of the
joke. Although this evidences superiority humor, we
also laugh just as much at our imagined selves in
such a situation.
Trickery has always been a part of the comme-
dia’s comic routines (captured in what are known
as lazzi) and also of farce more generally. The inno-
cent bystander caught up in absurd and bewildering
situations is a universal in humor. Here the reac-
tion of the straight man is in fact the trigger for the
laughter—the blank-face reaction allows the audi-
ence to imagine the mental seizures of a brain
attempting to compute the mystification of what
they are seeing or hearing or both. Straight men
often employ a “take,” which freezes their bod-
ies, followed by a pronounced look aside, as if to
check reality, then a second look, or double take.
Although exaggerated comic facial expression may
be involved, the actor’s blank face is often equally
effective in making the observers laugh, reminding
us that comic resonance is increased by the audi-
ence’s imaginative participation. Many gags depend
on Henri Bergson’s notion of “reciprocal interfer-
ence of two series” or two readings of the same
scene (where the audience is privy to both). Others
exemplify his “inattention” principle, involving
absentmindedness or ineptitude. Such devices link
screen comedy back to its theatrical origins.
Verbal gags may involve a range of comic ideas:
absurdities, dialects, double entendres, hyperbole,
incongruities, malapropisms, metaphors, puns,
rhymes, and wisecracks, for example. Even when
used in lyrics of a song, they are primarily connected
to the notion of comic character and thus to some
comic situation or narrative (though gags are rarely
integral to a plot). The gag reinforces the notion of
plot but also distracts amusingly from it.
Like verbal jokes, gags—however short—are
usually structured in three Aristotelian parts: the
exposition, setting out the loose premise of a nar-
rative and its characters and themes; the develop-
ment or rising action, where we see or hear about
an approaching contrast or conflict; and the climax,
where that contrast is confronted and the bystander
or victim of the joke reacts. This reaction is much
the same as the “reveal”—when something suddenly
becomes clear from another, usually more realistic,
perspective. What has until then been an incomplete
picture is suddenly given one last component image,
which—like a key part of a jigsaw puzzle—makes
the entire picture clear. Both verbal and visual gags
evoke a larger world that starts by being obscure but
invites imaginative participation from the audience
and is eventually resolved or clarified. For example,
in the 1959 screwball comedy film Some Like It Hot
(by Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond), the char-
acter Sugar (played by Marilyn Monroe) says to
Josephine (Tony Curtis), “I come from this musical
family. My mother is a piano teacher and my father
was a conductor.” Josephine asks: “Where did he
conduct?” Innocently joking, Sugar replies, “On the
Baltimore and Ohio” (i.e., as a distinctly unmusical
conductor on trains). Such bringing of inflated ideas
down to earth is the source of much laughter, both
in short jokes and in large comic narratives.
Like a good joke, a visual gag can be teased out
to protract a comic situation. This often involves
a series of near misses, spinning the original gag
into a series of rolling gags and eliciting dozens of
laughs. The classic verbal example is the much-
imitated baseball banter of American comedy duo
William “Bud” Abbott and Lou Costello’s Who’s
on First? (itself a traditional music-hall routine). As

in all comedy, timing is crucial to a successful gag,
controlling the rhythm of either text or movement
or both, and with that, the audience’s expectations,
often rendering a gag most successful when slight-
ing, foiling, or preempting them.
Comics like Michael Richards, who played
Kramer in the U.S. television series Seinfeld (first
aired on NBC in 1989), combine physical gags
of imbalance or momentum with verbal jokes.
Comediennes such as Lucille Ball (1911–1989) and
Jennifer Saunders (b. 1958) also combine physical
and verbal dexterity. Contemporary American com-
ics Jerry Seinfeld (creator and star of the TV series)
and Ray Romano (star of the 1990s U.S. TV sitcom
Everybody Loves Raymond) use fictionalized ver-
sions of themselves to keep up a stream of verbal
gags, with minimal facial expression (primarily self-
deprecating). Both men use minimal characteriza-
tion, which allows greater audience identification
with their comic characters. British actor Peter Sellers
(1925–1980) similarly used streams of verbal gags,
usually delivered in a series of quick punch lines,
especially in the 1950s British radio series The Goon
Show. However, he always preferred to achieve
his comic effects through characterizations remote
from his own self. We may laugh with Seinfeld and
Romano and from their perspectives, but we laugh
at comic butts, such as Inspector Clouseau (played
by Sellers in the original Pink Panther films, 1963–
1978), Monsieur Hulot (hero of the eponymous film
series by Jacques Tati, 1907–1982) and Mr. Bean
(star of the British TV series and subsequent film,
created by Rowan Atkinson, b. 1955). These are all
characters deliberately created to be laughable vic-
tims, and their gags depend on this perspective.
Aubrey Mellor
See also Burlesque; Comedy; Commedia dell’Arte; Farce;
Hoax and Prank; Jokes; Kyo–gen; Lazzi; Mime; Monty
Python; Practical Jokes; Punch Line; Sitcoms; Slapstick;
Spoofing; Stand-Up Comedy; Verbal Humor; Witz
Further Readings
Barr, C. (1967). Laurel and Hardy. London, UK: Studio
Vista.
Bergson, H. (2005). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of
the comic (C. Brereton & F. Rothwell, Trans.). Mineola,
NY: Dover. (Originally published in 1900)
Carroll, N. (1996). Theorizing the moving image.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gallows Humor 255
Coursodon, J.-P. (1986). Buster Keaton. Paris, France: Atlas
L’Herminier. (See especially on the structural features
and workings of the gag.)
Neale, S., & Krutnik, F. (1990). Popular film and television
comedy. London, UK: Routledge.
Robinson, D. 920050. Comedy. In R. Abel (Ed.),
Encyclopaedia of early cinema. London, UK: Routledge.
GALLOWS HUMOR
Gallows humor is a way of making fun of death
or life-threatening situations. Examples include the
joke about the warden asking a condemned prisoner
as they walk to the gallows if he wants a smoke. The
prisoner replies, “No thanks, I’m trying to quit!” In
a more recent joke, a prisoner turns to the warden as
they enter the room where the electric chair awaits
and asks the warden, “Are you sure this is safe?”
The 10th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary dates the term to 1901. Some scholars
date the description of gallows humor to Sigmund
Freud’s 1927 essay “Der Humor,” while other
scholars say that it was brought to America by
Jewish immigrants from middle European countries.
An example of this latter kind of humor is about
an old Jewish man on his deathbed. He asks for the
Catholic priest and explains to his startled wife that
he wants to convert: “Better one of them dies, than
one of us!”
Regardless of when the term developed, we
know from ancient writings, from folklore, and
from mythology that there have always been peo-
ple who dared to laugh in the face of death or to
challenge the powers that be. For example, there
is an element of surprise and a kind of humor in
imagining a prehistoric hunter laughing or shouting
defiantly as he throws a javelin at a charging mast-
odon. The action is similar to that in the biblical
story of the youthful David standing bravely with
his slingshot in front of Goliath. Readers do not
laugh at the biblical story because it is presented as
a faith-promoting example of a worthy young hero
receiving help from God. Nevertheless, the story
is one of the most popular and memorable in the
Hebrew Bible because of the happy surprise ending
for the boy, but not for the giant.
Point of view is an important element in gal-
lows humor. Analysts often say that gallows humor
relieves tension and makes people less afraid of
dying. This may be more true for a witness to the
256 Gelotophobia
humor than for the person who creates it. For
example, one of the most frequently cited examples
comes from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and
Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1, when Mercutio has been
stabbed in a sword fight and Romeo tries to com-
fort him by saying “Courage, man; the hurt cannot
be much.” Mercutio answers, “No, ’tis not so deep
as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis
enough, ’twill serve: ask for me tomorrow, and you
shall find me a grave man.” Some Shakespearean
scholars mark Mercutio’s prediction of his own
death as the line that changes the play from a com-
edy to a tragedy.
Most of us see gallows humor secondhand when
it is brought to us by storytellers and filmmakers,
who have perhaps started with a real event that they
have embellished. This is illustrated by the story of
Alfred (also known as Alferd) G. Packer, who in
January of 1874 went on a gold-hunting expedi-
tion in the mountains of Colorado. He was warned
that heavy snow was expected and that he should
wait, but he and five other men from the original
party of 20 decided to proceed. Three months later,
Packer arrived alone at the Los Pinos Indian Agency
near Gunnison with a wild story about how one of
the men had gone crazy and killed the other men,
and then Packard had been forced in self-defense to
shoot the murderer. He signed a confession to eat-
ing the flesh of his dead companions and was jailed
but soon escaped. He was re-arrested in 1883 and
was tried before Judge M. B. Gerry in Lake City,
Colorado. When he was found guilty, a reporter
who had a flair for dramatization is rumored to
have run from the courthouse to a local bar and
announced that the judge had said, “There were
only seven Democrats in all of Hinsdale County, and
you, you son of a bitch, et five of them” (Nilsen &
Nilsen, 2000, p. 126).
The story was flashed around the world—as fast
as possible in the 1880s—and Packer became a sym-
bol of gallows humor. Even today, the University of
Colorado at Boulder is home to the Alferd G. Packer
Memorial Grill, which has featured such slogans as
“Have a friend for lunch,” “Serving all mankind,”
and “Keep your eyes on your thighs.”
Gallows humor has long been part of children’s
literature as shown in old folktales and in such nurs-
ery rhymes as “Jack and Jill” and the one about the
old man who “would not say his prayers” and so
“I grabbed him by the left leg and flung him down
the stairs.” Nevertheless, critics were surprised
when the American Library Association awarded its
2009 John Newbery Medal to Neil Gaiman’s The
Graveyard Book, which the selection committee
described as “A delicious mix of murder, fantasy,
humor, and human longing.”
Several successful novelists have made effective
use of gallows humor. Evelyn Waugh, in his 1948
The Loved One, satirizes the commercialization of
death, which he observed when he came for a visit
to California and saw Forest Lawn turning funerals
into Hollywood extravaganzas. Joseph Heller in his
1961 novel Catch-22 has his protagonist, Yossarian,
protest the brutality of war by sitting naked in a tree.
Mark Twain’s The War Prayer uses such shocking
gallows humor that Twain would not let it be pub-
lished until after his death. Films that are famous for
their gallows humor include Monty Python’s 1979
The Life of Brian, the Coen brothers’ 1996 Fargo,
Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 Pulp Fiction, and Stanley
Kubrick’s 1964 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned
to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Don Lee Fred Nilsen and Alleen Pace Nilsen
See also Irony; Sick Humor
Further Readings
Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up: American humor in a time
of conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of
20th-century American humor. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Press.
Oring, E. (1987). Jokes and the discourse on disaster.
Journal of American Folklore, 100(3), 276–286.
Thorson, J. A. (1993). Did you ever see a hearse go by?
Some thoughts on gallows humor. Journal of American
Culture, 16, 17–24.
GELOTOPHOBIA
Humor and laughter are typically studied in rela-
tion to positive outcome variables or to indicators
of well-being. However, in recent times interest has
grown in also considering aversive effects laughter
may have. In case observations from clinical prac-
tice, a group of people with extreme fear of being
laughed at and of appearing ridiculous has been
identified. The term gelotophobia (gelos is Greek
for “laughter,” phobia is Greek for “fear”) has
been coined for describing the fear of being laughed
at. While initial studies have been conducted in a
clinical realm and gelotophobia has been seen as a
 Gelotophobia 257

clinical category (gelotophobic vs. non-gelotopho- in Denmark; between 5% and 7% in Israel, Italy,
bic), it is now defined as an individual differences Poland, Russia, and Switzerland; 7% in Hungary;
variable at a subclinical level, using a dimension that 9% in Colombia; 12% in Germany and Spain; and
ranges from no fear to extreme expressions. 13% in England and Romania. Research continues
on the reasons for different rates of gelotophobia in
Gelotophobia: The Fear of Being Laughed At various countries.
The GELOPH <15> is widely used and its
Gelotophobes fear being laughed at and appearing
reliability and validity are well-established. The
ridiculous to others. They show an almost paranoid
questionnaire is available in more than 40 differ-
sensitivity toward laughter by others, which they fre-
ent language versions. Although the fear of being
quently relate to themselves for no obvious reasons
laughed at is mainly studied in the range of nonclini-
(e.g., in a restaurant or public space when hearing
cal groups, some authors have also conducted stud-
others laugh). When hearing laughter in experimen-
ies within the range of pathology (e.g., with patients
tal settings (without social context), their positive
with Asperger’s syndrome).
mood decreases and they also rate different types of
Introversion, neuroticism, and lower openness
laughter more negatively than those with low levels
to experience are major personality characteristics
of gelotophobia. They also rate facial expressions
of gelotophobes. Additionally, they score higher in
of joy (the so-called Duchenne display, a morpho-
variants of psychoticism scales, which reflect para-
logically distinct type of smile that indicates joy)
noid tendencies. Gelotophobes can be well described
differently than non-gelotophobes (less joyful) and
by adjectives such as shy, inhibited, and insecure.
their own facial responses toward laughter-related
There is stable evidence that greater expressions of
enjoyable emotions differ from non-gelotophobes.
gelotophobia are associated with more experiences
The gelotophobes’ emotional experience pattern
of having been a victim of bullying. Although the
consists predominantly of low joy but high levels of
question of causality cannot be answered from
fear and shame. It has been shown empirically that
these studies, a strong relation between fearing to
gelotophobia shares characteristics with social pho-
be laughed at and victimization seems to be given.
bia. However, factor analytic studies indicated that
One does need to examine whether gelotophobes
it is distinct from social phobia and the fear of nega-
might, in certain cases, be misinterpreting friendly
tive evaluation. In people with extreme expressions,
teasing by friends and colleagues that does not war-
strategies employed for coping with derision (con-
rant the label of bullying. Bullying and victimization,
trol, withdrawal, internalizing) seem to be shared,
however, are one of the most promising areas for
but gelotophobes display disproportionately nega-
research and practice in relation with gelotophobia.
tive responses to being laughed at and an almost
Several studies suggested that there is a pattern of
paranoid sensitivity to anticipated ridicule. The
gelotophobes underestimating themselves. This has
laughter itself is the prime source of concern for the
been shown for the comparison of self-estimated and
gelotophobes.
psychometrically measured intelligence, self-rated
and peer-rated virtuousness, and in a study compar-
Studying the Fear of Being Laughed At
ing a performance test for fluidity (quantity) and ori-
Empirical research on gelotophobia started in 2008; gence (quality) of humor creation with theoretically
as of 2012, close to 70 scholarly papers on the topic described self-perceptions of humor-related abilities.
had been published. Most frequently, gelotophobia Two journals have published special issues on the
is assessed with a 15-item questionnaire (GELOPH topic: in 2009 (HUMOR: International Journal of
<15>), which allows differentiating between no gelo- Humor Research) and 2010 (Psychological Test and
tophobia, borderline expressions (people in this cat- Assessment Modeling), and these provide a good
egory are not referred to as gelotophobes but might overview of recent research.
have a tendency toward a fear of being laughed at),
and slight, pronounced, and extreme expressions.
Extensions of the Study of Gelotophobia:
These categories were empirically derived based on
Gelotophilia and Katagelasticism
studies using the GELOPH <15>. Several studies
have been published describing expressions of gelo- Derived from a study collecting responses given
tophobia in different countries and results indicate to the worst (imagined or real) incidents of having
variations among cultures: for example, about 2% been laughed at, two further dispositions toward
258 Gelotophobia
ridicule and being laughed at have been described:
gelotophilia (the joy in being laughed at) and katag-
elasticism (the joy in laughing at others; katagelao
is Greek for “laughing at”). Gelotophiles actively
seek and establish situations in which they can
make others laugh at themselves. They do not feel
shame when telling mishaps or even embarrassing
situations that happened to them. They make others
laugh at them for the joy they gain out of it but not
for putting themselves down, or as a sign of per-
ceived inferiority. Adjectives like cheerful, talkative,
original, witty, or uninhibited are indicative for
their personality outlet. Gelotophiles tend be rather
extraverted and low in neuroticism and conscien-
tiousness. Further studies indicated that gelotophilia
correlates positively with a rather histrionic self-
presentation style. Katagelasticists enjoy laughing at
others and do not feel that there is anything wrong
about that. The prototypical katagelasticist would
think that laughing at others is part of daily life and
those who do not like being laughed at should just
fight back. In personality scales, katagelasticists typi-
cally score lower in agreeableness and conscientious-
ness. They can be well described with adjectives like
cynical or vengeful. Higher levels of katagelasticism
are, among others, associated with the enjoyment of
aggressive types of humor and psychopathic person-
ality traits. Katagelasticism also relates to bullying
type of behavior.
These three dispositions toward ridicule and being
laughed at can be assessed with the PhoPhiKat-45,
a 45-item questionnaire. This instrument has been
used in a broad variety of studies and its reliability
and validity are well established.
Gelotophobia, Gelotophilia, and
Katagelasticism in Youths
Most of the research in this area has been conducted
with adults. However, there are also initial studies
with children and adolescents. For example, as part
of a study involving close to 400 6- to 9-year olds,
a children’s version of the PhoPhiKat-45 has been
developed. The instrument demonstrated good psy-
chometric properties but was shortened to 30 ques-
tions for enabling a less time-consuming assessment
with children of this age group (PhoPhiKat-30c). As
in adults, there was a stable relation between greater
levels of the fear of being laughed at and being a
victim of bullying and greater katagelasticism
and being a bully—this has been verified via self-
ratings but also in peer reports. Highly comparable
findings have been reported for adolescents (also
in self- and peer ratings). There is also a version of
the PhoPhiKat-45 for adolescents. A Danish study
tested more than 1,300 11- to 14-year-olds with
the gelotophobia scale and reported good psycho-
metric properties of the instrument and, again, an
association with experiences of having been a victim
of bullying. In all of these studies, the fear of being
laughed at has been identified as an important issue
for children and adolescents. Authors pursuing this
line of research have argued that this may also have
consequences for pedagogy (e.g., the question of
how to deal with laughter in the classroom or con-
sidering the role of laughter specifically in bullying-
prevention programs).
One study has also looked at familial aggrega-
tions of the three dispositions among adult chil-
dren (all ≥ 18 years) and their parents. Primarily
gelotophobia but also gelotophilia were positively
associated in the children and their parents. There
were also similarities between the siblings’ level of
katagelasticism. In this study, remembered parental
styles (from the children but also the parents) were
tested. Gelotophobia was associated with the use
of punishment as a parenting style as well as lower
warmth and higher control from their parents (this
was also found in the parents’ recollections of their
parenting style). Gelotophilia existed unrelated
from parenting styles and there were weak rela-
tions with punishment as a parenting style and
katagelasticism.
Outlook
Although much literature has been generated since
2008, the scientific study of the three dispositions
toward ridicule and being laughed at is still in the
beginning in several areas. For example, there are
ideas on how each of the three dispositions develops
and what consequences they have for an individual.
However, an empirically derived comprehensive
model is still missing. Similarly, more research is
needed for uncovering protective or maladaptive
factors in the developmental processes. Additionally,
more research is needed with children and ado-
lescents but also with elderly people. First studies
revealed interesting age-related trends that should be
followed up in more detail. Studies conducted thus
far employed a broad range of research methodolo-
gies (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, semi-projective
tests, scenario-based tests, or experimental settings).
A recent grant from the Swiss National Science

Foundation has allowed researchers to analyze facial
movements as an objective technique for assessing
emotional reactions toward specific stimuli. This
should help answer basic research questions (e.g., on
the perception and mimicry of laughter-related cues
or specific behavior in laughter-related situations)
but may also have practical applications (e.g., when
discussing laughter with gelotophobes in counseling
settings). Further applications in the area of peda-
gogy and at the workplace (e.g., bullying-type of
behavior) have already been mentioned. Overall,
the study of how people deal with laughter, being
laughed at, and ridicule seems to be a promising
field for future research.
René T. Proyer
See also Anxiety; Bergson’s Theory of the Comic;
Laughter, Psychology of; Personality, Humor and;
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter; Targets of
Humor
Further Readings
Lampert, M. D., Isaacson, K. L., & Lyttle, J. (2010). Cross-
cultural variation in gelotophobia within the United
States. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52,
202–216.
Platt, T., & Forabosco G. (2012). Gelotophobia: The fear
of being laughed at. In P. Gremigni (Ed.), Humor and
health promotion (pp. 229–253). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science.
Platt, T., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2009). Gelotophobia
and bullying: The assessment of the fear of being
laughed at and its application among bullying victims.
Psychology Science Quarterly, 51, 135–147.
Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2010). Dispositions towards
ridicule and being laughed at: Current research on
gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism
[Editorial]. Psychological Test and Assessment
Modeling, 52, 49–59.
Ruch, W. (2009). Fearing humor? Gelotophobia: The fear
of being laughed at. Introduction and overview.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
22, 1–25.
Ruch, W., & Proyer. R. T. (2008). The fear of being
laughed at: Individual and group differences in
gelotophobia. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 21, 47–67.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Extending the study of
gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
22, 183–212.
Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of 259
GENDER AND HUMOR,
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF
The psychological study of gender and humor has
largely focused on the differences between men and
women in their appreciation and creation of humor
in laboratory and social settings. The earliest studies
tended to characterize men as the more likely to cre-
ate humor with women the more likely to play an
appreciative audience. These studies often attributed
gender differences to socialization and social status,
arguing that in traditional societies, men are afforded
higher social standing and as such are encouraged to
be assertive and dominant. Consequently, men would
be the more likely to develop the self-presentation
skills necessary for telling jokes and engaging in
humorous behaviors, especially jokes and behaviors
of an aggressive nature. However, research since the
advent of the women’s movement in the late 1960s
has found that both genders actually share a number
of similarities in their enjoyment of humor and that
observed differences more often reflect differences in
style rather than level of engagement.
Gender and Humor Appreciation
To investigate gender and humor appreciation,
researchers typically use a paradigm in which men
and women are asked to judge selected or systemati-
cally manipulated forms of humor. In a review of the
literature, Martin Lampert and Susan Ervin-Tripp
(1998) found that nearly two thirds of the pub-
lished research articles on gender and humor after
1970 required participants to judge a series of jokes,
cartoons, or other humorous materials, and varied
in terms of either their themes (aggressive, sexual,
nonsensical, etc.) or their targets (men or women).
Overall, these studies suggested that men and
women differed little in their preferences for most
forms of humor, but the earlier studies tended to
show men to have a greater liking for sexual humor
and both groups rate as funnier jokes and cartoons
with female rather than male targets. These early
findings seemed to reflect, though, methodological
artifacts and pre-1970 norms as the early studies of
sexual humor often used materials that were sex-
ist in nature, objectifying women and portraying
them in unflattering ways. More recent studies with
nonsexist materials have found men and women
to show few differences in their ratings of sexual
260 Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of
humor. In fact, self-report and observational studies
reveal that men and women often share jokes with
sexual themes. Not surprisingly, men tell sexually
charged jokes centered on male experiences and con-
cerns (e.g., castration) and women tell jokes related
to female experiences (e.g., menstruation) with both
more likely to relate their jokes to members of the
same sex who are more likely to understand the
jokes in the same way as the teller. Early studies also
found that men and women enjoyed jokes more with
female rather than male targets. However, within the
last 4 decades, this pattern has shifted and appears
to be largely influenced by differences in person-
ality, culture, and social class. Specifically, stud-
ies have observed that both men and women who
endorse sexual equality, nontraditional sex roles, or
the advancement of women tend to show a reduced
appreciation for anti-female humor and an increased
appreciation for anti-male or profeminist humor.
Gender and Humor Creation
In contrast to humor appreciation, studies of humor
use and creativity rely less on laboratory procedures
and more on ethnographic methods, self- and peer
reports, and psychological assessment tools. A lim-
ited number of studies have looked at men’s and
women’s ability to generate in laboratory settings
humorous captions to cartoon images or humorous
responses to everyday events. These studies gener-
ally do not find marked differences between the
sexes in humor production. However, naturalistic
studies find that in everyday conversations, men and
women show notable differences. In all-women’s
groups, speakers tend to build solidarity through
the sharing of humorous and relatable narratives of
past experiences, as in the following from two sisters
(examples are from Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006):
Emma: But the thing is that I think I don’t buy like
mommy ’cause I wear what I buy.
Occasionally I’ll buy things and then end
up not wearing it ’cause I’ll make a stupid
decision like I wanted a pair of pants that
look like this an’ I’ll buy it even though
they’re too big or they’re too small because
when I looked in the mirror I think like oh
I can breathe in [giggle] these.
Lori: Right . . . right.
Men likewise build solidarity through humor,
but largely through mutually and fancifully con-
structed humorous narratives and the friendly
teasing of one another as in the following excerpt
from two White (Ron and Neal) friends and one
Latino friend (Len):
Len: This is a really imbalanced sort of thing
here. There’s no female present.
Ron: Well.
Len: It’s not racially like balanced either.
Neal: It’s White dominated.
Len: Two White males.
Neal: Do you feel real Len?
Len: No, I feel spirited as a matter of fact.
Ron: Do you feel we’re oppressing you?
Len: I feel threatened right now. I feel like if I
say the wrong things, ya know, I’ll look
dumb and stupid and perpetuate the
stereotypes you both believe in. [laughs]
Ron: It’s good that you think that ’cause it’s
most likely true.
In mixed-sex groups, women tease men, but
men tend not to tease their female companions in
turn, preferring to maintain humorous rapport,
while deflecting criticism by making playful self-
directed wisecracks in reply. The following is illus-
trative of this behavior. In this example, May and
Don are in a Chinese restaurant, and Don is pour-
ing soy sauce on his food:
May: Don’t you think that has enough already?
Don: Uh, not quite enough. Besides I haven’t
been getting my minimum RDA in soy
sauce lately. [Note: RDA refers to
Recommended Daily Allowance]
Studies that use self-report and psychological
assessment tools, such as the Humorous Behavior
Q-Sort Deck (HBQD) and the Humor Styles
Questionnaire (HSQ), have noted item endorse-
ments among men and women that echo the differ-
ences found in natural conversation. Research with
the HBQD, for example, has found that men are
the more likely to report a tendency toward perfor-
mance, witty comebacks, and an irreverent and
earthy humorous style. They are more likely to
endorse items such as displays a quick wit and
ready repartee, wins admiration but not affection
by means of wit, and delights in parodies which
others might find blasphemous or obscene. Women,
on the other hand, are more likely to claim a reflec-
tive style and to endorse items such as appreciates
the humorous potential of persons and situations
and prefers recounting comic episodes from real
life to telling jokes. Research with the HSQ has
found that men and women are more likely
to report activity in positive (affiliative and

self-enhancing) rather than negative (aggressive
and self-defeating) forms of humor. They tend to
differ minimally in their report of affiliative and
self-enhancing behaviors, but men tend to engage
more in aggressive forms of humor, such as teasing,
and self-defeating forms of humor, which may
reflect their tendency to make wisecracking self-
directed comments, which could be misinterpreted
and not always experienced as in their best interest.
Gender and Sense of Humor
One last common finding is that both men and
women value a good sense of humor. As Gordon
Allport noted in one of the first textbooks on per-
sonality, most people rate themselves as having an
average or above average sense of humor. Few peo-
ple report having a below average sense of humor.
Further, men and women alike identify a good sense
of humor as one of the most important characteristics
that they look for in a potential mate. However, what
men and women understand to constitute a good
sense of humor for themselves and the opposite sex
may not be entirely the same. In one notable study,
Mary Crawford and Diane Gressley (1991) observed
that although men and women identified being cre-
ative and quick witted as the main characteristic
of a person with a good sense of humor, they also
gave different weights to other characteristics when
describing the two sexes. In particular, women were
more likely to describe a woman with a good sense of
humor as more apt to share real life stories—a finding
in keeping with the conversational humor literature.
Similarly, men and women may have different
ideas of what constitutes a good sense of humor
in a romantic partner. Researchers find that when
surveyed heterosexual women are more likely to
report that they prefer men who make them laugh.
In contrast, men are more likely to report that they
prefer women who responded appreciatively to the
men’s own humor. Similarly, in personal ads, women
are more likely to seek a partner with a good sense
of humor, whereas men are more likely to advertise
that they have a good sense of humor. Simply put, in
heterosexual dating situations men view a woman
with a good sense of humor as someone who appre-
ciates their humor and women view a man with a
good sense of humor as someone who can amuse
them. From an evolutionary perspective, one expla-
nation for this gender difference is that a sense of
humor, when understood as the ability to quickly
and cleverly create humor, is often seen as a sign of
Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of 261
intellectual fitness (i.e., a sign of someone with good
genes). Consequently, women should find men who
create humor as more attractive, and research has
found that women find witty men more attractive
but only if they first find them physically attractive
as well. An alternate position suggests that displays
of humor in dating situations do not serve to increase
attractiveness, but rather allow men and women
who are already attracted to one another to signal
and gauge interest. Under this view, men and women
employ humor in a similar way: to engage a desirable
partner, to build rapport and intimacy, and to deter-
mine the likelihood of a possible future relationship.
Martin Daniel Lampert
See also Gender Roles in Humor; Humor Styles;
Marriage and Couples; Sense of Humor, Components
of; Sexuality; Sociology
Further Readings
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006).
Production and appreciation of humor as sexually
selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27,
121–130.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1993).
Research manual for the Humorous Behavior Q-sort
Deck. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of
Personality and Social Research.
Crawford, M., & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring,
and context: Women’s and men’s accounts of humor
preferences and practices. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 15, 217–231.
Kotthoff, H. (Ed.). (2006). Gender and humor [Special
Issue]. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1).
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring
paradigms: The study of gender and sense of humor
near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
sense of humor: Explorations of a personality
characteristic. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky
laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male
and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51–72.
Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K.,
Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary
perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest
indication, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35, 923–936.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
262 Gender Roles in Humor
GENDER ROLES IN HUMOR
Gender roles can be defined as the set of behav-
ioral patterns assigned to men and women by their
society. Gender roles are not static; individuals con-
stantly display their gender-related stance. One of the
ways of constructing gender is through humor. As a
medium of social self-construction, humor plays into
this in a number of different ways, such as through
its ability to establish solidarity, impose power upon
others, and make oneself available as a potential
mate. Gender plays a determining role in people’s
social interactions. The last few decades have shown
a transition of gender research from an essentialist
stance (i.e., the way people talk is predetermined by
their gender) to a social constructionist one (i.e., gen-
der as a way of placing the individual in the social
system). Gender research started out as cataloguing
differences between men and women; today, the con-
ception of gender is seen as a way of making sense
of transactions, a cognitive filter that is ever present
in everyday discourse. This entry discusses research
into how men and women use humor differently and
areas that are ripe for further research.
Linguist Robin Lakoff in 1975 famously said
that women had no sense of humor. Many studies
performed prior to the 1970s confirmed stereotypes
about women lacking humor using testing mate-
rial that was biased: humor that was chosen by
men, applying to men, was used on women, who
then unsurprisingly were found to lack a “sense of
humor.” The most significant finding of the 1970s
was that men enjoy sexual and aggressive humor
more, whereas women appreciate nontendentious
humor. However, women find sexual humor as
funny as men do, unless it is demeaning toward
women. Studies on gender differences in relation
to humor appreciation have proven that there are
more similarities than differences between men and
women. For example, humor can be used for cre-
ating and maintaining solidarity; and while studies
show that women are more likely to want to estab-
lish solidarity through humor, there is also research
evidence that some men can be as concerned as
women about creating and maintaining solidarity.
While men are more prone to ridiculing, teasing,
banter, and other mock-aggressive forms, women
usually choose to recount funny events about
themselves or people they know. Humor serves as
a means of dominance for men, self-protection for
women, and solidarity for both of them. That is to
say, there is no significant difference between men
and women when it comes to humor appreciation,
but humor production strategies in conversation
may differ.
Conversational humor has been analyzed to see
how gender roles interacted with the production of
humor. According to Jennifer Hay (2000), humor
is used for (a) emphasizing power differences,
(b) providing self-protection, and (c) creating soli-
darity within the group. The first function is gener-
ally attributed to male speakers who tend to utilize
humor to claim the floor and assert power over
audiences. Humor as self-protection basically serves
the purpose of face saving, that is, it allows for cer-
tain flexibility in rather volatile topics like criticisms
or confessions or in stressful or embarrassing situa-
tions. Studies by Janet Holmes (2000) and Stephanie
Schnurr (2009) in New Zealand workplaces show
that female bosses sometimes need to deempha-
size the differences in status and lightly joke about
things right after they have had to act or speak in
an authoritative way. They have been attributed the
roles of “mother” and “queen” for the “nurturing
role” they play in the workplace, and research has
proven that men and women, as well as bosses and
employees, find it much easier to cope with a female
superior when they can joke about it. In workplace
data, two types of humor emerged: cooperative,
which is supportive and collaborative; and challeng-
ing, which is contestive, that is, rivalrous and non-
collaborative. In line with previous findings, it was
men who seemed to use the challenging and more
aggressive type of humor.
Schnurr asserts that there is correlation between
“doing leadership” and “doing gender” in work-
places because of the predominantly masculine dis-
course of leadership. According to Schnurr, leaders
utilize humor to “balance the various aspects of their
gender and professional identity” (Schnurr, 2009,
p. 129) when they exercise behaviors traditionally
ascribed to men; but these practices are negotiated
between participants, that is, are not set. She also
points out that humor is used by leaders “to bring
gender to the forefront” (p. 129), to either exclude
others from a subgroup of either men or women, or
ridicule stereotypes of humor that they (especially
women leaders) encounter. Holmes also underlines
the role of humor as a management tool, a strategy
that leaders can use to strengthen or weaken rela-
tionships of power.
In conclusion, generally speaking, men and
women share the same mechanisms for producing,

understanding, and appreciating humor. Minor
differences in types of humor are to be found, but
both men and women seek to establish and maintain
solidarity within a group, which is one of the top-
most purposes of social interaction itself. It is worth
noting that many variables have been under-studied
in the field of humor research, such as the role of
humor in the maintenance of close relationships, the
role of humor in leadership effectiveness, and what
styles and functions of humor men and women use in
different social contexts. There are very few studies
examining gender differences in humor production.
Other under-studied subfields include the evolution-
ary sexual selection theory of humor, the biological
grounds for gender differences in terms of humor,
and the effect gender has on the types of jokes men
and women prefer to tell. What is known is that
whatever the attributed gender roles may be, men
and women show no significant differences in the
frequency of their use of humor, although they may
choose to initiate it for different reasons and utilize it
differently.
Hilal Ergül
See also Appreciation of Humor; Evolutionary
Explanations of Humor; Gender and Humor,
Psychological Aspects of; Identity; Sexuality
Further Readings
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9) 1413–1430.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of
men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 709–742.
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation:
How humor functions in the workplace. Discourse
Studies, 2(2), 159–185.
Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Burns, L. (2001). Women’s
humour in the workplace: A quantitative analysis.
Australian Journal of Communication, 28(1), 83–108.
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the
art [Special Issue]. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4–25.
Schnurr, S. (2009). Leadership discourse at work:
Interactions of humour, gender and workplace culture.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
GENERAL THEORY OF
VERBAL HUMOR
See Linguistic Theories of Humor
Genres and Styles of Comedy 263
GENRES AND STYLES OF COMEDY
Although an imprecise and contested term, genre is
an important tool in the study of humor and com-
edy. One traditional function of literary criticism in
the 1960s and 1970s was to pin down definitions
of different categories of styles and modes in works,
identifying literary and non-literary genres. At its
best, this made sense of complex critical terminology
for the intelligent reader and was not undertaken
pedantically. In the 1980s, genre became a tool for
the linguistic analysis of popular texts and, as Vijay
Bhatia (2012, p. 17) records, even products of pro-
fessional practice such as the business prospectus
and instructional manual. But the concept of genre
itself became politicized, subject to the charge of
mandatory and exclusionary labeling. Scholars
like Bernadette Casey point out that saying that a
particular play for example is not “a proper” trag-
edy tends to impose a single dominant interpreta-
tion on a piece of work and to exclude alternative
readings and interpretations (B. Casey, N. Casey,
Lewis, Calvert, & French, 1993, p. 312). Genre clas-
sification certainly rests on expert knowledge of a
field. After a period of being frowned on as politi-
cally incorrect, it is fortunately once again permitted
(if somewhat grudgingly). Self-evidently, clarity of
usage facilitates progress in any field of endeavor,
including humor studies. This entry discusses how
genres are defined, detail some comic genres, and
discuss the difference between comic genres and
comic styles.
Problems of Generic Definitions
The word genre derives from the French genre,
meaning a kind or a type, and has traditionally been
applied to art, literature, and drama. There is often
a lack of consensus about precise definitions of indi-
vidual genre, even about the basis on which to define
them. Some critics argue for the importance of form,
others for content, treatment (or style), or perhaps a
combination of all three. Agreement seems more eas-
ily reached in the case of short genres with strongly
defined formal characteristics, such as the English
14-line sonnet or the Japanese haiku (serious) and
senryū (comic), both strictly regulated poetic forms
with a precise number of syllables.
Besides defining a genre in terms of its form,
content, and overall treatment style, general fam-
ily resemblances between works are used. This
264 Genres and Styles of Comedy
approach is based on the psycholinguistic concept
of prototypicality and employs the shared features
of a few texts commonly regarded as being more
typical members of a genre than others to “identify
the extent to which an exemplar is prototypical of
a particular genre” (Swales, 1990, p. 52). Amid all
this complexity, the safest and most commonsense
approach to genre concepts is to treat them with
caution, as fuzzy, not watertight, categories. Even
if genres cannot always be defined by necessary
and sufficient conditions, they nevertheless serve as
useful markers of aspects shared by like works and
of what a particular text (or a performance) seems
intended to elicit in its readers (and audience).
Comedy and Genre
Generic categorization in theater comedy has been
driven not only by critics but by audiences, who like
to know what they may expect on stage. Comedy
(e.g., as opposed to tragedy) can itself be consid-
ered a genre; but its principal subcategories—such
as comedy of manners, romantic comedy, farce, and
tragicomedy—are often also termed genres rather
than subgenres. Importantly, these themselves do
not always remain precise and frequently shade into
and combine with each other; each also embraces its
own subforms. Criteria used in naming genres have
included form, content, style, purpose, even time
and place of performance. For example, two types
of farce are the English 18th-century “afterpiece,”
forming a short conclusion to a long evening’s mixed
theatrical bill of fare, and the German late medieval
Fastnachtspiel, a brief farce staged on Fastnacht
(Shrove Tuesday) at the beginning of the Lenten
period of fasting and reflection. Both were short plays,
dependent on trickery and deception, favoring physi-
cal comedy over verbal wit and making good use of
stock character types. They also shared the same dra-
matic purpose: to entertain in a light-hearted and car-
nivalesque way without seeking to critique the society
that produced and enjoyed them. Although both
clearly belong to the genre of farce, dramatic criticism
recognizes each one as a different comic genre, named
and defined by its circumstances of performance.
Categories of Comic Genre
The principal traditional distinction in comic genre
has been between high comedy of wit or manners
and farce or low comedy. Other well-established
categories of comic genres include romantic and
sentimental comedy, satirical comedy, intellectual
or problem-comedy, tragicomedy, and nonsense.
More recent additions include absurdist humor and
“black” or gallows humor. These genres proved not
to be a good fit with any existing category, even sat-
ire, and so earned their own identities. Absurdist
humor was named by Martin Esslin in 1968 in his
study of the plays of Eugène Ionesco (1909–1994)
and Samuel Beckett (1906–1989). “Black humor”
(not named for any racial connotation) is likewise
a French contribution to humor studies, properly
called humour en noir to reflect its first identification
in Anthologie de l’humour noir (1940; Anthology of
Black Humor, English ed., 1979) by André Breton,
founder and principal theorist of the surrealist move-
ment. A prime example is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964
film Dr. Strangelove, a darkly surreal comedy about
the nuclear arms race. A related but probably dis-
tinct genre in humor research is sick humor (also
termed “disgust humor” by Patrice Oppliger in
1997). This aims at inducing a laughing kind of dis-
gust in its audiences and accordingly caters to the
specialist tastes of niche magazines and interpersonal
joking rather than being found widely in literature.
Generic distinctions are also made on the basis
of formal and structural aspects, for example,
stand-up comedy, improvised comedy (improv),
comic relief (inserted into more serious content for
dramatic effect or as a tension breaker), burlesque
(either a parody of a serious work or a striptease
comedy, depending on whether you live in Europe
or the United States), comic opera (primarily sung
comic dialogue), cabaret (informal performances of
raunchy and satiric songs), and silent film comedy.
In addition, parodies, travesties, and pastiches are
genres that take as many forms as their originals.
Other commonly encountered terms sometimes put
forward as genres actually identify techniques or
even content—such as irony, wryness, wit, banter,
punning, invective, slapstick, and pratfalls. Finally,
some so-called genres identify a mood, tonality, or
style of comedy, such as “the carnivalesque,” “the
farcical,” and “the satirical.”
Styles of Humor and Comedy
Style is a literary term that identifies the nature or
“flavor” of comedy and humor in general and thus
the kind of laughter it is greeted with. The flavor
(style) often accords with the genres listed above,
but not necessarily. Jessica Milner Davis (2003)
has noted that farce audiences for example react
differently to what French dramatist Jean Anouilh

(1910–1987) called a “pièce en rose” (a rose-colored
play) and a “pièce en noir” (a black play, p. 16).
Indeed, this apparently simple genre may shift in the
course of a single play from pure farce to romantic
sentimentalism, to existential angst, and even to seri-
ous political satire (as in Italian actor and drama-
tist Dario Fo’s famous farce, Accidental Death of an
Anarchist, 1970). As pointed out above, genres are
fuzzy, shapeshifting concepts.
Satire is a particularly difficult case, since its iden-
tification effectively relies on intentionality (whether
or not the humor in question possesses a moral seri-
ousness). Also, as a 2008 study by Conal Condren,
Jessica Milner Davis, Sally McCausland, and Robert
Phiddian notes, satire may “range widely, from gen-
tle and quiet irony at one extreme, to overt ridicule
and savage debasement at the other” (p. 405)—it
may even, in the extreme case of George Orwell’s
satirical novel, 1984 (1949), be so bleak as not to be
humorous at all. Condren (2012) suggests that satire
is best treated not as a genre but as “the satirical
mode (or style)” (p. 364). Often, in fact, the con-
cept of comic style is more valuable than that of
comic genre for describing either the overall kind of
humor of a text or performance or that of an indi-
vidual comic turn or moment within a larger piece.
It makes better allowance for the affective fluidity
that characterizes most humor, whether in real life
exchanges between individuals or in entertainment
and art. Condren remarks (p. 393) that while with
hindsight we can often helpfully identify a work as
belonging to a particular comic genre or style, the
author is unlikely to have set out to write to any
such recipe, nor is the classification essential to our
understanding of the piece.
Whatever the intentions of an author or artist,
the humor of any joke will vary somewhat accord-
ing to the mediation of its narrator or enactor. In
fact, the choices and skills of individual performers
when they interpret a text strongly influence style,
suggesting that “comedic style” might be more accu-
rate than comic style. Comedic is a term that seems
in favor in current critical writing about humor, but
properly, it relates to comedy that is performed.
Comic styles or modes apply however very widely—
certainly in interpersonal joking, where the same
text can be either lightly or aggressively delivered,
depending on the rapport between the jokers. Even
in visual humor such as cartoons, some are far more
bitter and savage than others. Accordingly, styles of
humor often replaces the other terms, entailing for
humor researchers an awkward distinction between
Genres and Styles of Comedy 265
this literary usage and that found in psychological
studies of humor, where the expression humor styles
has been appropriated to describe individual patterns
of use of humor in daily life (a clash acknowledged
by some psychologists such as Ursula Beermann and
Willibald Ruch, 2009, pp. 398–399).
A key factor in determining comic (or humorous)
style is the nature of the audience’s engagement with
the comic characters and plot situations presented.
Humor presented on stage or in the pages of a novel
involves representations—however stereotyped—of
other human beings, for example as jokers and their
dupes. Thus the nature and intensity of any laughter
response depends on the nature and degree of empa-
thy felt. Unlike empathetic romantic comedy, farce
depends on many structural devices that draw the
audience’s attention to the mechanical and repeti-
tious nature of its plots and lazzi (pieces of business
or joke situations). These devices, combined with
speed and stylization of acting, help ensure that there
is little time either for characters to reflect on their
sufferings as comic victims or for audience members
to sympathize with them or become alarmed for
their welfare. Romantic comedy, whether on stage,
page, or screen, does the exact opposite and the
nature of the laughter and hence the comic style or
flavor of the piece is very different.
Romantic and Sentimental Comedy
As noted above, many comic genres are identified
with a particular style of humor. Tragicomedy for
example claims a very particular “flavor” created by
its oscillation between cheerful laughter and alarm
at the possibility of a tragic outcome for its heroes
and heroines: The audience sits on the edge of their
seats, in rather the same way as Noel Carroll’s 1999
study notes they do for a horror movie, uncer-
tain about whether to take things seriously or not.
Romantic comedy (rom-com) is a genre in which
love interest plays an important part. Audience iden-
tification with and concern about the fortunes of
sympathetic young heroes and heroines obviously
will lend a particular flavor to laughter at their more
comic pranks: The audience wants to see them get
away with their joking. At its extreme, romantic
comedy became known as the sentimental comedy
(also comédie larmoyante, tearful comedy), a genre
popular in the 18th century that featured tear-jerker
plots and characters in impossible situations, a
kind of comic forerunner to Victorian melodrama.
Exactly the same kind of anguished laugh however
266 Genres and Styles of Comedy
greets any performance of the Japanese Edo-period
Kyo–gen, Utsubozaru (A Monkey for a Quiver), as
Marguerite Wells and Jessica Davis note (2006,
p. 144). Here, an unfeeling landowner decides to
shoot a trained monkey for its pelt but relents after
a heartwrenching performance by the little animal
who seeks to prevent his devoted trainer from killing
himself in despair. The sentimental tone of the fes-
tive reconciliation is fortified by having a child actor
play the monkey.
Another little known but clearly definable genre
within romantic comedy is the late-19th-century
French vaudeville—quite distinct from Broadway
vaudeville. It was perfected by Eugène Scribe (1791–
1861, master of the so-called well-made play), and its
comic or romantic plot was interspersed with short
songs of a type popular at the time called vaudevilles.
An example is Scribe’s little masterpiece, L’Intérieur
d’un bureau (Inside an Office, 1823), in which a
cheeky vaudeville satirizing the office’s head (a min-
ister in the government) first threatens to damn and
then makes the fortunes of its author, a promising
young clerk called Victor. Aspiring to marry the min-
ister’s daughter, Victor is greatly alarmed when his
composition goes missing, and even more so when he
learns it has been given to the minister himself. But
fortunately, the great man condescends to admire the
piece and singles out the author for praise. In terms
of comic style, this might be summed up as cheerful
farce shading into romantic comedy.
A less cheerful kind of romantic comedy—
although at times it shades into farce, at others it
becomes blackly ironic—is Chekhovian comedy.
Anton Chekhov (1860–1904) wrote farces and high
comedies but specialized in “the kind of synthetic
[i.e synthesized; conjoint] tragi-comedy that we now
recognize as Chekhovian” (Borny, 2006, p. 141).
This is a rare example of a comic style named for
a particular writer that has its parallels in authors
such as Aristophanes (Aristophanic comedy, satiric,
licentious, and fantastic) and François Rabelais
(Rabelaisian humor, an intellectual style of bawdy).
Most great comic authors, including William
Shakespeare, Molière, Miguel de Cervantes, and
even Mark Twain, are recognized for a more pro-
tean style, as their work embraces the full range of
comedy, from high to low.
Elements Affecting Comic or Humorous Style
Variation in comic style is driven by a number of
different factors that can be summed up as follows:
• quality of the empathetic link to comic victims
and dupes (warm and personal in romantic
comedy, more detached in satire and slapstick)
• mood of the joking, ranging from bitter and
sarcastic (black humor and tragicomedy) to
openly cheerful (farce and romantic comedy)
• innocence or otherwise of themes and topics
(cultural taboos being deliberately violated in
disgust humor, satire, farce, and the
carnivalesque; while harmless playfulness
characterizes high and romantic comedy)
• intent and purpose of the joking (critical and
morally serious in satire and absurdist comedy,
and more accepting of human follies and foibles
in farce and low comedy, with comedy of
manners somewhere in between)
Readers familiar with Wolfgang Schmidt-
Hidding’s 1962 word map of English words relat-
ing to humor will recognize some of these affective
and cognitive parameters: Schmidt-Hidding pro-
posed as one set of polar opposites a “sympathetic
heart” that appreciated the humorous incongrui-
ties of the world and “a superior spirit” or mind
drawn to the cerebral humor of wit and wordplay.
Above and beyond such a polarity, however, lies
the issue of how cleverly constructed (and well
delivered) is the piece of comedy. The more likely
its contents are to alert or offend the moral sensi-
bilities of its audience, the greater its need for
superlative joke-work (to borrow Sigmund Freud’s
term) in order to carry off laughter successfully.
Since slipshod artistry in humor is commonplace,
while at the same time around the globe there is
heightened contemporary awareness of social
issues, it is not surprising that increasing numbers
of “politically incorrect” pranks and entertain-
ments can be condemned as “simply not funny,”
regardless of their comic style.
Jessica Milner Davis
See also Absurdist Humor; Burlesque; Carnivalesque;
Comedy; Comic Relief; Farce; Gallows Humor; High
Comedy; Irony; Kyo– gen; Low Comedy; Molière;
Movie Humor Types; Nonsense; Parody; Pastiche;
Satire; Shakespearean Comedy; Sick Humor; Sketch
Comedy Shows; Tragicomedy; Travesty
Further Readings
Beermann, U., & Ruch, W. (2009). How virtuous is
humor? Evidence from everyday behavior. HUMOR:
 Goldoni, Carlo 267

International Journal of Humor Research, 22(4),

395–417.
Bhatia, V. K. (2012). Critical reflections on genre analysis.
Ibérica, 24, 17–28.
Borny, G. (2006). Interpreting Chekhov. Canberra, ACT:
Australian National University Press.
Breton, A. (1979). Anthology of black humour (M.
Polizzotti, Trans.). San Francisco, CA: City Lights.
Carroll, N. (1999). Horror and humor. The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57(2), 145–160.
Casey, B., Casey, N., Lewis, J., Calvert, B., & French, L.
(1993). Genre. In K. McLeish (Ed.), Key ideas in human
thought. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Condren, C. (2012). Satire and definition. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 25(4),
375–399. doi:10.1515/humor-2012-0019
Condren, C., Milner Davis, J., McCausland, S., &
Phiddian, R. (2008). Defining parody and satire:
Australian copyright law and its new exception: Part
2—Advancing ordinary definitions. Media Arts Law
Review, 13(4), 401–421.
Esslin, M. (1961/1968). Theatre of the Absurd. Retrieved
from http://archive.org/stream/TheTheatreOfTheAbsurd/
The_Theatre_of_the_Absurd#page/n1/mode/2up
Freud, S. (1974). The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (J. Strachey,
Trans., 24 vols.). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Oppliger, P. (1997). Disgust in humor: Its appeal to
adolescents. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 10(4), 421–438.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Europäische Schlüsselwörter Monument to Carlo Goldoni by Antonio Dal Zotto, in
[European keywords]. Band I: Humor und Witz the Campo san Bartolomeo, Venice, Italy
[Humor and jokes and wit]. Munich, Germany: Hueber. Source: Didier Descouens/Wikimedia Commons.
Sobchack, T., & Sobchack, V. C. (1980). An introduction
to film. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: authored one novel, produced countless occasional
Cambridge University Press.
pieces as required by contracts with the impresario
Wells, M. A., & Milner Davis, J. (2006). Kyo– gen as comic
in the theaters where he was employed, and wrote
relief: Farce and satire in the Japanese classical theatre.
detailed introductions to successive published edi-
In J. Milner Davis (Ed.), Understanding humor in Japan
tions of his plays as well as two autobiographies.
(pp. 127–153). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University
Press.
He was born in Venice in 1707, and although
he received his education in various Italian cities,
he was quintessentially Venetian and his best work
is associated with the city of his birth. He trained
GOLDONI, CARLO as a lawyer and at times abandoned the theater for
legal work; but he was always drawn back. His
Carlo Goldoni is an important figure in the history career and his evolving ideas on theater paralleled
of Italian theater both as playwright and theater his collaboration with three theaters in Venice—the
reformer. He was a prolific writer who may have San Samuele (1738–1743), the Sant’Angelo (1748–
written as many as 134 dramatic works. He is best 1753), and the San Luca (1753–1762). Venice,
remembered for his comedies, but he produced work with seven theaters, was the theatrical capital of
in all contemporary theatrical genres—tragedy, Europe, but fierce internal competition led to the so-
melodrama, opera libretto, and intermezzi. He also called theater wars with two rival playwrights, Piero
268 Goldoni, Carlo
Chiari and Carlo Gozzi. The rivalry grew increas-
ingly bitter, and when in 1762 Goldoni received
an invitation from the Comédie Italienne in Paris,
he left Venice never to return. His years in Paris
were times of artistic and personal frustration, and
although he continued writing, his most productive
days were over. He died in poverty in the French
capital in 1793.
For all his versatility, Goldoni regarded comedy
as his forte. “There can be no denying that I was
born under the influence of the star of comedy, since
my very life is a comedy. Any time I find myself lack-
ing topics or subjects for new plots, I look back at
my past life and find material to work,” he wrote in
the introduction to volume V, p. III, of the Pasquali
edition of his plays (17 volumes, 1761–1768). In
the same place, he declared that his twin sources
of inspiration were “the Theater and the World,”
a statement that is fundamental but elusive in
meaning. The “World” can be taken as referring
to the lives, loves, anger, deceit, greed, and all the
emotional and intellectual conflicts in human life
as Goldoni observed it, justifying the description,
however anachronistic, of Goldoni as a realist. The
Lovers (1759) is a work of psychological intensity,
based on his observation of the love-hate relation-
ship between an engaged couple in a house in Rome
where he was living. He had little taste for fantasy,
as he made plain in his introduction to the early
work, Don Giovanni Tenorio (1735).
The reference to “theater” as a source of inspira-
tion involves a recognition of the centrality of con-
vention, tradition, and technique in drama, and of
Goldoni’s willingness to model ideas and emotions
in accordance with the demands of stagecraft, while
also stretching and challenging accepted canons.
At an early stage, Goldoni decided that the central
secret was, as he wrote in his Mémoires, “to adapt
the scripts precisely to the actors who were to per-
form them” (1814/1993, p. 306). Goldoni was a
consummate, professional craftsman belonging to a
new breed of 18th-century writer and artist who dif-
fered from their Renaissance and Baroque predeces-
sors in not seeking court or ecclesiastical patronage
and in finding material in everyday life, and from
their Romantic successors in not nurturing a haughty
sense of artistic superiority. He was happy to see him-
self as a jobbing dramatist who never denied the need
to please his public and who sought and obtained
employment from the owners of the theaters or from
the leaders of theatrical troupes. In 1745, he accepted
a commission from the celebrated actor, Cesare
D’Arbes, who wanted a play that would show off
his talents, and who actually proposed a French
work written by Jean Pierre Ours de Manjadors
(1669–1747) as a suitable vehicle. Goldoni rewrote
it as Servant of Two Masters, one of his undisputed
masterpieces. He wrote not for posterity but for
immediate performance, with a specific cast in mind,
so his observation of an almost schizophrenic split in
the personality of D’Arbes, who oscillated between
cheery optimism and dark gloom, gave Goldoni the
idea for The Venetian Twins (1747).
Italian theater in the days of Goldoni’s apprentice-
ship at San Samuele was dominated by commedia
dell’arte, but the tradition had lost its vitality. Goldoni
found its limitations frustrating and embarked on a
program of reform, whose basic principles are set out
in a play-within-a-play, The Comic Theatre (1750).
The reform was multifaceted. He required the actors
to remove the masks the stock characters of com-
media dell’arte had traditionally worn and to submit
to the discipline of performing a script written by an
author rather than rely on improvisation. The con-
sequence was that the author replaced the actor as
the central figure in Italian theater, and by control-
ling the script, the playwright had the opportunity
to probe character and psychology. Goldoni intro-
duced his reforms slowly, from inside the tradition.
He described Momolo cortesan (1738, Momolo
the Gentleman) as “the first comedy of character
I wrote” (Goldoni, 1814/1993, p. 235), but only the
part of the protagonist was fully scripted. It was only
with La donna di garbo (The Sharp-Witted Lady) in
1743 that Goldoni produced a fully scripted play.
He showed himself flexible and the later Servant of
Two Masters was written—by his own admission—
in the style of commedia dell’arte. When he moved
to Paris, he was compelled to work with actors
schooled in the old tradition and incapable to adapt-
ing to the new ways.
Before that move, the success of the reform pro-
gram cleared the way for the great works of his
maturity, particularly in the astonishing 1750–1751
season, when for a wager he undertook to write 16
plays. These include such acknowledged masterpieces
as La bottega del caffè (The Coffeehouse), whose
protagonist is an entrepreneurial woman who runs
her own establishment and who decides which of
the various suitors she will marry: Il giocatore (The
Gambler), a satirical, moralistic depiction of a vice
Goldoni himself practiced; and Il vero amico (The
True Friend), a clash between friendship and love but
also a comic, bitter denunciation of miserliness.

In a sonnet, English poet Robert Browning
(1812–1889) called Goldoni “good, gay, sunniest of
souls,” but there is a darker underside, as recent crit-
ics have recognized. Goldoni’s comedy was rarely
purely playful and often had a satiric bite directed
against abuses in the society of his time.
Joseph Farrell
See also Carnival and Festival; Comedy; Commedia
dell’Arte; Genres and Styles of Comedy; High
Comedy; History of Humor: Early Modern Europe;
Masks; Molière; Satire; Tragicomedy
Further Readings
Angelini, F. (1993). Vita di Goldoni. Bari, Italy: Laterza.
Farrell, J. (Ed.). (1997). Carlo Goldoni and eighteenth-
century theatre. Lampeter, UK: Edward Mellen Press.
Fido, F. (1997). Guida a Goldoni [Guide to Goldini]. Turin,
Italy: Eninaudi.
Goldoni, C. (1993). Memorie (P. Ranzini, Trans.). Milan,
Italy: Mondadori. (Originally published 1814)
Goldoni, C. (2011). Il servitore di due padroni [Adapted by
L. Hall]. In F. Joseph (Ed.), A servant of two masters.
London, UK: Methuen Drama. (Originally published
1743)
Günsberg, M. (2001). Playing with gender: The comedies
of Goldoni. Leeds, UK: Northern Universities Press.
Holme, T. (1976). A servant of many masters: The life and
times of Carlo Goldoni. London, UK: Jupiter.
Steele, E. (1981). Carlo Goldoni: Life, work and times.
Ravenna, Italy: Longo.
Vescovo, P. (2006). Carlo Goldoni, playwright and
reformer. In J. Farrell & P. Puppa (Eds.), The history of
Italian theatre (pp. 160–176). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
GRAFFITI
Graffiti and graffito are from the Italian word graf-
fiato meaning “scratched.” The word originates
from the Greek γράφειν—graphein—meaning “to
write.” The act of writing and drawing on walls
goes back to ancient Greek, Roman, and prehis-
toric times. Contemporary graffiti is most often
found within desolate urban spaces: rooftops, over-
passes, industrial concrete walls, highway signs,
railroad cars, and subway cars. The contemporary
graffiti movement is associated with rap and hip-
hop culture and music as well as anti-consumerist
and anti-corporate ideologies. Graffiti art is often
Graffiti 269
Engraving of the graffito “Kilroy” on the World War II
Memorial in Washington, D.C. Kilroy was a popular
graffito among American GIs during World War II.
Source: Jason Coyne/Wikimedia Commons (http://
jasoncoyne.smugmug.com).
associated with street art where artists use public
wall spaces as their canvas for writing and drawing;
however, street art tends to include a variety of styles
and more completed works of art.
The graffiti artist must work quickly, as the act
of creating graffiti is considered to be vandalism.
Typical materials include spray paint and stencils
that allow for covering large surfaces quickly. Graffiti
is a worldwide artistic phenomenon with examples
found in North and South America, Europe, the
Middle East, and Asia. Many graffiti artists have
crossed over into the art world, such as Banksy,
whose works are represented by major art galleries.
While most graffiti artists are male, there are a num-
ber of well-known female graffiti artists. This entry
discusses some of the techniques graffiti artists use
and the ways in which graffiti can convey humor.
Techniques of Graffiti
Some terms relative to graffiti include tagging, piece,
throw-up, and blockbuster. Tagging is a single line
of writing, usually an artist’s name. A piece is a sig-
nature of the artist’s name that utilizes stylized and
decorative letters and colors, multiple hues, and
cartoon-like figures. Throw-ups are usually two
color compositions. A blockbuster is a large piece,
typically covering a large wall or surface, and utilizes
block-shaped letters with two contrasting colors;
larger surfaces are often covered with paint rollers.
Graffiti artists are also known to create cartoon-like
faces or characters that accompany their text. Stencils
270 Graffiti

are often used with spray paint. A more complex

style is wildstyle, a form of graffiti that is created by
interlocking letters that are undecipherable.

Humor in Graffiti
The act of doing graffiti may be viewed as subversive
in that it constitutes a purposeful altering of the look
and perception of public or civic space. The graf-
fiti artists use the technique of transposition to cre-
ate humor by creating images within contexts that
are not associated with images, writing, or humor.
It is not certain whether the intent of a graffiti artist
is to create humor or a comic effect. However, the
application of the techniques of exaggeration (with
enlarged, “fat,” or distorted letters and words), jux-
taposition of incongruous words and images, and
contradiction (through stenciling and painting over
existing images) by the graffiti artist often does result
in a comic effect. In looking at the graffiti images by
male and female graffiti artists, differences in imag-
ery are noticeable. Female artists tend to use rounder
letters, include personal and cultural symbols such
as hearts and flowers, integrate popular culture ref-
erences and imagery (comic book/Manga figures),
and include personal writings such as poems. Many
of their works have a whimsical feel through the use
of imagery and use of psychedelic coloring. A Banksy mural shows a man in a suit and a woman in
One of the more well-known graffiti artists is her underwear, with her naked lover dangling from the
Banksy, a U.K.-based artist who is known for his window ledge. The mural appeared one night on the wall
stenciled, graphic, representational, figurative, and of a sexual health clinic in Bristol, England. The local
silhouette paintings on walls that tackle subjects council allowed it to remain there after the image proved
such as poverty, crime, war, politics, race, and class popular with the public.
oppression. Using satire, parody, and irony, he Source: Photographed by Adrian Pingstone/Wikimedia
jolts our perceptions through elements of surprise Commons.
and illusion—where for example, he stencils a sil-
houetted figure of a child “sitting” on a handrail
blowing bubbles. He also utilizes techniques of the a rocking chair waving an American flag. The comic
surrealist painters to create the illusion of high- effect lies in the transposition of these images into
definition landscapes that are juxtaposed with more an urban landscape that is typically designated as
flat and formalized designs. Responding to the site, wasteland—deserted lots and wall spaces not situ-
he often utilizes elements such as sidewalk or wall ated on well-trafficked urban routes. The irony is
cracks in his paintings, or he will paint a window that Banksy’s work is considered both vandalism
next to an actual window. These illusions, while and serious street art depending on who is looking
humorous in themselves, serve to support a larger at it. His work ranges from more lighthearted sten-
and more complex narrative and sociopolitical state- ciled text, such as “What are you looking at” in the
ment whereby he plays with our perceptions of cul- view of a security camera, to “Mona Lisa Showing
tural stereotypes and even our expectation of urban Her Bum,” to large-scale, billboard size paintings.
landscapes. A few examples include an image of two Contemporary artists are also using techniques
males in army fatigues who are engaged in looting used by graffiti artists (creating words and letters
an apartment. Another example is a sign that reads in public spaces) in installations that utilize light,
“No Loitering” with an image of an elderly male in gesture, and the body in the creation of calligraphic

light shapes that are projected in space and onto
walls and floors. These art works explore the formal
beauty of letters and suggest that drawing need not
be on a page or wall. This pleasant jolt between our
expectations and what is occurring is the basis for
humor.
Sheri R. Klein
See also Caricature; Cartoons; Exaggeration
Further Readings
Cooper, M., & Chalfant, H. (1984). Subway art. New
York, NY: Henry Holt.
Ganz, N. (2006). Graffiti women: Street art from five
continents. New York, NY: Abrams.
Gastman, R., Rowland, D., & Sattler, I. (2006). Freight
train graffiti. New York, NY: Abrams.
Hirch, M. (2005). Subversive humour. In D. Taylor (Ed.),
Me funny. Vancouver, BC: Douglas & McIntyre.
Phillips, S. A. (1999). Wallbangin’. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Rojo, J., & Harrrington, S. P. (2010). Street art New York.
Munich, Germany: Prestel.
Rotman, S., & Brennan, C. (2008). Bay area graffiti. New
York, NY: Mark Batty.
Sutherland, P. (2004). Autograf: New York City’’s graffiti
writers. New York, NY: Powerhouse Books.
Zoghbi, P. (2011). Arabic graffiti. Berlin, Germany: From
Here to Fame.
GREEK VISUAL HUMOR
Visual humor is a major component of humor stud-
ies; its ancient Greek manifestation, which emerged
from the first democracy in the history of the world,
offers a unique insight into the Western origins of
visual humor. Most comic images were produced
in Athens on thousands of vases dating back to
550–375 BCE, with the exception of a few hilari-
ous parodies painted on vases found at the Kabirion
Sanctuary in central Greece and some theater-related
vase-paintings produced in Southern Italy (the so-
called Phlyax vases). This entry gives a short intro-
duction to the ancient context of visual humor and
how it is identified on ancient Greek vases, followed
by a review of the four main categories of ancient
visual humor: visual puns, parody, caricature, and
situation comedy, which were used to mock every
aspect of daily life and famous mythological stories
in ancient Greece.
Greek Visual Humor 271
The Ancient Context of Visual Humor
A New Look at Ancient Art
While humor in ancient Greek literature has been
thoroughly researched for the last 150 years, visual
humor has been overlooked. This lack of interest is
due to a frozen view of classical art inherited from
the 19th century, focused on canons of beauty, rea-
son, and gravitas. This vision is certainly still valid
for a number of ancient commissioned artifacts
produced in expensive materials, but certainly not
for Greek vases, produced in the millions for the
marketplace.
Cheap Material, Market Production,
and Democracy
At least three converging elements have made it
possible for visual humor to blossom in Archaic and
classical Athens: It was depicted on a cheap mate-
rial, produced for the market rather than patrons,
and within a democratic context. Greek vases were
made of fired clay, an inexpensive material to work
with, while labor costs were very low too. Thus,
regardless of their current market value, they were
a popular, cheap, and functional art form. Secondly,
in contrast to expensive materials and higher art
forms such as marble or metal sculpture, which
were produced by artists on commission, vases were
produced daily for the marketplace. The decoration
had to surprise and follow popular fashion trends
in order to attract potential buyers. Humor is still
heavily used today in advertising to ensure people
remember a brand. The financial reward of coupling
humor and memory was not lost on the ancients.
Finally, one of the many benefits of democracy is
freedom of expression, and Athenian vase painters,
mostly anonymous artisans, enjoyed a freedom of
expression unequalled in antiquity. Coupled with
cheap and mass-produced vessels they had to sell,
this freedom enabled them to mock every aspect of
Athenian society. Ultimately this helps us to reveal
the norms, those who were mocked, and contempo-
rary social power struggles.
Identifying Visual Humor:
Legitimacy and Methodology
Legitimacy After 2,500 Years
Some may wonder whether we can really identify
humor on pots produced 2,500 years ago or whether
the images were actually intended to be humorous.
272 Greek Visual Humor
In fact, while taboos have changed radically since
ancient times, the main comic genres and categories
(verbal and iconographical) remain unchanged over
time and geographically.
Methodology to Identify Visual Humor
Comic images rarely mock well-known or
unknown texts: They mock mainstream images. As
Greek vases were fired at very high temperatures,
hundreds of thousands of decorated vases have
survived the ages (many more undecorated pots are
found in excavations). By observing these numer-
ous depictions closely, patterns and codes of imagery
emerge: One can decipher and assess which images
were mainstream and which images were humorous.
Comic Categories: Visual Puns, Parody,
Caricature, and Situation Comedy
Which Subjects?
The material has shown that almost any subject
was fit for mockery on Greek pots: every social class
(slaves, peasants, various artisans, merchants, and
rich or poor citizens), the 12 main deities and minor
ones too, whether in mythological stories (e.g.,
caricatured Athena) or as worshipped gods (e.g.,
parodies of altar sacrifices). They mocked women
to better control them (e.g., portraying them as
gluttonous, sex crazed, or blabbering beings), and,
with both men and women, mocked bodily excesses
(food, drink, defecation, sex). Just like a mirror
offering a deformed vision of the truth, thanks to
these comic images we can verify or correct some
of the descriptions of values in ancient literature.
Painters had a predilection for satyrs, the comic
followers of the god Dionysus. Satyrs were ubiqui-
tous on Greek vases, mostly in wine-relating scenes,
usually in the presence of Dionysus and his female
followers, the maenads. Satyrs are unanimously
considered to be comic figures per se: In addition
to their alcoholic and sexual excesses, satyrs were
also cowards, which made them perfect characters
to parody known serious myths on stage in so-called
satyr plays. These carnivalesque figures were used in
a similar fashion on pots.
Visual Puns
Some pictures are visual puns because they func-
tion in the same benign and reductive play as verbal
puns, on the combination of different images to
provoke laughter. In a visual pun, a painter subverts
the traditional stylistic conventions of imagery:
For instance, he can comically blur the distinction
between the decorative frame of a scene and the
content that is framed. This type of humor is based
on visual memory. Painters change small details in
well-known series of images to produce a comical
effect. Visual puns lack a story line, even if they may
refer incidentally to mythology or cultural phenom-
ena. A good example of a visual pun is found on a
black-figure wine jug now in the collection of the
University of California, Berkeley (see Figure 1).
Two satyrs carry large decorative eyes exactly like
other satyrs usually carry wineskins on their backs:
They hold the wineskins from one of the tied open-
ings, which on this vase is the eye’s tear duct. The
satyr has traded the decorative function and mean-
ing of the eyes for two wineskins: He is playing with
the decorative motifs of the vase.
Parody
A literary parody is a text that imitates the style
of another with some changes. Two notions are at
work in a parody: reproduction (of the known ref-
erence) and comic transformation. Vase paintings
were not “read” as texts, yet the codes of imagery
were obvious to their purchasers. Vase painters who
produced parodies had to be certain that the viewer
would recognize a conventional scene or motif by
giving sufficient details, but at the same time they
needed to include other well-chosen details. A
satyr (see Figure 2), identifiable from his horsetail
Figure 1 Attic Black-Figure Olpe, 550–530 BCE
Source: Author drawing based on artifact in Phoebe
Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology, UC Berkeley.

Figure 2 Attic Red-Figure Chous, 460–450 BCE
Source: Author drawing based on artifact in British
Museum, London.
and pointed ears, his snub nose, and scruffy beard,
approaches a snake coiled around the trunk of a
tree. He wields a club in his right hand and bears a
hunter’s leather cape across his left arm and shoul-
der. The reference to the famous labor of Herakles
who had to overcome the dragon of the garden of
the Hesperides to pick its golden apples is clear from
the details of the club, the snake, the tree, and its
fruit. To see a satyr in a heroic posture, mimick-
ing Herakles’s actions, is comical enough, but the
painter has altered yet another detail so as to under-
line his parody. As satyrs are obsessed with wine,
apples—golden or otherwise—would not interest
them. Thus, the painter has drawn wine jugs in place
of the expected apples.
Caricature
A caricature is a grotesque or ludicrous repre-
sentation of persons or things by the exaggeration
of their most characteristic and striking features.
In archaic and classical Greece, old age, pygmies,
African facial traits, and dwarfs aroused laughter.
Many painters used these facial or bodily traits
to mock upstanding citizens. A small wine vessel
in Paris (see Figure 3) shows on one of its sides a
Greek Visual Humor 273
Figure 3 Attic Red-Figure Askos, 460–440 BCE
Source: Author drawing of artifact in Musée du Louvre,
Paris.
bald deformed man. The man’s body is strikingly
small compared to his enormous head, larger than
his entire body. He is leaning on a staff; his cloak is
folded under his left arm and hangs off the staff.
This bald man’s attitude is that of many noncha-
lant strollers at the gymnasium, just like a similar
but noncaricatured bystander depicted on a wine
vessel in Laon (see Figure 4). With such a huge head
and pensive attitude, our figure could be a caricature
of a sophist, not a sophist in particular but what
the common artisan in the potter’s quarter thought
of sophists, who spent their time thinking or chat-
ting at the gym. Sophists called themselves thinkers.
Today we would call them eggheads.
Situation Comedy
Situation comedy is still used on stage today and
is a form of humor that gave rise to the nickname
sitcom. In Athenian Old Comedy, situation comedy
was already a major comic vehicle and the easiest
way to provoke an immediate response from an
audience. When a character is placed in an unex-
pected situation, he may act in a comic way. Yet,
how can situation comedy be depicted as opposed
to enacted? In vase paintings, it often arises from an
element that disturbs an established order or when
there is a complete inversion of an initial situation.
It consists often in the depiction of debased heroes
274 Greek Visual Humor

or gods acting as humans, or a king acting as a actors, that is, the style of the narration is crucial.
coward. The Ancients had a predilection for one of Likewise in vase paintings, the humor of a scene
Herakles’s 12 labors: the quest for the Erymanthian can be enhanced or degraded depending on the tal-
boar (see Figure 5). The story is found depicted in ent of the painter. Most painters show Eurystheus
a great variety of materials, both cheap and costly, lifting the lid of the pithos and taking a peep from
and on hundreds of vases. In the story and the
images, Herakles is requested by King Eurystheus to
return to him after having defeated the monstrous
boar. But Herakles is what we moderns would call
a superhero and he returns with the monster still
alive. The king, frightened both by the animal and
Herakles, hides away by jumping head first into a
large pot.
The initial power relation is inverted: The king,
who usually gives orders to the great Herakles,
unexpectedly acts as a coward as he flees and hides.
The degradation of the king acting in fear like an
ordinary man makes him ridiculous. The “ridicu-
lous” is undoubtedly a source of laughter.
Situation comedy often requires an element
of surprise to provoke a comic response, but this
scene is found so many times in vase paintings that
there must have been more to this scene than just an
element of surprise. Maybe it was the pleasure of
witnessing a typical comic archetype, “the tricked
trickster”: The king sets impossible tasks to Herakles
with the secret hope he should die in the process. But
Herakles foils his every plan, and in this labor, he
brings back the beast alive, leading to the farcical
end result of a king hiding in a large pot.
The surprise effect may still be present but in a
different mode: that of style. Some hilarious plays Figure 4 Attic Red-Figure Skyphos, 450–430 BCE
can be ruined because they are performed badly. In Source: Author drawing of artifact in Musée Municipal,
situation comedy, the quality of performance of the Laon, France.

Figure 5 Herakles Bringing the Erymanthian Boar to Cowardly King Eurystheus, One Foot in His Hiding Place. Black-
Figure Attic Amphora, Syracuse, Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi, 21965; Leagros Group; 520–500 BCE
Source: Scanned drawing after G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, 1882, Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité (History of Art in
Antiquity), 10, 210–211, figs. 136–137. Paris, France: Hachette.
 Greek Visual Humor 275

his hiding place at Herakles. Others show Herakles See also Caricature; Parody; Sitcoms; Trickster; Puns
with one foot on the lip of the jar, preparing to tip
the boar into the pithos. This position emphasizes Further Readings
Herakles’s superiority over the king manqué. But the
Mitchell, A. G. (2012). Greek vase painting and the origins
scene shows Eurystheus running in alarm into his
of visual humour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
large pot as fast as possible in anticipation of the
University Press.
(in-)famous conclusion.
In conclusion, the very wide-ranging, popular
imagery mocking every aspect of ancient Greek cul-
ture is an excellent measure of the freedom of expres- GTVH
sion enjoyed by ancient Athenian vase painters.
Alexandre G. Mitchell See Linguistic Theories of Humor
 H
HBQD
See Humor Styles Measurement
HEALTH BENEFITS OF
HUMOR, PHYSICAL
The effect of humor on health can basically be
divided into two main categories, effects on physi-
cal health and effects on mental health. Although
there is some crossover, with things that improve
mental health having the possibility of improving
physical health and vice versa, this entry addresses
evidence for the effects of humor on various physi-
ological systems. The relationship between sense of
humor (a psychological trait) and various outcomes
is beyond the scope of this entry. This entry discusses
research on the health effects of humor and laughter
on physiological systems, including the cardiovascu-
lar, respiratory, musculoskeletal, neurological, endo-
crine, and immune systems.
Definitions
For this entry, the term humor refers to a stimu-
lus (such as a humorous video) intended to pro-
duce a humor response. Laughter is a response to
humor that involves physiological and psychologi-
cal reactions and is usually associated with positive
psychological shifts. It is necessary to differentiate
between humor and laughter, as some studies use a
277
humor stimulus (such as a video) to determine the
effect of humor on health outcomes, whereas oth-
ers measure some type of humor response (such as
laughter or smiling) to determine the effects of the
humor response on health outcomes. People have
different responses to any given humorous stimulus,
and this can affect their subsequent physiological
response. Most humor researchers in this area sup-
port documenting actual humor response as a way
to strengthen study design, but many early studies
did not include this type of documentation.
Cardiovascular System
Many people believe that laughter acts to reduce
stress and therefore should reduce physiological
reactions to stress such as heart rate and blood pres-
sure; however, experimental studies do not support
this view. Although only a small number of stud-
ies have been published on these outcomes, the evi-
dence thus far demonstrates that laughter may have
no significant long-term effect on heart rate and
blood pressure but appears to cause brief elevations
in both measures. A 6-week study comparing the
effects of laughter with relaxation and health edu-
cation on blood pressure and heart rate found no
significant post-intervention effects of laughter or
health education on either outcome, but those in the
relaxation group had significantly lower heart rate
and blood pressure after each session. Other stud-
ies demonstrate that intense laughter leads to a tem-
porary increase in heart rate, respiratory rate, and
oxygen consumption during the laughter and imme-
diately afterward. These changes are in effect for a
278 Health Benefits of Humor, Physical
few minutes, and then numbers gradually return to
baseline. Looking at other cardiovascular-related
measures, Michael Miller and William Fry report
that laughter led to a 22% increase in flow-mediated
vasodilation (FMD), whereas a mentally stressful
situation led to a 35% reduction in FMD compared
with baseline. FMD has been found to be related to
blood flow in coronary arteries, so it is postulated
that increased FMD would serve as an indicator of
increased blood flow in the person’s coronary arter-
ies. The change in FMD immediately after laughter
was viewed to be similar to that observed with aero-
bic activity. However, without some way to sustain
intense laughter and determination of how lasting
these effects are, it seems premature to regard laugh-
ter as a realistic substitute for aerobic exercise to
improve cardiovascular fitness.
Respiratory System
In general, studies do not document any signifi-
cant improvement in respiratory measures related
to laughter in a healthy population. Early studies
of laughter demonstrate that laughter leads to epi-
sodes of sporadic deep breathing, but the breathing
changes did not significantly increase oxygen satura-
tion levels in a sample of healthy individuals.
There has been some concern about using humor
and laughter in persons with respiratory disease
because of the possibility that laughter may lead to
bronchospasm and asthma attacks in some persons
with asthma. A study by Georgios Liangas and col-
leagues of patients with poorly controlled asthma
noted that about one quarter of these patients
self-reported laughter as a possible trigger for their
asthma attacks. But a small study by Hajime Kimata
of laughter in 20 persons with allergy-induced
asthma in Japan demonstrated viewing a humor-
ous video did not trigger bronchospasm or asthma
attack and decreased their asthmatic responses to
a respiratory irritant (methacholine challenge test),
while watching a nonhumorous film had no effect.
A study by Martin H. Brutsche and others in
Switzerland of laughter and smiling in persons
with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD) brings up the possibility of a beneficial effect
of humor response in this population. Following a
humor stimulus they noted a significant decrease
in air trapping in persons with COPD but not in
healthy individuals. Air trapping is a serious prob-
lem for persons with COPD, as it leads to inability
to exchange air in the lungs, poor exercise tolerance,
and shortness of breath. The decrease in air trapping
in this sample was related to frequency of smiling
during the intervention and the severity of COPD.
There were no reported laughter-induced incidents
of bronchospasm in this study; however, one patient
who was normally oxygen dependent attended the
humor intervention without oxygen and had to
return to his room for oxygen because of fatigue and
shortness of breath. It should also be noted that this
study was very small, with 19 people in the COPD
group, 4 of whom were considered positive respond-
ers (over 10% reduction in air trapping). More
research is needed to document the effect of smiling
and laughter on pulmonary function in this popu-
lation, as an intervention that reduces air trapping
can lead to significantly improved quality of life for
persons with COPD.
Musculoskeletal System
As early as the 1930s, it was demonstrated that
intense periods of laughter could lead to decreased
skeletal muscle tone and relaxation of large muscle
groups. During the period of laughter, various mus-
cle groups are activated for seconds at a time, but
the period immediately after the laugh leads to gen-
eral muscle relaxation. This post-laughter relaxation
is reported to last up to 45 minutes.
In a more recent attempt to document the effect
of laughter on muscles, Sebastiaan Overeem and col-
leagues examined how activities that caused altered
respiratory movements might influence spinal motor
excitability. They examined the effect of 10 different
tasks capable of causing altered respiratory moments
in a sample of 13 healthy volunteers. These tasks
included both true laughter and simulated laughter.
Findings from this study indicate that both laugh-
ter and simulated laughter decreased spinal motor
excitability, which could lead to the post-laughter
muscle relaxation reported in earlier studies.
Neuro, Endocrine, and Immune Systems
According to the research from the field of psycho-
neuroimmunology, changes in levels of circulating
hormones and neurohormones can affect immune
function and vice versa via physiological feedback
loops. Therefore, studies of the effect of humor or
laughter often look at a combination of neuroen-
docrine and immune outcomes using an array of
assays. These studies often involve exposing small
groups of healthy subjects (limited to males in earlier
studies) to a humorous stimulus (often a video) and

measuring various endocrine and/or immune func-
tion outcomes in a pre-test/post-test design, using
either saliva samples or blood samples. Some of
the studies also measured humor response directly,
whereas others used exposure to the humorous stim-
ulus as the input.
Many early studies focused on salivary measures
of immune function. Salivary samples are easier to
obtain by non-health-care professionals, but often
these measures are of outcomes with limited clinical
significance. Several studies in small groups of col-
lege students have shown that subjects had signifi-
cantly increased levels of immunoglobulin A (IgA)
in their saliva after watching a humorous video.
Salivary IgA has been shown to be one factor that
helps people resist upper respiratory infections such
as the common cold.
An early study looking at the effects of various
types of films on urinary epinephrine and norepi-
nephrine (viewed as stress hormones) found that
urinary epinephrine and norepinephrine levels
decreased during a natural scenery film but were
increased following films depicting war and tragedy,
a humorous film, and a horror film aimed at invok-
ing anxiety. Levels of these stress hormones were
increased most by the horror film. The conclusion of
the authors was that there is a correlation between
increased urinary excretion of stress hormones and
strong emotional responses, regardless of the type of
emotion being elicited.
Building on this earlier work, Lee S. Berk and col-
leagues did several studies of the effects of humor
on various outcomes, and these are reported in a
joint article describing a series of small studies.
They report several stress measures (serum cortisol,
growth hormone, and plasma DOPAC [a metabolite
of dopamine]), all decreased following a humorous
video, whereas levels in the control group had no
significant change. However, there was no change in
serum levels of prolactin, beta-endorphins, plasma
epinephrine, or plasma norepinephrine in either the
experimental or the control group. Because the treat-
ment group had decreased cortisol and chronically
elevated levels of cortisol acts as an immunosuppres-
sant, the authors theorized that laughter could act
to improve immune function by decreasing circulat-
ing levels of cortisol. This controlled study used a
small sample of 10 male college students. Although
increases in beta-endorphins were not found in this
study, later work by this same group (reported in
abstract form) indicates that in a more recent study
of 16 healthy males, both the anticipation of a
Health Benefits of Humor, Physical 279
humor event and the experience of a humor event
led to increased beta-endorphin levels.
Serum-based or whole-cell-based assays examin-
ing the number or function of various immune sys-
tem components can lead to outcomes that could
have clinical significance, but the variety and reli-
ability of assays that have been available over the
years to measure various endocrine and immune
parameters make it difficult to compare results from
one study to another. Several studies of humor and
immune function have used natural killer cell num-
bers or activity as an indicator of immune function.
Berk’s group report of five small studies of male
subjects supports that viewing a humor video leads
to increased natural killer cell activity and increases
in some other immunoglobulin levels, and that
these increases can last up to 12 hours after viewing
the video.
Mary P. Bennett’s work documents increases in
natural killer cell activity following a humorous
video in female subjects. In this controlled study
of 40 healthy females, half of the subjects viewed
a humorous video and half viewed a nature film.
Humor response was measured for those viewing
the humor video. In this study, exposure to a humor
stimulus was not sufficient to improve natural killer
cell activity. Only those who scored above 25 on the
humor response scale had increased natural killer cell
activity following the humor video, indicating that
laughter and smiling were correlated to improved
natural killer cell activity in this group of women.
Kimata has published several small studies of the
effects of laughter on different types of physiologi-
cal outcomes, most involving some type of allergy
response. Allergic responses are mediated by the
immune system, so if laughter does affect various
immune system components, it makes sense that it
could change people’s allergic responses. Although
all of these studies are small, this body of work doc-
uments decreased IgE response (immunoglobulin
related to allergic reactions) in persons with various
types of allergies following exposure to a humorous
film.
Looking at other clinically focused studies,
Takashi Hayashi and colleagues in Japan have
reported a small-scale study looking at the effect
of laughter on blood glucose levels following meals
in persons with diabetes. Normally, blood glucose
levels rise after eating a meal. But in persons with
diabetes the elevation is higher and lasts longer, as
a result of insufficient insulin production. Elevated
blood glucose levels over time lead to problems
280 Health Benefits of Humor, Physical

associated with diabetes, such as damage to both Conclusion

micro and macro vascular systems and damage to
the eyes, kidneys, and other vital organs. In this
study, the subjects were tested on two different days
and consumed a standardized meal so the nutritional
intake was the same on both days. Post-meal glu-
cose levels raised less in the subjects when they were
attending a humor event and engaging in laughter,
compared with levels on the day they attended a
monotonous lecture. The mean difference between
the humor intervention and the lecture control was
reported as 45 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dl), which
is enough to be considered a clinically significant
improvement. This study was of a small group of
subjects and reported as a letter rather than in an
article. Continued work by this group published as
a research article reported similar results in a second
study, with suppressed elevations in post-meal blood
glucose levels following laughter (mean 37 mg/dl)
in 7 out of 10 patients with diabetes, and this effect
was documented up to 4 hours after the video in 5
of the patients. This study also reported that laugh-
ter upregulated genes for natural killer cell activity,
but this finding was contrary to what the researchers
had found in an earlier study of this same outcome.
More work is needed in this area to establish the
effects of laughter on post-meal blood glucose levels
in diabetics and to clarify the effect of laughter on
upregulation of natural-killer-related genes.
Limitations of Humor and Health Research
Studies of the effect of a humorous stimulus and/or
humor response on various health outcomes tend to
be small and often have not included control groups.
Studies may be available in abstract or letter form
only, or may have been grouped together with one
article describing a series of studies by the same
group of researchers. As noted in the immune sec-
tion, because of improvements in laboratory tech-
nology, a variety of assays have been used over the
years, which makes it difficult to compare results
from one study to another. Collecting and analyzing
samples for this type of research can require expen-
sive health care providers and specialized equipment
and is often invasive, which makes this type of work
expensive and thus contributes to the small sample
sizes seen in most studies. In addition, this field of
research has not been able to attract significant grant
support in the United States; thus many of the more
current and clinically applicable studies are being
conducted outside of the United States.
Several small studies provide initial support for the
physiological effects of humor and laughter on some
health outcomes. Exposure to humor often leads
to laughter, laughter leads to short-term changes in
respiratory function (sharp, sporadic deep breaths),
increased heart rate and blood pressure, muscle
relaxation, and, according to at least one study,
increased vasodilation. These changes appear to be
very temporary, with numbers returning to base-
line after the laughter. The effect of laughter on the
“stress hormones” of epinephrine, norepinephrine,
and cortisol is equivocal, as is the effect of laughter
on beta-endorphins, with the few studies conducted
thus far demonstrating some conflicting results.
Exposure to a humorous stimulus and/or engag-
ing in laughter appears to have potentially benefi-
cial effects on various immune system components,
including increases in salivary immunity and natural
killer cell activity. Recent research outside of the
United States documenting decreased IgE-mediated
allergic responses in the skin (eczema) and in the
bronchial airways (asthma), decreases in post-meal
blood glucose elevations in persons with diabetes,
and decreased air trapping in persons with COPD
demonstrate the potential for laughter to have clini-
cally significant effects in persons with selected dis-
ease processes, but more research is needed.
Mary P. Bennett
See also Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of; Laughter and
Smiling, Physiology of; Reactions to Humor, Non-
Laughter; Sense of Humor, Components of; Smiling
and Laughter: Expressive Patterns; Test Measurements
of Humor
Further Readings
Bennett, M., Zeller, J., Rosenberg, L., & McCann, J.
(2003). The effect of mirthful laughter on stress and
natural killer cell activity. Alternative Therapies in
Health and Medicine, 9(2), 38–45.
Berk, L., Felten, D., Tan, S., Brittman, B., & Westengard, J.
(2001). Modulation of neuroimmune parameters during
the eustress of humor-associated mirthful laughter.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 7, 62–72.
Brutsche, M., Grossman, P., Müller, R., Wiegand, J., Baty,
F., & Ruch, W. (2008). Impact of laughter on air
trapping in severe chronic obstructive lung disease.
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease, 3(1), 185–192.

Hayashi, T., Tsujii, S., Iburi, T., Tamanaha, T., Yamagami,
K., Ishibashi, R., Hori, M., . . . Murakami, K. (2007).
Laughter up-regulates the genes related to natural killer
cell activity in diabetes. Biomedical Research, 28(6),
281–285.
Kimata, H. (2004). Effect of viewing a humorous vs.
nonhumorous film on bronchial responsiveness in
patients with bronchial asthma. Physiology & Behavior,
81(4), 681–684.
Kimata, H. (2009). Viewing a humorous film decreases IgE
production by seminal B cells from patients with atopic
eczema. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 66(2),
173–175.
Liangas, G., Yates, D., Wu, D., Henry, R., & Thomas, P.
(2004). Laughter-associated asthma. Journal of Asthma,
41(2), 217–221.
Martin, R. (2004). Sense of humor and physical health:
Theoretical issues, recent finds, and future directions.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
17(1), 1–19.
Miller, M., & Fry, W. (2009). The effect of mirthful
laughter on the human cardiovascular system. Medical
Hypotheses, 73(5), 636–642.
Overeem, S., Taal, W., Ocal, G., Lammers, G., & Van Dijk,
J. (2004). Is motor inhibition during laughter due to
emotional or respiratory influences? Psychophysiology,
41, 254–258.
HEALTH BENEFITS OF HUMOR,
PSYCHOLOGICAL
It has been a long-standing belief that greater
humor contributes to better psychological health.
Recognized since at least biblical times, this proposal
is frequently evident in the popular media, with vari-
ous celebrities describing how humor-based strate-
gies have helped them battle major mental health
problems, including depression. Other anecdotal
reports suggest that humor use can help one cope
with the psychological trauma of extreme stress. As
one illustration, case studies of emergency service
providers (firefighters, police, and paramedics) all
converge on the use of cynical or dark humor to help
relieve the tension and negative emotions associated
with highly traumatic incidents. Humor use in these
situations provides one important means of distanc-
ing or detaching one’s self from this trauma, while
also helping build group support and cohesion.
Beginning approximately 35 years ago, there
was a resurgence of interest in the scientific study
of the role of humor in reducing or alleviating the
Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological 281
negative aspects of psychological health (e.g., studies
on whether greater humor use can diminish anxiety
or depression). Several illustrations of this work are
provided in this entry, followed by a brief consid-
eration of the underlying processes that have been
advanced to account for these alleviating effects of
humor. Even more recently, this scientific interest in
humor and psychological well-being has expanded
to consider how greater humor use may also con-
tribute to the positive aspects of mental health, such
as personal growth and resiliency. This work is also
highlighted, followed by a brief overview of the
explanatory models used to account for the posi-
tive enhancement effects of humor on psychological
well-being. Finally, a brief overview of several con-
temporary trends regarding the role of humor in
psychological health and well-being is presented.
Reduction of Negative Aspects
of Psychological Health
Several studies have found that exposure to humor-
ous materials, such as comedy films, can reduce the
amount of negative affect or mood a person experi-
ences. This finding, reported for both anxiety and
depression, indicates that watching humorous clips
can lead to some limited and short-term alleviation
of these negative emotions. It is also the case that
generating a humorous dialogue to accompany
a stressful event (e.g., watching a film that depicts
gruesome injuries) can often reduce subsequent
emotional distress, including the lowering of both
depression and anger.
Other research has used well-established self-
report measures, such as the Coping Humor Scale,
to identify individuals that habitually use humor to
cope with the stressful events they encounter. These
individuals have also shown lower levels of depres-
sion and anxiety, compared with those who do
not use humor to cope. Similar findings have been
reported for several other humor scales (e.g., self-
enhancing humor), with those scoring high on these
measures also displaying less negativity for other
personal attributes (e.g., less pessimism, neuroticism,
and worry; less negative standards for evaluating
self).
Using a different paradigm, other research par-
ticipants have indicated the number of negative life
events they have experienced in the prior year, as
well as their typical use of coping humor and their
overall level of negative mood disturbance (con-
sisting of depression, anxiety, tension, anger, and
282 Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological
fatigue). When the number of life event stressors
was low, those high on coping humor did not differ,
in terms of mood, from those low on coping humor.
However, when many life event stressors were evi-
dent, those who used more coping humor were sig-
nificantly less distressed, in terms of negative mood
disturbance, than those that did not use humor to
cope. This stress-buffering effect of humor is a fur-
ther illustration of how the effective use of coping
humor can reduce negative emotions, when dealing
with adverse life experiences.
Humor-Related Processes That Reduce
Negative Aspects of Psychological Health
The most common explanation to account for the
alleviating effects of humor on negative aspects of
psychological health is that humor use can generate
a different perspective on an adverse situation. Not
only does this humor-based cognitive shift allow
for emotional distancing and detachment from the
stressful event, but it also allows the individual to
make further cognitive appraisals about this situa-
tion that are less threatening. As one example, stu-
dents who are high on coping humor have been
found to make more positive challenge appraisals
about an upcoming test than students low on coping
humor. Reappraising such stressful events as less of
a threat and more of a challenge also leads to greater
motivation for engaging in these events or activities,
along with more effort and enjoyment while doing
so, and more positive affect.
Enhancement of Positive Aspects
of Psychological Health
Over the past two decades it has been increasingly
recognized that psychological health is much more
than just the absence of depression or anxiety. In
addition, it includes seeking out and engaging in a
wide variety of positive life experiences, the experi-
encing of positive emotions, and the enjoyment of
being with others; all of these activities culminate in
greater psychological well-being and resilience. Early
evidence consistent with these enhancing effects for
humor showed that watching a comedy film made
a subsequent boring task (proofreading) more inter-
esting to complete, with higher levels of energy and
elation being evident. Indeed, by itself, the simple act
of smiling or laughing is invigorating, resulting in
greater cheerfulness and further expressions of mirth.
These enhancing effects lead individuals who use
humor to actively seek out further life experiences
by viewing challenging events in a more positive
manner. This greater enthusiasm for dealing with
life events further heightens motivation and positive
affect levels, contributing to greater enjoyment of
these experiences.
In accord with these enhancement effects, it has
been found that those with higher levels of coping
humor rate their own most important personal
roles as significantly more pleasant and satisfying
than do those with low coping humor. Heightened
satisfaction for other interpersonal and romantic
relationships has also been found for those high
on self-enhancing (coping humor) and affiliative
(social) humor. Furthermore, the use of these posi-
tive humor styles can make interpersonal interac-
tions much more pleasant, thus promoting further
social interactions.
Other research studies have shown that those
who use more coping humor are able to benefit
more from additional positive life events, as they
experience more positive affect. Interestingly, these
individuals using more coping humor are also more
resistant to the impact of negative life events, as they
are able to maintain more consistent positive affect
levels. Overall, this research has begun to show that
humor can add a measure of fullness and richness to
one’s life, including enhanced enjoyment of positive
life experiences, a more positive view of self, greater
positive emotions, and greater psychological well-
being and quality of life.
Humor-Related Processes That Enhance
Positive Aspects of Psychological Health
It is quite probable that several of the same pro-
cesses that underlie the alleviating effects of humor
also play a role in humor’s enhancement effects. For
example, cognitive shifts (via humor) may be evident
for both types of situations but serve a different pur-
pose for each. For adverse events these shifts gener-
ally promote emotional distancing and detachment,
whereas for positive events these humorous shifts
may signal a willingness to play and share this posi-
tive experience (from a different perspective), with
others. This savoring and further enjoyment of this
situation then contributes to more positive cognitive
appraisals that, in turn, produce more positive affect.
Based on the broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions, this positive affect (mirth) then fosters an
openness to experience and greater flexibility, allow-
ing the individual to engage in a broader range of
life activities that are more pleasant, creative, and

inspiring, thus building personal resiliency and
strength. Of note is that this theoretical explanation
is also entirely consistent with contemporary emo-
tion regulation models, in that the effective use of
humor can either downregulate the expression of
negative emotions (when dealing with stressful nega-
tive events) or upregulate the expression of positive
emotions (when dealing with positive life situations).
Contemporary Trends Regarding Humor
in Psychological Health
For many years, the bulk of research on humor
and psychological health has implicitly assumed
that humor use is generally beneficial for the indi-
vidual. In contrast, recent personality-based work
documenting four major humor styles has clearly
indicated there are certain negative styles, such as
self-defeating humor (i.e., using humor to put one’s
self down excessively, in order to be accepted by oth-
ers), that can have extremely detrimental effects on
psychological well-being. This work has consistently
shown, for example, that those individuals using
self-defeating humor are also more depressed and
anxious and suffer from low self-esteem. In contrast,
those individuals displaying self-enhancing humor
(a positive style very similar to coping humor) show
much higher self-esteem and much lower levels of
depression and anxiety. Similarly, aggressive humor
use is aligned with poorer social competencies and
skills, whereas affiliative humor shows the opposite
pattern. Taken together, these findings indicate that
any future work on humor and psychological health
has to clearly indicate which specific aspects of
humor are being examined (e.g., self-enhancing ver-
sus self-defeating humor) and then consider how this
specific type of humor might be either beneficial or
detrimental to health. It is no longer viable to make
the assumption that humor will have only beneficial
effects on psychological well-being or health.
A second contemporary trend pertains to the
consideration of humor in positive psychology
approaches to psychological well-being. Positive
psychology focuses on documenting the optimal
functioning that allows a person to experience a full
life. As such, this approach has identified 24 charac-
ter strengths (e.g., kindness, humor, zest, love, and
creativity) that contribute to making life a richer
and more satisfying experience. Researchers have
now demonstrated that several of these character
strengths, with humor being among the most promi-
nent, are strongly associated with greater well-being
Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological 283
and life satisfaction. This pattern indicates that the
specific aspect of humor examined in the positive
psychology domain (i.e., social-affiliative humor)
also displays the same event-enhancing func-
tions described previously in the humor literature.
However, the singular focus on social-affiliative
humor limits the extent to which work in positive
psychology can uncover any toxic effects of humor
on psychological health. Given the recent documen-
tation of both positive and negative humor styles,
and their vastly different effects on psychological
health, this is a major concern.
A third trend is the increasing sophistication
evident in contemporary research evaluating the
degree to which humor use can be taught. The main
interest here is in determining whether humor use
can be actively taught as a positive coping strategy
to enhance psychological health. Until recently, one
of the major difficulties was that the available evi-
dence generally lacked scientific control and rigor,
with most of the support being either anecdotal or
at the case history level. Although this prior work
was informative, it did not really provide a rigorous
scientific test of the potential for teaching humor use
to facilitate well-being. This has changed within the
past few years, however, with studies now beginning
to use more appropriate control groups, measures,
and evaluative paradigms. Representative early find-
ings are encouraging, as they show that the individu-
als receiving humor training display more post-test
positive affect and self-efficacy than individuals in a
relevant social control group. Although much fur-
ther research is required, this type of treatment study
augers well for uncovering the extent to which humor
training can actually facilitate psychological health.
Nicholas A. Kuiper
See also Depression; Humor Styles; Laughter, Psychology
of; Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of; Personality,
Humor and
Further Readings
Crawford, S. A., & Caltabiano, N. J. (2011). Promoting
emotional well-being through the use of humor. Journal
of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 237–252.
Geisler, F., & Weber, H. (2010). Harm that does not hurt:
Humor in coping with self-threat. Motivation and
Emotion, 34, 446–456.
Kuiper, N. A. (2012). Humor and resiliency: Towards a
process model of coping and growth. Europe’s Journal
of Psychology, 8(3), 475–491.
284 Heritability
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as
mediators between self-evaluative standards and
psychological well-being. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134(4), 359–376.
Tugade, M., & Fredrickson, B. (2007). Regulation of
positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies that
promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(3),
311–333.
HERITABILITY
Heritability of humor refers to the portion of the
sense of humor that can be attributed to genetic fac-
tors inherited from the parents. If humor is heritable,
then it likely played a significant role throughout
our evolutionary history. To separate the different
influences of genetic and environmental factors on
humor, researchers usually compare genetic relatives
with various degrees of relatedness. Using statisti-
cal tools, they can then extract how much similarity
in sense of humor is due to shared genetic makeup
and how much is due to shared and nonshared envi-
ronment. This entry describes studies that tested
whether different types of humor are inherited and,
if so, to what degree.
The best way to determine how much of the
sense of humor is heritable is by comparing iden-
tical (monozygotic) twins to fraternal (dizygotic)
twins and non-twin siblings. Twins and other sib-
lings that are raised together usually share similar
environments with the same parents, but identical
twins also share 100% of their genes. Thus, if iden-
tical twins’ sense of humor is more similar to each
other compared with fraternal twins’ and siblings’
humor, it is interpreted as genetic makeup having
an impact on sense of humor, making it at least
partially heritable.
Heritability of Humor Appreciation
Early studies investigated whether humor apprecia-
tion, as measured by rating of the funniness of car-
toons, has a genetic component. In a couple of such
studies, pairs of twins were asked to rate different
types of cartoons for funniness, and the correlations
between the twins were measured. Results showed
that the correlations of cartoon ratings among iden-
tical twins were no different than the fraternal twins
for nonsense, satire, and sexual cartoons, meaning
that shared familial environment, not genes, was the
determinant factor for appreciation of these types of
cartoons. Partial genetic influence was found for the
appreciation of aggressive cartoons.
Genetic Contributions to Children’s Humor
Studies compared children’s sense of humor to
their mothers, siblings, and friends. In one study,
researchers asked teenagers to report the frequencies
at which they like to tell jokes and laugh. Results
showed similarities in humor uses between adoles-
cents and their mothers and siblings but not with
other friends who shared the same environment.
More than 25% of the humor could be attributed
to genetic factors. In another study, schoolchildren
aged 9 to 11 years old were compared with their
mothers, siblings, and friends on various measures
of interpersonal humor. This study compared non-
adoptive children (i.e., children living with their bio-
logical parents) to adoptive children. If humor has a
strong genetic factor, we should find more similari-
ties would be found between nonadoptive children
and their mother and siblings compared with the
adoptive children sample. The results showed that
humor use with mothers and siblings can be ascribed
to genetic factors. Just growing up within the same
family does not make mothers’ and siblings’ humor
similar, as evident by a lack of similarities in humor
expression by children of adoptive parents.
Heritability of Humor Styles
Recently another approach to studying the heritabil-
ity of humor was introduced. Researchers looked at
four different humor styles (two positive, two nega-
tive) that people use in their daily life. The two posi-
tive styles are affiliative humor (the tendency to enjoy
humor with others) and self-enhancing humor (hav-
ing a humorous outlook on life). The two negative
humor styles are aggressive humor (using humor to
make fun of others) and self-defeating humor (self-
disparaging humor, amusing others at one’s own
expense). In one large study, researchers compared
adult identical and fraternal twins from the United
Kingdom. Individual differences in all four humor
styles were largely attributed to genetic and non-
shared environmental factors. In another study with
adult twins from a North American sample, results
showed the use of two positive styles was attributed
to genetic factors, but little genetic influence was
found on the use of the two negative styles, meaning
that individual differences on the negative styles were
largely due to shared and nonshared environments.

Differences in the two samples may have accounted
for the somewhat inconsistent results.
Conclusion
It seems clear that sense of humor is a product of
both environmental and genetic factors. Although
various studies indicate that humor is heritable to
some degree, there are marked differences depending
on the way humor is defined or measured. Cartoon
appreciation has few genetic components, whereas
interpersonal humor and humor styles show a stron-
ger genetic makeup. Most studies use self-reported
questionnaires or interviews, and there is a dearth
of research on the daily uses of humor and humor
creation. The heritability of humor is an important
topic because it bears implications to the study of
the evolutionary roots of humor, as inheritance is a
key mechanism that evolution can act on.
Gil Greengross
See also Appreciation of Humor; Evolutionary
Explanations of Humor; Humor, Forms of; Humor
Styles Measurement
Further Readings
Cherkas, L., Hockberg, F., MacGregor, A. J., Snieder, H., &
Spector, T. D. (2000). Happy families: A twin study of
humour. Twin Research, 3(1), 17–22.
Manke, B. (1998). Genetic and environmental contributions
to children’s interpersonal humor. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
sense of humor: Explorations of a personality
characteristic (pp. 361–384). Berlin, Germany: Walter
de Gruyter.
Vernon, P., Martin, R. A., Schermer, J. A., Cherkas, L., &
Spector, T. (2008). Genetic and environmental
contributions to humor styles: A replication study. Twin
Research and Human Genetics, 11, 44–47.
Vernon, P., Martin, R. A., Schermer, J. A., & Mackie, A.
(2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of humor
styles and their correlations with the Big-5 personality
dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
1116–1125.
Wilson, G. D., Rust, J., & Kasriel, J. (1977). Genetic and
family origins of humor preferences: A twin study.
Psychological Reports, 41, 659–660.
HIGH COMEDY
In both literary criticism and general usage, high
comedy probably emerged as the antithesis to
High Comedy 285
low comedy, a term of earlier origin. Both are
descriptive terms for types or styles of performa-
tive comedy. Hence they identify not only subject
matter—characters, actions, and dialogue—but also
performance style and are often regarded as sub-
genres of comedy or perhaps genres in their own
right. The broad distinction between the two is that
in what has come to be called high comedy, dialogue
plays a particularly important role, requiring well-
wrought scripts or play-texts and naturalistic acting
of fully rounded characters, whereas in low comedy,
physical acting predominates, allowing more impro-
visation and favoring the use of stock characters.
High comedy is also regularly applied to other
literary and narrative forms such as the novel, the
short story, and poetry in which the witty explo-
ration of comic character and dialogue creates
humor in the text. The lively and ironic novels of
Jane Austen (1775–1817) are often referred to as
high comedy, as is The Egoist (1879) by George
Meredith, a novel written to encourage the idea of
comedy as a positive expression of culture and per-
sonal insight. Nevertheless, the supreme example of
high comedy is probably Oscar Wilde’s famous play
The Importance of Being Earnest (1895). Although
it relies on the transparently artificial coincidences
and shallow type-characters of farce, the play’s
supremely memorable quips and clever situations
elevate its comic style from low to high. In fact indi-
vidual comic works often combine both high and
low comedy, alternating between the two.
Characteristics
Conventionally, high comedy appeals to the intellect
and low comedy to an unconscious laughter reflex.
Many attempts at definition focus on this aspect, as
does George P. Baker (1925) in an early study of
Shakespearean comedy: “High comedy in contrast
to low comedy rests . . . on thoughtful apprecia-
tion contrasted with unthinking spontaneous laugh-
ter” (p. 236). Like high art, high comedy accepts
a responsibility to stimulate its audience to critical
reflection, although neither high nor low comedy is
truly didactic in purpose. That is the proper province
of satire—although comedians will often claim in
their own defense against the charge of being mere
entertainers that they expose hypocrisy and ridicule
comic faults in order to correct them.
The two different styles are probably innate to
comedy. Both low buffoonery and elevated comic
debates can be found in classical Greek drama and
286 High Comedy
in epic poetry such as Homer’s Odyssey. There are
extended riddle contests of wit in Irish and Norse
sagas and elegantly amusing verbal duels between
hero and heroine in Sanskrit drama and the Chinese
operas of the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368). However,
the Greek New Comedy of Menander (?344/343–
292/291 BCE) is regarded as the first example of high
comedy, as distinguished from the “mixed” style of
earlier Aristophanic satirical fantasies. Menander’s
comedies combine stock type-characters lacking
self-awareness with an exploration of more com-
plex human feelings, showing that “the playwright’s
interests are in character and the chances with which
it has to contend” (Tierney, 1930, p. 305).
Unlike low comedy, high comedy takes account
of stylistic rules. Sir Philip Sidney’s Defence of
Poesie (1595) criticized his contemporaries (includ-
ing Shakespeare) for regarding laughter as comedy’s
prime purpose and for disregarding the rules set
down for comedy by Aristotle in his Poetics (specifi-
cally the classical unities of time, place, and action).
Meanwhile in Italy and Spain, under the rubric of
commedie erudite (learned comedies), contemporary
Renaissance authors (especially aristocratic ones)
were reinventing the classical model of comedy
supposedly set out by Menander and his Roman
followers. Opposed to this (high) comedy was the
low commedia dell’arte, written and performed by
skilled professional players who invented their own
rules.
Terminology and Usage
Low comedy, as a term designating plays intended
merely to entertain, long predates its opposite, high
comedy. In 1671, the dramatist and critic John
Dryden wrote of his “disgust of low comedy,”
observing that it required “on the writer’s part,
much of conversation with the vulgar, and much of
ill nature in the observation of their follies” (1808,
p. 219). Low comedy might be realistic, but its char-
acters and settings were then necessarily “low”;
farce was also low, but more improbable and fan-
tastic. The 18th-century critic Bishop Hurd drew the
same distinction between (good) comedy and farce,
although he did not use the term high. This prob-
ably attached itself to comedy by analogy with its
19th-century usage in the expressions “high culture”
and “high art,” as illustrated in the Oxford English
Dictionary’s entry on high + culture. Some art his-
torians regard this distinction between high art and
popular art as more recent, but high comedy was a
well-established term in theater criticism throughout
the Victorian era.
The distinction is also behavioral, being bound
up with notions of class, taste, and civilized behav-
ior: A wry smile is considered more polite than
loud bursts of belly laughter. Thus, when lecturing
on “the idea of comedy” at the London Institution
on February 1, 1877, the critic and novelist George
Meredith declared that “we know the degree of
refinement in men by the matter they will laugh at,
and the ring of the laugh” (Meredith, 1963, p. 94).
Although it was left to Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002)
to theorize the concept of highbrow versus lowbrow
taste cultures, entertainment practices have prob-
ably always accommodated such differing prefer-
ences. With the growth of mass cultural markets, the
19th century certainly reflected them via the evolu-
tion of specialist comedy theaters. Today, studies of
humor tastes in both the Netherlands and the United
States by Giselinde Kuipers have demonstrated dif-
fering cultural views about what is high and low
and, consequently, good and bad.
Comedy of Manners
High comedy is also known as comedy of man-
ners. The term comes from the comédie de moeurs,
which flourished in 17th-century France and,
between 1660 and 1710, on the English stage after
the Restoration of Charles II, producing such gems
as William Wycherly’s The Plain Dealer (1676,
based on Molière’s Le misanthrope) and George
Farquhar’s The Beaux’ Stratagem (1707). Richard
Brinsley Sheridan’s later masterpiece, The School
for Scandal (1777), is still frequently revived. These
comedies focus on a war of wits between the sexes,
reflecting the manners, costume, elegant wigs, and
makeup of the time. In William Congreve’s The
Way of the World (1700), the comic hero Mirabel
(“admirable”) brings this image to life in a vivid
nautical metaphor describing the lady he is courting,
Millamant (“thousand times lovable/loving”): “Here
she comes, i’ faith, full sail, with her fan spread, and
her streamers out, and a shoal of fools for tenders.”
The fan and its expressive use became “the flag and
symbol of the society giving us our so-called Comedy
of Manners” (Meredith, 1963, p. 17).
Taste changed, and a hundred years later, the
essayist Charles Lamb (1823) lamented that “the
artificial Comedy, or Comedy of manners, is quite
extinct on our stage. Congreve and Farquhar show
their heads once in seven years only” (p. 323).

Nevertheless, they typify the way high com-
edy explores human social behavior, combining
drawing-room politesse with aggressively witty ban-
ter between characters bent on masking their own
more serious underlying feelings. Often accompa-
nied by musical interludes, this style of high comedy
moved easily, on the one hand, into musical comedy
and clever burlesque operas like those written for
the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company by the English
librettist William S. Gilbert (1836–1911) and his
composer colleague Arthur Sullivan (1842–1900).
On the other hand, its nuanced study of char-
acter paved the way for more naturalistic late-
19th-century European comedies such as those of
Anton Chekhov (1860–1904) and George Bernard
Shaw (1856–1950).
Modern Examples
As a genre, high comedy is far from dead. Many
class-ridden situations that comically pit polite-
ness against power make for fine high comedy, as
in the Bertie Wooster novels of P. G. Wodehouse
(1881–1975) or the TV series Fawlty Towers (BBC2,
1975–1979) and Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister
(BBC TV, 1980–1984). The English playwright Tom
Stoppard (b. 1937) sees his best “problem com-
edies” as high, citing Jumpers (1972), which is set in
a modern university (Delaney, 1994, p. 59). In mod-
ern Chinese literature, the famous novel by Qian
Zhongshu, Wei cheng (Fortress Besieged, 1947),
depends as much on comedy of manners as it does
on comedy of the mechanical, evidenced in a recent
study by Diran John Sohigian. Spoof spy movies,
both the English James Bond/007 films and Michel
Hazanavicius’s films such as OSS 117: Le Caire, nid
d’espions (OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies, 2006),
combine high comedy with melodramatic vio-
lence to achieve predictably wry endings. Even the
American TV hit Seinfeld (NBC, 1989–1998) can be
read as high comedy, dominated as it is by its char-
acters’ battles of wit as they explore personal taste,
fads, and fashions. Some such examples are more
satirical in purpose than others, but all depend on
characters who use witty joking within the confines
of very clearly delineated social norms to alternate
between concealing and revealing their true feelings.
Jessica Milner Davis
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient Roman
Comedy; Comedy; Commedia dell’Arte; Farce; Genres
and Styles of Comedy; History of Humor: Early
High Comedy 287
Modern Europe; History of Humor: Modern and
Contemporary China; History of Humor: Renaissance
Europe; Low Comedy; Menander; Molière; Musical
Comedy; Sanskrit Humor; Satire; Shakespearean
Comedy; Social Interaction; Sociology; Verbal
Dueling
Further Readings
Baker, G. P. (1925). The development of Shakespeare as a
dramatist. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work
published 1907)
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the
judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London, UK:
Routledge.
Charney, M. (2005). Comedy high and low: An
introduction to the experience of comedy (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Delaney, P. (Ed.). (1994). Tom Stoppard in conversation.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dryden, J. (1808). Preface to “An Evening’s Love.” In
Works (Vol. 3, W. Scott, Ed.). London, UK: Printed for
William Miller by James Ballantyne, Edinburgh.
Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37645/
37645-h/37645-h.htm#EVENINGS_LOVE
Fung, A. S., & Zhan, H.-L. (2011). Chinese humour as
reflected in love-theme comedies of the Yuan dynasty. In
J. V. Chey & J. Milner Davis (Eds.), Humour in Chinese
life and letters: Classical and traditional approaches (pp.
117–138). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hart, W. M. (1943). High comedy in the Odyssey.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hurd, R. (Lord Bishop of Worcester). (1811). A dissertation
on the provinces of dramatic poetry. In Works (Vol. 2).
London, UK: Cadell & Davies.
Kuipers, G. (2006). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of
the joke. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Lamb, C. (1823). On the artificial comedy of the last
century. Elia. Essays that have appeared under that
signature in the London Magazine. London, UK:
Taylor & Hessey. Retrieved from http://www.angelfire
.com/nv/mf/elia1/comedy.htm
Meredith, G. (1910). An essay on comedy: And the uses of
the comic spirit. New York, NY: Scribner.
Meredith, G. (1963). The egoist (A. Wilson, Ed.). New
York, NY: New American Library. (Original work
published 1879)
Sohigian, D. J. (2013). The phantom of the clock: Laughter
and the time of life in the writings of Qian Zhongshu
and his contemporaries. In J. Milner Davis & J. Chey
(Eds.), Humour in Chinese life and culture: Resistance
and control in modern times (pp. 23–45). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
288 High-Context Humor
Tierney, M. (1930). The new Menander and the origins of
high comedy. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review,
19(74), 295–308.
Waldron, M. (2004). Jane Austen and the fiction of her
time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Websites
Fawlty Towers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fawltytowers
OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies: http://www.imdb.com/title/
tt0464913
Yes Minister: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/yesminister
HIGH-CONTEXT HUMOR
High context and low context are terms often used
to describe the communicative style of an entire cul-
ture. Whether a culture is considered high or low
context depends on how much a listener must rely
on implicit information to grasp the meaning of a
message. In high-context cultures, such as those in
Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East,
messages rely on more than the words in the mes-
sage itself, such as shared cultural knowledge and
experiences. This highly contextual communicative
style places an emphasis on the relative status of
the interlocutors, and words are much less impor-
tant than the surrounding context. In low-context
cultures, such those in North America and most of
Western Europe, messages do not contain as much
implicit information as those from high-context cul-
tures, and the literal meaning of the shared words
are enough to grasp the full intention of a speaker.
This entry discusses high-context messages and the
role they play in humor.
Not only can entire cultures be identified as
more high or low context than others, but interac-
tions between individuals, regardless of culture, can
also be more high or low context depending on the
level of formality, relationship, and shared experi-
ences between interlocutors. For example, if an indi-
vidual is asked, “Is something wrong?” and he or
she responds with “no,” then we may assume that
nothing is wrong. If, however, that individual’s arms
are crossed and that individual has a scowl on his
or her face while saying “no,” then we would most
likely understand the implicit “yes” underlying the
verbal “no.” This is an example of a high-context
message that relies on a shared understanding and
interpretation of body language to relay the implicit
information.
Another example of high-context messages,
which introduces the broader concept of high-
context humor, is inside jokes, or in-jokes. Inside
jokes are highly contextual, esoteric jokes that are
understood only to individuals who share a mutual
community, social group, or common experience.
Inside jokes often have triggers that stem from
the common ground shared between community
members that can never be fully understood by
an outsider who doesn’t have the same contextual
understanding. Triggers are events that occur after
the inside joke has been established and act as a ref-
erence to the humorous meaning surrounding the
shared experience.
Let’s consider an example: Two female friends,
Tina and Anne, spend an evening together at a bar.
While there, a rather intoxicated man approaches
the table and attempts to pick up one of the women
by saying, “Do you wash your clothes with Windex?
Because I can see myself in your window. Er—pants!
I mean pants!” Not only did Tina and Anne find his
attempt in and of itself pitiful and humorous, but
his slip of the tongue (saying “window” instead of
“pants”) made the situation even more hysterical.
Now, even months after the bar scene, the women
signal to one another when they find an individual
attractive in public by simply saying, “I can see
myself in his window. . . .” The meaning of this
phrase is only understandable for Tina and Anne
because they shared the experience needed to fully
grasp the implicit meaning. The literal translation
of this phrase could never provide an outsider with
enough information to understand it the way the
two women do. The inside joke is used by these two
women to strengthen their friendship, while also
bridging the meaning surrounding the bar experi-
ence into their day-to-day lives (i.e., the man at the
bar was insinuating that he was attracted to one of
the women when he accidentally said, “I can see
myself in your window.” Since that experience, Tina
and Anne use the same phrase to insinuate their own
attractions toward others while continuing to make
fun of the man.) So the trigger for the inside joke is
the instance in which Tina finds herself attracted to
a stranger and wishes to express the fact to Anne, or
vice versa. Even if the women were to explain the
inside joke to an outsider who did not directly share
the experience in the bar, doing so would rely on the
use of low-context messages (direct, literal language),
which reduces the humorous appeal for the outsider.
These forms of inside jokes can be shared
between close-knit social groups involving only
 History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
two individuals, such as the previous example, or
between entire cultures that have a shared cultural
experience such as a popular television show, histor-
ical reference, or political situation. Let’s consider an
example of an in-joke shared by larger communities,
in this case an entire country. In 18th-century Rome,
the Portuguese ambassador organized a performance
at the Teatro Argentina for the Portuguese people
living in Rome, and anyone who declared his or her
Portuguese nationality could attend free of charge.
When word got out, many Romans arrived at the
performance claiming to be Portuguese, and were
able to attend the performance without paying. This
story trickled down through Italian history, and to
this day Italians will use the phrase fare il portoghese
(“to do the Portuguese”) to jokingly refer to indi-
viduals who find ways to take advantage of a service
or other individuals in order to obtain benefits for
free (such as an individual showing up to a wedding
party and pretending to know the bride or groom
in order to eat the food and enjoy the festivities for
free). This cultural inside joke is understandable only
to those who are a part of the Italian culture, and it
has even evolved into what many would consider a
humorous idiomatic expression.
Inside jokes are a form of high-context humor.
Whereas inside jokes involve ongoing references
between individuals who shared the experience that
instigated the inside joke, high-context humor as a
general concept may involve a single experience that
relies on high-context messages to convey and under-
stand the humor. Let’s say two physicist colleagues
were standing in a long checkout line together, along
with many other people. All of a sudden, the lights
in the store start to flicker, and eventually they shut
off. One of the physicists says, “I wonder what
that’s all about.” The other physicist, loud enough
for all to hear, replies: “Me too—perhaps we can
investigate. Call me Sherlock Ohms!” The only per-
son who understands the pun and laughs is his col-
league, who shares the knowledge that ohm is a unit
of electric resistance. The outsiders, in this case the
individuals in the line who lack the necessary knowl-
edge of physics, cannot access the double meaning
of the pun because of the jargon-related reference,
and it therefore becomes high-context humor.
The concept of high-context humor has not been
studied in depth directly but rather has been par-
tially touched on by many fields that focus on high-
context interactions at large and devote portions of
their investigations to how humor works in those
specific situations. For example, the interaction
289
between individuals from high- and low-context cul-
tures in business settings is a busy area for research,
and researchers will occasionally analyze the impact
these cultural differences will have on humorous
interactions in business settings. Researchers in mar-
keting fields have also touched on the use of high-
context humor in advertising.
Audrey C. Adams
See also Humor Group
Further Readings
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor
Books.
Kalliny, M., Cruthirds, K. W., & Minor, M. S. (2006).
Differences between American, Egyptian and Lebanese
humor styles: Implications for international
management. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 6(1), 121–134.
Laroche, M., Nepomuceno, M. V., Huang, L., & Richard,
M. O. (2011). What’s so funny? The use of humor in
magazine advertising in the United States, China, and
France. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(2),
404–416.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-
edged sword: A study of humour and style shifting in
intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics,
39, 4–28.
HISTORY OF HUMOR: CLASSICAL
AND TRADITIONAL CHINA
Humor in recorded Chinese literature and philoso-
phy can be traced back for at least 3,000 years to the
Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE). An influential work
of that era, the Shijing (Book of Poetry, also known
as Book of Songs, Classic of Poetry, etc.), com-
piled between the 10th and 7th century BCE, was
known to and quoted by Confucius (551–479 BCE)
and revered by Confucian scholars over centuries.
Often read as moral or political homilies, many of
the poems derive from folk songs and deal with the
stuff of everyday life, expressing its frustrations and
humor. The lovers’ remonstrances in Ji ming (“The
Cock Has Crowed”), for instance, demonstrate a
wry humor derived from the conflict between offi-
cial duties and amorous dalliance—a theme devel-
oped in many later poems, dramatic works, and
literary fiction.
290 History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
“The cock has crowed;
The court is full.”
But it was not the cock that was crowing; —
It was the sound of the blue flies.
“The east is bright;
The court is crowded.”
But it was not the east that was bright; —
It was the light of the moon coming forth.
“The insects are flying in buzzing crowds;
It would be sweet to lie by you and dream.”
But the assembled officers will be going home; —
Let them not hate both me and you.
(trans. James Legge)
This entry discusses some of the influences on
humor in Chinese history, including Confucianism,
Daoism, and Buddhism, and discusses the develop-
ment of various types of jokes and humorous texts.
In the history of Chinese humor, one poem from the
Book of Poetry is of particular importance and often
quoted in Confucian classics and later commentar-
ies. Qi ao (“Little Bay of the Qi River”) describes an
elegant gentleman chaffing friends as he rides in his
chariot:
Skillful is he at quips and jokes,
But how does he keep from rudeness in them!
(trans. James Legge)
This description of decorous humor appropriate to a
person of status illustrates the bounds set for accept-
able and appropriate humor in literature and public
life for many centuries. The teaching of Confucian
ethics throughout the Chinese empire reinforced
these moral guideposts.
The belief that humor should be moderate, and
should exert a moderating influence on behavior, not
only accorded with Confucianism but also had roots
in the philosophy underpinning traditional Chinese
medicine. As in ancient Greece, traditional Chinese
medicine taught that the body was governed by fluid
humors or energies (qi). (Good) humor assisted the
circulation of qi and maintenance of health, although
it varied according to the season of the year.
Daoism, a philosophical tradition with roots as
ancient as Confucianism, enshrined a set of values
widely embraced by artists, poets, and scholars and
expressed in their work. Daoist sages used humor
as a teaching tool and as a weapon to attack the
fables and foibles of the social system dominated by
Confucian ethics. Daoist masters used paradoxical
humor to convey spiritual or philosophical tenets,
as did later Zen masters. This is evident from the
following anecdote from the Zhuangzi (known in
English as Book of Zhuangzi) showing how the
Master teased his pupils:
Zhuangzi said, “You are not I. How do you know
that I don’t know the pleasure of fish?” Huizi
replied, “I am not you. So I certainly don’t know
you. You certainly are not a fish; so you surely
cannot know the pleasure of fish.” Zhuangzi replied,
“Please. Let’s go back to the starting point. You
asked me, ‘Where do you know the pleasure of fish?’
When you asked me this, this already shows that
you knew that I knew. I know it here on the banks
of the Hao River.” (trans. Burton Watson)
The Chinese language is apt for punning. This
passage contains one example, where the classical
word an Ᏻ means “how” but also “where.” This
adds greatly to the humor of Zhuangzi’s response to
Huizi. The use of puns has remained a constant of
verbal humor over the centuries, and many exam-
ples could be quoted from poetry, drama, novels,
and also popular jokes.
Daoism presented an alternative life philosophy
in the Chinese state governed by Confucian ethics.
When rulers did not maintain ethical and humane
standards, brave court jesters relied on Daoist
humor to admonish them, their role prefiguring
that of European jesters and fools. One of the most
famous was Dongfang Shuo (ca. 160–93 BCE) in
the court of Han dynasty emperor Wudi. According
to the official history of the Han dynasty, Dongfang
obtained his position by humorously exaggerating
his credentials:
When I was young, I lost my father and mother and
was brought up by my older brother and his wife.
At the age of twelve I began to study writing, and
after three winters I knew enough to handle
ordinary texts and records. At fifteen I studied
fencing; at sixteen, the Songs and History; and soon
I had memorized 220,000 words. At nineteen I
studied the works on military science by Masters
Sun and Wu, the equipment pertaining to battle and
encampment, and the regulations concerning drum
and gong. Once more I memorized 220,000 words,
so that in all I could recite 440,000 words. In
addition I always kept in mind Zilu’s words. I am
twenty-two years in age, measuring nine feet three
inches, have eyes like pendant pearls, teeth like
ranged shells, and am as brave as Meng Ben, nimble
 History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
as Qingji, scrupulous as Bao Zhu, and loyal as Wei
Sheng. I am fit to become a great minister to the Son
of Heaven. Daring death, I bow twice and submit
this report. (trans. Burton Watson)
Dongfang Shuo’s self-promotion illustrates an
abiding parodic tradition in Chinese humor, here
turning official discourse against itself and appro-
priating and manipulating it incongruously. In a civ-
ilization that emphasized the virtue of moderation,
this was a risky but effective method of puncturing
pomposity and platitudes.
From the 4th century onward, Mahayana
Buddhism took root in China and distinctive
schools of Buddhist thought soon evolved. Among
them, from the 8th century onward, the Chan
(Japanese: Zen) school was most significant. Its use
of humor and laughter in teaching is unique (derived
from Daoism, as noted earlier). Essentially, Chan
Buddhism teaches that enlightenment occurs when
the unknowable and the knowable become one.
Paradox lies at the heart of teaching, expressed in
elliptical forms known as gong’an (Japanese: koan).
A possibly apocryphal story relates that when some-
one asked Chan Master Yunmen (d. 949), “What is
Buddha?” he said, knowing that the disciple’s mind
was stirred by the empty word Buddha, and seeking
to disentangle it from this illusion, “A toilet stick”
(i.e., for cleaning oneself). This apparently ribald
humorous remark was intended simply as an edu-
cational tool, highlighting the incongruity of the two
images. If the disciple responded with a belly laugh
(common practice in Chan), this also indicated not
vulgar hilarity but achievement of spiritual insight.
The tradition of the “Laughing Buddha,” depicted
frequently in later images and paintings, derives
from this characteristic Chan humor usage.
It is a sad fact of history that written records per-
tain largely to the educated elite. In China, as else-
where, the records of classical humor are literary. As
such, they reflect the tastes and interests of scholars
and officials. Again, no differently from other cul-
tures, such humor reinforces the consciousness of
belonging to an elite group by jokes, quips, and allu-
sions that can only be appreciated by those with an
educated understanding of history. Shishuo xinyu (A
New Account of Tales of the World, also known as
Essays and Criticism) by Liu Yiqing (403–444) pro-
vides early examples of tales mocking eminent and
respectable characters from previous dynasties that
appealed to emerging new generations of scholars.
Although much of the humor in this work escapes
291
readers of the present age not familiar with the cul-
tural background, one tale is illustrative. Pricking the
pretensions of those with limited understanding of
classic texts that formed the corpus of learning at the
time, it concerns Cai Mo, a successful general and
respected scholar of the 3rd century. In this story, he
relied on his knowledge of an ancient Confucian text
to identify a “sand crab” when he was traveling to
the southern part of the country and had it cooked
and served for dinner. The “sand crab” being poi-
sonous, he became very ill. His friend mocked his
limited scholarship—and also his greed—saying that
he would have done better to study in depth the
Erya (a 3rd-century BCE dictionary) and its more
accurate description of the crab.
China’s ancient joke books combined such in-
humor with material of wider appeal. The earliest
such collection, dating from the 3rd century (well
predating the comparable Western Philogelos of
Byzantine times), is the Xiao lin (Forest of Laughter,
also known as Forest of Humor, Forest of Laughs,
Grove of Laughter, etc.) ascribed to Handan Chun
(ca. 220). Extracts preserved in literary antholo-
gies reveal jokes generally exposing human frailty
and follies. One story, for instance, concerns a man
from the State of Han who, visiting the State of Wu,
enjoyed a feast of cooked bamboo shoots. When he
got home, he boiled up his bamboo bed mat and
when that proved inedible, he complained to his
wife that the people of Wu had cheated him.
The invention of paper around 100 CE, and the
invention of printing with movable type by the year
1000 CE, greatly promoted both recording and
circulation of literary works, including humorous
texts. Chinese urban civilization flourished, and
publishers and agents traded works of fiction and
entertainment value across the country. Examples
of popular literary humor are found in short sto-
ries and poetry from the Tang (618–907) and Song
(960–1267) dynasties, stage drama scripts from the
Yuan (1271–1368), and novels and miscellanies
from the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911)
dynasties.
Du Fu (712–770), one of the best known poets of
the Tang dynasty, wrote with particular sensibility
of the sufferings of the common people. His often
cynical sense of humor has been described as com-
bining yearning, self-mockery, satire, and wit. These
characteristics are seen in Xi zuo paixieti yi men er
shou (“Two Poems Written in Jesting Style for Fun
to Ease Regrets”), concerning his difficulty adapt-
ing to local customs when he settled in the western
292 History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
province of Sichuan (then named Shu). Like other
talented scholars without patronage, Du’s path wan-
dered far from the sophisticated capital, and he felt a
keen sense of isolation and abandonment. His non-
acceptance of injustice took shape in self-mockery
and satire, abiding characteristics of humorous
expression in classical Chinese literature.
By the 13th century, scripts of operas by named
librettists were circulated in print. These Yuan
dynasty dramas had a wide range of dramatic and
comedic techniques and, whereas performances
undoubtedly included unscripted broader humor
to suit local conditions, printed scripts included
sophisticated passages of irony, satire, and humor
expressed in the full range of linguistic and dramatic
techniques, as well as slapstick. One Western scholar
has summarized a typical farcical scene from the
third act of Guan Hanqing’s (ca. 1225–1302) Wang
jiang ting (Riverside Pavilion, also known as River
View Pavilion, River-Gazing Pavilion, etc.): “The
disguised wife buffets Magistrate Yang’s retainer,
gets Yang and Company befuddled with wine and
besotted with her beauty, secures his execution
sword for fish-slicing, his gold badge to be ham-
mered into a finger ring, tucks the written warrant
up her sleeve, and leaves the three dead drunk on the
floor” (Crump, 1958, p. 422).
As urban culture spread, increasingly affluent
citizens thirsted for amusement. Scholars were able
to develop writing careers outside the civil ser-
vice that had once represented their chief path to
advancement. Feng Menglong’s (1574–1645) Gu
jin xiaoshuo (Stories Old and New, also known as
Tales Old and New, 1620) is an example of popu-
lar light literature with humorous undertones that
appealed to the contemporary reading public. The
general story concerns a man named Jinxiao (mean-
ing “gold filial piety”), who picked up a money belt
abandoned in a public toilet and took it home to
present to his mother. She scolded him for taking
what was not his and sent him back to look for the
owner. The owner had indeed returned to search
for his missing belt and was about to tear the toilet
down to search the cesspit. When Jinxiao offered to
return the belt, the owner accused him of stealing
half of the money and a heated dispute arose. A
magistrate passing by told the disputants to state
their cases. One insisted that the belt contained 50
taels of silver; the other maintained that he had only
found 30 taels in it. Thinking quickly, the magistrate
had the silver weighed and concluded that since the
weight did not match the owner’s claim, the whole
amount could be kept by Jinxiao for the support of
his aged mother. Such sharp wit, in a tradition that
stretches back to the court jester Dongfang Shuo,
entertained and fascinated Ming dynasty readers
and constitutes one of the abiding traditions of
Chinese humor.
The great novels of the Yuan, Ming, and Qing
dynasties, including Luo Guanzhong’s (1330–1400)
San guo yanyi (Romance of the Three Kingdoms,
also known as Three Kingdoms) and Cao Xueqin’s
(1715–1764) Hong lou meng (Dream of the Red
Chamber, also known as Red Chamber Dream or
Story of the Stone), operate at a more sophisticated
level. The authors created a host of characters
and plots that have peopled the Chinese imagina-
tion as richly as the works of William Shakespeare
or Charles Dickens for the English-literate world.
Humorous touches abound, moderating and round-
ing the edges of uncompromising situations and
personality traits. Their stories have been told and
retold, as operas and more recently as films and
graphic books, so that they still provide references
for proverbs, sayings, and jokes that abound in the
Chinese language.
Fantasy writing presents another strand of humor
in Chinese culture. Qing dynasty authors such as Pu
Songling (1640–1715) and Li Ruzhen (ca. 1763–
1830) built on a tradition that stretched back at
least as far as Tang dynasty short stories, which had
featured ghosts and fox-fairies. Li’s unfinished novel
Jing hua yuan (Flowers in the Mirror, also known as
The Marriage of Flowers in the Mirror or Romance
of Flowers in the Mirror, completed 1827) is almost
unique in its enlightened attitude toward women,
creating a fantasy world reminiscent of Jonathan
Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels where women flower spir-
its incarnated as humans assume power over men.
It is said that when some friends who had been hav-
ing emotional problems read his manuscript—half-
finished at 100 chapters—they laughed so much
they were cured of their troubles and urged him to
publish it straight away.
If Li Ruzhen’s friends’ emotional problems
were related to gender roles, this might explain
their appreciation of the stories of Jing hua yuan
(Flowers in the Mirror). Chinese traditional society
strictly governed sex relations and whereas men had
more liberty to indulge, women were expected to
be chaste before marriage and faithful afterward.
The role of women was simply to bear children and
heirs. Because of repression and taboos surrounding
sex, it is unsurprising that sex was a frequent subject

of jokes and that literary records preserve such
jokes only from the male perspective. Even so, the
prevalence of jokes about henpecked husbands dem-
onstrates that men did not always manage to exert
discipline in their households. The 17th-century
Guang xiao fu (Expanded Treasury of Laughter, also
known as Laughter Mansion Expanded, Expanded
Treasury of Laughs, Expanded Realm of Laughter,
etc.) attributed to Feng Menglong includes a story
about a group of men discussing how to maintain
authority and masculine dignity. To give them a
fright, someone comes up and warns them that their
wives have gotten wind of the meeting and are on
the warpath, whereupon they all flee, except for one.
People assume that he is the only one not fearful of
his wife—but on closer inspection, it turns out that
he has died of fright.
There is a long unbroken tradition, continuing
today, for Chinese literati to exchange witty poems
and doggerel verses to reinforce friendships and main-
tain shared values. The great Qing dynasty scholar-
official Ji Yun (1724–1805, also known as Ji Xiaolan)
has been promoted as an exponent of such wit in a
recent Chinese television series. Stories about Ji’s wit
circulated after his death. One that illustrates how he
used his wit to attack the power structure of the court
concerns how one of the eunuchs employed in the
imperial court one day peremptorily instructed Ji Yun
to tell a joke. Ji said, “Once there was a man . . .,”
then paused. “Well?” said the eunuch. “That’s all.”
When the eunuch reported this to his superior, the
latter decided to punish such insolent behavior. When
he next met Ji, he asked him to provide the second
line to a couplet beginning: “Three talents—heaven,
earth, man.” Without hesitation, Ji replied: “Four
seasons—summer, autumn, winter.” The senior
eunuch said, “The four seasons are spring, summer,
autumn and winter; didn’t you forget spring?” Ji Yun
looked meaningfully at the eunuch’s lower bodily
strata and replied, “Spring has been deleted.”
Ji Yun served in the imperial Hanlin Academy
at the Qing court and was familiar with the writ-
ings of the philosophers and historians of antiquity
but wrote sparingly himself, claiming that all that
needed to be written had been published long ago.
He was said to be sarcastic about writing that he
regarded as inferior. One story concerns a student
who asked him to read his work. Handing it back,
he quoted from the Tang dynasty poet Du Fu: “Two
yellow orioles cry in the green willows; One rank
of white herons rises to the blue sky” (Du Fu, Jueju
3/4). The student asked him to explain, so Ji said,
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe 293
“When the orioles chatter in the trees, no one can
understand a word, and when the herons fly off
they get further and further from the subject.” Ji’s
response was a masterly critique of a bad piece of
work and a splendid example of scholarly sarcasm.
In this way Chinese humor feeds on itself, con-
stantly re-creating and renewing sources of inspira-
tion for future generations.
Jocelyn Chey
See also Aphorism; Buddhism; Folklore; Forest of
Laughter and Traditional Chinese Jestbooks; History
of Humor: Modern and Contemporary China; Huaji-
ists, The; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Mime; Paradox;
Politeness; Puns; Share; Taoism; Translation;
Xiangsheng; Xiehouyu
Further Readings
Baccini, G. (2010). The Forest of Laughs (Xiaolin):
Mapping the offspring of self-aware literature in ancient
China. Doctoral dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari
Venezia, Venice, Italy.
Chey, J., & Milner Davis, J. (Eds.). (2011). Humour in
Chinese life and letters: Classical and traditional
approaches. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Crump, J. (1958). The elements of Yuan opera. Journal of
Asian Studies, 17(3), 417–434.
Harbsmeier, C. (1990). Confucius ridens: Humor in The
Analects. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 50(1),
131–161.
Hyers, C. (1989). The laughing Buddha: Zen and the comic
spirit. Wolfeboro, NH: Longwood Academic.
Otto, B. (2001). Fools are everywhere: The court jester
around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sellmann, J. D. (1989). Transformational humor in the
Zhuangzi. In R. Ames (Ed.), Wandering at ease in the
Zhuangzi (pp. 163–175). New York: State University of
New York Press.
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
EARLY MODERN EUROPE
Understanding of what we would now call humor
developed in the early modern period, which lasted
roughly from 1500 to 1800, under several names
and through the performance of increasingly self-
conscious literary and cultural activities. It was
experienced more as a family of cultural practices
associated with laughter and ridicule than any clearly
294 History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
defined concept in the modern sense. Such theory as
there was naturally tended to reflect contemporary
humor practices: playful techniques of irony, bur-
lesque, and parody all enacted and explored humor
and terms associated with it, such as comedy, sat-
ire, and carnival. Nevertheless, the period also saw
the gradual emergence of the term humor from its
roots in ancient medical theory to denote a recog-
nizably modern way of thinking about laughter, the
comic, and other related phenomena. This coales-
cence of the idea of humor was characterized as a
quintessentially English cultural phenomenon before
spreading to other European languages in the 18th
century, and it serves as a useful marker of other
social, political, and intellectual developments in the
early modern period.
Linked by some scholars to the rise of modern
notions of civil society, humor had a complicated
and often antagonistic relationship with the major
political movement of the period: the develop-
ment of increasingly absolute modes of royal and
religious power in the 16th and 17th centuries and
their subsequent collapse in the revolutionary era
at the end of the 18th century. Humor practices
sometimes permitted self-expression to seditious and
rebellious voices against authoritarian rule, but they
also permitted the containment and dissipation of
carnivalesque energies in authorized forms of play.
This entry discusses the evolution of humor tradi-
tions during the early modern period and how they
fit into the developing theories of humor.
Early modern Europe inherited both popular and
learned humor practices from the Middle Ages. These
can be broadly divided into two traditions: the carni-
valesque and the witty (serio ludere “serious play”).
These are loosely reflected in the two major develop-
ments in humor theory that occurred in the second
half of the period: superiority theory (17th century)
and incongruity theory (18th century). Major cul-
tural developments of the era—the development of
print, of vernacular languages, and of more elaborate
markets for entertainment—led to a proliferation of
modes for the expression of these overlapping tra-
ditions. Two major literary developments—first the
development of a professional stage-drama, then the
rise of the comic novel—mixed popular and learned
traditions in different measure. However, a broadly
useful distinction remains between embodied modes
of humor that were performative and primarily car-
nivalesque, and written modes whose appeal was
and is primarily to intellectual judgment. The early
modern person who read a humorous text had a
fundamentally more private and learned experience
than did the witness of carnival or theatrical perfor-
mance, who laughed in a group. With the emergence
of new genres like the novel, private experiences
came to overtake older traditions of public ridicule,
providing the basis for an increasingly positive con-
cept of humor.
In this sense, the broad narrative of humor theory
and practice in early modern Europe reflects the
conventional account of cultural history as map-
ping a gradual rise of sentiment and sensibility. At
the one end, there is the coarse laughter of popular
carnival, of commedia dell’ arte, and of François
Rabelais. At the other end are complexly ironic and
deeply sympathetic comic novels by writers such
as Denis Diderot and Laurence Sterne. It is, never-
theless, worth keeping in mind that popular chap-
books and accounts of performance—even in the
most “advanced” countries of Western Europe and
among refined as well as popular audiences—show
a delight in derisive and violently physical humor
throughout these centuries.
Carnival: Rabelais and Commedia
Notwithstanding the stereotype of a fundamental
break between medieval and early modern world-
views, the tradition of carnivalesque humor from
the 1500s onward can best be understood in terms
of the inheritance and development of older tradi-
tions. With its roots in the pre-Lenten festivals of
medieval Christianity, carnival was both an officially
sanctioned period of release and a popular folk tra-
dition delighting in the inversion of authority, ver-
bal and physical play, and often grotesque bodily
humor. Carnival can be seen as a product of the late
medieval city, extended and institutionalized during
the early modern period. Rabelais and painters such
as Hieronymus Bosch and Pieter Brueghel (whose
1559 allegory “The Fight Between Carnival and
Lent” humorously represents the conflict between
the two seasons by means of typecast figures, cos-
tumes, and foodstuffs) attest the influence of this
tradition on the popular imagination into the 16th
century and beyond.
One example is the 16th-century Italian com-
media dell’arte, a form of improvised physical
theater involving professional actors, masks, stock
characters (including still-familiar figures such
as Arlecchino/Harlequin and Pulcinella/Punch),
standard situations and intrigues, and a variety of
lazzi or burlesque turns. Developing out of older

entertainments performed during carnival cel-
ebrations and in parallel with the rise of literary
Renaissance theater), the commedia was popular
until the 18th century, particularly influencing later
Italian and French theater and, to some extent, other
traditions such as Elizabethan stage clowns.
In contrast to the performance humor tradition
represented by the commedia, Rabelais’s Gargantua
and Pantagruel tales (1532–1552) represent an
essentially literary manifestation of carnival themes
that highlights an important turning point in the his-
tory of early modern humor. In the influential analy-
sis of Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais’s work represents
a late glimpse of a waning popular comic vitality;
Rabelais captures the themes, including gluttony,
bodily functions, degradation, abuse, and sacrilege,
that permeate his gleeful comedy. But his work is
also intertwined with learned and seriocomic ele-
ments. For example, a long discourse by the young
Gargantua (Gargantua, Chapter 12) on the best
means of wiping one’s bottom provides a scato-
logical comic list, but it also functions as a parody
of the scholastic theology that Rabelais elsewhere
combats by appeals to learned humanist wit. As a
master of both formal invention and literary refer-
ence, Rabelais can be read as a forerunner of the
modern novel that Bakhtin saw as extinguishing the
medieval popular carnival tradition.
Praisers of Folly
With reinvigorated study of the Greek and Roman
classics during the Renaissance, there also came a
rebirth of learned wit, influenced particularly by the
classical rhetorician and satirist Lucian (2nd century
CE). The title of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia (1516)
invents a word that can mean either “ideal place” or
“no place,” and the witty irreducibility of the ambi-
guity is significant. It is, in many ways, a response
to the most prominent example of the tradition of
serio ludere (serious playing)—Desiderius Erasmus’s
Moriae encomium (1509). Translated most often
as Praise of Folly, it might equally be translated An
Encomium for More, for it was written in his house
and dedicated to him. As this suggests, many 16th-
century writers in prose and verse used puns and
wordplay to explore ideas that were, and remain,
an affront to “serious” models of rational discourse.
Praise of Folly subtly and ironically investigates the
centrality of foolishness in human conduct and pur-
sues an indirect satire on many superstitions char-
acteristic of medieval Christianity. Erasmus’s Folly
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe 295
laughs at herself, but particularly at humans who
take themselves and their doctrines too seriously, in
a cry for intellectual humility not sufficiently heeded
in the century or more of the Reformation’s ensuing
religious upheaval.
Humanist laughter and reflexive wit were
encouraged in William Shakespeare’s comedies—
from Jacques’s mannered observation that “All
the world’s a stage, / And all the men and women
merely players” (As You Like It) to Benedick’s
more spontaneous exclamation that “man is a
giddy thing and this is my conclusion” (Much Ado
About Nothing). They were central to the logic of
Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote (1605/1615),
whose Don is shown as a man captivated by heroic
visions of romance and hilariously confronted
with the indignities of the real world. More darkly,
they underlie Michel de Montaigne’s famous essay
“On Cannibals” (1580), which wittily explores
the notion that man-eaters brought up without the
benefits of Christianity might yet act in a morally
superior way to Europeans. In the play space of
early modern comic and speculative writing lies a
more tolerant and forgiving alternative to the wars
of religion that ravaged the 16th and 17th centu-
ries. In the same way, while street humor in towns
and villages retained a harsh, even physically violent
aspect, the development of commercial theater in
England, Spain, France, and Italy added deeper and
more sympathetic elements to the mix of humor on
offer, partly from professionalization of acting and
partly from the inspiration of literary models.
Theory of the Humors
In parallel with the rise of humanist laughter, from
the beginning of the 16th century there was renewed
interest in thinking about humor. The preface to
Rabelais’s Gargantua includes an apologia for laugh-
ter: “It is better to write about laughter than tears /
For laughter is particular to man.” These lines refer
back to Aristotle, as interpreted by 9th-century Arab
philosopher Isaac Judaeus, whose works appeared
in Lyon in 1515. Other 16th-century works on
laughter—including Laurent Joubert’s Traité du ris
(Treatise on Laughter, 1579), the earliest substantial
work on laughter in the vernacular—broadly fol-
low Aristotle’s account of laughter as arising from
harmless ugliness. Although Joubert is primarily
interested in physiological rather than psychologi-
cal causes, his separation of practical humor (falls,
bodily functions, imitation) from verbal humor
296 History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
(jokes, puns, tales) anticipates the subsequent devel-
opment of superiority and incongruity theories.
Well into the 18th century, the term humor con-
tinued to refer not to laughter but to the ancient the-
ory of bodily fluids: An imbalance in fluids would
result in an eccentric disposition of character or
temperament. Satirical examination of such charac-
ters had formed the basis of the Elizabethan comedy
of humors popularized by Ben Jonson and George
Chapman and was incorporated into 17th-century
English Restoration comedy. Although “humor” is
associated here with an involuntary object of ridi-
cule, a subtle shift in meaning can be observed as
early as Jonson’s Every Man out of His Humour
(1598), which contrasts the involuntary eccentric-
ity of “true” humor with the simulation of humor
by deliberate affectation. Whereas Jonson’s comedy
(unlike, potentially, Shakespeare’s) does not empa-
thize with such self-reflexive humor, a more sym-
pathetic treatment of eccentricity appears in Robert
Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), whose
learned, exhaustive yet humorous treatment of mel-
ancholia looks both back to Rabelais and forward
to Laurence Sterne (1713–1768).
Sudden Glory and Superiority Theory
Nevertheless, the dominant 17th-century view of
laughter was that it was an aggressive act of supe-
riority over the object of ridicule: Physical defor-
mity was treated as an indicator of laughable moral
deformity. As English philosopher Thomas Hobbes
(1650/1999) argued, we laugh from “sudden glory
arising from sudden conception of some eminency
in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmities of
others” (Part I: Human Nature, Chapter 9). Satire
in particular was conceived as a lash to vice and a
proper attack on heresy, as seen in woodcuts and
broadsides of the German Reformation controversy,
where both Martin Luther and the Catholic Church
could be ridiculed as grotesque monsters of defor-
mity. In this context, laughter became an expression
of moral and even theological discipline, exemplified
by John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667), where Christ
addresses God the Father: “Mighty Father, thou thy
foes / Justly hast in derision and secure / Laugh’st at
their vain designs and tumults vain” (Book V, lines
735–737). This is a very long way from 21st-century
notions that humor is a benevolent thing.
Molière’s comedies for the court of Louis XIV (31
plays between 1659 and 1673) engaged critically and
often harshly in social, religious, and political debates
of the era. In an increasingly absolutist environment,
plays such as Tartuffe and The Misanthrope exer-
cised a comic license to address issues that could
not be discussed directly. This was not without risk
for the author and his troupe—Tartuffe exposed
its author to a bull of excommunication from the
Archbishop of Paris—but illustrates how difficult it
is to contain comic and critical humor. In doctrinaire
and authoritarian times, humor practices could be
used both as weapons in dispute and as subversion
of serious order.
Satire and Enlightenment Humor
During the 18th century, the public function of
humor in Western Europe became more institution-
alized. First, there was a growing market for com-
edy in printed, graphic, and performed modes. This
included the development of commercial theaters
across Europe, whose principal aim was to provide
entertainment for growing literate bourgeois cul-
tures. This increasingly commercial comedy tended
toward moralism and away from social or aesthetic
challenges and has played a significant role in emerg-
ing consumer entertainment industries well beyond
the 18th century.
The second institutionalization of humor was
more provocative: the rise of major satirists in
increasingly liberal (or, at least, irrepressible)
print cultures in commercially advanced Western
European nations. Whether or not something as
benignly liberal as a “public sphere” as envisioned
by philosopher Jürgen Habermas actually came into
being, one of the special characteristics of early-18th-
century British culture was a robust print culture
where debate of current politics could be pursued
openly. The spectacular opposition to the way of the
world (including governments) presented by satirists
such as Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Henry
Fielding, William Hogarth, and Samuel Johnson is
one of its glories.
While the Enlightenment depended on the care-
ful exertions of rationalist philosophers, humor was
another crucial element in the opening up of culture
to robust (and sometimes hilarious) debate. Both
in England and in France, the publishing history of
satirical works provides an index of the patchy rise
of tolerance for dissenting opinions in ancien régime
Europe. Humor that explicitly attacked established
doctrines or governing regimes made implicit claims

for the rights of individuals to judge for themselves
rather than merely to accept direction from those
in authority. Thus it was an indicator of the exis-
tence of a nascently free press, although the extent
to which such freedoms spread beyond a small and
privileged audience or even contributed directly to
practical reforms is a matter for debate. In France,
it was Voltaire (1694–1778) and encyclopédistes
such as Diderot (1713–1784) who carried the torch
of satire, but their defense of Enlightenment despo-
tism argues an ambiguous relationship to power.
Although reforms discussed with and undertaken
by patrons such as Catherine the Great of Russia
were undoubtedly important, they did not extend
to press or personal freedom in the sense increas-
ingly understood in the West. Yet, compared with
17th-century absolutism, when humor could only
speak of public matters in deep code (or in moments
of collapsed press control, such as the Civil War
period in England, 1640–1660), the satirists helped
blaze a path toward a modern open market of ideas
by permitting people to laugh at authority and its
underpinning ideas.
Incongruity Theory
By the turn of the 18th century, the gradual move-
ment toward a civil society defined by personal free-
doms was becoming more evident in England. It is
significant that it was accompanied by an increas-
ingly positive view of laughter. In what amounts to
an attack on Hobbes, the Earl of Shaftesbury’s Sen-
sus Communis: Essay Concerning the Freedom of
Wit and Humour (1709/1971) proposed the gentle-
manly model of “true raillery” as an alternative to
the aggressive laughter of superiority. It pleads in
favor of friends “who are often censur’d for their
Humour of this kind, and the Freedom they take
in such an airy way of Conversation and Writing”:
Here the term humor finally takes on something
close to its modern meaning. Shaftesbury was pri-
marily interested in liberty, but his successor Francis
Hutcheson went on to discuss humor as the “bring-
ing together of images which have contrary addi-
tional ideas” (Reflections Upon Laughter, 1750).
This contributed a new and influential understand-
ing of humor as an essentially sympathetic form of
incongruity.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790)
famously conceptualized humor as “the sud-
den transformation of a strained expectation into
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe 297
nothing,” a notion explored by romantic writers
like Jean Paul Richter (School of Aesthetics, 1804)
in terms of a contrast between the finite and the infi-
nite. Like Diderot, Voltaire, and the influential Swiss
commentator Madame de Staël (1766–1817), Kant
and Richter both considered humor as a (largely
new) phenomenon distinct from other species of the
comic. Whereas modern usage of the term humor
originates in English, this terminological and con-
ceptual distinction, like that between humor and
laughter, remains more visible in languages such
as French and German. As Daniel Wickberg has
pointed out, the rise of humor as a distinct concept
during the 18th century, linked to Shaftesbury’s
ideals of good breeding and civilized behavior and
encompassing the ability to laugh at oneself, has
now become invisible amid the very general contem-
porary uses of the term in English.
The shift from aggression toward incongruity
can also be observed in the rise of the 18th-century
English comic novel, cited by French and German
commentators well into the 20th century in support
of the culturally “English” and historically specific
associations of humor. The self-conscious narratives
of Henry Fielding (1707–1754) and Laurence Sterne
transpose the formal play of Don Quixote into a
new social and intellectual setting. In contrast to the
standard 17th-century treatment of Don Quixote as
an object of derision (and while parody and satire
remain significant elements), comic characters and
situations provide occasions to celebrate humanity
and eccentricity. Introducing Tom Jones (1749) with
the claim that “an Author ought to consider himself,
not as a gentleman . . . but rather as one who keeps a
public Ordinary [eating house], to which all persons
are welcome for their money,” Fielding combines
an incongruous comparison between narrators and
innkeepers, a self-reflexive joke about the status of
authorship and subtler digs at the implied social
standing and commercial behavior of his readers.
The eponymous narrator of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy
(1759–1768) invokes Sancho Panza’s desire for a
“kingdom of hearty laughing subjects” as a basis
for his joyful philosophy of “Shandyism” (Vol. 4,
Chapter 32), which gently lampoons Tristram’s
eccentric family in a distinctly 18th-century echo of
Rabelais’s grotesque “Pantagruelism.” Like Rabelais
and Burton, Sterne draws laughter from the incon-
gruous deployment of encyclopedic knowledge,
which mires the progress of Tristram’s purported
autobiography in uncontrollable digressions. But
298 History of Humor: Medieval Europe
in Sterne’s case, textual and typographical games
conspire to direct the novel’s comic energy back on
itself, making Tristram Shandy an important literary
milestone in the early modern development of the
reflexive sense of humor.
Robert Phiddian and Will Noonan
See also Absurdist Humor; Aristotelian Theory of
Humor; Carnivalesque; Cervantes, Miguel de;
Comedy; Commedia dell’Arte; Farce; History of
Humor: Medieval Europe; History of Humor:
Renaissance Europe; Hobbesian Theory; Humor,
Etymology of; Humorist; Incongruity and Resolution;
Jests, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Philosophy of Humor;
Rabelais, François; Sense of Humor, Components of;
Shakespearean Comedy
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky,
Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dickie, S. (2011). Cruelty and laughter: Forgotten comic
literature and the unsentimental eighteenth century.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hobbes, T. (1999). The elements of law, natural and politic:
Human nature and De corpore politico. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1650)
Hutcheson, F. (1750). Reflections upon laughter, and
remarks upon the Fable of the Bees. Glasgow, UK:
Baxter.
Joubert, L. (1980). Treatise on laughter (G. de Rocher,
Trans.). University: University of Alabama Press.
Richter, J. P. (1973). Horn of Oberon: Jean Paul’s school
for aesthetics (M. R. Hale, Trans. & Ed.). Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University Press.
Seidel, M. (1979). Satiric inheritance: Rabelais to Sterne.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony Ashley Cooper). (1971).
Sensus communis: An essay on the freedom of wit and
humour. New York, NY: Garland. (Original work
published 1709)
Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and
laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
MEDIEVAL EUROPE
The humor of medieval Europe is as diverse as that
of any point in history, spanning the gamut from
basic to sophisticated, from elevated to bawdy, from
secular to religious. Though the structures of humor
followed universal patterns, the particulars of medi-
eval culture naturally influenced its expression.
Thus humor has a particularly communal character
in this period; comic texts were often designed for
performance, and were acted, read, or told aloud in
company. Such merriment was typically deplored by
religious authorities, though in private many august
churchmen were not unfamiliar with revelry. Indeed,
religion and clerics formed a favorite topic of humor,
even to other clerics. These rivaled the things of the
body as a staple of comedy, and humor that com-
bined religion and bodily folly was particularly pop-
ular. This entry outlines the types of humor enjoyed
during the Middle Ages, including both textual
humor and performance.
The Early Middle Ages
Evidence for humor is scarcer in the early Middle
Ages (roughly 500–1100 CE), principally because
limited literacy meant that many fewer things were
written down. Accordingly, early medieval humor
appears almost exclusively in Latin, the primary
language of literacy. One rare example is an 8th-
century bibulous parody of the Salic law, the early
medieval Frankish law code, an early instance of the
continuing medieval fondness for wine and drunk-
enness. The humorous tenor of feasting and merry-
making is also apparent in records from the court of
Charlemagne (ca. 742–814), who gathered around
him some of the brightest wits and scholars in the
educated world. Their quips, nicknames, riddles,
and jokes survive in letters, poems, histories, and
teaching texts from the court.
Another early medieval humorous form is the
beast fable, a narrative in which animals behave like
humans, talk, join religious orders, go on quests,
and so forth, yet retain animal traits such as hop-
ing to eat each other. The form flowered in the later
Middle Ages, culminating in masterworks such as the
12th-century Flemish Ysengrimus, a Latin epic of
some 6,500 lines. The poem depicts the struggles
among the wolf Ysengrimus, the trickster fox
Reynard, and other animals, all satirical of human
folly, filled with knockabout violence and humor.
The most monumental beast-epic was the French
Roman de Renart, dating from the 12th and
13th centuries, a sprawling collection of more than
30,000 lines of verse about Reynard the Fox and
the standard cast of animals. Fox-and-wolf epics
spread into other languages as well. Other texts used

other animals: The Speculum stultorum (Mirror for
Fools), a 12th-century clerical satire, was a mock
epic about a donkey’s quest for a longer tail.
The Rise of Comedic Writing
With the spread of literacy, the 11th century saw
an acceleration of comic writing. One of the best
known examples is the Carmina Burana manuscript,
an extensive compilation of serious and comic mate-
rial from the late 11th and 12th centuries. Much of
the poetry is what is termed goliardic, that is, glee-
fully devoted to the pleasures of wine, women, and
song, composed by authors who called themselves
goliards, a term they related to “Golias” (Goliath)
and gula (throat, appetite). The goliards depicted
themselves as dissolute, hedonistic, and poverty-
stricken wandering clerics and scholars, but the
truth of this has recently been called into question. In
the cases where actual poets can be identified, they
seem to have been men of stature within the offi-
cial Church. The most famous of the goliard poets is
known to modern scholars only by his pseudonym,
the Archpoet; he was a member of the retinue of
Rainald of Dassel, the archchancellor of the 12th-
century emperor Frederick Barbarossa. One of the
Archpoet’s poems, “The Archpoet’s Confession,” is
the most famous satirical work of the Middle Ages,
both in its own time and to modern scholars.
Later medieval writers also had greater access
to classical authors such as Terence and Horace.
These enjoyed enormous popularity and were
taught in schools as examples of witty, urbane style.
Within the confines of the Church, however, such
humor was deemed improper. The Benedictine
canoness Hroswitha of Gandersheim (ca. 935–ca.
1002) stated that she wrote her pious set of plays
to provide a more suitable alternative to Terence’s
licentious ones. Despite such reservations, the 12th
century began to see an explosion in Latin come-
diae, comic plays of deception and sexual antics in
emulation of the classical dramatists, although the
medieval examples were typically read rather than
performed. Drama was not commonly staged until
the late Middle Ages, when religious plays did often
feature comic characters and scenes. Noah’s wife,
for example, was often depicted as a laughable ter-
magant who is deaf to Noah’s role in biblical history.
The Fabliaux
Comic narratives in verse and prose enjoyed
popularity throughout the Middle Ages. The most
History of Humor: Medieval Europe 299
sophisticated of these were the fabliaux: witty verse
tales, usually involving deception and sexual or
scatological humor. The earliest surviving fabliaux
surface in the Cambridge Songs, a collection that
includes seven tales of clever trickery dating back to
the 10th century. The apogee of the form is generally
considered to be the French fabliaux, a corpus of
some 150 surviving stories, most from the 13th cen-
tury. Many of these are masterpieces of clever con-
struction, often turning on deception and reciprocity,
and concerned with animal appetites and the comi-
cal things of the body. The fabliau form was also
known in Italy, and in the 14th century Giovanni
Boccaccio used many fabliaux in the Decameron.
Geoffrey Chaucer incorporated a number of
fabliaux into the Canterbury Tales, and his elabora-
tions of the form are among the finest of the genre.
Anonymous fabliaux also appear in English, and
the genre is likewise found in German (Schwänke),
Flemish, and the Scandinavian languages. Because of
their explicit subject matter, scholars used to believe
that the fabliaux were a particularly bourgeois form
of literature, but it has more recently been demon-
strated that they were popular among many classes
of society, even the highest.
Other Comic Forms
A number of other comic forms flourished in the
period. Stories and poems reveal comic stereotypes,
such as that the people of Norfolk in England were
bumpkins, or that Bavarians were either tricky,
backward, or both. Schoolboy songs often mix
Latin and the vernacular to comic effect, or merely
garble the Latin altogether in devil-may-care fash-
ion; drinking and leaving school are common top-
ics. Humorous insults were not unknown, and a
few people compiled lengthy lists of them. Comic
poetry featured traditional themes such as fools
who prevailed, tricksters who were tricked, pratfalls
and slapstick violence, and romantic passion that
ended in an unromantic infant. Humorous riddles
appear from many periods. The major early medi-
eval vernacular collection, the Old English riddles
of the Exeter Book manuscript, date from around
the year 1000. A number have humorous solu-
tions, most notably the “obscene” double-entendre
riddles. (“It hangs by a man’s thigh, it is stiff and
hard, it has a good firmness . . . the man wants to
put it into the familiar hole . . .” Answer: a key.)
Later riddles were sometimes less poetic but often
no less suggestive. In time these were gathered into
300 History of Humor: Medieval Europe
collections such as the late-15th-century French
Demandes joyeuses (Happy Questions). In these,
serious questions are mixed with sexual and scato-
logical humor, whereas others are of familiar mod-
ern types: “How many calves’ tails does it take to
reach from the earth to the sky? No more than one
if it be long enough.” The jokes have an irrever-
ent take on all aspects of life: “Which are the most
profitable saints in the church? They that stand in
the glass windows, for they keep out the wind with-
out obstructing the light.”
Humor appeared in visual and material forms as
well. Manuscript margins often show figures cavort-
ing and engaging in ludicrous activities. The “world
upside-down” is often featured, in which rabbits
hunt humans and wives rule their husbands by
brandishing distaffs. In other images, tiny humans
joust with snails, foxes preach to geese from pulpits,
knights ride on goats, men excrete coins or collect
droppings in purses, and apes mimic people, some-
times dressed as the pope. These images were typi-
cally unrelated to the main text in the manuscript,
serving as a kind of playful complement to the more
official things in life.
Many motifs appear in a variety of media.
Manuscript marginalia are mirrored at York
Minster, for example, where medieval stained glass
windows depict a fox preaching to a chicken, as well
as apes reenacting the funeral of the Virgin Mary.
Another context that reflected popular stories is the
carvings on later medieval misericords, the wooden
seats in church choir stalls. The underside typically
featured a carving of a sacred or secular subject,
often humorous, such as apes mimicking humans,
pigs playing bagpipes, people exposing their bot-
toms, and other familiar motifs.
Another particularly widespread motif is that
of the “Violet Trick,” a tale that arose in the 14th
century. In the story, as part of a courtly game, the
knight Neidhart seeks out the first violet of spring
and carefully places his cap over it, then runs to fetch
the court. A peasant comes across the cap, plucks
the violet, defecates in its place, and replaces the cap.
The climax of the tale sees the court dancing around
the cap and finally lifting it up to discover what they
have actually been celebrating. The tale is found
in prose, songs, dramas, woodcuts, and on stone
tablets and wall paintings. A 15th-century monk
lamented the fact that people no longer painted
saints on the walls of their homes but were instead
painting scenes from the Violet Trick.
Throughout the period, satire was a popular
genre across cultures, leavening moral pronounce-
ment with enjoyable ridicule. Latin denunciation
of the abuses of the Church came in numerous
forms. At one end of the spectrum was the magis-
terial Speculum prelatorum (Mirror for Prelates),
a 3,300-line hexameter tour de force, dense with
classical references, Greek and Hebrew vocabulary,
and complex wordplay decrying the vices of cler-
ics. At the other end of the spectrum were the brief
and straightforward parody-Gospels, The Gospel
According to the Mark of Gold and Silver, with the
entire satirical narrative told in phrases borrowed
from the Bible. Between these poles were a host of
other satires, often in Latin but also in the vernacu-
lars, lampooning all manner of vice and folly.
The Bible, the Mass, saints’ lives, and other
religious texts were often recruited to sweeten the
humor of texts and parodies; the juxtaposition
between the lofty things of the spirit and the embar-
rassing things of the body gave particular pleasure.
Religious authorities repeatedly denounced humor
as unsuitable to a pious life, but it is notable that
a great deal of humor originated in clerical circles.
Indeed, one of the most popular Latin parodies of
the Middle Ages, the Sermon on St. Nobody, was
presented to the future Pope Boniface VIII. Such par-
odies turned on the conventions of serious religious
texts; in St. Nobody, for example, a fictitious saint
Nobody was constructed from passages of the Bible
such as “Nobody is greater than God.” The form
later moved into the vernacular in a genre of ser-
mons joyeux, mock sermons celebrating such saints
as St. Onion and St. Herring, who, like St. Lawrence,
were martyred on a grill. These mock sermons and
religious parodies were designed for public perfor-
mance, though the audience might consist only of
other clerics, particularly in the case of Latin texts.
Modern scholars formerly believed that these texts
formed a part of Fools’ Festivals, occasions for cleri-
cal license and merriment at various dates around
the New Year. More recently, however, it has been
argued that these particular holidays were serious
rather than merry and parodic. That other occasions
of large-scale drunken merriment certainly took
place is not in question, whenever they occurred.
Some must have been at Carnival, others at fairs
and similar gatherings, others organized by univer-
sity students. Still more occasions of humor were
provided within the church itself, during sermons,
when preachers often moralized comic anecdotes to

appeal to listeners. Later these jokes were collected
into jestbooks, where they often appear with their
moral interpretations still attached—interpretations
so feeble that it looks very much as if the jokes were
told for their humor rather than for their moral
content.
Medieval Performers and Audiences
With those exceptions, however, the Church princi-
pally used humor privately rather than publicly, in
religious in-jokes that circulated in clerical milieux.
Officially the Church and the authorities of high cul-
ture frowned on the unseemly expression of humor,
but actual practices show them to be of two minds
on the subject. The 12th-century philosopher John
of Salisbury decried the appearance of jesters in the
households of the great, who farted noisily as part of
their act. He continued with the ambivalent reflec-
tion: “But who would not watch and laugh with
pleasure when the arts of the performer are quashed
by a dousing of urine . . . ? It is pleasant and does
not detract from the honour of a worthy man to
take delight in seemly lightheartedness, but it is dis-
graceful to erode his seriousness with frequent dis-
solute behaviour” (Policraticus, I.viii).
The things of the body were a popular source of
humor in all forms, and the medieval world was not
shy about explicit humor such as anatomical pilgrim
badges. Serious pilgrim badges were metal badges
acquired by pilgrims to holy sites as a kind of pious
souvenir. A parallel category of badges featured the
obscene parts of the anatomy: a walking vulva with
a pilgrim staff, for instance, or a winged phallus.
These humorous badges survive in profusion, but
what their exact function was (or exactly what kind
of pilgrimage they represent) is unclear.
Professional entertainers were known under a
variety of terms, many of them imprecise. In gen-
eral, clowns (known in Latin as scurrae) and jesters
(Middle English gestours) seem to have performed
physical as well as verbal humor, actors (Latin mimi
or histriones) performed in roles or companies, and
the common minstrel (the French jongleur, Old
English gleoman, German spielmann) concentrated
more on songs and narratives. However, more
elite performers (in French, trouvères) were also
known to perform comic narratives. Jesters might
be attached to the court or elite households, where
multiple sources suggest that farting and buffoonery
were among their specialties. Although entertainers
History of Humor: Medieval Europe 301
undoubtedly performed for secular audiences, their
audiences might also be clerical. Records show that
in England, monasteries formed one of the three or
four most significant sources of employment for
performers. Selby Abbey, for instance, employed
entertainers 16 times in 1397–1398. Despite such
clerical patronage, minstrels, jesters, and actors had
a continuing reputation for licentiousness. Their
itinerant lifestyles meant that their backgrounds
were unknowable, and they were frequently accused
of being thieves or spies.
In most medieval cultures, humorous genres and
serious genres were distinct. Comic genres might
reflect serious cultural concerns, as is the case with
satire or with tales of conflict between the lowly and
the powerful. But the converse is rare: Serious genres
such as epic almost never feature humor. This para-
digm does not apply, however, to Celtic (Irish and
Welsh) narrative, which featured “serious” epics and
legends with humor throughout. In these the dia-
logue between characters is often barbed and witty,
the narrative exaggerations are playful, and the nar-
ratives often have a sense of spirited glee lacking in
the literature of other medieval cultures.
Although medieval audiences must have laughed
at the comic, laughter as depicted in medieval lit-
erature usually fulfills a different function, express-
ing triumph, scorn, or detachment. Such is, for
example, the famous laughter of Troilus at the
end of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde: After death
Troilus rises above the world, looks down at its
foolhardy passions, and finally is able to laugh at
earthly folly.
Religion and power were often in tension with
merriment throughout the period, however merry
the powerful might be in private. Modern scholar-
ship, spearheaded by the Russian critic Mikhail
Bakhtin, has explored whether such revelry was
actually subversive of official culture and power.
Bakhtin dubbed this revelry the “carnivalesque” and
identified many instances of it in medieval culture.
To what extent the carnivalesque was subversive or
politically effective remains a matter of debate. It is
clear, however, that throughout the period, mirth
and lightheartedness were often prized by people of
all ranks and statures.
Martha Bayless
See also Boccaccio, Giovanni; Carnivalesque;
Christianity; Fabliau; Feast of Fools; Jests, Jestbooks,
302 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary China
and Jesters; Medieval Visual Humor; Parody; Satire;
Schwank
Further Readings
Bayless, M. (1996). Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin
tradition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Benson, L. D., & Andersson, T. M. (1971). The literary
context of Chaucer’s fabliaux: Texts and translations.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Brewer, D. (1996). Medieval comic tales. Woodbridge,
UK: Author.
Coxon, S. (2008). Laughter and narrative in the later
Middle Ages: German comic tales, 1350–1525.
London, UK: Modern Humanities Research
Association and Maney Publishing.
Horowitz, J., & Menache, S. (1994). L’humour en chaire:
Le rire dans l’église médievale [Humor in the flesh:
Laughter in the medieval church]. Geneva, Switzerland:
Labor et Fides.
Jones, M. (2003). The secret Middle Ages. Stroud, UK:
Sutton.
Ménard, P. (1990). Le rire et le sourire au moyen
âge dans la littérature et les arts: Essai de problématique
[Laughter and smile in the Middle Ages in literature and
the arts: An essay on the problematic]. In T. Bouché &
H. Charpentier (Eds.), Le rire au moyen âge dans la
littérature et dans les arts [Laughter in the Middle Ages
in literature and arts] (pp. 7–30). Talence, France:
Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
Muscatine, C. (1986). The Old French fabliaux. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ogilvy, J. D. A. (1963). Mimi, scurrae, histriones:
Entertainers of the early Middle Ages. Speculum, 38,
603–619.
Randall, L. M. C. (1966). Images in the margins of
Gothic manuscripts. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Roy, B. (1977). Devinettes françaises du moyen âge
[French riddles of the Middle Ages]. Montreal, QC,
Canada: Bellarmin.
Suchomski, J. (1975). “Delectatio” und “Utilitas.” Ein
Beitrag zum Verständnis mittelalterlicher komischer
Literatur [“Delectatio” and “Utilitas”: A contribution
to the understanding of medieval humorous literature].
Bern, Switzerland: Francke.
Wolterbeek, M. (1991). Comic tales of the Middle Ages:
An anthology and commentary. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.
Yunck, J. S. (1963). The lineage of Lady Meed: The
development of mediaeval venality satire. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ziolkowski, J. (1993). Talking animals: Medieval Latin
beast poetry, 750–1150. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
HISTORY OF HUMOR: MODERN
AND CONTEMPORARY CHINA
The word humor was first translated into Chinese as
Oumuya by Wang Guo-wei (1827–1927), a noted
Chinese scholar in the late Qing dynasty. It was later
translated as youmo by a well-known Harvard-
educated scholar, Lin Yu-tang (1895–1976), in an
article published in 1923 in the literature pages of
Beijing’s Morning Post. In this article, Lin showed
a stance in favor of humor use in Chinese society
and stated that to Westerners, it expressed wit,
irony, and funniness. Later, Lin argued that youmo
encompassed the meaning of huaji in Chinese and
that the word youmo could be more efficient than
the word huaji in denoting the meaning of humor.
The Chinese conception of humor, or youmo, is ver-
bal behavior that people appreciate naturally and
that makes them smile thoughtfully, whereas huaji
denotes purposefully abject behavior performed
before people to solicit laughter.
Lin had started a magazine in 1933 called Lun-yu
(Analects Fortnightly) with the aim of promoting
humor in Chinese society by publishing a variety
of jokes and humor articles from China and over-
seas. Although the magazine lasted only for about
10 years, the concept spread widely and huaji in the
verbal humor sense has lost popularity ever since. In
the end, Chinese people have replaced the traditional
term of huaji with the modern term of youmo.
Lin distinguished “thoughtful smile” from “hilar-
ious laughter,” pointing out that the former denotes
laughing in a thoughtful manner, whereas the latter
denotes laughing wholeheartedly. Lin also asserted
that “smile of the meeting of the hearts” was sophis-
ticated, in contrast to the American humor of belly
laugh, which, he argued, was shallow. Lin divided
humor according to two genders: Zhuangzi’s
(369–228 BCE, also spelled as Chuang Tzu) humor
characterized masculine humor—wild, grand, and
strenuous; and Tao Yuan-ming’s (365–427 CE)
humor characterized feminine humor—mature,
gracious, and poetic. In short, Lin recommended
Chinese people “to laugh warmly but not wildly.”
Lao She (1899–1966) is another monumental
figure in the evolution of humor in modern China.
An accomplished novelist and dramatist, Lao She
wrote some of the best known humorous Chinese
novels and plays in the early 20th century, including
Rickshaw Boy and the play Teahouse. Compared
with Lin Yu-tang’s witty and easygoing humor style,
 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary China
Lao She’s humor style is more subtle, profound,
and melancholic. Lao She is a storyteller who ridi-
culed the tradition, superstition, and a total lack of
national pride that he believed was responsible for
China’s backwardness and numbness in a rapidly
changing time. In such a way, he revealed these chal-
lenges to those who could read and helped to mold a
writing style that could appeal to all kinds of people.
About the same time as Lin Yu-tang and Lao
She developed their humor styles, a group of drama
actors began to develop another form of comic
humor—crosstalk. It became increasingly popular
in China and reached its climax in the 1980s and
1990s. Known in Chinese as xiangsheng, crosstalk
literally means “looking at each other and speak-
ing.” It is a performance of comedy that is usually
in dialogic form between two performers. Although
less frequently, it can also be a monologue or,
even less often, a talk show with multiple players.
Having puns and allusions in abundance, crosstalk
presents itself as a rapid, bantering style of sarcasm
that is usually directed at social injustice or social
inequality.
Later, three new forms of humor emerged in
modern China: jerk humor, cold humor, and non-
sense humor. Jerk humor made its first appearance
in Mainland China in the early 1980s as a rebel-
lious way of expressing the orthodox thinking and
teaching in the country. Having initially appeared
as bragging, jerk humor is conducted through
deprecating cynically and sarcastically the self and
others. Examples of typical jerk humor include the
following:
I am not afraid of anyone as I am a complete
bastard.
You may divide people into two broad categories:
those you can make love to and those you can’t.
It was advocated by Wang Shuo, a popular
unorthodox author in Mainland China who pio-
neered jerk literature in the 1980s, with works such
as Masters of Mischief, Samsara, and Playing for
Thrills. As such, Wang Shuo is described as a “spiri-
tual pollutant” for his hooligan style of writing and
was among the most popular writers in China in the
1990s. Comparable to the humor of Lao She, Wang
Shuo’s humor focused on the “living language”
spoken by ordinary people in the street, which
makes his works very vivid and attractive.
Cold humor was first seen in Taiwan in 1970 as
an equivalent of Western black humor. It character-
istically expresses dry, harsh, bitter cynicism against
303
or disapproval of social or societal hierarchies and
inequalities. Yet, in contrast to black humor, cold
humor embodies many values, taboos, and events
that are unique to Taiwanese and Chinese cultures.
Since the 1980s, cold humor has become popular in
Mainland China as well, particularly for young peo-
ple searching for self and social identity. Examples of
cold humor include the following:
A white cat saved a black cat from drowning in a
river. Do you know what the black cat said to the
white cat afterward? “Mew.”
A fat boy fell from a tall building. Do you know
what became of him? A dead fat boy.
Nonsense humor first appeared in south China
around the turn of 20th century and gradually flour-
ished in Hong Kong in the early 1980s. Characterized
by cute but malevolent self-entertaining wit or sar-
casm, nonsense humor was advocated by the famous
Hong Kong actor Stephen Chow, who brought it to
life in most of the movies he starred in or directed.
For example, in his TV series The Final Combat
(1989), Chow would often say, “Have some tea and
eat some food” to suggest that they have a serious
conversation.
In short, the 20th century witnessed a renaissance
of humor in Chinese society. Humor is no longer
considered equivalent to the facetious in Chinese
classics by the influence of Confucianism. It is begin-
ning to be appreciated and embraced by people of
all ages and from all walks of life.
Xiao Dong Yue
See also Buddhism; Confucianism; E’gao: Culture of
Internet Spoofing in China; Forest of Laughter and
Traditional Chinese Jestbooks; Huaji-ists, The;
Taoism; Xiangsheng; Xiehouyu
Further Readings
Chen, C. C. (1985). A study of ancient Chinese jokes.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei.
Chey, J., & Milner Davis, J. (Eds.). (2011). Humour in
Chinese life and letters: Classical and traditional
approaches. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Duan, B. L. (1992). Jokes: Human comic art. Taipei,
Taiwan: Shu-hsin.
Hyers, C. (1989). The laughing Buddha: Zen and the comic
spirit. Wakefield, NH: Longwood Academic Press.
Kao, G. (1974). Chinese wit and humor. New York, NY:
Sterling.
304 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe
Liao, C. C. (2001). Taiwanese perceptions of humor: A
sociolinguistic perspective. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Lin, Y. T. (1971). Anthology of banters. Taipei, Taiwan:
Chih-wen.
Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese humor:
Historical review, empirical findings, and critical
reflections. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 23(3), 403–420.
Yue, X. D. (2011). The Chinese ambivalence to humor:
Views from university students in Hong Kong and
China. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 24(4), 463–480.
HISTORY OF HUMOR: MODERN
AND CONTEMPORARY EUROPE
The cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is
reflected in a multiplicity of different expressions
that are called “humor.” Most European languages
make a clear differentiation between (1) “humor”
as a personality trait or general attitude toward the
world (French humour; German, Dutch, Spanish
humor; Italian umorismo) and (2) a general con-
cept of “humorous phenomena”: “the comic”
(French comique; Dutch komiek; German Komik;
Italian comico). At the same time, the traditional
terminology of the satirical “laughter” (laughable/
ridicule) is still common at the beginning of the
20th century (French rire/ridicule; German Lachen/
das Lächerliche; Greek gélōs/geloíon; Italian riso/
ridicolo; Latin risus/ridiculum).
This entry first describes several important 20th-
century theories of humor, before moving on to dis-
cuss the driving factors behind the development of
humor in relation to various humorous phenomena
in Europe during the 20th century.
Humor Theories: Bergson, Freud,
Pirandello, Bakhtin
The turn of the 20th century witnessed a surge of
essays on the psychological and aesthetic quali-
ties of humor in various European countries. Some
essays that were influential at their time, such
as the 1898 essay “Komik und Humor” by the
German philosopher Theodor Lipps, are almost
forgotten. Nevertheless, works written by three
authors at the beginning of the 20th century have
achieved canonical status in humor theory: Henri
Bergson’s treatise Le rire: Essai sur la signification
du comique (Laughter: Essay on the Meaning of
the Comic, 1900), Sigmund Freud’s Der Witz und
seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten (The Joke and
Its Relation to the Unconscious, 1905), and Luigi
Pirandello’s L’umorismo (On Humor, 1908). All
three authors approach humor from the perspective
of their different academic backgrounds.
Bergson (1859–1941) was professor of philoso-
phy at the prestigious Collège de France in Paris. He
took an anthropological view of laughter by viewing
it as an exclusively human and social phenomenon.
He saw laughter as a social (and corrective) gesture
through which overly mechanized or automatized
behavior is sanctioned for being inappropriate in its
contextual situation.
Freud (1856–1939) studied medicine and became
professor of neuropathology in Vienna in 1902. He
was interested in both a textual analysis of jokes and
the psychological mechanisms that trigger the laugh-
ter response. For instance, the joke is funny because
it releases suppressed thoughts and because, at the
same time, it provides release for the emotional
energy needed for suppression.
Finally, Pirandello (1867–1936), who is best
known for his modernist literary works, was a pro-
fessor of literary history in Rome for several years.
Pirandello’s view of humor is strongly influenced
by aesthetic theories of the 19th century accord-
ing to which humor was considered a particular
attitude adopted to deal with the imperfections of
the world.
The terminological differentiation between humor
as an attitude toward the world versus the laughter-
provoking comic is common to these authors. For
instance, in L’umorismo, Pirandello emphasizes
the difference between il comico and l’umoristico:
Whereas the (essentially satirical) comic is a sudden
awareness of something contrary to social norms
(e.g., an elderly lady who wears makeup that is inap-
propriate for her age), the “humor” results from a
compassionate reflective feeling toward this contrary
element (e.g., an understanding that an elderly lady
may wear excessive makeup because she wants to
keep her younger husband). Freud also elaborated
on humor as a character trait and attitude toward
the world. In his later study Der Humor (1927), he
considered a humorous attitude to be the result of a
more benevolent superego with a less strict attitude
toward the repressed ego.
Whereas from today’s perspective these theories
may lack methodological and empirical rigor, both
 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe
Freud’s psychoanalytic approach and Bergson’s
anthropological view are methodologically rather
advanced for their time. The humor theories of this
period frequently contain speculative reformula-
tions of romanticist ideas such as the explication
of humor as a contrast between a deficient, empiri-
cal reality and an infinite, transcendent ideal. Such
ideas were still being promoted at the start of the
20th century, as for instance in Otto Weininger’s
immensely successful study Sex and Character
(Geschlecht und Charakter, 1903, Chapter 13),
which also contains his notorious anti-Semitic and
misogynic ideas.
Of the humor theories that appeared in Europe
during the 20th century, Mikhail Bakhtin’s
(1895–1975) essay Rabelais and His World is also
worthy of mention. Written during World War II,
it didn’t appear until 1965 but quickly became a
seminal work on the Renaissance. It introduced
new cultural-historic concepts to the philological
analysis of humor: (1) the “carnivalesque” as tem-
porary collective inversion of the higher spheres
(e.g., solemnities and etiquette) with the lower
spheres (bodily functions, scatology, lower social
strata) and (2) “grotesque realism,” a mode of
representing real facts in a humorously deformed
or hyperbolic way.
Outline of the History of
Humorous Phenomena
The psychological and philological theories of
humor discussed earlier also reveal much about the
20th century itself and its worldview: They are symp-
tomatic of a modern view of human beings who are
neither in control of themselves (the subconscious)
nor in control of their own actions in their social
environment (questioning of individuality). A few
decennia later, Bakhtin’s interest in grotesque real-
ism coincides with a growing interest of the literary
avant-garde in this humorous technique (see later
section). And such anthropological aspects of humor
continue to fascinate (a recent example of this is the
book On Humour, by Simon Critchley). However,
anthropological theories alone are not sufficient to
explain the history of humor in the 20th century, as
the production and reception of humor in Europe in
the 20th century is much more influenced by factors
not directly related to humor itself, such as (1) accel-
erated urbanization, (2) technical developments in
media and communication, (3) political suppression
305
versus democratization, and (4) atrocities of war
and dictatorship.
Urbanization and Urban Entertainment
During the 20th century, accelerated urbaniza-
tion transformed the people of Western Europe from
mainly rural dwellers into (predominantly) city-
dwellers, and the resultant social changes created
new audiences and targets of humor.
The first half of the 20th century was the high
point of revue-like entertainment in theaters, and
until the late 20th century, big TV broadcasters also
staged expensive Saturday evening game shows with
revue elements. Revue entertainment or variety the-
ater had been familiar to urban audiences through
vaudeville and music halls since the mid-19th cen-
tury. Typically, these entertainment venues offered
programs with a series of dance performances
(including scantily clad ladies), songs, and comic
acts loosely connected by the performance of a con-
férencier (compère, or master of ceremonies). The
American influence on such revues was important; in
particular, the concept of the “sketch” (a short comic
act) that spread throughout Europe at the beginning
of the 20th century seems to be of American origin.
The French cabaret littéraire or “café-concert”
could be considered as a markedly European form
of variety entertainment program that combines
artistic and literary forms such as songs, poetry, and
acts with entertainment and humor. After the first
cabaret, Le Chat Noir, was opened by Rodolphe
Salis in Paris in 1881, “cabaret” as a concept quickly
spread to other European cities, and many countries
have since developed their own cabaret traditions. In
the Netherlands, for instance, kleinkunst produced
famous cabaret performers (e.g., Wim Kan, Toon
Hermans, Wim Sonneveld), who presented varied
programs of comedy, songs, and poems.
In Germany, Kabarett exerted an important
influence on the literary avant-garde of the early
20th century (e.g., the nonsense poems by Joachim
Ringelnatz or the performances in the Cabaret
Voltaire in Zurich, the center of the Dadaism in
1916). During the Third Reich, most political and
satirical Kabaretts were closed or forced to emigrate
(e.g., Die Pfeffermühle [The Pepper Mill]), founded
by Klaus and Erika Mann, along with Therese Giehse
and Magnus Henning, moved to Switzerland).
Nevertheless, after World War II Kabarett again
became an important political-satirical force (e.g.,
306 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe
in West Germany, Hanns Dieter Hüsch, Dieter
Hildebrandt; in Austria, Georg Kreisler).
In recent years, stand-up comedy has become
increasingly popular in Europe, in particular with
the media. It is difficult to make a clear differen-
tiation between cabaret and stand-up comedy. In
general, cabaret is oriented more toward political
satire, and it tends to include more fictional sketches
or lyrical songs that are tied together in a program
that might be presented by the conférencier. In
this respect, comedy—which tends to focus on the
performer’s persona—might look like an extended
conference. Stand-up comedy, however, seems to be
very successful at addressing topics related to today’s
urban lifestyle, including issues of immigration and
ethnicity (e.g., Sacha Baron Cohen, b. 1971, a.k.a.
Ali G and Borat) or issues of urban life (e.g., depic-
tion of underclass problems by Ilka Bessin, b. 1971,
a.k.a. Cindy aus Marzahn in Germany).
Media Development and Humorous Genres
The important technical developments in the
production and distribution of mass media during
the 20th century made it possible to develop new
forms of humor such as humor in film and audio
recordings, on radio and TV, in photocopy and
fax machines, and, most recently and importantly,
humor on the Internet. There is, however, no direct
link between technical developments and the devel-
opment of humorous forms. For instance, printing
became faster and cheaper throughout the 19th
century; however, the modern genre of the comic
strip (apart from 19th-century precursors such as
Rodolphe Toepffer and Wilhelm Busch) was devel-
oped in U.S. newspapers at the beginning of the 20th
century. At the same time, media development has
not simply annihilated the old formats. Even though
various media theorists have predicted the disap-
pearance of the book, printed books have remained
an important part of humor production. Humorous
guidebooks on many topics occupy an important
position in the market. Moreover, humorous fiction
has been a continuous feature of the humor market
throughout the 20th century (e.g., P. G. Wodehouse,
Douglas Adams, Helen Fielding), and the book mar-
ket makes additional profits from novels that are
turned into movies.
Comic Strips
In Europe, comic strips are typically printed and
distributed in booklets (French bande dessinée;
German Comic-Heft; Italian fumetto). Hergé’s
Aventures de Tintin (Georges Prosper Remi,
1907–1983) and its ligne claire style (“clear line”
that contours schematized characters against a real-
istic-looking background) influenced generations of
comic strip artists. Despite moves to develop more
serious graphic novels for an adult audience, Europe
has remained a center of production for funny comic
strips (e.g., Asterix by René Goscinny and Albert
Uderzo; Lucky Luke by Goscinny and Morris
(Maurice de Bevere); Fix und Foxy by Rolf Kauka
in West Germany; Die Digedags in communist East
Germany without speech balloons).
Movies and Cinema
The necessary technical developments needed to
project motion pictures were available by the end
of the 19th century, and by the beginning of the
20th century the basics of film narration had been
developed. After its initial phase, during which film
was mainly appreciated for its novelty, big film stu-
dios emerged in Europe too (e.g., in France Pathé,
Gaumont), and movies became a major form of
entertainment. In the early 20th century, motion
pictures were frequently presented in music halls
and vaudeville theaters and with such success that
many venues were successively transformed into
cinemas.
Even though only few film comedies manage to
cross national and linguistic borders, film comedy
is a commercially profitable genre in Europe. Many
film comedies center on a famous comedy actor
whose acting style is essential to the comic plot.
For instance, France has a rich tradition of come-
dian films, such as the Don Camillo films with
Fernandel (Fernand J. D. Contadin, 1903–1971),
Jacques Tati (J. Tatischeff, 1907–1982) and his
pantomimic struggles with modern civilization
(Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot, 1953), Louis de
Funès’s (1914–1983) hectic and verbose acting and
grotesque grimacing, and Pierre Richard’s (Pierre
Richard Defays, b. 1934) clumsy and melancholic
characters.
Popular burlesque comedies with slapstick effects
and a tendency toward absurd humor have been
produced in Britain above all. The early films of the
Carry On series (1958–1992, 31 films, most of them
parodies) give a good impression of the growing
taste for slapstick elements. More famous are the
films produced by the comedy group Monty Python,
made up of Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry
Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin.
 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe
The group started with a series of TV sketches (see
later); however, from the early 1970s they also
produced films such as And Now for Something
Completely Different (1971), Monty Python’s
Life of Brian (1979), and finally Monty Python’s
The Meaning of Life (1983). In addition, group
members also pursued their own film projects, for
instance, Gilliam’s tragic-comic Brazil (1985) and
A Fish Called Wanda (1988), written by Cleese. In
Italy, Terence Hill (Mario Girotti, b. 1939) and Bud
Spencer (Carlo Pedersoli, b. 1929) produced a series
of internationally successful films in the 1970s and
1980s whose comic plot depended essentially on
slapstick fighting.
Besides burlesque slapstick comedies, there has
also been a continuous interest in romantic comedy
based on the love story of a female and male char-
acter with various humorous plot twists (e.g., Four
Weddings and a Funeral, 1994; Le fabuleux destin
d’Amélie Poulain [shown in English-speaking coun-
tries under the title Amélie], 2001).
German film comedy has, for a long time, been
fond of domestic comedy (quite in contrast to its
emigrated directors such as Ernst Lubitsch [1892–
1947] and Billy Wilder [1906–2002]). Domestic
comedy favors mildly humorous acting with heart-
warming family scenes (e.g., the films of Heinz
Rühmann [1902–1994] but also those of Heinz
Erhardt [1909–1979], the latter with a particular
talent for wordplay).
Radio and TV Broadcasting
The rise of electronic mass media represented
a sea change in humor distribution: During the
1920s, radio broadcasting became a part of the
mass media; TV (although it was technically avail-
able before) joined after World War II. Although
most genres can be broadcast, broadcasting seems
to be suitable particularly for revue-like entertain-
ment programs in which humorous forms such
as songs or sketches appear alongside games. In
recent years, additional humorous formats such as
the sitcom (e.g., Little Britain), stand-up comedy,
and late night shows have been adopted through-
out Europe.
Sketches have also been used as the basis for par-
ticular TV programs, and some such programs have
achieved cult status. In Germany, Loriot has become
a part of popular culture. Most famous is probably
the British sketch program Monty Python’s Flying
Circus (1969–1974). Monty Python’s sketch style
is remarkable for its taste for absurdity and its
307
eschewing of conventional means to signal the end
of a sketch.
Humor in the Digital Age
In recent years, digital formats and the combina-
tion of Internet and display devices (e.g., computer
and smartphones) have facilitated the production
and distribution of humorous content in various
forms. Internet-based humor offers the potential
to reach a global audience, which could lead to an
internationalization of humor styles and topics.
However, the Internet as a cheap way of commu-
nicating may also facilitate the distribution of more
private or regional humorous topics.
Democratization and Political Satire
Humor in Europe has frequently been produced
under conditions of political oppression. Many
European countries were not democratized before
the 20th century; several countries were under the
control of authoritarian regimes until the last third
of the 20th century (Greece, Portugal, and Spain
were not re-democratized until the 1970s, most
Eastern European countries not until after 1989).
Nevertheless, despite judicial and political control,
satire has remained an important factor in European
humor, and satire in particular flourished under
difficult political circumstances. For instance, Karl
Kraus continued publishing his satirical newspaper
Die Fackel in Austria during World War I until his
death in 1936. Kurt Tucholsky (1890–1935) and
Erich Kästner (1899–1974) were influential satirists
during the politically troubled Weimar Republic
in Germany. Tucholsky was forced to emigrate in
1930; Kästner’s literary production was suppressed
by the Nazi regime after 1933.
Today, freedom of expression in most coun-
tries of Europe has been extended by the process
of democratization; however, the protection of
personal rights in many countries limits the liber-
ties political satire may take. In fact, reputations
tend to enjoy more protection than humor (e.g., in
Germany, satirical magazines such as Titanic have
regularly been sued for defamatory representations
of personalities and firms).
TV and satirical magazines are important media
for the distribution of satire. Successful formats for
political satire such as the British satirical puppet
show Spitting Image (1984–1996) or satirical news
parodies have been copied all over Europe. There
is also a continuous tradition of satirical magazines
308 History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe
(e.g., Le canard enchaîné in France since 1915;
Nebelspalter in Switzerland since 1875; Titanic in
Germany since 1975).
Grotesque, Black Humor, and Atrocities
During the 20th century, Europe witnessed a
series of wars, genocides, and atrocities that chal-
lenged the benign powers of humor, and the question
of how or whether the events of the Shoah might be
presented as objects of humor has attracted continu-
ous interest (e.g., Roberto Benigni’s movie La vita è
bella [Life Is Beautiful], 1997).
As mentioned earlier, the literary avant-gardes
came to regard laughter as a legitimate artistic goal.
To some extent, this is reflected in the reaction to
the feeling of living in an atrocious world devoid of
meaning. In Italy, Aldo Palazzeschi’s essay Il con-
trodolore (1914), which appeared in the context
of the Futurismo movement, depicted God as a
clown-like figure. The movement of Dadaism took
the idea of a meaningless world one step further.
The movement was founded in Zurich in 1916
(among its early members were Hugo Ball, Emmy
Hennings, Tristan Tzara, and Marcel Janco), and
as its fame for unconventional performances and
expositions grew, it quickly spread to other cities
such as Paris, New York, and Berlin. For instance,
Dadaism renounced the use of a debased language
by writing sound poems, and its manifestos empha-
sized that Dada (in contrast to Futurism) had no
agenda at all.
The interest in incongruous expressions in art con-
tinued throughout the period up to and after World
War II. André Breton, a leading figure of the surreal-
ist movement in France, propagated the concept of
“black humor” in wartime France (L’anthologie de
l’humour noir [Anthology of Black Humor], 1940).
Similarly, the “theater of the absurd” that arose
in the 1950s (e.g., Eugène Ionesco’s La cantatrice
chauve/The Bald Soprano, 1950; Samuel Beckett’s
Waiting for Godot, 1953; or Harold Pinter’s The
Birthday Party, 1957) can be seen to have its roots in
the experience of living in a world without meaning.
In Switzerland, the dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt
developed a concept of grotesque comedy in which
he exposes the faults of reality in a comically exag-
gerated way that emphasizes deformity (e.g., Besuch
der alten Dame/The Visit, 1957).
Absurdist humor has also increasingly found
its way into literary prose and fiction. In contrast
to humorist literature, these kinds of texts by,
for example, Daniil Kharms (Daniil Ivanovich
Yuvachev, Russia, 1905–1942) or Boris Vian
(France, 1920–1959) no longer follow the model
based on cheerful acceptance of the world’s imper-
fections but, instead, subvert the notion of an orga-
nized world by systematically undercutting reader
expectations.
Is There Such a Thing as European Humor?
Traditionally, European humor is perceived to be
fragmented into different national and ethnic styles:
British humor might be stereotypically juxtaposed
with French esprit or that of other nations (e.g.,
the Germans) who are said to have no humor at
all. Despite national and linguistic differences, it is
possible to find points of convergence in the use of
humor in Europe during the 20th century, which,
however, are not just confined to Europe. First of
all, the concept of humor as an existential attitude
toward the world can be seen to lose importance,
whereas humor as a means of entertainment gains
considerably in importance. Simultaneously, as
humor assumes the power to break taboos, its con-
tent also changes; however, in contrast to the situa-
tion in the United States, freedom of expression in
Europe still remains restricted by various laws. The
gradual loss in the existential meaning of humor
during the 20th century and the increased diffi-
culty in offending an audience in a meaningful way
might explain why progressive artists have become
less interested in this disposition of art. Finally, the
development of the media has changed the con-
texts of reception: As distribution via the Internet
becomes more important than joke-telling among
friends, humor ceases to be a primary concept of
conviviality.
Ralph Müller
See also Absurdist Humor; Bergson’s Theory of the
Comic; Burlesque; Carnivalesque; Freudian/
Psychoanalytic Theory; Gallows Humor; Genres and
Styles of Comedy; History of Humor: Early Modern
Europe; History of Humor: Modern and
Contemporary China; History of Humor: Modern
Japan; History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe;
History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary;
Humor, Etymology of; Internet Humor; Legal
Restriction and Protection of Humor; Monty Python;
Music Hall; National and Ethnic Differences;
Pirandello, Luigi; Rabelais, François; Release Theories
of Humor; Satire; Sitcoms; Sketch Comedy Shows;
Slapstick; Targets of Humor; Xeroxlore

Further Readings
Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule. Towards a social
critique of humour. London, UK: Sage.
Critchley, S. (2002). On humour. London, UK: Routledge.
Gernhardt, R. (1988). Versuch einer Annäherung an eine
Feldtheorie der Komik [Toward a field theory of
humor]. In R. Gernhardt, Was gibt’s denn hier zu
lachen? [What are you laughing at?]. Zurich,
Switzerland: Haffmans.
Grojnowski, D. (1997). Aux commencements du rire
moderne: L’esprit fumiste [At the beginnings of modern
laughter: The “fumiste” spirit/humor]. Paris, France:
Corti.
Preisendanz, W., & Warning, R. (1976). Das Komische
[Humor]. Munich, Germany: Fink.
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
MODERN JAPAN
Humor in modern Japan has always reflected the
political and cultural evolution of its society. This
entry traces this process from the Meiji period
(1868–1912) onward. In 1868, after centuries of
rule by the warrior class, the emperor was restored
to power, moved into Edo Castle, and renamed
the town Tokyo; Japan’s modern age had begun.
Legislation in the 1870s restricted and then abol-
ished the status and rights of the warrior class. In
this new era, the nation looked systematically to the
rest of the world for models, setting itself to reform
every aspect of its way of life, right down to eating
habits and attitudes toward humor.
Very early, in 1872, officialdom issued its first
policy statement about the theater, instructing three
Kabuki playwrights and the heads of three estab-
lished theaters:
Concerning the fact that recently the gentry and
foreigners are gradually starting to come and see the
[theatre], it is forbidden that you purvey lewdness or
anything that parents and children cannot see
together. It is decreed that you will move towards
teaching. (Quoted in and trans. Wells, 1997, p. 47.
Unless otherwise stated, all translations are by
Marguerite Wells.)
On April 5 the same year came a policy statement
on humor:
In the first place, while of course the purpose of
theatre is to teach morality. . . . Nothing should be
History of Humor: Modern Japan 309
at variance with the facts. . . . This is not to say that
that which is stiff and dry is good and levity is bad.
Even bawdy and humour can be instructive. (Quoted
in Wells, 1997, p. 47)
Thus Confucian scholasticism was invoked as the
basis for control of humor, in the cause of national
reform. The word used here for humor was the
Edo period word kokkei ⁥✍, borrowed from the
Chinese, which was replaced in the 20th century
by warai ➗࠸, meaning both humor and laughter.
Owarai (with an honorific o-) means modern comic
performance genres, or the comedy industry in gen-
eral. In the 20th century, the word yūmoa ࣮ࣘࣔ࢔
(humor) also developed, originally meaning kindly
humor in the Dickensian sense—laughing with
rather than laughing at—but now roughly equiva-
lent to the broad English term.
The Gesaku literature of the previous Edo period
(1603–1868), rambunctious and vulgar, continued
into this new age. Kanagaki Robun’s Seiyō Dōchū
Hizakurige (By Shanks’s Mare Through the West,
1870–1876) was a “sequel” to Jippensha Ikku’s
Hizakurige (the journey of two characters, Yaji and
Kita, along the Tōkaidō road from Edo to Kyoto,
published in serial form from 1802 to 1822). The
sequel features the grandsons of the original pro-
tagonists and involves both practical and racist jok-
ing that, as Donald Keene (1984a) noted, reflects
“their total ignorance of foreign customs or their
wild prejudice against anything not Japanese. . . .
The humour in By Shanks’s Mare rarely rises above
the crudity of such passages” (pp. 18–19).
At the beginning of the Meiji period, Gesaku
writers had fun at the expense of the denizens of the
newly named Tokyo for slavishly following the new
imported customs, but the government took excep-
tion to laughter directed at the new world that had
been fought for and placed restrictions on Gesaku
authors’ criticisms of progress. Robun’s later work,
Aguranabe (Cross-Legged Around the Stewpan,
1871–1872), deals with early reactions to the eating
of meat, which had for many centuries been taboo
and which was now introduced in the interest of
modernization (Keene, 1984a, p. 19).
The Gesaku writers gradually faded and a new
literature developed for the new Japan in the 1970s.
Donald Keene observed in a discussion with leading
comic playwright Inoue Hisashi (1934–2010):
Perhaps the most fundamental question is the
Japanese attitude toward humor, jokes, comedy—all
that, we might say, speaking broadly, comes from
310 History of Humor: Modern Japan
the fact that on the whole, Japanese people are
serious. There is a premise that laughter is somehow
vulgar. An old proverb has it that “A samurai laughs
only twice in his lifetime”—that was true virtue, not
to laugh was the mark of a noble character. In other
words, even in literature, humor was considered to
be of low value. (Inoue, 1978, p. 141; trans. Hibbett,
2002, p. 13)
In addition to a new form of artistic literature, a
new form of artistic theater was needed for the new
Japan. Named Shingeki (New Theater), like the new
literature, it was primarily unfunny. The first perfor-
mance of a Shakespearean play in Japan took place
in Osaka in 1885. Called Sakuradoki zeni no yo no
naka (Cherry Blossom Time in a World of Lucre), it
was a Kabuki version of William Shakespeare’s The
Merchant of Venice, adapted from an adaptation of
Charles and Mary Lamb’s 1807 adaptation of that
play. It was the most frequently produced
Shakespearean play of the new era, undoubtedly
because Japanese moneylenders were a problem
familiar from the Kabuki theater and real life.
The premodern performance genres of Kyōgen,
Rakugo, and Manzai have all nevertheless contin-
ued in theaters into the 20th and 21st centuries.
Radio, which began in Japan in 1925, and then
television in 1950, took up Rakugo, a storytelling
genre, and also Manzai, a comedy crosstalk and
skit performance genre, both of which were par-
ticularly suited to the airwaves. Traditional Kyōgen
continued to be performed in theaters with Nō.
Both declined in the first half of the 20th century
but received a new lease on life with government
subsidies after World War II. In both Kyōgen and
Rakugo, most of the performers have been men,
although in the 20th century, women began to be
admitted, especially as students rather than as pro-
fessional performers. Manzai, however—a delib-
erately modernizing genre—has had both female
comic performers and duos.
Although the Edo period parlor performances
of Chaban disappeared in the new century, the
Edo comical skit genre Niwaka survives in local
festivals and at geisha parties. It also formed the
basis of Shinkigeki (New Comedy, cf. Shingeki,
New Theater, discussed earlier), a comedy genre
that developed in the 20th century. Despite the fact
that Shinkigeki was begun by Soganoya Gorō and
Jirō on the day in 1904 when the Russo-Japanese
war broke out, it was a popular hit and produced
plays that are effectively extended comedy skits.
They are set mostly in modern times, and the style is
familiar—reminiscent of pantomime, even down to
the cross-dressing pantomime dame. Shinkigeki was
taken over eventually by the Yoshimoto show busi-
ness company and remains big business.
Early-20th-Century Humor
From the beginning of the 20th century to perhaps
the 1960s, the exponents of what is known in Japan
as jun-bungaku (pure literature) were extraordi-
narily unfunny. Movements such as the Proletarian
Writers, the I-Novelists, and the Tenkō writers (con-
fessions of former Communists converted to wartime
imperialism) were more dedicated to hair-tearing
and breast-beating than to humor. Censorship and
inevitable low spirits in wartime likewise militated
against cheerfulness. Among 20th-century lite-
rati, certainly up to the 1960s, comic writers can
be counted on the fingers of one hand. However,
they include some of the greatest of Japanese writ-
ers: Natsume Sōseki, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Dazai
Osamu, and Ibuse Masuji, to whom may be added
Miyazawa Kenji.
Natsume Sōseki (1867–1916) was the first
modern Japanese writer to attempt and succeed
at humor in the novel. Two of his early works,
Wagahai wa neko de aru (I Am a Cat, 1905–1906)
and Botchan (1906), continue to be prescribed
reading for Japanese schoolchildren and are famil-
iar to all. Wagahai is a pompous, inflated word for
the masculine “I,” which has dropped out of the
Japanese language except in the title of this book,
making the title itself a joke about the monstrous
ego of the tomcat. The story, told from the cat’s
perspective, concerns a teacher of English named
Mr. Sneeze (Kushami-Sensei). Botchan is a term of
address, also long out of fashion, for a small boy
of high social status—“The Young Master” (an
early English translation was “Master Darling”).
Botchan becomes a math teacher and is sent to a
large country town to teach. Nicknames are a
Japanese custom, perhaps entrenched by this book,
which includes teachers called Porcupine, Redshirt,
The Clown, and Green Pumpkin. The principal of
Botchan’s own school is Tanuki (the Raccoon Dog
or Japanese Badger).
An early modern example of folk humor is the
Tankō bushi (Coal Mine Song), sung by the min-
ers of the Miike coal mine at Tagawa on the island
of Kyūshū. Released on gramophone in 1932, it
took off all over the country. This jocularity from

the industrial era is now played and sung at every
local park where people gather for the Bon dance in
midsummer:
Tsuki ga deta deta The moon came out,
came out
Tsuki ga deta. Yoi yoi! The moon came out,
yoi yoi!
Miike Tankō no ue Came out over the
ni deta Miike Coal Mine
Anmari entotsu ga takai The chimneys are so
node very high,
Sazo ya! Otsuki-san! I dare say, Mr. Moon!
Kemutakarō! You must be woozy
from the smoke!
Sa no yoi! yoi! Sa no yoi! yoi!
Because the high chimneys at the Miike coal mine
were built in 1908 (and celebrated their centenary
in 2008), this set of “folk song” lyrics must postdate
1908.
Japan’s most spectacular contribution to world
humor has undoubtedly been the cartooning of
the 20th century. Manga and Anime, the Japanese
words for “cartoon” and “animation,” had
become English words by the end of the century.
An important influence on the early years of the
development of Manga was a young Australian art-
ist named Frank Nankivell. He stepped ashore in
Yokohama in 1890 and found a job at an English
language magazine called Box of Curios where
he met a Japanese artist by the name of Kitazawa
Rakuten, to whom he taught lithography and car-
tooning in the European style. Rakuten became
the father of modern Japanese cartooning. English-
speaking countries tend to associate cartoons with
humor, ignoring the history of popular cartoons
that are not funny at all (such as Superman and
The Phantom). Japan’s modern Manga industry
is huge, a field of study on its own. Much of it is
adventure cartoons for men, whereas the hallmark
of Japanese cartoons for women and children is
cuteness (kawaii). Japan has exported this genius
for cuteness and, along with it, often an element of
humor.
Early literary humorists in this period included
Miyazawa Kenji (1896–1933). Although a fine poet
and short story writer, he was generally not strictly
funny-ha-ha. Yet so utterly individual a voice must
be classified with the humorists among the Japanese
literati. Miyazawa was a vegetarian and his story
Chūmon no ōi ryōriten (The Restaurant of Many
History of Humor: Modern Japan 311
Orders, 1924) is funny from the point of view of a
fox, wolf, or bear. It turns the tables on two hunters,
who, lost in a forest and hungry, find themselves in a
restaurant where they are the main dish.
Among the humorous works of Akutagawa
Ryūnosuke (1892–1927) is the short story Hana
(The Nose, 1916), in which a Buddhist priest with
a huge nose manages to shrink it, by having a dis-
ciple boil it up and stamp on it to extrude the fat.
He finds, however, that he is now laughed at even
more than before. One morning he wakes up to find
that his nose has returned to its original monstrous
proportions and he is greatly relieved. Akutagawa’s
famous novella Kappa (1927) is the story of a
man who finds himself in a land of Japanese water
sprites, the kappa, magical, green, frog-like trick-
sters who live in waterholes and steal children. This
structure enables Akutagawa to satirize wrongs
when they are perpetrated by the kappa. The more
lighthearted stories of Dazai Osamu (1909–1948),
based on Japanese folktales, and those of Ihara
Saikaku appear in Otogizōshi (The Fairytale Book
of Dazai Osamu) and Crackling Mountain and have
also been translated into a number of languages.
Wartime Humor
Brave (sometimes drunken) souls who made disloyal
jokes during the Pacific War were pursued and their
sallies kindly recorded for us by the Special High
Police (Tokkō Keisatsu) in their newsletter, Tokkō
Geppō, warning other police what to look out for.
Detlev Schauwecker (2003) notes the following:
The Special High Police obtained information from
individual citizens directly, and also by listening
in on daily conversations on trains, in drinking
places, village theater halls, public baths (sentō),
barbershops, and even prisons. They found words
of protest written on banknotes, in private letters,
letters to politicians and in leaflets. . . . As a
medium of protest, toilet graffiti were followed in
popularity by song parodies and anonymous letters
to high politicians and institutions. (p. 131)
This particular song came in many variants, but one
will suffice:
The octopus went to the army for the holy nation
It died with honor in the war
When will its bones return?
It has no bones and will not return.
The poor parents!
312 History of Humor: Modern Japan

This perhaps relates to the cynical suggestion that comedy, embodied throughout the 20th century in
the cremated bones that were brought home were Shinkigeki.
not necessarily the right ones. Inoue Hisashi (1934–2010) made it his life’s
A sketch performed during the war by the “Lucky work to give humor back its rightful status in Japan.
Seven” Manzai duo was called “The Pacific Sumō Starting as a stage manager and scriptwriter for the
War.” It began as follows: comedy skits that were interspersed among striptease
acts at the Furansu-za strip theater in the Asakusa
LUCKY: (in announcer style) Ladies and gentlemen. district of Tokyo, Inoue became a scriptwriter for
Here we are in the 13,000 meter high Sumo Stadium children’s radio and television and eventually a play-
in the sky. This is our last match of the evening in wright, novelist, essayist, and media personality. The
this summer sumo tournament for the world’s strongest influence on his plays was Bertolt Brecht
fighter planes. In the east, from the Rising Sun (1898–1956), and his output and learning were both
stable, the ace of the Axis, Hayabusa (falcon). His enormous, winning him many literary and theatrical
opponent from the west, the Allied . . . Boeing prizes.
B-17. . . . Inoue’s Yabuhara Kengyō (Yabuhara the Blind
SEVEN: In the west, Boeing B-17, the fortress of Master Minstrel, trans. M. Wells) was performed in
the sky, with a height of 72 feet 7 inches and 1991 on BBC Radio 3 (directed by Ned Chaillet).
weighing in at 52,518 pounds and 3 ounces. The play includes a long mock-heroic ballad, The
LUCKY: Yes, that’s right. Boeing B-17, fortress of Battle of the Black and White Rice Cakes, set on
the sky, is originally from Yankee Prefecture, in the New Year’s Eve, which begins as follows (Wells,
country of the Jews, from a pirate village. His first 2000, p. 136):
appearance in the ring was March 1941, and his
specialty is fleeing into the mists of the clouds. To aru yashiki no Lo! On the Buddhist altar
(Version quoted and trans. Kushner, 2006, p. 109) butsudan ni of a mansion
Medetaku mochidomo See the festive rice cakes in
By the end of 1945, however, when the large seizoroi their serried ranks.
Japanese cities had been bombed flat, the American Mazu ichiban ni, gomairi In the first rank, black rice
bombers would not have seemed so funny. no Kuroko Mochi cakes, clad in sesame
Kamiza ni den to Took unto themselves the
naorarekereba highest seat.
Recent Humor
Shiromochi dono ga Lord Whitecake then, in
In 1952, Ibuse Masuji (1898–1993) published dairippuku dudgeon high spake out:
Noriai Jidōsha. Translated by Ivan Morris as “The “Onore nikkuki “Contemptible varlets, oh
Charcoal Bus,” this is a short story about a rattling kurokomochi ye rice cakes black,
old omnibus, which is constantly breaking down so Hadairo kuroki iyashi Being of low estate and
that the passengers have to get out and push. There mi ni te dusky hue,
is nothing obviously funny about this story—until Ware yori kamiza ni Placing yourselves in
the reader realizes that it is an allegory. The bus is suwaru to wa higher seat than mine,
postwar or wartime Japan, which, through the chaos Gōman buson burei Cast shame upon the
of war and defeat, is managing to lurch and trundle senban.” honor of my house.”
along only by the power of the elbow-grease and the
blood, sweat, and tears of the Japanese people. The black rice cakes respond in kind, and both sides
Everybody in Japan knows Tora-san. He is the summon all their kin (a very feast of chivalry) and
comic antihero of a marathon series of films directed set to battle. Lord Whitecake loses—in fact he is
by Yamada Yōji between 1969 and 1995. The eaten and progresses through the gut of a human,
series title is Otoko wa tsurai yo (It’s Hard Being a landing ingloriously, with appropriate scatological
Man). Tora-san is a lovable and fairly decent wan- noises, in the cesspit.
dering peddler, who returns to his fond sister for as In television comedy, the most influential per-
long as everyone can keep their tempers. Then he former has been Kitano Takeshi (aka Beat Takeshi,
wanders off again, falls in love, loses the girl, and b. 1947). He emerged from the same striptease the-
goes on with his wandering life. The series is a fine ater as Inoue Hisashi to form a 1970s comedy duo,
tearjerker, a form with a long history in Japanese The Two Beats (Beat Takeshi and Beat Kiyoshi).

Taboo-breaking as humor is fundamental for him,
according to his website: “Comedians are supposed
to make people laugh by doing things they’re not
allowed to do. Once they start talking about family
values and community, they’re not comedians any-
more.” He hosted TV comedy shows in the 1980s
that were notorious outside Japan for involving
pranks that humiliated people and often put them
in danger. One, for example, required young male
volunteers to drink beer and hold their urine as long
as they could. Many programs were adapted into
English, for example, Takeshi’s Castle (Takeshijō,
1986–1990). Takeshi also played, brilliantly,
Sergeant Hara Gengō in Ōshima Nagisa’s 1983 film
Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence, based on Laurens
van der Post’s account of his time in a Japanese
prisoner of war camp. This launched Takeshi’s film
career, as director, actor, editor, and screenwriter.
Tanikawa Shuntarō (b. 1931) is an eminent poet
and a humorist in both writing and poetry reading.
His little tongue-twister poem about a kappa (green
water sprite) exploits the extraordinary alliteration
possible in Japanese because of the small number of
phonemes (Tanikawa, 1973, n.p.):
Kappa kapparatta The kappa filched
Kappa rappa kapparatta The kappa filched a
trumpet
Totte chitteta Took it and split with it
Kappa nappa katta The kappa bought some
rapeseed
Kappa nappa ippa katta The kappa bought one leaf
of rapeseed
Katte kitte kutta Bought it, cut it, scoffed it
Although amateur telling of funny stories, witti-
cisms, and repartee is not really part of Japanese
conversational style, there is a national stock of
pleasantries and the occasional dinner table joke. A
typical family dinner quip from the 1970s runs: Q:
“What did the foreigner say when he went to
Nara?” A: [Throws hands in the air in a “foreigner”
gesture], “OOOOH! NARA! (Great Big Fart!).”
Onara, the Japanese word for “fart,” is not a “bad”
word in Japanese as it is in English. Riddle books for
children, some doubtless English translations or
adaptations, include gems such as: Q: “What do
gorillas sing at Christmas?” A: “Jungle Bells, Jungle
Bells.”
In the 21st century, the Japanese tradition of sca-
tology is far from lost. The 2006 television series
History of Humor: Modern Japan 313
Nodame Cantabile (based on a Manga of the same
name by Ninomiya Tomoko) included the song
Onara Taisō (Fart Gym), accompanied by jolly chil-
dren’s physical exercises. It begins:
Genki ni dasō. Ii oto dasō Let it off energetically.
Make a good noise
Do re mi fa pu pu pu waa! Doh re mi fah poo poo
poo waa!
The series title, Nodame Cantabile, is a joke. The
heroine, a classical musician, is Nodame, which
looks like an ordinary Japanese girl’s name, but
breaks down to: “No! Dame!,” meaning “No!
Naughty!”
Early in the 21st century, the denigrating term
oyaji gyagu emerged. It means “old man’s gag” and
the concept might make sense in English as a joke
that only a father would make (e.g., driving past
the cemetery: “That’s the dead center of town”). In
Japanese, oyaji gyagu are likely to be Dajare or gra-
tuitous puns, such as “Uran wa uran” (We don’t sell
uranium) or “Iran wa nani mo iran” (Iran doesn’t
need anything). Both Dajare (a form of Share, or
linguistic humor) and oyaji gyagu are frowned on to
some extent. The phenomenon is described by Mio
and Peter Backhaus (2013) in the Japan Times:
Although in a larger humor survey conducted by the
Asahi Shimbun in 2005, only 18 percent of
respondents admitted that they disliked oyaji gyagu,
the most frequent types of reaction, in my experience
as a hearer and occasional teller (yes, I confess), are
complaints about a sudden chill in the room (Ah,
samui!), an interjection of disapproving disbelief
(Hah?) or a very uncomfortable silence. (p. 14)
After the 2011 disasters of earthquakes, tsunami,
and nuclear accidents in the Fukushima area, Senryū
poems contributed to Japanese newspapers became
somewhat terser and probably more openly satirical
than ever before. Two examples from the Asahi
Shimbun (Sept. 6, 2011, p. 30) run:
Taue senu In towns where rice
Machi ni ningen May not be planted,
humans
Sume yo to wa . . . Are told: go and live,
which means . . . ?
Karafuru na Among his colorful
Kotoba ni uso o Words, the lies
Chiribameru Are inlaid like jewels
314 History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
In modern Japan as in premodern Japan, to find
humor, you must look for it in the right places. The
arts have tended to divide into serious and humor-
ous genres (such as the serious Nō theater and the
funny Kyōgen, Haiku poems and their funny twin,
Senryū), with humorous genres receiving less respect
than the serious. Rather than being censored or
expurgated, humor is contained within rules of time,
place, and form—but it is still there and often sur-
passes the bounds set on socially acceptable humor
in other cultures.
Marguerite Wells
See also Cartoons; Farce; Folklore; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Premodern Japan;
Kyōgen; Literature; Puns; Rakugo; Rituals of
Laughter; Satire; Scatology; Senryū; Share
Further Readings
Akutagawa, R. (2006). Kappa (G. Bownas, Trans.).
London, UK: Peter Owen.
Akutagawa, R. (2006). The nose. In J. Rubin (Ed. &
Trans.), Rashomon and seventeen other stories (pp.
20–30). London, UK: Penguin.
Backhaus, M., & Backhaus, P. (2013, May 27). Oyaji
gyagu, more than just cheesy puns. Japan Times, p. 14.
Cohn, J. (1998). Studies in the comic spirit in modern
Japanese fiction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Asia Center.
Dazai, O. (1993). Blue bamboo: Tales of fantasy and
romance (R. McCarthy, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan:
Kodansha.
Dazai, O. (2011). Otogizōshi: The fairytale book of Dazai
Osamu (R. McCarthy, Trans.). Fukuoka, Japan:
Kurodahan Press.
Hibbett, H. (2002). The chrysanthemum and the fish:
Japanese humor since the age of the shoguns. Tokyo,
Japan: Kodansha.
Ibuse, M. (1959). Noriai Jidōsha (Omnibus) [The charcoal
bus]. In I. Morris (Trans.), Modern Japanese stories
(pp. 211–222). Tokyo, Japan: Tuttle.
Inoue Hisashi. (1978). Shōdan Shōhatsu. Tokyo: Kōdansha
Bunko.
Inoue, H. (2013). Tokyo seven roses (J. Hunter, Trans.).
London, UK: Arnhem Press.
Keene, D. (1984a). Dawn to the West; Japanese literature
in the modern era: Fiction. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Keene, D. (1984b). Dawn to the West; Japanese literature
in the modern era: Poetry, drama, criticism. New York,
NY: Henry Holt.
Kushner, B. (2006). The thought war: Japanese imperial
propaganda. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Miyazawa, K. (2004). The restaurant of many orders
(P. Howlett & R. McNamara, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan:
RIC Publications. Retrieved from http://tonygonz.
blogspot.com.au/2006/05/restaurant-of-many-orders-
miyazawa.html
Morris, I. (1959). Modern Japanese stories: An anthology.
Tokyo, Japan: Tuttle.
Natsume, S. (2005). Botchan (J. Cohn, Trans.). Tokyo,
Japan: Kodansha.
Schauwecker, D. (2003). Verbal subversion and satire in
Japan, 1937–1945 as documented by the special high
police. Japan Review, 15, 127–151.
Tanikawa Shuntarō. (1973). Kotoba asobi uta [Wordplay
songs]. Tokyo, Japan: Fukuinkan Shoten.
Wells, M. (1997). Japanese humour. Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan.
Wells, M. (2000). Translating humour for performance:
Two hard cases from Inoue Hisashi’s play, Yabuhara
Kengyō. In D. Chiaro (Ed.), Translation, humour and
literature (pp. 134–157). London, UK: Continuum.
Wells, M. (2004). Yabuhara, the blind master minstrel.
In M. Boyd (Ed.), Half a century of Japanese theater
(pp. 68–136). Tokyo, Japan: Kinokuniya.
Websites
Kitano Takeshi: http://www.kitanotakeshi.com
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
19TH-CENTURY EUROPE
Europe in the 19th century looked quite differ-
ent from today. In fact, this has been called the age
of nationalism, as many of the modern nations we
are familiar with were formed during this period.
However, the different cultures managed to keep
some distinction. This entry is organized based on the
individual cultures and their languages. German and
Austrian writers, because they write in German, are
discussed together. Country designations used in the
entry correspond to contemporary boundaries. This
entry discusses humor in its broadest meaning: from
parody to satire to saynète (skit) to epigram to vaude-
ville to nonsense. It also includes literary and popu-
lar humor as well. Specifically, no attempt has been
made to differentiate between humor and the comic.
Because of the great variety of experiences, his-
torical situations, political settings, and literary his-
tories of the different linguistic and cultural groups,
it is hard to provide any general conclusion on this
period, except perhaps that it is an age of transition

from romanticism, with its emphasis on the imagi-
nation and emotions, to modernism, with its empha-
sis on new forms.
England
English humor is known the world over, and in
many ways it acquired its worldwide reputation in
the 19th century. The 19th century in the English-
speaking world encompasses both romantic and
Victorian humor. The authors range from Jane
Austen to Saki, and the humor styles vary from
irony to satire to parody to pantomime.
Also notable is that England was the home of
magazines devoted to humor, such as Punch (with
publication starting in 1841 and lasting, with
interruptions, until 2002); The Idler (1892–1911),
started by Jerome K. Jerome; Fun (1861–1901); and
The Comic Annual, edited by Thomas Hood (1799–
1845), the author of comic poems (e.g., “Faithless
Nellie Gray”) and a satire on the Victorian love of
money, “Miss Kilmansegg and Her Precious Leg”
(1841). These magazines, especially Punch, spawned
worldwide imitations, such as the Melbourne Punch
(1855–1925) in Australia and the Nebelspalter in
Switzerland. Needless to say, magazines such as
Punch and more “literary” genres crossbred, such
as in the case of Joseph Ashby-Sterry (1838–1917),
contributor to Punch and author of the comic
novels Nutshell Novels (1891), A Naughty Girl
(1893), and A Tale of the Thames (1896), or in the
case of Max Beerbohm (1872–1956), whose essays
in The Idler and The Strand (1891–1950) were
works of high hilarity. See, for example, The Happy
Hypocrite (1897), which appeared in The Yellow
Book (1894–1897).
Jane Austen (1775–1817) is the foremost comic
writer of her time, rightfully known for her gentle
and sometimes not-so-gentle irony. Among her mas-
terpieces are Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield
Park (1814), and Emma (1815). Other satirists
include Elizabeth Gaskell (1810–1865), whose
Austen-ish Wives and Daughters (1866) shows her
comic capacity, and William Makepeace Thackeray
(1811–1863), who while very satirical in his early
works, became calmer in his later ones. Thackeray’s
notable works include Catherine (1841) and The
Book of Snobs (1848).
Satire was naturally a very important subject
matter for humor, particularly in the work of Oscar
Wilde and George Bernard Shaw, but it was also
found earlier in the century, such as in the work of
History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe 315
George Gordon, Lord Byron (1788–1824) with his
epic satire Don Juan. Samuel Butler’s (1835–1902)
scathing satire Erewhon (1872) pillories the contra-
dictions of Victorian England. Other satirists include
Benjamin Disraeli (1801–1881), author of the politi-
cal satire The Infernal Marriage (1834), and Edward
Bulwer Lytton (1803–1873), whose Pelham (1828)
is a send-up of dandyism.
Even otherwise serious novels contain satirical
comments, for example, George Eliot’s (1819–1880)
portrayal of the Dodson sisters in The Mill on the
Floss (1860) or Anne Brontë’s (1820–1849) very
grim portrayals in Agnes Grey (1847) and The
Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848) presenting comic
passages, such as the drunken Grimsby preparing
his tea. Emily Brontë’s (1818–1848) melodramatic
Wuthering Heights (1847) makes fun of city dwell-
ers as represented by the character Lockwood.
Other authors had a softer, social approach to
satire, among which the best known is no doubt
Charles Dickens (1812–1870), the inimitable
author of The Pickwick Papers (1837) and creator
of numerous characters satirizing different facets of
society. Other authors in this vein include Andrew
Dean (Cecily Sidgwick, 1852–1934), author of sar-
donic commentaries on middle-class customs, such
as Mrs. Finch-Brassey (1893); H. G. Wells (1866–
1946), whose science fiction works are considered
to be, in part, a satire on contemporary society; and
Anthony Hope (1863–1933), author of the popular
Dolly Dialogues (1894) and The Prisoner of Zenda
(1894). George Meredith (1828–1909), author of
the whimsical Farina (1857) and The Egoist (1879),
is worthy of particular notice because he also pub-
lished the essay “The Idea of Comedy” (1877), an
important contribution to the theory of humor.
The 19th century perfected the art of the short
essay and short story, with illustrious examples such
as the vastly influential Thomas de Quincey (1785–
1859), author of On Murder Considered as One
of the Fine Arts; Jerome K. Jerome (1859–1927),
well-known author of Three Men in a Boat (1889);
and Saki (1870–1916), the marvelous Edwardian
humorist, author of novels and short stories.
The 19th century produced a great number
of parodies. These include Thomas Love Peacock
(1785–1866) author of prose satires targeting the
romantics, whose notable works include Headlong
Hall (1816), Melincourt (1817), and Nightmare
Abbey (1818); Robert Barr (1850–1912), popular
for his spoofs (e.g., The Adventures of Sherlaw
Kombs, 1892); and Richard Hichens (1864–1950),
316 History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
author of a parody of Oscar Wilde, The Green
Carnation (1894).
Two of the greatest English language playwrights
and humorists, Wilde and Shaw, are Irish. Wilde
(1854–1900) was the flamboyant author of such
plays as An Ideal Husband (1895) and The Impor-
tance of Being Earnest (1895). Shaw (1856–1950),
arguably the foremost playwright of his time, wrote
numerous satirical and political plays, using humor
to push progressive causes, as in Mrs. Warren’s Pro-
fession (1893), which deals with prostitution.
The 19th century had its share of low comedy
and farcical entertainment. Among its authors are
John Baldwin Buckstone (1802–1879); Edward
Spencer Mott (1844–1910), who wrote pantomime,
burlesque, and light fiction; Douglas Jerrold (1803–
1857), writer of farces (Paul Pry, 1827) and com-
edies (Beau Nash, 1834); Tom Taylor (1817–1880),
author of the farce The Trip to Kissingen (1844)
and the comedies Masks and Farces (1852), The
Overland Route (1860), and Our American Cousin
(1858), infamous for being the play performed the
night of Abraham Lincoln’s 1865 assassination. A
popular playwright in Victorian times, now mostly
forgotten, is Arthur Wing Pinero (1855–1934),
author of the farces The Magistrate (1885), The
Schoolmistress (1886), and Dandy Dick (1887).
Similarly, George Colman (1762–1836), author of
humorous poetry and of the comedies The Poor
Gentleman (1801) and John Bull (1803; this charac-
ter became a stock representation of England), was
quite successful in his time. Other light dramatists
include W. S. Gilbert (1836–1911), writer of humor-
ous verse, burlesques, and famous operettas, such
as The Palace of Truth (1870) and Pygmalion and
Galatea (1871), and Edward Fitzball (1793–1873),
writer of comic operas, burlesques, and bouncy
verse.
Some authors’ light humor or subject matter was
originally meant for, or has become associated with,
children’s literature, such as that of Lewis Carroll
(1832–1898), famous for his Alice books (1865,
1871); James Matthew Barrie (1860–1937), author
of humorous fiction for adults and children, such as
Better Dead (1887), and best known today as the
author of Peter Pan; and Edward Lear (1812–1888),
the ultimate nonsense writer.
France
Although less prevalent than in England, humor
was very present in 19th-century France. Some of
the major writers of the century included humor-
ous aspects in their works; for example, Honoré
de Balzac’s (1799–1850) La comédie humaine
(The Human Comedy) contains occasional humor-
ous passages, but his main humor is in Cent con-
tes drôlatiques (The Hundred Comical Tales, 1832,
1833, 1837).
Gustave Flaubert’s (1821–1880) Madame
Bovary is not bereft of bitter humor, but his unfin-
ished comic novel Bouvard et Pécuchet still attracts
much attention, as does the Dictionary of Accepted
Ideas, which anticipated Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s
Dictionary.
The largest part of humorous writing in France in
this period took place on the stage: Eugène Labiche
(1815–1888) was the king of comic theater in his
time. Henri Bonaventure-Monnier (1799–1877),
a satirist of ferocious humor, wrote vaudevilles
and burlesques. His stock character was Joseph
Prudhomme, a fatuous bourgeois. Eugène Scribe
(1791–1861) wrote vaudevilles and political com-
edies. Alfred de Musset (1810–1857) engaged in
self-irony when he presented himself as Octave
in the play Les caprices de Marianne (Marianne’s
Caprices, 1833). His best known piece, On ne
badine pas avec l’amour (One Does Not Take Love
Lightly, 1833) contains witty dialogue and burlesque
characters in a dramatic text. Also very well known
were Victorien Sardou (1831–1908); Edmond
Rostand (1868–1918), author of vaudevilles (Le
gant rouge [The Red Glove], 1888), verse comedies
(Les romanesques [The Romanesque], 1894), and
Cyrano de Bergerac (1897); and Georges Feydeau
(1862–1921), a great author of vaudevilles.
The novel is not without examples of humorous
works: Théophile Gautier’s (1811–1872) Capitaine
Fracasse (in the 1863 novel) is a stereotypical comic
braggart. Alphonse Daudet (1840–1897) uses
humor in his Lettres de mon moulin (Letters From
My Mill, 1869). He uses the comic type of the brag-
gart in Tartarin de Tarascon (1872).
Several of Guy de Maupassant’s (1850–1893)
short stories are comic or satirical, such as his best
known Boule de suif (Ball of Fat, 1880), which
unmasks the hypocrisy of its middle-class characters.
George Courteline (1858–1929), whose work is in
the satiric tradition of Molière, wrote novels such as
Les gaîtés de l’escadron (The Entertainments of the
Squadron, 1886), Lidoine (1891), and Messieurs les
ronds-de-cuir (The Employees, 1893). Henri Murger
(1822–1861) included comic chapters in his Scènes
de la vie bohème (Scenes of Bohemian Life, 1848),
 History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe 317

which became the opera La bohème by Giacomo Spanish-Speaking Countries

Puccini. Jules Renard’s (1864–1910) work includes
The first half of the century was a great period for
sharp depictions of mediocrity and banality.
comedy in Spain. Fernández de Moratín was an
Rounding off the century, we find Alphonse
energetic reformer, giving theater more naturalness.
Allais (1855–1905), whose humor has endured,
The dominant genres were historical comedy, full
and other authors of the fin de siècle, such as Alfred
of sudden turns that tested the hero’s ability to deal
Jarry (1873–1907), best known for the Père Ubu
with contingency; magic comedy, which used lots
character, who anticipate Dadaism and surrealism,
of stage effects; and moral comedy. In the second
or as Daniel Grojnovski put it, modernism.
half of the century intermezzos, playlets, and zarzu-
elas (comic operas) were in great vogue but were of
Italy lesser quality.
Leandro Fernández de Moratín (1760–1828),
There was no general current in Italian humor at
who is considered the Spanish Molière, wrote El
this time. Only separate endeavors can be noted,
baron (The Baron, 1803) and El sí de las niñas (The
generally tied to the scapigliatura (disheveled) move-
Maidens’ Consent, 1806). He was “succeeded”
ment in the first part of the century, which tried
by Manuel Eduardo de Gorostiza (1789–1851), a
to modernize and internationalize Italian culture,
Mexican dramatist who wrote Indulgencia para
then very much a backwater. Among its members
todos (Indulgence for All, 1818) and Contigo pan y
are Iginio Ugo Tarchetti (1839–1869), who wrote
cebolla (With You, Bread and Onion, 1833). Manuel
eccentric, lightly ironic travel stories; Carlo Dossi
Bretón de los Herreros (1796–1873) is author of a
(1849–1910), creator of cruel humor and ferocious
great number of witty, sparkling plays in verse with
satire; Giovanni Faldella (1846–1928), a writer full
simple plots and lively dialogue (e.g., Marcela, o ¿a
of irony and caricature; and Arrigo Boito (1842–
cuál de los tres? [Marcela, or Which of the Three?],
1918), a writer of lyrical comedies.
1831; El pelo de la dehesa [The Countryside],
The other humorous trend is the use of dialect, as
1840). Juan Eugenio Harzenbuch (1806–1880) was
opposed to Italian, the national language. The best
a translator of French comedy, “freshened up” com-
known dialectal writer is Trilussa, pseudonym of
edies of preceding periods, and wrote Juan de las
Carlo Alberto Salustri (1871–1950), a dialectal poet
Viñas (1844).
writing in Roman dialect. Other significant authors
The zarzuela saw a renaissance during this
are Carlo Porta (1775–1821), author of political
century. Among those who wrote in this form are
satires and various humorous portraits of popular
Antonio García Gutiérrez (1813–1880), who wrote
life, some including Meneghino, the traditional com-
the play Simón Bocanegra, which became the opera
media dell’arte character of Milan; Tommaso Grossi
Simon Boccanegra by Giuseppe Verdi; Luis Mariano
(1790–1853), creator of satirical Milanese dialect
de Larra (1830–1901); Ricardo de la Vega (1839–
poetry (e.g., La pioggia d’oro [The Golden Rain],
1910); Javier de Burgos (1842–1902); Felipe Pérez y
1816) and agitator against the Austrians, who were
González (1846–1910); Julián Romea Parra (1848–
then occupying the north of Italy; and Giuseppe
1903); and Miguel Ramos Carrión (1848–1915).
Gioachino Belli (1791–1863), famous for his
humorous sonnets in the Roman dialect, influenced Russia
by Porta’s model. Eduardo Scarpetta (1853–1925) is
widely acknowledged to be the creator of dialectal The currents of humor in Russia are surpris-
theater in Italy. He wrote in Neapolitan dialect and ing. Moralists, poets, and romantics can be found
had an incredibly prolific and long career. among the producers of humor. The realist satiri-
Other strands exist as well, but they are more cal prose writers are the most significant, including
marginal: Significant nonhumorous writers, such Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860–1904), the author
as Ippolito Nievo (1831–1861), Giovanni Verga of hundreds of short stories, many of them comic;
(1840–1922), and Giosuè Carducci (1835–1907), Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812–1891),
produced some early humorous works. However, whose novel Oblomov is an indictment of the con-
the best known Italian writer from this period is temporary class system, depicting a protagonist
Carlo Collodi (1826–1890), author of wit, satire, incapable of making any decision or doing anything
and caustic comments, best known as the author of at all; and Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev (1818–1883),
Pinocchio. the author of prose and of the Chekhovian comedy
318 History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
Mesiats v derevne (A Month in the Country, 1851).
Other significant Russian writers include the sati-
rist Mikhail Evrgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin
(1826–1889), who was the author of Provincial
Sketches (1856), a criticism of provincial official-
dom, and Nikolai Vassil’ievich Gogol (1809–1852),
the author of grotesquely comic short stories, plays,
and novels, such as The Nose and The Overcoat.
Humor appears in other genres as well, such as in
the work of Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799–
1837), a romantic poet and author of the comic epic
Ruslan i Liudmila (Ruslan and Liudmila, 1820),
modeled on Ariosto and Voltaire; of Graf Nulin
(Count Nulin, 1825), a parody of the Lucretia tale in
which the heroine escapes rape by giving a good slap
to the rapist; and self-parodies of his own poetry in
Poslanie k A. I. Turgenevu (Letter to Turgenev).
German-Speaking Countries
The beginning of the century in Germany saw the
rise of romanticism with such authors as Johann
Paul Freidrich Richter (1736–1825), known from
1793 onward as Jean Paul, writer of satiric and
idyllic works and an influential essay on humor
defining it as “inverted sublime”; Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe (1749–1832), whose Wilhem Meisters
Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship,
1821) is a satirical novel of self-cultivation; Ludwig
Tieck (1773–1853), author of the novel Des Lebens
Überfluß (Life’s Luxuries, 1822), a satirical attack
on the notion that money is a measure of human
dignity; E. T. A. Hoffmann (1776–1822), author
of the novel Lebensansichten des Katers Murr (The
Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr, 1822), in
which the autobiography of a cat is accidentally
mixed with a book on composer Johannes Kreisler,
attacking the smugness of the restored monarchy.
Heinrich von Kleist (1777–1811) was a playwright
whose comedy Der zerbrochne Krug (The Broken
Jug, 1808) was extremely successful.
With such authors as Heinrich Heine (1797–
1856), author of satirical political poetry, we begin
to move away from romanticism. Heine satirizes
some of the romantic clichés, besides political targets
such as German censorship. Political satire contin-
ues as a central topic in the work of August Heinrich
Hoffmann von Fallersleben (1798–1874), an expert
in the satirical recounting of trivial events and biting
poetry and the author of “Wie is doch die Zeitung
interessant?” (But How Is the Paper Interesting?),
an essay mocking censorship; Wilhelm Hauff
(1802–1827), a writer who satirized bourgeois
Biedermeier tastes in Die Bücher und die Lesewelt
(Books and the Reading World, 1828); and Johann
Nepomuk Nestroy (1801–1862), an actor known
for his grotesque exaggerations and a farce writer
with great insight into human nature.
Finally, with Frank Wedekind (1864–1918), a
satirist and expressionist playwright whose works
include an ironic defense of women, and Karl
Krauss (1874–1936), the editor of Die Fackel (The
Torch), a satirical magazine, beginning in 1899, we
are properly in modernist territory.
Yiddish literature should not be forgotten.
Significant authors include Solomon Ettinger
(1803?–1856), the creator of epigrams and of the
comedy Serkele, widely considered the best Yiddish
comedy; Avrom-Ber Gotlober (1810–1899), creator
of satirical or parodic poems and of the comedy Der
dektukh (The Bridal Veil); and of course, Sholem
Aleichem (Sholem Naumovich Rabinovich, 1859–
1916), the creator of the characters that would later
appear in Fiddler on the Roof.
Lorene M. Birden and Salvatore Attardo
See also Comedy; High Comedy; Jewish Humor;
Literature; Low Comedy; Magazines and Newspapers,
U.S.; Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United
States
Further Readings
Altick, R. D. (1997). Punch: The lively youth of a British
Institution 1841–1851. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press.
Colombi, R. (2011). Ottocento stravagante. Umorismo,
satira e parodia tra Risorgimento e Italia unita
[Extravagant 19th century: Humor, satire and parody
between the Risorgimento and the unification of Italy].
Rome, Italy: Aracne.
Garber, F. (Ed.). (1988). Romantic irony. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins.
Grojnovski, D. (1997). Aux commencements du rire
moderne: L’esprit fumiste [At the beginning of modern
laughter: The “fumiste” spirit]. Paris, France: Corti.
Martin. R. B. (1974). The triumph of wit: A study of
Victorian comic theory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Nilsen, D. L. F. (1996). Humor in Irish literature: A
reference guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Orel, A. (Ed.). 1961. The world of Victorian humor. New
York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Wagner-Lawlor, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). The Victorian comic
spirit. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

HISTORY OF HUMOR:
PREMODERN JAPAN
The first record of a comedy performance in
Japan concerns an eclipse. The sun goddess, the
Great Sacred Goddess Who Lights the Heavens,
Amaterasu Ōmikami, had hidden herself in the Cave
of Heaven, plunging the earth into darkness and
bringing down various disasters on the world. The
goddess Ame-no-Uzume-no-Mikoto upturned a tub,
stamped on it, and, pulling her skirt down to her
genitals, did a strip dance, which caused the Myriad
Gods Assembled to laugh until the High Plain of
Heaven shook. They laughed and laughed as they
tricked the goddess eventually into coming out again
to light the world (Wells, 1997, p. 23; trans. Philippi,
1969, p. 84).
This account was set down in the Kojiki (The
Record of Ancient Matters), Japan’s oldest chroni-
cle, which was presented to the Empress in the year
712 CE. It makes clear that bawdy humor was then
part of Japanese life and that those who recorded it
thought that such humor had been a godly part of
life since ancient times. The episode is an account
of trickster humor, common to early folklore or
myth, which, in Japan, developed further in folktales
(mukashi-banashi) that have survived into modern
Japanese literature. This entry discusses humor as
it developed in Japan from the earliest records of
the tribal period, in aristocratic society, followed by
warrior society, and then the merchant and warrior
society of the Edo period, which ended in 1868.
Tribal Society
The myth told in the previous paragraphs describes
a time when Japan was a tribal society. Writing
came to Japan from China in about the 6th century
along with the Buddhist scriptures and was at first
the province of Buddhist monks, then passed to
courtiers and other aristocrats. Aristocrats did not
have a monopoly on humor but because they could
write about it, the records of the earliest Japanese
humor are from aristocratic literature. This story
of the dance of the goddess Ame-no-Uzume-no-
Mikoto must therefore be considered aristocratic
literature, although it is a record of tribal events. As
described by Goh Abe (2006), a number of festivals
where laughter is offered to propitiate the gods, for
example, in order to ensure a good rice harvest, have
survived into the 21st century in Japan. Although
History of Humor: Premodern Japan 319
these festivals may not all have existed since time
immemorial, they presumably operate on the same
ancient principle as the laughter that brought the
sun goddess out of her cave.
Taboos are an important part of humor. For some
people they restrict the subjects about which they
may jest and for others, taboo-breaking adds force
and shock to the humor. Differing from culture to
culture, taboos have contributed to the development
of different kinds of humor in different cultures.
Japan’s ancient religion, some of whose myriad gods
and goddesses appear in the story told earlier, is
Shintō, The Way of the Gods. Because ritual purity
and defilement are fundamental to Shintō, defile-
ment, especially by dirt, blood, and death, must be
purified by ritual, in order to appease the wrath of
the gods. In a land where gods regularly visit volca-
nic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunami, and typhoons
on the human race, their wrath is particularly evi-
dent, and the value of placation by means including
humor is obvious.
Japan’s traditional taboos do not include a sexual
taboo—except in the case of women, who are asso-
ciated with blood at times, including childbirth. The
ancient traditional sexual morality, before sexually
transmitted diseases came to Japan, was one of great
freedom, resembling that of traditional Polynesia,
and it continues to be liberal, despite increased
restrictions in the 20th century. Given the manifold
taboos with which tradition and religion surrounded
sex in most European cultures, Japanese sexual
humor unsurprisingly developed along a different
path.
Early Visual and Verbal Humor
in Aristocratic Society
Some of earliest extant examples of Japanese car-
tooning date from the 8th century. They are found
in Buddhist temples in Nara, in the form of carica-
tures; as graffiti on the ceiling panels of the Hōryūji
temple; and as a cartoon called “The Great Debate,”
drawn on the edge of a sutra scroll, possibly by a
young sutra copyist.
The last-dated poem in Japan’s oldest collection of
poetry, the Man’yōshū (Collection of Ten Thousand
Leaves) is from 759 CE. The 4,516 poems tell of
love and loss and the beauties of the Earth, but only
a few of them are funny. Among the many poems
mourning death (the relevant taboo is on death,
not on mourning) is a pair that humorously raises
the specter of that other certainty of human life,
320 History of Humor: Premodern Japan
namely, taxes. This one takes the form of flyting, or
the humorous exchange of insults, a custom found
in Old Norse and medieval Anglo-Saxon cultures
(text in Man’yōshū, Book XVI, 1993, p. 87, trans.
D. Keene):
POEM OF RIDICULE:
Hōshira ga Do not tether a horse
Hige no sorikui To the stubble
Uma tsunagi Of my new shaven
priest’s chin,
Itaku na hiki so And pull too hard!
Hōshi wa nakan For, poor priest, he will cry.
THE PRIEST’S REPLY
Dan’ochi ya Oh, say not that!
Shika mo na ii so You too will cry,
Sato osa ga Good parishioner,
Edachi hataraba When the village master
comes
Imashi mo nakan To collect the taxes.
The first known theoretical discussions of humor
in Japan were Chinese. Liu Hsieh discussed some of
its problems in The Literary Mind and the Carving
of Dragons, an ancient Chinese text known to have
been extant in Japan before 891 CE. It was quoted
by the Japanese monk, Kōbō Daishi, in the Bunkyō
Hifuron compiled between 809 and 820 CE. There-
fore, as Marguerite Wells (1997, pp. 20–23) notes, a
small Japanese elite presumably had drawn to their
attention some of the negative aspects of humor
(derision, gibes, satire, mockery, low moral tone,
absurdity, calumny, childish burlesques) as well as
some of the positives (cleverness, wit, good inten-
tions, and merriment). The earliest records of Japa-
nese humor (the dance of the goddess [ca. 712 CE]
and the ridicule of the priest and the parishioner [ca.
759 CE]) arguably fall into the negative category.
The modern Japanese word for funny (both
funny-peculiar and funny-ha-ha) is okashii. Its
ancestor was okashi. This word was the closest
to meaning humor in its time and in Japan’s old-
est dictionary, the Shinsen Jikyō (Newly Selected
Mirror of Characters), completed in 892 CE, it is
defined as “an ugly appearance, so funny that one
cries aloud.” Presumably the cry took the form of
laughter. Aristotle had likewise, 1500 years before,
defined comedy in relation to ugliness, while the
Sanskrit writer Bharata, 1100 years before, related it
to deformity, and Wells (1997, pp. 24–25) suggests
that the perception of the funny as related to the
ugly or deformed was thus something that ancient
writers in disparate cultures had in common.
The Kokinshū was presented to the Emperor
Daigō about the year 905 CE. In Japanese history,
countless thousands have expressed themselves sadly
in poetry about the scattering of cherry blossoms, a
metaphor for the evanescence of human life, but one
Kokinshū poem, by a Buddhist priest, Sōsei, is an
exception (trans. Keene, 1993, p. 253):
Hana chirasu Does anyone know
Kaze no yadori wa The residence of the wind
Tare ka shiru That scatters the blossoms?
Ware ni oshie yo Anyone who knows,
tell me!
Yukite uramin I will go there and
complain.
The first records of personal use of humor in
Japan appeared around the year 1000. Sei Shōnagon
(The Lady Sei) was a lady of the imperial court in
Kyōto. She kept Makura no Sōshi (Pillow Book), a
book of jottings, perhaps begun in the 990s and
finished in the early years of the 11th century. In it
we see her humor in the context of her personality
and her daily life. Merciless though they sometimes
were (especially toward “the common people”), her
jottings are often amusing. One example of her
many lists shows that human beings have not
changed very much in over a millennium or from
country to country (Sei Shōnagon, 2006, pp. 61–62,
trans. McKinney):
Rare Things:
A son-in-law who’s praised by his wife’s
father; likewise, a wife who’s loved by her
mother-in-law. . . .
A retainer who doesn’t speak ill of his master. . . .
A person who is without a single quirk. Someone
who is superior in both appearance and character,
and who’s remained utterly blameless throughout
his long dealings with the world. . . .
Two women, let alone a man and a woman, who
vow themselves to each other forever, and actually
manage to remain on good terms to the end.
Sei Shōnagon said she wrote her Pillow Book “for
fun” (tawabure ni). Keene (1993, pp. 421–425) calls
it “the wittiest book in the Japanese language” and
points out that the Lady Sei used the word okashi
445 times in a short book, always in a positive sense.

The elegant ladies of the court were not above
indulging in a little horseplay and a little malice. Sei
Shōnagon records how, on the 15th day of the lunar
new year (2006, pp. 4–5, trans. McKinney),
the senior and junior gentlewomen of the house go
about looking for a chance to strike each other with
gruel sticks, constantly glancing behind them to
make sure they aren’t hit themselves. It is marvellous
fun when someone manages somehow to get in a
strike, and everyone bursts into delighted peals of
laughter—though you can certainly see why the
poor victim herself feels upset. . . . I gather men even
get struck sometimes. It’s also amusing to witness
someone for some reason lose her temper and burst
into tears, and roundly abuse whoever has struck
her. Even the more exalted people in the palace join
in the day’s fun.
Examples of ancient Japanese humor come from
those who, at the time, had the gift of writing: aris-
tocrats, clergy, and, later, those warriors who had
the time and inclination to write and, more rarely, to
be funny. However, probably the vast bulk of humor,
in both early times and later, was never written
down because it was verbal humor or humor in per-
formance.
Evolution of Traditional Comedy
to Modern Forms
One traditional street performance genre, Manzai,
developed in the 20th century into the comedy
crosstalk genres of stage, radio and television, and
other mass media. It began in aristocratic times as
an auspicious ritual performed by itinerant street
performers at the New Year. Fujiwara no Akihira
mentioned Manzai in Shin Sarugaku Ki (A New
Record of Sarugaku), written circa 1052 CE, and
the poet Fujiwara Teika recorded that the Manzai
players had been admitted to the palace in 1204
CE. The priest Zuikei wrote in 1447 CE that “at the
beginning of New Year they come to people’s houses
and sing auspicious words” (quoted in Maeda,
1975, p. 29, trans. M. Wells). It is not known when
the Manzai performers began incorporating comedy
into their auspicious acts, but Manzai was regarded
as funny by the 18th century and Maeda Isamu
(1975, pp. 18, 29, 38, 43–45) has shown how, in the
first years of that century, the genre began its move
into the theaters. Thence it developed into today’s
comedy crosstalk genre.
History of Humor: Premodern Japan 321
Sarugaku was the ancestor of the stately Nō
theater and its comic counterpart, Kyōgen. Benito
Ortolani (1995, p. 63) describes some of the
Sarugaku sketches that appear in the Shin Sarugaku
Ki about 1052 CE and that also include obvious
farce.
The Abbot Toba (1053–1140) was a senior
Buddhist priest of the Tendai sect, holding many
administrative and religious positions in the course
of a long and distinguished career. His extensive
experiences clearly led to (or began with) a wry view
of the human race, and today he is known in Japan
principally for the charming and whimsical cartoon
scrolls attributed to him, in which humans are
depicted as animals. The three scrolls collectively,
and popularly, known as Chōjū Giga are more for-
mally called Chōjū Jinbutsu Giga (Pictures of Bird
and Beast Characters Frolicking). The first and
most famous—also the best executed of these—was
drawn in the mid-12th century and features anthro-
pomorphic animals, with rabbits as clergy and frogs
as nobles. It is considered by critics such as Shimizu
and Suyama to be a satirical critique of the upper
ranks of society of the time. This work is often seen
as the starting point for contemporary Japanese
comic art, or cartooning, for example, by Shimizu
(2007, pp. 7, 20–22). A number of scrolls produced
over the following centuries appear to have been
humorous works, but, without mechanized means
of reproduction, most were probably restricted to
clergy and nobles and seen by relatively few people.
Warrior Society
In the year 1185, the long-standing rivalry between
two courtier families, the Minamoto and the Taira
(also known respectively as the Genji and the Heike),
culminated in the sea battle of Dan-no-ura at which
the Taira family was scattered and virtually wiped
out. In 1192 the military government, or Shōgunate,
was established by the Minamoto in Kamakura near
modern-day Tokyo, far from the emperor and court-
iers in Kyōto and the ascendency of the warriors (cor-
rectly called bushi and less correctly samurai) began.
While the imperial court continued on its merry way,
writing was no longer its exclusive domain. The war-
riors, many of them descended from the aristocracy,
valued and cultivated literacy, although as a weapon
of governance rather than of humor.
A stern demeanor was expected of warriors. One
proverb states: Bushi sannen ni kataho (“A warrior,
once in three years, wrinkles one cheek” in a smile).
322 History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Although much of the recording of life and fun in
the imperial court had been done by women, now
was the day of men’s literature. Historical and mili-
tary chronicles of the time are not, perhaps, a rich
source for humor. These were the days of itinerant
minstrels who commemorated the deeds of derring-
do of warriors competing for political power, but
some minstrels doubtless had comedy pieces in their
repertoires.
The theatrical genre of Kyōgen, developed and
performed alongside the Nō, was originally called
okashi, which meant either “humor” or “a funny
play.” Zeami Motokiyo (1363–1443, theorist of the
Nō) was concerned in his Shūdōsho about vulgar
acting that made the audience laugh uproariously.
The gentrification of humor has been a regular
theme in Japanese writings about comedy.
In Japanese folktales, the trickster is prominent.
The kitsune (fox), the kappa (a magical green water
sprite), and the tanuki (the Japanese badger or
raccoon dog, which is not a badger or a raccoon
although it is a distant member of the dog family)
are among the tricksters found in Mukashi Banashi
(Tales of Old Times). The tale of the Bunbuku
Chagama (The Badger That Turned Into a Tea
Kettle) is one of the most amusing. At the temple
of Morinji in Tatebayashi, Gunma Prefecture, north
of Tokyo, a tanuki turned into a kettle and, unable
to turn completely back, caused problems and
shocks when it revealed its hybrid self to various
personages, more or less august and more or less
sympathetic. It also caused hilarity when it became a
sideshow performer and made lots of money for the
people who had been kind to it. Because the temple
was built in the 15th century, this is one of the few
folktales whose humor can be approximately dated.
Renga (verse capping or linked verses) was a game
played mainly from the 13th to the 15th centuries.
A first verse was supplied and the poets had to sup-
ply a clever or witty second verse. Scatology was not
debarred, as one Renga by Yamazaki Sōkan (1465–
1553) demonstrates (trans. Keene, 1993, p. 16):
First verse supplied:
Kasumi no koromo The garment of mist
Suso wa nurekeri Is damp at the hems
Sōkan’s reply:
Saohime no The Goddess Sao
Haru tachinagara Now that spring has come,
pisses
Shito o shite While still standing
This form of verse-game later developed into the
poetic genre of Haiku, today thought of as a serious
genre, and into another branch, Senryū, considered
a comic genre and a popular hobby for a coterie in
contemporary Japan.
While the warriors were fighting each other
for control of the land, barons and landholders
became able to pay for entertainment. Otogishü and
hanashishū (both names for storytellers) developed
into professional jesters. Andō (1989, p. 4) records
that when Toyotomi Hideyoshi, ruler of Japan, died
in 1598, he left bequests to no less than 22 of his
otogishū, of whom Sorori Shinzaemon is the one
whose name and whose jests have passed down to
us today. Many of his jokes turn on puns, such as
the following (Andō, 1989, pp. 46–47, trans. Wells):
One day Sorori came to Hideyoshi and said that
there was a cucumber eating a cucumber. Hideyoshi
did not believe him, and agreed to give him a reward
if he could prove it. Sorori took Hideyoshi out and
pointed to a man sitting by the side of the road
eating something. Hideyoshi complained that he
was just a man. Sorori said, “Look well. That man
is a wood seller. He has a bundle of firewood on his
back, and he is eating a cucumber. That’s why I told
you that a KIURI (wood seller) is eating a KIURI
(cucumber).” [A cucumber is now called kyūri.]
Warrior and Merchant Society (The Edo
or Tokugawa Period, 1603–1868)
In 1603 Tokugawa Ieyasu moved the Shōgunate to
Edo, then a remote fishing village but now known as
Tokyo. The Edo or Tokugawa period under the rule
of the warriors lasted more than 250 years and saw
the rise of the merchants, gradually gaining more
influence through their control of money—although
the Shōgunate did its best to limit their power.
Around Edo Castle, a great city grew up, eventually
becoming the biggest city in the world.
As literacy spread to the merchant classes, arts
and culture—and humor—burgeoned. Merchants
became increasingly able to pay for entertainment
in literature, the visual arts, and performance genres,
and the technology of woodblock printing made it
increasingly easy to record these genres and events
for posterity, in the written word and in pictures.
Commercial printing flourished from the 1620s
onward and made the Edo period the heyday of
humorous literature in Japan. During this period,
the warrior class throve and the warrior population
increased, although it was a long period of relative

peace. Not all of the warrior class found work as
warriors, nor, perhaps, did all want to: Many way-
ward members became authors.
In 1603 the actress Okuni and her troupe per-
formed in Kyōto what came to be called Kabuki.
Despite various ups and downs with the censors,
who did not like either the female or the male pros-
titution associated with it, Kabuki survived rather
splendidly into the 21st century. A decree by censors
in 1644 reveals a run-in over (presumably) satire, or
defamation: “The names of actual people must not
be used in plays” (trans. Keene, 1993, p. 235).
The Kyōgen theorist Ōkura Toraaki (1597–1662),
in his Waranbegusa (Jottings for the Children),
uncannily echoed Hamlet’s famous advice to the
players: “[Actors] . . . make faces, stretch their eyes
and mouths and behave in impossible ways to make
people laugh. This pleases the low but a person of
sensitivity will be embarrassed.” By Toraaki’s time,
vulgar clowning in the Kabuki theater was becoming
fashionable. Like another traditional dramatic form,
Bunraku or puppet theater, Kabuki has occasional
scenes of comic relief, where, for example, a group
of rustics do an ungainly dance. Narukami (The
Thunder God), staged in 1684 by the first Ichikawa
Danjūrō, notably has a comical seduction scene that
achieves that rare thing in Japan, high comedy.
The Kabuki actors themselves wrote about the
practice and aesthetics of acting. The Yakusha
Rongo (compiled ca. 1688–1704 and translated as
The Actors’ Analects) touch on comedy at several
points, recommending acting techniques to refine
comic performances. Three types of comic role were
distinguished: the clown, dōke-mono, laughed at for
his ignorance; the jester, taiko-mochi, who evoked
laughter with his cleverness; and the high-ranking,
sophisticated actor who conveyed high comedy
in an artistic way. The idea (familiar in European
theater) that comedy is the most difficult role for
an actor is echoed by both Waranbegusa and The
Actors’ Analects. Many Japanese thinkers through-
out history have had more than a sneaking suspicion
that humor and the laughter that it provokes might
be vulgar.
In the Edo period the foundations were laid for
another comedy form that thrives in today’s Japan,
the theatrical storytelling genre of Rakugo, some-
times referred to as “sit-down comedy.” The stories
of a Buddhist priest of the Pure Land Sect, Anrakuan
Sakuden (1554–1642), including those in Seisuishō
(Laughs to Banish Sleep, 1623), form the basis for
Rakugo performers’ traditional repertoire.
History of Humor: Premodern Japan 323
Visual Humor in the Edo Period
The Edo period saw growth in popular access to
visual humor, especially with the advent early on of
Ōtsu-e. These allegorical pictures were named after
the region (in Saga Prefecture) where they were orig-
inally sold as Buddhist-themed amulets (folk art) for
travelers on the Tōkaidō road on the way to and
from Kyoto. In time, as Shimizu (2007) notes, they
became humorous and were sold widely throughout
the country (p. 34). One often-used image was of
Oni no Nenbutsu (The Demon Who Converted to
Buddhism). When publishing flourished in the mid-
Edo period, many other humorous visual art genres
began to appear, along with many terms for them
(listed by Shimizu, 1991, p. 23). Some more popular
forms include Toba-e (named after the Abbot Toba),
pictures of humorous frolicking characters with
elongated limbs (often printed in book form), and
hanji-e, a general term for printed puzzle pictures.
Laughter and Humor in the Edo Period
Fujimoto Kizan published his book Ōkagami (The
Great Mirror) in 1678, recording a long-lasting
Japanese custom (trans. Keene, 1993, p. 162):
Laughter. It is most delightful when, something
amusing having happened, a courtesan smiles,
showing her dimples. . . . But for her to open her
mouth and bare her teeth or to laugh in a loud voice
is to deprive her instantly of all elegance and make
her seem crude. When something is so extremely
funny that she must laugh, she should either cover
her mouth with her sleeve or else avert her head
behind the customer’s shoulder.
Although this is about the ideal behavior of a cour-
tesan, even in the late 20th century, most Japanese
women would cover their mouths with their hands
when they laughed. Doubtless, a century before,
they used their kimono sleeves.
Sexual humor, including incest jokes, along with
scatology, were all freely published and amusingly or
titillatingly illustrated at this time—although succes-
sive governments expressed some reservations about
them—and they remain alive and well in Japan.
This kind of humor is well illustrated in a study by
Howard Hibbett (2002). Ihara Saikaku is probably
the most important name in Edo fiction and humor,
and his works have been translated into English.
A 1687 example of sexual humor comes from his
work Nanshoku Ōkagami (The Great Mirror of
Male Love, trans. Hibbett, 2002, p. 69):
324 History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Does it cost more to ransom a courtesan or to buy a
house for a handsome youth? . . . Is it worse timing
to fall in love with a Shinmachi girl on the eve of the
great summer festival or to take up with a kabuki
boy just before the gala season opening?
Lending libraries started in Edo around 1750, doubt-
less spurring the circulation of the fiction works that
came to typify the Edo period. From 1770 onward,
most varieties of Edo period fiction are classified as
Gesaku (playful works), a term invented by Hiraga
Gennai (1729–1779), a pharmacologist, experi-
menter with electricity, and polymath of warrior
family. Some of Gennai’s Gesaku have been trans-
lated, for example, On Farting (1771, trans. Sibley,
2009) and Biographies of Limp Dicks in Seclusion
(1768, trans. Marceau, 2009). The titles are suffi-
ciently informative.
Kokkeibon (Funny Books) were so named about
1820. The word used by the aristocrats for humor,
okashi, was almost replaced in the Edo period by
a term borrowed from Chinese, kokkei (comi-
cal, rigolot). Many book titles began with kokkei.
The Kokkeibon called Tōkaidōchū Hizakurige, by
Jippensha Ikku (1765–1831), has been translated as
Shanks’s Mare (trans. Satchell, 1960). It recounts the
travels of Yaji and Kita, who walk from Edo, along
the Eastern Sea Road (the Tōkaidō) to Kyoto. Yaji
and Kita are the modern archetype of Edo period
humor: vulgar and superior Edoites, rambunctious,
lascivious, and scatologically obsessed. Their practi-
cal joking gets them into daily trouble throughout
the trip. Several Japanese feature films of Hizakurige
were made in both the 20th and 21st centuries.
Shikitei Sanba (1776–1822) was an author of
Kokkeibon as well as Kibyōshi (discussed later). In
1799, he published a comical account of a real fight
between two rival groups of Edo firemen. The fire-
men took revenge. They were jailed, and Sanba was
put in handcuffs for 50 days. He did not publish
again until 1802. His Kokkeibon include Ukiyoburo
(The Bathhouse of the Floating World, published
between 1809 and 1813).
Sharebon, despite sharing their name with the
word for wit or wordplay, are not a humorous genre,
but Kibyōshi (Yellow-Covered Books) were often
humorous. Other humorous Gesaku genres include
Yomihon (Reading Books) and Ninjōbon (Books
of Human Feelings). Takizawa Bakin (1767–1848)
wrote many kinds of Gesaku fiction and, according
to Keene (1993, p. 426), more than half of his print-
runs were sold directly to lending libraries.
Forms of humorous play and improvisation
included Niwaka and Chaban. Chaban is written
with characters that mean “tea monitor.” Like cha-
rades or recitations in Europe, it was a kind of Edo
parlor game or party piece rather than a stage genre.
The book, Meigetsu jojō, attests to its existence in
Edo in 1777. Originally impromptu, it was typically,
though not always, a monologue. Apart from one
period on the professional stage, Chaban remained
a parlor performance in which actors performed
either scenes from a Kabuki play or highly wrought
prologues full of linguistic humor.
Niwaka means “sudden,” probably implying the
improvisation that was its origin. It began in Osaka
and refers to comical skits that may be very short
or more usually full-length plays for several actors.
Kokin niwaka sen (Selected Ancient and Present
Niwaka, 1775) discusses it and a Senryū says,
“Niwaka means Rakugo standing up and dancing.”
During the Edo period, it divided into professional
and amateur forms, moving into Osaka theaters by
the 1840s and still being performed at the end of the
Edo period.
Japanese history reveals both the push of an
untrammeled sense of humor and the pull of vari-
ous forces against it. The resulting mix is well worth
exploring, once linguistic and cultural barriers are
surmounted. Humor blossomed into words and pic-
tures with the publishing industry early in the Edo
period. In 1868 came the Meiji period when life was
real, life was earnest, and everything must be new,
everything reformed. The rambunctious Edo humor
then went out of fashion, and, along with literature,
art, and the theater, humor was refashioned on
European models to suit the coming new industrial
society.
Marguerite Wells and Ronald Stewart
See also Buddhism; Cartoons; Farce; Folklore; Gender
Roles in Humor; High Comedy; History of Humor:
Modern Japan; Kyōgen; Puns; Rakugo; Rituals of
Laughter; Satire; Scatology; Senryū; Share
Further Readings
Abe, G. (2006). A ritual performance of laughter in
southern Japan. In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Understanding
humor in Japan (pp. 37–50). Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
Blyth, R. H. (1957). Japanese humour. Tokyo: Japan
Tourist Bureau.

Chōjū Giga (Chōjū Jinbutsu Giga [Frolicking Animals and
People]). (n.d.). Retrieved from the Physiological Society
of Japan website: http://int.physiology.jp/en/choju-giga
Davis, J. M. (Ed.). (2006). Understanding humor in Japan.
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
An episodic Festschrift for Howard Hibbett (Vols. 1–26).
(2000–2010). Hollywood, CA: Highmoonoon.
Hibbett, H. (2002). The chrysanthemum and the fish:
Japanese humour since the age of the shoguns. Tokyo,
Japan: Kodansha International.
Jippensha Ikkyu. (1960). Hizakurige, or Shanks’s Mare
(T. Satchell, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Tuttle.
Keene, D. (1993). Seeds in the heart: Japanese literature
from the earliest times to the late sixteenth century.
New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Kern, A. L. (2006). Manga from the floating world: Comic
book culture and the Kibyōshi of Edo Japan.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.
Leutner, R. (1985). Shikitei Sanba and the comic tradition
in Edo fiction. Harvard, MA: Harvard College, Council
of East Asian Studies.
Maeda Isamu. (1975). Kamigata Manzai happyakunen shi
[The 800-year history of Kamigata Manzai]. Osaka,
Japan: Sugimoto Shoten.
Ortolani, B. (1995). The Japanese theatre: From
shamanistic ritual to contemporary pluralism. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Philippi, D. L. (Trans.). (1969). Kojiki [The record of
ancient matters]. Princeton, NJ, & Tokyo, Japan:
Princeton University Press and University of Tokyo
Press.
Sei Shōnagon. (2006). The pillow book (M. McKinney,
Trans.). London, UK: Penguin.
Shimizu Isao. (1991). Manga no Rekishi [The history of
Manga (comic art)]. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten.
Suyama Keiichi. (1972). Manga Hakubutsu-shi (Nihon-
hen) [A history of comic art (Japan volume)]. Tokyo,
Japan: Banchō Shobō.
Wells, M. (1997). Japanese humour. London, UK:
Macmillan.
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
RENAISSANCE EUROPE
The particular quality of Renaissance humor is
marked by a pattern common to many aspects of
that period’s culture, namely, the effect on endemic
medieval traditions of the enormous importance
authors then began to ascribe to the classics. To take
one example, the discovery in 1433 of Donatus’s
commentaries on the Roman playwright Terence
History of Humor: Renaissance Europe 325
had a significant impact on the development of
Italy’s commedia erudita (learned comedy), which in
turn influenced comic dramatists in other languages
and lands who adopted the Italian model. This pat-
tern remained constant throughout the 16th century
and beyond, even when writers like Lope de Vega
(1562–1635) and Ben Jonson (1572–1637) stressed
their independence from ancient sources.
In intellectual matters, Desiderius Erasmus must
be named as the major satirist of the early 16th
century, since his Colloquia (Colloquies, 1518),
only one of a multitude of works and written, as
always with Erasmus, in excellent Renaissance
Latin, lampooned the degeneration of values among
traditional churchmen and scholastics, while draw-
ing much inspiration from Lucian, Greek author
of the 2nd century CE, then recently rediscovered
and translated. By means of his network of contacts
throughout Europe and his vast scholarly output,
Erasmus helped create an entire cultural movement
that was both erudite and spiritual, based on values
of piety, moderation, pacifism, and the importance
of education. It was to exert an enormous though
sadly not determining influence on religious reform,
yet despite his serious intent and his devotion to clas-
sical models, students have identified popular ele-
ments within Erasmus’s humor; witness how, in his
most famous work, the Encomium moriae (Praise
of Folly, 1509), Folly appears as a costumed figure
from a carnival masquerade.
Themes of Renaissance Literary Humor
Humanist satirists, whether stimulated by Erasmus
or not, applied traditional themes of religious con-
troversy, attacking corrupt and degenerate reli-
gious figures, especially via the abuses found in the
mendicant orders, while dosing their work with a
reformist agenda concerning subjects such as pil-
grimage, indulgences, ritualistic prayer, and scho-
lastic theology. The Epistolæ obscurorum virorum
(Letters of Obscure Men, first published 1515),
written to defend the Hebrew scholar Reuchlin,
and with the approval if not indeed collaboration
of Erasmus, encapsulate that spirit perfectly: Free-
thinking scholars joined forces in a virulent but
also hilarious attack on institutional and ecclesi-
astical bigotry. Intriguingly, their erudite agenda is
reinforced by a vulgarity found previously in the
grosser levels of medieval literature; meanwhile the
spirit of their satire is fully comparable with that of
Voltaire.
326 History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
As Thomas More (1478–1535) was fully to
appreciate, it is regrettable that the Reformation
proper changed its satiric focus from scholarly pro-
test to doctrinal conflict. Nevertheless, the Erasmian
spirit of enlightenment and irony emerges clearly
within More’s own Utopia (1516), while Erasmus
and More, who were both friends and colleagues,
also profoundly influenced the Renaissance’s great-
est humorist, François Rabelais (1484?–1553). In
the mock-epic adventures of Gargantua and his son
Pantagruel, published over a period of 20 years as of
1532, Rabelais displays a special debt to Erasmus,
though the imprint of More’s exercise in utopianism
and mock travel literature is also apparent. In pas-
sages interspersing his giant heroes’ adventures,
Rabelais reflects the humanist agenda of educational
change and the evangelical program of Pauline the-
ology, reform in the religious orders, opposition to
pilgrimage, the cult of the saints, and even liturgical
practice. Significantly, neither he nor Erasmus, both
of whom were ordained priests, ever stressed the
fundamental importance of the sacraments.
Much of Rabelais’s comic spirit derives directly
from the Middle Ages, hence his free adaptation of
the models of epic and romance. While attacks on
the religious orders had become traditional by the
16th century, the scatology and irreverence of his
work have been related to the traditions of European
carnival, especially by Mikhail Bakhtin. Otherwise
he fits, generically speaking, into a pattern common
in Renaissance literature that favored the mock epic
rather than its serious counterpart. In composing his
texts he rehearsed the anti-heroics of late medieval
literature, while imitating or at least naming several
Italian works of his own period. These include epic
poems such as Luigi Pulci’s Morgante maggiore (The
Greater Morgante, 1483); Matteo Maria Boiardo’s
Orlando innamorato (Orlando in Love, left unfin-
ished in 1486) and Ludovico Ariosto’s sequel to it,
the Orlando furioso (Orlando Enraged, first pub-
lished in 1516); and the macaronic works of Teofilo
Folengo (pseudonym Merlino Coccaio, 1491–1544),
which recount the adventures of his anti-hero Baldo.
Like those of Rabelais, these works all present a
predominantly lighthearted account of the adven-
tures of a group of heroes, loosely associated with
the medieval Arthurian and Charlemanic traditions,
and involving magic, fantastic journeys including
visits to the underworld, love, duels, and battles but
with a particular pattern whereby heroism, though
genuine, is undermined by anti-heroism. This is
especially represented by comic figures (Margutte in
Pulci, Cingar in Folengo) who guide their compan-
ions’ epic deeds, yet in a curious way actually com-
plete them: Rabelais’s great comic anti-hero Panurge
acts in a precisely similar way.
In contrast to Gargantua and Pantagruel, the
Italian works are all in verse, Ariosto’s in particular
revealing powerful artistry and technique. However,
while burlesquing epic conventions in a manner often
foreshadowed in the Middle Ages, the poems also
possess elements of contemporary satire and com-
ment; witness Folengo’s attacks on the clergy (like
Rabelais, he at one point abandoned the monastic
life) and Ariosto’s cutting references to the role of the
courtier poet. Their influence spread widely in the
Renaissance, especially in the case of the Orlando
furioso: In England Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie
Queene (published in two parts, 1590 and 1596)
is one example, and in Portugal, Os Lusiadas (The
Lusiads), Luís Vaz de Camões’s 1572 epic of discov-
ery and conquest, another.
The pattern of ambiguous travesty of medieval
romance is extended in its most magnificent form
by Miguel de Cervantes (1547–1616). Often cited
as the first modern novel, Don Quixote (published
in two volumes, 1605 and 1615) places the adven-
tures of the knight-errant in an incongruous setting
of historical reality, but the work shares with its
great forebears the pattern of epic at once mocked
and respected, as this knight, though insane, is
genuinely brave and courteous. Meanwhile his side-
kick, Sancho Panza, is cloddish but also both com-
monsensical and loyal. These paradoxes create the
conditions for a constant renewal of humorous epi-
sodes and reactions, despite the underlying pattern
that repeatedly condemns the tradition of chivalric
romance as pernicious and outdated.
The tradition of shorter comical verse in the
Renaissance was rich and deep, and even Rabelais
occasionally contributed to it. Ariosto wrote satires
that remained unpublished in his lifetime but are
notable for both their debt to Horace and their use
of the generic theme of resentment at the courtier’s
life. This poetic topos was applied in England by
John Skelton (1460–1529) and by the Tuscan poet
Francesco Berni (1497/8–1535), to name but two,
and extended at great length by the Frenchman
Joachim du Bellay (1522–1560), member of the so-
called Pléiade group. Du Bellay composed his master-
piece, the sonnet sequence Les regrets (The Regrets,
1558), during an extended, and for him, depressing
sojourn in Rome. Standard attacks on ecclesiastical
corruption and hypocrisy combine with mockery of

a humbled and disillusioned persona, while Ovid’s
classical influence is clearly traceable.
Du Bellay’s Pléiade companion poet and friend
Pierre de Ronsard, who outlived him by many
years, ultimately adopted a similar pattern in his
best sequence of love poetry, Sonnets pour Hélène
(Sonnets for Hélène), published in the 1570s and
also bewailing the courtier’s life, plus the impos-
sible situation of his persona, an aged man in love
with a younger and mostly indifferent mistress. Via
their own direct experiences of Italy in the 16th
century, various Spanish poets, for instance, Diego
de Mendoza (1503–1575), also absorbed and then
adapted the anti-Petrarchan lyric. Their ironic twist-
ing of the conventions of a perfect but reluctant
mistress and an adoring but suffering lover finds
parallels in various works of the Elizabethans Sir
Philip Sidney and William Shakespeare, and is wel-
comed by any reader of Renaissance verse, though
some might jib at the extremes reached by Thomas
Nashe in his “Choice of Valentines,” a poem written
for private circulation sometime in the 1590s and
whose obscenity rivals that of Rabelais.
Spanish writers made a more lasting and original
contribution to European comic traditions via the
picaresque, a genre that drew on medieval roots but
was significant in producing a model of extended
fiction. Beginning with the anonymous Lazarillo de
Tormes (1554), it exploits the rogue figure of the
Middle Ages, exemplified in tricksters and prank-
sters like Til Eulenspiegel, Puck, and Reynard the
Fox, not to mention Rabelais’s Panurge. In those
cases, however, the adventures tend to figure in
loosely associated tales or comic episodes within a
major work rather than forming recognizable bio-
graphical or often autobiographical accounts. It is
likely that the author of Lazarillo welded his tale
of the hero’s career and rise to fortune from several
preexisting stories of mischief and deception, includ-
ing (once again) classical sources such as Plautus and
Apuleius. Though the victims of the author’s satire
are generic—witness Lazarillo’s sufferings at the
hands of hypocritical and mercenary priests—it has
been conjectured that the novel’s anonymous publi-
cation was a way of avoiding charges of heresy.
The picaresque reverses romance conventions so
that, incongruously, it is vice and trickery rather than
virtue that are rewarded (not least by the reader’s
response). It is also a significant advance on medi-
eval trickster tales in that these first-person narrators
reveal both self-awareness and self-analysis, a pat-
tern recognizable in the comic fiction of every later
History of Humor: Renaissance Europe 327
period. Thus Nashe seems consciously to adopt the
picaresque form in his Unfortunate Traveller (1594);
in Simplicius Simplicissimus (published originally as
Der abenteuerliche Simplicissimus Teutsch, 1668),
Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen uses
the same pattern of unpredictable adventures, comi-
cally portrayed against a background of violence;
Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders adapted the female
figure of the picara to 18th-century England; and
Holden Caulfield (protagonist of J. D. Salinger’s The
Catcher in the Rye, 1951) provides but one totemic
but scarcely unique example from 20th-century
America.
Short stories were hardly an unknown genre in
the Middle Ages—witness the comical fabliaux of
France and the edifying books of exempla used by
clergy throughout Europe—but their proliferation,
particularly in Renaissance Italy, is remarkable. As
early as the 14th century, Giovanni Boccaccio set
an important precedent in the Decameron, which
comprises a hundred stories told by a group of
youngsters during their enforced departure from
a plague-ridden Florence. Not all the tales are
humorous, but the majority exploit, be it in comic
or satiric terms, the battle of the sexes, degenerate
standards in the Church, and tricks played espe-
cially on figures of authority, wealth, or power.
Writers as far separated as Geoffrey Chaucer and
Jonathan Swift exploited the Decameron for its
comic material, but one particular spin-off lies in
the so-called Heptaméron of Marguerite de Navarre
(1492–1549), sister to Francis I, who composed in
self-conscious imitation of Boccaccio a similar col-
lection of stories unfortunately left incomplete at her
death. Marguerite adds to Boccaccio’s framework a
series of detailed discussions analyzing the themes
and characters described in her stories. Nevertheless,
despite her sincere reformist sympathies that shape
the religious underpinning to her text, the spirit of
medieval bawdy remains fully apparent—a fact sur-
prising in a lady of such pious reputation.
For all its elegance, readability, and influence,
however, the Decameron is only one of a wide range
of Italian short story collections written during and
after Boccaccio’s time. In 1470 Poggio Bracciolini
(1380–1459), an accomplished humanist, published
his Facetiæ in a Latin worthy of Erasmus, but which,
despite the triviality and brevity of many of its anec-
dotes, represents a storehouse of irreverent jokes,
many frankly obscene. It remains in print in several
languages. Later and more direct Italian imitators
of Boccaccio include Giovanni Francesco Straparola
328 History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
(1480–1557) and Agnolo Firenzuola (1493–1545),
both of whose story collections were translated early
into French.
Renaissance Theatrical Comedy
The most enduring contribution made by
Renaissance authors to European humor may, how-
ever, lie in theatrical comedy. As with the novel
and poetry, the pattern is essentially hybrid, mix-
ing humanist patterns with the richness of medi-
eval theater, particularly farce, which, though
scorned by elements of the intelligentsia, remained
popular throughout much of this period. At their
best the efforts of Italians to emulate Plautus and
Terence in erudite comedies written for noble audi-
ences produced masterpieces such as Cardinal
Bibbiena’s La Calandra and Ariosto’s I Suppositi
(both first performed before 1510), and Niccolò
Machiavelli’s Mandragola (Mandrake, written
in 1518). Conversely, Italian playwrights such as
Pietro Aretino (1492–1556, named by Ariosto the
“scourge of princes”) and Ruzante (pseudonym of
Angelo Beolco [1402–1542], a Paduan of the early
16th century) show the same anti-classical ele-
ments apparent in other trends and genres. Ruzante
did write regular comedies but is best known for
his farces based on the lives of peasants, whereas
Aretino produced work that was unashamedly vul-
gar and pornographic and openly defied the notion
of comedy’s moral import.
The typical love-plots of the commedia erudita
(i.e., the removal of obstacles facing young lovers in
a bourgeois family) became standard in Renaissance
theater, and the ethical value of the genre itself was
both propounded and rejected, both by Italian
authors and by the many non-Italians who trans-
lated and adapted them. However, an even larger
influence came via the professional companies of
Italian actors who created within the commedia
dell’arte a parallel tradition of enormous popularity
and success. Their productions were predominantly
unscripted and highly formulaic—involving stock
characters and scene outlines drawn from both
written and unwritten sources—and were played
to audiences in most European capitals, spreading
their influence even into the work of Shakespeare
and Molière.
French imitators of Italian regular comedy are
numerous, though no playwright of real stature
arose at this time, something perhaps due to there
being as yet no permanent theater in the country.
Renaissance comedies such as Étienne Jodelle’s
Eugène (1552, again a thoroughly hybrid and in fact
thoroughly immoral piece) or the works of Odet de
Turnèbe and Pierre Larivey (both deeply Italianate)
tended to be amateur productions performed by
students or scholars. Meanwhile, translations of
classical playwrights including Aristophanes were
performed in France as elsewhere, but in the late
1500s, as Spanish and English popular comedy
entered their heyday, France was enduring religious
wars that inhibited many areas of its literary output.
By contrast, during its golden age of the 15th to
17th centuries, Spain produced a huge number of
comedies, estimated at more than 10,000, plus at
least three dramatists of European stature, supreme
among whom was Lope de Vega. He was an out-
standingly prolific playwright and was significant in
terms of theory: His Arte nuevo de hacer comedias
(New Art of Writing Plays, 1609) explicitly rejected
classical influences, though this is an exaggerated
posture which he was not alone in adopting (Jodelle
did likewise). In addition, permanent theaters play-
ing to popular audiences were established in many
Spanish cities, and alongside Lope stand Tirso de
Molina (1579–1648), Calderón de la Barca (1600–
1681), and Miguel de Cervantes, as less prolific but
still noteworthy playwrights whose works continue
to be performed.
Otherwise, the patterns that emerged in Spain
mirrored those elsewhere: the importance of Italian
models (an unsurprising feature, given Spain’s hege-
mony in Italy), the standard plot structure of young
love triumphant, the impact of the Italian touring
troupes performing commedia dell’arte, the survival
of popular and farcical elements alongside learned,
and the significance of schools for the cultivation
of neoclassical taste and forms (Lope de Vega was
educated by the Jesuits).
England underwent a development in some ways
similar to Spain, given the establishment of perma-
nent acting companies, the rich output of both its
major and its minor writers, the influence of comme-
dia dell’arte, the use of classical subjects as a spring-
board for experiment rather than a pattern for the
predictable, the practice of imitation, and a concern
for theory to which artistic creativity was not, how-
ever, enslaved. Sidney (1554–1586) argued for the
moral value of comedy, but by creating faulty but
glamorous figures like Falstaff, Shakespeare asserted
an artistic freedom that would be recognized by

Jonson and later paralleled by Molière. The popular
impact of Shakespeare’s generous and festive spirit
thus tended to counter the satiric import implied by
those who insisted that comedy should act as a social
corrective. Jonson, in plays such as Bartholomew
Fair (1614), travestied the love-plots of regular
comedy in a carnival spirit redolent of Aristophanes
rather than Plautus and Terence.
Lasting Influence of Renaissance Humor
At its best, therefore, Renaissance comedy achieves a
vitality and depth that permits constant reinterpreta-
tion and reinvention in different periods. Although
humanist satire may have lost its immediacy, owing
to changed attitudes toward scholarship and reli-
gion, works by Erasmus, More, and Rabelais remain
obstinately in print. Rabelais in particular has been
frequently reinterpreted and adapted in recent times,
as by Aleister Crowley in the early 20th century,
Jean-Louis Barrault in the period of May 1968,
and in a performance of Gargantua and Pantagruel
translated and premiered in Saint Petersburg, Russia,
in 1993. The Renaissance mock epic remained influ-
ential enough to have inspired Italo Calvino in The
Nonexistent Knight (Il cavaliere inesistente, 1959),
one of his most popular stories, while Cervantes’s
influence scarcely requires comment. Iconic portraits
of Quixote by Gustave Doré, Salvador Dali, Pablo
Picasso, and others, along with cinematic and liter-
ary adaptations of his adventures, merely underline
the fascination of one of Europe’s greatest comic
figures.
Renaissance verse may now only be read in
detail by literary scholars, but its ironic adapta-
tion of medieval courtly lyric inspired poets as far
apart as Andrew Marvell (1621–1678) in “To His
Coy Mistress” and Georges Brassens (1921–1981)
in his wryly teasing “Marquise.” The invention of
the picaresque has bequeathed to modern fiction a
self-conscious anti-hero whose legacy is being con-
stantly enriched. Given modern concerns for indi-
vidual psychology ahead of group identities, one can
argue that the Renaissance foreshadowed this trend
too; witness the creation by the essayist Michel de
Montaigne (1533–1592) of a self-analyzing persona,
ironically portrayed and simultaneously deflated.
The irreverent humor of Renaissance short-
story tellers amounts to time off from their serious
considerations, and their scatology and profanity
are continually mirrored in the popular culture
History of Humor: Renaissance Europe 329
of all periods. Thus Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1970s
film adaptation of Boccaccio (along with oth-
ers of Chaucer and The Arabian Nights) marked
an intriguing attempt to exploit the energy and
shock value of the carnivalesque. The major fig-
ures of the Renaissance theater, now including the
once-neglected Ruzante, continue to excite and
inspire directors and audiences around the world:
Shakespeare plays to packed houses in many cen-
ters, including his hometown Stratford-upon-Avon,
and stage and film adaptations of his work vary
from Forbidden Planet (1956) to The Boys From
Syracuse (premiered on Broadway in 1938 and
revived in 2002). Meanwhile, the ancient comic pat-
tern of young love rewarded (whether deservedly or
not), deriving from New Comedy via Plautus and
Terence, applied repeatedly by Shakespeare (wit-
ness the four marriages concluding As You Like It)
and theorized by Northrop Frye as the “Mythos
of Spring” (see his Anatomy of Criticism, 1957),
reappears in the most banal of contemporary soap
operas as well as in masterpieces of farce such as
Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest
(1895).
John Parkin
See also Aesthetics; Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient
Roman Comedy; Anecdote, Comic; Aristophanes;
Boccaccio, Giovanni; Carnivalesque; Cervantes,
Miguel de; Clergy; Comedy; Comic Versus Tragic
Worldviews; Comic World; Commedia dell’Arte;
Fabliau; Farce; Genres and Styles of Humor; High
Comedy; History of Humor: Early Modern Europe;
History of Humor: Medieval Europe; History of
Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe; History
of Humor: 19th-Century Europe; Jests, Jestbooks, and
Jesters; Low Comedy; Menander; Mock Epic;
Molière; Obscenity; Poetry; Rabelais, François; Satire;
Scatology; Shakespearean Comedy; Tragicomedy
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. M. (1968). Rabelais and his world.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fontaine, M. M. (Ed.). (2010). Rire à la Renaissance
[Laughter in the Renaissance]. Geneva, Switzerland:
Droz.
Frye, H. N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism: Four essays.
Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ménager, D. (1998). La Renaissance et le rire [The
Renaissance and laughter]. Paris, France: Presses
Universitaires de France.
330 History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
HISTORY OF HUMOR:
U.S. FRONTIER
U.S. frontier humor, also known as the humor of
the Old Southwest, was a genre that flourished
in the South and the then-Southwest between the
mid-1830s and the Civil War. It was mainly the
work of White professionals (all men), who, by
birth or migration, lived in the region. Most of
them were writers only by avocation. The materi-
als they treated were favorable to humorous writers,
because, as James H. Justus has succinctly noted,
their subject matter grew out of a “permeable” cul-
ture, one favoring fluidity in social and economic
relations and advocating egalitarian principles. This
entry provides a historical overview of U.S. fron-
tier humor; describes its forms, subject matter, and
defining features; discusses its practitioners; points
out its relationship to U.S. antebellum print culture;
mentions some of its works featuring minority race
and gender portraiture that comically undermine
the prominent patriarchal views of the time; and
explains its legacy to Mark Twain and to some of his
literary contemporaries and successors.
Frontier humor is so called because the sites and
settings of many of the works in this genre were
usually in rural areas or sparsely populated ham-
lets in antebellum Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, or Tennessee, and it prominently
features and gives voice to a variety of regional
Southern types, such as the dandy, naïf, backwoods-
man (or woman), Appalachian mountaineer, con
artist, prankster, raconteur of tall tales, and rural
ruffian.
Forms
This brand of humor employed many forms, but
most notably the sketch, anecdote, tall tale, play,
mock letter to the editor, sporting epistle, turf report,
mock sermon, almanac piece, and fictionalized
autobiography. Written by men for other men, the
humor appropriated and employed subject matter
of interest to a masculine audience. Some of its most
popular topics included fights, mock fights, hunting
adventures, drinking and drunkenness, politics and
electioneering, lawyers and courtroom scenes, court-
ship and weddings, camp meetings and religious
fanaticism, pranks, hoaxes, and diverse forms of
con artistry, horse races, and gambling. It has been
widely acknowledged by scholars that the humor
of the Old Southwest represents a brand of nascent
realism, emphasizing the seamier, more grisly fac-
ets of Southern antebellum life and showing a col-
loquial idiom. Among the foundational texts that
first provided most of the themes, motifs, subjects,
and characters in the emerging frontier humorous
genre are Georgia Scenes: Characters, Incidents, &
C., in the First Half Century of the Republic (1835);
the well-known collection of sketches by Augustus
Baldwin Longstreet; and Henry Junius Nott’s little-
known Novelettes of a Traveller; or, Odds and Ends
from the Knapsack of Thomas Singularity (1834),
especially the long first part, “Biographical Sketch of
Thomas Singularity.”
Characteristics and Practitioners
These seminal realistic humorous sketches and tales
tend to favor the frontier values of egalitarianism;
portray common folk and their activities, moving
the yeoman from the margins to a more centralized
position in the narrative; favor and give emphasis
to colloquial vernacular discourse; showcase the
extravagant, outlandish, bizarre, and sometimes the
grotesque and risqué; employ frequently the frame
device to introduce the sketch or tale; feature hyper-
bole rather than subtlety; privilege the transgressive
or subversive over the conventional; and emphasize
entertainment over moral instruction.
Given the realistic subject matter, which some-
times approached the grisly and uncouth and violated
social propriety, it is not surprising that all the writers
associated with the frontier humor genre were men.
The authors were usually professionals—lawyers,
judges, newspaper editors, college presidents, minis-
ters, governmental officials, doctors, planters, actors
and theatrical managers, and soldiers. One of the
best known of the early Southern frontier humorists,
Augustus Baldwin Longstreet, the author of Georgia
Scenes (1835), one of the genre’s foundational works,
was a lawyer, judge, Methodist minister, and presi-
dent of four different colleges during his long and
distinguished career. Alexander McNutt served as
governor of Mississippi; Henry Clay Lewis, Marcus
Lafayette Byrn, and Orlando Benedict Mayer were
physicians; Johnson Jones Hooper, George Wilkins
Kendall, Christopher Mason Haile, and Joseph Field
and his brother Matthew were newspaper editors;
and Thomas Bangs Thorpe, the author of the most

famous tale in the frontier humor genre, “The Big
Bear of Arkansas,” was a journalist, a newspaper
editor, a portrait painter, and an illustrator.
Though no one knows how many frontier
humorists there actually were, they were numer-
ous, some writing pseudonymously and others,
anonymously. Those (their pseudonyms indicated
parenthetically) having verifiable connections
to this genre are Joseph Glover Baldwin, John
Gorman Barr (Omega), William Penn Brannan,
Marcus Lafayette Byrn (David Rattlehead), Joseph
Beckham Cobb (Rambler), David Crockett,
Charles Napoleon Bonaparte Evans, Joseph M.
Field (Everpoint), Matthew C. Field (Phazma),
Joseph Gault, Christopher M. Haile (Pardon
Jones), William C. Hall (H.), George Washington
Harris (Mr. Free, Sugartail), James Edward Henry,
Johnson Jones Hooper, Phillip B. January (Obe
Oilstone), Hamilton Jones, George Wilkins Kendall,
Thomas Kirkman (Mr. Snoops), Henry Clay
Lewis (Madison Tensas), Bartow Lloyd, Augustus
Baldwin Longstreet (Hall and Baldwin), Orlando
Benedict Mayer (Haggis), Alexander McNutt (the
Turkey Runner), Charles Fenton Mercer Noland
(N. of Arkansas, Pete Whetstone), Henry Junius
Nott (Thomas Singularity), James Kirke Paulding,
John S. Robb (Solitaire), Francis James Robinson,
William Gilmore Simms, Solomon Franklin Smith
(Old Sol), Adam Summer (Vesper Brackett), Hardin
E. Taliaferro (Skitt), William Tappan Thompson
(Major Jones), Thomas Bangs Thorpe (The Bee
Hunter, P. O. F.), and Kittrell J. Warren.
Dissemination
Most of the works in frontier humor were ini-
tially printed in newspapers, as was generally true
of humorous pieces published in America during
the first half of the 19th century. Some appeared
in local dailies and weeklies, such as the Augusta
States Rights Sentinel, Greenville (South Carolina)
Mountaineer, Lafayette East Alabamian, Columbia
South Carolinian, and Cincinnati News, whereas
others appeared in larger regional revues, such as
the New Orleans Picayune and St. Louis Reveille.
Because the newspaper exchange system permit-
ted newspapers to be sent through the mail post-
age free, many of these backwoods sketches and
tales enjoyed wider exposure not only in the South
but in other parts of the country as well. Frontier
humor, particularly tall tales, was also common fare
History of Humor: U.S. Frontier 331
in almanacs, such as the widely popular and long-
running series, the Nashville Crockett Almanacs
(1835–1856). Though literary journals were less fre-
quently outlets for humor, some of Baldwin’s and
Taliaferro’s sketches were originally published in the
Southern Literary Messenger and some of Mayer’s
in Russell’s Magazine. It was, however, a New York
sporting weekly—the Spirit of the Times, edited
by William T. Porter—which became the principal
outlet for frontier humor and the periodical most
responsible for introducing this genre to a broad
national audience.
Some frontier humorists were also fortunate to
enjoy increased circulation of their work through
book publication. The best known and most widely
acclaimed books, some going through numer-
ous editions, were Crockett’s Narrative of the Life
of David Crockett (1834), Longstreet’s Georgia
Scenes (1835), Thompson’s Major Jones’s Courtship
(1843), Hooper’s Some Adventures of Captain
Simon Suggs (1845), Lewis’s Odd Leaves From
the Life of a Louisiana “Swamp Doctor” (1850),
Baldwin’s Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi
(1853), and Harris’s Sut Lovingood: Yarns (1867).
Porter also helped spread the popularity of frontier
humor by bringing together some of the best pieces
from the Spirit of the Times into two anthologies:
The Big Bear of Arkansas and Other Sketches
(1845) and A Quarter Race in Kentucky and Other
Tales (1846).
Frontier Humor as Transgressive
Although by its very nature, humor is subver-
sive, some of the works of the Southern frontier
humorists were particularly so, their authors tak-
ing liberties in transcending stereotypes in the por-
trayal of African Americans and women. Some of
the sketches appearing in the Crockett almanacs,
though authored anonymously by men, featured
backwoods women, aptly labeled “riproarious
shemales” by Michael A. Lofaro. In their bravado,
physical strength, courage, and independence they
become literary embodiments of the mythic Davy
Crockett himself. Several other frontier humor-
ists also featured notable women characters, such
as the blunt and outspoken widow in Smith’s “The
Consolate Widow”; the female boarding house
owner in Lewis’s “The Curious Widow,” who suc-
cessfully turns tables on the male medical students
who try to frighten and cure her of her excessive
332 History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
nosiness; and Sicily Burns in Harris’s “Blown Up
With Soda,” who defies the patriarchal notion of
male superiority by tricking and humiliating the
fun-loving prankster Sut Lovingood. Transgressions
in race portraiture, where African Americans are
given greater prominence, space, identity, voice, and
sometimes the opportunity for establishing social
bonds with Whites, also occur in frontier humor.
The most notable examples of racially transgres-
sive sketches are Taliaferro’s folk sermons, includ-
ing “The Origins of Whites and “Jonah and the
Whale,” narrated by slave preacher Charles Gentry;
Henry’s “My Man Dick” and Robinson’s “Old Jack
C—,” both giving African Americans the opportu-
nity to challenge the myth of White superiority; and
Lewis’s “The Struggle for Life,” showing a psycho-
logical connection between an African American
slave dwarf and the physician-narrator.
Cultural Significance
Southern frontier humor is of cultural significance
because of its legacy to Twain, who is the principal
beneficiary. Twain, who has been called the culmi-
nation of this genre, is more accurately the chief
impetus for its continuation. Some of his works—
“Historical Exhibition—A No. 1 Ruse,” “The Dandy
Frightening the Squatter,” the letters of Thomas
Jefferson Snodgrass, “Jim Smiley and His Jumping
Frog,” many of the comical sketches from Roughing
It (1872), “Journalism in Tennessee,” “Frescoes
From the Past,” and Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn (1884)—exhibit close affinities with this
genre. Several of Twain’s contemporaries—Mary
N. Murfree, Sherwood Bonner, Idora McClellan
Moore, Ruth McEnery Stuart, Joel Chandler Harris,
and Charles W. Chesnutt—also employed some the
same stylistic comical elements and featured regional
subjects similar to those of the earlier frontier humor-
ists. Yet it was through Twain’s influence that frontier
humor has been distilled in the 20th and 21st centu-
ries into many literary and popular culture manifes-
tations. Writers such as Erskine Caldwell, William
Faulkner, Flannery O’Connor, Eudora Welty, Zora
Neale Hurston, William Price Fox, Fred Chappell,
Alice Walker, Barry Hannah, and Cormac McCarthy
and popular culture forms—the comic strip, popu-
lar music, sitcoms, stand-up country comedy, films,
and the most influential medium of the time, the
Internet—all attest to frontier humor’s richness and
diversity.
Ed Piacentino
See also Dialect Humor; Exaggeration; Folklore; Race,
Representations of; Subversive Humor; Tall Tale;
Trickster
Further Readings
Cohen, H., & Dillingham, W. (1994). Introduction. In
H. Cohen & W. Dillingham (Eds.), Humor of the old
southwest (pp. xv–xl). Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Inge, M. (Ed.). (1975). The frontier humorists: Critical
views. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
Inge, M., & Piacentino, E. (Eds.). (2001). The humor of
the old South. Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Inge, M., & Piacentino, E. (2010). Introduction: The
humor of the old South; or, transgression he wrote. In
M. Inge & E. Piacentino (Eds.), Southern frontier
humor: An anthology (pp. 1–23). Columbia: University
of Missouri Press.
Justus, J. (2004). Fetching the old Southwest: Humorous
writing from Longstreet to Twain. Columbia:
University of Missouri Press.
Lofaro, M. (1989). Riproarious shemales: Legendary
women in the tall tale world of the Davy Crockett
almanacs. In M. Lofaro & J. Cummings (Eds.),
Crockett at two hundred: New perspectives on the
man and the myth (pp. 114–152). Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.
Martin, G. (2007). The frontier roots of American
realism. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Mayfield, J. (2009). Counterfeit gentlemen: Manhood and
humor in the old South. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
Piacentino, E. (Ed.). (2006). The enduring legacy of old
Southwest humor. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press.
Yates, N. (1957). William T. Porter and the Spirit of the
Times: A study of the Big Bear school of humor. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
HISTORY OF HUMOR: U.S.
MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY
Humor in the United States reflects the country’s
diversity and the shifting statuses of its many cul-
tural and social groups. Historical and social factors
that will be briefly discussed here as contributors to
the present state of American humor include mar-
ginalization related to ethnic and other differences;
the expectation that citizens should be active par-
ticipants in governance; the influence of capitalism
 History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
and its encouragement of competition and new tech-
nologies; and folk or amateur humor, as opposed to
humor prepared for profit.
Sources of Marginalization
The population of the United States is made up of
people from many cultural backgrounds. As a result,
there have been many groups throughout its history
who may have felt marginalized in some way. For
example, even those who were financially successful
might have felt marginalized on the basis of their
religion, the nature of their employment, or whom
they married. Underlying this issue of marginaliza-
tion is the idea that humor and joking occur where
there is a moderate level of tension. Often when
people are truly angry, they would rather fight than
make jokes, with extreme examples of this including
road rage and gang wars. Those who are indifferent
to one another are unlikely to expend the intellectual
energy needed to create a joke. More civic-minded
individuals might sue in court or form political
action groups to work toward outlawing whatever
concerns them, but often, Americans will take the
easier route of using humor to try to persuade peo-
ple to their way of thinking. Even if such attempts at
persuasion are unsuccessful, the creation of humor
may help relieve tensions that in the United States,
as elsewhere, often exist between mainstream and
marginalized groups.
Prior to the American Civil War (1861–1865),
plantation life in the South was made possible by the
hard work of large numbers of Black slaves brought
from Africa against their will. One response to their
marginalization was for slaves to develop their own
narratives, including stories and jokes that cleverly
ridiculed their White masters. African American
scholar Henry Louis Gates focused on this idea
in his book, The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of
African-American Literary Criticism (1988).
Throughout the latter part of the 19th century and
well into the 20th century, blackface comedy (also
known as minstrelsy) was a different kind of African
American humor, both reflecting and contributing
to the marginalization of African Americans. These
minstrel shows, intended for White audiences, were
first created by Whites pretending to be Blacks.
Producers exaggerated the stereotypes of Blacks as
musical, nimble, strong, happy, childlike, and sexu-
ally coarse. Facial makeup accentuated big lips and
exaggerated the eyes by leaving white circles around
them, which was also a practical matter in that it
333
helped to keep the material used for blackening the
skin from harming the actors’ eyes. For less afflu-
ent performers, the makeup was often nothing more
than coal dust or burned cork. As the productions
became more popular, more Blacks became involved
as both performers and audiences. By the late 1800s,
some Black minstrelsy companies were playing up
the exaggerated stereotypes of the genre, so that they
were ironically creating a Black parody of a White
parody of Black caricatures.
Although Native Americans also have a history
of marginalization, humor by and about them devel-
oped quite differently. One reason is that the vari-
ous tribes had different beliefs and customs, which
prevented White settlers from generalizing about
the people they sometimes viewed as bitter enemies.
Today the term pan-Indian is used to talk about
crossover ideas and customs shared by multiple
tribes. Possibly one of the few universal characteris-
tics of pan-Indian humor is the creation and enjoy-
ment of ironic, survival humor that makes fun of
White oppressors. For example, American Indians
may “play White man” by talking loudly and blus-
tering into a room in an officious way. Another illus-
tration of humor from the pan-Indian point of view
is the observation made by Native American scholar
Vine Deloria Jr. (1933–2005), who wrote that when
the first missionaries came they had only the Bible
and Indians had all the land, but now “they” have
all the land and Indians have only the Bible.
Humor created in response to the marginal-
ization of specific groups is not limited to ethnic-
ity. Hundreds of other examples could be cited as
produced from tensions between young and old,
husbands and wives, employees and bosses, city
slickers and country bumpkins, children and their
teachers, gay and straight people, Democrats and
Republicans, poor people and rich people, religious
and nonreligious individuals, and teenaged geeks
versus jocks. A contributing factor to all these
tensions is that the Founding Fathers organized
the United States as a society in which all citizens
should be able to rise to a socioeconomic level as
high as ambitions and abilities allow, and in which
all citizens are expected to participate in choosing
their political leaders and voting for regulations
and laws to benefit the nation as a whole. However,
these ideals are complicated by the size of the coun-
try, the variation in the natural resources of different
geographical areas, the cultural and religious values
that immigrants have brought with them and taught
to their children, and the fact that in a capitalistic
334 History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
country it is possible for small economic advantages
to grow and develop into major differences between
rich and poor.
Even at the time of the nation’s founding, socio-
economic achievement and political participation
were out of reach for non-Whites and for women
of all races. Still today, these ideals may contribute
to the marginalization of those who are unemployed
or homeless. Also, even though voting rights have
been extended to all citizens, requirements such as
photo identification for voter registration can be a
barrier to potential voters who do not have drivers’
licenses, which are the most common kind of photo
identification.
The emphasis on competing for socioeconomic
status has resulted in constant jockeying for prestige,
a social habit that comedy writer Garrison Keillor
has joked about since the 1970s when he began sign-
ing off from his weekly public radio show, A Prairie
Home Companion, with “That’s the news from
Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all
the men are good-looking, and all the children are
above average.”
Ironically, humor often allows people to commu-
nicate about subjects too serious to be discussed in
ordinary language, as shown by the common excuse
from someone who has said something offensive and
tries to back off by saying “It was a joke!” or “I’m
only kidding!” A more far-reaching example comes
from the period just before the United States entered
World War II, when strong feelings of isolationism
prevailed. People were shunned for even hinting that
the country should get involved in what was viewed
as a purely European conflict. However, the anti-
war critics ignored slapstick and so were unaware of
the strong influence of the comedy team The Three
Stooges, which in 1930 began making slapstick films
that until a few years ago were still being shown as
“kiddie fare” on American television. On January
19, 1940, the Three Stooges released the film You
Nazty Spy!, which made fun of Adolf Hitler. This
was nearly two years before the bombing of Pearl
Harbor and nine months before the release of
Charlie Chaplin’s more obviously anti-Hitler film,
The Great Dictator.
Influence of Capitalism
Capitalism itself has had a huge influence on humor
in the United States. From the very beginning, many
who came to the New World were hoping to get
rich; it followed that making money became an
American value, one that affects every aspect of life,
including humor. There are two aspects of the com-
mercialization of humor in the United States. One is
the direct selling of humor—that is, the business of
professional comedians, cartoonists, humor writers,
movie producers, animation artists, and humorous
lecturers and performers, either in person or through
print or electronic media. For every individual who
succeeds in this marketing of humor, support staff
range from one or two helpers to dozens, perhaps
hundreds or even thousands of employees as with
the Walt Disney Company, which is headquartered
in California and which started making silent, black-
and-white films in the 1920s. In 1928, Disney pro-
duced its first animated Mickey Mouse film, and
from this humble beginning, today the company
owns a successful television channel, a full-service
movie studio, a company making online games for
children, another company publishing books for
children, theme parks on three continents, and many
hotels plus related resorts. In 2006, it purchased the
successful Pixar Animation Studios, which produced
several films that are in the top 50 all-time highest-
grossing animated films; these films include Finding
Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E,
Up, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and Toy Story 3. On
American television, Comedy Central is the most
successful of the cable companies that specialize in
humor. Comedy Central offers such popular shows
as the animated South Park and such talk shows as
The Colbert Report and The Daily Show With Jon
Stewart.
A second aspect of commercialization is the use
of humor to sell nonhumorous products. For exam-
ple, restaurants provide their waiters with T-shirts
printed with humorously appropriate messages, and
a bar near a retirement village in Arizona decorates
its walls with humorous, expired license plates that
the retirees (called “snowbirds” by the locals) bring
from their home states when they come to spend a
warm winter in Arizona. In another example, instead
of posting ominous-looking warnings announcing
the presence of security cameras, businesses that
want to appear more welcoming put up cheerful
signs that read “Smile! You’re on Candid Camera.”
The phrase comes from a television show, Candid
Camera, which aired on and off between 1948 and
2004. Allen Funt (1914–1999) created the idea of
using hidden cameras and microphones to record
people’s reactions to being tricked either through
untrue stories told by skilled actors or through
the use of specially designed props, for example, a
 History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
spoon that would dissolve and droop when placed
in hot coffee. The climax of each show was the sur-
prised look on the victims’ faces when Funt would
face them and cheerfully announce, “Smile! You’re
on Candid Camera.”
Development of U.S. Media
Capitalist interests have driven the development of
communication-related technologies so that over
the past 250 years communication techniques have
changed, not just in the United States but around
the world. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin drew and
distributed a cartoon encouraging the formation of
an independent country. For the long-term devel-
opment of American humor, it may be even more
important that Franklin was the first postmaster
general and founded a system that enabled publish-
ers to distribute their pamphlets and magazine at a
subsidized cost. Many of these publications, includ-
ing Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, were filled
with both visual and written humor, thanks to the
development of printing presses that could easily
reproduce drawings and photographs in addition to
words. During the 1800s, newspapers became big
business. Mark Twain, who would later write the
famous tragic/comic novel Huckleberry Finn (1885),
started his career as a newspaper reporter in fron-
tier Nevada. He sent the short story “The Celebrated
Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” to New York
to be published in a book edited by humor writer
Artemus Ward, but it arrived too late. Instead, it was
published in an 1865 edition of The Saturday Press,
which enabled a wider audience to appreciate its
unusual humor.
As the newspaper industry expanded during the
1890s, competition for readers gave new commer-
cial value to comic strips, because people in big cities
would choose which newspapers to buy on the basis
of which comic strips they carried. Starting in the
late 1890s, the availability of silent films inspired
many small towns to build their first theaters. In
the late 1920s, these same theaters began showing
pictures with sound. In the 1940s, American sol-
diers serving overseas during World War II gained
relaxation from watching humorous movies and
also from seeing in-person touring comedy shows.
An especially popular performer was Bob Hope
(1903–2003), who was one of the first comedians to
publicly acknowledge help from professional com-
edy writers, who prepared material for his jokes and
monologues.
335
Technologies such as cameras, telephones, radios,
movies, animated cartoons, television, computers,
the Internet, and smartphones were not invented
for the purpose of communicating humor; neverthe-
less, as they find their way into everyday use, people
figure out how to use them for the distribution of
humor. Newly developed methods of dispersion do
not replace the old media—movies did not replace
live performances, nor did television replace movies,
nor has the Internet replaced television. However,
each new medium influences the format of popular
humor, which in turn affects its intellectual and emo-
tional content.
Radio
Of all these media, radio may have changed
humor the most when in the 1930s, it enabled for
the first time, the entire country to know and relate
simultaneously to the same comedians, characters,
and stories. Vaudeville performers, who were accus-
tomed to repeating the same old gags because they
always had a fresh audience, suddenly had to come
up with something new for every performance.
Situation comedies became popular because they
made it possible for performers to recycle old jokes
and make them seem new because the backgrounds
and the characters were different. Audiences began
to look forward to their weekly visit to Duffy’s
Tavern (1941–1951) and to their chance to catch up
with the family news on Vic and Sade (1932–1944).
Many of today’s jokes are built on the comic foils
developed in the early days of radio, for example, the
high school English teacher played by Eve Arden on
Our Miss Brooks (1948–1957), the “dumb blonde”
created by Jane Ace on The Easy Aces (1930–1949),
and the frustrated wife played by Lucille Ball on My
Favorite Husband (1948–1951).
To help radio listeners remember who was who,
writers provided memory aids by creating character
names that would give hints about roles and person-
alities as with Fibber McGee, Baby Snooks, the Great
Gildersleeve, and the Bickersons. Radio also called
for unique voices, as with the gravelly voice of Eddie
Anderson, who played Rochester on the Jack Benny
Program (1931–1955), and the down-to-earth alto
of Shirley Booth, who was a star on Duffy’s Tavern.
Some performers stuttered, others spoke in falsetto
or in various dialects, including child-speak as with
Fanny Brice’s Baby Snooks, Edgar Bergen’s Charlie
McCarthy, and Red Skelton’s Junior, who was
known as the “Mean Widdle Kid.” The different
336 History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
ranges of male and female voices encouraged humor
based on—and, in fact, exaggerating—differences
between the sexes as in such teams as George Burns
and Gracie Allen, Fred Allen and Portland Hoff, and
Jack Benny and Mary Livingston.
Television
Most ordinary American families did not pur-
chase television sets before the 1950s, and not until
the 1980s did cable television become common.
With cable television, the owners were buying a
monthly service—not just the receiver—and so they
expected more. A noticeable effect was that cable
television broke the monopoly of the big three chan-
nels (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and paved the way for
more risqué humor because once it was available on
cable, the regular channels had to compete.
The period surrounding the Vietnam War in the
late 1960s and early 1970s was a troubled time
for the United States, resulting in creative people
turning to what was called black, dark, or gal-
lows humor. Such humor was expressed in various
genres, including the American absurd novel, the
anti-novel, the theater of the absurd, and film noir.
Such humor achieved its comic effect through treat-
ments of grotesque and morbid situations in which
the human spirit was stretched from one extreme to
the other. This kind of sophisticated humor usually
took shape in novels or in films, for example, Joseph
Heller’s 1961 novel Catch-22 and Terry Southern
and Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film Dr. Strangelove,
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bomb, both of which skewered bureaucracy and
the military. Popular music did the same thing as
with “The ‘Fish’ Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-
Die Rag,” released by Country Joe and the Fish in
1967. In 1987, the movie Good Morning, Vietnam,
starring Robin Williams, did much the same for the
Vietnam War.
These books and films protesting against science
and technology, were aided by other expressive
media, including neo-Dada and pop art, electronic
poetry, computer music, counterculture art and
music events, along with underground comics and
the creation and circulation of disaster jokes.
Internet
By using the Internet and the public sharing that
it makes possible, people tell funny stories on their
blogs or on Facebook and compete to see how
clever they can be with the 140 characters allowed
for a single communication on Twitter. People use
e-mail and Twitter to arrange elaborate practical
jokes and to forward and ask for contributions
to group-created humor. During the run-up to the
2012 Republican presidential primaries, Florida
evangelical Christian leader John Stemberger said
the problem with Mitt Romney was not that he was
Mormon but that he “wasn’t Mormon enough.”
This inspired a series of jokes on an unofficial
Mormon website where people sent in such state-
ments as “Mitt is so Mormon his campaign bus is a
pioneer handcart” and “Mitt is so Mormon that his
campaign ‘oppo’ team has done all the other candi-
dates’ genealogy.”
With increasing frequency, videos contributed
to the video-sharing website YouTube “go viral,”
which means that so many people will see a particu-
lar video and recommend it to their friends that it
becomes news itself and will even be shown on regu-
lar television channels. Whereas most of the earlier
technologies had the effect of turning humor over to
professionals, in a refreshing change the Internet is
restoring the creation of humor to its honored posi-
tion of sophisticated folk art.
Alleen Pace Nilsen and Don Lee Fred Nilsen
See also American Indian Cultures, Humor in; Anecdote,
Comic; Burlesque; College Humor; Ethnic Jokes;
History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Europe; History of Humor: U.S. Frontier; Internet
Humor; Irony; Joke Cycles; Movies; National and
Ethnic Differences; Persuasion and Humor; Race,
Representations of; Stereotypes; Tall Tale; Teasing;
Urban Legends; Variety Shows; Xeroxlore
Further Readings
Davies, C. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. (1988). Custer died for your sins: An
Indian manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Dundes, A. (2007). The meaning of folklore: The analytical
essays of Alan Dundes (S. J. Bronner, Ed.). Logan: Utah
State University Press.
Gates, H. L. (1988). The signifying monkey: A theory of
African-American literary criticism. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Kuipers, G. (2006). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of
the joke. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of
20th-century American humor. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Press.

HOAX AND PRANK
The high comedy potential of hoaxes and pranks
is partly related to their riskiness in terms of falling
flat or giving offense. They may be rejected as not
being at all funny, not merely by their victims but
by a wider audience. Partly because of these serious
risks of failure, when they do succeed without hurt-
ing, other than an acceptable loss of face, they are
extremely funny indeed for all concerned. Despite
this, many hoaxes are not at all funny, nor are they
intended to be so: They are designed to further the
interests of the perpetrators with serious deleterious
consequences for the victims, as in business scams,
swindles of individuals, and political dirty tricks.
This entry considers only comic hoaxes and pranks.
Hoaxes can be amateur or professional. The
International Society of Pranksters and Hoaxers
is devoted to celebrating the art of the hoax and
regularly awards a Hoax of the Month and of
the Year.
Etymology and Origins
The noun hoax is derived from earlier use of the
word in the active sense of hoaxing someone and
the 2002 online version of the OED suggests both
noun and verb perhaps originated in the magician’s
mock-Latin expression “hocus-pocus” (an obsolete
medieval term revived in the 19th century, meaning
jugglery, trickery, or deception). Thus hoax may be a
contracted form of hocus. The OED defines a hoax
as “a humorous or mischievous deception . . . told
in such a manner as to impose upon the credulity
of the victim.” At the end of the 18th century, the
verb form “to hoax someone” meant to deceive or
to take someone in by inducing belief in an amusing
or mischievous fabrication or fiction.
Prank is more firmly associated with humor
(at least on the prankster’s side!). A prank may be
no more than a “malicious trick; a wicked deed; a
deception or scheme intended to harm, a hoax,” or
even “a practical joke; a lark; a capriciously fool-
ish act” (OED)—not at all funny to the victim. But
the use of the verb form without a subject (as in
“she pranked and laughed”) has meant “To play a
trick or practical joke (on someone); to joke” from
the early 16th century. The relatively new expres-
sion “to prank someone” was only introduced in
America in the late 20th century and is firmly linked
with humor.
Hoax and Prank 337
A 2001 April Fool’s Day prank in Denmark, regarding
Copenhagen’s new subway. It looks as if one of its cars
had an accident and had broken through and surfaced on
the square in front of the town hall. In reality, it was a
retired subway car from Stockholm, Sweden, cut obliquely,
with the front end placed onto the tiling and loose tiles
scattered around it. The sign in the window refers to
Gevalia coffee, which is known for its ads featuring
vehicles popping up, with a tagline such as “Be ready for
unexpected guests.”
Source: Lars Andersen/Wikimedia Commons.
Evidently the meaning of hoax is bound up with
deception, humorous or mischievous, playing on the
credulity of victims, whether successfully or not. The
connotations of “prank” are with caprice and fool-
ishness, as well as with more physicality to the trick-
ery. A prankster is also less serious than a hoaxer
and their foolish acts typically less well considered,
more associated with folly, and usually directed
toward a specific victim.
Another difference between hoax and prank is
that in a hoax audience members are made aware
of their victimization and given an opportunity to
respond, perhaps with humor, with feedback, and/
or with revenge. They are both victim and audi-
ence and the perpetrator remains on the scene to
receive direct messages from them. In a prank, the
victim may actually be let off the hook at the very
end and is not identical with the audience, who
may be quite remote, as in the 1950s American TV
show, Candid Camera, showing a televised prank
played on an unsuspecting member of the public.
In a prank, the revelation or dénouement is made
to an audience that is separated from the prankster,
who is likely to be immune to feedback or retalia-
tion. However, in both hoax and prank, the humor
of the idea or concept may fall short of actual
implementation.
The related term spoof is classed as slang by the
OED, which documents its invention by Arthur
338 Hoax and Prank
Roberts (1852–1933), a British comedian. It origi-
nated in a card game called “spoof,” popular at the
London Adelphi Club and spreading from there
to America. From this, spoof came to mean a skit
or “send-up,” especially as applied to a film, play,
or other work satirizing a particular genre. Thus
it relates more to parody or burlesque although in
today’s usage, spoof can overlap with hoax (particu-
larly when used as a verb), but not with prank.
Forms and Media
Both hoaxes and pranks can be performed, although
many hoaxes are not. In the scholarly world great
mirth (and anger) was created by the 1996 success-
ful written hoax perpetrated on the postmodern aca-
demic journal Social Text by Alan Sokal (then of
the Department of Physics at New York University),
who submitted an article titled “Transgressing the
Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics
of Quantum Gravity.” Despite its woolly expression,
220 references and 109 footnotes, it was accepted
and published, and the author immediately revealed
it as a parody of an article, intended to expose the
extremist style of postmodernist critiques of the
physical sciences. In fact, as Sokal himself acknowl-
edged, the hoax achieved much of its serious aim,
generating a still continuing productive debate about
the need to respect science and scientific terminol-
ogy and the importance of clear critical thinking and
writing.
In one sense theater and mime depend on hoax-
ing their audiences at least temporarily. For example
street mimes playing white or silver “living statues”
challenge passersby to argue about whether the
statue is “real” or human (a pleasing linguistic para-
dox). Theater audiences are all invited to self-delude
and suspend disbelief, projecting themselves tempo-
rarily into an imaginary world.
Music has also known great hoaxes, such as
the BBC Chamber Orchestra’s 1961 broadcast of
a modernist piece by newly emerging Polish com-
poser Pyotr Zak (alias Hans Keller 1919–1985),
subsequently outed as a “zakophony.” The suc-
cessful deflation of musical pretension was praised
by Durham University’s professor of music, Arthur
Hutchings (1906–1989), who himself confessed to
using newly discovered “works” by Paul Hindemith
to test his students (they were merely a pastiche of
the rhythms and dynamics of a Beethoven piano
sonata with nonsensically wrong notes).
Other media lending themselves to hoax include
print and electronic media. A notable example was
the Columbia Broadcasting System Halloween pro-
gram, Sunday, October 30, 1938, adapted by Orson
Welles from H. G. Wells’s short novel, The War
of the Worlds (1898). The program purported to
include real-time reports from the Mount Jennings
Observatory in Chicago, Illinois, of explosions on
Mars (as occurs at the beginning of the novel) and
highly convincing reportage from the supposed land-
ing site of a spaceship with police accounts of deaths.
Despite Welles’s careful introduction and framing
to the hoax, it was unfortunately taken as real by
many listeners, many tuning in partway through and
missing various hints. In any case, close to the out-
break of World War II, times were tense and science
fiction was only just beginning to be understood as
a genre. As noted by Stefan Lovgen, the program
authentically simulates radio operating as a news
medium in an emergency and must be classed as a
successful—but ultimately unhumorous—hoax.
Welles expressed his regret through the columns of
The New York Times.
In the world of visual art, hoax, usually for the
serious and fraudulent purpose of making money, is
rife. By contrast, a positive creative prank was played
by American artist Hugh Troy (1906–1964), famous
as a student at Cornell University for various tricks,
including creating a trail of rhinoceros footprints
in the snow using a wastepaper basket made from
a hollowed-out rhino foot (although some suspect
Troy made up this story later in his life to burnish
his reputation as a prankster). On February 5, 1952,
he ran an anonymous ad in the theatrical page of the
Washington Post advertising a “ghost artist service”:
“Too busy to paint? Call on the Ghost Artists. We
paint it, you sign it.” Heated debate ensued on the
ethics of artistic fraud.
Advertising and public relations have often
been subject to comic hoaxing, such as fake “old
ads” promoting lifestyle items now recognized as
deleterious to health, intended to provoke mod-
ern outrage (such as 1950s ads featuring cola for
babies, seemingly endorsed by the “Soda Pop Board
of America”). A set of videos online called “The
Japanese Tradition” appears to instruct gaijin (for-
eigners) in the arcane culture of handling chopsticks
with precision and measuring precisely how low to
bow when offering abject apologies. These videos
are in fact the creation of the Raamenzu comedy
duo, Kobayashi Kentaro and Katagiri Jin (both

b. 1973), who performed the Japanese version of
Apple’s “I’m a Mac” commercials (2008–2009).
Urban legends communicated orally and via the
Internet and social media are hoaxes that have no
single known creator but succeed in taking in many
people—usually quite harmlessly. A widely believed
“real” story, which first circulated orally but now
via the Internet and which is discussed in Jan Harold
Brunvand’s The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American
Urban Legends and Their Meanings, is the case of
the ghost hitchhiker who when given a lift home by
a kindly stranger vanishes on arrival and is said by
the family to have died some years before. Although
locations change, the story is localized and received
as true in each new time and place.
Hoax, Satire, Parody, and Pastiche
Many successful satires depend on temporarily
hoaxing their readers before revealing their true
purpose. Jonathan Swift’s famous work, A Modest
Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the
Publick (1729), was deliberately shaped as a serious
parliamentary pamphlet, published to contribute to
the then-fashionable public debate on social issues
that subjected them to fiercely rationalist economic
analysis. Robert Phiddian has noted that on first
appearance it seems to have been taken seriously by
some.
Film and video, however, tend to deal more in
parody and pastiche than in comic hoax: The mock-
spy genre exemplified first by James Bond movies,
and then by look-alikes Austin Powers: International
Man of Mystery (1997, dir. Jay Roach) and OSS
117: Le Caire, nid d’espions (OSS 117: Cairo, Nest
of Spies, 2006, dir. Michel Hazanavicius), are all
deliberate spoofs whose humor relies on audiences
recognizing the parallels and borrowings.
Contemporary Business Hoaxes
At its most moral, a hoax teaches its audience
to think for themselves and to take nothing for
granted until proven, as in the Sokal and Troy
cases. Today’s hoaxes often challenge the seemingly
all-powerful role of the media, as when in 2008
U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was
induced to take a 6-minute admiring phone call
from French president Nicholas Sarkozy. This was
in fact Marc-Antoine Audette, part of the French
Hoax and Prank 339
Canadian radio comic team Les Justiciers Masqués
(The Masked Avengers), who chatted about hunt-
ing, relationships, family, and politics before reveal-
ing his prank call, which Palin took in stride.
Because the development by the audience of a
healthy sense of skepticism may follow a success-
ful hoax, a well-designed hoax can be of value to
the commercial world. Professional bureaucracies
have widely replaced the past so-called machine
bureaucracies and expect employees to think and
judge for themselves rather than blindly follow
instructions. Rodney Marks, a full-time business
hoaxer and corporate impostor who has performed
internationally, illustrates by describing one of his
performances.
His brief from a corporation was to challenge
the overconfident assumption among staff that their
competition was handicapped. Taking this liter-
ally, the hoaxer attended a 2-day training event in
a wheelchair as a management expert, Dr. Clarrie
“Buzz” Claxton [sic], executive vice president—pro-
fessional development of a plausible-sounding enter-
prise. After convincing but fraudulent workshops,
the expert socialized with participants, despite the
occasional accident with a urine drainage bag hung
high above his wheelchair on a metal rod, overfilled
with warm apple juice and occasionally spilling onto
participants’ sandal-clad feet. He also gave the final
keynote address. Buzz began with the usual corpo-
rate weasel word salad, with more or less plausible
analysis of the industry, the organization’s services
and products, and a dozen individual “roasts” of
the firm’s leaders. He summed up with “It’s hard to
identify whether or not an organization or a person
is handicapped, and if so in what way and in which
environment.” With that comment, Buzz stood up
and walked offstage, to thunderous silence. The
applause eventually came after several shocked min-
utes. The experience became part of this company’s
corporate mythology, and the message of strategic
humility was incorporated into its organizational
culture.
Humor Theory and Comic Hoaxes and Pranks
A true hoax or prank will begin in all seriousness
and does not draw attention to any play frame or
prior signaling about its ultimate humorous pur-
pose. In fact, the setup is deliberately misleading,
establishing as thoroughly as possible false expec-
tations of a serious event to follow. After such an
340 Hobbesian Theory
introduction, sufficient time, narrative, or action
must be experienced by the audience to convince
them that the hoax or prank is serious before its pre-
tense is suddenly exposed and the hidden play frame
revealed. Unlike satire, with the unmasking of the
hoaxer the hoax is completed. Any subsequent inter-
action between agent and audience is of a different
quality to that which has happened before.
As noted earlier, one implicit rule for the success
of both hoax and prank is that there should be no
real hurt or serious consequences to the victims/
audiences. It was in this regard that the Orson
Welles broadcast described earlier failed, as many
listeners were not only alarmed but panicked, rush-
ing to church to pray or to flee from their homes. In
“Buzz” Claxton’s case, the greatest outrage during
the 2-day hoax was from those whose feet had been
“soiled.” Once exposed, the victims reflected on
their victimization, thus becoming their own audi-
ence, relieved and amused.
In terms of humor theory, both the lighthearted
prank and the more thoughtful comic hoax depend
on incongruity created by the recognition and expe-
rience of a false pattern of reality, which is then
exploded. Like all comedy, the hoax and the prank
indulge the spirit of fun but combine it with a power
game as the hoaxer pushes to see just how far the
audience can be strung along before the hidden
fiction has to either be revealed by the hoaxer—or
reveals itself to the audience by the increased unlike-
liness of the veracity of the narrative. The taut wind-
up suddenly becomes unsprung.
A comic hoax will often have a slow-burning
reaction, with some audience members understand-
ing it and others remain naive and unaware. Then a
domino effect has its own humor, as the newly in-
the-know group feel superior to those who have not
yet caught on. There may be some interplay unsolic-
ited by the hoaxer, as aware audience members tease
the still-fooled by collaborating with the perpetrator
of the hoax and supporting the hoaxer’s story.
With a good hoax especially, after an initial
explosion of mixed amusement and outrage, there
is a period of critical reflection. Ideally this leads to
acknowledgment—hopefully correction—of errors
such as gullibility and excessive obedience to sur-
face appearances. Certainly this is what is intended
by the professional hoaxer. A prank, however, may
have little critical or satirical intent, other than oblig-
ing the victim to put up with being laughed at.
Rodney Marks and Jessica Milner Davis
See also Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in; College
Humor; Creativity; Gag; Improv Comedy;
Management; Parody; Play and Humor; Practical
Jokes; Satire; Schwank; Spoofing; Subversive Humor;
Tall Tale; Workplace Humor
Further Readings
Brunvand, J. H. (1981). The vanishing hitchhiker:
American urban legends and their meanings. New York,
NY: Norton.
Hutchings, A. (1961, October). Personal view: 2. Du côté
de chez Zak. Musical Times, 102(1424), 623–624.
Jones, M., Craddock, P., & Barker, N. (Eds.). (1990). Fake?
The art of deception. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Kurose, Y. (2011, September 13). Meet the comedy duo
Rahmens. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://
injapan.gaijinpot.com/play/arts-entertainment/2011/09/
13/meet-the-comedy-duo-rahmens
Lovgen, S. (2005). “War of the Worlds”: Behind the 1938
radio show panic. National Geographic News.
Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://news.national
geographic.com/news/2005/06/0617_050617_war
worlds.html
Phiddian, R. (1996). Have you eaten yet? The reader in
“A Modest Proposal.” Studies in English Literature,
1500–1900, 36, 623–631.
Powell, B. A. (2010, July 16). Vintage soda ads: Can you
spot the fake? Grist. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from
http://grist.org/article/food-vintage-soda-ads-can-you-
spot-the-fake/full
Sokal, A. D. (2008). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy
and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Trojan enterprise. (1952, February 18). Time. Retrieved
from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/
0,9171,822152,00.html
Websites
History of the Creative Hoax: http://www.
prankstersassociation.com/wst_page2.html
Rodney Marks Corporate Comedian: http://www.
comedian.com.au/comic_hoaxes.htm
HOBBESIAN THEORY
Arguably, the most famous English theory of
laughter and humor was enunciated by the post-
16th-century modern English philosopher Thomas
Hobbes (1588–1679). Hobbes’s so-called sudden
glory or superiority theory of humor represents the

first systematic psychological theory of laughter ever
advanced—even though Hobbes was a philosopher,
not a psychologist. Many writers in the area of
laughter and humor endorse the notion that there is
no doubt about the claim regarding Hobbes as being
the chief and most vigorous exponent of the “sud-
den glory” or “superiority” theory, as well as little
doubt about the extent of Hobbes’s influence. This
entry discusses Hobbes’s theory of humor, how phi-
losophers and psychologists built on Hobbes’s ideas,
and the limits of Hobbes’s theory.
Generally, Hobbes’s philosophy proceeds from
a mechanistic view that life is simply the motions
of the organism and that humans are—by nature—
selfishly individualistic animals who are constantly
at war with each other. In this approach, fear of
violent death is the main motive that causes people
to create a state by contracting to surrender their
natural rights and to submit to the absolute author-
ity of a sovereign power. In his theory of laughter
and humor, Hobbes declares that there is a passion
that has no name, the outward sign of which is
the distortion of one’s face known as laughter and
which is always joy. Such a passion is nothing else
but “sudden glory” arising from a sudden concep-
tion of some eminency in oneself—in comparison
with the infirmity of others.
It may be noted that the superiority theory of
laughter—which got its start much earlier in the
works of Plato and Aristotle—was cast into a stron-
ger form by Hobbes. Plato asserted that laughter
originates in malice and we laugh at what is ridicu-
lous in others and we feel delight rather than pain
when we see others in misfortune, whereas Aristotle
maintained that comedy is an imitation of those
who are worse off than the average person. Thus,
according to superiority theory, we are all constantly
watching for signs that we are better off than others
or that others are worse off than we are, and laugh-
ter is nothing but an expression of one’s “sudden
glory” when one realizes that in some way one is
“superior” to someone else. Hobbes declared in his
theory—in addition to the “sudden glory” aspect—
that those things that cause laughter must be new
and unexpected. Also, a person who is laughed at is
“triumphed over,” but we do not laugh necessarily
when either we, or our friends, are made the sub-
ject of jokes and jests. In other terms, laughter—to
be without offense—must be at the absurdities and
infirmities abstracted from individuals. However,
according to Hobbes, to laugh too much at the
defects of others is pusillanimous and, in so doing,
Hobbesian Theory 341
one attains superiority only by virtue of the inferior-
ity of others.
Hobbes disputed the theory that laughter is mere
appreciation of wit. Rather, people laugh at inde-
cencies, mistakes, and misfortunes where there is no
apparent jest or wit at all. One may identify a some-
what negative banality—perhaps even a logically
circular argument—concerning Hobbes’s notion
of laughter when he suggested that there must be
some inner reason in the laugher to account for it.
However, in a more positive vein, it took over 2,000
years of recorded theories of laughter for Hobbes’s
point of view to emerge. In this sense, Hobbes’s ideas
of “sudden glory” and “superiority” were extremely
innovative and substantive for modern theories of
laughter and humor.
Some writers in the topic area of laughter and
humor may object to the rather aggressive ele-
ment in Hobbes’s theory of humor as being novel
because that aspect of humor actually was enunci-
ated by Plato and Aristotle centuries before. Also,
critics of Hobbes’s “sudden glory” theory may see
his approach as nothing but a rehash of past theo-
ries. However, once again in a positive vein, in more
modern theories of laughter, there is validation of
the importance of Hobbes’s description of the exis-
tence of an inner—and sometimes aggressive—sat-
isfaction; that is, the conception of some sort of
psychological eminence in oneself seems to be an
inner feature or characteristic of the laugher. One
may conclude that Hobbes’s theory of laughter and
humor was new and thought provoking in that he
located the “gravitational center” of laughter within
the laugher herself or himself—even though this, in
itself, does not solve the multifarious problems and
issues in laughter and humor.
Various elaborations of Hobbes’s “sudden glory”
laughter theory were developed later by philoso-
phers and psychologists, among whom include the
Scottish philosopher and psychologist Alexander
Bain (1818–1903), the Danish philosopher and
psychologist Harald Høffding (1843–1931), and
the German-born American philosopher Paul
Carus (1852–1919). According to Bain, one of the
causes of laughter is triumph over an enemy or a
challenging or fatiguing task. For example, after a
period of intense activity, when one’s work is com-
pleted, the person needs to “let off steam” via the
spasmodic outburst of laughter. Thus, in Bain’s
view—via Hobbes—laughter becomes so intimately
related to the pleasure aroused by victory that it has
become a sign of pleasure in general. For the same
342 Homosexuality, Representation of
reason, a person may feel intense pain whenever she
or he is made the target of ridicule. In Høffding’s
approach, it is asserted that laughter as an expres-
sion of pleasant feeling is possible at a lower stage
of consciousness than is involved in the appreciation
of the ridiculous. Høffding’s humor theory some-
times is referred to as the “Hobbes plus” theory
of laughter in which the pure superiority emphasis
of Hobbes may be colored or augmented by the
“plus” aspect of sympathy. According to Carus, the
secret of the problem of laughter lies in the concept
of “triumph”—where one laughs only at “petty
triumph”—and nothing is, in itself, ridiculous but
anything may become so as soon as it produces a
“harmless triumph.” Moreover, according to Carus,
every joke must have a point—it must be directed
against something or someone, or there is nothing
at which one may laugh. In his theoretical approach
toward humor, Carus emphasizes that the triumph
involved must be of a “sudden nature.”
In summary, Hobbes’s theory of humor in gen-
eral, and laughter in particular, may be considered
to be an instance of superiority theory in the sense
that one often laughs at certain people because they
have some defect or failure of character, or because
the other person finds himself or herself at a dis-
advantage in some situations or experiences some
sort of misfortune. Thus, the pleasure one takes
in laughter and humor arises from one’s feeling of
superiority over individuals that are the target of
the laughter. In this sense, Hobbes’s “sudden glory”
theory states that all laughter and humor are deri-
sive and one laughs at the infirmities of others or at
one’s own previous follies with the assumption that
one is conscious of having conquered one’s own past
inadequacies or failures. Finally, Hobbes’s theory
has been criticized as being too narrow in scope to
account for every type of laughter and/or humor sit-
uation. For instance, Hobbes’s theory does not easily
account for humor based on defeated expectancies,
on relief of feelings derived from removal of social
or conventional restraints, or on cognitive aspects
such as wordplay, nonsense, puns, or other kinds of
cognitive mechanisms involving incongruity among
elements in behavioral and/or verbal productions.
Jon Edward Roeckelein
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Aristotelian
Theory of Humor; Cognitive Aspects; Humor
Theories; Incongruity and Resolution; Laughter,
Psychology of; Platonic Theory of Humor; Release
Theories of Humor
Further Readings
Greig, J. Y. T. (1923). The psychology of laughter and
comedy. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.
Hobbes, T. (1839). Human nature. In W. Molesworth
(Ed.), Hobbes’ English works. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. (Original work published
1650)
Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. (Original work published 1651)
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and
humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Roeckelein, J. E. (2002). The psychology of humor.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
HOMOSEXUALITY,
REPRESENTATION OF
The representation of homosexuality in humor
reflects cultural understandings of identities, social
categories, and ideologies. As a topic, homosexual-
ity is contrasted against heteronormative ideology,
which produces the element of incongruity required
in humor. The role of homosexuals (e.g., performers,
targets, or audience members) influences the social
function performed by humor. By examining theo-
ries and social functions, a better understanding of
the representation of homosexuality in humor can
be reached. This entry offers definitions of homo-
sexuality, discusses why homosexuality is a common
theme in humor by reviewing the major theories,
and examines representations of homosexuality
alongside their possible social functions.
Definitions of Homosexuality
Guidelines adopted in 2011 by the American
Psychological Association define sexual orientation
as the alignment of an individual’s biological sex
and the sex of those for whom the individual has
sexual attraction. As an orientation, homosexuality
is defined as having sexual desire for members of the
same sex. Outside of medical, academic, and activ-
ist communities, the understanding of sexual orien-
tation is often conflated with related ideas: gender,
sexual behavior, and sexual identity. This conflation
is used to maintain a division of power in societ-
ies, often a binary opposition between the male and
female genders, as seen in the construction of hetero-
normativity, or a set of norms that presumes hetero-
sexual orientation as a given.

Queer theory, which aims to challenge the
“binary opposition,” essentialist ideas, and stabil-
ity of sexual categories, offers an understanding of
the intersection of homosexuality and humor. Judith
Butler’s conceptualization of performativity has
been broadly applied to analyzing identities such as
gender and sexuality—identities are things we do,
not who we are. Identity is often at play in humor.
By approaching identity as something we construct
through performance, it exposes sociocultural, polit-
ical, and historical information.
Homosexuality and Humor Theories
Homosexuality has a long history of being the subject
of humor; early examples can be found in comedies
by Aristophanes. Examining the major theories of
humor sheds light on why homosexuality is an endur-
ing topic. Incongruity theory states that humor is
derived when incongruity exists between a concept (or
expectation) and real objects related to the concept.
Humor highlights the violation homosexuality com-
mits against heteronormativity. Individuals having
desires for, engaging in sexual activity with, or iden-
tifying as being attracted to individuals of the same
sex are in direct disagreement with heteronormativity.
Sometimes the humor characterizes homosexuals and
homosexual behavior as irrational and casts them in a
ridiculous light, thus subjecting them to ridicule.
Superiority theory focuses on the assertion of
individuals’ superiority due to the shortcomings or
misfortunes of others. This theory is compatible with
the understanding of face, as explored by Erving
Goffman, Penelope Brown, and Stephen Levinson.
People are concerned with how others perceive them
and strive to maintain face, the social value a person
claims for oneself. Losing face is to publicly suffer a
diminished self-image. When someone’s heterosexu-
ality is questioned (a potentially face-threatening
act), cutting humor can be used to confront the
assertion of homosexuality, while simultaneously
reconfirming one’s heterosexuality and maintaining
his or her social value.
Humor releases us from constraints and stress.
Relief theory links physiological expressions with
the release or reduction of psychological stress. An
example of a constraint is the set of rules governing
politically correct or socially appropriate language.
In an instance of humor a person may commit some
form of aggression (e.g., slander and disparagement)
against the target, thus a violation of linguistic con-
straints, while denying any intention to cause harm.
Homosexuality, Representation of 343
Many societies also demonstrate tension, anxiety,
and hostility toward homosexuality, as demon-
strated in recent debates on marriage equality in the
United States. Therefore, humor is often employed
to diffuse the tension in social interaction.
Representations of Homosexuality
Homosexuals as Gender-Bending Characters
Camp—a style grounded in incongruity, exagger-
ation, and ostentation—is common, although by no
means exclusive, to gay men. Camp often articulates
stereotypes of gay men, such as being effeminate with
highly affective movement, preoccupied with appear-
ance, or engaging in excessive partying. Although
the camp characters Uncle Arthur from the 1960s
U.S. sitcom Bewitched and Mr. Humphries from
the 1970s UK comedy Are You Being Served? were
never revealed to be gay, many activists condemn the
characters as perpetuating negative stereotypes of gay
men. In the late 1990s, NBC’s sitcom Will & Grace
attempted to move beyond this one-dimensional rep-
resentation by juxtaposing a camp character (Jack)
with a more heteronormative masculine gay char-
acter (Will). Recent television and motion picture
comedies still present stereotypes of gays through
a camp lens; however, they also present a message
that homosexuality is acceptable or more common
than one realizes (e.g., the sketches in BBC’s Little
Britain revolving around Daffyd Thomas who pro-
fesses to be the “only gay in the village” and refuses
to acknowledge the presence of the numerous gays
around him) and expose the hypocrisy and irrational
fears shared by some homophobic individuals (e.g.,
Sacha Baron Cohen’s mockumentary Brüno).
A common stereotype of lesbians is that they are
“butch”—they perform a masculine identity. The
stereotype is exemplified in this joke:
Why do gay men have lesbian friends? Someone
has to mow the lawn.
Humor stereotyping gay men as effeminate and
lesbians as butch demonstrates how sexual orienta-
tion, gender identity, and gender expression are
often entangled in everyday discourse.
Homosexuals as Stigmatized
and Deviant Individuals
Humor is a performance that has social functions;
it establishes and reinforces group boundaries. It can
frame homosexuals as stigmatized and undesirable
344 Homosexuality, Representation of
individuals, thus allowing for heterosexuals to dis-
play a sense of superiority while diminishing the
social face of homosexuals.
The following joke is often told by adolescents in
an attempt to trick the audience into assuming the
target is a homosexual.
Performer: Are you a fag in a cage?
Target: No.
Performer (pointing Fag on the loose! Fag
at target): on the loose!
The preceding joke casts homosexuals as individuals
who should be confined or incarcerated. This type
of humor socializes individuals to single out homo-
sexuals and serves as a message to others that homo-
sexuality is punishable or unacceptable.
Laughing at non-normative behavior also main-
tains group boundaries. A number of jokes ridicule
individuals who bend gender norms and can imply
that the target is homosexual. Humor of this type
emphasizes the mandatory alignment of gender and
sexuality in heteronormativity.
What is the most difficult part about
being a male ice skater?
Telling your parents that you’re gay.
Incongruity between sexual practices and sexual
ideology can also be a source of humor. Humor on
homosexual practices ignores the role sex plays in
bonding and accentuates the fact that homosexual
sex is non-procreative, thus delegitimizing homo-
sexual practice by implying it serves no practical
purpose, specifically that it does not propagate the
species. An example of this is the joke:
Why were lesbians invented? So that
feminists wouldn’t breed.
It is also a common belief that homosexual men
frequently practice anal sex, as demonstrated in
some instances of scatological humor. This rein-
forces the stigmatization of gay men by associating
them with potentially unappealing and unhygienic
acts. An example is this joke:
What does one homo say to another
homo sitting at the bar?
Can I push your stool in?
Besides devaluing sexual activity among homo-
sexuals, strongly homophobic humor can cast
homosexuals as other types of sexual deviants, such
as those who indulge in acts of bestiality. Therefore,
homosexuals are also associated with another stig-
matized community—zoophiles—as in this joke:
How do you know you’re in a gay
amusement park?
They pass out gerbils in the tunnel of love.
Homosexuals as Sex-Obsessed
and Predatory Individuals
A stereotype often held is that homosexuals are
promiscuous and habitually view the world through
a lens of sexuality. Although one can find jokes
about promiscuous lesbians (e.g., Did you hear
about the lesbian dinosaur? They named it Lick-a-
lot-a-pus), more of these jokes seem to be about gay
men. Some examples:
What happened when the gay placed a nicotine
patch on his penis? He went down to two butts
a day.
How do you know if you’re at a gay picnic?
The hot dogs taste like shit.
Besides perpetuating the idea that homosexuals
are obsessed with sex and view objects around them
as instruments for sexual pleasure, these jokes also
characterize homosexuals as animalistic individuals
who cannot control their sexual urges.
Some homophobic humor plays on the fear of a
hidden “homosexual agenda” that aims to recruit
heterosexuals into a homosexual lifestyle. Humor of
this type often casts homosexuals as sexual preda-
tors and pedophiles. These ideas often lead to insti-
tutional forms of discrimination (e.g., restrictions or
dismissal from teaching or youth leadership posi-
tions). Examples of these jokes are as follows:
A recent survey indicates that 70% of homos are
born gay. The other 30% were sucked into it.
In Greece, how do you separate the men from the
boys? With a crowbar.
Two lesbians visited a popular whorehouse. One
of the lesbians requested a 15-year-old. The
madam replied, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve minors
to lickers.”
Homosexuals as Victims
According to Johan Galtung’s typology of vio-
lence, direct violence is when a person acts as an
agent of violence. In many instances of humor,
homosexuals are framed as victims of direct vio-
lence (e.g., mutilation, physical violence, and death),

which can be viewed as carrying out some fictitious
revenge for an imagined transgression.
What do cops love about gays? Beating them.
Humor with homosexuals as the victims of direct
violence only serves to heighten homophobia; these
types of jokes are found to be humorous by indi-
viduals who feel threatened by homosexuality and
experience a sense of relief at the thought of its
demise. Homosexuals may also be framed as victims
of indirect violence, where no specific individual acts
as an agent. Social structures and diseases are often
cited as causes of indirect violence, as in this joke:
What do you call a gay man in a wheelchair?
Roll-AIDS.
In both direct and indirect forms of violence, the
target is physically or psychologically affected. A
third form of violence, cultural violence, refers to
some aspect of culture (e.g., ideology or language)
that is used to legitimize—at the very least, to make
not feel wrong—the use of direct or indirect vio-
lence. Just as some humor can serve as a means of
expressing anger and acting out aggression, humor
can also be used to enact cultural violence; therefore,
many scholars have concluded that hateful humor
reinforces the understanding that violence against
homosexuals is acceptable.
Homosexuals as Accepted Individuals
Humor is ambiguous if not duplicitous. Although
the jokes presented in this entry—especially when
told by homophobic individuals—serve to margin-
alize homosexuals, similar jokes can also be used
to creative positive in-group membership among
homosexuals and allies. Humor can affirm in-group
values, by forcing the audience to accept or reject
stereotypes, and celebrate the success of challenging
the social norm.
How many lesbians does it take to screw in a light
bulb? Four. One to change it, two to organize the
potluck, and one to write a folk song about the
empowering experience.
Humorous commentary highlighting social
inequalities is used to foster the acceptance of homo-
sexuals by framing them as normal individuals or, at
least, to create sympathy by portraying them as vic-
tims of structural violence.
(Excerpt from comedian Russell Howard) The Bible
says that gays aren’t natural. What? And a talking
snake is?
Huaji-ists, The 345
(Excerpt from Stephen Colbert) The entire future
of marriage rests with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the
man who declared in Citizens United that
corporations are people with constitutional rights. I
just hope he doesn’t do anything rash, like declare
that homosexuals are people with constitutional
rights.
Carlos M Nash
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Ethnic Jokes;
Gender Roles in Humor; Prejudice, Humor and;
Sexuality
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor.
New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Bing, J., & Heller, D. (2003). How many lesbians does it
take to screw in a light bulb? HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 16(2), 157.
Davies, C. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Healy, M. (1995). Were we being served? Homosexual
representation in popular British comedy. Screen, 36(3),
243–256.
Mauldin, R. K. (2002). The role of humor in the social
construction of gendered and ethnic stereotypes. Race,
Gender, & Class, 9(3), 76–95.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four
functions of humor in communication. Communication
Theory, 10(3), 310–331.
Padva, G. (2000). Priscilla fights back: The politicization of
camp subculture. Journal of Communication Inquiry,
24(2), 216–243.
Queen, R. (2005). “How many lesbians does it take . . .”:
Jokes, teasing, and the negotiation of stereotypes about
lesbians. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(2),
239–257.
HSQ
See Humor Styles Measurement
HUAJI-ISTS, THE
The earliest recorded humorists in the Chinese lit-
erary corpus were the huaji (guji). Their role was
somewhat like European court jesters but since there
were also significant differences, the term huaji-ists
346 Huaji-ists, The
is preferred. Compared with their European coun-
terparts, the Chinese jesters were well educated and
often employed on equal terms with other officials.
They were not acrobats or musicians, who were of
inferior social status.
Biographies can be found in the Shiji (Records of
the Grand Historian), by Sima Qian (145–81 BCE)
and Ban Gu (32–92 CE), an early Chinese historical
work. These were intended to demonstrate how wit
and humor can achieve political and social change
and how brave and quick-thinking scholars can
deflect wrath and even criticize kings and emperors.
These uses of humor are as much in the Taoist as in
the Confucian traditions of humor usage.
The Shiji chapter Huaji liezhuan (Biographies of
the Huaji-ists) contains incomplete biographies of
Chunyu Kun, who lived in the state of Qi during the
Warring States period (471–221 BCE); You Meng,
jester to the court of King Zhuang of the state of
Chu (reign period 613–591 BCE); You Zhan, jester
to the court of Qin Shi Huang (the First Emperor
of the Qin dynasty, 676–652 BCE); and Dongfang
Shuo, who served in the court of the Han Emperor
Wudi (156–87 BCE). (The family name You prob-
ably means “jester.”) Qin Shi Huang and Han
Emperor Wudi were notorious for their tyranny,
highlighting the bravery of the jesters You Zhan and
Dongfang Shuo. Surviving anecdotes about the four
jesters provide some illustrations of their witty per-
formances and achievements.
You Zhan was a dwarf. He attended a banquet
in the court of Qin Shi Huang when it started to
rain. The guards on the palace steps were drenched
and frozen. You Zhan felt sorry for them and
asked if they would like a rest. They said they
would. He said, “When you hear me call, answer
‘Yes, sir!’” Then, from inside the hall, Zhan called
loudly, “Guardsmen!” They answered, “Yes, sir!”
“You may be tall but you have to stand in the rain.
I am only short but I can relax indoors.” When the
Emperor heard this, he gave orders for half of the
guards to take a rest and then relieve the other half.
Chunyu Kun is described as a man of the state
of Qi who lived with his wife’s family—an indica-
tion that his family was very poor or of low status.
He was less than 5 feet tall. Being renowned for his
quick wit, he was sent several times as envoy to other
states and is said never to have lost an argument.
You Meng is said to have been a musician, that
is, a person of low social status. When King Zhuang
planned an elaborate funeral for his favorite horse,
You Meng pleaded with him to add even greater
honors, using his exaggerated suggestions to bring
before the King the disparity between his treatment
of the people and his horse.
A story about Dongfang Shuo shows how even
the all-powerful Emperor Wudi could be tricked,
and it contains a moral—that filial piety ranks higher
as a moral responsibility than do court rules. When
one of Wudi’s palace women was unable to carry
out her filial duty of visiting her parents after the
New Year, she threatened to drown herself. Planning
to help her, Dongfang told the Emperor that the
Jade Emperor (king of the Taoist gods) had ordered
the Fire God to burn down the capital on the 16th
day. The Emperor asked how he could prevent this
disaster. Dongfang suggested that since the Fire God
loved red lanterns, the streets should be hung with
them. This might distract him from carrying out
his plan. The Emperor followed his advice. When
everyone was out viewing the lanterns, the young
lady was able to escape from the palace and pay her
respects to her parents.
Of the four huaji-ists, Dongfang Shuo is the best
known and sometimes ranked in the Taoist pan-
theon. Many legends arose around his name, and he
was immortalized in operas and art works. In one
story, Xi Wangmu, the “Queen Mother of the West”
deity, presented peaches of immortality to the Han
Emperor Wudi. She presented five to the Emperor
and ate the other two. She recognized Dongfang
in the Han palace as one of her own courtiers and
warned the Emperor that he was a heavenly spirit
who had been banished to earth for stealing her
peaches once before.
In another story, Wudi was presented with wine
that conferred immortality. Dongfang, standing
near the Emperor, claimed that he could tell by tast-
ing it whether it was a fake or not. The Emperor
passed the wine to him, and he drank it all. The
Emperor was outraged and threatened to kill him,
but Dongfang said, “If it was a fake, then it was no
loss, and if it was the real thing then you will not be
able to kill me.” The Emperor laughed and forgave
him.
It is impressive that huaji-ists existed and made
names for themselves under the autocracy of the Qin
and Han rulers. This tradition of subversive humor
continued for centuries and still exists in China
today, where, in spite of an autocratic one-party
government, it has found a haven in personal blogs
and jokes circulated on the Internet.
Jocelyn Chey

See also Byzantine Humor; Clowns; Confucianism;
Fools; Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese
Jestbooks; History of Humor: Classical and
Traditional China; Irony; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters;
Joking Relationship; Ritual Clowns; Taoism; Verbal
Humor; Witz
Further Readings
Ban Gu. (2000). Biography of Dongfang Shuo (B. Watson,
Trans.). In J. Minford & J. Lau (Eds.), Classical
Chinese literature: An anthology of translations (Vol. 1,
pp. 351–358). New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Chey, J., & Milner Davis, J. (Eds.). (2011). Humour in
Chinese life and letters: Classical and traditional
approaches. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Janik, V. K. (Ed.). (1998). Fools and jesters in literature, art,
and history: A bio-bibliographical sourcebook. New
York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Otto, B. (2001). Fools are everywhere: The court jester
around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sima Qian. (1993). Records of the grand historian of
China: Qin dynasty (B. Watson, Trans.). New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Sima Qian. (1999). Huaji liezhuan [Biographies of the
huaji-ists]. In Shiji [Records of the grand historian],
Vol. 10. Beijing, China: Zhonghua shuju.
Watson, B. (1974). Courtier and commoner in ancient
China: Selections from the history of the former Han.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
HUMOR, COMPUTER-GENERATED
There are two main motivations for computational
humor. On the one hand, for the sake of humans
who interact with them, computers should have
active (generating) and passive (detecting and
understanding) humor abilities. The underlying
assumption is that this will make human-computer
interaction more like human-human interaction,
which is presumably more enjoyable and thus pro-
ductive. Here, the main purposes of humor range
from improved motivation, increased focus on tasks,
and higher user acceptance to improved sales.
For the sake of humor research, on the other
hand, putting theories about humor into action by
giving their rules and resources to a computer is a
very good test of those theories. If the program iden-
tifies the same texts as humorous as humans do, or if
it generates text that humans identify as humorous,
Humor, Computer-Generated 347
the rules and theories the program is based on are
appropriate for humor. This entry discusses those
computer programs that have been written for
humor generation and how they have evolved from
templates with a limited ability to make choices to
natural-language processing systems.
It is easier to use computer programs for humor
generation than for humor detection, because gen-
eration can be controlled more tightly. The rules
and resources given to the computer determine the
output, possibly in reaction to some additional user
input: simple ones like word lists and templates or,
more recently, complex ones like dictionaries and
knowledge bases. With the help of these resources
and sets of rules (algorithms), a program then pro-
duces texts intended to be humorous. In contrast to
this, the analysis of humor in free-range text nec-
essarily has to involve much larger and complex
resources, because it must be able to handle many
kinds, or even any kind of humorous text. Because
of this, analysis is restricted to simple research ques-
tions on preidentified humorous texts or to mere
classification of texts as potentially humorous or
not, usually using statistical and machine-learning
approaches.
The task of humor generation has not used statis-
tical methods in any central function but has worked
with knowledge bases, so far mostly simple ones that
produced rather clumsy humorous texts that usually
have low levels of funniness in any context but are
nevertheless applications of artificial intelligence.
The evolution of automatic humor generation
over the past 20 years has been determined by the
improvement in the quality and quantity of the
underlying resources and the artificial intelligence
powering the generation. Currently, the third gen-
eration of systems, based on text-meaning and
aiming for text-humor understanding, is under
development.
Templates for Humor Generation
The first generation of humor-generation programs
was characterized by fixed templates with slots that
could be filled from lists of words, so that a small
number of simple rules would be met. For example,
the system JAPE uses the template “What do you
get when you cross an A with a B? An A’ B’” to fill
positions A, A’, B, and B’ with words from several
related lists. These lists are compiled according to
rules, for example, that all words in the list form
pairs that sound alike.
348 Humor, Computer-Generated
The latter rule is very typical in computational
humor, because the “punning” sound similarity is
an obvious mechanism on the surface of text that
comparatively easily converts into a computational
algorithm, while it fulfills a number of important
functions in humorous texts, which neither the
program nor its designer need to worry about any
further.
Ultimately, these rules should somehow reflect
the assumed requirements for a text to be funny,
for example, that there are two incongruous sets of
meaning with which the text is compatible. If the
rules reflect these requirements in only very few,
very concrete forms, then the humor “generation”
is really not much more than template filling, even
if the word lists that are used are very long. The
usefulness of the first-generation humor generation
programs that are characterized by such templates
is very low and no real applications were ever based
on them. The main problem is that they can only
generate humor with the exact structures and con-
tent that they are given, which is rarely appropriate
beyond a very circumscribed type of audience and
situation.
If the rules allow for more than one or a few
types of relation, more artificial intelligence needs
to be involved, which is the step the second gen-
eration of humor-generation systems attempted to
make. A typical example is an acronym generator
that takes existing acronyms, such as MIT, and the
words they represent, here “Massachusetts Institute
of Technology,” to generate potentially humorous
interpretations, such as “Masochistic Institute of
Tautology.” The wider knowledge base of these
second-generation systems allowed them to handle
a wider range of humor content, thus making the
humor potentially more appropriate, but the acro-
nym generator was structurally still confined to
templates.
Using more complex rules allows the humor-
generating program to consider contextual factors,
most importantly input by a user, and make the
humor more appropriate and useful in actual appli-
cations. An example of this is a password generator
that takes a random, hard-to-guess password and
generates a humorous phrase from the letters and
numbers of the password. Random passwords are
secure, because they are hard to guess, but they
have low user acceptance because they are also hard
to remember, so users tend to go for dangerously
weak but convenient passwords. A strong password,
for example, “WDhpuD53” as input can result in
“Walesa Desired heston’s pole, while ulster Doubted
FISCHER’S TEST.” The numbers five and three are
represented by words marked in caps that share
their first letters. This sentence is easier to remember
than the random input sequence. Another program
of this second generation interacts with children
who have complex communication needs by making
them create jokes and thus improve their language
abilities.
Natural Language Processing Systems
The third generation of computational humor gen-
erators is based on full-fledged natural language
processing systems and can do humor generation,
as well as humor detection, on top of—and because
of—processing natural language at the level of
meaning. Marking the transition to this generation
of computational humor generation systems, at
least in design, was a selection program for imper-
fect puns, which uses a number of sound and mean-
ing relations among the central words to be used in
the pun. This program is based on a full lexicon of
English and an ontology capturing world knowledge
in concepts and their relations and attributes. The
computer needs the lexicon based on the ontology
to understand the meaning of words and how they
relate to each other to form the meaning of phrases
and texts.
The ontological-semantic theory of humor
(OSTH) represents a current main platform for
humor generation, but its applications are also still
in their infancy. Based on ontological semantics,
the OSTH aims to computationally operationalize
the formalisms of two previous linguistic theories
of humor, the semantic script theory of humor
and the general theory of verbal humor. The latest
group of applications works with a central proces-
sor that turns natural language text into artificial
text-meaning representations (TMRs) that can be
used for further processing. These TMRs are based
on the concepts of the ontology and are generated
with semantic information from the lexicon, but
also including morphological and syntactic knowl-
edge, and other resources, such as a commonsense
rule base. Once generated and stored, TMRs can be
used in the processing of further text, as well as for
the generation of natural language text. Principally
by adding the knowledge captured in the general
theory of verbal humor, script oppositeness, script
overlap, logical mechanisms, and the other knowl-
edge resources, ontological semantic technology

as applied in the OSTH becomes a general humor-
processing technology, both for generation and
detection.
All applications that aim to generate natural lan-
guage by manipulating underlying meaning repre-
sentations, which in other applications are referred
to as propositions, face one general problem. These
propositions are an abstraction of surface-level lan-
guage at a given level determined by an application.
As abstractions, they don’t specify meaning to the
same degree that a string of well-formed surface text
does. Thus, in all but a complete semantic natural
language processing system, which OST nevertheless
strives to be, analyzing natural language text into a
representation of its meaning will be “lossy,” that
is, lead to loss of some information. In turn, gen-
erating natural language from a representation of
meaning will require additional decisions, covering
what was lost in the reverse action of analysis. For
example, there is a notorious joke about a patient
who attempts to visit his doctor at home, only to be
told by the doctor’s wife to “come right in” despite
the fact that the doctor is not at home, because she
seems to think the patient is proposing an affair. A
reasonable representation of a key proposition that
is compatible with the two opposed scripts of the
joke would be:
(ask1
(agent(patient1
(beneficiary-of(treat-condition1(theme(cough1))))))
(theme(exist1(agent(doctor1))
(location(residence1))))
(volume(low
(caused-by(cough1)) //
(purpose(discretion))))
)
The generation of natural language text from this
proposition would have to ensure the—at least
partial—compatibility of this text with the italicized
ambiguous property of the proposition. But it would
also have to make countless other lexical, syntactic,
and narratological choices. For example, how many
sentences or clauses should this proposition be rep-
resented by? Should there be a dialogue or reported
speech? Is active or passive voice to be used? What
register would lead to the use of which one of the fol-
lowing near synonyms: ask/inquire, patient/sufferer,
at home/in, in his bronchial whisper/unable to raise
his voice above a whisper? All of these choices and
many more were made when the joke was invented
Humor, Computer-Generated 349
and were adjusted in its retelling to render the
proposition in the following surface form: “‘Is the
doctor at home?’ the patient asked in his bronchial
whisper.”
This type of complete generation is a very involved
operation that is not envisaged to be engineered
anytime soon, but the template-based manipulation
approaches to computational humor generation can
nevertheless become sufficiently more sophisticated
to produce appropriate output, not just force mere
wordplay onto computer users.
Apart from meaning-based generation of stimuli
in the manner described, making the computer’s gen-
eration (and detection) of physiological responses
to humor in the laughter and smiling of embodied
agents (avatars) and the embedding of humor into
the conversational context more natural are the key
areas for progress in computational humor genera-
tion. Current research confirms that the smiling and
laughing reactions to humor are carefully negotiated.
Christian F. Hempelmann
See also Computational Humor; Humor Detection;
Linguistic Theories of Humor
Further Readings
Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Computational rules for
generating punning riddles. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 10(1), 25–76.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2008). Computational humor: Beyond
the pun? In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor
research (pp. 335–363). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Nijholt, A. (2002). Conversational agents, humorous act
construction, and social intelligence. In K. Dautenhahn
(Ed.), Proceedings AISB 2005: Social intelligence and
interaction in animals, robots and agents (pp. 1–8).
Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire.
Nijholt, A. (2012). Computational humor 2012. Extended
abstracts of the (3rd International) Workshop on
Computational Humor. Enschede, Netherlands:
Universiteit Twente.
Raskin, V., Hempelmann, C. F., & Taylor, J. M. (2010).
How to understand and assess a theory: The evolution
of the SSTH into the GTVH and now into the OSTH.
Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 285–312.
Ritchie, G. (2010). Can computers create humor? AI
Magazine, 30(3), 71–81.
Ritchie, G., Manurung, R., Pain, H., Waller, A., & O’Mara,
D. (2006), The STANDUP interactive riddle builder.
IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(2), 67–69.
350 Humor, Etymology of
Stock, O., & Strapparava, C. (2003). HAHAcronym:
Humorous agents for humorous acronyms. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 16(3),
297–314.
HUMOR, ETYMOLOGY OF
The concept of humor has its original derivation
from the Latin concept for moisture or liquid, and
the word humor is etymologically related to words
such as humidity and to contemporary medical uses
in which humors still designate fluids. The means
by which it came to signify a form of the laughable
or comic, and ultimately to be the general term for
all forms of comic representation, are complex but
revealing of larger shifts in the understanding of
human psychology, self-awareness, and the relation-
ship between mind, body, and cosmos.
In ancient and medieval medicine, the idea of
humor was tied to definitions of the constitution
of personhood. Character and temperament were
understood to be governed by a mixture of the four
humors, or fluids, that defined the physical makeup
of the person: blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile
or melancholy. Each of these fluids was believed to
possess particular characteristics that were manifest
in human thought and behavior. The combination
and balance of the four humors constituted the par-
ticular character, and medical treatment was con-
cerned with regulating this constitution in order to
prevent the excessive dominance of particular traits
rooted in particular humors. The character domi-
nated by blood was held to be sanguine or cheer-
ily optimistic, by phlegm phlegmatic or slow and
leaden, by choler bilious or war-like, and by black
bile melancholy. From the Greek physician Galen
through early modern medical thought and its appli-
cation to general understandings of personhood, the
humoral theory provided a scheme of classification
for defining the types of temperament and for treat-
ing characterological illness—what we today would
designate as mental illness.
The close association of the idea of humor with
the idea of character was taken up by early modern
British writers and applied to the realm of theater,
where the definition of character was central to
representation. Ben Jonson’s comedy of humors, in
the late 16th century, was the first forum in which
humor and the comic were systematically linked.
For Jonson, the extravagance of characters defined
by an imbalance in the humors became the basis of
laughable representation. The metaphorical applica-
tion of humor as Jonson defined it in Every Man
Out of His Humor (1599) created a form of com-
edy defined by odd and extravagant characters. A
humor was not, at this point, a genre or a type of
laughable representation, but rather the object of
laughter. The humoral character was an odd, eccen-
tric, or quirky type who provoked laughter in others
but who was not himself a self-conscious creator of
laughter. The playwright and the audience laughed
at the humoral character, or “humorist” as he later
came to be known, but not with him. Humor in the
17th and 18th centuries retained a strong association
with embodiment and naturally eccentric characters
and was not yet a form of writing or representation
independent of character.
In the 18th century, this focus on embodiment led
many to contrast humor with wit. Wit was intellec-
tual, clever, based on mental incongruities; humor,
on the other hand, was not so much a matter of the
play of ideas but was concerned with the extrava-
gance of character and was defined more by emotion
than intellect. In some ways, this contrast between
“dry” wit and embodied humor expressed a conflict
between two ways of understanding laughable rep-
resentation: Wit seemed rooted in aristocratic intel-
lect, erudition, and the stylish manners of the clever;
humor was increasingly associated with democracy,
the natural and unlearned force of character, and
the ordinary experience of “everyman.” During the
early modern era, the idea of humor also came to be
strongly associated with England, and it was widely
recognized both in England and on the European
continent that humor had some special identifica-
tion with English national character, particularly
with the eccentricity of the English.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, humor was
increasingly seen as a subjective quality of mind
and perception rather than an objective quality of
character. Instead of humor referring to the object of
representation—the odd and extravagant character
and his or her exaggerated mannerisms—it was now
associated with a way of perceiving odd characters
and, by extension, incongruous situations and ideas.
It retained, however, its roots in characterology in
contrast to 18th-century concepts such as raillery,
banter, and ridicule. Even as humor came to be more
a psychological concept, and eventually a form of
literary representation, it claimed a hold on emotion
and not just intellectual perception of incongruity.
In particular, humor was identified in the late 18th
and 19th centuries with the emotion of sympathy

and sympathetic identification. Whereas previous
theories and understandings of laughter had been
based on emotional distance from the object of
laughter, and had identified superiority and scorn as
characteristic of the psychology of laughter, humor
was systematically tied to the idea of sympathetic
laughter. If raillery, banter, and ridicule were defined
by laughing at, humor was defined by laughing with.
The character of the humorist was an unconscious
source of laughter, but by the Victorian era, such a
character was to be regarded with benevolence and
sympathy rather than contempt. Thomas Carlyle in
1827, for instance, defined the essence of true humor
as love. The redefinition of humor as benevolent
laughter made it a cherished form of representation,
compatible with the emergence of sentimental ethics
and middle-class Victorianism.
By the mid-19th century, humor had been
abstracted from character and made into a form of
emotional perception to such an extent that it could
be understood in terms of a newly defined character
trait: the sense of humor. Having a capacity to per-
ceive and appreciate the world in humorous terms
became a valued attribute and was increasingly seen
as an important source of social acceptance. The
person with a sense of humor was tolerant, broad-
minded, and capable of not taking himself too seri-
ously. Unlike the Jonsonian character of humor, the
person with a sense of humor was balanced and
self-regulating; the idea of humor had moved from
extravagant imbalance as comic to comic percep-
tion as a means of moderating extremes. By the
20th century, the idea of humor had become the
general umbrella term for all forms of laughable
representation.
Daniel Wickberg
See also Appreciation of Humor; History of Humor:
Early Modern Europe; Laughter, Psychology of;
Personality, Humor and; Sense of Humor,
Components of
Further Readings
Baskervill, C. R. (1911). English elements in Jonson’s early
comedy. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cazamian, L. (1952). The development of English humor.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Tave, S. (1960). The amiable humorist: A study in the
comic theory and criticism of the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Humor, Forms of 351
Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and
laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
HUMOR, FORMS OF
The term forms of humor refers to different types of
humor in humor research. The joke is, of course, one
of the better known forms of humor, but many other
forms exist as well. Roughly, humor can be classi-
fied, in terms of the medium used, as verbal humor,
visual humor, and physical humor. There are other
marginal forms of humor, such as humor in music,
made popular by the late Danish and American per-
former Victor Borge. These basic forms as well as
their combinations are discussed here.
Each of the forms can be talked about as inten-
tional or accidental, and the intentional category can
be further broken down into spontaneous or pre-
packaged/canned. A slip of the tongue is an example
of accidental humor, a known riddle is an example
of canned humor, and a humorous move that one
comes up with on the fly is another example of
spontaneous humor.
Similarly, each of these forms can vary in how
many sources of humor they contain. For example,
a one-panel cartoon is likely to contain one manifes-
tation of humor, just like a pun will. On the other
hand, a longer humorous text or a slapstick routine
is likely to have more than one manifestation of
humor, as will a multipanel cartoon or comic strip.
Verbal humor is probably the most widely used
form. It refers to humor produced through language,
either orally or in writing. Such humor can depend
on the use of language tools (such as puns, which
rely on similar pronunciations in an utterance, or
riddles, which can manipulate parts of different
words) or on situations that are not language related
(referential humor) but where humor is activated by
an oral or written description. The length of a ver-
bal humorous piece can vary from very short (e.g.,
a one-liner) to extremely long (e.g., a funny novel).
Visual humor refers to humor that is created by
visual representation. Cartoons are a good example
of visual humor. Purely visual cartoons will not con-
tain text or caption, but humor will arise from the
drawing itself. In art, there can be funny paintings.
Physical humor refers to people’s actions, involv-
ing their body movements, facial expressions, and
sounds that are not language. It can be intentional
or unintentional—or as in Charlie Chaplin’s early
352 Humor and Relational Maintenance
movies, intentional passing for unintentional.
Physical humor is professionally performed by
clowns, but a youngster acting out a scene from a
movie with gestures and facial expressions is creat-
ing physical humor as well. Many of the perfor-
mances by the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges
are predominantly, if not exclusively, physical.
These three basic media can be combined, and
much of the time they are, to generate more complex
humor forms. For example, a stand-up act is likely
to contain all three of the forms: The comedian is
typically delivering his material through words, but
at the same time he uses body language and facial
expressions to enact some of the material. The
comedian’s clothing and/or stage decorations may
add a visual element to the act. A musical accompa-
niment may be funny as well.
The forms, when they are combined, do not have
to contribute in equal parts. For example, multipan-
eled cartoons or comics can be mostly drawn, but
the punch line could be written as text. Vaudeville,
burlesque, comic opera, musical, and a staged comic
play all mix various media of humor in various
combinations.
All forms of humor can also be done in various
genres, or subgenres, of humor. It is not uncommon
to find a caricature or parody of, for instance, a
political figure, delivered in verbal, visual, or physi-
cal form.
Julia M. Taylor
See also Anecdote, Comic; Art and Visual Humor;
Burlesque; Caricature; Cartoons; Comedy; Comic
Opera; Farce; Jokes; Musical Comedy; Nonsense;
Parody; Puns; Riddle; Sketch Comedy Shows;
Slapstick; Stand-Up Comedy; Tall Tale; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Eismann, W., & Grzybek, P. (Eds.). (1987). Semiotische
Studien zum Rätsel [Semiotic studies about the riddle].
Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer.
Grzybek, P. (Ed.). (1984). Semiotische Studien zum
Sprichwort [Semiotic studies about the proverb].
Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
Jolles, A. (1958). Einfache Formen. Legende, Sage, Mythe,
Rätsel, Spruch, Kasus, Memorabile, Märchen, Witz
[Simple forms: Legend, saga, myth, riddle, saying,
example, report of memorable events, fairy tale, joke]
(2nd ed.). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Müller, R. (2003). The Pointe in German research.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
16(2), 225–242.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Humor und Witz. [Humor
and jokes/wit]. München, Germany: Hueber.
Wenzel, P. (1989). Von der Struktur des Witzes zum Witz
der Struktur. Untersuchungen zur Pointierung in Witz
und Kurzgeschichte [Concerning the structure of jokes
and the joke of the structure. Studies on creating a
punchline in jokes and short stories]. Heidelberg,
Germany: Winter.
HUMOR AND RELATIONAL
MAINTENANCE
Humor is an importance part of close partners’
interactions with each other and the maintenance
of intimacy. Relational maintenance refers to those
behaviors that sustain or repair an existing rela-
tionship. People engage in a range of communi-
cative behaviors because they want to maintain a
satisfactory degree of closeness or intimacy in their
relationships with others. Greeting each other affec-
tionately, giving gifts, doing small favors, spending
time together with friends and family, and doing
errands and house chores together are all examples
of ways that people reinforce or repair their bonds
with each other. Behaviors that partners may use
strategically at the onset of the relationship (such as
expressing affection) may become part of a couple’s
standard routine over the course of that relation-
ship. In general, relational maintenance behaviors
have been found to be robust predictors of rela-
tional outcomes for partners, such as commitment,
liking, love, trust, and satisfaction. This entry dis-
cusses typologies of relational maintenance behav-
iors, how the use of humor fits into these typologies,
and the effects of humor use on relationships, either
as part of or separate from other relational mainte-
nance behaviors.
Researchers have proposed numerous typologies
of the specific behaviors that people use to maintain
their relationships. Early typologies of relational
maintenance behaviors offered fewer and broader
categories. Later typologies were expanded and
refined to include inductively derived behaviors
identified by individuals in a range of relationships.
The most widely studied taxonomy, which comes

from Laura Stafford and Daniel Canary, includes
the follow categories: positivity, or interacting in
a cheerful manner (including the use of humor);
openness, or self-disclosure and discussion of the
relationship itself; assurances, which emphasize
love, affection, and commitment to the relationship;
network, spending time with common associates;
and shared tasks, which includes engaging in activi-
ties together that are relevant to the relationship.
Stafford and colleagues later added conflict man-
agement and advice, and Stafford has more recently
suggested revision of the self-report measure used to
assess these categories of behavior. Other scholars
have noted some anti-social behaviors that indi-
viduals also may use to maintain their relationships,
such as jealousy induction, spying, deception, and
avoidance.
Most of the research on relational maintenance
behaviors has focused on married or dating roman-
tic couples. There is a smaller body of work that has
developed typologies in, or applied existing typolo-
gies to, other partnerships with friends, siblings, or
workplace colleagues. For example, Scott Myers
and Keith Weber developed a typology of relational
maintenance behaviors reported by siblings, which
included a distinct category for humor.
Though humor has been included both directly
and indirectly in existing typologies of relational
maintenance behaviors, it has not emerged as a
central strategy cited by individuals when they are
prompted to describe their own behaviors and has
generated mixed results as a predictor of outcomes
such as relational satisfaction. However, exist-
ing typologies have either subsumed humor under
the general “positivity” category or placed it in its
own category. None of the relational maintenance
behaviors included in these typologies necessarily
precludes the use of humor to enact it.
Significant evidence suggests that humor has
a positive effect when used to perform the range
of behavior reflected in relational maintenance
typologies. For example, people whose spouses use
humorous affection with them report being more
satisfied in their marriages. Individuals find sensi-
tive or critical disclosures from their partners to
be less hurtful when those partners use humor to
deliver them. Using nicknames or having “inside
jokes” reinforces the unique and positive bond that
two people share and is more common in satisfied
relationships. Reminiscing together about incidents
of shared laughter as compared with other shared
memories has a more positive effect on couples’
Humor and Relational Maintenance 353
relational satisfaction. In research on couples’ per-
ceptions of the components of a long-term, stable,
and satisfying marriage, sense of humor is among
the most frequently cited elements. All of these
examples involve humor usage while mirroring the
behaviors encompassed by relational maintenance
typologies.
Although not specifically employing relational
maintenance typologies, scholars have nonetheless
focused on the role that humor plays in allowing
partners to successfully sustain, manage, and repair
their bonds, particularly in romantic relationships.
Humor styles, often measured with the typology
developed by Rod Martin and colleagues, have
widely been used in studies of close relationships. It
does not appear that simply having similar humor
styles to those of one’s partner is a strong predictor
of relational quality. Rather, a pattern of findings has
confirmed that self-reported affiliative humor usage
by one’s partner is associated with positive relational
outcomes such as satisfaction with the relationship
and/or that partner, with the opposite pattern hold-
ing for reported aggressive humor. Another body
of research has focused on couples’ conversational
interactions, typically recorded in naturalistic set-
tings, and linked couples’ observed humor usage
to each partner’s assessment of the relationship.
Likewise, this body of work has established a gen-
eral pattern of prosocial or affiliative humor from
one’s partner being associated with one’s relational
quality, with aggressive or hostile humor exerting a
negative effect.
Amy M. Bippus
See also Conversation; Humor Styles; Marriage and
Couples; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (Eds.). (2003). Maintaining
relationships through communication: Relational,
contextual and cultural variations. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
Myers, S. A., & Weber, K. D. (2004). Preliminary
development of a measure of sibling relational
maintenance behaviors: Scale development and initial
findings. Communication Quarterly, 52, 334–346.
354 Humor Content Versus Structure
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance
strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and
relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 217–242.
HUMOR CONTENT VERSUS
STRUCTURE
A distinction is made between the content and struc-
ture of humor not only in psychology but also in
other fields, such as folklore and linguistics. As a
technical distinction in psychology, content versus
structure has an illustrious ancestry going as far
back as Sigmund Freud’s seminal research on the
psychology of jokes. This entry discusses the way
distinctions have been made between humor content
and humor structure in psychology, while also not-
ing some of the ways the terms have been used more
generally.
Freud distinguished between joke “work,” or the
formal properties of jokes, and “tendency,” or how
jokes express aggression or hostility. Freud’s work on
the techniques of jokes constitutes the first chapter
of his Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.
Freud’s procedure consists of analyzing several jokes
with the use of mechanisms of “reduction” (a form
of paraphrase) and in grouping the jokes into cate-
gories according to the humorous techniques that
are used in them. The outcomes of the analysis
are 20 different categories, which are not mutually
exclusive. Freud’s 20 different mechanisms operate
inside both verbal and referential humor. They can
be reduced to two major mechanisms: condensa-
tion and displacement. Condensation occurs when
more than one meaning exists within a word (sign).
Displacement is “a change in the way of consider-
ing [something]” according to Freud (Freud, 1905,
p. 74). Freud’s conclusions and methodology have
been the object of much debate, summarized by
Salvatore Attardo in Linguistic Theories of Humor.
The other distinction between jokes, according to
Freud, is between “innocent” or “abstract” ver-
sus “tendentious.” The latter is familiar to humor
researchers under the label of “aggression.” A joke
is innocent when it does not have access to the
sources of pleasure that a tendentious joke does,
and hence all the pleasure it provides is thanks to its
technique. A joke is tendentious if it is cynical, skep-
tical, obscene, or shows hostility toward a target.
Other psychologists have taken up the distinc-
tion, using different names. For example, Richard
Niles Sears used the terms thematic and schematic.
Hans Jürgen Eysenck used orectic (content) and
cognitive (structure). Eysenck believed that, while
the two aspects could be separated theoretically,
both needed to be considered. Eysenck sees the
orectic aspect of humor as accounted for by the
superiority theory. However, Eysenck’s conclusions
are mostly concerned with the cognitive aspect
of humor (his materials include jokes and visual
humor). Eysenck’s description of the factors of
the cognitive aspect of humor includes incongru-
ity, resolution (called integration), surprise (sud-
denness), psychic distance, and insight, defined as
“a change in the meaning of the elements of the
humor experience” (Eysenck, 1942, p. 306). The
most comprehensive treatment of the distinction
between humor content and structure is to be found
in Willibald Ruch’s work. Ruch starts out by listing
Freud, Eysenck, and other sources that have used
the distinction. Ruch discusses two factors that are
both responsible for humor appreciation: one, con-
tent and the other, structure. Under structure, Ruch
finds two main categories, “incongruity-resolution”
and “nonsense” (the latter essentially lacking the
resolution phase). A third factor, based on content
(sex), emerged but was found to be independent of
the other two (i.e., can be combined with structure).
Other content matters would be such traditional
subjects as aggression, scatology, ethnicity, and oth-
ers. As Ruch notes, so far, content-based categories
have not fared too well, in the sense that there is
little correlation between appreciation and the more
traditional categories (with the significant exception
of sexual humor). Overall, Ruch’s conclusion is that
humor appreciation depends mostly on structural
categories. In fact, Ruch notes that the structural
factors that account for humor’s appreciation are
present in other forms of arts (literature, visual arts,
music).
Ruch discusses also the possibility of models of
humor that use more than two dimensions (struc-
ture and content), an example of which is the analy-
sis of jokes based on the six knowledge resources of
the general theory of verbal humor, coauthored by
Victor Raskin and Attardo.
More general usages of the terms abound. For
example, Elliott Oring uses the words content and
structure in the titles of two chapters of his book,
Israeli Humor: The Content and Structure of the

Chizbat of the Palmah. So, this is not a casual usage.
However, the terms are used in fairly generic, if
accurate, senses: Content refers to the sociocultural
subject matter of the chizbat stories, whereas struc-
ture is used in the structuralist sense of the organiza-
tion (in terms of oppositions) of the ideology, or the
system of values, reflected by the texts.
Finally, and most generally, there exist uses of the
term structure to mean, generically, “organization.”
So one could speak of the structure of jokes consist-
ing of a setup followed by a punch line. One finds
generic uses of content meaning “subject matter” of
humor quite widely.
Salvatore Attardo
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Factor
Analysis of Humor Scales; Freudian/Psychoanalytic
Theory; Psychology; Targets of Humor; 3 WD Humor
Test; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994) Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The appreciation of humour: An
experimental and theoretical study. British Journal of
Psychology, 32, 295–309.
Freud, S. (1973). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. London, UK: Hogarth Press. (Original
work published 1905)
Matte, G. (2001). A psychoanalytical perspective of humor.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
14(3), 223–241.
Oring, E. (1981). Israeli humor: The content and
structure of the Chizbat of the Palmah. Albany:
SUNY Press.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). Toward an
empirical verification of the general theory of verbal
humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 6(2), 123–136.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. J. (1998). A two-mode model of
humor appreciation: its relation to aesthetic appreciation
and simplicity-complexity of personality. In W. Ruch
(Ed.), The sense of humor (pp. 109–142). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., & Platt, T. (2012). Separating content and
structure in humor appreciation: The need for a bimodal
model and support from research into aesthetics. In
A. Nijholt (Ed.), Computational humor 2012: Extended
abstracts of the (3rd international) workshop on
computational humor (pp. 23–28). Enschede,
Netherlands. Retrieved from the Zurich Open
Humor Detection 355
Repository and Archive, University of Zurich: http://
dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-67033
Sears, R. N. (1934). Dynamic factors in the psychology of
humor. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University,
Boston, MA.
HUMOR DETECTION
The term humor detection (also known as computa-
tional detection of humor) refers to the computer’s
ability to detect (but not necessarily understand)
some forms of humor. Most, if not all, humor detec-
tors so far have addressed humor within text but
not ventured outside of text-based humor. There are
two general methods to humor detection. The first is
based on some characteristics of text that a machine
finds to correlate with humor without using theo-
retical foundations of humor. The second one is
explicitly based on some humor theory that is typi-
cally implemented for a restricted subset of humor-
ous texts. This entry discusses general approaches to
humor detection and some of the implemented work
in the area.
Humor detection is a relatively new area within
computational humor, but it is becoming increas-
ingly important with the development of socially
intelligent computing, where a human-friendly
computational system models human interaction
in its communication ability. Because humor plays
a significant role in the lives of most people, it has
been argued that a computer should understand, or
at least detect, humor to be able to function as a
companion to a human.
Applications
Suggested applications for computational humor
detection vary from detection of unintended humor
to reacting appropriately to the intended one. For
example, it is easy to imagine an application that
would proofread a written speech, flag all instances
of potential humor, and let a human revise those
instances that were not meant to be there. Because
humor is considered to be one of the latest stages of
mastering a new language, a humor detection sys-
tem could be employed in testing people’s ability to
generate a language-dependent joke in a new lan-
guage.
A computer plays the role of an intermediary
between a person who needs information and a
356 Humor Detection
person that recorded it. If a person makes a query
for information about a particular product, then the
computer must sort through texts to find semanti-
cally relevant information. However, many texts
contain humor. The humor may be irrelevant to the
needed information (in which case humor can be
ignored), or the needed information may be directly
affected by humor in the text (in which case humor
needs to be understood). In both cases, humor needs
to be detected for the text to be judged as relevant or
irrelevant to the query.
Finally, advanced computational systems are
being used in the homes of elderly shut-ins and in
hospitals; thus it would be useful for a computer
to differentiate a serious request from lighthearted
teasing. These applications, however, are sufficiently
advanced and above the level of the existing, imple-
mented humor detectors that they are not discussed
further in this entry.
Approaches to Humor Detection
There are two theoretical approaches to the com-
putational detection of humor. One relies on foun-
dations of the humor field as a scientific discipline
and draws from its theories. The other relies on the
observations about some characteristics of a given
subtype of humor. In practice, the purely theoreti-
cal approaches are hardly used, and even when
a detector is built with a humor-based theoreti-
cal foundation, some observations about the type
of humor that is being detected are used as guided
heuristics.
These observations can be made by a human or
by a computer. Computer-based observations are
typically done using machine learning approaches—
roughly, a computer is given a set of jokes and a set of
non-jokes, it uses various algorithms to select some
features that would distinguish the two sets, and it
uses these features in the future selections. These fea-
tures are not necessarily humorous features—in fact,
they seldom are. Human-generated observations are
typically based on the jokes of a given set also, but
it is typically projected to a much larger set based
on human knowledge of jokes. Human observa-
tions are typically very different from the machine-
found observations. The reason is simple: Whereas
people understand jokes and analyze information
that is in them and their structure, a computer can
typically analyze only the structure and only in very
rare cases can it come close to any understanding
of text.
Humor detection can be done from scratch:
Given a new text, figure out whether there is humor
in it; or, by comparison, given a new text, compare
it with known humorous texts and/or known non-
humorous texts. A hybrid of these two approaches
is typically best: If a text is very similar to a known
joke, a comparison method can be used, especially
if it is more effective, but it is possible that a given
text is not similar to anything previously known.
Comparison methods, again, can be done based on
humor theory or based on the features of a humor-
ous text.
Implementations of Humor Detectors
Implemented humor detectors cover a very limited
selection of humorous texts, including the genre of
text. There are implementations that detect puns
and other very short jokes that are based either on
word ambiguity or similar sounding words, as well
as detection of incongruity between setup and punch
line. There are also implementations that detect
humorous one-liners (as opposed to, for example,
proverbs) with an extension of the same approach
that detects short humorous texts. An automated
comparison of a large number of jokes has also
been performed that could be used for joke detec-
tion. Implementations to identify humorous Internet
comments have been tried as well. It should be noted
that most of these approaches attempt to detect
humor without recognizing meaning.
Julia M. Taylor
See also Computational Humor; Humor Theories;
Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes
Further Readings
Mihalcea, R., Strapparava, C., & Pulman, S. (2010).
Computational models for incongruity detection in
humor. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text
Processing, Iasi, Romania.
Sjobergh, J., & Araki, K. (2007). Recognizing humor
without recognizing meaning. In F. Masulli, S. Mitra, &
G. Pasi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international
workshop on fuzzy logic and applications: Applications
of Fuzzy Sets Theory (pp. 469–476). Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Taylor, J. M. (2010). Ontology-based view of natural
language meaning: The case of humor detection. Journal
of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing,
1(3), 221–234.

HUMOR GENERATION
See Computational Humor
HUMOR GROUP
Humor is one of the most prevalent and useful forms
of human communication because of its multifunc-
tionality. On every continent of the world, humans
use humor because of its ability to create joy on a
cognitive level and its utility in social settings. Within
groups and organizations, humor is used as a coping
strategy, a defense mechanism, a divisive tactic, or a
method to achieve and enhance cohesiveness. The
different social functions of humor, however, depend
on the context in which it is enacted. Humorous
contexts include the physical setting, the involved
participants and their previous relationships to one
another, sequences of interactions, the social and
professional norms that give meaning and a sense
of order to immediate situations, and larger soci-
etal values and discourses that constrain the humor.
Scholars have studied humor in a variety of settings,
including families, groups, organizations, profes-
sions, industries, cultures, and countries. Within a
humor group, defined as a small number of interde-
pendent people working together to achieve specific
tasks and positive social outcomes, the most impor-
tant part of the humorous context are the partici-
pants involved in the co-production of humor.
Any comprehensive list of humor topics should
include an analysis of humor groups because of the
multidimensional nature of humor in social inter-
actions and its ever-present use across a variety of
groups. Humans are naturally members of many
different groups throughout our lives, so it is impor-
tant to understand the challenges and benefits asso-
ciated with humor groups and humor in groups.
Specifically, small group literature could benefit from
more humor research and provide humor scholars
with opportunities for future projects. This entry
first discusses the lenses through which small group
research has focused on humor. It then highlights two
specific functions of humor in groups: humor as pro-
fessional identity and humor as social maintenance.
Humor and Small Group Research
Humor is a difficult concept to study because it
brings certain people together and alienates others
Humor Group 357
at the same time. There are no universal definitions
of what makes something humorous, and research-
ers and research participants define interactions and
concrete statements in contradictory ways. In short,
discourse and interaction sequences can be funny to
some people while viewed as offensive, coercive, or
aggressive by others. These differences are amplified
when they occur in group settings.
A classic study that serves as the foundation for
small group humor research investigated the use of
humor in groups of hospital patients. From its begin-
ning, humor research in small groups demonstrates
the multidimensionality of the concept, begins to
develop generalizations on the sociology of humor,
and highlights how humor is used to transform sub-
jective experiences into group experiences. The abil-
ity to change individual experiences and perceptions
into shared collective experiences is very powerful.
However, not all group humor is used to create posi-
tive shared experiences.
Studies show that group members also use humor
to indicate status differences within the group. This
type of superiority humor is used to show power
over other group members and establish bound-
aries between different subgroups. For example,
task-oriented work groups often use humor during
after-hours social events. These informal interactions
can release tension for lower level group members
but can also serve to reinforce the power hierarchies
in the group. When higher status group members
use humor to sanction lower status group members,
the group is illustrating the range of acceptable
behaviors through humorous statements.
Groups that are composed of a homogenous
membership often use humor in very different ways
than groups with a heterogeneous membership. All-
female groups use humor very differently than all-
male groups. Blue-collar work groups use different
types of humor than their white-collar counterparts.
In short, humorous exchanges are correlated to their
immediate environment. Because scholars have rec-
ognized the importance of context in both humor
scholarship and small group scholarship, they have
studied specific processes that are integral to success-
ful small groups to better understand how humor
affects these processes. Studies show that humor is
a useful element in negotiation sessions because it
allows group members to challenge the legitimacy
of others’ statements and claims in a socially accept-
able manner. In addition, research has shown that
high-humor groups are more effective problem solv-
ers than low-humor groups.
358 Humor Group
Using Humor in Groups
Humor as Professional Identity
Groups do not just use humor to achieve social
and task-oriented goals, because for a select few
individuals, “humor groups” are their professional
identity. There are a number of humor-based organi-
zations that train people how to develop their humor.
Many of these organizations, such as the Second
City, teach the fundamentals of improv comedy.
Humor professionals learn about the importance of
extemporaneous delivery and timing, involving and
shocking the audience, the writing norms of com-
edy sketches and songs, and how to participate in
non sequitur humorous exchanges. The graduates
of these professional humor organizations have gone
on to form many humor groups that perform on
cruise ships and other vacation destinations, have
started their own television shows, have written and
starred in full-length feature films, and have become
stand-up comedians. The National Lampoon maga-
zine, which began in the United States in the 1970s,
inspired many of the members of the original pro-
duction team to eventually star in, produce, write,
and direct a large number of Hollywood movies.
For humor group professionals, humor is not just a
form of communication that unites and divides, but
rather it is their identity, their essence, and what they
believe philosophically moves the world forward.
The success and global impact of the profes-
sional British humor group known as Monty Python
dwarfs the significance of professional American
humor groups. What started as a British sketch com-
edy show in 1969 quickly morphed into a global
cultural movement that changed how people saw
the world, altered what was acceptable in terms of
humorous style and content, and revolutionized
what society could find humorous. The compre-
hensive humorous repertoire of Monty Python has
been unmatched, and comedy has never been the
same. A variety of films, plays, musicals, books,
games, record albums and compact disks (CDs), and
television shows from around the world have been
influenced by Monty Python. Even though humor
groups like Monty Python and National Lampoon
have had great financial and cultural success, they
are the exception to the rule. Most people do not
become professional comedians or members of pro-
fessional humor groups; however, the importance of
comedy to general populations around the world,
as demonstrated in the number of comedy-centered
films, television shows, and songs, indicates that
humor plays an important role in the lives of aver-
age citizens.
Humor as Social Maintenance
It can be argued that humor is the glue that holds
successful groups together. Although it is obviously
true that not all groups need humor to be success-
ful, research shows that many successful groups do
in fact use humor. Groups that use humor are able
to enhance their sense of “groupness,” or in other
words, humor helps groups develop a sense of group
consciousness. They do this by using humorous met-
aphors and stories to create a fantasy reality, which
unites the members of the group and sets them apart
from outsiders who don’t understand the fantasy.
Humor is also used to help groups deal with conflict,
engage in controversial conversations, share group
affiliation, and even regulate group emotions. The
ability to control others’ emotions through humor
underscores the power of this form of communica-
tion. Because humor is a mechanism for people to
discuss taboo topics, it is also a very powerful and
subtle form of control. Research from several differ-
ent disciplines has shown that humor can be used to
praise, reward, punish, and reprimand group mem-
bers. To maintain a group, it is necessary, at times,
to sanction group members, regain their compliance,
and redirect the group back onto the right track—
humor is an acceptable steering mechanism that can
be used to achieve these goals. Humor is simulta-
neously one of the most useful, risky, and healthy
forms of communication.
This entry has highlighted the social risks and
rewards of humor, but using humor is also a way
to achieve healthier lives. Within the realm of health
care, when patients engage in frequent laughter,
smiling, and humorous exchanges, research has sug-
gested that patients might be able to recover more
quickly. When health care providers such as doctors
and nurses participate in humorous exchanges with
patients, the patients find the doctors more person-
able, credible, and less intimidating, possibly contrib-
uting to a quicker recovery. In mental health settings
such as self-analytic and therapy groups, humor
can be a useful tool to break the ice, share difficult
stories, make connections with other patients, and
increase self-growth and self-awareness. Although
health care institutions rarely train physicians, psy-
chologists, and psychiatrists in the theoretical or
clinical benefits of humor, providers are clearly using
this form of communication as a way to help heal

their patients. Because humor can be defined, used,
and perceived in so many ways, scholars have con-
cluded that humor can even be used to create equiv-
ocality so that groups and individuals can reflexively
figure out the next steps before they move forward.
Overall, most humor group research looks at the
type, style, or function of humor. More scholars are
demonstrating that humor is not simply a way to
create, maintain, or dissolve social bonds, but rather
humor can be used to change organizational policies
and procedures. This is significant because it suggests
that humor affects organizational structures in addi-
tion to social structures. In general, groups use humor
to accomplish a variety of personal, group, and
organizational goals. Whether they are amateur or
professional, groups use humor to transform subjec-
tive experiences into collective experiences. Because
of the divergent nature of humor functionality and
processes, humor scholars have the opportunity to
explore further how and why groups use humor.
Zachary A. Schaefer
See also College Humor; Gallows Humor; Humor and
Relational Maintenance; Improv Comedy; Monty
Python; Stand-Up Comedy; Workplace Humor
Further Readings
Bing, J. (2007). Liberated jokes: Sexual humor in all-female
groups. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 20(4), 337–366.
Bonaiuto, M., Castellana, E., & Pierro, A. (2003). Arguing
and laughing: The use of humor to negotiate in group
settings. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 16(2), 183–223.
Duncan, W. J. (1985). The superiority theory of humor at
work: Joking relationships as indicators of formal and
informal status patterns in small, task-oriented groups.
Small Group Research, 16(4), 556–564.
Fine, G. A., & de Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures:
Humor themes as social regulation in group life.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
18(1), 1–22.
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2011). Examining laughter
functionality in jury deliberations. Small Group
Research, 41(4), 386–407.
Lynch, O. H. (2010). Cooking with humor: In-group
humor as social organization. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 23(2), 127–159.
Pollio, H. R., & Bainum, C. K. (1983). Are funny groups
good at solving problems? A methodological evaluation
and some preliminary results. Small Group Research,
14(4), 379–404.
Humor Markers 359
Rossel, R. D. (1981). Chaos and control: Attempts to
regulate the use of humor in self-analytic and therapy
groups. Small Group Research 12(2), 195–219.
Rossel, R. D. (1981). Word play: Metaphor and humor in
the small group. Small Group Research, 12(1),
116–136.
Shouse, E., & Timberg, B. (2012). A festivus for the
restivus: Jewish-American comedians respond to
Christmas as the national American holiday. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 25(2),
133–153.
HUMOR MARKERS
The concept of discourse markers was introduced by
Deborah Schiffrin and defined as a linguistic feature
that is reliably associated with a given phenomenon.
Discourse markers have many functions, such as ini-
tiating conversation, signaling a topic change, allow-
ing for hesitation without losing the conversational
floor, linking one concept or detail with another, or
as implications of the speaker’s intentions. Markers
can take different forms depending on the medium
and manner of an interaction. Markers are distinct
from the associated phenomenon in that the pres-
ence of markers may facilitate understanding and
recognition of intention or an underlying meaning,
but the absence or elimination of these markers
will not alter or eliminate the actual phenomenon.
Salvatore Attardo distinguishes between humor
markers (signaling elements) and humor factors
(constitutive elements). Humor markers can be
removed without necessarily altering the humor-
ous intent, but the removal of factors would in turn
eliminate the humor. For example, before produc-
ing a joke a speaker may state to his or her inter-
locutor, “I’ve got a great joke for you,” in order to
signal a subsequent joke, or simply start telling the
joke without explicitly framing it in any way. While
the latter may impact how that joke is recognized
or understood by interlocutors, the presence of the
joke still stands, with or without the use of markers.
On the other hand, removing a factor from the joke,
such as the punch line (e.g., eliminating “to get to
the other side” from the well-known “why did the
chicken cross the road” joke) would eliminate the
humor all together. Humor markers can be verbal
or written, although the majority of research in this
area has focused around the verbal markers of irony.
This entry discusses both verbal and written humor
360 Humor Markers
markers and the types of research that have been
done on them.
Verbal Markers
Overly polite language, repetition of words, events,
syllables, and false starts are all common features
found in humorous discourse. Douglas C. Muecke
determined that the use of discursive expressions,
such as “as everybody knows” and “like the say-
ing goes,” signals sarcastic or ironic intent. Many of
these expressions have become conventionalized and
associated with sarcasm, such as “that’s fantastic”
and “well, what do ya know . . . .” Tag questions
have also been strongly correlated with sarcasm,
although they are not sufficient to signal the ironic
intent alone. In a broader sense, markers can also
occur outside of the humorous unit in the form
of responses that signal to other participants that
a previous utterance was indeed humorous. Gail
Jefferson, for example, determined that laughter
often signals humorous intent and evokes a response
in humorous conversation.
Research on the phonological markers of humor
has rendered mostly inconsistent findings with a
heavy focus on verbal irony. The majority of research
in phonological markers is interested in how the
use of pitch, volume, intonation, speech rate, and
stress differ between humorous and nonhumorous
discourse. Conversation analyses have increas-
ingly focused on the contrast of prosodic features.
Such analyses look at saliency as an indication of
a meaningful signal, determined by any statistically
significant shift or variation in a particular prosodic
measurement, such as pitch, volume, or speech rate,
in relation to the surrounding phrasal units. A recur-
ring finding is a significant contrast between humor-
ous utterances and nonhumorous portions of the
discourse.
The majority of research on speech rate during
humorous conversation finds a correlation between
the use of slower speech rate and irony, though the
opposite has been concluded as well. These slower
speech rates are thought to be due to an increase in
pausing and vowel lengthening. Syllable lengthening
and nasalization have also been found as indicators
of ironic intent.
The most common use of intonation found in
ironic utterances is described as a flat contour,
meaning it neither rises nor falls. The form of irony
may impact the use of intonation differently, how-
ever, such as the use of a more rising intonation in
rhetorical questions. Exaggerated pitch, both higher
and lower extremes, has also been identified as a
phonological feature of irony. Both Gregory Bryant
and Salvatore Attardo have proposed that there is
no specific pitch that serves as a marker of humor
or irony but that the use of pitch in these types of
utterances contrasts with contextual or structural
elements of the surrounding conversation.
Gestural markers have also received attention
from conversation analysts in humor research. Some
researchers consider facial expressions better indi-
cators of emotion than verbal or prosodic signals,
particularly for irony. Exaggerated facial expres-
sions such as smirking, excessive nodding, winking,
eye rolling, and raising or lowering one’s eyebrows
have all been linked with sarcastic and ironic intent.
Conversely, a purposeful lack of expression (or
“blank face”) has also been linked to ironic intent
and often is considered more successful in cuing sar-
casm than any phonological or gestural signal.
Written Markers
Research on written humor markers is minimal
compared to that of verbal markers, in part because
of the difficulty of producing and assessing this form
of communication in the written medium. Much of
what is assumed to be written humor markers is
based on speculative claims, although this area
has given rise to an increased number of empirical
studies. There are written conventions thought to
function in similar ways as phonological or ges-
tural features do in face-to-face conversation, such
as “scare quotes” conveying a detachment that may
otherwise be expressed using the finger-quote ges-
ture. Exclamation marks express emphasis and, in
combination with other punctuation marks such
as question marks or ellipses, are thought to facili-
tate the detection of ironic intent. Ellipses have been
linked to humor in written forms, as they indicate
a suspended utterance and leave it open for alter-
nate interpretation, thus highlighting the figurative
or ironic intent.
A growing interest in humor production in
computer-mediated communication has offered
new information regarding written forms of humor
markers. A handful of studies have explored the
frequencies of particular markers in computer-
mediated settings thought to signal humorous intent,
particularly irony. Amplifiers, ellipsis, emoticons,
and eye dialect have all been associated with signal-
ing ironic intent. Audrey C. Adams, who conducted

the first quantitative analysis of humor markers in
computer-mediated communication, found cor-
relations between specific linguistic markers and
forms of humor. Her study determined statistically
significant differences in the use of specific forms of
punctuation, emoticons, laughter, and formatting
in humorous data compared with nonhumorous
data. Additionally, Adams found that the use of
humor markers in the mediated setting significantly
impacted humor response, suggesting that the recog-
nition of humor and subsequent interactions related
to that humor are significantly more likely to occur
when markers are used.
Audrey C. Adams
See also Conversation; Irony; Laugh, Laughter,
Laughing; Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter; Verbal
Humor
Further Readings
Adams, A. C. (2012). Humor markers in computer-
mediated communication (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Texas A&M University–Commerce.
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a
goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing, Rask,
12, 3–20.
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003).
Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 16(2),
243–260.
Attardo, S., Pickering, L., & Baker, A. (2011). Prosodic and
multimodal markers of humor in conversation.
Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 224–247.
Bryant, G., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone
of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277.
Rockwell, P. A. (2006). Sarcasm and other mixed messages:
The ambiguous ways people use language. Lewiston,
NY: Edwin Mellen.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
HUMOR MINDSET
The humor mindset is an integral component of
theories of amusement or humor appreciation. The
humor mindset does not, itself, refer to amusement,
but it is thought to be a necessary condition for the
experience of amusement. This entry discusses how
the humor mindset allows for humor to be enjoyed
and explains how the humor mindset is measured.
Humor Mindset 361
What Is the Humor Mindset?
The humor mindset refers to a distinct way of inter-
preting messages or events. Humorous messages are
accompanied by cues (e.g., identification of message
as a joke) that signal to recipients that a message or
event is not to be subjected to the usual conversa-
tional rule of literality, logical thinking, and critical
scrutiny. Rather, humor invites us to subject a mes-
sage or event to a conversational rule of levity or
play wherein we treat it as non-literal, not subject
to expectations of common sense, and outside the
realm of logical and moral scrutiny. In short, humor
invites us to abandon the usual (serious) ways of
thinking.
Humor theorists have described the usual seri-
ous mindset as “reality assimilation” and the humor
mindset as “fantasy assimilation.” Reality assimila-
tion refers to the adjustment of cognitive schemas to
account for unexpected events. Reality assimilation
is the default process that occurs when encountering
discrepancies between our cognitive schemas and
actual events. In contrast, when in the fantasy assim-
ilation mode, people do not require a realistic reso-
lution of incongruous events. Therefore, they do not
attempt to adjust their cognitive schemas to fit unex-
pected events. They simply disregard the require-
ment of literal congruity that characterizes reality
assimilation. Accordingly, if an expectancy violation
is processed in the reality assimilation mode, then
the normal rules of logic apply and the individual
struggles to fit the incongruity into their notions of
how the world works. If the expectancy violation is
processed in the fantasy assimilation mode, then the
incongruity does not present a puzzle to be solved
but rather a game to be played.
Humor Mindset and Amusement
Cognitive models of humor appreciation sug-
gest that amusement results from the resolution
of expectancy violations. Furthermore, the resolu-
tion of incongruity should be amusing insofar as it
is accompanied by humor cues suggesting that it is
to be interpreted in a nonserious humor mindset.
The humor cues provide a frame with which to
view a message or event. The usual rules of logic
and acceptable behavior are suspended. In the case
of disparagement and aggression, humor cues essen-
tially communicate that the perceived incongruity is
nonthreatening, thus making a playful interpretation
seem appropriate. As Dolf Zillmann and Joanne R.
Cantor suggested, the “club over the head” is funny
362 Humor Production
when the protagonists are the Three Stooges but not
when they are police officers responding to a riot.
The unique conversational structure of a joke
seems to cue the activation of the humor mind-
set, notifying one to process the narrative in the
fantasy assimilation mode. Jokes typically consist
of two parts: the setup and the punch line. The
setup, itself, can indicate that a narrative is a joke
and thus activate the humor mindset along with an
initial schema or set of logical expectations about
the rest of the narrative. It also presents a violation
to logical expectations. The punch line activates a
second contradictory schema that “plays off” the
first and provides a resolution to expectancy viola-
tion in a non-literal or surprising way. When in the
humor mindset, people loosen the rules of logic and
expectations of common sense. Consequently, when
presented with a joke, people do not apply the infor-
mation processing strategies typically required by
serious communication. Thus, the humor mindset—
the treatment of the joke as play—makes the incon-
gruity and illogical resolution comical rather than
confusing or threatening.
Measuring the Humor Mindset
Humor researchers have attempted to use self-report
measures to assess the degree to which people adopt
a humor mindset to interpret humor material such as
jokes and comedy skits. Researchers have asked par-
ticipants to use a rating scale to indicate the extent
to which they interpret the material in a lighthearted
(nonserious) manner versus a critical (serious) man-
ner. Researchers have also asked participants to
rate on a scale the offensiveness of humor material.
Lower offensiveness ratings presumably suggest a
less critical, more playful interpretation.
Thomas E. Ford
See also Appreciation of Humor; Psychology; Reversal
Theory
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and
cooperation: The case of jokes. Journal of Pragmatics,
19(6), 537–558.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a
tool of social interaction. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.
Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing, humor (pp. 13–16).
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Mannell, R. C. (1977). Vicarious superiority, injustice,
and aggression in humor: The role of the playful
judgmental set. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.),
It’s a funny thing, humor (pp. 13–16). Elmsford, NY:
Pergamon.
McGhee, P. E. (1972). On the cognitive origins of
incongruity humor: Fantasy assimilation versus reality
assimilation. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.),
The psychology of humor (pp. 61–79). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in
modern society. New York, NY: Blackwell.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976/1996). A disposition
theory of humor and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.
Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and
applications (pp. 93–116). New York, NY: Wiley.
HUMOR PRODUCTION
Crafting wit seems a mysterious process that depends
on the magic of a muse, but it’s essential to all of
comedy. Although most people know hilarity when
they see it, few can create it consistently. The pro-
cess might be more art than science. Investigations
of humor production focus on the ability to gener-
ate funny material. Researchers often ask partici-
pants to fashion captions for drawings, much like
popular magazine contests. Other studies ask people
to create monologues or design bumper stickers,
droll slogans, or amusing remarks. Few people do
their best work under these circumstances, but the
approach supplies a general guide to each person’s
ability.
Coders then rate these responses for their funni-
ness, originality, or charm. Despite a wide variety
of tastes, people tend to agree on what’s humorous,
making this kind of coding reliable enough for study.
These codes also show some evidence that they gen-
uinely measure what they claim to measure—some
valid facet of comedy. For example, professional
comics outscore the average undergraduate on
tasks like these. Nevertheless, these tests might not
capture all the important facets of humor produc-
tion. For example, at one college, faculty, staff, and
students nominated people who were known for
their humor to participate in a humor production
test, but these people did not outscore others on the
tasks. One individual might be known as the local
wit and still fail at drafting crafty bumper stickers

or captions. This entry discusses how humor pro-
duction relates to various personal characteristics
and gives some strategies for improving the produc-
tion of humor.
Correlates of Humor Production
Although there’s clearly more to being funny than
producing humorous responses on tests such as
these, scores on these tasks do show some interesting
links to intelligence, gender, and personality traits.
Generally, smarter people create funnier material,
which might explain the multiple meanings of the
word wit. In fact, intelligence often predicts humor
better than personality tests or other variables.
Smarter people are often better on many tasks, but
generating humor might be an especially important
ability. Evolutionary psychologists even suggest that
comedic repartee is part of how men and women
show off their intellects and express their interest in
potential mates.
Gender differences on these tasks have led to con-
troversy. Men frequently outscore women on tests of
humor production, but the difference is often small.
Theorists suggest that the demand to be funny might
be stronger for men than for women, particularly
when it comes to finding romantic partners or mak-
ing friends. Both men and women claim to want
to date people with a good sense of humor. For
heterosexual women, this appears to mean a man
who can make them laugh. For heterosexual men,
this appears to mean a woman who laughs at their
jokes. Generating humor often improves interac-
tions among dating pairs as well as married couples.
Funny interactions appear to help communicate
warmth and caring in addition to general smarts and
charm.
Different people generate humor at different
rates and with varied skill. People who are generally
cheerful, outgoing, and open to novel experiences
do a fine job at producing humor. People who are
dispositionally serious, introverted, and unwilling
to try anything new often perform poorly. Certain
conversational skills tend to make humor produc-
tion more likely, too. For example, people who are
more adept at chatting in general, more attuned
to subtle meanings in spoken expressions, and
less apprehensive about social interactions appear
also to use humor more often in their daily lives.
Being funny has social advantages, too. People
view the witty as less troubled, more attractive,
and more agreeable than others. Funnier people
Humor Production 363
report having more sexual partners in their lives
as well.
Improving the Production of Humor
Given the potential social advantages, developing
a witty style could be worthwhile. Little research
addresses the details on how to improve a sense of
humor or increase skills at crafting jokes. General
lore about how to be funny varies from simply
spouting nonsense to attempting to fit multiple
“K” sounds into punch lines. (The pronunciation
of “K” sounds puts the face in a position compa-
rable to laughter, potentially making “kumquats”
funnier than “oranges.”) A few recurring themes
appear in the research that is available. Modern
humor theories suggest that placing incongruous
material together, violating social norms in innocu-
ous ways, or creating harmless surprises might help.
These strategies all depend on the setting, however.
As many theories would suggest, a jumpsuit made of
bacon, a burp in church, or a snake in a can can all
seem funny in the right circumstances.
Research also reveals that humor is much like
other forms of creativity. The wittiest responses often
arise from those who draft the most responses in
total. This positive link between number and qual-
ity appears in many creativity tasks. Witty remarks
likely benefit from the same situations that enhance
creativity, including a positive environment that pro-
vides encouragement, a good mood, and freedom to
make mistakes. As more work in this field continues,
we can gain new insights into how to create more
funny material. In the meantime, many a comic may
have to rely on the muse.
Mitch Earleywine
See also Evolutionary Explanations of Humor; Gender
and Humor, Psychological Aspects of; Gender Roles
in Humor; Humor Styles; Incongruity and Resolution;
Personality, Humor and;
Further Readings
Babad, E. (1974). A multi-method approach to the
assessment of humor: A critical look at humor tests.
Journal of Personality, 42, 618–631.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. (2001). Perceived personality
associations with differences in sense of humor:
Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low
senses of humor. HUMOR: An International Journal of
Humor, 14, 117–130.
364 Humor Styles
Greengross, G., Martin, R., & Miller, G. (2012).
Personality traits, intelligence, humor styles, and humor
production ability of professional stand-up comedians
compared to college students. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 74–82.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals
intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in
males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.
McGraw, P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations:
Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science,
21, 1141–1149.
Merolla, A. (2006). Decoding ability and humor
production. Communication Quarterly, 54, 175–189.
HUMOR STYLES
Humor style refers to a person’s habitual conduct
or use of humor in daily life, that is, his or her typi-
cal and stable pattern of humor behaviors and atti-
tudes. Humor style is related but distinct from other
aspects of the sense of humor, including appreciation
of different kinds of humor created by others; tem-
peramental traits such as cheerfulness, seriousness,
and bad mood that underlie the sense of humor; and
humor skills, or the level of ability when producing
humor. It is also important to differentiate psycho-
logical humor styles from literal styles of comedy as
forms of genre. The latter include forms such as high
comedy of manners, parody, or farce, which can also
have particular humor “flavors.” This entry focuses
on personal humor styles, that is, the use of humor
as a personality trait. The term use doesn’t imply
that a person is strategically deciding to engage in a
particular style; rather they do so spontaneously and
automatically.
In the 17th century, humanists began to distinguish
“good humor” from “bad humor.” Good humor
referred to benevolent forms of humor in which
one would laugh with rather than at somebody. In
contrast, bad humor referred to hostile or put-down
forms of humor in which one would laugh at the mis-
fortunes of someone else. More recently, researchers
have conceptualized positive, negative, and neutral
humor styles derived from literature, everyday social
behavior, and lexica. The remainder of this entry
describes three contemporary conceptualizations of
humor style: (1) styles of everyday humorous con-
duct proposed by Kenneth Craik and colleagues,
(2) positive and negative humor styles suggested by
Rod Martin and his team, and (3) comical styles
derived by the linguist Wolfgang Schmidt-Hidding.
Styles of Everyday Humorous Conduct
The styles of humorous conduct proposed by
Kenneth Craik and his colleagues encompass five
bipolar styles that supposedly cover the whole range
of possible humorous behaviors and attitudes. They
distinguish (1) a socially warm versus cold humorous
style, describing a socially constructive use of humor
in contrast to a tendency to avoid joyful behavior at
all; (2) a reflective versus boorish humorous style,
which refers to a habit of apprehending and appreci-
ating the humorous side in situations and other peo-
ple versus a rather competitive, inconsiderate, and
pretentious use of humor; (3) a competent versus
inept humorous style that describes whether a per-
son is or is not able to tell jokes and anecdotes suc-
cessfully and be actively witty; (4) an earthy versus
repressed humorous style, which depicts joy in tell-
ing jokes about taboo topics such as sexual, maca-
bre, or bathroom jokes versus an inhibition toward
and rejection of these topics; and (5) a benign versus
mean-spirited humorous style that reflects a person’s
delight in wordplay or otherwise intellectually chal-
lenging but harmless jokes, in contrast to scornful or
even cruel humor style.
Positive and Negative Humor Styles
Rod Martin and his colleagues proposed a cat-
egorization of four humor styles, two of which are
thought to be positive and beneficial to oneself or
others and two of which are negative and detrimen-
tal to oneself or others. People who engage in an
(1) affiliative humor style use humor to enhance and
ease social relationships. This humor is character-
ized by being essentially tolerant and benign; it may
include gentle teasing or self-deprecating humor and
is used to amuse others or relax a tense situation.
Also on the positive side, (2) self-enhancing humor
describes a style in which an individual maintains a
humorous point of view on life and its incongruities.
It is the tendency to appreciate the funny aspects
of things and is closely related to the use of humor
to cope with stressors and regulate negative emo-
tions. On the negative side, people who engage in
(3) aggressive humor tend to be sarcastic and ridi-
cule other people without minding its offensive
potential. They may try to use humor as a means of
manipulation. (4) Self-defeating humor is a humor
style directed against oneself. Individuals belittle and
put themselves down by humor in order to get oth-
ers’ recognition. Self-defeating humor may be driven
by a general low self-esteem.

Comical Styles Derived From a Lexical Study
Wolfgang Schmidt-Hidding analyzed the modern
vocabulary of humor. He distinguished four basic
attitudes, or realms of meaning of “the comic”:
humor, which he associates with a loving attitude;
fun, connected to the power of energy and vital-
ity; ridicule/mock, related to the basic feeling of
hatred; and wit as a power of the mind. Based on
frequencies of entries in a dictionary within each of
the realms of meaning, he originated the following
eight different comic styles. Humor is used in a very
narrow sense and describes an understanding atti-
tude toward the incongruity of the world. Wit deals
with words and thoughts. Wit is rather educated but
not necessarily interpersonally sensitive. Someone
engaging in wit takes pleasure in contrastive lan-
guage. Irony, by saying something different than
what is actually meant, expresses superiority toward
those who don’t understand the real meaning. Satire
is aggressive and expresses contempt toward the bad
things of the world. Fun is agreeable and benign
and spreads good cheer. Nonsense is cheerful and
playful; its central aim is to make fun of rationality.
Sarcasm aims at hurting conversation partners; it is
hostile and recklessly exposes others. Finally, cyni-
cism is negative and destructive and dishonors gen-
eral values. According to a study by Willibald Ruch,
on a dimension from good humor to bad humor or
benevolent humor to malevolent humor, fun, humor,
and nonsense were found to be nearer to the “good
humor” pole, with wit in the middle, and irony,
satire, cynicism, and sarcasm nearer to the “bad
humor” pole. A further study found that humor and
fun are the comical styles most often used to achieve
a virtue, such as humanity. However, some people
also deployed “bad” comic styles such as irony and
sarcasm to achieve virtue, namely, to take a stand
for justice.
Ursula Beermann
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Cheerfulness,
Seriousness, and Humor; Farce; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; Humor Styles Measurement; Humorous
Stimuli, Characteristics of
Further Readings
Beermann, U., & Ruch, W. (2009). How virtuous is
humor? Evidence from everyday behavior. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 22(4),
395–417.
Humor Styles Measurement 365
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. (1996). Sense
of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
9(3/4), 273–302.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Milner Davis, J. (2003). Farce. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Ruch, W. (2007). The sense of humor: Explorations of a
personality characteristic (Reprinted ed.). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. (Original work published
1998)
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Europäische Schlüsselwörter.
Band I: Humor und Witz [European key terms. Volume
I: Humor and wit]. Munich, Germany: Huber.
HUMOR STYLES MEASUREMENT
Several performance and self-report instruments
exist to assess different aspects of the sense of humor,
including humor creation, humor appreciation, and
individual differences in the sense of humor (e.g.,
temperamental basis of humor). This entry discusses
instruments that assess a person’s humor style as a
person’s habitual way of using humor in daily life,
that is, humor style as a personality trait. Two instru-
ments are predominantly used that measure humor
styles as defined here: the Humorous Behavior
Q-Sort Deck and the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Each of these measures is discussed in this entry.
The Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck
By reviewing literature and observing every-
day social life, Kenneth Craik and his colleagues
developed the Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck
(HBQD). It can be used for self-reports as well as
a tool for observing other people’s humorous con-
duct. The HBQD consists of 100 nonredundant
statements that encompass five contrastive, bipo-
lar styles: (I) a socially warm versus cold humor-
ous style (sample items: “Maintains group morale
through humor” versus “Smiles grudgingly”),
(II) a reflective versus boorish humorous style
(sample items: “Uses humor to express the con-
tradictory aspects of everyday events” versus “Is
competitively humorous; attempts to top others”),
(III) a competent versus inept humorous style (sam-
ple items: “Displays a quick wit and ready repartee”
versus “Spoils jokes by laughing before finishing
366 Humor Styles Measurement
them”), (IV) an earthy versus repressed humorous
style (sample items: “Has a reputation for indulging
in coarse or vulgar humor” versus “Is squeamish
about ‘sick jokes’”), and (V) a benign versus mean-
spirited humorous style (sample items: “Finds intel-
lectual wordplay enjoyable” versus “Jokes about
other’s imperfections”). The statements are printed
on cards, and respondents sort the cards into nine
piles from one (“least characteristic”) via five (“neu-
tral”) to nine (“most characteristic” of that person),
with a resulting distribution of 5, 8, 12, 16, 18, 16,
12, 8, and 5 cards per pile. This procedure guaran-
tees that the complete range of answer possibilities
is used. Recently, an electronic version of the Q-Sort
was developed so that participants can complete the
HBQD on a computer. Reliabilities of the dimen-
sions range from .67 for Factor V, benign versus
mean-spirited humorous style to .83 for Factor I,
socially warm versus cold humorous style.
Researchers investigated which styles of humor
are related to what is typically understood as a
“good sense of humor,” which is deemed to be an
attractive and socially desirable personality trait.
They did so by deriving an “Overall Sense of Humor
Index” from direct ratings on a participant’s “sense
of humor” and its ranking compared with other
personality traits (e.g., the items “Has a good sense
of humor,” “Relative to other personal traits, dis-
plays a noteworthy sense of humor”) and computed
correlations among all HBQD styles and this index.
They found that only two of the humor styles—a
socially warm (versus cold) and a competent (ver-
sus inept) humor style—were related to this general
understanding of “sense of humor.” Furthermore,
relations of the HBQD styles and Big Five person-
ality traits were studied. Extraverted and agreeable
persons are more likely to have a socially warm
humor style. People open to experiences would
rather engage in reflective humor. Those who engage
in a competent humor style are also more agree-
able and less neurotic. Agreeable and conscientious
people usually were prone to a more benign humor
style. Finally, a study on humor and virtue found
that two thirds of the HBQD items (as a represen-
tative measurement of the whole possible range of
humor behaviors) were rated as neutral on a con-
tinuum from “representing virtue” to “representing
vice.” One third of the HBQD items, however—
primarily measuring socially warm, reflective, com-
petent, repressed, and benign humor styles—were
seen as representing virtues (in particular, the vir-
tues wisdom, humanity, and justice). One third of
the items (mainly measuring the negative poles such
as mean-spirited, earthy humor styles) were seen as
representing vice.
The HBQD has also been used successfully as
a rating instrument to describe the humor styles
of comedians (the Cronbach’s alpha, a measure
of inter-rater agreements for these ratings, ranged
from .73 to .91). For example, one of the most
characteristic statements describing Woody Allen’s
humor is the HBQD item “Jokes about problems
to make them seem ridiculous or trivial,” whereas
Whoopi Goldberg “Has a sense of humor reflect-
ing its regional or cultural origins” and Bill Cosby
“Appreciates the humorous potential of persons and
situations” (Craik & Ware, 2007, p. 73).
Humor Styles Questionnaire
Rod Martin and his colleagues reviewed the litera-
ture for styles that were described as positive and
benevolent versus negative and malignant. Based
on the descriptions they found, they constructed the
Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). It is a 32-item
self-report questionnaire assessing two positive
and adaptive versus two negative and maladaptive
humor styles. Two styles (one positive and one nega-
tive style) relate to the self, and the other two relate
to social interactions with others. The humor styles
are (1) affiliative humor style (sample item: HSQ 21,
“I enjoy making people laugh”), (2) self-enhancing
humor style (sample item: HSQ 6, “Even when I’m
by myself, I’m often amused by the absurdities of
life”), (3) aggressive humor style (sample item: HSQ
27, “If I don’t like someone, I often use humor or
teasing to put them down”), and (4) self-defeating
humor style (sample item: HSQ 20, “I often go over-
board in putting myself down when I am making
jokes or trying to be funny”). Each style is measured
with eight items that are answered by using a 7-point
Likert scale from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 7 (“totally
agree”). Reliabilities of the scales (Cronbach’s
alphas) reach from .77 (aggressive humor) to .81
(affiliative humor).
Studies on the relationship between personal-
ity and humor styles (as measured with the HSQ)
have found that extraverted people typically engage
in affiliative, aggressive, and self-enhancing humor.
People high in neuroticism usually don’t tend to use
self-enhancing humor, but rather aggressive and self-
defeating humor. Furthermore, individuals prone to
affiliative and self-enhancing humor are usually open
to experiences, whereas those prone to aggressive

and self-defeating humor are typically less agreeable
and conscientious. Researchers have also found that
affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles are posi-
tively related with important life outcomes, includ-
ing life satisfaction and subjective well-being, and
negatively associated with depression and anxiety.
Ursula Beermann
See also Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor; Humor
Styles; Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of; Test
Measurements of Humor; 3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Beermann, U., & Ruch, W. (2009). How virtuous is
humor? What we can learn from current instruments.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 528–539.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. (1996). Sense
of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
9(3/4), 273–302.
Craik, K. H., & Ware, A. P. (2007). Humor and personality
in everyday life. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor:
Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 63–94).
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1996). Measurement of the sense of
humor [Special issue]. HUMOR: International Journal
of Humor Research, 9(3/4), 363–397.
Ruch, W. (2007). Appendix: Humor measurement tools. In
W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a
personality characteristic (pp. 405–412). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
HUMOR STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE
See Humor Styles Measurement
HUMOR THEORIES
Humor theories are the various theories that schol-
ars have come up with to explain, recognize, use,
Humor Theories 367
and even produce humor, usually but not necessar-
ily in the form of short verbal jokes, created on the
fly as appropriate to the situation (situational jokes)
or reproduced from memory though not necessar-
ily recited word for word (canned jokes). However,
humor can exist in longer texts, including humor-
ous plays (comedies), humorous novels, and, per-
haps most widespread, humorous short stories, for
instance, by O. Henry or Anton Chekhov.
As in other areas of life or research, the term
theory can be used loosely as an explanation of any
phenomenon, without any serious claims of univer-
sality. Thus, one can say, I have a theory why Nicole
left Jason, meaning that one may identify a reason
for that domestic disaster, not even necessarily the
reason, and not implying at all that one’s “theory”
will be necessarily applicable to all marriages or even
to all things that Nicole does. It is interesting also
that, in this popular usage, roughly synonymous to
“reason” or “factor,” the speaker is ready, in prin-
ciple, to hear and perhaps even accept objections. In
that case, the theory will be withdrawn, having been
reduced to the status of a hypothesis, moreover, a
falsified hypothesis. This everyday view is, in fact,
rather similar to the philosophical notion of theory
as an as-yet unfalsified hypothesis by the Austrian-
British philosopher Sir Karl Popper. Now, Popper
pursued a much more exact view of theory as a
universal explanation for a phenomenon, probably
even in the mathematical sense of stating both the
necessary and sufficient conditions defining it. This
entry reviews the former, informal view of humor
theories and then addresses the latter, much less
popular and more difficult formal notion of theory.
Informal Humor Theories
Introductions to humor research often mention
three main groups of humor theories: those based on
hostility or superiority, those based on “liberation,”
and those based on incongruity. The hostility or
superiority jokes usually make fun of afflictions or
disasters befalling other people, such as slipping on
a banana peel or taking a flight to Timbuktu instead
of Tampa. Such jokes are often associated with
ancient humor, mostly because this is the kind of
humor that Greek and Roman scholars talked about
in their occasional writings on humor. It is alive and
well today, and it can take a sophisticated form.
Thus, it was a hostile and superior joke when Sir
Winston Churchill, the famous British politician and
Word War II–era prime minister, reputedly (and in
368 Humor Theories
multiple disputed versions), answered a society
lady who accused him at a state dinner, most likely
deservedly, that he was drunk, “Yes, m’lady, I am
indeed inebriated, but you are stupid. And the dif-
ference is that when I wake up tomorrow morning
I will no longer be drunk.” The fun and pleasure
that the speakers and hearers are supposed to expe-
rience from this kind of joke lie in the fact that those
people, unlike the ones targeted in the jokes, con-
sider themselves free of whatever character flaw or
mistake that the targets are accused of. The verac-
ity of the charge against the target is not important:
For the whole generation or so, Americans gleefully
regaled each other with jokes about the purported
dumbness of Polish Americans while none person-
ally knew such a person in their real lives and, as a
major sociologist of humor, Christie Davies, showed
with hard facts and statistics, in the late 1980s,
Polish immigration into the United States had been
very successful by all sociological and economical
metrics.
Liberation jokes were made famous by the
Austrian psychologist and founder of psychoanaly-
sis Sigmund Freud, who saw the pleasure of this
kind of humor in allowing the speakers and hearers
to abandon the “yoke” of everyday reality. Many
but not all of those jokes deal with sex fantasies,
such as the allegedly French story of two friends,
exchanging their dreams of the night before. The
first friend says that he had a dream about going
to Dijon for mustard. The second one had a dream
about Sophia Loren ringing his doorbell and inter-
rupting his cooking dinner for himself with an hour
of passionate lovemaking. After her departure and
before he can return to cooking, Gina Lollobrigida
(another famous actress and sex bomb of the 1950s,
which dates the joke accordingly) rings the bell
and another passionate encounter ensues. So when
Brigitte Bardot shows up in the dream right after
that, the man is exhausted and unable to oblige the
beauty. “So, why didn’t you call me?” asks the first
friend. “But you went to Dijon for mustard!” the
second replied.
A nonsexual American joke of the Depression
era is also a sample of liberation humor. A traveling
salesman of agricultural supplies is turning toward
an old friend’s farm, where he was invited to dinner
and to spend a night. Suddenly, some small creature
jumps on the road in front of him and proceeds to
run ahead of his car. In fact, it is running so fast that
the man fails to get close enough to it to figure out
what it is. He mentions this to the farmer at dinner,
who nods and explains that it must have been a
three-legged chicken that he bred in order to be able
to use one chicken for dinner for himself, his wife,
and their youngest daughter, still at home, because
they all like chicken legs. “How interesting,” says
the guest. “So how does a three-legged chicken
taste?” “I don’t know,” answers the farmer. “I have
never been able to catch one.”
This joke also belongs to the smaller class of
“shaggy dog” jokes, in which an apparent incon-
gruity is introduced and never resolved. The incon-
gruity-based view of jokes was first expressed in the
German 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant’s
postulation of surprise as a feature of humor. In the
three-legged chicken joke, the incongruity between
the real world of two-legged chickens and the
invented world of three-legged ones is quite stark.
In the overanalyzed joke from Victor Raskin’s classic
1985 book, it is between two different situations that
are both possible, but only one of them is actually
taking place. A patient rings the bell of the doctor’s
house, and the doctor’s young and pretty wife opens
the door. He asks in his bronchial whisper whether
the doctor is in. “No,” she whispers back. “Come
right in.” Here, the incongruity is partially resolved
by the promiscuous wife’s mistaking the patient’s
loss of voice for intimacy and inviting a new man to
her house for adultery while her spouse is away.
Jokes can be classified, or taxonomized, in many
different ways, and there is nothing wrong in look-
ing at them from the points of view of superiority,
liberation, or incongruity. Referring to these points
of view as theories is acceptable also only if the term
is used in the loose sense of a factor, reason, or par-
tial explanation. The prominent psychologist of per-
sonality and major psychologist of humor Willibald
Ruch has discovered several additional factors
accompanying humor; the major factor is mirth, the
feeling of enjoying life as a trait that characterizes
people who appreciate humor and like to maximize
the amount of it in their lives. Similarly, a recent
finding by the psychologist Peter McGraw associ-
ates humor with independently assessable “benign
violation.” What characterizes both the three most
cited theories described earlier and the separate
factors accompanying humor is their partial and
defeasible nature: Counterexamples are easy to find.
This is true of all of them: There are jokes that lack
hostility or liberation; incongruity is possible to find
almost everywhere but sometimes with a stretch that
defeats the purpose. Where the loose theories fail to
qualify as full-fledged philosophical ones is that they

are all one-sided: In mathematical terms, they are
all necessary, not necessary and sufficient conditions
of humor. If the text is known to be a joke, then it
may be hostile, liberating, incongruous, mirthful, or
introducing a benign violation—or, more formally,
designating any one of these features as F:
If Text = Joke, then Text has F
“If/Then” is the relationship between the two prop-
ositions, the “text is a joke” is the left part of the
conditional rule, or the actual condition, and the
“text has [the identified feature] F” is the right part,
or the conclusion, the consequence. The proposition
in the right part is also, then, the necessary condi-
tion of being a joke. In other words, in order to be a
joke, it must (it is necessary that it) have the feature
in question.
It appears that, in research and in life in general,
it is much harder to discover the left part, or suf-
ficient condition. In the case of all of the features of
the loose theories described earlier and many more,
the side-switching, reverse formula
If Text has F, then Text = Joke
is not true, and very obviously so: Any totally
humorless text may exhibit any of these features and
many others besides those. In other words, none of
these features constitutes a sufficient condition for a
text to be a joke.
Formal Humor Theory
A formal theory of humor aspires to produce a uni-
versal explanatory statement about its subject, and it
must discover the necessary and sufficient condition,
or set of conditions for it. The first humor theory
to attempt that was Raskin’s script-based semantic
theory of humor (SSTH), which claimed that, for
a text to be a joke, it must be compatible with two
opposed scripts, and vice versa. That is, the text
must evoke in the listener or reader two different
situations with some kind of oppositeness. Any text
that is so compatible must be a joke:
Text = Joke if and only if Text is compatible
with two opposed scripts.
The SSTH claim for a full-fledged theory status is
based on its complying with all the parameters of
such a theory. Although a theory is best known for
its body, which is the statements it makes about its
subject, such as stating the necessary and sufficient
conditions for a text to be a joke, there are several
Humor Theories 369
other parameters to a formal theory. The first one
is, actually, its purview, the set of all phenomena the
theory tries to explain. In case of SSTH, it is a set of
all short verbal jokes, texts that are potential jokes.
It is important not to misuse a theory by taking it
outside of its purview without appropriate exten-
sions and modifications. Equally, if not more impor-
tant, it is essential to make the premises underlying
a theory explicit—otherwise, any discussion of a
theory or its comparison with competing theories
will be obscured. An important premise of SSTH is
that it is a linguistic theory of humor and, therefore,
it can be based on normal linguistic analysis of text,
in this case, mostly semantic analysis.
Next, a theory must have and pursue well-defined
goals. The goals of SSTH are threefold: first, to
divide reliably all candidate texts into jokes and non-
jokes on the basis of clear and well-defined criteria;
then, to represent the mechanism of each joke on the
basis of the same criteria used in more detail; and
last, to be able to generate jokes by applying these
mechanisms. The goals clearly lead to testing the
theory on Popper’s principle of possible falsification.
A formal theory can be falsified by a single example
(contrary to that, no theory can be affirmed by any
number of examples), so, in the case of SSTH, any
text that conforms to the necessary and sufficient
conditions above but is not a joke will disprove
SSTH. A theory can be justified in a number of
ways, such as direct observation, logical reasoning,
or ultimately, by subjecting it to a practical test. It
is usually evaluated against human judgment. In the
case of SSTH, because of its human-oriented nature
and before its application, for instance, computa-
tionally, justification and evaluation can be allowed
to merge, especially since no fully competitive theory
has been presented for comparison. If SSTH ana-
lyzes jokes in a way that is compatible with human
understanding, it passes the test, and there have been
human-subject experiments that confirm this, at
least partially. Some recent experiments have taken
the theory further into ranking the jokes as to their
funniness and comparing ranking based on human
judgment with ranking obtained by using formal
criteria or even computationally.
Theory and Reality
The view of formal theory presented in the previous
paragraphs is closely related to the mathematical
notion of axiomatic theory, which also introduced
formality as the explicit description that leaves little,
370 Humor Theories
if any, ground to individual human interpretation. It
thus captures what is general in human perception.
In the case of humor, it is assumed that the same joke
is understood, roughly, in the same way by different
hearers. This emphasis on significant generalization
is characteristic for Western analytical philosophy.
There is, however, a challenge to analytical
philosophy, even within the Western tradition.
Phenomenology is a 20th-century philosophy that
emphasizes the individuality, uniqueness, and pecu-
liarities of each phenomenon and defies and resists
generality, sometimes counterintuitively, for exam-
ple, the phenomenological generalization that there
are no generalizations. Accordingly, most objections
to general formal theories come from this tradition.
Most criticism of SSTH as the first candidate for a
full-fledged formal theory of humor has come from
European authors claiming that things are much
more complicated than the theory explicates and
predicts, that there are infinite arrays of details that
it cannot predict. They have not provided a coun-
terexample to disprove the theory, nor have they
produced an alternative theory of the same scope.
There is some obvious truth, of course, to the
thought that each phenomenon, every human, even
every piece of furniture is unique, but that does
not eliminate the fact that our comprehension uses
rather broad categories, and our reality (includ-
ing all objects, events, relations, etc., within it) is
characterized in terms of these categories expressed
in language. This entry, for instance, is written in
English but nobody’s English is quite identical to
another speaker or writer’s English. It has been
argued, therefore, that there is no such thing as the
English, French, or Chinese language—rather, what
exists in reality is 600 million individual variet-
ies of English (individual dialects called idiolects),
say, 120 million varieties of French, and 800 mil-
lion or more varieties of Chinese. But the question
arises then, What are the foreign learners to study?
Whose English, French, or Chinese should they try
to master? And whose idiolect are the linguists to
describe and instructors of, say, English as a second
language to teach? Generalization or “idealization”
of this multiplicity of variants is, therefore, neces-
sary. Idealization, abstracting from a particular ver-
sion, does not prevent a scholar from addressing the
specificity of any one variant, but multiplying such a
study millions of time is wasteful and useless.
By the same token, there is no denying that a joke
may be understood differently by different hearers
or readers. Thus, everybody’s notion of sex may
be conditioned by the vagaries of personal circum-
stances, various partners, preferences, and fantasies.
This does not prevent a sexual joke from being
understood following the same scripts. Patterns of
individual differences may be studied by extending
and refining a theory, but the level of detail, the grain
size, that is sufficient to observe a general feature of
the comprehension may be adequate, and it is ille-
gitimate to criticize a theory by switching it from
its grain size to a finer one unless something general
can be additionally captured by doing so.
This is not to say that a full-fledged theory, such
as SSTH, cannot be criticized even if short of pro-
viding a counterexample that would falsify it. One
important aspect of a theory is its features that serve
as a basis of its evaluation, especially by humans.
Thus, in the case of SSTH, both the scripts and the
nature of their opposition should be clear enough
to a human subject for them to confirm or discon-
firm that the theory analyzes a joke closely to their
intuitive understanding of it. SSTH has already been
improved on in later generations of linguistic theo-
ries of humor. Ultimately, any adequate theory of
humor should be truly multidisciplinary, as is indeed
the phenomenon of humor itself.
So what do we do with reality, then, that always
adds particulars, unique in practically every case?
Language underdetermines reality, and any sentence
that describes a situation leaves infinitely many
details about the situation unmentioned. The hearer
or reader of the sentence is either satisfied (despite
the lack of details) or asks the speaker or writer a
question about those details. Thus, in the case of the
patient/lover joke cited earlier, no description of the
two participants’ hair color, their respective heights,
the clothing they wore, or what they had for break-
fast is given, and it is fine as both the speaker/writer
and hearer(s)/reader(s) of the joke would agree that
those and many other details are unimportant to the
story. An important detail that is necessary for under-
standing the joke will not be omitted by a competent
provider without facing the infelicity of his or her
humor attempt. Any theory can be further extended,
refined, deepened when it is necessary to explain an
individual phenomenon detail, but even for that,
there should be a systematic, general principle, and
it is reasonable to do for any subset of phenomena.
Alternatively, a story can be told about such a case,
and this anecdotal, ad hoc method of cognition is
still acceptable in a number of disciplines, including
several of those that actively contribute to humor
research. The evolution of loose, informal theories

of humor to full-fledged formal ones is, thus, clear
evidence of progress in the field, especially so, since
the indebtedness of the latter kind of theories to the
former is pretty evident: An anecdote, an example,
the staples of a loose theory, become heuristics, aides
to discovery of real theories of humor. The field has
reached a certain level of maturity in this regard,
but it is still very much a work in progress, a task
assigned to the whole humor research community.
Victor Raskin
See also Anecdote, Comic; Benign Violation Theory;
Computational Humor; Freudian/Psychoanalytic
Theory; Linguistic Theories of Humor; Linguistics;
Punch Line; Semantics; 3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nirenburg, S., & Raskin, V. (2004). Ontological semantics.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary
approach. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Raskin, V. (Ed.). (2008). The primer of humor research.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). Towards an
empirical verification of the general theory of verbal
humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 6(2), 123–136.
HUMORIST
A humorist is a person who is skillful in the use of
humor, as in writing, talking, or acting. However,
centuries ago, the term humorist had a different
connotation and was more related to physiology
and medicine than to a subjective quality of mind,
either natural or assumed. Therefore, this entry dis-
cusses the evolution of the term before contrasting it
against its current potential synonyms in the field of
humor, such as entertainer, comedian, and satirist,
which all denote self-conscious creators of a product
called humor.
Humorist, as a term, was first used in the early
17th century to refer to an objective character con-
trolled by his unbalanced temperament. Deeply
rooted in physiology and medicine, humorist also
meant a person who attributes diseases to the state
Humorist 371
of humors. From the 18th through the 19th century,
the notion of humorist became rather ambiguous,
for it pertained to a cast of people who had some
peculiarity or eccentricity of character, which they
indulged in odd or whimsical ways. Every act of
laughter at the peculiarity of humorists was thus
made ambiguous, as this laughter was shared with
the humorist, but also at his expense.
It was not until the mid to late 19th century that
humorist came to refer to an active man of humor
who shifted from being an eccentric character to
writing about eccentric characters. In other words,
the humorist is no longer an object of laughter
but rather a self-conscious creator of laughter. For
example, Mark Twain, who wrote in a clever and
funny way about real people and events, became
one of the first humorists in this contemporary
sense. Humorists are not only writers; they are both
creators and performers of humorous materials. In
this sense, humorist is the general term under which
more genre-specific denominations such as satirist,
ironist, parodist, lampooner, and caricaturist may
be included. However, unlike humorist, which is
universal, satirist is a more literary and critical term
addressing a person who writes satire, an ironist is
a notable user of irony, a parodist and a lampooner
mimic literary or musical style for comic effect, and
a caricaturist is one who parodies in an exagger-
ated manner. When performing, a humorist may be
a comedian who, as a professional entertainer, tells
jokes or performs various other comic acts.
Yet a humorist is more than a joker, who tells
or plays jokes, or a punster, who makes puns.
Humorists cannot be reduced to buffoons who
make a practice of amusing others with low tricks
and antic gestures, because they are not clowns or
fools. Although jokers, clowns, and fools played an
incontestably significant historical role in medieval
times, when they had specific roles, today the only
common feature they share with humorists is that
they are heralds of the truth who try to prevent
excessive pride and arrogance or even foolish behav-
ior. A humorist in the contemporary understanding
of the word is no longer a droll individual who is
amusing and strange or ludicrously odd. A humorist
has the ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical,
and the absurd in human life and to express these,
usually without bitterness. From this perspective, a
humorist is a wit who has the ability to relate seem-
ingly disparate things so as to illuminate and amuse.
Moreover, the humorist assumes a role and, in doing
so, reveals a manipulating intelligence behind the
372 Humorous Names
mask of the unknowing humorist he or she pretends
to be. It follows that the humorist is far and fore-
most someone skilled in the expression of humor,
known to be amusing and quick-witted.
Diana Elena Popa
See also Caricature; Clowns; Feast of Fools; Jest,
Jestbooks, and Jesters; Lampoon; Puns; Satire; Witz
Further Readings
Plester, B., & Orams, M. (2008). Send in the clowns: The
role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
21(3), 253–282.
Tave, S. (1960). The amiable humorist: A study in the
comic theory and criticism of the 18th and early 19th
centuries. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wickberg, D. (1998). The senses of humor: Self and
laughter in modern America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Yates, N. (1964). The American humorist: Conscience of
the 20th century. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
HUMOROUS BEHAVIOR
Q-SORT DECK
See Humor Styles Measurement
HUMOROUS NAMES
Names are one of the few bits of language that indi-
viduals are free to create, even going so far as to cre-
ate sounds that are not ordinarily in the speaker’s
language. Because of this freedom, combined with
the fact that every person, every place, every publi-
cation, and every commercial product must have a
proper name, speakers can expect that some names
will be intentionally humorous, while others will be
unintentionally humorous.
Studying humorous names is easier than it used
to be, but at the same time it isn’t as enjoyable
because much of the challenge is gone. The Internet
is responsible for both of these changes. Today peo-
ple can go to any search engine and find many sites
dealing with humorous naming. This takes away
from the surprise and the delight that people used
to get from discovering a sign for a dentist named
Dr. Payne, a telephone listing for a surgeon named
Dr. Crewel, or an academic article written by Paper
and Penzl (Herbert Paper and Herbert Penzl, who
were both professors in the linguistics program at
the University of Michigan). Also, news can travel
so fast on the Internet that within a year after a
celebrity decides on a clever baby name, such as
Nevaeh (heaven spelled backward), the name can
become one of the top 1,000 most popular names
for newborn females.
Nevertheless, names that can be interpreted with
different semantic meanings still make people laugh
as when on The Simpsons, Bart calls Moe’s Tavern
and asks to speak to non-existent patrons who he
identifies with gag names that, when shouted out
loud, will communicate more than the bartender
has realized, for example, Amanda Huggenkiss,
Ben Dover, and Seymour Butts. Brothers Tom and
Ray Magliozzi, hosts of the popular radio show Car
Talk, regularly make use of gag names and have reg-
istered the humorous string of Dewey, Cheetham,
& Howe as one of their trademarks, even though it
was used by comedians long before them.
Alluding to the names of well-known characters
or historical figures is an efficient kind of literary
humor demonstrated by Daniel Handler in his young
adult series of books, A Series of Unfortunate Events,
written under the pseudonym Lemony Snicket and
published by HarperCollins between 1999 and 2006.
Although the series of 13 books are for children,
Handler developed a secondary audience of adults
through his deadpan allusions to dozens of famous
Americans. The heroes of the books are two orphans
named Klaus and Sunny (a reminder of Claus and
Sunny von Bülow) who team up with two other
orphans named Duncan and Isadora Quagmire.
Young readers are amused at someone having the
last name of Quagmire, while adults are probably
reminded of the sad story of dancer Isadora Duncan,
who became a tragic symbol of “the Roaring
Twenties.” In the second book, The Reptile Room,
the children think they are going to be adopted by
their Uncle Montgomery, a collector of snakes, who
tells the children to call him Uncle Monty. Handler
leaves it to his readers to figure out the connection
to Monty Python. In a darker example in the eighth
book, The Miserable Mill, a worker at the sawmill
gets one of his legs hopelessly mangled, and a fellow
worker hands him a coupon offering “fifty percent
off” at the Ahab Memorial Hospital.
Young readers may be more attuned than are
adults to name-related humor because they are just

developing the intellectual ability to conceive of
words having multiple meanings. Certainly part of
the success of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books is
her skill in creating amusing names for characters,
places, publications, charms and spells, along with
the products sold in the Weasley twins’ joke shop.
A contrast to this mostly lighthearted kind of
humor is a dark side of humor when people make
fun of other people’s names. Gary Paulsen makes
this point in his book How Angel Peterson Got
His Name: And Other Outrageous Tales About
Extreme Sports (2003), when he says about a boy
named Orvis Orvisen, that his parents might as well
have just rubbed “him with raw liver” and thrown
“him into a pit of starving wolves” (p. 56) when
they gave him the heavy burden of carrying around
such a name.
Some name-related humor demonstrates preju-
dicial attitudes toward others who have chosen
names perceived as inappropriate. Racism and/or
regionalism seems to be at work in stories about
African Americans or poor White Southerners giv-
ing beautiful sounding names to infant daughters
without knowing that the words were taken from
medical terms related to body parts or bodily func-
tions. According to the Urban Legends Reference
Pages website, informally known as Snopes.com,
it’s unlikely that any of these tales of women
unknowingly giving their children anatomical names
are true. As noted by Snopes.com, “Unusual names
are not in themselves folkloric; what makes them so
are the perceived motivations of the parents,” that
is, the idea that they did not know any better. These
legends illustrate the superiority theory of humor,
which says that people laugh when they suddenly
perceive themselves as superior to whomever they
are laughing at, whether it is someone who has
slipped on a banana peel or someone who has made
a social gaffe. The explanations of the names, along
with some of the names, are urban legends or FOAF
(Friend of a Friend) tales, which give pleasure to
people who are looking for reasons to view them-
selves as superior.
These stories may be a contributing factor to
naming practices whereby parents reject naming
patterns of mainstream society to devise their own
spellings (e.g., Mychal rather than Michael; Kaela,
Kaylah, or Kaila rather than Kayla) or to create
presumably new names (e.g., DeShonna, Rau’shee,
Tarajae, Turquoise, and Seven).
Some present-day celebrities have chosen
names imbued with humor for their children,
Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of 373
from Moon Unit (daughter of musician Frank
Zappa) to Pilot Inspektor (son of actor Jason Lee)
to Moxie CrimeFighter (daughter of magician
Penn Jillette). This may be due to an inclination
of artists to go against the norm; but regardless
of the reason, the names have been a source of
mockery in many quarters of the media.
Alleen Pace Nilsen and Don Lee Fred Nilsen
See also Ambiguity; Parody; Race, Representations of
Further Readings
Nicholson, C. S. (2012). Young scholars speak out: On
“That’s Not My Name!” What YA authors can teach
about the names of African American students. In A. P.
Nilsen, J. Blasingame, K. L. Donelson, & D. L. F.
Nilsen, Literature for today’s young adults (9th ed.).
New York, NY: Pearson.
Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2007). Names and naming
in young adult literature. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Urban Legends Reference Pages. (2007). Funny names.
Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://www.snopes
.com/racial/language/names.asp
HUMOROUS STIMULI,
CHARACTERISTICS OF
Humor comprehension and appreciation, the cogni-
tive and affective responses to humor, respectively,
are influenced by individual differences, such as per-
sonality characteristics, cognitive and social skills,
and stimulus characteristics. Humorous stimuli may
be characterized according to the content, type, and
genre, as well as variables related to structure.
Stimuli Characteristics Related to the Content
Past research has considered content-related char-
acteristics, focusing on the hostility of jokes, which
range from benevolent and harmless (sometimes
called “nonsense jokes,” not to be confused with
nonsense humor, which is opposite to incongruity-
resolution humor) to offending, aggressive, and
hostile. This distinction is rooted in the tradition
of humor theories that center on superiority and
disparagement. An example of such superiority
may be found in sexual/sexist humor, often con-
sidered offensive, and the sole content-related fac-
tor that emerged in factorial analyses conducted on
374 Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of
humorous stimuli (in addition to two structure-
related dimensions, incongruity-resolution versus
nonsense humor). Additional aspects that play into
content-related stimuli characteristics are joke tar-
gets and themes (e.g., jokes about blondes or jokes
about certain ethnic groups). The general theory of
verbal humor (GTVH) describes several content-
related knowledge resources that characterize a joke.
Script opposition distinguishes between contrasts in
jokes that often deal with such dualities as good/
bad, life/death, money/no money, sex/nonsex, and
others. Other content-related knowledge resources
are the joke target and the situation in which the
joke is embedded.
Stimuli Characteristics Related
to Type and Genre
Different types of humorous stimuli exist, such as
situational comedy, which typically emerges spon-
taneously in social interactions, movies, books, car-
toons, and prefabricated jokes. Stimuli may differ in
several ways, including degree of reality and sponta-
neity, length, complexity, and number of punch lines
(and jab lines). Humor types are difficult to distin-
guish from structural characteristics, and categories
of humor based on structure are discussed in the fol-
lowing section.
Stimuli Characteristics Related to the Structure
Several possibilities for categorizing humorous stim-
uli according to structure exist. Indeed, some of the
knowledge resources of the GTVH characterize a
joke relating to its structure: The script opposition
can also describe the relation of two juxtaposed
scripts—this can be actual versus nonactual, normal
versus abnormal, or possible versus impossible. The
logical mechanism describes the cognitive rule that
must be recognized to resolve the incongruity so that
comprehension of the punch line can occur (e.g.,
analogy, role exchange, juxtaposition). Language
and narrative strategy, also known as genre, are
other examples of knowledge resources.
One essential characteristic of humorous stimuli
is the availability of one or more incongruities that
must be at least partially resolved in a playful man-
ner for comprehension of the punch line. There
are often multiple incongruities in a joke; thus the
main incongruity can be distinguished from more
backgrounded incongruities (e.g., speaking animals).
The type (completely or only partially resolvable)
and number of incongruities contribute substantially
to the distinction of incongruity-resolution versus
nonsense humor, which represent extreme ends of
a continuum. Incongruity-resolution jokes can be
fully resolved (no questions remain after resolving
the incongruity), whereas in nonsense humor, the
main incongruity can only be partially resolved.
Backgrounded incongruities contribute to the per-
ception of the joke as nonsense because they con-
tribute to the perceived absurdity of a joke. Many
stimuli contain additional incongruities that the
audience usually overlooks, but they may be needed
to create the setup for the main incongruity (e.g., ani-
mals that talk; space aliens; a German, an American,
and a Russian sharing a language).
Another characteristic that influences how the
incongruity must be resolved is the degree to which
(false) mental states are attributed to the characters
portrayed in a joke or cartoon. This is strongly
related to social cognitive skills (e.g., perspective tak-
ing abilities, theory of mind) of the joke perceiver
and contributes to the funniness of the joke.
Structure-Related Specificities
of Nonverbal Humor
Humorous stimuli can also be distinguished along
the dimension of verbal versus nonverbal structure.
Nonverbal humor (e.g., one-panel cartoons) has
particular characteristics due to its pictorial repre-
sentation (“iconic character”) and symbolic nature.
In visual puns, the iconic character of one visual ele-
ment (visual similarity between a visual symbol and
the concept it is referring to), usually compatible
with two meanings or scripts, plays a particular role.
Certain important differences in verbal humor are
ascribed to visual humor: processing in a non-linear
way, aesthetic components of visual art, potential
room for richness in detail, drawing style and instru-
ments used by the cartoonist, and others. In this
context, a playful, reassuring drawing style seems
to facilitate humor (in contrast to a realistic draw-
ing style). The degree of distortion is also a central
element of caricatures or distorted pictures of the
self, both of which have been the subject of recent
research.
Of particular interest are the multiple interac-
tions between individual differences and stimu-
lus characteristics: Gelotophobia, or fear of being
laughed at, and katagelasticism, or joy in laughing
at others, affect the perception of offending humor
(and humor in general), experience seeking and
the tolerance of ambiguity influence the preference

for incongruity-resolution or nonsense humor, and
empathy and social skills affect the comprehension
and appreciation of theory of mind cartoons. In
addition, content- and structure-related differences
in humorous stimuli affect neural activation patterns
associated with humor processing.
Andrea C. Samson
See also Cartoons; Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes;
Puns; Verbal Humor; Witz
Further Readings
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representation model.
Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of 375
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(3/4), 293–347.
Hempelmann, C. F., & Samson, A. C. (2008). Cartoons:
Drawn jokes? In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor
research (pp. 609–640). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Herzog, T., & Larwin, D. (1988). The appreciation of
humor in captioned cartoons. The Journal of
Psychology, 122, 597–607.
Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor:
Studies with the 3WD humor test. In C. D. Spielberger
& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 27–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 I
IDENTITY
Identity refers to our sense of self. Our identity
includes both those personal characteristics that
make each of us unique and those that establish us
as a member of a particular social group (includ-
ing gender, race and ethnicity, age, social class, reli-
gion, nationality, ability and disability, education,
and occupation). Our identity is complex and fluid
and it changes across the life course. Identity and
comedy are inextricably linked. The identity of the
comic performer and the audience are fundamen-
tal features in the comedy process. Comedy plays a
significant role in identity negotiation and renego-
tiation for both performers and audiences. Comedy
production and reception can reaffirm, challenge,
and subvert identities. This entry examines the rela-
tionship between comedy and identity from the per-
spective of both the professional comedian and the
comedy audience.
Comedians and Identity
The comedian’s identity is crucially important in
the comedy process. Comedians can perform an
exaggerated version of their own identities, as is
the case with American stand-up comedian Joan
Rivers. The comedian may make self-deprecating
jokes about his or her own appearance, experiences,
beliefs, and characteristics. Self-deprecating jokes
have the potential to critique the culture that cre-
ates specific norms and expectations in relation to
appearances and identities, while simultaneously
377
criticizing those individuals or groups that subscribe
to those particular norms and expectations. Other
comedians make jokes about identities that are dif-
ferent from their own. For example, British White
male comedian Roy Chubby Brown has established
a very successful (and controversial) comedy career
making jokes about women and ethnic minorities.
Alternatively, comedians can perform as a particu-
lar character that differs from their own identity.
British comedian Paul O’Grady has performed in
drag as his alter ego, Lily Savage, and has made
jokes about sex and sexuality from “Lily’s perspec-
tive.” In other cases, the layers of identities are delib-
erately blurred so that it is not clear which identity,
or identities, is being adopted and ridiculed. Comic
character Ali G, performed by Sacha Baron Cohen,
confused audiences because Ali G’s identity was
ambiguous. It was unclear whether he was White,
Jewish, or Asian. A number of interpretive possi-
bilities were possible, including he was a White man
pretending to be a Black man; he was a White man
pretending to be an Asian who is pretending to be
Black; and he was a Jewish man pretending to be
an Asian pretending to be a White man pretending
to be Black. The uncertainty and fluidity surround-
ing Ali G’s identity led to questions surrounding
who was impersonating whom and criticisms that
he was propagating homophobic, misogynistic, and
racist stereotypes.
The way in which a comedian’s identity is
described in publicity or in announcements imme-
diately before the comedian appears on stage (e.g.,
a male Irish comedian, a female Muslim come-
dian, etc.) can help create a particular audience
378 Igbo Humor
expectation in relation to the style and content of
the performance they are about to experience. While
some comedians may ensure that they meet these
audience expectations, others can, of course, renego-
tiate and redefine these expectations. For example,
Omid Djalili, a British-Iranian comedian and actor,
often begins his performances by talking in a thick
“Middle Eastern” accent. Once the audience is
used to this accent and has relaxed into his perfor-
mance, Omid Djalili then switches to his authentic
British accent. In doing so, Omid Djalili subverts
stereotypes that some audience members may have
about Middle Eastern identities and challenges their
assumptions.
Comedy Audiences and Identity
Since the mid- to late 19th century, having a sense of
humor has been regarded by most people as an essen-
tial attribute for a rounded personality. A (good)
sense of humor is a trait that we like to see in our
own identity characteristics and those of our family
members, partners, friends, and colleagues. Positive
value is attached to the ability to laugh at ourselves
and with others. Laughing at the same stand-up
comedian, sitcom, or sketch show can build and
maintain a feeling of collective identity within the
audience members who share the laughter. In doing
so, a distinction is made between those who “get
the joke” and laugh—the in-group—and those who
“miss the joke” or consider it offensive—the out-
group. Our identity is partially created, expressed,
and maintained through our comedy preferences,
tastes, networks, and communities. These are intri-
cately linked to, and largely determined by, other
spheres of our identity such as gender, age, race and
ethnicity, social class, and education. Our comedy
preferences, tastes, networks, and communities will
influence the type of comedy, comic performers,
comedy television programs (and so on) that we are
attracted to, our motivations for consuming specific
types of comedy, and how we make sense of and
respond to different types of comedy. Thus, the same
comic performances will be interpreted, described,
and responded to very differently by those with dif-
ferent comedy identities.
Sharon Lockyer
See also Ethnicity and Humor; Gender and Humor,
Psychological Aspects of; National and Ethnic
Differences; Sense of Humor, Components of;
Sexuality; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Friedman, S. (2011). The cultural currency of a “good”
sense of humour: British comedy and new forms of
distinction. British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 347–370.
Gilbert, J. (1997). Performing marginality: Comedy,
identity, and cultural critique. Text and Performance
Quarterly, 17, 317–330.
Kuipers, G. (2006). Television and taste hierarchy: The case
of Dutch television comedy. Media, Culture & Society,
28(3), 359–378.
Lockyer, S., & Pickering, M. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond a joke:
The limits of humour. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Medhurst, A. (2007). A national joke: Popular comedy and
English cultural identity. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
IGBO HUMOR
The Igbo are an ethnic group located mainly in
South-East Nigeria. During the Nigerian civil war
(1967–1970), the Igbo seceded from Nigeria and
declared the independent state of Biafra. The devas-
tation and famine following the defeat of the inde-
pendent Biafra have attracted significant attention.
Ironically, the war itself was partly provoked by the
perception of the Igbo as arrogant, lewd, aggres-
sive in business, and unduly playful. So spirited and
bouncy are the people that even some of their sad
experiences and suffering during that conflict have
been turned into fun. For instance, a friend who has
not met another in a long while may joke that his
friend has been as scarce as salt during the Biafran
war. Or when a person wants to say that he will
deploy what he has to perform the task at hand, he
may say that he will use the gun of the Eha-Amufu
man. It was claimed that during that war, a man
from Eha-Amufu, a town in southern Nigeria, in
the northern Igbo area, shot down an enemy fighter
plane with a Dane gun, a kind of locally produced
gun. This entry discusses the humor of the Igbo
people.
A recent humorous saying concerning the inde-
pendence war, realized in a code-switch of Igbo and
English, goes this way: “Ojukwu ga-enwe mmeri,
o n’ime bunker?” (Ojukwu will be victorious, is
it in the bunker?). During the war, on the Biafran
side, some people, instead of coming out to support
the war by joining the secessionist force, avoided
conscription or hid themselves away in under-
ground bunkers, while proclaiming that Biafran

secessionist leader Chukwuemeka Ojukwu would
win the war.
The Igbo as a people have a lighthearted
disposition—even toward themselves—which
is often misinterpreted as a mark of their loath-
someness and disrespect for other ethnic groups,
especially those among whom they lived in the
urban centers of Nigeria. The Igbo possess a cul-
tural structure of joking relationship called nja-
kiri, which even children are encouraged to enjoy
among their fellows right from infancy into adult-
hood. No child may be indulged who returns home
to complain about a cutting or hurtful joke against
him or her by another child. Such a saddened vic-
tim may be asked if he or she has no mouth with
which to retaliate with a njakiri of equal force. It
is this liberty of njakiri that the Igbo are wont to
exhibit outside their immediate native social milieu
that often casts them as being hubristic. Being
largely sojourners on foreign soils where they carry
out their economic activities, often with roaring
success, the Igbo easily become the target of envy.
Afam Ebeogu, an Igbo scholar, suggests that Igbos
living outside of traditionally Igbo regions and
who have tried to adapt the njakiri spirit to local
people have been accused of being too aggressive,
arrogant, or boastful. Ebeogu suggests that social
behavior that would have been acceptable among
the Igbo is suspect among other ethnic groups.
As far back as the 1930s, C. K. Meek, a colo-
nial administrator in eastern Nigeria, had made
the observation that two Igbo people may engage
in insulting interactions for several minutes and
then both walk away after bursting into laughter.
Another Igbo scholar, A. E. Afigbo, finds that, while
the Igbo are considered to be remarkably humorous,
there is nothing that they despise more than humili-
ation or ridicule.
Afigbo’s observation is important because
whereas the Igbo are frisky, they are protective of
self and ego, especially when jokes point to their
improvidence or low station in life. But that is
not to say that the Igbo of low social status do
not exchange banters with peers who enjoy a bet-
ter socioeconomic status. In fact they do. It was
once said that the late Sam Onunaka Mbakwe,
the governor of the Igbo state of Imo, invited his
peers—made up largely of poor rural folks—to the
Government House in Owerri, the state capital, and
purposely initially stopped them from seeing him.
Then, from the balcony upstairs, he was mocking
them and reeling out the names of his friends he
Igbo Humor 379
had told in the past that there would come a day
when they would want to cast their njakiri at him
and they would be unable to do that. But this was
all a joke. He almost immediately gave orders for
them to troop in and no-holds-barred banter fol-
lowed for a long time afterward. As pointed out
earlier, the Igbo of all social cadres are encouraged
from infancy to participate in events of jollity and
conviviality that are often lodged in jokes, some of
them quite biting.
Theoretically, although njakiri may be wide-
spread among the Igbo, its target is carefully cho-
sen depending on age, sex, socioeconomic criteria,
origin, creed, or even the setting. Although njakiri
is a satirical and jocular exchange meant to amuse
audiences and probably tease or abuse its butt, it
can hurt, abuse, or humble the recipient. If it is
improperly aimed or targeted, it can hurt as much
as satire, as satire is more of a literary attack on a
person for a material or moral blunder, while nja-
kiri is not necessarily directed at a person because
of an inadequacy of this kind. It can be said that the
intention of njakiri is not to injure feelings, yet this
jest genre has an in-built mode that is censorious, a
reason that makes people who cannot respond to it
avoid its milieux of application. It can be perceived
in different ways at different times, sometimes as
abuse and sometimes as amusement. Once a joke
loses its njakiri flavor, it becomes ikoonu, a type of
nleda (looking down on another person) and there-
fore outright mkpari (profound abuse). Thus, njakiri
is amusing if it merely generates hilarity, comicality,
or jocular figuration. In that case, the target of the
repartee does not lose face as it is said in popular
parlance. Thus, it is easily achieved if the exchange
of njakiri takes place between people of equal or
comparable status or between those who share simi-
lar sociocultural traits or possess identical cultural
knowledge and are receptive to the joke. A njakiri
scoff aimed at one who is not one’s social equal or
joking mate, or one who is not of the same gender,
is generally seen as ill advised, irreverent, and rude.
At this point, it is taken by the butt of the satire as
abuse or malediction.
Sources of Humor in Igbo Life
Children’s Play: Poetic Insult of Similes
As pointed out, the cultivation of njakiri
and its spirit begins in the Igbo person’s infancy.
Playfulness is in every child’s eagerness to be enter-
tained. While some of their games may not involve
380 Igbo Humor
any verbal exchange, the Igbo poetic insult of
similes (or ikoonu) calls for some type of descrip-
tion that may hurt. The verbal Igbo exchange of
ikoonu is of two kinds—the playful type, usually
among children, which is of interest to us here,
and the caustic type, usually among adults. As
already mentioned, among adults, ikoonu derives
from nleda, and, as a result, it is mkpari. However,
among children, it is the first lesson in the rough-
ness of life. Parents in traditional Igbo life do not
console children who return home crying because
of the outcome of this play type. A child hurt by
another child’s barbs is usually asked to go back
and seek revenge, for after all “ihe o koro buonu,
o gbughi gi mma” (he merely talked down on you,
he didn’t give you a knife cut). Examples of ikoonu
include the following:
I mia anya tuu-tuu (di) ka oke rugburu n’ite
miri japu (Your eyes bulge like those of the rat
that got drowned in an earthen pot of
fermented cassava).
Nti sara gi rom (di) ka nkita bekee (Your ears
hang down loosely like those of the White
man’s dog).
Isi gbara gi alulo (di) ka umu ehi (Your hair is
sickly soft as a calf’s).
Gathered round the ikoonu contestants are fel-
low children who burst into laughter if the simile
is apt. If the comparison is not precise, it attracts
no laughter and is of no significance. A winner and
a loser usually emerge in the short or long run. The
winner must have used more effective similes,
whereas the loser must have scored less or broken
down in grief as a result of the intensity of the
verbal insults heaped on the victim, and sometimes
on his or her parents. For instance, a contestant
may say to an opponent:
Nna gi gbara ohuonu (di) ka nkikara brush
(Your father’s beard is as scraggy as an
old brush).
Nne gi hue otele miri-miri (di) ka ovu mbara
(Your mother’s buttocks are wet like those of a
bush dove).
Proverb Lore
Some Igbo proverbs can be humorous, even
though the proverbs were not intended primarily to
amuse. However, their amusing content makes them
more memorable and impactful.
Atua ilu nkirika nkata, agadi nwanyi si na o
bu ya ka ana aturu (If a proverb mentions an
old basket, the old woman says it is referring
to her).
Inye enwe mmanya abughi nsogbu; o bu
inaputa ya iko (To give palm wine to a monkey
is not the problem; it is recovering the cup).
Many of the Igbo “obscene” proverbs fall into
the humor category since they are largely a mock-
ery of the delicate parts of the body like the anus,
the scrotum, and the genitals.
Nwanyi ikpu ukwu agaghi ara onwe ya (A
woman with a big vagina will not sex herself).
Ma nwata onwuchugh ionwu o ga-eri ihe gbara
ohuonu (If a child doesn’t die early, he will eat
the bearded meat).
Anecdotes
Anecdotes are brief tales that embellish speech,
reinforce or illustrate an argument, or teach a moral
lesson. Sometimes an anecdote is told in a few sen-
tences, a paragraph, or a little more. Oftentimes,
it causes laughter even as it conveys a message to
the audience in order to strengthen a viewpoint or
justify a position. An example is this anecdote: “A
sane man was taking his bath in a stream and left his
clothes on its banks. A naked madman, on observ-
ing what was going on, rushed to the sane man’s
clothes, wore them, and took to his heels. Angered
by what had just happened, the owner of the clothes
went after his persecutor until both of them ended
at the market square.” This anecdote is a funny
one that teaches the lesson that we must not allow
our anger to overwhelm us whereby a sane person
exchanges places with one known to be mad.
Myths
Some Igbo myths are mirthful. What is referred
to as “fanciful play” can easily be observed in some
Igbo myths such that we laugh as we hear them.
For instance: “A mosquito once wanted to marry
the Ear but was derided and chased away because it
was said to be tiny and frail and could die anytime.
Today any time it passes by, it sings into the Ear to
remind her that it is still alive.” The next anecdote is
about the tortoise and his interminable antics in Igbo
lore: “Tortoise visited his parents-in-law. It was har-
mattan time. He went near an open fire in order to

warm himself in the harmattan cold. Unfortunately,
his loincloth got burnt. He sought the attention of
his father-in-law and announced with glee that he
would not ask him to pay for his burnt cloth, neither
would he go home naked.”
Adoption of Aliases
One of the cultural signs to indicate an adult
who would easily enjoy humor from both young
and old is an Igbo man or woman who adopts an
alias, a kind of second name. Whereas one gets a
name at birth, an alias is one that a person takes
by himself or herself. It is not a nickname because
the latter is largely derisive, often given to one by
one’s antagonists or those who do not think highly
of one. However, a nickname turns into an alias
if the affected person accepts and answers to it.
Most aliases are funny or humorous and point at
the owner’s attitude to life or what life has taught
her or him. An alias may be derived from what one
observes about life, a piece of advice to follow, an
expression of one’s personality, a belief, a response
to one’s environment, or one’s perception of experi-
ence and the knowledge at one’s disposal. The truth
content of most aliases makes them acceptable with
some lighthearted humor. In practice, what consti-
tutes the alias is the initial clause of a two-clause
sentence, while the second clause could be the own-
er’s response when hailed:
Okwuba n’ego, nwa ogbenye esere onu ya
(Once a discourse has to do with money, the
poor man withdraws from the discussion).
Alua n’anwu, elie na ndo (If work is done in the
sun, the eating is done in the shade).
Ndi ilo karia, atufuru ha mmanya (When
enemies become numerous, a libation of
palmwine is poured).
Ana abacha ji, ana ele ite anya (As we peel
yams, we consider the size of the pot).
I ma nka, i ma nke ozo? (If you know this one,
do you know the other one?)
Conclusion
Jokes and humor will live with the Igbo for a long
time to come because they are part of the cultural
and philosophical essence of the Igbo. If the civil
war did not discourage their sense of jollity and
enjoyment of the good life, could not eclipse their
exuberant nature in spite of how deeply this aspect
of them alienates, and paints them among fellow
Improv Comedy 381
Nigerians as proud and overconfident, nothing else
would. Today, a good chunk of Nigeria’s comedians
and entertainers and the famous Nollywood actors
and their financiers are Igbo or may have Igbo roots.
Not only do most of them possess the Igbo sense
of humor, but their aggressive business instincts
invested in the multimillion-naira Nollywood indus-
try are Igbo in dimension.
J. O. J. Nwachukwu-Agbada
See also National and Ethnic Differences; Verbal Dueling
Further Readings
Afigbo, A. E. (1973). Patterns of Igbo resistance to British
conquest. Tarikh (Ibadan), 4(3), 14–23.
Ebeogu, A. (1991). Njakiri, the quintessence of the
traditional Igbo sense of satire. In G. Benneth (Ed.),
Spoken in jest (pp. 29–46). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Egudu, R. N. (1972). Social values and thought in
traditional literature: The case of the Igbo proverb and
thought. Nigerian Libraries, 8, 63–84.
Meek, C. K. (1937). Law and authority in a Nigerian tribe.
London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nwachukwu-Agbada, J. O. J. (1991). Aliases among the
Anambra-Igbo: The proverbial dimension. Names:
Journal of American Name Society, 39, 81–94.
Nwachukwu-Agbada, J. O. J. (1996). The glint in the ore:
Latent educational values of Igbo poetic insult of
similes. Lore and Language, 14, 1–14.
Nwachukwu-Agbada, J. O. J. (2004). Igbo humor in the
novels of Chinua Achebe. In E. N. Emenyonu & I. I.
Uko (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on Chinua Achebe
(pp. 151–167). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Nwachukwu-Agbada, J. O. J. (2006). Ezenwa-Ohaeto: Poet
of the njakiri genre. In C. Matzke, A. Raji-Oyelade, &
G. V. Davis (Eds.), Of minstrelsy and masks: The legacy
of Ezenwa-Ohaeto in Nigerian writing (pp. 153–177).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Editions Rodopi.
IMPROV COMEDY
Built out of the theater games originated by Viola
Spolin, improvisational comedy is a system of cre-
ativity that focuses on the cooperation of a group
of players to create completely original perfor-
mances based on set structures and rules that can
be performed spontaneously in front of an audience
or used as a means for generating scripted material.
382 Improv Comedy
This entry gives a brief history of improv, explains
the “Yes, and . . .” concept, and defines the three
genres of improvisation.
Brief History
Although improvisation is rooted in the comme-
dia dell’arte, the most prevalent form of improv
performed today originated in the 1950s with the
advent of the Compass Players. Founded by David
Shepherd to be a theater of, for, and by the people,
the Compass Players performed scenario plays, much
like commedia, wherein the plot was established but
it was up to the performers to invent the dialogue.
The more structured scenario plays were followed
by free-form improvisations using audience sugges-
tions. These “second acts” became wildly popular,
and they became an area for performers to script and
perform successful improvisations, a process that
gave birth to the American comedy duo Nichols &
May (Mike Nichols and Elaine May). The shift in
artistic direction and ideological strife within the
group led to its demise.
In 1959, from the ashes of the Compass Players,
Paul Sills formed the Second City. Perhaps the
most influential comic theater of the 20th century,
the Second City capitalized on the promise of the
Compass Players, by polishing free-form improvised
scenes into written sketches. Still in existence today,
the Second City changed the way we create and view
political and social satire, making comedy socially
significant in American culture.
With a growing sense that improv could be more
than part of the process for writing sketches came
an improv revolution led by Del Close. He joined
forces with Charna Halpern in 1983 at what was
then called ImprovOlympic (now known as iO)
and developed the structure known as the Harold.
The structure features three unrelated scenes that,
throughout the course of the performance, begin
to combine and connect. The Harold gave improv
a structure that made it a viable stage product and
challenged the Second City’s belief that improv
was too unreliable to be staged on its own and
was only useful as a tool to create written work.
Meanwhile, Dick Chudnow in 1984 created
Comedy Sportz, a family-friendly chain of improv
theaters performing what is known as short-form
improv.
Improv in the 1990s and into the 21st century
has featured an explosion of artistic experimenta-
tion and expansion, exemplified by Mick Napier’s
Annoyance Theatre. Eschewing traditional improv
rules, the Annoyance regularly stages offbeat sketch
and improv shows, most notably their flagship musi-
cal production, Co-Ed Prison Sluts. Whereas improv
began as a form dominated by White men, improv
in the 1990s and beyond saw a dramatic increase in
diversity. Likewise, improv, which has historically
been linked with Chicago, has spread to scores of
cities across the country.
“Yes, and . . .”
The basic scenic building block of improvisation
is “Yes, and. . . .” The basic concept means say-
ing yes to your partner’s offer and then adding new
information to move the scene forward. Accepting
and building on the idea ensures the scene will con-
tinue progressing. Saying “no” or failing to add any
new information stalls a scene. Players accept what
is said on stage and build on it. Suspending judg-
ment and silencing your inner critic are essential to
improv. Players cannot judge their own contribu-
tions or those of another and stay present in the
scene. The second players start judging, they remove
themselves from the action of the scene, and doom
it to fail because they are no longer actively engaged
and listening; instead, they are thinking about the
past or the future. They also are violating the trust
that is essential to an endeavor as risky and vulner-
able as improvisation. Saying yes helps build trust,
rewards risk taking, and keeps the action moving
forward.
Genres of Improv
Improvisational theater itself can be divided into
three main genres: short form, long form, and
sketch-based improv, or Scriptprov. They all share
several common theories, such as agreement and
“Yes, and . . .,” but they also have sharp divisions
both theoretically and in performance. Developed
in part from the theater games of Viola Spolin and
Keith Johnstone, short form improv has become
the “pop” version of improv—the most wide-
spread genre of improvisation both onstage and
onscreen. Short form improv is composed of 2- to
7-minute independent games that feature a spe-
cific gimmick to propel the action forward. The
television shows Whose Line Is It Anyway? and
the theater chain ComedySportz are the most
widely known examples of short form improv in
the United States, while Johnstone’s Theatresports

chain is the best known in Canada and the United
Kingdom.
Long form is based on scenes and relationships
and more closely resembles a one-act play (or an
episode of Seinfeld, 30 Rock, or The Office). Long
form is often misconstrued as one long scene (read
one long boring scene), when in fact long form can
consist of a collection of very short scenes. The home
of the Harold and the first, and arguably best, long
form improv theater is iO in Chicago, but places such
as the Annoyance Theatre, the Playground Theater,
Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre (New York), and
the Groundlings (Los Angeles) also perform long
form improv. Sketch comedy or Scriptprov is writ-
ten work based on or derived from improvisation,
often referred to as sketch comedy, such as the per-
formance work done at the Second City, the Brave
New Workshop, the Groundlings, and, to an extent,
on Saturday Night Live.
Improv has expanded beyond the stage as well.
Filmmakers such as Judd Apatow and Adam McKay
use improv as part of their process, Fortune 500
companies have begun using improv as part of their
corporate training structures, and improv as a phi-
losophy for how to live one’s life is gaining in popu-
larity. Although not all improv is concerned with
humor—Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed
is the most noteworthy exception—improv’s most
lasting influence has been on comedy. From the long
list of alumni of improv theaters—Severn Darden,
Shelley Berman, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, John
Belushi, Bill Murray, Chris Farley, Mike Myers,
Steven Colbert, Steve Carell, Tina Fey, and many
more—to the very structure and satirical bent of
shows such as Saturday Night Live and The Daily
Show, it is difficult to overstate the far-reaching
impact of improv’s influence on American entertain-
ment and culture.
Matt Fotis
See also Comedy; Comedy Ensembles; Commedia
dell’Arte; Satire; Sketch Comedy Shows
Further Readings
Halpern, C., Close, D., & Johnson, K. (1994). Truth in
comedy: The manual of improvisation. Colorado
Springs, CO: Meriwether.
Napier, M. (2004). Improvise: Scene from the inside out.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater (3rd ed.).
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Incongruity and Resolution 383
Sweet, J. (1978). Something wonderful right away: An oral
history of the Second City and the Compass Players.
New York, NY: Avon Books.
INCONGRUITY AND RESOLUTION
Incongruity has been mentioned as an explanation
of humor possibly since the time of Aristotle and
definitely since the Renaissance. In many differ-
ent forms, it has been proposed as an explanation
for humor across the history of the philosophy of
humor and, more recently, as it has been part of the
psychological and cognitive approaches to humor.
Often, humor is seen as the result of a recognition
of incongruity followed by its resolution. This entry
deals first with the definition of incongruity and then
with the definition of resolution of said incongruity.
The concept of incongruity corresponds to that of
surprise. Surprise focuses on the emotional aspect of
the process, whereas incongruity highlights the cog-
nitive aspect. Put differently, incongruity is a stimu-
lus, and surprise is a response. Not all psychologists
classify surprise as an emotion, since it is neither
necessarily pleasant nor unpleasant. However, sur-
prise and incongruity are conceptualized essentially
in the same way.
There are various theories of surprise: It has been
conceptualized as a contrast between expectations
and experienced stimuli, as a reaction to the improb-
able nature of an event, as the failure to “make
sense” of an event, as the degree of change between
prior beliefs and beliefs after the stimulus, as the
degree of difficulty in integrating an event with prior
beliefs, and as the detection of discrepancies between
schemas (aka scripts or frames). The definitions of
incongruity used in humor studies do not differ from
those of surprise. They can be generalized as diver-
gence from expectations.
Within humor studies, incongruity is often taken
as a primitive and is explained no further. The gen-
eral consensus is that incongruity is a necessary but
not sufficient feature of humor, although some theo-
ries assume that there exist some forms of humor
that rely largely, if not exclusively, on incongruity.
The precursor of modern research on surprise or
incongruity as a factor of humor was the work of
Swedish psychologist Göran Nerhardt, who estab-
lished a very successful research paradigm, based
on the handling of “weights.” The subjects were
handed plastic containers full of lead shot, which
384 Incongruity and Resolution
looked to be all the same, but after holding a few
similar ones, weighing about half a kilo (a little more
than a pound), they were handed a much lighter
or much heavier one. The number of subjects who
laughed on being handed the unexpectedly very light
or very heavy weights was much greater than the
number who laughed when they were given contain-
ers of similar weights. Because holding the first few
weights had set an expectation that each would be
about 500 grams, the unexpectedly much lighter or
heavier weights were incongruous. Hence, Nerhardt
concluded that his experiments supported the incon-
gruity theory of humor. Furthermore, because the
greater the discrepancy was between the expected
weight and the observed one, the greater was the
amount of laughter and smiling, it was hypothesized
that there exists a direct correlation between the
amount of incongruity and the humorous reaction.
Further studies confirmed that the smiles and laugh-
ing reactions were the expression of amusement
(and not, say, of embarrassment).
As anticipated, incongruity is necessary but not
always sufficient to generate the perception of humor.
Other factors, such as a playful frame of mind, as
stipulated by Michael Apter’s reversal theory, are nec-
essary for the perception of an incongruity as humor-
ous, rather than, say, threatening. The most debated
factor beyond incongruity is the “resolution” of said
incongruity. Scholars such as Jerry Suls and Thomas
Shultz independently showed that there are some
kinds of humor where the first phase of perception
of an incongruity is followed by a second phase in
which the incongruity is resolved. The nature of the
resolution is a complex matter. It was shown early
on by Mary Rothbart and Diana Pien that the “reso-
lution” might only address a part of the incongru-
ity and actually introduce more incongruity. Some
authors, such as Elliott Oring, maintain that the reso-
lution on incongruity in humor is always a partial
one, whereas in other nonhumorous texts, it might
be complete. In Willibald Ruch’s 3WD model, INC-
RES (incongruity-resolution) contrasts with NON
(nonsense) precisely on the absence of resolution.
Many scholars have touched on the idea of reso-
lution and its peculiar “logic.” The most extensive
discussion of the concept is Elie Aubouin’s idea of
justification, that is, the “acceptance,” however brief
and superficial, of the incongruous concepts by the
hearer of a joke. Resolution has also been called
“local logic” by Avner Ziv and “sense in nonsense”
by Sigmund Freud. In contemporary humor research,
the only sustained study of the resolution phase is to
be found within the general theory of verbal humor,
where the knowledge resource “logical mechanism”
is dedicated exclusively to this aspect of humor.
Salvatore Attardo
See also Linguistic Theories of Humor; Mechanisms of
Humor; Psychology; Reversal Theory; 3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive
theories of humor. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 10(4), 395–420.
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F., & Di Maio, S. (2002).
Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling
incongruities and their resolutions. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3–46.
Aubouin, E. (1948). Technique et psychologie du comique
[Technique and psychology of humor]. Marseille,
France: Ofep.
Deckers, L. (1993). On the validity of a weight-judging
paradigm for the study of humor. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research 6(1), 43–56.
Deckers, L., & Buttram, R. T. (1990). Humor as a response
to incongruities within or between schemata. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research 3(1), 53–64.
Freud, S. (1960). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum
Unbewußte [The joke and its relation to the
unconscious] (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York,
NY: Norton. (Original work published 1905)
Gerber, W. S., & Routh, D. K. (1975). Humor response as
related to violation of expectancies and to stimulus
intensity in a weight judgment task. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 41(2), 673–674.
Hempelmann, C. F., & Attardo, S. (2011). Resolutions and
their incongruities: Further thoughts on logical
mechanisms. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 24(2), 125–149.
Itti, L., & Baldi, P. (2009). Bayesian surprise attracts human
attention. Vision Research, 49(10), 1295–1306.
Maguire, R., Maguire P., & Keane, M. T. (2011). Making
sense of surprise: Investigation of factors influencing
surprise judgments. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1),
176–186.
Martin, R. (2007). The Psychology of Humor. Burlington,
MA: Academic Press.
Morreall, J. (1989). Enjoying incongruity. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 2(1), 1–18.
Nerhardt, G. (1970). Humor and inclination to laugh.
Emotional reactions to stimuli of different divergence

from a range of expectancy. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 11(3), 185–195.
Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a
new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot
(Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and
applications (pp. 55–62). New York, NY: Wiley and
Sons.
Nerhardt, G. (1977). Operationalization of incongruity in
humour research: A critique and suggestions. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing,
humour (pp. 47–52). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Pien, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1976). Incongruity and
resolution in children’s humor: A reexamination. Child
Development, 47, 966–971.
Rothbart, M. K., & Pien, D. (1977). Elephants and
marshmallows: A theoretical synthesis of incongruity-
resolution and arousal theories of humour. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing,
humour (pp. 37–40). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Shultz, T. R. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution
in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 13(3), 456–477.
Shultz, T. R. (1974). Development of the appreciation of
riddles. Child Development, 45, 100–105.
Shultz, T. R., & Horibe, F. (1974). Development of the
appreciation of verbal jokes. Developmental Psychology,
10(1), 13–20.
Shultz, T. R., & Scott, M. B. (1974). The creation of verbal
humour. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue
canadienne de psychologie, 28(4), 421–425.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation
of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing
analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical issues (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Suls, J. M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories of
humour: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. In A. J.
Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing,
humour (pp. 41–45). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor
appreciation. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.),
Handbook of humor research (pp. 39–57). New York,
NY: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor. New York,
NY: Springer.
INSULT AND INVECTIVE
Insult includes expressive genres of invectives,
taunts, slurs, and retorts that have deprecatory con-
tent aimed at another person or group. Although
Insult and Invective 385
these genres are linguistic, degrading gestures and
graphics can also fall under the category of insult.
Colloquial terms among different English-speaking
groups that refer to insulting material often framed
in social situations in which there is permitted dis-
respect include wisecracks, comebacks, putdowns,
ranks, teases, slams, and dozens. The offensiveness
of insults suggests that they arise out of anger and
are intrinsically aggressive, divisive, or even violent.
Yet many social situations exist in which insults
are considered humorous, playful, and entertain-
ing. Performing artists such as Don Rickles, Lisa
Lampanelli, Sarah Silverman, and Andrew Dice
Clay made careers out of insult comedy. In folk
culture, stylized or ritualized contests-in-insults in
many societies are considered forms of play showing
mastery of language.
Scholars from a number of disciplines have put
forth theories about the contexts in which insults
are perceived as inflammatory or funny and the
motivations for people to engage in insult play. One
developmental theory from social psychology is that
children learn taunts in early childhood to force one
another to conform to societal standards. Frequently
the taunts refer to ethical behavior such as lying
(“liar, liar, pants on fire”), bodily control and
appearance (folk speech of stinker, dickhead, shit,
klutz, and dork), and social references (defamatory
language of fag, chink, and guinea). Children also
use ritualized routines to show social hierarchies.
An example is the apparently playful announcement
that the “last one in is a rotten egg” or the retort to
the innocent question of “Do you have a match?”
with “My ass and your face.” Psychoanalytical
theory also suggests that many of the insults refer to
the repression of an anal stage of development from
18 months to 3 years old; after this time, children
learn from parents that feces are repulsive and can
use excretory rhetoric and fecal metaphors (such as
“cooties”) against other children to imply they are
immature, animal-like, and ostracized. In middle
childhood, ritualized contests-in-insults have been
reported, particularly among American prepubes-
cent males, to symbolically separate from the mother
in a society that is relatively lacking in coming-of-age
rituals. Among African Americans, such contests
enacted between the ages of 8 and 12 have been
called “dozens” and “joning.” In a play frame, the
expressive action involves rhymed couplets often
aimed against the opponent’s mother; the player is
therefore put in the position of both showing his
maturity by referring to sexual relations and at the
386 Insult and Invective
same time defending his mother when the opponent
has a “comeback.” The audience derives laughter
from the creative speech play that a participant can
quickly compose. To some sociological scholars, this
event signals reinforcement of the prestige of a man
of words in an African American matrifocal society,
and cultural historians also note the influence of this
folk custom on popular forms of hip-hop and rap
music and step-show performances.
Other theories account for insults as “exoteric
humor” in contrast to in-group “esoteric humor”
among adults as a way to raise the stature of one’s
group by belittling another in stereotype and
caricature. Insult humor can be aimed at another
nationality (also called blason populaire), state,
ethnic, occupational, or gender group. Sigmund
Freud suggested that many of these insulting situ-
ations arise out of groups that are similar to one
another or in close proximity. In what he called
the “narcissism of minor [small] differences” often
apparent in humor traditions, groups use insults as
a cultural strategy to create social boundaries or
hierarchy. Anthropologist Alfred Radcliffe-Brown
identified a similar function in what he termed a
“joking relationship”; in ritualized banter repre-
senting an asymmetrical social structure, the recipi-
ent of the teasing or mocking is obliged not to take
offense. In addition to this concept being used to
ethnographically characterize customs in African
and Pacific cultures, James Spradley and Brenda
Mann also used it to explain maintenance of gen-
der inequality in the context of modern American
occupational settings. Scholarly attention has also
been given to self-deprecation as a theme of ethnic
humor in Jewish and African American folklore.
Scholars often debate whether this pattern arises
out of an internalization of oppression (suggesting
therefore that the self-deprecation is imposed) or
illustrates a worldview of fatalism that arises out of
a group’s beliefs and mythology.
In performing arts, questions arise about the
popularity and function of insult comedy. Despite
concerns that such acts perpetuate racist, sexist, and
ageist attitudes, and in a progressive society should
be on the wane, insult comedy, also referred to as
“festive abuse” in interaction between a comic and
his or her audience, remains, in the 21st century, a
popular form of entertainment in nightclubs, vid-
eos, and recordings. Although such acts are often
criticized by civic leaders and calls for their banish-
ment come from community members, an explana-
tion of their resilience is that insult comedy provides
an escape, or festive environment of reversal, from
social pressures of “political correctness” and com-
munal intimacy that suppresses supposedly natural
individualistic tendencies. In some cases, comics,
particularly women and ethnic comedians, take on
an insulting persona to deflect or exploit views of
their social vulnerability. Another perspective is that
the interactive play frame of the club and “roast”
allows entertainers to raise paradoxes in their use of
insults as both violent and pleasant that audiences
find compelling.
Simon J. Bronner
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Blason
Populaire; Ethnic Jokes; Folklore; Framing Theory;
Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory; Humorous Names;
Jewish Humor; Joking Relationship; Obscenity;
Parody; Reversal Theory; Scatology; Sick Humor;
Stand-Up Comedy; Stereotypes; Subversive Humor;
Targets of Humor; Teasing; Verbal Dueling
Further Readings
Abrahams, R. (1962). Playing the dozens. Journal of
American Folklore, 75(297), 209–220.
Ayoub, M., & Barnett, S. (1965). Ritualized verbal insult in
White high school culture. Journal of American
Folklore, 78(310), 337–344.
Bronner, S. J. (1978). A re-examination of dozens among
White American adolescents. Western Folklore, 37(2),
118–128.
Bronner, S. J. (1988). American children’s folklore. Little
Rock, AR: August House.
Conley, T. (2010). Toward a rhetoric of insult. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Dundes, A. (1987). Cracking jokes: Studies of sick humor
cycles and stereotypes. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Dundes, A., Leach, J. W., & Özkök, B. (1970). The strategy
of Turkish boys’ verbal dueling rhymes. Journal of
American Folklore, 83(329), 325–349.
Fine, G. A., & Wood, C. (2010). Accounting for jokes:
Jocular performance in a critical age. Western Folklore,
69(3–4), 299–322.
Freud, S. (1959). Group psychology and the analysis of the
ego (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York, NY:
Norton.
Gilman, S. L. (1990). Jewish self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and
the hidden language of the Jews. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Mintz, L. E. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural
mediation. American Quarterly, 37(1), 71–80.
Rappoport, L. (2005). Punchlines: The case for racial,
ethnic, and gender humor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Spradley, J. P., & Mann, B. J. (2008). The cocktail waitress:
Woman’s work in a man’s world. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press. (Original work published 1975)
Wald, E. (2012). The dozens: A history of rap’s mama.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
INTERCULTURAL HUMOR
Globalization increasingly exposes people to
diverse situations that necessitate understanding
intercultural communication. Intercultural com-
munication is a complex and layered process,
occurring when individuals from different cultures
interact to create shared meanings, that challenges
interactants as they work toward mutual under-
standing. Although humor is a universal commu-
nicative act, it is deeply rooted in cultural context,
whereby one’s cultural lens informs interpretations
of, perceptions of, and responses to humorous
messages. This entry identifies the role of inter-
cultural humor, discusses its functions of inclusion
and exclusion, and explains, briefly, the sources of
intercultural humor. Intercultural humor poten-
tially can transcend cultural barriers, uniting inter-
actants, as well as exaggerate cultural differences
as a means to exploit individuals. Intercultural
humor can serve as a mechanism for interactants
to engage in conversational play, challenge interac-
tional and relationship rules, or socialize newcom-
ers to a group.
Inclusion Function of Intercultural Humor
Inclusion in intercultural humor is accomplished
when a native speaker intentionally adapts, man-
ages, or supports a successful interaction in order
to establish or maintain positive rapport with a
non-native speaker. Such humor pulls a non-native
speaker inside a group, recognizing her or him as a
member who can understand and potentially appre-
ciate insider knowledge. Use of inclusion humor is
intended to convey belonging.
Three forms of inclusion are accommodation,
scaffolding, and contextualization cues.
Accommodation reflects an adjustment process
used to ensure the uptake of a humorous mes-
sage by a non-native speaker. To minimize mis-
understandings, adjustments may include actions
such as defining and explaining terms, repeating
phrases, or providing additional background. In
this way, the native speaker acts as guide, setting
Intercultural Humor 387
up a humorous anecdote and then “translating”
to ensure the non-native speaker is able to enjoy
the exchange. Clarifying the encompassing cultural
sphere, native speakers attempt to fill knowledge
gaps that might prevent non-native speakers
from understanding and appreciating humorous
exchanges.
Scaffolding is the process by which a native
speaker and non-native speaker co-construct
conversational humor to collaboratively create
a humorous interaction. Native speakers scaffold
humor by selecting topics around shared identi-
ties and demonstrating support for the reciprocal
process. Interculturally experienced native speak-
ers reformulate utterances and coordinate contri-
butions to convey involvement and secure equal
participation. By jointly creating a joking frame,
interactants demonstrate active involvement in
the exchange and recognition of shared common
ground between speakers. This allows non-native
speakers not only to enjoy humor but also to per-
form humor.
Contextualization cues encompass nonverbal
delivery behaviors and explicit verbal statements
used to mark humorous interaction as “play.” These
cues signal the non-native speaker that an exchange
is intended as humorous and should be interpreted
as such. Nonverbal behaviors denoting a play
frame include laughter and smiling and exaggerated
facial expressions, tone, pace, and gestures. Explicit
vocabulary, like “that was really funny,” can also
be used to point to the comic nature of an interac-
tion. Contextualization cues instruct the non-native
speaker to characterize remarks as joking, and not
as serious judgments or attacks. For example, the
comment “You’re such an idiot!” when accompa-
nied by laughter, smiling, and a pat on the back,
indicates the nonserious nature of the message.
Following with an explicit statement, “I was only
kidding,” helps ensure the correct interpretation of
the exchange as humorous.
Exclusion Function of Intercultural Humor
Exclusion in intercultural humor occurs when one
of the interactants (typically the non-native speaker)
is marginalized as a conversational participant or
when one’s status as a cultural outsider is highlighted
or made salient in some way. This includes humor
that arises both intentionally and unintentionally
during interaction. Its occurrence is more obvious
when the outsider is from another culture and not
388 Intercultural Humor
fluent in the native language. However, exclusion
can also happen when interactants share the same
language. Three forms of exclusion are highlighting,
undermining, and dissonance.
Highlighting is similar to what is known as divi-
sion or disparagement humor. It occurs when group
differences are made the explicit focus of talk. One
instance occurs when members of the same lan-
guage group direct ethnic jokes at each other with
the intent of highlighting cultural identity differ-
ences. For example, first- and second-generation
immigrants to a new country often create jokes
about each other reflecting their own anxieties (e.g.,
first-generation immigrants as “fresh off the boat”).
A second example occurs when one person shares
an ethnic joke on discovering the cultural or ethnic
identity of another interactant. Paradoxically, the
motive may be an attempt to seek affinity through
small talk, but the other party may fail to see the
situation the same way. Finally, in intercultural cou-
ples, a non-native spouse may feel excluded when
his or her native spouse jokes with other native
speakers.
Undermining stands in direct contrast to scaffold-
ing. Undermining appears when a native speaker (or
cultural insider) undermines a non-native speaker’s
interactional position by pointing out or making
fun of the outsider’s linguistic or pragmatic com-
petence. One form of undermining occurs when
native speakers respond with silence to non-native
speakers’ humor attempts. Silence as a response
marks the non-native speaker’s humor as a failed
humor attempt. This form of undermining has been
observed when non-native speakers broach taboo
topics or attempt to tease using linguistic devices
in the native speakers’ language. Another form of
undermining occurs when native speakers explic-
itly coach non-native speakers regarding what is
considered funny in the native speaker’s culture. In
these instances, the non-native speaker’s failure to
laugh seemingly is treated as ignorance, layered with
a native speaker’s oversight that, perhaps, the non-
native speaker understood the humor but did not
appreciate it.
A final form of exclusion revolves around
what Chiara Zamborlin refers to as dissonance.
Dissonance occurs when non-native speakers unwit-
tingly and/or unknowingly fail to follow conver-
sational norms of the native language. Normative
violations include examples such as difficulties with
word pronunciation, word usage, or lack of relevant
interactional knowledge. Native speakers’ laughter
need not imply that native speakers are laughing at
the non-native speakers; the laughter may arise from
the sudden and unexpected linguistic or social gaffe.
Nevertheless, the non-native speaker has potentially
been marked as “outsider” by both the dissonance
and the reaction to it.
Sources of Intercultural Humor
Although conversation is managed at the local level,
it must work within parameters established by the
setting and the participants. Intercultural humor
can arise from the identities of the participants,
the content of the conversation, and the language
norms often taken for granted by native speakers.
Any of these interactional aspects can be a source
for humor. Whether or not that humor brings non-
native speakers in from the outside, or excludes
them as valued contributors to the conversation,
depends heavily on the goals of the interactants.
When intercultural interactants attempt humorous
exchanges, their emphasis on commonalities and
their willingness to enjoy and learn from their dif-
ferences contribute to the success of their intercul-
tural humor.
Rachel L. DiCioccio and Nathan Miczo
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Cross-
Cultural Humor; Culture; Dialect Humor; Ethnicity
and Humor; Failed Humor; Humor Markers; Identity;
Second Language Acquisition
Further Readings
Bell, N. D. (2006). Interactional adjustments in humorous
intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics,
3, 1–28.
Bell, N. D. (2007). How native and non-native English
speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
20, 27–48.
Cheng, W. (2003). Humor in intercultural conversations.
Semiotica, 146, 287–306.
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native
speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on
humor as collaborative discourse across cultures.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385.
Norrick, N. R. (2007). Interdiscourse humor: Contrast,
merging, accommodation. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 20, 389–413.
Zamborlin, C. (2007). Going beyond pragmatic failures:
Dissonance in intercultural communication. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 4, 21–50.

INTERNET HUMOR
Internet humor can be defined broadly as any type
of humorous interaction or performance that is
manifest on the Internet. Although the Internet was
initially developed as a serious means of transmitting
academic and national-security-oriented informa-
tion, from a very early stage it was clear that one of
its main uses would be entertainment. And indeed,
since the early 1990s, humor has been a dominant
mode of communication in many Internet-based
environments. It is prevalent on websites, in e-mails,
and on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
Internet humor encompasses both interactional/situ-
ational/spontaneous humor, in which people react
to each other humorously in settings such as forums
and bulletin boards, and “pass-along” humor, which
includes artifacts such as jokes, funny photos, and
videos that are diffused and shared across different
contexts. As detailed in this entry, the Internet has
facilitated a dramatic increase in the scale and speed
of humor diffusion, as well as changes in humor
themes and formats. This entry delineates how
Internet humor has changed from being predomi-
nantly verbal to being heavily based on visual for-
mats that travel easily across national boundaries,
often undergoing localization processes.
Early studies on interactional Internet humor
found that it played a key role both in interpersonal
communication and in the construction of “virtual
communities”—groups that are formulated through
computer-mediated communication, bonding indi-
viduals who have never seen each other offline.
Because the vast majority of Internet communica-
tion in the 1990s was text-based, limited cues were
available to signify humorous intent. Yet Internet
users developed some conventions to overcome
these barriers. Emoticons—pictorial emulations of
facial expressions formed by punctuation marks—
have been widely used to convey humorous intent
or amused reactions. The same goes for acronyms
such as LOL (laughing out loud)—which became
so prevalent that it also spread to face-to-face com-
munication. In an arena regarded as a social and
cultural frontier, playful communication—including
creative exploration of what can be done with the
limited number of keys on the keyboard—became
a mark of belonging to a new and exciting subcul-
ture. Nancy Baym demonstrated the central role of
Internet humor in group formation in the 1990s in
her analysis of one newsgroup dedicated to soap
Internet Humor 389
operas. She showed how humor helped maintain
the bond between the group’s participants while
simultaneously drawing a line between them and the
scorned “others”—the soap opera’s writers and pro-
ducers. At the same time, Internet humor served as
a mechanism to express individuality, with members
drawing on the group’s shared meanings to convey
their unique voice. As outlined later in this entry, this
dual use of humor as a marker of both sociability
and individuality has become even more central in
the third millennium, with the advent of what will
be described later as “humorous Internet memes.”
If, in the 1990s, a large percentage of Internet
humor was verbal, in the 21st century, the wide
implementation of broadband enabled quick and
easy diffusion of images and videos, thus facilitating
a dramatic expansion in formats used for conveying
humor. The vast array of verbal, visual, and audiovi-
sual humor forms on the Internet can be divided into
two main formats: traditional and new. Traditional
humor formats existed before the digital era, yet
are still strongly manifest on it—these include jokes
(short narratives with punch lines), comics, and slap-
stick-oriented home videos. Another veteran genre
that was revived on the Internet is the comic list.
Lists such as “Why men are happier than women”
or “10 excuses to miss work” were identified in the
1970s by folklorists as a subgenre they called fax-
lore, photocopylore, or Xeroxlore—urban folklore
circulated via the (then) new technologies of fax and
photocopy machines. The Internet enhanced the
dissemination of these genres, which—much more
that jokes—are suitable for diffusion in writing.
New humor formats were either rare or did not exist
before the digital age. Some of the most prevalent
new genres are funny photos (often accompanied
by captions), manipulated photos (e.g., Photoshop
humor), PowerPoint humor, and interactive humor
(i.e., humor in which the receiver needs to do some-
thing more than just read, watch, or listen).
In addition to the new humor formats, the
Internet also facilitated the popularization of new
joking themes. Thus, humor about animals—
particularly in the form of videos or photos featur-
ing dogs and cats—have become widespread on
the Web. Another prevalent theme is networked
computers: The net is flooded with reflexive humor
about Microsoft and Google, addicted users, and
desperate tech-support representatives. Such humor,
which often deals with people’s frustration when
interacting with their “thinking machines,” under-
scores the creation of a large, global community of
390 Internet Humor
computer users who express their agonies through
humor. A further popular theme of Internet-based
humor is a focus on celebrities such as politicians,
actors, and musicians. Every day, images of celebri-
ties are chopped into pieces that are then manipu-
lated to generate scornful laughter. This process may
represent a certain shift in the relationship between
celebrities and “ordinary people,” as it allows the
latter to gain symbolic power over the former.
Although the Internet may allow people to cir-
culate large volumes of humor that mock those in
power, research has shown that Internet humor is
not particularly subversive. Whereas in theory it is
liberated from the institutional and economic struc-
tures that constrain humor in mass media and thus
has the potential to express the voices of marginal-
ized and disempowered groups, in practice it seems
that Internet users tend to circulate quite conserva-
tive humor. This tendency has been demonstrated
mainly in relation to ethnicity and gender. Several
studies have found that the Web’s anonymity and
lack of social control enhances derogatory and racist
ethnic humor, for example, in humor sites associated
with the Ku Klux Klan. In relation to gender, it was
found that although men and women are mocked
to an equal extent in popular Internet humor, tradi-
tional stereotypical gender representations still pre-
vail. For instance, women are depicted as obsessed
with self-beautification, whereas men are portrayed
as obsessed with sex. The feminist discussion of
gender equality is almost absent from such popular
texts, which tend to focus on the postfeminist, essen-
tialist thesis of gender differences.
Beyond this survey of new themes and formats,
Internet humor differs from humor in the predigital
era in two main respects: its format (Internet humor
is much more visual) and scope (it can spread glob-
ally very quickly). As outlined in the next section,
these attributes may be associated with the medium’s
technological capacities.
Visual Culture and Internet Humor
Internet humor emerged in an era saturated with
visual media representations. Advertisements and
video games, sitcoms and billboards, Hollywood
movies and news marathons have become integral
parts of people’s daily lives, worldwide. This plethora
of visual images is strongly manifest in new forms
of Internet humor. Giselinde Kuipers identified these
forms as “visual collages,” in which various phrases
and images from popular media are assembled
in incongruous combinations, thus producing a
humorous effect. These visual collages are often
based on genre play—they juxtapose news foot-
age, children’s programs, advertisements, and other
genres in amusing and unexpected ways. Whereas
creators of media messages try to introduce them in
a smooth and easy-to-digest format, concealing the
assemblage of bits and pieces that underlie them, the
creators of Internet jokes do the opposite. Internet
humor highlights the “cut and paste” process under-
pinning it: It plays with genres and conventions of
visual culture in an explicit and self-conscious man-
ner. As such, Internet humor both blends with visual
culture and critically responds to it.
The emergence of new visual humorous formats
may have implications for the construction of ste-
reotypes and social identities through humor. Lillian
Boxman-Shabtai, who has explored the various
manifestations of ethnic humor on the Internet,
points to fundamental differences between tradi-
tional ethnic jokes and ethnicity in the new visual
forms of humor. In the verbal joke, the representa-
tion of ethnicity is based on stereotypical and direct
“telling”: When a joke opens with “A Russian and
an American are stuck in an elevator,” it is clear
which groups are being discussed. Moreover, the
joke’s punch line is based on well-entrenched ste-
reotypes about these groups. In contrast, among
the new array of Internet-based formats, ethnicity is
often constructed through “showing.” This creates
a much broader continuum of connections between
ethnic appearance and stereotypes. On the deroga-
tory end of this continuum, we find texts that repro-
duce ethnic stereotypes into visual language. On the
other end, we find texts that are open to multiple
interpretations, in which ethnicity is manifested by
using several—and often contrasting—cues.
Internet Jokes and Globalization
Jokes have always moved from place to place. Thus,
for instance, the very same ethnic jokes were told
in different countries, when only the identity of the
scorned “butt” was replaced to match the target cul-
ture. Although the international spread of humor
is not new, the Internet has expedited it dramati-
cally. Each day, numerous jokes, photos, and videos
travel across the world. This international spread of
humor via the Internet can be seen as user-generated
globalization—a process through which content is
translated, customized, and distributed across the
globe by ordinary Internet users. User-generated
 Internet Humor 391

globalization takes place through both verbal and

visual/audiovisual humor.
One of the main challenges for the global diffu-
sion of verbal humor relates to language. From its
early days, the lingua franca of the Internet has been
English. Yet, in the past two decades, the Internet
has become multilingual—most Internet users today
are not native speakers of English. Moreover, the
accelerating growth of Internet use in countries such
as China is expected to strengthen this trend. This
linguistic variation means that translation may play
a key role in facilitating global flows of content.
Indeed, in a recent study it was found that popular
Internet jokes in English tend to appear in trans-
lated versions as well. In the process of translation,
local “spices”—such as local names, currencies, and
sports teams—are added to the jokes. These mark-
ers tend to camouflage the jokes’ “foreign” (often Meme parodying the 2006 movie 300, a fictionalized
American) origin, thus forming an impression of account of the Battle of Thermopylae. King Leonidas
a joke that is local. The result is the emergence of (played by Gerard Butler), on being threatened by the
a new body of humor that is global in essence but Persian ruler Xerxes, kicks his messenger into a well,
local in “scent.” shouting, “This is Sparta!”
If verbal humor must be translated to successfully Source: Wikimedia Commons.
cross national borders, the many forms of visual
and audiovisual content diffuse more easily around
the globe. A prominent example of global success
Richard Dawkins to refer to small, gene-like
is “Gangnam Style,” a Korean music video that,
cultural units of transmission that are spread
in 2012, broke YouTube’s all-time viewing records
from person to person by copying or imitation.
when it surpassed the one-billion-view mark.
Examples of memes include nursery rhymes, archi-
People around the globe not only watched this
tecture styles, and jokes. More than any previous
amusing video, they also responded to it creatively,
medium in history, the Internet is uniquely suit-
in dazzling volumes. Internet users as far-flung as
able for large-scale meme diffusion. It enables the
Indonesia and Russia, China and Israel, the United
distribution of memes to millions of people in a
States and Saudi Arabia imitated the “horse dance”
very short time, with great accuracy. Moreover,
from the original video while replacing the reference
with digital technology and user-friendly software,
to Gangnam—a luxurious neighborhood in Seoul—
people can easily create their own versions of any
with local settings and actors. The result was videos
given meme.
such as “Mitt Romney Style,” “Jerusalem Style,” or
Yet the spark of interest in the meme concept is
“Arab Style.” These vernacular versions are mani-
not related only to the medium’s technical capacities.
festations of glocalization: a process in which local
In the so-called Web 2.0 or participatory culture era,
agents synthesize global influences with local culture
in which old consumers or audiences have gradually
to create a hybrid culture in which the foreign and
become producers and distributors of new content,
the familiar are intertwined. Internet humor plays
the practice of reconfiguring content and publicly
a key role in glocalization processes, as many users
displaying it in parodies, mashups, remixes, and
explicitly use imported formulas as a basis for creat-
other derivative formats has become a highly valued
ing humor that deals with local issues.
cultural logic. Thus, any major public event in the
past few years—from a royal wedding to the death
Internet Memes and Humor
of a mega-terrorist—invokes a stream of Internet
Since 2010, Internet humor has been increas- memes.
ingly associated in popular discourse with Internet Although Internet memes are not necessarily
memes. The term meme was coined by biologist humorous, the majority do include an amusing
392 Internet Humor
component. Over time, the following distinct genres
of humorous memes have emerged:
1. Engrish—funny photos of signs or other
publicly available messages in South Asian
settings that use English in a flawed manner
2. Reaction Photoshops—images that use editing
software in general and Abode Photoshop in
particular to alter popular photos (such as the
“situation room” photo that features the White
House staff the night of Osama bin Laden’s
death)
3. Lip-Synch/lyp dub—clips in which an individual
or group are seen matching their lip movements
to a popular song
4. LOLCats—pictures of cats accompanied by
misspelled captions written in LOLSpeak: a
complex, nonstandard, childlike (or catlike)
English Internet dialect
5. Advice Animals—images of animals and
humans accompanied by captions relating to a
stereotypical attribute associated with them, for
example, the Socially Awkward Penguin, the
Aggressive Courage Wolf, and the Bachelor Frog
6. Rage Comics—amateurish comics featuring
“rage faces,” a set of expressive characters, each
associated with a typical behavior: Forever
Alone (a sad, lonely guy with no friends); Me
Gusta (“I like” in Spanish, a character that
expresses enjoyment); and Troll Face (who
enjoys annoying and harming people)
The last three genres, which emerged mainly after
2007, embody the development of a complex world
of signs that only “those in the know” can decipher.
Thus, in order to produce and understand LOLCats,
users need to master LOLSpeak; creating a Rage
comic requires familiarity with a broad range of
new symbols. These genres are thus strongly associ-
ated with what Ryan Milner describes as the meme
subculture, which flourishes in specific sites such as
4chan, Tumblr, and Reddit.
Humorous Internet memes are often employed
as forms of political and social participation. In the
past, political scientists defined political participa-
tion as clear and easily measurable practices, such
as voting or joining political organizations. Yet in
recent years, partially due to the rise of new infor-
mation and communication technologies such as
the Internet and mobile phones, the perception of
political participation has been broadened to include
mundane practices, such as commenting on political
blogs and posting jokes about politicians. The new
digital humorous memes were formulated as an
accessible, cheap, and enjoyable route for express-
ing and negotiating political opinions. The reliance
of these memes on pop culture enables individuals
to communicate with each other about politics in
a playful and engaging way. Pop culture also serves
as shorthand for communicating meanings: When
a public figure such as Barack Obama is framed
as a Jedi Knight, it is quite clear that he or she is
on the good side of the Force, with the opposite
applying to any politician associated with Imperial
forces. Humorous political memes have also played
a central role in contemporary grassroots protests,
such as the Occupy Wall Street protest in the United
States. In such contexts, humorous memes serve as
pivotal links between the personal and the political.
Because they are based on shared frameworks that
call for variation, memes allow citizens to partici-
pate in public, collective actions while maintaining
their sense of individuality. Humorous memes are
currently applied in nondemocratic settings as well.
In China, for instance, Internet users crafted memes
such as the “grass mud horse” (which, with a shift
of tone, is pronounced in Mandarin the same as
“fuck your mother”) as critical responses to the vast
censorship and “purifying” actions carried out by
the government. The widespread circulation of sub-
versive memes in such controlled settings serves as
a powerful public display of criticism and distrust.
Yet, whereas humorous Internet memes constitute
new venues for public political expression in demo-
cratic and nondemocratic regimes, it is still unclear
if, and how, they will actually influence political
establishments.
Limor Shifman
See also Culture; E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in
China; Ethnicity and Humor; Folklore; Gender Roles
in Humor; Subversive Humor; Xeroxlore
Further Readings
Baym, N. (1995). The performance of humor in computer-
mediated communication. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 1(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083
-6101.1995.tb00327.x
Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of
the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse & Society, 12(3),
267–289. doi:10.1177/0957926501012003001

Boxman-Shabtai, L. (2012). Ethnic humor in the digital
age: A re-evaluation. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Kuipers, G. (2002). Media culture and Internet disaster
jokes: Bin Laden and the attack on the World Trade
Center. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(4),
451–471.
Milner, R. M. (2012). The world made meme: Discourse
and identity in participatory media. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://
hdl.handle.net/1808/10256
Shifman, L. (2007). Humor in the age of digital
reproduction: Continuity and change in Internet-based
comic texts. International Journal of Communication, 1,
187–209.
Shifman, L. (2013). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Shifman, L., & Blondheim, M. (2010). The medium is the
joke: Online humor about and by networked computers.
New Media and Society, 12(8), 1348–1367.
Shifman, L., & Lemish, D. (2010). Between feminism and
fun(ny)mism: Analyzing gender in popular Internet
humor. Information, Communication and Society, 13(6),
870–891.
Shifman, L., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Assessing global
diffusion with Web memetics: The spread and
evolution of a popular joke. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology,
60(12), 2567–2576.
Weaver, S. (2010). Developing a rhetorical analysis of racist
humour: Examining anti-Black jokes on the Internet.
Social Semiotics, 20(5), 537–555.
INVERSION, TOPSY-TURVY
Inversion and topsy-turvydom can be understood as
a range of processes involving the reversal of nor-
mal expectations and conventions. Inversion plays
an important part in several theoretical humor mod-
els as well as in many practical examples, and it
can take many forms. Folklorist Barbara Babcock
(1978) defines “symbolic inversion” as “any act
of expressive behaviour which inverts, contradicts,
abrogates, or in some fashion presents an alternative
to commonly held codes, values and norms be they
linguistic, literary or artistic, religious, or social and
political” (p. 14). Examples involving humor range
from isolated inversions in language (e.g., spooner-
isms) or situation (e.g., pratfalls) to more complex
reversals of social or power relations, often associ-
ated with a ritual or carnival element.
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy 393
Inversion and topsy-turvydom are best under-
stood as a spectrum rather than as clearly delineated
concepts: Whereas the former generally refers to a
defined instance or to the process of reversal, the lat-
ter extends this logic to the level of a generalized state
or imaginative world. The Oxford English Diction-
ary cites instances of the adjective topsy-turvy from
the first half of the 16th century onward, meaning
both literally and figuratively upside-down. The
nonce word topsy-turvydom, referring to “the realm
of topsy-turvy, inversion, or confusion,” appears as
the title of an 1874 operetta by W. S. Gilbert and
Alfred Cellier that satirized contemporary society
and politics by presenting a utopian world in which
everything works in the opposite way to real life.
Although topsy-turvydom is sometimes associated
with a particular, whimsical strand of 19th-century
British humor, its roots lie in the much older trope of
mundus inversus or “upside-down world,” seen in a
long tradition of utopian narratives and in common
images and expressions such as “the tail wagging the
dog” and “putting the cart before the horse.”
Types of Humor
Both inversion and topsy-turvydom are sometimes
associated with lighthearted or liberating forms of
humor, but they can also display a more serious or
satirical edge depending on context and subject mat-
ter. Simple linguistic inversions such as spoonerisms,
which involve the switching (metathesis) of sounds
between words in the same utterance, can poten-
tially generate humor through a sense of pure formal
playfulness. But examples of this kind, such as the
substitution of “our queer old Dean” for “our dear
old Queen”—attributed to Oxford University pro-
fessor William Archibald Spooner (1844–1930)—
also typically involve a play on meaning that may
be relatively innocent or aggressive depending on its
target. As Debra Aarons (2012) notes, inversions of
this type may be either conscious or unconscious:
In the former case, the joke is directed toward the
referent or in some cases toward the message itself,
whereas the latter case (the classic “Freudian slip”)
is often humorous because of what it reveals about
the speaker’s own thought patterns (p. 119).
There is a similar contrast between innocent
and aggressive humor in the range of topsy-turvy
narrative worlds. Contemporary with Gilbert and
Cellier’s operetta, Lewis Carroll’s Through the
Looking-Glass (1871) explores an essentially inno-
cent and whimsical world, focusing on the comic
394 Inversion, Topsy-Turvy
effects of upside-down logical processes rather than
on identifiable satirical objects. In a different vein,
Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) describes
its protagonist’s encounters with the Houyhnhnms
(a race of civilized horse-like creatures) and the
Yahoos (a race of uncivilized human-like creatures).
The latter more closely resemble both Gulliver and
Swift’s readers, but the inversion of the behaviors
expected from men and animals provides a vehicle
for satirical commentary on human society.
Inversion also has variable aims and effects at
a broader social level. The codified inversions of
social relations associated with Carnival, or with the
exchange of many forms of anti-regime jokes, can
be associated on one level with the idea of humor as
a liberating force. However, the very fact that such
ritual behavior tends to be temporary and strictly
circumscribed also suggests that humor can be
deployed as a tool for social control or relief.
Inversion, Topsy-Turvydom,
and Humor Theory
Reflecting its wide range of associated humor types,
inversion forms an important component of several,
quite different theories of humor. Thomas Hobbes’s
(1650/1999) influential account of laughter as
resulting from “sudden glory arising from sudden
conception of some eminency in ourselves, by com-
parison with the infirmities of others, or with our
own formerly” (p. 54) implies not only the percep-
tion of superiority but also the inversion of expected
power relations. A subtler account of this relation-
ship appears in the Earl of Shaftesbury’s later Sensus
Communis: Essay Concerning the Freedom of Wit
and Humour (1709/1971), which discusses humor
as a means for “the natural free Spirits of inge-
nious Men, if imprison’d and controll’d” to “vent
themselves, and be reveng’d on their Constrainers”
(p. 18). Humorous inversion appears here as a
means by which individuals are able to overturn
perceived or real oppression, offering a template for
later theories of humor as a mechanism of psycho-
logical release. Among the best known proponents
of “relief” theories is Sigmund Freud (1927/1985),
whose essay “On Humor” describes the role of the
superego in placing real or imagined dangers that
would otherwise cause anxiety in a new and inverted
perspective: “Look! here is the world, which seems
so dangerous! It is nothing but a game for children—
just worth making a jest about!” (p. 432).
In addition to its role in power relations, inver-
sion can also often be thought of as a species of
incongruity, the concept underlying most recent
theories of humor. Understood in broad terms as the
reversal of conventions or expectations, inversion
underpins comic devices such as reversals of scale,
seen in Gulliver’s encounters with the gigantic
Brobdingnagians and miniscule Liliputians, and
incongruous combinations of high and low register
and of subject matter, seen in literary forms such as
burlesque and heroicomic. Topsy-turvy worlds such
as that of Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass can
be conceptualized in terms of an incongruity that is
resolved once their relationship to the real worlds on
which they are based is recognized.
Inversion also recurs as a theme for several of
the German Romantic philosophers who influenced
the development of modern incongruity theories.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790/2007)
describes laughter “arising from the sudden trans-
formation of a strained expectation into noth-
ing” (p. 161), while Jean Paul Richter’s School of
Aesthetics (1804/1973) describes humor as a form
of “inverted sublime” that recasts the transcendental
in terms of the mundane, seeking to “set the small
beside the great” (pp. 88–91). Miguel de Cervantes’s
character Don Quixote, for example, is shown to be
humorous because of the contrast between his lofty
ideals and his sordid reality: The world as he (but
he alone) perceives it, in which windmills become
giants and an old nag a knight-errant’s battle-steed,
represents not only a delusion but also a spe-
cific type of inversion. Richter’s analysis reflects a
broader shift in attitudes toward Quixote and comic
figures like him from a figure of derision to a tragic-
comical Romantic everyman. This focus is central to
Richter’s attempt to differentiate the emerging mod-
ern concept of humor (understood in a somewhat
narrower sense than in current English usage) from
older, more aggressive conceptions of laughter.
Particularly in their gentler, more whimsical
forms, inversion and topsy-turvydom also overlap
with other forms of humor such as nonsense and
absurdity. In Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass,
the White Queen’s claim that she remembers best
“things that happened the week after next” appears
nonsensical—although her inverted representation
of time begins to make more sense when considered
as an artifact of the looking-glass world of Carroll’s
novel. This example illustrates an important dif-
ference between nonsense/absurdity and inversion/

topsy-turvydom: Whereas the former imply the
undermining of established forms of meaning, the
latter imply the re-creation of such meanings in
recognizable, albeit upside-down form. As R. D. V.
Glasgow (1995) notes, this process “involves the
generation of a new, inverted order and consequently
gives the onlooker or reader the comic satisfaction
of recognizing a new set of patterns” (p. 343).
Inversion and Social Structures:
Ritual and Carnival Humor
In an influential essay exploring the role of jokes as
“anti-rites” in a cross-section of human societies,
anthropologist Mary Douglas (1975) argues that
whatever the joke, however remote its subject, the
telling of it is potentially subversive. Since its form
consists of a victorious tilting of uncontrol against
control, it is an image of the levelling of hierarchy,
the triumph of intimacy over formality, of unofficial
values over official ones. (p. 152)
Douglas points to a close relationship between jok-
ing and the inversion of social structures, and she
argues that even phenomena like the sick joke or
the shaggy-dog story fit this pattern, because they
only occur in social contexts where audiences have
become desensitized to more standard forms of joke.
This analysis of joking suggests a parallel relation-
ship between inversion and other forms of humor:
The potential for practical jokes to disrupt the
social order is arguably even stronger than for ver-
bal jokes, while the mention of the shaggy-dog story
recalls the appearance of radically digressive self-
conscious narratives like Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones
(1749) and Laurence Sterne’s The Life and Opinions
of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (1759–1768) as
humorous and subversive responses to the emerging
conventions of the 18th-century novel.
Douglas’s position also suggests a parallel with
the notion of popular carnival theorized by Mikhail
Bakhtin (1984), which he associates with “a tempo-
rary suspension, both ideal and real, of hierarchical
rank [which] created during carnival time a special
type of communication impossible in everyday
life” (p. 10). As he argues, “We find here a char-
acteristic logic, the peculiar logic of the ‘inside-
out’ (à l’envers), of the ‘turnabout,’ of a continual
shifting from top to bottom, from front to rear, of
numerous parodies and travesties, humiliations,
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy 395
profanations, comic crowning and uncrownings”
(p. 11). This analysis has particular application for
Bakhtin’s study of François Rabelais’s Gargantua
and Pantagruel cycle (1532–1552), which he pres-
ents as a late literary manifestation of the medieval
carnival spirit. Rabelais’s works incorporate many
levels of inversion, including bodily realism (seen
in Gargantua’s birth through his mother’s left ear:
Gargantua, chap. 5), scale (young Gargantua’s horse
urinating causes a torrent that washes the enemy
army away: Gargantua, chap. 34), and logic (in
Panurge’s speech in praise of debts in Le tiers livre
[The Third Book], chaps. 2–5). Similar processes
can be observed at work in later literary texts: For
example, Alfred Jarry’s 1899 play Ubu in Chains—a
work showing strong Rabelaisian influences—offers
an entirely topsy-turvy refashioning of earlier plays
in the same series, whereby the goal of acquiring
tyrannical power is replaced by the goal of embrac-
ing a state of slavery.
It is less clear, however, that Bakhtin’s notion of
carnival offers a useful general model for the inver-
sion of social structures. Whereas Douglas holds
that joking “anti-rites” occur in different forms
across human societies, Bakhtin argues that carnival
laughter is specific to its medieval Christian context.
Recently, Max Harris (2011) has highlighted the
danger of conflating imaginative re-creations of car-
nival laughter with specific manifestations of eccle-
siastical inversion such as the Feast of Fools, and
especially of overestimating the disruptive potential
of the latter: “The notion that all the most shocking
(or titillating) details can be combined to give a true
picture of the Feast of Fools at any single time or
place is shown to be hopelessly misguided” (p. 5).
Nevertheless, Harris’s detail of unrelated phe-
nomena such as the “Kalends masquerades, . . .
courtly pranks and clerical mimicry in imperial Con-
stantinople, outdoor rites in papal Rome, and Herod
games in Germany” points to a rich but highly local-
ized tradition of medieval ecclesiastical inversion.
Situational Inversion
Despite the problems of studying specific histori-
cal traditions of inversion, the relationship between
humor and inversion is approached more easily
through social situations. As Henri Bergson (2008)
notes in his influential study, Laughter (originally
published as Le rire, 1900), “Picture to yourself cer-
tain characters in a certain situation: if you reverse
396 Inversion, Topsy-Turvy
the situation and invert the roles, you obtain a comic
scene” (p. 47). Bergson’s account of inversion imme-
diately follows a discussion of comic repetition and
presents the case of two situations that are identical
in all details other than the reversal of roles, only
one of which needs to be present in order for the
spectators to laugh. Citing the examples of “a pris-
oner at the bar lecturing the magistrate” and “a
child presuming to teach its parents,” Bergson goes
on to suggest that “not infrequently comedy sets
before us a character who lays a trap in which he
is the first to be caught” (p. 47). This analysis he
applies to classic situations such as the late medieval
La farce du Maître Pathelin (The Farce of Master
Pathelin), in which a lawyer advises a client on how
to trick a magistrate, only to have the same trick
played on him in order to avoid paying his bill. This
anticipates many later examples of slapstick and
cinema comedy, seen in the work of artists such as
Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin (whose 1940 film
The Great Dictator has Chaplin playing both an
amnesiac Jewish barber and a caricature of Hitler),
and the Marx Brothers. The trope of the “robber
robbed” in fact forms the basis of the earliest known
film comedy, Louis Lumière’s 1895 short film
L’arroseur arrosé (The Waterer Watered), in which
a young boy causes a gardener to drench himself
by blocking his hosepipe but is subsequently chased
and punished in turn.
Literary Inversions: Burlesque and Heroicomic
While inverted social and character roles recur
throughout both Western and Eastern comic tradi-
tions, inversion can also play a broader structural
role in literary forms that generate humor through
disparities between style and subject matter. Tradi-
tionally discussed under the heading of burlesque
(although, as John Jump points out, this is distinct
from North American usage of the term denoting a
sexually provocative song and dance act), this pro-
cess can be divided into “high burlesque,” involving
the treatment of high or exalted subject matter in a
low or mocking register, and “heroicomic” or “low
burlesque,” involving the treatment of low or ordi-
nary subject matter in a high or exalted style. A strik-
ing example of the high burlesque is Alfred Jarry’s
short story “The Passion Considered as an Uphill
Bicycle Race,” published on Good Friday 1903,
which reimagines the Christian Passion story in the
style of a contemporary bicycle racing commentator,
recasting the crucifix as a bicycle, which—in the final
stages of a race against two thieves up the Golgotha
hill—Christ ends up carrying on his back because
of a puncture. A more recent example on a similar
theme is the Monty Python 1979 film The Life of
Brian, which also presents its title character as an
inverted parallel to Christ, a situation summed up
in his (distinctly nonvirgin) mother’s much-quoted
remark: “He’s not the Messiah! He’s a very naughty
boy!”
Both high burlesque and low burlesque/heroicomic
can be traced back to classical Greece: the former
in Aristophanes’s parodic treatment of mythologi-
cal figures and tragic drama (e.g., in his play Frogs,
404 BCE), and the latter in instances such as the
pseudo-Homeric poem Battle of the Frogs and Mice,
which treats a battle between pond animals in the
style of a Classical epic. Both of these forms occur in
Cervantes’s Don Quixote (1605–1615): The titular
character’s sordid existence is set against his delusions
of knight-errantry, but the chivalric romances with
which Quixote is obsessed are also given mocking
treatment through Cervantes’s self-conscious narra-
tive frame. Explicitly heroicomic texts often take the
form of mock epic, a genre particularly well repre-
sented in English satirists of the 17th and early 18th
century, including Samuel Butler, whose Hudibras
(1663–1684) uses mock-epic praise to satirize the
religious fervor of the English Civil War. Alexander
Pope’s Rape of the Lock (1712–1717) makes the
minor incident of a stolen lock of hair the basis for a
new Trojan war, and his Dunciad (1728–1742) refig-
ures Homer’s Iliad as a satire on contemporary Grub
Street hacks dedicated to the goddess Dulness. The
incongruity between high or low style or subject mat-
ter usefully illustrates Richter’s description of humor
as “set[ting] the small beside the great,” although, as
these examples show, the effect is often more satirical
than whimsical.
Coda: From Inversion to
Topsy-Turvydom and Beyond
As with the localized inversions of situations or
social roles, the contrast between style and subject
matter that characterizes burlesque and heroicomic
does not specially lend itself the creation of extended
topsy-turvy worlds. However, the use of inversion as
a narrative technique can create topsy-turvy effects
not very different from those of Carroll’s Alice books
or to the satirical mundus inversus (world upside
down) trope. In its purest form, the complete inver-
sion of a narrative sequence can generate humor

not only through the resolution of incongruity but
through the creation of an entirely new sequence
of narrative connections. A case in point is Czech
director Oldrich Lipsky’s 1968 film Happy End, in
which a sordid tale of adultery, murder, dismember-
ment, conviction, and execution in 1920s Prague
is projected in backward motion, accompanied by
the protagonist’s voiceover commentary. In what
amounts to a black comedy playing on a literally
inverted representation of graphic violence, the nar-
rator is born when the guillotine blade lifts his head
to join his body. He is educated in prison, receives
and assembles his wife from body parts packed in
a suitcase, drowns (rather than rescues) his wife’s
lover, and gradually becomes younger. Rather than
reimagining a thematically inverted world, Lipsky
created this unusual topsy-turvy effect by inverting
time. Made in the same year as the short-lived hopes
of the Prague Spring, Happy End can be interpreted
as a satire on both the capitalist society it depicts
and (potentially) the implied Marxist promise of a
reversal of social injustice. Part of this ambiguity,
and much of the humor, lies in the use of a simple
technical inversion to generate new meanings from
a previously existing text, suggesting that topsy-
turvydom can in fact be extended beyond the idea of
a simple inverted reflection of perceived reality. The
growing availability and use of such inverted motion
and sound in formats such as comic YouTube videos
suggests that the relationship between inversion as a
technique and topsy-turvydom as a state or resulting
effect will remain a rich source of comic effect.
Will Noonan
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Greek Comedy;
Aristophanes; Burlesque; Byzantine Humor; Farce;
Genres and Styles of Comedy; History of Humor:
Early Modern Europe; Monty Python; Movies;
Parody; Puns; Rabelais, François; Satire
Further Readings
Aarons, D. (2012). Jokes and the linguistic mind. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Babcock, B. (Ed.). (1978). The reversible world: Symbolic
inversion in art and society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky,
Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bergson, H. (2008). Laughter (C. Brereton & F. Rothwell,
Trans.). Rockville, MD: Wildside Press. (Original work
published 1900)
Irony 397
Douglas, M. (1975). Implicit meanings. London, UK:
Routledge.
Freud, S. (1985). On humour. In Art and Literature
(Pelican Freud Library Vol. 5, pp. 425–433).
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. (Original work
published 1927)
Glasgow, R. D. V. (1995). Madness, masks and laughter:
An essay on comedy. Cranbury, NJ: Associated
University Presses.
Harris, M. (2011). Sacred folly: A new history of the Feast
of Fools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1999). The elements of law, natural and politic:
Human nature and de corpore politico (J. C. A. Gaskin,
Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original
work published 1650)
Jump, J. (1972). Burlesque. London, UK: Methuen.
Kant, I. (2007). Critique of judgement (J. C. Meredith,
Trans., & N. Walker, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. (Original work published 1790)
Richter, J. P. (1973). Horn of Oberon: Jean Paul Richter’s
school for aesthetics (M. R. Hale, Ed. & Trans.).
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. (Original
work published 1804)
Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony Ashley Cooper). (1971).
Sensus communis: An essay on the freedom of wit and
humour. New York, NY: Garland. (Original work
published 1709)
IRONY
Irony, like many terms in everyday language usage,
has many different meanings. For instance, irony
may refer to either a verbal phenomenon or a state
of affairs in the world. The latter is called situational
irony. An example of situational irony is a rescuer
heroically saving someone from drowning only
to find out that the rescued person was his or her
worst enemy. Situational irony need not be entirely
different from verbal irony, as shown by Cameron
Shelley, yet it will not be discussed any further in
this entry.
Verbal irony also has various meanings. Socratic
irony is a technique used by Greek philosopher
Socrates to lead his interlocutors to a better under-
standing of an argument. Romantic irony is an
author’s playful attitude toward his or her text, often
related to metafiction. It is similar to postmodern
irony, which is the destabilizing of the text in the
very process of producing it, thus making it clear
that one’s fictional tale is in fact a fiction. Danish
religious philosopher Søren Kierkegaard even uses
398 Irony
the term irony to describe an aesthetic experience
that can lead to a religious one.
It is just as difficult to distinguish irony from the
related phenomenon of sarcasm. Sarcasm is taken to
be an aggressive form of irony. Some authors have
claimed that a clear-cut distinction is impossible,
whereas others point out differences between the
two concepts; for example, irony may be involun-
tary, whereas sarcasm is not. Moreover, irony may
be positive (i.e., noncritical), whereas sarcasm is not.
An example of positive irony (termed ironic praise)
is “a little known writer from Stratford-upon-Avon,
by the name of Shakespeare.” To complicate mat-
ters, in contemporary American usage, among
young speakers, sarcasm has taken over the mean-
ing of irony, which is now used to mean something
upsetting (in a sense unrelated to humor). It is also
not clear if all irony is humorous (for a comprehen-
sive review, see the 2008 study by Raquel Hidalgo
Downing and Silvia Iglesias Recuero).
Etymologically, the term irony comes from the
Greek eironeia, meaning “dissimulation” or “con-
cealing.” Melissa Lane ascribes to Greek philoso-
pher Aristotle the first use of the term irony in the
modern sense. In this sense, irony is taken to be a
rhetorical figure (a trope, a figure of speech) used by
speakers to mean the opposite of what is said. This
definition is fraught with problems. First and fore-
most, the speaker may be ironical without necessar-
ily intending the opposite of what he or she says. For
example, on saying “he has made such a good job of
discrediting himself,” the speaker does not intend to
convey the opposite (“he has made such a bad job
of discrediting himself”). Besides, understatements,
overstatements, and hyperboles may also be used
for irony. This entry focuses on the research into the
study of irony and sarcasm.
Research Topics
Considerable effort has also gone into the study of
the markers of irony and/or sarcasm. Surprisingly,
the ironical tone of voice was taken for granted
by many scholars, and much of the literature until
the second millennium was dedicated to specifying
what the prosodic features of the ironical tone of
voice were. However, considerable confusion exists
in these studies, whose findings are often contradic-
tory. For example, both a flat contour and a rais-
ing intonation have been claimed to mark irony.
Lower pitch and exaggerated pitch have similarly
been indicated as markers, and so have heavy stress,
beat clashes, and exaggerated intonational pat-
terns. Nasalization and slower speech have also
been suggested. Facial expressions have also been
described as marking irony, including raised or low-
ered eyebrows, wide open or squinting eyes, wink-
ing, nodding, lip tightening, smiling, a “blank face,”
mismatch between prosody and face and gaze aver-
sion. Salvatore Attardo and colleagues, and Gregory
Bryant and Jean Fox Tree have argued that an iden-
tifiable ironical tone of voice does not exist and that
there are only differential markings (e.g., incongru-
ity relative to context).
The relationship between the stated and the
intended message in irony has been described by
Rachel Giora as indirect negation, by Herbert
Colston as contrast, or by Salvatore Attardo as inap-
propriateness to context, in addition to opposition.
All of these, however, seem to share the assumption
that the two senses need to be somehow different
and at odds with each other.
The mechanisms whereby irony is produced and
perceived have likewise been the subject of much
contention. Irony has been considered as a rhetorical
figure, an implicature, a speech act, an echoic men-
tion, a pretense, a reminder, a nonsalient interpreta-
tion, and a tinge (i.e., the two meanings blend into
each other). This list is not exhaustive.
Views of how people process irony and sarcasm
can be divided into two broad camps. At one end is
the one-stage, direct access model, which assumes
that a rich and informative context may have imme-
diate effects so that sarcastic irony interpretation is
seamless. At the other end is the two-stage model,
which assumes that salient (coded and prominent)
meanings and literal or salience-based interpreta-
tions may not be bypassed, affecting, therefore,
processing difficulties when inappropriate. The
next sections are dedicated to discussing these two
approaches.
Experimental Findings
Context-based approaches such as the direct access
view (championed by Raymond Gibbs) and con-
straints satisfaction models (proposed by John
Campbell and Albert Katz and Penny Pexman and
colleagues) are prevalent in the field of sarcasm pro-
cessing. These theories maintain that, with a context
rich enough in supportive information and cues, a
sarcastic utterance is anticipated. Giving rise to such
anticipation should facilitate sarcasm interpreta-
tion immediately. Thus, contextual constraints such

as information about a speaker’s occupation (as in
Pexman and colleagues), a failed expectation on the
part of the protagonist as claimed by Gibbs and by
Campbell and Katz, and the involvement of nega-
tions, negative emotions, and a victim should affect
sarcasm interpretation immediately. Campbell and
Katz reveal, however, that none of the above is a
necessary condition.
In contrast, lexicon-based models (a two-stage
approach) assume that lexical processes are uncondi-
tional and cannot be preempted by contextual infor-
mation to the contrary. Consequently, as proposed
by Rachel Giora in the graded salience hypothesis,
processing may initially involve salient but contextu-
ally incompatible meanings, regardless of degree of
nonliteralness.
Other two-stage approaches, such as the literal
first model by Paul Grice and John Searle and the
least disruption principle view by Salvatore Attardo
and Jodi Eisterhold and colleagues, also assume an
obligatory processing stage that is attributed to lit-
erally based interpretations—interpretations based
on the literal meaning of the utterance components,
which, in the case of sarcastic irony, are contextu-
ally incompatible. Relevance theory—proposed
and developed by Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson
and Robyn Carston—also assumes the involvement
in processing of “what is said,” toward which the
ironic speaker projects an attitude of dissociation
and ridicule.
The involvement of such incompatible interpre-
tations, whether literal or nonliteral, may affect
complex interpretation processes. It should be noted
that the idea of “literal” meaning itself has been sub-
jected to substantive discussion and is eschewed by
some scholars.
Indeed, with the exception of Gibbs’s study of
sarcastic indirect requests, findings do not attest to
the temporal priority of sarcastic interpretations
over salience-based or literal-based interpretations,
nor have they demonstrated equivalent processing
routes for both sarcastic and salience-based (often
literal) interpretations. Instead, findings demonstrate
that sarcasm interpretation is more effortful than
salience-based interpretation.
In a study by Rachel Giora and colleagues
(2007), as argued by John Campbell and Albert
Katz, frustrated expectation on its own did not
give rise to an expectation for an ironic utterance;
nor did it facilitate sarcasm comprehension com-
pared with a context featuring a realized expecta-
tion. In contrast, in both contexts, sarcastic targets
Irony 399
took longer to read than in a context featuring no
expectation.
But even when contexts were, in effect, shown to
induce an expectation for a sarcastic utterance, sar-
castic interpretation was not facilitated immediately.
Rather, most of the findings in the field show that,
initially, interpretation of sarcastic irony involves
activating its contextually incompatible, salience-
based (often literal) interpretation first.
For instance, in the study by Giora and col-
leagues, dialogic contexts were shown to induce
an expectation for a sarcastic irony by involving a
sarcastic speaker in dialogue mid position (i.e., in
the middle of the conversation) whose participants
expected to utter another sarcastic utterance in
dialogue final position (i.e., at the end of a conver-
sation). Regardless, such contextual expectation nei-
ther facilitated the anticipated sarcastic utterances
nor slowed down processing of their salience-based
counterparts. Instead, reading times of the same
utterances intended sarcastically were slower com-
pared with reading times of these utterances when
intended literally.
These findings were also replicated when expec-
tation was manipulated by the experimental design,
which exclusively exposed participants to story
contexts ending in sarcastic irony. Specifically, in
these experiments, response times to sarcastically
related probes were always longer than those to
salience-based related probes, which were always
activated initially, regardless of length of processing
times allowed (750 and 1000 ms) and contextual
misfit. This pattern of results was the same for the
control design, which did not manipulate an expec-
tation for a sarcastic utterance but rather exposed
participants to an equal number of items ending
either in a sarcastic or in a salience-based utterance.
That is, in both conditions, participants’ response
times to probes related to the sarcastic interpretation
always lagged behind and were slower than those
to the (contextually incompatible) salience-based
probes. Such results do not support the context-
based approaches. Instead, they are consistent with
the lexicon-based approaches and with the view
that assigns to salience-based literal interpretation
a role in sarcastic irony interpretation by involving
initially a misleading phase. On irony as intended
to be beguiling, see, for example, Herbert Clark and
Richard Gerrig; and Douglas Muecke.
In a number of follow-up studies by Ofer Fein,
Menahem Yeari, and Rachel Giora, in which con-
textual strength was reinforced by multiplying
400 Irony

sarcastic cues, these results were nonetheless repli- accessibility, is hard to inhibit or even reject as an
cated. (A review of the results was published by Giora aftermath, probably because it is functional in con-
in 2011.) Dialogues similar to those used in a 2007 structing the ironic interpretation from which it
study by Giora and colleagues were strengthened differs. No wonder marking it is often necessary,
by making explicit the sarcastic (and nonsarcastic) especially when written language is concerned, as in
intent. Regardless of strength of context, reinforcing the 2009 study by Juanita Whalen and colleagues.
contextual expectation for an ironic utterance in the When it is not, it faces the risk of being taken at face
sarcastically biased context by multiplying explicitly value (as was the case of, e.g., Jonathan Swift’s A
supportive cues did not change the pattern of results Modest Proposal).
obtained with regard to reading times and lexical
decisions to related and unrelated probes. Results Corpus-Based Findings
showed that reading times of target utterances were
If sarcasm involves activating its salience-based
always longer following sarcastically based biased
(often literal) interpretation, addressees and even the
dialogues than following salience-based biased dia-
speakers themselves may resonate with it—elaborate
logues. Additionally, with the exception of one delay
on it, respond to it, or echo it in one way or another.
(1500 ms in which differences were not significant),
On resonance and resonance and sarcasm, see the
sarcastically related probes (at 750 and 2000 ms
works of John Du Bois and Rachel Giora; and on
delays) took longer to respond to compared with
mode adoption, see Whalen and Pexman’s works.
salience-based related probes.
The result is an environment reflecting contextually
In addition, strengthening the contextual bias
incompatible interpretations of sarcastic utterances.
(manipulated in the 2007 study by Giora and col-
Corpus-based studies of spoken interactions
leagues) by adding explicit information about the
indeed provide support for the view that salience-
study that was investigating sarcasm interpretation
based albeit incompatible interpretations are made
and by allowing longer processing times did not
available to interlocutors and are therefore prevalent
affect the pattern of results obtained earlier. Despite
in the environment of sarcastic irony. For instance,
employing multiple constraints, sarcasm was not
Helga Kotthoff looked at dinner-table conversa-
facilitated. Instead, only incompatible salience-based
tions among friends, where resonating with the
interpretations were made available initially in both
salience-based but incompatible interpretations
conditions.
of the (German) sarcastic remarks was the norm;
Similarly, in the 2000 study by Pexman and col-
resonating with the nonsalient compatible inter-
leagues, in addition to biasing targets toward the
pretation occurred significantly less frequently. The
sarcastic reading, contexts also included a speaker
reverse, however, prevailed among interlocutors
of a high-irony occupation (e.g., taxi-cab driver).
who were adversaries participating in television talk
Results, however, showed that sarcastic interpreta-
shows. Rachel Giora and Inbal Gur studied an hour-
tion took longer to process compared with contexts
long conversation between five friends, showing
inviting a metaphorical or a neutral reading of the
that 75% of the (Hebrew) sarcastic remarks were
target. Findings in a study by Herbert Colston and
responded to via reference to their salience-based,
Raymond Gibbs also showed that utterances (“This
albeit incompatible, interpretation.
one’s really sharp”), whose key word (sharp) has
Looking at how people talk and write, Alan
both a salient literal and a salient metaphorical
Partington reveals that irony is frequently associ-
meaning, took longer to read when embedded in
ated with the deautomatization of familiar colloca-
sarcastically biasing contexts than in metaphorically
tions and often involves an evaluative component.
biasing contexts.
According to Partington, explicit irony (i.e., marked
Such results demonstrate that contextual effects
by a lexicalized marker) is generally nonhumorous
do not operate immediately and do not facilitate
compared with implicit (unmarked) irony, whose
contextually compatible sarcastic interpretations ini-
humorous effect is appreciated.
tially or exclusively. This is true even when contexts
are shown to induce an expectation for a sarcastic
Conclusion
utterance, whose interpretation is nonetheless tax-
ing, involving initially a salience-based contextu- Both lab results and natural data attest to the tenu-
ally incompatible interpretation. This inescapable ousness of context effects, failing both to facilitate
interpretation, activated on account of its relative sarcasm interpretation immediately and to inhibit

salience-based but contextually inappropriate inter-
pretations. These salience-based interpretations are,
therefore, allowed to play a role in shaping both the
complexity of the interpretation process and the nat-
ural environment of their utterances. Such findings
argue against context-based approaches, such as
direct access view and constraints satisfaction mod-
els, and are in favor of lexicon-based approaches,
such as the least disruption principle, the graded
salience hypothesis, and the literal first model.
Rachel Giora and Salvatore Attardo
See also Humor Markers; Politeness; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness.
Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826.
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003).
Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 16(2), 243–260.
Bara, B. G., Tirassa, M., & Zettin, M. (1997).
Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological constraints on
formal theories of dialogue. Brain and Language, 59(1),
7–49.
Bryant, G. A. (2012). Is verbal irony special? Language and
Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 673–685.
Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic
tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277.
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary
conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony?
Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The
pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory
of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
113(1), 121–126.
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2002). Are irony and
metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and
Symbol, 17(1), 57–80.
Du Bois, W. J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R.
Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse:
Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Eisterhold, J., Attardo, S., & Boxer, D. (2006). Reactions to
irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption
principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1239–1256.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on
faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative
thought, language, and understanding. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Irony 401
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in
language and thought. New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal
language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive
Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and
figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Giora, R. (2007). And Olmert is a responsible man—On
the priority of salience-based yet incompatible
interpretations in non-literal language. Cognitive
Studies, 14(3), 269–281.
Giora, R. (2011). Will anticipating irony facilitate it
immediately? In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of
humour across discourse domains (pp. 19–31).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Alkeslassy Levi, N., & Sabah,
H. (2005). On negation as mitigation: The case of
negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kaufman, R., Eisenberg, D., & Erez, S.
(2009). Does an “ironic situation” favor an ironic
interpretation? In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.),
Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 383–399).
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M.,
Kidron, R., Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R. (2007).
Expecting irony: Context vs. salience-based effects.
Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–146.
Giora, R., & Gur, I. (2003). Irony in conversation: Salience
and context effects. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman,
& D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of
meanings in language and mind (pp. 297–316). Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole &
J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics
(pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hidalgo Downing, R., & Iglesias Recuero, S. (2008).
Humor e ironía: una relación compleja [Humor and
irony: A complex relation]. In L. Ruiz Gurillo & X. A.
Padilla García (Eds.), Dime cómo ironizas y te diré
quién eres: una aproximacion pragmatic a la ironía [Tell
me how you ironize and I will tell you who you are: A
pragmatic approach to irony] (pp. 423–455). Frankfurt,
Germany: Peter Lang.
Kierkegaard, S. (1966). The concept of irony, with
constant reference to Socrates. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different
contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411.
Kreuz, R., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic:
The reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 347–386.
402 Islam
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M.
(1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional
pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3–21.
Lane, M. (2006). The evolution of eironeia in classical
Greek texts: Why Socratic eironeia is not Socratic irony.
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 31, 49–83.
Muecke, D. C. (1970). The nature of irony. London, UK:
Methuen.
Partington, A. (2007). Irony and reversal of evaluation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1547–1569.
Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal irony: Its form, function and
exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1786–1800.
Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. N. (2000).
Discourse factors that influence online reading of
metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–222.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the
theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Shelley, C. (2001). The bicoherence theory of situational
irony. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 775–818.
Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic
mention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
113(1), 130–136.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-
mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics
(pp. 295–318). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance:
Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Swift, J. (1729). A modest proposal for preventing the
children of the poor from being a burden to their
parents or country, and for making them beneficial to
the public. The Art Bin. Retrieved May 22, 2013, from
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Whalen, J. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). How do children
respond to verbal irony in face-to-face communication?
The development of mode adoption across middle
childhood. Discourse Processes, 47(5), 363–387.
Whalen, J. M., Pexman, P. M., & Gill, A. J. (2009).
“Should be fun—not!”: Incidence and marking of
nonliteral language in e-mail. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 28(3), 263–280.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua,
87, 53–76.
ISLAM
Taken broadly as a culture or civilization and not
narrowly as a religion with a set of cut-and-dried
dogmas and fixed rituals, Islam would, like any
other culture or civilization, appear to have a fairly
rich element of humor. The subject of humor in
Islam can be approached in a variety of ways. One
typology would distinguish between religious humor
(including humor at the expense of religion), politi-
cal humor, and folk humor; another, between wit,
pun, irony, banter, repartee, parody, practical joke,
satire, and burlesque. There are humorous anecdotes
involving people from various walks of life, call-
ings, and backgrounds, such as ascetics and saints
(at times, prophets, too—especially the prophet
Muhammad), scholars and sages, judges and jurists,
theologians and philosophers, kings and courtiers,
poets and writers, physicians and teachers, bedou-
ins and townsmen, and women and children, and,
of course, certain—usually stock—characters with a
reputation for stupidity, avarice, miserliness, and the
like. Islamic humor is “Islamic” because it reflects or
makes reference to Islamic motifs, issues, and situa-
tions, but Islamic humor also includes adaptations
or versions of universal themes in humor. Overall,
humor in an Islamic setting, as in any other setting,
religious or secular, serves several functions. It can
point up a moral; question or criticize socially incor-
rect behavior—though, paradoxically, it may cre-
ate space for such behavior as well; defuse, without
necessarily eliminating, the tension arising from an
awkward or anomalous situation (such as the ten-
sion due to a conflict between old and new customs
or old and new generations); or simply provide fun
or amusement.
A major formal medium of Islamic humor is
anecdote. In his meticulously researched Arabia
Ridens (Laughing Arabia), Ulrich Marzolph sum-
marizes 1,247 texts, taken from a wide variety of
sources. Another medium is short story, represented,
on the one hand, by many a humorous tale in a
work like The Thousand and One Nights, and, on
the other, by the picaresque-style genre in Arabic
known as maqama (literally, “station,” allud-
ing to the place where an orator stands to speak),
which, with its cadenced prose, has its protagonist
go through a series of adventures that often have
a humorous dimension. Yet another medium is
treatise or essay. There exists an extensive amount
of humorous, especially satirical, poetry on the fail-
ings and foibles of individuals and groups. There
are, in several Islamic languages, compendia and
anthologies of humorous literature. In view of its
noticeable presence in the Islamic tradition, humor
in Islam deserves greater scholarly attention than it
has. This entry discusses humor in the foundational
sources of Islam and in Islamic didactic literature,
humor as critique of thought and conduct, witty

humor, humor at the expense of religion, and the
folk humor of Mullah Nasreddin.
The Qur’an
The idea of scripture containing humor is not oxymo-
ronic. After all, humor is an effective way of making
a point, and there is no reason why it should not be
part of scripture’s arsenal as it proclaims its message.
There are several instances of the Qur’anic use of
humor, and this entry looks at one. According to the
Qur’an, prophecy is a gift from God and not a human
acquisition. In chapter 20 of the Qur’an, Moses, on
his way back to Egypt after a period of self-imposed
exile, reaches an area of Sinai where God addresses
him and makes him a prophet. Then, rather casu-
ally, God asks Moses what he is holding in his hand
(verse 17). Blissfully oblivious of the possibility that
God’s question may have something to do with his
appointment as a prophet, Moses, a shepherd dur-
ing his years of exile, replies: “This is my staff; I lean
on it [when I wish to take a rest]; I shake down with
it leaves [from trees] for my sheep; and I have other
uses for it, too” (verses 18–19). Moses begins with a
proper Aristotelian definition: “This is my staff.” He
then goes on to list some of the main uses of the staff.
At this point, he probably realizes that God may not
have been looking for these details. But the staff is
important to a shepherd, and its other uses deserve at
least an honorable mention, and so Moses makes a
succinct summary statement: “And I have other uses
for it, too.” The God-Moses dialogue takes place in
a serious context—Moses has already been invested
with prophecy—but the fact that it does not cross
Moses’s mind that God’s question may be linked to
that context has ironic humor. Instead of wonder-
ing why God should be asking such a question or
responding, simply, that he is holding a staff in his
hand, Moses goes off the tangent, as it were, and
keeps going, the very length of the answer being com-
ical. But the matter does not end there. God further
asks Moses to drop his staff on the ground (verse
19). Moses obeys, only to see his staff turn into a ser-
pent (a miraculous sign that Moses will soon use in
his confrontation with Pharaoh). The transformation
terrifies Moses (verse 20), who, as another Qur’anic
passage relates, takes to his heels and does not even
look back (27:10). Moses’s reaction on this occa-
sion, contrasted with his already established image
as strong and brave (28:15, 26), makes the reader
chuckle. The main point made by the Qur’an is that
the reaction, natural and unpremeditated, indicates
Islam 403
that Moses had neither suspected nor expected that
he would be made a prophet, the reaction proving
that prophecy is bestowed, not acquired. Several
other incidents related in the Qur’an can be charac-
terized as humorous.
Besides containing instances of humor, the Qur’an
figures in many humorous anecdotes. To take an
example from Fakhruddin Ali Safi’s (d. 1532)
Lata’if al-Tawa’if (“Jokes About Various Groups of
People”): Qur’an 9 distinguishes between two types
of bedouins, hypocritical and faithful. Verses 96 to
98 of the chapter state that the bedouins are stub-
born in their disbelief and are hypocritical, whereas
verse 99 says that some bedouins believe in God
and the afterlife. On hearing the prayer leader in the
mosque recite the first passage, a bedouin, standing
in a row behind the prayer leader, becomes angry,
takes out his staff, and beats the prayer leader with
it. The following day, the prayer leader recites verse
99, and, this time, our bedouin is pleased to note
that the beating he gave the prayer leader with his
staff the day before had the desired effect.
Muhammad
In his Humor in Early Islam, Franz Rosenthal
points out that Muhammad had a cheerful dispo-
sition and his companions loved jokes and pranks.
Muhammad’s companions knew him to be one
who smiled and laughed a lot; on some occasions,
he laughed so heartily that his molars showed.
Rosenthal quotes several humorous anecdotes
involving Muhammad, one of them being as fol-
lows. Muhammad told an old woman that old
women would not be allowed to enter paradise and
then relieved her feelings by citing Qur’an 56:35–37,
which says that paradise will have young women,
implying that old women will be made young before
they enter paradise. Bukhari, a compilation of reports
(hadith) about Muhammad, cites the following inci-
dent. A man who had broken his fast before time
asked Muhammad how he could atone for his lapse.
He could not, he told Muhammad on being asked,
free a slave, fast for 60 days, or feed 60 people. In the
meantime, a man came into the Prophet’s presence,
bringing a quantity of dates. Suggesting yet another
form of atonement, Muhammad told the man who
had broken his fast to take the dates and give them
as charity to poor people. Swearing by God, the man
said that no family in the city was poorer than his.
At this, the Prophet laughed and laughed until his
eyeteeth showed. He then told the man to take the
404 Islam
dates home to feed his family. This incident, besides
illustrating prophetic humor, shows Muhammad to
be one who did not take a strict view of enforcing the
law where extenuating circumstances existed.
Humor in Didactic Literature
Islamic didactic literature seeks to uphold or reflect
values and ideas derived from the general Islamic
tradition, which includes religion but other sources
of edification as well. One of the finest examples
of such literature is the Gulistan (Rose-Garden), a
collection of stories written in an eloquent mix of
prose and poetry by the Persian Muslihuddin Sa‘di
(d. 1292). A number of these stories are marked
by humor, irony, and satire. The book opens with
the story of a prisoner about to be executed at the
king’s orders. The desperate prisoner begins to revile
the king in his own tongue. The king asks one of
his ministers what the man is saying and receives
the reply that the man is reciting the Qur’anic verse
(3:134) in which God praises those who control
their anger and forgive people. The king, moved,
orders that the prisoner be released. Sa‘di draws the
moral: “A lie that aims at good is better than a truth
that causes trouble” (trans. 1983, p. 43). In another
story, a king asks a saint what is the best kind of
worship he can perform, and the saint replies that
the king should sleep until midday, so that people
get respite from his oppression.
Humor also characterizes many Sufi stories.
Sufism’s program of spiritual purification includes
cleansing one’s soul of hypocrisy and eliminating
double standards from one’s life, as the following
amusing story shows. A woman requested a saint
to advise her son, who was with her, not to eat too
much sugar. The saint told the woman to bring
the child to him the following day. When the two
returned the following day, the saint advised the son
not to eat too much sugar. The woman, a little sur-
prised, asked the saint what had kept him from giv-
ing the same advice the day before. The saint replied
that he himself had eaten a little too much sugar just
that day. This is a Sufi way of highlighting the moral
that one should not preach what one does not practice.
Humor as Critique of Thought and Conduct
Humor can provide a criticism of thought and prac-
tice. In Islam, as in Judaism, the law occupies a privi-
leged position. But the law typically deals with the
formal or external aspects of a religion, and, with the
dominance of legalism in the early Islamic centuries,
the spiritual or interior aspect of the religion risked
being neglected. A mystical movement arising at
that time, therefore, sought to restore the balance.
The following story from Jalaluddin Rumi (d. 1273)
illustrates, with a clear humorous touch, the mystical
view of Islam. Moses, the great representative and
custodian of the Law, comes upon a shepherd, who
is addressing God in his simple and humble way, say-
ing that if he were to meet God, he would serve Him
diligently, combing His head, washing His clothes,
delousing Him, offering Him milk, and so on. On
hearing this, Moses, scandalized, rebukes the blas-
pheming shepherd, who is terrified and repents. But,
in turn, Moses is rebuked by God, who says that the
shepherd, in his innocent simplicity, was close to God,
but that Moses has, by interjecting the Law between
God and the poor fellow, put a distance between the
two, and, in doing so, has violated his own mandate,
for God had sent Moses to unite people with God,
not to separate them from Him. At the start of the
story, we laugh at the shepherd’s naive understanding
of his relationship with God, but, in the final analy-
sis, the joke is on Moses. Humor is used to urge the
claims of mysticism against those of the Law.
Humor, often in a critical, even mildly satiri-
cal, vein characterizes some mystic poetry. Some
mystic poetry is suffused with humor in a critical,
even mildly satirical vein. A 17th-century Punjabi
Sufi poet, Sultan Bahu, takes up the favorite Sufi
theme that bookish knowledge does not lead one
to God. The alpha (Arabic: alif), the first letter of
the alphabet, is also the first letter of God’s name
in Arabic, Allah. Both technically and substantively,
then, knowledge begins with God, and so all knowl-
edge that leaves God out of the reckoning is false. In
Sultan Bahu’s satirical verse on the subject, scholars
are said to read beta and theta but omit alpha—that
is, their knowledge lacks the true foundation of
alpha, and, as a result, they remain blind even in the
face of light and fail to get close to God.
On another level, humor may take the form of
social and political satire. An example is afforded by
the Persian poet and prose writer ‘Ubayd-i Zakani
(d. 1370). ‘Ubayd has a reputation for bawdy, irrev-
erent humor, but his work, especially the Ethics of the
Aristocrats, is a scathing critique of social ills, politi-
cal corruption, and religious hypocrisy of his times.
Witty Humor
Witty humor—of which Oscar Wilde’s humor
would be a good example—arises from an artful
 Islam 405

manipulation of ideas and language. Mushtaq Mullah Nasreddin

Ahmad Yusufi of Pakistan is a preeminent writer of
Muslim lands have a long and vibrant tradition of
such humor. He has an unlikely background—he
folk humor. An especially interesting representative
was a banker. In his autobiographical Zar-Guzasht
of this humor is Mullah Nasreddin, who is known
(The Gold Story, a pun on the common word sar-
under different names in different regions—in
guzasht, “story”), he says that the reason he was
Arabic-speaking countries, he is sometimes known as
able eventually to become president of a major
Juha. He is especially claimed by the Turks (who call
bank was that the English general manager who
him Nasreddin Hoca or Nasreddin Hodja), because
interviewed and hired him in the first place was
such a figure seems to have lived in 13th-century
drunk at the time and that his case illustrates what
Anatolia. Usually portrayed as a short, pudgy man
far-reaching consequences drinking can have. He
wearing a cloak and a turban, Nasreddin appears
says that he would have considered himself fortu-
in anecdotes that have greatly increased in number
nate if he had not combined in himself select traits
over the centuries. Nasreddin is cast in a variety of
of famous personalities—Napoleon’s height, Julius
roles and finds himself in equally diverse situations,
Caesar’s bald head, Gina Lollobrigida’s weight,
putting a humorous spin on the oddities and antino-
and Samuel Johnson’s vision. His nose, he says,
mies of life and provoking serious thought about life
is exactly like Cleopatra’s: If their noses had been
and its problems. A few anecdotes taken from Idries
one twelfth of an inch shorter, Cleopatra would
Shah’s The Pleasantries of the Incredible Mulla
have been ugly and he would have been handsome.
Nasrudin follow.
And he remarks that if he looks in the mirror, his
The Islamic equivalent of “God willing” is in sha’
belief in God Almighty’s craftsmanship is shaken
Allah, “if Allah wills.” Signifying that God is the
a little.
ultimate cause of all things, the phrase can also be
used as an excuse or justification for one’s idleness
Humor at the Expense of Religion or lack of action, implying that one will try to do
Outright condemnation of Islamic religion is rare such-and-such a thing, but that it will be done only
in Islamic literature. But instances of a blithe dis- if Allah wills it, so that the person in question should
regard of Islamic teachings, of poking mild fun at not be blamed for the failure to carry it out. The
this or that aspect of Islamic belief or practice, or Mullah asks the tailor to stitch a shirt for him. The
of severely castigating such typical religious fig- tailor says that the shirt will be ready in a week, if
ures as preachers, ascetics, or scholars for their Allah wills. The shirt is not ready after a week, but
lapses are by no means uncommon. Such criticism the tailor assures the Mullah that the shirt will be
is often made in poetry, a relatively “safe” outlet ready the following day “if Allah wills.” Again, no
for expressing unorthodox views and sentiments.
A few examples taken from the Urdu poetry of
the famous Asadullah Ghalib (1797–1869) follow.
Islam teaches that angels record every action of
every human being and that the record thus cre-
ated will decide one’s fate on Judgment Day. But
to give so much weight to this one-sided recording
is, according to Ghalib, unfair, since human beings
were unrepresented at the time such recording was
made. Whether such a thing as paradise exists,
thought of paradise, says Ghalib, provides a nice
diversion for the mind in this world. Again, Muslim
preachers tell their audiences that wine-drinking is
forbidden in Islam, but, according to Qur’an 76:21,
the residents of paradise shall enjoy pure wine.
Ghalib, who had a reputation for drinking, taunts
the preacher, who, in this world, can neither drink Nasreddin Hodja and Donkey, Ankara Amusement Park,
that wine himself nor offer it to anyone—in other Turkey.
words, lets the cash go for credit. Source: Nevit Dilmen/Wikimedia Commons.
406 Islam
shirt. Once again the tailor says that the shirt will be
ready the following day “if Allah wills.” An exas-
perated Mullah asks the tailor how long it will take
if the latter were to leave Allah out of it.
To what extent are human beings responsible for
their actions, and to what extent do they act under
compulsion? The question, common to Islamic and
other theologies, is raised in a Mullah Nasreddin
story. The Mullah is sitting in a mosque along with
other people listening to the sermon. His shirt is a
little too short, and the man sitting behind him pulls
it lower. The Mullah, in turn, pulls on the shirt of the
man sitting in front of him. The man, angry, turns
around and asks the Mullah what he is doing. The
Mullah suggests that he ask the man sitting behind
the Mullah, since he started it.
What is the evidentiary value of character? A
scholar of Islamic law would immediately see the
question indicated in the following story. To the
neighbor who comes in to borrow his donkey,
the Mullah says that the donkey is already lent out.
Right at that moment, the donkey in the Mullah’s
stable starts to bray. When the neighbor accuses the
Mullah of lying, the Mullah bluntly says that one
who would believe a donkey rather than the Mullah
does not deserve to be lent anything.
Conclusion
Several points may be made. First, as will have
become clear, Islam and humor are not incompat-
ible. It is hard to imagine a human society that is
completely devoid of humor, and so there is no
reason to declare a priori that a certain society will
lack humor simply because of its association with a
certain religion. Humor is—and has always been—
alive and well in Islam. Second, as in other settings,
so in an Islamic setting, the medium of humor has
been used to convey serious ideas; humor can be
thought provoking. Third, humor can be revelatory
of character. As revealed in one of the humorous
incidents involving Muhammad, the image of the
Prophet of Islam as a grim-visaged enforcer of the
law is false. Fourth, a study of humor in Islam could
serve as an interesting entry point for the study of
Islamic religion. Fifth, since, as noted, Islamic humor
includes adaptations of jokes from other cultures, a
comparative study of humor in Islam and other cul-
tures promises to be rewarding.
Mustansir Mir
See also Arabic Culture, Humor in; Carnival and
Festival; Judaism
Further Readings
Arberry, A. J. (1994). Tales from the Masnavi. Richmond,
Surrey, UK: Curzon.
Brookshaw, D. P. (Ed.). (2012). Ruse and wit: The
humorous in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish narrative.
Boston, MA: Ilex Foundation.
Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma‘il al-. (1981). Sahih
al-Bukhari [Authentic compilation of Bukhari]. Istanbul,
Turkey: Cagri Yayinlari.
Marzolph, U. (1992). Arabia ridens [Laughing Arabia]
(2 vols.). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Vittorio
Klostermann.
Marzolph, U. (2000). The Qoran and jocular literature.
Arabica, 40(3–4), 478–487.
Mir, M. (1991). Humor in the Qur’an. The Muslim World,
81(3–4), 179–193.
Mir, M. (1995). Teachings of two Punjabi Sufi poets. In
D. S. Lopez, Jr. (Ed.), Indian religions in practice
(pp. 518–529). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Obeyd-e Zakani. (2008). Ethics of the aristocrats and other
satirical works (H. Javadi, Trans.). Washington, DC:
Mage.
Rosenthal, F. (1996). Humor in early Islam. Leiden,
Germany: Brill.
Sa‘di, M. (1983). Kulliyyat-i nafis-i hazrat-i Shaykh Sa‘di-i
Shirazi [The exquisite complete works of the respected
Shaykh Sa‘di of Shiraz]. Iran: Daru’lkitaba-i Mir-Khani.
Safi, F. A. (1988). Lata’if al-tawa’if [Jokes about various
groups of people] (A. Gulchin-i Ma‘ani, Ed.). Tehran,
Iran: Intisharat-i Iqbal.
Shah, I. (1971). The pleasantries of the incredible Mulla
Nasrudin. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.
Tamer, G. (2009). The Qur’an and humor. In G. Tamer
(Ed.), Humor in der arabischen Kulture/Humor in
Arabic culture (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Yusufi, M. A. (1976). Zar-guzasht [The gold story]. Lahore,
Pakistan: Daniyal.
 J
JEST, JESTBOOKS, AND JESTERS
Like laughter, the making, retelling, and collecting
of jests is almost universal across cultures. Naturally
the types and formats vary from country to country,
historical period to historical period, generation to
generation, and even from person to person. Very
few jests recur in all the works mentioned here, but
that may reflect the limits of what textual evidence
has survived. Even during the early Church, which
frowned on laughter, supporters of laughter out-
numbered those who thought it was wrong. And
many writers, in all historical periods, have claimed
that laughter is not just diverting but in some way
essential: “What prevents us from laughing and tell-
ing the truth at the same time?” asked the Roman
poet Horace, and the Renaissance humanist Paolo
Cortesi (1465–1610) stated firmly that “nothing
is more suitable to man than to delight in jokes.”
Laughter is also assumed to be therapeutic in clas-
sical traditions in both West and East; a standard
Greco-Roman joke has an invalid cured by laughing
at the antics of a monkey.
Antiquity
The earliest author known to have been interested
in jests, in the 4th century BCE, is Aristotle, in his
Rhetoric, followed much later by Cicero (46 BCE)
in his De oratore. Both were extremely influential
in the Renaissance, during which rhetoric was con-
sidered an essential educational discipline. During
this period a recurring motif is also recorded: the
407
attribution of jests to an historical person, in this
case the Roman Emperor Augustus. One of his
jokes (recorded in the Philogelos [Laughter-Lover],
a compilation of jokes dating from the 4th or
5th century CE) has even persisted into modern
times: On noticing a young man who looked very
much like him, Augustus asked him, “Was your
mother ever in Rome?” The young man replied,
“No, but my father was.” Versions of this can be
found in every subsequent century and are quoted
by Erasmus (1466?–1536), Pierre Beaumarchais
(1732–1799), and Sigmund Freud, among many
others. Macrobius’s Saturnalia from the 5th cen-
tury CE includes some jests and may be contem-
porary with the Philogelos itself. Many of the jokes
recorded in both must have been handed down in
oral tradition and so predate the collections. This
is likely to be the case with the earliest recorded
joke collection from China, Xiao lin (Forest of
Laughter), dated in the 2nd century CE.
Middle Ages and Renaissance
The Middle Ages, while producing plenty of comic
literature, was a period when neither jokebooks
nor jesting rulers were apparently of interest. One
medieval jest that has survived into the modern era
is the following, cleverly combining stupidity and
misogyny: The husband went looking upstream for
the body of his drowned wife—because in life she
was always so contrary. The Middle Ages, espe-
cially in France, celebrated the annual religious Feast
of Fools and often treated the secular “fool” as a
privileged character, as he was still in the works of
408 Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
William Shakespeare and many later writers. The
Middle Ages also seems to have inaugurated what
would be a long-standing tradition: the professional
court jester, who would flourish in many European
countries through the 18th century. There are sug-
gestions of earlier traditions, such as witty jesters at
almost mythical Irish courts, but historical records
of specific persons attached to known monarchs and
lords date largely from the Middle Ages. Chinese
records on the other hand indicate that revered
court wits, known as Huaji-ists (from huaji, what
is glib or laughable), are known from 7th century
BCE courts, and especially that of the famously
tyrannical Han Emperor Wudi (156–87 BCE). The
Renaissance resurrected the classical joke, thanks
to its earliest and, in some ways, most influential
humanist: Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch). His Rerum
memorandarum libri (Books of Memorable Things)
of 1343–1345 contained two sections, inherited
from classical authors, on jokes: one on jests made
by famous people and one on cutting or sarcastic
jests. These two sections quote Cicero 21 times
and the Emperor Augustus 18 times. Other rul-
ers quoted include Philip of Macedon, Antigonus,
Vespasian, Tiberius, Domitian, Nero, Mithridates,
and Azzo d’Este. Other famous people are quoted,
among them Diogenes, Virgil, Pope Boniface VIII,
and Dante. Petrarch certainly inspired the accounts
of several Renaissance laughing princes, most nota-
bly Alfonso the Magnanimous (1396–1458), ruler
of Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia (1416) and of
the Kingdom of Naples (1442). A veritable flood
of Renaissance jestbooks followed, beginning with
Poggio’s 15th-century Facetiae (Jokes). Facetiae may
mean verbal jokes, but when a collection such as
Domenichi’s of 1548 is titled Facezie e motti (motti,
or witty remarks), it rather indicates funny situa-
tions. Collections were published in Latin, Italian,
French, English, and German and were clearly pop-
ular from the number of surviving copies.
The 16th to 18th centuries may be called the
golden age of European jestbooks, of which the
Italian are the largest and probably most influential
collection. Lodovico Carbone’s Cento trenta novelle
o facetie (One Hundred Thirty Short Stories or
Jokes, ca. 1470) is the first jestbook in the vernacular
and includes one anecdote about laughter curing a
sick man. Shortly after that we find the first version
of stories about a real person, Arlotto Mainardi,
known as the Piovano (priest) Arlotto, which recur
in many later collections, of which the largest is
Lodovico Domenichi’s Facetie e motti arguti (Jokes
and Witty Sayings, 1548). The only one of these
compilations still read today is Baldesar Castiglione’s
Libro del Cortegiano (Book of the Courtier, 1528),
which has a long passage of Ciceronian inspiration
in Book II (42–93) on the kind of joking suitable to
the courtier.
Two English works precede the 17th-century
flood of jestbooks, the anonymous A Hundred
Mery Talys of 1526 and Tales and Quicke Answeres
of about 1532. The latter includes the joke that
Rabelais’s Friar John will call Hans Carvel’s ring.
About 1528 the German Til Eulenspiegel was trans-
lated into English as Howleglas. French jests, usu-
ally translated from earlier sources, can be found
in the Parangon de nouvelles honnestes et delec-
tables (Paragon of Honest and Delightful Stories) of
1531, Gilles Corrozet’s Divers propos memorables
(Various Memorable Remarks) of 1556, and the
anonymous Facecies et motz subtilz (Jokes and
Subtle Words) of 1559.
The next most popular Renaissance jestbook
after Poggio’s was the German Heinrich Bebel’s
Facetiae, in Latin (1508–1512), remarkable for a
joke in which a Jewish woman shows that she is wit-
tier than the author. The second half of the century
produced a number of jestbooks in German: Georg
Wickram’s Rollwagenbüchlein (Trolley Booklet),
Jacob Frey’s Gartengesellschaft (Garden Society) of
1556, and several others.
Seventeenth Century
Seventeenth-century England obviously loved jest-
books, from Jests to Make You Merry (1607) by
George Wilkins and Robert Armin’s 1608 Nest of
Ninnies to William Hicks’s Oxford Jests of 1671.
Paul M. Zall’s (1970) anthology has excerpts
from a dozen of them, some compiled (or osten-
sibly compiled) by real people: Tarlton, Scogin,
John Taylor the Water Poet, Hugh Peters, and
Abel Boyer (who includes “Was your mother ever
in Rome?”). Old favorites recur: the ship’s pas-
senger in danger who throws his wife overboard
because she is his “heaviest” possession; the artist
who makes beautiful paintings (by day) but ugly
children (by night); and others, but overall there is
also a growing tendency toward lengthy anecdotes
rather than one-liners.
Jestbooks were also in great demand in Holland
(Aernout van Overbeke’s Anecdota contained
2,440 jokes) and in the Spanish Netherlands but
not in France, at least after the dawn of Classicism.

There is plenty of comic literature in 17th-century
France, but we owe the most notable jokebooks
to two comedians of the early theater, the Hôtel de
Bourgogne, Gaultier-Garguille and Bruscambille,
and a street entertainer, known as Tabarin, who
performed on the Pont-Neuf. Tabarin’s real name
was Antoine Girard, and he may or may not have
written all the books that bear his name, but we
know that he specialized in farces and dialogues,
and of the latter a large number are either sexual or
scatological. One dialogue facetiously concludes, for
instance, that the heaviest thing in the world is not
gold but excrement.
Eighteenth Century
In England, the jestbook popularity continued, pro-
ducing gems like Grinning Made Easy; or, Funny
Dick’s Unrivalled Collection of Jests, Jokes, Bulls,
Epigrams & c. (n.d.), which includes an Alfonso of
Aragon witticism, Joe Miller’s Jests (1739), and Tim
Grin’s Jests (3rd ed., 1788). In America, the humor
of important public figures, in particular Benjamin
Franklin and George Washington, was popular.
Although France produced some of its very
best comic literature in the 18th century, jestbooks
were not popular, and yet it was apparent that a
surprising amount of joking went on in the French
Constitutional Assembly between 1789 and 1791.
Modern Times
In the 19th and 20th centuries, periodicals about
or containing humor proliferated, like the British
Punch or the American Magazine of Wit (1808),
but the witty jests of public figures continued to
dominate the field. Mark Twain is probably the
best known of these in the 19th century and, unlike
some, is still appreciated. Comedy does not always
appeal outside its home country, as witness German
19th-century popular humor (Berliner Witz) and
the French 20th-century comedian Coluche. By the
20th century, collections of jokes related to spe-
cific situations became more common—Holocaust
humor, Polish jokes, and so on, and today almost
every crisis or disaster featured in the media pro-
duces an instant barrage of jokes circulating on the
Internet. Joke sites and lists serve as the jestbooks
of today.
More recently, despite the role of specialized
satirical magazines such as the French Le canard
enchaîné, British Private Eye, or the American Mad,
television seems to have overtaken publications as
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters 409
the most obvious source of access to jokes and jest-
ing, indeed to humor in general. Most television
sitcoms either have a laugh track or are filmed in
the presence of a live audience, which is frequently
laughing. Visual as well as verbal comedy is popular,
as in the show America’s Funniest Home Videos, and
television often showcases individual comedians,
whose jests pass into circulation this way. One of the
most commercially successful channels around the
world is the dedicated Comedy Central, so it seems
fair to say that laughter is an element in most TV
programming.
Barbara C. Bowen
See also Anecdote, Comic; Boccaccio, Giovanni; Clowns;
Fabliau; Feast of Fools; Fools; Forest of Laughter and
Traditional Chinese Jestbooks; Health Benefits of
Humor, Physical; Health Benefits of Humor,
Psychological; History of Humor: Medieval Europe;
History of Humor: Renaissance Europe; Huaji-ists,
The; Internet Humor; Joke Cycles; Jokes; Magazines
and Newspapers, U.S.; Magazines and Newspapers
Outside the United States; Philogelos; Rhetoric and
Rhetorical Devices; Schwank; Sitcoms; Tall Tale;
Verbal Humor; Witz
Further Readings
Baecque, A. de. (1997). Parliamentary hilarity inside the
French Constitutional Assembly (1789–91). In J.
Bremmer & H. Roodenburg (Eds.), A cultural history of
humour (pp. 179–199). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bowen, B. C. (1988). One hundred renaissance jokes:
An anthology. Birmingham, AL: Summa.
Bremmer, J., & Roodenburg, H. (Eds.). (1997). A cultural
history of humour. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brewer, D. (1997). Prose jest-books, mainly in the sixteenth
to eighteenth centuries in England. In J. Bremmer &
H. Roodenburg (Eds.), A cultural history of humour
(pp. 90–111). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Dekker, R. M. (2000). Humour in Dutch culture of the
golden age. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Otto, B. (2001). Fools are everywhere: The court jester
around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sozzi, L. (2000). Le “Facezie” e la loro fortuna Europea
[The “Facezie” and their European reception]. Journal
de la Renaissance 1, 89–102.
Verberckmoes, J. (1999). Laughter, jest-books and society
in the Spanish Netherlands. New York, NY: St. Martin’s
Press.
Zall, P. M. (Ed.). (1970). A Nest of Ninnies and other
English jestbooks of the 17th century. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
410 Jewish Humor
JEWISH HUMOR
“Jewish humor” is a problematic notion. On the
one hand, since the absorption of Jews into modern
Western culture, the notion of a distinct Jewish humor
has enjoyed broad currency. However, Jewish history
has spanned three millennia, often borrowing from
the majority culture. Meanwhile, Jews have consis-
tently drawn on a textual heritage, rich in humor,
stretching back to the Bible. Much of this humor used
by Jews has come to be regarded as Jewish humor,
contributing to a Jewish sense of cultural continuity.
Distinctive structural and thematic traits of cultural
significance can objectively be identified.
This entry addresses the major themes, forms,
and functions of Jewish humor, using a cultural and
an ethnographic lens—with attention to continuities
and local contexts and to how such humor has been
received. The organization is chronological, from
biblical humor down to the present, and geographi-
cal, with a major focus on 19th-century Eastern and
Central Europe and contemporary United States and
Israel.
The Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew Bible is recognized for its humor in tra-
ditional Jewish teaching and contemporary analy-
sis. Biblical narratives frequently satirize rogues and
rogue regimes. “The Lord mocketh them” (Revised
Standard Version, Psalms 2:4). Balaam, about to
curse Israel, gets a talking-to from his ass. The book
of Esther caricatures the Persian regime as hedonis-
tic, henpecked, and genocidally vain. In a milder
vein, John Miles (in Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya
Brenner’s collection) has explained the book of
Jonah as a parody of the reluctant prophet. Qohelet
(Ecclesiastes) can be read, with Etan Levine (also
to be found in Radday and Brenner’s book), as a
comic-serious meditation on the havoc a perfection-
ist-idealist can wreak. Sometimes the Bible produces
incongruity of a higher order: Relationship with
God and the very meaning of life are represented as
funny (peculiar) or humanly close: Abraham heads
off God’s reckoning with Sodom by some elabo-
rate bargaining (Abraham, in Genesis 18: For 30
will you spare these cities? Twenty? Ten?) Narrative
structure and wordplay—puns on names, repetitive
buildup, ironic twists, perfect paybacks—add layers
of wit or wryness. This is humor in the most earnest
of frames.
The Bible held center stage in Jewish life and cul-
ture down to the 19th century, and its humor was
variously interpreted or reaffirmed. The weekly
Torah recitation is always done with gravitas; Jonah
is recited on the most solemn day of the Jewish year.
Esther, however, is recited on the holiday of Purim
in an atmosphere of combined gravitas and hilarity,
as befits the sacred incongruity of the story.
Rabbinic Humor
Traditional Jewish responses to the Bible go back
to the rabbis’ moral-legal teachings known as the
Talmud and Midrash (1st millennium CE). They
echoed the Bible’s mix of comic and serious. They
also produced abundant humor of their own: word-
play, outlandish statements, legal scenarios ad absur-
dum, surreal yarns—in short, enigma, irony, and wit.
Sometimes, as the Talmud admitted, such humor
helped keep students on their toes, but this was also
homage to the significance of biblical humor as a
model of the enigmatic human condition. On being
humorous in general, the Talmud applauds rais-
ing people’s spirits but condemns wild mirth. One
sage reminded a wedding party of the pain of exile
by smashing a glass. The Jewish wedding custom
of breaking a glass and the perennial bittersweet in
Jewish humor owes something to these teachings.
The Talmud and Midrash, together with the
Bible, formed the core of diaspora life and culture
until the decades culminating in World War I. But
their imprint can still be felt even in thoroughly secu-
lar Jewish American humor.
Medieval Humor
A range of humorous genres is known from medi-
eval and early modern European and Middle
Eastern Jewish culture, some profoundly original
and “Jewish” and some just given a Jewish touch.
The secular Hebrew poetry of medieval Sephardic
(Mediterranean) Jewry—echoing the dominance of
poetry in Christian and Muslim literary humor—
produced eight centuries of rich and variegated
Hebrew humor, including the riddles or ironic self-
laments of Abraham Ibn Ezra of Andalusia, the egre-
gious bawdy and misogynist mockery of Immanuel
of Rome, and the joke epitaphs of Immanuel Frances
of Tuscany. At core, this was a linguistic humor,
playing inexhaustibly with the limited resources of
the Bible. Much was lost or languished in archives;
some is now anthologized (e.g., in The Penguin
Book of Hebrew Verse) but has had little impact on

modern Jewish humor. Animal fables, often humor-
ous, were a Jewish favorite: The Hebrew animal
fables of Berechiah (edited by Moses Hadas) and the
Yiddish “Book of Cows” fed largely on Aesop and
other ancient sources—but sometimes with a Jewish
moral. The parable was also amenable to humor:
oral parables, with their surprise resolution, enabled
folk mediators or itinerant preachers to defuse an
uncomfortable message with laughter. Another
serious-humorous genre, developed by the Hasidic
revivalist movement (starting in 18th-century
Poland-Russia), was the philosophical vertl, a droll
or paradoxical quip or snap anecdote, by which
Hasidic rabbis would convey truths: “The Messiah
will come and there will be no one left to redeem”
(Wiesel, 1972, p. 237). Both Martin Buber and Elie
Wiesel have anthologized vertls.
The 19th-Century Eastern European
Jewish Heartland
Intellectual Battles
The first sprouts of modern Jewish humor
appeared in the early 19th century, in the range of
Jewish responses to the European Enlightenment,
which offered civil liberties to Jews but also pro-
found challenges to traditional values. In the Eastern
European heartland, literary satire and popular anec-
dotes began targeting the old ways—or mocking the
new. Reformists were pitted against Traditionalists.
Reformist humor, fixed on acculturation and socio-
economic progress, mocked socioreligious con-
servatism, in particular, Hasidic Judaism with its
charismatic rabbis, expectations of the Messiah, and
folk superstitions. Other targets were the Yiddish
language (despised as a bastardized German) and
unmodern attire and social figures (beggars, match-
makers, ignoramuses). Traditionalist humor mocked
the reformists as godless, self-hating social climb-
ers. A seminal satire on ultra-rationalism and faith
was The Clever Man and the Simple Man, a tale
by the Hasidic philosopher-raconteur Nachman of
Bratslav.
Folk Humor
The ordinary Jew in Poland or Russia heard some
of this in milder form from wedding jesters, from
Bible story skits performed for Purim, and from the
jokes and anecdotes fondly targeting droll types,
many of them part of Eastern European Jewish life,
for example, the schnorrer, a beggar who claims
Jewish Humor 411
religious entitlement to alms (“You had a bad week,
but why should I suffer?”), the matchmaker prone
to exaggerating the virtues of bride and groom,
the self-important freethinker (epikores), and the
learned but unworldly rabbi. In an illogical and hate-
filled world, the joke was often against the outsider,
with the Jew now living off his wits, now a victim
whose triumph is merely in the mind, and now a bit
of both—a likely inspiration for Charlie Chaplin’s
cheeky little fellow, which helped earn Chaplin the
reputation of being Jewish. The anti-Semite was a
common target, as was the Church, continuing a
satirical polemic stretching back to the dialogues
in the Talmud pitting Jew against pagan. Cycles of
funny tales grew up around certain “heroic” people
and places—heroic but also pathetic. Thus Hershel
Ostropolier was remembered as a prankster who
could outwit his rabbi and even his wife but nursed
a nagging self-irony. Ironized a nagging self-doubt,
Chelm was portrayed as a city of idiots savants bent
on making their world a better place but endowed
with a peculiar logic—a logic only a nation versed in
Talmudic argumentation could have dreamed up—
that undid their every effort. Other, more universal
social targets, such as nagging wives and henpecked
men, the witless fool (the schlemiel), the ne’er-do-
well (the schlimazel), the hick, and the urban par-
venu were also given a native twist. Conspicuously
absent, it appears, were bawdry and mockery of the
disabled, both severe affronts to Jewish values.
Anthologized in prewar Europe by Alter
Droyanov, Immanuel Olsvanger, and others, includ-
ing Sigmund Freud, some of this folk humor has
been re-anthologized in America (e.g., in a collection
by Nathan Ausubel and another by William Novak
and Moshe Waldoks). The tales of Chelm and comic
types helped shape the humor of an American Jewish
society in which rabbis, schlemiels, and parvenus
still abound while matchmakers and schnorrers,
for example, evoke nostalgia. Jewish and Gentile
jokes often seem to share a story line but with subtle
divergences in character or hearer expectations.
The Yiddish Greats
Alongside this folk humor, fin de siècle Eastern
Europe produced a seminal modernist Jewish liter-
ary humor. Russian-Polish Jews were in massive
upheaval, with millions opting for secularization and
migration westward. An emerging Yiddish-Hebrew
fiction found new bittersweet comedy in political
visionaries, naive small investors, assimilationists,
412 Jewish Humor
hopeful migrants, and—a rich new vein—the child’s
view of this world. This was a humor of hope and
defiance of evil. But within it lurked a modern-
ist ambiguity and ambivalence. Often, the author
cloaked this in folksiness: Isaac Leib Peretz appropri-
ated the humor of the Hasidic tale, for example, The
Pious Cat and Bontshe the Silent, to ply artful social-
political satire; Sholem Aleykhem’s narrators often
“conversed” with the reader like live raconteurs. His
“flagship” comic hero Tevye (later reborn in Fiddler
on the Roof) added a rich irony to the folksiness
with his endearing pretension to learned quotations,
frequently misquoted—a new twist on the Jewish
penchant for linguistic humor. Witty wordplay on
scripture had long been a staple of Hebrew litera-
ture, but as Yiddish now sought to become “respect-
able,” a new order of linguistic humor emerged: The
Yiddish language, long an uncultivated vernacular
referred to simply as dzhargon, was now rendered
comic in itself—and would go on triggering mirth in
20th-century Western Jewish audiences, for whom it
was soon just a smattering of a language. For related
reasons, the proverb and the curse as documented
for diasporic Jewish languages (Yiddish, Ladino,
and Judeo-Arabic) have come to be viewed humor-
ously among Westernized Jews, among whom prov-
erbs and curses are no longer elaborate, cultivated
genres.
Assimilation Humor in 19th-Century
Central Europe
In Central Europe, old Jewish ways were breaking
down by the early 19th century, and another kind of
humor was emerging. Possibly the first perceptions
of Jewish literary humor by the Christian world
were provided by the German poet-essayist Heinrich
Heine (1797–1856). Wielding a talmudically sub-
tle but subversive social-political irony, rich in dia-
lectic, paradox, and risqué metaphor—unheard of
in pre-Bismarck German culture—Heine helped
transform (many said “judaize”) German humor.
Ironically, his satire was fueled by the anxiety felt
by German Jews who were now granted civil rights
but excluded from polite society. This anxiety also
manifested in parroting anti-Semitic tropes. A simi-
lar outward/inward hostile humor, manifesting com-
parable anxieties, would surface in 1960s American
Jewish culture. An ironic case of the anxiety felt by
the quasi-assimilated Central European Jew was
Freud’s own obsession with collecting Jewish jokes,
which contributed to his theory that some jokes are
an unconscious expression of taboo topics. Freud’s
offhand, oft-cited remark, “I do not know whether
there are many other instances of a people making
fun to such a degree of its own character” (Freud,
1960, p. 112) has been dismissed as generally aimed
at some other subgroup of Jews; 19th-century
Central European Jewish humor is often relaxed or
ambiguous rather than self-deprecatory.
The Modern Western World and America
America has attracted by far the most research into
20th-century Jewish humor. While interwar Central
Europe, the former USSR, France, Britain, and South
America all developed distinctive diasporic Jewish
cultures (the USSR and France in particular, the lat-
ter being a predominantly Sephardic culture since the
Holocaust), they went much the same way in terms
of secularization and de-ethnicization of Jewish
identity. Mention should be made of the anti-Nazi
and anti-Soviet political joke, recycling czarist-era
exchanges in which a Jew outsmarts authority—but
in the USSR often with a Zionist twist; and the black
humor of Romain Gary’s French novel La danse de
Gengis Cohn (The Dance of Genghis Cohn, 1967),
a critique of modern Europe, in which a Jew antici-
pates the Schutzstaffel (SS) by becoming a comedian
(as Cohn writes elsewhere, “Jewish humor is a way
of screaming”) and later returning as the dybbuk
(possessive spirit) of his killer.
The millions of Jewish migrants arriving in
America from the 1860s to the 1920s rapidly
Americanized, while holding to a Jewish frame of
family, faith, and culture. Yiddish comic theater
(morphing into vaudeville), Yiddish fiction, and jokes
produced a humor blending Old and New Worlds
that migrated to records and radio. Responding
to the needs of a local or mass medium, the long-
running 1930s and 1940s radio comedy “soap”
The Goldbergs depicted Jewish life in a way that
could also speak to Gentiles. On the other hand, the
Jewish moguls of Hollywood and the TV networks
had a phobia about overt Jewish humor in national
mass media; however, covertly, the Marx Brothers’
verbal acrobatics and absurdities emulated tradi-
tional dimensions of Jewish humor, as did Chaplin’s
dignified antiauthoritarian persona. Widely inter-
preted as “Jewish,” Chaplin’s hero is a case of the
old comic schlemiel recast as a modern American
Jewish hero: the simple, sensitive naïf blessed with
indomitable optimism, sometimes comic and some-
times not. Some other old comic targets did not

transplant well to America, but new ones took their
place: The greenhorn (often mocked for his English,
but in Leo Rosten’s story Hyman Kaplan blessed
with an impenetrable logic of his own), the smoth-
ering mother (an echo of the tough Jewish woman
of the great migrations? a displaced machismo?),
the profligate “Jewish American Princess.” Not by
chance, some feisty female Jewish comediennes such
as Sophie Tucker (1886–1966) delivered the humor,
sometimes in explicit sexual messages.
With weakening traditional Jewish identities
in postwar United States, some Jewish songsters
(e.g., Mickey Katz, 1909–1985) got cheap laughs
by spoofing American songs with Yiddish words
or Jewish references—wordplay now grounded not
in erudition but in a trivialized symbolic identity.
However, a breaking of the mold occurred in Jewish
American humor under the cover of the 1960s to
1970s cultural-ethnic upheaval: A wave of Jewish
TV comedians, authors, and filmmakers gained
access to the mass media to problematize American
Jewish identity (or their own), often in taboo terms,
and often defiantly mocking American mainstream
culture. The backward focus of Fiddler on the Roof
(1964/1971), almost devoid of Yiddish words or
melodies, was swiftly eclipsed by an in-your-face,
no-holds-barred contemporary Jewish humor, richly
varied, leaving little room for Freud’s theory of the
joke as covert taboo-busting. Thus the “Jewish
and Goyish” routine by Lenny Bruce (birth name
Leonard Alfred Schneider, 1925–1966): “Underwear
is definitely goyish. Balls are goyish. Titties are
Jewish. Mouths are Jewish.” Bruce caricatured the
vacuous underbelly of Jewish American tribal iden-
tity by portraying its world as a symbolist landscape
of them and us. Woody Allen as filmmaker (e.g.,
Zelig, 1983) ironized his quest to assimilate and his
fear of anti-Semitism. Phillip Roth’s novel Portnoy’s
Complaint (1969) caricatured adolescent Jewish
lust for the female Gentile and disgust with one’s
mother, and the Springtime for Hitler sequences in
Mel Brooks’s 1968 film (later a hit Broadway musi-
cal) The Producers used black humor to breach one
of America’s strongest taboos. The 1990s hit TV
series Seinfeld took Jewish identity humor one step
further: Jewishness—detached from descent, beliefs,
or observances—hovers over the show as a state of
looks (Elaine is dark and petite, although explicitly
non-Jewish) or as a state of mind affecting Gentile
and Jew alike (the self-absorbed, anxiety-prone,
unmasculine Jerry and George, with his un-Jewish
surname), contrasted with the spontaneous, clumsy
Jewish Humor 413
Kramer. And yet the three “Jews,”—Elaine, George,
and Jerry—in the “talmudically” argumentative
obsession with words that drives so many of the
story lines, are in fact a comic reversion to an old
core trait of Jewish humor. The nationwide success
of this series with a Jewish name signaled a shift in
the American cultural system: Contemporary Jewish
humor became and remains American humor.
Whether the Monty Pythonesque British humor of
English-born Sacha Baron Cohen (b. 1971) as Borat
and Ali G can also be considered Jewish is an open
question.
Israel
Israeli humor has come to blend diasporic and
new, Israeli elements, in line with the overall Israeli
cultural system. It is “Jewish” to much the same
degree as American Jewish humor, being the dis-
tinctive humor of a Jewish population, couched
in Hebrew and reflecting Jewish-Israeli values and
practices with a traditional penchant for linguistic
humor. In Israel’s first decades, from its creation in
1948, Yiddish and Sephardic ethnic humor—and
language—were stigmatized, banned from the pub-
lic domain, and never recovered. The iconic humor
of Israel’s early years, promoted by the Socialist kib-
butz-based cultural establishment, was the improvi-
sational campfire anecdote (Chizbat) of pranksters
and comic local types (soldiers, doctors, immigrants,
Arabs), expressing, in Elliott Oring’s analysis, a con-
flict between a European and a newly adopted Israeli
self-image (e.g., sensitive vs. tough, expressive vs.
taciturn). Succeeding decades of immigrant absorp-
tion, warfare, and the evolution of an “Israeli-hood”
generated two very different brands of humor. One
brand, distinctively local in style, was embodied by
the skits and films starring the Gashash trio, gently
satirizing Israeli army life, Jewish ethnic divisions,
and the rebirth of the Hebrew language and inject-
ing many new buzzwords. The other, typified by
the sketches, plays, and films of Ephraim Kishon
(1924–2005) and the cartoons of Kariel Gardosh
(1921–2000) and the series Dry Bones, by Yaakov
Kirschen, published in the Jerusalem Post since
1973, carried over a Central European or American
genre of comic caricature to any and every social
type and political institution in Israel, while respect-
ing national goals and values and lampooning
Israel’s foes and fair-weather friends. The jokes ordi-
nary Israelis tell are similarly preoccupied with war
and politics. From the 1990s, however, a satire of
414 Joke Cycles
demythologization of values began to dominate the
media, respecting neither Israel’s raison d’être nor
public sensibilities, while the acclaimed postmodern-
ist fiction of Orly Castel-Bloom (b. 1960) and Etgar
Keret (b. 1967) whimsically celebrated a meaning-
free world, in which Israelis toggle between love and
indifference, quiz shows and terror.
Lewis Glinert
See also Biblical Humor; Ethnic Jokes; Foolstowns;
Irony; Judaism; Literature; Monty Python; Musical
Comedy; National and Ethnic Differences;
Postmodern Irony; Puns; Religion; Satire; Targets of
Humor; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Altman, S. (1971). The comic image of the Jew. Rutherford,
NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Ausubel, N. (1989). A treasury of Jewish folklore.
New York, NY: Crown.
Bermant, C. (1986). What’s the joke? A study of Jewish
humor through the ages. London, UK: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious (Vol. 8). London, UK: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Hoberman, J., & Shandler, J. (Eds.). (2003). Entertaining
America: Jews, movies and broadcasting. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Novak, W., & Waldoks, M. (Eds.). (2006). The big book of
Jewish humor (25th anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Oring, E. (1981). Israeli humor: The content and structure
of the Chizbat of the Palmah. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Radday, Y. T., & Brenner, A. (Eds.). (1990). On humour
and the comic in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, UK:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Raskin, R. (1992). Life is like a glass of tea: Studies of classic
Jewish jokes. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society.
Wiesel, E. (1972). Souls on fire: Portraits and legends of
Hasidic masters. New York, NY: Random House.
Ziv, A. (Ed.). (1997). Jewish humor. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
JOKE CYCLES
A joke cycle is a folk process in which a group of
short jokes, typically in riddling or one-liner for-
mat, are circulated and told as a group rather than
as individual items. The topics of joke cycles often
are those that are socially forbidden in polite con-
versation, such as ethnic and gender stereotypes.
They also emerge in the wake of topical news sto-
ries, especially those dealing with tragic or cata-
strophic events. Some of these jokes remain popular
for several years, but the life span of most cycles is
quite short, often only a few months or even weeks.
Because they often appear to present offensive or
callous opinions, they are often seen as “sick” or
at least a sign of sociopathic attitudes among those
who tell them. Academic studies, however, suggest
that their popularity signals a more complex psycho-
logical reaction among those who circulate them.
The common factor in this form of humor is
that the jokes gain significance by being told as
part of a larger group of items. That is, they are
both presented and understood as being part of a
larger whole rather than for their individual value
as humorous statements. Although one especially
popular joke may often lead off the humorous
exchange, its effect relies on it being part of a larger
corpus of humor, presumably from many other
sources, all of which treat the common topic in a
flippant way. Thus some jokes in a cycle may be
shocking in their (apparent) opinions or images. But
these are circulated along with others that use much
less pointed plays on words and are seen as simply
clever. Scholars have noted that the common forms
of such jokes, and even their punch lines, are often
recognizably recycled from previous cycles, making
their appearance a kind of predictable ritual. All
of these factors reduce the individual’s responsibil-
ity for the putative content of any individual joke,
as does the frank admission by both the teller and
audience that the jokes are “sick.” For this reason,
scholars have tried to identify common themes that
underlie the majority of jokes in a cycle and have
looked at the demographics of the group circulat-
ing them to identify the social functions this form of
humor might carry out.
Ethnic Humor Cycles
One common type of cycle joke refers to common
stereotypes associated with ethnic minorities, such as
African Americans or Jews, or with social out-groups
such as blonde women or “Aggies” (students who
attend vocation-based colleges). In some cases such
jokes pick up on widely held prejudices against these
groups, and jokes dealing with these groups may
indeed be passed on by individuals or groups target-
ing a minority group. But a number of cycles, such

as “Polish jokes” or “Newfie jokes,” have become
popular in the absence of any widespread cultural
dislike for the group targeted. Scholars disagree
about why a cycle of ethnic humor should become
popular in the absence of ethnic tensions. Alan
Dundes, for instance, suggested that Polish jokes
became popular at the time when the civil rights
movement was gaining ground. In his view, the cycle
was a disguised way for Whites to express prejudice
against a Black community that had recently become
politically powerful enough to make explicitly racist
jokes politically incorrect. Another suggestion held
that in a tightening economy, the “dumb Polack”
became a convenient way to express hostility against
increased competition for jobs against a much
broader and more amorphous range of non-Anglo
immigrants. Christie Davies, however, argued that a
much simpler explanation was that the jokes poked
fun at the way in which interethnic verbal aggres-
sion of all kinds had become politically incorrect. In
other words, the jokes challenged cultural sensitivity
about prejudicial thinking rather than ridiculing any
particular ethnic group.
In general, this point could be made about a wide
range of cycle jokes: that they are not about the
group that the jokes seem to ridicule but rather iden-
tify an issue that is central to the values of the group
that circulates them. Thus jokes tend to classify the
targeted group as “stupid,” “old-fashioned,” or
“dirty,” or (on the other hand) “canny” or uncom-
monly shrewd with money or possessions. The tell-
ing of such jokes thus provides a way of reassuring
those who circulate the jokes that their own values,
by contrast, are socially valid. That is, the joking
affirms that it is socially acceptable to use the com-
mon topic as a subject for joking. The cross-cultural
work of Davies supports this reading, as he found
joke cycles dealing with an allegedly “stupid” ethnic
minority in every culture he studied.
“Cruel” Jokes
A second common group of cycle jokes, usually
dealing with macabre, gross, or disgusting topics,
are especially popular among young adolescents.
So-called cruel jokes circulated in tradition as early as
the 1930s, often with the catchphrase “Little Audrey
laughed and laughed because. . . .” Folklorists docu-
mented a much larger cycle during the 1950s, based
on a common formula beginning with a “Mommy,
Mommy” question and answered with a callous
punch line beginning “Shut up and. . . .” An example:
Joke Cycles 415
Mommy, Mommy, why is daddy still sleeping?
Shut up, and keep digging.
An even more recent cycle begins with a formulaic
opening, such as “What’s grosser than gross?” and
concludes with some image of disgusting, horrifying,
or contaminating material such as
. . . a truckful of dead babies and one live one
at the bottom.
. . . finishing a Bloody Mary and finding hair at
the bottom of the glass.
Simon Bronner suggests that such cycles are espe-
cially popular during adolescent development when
individuals are beginning to understand the most
intense conflicts and tensions of adult life, particu-
larly the physical facts of male and female sexuality.
Such cycles provide opportunities for verbal dueling
among performers of the same sex, with one trying
to “top” the other by showing greater knowledge of
adult topics and a greater ability to cope with disgust-
ing ideas. But Bronner also indicates that this rebel-
lion against decorum in conversation also is a way of
internalizing normative standards of social etiquette.
Cycle Jokes on News Events
Yet another set of cycle jokes play with emerging
news events, particularly those with political impli-
cations. Scandals, particularly those with sexual
implications, provoke intense outbreaks of humor,
both in the popular media and in private, oral trans-
mission. As scholars such as Michael Preston and
Russell Frank have observed, the most popular joke
themes give an insight into the nature and inten-
sity of grassroots sentiment. Preston, for instance,
noted that the emergence of humor relating to
Richard Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate bur-
glary foretold his eventual downfall and resignation
in the face of public disapproval. Conversely, the
genial male-oriented humor that circulated after Bill
Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky accurately
predicted the failure of his critics to remove him
from office. Traditionally, political humor in the
mass media has extended to graphic images, such
as political cartoons, and so even in folk conduits
homemade items of this kind have accompanied
verbal humor for some time. Dundes found a num-
ber of these items, drawn as crude cartoons, dat-
ing back to the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
and in recent times an increasing number have used
416 Joke Cycles
graphic arts computer programs such as Photoshop
to produce more sophisticated items.
An especially difficult form of cycle jokes concerns
those that arise in the wake of a public calamity or
the death of a well-known media figure. Such “black
humor” was first noted after the assassination of
John F. Kennedy, particularly the very popular quip,
“What did Jackie give the kids for Christmas? —
Jack in the box.” The phenomenon was given
extensive scholarly attention after the loss of the U.S.
space shuttle Challenger in 1986, which provoked
an unusually intense cycle of disaster jokes:
What does NASA stand for?—Need Another
Seven Astronauts.
What color were [guest traveler] Christa
McAuliffe’s eyes?—Blue. One blew left and the
other blew right.
Another very intense cycle emerged in response to
the accidental death of Great Britain’s Princess
Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, in a car crash.
Did you hear that Princess Diana was on the
radio?—Yes, also on the window, the seats . . .
What did the mortuary attendant say as he
unzipped the body bag?—“Zippady Dodi,
Zippady Di.”
Such cycles follow a predictable pattern, emerging in
a series of waves as the culture’s response to the
catastrophe evolves. In the immediate wake of the
tragedy, dominated by intense media coverage and
spontaneous tributes to the dead, humor is typically
suppressed. However, after a latency period ranging
from a few days to two weeks, a cycle of jokes,
many of them bitterly sarcastic, begins to circulate
widely, often to the dismay of observers. As this
wave of jokes runs its course, follow-up waves may
emerge. With the Challenger cycle, an early series of
clever jokes gave way to others that more directly
addressed the grim facts of the astronauts’ deaths. In
the case of jokes about the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, by contrast, the first wave
embodied anger and desire for blood revenge for the
attacks: “What will Osama bin Laden be for
Halloween?—A corpse!” With this emotion some-
what satisfied by the occupation of Afghanistan, a
second wave poked fun at the level of tension pro-
voked by the threat of further attacks. One popular
item held that a grandmother had been apprehended
for carrying knitting needles onto a plane:
“Apparently authorities were worried that she may
knit an Afghan.” A visual cycle took a photograph
that was originally held to be taken by a tourist on
top of one of the Twin Towers in New York City as
the hijacked plane neared and replaced that menace
with other, more jocular threats.
The significance of such cycles remains debat-
able: Davies suggests that the targets of such jokes
are not the victims of the mishaps or their survivors
but rather the manipulative way in which the mass
media exploits such events for their own purposes.
Bill Ellis, by contrast, suggests that the cycles are
a natural part of the psychological grief process,
which is genuine enough but cannot be sustained
indefinitely. The emergence of widespread joking
marks a moment of closure, in which the sharers
of such jokes acknowledge that they need to cease
mourning and return to their normal routine.
Conclusion
Cycle jokes, in brief, need to be collected, studied,
and understood as part of larger cultural phenom-
ena. It is clear that, in various ways, they reflect a
form of communal play with political and psycho-
logical issues that are compelling for those who gen-
erate and circulate the jokes. However, analysis of
the joke texts themselves, without reference to their
contexts, is likely to produce results of limited value.
As they are often extremely ephemeral in circulation,
it is essential that they be collected in variant forms
and with contextual information at the time when
they are actively being told. On the other hand, their
explicitly transgressive nature presents challenges,
particularly when informants are young adolescents.
Ethnographers can be accused of encouraging their
sources to circulate obscene, bigoted, and tactless
materials, or of showing social and political insen-
sitivity in collecting and studying such materials.
Nevertheless, cycle jokes remain an important part
of contemporary folklore, and, as such, they deserve
to be thoroughly documented and understood.
Bill Ellis
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor;
Children’s Humor Research; Ethnic Jokes; Folklore;
Gallows Humor; Political Humor; Sick Humor;
Subversive Humor
Further Readings
Bronner, S. (1985). “What’s grosser than gross?” New sick
joke cycles. Midwestern Journal of Language and
Folklore, 11(1), 39–49.

Davies, C. (1999). Jokes on the death of Diana. In T.
Walter (Ed.), The mourning for Diana (pp. 253–268).
Oxford, UK: Berg.
Davies, C. (2002). The mirth of nations. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Davies, C. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Dundes, A. (1987). Cracking jokes. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed.
Ellis, B. (2003). Making a big apple crumble: The role of
humor in constructing a global response to disaster. In
P. Narváez (Ed.), Of corpse: Death and humor in
folklore and popular culture (pp. 35–79). Logan: Utah
State University Press.
Frank, R. (2011). Newslore: Contemporary folklore on the
Internet. Jackson: Mississippi University Press.
Preston, M. J. (1975). A year of political jokes (June
1973–June 1974); or, The silent majority speaks out.
Western Folklore, 34, 233–244.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1960). “Shut up and keep digging”: The
cruel joke series. Midwestern Folklore, 10(1), 11–22.
JOKES
The term joke can be found in two different meanings
within humor research. The first is that as a type of
text; the second is more generally that of an instance
of humor. Etymologically, the word comes from Latin
iocus, which means “play” or “game.” It denotes a
usually short narrative ending in a humorous punch
line. Jokes are generally constituted of a setup, which
presents the situation in which the events of the nar-
rative develop, followed by the punch line, which
occurs generally at the end of the text. The setup part
of the joke may be missing if it is inferable from the
punch line. Often the punch line is discursive. The
semantic relation between the setup and the punch
line has been the object of much discussion. The gen-
erally accepted view is that the punch line should be
incongruous relative to the setup.
The definition of joke as a type of text varies
somewhat historically. Contemporary collections of
jokes tend to favor short texts, and there are extant
collections of ancient jokes that are just as short.
However, 19th-century jokes tend to be longer and
more elaborate. Jokes are attested historically as far
as Greek and Roman antiquity and even in Egyptian
and Babylonian texts.
Jokes can be characterized from a discourse per-
spective as “canned” or “spontaneous.” The term
“canned joke” comes from the professional jargon
of comedians. A canned joke is a generally short
Jokes 417
narrative ending in a punch line, which preexists the
setting in which the joke is told (in other words, a
canned joke is re-created from a preexisting model the
speaker has memorized). Canned jokes are opposed
to spontaneous or improvised jokes, often also called
“conversational” jokes. Those are improvised on the
fly, without prior rehearsal.
A rigid distinction between canned and conversa-
tional jokes cannot be maintained since canned jokes
may be “recycled,” that is, contextually adapted
to the point that a canned joke may be presented
in a manner indistinguishable from a spontaneous
joke. Moreover, canned jokes, in some cases, may
originate from conversational jokes that have been
decontexualized.
Jokes address a wide variety of topics and are
frequently classified based on their content; thus, for
example, ethnic jokes concern some ethnic group,
such as Jewish jokes, Polish jokes, and so forth.
Jokes sharing a common topic, such as light bulbs
or elephants, are known as joke cycles. These can be
considered subgenres of jokes.
Joke as Humor
Jokes have been treated, more or less openly, as the
simplest form of humorous text, not in the sense of
Andre Jolles’s simple form but as a text containing
only one source of humor (the punch line, gener-
ally occurring at the end of the text). This practice,
although a valid heuristic since many jokes are
indeed very straightforward, can lead to problems,
because it has been shown that some jokes have
many sources of humor in their text, much like lon-
ger humorous texts.
In a broader sense, joke indicates any occurrence
of humor in a text. To differentiate between punch
lines, which occur at the end of jokes, and humor
occurring anywhere else in a text, the neologism
“jab-line” has been introduced.
Meta-Joke
A special category of jokes are those that somehow
make reference to the joke as a type of text and base
their humor on the violation of the expectations set
by the activation of the genre “joke.” In particular,
because jokes are expected to have a punch line at
the end of the text, ending a joke without a punch
line or with a very weak punch line can create in
itself a humorous effect. Shaggy-dog jokes are exam-
ples of long narratives ending without a punch line,
thus frustrating the expectations that a punch line
418 Joking Relationship
will be following the setup. The famous “Why did
the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side”
joke is an example of short meta-joke, the obvi-
ous, unfunny motivation negating the expectation
of a punch line. A special category of meta-jokes
is self-referential jokes, in which the text refers to
itself. Self-referential jokes are related to logical
paradoxes. An example of self-referential joke can
be found in the movie Spaceballs, directed by Mel
Brooks (1987), in which a character goes to a video
store to rent the tape of the movie Spaceballs.
Salvatore Attardo
See also Ethnic Jokes; Incongruity and Resolution; Joke
Cycles; Simple Form
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1988). Trends in European humor research:
Towards a text model. HUMOR: International Journal
of Humor Research, 1(4), 349–369.
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., Attardo, D. H., Baltes, P., & Petray, M. J.
(1994). The linear organization of jokes: Analysis of
two thousand texts. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 7(1), 27–54.
Tsakona, W. (2003). Jab lines in narrative jokes.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
16(3), 315–329.
Zajdman, A. (1991). Contextualization of canned jokes in
discourse. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 4(1), 23–40.
JOKING RELATIONSHIP
The term joking relationship was coined to describe
an institutionalized kin-based form of interaction
including teasing, chastisement, verbal abuse, sexual
ribaldry, and horseplay between certain pairs of peo-
ple in some tribal societies. Joking relationships are
typically proscribed between people of the opposite
sex who are potential partners in marriage or sexual
relations. The term came to be applied to voluntary
relationships between people who must depend on
each other and, finally, to patterns of interaction
between individuals or within groups in which teas-
ing and joking are routine and competitive. In both
kin-based and voluntary non-kin relationships, it is
the customary relationship that determines the mean-
ings participants attach to the acts they perform.
This entry discusses how joking relationships work
in traditional and industrialized settings.
Kin-Based Joking Relationships
Ethnographers were first to describe joking relation-
ships institutionalized in certain tribal societies on
the basis of clan, descent, or marriage. Many such
kin-based joking relationships have been identified
in the tribal societies of Africa, Asia, North America,
and Oceania. The partners in such relationships
participate by custom in certain patterned types of
joking, teasing, insult, and horseplay, perhaps along
with other social obligations. The joking relation-
ship may be reciprocal or nonreciprocal, with either
or both partners responsible for the joking, but in
either case it requires that the target of the joking not
take offense. Joking relationships may hold between
preferred marriage partners, serving to promote
familiarity and sexual involvement, while the joking
supports cultural norms and prevents disapproved
sexual behavior. Conversely, avoidance relations
may hold between persons of opposite sex for whom
marital or sexual relations are forbidden. Both of
these customs—viewed as points along a contin-
uum of respectful behavior ranging from avoidance
to license—act to stabilize relations that might be
subject to conflict. For example, in many cultures a
man must avoid his mother-in-law and joke with his
sisters-in-law, while a woman must avoid her father-
in-law and joke with her brothers-in-law. In general,
kin-based joking relationships help maintain social
order; release aggressions in public, acceptable ways;
and foster solidarity.
Voluntary Joking Relationships
As anthropologists continued to study joking
relationships, they began to find similar pairings
between members of the same age group, in other
villages, and in different occupational groups.
Scholars also became more interested in non-kin
joking relationships in industrial societies. These
joking relationships are formed voluntarily by indi-
viduals in frequent contact, often within a work
setting. In both traditional, kin-based societies and
modern industrial societies, members form relation-
ships built around certain types of humor, and their
joking relationships help define acceptable modes of
interaction for the participants that might include
teasing, jocular insults, and practical jokes. Research
stressed the role of non-kin joking relationships in
controlling real aggression and stabilizing the group.

It was observed that humor was routinely directed
downward in the hierarchy and organized along the
lines of gender and age, involving for instance ban-
ter and horseplay between older men and women
but not between younger men and women. Joking
relationships within professional and social groups
demonstrate group identity and foster solidarity.
For participants in a joking relationship, the sheer
weight of their previous experience with each other
makes it impossible for them to really take offense,
quarrel, or make love. Their histories of joking have
much relevance for any interactions of the people
involved. It may be impossible for participants in a
customary joking relationship to segue into serious
interaction.
Except for the anthropological research on jok-
ing relationships, investigations of humor in context
before the middle of the 20th century were discon-
nected and tended to be more or less anecdotal.
Humor theorists did not work on interaction, and
studies of humor in real-life settings were rarely
informed by apposite humor research. This situa-
tion began to change with the advent of technology
for the collection and careful study of genuine inter-
actional data and because of advances in linguistic
pragmatics and sociolinguistics.
We can profitably describe the characteristic
behaviors of participants in customary joking rela-
tionships in terms of practices in order to underline
their status as modalities of action embedded in a
social world, in particular within some specific com-
munity of practice. Participants in a community of
practice share not only joking practices but language
practices more generally, along with styles of dress,
sets of beliefs, and even a sense of humor, and shar-
ing these practices has obvious consequences for
their identity as members of the community and as
individuals within it.
Joking Relationships in Interaction
Linguists studying conversational joking devel-
oped the notion of a customary joking relationship
to describe patterns of interaction between friends,
schoolmates, team members, and colleagues charac-
terized by stylized non-seriousness and competitive
joking. Some individuals joke with almost everyone;
some people kid each other whenever they meet; and
some pairs or larger groups develop customary joking
relationships in which teasing and joking are habitual
and competitive. These histories of joking have much
relevance for any interactions of the people involved.
Joking Relationship 419
The idea that people in close social contact
sometimes develop a customary joking relationship
plays a key role in accounting for the rapport func-
tion of apparently impolite or aggressive behavior.
Joking works as the so-called positive politeness of
friendship, as opposed to the negative politeness of
distance and deference: Ritual insults and joking
presuppose solidarity precisely because they flout
the usual constraints of negative politeness. Joking
tends to minimize distance and reduces the potential
threat of requests and impositions. Competitive ver-
bal dueling and reciprocal teasing intensify interac-
tion and redound to rapport.
The nature of a customary joking relationship is
reflected in language practices in all areas of every-
day talk, for instance, in the stock, recycled forms
used in recurrent conversational situations. Thus,
instead of initiating a conversation with a simple
and humorless hello, participants in customary jok-
ing relationships will choose from a repository of
standard formulas such as Look what the cat drug
in or We can’t go on meeting like this. Similarly, in
taking leave, participants will pass over the uncol-
ored goodbye in favor of jocular stock phrases like
See you in the funny papers and Don’t take any
wooden nickels. They tend to follow a “leave ’em
laughing” strategy, according to which they always
try to conclude an interaction with a line that leaves
their interlocutor laughing as they depart. Thus it
is only natural to find not just stock jocular leave-
taking phrases but also stock responses to serious
goodbyes, as in See you later—Yeah, much later and
Take it easy—Yeah, but take it. Of course, if both
or all participants in a conversation adhere to this
“leave ’em laughing” strategy, a competitive situa-
tion must arise at the closing, as each person hopes
to land a funny line, then depart before anyone else
can produce a counter joke. Besides formulas like
these for greetings and closings, conversational-
ists store and recycle humorous phrases tailored to
recurrent junctures in interaction.
Consider a stock, traditional example of a pun-
ning response in the pair: Are you coming?—No just
breathing hard. The first part consists of a question
conventionally used to ask about someone’s plans
or state of readiness, whereas the response takes the
question to refer to sexual activity. The answer has
only spurious phonological relevance to the origi-
nal question. In interpersonal terms, the punning
answer represents a refusal to respond appropriately
to a straightforward request for information and an
attempt to change the topic through the introduction
420 Joking Relationship
of potentially objectionable subject matter. By using
humor, the person responding reframes the interac-
tion as non-serious, so that the initial speaker can
ignore the imposition and the salaciousness of the
subject matter. Humor provides us with a way of
accomplishing certain conversation aims without
strict accountability while reinforcing bonds of
friendship. This helps explain the presence of some-
thing as disruptive and potentially uncomfortable as
punning in conversation.
In the customary joking relationship, participants
look for ways to inject humor into topical talk, and
punning provides a serviceable resource. The pun-
ning turn clashes with the topic and/or tenor of
current conversation, while some linguistic element
establishes its claim to some formal relevance. In
the exchange below between student assistants in
the departmental copying room, talk shifts abruptly
from the concrete activity of cutting paper to
Arnold’s mental condition via the fortuitous connec-
tion between the concrete and mental senses of the
phrase “off center.”
Arnold: An exact cut. Oh no, this one is a little off
center.
Judy: That’s because you’re a little off center.
Beth: [laughs]
Arnold: No it’s Tom’s print.
Judy expropriates a phrase Arnold initially intro-
duced with literal reference to some papers he is
cutting, then applies it to Arnold himself, so that it
takes on its figurative sense. She lets the dual mean-
ing potential of Arnold’s phrase “off center” entice
her into a punning attack on him. The punster
moves into an antagonistic relationship with one or
more listeners, thus realigning the participants in the
conversation. Judy may routinely launch verbal
assaults on her interlocutors or she may limit her
attacks to Arnold and a few others with whom she
enjoys what we are calling a customary joking rela-
tionship. Direct on-record affronts like this so obvi-
ously flout the norms of politeness that they strike us
as funny, just as the incongruity of a papal pratfall
or a talking dog might. Paradoxically, flying in the
face of friendly politeness can build rapport, because
it signals a relationship that eschews such superficial
conventions.
Irony is another common resource for partici-
pants in customary joking relationships. Consider
the following passage in which Brandon and Ned are
discussing movies, when Ned invokes irony, saying
the opposite of what he believes and hopes to convey.
Brandon: I watched The Fountainhead just a couple
weeks ago.
Ned: Boy I’ll bet that’s a great movie.
Brandon: [laughing] It’s a terrible movie.
Ned: [laughs]
Brandon: It was pretty good. I had read the book. . . .
Ned’s straightforwardly ironic statement elicits more
laughter than it seems to deserve, but it has little
effect on the conversation otherwise. Brandon reverts
immediately to the literal “terrible,” rather than
joining in the ironic approach, and proceeds to his
description of the film. When interactants welcome
any opportunity for humorous aggression, much of
the effect of irony often rests on the caustic comment
it conveys.
Participants in customary joking relationships
gladly take advantage of ambiguous situations to
inject sarcasm. As a guest at the home of her friend,
Joe, and his younger sisters, Lynn sets the stage for
Joe’s barb by offering to dry dishes before she real-
izes the others are loading them into the dishwasher.
Lynn’s offer is inappropriate, but Joe’s suggestion
reframes it as irrational.
Lynn: Do you need me to help you dry?
Joe: If you want to get in the dishwasher.
Penny: [laughs]
Gail: [laughs] Oh yeah.
Lynn: Oh you’re putting them in the dishwasher,
okay.
Lynn’s offer would involve performing an activity
that makes no sense in the present context; then Joe
pokes fun at her willingness to help by suggesting a
course of action in line with the lack of contextual
information the offer entails. The image of sitting in
a dishwashing machine to dry dishes is funny in
itself, which renders Lynn’s precipitous offer all the
more laughable. Even in a customary joking rela-
tionship, Lynn may feel foolish for her offer to dry
dishes, although the ridiculousness of Joe’s sugges-
tion should prevent any real offense, and the com-
petitive joking will continue.
Conclusion
Research on joking relationships began with ritu-
alized patterns of behavior between individuals
paired along lines of kinship and gender, but it has
been expanded to include voluntary joking relation-
ships established between people who are thrown
together in industrialized societies. In both cases the
joking relationships help organize behavior in non-
threatening ways. Once linguists began to analyze

talk in interaction, they extended the notion of the
joking relationship to pairs and groups who gear
their interactions to teasing, punning, and sarcasm.
In this entry customary practices such as the strate-
gic deployment of witty formulas in greetings and
leave-taking were considered, along with recycling
punning responses to recurrent questions, and char-
acteristic examples where participants in customary
joking relationships inject puns, irony, and sarcasm
into conversations were investigated. It was shown
how humor functions within customary joking rela-
tionships and how they help participants maintain
interactional equilibrium.
Neal R. Norrick
See also Insult and Invective; Irony; Obscenity;
Politeness; Practical Jokes; Puns; Teasing
Further Readings
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Basso, K. H. (1979). Portraits of “The Whiteman”:
Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the Western
Apache. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940). On joking relationships.
Africa: Journal of the International African Institute,
13(3), 195–210.
Sykes, A. J. M. (1966). Joking relationships in an industrial
setting. American Anthropologist, 68(1), 188–193.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Thomson, D. F. (1935). The joking relationship and
organized obscenity in North Queensland. American
Anthropologist, 37(3), 460–490.
Wenger, È. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilson, C. P. (1979). Jokes: Form, content, use, and
function. London, UK: Academic Press.
JOURNALISM
Humor writing techniques have found their way into
American journalism dating back as far as Benjamin
Franklin’s time. In journalism, the basic informa-
tion conveyed in an article must be verifiable,
Journalism 421
which gives the writer some flexibility with the con-
tent, since whether something is true and accurately
presented depends on one’s perspective. To qualify
as journalism, the content of an article, column,
or report in any medium should be intended to be
accurate, truthful, and verifiable. Techniques for
making us laugh, such as exaggeration, minimiza-
tion, and double entendres, usually begin with some
truth the writer exploits for effect. Storytelling tech-
niques found in fiction genres—novels, short stories,
Westerns, romances, mysteries, and others—have
found their way into journalism in genres such as
columns, feature stories, and commentary. The aim
is to draw attention to something ironic or encourage
the audience to think about something newsworthy
with levity—to see the humor in the situation and in
life. This entry addresses the complex relationship
between journalism and humor, primarily in the U.S.
context.
Humor in journalism and the arguments for
and against it are nothing new. Examples of humor
in American journalism date back as far as Ben
Franklin’s Mrs. Silence Dogood papers, published in
the early 18th century and unusual for colonial jour-
nalism. Humorous articles also appeared in the New
England Courant between 1723 and 1725. Today
Franklin’s work might appear in satire publications
such as The Onion or Bean Soup Times, or even
the Utne Reader, a digest of the alternative press.
As early as 1917 complaints about levity in journal-
ism in the form of letters to the editor appeared in
The New York Times (May 14). Defending humor
in journalism as far back as 1870, the Atlanta
Constitution noted that “many of our best senti-
ments sometimes are practically shown very amus-
ingly” (“The Humors of Journalism,” March 25).
Bill Maher’s brand of humor is a good example
of how the line is blurred between news and com-
edy today. As a political commentator, it is not clear
whether he is subject to the constraints journalistic
ethics provide. Maher also is a stand-up comedian,
television host, author, and actor known best for his
searing political satire, which often casts aside sensitiv-
ity in favor of expressing controversial views, such as
disputing the idea that the terrorists who flew planes
into buildings on 9/11 were “cowards” and adding
that remotely bombing countries was more cowardly
(a remark that is thought to have led to the cancella-
tion of his show at ABC and his move to HBO).
In general, comedians do not follow many of
the guidelines found in journalists’ ethics codes.
At Reuters, a news service providing coverage to
422 Journalism
subscribers including major newspapers and televi-
sion networks, the handbook says journalists should
“eschew gossip about the private lives of public
figures,” “avoid sensationalism and hype,” and be
“wary of assumptions and bias,” including their
own. Comedians often thrive on these elements.
Their own assumptions and biases are often the
point on which their satire pivots.
Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury comic strip informs
readers about political events while also focusing on
everyday foibles and conundrums, much like New
Yorker humorist James Thurber, who was manag-
ing editor of the magazine between 1927 and 1933.
Both rely on parody and satire; however, Thurber
wrote mostly about the frustrations average people
faced, and he had a special gift for heightening hys-
teria through exaggeration, a technique he used to
intensify humor.
Parodying and Satirizing the News
In some ways, humorist Andy Borowitz carries on
the New Yorker’s comic tradition set by Thurber,
but his focus is more on satirizing current events.
Like comedians Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart,
Borowitz spins the news with humor techniques,
including employing stereotypes, setting up an
expectation and then delivering the opposite of that
expectation (called a “reverse”), using the “literal
truth” approach to humor (e.g., as Roseanne Barr
quipped, “The way to a man’s heart is through his
chest”), using conventions found in news reporting
for effect, and wrapping it all in the modus operandi
of fiction and humor writing, as in this excerpt:
GENEVA (The Borowitz Report)—The landing of
the Mars science rover Curiosity does not qualify as
a significant scientific achievement and should not
be getting so much of the public’s attention, says the
team of scientists who discovered the Higgs boson
last month.
“People see these beautiful pictures from outer
space and they’re inclined to think that something
amazing has been achieved,” a spokesperson for the
Higgs boson team said. “Let the Mars rover do
something of genuine value, like, say, discover how
the universe was created. Then I’ll be impressed.”
(Borowitz, 2012)
Other publications specialize in parody, much
of it dealing with journalism and the news. For
example, the Harvard Lampoon, continuously
published since 1876, generated an offshoot in
1970 called National Lampoon magazine. It closed
in 1998 and by 2002 had morphed into National
Lampoon, Incorporated, which produces films and
online content. Harvard Lampoon alumni include
comedians Conan O’Brien, Andy Borowitz, and
B. J. Novak. Some Harvard Lampoon writers went
on to TV’s Saturday Night Live. These venues cre-
ated caricatures of news reporters and, later, news
anchors, frequently using burlesque humor.
An early television parody of radio reporters
appeared on Laugh-In, a 1960s variety show head-
lined by comedians Dan Rowan and Dick Martin
and featuring unknown actors who later became
stars, including Goldie Hawn (First Wives Club,
Private Benjamin), Eileen Brennan (The Sting,
The Last Picture Show), and Henry Gibson (Judge
Clark Brown on Boston Legal). Later, the 1990
sketch comedy television series In Living Color,
created by Keenan Ivory Wayans and his brother,
Damon, also made fun of newscasters and report-
ers from a multicultural perspective but focusing
primarily on modern Black culture. Actor and
comedian Dave Chappelle followed suit in 2003 on
Chappelle’s Show.
In 1952, Mad magazine adapted Harvard
Lampoon’s heightening of social awareness
approach to humor for the preteen set. Using satire
and parody, it was the first magazine to deal with
contemporary affairs in a humorous form for that
market. Mad deals with serious subjects with levity;
through the years it has dealt with the Vietnam War,
declining patriotism, civil rights, racism, and paro-
dies of television shows such as Room 222 and Mod
Squad that dealt with race relations. The magazine’s
success led to the sketch comedy television show
MadTV (1995–2009), which was aimed at the same
audience.
Online News and Humor
The blurring of the lines between humor and enter-
tainment and journalism can be seen in J*School
Buzz, an independent student blog about the
Missouri School of Journalism. Its editorial phi-
losophy, posted on the blog, notes the publication’s
required connection between news and entertain-
ment: “JSB strives to be an entertaining and informa-
tive blog about the Missouri School of Journalism . . .
JSB wants this J-school to be known as the kind
of place that fosters an entrepreneurial spirit and
innovation that is more important now than ever in
journalism.”

As such, the publication’s philosophy connects
entertainment with fostering the entrepreneurial
spirit and innovation while also informing. However,
it does not address issues of slant, bias, accuracy,
factualness and thoughtful consideration, sensitiv-
ity, or publishing assumptions rather than verifi-
able information. Similar concerns are presented
by social networks and microblogs such as Twitter,
which encourage fast, constant, brief communica-
tions updated rapidly rather than holding back
information to provide it with fuller context, and
thus knowledge, not just information. Are social net-
works a form of civic journalism, helping the public
participate in democracy? It can be argued they are,
and if they are, what journalistic standards do they
represent? Is this emerging form of communication
shifting the line between what counts as journalism
and what does not, and where humor can enter into
the definition of journalism? Snark, or sarcasm, is
an element of humor often found in microblogs and
social networks. It can be reasoned that snark is part
of microblogging and social network communica-
tion in many cases, but whether it is an element of
journalism is debatable.
That is not to say humor can’t be used to pres-
ent accurate news. At Grist, an environmental news
website, humor is used to help the audience be at
ease with often alarming, accurate news about pol-
lution, for example. This communication strategy
helps audiences consider the irony of how a major
oil spill is cleaned and see themselves in the moment
of confronting a major environmental conundrum,
such as declining freshwater supplies. Below is an
annotated excerpt as an example:
Most people consider bathing a fairly crucial part of
the daily routine [literal truth technique]. But for
those who worry about global water resources
gurgling down the drain [cliché technique], the mere
prospect of washing up can be a downer. Very few
bathers have the time, space, or stamina to limit
water usage to barrel-collected rainwater heated in
solar stacks [again, literal truth]. Which means many
of you are left standing on the bathmat, shivering in
your skivvies, wondering which wastes less water—a
shower or a bath? (Wroth, 2007, p. 2)
Advocacy and Opinion Journalism
Advocacy has been part of journalism since the
penny press, growing from simple viewpoint articles
into yellow journalism, the gaudy type of reporting
Journalism 423
dominating the late 1800s and enjoying a resurgence
today. Sin, sex, and violence came first, accuracy
second. It was extreme sensationalism based more
on gossip and ulterior motives than fact. Initiated
by newspaper moguls William Randolph Hearst
and Joseph Pulitzer, this exaggerated and scandal-
focused journalism was highly popular.
A contemporary of Hearst and Pulitzer was the
early and mid-1800s popular writer Samuel Clemens
(a.k.a. Mark Twain). Twain liked to make up stories,
many of them appearing in the Hannibal Journal,
a newspaper run by his brother. Twain came to
journalism after failing to make a living in Nevada
at silver mining. There, he gained more financial
security selling funny sketches to the Virginia City,
Nevada, Territorial Enterprise than mining. He was
hired there as a reporter and took his pen name in
that position.
Twain relied on facts and figures to create
his often bitingly accurate humorous sketches.
Following suit are Maher, Borowitz, and a host
of other humorists over time, including Dorothy
Parker (The New Yorker), Andy Rooney (CBS’s 60
Minutes), Art Buchwald (Washington Post), Mike
Royko (Chicago Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times,
and the Chicago Tribune), Robert Benchley (Vanity
Fair and Life magazines), syndicated columnists
Dave Barry and Erma Bombeck, and before the days
of syndication, Benjamin Franklin. Royko was an
exception. For example, Royko would write about
discussing current events in a neighborhood bar
with Slats Grobnik, a composite character Royko
created of a working-class Polish Chicagoan. The
character was verifiable. A reader could go to a
local pub in Chicago and find someone just like
Slats. Satirizing pop psychology and pop culture, he
also invented and conversed with Dr. I. M. Kookie,
founder of the Asylumism religion, which contends
Earth was settled by a higher civilization of insane
people rejected from their planet. In this respect, he
followed Mark Twain’s and Franklin’s lead of using
fiction to make a point in a journalistic venue, and
helped his audience see the humor in life as well as
question the authority of new ideas in psychology.
Royko’s work was always delivered in context. He
pushed the boundaries of journalism into the realm
of literature by applying storytelling techniques to
journalism. During the 1960s and 1970s, other jour-
nalists were beginning to blend fiction-writing story-
telling techniques with accuracy, truth, and verifiable
events—what became known as “creative nonfic-
tion” but which did not have a label at that point.
424 Journalism
One of Twain’s most famous sayings is a root of
journalism today: “When in doubt, tell the truth.”
This nugget of humor, which is an example of a
“reverse,” guides reporters today, particularly when
posting scoops and updates to news in instantaneous
mass media such as social networks and microblogs,
including Twitter, where what was thought true at
10 a.m. may be proved wrong at 10:15 a.m.
Of course, Twain’s advice suggests there are times
when it is not important for journalists to tell the
truth. In 1904, amid Hearst’s and Pulitzer’s rise,
Henry Walcott Boynton, a writer for the New York
Evening Post and the Atlantic Monthly, suggested
that “the real business of journalism is to record or
to comment, not to create or to interpret” (Boynton,
1904, p. 4). He gave a nod to the dubious accuracy
of some of Twain’s writings and also those of Hearst
and Pulitzer: By their standards in the early 1900s,
the ideal in journalism was to communicate a per-
spective, and providing a detailed sequence of events
for context was not necessary.
To great success, Fox News Channel, launched
in 1996, has employed a model of journalism fash-
ioned after Pulitzer’s and Hearst’s approach and the
opinionated shows on talk radio. With that model,
Fox News quickly outperformed its main com-
petitors, CNN and MSNBC, in the ratings. It also
spawned more talk radio programs.
Fox News has been highly criticized worldwide
for its focus on the entertainment value of news. In
a 2011 study from the Philippine-based Center for
Media Freedom and Responsibility titled News as
Entertainment, the authors note that the effects of
trivialization of news to give entertainment value
“tends to mislead readers and viewers on the signifi-
cance of those events by pandering to their impulse
toward being entertained, thus undermining the
basic media responsibility of providing the public
both the details as well as the meaning of events.
Both the media’s duty as information provider and
as ‘watchdog’ is compromised as a result” (Galao
et al., 2011). In the Los Angeles Times, media critic
David Shaw contends that consuming news as
entertainment, rather than from the perspective of
social obligation, through sources such as Fox News
Channel and Stewart’s The Daily Show leads to
“civic ignorance.”
Conclusion
While journalism has a long history of serving up
humor alongside serious editorials, commentary,
and current events, today there are two separate
issues with humor in journalism: There is the actual
use of humor in news dissemination, and then there
is the concept of delivering news as entertainment.
Colbert and Stewart are not journalists, although
they parody them on television, contributing to a
blurring of the lines between entertainment and
journalism for the uninitiated. What they deliver is
political satire, a type of commentary that blends
entertainment and politics, delivered in a style mim-
icking traditional news writing but mixed with
parody and plain joking. What the “news” come-
dians deliver is selected for its entertainment value
rather than its ability to foster intellectual discus-
sions and awareness of the day’s civic events or the
weight and pressure of daily life. Yet a 2008 report
by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence
in Journalism argues that by encouraging people to
think critically about public issues, the show per-
forms a function that is close to journalistic and in
keeping with the satirists who once were a common
feature of major American newspapers. As political
commentators such as Bill Maher and online sites
such as Grist have shown, humor is no barrier to
discussing serious issues, and it may help the audi-
ence to learn about these issues.
Debra A. Schwartz
See also Cartoons; Lampoon; Legal Restriction and
Protection of Humor; Magazines and Newspapers,
U.S.; Satire News
Further Readings
Borowitz, A. (2012, August 6). Mars rover should not get
so much attention, say Higgs-boson scientists. The
Borowitz Report. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/
borowitzreport/2012/08/mars-rover-should-not-get-so-
much-attention-say-higgs-boson-scientists.html
Boynton, H. W. (1904). Journalism and literature: And
other essays. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, B. (with Wroth, K.). (Eds.). (2007). Wake up and
smell the planet: The non-pompous, non-preachy grist
guide to greening your day. Seattle, WA: Skipstone.
Galao, K., Ladia, J., Manglal-Ian, L., & Tenorio, V. C.
(2011, May–June). News as entertainment. PJR
Reports. Retrieved from the Center for Media Freedom
and Responsibility website: http://www.cmfr-phil.
org/2011/07/05/news-as-entertainment
Grauer, N. A. (1994). Remember laughter: A life of
James Thurber. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.

Hanagarne, J. (2009, August 11). Can humor be defined?
Retrieved May 18, 2013, from http://worldsstrongest
librarian.com/3208/can-humor-be-defined
Hellmuth, A. (1999, January 5). A witty look at
transformation of news as entertainment. The Orlando
Sentinel.
The humors of journalism. (1870, March 25). The Atlanta
Constitution, p. 1. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers (PDF only).
Lee, J. Y. (2000). Defining New Yorker humor. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi.
Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
(2008, May 8). Journalism, satire or just laughs? “The
Daily Show with Jon Stewart” examined. Retrieved
from http://www.journalism.org/node/10953
Reuters handbook of journalism. (2009). Retrieved from
http://handbook.reuters.com
Schwartz, D. (2008). Propaganda. In S. Vaughn (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of American journalism (pp. 423–426).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwartz, D., & Rivas, R. (2008). Humor. In S. Vaughn (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of American journalism (pp. 215–216).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Shaw, D. (2004, July 11). News as entertainment is sadly
becoming the norm. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
August 12, 2012, from http://articles.latimes.com/2004/
jul/11/entertainment/ca-shaw 11
Thussu, D. K. (2008). News as entertainment: The rise of
global infotainment. London, UK: Sage.
JUDAISM
Humor is the lingua franca of the Jewish people.
While the core values of Judaism based on the
Hebrew scriptures include such lofty ideals as the
pursuit of justice and caring for the weak and mar-
ginalized members of society, such as the orphan,
widow, and stranger, the Jewish people have also
made a major contribution to humor. Even out-
side the world of the professional comic, we find
ordinary folk answering a question with a ques-
tion, employing a sarcastic retort, offering self-
deprecating witticisms. For Jews, this special brand
of humor has become a defining characteristic,
marking their uniqueness among the peoples of the
world. Humor, after all, is not only medicine for the
body; it is good for the soul as well. In examining
what people laugh at, we come close to learning
what they value.
How far back does Jewish humor go? A few
hundred years? To Talmudic times? To the Bible?
Many scholars believe that the Bible, in particular
Judaism 425
the Hebrew Bible, is without any humor. The phi-
losopher Alfred North Whitehead claimed that there
is no humor in the Old Testament. Needless to say,
many scholars disagree. The Hebrew Bible does
include humor, although much of it is quite subtle
and requires knowledge of the original language
of the Bible, Hebrew. Language-based humor (e.g.
puns, alliteration, and wordplay) does not translate
well. In addition, biblical humor may be charac-
terized across several broad categories of humor,
namely, irony, sarcasm, exaggerated imagery, and
humorous situations.
The major purpose of the use of such humorous
devices as satire and sarcasm was to ridicule the evil-
doer and idolater and to reinforce the idea that evil
is not only wrong but often nonsensical. Indeed the
punishments have a higher purpose and often turn
the tables on evildoers. This is a clever and witty
way to show the wages of sin.
Some well-known examples of humor in the
Hebrew Bible include the stories of Balaam and
his donkey, Jacob’s dealings with Laban, Joseph
and his brothers, and, of course, Jonah. Jonah, the
unwilling—and, incidentally, the most successful—
prophet, refuses God’s bidding to announce to the
residents of Nineveh (capital of Assyria) its immi-
nent destruction. He tries to flee from God by tak-
ing a ship from Jaffa to Tarshish. The prophet must
have known that God was omniscient and omni-
present, yet he felt that he could escape from God.
When God finally forces Jonah to prophesy to the
residents of Nineveh, the entire prophecy appears
to be but five Hebrew words—translated as “In 40
days, Nineveh will be overturned” (Jonah 3:4)—
and Jonah is wildly successful, more so than any
other prophet. Not only do the citizens of Nineveh
proclaim a fast in their repentance, but even the
cattle and sheep are made to fast and the cattle are
also covered with sackcloth. The prophecy did not
mention God, did not mention repentance, did not
mention sin—and, yet, the response on the part of
Nineveh is a completely over-the-top communal
penitence. The reluctant Jonah accomplished in a
mere five words what numerous prophets, includ-
ing the eloquent Isaiah, could not achieve with
thousands of words, and all without even trying.
The joke unfortunately is on the ancient people of
Israel. The message of Jonah is that a schlimazel
(unlucky) prophet can be successful with pagans
who were not at Sinai to hear the revelation, yet the
best prophets could get nowhere with the people of
Israel who would, consequently, be exiled.
426 Judaism
The Hebrew Bible is replete with sarcasm; even
God is occasionally sarcastic and mocks the evildoer.
The Bible abounds with snide, rhetorical questions,
for example, when Cain answers God’s ques-
tion with a question “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
(Genesis 4:9). When Adam is asked by God whether
he ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, his
“clever” response was to blame both God and Eve:
“The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me of
the tree and I ate” (Genesis 3:12). We still blame our
spouses—and God—when something goes wrong.
The way the Israelites “asked” Moses for help a
mere week after their victorious exodus from the
slavery of Egypt—which included the 10 miraculous
plagues—sheds a great deal of light on their char-
acter. At the edge of the Red Sea, with the Egyptian
army in pursuit, they asked Moses, “Was there a
lack of graves in Egypt that you took us away to
die in the wilderness?” (Exodus 14:11). Common
sense would dictate that, in a time of such danger, it
might have been more prudent to take a somewhat
less strident tone; a little prayer would not have hurt
either.
Given their penchant for sarcastic complain-
ing, we are not astonished that they eventually got
into even more serious trouble. When Moses sent
spies on a reconnaissance mission to the Promised
Land (Canaan), they reported that the residents
of Canaan were too powerful to conquer. The
Israelites, who were nothing if not consistent in their
sarcastic complaints, said: “We wish we had died
in the land of Egypt, or in this desert would we had
died” (Numbers 14:2). God’s response to Moses and
Aaron was to tell the Israelites: “Surely as you have
spoken in My ears, so I will do to you” (Numbers
14:28). (God can be sarcastic too.) Sadly, the people
did get their wish: That generation died out in the
desert without entering the Promised Land.
With a great deal of irony, punishments in the
Hebrew Bible often fit the crime measure for mea-
sure. Even years later, hurtful or nasty speech can
come back to bite the speaker. The Bible thus hints
at a divine plan, letting us know that there will
eventually be retribution for wrongdoing. When
Dathan and Abiram tell Moses, “We will not go up”
(Numbers 16:12) to see him after being summoned
by Moses who is trying to make peace, their punish-
ment is that they go down—they are swallowed up
by the earth.
The arc of the biblical story of Joseph and his
brothers is a good example of irony and measure
for measure. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery
in Egypt when he was 17 years old. They covered
up the crime by dipping his “coat of many colors”
(Genesis 37:3)—a gift given to Joseph by his father
Jacob—into goat’s blood so that Jacob would
believe that his beloved son was devoured by a wild
animal. Twenty-two years later, there was a famine
in the land of Canaan and the family was forced to
go to Egypt to buy food. They did not realize that
the grand vizier of Egypt, the one they had to deal
with to make purchases, was actually their long-lost
brother Joseph. Joseph, on recognizing his brothers,
arranged to have his prized silver chalice secreted
in the saddlebag of Benjamin, the youngest and
Joseph’s only full-brother (both Joseph and Benjamin
were children of the deceased Rachel). The “stolen”
chalice gave Joseph the excuse to keep Benjamin in
Egypt as his slave. In measure-for-measure fashion,
Judah is confronted with a situation reminiscent of
what had occurred, and that he had condoned, 22
years earlier. Back then, Judah’s memorable state-
ment to his brothers was that there was no profit
in killing Joseph and that they should therefore sell
him into slavery. Now, over two decades later, Judah
was talking to the grand vizier (Joseph), arguing
that Benjamin should not be a slave. In fact, Judah
offered to substitute for Benjamin and become a
slave in his stead. His poignant words to the grand
vizier were “For how can I go up to my father if the
lad is not with me? I cannot bear to look upon the
evil misery that shall come on my father” (Genesis
44:34). Those words are filled with irony. After all,
he had no problem doing the exact same thing in
the past and causing his father immeasurable pain.
Judah was so passionate in his pleas to the grand
vizier that he mentioned, in trying to get sympathy,
that Benjamin’s older brother had died and that
Benjamin was all that was left of Rachel, Jacob’s
late wife. The reader, of course, knows that Joseph
is very much alive.
Irony is used in Genesis to teach us some powerful
lessons—for example, that people who are deceiv-
ers will ultimately pay the price for their deception
and be deceived in turn, a measure-for-measure
punishment. There are many examples in Genesis of
deceivers who end up being deceived. Jacob deceived
his father, when he pretended to be his brother Esau,
in order to steal the blessings due the first-born.
He is later deceived by Leah, who pretended to be
her younger sister Rachel, on their wedding night.
Jacob’s children, Judah and his brothers, deceived
him into believing that Joseph was killed by an ani-
mal by showing him the coat-of-many-colors that

had been soaked in goat blood. Judah was deceived
by his daughter-in-law Tamar, who pretended to be
a prostitute and demanded a goat for her services.
Just in case the reader misses the goat connection
of the two stories, the same expression, “haker nah
(do you recognize)?” was used both when Jacob
was shown the blood-soaked coat (Genesis 37:32)
and, in the Tamar story, when the pregnant Tamar,
sentenced to death, asked whether Judah recognized
his own seal, wrap, and staff (Genesis 38:25). Tamar
insisted that the owner of those items was the one
who impregnated her, and Judah, to his credit,
acknowledged that he was the father; Tamar eventu-
ally gives birth to twins. As noted earlier, the broth-
ers who deceived Jacob regarding Joseph are in turn
deceived by Joseph, who has come to be the grand
vizier of Egypt.
The biblical story of Esther is also filled with
irony. The book of Esther demonstrates that no mat-
ter how high and mighty one happens to be, one’s
fortunes may soon be reversed. At first, Haman
arrogantly brags about his power, his wealth, and
his many children. He erects a gallows on which
to hang Mordechai, the elderly Jew who refused to
bow before him. The reversal comes quite suddenly,
and Haman is hanged on these very gallows. In fact,
his 10 sons are hanged as well. Additional ironies in
the story include the fact that the story begins with
a disobedient Queen Vashti refusing her husband
King Ahasuerus’s order to appear before his guests
and show off her great beauty. She is executed for
this disobedience. Later in the book, Esther dis-
obeys Ahasuerus’s rule by not waiting to be invited
to enter the inner court. She presumptuously enters
seemingly for what appears to be a trivial reason: to
invite the king and Haman to dinner. Esther becomes
increasingly more assertive throughout the book,
at one point even demanding that King Ahasuerus
provide more time for the Jews to fight their ene-
mies. Another ironic reversal in the story occurs
when the king, seeking to reward Mordechai, asks
Haman, “What should be done to the man the king
especially wants to honor?” (Esther 6:6). Haman,
thinking that no one is more worthy of honor than
himself, reveals a great deal about his personality
in answering this question. Rather than suggesting
something substantial and long-lasting, he says that
the individual should be dressed in royal garb and
paraded in the center town on the royal horse with
the announcement “This is what is done for the man
whom the king especially wants to honor” (Esther
6:11). Unfortunately for Haman, this is exactly what
Judaism 427
the king then told him to do personally for the Jew
Mordechai. One can imagine Haman’s shock and
anguish at this humiliation. Haman’s own obsessive
need for honor is what did him in.
In another example of irony in the book of Esther,
if one wishes to see it from another perspective, the
hero Mordechai is actually the source of all the
trouble. Mordechai’s refusal to bow to Haman was
what sparked Haman’s anger at all the Jews in the
empire and inspired him to seek their destruction.
The verse states quite clearly, “And when Haman
saw that Mordechai bowed not down nor pros-
trated himself before him, then Haman was filled
with wrath” (Esther 3:5). This may explain the enig-
matic statement at the end of the book regarding
Mordechai, that he was “accepted by most of his
brethren” (Esther 10:3). One can imagine that many
of his brethren felt that, although he may have saved
them in the end, he was the one who started it all in
the first place.
Some biblical humor stems from a funny pre-
dicament and may include humorous imagery, for
example, the plague of frogs. Imagine an entire
country overrun with frogs jumping all around,
even in the royal palace, in the kitchens and the
bedrooms. This imagery is quite humorous. God is
mocking the Egyptians. The Egyptian magicians, in
trying to save the day, also “brought up frogs on
the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:3) to show that they
have similar special powers. Why didn’t they just get
rid of the irritating frogs? The humorous imagery
used in this story is not only visual but also auditory.
When Moses prayed to God to remove the plague,
the word used was “vayitzack” (he cried) (Exodus
8:8). According to commentators, Moses had to cry
to be heard over the noise made by all those frogs.
After the Torah (the Hebrew Bible), the Talmud
and Midrash are arguably the most important works
of literature for the Jewish people. The Midrash
is essentially devoted to the exposition of biblical
verses. The Talmud is the compilation of Jewish oral
law, which explains the written law of the Torah and
also provides a detailed record of the beliefs of the
Jewish people, their philosophy, traditions, culture,
and folklore. It is not surprising that the Talmud and
Midrash are replete with wit and humor.
Because the major purpose of the Talmud was to
elaborate on the written laws of the Bible, numer-
ous legal disputes are recorded in the Talmud; often
one sage is pitted against another in attempting to
demonstrate that the law agrees with his view. These
legal disputes often run across many pages in the
428 Judaism
Talmud, and it takes many years to master Talmudic
logic. Many students of humor believe that Talmudic
dialectics is a wonderful tool in the hands of rab-
binic scholars, but it is also used by Jewish comics
and comedy writers. Many books on Jewish humor
have sections dealing with Talmudic logic. If classic
Jewish jokes share anything with the Talmud, it is in
their process rather than their content. Improbable
logic, slightly convoluted arguments, and skepti-
cism—these are some of the characteristics of the
rabbinic mind, as well as of Jewish humor.
When it comes to the practical application of
Talmudic logic and argument, nothing compares
to the vast oeuvre of material about the impudent
Jewish schnorrer (beggar). For example:
A schnorrer knocks at the door of a well-to-do
household and is invited to share dinner with the
host and hostess. A spread of many delicious foods
is offered as well as both coarse black bread and
fine white bread. The beggar quickly devours the
white bread and asks for more. “You know,” says
the host carefully, not wanting to hurt the poor
fellow’s feelings, “white bread is quite expensive.”
“Yes, I know,” responds the schnorrer, “but it’s well
worth it!”
In fact, the similarity of this sort of “modern classic”
to the following Talmudic excerpt is hard to ignore.
This Talmudic passage illustrates that poor people
are to be provided with a level of support that will
maintain them in the style to which they had become
accustomed before becoming impoverished.
A man came before Rava applying for assistance.
Rava asked him: “What do you usually eat?” The
man said: “Stuffed hen and old wine.” Rava asked:
“Are you not concerned that your extravagant taste
will be a burden on the community?” He said: “Am
I eating of theirs? I am eating of the Merciful One’s
bounty, for we learned [in Psalms], ‘The eyes of all
look hopefully to You, and You give them their food
in his season.’ The verse does not say ‘in their season’
but ‘in his season,’ teaching us that the Holy One
provides for every individual in accordance with that
to which one is accustomed.” While they were
talking, Rava’s sister, whom he had not seen for
thirteen years, arrived, bringing him stuffed hen and
old wine. Rava said: “How remarkable! I apologize
to you; please go and eat.” (Babylonian Talmud
Kethuboth 67b)
In this story, while the beggar uses biblical sources to
prove his argument, his attitude of entitlement
makes him a direct ancestor of the arrogant schnor-
rers of modern Jewish humor. And, in the previous
passage, his sense of entitlement to community sup-
port in the style to which he feels he deserves is
upheld by God Himself, in the form of the “remark-
able” occurrence.
The Talmud condones and even encourages
mocking idols. The following is part of a Talmudic
discussion regarding what types of idol worship are
punishable by death. Normally, defecating before
an idol would not be considered a form of idola-
try, but the idol Baal Peor was actually worshipped
by exposing oneself and then defecating before this
Moabite deity—this practice all by itself may be
worthy of a treatise on ancient humor.
Sabta of Allas once rented his donkey to a heathen
woman. When they reached the idol Baal Peor, she
said to Sabta: Wait until I enter and come out. When
she returned, he told her to wait until he had a
chance to enter and leave. She said to Sabta: But are
you not a Jew? He replied: What does it matter to
you. He entered, defecated on the idol’s face, and
wiped himself on the idol’s nose. The idol’s attendants
seeing this praised him saying: No man has ever
served this idol in such a manner. (Babylonian
Talmud Sanhedrin 64a)
The Talmud concludes that even if one’s intention is
to disgrace Baal Peor by defecating before it, he has
actually worshipped it. Thus, Sabta, who was trying
to mock the idol, inadvertently worshipped it.
The Talmud tells the story of Rabbi Kahana who,
in order to learn everything he needed to know
about life, went so far as to hide under his mentor’s
bed. The mentor, Rav, did not appreciate discovering
that the student hiding under the bed had overheard
him bantering with his wife and then having sexual
relations with her. Rabbi Kahana’s response: “It is
all Torah and I need to learn.”
Humor, like Torah, has been an important part of
Jewish life for more than 3,000 years. According to
the Talmud, when Elijah the prophet was asked by
Rabbi Beroka if any of the individuals around them
in the marketplace were destined for Heaven, he
pointed out two people. Rabbi Beroka asked them
about themselves, and they replied, “We are merry-
makers, and we cheer up people who are depressed”
(Babylonian Talmud Taanith 22a). And so, the
Jewish sages teach us that jesters go to Heaven when
they die.
Hershey H. Friedman and Linda Weiser Friedman

See also Biblical Humor; Irony; Jest, Jestbooks, and
Jesters; Jewish Humor; Literature; Puns; Religion
Further Readings
Ausubel, N. (1948). A treasury of Jewish folklore.
New York, NY: Crown.
Friedman, H. H. (2000). Humor in the Hebrew Bible.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
13(3), 258–285.
Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2012, July 18).
Humor and the omniscient God. Retrieved from SSRN
website: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2112655
Friedman, L. W., & Friedman, H. H. (2009, July 27).
Jewish? You must be joking! The Jewish take on humor.
Retrieved from SSRN website: http://ssrn.com/abstract
Judaism 429
=1439936 or available from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1439936
Novak, W., & Waldoks, M. (Eds.). (1981). The big
book of Jewish humor. New York, NY:
HarperPerennial.
Radday, Y. T., & Brenner, A. (1990). On humour and the
comic in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Spalding, H. D. (1985). Joys of Jewish humor. New York,
NY: Jonathan David.
Telushkin, J. (1992). Jewish humor. New York, NY:
William Morrow.
Whedbee, J. W. (1998). The Bible and the comic vision.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ziv, A. (1998). Jewish humor. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

Humor
Studies
Editorial Board

Editor
Salvatore Attardo
Texas A&M University–Commerce

Managing Editors
Audrey C. Adams
Texas A&M University–Commerce
Hilal Ergül
Texas A&M University–Commerce

Editorial Board
Thomas E. Ford
Western Carolina University
Sharon Lockyer
Brunel University
Owen Hanley Lynch
Southern Methodist University
Moira Marsh
Indiana University–Bloomington
Jessica Milner Davis
University of Sydney
John Morreall
College of William & Mary
Victor Raskin
Purdue University
 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

Humor
Studies

Editor
Salvatore Attardo
Texas A&M University–Commerce

2
 Copyright © 2014 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

FOR INFORMATION: All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
SAGE Publications, Inc. and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
2455 Teller Road publisher.
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com Printed in the United States of America.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
55 City Road
Encyclopedia of humor studies / editor, Salvatore
London, EC1Y 1SP Attardo, Texas A&M University.
United Kingdom
volumes cm
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Includes bibliographical references and index.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 ISBN 978-1-4129-9909-0 (hardcover)
India
1. Laughter–Encyclopedias. 2. Wit and humor–Encyclopedias.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. I. Attardo, Salvatore, 1962- editor of compilation.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub BF575.L3E53 2014
Singapore 049483 809.7–dc23 2013036046

Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson

Developmental Editors: Diana E. Axelsen,
Shirin Parsavand
Production Editor: Tracy Buyan
Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez
Reference Systems Coordinators: Anna Villaseñor,
Laura Notton
Copy Editors: Diane DiMura, Colleen Brennan
Typesetter: Hurix Systems (P) Ltd.
Proofreaders: Lawrence W. Baker, Kristin Bergstad
Indexer: Virgil Diodato
Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta
Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire 14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents

Volume 2
List of Entries vii

Reader’s Guide xi

Entries

K 431 S 657
L 435 T 747
M 467 U 779
N 541 V 783
O 547 W 793
P 551 X 807
R 619

Appendix A: Chronology 815

Appendix B: Humor Associations and Publications 831
Index 837
List of Entries

Absurdist Humor Burlesque

Advertisement Byzantine Humor
Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
Aesthetics Caricature
African Humor. See Akan Humor; Igbo Humor; Carnival and Festival
South African Humor Carnivalesque
Aggressive and Harmless Humor Cartoons
Aging and Humor Cervantes, Miguel de
Akan Humor Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor
Ambiguity Children’s Humor and Giftedness
American Indian Cultures, Humor in Children’s Humor Research
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Children’s Humor Stages
Ancient Greek Comedy Christianity
Ancient Roman Comedy Cinema. See Movies
Anecdote, Comic Clergy
Animal-Related Humor Clowns
Anthropology Clowns in Medical Settings
Anti-Proverb Cognitive Aspects
Anxiety College Humor
Aphorism Comedy
Appreciation of Humor Comedy Ensembles
Arabic Culture, Humor in Comedy of Manners. See Genres and Styles of
Aristophanes Comedy; High Comedy
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Comic Books
Arousal Theory (Berlyne) Comic Frame
Art and Visual Humor Comic Opera
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Comic Relief
Audience Comic Strips
Audiovisual Translation Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews
Comic World
Benign Violation Theory Commedia dell’Arte
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic Complexity
Biblical Humor Comprehension of Humor
Bisociation Computational Humor
Blackface. See Race, Representations of Confucianism
Blason Populaire Conservatism. See Personality, Humor and
Boccaccio, Giovanni Conversation
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor Cooperation, Principle of. See Maxim
Buddhism Coping Mechanism

vii
viii List of Entries

Coulrophobia HBQD. See Humor Styles Measurement

Creativity Health Benefits of Humor, Physical
Cross-Cultural Humor Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological
Crosstalk. See Xiangsheng; Xiangsheng, Heritability
History of High Comedy
Culture High-Context Humor
History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
Defense Mechanism History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
Depression History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Design History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Development of Humor China
Dialect Humor History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Disparagement. See Aggressive and Harmless Europe
Humor History of Humor: Modern Japan
Doggerel History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Education, Humor in History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
Epigram History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Ethnic Jokes Contemporary
Ethnicity and Humor Hoax and Prank
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor Hobbesian Theory
Exaggeration Homosexuality, Representation of
HSQ. See Humor Styles Measurement
Fabliau Huaji-ists, The
Factor Analysis of Humor Items Humor, Computer-Generated
Factor Analysis of Humor Scales Humor, Etymology of
Failed Humor Humor, Forms of
Farce Humor and Relational Maintenance
Feast of Fools Humor Content Versus Structure
Film. See Movies Humor Detection
Folklore Humor Generation. See Computational Humor
Fools Humor Group
Foolstowns Humor Markers
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Humor Mindset
Jestbooks Humor Production
Framing Theory Humor Styles
Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory Humor Styles Measurement
Humor Styles Questionnaire. See Humor Styles
Gag Measurement
Gallows Humor Humor Theories
Gelotophobia Humorist
Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck. See Humor
Gender Roles in Humor Styles Measurement
General Theory of Verbal Humor. See Linguistic Humorous Names
Theories of Humor Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of
Genres and Styles of Comedy
Goldoni, Carlo Identity
Graffiti Igbo Humor
Greek Visual Humor Improv Comedy
GTVH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor Incongruity and Resolution
 List of Entries ix

Insult and Invective Movie Humor Types

Intercultural Humor Movies
Internet Humor Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale.
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy See Factor Analysis of Humor Items
Irony Music
Islam Music Hall
Musical Comedy
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Jewish Humor National and Ethnic Differences
Joke Cycles Native American Cultures, Humor in. See
Jokes American Indian Cultures, Humor in
Joking Relationship Nonsense
Journalism
Judaism Obscenity
Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor. See
Linguistic Theories of Humor
Kyōgen
OSTH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor

Lampoon Paradox
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing Parody
Laughter, Psychology of Pastiche
Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of Pattern Recognition
Lazzi Pedagogy
Legal Education Personality, Humor and
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor Persuasion and Humor
Limericks Philogelos
Linguistic Theories of Humor Philosophy of Humor
Linguistics Phonological Jokes
Literature Pirandello, Luigi
Low Comedy Platonic Theory of Humor
Plautus
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S. Play and Humor
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the Poetry
United States Pointe
Management Politeness
Marriage and Couples Political Humor
Masks Positive Psychology
Mathematical Humor Postmodern Irony
Mathematics and Humor Practical Jokes
Maxim Prejudice, Humor and
Mechanisms of Humor Presidential Humor
Medieval Visual Humor Psychiatric Disorders
Menander Psychological Distance
Metaphor Psychology
Mime Psychotherapy, Humor in
Mirth Punch Line
Misdirection Puns
Mock Epic Puppets
Mockumentary
Molière Rabelais, François
Monty Python Race, Representations of
x List of Entries

Rakugo Southeast Asia, Cartooning in

Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Speech Play
Reception of Humor Spoofing
Reframing Spoonerism. See Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Puns
Relationships, Nonromantic Sports
Release Theories of Humor SSTH. See Linguistic Theories of Humor
Religion Stand-Up Comedy
Resolution. See Incongruity and Resolution Stereotypes
Reversal Theory Stress
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Subversive Humor
Riddle Supreme Court
Ritual Clowns Surprise. See Incongruity and Resolution
Rituals of Inversion
Rituals of Laughter Tall Tale
Roman Visual Humor Taoism
Romantic Comedy. See Comedy; Genres and Targets of Humor
Styles of Comedy; Tragicomedy Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in
Classroom on
Sanskrit Humor Teasing
Sarcasm. See Irony Test Measurements of Humor
Satire Testing and Evaluation
Satire News 3 WD Humor Test
Satyr Play Tickling
Scatology Tom Swifty
Schwank Tragicomedy
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor Translation
Screwball Comedy. See Movies Travesty
Script Opposition. See Linguistic Theories of Trickster
Humor
Script-Based Semantic Theory of Humor. See Urban Legends
Linguistic Theories of Humor Uses and Gratifications Theory
Second Language Acquisition
Semantic Script Theory of Humor. See Linguistic
Variety Shows
Theories of Humor
Vaudeville. See Comic Opera; Music Hall;
Semantics
Musical Comedy; Sketch Comedy Shows;
Senryū
Travesty; Variety Shows
Sense of Humor, Components of
Verbal Dueling
Sexuality
Verbal Humor
Shakespearean Comedy
Share
Sick Humor Wellerism
Simple Form Witz
Sitcoms Workplace Control
Sketch Comedy Shows Workplace Humor
Slapstick Workplace Productivity
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns Workplace Resistance
Social Interaction
Social Network Xeroxlore
Sociology Xiangsheng
South African Humor Xiangsheng, History of
South American Literature, Humor in Xiehouyu
Reader’s Guide

Anthropology, Folklore, and Ethnicity Greek Visual Humor

Animal-Related Humor Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Anthropology Menander
Anti-Proverb Mime
Blason Populaire Philogelos
Carnival and Festival Platonic Theory of Humor
College Humor Plautus
Dialect Humor Roman Visual Humor
Ethnic Jokes Sanskrit Humor
Ethnicity and Humor Satyr Play
Feast of Fools
Folklore Components of Humor
Fools Ambiguity
Foolstowns Bisociation
Hoax and Prank Cognitive Aspects
Insult and Invective Complexity
Jewish Humor Creativity
Joke Cycles Humor Content Versus Structure
Joking Relationship Humor Mindset
National and Ethnic Differences Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of
Philogelos Incongruity and Resolution
Practical Jokes Maxim
Race, Representations of Mechanisms of Humor
Rituals of Laughter Misdirection
Social Network Nonsense
Stereotypes Play and Humor
Targets of Humor Punch Line
Trickster Reframing
Urban Legends Sense of Humor, Components of
Verbal Dueling Targets of Humor
Xeroxlore
Culture
Antiquity Anthropology
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Carnival and Festival
Ancient Greek Comedy Cross-Cultural Humor
Ancient Roman Comedy Culture
Aristophanes Education, Humor in
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Fools
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Foolstowns

xi
xii Reader’s Guide

Gallows Humor Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese

High-Context Humor Jestbooks
Humorous Names Greek Visual Humor
Intercultural Humor History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China
Jewish Humor History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
Obscenity History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Puppets History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Race, Representations of China
Ritual Clowns History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Rituals of Inversion Europe
Scatology History of Humor: Modern Japan
Sick Humor History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
Sports History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Stereotypes History of Humor: Renaissance Europe
Verbal Dueling History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
Xiangsheng History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
Xiangsheng, History of Huaji-ists, The
Islam
Entertainment Industry Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Audience
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the
Audiovisual Translation
United States
Clowns
Masks
Comic Books
Medieval Visual Humor
Comic Frame
Menander
Comic Strips
Mock Epic
Internet Humor
Molière
Journalism
Philogelos
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Plautus
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the
Rabelais, François
United States
Sanskrit Humor
Mockumentary
Satire
Monty Python
Shakespearean Comedy
Movie Humor Types
Sitcoms
Movies
Sketch Comedy Shows
Music
Slapstick
Music Hall
Stand-Up Comedy
Puppets
Tall Tale
Satire News
Tragicomedy
Sitcoms
Travesty
Spoofing
Xiangsheng, History of

History
Ancient Egypt, Humor in Humor Theory
Arabic Culture, Humor in Aristotelian Theory of Humor
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor Arousal Theory (Berlyne)
Biblical Humor Benign Violation Theory
Buddhism Bergson’s Theory of the Comic
Christianity Bisociation
Confucianism Evolutionary Explanations of Humor
Fabliau Framing Theory
Feast of Fools Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory
 Reader’s Guide xiii

Hobbesian Theory Semantics

Humor, Forms of Speech Play
Humor Theories Teasing
Inversion, Topsy-Turvy Tom Swifty
Pattern Recognition Translation
Platonic Theory of Humor Verbal Humor
Release Theories of Humor Wellerism
Reversal Theory Witz
Simple Form Xiehouyu
3 WD Humor Test
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Literature and Major Literary Figures
Absurdist Humor
Linguistics Ancient Greek Comedy
Ambiguity Ancient Roman Comedy
Anti-Proverb Anecdote, Comic
Aphorism Aphorism
Audiovisual Translation Aristophanes
Computational Humor Boccaccio, Giovanni
Conversation Carnivalesque
Cross-Cultural Humor Cervantes, Miguel de
Culture Comedy
Dialect Humor Comic Relief
Epigram Commedia dell’Arte
Exaggeration Doggerel
Failed Humor Epigram
Gender Roles in Humor Exaggeration
Humor, Computer-Generated Fabliau
Humor, Etymology of Farce
Humor, Forms of Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese
Humor Markers Jestbooks
Humorist Genres and Styles of Comedy
Incongruity and Resolution Goldoni, Carlo
Irony High Comedy
Jokes Humorous Names
Joking Relationship Inversion, Topsy-Turvy
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters
Linguistic Theories of Humor Kyōgen
Linguistics Lampoon
Maxim Limericks
Mechanisms of Humor Literature
Metaphor Low Comedy
Misdirection Menander
Phonological Jokes Mime
Pointe Mock Epic
Politeness Molière
Punch Line Nonsense
Puns Parody
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Pastiche
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Pirandello, Luigi
Riddle Plautus
Second Language Acquisition Poetry
xiv Reader’s Guide

Postmodern Irony History of Humor: Modern Japan

Puns History of Humor: Premodern Japan
Rabelais, François Huaji-ists, The
Rakugo Islam
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices Kyōgen
Satire Rakugo
Satyr Play Senryū
Schwank Share
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
Senryū Taoism
Shakespearean Comedy Xiangsheng
Share Xiangsheng, History of
Simple Form Xiehouyu
South American Literature, Humor in
Tall Tale Europe
Tragicomedy Ancient Greek Comedy
Travesty Ancient Roman Comedy
Trickster Byzantine Humor
Witz Commedia dell’Arte
Fabliau
Greek Visual Humor
Mathematics, Computer Science,
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe
and the Internet
History of Humor: Medieval Europe
Computational Humor History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China Europe
Humor, Computer-Generated History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe
Internet Humor Lazzi
Mathematical Humor Medieval Visual Humor
Mathematics and Humor Pointe
Satyr Play
National, Ethnic, and Regional Humor Schwank
Witz
Africa
Akan Humor Middle East
Igbo Humor Ancient Egypt, Humor in
South African Humor Arabic Culture, Humor in
Assyrian and Babylonian Humor
Americas Byzantine Humor
American Indian Cultures, Humor in Islam
History of Humor: U.S. Frontier
History of Humor: U.S. Modern and Contemporary
South American Literature, Humor in Performing Arts
Ancient Greek Comedy
Asia Ancient Roman Comedy
Buddhism Burlesque
Confucianism Carnivalesque
E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China Clowns
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Comedy
Jestbooks Comedy Ensembles
History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China Comic Opera
History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary Commedia dell’Arte
China Farce
 Reader’s Guide xv

Gag Health Benefits of Humor, Physical

High Comedy Heritability
Improv Comedy Laugh, Laughter, Laughing
Lazzi Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of
Low Comedy
Masks Politics
Mime
Journalism
Music
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor
Music Hall
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Musical Comedy
Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United
Parody
States
Pastiche
Political Humor
Puppets
Presidential Humor
Satyr Play
Satire News
Shakespearean Comedy
Subversive Humor
Sketch Comedy Shows
Slapstick
Stand-Up Comedy Professions
Tragicomedy Business World
Travesty Advertisement
Variety Shows Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in
Design
Philosophy and Religion Management
Aesthetics Subversive Humor
Aphorism Workplace Control
Aristotelian Theory of Humor Workplace Humor
Bergson’s Theory of the Comic Workplace Productivity
Biblical Humor Workplace Resistance
Buddhism Xeroxlore
Christianity
Clergy Education
Comic Frame College Humor
Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews Education, Humor in
Comic World E’gao: Culture of Internet Spoofing in China
Confucianism Legal Education
Epigram Pedagogy
Feast of Fools Second Language Acquisition
Hobbesian Theory Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in
Islam Classroom on
Jewish Humor
Judaism Law
Paradox Legal Education
Philosophy of Humor Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor
Platonic Theory of Humor Supreme Court
Religion
Rituals of Laughter Psychology
Taoism Clinical and Counseling Psychology
Anxiety
Physiology and Biology Coulrophobia
Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor Depression
Evolutionary Explanations of Humor Gelotophobia
xvi Reader’s Guide

Psychiatric Disorders Mirth

Psychotherapy, Humor in Reversal Theory
Reframing Stress
Tickling
Cognition
Benign Violation Theory Neuropsychology
Cognitive Aspects Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor
Comprehension of Humor Comprehension of Humor
Humor Mindset Laughter, Psychology of

Developmental Psychology Personality and Social Psychology

Aging and Humor Aggressive and Harmless Humor
Children’s Humor and Giftedness Defense Mechanism
Children’s Humor Research Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theory
Children’s Humor Stages Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of
Development of Humor Personality, Humor and
Persuasion and Humor
General Psychology Prejudice, Humor and
Appreciation of Humor
Failed Humor Tests and Measurement
Humor Detection Factor Analysis of Humor Items
Humor Production Factor Analysis of Humor Scales
Humor Styles Humor Styles Measurement
Humorous Stimuli, Characteristics of Test Measurements of Humor
Identity Testing and Evaluation
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing 3 WD Humor Test
Pattern Recognition
Psychological Distance
Psychology Sociology
Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter Aggressive and Harmless Humor
Reception of Humor Carnivalesque
Release Theories of Humor Conversation
Sense of Humor, Components of Cross-Cultural Humor
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns Culture
Dialect Humor
Health Psychology Ethnic Jokes
Clowns in Medical Settings Ethnicity and Humor
Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews Failed Humor
Coping Mechanism Gallows Humor
Health Benefits of Humor, Physical Gender Roles in Humor
Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological High-Context Humor
Positive Psychology Homosexuality, Representation of
Humor Group
Interpersonal Relationships Identity
Humor and Relational Maintenance Insult and Invective
Marriage and Couples National and Ethnic Differences
Relationships, Nonromantic Obscenity
Sexuality Play and Humor
Presidential Humor
Motivation and Emotion Race, Representations of
Arousal Theory (Berlyne) Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter
Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor Reception of Humor
 Reader’s Guide xvii

Roman Visual Humor Caricature

Scatology Cartoons
Sick Humor Comic Books
Social Interaction Comic Strips
Social Network Design
Sociology Exaggeration
Stereotypes Graffiti
Targets of Humor Greek Visual Humor
Teasing Medieval Visual Humor
Roman Visual Humor
Visual Humor Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
Art and Visual Humor
Audiovisual Translation
 K
and preserved as national treasures in the second
KYŌGEN half of the 20th century. Whereas both are arts that
have been handed down within training schools
Of the extant comedy genres on the Japanese stage, whose members were men, in the second half of the
Kyōgen, which is written with characters mean- 20th century women were learning and performing
ing “mad words,” is generally considered the old- both arts.
est, although Manzai may be older. Kyōgen is the Until the 20th century, Kyōgen was more exclu-
humorous twin genre of the stately Nō and is per- sively an oral tradition than was Nō. Nō is in liter-
formed on the same stage, providing the comic relief ary Japanese, convoluted poetic language, chanted
between Nō plays. A full Nō program consists of
three Nō plays interspersed with two Kyōgen plays,
forming a full day’s performance. Such full-day per-
formances are no longer common. This entry dis-
cusses the elements of Kyōgen, its history, and types
of professional Kyōgen performance.
The word kyōgen was used by the monk Dōgen
in a pejorative sense in the 9th century and also by
Fujiwara Teika in his diary (1188 CE). It is believed
the term was first used about stage art during the
mid-14th century. Zeami, the theorist of Nō, used
it in his Shūdōsho (early 15th century), along with
the earlier name for Kyōgen (Okashi or Wokashi,
meaning “funny”).
Both the serious Nō and the humorous Kyōgen
derive from Sarugaku, a comedic mimic genre of
early times. Zeami and his father Kan’ami, talented
Nō actors, obtained the Shōgun’s patronage for their
art, so that Nō and Kyōgen became theater for the
upper classes and a Shōgunate drawing-room art.
During the Edo period, however, rich merchants This somewhat grotesque Kyōgen mask of Oto (a version
could also learn Nō singing, so it was by no means of the more popular character Okami) emphasizes one
an exclusively aristocratic or samurai pursuit. squinting and one staring eye to comic effect.
By the 20th century, Nō and Kyōgen had declined, Source: Far Eastern Collection, Victoria and Albert
but with government subvention they were revived Museum, London.

431
432 Kyōgen
at an exaggeratedly slow speed, often muffled by a
mask and so not comprehensible to the untrained
ear. Kyōgen scripts are close to the ordinary spoken
language of the Muromachi period (ca. 15th or 16th
century) and thus as comprehensible to native speak-
ers of Japanese as Elizabethan conversation might be
to native English speakers. For a Nō performance,
part of the audience may pore over the script, but it is
possible to sit back, relax, and enjoy a Kyōgen play.
Many Nō playwrights are known, and scripts
were probably written down before being per-
formed. Kyōgen playwrights are not known, and
scripts have very obviously developed as improvisa-
tions. Kyōgen actors are still taught orally, although
written scripts have existed since the publication of
Kyōgenki (Records of Kyōgen) in 1660.
Kyōgen mask of the character Buaku. The faintly comical
demon mask of Buaku is the Kyōgen version of the Nō
theater mask of Beshimi. Both the characterization and
stylized carving of this mask reflect the original prototype.
The mask is carved from a single piece of cypress, with
the features in high relief. The surface has been treated
with a layer of gofun that has been painted a deep flesh
color. The folds of flesh around the eyes, cheeks, brow,
and mouth have been accentuated by the creases painted
in a deep red color with additional highlights in black ink.
Black ink, applied in firm yet sensitive lines, has also been
used for the hair, eyebrows, mustache, and whiskers. The
eyeballs have had gold leaf applied, with the edges
emphasized by lines of ink accentuated by red painted
rims. This follows the Nō theater tradition of coloring the
eyes of a demon red and gold.
Source: Far Eastern Collection, Victoria and Albert
Museum, London.
Kyōgen is popularly identified with the stock
character Tarō Kaja, the wily servant who, with his
accomplice, Jirō Kaja, plays tricks on, cheats, and
cozens his master, the country gentleman. Tarō Kaja
is a name almost universally known in Japan, even to
people who have never seen Kyōgen, partly because
the trickster character is popular the world over and
partly because he and Jirō Kaja are the only Kyōgen
characters with names, almost all others being iden-
tified only by their roles, “The Daimyō” (Baron),
“The Son-in-Law,” “The Priest,” “The Woman,”
and so on.
Mime is highly developed in Kyōgen. The most
complex Kyōgen mime is probably in the play
Kirokuda, in which the lead actor is driving a
team of horses over a mountain pass in winter and
everything possible goes wrong. The actor rates
his performance on how many horses the audience
sees him driving. In professional Kyōgen, masks are
used occasionally for outlandish characters such as
demons, gods, foreigners, and women. They are
generally grotesque and tend to be rather jolly cari-
catures of Nō masks.
There are three types of professional Kyōgen
performance. The first—no doubt the oldest—is
Sambasō or Fùryū, the ceremonial, religious, auspi-
cious dance form related to the Okina of Nō.
The second type of play is the ai-Kyōgen, in which
the Kyōgen actor takes part in a Nō play (usually
between the two acts), telling the story of the play in
slightly simpler language. A much more complex form
of ai-Kyōgen occurs in the Nō play, Adachigahara,
in which some traveling Buddhist priests are given
shelter for the night by an old woman who goes out
to collect firewood, warning that they must not look
into her room. Being guests and gentleman, the priests
naturally comply, but the Kyōgen actor playing their
servant is under no such obligation. In an amusing
mime, he checks that the priests are asleep and tries to
creep out of the room. Twice he is caught and scolded,
but the third time he rolls out of the room and man-
ages to look into the old woman’s chamber. He is hor-
rified by what he sees there, as she is a demon and
her familiars are in the room. Returning to her true
form, she is subdued by the Buddhist priests’ prayers.
This is one of the few cases of comedy in the normally
unmixedly serious Nō.
The third kind of Kyōgen is the stand-alone
comic play that forms the comic relief between two
Nō plays. These plays are usually for two or three
actors, but there are a few for one actor and some
for ten actors or more. They may include song and

The Kyōgen mask of Ebisu, one of the Seven Gods of
Good Fortune. The features are extremely expressive,
with the smiling deity creasing his face in laughter. The
face is fuller than other examples of masks of this
character. The eyes are comma-shaped, with laugh lines
reaching toward the ears. The nose is full, with wide,
flaring nostrils. The mouth is fully open, revealing the
upper set of deeply carved teeth. The cheeks are full and
express the jolly nature of the god. The ears are long and
pendulous (although traditionally Ebisu is deaf). There are
two paper-covered textile pads fixed to the top interior
of the mask so that the eyeholes are angled downward.
This enabled the performer to see better and at the same
time make the mask more comfortable to wear. It is likely
that, with the mask in this unusual position, the performer
would be able to see through the noseholes rather than
through the eyeholes.
Source: Far Eastern Collection, Victoria and Albert
Museum, London.
dance, especially in drinking scenes, and song and
dance may be integral to the plot. The hilariously
funny Yobigoe (Calling Voices), for example, is a
play about a serf who has not been turning up for
compulsory work on his master’s farm. The master
and another serf believe he is feigning absence and
go to his house to trick him into revealing that he is
Kyōgen 433
there. They know he can never resist a rhythm, so
they sing and dance outside the house until, over-
come with the music, the serf unwittingly joins in
the song, dances out of the house, and is chased off
the stage by a master intent on revenge, leaving the
audience in stitches.
Plots like this are true farce-plots, designed to
indulge a moment’s comic rebellion against the
established way of things but then to safely restore
order. Kyōgen plays tend to be amusing rather than
hilarious, dealing as they do with family and house-
hold ructions, discombobulated priests, persistently
pestiferous owls, and dancing mushrooms.
Marguerite Wells
See also Comedy; Comedy Ensembles; Comic World;
Farce; Genres and Styles of Comedy; History of
Humor: Modern Japan; History of Humor:
Premodern Japan; Improv Comedy; Lazzi; Masks;
Mime; Rituals of Inversion; Slapstick; Stereotypes;
Targets of Humor
Further Readings
Brandon, J. R. (Ed.). (1997). Nō and Kyōgen in the
contemporary world. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press.
Brazell, K. (Ed.). (1998). Traditional Japanese theater: An
anthology of plays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Davis, J. M., & Wells, M. A. (2006). Kyōgen as comic
relief: Farce and satire in the Japanese classical theatre.
In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Understanding humor in Japan
(pp. 127–153). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University
Press.
Kenny, D. (1989). The Kyōgen book: An anthology of
Japanese classical comedies. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Kenny, D. (1999). A Kyōgen companion. Tokyo, Japan:
National Noh Theatre.
Koyama Hiroshi. (1961). Kyōgen shū. In Nihon Koten
Bungaku Taikei [Outline of classical Japanese literature]
(Vols. 42 & 43). Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten.
Morley, C. A. (1993). The mountain priest plays of Kyōgen:
Translations with commentary. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, East Asia Program.
Sasano Ken. (1943). Nō Kyōgen (3 vols.). Tokyo, Japan:
Iwanami Bunko, Iwanami Shoten.
 L
LAMPOON
Lampoon is a virulent attack on a person, institu-
tion, or society in prose, verse, or graphic carica-
ture. It is a sharp and funny (or not funny) satire
that is malicious and severe. The origin of lampoon
is from the French word lampon or lampons “let
us drink” and the verb lamper means “to booze,”
which suggests excess. The word is attested in 17th-
century French. However, it dates back to as early
as the 3rd century BCE when Aristophanes lam-
pooned Euripides in Frogs and Socrates in Clouds.
The form was popular in English literature during
the Restoration and the 18th century when writ-
ers such as John Dryden, John Wilkes, Alexander
Pope, and Samuel Butler lampooned particular
aspects of their times. One of the notable examples
of the form can be seen in the poem “Absalom
and Achitophel,” written by Dryden, who lam-
pooned Thomas Shadwell (here Og) with these lines
(Cuddon, 1999, p. 449):
Now stop your noses, Readers, all and some,
For here’s a tun of Midnight work to come,
Og from a Treason Tavern rowling home.
Round as a Globe and Liquored ev’ry chink,
Goodly and Great he Sayls behind his Link.
With all this Bulk there’s nothing lost in Og,
For ev’ry inch that is not Fool is Rogue:
A Monstrous mass of foul corrupted matter,
As all the Devils had spew’d to make the
batter.
435
When wine has given him courage to
Blaspheme,
He curses God, but God before curst him;
And if man cou’d have reason, none has more,
That made his Paunch so rich and him so poor.
Examples of lampoons appearing in 17th- and
18th-century English literature include Jonathan
Swift’s A Modest Proposal, which lampoons then-
influential William Petty; Francis Beaumont’s The
Knight of the Burning Pestle, lampooning the pre-
tensions of the middle class; and Samuel Butler’s
Hudibras, a long lampoon in which the Puritans
were likened to a hunchback monster and the
Commonwealth was satirized.
Apart from these, the lampoons of Alexander
Pope are also notable. His The Rape of the Lock lam-
poons 18th-century society as a whole, and Epistle
to Dr. Arbuthnot is a direct attack on John Hervey.
He also lampoons bad writers and their dull-witted
verses in The Dunciad. His An Essay on Man was
lampooned by John Wilkes’s An Essay on Woman.
The Harvard Lampoon
The Harvard Lampoon is a humor publication
founded by undergraduate students at Harvard
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1876.
Published since that date, it has become the lon-
gest continually published humor magazine. Apart
from its magazines, The Harvard Lampoon also
produces parodies of famous books (the J. R. R.
Tolkien parody Bored of the Rings is the best
436 Laugh, Laughter, Laughing
known book published by The Harvard Lampoon)
and national magazines.
The Harvard Lampoon’s success was more prom-
inent with the publication of Bored of the Rings
in 1969, and this success and attention led to the
publication of a new humor magazine: the National
Lampoon. The Harvard Lampoon also produced
some other books such as Nightlight, a parody of
Twilight in 2009, and The Hunger Pains, parody of
The Hunger Games in 2012. There are five issues
published by the Lampoon annually, and since 2006
it has been releasing the content of the magazines
on its website, which contains some pieces from the
magazine and web-only content.
National Lampoon
National Lampoon first appeared in print in 1970
as a spinoff from The Harvard Lampoon and was
published monthly through 1998. It became one
of the most important humor magazines in the
United States and had its heyday between 1971 and
1975 when it had a significant effect on American
humor. National Lampoon took the form of a fea-
ture magazine and it included articles and issued
parodies on cultural artifacts in the United States.
The magazine led to the development and produc-
tion of other print products, films, radio, and live
theater. What made National Lampoon successful
was its parodies, which formed the most important
part of the magazine. Issues of the magazine also
included texts, cartoons, and comic strips. At the
front of each magazine, an editor prepared his or
her page, which was always in the form of a par-
ody. The magazine lost its glory in the late 1980s
and never regained its old popularity again, and it
stopped publishing in 1998.
Metin Özdemir
See also Humor Group; Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
Further Readings
Cuddon, J. (1999). The Penguin dictionary of literary terms
and literary theory. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Karp, J. (2006). A futile and stupid gesture: How Doug
Kenney and National Lampoon changed comedy
forever. Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press.
Kuiper, K. (2012). Prose literary terms and concepts.
New York, NY: Britannica Educational Publishing.
Naughton, J., Snyders, T., & Rubin, S. (2004). National
Lampoon’s big book of true facts. New York, NY:
Rugged Land.
Rubin, S., Crespo, S., & Brown, M. (2004). National
Lampoon’s big book of love. New York, NY: Rugged
Land.
Simmons, M. (1994). If you don’t buy this book, we’ll kill
this dog! Life, laughs, love, and death at the National
Lampoon. New York, NY: Barricade Books.
Zwicker, S. (1998). The Cambridge companion to English
literature, 1650–1740. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Websites
The Harvard Lampoon: http://harvardlampoon.com
LAUGH, LAUGHTER, LAUGHING
Humor and laughter are often associated. They
occur together so often, in fact, that there is a natu-
ral tendency to regard them as manifestations of a
single phenomenon. Their association, however, is
far from complete. It is quite possible to experience
humor without laughing and, conversely, laughter
often occurs in situations that are devoid of humor.
Described here are the ways laughter is produced,
the ways different laughs can differ, the ways laugh-
ter can be superimposed on speaking, and relations
between laughter, smiling, and breathing. Attention
is then given to the question of why people laugh,
both in the presence of humor and in its absence.
There is mention of the role of laughter during con-
versations. Finally there is the question of whether
nonhuman animals also laugh.
How Laughter Is Produced
Laughter consists of sudden, spasmodic expulsions
of air from the lungs, typically with greater force
than is found during normal breathing or speaking.
These exhalation pulses are usually followed by a
single, more prolonged inhalation that replenishes
the lost air. The sound wave shown in Figure 1
illustrates 12 exhalation pulses followed by a single
inhalation.
These laugh pulses pass from the lungs into the
larynx, where in many cases they set the vocal folds
to vibrating, producing a buzzing sound known as
voicing. In speech, voicing distinguishes, for exam-
ple, a Z (voiced) from an S (voiceless). Voiced laugh
pulses are more audible than voiceless pulses, com-
municating laughter more effectively to others. The
vocal folds can vibrate at a wide range of different

exhalation pulses inhalation
Figure 1 Basic Components of a Laugh
Source: Wallace Chafe.
frequencies, allowing sequences of laugh pulses to
show rising or falling pitch contours. The pulses
shown in this illustration began at a frequency of
516 hertz and descended to 157 hertz, but rising fre-
quencies are also observed. Laugh pulses pass from
the larynx into the mouth, where their sound is fur-
ther modified by configurations of the tongue and
lips. The tongue most often occupies a relaxed posi-
tion and most laugh pulses resemble the sound of
the first vowel in a casual pronunciation of potato.
Sounds like “ho ho ho” or “hee hee hee” are not
typical.
Varieties of Laughter
Laugh pulses vary in number, timing, and intensity.
The number of pulses can vary from one to many,
although there are seldom more than about a dozen.
Laughs show a typical rate of slightly under five
pulses per second, but sometimes there is an accel-
eration or deceleration. Although the pulses are
typically voiced, voiceless laughs are by no means
rare. Some laughs are produced in the falsetto range.
A particularly distinctive sound is produced by
laugh pulses during which air is inhaled rather than
exhaled. Most laughs allow the expelled air to pass
relatively freely through the mouth, but sometimes
the lips are closed so that air can pass only through
the nose, resulting in a laugh with an M-like sound.
Some people exhibit their own distinctive laugh pat-
terns that others can easily identify.
Laughing While Speaking
People often laugh while they are speaking.
Because speaking and laughing both begin with
air from the lungs that passes through the larynx
and exits through the mouth, these two compet-
ing uses of the same vocal channel must be com-
bined in some way. Sometimes the two activities
are separated, with segments of speech alternat-
ing with bursts of laughter. Sometimes speech is
Laugh, Laughter, Laughing 437
superimposed on the laugh pulses, either with one
spoken syllable per pulse or with a more complex
intermingling of the two. Particularly interesting
is the introduction of tremolo: rapid oscillations
imposed on a single exhalation to yield a machine-
gun-like sound. Tremolo is relatively common when
laughter is superimposed on speaking, but it has not
been observed elsewhere.
Laughter and Breathing
Laughter forcefully removes air from the lungs,
but the lost air is replenished by the subsequent
inhalation. This interference with normal breath-
ing affects the cardiovascular system, elevating the
heart rate to a degree roughly proportional to the
duration and intensity of the laugh. Nevertheless,
although both speaking and laughing interfere with
breathing, neither produces a drop in blood-oxygen
level, suggesting that the human body has evolved
to retain stability in spite of the respiratory distur-
bances produced by speech and laughter.
Laughter and Smiling
It is difficult to laugh naturally without smiling at
the same time. Smiling expresses the euphoria asso-
ciated with humor and communicates that feeling to
others, establishing an attitude of friendliness. If the
feeling fails to rise to the level of audible laughter,
smiling may be its only observable manifestation.
Why We Laugh
The physical properties of laughter sketched in the
previous section are relatively easy to record and
measure, but the question of why people behave in
this special way remains open to varied speculations.
The question is closely related to speculations on the
nature of humor, but the laughter-humor relation
cannot provide a complete answer because laughter
also occurs without humor. The search must thus
extend to factors underlying laughter that are shared
with both humor and nonhumor.
One suggestion, put forward by Jo-Anne
Bachorowski and her colleagues, is that a laugh aims
at eliciting some sort of emotional response in those
who hear it. The special sound of laughter captures
the attention of listeners while simultaneously it
arouses an emotion. Variations in the sound of laugh-
ter signal the gender and other identifying features of
the laughter but are correlated as well with the social
context of the laugh. One study found a positive
emotional response to voiced laughs but a negative
438 Laugh, Laughter, Laughing
response to voiceless laughs. It was suggested that
laughers use the variable acoustic features of their
laughs to shape the particular emotional responses
they want their listeners to experience.
The studies just mentioned were conducted in a
laboratory environment, but another investigator,
Robert Provine, recorded over a thousand instances
of spontaneous laughter in shopping malls and a
university student union. He noted the gender of the
person who was speaking prior to the laugh and the
gender of the listener, and whether it was the speaker
or the listener who laughed. He also noted what the
speaker said to elicit the laugh. In a separate study,
he approached people with a recorder in hand, told
them he was studying laughter, and simply asked
them to laugh, a request he found would usually
elicit genuine laughter.
Provine discovered that speakers laughed more
often than listeners did, showing that laughter
is not just a reaction to things said by others but
more often an accompaniment to one’s own speech.
He also found women laughing more often than
men, whereas men did more to provoke laughter.
He found, too, that laughter occurred more often
in social situations than in solitary environments.
Significantly, he found that things said just prior to a
laugh were often not humorous. He concluded that
laughter functions to solidify friendships and bring
people together. He went further to speculate on the
place of laughter in human evolution, noting that
the evolution of bipedality gave humans (as com-
pared with chimpanzees, for example) a freedom
of breath control that set the stage for both speech
and laughter. He saw tickling, impossible to inflict
on oneself, as an ancient stimulus for laughter that
discriminated the self from the nonself in a manner
distinctive to humans.
Wallace Chafe has suggested that laughter is
the expression of an emotion he called the feeling
of nonseriousness. Much of what we experience in
daily life can be added to what we know of the real
world, but when we recognize that an experience
cannot be accepted in a serious way, it elicits the feel-
ing in question. This feeling acts as a safety valve that
keeps us from taking seriously experiences for which
seriousness would be counterproductive. We are
hindered from responding physically by spasmodic
expulsions of air from our lungs that interfere with
breathing and make it difficult to perform physical
tasks. (Try doing pushups while laughing.) At the
same time, we are psychologically distracted from
serious thought by an accompanying euphoria. We
are thus momentarily incapable of either doing seri-
ous things or thinking serious thoughts. Chafe saw
humor as nothing more than a collection of ways
that have been invented to elicit this feeling because
of its highly pleasurable nature.
Laughing Without Humor
The feeling of nonseriousness also serves usefully
to mitigate unpleasantness, as can be observed in
the many instances where laughter occurs without
humor. In fact, this feeling could not have evolved as
a response to humor if it were not already in place
as a response to experiences of other kinds. Chafe
found a variety of nonhumorous experiences eliciting
laughter, including the use of profanity, talk of some-
thing disgusting or depressing, uncertainty about
a choice of words, interrupting another person’s
talk, self-deprecation, regret, bereavement, embar-
rassment, criticism, and talking of subjects that are
abnormal, anomalous, surprising, or awkward.
Other Triggers for Laughter
Is laughter sometimes elicited by experiences
other than the feeling of nonseriousness? There is
of course nitrous oxide, the so-called laughing gas,
and there is a pathological event known as a gelastic
seizure, an uncontrollable and unmotivated burst of
laughter. More commonly experienced, however, is
tickling, during which laughter is elicited by some-
one stroking a sensitive area of someone else’s body.
The laughter mitigates what would otherwise be
an unpleasant attack on one’s body that one would
seek to avoid.
Laughter in Conversations
While much depends on the people involved and the
topic under discussion, laughter can be a frequent
element of ordinary conversations. As an overt and
contagious response to conversational joking, pun-
ning, sarcasm, or irony, laughter can heighten the
social functioning of a nonserious attitude. Laughter
contributes to conversations as an overt manifesta-
tion of the feeling of nonseriousness, whether it is
triggered by humor or by experiences whose dis-
agreeableness or abnormality it serves to mitigate.
The ability to manipulate that feeling in conversa-
tional interaction appears to be a frequently mani-
fested human trait.

Do Other Animals Laugh?
The question of whether laughter is restricted to
humans or whether other animals also laugh is con-
troversial. It is true that chimpanzees and other pri-
mates emit a panting sound that sounds a bit like
laughing. However, each noisy exhalation is imme-
diately followed by an equally noisy inhalation, a
pattern quite different from the sequence of exhala-
tions followed by a single inhalation that is charac-
teristic of human laughter.
Jaak Panksepp and Jeff Burgdorf discovered that
stroking rats in sensitive areas caused them to emit
a chirping sound well above the range of human
hearing. The rats evidently enjoyed the experience,
and their chirping communicated their pleasure to
other rats. There is a temptation to equate this expe-
rience with human tickling. The chirping, however,
is physiologically unlike human laughter, and the
rats appeared to enjoy the stroking with none of the
unpleasantness associated with tickling, thus leaving
room for doubt that rats actually laugh in the same
way or for the same reasons that humans do.
Wallace Chafe
See also Laughter, Psychology of; Laughter and Smiling,
Physiology of; Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter;
Reception of Humor; Rituals of Laughter; Tickling
Further Readings
Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J., & Owren, M. J. (2001).
The acoustic features of human laughter. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1581–1597.
Chafe, W. (2007). The importance of not being earnest:
The feeling behind laughter and humor. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Norrick, N. R. (2009). Conversational joking: Humor in
everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: A scientific investigation.
New York, NY: Viking.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of
laughter. In A. W. Kaszniak (Ed.), Emotion, qualia, and
consciousness (pp. 426–443). Tokyo, Japan: World
Scientific.
LAUGHTER, PSYCHOLOGY OF
Laughter is a human universal, a vocal signal so
closely linked to humor that the two are considered
Laughter, Psychology of 439
almost interchangeable. However, although often
triggered by mirth, laughter also occurs in a variety
of other circumstances, and it is increasingly inves-
tigated in its own right. This entry reviews resulting
findings, focusing on laughter biology, acoustics,
and function. It concludes that these sounds have
likely long been central in human social communi-
cation.
Laughter Biology
Several kinds of evidence show that laughter has deep
biological roots, including that humankind’s closest
relatives, the great apes, all make positively toned
calls during tickling and play. Although different-
sounding than human laughter, tickle-induced vocal-
izations in young chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas,
and orangutans are acoustically related both across
these species and to human versions. The acoustic
similarities and differences involved indicate a com-
mon origin in an ape ancestor living 12 million to
16 million years ago. Laughter production is further-
more innate—not only in these apes, but in humans
as well. Human infants begin to laugh just a few
months after birth, even in cases of congenital deaf-
ness. While never experiencing the sounds directly,
deaf individuals laugh throughout their lives, making
the same sounds as hearing laughers.
The brain circuitry involved has been revealed by
pathological laughter, a syndrome that can include
uncontrollable fits of genuine-sounding but emo-
tionless laughter occurring entirely “on its own.”
Taken together, the various findings show that
human laughter has two biologically distinguishable
forms. One is emotion triggered and spontaneous,
involving subcortical, limbic circuits that humans
share with apes and other mammals. The other is
cortically controlled, volitional laughter that vocal-
izers learn to produce and that simulates spontane-
ous versions. Volitional laughter is used in many
social situations, such as when laughing politely at
unfunny jokes or being purposefully friendly. This
form is uniquely human and can be difficult to dis-
tinguish from emotion-triggered sounds.
The Sounds of Laughter
Studies of laughter acoustics reveal differences from
typical conceptions. For example, although often
described as “hah-hah-hah,” “hee-hee-hee,” or per-
haps “hoo-hoo-hoo” sounds, spontaneous laugh-
ter rarely includes these vowel qualities. Instead,
440 Laughter, Psychology of
neutral “uh” sounds are the most frequent, pro-
duced without the tongue movement needed to cre-
ate more distinct vowels. These individual bursts
are about 100 milliseconds long and grouped into
bouts. Yet laughter sounds are also quite variable
(see Figure 1). Some bursts involve regular vocal fold
vibration, or voicing, whereas others are breathy and
based on noisy, unvoiced airflow. Laughter can also
commonly include wheezy, laryngeal whistles and
click-like pulses. Each can be made either with the
mouth open or closed, in the latter case shifting air-
flow through the nose to create muted or snort-like
sounds. When the mouth is open, some bursts show
an “h”-like onset, whereas others do not. Marked
variation is also evident in features such as the num-
ber of bursts per bout and pitch and amplitude pat-
terning. Although every laugher can thus produce
a diversity of sounds, some researchers nonetheless
propose that each also probably has an individually
distinctive, “signature” version.
Laughter Function
Historically, laughter has been considered to pro-
vide tension release and health benefits. The latter
Figure 1 Spectrogram of Spontaneous Male Laughter,
Illustrating Sound Types and Acoustic
Variability Typifying Spontaneous Laughter
Source: Michael J. Owren.
Notes: Spectrographic representation shows the distribution
of sound energy over frequency (vertical axis) and time
(horizontal axis) with amount of energy occurring at any
point shown by the darkness of shading (produced with a
22.05-kHz sampling rate and 0.03-sec., Gaussian analysis
window). The laughter bout is preceded by a noisy,
preparatory inhalation, followed by a similarly noisy,
unvoiced burst (unv), several vowel-like voiced bursts (voi),
three click-like pulses (clk), three more unvoiced bursts, and
two final clicks.
idea became particularly popular following Norman
Cousins’s 1979 account of using humor and laugh-
ter to combat a debilitating illness. However,
subsequent scientific studies have not shown a
convincing effect of laughing on health. Although
found to increase pain tolerance, human laughter is
unlikely to have evolved to its present form for that
reason.
Laughter more likely concerns communication
occurring in a wide range of social settings but rarely
in solitary individuals. In that vein, it is often consid-
ered language-like, with distinctive sounding vari-
ants that “stand for” and convey different nuances
of vocalizer emotion. These states may be positive
(e.g., joy, mirth, contentedness, sexual attraction),
negative (e.g., nervousness, embarrassment, fear, dis-
dain), or not so clear-cut (e.g., self-deprecation, sub-
servience, surprise). Unfortunately, this argument is
hard to test, if only because it is very difficult to get
samples of truly spontaneous laughter from vocal-
izers known to be experiencing various emotions. In
addition, given that mirth alone is associated with a
wide variety of laughter sounds, it may not be the
case that different emotions and contexts can each
trigger specific and unique laugh types.
An alternative explanation is that laughter did
not evolve to stand for vocalizer states but rather
as a means of inducing positive emotion and liking
in listeners. For example, spontaneous laughter is
known to be “contagious,” triggering smiling and
laughter in others. It is also widely considered to
a key ingredient in social bonding. Although trig-
gered by diverse states and circumstances, laughter
is nonetheless likely most common in positive situ-
ations. If so, individuals interacting repeatedly with
companions they like and enjoy can be expected to
form associations between the laughter being heard
from these friends and their own positive emotions
at the time.
Laughter thereby becomes a vehicle for foster-
ing and maintaining social relationships, while also
allowing vocalizers facing more challenging circum-
stances to potentially use these sounds to induce
positive responses, liking, and goodwill in others.
Such situations would include facing the kinds of
circumstances that cause embarrassment, nervous-
ness, or outright fear, or simply being in a subservi-
ent social role. Inducing positive emotion in listeners
under such conditions can encourage supportive
action from a companion or favorable treatment
by a superior. This interpretation is consistent with
laughter evolving to become more broadly used in

humans than in apes, as well as becoming more
regularly voiced. Voicing is known to increase vocal
distinctiveness, thereby creating an effective vehicle
of potential associative learning.
Therein, too, may lie the close connection
between spontaneous laughter and the capacity for
humor. If the adaptive value of spontaneous laugh-
ter lies in its power to induce positive emotion and
liking in others, the goal of the humorist is much
the same. Success for the latter is shown by an audi-
ence’s genuine, positive laughter, with this ancient
vocal system arguably setting the evolutionary stage
for eventual emergence of humor as a deliberate and
powerful strategy of creating enjoyment and encour-
aging social bonding.
Michael J. Owren
See also Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor;
Gelotophobia; Health Benefits of Humor, Physical;
Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological; Laughter
and Smiling, Physiology of; Mirth; Smiling and
Laughter: Expressive Patterns
Further Readings
Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and
functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach.
Quarterly Journal of Theoretical Biology, 80, 395–430.
Owren, M. J., & Amoss, R. T. (in press). Spontaneous
human laughter. In M. Tugade, M. Shiota, & L. Kirby
(Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: A scientific investigation.
New York, NY: Viking.
Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., Grodd, W., & Ruch, W. (2003).
Neural correlates of laughter and humour. Brain, 126,
2121–2138.
LAUGHTER AND SMILING,
PHYSIOLOGY OF
Smiling and laughter are affective displays. This
means they are transitory and most often triggered
by some kind of stimulus related to interpersonal
communication. In this way acute physiological
changes induced by smiling and laughter differ from
more enduring bodily effects of sense of humor.
A distinction is made between assumptions about
physiological processes based on direct observations
of expressive behavior and measurements of covert
Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of 441
musculoskeletal, respiratory, autonomic, and immu-
nologic, as well as brain, processes related to mirth-
ful laughter.
Inferences Based on Expressive Displays
The pioneering French physiologist Guillaume
Duchenne was a contemporary of Charles Darwin
and provided him with ideas about facial muscles
involved in smiling and other affective displays,
as reported in one of Darwin’s classic works, The
Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,
published in 1872. Thus, chapter 8, titled “Joy, High
Spirits, Love, Tender Feelings, Devotion,” described
affective states that could elicit a genuine smile, and
criteria were given for the distinction of what later
became known as the Duchenne smile. The distinc-
tion between a false and genuine expression of joy
is due primarily to the contraction of the orbicular
muscles (pars lateralis) of the lower eyelids not being
sufficiently contracted in the former. Marked con-
traction is accompanied by the drawing of the upper
lip caused by contraction of the great zygomatic
muscle of the chin. In pronounced laughter, the cor-
rugator muscle between the eyebrows also will be
contracted, causing slightly lowered eyebrows and
wrinkles to appear between them.
A somewhat paradoxical effect on tear secretion
was noted already by Darwin, who pointed out
the secretion of tears both during intense laughter
and bitter crying. The secretion of tears is due to
activation of the parasympathetic branch of the
autonomic nervous system that generally triggers
during anabolic (energy-preserving) processes. These
autonomic changes, therefore, may not be specific
to smiling and mirthful laughter. However, there
appears to be a continuum of intensity in these
physiological changes from the mild to the broad
smile and, further, to the gentle laugh and, finally,
to excessive laughter. The most obvious difference is
that in smiling, no reiterated sound is uttered.
Assumptions of profound respiratory changes
are also based on direct observations of smiling and
laughter. A prolonged expiratory movement in smil-
ing was pointed out by Darwin, and this movement
increases with the more intense smiling with no
vocal expression even in the intense smile. Laughter,
in contrast, is produced by rhythmic oscillation of
the diaphragm and the intercostal muscles attached
to the ribs in combination with the tensing of the
glottis muscles that compose the vocal apparatus of
the larynx.
442 Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of
Covert Physiological Changes
During Smiling and Laughter
The assumptions about which facial muscles are
involved in smiling and laughter have been con-
firmed by electromyographic laboratory studies with
the use of surface electrodes sensitive to the electric
nerve stimulation to contract specific muscles under
the surface of the skin.
Respiratory and Cardiovascular Systems
Respiratory movements have been recorded dur-
ing smiling and laughter by instruments that are
sensitive to changes in trunk circumference due to
contractions of the diaphragm (abdominal) and
intercostal (chest) muscles. Illustrations of such
changes in mirthful laughter can be found in sev-
eral scientific reports. The expiratory movement
in smiling and laughter has been confirmed, and
operational criteria to distinguish between smiling
and laughter have been defined. The occurrence
of oscillatory trunk muscle movements at the end
of the expiratory phase is the criterion that distin-
guishes laughter from smiling even when there may
be suppression of audible laughter. The magnitude
and number of these trunk circumference changes
can be calculated precisely with current technol-
ogy. Some studies have tested the curative effect of
forced laughter on various chronic lung diseases,
under the assumption that forced laughter might
improve alveolar membrane gas (oxygen, carbon
dioxide) transport, but the results so far have not
been encouraging.
The cardiovascular system is immediately and
transitorily activated in all kinds of affective dis-
plays. The magnitude of activation during smiling
and laughter has proven to be intimately associated
with the magnitude and duration of respiratory
changes. These cardiorespiratory interactions were
illustrated in a 1987 study by Sven Svebak. Evidence
was provided for heart rate to increase substantially
and immediately at the onset of mirthful laughter.
These increases could be more than 50 beats per
minute over the few seconds of laughter duration.
Deactivation followed immediately afterward, often
ending at heart rates below that of the onset. In this
way, laughter appears to trigger a sympathetic (cata-
bolic) activation of the cardiac muscle, with a simul-
taneous hemodynamic increase of systolic blood
pressure, and a marked vagal rebound of deactiva-
tion typically follows at the end of vigorous laughter.
The vagal nerve is the most important autonomic
nerve involved in anabolic processes.
Immune System
Speculations have flourished about effects of
smiling and laughter on the immune system. One
area of research that has attracted research funding
is the effect of mirthful laughter, which activates the
sympathetic nervous system. Exposure to stressors
can cause immediate changes in the immune system,
such as an increase of CD8+ T-cells and an increase
in the number and toxicity of natural killer cells. In
addition, one may infer from the oscillatory move-
ments of the trunk during laughter that lymphatic
circulation is increased. In contrast to the cardiovas-
cular system, the lymphatic vascular system has no
pump to ensure circulation and, instead, is depen-
dent on pressure changes due to all kinds of physical
activity, including mirthful laughter. Some of these
studies addressed the moderating effect of sense of
humor on the relation between exposure to stressors
as well as the effect of comedy on people with a high
versus low sense of humor. Results from these few
studies have been somewhat encouraging although
equivocal, as pointed out by Rod Martin. So far, it
may be justified to conclude that studies of effects of
a friendly sense of humor on bodily health, includ-
ing longevity, have provided stronger support than
those studying the transitory effects of smiling and
laughter.
Brain Processes
Several studies have supported that more left
frontal brain activation is present during the increas-
ingly intense experience of positive emotions and
that right frontal activation is present in the expe-
rience of negative emotions. These asymmetrical
patterns have been observed during exposure to
positive versus negative film clips, respectively. Also,
greater relative left frontal baseline activation has
predicted more positive affect in response to films
eliciting positive affect, whereas the opposite base-
line activation has predicted more negative affect to
films eliciting negative affect. These brain differences
in affective bias relate to a broad distinction between
positive versus negative affect.
One example of positive affect is expressed in
the Duchenne (genuine) smile. It is likely that less
than half of the population can voluntarily produce
the contractions involved in a Duchenne smile. It

appears to activate the left frontal and anterior tem-
poral lobes, relative to activation in these areas of
the right hemisphere. These responses may be acti-
vated also when voluntarily making the Duchenne
smile and have given support to the idea of “grin
and bear it” as an antidote to adversity. There is
some evidence that heart rate decreases more in sub-
jects instructed to smile, and in particular for those
with Duchenne smiles, when performing stressful
tasks, and after recovery from the stressful activities.
More research is needed to explore the health effects
of these ways of coping. Affective display typically
is transitory and may have trivial effects on physical
health in the long run, whereas the processing of a
friendly sense of humor is a more enduring approach
to everyday life and may be of greater importance to
physical health.
Studies of brain processes following exposure to
jokes have revealed consistent increase of P300 (an
event-related potential component, which refers to
the measured brain response as a result of atten-
tion allocated to the processing of a specific event)
following the punch line, disregarding level of fun-
niness, thus suggesting increase of nonspecific atten-
tion. However, immediately following the P300
positivity, a negative wave has been reported with
higher amplitude in response to the funnier jokes.
One series of experiments addressed hemispheric
asymmetry during appreciation of humor. Results
suggested that the right hemisphere is better coor-
dinated with activity of the left following humor
appreciation. This effect appears to be a result of the
cognitive processing of humor rather than respira-
tory changes during laughter.
Magnetic resonance and other studies of brain
activity during affective display have provided sup-
port to the idea that certain brain areas are more
likely than others to be activated. These areas
are known to be active during the organization
of affective displays in general, and they include
the left hemisphere basal ganglia, right hemisphere
putamen, the insular cortex, thalamus, lower
occipital gyri, and the cauda nuclei. The cognitive
processes and the related organization of affective
responses in humor appreciation are so complex
that they are not confined to only a few areas of
the brain.
Some types of brain damage can have serious
effects on the ability to appreciate humor. Epilepsy
of the temporal lobes has been associated with
reduced sexual drive, increase of social aggression,
Lazzi 443
extremism, and no sense of humor. Seizures or stroke
in the temporobasal regions may be accompanied
by mirthful gelastic seizures (facial expressions that
mimic mirth). Another type of brain damage is due
to infarction of the upper section of the corticospi-
nal tract. Moderate cases of such thrombosis may
result in pseudobulbar paresis and related dysphagia
as well as the loss of a volitional affective control.
Some of these patients may display unmotivated
crying as well as fits of laughter. This concludes the
review of covert physiological changes associated
with laughter and smiling. Together with the overt,
expressive displays reviewed in the first part of the
entry, they constitute the physiological correlates of
laughter and smiling.
Sven Svebak
See also Laugh, Laughter, Laughing; Laughter,
Psychology of; Smiling and Laughter: Expressive
Patterns
Further Readings
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (1993). Voluntary smiling
changes regional brain activity. Psychological Science, 4,
342–345.
Kraft, T. L., & Pressman, S. D. (2012). Grin and bear it:
The influence of manipulated facial expression on the
stress response. Psychological Science, 23, 1372–1378.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. New York, NY: Elsevier Academic
Press.
Svebak, S. (1982). The effect of mirthfulness upon amount
of discordant right-left occipital EEG alpha. Motivation
and Emotion, 6, 133–147.
Svebak, S. (1987). Humor og helse: Et perspektiv på
mestring av stress [Humor and health: A perspective on
coping with stress]. Tidsskrift for Norsk
Psykologforening, 24, 355–361.
Svebak, S., Romundstad, S., & Holmen, J. (2010). A seven-
year prospective study of sense of humor and mortality
in an adult county population: The HUNT-2 study.
International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 40,
125–146.
LAZZI
Of debatable origin, the words lazzi (plural) and
lazzo (singular) define the transferable comic rou-
tines inserted into commedia dell’arte plots and are
444 Lazzi
now also used to refer to any actor’s stage “business”
teased out of a plot. Lazzo is generally accepted as
deriving from l’azzo or l’azione, meaning “action”
or activity on stage, although some authorities also
apply it to verbal pyrotechnics, “a jest, a witticism,
or a metaphor, in words or actions” (Perrucci,
1699/2008, p. 192).
Through numerous historical records, the titles of
many hundred commedia lazzi are known, although
only about 250 have any descriptive details. The
records cover situations, scenarios, and sketchy
plots, but without dialogue, although clearly in
performance, text was improvised around most of
them. The arte (guild or profession) in commedia
dell’arte is often interpreted as “craft” or “skill” and
associated with “the craft of improvisation” (its full
name in 16th-century Italy was commedia dell’arte
all improvviso). Although commedia text was devel-
oped through improvisation, debate remains on
what percentage was invented during performance;
the requirements of lazzi suggest a great deal of
familiarity with both plot and key sentences.
Commedia’s lazzi are invariably comic, their
purpose being to divert and entertain, even amaze
with physical skill. They often used topical satire to
appeal to the widest audience; their comic scenarios
involved familiar situations, usually ones in the
public eye, and involved easily recognizable char-
acter traits. Many echo long-established elements
of Roman comedies, for example, Plautine satire
of types, class/status, and cunning survival skills,
together with laughable human qualities such as
greed, envy, and weakness in the face of temptation.
Such elements have been numerously identified in
Shakespeare’s plays and in the plays of many others.
Traditional lazzi situations require considerable
physicality and depend on acrobatic skills, using
symbolic or exaggerated props such as the huge
enema-syringe illustrated in Pierre Louis Duchartre’s
The Italian Comedy (1924/1966, p. 336) from the
Corsini manuscript of 1610. Often elaborate and
involving several performers, most lazzi would
have been learned by all (usually 10) members of
the company. As in any comic routine, spontaneity
prevails in improvising amusement, although with
pre-agreed cues, both verbal and physical, signaling
start, transition, or end of the lazzo. One can pre-
sume that as long as an audience’s laughter contin-
ued, the lazzo was further explored.
There is no complete list of lazzi from comme-
dia’s most popular period, 1550–1750, although
some 300 to 400 appear to have been commonly
used, and the same lazzi titles are often found in
records of various companies. Mel Gordon (1983)
categorized 250 traditional lazzi under 12 headings
(12 to 19 in each): Acrobatic and Mimic Lazzi (e.g.
Lazzi of the Ladder, of the Statue); Comic Violence/
Sadistic Behavior (floggings, beatings, tooth extrac-
tion, circumcision); Food Lazzi (from the famous
“fly eating” of the stock characters Arlecchino and
Truffaldino, to complete feasts, as in Carlo Goldoni’s
later plays); Stage Properties (where action neces-
sitates specific props); Sexual/Scatological (Lazzi
of the Enema, chamber pots, “erecting” swords);
Social/Class Rebellion (for plots that commonly
delighted audiences by taking the side of the under-
dog); Stupidity/Inappropriate Behavior (ignorance,
memory lapses); Transformation (essentially major
changes of character brought about by a new and
often contradictory emotion, mocking the inconsis-
tency of human nature); Word Play (puns, dialects,
malapropisms, insults); Trickery (basic to all lazzi,
but here Gordon groups the more elaborate decep-
tions); Illogical Lazzi (where the comedy departs
totally from plot and arises from absurdities and
pure silliness). There is another category that illu-
minates the actor-audience relationship, as many
lazzi played with the double reality of stage and life:
breaking illusions, objectifying character/actions,
and developing comedy through topical interchange
with audience members.
The actor Domenico Biancolelli (1636–1686)
recorded his own mimed lazzi for playing Arlecchino/
Harlequin in the late 17th century:
I arrive on the stage; there I find Trivelin [a famous
clown] stretched on the ground. I think him dead
and try to drag him to his feet; then I let my wooden
sword fall down. He takes it and hits me on the
buttocks. I turn round without speaking, and he
gives me a kick on the back so that I tumble down.
Up I get again; I seize and carry him; I lean him
against the wings on the right-side of the stage. I
look round at the footlights, and meanwhile he gets
up and leans against the left-hand side-wings. This
Lazzi is repeated two or three times. (Nicholls, 1931,
p. 221)
Arlecchino’s wooden sword or stick (batocio or
batocchio) developed the ability to produce a loud
slapping noise, and its frequent use gave the name
slapstick to cartoon-like exaggerated violence and
thus to an entire comic genre as used by Charlie
Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Keystone Cops, and
others.

A close non-Western relative to lazzi stock situa-
tions, routines, and characters is found in the Kyōgen
plays of Japanese Nō theater, similarly exploiting
physical and verbal tropes of status (servant-master),
basic needs (food, warmth, sex), and frailties (temp-
tation, greed, ambition) combined with farce plots.
Chinese Xiqu (Chinese “opera”) also allows its
clown characters considerable improvised liber-
ties, usually in physical comedy. In Southern and
Southeast Asia, narrative episodes in popular theater
are constantly interrupted with comic lazzi (e.g.,
in Yakshagana, the musical theater of Karnataka,
India, a long, wordless, comic sequence of Sita, the
wife of the god-like Rama, dressing while feeling that
she is being watched by her “invisible” husband—
much to the audience’s delight). Although both of
the ancient Sanskrit play cycles, Ramayana and
Mahabharata, lack a definitive form, they consist of
variants that are embroidered anew in every perfor-
mance, sometimes according to preplanned needs of
sponsors and drawing on lazzi-like stock routines.
Spontaneous comedy, elaborating something purely
for the audience’s enjoyment, seems to be a shared
feature of theater worldwide.
Improvisation from basic situations, comic ideas,
and characters is commonly found in both tradi-
tional performing arts and contemporary comedy.
Topical references and familiar stock characters and
themes became common features interspersed and
juxtaposed into the plot proper, as seen in Goldoni’s
comedy Il servitore di due padroni (The Servant
of Two Masters, 1743). Although Samuel Beckett
allowed no improvisation in his plays, sections of
Waiting for Godot (1953) exactly parallel comme-
dia’s verbal lazzi. Many modern stand-up comedi-
ans and street mimes extend the category of absurd
and illogical lazzi to dispense with plot altogether,
playing only with subject and, like jazz players with
a melody, surrounding it with verbal lazzi, now
called gags.
With increased use of commedia techniques now
part of modern actor training, the word lazzi is now
commonly appropriated by actors and directors to
refer to any section of a plot that consists primarily
of elaboration.
Aubrey Mellor
See also Absurdist Humor; Commedia dell’Arte; Farce;
Gag; Goldoni, Carlo; Improv Comedy; Kyōgen;
Mime; Plautus; Practical Jokes; Sanskrit Humor;
Slapstick
Legal Education 445
Further Readings
Capozza, N. (1985). Tutti i lazzi della commedia dell’arte:
Un catalogo ragionato del patrimonio dei comici [All
the lazzi of the commedia dell’arte: A complete catalog
of the patrimony of the comedians]. Rome, Italy: Dino
Audino.
Duchartre, P. L. (1966). The Italian comedy: The
improvisation, scenarios, lives, portraits, and masks of
the illustrious characters of the commedia dell’arte
(R. T. Weaver, Trans.). New York, NY: Dover. (Original
work published 1924)
Gordon, M. (1983). Lazzi: The comic routines of the
commedia dell’arte. New York, NY: Performing Arts
Journal Publications.
Nicholls, A. (1931). Masks mimes and miracles: Studies in
the popular theatre. London, UK: Harrap.
Oreglia, G. (1968). The commedia dell’arte (L. F. Edwards,
Trans.). London, UK: Methuen.
Perrucci, A. (2008). A treatise on acting, from memory and
by improvisation/Dell’arte rappresentativa, premeditata
ed all’improvviso (F. Cotticelli, A. Goodrich Heck, &
T. F. Heck, Trans. & Eds.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press. (Original work published 1699)
LEGAL EDUCATION
Legal education encompasses the teaching and study
of law, whether taught in formal scholastic settings,
conducted as part of continuing legal education pro-
grams, or exhibited in other environments where
there is a teacher-student relationship between
parties.
In legal education, where material is often dry and
complex, humor can be an extremely valuable tool
to help an instructor or educator solidify a point or
an idea. To articulate an important concept or idea
with a humorous perspective means that a speaker
can help capture the audience’s attention.
Although such a connection may not be instantly
intuitive, there tends to be a strong crossover
between humor and the study of law, given the type
of intelligence and skills each requires. This entry
discusses the overlap between humor and the law,
the benefits of using humor in education, and how
teaching improvisational skills can be particularly
useful in legal education.
An Analysis of Humor and Law
Many people are familiar with at least a few jokes
about lawyers. The nature of the profession tends
446 Legal Education
to lend itself to a humorous perspective, whether
because of the frustrations people sometimes endure
in their interactions with lawyers, the breadth of the
field, or popular culture depictions of law and the
legal system.
Numerous lawyers and law school graduates
have gone on to have significant careers in humor
and comedy. The late Greg Giraldo, a comedian
and panelist on the network television program
Last Comic Standing, practiced law before he began
performing in the nightclubs of New York City. An
alumnus of Harvard Law School, Justin Shanes left
his law firm career after 2 years and became a mono-
logue writer for the television program Late Night
With Jimmy Fallon. Comedian Demetri Martin
dropped out of New York University School of Law
at the end of his second year to pursue his comedic
passions, which have led him to his own television
program as well as several movie scripts and acting
opportunities.
It might be appropriate that there is so much
overlap between the legal profession and the desire
to write and perform comedy. Lawyers typically
have better-than-average writing skills, as do come-
dic writers. Law school students typically hone their
logic skills, and a main facet of humor relies on the
ability to note the inconsistencies and illogicality of
everyday life.
Humor in Education
Many studies confirm that humor can be an
extremely effective teaching tool. Humor can engage
an audience and help the audience retain the mate-
rial presented. If a respected leader makes a joke or
shows a funny clip to illustrate a concept, that per-
son is likely to be more positively received than had
he or she not connected to the audience using humor.
Educators use humor as a tool to help establish
rapport and build trust, while creating a memo-
rable experience for the students. However, it is less
common for teachers to use humor as a teaching
mechanism within law. This may be because of the
sometimes difficult subject matter, or because some
legal subjects, such as a wrongful death scenario,
simply do not seem appropriate as a joking matter.
It’s extremely common for law school instructors
to use the Socratic method of teaching. The Socratic
method is a question-and-answer format in which
the instructor poses a question or scenario to a
student and then continues to ask a series of ques-
tions in order to lead to a single point. Although
sometimes such a method can lead to instances of
humor, it is not an inherently humorous teaching
method. Perhaps it is this insistence on such a formal
teaching style that makes it more difficult for educa-
tors to incorporate humor into the study of the law.
Law and the Art of Improvisation
Improvisation is a comedic skill that people can
hone to become more spontaneous, quick-witted,
and outgoing. Many people who fear public speak-
ing are able to overcome such fears after taking a
series of improvisational courses, which often put
the speaker at the center of attention. Improvisation
can also assist with team-building skills, as the
improvisational practices teach people to support
one another.
Courses in improvisation can help teach impor-
tant legal skills such as team building, public speak-
ing, logical reasoning, pattern finding, and creative
thinking. Such skills may be tremendously important
to lawyers, and using improv as a basis for teaching
such real-life skills can be tremendously valuable.
Legal educators who are interested in using
improvisation can look at a breadth of resources,
such as groups that specialize in corporate and
workplace improvisation tactics. These organiza-
tions typically can help students learn a variety of
skills that can be applied to the legal profession.
Conclusion
When used correctly and appropriately, humor is an
excellent teaching tool for people in legal education
and the legal profession. Humor helps break up the
monotony of subject matter that may be otherwise
dry and therefore helps people retain information
for longer periods of time, thereby enhancing the
effectiveness of the tool.
People who are interested in using humor as a
teaching tool may wish to experiment to find out
which methods work best. Visual humor can be an
effective storytelling device, and improvisational
humor can be an effective mechanism to help build
trust and rapport. Using these tools, a legal educator
can create a lesson plan that is engaging and perhaps
also interactive, which creates a strong foundation
from which one can learn.
Whitney Meers
See also Education, Humor in; Legal Restriction and
Protection of Humor; Persuasion and Humor;
Supreme Court

Further Readings
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (2007). No laughing matter:
Humor and contradictions in stories of law. DePaul
Law Review, 50, 559–573.
Lubet, S., & Hankinson, T. (2006). In Facetiis Verititas:
How improvisational comedy can help trial lawyers get
some chops. Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports
Law, 7, 1–14.
Meers, W. (2009). The funny thing about mediation: A
rationale for the use of humor in mediation. Cardozo
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10, 657–686. Retrieved
July 31, 2012, from http://cojcr.org/vol10no2/657-686.
pdf
Novick, J. (n.d.). What is improv for lawyers? Retrieved
July 31, 2012, from http://www.improvforlawyers.com/
public_html_improvforlawyers.com/What_is_Improv_
for_Lawyers.html
LEGAL RESTRICTION AND
PROTECTION OF HUMOR
Legal rules do not sort neatly into a discrete category
officially recognized as “legal regulation of humor.”
Indeed, legal restrictions and protections touch-
ing humorous expression are as diverse and wide-
ranging as humor itself. Nonetheless, one may begin
to understand how law and humor intersect by
dividing laws into two categories: those that protect
humor and those that directly or indirectly restrict
its expression.
Legal Protections of Humor
The First Amendment
The most prominent law that protects humor is
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which
governs the individual right to freedom of expres-
sion in the United States. As interpreted by the U.S.
Supreme Court as well as other courts in the United
States, the First Amendment prohibits the govern-
ment from restricting both verbal and nonverbal
expression. Accordingly, the First Amendment pro-
tects humor communicated through words as well
as through pictures or expressive conduct.
U.S. courts hold the First Amendment on a
high pedestal, sometimes describing it is as the
Constitution’s most important individual right. Legal
thinkers argue that the First Amendment guards the
operation of U.S. democracy and acts as a hand-
maiden to ensure that citizens enjoy other individual
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor 447
liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. Despite its
extraordinary status, the First Amendment is not
absolute, and courts may therefore find some humor
outside the ambit of First Amendment protection.
For example, humor that poses a clear and immi-
nent threat to public safety is not protected under
the First Amendment. Thus, if the distribution of
a religiously provocative cartoon is likely to ignite
a riot, a court might find that the cartoon can be
censored. Likewise, the First Amendment does not
prevent the government from implementing reason-
able time, place, and manner restrictions on humor-
ous expressions. This means, for example, that the
government may prohibit the reading of jokes from
a high-volume sound truck driving in a residential
neighborhood in the middle of the night. To be valid,
however, such regulation must usually be “content
neutral.” To enjoy the status of a time, place, and
manner restriction, the regulation must be motivated
by policies unrelated to the content of the jokes.
The line separating constitutionally protected and
constitutionally unprotected humor is often difficult
to draw. Certain trends in cases, however, provide
some guidance in making this distinction. Where
humor implicates political ideas or debate about a
matter of public concern, the humor is more likely to
enjoy First Amendment protection. This result flows
from the importance of the First Amendment to
ensuring a functioning democracy and a robust mar-
ketplace of ideas. By contrast, humor that is indecent
or obscene is unlikely to enjoy First Amendment
protection. One humorous genre found particularly
deserving of constitutional protection is the politi-
cal cartoon. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 54–55 (1988),
“the appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is
often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical
traits or politically embarrassing events . . . From
the viewpoint of history it is clear that our politi-
cal discourse would have been considerably poorer
without them.”
Although U.S. constitutional law cases evince
themes and trends that can help one identify which
types of humorous expression will enjoy constitu-
tional protections, matters become more uncertain
when the expression is published on the Internet.
The Internet lacks the geographical boundaries that
usually limit the scope of a nation’s laws. Thus, a
comical communication may be uploaded onto the
Internet in the United States but accessed in another
country. Although the communication may enjoy
First Amendment protection in the United States, it
448 Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor
may be subject to censure or punishment under the
laws of other nations. Indeed, the United States cur-
rently tends to have the strictest and most speech
protection laws of all the nations of the world. Cases
have occurred where U.S. entities have uploaded
legally protected content in the United States and
have encountered prosecution and other legal prob-
lems in other countries. Accordingly, before produc-
ing and uploading potentially objectionable content
on the Internet, a prudent humorist might therefore
consider the possible status of the communication
under the laws of other nations where others may
access the communication.
Intellectual Property Protection
An altogether different but important form of
legal protection for humor comes in the form of
intellectual property laws. Intellectual property tradi-
tionally includes patents, trademarks, and copyright.
Although patentable inventions may be capable of
communicating humor, it is copyright and trademark
laws that prove most relevant to humor protection.
The U.S. copyright statute protects all expres-
sions once they are fixed in a tangible medium.
Thus, the author of a humorous work is protected
against “theft” or infringement of her rights in her
work as soon as the work is recorded in a concrete
way. This would include audio or visual recordings
as well as books that provide a record of the humor-
ous work. Significantly, jokes that are uttered orally,
but are not recorded, are not eligible for copyright
protection. This limitation is particularly significant
for stand-up comedians, who often do not create a
tangible record of their stock in trade. Nonetheless,
scholars have documented that stand-up comedians
have developed their own robust social norms that
serve to compensate for the deficiencies in formal
legal protection for their creative work.
Trademark law developed initially to prevent pro-
ducers from passing off products created and mar-
keted by others as if the products were their own.
Trademark law now also protects consumers, who
rely on trademarks to ensure that products possess a
certain quality. Producers of humorous products (such
as book publishers or movie production companies)
may thus use trademarks to promote a product and
to suggest to consumers that the product possesses a
certain level of quality—comedic or otherwise.
Another important way in which trademark law
intersects with humor concerns those who develop
parodies of trademarks. Trademark holders often
do not hesitate to sue producers of such parodies,
claiming infringement or dilution of the mark.
Where the court determines that the parodist should
avoid liability, the court effectively protects the
creative humorous expression. For the most part,
however, the trademark laws act in this context as
a restriction on the parodist—a set of standards that
the parodist must navigate in order to stay out of
trouble. The next section on restrictions on humor
addresses these standards.
Legal Restrictions of Humor
Laws restrict humor both directly and indirectly.
Direct regulations can restrain the humorist before
humor is expressed or impose criminal punishment
after communication has been expressed, thereby
raising the stakes of compliance so that many may
simply stifle their inclination to make an objection-
able joke, particularly if they are communicating
in a public forum. An example of a prior restraint
that may implicate humor is the U.S. Federal
Communication Commission’s attempt to prevent
broadcast of fleeting expletives (and to impose
heavy fines on media outlets that fail to “bleep out”
an expletive during a broadcast). Outside the United
States, courts and regulatory authorities directly
ban or enjoin humorous communications such as
songs or advertisements with relative frequency.
Injunctions against speech are rare in the United
States and are unlikely to implicate humor because
the law limits these injunctions to grave matters such
as the stealth movement of troops during wartime.
There are, however, several U.S. criminal laws that
directly punish humor, such as statutes criminalizing
threats to the life of the president of the United States
(even when stated in jest) and statutes criminalizing
jokes about blowing up a plane or an airport.
Indirect regulation usually comes in the form of
a civil lawsuit for alleged injuries received from a
joke or other humorous communication. In such
suits, a private person sues another for damages
allegedly received from a legal harm done. Where a
court finds liability and imposes damages, this ver-
dict sends a message both to the party who must
pay damages and to others who may be tempted to
make similar jokes. Thus, the damage verdict has
an indirect regulatory effect—indeed a potentially
chilling effect—on future jokes. Four common legal
theories for these private civil lawsuits that affect
humor are related to trademark violations, contract,
employment discrimination, and defamation.

Trademark Violations
Trademark infringement cases are designed to
protect against harm both to consumers who are
misled into buying a product they did not expect and
to trademark owners who are deprived of sales. Key
to the infringement claim is consumer confusion:
Courts look to the “likelihood of confusion” between
the trademark-protected product and the challenged
product or communication in evaluating whether
civil liability is merited. A question significant from
a humor perspective arises when the alleged infringer
argues that the claimed infringement is actually a
parody of the trademark-protected product.
In resolving disputes about allegedly infringing
parodies, trademark courts tend to invoke a concept
known well among humor scholars: incongruity.
In so doing, the courts do not explicitly invoke the
wisdom of humor theorists but instead rely on trade-
mark law’s “likelihood of confusion” test, which—it
turns out—dovetails with the concept of incongruity.
If the infringed product is consistent with the quali-
ties or purposes of the trademark-protected product,
then one might describe the products as congruent
and a consumer may confuse the two. By contrast, a
consumer is not likely to be confused if the connec-
tion between the trademark-protected product and
the allegedly infringing product is unexpected, out-
landish, or implausible. In such a situation, the court
will reject the trademark infringement claim, leaving
the parodist free to create the parody and even to
profit from it. The result is for courts to insulate par-
odists from infringement liability when their parodies
embody a significant degree of incongruous humor.
Another type of trademark theory of liability—
trademark dilution—does not tend to implicate
incongruity theory as vividly as the infringement
cases. The theory of trademark dilution holds that just
because a parody does not mislead a consumer into
believing a trademark holder would ridicule its own
mark, the trademark owner might still be harmed by
a lessening of the commercial attraction and appeal
of the mark. This harm can result because the con-
sumer starts to associate the mark with a diverse set
of sources or with something offensive or distasteful.
Not surprisingly, then, trademark dilution cases tend
to find liability where the parodist indulges topics
often associated with release humor: excrement, sex,
violence, death, and the like. Nonetheless, the protec-
tion of parody appears as an important value in many
trademark dilution cases, so that the cases sometimes
do reflect a tendency to protect incongruity humor.
Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor 449
Contract
Questions relating to humor arise most often in
contract cases confronting whether the parties to
the suit created a legally enforceable contract. In
such a situation, one party files a breach of contract
suit, and the other party defends by arguing that
she did not intend to create a legally enforceable
obligation but instead was merely making a joke.
Sometimes the “joke” or “contract” was uttered
during a state of intoxication or in the course of
an advertisement. In evaluating such contract
claims and humor defenses, courts ask whether the
parties’ words and actions manifested an objec-
tive intent to be legally bound. Where the parties’
words and actions reflect strong incongruities,
courts are less likely to find the intent to enter an
enforceable agreement. Such incongruities there-
fore lay the groundwork for a court embracing the
defendant’s defense that she was simply trying to be
funny. Where the court embraces this defense, the
court is, in effect, protecting the joke from contract
liability.
Employment Discrimination
As interpreted by courts, state and federal
employment discrimination statutes allow individu-
als to sue their employers for a form of employment
discrimination known as hostile work environment
harassment. To make out this claim, a plaintiff must
establish that speech or conduct within the work-
place is “severe or pervasive” enough to create a
hostile work environment based on race, religion,
sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran
status. In some jurisdictions, the harassment may
also concern sexual orientation, political affilia-
tion, citizenship status, marital status, or personal
appearance.
Often the pattern of harassment includes com-
munications made in the form of jokes. In such
circumstances, courts must evaluate whether the
communications were sufficiently lighthearted to
constitute simply an attempt at humor or whether
they are sufficiently malicious or disparaging as to
change the conditions of employment for the tar-
get of the humor. Courts tend to find liability where
the jokes ridicule the target or showcase salacious
subjects. The more puns, wit, or incongruity there
are in the jokes, the more likely that the defendant
will prevail in defeating the plaintiff’s employment
discrimination claim.
450 Limericks

Defamation laws. Nonetheless, certain patterns of regulation

emerge from the statutes and court cases that touch
Defamation is a tort theory designed to protect
humor. Perhaps the most notable pattern is the ten-
an individual’s interest in preserving personal repu-
dency of legal rules to privilege humor that reflects
tation. Defamation is one of several dignitary harms,
incongruity and to suppress and restrict humor that
or harms resulting from certain legally recognized
disparages others or concerns topics associated with
indignities, that can be asserted by a plaintiff asking
release humor, such as sex, excrement, violence, and
a court to impose damages for hurtful jokes. Other
death. These patterns are especially remarkable since
dignitary harms that often involve joking include
courts seem to have unwittingly made their way to
intentional infliction of emotional distress and inva-
the same distinctions and insights reflected in years
sion of privacy. Defamation, however, is by far the
of research by humor scholars on the theories of
most common theory used to remedy jokes that
incongruity, superiority, and release humor.
allegedly inflict harm.
A defamatory statement is generally defined as Laura E. Little
one that “tends so to harm the reputation of another
as to lower him in the estimation of the community See also Legal Education; Supreme Court
or to deter third persons from associating or dealing
with him” (Restatement [Second] of Torts § 559 Further Readings
[1977]). In the United States, a defamation plain-
tiff must show that the defamatory statement was Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (2008). No laughing matter: Humor
false. This creates a problem for defamation actions and contradiction in stories of law, DePaul Law Review,
50, 559–573.
based on jokes because humor does not fit neatly
Little, L. (2009). Regulating funny: Humor and the law.
into the paradigm of truth and falsity. Humor is by
Cornell Law Review, 95, 1235–1292.
definition not “serious” and thus not verifiable. Yet
Little, L. (2011). Just a joke: Defamatory humor and
it also provides a vehicle for delivering a truthful
incongruity’s promise. Southern California
message. As the adage goes: “Many a truth is said Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 21, 93–163.
in jest.” Oliar, D., & Sprigman, C. (2008). There’s no free laugh
One mechanism that courts use to distinguish (anymore): The emergence of intellectual property
defamatory humor from humor that is protected norms and the transformation of stand-up comedy.
from defamation liability is the distinction between Virginia Law Review, 94, 1787–1867.
fact and opinion. Both defamation and First Restatement (Second) of Torts. (1977). Philadelphia, PA:
Amendment law maintain that liability can arise American Law Institute.
only when the defendant asserts untrue statements Volokh, E. (1997). What speech does “hostile work
of facts, not when the defendant asserts opinion. environment” harassment restrict? Georgetown Law
In applying this fact/opinion dichotomy in the con- Journal, 85, 627–648.
text of humor, courts ask whether humor contains
material that a reasonable reader could interpret as
suggesting actual facts. This approach is problem- LIMERICKS
atic because courts encounter substantial difficulty
charting the differences between fact and opinion.
The origin of the term limerick, as applied to a
Moreover, further complications arise because
particular form of humorous verse, cannot be
humor is particularly artful in concealing the pos-
established with any certainty. The theory most
sible factual content of its message. It is interesting
commonly proposed reputes it to be derived from
that courts often deal with these difficulties by resort-
a custom at convivial parties whereby each member
ing to a form of incongruity analysis in determining
sang an improvised nonsense verse, followed by a
whether the assertions in a joke are sufficiently dis-
chorus containing the words “Will you come up to
tinct from factual assertions as to cast the joke as a
Limerick?” (Oxford English Dictionary). Both the
mere expression of opinion, protected from liability.
Encyclopaedia Britannica and Brewer’s Dictionary
of Phrase and Fable mention the same supposed
Conclusion
derivation, as well as the theory that the chorus in
Legal protections and restrictions of humor are ad question was originally that of an 18th-century Irish
hoc and not the result of an integrated system of soldiers’ song. Brewer’s correctly adds that there is

no evidence that this is the case, and in fact there is
nothing in the chorus supposedly sung in Limerick
that fits either the meter or the pattern of the limer-
ick verse form. It is probably safest to say that the
origin of the term (while presumably connected in
some way to the Irish town and county of Limerick)
is unknown.
The true limerick form consists of five lines of
anapaests (feet consisting of two unstressed syl-
lables followed by one stressed) rhyming aabba,
with two feet in the third and fourth lines (typically
indented in written form) and three in the others.
The earliest recorded examples are in The History
of Sixteen Wonderful Old Women, published in
London by John Harris in 1821. The following year
Anecdotes and Adventures of Fifteen Gentlemen
appeared, by an unknown author (possibly R. S.
Sharpe). It included:
There was a sick man of Tobago
Liv’d long on rice-gruel and sago.
But at last, to his bliss,
The physician said this—
“To a roast leg of mutton you may go.”
This book was apparently drawn to the attention
of Edward Lear in 1831 while he was staying with
friends, and he immediately saw this as an ideal form
in which to exploit his gift for comic invention. The
outcome was Lear’s first collection of limericks,
although he did not use that term: A Book of
Nonsense was published in 1846 and attributed by
him to “Derry down Derry”:
There was an Old Derry down Derry
Who loved to see little folks merry;
So he made them a Book
And with laughter they shook
At the fun of that Derry down Derry.
The reference to “little folks” indicates that the work
was written for children.
Several more volumes of Lear’s “nonsense verse”
followed, the limericks often having as their subject
an “Old Man” or “Old Person,” with an occasional
variant such as “Young Lady” or “Young Person”:
There was a Young Person of Crete
Whose toilette was far from complete:
She dressed in a sack
Spickle-speckled with black,
That ombliferous Person of Crete.
Limericks 451
Although many of Lear’s limericks come across
today as somewhat lacking in creativity (especially
as their last line so closely approximates their first,
save perhaps for the insertion of a fantastic invented
word such as ombliferous), the verse form became
extremely popular toward the turn of the 19th cen-
tury, with limerick competitions often being held by
magazines and business houses. By then, a major
difference from Lear’s limericks was that the last
line, instead of being a near-repeat of the first, had in
effect become the “punch line,” with a brand new
and unexpected word providing the final rhyme.
Subject Matter
“Intellectual” Limericks
Although the limerick form has been used over
the years to treat a wide variety of subjects, two areas
in particular—very different from each other—have
been favored by its composers. The first area is that
of amusing philosophical, literary, or theological
commentary. The most celebrated example of this
subgenre is undoubtedly Monsignor Ronald Knox’s
commentary on the “immaterialism” expounded
by the Irish bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753),
who, in opposition to the materialism propounded
by Thomas Hobbes, taught that things did not exist
in themselves but only as perceived by the mind (the
doctrine known as esse est percipi, “to exist is to be
perceived”). Knox wrote,
There once was a man who said: “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no-one about in the quad.”
which prompted the following riposte by an anony-
mous author (claimed, rather improbably, by some
writers to be Bertrand Russell):
Dear Sir, Your astonishment’s odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that’s why this tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.
A further subset of this intellectual type of limer-
ick relies for its effect on the peculiarities of English
spelling and its sometimes tenuous relationship to
pronunciation, and depends on the reader’s deriv-
ing a feeling of intellectual superiority from the
452 Limericks
esoteric knowledge required in order to understand
it. It was for some years a specialty of the magazine
Punch and of Oxford and Cambridge university
dons. An example follows:
There was an old priest of Dún Laoghaire
Who stood on his head for the Kaoghaire.
When people asked why,
He explained it all by
The latest liturgical thaoghaire.
(The name of the town Dún Laoghaire in Ireland is
pronounced “Dunleary,” which is here rhymed with
“Kyrie” and “theory.”)
A further example is the following:
There was a young curate of Salisbury
Whose manners were Halisbury-Scalisbury.
He wandered round Hampshire
Without any pampshire
Till the Vicar compelled him to Walisbury.
To understand this limerick, it is necessary to be
aware that the old Latin name for Salisbury in
England (still used in some ecclesiastical contexts) is
Sarum and that the traditional abbreviation of the
county of Hampshire is Hants.
Ribald and Obscene Limericks
A much more popular subject area than that of
intellectual wordplay is the realm of the salacious.
One of the most frequently quoted of limericks (the
work of an anonymous writer) runs as follows:
The limerick packs laughs anatomical
Into space that is quite economical,
But the good ones I’ve seen
So seldom are clean,
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.
Although the validity of this observation is open
to question, the popularity of what are sometimes
referred to as “dirty limericks” is undeniable and is
attested by the considerable number of anthologies
that have been devoted to this subgenre. The earli-
est such collections date from the later 1800s, but
the two most important anthologies appeared in the
20th century, these being Some Limericks (1928),
a frequently reprinted compilation by the Scottish
novelist and antiquarian Norman Douglas, and The
Limerick, a massive work of over 500 pages whose
authorship/editorship is not acknowledged but was
later revealed to be that of the American cultural
critic and folklorist Gershon (originally George
Alexander) Legman, famous for his analysis of sex-
ual humor, The Rationale of the Dirty Joke (1968).
Both anthologies have frequently been plagiarized,
a notable example being Count Palmiro Vicarion’s
Book of Limericks, put together by the English poet
and poetic translator Christopher Logue and pub-
lished in Paris by Olympia Press in 1953 (no English
press was prepared to risk prosecution by daring to
publish such material at the time).
Some of the limericks found in these collections
are mildly amusing, an example being,
There was a plump girl from Bryn Mawr
Who committed a dreadful faux pas;
She loosened a stay
On her décolleté
Thus exposing her je ne sais quoi.
Of a similar nature are a number of moderately
salacious limericks involving real people:
There once was a girl from Pretoria
Who had sex with Sir Gerald du Maurier,
Jack Hylton, Jack Payne,
Then Sir Gerald again,
And the band of the Waldorf Astoria.
The comic effect of this limerick is increased when
one is aware that the three persons named were
British show-business personalities of the 1930s:
Jack Hylton and Jack Payne were well-known
bandleaders, and Sir Gerald du Maurier was an
actor and theater manager.
Other limericks quoted in the bawdier antholo-
gies appear to be aimed mainly, or even exclusively,
at shocking the reader:
There was a young lady of Devon
Who was raped in the vestry by seven
High Anglican priests
—The lascivious beasts—
Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
As to the particular attractiveness of the limerick
form for the expression of such vulgar and obscene
material, one can only speculate that it has to do
with the pleasure of transgression, of the violation of
taboo—the sort of pleasure that a small boy may
derive from saying a “naughty word” and which, in
the case of adults, may be derived from telling or
hearing a “dirty joke.” In the case of the limerick,

the transgression is encapsulated in a pithy and
memorable form—the “space that is quite economi-
cal,” as the limerick quoted earlier puts it. Because
the mention of religion in the context of obscenity
serves to heighten the sense of transgression (as ear-
lier), it is not surprising that a considerable number
of ribald or obscene limericks have a religious
setting:
There was a young lady named Alice
Who peed in a Catholic chalice.
The Padre agreed
’Twas done out of need,
And not out of Protestant malice.
No further examples will be given here, but
the reader is left to imagine the possibilities offered
by a first line such as “The jolly old Bishop of
Buckingham. . . .”
This analysis certainly accords with the obser-
vation that, although many limericks (both clean
and dirty) are by unknown hands, those historical
authors whose identity is known are, almost with-
out exception, men—exclusively so in the case of
bawdy or obscene works. A related observation is
that when women appear in bawdy limericks, it is
often as victims or villains—certainly in a manner
that would be regarded by feminists (among others)
as sexist.
Limericks in Other Languages
The limerick seems a quintessentially Anglo-Saxon
phenomenon, a reliable signal of humor in English.
Attempts have been made to explain this by refer-
ence to the peculiarly malleable nature of the English
language. For instance, in the line The limerick packs
laughs anatomical the word limerick needs to be
pronounced lim’rick if the line is to scan correctly—
a possibility not available in more rigidly structured
languages. There is no doubt some truth in this
argument. A number of other (European) languages
also tend to have their own favored verse forms,
which make use of a simple rhyming scheme to
convey humorous or ironic intent (e.g., the Russian
chastuska, the Spanish quintilla), forms which are in
each case better suited than the limerick form to the
cadences of that language.
This is not to say, however, that other (particu-
larly European) languages are incapable of being
turned to the limerick form. A frequently quoted
example is the French,
Limericks 453
Il était un homme de Madère
Qui a frappé le nez à son père.
On demanda: ‘Pourquoi?’
Il répondit: ‘Ma foi!
Vous n’avez pas connu mon père!’
It should be noted, however, that this limerick is the
work of the French-born but English-raised George
du Maurier (the son of Sir Gerald mentioned earlier),
who helpfully provided a translation:
A young man from Madeira arose
And punched his progenitor’s nose;
When the people asked, ‘Why?’
He responded, ‘My eye!
You don’t know the old man, I suppose.’
George du Maurier wrote a number of such lim-
ericks, another example being the following:
Il était un gendarme à Nanteuil
Qui n’avait qu’une dent et qu’un œil,
Mais cet œil solitaire
Était plein de mystère,
Cette dent, d’importance et d’orgueil.
[Translation: There was a gendarme in Nanteuil,
who had only one tooth and one eye. But that lone
eye was full of mystery, while the tooth was full of
pride and self-importance.]
In fact a good many of the limericks written in
other languages are essentially virtuoso pieces by
native speakers of English. There are exceptions,
however, and indeed there was something of a craze
for the limerick form in Germany during the 1990s.
The following example—a “limerick of co-ordinated
orthography,” no less—appeared in a German news-
paper in 1994:
Ein Spanier mit Namen Rodriguez,
Der kaufte ein Pferd und bestiguez.
Doch war dieser Gaul
Selbst zum Fressen zu faul;
Nur der Pferdehändler verschwiguez.
Here, the last words of lines two and three would
normally be written bestieg es and verschwieg es.
The limerick is clever rather than amusing, an
approximate translation being: “A Spaniard by the
name of Rodriguez bought a horse and mounted it.
But this nag was too worthless even to be turned
into horsemeat—though the horse-dealer kept that a
secret.”
454 Limericks
Common Characteristics
Attempts have been made to propose a general
theory that would account for the peculiar charm
exerted by the limerick, whatever its subject. One
theory is that the first line introduces the main char-
acter, the second describes the character’s action, the
third and fourth (their brevity intensifying the sus-
pense) develop or explain the action, and the fifth
reveals its dénouement in a startling manner. While
instructive as far as it goes, this explanation applies
chiefly if not solely to those limericks beginning
“There was a . . . /Who . . .” (or one of the many
variants of this formula). Other writers, noting that
many limericks have a first line ending in a place-
name (usually the protagonist’s place of origin), refer
to the suspense leading up to the clever rhyme on the
town’s name in the final line.
Neither of these theories is applicable to all limer-
icks. Clearly there is something inherent in the very
form of the limerick—in the jogging rhythm and
arrangement of the lines—that appeals to our innate
sense of humor. It is difficult to imagine a “serious”
limerick, given that even those written on intellectual
topics treat them in a humorous way.
This account does not propose any general theory
applicable to all limericks, but it does note that—
in the case of “non-Lear” limericks at least—the
lead-up to the all-important last line, with its deftly
surprising play on the rhyme with lines 1 and 2,
has certain affinities with the classical symphony or
concerto. In the case of the musical work, an open-
ing statement of the theme or themes (perhaps alle-
gro or maestoso) may be followed by a movement
marked adagio or andante (or better still adagietto),
to come to a climax in an allegro vivace or con brio
that brings the work to a dazzling conclusion. Such
a progression is deeply satisfying—in the sense of an
expectation aroused, wittily elaborated on, and then
triumphantly answered—corresponding perhaps to
a deep-seated pattern within the human psyche.
Subverting Expectations
So familiar has the limerick form become that some
writers have enjoyed toying with the expectations of
readers:
A bather whose clothing was strewed
By breezes that left her quite nude
Saw a man come along
And, unless I am wrong,
You expected this line to be lewd.
In another example, the point of the limerick is
the assumption that the reader or listener, on hearing
the words ending the first and third lines, will be
anticipating that the corresponding rhymes will be
of an obscene nature:
There was a young lady named Tuck
Who had the most terrible luck.
She went out on a punt
And fell off the front
And was bit on the leg by a duck.
An extreme form of the subversion of expecta-
tions is sometimes referred to as an “anti-limerick.”
For example, Edward Lear wrote:
There was an old man in a tree,
Who was horribly bored by a bee.
When they said, “Does it buzz?”
He replied, “Yes, it does.
It’s a regular brute of a bee.”
An anti-limerick version, attributed variously
to W. S. Gilbert and George Bernard Shaw, runs as
follows:
There was an old man of St. Bees,
Who was stung in the arm by a wasp.
When asked, “Does it hurt?”
He replied, “No, it doesn’t;
I’m so glad that it wasn’t a hornet.”
Of many further examples of the subversion of
expectations, one of the best known is the following:
There was a young man from Japan
Whose limericks never would scan.
When they asked him, “Why?”
He replied with a sigh:
“It’s because I always try to fit as many words
into the last line as I possibly can.”
An opposite approach is taken in the following
example:
A limerick fan from Australia
Regarded his work as a failure.
His verses were fine
Until the fourth line. . . .
And the even more extreme
There once was a man from Peru
Whose limericks stopped at line two.

Whereas the ribald or obscene limerick is cer-
tainly the single most common type in terms of sub-
ject matter, it cannot be claimed as the sole natural
form of expression of the limerick genre, nor even as
the most amusing. That the limerick has come so far
in the past 200 years testifies to its enduring attrac-
tion for all lovers of whimsy and nonsense, espe-
cially those who are fascinated by the skillful
arrangement of words.
Kenneth R. Dutton
See also Absurdist Humor; Children’s Humor Stages;
College Humor; Gender Roles in Humor; Nonsense;
Obscenity; Poetry; Punch Line; Puns; Share; Xiehouyu
Further Readings
Baring-Gould, W. S. (1968). The lure of the limerick: An
uninhibited history. London, UK: Panther.
Cohen, J. M. (Ed.). (1952). The Penguin book of comic
and curious verse. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Legman, G. (Ed.). (1976). The limerick. London, UK:
Panther.
Lehmann, J. (1977). Edward Lear and his world. London,
UK: Thames & Hudson.
Reed, H. L. (1925). The complete limerick book. New
York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
LINGUISTIC THEORIES OF HUMOR
Linguistic theories of humor are theoretical models of
humor that take into account only verbal or written
text. The purpose of linguistic theories of humor is to
analyze jokes based on information that is stated in the
text, without taking into account outside factors, such
as how well a joke is delivered or what kind of audi-
ence would find it humorous. As such, these theories
deal with humor competence rather than with humor
performance. This entry outlines a family of linguistic
theories that attempt to describe generic humorous
texts but are typically applied to short jokes.
Although humor is largely recognized as a mul-
tidisciplinary field, linguistic theories of humor are
based predominantly on linguistic analysis and com-
parison. As such, the family of linguistic theories
takes into account morphology (the study of word
parts and parts of speech), phonology (the study of
language sounds, with their variants, or allophones,
and more important word-distinguishing invariants,
or phonemes), syntax (the study of how a sentence is
Linguistic Theories of Humor 455
structured), semantics (the study of word, or lexical,
and sentence, or compositional, meaning), and prag-
matics (the study of individualized and contextual
semantics).
Jokes typically vary in length, topic, and descrip-
tion. The goal of a linguistic theory of humor is to
determine whether any given text can be humorous
(based on its text only) or to compare any two or
more humorous texts. It is possible to restrict the
application of a theory to a particular topic or a
genre of text, but the theory itself does not have to
be modified for such applications. As with any gen-
eralized theory, linguistic theories of humor describe
the phenomena at a very coarse grain, and thus it is
possible to add finer grain mechanisms to enrich the
analysis for humor subgenres (one-liners, puns, etc.).
Script-Based Semantic Theory of Humor
The script-based semantic theory of humor is argu-
ably the first and oldest linguistic theory of humor.
According to the theory, any joke-carrying text is
compatible, fully or in part, with two different
scripts that overlap and oppose. To simplify the mat-
ter, if a text activates two different situations that a
person is aware of, and some kind of oppositeness
between these situations is found, the text satisfies
the linguistic criteria to be a joke.
In more formal terms, a script is a sequence of
events that are associated with the constituent word
meanings and evoked by specific words. Any script
can also be considered as a cognitive structure that
represents a person’s knowledge of a small part of
the world.
The scripts can be linguistic, general knowl-
edge, restricted, or individual. Linguistic scripts are
known to any “average,” “standard” native speaker
(adult, reasonably educated, mainstream culture,
etc.). General knowledge scripts, such as crossing
the street or going to a store, are known to a large
number of people and are not affected by their use
of language. Restricted knowledge scripts are known
to a smaller number of people and are not affected
by their use of language.
According to Victor Raskin, who developed
the theory, intentional verbal humor is based on
ambiguity that is created deliberately. However,
ambiguity by itself is not enough for humor: The
scripts must not only be opposed, they must be so
unexpectedly. This means that if one expects both
scripts to appear, the text will not be found humor-
ous. Some other examples of oppositeness are good/
456 Linguistic Theories of Humor
bad, real/unreal, money/no money, life/death, and
so forth.
There may be more than one pair of scripts asso-
ciated with any joke. For example, in “A man walks
into a bar. Ouch,” there are at least two associated
scripts. The first one describes entering a bar. It is
evoked by the words man, walk in (in the sense of
entering), and bar (in the sense of a drinking estab-
lishment). The second one describes hitting some-
thing. It is evoked by the words man, walk in (in
the sense of stumbling on), bar (in the sense of a
long and round piece of wood or metal), and ouch.
The overlap is obvious: words, some in different
senses, are shared by both scripts. The oppositeness
between the two scripts is expected pleasure versus
pain. These two scripts are not the only ones that
might be associated with the joke. Other activations
may result from “man walking into a bar” being the
setup of another joke; and, unexpectedly, being a
punch line, triggered by the word ouch.
Just like scripts in jokes may be of different grain
size (activate very small or very large cognitive struc-
tures), script oppositeness can vary too. Typically it
is agreed that oppositeness in a pair of scripts can
be treated as antonyms: situational, contextual, or
local. These general-type antonyms are rarely found
in text, but they are easily identified by any native
speaker who reads a joke.
General Theory of Verbal Humor
The general theory of verbal humor, proposed by
Raskin and Salvatore Attardo in 1991, enriches the
script-based semantic theory of humor by adding five
knowledge resources to script-based text description.
These five knowledge resources are logical mecha-
nism, situation, target, narrative strategy, and lan-
guage of the joke. It should be noted that although the
theory relies on the linguistic toolset, it is informed by
other disciplines that study phenomena described by
the resources.
Each of the knowledge resources has its purpose:
Logical mechanism accounts for the way in which
the two scripts in the joke are brought together, the
pseudological reasoning in a text. Situation accounts
for the textual materials evoked by the scripts of
the joke that are not necessarily funny. Target is
a stereotypical individual or group from whom
humorous behavior is expected. Narrative strategy
describes the rhetorical structure of the text, such
as the riddle, 1-2-3 structure, question and answer,
or other. Finally, language is the actual lexical,
syntactic, and phonological choices at the linguistic
level that instantiate all the other choices.
The general theory of verbal humor provides
an ability to describe any joke in terms of its six
knowledge resources, with a possible omission of a
target, which is optional. Such a description enables
joke comparison, which becomes part of the scope
of humor analysis. The theory predicts that the
similarity of jokes is based on the number of simi-
lar knowledge resources: A pair of jokes that has
three identical knowledge resources is more similar
than a pair of jokes that has only two. A similarity
of jokes with an equal number of identical knowl-
edge resources is rated according to where the said
resources are in the knowledge resource hierarchy.
Such a hypothesis was based on the notion of top-
down gradual restriction of the resources: The higher
level resource may dictate the choice of that on a
lower level. The hypothesis was generally confirmed
in a 1993 experiment by Willibald Ruch, Attardo,
and Raskin. The only exception was found to be the
logical mechanism, which continues to be the most
controversial of the six resources.
Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor
The description and analysis of the previous two
theories rely on the native speaker’s knowledge
and interpretation of a joke. The latest incarnation
of the script-based theories attempts to formalize
such knowledge and remove human bias from such
interpretations.
The early idea behind the script-based family
of theories was that it would only be fully formal-
ized when the semantic component of language
processing could be automated or formalized. With
the development of semantic technologies for text
understanding, such formalization becomes pos-
sible. The goal of the ontological semantic theory
of humor is to put the previous version of the script-
based humor theories on a firm semantic basis.
As such, it does not add any new resources to the
humor toolkit but instead formalizes the use of the
existing one.
Ontological semantic theory of humor is based
on ontological semantics technology—a theory,
methodology, and implementation of text interpre-
tation by a machine. As such, it contains a generic
model of the world that is shared by most native
speakers and lexical definitions of various meanings
of words. What it means for a script-based humor
theory is that the scripts of the jokes that are evoked

by the specific words can now be uniformly accessed
and represented. It also means that the size (or grain
size) of a script becomes explicit, together with all
information that it contains.
The question of computational overlap and oppo-
siteness can be formalized according to the tools of
ontological semantic technology. It also means that
the falsification of the theory can be taken one step
further and becomes not a matter of opinions but a
matter of formal logical reasoning.
The scripts are not the only knowledge resources
that can be represented in the ontological semantic
theory of humor. With the exception of logical mech-
anism, which requires additional handling respective
to regular text processing, all other resources can be
compared for their similarity. Because of the math-
ematically driven nature of the semantic description,
the similarity of a more generic description will be
lower than a similarity of a less generic description.
For example, the similarity between jokes in which
the targets are Polish American and Irish, respec-
tively, is likely to be greater than jokes in which the
targets are human and animal, respectively (pro-
vided that all other knowledge resources are the
same). This is so because both members of the first
pair of targets are human, and therefore they diverge
in the graph at a lower, finer grain level than the
second pair.
The ontological semantic theory of humor was
not meant as a replacement of its predecessors but
rather as a next-level formalization of them. As
such, it should not be used for informal analysis
of humorous texts in general and jokes in particu-
lar. Its significance lies in the fact that script-based
semantic theory of humor was premised on the
development of a computational system providing
the semantic interpretation of text. Such a system
was not available at the time, and its development
currently renders the approach more realistic.
Julia M. Taylor
See also Humor Theories; Jokes; Linguistics; Punch Line;
Puns
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2008). Semantics and pragmatics of humor.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1203–1215.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representation model.
Linguistics 457
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(3–4), 293–347.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Raskin, V., Hempelmann, C. F., & Taylor, J. M. (2009)
How to understand and assess a theory: The evolution
of the SSTH into the GTVH and now into the OSTH,
Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 285–312.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1993). Toward an
empirical verification of the general theory of verbal
humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 6(2), 123–136.
LINGUISTICS
Linguistics is a well-established academic discipline
with a vast area of research and multiple applica-
tions. Linguistics has also been a leading contribu-
tor to the multidisciplinary area of humor research
because humor is very often verbal. This entry dis-
cusses some pertinent elements of linguistics and
their contributions to the study of humor.
Linguistics as an Academic Discipline
Linguistics is an academic discipline that studies lan-
guage as a universal human faculty. Linguistics, in its
various aspects, spans the humanities, social sciences,
hard sciences, engineering, and technology because all
these groups of disciplines use language and depend
on certain aspects of it, in one way or another.
Linguistics is also one of the most ancient areas
of research. The first grammatical description of a
language, namely, Sanskrit, an ancient language of
India, was written in verse by Panini several millen-
nia ago. Historically and individually, people become
aware of linguistic facts when they encounter a for-
eign language for the first time. Panini wanted to
describe Sanskrit, the language of the Hindu sacred
texts, as it was giving way to colloquial dialects that
later developed into Hindi, Urdu, and several other
languages of modern India.
Language is viewed by contemporary linguists as
a complex dynamic structure of interrelated elements
governed by a large number of intricate rules that
are internalized in the minds of the native speakers,
who use these rules without necessarily being aware
of them or being able to formulate them correctly.
Since Noam Chomsky’s “revolution” in linguistics
in the late 1950s to mid-1960s, linguistics has also
been seen as a principal contributor to cognitive
458 Linguistics
science, and its goal is to explicate these rules, some
of which are universal (i.e., the same for all natural
languages) and others language-specific. These rules
also afford greater access to the study of the human
mind than most other cognitive disciplines. Humor
also offers a window to the mind, with or without
language.
Language is essentially a mechanism for con-
structing a complexly organized set of pairings
between sounds and meanings. Whatever we
say normally has a sound (a sign, for the hearing
impaired) and conveys a meaning. The sound is
studied by the linguistic subdiscipline of phonology,
a theoretical expression of the empirical findings
by phonetics, assisted by acoustics. The meaning is
studied by semantics, accompanied by pragmatics:
the former studies meaning more generally while
pragmatics customizes and contextualizes it.
Mediating the pairings is the complex edifice of
syntax, the study of sentential structure, that is, how
the words of a language are assembled by native
speakers into sentences. Syntax depends on mor-
phology, the study of the structure of words and,
especially, their membership in parts of speech that
defines their behavior in sentences, so that nouns
are typically subjects and objects, verbs predicates,
adjectives attributes, and so on.
Syntax also interfaces with semantics, the study
of meaning at the other end of the pairings, because
the words of a sentence contribute their meanings
to that of the sentence in the order imposed by the
syntactic structure. If semantics is in charge of the
general and generic meaning of words and sen-
tences, pragmatics customizes and contextualizes it,
thus adding another level of complexity to language
structure by reflecting individual, group, and situ-
ational differences of usage. The latter is particularly
attuned to the social aspects of language use.
Linguistics of Humor
Linguistics has become a major disciplinary con-
tributor to the multidisciplinary field of humor
research, catching up with and perhaps overtak-
ing psychology in this role. Characteristically, it has
achieved this role as a result of expanded linguis-
tic expertise applied to humor research. Before the
late 1970s, the term linguistic humor was reserved
for simple puns, and no linguistic knowledge was
used in their treatment. This formerly limited view
is easy to explain: In spite of its ancient origins and
the essential role of language in human society,
linguistics remains largely unknown to all but a
small army of researchers. It is not generally studied
in high school, and precious little of it trickles down
into English or foreign language classes. It is not at
all uncommon for highly educated people in other
academic disciplines and outside of academia to
ignore almost entirely the huge purview of linguis-
tics and the accumulation of technical information
about language. It is a plausible guess, then, that
the only reason puns became associated with lin-
guistics is that they are usually untranslatable from
language to language. In fact, there are some inter-
language jokes playing up this non-translatability
as illustrated by the so-called false friends, cognate
words whose meanings have diverged in different
languages: for instance, an old joke about a diplo-
matic conflict because an English diplomat mistook
his French colleague’s declaring himself to be deçu
(disappointed, from Fr. decevoir) for a charge of
being deceived (from Engl. deceive), that is, lied to
by the English.
Verbal jokes can be based on virtually any level
of language structure, namely, sound, word, or
sentence. At the level of sound, phonetically rather
than phonologically, various deviations from the
normative pronunciation may serve as a basis for
imputed or real accents associated, often falsely,
with joke targets. These targets may range from
socioeconomic minorities, including recent immi-
grants, to pompous British aristocracy. Enriched
with certain prosodic, intonational features,
these pronunciations may claim similarity to, say,
Yiddish, Black, or gay speech mannerisms. Certain
sound distortions may confuse words for a comic
effect. Some similar-sounding words may be used
in deliberately imperfect punning. Many jokes
about George W. Bush, such as his purported pro-
nunciation of nuclear as nukelar, ridiculed him as
uneducated. Dave Letterman, himself a native of
Indiana, used to make fun of the Hoosier pronun-
ciation of special as spatial.
The brief dialogue, “But you love me!”—“-ed,”
is more readily understood as funny when read and
probably not funny at all to the first interlocutor,
just informed of a romantic break-up. The past
tense suffix -ed was used similarly—and possibly,
originally—in a Harold Pinter absurdist play, which
probably suggests a marginal, avant-garde usage.
It is one of the clear cases of using morphology
for potentially humorous effect. Another example
would be to add the feminine gender suffix to cre-
ate non-existent words like boss-ess, probably for

a misogynistic effect. Bush, again, was ridiculed for
lumping prefixes mis- and under- in his infamous
complaint about being “misunderestimated.”
Syntactic ambiguity, exhaustively explored by
Dallin D. Oaks Jr., can be exploited for humor, as
in “Visiting professors can be boring.”—“So, don’t
visit them!” The intended meaning of the first cue
is, most likely, about professors who are visiting
rather than being visited, and the hearer is, again
most likely, choosing the marginal but structurally
possible interpretation on purpose in order to create,
probably in jest, a hostile situational, or spontane-
ous, joke. Thus, current humor research depends
heavily on just about any linguistic subdiscipline but
especially heavily and often intricately so on seman-
tics and pragmatics.
Victor Raskin
See also Ambiguity; Dialect Humor; Jokes; Linguistic
Theories of Humor; Maxim; Puns; Semantics; Social
Interaction; Speech Play
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2003). Paronomasic puns: Target
recoverability towards automatic generation
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN.
Oaks, D. D. (2010). Structural ambiguity in English (Vols.
1 & 2). London, UK: Continuum.
Pepicello, W. J., & Weisberg, R. W. (1983). Linguistics and
humor. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.),
Handbook of humor research (Vols. 1, pp. 59–83).
New York, NY: Springer.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Raskin, V. (Ed.). (2008). The primer of humor research.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
LITERATURE
Whatever language it is written in, literature is a
reflection of cultural preoccupations and thus is a
useful way of studying humor across languages, cul-
tures, and time periods. Even the oldest recorded
works—whether performance texts, poems, or
prose narratives—display a range of types of humor,
from farcical foolery to more serious satire and witty
debate. This suggests that humor has formed an
Literature 459
essential part of literature from the beginning and
that those aspects of human life we call comic or
humorous—whether experienced by oneself or by
others—are as important to the literary approach as
are the nonhumorous.
In fact, the development of some literary genres—
dramatic comedy, for example, and especially
the novel, a relatively late arrival on the literary
scene—was accompanied by an evolving awareness
of, and discussion about, the nature of humor and
the comic. Thus, in ancient Athens, where tragedy
and comedy first took formal shape, humor was
the subject of philosophical and aesthetic specula-
tion. While joking and the craft of comedy form a
self-conscious theme in Aristophanes’s play Frogs
(404 BCE), Aristotle’s Poetics (ca. 335 BCE) is the
first known book to examine systematically laugh-
ter and the comic in literature. Although the section
dedicated to dramatic comedy has not survived,
its structural outline is probably recorded in the
10th-century manuscript the Tractatus Coislinianus
(from the library of Henri-Charles du Cambout,
Duc de Coislin, and published in 1839). This may
have formed a pupil’s notes of an Aristotelian lecture
on comedy complementing the writings on tragedy
and the epic found in the Poetics. Similarly, in the
period in which the novel was emerging as a new
genre, European men of letters were actively can-
vassing the notion that a sense of humor might be a
desirable civilizing trait.
Comedy is a performative humorous genre,
intended to be watched as well as read for enjoy-
ment. It is not always of literary merit, as is recog-
nized by the traditional distinction between “high
comedy” (verbal comedy with literary aspira-
tions) and “low comedy” (more visual, dependent
on practical joking and stock characterization).
Drama amounts to words in action, and most
comic texts intended for performance will combine
both registers, the high and the low. Because liter-
ary texts (the focus of this entry) are intended more
for reading than for enactment or recitation, their
humor is chiefly mediated by verbal techniques.
Despite this, literary humor must involve the reader
in visualizing the scenes and characters described
in words, so that words are also accompanied by
mental images.
Comic Characterization
Whether literary humor is dramatic or narrative,
at its heart lies humor derived from the creation
460 Literature
and doings of individual comic characters: These
are its most memorable creations—a long line of
larger-than-life but seemingly real people strid-
ing down the ages. Some are warmly funny, some
grotesquely nightmarish, but all are memorable.
They include masterpieces of comic genius such
as Moliere’s Tartuffe, Miguel de Cervantes’s Don
Quijote, William Shakespeare’s Falstaff, Laurence
Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, Wu Cheng’en’s Monkey,
Anton Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya, Jane Austen’s Mrs.
Bennett, Oscar Wilde’s Lady Bracknell, and Alfred
Jarry’s Ubu the King. In studying literary humor,
then, the usual theories of verbal humor, incon-
gruity, and superiority prove inadequate: Such
lively creations defy one-dimensional frameworks.
Analysis of comedy of character requires some of
the traditional tools of literary and genre studies—
even when dealing with flat stereotypes and espe-
cially when fully rounded, psychologically valid
personalities are concerned.
Early Literary Humor
Comic scenes are found in the world’s first known
literary texts. The Epic of Gilgamesh is probably
the oldest surviving written narrative, inscribed on
12 clay tablets from ancient Sumeria in approxi-
mately 2000 BCE. As described by Barbara Babcock
(1978, pp. 14–15), it includes a comic role rever-
sal for the Goddess Ishtar who becomes a humanly
spiteful, jealous female when spurned by the hero,
Gilgamesh. The Bible itself possesses a tragedy that
becomes a comedy—the book of Job, which con-
cludes with Job being promised 140 happy years and
the words “Behold, happy is the man whom God
correcteth” (5:17, King James Version). Homer’s
The Odyssey has been described as poetic high com-
edy for its structure and individual scenes of sulk-
ing heroes and their tricksy behavior. Indeed, many
works of classical Greco-Roman literature embraced
the funny and the ridiculous, along with heroic char-
acters and deeds. Verbal humor such as riddles and
wordplay form a vital part of traditions such as Old
Norse and Anglo-Saxon sagas, and they also fea-
ture in the records of early Chinese emperors whose
jesting court wits used puns (huaji) to entertain but
also advise their semi-divine rulers. As scholars such
as Erich Auerbach and Northrop Frye have pointed
out, these early literary records suggest that our fore-
fathers around the world recognized and embraced
what was humorous as an essential part of the
human condition.
One highly influential early form was Menippean
satire, named after the Greek poet Menippus, whose
idiomatic diatribes are now lost. Roman satiric poets
Varro (116–27 BCE) and Lucian (ca. 120–180 CE)
wrote in this idiom, mixing prose and poetry and
establishing the preeminent mode of surviving
classical prose narratives. Influencing writers as
varied as Petronius and Appian, followed in the
Renaissance by Rabelais, Cervantes, and their suc-
cessors, Menippean satire’s flexible, often comically
anarchic form points forward to the rise of the most
important form for literary humor, the novel.
Other literary forms celebrating humor include
narrative poetry—essentially storytelling in verse.
Early European vernacular examples include Pierre
de Saint-Cloud’s Roman de Renart (ca. 1170, draw-
ing on an earlier Latin comic poem). This author
wrote tales of trickery and cunning among a group of
anthropomorphic animals to satirize the clergy and
aristocracy. Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales
(ca. 1380–1400), a series of comic and often ribald
tales recounted by a group of would-be pilgrims, is
one of the earliest and most enduring literary works
printed in English. Prose narrative was also impor-
tant and in this area Italian man of letters Boccaccio
(1313–1375) was exceptionally influential. In his
book Decameron (ca. 1349–1352), he created amus-
ing themes and tropes that would appear in many
other forms—drama, poetry, and novels—over the
following centuries. Medieval prose humor also
bequeathed later writers a rich stock of entertain-
ing stories such as the French fabliaux and German
Schwänke (amusing tales). Adopting the veneer of a
moral message helped ensure that such amusements
survived when writing was a rare skill and written
records were costly objects.
Humor and the Evolution of the Novel
The development of printing increased the circu-
lation of all kinds of literary works, encouraging
the rise of longer, character-based and increas-
ingly self-conscious prose narratives—important
for the development of the novel. The European
Renaissance brought a renewal of interest in
Menippean texts like Petronius’s Satyricon (late
1st century CE) and Apuleuis’s The Golden Ass
(late 2nd century CE). These influenced the devel-
opment of prose genres such as the picaresque,
in which a typically roguish and lower class pro-
tagonist meets with a series of (usually humor-
ous) adventures set in a grittily realistic satirical

narrative world. Usually dated from the anony-
mous novella Lazarillo de Tormes (1554), pica-
resque was popular in 16th-century Spain before
spreading across Europe. It was an important comic
milestone in the development of the novel. Its epi-
sodic, often plotless structure embraced humor that
was frequently cruel and was supplanted at the
beginning of the 18th century by developments in
narrative technique and more sympathetic types of
humor. The genre influenced many later humorous
works, including Paul Scarron’s Roman Comique
(Comic Novel, 1651–1657), Henry Fielding’s Tom
Jones (1749), Denis Diderot’s Jacques the Fatalist
and His Master (1778–1796), and Mark Twain’s
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).
Also drawing on the Menippean tradition, the
five books of François Rabelais’s Gargantua and
Pantagruel cycle (1532–1552) recount the adven-
tures of a family of grotesque giants, using a large
range of comic devices to explore the shift in world-
view from medieval scholasticism to Renaissance
humanism. This latter perspective informs the view
of laughter in Gargantua’s preface (“It is better to
write about laughter than tears / For laughter is par-
ticular to man”), using a quotation from Aristotle to
highlight the role of laughter in humanist thought.
Addressed “To the reader” (whom Rabelais goes
on, jokingly, to insult), this preface also flags the
humorous potential of literary self-consciousness,
where a text breaks the narrative illusion by know-
ingly flaunting its status as fiction and/or as a
printed book. Narrative self-consciousness, a comic
device used since antiquity, became significant in
the developing economy of writers and readers
(and, by extension, narrators and characters) that
characterized the evolution of the novel.
More carefully structured than Rabelais’s work
but also incorporating elements of picaresque
humor, Cervantes’s Don Quijote (1605–1615) is
regarded as an archetype for later self-conscious
novels. Its hero takes the chivalric romances with
which he obsessed as a template for interacting with
reality, and many of the characters in the second
part of the novel (published 10 years after the first
part—after several unauthorized continuations)
encounter Don Quijote both as a figure belonging
to their narrative world and as a character belonging
to other narratives (by Cervantes or his imitators)
they have read. This existential incongruity is mir-
rored by Cervantes’s constant play with narrative
framing, such as shifting mid-scene from an anony-
mous third-person narrator to what is presented
Literature 461
as a (potentially biased and unreliable) translation
from an Arabic manuscript found by chance in a
marketplace (Part 1, Chapters 8–9). Don Quijote’s
best known antics, such as tilting at the windmills
he mistakes for giants, mark him out as an object
of ridicule, but the multiple embedded incongruities
in Cervantes’s narrative also provide a rich source
of less aggressive, more conceptual, even whimsical
humor that focuses attention on the relationship
among text, character, and reader. These experi-
ments in narrative self-consciousness resonate with
the shifting use of the English term humor from its
earlier, medical sense of an involuntary imbalance of
bodily fluids to the developing early modern sense
of an affected, often comic, eccentricity (exempli-
fied in the “humor comedies” of Cervantes’s near-
contemporary Ben Jonson, such as Every Man in His
Humour, 1598). While cruel and aggressive laughter
did not disappear from humorous literature, the rise
of the self-conscious novel shows how evolutions in
literary form reflect conceptual developments about
humor itself.
At least in Western Europe, the main traditions
of humorous literature in the 17th and 18th centu-
ries tend to reflect the divide between proponents
of what are now termed superiority theories (e.g.,
Thomas Hobbes, 1588–1679) and incongruity theo-
ries (e.g., the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671–1713).
The former, mainly satirical, tradition includes works
of both poetry and prose, often emulating classical
literary forms. Mock epic poetry remained popular,
such as Paul Scarron’s Virgile Travesti (1648–1653,
parodying Virgil’s Aeneid), Samuel Butler’s Hudibras
(1663–1684), and Alexander Pope’s The Rape of
the Lock (1712–1717). The Quarrel of the Ancients
and Moderns—a debate over classicism in art and
literature in both France and England at the turn
of the 18th century—provided Jonathan Swift with
the theme for his 1704 prose satire, The Battle of
the Books. Another strand of prose satire, seen in
works like Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1729), Cyrano
de Bergerac’s Other Worlds: The Comical History of
the States and Empires of the Moon and Sun (1657–
1662), and Voltaire’s Micromégas (1752), uses the
trope of fantastical worlds as a means to satirize
contemporary society. Better remembered today as
a philosopher than a satirist, Voltaire also influenced
the 18th- and 19th-century tradition of the conte
philosophique (philosophical tale) with works like
Candide (1759), whose picaresque plot and sarcastic
tone lampoon contemporary Leibnizian optimism as
well as politics and religion.
462 Literature
Overlapping with this satirical tradition, a
slightly later strand of humorous literature drew on
the emerging formal conventions of the novel and
came to be associated with a gentler understanding
of humor based on incongruity and self-conscious
eccentricity. Works like Henry Fielding’s Shamela
(1741) and Joseph Andrews (1742) parodied—but
also incorporated—the epistolary form and senti-
mental subject matter of Samuel Richardson’s popu-
lar novel Pamela (1740). Transposing Cervantes’s
parody of chivalric romance literature onto a con-
temporary literary economy, this technique allowed
Fielding and his contemporaries to combine the self-
conscious narrative incongruities of Don Quijote
with interest in psychological realism. Characters
like the scheming, distinctly unchaste Shamela do
not undergo the moral development associated with
the later Bildungsroman but are more often cel-
ebrated for their human eccentricities than targeted
as objects of satire. Fielding extends these humorous
characterizations outward by playing on the implied
existential divide between (fictional) narrators and
characters and (real) authors and readers. His pref-
ace to Tom Jones (1749) states, “An Author ought
to consider himself, not as a gentleman . . . but rather
as one who keeps a public Ordinary [eating house],
to which all persons are welcome for their money.”
The novel form encouraged this self-conscious
technique, which was taken to even greater extremes
in Laurence Sterne’s Life and Opinions of Tristram
Shandy, Gentleman (1759–1768), whose narrator
frequently breaks off to address, and sometimes com-
ically abuse, his implied reader. His supposed attempt
at an unabridged autobiography is soon overtaken
by narrative digressions and typographical games,
which allow this narrator to associate both himself
and his eccentric family with the joyful philosophy
of “Shandyism,” self-consciously invoking both
Rabelais’s grotesque “Pantagruelism” and Sancho
Panza’s desire for a “kingdom of hearty laugh-
ing subjects” in Cervantes’s Don Quijote (Vol. 4,
Chapter 32). Tristram Shandy thus represents a
milestone in the development of the self-conscious
novel during the 18th century as well as one in the
evolving understanding of humor.
Eclipse and Return of the
Self-Conscious Novel
Cervantes and Sterne influenced German Romantic
philosophers, including Jean Paul Richter, whose
School of Aesthetics (1804) set out a recognizably
modern theory of humor (as opposed to laughter or
ridicule) at the turn of the 19th century. In France,
Sterne’s sentimental humor was echoed in shorter
works by writers like Xavier de Maistre (1763–
1852) and Alphonse Karr (1808–1890). Across
Europe, writers like Heinrich Heine (1797–1856)
and Nicolai Gogol (1809–1852) combined humor-
ous writing with romantic sensibility. Gogol’s use of
grotesque imagery in works like The Nose (1836)—
in which a bureaucrat’s nose leaves his face and takes
on a life of its own—influenced many 20th-century
surrealists.
As Robert Alter has noted (1975, Chapter 4),
the humorous, self-conscious novel was largely
eclipsed during the 19th century by a focus on nar-
rative realism. Self-conscious humor nevertheless
remained a localized feature of many full-length
novels, such as Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary
(1857, which borrows several elements from Don
Quijote) and Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations
(1861, whose eccentric characters Wemmick and
his Aged Parent resemble Uncle Toby and Corporal
Trim from Tristram Shandy). But at least in Western
Europe, the main focus of literary humor moved
away from the novel and toward other genres. One
was nonsense poetry, exemplified in the work of
Edward Lear (1812–1888); another was children’s
literature, such as the Alice books of Lewis Carroll
(1832–1898). Both continued the tradition of
essentially gentle, reflexive humor but in a different
way: Lear’s made-up words and phrases shift the
narrative incongruities of the self-conscious novel
onto language itself, while Carroll (the mathema-
tician Charles Dodgson) exploited the humorous
potential of the logical inversions and absurdities
that govern his writings. They formed an important
model for whimsical, Anglophile French humoristes
of the late 19th century such as Alphonse Allais
(1854–1905) and Tristan Bernard (1866–1947),
who are mainly known for witticisms, short stories,
and press articles. Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) is like-
wise remembered for his witty epigrams as well as
his stage plays (such as The Importance of Being
Earnest, 1895) and short stories, which combined
wittiness with memorably comic characterization.
His only novel (The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1890)
is essentially serious in tone despite its provocative
subject matter.
An important exception is George Meredith’s
influential novel The Egoist (1879), consciously

exemplifying his theoretical views about humor
published in An Essay on Comedy and the Uses
of the Comic Spirit (1877). The novel’s subtitle is
“A Comedy in Narrative,” and its characters both
interact as in drama and speak via the narrator to
the audience as they cross-examine—and deceive—
themselves. Self-awareness and the ability to laugh
at oneself are held up as essential for a fully rounded
human being, reflecting Meredith’s understanding—
like that of Shaftesbury nearly two centuries before
him—that the comic is a means of criticizing society
and an individual in order to civilize both.
From Humor to Irony and Beyond
The advent of 20th-century modernism marked
a return to self-conscious literary humor as a key
point in artistic experimentation. Influenced by turn-
of-the-century writers such as Alfred Jarry (1873–
1907) and Guillaume Apollinaire (1880–1918),
writers of Dadaist, futurist, and surrealist persua-
sions used humor among other shock techniques to
destabilize literary conventions. Luigi Pirandello’s
1921 play Six Characters in Search of an Author
presents the metatheatrical joke of a group of char-
acters discussing the need for them to find a role
to play. Pirandello’s work also bridges from the
tradition of Cervantes and Sterne to later humor-
ous metafictional novels such as André Gide’s Les
faux-monnayeurs (The Counterfeiters, 1925),
Flann O’Brien’s At Swim-Two-Birds (1939), and
Raymond Queneau’s Le vol d’Icare (The Flight of
Icarus, 1968). High modernist works like James
Joyce’s Ulysses (1922) combine self-conscious narra-
tive techniques with a mixture of highly intellectual
and often ribald humor that recalls the tradition of
Rabelais and Menippean satire.
The effects of World War I inspired a short-lived
tradition of acerbic satire in Weimar Germany
and a turn toward absurdist humor in central and
eastern Europe that was taken up in Paris after
World War II by dramatists such as Samuel Beckett,
Eugène Ionesco, Arthur Adamov, and Jean Genet
in what is now known as the theater of the absurd.
Here, humor is combined with other destabilizing
techniques to explore the demise of existential cer-
tainties—among them the very notion of a gentle,
civilizing understanding of humor, which proved
both vulnerable to, and a potential weapon against,
the so-called postmodern death of affect. Beckett’s
experimental novel How It Is (1961) mentions a
Literature 463
“deterioration of the sense of humor fewer tears
too,” wryly commenting on the apparent demise of
both humor and tears while simultaneously engag-
ing in a form of self-conscious metahumor. Some
postwar movements, such as the French OuLiPo
(Workshop for Potential Literature), responded to
these concerns by retreating into formalist experi-
mentation: Queneau’s Exercices de Style (Exercises
in Style, 1947), for example, repeats a single anec-
dote in 99 different literary styles. A more typical
response was to focus on irony and self-detachment
as do postmodern novels like Thomas Pynchon’s
The Crying of Lot 49 (1966) and Don DeLillo’s
White Noise (1985). But in the novel—unlike the
theater, where characters literally stride the stage,
interact directly with the audience and impose their
own personal empathetic bond—the shift in humor-
ous tone was often a highly self-conscious one—a
form of intellectualized irony without real laughter.
Thus in the West, the history of literary humor
reflects evolving understanding of the nature and
social codes of humor, while continuing traditions
hark back to the earliest written comic narrative
and poetic forms. Eastern literary canons including
the Chinese and the Japanese also boast works of
great literary humor. Recent scholarship by Weihe
Xu has demonstrated how one of the greatest, the
18th-century novel Honglou meng (Romance of the
Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone, by Cao Xueqin
and Gao E) displays complex self-examination via
humor on the part of its heroine, Xue Baochai. This
long predates the advent of the modern concept of
humor (Ch. youmo), promulgated by the literati Lin
Yutang (1895–1976) and Qian Zhongshu (1910–
1998) in 1930s Shanghai. Such anachronisms sug-
gest that these traditions await full contextualization
in terms of their own histories of the concepts of
humor and laughter.
Will Noonan and Jessica Milner Davis
See also Absurdist Humor; Aristophanes; Aristotelian
Theory of Humor; Boccaccio, Giovanni; Cervantes,
Miguel de; Fabliau; Genres and Styles of Comedy;
History of Humor: Classical and Traditional China;
History of Humor: Early Modern Europe; History of
Humor: Medieval Europe; History of Humor:
Modern and Contemporary China; History of
Humor: Modern and Contemporary Europe; History
of Humor: Modern Japan; History of Humor:
19th-Century Europe; History of Humor: Premodern
Japan; History of Humor: Renaissance Europe;
464 Low Comedy
History of Humor: U.S. Frontier; History of Humor:
U.S. Modern and Contemporary; Huaji-ists, The;
Incongruity and Resolution; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy;
Irony; Limericks; Molière; Nonsense; Parody;
Pastiche; Pirandello, Luigi; Poetry; Postmodern Irony;
Rabelais, François; Satire; Schwank; Science, Science
Fiction, and Humor; Stereotypes; Tall Tale; Travesty;
Trickster; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Alter, R. (1975). Partial magic: The novel as a self-
conscious genre. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Auerbach, E. (2003). Mimesis: The representation of
reality in western literature (W. Trask, Trans.; 50th
anniversary ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Babcock, B. A. (Ed.). (1978). The reversible world:
Symbolic inversion in art and society. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Blanchard, W. S. (1995). Scholars’ bedlam: Menippean
satire in the Renaissance. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell
University Press.
Clark, T. (2003). A case for irony in Beowulf, with
particular reference to its epithets. Bern, Switzerland:
Peter Lang.
Cornwell, N. (2006). The absurd in literature.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism; four essays.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hart, W. M. (1943). High comedy in The Odyssey.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Janko, R. (1984). Aristotle on comedy: Towards a
reconstruction of poetics II. London, UK: Duckworth.
Meredith, G. (1927). An essay on comedy and the uses of
the comic spirit. London, UK: Constable.
Pirandello, L. (1974). On humor (A. Illiano & D. P. Testa,
Trans.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Sangsue, D. (1987). Le récit excentrique: Gautier, De
Maistre, Nerval, Nodier [Eccentric narratives: Gautier,
De Maistre, Nerval, Nodier]. Paris, France: Corti.
Tigges, W. (1988). Anatomy of literary nonsense.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Walls, A. (Ed.). (1891). The book of Job. New York, NY:
Hunt & Haton. Retrieved from http://archive.org/
stream/oldestdramainwor00wall#page/n3/mode/2up
Watt, I. (1957). The rise of the novel. London, UK:
Chatto & Windus.
Xu, W. (2011). How humour humanizes a Confucian
paragon: The case of Xue Baochai in Honglou meng.
In J. Chey & J. Milner Davis (Eds.), Humour in
Chinese life and letters: Traditional and classical
approaches (pp. 139–167). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
LOW COMEDY
The term low comedy is usually paired with the
term high comedy. Both are general categories usu-
ally applied to stage comedy and are performed
by actors using either a full or partial script. Like
high comedy, low comedy describes both the mate-
rial (characters, actions, and dialogue) included and
its performance style. However, it can also be used
figuratively to describe real-life events or concepts
that seem broadly to share that spirit or flavor of
comedy, as when a comic novel or painting includes
scenes of low comedy, such as the vignettes of prat-
falls and mishaps included in Pieter Bruegel the
Elder’s Netherlandish Proverbs (1559) or the well-
known footage in Modern Times (1936) of a hapless
Charlie Chaplin being slowly spun through the mas-
sive cogs of an industrial machine.
The 2002 online version of the Oxford English
Dictionary links low comedy to farce, defining it as
“comedy in which the subject and treatment border
upon farce,” but in theatrical usage it refers more
precisely to episodes or characters that raise cheap
laughter requiring little skill on the part of the per-
former, who usually relies on the simple breaking
of taboos, gratuitous references to what Mikhail
Bakhtin (1968)—or at least his translator—deli-
cately termed the material bodily lower stratum
(meaning digestive, sexual, and excretory functions),
slapstick as in pratfalls, and physical humiliations
such as on-stage beatings. Low comedy can thus
occur within a farce, but a farce may be high or low,
depending on how cleverly wrought it is.
As it has an ancient heritage, the term slapstick
deserves particular attention. The slap-stick is
a stage prop traditionally used by clowns to pro-
duce the appearance and sound of hitting someone
while not actually causing them bodily harm. In the
Renaissance commedia dell’arte, it is the special prop
for the masked character called Arlecchino (ancestor
to the modern Harlequin, but minus the tearfulness
associated with that mask). Usually from Bergamo
in northern Italy, a town famous for its commercial
to-and-fro, Arlecchino was a cunning, agile, and
speedy servant, who, like a cat, successfully twisted

his way out of trouble. His slapstick was made from
two thin strips of wood that could be held as one,
but, being separated at the handle by a short length
of leather, could also be smartly slapped together to
produce the appropriate cracking noise. Thus slap-
stick comedy refers specifically to low comedy that
includes physical beatings.
Even in 5th century BCE Athens, the distinction
between high and low in comedy was familiar to
Aristophanes; for example, in the Prologue to The
Wasps, the slave Xanthias says:
Don’t expect anything profound,
Or any slapstick à la Megara.
And we got no slaves to dish out baskets
Of free nuts—or the old ham scene
Of Heracles cheated of his dinner;
. . . . . . . . Our little story
Has meat in it and a meaning not
Too far above your heads, but more
Worth your attention than low comedy.
(Aristophanes, 1970, Vol. 1, p. 171)
Not surprisingly, the play proceeds to serve up much
knockabout fun.
Despite their antique origins, the distinction
between low and high in comedy seems only to have
been explicitly recognized in the early 17th century,
when dramatists aspired to and discussed the suit-
ability of classical models. Thus the Greek New
Comedy of Menander was considered “higher” than
the farcical burlesque of Aristophanic Old Comedy,
George Puttenham in his Arte of English Poesie
(1589) describing New Comedy as “more ciuill
and pleasant a great deale” than “This bitter poeme
called the old Comedy” (1.14.25). Aristophanes’s
trenchant satire and juxtaposition of low comedy
with high has discomfited many a critic.
In fact literary criticism still largely reflects the
attitudes of John Dryden, outlined in a lengthy pref-
ace to his (successful) play An Evening’s Love, or,
The Mock Astrologer (1668) and which explained
why it pained him to pen such low comedy:
Low comedy especially requires, on the writer’s part,
much of conversation with the vulgar, and much of
ill nature in the observation of their follies . . . my
disgust of low comedy proceeds not so much from
my judgment as from my temper; which is the
reason why I so seldom write it; and that when
I succeed in it, (I mean so far as to please the
Low Comedy 465
audience) yet I am nothing satisfied with what I have
done; but am often vexed to hear the people laugh,
and clap, as they perpetually do, where intended
them no jest; while they let pass the better things,
without taking notice of them.
Indeed, Samuel Pepys, an avid theatergoer by no
means averse to farce and low comedy, dismissed
this play as “very smutty” (McAfee, 1916, p. 148).
Borrowing much from one of Molière’s early plays,
Le dépit amoureux (The Love-Tiff, 1656), it is decid-
edly livelier than other Dryden pieces, all of which
he wrote after the Restoration of Charles II for the
newly reopened London playhouses.
Just as high comedy is no guarantee of theatri-
cal excellence, so low comedy is not necessarily
synonymous with poor performance or theatrical
ineptitude. George Bernard Shaw observed in one of
his London theater reviews for the 1890s, “After the
exasperatingly bad acting one constantly sees at the
theatres where high comedy and ‘drama’ prevail, it
is a relief to see even simple work creditably done”
(The Saturday Review, April 27, 1895). Clearly a
skilled low comedian can be highly esteemed by pro-
fessionals and audiences alike, and although Shaw
was no proponent of low comedy and farce (indeed
he attempted to “humanize” farce by writing his
own, although to uncertain effect), he knew good
stagecraft when he saw it. Moreover, the idea that
low comedy and high should never combine is dis-
proved in the theater by the work of such geniuses as
Molière, William Shakespeare, and Anton Chekhov
(not to mention the absurdists) and in fiction by
François Rabelais, Lawrence Sterne (1713–1768),
Charles Dickens, George Meredith (1828–1909),
James Joyce (1882–1941), Céline (Louis Ferdinand
Destouches, 1894–1961), Günter Grass (b. 1927),
and many others.
Jessica Milner Davis
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Greek Comedy;
Aristophanes; Carnivalesque; Commedia dell’Arte;
Farce; Genres and Styles of Comedy; High Comedy;
Molière; Obscenity; Rabelais, François; Satire;
Shakespearean Comedy; Slapstick
Further Readings
Aristophanes. (1970). Plays of Aristophanes (P. Dickinson,
Trans., 2 vols.). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
466 Low Comedy

Bakhtin, M. M. (1968). Rabelais and his world Websites

(H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
John Dryden’s “Prologue to an Evening’s Love” read by Paul
Charney, M. (Ed.). (2005). Comedy: A geographical and
Scofield: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhcza7_
historical guide (2 vols.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
john-dryden-prologue-to-an-evening-s-love_creatio
McAfee, H. (Ed.). (1916). Pepys on the restoration stage.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 M
MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS, U.S.
U.S. humor magazines have tracked American
political and cultural history since 1765, when The
(Philadelphia) Bee, which lasted for three issues,
scourged the colonial governor of Pennsylvania.
Federal, Civil War, industrial, jazz age, wartime/post-
war, and contemporary periods of humor magazines
can be differentiated in literary style, topical matter,
and, notably, in graphics and visual formatting. The
orientation toward social satire, economic critique,
and cultural and literary burlesque has been consis-
tent. As of 2013, the humor magazine as a physical
artifact is in decline, although MAD magazine con-
tinues its half-century-plus run, but online avatars
seem vibrant enough to sustain accompanying print
versions, including The Onion and Humor Times.
This entry explores the various styles of humor peri-
odicals throughout U.S. history and examines their
future outlook.
Federal Era
The Augustan style of Juvenalian satire dominated
comic political commentary through the 1820s.
The period around 1807 to 1815 was particu-
larly rich in political and social satire, as suggested
by the names of various offerings: The Corrector
(1804, with another in 1814), The Thistle (1807),
The Fool (1807), The Scourge (1810 in Boston;
1811 in Baltimore), and many more. A comic lit-
erary culture was begun as well, most notably
with writers Washington Irving and James Kirke
467
Paulding’s Salmagundi and George Helmbold’s The
(Philadelphia) Tickler, both starting in 1807. Irving
and Paulding were highly successful in mild social
satire; Helmbold was decried by one of newspaper
publisher Isaiah Thomas’s correspondents as being
libelous and salacious, although there is not much
scandal in its social observations that seems objec-
tionable, as in the doggerel,
I am a merchant bold,
On South Wharves is my store.
Hard times like these, for honest folks,
None can too much deplore.
With tongue as smooth as oil,
Each day untruths I tell.
Look sharp for fools to take them in.
Charge twice for mackerel. (The [Philadelphia]
Tickler, 1811)
Herald of Glory and Adopted Citizen’s Journal in
the second—and possibly last—issue of its first vol-
ume on August 13, 1834, edited by Tar Feathers, &
Co., took as its motto “I take the responsibility” for
attacking “hog tories, Antimasons, and Irishtocrats”
of its home city, Boston. Humor throughout the era
maintained its role as a social and political force.
The transition to a national journalistic style
appears in the 1830s, notably with writer Seba
Smith’s character Jack Downing, who introduced
the cracker-barrel voice and skeptical pragmatism
of the backwoods to national politics by way of
his satiric letters roasting the legislature in the state
capitol in the Portland (Maine) Daily Courier. Editor
B. P. Shillaber’s (Boston) Carpet-Bag (1851–1853)
468 Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
was another notable advance in style and content
broadened to include literary interests and urban
scenes. Shillaber’s periodical holds the distinction of
publishing “first” works by humorists Artemus Ward,
John Phoenix, and a young man, Samuel Clemens,
who would make his mark under the pseudonym
Mark Twain. Their writing blended literary fancy
and irony with pragmatic political humor and vulgar
dialect. Add a dash of reportorial burlesque and it is
easy to trace the lineage to Twain’s legislative report-
ing in 1863 for the Virginia City (Nevada) Territorial
Enterprise. National sources as diverse as editor
William T. Porter’s The Spirit of the Times, editor
Lewis Gaylord Clarke’s Knickerbocker Magazine,
and The New Orleans Picayune, all products of the
1830s that lasted for a couple of decades, captured
and printed the roughhouse frontier stories that would
later be identified as the native American humor of the
old Southwest. During the same era, author Joseph C.
Neal more-or-less single-handedly invented the vulgar
urban type in Philadelphia “Charcoal” sketches, pub-
lished in various magazines. Other long-lived humor
magazines such as Yankee Notions (1852) and pub-
lisher Frank Leslie’s Budget of Fun (1858) blended
various forms of cartoons and short jokes that still
characterize the genre, mirroring London’s Punch,
but with brief anecdotes and jokes, along with letters
from fictional correspondents, suited to an American
audience that “runs as it reads.”
Civil War Era
The Civil War and its aftermath brought forth a
new generation of comic newspapers and periodi-
cals addressing an increasingly literate readership
ready to track internationalism, spreading economic
and political corruption, and the industrialization
of America’s Manifest Destiny. Vanity Fair (1859–
1863), first edited under Charles G. Leland and then
under Artemus Ward, burlesqued politics, religious
communities, and national politics, mixing literary
comedians, New England and female humorists,
and other political and social comedians, with some
throwbacks to the Downing era of regional politics
and local issues, and others looking forward to the
aggressive politics of the coming age of the great
comic illustrated magazines. Without being overly
literary, Vanity Fair elevated literary expectations for
humor, but it also suffered by being too neutral for a
society polarized by the conflict between the North
and the South. By the 1870s, a vast number of news-
papers devoted pages to humor generated by “locals”
and the updated “exchange system,” which circulated
comic columnists nationally. The phrase Phunny
Phellows, title of a comic journal lasting from 1859
to 1876, characterized many of these lesser comedi-
ans, suggesting both their tendency toward literary
humor and their overuse of cacography, which Ward
used cleverly to create social and historical satire, but
which became a national plague of pointless puns
and silly distractions after Josh Billings’s columns
and “Almanacks” in the 1860s and 1870s. By the
end of the century, some of these writers had risen to
permanence as American literary institutions. Twain
vaulted from the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise
to San Francisco’s Alta California and then to New
York’s Galaxy as a columnist before reaching the
pinnacle of The Atlantic Monthly in 1875. In 1881,
Ambrose Bierce began creating his unique apho-
risms—later titled The Devil’s Dictionary—in the San
Francisco Wasp, and Bill Nye founded the Laramie,
Wyoming, Boomerang, also the name of his fictional
mule, and rode his folksy small-town style to national
prominence.
Industrial Age
Puck (1877–1917), LIFE (1883–1936), and Judge
(1881–1937) formed the great triumvirate of pic-
torial comic magazines that dominated the period
between the Civil War and World War I. The lat-
ter two maintained a readership to World War II.
Joseph Keppler’s brilliantly graphic satiric politi-
cal cartoons in Puck were complemented by writer
H. C. Bunner’s wit and literary awareness, and the
age of chromolithography provided brilliant col-
ors. Always hostile to the monopolies and political
corruption, several of Puck’s cartoonists represent
the best political caricature America has produced,
with the exception of Thomas Nast, whose car-
toons undermined New York’s Tammany Hall, the
most powerful and corrupt political machine of its
time. Judge took a more conservative position, even
directly serving the Republican Party from 1885
through 1909. James Montgomery Flagg’s illus-
trations represented another transition to a softer,
slightly sexier art, and Norman Anthony as editor in
the 1920s brought it to its most sophisticated liter-
ary form. Its centrist conservatism and hackneyed
whimsy lost its appeal in the Great Depression.
LIFE (1883–1936), published by John Ames
Mitchell, diverged from the others in improving its
black-and-white photo engraving and favoring
its English model Punch. Its creators derived their

“New Year resolutions—till they melt!” Puck magazine,
January 1, 1913. Illustration shows two young women
stopping in the snow so that one of them can write her
New Year’s resolutions in the snow, “1913 No Jealousy No
Anger No Flirt…”; it is unclear whether she is flirting or
having second thoughts.
Source: Illustration by Leighton Budd. Library of Congress
Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC,
Reproduction Number LC-DIG-ppmsca-27906.
experience from the Harvard Lampoon, where
LIFE editor Edward S. Martin had honed his sense
of comic copy. The great age of college humor maga-
zines lay ahead in the jazz age. Graphic artist Charles
Dana Gibson, an unlikely novice still in his teens,
was recruited in 1886; his images would form the
characteristic visual identity of the era. Also notable
was the creation of LIFE’s Fresh Air Fund to bring
the children of New York’s inner city to Connecticut
farms for summer vacations. Humor and social
purpose blended in this era to an unprecedented
extent, and Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad,
Life on the Mississippi, most of his short stories, and
chapters of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S. 469
“Justice out of a Job,” Puck magazine, July 4, 1883. Illustration
shows Justice as an old woman, asleep at a desk, with
cobwebs, spiders, and mice taking over the courtroom.
Outside a window, an armed group of vigilantes have broken
down the door to a jail and removed a man whom they are
about to hang from a nearby tree; one man carries a flag that
states “Lively Lynchers.”
Source: Illustration by Fredrick Burr Opper. Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington,
DC, Reproduction Number LC-DIG-ppmsca-28402.
A Connecticut Yankee appeared in periodicals before
publication in hard cover. Cartoons depicting the
plight of Blacks and Chinese immigrants were found
in major magazines, including Harper’s, but without
enough power to transform those scandalous short-
comings into a program of national reform.
Jazz Age
The era of literary “little magazines”—magazines
that were smaller in size than their forerunners and
more tightly focused on an intellectual or selected
readership—was foreshadowed by little maga-
zines of humor that sprung from various regions
470 Magazines and Newspapers, U.S.
beginning before the turn of the 20th century.
Sagebrush Philosophy (1904–1910), edited by Bill
Barlow, is representative with its motto: “Consider
the mummy, he ain’t had no fun in 4,000 years.”
The “apostle of sunshine,” however, was printed
on “prickly pear papyrus,” with a shotgun, cracker-
barrel skepticism that joyfully excoriated social
nonsense, blue-stocking restraint, and hypocrisy.
The American Mercury, created by H. L. Mencken
in 1924, broadened Barlow’s good-natured skepti-
cism into the verbal pyrotechnics that gave him the
authoritative voice and cultural scope to skewer
the American “booboisie” and the wide swath of
American, really Southern, culture representing “the
Sahara of the Bozarts.” Mencken brought his jour-
nal to major national status, so vitriolic in advocacy
of higher culture that it left its imprint on American
attitudes for decades. Grimmer and less joyful were
the progressive socialist Art Young Quarterly (1922)
and, somewhat later, Americana (1932), which
blazed warnings of Hitler’s evil when many others
indulged in mild, usually mindless, anti-Semitism.
Another example of a regional magazine was Hot
Dog: Regular Fellows Monthly (1922–1927), from
Cleveland and later New York City, which was quite
sexy and more virulently anti-Semitic, reveling in the
“tough-guy” humor of its period. Other regional
humor offerings abounded. World War I even
produced a variety of “trench” humor magazines
published by American troops in Europe, a phe-
nomenon that returned in World War II, but with
a wider ranging sexual content and a much heavier
emphasis on commercial sources on the home front,
which had a vastly different mindset. Bill Mauldin’s
cartoons for Yank, fresh though they were, and
important as they remain in showing the attitude of
the lower class American GI, suggested more of the
earlier and less frivolously sexy war humor.
Gibson’s girls and James Montgomery Flagg’s
drawings might or might not be antecedents of the
pinup girls of George Petty and Alberto Vargas or
the busty pinup girls of Jefferson Machamer, Russell
Patterson, and Bill Ward, but at some point the
theme of sex and sexual humor entered the stream
of American humor periodicals. Sam H. Clark
originated Jim Jam Jems in 1912 as a mid-Western
journal of opinion, but was misperceived, he felt, as
the licentious bad boy of the 1910s and the 1920s.
Clark appeared not to be interested in humor maga-
zines for the money—as he didn’t even accept adver-
tising revenue for a long time, and up until 1922
he didn’t even take subscriptions—but his heavy
sarcasm on social issues was a goad to antagonize
a do-gooder like John S. Sumner of the New York
Society for the Suppression of Vice. In 1922, Sumner
succeeded in getting sellers of periodicals contain-
ing sexual humor arrested; these arrests were later
reversed in court hearings in which Clark testified.
Clark was a far cry from Captain Billy Fawcett who
edited Captain Billy’s Whiz-Bang, which flourished
from 1919 to 1936 and perhaps longer in an attenu-
ated version by Fawcett’s son. Whiz-Bang carried
plenty of jokes featuring double entendres, but there
were even more frankly sexual jokes, chatter, and
pinups of jazz-age models in stockings and under-
wear. Circulation reached close to half a million in
1923; America’s sexuality and sexual mores were
emerging in new ways. Clark did not approve, but
Fawcett bought Jim Jam Jems after Clark’s death
and re-made it into his own style anyhow. Fawcett’s
ex-wife challenged him with The Calgary Eye
Opener, which had originated as a Canadian little
magazine like the other regional offerings around
1902. The world of humor magazines had changed.
Wartime and Postwar Eras
The age of sexuality in humor fully opened after
World War I. Titles such as French Humor and
French Follies telegraphed their humor; likewise,
The Flapper, Co-ed Campus Quarterly, Paris Nights,
Broadway Breeze, and others abounded. Both on
and off campus, the 1920s roared into the 1930s.
Some upscale magazines like College Humor (1934)
offered distinguished artwork and higher level
engagement, but Reel Screen Fun, Screen Humor,
and Film Fun kept to a more sexy brand. They
would be followed in turn by tabloid-sized photo-
cheesecake-humor magazines like Gags, TNT, WIT,
Titters, and Tit-bits, which were, in their turn, super-
seded in the 1950s and 1960s by digest-sized sleaze-
cake, a sexier version of cheesecake, much of it from
the Humorama firm, which went for sexy nudity
interspersed with comic captions and witty sayings
of models whose assets were more visible in pho-
tographs than was verbal humor. Hustler Humor,
Sex to Sexty, and their grossly sexual counterparts
would make them seem modest and constrained by
comparison, but not for another decade.
The New Yorker, whose annual February cover of
Eustace Tilley eyeing a butterfly through his monocle
is often taken as the first harbinger of spring, may be
hard to think of as a regional magazine, but so it
proclaimed itself in staking out its territory as the

Algonquin Hotel’s Round Table, disavowing the old
lady from Dubuque as a target reader. Writer-critic
Dorothy Parker’s wit, writer Christopher Morley’s
clever reversals of domesticity, and the selection of
cartoons, along with copy editing by Harold Ross
made The New Yorker peerless. Contributors such
as E. B. White, S. J. Perelman, Peter Arno, and oth-
ers whose names continue to be familiar years after
their deaths raised the level of diction, sentence
construction, underplayed wit, and sheer intellec-
tual power, which allowed the magazine to sustain
itself, although with various reinventions, up to the
present.
Norman Anthony created another type of humor
magazine with Ballyhoo in 1931, an unlikely year
to start a commercial venture (because of the Great
Depression), but his purposefully rag-tag construc-
tion and egregiously colorful visual presentation,
coupled with a don’t-care verbal humor and bur-
lesque advertising was just what the era demanded.
It had as many imitators in the early 1930s as MAD
had in the 1950s, and for much the same reason.
The breezy skepticism and the shrewd panning of
cultural pretension, linked to irreverence toward
the rich, the formal, and the mundane, was all its
readership dreamed of, juvenile though their tastes
seemed to critics. A close look at one of the theme
figures of Ballyhoo suggests MAD’s mascot Alfred
E. Newman, so the “What, Me Worry?” icono-
clasm of MAD had an earlier precedent. Ballyhoo
remained a massive cultural presence for almost
a decade, but World War II needed war-oriented
humor. MAD in the early 1950s thus had an open
field. Even Congress was concerned at the fur-
ther erosion of the morals of American youth in
the 1950s by MAD, but without much effect on
humor magazines. Censors did not have great suc-
cess because of the irrelevance of their attempts to
the real underlying human issues of the era. MAD’s
imitators called themselves Sick, Crazy, Cracked,
Frenzy, and other equally indicative names. In the
late 1950s and 1960s, even more biting iconoclasm
was produced by The Realist, founded and edited
by Paul Krasner, which featured a cartoon of Uncle
Sam lying across Vietnam in missionary position as
its iconic comment on the United States’ entry into
the conflict in Southeast Asia.
Contemporary Era
Contemporary attempts to found serious humor
magazines have failed. Spy, closely allied to the magic
Magazines and Newspapers, U.S. 471
of the Kennedy name, could not sustain itself. MAD
and National Lampoon seem to be the only titles
to have retained national prominence over a long
period of time. Begun in 1970, National Lampoon’s
run was sustained through 1998 by the exploita-
tion of sex, politics, and violence in varied forms of
parody and satire: One cover threatened that if we
didn’t buy this magazine, they would shoot the dog
on the cover. Tasteless humor became their mode,
bleeding over into films like National Lampoon’s
Animal House (1978; John Landis, director) and
other ventures. Yet, the history of humor magazines
may have come full circle, as politics, now, as in the
earliest period, seems to remain a driving force.
Future Outlook
The death of the American humor magazine may
be greatly exaggerated, even if the old standbys
are gone, with the exception of MAD. Drugstore
shelves were once populated by cartoon magazines
by Charlton Press. Now, niche-comedy humor mag-
azines cover dogs, nursing, health, hot-rods, cycles,
and you-name-it, but they have been as transient as
their precursors, which may be the nature of humor
magazine life cycles generally. Online, however,
The Onion and Humor Times flourish, both dedi-
cated to ethical and political humor that is smart
and demanding. Both are sufficiently robust to sus-
tain paper publications. A number of lesser offer-
ings exist. Otherwise, a scattered universe of zines
proliferates, seemingly without limits, an interesting
genre as uncharitable to American cultural norms
as it is irregular in form, format, and venue. Where
consumers of published periodical humor go from
here is anybody’s guess. The book was declared
dead as a medium with the arrival of microforms;
the theater and the movies were supposed cadav-
ers in the 1970s, but neither genre has died, and
the life of the humor magazines, even if the physi-
cal medium alters, is likely to continue as long as
they serve a cultural need in an information-driven
world.
David E. E. Sloane
See also Cartoons; History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Contemporary; Journalism
Further Readings
Blair, W. (1960). Native American humor. San Francisco,
CA: Chandler. (Original work published 1937)
472 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
Ellenbogen, G. C. (1985). The directory of humor
magazines and humor organizations in America (and
Canada). New York, NY: Wry-Bred Press.
Mott, F. L. (1930–1968). History of American magazines
(5 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peterson, T. (1956). Magazines in the twentieth century.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sloane, D. E. E. (Ed.). (1987). American humor magazines
and comic periodicals. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
This entry provides a list of primarily humorous
magazines that appear or have appeared outside
of the United States. The purpose is to balance the
treatment of the topic of magazines in the United
States, where significant research on the subject
exists. Conversely, there is no comprehensive treat-
ment of European or Asian magazines, with the
notable exception of John Lent’s work on cartoon-
ing and visual humor, which overlaps significantly
with the study of magazines but cannot replace it.
A few trends emerge even from this small and unrep-
resentative sample: the influence of Punch, which
has been felt worldwide and has led to the creation
of many local humorous magazines, and the emer-
gence of political humor magazines at the beginning
of the 20th century; the tendency of humor maga-
zines under repressive regimes to last for a very short
time and close as a result of censorship; and the
emergence of the “fake news” genre, along the lines
of The Onion, in recent times.
Academia Caţavencu
Academia Caţavencu is a satirical magazine founded
in 1991 in Romania. Before publishing this maga-
zine, the editorial team had edited the satirical
magazines Caţavencu Incomod and Caţavencu
Internaţional. Academia Caţavencu is known as an
advocate of press freedom and opposes manipula-
tion through mass media.
The Arousal
The Arousal was a Pakistani anarchist newsletter,
which started publication in 1988. The Arousal was
distributed in Karachi and Lahore. It acquired noto-
riety for its humor and satirical attacks on politi-
cians and religious parties. After harassment by the
authorities, the magazine folded in 1991.
Bayan Yanı
Bayan Yanı, translated as “the seat next to the
woman,” is a humor magazine founded in 2011 in
Turkey. The magazine is the only female-oriented
one in the country and contains jokes, cartoons, and
humorous articles about the oppression women in
Turkish society face.
Il Becco Giallo
Il Becco Giallo (The Yellow Beak) was a satirical
magazine known for its anti-Fascist content and was
one of the most important satirical magazines in
Italy in the 1920s. Founded in 1924, it was forced to
close in 1926 by the Fascist regime.
Bezbozhnik
Bezbozhnik (Atheist) was a monthly Soviet satirical
magazine published between 1922 and 1941. The
magazine ridiculed all kinds of religion and pub-
lished articles and cartoons depicting religion as a
superstition. However, later the magazine started to
publish political articles. The invasion of the Soviet
Union by Nazi Germany in 1941 caused the maga-
zine to cease its publication.
Bilete de Papagal
Bilete de Papagal (Parrot Notes) was a satirical pub-
lication in Romania that was founded in 1928 and
published intermittently between 1928 and 1945.
The Cane Toad Times
The Cane Toad Times was an Australian satirical
humor magazine that appeared between 1977 and
1990, based in Brisbane, Queensland. The maga-
zine contained countercultural philosophy, irrev-
erent journalism, cartoons, satirical articles, and
caricatures. The magazine took a role of political
opposition.
Charlie Hebdo
Charlie Hebdo is a weekly French satire and humor
newspaper that includes cartoons, reports, and
jokes. The magazine is known for its anti-religious
stance and mocks the extreme right perspective.
The magazine was founded in 1969 after the con-
troversial satirical magazine Hara-Kiri was closed
down. Charlie Hebdo folded in 1981, but it was
revived in 1992.
 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
Chayan
Chayan is a satirical magazine in Russia. It has been
published in Tatar since 1923. In 1956, it started
publishing in Russian. During the Soviet era, the
magazine cooperated closely with Mushtum from
Uzbekistan.
The Clinic
The Clinic is a weekly satirical publication that has
been in operation since 1998 in Chile. It contains a
wide range of cultural affairs, jokes, and investiga-
tive work and mocks most politicians but is gener-
ally leftist.
Dikobraz
Dikobraz is a weekly satirical magazine published in
Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic between 1945
and 1995. The magazine had a motto saying “with
a smile everything is easier.” Although the magazine
was revived in 2004, it closed down again in 2005.
Diyojen
Diyojen was the first humor magazine of Turkey
and was published between 1869 and 1873. After
being published in French and Armenian, the maga-
zine started publishing in Turkish and introduced
the first examples of Turkish humor to its readers.
It had 183 issues, and in 1873 it was closed down
because of its political writings.
Dodgem Logic
Dodgem Logic is a bimonthly British humor and
entertainment magazine that started publishing in
December 2009. It includes comics, short stories,
poetry, articles and reviews, and art work. Its editor,
Alan Moore, describes it as a publication that brings
“the subterranean vitality and color of the last cen-
tury’s underground press into the present day.”
al Domari
al Domari (The Lamplighter) was among the early
independent publications in Syria since the begin-
ning of the Baath Party rule in 1963. al Domari was
published by a well-known Syrian political cartoon-
ist, Ali Farzat. The newspaper issued political satire
and its style was inherited from the French weekly
Le Canard enchaîné (The Chained Duck). The paper
started its circulation in February 2001 and sold its
entire run of 50,000 copies in less than 4 hours.
473
However, al Domari closed down in 2003 due to
lack of funds and steady government censorship.
Dou
Dou, which started publishing in 2008, means
“funny” or “tease” in Chinese. It is a general
humor magazine that is put together by several
famous Chinese humorists such as Sun Rui and Lin
Changzhi.
Faking News
Faking News is an Indian website that was launched
in 2008. It publishes fake news reports that satirize
and spoof topics and events familiar to the Indian
audience and has both English and Hindi editions.
Feral Tribune
Feral Tribune was a weekly satirical magazine in
Croatia. Founded in 1993, the magazine announced
itself as a “weekly magazine for Croatian anarchists,
protesters and heretics.” Its circulation decreased in
the 2000s, and it closed in 2008.
Fun
Fun was an English weekly Victorian magazine,
founded in 1861 and published until 1901. Its radi-
cal politics were in competition with the more con-
servative Punch magazine. The magazine contained
parody and satirical verse, political and literary criti-
cism, articles on sports, and full- or double-page car-
toons, often on political topics.
Gırgır
Gırgır was a Turkish humor magazine published
from 1972 to 1993. The magazine was known for
its sharp satirical cartoons about politicians active
at that time. It also became one of the best-selling
humor magazines in Europe with a circulation of
450,000 in the 1970s. However, after key staff
members such as Oğuz Aral left the magazine and
it was taken over by another publishing group, the
magazine lost its popularity and folded in 1993.
Grönköpings Veckoblad
Grönköpings Veckoblad is a monthly Swedish satiri-
cal magazine that has been published since 1902.
The title, translated “Grönköpings Weekly,” refers
to a fictional Swedish town.
474 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
El Gugeton
El Gugeton was a Ladino-language satirical jour-
nal launched in 1908. Ladino is a Judeo-Spanish
language, spoken by some Sephardic Jewish com-
munities. El Gugeton, edited by Elia Carmona, was
the second longest running Ladino publication in
Istanbul, closing in 1931.
Hara-Kiri
Hara Kiri was a notorious satirical French maga-
zine published in the 1960s. The subtitle of the
magazine Journal bête et méchant means “stupid
and evil magazine.” The highly controversial maga-
zine was known for criticizing public officials and
policies and was temporarily banned by the French
government.
Hoy!
Hoy! was a Filipino humor magazine. Because it was
founded shortly after the People Power Revolution
in May 1986, most of its contents satirized the times.
The magazine was similar to the American humor
magazine MAD in terms of its size and number of
pages. However, the magazine was short-lived, with
only a few issues appearing. Lipang Kalabaw and
Telembang were other magazines that also pub-
lished only a few issues in Indonesia.
HUMOR
HUMOR was an Argentinean humor magazine
published between 1978 and 1997. It was consid-
ered as a satirical current event magazine of its time.
During the Falklands War in 1982, the magazine
had a prominent impact on Argentinean media and
people.
The Japan Punch
The Japan Punch was named after the British maga-
zine Punch, and it aimed to inform the foreign com-
munity in Yokohama of Japan’s politics and society.
The magazine contained cartoons on all 10 pages.
The Japan Punch made use of Japanese techniques:
It was printed by woodblock on Japanese paper
(washi) and stitched in Japanese style. In 1965, after
the magazine had gained popularity, it was published
on a monthly basis. The magazine had an important
impact on Japanese comic art. It was active between
1862 and 1887.
Joe
Joe magazine was published between 1973 and
1979 in Kenya. At its widest distribution it reached
30,000 copies. The magazine was named after an
everyman character that founder Hilary Ng’weno
and artist Terry Hirst had created for an earlier
publication. The magazine published joke contests,
comic strips and cartoons, feature columns, and one
short story in every issue.
Journal of Irreproducible Results
The Journal of Irreproducible Results is a bimonthly
humor magazine founded in 1955 in Israel. The
Journal of Irreproducible Results contains a wide
range of humor types from parodies and burlesques
to satires. The Journal of Irreproducible Results is
generally about science and it appeals to scientists.
The magazine features a mix of jokes, science car-
toons, and funny research reports.
El Jueves
El Jueves is a Spanish weekly satirical magazine that
started publishing in 1977. The magazine contains
political, social, and economic affairs and comic
strips. It was inspired by Charlie Hebdo and Hara
Kiri in the political thaw that followed the abroga-
tion of the Francoist censorship laws.
Kayhan Caricature
Kayhan Caricature is a humor magazine founded
in 1992 in Iran. It became Iran’s first humor publi-
cation to specialize in cartoon and caricature. This
made the magazine famous, and it became popular
among cartoonists in Iran. The magazine also helped
found the Tehran International Cartoon Biennial.
El Koshary Today
Founded in 2009, El Koshary Today is an Egyptian
online website (www.elkoshary.com) that uses fake
headlines and stories to satirize current events, simi-
lar to the U.S. website The Onion. According to the
El Koshary website, its philosophy “is to use sar-
casm and imagination to raise awareness of some of
the serious (and not so serious) issues plaguing our
nation. It is not intended to relay any factual infor-
mation or credible circumstances, though where
possible readers will find news links to the actual
issues being satirized herein.”
 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
Krokodil
Krokodil was the premier satirical magazine of the
Soviet Union. It started publishing in 1922 and got
its name from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s story, “The
Crocodile.” Unlike the short-lived satirical maga-
zines Zanoza and Prozhektor, Krokodil continued
until 1991. The magazine lampooned political fig-
ures and ridiculed the countries that opposed the
Soviet system. Similar magazines were found in all
the Soviet republics, such as Pepper in Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic; Hedgehog in Belarusian
Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist
Republic, and Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic and
Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic; Bumblebee
in Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic; Scorpion in
Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic; and
Crocodile in Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Le Canard enchaîné
Le Canard enchaîné was founded in 1915 as a
humorous alternative to news that was censored
by the French government. Today, it sells about
500,000 copies weekly and is known for scoops
and satirical reports on French governmental and
business leaders. A source of investigative journal-
ism in France, its exposés of French governmental
and business leaders have led to resignations by
cabinet ministers.
Leman
Leman is a quintessential left-wing humor maga-
zine published weekly in Turkey. After Limon,
another humor magazine in Turkey, was closed
down, Leman was founded in 1991 by the same
cartoonists. Leman is important in Turkey because
the magazine has become a role model for other
humor magazines in Turkey such as Penguen and
Uykusuz.
Lemon People
Lemon People was a hentai Manga (erotic Japanese
comics featuring bizarre sexual desires and acts)
magazine published in Japan from February 1982
to November 1998. The stories in the magazine
often involved humor and parody. Other magazines
in the country such as Manga Burikko and Manga
Hot Milk used Lemon People’s style. However,
these magazines were not as successful as Lemon
People.
475
Il Male
Il Male (Evil), published between 1978 and 1982,
was one of the most successful satirical magazines
in Italy. It was fiercely anti-establishment and was
often pulled off newsstands by the police for violat-
ing anti-defamation laws. Its best known prank was
publishing fake newspaper front pages, such as one
in which a fake edition of Corriere dello Sport (the
premier sports newspaper at the time) announced
that the 1978 World Cup, in which Italy lost out to
the Netherlands, had been canceled and a new final
would be played.
Marko Paşa
Marko Paşa was a weekly satire and humor maga-
zine published between 1946 and 1947 in Turkey.
The magazine experienced continuous censorship
from the authorities at that time due to its sarcas-
tic style. Despite the oppression, the magazine was
popular, with a circulation of 60,000 to 70,000.
Melbourne Punch
Melbourne Punch was an Australian humor maga-
zine published between 1855 and 1925. It was the
most successful of colonial magazines that took the
London Punch as a model.
Molla Nasreddin
Molla Nasreddin was an Azerbaijani satirical peri-
odical published between 1906 and 1930 in Azeri
and in Russian. The magazine was popular all over
the Muslim world, from Morocco to Iran. Molla
Nasreddin was named after 13th-century “mullah”
Nasreddin, famous in the Islamic world for his wis-
dom and comical stories. The magazine satirized
corruption, inequality, and religion, thus drawing
significant hostility from religious conservatives. The
magazine is credited with starting Iranian cartooning.
Mshana
Mshana was an entertainment magazine based in
Cape Town, South Africa, founded in 2007. It con-
tained comics and entertaining articles.
Mushtum
Mushtum (Fist) is an Uzbek satire and humor
magazine that began publication in 1923. It was
temporarily suspended because of World War II.
During the Soviet era, Mushtum cooperated with
476 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
the humorous magazines Perets’ (Ukraine), Vozhyk
(Belarus), Chayan (the Tatar Republic), and Macaw
(Kazakhstan). It resumed publication in 1951.
Nebelspalter
The Nebelspalter, translated as “fog-smasher,” is
a satirical magazine in Switzerland. It was estab-
lished in 1875 as an “illustrated humorous political
weekly’ and is still published today, although it has
been published monthly since 1996. Nebelspalter is
now the oldest satirical magazine in the world, after
the closing of Punch.
Noseweek
Noseweek is a South African monthly humor and
investigative magazine founded in 1993. According
to its website, the magazine features “irreverent,
independent, inside information” about economics,
politics, and society in the country.
The Nugget
With the slogan “Bahrain’s 1st humor magazine!”
The Nugget is an English-language general humor
magazine based in Bahrain. The magazine, founded
in 2012, aims to satirize common aspects of social
and popular culture and present topics in a humor-
ous perspective. The nature of the topics is broad in
order to reach worldwide readers of all ages.
Pancada
Pandaca was a humor magazine published in Brazil
from 1979 to the mid-1980s. It is the reworking of
Cracked magazine in the United States, a magazine
that was a knock-off of MAD magazine. The con-
tent was translated from Cracked magazine and
adapted to Brazilian society. Although most of the
content was transferred from the original American
magazine, some of it was created by local artists.
Penguen
Penguen is a weekly humor magazine published in
both Turkey and North Cyprus. It was founded by
a group of cartoonists and writers who left Leman
magazine in 2002. The magazine lampoons political
figures and publishes cartoons and articles about the
social and political problems in Turkey.
Perets’
Perets’ (Pepper) is a Ukrainian satirical newspa-
per that was founded in 1922 and is still published
today. Its current editor in chief and Ukrainian
comic writer Mykhailo Prudnyk, won the Aleko
international competition for humorous short sto-
ries in 2013. In an interview in the Kiev newspaper
The Day, Prudnyk noted that the newspaper contin-
ues its humorous political commentary, commenting
that “the task of satire and humor is not only to
make fun of things, but also to help. Perhaps, those,
at the high ranks of power, should not be angry at
journalists but rather say: ‘Thank you for helping us
to see the problem!’” (Oliinyk, 2013).
The Phoenix
The Phoenix is a best-selling political and current
affairs magazine in Ireland. It has been published
on a regular basis, usually every 2 weeks, since
1983, with a larger annual issue each December.
The magazine includes a news column, “Affairs of
the Nation,” that deals with political scandals; a
financial column, “Moneybags”; a section “Craic
and Codology,” which includes satirical coverage
of events outside Dublin; and features on arts and
entertainment. Its cover features a photo montage
of ironic and humorous comments of notable people
on current events.
Pikker
Pikker was an Estonian satirical and humor maga-
zine that was active between 1943 and 2001, albeit
not continuously. It published caricatures, humor,
satire, and anecdotes.
Private Eye
Private Eye is a British magazine. It started publish-
ing in 1961, and it been called a “thorn in the side”
of the British establishment because of its sharp
satirical bent.
Punch
Punch, also known as the London Charivari, was a
British weekly humor and satire magazine that was
published from July 17, 1841, to April 8, 1992. It
was relaunched on September 6, 1996, and con-
tinued until May 28, 2002. It published the works
of great comic poets and writers and introduced
the term cartoon as it used today in the 1850s. Its
irreverent political and social cartoons were known
for the detailed pictures of 19th- and 20th-century
life.
 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
Random Magazine
Random Magazine is a humor magazine in India.
It appeared first in 2008 and has a circulation of
50,000 copies. The magazine contains satire and
parody on current affairs and famous people in
India.
Satyricón
Satyricón was a satirical humor magazine that was
published from 1972 to 1974 in Buenos Aires,
Argentina. Satyricón had a very aggressive satirical
humor. Government forces shut it down in 1974
because of its attacks on Isabel Perón, who suc-
ceeded her husband, Juan Perón, as president after
his death in 1974.
Shabkhand
Shabkhand (Night Laugh) was one of the most
prominent satirical publications published in
Pakistan during the Taliban era. However, it pub-
lished only a few issues. Although the magazine con-
tained satire, cartoons and verse comprised most of
its content.
Shankar’s Weekly
Shankar’s Weekly, India’s Punch, was founded in
1948 by Kesava Shankara Pillai, a well-known polit-
ical cartoonist. Shankar’s Weekly was fully devoted
to cartoons and humorous articles. It was closed
in 1975 during the “emergency” in which Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi suspended democratic rule.
Shudaung
Shudaung, literally translated as “viewpoint jour-
nal,” was a humor journal founded by left-wing
Burmese politician and journalist Thakin Lwin in
Burma in 1969. He was its editor until it closed
down in 1971.
Svikmøllen
Svikmøllen is an annual Danish satirical magazine in
Denmark. It started publishing in 1915 and contains
articles and cartoons that satirize the events and
affairs in the past year.
TelQuel
TelQuel is a French Moroccan satirical magazine.
Since it started publication in 2001, it has been
known for its opposition to Islamic ideology in
477
Morocco. For this reason, the magazine has been
continuously subjected to pressure from the govern-
ment. The magazine also started another satirical
magazine, named Nichane, in Moroccan Arabic.
However, it closed down in 2010 as a consequence
of governmental pressure.
Titanic
Titanic is a monthly German satirical magazine
based in Frankfurt. It was founded in 1979 by a
group of editors and contributors from the satirical
magazine Pardon.
Tofigh
Tofigh was a weekly satirical newspaper published
in Iran. “Truth is bitter, so we say it sweetly” was
the motto of the newspaper. It started publishing in
1923 as a literary periodical; then it changed its style
to humor by adding cartoons to its content. Tofigh
faced oppression from the government and was sus-
pended several times due to its criticism of the gov-
ernment. Tofigh mirrored the hopes and desires of
low- and middle-class people in Iran. It closed down
in 1971.
Unmad
Unmad, meaning “mad (or insane),” is a monthly
satire magazine in Bangladesh. It was launched in
1978, and it had a style similar to MAD magazine.
Uykusuz
Uykusuz is a weekly humor magazine published
in both Turkey and North Cyprus. It is similar to
Penguen magazine in that it publishes articles and
cartoons related to social, political, and economic
problems in Turkey. It was founded in 2007 and has
become one of the best-selling magazines in Turkey.
The Vacuum
The Vacuum is a free, monthly newspaper published
in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Each issue is themed
and contains a wide range of content, including
satire and commentary about the city and larger
cultural issues. Founded in 2003, the paper is dis-
tributed in public places such as bars and cafes and
by mail.
Vikingen
Vikingen is a former Norwegian satirical magazine
published from 1862 to 1932. After a short time,
478 Magazines and Newspapers Outside the United States
the magazine became an important source of humor,
satire, and public debate.
Wanita and Gila-Gila
Wanita (Woman) and Gila-Gila (Mad) attract large
numbers of readers in Malaysia. However, Gila-
Gila, which has been around for 20 years, has
become the leader due to “an increase in the num-
ber and quality of cartoons and humorous articles
especially for female readers” (Lent, 2001, p. 187).
Wanita and Gila-Gila discuss a wide collection of
cultural, social, and political issues in Malay lan-
guage. Additionally, both magazines deal with tradi-
tional and modernist Islamic matters. Yet, Gila-Gila
pays more attention to controversial issues than
does Wanita.
Viz
Viz is a British adult humor magazine launched in
1979. It publishes a number of contemporary comic
strips and includes a tabloid newspaper with satiri-
cal articles and letters. Its content has at times led to
controversy; the magazine was reprimanded by the
United Nations for publishing a comic strip titled
“The Thieving Gypsy Bastards,” and it was ques-
tioned by Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch after
it ran a “top tip” advising readers to call the airport
with a bomb threat if they were late for a flight.
Zanbel-e-Gham
Zanbel-e-Gham was the only satirical magazine
published in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime.
It was launched in 1997 by Osman Akram and a
friend; Akram photocopied the magazine on a hid-
den photocopier and smuggled copies to readers.
The magazine not only defied Taliban edicts but
made fun of them. Now published openly, Zanbel-e-
Gham continues to print cartoons critical of political
and religious leaders. Today, it is supported in part
by the Afghan Media and Culture Center, which
works to establish a free press in Afghanistan.
Ziligurti
Ziligurti, founded in 2005, is an independent Turk-
ish-language monthly humor magazine in North
Cyprus. It tackles political issues and daily life.
Metin Özdemir
See also Caricature; Cartoons; Comic Strips; Magazines
and Newspapers, U.S.; Satire
Further Readings
Allen, T. (2002, December). The word is freedom.
National Geographic Magazine. Washington, DC:
National Geographic Society. Retrieved from http://ngm
.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0212/aina/online_extra
.html
Attardo, S. (1992, April). The naked bunch: Italian satire in
the 1980s. The World and I, pp. 671–679.
Douglas, A., & Douglas, F. (1994). Arab comic strips:
Politics of an emerging mass culture. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Eduardo, R. (2012). Entre a comicidade, o senso comum e
a disidência. A revista Humor como espaço
controversial (1978–1980) [Between comedy, common
sense, and dissent: The magazine Humor as
controversial space]. Antiteses, 5(9), 77–97.
Faridullah, B. (2005). Satire in modern Afghanistan.
Comparative Studies of Asia, Africa and the Middle
East, 25(2), 465–479.
Fontes Garnica, I., & Menéndez, M. A. (2004). El
parlamento de papel: Las revistas españolas en la
transición democrática [The paper parliament: Spanish
magazines in the democratic transition]. Madrid, Spain:
Asociación de la Prensa de Madrid.
Fredericksen, B. F. (1991). Joe, the sweetest reading in
Africa: Documentation and discussion of a popular
magazine in Kenya. African Languages and Cultures,
4(2), 135–155.
Keller, C. (Ed.). (2011). Slavs and Tatars presents: Molla
Nasreddin: The magazine that would’ve, could’ve,
should’ve. Zurich, Switzerland: JRP-Ringier. Retrieved
from http://www.slavsandtatars.com/works.php?id=72
Lent, J. (1996). Comic art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and
Latin America: A comprehensive, international
bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lent, J. (2001). Illustrating Asia: Comics, humour
magazines, and picture books. Honolulu: University of
Hawai’i Press.
Lent, J. (2009). Cartooning in Africa. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Oliinyk, V. (2013, June 19). Pepper satire. The Day
Newspaper, Kiev, Ukraine.
Press, C. (1981). The political cartoon. Rutherford, NJ:
Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Simmons, S. (1993). War, revolution and the
transformation of the German humor magazine,
1914–1927. Art Journal, 52(1), 46–54.
Yücebaş, H. (2004). Türk Mizahçıları. İstanbul, Turkey:
L&M Yayınları.
Websites
Faking News: http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com

MANAGEMENT
When considering the relationship between humor
and management, several questions may arise: Is
humor a management tool? How may humor be uti-
lized by managers? How may humor assist manag-
ers in getting their work done and in achieving their
various objectives? This entry addresses these ques-
tions by briefly outlining some of the various func-
tions of humor as a management tool. After having
outlined some of the positive functions of humor
as a management tool, the entry also briefly dis-
cusses “another” side of humor, namely, as a means
of coercion and control. Differences in the use of
humor across workplaces are also mentioned.
Humor as a Management Tool
Although the link between humor and management
is not immediately obvious, humor may indeed be
used as a tool to assist and enhance the practice of
management. In particular, humor may perform
valuable functions to support a wide diversity of
management activities, including those that are
both interpersonally as well as transactionally ori-
ented. Interpersonal functions include, for example,
enhancing teamwork and creating a positive work-
ing atmosphere, motivating staff and increasing
their productivity, as well as minimizing status dif-
ferences. Transactionally oriented behaviors refer
to more immediately task-oriented activities, such
as getting things done and communicating negative
messages (such as criticism, rejection, or disagree-
ment). Each of these functions of humor as a man-
agement tool is discussed briefly in this section.
Enhancing Team Work and Creating
a Positive Working Atmosphere
Perhaps one of the best known functions of
humor is to create solidarity and a positive and often
friendly atmosphere. This effect of humor is particu-
larly important in a workplace context where humor
may be used to create and maintain friendly social
relationships between colleagues, as well as between
managers and their team members. These positive
effects of humor, in turn, may contribute toward
enhancing teamwork and establishing a positive
working atmosphere where members feel included,
valued, and appreciated. The process of creating a
positive working atmosphere is often described more
widely in terms of contributing to the creation (and
Management 479
maintenance) of a particular workplace or corpo-
rate culture that characterizes a specific workplace
or company. There is some evidence that the kinds
of humor used by those in management positions
tend to have an impact on the culture of a particular
workplace, for example, whether its members value
collaboration, inclusiveness, and mutual support
or whether they encourage individualistic behavior
and competitiveness. For example, frequent teas-
ing, jocular abuse, and short witty comments with
which people may try to outwit each other tend to
be characteristic of more individualistic and highly
competitive workplaces. Through their repeated use
of these specific types of humor, managers (and, to
a lesser extent, other team members) contribute to
constructing and reinforcing the norms (and culture)
of their specific workplace.
These processes of enhancing teamwork and cre-
ating a positive atmosphere or culture of a particular
workplace may also have positive effects on a team’s
cohesion and performance, which in turn may con-
tribute to increasing that team’s high productivity.
Motivating Staff and Increasing Their Productivity
One of the main aims of managers is to motivate
their staff with the ultimate goal of increasing their
productivity. The link between staff motivation
and productivity has long been established, and
there is some evidence that suggests that people
who are happy work more productively. Humor is
an excellent tool to achieve this, not only by cre-
ating a positive, friendly, and generally supportive
workplace atmosphere but also by establishing and
maintaining friendly collegial relationships among
staff. Several research studies have described some
of the positive effects of humor on staff motivation,
creativity, and productivity, in particular through
increasing employees’ overall job satisfaction. Some
of the functions of humor that contribute to achiev-
ing this include relieving tensions and dealing with
stress, stimulating people’s intellectual activity and
preventing boredom and fatigue, boosting morale,
facilitating teamwork, sparking discussions, and
encouraging lateral thinking.
Minimizing Status Differences
Although minimizing status differences may not
be one of the activities typically associated with
management, downplaying power differentials may
actually have several positive effects for the relation-
ship between managers and their team members.
480 Management
For example, it may create a positive atmosphere
and enhance team spirit by downplaying the spe-
cial status and more powerful role of the manager
within a team. This may be achieved, for example,
by drawing on self-denigrating humor, which may
be used by those in higher positions to make fun of
themselves and to portray themselves in a favorable
light, namely, as someone who knows about his or
her mistakes and laughs about them. An example
that illustrates these functions quite nicely is the
following quote by the director of the board of an
information technology company who, in an inter-
action with one of her subordinates, humorously
referred to herself as a “technical klutz,” thereby
drawing attention to her reputation as being tech-
nically ignorant and incompetent. Although clearly
being tongue-in-cheek, humorous remarks like this
contribute to minimizing status differences, thereby
making managers more approachable, and they
also contribute to creating a friendly workplace
atmosphere.
Getting Things Done
In addition to these interpersonal functions of
humor that primarily aim at establishing and main-
taining friendly interpersonal relationships, humor
may also be used as a tool to “do power” and to get
things done. These functions of humor are particu-
larly useful for the performance of a range of trans-
actionally and outcome-oriented managerial tasks.
In particular, humor may be used to assist managers
in achieving their transactional aims, such as mak-
ing sure people do their work. The following brief
example illustrates how this may be accomplished.
Context: Manager (Beth) to administrative assistant
(Marion) who is chatting to a secretary.
Beth: Okay Marion I’m afraid serious affairs of
state will have to wait. We have some
trivial issues needing our attention [all
laugh]. (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, p. 116)
By humorously describing the chat between
Marion and the secretary as “serious affairs of
state” and referring to the work-related tasks that
need to be done as “trivial issues,” the manager,
Beth, performs a range of management activities.
More specifically, she reminds her subordinate,
Marion, that it is about time she gets back to
work. Although the main function of this brief
humorous exchange is to get things done and to
inform subordinates to get on with their work, the
humor also contributes to creating and reinforcing
the friendly and collegial relationship between
Beth and her subordinates. Thus, rather than tell-
ing them more directly to get back to work, by
using humor Beth makes this potentially threaten-
ing message more palatable for her subordinates
while still achieving her transactional aims.
Communicating Negative Messages
As this short example has shown, humor is also
an effective tool to communicate negative mes-
sages, such as criticisms and disagreements, in
relatively nonthreatening ways. This function of
humor is particularly useful in a workplace context,
as it may facilitate the potentially threatening and
often unpleasant tasks of managers to communi-
cate a negative message to their team members, for
example, that their promotion has been rejected.
Using humor in these contexts makes the rejection
or criticism more palatable and thus easier to accept
for those who are receiving the rejection or criticism.
However, these positive functions of humor to tone
down or mitigate the potential threat of a negative
message do not apply to all types of humor to the
same extent. More specifically, the threat of a nega-
tive message may actually be enhanced when spe-
cific, that is, more challenging, types of humor are
used. For example, a rejection that is accompanied
by sarcasm and teasing may actually be perceived as
more threatening than the same message communi-
cated without any humor.
Humor as a Double-Edged Sword
In addition to these positive functions that humor
may perform as a management tool, it is important
not to forget that humor is a double-edged sword
that may also be used as means of coercion and con-
trol. For example, not only is humor a vehicle to
establish and reinforce collegial relationships and to
create a positive working atmosphere but also it may
be used to exert power and to assert authority—
especially in a workplace context. In this function,
humor may be used, for example, to bring people
back into line and to silence critical voices. Using
humor in these functions, then, disguises the other-
wise relatively overt display and exercise of power
that such activities involve.
However, humor may be used not only by those
in powerful positions as a means to exercise and
display their power but also by subordinates as a

contestive strategy that allows them to challenge
existing power relations and institutional practices
and norms. For example, humor can help mask the
subversive nature of negative or challenging mes-
sages for subordinates toward their superiors, thus
providing an acceptable vehicle for communicating
subversive attitudes.
Humor Across Workplaces
Humor is not a homogenous category; there are
numerous types of humor. The specific types of
humor that are considered to be most appropriate
or effective—for example, to perform various man-
agement activities—vary across workplaces. Hence,
whereas communication in one workplace may be
characterized by frequent teasing, sarcasm, jocular
abuse, and other potentially challenging types of
humor, these types of humor in another workplace
may be perceived as inappropriate and perhaps
even offensive and rude. Thus, although the various
functions of humor as a management tool outlined
earlier may potentially apply to any workplace, it
is important to remember that the specific ways in
which these functions are achieved and the diverse
kinds of humor that may be used to achieve them
may differ considerably across workplaces.
Clearly, humor is a valuable management tool
that has the potential to assist people in perform-
ing a wide range of different management activities,
as it may facilitate the achievement of interper-
sonal as well as transactional aims. However, the
specific types of humor that are most appropriate
to achieve these various functions and the specific
ways in which they are most productively used vary
considerably across workplaces. Nevertheless, the
various benefits of humor to perform a wide vari-
ety of interpersonal and transactional functions—
sometimes even simultaneously—make humor a
valuable management tool.
Stephanie Schnurr
See also Humor and Relational Maintenance; Humor
Styles; Workplace Control; Workplace Humor;
Workplace Productivity; Workplace Resistance
Further Readings
Collinson, D. (2002). Managing humour. Journal of
Management Studies, 39(3), 269–288.
Consalvo, C. (1989). Humor in management: No laughing
matter. Humor, 2(3), 285–297.
Marriage and Couples 481
Holmes, J. (2002). Politeness, power and provocation:
How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse
Studies, 2(2), 159–185.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in
the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work.
London, UK: Longman.
Schnurr, S. (2009). Leadership discourse at work:
Interactions of humour, gender and workplace culture.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
MARRIAGE AND COUPLES
Choosing a marriage partner or significant other
means potentially committing yourself to a very
long-term relationship. Mistakes in choosing can
be costly on many different levels. When people are
asked about the qualities they most desire in a mar-
riage partner or significant other, among the most
commonly identified qualities is “a sense of humor.”
No doubt one reason humor is so desirable in a
partner is that someone who makes you laugh can
be pleasant to be around and make you feel good.
When shared humor is part of early interactions with
someone new, expectations for a positive relation-
ship rise. Beyond that, many people see a good sense
of humor as a reliable indicator of other desirable
qualities in a partner. People with an above average
sense of humor are assumed to be more extroverted,
more agreeable, and less neurotic. Generally, a good
sense of humor also is believed to be associated with
a variety of socially desirable qualities (e.g., friendly,
interesting, creative), but not with less desirable qual-
ities (e.g., cold, mean). Thus, a good sense of humor
seems to signal that a person will have many attrac-
tive, stable qualities and be a reliable source of posi-
tive experiences. This entry discusses how humor is
related to partner selection, how partners use humor
within a relationship, and how relationships are
affected by positive humor and negative humor.
Gender Differences in Humor
Preferences in Partners
Men and women both value humor, but what a good
sense of humor means may vary according to one’s
gender, especially in the context of partner selec-
tion. An evolutionary perspective suggests that men
must display a desirable sense of humor to convince
women to choose them as a mate. Dominant and
confident men tell more jokes, so, for women, humor
482 Marriage and Couples
expression and creation in potential mates may serve
as indicators of potential success in resource acquisi-
tion. In situations where men are trying to attract
women, they are quite likely to engage in “competi-
tive” humor, trying to be the funniest person in the
room in order to demonstrate their potential supe-
rior mating fitness. Thus, for men, the production
of humor is more important than it is for women.
Women, on the other hand, must be the evalua-
tors, judging and responding to humor. So, whereas
women prefer men who can make them laugh, men
are less influenced by differences in humor produc-
tion among women. In fact, men prefer women who
appear to appreciate and respond to their attempts
at humor, regardless of how funny the woman may
be in her own right. Even within established couples,
wives are found to laugh more than their husbands,
and husbands are seen as producing more humor.
Do Partners Share Humor Preferences?
It turns out that opposites do not usually attract;
most people seek partners who share similar interests
and attitudes. This preference for similarity extends
to humor. In fact, merely laughing at someone’s joke
can make you seem more attractive to that person
than finding agreement on a multitude of attitudinal
issues. In dating couples, higher levels of agreement
about what is funny predict greater attraction and
an enhanced desire for continuing the relationship.
Among married couples, there also appears to be
similarity in judgments of what is funny and in atti-
tudes toward the appropriate use of humor. Happy
couples appreciate the same types of humor and use
humor in similar ways.
Does Humor Matter in Relationship Success?
Over 90% of married couples surveyed said that
humor plays an important role in their relationship
success. Among long-term married couples, being
able to laugh together was one of the top perceived
reasons for the continued success of their relation-
ship. In fact, the presence of humor in a relationship
leads to higher levels of positive affect, which often
leads to positive global evaluations. Used effectively,
humor can increase closeness, facilitate communica-
tion, deflect or defuse conflict, and allow for criti-
cisms to be delivered in a more positive manner (e.g.,
friendly teasing). When discussing issues with poten-
tial for creating conflict, couples have been found
to use humor at least once a minute. When posi-
tive humor is used, conflicts are less likely to escalate
and partners feel more satisfied. In divorced and dis-
tressed couples, positive humor and an appreciation
of a partner’s humor are less evident.
Humor is a shared experience, so its impact
depends heavily on how it is received. When couples
are asked to describe both their own humor style and
their partner’s style, it is the perception of humor
style that predicts satisfaction more strongly than
the partners’ self-reported style. So it is not what
you think about your humor style that affects your
partner; rather it is how your efforts at humor are
perceived by your partner that matters most. Once
again, there are some potentially important gender
differences in how humor affects relationship sat-
isfaction. Although everyone benefits from a good
joke, the effects of humor on relationship satisfaction
are often more evident in women than in men, a find-
ing consistent with the notion that men are expected
to be the primary humor initiators in a relationship.
A Caveat: Good and Bad
Humor in Relationships
Humor can be expressed in many ways, and not
all uses of humor are positive. Only recently has
adequate attention been paid to the important dif-
ferences between humor used well and humor used
poorly. Although the distinction has always been
evident, too often humor was globally viewed as
a positive. In reality, humor can be used positively
when sharing common experiences, reducing ten-
sion, and coping with potential stressors, but humor
also can be used aggressively to belittle or demean
others or their ideas. It is interesting that when peo-
ple are asked a global question about their partner’s
sense of humor and then are asked to describe their
partner’s humor style (do they use humor positively
or negatively), only the positive uses of humor pre-
dict a good sense of humor. Negative uses of humor
are not even seen as part of what most people under-
stand to be a truly “good” sense of humor. When
a partner’s perceived uses of positive and negative
humor are separately considered, the clear pattern
is that positive humor facilitates interactions and
enhances relationship satisfaction, while negative
humor can escalate conflict, produce tension, and
reduce satisfaction. Even negative humor used out-
side the context of a relationship can end up having
harmful effects on the relationship. People in a rela-
tionship with someone who frequently uses aggres-
sive humor report being more embarrassed by their
partner. In relationships, having a good sense about

how and when you use humor is critical. Trying to
be funny at inappropriate moments and attacking
others with humor are behaviors that can do serious
harm to close relationships, even if the one being
attacked is not the relationship partner.
Arnie Cann and Adam T. Cann
See also Evolutionary Explanations of Humor; Gender
and Humor, Psychological Aspects of; Humor and
Relational Maintenance; Positive Psychology;
Psychology; Reception of Humor; Sexuality
Further Readings
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2010). Humor in
intimate relationships: Ties among sense of humor,
similarity in humor and relationship quality. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 23, 447–465.
Bippus, A. P., Young, S. L., & Dunbar, N. E. (2011).
Humor in conflict discussions: Comparing partners’
perceptions. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 24, 287–303.
Cann, A., & Calhoun, L. G. (2001). Perceived personality
associations with differences in sense of humor:
Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high and low
senses of humor. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 14, 117–130.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the
role of humor appreciation in interpersonal attraction:
It’s no joking matter. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 10, 77–89.
Cann, A., Zapata, C. L., & Davis, H. B. (2011). Humor
style and relationship satisfaction in dating couples:
Perceived versus self-reported humor styles as predictors
of satisfaction. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 24, 1–20.
Priest, R. F., & Thein, M. T. (2003). Humor appreciation in
marriage: Spousal similarity, assortative mating, and
disaffection. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 16, 63–78.
MASKS
Masks are any transformational adornment of the
face, including everything from makeup to elaborate
head coverings. Masks are often worn in combina-
tion with appropriate costuming. They derive from
the human capacity for pretense, deception, and
play. Cross-culturally, masks are closely associated
with festival, ritual, and theater, including, but not
limited to, comedy.
Masks 483
The term masking can also refer, figuratively, to
playing any role, whether on a stage or in everyday
life. The term social masking is used to refer to the
disjunction between public and private face. “All the
world’s a stage,” wrote William Shakespeare in As
You Like It (2.7.139), and many other writers from
Erasmus of Rotterdam to 20th-century sociologist
Erving Goffman have similarly noted the similari-
ties between the experience of day-to-day living and
the practice of wearing a mask and acting a role.
Understanding this model of the human being as
someone who puts on a “face” to interact with
others is foundational for understanding how we
construct identities. The humor in masking, both lit-
eral and figurative, may come from the discrepancy
between the person and the mask he or she is wear-
ing, from the predictability of the role prescribed by
the mask, or from the surge of energy that is released
when one escapes from civic roles and fulfills one’s
inner dreams. This entry discusses both literal and
figurative masking.
Masks in Ritual and Festival Contexts
Traditional occasions for masking are generally at
points of transition in the calendar or the life cycle—
that is, when the seasons change or individuals reach
certain rites of passage. Masking is associated with
initiation rituals or funerary rites in cultures across
the world. Even in serious rituals, however, masked
figures indulge in playful and humorous expression—
masked Native American ritual clowns, for example,
play outrageous tricks on spectators but are respected
as powerful ritual beings.
In the West, the most familiar masking traditions
are associated with the pre-Lenten festivals variously
known as Carnival, Mardi Gras, or Fasnacht. More
than just disguise, Carnival masks function as forms
of play and adornment; much creative energy goes
into making and decorating them. The Carnival
masks of Venice and the vejigantes masks of Ponce
in Puerto Rico have achieved particular recognition
for their artistic elaboration.
In Louisiana, Cajun Mardi Gras runs are quite dif-
ferent from the better known Mardi Gras spectacles
and parades in New Orleans. The rural Mardi Gras
“runners” wear masks while touring through local
communities and engaging in playful inversions. The
runners ask for permission to enter the yard and
there wreak playful havoc, enacting roles of trickster,
beggar, thief, wildman, and outlaw. The runners are
masked and costumed. Masks are often handmade
484 Masks
by the runners themselves or by recognized mask
makers in the community, and they are designed
to thoroughly disguise the identity of the maskers.
Householders will try to guess their identity. Maskers
engage in clowning, trickery, and artful begging and
are rewarded with gifts of food and money, which go
into a communal gumbo feast at the end of the day.
Another widespread masking custom is mum-
ming, also known as janneying or guysing. Various
mumming traditions in Europe and the European
diaspora occur annually throughout the winter sea-
son. Masked mummers make the rounds of local
homes, where they may perform traditional plays
involving stock characters, speeches, and songs,
and performers are rewarded with gifts of food
and drink, and sometimes cash. In some traditions,
mummers are expected to discipline and terrorize
children—to the amusement of the adults. In addi-
tion to the disguise offered by their costumes and
masks, mummers traditionally also disguise their
speech, for example, with ingressive speech (speak-
ing while breathing in).
Masks are often accompanied by related full-
body costumes, which leads to such other present-
day instances of masking as the masked ball, the
fancy dress party, and Halloween trick-or-treating.
Mask-costume combinations are used as satirical
Olympic mascots often represent an animal native to the
hosting country. Miga, a mascot of the 2010 Winter
Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a sea bear
who lives in the ocean with her family pod. According to
First Nations legend, the sea bear is a killer whale at sea
that becomes a Kermode or spirit bear on land. The spirit
bear is a black bear born with white or cream-colored
fur, the result of a genetic anomaly.
Source: Chase N./Wikimedia Commons.
commentary to tame fears in cartoonish or elabo-
rately aestheticized form. Another contemporary
manifestation of the masked actor-dancer is the cos-
tumed athletic team mascot who helps amuse the
fans at sporting events.
Masks in Theater and Comedy
Not only are masks and masking found in both seri-
ous and humorous literary works, but, in addition,
masking has played a more continuous role within
the comedic tradition. Western theater derives from
the masked dramas played by ancient Greek and
later Roman actors, giving us the emblem of all
drama, the combined masks of laughing and weep-
ing. The male actors in Greek tragedy and comedy
wore masks to represent the different characters
they played, distinguishing them from members of
the chorus, and these masks signified their gender,
societal position, and age, denoting, for example,
the hierarchical difference between the noble King
Oedipus and the shepherd who found him as a
child. In the phylax comedies of southern Italy (4th
century BCE), masks denoted bearded old men or
balding slaves, often parodying their tragic coun-
terparts with their snub noses, chubby cheeks, and
hideous gaping mouths. By the time of Greek New
Comedy (mid-3rd century BCE), masks had evolved
Theater mask representing the type of the First Slave of
New Comedy. Pentelic marble, 2nd century BCE.
Source: National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Greece/
Wikimedia Commons.

to denote stock character types, such as the ardent
young lover, the cunning slave, the grumpy old man,
and the beautiful courtesan. Early animal choruses
(mid-6th century BCE), precursors to Athenian com-
edy, showcased performers dressed in animal cos-
tumes and masks. Such festal choruses of humans
dressed as animals suggested a close relationship
between humans and animals. The masks and cos-
tumes worn in satyr plays, a type of tragicomedy
with bawdy and scatological elements, hinted even
more at man’s bestial nature; they depicted the satyrs
with curly hair, large pointed ears, white horse’s tails,
and sometimes the legs of a goat.
Roman theater, likewise, followed the tradition of
masked acting, as evident in the comedies of Plautus
and Terence, portraying with absurd facial distor-
tions the various city types and family members
involved in domestic squabbles. The Romans also
incorporated masks in their pantomimes, a type of
performance spectacle that combined gymnastics,
dance, and storytelling derived from folk traditions.
Masks used to denote human attributes have
proved a lasting sign system, in part because the
mask predicts the character’s formulaic responses,
and audiences delight in seeing their expectations
fulfilled. Medieval audiences, well-versed in the
medieval Church’s didactic morality plays, knew
what to expect from characters dressed allegorically
as human vices or virtues. Personified vices wore
ugly, monstrous-looking masks with bestial facial
hair or bottle-noses to suggest the corruption of
mankind’s soul. Witnessed by a predominantly illit-
erate audience, these disguises helped to crystallize
abstract iniquities such as Covetousness, Hypocrisy,
Malicious Judgment, or Infidelity. Devils in morality
plays wore grotesque black masks, outfitted to emit
fire and smoke from their mouths; such masked
figures, while eliciting laughter, would also inspire
theological terror due to their concrete representa-
tion of sin.
From the 16th through the 18th centuries CE, the
Italian commedia dell’arte continued the tradition
of using masks to help represent stock comic char-
acters, and masks are still used in similar fashion
in folk and traditional theater traditions worldwide,
such as Japanese Nō theater.
Similar satirical masking reappears in the 20th
century, most evident in theater of the absurd and
black comedy. Just as the masking in morality plays
illustrated moral defects, these literal masks show-
ing physiognomic deformity or animal traits indicate
humanity’s spiritual emptiness. The most famous
Masks 485
example is Alfred Jarry’s creation of King Ubu (Ubu
Roi, 1896), a greedy, grotesquely infantile man,
whose pear-shaped head sported an elephant trunk,
signifying his essential animal nature. Masking to
identify a particular kind of moral imbalance contin-
ued throughout the 20th century when avant-garde
playwrights such as Jean Cocteau, Elmer Rice, and
Carl Hauptmann used deformed human heads or
animal masks for satirical purposes. In J. B. Priestly’s
expressionist play Johnson Over Jordon (1939), a
panderer becomes a vulture, a boxer a gorilla, and a
lecher a wolf through the use of masks. Later in the
century, Jean-Claude van Itallie placed two actors
with over-sized heads in Motel: A Masque for Three
Dolls (1965), the crudely designed facial features
of their masks symbolizing their savagery as they
destroy a hotel room and murder the motel-keeper.
In these instances, the satiric mask isolates nega-
tive traits through facial deformities. More playful
masking appears in Broadway musicals, such as the
vivid puppetry and masks that portrayed the African
creatures in Disney’s The Lion King (1997), proving
that masking still entertains audiences today.
Social Masking and Identity
Masks are first and foremost tools in duplicity and
trickery, from the mischief of the Mardi Gras run-
ners to outright dishonesty. By hiding one’s true self,
one can deceive others, as evidenced by the wily
Callimaco who disguises himself as a street ruffian
as part of an elaborate plot to sleep with another
man’s wife in Niccolò Machiavelli’s comedy La
mandragola (The Mandrake Root, 1520). While
masked, a person can control his opponent by the
element of shock or surprise, a feat most readily seen
by present-day television comedian Stephen Colbert,
who, by adopting the figurative mask of a conserva-
tive political pundit, easily manipulates the guests
on his show The Colbert Report. In other words,
the mask denotes the dividing line between the per-
formed or public role and the private self.
Social masking, which involves a figurative rather
than literal mask, is a theatrical metaphor to describe
how humans perform roles in order to protect their
private selves. In the theater or in film, much comic
humor derives from highlighting the duality between
the public appearance of a person and the real self
underneath. Dramatic tension arises as the person
tries to deceive others (or even himself) with a false
identity, and the laughter and humor associated
with situational comedy erupts when the real self
486 Masks
is exposed. Social masking becomes the topic of
satire in Molière’s Le bourgeois gentilhomme (The
Bourgeois Gentleman, 1670). The lead character,
Monsieur Jourdain, is a social climber. Wishing to
don the mask of a nobleman through self-cultiva-
tion, he invites to his home instructors in fencing,
dancing, music, and philosophy in order to attain
the outward mannerisms and erudition he associates
with nobility. The more he attempts to transform his
outward self, the more pathetic his true self appears;
his self-improvement strategy makes him an object
of comic ridicule.
In contrast to the hypocrite whose serious public
mask belies his own ridiculous nature, the Fool is
a character who wears a mask of folly in order to
dispense wisdom, or the truth. His mask deceives
people into lowering their own defenses; while they
assume the Fool to be naive or ignorant, they are
taken unawares when he utters wisdom. The pro-
fessional fool or jester who entertained the courts
in the 15th and 16th centuries wore a hood or hat
with bells and a motley or patched coat, but earlier
depictions envisioned him as a half-human, half-
animal figure, with animal legs, hooves, and ears
on a grotesquely painted face. Because court fools
had the license to speak bluntly, they could be auda-
cious in their statements and they used humor to
speak the truth and question the status quo. One
example of such a fool is the character of Bottom
in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream
who spends most of the play sporting the mask of a
donkey head; however, once he has been magically
transformed into an ass, he utters words of wisdom
highly applicable to the play’s theme of misguided
romance: “Reason and love keep little company
together nowadays” (3.1.145–146). These words,
coming from the comic mask of an ass, remind us
of the irrational nature of love and the perspicacity
of folly.
The trajectory from fool to clown is difficult to
trace because of the numerous permutations the
fool has undergone, from court jester to folkloric
figure to the masked commedia dell’arte player,
Arlecchino. The modern-day circus clown originated
from the French Arlequin, or Harlequin, the silent
clown who first painted his face white. Today circus
clowns add a half-mask or red nose to their faces
and make distorted facial expressions to elicit laugh-
ter, transforming their natural faces into expressive,
emotional masks.
A more controversial form of theatrical mask-
ing is blackface, in which performers blacken their
faces with burned cork or greasepaint to enact
comic caricatures of stereotyped Black people.
This form of racial mimicry is especially associated
with American minstrel shows featuring White per-
formers in blackface. Later, Black performers also
adopted blackface. Although minstrel shows are no
longer popular, blackface masking is still a part of
folk performance, such as in some rural Mardi Gras
traditions.
Irish poet and playwright Oscar Wilde once
wrote: “Man is least himself when he talks in his
own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you
the truth” (1913, p. 185). Masks, both literal and
figurative, liberate those who wear them and give
them license to explore possibilities and take per-
sonal risks while their true identities remain hidden.
Sometimes, dramatizing the “real self” beneath the
social mask reveals the hypocrisy, whereas at other
times the animal-like or disfigured mask denounces
the deformed behavior of humankind. As much as
masking disguises and conceals, it also reveals much
about human nature. The physical masks we wear
at Halloween or Mardi Gras parties remind us of
our role as divided beings, performing roles before
each other and witnessing ourselves as actors. This
division permits us to laugh at ourselves, as the
mask creates a doubleness to existence that allows
us to step back from life, detach ourselves from life’s
dilemmas, and laugh at the pathos of the human
situation.
Miriam M. Chirico
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient Roman
Comedy; Aristophanes; Carnival and Festival;
Comedy; Commedia dell’Arte; Folklore; Fools; Greek
Visual Humor; History of Humor: Medieval Europe;
Improv Comedy; Lazzi; Mime; Plautus; Ritual
Clowns; Roman Visual Humor; Satyr Play; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Aching, G. (2002). Masking and power: Carnival and
popular culture in the Caribbean. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Billington, S. (1984). A social history of the fool. Sussex,
UK: Harvester Press.
Fava, A. (2007). The comic mask in the commedia
dell’arte: Actor training, improvisation, and the poetics
of survival. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Glasgow, R. D. V. (1995). Madness, masks, and laughter:
An essay on comedy. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson
University Press.

Glassie, H. (1975). All silver and no brass: An Irish
Christmas mumming. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Halpert, H. (1990). Christmas mumming in
Newfoundland. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University
of Toronto Press.
Harris Smith, S. (1984). Masks in modern drama. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hart, M. L. (2010). The art of ancient Greek theater. Los
Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Lindahl, C., & Ware, C. (1997). Cajun Mardi Gras masks.
Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Nunley, J. W., & McCarty, C. (1999). Masks: Faces of
culture. New York, NY: Abrams in association with the
Saint Louis Art Museum.
Tseëlon, E. (Ed.). (2001). Masquerade and identities: Essays
on gender, sexuality, and marginality. London, UK:
Routledge.
Twycross, M., & Carpenter, S. (2002). Masks and masking
in medieval and early Tudor England. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Wilde, O. (1913). The critic as artist. In Intentions.
London, UK: Methuen. Retrieved from http://www.ucc
.ie/celt/online/E800003-007
Wilde, O. (1968). The artist as critic: Critical writings of
Oscar Wilde (R. Ellmann, Ed.). New York, NY:
Random House.
MATHEMATICAL HUMOR
Mathematics has served as a source of humor in two
broad ways: (1) by using humor within mathemat-
ics, to either parody a concept or lambast a persona,
and (2) by using mathematics within humor as a
means of furthering the plot of a joke or story. This
entry examines each of these ways of using math-
ematics as a servant of humor.
Humor Within Mathematics
The history of making jokes using mathematics is
a long and complex one going back at least to the
fanciful but historically real character of Meton,
the mathematician, in Aristophanes’s classic Greek
comedy, Birds. Mathematics has been humorously
mocked and parodied (mostly by non-mathemati-
cians) in every era with, perhaps, the gentlest exam-
ple being contained on a postcard sent by the famous
19th-century mathematician, Leonard Euler, to
announce the birth of his first child. It read, simply:
1 + 1 = 3.
Mathematical Humor 487
Other famous classic examples are found in the
writings of Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Dodgson)
and Jonathan Swift. Most of the text of Carroll’s
Alice in Wonderland is a subtle mocking of the
concepts of Victorian mathematics, and the unre-
dacted collection of Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels con-
tains the story of the island of Laputa, inhabited by
very logical but harebrained mathematicians.
It is surprising that, given the large quantity
of material, no collection of purely mathemati-
cal humor seems to exist before the 20th century
(although there are many puzzle books containing
sporadic humor). Short story collections, such as
Clifton Fadiman’s Fantasia Mathematica (1958) and
The Mathematical Magpie (1962), proliferated in
the early to middle part of the century, but the first
serious collection of math jokes in book form seems
to be Friedrich Wille’s Humor in der Mathematik
(Humor in Mathematics, 1984), with the first
English collection being Desmond Machale’s Comic
Sections from 1985. With the rise of the Internet,
several modern sites continue to update and contrib-
ute their own collections.
Other venues have also seen their share of math-
mocking, most especially in cartoons. Sidney Harris
in American Scientist, Nick Kim of the website
Nearing Zero, and Randall Monroe, the creator of
the comic strip xkcd, have contributed an extensive
collection of cartoons mocking many aspects of
mathematics and the mathematician’s life.
Mathematicians have even more devious ways
than laymen of punishing themselves with humor.
Almost every field of mathematics has a corpus
of jokes that either plays on concepts within that
field or mocks the terminology. Specialist humor
can be found in such areas as real analysis, dif-
ferential geometry, set theoretic geometry, affine
geometry, measure theory, number theory, algebra
(both simple and advanced), topology, linear alge-
bra, Fourier series, numerical analysis, probability,
combinatorics, statistics, logic, computer science,
applied mathematics, harmonic analysis, and set
theory.
A single example will suffice to illustrate how spe-
cialists tease each other with humor. The following
example (somewhat abridged) is provided by Robert
Smith: Several mathematicians are asked, “How do
you put an elephant in a refrigerator?”
Real Analyst:
 
elephant
Let ε . 0. ∀ε∃δ . 0 such that 1
n!0 2n
= 0.
488 Mathematical Humor
 n  
Since 1
<
1
, for n $ 5, by comparison, we know
2 n2
 
P elephant
that 2n converges, identically at elephant.
n!0
As such, cut the elephant into two pieces. Put one-
half inside the fridge, then repeat as n → `
Differential Geometer: Differentiate it and put into
the refrigerator. Then integrate it in the refrigerator.
Set Theoretic Geometer: Apply the Banach-Tarsky
theorem to form a refrigerator with more volume.
Algebraist: Show that parts of it can be put into the
refrigerator. Then show that the refrigerator is
closed under addition.
Topologist: The elephant is compact, so it can be
put into a finite collection of refrigerators. That’s
usually good enough.
Geometer: Create an axiomatic system in which
“an elephant can be placed in a refrigerator” is an
axiom.
Complex Analyst: Put the refrigerator at the origin
and the elephant outside the unit circle. Then get
the image under inversion.
Probabilist: Keep trying to push it in in random
ways and eventually it will fit.
Combinatorist: Discretize the elephant, partition it,
and find a suitable rearrangement.
Statistician: Put its tail in the refrigerator as a
sample, and say, “done!”
Logician: I know it’s possible, I just can’t do it.
Category Theorist: Isn’t this just a special case of
Yoneda’s lemma?
Experimental Mathematician: I think it’d be much
more interesting to get the refrigerator inside the
elephant.
The general character traits of many mathema-
ticians as well as those of specific individuals have
served as fodder for humor. For instance, one need
only think “statistician” to see the humor in the
following:
Three statisticians went duck hunting. A duck flew
out and the first statistician took a shot, the shot
went a foot too high. The second statistician took his
shot and the shot went a foot too low. The third
statistician said, “We got it!”
The abstruseness of mathematicians is set in even
more relief when mathematicians are compared with
other, more practical, scientists. This has given rise
to a whole class of jokes that starts, “A mathemati-
cian, a physicist, and a [chemist, engineer, etc.] . . .”
For example:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are
staying in a hotel. The engineer wakes up and smells
smoke. He goes out into the hallway and sees a fire,
so he fills a trash can from his room with water and
douses the fire. He goes back to bed. Later, the
physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens his
door and sees a fire in the hallway. He walks down
the hall to a fire hose and after calculating the flame
velocity, distance, water pressure, trajectory, etc.,
extinguishes the fire with the minimum amount of
water and energy needed. Later, the mathematician
wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the hall, sees
the fire and then the fire hose. He thinks for a
moment and then exclaims, “Ah, a solution exists!”
and then goes back to bed.
Humor has also been used as an aid in the teach-
ing of mathematics. The American Council of
Mathematics Teachers has provided books of math
jokes suitable for use in early classroom instruction.
Mathematics Within Humor
Mathematics has also supplied subsidiary mate-
rial for several types of humorous venues. Matt
Groening, the creator of The Simpsons television car-
toon series, has made the smart-aleck (but not book
smart) protagonist, Bart Simpson, speak advanced
mathematics at times, while Ken Keeler (who has a
PhD in mathematics) created a new math theorem
especially for use in the cartoon series, Futurama.
The Harvard-trained-mathematician-turned-
satirist Tom Lehrer has created several songs
that parody math, most notably, the songs,
“Lobachevsky” (named for mathematician Nikolai
Lobachevsky) and “New Math.”
The android, Data, from the television series, Star
Trek: The Next Generation, explored the concept of
humor in the episode, “The Outrageous Okona.”
In questioning the computer, he finds:
Data: Of all performers available, who is
considered funniest?
Computer: Twenty-third-century Stan Orega
specialized in jokes about quantum
mathematics. . . .
In most jokes, the punch line exposes two dif-
ferent interpretations of the joke text (called

scripts). A normal human brain is poor at multi-
tasking, so the processing of more than two joke
scripts at one time produces both processing lags
and network fatigue. Because jokes using quantum
mathematics take place in an infinite-dimensional
Hilbert space, the punch line exposes an infinite
number of scripts at once. If these sorts of jokes
existed, they would be “too funny to be funny.”
Finally, several journals, such as the Annals
of Improbable Research and the Journal of
Irreproducible Results are repositories of truly
awful, hysterically funny, but occasionally brilliant
mathematics.
Donald Casadonte
See also Aristophanes; Mathematics and Humor
Further Readings
Fadiman, C. (Ed.). (1958). Fantasia mathematica.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
MacHale, D. (1990). Comic sections. Dublin, Ireland:
Boole Press.
Smith, R. (2010, November 21). A joke. Symb01ics Ideas.
Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://symbo1ics.com/
blog/?p=389
Vinik, A., Silvey, L., & Hughes, B. (Eds.). (1978).
Mathematics and humor. Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Wille, F. (1982). Humor in der Mathematik [Humor in
mathematics]. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
MATHEMATICS AND HUMOR
Mathematics has served both as a means to analyze
the processes involved in humor and as a source of
humor. This entry examines the first of these uses.
Descriptive Mathematics
The use of mathematical methods specifically in
an attempt to understand the elements of humor
is of relatively recent origin and still in its infancy.
Perhaps first mention should be given to the math-
ematician, George Birkhoff, who, in his 1933 book,
Aesthetic Measure, derived a method whose pur-
pose was “within each class of aesthetic objects, to
define the order O and the complexity C so that
their ratio M = O/C yields the aesthetic measure of
any object in the class.” Birkhoff applied his method
Mathematics and Humor 489
to measure the aesthetic “goodness” of objects as
diverse as geometric designs, poetry, and musical
harmony. His method was intended to provide a
measure of the aesthetic goodness of any type of art,
including prose and humor. Birkhoff did not apply
his method to humor, per se, but clearly intended it
to be applicable.
The first direct use of mathematics to analyze
the processes of humor was made by John Allen
Paulos, in two books: Mathematics and Humor and
I Think, Therefore I Laugh. In Mathematics and
Humor, Paulos related humor to the problem of self-
reference in logic (briefly touching on the paradoxes
of Bertrand Russell, Alfred Tarski, and Kurt Gödel),
arguing that, in some cases, self-reference gives rise
to either two different discourse levels or two differ-
ent interpretations of the linguistic material within
a joke. The idea of the splitting of a joke into two
competing interpretations was not new with Paulos,
but in Chapter 5 of Mathematics and Humor he
used techniques of René Thom’s catastrophe theory,
specifically, the cusp catastrophe, in an attempt to
provide a diagrammatic representation of the pro-
cess of humor. The cusp catastrophe (one of seven
classes of catastrophes), whose equation is
V = x4 + ax2 + bx,
creates a fold in parameter space (V is the poten-
tial surface, and a, b are control variables) so that
the first interpretation of the joke lies on the bottom
part of the fold and the second interpretation lies
on the upper part with continual jumping back and
forth between the two interpretations as the control
variable, b, cycles between two values (a < 0).
As an illustration of the process of humor, this
method has great explanatory power, but Paulos
never defines in any explicit way exactly what the
variables a and b stand for or how they should be
measured. This is one basis for Martin Gardner’s
scathing review of Paulos’s catastrophe theory model
in his book, Science: Good, Bad and Bogus.
In the linguistic analysis of humor, graph theory,
set theory, and lattice theory applications have been
developed by Christian F. Hempelmann, Salvatore
Attardo, and Victor Raskin, among others, to model
important relationships between elements of the two
competing interpretations of material within a joke,
called scripts by Raskin. Each script, A and A’ of
the joke, contains a set of script elements (objects
and actions within the script). Hempelmann and
Attardo showed that some set elements are common
between the two script sets (forming a script overlap
490 Mathematics and Humor
Figure 1 Cusp Catastrophe Model of Humor
(after Paulos)
Source: Donald Casadonte.
Notes: In hysteretical cycling, the path forward and the path
backward are different. There is a sudden transition
forward from interpretation 1 to interpretation 2 at the fold
in the figure, but the transition back occurs only after the
curve spends some time in interpretation 1 (this is called the
hysteresis lag). Thermostats are hysteretically controlled. If
the thermostat is set at 72 degrees, then it instantaneously
shuts off at 72 degrees, but it doesn’t automatically switch
back on an instant after it shuts off when the temperature
drops below 72 degrees. Hysteresis says that the thermostat
must spend some time in the off state before it turns back
on, even if the temperature drops below 72 degrees.
set) and some are opposed (forming a script opposi-
tion set)—in set theory terms:
A∩A'= Overlap Set and A∩A' = Opposition Set.
Using material from the opposition sets of a wide
variety of jokes, they were able to isolate several
classes of set opposition types (which they call logi-
cal mechanisms) that exist between scripts in any
joke and form the basis for resolving the incongruity
between the scripts. In the computer applications of
this set-theoretic approach, the linguistic classifica-
tion of word meanings using slot-filler techniques
gives rise, naturally, to relational graphs. Raskin, in
seeking a deeper method of representing the seman-
tic relationships between objects and actions within
a joke text, developed and used a general classifica-
tion scheme called ontological semantics. The clas-
sification of elements within a joke using ontological
semantics forms a relational lattice. The exact
mechanism of lattice dynamics in humor is a matter
under investigation.
Igor Krishtafovich claims to have found a formula
for the “effectiveness” of humor (HE). His formula,
HE = PI × C/T + BM,
where PI = personal involvement, C = complexity
of a joke (higher = better—cf. Birkhoff, earlier), T =
time to solve the joke (longer = poorer), and BM =
background mood (livelier = better), is an interesting
heuristic, but, as in the case with Paulos’s cusp catas-
trophe model and several other descriptive equa-
tions by other authors, none of the variables is well
defined or easy to measure.
Semi-Quantitative Mathematics
Use of quantifiable rather than descriptive math-
ematics has also been made to model certain indi-
vidual aspects of humor. Donald Casadonte used a
modified Van der Pol oscillator equation,
x′ = ε x(1 – y2) – [y(1 – rgy)/(1 + jy2)] + s
+ kcos(ω z + φ)
y′ = x
z′ = p,
to create a semi-quantitative model of the pressure
variations in respiration that arise in laughter that
compare quite closely with empirically measured
pressure changes made both by the expanding dia-
phragm and inside of the trachea during laughter. By
varying the parameters r, g, s, k, ω, and w, even ape-
like vocalizations could be modeled.
Shiva Sundaram and Shrikanth Narayanan mod-
eled vocal-tract sound generation in human-like
laughter by comparing the larynx with a damped,
forced sinusoidal oscillator of the type
M d2x/dt2 = –kx – b dx/dt,
whose solution is
x(t) = Ae–bt/2me-j(sqrt(k/m))t.
Casadonte’s equation reduces to this as a limiting
case (y → 0).
They were able to create a program with adjust-
able variables k, m, and b that allowed for the cre-
ation of near-human acoustic laughter.
Several researchers have used fast Fourier
transform (FFT) methods to study the acoustical
properties of laughter. Robert R. Provine, Jo-Anne
Bachorowski and Michael J. Owren, Hartmut
Rothgänger, Casadonte, and many others have,
independently, measured the frequency spectra for
laughter-like vocalizations using FFT computations

of the recorded waveforms. Erich S. Luschei and col-
leagues have used mathematics to analyze the elec-
tromyographic signals generated in laughter, finding
values close to those determined acoustically.
Donald Casadonte
See also Computational Humor; Humor, Computer-
Generated; Laugh, Laughter, Laughing; Mathematical
Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F., & Di Maio, S. (2002).
Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling
incongruities and their resolutions. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3–46.
Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J., & Owren, M. J. (2001).
The acoustic features of human laughter. Journal of the
Acoustic Society of America, 110, 1581–1597.
Birkhoff, G. D. (1933). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Casadonte, D. (2003). A note on the neuro-mathematics of
laughter. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 16(2), 133–156.
Gardner, M. (1989). Science: Good, bad, and bogus.
New York, NY: Prometheus Books.
Krishtafovich, I. (2006). Humor theory: Formula for
laughter. Parker, CO: Outskirts Press.
Luschei, E. S., Ramig, L. O., Finnegan, E. M., Bakker,
K. K., & Smith, M. E. (2006). Patterns of laryngeal
electromyography and the activity of the respiratory
system during spontaneous laughter. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 96(1), 442–450.
Paulos, J. A. (1980). Mathematics and humor. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Paulos, J. A. (2000). I think, therefore I laugh. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Provine, R. R. (1996). Laughter. American Scientist, 84(1),
38–47.
Rothgänger, H., Hauser, G., Cappellini, A. C., & Guidotti,
A. (1998). Analysis of laughter and speech sounds in
Italian and German students, Naturwissenschaften, 85,
394–402.
Sundaram, S., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Automatic acoustic
synthesis of human-like laughter. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 121(1), 527–523.
MAXIM
In everyday language, the word maxim refers to a
rule of conduct adopted by an individual to get on in
life (e.g., “Trust your crazy ideas!”), or it is used as a
Maxim 491
synonym for aphorism, a general truth expressed in
a laconic form (e.g., François de La Rochefoucauld’s
maxims). Theoretically, in the seminal framework
developed by the philosopher Herbert Paul Grice
(1913–1988), maxims are understood to be basic
assumptions of rational conversation mutually
shared by the participants. Grice subsumes his max-
ims under a cooperative principle (“Make your con-
versational contribution such as is required”) and
four categories borrowed from Immanuel Kant.
They are cornerstones of bona fide communication,
and, thus, their opposites might be regarded as con-
taining the recipe for humorous conversation.
Grice’s work has attracted enormous interest.
Relativists have questioned the universality of the
maxims, reductionists have tried to reformulate and
eliminate them, whereas expansionists have intro-
duced further maxims to capture various aspects
of language use. Humor theorists have discovered
their explanatory power and offer ways the Gricean
framework can tackle or can be accommodated to
humorous material such as jokes. This entry dis-
cusses how Grice’s maxims and a subsequent list of
politeness maxims postulated by linguistics profes-
sor Geoffrey N. Leech account for some humor.
Maxims of Cooperation and Politeness
Despite the widespread criticism of his model, most
textbooks and studies that discuss Grice’s maxims
use the original version that Grice developed and
ignore the maxims that others added later.
Quantity
Make your contribution as informative as is required.
Do not make your contribution more informative
than is required.
Quality
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate
evidence.
Relation/Relevance
Be relevant.
Manner
Be perspicuous:
• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity.
492 Maxim
• Be brief.
• Be orderly. (Grice, 1975)
A set of politeness maxims that account for a
broader range of humor phenomena was postulated
by Leech:
Tact
Minimize cost to other.
Maximize benefit to other.
Generosity
Minimize benefit to self.
Maximize cost to self.
Approbation
Minimize dispraise of other.
Maximize praise of other.
Modesty
Minimize praise of self.
Maximize dispraise of self.
Agreement
Minimize disagreement between self and other.
Maximize agreement between self and other.
Sympathy
Minimize antipathy between self and other.
Maximize sympathy between self and other.
(Leech, 1983)
Everyone occasionally behaves in ways that are
inconsistent with (fail to fulfill, violate, infringe) one
or more of these maxims. Grice describes four types
of such instances: (1) unostentatious violation (e.g.,
misleading), (2) opting out (when the speaker indi-
cates that he or she cannot obey the maxims for
some reasons), (3) clashing (when the speaker is
unable to fulfill a maxim without violating another),
and (4) flouting (when a patent violation of a maxim
urges the hearer to discover an implicit meaning
conveyed by the speaker). Hyperbole and irony flout
the first quality maxim, according to Grice.
Leech argues that the relationships between illo-
cutionary goals and social goals can be competitive,
convivial, collaborative, or conflictive. These four
situations are parallel to the possible relationships
between Grice’s and Leech’s maxims. Conflictive situ-
ations are greatly sensitive to humor. Clashes between
Gricean and Leechian maxims may be humorous.
People sometimes fail to follow the maxims
unintentionally. Non-native speakers, for example,
may not always be aware of the different meanings
and the socially adequate use of words they employ.
Helen Spencer-Oatey recalls a case when she, in her
early 50s, helped a foreign student of low profi-
ciency in English find his way across London. On
reaching the train, the young man tried to express
his gratitude by saying, “Thank you very much. You
are a very kind old lady,” a quite paradoxical “com-
pliment” (according to the approbation maxims)
to which she reacted, understandably, with mixed
emotions. Public notices posted to inform an inter-
national audience are common sources of ambigu-
ity, such as the following advertisement for donkey
rides somewhere outside the English-speaking coun-
tries: “Would you like to ride on your own ass?”
Ambiguous statements accidentally made by politi-
cians quickly become widely known via traditional
media and Internet folklore.
By contrast, banterers, ironists, jokers, comedi-
ans, sitcom writers, and the like consciously infringe
on the tacit assumptions of conversation, at least
within the boundaries of their genre.
Humorous Infringements of the
Maxims in Different Genres
There has been a debate about whether humorous
texts intrinsically violate, pretend to violate, or flout
one or more of the maxims, and at which level this
takes place: that of the author/narrator or that of the
character who is speaking in the story. Moreover,
the length of the violation has been called into ques-
tion, with Andrew Goatly’s claim that the violation
in humor is very short.
Either way, a great number of jokes (if not all of
them) deliberately infringe on a maxim when arriv-
ing at their punch line. For example, the stock boy
violates the relevance maxim in the following joke:
A lady was picking through the frozen turkeys at the
grocery store, but couldn’t find one big enough for
her family. She asked a stock boy, “Do these turkeys
get any bigger?” The stock boy replied, “No,
ma’am, they’re dead.”
Genres such as sitcom and stand-up comedy
abound with maxim violations. What normally
would count as rough and inappropriate in daily

exchanges may be usual from satirical sitcom heroes
such as Al Bundy of Married . . . With Children.
Dialogues in the internationally popular Friends are
also saturated with humorous infringements of both
the Gricean and the Leechian maxims.
Attila L. Nemesi
See also Comedy; Exaggeration; Irony; Jokes; Punch
Line; Sitcoms
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and
cooperation: The case of jokes. Journal of Pragmatics,
19(6), 537–558.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Farghal, M. (2006). Accidental humor in international
public notices displayed in English. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 12. Retrieved from http://
www.immi.se/intercultural/nr12/farghal.htm
Goatly, A. (2012). Meaning and humour. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole &
J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3.
Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, UK:
Longman.
Nemesi, A. L. (2012). Two masters of playing with
conversational maxims. In A. T. Litovkina et al. (Eds.),
Hungarian humour (pp. 13–30). Cracow, Poland:
Tertium.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the
analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4),
639–656.
MECHANISMS OF HUMOR
Mechanisms of humor are specific semantic constel-
lations used in humorous stimuli intended to achieve
what many theories call the resolution of incongru-
ity. These mechanisms are conceptualized as textual
structures of a symbolic stimulus that are paralleled
by cognitive structures on the part of the consumer of
that stimulus. They motivate the incongruous parts
of the text so that two opposing scripts can over-
lap. This motivation of the overlap, or masking of
the contrast, is done in a logical manner that is ulti-
mately flawed, or paralogical, which is crucial to the
Mechanisms of Humor 493
humorousness of the stimulus. This entry discusses
theories of how these mechanisms of humor function.
An early discussion of the general concept
of a mechanism of wit—humorous but also
nonhumorous—by Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski
does not yet focus on the flawed manner of the
reasoning but mentions it in terms of a conclu-
sion of the incongruity in humor that is merely
apparent, not logical. Although Sigmund Freud’s
heterogeneous list of “techniques of humor”—
largely types of wordplay—has not proven useful
in humor research, in the context of the general
reasoning mechanism under discussion here, he
spoke of a “sense in nonsense,” inspiring Norman
Maier’s slightly more developed notion of a “lim-
ited sense” that holds true only temporarily.
It was not until the groundbreaking 1948 study by
Elie Aubouin that this aspect of humor was discussed
in real detail. His central concept in the context of
mechanisms of humor is the “justification” for two
incongruous senses, which leads to “acceptance” of
their simultaneous validity by the hearer. This neces-
sarily requires false logic, because a valid logic would
eliminate one of the senses. But for humor, the two
“irreconcilable aspects” have to be allowed to exist
in parallel. Accordingly, Aubouin assumed that the
mechanisms never lead to full resolution in favor of
one sense but that a text is most humorous when
the “justification” is close to being perfect by almost
discarding one sense. Aubouin considers this justi-
fication as an error in reasoning on the part of the
consumer of a humorous text. But it has since been
understood to be commonly triggered by a pseu-
dological mechanism built into the text for the sake
of the simultaneous acceptance of both its irreconcil-
able readings. A mechanism of humor can therefore
have a static symbolic component in text or images
and a dynamic, cognitive, reasoning component.
In contemporary research, Elliott Oring, cit-
ing James Beattie, has outlined in several places
what slightly earlier Avner Ziv called local logic
and Giovannantonio Forabosco termed congruent
incongruity. Oring’s term is appropriate incongru-
ity, and among the mechanisms responsible for
the appropriateness of the incongruity are double
meaning, vacuous reversal, and contrastive iteration.
Oring adds that for any such technique to be suc-
cessful, it must not be transparent for a given hearer,
but enough of an intellectual challenge, which, for
example, two senses connected in a pun often are
not. In this context, several studies suggest that the
complexity of the false reasoning correlates with
494 Medieval Visual Humor
perceived funniness in terms of a person’s general
preference for, or inclination to, processing complex
stimuli. Similarly, children seem to be progressing
through various stages of humor competence, and
consequently preference, in relation to their general
cognitive development.
The main explication of the general “logi-
cal mechanism” of humor, using that term and its
acronym, LM, was begun with the general theory
of verbal humor and has since then been pursued
within this paradigm. Figure-ground reversal was
identified early as a mechanism used in humor, for
example, turning a house around a lightbulb rather
than the other way around. This makes clear that
these mechanisms aren’t exclusive to humor but are
merely used there. This type of reversal can be found
outside of humor, as are the other mechanisms from
the first inventory: chiasmus, analogy, false priming,
and juxtaposition. Later inventories became much
more expansive but not exhaustive, were derived
from humor beyond canned jokes, and include two
general classes of faultiness in logical mechanisms:
(1) logic that is in principle false, like the assump-
tion underlying the mechanism in puns, namely,
that the sound of a word is related to the meaning
of the word; and (2) logic that could be correct but
is applied in a wrong, or at least defeasible, way.
Correct reasoning can fail, for example, when it is
based on wrong premises. Other supercategories of
mechanisms of humor could be postulated at a simi-
larly abstract level, for example, metahumor based
on playing with the expectation of a mechanism or
absurd types of humor based on the denial of any
such mechanism. In general, mechanisms of humor
can be analyzed at varying levels of abstraction,
depending on the research issue at hand.
Attempts at formally capturing logical mechanisms
quickly advanced past set theory, which defines rules
for sets or collections of objects, and derived more
adequacy from graph theory, which can show mul-
tiple, labeled connections between conceptual units.
Initial research based on the overall formalization of
humor theory in computational linguistics, in par-
ticular in terms of the ontological semantic theory of
humor, is under way and should yield further results
in the near future. But because these mechanisms of
humor are intended to be barely detectable in their
faultiness—which makes them hard to pin down and
unpack—their overall nature and even their existence
continue to be debated.
Christian F. Hempelmann
See also Cognitive Aspects; Development of Humor;
Incongruity and Resolution; Linguistic Theories of
Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F., & Di Maio, S. (2002).
Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling
incongruities and their resolutions. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3–46.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representation model.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(3/4), 293–347.
Aubouin, E. (1948). Technique et psychologie du comique
[Technique and psychology of humor]. Marseille,
France: OFEP.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2004). Script opposition and logical
mechanism in punning. HUMOR: International Journal
of Humor Research, 17(4), 381–392.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2012). Formal humor logic beyond
second-most plausible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence
of Humor. Papers from the 2012 AAAI Fall
Symposium. Technical Report FS-12–02 (pp. 14–17).
Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
Hempelmann, C. F., & Attardo, S. (2011). Resolutions and
their incongruities: Further thoughts on logical
mechanisms. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 24(2), 125–149.
Maier, N. R. (1932). A gestalt theory of humour. British
Journal of Psychology. General Section, 23(1), 69–74.
Oring, E. (1992). Appropriate incongruity. In Jokes and
their relations (pp. 1–15). Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Oring, E. (2003). Appropriate incongruity redux. In
Engaging Humor (pp. 1–12). Champaign: University of
Illinois Press.
Sarbiewski, M. K. (1963). De acuto et arguto sive Seneca
et Martialis [Concerning sharp and witty style, or
Seneca and Martial]. In S. Skimina (Ed. & Trans.),
Wiklady poetyki (praecepta poetica) [Poetic precepts]
(pp. 1–41). Wroclaw/Krakow, Poland: Polska
Akademia Nauk. (Original work published
1619/1623)
MEDIEVAL VISUAL HUMOR
Because the visual arts were largely in the service
of the Christian Church during the Middle Ages
in Western Europe, levity may be unexpected.
However, medieval artists participated in the long
history of witty, clever, even overtly humorous

imagery. Although no two examples are identical,
certain categories of medieval mischief may be noted.
Clever in Context
The humor of an image may depend on its location—
if placed in different surroundings, the joke would
be lost. The meaning of these visual puns is readily
understood and equally accessible to everyone, no
matter one’s origin, language, or level of education.
The viewer needs only to look in order to appreciate
the artist’s ingenuity. For example, King Charles IV
of Bohemia, accompanied by his wife and courtiers,
addresses his subjects from the balcony on the south
transept facade of the Marienkirche in Mühlhausen.
Although carved of stone (ca.1370–1380), these
figures look and act as if alive. Similarly, on the
street facade of the palace built by Jacques Coeur
Palace of Jacques Coeur, Bourges, France, street facade, 1443–1451. Extremely realistic stone sculptures, originally
painted, of Jacques Coeur and his wife, Macée de Léodepart, leaning out of false windows and attempting to engage
people who pass by on the street in conversation.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
Medieval Visual Humor 495
in Bourges (1443–1451) are life-size, highly realistic
figures of the owner and his wife, Macée de
Léodepart, looking out of second-story windows, as
if trying to engage the people who pass by in conver-
sation. Today, even without their original paint, the
level of realism remains so high it seems certain that
visual trickery was intended (see Palace of Jacques
Coeur images).
Other figures observe the observer, seemingly
watching our every move. Stone people stand in the
crenellations on the west facade of Exeter Cathedral
(dated 1346–1375), quietly observing everyone who
comes to church. Similarly, visitors to the Sicilian
cathedral of Palermo who enter the south porch
(constructed 1426–1430) may find their attendance
is monitored by the sculpted nobles and clergy stand-
ing in the loggia arches, noting all that transpires in
the piazza below.
496 Medieval Visual Humor
Climbing on Buildings
A witty interaction between sculpture and architec-
ture is achieved by stone or wood figures that appear
to scale buildings. At the cathedral of Notre-Dame
in Embrun, France, halfway up a slender column
on the north porch, one diminutive column-climber
uses his arms and legs to cling to the column while
another sticks his head out between two columns.
These figures, tiny and barely noticeable, may seem
out of context in a religious setting, but the man
imprisoned here in stone is said to be the chapter
provost/rector who underpaid the workers. They
had their revenge with these caricatures, believed to
be the work of an Italian sculptor.
Many highly realistic stone people, dressed in
the costumes current in the carver’s day (ca. 1500),
appear to have scaled the walls and now straddle
the flying buttresses of the cathedral of Saint John
(Sint-Janskathedraal) in ’s-Hertogenbosch, the
Netherlands. They may regret the results of their
efforts to attain so lofty a location, for at the top of
each buttress a fierce open-mouthed gargoyle blocks
their path of ascent and lunges threateningly toward
them, causing them to recoil in fear.
Eating the Architecture
A curious interaction between sculpture and archi-
tecture is seen in carved heads, more often mon-
strous than human, that appear to consume parts
of medieval buildings—column capitals and bases,
beams, tracery, and ribs. Columns, in particular,
were the preferred cuisine. On the upper left arch of
the facade of the church of Saint-Nicolas in Civray,
France, in place of a traditional column capital is
a creature with large eyes and many pointed teeth
who dines with gusto on the column below. At the
Cathedral of Santa María de la Regla in León, Spain,
human heads carved on capitals in the 13th- to
14th-century cloister open their mouths wide to con-
sume the columns that support them (see Cathedral
of Santa María de la Regla image). In the Gothic
portion of Southwell Minster in England, capitals
carved in the form of monstrous heads have pairs of
slender colonnettes in their mouths, as if sucking on
straws!
Alternatively, rather than the top of the column,
the bottom may provide nourishment. In the 12th-
century cloister beside the cathedral of Monreale,
Sicily, the molding on several column bases is being
eaten by little monsters that open their mouths wide
like boa constrictors.
Cathedral of Santa María de la Regla, León, Spain, cloister,
13th to 14th century. The usual capitals are replaced by
heads that consume the columns below.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
Ceiling beams also were on the medieval mon-
sters’ menu. In the Hôtel-Dieu in Beaune, France,
in the Great Hall of the Poor (opened in 1452),
brightly painted dragon heads chew the ends of the
ceiling beams. Thought to be the work of Flemish or
Burgundian sculptors, some of these beam-biters wear
clothing akin to monks’ habits, whereas others are car-
icatures of human heads. Pairs of dragon heads have
been gnawing the ends of wood beams in the cathedral
of Saint-Lazare in Autun, France, up in the shadows of
the north aisle, since the early 16th century.
At the little church of Barfreston, England, built
in the last quarter of the 12th century, the circular
east window attracts no unusual attention—until the
fantastic animal heads biting the ends of the radiat-
ing tracery bars are noticed. The motif of a sculpted
monster eating the architecture was cleverly used to
mask an error during construction of the retrochoir
of Wells Cathedral in England (ca.1320). On either
side of the processional way, three ribs were started
but then found to be superfluous. Rather than
removing the ribs, at the end of each was placed a
dragon head that appears to be eating the unwanted
rib with the gastronomic gusto of a gourmand, a
clever sculptor turning an error into amusement.
Modifying the Architecture
Sculpture might be used to enhance the appearance
of a structure. A highly realistic example is seen in
the cloister beside the Utrecht cathedral. The bishop
had remarked that one of the delicate arches filled
with curving tracery that borders the cloister looked

“rather unstable.” Jacob van den Borgh, the mas-
ter builder, devised a permanent solution in 1396 by
reinforcing the tracery of this arch with a carefully
carved, extremely realistic, stone rope.
A variation on the usual cylindrical column shaft
is the “knotted column” in which two or four small
columns appear to be tied together by another col-
umn looped around them, as if to reinforce them.
This was especially popular in Romanesque Italy,
where the four columns flanking the south transept
porch of Modena Cathedral and seemingly tied
together by a flexible fifth column are the work of
Master Wiligelmo. Knotted columns are seen on the
facade of San Michele in Foro in Lucca, the loops
emphasized by inlay. In such examples, by giving a
sculptural form to an architectural support, medi-
eval masons and sculptors blur the customary divi-
sion between architecture and sculpture.
Among the various clever ways in which columns
were treated on medieval buildings, an especially
amusing example is found on the Romanesque
basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Tuscania, built
between the end of the 11th and first half of the
12th century. A row of nine small columns form a
dwarf loggia on the facade. The penultimate column
on the right side is wider in diameter than the other
eight. Rather than chipping away at this column to
make it conform to the narrower diameter of the
others, the sculptor provided it with a corset, imply-
ing that the corset can simply be laced tighter, to
diminish this column’s dimensions, thereby making
Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Tuscania (Latium,
Province of Viterbo, Italy), facade loggia, 12th to 13th
century. The widest column wears a corset, as if aspiring
to be as thin as its neighboring columns.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
Medieval Visual Humor 497
it as slender and svelte as its neighbors. (See Church
of Santa Maria Maggiore image.)
Supporting Roles
Sculpted figures frequently appear to hold up or rein-
force medieval buildings. A sculptor literally lent a
helping hand at the cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay in
France where, on the back porch, an engaged column
ends abruptly midway down the wall—contrary to
structural logic, this column is not supported from the
ground below. But the visitor need not worry about
its stability, for a sense of security is provided by an
11th- to 12th-century hand (albeit carved of stone)
holding up the bottom of the column. Theologically,
this is interpreted as the hand of God the Creator
supporting the dome of Heaven represented by the
vault above. The hand is not prominently located—
the visitor must peer under the column to discover it.
Because the visual puns in medieval art are unlikely
to be obvious, they have largely gone unnoticed and
unappreciated by recent visitors.
Elsewhere, more than merely a hand was needed;
complete figures sculpted of stone or wood serve as
structural supports on medieval buildings, appear-
ing to hold up columns, arches, lintels, brackets, and
corbels, and are usually posed as if working hard
to keep the building from collapsing. An extremely
subtle example is the tiny man who supports an arch
on the back porch of the cathedral of Le Puy. At first
glance one sees three miniature piers, but inquisitive
eyes discover the center one is actually a miniature
atlas—seated, hands on knees, head bent under the
weight he bears.
The compressed body of the Le Puy figure con-
trasts with that of an extremely slender figure on
the facade trumeau of the church of Saint-Pierre in
Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, France, who strains to sup-
port the capital with his hands and his shoulders,
causing him to bow his head under the weight. This
ethereal immaterial figure requires the assistance
of a smaller man standing on the shoulders of yet
another on the side of the trumeau.
Seated men hold up columns on the north porch of
the cathedral of Notre-Dame at Embrun. Given the
difficulty of the task, their evident exertion is under-
standable. The impression created is that real people,
who expected to hold up the columns momentarily
while the porch was being constructed, were never
relieved of their task, instead abandoned to become
frozen in stone. Inside this building, a group effort
is required by small, nearly nude figures, each in a
498 Medieval Visual Humor
different pose, struggling to prevent an engaged capi-
tal from collapsing and crushing them.
The support of an arch requires a great many
figures on the south transept portal of Saint-Pierre
in Aulnay-de-Saintonge, France. The complex
iconography carved in relief on the voussoirs (the
wedge-shaped stones that make up the arch) is read-
ily visible, but only by looking directly up under the
archivolts will the numerous little people who have
struggled for centuries to keep this structure stand-
ing be discovered.
In addition to stone figures that assist in support-
ing buildings, wood figures support misericords. In
spite of the fact that misericords are located inside
churches, close to the altar, and intended for use only
by the clergy, the great majority of subjects carved on
them are secular. Given the function of misericords
as seats, the theme of the supporting figure was a
natural match. A late-15th-century misericord in the
abbey church of La Trinité in Vendôme, France, is
carved with an image of a man who stretches his
arms wide—the distance between his hands seem-
ingly indicating the girth of the clergyman to whom
this seat was assigned.
Loyal Employees
Certain tasks were part of the daily routine of medi-
eval life. For example, the bell of the church of Saint-
Hilaire in Foussais-Payré must be rung regularly.
Inside, in the left corner of the facade wall, a half-
length helpful stone man pulls a stone rope, as if to
ring the bell above him. Similarly, in the cloister of
Sainte-Foy in Conques, France, construction con-
tinues uninterrupted as miniature monks work as
masons to construct a column capital in the form of
a tiny tower.
In fact, some sculpted figures actually performed
very useful tasks. The guards atop the two massive
crenelated cylindrical towers of the medieval gate-
way of Monk’s Bar are always ready to defend the
city of York—because they are carved of stone. With
missiles in hand, these stalwart sentries threaten to
stone unwelcome visitors, perpetually protecting the
city with complete reliability. Late in the day, when
the shadows diminish our visual acuity, an unsus-
pecting assailant might hesitate before attempting
entry through this gate.
Moralizing Messages
The art of the Middle Ages is filled with advice and
warnings, the messages made more memorable by
the ingenuity of their presentation; wit and humor
were used intentionally as effective didactic devices.
Images and ethics have long been allies, pictorial
preaching being particularly appropriate because of
the widespread illiteracy among the medieval audi-
ence. Parables, edifying tales, proverbs, and sayings
well known to the residents of medieval Western
Europe were frequently depicted. One of the best
examples of visual narrative ever created is seen on
the doors made for Bishop Bernward in the years
1011 to 1015, originally installed at St. Michael’s
Church in Hildesheim, Germany (subsequently
moved to St. Mary’s Cathedral in Hildesheim). In
the story of Genesis told in cast relief on these bronze
doors, Adam and Eve are shown to do the one
thing they have been told not to do in the Garden
of Eden—eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of
Knowledge. God points the accusatory finger at
Adam. Having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge
and therefore now aware of his nudity, Adam covers
himself with one hand and points to Eve with the
other, passing the blame to her. Eve, in turn, cov-
ers herself with one hand and points to the serpent
with the other, as if claiming “the devil made me do
it.” No one takes responsibility for his or her own
actions. That this scene will ever be depicted with
greater narrative clarity, or more astute understand-
ing of human nature, seems unlikely.
In medieval art, retribution for sin was shown to
be swift, severe, and sometimes amusing. For exam-
ple, on the Stonyhurst Chasuble, also referred to as
the Saint Dunstan high mass vestment, embroidered
circa 1470, is depicted Saint Dunstan, archbishop of
Canterbury (960–988) and patron saint of English
goldsmiths, jewelers, and locksmiths. While working
in his shop, he receives a visit from the devil. When
the devil mocks him, Dunstan uses his goldsmith
tongs to pinch the devil on one of his noses.
A more permanent punishment is suffered by
another devil, known as the Lincoln imp. Only about
12 inches high, once brightly painted, he has sat in a
spandrel in the Angel Choir of Lincoln Cathedral in
England since the 13th century. When the devil sent
his imps out to play, one caused a nuisance at this
cathedral by attempting to trip the bishop, knock
down the dean, and pester the vergers and choir.
When the imp began to break the windows, to the
angels’ request that he cease, he retorted, “Stop me
if you can!” And they did—by turning him to stone.
A consequence of thievery is depicted at Wells
Cathedral on four capitals of a 13th-century pillar
in the south transept. On the first capital, the thief

steals the grapes. On the second, the farmer is told
of the theft. On the third, the thief is caught carry-
ing the incriminating grapes. And on the fourth, the
farmer hits the thief on the head with a pitchfork
and the grapes are lost!
The Church’s position on transgressions was suc-
cinctly summarized as the Seven Deadly Sins. Lust
(Luxuria) and Greed (Avaritia) were, according to
the medieval clergy, the major failings of the popu-
lace, whereas Lust and Gluttony (Gula) were, accord-
ing to the populace, the primary flaws of the clergy.
The remaining four Deadly Sins are Pride (Superbia),
Wrath (Ira), Envy (Invidia), and Sloth (Acedia).
The sin of Greed is the subject of a misericord
in the parish church of Saint Laurence in Ludlow,
England, carved in the first half of the 15th cen-
tury. A barmaid, a specific resident of Ludlow, was
known to give short measure. The sculptor shows
what happened when she died. Hoisted over the
shoulder of a demon the Devil has sent to fetch
her, she still clutches the fraudulent tankard in her
hand—a tot measure used for liquids, specifically
for alcoholic beverages. On the right supporter she
is pitched head first into the Mouth of Hell. Given
broader meaning, this was a warning to greedy mer-
chants who asked too high a price for their goods or
charged the customer for a larger quantity of goods
than was actually delivered.
The sin of Pride and its manifestations as Vanity
is the subject of another of the misericords in Saint
Laurence in Ludlow, which mocks a woman wear-
ing the horned headdress, a style popular at the
time. Those who wear this style are not shown to
be beautiful; instead, extremes in fashion are paired
with physical ugliness.
Pride of a different sort is scorned in the story of
the master builder of the cathedral of Saint John in
’s-Hertogenbosch, where a permanent public record
of his behavior is carved in stone on the north side of
this cathedral for all to see. The builder had become
rich, as indicated by his large purse, and, believing
that the pot of peas his wife prepared for his meal
was beneath him, arrogantly threw it down. His
mournful expression as he gestures to the spilt peas
indicates his remorse.
When represented by medieval artists, the sin of
Gluttony was more likely to involve excessive con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages rather than of solid
food. On a facade corbel of the church of Saint-
Hilaire in Foussais-Payré, a man is shown to have
bypassed the cup and is drinking directly from the
barrel, which he grasps with both hands. Carved on
Medieval Visual Humor 499
the church of Notre-Dame in L’Épine, France, built
1405–1527, an excited man holds a pitcher in one
hand and a cup in the other. That he has already
had too much to drink is suggested by the head of a
fool below, identified by his cap and ass’s ears. And,
because he is a gargoyle, the result of his overcon-
sumption becomes clear when it rains and he per-
forms his function as a water spout.
Anger and conflict within the Church is shown
on a capital in the cloister of the cathedral of Le
Puy-en-Velay, which depicts a tonsured abbot and
an abbess both tugging on a crozier, a symbol of the
Church. Because the crozier is always held with the
crook curving outward, in order to draw souls to
God, this must be the abbot’s crozier that the abbess
now grasps. Does the abbot fear the abbess will take
control? Is this a competition between monastery
and convent? Is this the age-old battle of the sexes?
Such an image may be viewed as having a broadly
applicable meaning while simultaneously alluding to
local events and specific individuals.
Those who gossip or slander, connected with the
sin of Envy, are punished in various ways in medi-
eval art. Emphatically clear in meaning is the 16th-
century misericord of a woman with a lock on her
mouth, carved on a stall now in the church of Saint-
Maurille in Les-Ponts-de-Cé, France.
A compendium of the Deadly Sins and their pun-
ishment in Hell is offered by the depiction of the Last
Judgment carved on the 12th-century tympanum
of the church of Sainte-Foy in Conques. Medieval
art sought to mold public behavior through visual
intimidation; it was said that if love of God would
not deter people from sin, perhaps fear of Hell
would be more effective. In Hell, people suffer pun-
ishments appropriate to their transgressions. Greatly
enhancing the impact of this sermon in stone, the
individual sins are represented by specific people liv-
ing in Conques at the time. Pride is represented by a
neighbor of the abbey who coveted its wealth and,
in fact, died from a fall from his horse, as shown
here. Lust is depicted by an adulterous couple, partly
naked, tied together. Lying idle under Satan’s feet is
Sloth, a sluggard enveloped by the flames of Hell
and approached by a frog, a medieval symbol of
sin. Greed is represented by the miser with a sack of
coins around his neck—he hangs by its cord. Envy
is shown to be a slanderer whose tongue is torn out
by a devil. And Gluttony is represented by a poacher
who hunted in the abbey’s woods, now tied to a pole
and cooked over an open fire by a retaliatory rabbit-
chef (see Church of Saint-Foi image).
500 Medieval Visual Humor

Church of Saint-Foi (Foy), Conques, France, tympanum,

detail of Last Judgement, 12th century. A poacher is tied
to a pole and roasted on a spit like a rabbit—by a rabbit.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.

Whether one’s final destination would be Heaven

or Hell was decided—according to medieval art and
literature—by weighing one’s soul, which was shown
literally to hang in the balance. On the tympanum at
Sainte-Foy the balance beam scale is shown, the devil
cheating by pushing down on his basket with one
finger. But neither the devil nor the angel is honest
when the souls are weighed on the tympanum of the
cathedral of Saint-Lazare in Autun, France (dated
ca.1130–1145), for the devil hangs on the balance
beam while the angel pulls down on his basket. (See
Cathedral of Saint-Lazare image.)
Among the many depictions of the Seven Deadly
Sins in medieval art, the message is especially
emphatic in a painting by the Netherlandish artist
Hieronymus Bosch on a table top (ca.1475), now in
the Museo del Prado, Madrid. Anger is shown by a
domestic dispute. Pride is represented by a woman
in fancy attire admiring herself in a mirror held by
a demon—who sports a similar headdress. Lust is
displayed by lovers inside a tent. Sloth sleeps, his
eyes closed to the offer of a rosary. Food is the sole
interest of Gluttony. Avarice is portrayed by a judge
who listens to one person while taking a bribe from
another. Envy is represented by a dog that has two
bones, yet wants another held just out of reach, and
by a man laboring under the burden he carries on
his back, envious of the man who does not work.
Animals as Vehicles for Satire
Through the use of animal imagery, medieval art-
ists simultaneously made their messages more
Cathedral of Saint-Lazare, Autun, France, tympanum, detail
of Last Judgement, 12th century. When the souls are
weighed, both the devil and the angel cheat as they
compete for this soul.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
memorable and introduced an element of humor,
thereby making it possible to say things likely to pro-
voke a negative reaction if illustrated with human
figures. A subtle use of animal imagery to make a
political statement is found on the south porch of
the duomo of Verona. As is common in northern
Italy, lions are used as supports. But here a small dog
bites the lion from behind. The lion is the symbol
of Venice; the dog represents Verona, biting Venice
on the butt. The Republic of Venice acquired the
smaller city of Verona as a possession in 1405 (see
Cathedral of Santa Maria Matricolare image).
Although commonly kept as pets, monkeys were
given negative connotations in art and literature,
their ability to “ape” human behavior making them
natural subjects for the inversus mundi (world upside
down) theme favored during the Middle Ages. For

Cathedral of Santa Maria Matricolare, Verona, Italy, south
porch. The dog, representing Verona, bites the lion, symbol
of Venice, which had taken control of the smaller city.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
example, on the outside of a painted enamel bea-
ker, probably created in the southern Lowlands
(ca.1425–1450), now in the Cloisters in New York
City, a multitude of monkey-thieves relieve a sleep-
ing peddler of his wares. On the inside, in contrast,
the monkeys mock the aristocracy by aping their
fondness for stag hunting, the favored pastime of the
upper class. Monkeys and apes appear with notable
frequency in medieval art, especially in the margins
of manuscripts, where animal humor was common.
The fox was often depicted wearing religious garb
and preaching from the pulpit to a congregation of
geese—with the intention of savoring, rather than
saving, them. The subject derives from tales ascribed
to the storyteller Aesop (ca. 600 BCE), popular dur-
ing the Middle Ages in the stories of Reynard the
Fox and his son Reynardine. The tale is told also by
Chaucer in his Nun’s Priest’s Tale. This satire tar-
gets the itinerant preachers, who were criticized by
the clergy as rapacious hypocrites who misled their
innocent parishioners. The clergy were criticized in
turn by the wandering friars as corrupt and wealthy.
A fox in a monk’s habit, preaching to geese, some
already in his cowl, while another fox bites a goose’s
neck as a lucky goose flies away, is exquisitely painted
in enamel and gilded on a silver spoon, a Flemish
work of the second quarter of the 15th century, per-
haps circa 1430, now in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, Massachusetts. Ultimately the geese seek to
hang the fox. In literature he gets a reprieve at the
last moment, but medieval artists were less forgiving:
On the facade of San Zeno in Verona, two roosters
strut as they carry the captured fox, now tied to a
pole and hanging upside down, for all to see.
Medieval Visual Humor 501
Bosch’s painting of the Garden of Delights (dated
ca. 1505–1510), now in the Museo del Prado,
Madrid, includes an outstanding example of satiri-
cal animal imagery. In the lower right corner of this
iconographically complex triptych is a pig dressed
as a mother superior. She gives a dying man—as
indicated by his nudity—an embrace he resists while
a demonic creature offers him a quill and inkwell
to sign a document. Bosch uses humor to criticize
the Church for pressuring dying people into signing
over their possessions to the Church.
Bad Behavior
Just as earthy humor is a characteristic of medieval
literature, some significant evasions of propriety
appear in medieval art. Thus four naked males who
appear to urinate form a fountain in the middle of a
public square in Lacaune, France. Said to publicize
the desirable qualities of the local water by showing
its diuretic effect, this fountain is known, without
subtlety, as the pissaires. The project for the fountain
is believed to date circa 1399.
The great many gargoyles on Romanesque and
Gothic churches spew water in other ways. While
the vast majority of these gutter spouts issue rain
water from their mouths, several gargoyles carved
in the form of nude men employ a different orifice,
their full effect apparent when it rains. Not the
slightest hint of restraint is shown by the gargoyle
on the south side of 12th-century Autun cathedral,
buttocks thrust out, as he glances over his shoulder
at the visitor. The same is true of the exhibitionist
gargoyle with an equally protruding posterior on
the south side of 15th-century Freiburg Minster in
Germany (see Freiburg Minster image).
Another man displays his derriere on the side of
the late-15th-century House of Adam in Angers,
France. Nothing is hidden as he boldly glances over
his shoulder at the viewer. Has this immodest medi-
eval man been caught literally with his pants down,
fleeing from a bedroom window?
A man, carved and polychromed on a corbel, has
displayed his buttocks since 1494 on the exterior
of a building originally owned by the cloth-cutters’
guild (now the Hotel Kaiserworth), in Goslar,
Germany. Wearing only a hat, this caricature turns
his back to the viewer and defecates gold coins!
Known as Dukatenkakker (Goldshitter), he may
depict the German saying, “Money doesn’t fall out
of my ass”—as one might wish. The image of a man
defecating coins appears elsewhere, including in the
502 Menander
Freiburg Minster, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. This stone
gargoyle is carved in the form of a man with his buttocks
thrust outward, looking over shoulder. Because a gargoyle
functions as a gutter spout, imagine the effect during a
rainstorm.
Source: Janetta Rebold Benton.
painting by Bosch of the Garden of Delights, men-
tioned earlier, where the Miser, condemned to Hell,
defecates gold coins into a sewer, a commentary on
the true value of money and material possessions.
Earthy humor is found even inside the church.
If one imagines the 16th-century misericord in the
church of Saint-Pierre in Saumur, France, that is
carved with the figure of a man, nose upward (which
Michael Camille calls “sniffing the bottom”), with
someone sitting here, it is difficult for even the most
inventive art historian or theologian to find redeem-
ing religious symbolism here.
He Who Laughs Last, Laughs Best
Thomas Bekynton (d. 1465), bishop of Bath and
Wells, had his tomb constructed in the choir south
aisle of Wells Cathedral with a cadaver below and an
effigy in ecclesiastical vestments above. Unlike other
medieval effigies, however, Bekynton’s smiles—and
rightly so. A good bishop who actively improved the
cathedral and city of Wells, Bekynton was known for
his happy disposition. But he faced disappointment
when his request to have his jester buried near him
was refused by the dean and chapter. Yet Bekynton
and his jester had the last laugh, for Bekynton had
a stone figurine (approximately 6 inches high) of
his jester placed on the corner of his tomb, closer to
the altar than his own effigy, which will continue to
smile for eternity.
Janetta Rebold Benton
See also Animal-Related Humor; Art and Visual Humor;
Biblical Humor; Christianity; Rituals of Inversion; Satire
Further Readings
Benton, J. R. (1997). Holy terrors: Gargoyles on medieval
buildings. New York, NY: Abbeville Press.
Benton, J. R. (1992). Medieval menagerie: Animals in the
art of the Middle Ages. New York, NY: Abbeville Press.
Benton, J. R. (2004). Medieval mischief: Wit and humour
in the art of the Middle Ages. Thrupp, UK: History
Press.
Block, E. C. (2003). Corpus of medieval misericords in
France XIII-XVI century. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.
Camille, M. (1992). Image on the edge: The margins of
medieval art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grössinger, C. (1997). The world upside down: English
misericords. London, UK: Harvey Miller.
Grössinger, C. (2002). Humour and folly in secular and
profane prints of northern Europe 1430–1540. London,
UK: Harvey Miller.
Kenaan-Kedar, N. (1995). Marginal sculpture in medieval
France: Towards the deciphering of an enigmatic
pictorial language. Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press.
Mellinkoff, R. (1993). Outcasts: Signs of otherness in
northern European art of the late Middle Ages (2 vols.).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Randall, L. M. C. (1966). Images in the margins of gothic
manuscripts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Remnant, G. L. (1998). A catalogue of misericords in Great
Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
MENANDER
Menander (342/341–291/290 BCE) is the only
writer of New Comedy by whom any substantial
work survives. He first competed at the theatrical
festivals in Athens in 321 and wrote 108 plays. One
of them (The Bad-Tempered Man) survives com-
plete, and there are substantial fragments of six more
comedies, together with shorter fragments and more
than 900 citations of words, lines, or short passages
quoted by later ancient writers.
Menander was less popular in his lifetime than
his contemporary Philemon (he won only eight
victories at the festivals), but in the 3rd century
BCE he rapidly became the most celebrated comic
playwright in Greece. The Roman comedies of
Plautus and Terence drew heavily on Menander for
plots, situations, and characters, and he was highly
regarded by Hellenistic scholars, being lavishly

Relief with Menander and New Comedy Masks (Roman,
40–60 CE), part of the Getty Villa collection in Los
Angeles. The masks show three of his canonical New
Comedy characters: youth, false maiden, and old man.
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
praised by Aristophanes of Byzantium (he is said
to have asked: “Menander and life, which of you
imitated which?”). But Menander fell into disfavor
in the Byzantine era, and his plays were not copied
into the medieval manuscript tradition, unlike the
Old Comedy of Aristophanes. We are dependent for
first-hand knowledge of Menander on his popularity
in Egypt during the Hellenistic and Roman periods;
Egyptian papyri are the source of the surviving play
and fragments.
Menander lived in an Athens that was subservient
to rulers installed by its Macedonian conquerors; as
a consequence, unlike Aristophanes, he only rarely
referred to contemporary political issues; almost
never made jokes that would only be appreciated by
one Athenian audience in one particular year; and
never (as far as we know) introduced caricatures of
real individuals from the audience.
Menander’s plays contain very few laugh-out-loud
jokes. Humor is principally derived from misunder-
standings and intrigue, and from the foibles of man-
kind—for example, a cantankerous father in The
Bad-Tempered Man, or an over-jealous lover, who
wrongly accuses his mistress of cheating on him and
cuts off her hair, in The Shorn Girl; toward the end
of these plays, both of these characters are forced to
recognize their past wrongdoing and make amends.
A typical Menander plot, constantly creating new
surprises through misunderstandings, is seen at its
best in The Girl From Samos, in which Moschion,
Menander 503
the adopted son of the wealthy Athenian Demeas,
has impregnated his neighbor’s daughter Plangon at
a festival. Demeas has been overseas, and his Samian
mistress Chrysis has been raising Plangon’s baby as
if it were her own. Demeas sees Chrysis nursing the
baby, draws the obvious but wrong conclusion, and
throws her out of his house. Then he overhears ser-
vants’ gossip that the child is Moschion’s—which
is of course correct but only reinforces his anger
against Chrysis and Moschion. All is not resolved
until the fifth act, when Moschion—after an initial
outburst of obstinacy against his father for wrong-
fully accusing him—is married to Plangon.
Moralizing on the human condition is frequent, as
when in The Bad-Tempered Man the farmer Gorgias
rebukes the rich playboy Sostratos for despising the
poor and committing wrong simply because he is
rich enough to do so. Fortunately Sostratos is able
to convince this hotheaded critic that his inten-
tions toward the girl he is pursuing (who is actually
Gorgias’s half-sister) are honorable.
The physical crudity that is characteristic
of Aristophanes is almost entirely absent from
Menander. But in the surviving fragment of The Girl
From Perinthos, the slave Daos, who has angered
his master by scheming and has taken refuge at an
altar, is surrounded by brushwood and about to
be forced to leave divine sanctity by being literally
smoked out. He shits himself in fear. Similar high-
action scenes, often involving preparation for a
sacrifice to the gods and/or a feast, occur frequently
in the surviving work. For all the gentleness of his
verbal comedy, Menander is a writer with a keen eye
for theatrical effects, and he exploits the conventions
and resources of his theater fully.
Because it was not anchored like Old Comedy
(500–404 BCE) to topicality in a particular place and
time, Menander’s style of drama provided an attrac-
tive export industry; traveling companies toured
his and other New Comedies (321–143 BCE) from
Athens to throughout the Greek-speaking world.
This kind of comedy possesses the lasting capacity
to appeal to a wide audience, as it gently mocks uni-
versal features of human nature. Even though the
social customs and laws of contemporary Athens
are often central to Menander’s plots, these elements
could be modified by subsequent playwrights to
suit their own social context. Menander’s comedies
were therefore adapted for Roman conditions by the
two leading writers of Latin comedy, Plautus and
Terence, and these Roman comedies carried the
influence of Menander through to the Renaissance.
504 Metaphor
The early comedies of William Shakespeare and the
work of Molière are both heavily dependent on con-
ventions, stock characters, and plot devices that orig-
inate with Menander. To a certain extent the same is
true of much more recent comic playwrights such as
Oscar Wilde, Joe Orton, and Alan Ayckbourne, and
indeed the American television sitcom may plausibly
be regarded as a (somewhat debased) contemporary
descendant of the Menandrian tradition.
Michael Ewans
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Aristophanes; Comedy
Further Readings
Arnott, W. G. (1975). Menander, Plautus, Terence. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon Press.
Goldberg, S. M. (1980). The making of Menander’s
comedy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hunter, R. L. (1985). The New Comedy of Greece and
Rome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Menander. (1987). Plays and fragments (N. Miller, Trans.).
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Menander. (2001). The plays and fragments (M. Balme,
Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
METAPHOR
The focus of this entry is on a subset of verbal
metaphors, those that happen to be humorous. As
such, discussion of metaphors in and of themselves
is presented only marginally and as relevant to the
subject. It is common to use the terms source and
target of a metaphor. In the metaphor “an argu-
ment is war,” the source domain is the conceptual
domain from which the “comparison” is drawn
(war), whereas the target is the concept being met-
aphorized (argument). So in the example “Mary
won that argument,” “winning” is drawn from the
source conceptual domain of war (wars can be won
or lost), whereas the target of the metaphor is “argu-
ment.” This entry discusses some explanations for
why metaphors can be humorous.
Most accounts of humorous metaphors (includ-
ing works by Ivan Fónagy, Maureen Morrissey,
Howard Pollio, and Marta Dynel), rely on variants
of the distance theory. This essentially consists of
postulating a threshold of semantic distance beyond
which the linkage between the source and target
domains in the metaphor becomes stretched (i.e.,
too distant) and is therefore perceived as humorous.
The most obvious problem for the distance theory is
that no precise (or even approximate) quantification
of the threshold exists.
A related distinction, introduced by Reuven Tsur
and Howard Pollio, is between metaphors that
have an emphasis on the incongruous aspects of
the source and target concepts and those that back-
ground the differences between source and target
and focus on the similarities between them. Tsur
speaks of “split” and “integrated” focus meta-
phors, while Pollio speaks of emphasizing the “line”
between source and target or “fusing” it. Metaphors
that emphasize the incongruity of speaking of a
target concept in terms of a source tend to be per-
ceived as humorous, whereas those that downplay
the incongruity are perceived as figurative or poetic.
The problem with these approaches is that they
do not answer the basic question of what makes a
metaphor emphasize the incongruous aspects or,
conversely, downplay them.
Elliott Oring has proposed a different approach
to humorous metaphors, which relies on ideas com-
monly used in humor theory, that is, incongruity
and resolution. According to Oring, metaphors seek
to find appropriateness in an incongruous connec-
tion between two frames or contextual cues lead-
ing to the interpretation of a message, but they are
not humorous because the appropriateness they
find is “genuine” (i.e., legitimate), whereas riddles
and jokes find “spurious” appropriateness in the
connection of two frames. Humor always involves
incongruities that are not fully resolved. Metaphors,
conversely, fully resolve the incongruity of the map-
ping between domains.
Oring’s explanation combines semantic and
pragmatic factors. The incongruity of the mapping
deals with semantics, or the rules of word meanings,
whereas the attempt to find appropriateness deals
with pragmatics, or the relation between language
and its context. It is obvious that it could be recast in
blending terms, that is, as a mental space consisting
of a blend of features from two other mental spaces,
a leading approach to metaphors, without any loss
of analytical power. It differs from the distance
approach in that the distance between domains is
not a factor relevant to the humorous effect, whereas
the processing of the blend/metaphor is assumed to
be the crucial factor. A further difference between
Oring’s approach and the distance theories is that

Oring’s is a dynamic theory, based on the inferential
process of finding appropriateness in (i.e., resolving
the incongruity of) the comparison of two different
domains. The distance theories are based on a priori
metrics, or on vague and undefined terms such as
emphasis or focus on the incongruity or congruity
of the comparison. Moreover, Oring’s approach
has the further advantage of being fully integrated,
even terminologically, with humor theory. It should
be also noted that Oring’s account is not necessarily
antagonistic to the distance theory, which could pos-
sibly be integrated in his account.
An approach that recasts Oring’s theory in blend-
ing terms is presented in Salvatore Attardo’s work,
which examines a corpus of humorous metaphors
collected on the Internet. Attardo finds that the folk
usage of the term humorous metaphor is in fact
an umbrella term covering a fairly disparate set of
phenomena. These include metaphors that describe
inherently funny referents: “As independent as a
hog on ice”; un-metaphors: “The red brick wall was
the color of a brick red Crayola crayon” (mapping
one domain on itself); mixed metaphors: “They
jumped on the bandwagon going nowhere” (unre-
lated, sequentially added metaphors); and overdone
metaphors: “It hurt the way your tongue hurts after
you accidentally staple it to the wall,” which violate
primary metaphors. Primary metaphors are basic
and very general connections, such as “good is up.”
Moreover, Attardo found that many folk categoriza-
tions of humorous metaphors also include simple
puns that are not metaphors at all.
The literalization of metaphors, mentioned by
Elena Semino, Andrew Goatly, and Marta Dynel,
is another well-known process whereby metaphors
may become humorous. Semino also notes that
“target triggered” metaphors are often humorous.
Jeffery Mio and Arthur Graesser offer a different
perspective, noting that disparaging metaphors (i.e.,
comparison of a high-status subject to a low-status
subject) are perceived as more humorous. This
shows strong support for the disparagement theory
of humor and would mean that the incongruity
aspect of the metaphor would be backgrounded in
the perception of humor.
Finally, there exists some research on humorous
visual metaphors, which is not examined here, and
on ironical similes by Tony Veale and Yanfen Hao.
Veale and Hao find that a remarkably large num-
ber (20%) of similes of the “as Adjective as Noun
or Noun Phrase” (“as red as a ruby”) structure,
Metaphor 505
retrieved through Google searches, are ironical.
Also, Veale finds that a marker (the word about)
often co-occurs with humorous similes.
Overall, the analysis of humorous metaphors
is still in its infancy. It will develop best if it heeds
Jeffery Mio’s (2009) conclusion that “although
metaphors can be humorous, this is not the primary
task of this rhetorical device” (p. 182).
Salvatore Attardo
See also Exaggeration; Incongruity and Resolution;
Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2007, July). Humorous metaphors. Paper
presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference, Krakow, Poland.
Attardo, S. (in press). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône,
K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics
meets humor research: Current trends and new
developments. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dynel, M. (2009). Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor
as the source of humour. Metaphoric.de, 17, 27–48.
Fónagy, I. (1982). He is only joking (joke, metaphor and
language development). In F. Keifer (Ed.), Hungarian
linguistics (pp. 31–108). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Goatly, A. (2012). Meaning and humour. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending
and metaphor. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor
in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins.
Krikmann, A. (2009). On the similarity and distinguishability
of humour and figurative speech. Trames, 13(1), 14–40.
Mio, J. S. (2009). Metaphor, humor, and psychological
androgyny. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 174–183.
Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). Humor, language, and
metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 6(2), 87–102.
Morrissey, M. M. (1989). Script theory for the analysis of
humorous metaphors. In S. F. D. Hughes & V. Raskin
(Eds.), WHIMSY VII. Proceedings of the 1988 WHIM
conference held April 1–4, 1988 at Purdue University
(pp. 124–125). West Lafayette, IN: International Society
for Humor Studies.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Pollio, H. R. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor.
In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor:
Implications and applications (pp. 231–253). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
506 Mime
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsur, R. (1992). What makes sound patterns expressive:
The poetic mode of speech-perception. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Tsur, R. (2003). On the shore of nothingness: Space,
rhythm, and semantic structure in religious poetry and
its mystic-secular counterpart: A study in cognitive
poetics. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
Veale, T. (2013). Humorous similes. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 26(1), 3–22.
Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2007). Learning to understand
figurative language: From similes to metaphors to irony.
In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society
(pp. 683–688). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2008). A context-sensitive framework
for lexical ontologies. Knowledge Engineering Review,
23(1), 101–115.
MIME
Mime is the art of communicating without words
and is used internationally to express ideas across
language barriers both professionally in the the-
ater and in personal behavior. In theater, the words
mime and pantomime are often used to define
the same thing, although the English pantomime
is a distinct theater genre (properly shortened to
“panto”). Deriving from the Greek word mimos (a
mimic or imitator), mime is both verb and noun,
thus both the act of miming and a practitioner of
the art (although mimes use the word for the mimic
act itself and use pantomime for sketches, scenes, or
plays using mime).
Mime demands complete control of muscu-
lar isolation, focusing on communicative bodily
and facial expression. Although some of the art is
naturalistic, most involves exaggeration and styl-
ization; for instance, miming walking on the spot
or ascending/descending stairs differs greatly from
the real actions, yet communicates very clearly.
The imaginative participation of the audience is an
essential part of mime, as in a game of charades,
where the audience is continually guessing what the
mime’s gestures mean. Consequently its associated
humor springs in part from the delight of recogni-
tion, flattering the viewer’s cognitive skills. The act
of mimicry seems inherently to carry the seeds of
comedy, a joke shared privately between the mimes
and their audience. This entry discusses the elements
that make up the tradition of mime and how it has
evolved in various cultures.
Early Miming
The tradition of mime predates formal theater and
is found in all cultures. Mime was used extensively
in performance by Greeks (the name of the masked
Greek dancer Pantomimus is thought to be the ori-
gin of pantomime). Earliest records make little dis-
tinction between a mime and an actor, who was at
once singer, dancer, and mime; but the word was
more commonly used for a range of comic expres-
sion than for the more formal style of tragedy
that stressed presentational, rhetorical, and vocal
performance. Both tragic and comic mimes used
masks (Latin larvae), but the built-up shoes (Latin
cothurni), which created stature for tragedians and
limited actors’ physical expression, were less used
by comedic mimes, who evidently were primarily
dancers and acrobats. The comedies of Aristophanes
and Menander, Plautus, and Terence clearly require
physicality in both bodily and facial expression.
They satirically mock human desires, ambition, and
folly, differing little from modern comedy, which also
usually requires considerable physicality. Distorted
features and exaggerated props were clearly used in
comic ways, especially the huge phalli notoriously
used in Aristophanes’s Lysistrata (411 BCE) and evi-
denced in vase and wall paintings (indeed re-creating
their extreme political and scatological license has
not been possible until very recent times). Such phys-
ical expression is at the heart of mime, with or with-
out words; however, the mimic emphasis on human
physical expression tended toward the comic while
the abstract tended toward dance. The concept of
the physical entrapment of a soul in flesh lies at the
heart of all comedy.
Mimic elements from Greek theater carried over
into Roman and later medieval theaters, and many
have speculated that itinerant street entertainers long
preceded Greek theater proper. One can confidently
say that mime, dance, and storytelling preexisted
the earliest forms of entertainment in all cultures.
In the polyglot world of the Roman theater audi-
ence, mime was taken to crude extremes, leading
the Christian Church to associate the form with the
pagan and demonic, although because of its attrac-
tions, it was never truly absent from the streets of
most towns. Along with clowning, acrobatics, and
comedy itself, mime became a crucial element of the
commedia dell’arte and the even older folk plays
 Mime 507

such as English mummers’ plays and Dutch Abele

Spelen; no doubt it was part of the skills of a court
jester, and gestural language is part of all “foolery,”
even for puppets. The lasting impact of mimes
and mimicry is evidenced in the work of William
Shakespeare (the “dumb show” in Hamlet being the
most famous example), Lope de Vega, and Molière.
Always popular from the 15th- to the mid-19th cen-
tury, groups of such “strolling players” offered short
satirical sketches on makeshift stages, incorporating
vulgarity, grotesquery, and farce. Crossing many
national boundaries and languages as they did,
mime must surely have been the principal element in
their performances.
The Italian groups that traversed Europe were
known as funambuli (literally, “rope dancers”) and
they used both mime and language, creating hun-
dreds of stock characters, and using masks, makeup,
props, and costumes. The central commedia role of
Arlecchino was particularly bound up with mime,
using gestural language and highly articulated physi-
cal skills—his famous comic routine (lazzi) of catch-
ing and swallowing a fly was totally mimed.
The funambuli influenced most of Europe, with Lindsay Kemp, a British actor, mime artist, dancer,
choreographer, and teacher. He studied with Marcel
the English transforming Pulcinella into Mr. Punch
Marceau and taught David Bowie.
and developing a unique form of pantomime. But
the most significant new developments occurred Source: Allan Warren/Wikimedia Commons.
in France: Arlecchino was romanticized into the
internationally recognized Harlequin and Pedrolino instantly understood by audiences of mixed artis-
transformed into Pierrot. In the first half of the tic sophistication, and this fact has always guided
19th century, Jean Gaspard Deburau developed this physical comedy in its outreach. The eye-catching
role, adding melancholy to his clown Pierrot and appeal of physical extremis is as much a part of farce
retrieving from the street performers of medieval as it is of a Jackie Chan Kung Fu movie or of comic
France the tradition of the “white face” (enfariné) routines in all plays, films, and musicals. One mod-
to neutralize identity, emphasizing mouth, eyes, and ern example is Kevin Kline’s extraordinary mime
eyebrows. While such French pantomime characters sequence in the 1978 musical, On the Twentieth
developed their own visual and performance style, Century.
diluting satire, developing romance, and extending Silent actors, like silent-movie comedians, are in
music, stock comic routines (with ladders, lanterns, fact mimes. W. C. Fields was a pantomime silent
buckets, etc.) retained commedia traditions. comic and juggler before his screen career; some,
The routines from commedia, jongleurs, masquer- such as Chaplin and Rowan Atkinson (a.k.a. Mr.
ades, and Harlequinades diverged into vaudeville, Bean), use their entire body and grotesque facial
variety, and circus and even influenced early silent- grimaces. Others, such as Buster Keaton, developed
film comedy. Mime is evident in the comedies of blank-face comedy, which, like the Nō mask, allows
Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, the audience to imagine the thoughts that are not
and many others, including Clara Bow. And corre- being expressed on the face, with increased humor-
spondingly, several elements from the silent screen ous effect. Such deadpan humor is admired by
(e.g., the Keystone Cops) are standard for many practitioners as a more subtle art form than facial
modern mimes. Often called low comedy because of “clowning” (face-pulling).
its preoccupation with bodily functions and desires, Despite its skill and popularity, physical perfor-
such physical comedy always requires considerable mance was kept off the “legit” stage for many cen-
skill and warrants respect. Visual gags are more turies and made secondary to actors who gave voice
508 Mime
to the wealth of more literary drama. Its influence
nevertheless underlies most theater: On the 19th-
century stage, for example, rhetorical gestures had
to grow to reach the back row of seating capacity
of more than 3,500. Accompanied by music, this
heightened physical style of both acting and play
gained the name melodrama, known for its exag-
gerated and melodramatic style of plot and acting.
Such gestural language survives today in realms as
widely disparate as French mimes and classical bal-
let, where it is often seen as romantic or parodying
romance. Street mimes can be found performing or
“busking” around the world.
Miming in Asia
Although mime prioritizes communication, and
therefore reflects life, it can also deal with abstrac-
tion and distillation of emotion. In classical forms
such as rhetorical gesture and classical ballet, a for-
mal sign language has evolved that links to ritual,
dance, and Asian forms of mime. The Sanskrit
treatise on the performing arts, the Natya Shastra,
attributed to Bharata Muni (between 200 BCE and
200 CE), refers to silent performance as mukhabi-
naya. This remains common in India theater, as does
clowning and the use of stock comic characters. The
famous southwest Indian Kathakali dance form has
sung narration, but its silent performers are thor-
oughly trained in mime, much of which involves the
imitation of animals and highly expressive body and
facial gestures. The north Indian Kathak, evolved
from Persian storytelling, now uses less mime, and
the southeastern Bharata Natyam, evolved from the
court mime with poses and gestures from Hindu reli-
gious sculpture, has now completely abstracted its
expressive aspects so that, like much of Kathakali,
original meaning has often been lost with the ges-
tures retained only for aesthetic reasons.
As in ancient and medieval time in the West, the
actor in Asia is always also a dancer, and in Asian
performance, physical expression is often valued
more highly than vocal. Because Asian performance
usually involves traditional or time-honored narra-
tives, mime remains an essential element in all Asian
performance, assisting the storyteller with illustra-
tion. For Cambodia’s Khmer theater and its close
relative, Thailand’s Khon and Lakhon, drama is
often indivisible from dance. Mime is similarly used
in all Malay, Indonesian, and Philippines traditional
dance theater. Comedy is also a valued part of all
Southeast Asian cultures, essential to character and
storytelling: all have their clowns and comics, with
accompanying mime elements.
Through Mei Lan Fang (1894–1961), the great
Chinese Dan actor (female portrayer), the influence
of Xiqu (Chinese “opera”) on Western theater is
now well known. The term opera is questioned by
scholars and discounts the fact that Xiqu is essen-
tially physical theater, still popular largely because
of its battle scenes, acrobatics, mime, and comedy.
One of the world’s most famous mime sequences
is China’s “Ferryman and the Maiden,” from Qiu
Jiang (Autumn River), where a boat journey around
river bends and dangerous rapids is exquisitely
communicated by two actors on a bare stage. Xiqu
shares many elements with the more visually spec-
tacular Kabuki theater of Japan, deriving from ka
(music), bu (dance), and ki (skill or performance).
Both forms contain a lot of physical mime in battle
and combat scenes (like many Shakespeare plays);
both involve elaborate facial makeup on a white rice
base and often use limited props such as a fan to
serve as another object. Both put comedy sequences
side-by-side with tragedy and explore class systems,
enjoying comedy in the form of rebellious servants
as much as dullard army generals. Another feature
in common is frequent mime sequences in imag-
ined darkness (Japanese dammari, literally “silent,”
but in Kabuki also a pantomime fight in the dark).
These parallel commedia’s lazzi of Nightfall and
are triggered usually by the dropping of a candle
or lantern, with imaginary darkness descending on
stage in which characters circle each other blindly,
skillfully almost bumping into each other, swinging
swords, and ducking or groping for some precious
object. British playwright Peter Shaffer (b. 1926)
used such a “reversed lighting” technique in his play
Black Comedy (1965), which is played entirely as
if in blackout. Because audiences are the only ones
privy to “seeing in the dark,” the actors’ mime skills
make this one of comedy’s most universally loved
sequences.
Masks and masked features, deadpan, blank-
faced characters that magnify physicality and/or
encourage audience’s imagination are also com-
monly used in Asian theater. Examples include nar-
rators such as Japan’s “sit-down comedy,” Rakugo,
where only the fan or a folded piece of cloth is
used to assist the narrator in miming anything and
everything. Nō theater goes further and deliberately
masks all emotions, even on unmasked actors, while
the leading character (the Shite) wears the mask of
his or her role group (gods, warriors, maidens, mad

people, and demons). While Nō sometimes uses sur-
prisingly communicative mime (e.g., the pouring of
wine or water using a fan), the best known Nō mime
is also the international gesture for weeping: with
palm curved slightly upward, one hand is slowly
raised to the face. Apart from having their own plays
known as Kyōgen, comic actors are frequent in Nō ,
usually in small character parts where mime rather
than extended dialogue is important, for example,
the ferryman in Sumidagawa (The Sumida River),
a classical Nō play by Motomasa (1401?–1432).
Kyōgen alternate with Nō plays as comic relief in a
full program, echoing the Greek concept of a world
well-balanced when presented in both comic and
tragic forms.
The purity of Japanese Nō technique greatly
influenced many modern mimes, including Jacques
Copeau (1879–1949) and Jacques Lecoq (1921–
1999), and the Kabuki onnagata (female role) was
copied by Lindsay Kemp (b. 1938) in his androgy-
nous mime and transformed to comic decadence.
Butoh dance uses extreme physical expression,
born of the ashes of Hiroshima; similar to Jerzy
Grotowski’s (1933–1999) work arising from the tur-
moil of World War II, it has developed into a silent
aesthetic, common now in contemporary physical
theater.
Modern mime, fully embraced by the United
States, was first analyzed and legitimized in France
and is usually understood as a European art form.
In 1921 Jacques Copeau founded L’École du Vieux-
Colombier (named for the eponymous theater in
Paris) and for 3 years he, with Étienne Decroux,
Jean-Louis Barrault, Jean Dasate, and others,
explored concepts of physical theater, mask, and
mime. Decroux and Barrault developed a form
now known as corporeal mime, which emphasizes
the body rather than facial expression; their most
famous student was Marcel Marceau (1923–2007)
with his company La Nouvelle Compagnie de
Mimodrame, whose “Pip” became the epitome of
the white-faced mime, exploring its limitations until
Marceau’s death. Jacques Lecoq was a student of
Jean Daste and returned to the commedia to develop
methods now known as “Mime for the Actor.” This
training evolved various strands with both neutral
masks and character masks, clowning, and latterly
the revival of the concept of the Fool and its Italian
counterpart, the Buffone. The more grotesque clown,
or Buffone, was taken further in French theater and
training and acclaimed in the work of Italian Nobel
laureate, Dario Fo (b. 1926).
Mime 509
From Decroux’s work developed French classi-
cal mime, which uses classical ballet positions, pos-
ture, and grace, as well as tights and dance pumps.
Whereas dance defies gravity, mime is earthbound,
often struggling with obstructive natural forces such
as gravity and wind, creating strong comic effects.
It uses economy and essence (evidently influenced
by Japanese Nō) and features slow-motion, statues,
machine-like movements, and patterns, and its com-
edy can be easily analyzed using Henri Bergson’s
principles of mechanical patterning in comedy
(Le rire, 1900). In this tradition, the Swiss group
Mummenschanz, founded in 1972, remains inter-
nationally popular; it uses Lecoq technique together
with masks and props, introducing the surreal into
mime. In recent years, Philippe Genty (b. 1938) has
surrounded the mime with huge visual and magi-
cal effects, and mime’s scientific study of the human
body and gestural language has reentered the world
of dance, influencing innovative American compa-
nies such as Momix (founded 1980) and Pilobolus
(1971).
Miming Today
There are now many mime groups, understood as
physical theater companies, often hugely influential,
particularly in the United States. “Purer” forms, like
Marceau mime, are found now mainly in amateur
or children’s shows (in 2012, some 49 mimes adver-
tised their availability in New York City alone).
However, mime and its disciplines and principles are
commonly part of actor, dancer, and circus train-
ing worldwide, an essential training for the physi-
cal actor, together with clowning, Asian martial arts,
and Western combat. Mime schools and teachers are
in demand internationally, especially the core skills
that start—as in Kathakali training—with muscu-
lar isolation exercises and the essential principles of
physics.
Festivals of mime are held today in many coun-
tries. Mimos, an international mime festival held
in Périgueux, France, since 1983, includes mime,
clowning, circus, dance (e.g., hip-hop), puppetry,
plastic arts, and music. All are nonverbal and
range across ages and cultures, with shows includ-
ing exhibitions, discussions, and films or videos.
The annual London International Mime Festival is
Britain’s longest established international theater
season, founded in 1977 by producer Joseph Seelig
and mime/clown Nola Rae, inspired by Cologne’s
Gaukler Festival and Amsterdam’s Festival of Fools.
510 Mirth
Jean and Brigitte Soubeyran. Jean (1921–2000) was a
French-trained mime, who had an extensive career
primarily in Germany, where he married Brigitte. He
performed for the Marcel Marceau ensemble and wrote a
book on pantomime, titled The Silent Language.
Source: Ronald (Inge Worringen, Cologne)/Wikimedia
Commons.
Helen Lannaghan joined in 1987 and national and
international collaborations have been common,
again spanning the entire spectrum of wordless
performance including “live art” (performance
art), physical theater, new circus, puppetry, and
“object theater.” Artists who have participated
define the field, including Jacques Lecoq, Bolek
Polivka (b. 1949), Philippe Genty, Lindsay Kemp,
Annie Fratellini (1932–1997), Jérôme Deschamps
(b. 1947), Marcel Marceau, and the new genera-
tion such as La Ribot, Compagnie 111, Josef Nadj,
Licedei, Simon McBurney’s Complicité, Phelim
McDermot’s Improbable Theatre, and leading new
circus ensembles. Both Seelig and Lannaghan have
been honored by the French government. The lon-
gevity and adaptability of mime as a communication
form suggests it will forever remain part of the per-
former’s art, whether humorous or serious.
Aubrey Mellor
See also Aristophanes; Bergson’s Theory of the Comic;
Burlesque; Carnival and Festival; Clowns; Comedy
Ensembles; Comic Versus Tragic Worldviews;
Commedia dell’Arte; Exaggeration; Farce; Feast of
Fools; Fools; Greek Visual Humor; Improv Comedy;
Jests, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Lazzi; Low Comedy;
Masks; Medieval Visual Humor; Menander; Music
Hall; Musical Comedy; Plautus; Play and Humor;
Puppets; Race, Representation of; Rakugo; Ritual
Clowns; Roman Visual Humor; Shakespearean
Comedy; Slapstick; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Bergson, H. (2005). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of
the comic (C. Brereton & F. Rothwell, Trans.). Mineola,
NY: Dover. (Original work published 1900)
Decroux, E., & Leabhart, T. (2009). The Decroux
sourcebook (T. Leabhart & F. Chamberlain, Trans.).
London, UK: Routledge.
Dorcy, J. (Ed.). (1961). The mime (R. Speller Jr. & P. de
Fontnouvelle, Trans.). New York, NY: Robert Speller &
Sons.
Lecoq, J. (2006). The theatre of movement and gesture
(D. Bradbury, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lecoq, J. (2009). The moving body. London, UK:
Bloomsbury.
Lust, A. B. (2003). From the Greek mimes to Marcel
Marceau and beyond: Mimes, actors, Pierrots and
clowns: A chronicle of the many visages of mime in the
theatre. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Nicoll, A. (1963). Masks, mimes and miracles. New York,
NY: Cooper Square.
MIRTH
Mirth refers to the unique positive emotion associ-
ated with humor. Alternative terms sometimes used
in the research literature to refer to this emotion are
amusement, exhilaration, and humor appreciation.
Many theories of humor focus particularly on its
cognitive aspects, but it is also important to recog-
nize that humor is fundamentally an emotional phe-
nomenon. Just as other emotions (e.g., joy, anger,
fear) occur in response to specific types of cogni-
tive appraisals of the environment, the emotion
of mirth is evoked by a particular set of cognitive

appraisals that we commonly refer to as humor. This
entry discusses the elements that characterize mirth,
the physiological responses associated with mirth,
how mirth is displayed, and the possible motiva-
tional functions of mirth.
In addition to humor, the emotion of mirth may
be elicited by other stimuli, such as nitrous oxide
(N2O, or laughing gas), rough-and-tumble child-
hood play, and playful tickling. An individual’s
threshold for experiencing mirth at any given time
can also be raised or lowered by factors such as the
social context (e.g., the presence of other laugh-
ing people), one’s current mood state (cheerful vs.
depressed), health status, level of fatigue, or inges-
tion of alcohol or psychoactive drugs. There are also
more enduring individual differences in the tendency
to experience mirth, which are associated with per-
sonality traits such as extraversion and one’s overall
sense of humor.
Mirth is closely related to other positive emo-
tions such as joy or happiness, but it also has some
qualitatively distinct experiential elements, includ-
ing suddenness of onset, perception of funniness,
feeling of playfulness, and sense of diminishment of
the seriousness or importance of things. Like other
emotions, mirth can range in intensity, from the mild
feelings of amusement evoked by a simple pun, to
intense paroxysms of hilarity accompanied by rol-
licking laughter. Also like other emotions, mirth has
physiological, expressive, and motivational aspects,
in addition to the experiential component.
Physiological Aspects
Mirth is associated with increased heart rate, skin
conductance, blood pressure, skin temperature, and
muscle tension. These bodily changes result from acti-
vation of the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM)
system, the well-known fight-or-flight response under
the control of the hypothalamus, and are mediated
by increased production of catecholamines (epi-
nephrine and norepinephrine) in the adrenal glands.
In addition to SAM activation, extended periods of
mirth can be associated with activation of the hypo-
thalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical system, the classic
stress response involving increased cortisol produc-
tion in the adrenal cortex.
It may seem strange that the positive emotion
associated with humor, which is thought to be
beneficial for health, is accompanied by the same
pattern of physiological arousal as are stress-related
Mirth 511
negative emotions such as anxiety and anger, which
have been associated with adverse health outcomes.
However, it is important to note that stress-related
illnesses tend to result from chronic activation and
inadequate recovery from sympathetic arousal,
whereas mirth is associated with phasic, short-term
arousal increases that are less likely to have adverse
consequences. It is also likely that these emotions
have important differences at the neurological level,
including the biochemical molecules (e.g., neuropep-
tides, neurotransmitters) that are produced in the
brain, which in turn may have different effects on
health.
Brain imaging studies reveal that the perception
of humor produces activation of the mesolimbic
reward network, a well-known dopamine-based
system involving structures in the limbic region of
the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, ante-
rior thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdala. The
more humorous a stimulus is perceived to be, the
more strongly this system of the brain is activated.
In addition to humor, this system has been shown
to underlie a variety of pleasurable, emotionally
rewarding activities, including listening to enjoyable
music, playing video games, being sexually aroused,
and ingesting certain mood-altering drugs. Thus, at
the neurological level, the emotion of mirth appears
to be based on this dopaminergic reward network.
Emotion Expression
Most emotions (e.g., fear, anger, surprise) are asso-
ciated with distinctive patterns of facial expression
or bodily gestures that comprise largely innate, spe-
cies-specific signals for communicating one’s affec-
tive state to other individuals. In the case of mirth,
these expressive displays take the form of smiling
and laughter. The more intense the level of mirth is,
the stronger the expressive display will be. At low
levels of intensity, mirth is expressed by a faint smile,
which turns into chuckling and laughter as the emo-
tional intensity increases. At very high intensity, it
is expressed by loud guffaws, often accompanied
by a reddening of the face as well as bodily move-
ments such as throwing back the head, rocking the
body, and slapping one’s thighs. In addition to com-
municating to others that one is experiencing mirth,
these vigorous expressive displays seem to serve the
purpose of inducing mirth and increasing emotional
arousal in others. This would explain why laughter
is so contagious.
512 Misdirection
Motivational Aspects
Emotions typically have motivational functions. For
example, fear motivates the individual to escape a
threatening situation. Although the motivational
functions of mirth are less obvious, researchers have
suggested that they have to do with the enhance-
ment of cognitive functioning and social cohesive-
ness. According to the “broaden-and-build” model,
positive emotions such as mirth serve to broaden
the scope of the individual’s attention, allowing for
more creative problem solving and improved physi-
cal, intellectual, and social resources for dealing with
life’s challenges. Research has shown that when
people experience mirth and other similar positive
emotions, they tend to have increased cognitive flex-
ibility, judgment, and memory, leading to more cre-
ativity and better problem solving. They also have
increased levels of social responsibility, concern for
others, and social behaviors such as helpfulness and
generosity.
Rod A. Martin
See also Appreciation of Humor; Brain,
Neuropsychology of Humor; Positive Psychology;
Psychology; Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns
Further Readings
Frederickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory
of positive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S.
Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living:
Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 85–103).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Panksepp, J. (2000). The riddle of laughter: Neural and
psychoevolutionary underpinnings of joy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 183–186.
Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis
& J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions
(pp. 605–616). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
MISDIRECTION
Misdirection is a broad term that applies to tech-
niques of information presentation that implicitly
encourage the audience to adopt one interpreta-
tion of what is being presented, despite the fact that
another interpretation is not only possible but will
later become more obvious. This is relevant to
humor (such as jokes) in which expectations are
established only to be violated later. This entry dis-
cusses how misdirection can lead an audience away
from an interpretation that subsequently is revealed
to be central to the humorous effect.
The notion of misdirection fits within a particu-
lar account of humor, often discussed with refer-
ence to humor presented in language. Humor can
occur in ordinary life when a person misperceives
or misunderstands a situation, perhaps making
unconscious predictions, then realizes what the true
circumstances are, and that the initial predictions are
not borne out. This pattern of events is adopted in
many specially constructed cultural artifacts, such as
jokes, in order to achieve humor. Some scholars even
propose that this is the essential mechanism for all
jokes, not merely for a large subset of jokes.
The initial portion of such a joke (usually known
as the setup) establishes (in the mind of the audience)
certain ideas about the situation being described.
These initial ideas may trigger some expectations on
the part of the audience. The joke then has a final
short portion, usually known as the punch line (or
sometimes simply punch), which causes the audi-
ence to revise the ideas established by the setup and
perhaps discard some expectations. This means that
the setup must be compatible with two different
interpretations, either through vagueness (i.e., the
information leaves certain details unspecified) or
through ambiguity (i.e., the information has two or
more clearly distinct meanings). Moreover, for the
joke to work, one of these possible interpretations
must be more “obvious,” in the sense that the audi-
ence is most likely to be aware of that interpretation
and not to be conscious of the other interpretation.
If the audience does become aware, during the pre-
sentation of the setup, of the interpretation evoked
by the punch line, then the joke will probably fail to
work, as there will be no corrected misunderstand-
ing, no violated expectations, and no surprise.
Although this device (misinterpretation followed
by sudden revision) can be used in any medium
(visual, tactile, verbal, etc.), it crucially depends on
information being released gradually to the audience
over some period of time, for example, by the joke
being delivered in language. Where a humorous arti-
fact does not have this sequential presentation (e.g.,
a single-frame cartoon, where the reader’s eye is free
to explore the areas of the picture in any order),
it is harder to control the order of presentation of
information.

Misdirection is part of the technique for crafting
these misinterpretation-based jokes. The setup of a
joke must be constructed in such a way that both
possible interpretations are available in principle,
but also so that the interpretation associated with
the punch line is unlikely to be noticed during the
setup. To this end, the joke creator must express
the setup appropriately, so as to guide (misdirect)
the audience toward the required interpretation. In
language, this can involve careful choice of vocabu-
lary and other discourse elements.
Sometimes, little work is required, since the sec-
ond interpretation is unusual in some way, so that
the audience is likely to behave as required without
additional stage management. An audience will
usually interpret a narrative using assumptions
about “normal” or “default” courses of events,
unconsciously filling in details that have not been
expressed explicitly. That is, notions of social or
cultural normality may confer “obviousness” on
a particular interpretation with little or no special
work (misdirection) by the joke creator. Consider
this example joke:
While driving on a motorway, an old man answers
his phone, to hear his anxious wife. “Dearest,” she
says, “the radio news just said that there’s a car
going the wrong way on the motorway. Please be
careful.” “Jeez,” he replies, “It’s not just one car. It’s
hundreds of them!”
Here, the setup suppresses some facts within the fic-
tional world that are crucial to the humorous inter-
pretation of the punch line, but this requires little
specialized work, because the default understanding
of “driving on a motorway” is “driving on a motor-
way in the correct lane.”
An example where more contrivance is needed is
this joke:
A pair of suburban couples who had known each
other for quite some time talked it over and decided
to do a little conjugal swapping. The trade was made
the following evening, and the newly arranged
couples retired to their respective houses. After
about an hour of bedroom bliss, one of the wives
propped herself up on her elbow, looked at her new
partner and said “Well, I wonder how the boys are
getting along.” (Yamaguchi, 1988, p. 332)
The main misdirection is in the choice “conjugal
swapping” rather than the more common “wife-
swapping,” along with the vague phrases “the trade
was made,” and “newly arranged couples.” None of
Mock Epic 513
these terms is ambiguous in a linguistic sense, but all
are carefully vague or underspecified.
The term misdirection is more familiar in the
realm of stage conjuring, where a performer may
“misdirect” the audience in the course of a magic
trick. There are both similarities and differences
between the two usages. A conjuror uses misdirec-
tion so that the audience will not be aware of some
action or situation even after the trick has been com-
pleted. A joke-teller uses misdirection as a temporary
measure, to ensure that the audience does not notice
a particular interpretation until the moment when
the joke-teller wants this interpretation to become
evident.
Graeme Ritchie
See also Ambiguity; Bisociation; Incongruity and
Resolution; Jokes; Punch Line
Further Readings
Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspects of the unsaid in humor.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
5(1/2), 33–43.
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London,
UK: Routledge.
Yamaguchi, H. (1988). How to pull strings with words:
Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of
Pragmatics, 12, 323–337.
MOCK EPIC
Mock epic is a poetic genre that originated in a
parodic or allusive dependence on the epic genre but
eventually developed its own identity and its own
dynamism. Its heyday was the 18th century, when
rationalism banished the marvelous from poetry but
allowed it to survive in humorous and satirical form.
The ancestry of mock epic is diverse. In ancient
times, the Homeric epics were parodied in the
Batrachomyomachia (Battle of the Frogs and Mice),
once ascribed to Homer but probably dating from
the 5th century BCE, in which a war among tiny
creatures is described in the comically inflated lan-
guage that later came to be called mock-heroic.
Such grandiose language was similarly applied to
a trivial topic by Alessandro Tassoni (1565–1635)
in his La secchia rapita (The Stolen Bucket, 1622).
Mock epic derived a fund of narrative material from
Italian romance epic, especially from the humorous
514 Mock Epic
narrative of love, war, and enchantments in Orlando
furioso (Orlando Enraged, 1532) by Ludovico
Ariosto (1474–1533). It drew also from the genre
of travesty, in which the action of a serious literary
work is retold in comic, vulgar, and often anachro-
nistic language: A famous example is the travesty of
Virgil’s Aeneid by Paul Scarron (1610–1660).
Full-blown mock epic emerges in the Enlighten-
ment era. While Alexander Pope (1688–1744) wrote
mock heroic on a trivial subject in The Rape of the
Lock (1712–1717), his Dunciad (1728–1743) is
mock epic in parodying epic—the epic suffix -iad
announces a satire on dunces, or inferior writers and
scholars—in a twofold movement. The many allu-
sions to Virgil and John Milton not only serve to
debase Pope’s targets, such as the playwright Colley
Cibber and the scholarly editor Richard Bentley, but
also to give them a playful, even endearing liveliness,
and, with the “awful Aristarch” Bentley, a paradoxi-
cal dignity. Parody liberates Pope’s imagination so
that scatology, as when the dunces compete in uri-
nating, coexists with grandeur, seen most famously
in the closing invocation of the apocalyptic extinc-
tion of true learning by the goddess Dulness. Mock
epic thus transcends mere parody and creates a space
for unrestrained imaginative play.
The mock epic La pucelle (The Maid, 1755) by
Voltaire (1694–1778) retells the story of Joan of Arc
as a satire on the Church and on superstitious belief
in marvels and miracles. It includes a comic combat
between the patron saints of France and England; a
visit to hell, which is full of clerics; and the machina-
tions of a lecherous archbishop. Joan’s greatest mira-
cle is said to be that she preserved her virginity for a
whole year. But when she willingly surrenders to her
lover Dunois, Voltaire celebrates a love that is both
physical and tender, in contrast to the brutal rapes
carried out by Joan’s English antagonists. Again, the
license of mock epic permits an unexpected range of
emotions.
Among the many witty novels, essays, and poems
of Christoph Martin Wieland (1733–1813), some-
times called the German Voltaire, his mock epics
Idris und Zenide (1767) and Oberon (1780) stand
out; the latter was translated into English by U.S.
president John Quincy Adams. The unfinished
Idris, set in a sensuous fairyland, gently mocks the
Platonism of its hero, who in search of an unat-
tainable ideal love overlooks the physical possibili-
ties at hand. Oberon, a rewriting of the medieval
romance of Huon of Bordeaux, compromises more
with the prudery of Wieland’s public. Its hero, one
of Charlemagne’s paladins, is given the task of chal-
lenging the Caliph of Baghdad and bringing back his
daughter and four of his teeth. In this absurd mis-
sion, he is helped by the fairy Oberon, on condition
that Huon and Amanda (as the Caliph’s daughter
is christened) must abstain from sex before mar-
riage. They fail and must do penance by captivity in
Tunis, where Huon resists the assaults of the lustful
Sultaness, and the two lovers, about to be burned at
the stake, are finally saved by a relenting Oberon.
Not only does Wieland, like Voltaire, explore
the scope and limits of sexual liberation, but he also
foregrounds another theme of mock epic, the rela-
tions of East and West. Homer opposed the Greeks
to the Asiatic Trojans; Ariosto’s romance epic cen-
ters on Charlemagne’s war against the Saracens;
modern mock epic reflects Europe’s uneasy relations
with the Islamic world by adapting these models
with many tropes of what, since the publication of
Edward Said’s book Orientalism in 1978, we call
Orientalism.
Love and Orientalism are prominent in Don Juan
(1818–1824) by George Gordon, commonly known
as Lord Byron (1788–1824). Although Byron
declared “My poem’s epic,” its humorous, digres-
sive style, and Byron’s admission of indebtedness to
Ariosto and Voltaire, place it in the mock-epic tradi-
tion. The legendary womanizer Don Juan is here a
passive character whose affairs are often with older
women, the exception being his idyll with the Greek
girl Haidée. Sold into slavery by Haidée’s angry
father, Juan (like Huon) defies a sultaness but later
becomes the lover of Catherine the Great of Russia.
His sojourns in Turkey and Russia permit explora-
tions in cultural relativism: Byron suggests that the
confinement of Turkish women is no worse than
the prudish hypocrisy that governs Englishwomen’s
conduct. Unlike most Orientalists, Byron uses the
East to question the moral standards of the West
and to cast doubt in general on “thy great joys,
civilization!”
In the 19th century, mock-epic poetry fades away,
but Heinrich Heine (1798–1856) presented a last
masterpiece in his poem Atta Troll (1847). Atta Troll,
a dancing bear who breaks his chains and escapes, is
a political figure, whose bombastic speeches convey
Heine’s unease about both nationalism and commu-
nism. The narrator undertakes an arduous journey
to shoot this enemy of humanity, and his many epi-
sodic adventures include a vision of the Wild Hunt,
a strange assembly including Charlemagne, William
Shakespeare, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and

three goddesses, all embodying the pagan sensual-
ity that has been suppressed by modern Christian
Europe.
During its heyday, mock epic outgrew its origins
in parody and used the license of humorous writ-
ing to explore searchingly the relations between men
and women, and between West and East. In drawing
on myth, romance, and fairy tale, it preserved their
imaginative power in a period officially dominated
by rationality and the reality principle.
Ritchie Robertson
See also Burlesque; Parody; Pastiche; Subversive Humor;
Travesty
Further Readings
Robertson, R. (2009). Mock-epic poetry from Pope to
Heine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Terry, R. (2005). Mock-heroic from Butler to Cowper.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
MOCKUMENTARY
A mockumentary (or mocumentary or mock-docu-
mentary) is popularly understood to be a fictional
audiovisual text, such as a feature film or television
program, that looks and sounds like a documentary.
These texts feature fictional characters and events
that appear to have been “captured” on location
and through interviews by a documentary film crew.
The term mockumentary was first widely used to
describe the fake rockumentary This Is Spinal Tap
(1984; Rob Reiner, director), and is often assumed
by commentators to refer only to similarly parodic
or satiric material. Because of the range of material
that now falls under this label, however, it is more
useful to consider mockumentary as a discourse that
is characterized by the appropriation of codes and
conventions from the full continuum of nonfiction
and fact-fiction forms. A mockumentary might bor-
row from the codes and conventions of documen-
tary, fact-fiction texts such as nature documentary,
the wide variety of television factual-based formats
such as reality game shows and docusoaps, or from
traditional nonfiction forms including newsreels,
news bulletins, and current affairs programs.
Mockumentary has been applied toward a vari-
ety of ends; from being used as a gimmick or novelty
style (e.g., single episodes of the popular television
Mockumentary 515
programs M*A*S *H* [1976], ER [1997], X-Files
[2000], and The West Wing [2009]) through to
dramatic productions that might appear to be a
documentary investigation of a political assassina-
tion (Death of a President [2006; Gabriel Range,
director]), the video diary of a high school massa-
cre (Zero Days [2003; Ben Coccio, director]), or
the home movie of an alien invasion (Cloverfield
[2008; Matt Reeves, director]). Mockumentary is
not limited to cinematic or televisual productions;
an early example of mockumentary is the infamous
1939 radio version of War of the Worlds developed
by Orson Welles’s theatrical troupe that transformed
H. G. Wells’s science fiction classic into an apparent
breaking news bulletin.
Mockumentary as Playful and Reflexive
Mockumentary discourse is important because it
embodies a playful and less reverential approach
toward nonfiction media than was the case for the
early decades of the 20th century (the time when
documentary became codified as a genre). Most
crucially, mockumentary demonstrates the ease
with which nonfiction can be faked, which offers
an immediate challenge to audiences’ expectations
toward these forms, and potentially has broader
implications for the extent to which audiences
remain willing to put their trust in documentary,
news, and other nonfiction media.
Some mockumentaries, such as the Belgian black
comedy C’est arrivé près de chez vous (Man Bites
Dog, 1992; Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel, and
Benoît Poelvoorde, directors) about a documentary
crew following a serial killer, are less playful than
explicitly antagonistic toward the variety of assump-
tions and expectations associated with documentary
practices. Such examples of mockumentary are
deliberately reflexive toward the nonfiction form
that they appropriate. As used here, reflexivity
involves a foregrounding of how and why a text has
been put together. In a documentary, these moments
might inadvertently appear when a cameraperson is
caught reflected in a mirror, a boom mike floats into
frame, or gaps appear in the authority of the voice-
over narration. Mockumentaries, in general, are
reflexive toward the production practices, textual
strategies, and range of audience expectations and
interpretations that characterize documentary and
reality-based media, precisely because they encour-
age their audiences to consider how constructed
these kinds of media are.
516 Molière
Flagging Fictionality
Given their playfulness toward nonfiction codes and
conventions, a key aspect of any mockumentary is
the degree to which it flags to its audience that it is
fictional. Some mockumentary texts, such as This Is
Spinal Tap, are intended to be immediately recog-
nized by viewers as fake; their pleasure derives from
the ways in which they might reference ideas from
popular culture, play with typical or iconic scenes
from documentary culture, or simply present the
more conventional aspects of their narrative. Other
mockumentaries leave it up to viewers to make up
their minds whether what they are viewing is real or
not. A key example here is The Blair Witch Project
(1999; Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, direc-
tors), a horror film about three missing student film-
makers that was convincingly promoted as a real
documentary. It is no coincidence that The Blair
Witch Project relied on online marketing for its
impact—the production of mockumentary has flour-
ished within the more playful spaces of online video,
where it can be more difficult to discern whether or
not a text is fictional.
The Naturalization of
Mockumentary Discourse
Parodic and satiric mockumentaries have prolifer-
ated since the 1990s, and their recent popularity
within film and television has some key implications
for the future of mockumentary discourse. First, it
has become much harder to fool most audiences by
either using mockumentary to perpetrate a hoax or
engaging with unwitting participants in faux doc-
umentary style, as Sasha Baron Cohen achieved
for key scenes within Borat: Cultural Learnings
of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan (2006; Larry Charles, director). Second,
mockumentaries are increasingly being explored as
simply another style of storytelling across a range
of genres and media forms. The UK and U.S. ver-
sions of the television series The Office are exem-
plars of “mockusoaps,” series that appropriate the
conventions of docusoaps. They suggest the manner
in which television producers have become increas-
ingly confident of using mockumentary discourse
to revitalize and reorient sitcom conventions. These
series employ innovative ways of constructing televi-
sion comedy (just as film producers have used moc-
kumentary to develop inventive approaches toward
cinematic science fiction and horror). Using a verité
aesthetic within a sitcom has broadened the ways
in which comedic situations can be developed and
has allowed, in some cases, a meshing with a more
improvisational style of comedic performance that
has long been a feature of mockumentary film (This
Is Spinal Tap is an early exemplar of this production
technique).
Because of these developments, mockumentary
has lost much of its subversive or reflexive stance
toward documentary and related forms. As a more
naturalized storytelling style within contemporary
film and television media, mockumentary’s playful
appropriation of nonfiction aesthetics both draws
on and sits comfortably with the full range of texts
that mediate reality.
Craig Hight
See also Hoax and Prank; Improv Comedy; Parody;
Satire; Spoofing; Subversive Humor
Further Readings
de Siefe, E. (2007). This is Spinal Tap. London, UK:
Wallflower Press.
Hight, C. (2010). Television mockumentary: Reflexivity,
satire and a call to play. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
Higley, S. L., & Weinstock, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). Nothing
that is: Millennial cinema and the Blair Witch
controversies. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Juhasz, A., & Lerner, J. (Eds.). (2006). F is for phony: Fake
documentary and truth’s undoing. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Roscoe, J., & Hight, C. (2001). Faking it: Mock
documentary and the subversion of factuality.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Torchin, L. (2008). Cultural learnings of Borat make for
benefit of glorious study of documentary. Film &
History, 38(1), 53–63.
Walters, B. (2005). The office. London, UK: British Film
Institute.
MOLIÈRE
Molière, born Jean-Baptiste Poquelin in 1622, bears
the unchallenged mantle of France’s greatest comic
dramatist. Supported by a wealthy bourgeois fam-
ily, he was educated in a Parisian Jesuit college that
introduced him both to classical literature (Terence
and Plautus strongly influenced certain plays) and,
doubtless, to acting. Shunning the family trade of
tapestry weaving, and the law, which he studied

in Orléans, he formed in his early 20s the Illustre
Théâtre, a company whose success was soon quashed
by debts that remained unresolved for decades and
even caused his imprisonment. On release, he led his
troupe to the provinces where he toured long and
widely, also gaining important noble patrons, before
returning to Paris in 1658.
His own plays figured frequently in their estab-
lished repertoire, many deriving from the standard
traditions of farce and commedia dell’arte, and
several no doubt lost: He only began publishing his
work in 1660. However, in L’étourdi (The Giddy-
Pate) and Le dépit amoureux (The Love-Tiff), he
had already set the pattern of five-act comedies com-
posed in alexandrines, later applied in various major
works that helped cement his fame. One also notes
the plot structure generally favored during his career
whereby, prior to wedlock, pairs of young lovers
overcome difficulties mounted by parental opposi-
tion. Meanwhile, doctors and pedants form stock
butts for ridicule, while considerable comic energy
derives from the clown Mascarille, whose cynicism,
misfortunes, and counter-morality help undercut the
love-plot.
Once reinstalled in the capital, Molière quickly
acquired both royal patronage and a permanent
site for his company, while success and notori-
ety followed rapidly on his landmark comedy Les
précieuses ridicules (The Affected Ladies), a brief
satire in prose of salon society and its pseudo-intel-
lectuals that would help springboard a much later
masterpiece, Les femmes savantes (The Learned
Ladies). Otherwise, given Louis XIV’s predilection
for theater, it is unsurprising that Molière should
receive royal commissions for court performance,
sometimes at embarrassingly short notice, but the
resultant so-called comédies-ballets combined
theater, music, and dance to a spectacular degree.
He continued to compose briefer farces such as
Sganarelle, which was in fact the work produced
most often during his lifetime, whereas the two
plays L’école des maris (The School for Husbands)
and L’école des femmes (The School for Wives)
exploit his standard themes of young love frustrated
by parental power, although now treated with a psy-
chological depth that has encouraged long-standing
critical attention.
In the discussions following the success of the
latter play in particular, Molière claimed, in a delib-
erate flout of 17th-century critical consensus, that
comedy was a more problematic genre than trag-
edy. However, still greater controversy followed his
Molière 517
Tartuffe, a satire on religious hypocrisy, and Dom
Juan, a spectacular but highly ambiguous treatment
of the career and death of the womanizing anti-hero
Don Juan. The former work, judged impious, was
banned for some years, and the author never pre-
sented the latter following its first run, yet modern
directors have often chosen them in preference to
the remainder of Molière’s works. Meanwhile, the
playwright never lost royal favor, enjoying, by the
mid-1660s, both wealth and fame.
Nevertheless, and despite illnesses that possibly
sharpened his anti-medical lampoons, his out-
put continued in a variety of works, including Le
misanthrope, a fascinating if morally disturbing
treatment of social alienation; Amphitryon, whose
subject derived from classical mythology; Monsieur
de Pourceaugnac, an anti-provincial satire; and Le
bourgeois gentilhomme (The Bourgeois Gentleman),
a comédie-ballet mocking the nouveaux riches.
Alternatively, in plays like Georges Dandin and Le
médecin malgré lui (The Doctor in Spite of Himself),
he resorted to stock themes of marital disharmony
and the professional dishonesty of doctors.
Comedies such as L’avare (The Miser) or his final
work, Le malade imaginaire (The Imaginary Invalid),
propound a favored pattern whereby monomaniac
fathers (miserly in the first play, hypochondriac in
the second) threaten to destroy the younger gen-
eration’s happiness by pursuing their own obsession:
Harpagon (the avare) has chosen a (for him) finan-
cially advantageous match for his daughter, while
Argan (the malade imaginaire) seeks to wed his child
to an idiotic young doctor. Naturally the young-
sters win out, although sometimes via contrivances
so artificial as to amount to self-parody, and one
notes an additional intriguing feature whereby, even
though family harmony is restored, the protagonists’
obsessions ultimately remain intact.
This pattern, although not universal among
Molière heroes, helps question the socially corrective
force of humor that several of his prefaces propound
in order to refute charges of immorality. Actors and
directors in fact remain free to exploit the comical
glamour of protagonists like his Dom Juan, if not
Monsieur Jourdain, his ignorant would-be gentle-
man, or even Tartuffe, his outrageous and libidinous
religious hypocrite; meanwhile, valet characters such
as Mascarille, Sganarelle, and Scapin provide a car-
nivalesque inversion of responsible values that one
indulges at one’s leisure. One notes, accordingly, that
those figures seeking to instill moderation and rea-
son in his comic heroes rarely, if ever, achieve their
518 Monty Python
A colored engraving from the early 19th century titled
“Thénard, rôle de Sganarelle dans Le médecin malgré lui”
(Thénard, in the role of Sganarelle in The Doctor in Spite
of Himself). Below the image is a quote from the play:
“(Embrassant sa bouteille) Ah! ma petite friponne, que je
t’aime, mon petit bouchon!” [(Hugging his bottle) Ah, my
little rogue, how I love you, my little cork!]. Molière’s
comedy was first performed in 1666.
Source: Harry R. Beard Collection, given by Isobel Beard, in
the Theatre and Performance Collection, Victoria and
Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
aim, Molière remaining supremely committed to
theatrical performance and experiment rather than
the development of a philosophy.
Even the pretentious females of Les précieuses
ridicules have enjoyed positive readings, particularly
among feminists, while a character such as Agnès,
ingénue heroine of L’école des femmes, reveals an
ambiguity sufficient to permit manifold interpreta-
tions: Arnolphe, her controlling guardian, has sealed
her from society while grooming her for marriage
with himself, but her naïveté need not mask a
demanding libido that Horace, her successful suitor,
might one day have trouble satisfying. Meanwhile,
a particular and related poignancy lies in Molière’s
own marriage in 1662 to Armande Béjart, an actress
greatly his junior and whose alleged infidelities
reflect Arnolphe’s anxious fears of cuckoldry.
A scarcity of documents renders biographi-
cal interpretations of Molière problematic, and
rightly so, since his theater’s vitality depends on the
exploitation of comic types rather than authorial
self-examination. Nonetheless, it is strikingly ironic
that as a sick man, he should die in 1673 just after
performing as Argan in one of his supreme attacks
on charlatanry in the medical profession.
John Parkin
See also Comedy; Commedia dell’Arte; Plautus;
Tragicomedy
Further Readings
Bray, R. (1954). Molière homme de théâtre [Molière,
theater man]. Paris: Mercure de France.
Moore, W. G. (1962). Molière, a new criticism. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Scott, V. (2000). Molière: A theatrical life. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
MONTY PYTHON
Monty Python’s Flying Circus was one of the most
influential and acclaimed comedy shows in British
television history. Broadcast in four series from 1969
to 1974, it mixed absurdist humor, parody, satire,
and surreal animation in a free-flowing style that
largely dispensed with the standard comedy sketch
format. This innovative blend of the intellectual and
the silly quickly developed a cult following in Britain
and then internationally. The members of Monty
Python were John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric
Idle, Michael Palin, and Terry Jones (all Oxford or
Cambridge University graduates) and the American-
born animator Terry Gilliam. The success of the tele-
vision series prompted books, records, stage shows,

and five feature-length films, two of which—Monty
Python and the Holy Grail (1974) and Monty
Python’s Life of Brian (1979)—are recognized com-
edy classics. The group formally stopped working
together after the film Monty Python’s Meaning of
Life (1983), but they retain a huge following and a
deserved reputation for transforming modern tele-
vision comedy. In the Oxford English Dictionary,
Pythonesque is defined as signifying absurd, surreal
humor.
Before forming as a group, different Pythons
wrote material for and performed in important
satirical television shows such as That Was the Week
That Was (1962–1963) and The Frost Report (1966–
1967). Cleese and Chapman starred in At Last the
1948 Show (1967). Idle, Palin, and Jones produced
an imaginative children’s comedy show, Do Not
Adjust Your Set (1967–1969), where Gilliam joined
them, contributing technically simple but marvel-
ously inventive cut-up animations that mixed arrest-
ing images with a grotesque comic sense. Cleese had
been offered a comedy television series by the BBC
and suggested collaboration to Palin, a move that
brought the six members together. The nonsensical
name Monty Python’s Flying Circus was preferred
to alternatives, including Owl Stretching Time.
With Gilliam’s stream-of-consciousness titles playing
over John Philip Sousa’s “The Liberty Bell” march,
Monty Python’s Flying Circus was first broadcast on
BBC television in October 1969. The combination
of satirical and surrealist comedy drew on verbal
and visual influences, including the anarchic genius
of Spike Milligan (the creator of the revered Goon
Show, an absurdist radio program of the 1950s)
and the cerebral comedy of the Beyond the Fringe
group (Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Jonathan Miller,
and Alan Bennett). The Pythons added their brand
of visual and verbal silliness, pieces such as “Cheese
Shop,” “Dead Parrot,” “Spanish Inquisition,”
“Lumberjack Song,” and the “Ministry of Silly
Walks” marking high points in British television
comedy. Not everything worked, but collectively the
profusion of imaginative flashes linked by Gilliam’s
animation kept viewers entranced. The show paro-
died television conventions and formats such as game
shows, interviews, news broadcasts, documentaries,
and pretentious cultural programs. It ventured regu-
larly into the absurd (“Flying Sheep”), the pseudo-
intellectual (“Summarise Proust Competition”),
the silly (“Spam,” in which the main item on a café
menu is Spam, a brand of spiced ham served from a
can), and the grotesque (a cartoon figure decapitates
Monty Python 519
himself while shaving). Monty Python’s self-mock-
ing catchphrase, “And now for something com-
pletely different,” captures its subversive approach.
The strong performing talents of the group added
substantially to the show’s scope and quality, with
the gifted Carol Cleveland appearing regularly in
straight female roles. Cleese felt that the group had
started to repeat itself by the third series and did not
participate in the final fourth series, usually recog-
nized as a falling away from the early high standards.
Before the television show ended in 1974, the
Pythons had branched into books, records, stage
shows, and films, the first film being And Now for
Something Completely Different (1971). This com-
pilation of popular sketches helped establish an
international fan base. Monty Python and the Holy
Grail (1974), directed by Gilliam and Jones, proved
a substantial critical and popular success, linking
hilarious sketches via a loose narrative based on
the Grail myth. The film lampooned film conven-
tions, opening with faux–Ingmar Bergman credits,
acknowledging that its sets sometimes were models,
and including a parody of a Hollywood song-and-
dance number. It was financed in part by rock groups
Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, fans of the show.
Jones directed the more ambitious and coherent
Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979), which satirized
unthinking political and religious zealots through the
story of Brian, a figure mistaken for the long-awaited
Messiah. The religious content caused the original
producers to pull out just before shooting, and the
film was financed by another Python fan, Beatle
George Harrison. On release, it initially proved
highly controversial for those who misread it as an
attack on Christ. It is now recognized as among the
best and most successful British comedies ever made,
but Palin has declared that in the current climate of
religious sensitivity it would not be made. Idle per-
formed its superb closing song, “Always Look on the
Bright Side of Life,” at the 2012 London Olympics.
Monty Python’s Meaning of Life was a partially suc-
cessful attempt to connect a sketch format to a larger
theme. Its best moments—as when the morbidly
obese Mr. Creosote explodes, his innards spraying
over others at a restaurant, or the musical number
“Every Sperm Is Sacred,” which mocks religious
opposition to birth control—confirmed the Python
capacity to amuse and shock, sometimes simultane-
ously. This was the last major project involving all of
the Pythons, as Chapman died in 1989.
From the early 1970s, individual members of the
group had begun successful careers in writing, stage,
520 Movie Humor Types
television, and film. Notable examples on televi-
sion include Cleese’s Fawlty Towers (1975–1979),
Palin and Jones’s Ripping Yarns (1977–1979), and
Palin’s travel series. Films such as A Fish Called
Wanda (cowritten by and starring Cleese) as well as
Gilliam’s Brazil (1985) and Twelve Monkeys (1995)
displayed the creative versatility that underpinned
Python projects. The immense commercial and
critical success of the Tony award–winning musi-
cal comedy Spamalot (2005– ), written by Idle and
based on The Holy Grail film, testifies to the qual-
ity of the original material and the group’s endur-
ing esteem. Although Monty Python’s unique blend
of surrealism, absurdity, and satire made imitation
by other groups impossible, it opened up comedic
possibilities that are still being used. The continuing
international popularity of reruns of the television
shows and the films ensures Monty Python’s place in
British film and television history.
Peter Marks
See also Absurdist Humor; Aristophanes; Parody; Satire;
Sketch Comedy Shows; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Chapman, G., Cleese, J., Gilliam, T., Idle, E., Jones, T.,
Palin, M., & McCabe, B. (2003). The Pythons:
Autobiography by the Pythons. London, UK: Orion.
Palin, M. (2008). Diaries 1969–1979: The Python years.
London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Wilmut, R. (1980). From fringe to flying circus: Celebrating
a unique generation of comedy 1960–1980. London,
UK: Methuen.
MOVIE HUMOR TYPES
From its slapstick beginnings, honed in music halls
and vaudeville circuits, film comedy would prolifer-
ate into numerous subgenres. At least 10 dominant,
albeit overlapping, categories would evolve to elicit
peculiar kinds of laughing experiences: slapstick, par-
ody, character comedy, comedy of manners, roman-
tic/screwball comedy, musical comedy, farce (animal
comedy), satire/black comedy, hybrids, and mocku-
mentary. This entry discusses each of these types of
film comedy and gives some examples of them.
The earliest form of film comedy emerged as
slapstick (from the theatrical device of two flat
slabs of wood used by actors to make a loud noise
when striking another), a rough and tumble form of
visual horseplay. Director Mack Sennett mastered
the pratfalls of the Keystone Cops and careening
automobiles with panache. Slapstick would explode
into hilarious anarchy with the Marx Brothers (in
their 1933 film Duck Soup) and shorts and features
with Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Later physical
slapstick comedies such as The Pink Panther (1963),
Home Alone (1990), and Toy Story (1995) would
combine slapstick and character comedy. Often the
genre showcased riffing, as in Tampopo (1985), a
richly comic film about noodles.
Closely aligned to the slapstick came film paro-
dies, satirizing other films or genres. In the silent era,
the cross-eyed Ben Turpin mocked the romanticism
of Rudolph Valentino in The Shriek of Araby (1923).
Beginning in 1948, Bud Abbott and Lou Costello
took on the horror film genre with their silly encoun-
ters with Frankenstein, the Invisible Man, and the
Mummy. More modern parodies would be the
province of Mel Brooks upending the conventions
of the horror genre (Young Frankenstein, 1974)
and westerns (Blazing Saddles, 1974), with liter-
ary sophistication appearing in the Monty Python
parody of medieval romances in Monty Python and
the Holy Grail (1975). Chuck Jones would sacri-
fice high culture with What’s Opera, Doc? (1957)
while Italian animator Bruno Bozzetto would spoof
Disney’s Fantasia (1940) with his hilarious Allegro
Non Troppo (1976).
Out of the wild physical playground of slapstick
evolved several notable comedians, whose personal-
ity distinguished their unique styles. In contrast to
the falling and pie throwing of the Sennett studio,
character comedy developed around distinct natu-
ral talents, the baggy pants and derby and cane of
Charlie Chaplin’s tramp (The Gold Rush, 1925), the
stone-faced stoic of Buster Keaton (Steamboat Bill,
Jr., 1928), the All American boy-next-door “glasses”
character of Harold Lloyd (Safety Last! 1923), and
the infantile Harry Langdon (Tramp, Tramp, Tramp,
1926). The work of Keaton and Lloyd led as well to
the thrill comedies of the 1920s, wild rapid adven-
tures in which speed propelled the stories into lively
entertainments. The picaro existed as a stranger in a
strange land, even if the land were the beach in sum-
mer as in Jacques Tati’s Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (1953).
Jerry Lewis augmented his wacky persona into the
dual roles in The Nutty Professor (1963).
Sound technology joined wit and wordplay to pol-
ish a comedy of manners, in which dialogue show-
cased witty repartee. Grounded in an Oscar Wilde

tradition of sparkling wit, early sound comedies
like Dinner at Eight (1933) would keep audiences
attuned to epigrammatic dialogue regarding social
class pretentions. Writer/director Preston Sturges,
who perfected the genre with his Sullivan’s Travels
(1941) and The Lady Eve (1941), quipped, “There’s
something to be said for making people laugh.”
The ancient New Comedy of Rome, which
involved boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl
back, set the stage for cinematic romantic comedies,
those in which women and men matched wits and
fell in and out of love. These films, which included a
special subgenre of “screwball comedies,” enlivened
the Depression years of the 1930s. In comedies of
remarriage, couples would bicker until they rejoined
in the final reel. It Happened One Night (1934) and
Philadelphia Story (1940) illustrated the essence
of the screwball comedies, while certain directors
would creatively extend the tradition (Billy Wilder’s
Some Like It Hot [1959], Woody Allen’s Annie Hall
[1977], and Rob Reiner’s When Harry Met Sally
[1989]).
The advent of sound also enabled musical com-
edies to premiere and delight audiences. René Clair’s
elaborate musical constructions, Busby Berkeley’s
all-dancing and all-singing extravaganzas, and Eddie
Cantor’s wild, chauvinistic romps paved the way for
classics like Gene Kelly’s Singin’ in the Rain (1952),
and Mary Poppins, produced by Walt Disney
(1964). Popular films such as Sister Act (1992) and
the teen Disney franchise High School Musical,
which included TV movies in 2006 and 2007 and a
big-screen film in 2008, achieved box office success.
In the old tradition of vulgar laughter, farce or
animal comedy combined slapstick with outra-
geous jokes, eventually leading to gross-out com-
edies (There’s Something About Mary, 1998; The
Hangover, 2009) with body liquids from vomit to
semen covering the screens. Spectators cringed while
they laughed.
In contrast to parody, which lampoons a particu-
lar genre or work, satire ridiculed social, political, or
cultural institutions or individuals. Stanley Kubrick’s
masterly nightmarish comedy Dr. Strangelove, Or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
(1964) played with the absurdity of the nuclear arms
race and an impending doomsday. Director Robert
Townsend targeted the film industry’s exploitation
of African Americans in Hollywood Shuffle (1987).
André Breton coined the term humour noir, or black
comedy, to describe the cynical, gallows laughter
associated with suffering, death, and cultural taboos.
Movie Humor Types 521
Harold and Maude (1971) followed a suicidal youth
romancing an elderly woman. The comically squalid
British Withnail and I (1986) portrays the outra-
geous fortunes of two unemployed actors.
Hybrid comedies blended comedy with other
genres, such as action films (Beverly Hills Cop
[1984], A Bug’s Life [1998], Who Framed Roger
Rabbit? [1988]), soap opera (Tootsie, 1982), hor-
ror (Ghostbusters [1984], Scary Movie [2000],
Shaun of the Dead [2004]), and historical adven-
ture (The Princess Bride [1987]). Each plays on the
codes and conventions and offers esoteric pleasures
for informed viewers. One gets the jokes when one
knows the traditions.
Finally, the mockumentary genre applies parody
to the documentary tradition, creating some of the
most brilliantly improvised satires: Rob Reiner’s This
is Spinal Tap (1984) and Christopher Guest’s Waiting
for Guffman (1996) expose the vanity and venality
of the music and theatrical worlds, while the daring
Borat (2006) starring Sacha Baron Cohen subverted
American and “Kazakh” cultural practices.
Film comedy continues to evolve, particularly in
its juxtaposition with other movie forms, finding
new ways to break into a thousand more pieces of
laughter.
Terry Lindvall
See also Comedy; Farce; Mockumentary; Monty Python;
Movies; Slapstick
Further Readings
Cavell, S. (1984). Pursuits of happiness: The Hollywood
comedy of remarriage. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Dale, A. (2002). Comedy is a man in trouble: Slapstick in
American movies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gehring, W. (2002). Romantic vs. screwball comedy:
Charting the difference. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Harvey, J. (1998). Romantic comedy in Hollywood: From
Lubitsch to Sturges. New York, NY: DaCapo Press.
Jenkins, H. (1992). What made pistachio nuts? Early sound
comedy and the vaudeville aesthetic. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Johnson, K. (1999). The first 28 years of Monty Python.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Karnick, K. B., & Jenkins, H. (Eds.). (1994). Classical
Hollywood comedy. London, UK: Routledge.
King, B., & Paulus, T. (Eds.). (2010). Slapstick comedy.
London, UK: Routledge.
522 Movies
Mast, G. (1979). The comic mind: Comedy and the movies.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, C. (2012). Too bold for the box office: The
mockumentary from big screen to small. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
MOVIES
Movies that incorporate humorous elements in an
attempt to evoke laughter from an audience com-
prise the genre of film comedy. Such movies often
borrow comedic conventions and gags and add
novel twists to adapt the same goal for mediated
audiences. The genre of film comedy has persisted
since one of Thomas Edison’s assistants, Fred Ott,
sneezed for the camera in 1891 and provided the
first comic action for the fledging art. This entry
explores the genre of film comedy from the silent
film era to the 21st century.
Silent Laughter
In 1895, the Lumière brothers of France devised a
gag film with their L’arroseur arrosé (The Gardener;
Louis Lumière, director), in which a mischievous
boy bends the hose of a gardener who ends up get-
ting squirted when he looks into it. However, the
boy gets his comeuppance when he is caught and
spanked. In the late 19th century and early 20th cen-
tury, the more fantastic filmmaker and former magi-
cian Georges Méliès played a light-hearted devil in
his trick films. One of Méliès’s actors, André Deed,
revived the Pierrot stock figure from commedia
dell’arte in his Italian clown named Cretinetti.
After working with dramatic filmmaker
D. W. Griffith, Mack Sennett ran off to California in
1913 to produce his own brand of slapstick, crowded
with his grotesques, the Keystone Cops, who were
fat, skinny, cross-eyed, short, and stubby, and could
perform pratfalls and summersaults. Speed, abuse
of the body, and destruction of property constituted
the major themes of Sennett productions, with stars
like the agile Fatty Arbuckle and Mabel Normand.
Adding to the fun, Sennett introduced the Sennett
Bathing Beauties in 1915, garnering front-page
pictures in the newspaper with his bevy of beauties
dressed in bathing suits. In this comic mode of pre-
sentation, gags dominated, with narrative assuming
a secondary, or nonexistent, role.
Out of Sennett’s fun factory came the quintessen-
tial clown of the century, Charlie Chaplin, whose
underdog roguish character, the Little Tramp, intro-
duced in the 1914 film Kid Auto Races at Venice
(Henry Lehrman, director), triumphed over the
vicissitudes of the American experience. Inspired
by dapper French comedian Max Linder and his
own Karno Music Hall roots, Chaplin was easily
exported throughout the growing film world. The
impact of the Little Tramp spanned continents, with
his popularity establishing him as one of the first
global celebrities.
Other comic characters imitated and paralleled
the rise of Chaplin. The thrill comedies of Harold
Lloyd, the intellectual, kinetic, and deadpan com-
edy of Buster Keaton, and the bathetic humor of
Harry Langdon kept American audiences laughing
in the 1920s. Movies like The Gold Rush (1925;
Charlie Chaplin, director), Safety Last (1923; Fred
C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, directors), Sherlock
Jr. (1924; Buster Keaton and Roscoe Arbuckle,
directors), and The Strong Man (1926; Frank Capra,
director) sold tickets to jazz age audiences.
The legion of film comics was joined by ani-
mated characters that jumped around, imitating the
great comedians. In 1919, brothers Max and Dave
Fleischer drew Koko the Clown and began the ani-
mated series Out of the Ink Well, and Otto Messmer
provided the comic antics of Felix the Cat through
surreal metamorphoses.
Stepping out of the Ziegfeld Follies, vaudeville
and burlesque amusements of the early 20th cen-
tury, numerous entertainers hit the silver screen
with diverse comic talents: W. C. Fields juggling
and muttering sotto voce, Will Rogers lassoing and
philosophizing, the Marx Brothers exploding with
anarchy and comic chaos, and Mae West gyrating
and insinuating all matter of risqué material.
The Sound of Laughter
The innovation of sound technology through
Warner Bros. Studios in the late 1920s opened up
new modes of film comedy for the entire industry.
Sound ushered in a spate of musical comedies, with
Eddie Cantor, for instance, singing and dancing, and
director-producer Busby Berkeley choreographing
complex numbers while using the quick comic pat-
ter of female characters to accelerate his comedy and
simultaneously make pointed social commentary on
the Great Depression.
In France, visionary director René Clair applied
Dadaesque sensibilities to his silent films (Paris
qui dort [The Crazy Ray], 1924) and his wildly

innovative early sound films like Le Million (1931).
In Great Britain, music hall performers like Gracie
Fields, the befuddled Will Hay, and buck-toothed
ukulele-playing George Formby showcased plenty
of pluck and wit and a bit of slapstick.
Sound also inaugurated a zoo of talking animated
animals, with the Disney Brothers Studios premier-
ing Mickey and Minnie Mouse in Steamboat Willie
(Ub Iwerks and Walt Disney, directors) in 1928,
an homage to Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill, Jr.
In the 1930s, the Fleischer brothers shaped other
Paramount cartoon stars with a gartered Betty Boop
and a pipe-smoking Popeye the Sailor Man, and
Warner Bros. Studios began redefining cartoon com-
edy with wise-cracking rascals like Bugs Bunny and
Daffy Duck.
Hal Roach Studios made the transition from
the silent Our Gang series with multiethnic rascals
into sound with Our Gang characters Spanky and
Alfalfa and with character actors like Charlie Chase
in The Pip From Pittsburg (1931; James Parrott,
director). The studio’s silent shorts with Stan Laurel
and Oliver Hardy extended into sound shorts and
features, combining pantomime (tie-twaddle and
eye-blinks), pet phrases (“well, here’s another fine
mess you’ve gotten me into”), reciprocal violence,
and escalating tit-for-tat in the classic Big Business
(1929; Leo McCarey and James W. Horne, direc-
tors) and The Music Box (1932; James Parrott,
director).
Historian Wes Gehring distinguished the comic
styles of two 20th-century Roman Catholic direc-
tors: Frank Capra and Leo McCarey. The former
developed a populist style featuring a “Cracker-
Barrel Yankee” who was gainfully employed, politi-
cally active, providing a paternal or grandfatherly
figure, and serving as somewhat of a rural, home-
spun philosopher spouting country wisdom. Such
American archetypes included the real Will Rogers
and the fictional Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith. The lat-
ter mischievously propagated the figure of the anti-
hero, essentially an incompetent, urban male with
lots of leisure time. McCarey was typically frustrated
with women and domestic problems, being a bit of
an infantile figure himself, such as can be found in
his team of Laurel and Hardy. Writers from The
New Yorker, such as Robert Benchley who turned
into a film star, exemplified such domestic bumblers.
Droll writers from the Algonquin Round Table in
New York City arrived to write for the screen, such
as the quaintly humorous Robert Benchley (Sex Life
of a Polyp [1928; Thomas Chalmers, director]),
Movies 523
who taught Americans How to Sleep (1935; Nick
Grinde, director).
Anarchic figures, such as the cantankerous
clown/juggler misanthrope W. C. Fields and the
motley comedy team of the Marx Brothers, crashed
onto the screen in the 1920s and 1930s. The Marx
Brothers subverted social discourse and language
with malapropisms, misunderstandings, absurd
and loose logic, indecorous discourse, extended
clichés, and chutzpah, perfecting comic transgres-
sions of verbal communication and social propriety.
Groucho’s grease-painted moustache, stooped walk
with baggy pants and cigar, and glib, wise-cracking
non sequiturs confused the usually unflappable
Margaret Dumont, the straight woman in several
Marx Brothers’ films. Chico’s ethnic dialect games
mangled the English language. Harpo’s silent char-
acter, yet equipped with whistle, taxi-cab horn,
and scissors, responded literally to his conspirators
and used props from his magic coat to improvise
with impunity. His leg gag shtick and mirroring of
Groucho in Duck Soup (1933; Leo McCarey, direc-
tor) remain pinnacles of the art of pantomime. On
the female side, an edgy, tongue-in-cheek Mae West
tested the limits of movie censorship.
However, although these wilder comics were not
among Quigley Publishing’s annual Top Ten Money
Makers poll, other comic and dramatic stars com-
manded the highest profits. Such figures as Marie
Dressler, Will Rogers, Shirley Temple, Mickey
Rooney, Bing Crosby, and Bob Hope were major
earners for the studios, and theatergoers derived
great pleasure from watching them perform.
Comic directors and actors immigrated to the
United States during the early sound era, infusing
Hollywood with continental sensibilities. German
director Ernst Lubitsch captured French insouciance
with The Love Parade (1929), a light-hearted oper-
etta drafting French actor-singer Maurice Chevalier
to charm the world. He then got actress Greta
Garbo to laugh in Ninotchka (1939) and satirized
Adolf Hitler through the comic timing of Jack Benny
in the daring To Be or Not to Be (1942). On the
verge of World War II, Marcel Carne’s dark comedy
Drôle de drame (Bizarre, Bizzare, 1937) dealt with
lurid crimes and a psychopath who kills butchers.
Following the end of the war, Carne released a dra-
matic story of a white clown in France, Children of
Paradise (1946), which contained the bittersweet
sorrow and laughter of an occupied people.
Romance found gender equality in the screwball
comedies of the 1930s. Beginning with multiple
524 Movies
Academy Award–winning It Happened One Night
(1934; Frank Capra, director), the genre lasted
throughout the Depression. Capra’s movie took
Americans across their country showcasing motels,
hitchhiking, and donut dunking. The subgenre cel-
ebrated rituals of marriage and remarriage, in which
women and men matched wits through scintillat-
ing verbal fireworks and physical slapstick. Critic
Andrew Sarris called these screwball comedies—
films like My Man Godfrey (1936; Gregory La
Cava, director), Bringing up Baby (1938; Howard
Hawks, director), Theodora Goes Wild (1936;
Richard Boleslawski, director), and Nothing Sacred
(1937; William A. Wellman, director)—“sex com-
edies without sex.” Marriage comedy was wedded
with the detective novels of Dashiell Hammett to
bring forth the charming martini-laden Thin Man
series. Screwball comediennes descended into femme
fatales as seen in director Howard Hawks’s funny
version of the fairy tale Snow White, Ball of Fire
(1941), starring Barbara Stanwyck, and slipped into
film noir like Double Indemnity (1944; Billy Wilder,
director).
Capra’s populist comedies such as Mr. Deeds
Goes to Town (1936) populated the Depression
years and were supplanted during the World War
II by religious comedies, such as McCarey’s Going
My Way (1944), and a species of fantasy film
Peter Valenti called film blanc, giving hope during
such grim times, such as director Alexander Hall’s
Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941) and Capra’s It’s a
Wonderful Life (1947).
A 1940 promotional picture for the film His Girl Friday
with Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Ralph Bellamy.
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
In the shadow of the Marx Brothers, the Ritz
Brothers and the Three Stooges, composed of Moe,
Larry, and Curly in various manifestations, revived
physical slapstick and inanity to attract male audi-
ences. During World War II, comedians Bud Abbott
and Lou Costello performed in Naughty Nineties
(1945; Jean Yarbrough, director), their now-classic
comedy routine in which they tried to figure out
“Who’s on First?” World geography expanded with
the global treks of entertainers Bob Hope and Bing
Crosby following Paramount Studio’s “roads” in
Road to Singapore (1940; Victor Schertzinger, direc-
tor), Road to Zanzibar (1941; Victor Schertzinger,
director), Road to Morocco (1942; David Butler,
director), Road to Utopia (1946; Hal Walker, direc-
tor), Road to Rio (1947; Norman McLeod, direc-
tor), Road to Bali (1952; Hal Walker, director), and
Road to Hong Kong (1962; Norman Panama, direc-
tor), with songs, their signature patty-cake routine,
and costar Dorothy Lamour in a sarong. A tipsy
suave Dean Martin and infantile Jerry Lewis teamed
up as crooner and pubescent sidekick in popular film
comedies such as My Friend Irma (1949; George
Marshall, director) and Hollywood or Bust (1956;
Frank Tashlin, director).
Bob Hope (and Bugs Bunny and, later, Woody
Allen) inaugurated a style of comedy that Steve
Seidman labeled “comedian comedy,” one in which
the celebrity entertainer occasionally breaks the
fourth wall of the film narrative. Thus, Hope would
step out of his character to address the spectators
directly, advising them it was a good time to go buy
popcorn in the lobby because Crosby was about to
sing. This direct, even Brechtian, address engaged
viewers in fresh, interactive ways.
In the United States, after World War II, a domes-
tic mode of comedy appeared along with the baby
boom, such as the comedies on gender relations
starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy,
with Adam’s Rib (1949; George Cukor, director)
comically signifying the tensions in marital arrange-
ments. So, too, cinema in which the story structure
opened up comic possibilities emerged, such as with
entertainer Danny Kaye in The Inspector General
(1949; Henry Koster, director) or The Court
Jester (1955; Melvin Frank and Norman Panama,
directors).
After working with screenwriter Charles Brackett
on Ninotchka and Ball of Fire, Billy Wilder directed
the satirical Sunset Boulevard (1950) and the trans-
vestite comedy Some Like It Hot (1959). In contrast
to tame comedies like Pillow Talk (1959; Michael

Gordon, director) and Francis the Talking Mule
(1950; Arthur Lubin, director), Wilder’s provocative
films were previews of the 1960s, when film comedy
showcased funny women, such as Judy Holliday,
Doris Day, Lucille Ball, and Marilyn Monroe.
The advent of television necessitated film to
become more daring and spectacular. Director
Frank Tashlin challenged the small medium in 1957
with Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? in which his
star, Tony Randall, addresses the movie audience:
“Ladies and gentlemen, this break in our motion
picture is made out of respect for the TV fans in our
audience, who are accustomed to constant interrup-
tions in their programs for messages from sponsors.
We want all you TV fans to feel at home, and not
forget the thrill you get, watching television on your
big, 21-inch screens.” Tashlin also directed films
with Bob Hope and Jerry Lewis and titillating ones
such as The Girl Can’t Help It (1956) with actress
Jane Mansfield.
A World of Laughter
From postwar comedies in Europe to the present
productions, a bevy of great comics and directors
reflected national identities. Neopolitan comic actor
Totò ruled Italian comedy as the prince of laugh-
ter until the baroque and extravagant comedies of
director Federico Fellini appeared; Fellini’s comedies
were an amalgam of dreams, satire, autobiography,
and circus life on film, overflowing with giants and
dwarfs and monstrous women. The tradition of com-
media all’italiana (comedy in the Italian style) offered
sardonic glimpses into marriage and infidelity in
Divorce Italian Style (1961; Pietro Germi, director).
European comedy darkened into satire. Director
Luis Buñuel’s sardonic and surreal Discreet Charm
of the Bourgeoisie (1972) mocks modern society
(with a group of upper middle-class diners futilely
trying to have a meal). Near the end of the 20th cen-
tury, Roberto Benigni wrote, directed, and starred in
the Academy Award–winning La vita è bella (Life Is
Beautiful, 1998), in which comedy interrupted the
horrors of a Nazi concentration camp.
In France, actor Fernandel’s rubbery face
delighted audiences in L’auberge rouge (The Red
Inn, 1951; Claude Autant-Lara, director) and The
Little World of Don Camillo (1952, Julien Duvivier,
director). However, perhaps the greatest picaro
character was writer-director-actor Jacques Tati,
whose long shots and almost silent films, such as Les
vacances de Monsieur Hulot (Mr. Hulot’s Holiday,
Movies 525
1953), charmed spectators with endearing scenes of
life. Playing the unluckiest man in the world in direc-
tor Francis Veber’s La chèvre (Knock on Wood [lit.
The Goat], 1981), underdog klutz Pierre Richard is
teamed with a tough guy detective played by Gerard
Depardieu to hunt down a kidnapped young lady,
also accident prone, putting the French style of farce
to fresh use.
Juxtaposed cultures offered comic incongrui-
ties, as in director Jamie Uys’s 1984 surprise hit,
The Gods Must Be Crazy. Like the Australian
fish-out-of-water tale, Crocodile Dundee (1986;
Peter Faiman, director) starring Paul Hogan, French
comedy traversed not only geography but also time
with medieval time travelers stumbling into modern
France in director Jean-Marie Poire’s Les visiteurs
(The Visitors, 1993).
The sweet sorrows of poignant human comedy,
as found with Nino Manfredi as the hapless Italian
immigrant in Switzerland in Bread and Chocolate
(1974; Franco Brusati, director) and the lonely
hearts linguists of Italian for Beginners (2002; Lone
Scherfig, director), opened the charms of continen-
tal laughter. French comedy had turned quirky with
troglodyte frogmen and cannibalism forming the
underbelly of society in a bizarre dystopian comedy
from writer-directors Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc
Caro, Delicatessen (1992). Director Jeunet’s sweetly
surreal Amélie (2001) brought charity and senti-
ment into comedy. In 2011, French director Michel
Hazanavicius’s homage to silent film, The Artist,
revived both visual and sound gags in a sophisti-
cated production.
The Ealing Studios featured comedies star-
ring Alec Guinness and directed by Alexander
Mackendrick (The Man in the White Suit [1951],
The Ladykillers [1955]) and eccentric character
films like Whiskey Galore (1949). Droll dry British
humor carried into director Bill Forsyth’s whimsi-
cal Local Hero (1983). Director Gerald Thomas’s
low-budget Carry On series (1958–1992) show-
cased the talents of an ensemble group, with
British postcard naughty humor, exemplified by the
comedy troupe Monty Python’s signature phrase
“wink, wink, nudge, nudge,” suggesting sexual
tomfoolery—all precursors of Monty Python’s out-
landish genre-busters Monty Python and the Holy
Grail (1975; Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, direc-
tors) and Life of Brian (1979; Terry Jones, director).
The wacky Monty Python humor extended into
cross-genre hybrids like Shaun of the Dead (2004:
Edgar Wright, director).
526 Movies
After British import Peter Sellers starred as bum-
bling Inspector Clouseau in director Blake Edwards’s
phenomenally successful Pink Panther series, he
took on triple roles in director Stanley Kubrick’s
black comedy Dr. Strangelove (1964), with the spec-
ter of an impending nuclear holocaust looming. The
British continued their madcap ways with Richard
Lester directing A Hard Day’s Night (1964), starring
the British band The Beatles, and Tony Richardson
directing an earthy, lusty adaptation of Henry Field-
ing’s story of foundling Tom Jones (1963) and an
adaptation of Evelyn Waugh’s funereal satire The
Loved One (1965). Walt Disney Productions cel-
ebrated the musical comedy with the jolly holiday
of the magical British nanny Mary Poppins (1964;
Robert Stevenson, director), adding the song “A
Spoonful of Sugar” and actors Julie Andrews and
Dick van Dyke to the cinema. The swan song of
classic slapstick, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963;
Stanley Kramer, director), featured Terry Thomas,
Jonathan Winters, and a cast of crazies.
Satirical Laughter
The 1960s also sparked the hegemony of popular
celebrity culture in the musical in Bye, Bye Birdie
(1963; George Sidney, director) and fomenting teen-
age troubles amid divorce and other problems, as
evinced in Walt Disney Production’s The Parent
Trap (1961; David Swift, director) and director Hal
Ashby’s Harold and Maude (1971). Movies had to
announce they were comedies, as in A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966; Richard
Lester, director) and Funny Girl (1968; William
Wyler, director).
Times were changing, and so were the comedies.
With the demise of the morality guidelines known as
the Motion Picture Production Code, or Hays Code,
in 1968, the industry spawned a host of more daring
comedies. Social and political satire splashed onto
the screens. The Vietnam War also darkened the
way Americans laughed, moving from the silly to
the cynical, from the lighthearted to protests. While
What’s Up, Doc? (1972) celebrated director Peter
Bogdanovich’s homage to classic screwball comedy,
a counterculture ambiguity marked director Paul
Mazurky’s Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969),
director Mike Nichols’s The Graduate (1967), and
director Robert Altman’s subversive M*A*S*H*
(1972).
Sid Caesar’s live television Your Show of
Shows (1950–1954) incubated fresh young comic
writers who would shape the film comedies of the
late 1960s and beyond, bringing Jewish sensibilities
and shticks to the big screen. Neil Simon’s The Odd
Couple (1968; Gene Saks, director), Mel Brooks’s
The Producers (1968; Mel Brooks, director), and
Woody Allen’s Bananas (1971; Woody Allen, direc-
tor) inaugurated an era of comic auteurs, filmmak-
ing authors who put their personal signatures onto
films. Simon explored relationship problems in The
Goodbye Girl (1977; Herbert Ross, director), and
writer-director Allen confessed his male anxieties
and sexual obsessions, constructing an alternative
life on the screen: literate, self-reflexive and starring
his various girlfriends—Diane Keaton in Love and
Death (1975) and Annie Hall (1977), Mia Farrow
in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986). In films he wrote
and directed, Brooks kept to his template of paro-
dying various genres: westerns in Blazing Saddles
(1974) and horror in Young Frankenstein (1974).
Joining Brooks’s parodic style was the outlandish
producer-director team of Jim Abrahams, David
Zucker, and Jerry Zucker, whose Airplane! (1980)
and Naked Gun series (1988, 1991, 1994) revived
deadpan humor through the likes of a literalist actor
Leslie Nielsen. So, too, writer-actor Mike Myers’s
Austen Powers (1997; Jay Roach, director) spoofed
the James Bond spy films, overflowing with inane
sexual innuendo and tomfoolery.
The late-night television show Saturday Night
Live (1975–present) propelled its own alumni into
film comedy. National Lampoon’s Animal House
(1978; John Landis, director) brought not only
a revival of slapstick and the infantile but also
resuscitated the medieval practice of carnival as
Mikhail Bakhtin described it, full of topsy-turvy
and grotesque celebration. Its cafeteria food fights
and sexual shenanigans eventually lead to gross-
out comedies by the end of the century. Comedies
from Saturday Night Live alumni (e.g., Caddyshack
[1980; Harold Ramis, director]; Stripes [1981; Ivan
Reitman, director]) expanded the goofy into an art
form. Key to their success was screenwriter Harold
Ramis, who shaped modern comedies that sur-
prised and slimed spectators (Ghostbusters [1986;
Ivan Reitman, director]) and raised philosophical
and theological questions (Groundhog Day [1993;
Harold Ramis, director]).
Some comedies featured male characters who had
a Peter Pan complex (i.e., who do not want to grow
up), such as those played by Dudley Moore in 10
(1979; Blake Edwards, director) or Arthur (1981;
Steve Gordon, director). Others placed actors in

drag to learn gender equality—for example, Tootsie
(1982; Sydney Pollack, director) and Mrs. Doubtfire
(1993; Chris Columbus, director). Director Hal
Ashby’s Being There (1979) gently explored the
theme of a video culture through Peter Sellers’s stel-
lar performance as Chauncey [the] Gardiner. Men
just did not grow up, as testified by Three Men and
a Baby (1987; Leonard Nimoy, director) to Wedding
Crashers (2005; David Dobkin, director), Talledega
Nights (2006; Adam McKay, director), and The
Hangover (2009; Todd Phillips, director).
Other literate, sophisticated comedies sprouted
up with As Good as It Gets (1997; James L. Brooks,
director), Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman’s
scripted Shakespeare in Love (1998; John Madden,
director), and Election (1999; Alexander Payne,
director); while romantic comedies were revised
with a new morality (Moonstruck [1987; Norman
Jewison, director], When Harry Met Sally [1989;
Rob Reiner, director]) and a legion of wedding
movies was planned, from Four Weddings and a
Funeral (1994; Mike Newell, director), Runaway
Bride (1999; Garry Marshall, director), 27 Dresses
(2008; Anne Fletcher, director), My Big Fat Greek
Wedding (2002; Joel Zwick, director), and so on.
The classic juxtaposition of an individual in an
alien society continued to prosper, with Sister Act
(1992; Emile Ardolino, director) starring actress-
comedian Whoopi Goldberg; Legally Blonde (2001;
Robert Luketic, director), featuring actress Reese
Witherspoon; and Napoleon Dynamite (2004; Jared
Hess, director), often with the transformation or tri-
umph of an underdog character.
In the late 20th century, ethnic actors, such as
Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Jackie Chan,
crossed over into stardom. In 2001, king of Hong
Kong comedy, Stephen Chow, inserted heart into
nonsense action with Shaolin Soccer, a film that he
wrote, directed, and starred in.
Top box office animated comedies not only came
out of Walt Disney Pictures (e.g., Aladdin, 1992;
Ron Clements and John Musker, directors; featuring
actor-comedian Robin Williams as the Genie), but
hilarious franchises developed from Dreamworks
Animation (director Andrew Adamson’s ogre
series Shrek, 2001–2010) and Pixar (director John
Lasseter’s Toy Story [1995] and A Bug’s Life [1998]).
The appeal to all ages also emerged from the ener-
getic works of director Robert Zemeckis’s Back to
the Future (1985) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit
(1988) as well as the peculiarly fun productions from
Tim Burton such as Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985)
Movies 527
and Dark Shadows (2012). Certain films caught
the public with kid humor, often situated around
Christmas time, such as Home Alone (1990; Chris
Columbus, director), A Christmas Story (1983; Bob
Clark, director), and Elf (2003; Jon Favreau, direc-
tor) with actor-comedian Will Ferrell playing Elf.
The unflappably cool persona of actor-comedian
Bill Murray ranged from Scrooged (1988; Richard
Donner, director) to What About Bob? (1991; Frank
Oz, director).
Talented directors at the end of the 20th cen-
tury emerged to raise the intellectual quality of film
comedy. Paul Masurksy’s nervous comedies, full of
angst and uncertainty, tapped into cultural malaise,
while Tom Shadyac ventured forth with comedies
starring actor-comedian Jim Carey, soaring with
Bruce Almighty (2003). The versatile Coen Brothers
showcased an exuberant style with Raising Arizona
(1987) and O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000).
These intelligent and richly textured comedies
contrasted sharply with the gross-out and trans-
gressive humor of writer-directors Bobby and Peter
Farrelly. Their funny but prickly There’s Something
About Mary (1998) generated laughter from dog
abuse, fishhooks in the mouth, mental retardation,
and semen hair goo. Vulgar comedy grinned forth
with actors like Adam Sandler (The Wedding Singer
[1998; Frank Coraci, director]) and Ben Stiller (Meet
the Parents [2000; Jay Roach, director]). Producer
Judd Apatow’s outrageous comedies for the juve-
nile market like Superbad (2007; Greg Mottola,
director) and Knocked Up (2007; Judd Apatow,
director) wedded sentiment with filth to surpris-
ingly affirm chastity, integrity, and pro-life values.
Boundaries have nevertheless been pushed to new
limits, in which brutal slapstick was now applied
to horses, dogs, and cows in Animal House (1978;
John Landis, director), A Fish Called Wanda (1988;
Charles Crichton, director), and There’s Something
About Mary (1998; Bobby Farrelly and Peter
Farrelly, directors).
Comedies don’t die. They are often recycled and
refurbished for each generation. With all his flatu-
lence, satire, and gender politics, Greek comic play-
wright Aristophanes could be writing film comedy
screenplays today.
Terry Lindvall
See also Comedy; Comedy Ensembles; Monty Python;
Movie Humor Types; Satire; Sitcoms; Sketch Comedy
Shows
528 Music
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world
(H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Cavell, S. (1981). Pursuits of happiness: The Hollywood
comedy of remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
de Seife, E. (2012). Tashlinesque: The Hollywood comedies
of Frank Tashlin. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press.
Gehring, W. D. (1986). Screwball comedy: A genre of
madcap romance. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Horton, A., & Rapf, J. E. (Eds.). (2012). A companion to
film comedy. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Karnick, K. B., & Jenkins, H. (Eds.). (1995). Classical
Hollywood comedy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kerr, W. (1975). The silent clowns. New York, NY: Knopf.
Mast, G. (1979). The comic mind: Comedy and the movies.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sarris, A. (1978). The sex comedy without sex. American
Film, 3(5), 8–15.
Seidman, S. (1981). Comedian comedy: A tradition in
Hollywood film. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
Tueth, M. V. (2012). Reeling with laughter: American film
comedies—From anarchy to mockumentary. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Valenti, P. (1978). The “film blanc”: Suggestions for a
variety of fantasy, 1940–1945. Journal of Popular Film,
6(4), 294–304.
MULTIDIMENSIONAL SENSE OF
HUMOR SCALE
See Factor Analysis of Humor Items
MUSIC
Music is a culturally conditioned means of com-
munication through sound. Although music is often
vocal, a chief distinction between nonvocal music
and language is that music without a text is primar-
ily connotative rather than denotative in nature.
Instrumental music’s meaning is therefore often
more elusive than that of language, and interpreta-
tions of a given musical expression may be widely
divergent even among informed listeners within
a culture. The complex and imprecise meaning
of music, and its connection to the emotions and
physical expression, perhaps explain its traditional
importance in all human cultures.
Because music is a significant means of commu-
nication like language, musicians and composers
are able to convey humor through musical gesture
and structure. Music of most traditions relies heav-
ily on pattern recognition and the establishment of
expectation. By fulfilling or thwarting expectations,
a musician or composer is able to generate an emo-
tional or logical response in a culturally informed lis-
tener. Through use of an element of surprise, music
is able to convey humor in much the same way as a
joke conveys humor, provided that a playful context
can be inferred from cues internal or external to the
music.
Music in some cultures is closely tied to art forms
such as theater and dance, which have evolved into
distinct traditions in Europe. Whether alone or
paired with physical gesture or language, music is
associated with ceremony and ritual in all cultures,
and in its ceremonial role it is employed for the pur-
pose of instilling a communal mood or emotion. Use
of humor may be appropriate in ceremonial music
of a celebratory nature, but more often humor is
encountered in music that functions as entertain-
ment or narrative. Signifiers of musical humor may
be used to establish or reinforce an overall playful
mood, or humorous music may be used selectively
to underscore moments of comic relief in tragic
narratives.
Comedians and comic actors such as Jack Benny,
Adam Sandler, Victor Borge, and Harpo Marx are
renowned for using music in their comedy, but the
focus of this entry is on humor in music. This entry
discusses the ways in which music can connote or
denote the target of humor, reviews methods of
establishing play mode, examines various types of
humorous incongruity in music, and concludes with
some examples of types of musical humor.
Establishing the Target or
Subject of Musical Humor
By far the most prevalent means of establishing the
target or subject of musical humor is through the
use of text. Examples of vocal music with humorous
lyrics include songs by Frank Zappa, They Might Be
Giants, and Tenacious D. While vocal music estab-
lishes the target of the musical humor in the lyr-
ics, the titles of humorous instrumental works may

identify the subject matter, without necessarily
implying the humorous nature of the music itself,
as in Camille Saint-Saëns’s Le carnaval des animaux
(The Carnival of the Animals). In this work, the
humor is apparent from the play mode established
by the use of musical signs.
However, nontextual extra-musical features of
a musical work or performance may also play a
role. Theatrical elements such as facial expressions,
gestures, staging, wardrobe, or makeup may be
employed to suggest the subject of the humor in a
piece of music. In Robert Erickson’s General Speech,
for example, the costume required of the trombone
soloist is suggestive of General Douglas MacArthur.
In parodies of popular musicians, comedians often
borrow and exaggerate the musicians’ gestures or
vocal idiosyncrasies.
Explicitly referencing or quoting other musical
works or sounds is another common and effec-
tive way to clarify the subject of the humorous
passage. For example, in the fourth movement of
his Concerto for Orchestra, Béla Bartók quotes
and ridicules a theme from Dmitri Shostakovich’s
Symphony no. 7. In song parodies that mock the
original singer, the appropriation of the preexisting
music is usually sufficient to identify the target of
the humor, even if the new lyrics do not explicitly
do so (e.g., “Weird” Al Yankovic’s song “Perform
This Way”). More generally, parodies may reference
musical style or genre, such as The Lonely Island’s
parody of rap music, “I’m on a Boat,” or the heavy
metal parodies of Spinal Tap.
Lastly, humor may be purely musical or self-
referential in nature. By playing with the rules of
musical grammar, composers and musicians can
engage in the musical equivalent of wordplay with-
out the use of language. The subject of the humor is
the musical tradition itself, and either the tradition or
the listener can be considered the object. In this sense,
musical humor can be compared to the concept of
the “meta-joke.” This type of musical humor relies
largely on incongruity (see next section for examples).
Establishing Play Mode
In his influential 1956 book Emotion and Meaning
in Music, Leonard Meyer proposed that music’s
emotional effect results from fulfillment or frustra-
tion of expectations. Because resolution and lack of
resolution are key indicators of meaning in music,
regardless of affect, incongruity in music can be
Music 529
inferred as intentionally humorous only when other
contextual cues in or around the music imply a
“play mode.”
The most widespread method of establishing play
mode in music is through the use of text. Humorous
popular songs may have comic titles (e.g., “If I Said
You Had a Beautiful Body [Would You Hold It
Against Me]” by the Bellamy Brothers), nonsense
lyrics (“Witch Doctor” by David Seville), or amus-
ing narratives (“Just a Friend” by Biz Markie). A
nonvocal example from the classical literature is
W. A. Mozart’s Ein musikalischer Spass (A Musical
Joke), which could be interpreted as the work of a
second-rate composer if not for the intentionality
implied by the title. Likewise, the aforementioned
theatrical elements (costume, making faces, etc.) can
clearly convey a sense of play, enabling any incon-
gruous elements in the music to be heard as comedic.
Music that shares sonic qualities with vocal
expressions of joy can generally be understood to
convey a more playful quality than music that aurally
resembles vocal expressions of sadness or anger.
Music that is high in register, more light than heavy
(staccato instead of legato), and animated rather
than lethargic tends to be more appropriate for com-
municating humor. However, the opposite extremes
can be humorous if exaggerated. Occasionally,
music directly mimics human laughter (e.g., in
“Mein Herr Marquis” from Johann Strauss’s Die
Fledermaus).
Instruments that are associated with humor in
Western culture are typically very low or very high:
tuba, bassoon, xylophone, and piccolo. The exag-
gerated gesture of a trombone slide may also be
considered humorous. Toy instruments can very
effectively project a playful quality, as in the Toy
Symphony, believed to be the work of Leopold
Mozart. Noises with humorous extra-musical con-
notations, such as that of a slide whistle, or noises
that resemble laughter or bodily functions (the
“whoopee cushion” or trombone “raspberry,” for
example) also indicate levity; moreover, they func-
tion as incongruities in Western classical music. An
instrument such as the theremin can evoke humor
perhaps due to its eerie combination of human and
mechanical qualities. In Javanese gamelan, use of
the ciblon drum, and lively interlocking playing of
saron or bonang, may lend a humorous quality to
the music. Timbral associations are not always pre-
served across cultures; for example, the sound of
sleigh bells is associated with Christmas and good
530 Music
cheer in North America, whereas it is associated
with funerals in Korea.
A standard harmonic and melodic device used in
Western music to establish a comedic mood is the
major mode; the minor mode is reserved typically
for negative emotional implications. The existence
of this kind of valence cue (positive vs. negative) is
crucial, because the high register and fast delivery
of vocal expressions of joy can resemble those of
anger and fear. The ideas presented in early music
theoretical treatises on musical affect (Affektenlehre)
suggest that the major-minor mode distinction has
a long history. Some theorists even associated keys
with specific emotions, particularly before the rise
of equal temperament; the aesthetician Christian
Schubart, for example, wrote “Noisy shouts of joy,
laughing pleasure and not yet complete, full delight
lies in E Major” (Steblin, 2002, p. 117).
The major-minor mode distinction is not uni-
versal, however. In Indian classical music, a wider
variety of modes (ragas) and intonation systems are
used, and emotional associations are not clear-cut.
Nevertheless, some theorists in this tradition have
ascribed emotions such as “playfulness” to particu-
lar scale degrees and intervals. The tuning systems of
Javanese gamelan also defy comparison to Western
scales and can vary significantly from one set of
instruments to another. As these structural conven-
tions accrue meaning through association with cul-
tural practices, their significance tends to override
that of psychophysical considerations.
A distinction must be made between use of “play
mode” and use of humor, as music in play mode can
convey a comic mood without necessarily including
moments of comedy. Gustav Holst’s “Jupiter, Bringer
of Jollity” from his orchestral suite The Planets, for
example, draws on a playful and joyful musical idiom
but does not contain clear examples of comedy. Also,
music that is intended to be humorous is not neces-
sarily perceived as such. In addition to being cultur-
ally specific in a broad sense, musical humor can
rely on a very specific understanding of musical style
and grammar; for example, even the most informed
of present-day classical music listeners are likely to
miss most of the jokes in Mozart’s Ein musikalischer
Spass. Concert music is sometimes not heard as
humorous because of the inhibition against laughter
in the concert hall; music in the classical tradition
is sometimes referred to in the writings of Theodor
Adorno and others as “serious music.” Conversely,
unintentional humor, in the absence of play mode, is
evident in the performances of sincere but unskilled
musicians and composers. The collected recordings
of amateur soprano Florence Foster Jenkins offer an
excellent example of unintentional humor.
Methods of Incongruity and
Defying Expectation
As in other forms of humor, incongruity is a signifi-
cant aspect of humorous music. The significance and
meaning of the incongruity in music usually requires
an understanding of the musical culture and practice,
but uninformed listeners may be able to detect shifts
in music that are particularly sudden or extreme.
Like slapstick, the purest musical humor can some-
times be appreciated across cultural lines. For exam-
ple, because of the prevalence of rhythmic pattern
and meter in the music of all cultures, the unex-
pected timing of musical events can evoke humor
that may be understood by listeners outside of the
practice; as in joke-telling, timing plays an important
role in musical humor. Patterns constructed using
other musical parameters can also be broken to con-
vey humor: Tempo, register, dynamic, timbre, har-
mony, and melodic contour can all be manipulated
in unexpected ways. Sudden shifts from one tun-
ing system to another in Javanese gamelan (molak-
malik) may be perceived as humorous. A famous
example in the classical repertoire can be found in
the second movement of Joseph Haydn’s Symphony
no. 94 (the Surprise Symphony; see Figure 1). The
quiet and childishly simple main theme is presented
by the string instruments in a major mode and with
a light articulation. At the end of the second state-
ment of the theme, the final note is played by the full
orchestra at different octave levels, at a fortissimo.
The sudden change in dynamic level, timbre, and
register, coupled with the unexpected timing of the
auditory shift, is made funnier by the quiet and lyri-
cal passage that follows, seemingly unaffected by the
exaggerated interruption. Another type of pattern
disruption can occur if change is expected but not
provided, as in the first movement of the Toot Suite
by P. D. Q. Bach (Peter Schickele).
Each of the preceding examples also relies, in
part, on an understanding of the syntax of European
classical music, and incongruity that is perceptual in
nature is often stylistically incongruous as well. In
the Haydn example, the humor is enhanced by com-
prehension of the typical phrase model and of the
customary consistency applied to musical parameters
throughout the duration of a phrase. In the Schickele
example, the joke is enhanced by an understanding

Figure 1 F. J. Haydn, Symphony no. 94 (Surprise Symphony), Mvt. II, mm. 1–16
Note: The major mode, light articulation, and simple melody of this movement establish a playful mood, and the surprising
fortissimo chord functions as the joke.
of aspects of Baroque style, specifically the “correct”
applications of phrase length, cover tones, harmonic
rhythm, and consonance and dissonance. Any pas-
sage perceived as stylistically “incorrect” can be
interpreted as humorous, provided that play mode
has been established or suggested. In addition, cer-
tain elements of the vocabulary of Western classical
music, such as tendency tones and dominant seventh
chords, have such strong tendencies toward resolu-
tion that they are ripe for humor. In the orchestral
introduction to the famous comic aria “La donna
è mobile” (The Woman Is Fickle) from Giuseppi
Verdi’s opera Rigoletto, the sudden silence that inter-
rupts the melody is made more awkward and humor-
ous by the failure of the dominant chord to resolve
at the expected time. Unexpected events in music in
a serious tone, however, may instead be associated
with negative emotions such as fear or anger.
Sudden changes of style, as in Charles Ives’s short
piano work Bad Resolutions and Good WAN! can
also be perceived as humorous, particularly if the two
styles are highly incongruous. The Beatles’ pastiche
Music 531
“Happiness Is a Warm Gun” uses shifts in style to
humorous effect. The simultaneous referencing of
two or more seemingly incompatible styles or genres
functions similarly (e.g., heavy metal music arranged
for children’s chorus). Musical humor of this type
is ironic in the sense that what is being conveyed is
undermined by how it is being conveyed. More gen-
erally, humor can result when the meanings of any
two aspects of a musical excerpt are in apparent con-
flict. For example, the second movement of Dmitri
Shostakovich’s Symphony no. 5 employs an accom-
panimental and metric pattern that suggests a waltz,
but its timbral, harmonic, and melodic material are
at times harsh and unexpected. Because the waltz ref-
erence conveys elegance and grace and regularity, but
other aspects of the music suggest awkwardness and
disjointedness, the work has a dark and grotesque
humor. Because of the cultural complexity of musical
connotation, ironic tension can easily be constructed
in this manner across various parameters.
Similarly incongruous interactions can result
between texts and music, in what may be called
532 Music
“lyrical dissonance.” Humorous texts are made
funnier when paired with serious music (as in the
Looney Tunes opera parodies), and serious texts can
seem humorous with the addition of light-hearted
music (as in the Ramones’ “The KKK Took My
Baby Away”). Even combinations of neutral texts
and music can be humorous, provided that the
incongruity is pronounced (e.g., a mundane list of
items sung in an operatic style).
Theatricality has been discussed as a method
of establishing play mode, but it may also create
incongruity in a work. An inherent incongruity is
presented in works that break the rules of perfor-
mance practice, as for instance when a performer in
a concert work plays an instrument in an unconven-
tional fashion, moves in a choreographed manner,
or makes faces. Unconventional use of nonmusical
material in an otherwise musical work can also seem
humorous, as in Leroy Anderson’s The Typewriter.
Along any parameter, music with stylized or
exaggerated qualities can be considered humorous.
In the “Galop” from Act I of Dmitri Shostakovich’s
opera The Nose, humor is evoked by the very fast
tempo paired with extremes in register and exagger-
ated flourishes. The Haydn Surprise Symphony is an
example of musical humor that is partly a result of
its exaggerated quality. Another example from the
works of Haydn occurs during the serene and lyrical
second movement of his Symphony no. 93, in which
a loud low bassoon note punctuates a thinly scored
quiet treble passage for strings and winds. Although
the pitch and register are appropriate, the inappro-
priateness of the biting timbre and forte dynamic
level can be compared to that of a crass bodily
function. Similarly, the music of cartoons is often
wildly exaggerated, to parallel the one-dimension-
ality of characters and bizarre shifts in plot. Highly
exaggerated music in a mock serious style can be
understood as grotesquely humorous; the pompous
and banal march theme from the first movement of
Shostakovich’s Symphony no. 7, which Bartók mis-
construed to be a sincere musical statement, may be
considered an example of satirical exaggeration.
Further Examples of Nontext Musical Humor
Humor is commonplace enough in instrumen-
tal music that the names of many works in the
standard repertoire reference the comic: Ludwig
van Beethoven’s “Bagatelles,” Robert Schumann
and Antonín Dvořák’s “Humoreskes,” Niccolò
Paganini and Johannes Brahms’s “Caprices” and
“Capriccios,” and Richard Strauss’s “Burleske”
are all prominent examples. The scherzo (meaning
“joke” in Italian) is well represented in the literature
by both stand-alone works (e.g., those of Frédéric
Chopin) and by movements in a great many sympho-
nies and other multimovement works of the roman-
tic era. The humor in these and other classical works
is often subtle, and it relies on manipulation of the
listener’s expectation. A brief analysis of a passage
from the first movement of Haydn’s Piano Sonata in
D Major (Hob. XVI:37) suffices to demonstrate the
kind of musical “wit” that pervades comic music,
for which Haydn is particularly famous.
The passage (see Figure 2), in A major, contains
a series of unexpected harmonic shifts in m. 29–31:
first a minor tonic chord, then a suddenly loud
Neapolitan chord. But the humorousness lies chiefly
in the sudden pause at the end of m. 31—it is the
first lengthy pause in the work—and the dissonant
fortissimo fully diminished seventh chord that fol-
lows. One’s anticipation is enhanced by the sudden
silence, and Haydn surprises the listener with the
dissonant seventh chord, which acts as an unex-
pected extension of the predominant area before the
cadence. The storminess of the dissonant chord then
proves to be a passing tantrum, as it tumbles into a
typical and proper-sounding cadence in the next two
bars; the humor in the way the dissonance is resolved
arises in part from what Immanuel Kant referred to
as the “sudden transformation of a strained expecta-
tion into nothing” (Kant, 2007, p. 133). Moreover,
humor is experienced through logically reconciling
the expected outcome (the cadence) and the punch
line (the unexpected measure).
Several additional categories of nonvocal musical
humor deserve special attention: “romantic irony”
and absurdity. Although various types of irony are
clearly applicable to vocal music, Friedrich Schlegel’s
interpretation of “romantic irony,” in which an
author draws attention to the artifice and mechanisms
of the narrative structure, is particularly relevant to
humor in instrumental music. Musical passages that
serve to destroy the mood established by the preced-
ing material may be perceived in this light. In the
last movement of Haydn’s String Quartet, op. 33,
no. 2, called “The Joke,” the final passage features
a series of long pauses that undermine a listener’s
ability to identify the end of the piece. Then, in an
ironic twist, Haydn concludes the piece with the
same two measures that began the movement. The
irony is lost on listeners who have not listened care-
fully and on those who are unaware of the oddness

Figure 2 F. J. Haydn, Piano Sonata in D Major (Hob. XVI:37), Mvt. I, mm. 28–35
Note: A more subtle example of Haydn’s musical “wit.”
of this compositional conceit. Although the “joke”
is in keeping with the mood of the rest of the move-
ment, it also draws attention away from the aesthetic
experience and toward the composer “behind the
scenes.” Passages that sound mechanical, especially
those that appear broken, stuck, overly repetitive,
or stylized, may also serve to deliberately shatter the
illusion of artlessness and may be used for humorous
effect; examples abound in the works of Beethoven.
Absurdity—akin to infinite or “existential
irony”—can be either humorous or serious. Perhaps
the best known absurdist work of concert music is
John Cage’s 4'33", during which no sound is inten-
tionally created by the performer for 4 minutes and 33
seconds. A truly ironic work in that it is both utterly
silent and purports to be music, 4'33" is readily expe-
rienced as humorous but can also be understood as a
philosophical statement, as an incitement to deeper
listening, or as a mental exercise in the style of a koan.
Cage’s other experiments with aleatory musical com-
position also deliberately challenged basic assump-
tions about the definition of music, particularly with
regard to intentionality and originality. Erik Satie,
composer of piano works with such bizarre and ironic
titles as Embryons desséchés (“Desiccated Embryos”)
and Trois morceaux en forme de poire (“Three Pieces
in the Shape of a Pear”), added an inscription to his
work Vexations that implies that it be repeated 840
times. Mauricio Kagel’s self-referential “anti-opera”
Staatstheater requires singers to dance and dancers to
Music 533
sing; his work Exotica requires musicians to perform
on instruments other than their own.
Carl Schimmel
See also Cognitive Aspects; Comic Versus Tragic
Worldviews; Exaggeration; Incongruity and
Resolution; Musical Comedy; Parody; Pattern
Recognition; Variety Shows
Further Readings
Arias, E. A. (2001). Comedy in music: A historical
bibliographical resource guide. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Bonds, M. E. (1991). Haydn, Laurence Sterne, and the
origins of musical irony. Journal of the American
Musicological Society, 44(1), 57–91.
Casablancas, B. (2000). El humor en la música: Broma,
paradia e ironía: Un ensayo [Humor in music: Joke,
parody, and irony: An essay]. Kassel, Germany:
Reichenberger.
Dalmonte, R. (1995). Towards a semiology of humour in
music. International Review of the Aesthetics and
Sociology of Music, 26(2), 167–187.
Kant, I. (2007). Critique of judgement (J. H. Bernard,
Trans.). New York, NY: Cosimo Classics.
Kidd, J. C. (1976). Wit and humor in tonal syntax. Current
Musicology, 21, 70–82.
Levy, J. M. (1992). “Something mechanical encrusted
upon the living”: A source of musical wit and humor.
In W. J. Allanbrook, J. M. Levy, & W. P. Mahrt (Eds.),
534 Music Hall

Convention in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music:

Essays in honor of Leonard G. Ratner (pp. 225–256).
Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press.
London, J. (2002). A Cohenian approach to musical
expression. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
60(2), 182–185.
Lowry, L. R. (1974). Humor in instrumental music: A
discussion of musical affect, psychological concepts of
humor and identification of musical humor
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Russell, T. A. (1985–1986). “Über das Komische in der
Musik”: The Schütze-Stein controversy. Journal of
Musicology, 4(1), 70–90.
Sheinberg, E. (2000). Irony, satire, parody, and the
grotesque in the music of Shostakovich: A theory of
musical incongruities. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Steblin, R. (2002). A history of key characteristics in the
18th and early 19th centuries. Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press.
Sutton, R. A. (1997). Humor, mischief, and aesthetics in
Javanese gamelan music. Journal of Musicology, 15(3),
390–415.
Wheelock, G. A. (1992). Haydn’s “ingenious jesting with
art”: Contexts of musical wit and humor. New York,
NY: Schirmer.

MUSIC HALL An 1894 color lithograph poster advertising the Eldorado

The term music hall denotes both a historic indus-
try and its distinctive form of humor. A prototype
modern show business incorporating a wide range
of entertainments, the British music hall grew from
the early Victorian pub with a working-class clien-
tele into a nationwide network of grandiose pur-
pose-built halls with a mass audience, paralleling
the development of American vaudeville. In its early
1900s heyday, music hall aspired to more respect-
able status as variety, although the original label
endured. Following its abrupt decline after World
War I as a result of competition from radio and film,
the industry enjoyed a renewed boom in the 1930s
in synergy with the new media. Although the busi-
ness side was killed off by television in the 1950s,
its style of humor and comic performance lived on.
Summarily characterized as crudely but unabash-
edly “vulgar” or “low,” music hall was a diverse,
complex, and slippery discursive mode, much of its
Music Hall in Paris, France, featuring a leaping woman
holding a tambourine and a clown playing the banjo.
Source: Prints, Drawings, and Paintings Collection, Victoria
and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum,
London.
impact derived from its interactive live form. This
entry discusses the songs performed in music halls,
the interaction between the performers and the audi-
ence, the major types of performers, and the role of
music halls in British society.
The Music Hall Comic Song
The prime vehicle of humor in the Victorian halls
was the comic song. Major themes combined ele-
ments of the traditional, folk, and carnivalesque
with a naturalistic reading of everyday life to pro-
duce an anecdotal comic realism that spoke to the

shared experience of an economically and socially
subaltern working class. Food and drink were
foregrounded as essentials of a precarious material
existence invoked in carnivalesque visions of plenty:
“May his beef and beer increase each year, And his
wages never go down.” Beef and beer were the mate-
rial and symbolic props of an Englishman’s historic
birthright and superiority over other nationalities.
Drink, the essential fuel of the authentic good time,
stimulated heroic yet comically befuddling feats of
consumption. “When I take a drink on a Saturday
night,” sings a self-proclaimed “common or work-
ing man,” “Glasgow belongs to me!” “But there’s
something the matter with Glasgow, ’cos it’s going
round and round.”
Food, drink, and sex were comically triangulated
in the body, the major site of pleasure and unease,
whose appetites and afflictions were fundamentals of
the comic repertoire. Food metaphors provided phal-
lic equivalents in cucumbers, “my old hambone,”
or the magic unguent ensuring a husband’s sexual
fulfillment: “Put a bit of treacle on my pudding
Mary Ann.” Food similes invoked the grotesque car-
nivalesque body, both fascinating and repellent. “I
went to a christening, the baby looked a treat, It was
pink and purple like a lot of sausage meat.” Cheese,
like sausage, was inherently funny. Invariably
smelly, it was a simulacrum of the fart, the origi-
nal rude noise, a source of corporeal treachery and
embarrassment. Scatology—“toilet” or “lavatory”
humor—was a frequent entry in the list of themes
registered by contemporaries, confirmation for some
of a national fixation. Deformities were other tar-
gets of “jocular cruelty” in an alleged pathology of
insult and humiliation. Mass Observation, a social
survey of the 1930s, reported ill health as the leading
subject of jokes, for which music hall with its bodily
preoccupations was a prime platform.
Romance, courtship, and marriage were other
comic staples, also in frequent jeopardy. Flirtatious
adventures turned into misadventures with women
as deceivers, an ancient trope modernized in the
anonymous milieu of the big city, which was also
the site for conning the greenhorn, laughed at as the
victim’s folly rather than a moral or criminal offense.
Working-class marriage was a comic calamity of
henpecked husbands and domineering wives with
mothers-in-law as classic spoilers. Lodgers, numer-
ous and intrusive, brought the temptations of adul-
tery to underloved wives, although husbands were
the more frequent cheats. Both sexes were more
Music Hall 535
liable to stray at the seaside, the liminal site of social
and sexual freedoms and the proletarian good time.
In or out of marriage, sex was robustly lascivious
rather than erotic or sensual, often rather daunting.
A young woman serving admiring males in a city
cigar shop “has a novel scale of charge,” one song
went. “For instance an Havanna Smoke would cost
you one and four, But if Milly bit the end off she
would charge a shilling more.” In the entrenched
misogynist culture of the halls, women were at best
a mixed blessing: “They ease life’s shocks, they mend
our socks but can’t they spend the money.”
Parody was the principal genre and technique of
humorous articulation. Parody, as form of comic
imitation, worked through hyperbole or bathos,
sending up or putting down, often in ironic or
equivocal tandem. Common targets included over-
blown patriotism and sentimentality. Absurdity col-
lapsed fantasy in “The Man Who Broke the Eggs at
Monte Carlo,” a parody of “The Man Who Broke
the Bank at Monte Carlo,” sung on the same bill as
the star who launched the original bank busting hit.
“Hardly a song succeeds,” said a music publisher in
the 1890s, “that is not instantly the subject of fifty
parodies.” As in much else, parody was spiced up by
innuendo, the art of the sexually suggestive, often in
the form of the double entendre, a persistent element
in music hall humor.
Artist, Audience, and Artifact:
Music Hall Interaction
The humor gained its fullest expression in perfor-
mance, ideally the dynamic integration of artist,
audience, and artifact. Songs were interspersed
with “patter” or the “spoken,” an interpolated
commentary offering cues for gags and improvisa-
tion in exchanges with the audience, replicating the
back-and-forth vernacular of the street and market-
place. Typical song form included a chorus, taken
up by the audience in ritual antiphony with the
performer, often generating a catchphrase— “Does
your mother know you’re out?”— an infectious
shorthand repeated incessantly in the wider world.
Nods, winks, and gesticulations, plus various forms
of stage business, accented the words and music
of the comic text, informing innumerable popular
imitations.
Such signals activated and celebrated a collec-
tive “knowingness,” the implicit understanding of
how the world really works among a street-smart
536 Music Hall

underclass joyously adept at deciphering its codes

and debunking its orthodoxies. “(If You Want
to Know the Time, Ask a) Policeman” was a hit
song invoking the visitor’s cozy image of the help-
ful London bobby while signaling his corrupt pro-
pensity for drinking out of hours. The knowing
crowd translated sexual innuendos for themselves
in a gleeful conspiracy against moral reformers who
attacked music hall for obscenity but were unable to
provide explicit evidence. Wordplay—puns, riddles,
euphemisms—was a ubiquitous feature of the halls,
a knowing mockery of official knowledge and high
culture that flattered the literacy of its audience.

Music Hall Performers

Performers played an extensive range of comic rou-
tines and personas. Most predictable and formulaic
was the “red-nosed” comedian, heir to the tradi-
tional clown in his latter-day motley of battered
top hat and distressed dress suit, red nosed through
drink, coarsely suggestive and physical in humor.
The newer “turn” on the halls from the 1860s was
the comic actor appearing “in character,” person-
alizing a particular social type in specific dress and
manner. As Champagne Charlie, the star George
Leybourne played the swell, a lordly man-about-
town of resplendent dress and “magnificent cheek,”
exulting in the finest of potables and the adora-
tion of the ladies. In this combined parody and cel-
ebration of the aristocratic rogue male, Leybourne
exploited the tensions of a class-bound society,
offering a role model for aspirant young swells in
the audience while making fun of their own mal-
adroit reach for gentility. Dan Leno, billed as “The
Funniest Man on Earth,” played the classic little
man whom life kicks around, the bumpkin loser of
folk humor brought up to date in tragic-comic cam-
eos of lowly workers. In Leno’s surreal and alarm-
ing world, inanimate objects were endowed with a
disturbing life of their own, and a laughable minor
blemish in the song “My Wife’s Pimple” turns out
to be a tumor. Another great favorite, Marie Lloyd,
played the naughty but faux innocent young woman
for whom “Every Little Movement (Has a Meaning
All Its Own).” Of an amorous adventure on a train,
she claimed, with her trademark semaphore wink,
“She’d never had her ticket punched before.” “Our
Marie” was a cockney, London’s fiercely indepen-
dent proletarian tribe whose wry wit came wrapped
in a local dialect that baffled authority. The stage
cockney was the most prominent of roles in an
Cover of sheet music featuring George Leybourne as
“Champagne Charlie”
Source: Illustration by Alfred Concanen; image courtesy of
the Victoria and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert
Museum, London.
otherwise minor genre exploiting the comic poten-
tial of regional and ethnic difference.
Although it retained much of its classic music
hall style, comic form and performance changed
considerably in the interwar years with the indus-
try’s rebranding as variety and the impact of the
new media. The larger scale and theatricalized
design of variety houses, together with stricter
audience controls and the managerial prohibi-
tion of “direct address” from the stage, limited
free exchange between artist and audience. The
popularity of early film in its silent phase gave a
new salience to sight gags and physical humor,
stimulating a revival of slapstick on stage, while
the legitimization of the sketch popularized dra-
matic interludes prefiguring the sitcom. Radio
variety privileged the verbal, foregrounding patter
over sight and song, the faster pace and timing

reflecting the growing influence of American styles,
reinforced by the dominance of American cinema.
The “cross talk” double act, an earlier import of
the minstrel show, became a new staple, minus the
blackface. By the 1930s, British comedians were
plundering shortwave radio broadcasts from the
United States for jokes.
Both change and continuity were exemplified in
star comedian Max Miller, “The Cheeky Chappie.”
Miller was the professional funny man rather than
the comic character actor, a cockney delivering a
string of quick-fire jokes in transatlantic stand-
up mode. His persona was that of the marauding
commercial traveler and modern trickster, his dress
combining the urbane and contemporary with the
gaudy attire of the circus clown. Max overcame the
inhibitions of greater scale and threat of censorship
to engage his audience in a direct but confidential
manner, recruiting them into a ready fraternity of
the knowing. In classic style, sexual inferences were
left for the audience to complete as he remonstrated
in mock indignation at their dirty minds. The genius
of Max Miller and his like, pronounced George
Orwell (2000), was “entirely masculine,” adding
“a good male comedian can give the impression
of something irredeemable, and yet innocent, like
a sparrow” (p. 162). This was the “honest vulgar-
ity” that the profession defended against its critics,
resisting the charge that performances were obscene,
camp, or effeminate. As always, Miller worked the
borderline. “Is this Cockfosters?” asks one man
inquiring of another regarding station stops on a
crowded London tube train. “No,” comes the reply,
“My name’s Robinson.”
With its leading performers featured on film,
radio, and recordings, music hall as variety reached
a wider, more socially mixed audience, less the
product of its original working-class base. George
Formby retained his northern working-class accent
while becoming a national idol from wide expo-
sure across the media. Playing the underestimated
little man as victor rather than casualty, Formby
was the lower middle-class individualist as much
as working-class pal. His hit song “With My Little
Stick of Blackpool Rock,” its priapic candy suc-
cessfully deployed at the most popular of seaside
resorts, maintained the tradition of low humor in
a continuing vein of comic realism, even as his per-
sona moved marginally but significantly upmarket.
Irrepressibly cheerful—“Turned out nice again” was
his tag line—Formby was an antidote to the travails
of economic depression and World War II. Humor
Musical Comedy 537
was championed as an essential component of the
national character. As one newspaper put it: “We
crack jests where our continental neighbors would
be cracking skulls.”
Conclusion
Functioning as “survival humor” for its original
working-class constituency, music hall in the clas-
sic phase did much to allay the typical anxieties of
its audiences while reasserting their right to life’s
pleasures. As such, it affirmed membership in a
particular way of life and a worldly competence in
its negotiations. If music hall humor displayed no
formal political challenge or radical social edge, it
maintained an instrumental derision of petty author-
ity, corrective morality, and social pretension that
preserved a vital sense of license and independence.
With the extension of the audience for variety, its
comic discourse of conceit, parody, and knowing
innuendo became a second language for all classes
enjoying release from the constraints of British
respectability and repression.
Peter Bailey
See also Parody; Sexuality; Variety Shows
Further Readings
Bailey, P. (1998). Popular culture and performance in the
Victorian city. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Bratton, J. S. (1986). Music hall: Performance and style.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Medhurst, A. (2007). A national joke: Popular comedy and
English cultural identities. London, UK: Routledge.
Orwell, G. (2000). My country right or left: 1940–1943
(S. Orwell & I. Angus, Eds.). Boston, MA: Godine.
Wilmut, R. (1958). Kindly leave the stage! The story of
variety 1919–1960. London, UK: Methuen.
MUSICAL COMEDY
Musical comedy is a theatrical entertainment that
emerged in the 1890s and flourished through the
1940s. Musical comedies contain alternating pas-
sages of dialogue and song in a variety of styles, but
the music is always light in character and simple in
construction, in other words non-operatic, allowing
for performance by singers without classical vocal
training. The plots tend to be set in present-day
538 Musical Comedy
(at the time of the plots’ writing) New York City and
are predominantly light vehicles for star performers.
Stars’ onstage personas, comedy routines, and song
and dance acts, often derived from vaudeville, are
loosely interwoven with insignificant and frivolous
narratives. Musical comedy is therefore more diver-
sionary entertainment than serious drama. Although
it faded in popularity in the mid-20th century, its
theatrical style and techniques influenced the more
serious musical play that became the dominant form
of popular musical theater in the 1940s, and, to a
lesser degree, the musical comedy continues to influ-
ence popular theater today.
Origins
London producer George Edwardes introduced
the term musical comedy in 1893 to distinguish A
Gaiety Girl from shows with complex plots and
music. Edwardes brought A Gaiety Girl to New
York City in 1894 and, after its success, proceeded to
export similar shows in the following years. To claim
that musical comedy originated solely in London,
however, would be to overlook important develop-
ments in America, where shows resembling the form
had appeared intermittently since The Black Crook
(1866) and some vaudeville performers were extend-
ing their acts into longer shows. In the 1870s Edward
Harrigan and Tony Hart developed their comic Irish
immigrant routine, which was influenced by black-
face minstrelsy’s stereotypes and racial jokes and
became a mainstay on the vaudeville circuit. They
introduced a song in 1873 that was soon expanded
into a short skit, then a 40-minute “play” in 1878,
and finally a full-length play with musical numbers,
called The Mulligan Guard Ball, in 1879. Joe Weber
and Lew Fields similarly expanded their Dutch act
of Mike and Meyer, and after the duo separated in
1904, Fields worked some of their routines and his
immigrant character into musical comedies such as
It Happened in Nordland (1904). American musical
comedy was therefore both an import from England
and an outgrowth of the American popular theater.
The first two works by George M. Cohan, Little
Johnny Jones (1904) and George Washington,
Jr. (1906), exemplify early musical comedy. They
are comprised of simple plots, and their music is
dominated by the march and influenced by the then-
popular style of ragtime; these traits are evident in
Cohan’s hit songs “The Yankee Doodle Boy” and
“Give My Regards to Broadway.” This theatrical
style thrived until the New York premiere of Franz
Lehár’s Viennese operetta The Merry Widow in
1907, two years after its European debut. For the
next decade, musical comedy was overshadowed
by operettas with classical singing, waltzes and
marches, and richly developed plots taking place in
historical and exotic settings.
The Peak of Musical Comedy
Author Guy Bolton, lyricist P. G. Wodehouse, and
composer Jerome Kern helped to revitalize musi-
cal comedy during World War I, writing a series
of shows referred to as the Princess Musicals (Very
Good Eddie, 1915; Oh, Boy! 1917; Leave It to
Jane, 1917; Oh, Lady! Lady!! 1918), named after
the Princess Theater where most of them were
performed. Perhaps their greatest innovation was
Kern’s embrace of the foxtrot, which ballroom danc-
ers like Vernon and Irene Castle were popularizing
in the 1910s. Initially the only music to which danc-
ers could foxtrot were blues songs, which replaced
the triple meter of the waltz and the fast duple meter
of the march with a moderately paced meter of four
beats. Kern’s foxtrots such as “Till the Clouds Roll
By” (from Oh, Boy!) were not in the style of the
blues but were love songs that took advantage of
the expressive potential of this meter and tempo. By
the early 1920s, the foxtrot love song was estab-
lished as the definitive song style of musical com-
edy, initiating the theater’s alignment with ballroom
dance music that would continue through the 1960s.
In the 1920s, George Gershwin introduced the
snappy rhythms and extended harmonies of jazz in
musical comedies such as Lady Be Good (1924).
Shows in this decade were often “Cinderella sto-
ries” in which young working-class women mar-
ried wealthy men. Marilyn Miller made a career
starring as such leading ladies, first in variety acts
and then shows such as Sally (1920). Whoopee!
(1928) perhaps stands above all as a star vehicle;
its minimal plot allowed Eddie Cantor to perform
his famous vaudeville shticks: improvising in black-
face and interpolating popular songs. Alongside
these shows, however, were musical comedies that
began to absorb elements of operetta. Most notable
is Show Boat (1927), which contains the waltz
“You Are Love” and the foxtrot “Can’t Help Lovin’
Dat Man” and does not possess a light plot about
romance in New York City but rather is a serious
drama about racism in Mississippi in the 1880s and
Chicago in the 1890s and concludes in 1927, the
year it was premiered.

After the stock market crash in 1929, most com-
posers and writers explored the cheaper-to-produce
and potentially more lucrative Hollywood film, but a
few writers drew audiences to Broadway with inno-
vative productions. Cole Porter’s shows adopted a
more serious tone through satire. The New Yorkers
(1930) took on the relationship between the New
York police, prostitutes, and murderers; Anything
Goes (1934) poked fun at the current obsession with
“public enemies”; and Jubilee (1935) lambasted
Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. After early
Broadway successes in the 1920s and in Hollywood
in the early 1930s, composer-lyricist team Richard
Rodgers and Lorenz Hart returned to Broadway
in 1935, where their shows similarly became more
serious. Their Pal Joey (1940), for example, became
the first musical comedy whose leading male was
an antihero who ends up as lonely as he is when the
show begins.
The slightly more serious tone of these shows
paralleled an increasing seriousness of form and a
desire to create works that might withstand the test
of time. The most successful shows of this type are
two written by playwrights George S. Kaufman and
Morrie Ryskind with lyrics by Ira Gershwin and
music by his brother George Gershwin: Strike Up
The Band (1927, revised 1930) and Of Thee I Sing
(1931). These shows satirized international politics;
Republicans, Democrats, and socialists; all branches
of the U.S. government; the military; the electorate;
and American businesses. Of Thee I Sing became
the first musical comedy to win the Pulitzer Prize
for Drama in 1932; the committee’s belief that it
was classifiable as a play demonstrates the extent to
which these shows presaged the musical plays that
flourished in the following decade.
The Musical Play
Oklahoma! (1943), the product of a new partnership
between Rodgers and librettist Oscar Hammerstein
2nd, officially ushered in the age of the musical play.
In their collaborations, Rodgers and Hammerstein
replace the frivolity of earlier musical comedy with
serious plays intended to challenge audiences. South
Pacific (1949) and The King and I (1951), for
example, address racism and promote human rights
and tolerance. However, important elements of the
musical comedy remain. First, traditional escap-
ist fare is often included in “show-within-a-show”
scenes. In South Pacific, for example, Nellie Forbush
entertains troops by singing “Honey Bun,” a light,
Musical Comedy 539
syncopated number that has little bearing on the
drama. Occasionally the collaborators did not use
such devices to integrate traditional musical comedy
elements, such as in the dance sequence in Carousel,
“June Is Bustin’ Out All Over” (1945), in which
the ensemble unrealistically dances in celebration of
spring. Musical plays also continue musical comedy’s
preference for ballroom styles, observed in the abun-
dance of foxtrots of which Oklahoma!’s “People
Will Say We’re in Love” and South Pacific’s “My
Girl Back Home” serve as famous examples. Finally,
many of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s comic char-
acters are descendants of vaudeville’s ethnic types.
Oklahoma!’s Ali Hakim and South Pacific’s Bloody
Mary are ethnic outsiders who often humorously fail
to understand American customs and etiquette.
With the popularity of such serious shows, the
designation musical comedy fell into desuetude in
the 1940s, giving way to musical play or just musi-
cal. Another common label was integrated musical,
because, unlike the loosely stitched together musical
comedy, song and dance were said to work together
to propel the drama, despite occasional shortcom-
ings. Such works by writers and composers other
than Rodgers and Hammerstein include Street Scene
(1947), Brigadoon (1947), My Fair Lady (1956),
West Side Story (1957), and Camelot (1960).
While these works tend to dominate histories of the
American musical theater, some composers contin-
ued to work with others to produce more traditional
musical comedies, although they were not labeled as
such. Much of the music by Irving Berlin in Annie
Get Your Gun (1946), Cole Porter in Kiss Me, Kate
(1948), Frank Loesser in Guys and Dolls (1950)
and How to Succeed in Business Without Really
Trying (1961), Jule Styne in Gypsy (1959), and
Jerry Herman in Hello, Dolly! (1964), for example,
is geared more toward entertaining audiences than
deepening character and moving the drama forward.
After the Golden Age
The golden age of the American musical is consid-
ered to have begun with the popularity of the musi-
cal play in 1943, after the height of musical comedy,
and extends through the 1960s. At this point the
conventions of the musical largely ceded to dispa-
rate theatrical approaches and styles, including the
emphasis on visual spectacle, the preference for musi-
cal styles not found in the ballroom (rock, R&B,
hip-hop, and others), and the fragmentation of
plots into non-linear vignettes. Although limited, at
540 Musical Comedy
Fred Astaire in the famous ceiling dance “You’re All the World to Me” from the musical comedy Royal Wedding (1951)
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
best, to fleeting moments within otherwise modern
shows, musical comedy conventions persist. Follies
(1971) and Chicago (1975) use older song styles to
develop older characters and to establish setting in
the 1920s, respectively. The camp classic The Rocky
Horror Show (1973; adapted for film as The Rocky
Horror Picture Show in 1975) embraces the frivol-
ity and artificiality of the musical comedy style, as
do recent escapist musical farces produced by Mel
Brooks, such as The Producers (2001) and Young
Frankenstein (2007). The latter contains a scene in
which an actor breaks character and jokes with the
audience, harking back to such scenes in pre–golden
age musical comedies and destroying the illusion of
realism central to serious musical plays. Furthermore,
musical comedy song styles are often employed for
expressive purposes, as their long associations with
the theater allow them to connote a sense of theat-
ricality and, therefore, artificiality. The jazzy foxtrot
style of “A Summer in Ohio” from The Last Five
Years (2001), for example, illustrates the sarcastic
nature of the song’s lyrics. “King Herod’s Song” from
Jesus Christ Superstar (1971) and “Wonderful” from
Wicked (2003), moreover, use the showy style of rag-
time to characterize King Herod and the Wizard as
disingenuous tricksters. In these ways and with the
ongoing interest in revivals of classic musicals, the
importance of the musical comedy endures.
Christopher Lynch
See also Burlesque; Comic Opera; Ethnic Jokes; Ethnicity
and Humor; Music; Pastiche; Political Humor;
Presidential Humor; Race, Representation of; Satire;
Stereotypes; Variety Shows
Further Readings
Bordman, G. (1982). American musical comedy from
Adonis to Dreamgirls. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bordman, G., & Norton, R. (2011). American musical
theatre: A chronicle (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Grant, M. N. (2004). The rise and fall of the Broadway
musical. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Kirle, B. (2005). Unfinished show business: Broadway
musicals as works-in-process. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Stempel, L. (2010). Showtime: A history of the Broadway
musical. New York, NY: Norton.
 N
NATIONAL AND ETHNIC
DIFFERENCES
This entry outlines differences in the status, con-
tent, and form of humor of groups defined by their
nationality or ethnicity. It also presents perceptions
about the humor styles of some national or ethnic
groups known for their particular sense of humor,
for example, British humor, Jewish humor.
People produce, communicate, and react to
humor in different ways. Even though researchers
have maintained that personal differences in the use
and appreciation of humor outweigh national and
ethnic differences, the observations about group dif-
ferences have a long history. Recent studies about
the effects of globalization describe the intertextu-
ality of humor that translates across borders with
greater ease than ever—though carrying an inherent
incomprehension that accompanies the dissemina-
tion of humor to different audiences with various
tastes in humor, as explained in the last section of
this entry.
National and ethnic differences within the uni-
versal phenomenon of humor should be explained
in the light of the sociocultural background of par-
ticular ethnic groups. To start with, the social value
of humor differs among nations. In Europe and
North America, humor has been highly valued as
a character trait. East Asian countries (e.g., China),
however, regard having a sense of humor as a much
less important personality characteristic.
541
Differences arise from the social salience of topics
for a particular group of joke-tellers and the social
order or the position of the group joked about. For
instance, one can find many jokes about drinking
and fist fighting in Irish jokelore, whereas these
jokes tend not to be found in Jewish humor. Christie
Davies’s models about target choice in ethnic jokes
about stupidity explain the prevalence of certain
butts and subjects over others through dichotomies
created by center versus periphery, monopoly versus
competition, and mind over matter in these cultures.
Forms of humor are also culture- and language-
bound, which is why different genres emerge in dif-
ferent cultural contexts. For example, the tall tale
of the “new continents” of North America and
Australia is often connected to the spaciousness
of the land and pioneering attitude of the settlers.
Similarly, Japanese subtle puns, Dajare, differ from
the Western loud and boisterous humor as they aim
to give insight into the surrounding reality while
avoiding impolite bursts of laughter.
Examples of Particular Types of
National and Ethnic Humor
Some countries, groups, or nations are popularly
recognized as possessing a particular sense of humor.
African American Humor
African American humor developed in the back-
ground for at least a century before becoming widely
accepted in the 1950s. The dynamics of African
542 National and Ethnic Differences
American comic performances rely on the vigorous
African and North American folk tradition, inter-
twined with the Black experience in the New World
ranging from slavery to segregation. Nowadays, it is
considered as having become part of the mainstream
comedy culture in the United States, especially in
stand-up.
British Humor
British humor has been shaped by freedom from
invasion and the relative stability of the society
as a whole. It ridicules mundane reality by satiri-
cally revealing the absurdity of everyday life, rely-
ing largely on puns and intellectual humor. Sexual
humor is found to be prominent, consisting of innu-
endo and the delight one gets from breaking taboos.
In addition, much of British humor, even today,
stems from class differences.
Chinese Humor
Chinese humor, for centuries, had been modest
and unnoticeable. Because of prevailing traditional
Confucianist attitudes, engaging in humor was
sometimes considered a disgrace. From the 1970s
onward, new types of humor, influenced by the
Western world, have evolved; these include cold
humor, a variation of black humor known in the
West (harsh and bitter); jerk humor, which is widely
popular among young people (self-deprecating and
bragging); and nonsense humor, characterized by
malicious wit and sarcasm.
Jewish Humor
Jewish humor has been affected by the fact that
the Jews have had a long history of marginalization
and persecution, which, combined with the tradi-
tional multilingualism of Jewish families and appre-
ciation for learning endless logical argumentation
(pilpul) makes up a specific style of humor. It favors
wordplay, irony, and satire, and is anti-authoritarian
in all ways, also mocking religious authorities. As it is
so well permeated into other societies, Jewish humor
varies widely; for example, the self-disparagement
aspect of Jewish humor, also said to be the central
misunderstanding of Jewish jokelore, is questioned
in the studies that deal with Israeli humor alone.
Russian Humor
Russian humor is centered on the anekdot (joke,
often with a political connotation) that fed on the
prolific raw material of the absurdities in the totali-
tarian Soviet Union. It reached its heyday during
the so-called Khrushchev’s Thaw and Brezhnev’s
Stagnation from the 1960s onward. The rapid
decline of the genre in the 1990s was brought along
by the collapse of its main subject, the totalitarian
regime, along with an availability of different chan-
nels for discussing politics or expressing humor;
lighter modes of irony and nostalgia replaced the
sharp satire of the Soviet joke.
Effects of Globalization on
National and Ethnic Humor
In recent decades, national and ethnic differences in
humor production and evaluation have been eroding
as cultural borders become more ephemeral, partly
due to the global reach of the media. The Internet
has blurred the differences in the content and form
of humor, making jokes shorter, more visual, and
less dependent on language—English has become
the dominant language for humor circulation. This
does not mean, however, that national and ethnic
differences have been erased altogether. On the con-
trary, in some cases there has been a turn to stressing
local history of, and taste for, humor. The publica-
tion of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad
in a Danish newspaper in 2005 caused international
conflict and pointed to an evolving set of dilemmas
that accompanies the globalization of humor. The
cartoons were published with the intent of spurring
discussion, but other conflicts have occurred simply
because of the conflicting humor tastes of a large
and anonymous global audience. The source of a
possible cultural misunderstanding becomes marked
when a text that is intended to be amusing reaches
an audience that regards it as blasphemous or threat-
ening, and when differences in the appreciation and
acceptance of topics, targets, and circumstances for
humor persist or are strengthened.
Liisi Laineste
See also American Indian Cultures, Humor in; Arabic
Culture, Humor in; Cross-Cultural Humor; Ethnic
Jokes; Ethnicity and Humor; Internet Humor; Jewish
Humor
Further Readings
Davies, C. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Ziv, A. (1988). National styles of humor. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.

NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURES,
HUMOR IN
See American Indian Cultures, Humor in
NONSENSE
Nonsense applies to a wide range of meaningless
ways of expression, from incomprehensible sen-
tences to perfectly formed linguistic texts that block
interpretation. Nonsense expressions easily become
humorous ones, as humans often obtain pleasure
from linguistic play and are ready to look for alter-
native paths to produce meaning. Nonsense has
been experienced as a form of freedom, especially
as a means to free thinking from the conventional
bindings of logic and language. Complementarily,
it has turned out to be a felicitous cognitive tool to
venture off into the unknown, to explore unfamil-
iar regions of mind. In a historical sense, nonsense
has to be considered as a literary genre, attaining
particular interest during the Victorian period of
English literature; its value as witty wordplay has
equally to be taken into account, as well as its role
in humorous utterances, in connection with the find-
ings about humor appreciation; lastly, its implica-
tions with related categories like play or paradox
merit are also to be mentioned.
Literary nonsense was already present in the old-
est forms of European verse like those of Occitan
troubadours or the early French ludic poems called
fatrasies, and also in German Lügendichtung (lie-
poetry), mainly related to impossibilia (impossible
things), like hens capturing hawks or flying mill-
stones. Nonsense verse was an influential practice
during medieval times as a form of humorous play,
one that exploited the frailty of linguistic devices. In
the Divina commedia (Divine Comedy), Dante also
explored incomprehensible language in his depic-
tion of Nemrod (Inferno, XXI), a giant speaking a
language of its own. But it was in the Renaissance
that nonsense attained the status of a humanistic
discussion, with Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Praise of
Folly (1509), a literate and funny defense of foolish-
ness. François Rabelais also cultivated the genre, as
did the popular Italian poet Domenico di Giovanni,
alias Il Burchiello, who wrote sonnets of desolate
and comical nonsense, like his famous quatrain:
Nominativi fritti, e mappamondi, / E l’arca di Noè
Nonsense 543
fra duo colonne / Cantavan tutti “Kyrieleisonne” /
Per la’nfluenza de ’taglier mal tondi, which trans-
lates as “Fried nominatives and global maps / And
Noah’s Ark between two columns / Were all singing
Kyrie Eleison / Under the influence of badly rounded
trenchers” (Zaccarello, 2004, p. 10).
During the Enlightenment, nonsense practices
grew, and authors like Jonathan Swift, Lawrence
Sterne, and Georg C. Lichtenberg made use of
them for different purposes. In the Victorian
period of English literature, two main writers of
nonsense emerged: Edward Lear (1812–1888) and
Lewis Carroll (1832–1898). Lear composed non-
sense prose and verse that have amused English-
speaking children for decades. His famous limericks
(although he did not use the word limericks), short
five-line nonsense cyclic compositions, show both
the caprices of rhyme and the pleasure of futile
play: “There was a young lady of Sweden, / Who
went by the slow train to Weedon, / When they
cried, “Weedon Station!” / She made no observa-
tion, / But she thought she should go back to
Sweden” (Jackson, 1947, p. 52). As these verses
make no sense whatsoever, readers are only required
to enjoy the poetic play, which constitutes a chal-
lenge of its own. Lear gathered his limericks in
The Book of Nonsense (1846), invented characters
as the Quangle-Wangle or the Jumbies, and wrote
the celebrated nonsense poem The Owl and the
Pussycat (1867), among other fanciful productions.
G. K. Chesterton called him a complete citizen in the
world of unreason.
Lewis Carroll has obtained worldwide renown
with Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865)
and Through the Looking Glass (1871), the two
intriguing stories about Alice that defy standard
logic and linguistic conventions. In the first, a series
of adventures that Alice finds odd and counterin-
tuitive, Carroll presents characters like the March
Hare, the Cheshire Cat, and the Queen of Hearts
or situations like the Mad Tea Party that build and
sustain a world of their own, with their proper rules
of logic and their linguistic principles. Nonsense is
constructed through dialogues and bizarre explana-
tions, sometimes implying phonetic, morphologic,
or syntactic twists of language, like in the interroga-
tion of Alice at the trial in the last chapter:
“What do you know about this business?” The King
said to Alice.
“Nothing,” said Alice.
“Nothing whatever?” persisted the King.
“Nothing whatever,” said Alice.
544 Nonsense
“That’s very important,” the King said, turning to
the jury. They were just beginning to write this
down on their slates, when the White Rabbit
interrupted: “Unimportant, your Majesty means,
of course,” he said, in a very respectful tone, but
frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
“Unimportant, of course, I meant,” the King
hastily said, and went on to himself in an
undertone “important—unimportant—
unimportant—important” as if he were trying
which word sounded best. (Gardner, 1965, p. 155)
In the second Alice, the plot follows the plan of
a chess match, with the action being developed in
an enormous chessboard, under looking-glass prin-
ciples, that is, inverted time and cause-and-effect
relationships with regard to our conventional
world. A methodical subversion of logic pervades
every dialogue. But Carroll’s most inventive cre-
ation is probably the Jabberwocky, followed by
Humpty-Dumpty’s decoding of it. The Jabberwocky
looks like perfect English but defies any exegesis, as
all the vocabulary is a pure creation. Despite this,
Humpty-Dumpty affords an interpretation, so pre-
tentious as to be hilarious. This famous nonsense
poem has been translated countless times in many
different languages in a literary tour de force,
reminding us that meaningless linguistic artifices, in
their poetic and creative use, lie at the origins of
play and fun.
Carroll still produced a complete nonsense nar-
rative poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1876), the
feverish search for a queer and impossible animal
that allegedly was slow in understanding jokes and
usually looked grave at a pun. Here not only the
name of Snark is part of the poetical game, but its
very appearance makes it mutate (into a Boojum)
and suddenly vanish. Paradoxes and contradic-
tions invade the verses, and the whole enterprise,
with the Snark as a symbol, turns out humorous
in its futility, showing the purposeless, playful, and
somehow intriguing task of building nonsense,
which, by all means, requires a good and skilled
linguistic work.
Witty wordplay is the base for all linguistic work
producing nonsense, through a collection of well-
known rhetorical devices, like semantic changes,
lexical distortions, or figurative uses. Wordplay
mainly frees an expression from its predictable con-
textual matrix and, consequently, its reduction to
mere phonetic elements is one of the possibilities.
Carrollian-like portmanteau terms (i.e., lexical coin-
ages that pack two words in one, such as chaosmos
or narraction) are also among the most enjoyable
linguistic creations; they lie at the current origin of
wordplay, complementary to puns, and then must be
registered in the long tradition of verbal wit, which
extends so productively along the 20th-century
literature, from European avant-gardes to Joyce’s
Finnegans Wake (1939). Nonsense wordplay goes
back to games of early childhood and to nursery
rhymes as a source of pleasure and fantasy.
Partial or total nonsense is an ordinary com-
ponent in jokes and humor in general. As a joke
or a humorous utterance usually has to combine
different cognitive frames (i.e., cognitive marks
or reference), some degree of incongruity must be
expected. When the degree of incongruity impedes
a logical resolution, we usually qualify the joke or
the humorous utterance as nonsensical. The block-
ing of logical resolution is a question of degree,
depending on accessible properties of the implied
cognitive frames. Nonsense jokes frequently adopt
the structure of a riddle. The next exchange allows
an acceptable degree of logical resolution (as the
supposed action is actually possible, but unusual):
“Should a person stir his coffee with his right hand
of his left hand? Neither. He should use a spoon.”
But the standard nonsense riddle-like joke could
be like the following (where the degree of logical
resolution is only residual): “Why did the elephant
stand on the marshmallow? Because he didn’t want
to fall into the hot chocolate.” Here no particular
connections arise between question and answer,
beyond the general principle of doing something to
avoid something else, or the fact that elephants do
not particularly flee from hot chocolate. We also
can find riddle-like jokes that explicitly distort their
inner logical structure, like the next one: “What’s
the difference between the sparrow? No difference
whatsoever. Both halves are identical, especially
the left one.” Here complexity increases as non-
sense moves up through contradictions, blocking
interpretation at every step. This is how degrees
of incongruity work in producing humorous non-
sense. And we could still move one step forward
in nonsense practices, suggesting a riddle without
a standard solution, like the Mad Tea Party riddle
in the first Alice, “Why is a raven like a writing
desk?” a pure invention that contravenes prag-
matic expectancies, as it was created as a question
without any answer.
Research about humor appreciation by Willibald
Ruch and his team has highlighted how nonsense
humor is valued compared with near-to-resolution

humor (called usually incongruity-resolution
humor), at the other end of the spectrum. Using
humor tests to assess ratings of funniness and
aversiveness of jokes and cartoons, Ruch’s findings
showed that nonsense humor was positively cor-
related with openness to experience, nonconform-
ism, and youth. Conservative attitudes, self-control,
need for order, and older age were instead positively
correlated with incongruity-resolution humor, that
which allows an acceptable degree of logical expla-
nation. A positive appraisal of complexity, fantasy,
and abstract forms of art were clearly related to
appreciation of nonsense humor.
Although its overt component consists of verbal
play, nonsense is also possible on a non-linguistic
basis, as the way traced by the 20th-century litera-
ture and, particularly, the theater of the absurd have
shown. Authors such as Eugène Ionesco, Samuel
Beckett, Harold Pinter, and Václav Havel built plays
containing absurd dialogues that frequently dive
into humor. More on the facetious side, the Marx
Brothers built dialogues that combined wordplay
and a particular sense of logical subversion and the
absurd. As Wim Tigges puts it, absurd literature
deepens our uncertainties about reality. One inter-
esting question is whether the uncertainties created
by absurd and nonsense humor somehow lead to
new, alternative, or more complex interpretations.
Indeed, a certain agreement can be found about the
complementary question that only human expres-
sions are able to produce nonsense, this being a
particular property of human communication.
Humor contains nonsense, to a certain degree,
but not all nonsense is humorous. A certain amount
of play on interpretation is needed for a nonsense
utterance to become a humorous one. In nonsense,
the logic that sustains interpretation collapses.
Related to nonsense is paradox, where logic appar-
ently fulfills its own requirements. Play on para-
doxes often shows its comic side too, as in Jaroslav
Hasek’s The Fateful Adventures of the Good Soldier
Nonsense 545
Švejk During the World War (1923) or in Joseph
Heller’s Catch-22 (1961). These narrow relation-
ships between categories help explain why we move
so easily from one into another. So, nonsense can
fruitfully be used to teach philosophy, as in Zen
koans (study dialogues in Zen practices), which
freely exploit quasi-comical or paradoxical utter-
ances, like the famous initiation question, “What
is the sound of one hand clapping?” Nonsense
dialogues in Zen koans records and collections are
used to gain insight and to approach alternative and
original forms of understanding that defy standard
reason.
Amadeu Viana
See also Absurdist Humor; Limericks; Puns; Riddle;
3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Chesterton, G. K. (1916). A defence of nonsense. In
E. Rhys (Ed.), A century of English essays (pp. 446–450).
London, UK: Dent.
Gardner, M. (Ed.). (1965). The annotated Alice.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Jackson, H. (Ed.). (1947). The complete nonsense of
Edward Lear. London, UK: Faber & Faber.
Lecercle, J.-J. (1994). Philosophy of nonsense. London, UK:
Routledge.
Malcolm, N. (1997). The origins of English nonsense.
London, UK: Harper.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1998). The sense of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stewart, S. (1978). Nonsense. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Tarantino, E. (Ed.). (2009). Nonsense and other senses.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Tigges, W. (1988). An anatomy of literary nonsense.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Zaccarello, M. (Ed.). (2004). I sonetti del Burchiello
[The sonnets of Burchiello]. Torino, Italy: Einaudi.
 O
OBSCENITY
This entry describes the nature of humorous obscen-
ity and outlines the recent history of obscenity in
popular culture, including the backlash to it, par-
ticularly in the United States. Etymologically,
obscenity can be derived from the Latin obscenus,
meaning “from or with filth,” or from obscaena,
meaning “off stage.” Thus, obscenity has to do with
what is deemed not fit to be seen or talked about.
Its phenomenological core is feelings of revulsion
associated with the breaking of norms about what
is morally prohibited. Consequently, there is large
social and cultural variation in what is deemed to
be obscene, because what is taboo in one group or
culture may not be in another. Nevertheless, top-
ics like body parts and functions, bodily deformity,
death, ethnicity, mental illness, politics, and religion
are often found to have strong moral force in many
societies and cultures and therefore are closely asso-
ciated with obscenity. Also central to obscenity is
sexuality, which can be combined with many of these
other topics to produce strong feelings of revulsion.
It is no exaggeration to say that the most common
source domain of obscenity is sex and the body. This
helps explain the ready connection between humor
and obscenity, as a great deal of humor circulating in
everyday life has sexual themes.
The production of humor from obscenities can
have both visual- and language-based components.
A good example of the former is the 2005 “Bloody
Mary” episode of the animated sitcom South Park,
547
which featured a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding
out of its anus. This image attracted vociferous pro-
test, particularly from Catholic groups, but attempts
to ban the episode were only partly successful. The
protestors’ claims that the episode was obscene and/
or blasphemous only created more viewer attention.
Similarly, the 1979 Monty Python film Life of Brian
was banned in some places for blasphemy and for
mocking Christianity, but the bans created so much
attention that they served as free advertising. In
Sweden, Life of Brian was marketed as “the film so
funny that it was banned in Norway.”
The fact that sex is often treated highly seri-
ously makes it a ready candidate for the incongruity
device frequently at the heart of humor. The graphic
visual depiction of sexual acts in pornography seems
deadly serious in its focus on body parts and their
sexual connection, but it is not difficult to make a
gestalt switch and see the awkward thrashings of
people copulating as hugely comical. The spasms
and release of orgasm can resemble the whole body
in laughter, making a connection between humor
and sex easy to make. Philosophers have grasped
this idea to argue that breaking moral prohibitions
can lead to both thrill and repulsion, with a judg-
ment of obscenity occurring where there is an exces-
sively depersonalized portrayal or perception of
human sexuality. Even the language we use to talk
about sexuality partakes of this dynamic tension.
Alongside the proper vocabulary of sex and the body
(including euphemisms) is a vast array of improper
words (or dysphemisms) that can be judged obscene,
depending on the context in which they are used.
548 Obscenity
Just like the comical aspect to sex, language-based
obscenities have a strong element of release. Much
humor employs obscene words partly because of the
simple pleasure of breaking taboos, of saying some-
thing you are not supposed to. The use of obscenities
in joking discourse can also act as emotional intensi-
fiers, helping to encourage laughter, which therefore
may partly overcome feelings of revulsion about the
breaking of taboos.
To be offended by obscenity in humorous talk
is to refuse an invitation to engage in like-minded
informal discourse. The offended party effectively
refuses the proffered self and role of the one who
introduced the obscenities. This refusal itself can be
humorous, causing the person who finds obscenities
distasteful to become the target of verbal aggres-
sion, another very common source and technique
of humor. Thus, obscenities are powerful, in both
positive and negative ways.
It is through experiences with obscenities that
children learn that anything that is forbidden is pow-
erful. This power can lead to reproach and sanction,
but it can also be intimately connected with laughter.
At some stage in early life, infants will discover that
their use of various swearwords can make adults
laugh. The infant may not know this, but the laugh-
ter is because of a basic incongruity: The child is
swearing but does not know what it means to swear,
let alone the meaning of the words used. There is a
whole genre of jokes based around children’s inap-
propriate knowledge of obscene words, as when a
little boy sees his mother in the shower, and asks,
“What’s that?” with the embarrassed mother reply-
ing, “Oh, that’s where God hit me with an axe,”
to which the little boy says, “Got you right in the
cunt, eh?”
Obscenity is often associated with humor in per-
formances by stand-up comedians and in music hall
and burlesque performances. At one time, comic per-
formers made indirect references to sexual practices,
often by means of double entendre. Sexual puns can
be highly creative and skilled constructions, with the
advantage of not being directly obscene because they
are based on homonyms of the actual words taken
to be obscene.
A watershed moment in stand-up comedy
occurred with the routines of Lenny Bruce (1925–
1966) in the 1950s and early 1960s. The previously
common mother-in-law jokes of many male comedi-
ans seemed distinctly insipid when Bruce performed
his routines. His performances were a kind of jazz
style free association during which he talked about
sex, among other things, with no self-censorship.
Bruce was first arrested on an obscenity charge in
1961 for using the words cocksucker and come (in
the sense of orgasm). He was acquitted, but his sub-
sequent performances were monitored, leading to a
successful conviction on another obscenity charge
in 1964. Today, Bruce’s routines would be relatively
tame. For example, the 2006 film The Aristocrats
featured dozens of comedians telling their variation
of a well-known joke involving a family-based stage
show, the challenge being to make it filthier than any
other.
Bruce opened the door for many comedians to
work up routines that used obscenities to refer to
sexual acts. The best known comedian to follow
Bruce’s lead was George Carlin (1937–2008). His
routine on the “seven words you can never say on
television” (actually performed as a radio mono-
logue in 1972) was another watershed moment in
the history of obscenity. He thought these forbid-
den words were shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker,
motherfucker, and tits. Court action brought by
the Federal Communications Commission over
the broadcast of Carlin’s list of dirty words helped
establish legal precedent over their use in broadcast
media, but this judgment did not diminish Carlin’s
basic comedic logic of finding out where the author-
ities drew the line, then stepping over it. The use of
obscenity has become far more common in radio
and television since that time, due in part to the pio-
neering efforts of Bruce and Carlin.
Compared to the frequency of obscenities on tele-
vision and radio in the United States, obscenities are
far more common in film, probably because fewer
film producers are dependent on advertising inter-
ests. The means of censoring obscenity have declined
further still with the birth and subsequent pervasive-
ness of the Internet. Research on swearing on the
Internet suggests that it is very frequent and gener-
ally used more by males than females, although this
difference is fast disappearing.
Contemporary stand-up comedians still use
obscenities to indicate intimacy, informality, and
accessibility, particularly in the bar or nightclub
atmosphere where much comedy is performed.
However, given widespread knowledge of extant
stand-up comedy routines, and an arguably greater
prevalence of swearing in everyday life, the desire
for novelty may have changed how routines with
sexual content are performed. On one hand, the
self-respecting road comic tries to invent original
material, but on the other hand, there is no such
 Obscenity 549

thing as an original joke; accordingly, comedians
need to display caution and subtlety in their use of
obscenity, lest they be regarded as hack comedians.
Fortunately, changes in society may provide the con-
ditions for inventive manipulations of tried and true
comedic routines, with obscenities functioning pri-
marily as emotional intensifiers. For example, race,
religion, and disability may be providing new topics
for humor construction in some countries. These
topics are not obscene in themselves, but the con-
stant boundary-pushing of humor will undoubtedly
result in connection with sexual topics, thus raising
new questions about the acceptable limits of humor.
Mike Lloyd
Lloyd, M. (2011). Miss Grimshaw and the white elephant:
Categorization in a risqué humor competition. Humor,
24(1), 63–86.
Robson, J. (2006). Humour, obscenity and Aristophanes.
Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Seizer, S. (2011). On the uses of obscenity in live stand-up
comedy. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1),
209–234.
Thelwall, M. (2008). Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in
a corpus of MySpace pages. Corpora, 3(1), 83–107.
Wajnryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted. New York: Free
Press.

See also Burlesque; Insult and Invective; Scatology; ONTOLOGICAL SEMANTIC THEORY
Sexuality; Stand-Up Comedy OF HUMOR

Further Readings See Linguistic Theories of Humor

Davis, M. S. (1983). Smut: Erotic reality/obscene ideology.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kieran, M. (2002). On obscenity: The thrill and repulsion
of the morally prohibited. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 64(1), 31–55.
OSTH
Legman, G. (1978). Dysphemism and insults. In No
laughing matter: Rationale of the dirty joke (Second See Linguistic Theories of Humor
series, pp. 766–803). Frogmore, UK: Granada.
 P
PARADOX
The most basic type of paradox is a dramatic rhe-
torical device that offers an unorthodox insight
because of using a single word with different or con-
tradictory meanings. On a very simple level, if John
is walking through the door of a room, it can be said
that “John is in the room,” or that “John is not in
the room,” or that “John is partly in the room and
partly not in the room.” That John can be consid-
ered to be in the room or not in the room is a para-
dox, because these statements can be seen as true
but are contradictory.
Some scholars view paradox as a superficial
and trivial rhetorical device, comparable to a pun.
However, others view paradox as being on almost
the same level as the four master tropes: metaphor,
metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. Sometimes a
paradox results from a major paradigm shift in the
history of ideas, as when particular words take on
expanded meanings. A simplified example is the
word man. Its most basic meaning or earliest mean-
ing may have been man in contrast to animal, that
is, human compared to beast. But then it took on the
meaning of man in contrast to woman, followed by
the word acquiring the additional connotations of
bravery, noble behavior, or whatever “strong” quali-
ties the speaker admires.
Paradoxes can also be approached philosophi-
cally. Willard Van Orman Quine divided resolvable
paradoxes into two kinds: veridical paradoxes,
which lead to a true conclusion, and falsidical para-
doxes, which lead to a false conclusion. Frederic’s
551
“birthday paradox” in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The
Pirates of Penzance is that he has had only five
birthdays, yet he is 21 years old. The explanation is
that he was born on “leap day,” February 29, and
the paradoxical statement is based on whether a
birthday is a particular number on a calendar or the
celebration of one more year (365 and one-fourth
days) of life. Because the conclusion is true, given the
premises, Quine considers this a veridical paradox.
In contrast, the “grandfather paradox” is said to
show the absurdity of time travel; if you could travel
back in time, then you could kill your grandfather
before your father was conceived. But this isn’t pos-
sible, because if you did so, you would not exist.
Therefore, you can’t travel back in time; because the
conclusion is false, this is a falsidical paradox.
A third class of paradoxes is antinomy, which
cannot be resolved through rational evidence. For
example, with the old explanation that the world
is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, the obvious
question is, “But what is that turtle sitting on?” The
reason people smile when they answer, “It’s turtles
all the way down,” is that they recognize the para-
dox as an antinomy.
There is another, nonphilosophical, sense of para-
dox, which is based on the wording, the verbiage,
as when a statement treats two different senses of
a word as though they have the same meaning. In
his essay, “The Crack-Up,” F. Scott Fitzgerald said,
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to
hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same
time, and still retain the ability to function.” One of
the reasons that young children have so much fun
with riddles, especially knock-knock jokes, is that
552 Parody
these jokes encourage children to take their first
steps toward developing the ability to hold opposing
ideas. Some of the jokes they find so funny are “acci-
dental” puns, meaning they are based on words that
sound the same but have totally different mean-
ings simply as an accident in the language, because
English speakers have adopted and adapted words
from so many different languages, as with the titles
of Fred Gwynne’s children’s picture books, includ-
ing The King Who Rained, A Chocolate Moose
for Dinner, and A Little Pigeon Toad. But children
also love the puns in Peggy Parish’s Amelia Bedelia
books, in which the jokes are mostly based on the
dual meanings of words that are semantically related
to each other. Amelia Bedelia is a house maid who
constantly misunderstands the directions from her
employers. When they tell her to “stamp the enve-
lopes,” she puts them on the ground and stamps on
them with her feet, and when they tell her to “draw
the drapes” she gets out pencil and paper and draws
a picture of the drapes. Whereas adults take the
double meanings in so-called dead metaphors for
granted, children may give them more thought. For
example, consider this riddle:
Question: Why did the Little Moron throw the clock
out the window?
Answer: He wanted to see time fly.
Allison Lurie, an author and critic, has explained
that this riddle might give children a mental image
of a clock flying through the air because they may
have wanted to destroy their own clock when their
mother told them it was bedtime or time to turn the
TV off. An adult equivalent to children’s riddles is
the way that adults are amused by the paradoxical
implications of oxymorons such as jumbo shrimp
and tough love. The contradictions exist because
the adjectives (jumbo and tough) are being used to
describe characteristics that might seem the opposite
of their modifiers.
Words that refer to important phenomena such
as life, love, and truth are likely to have developed a
number of extended meanings. An example of such
multiple meanings is Marshall McLuhan’s com-
ment, “The vital question today is not whether there
will be life after death, but whether there was life
before death.” In one sense, McLuhan was using life
to mean “existence,” while in another sense he was
using life to mean something like “fulfillment.”
Paradoxes are harder to process when supposed
opposites are being demonstrated as when in John
Milton’s Paradise Lost, the narrator says that the
fires of hell emit “no light, but darkness visible.”
A more amusing paradoxical statement was made
by Michel de Montaigne when he used nonmatch-
ing senses of high and bottom to create what might
be labeled a “non-parallel” comparison: “Sits he on
ever so high a throne, a man still sits on his bottom.”
Don Lee Fred Nilsen and Alleen Pace Nilsen
See also Irony
Further Readings
Fitzgerald, F. S. (1936). The crack-up. Esquire. http://www
.esquire.com/features/the-crack-up
Gans, E. (1997). Signs of paradox, irony, resentment, and
other mimetic structures. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1980). Godel, Escher, and Bach: An
eternal golden braid. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Quine, W. V. O. (1976). The ways of paradox, and other
essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shershow, S. C. (1986). Laughing matters: The paradox of
comedy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
PARODY
Parody is a term used since ancient Greece to denote
the comic reworking of other serious, heroic, or epic
works. This entry provides a historical perspective
of the various definitions and uses of parody in the
arts.
Derived from the noun for ode and prefix para
(meaning “near to” and “opposite”), the word par-
odia was applied early on to mock-heroic epics such
as the Batrachomyomachia or Battle of the Frogs
and Mice, in which the eponymous creatures are
given roles accorded human heroes in the Homeric
epics. Such mock-heroic epics (see also Aristotle’s
Poetics from the 4th century BCE on Hegemon of
Thasos, a near contemporary of Aristophanes) have
also been described as travesties, following Lalli’s
Eneide travestita (Virgil’s Aeneid travestied) of circa
1634.
The word travesty in fact translates from
the Italian travestire, meaning “to disguise” or
“reclothe,” and has been used as an alternative to
the terms parody and mock-heroic epic. Some crit-
ics have nonetheless tried to distinguish parody and
travesty as high and low burlesque. These writers
argue that parody as high burlesque imitates the

form of the original while replacing its content
with a more trivial subject matter, which is thereby
elevated to a higher status, whereas travesty as low
burlesque changes the manner of the original in an
overall more mocking or familiar way. Both form
and content of the original are, however, imitated
and reworked for comic effect in ancient parody as
well as in post-Renaissance travesty, and for a vari-
ety of purposes.
Modern Italian dictionary translations for the
English word travesty give parodia as the Italian
equivalent for that term. In the early 20th century,
the word spoof transferred from a game of bluff
to examples of parody. Whereas the mock-heroic
epic can be described as a genre, parody may best
be understood as a technique used for the comic
reworking of other genres rather than as a distinct
genre in itself. Devices used by the parodist to obtain
a comic effect include ironic or satiric juxtaposition,
transference, or, more generally, subtraction and
addition.
The term paratragodein (or paratragoedia) was
also used by the ancient Greeks to describe parody
in drama, one notable example of which is The
Frogs by Aristophanes (ca. 450–ca. 388 BCE), in
which the tragedians Aeschylus and Euripides vie
for supremacy over each other and parody is used
to mock both. Here, parody is also used in ironic
metafictional ways (the dramatists represented on
stage are unaware that parody is being used by
Aristophanes to both mock their styles and to cre-
ate a new type of comedy from their works) and to
satirize the audience of other, less complex forms of
comedy. Ancient Greek use of the term parody was
also extended to cover works in prose or speech (see
Quintilian’s 1st century CE Institutio Oratoria on
parodia and parode).
The use of parody as a comic but also metafic-
tional device for the creation of new, more sophis-
ticated fictional works of comedy is one that was
developed most notably in the early 17th century by
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547–1616) in his
Don Quijote (1630). In this work, books of chiv-
alry are satirized and made part of a more complex
metafictional work when the heroic dreams of their
all too avid reader Don Quijote are revealed as delu-
sions by his family and servant Sancho Panza as well
as by the narrator. The “hero” of Cervantes’s work
is also shown to be yet another fictional character by
the appearance of readers of volume 1 as characters
in volume 2, who recognize and praise Don Quijote
for his adventures.
Parody 553
Novelists and dramatists inspired by Cervantes
have included Henry Fielding in his novel Joseph
Andrews of 1742 and Charlotte Lennox in her
The Female Quixote of 1752, a work read by Jane
Austen, whose Northanger Abbey of 1818 paro-
dies the gothic novels popular in her time. William
Shakespeare’s use of the comic play-within-the-play
in his Midsummer Night’s Dream of 1595–1600 is
yet another example of how parody may be used by
the sophisticated parodist to both mock and satirize
the unwitting parodist or incompetent author and
create another, ironic and more complex, mirror to
the fictional work within which it is placed.
The term parody has been used in music to refer
to the transfer of sacred music to a secular text and
vice versa. In recent decades it has been extended
even further to describe parody in the pictorial arts,
including film and other such visual media. Exam-
ples of pictorial parody can be found, moreover, in
ancient art, as well as in that of the Renaissance and
after. Pictorial parody has also been used in carica-
ture for satiric purposes, as in the reworking of pop-
ular paintings for contemporary political and social
comment by John Leech (1817–1864) for Punch or
by Peter Brookes (b. 1943) for the The Times.
Parody may also be used for an overriding cre-
ative, meta-artistic purpose, by means of which the
works of earlier artists are reworked within a new
art work, and with new media, as in the paintings
of Roy Lichtenstein (1923–1997). Here the “inter-
pictorial” reuse of older works can be seen as both
an homage to and a development of the work of the
imitated artist. In such works, pastiche (tradition-
ally a noncomic imitation and compilation of older
works within another artistic or architectural piece)
may also be used and brought closer to parody with
its ironic, “double-coded” juxtapositions of old and
new content and form, or parody may be used as
an additional device to pastiche to add a comic or
ironic element to the application of the latter.
With regard to the attitude of the parodist in
deriving humor from the reworking of older, more
serious works, this can usually only be defined with
reference to the specific work in which parody is
used and may not necessarily involve mockery of
the original as in a lampoon. Because the older
work forms part of the parody, and contributes to
its reception, the relationship of the parodist to that
work may often be ambivalent and complex rather
than dismissive or one-dimensional.
Margaret A. Rose
554 Pastiche
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Aristophanes; Art and
Visual Humor; Burlesque; Caricature; Cervantes,
Miguel de; Hoax and Prank; Irony; Lampoon;
Pastiche; Satire; Shakespearean Comedy; Travesty
Further Readings
Rose, M. A. (1993). Parody: Ancient, modern, and post-
modern. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, M. A. (2011). Pictorial irony, parody, and pastiche:
Comic interpictoriality in the arts of the 19th and 20th
centuries. Bielefeld, Germany: Aisthesis.
PASTICHE
Pastiche is a French word that began to be used
regularly in English in the 1880s and 1890s. In
18th-century France, it meant a work of art imitat-
ing another author’s style. The French word was
derived from the Italian pasticcio, meaning (from
late Latin antiquity) a kind of mixed pastry, then
indicating a musical form made up of various parts
imitated from other composers. The English “pas-
tiche” still shows these two influences: the “musi-
cal medley” meaning and more generally the idea
of a “hodgepodge” or incongruous mixture derived
directly from the Italian term, whereas the Oxford
English Dictionary definition of pastiche as “an
artistic work in a style that imitates that of another
work, artist, or period” comes from French. It must
be noted right away that pastiche is not necessar-
ily humorous. For example, pastiche as a way of
learning good writing by imitating great authors, as
teachers in 19th-century French schools made their
pupils practice doing, was a very serious matter. The
same is true of some artistic instances of pastiche,
depending on the conditions of their reception. For
example, the cover illustration on Richard Dyer’s
Pastiche prompts the reader to interpret the 2002
film Far From Heaven, starring Julianne Moore
in a story that takes place in the 1950s, as a pas-
tiche. In fact the film makes a very touching drama.
However, discussing Far From Heaven in 2003,
Peter Bradshaw, critic for The Guardian newspa-
per, described how everybody had been enjoying the
first 5 minutes of the film, which struck Bradshaw
as a rather detailed “Hi-honey-I’m-home” 1950s
skit, at the previous year’s Venice Film Festival,
before recounting how the giggling disappeared to
be replaced by an absolute approval of every aspect
of its elaboration. The “first giggling” effect and its
link with the comic dimension of pastiche is dis-
cussed later.
Elements of Definition
It is complex to define what pastiche is and how
to distinguish it from other forms usually associ-
ated with it. Attempting to distinguish parody from
related forms such as pastiche, Margaret Rose
reviews different definitions of “pastiche” in English,
underlining their negative critical connotations, due
to the derivative aspect in art of imitation as opposed
to originality. An example is Russell Sturgis’s (1902)
definition, which is general enough to extend to
other art forms: “A work of art produced in deliber-
ate imitation of another or several others, as of the
works of a master taken together” (vol. 3, p. 73).
This is close to Dyer’s (2007) “pastiche is a kind of
imitation that you are meant to know is an imita-
tion” (p. 1). However, the latter insists on the specta-
tor’s or reader’s point of view, whereas the former
focuses on the author’s intention. Accordingly, the
definition of humorous pastiche proposed here can
refer either to an entire work or to parts of that
work: a deliberate imitation of a style or genre, with
an amusing effect.
Differentiating Pastiche From Parody
Pastiche is very close to parody and is regularly con-
fused with it in the public mind because of the com-
plex and mixed nature of all parodic works, which
are humorous remakes of linguistic or artistic perfor-
mances, according to Margaret Rose. In most prac-
tical cases, the two words are used interchangeably
about any work that humorously rewrites a recog-
nizable source or style. The French novelist Marcel
Proust spoke alternatively of “pastiche” and paro-
die about his own imitations of 19th-century novel-
ists; in Italian, Umberto Eco (b. 1932) does the same
about his Diario minimo (Misreadings). Similarly,
in Mikhail Bakhtin’s polyphonic theory of enuncia-
tion, pastiche and parody are effectively the same
thing: the presence or imitation of another discourse
in one’s own speech.
Clear landmarks for differentiating pastiche from
parody are nevertheless given by French critic Gérard
Genette (1982/1997), who attempts to distinguish
various categories of “hypertextuality,” the word
he proposed for “any relationship uniting a text B
(which I shall call hypertext) to an earlier text A
 Pastiche 555

(I shall, of course, call it the hypotext), upon which it Pastiche and Caricature in the Past
is grafted in a manner that is not that of commentary”
In the 17th and 18th centuries, pastiche of the
(p. 5). This structuralist approach is not devoid of
mock-heroic variety was more highly regarded than
humor itself, and Genette was aware that it could be
caricature (also called burlesque travesty), because
unsatisfactory for the analysis of “general parody,”
its principle was to preserve the dignity of the noble
but it is a useful basis for defining pastiche. Setting
genre and high style being imitated, even though
aside the subtleties of Genette’s six hypertextual cat-
applied to a trifling incident. The canonical example
egories (he admits they are bound to dissolve when
of such a heroicomical poem is Alexander Pope’s
applied to any complex work), two kinds of “rela-
The Rape of the Lock (1712).
tions” between texts emerge: transformation and
Another noted exponent was novelist Henry
imitation. In fact these are the principal differences
Fielding, whose writing included what he called
between parody and pastiche. Parody is predomi-
“burlesque in diction” (preface to Joseph Andrews,
nantly a transformative technique (Linda Hutcheon
1742) purely for entertainment, for example in heroic
[2000] terms it “repetition with critical distance,
descriptions of battles involving dogs or drunkards.
which marks difference rather than similarity”
Nowadays this would be called “mock-heroic pas-
[p. 6]). Pastiche, however, is an imitative technique,
tiche” and its mainly imitative principle bears out
characterized by marking similarities rather than
Fielding’s conception of the novel as a “comic epic
differences.
in prose.” However, Fielding condemned caricatura
A good illustration of this distinction is pro-
and its exaggerated satiric deformation as contra-
vided by Martin Rowson’s graphic novel (cartoon)
dicting his aim of drawing comic characters from
version (1996) of Laurence Sterne’s early novel,
nature.
Tristram Shandy (1759–1767). Adapting Sterne’s
During periods of intense renewal of forms and
own playful rewriting of various books, the car-
genres such as occurred during the romantic period
toonist uses parody and pastiche as two clearly
(late 18th and early 19th centuries), pastiche was
different forms. His “plates” illustrating the story
a very useful, hence widespread, form of writing.
of Slawkenbergius (adapting Book IV of Tristram
Paul Aaron demonstrates how the French roman-
Shandy, a tale about a long-nosed traveler) are
tics used pastiche to explore all kinds of ironic or
respectful parodies of well-known pictures—
eccentric forms to condemn ancient literary forms
successively Albrecht Dürer’s Knight, Death and
and compromise new ones. For the authors of the
the Devil (1513), William Hogarth’s Southwark
revolutionary generation that discovered the notion
Fair (1733/1734), and Aubrey Beardsley’s The
of personal originality in art, criticizing outworn
Eyes of Herod (1894)—whose comic mean-
classical forms by imitating them was a way of
ing relies on slight changes of content arising
experimenting with what a century later was theo-
from the story being told. This is parody. Later
rized by the Russian formalists as the “laying bare”
on, to access the transposed version of Book V,
of mechanical devices.
when “some dangerous nerd” has downloaded the
entire text of Tristram Shandy, the “reader” inside
Rowson’s graphic novel has to hack into this digi-
Pastiche and Satire
talized text to “find out what happens next.” But Besides parody, satire is commonly associated with
this operation sets off a huge “bug,” which gen- pastiche. Although the imitation in pastiche must
erates alternative versions of Sterne’s story, each be recognizable (or else it could not be identified as
in the style of a 20th-century novelist or literary pastiche), satirical exaggeration of the model’s typi-
movement and each illustrated with a caricature of cal traits may tend toward caricature. Then, satire
the author and a pastiched speech bubble. Martin is aimed at the hypotext itself, whose “saturation”
Amis, Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe, South (Gérard Genette’s term) with these traits is mocked
American magical realism, D. H. Lawrence, and by copying and exhibiting them to the reader. The
T. S. Eliot are all imitated. Although each stylized difference between pastiche and caricature here is a
story-bit still contains elements linking it with matter of degree: Pastiche is more neutral and less
Tristram Shandy (e.g., characters’ names), its comic satirical in purpose. In the Rowson example given
effect derives from pastiche as it relies on its resem- earlier, Martin Amis is pastiched: His stylistic hab-
blance to its “hypotext” rather than on transfor- its are playfully summed up in one speech bubble.
mation of content or context. But on the next page, T. S. Eliot is the object of a
556 Pastiche
caricature: His style is ridiculed into being nothing
more than meaningless mumbles. Rowson publicly
declared his irritation with Eliot and also adapted
The Waste Land as a satirical graphic transposition.
In Far From Heaven, the film mentioned earlier, the
critic’s first five minutes of “giggles” result from
the same mechanism: At first sight, Todd Haynes’s
reconstruction of a 1950s aesthetic passes for a cari-
cature of past narrative forms saturated with easily
recognizable traits. But then, Dyer points out, the
story reveals the re-creation to be meaningful and
touching—a serious pastiche.
Is Pastiche “Blank Parody”?
The relative neutrality of pastiche, compared with
both parody (in the transforming relationship) and
caricature (in the imitative relationship), led post-
modernist scholar Frederic Jameson to regard pas-
tiche as “blank parody.” Showing how the concept
of a norm in postmodern art and literature is replaced
by “private styles and mannerisms,” Jameson pes-
simistically regards pastiche as similarly replacing
value-laden parody. He calls it “blank parody, a
statue with blind eyeballs” (1991, p. 17). It may, he
concedes, involve some humor, being “at the least
compatible with addiction—with a whole historically
original consumers’ appetite for a world transformed
into sheer images of itself and for pseudoevents.” In
other words, postmodern pastiche is an empty form
because it is the perpetual reflection of a self-centered
consumer society that has lost its sense of history.
Nevertheless, today pastiche often remains one of
the conditions for a satiric parody to be fully effec-
tive, serving as the background against which the
parody takes place. For instance, when the Reduced
Shakespeare Company (the name parodies the Royal
Shakespeare Company) gave an abridged version of
Titus Andronicus in the form of a culinary TV pro-
gram, that type of show was pastiched without any
evident critical intent, while Shakespeare’s play was
very funnily parodied. Satire here was not aimed at
cooking programs but at the accumulation of vio-
lent deaths in the Bard’s first tragedy. The parodic
RSC imitated a popular form to remind their public
joyfully about Shakespearian (or Jacobean) aesthet-
ics of cruelty. In this case, pastiche actually helps
maintain historical and cultural heritage.
Playful rather than satirical tone underlying
humorous pastiche is also exemplified by American
Bill Watterson’s comic strip Calvin and Hobbes
(1985–1995). Here the reader is invited to share the
viewpoint of a little boy named Calvin (after John
Calvin, 16th-century French Reformation theologian
and paired with a stuffed tiger named after Thomas
Hobbes, 17th-century English political philosopher).
When Calvin’s mother tries to make him eat his din-
ner, for example, what we see through the boy’s eyes
is a monstrous alien from science fiction comics or
TV shows. This is graphical pastiche, and its humor-
ous effect relies on reusing visual codes associated
with another genre (sci-fi) to depict a small boy’s
fantasies. Through pastiched images that are part of
each generation’s common cultural background, the
adult reader is put back in touch with his or her own
former childlike imaginings. The young reader may
also recognize his or her own fantasies and perhaps,
by identifying the imitation as such, may apprehend
them differently with humorous distance (distanc-
ing) and a knowing amusement.
Humorous Pastiche as Imitation
Because pastiche is based on the imitative principle,
a final question is whether imitation itself provokes
laughter or smiling, independent of the transfor-
mations common to pastiche and parody. Gérard
Genette believed it did and French philosopher
Henri Bergson saw laughter as generally arising
from “something mechanical encrusted upon the liv-
ing.” He cited imitation as one instance of this “law”
of the comic: “Gestures, at which we never dreamt
of laughing, become laughable when imitated by
another individual. . . . To imitate any one is to bring
out the element of automatism he has allowed to
creep into his person” (Bergson, 1900/2008, p. 22).
Moreover, for Bergson, this was “the very essence
of the ludicrous”: a “deflection of life towards the
mechanical” that he believed was the real cause of
laughter.
Yen-Mai Tran-Gervat
See also Bergson’s Theory of the Comic; Burlesque;
Caricature; Cartoons; Comic Books; Comic Strips;
Exaggeration; Genres and Styles of Comedy; History
of Humor: Early Modern Europe; History of Humor:
Modern and Contemporary Europe; History of
Humor: 19th-Century Europe; Lampoon; Mock Epic;
Parody; Satire; Spoofing; Travesty
Further Readings
Aaron, P. (2008). Histoire du pastiche: Le pastiche littéraire
français de la Renaissance à nos jours [History of

pastiche: Literary French pastiche from the Renaissance
to our times]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bergson, H. (2008). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of
the comic (C. Brereton & F. Roswell, Trans.). Rockville,
MD: Arc Manor. (Original work published 1900)
Bradshaw, P. (2003, March 7). Far From Heaven [Critique].
The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co
.uk/culture/2003/mar/07/artsfeatures2
Dyer, R. (2007). Pastiche: Knowing imitation. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
Eco, U. (1993). Misreadings (W. Weaver, Trans.). San Diego,
CA: Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1963)
Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second
degree (C. Newman & C. Doubinski, Trans.). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published
1982)
Hutcheon, L. (2000). A theory of parody: The teachings of
twentieth-century art forms. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic
of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rose, M. (1993). Parody: Ancient, modern, postmodern.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rowson, M. (1996). The life and opinions of Tristram
Shandy, gentleman. London, UK: Picador.
Sturgis, R. (1902). Dictionary of architecture and building
(Vol. 3). London, UK: Macmillan.
PATTERN RECOGNITION
Pattern recognition in psychology is the identifica-
tion of a pattern in a stimulus. In humor studies, it
is the name of an evolutionary theory arguing that
humor is an advanced form of a data-processing fac-
ulty whose influence has played a vital role in the
expansion of the human race’s cognitive abilities.
First proposed by British author Alastair Clarke in
2008, it suggests that the enjoyment of being amused
encourages an individual to identify certain relation-
ships between novel bits of information. This entry
provides a brief overview of the theory’s ideas and
its implications.
Basic Principles
Disagreeing with alternative ideas proposing that
the perception of incongruity constitutes the foun-
dation for humor, pattern recognition theory con-
tends that the recognition of patterns has enabled
the human race to develop an intellect that is
unparalleled in its plasticity and adaptability, later
Pattern Recognition 557
stimulating the expression of this capacity for non-
genetic self-modification in the form of advanced
culture. Emphasizing the positive usefulness of
humorous perceptions, it was released as one of two
contrasting evolutionary theories, with the other,
information normalization theory, intentionally
reversing its arguments to suggest that humor exists
not to identify novel insights but to motivate the
avoidance of potential pitfalls in poor-quality data.
Pattern recognition is therefore distinctly opposed to
the interpretation of humor as a corrective mecha-
nism and makes much of the utility of patterns in
human cultural development.
Types of Pattern
According to the schematic mechanism of humor
presented by pattern recognition theory, there are
two main types of pattern that are central to the
process of cultural and intellectual adaptability. The
first, known as patterns of fidelity, are recognized
by the brain when multiple units are compared
for their similarity, thereby producing a pattern of
repetition in those shared qualities. For example, if
two individuals are judged to exhibit a similarity of
appearance, the individuals constitute multiple units
and their physical resemblance provides a point of
duplication or a “context” for their comparison.
The second, patterns of magnitude, are recognized
when a single unit is repeated in multiple contexts.
For example, the same person may be relocated to
a previously unexpected environment, providing an
element of duplication within a framework of shift-
ing conditions. Various names are given to a number
of different subtypes of pattern (such as opposition,
translation, completion, qualitative recontextualiza-
tion, and scale), but the definitions of these terms
are not essential for a rudimentary understanding
of the theory provided the data being identified con-
form to these basic stipulations of unit and context
interaction.
Surprise
To complete the model, pattern recognition theory
insists on the presence of novelty in humorous per-
ceptions. The apprehension of repetitive designs,
such as may appear in wallpaper or other graphic
illustrations, provides an intuitively identifiable pat-
tern but would usually fail to do so in a surprising
or novel fashion. Perceptions of this type would not
therefore meet the necessary conditions that pattern
recognition theory proposes for humor, whereas the
558 Pedagogy

unexpected duplication of a unit in stimuli such as various social superstructures such as calendrical
mimicry or caricature may do so. routines and linguistic communication, whereas pat-
terns of magnitude are correlated with the progress
Claims of technological improvement. Although the theory
does not deny that other species are capable of many
Pattern recognition theory claims universality
of the cognitive feats it identifies as examples of the
regarding its application, maintaining that it can be
human race’s ingenuity, it argues that humor has
used to explain any instance of humor regardless of
facilitated their unprecedented expansion in human
its nature or level of complexity. It also emphasizes
beings. Its evolution is therefore suggested to have
that patterns only exist as facets of perception while
occurred only in Homo sapiens, appearing as a fac-
the brain attempts to order and interpret external
ulty somewhere between the advent of anatomically
stimuli rather than as reflections of objective reality.
modern humans approximately 200,000 years ago
By suggesting that a substructure of patterns beneath
and the cultural watershed of the Upper Paleolithic
the content of the stimulus forms the basis of humor
160,000 years later.
but insisting that their perception is highly individu-
alized, the theory denies the possibility of intrinsic Alastair Clarke
funniness within any stimulus or genre of humor.
As a consequence, any subject matter may be found See also Cognitive Aspects; Creativity; Evolutionary
amusing provided the individual’s subjective assess- Explanations of Humor; Incongruity and Resolution
ment allows the conditions of novel pattern recog-
nition to be met. However, cultural influences will Further Readings
inevitably affect the tendency and ability to select
Clarke, A. (2010). The faculty of adaptability: Humour’s
and recognize patterns and will also lead to vary-
contribution to human ingenuity. Cumbria, UK: Pyrrhic
ing degrees of surprise at their apprehension, as will
House.
the individual’s repeated exposure to the stimulus.
Clarke, A. (2012). The attractive error: Humour’s role in
Humor is therefore an abstract, cognitive process
the war against infected memes. Cumbria, UK: Pyrrhic
encouraging the recognition of novel patterns of House.
potential value to the specific individual assessing
the information with which he or she is confronted.

Sense of Humor Failure PEDAGOGY

Pattern recognition theory agrees with the general
consensus that the activity and expression of humor
is bound to fail at times for good reasons, but states
that this process of curtailment has less to do with
the faculty of humor per se and more to do with the
necessity of curbing any emotional high, regardless
of its cause, during potentially dangerous situations.
This brake on the system is referred to as “the futil-
ity of dying happy” and is presented alongside the
altruistic impulse as one of two significant but sub-
jective restrictions on humor’s response mechanism.
Evolution
On an evolutionary basis, pattern recognition theory
proposes that humor exists to identify that which is
positive and useful in information rather than that
which is incorrect, and emphasizes its role in the for-
mation of human intellect, the proliferation of cul-
ture, and the ultimate success of the species. Patterns
of fidelity are considered to relate to the benefits of
Pedagogy is the art and science of education and
teaching. It is a term that can also be used as a refer-
ence to certain instructional strategies or approaches.
This entry discusses the research on the use of humor
in teaching and its effects on students and teachers,
with a focus on the most effective ways for teachers
to use humor.
A number of studies have shown positive benefits
in using humor as a teaching supplement or tool.
The pedagogical use of humor has been shown to
have both psychological and physiological effects on
learners. Psychologically, humor has been shown to
reduce anxiety, decrease stress, enhance self-esteem,
and increase self-motivation. Each of these effects
can be beneficial in the learning process by creat-
ing a more positive social and emotional environ-
ment in which defenses are lessened and students are
better able to focus and attend to the information.
Physiologically, laughter has been shown to improve
respiration and circulation, lower pulse rate, decrease

blood pressure, oxygenate blood, and release endor-
phins. Such effects can improve attention and lessen
stresses that might adversely impact learning.
There is a growing body of research relating the
use of humor with positive effects on teaching and
learning. Student surveys reveal that effective use of
humor in the classroom can increase their interest
in learning and provide a means to engage in more
divergent thinking. Humor was reported to make the
learning experience more enjoyable and accessible.
Additionally, humor in pedagogical settings has been
shown to increase the retention of material presented
in the classroom as compared with the presenta-
tion of the same material offered in a less engaging
format. Further, studies have found that instructors
who use appropriate and targeted humor in courses
enjoy an increase in participant attendance.
A review of teaching evaluations showed that
college students tend to strongly favor teachers who
possess a good sense of humor and rate these instruc-
tors with higher evaluative scores. When asked to
describe the positive attributes of good teachers,
college students frequently mentioned “a sense of
humor.” When students and faculty members were
asked to rate teachers based on their written teach-
ing philosophies, the teachers who were ranked
the highest revealed their approach to instruction
emphasized a positive sense of humor both in and
outside of the classroom. Humor can serve as a
bridge between educators and students by demon-
strating a shared understanding.
Using Humor With Caution
Humor can be complicated because it can be highly
personal, subjective, and contextual. Research has
demonstrated that there are a number of important
caveats when using humor in the classroom. Like
other senses that we possess, each person has his or
her own “sense of funny”—what one person may
perceive as amusing, another might find to be less
so, or even offensive. The pedagogical use of humor
must be carefully considered. Such humor must
be appropriate to the audience and targeted to the
topic. It must be clearly placed within the context of
the learning experience. The objective of the peda-
gogical use of humor is to communicate a connec-
tion. The goal is to enhance the learning process
and, thus, humor must ensure mutual respect of all
parties. Ill-conceived attempts at pedagogical uses of
humor can elicit unintended consequences or create
the very barriers that we seek to avoid. The use of
Pedagogy 559
poor or unrelated humor, practical jokes (that occur
at another’s expense), excessive sarcasm, or material
that defames or discriminates is not appropriate.
Not Mere Joke-Telling
Mere joke-telling is not likely an appropriate peda-
gogical use of humor. For humor to be most effective
in an academic setting, it must be specific, targeted,
and appropriate to the subject matter. Other than
for general icebreaking, offering a litany of unrelated
jokes has not been related to positive pedagogical
effects. It is not the humor, per se, that has the great-
est impact; it is the effective use of well-planned,
contextual humor that is key. One study revealed
that an excessive use of humor by instructors did
not have the desired positive effect; learning was
not enhanced by merely trying to interject humor
at every opportunity. The goal is not to offer pure
comic relief, but to present the material in a manner
that helps others better understand the point.
Proper Pedagogical Humor
Proper use of humor in pedagogical settings has a
number of characteristics. It is often helpful to focus
on positive humor and create a climate of recipro-
cal humor in which students can feel free to offer
a lighthearted reply. This also speaks to the impor-
tance of consistency in using humor. It can become
confusing for students if an instructor engages in
appropriate humor to enhance the class one day but
becomes dull and seemingly disinterested the next.
Students would be unsure as to the appropriate tone
of the class. This can create the very barriers to effec-
tive communication that we seek to avoid with the
application of humor as a teaching tool.
It is important that the humor be relevant to the
content, context, and situation. The proper use of
humor for pedagogical purposes is usually brief
so as not to create confusion by having people get
lost in the joke or story. It is also important to use
humor in a style that is comfortable for the teacher
or instructor. Awkward insertions of humor for the
sake of inclusion within the presentation can have
detrimental effects. Effective uses of humor in the
classroom are often enthusiastically delivered and
may appear to be spontaneous. Such apparent spon-
taneity can be deceiving, however, as the best use of
humor is often well-prepared and carefully thought
out. Some have suggested that teachers and instruc-
tors could benefit from the use of a humor journal
560 Personality, Humor and
to track what worked and what did not as they pre-
pare for future presentations. This allows for a more
reflective approach in determining what humorous
elements might best fit the content.
Less Is Usually More
Humor can be hard to sustain and, fortunately, that
is not the intention in the classroom. The instructor
is not there to do an “act”; the goal is to effectively
use humor to help others learn something of value.
Drawn-out stories or complicated joke-telling may
have the opposite effect. The desired impact is found
in helping others to see a point or better understand
a concept through the effective use of humor, not to
be a comedian. In fact, studies have shown that brief,
spur-of-the-moment applications of humor that spe-
cifically relate to the class discussion can be among
the most beneficial uses in pedagogical settings. Such
an application of humor can demonstrate the atten-
tiveness of the instructor and display currency with
the topic. In contrast, other research has found that
simply adding increased humor elements to the con-
tent of a class was not effective. In one study, highly
rated instructors were found to use humor much
more judiciously and sparingly than other faculty
who received only average teaching evaluations.
Using Funny Material
Some of the best uses of humor in pedagogical appli-
cations involve using humorous cartoons, videos,
and stories to illustrate a point. Again, the essence
of this strategy is the appropriate use of a humorous
element that works to help others better understand
an important issue or topic. Educators who may not
personally possess a comfortable sense of humor may
still enhance the classroom environment by using
outside sources. Humorous video clips from situation
comedies, game shows, reality TV, and so forth, can
be used in the learning environment. The inclusion of
well-targeted cartoons or a humorous Top 10 List,
for example, has been shown to produce a positive
pedagogical effect, resulting in a more relaxed class-
room atmosphere and increased student interest and
retention of material. Some research has suggested a
sequence for including humorous material into the
classroom. According to this approach, the instruc-
tor would first start by explaining the content or
information without humor. This would then be fol-
lowed by a humorous demonstration, visual, or activ-
ity. Finally, the information and how it relates to the
humorous example would be explored and discussed.
Humor Effects for the Instructor
The benefits of using humor in pedagogical settings
are not restricted to the student. Studies have shown
that using humor in the classroom can make teach-
ing more fun and enjoyable. Achieving excellence
in teaching requires creativity and challenges one
to present information in a way that can be more
successful for the student. Such a challenge helps
instructors to be more engaged and involved. Those
who thoroughly know the content of what is being
taught can find stimulation and enjoyment as they
seek to discover new ways of presenting the infor-
mation. Researchers have found that instructors
who regularly use well-targeted humor report that it
can relieve their own stress and tension, resulting in
a more conducive environment for both the teacher
and the students.
Randy Garner
See also Education, Humor in; Teachers’ Evaluations,
Effect of Humor Use in Classroom on; Testing and
Evaluation
Further Readings
Garner, R. (2005, Winter). Humor, analogy, and metaphor:
H.A.M. it up in teaching. Radical Pedagogy, 6(2).
Retrieved August 27, 2013, from http://www.radical
pedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy8/Humor,_Analogy,_
and_Metaphor__H.A.M._it_up_in_Teaching.html
Garner, R. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can
lead to aha! College Teaching, 57(1), 177–180.
Glenn, R. (2002). Brain research: Practical applications for
the classroom. Teaching for Excellence, 21(5), 1–2.
Hill, D. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for
teachers. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
PERSONALITY, HUMOR AND
Humor is often thought of as being a personal char-
acteristic of an individual. Thus, some individuals
have a “good sense of humor,” whereas others do
not. This personality approach to humor assumes
that humor is a relatively stable attribute within the
individual and that it is expressed across numerous
events and situations. Over the years, personality
psychologists have expended considerable energy
investigating what “sense of humor” actually con-
sists of and then determining how to best measure
this construct. This has led to the development of
a number of different measures of sense of humor,

ranging from actual behavioral tests (e.g., construct
a funny monologue on a given topic, engage in a cre-
ative humorous task) to a wide variety of self-report
measures (e.g., rate oneself on the ability to appreci-
ate humor, express humor, tell jokes, or use humor
to cope). This entry explores sense of humor as a
personality construct, including its various aspects
and its relation to other personality constructs, and
examines relevant research.
Documenting the Various Aspects
of Sense of Humor
Psychological work in this domain, which can be
traced back at least 50 years, was focused on docu-
menting individual differences in humor apprecia-
tion for cartoons, jokes, and other humorous stimuli.
In addition to examining differences between indi-
viduals in their funniness and enjoyment ratings for
this type of material, this work also considered how
these humor appreciation ratings were related to
other aspects of personality. Typical findings indi-
cated that more extroverted people tended to show
higher funniness ratings for jokes and cartoons,
whereas more authoritarian people had a greater
appreciation for humor that could be resolved (e.g.,
jokes) than for nonsense humor.
This early work on humor appreciation provided
initial empirical support for the proposal that humor
could be usefully conceptualized as a personality
construct. It failed, however, to consider that there
are many other aspects of sense of humor that are
not captured by funniness ratings. Humor appre-
ciation focuses almost exclusively on one’s ability to
comprehend and enjoy “canned” humor (i.e., jokes,
cartoons, comedy routines). As such, it virtually
ignores many other important aspects of sense of
humor, such as creating or engaging in humorous
banter in social settings and interpersonal relation-
ships or using humor to cope effectively with stress-
ful life events.
This issue was dealt with by the next generation
of humor personality theorists, as they developed
various self-report measures that captured sev-
eral of these additional aspects of sense of humor.
One of the earliest of these measures, the Sense of
Humor Questionnaire, emerged in the mid-1970s
and helped promote the view that sense of humor
should be thought of as a multifaceted construct that
functions in a very broad social and intrapersonal
context. Thus, one of the subscales on this measure
assessed “meta-message sensitivity,” or the cognitive
Personality, Humor and 561
ability to shift to a nonserious playful perspective
on the world; a second subscale assessed attitudes
toward humorous situations and people; and a third
assessed mirth or laughter for a wide range of situ-
ations. The first two subscales have shown accept-
able (i.e., reliable and valid) psychometrics, with
both evolving into much shorter versions that are
still in use today. However, in recognition of psy-
chometric problems with the third subscale, other
humor researchers have developed a more reliable
measure for assessing mirth and laughter, namely,
the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire
(SHRQ). This scale focuses on one specific aspect of
sense of humor: the frequency of emotional expres-
sion of smiling and laughter in typical situations that
a person might encounter. This laughter scale and a
brief self-report Coping Humor Scale (e.g., “I can
usually find something to laugh or joke about, even
in trying situations”) have been employed success-
fully for many years to examine how individuals use
their sense of humor to deal effectively with stress-
ful life experiences and how these two personality
aspects of sense of humor may relate to increased
physical and psychological well-being. In particular,
those displaying greater laughter or mirth, as well
as those using more coping humor, typically show
a stress-moderator effect for these two aspects of
humor, as they have much lower depression levels
after encountering negative life events that those
with low levels of mirth or coping humor.
Over the next 20 years or so (to the turn of the
21st century), a number of additional personality-
based measures of sense of humor were developed.
The increasing recognition of the multifaceted
nature of this personality construct resulted in the
Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale, with sepa-
rate self-report assessments of coping humor, humor
appreciation, humor production, creative ability,
social humor, and playfulness. This playful aspect
of sense of humor has also been captured by the
State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory, which suggested
that those with a good sense of humor are more
temperamentally cheerful and maintain a nonserious
attitude toward life.
This strong psychological tradition of describing
and measuring different personality aspects of sense
of humor has continued into the 21st century. One
recent approach, for example, stems from a posi-
tive psychology perspective, with its description and
measurement of 24 positive character strengths that
individuals may possess, including humor, love, and
kindness. This work has shown that a greater sense
562 Personality, Humor and
of humor (when defined as liking to joke, laugh, and
bring smiles to others) can enhance life satisfaction
and contribute to one’s psychological well-being.
This singular focus on social humor, however, falls
prey to the same limitation raised over 40 years ago in
the context of work on humor appreciation; namely,
it ignores other potentially important personality
aspects of humor. This issue remains relevant, given
that contemporary personality approaches to sense
of humor have clearly documented very different
relationships between individual aspects of sense of
humor and other personality constructs.
Sense of Humor in Relation to Other
Personality Characteristics
In addition to describing the various aspects of sense
of humor, personality investigators have begun to
explore how these aspects relate to other personal
attributes an individual may possess. One robust
and consistent pattern is that many of the aspects of
sense of humor are linked to greater extraversion.
Thus, individuals who display increased laughter,
greater humor appreciation, and heightened coping
humor (including self-enhancing humor) are also
more outgoing and gregarious, with a stronger social
focus. Furthermore, these individuals approach life
with a more adaptive orientation, as they are more
joyful and optimistic and have greater self-esteem
and more positive affect. These personal characteris-
tics then lead them to seek out and engage in a wider
range of positive life experiences.
It is important to note, however, that not all
aspects of sense of humor display the same pattern
of associations with these personality constructs.
In this regard, one prominent personality-based
model has identified four different humor styles:
self-enhancing, self-defeating, aggressive, and affili-
ative. Self-enhancing humor reduces personal stress
by using a humorous perspective when dealing with
adverse life situations. This style is closely aligned
with coping humor and shows the same strong posi-
tive relationship with psychological well-being. In
particular, those with higher levels of self-enhancing
humor have lower levels of depression and anxiety
and higher levels of intimacy, self-esteem, social sup-
port, and relationship satisfaction.
In marked contrast, those with higher levels of
self-defeating humor (the characteristic use of humor
to excessively put down one’s self in order to gain
approval from others) show precisely the opposite
pattern: They exhibit higher depression and anxiety,
along with lower self-esteem, reduced intimacy, and
poorer social support. Furthermore, those with high
levels of aggressive humor (a maladaptive style)
generally report higher levels of hostility and lower
relationship satisfaction, whereas those high on
affiliative humor show modest increases in positive
relationships and well-being.
Taken together, the previously described pattern
clearly points to instances in which the different
aspects of sense of humor can have either positive
or negative implications for the individual (or oth-
ers). In doing so, this work highlights the need for
contemporary personality approaches to sense
of humor to consider more complex models that
acknowledge multiple aspects of sense of humor, not
all of which are beneficial. In particular, maladap-
tive aspects, such as self-defeating humor, show how
detrimental humor can be, as these individuals are
also characterized by increased levels of neuroticism,
negative affect, poor interpersonal relationships, and
reduced social skills.
Further Investigations of Sense of Humor
as a Personality Construct
Over the past decade there has been a virtual explo-
sion of research on personality aspects of humor.
Some of this work has examined how sense of
humor may impact physical health and well-being.
As one illustration, as part of a large public health
survey in Norway, a recent epidemiological study
assessed the cognitive, social, and affective compo-
nents of sense of humor in more than 52,000 adults.
These individuals were then followed prospectively
for 7 years. Of special note is that individuals scoring
higher on this sense of humor measure had signifi-
cantly lower mortality rates until the age of 65 years.
Similar findings have been reported for other studies
involving patient samples (end-stage renal disease,
cancer), with a greater sense of humor improving
quality of life while ill, and sometimes increasing
longevity. Very little is yet known, however, about
whether any of the maladaptive aspects of humor
(e.g., self-defeating humor) have a long-term detri-
mental impact on physical health and longevity.
As described earlier, other research has examined
how sense of humor may relate to psychological
well-being and quality of life. Many of these per-
sonality-based studies have found significant links,
with certain aspects of sense of humor (e.g., self-
enhancing) contributing to enhanced psychological
well-being and other aspects (e.g., self-defeating)

leading to a decrement in quality of life and well-
being. It is only recently, however, that the proposed
mechanisms underlying these relationships have
been examined in more detail. It has been suggested
that adaptive humor fosters a change of perspective
and emotional distancing from stressful life events,
thus minimizing negative affect. In addition, how-
ever, the use of adaptive humor can also increase the
expression of mirth and positive affect. This positive
enhancement effect then provides a broader founda-
tion for searching out additional positive experiences
that can also contribute to the richness in one’s life.
A large portion of the recent psychological
work on humor and personality has been guided
by the humor styles model, as this contemporary
personality-based approach provides a robust
theoretical and empirical foundation for consider-
ing other issues surrounding both adaptive and
maladaptive humor styles. Some of this research,
for example, has addressed the perennial nature
versus nurture distinction for traits, with the adap-
tive humor styles (i.e., self-enhancing and affiliative)
showing stronger genetic influences and the mal-
adaptive styles (i.e., self-defeating and aggressive)
showing stronger environmental contributions.
Other work has shown that the ability to more accu-
rately perceive emotions (one aspect of emotional
intelligence), along with other important social skills
and competencies such as the ability to strike up a
conversation, are much more evident in those indi-
viduals displaying higher levels of adaptive humor.
Finally, a very recent line of research has examined
the impact of using the different humor styles in
brief social interactions. Not unexpectedly, the use
of aggressive humor had the most detrimental effects
on recipients’ willingness to remain engaged in a
social interaction or seek out further meetings with
the individual using that maladaptive humor style. It
is interesting that the style of humor used also had
an impact on how recipients (who were exposed to
that humor) felt about themselves, with adaptive
humor leading to more positive and less negative
self-evaluations than maladaptive humor.
Nicholas A. Kuiper
See also Depression; Health Benefits of Humor,
Psychological; Humor Styles
Further Readings
Cann, A., Zapata, C. L., & Davis, H. (2011). Humor style
and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: Perceived
Persuasion and Humor 563
versus self-reported humor styles as predictors of
satisfaction. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 24, 1–20.
Ibarra-Rovillard, M. S., & Kuiper, N. A. (2011). The effects
of humor and depression labels on reactions to social
comments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52,
448–456.
Jovanovic, V. (2011). Do humor styles matter in the
relationship between personality and subjective well-
being? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 502–507.
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Svebak, S. (2010). The Sense of Humor Questionnaire:
Conceptualization and review of 40 years of findings in
empirical research. Europe’s Journal of Psychology,
6(3), 288–310.
PERSUASION AND HUMOR
The study of humor and persuasion focuses on
how the amusement felt in response to a message
influences the attitudes and behaviors of its audi-
ence. This overview addresses the use and effects of
humor in advertising and other persuasion contexts,
articulating the extent of humor’s persuasive power,
the conditions under which it tends to be effective,
the psychological mechanisms that may explain its
effects, and more recent contexts of humor and per-
suasion inquiry.
Humor’s Persuasive Influence in Advertising
The use of humor as a persuasive tool in advertis-
ing has evolved over the past 100 years, gaining
greater favor more recently because of multiple fac-
tors, including the more frequent use of emotional
appeals generally, changing technologies of message
delivery, and the changing tone and content of enter-
tainment media. As such, there has been increasing
attention in the academic literature to humor’s per-
suasive effects.
Several early reviews of the humor in advertis-
ing literature concluded that no consistent evidence
existed to support its persuasive effect. However, a
recent meta-analysis, or statistically based review, of
the literature supported the following conclusions:
First, humor increases attention to advertisements
and produces positive affect. Second, despite these
effects, humor does not meaningfully impact the
positive or negative thoughts audiences have dur-
ing ad exposure nor does it enhance liking of the
564 Persuasion and Humor
message source, as previously thought. Indeed, not
only does it not enhance source liking, humor can
actually detract from the source’s credibility or the
audience’s views of the source’s expertise and trust-
worthiness. Third, and especially important, humor
associates with increases in ad liking, brand liking,
and purchase intention—all of which are direct
measures of persuasive influence. However, there is
no consistent evidence that humor impacts ad recall
or purchase behavior, the ultimate goal of commer-
cial advertisements. Thus, humor has the potential
to enhance psychological states associated with
persuasion—attitudes and intentions specifically—
although the lack of behavioral effects suggests tem-
pered enthusiasm for its persuasive benefit.
Conditions of Humor’s Persuasive Effect
As with the study of emotions and persuasion gen-
erally, a key question is less about whether humor
has effect but rather under what conditions it does.
Couched largely within the context of cognitive
response theories of persuasion, which assume that
thoughts during message processing predict persua-
sive outcomes, studies have identified individual and
message variables that moderate humor’s influence,
including prior attitude, involvement level, need for
cognition, argument strength, and source reactions.
Research results suggest that humor is effective pri-
marily if one is predisposed to like a product or if
one is not motivated to process a message carefully,
in which case humor’s persuasive impact is likely to
be short-lived, according to cognitive response the-
orizing. In sum, the advertising literature supports
humor’s capacity to persuade, but its effects are
likely more modest than many assume them to be.
Psychological Mechanisms Underlying
the Persuasive Effect of Humor
To the extent humor has persuasive influence, schol-
ars have investigated the routes through which these
effects emerge, specifically focusing on whether
they are affectively or cognitively based. Affect-
based arguments suggest humor influences attitudes
through the positive feelings evoked. Cognitive-
based arguments focus on how humor influences
the thoughts generated about the message. In fact,
meta-analytic research indicates that although the
affective model explains the collection of humor
effects quite well, there is strong support for a com-
bined affective-cognitive model. Specifically, evi-
dence suggests that the positive affect generated by
humorous advertisements directs cognitive effort to
both reduce motivation to counterargue message
claims and maintain the positive emotional state.
Additionally, the cognitive demands of processing
humor itself further detracts from an audience’s abil-
ity to counterargue claims, thus setting the stage for
influence, albeit likely short-lived.
Newer Directions of Humor
and Persuasion Research
Recently, the study of humor and persuasion has
extended beyond marketing contexts to other
domains, specifically political and health commu-
nication, which has led to newer theorizing about
the extent and process of humor’s persuasive influ-
ence. This line of inquiry was largely motivated by
the emergence of highly popular political satire pro-
grams, like The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, that
have attracted millions of viewers to their humor-
ous and potentially persuasive social commentary.
Although empirical findings regarding the persuasive
influence of such programming are limited, these
and other more novel message forms (e.g., viral vid-
eos) have led to a greater appreciation for humor’s
value in the current media environment. Specifically,
scholars have begun to emphasize the critical advan-
tage humor has in attracting attention to persuasive
messages, an essential step in the persuasion process.
If humor helps garner attention to messages beyond
what serious messages might, as is the case in politi-
cal entertainment, for example, humorous messages
enjoy an inherent and substantial persuasive advan-
tage over other message styles. Further, humorous
messages are more likely to be socially shared than
nonhumorous ones, thus increasing their potential
exposure and influence.
Entertainment-based humor and persuasion con-
texts have also generated new insights into the pro-
cess and timing of persuasive influence. Specifically,
growing evidence supports the idea that humor may
generate “sleeper effects,” or persuasive effects that
emerge after some time from message exposure
has passed. To explain this effect, the discounting
cue hypothesis has been proposed, suggesting that
humor may not have immediate persuasive effect
because although audiences attend closely to humor-
ous messages for enjoyment, they discount them
as jokes not intended to persuade, thus minimizing
the immediate effect of message content on their
attitudes. However, given humor generated close
message attention and processing, message content

is stored cognitively such that it can exert influence
on attitudes over time. Of particular interest, this
hypothesis suggests humor has the potential for
more long-lived persuasive influence than previous
models have allowed.
As the potential advantages of humor use have
been explored in serious contexts, like health pro-
motion, there is increasing acknowledgment that it
can also be counterproductive by appearing to trivi-
alize important issues. Thus, as with all humor and
persuasion contexts, the type of humor employed
and its integration with message content become
particularly important issues to consider as schol-
ars continue to specify the conditions under which
humor exerts persuasive influence.
Robin L. Nabi
See also Advertising, Effectiveness of Humor in;
Cognitive Aspects; Political Humor; Rhetoric and
Rhetorical Devices; Satire News
Further Readings
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in
advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37, 191–203.
Eisend, M. (2011). How humor in advertising works: A
meta-analytic test of alternative models. Marketing
Letters, 22, 115–132.
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Guse, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking
aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect
of funny social issue messages. Communication
Monographs, 74, 29–54.
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of
humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising,
21, 35–59.
PHILOGELOS
Philogelos (The Laughter-Lover) is the only sur-
viving jokebook from antiquity written in ancient
Greek. Other traces include the Roman author
Fulgentius (5th/6th centuries CE), who mentions
liber facetiarum (a jokebook) written by Tacitus,
but the book’s existence is most likely to be fabri-
cated by Fulgentius himself, as was noted by Barry
Baldwin. Some scholars see a possible predecessor
for the Philogelos in a jokebook that may have been
produced by a “Group of Sixty,” whose members
lived in Athens in the time of Demosthenes and
Philip the Macedonian. The title of this jokebook is
Philogelos 565
attested in manuscript tradition and its authorship
is sometimes ascribed to Hierocles and Philagrius,
a grammatician, but whether these were the actual
writers is unknown. Nothing else is known about
the identities of Hierocles and Philagrius, despite
hypotheses by scholars such as Baldwin and Andreas
Thierfelder.
Hierocles has been identified as the famous 5th-
century Neoplatonist philosopher by that name, but
this seems to be a misconception by the Philogelos’s
17th-century editor. A grammarian called Philagrius
is also virtually unknown (although a sophist
Philagrius is mentioned in Lives of the Sophists by
Philostratus). The Byzantine lexicon Suda credits a
mime writer, Philistion, with the authorship of the
Philogelos, describing it as the book that is aimed
at or brought to the koureus, as suggested by
Baldwin. This was interpreted as information that
such jokes were common at the barber’s (which is
what koureus may mean) or as a corrupt version
of the toponym Kurium. The word koureus also
was emended, unconvincingly, to Hierocles. A 12th-
century scholar, John Tzetzes, mistakenly writes
about a book by Philogelos, thus confusing author
and title. It is thus impossible to tell with absolute
certainty who invented the jokes in the Philogelos
(but wouldn’t this be equally true for most jokes
throughout the centuries?), although it is plau-
sible that Hierocles and Philagrius were indeed the
compilers.
Dating and Origins
Because there is no external information regarding
the composition date, scholars have tried to extrap-
olate the date from internal evidence, although
this did not prove completely successful. It is now
believed the collection was put together sometime
between the 4th and 5th centuries CE. Yet that
says nothing about the original date or dates of the
jokes themselves, which may have been rearranged
linguistically to suit later audiences. Language and
cultural realities of various periods (classical times
and the imperial period) coexist in Philogelos.
A later date is suggested by a number of Latinisms
and some expressions that are latecomers to the
Greek language (such as kyrios/kyrie, a later generic
form of address, “Mister!”). As Baldwin pointed
out, the language is usually a simplified Greek. Some
jokes point to specific historical occasions, which
can be dated as pre–4th century; for instance, joke
number 62 alludes to the games organized in 248 by
566 Philosophy of Humor
the Emperor Philip the Arab, and joke number 76
refers to the Serapeum in Alexandria, destroyed in
391. The birthplace and time of the Philogelos are
simply impossible to ascertain. Some of the jokes
also appear in other sources, for example, in Plutarch
(nos. 263, 264) and Cicero (no. 193).
Nature of the Collection
The collection consists of 265 jokes (a number of
them repeated) arranged according to the charac-
ters that are ridiculed. The protagonist of nearly
half of them (nos. 1–103) is the scholastikos, some-
times translated as “professor” and, perhaps more
convincingly, as “egghead” by Baldwin. Then fol-
low the jokes that could be termed “ethnic,” since
they mock the inhabitants of cities such as Abdera
(nos. 110–127), Sidon (nos. 128–139), and Kyme
(nos. 154–182). Whereas the reputation for stupid-
ity of citizens of Abdera and Kyme is well attested in
other sources, it is not quite clear why the Sidonians
earned a place in this collection. There are also jests
about doctors (a popular and recurring theme in
ancient literature) and people with bad breath, some
of them bordering on disgusting (e.g., no. 231: “A
man with bad breath decided to kill himself, so he
covered his face and was asphyxiated”).
In many cases the humor of the joke does not
require any knowledge of antiquity to be under-
stood and appreciated. For example, “When buy-
ing some windows, a man from Kyme asked if
they faced south” (no. 165) is intelligible even if a
reader is ignorant of the proverbial stupidity of the
citizens of Kyme. In fact, only a limited number of
jokes either need a very specialized commentary or
are completely incomprehensible. As some scholars
have noted, the collected jokes do not contain any
moral messages but are based on principles such as
absurdity and wordplay. Possibly this explains the
longevity of the collection, which in recent years has
been celebrated by the media as a direct inspiration
for the jokes of Monty Python.
Modern Versions
The first modern translation of the Philogelos was
into Latin (the editio princeps of 1605), followed
by German (1618, 1747, 1789, etc.), French,
and Modern Greek (both prepared in 1812 by
Adamantios Korais, a founder of Modern Greek lit-
erature). Twenty-eight jokes, heavily bowdlerized,
appeared in English translation in an anonymous
article (most likely authored by Samuel Johnson)
published in The Gentleman’s Magazine in 1741
and titled “The Pedants, or Jests of Hierocles.”
Przemysław Marciniak
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Greek Comedy;
Ancient Roman Comedy; Ethnic Jokes; Foolstowns;
Forest of Laughter and Traditional Chinese Jestbooks;
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Jokes; National and
Ethnic Differences; Nonsense; Stereotypes; Targets of
Humor; Translation; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Andreassi, M. (2004). Le facezie del Philogelos: Barzellette
antiche e umorismo moderno [The witty remarks of the
Philogelos: Antique jokes and modern humor]. Lecce,
Italy: Pensa Multimedia Editore.
Baldwin, B. (Ed. & Trans.). (1983). The Philogelos or
Laughter-lover. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gieben.
Baldwin, B. (1989). John Tzetzes and the Philogelos. In
B. Baldwin, Roman and Byzantine papers (pp. 329–331).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gieben.
Baldwin, B. (1989). The Philogelos: An ancient jokebook.
In B. Baldwin, Roman and Byzantine papers
(pp. 624–637). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gieben.
Fornaro, S. (2013). Philogelos. Brill’s New Pauly. Retrieved
from http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/brill-s-new-
pauly/philogelos-e920910
Thierfelder, A. (Ed.). (1968). Philogelos: Der Lachfreund
[Philogelos: The friend of laughter]. Munich, Germany:
Heimeran.
PHILOSOPHY OF HUMOR
The philosophy of anything is both descriptive and
evaluative, examining what it is and how it fits into
human life. The philosophy of art, for example, con-
siders possible definitions of art and explores the value
of art. This entry examines three traditional accounts
of humor and its place in human life: the superior-
ity, relief, and incongruity theories. Because the word
humor did not have its current meaning associated
with funniness until the 18th century, in searching for
earlier ideas about humor, researchers look for other
key words, such as laughter and comedy.
The Superiority Theory
In Western thought, the earliest documents that
describe and evaluate humor were written by Plato
in the 4th century BCE. They present laughter and
comedy in a predominantly negative light as based

on scorn for the people being laughed at. Plato’s
thinking here seems to have been influenced by
Aristophanes’s mockery of Plato’s teacher, Socrates,
in his comedy The Clouds. Plato also objected to the
way laughing people lose control of their bodies and
their mental processes. With that loss of control, he
says, our violent urges often emerge and people get
hurt. Understanding laughter in this way, Plato saw
it as mostly harmful. In the ideal state, he said, com-
edy should be tightly censored and no one should be
allowed to make fun of citizens, leaders, or the gods.
Plato’s student Aristotle agreed that laughter puts
people down, but he saw some value to wittiness in
conversation. Both Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of
humor are considered versions of what is now called
the superiority theory. In that account, humorous
amusement is the enjoyment of feeling superior to
other people, or to a former state of ourselves. A clas-
sic proponent of the superiority theory was Thomas
Hobbes, who said that the feeling expressed in laugh-
ter is sudden glory. Like Plato, Hobbes saw laughter
as antisocial and often cruel. René Descartes, a con-
temporary of Hobbes, offered a more complex expla-
nation of laughter as accompanying three of the six
basic emotions—(mild) hatred, wonder, love, desire,
joy, and sadness—but he gave most of his attention
to laughter as an expression of scorn and ridicule.
From the time of Plato to the 18th century, the
superiority theory was the dominant way of under-
standing humor, and so most thinkers who wrote
about laughter and comedy evaluated them nega-
tively. Many early Christian thinkers condemned
laughter for the same reasons Plato did, as being
malicious, involving a loss of control, and leading
to violence. They got this idea not only from Greek
philosophy but from the Bible, in which there is a
strong connection between laughter and aggression.
The only way God is represented as laughing in
the Bible is with scorn and hostility. The Christian
institution that most emphasized self-control—the
monastery—had harsh criticisms of laughter, and
penalties for monks who laughed during rituals.
Similarly, 17th-century Puritans condemned laugh-
ter as incompatible with Christian sobriety, and
when they took control of England under Oliver
Cromwell, they outlawed comedy.
A century after Hobbes and Descartes, Francis
Hutcheson wrote a critique of the superiority theory.
Feeling superior to other people, he said, is neither
necessary nor sufficient for laughter. We may laugh
at clever wordplay, for instance, without feeling
superior to anyone, and we may feel superior to
Philosophy of Humor 567
beggars in the street without laughing at them. To
such counterexamples to the superiority theory, we
could add more. In the silent movies of a century
ago, comic characters like Charlie Chaplin often got
laughs by displaying surprising acrobatic skills that
the audience lacked. If people in the audience com-
pared themselves at all to Chaplin as they laughed,
they did not come out superior. Another counterex-
ample to the superiority theory is our laughter at our
current selves, not just earlier stages of ourselves,
as, for example, when we look for our glasses for
5 minutes, only to find them on our head.
The Relief Theory
In the 18th century, two new accounts of laughter
began to compete with the superiority theory. They
are now called the relief theory and the incongruity
theory. In neither account are feelings of superiority
even mentioned. The relief theory says that laugh-
ter functions in the nervous system much as a pres-
sure-relief valve works in a steam boiler—it releases
pent-up energy that is not necessary for anything.
According to a simple version by Herbert Spencer,
nervous energy naturally leads to bodily movement.
When we are angry, our nervous energy produces
small aggressive movements such as clenching our
fists. When we are frightened, we make small move-
ments of self-protection or escape. When those emo-
tions get strong enough, we may hit someone or run
away. According to Spencer, laughter also releases
nervous energy, but the muscular movements in
laughter are not the early stages of larger actions
such as attacking or fleeing. The movements of
laughter are merely a release of nervous energy.
The nervous energy relieved through laughter,
Spencer said, is associated with emotions that are
found to be unnecessary. If we are riding a bicycle,
for example, and think we are going to fall but then
regain safety, our laughter is the release of our pent-
up fear. John Dewey had a similar explanation of
laughter as the sudden relaxation of stress.
The best known version of the relief theory is
that of Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis.
Freud analyzes three laughter situations. He called
them “der Witz” (often translated “jokes” or “jok-
ing”), “the comic,” and “humor.” The laughter in all
three is a release of nervous energy that has become
unnecessary. In der Witz, the superfluous energy
was summoned to repress feelings; in the comic, it
is energy summoned to think; and in humor, it is the
energy of feeling emotions.
568 Philosophy of Humor
In der Witz, Freud says, we express emotions
that we ordinarily repress, and the psychic energy
released by laughing is energy that would have
repressed these emotions. The most commonly
repressed emotions, according to Freud, are sexual
desire and hostility, so most jokes and witty remarks
are sexual, aggressive, or both. In telling such a joke,
we bypass our internal censor and give vent to our
real feelings, so the psychic energy normally used to
do the repressing becomes superfluous and is vented
in laughter.
Freud’s second laughter situation, the comic, also
involves a release of energy summoned but then
found unnecessary, but here it is energy for thinking.
Freud assumes here that we expend a large amount
of energy to understand something large and a small
amount of energy to understand something small.
Suppose that we are watching the clumsy actions of
a circus clown. As we watch him stumble through
actions that we would execute smoothly, our mental
representation of those clumsy movements calls for
more energy than the energy we would expend to
mentally represent our own smooth movements in
performing the same task. So, Freud says, we “save”
the energy we might have spent on understanding
the clown’s movements, and we vent that surplus
energy by laughing.
Freud calls his third laughter situation humor and
analyzes it in the way Spencer analyzed laughter in
general. We summon nervous energy to feel some
emotion, but then we realize that that emotion is
inappropriate. So the energy is laughed away. That
would explain our laughter as we regain our safety
on the bicycle.
Of the three traditional theories of humor, the
relief theory has found the least acceptance. Today
almost no scholar explains laughter or humor as a
release of pent-up nervous energy. Some funny things
and situations may evoke emotions, but many do
not. If I see a cloud that looks like an elephant, for
example, I may laugh without releasing any unnec-
essary built-up emotional energy. Even when funny
stimuli evoke emotions, few thinkers today defend
the claims of Spencer and Freud that the laughter is a
release of energy summoned to feel or to repress those
emotions. The hydraulic model of the nervous system
on which the relief theory is based seems outdated.
The Incongruity Theory
Whereas the relief theory did not pose much of
a challenge to the superiority theory, the other
account of humor that arose in the 18th century,
the incongruity theory, did. In this account, the
cause of laughter is the perception of something
incongruous—something that violates our men-
tal patterns and expectations. In ancient times,
Aristotle and Cicero hinted at this idea, although
neither developed it. Aristotle said that one way for
a speaker to get a laugh from an audience is to create
an expectation and then violate it. Cicero said that
in jokes we often expect one thing but something
else is said. This explanation of joking is similar to
that of stand-up comedians today, who speak of the
setup and the punch line. The setup is the beginning
of the joke that creates the expectation. The punch
line is the ending that violates that expectation.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, a number of phi-
losophers worked out versions of the incongruity
theory, including James Beattie, Immanuel Kant,
Arthur Schopenhauer, and Søren Kierkegaard. In
the 20th century, the incongruity theory became the
dominant account of laughter and humor in both
philosophy and psychology.
The most famous early version of the incongru-
ity theory is that of Kant, who described laughter
as an emotion caused by the sudden transforma-
tion of an expectation into nothing. The end of a
joke, for example, requires listeners to shift to an
absurd second meaning for a word or phrase. That
frustrates the desire to understand, Kant said, and is
not gratifying to the mind, but the jostling of ideas
causes a physical jostling of our internal organs that
feels good. As a joke evokes, shifts, and then dis-
sipates our thoughts, we do not learn anything or
understand anything better, Kant thinks, and so he
finds nothing of intellectual worth in jokes or humor
generally.
A later version of the incongruity theory, by
Schopenhauer, granted it more philosophical sig-
nificance. For him the incongruity, the lack of fit,
in humor is between our sense perceptions of things
and our abstract rational knowledge of those same
things. Our sense perception is of unique individual
things with many properties. But as we subsume
our sense perceptions under abstract concepts, we
pick out just one or two properties of any indi-
vidual thing. In doing so, we lump quite different
things under a single concept, as when we call both
a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard dogs. Humorous
amusement occurs, according to Schopenhauer,
when we suddenly notice the incongruity, the lack
of fit, between a concept and a perception that are
supposedly of the same thing.

Creating jokes requires intellectual skill,
Schopenhauer says, especially the ability to think of
an abstract idea under which very different things
can be subsumed. So he gives humor more credit
than Kant gave it, just as Aristotle gave it more credit
than Plato did. Schopenhauer also finds in humor
an intellectual pleasure that Kant denied. Where
perceptions clash with abstract thoughts, he says,
what is perceived is bound to be right. Perception
is the original kind of human knowledge; it is auto-
matic and immediately gratifying. Abstract thought,
on the other hand, is secondary knowledge and
requires exertion. When the two clash in humor, it is
gratifying to have perception validated and abstract
thought discredited.
Like Schopenhauer and unlike Kant, Kierkegaard
thought of humor as philosophically significant.
He locates the essence of humor in a discrepancy
between what is expected and what is experienced,
although he calls it contradiction rather than incon-
gruity. The violation of expectations is the essence
not only of the comic, he says, but of the tragic. In
both, some experience contradicts our expectations.
The difference is that in the tragic mode, we despair
of a way out, whereas in the comic mode, we figure
a way out.
In these and later versions of the incongruity
theory, the core meaning of incongruity is that some
thing or some event we perceive or think about vio-
lates our mental patterns and expectations. Beyond
that core, different thinkers add different details. In
psychology, for example, theorists such as Thomas
Schultz and Jerry Suls claim that what we enjoy in
humor is not incongruity per se, but the resolution
of incongruity. With children over the age of 6 years,
Schultz says, it is not enough to present them with
something incongruous in order to amuse them.
Something in the humor must fit the apparently
anomalous element into some conceptual schema.
That is precisely what “getting” a joke is. Schultz
is even unwilling to call unresolvable incongruity
humor—he calls it nonsense. The examples cited
by those who insist on the resolution of incongruity
are typically jokes in which a word or phrase has
a second meaning that emerges in the punch line.
Consider the children’s riddle:
Why can’t you starve in the desert?
Because of the sand which is there.
Initially, the hearer of this joke is confronted with
the incongruity of an absurd explanation: You
Philosophy of Humor 569
can’t starve in a place that has sand. But then the
hearer notices that “sand which is there” sounds like
“sandwiches there.” That awareness resolves the
incongruity and allows the answer to make sense in
a certain way: In a place that has sandwiches, you
won’t starve.
Although this incongruity-resolution theory of
humor sounds plausible with many jokes, it does
not seem to apply to most nonverbal humor, in
which we simply notice something odd and take
pleasure in that oddity. Consider the “Nun Bun,”
a pastry found in a coffee shop in Nashville,
Tennessee, in 1996 that resembled Mother Teresa of
Calcutta. To find this incongruity funny, it does not
seem necessary to resolve it. What, indeed, would
resolve it, other than a story about a baker shaping
the dough so that it would come out of the oven
looking like Mother Teresa? What seems funny here
is the odd coincidence itself, not an explanation of
that coincidence. And even where humor involves
the resolution of incongruity, the pleasure in amuse-
ment seems quite different from the pleasure of
solving a puzzle.
As philosophers and psychologists carried on
debates like this in the late 20th century, one flaw
in several older versions of the incongruity theory
became obvious. Older theories often said or
implied that all that is necessary for humor is the
perception of incongruity. But, however necessary
the perception of incongruity might be for humor,
it is clearly not sufficient. When our mental patterns
and expectations are violated, we may feel fear, dis-
gust, or anger rather than amusement. To learn that
a loved one has unexpectedly died in a plane crash,
for example, is incongruous but not funny. One way
to correct this flaw is to say that humorous amuse-
ment is not just any response to incongruity; it is
the enjoyment of incongruity. In fear, disgust, and
anger, we are upset by the incongruity; in humor, the
incongruity delights us.
That refinement helps, but it still seems not
specific enough, because there are other ways of
enjoying incongruity besides humorous amusement.
Indeed, there are at least five aesthetic categories
beyond the comic based on enjoying incongruity. In
the grotesque, the macabre, the horrible, the bizarre,
and the fantastic, our mental patterns and expecta-
tions are violated, and we enjoy that violation, but
there need be no humorous amusement.
Although there is still no version of the incon-
gruity theory that satisfies everyone, the general
approach of the theory seems better able to account
570 Phonological Jokes
for laughter and humor than either the excessively
narrow superiority theory or the scientifically obso-
lete relief theory.
Humor as Mental Play
At the beginning, we noted that when the superior-
ity theory was the only widely accepted understand-
ing of humor, philosophers’ evaluations of humor
were generally negative. Even though over the past
two centuries the incongruity theory has made
humor look less objectionable than the superiority
theory did, the published opinions of philosophers
about humor have not improved much. Part of that
continued bad reputation comes from the way the
incongruity theory makes humor look irrational. As
Kant suggested in his comment that laughter can-
not gratify our minds but only our bodies, it seems
perverse to enjoy the violation of our mental pat-
terns and expectations. If humor is to be evaluated
positively, it seems that we need some explanation
of how our higher mental functions can operate in
a way that is different from ordinary theoretical
and practical reasoning but is beneficial rather than
harmful. One way to do that is to analyze humor as
a kind of mental play and to explain the benefits of
such play. This approach was sketched by Aristotle
and by Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of joking as a
kind of play and saw this play as relaxation from
serious mental exertion. The person who amuses
others in conversation, they said, has the virtue of
eutrapelia, mentally “turning well.” Contemporary
philosophers such as John Morreall and psycholo-
gists have begun to explore the value of such non-
serious mental activity, linking humor with stress
reduction, friendship, creative thinking, and medical
benefits such as the boosting of the immune system.
As the reputation of humor improves in the future,
we will undoubtedly find more benefits of the play-
ful enjoyment of incongruity.
John Morreall
See also Aesthetics; Christianity; Health Benefits of
Humor, Physical; Health Benefits of Humor,
Psychological; Humor Theories
Further Readings
Freud, S. (1974). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. New York, NY: Penguin.
Monro, D. H. (1951). Argument of laughter. Melbourne,
Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and
humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive
philosophy of humor. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schultz, T. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of
humor. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and
laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 12–13).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Suls, J. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of
jokes and cartoons: An information-processing
analysis. In J. Goldstein & P. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor (pp. 81–99). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
PHONOLOGICAL JOKES
The term phonological joke describes a type of
humor that uses the words or phonemes of one’s
own language to imitate or parody the sounds of
another language. The term originates with Pawel
Adrjan and Javier Muñoz-Basols, who characterize
phonological jokes as tending to follow a structure
characterized by the following:
• A question-answer format, where the prompt
makes reference to a particular language or
culture
• A punch line composed of a sequence of sounds
that attempt to imitate the foreign language
mentioned in the question
Let us consider the following example:
How do you say, “I stepped in excrement” in
Chinese?
Dung on Mai Shu [Dung on my shoe]
The joke provides a “translation” for the expression
“I stepped in excrement” by using monosyllabic
English words that imitate the Chinese language.
Despite appearing to be genuine Chinese to an
English speaker, the answer only has meaning in the
language of the joke: English. The Anglophone lis-
tener readily recognizes that the expression “Dung
on Mai Shu” is a parody of the monosyllabic and
tonal features of Chinese but corresponds phono-
logically to the English words “dung on my shoe.”
In the joke’s written form, the spelling of two
words is modified to create an additional effect of
a transcription of Chinese into the Latin alphabet:
My has been modified to Mai and shoe to Shu.

This signals to the reader that a Chinese-sounding
pronunciation of the phrase would be appropriate
to capture its humorous intent. Characteristically,
when producing a phonological joke, the joke-teller
often focuses on verbal aspects of performance, such
as adopting a specific accent or intonation. The ver-
bal quality of these jokes thus encapsulates a series
of communicative and phonological strategies dur-
ing their enunciation.
A phonological joke is typically created using
formulaic introductions consisting of an interroga-
tive that follows one of these patterns: What do you
call X in Y? How do you say X in Y? or What is
the name of X from country Z? In using them, the
joke-teller seeks to surprise the audience by translat-
ing the sequence presented in the question, a task
that in many cases appears impossible to accom-
plish because of the linguistic sequence per se or its
meaning, or because the audience knows that the
joke-teller does not speak the language chosen. In
some cases, phonological jokes can also be found
as part of a longer humorous narrative or in the
form of stand-alone proper nouns that appear to
belong to a particular culture or relate to a specific
language. An example can be found in scene 12 of
Monty Python’s film Life of Brian (1979), where
a character makes reference to the Latin-sounding
names “Naughtius Maximus,” “Sillius Soddus,”
and “Biggus Dickus.”
Through interviews with native speakers of
various languages, Muñoz-Basols has collected
and analyzed samples of phonological jokes in 30
languages, confirming the widespread nature of
this phenomenon. Few other studies or publica-
tions have explicitly addressed this type of humor.
It is mentioned by Gilda Rosa Arguedas Cortés,
who describes the structure of phonological jokes
generally and provides some examples in Spanish.
Mohammad El-Yasin makes reference to this type
of humor in a general discussion about the translat-
ability of jokes between Arabic and English. Emil
A. Draitser, quoting Abraham Roback’s Dictionary
of International Slurs, also mentions Russian as an
example of where this type of humorous sequence
can be found, whereby Russian children use words
that bear a resemblance to Japanese names and are
often scatological.
In addition to harnessing the phonological
aspects of language for humorous purposes, phono-
logical jokes also take advantage of the morphology
of words. Prefixes, suffixes, and other morphemes
(meaningful language units), in many instances, can
Phonological Jokes 571
play a role in the syntactic and the semantic structure
of the joke, as in the following example in Polish:
Jak się nazywa najszybszy rosyjski biegacz?
Naskrutow
Translation:
What’s the name of the fastest Russian runner?
Shortcutov
This example establishes a parody of features eas-
ily identifiable for a Polish speaker as characteristic
of the Russian language. The answer to the ques-
tion about the name of the fastest Russian runner,
Naskrutow, is a combination of the preposition na
and the noun skrót (“abbreviation” or “shortcut”),
which together give the expression Na skróty, mean-
ing “through a shortcut.” The ending -ow, which
does not contain any semantic value in Polish, is
only added to make the expression create a phono-
logical effect of a Russian name.
In phonological jokes, sounds carry an encoded
cultural message and are used deliberately and pur-
posefully as the sine qua non of the joke, as in the
following example in Spanish in which onomato-
poeia is used:
¿Cómo se dice testigo de Jehová en chino?
¡Ding, dong!
Translation:
What do you call a Jehovah’s Witness in
Chinese?
Ding, dong!
Here a religious group, Jehovah’s Witnesses, is repre-
sented in parody form by an onomatopoeic phrase,
which at the same time intends to be an imitation
of the Chinese language. The punch line in this joke
has to do with the way people of this faith are ste-
reotyped as proselytizing by going from house to
house.
Phonological jokes are separate from the notion
of punning, because the words used to create this
type of humor need not have more than one inter-
pretation, whereas in a pun multiple meanings can
often be found. Most phonological jokes do not
fall under the notion of ethnic humor either, in the
sense that their humorous intent does not need to be
driven by portraying stereotypical traits of another
cultural group. This is demonstrated by the first two
572 Pirandello, Luigi
examples in this entry, where humor is derived pri-
marily from phonological patterns that contribute
to the representation of foreignness, that is, imitat-
ing a foreign language or a particular community
of speakers based on how it is perceived to sound,
rather than any specific ethnic or cultural connota-
tions or judgments. In many cases, phonological
jokes constitute a mere play on sounds and are cre-
ated and told by children.
Phonological jokes are based on culturally bound
perceptions developed from the particular stand-
point of our own well-developed language systems,
influenced by actual and historical language con-
tact between cultures or by exposure to the sounds
of other languages through foreign foods, brand
names, the mass media, and so forth. They produce
a humorous effect by displaying a shared perception,
contrasting cultures, and employing a range of pho-
nological and morphological strategies to imitate
what a particular foreign language and its commu-
nity of speakers sound like.
Javier Muñoz-Basols
See also Children’s Humor Research; Ethnicity and
Humor; Humorous Names; Jokes; Monty Python;
Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Adrjan, P., & Muñoz-Basols, J. (2003). The sound of
humor: Linguistic and semantic constraints in the
translation of phonological jokes. SKY: Journal of
Linguistics, 16, 239–246.
Arguedas Cortés, G. R. (1996). Análisis lingüístico de
chistes del tipo “¿Cómo se dice 99 en chino? Cachi
chen” [A linguistic analysis of jokes following the
pattern “How do you say 99 in Chinese? Almost one
hundred”]. Revista de filología y lingüística, 22(1),
129–140.
Draitser, E. A. (1998). Taking penguins to the movies:
Ethnic humor in Russia. Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
El-Yasin, M. (1997). The translatability of Arabic jokes into
English. Meta, 52(4), 671–676.
Muñoz-Basols, J. (2012). The sound of humor: Translation,
culture and phonological jokes. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona,
Spain.
Muñoz-Basols, J., Adrjan, P., & David, M. (2013).
Phonological humor as perception and representation of
foreignness. In L. Ruiz Gurillo & B. Alvarado Ortega
(Eds.), Irony and humor: From pragmatics to discourse
(pp. 159–188). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Roback, A. (1944). A dictionary of international slurs
(ethnophaulisms). Cambridge, MA: Sci-Art.
PIRANDELLO, LUIGI
Luigi Pirandello (1867–1936), winner of the Nobel
Prize for literature in 1934, wrote an influential
essay, On Humor, in 1908. The essay consists of
a collection of his lessons at the Istituto Superiore
di Magistero in Rome. His first six chapters are a
history of humor examined in literary, psychologi-
cal, and philosophical authors—some quoted, oth-
ers, such as Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud,
not even acknowledged. The second, more origi-
nal part develops Pirandello’s own personal con-
ception of humor, which, however, owes much to
German, French, and Italian thinkers, such as Freud,
Bergson, Theodor Lipps, Charles Baudelaire, Alfred
Binet, Alberto Cantoni, and Giovanni Marchesini.
Although he was born and grew up in Sicily and dis-
played some typical Sicilian traits (mistrust of others,
strong sense of possession, jealousy), his academic
education took place first at the university of Rome
and then of Bonn, where he became acquainted with
modern philosophical thought. Pirandello dedicated
On Humor to the deceased Mattia Pascal, librarian.
The reference was to the protagonist of his novel
The Late Mattia Pascal (1904), the first humorist
in Pirandello’s production. By the time he wrote On
Humor, Pirandello was already well known for his
novels and short stories but had not yet written his
more popular plays, which brought him interna-
tional fame.
If we are looking for a precise definition of humor
in Pirandello we will be disappointed. He only wrote
the essay to secure his job at the Magistero. Like
Friedrich Nietzsche, he did not believe in concepts,
definitions—labels that falsify a phenomenon by fix-
ing it into an abstraction. Life, in fact, for Pirandello,
is flux, movement, change. Thus humor is not a
literary or rhetorical choice but an existential one.
It is born in the age of the crisis of reason, where
all absolute beliefs and axioms have collapsed and
where, therefore, there is no more space for system-
atic thought. Accordingly, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel’s idealism and Benedetto Croce’s version of
idealist thought, which were extremely influential in
Italy, were Pirandello’s targets. This was also the age

of Freud, who recognized the power of the irrational
in human life, and its many victories over reason.
If we substitute humor for the comic, Pirandello
agreed with Bergson that the spirit of humor can-
not be imprisoned within a definition but must be
regarded as a living thing. He thus writes that his
essay simply wants to explain the process that takes
place in the so-called humorist writers. He distin-
guishes humor from irony—a rhetorical figure of
speech that implies contradiction between what we
say and what we want others to understand from
what we have said. Humor, instead, is born out of an
ontological contradiction: the contradiction between
life, which is unstoppable flux, and the forms (con-
cepts, ideals, systems) in which we fix it in order
to make sense out of its chaos. But those concepts,
ideas, systems, are abstractions that kill life, leav-
ing us with a series of useless corpses. Whereas the
traditional artist composes a character or a story in
an orderly and harmonious manner, the humorist
deconstructs them and exposes their hidden contra-
dictions and incoherence. For Pirandello, therefore,
modern writers cannot be anything but humorists.
They must dismantle humanity’s illusory construc-
tions, the masks everyone creates, and bring out
their other faces, their contradictory aspects. In his
essay, Pirandello calls Copernicus the first humor-
ist because Copernicus dismantled the proud image
man had created of the universe, removing him from
the center where he had placed himself for centuries.
After distinguishing humor from irony, Pirandello
distinguishes it from the comic, which he calls the
“perception of the opposite,” or the initial awareness
of incongruity. He gives the now famous example of
the old lady who makes herself up to appear much
younger. Our first reaction on such a sight is laughter.
We realize that the old lady is the contrary of what a
respectable old lady should be. Yet, if we do not stop
at this level and instead let our reflection intervene, we
may become aware that the poor lady might not have
liked at all to make herself up as a young woman, but
she did it in the desperate hope to keep alive the inter-
est of her younger husband. At this point we can no
longer laugh, or at least our laughter would be tem-
pered by pity, and the “perception of the opposite”
changes into the “feeling of the opposite.” We feel
compassion. Humor is this feeling of the opposite.
In Pirandello’s large artistic production (plays,
novels, essays, poems, and hundreds of short stories),
there are many humorist characters, or raisonneurs.
Their function is unmasking the other characters
who live with the illusion that the way they appear to
Pirandello, Luigi 573
the world is the way they actually are. In Pirandello’s
play It Is So (If You Think So), Lamberto Laudisi
is the humorist philosopher who spends his time
proving to a curious, gossiping crowd that the way
we see ourselves is different from the way oth-
ers see us. Henry IV, in the homonymous play, is
a perfect example of imprisonment in a mask. He
wants, in fact, to continue to live within the mask
of the emperor Henry IV and in order to do this, he
constructs his immutable reality outside time, blot-
ting out the flux of life. Thus he is condemned never
to return to the present. In Pirandello’s novel One,
No One and One Hundred Thousand, Vitangelo
Moscarda, unable to recognize himself in all the
masks or images that his wife and the town people
have made of him, proceeds to destroy them one by
one in the frustrated hope to get to his real self. The
conclusion is its total annihilation.
Pirandello’s concept of humor has mirrored and
in part shaped Italian culture up to the present. This
can be seen clearly in the cinematic production of
directors such as Federico Fellini, Mario Monicelli,
Dino Risi, and Nanni Moretti, to mention only a
few, in the film genre called commedia all’italiana
(comedy Italian style). Moreover and perhaps more
important, its influence is felt in the importance
Italians give appearances, in their need to impress
others through the way they dress or speak—their
anxiety to cover up their cultural and historical inse-
curities under attractive masks.
Daniela Bini
See also Bergson’s Theory of the Comic; Freudian/
Psychoanalytic Theory; History of Humor: Modern
and Contemporary Europe; Irony; Literature
Further Readings
Bini, D. (1991). Pirandello’s philosophy and philosophers.
In J. L. DiGaetani (Ed.), A companion to Pirandello
studies (pp. 17–46). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Casella, P. (2008). L’umorismo and female portraits:
Between theory and fiction. PSA: Journal of Pirandello
Society of America, 21, 31–43.
Dashwood, J. (Ed.). (1996). Luigi Pirandello: The theater
of paradox. New York, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Gieri, M. (1995). Contemporary Italian filmmaking:
Strategies of subversion: Pirandello, Fellini, Scola, and
the directors of the new generation. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Marcus, M. (2000). “Me lo dici Babbo che gioco è?” The
serious humor of La vita è bella. Italica, 77(2), 153–170.
574 Platonic Theory of Humor
Mariani, U. (2008). The ethical essence of “umorismo.”
PSA: Journal of the Pirandello Society of America, 21,
31–43.
Pirandello, L. (1974). On humor (A. Illiano & D. P. Testa,
Trans.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Pirandello, L. (1987). The late Mattia Pascal (W. Weaver,
Trans.). Hygiene, CO: Eridanos Press.
Pirandello, L. (1990). One, no one and one hundred
thousand (W. Weaver, Trans.). Boston, MA: Eridanos
Press.
Syrimis, M. (2008). From Nestoroff to Garbo: Pirandellian
humour in its cinematic vernacular. Quaderni
d’italianistica, 29(2), 9–52.
Syrimis, M. (2008). The humoristic lens on Pirandello’s Si
gira. PSA: Journal of the Pirandello Society of America,
21, 45–63.
PLATONIC THEORY OF HUMOR
Greek philosopher Plato is the first scholar known to
have taken a theoretical interest in humor. However,
this interest was motivated not by a concern with
humor as such but with its place in intellectual and
public life. This motivation must be kept in mind to
better understand Plato’s views on humor itself.
Plato was critical of humor in the performing
arts, arguing that it encouraged unfounded attitudes
in audiences (The Republic, Book 10). For example,
Plato criticized the comic playwright Aristophanes
(Apology, 18d, 19c) for satirizing Plato’s mentor,
Socrates. In Plato’s view, this caricature of Socrates
misinformed the attitudes of Athenians toward the
real man. This caricature contributed to Socrates’s
later conviction on trumped-up charges of impiety,
for which Socrates was then executed.
In general, Plato deplored the comedic stereotype
of philosophers as conceptual speculators laugh-
ably detached from reality. He notes the story of
the philosopher Thales, who fell into a ditch while
walking outdoors to observe the stars (Theatetus,
174a–175b). A Thracian slave woman laughed at
the great philosopher for his farcical tumble. The
stereotype of the clumsy wise man was sometimes
brought out in public debates to ridicule philoso-
phers, as a kind of illogical, ad hominem response
to rational, philosophical arguments. In brief, Plato
saw such humor as a regrettable source of unreason.
In spite of these points, Plato’s view of humor
was not entirely negative. He argues, for example,
that it is acceptable for philosophers to be amused at
the intellectual failings of those who ridicule them.
For example, people who claim to know what jus-
tice is frequently turn out to be hopelessly confused
when their ideas are closely examined (Theatetus,
175c–175d). In contrast to the clumsy wiseman ste-
reotype, then, it is such pseudo-intellectuals who are
truly ridiculous for their farcical tumbles into confu-
sion when fundamental concepts are debated.
Not coincidently, Plato’s view of humor is colored
by his admiration for Socrates. In his writings, Plato
depicts Socrates as a man who was amused at the
confusion that he found in people who engaged him
in discourse. This amusement evidently annoyed
many who debated with Socrates. However, Plato
is careful to portray Socrates as someone who did
not indulge in ridicule. Indeed, Socrates laughs only
once, and only slightly, in the entire Platonic corpus
(Phaedo, 115c–115e).
Plato’s theorizing about humor can be under-
stood as a way of making sense of these negative
and positive aspects of humor. First, Plato treats the
feelings that people experience when they laugh at
something. Plato states that ridiculous things evoke
a mixture of opposed feelings: the pain of malice felt
toward the object of ridicule as well as the pleasure
of laughing at that object (Philebus, 47c–47d). In
this respect, Plato’s account of humor anticipates the
modern ambivalence theory. It also jibes with his
view of humor as irrational, since Plato regards such
mixtures of feelings as destructive of reason.
Second, Plato treats the conceptual side of humor.
Plato notes that humor tends to involve a juxtaposi-
tion of incompatible ideas or representations. For
example, incompetent musicians might set masculine
lyrics to feminine tunes, resulting in ludicrous music
(Laws, 2.669b–2.670c). Here, Plato anticipates the
modern incongruity theory of humor, on which
humor comprises a juxtaposition of conceptually
incongruous things. This observation also reveals
a positive aspect of humor as a means of flagging
confused ideas.
Beyond the basic psychology of humor, Plato
was concerned about its deployment in the arts
and philosophy. As noted earlier, poets and speak-
ers deployed ridicule as an easy means of attack.
This tactic is embodied by the advice of rhetorician
Gorgias that it is good to confound your opponents’
seriousness with playfulness and their playfulness
with seriousness (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1419b7). In
other words, in a debate, being humorous is an
effective means of opposing someone who is being
serious. Perhaps it is this view of humor as a weapon
that Plato has in mind when he says that humor

involves a kind of triumph over someone who is the
butt of ridicule (Philebus, 49b). Here, Plato antici-
pated the modern superiority theory and the aggres-
sion theory of humor.
Of course, the example of Socrates suggests that
humor is not merely a source of put-downs. The sal-
utary use of humor is embodied in what may have
been an aphorism in Plato’s time, that “sometimes
playfulness is a relief from seriousness” (Philebus,
30e). Socrates uses this expression to characterize a
discussion in which he has been obliged to provide
a circuitous explanation of an idea that he prob-
ably thought was straightforward. Here, playfulness
refers to the childlike enjoyment of games, fun, or
amusements that accompany and facilitate learning.
Playful humor involves not knocking people down
as opponents but cajoling them along into being
receptive to new ideas, a practice appropriate for a
philosopher. In this respect, Plato anticipated mod-
ern ideas about humor and well-being, although his
focus is on intellectual well-being.
Although Plato did not theorize at length about
humor, he did have a nuanced understanding of the
subject. In many ways, his ideas about humor antici-
pate modern theories. However, Plato’s ideas are
best understood in their original context, that is, in
his concern for the role of humor in intellectual and
public life. This concern is one that remains valid for
scholars of humor today.
Cameron Shelley
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Humor Theories;
Linguistic Theories of Humor; Philosophy of Humor;
Psychology
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). Early conceptions of humor:
Varieties and issues. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee
(Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives
and empirical issues. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Piddington, R. (1963). The psychology of laughter: A study
in social adaptation. New York, NY: Gamut Press.
Robinson, V. (1983). Humor and health. In P. E. McGhee
& J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research
(Vol. 2). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Shelley, C. (2003). Plato on the psychology of humor.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
16(4), 351–367.
Plautus 575
PLAUTUS
As is generally the case for Roman comedy, humor in
the work of Plautus (d. 184 BCE) is generated by the
theatrical spectacle, innovative treatment of the ste-
reotypical plots and characters inherited from Greek
New Comedy, opportunities for metacomedy, and
the tensions inhering in the Roman family. Plautine
verbal humor, however, stands out in the Roman
tradition for its exuberance. This entry focuses on
some of the characteristic marks of Plautine verbal
fanfare.
Neologisms
Plautus is extraordinarily creative in comic word
formations, especially significant names. Whereas
Greek New Comedy employed stock names for
its characters, Plautus, preferring Greek to Latin
roots, amped up his source plays’ character names,
as was proved by the 1968 papyrus discovery of a
section of Menander’s Double Deceiver, Plautus’s
source play for Two Bacchises. In the Plautine
adaptation, the stereotypically named slave Syrus
becomes Chrysalus (Greek for “golden one”), a
transformation that allows for various bilingual
puns (e.g., “This golden [Latin aurarium] mat-
ter is my concern” (spoken by Chrysalus at 229)
and this metacomic declaration: “I don’t care for
those . . . Syruses who rob their masters of small
change” (649–650). Soldiers’ names are espe-
cially creative, for example, Polymachaeroplagides
(“son of many dagger blows,” Pseudolus, 988),
Bumbomachides-Clytomestoridysarchides (“son of
roaring noise fighter-son of famous advisor ruling
badly,” Miles Gloriosus, 14); so, too, prostitutes’
names, for example, Gymnasium (“nude exer-
cise facility,” Casket Comedy), Palaestra (“wres-
tling school,” Rope). A fictitious wealthy man is
improbably named Thensaurochrysonicochrysides
(“golden son of treasures of gold,” Captives, 285).
Other types of neologisms can be found on almost
any page of Plautus, including purely Latin ones
such as dentifrangibula (“tooth-crackers” = “fists,”
Two Bacchises, 596), Suauisauiatio (“Erotikissia,”
a comic deity, Two Bacchises, 116), and portman-
teau coinages such as lumbifragium (“prickwreck,”
based on naufragium, “shipwreck,” Amphitryon,
454). These examples collectively show that audi-
ence members in Rome were assumed to know
some Greek, ranging from the demotic (there is
576 Plautus
low-level code-switching at Pseudolus, 481–488) to
extensive knowledge of Greek language, literature,
and culture.
Wordplay
Instances of wordplay in the work of Plautus include
many examples of parechesis (echoing of etymologi-
cally distinct words), for example, Epidicus, 119:
“I’d prefer friends of that sort to be overwhelmed
in a furnace (forno) rather than in the forum (foro)”
(i.e., “burned rather than bankrupt”) and monde-
greens, for example, Truculentus, 262: Astaphium
“Such anger (eiram)! Put a plug in it!” Truclentus
“What’s that about plugging [the verb comprim-
ere, “control,” can have a sexual sense]? You want
me to bang her [he mishears eram, “mistress,” for
eiram]?” Puns requiring some knowledge of Greek
are pervasive and range from simple hybrids such as
Epidamnus, a real place that is dubbed “Loserville”
(construed as the Greek preposition epi “for” +
Latin damnum “financial loss,” Menaechami,
263–264]. The name of the clever prostitute in
Truculentus, Phronesium, perhaps recalled both
the Greek word for “wisdom” (phronesis) and a
diminutive of Phryne, a notorious courtesan of 4th-
century Athens.
Typological Jokes
Several types of jokes are often found in Plautus’s
work. These include refrains (jokes turning on the
repetition of words), for examples at Rudens 1212,
the slave Trachalio responds to the commands of
Daemones with the word licet (“okay”) 13 times
until, while departing, he gives Daemones an order.
Daemones then expostulates to the audience:
“OKAY! (licet) / And I hope Hercules renders him
un-okay (infelicet) for all his okay-itude [imparting
a new meaning to licentia (“lack of control”), 1224–
1226]. Also common are parapraxes (“Freudian
slips,” often combined with epanorthosis (“correc-
tion,” i.e., “I meant to say . . .”), for example, the
aged lover Lysidamus’s slipups at Casina, 365–367,
672–674, 701–703, wherein he reveals his plot
to sleep with the 16-year-old girl whom he has
arranged for his farm manager to marry. There are
also para prosdokian (jokes ending in unexpected
twists), for example, Truclulentus, 887: “Oh, I do
love that soldier more than I do myself—while I get
what I want from him” (spoken by the mercenary
prostitute). There are legal jokes (i.e., jokes turning
on technical points of Roman law); for example,
as Mercury bullies the slave (Sosia) he imperson-
ates in Amphitryon, he asks “Who owns you?” to
which the overwhelmed Sosia responds, “You do.
Your fists have claimed me by right of occupation”
(375) [a reference to usucapio (“squatter’s right”)].
There are mythological jokes (dissonant compari-
sons between mythic and comic figures), as when at
Two Bacchises 925 the triumphant slave Chrysalus
declares himself both Odysseus, master planner in
the Trojan war (940), and Agamemnon, the Greeks’
commander-in-chief (947). Finally, there are jokes
of identification, or those proposing incongruous
equivalencies between persons and/or things), for
example, Epidicus, 188–189: “I’ll turn myself into a
leech and suck the blood / Of those renowned pillars
of the senate.”
Engaging Contemporary Rome
But there is more than verbal fireworks in Plautus,
whose comedies betray an anarchic and carni-
valesque spirit. Recent scholarship has demonstrated
that Plautus was more engaged with contemporary
politics and society than has been assumed. For
example, Plautus’s heyday corresponds with a period
of enormous cultural transformation brought about
by unprecedented military expansionism, in which
Roman generals aggressively competed for public
acclaim and the right to celebrate a triumph, the ulti-
mate achievement in elite culture. Roman comedy
inherited the stock figure of the braggart soldier, but
characters such as the egotistical Pyrgopolynices in
Miles Gloriosus must have resonated with Roman
audiences as grotesque parodies of celebrity-seek-
ing aristocratic generals. And when Plautine clever
slaves appropriate the language and ideology of
military conquest to celebrate their successful ruses,
sometimes even claiming, as Pseudolus (581), that
their victory is owed to the valor of their ancestors
(Roman slaves by a legal fiction had no parents), it
is hard not to see satire. Chrysalus in Two Bacchises
declares his campaign of trickery against his master
a complete success (1069–1071), but demurs from
celebrating a Roman-style triumph: “Don’t be sur-
prised, spectators, / That I’m not holding a triumph:
I don’t care for that, they’re too common” (1072–
1073). Plautus’s satirical engagement with contem-
porary society can be much more subtle, and much
scholarly work remains to be done in this area. So,
too, the fact that the humor of several Plautine plays
rests on ontological confusions brought about by the
presence of doubles is surely significant in a period

marked by cultural revolution and the formation of
identity.
David M. Christenson
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Ancient Roman
Comedy; Comedy; Farce; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Renaissance Europe;
Humorous Names; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Low
Comedy; Masks; Menander; Puns; Rhetoric and
Rhetorical Devices; Roman Visual Humor;
Stereotypes; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Fontaine, M. (2010). Funny words in Plautine comedy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Leigh, M. (2005). Comedy and the rise of Rome. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, K. (2000). Slaves, masters, and the art of
authority in Plautine comedy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Moore, T. (1998). The theater of Plautus. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Slater, N. (2000). Plautus in performance. London, UK:
Routledge.
PLAY AND HUMOR
Play is difficult to define, as it has multiple mean-
ings. It can be useful to think of it as a spirit that
encompasses theatrical presentation as improvi-
sation, motion, and an ethos of action. “It is a
mood, an activity, an eruption, of liberty,” Richard
Schechner (2002, p. 79) explains. But it is also para-
doxical. Sometimes, play takes the shape of a formal
commercial or competitive activity one participates
in or enjoys; examples include a tennis match at the
U.S. Open or an off-Broadway show. In its less for-
mal incarnations, play can involve a pick-up soccer
game in the park, or occur at social gatherings, in
playgrounds, sidewalks, or streets. Yet, from time
to time, it departs from the mundane, and through
the use of subversive humor, expands into a status
quo–threatening endeavor. After describing several
conceptualizations of play, this entry examines the
role of play and subversive humor in social move-
ments and discusses other advantages of play.
Conceptualizations
Although there are countless ways to conceptual-
ize the term play, it is useful to begin with Johan
Play and Humor 577
Huizinga’s 1938 work Homo Ludens: A Study of
the Play Element in Culture. His definition encom-
passes many of the threads already discussed:
Summing up the formal characteristics of play we
might call it a free activity standing quite consciously
outside the ordinary life as being “not serious,” but
at the same time absorbing the player intensely and
utterly. It is an activity connected with no material
interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It
proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time
and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly
manner. It promises the formation of social
groupings which tend to surround themselves with
secrecy and to stress their difference from the
common world by disguise or other means.
(Huizinga, 1938/1950, p. 13)
Huizinga goes on to suggest it is accompanied by a
“feeling of tension, joy and consciousness that it is
different from ordinary life” (p. 28).
There are many forms of play. For Huizinga,
play is anything but serious: It is a space for joy. For
Schechner, play involves doing something that is
not exactly “real.” It is looser; it is “double edged,
ambiguous, moving in several directions simultane-
ously” (Schechner, 2002, p. 79). The Oxford English
Dictionary lists pages and pages of definitions and
meanings for play as both a noun and a verb. As a
verb, it is used to describe the state of being “busily
engaged,” to “leap for joy, rejoice.” It involves “liv-
ing being[s]” that “move about swiftly with a lively,
irregular, or capricious motion, spring, sly, or dart to
and fro, gambol, frisk, or flutter.” As a noun, play
is understood as an “active bodily exercise, brisk
and vigorous action of the body or limbs in fencing,
dancing, or leaping.” It can be thought of as “an
action, activity, operation, working, esp[ecially] with
rapid movement or change, or variety.”
The verb to play is the operative function for
expressions related to games. The multiple meanings
of play help reimagine what is real, argues sociolo-
gist Peter Nardi. The term’s uses encompass dra-
matic gestures, street theatrics, subversive forms of
humor, and various other modes of communication
and meaning creation. Play is best understood along
a continuum from its meanings as a noun (a perfor-
mance/means of communication) toward those as a
verb (as a liberatory, sometimes subversive, form of
action; a resource for group support).
In this respect then, play is considered in the
context of social movement activity encompass-
ing a range of affects and outcomes, including
578 Play and Humor
experimentation, social eros, liberation, and healthy
exchange. It can be both affective and instructive.
Play and Social Movements
Play can also be thought of as a theatrical presen-
tation. This performative spirit may support social
movements in countless ways. Play and performance
borrow from the clowning tradition of radical ridi-
cule to minimize the legitimacy of political oppo-
nents. Although some forms of political performance
may not feel inherently playful, the struggle to create
a space for this performance has to do with creat-
ing a space for play. In this sense, notions of serious
play function as cornerstones of a struggle for public
space and pluralistic democratic engagement.
Many protests, from the 1960s to the new millen-
nium, include some form of subversive humor, play,
or carnival. For Barbara Ehrenreich, such forms of
“collective joy” are essential components of social
movement practice. “People must find, in their
movement, the immediate joy of solidarity, if only
because, in the face of overwhelming state or corpo-
rate power, solidarity is their sole source of strength”
(Ehrenreich, 2007, p. 259). Most organizers recog-
nize that such activities offer a useful complement to
an ongoing organizing campaign. They add a little
flavor to a sometimes bland stew of movement tac-
tics. Without them, such efforts tend to lose steam or
people’s attention. Still, some remain critical of mix-
ing play and activism. Yet, increasingly, activists and
scholars take issue with this line of logic. Despite the
contention that such activities are counterproduc-
tive, movements continue to put the right to party
on the table as a part of a larger process of social
change; the logic being that humor and pleasure dis-
rupt monotony while disarming systems of power.
They are also a lot of fun.
Examples abound. Bogad talks about how the
Dutch Provos illegally distributed blank leaflets as
they declared, “Write Your Own Manifestos” in
1966. Queer youth formed a Rockette kick-line and
sang, “We are the Stonewall Girls,” as they thwarted
riot cops during the Stonewall Riots of June 1969.
Members of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash
Power) taunted white-gloved police officers with the
jeer, “Your gloves don’t match your shoes, we’ll see
you in the news!” as they were arrested at the Food
and Drug Administration in 1988 while fighting for
access to lifesaving AIDS drugs.
Anarchists catapulted teddy bears over a fence
mocking tear gas–wielding police during the Free
Trade of the Americas actions of April 2001 in
Quebec, Canada. Anti-war protesters performed the
hokey-pokey amid riots and Red Alerts in New York
City during the largest anti-war protest in world his-
tory on February 15, 2003. Salsa tunes emanated
through the air as nearly one million people con-
verged in downtown Los Angeles for an immigrant
rights rally in the spring of 2006. These are just a
few examples from many. In recent years, the streets
of cities around the world have been filled with any
number of examples of theatrical protest. In a nut-
shell, people are playing. Joyous humor is a singular
part of this effort.
Elements of fun, improvisation, and subversive
wit are cornerstones of such moments. With differ-
ent meanings for differing situations, play is a simple
term for drag, ACT UP zaps, pranks, the use of food
and mariachi bands in the Latino community, dance
dramaturgy, culture jamming, the carnival, and
other creative community-building activities. It is the
exhilarating feeling of pleasure, the joy of building a
more emancipatory, caring world.
Much of the contemporary ludic spirit of move-
ment practices date back to Dada, surrealism, situ-
ationism, ACT UP, and the global justice movement.
Countless groups and movements have explored the
relation among humor, play, fantasy, and possibility,
tying a sense of the practice to their own contexts.
Building on the legacies of civil rights activists who
danced in the face of Jim Crow–era social controls,
this tradition begins with the ludic campaigns of
the Yippies, who made use of the prank as a means
of political protest, in contrast with the street actions
of the Young Lords. From here, it traces the work of
ACT UP, which made arts, design, and a defense of
pleasure cornerstones of its struggle against obliv-
ion. By the 1990s, do-it-yourself (DIY) agitational
groups sought to break down the lines between art
and life and introduce play and pleasure, creativ-
ity and fantasy into activism (Duncombe, 2007;
Jordan, 1998). With events such as Critical Mass,
festive bicyclists created protests as amoeba-like bike
cavalcades. In New York City, community garden
activists created their own Central Park within the
rubble of neighborhood vacant lots, and DJs trans-
formed bland streets into spaces for dance, protest,
and community building. For many in movements,
play is seen as an appropriate response to the lunacy
of wars stretching from World War I to Vietnam to
the recent involvement with Iraq.
Some of these campaigns make use of play
as a prefigurative approach that seeks to create a

community in an image of the world in which activ-
ists hope to live. Others use creativity to achieve
policy victories. What links these questions and ges-
tures is a recognition of the multiple possibilities of
the free activity understood as play.
Henry Bial (2004) said that “play may involve
an erosion or inversion of social status” (p. 115)
such as with the Trinidad Carnival, Boxing Day, or
other role reversal holidays. For this reason, authori-
ties often seek to close spaces where improvised
play takes place. Recent events resulting in police
crackdowns include Critical Mass bike rides and
permitted immigrant rights marches populated by
women and children. In recent years, even tradition-
ally spontaneous gatherings, such as the transcen-
dent New Orleans funeral marches, drum circles,
and dance parties, have been controlled and even
outlawed. To the extent that such play spaces invert
social hierarchies, they take on a subversive dimen-
sion. Over and over again, play supports a subver-
sive use of public space.
Other Advantages of Play
At its core, play offers us a space to experiment
within a space in between material and imaginary
spaces, offering a space for transition between the
two. Children and adults alike create, mold, and
engage with the limits of what is real and what is
make-believe. This is a space that is not real but is
utterly engaging, as Huizinga reminds us. Children
grow through this activity. They learn from play
experiments; problem solving and active imagina-
tion become part of an engaged mind. As the sur-
realists have long suggested, play is a space to walk
on the edge between reality and possibility, within
a space between work and leisure; it is a fantas-
tical space. Yet, it is harder for adults to really
play.
Supporters of play suggest there is nothing wrong
with people occasionally just enjoying themselves or
acting like children (Shepard, 2011). The nonpur-
poseful aspects of play are many, especially for chil-
dren, but also for adults. Here, we find a space for
activities that extend beyond the means of necessity
to another way of living, being, creating, and experi-
menting with living. Play helps open new ways of
looking at the world. It is a free activity, involving
hands, stories, moving back and forth between real-
ity and fantasy, experiment, and frivolity. Without
this space for refreshing and engaging creative ener-
gies, many find it difficult to cope with the harder
Poetry 579
tasks of life (Wenner, 2009). Batteries recharged,
actors are ready to re-engage. Play inspires innova-
tion in any number of ways. It also inspires laughter,
which is useful in and of itself. From here, bodies
and minds become just a little bit more free, if even
for a moment in time.
Benjamin Shepard
See also Carnival and Festival; Carnivalesque; Comic
World; Feast of Fools; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy;
Political Humor; Subversive Humor
Further Readings
Bial, H. (2004). The performance studies reader.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bogad, L. M. (2005). Electoral guerrilla theatre: Radical
ridicule and social movements. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Duncombe, S. (2007). Dream: Re-imagining progressive
politics in an age of fantasy. New York, NY:
New Press.
Ehrenreich, B. (2007). Dancing in the streets: A history of
collective joy. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play
element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original
work published 1938)
Jordan, J. (1998). The art of necessity: The subversive
imagination of anti-road protest and Reclaim the
Streets. In G. McKay (Ed.), DIY culture: Party and
protest in nineties Britain (pp. 129–151). London, UK:
Verso.
Nardi, P. (2006). Sociology at play, or truth in the pleasant
disguise of illusion. Sociological Perspectives, 49(3),
285–295.
Sanders, B. (1996). Sudden glory: Laughter as subversive
history. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An
introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shepard, B. (2011). Play, creativity and social movements.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Wenner, M. (2009, January 28). The serious need for play.
Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.sciam
.com/article.cfm?id=the-serious-need-for-play
POETRY
The connection between humor and poetry is a
long and storied one. Notwithstanding the com-
mon assumption that poetry is largely an expres-
sion of personal angst, today there are thousands of
580 Poetry
practicing poets producing poems that, while explor-
ing such age-old topics as love and death, do so with
comic techniques ranging from sly wit to pie-in-the-
face slapstick.
Yet, as transcripts of oral performances from pre-
literate peoples show, poets from every culture have
used humor since the first days of human history,
and every period since then has seen rich expression
that is, at the same time, both poetic and humorous.
In fact, the earliest instances of humor in human cul-
ture may have more to do with tribal cohesion than
anything else.
Humor in poetry is as old as the earliest poems
themselves. In Beowulf, for example, one character
praises another but qualifies his praise by pointing
out that the fellow is the biggest hero in that place
on that day; as critics have observed, this is a little
like saying “She was the most beautiful woman on
that bar stool on that night.”
Then again, poetry and humor are a natural fit
for each other. A similarity between poems and jokes
is that people appreciate them on a level that is diffi-
cult, or perhaps impossible, to fake. When everyone
but you appreciates a poem or understands a joke,
you can’t claim that it is subjective or doesn’t make
sense, since you are the only one having difficulty.
So jokes and poems both assume that some
assembly is required; fresh from the box, each is
incomplete, and each requires the listener or reader
to supply material necessary to the product’s perfor-
mance. But jokes and poems share more than a basic
structure. They share common themes, for example;
humorists, too, write primarily about love, death,
religion, politics, and sex. Yet the most important
similarity between jokes and poems is that both cre-
ate connections: between text and audience (“That’s
a good one!”), artist and audience (“Have any more
like that?”), one audience member and another
(“Wait’ll you hear this!”).
Not everyone thinks there is a place for humor
in poetry. In recent years, the Poetry Foundation
has awarded the Mark Twain Poetry Award of
$25,000, which recognizes a poet’s contributions
to humor in American poetry. In the foundation’s
language, “The Award is given in the belief that
humorous poetry can also be seriously good poetry
and in the hope that American poetry will in time
produce its own Mark Twain.” This seems like an
idea hardly anyone would object to, but a number
of poets went on record with their distrust. The
foundation’s officers “seem to be aiming low,” in the
words of J. D. McClatchy, a poet and editor of the
Yale Review. “They want their initiatives to be
popular and populist.” Yet some of the greatest
authors are “low,” “popular and populist”; William
Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and
Walt Whitman didn’t go to college and never took
a writing workshop of the kind taken and taught by
the prominent American poet and his ilk. Perhaps
not coincidentally, theirs is some of the most
laughter-filled work as well.
Friedrich Nietzsche described a witticism as an
“epitaph on the death of a feeling,” and therein
lies both the truth of and the problem with humor.
Take the problem first: If a joke is just a bandage
on a bruised psyche, then humor is trivial, because
it masks what’s really important. No wonder funny
people can’t be trusted if they’re covering something
up. But if a joke can lead to a feeling, especially a
serious one, then what could be more significant?
As an illustration, consider one of the largest cat-
egories of jokes, those on marriage. The number and
variety of jokes on the wedded state suggest just how
seriously marriage is taken in our culture. A classic
example is Henny Youngman’s “Take my wife—
please!” This joke is not going to work unless the
audience gets the hostility at its base, but it will also
flop if the audience doesn’t see the affection there
as well; no man would make a joke like this about
a wife he didn’t love, and no wife would permit it
unless she loved him, too.
Yet the statement “I adore my wife” has as much
entertainment value as “I hate the shrew.” To work,
both ideas have to come together in a single phrase.
When two people stand before a duly appointed
official and say “I do,” they are entering half-
consciously into a complex and mutually agreed-
upon surrendering of much of their individual
freedom so they can enjoy a higher kind obtainable
only through an often heady, sometimes infuriating
(or the other way around) union that has emotional,
psychological, intellectual, religious, historical, legal,
and financial dimensions.
And all that in four little words. How does Henny
Youngman do it? German theorist Wolfgang Iser
said that all great texts have a “fundamental asym-
metry,” by which he means the writer deliberately
leaves gaps for the reader to fill. The same is true for
a joke: no one listening to Henny Youngman says,
“Oh, I get it: the verb ‘take’ means both ‘consider’
as well as ‘relieve someone of,’ and therefore Henny
is inviting me to both think about his wife and also
help him get rid of her. A double meaning! What do
you know.”

Like jokes, poems, too, create connections. But
are both equally cerebral? Yes: humor and brains
have been associated throughout history. Where
both humor and poetry fail is in the realm of the
literal minded; perhaps this is what the Duchess
of Orléans meant when she noted approvingly of
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz that “it is so rare for
an intellectual to dress properly, not to smell, and
to understand jokes.” By the same token, humor is
antithetical to snobbery and self-centeredness. The
French novelist Marc Levy says that “humor and
ego fight to occupy the same place in the brain.”
A poem about how smart one is is egotistical; a
funny poem is generous.
This has been the case throughout literary history.
Geoffrey Chaucer is uproarious (consider the ribald
“The Miller’s Tale,” for example) as is Shakespeare,
Jonathan Swift, Lord Byron, Robert Browning,
and Emily Dickinson. In an interview in The Paris
Review, in which he argued that much of modern
poetry lacks humor, former U.S. poet laureate Billy
Collins said,
The romantic poets drove sex and humor out of
poetry. If you look before 1798 you find plenty of sex
and humor. Just look at “The Rape of the Lock,” or
Chaucer, for that matter. They don’t call Shakespeare’s
comedies comedies for nothing. But [William]
Wordsworth and [Samuel Taylor] Coleridge drove
those two things out of poetry—humor was
consigned to the subcategory of light verse.
Collins’s work shows the effectiveness of humor
used in contrast with bleakness. “The Lanyard,”
for example, gains comedic power with its imagin-
ing of a rueful conversation between a mother who
has done everything for the son who can only
repay her with a handmade trinket.
Here are thousands of meals, she said,
and here is clothing and a good education.
And here is your lanyard, I replied,
which I made with a little help from a
counselor.
Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,
strong legs, bones and teeth,
and two clear eyes to read the world, she
whispered,
and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.
(Collins, 2005, pp. 45–46)
With his use of humor, Billy Collins has rein-
vented the American poem. The short lyric that
Poetry 581
most poets write today, the one that dramatizes the
relation between the self and the world, begins
with Ralph Waldo Emerson, although it was per-
fected by Emily Dickinson and even reached a kind
of peak with her, a zenith that most poets cannot
touch, even now. So what lyric poets have done
ever since is renovate that basic structure. For
example, William Carlos Williams and Elizabeth
Bishop update the form by substituting deceptively
plain speech for the ornate language that we asso-
ciate with poetry. And certainly the confessional
poets, such as Robert Lowell and Sylvia Plath,
sensationalized lyric poetry by using it to air their
alcoholic excesses, sexual misbehavior, and
so on.
But whereas the poets named so far show us a
picture of the self, Billy Collins shows us a mirror.
Nor is he the only one. “Poets who would appear
to have the greatest claim on sorrow are often the
funniest,” Barbara Hamby and David Kirby (2010)
write in the introduction to Seriously Funny: Poems
About Love, Death, Religion, Art, Politics, Sex, and
Everything Else:
Take Lucia Perillo, who was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis in the 1980s. Yet her poem “Fubar” (the
title is an acronym for an expression perhaps best
rendered as “[fouled] up beyond all repair”) is
incontestably radiant. “Fubar” appears to be
addressed to a friend who is paraplegic, and Perillo
starts by wagging her finger at those who haven’t
earned the same right to sympathy, such as the
woman mourning her dead cat (“sorry, but pet
death barely puts the needle in the red zone”).
(p. xiv)
“But come on,” says Perillo in the poem’s last lines
of the poem, “the sun is rising, I’ll put a bandage on
my head, / and we’ll be like those guys at the end
of the movie— / you take this crutch made from a
stick. . . . / And looky, looky here at me: I’m playing
the piccolo.”
According to Hamby and Kirby (2010), “If the
humor in Perillo’s poems and others like them glow
often with a starry sheen, that is because there is a
black sky behind it” (p. xiv).
As Twain wrote in Following the Equator, “The
secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there
is no humor in Heaven.” Lorca talked about how
great poems, even funny poems, have duende, or
the shadow of death. The poet Lawrence Raab once
wrote that he liked work that is both serious and
funny when “its essential seriousness emerges from
582 Pointe
its humor, rather than the humor being a kind of
overlay or a set of asides” (personal communication,
May 7, 2008).
In addition to the poets already named in this
entry, others such as George Bilgere, Charlotte
Boulay, Matthew Dickman, Denise Duhamel, Amy
Gerstler, Mark Halliday, Terrance Hayes, and James
Tate are continuing the tradition of poetry that is
both serious and funny, a tradition that goes back to
the earliest poems ever composed.
David Kirby
See also Doggerel; Epigram; Fabliau; Humor, Forms of;
Humor Content Versus Structure; Lampoon;
Literature; Mock Epic; Nonsense; Parody; Pastiche;
Speech Play
Further Readings
Collins, B. (2001). The art of poetry no. 83. Interview with
George Plimpton. Paris Review. Retrieved from http://
www.theparisreview.org/interviews/482/the-art-of-poetry-
no-83-billy-collins
Collins, B. (2005). The lanyard. In The trouble with poetry
(pp. 45–46). New York, NY: Random House.
Duhamel, D., & Attardo, S. (Eds.). (2009). Humor in
contemporary poetry [Special issue]. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 22(3).
Hamby, B., & Kirby, D. (2010). Seriously funny: Poems
about love, death, religion, art, politics, sex, and
everything else. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Iser, W. (1978). The art of reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Nemerov, H. (1978). Poetry and meaning. In Figures of
thought. Boston, MA: Godine.
Perillo, L. (2005). Fubar. In Luck is luck (pp. 51–52).
New York, NY: Random House.
Rothenberg, J. (Ed.). (1985). Technicians of the sacred: A
range of poetries from Africa, America, Asia, Europe
and Oceania (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
POINTE
The term pointe, defined by the Oxford-Duden
German Dictionary as a “punch line, conceit or
[plot] twist,” refers in French and German to the
witty effect of funny, surprising, and ingenious
twists. Prototypically, pointes can be found at the
end of short literary narrative texts, such as jokes,
anecdotes, and epigrams.
For the sake of a terminological overview, it is
useful to differentiate between (1) the use of pointe
in normative treatises of the 17th and 18th centuries
that give advice on how to write literary texts, and
(2) its descriptive use in research (in particular in
German), where the term has a meaning similar to
that of “punch line.”
History
Etymologically, pointe is something acute or
pointed, and during the Renaissance it appears as a
literary term in French literature as a translation of
the Latin acutus (acumen). However, the most per-
tinent treatises on the pointe, which were written
at that time in Spain and Italy, used different words
to refer to witty, surprising, so-called ingenious lit-
erary effects (Spanish agudezza, concepto; Italian
acutezza, argutia, argutezza, concetto). These trea-
tises were particularly interested in the means used
to impress an audience with surprising stylistic art-
istry, so-called conceits (although concetti and con-
ceptos were not confined to metaphors). In Spain,
Baltasar Gracián (1648) presented the concepto
as a way of producing new and surprising ideas.
In Italy, Emanuele Tesauro (1654) praised the
accutezze for the intellectual delight of combining
“far-fetched” concepts. This poetic interest in the
pointe coincided with a general fondness for anti-
thetical style. For instance, John Donne contrasted
burning fire with water in his epigram on “Hero
and Leander,” two mythical lovers who drowned
in the Hellespont: “Both rob’d of aire we both lye
on the ground / Both whom one fire had burnt, one
water drowned.”
The term pointe itself is connected to French
classicists’ criticism of the excessive use of rhetoric
and ingenious style in literature in the 18th century.
Charles Batteux (1754), for instance, stressed that
the pointe should only be used in epigrams, if it is
based on a similarity of ideas and not only of words.
Samuel Johnson (1779) criticized the “metaphysical
poets” for their “far-fetched” and “false conceits.”
Nevertheless, the pointe continued to be a serious
subject of inquiry in relation to epigrams through-
out the 18th century. In Germany, the poet and phi-
lologist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1777) adopted
the word pointe into German, in order to describe
the bipartite structure of epigrams consisting of
an “expectation” (Erwartung) and a resolution
(Aufschluß) that triggers the pointe through a witty
but not artificial ending.

The Pointe in Modern Research
Modern research on the pointe differs from poetical
treatises in that it is less concerned with the issue of
how and when poets should use this literary device.
Rather, toward the end of the 19th century, it starts
to systematically explore the aesthetic effect of the
pointe and to analyze the objects that trigger such an
effect. Emil Kraepelin, one of the founding fathers of
empirical psychology, understood the pointe as an
effect created by an “intellectual contrast.” Theodor
Lipps, on the other hand, understood pointes in
terms of overcoming a psychological inhibition,
which influenced Freud’s book on Jokes and Their
Relation to the Unconscious (1905/1960).
Today, research in literature, psychology, and
linguistics has mostly focused on jokes and rarely
takes into account the historical background of the
pointe in the poetics of the Renaissance and classi-
cism. In academic usage, the pointe is mostly con-
sidered to be a necessary condition of a joke, and
the term refers either to the final words in a text,
which cause the striking effect of a pointe, or to the
event of understanding a pointe. Its functioning may
be distinguished from other forms of humor by its
combination of incongruity and incongruity resolu-
tion (whereas humor does not necessarily require an
incongruity resolution). As a consequence, a pointe
requires a basic narrative sequence of setup and sur-
prising resolution. Such a sequence may elicit certain
expectations, which are subsequently disappointed
in an incongruous unexpected ending, as can be
observed in garden-path jokes. (An example is this:
“Bush has a short one, Gorbachev has a long one,
Madonna rarely uses hers, and the Pope doesn’t use
his. What is it? Answer: a last name.”)
Or an open, or even incongruous, exposition may
be followed by an unexpected solution. This can be
observed in the 1999 film The Sixth Sense by M.
Night Shyamalan, where the protagonist’s behavior
surprisingly turns out to be motivated by paranor-
mal phenomena.
Ralph Müller
See also Anecdote, Comic; Aphorism; Epigram;
Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes; Punch Line; Witz
Further Readings
Batteux, C. (1809). Principes de la littérature [Principles of
literature] (New ed.). Avignon, France: Chambeau.
Politeness 583
Blanco, M. (1992). Les rhétoriques de la pointe: Baltasar
Gracián et le conceptisme en Europe [The rhetoric of
the conceit: Baltasar Gracián and the theory of the
conceit in Europe]. Paris, France: Librairie Honoré
Champion.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. In J. Starchey, A. Freud, A. Strachey, &
A. Tyson (Eds.), The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 8). London,
UK: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1905)
Gracián, B. (1969). Agudeza y arte de ingenio [Wit and the
art of ingenuity]. Madrid, Spain: Castalia.
Johnson, S. (2006). Cowley. In R. Lonsdale (Ed.), The lives
of the most eminent English poets; with critical
observations on their works (Vol. 1, pp. 193–234).
Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Kraepelin, E. (1885). Zur Psychologie des Komischen [On
the psychology of humor]. In W. Wundt (Ed.),
Philosophische Studien (Vol. 2, pp. 128–193, 327–369).
Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.
Lessing, G. E. (1973). Zerstreute Anmerkungen über das
Epigramm und einiger der vornehmsten Epigrammisten
[Scattered notes on the epigram and some of the finest
epigram writers]. In H. G. Göpfert & J. Schönert (Eds.),
Werke (Vol. 5). Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Lipps, T. (1898). Komik und Humor: Eine psychologisch-
ästhetische Untersuchung [The comic and humor: A
psychological-aesthetic study]. Leipzig, Germany: Voss.
Müller, R. (2003). The Pointe in German research.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
16(2), 225–242.
Ruthven, K. K. (1969). The conceit. London, UK:
Methuen.
Tesauro, E. (1968). Il cannocchiale aristotelico [The
Aristotelian telescope]. Bad Homburg, Germany: Gehlen.
Wenzel, P. (1989). Von der Struktur des Witzes zum Witz
der Struktur: Untersuchungen zur Pointierung in Witz
und Kurzgeschichte [From the structure of the joke to
the joke of the structure: Studies on the pointedness in
jokes and short stories]. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
POLITENESS
Politeness is a set of strategies that can be used for
face-saving in social interactions. Erving Goffman
(1955/2003) described face as “the social value
a person effectively claims for himself” (p. 7),
and Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson used
the term in defining their theory of politeness.
According to Brown and Levinson, there are two
584 Politeness
types of politeness, namely, positive and nega-
tive. Positive politeness comes from the need to be
acknowledged, liked, and valued and the need to
have a positive public image. Negative politeness
can be said to derive from the rebellious side, the
need to announce one’s relative independence from
social conventions. Humor is one way to adhere
to politeness. This entry discusses the intersections
between humor and politeness.
Brown and Levinson list humor among the strat-
egies of positive politeness. Janet Holmes explores
the issue further and lists four ways in which humor
can express positive and negative politeness. Positive
politeness can be expressed via humor (1) by address-
ing the hearer’s positive face needs through shared
norms and common ground, and (2) by protecting
the speaker’s positive face needs through expressing
self-deprecatory sentiments. Negative politeness can
be achieved through humor (3) by attenuating the
threat to the hearer’s negative face (e.g., decreasing
the commanding tone in a directive), and (4) by
attenuating the threat to the hearer’s positive face,
such as cushioning a criticism.
Many a truth is said in jest, as the saying goes,
and figuratively speaking, speakers (or writers) may
be more likely to speak their mind when they hide
their (or their addressee’s) “face” behind the mask of
humor. According to Anat Zajdman, face-threatening
acts can be implemented in joking in on-record (being
bald about it), redressed (threat minimized), and
off-record (indirect face-threatening act usually by
violating a maxim) modes. However, she claims face-
threatening acts do not need to be avoided in an act
of joking, as jokes can serve negative politeness strat-
egies as much as positive ones and “breed respect.”
As such, “joking is considered as a feature character-
izing the language of the group in power, [whereas]
polite language is attributed to the weaker group”
(Zajdman, 1995, p. 328). Humor helps shape power
relationships, and as Janet Holmes and Meredith
Marra point out, although it is usually a means of
positive politeness, it may not be as positive when
used by people in different levels of power and status.
Politeness also plays an important role in
responses to failed humor. Failing at humor is a
highly face-threatening act for the speaker, as humor
is part of constructing one’s identity in social circum-
stances, and it is up to the person on the receiving
end of the joke whether to save the joke-teller’s face.
Nancy Bell states that humor can fail as a result of
the text of the joke or the way it is delivered, and
she found that when the hearers in her corpus did
not appreciate a joke, they chose to criticize the joke
rather than the person who has told it in order to
comply with politeness. Bell (2009b) also found that
hearers sometimes respond to failed humor with
“polite laughter and comments that seem designed
to help the teller save face after his or her failed
attempt to amuse” (p. 1832).
When an attempt at humor fails, both the speaker
and the hearer’s faces are threatened. As Neal
Norrick points out in his discussion of the recep-
tion of the performance of jokes, the hearer may not
appreciate the humor and not laugh out of mirth,
but she or he wants to make sure that it is not due to
incomprehension, so the humorous attempt has to
be somehow acknowledged. In a study on the impo-
lite responses to failed humor between persons in
intimate relationships, Bell discovered that hearers
may choose to be aggressive in their responses and
implement negative impoliteness strategies such as
making the other uncomfortable, remaining silent,
ignoring, using taboo words, and so forth. She con-
cludes that face claims of the hearer constitute one
of the main aggressive responses to failed humor.
The last major intersection of politeness and
humor is the production of irony. Shelly Dews and
colleagues found that speakers prefer irony to lit-
eral language for a number of reasons: to be funny,
to attenuate an insult, to maintain their relation-
ship with the hearer, and to prove that they can
control their emotions. According to Shelly Dews
and Ellis Winner’s tinge hypothesis, hearers process
the literal meaning of an ironic statement in accor-
dance with its intended meaning, which affects the
hearer’s interpretation. In other words, if irony is
used to communicate negative meaning like a criti-
cism (e.g., “awesome movie!” to mean the movie is
bad), politeness is violated less. If speakers use nega-
tive words, on the other hand, they are considered
less polite even if they are paying a compliment.
Jacqueline Matthews and colleagues tested the tinge
hypothesis, but their findings did not support it on
the grounds that people refrained from offering
ironic criticisms as well as literal ones when saying
nothing was an option. Although their findings sug-
gest that people use verbal irony to be humorous
and not to be polite, Matthews and colleagues point
out that the scenarios they used in their study always
depicted intimates, and therefore their study may
reveal different results if strangers rather than close
friends or partners are used in the scenarios.
Hilal Ergül

See also Culture; Failed Humor; Gender Roles in
Humor; Irony
Further Readings
Bell, N. D. (2009a). Impolite responses to failed humor.
In D. Chiaro & N. Norrick (Eds.), Humor in interaction
(pp. 143–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Bell, N. D. (2009b). Responses to failed humor. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41(9), 1825–1836.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it
directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse
Processes, 19(3), 347–367.
Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A
social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(1),
3–19.
Goffman, E. (2003). On face-work: An analysis of ritual
elements in social interaction. Reflections, 4(3), 7–13.
(Original work published 1955 in Psychiatry: Journal for
the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(3), 213–231.
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation:
How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse
Studies, 2(2), 159–185.
Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and
gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and
identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research,
1(1), 121–149.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your
p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A.
Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago,
IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Matthews, J. K., Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2006).
The roles of politeness and humor in the asymmetry of
affect in verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 3–24.
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts:
Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3),
325–339.
POLITICAL HUMOR
A wide range of social phenomena fall under the
umbrella of political humor. Politics refers broadly
to social behaviors related to the governing bodies of
a nation or comparable entity. Political humor, then,
encompasses humor directed at or derived from
politics, policies, political parties, institutions, and
Political Humor 585
individuals involved in the political process, as well
as humor used by politicians themselves.
Humor About Politics and Politicians
Humor directed at politics and politicians may be
seen as a means by which constituents figuratively
undermine the ruling powers. Such humor may
address the suppression of personal and political
freedoms, as has been noted in contemporary Asian
political humor, or highlight the contrast between
politicians’ public promises and the reality of their
actions, which has been fodder for observers of
American election campaigns.
Political humor can take myriad forms, including
joke, pun, riddle, song, parable, and satire. In turn,
it can perform numerous functions, including expos-
ing incompetence or immorality, defusing aggression
or encouraging cooperation, critiquing ideology, or
promoting common ground.
One of the earliest jokes can be traced to an
ancient Egyptian one about pharaohs: A hieroglyph
dated to 2600 BCE has been translated as “How
do you entertain a bored pharaoh? You sail a boat-
load of young women dressed only in fishing nets
down the Nile and urge the pharaoh to go catch a
fish.” Another 3,500-year-old example from a tablet
found in southern Mesopotamia included a riddle
about a governor.
The ancient Greeks provided more extensive
examples of early political humor. Aristophanes’s
Lysistrata (411 BCE) is a commonly cited seminal
work of political satire, in which women attempt
to influence the politics of the Peloponnesian War
through sexual deprivation. Aristotle, Plato, and
Cicero all offered explanations and critiques of the
use of humor as a rhetorical strategy in the public
realm. Satire, the mocking of human flaws on the
personal and societal level, has been a mainstay
of political humor from Aristophanes, Obayd-e
Zakani’s fable “Mouse and Cat” to Jonathan Swift’s
“A Modest Proposal,” through Britain’s Punch mag-
azine (1841–2002) up to today’s The Daily Show and
The Colbert Report and various websites. Since the
1800s, political cartoons in newspapers have enjoyed
widespread popularity across the globe, including in
Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
Humor aimed at politicians has several typical
targets. Vice and moral weakness is a common topic;
Romans emperors, including Constantine, were sub-
jected to ridicule for their public drunkenness. More
recently, U.S. President Bill Clinton’s affair with
586 Political Humor
“A Thanksgiving Truce,” a cartoon that appeared in the November 22, 1905, issue of Puck magazine.
Source: Cartoon by J. S. Pughe. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC, Reproduction Number
LC-DIG-ppmsca-26010.
White House intern Monica Lewinsky and Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s sex-inspired
“bunga bunga” parties were the subject of mockery.
Politicians’ intellectual prowess is another com-
mon target for humor. George W. Bush’s intelligence
was regarded as suspect by many comedians. One
joke compared his State of the Union address to
Groundhog Day: “It is an ironic juxtaposition of
events: one involves a meaningless ritual in which
we look to a creature of little intelligence for prog-
nostication, while the other involves a groundhog.”
Appearance or gestures as fodder for humor is
a particularly popular domain for cartoonists. A
Harper’s Weekly cartoon from 1908 showed the hefty
William Howard Taft, U.S. president, in a tight-fit-
ting outfit reminiscent of former president Theodore
Roosevelt’s Rough Rider uniform, with Uncle Sam
saying, “Bill, you’d look so much better in your own
clothes.” Representations of Richard Nixon routinely
emphasized his nose and often portrayed him with
his arms raised in the double “V for victory” stance.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hair-
style, Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi’s
long gray mane of hair, and Cuban President Fidel
Castro’s beard and cigar were invariably caricatured.
Political humor may be aimed at an institution or
the vagaries of political life rather than a specific fig-
ure. For example, a Japanese verse from a prominent
newspaper wryly noted the high turnover among offi-
cials in the early 1990s with “The Japanese live long,
but life as a prime minister is short.” Sir Cyril Smith
referred to the UK’s House of Commons as “the
longest running farce in the West End.” American
humorist Mark Twain was famously quoted as quip-
ping, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you
were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Given their lack of a specific target and distinctive
criticism, jokes of this sort are often co-opted across
political target, contexts, and borders.
Humor is a common strategy for pushing the
boundaries of political expression in repressive
societies. Silvio Berlusconi’s government blocked a
political satire form the state-owned television show.
One version of a North Korean joke reported by
defectors from the country reveals the political ten-
sions inherent in daily life for its citizens:
A man in North Korea goes fishing and lands a fish.
Returning home, he excitedly asks his wife, “Shall
we eat fried fish today?” She replies, “We have no
cooking oil!” “Shall we stew it, then?” “We have no
pot!” “Shall we grill it?” “We have no firewood!”
Frustrated, the man returns to the river and throws
the fish back in the water. The fish, happy to have
escaped, sticks its head above water and shouts:
“Long live Kim Jong Il!”

“The Last Blow,” a drawing of a female symbol of Democracy
punching German soldiers, labeled “Militarism,” who are
lying on a pile of skulls as a house burns in the background.
Source: Cartoon by C. D. Gibson, published in LIFE
magazine, August 29, 1918, p. 749. Library of Congress
Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC,
Reproduction Number LC-DIG-ppmsca-33518.
Governments may view such humor as subversive
and therefore police outlets for it. Singapore’s news-
papers have rejected editorial cartoons about local
politics, and political jokes continue to be grounds
for arrest in China. However, the ambiguity of humor
may be advantageous to fledgling political expres-
sion, as it allows criticisms to be broached while
retaining the plausible cover of levity and goodwill.
Humor From Politicians
Humor from political figures likewise takes many
forms and achieves various purposes. Among
American politicians, President Ronald Reagan has
received perhaps the most attention for his use of
one-liners and their argued effect on his popularity.
One of his most famous jokes was spoken during a
debate with Walter Mondale, in which he was ques-
tioned about his ability to function as president at
his advanced age. He replied, “I want you to know
that I will not make age an issue in this campaign.
I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my
opponent’s youth and inexperience.” This is one of
many age-related jokes that Reagan used to effec-
tively embrace and defuse the issue of age through
humor, a topic of concern for many voters.
Self-deprecating humor, in particular, has the
ability to balance the confidence, privilege, and
egotism required to run for political office and has
been found to garner more positive reactions from
Political Humor 587
audiences than humor targeting a political oppo-
nent. A frequent ploy has been for politicians to
portray themselves as somehow subservient to their
wives, such as U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s com-
ment that he was simply the man who accompa-
nied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris and British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill’s claim that his most
brilliant achievement was his ability to be able to
persuade his wife to marry him. Such humor may
endear candidates to the electorate, enhancing their
popularity and influence.
Politicians’ humor does not enjoy unanimously
positive results. In 2009, the mayor of Los Alamitos,
California, resigned after criticism of an e-mail he
circulated showing the Barack Obama White House
lawn planted with watermelons, which was widely
regarded as a reflecting a racist stereotype. Chilean
President Sebastián Piñera was criticized in 2011
for a sexist joke comparing politicians and women.
A Japanese minister resigned after receiving criticism
for an irreverent remark about radiation poisoning
after his country’s tsunami and resulting nuclear cri-
sis of 2011. Criticism of such would-be humorists is
often grounded in the perception that they display
a lack of judgment and cultural sensitivity that is
necessary for effective leadership.
Research
A small body of research has taken an empirical or
experimental approach to studying the effects of
political humor. Given the current dependence of
many young Americans on late night comedy pro-
grams such as The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report for news, examining how such shows tar-
get humor and affect their audiences may facili-
tate understanding of the impact of contemporary
political humor. In total, these shows may focus
more often on ad hominem attacks rather than ideo-
logical issues, but some scholars have argued that
these shows tend to showcase policy issues more so
than traditional late night comedy formats such as
The Tonight Show or The David Letterman Show.
Humor directed at female politicians on U.S. tele-
vision has tended to focus disproportionately on
appearance and gendered issues. For example,
David Letterman said of the 2008 Republican vice
presidential candidate, “I like that Sarah Palin. She
looks like the weekend anchor on Channel 9. She
looks like the hygienist who makes you feel guilty
about not flossing. She looks like the relieved mom
in a Tide commercial.”
588 Positive Psychology
Some research has begun to explore the individ-
ual qualities associated with viewers’ affinity for and
reactions to political humor, including age, politi-
cal knowledge, and the effect of political humor
consumption on political interest and participation.
Research has produced apparently contradictory
findings that consumption of political humor on
television may lead viewers to perceive themselves
as politically knowledgeable; in contrast, the humor
on such shows is associated with cynicism toward
the political process and decreased argument scru-
tiny. Although a significant body of literature has
documented politicians’ performance of humor and
speculated as to its impact on key initiatives and
elections, less scholarship has directly assessed the
effect of politicians’ humor on voters’ attitudes or
behaviors.
Amy M. Bippus
See also Journalism; Presidential Humor; Satire News
Further Readings
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (Eds.). (2007).
Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the
media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gardner, G. C. (1994). Campaign comedy: Political humor
from Clinton to Kennedy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
Schulz, C. E. (1977). Political humor: From Aristophanes
to Sam Ervin. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University
Presses.
Stewart, P. A. (2012). Debatable humor: Laughing matters
on the 2008 presidential primary campaign. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tsakona, V., & Popa, D. E. (2011). Studies in political
humour: In between political critique and public
entertainment. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Positive psychology is a field of study that focuses
on emotions, traits, and institutions that enable
people to function at their best and lead happy and
fulfilling lives. This approach came to prominence
in 1998, when Martin Seligman served as president
of the American Psychological Association and
called for a new direction in psychological research.
He noted that much of the focus of psychology had
been on pathology and problems in living, neglect-
ing the study of human strengths and flourishing.
The roots of positive psychology can be traced
to ancient philosophers and religious thinkers who
sought to define a good life, virtuous character,
and authentic happiness. In the 1960s and 1970s,
humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow
and Carl Rogers also emphasized the importance
of studying human potential, authenticity, and self-
actualization. Positive psychology may be viewed as
a revival of these humanistic emphases, along with
more rigorous research methodologies.
With its emphasis on positive emotion, health,
and social cohesion, the psychological study of
humor seems to fit naturally within the field of posi-
tive psychology. In particular, links between humor
and positive psychology have been made in two topic
areas that are primary interests of positive psycholo-
gists: positive emotions and character strengths.
This entry discusses these two topic areas and the
limitations of positive psychology in addressing
humor.
Humor and Positive Emotion
Positive psychology has shifted the focus of emotion
research from the traditional emphasis on negative
emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety, anger) to include
positive emotions such as joy, gratitude, and love.
Barbara Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory has
emerged as the leading model of positive emotion and
has stimulated a good deal of research. According to
this theory, positive emotions “broaden” the indi-
vidual’s thought-action repertoire in the short term,
producing more flexible thinking and openness to a
wider array of thoughts, activities, and relationships.
This in turn leads to “building” more enduring
long-term personal resources (e.g., social support,
resilience, skills, knowledge), which contributes to
enhanced health, survival, and resilience.
This theoretical framework seems to apply well
to mirth, the positive emotion associated with
humor (often called amusement in the positive
psychology literature). The cognitive social play of
humor is based on shifting perspectives and flex-
ibility of thought, while the laughter accompanying
mirth signals openness to friendly interactions with
other people, which may in turn lead to more cre-
ative thinking and enhanced social bonds. Indeed, a
considerable amount of experimental research has
shown that exposure to comedy (as well as other
elicitors of positive emotions) leads to increases in
creativity, memory, problem solving, altruism, and
prosocial behavior.

Humor as a Character Strength
Researchers in positive psychology have identified
24 character strengths (one of which is humor),
which in turn are classified into six core virtues that
have been valued across cultures since ancient times.
These strengths and virtues are viewed as important
contributors to a life of fulfillment and satisfaction.
The six virtues are wisdom (including such strengths
as creativity and love of learning); courage (e.g.,
authenticity, perseverance); humanity (e.g., love,
kindness); justice (e.g., fairness, leadership); temper-
ance (e.g., forgiveness, self-regulation); and transcen-
dence (e.g., gratitude, religiousness, humor). The
Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) is a
240-item questionnaire designed to measure each of
these character strengths.
Humor (conceived as a trait-like variable) is one
of the 24 strengths included in this classification,
and a 10-item humor scale is included in the VIA-IS.
Research using this measure has found that humor is
one of the character strengths most highly related to
subjective well-being, confirming its importance in
positive psychology. Although humor is categorized
within the virtue of transcendence, research indicates
that it could equally belong with all six of the virtues,
and particularly humanity and wisdom. Thus, there
is still some question about where humor fits into
the classification of character strengths and virtues.
Limitations
Although there seem to be clear overlaps between
humor and positive psychology, there has been a
surprising neglect of humor in much of the positive
psychology literature. Humor even fails to appear
at all in the indexes of several of the leading texts
and reference works in the field. This may be due
in part to the multifaceted nature of humor, which
makes it difficult to define as a purely salutary con-
struct. When they do talk about humor, positive
psychologists tend to use a narrower definition of
the concept than do most humor researchers. In
positive psychology, humor is used in the traditional
philosophical sense to refer only to benign amuse-
ment at the incongruities of life, the ability to see
the funny side of adverse situations, and avoiding
taking oneself too seriously. In most humor research,
in contrast, the word is used as a broader umbrella
term to refer to all phenomena of the funny, includ-
ing sarcasm and satire as well as irony and whimsy.
Not all forms of humor, in this broader sense, are
likely to be considered virtuous or conducive to a
Postmodern Irony 589
life of fulfillment and well-being. Indeed, research
on the virtuousness of humor indicates that items
taken from numerous widely used humor measures
span the gamut from virtue to vice. Studies on asso-
ciations between humor styles and well-being also
suggest that psychological well-being has as much
to do with the avoidance of certain deleterious styles
of humor as the presence of beneficial styles. Thus,
although there is an overlap between humor research
and positive psychology that merits further explora-
tion, there is not a perfect fit between the two.
Rod A. Martin
See also Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological; Mirth;
Psychology; Sense of Humor, Components of
Further Readings
Beerman, U., & Ruch, W. (2009). How virtuous is humor?
What we can learn from current instruments. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 4, 528–539.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S.
Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living:
Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 85–103).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford
handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
POSTMODERN IRONY
Irony is the central mode of consciousness of post-
modernism and one of the main forms of expression
of postmodernist literature. It marks the postmod-
ern attitude of disenchantment toward the totalizing
narratives that legitimate Western culture (history,
philosophy, religion, science, etc.) and is also one of
the main strategies used by postmodernist fiction to
retain the ability to represent the world while rais-
ing awareness of art’s own status as cultural arti-
fice and potential instrument of power. Modernism
had already used the dissecting power of laughter
as a means to expose both the conformism of bour-
geois society and art’s own ideological limitations.
Modernist works such as James Joyce’s Ulysses
and Carlo Emilio Gadda’s That Awful Mess on
Via Merulana use parodic dialogism and linguistic
590 Postmodern Irony
polyphony as a way to subvert the tendency toward
unity and closure of the conventional realist plot,
which, ultimately, makes artistic discourse into an
instrument to perpetuate the dominant ideology.
Nonetheless, modernist texts often reduce the ambi-
guity of parodic discourse by placing the artists above
the culture they seek to criticize; the past as referent
is overcome through the creation of an experimen-
tal metalanguage that either restores the belief in
the redemptive force of the artistic aura or attests to
art’s ultimate inability to add meaning to the world.
Overcoming this nihilist attitude toward the past,
postmodernist works embrace the ambiguity of
irony and use parodic dialogism as a way to criti-
cize culture from within the language of tradition,
without imposing alternative metaphysical view-
points. As Umberto Eco argues in his “Postscript to
The Name of the Rose,” destroying the past can lead
art to reach the point of incommunicability, as hap-
pened to some avant-garde movements. Instead of
following this route, postmodernism repeats tradi-
tion with ironic difference; it uses old forms in order
to expose and rescue them from the monolithic
viewpoints that inform them and reactivate their
ability to promote critical awareness. Conventional
narrative plots, such as the Victorian novel in John
Fowles’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman, are used
as strategies to rescue readers from their passive
reception of cultural messages and make them con-
scious of the ideological constructs that influence
their understanding of the world. Aware of their
own implication in the legitimization of ideology,
postmodernist authors, or “integrated” intellectuals
as Eco has defined them, use the language of power,
and the mechanisms of power production used by
the culture industry, against themselves. Their ironic
use of cultural conventions and artistic forms that
appeal to a wide readership aims at turning litera-
ture from a potential mode of control to a freedom-
inducing act.
Marxist critics such as Fredric Jameson have
been skeptical about the political engagement of
postmodernist parody. They have interpreted the
duplicity of postmodernist irony and its ambiguous
attitude toward tradition as symptoms of a lack of
depth and a commitment to anarchy that makes
postmodernist texts complicit with the ideology of
late capitalist society. In their view, postmodernist
irony is a form of blank parody, a cannibalization
of old styles that is not inspired by a genuine his-
toricism and ultimately turns cultural tradition into
a set of dusty spectacles deprived of any value and
unable to add meaning to the present. According
to this view, unlike modernist irony, whose formal
experimentation provided a utopia of liberation,
postmodernist irony does not offer a way out of the
cultural impasse; its ambiguity is a form of institu-
tionalization, a way to surrender to fragmentation
and the power mechanisms of global capitalism.
Rescuing postmodernism from the accusation
of relativism, critics such as Linda Hutcheon and,
more recently, Amy Elias have highlighted the ethi-
cal intent of the postmodernist revival of tradition.
Hutcheon argues that the political commitment of
postmodernist fiction, or “historiographic metafic-
tion” as she defines it, lays in its attempt to engage in
a critical dialogue with culture whose ultimate goal
is to denaturalize the contrived notions of reality and
history that readers assume as unmediated, natural
truths. Hence, parodic arbitrariness is not a form of
relativism but, rather, an ethical project that consists
in the simultaneous revisitation and critique of the
totalitarian narratives that shaped the public imagi-
nary. Ultimately, postmodernist irony is informed by
a reader-oriented ethics: It fosters the development
of a critical attitude toward reality instead of impos-
ing metaphysical values fashioned by art in a top-
down way. Building on Hutcheon’s argument, while
emphasizing the continuity between postmodernist
novels and old forms of historical fiction, Elias has
defined the “metahistorical romance” as the his-
torical narrative par excellence of the postmodernist
age. Postmodernist fiction, Elias contends, adapts
the 19th-century historical romance to the changed
understanding of history that characterizes contem-
porary historiography, namely, to today’s rejection of
the totalizing concept of history—the linear notion
of history as progress deriving from Enlightenment
rationalism—that legitimized Western colonialism
and nationalism and is also responsible for the trau-
mas of the World Wars. The postmodernist ironic
attitude toward the past reflects history’s own eman-
cipation from cultural master narratives. Thus, post-
modernist parody goes beyond the mere academic
joke and is inspired by the ethical desire to make
sense of the past while avoiding the dominant view-
points of masters, despots, and colonizers.
In philosophy, together with the French poststruc-
turalists, who were the first to elaborate a theory
of postmodernism, and the American pragmatists,
the Italian philosophers of “weak thought” have
been among the main supporters of postmodernism.
“Weak thought” is inspired by the same type of anti-
foundational hermeneutics that informs the thought

of philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard and
Richard Rorty. Nonetheless, it refuses to abandon
rationalism even in the absence of strong founda-
tions, thus adding a dimension of nuance to dis-
cussions about contemporary philosophy, which
provides an important argument against the Marxist
accusations of relativism and loss of historical sense.
As Gianni Vattimo contends, inspired by Friedrich
Nietzsche’s and Martin Heidegger’s theories on
the destabilization of ontology, postmodernists do
not intend to overcome tradition but, rather, to
weaken the past in order to liberate history from
the dogma of metaphysical interpretations. Thus,
the postmodernist ironic recollection of the past
does not entail an entirely nihilistic attitude toward
history and the cognitive value of tradition; instead,
it denotes an attitude of pietas, or devoted atten-
tion, toward the cultural monuments left to us in
legacy. Postmodernism reaffirms that the present is
grounded in history and that, although devoid of
metaphysical value, the past can still offer criteria
of reasonability and fragments of meaning that
can help communities to orient themselves in a life
devoid of, but also emancipated by, strong values.
This is evident in postmodernist literature, where,
as critic Alan Wilde has argued, “suspensive irony,”
which marks the acceptance of the multiplicity of
contingency, is often complemented by “generative
irony,” namely, the search for temporary meanings
that make precarious sense of the world. In other
words, as Wilde argues, postmodernists deny the
heroism of the modernist enterprise and its quest
for alternative metaphysical values but nevertheless
attempt a partial recovery of humanism and strive to
find, within the realm of ordinary life, possibilities of
momentary meaning.
Eco’s novel The Name of the Rose offers both
an important reflection on postmodernism and a
striking example of postmodernist double coding.
With its dense intertextuality, Eco’s novel parodies
a number of monological genres, from the theo-
logical argument to the detective novel, while also
“replenishing” their ability to convey meaning.
Upon finding the main culprit and motive for the
abbey’s crimes, the novel’s protagonist, William of
Baskerville, claims that his overtly rational mind—
he is a postmodern Sherlock Holmes, as his name
suggests—has mistakenly led him to untangle a plan
that does not exist. The task of the modern thinker,
as William ultimately understands, is to “make truth
laugh,” instead of replacing old metaphysical truths,
such as that of the divine logos, with newer myths
Postmodern Irony 591
such as that of the ordering mind. Nonetheless,
when reminded that “by imagining an erroneous
order” he “still found something,” William also
understands that the mind cannot do away with old
structuring systems altogether, that one must appre-
ciate their usefulness while coming to terms with the
necessity to undermine closure: “The order that our
mind imagines is like a net, or like a ladder, built
to attain something. But afterward you must throw
the ladder away, because you discover that, even
if it was useful, it was meaningless” (Eco, 1984b,
p. 492). As Eco’s novel suggests, postmodernists
believe that the past can still add meaning to the
present even though, ultimately, it must be deprived
of any dogmatic value.
Like their modernist forerunners, postmodernist
artists consider the intellectual as an ironist whose
ethical task is to provide a critical insight into culture.
Yet, unlike the modernists, postmodernist ironists
do not have an “apocalyptic” attitude toward cul-
ture; they do not dismiss familiar conventions to cre-
ate a metalanguage that reasserts art’s authority over
reality. Thus, although in The Name of the Rose Eco
acknowledges the important influence of an author
such as Jorge Luis Borges, whose use of parody and
intertexuality anticipated the postmodernist way
of operating, he also casts the Argentinean author
into the villain Jorge of Burgos, the blind and erudite
librarian who forbids Aristotle’s book on laughter
from causing the collapse of the medieval system of
belief. The metaphysical logos that Jorge of Burgos
attempts to protect is the symbol of any totalizing
narrative, including that of Borges’s modernism,
whose authority is undermined by the double cod-
ing of postmodernist parody. Modernists considered
formal experimentation as the measure of their ethi-
cal commitment toward reality. Their ironic stance
toward culture produced a self-reflexive language
that can make it difficult for the average reader to
come out of the intertextual labyrinth and estab-
lish a connection, even though a precarious one,
between text and world. Instead, mixing the high-
brow with the lowbrow, combining intertextual-
ity with enjoyable plots, the postmodernist writer
constructs fictional worlds that foster “worldly”
connections, narrations that allow many different
types of readers to negotiate some kind of mean-
ing and witness a transformative experience that
will impact their understanding of the world. Many
modernist works lack the democratic quality and
the type of social solidarity that are the quintessen-
tial characteristics of postmodernist irony, an irony
592 Practical Jokes
whose ethical program, as Rorty argues, consists in
facilitating the reader’s spontaneous identification
with the oppressed instead of imposing from above
the acceptance of metaphysical universals such as
liberty, equality, and dignity. Nonetheless, it can be
argued that this project of social solidarity “con-
structed out of little pieces” is fully realized only
in those postmodernist works where parody poses
an overt challenge to power relations in addition
to subverting the type of metaphysical thought that
generates them. The social engagement of postmod-
ernist irony comes to the fore particularly in works
that are located at the intersection of the postmod-
ern and the postcolonial, such as Salman Rushdie’s
Midnight’s Children. Here, parody creates a disjunc-
tive narration where history is told neither from the
viewpoint of the oppressor nor merely from that of a
disenfranchised minority, but is constructed, rather,
as a hybrid text of cultural in-betweenness that
promotes the awareness of shared differences or, as
Homi Bhabha (1994/2004) argues, of the “other-
ness of the people-as-one” (p. 215).
Loredana Di Martino
See also History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Europe; Irony
Further Readings
Barth, J. (1984). The Friday book: Essays and other
nonfiction. New York, NY: Putnam.
Bhabha, H. (2004). The location of culture. New York,
NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1994)
Di Martino, L. (2011). From Pirandello’s humor to Eco’s
Double coding: Ethics and irony in modernist and
postmodernist Italian fiction. MLN (Italian Issue),
126(1), 137–156.
Eco, U. (1984a). The frames of comic “freedom.” In T. A.
Sebeok (Ed.), Carnival! (pp. 1–9). Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Eco, U. (1984b). The name of the rose (W. Weaver, Trans.).
New York, NY: Harcourt.
Eco, U. (1984c). Postscript to The Name of the Rose. In
W. Weaver (Trans.), The name of the rose (pp. 505–535).
New York, NY: Harcourt.
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality (W. Weaver, Trans.).
New York, NY: Harcourt.
Eco, U. (1994). Apocalypse postponed (R. Lumley, Ed.).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Elias, A. (2001). Sublime desire: History and post-1960s
fiction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Hutcheon, L. (1985). A theory of parody: The teachings of
twentieth-century art forms. New York, NY: Methuen.
Hutcheon, L. (1988). A poetics of postmodernism: History,
theory, fiction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hutcheon, L. (1992). The power of postmodern irony.
In B. Rutland (Ed.), Genre, trope and gender: Essays by
Northrop Frye, Linda Hutcheon and Shirley Neuman.
Ottawa, ON, Canada: Carleton University Press.
Hutcheon, L. (1994). Irony’s edge: The theory and politics
of irony. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, the cultural logic
of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, M. A. (1993). Parody: Ancient, modern and post-
modern. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vattimo, G. (1988). The end of modernity: Nihilism and
hermeneutics in postmodern culture (J. R. Snyder,
Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Vattimo, G., & Rovatti, P. A. (Eds.). (1983). II pensiero
debole [Weak thought]. Milano, Italy: Feltrinelli.
Vattimo, G., & Rovatti, P. A. (Eds.). (2013). Weak thought
(P. Carravetta, Trans.). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Wilde, A. (1981). Horizons of assent: Modernism,
postmodernism, and the ironic imagination. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
PRACTICAL JOKES
A practical joke or prank is a play activity in which
one party (called the trickster or tricksters) arranges
things so that another party (the target or targets) is
led to have a false idea about what is currently going
on. The targets of practical jokes may also be called
dupes, butts, or victims. When practical jokes are
played on large groups of people in public settings,
they are often called hoaxes.
Practical jokes may be divided into several types.
Put-ons or leg-pulls are intended to fool the targets
only momentarily. Booby traps trick the targets into
treating an adulterated part of their environment
as if it were untouched, often causing them mess
and inconvenience. Physical humor may be part of
the enjoyment in this type of practical joke. Fool’s
errands go further by encouraging targets to act on
their erroneous beliefs; as they do so, their error is
revealed for the amusement of a hidden audience.
Any situation in which individuals have differential

knowledge may become fodder for the practical
joker. A tall tale, for example, may be enacted as
a practical joke on the greenhorn, leading to such
traditional amusements as the snipe hunt (a futile
search for a fictitious snipe).
Theories about metacommunication help to
explain the operation of practical jokes. Both play
and joking are accompanied by metacommunicative
signals that tell participants that what is going on is
not serious. In Erving Goffman’s extension of the
theory of metacommunication, practical jokes are
a type of benign fabrication in which these signals
of play are hidden from the targets. The incongruity
between the targets’ and tricksters’ framing of the
same strip of activity is an important source of the
humor of this genre.
Practical jokes are “practical” in the sense that
they are enacted rather than being told. They are
miniature plays in which the central characters—the
targets—are ideally unaware that they have been
contained in a strip of framed activity. In this state,
they are the unwitting objects of close attention by
an audience consisting of the jokers and others.
Many verbal jokes have targets, but the targets of
practical jokes are live people. Many, but not all,
practical joke targets eventually find out that they
have been made fools of, at which time they must
decide whether or not to treat their discomfiture in
the same way that the jokers and their audiences
do—as just a joke. In this respect, practical jokes
resemble teasing and jocular insults. The remainder
of this entry focuses on acceptable occasions for
practical jokes and the impact practical jokes can
have on social bonds.
Practical Joke Occasions
Certain calendar occasions—notably April Fools’
Day (April 1), Halloween (October 31), and Bonfire
Night (November 5)—are widely recognized as
conferring license to play practical jokes, and each
occasion has its own recognized style of appropri-
ate practical joking. Halloween pranks are generally
played by groups of young people on older people,
especially householders, and are intended to cause
the targets inconvenience and irritation. Pranksters
keep their identities secret to avoid retribution
because they do not necessarily expect their targets
to be amused.
In contrast, on April Fools’ Day, practical jokes
involve all age groups. Targets may be family mem-
bers, friends, colleagues, or even strangers. Children
Practical Jokes 593
have license to play jokes on their elders, including
teachers. Because April Fools’ Day jokes are rarely
anonymous, they offer opportunities for reciprocity,
sometimes leading to sequences of reciprocal jokes
that extend from one year to the next. Beginning in
the 20th century, journalists in radio, television, and
the Internet have made a practice of taking advan-
tage of this date to perpetrate elaborate spoofs and
hoaxes on their audiences.
Rites of passage—especially weddings, initiations,
birthdays, and funeral wakes—are associated with
traditional practical jokes. Popular wedding pranks
include booby trapping the newlyweds’ car so as to
make it temporarily unusable, or setting booby traps
in the couple’s house, especially the kitchen and bed-
room. In occupational groups, neophytes may be
sent to fetch such fictitious items as a check stretcher
or a bucket of steam. Both wedding pranks and ini-
tiation pranks function as a form of hazing, in which
the reactions of targets help determine whether they
achieve full social inclusion.
Practical Jokes and Relationships
The patterns of practical joking—who may play
a joke on whom and who joins in the communal
laughter at the discomfiture of the dupe—align with
salient boundaries between social groups.
The most common context for practical joking
is between friends and relatives. In these settings,
targets may get even with jokers by playing jokes
on them in turn, sometimes leading to extended
sequences of reciprocal practical jokes. Such
sequences are often found between people who
enjoy a joking relationship, and such patterns of
esoteric or in-group joking serve to build solidarity
between participants. In these cases, it is the rela-
tionship that gives each person the license to joke
with the other, and the shared laughter enhances the
bonds between them.
In contrast, exoteric practical jokes rarely offer
opportunity for reciprocity. When targets are left
unaware of their victimization or when they are
unable to join in the laughter, at their expense,
practical jokes have an exclusionary and boundary-
heightening effect. In occupational settings, anony-
mous practical jokes on superiors enhance solidarity
within other ranks; an individual trickster may rep-
resent the feelings of the group and provide a playful
outlet for resentment. Initiation pranks can be either
inclusive or exclusive, depending, in part, on how
targets react to being fooled.
594 Prejudice, Humor and
When exoteric practical joke traditions occur
between salient groups rather than individuals,
they accentuate the differences between groups.
Hoaxes, which occur in public between groups of
people, arise from and display perceived relation-
ships between groups. College students are known
for large-scale public pranks that are not always
intended to fool people but instead rely on secrecy
and surprise to astonish outsiders. The “hacks” cre-
ated by generations of MIT students are one exam-
ple. Such public pranks operate as displays of group
identity and group boundaries.
Moira Marsh
See also Fools; Jokes; Joking Relationship; Puns;
Spoofing; Tall Tale; Teasing
Further Readings
Basso, K. H. (1979). Portraits of “the Whiteman”:
Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the western
Apache. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Bauman, R. (1986). We was always pullin’ jokes: The
management of point of view. In Story, performance,
and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative
(pp. 33–53). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Dundes, A. (1989). April fool and April fish: Towards a
theory of ritual pranks. In Folklore matters
(pp. 98–109). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the
organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Smith, M. (2009). Arbiters of truth at play: Media April
Fools’ Day hoaxes. Folklore, 120, 274–290.
Smith, M. (2009). Humor, unlaughter, and boundary
maintenance. Journal of American Folklore, 122(484),
148–171.
Steinberg, N. (1992). If at all possible, involve a cow: The
book of college pranks. New York, NY: St. Martin’s
Press.
Tallman, R. (1974). A generic approach to the practical
joke. Southern Folklore Quarterly, 38(4), 259–274.
PREJUDICE, HUMOR AND
Disparagement humor (e.g., racist or sexist humor)
is humor that denigrates, belittles, or maligns an
individual or social group. Humor theorists have
argued that such humor fosters the expression of
prejudice—a negative attitude toward a social group
or a person perceived to be a member of that group.
Empirical research on the relationship between dis-
paragement humor and prejudice has been guided by
two different conceptualizations of disparagement
humor: disparagement humor as a “producer” of
prejudice, and disparagement humor as a “releaser”
of prejudice.
Disparagement Humor as a
Producer of Prejudice
Theoretical Overview
Humor theorists guided by the conceptualization
of disparagement humor as a producer of preju-
dice have suggested that disparagement humor has
negative consequences at both the individual or psy-
chological level and at the macro-sociological level.
At the individual level, disparagement humor is
thought to create and reinforce prejudice and nega-
tive stereotypes of the targeted group.
By reinforcing negative stereotypes and preju-
dice at the individual level, disparagement humor
is thought to maintain cultural or societal prejudice
at the macro-sociological level. Theorists have pro-
posed that racist humor depicted on television, for
instance, reinforces stereotypes and prejudice among
racist people, and thus functions to perpetuate a rac-
ist society. Furthermore, disparagement humor func-
tions as a means of social control, allowing members
of the dominant group in society to maintain their
privileged position. Sexist humor, for instance,
perpetuates power imbalances between men and
women.
Empirical Evidence
Consistent with the theoretical positions
described in the previous paragraphs, reciting dis-
paragement humor can have a negative effect on
the humorist’s attitudes and stereotypes of the tar-
geted group. Researchers have shown that when
people agree to recite jokes about lawyers and other
social groups, their attitudes toward those groups
become more negative. Daryl Bem’s self-perception
theory and Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance
theory can account for these findings. According to
self-perception theory, the negative remarks people
make about a social group can inform them of
their attitude toward the group and thus lead them
to report more negative attitudes and stereotypes.
From the framework of cognitive dissonance theory,

people’s negative remarks can be inconsistent with
their attitudes and thus create cognitive dissonance.
Participants might change their attitudes and stereo-
types to become more consistent with their negative
remarks in order to reduce cognitive dissonance.
According to either explanation, the negative con-
sequences of reciting disparagement humor do not
implicate any unique effects of humor as a medium
of communication apart from the disparaging
content.
The effects of exposure to disparagement humor
are less consistent with the position that dispar-
agement humor produces prejudice. James Olson,
Gregory Maio, and Karen Hobden exposed partici-
pants to either disparagement humor targeting men,
disparagement humor targeting lawyers, neutral
humor, nonhumorous disparagement of men, or
nonhumorous disparagement of lawyers. They then
measured the content and accessibility of stereotypes
about, and attitudes toward, the men and lawyers.
Across the three experiments, they performed a total
of 83 analyses, and only one revealed a significant
effect of exposure to disparagement humor rela-
tive to exposure to neutral humor or nonhumorous
disparagement. Exposure to disparagement humor
simply did not affect the content or accessibility of
stereotypes about, and attitudes toward, the targeted
groups relative to nonhumorous disparagement or
neutral humor.
Likewise, other research has shown that expo-
sure to sexist humor does not affect the evaluative
content of men’s stereotypes about women relative
to nonhumorous disparagement or neutral humor.
Collectively, then, existing empirical research pro-
vides no evidence that exposure to disparagement
humor uniquely affects stable, internal knowledge
structures, such as stereotypes about, and attitudes
toward, the targeted group.
Disparagement Humor as
a Releaser of Prejudice
Theoretical Overview
Thomas E. Ford and Mark A. Ferguson’s preju-
diced norm theory describes the process by which
exposure to disparagement humor fosters the out-
ward expression or “release” of prejudice. The the-
ory is grounded in research on the way prejudiced
people manage the conflict between their negative
attitude toward a social group and external nonprej-
udiced norms of appropriate conduct. Highly preju-
diced people tend to respond to targets of prejudice
Prejudice, Humor and 595
in accordance with prevailing social norms. They
suppress prejudice when the norms in a given con-
text dictate restraint; they express prejudice when
the prevailing norms communicate approval to do
so. Events that socially sanction or justify the expres-
sion of prejudice are known as “releasers” of preju-
dice. Releasers allow people to express prejudice
without fearing social reprisals.
Prejudiced norm theory proposes that disparage-
ment humor (e.g., a sexist or racist joke) trivializes
or makes light of expressions of prejudice against
the targeted group and, in so doing, communicates
an implicit message or normative standard that in
this context prejudice can be treated in a playful,
noncritical manner. In contrast, nonhumorous dis-
paragement does not activate such a conversational
rule of levity. On exposure to nonhumorous dispar-
agement, the recipient essentially brings to bear the
usual critical reactions to such sentiments prescribed
by nonprejudiced norms of conduct. In fact, it is
possible that nonhumorous disparagement makes
the usual nonprejudiced norms more salient.
The recipient’s response to disparagement humor
contributes to whether or not he or she will define
the context as one in which discrimination need not
be considered critically. If the recipient approves of
disparagement humor—that is, accepts it as “only
a joke”—he or she tacitly assents to a shared under-
standing (a social norm) that it is acceptable in this
context to make light of discrimination. People
essentially negotiate an agreement to suspend the
typical, serious norms for responding to such senti-
ments. In the context of disparagement humor, then,
discrimination against the targeted group may seem
less inappropriate.
The recipient, however, could object to the
disparagement humor and challenge (reject)
the normative standard implied by the humor.
The recipient’s opposition to disparagement humor
prevents the emergence of a shared local norm of tol-
erance of discrimination against the targeted group.
Consequently, the recipient should be less likely to
tacitly define the context as one in which discrimina-
tion need not be considered critically. As a result,
the usual nonprejudiced standards of conduct would
not be displaced by the disparagement humor, and
instances of discrimination would still be perceived
in accordance with those norms.
Highly prejudiced people are especially likely to
accept disparagement humor and interpret it in a
lighthearted manner. Consequently, on exposure to
disparagement humor, people high in prejudice are
596 Presidential Humor
especially likely to perceive and assent to an emer-
gent prejudiced norm in the immediate social con-
text and use that norm to guide their own responses
toward members of the targeted group.
Empirical Evidence
Research has shown that exposure to dispar-
agement humor affects people’s perceptions of dis-
crimination and their willingness to engage in subtle
forms of discrimination. For instance, men who are
exposed to sexist jokes report greater acceptance of
rape myths and violence against women, but only
when they accept the jokes—that is, interpret them
in a nonserious, lighthearted manner. Also, to the
extent that men are sexist, they perceive a norm of
tolerance of sexism in the immediate context on
exposure to sexist jokes but not on exposure to non-
sexist jokes or nonhumorous sexist statements.
Furthermore, on exposure to sexist humor, men
higher in sexism use the implicit prejudiced norm to
guide their own reactions to a sexist event. In one
study, for instance, sexist men expressed greater tol-
erance of sexist remarks that a manager had made
to a new female employee when they had first read
sexist jokes than when they had read nonsexist jokes
or nonhumorous sexist statements. This effect was
due to the perception of normative tolerance of sex-
ism in the immediate context.
Other research has demonstrated that on expo-
sure to disparagement humor, prejudiced people are
more willing to engage in discriminatory behavior.
For instance, on exposure to sexist comedy skits,
men higher in sexism have been found to discrimi-
nate against women by allocating greater funding
cuts to a women’s organization on their college cam-
pus. In a similar study, people higher in prejudice
against gays discriminated against a gay student
organization more on exposure to anti-gay jokes
than on exposure to neutral jokes.
Conclusion
A review of the theoretical and empirical literature
reveals that disparagement humor is not simply
benign amusement. It expands the bounds of socially
appropriate behavior, creating social conditions in
which discrimination can be more easily rationalized
as not inappropriate. Accordingly, disparagement
humor promotes the behavioral release of prejudice
against its target.
Thomas E. Ford
See also Humor Mindset; Psychology; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ford, T. E., Boxer, C., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. (2008).
More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing
function of sexist humor. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 159–170. doi:10.1177/
0146167207310022
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. (2004). Social consequences of
disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 79–94.
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Bush, J. (1997). Telling jokes
that disparage social groups: Effects on the joke-teller’s
stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27,
1986–2000.
Olson, J. M., Maio, G. R., & Hobden, K. L. (1999). The
(null) effects of exposure to disparagement humor on
stereotypes and attitudes. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 12, 195–219.
Romero-Sánchez, M., Durán, M., Carretero-Dios, H.,
Megias, J. L., & Moya, M. (2010). Exposure to sexist
humor and rape proclivity: The moderator effect of
aversiveness ratings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
25(12), 2339–2350. doi:10.1177/0886260509354884
Ryan, K., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment of sexist
humor, rape attitudes, and relationship aggression in
college students. Sex Roles, 38, 743–756. doi:10.1023/
A:1018868913615
PRESIDENTIAL HUMOR
Presidential humor refers to either the use of humor
by presidents and presidential candidates or humor-
ous images, texts, or expressions that mock, ridicule,
or satirize presidents and presidential candidates.
Presidential humor is a subset of political humor.
Since its inception, the U.S. presidency has served
as an important target and scapegoat for comedi-
ans, editorialists, and satirists. From Thomas Nast’s
19th-century political cartoons in Harper’s Weekly,
to Will Rogers’s 1928 mock campaign for presidency
in LIFE, to Stephen Colbert’s formation of a “Super
PAC” on The Colbert Report during the 2012 pres-
idential campaign, and in myriad other examples,
humor has been central to how candidates run for

office and how commentators criticize political
leaders. According to the framework developed by
David L. Paletz in his 1990 article “Political Humor
and Authority: From Support to Subversion,”
political humor, including presidential humor, can
range from being supportive to being subversive.
Supportive presidential humor is relatively innocu-
ous and friendly to the dominant political order,
incumbent individuals, and prevailing institu-
tions. Subversive presidential humor challenges the
norms and values of status quo political power and
institutions.
Humor Used by Presidents and
Presidential Candidates
The first type of presidential humor is the rhetori-
cal use of humor by presidents and presidential
candidates. The United States has a long history
of presidents employing humor, and humor use by
presidents has increased in the 20th century with
the rise of television. Presidents including John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton were rec-
ognized for their quick wit and their ability to use
humor. For instance, in the 1980 campaign, Ronald
Reagan humorously attacked incumbent President
Jimmy Carter’s description of the economic down-
turn as a “recession” and not a “depression,” when
Reagan quipped, “If the President wants a definition,
I’ll give him one. Recession is when your neighbor
loses his job, depression is when you lose yours,
and recovery will be when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
Humor is also used by presidential candidates. Vice
presidential and presidential candidate Bob Dole
was known for his deadpan humor and published
Great Presidential Wit, a book of jokes told by pres-
idents, in which Dole ranks the presidents according
to their humor level.
Humor is an effective rhetorical tool for presiden-
tial candidates to build their image by making them-
selves more accessible to the public or to make their
opponents less attractive. It can be used to soften
attacks or to relax a hostile audience. A candidate
who is able to elicit laughter through a humorous
comment, often at the expense of the opposition can-
didate, has built a common bond with the audience.
Humor can increase a candidate’s likeability, and
humor often produces a halo effect on voter evalua-
tions of a candidate’s honesty, warmth, attractiveness,
sincerity, honesty, and believability. Presidents may
use humor to ingratiate themselves with audiences,
and humor can also make a presidential address
Presidential Humor 597
more entertaining. In the cases of Presidents Kennedy
and Reagan, “playful” humor was a central element
of their charismatic leadership style and has contrib-
uted to their enduring personal legacies. Humor can
also make a point or argument such as when a presi-
dent leads the public through a comical anecdote.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the best known presiden-
tial storyteller, was adept at using humorous, folksy
anecdotes to draw moral conclusions and support his
point of view. Last, humor can deflect criticism by
using a joke to brush aside or minimize a critique or
question. In the 1980 debates, for example, Reagan
brushed aside Carter’s lengthy critique with his now
famous one-liner, “There you go again.”
A subtype of this rhetorical use of humor is
self-deprecating humor. Presidents and presidential
candidates frequently use self-deprecating humor to
build identification and perceived commonality with
the public. Self-deprecating humor allows candidates
to address and respond to their personal flaws and
can actually build a president’s perceived credibility
because only confident leaders with high prestige
could afford to poke fun at themselves. For example,
when Ronald Reagan’s age was raised as an issue
in the 1984 presidential debates, Reagan responded
with a joke that acknowledged and rebutted this cri-
tique, saying, “I will not make age an issue of this
campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political
purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
This classic retort allowed Reagan to reframe and
energize his candidacy and inoculate himself against
future age-related critiques.
Humor Used to Mock, Ridicule, or Satirize
Presidents and Presidential Candidates
The second dominant form of presidential humor
is the use of humorous images, texts, or expres-
sions that mock, ridicule, or satirize presidents or
presidential candidates. The lampooning of presi-
dents is important because research shows a strong
relationship between humorous media portrayals
of candidates and how the public perceives them,
with a corresponding influence on voters’ likeli-
hood to vote for or against candidates. Bob Hope, a
versatile performer who could act, dance, sing, and
deliver a joke, began his career on vaudeville stages
before moving to Broadway, radio, film, and tele-
vision. Hope’s brand of presidential humor would
singe, but not burn, as he joked about the state of
the nation and its leaders. Hope did at times cross
the ever-changing line of good taste, and he received
598 Presidential Humor

an inordinate amount of criticism in his career. For

instance, Hope’s 1949 satirical radio sketch portray-
ing President Harry Truman and First Lady Bess
Truman as hosts of a breakfast radio show caused
a national uproar about the appropriateness of ridi-
culing the president and his family.
Other comedians such as Art Buchwald, Mark
Russell, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, and Lewis Black
made careers lambasting and teasing U.S. presidents.
Beginning in the 1950s, a new generation of come-
dians, labeled “sick comics” by the press of the time,
created presidential satire that was experimental, bit-
ing, and irreverent. These comedians, such as Lenny
Bruce, Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory, George Carlin, and
Bill Hicks, used hard-edged satire to critique what
they saw as the hollow rhetoric and crass structure
of the dominant political culture.
A ubiquitous form of presidential humor is par-
ody, in which a humorist exaggerates and magnifies
some aspect of a person or event. Parodies include
impersonations of presidents wherein an imperson-
ator distorts or exaggerates some aspect of the polit-
ical figure for comic effect. Illustrator David Levine
used heavy shadow and expressive lines to draw
enduring caricatures of presidents in his cartoons.
Most commentators, including President Gerald
Ford himself, agreed that Chevy Chase’s “bumbling A Saturday Night Live skit with Chevy Chase as President
fool” impersonation of Ford on Saturday Night Live Gerald Ford during “An Oval Office” skit on April 17, 1976
hurt the president in public opinion polls. Saturday
Night Live became well known for its vivid carica- Source: NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images.
tures of presidents, including Dana Carvey’s aris-
tocratic George H. W. Bush, Darrell Hammond’s the 19th century when influential cartoonists such as
insatiable Bill Clinton, and Will Ferrell’s buffoonish Thomas Nast, Joseph Keppler, and Walt McDougall
George W. Bush. used their drawings to spread reform and critique
One subtype of presidential parody, the politi- entrenched politicians. In the second half of the 20th
cal cartoon, has a long history in U.S. politics and century, cartoonist Herb Block used his position at
emerged out of the fine art tradition in Europe. Early The Washington Post to lambast presidents from
presidential humor focused on newspaper editorial Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush, with his
cartoons, with cartoonists employing caricature to attacks on Richard Nixon during the Watergate
lampoon and ridicule politicians. Scholars date the scandal playing a pivotal role in defining the public
first U.S. political cartoon to Benjamin Franklin’s image of Nixon. Other important editorial cartoon-
1747 drawing of “The Waggoner and Hercules” in ists during the 20th century include Paul Conrad,
the pamphlet Plain Truth. Franklin used the illustra- Pat Oliphant, Jeff MacNelly, Garry Trudeau, and
tion of Aesop’s fable along with the caption “Non Jules Feiffer.
Votis” (“God helps those who help themselves”) The rise of television and new media led to a
to persuade Pennsylvanians to fight for pacifist golden age of presidential mockery, and the presi-
Quakers. Franklin’s later cartoon depicting a sev- dents in the second half of the 20th century provided
ered snake and captioned “Join or Die” was used to considerable material to televised comedians. In the
unite the American colonies during the French and 1960s, television programs such as Laugh-In, The
Indian War and the American Revolution in 1776. Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, and That Was the
Political cartoons matured over the next century Week That Was brought presidential humor to baby
and were again popularized in the second half of boomers entering adolescence and adulthood. More

Woodcut with Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the British
colonies in America, “Join or Die,” exhorting them to
unite against the French and the Natives, shows a
segmented snake, “S.C., N.C., V., M., R., N.J., N.Y., [and]
N.E.” Illustration in the Philadelphia Gazette, May 9, 1754.
Source: Cartoon by Benjamin Franklin. Library of Congress
Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC,
Reproduction Number LC-USZC4–5315.
than any other post–World War II president, Nixon
made an easy target for these televised comedians,
who had an hour or more of television time to fill
each week. Leading this charge was Johnny Carson,
who once joked, “Whenever anyone in the White
House tells a lie, Nixon gets a royalty.” The Tonight
Show Starring Johnny Carson established the mod-
ern format of a late-night talk show, which began
with a monologue of one-liners, often poking fun
at presidents. Subsequent late night hosts, such as
Jay Leno and David Letterman, used this format to
ridicule and tease presidents for their personal and
political shortcomings from Bill Clinton’s impeach-
ment to George W. Bush’s verbal gaffes.
Satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert perfected
“fake news” on The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report, respectively, at the turn of the century.
Stewart’s coverage of the 2000 and 2004 election
propelled The Daily Show to high ratings and criti-
cal admiration. Colbert, a former correspondent for
The Daily Show, satirizes conservative, personality-
driven political talk programs and also frequently cri-
tiques the political process. Colbert made headlines
by testifying in character as his right-wing alter ego
before a House of Representative committee in 2010
and by hammering President Bush, who was seated
only a few feet away, in character at the 2006 White
House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
Presidential Humor 599
As broadband Internet access spread in the 1990s
and 2000s, the style of presidential humor institu-
tionalized on radio, television, and print migrated
online. One can now easily access the full spectrum
of presidential jokes, humorous videos, political car-
toons, satire, and more on the Internet. Founded by
Gregg and Evan Spiridellis, JibJab.com’s 2004 video
of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John
Kerry singing an updated version of Woody Guthrie’s
“This Land Is Your Land” set a high standard for
online cartoon parody of presidential elections. The
satirical newspaper and website The Onion (and
the corresponding satirical web video broadcast
The Onion News Network) has caricaturized presi-
dents with headlines such as “Clinton Vetoes ‘Stab
Clinton’ Bill,” “Bush Actually President, Nation
Suddenly Realizes,” and “Shirtless Biden Washes
Trans Am in White House Driveway.”
Dan Schill
See also Caricature; Internet Humor; Political Humor;
Satire; Satire News
Further Readings
Alisky, M. (1990). White House wit: Presidential humor
to sustain policies, from Lincoln to Reagan.
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 20, 373–382.
Baumgartner, J. D., & Morris, J. S. (Eds.). (2008).
Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the
media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gardner, G. (1988). The mocking of the president: A
history or campaign humor from Ike to Ronnie.
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Meyer, J. (1990). Ronald Reagan and humor: A
politician’s velvet weapon. Communication Studies, 41,
76–88.
Nitz, M., Cypher, A., Reichert, T., & Mueller, J. E. (2003).
Candidates as comedy: Political presidential humor on
late-night television shows. In L. L Kaid, J. C. Tedesco,
D. G. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The
millennium election: Communication in the 2000
campaign (pp. 165–175). New York, NY: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Paletz, D. L. (1990). Political humor and authority: From
support to subversion. International political science
review, 11, 483–493.
Sloane, A. A. (2001). Humor in the White House: The wit
of five American Presidents. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in
political argument: How “strategery” and “lockboxes”
changed a political campaign. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 39, 110–129.
600 Psychiatric Disorders
Stewart, P. A. (2011). The influence of self- and other-
deprecatory humor on presidential candidate evaluation
during the 2008 U.S. election. Social Science
Information, 50(2), 201–222.
PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS
A substantial amount of research has been done
to understand the relationship between psychiatric
disorders and humorous phenomena such as sense
of humor and humor appreciation. There are two
research questions that are of particular interest:
1. How do cognitive and affective impairments
associated with various psychiatric disorders
affect emotional and cognitive processes or
subprocesses associated with humor
appreciation or the sense of humor in general?
2. How do sense of humor and humor appreciation
(or the lack thereof) influence the development or
maintenance of psychiatric disorders?
This entry focuses on a select number of well-
researched and more common psychiatric disorders,
including depression, anxiety (focusing mainly on
social anxiety), and schizophrenia. In addition, this
entry summarizes findings on humor in autism spec-
trum disorder (ASD; disorders in this group are clas-
sified as developmental disorders). ASD is particularly
interesting in relation to humor, because it is the only
group of disorders in which humorlessness is claimed
to be an essential characteristic.
Depression
Results from several studies investigating the rela-
tionship between sense of humor and depression sug-
gest that individuals with depression score lower on
multiple humor scales and enjoy humorous material
to a lesser extent than do healthy controls. Perhaps
due to their predominant negative mood, individu-
als with depression are less susceptible to positive
humorous stimuli and less motivated to engage in
humorous activities. Additionally, research has sug-
gested that individuals with depression experience a
negative processing bias, which, due to a decrease in
the ability to interpret events or experiences as posi-
tive, may exacerbate this aversion to humor.
The impact of depression on the experience of
humor is not only related to the mood and emotional
components of depression but to the cognitive com-
ponents as well. The decreased ability to mentalize
(i.e., to attribute mental states to other people and to
take perspective; also known as having a theory of
mind) as well as lower executive functioning (inhibi-
tion, set shifting, working memory, and verbal flu-
ency) in individuals with depression can negatively
affect humor processing.
Anxiety
A majority of the studies that examine anxiety and
humor have focused on the effect humor has in
reducing anxiety. The results of these studies suggest
that humor is only effective in individuals with low
to moderate levels of anxiety, whereas in individu-
als with high levels of anxiety, humor may actually
have detrimental effects. Additionally, other stud-
ies focused on sense of humor in people with high
levels of anxiety and suggest a negative relationship
between the two variables. It should be noted that a
negative relationship is only seen in specific types of
humor (e.g., coping humor).
Recently, numerous studies have been conducted
to better understand the phenomenon of geloto-
phobia, or the fear of being laughed at. Individuals
with gelotophobia find it hard to perceive even
positive humor as something of value and find
aggressive, negative types of humor particularly
distressing.
It is plausible that socially anxious individuals
find situational or incidental humor distressing,
especially if it is unclear whether people are laughing
with them (i.e., teasing them in a benevolent way)
or at them (i.e., making fun of them in a malevolent
way). This is in line with the general finding that
ambiguous social situations may induce stress in
individuals with social phobia. A recent study exam-
ined responses to different types of cartoons (i.e.,
visual puns, semantic cartoons, and theory of mind
cartoons) in individuals with either high or low lev-
els of social anxiety. Participants with high levels of
social anxiety had difficulties appreciating cartoons
based on theory of mind, which often play with false
mental states of others. They perceived jokes about
other people’s mental states as negative and threat-
ening, perhaps due to a negative interpretation bias.
These findings suggest that social cognition, and
the correct interpretation of other people’s mental
states in particular, plays an important role in humor
processing and may be disrupted in individuals with
social anxiety.

Schizophrenia
Past research examining the relationship between
schizophrenia and humor have repeatedly demon-
strated that individuals with schizophrenia are less
able to understand and appreciate humorous material
than are individuals without schizophrenia. Results
from an extensive study assessing humor skills and
various affective and cognitive skills suggest that the
deficit in humor appreciation in schizophrenia may
be attributed to impairments in basic neurocognitive
domains, such as selective and sustained attention,
as well as phonological word fluency. The disrup-
tion of normal humor processing in individuals with
schizophrenia may also be related to their difficulty
in mentalizing. As in depression and ASD, difficulties
in attributing mental states to others (theory of mind)
negatively impact humor processing.
In addition to diminished humor appreciation,
excessive or pathological forms of laughter are
observed in some individuals with schizophrenia.
This pattern may also be seen in some individu-
als experiencing a manic phase and who become
euphoric in response to simple positive stimuli,
often finding humor in everything. In contrast to
other pathological forms of laughter (e.g., gelastic
seizures), these excessive outbursts of laughter are
likely manic episodes in which overreactions to any
(non)sentimental stimulus can occur.
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Humorlessness is an essential characteristic in
Asperger’s syndrome, which is characterized as a
high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Hans Asperger, who first described the disorder,
stated that ASD subjects do not comprehend jokes,
are unable to be cheerful in a relaxed manner, and
are unable to understand the world in a peaceful
way— all of which can be seen as a foundation for a
good sense of humor.
Several studies have examined the relationship
between ASD and humor. When focusing on appre-
ciation of humorous material, results have suggested
that individuals with ASD have a decreased ability
to understand and enjoy humor, particularly if the
humorous material plays with false mental states of
others (i.e., theory of mind jokes). However, indi-
viduals with ASD do understand simpler forms of
humor, such as wordplays, visual puns, and slap-
stick. These results suggest that the basic cognitive
processes that underlie humor (e.g., incongruity
and resolution) are not impacted in ASD; however,
Psychiatric Disorders 601
characteristic deficits in social cognition (e.g., cogni-
tive empathy, theory of mind) observed in individu-
als with ASD may inhibit their ability to appreciate
certain (social) forms of humor. In addition, social-
communicative functions of emotions seem to be
interrupted, as suggested in a recent study whose
results demonstrated that in response to humorous
stimuli, individuals with ASD display incoherence
between experienced positive emotions associated
with humor and the expression of it (laughter).
In addition to deficits in social-communicative
functions, one recent study has suggested that indi-
viduals with ASD typically exhibit high seriousness
and low cheerfulness. This lack of playfulness, an
important characteristic for engagement in humor-
ous activities or indulgence in positive emotions of a
joke, may hinder individuals with ASD from actively
engaging in humor. Relatedly, it has been suggested
that individuals with ASD prefer incongruity-
resolution humor to nonsense humor. Perhaps due
to their serious nature, individuals with ASD find
the absurdity of nonsense humor to be less funny
than do individuals without ASD.
A third component that may influence humor
processing in individuals with ASD is their detail-
oriented processing style. It has been shown that
individuals with ASD often focus on details that are
not relevant to the comprehension of the joke. This
attention to irrelevant details may lead individuals
with ASD to interpret humorous stimuli in a way
that differs from the one intended by the author of a
cartoon, for example.
Humor and the Development
of Mental Disorders
Having a good sense of humor is often viewed as
a protective factor against developing psychiatric
disorders. Humor is positively associated with inti-
macy, emotional stability, social skills, and social
support—all of which have been linked to positive
psychosocial functioning. Additionally, research
has suggested that sense of humor, especially in
more positive styles of humor (e.g., affiliative, self-
enhancing) may serve a stress-moderating function.
Further, the cognitive shift produced by humor (sim-
ilar to the process of problem solving or perspec-
tive change) may function as a means to establish
distance between an individual and a negative situ-
ation, which can help to effectively regulate emo-
tions. Finally, positive emotions that are associated
with humor have been shown to have the ability
602 Psychological Distance
to “undo” negative emotions. However, humor is
not an effective means in every disorder. One study
showed that humor served as moderator of stress for
depressive symptomatology but not anxiety.
Conclusion
Studies examining humor in psychiatric disorders
have elucidated the affective and cognitive compo-
nents that are essential in understanding and appre-
ciating humor. Both cognitive executive functioning
(e.g., verbal fluency, set shifting) and the ability to
mentalize dramatically impact the ability to under-
stand and appreciate humor. Emotional compo-
nents, such as mood states and traits, which affect
the susceptibility to humor, and negative processing
bias, which impacts humor appreciation, are also of
great importance. This brief overview demonstrates
the complexity involved in the humor processes that
enable positive humor experiences and responses,
and how humor can be affected in several disorders
because of cognitive or affective subcomponents
that are disrupted.
Andrea C. Samson
See also Brain, Neuropsychology of Humor; Cognitive
Aspects; Gelotophobia; Humor Styles; Incongruity
and Resolution; Mirth
Further Readings
Bozikas, V., Kosmidis, M., Giannakou, M., Anezoulaki, D.,
Patrikis, P., Fokas, K., & Karavatos, A. (2007). Humor
appreciation deficits in schizophrenia: The relevance of
basic neurocognitive functioning. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 194, 325–331.
Martin, R. A. (2007). Humor and mental health. In
R. A. Martin (Ed.), The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach (pp. 269–308). London, UK:
Academic Press.
Samson, A. C. (2013). Humor(lessness) elucidated—Sense
of humor in individuals with autism spectrum disorders:
Review and introduction. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 26(3), 391–409.
Samson, A. C., Lackner, H. K., Weiss, E. M., & Papousek,
I. (2012). Perception of other people’s mental states
affects humor in social anxiety. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, 625–631.
Ueckermann, J., Channon, S., Lehmkämper, C., Abdel-
Hamid, M., Vollmoeller, W., & Daum, I. (2008).
Executive function, mentalizing and humor in major
depression. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 14, 55–62.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE
When Mark Twain said, “Humor is tragedy plus
time,” he intuitively understood how distance from
an aversive event can facilitate humor. Mel Brooks
also acknowledged the role of distance when he
famously quipped, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger.
Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and
die.” Indeed, experiencing something as close or far
away—what scientists call psychological distance—
is an important factor in humor appreciation. This
entry discusses how distance helps or harms humor
and offers a theoretical account of its role in humor
appreciation.
Sometimes Distance Helps Humor
In some cases, psychological distance makes things
funnier. This is especially true for highly aversive
events. There are four ways that something can seem
close or far away, and each can help transform trag-
edy into comedy: temporal distance, social distance,
spatial or physical distance, and hypothetical dis-
tance.
Temporal distance (e.g., a year is more distant than
a day): War stories, like getting lost in the woods or
getting hit by a car, are not funny at the time, but are
often amusing years later. Similarly, jokes often fail if
attempted too soon after a tragedy, but Academy
Award–winning movies like Life Is Beautiful and
Inglorious Bastards illustrate that even Nazi geno-
cide can be funny if enough time has passed.
Social distance (e.g., a stranger is more distant than
a friend): Disparaging jokes are more amusing to
people who are not the target of the joke (e.g., sexist
jokes are funnier to men). Similarly, disgusting, pain-
ful, and upsetting behaviors are funnier when they
afflict someone else. For example, laboratory sub-
jects who watched a film clip of a woman eating
feces are more amused when they take the perspec-
tive of an outside observer rather than the woman’s
perspective.
Spatial or physical distance (e.g., a mile is more
distant than a foot): It is easier to joke about disas-
ters that happen on the other side of the globe than
about disasters in one’s backyard. Similarly, highly
disturbing photographs are more amusing to labora-
tory participants when the photographs were pre-
sented from a distant visual perspective.

Hypothetical distance (e.g., an imagined event is
more distant than a real event): Cartoons, like South
Park and Looney Tunes, demonstrate how extreme
violence and biting satire is often funny when it is
not real. Similarly, laboratory subjects find highly
disturbing photographs funnier when the images
have ostensibly been altered, or Photoshopped, than
when the photos are believed to be real.
Sometimes Distance Hurts Humor
Although less intuitive, there are cases in which
closeness appears to facilitate perceptions of humor,
as exemplified in popular expressions like “you had
to be there” and “it’s funny because it’s true.” It is
interesting that most of the examples in which dis-
tance reduces humor involve events that are far less
aversive than the examples discussed in the previous
section. For example, speaking in an unusual accent
might prompt laughter at the time, but later recount-
ing how the accent was used may be less funny.
Recent research illustrates that although tragedies
are more humorous when temporally, socially, hypo-
thetically, or spatially distant, mild mishaps are more
humorous when psychologically close. For example,
a Facebook post about accidentally donating $2,000
is funnier when the person losing the money is a
stranger rather than a friend, but a milder mishap,
a post about accidentally donating $50, is funnier
when the person losing the money is a friend rather
than a stranger. And whereas a tragedy such as being
hit by a car is funnier if it happened 5 years ago
than if it happened yesterday, a mild mishap such as
stumbling on a curb is funnier if it happened yester-
day than if it happened 5 years ago.
Sometimes Distance Hurts, Then
Helps, and Then Hurts Humor
To complicate matters further, even though a trag-
edy can become humorous with distance, too much
distance may inhibit humor appreciation. Although
people often quip “too soon” in response to a joke
about a tragedy immediately after the tragedy, that
same joke can be deemed “too late” at a distant point
in time. For example, following the untimely demise
of a celebrity, a string of jokes may be immediately
disseminated, but the telling and retelling of the
jokes typically fade with time (e.g., people rarely joke
about Michael Jackson’s death now). These occur-
rences suggest that the effect of distance is dynamic,
with three categories: a “too close” category when
something seems disturbing or offensive, a “just
Psychological Distance 603
right” category when something seems funny, and
a “too far” category when something seems boring.
Why Does Distance Influence
Perceptions of Humor?
Humor theories generally have a difficult time
explaining why distance sometimes helps and some-
times hurts humor. One theory offers a plausible
explanation for the different effects that distance
has on humor perception. It does so by taking into
account the way that psychological distance helps
reduce the threat of aversive events. The benign vio-
lation theory, which proposes that humor occurs
when something that seems wrong, threatening,
or unsettling (i.e., a violation) also seems okay or
acceptable (i.e., benign), suggests that either too
much or too little threat can inhibit humor percep-
tion. Some threat is necessary in order to perceive a
violation, but too much threat may make it difficult
to perceive a violation as benign.
This theory explains why distance typically makes
tragedies more humorous: Distance reduces the
threat associated with a severe tragedy, making it
easier to see the violation as benign. It also explains
why distance typically makes mishaps less humorous:
Distance completely eliminates the threat in a mild
mishap, making it difficult to perceive a violation.
Finally, the benign violation theory explains why
joking about a tragic event can change from “too
soon,” to “just right,” to “too late.” At first there
is too much threat associated with the event to find
jokes about it benign. However, increasing distance
reduces threat, initially making it easier to perceive
the violations as benign but later making it difficult
to perceive any violation at all.
Overall, the benign violation theory and research
findings on the role of psychological distance on
humor appreciation illustrate how there is a sweet
spot in comedy. It is important to get the right mix
between how bad something is and how distant it is
in order to make people laugh.
A. Peter McGraw, Lawrence E. Williams,
and Caleb Warren
See also Appreciation of Humor; Benign Violation
Theory; Humor Theories
Further Readings
Hemenover, S. H., & Schimmack, U. (2007). That’s
disgusting! . . . , but very amusing: Mixed feelings of
604 Psychology
amusement and disgust. Cognition and Emotion, 21,
1102–1113.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations:
Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science,
21, 1141–1149.
McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., Williams, L., & Leonard, B.,
(2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care?
Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps.
Psychological Science, 25, 1215–1223.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 11, 161–215.
Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. (1934). The
psychology of humor. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 28, 341–365.
PSYCHOLOGY
Often defined as the scientific study of human
behavior, psychology is a very broad discipline with
a number of subfields. Psychologists employ quanti-
tative experimental and correlational research meth-
ods to study thinking, feeling, and social behavior.
Psychologists have always played a leading role in
academic humor research. Many interesting ques-
tions about humor may be addressed by each of
the subdisciplines of psychology, including cogni-
tive (e.g., What are the mental processes involved
in “getting a joke”?), social (e.g., What role does
humor play in interpersonal relationships?), biologi-
cal (e.g., What parts of the brain are involved in the
enjoyment of humor?), personality (e.g., How does
a sense of humor correlate with other personality
traits?), developmental (e.g., What do children find
funny at different stages of development?), and clini-
cal (e.g., Does a sense of humor contribute to better
mental health?).
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive psychology focuses on the study of mental
processes involved in thinking, feeling, and behav-
ing. Much of the research on cognitive processes in
humor comprehension has been based on incon-
gruity theories, which suggest that humor involves
the bringing together of two normally incompatible
ideas, concepts, or situations in a surprising or unex-
pected manner. Psychologists have employed a num-
ber of research methods to investigate these theories.
In some studies, ordinary jokes were modified to
manipulate the degree of incongruity and resolution
that they contain, and researchers then observed the
effects of these manipulations on funniness ratings
given by participants. Other researchers have used
more artificial types of stimuli to quantify incongru-
ity in terms of the discrepancy between items, such
as the semantic distance between pairs of words, or
weight differences in a weight judgment paradigm.
More recently, researchers have used semantic prim-
ing techniques to explore schema activation during
the processing of humorous materials. This research
has generally supported the importance of incongru-
ity in humor, although more study is needed to fully
understand the cognitive processes involved.
In addition, researchers in psycholinguistics, a
subfield of cognitive psychology, have investigated
humorous uses of everyday language, such as irony
and sarcasm. They have sought to understand, for
example, how people recognize that these sorts
of speech are intended to be interpreted as humor
rather than to be taken literally. Studies indicate that
this is a complex process, requiring the hearer to
combine information from the social context as well
as linguistic factors to arrive at an interpretation of
the intended meaning.
Researchers have also studied the ways humor
may influence other cognitive processes. Experiments
have provided considerable evidence that exposure
to humor produces an increase in creativity, cogni-
tive flexibility, and problem solving, and the findings
suggest that these effects are due to the increased
positive emotion associated with humor rather than
to cognitive factors. Other research has shown posi-
tive effects of humor on memory, largely due to the
increased attention and rehearsal given to humorous
material.
Social Psychology
Social psychology is concerned with the study of
how people influence one another’s thoughts, feel-
ings, and behaviors. One topic of investigation has
been the various purposes for which people use
humor in their everyday social interactions. Because
humorous messages are inherently ambiguous, they
can often be used to communicate messages indi-
rectly in a way that allows both the speaker and the
listener to save face. For example, playful teasing can
be used to convey mild criticism in a socially accept-
able manner. Humor can also be used to enhance
group identity and cohesiveness, to enforce social
norms, and to establish status.
Social psychologists are also interested in the role
of humor in social perception and interpersonal

attraction. A number of studies have shown that
people tend to be attracted to others who are per-
ceived to have a sense of humor. When asked to
rate the most desirable characteristics of a potential
friend, dating partner, or spouse, both men and
women rate a sense of humor as one of the most
desirable traits. Experiments have demonstrated
that engaging in humorous activities and laughing
together makes people feel closer and more attracted
to one another.
Other research has examined the role of humor
in intimate relationships. Married couples who are
more satisfied with their relationship are more likely
to engage in humorous interactions together, saying
funny things and laughing together, even when they
are having an argument. However, different styles of
humor can have different effects on relationships. If
humor is used to make fun of a partner or to make
light of problems and avoid discussing conflicts, it
can be detrimental to the relationship.
Another topic of interest to social psychologists
is social attitudes and prejudice, and a considerable
amount of research has investigated humor in this
regard. Jokes are often based on stereotypes about
particular groups of people based on their race,
gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Research has
shown that people who enjoy these types of jokes
are more likely to have prejudiced attitudes toward
the targeted groups. Experimental studies have
revealed that, after being exposed to sexist jokes, as
compared to equally sexist but nonhumorous state-
ments, people who already have negative attitudes
toward women are more likely to be tolerant of
discriminatory behavior toward them. The humor-
ous nature of jokes seems to cause people to have a
less critical mindset toward the sexist attitudes being
conveyed and to perceive discrimination as being
more socially acceptable.
Other topics of interest to social psychologists
include the role of humor in persuasion and gender
differences in humor.
Biological Psychology
Like all psychological phenomena, humor is based
on complex biological processes taking place in
the brain and nervous system. Psychologists taking
a biological approach have made use of numerous
methods for investigating humor-related biologi-
cal phenomena. Electrophysiological studies have
examined humor-related changes in autonomic
nervous system activity, such as heart rate, blood
Psychology 605
pressure, and skin conductance. To investigate the
brain areas involved in humor, researchers have
made use of electroencephalograph (EEG) tech-
niques, in which the electrical activity of the brain
is measured by means of electrodes attached to the
scalp. By examining various deficits in humor com-
prehension and appreciation in individuals who have
experienced damage to particular parts of the brain
as a result of accidents or strokes, researchers have
been able to piece together clues about which areas
of the brain are involved in humor. Recent advances
in neuroimaging techniques such as functional mag-
netic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emis-
sion tomography (PET) have enabled researchers
to investigate in greater detail the areas of the brain
that underlie the perception, comprehension, and
enjoyment of humor.
Taken together, this research suggests that numer-
ous regions of the brain are involved in humor. The
perception of humor involves many parts of the
cerebral cortex that are important for visual, audi-
tory, and linguistic processing. An area at the junc-
tion of the left temporal and occipital lobes seems
to be particularly important for the perception of
humorous incongruity. Another area of the left fron-
tal lobe appears to be involved in the perception of
coherence or resolution of incongruity. Once humor
has been perceived, the dopamine-based reward net-
work in the limbic system of the brain is activated,
underlying the pleasurable feelings of mirth. This
induction of positive emotion in turn activates brain
areas involved in emotion expression (smiling and
laughter) and physiological arousal.
Other humor-related topics of relevance to bio-
logical psychology include the physiology of laugh-
ter, laughter and smiling in other animals, and the
evolutionary origins of humor and laughter.
Personality Psychology
Personality psychology has to do with the mea-
surement and study of habitual individual differ-
ences in thinking, feeling, and behaving. Sense of
humor is one such personality trait or individual
difference variable that has long been of interest to
psychologists.
Prior to the 1980s, the most popular approach
to measuring individual differences in humor was
the use of humor appreciation tests. In these mea-
sures, participants are asked to rate the funniness
of a series of jokes, cartoons, and other humorous
materials, which are clustered into various categories
606 Psychology
either on a theoretical basis or by means of factor
analysis. In this approach, sense of humor is defined
in terms of the degree to which the individual enjoys
particular types or categories of humor. Factor ana-
lytic research by Willibald Ruch and colleagues has
revealed that humor appreciation is influenced more
by the structure of humorous stimuli (the degree to
which incongruity is resolved in the joke) than by the
content (e.g., sexual themes). Correlational studies
have demonstrated associations between individual
differences in humor appreciation and personal-
ity traits such as conservatism, tough-mindedness,
extraversion, sensation-seeking, and openness to
experience.
In recent decades, studies of humor apprecia-
tion have largely given way to research employing
self-report measures of various aspects of sense of
humor. Numerous measures have been devised to
assess such aspects as sensitivity to humor, enjoy-
ment of humor, tendency to laugh and smile, and
use of humor to cope with stress. The State-Trait
Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI) assesses three dimen-
sions that are thought to form the temperamental
basis of a sense of humor: cheerfulness, seriousness,
and bad mood. The Humor Styles Questionnaire
(HSQ) assesses four different styles of humor, two
of which are considered to be potentially benefi-
cial for psychological well-being and interpersonal
relationships (affiliative and self-enhancing) and
two that are potentially detrimental (aggressive and
self-defeating). The Humorous Behavior Q-Sort
Deck (HBQD) is a Q-sort technique for character-
izing individuals’ everyday humor-related behaviors.
Numerous studies have employed these measures
to explore associations with other personality traits
such as the Big Five (extraversion, neuroticism, con-
scientiousness, agreeableness, and openness), coping
styles, social skills, attachment, relationship satisfac-
tion, and measures of psychological well-being (e.g.,
self-esteem, optimism, depression).
To investigate individual differences in the abil-
ity to create humor, psychologists have employed
various humor creation tests, in which participants
are asked to generate humorous responses such as
funny captions for cartoons, which are then rated
for funniness. Researchers have also explored
pathological dimensions of humor, particularly
gelotophobia, which is the fear of being laughed
at. Studies reveal that individuals who are high on
this trait tend to associate laughter with fear and
shame and have an aversive response to most forms
of humor.
Overall, research using these various measures
indicates that the sense of humor is not a unitary
construct. Instead, it comprises a number of traits
(e.g., cheerfulness, nonserious attitude, humor
appreciation, humor creation ability, humor styles)
that are not necessarily highly correlated with one
another.
Developmental Psychology
Developmental psychology is the study of behav-
ioral, cognitive, social, and affective development
over the life span. With regard to humor, research-
ers have investigated the development of smiling
and laughter; comprehension, enjoyment, and
production of humor; and individual differences
in sense of humor. Infants typically begin to smile
in response to other people when they are about
1 month of age, and laughter first appears around
4 months of age in the context of playful social
interaction. During the first 2 years, babies tend to
laugh in response to incongruous tactile, auditory,
and visual stimuli such as funny animal sounds,
peek-a-boo, and playful chasing games. With the
development of language, humor takes on more
complex cognitive forms involving verbal and con-
ceptual incongruity.
Paul McGhee conducted extensive early research
on the development of humor during childhood,
focusing particularly on cognitive aspects. He pro-
posed a four-stage theory of humor development that
parallels Jean Piaget’s cognitive stages. According
to this model, humor is derived from make-believe
play, in which children playfully assimilate objects
and actions into cognitive schemas to which they do
not normally apply (e.g., pretending a banana is a
telephone). As cognitive capacities develop, humor
expands into the playful manipulation of language,
making use of linguistic ambiguities in phonology,
morphology, semantics, and syntax.
Developmental researchers have also investigated
the development of children’s comprehension of
irony and sarcasm. These studies indicate that chil-
dren do not begin to understand the intended mean-
ing of ironic statements until about age 6 years. This
comprehension ability appears to depend on the
development of a theory of mind, or the ability to
infer a speaker’s beliefs or intentions. Appreciation
of the humorous nature of irony takes even longer to
acquire, beginning around 8 or 9 years of age.
Several studies involving pairs of identical and
fraternal twins have been conducted to determine the

contribution of genetic versus shared and unshared
environmental factors to the development of humor-
related traits. This research indicates that genetics and
environment have different contributions, depending
on the way a sense of humor is conceptualized and
measured. When humor is defined in terms of the
appreciation of particular types of humorous stimuli,
genetic influences have been found to be negligible;
most of the variance in humor appreciation can be
attributed to both shared and unshared environ-
mental effects. When humor is defined in terms of
positive emotionality and the tendency to laugh fre-
quently, genetic factors play a more significant role,
although both shared and unshared environmen-
tal influences are also important. Finally, a sizable
genetic contribution, as well as unshared environ-
mental influences, is found with self-report measures
of sense of humor and humor styles.
Researchers have suggested two contrasting
hypotheses about the role of the family environment
to explain why some children develop a stronger
sense of humor than others. According to the model-
ing/reinforcement model, a strong sense of humor
develops in the context of a family in which the par-
ents model and positively reinforce humorous inter-
actions and enjoyment. In contrast, the stress and
coping hypothesis suggests that children develop
a sense of humor as a way of coping with distress,
conflict, and anxiety in an uncongenial family envi-
ronment. There is some research evidence in support
of both these hypotheses, suggesting that there may
be different routes to the development of a particu-
larly strong sense of humor.
Clinical Psychology
Clinical psychology has to do with the study, assess-
ment, and treatment of psychological disorders, as
well as the study and promotion of factors contrib-
uting to positive mental health. In recent decades,
a good deal of psychological humor research has
focused on the role of humor in emotional well-
being and coping with stress. Experimental labo-
ratory studies have demonstrated that exposure to
humorous stimuli, such as comedy videos, produces
increased positive moods and decreased negative
moods, and counteracts the effects of experimentally
induced depressed moods. Correlational studies
using various self-report measures of sense of humor
have generally found positive correlations with mea-
sures of well-being (such as self-esteem, optimism,
positive moods, and life satisfaction) and negative
Psychology 607
correlations with measures of depression, anxiety,
and other negative moods. Research using the HSQ
indicates that certain styles of humor (affiliative
and self-enhancing) may be particularly beneficial
for psychological well-being, whereas other styles
(aggressive and self-defeating) may be detrimental.
However, most of this research has been correla-
tional, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about
the direction of causality.
Other research has investigated humor as a stress-
buffering variable. Researchers have hypothesized
that humor, because it inherently involves incongru-
ity and multiple interpretations, provides a way for
individuals to shift perspective on a stressful situa-
tion, reappraising it from a new and less threatening
point of view. As a consequence of this reappraisal,
the situation becomes less stressful and more man-
ageable. Experiments using laboratory stressors,
such as videos depicting gruesome accidents, have
confirmed that the use of humor to cope with these
sorts of stressors results in lower levels of self-
reported emotional distress as well as reductions in
the physiological effects of stress, such as heart rate
and skin conductance. Several correlational studies
have also reported reduced associations between life
stressors and mood disturbance among individuals
with higher scores on measures of sense of humor.
The view of humor as a healthy coping strategy
and a means of enhancing psychological well-being
has led a number of clinical psychologists and psy-
chotherapists to recommend its use in therapy and
counseling. It has been suggested that humor may
be an important therapeutic tool for establishing
rapport between the therapist and patient, helping
patients gain insight and alternative perspectives
on their problems, reducing emotional distress, and
helping to modify dysfunctional behavior. However,
other therapists have noted that the use of humor in
therapy is not without risk, as it may be perceived by
patients as a way of making fun of their problems.
Unfortunately, there is currently very little research
on beneficial and detrimental uses of humor in ther-
apy, although there is some evidence of effectiveness
of humor-based desensitization interventions in the
treatment of phobias. Recently researchers have also
begun to investigate whether it is possible to improve
individuals’ sense of humor through a systematic
training program and the degree to which this is
associated with improvements in psychological well-
being. This is an important area for future research.
Rod A. Martin
608 Psychotherapy, Humor in
See also Appreciation of Humor; Brain, Neuropsychology
of Humor; Comprehension of Humor; Development
of Humor; Health Benefits of Humor, Psychological;
Humor Styles; Laughter, Psychology of; Marriage and
Couples; Personality, Humor and; Persuasion and
Humor; Positive Psychology; Prejudice, Humor and;
Psychotherapy, Humor in; Test Measurements of Humor
Further Readings
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences
of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 79–94.
Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G.
(2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific
components of sense of humor and psychological
well-being. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 17, 135–168.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living
buoyantly. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origins and development.
New York, NY: Freeman.
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (2007). The sense of humor: Explorations
of a personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ruch, W. (2008). Psychology of humor. In V. Raskin (Ed.),
The primer of humor research (pp. 17–100). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., Kohler, G., & Van Thriel, C. (1996). Assessing
the “humorous temperament”: Construction of the facet
and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness
Inventory—STCI. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 9, 303–339.
PSYCHOTHERAPY, HUMOR IN
Although humor and laughter typically occur
together, humor, a complex cognitive stimulus,
and laughter, a fairly stereotypical physiological
response, can have differing potential consequences
in psychotherapy. The ability for a psychotherapy
client to experience humor in a context that has pre-
viously been highly troublesome and associated with
intense negative emotion can, in itself, constitute a
significant beneficial shift in cognitive perspective.
Humor can also implicitly model that there is more
than one way to construe one’s experience. Mutually
enjoyed laughter, at a minimum, conveys feelings of
positive connection between therapist and client in
psychotherapy. Arguably, laughter may physiologi-
cally relieve excessive negative emotional arousal
and can enable clients to feel more at ease in discom-
forting situations in therapy, but empirical support
for this latter claim is lacking. This entry discusses
the use of humor in psychotherapy, the benefits of its
use, and research on the outcomes.
Humor can occur spontaneously in psycho-
therapy, introduced by either therapist or client, or
it can be deliberately implemented by a therapist to
accomplish a particular goal. When humor arises
spontaneously, as with most things, there are poten-
tial advantages and disadvantages. On the advanta-
geous side, the ability to share humor may reflect
or contribute to rapport and a comfortable, trust-
ing therapeutic relationship. Shared understanding
and mutual enjoyment of humor implicitly demon-
strate a significant level of empathy between two
people, therapists and clients included. However,
there is always some risk that therapeutic humor,
offered with good intentions, may not only fail to be
enjoyed by the listener but may be actively misun-
derstood and found to be offensive. There also exists
the possibility that some instances of therapeutic
humor may not arise from therapeutic motives.
For example, spontaneous therapeutic humor may
sometimes reflect a client’s motivation to avoid dis-
comforting or more threatening material that needs
to be addressed, or a therapist may act on a need
to be seen as entertaining and witty when a focus
on the client should take precedence. Further, given
the powerful impact of immediate reinforcement,
for either therapist or client, the anticipation of the
immediate reinforcing consequences of laughter
from another can sometimes lead one to joke, when
other therapeutic goals should have a higher priority.
Humor as Clinical Assessment
It has been argued that particularly for children, who
may lack the verbal ability to fully report their own
therapeutic concerns, asking for the child’s favorite
joke (not necessarily the most recent joke heard)
can often be revealing of salient underlying issues
or conflicts. The favorite joke is, in effect, treated
as a projective technique. Although some empirical

support exists for this claim, the practice has never
been very widely used on any regular basis.
Deliberate Humor
There are a variety of reasons why a therapist may
choose to introduce humor into therapy. These
include the following:
Insight
Because humor involves an element of surprise,
and the emergence of a different perspective at a
punch line, humor can sometimes trigger insight or
simply vividly represent an insightful lesson from
therapy. As a hypothetical example, a Gary Larson
cartoon shows a clown in full costume and makeup,
standing in a gun shop staring into a display case full
of pistols, and thinking to himself, “Laugh at me, will
they?” One could not more vividly depict the irony
that we often unknowingly and unconsciously create
and contribute to problem situations with which we
consciously struggle. As in this example, sometimes a
reference to commercial or publicly available humor
can provide such insight or exemplify it.
Optimism
In a more general sense, the acceptance and mild
encouragement of humor in psychotherapy can
embody a point emphasized by Sigmund Freud.
Freud argued that humor was one of the most liberat-
ing and mature defense mechanisms. He claimed that
by engaging in humor in response to difficult experi-
ences, one asserts his or her ability to prevail in the
face of hardship. Unlike in less mature defense mech-
anisms (e.g., denial) the stressor is acknowledged and
owned, but the person refuses to be overcome by
the challenge. Freud’s statement was not specifically
targeted to humor in psychotherapy; nonetheless,
many in psychotherapy experience life in negative
ways, and some limited modeling and reinforcement
of humor by a therapist can gently encourage greater
optimism in facing adversity while still realistically
acknowledging the difficulties and challenges present.
Positive Affect
There currently exists an extensive literature show-
ing that positive affect leads to a broadening of one’s
thought-action repertoire, or openness to a wider
range of thoughts and activities, as opposed to the
constricting effect of negative affect, which is likely to
be salient for psychotherapy clients. Further, positive
Psychotherapy, Humor in 609
affect can help people build personal resources, such
as social support and resilience. Given that psycho-
therapy is a context in which clients bring up and
process troublesome unresolved issues, the inclusion
of humor, as one prominent form of positive affect,
could foster both broadening the thought-action rep-
ertoire and building personal resources.
Spontaneous Humor
The most typical instance of humor in psychother-
apy consists of either therapist or client respond-
ing spontaneously to the situational experience
without plan or deliberate intention. Even though
unplanned, such humor may still serve a variety of
therapeutic purposes. The issues about which a cli-
ent may experience informative insights are highly
diverse, but there are many therapeutic goals for
which spontaneous humor may serve fairly pre-
dictable functions. Sharing appropriate humor can
foster rapport and enhance the therapeutic alli-
ance. Sometimes, a humorous perspective may sim-
ply make painful material more bearable. Because
humor typically involves shifting perspectives, it
may also implicitly model flexible thinking and the
ability to entertain multiple perspectives regard-
ing clinical concerns. This can be valuable because
habitual pessimistic tunnel vision can constitute a
substantial barrier to therapeutic improvement. In a
survey of psychotherapists reporting on instances of
humor from their own personal psychotherapy, mul-
tiple instances of each of the following therapeutic
functions of humor were reported and identified as
helpful, and single examples of each are presented.
Irony to Foster Insight
Sometimes a lighthearted expression of the
opposite, or at least some variation, of what is liter-
ally intended by the therapist can result in benign
provocation and serve as a reminder to the client
of a troublesome tendency. For example, a therapist
referred to his unassertive client as a “nice guy” on
a few occasions in which the client described some
troublesome exchange with others. The client was
reminded that indeed, he was perhaps being too nice
in many contexts, to his distinct disadvantage.
Self-Disclosure Fostering Normalization
Lighthearted self-disclosure by a therapist can
sometimes serve to normalize a client’s concerns. In
one reported example, a client came in for a session,
sat down, and said, “I feel stupid sitting here.” The
610 Psychotherapy, Humor in
therapist responded that sometimes he felt stupid sit-
ting in his own chair as well. The client found the
reaction “humorous and real” and felt reassured
that even experts did not always have to have all the
answers.
Exaggeration of a Client Tendency
This sort of response can sometimes provide a dif-
ferent perspective and desensitize a client’s over con-
cern. A client expressed obsessive concern about an
aggressive thought that was recurring, and the thera-
pist noted that such thoughts were perfectly normal
and that she would “like to pull their eyeballs out
and stomp on them.” The client found this “hilari-
ous” and was relieved. Humorous exaggeration of
others’ responses can also sometimes be informative,
as clients’ social inhibitions are often maintained by
exaggerated expectations about negative responses
from others. Realization that relevant others would
never react as extremely as a therapist’s playful
depiction in role play can facilitate insight regarding
a client’s exaggerated assumptions about how others
may respond.
The few instances of inappropriate therapist
humor volunteered by psychotherapist survey
respondents featured aggressive humor or humor
with sexual content. Although not literally prohib-
ited, given the emotional connotations of aggressive
humor or sexual concerns, therapists need to be
particularly sensitive to the possible negative conse-
quences of either of these types of humor.
Humor-Based Therapies
Various authors have argued for therapy approaches
in which humor is regarded as the basic therapeutic
ingredient. As one example, Frank Farrelly devel-
oped provocative therapy, which was originally
advanced as an approach for use with schizophrenic
clients but later generalized to other problems. The
humor engaged in was typically provocative, as
implied in the name, and the hypothesis was that
in coping with the humor, and making sense of it,
the client would become more capable in general.
A second therapeutic approach based on humor is
Walter O’Connell’s Natural High Therapy, in which
humor is regarded as a crucial facilitator of self-
actualization, or fulfilling one’s potential.
Outcome Research
Although there has long been interest among
psychotherapists in uses of humor in psychotherapy,
there has been very little controlled outcome
research on the topic. Systematic desensitization is
a behavioral approach for reducing irrational fear.
It consists of developing a hierarchy of fear-relevant
scenes in collaboration with the client and then hav-
ing the client imagine the scenes while remaining
deeply relaxed. In a relatively rare controlled study
of humor in therapy, it has been shown that humor
presented in hierarchy scenes in the context of sys-
tematic desensitization can be equally as effective
as traditional desensitization in reducing irrational
fear. This finding emerged in the absence of training
in relaxation, even though relaxation was originally
regarded as a necessary ingredient to countercondi-
tion the fear response.
In observational studies of spontaneous occur-
rences of humor in psychotherapy, therapy sessions
including humor have typically not been found to be
associated with more constructive responses by cli-
ents than sessions in which there was no humor. This
negative finding is qualified by the fact that there are
many other possible beneficial effects of humor that
have not been assessed in this type of research.
Conclusion
The idea that humor can have therapeutic conse-
quences is substantiated by a wealth of case studies
but very minimal formal research. The claim that
humor, per se, is therapeutic is unfounded and does
not allow for the many ways in which humor is expe-
rienced and created or for the variety of circumstances
in which it may occur. Humor is a highly diverse and
complex topic. Humor research has only begun to
identify relatively positive versus negative forms of
humor, and even as these are identified, the specific
context can often make a great difference in how
humor is experienced and perceived. As attempts to
integrate humor into psychotherapy continue, psy-
chotherapists must continue to be vigilant regard-
ing not only therapeutic consequences of humor but
potential deleterious consequences as well.
W. Larry Ventis
See also Defense Mechanism; Freudian/Psychoanalytic
Theory; Positive Psychology; Psychology
Further Readings
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(3),
218–226.

Fry, W. F., & Salameh, W. (1987). Handbook of humor and
psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use of humor.
Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1984). Humor and psychotherapy.
Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin Dorsey Professional
Books.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Salameh, W., & Fry, W. F. (1993). Advances in humor and
psychotherapy. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource
Exchange.
Ventis, W. L., & Friedman, F. (2011, July).
Psychotherapists’ experience of humor in their own
psychotherapy. Paper presented at the International
Society for Humor Studies Conference, Boston, MA.
Ventis, W. L., Higbee, G., & Murdock, S. A. (2001). Using
humor in systematic desensitization to reduce fear.
Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 241–253.
PUNCH LINE
The term punch line refers to an important part of the
joke, often following the joke setup, that produces an
unexpected twist in the narrative, resulting in humor.
It is possible, in a one-liner, for the punch line to
constitute the whole joke, in which case the setup is
implied. The punch line is typically the very last part
of a joke, but in rare cases, parts of the setup follow it.
A punch line can be looked at as the highest point
of tension toward the end of the joke. Once such
an assumption is made, a joke can be looked at in
terms of “pulses,” in Robert Hetzron’s terminology,
and the punch lines can be described in terms of the
pulses or episodes of the joke, as stated by Salvatore
Attardo. A straight-line, one-pulse joke would lin-
early build up the expectation of something and
then drop such expectation at the very end, which is
where the punch line lies.
Jokes can also contain two pulses, with two cor-
responding punch lines. An example of such a joke
is the “good news–bad news” type, where two char-
acteristics of the same event contrast each other, yet
each of them is funny. The following joke adds a
macabre twist:
A Neanderthal leader tells his tribe, “Folks, I have
good news and bad news.” “What’s the bad news?”
ask the tribesmen. “We have very little food saved
for the winter. We’ll have to eat shit.” “So, what’s
the good news?” “We have an enormous amount
of shit.”
Punch Line 611
A doctor calls his patient and says, “Fred, I have very
bad news and much worse news. The bad news is
that you have a terminal inoperable cancer and 24
hours to live.” “That’s awful,” says the patient.
“What can be worse than this?” “Oh, I forgot to call
you yesterday.”
The latter joke, besides the two obvious pulses,
both funny (the first one is so because such a phone
call cannot be for real: A terminal patient is given
months or even years to live, never 24 hours), is
also a play on the usual good news–bad news joke.
Robert Hetzron describes a somewhat less frequent
subtype with two pulses:
The Parisian Little Moritz is asked in school: “How
many deciliters are there in a liter of milk?” He
replies: “One deciliter of milk and nine deciliters of
water.” In France, this is a good joke; in Hungary,
this is good milk.
The joke has a punch line (the first pulse) and a
commentary afterward (the second pulse) that turns
out to be funnier than the punch line. According
to Attardo, longer texts can be described in similar
terms, and the separate funny utterances would be
referred to as “jab lines.”
There are other jokes where a punch line is the
last answer to a repeating question and, thus, it
could be viewed as occurring in parts throughout
the text. A typical example of such jokes is any joke
involving three characters. The repetition of the
question and various answers contribute to the fun-
niness of the last one given. It is possible, of course,
for the answers to the questions to be funny in their
own right, such as in the following joke:
What happens when two men and one woman of
each nationality, Russian, French, and English, find
themselves on three uninhabited islands? The
Russian woman falls in love with one man, marries
the other, and all three are miserable. The French
woman marries one, takes the other as a lover, and
all three are blissfully happy. The English go each to
their corner of the island because there is nobody to
introduce them.
The punch lines can work through different devices
that can be thought of as the “logical mechanisms”
of a joke. If one considers the expectation buildup
in the setup, the punch line can deliberately defeat
that for a humorous effect. Notable among those are
jokes with a pseudo-punch line, where a question is
612 Puns
answered literally and tautologically rather than for
real, as in the following two canonical jokes:
“Do you have the time?” “Yes.”
“Why did the chicken cross the road?” “To get to
the other side.”
Robert Hetzron has described a more specific
subtype of punch lines as having a relative or an
absolute interpretation of the setup, when the oppo-
site was expected. The next two jokes illustrate an
absolute expectation replaced by a relative one and
expected relative used as absolute:
Upon seeing a funeral procession: “Who died?”
“I believe the one in the hearse.”
A man approached a policeman walking his beat in
the street: “Could you tell me please; where is the
other side of the street?” The policeman points to it
over there. The man says: “It can’t be there, they told
me it was over here.”
A punch line can be shorter or longer than the
other part of the joke. In some cases, the punch line
is the only explicitly stated component of a joke.
Regardless of the length of the punch line relative to
the setup, much of the information in the joke is
implied and is readily understood by the audience
without being stated. It is, therefore, hard to approx-
imate a typical best length for a punch line. What
can be stated with relative certainty is that in most
cases, based on analyses by Attardo and colleagues,
the punch line is the final part of the joke and the
setup does not normally continue after it—and
perhaps should not.
Julia M. Taylor
See also Jokes; Linguistic Theories of Humor; Mechanisms
of Humor; Puns
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and
pragmatic analysis. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., Attardo, D. H., Baltes, P., & Petray, M. J.
(1994). The linear organization of jokes: Analysis of
two thousand texts. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 7(1), 27–54.
Hetzron, R. (1991). On the structure of punchlines.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(1), 61–108.
Tsakona, W. (2003). Jab lines in narrative jokes. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 16(3), 315–329.
PUNS
A pun is a type of joke in which one sound sequence
(e.g., a word) has two meanings, and this similarity
in sound creates a relationship for the two mean-
ings from which humor is derived. Puns are one of
the most prominent types of humorous text and are
thought to be both typical as well as comparatively
simple—if not simple-minded. For these reasons
puns are the manifestation of humor most exten-
sively studied by researchers in disciplines such as
linguistics who are interested in humor stimuli and
their processing. This entry focuses on the general
mechanism of puns and discusses the various clas-
sifications of puns as identified in the literature.
General Distinctions
Puns are not simpler in principle than other
instances of humorous stimuli, they are merely very
condensed. In puns, the textual items that carry the
mechanisms that make a text potentially humor-
ous are relatively few: often just one punning word,
a similar or identical target word (which may or
may not be present), and two meanings that are
spuriously appropriate in light of the joke’s setup.
Consider the following pun:
What did the fish say when it swam
into the wall?
Damn.
In this example, the punch line “Dam(n)” is appro-
priate in two of its meanings: a structure walling in
water in which fish swim can be a dam, and, given
its painful accident, a fish might exclaim “damn”
(never mind that fish don’t swear, or speak at all,
because for the sake of jokes such inconsistencies
are ignored). This pun is phonetically “perfect,” in
that both meanings share the exact same sounds, but
they can be distinguished by the presence or absence
of the final n as a spelling difference. In other words,
this pun is homophonic (identically sounding) but
not homographic (identically written), which is one
of the various classifications of puns found in the
literature. Most of the classifications are based on
superficial differences that are easily identified by
the methods of various disciplines, but they don’t
reflect fundamentally different mechanisms of puns.
Cicero is one of the earliest persons to distinguish
puns from other types of jokes. He saw puns as
being not just about the meaning, or the concepts

the words stand for, but also about the words them-
selves, their manifestation in sounds or the letters
that represent those sounds. As with all symbols, the
physical manifestations of words are related to an
underlying meaning. This relationship is, in princi-
ple, arbitrary, with no logical, inherent, natural rea-
son to assign a certain sound sequence to a certain
meaning. This arbitrariness can be illustrated by the
fact that different languages have chosen completely
different sound sequences for the same meanings.
Notable exceptions are onomatopoeic words that
refer to objects or events that are associated with a
certain sound. These words often imitate the sound
emitted by the object or occurring in the event,
such as animal calls (“meow”), or the sound of one
object being emitted from another object (“bang”).
In onomatopoeia there is a (partially) motivated
relation between the sound of a word and the mean-
ing of the word, which is imitated by the sound of
the word.
In Plato’s dialogue named after that character,
Kratylos defends the notion that a motivated, natu-
ral relationship between sound and meaning that
exists in onomatopoeia exists for all words in gen-
eral. It is this “cratylistic” assumption for all words
(clearly a false assumption in the light of the earlier
discussion on arbitrariness) that plays the key role
of bringing two incongruous meanings into a spu-
rious conjunction in puns. That two separate, but
possibly historically related, meanings can become
manifest in identical (or at least very similar) sound
sequences provides a necessary mechanism for a text
to be humorous.
The cratylistic fallacy underlying the humorous-
ness of puns is accepted in other realms of language
use as well, where the assumption of a motivated
relationship between the sounds or letters of a word
and what the word stands for gives the sounds or
letters the power of what they stand for. Thus, say-
ing the name of a supernatural entity may invoke the
power of that entity, for example, a deity or a dead
person, leading to strong taboos about the usage of
such names. This logic also lends power to many
poetic devices and surfaces in folk etymology.
If the sound similarity is the only overlap of the
two meanings, the pun is forced, which has led to
the low status puns have as a type of joke for many
people.
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
Orange.
Puns 613
Orange who?
Orange you glad I didn’t say apple?
In this example of knock-knock puns, which are
associated with children’s humor and often consid-
ered to be weak jokes, there is no other motivation
for speaking about oranges than the sound similar-
ity between orange and aren’t. If, on the other hand,
the setup were to create parallel contexts to justify
the presence of the two meanings, as in the “damn”
pun, the joke would be stronger, that is, potentially
funnier. Without justification beyond the sound
similarity, there is only wordplay, a weak pun, lack-
ing the contextual ambiguity that is often found in
other jokes. Cicero observed that cratylism alone is a
weak basis for humor and needs to be accompanied
by meaning overlap.
Perfect and Imperfect Puns
One of the many distinctions of pun types is the dif-
ference between perfect and imperfect ones. A per-
fect pun is a pun in which the two meanings surface
in the same sound sequence, or word; whereas an
imperfect, but otherwise possibly just as humorous,
pun is one in which the sound sequences, or words,
are similar, but not identical. This is also called paro-
nymy. As in the following example, usually only one
of the words (i.e., the pun) is part of the joke text,
while the other (the pun’s target word) is implied by
the context and sound similarity:
Schnapps: a ginlike beverage that bites.
Here, the punning word, “schnapps,” is actually
part of the setup and its targeted second meaning,
“snaps,” is revealed through the punch line “bites”
and is not identical to the punning word in the text
in either pronunciation or spelling.
Not only is the sound similarity in imperfect
puns used to create the spurious meaning overlap,
but it is also used to identify, or recover, the target
word of the pun in the text. Only a limited degree
of difference is possible between a pun and its target
for the target to still be recognizable from the pun.
If the sound difference passes a certain threshold,
the target can no longer be recovered from the pun
and the cratylistic assumption of its relation to the
pun also breaks down. Recent research has tried,
with partial success, to establish this threshold in
terms of complex acoustic models, including claims
for universality of types of phonetic mechanisms
614 Puns
(e.g., substitutions vs. insertions) and overall number
of sound differences across languages and language
families. The main problem for such research is that
sound overlap in imperfect puns is both a semantic
factor for the humorousness of the pun, which is
particularly hard to measure quantitatively, as well
as an acoustic factor for the recovery of the target.
The problem is further complicated by the fact
that other contextual factors assist in the recovery of
the target when it is not similar to the pun, like the
idiomaticity of a phrase. In unctions speak louder
than words, “actions” is sufficiently similar in sound
to “unctions” to be potentially funny, but its recov-
ery is certainly aided by the underlying proverb.
Thus, the threshold of sound similarity between a
pun and its target can be lowered when other factors
help the target recovery.
Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Puns
Sometimes a distinction is made between paradig-
matic puns like the schnapps example, where the
pun and target surface in only one word in the text,
and syntagmatic puns, where the word is repeated in
its two meanings (traductio or antanaclasis) or the
similar pun and target of imperfect puns both occur
(adnominatio). This distinction seems to have little
bearing outside of classic rhetorical guides, like most
of the distinctions from which pun taxonomies are
derived.
Homophones and Homographs
Taxonomies that identify when the relationship
between a pun and its target no longer holds, in both
sounds and their written representations, are not
particularly relevant from a scientific point of view,
as they do not relate to the underlying mechanism of
puns that is responsible for their humorousness, but
still receive much attention in research on puns. As
mentioned, another type of distinction among puns
is related to the degree to which a pun and its tar-
get sound and look the same: Homophones sound
identical but can be written differently (e.g., loo and
Lou), whereas homographs are written identically
but may be pronounced differently.
Homographs are a subclass of puns for which,
unusually, the way they are written, not the sound
sequence, is the primary symbolic manifestation. In
these eye puns, or orthographic puns, the way two
meanings are written is similar or identical, but the
pronunciation can be different. A joke using “lead”
both in the sense of the verb and the metal would
constitute an example in English. Eye puns are com-
mon in writing systems that are more independent
from their function to indicate pronunciation, such
as Japanese and Mandarin, where the sounds of a
pun and its target can even be completely different,
but the ideographic symbol is (almost) the same.
Additional Distinctions
Further distinctions among puns are made accord-
ing to the way they are embedded into the joke text
and context, like the distinction of syntagmatic and
paradigmatic puns mentioned earlier. These include
malapropisms (“as headstrong as an allegory [alliga-
tor] on the Nile”) and spoonerisms (“three cheers
for our queer old dean [dear old queen]!”). Further
classifications are based on the fact that puns can
cross word lines and span several of them (“When is
a door not a door? When it is a jar [ajar]”), and the
same incongruence in meaning can be carried across
several puns, which is a common strand in conversa-
tional punning.
Another issue frequently discussed is the historical
relation of the two senses in a pun in terms of hom-
onymy and polysemy. Two (or more) senses of perfect
homographic or homophonic puns can be etymo-
logically related because historically they derive from
the same meaning, as in the rodent “mouse” and
the computer “mouse.” Here the device meaning
was derived from the rodent meaning because of the
size and shape similarity and the resemblance of the
cord of a computer mouse to the tail of the rodent
mouse. There are many ways in which the senses of
a word can be related, and words with related senses
are called polysemous. Yet, in contrast to the rather
recent coining of the computer term, humans are
rarely consciously aware that a relation between the
senses of a word is historical, but when asked about
it, almost always claim that it is so.
When senses of a word are not related, this con-
stitutes homonymy, as in “ear” standing for the
body part as well as the grain-bearing tip of a cereal
plant. The two senses derive from different roots but
happen to coincide in present-day English. The dif-
ference in the Indo-European roots they derive from
can be shown in their ancient Greek manifestations
as ous (body part) and akros (pointed [tip of cereal]).
Nevertheless, when asked, most people will gener-
ate a plausible relationship between homonymous
senses by claiming an overlap in meaning that can
be explained etymologically; that is, they indulge in
folk etymology and claim that senses, such as those
 Puppets 615

of ear, are polysemous. The question of the influ- Hempelmann, C. F. (2004). Script oppositeness and logical
ence of polysemy on the funniness of puns is an mechanism in punning. HUMOR: International Journal
open issue, and researchers have argued that an ety- of Humor Research, 17(4), 381–392.
mological relationship between the senses can either Hempelmann, C. F., & Samson, A. C. (2007). Visual puns
strengthen the pun as an additional overlap or make and verbal puns: Descriptive analogy or false analogy?
it too obvious and thus weaken it. In D. Popa & S. Attardo (Eds.), New approaches to the
linguistics of humor (pp. 180–196). Galati, Romania:
Visual Puns Editura Academica.
Sobkowiak, W. (1991). Metaphonology of English
Although language is considered their main habi- paronomasic puns. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
tat, puns do not exist only in spoken or written lan-
guage. A physical manifestation of a symbol may
also have two meanings that can be used for the PUPPETS
central incongruity required by humor. Visual puns,
which have been seen as early as in classical vase
As inanimate objects, puppets resemble, move like,
painting, refer to an element of a drawing, paint-
and talk like the humans they imitate, parody, or
ing, or photo that can simultaneously represent two
mock. This interplay of similarity and difference,
objects in a humorous incongruous relationship. To
along with conventional and not so conventional
achieve this, there must be a certain level of abstrac-
aspects of puppets, causes audiences to laugh at them.
tion in the representation of the two objects in the
Puppetry involves people looking at and reframing
pun so that the visual symbol can stand for both.
themselves and their social lives in a comical mode.
For example, for a drop shape to also represent a
This entry describes traditional and contemporary
candle flame, not much more than the outline needs
puppets and discusses the role of puppetry in culture.
to be drawn, but for both meanings to be recovered,
both must explicitly be reinforced by the context.
Traditional and Contemporary Puppets
The reason for this difference between verbal and
more restricted visual punning is that visual symbols Puppets are classified as either traditional or contem-
are generally not arbitrary but iconic; that is, they porary (modern), a distinction that is only partially
resemble that for which they stand. Verbal symbols,
on the other hand, are generally arbitrary in that
they are associated with but don’t resemble what
they stand for. The verbal symbol, or word, house
does not look, sound, smell, or feel like a house. But
a visual symbol, like a drawing of a house, will to
some degree look like a house and can less easily
look like, say, a football. Thus, iconic visual symbols
are less free to pun than arbitrary verbal ones.
Christian F. Hempelmann

See also Jokes; Punch Line

Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guidi, A. (2012). Are pun mechanisms universal? A
comparative analysis across language families.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
25(3), 339–336.
Hausmann, F. J. (1974). Studien zu einer Linguistik des
Wortspiels [Studies on the linguistics of wordplay].
Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Shadow puppets are cut-out figures that are held
between a source of light and a translucent screen or
scrim. The cut-out shapes of the puppets sometimes
include translucent color or other types of detailing.
Shown here are Javanese shadow puppets (wayang kulit).
In 2003, UNESCO recognized wayang kulit as a
Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.
Source: Sentausa/Wikimedia Commons.
616 Puppets
useful. Traditional puppets are puppets that have
been in communities for many generations, some-
times for hundreds of years, whereas modern pup-
pets are recent creations. Several types of puppets are
widespread around the world. These include glove
puppets (England, France), shadow puppets (China,
Greece, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey), rod or
string puppets (Belgium, Italian mainland, Japan,
Sicily), story scrolls (India), masks (Bali), water pup-
pets (Vietnam), and even humans themselves imi-
tating puppets (Indonesia). The word marionette
is used to refer to both string puppets and puppets
in general. A well-defined line between traditional
puppets and contemporary puppets does not exist.
Both are found in the same forms and express the
One of 35 marionettes from the Tiller-Clowes Family
Marionette Company, one of the last Victorian marionette
troupes in England. Shown here is Clown, the character
who developed from the Italian commedia dell’arte. In
Great Britain, traveling marionette shows were a popular
form of entertainment for adults in the 19th century.
Source: Theatre and Performance Collection, Victoria and
Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
same kinds of humor. And all forms of puppetry,
even if invented yesterday, draw on many features
and techniques that have always been characteristic
of puppets.
Traditional puppetry still exists in many
places, and contemporary puppetry is present in
all major population centers. Puppetry is prac-
ticed in Palermo in Sicily, as well as other places
in Italy; Brussels and Liege in Belgium; Amiens,
Charleville-Mézières, and Lyon in France; in
Central and Eastern Europe, especially in Prague
in the Czech Republic and Moscow in Russia;
in Egypt and Greece; in many Asian countries,
including Cambodia, China, India, Japan, China,
Vietnam, and Taiwan; in Africa; in New York City
and other cities in the United States; and in north-
eastern Brazil and other places in Latin America. In
these places, puppets are performed both in public
places, often as part of festivals and rituals, and in
museums, schools, and libraries.
String puppet from the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Source: Tropenmuseum of the Royal Tropical Institute
(KIT)/Wikimedia Commons.

Puppetry as Popular Culture
Puppetry is an expression of popular and folk
culture. It is intended for audiences of adults as well
as children and is a form of communication and
entertainment and an aesthetic creation. The domi-
nant feature of puppetry is humor. Puppets become
animate through the (usually hidden) activities of the
puppeteers, who make them perform—walk, talk,
sing, dance, burp, fart, and laugh. This disparity and
intersection between the animate and the inanimate,
the human and the nonhuman, is at the heart of the
humor of puppets. Ironically because they are not
human, puppets usually can do more and get away
with more than can humans.
Play, humor, and comedy in puppetry are sig-
nificant for a number of reasons. Puppets celebrate
the dynamism and diversity of popular culture—
linguistically, culturally, socially, and individually—
in contrast to official, elite, and standardizing high
culture, to which puppets are a comic counterpoint
and which they often debase. Puppets constantly and
dangerously test the boundaries of the licit and the
illicit, the permitted and the forbidden. They parody
customs, proper social behavior, rules of etiquette
and politeness, and even themselves, and usually
make fun of the source text they interpret.
Puppets are both a reflection of, and a commen-
tary on, the society and culture in which they are
performed. An extremely vibrant, rich, and complex
form of popular culture, they involve both social
and individual creativity and expression. In addition,
they constitute an escape from, commentary on, and
source of inspiration for high and elite forms of cul-
tural expression. Whatever else puppets are and do,
they are funny. These often small objects behave like
humans and animals, engage in physical buffoonery
and slapstick, use all kinds of wordplay, stereotype,
exaggerate, and degrade human behavior, break
ordinary rules of etiquette, and comment on, poke
fun at, and trick other puppets and members of the
audience.
Traditional puppet performances are playful,
comic re-creations of old, sometimes ancient stories
and often insert contemporary humorous episodes
and interludes. This is precisely the case of the Sicilian
and Belgian performances of the Charlemagne sto-
ries and the song of Roland and the Balinese and
Javanese performances of Indian epics, such as the
Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The mingling of
the ancient and the modern, the traditional and the
contemporary, are great sources of humor.
Puppets 617
The satirical parody of social rules and social
boundaries characteristic of puppetry constitutes a
subversion of social structure and especially a comic
attack on the hegemonic role of the dominating
class. Puppets provide a social critique and a letting
off of steam. In complex societies, puppets draw on
stratified class structures to express different humor-
ous messages.
The nature of puppet humor changes over time
as the role of the puppet theater changes, from a
popular to a middle-class phenomenon, from the
fairground to the museum, the library, and the pub-
lic school. Puppetry, like other forms of humor, is
used in both verbal and physical therapy. Puppetry
continues to be an exuberant and vital form of
popular culture.
Dina Sherzer and Joel Sherzer
See also Caricature; Culture; Folklore; Parody; Slapstick;
Sociology
Further Readings
And, M. (1987). Karagöz: Turkish shadow theatre.
Istanbul, Turkey: Dost.
Baird, B. (1965). The art of the puppet. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Gerity, L. E. (1999). Creativity and the dissociative patient:
Puppets, narrative, and art in the treatment of survivors
of childhood trauma. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Gross, J. (2001). Speaking in other voices: An ethnography
of Walloon puppet theaters. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins Press.
Herbert, M. (2002). Voices of the puppet masters: The
wayang golek theater of Indonesia. Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Hironaga, S. (1976). The Bunraku handbook. Tokyo,
Japan: Maison des Arts.
Hobart, A. (1987). Dancing shadows of Bali: Theater and
myth. London, UK: KPI.
Jairazbhoy, N. A. (2007). Kathputli: The world of
Rajasthani puppeteers. Ahmedabad, India: Rainbow.
Keeler, W. (1987). Javanese shadow plays: Javanese selves.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Malkin, M. R. (1977). Traditional and folk puppets of the
world. New York, NY: Barnes.
McCormick, J. (2010). The Italian puppet theater:
A history. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Obraztsov, S. (1954). Puppets and the puppet theatre.
London, UK: Society for Cultural Relations With the
USSR.
618 Puppets
Osnes, B. (2010). The shadow puppet theatre of
Malaysia: A study of wayang kulit with performance
scripts and puppet designs. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Pasqualino, A. (1981). Sicilian puppets. Palermo, Italy:
Association for the Preservation of Popular
Traditions.
Scott, A. C. (1963). The puppet theatre of Japan.
Rutland, VT: Tuttle.
Sherzer, D., & Sherzer, J. (Eds.). (1987). Humor and
comedy in puppetry: Celebration in popular culture.
Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press.
Simmen, R. (1975). The world of puppets. London, UK:
Elsevier Phaidon.
Singer, N. F. (1992). Burmese puppets. Singapore:
Oxford University Press.
Speaight, G. (1990). The history of the English puppet
theatre (2nd ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Stalberg, R. H. (1984). China’s puppets. San Francisco,
CA: China Books.
Zurbuchen, M. (1987). The shadow theater of Bali:
Explorations in language and text. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
 R
RABELAIS, FRAN OIS
Fran ois Rabelais, often acknowledged as France’s,
if not Europe’s, greatest comic genius produced four
volumes of mock-epic narrative over a period of
20 years, commencing with Pantagruel (1532), con-
tinued by its prequel Gargantua (1534/1535), the
so-called Third Book of Pantagruel’s adventures
(1546) and then a Fourth Book of the same, pub-
lished in possibly incomplete form in 1552 shortly
before his death. It is astonishing that he began his
literary career so late (the earliest estimated date of
birth is 1483), but his erudition reveals a profound
awareness of contemporary intellectual trends,
surely acquired during his many years of monastic
study, while his provincial upbringing in the pre-
dominantly rural area of the Loire Valley clearly
afforded him an acquaintance and sympathy with
a peasant way of life reflected in his presentation of
rustic folklore, vocabulary, and attitudes.
In many ways, this sometimes unstable combi-
nation of popular and learned patterns creates his
works’ greatest fascination. In terms of comic writ-
ing, he extends richly the satiric traditions generated
by European humanists via their often exaggerated
satires of their great enemy, medieval scholasti-
cism. Here his acknowledged mentor is Desiderius
Erasmus, whom he seems to have hero-worshipped
and whose witty dialogues, titled the Colloquies
and written exclusively in Latin, inspire several of
Rabelais’s most memorable comic episodes. He dif-
fers from Erasmus in his use of vernacular French,
619
but, more important for humor, in his unashamed
scatology and his cultivation of the morally irre-
sponsible and anarchic comedy developed by many
predecessors, but which sits parallel to the erudite
and spiritual messages he simultaneously conveys.
Thus his heroes, the father-and-son Gargantua
and Pantagruel, while promoting humanist prin-
ciples via their education, and enhancing the
spirit of Christian evangelism in their piety (like
Erasmus, Rabelais clearly opposed the Lutheran
Reformation), involve themselves in riotous adven-
tures alongside thoroughly disreputable characters
whom, unlike, say, Prince Hal to Falstaff, they never
denounce or abandon. Thus, Rabelais counters the
epic pattern of birth-education-fulfillment of the
hero with one of drinking, overindulgence, sex,
and reckless violence, counterposing his heroes to
two particular anti-heroes, namely, the rumbustious
Friar John, lieutenant to Gargantua, and, regarding
Pantagruel, the scapegrace Panurge, whom, despite
his fornication, criminality, obsessions, and, in due
course, abject cowardice, Pantagruel loves through-
out his life.
So the epic models of the first two volumes are
fulfilled in predictable victories achieved by the
heroes who defend their homeland against aggres-
sors in the tradition of the medieval chanson de
geste, while their brave deeds stand against a whole
series of alternative episodes that place them in
comic question. This much had already been done
by Rabelais’s late medieval and early Renaissance
forebears, but when he dosed that combination
with the Erasmian spirit of critical satire whereby,
620 Race, Representations of
for instance, he lampooned the warlike politics of
contemporary European monarchs such as Francis I
and especially the Emperor Charles V, he achieved a
literary amalgam of inexhaustible richness.
Having achieved notable success with Pantagruel,
which enjoyed many editions, Rabelais adapted
the same epic paradigm to Gargantua, an obvious
improvement that climaxes in a more interesting
and in some ways credible war for which the hero
is prepared by a far fuller education where the anti-
medieval attitudes of the Renaissance are made glar-
ingly and farcically apparent. Thereafter, however,
rather than adding a further generation to the giants’
genealogy, following an interval of some 12 years,
Rabelais produced in some ways his most inter-
esting book, Le tiers livre (The Third Book). This
proto-novel describes the problems encountered by
the neurotic Panurge, still Pantagruel’s sidekick, but
now preoccupied by a desire to marry coupled with
a dread of cuckoldry, which fate he had no doubt vis-
ited previously on many an unwitting husband. His
lord Pantagruel, fully sympathetic to his dilemma,
gives him clear and sensible advice whereby, if his
mind is made up, he should be wed and face the
consequences. When his friend proves unwilling to
comply, however, Pantagruel recommends a series of
oracles, none of whom he holds to be fully reliable,
since the future is in God’s hands, but who might
yet prove useful. Thereupon Rabelais exploits this
pattern as a series of comic vignettes that, again,
deliver important humanist lessons, often satirically
presented, alongside a now less prominent but still
discernible spirit of popular humor.
As no source of advice satisfies Panurge, he and
his companions decide ultimately to visit the land
of the Holy Bottle, source of ultimate truth, but
only reachable after a long journey, which there-
fore provides the stuff of Rabelais’s Le quart livre
(The Fourth Book), published incomplete in 1548
and then more fully in 1552. Here Panurge’s role is
less central, although he can still generate enormous
comic power when he does dominate the scene.
Otherwise Rabelais downgrades the purpose of the
journey in order to offer his readers a series of comi-
cally portrayed landings and encounters that occur
en route to their ultimate goal, where in fact, and for
whatever reason, they never arrive.
Although the basic narrative structure is now the
quest paradigm rather than epic war, Rabelais main-
tains and enhances his scholarly agenda by exploit-
ing classical sources such as the satirist Lucian, while
also drawing, and rather more than in Le tiers livre,
on folklore and folktales. Some find the humor and
mood of this volume more somber, given the virtual
collapse of the Erasmian movement in the face of the
Calvinist Reformation and the incipient Counter-
Reformation. In this connection, Rabelais conducts
biting satires of the Council of Trent while also
responding vigorously to Calvin and what he calls
the Genevan impostors, and the disharmony within
Christendom is clearly reflected in various episodes
on the journey. Even so, and despite certain traces
of despondency, some of his greatest comic writing
does emerge within it, for instance, during the storm
sequence where Panurge collapses into abject terror
and does nothing to help, while Frère Jean berates
him for idleness and Pantagruel struggles to save the
ship. Of course they survive, supported by the grace
of God, and indeed by the demands of the genre
Rabelais has chosen.
What is genuinely fascinating, moreover, is
the unresolved nature of Rabelais’s work. Just as
the reader is left to imagine the conclusion to the
Pantagruelists’ journey, so he is free to suggest for
himself how a hero of such spiritual grandeur as the
mature Pantagruel is prepared to endure and indulge
his disreputable antithesis, namely, the eternally
maddening but infuriatingly lovable Panurge.
John Parkin
See also Anecdote, Comic; Carnivalesque; Cervantes,
Miguel de; History of Humor: Renaissance Europe;
Humorous Names; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Parody;
Satire; Scatology; Targets of Humor
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. M. (1968). Rabelais and his world.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Huchon, M. (2011). Rabelais. Paris, France: Gallimard.
Screech, M. A. (1979). Rabelais. London, UK: Duckworth.
RACE, REPRESENTATIONS OF
Over time, representations of race have played a
significant role in the production of humor in the
United States. Writers of different backgrounds
ranging from Bret Harte and Mark Twain to Zora
Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes have drawn
on race representations to create humor in their

work, but over time, visual media have had a greater
audience among the American public than have
written media. This entry focuses on past and pres-
ent humorous portrayals of various racial groups in
America on stage, in silent films, in television, and in
motion pictures. Humorous representations of race
have both influenced and been influenced by atti-
tudes related to political, social, and economic cir-
cumstances. Because African Americans, who have
been the most frequently portrayed minority racial
group, exemplify this relationship between context
and the production of humor, this entry devotes con-
siderable time to discussion of African Americans
in a social and historic context. This entry also dis-
cusses portrayals of Native Americans, Hispanics,
Asians, and Whites. Whereas most portrayals of
racial groups brought before the public have origi-
nated in the White mainstream, the entry shows
that groups such as African Americans have offered
sometimes contrasting and self-empowering humor-
ous images of themselves.
Stereotypes
Discussion of humorous constructions of race neces-
sarily calls for attention to the concept of stereotype.
The set of beliefs comprising an ideology forms the
basis for a stereotype that develops within a group
with regard to an outside group. The ideology pro-
motes a perception that all members of the outside
group are alike in sharing a non-normative charac-
teristic or set of characteristics that sets them apart
as different from the group making the assessment.
The targeted characteristics of a stereotyped group
may be related to a range of human domains, such as
physical features, behavior, or attitudes. Humorous
representations exaggerate in foregrounding those
characteristics.
Stereotypes in humor can be useful as a short-
hand method of helping to convey complex issues
and ideas, particularly in relation to social identity.
For example, stereotyping is a useful tool for quick
delineation of character types in stand-up comedy,
where performers have limited time in which to
construct characters necessary for the progression
of a joke or narrative. A stereotype can not only
help establish an instantly recognizable type but also
influence audience expectations surrounding the
attitudes and behavior of a character. The incongru-
ity that is an outcome of exaggerating a stereotype
may itself be a source of humor.
Race, Representations of 621
Stereotyping may be innocuous, amounting to
good-natured teasing. The danger of stereotyping is
that it often combines with prejudice, where ideo-
logical thinking allows individuals to take their own
group as a normative, positive point of reference and
form a negative image of another group based on
comparison of the two groups. In forming a negative
stereotype, the group making the assessment casts
the outside group as either possessing characteristics
that the assessing group spurns, or lacking charac-
teristics that the assessing group possesses and con-
siders natural and desirable. Negative stereotyping
may serve the function of castigating and demeaning
a social group as inferior and undesirable.
Comic Portrayals of Whites
Whites are often viewed as unmarked and nor-
mative, but Whites in America have never been
a social monolith. By the early 1800s, humor-
ous representations of certain regional groups of
Whites had become staples in comic stage perfor-
mances. White rural types were the frequent butt
of jokes; the backwoodsman and the Yankee were
also popular comic figures. In the early days of the
20th century, attention shifted to the newly arriv-
ing Southern and East European immigrants. Anglo
Americans, who had become established as a group
comfortable with the technological advances of the
industrial revolution, developed ideologies and ste-
reotypes that lent legitimacy to showing great hos-
tility toward the new immigrants. This played out
in intense discrimination and humor that maligned
the less sophisticated new arrivals by highlighting
perceived traits of ignorance, laziness, and lack of
sophistication.
To combat the stereotyping and discrimina-
tion, since there were no racial differences between
Southern and Eastern Europeans and Anglo
Americans, the new immigrants and their children
gradually relinquished their old country customs
and began to assimilate into the emerging White cul-
ture. In 1908, the term melting pot came into use as
a metaphor to describe the process by which immi-
grants would gradually become assimilated into the
dominant American culture and society. The various
groups of Whites eventually coalesced into a single
overarching group constituting the dominant White
majority. Public expression of humor that ridiculed
most White ethnic groups became increasingly less
frequent.
622 Race, Representations of
Creators of comic White characters in silent
films and early radio shows increasingly called on
stereotypes that downplayed ethnicity and focused
on social class. For example, in silent films, Charlie
Chaplin created humor that championed the
working class. Notable among early comic televi-
sion representations of the White working class is
Jackie Gleason’s The Honeymooners. Beginning in
the 1950s, a plethora of sitcoms focusing on the
middle class became popular. These include Father
Knows Best, The Dick Van Dyke Show, The
Brady Bunch, and a host of other shows. In I Love
Lucy, Lucille Ball provided a humorous exag-
geration of the trope of the White woman, which
casts White women as naive, innocent, pure, and
totally dependent on men. Many other sitcoms
cast middle-class White women in similar roles.
Sitcoms such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and
That Girl portrayed wholesome and angelic single,
middle-class White women attempting to escape
the strictures of subordination to men that society
placed on them.
Demonstrating the potential for multidimension-
ality in portrayals of Whites, The Beverly Hillbillies
portrayed a stereotype of a White family from
Appalachia. The sitcom shows the prominent role
language can play in constructing comic characters
meant to represent social groups. In the past, isola-
tion caused by the remoteness of the mountainous
Appalachian area led to linguistic and cultural differ-
ences that set Appalachians apart from mainstream
Whites. Characters in The Beverly Hillbillies drew
on the stereotypes that the metalinguistic awareness
of audiences elicited when they heard linguistic fea-
tures that index traits that they were likely to ste-
reotypically associate with people from Appalachia.
The characters exaggerated in their use of these
features. An example is a-prefixing, where speakers
append a- to the front of a progressive activity verb,
as in John went a-hunting. In constructing his comic
persona, a member of the Appalachian underclass,
the stand-up comedian Larry the Cable Guy draws
on a-prefixing and other features such as the gram-
matical construction might could, in I might could
help next week.
Comic Portrayals of African Americans
As early as the 18th century, African American
comic characters occasionally appeared on the
American stage. An example is in the 1764 play
The Disappointment, or the Force of Credulity.
The major figure in this play was a wealthy African
American with a White mistress. The African
American role was comic, yet lacked the racial dis-
paragement that came later.
Onstage comic portrayals of African Americans
changed dramatically in the 1800s with the advent
of minstrelsy, which soon became the most popu-
lar form of stage comedy in the United States.
Minstrelsy came to the fore at a time of social, politi-
cal, and economic turmoil. Increasing numbers of
free African Americans were competing with Whites
for jobs in a difficult economy. The abolitionist
movement was gaining power, in opposition to those
who wanted a continuation of slavery.
Originally, performers in minstrelsy were
exclusively White men. Covering their faces with
burned cork, they built comic portrayals of African
Americans that cast them as childlike, shiftless, and
irresponsible. The image of African Americans that
these minstrels promoted as happily enslaved and
incapable of managing their own lives served the
function of supporting an ideology of racism and
encouraging the continuation of slavery. The White
performers generally had little knowledge of African
Americans or of the plantation life that provided
the background for the characters they portrayed.
Rather, they built their performances on hearsay,
exaggeration, and misconceptions about African
Americans.
Research has shown that most of the songs the
White minstrels performed, such as “Jump Jim
Crow,” “Possum up a Gum Tree,” and “My Long
Tail Blue,” were of European origin. But the lan-
guage they delivered the songs in was the effect of
their stereotyped perception of African American
English. The White minstrels performed their songs
in a way that mimicked and ridiculed African
American speech and style.
In the mid-1800s, free African Americans entered
the field of minstrelsy, also covering their skin with
burned cork for performances. Several individuals,
such as Billy Kersands and Bob Height, became
almost as successful as Whites performing in black-
face. With racial stereotypes and audience expec-
tations already in place from the earlier minstrels,
African American blackface minstrel performers
were forced to enact the negative images that pre-
vious minstrels had promoted. Like their White
counterparts, most African American minstrel per-
formers had never experienced plantation life. Still,
 Race, Representations of 623

Cover of the sheet music for “Why Did Yer Slope Wid De Yaller Man, Susie?” by John P. Harrington (lyrics) and George
Le Brunn (music) and sung by Tom Birchmore of the Moore & Burgess Minstrels.
Source: Theater and Performance Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum; © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

many non–African Americans viewing the shows
saw the performances as authentic representations
of African American plantation life, in which the
African American performers engaged in their nor-
mal childlike, irresponsible behaviors and expressed
their natural tendencies to sing, dance, be funny,
and, without inhibition, express their primitive
passions.
The African American minstrels were ostensibly
enacting African American life. But according to
Jacquelyn Rahman, who has researched African
American language and humor, African American
humor has been traditionally grounded in an
esteem-enhancing self-perception that contributed
to the psychological survival of the group. Rahman
states that through the use of counterlanguage and
624 Race, Representations of
code whose meaning was only available to insiders,
African Americans have historically used language
to convey meanings that were unavailable to out-
siders. Mel Watkins, who has researched African
American comedy, states that African American
minstrel performers used minstrelsy to critique
racism and hypocrisy; in performing in blackface,
they were actually mimicking Whites in their
imitation of the speech and behavior of African
Americans.
Minstrelsy declined in popularity and nearly died
after the end of Reconstruction in 1877, although
isolated White performers such as Al Jolson contin-
ued the genre into the mid-1900s. What replaced
minstrel shows in popularity were variety shows
and silent films, where, again, Whites in blackface
portrayed African Americans. Minstrel portrayals
influenced representations of African Americans
in media for years to come. Stereotypes that had
developed during the minstrel era persisted, with
stock characters such as coon, sambo, and mammy
emerging to appear in sometimes subtle forms well
into the future. Still, African American minstrelsy
provided a vehicle for the development of the first
professional African American musical and comic
entertainers.
Comic representations of African Americans by
Whites continued into the early days of radio (1920–
1930). Language became particularly important in
radio because it was the only tool actors had for con-
structing character and conveying social meaning.
Radio actors did their work by making use of their
stereotyped perceptions of African American gram-
mar, phonology, and lexicon. For audience under-
standing, they relied on the metalinguistic awareness
of audiences that made connections between the
stereotyped speech of the radio characters and traits
the comedians were attempting to convey.
Amos ‘n’ Andy, a radio program that debuted in
the 1920s, featured the White creators of the show,
Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll, portray-
ing African American characters. The characters
projected stereotypical traits that had been popu-
larized by blackface minstrelsy, but the show was
groundbreaking in presenting the characters as
grappling with everyday life problems in ways that
transcended race. Amos ‘n’ Andy was one of the
few early situation comedies that featured African
Americans in roles other than that of servant. One
of the main characters of the show was a struggling
business owner.
Because of its national popularity, the program
lasted for several decades. In 1951, Gosden and
Correll unsuccessfully transferred Amos ‘n’ Andy
to television. African American civil rights groups
were offended by the depictions, charging that they
reinforced stereotypes. An example they cited was
Sapphire, a shrill and abrasively overbearing wife
character whose name entered the slang lexicon as
a term denoting an aggressive hen-pecking African
American woman. Denouncement from civil rights
groups contributed to the demise of the show.
With the coming of the civil rights movement in
the 1950s, African Americans became more visible
in all forms of media. Stereotypes persisted, but with
protests from the African American community, the
tone of films featuring African Americans became
less blatantly stereotypical and exaggerated. African
American actors themselves, such as Esther Rolle
and John Amos, stars in the 1970s sitcom Good
Times, protested what they perceived as racist con-
tent of the sitcoms in which they performed. Moving
toward the present, the mainstream has increas-
ingly presented positive comic portrayals of African
Americans.
African Americans have always had their own
brand of self-empowering humor that reflected
their cultural past and their experiences in America.
African American self-representation often con-
trasted markedly with portrayals originating outside
the community. For example, during and after slav-
ery, African Americans engaged in toasting, a genre
where a member of the community told an epic tale
before an audience of other African Americans.
The story was filled with coded language, as well
as exaggerated and fictional accounts of the story-
teller’s heroic exploits and adventures, which often
involved outsmarting Whites.
In the 20th century, as the social condition
of African Americans changed, humorous self-
representation of African Americans also began to
change. African Americans developed a new identity
and offered more direct social commentary. Jackie
“Moms” Mabley exemplifies this. Performing from
the vaudeville era into the 1970s, Mabley remains
one of the few African American women to attain
success in comedy. To combat the extreme sexism
and harassment she encountered as a young woman,
Mabley adopted the persona of an outspoken old
woman that she modeled after her grandmother, a
former slave. In the character of a community elder,
Mabley was able to pioneer in producing socially

conscious humor that highlights the hypocrisy of
racism. An example of her work follows.
I was on my way down to Miami… I mean “They”-
ami. I was ridin’ along…, goin’ through one of them
little towns in South Carolina. Pass through a red
light. One of them big cops come runnin’ over to me,
say, “Hey woman, don’t you know you went
through a red light.” I say, “Yeah, I know I went
through a red light.” “Well, what did you do that
for?” I said ‘Cause I seen all you white folks goin’ on
the green light… I thought the red light was for us!”
(Watkins, 1999, p. 392)
In the late 1960s, Richard Pryor introduced a
new style of stand-up comedy. Pryor told long nar-
ratives in which he portrayed the streetwise, earthy
dignity and survival skills of characters of the
African American underclass. Like Mabley, Pryor
provided social commentary on the hypocrisies and
incongruences that characterize racist thinking.
Pryor’s work continues to influence stand-up come-
dians; a plethora of African American comedians
followed his style, demonstrated by the highly suc-
cessful 2000 film The Original Kings of Comedy.
This movie compiled footage from a 2000 road
show that featured comedians Steve Harvey,
D. L. Hughley, Cedric the Entertainer, and Bernie
Mack. The Queens of Comedy, a female comedy tour
film released in 2001, was a spinoff that featured
Adele Givens, Laura Hayes, Sommore, and Mo’Nique.
In the 1980s, Bill Cosby, who had been a men-
tor of Pryor, combined his performance experience
with knowledge gained while earning a PhD in edu-
cation when he created and starred in The Cosby
Show. This sitcom featured an educated upper
middle–income African American couple raising five
children. A number of sitcoms presenting positive
portrayals of African Americans followed, so as of
2012, there have been numerous popular venues
featuring positive portrayals of African Americans.
Comic Media Portrayals of Other Races
The popularity of African American comic ven-
ues in the media helped open the door for main-
stream acceptance of comedians of other groups.
Until the 1960s, virtually all comic media portray-
als of Hispanics, East and South Asians, and Native
Americans were grounded in negative stereotypes.
There were great cultural differences among these
racial groups, but there is a thread of similarity in
Race, Representations of 625
their comic representations. The stereotypes for
each group were based on perceived characteris-
tics that differed from characteristics valued in the
mainstream and that were considered inferior. As
with African Americans, stereotypes of these groups
were grounded in social and political issues that
existed before the groups began to be represented
in the media. Where characters from these groups
appeared in humorous venues, they were cast in
such roles as Indian chief with feathered headdress,
karate-chopping Asian male, Mexican bandito, and
passionate Latina. For instance, the Frito Bandito
was a character who helped to sell corn chips, while
a scantily clad and heavily accented singing female
banana named Chiquita appeared in advertisements
for bananas.
Twenty-first-century humorous representations
of racial groups differ markedly from those of ear-
lier years. In contemporary American society, sen-
sitivities are such that purposeful racial derogation
is generally taboo; a range of sitcoms and stand-up
comedians present portrayals of members of vari-
ous races. Bobby Lee, a Korean physician turned
comedian, is well known for his work in the MADtv
sketch comedy show, where he has played a number
of Asian characters.
In stand-up, comedians have begun to pres-
ent their own images of their groups. Charlie
Hill, Howie Miller, and Thomas King are Native
American stand-up comedians who sometimes
employ stereotypes in order to challenge false beliefs
that remain embedded in American society. Where
East Asians were once portrayed as buffoons, con-
temporary East Asian comedians present a number
of perspectives. In the persona of a socially conscious
Asian American woman, Margaret Cho presents
stand-up comedy that is empowering to Asians and
to women.
Russell Peters, of South Asian ancestry, has gained
international acclaim for his stand-up work that
often lays bare the hypocrisy of racism. Similarly,
Aziz Ansari, Rajiv Satyal, and Hari Kondabolu, all
of South Asian ancestry, present socially conscious
humor.
Inspired by earlier work by African American
comedians, The Original Kings of Latin Comedy
was a 2002 film depicting a road show that high-
lighted facets of Mexican culture. The show featured
the comedians George Lopez, Cheech Marin, Joey
Medina, Alex Reymundo, and Paul Rodriguez.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Cheech and Chong, a
626 Rakugo
Hispanic comedy team, were popular yet controver-
sial because of their perceived portrayal of Hispanics
as participating in drug culture. Because of the
subversive nature of much of comedy, the work of
comedians of many racial groups has been contro-
versial within their respective communities.
Jacquelyn Rahman
See also Ethnic Jokes; Ethnicity and Humor; Prejudice,
Humor and; Sitcoms; Stand-Up Comedy; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Cowan, W. T. (2001). Plantation comic modes. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 14, 1–24.
Downing, J., & Husband, C. (2005). Representing race:
Racism, ethnicities and media. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language,
ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Rahman, J. (2007). An ay for an ah: Language of survival
in African American comedy. American Speech, 82(1),
65–96.
Rahman, J. (2012). The N word: Its history and use in the
African American community. Journal of English
Linguistics, 40(2), 137–171.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Hingham, MA: Reidel.
Raskin, V. (1999). Laughing at and laughing with: The
linguistics of humor and humor in literature. In R. S.
Wheeler (Ed.), The workings of language: From
prescriptions to perspectives (pp. 201–209). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Watkins, M. (1999). On the real side: A history of African
American comedy. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books.
Wilson, C. C., II, Gutierrez, F., & Chao, L. M. (2003).
Racism, sexism, and the media (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
RAKUGO
Rakugo, which is written with characters meaning
“falling words,” is the Japanese art of the profes-
sional teller of funny stories. It is a direct descendant
of the ancient art of the village storyteller, the teller
of tales, and the jester employed by large households
in the Middle Ages. In Japan in the 1790s, it moved
into the theaters and its material today is largely a
modernized version of the funny stories of the Edo
period (1603–1868 CE).
Rakugo performers wear kimono and sit, kneel-
ing on a cushion. In this sense they might be called
sit-down stand-up comedians. They use no props
except those that a gentleman of the Edo period
might have had about him—a fan, a pipe, a hand-
kerchief, and a tobacco pouch—although these
days, pipe and pouch are not so evident. The fan,
however, is used with consummate skill as a pair
of chopsticks, a sake cup, a rice bowl, a teacup, or
as any other object that may appear in the story,
including a fan.
The mime and characterization of the Rakugo
performer rival and perhaps outclass those of the
Kyōgen or Japanese farce actor in subtlety and
delicacy. This skill is necessary, as the Rakugo per-
former appears alone on the stage and, while seated
throughout, plays the parts of all the characters in
the story. There may be as many as a half dozen roles
in one story—men, women, old, young, children, of
both high and low status. Each character is marvel-
ously delineated by the performer in face, voice,
gesture, and bodily poise. A Rakugo piece is thus a
short play (normally a half hour long), consisting of
at least one dialogue plus narration, all parts being
performed by a single actor. As an example, in July
1988 at the Minami-za theater in Kyoto, Katsura
Shijaku performed Jagansō (Snake-Grass). A man
goes to visit a neighbor and finds him grilling rice
cakes that have been left over from a wedding. The
visitor helps himself to a cutting from a strange
plant. It comes from the mountains where lives an
enormous snake that eats monkeys and rabbits and
sometimes also hunters and hikers. After eating a
human being, the snake feels unwell, so it eats some
A Rakugo performance at the Sanma Festival in Meguro, a
ward in Tokyo, Japan, on September 14, 2008.
Source: vera46/Wikimedia Commons.

of the snake grass, which dissolves the human being
in its stomach, and then it feels better.
The performer tells how, uninvited, the visi-
tor starts scoffing the rice cakes and how his host,
annoyed at his bad manners, bets that he cannot eat
them all. After tossing them on his nose and catch-
ing them in his mouth (all of course in mime), he
manages to eat all but one and returns home, humil-
iated at having lost the bet and at being reproved for
bad manners, but also in agony from the lump in
his stomach. He collapses on the bed, moaning that
he only wishes that there were some way of getting
rid of it. An idea comes to him! He eats some of the
snake grass. Then the neighbor comes round to find
out if the man is all right, and he and the man’s wife
come into the bedroom to check.
Now, because the snake grass dissolves the
human being in the snake’s stomach (here the audi-
ence begins to laugh), when they open the door, all
they find on the bed is a lump of rice cakes.
Stories like this are old but have modern touches.
The snake eats hikers, for example, from when hik-
ing began in Japan in the Meiji era (1868–1912 CE).
The tales themselves are substantially unchanged
but there is an introduction called a makura (pil-
low), which is a piece of patter individual to the per-
former. For example, in the same program, another
performer, Katsura Kitchō, said in his own makura
that it was most unseasonable to tell a story about
stew in summer, as he was about to do, but he had
been told to perform Fugu-nabe (Blowfish Stew).
The audience laughed. Second, he continued, talk-
ing about stew in summer might evoke memories of
winter and make the audience feel cool. The audi-
ence laughed again because this is a twist on the con-
ventional wisdom that talking about ice in summer
makes people feel cool—but about stew in summer?
Japanese writers emphasize that a Rakugo tale
has an ochi (a fall or a drop), which equates to the
English punch line or unexpected twist in the tale. In
English it would hardly be worth mentioning that
a funny story has a punch line, but the Japanese
humorous tradition specializes in puns and related
linguistic humor (called share, pronounced “shar-
ray”), so it is in contrast with this highly wrought
language that the punch line is pointed out as char-
acteristic of Rakugo.
The punch line in Rakugo, the ochi, used to
also be called a sage (pronounced “sar-gay,” mean-
ing “letdown”). Otoshi-banashi, one of the for-
mer names of Rakugo, means “dropped stories,”
and rakugo itself (as noted earlier) means “falling
Rakugo 627
words.” The fact that all four terms have the com-
mon meaning of dropping or falling seems to suggest
that the story lets the audience down with a thump,
confirming the element of surprise as an important
factor in its humor.
After Rakugo found its way into the formal the-
ater, the center of the genre moved from Osaka to
Edo (Tokyo) and back again at different times. With
the new Meiji era that began in 1868, new audiences
came to Tokyo and adaptations from European
literature began to be included in the repertoire,
along with a certain amount of nonsense humor
and “gags.” In Japanese the word gyagu refers to
what are known in English as sight gags—very
short visual jokes, such as hitting people, throwing
buckets of water over them, tearing clothing, break-
ing things, or spewing water or smoke. As different
branches of Rakugo modernized in different ways,
the genre divided into “classic” and “modern”
Rakugo. Performers had their own trademarks, and
new stories were written for the new industrial age.
Rakugo underwent difficult times during World
War II, but in the postwar era it flourished on radio
and television and subsequently on audiotape, video,
CD, DVD, and the Internet. University Rakugo
clubs have been important in giving younger genera-
tions performance experience in the genre.
By the end of the 19th century there was one
Australian Rakugo performer working in Japan
(Henry Black), and by the end of the 20th century,
Rakugo could be heard, occasionally, performed in
English. Performers now travel extensively and the
genre is known across the world.
Marguerite Wells
See also Anecdote, Comic; Gag; History of Humor:
Premodern Japan; History of Humor: Modern Japan;
Improv Comedy; Incongruity and Resolution; Jest,
Jestbooks, and Jesters; Kyōgen; Lazzi; Mime; Share;
Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Brau, L. (2008). Rakugo: Performing comedy and cultural
heritage in contemporary Tokyo. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
McArthur, I. (2013). A biography of Henry Black: On
stage in Meiji Japan. Clayton, Australia: Monash
University Press.
Morioka, H., & Miyoko, S. (1990). Rakugo: The popular
narrative art of Japan. Cambridge, MA: Council on East
Asian Studies & Harvard University Press.
628 Reactions to Humor, Non-Laughter
Ōshima, K. (2006). Rakugo and humor in Japanese
interpersonal communication. In J. Milner Davis (Ed.),
Understanding humor in Japan (pp. 99–110). Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
REACTIONS TO HUMOR,
NON-LAUGHTER
Laughter is commonly thought to accompany
humor, and despite the insistence of humor schol-
ars that this is not always so, this idea continues to
appear, not only in everyday talk about the topic
but in scholarly research as well. Of course, laugh-
ter does often occur as a response to humor, and
the link between the two has intuitive appeal, yet
investigations of responses to humor in interaction
demonstrate that the range of responses is much
broader than simply laughter. Understanding the
variety of responses and the conditions under which
they tend to occur is important for the formulation
of audience-based theories of humor, as well as for
understanding how humor is negotiated in interac-
tion. This entry begins with a description of the dif-
ferent types of non-laughter responses to humor that
have been catalogued and the functions that such
responses can fulfill in conversation. Then, the rela-
tionship between different types of humor and dif-
ferent types of non-laughter responses is examined.
Laughter in response to a humorous utterance
may not necessarily indicate audience apprecia-
tion, and a lack of laughter need not signal a lack
of appreciation. In fact, it is worth noting that
laughter is, in fact, a regularly occurring response to
humor that hearers did not find amusing. Through
non-laughter responses, hearers of the humor can
communicate a variety of subtle messages regarding
their stance toward the humor. For instance, they
can express degrees of appreciation or amusement,
or the extent to which they agree or disagree with
any message implied by the humor. One option that
need not include laughter, but that often demon-
strates support for a preceding attempt at humor,
is when an interlocutor responds by contribut-
ing more humor. Thus, rather than laughing at an
individual’s teasing of another individual, a third
participant may instead opt to join in the teasing
or to share a humorous anecdote. A special case of
this type of behavior, called mode adoption, occurs
when an interlocutor joins in by using the same type
of humor. Mode adoption may signal appreciation
of humor, but this is not necessarily the case. For
instance, in the case of joke-capping sessions where
interlocutors tell one canned joke after another, this
type of response may not always signal apprecia-
tion of the previous joke, as participants attempt to
out-do each other.
Repetition of a humorous utterance or part of
it (e.g., a punch line) is another possible response
to humor that need not be accompanied by laugh-
ter. Repetition of another’s words is recognized as
a resource for building cohesion and showing sup-
portive collaboration in conversation, in general,
and can function in this way when one interlocutor
repeats something humorous. The role of prosody
in communicating stance is important. With varying
intonation, repetition may range from enthusiastic
and appreciative to disappointed or even scorn-
ful. Thus, many non-laughter responses implicitly
evaluate a joke. A verbalization may also act as an
explicit evaluation of the humor (e.g., “That’s funny/
not funny” or “I like that!”), although this may be
more common as a response to failed humor than to
humor that was enjoyed.
Sometimes an attempt at humor may meet
with no discernible response, and in this case,
the context is crucial in determining the meaning
of the silence. On one hand, a complete lack of
response may be unintentional—the hearer sim-
ply may not be attending to the utterance. On the
other hand, the hearer may deliberately be ignor-
ing the humor, intending to communicate a lack
of appreciation of, or perhaps offense at, the joke.
Intonation, again, can play an important role in
helping a speaker determine whether a change of
subject following his or her joke should be inter-
preted as a sign of an unappreciative recipient or
merely a distracted conversational partner. Finally,
sometimes humor is used as a response to another
utterance, rather than an initiation, and in these
cases no response is usually necessary. Instead, the
conversation continues because the humor itself
was merely an interjection or a way of lending sup-
port to the topic at hand.
Finally, although nonverbal responses to humor
have not received extensive attention from research-
ers, they, too, play an important part in communicat-
ing a hearer’s recognition of and personal reaction to
an attempt at humor. Smiles, suppressed smiles, nod-
ding, and clapping may also express appreciation. If
performed in a sarcastic manner, though, they would
function in the opposite way. Other ways of express-
ing disapproval or lack of appreciation include eye

rolls, frowning, sighing, or dismissive hand ges-
tures. Any of these actions may be combined with
another and with a wide variety of verbal responses
to communicate precise and subtle reactions. Again,
however, less is known about the presence and dis-
tribution of these nonverbal reactions, as few studies
of humor have involved videotaping of interaction
(or, if they have, an analysis of responses was not the
focus).
Although scant, the research on responses to
humor suggests that certain types of humor tend to
elicit specific types of non-laughter responses. Mode
adoption, for instance, appears to be rare as a reac-
tion to irony but may be more frequent as a response
to puns and canned jokes, which often seem to elicit
competitive sequences, in which participants attempt
to out-do each other. Similarly, joint fictionalization,
in which an imaginary scenario is constructed, is
often responded to through elaboration by other
conversational participants, who add details and
information to further the humorous fantasy.
Aggressive forms of humor that contain a nega-
tive, if playful, message seem more likely to receive a
serious response than do other forms of humor. The
reaction to teasing, for instance, is quite frequently
a denial of the content of the tease. Irony tends to
receive the same treatment, with the hearer respond-
ing in a serious manner to the literal or implied
meaning of the ironical statement. Jocular abuse is
another aggressive form of humor, similar to teasing.
It, too, has been found to most often be ignored, or
responded to seriously, through denial, retaliation,
or correction of the content.
Self-deprecating humor is also likely to be
responded to seriously, particularly when it is
presented in a conversation in which a speaker is
describing personal tribulations. Some speakers,
for example, might attempt to make light of their
troubles by directing humor at themselves. In such
contexts, commiseration and other forms of sym-
pathetic support, rather than laughter, appear more
often as a response. Self-deprecating humor also
often works to inoculate the speaker against teas-
ing that may ensue following, for example, a clumsy
action. In this context, laughter may not be an
appropriate response.
The systematic, sociolinguistic investigation
of non-laughter responses to humor remains a
neglected area in humor studies. Basic questions
regarding the types of responses that occur, as well as
who tends to use what types of responses and under
what conditions, remain. Very little—and in some
Reception of Humor 629
cases no—work has been done to examine the ways
that response types vary according to age, race, class,
gender, or social relationship. In addition, laughter
may often accompany the types of responses out-
lined here, yet the blending of laughter and non-
laughter responses has also received little attention.
Nancy Bell
See also Appreciation of Humor; Audience; Comprehension
of Humor; Failed Humor; Reception of Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2001). Humor and irony in interaction: From
mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli,
R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New
perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 166–185).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics,
25(1), 219–253.
Eisterhold, J., Attardo, S., & Boxer, D. (2006). Reactions to
irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption
principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1239–1256.
Hay, J. (1994). Jocular abuse patterns in mixed-group
interaction. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics,
6, 26–55.
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Studies,
14(1), 55–82.
RECEPTION OF HUMOR
The reception of humor can theoretically range from
very negative to neutral to very positive. Different
dimensions have been identified that may extend
from neutral to positive (e.g., funniness), from neu-
tral to negative (e.g., aversion), or in both directions
from the neutral pole (e.g., affiliation [positive] vs.
aggression [negative]). Most psychological theories
assume that some degree of surprise is part of the
reception of humor. The reception of humor lead-
ing to overt reactions can in turn have an effect on
the person generating it, should he or she be present
at the time of reception and not removed, such as
authors of written or drawn humor are.
Although they are hard to quantify, notions
of cognitive complexity have been related to
humor comprehension or failure to comprehend.
Researchers assume different degrees of apprecia-
tion to be related to the amount of effort involved in
humor reception. One assumption is that cognitive
630 Reframing
complexity of the stimulus needs to be just at the
right level for the cognitive ability of the recipient
for humor reception to be as positive as possible.
Furthermore, different themes in humor (e.g., sexual
or gallows humor) lead to different types of recep-
tion for different people. Theories that focus on
the influence of the personality of the recipient are
almost exclusively psychological—in particular,
personality psychology—and usually refer to the
character trait “sense of humor” as the central con-
cept. Sense of humor is a construct related to gender,
age, and ethnicity, often gauged by which language
recipients speak natively. Personality-centered theo-
ries de-emphasize or ignore more contextual factors
but sometimes take into account stimulus proper-
ties, as well as contrast personality trait factors such
as mood. Theories that focus on stimulus properties
are usually linguistic, but cognitive psychology and
cognitive science also work on that aspect of humor
perception. Finally, theories that are intended for
the investigation of the conversational interaction in
which humor reception occurs are informed by the
fields of linguistic pragmatics, sociolinguistics, soci-
ology, and social psychology. Additional fields that
can illuminate the reception of humor are literary
studies and aesthetics.
The reception of humor begins with the realiza-
tion on the part of the recipient that a stimulus with
intended or unintended humor has been received.
This can occur through overt triggers, for example,
informing the recipient that a joke is about to be
told or stating on the cover of a cartoon collection
that it contains humor. More commonly in con-
versational humor, there is no trigger preceding the
stimulus, and often a punch line itself is the trigger
that lets the recipient reevaluate preceding text as
part of a humorous stimulus. Not uncommonly, no
trigger is included at all—for example, in uninten-
tional humor. But inferential triggers are also com-
mon in intentional humor and are rarely an obstacle
to humor reception.
An important distinction for the analysis of the
reception of humor is that between humorous-
ness and funniness, as claimed by Amy Carrell and
Salvatore Attardo. A recipient may have the compe-
tence to identify a stimulus as potentially humorous
but, because of some other factor, not appreciate the
stimulus and ascribe funniness to it. If recipients not
only identify a humorous stimulus but also can and
want to appreciate its funniness, they do so to vary-
ing degrees. Thus, the reception of humor is influ-
enced by, and may fail for, a large variety of reasons.
Failed humor (i.e., a reaction to a humorous stim-
ulus that does not indicate appreciation or under-
standing of the stimulus) has proven a fruitful area
of study within discourse analysis but surprisingly
far less within aesthetics or literary studies. Studies
show that humor may fail at any level of the linguis-
tic communication, from the hearing and decoding
of the acoustic stimuli (e.g., if the hearer cannot hear
properly the stimulus), all the way up to pragmatics
and discourse (e.g., if the speaker does not realize
that a given topic is taboo for humor).
Christian F. Hempelmann
See also Aesthetics; Appreciation of Humor; Incongruity
and Resolution; Literature; Reactions to Humor,
Non-Laughter; Sense of Humor, Components of
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive
theories of humor. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 10(4), 395–420.
Attardo, S. (2008). Semantics and pragmatics of humor.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1203–1215.
Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor
competence. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 10(2), 173–185.
Giora, R. (2002, April). Optimal innovation and pleasure.
In O. Stock, C. Strapparva, & A. Nijholt (Eds.),
Proceedings of the April Fools’ Day Workshop on
Computational Humour (pp. 11–28). Trento, Italy:
ITC-irst.
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor. Burlington,
MA: Academic Press.
Ruch, W. (1998). Sense of humor: Explorations of a
personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation
of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing
analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.),
The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical issues (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York,
NY: Springer.
REFRAMING
Reframing is a term that signifies a shift in perspec-
tive or understanding of a situation. When a per-
son experiences a situation, whether in real time or

narrative, the characteristics of that situation
engender a world of interrelated assumptions and
expectations, mostly unconscious, for that person.
This world of assumptions and expectations is the
“frame” of the situation, which can comprise sev-
eral interlocking frames. Terms that are synonymous
with frame include scheme and script. When one
refers to a perspective shift as “reframing,” one is
hearkening to the fact that a new set of assumptions
and expectations, differing from those that were ini-
tially present before the reframing, has been applied
to the situation. Humorous reframing occurs when
the shift in perspective or understanding is experi-
enced as humorous (per Attardo’s perlocutionary
definition of humor as a text whose purpose is to
produce the perception of humor).
Humorous Reframing in Psychotherapy
Humorous reframing has long been a technique for
change in the practice of psychotherapy, although
it has not always been referred to by this label. In
his logotherapy, Viktor Frankl frequently used the
method of “paradoxical intention,” in which he
would encourage his clients to reframe their symp-
toms (e.g., profuse sweating, stuttering, compulsive
washing, insomnia) from distressing events to be
avoided to events that are desired and pursued. In
other words, Frankl advised his patients to stop try-
ing to avoid neurotic symptoms and instead pursue
them as fully as possible. Frankl cited many cases
in which this kind of reframing brought about fast
relief of debilitating symptoms, and he argues that a
humorous attitude about one’s symptoms, even ridi-
culing them, is an important part of the success of
the method of paradoxical intention.
Another well-known figure in the history of psy-
chotherapy, Albert Ellis, used humorous reframing
as a central part of his rational emotive therapy
(RET), which is the precursor to the now-dominant
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Ellis argued
that what makes one depressed, anxious, or oth-
erwise miserable are one’s “irrational beliefs.” To
alleviate one’s psychological symptoms, one must
alter the irrational frame through which one views
the world. He argued that one of the most effective
means by which this reframing can be accomplished
is humor. Ellis called the process through which one
changes the irrational frame(s) through which one
experiences the world, “disputing.” Ellis is famous
for using hilarious and irreverent methods to dispute
his patients’ irrational frames, including requiring
Reframing 631
clients to sing “rational humorous songs” that ridi-
cule and belittle the irrational beliefs (i.e., frames)
of clients. These songs had such titles as “Whine,
Whine, Whine,” “Maybe I’ll Move My Ass,” and
“I Am Just a Love Slob!” He made a significant
impact with this and other methods for helping
clients reframe distressing experiences, an impact
that clients reportedly felt in their clinical work with
him and an impact that is still felt in the field of
psychotherapy.
Besides Frankl and Ellis, many other pioneers in
psychotherapy, including Alfred Adler and Milton
Erickson, have advocated for humor’s effectiveness
in helping clients reframe their symptoms and dis-
tress. Humor has increasingly been appreciated as
an agent for change in psychotherapy, and many
books and collections have been dedicated to its use.
A common theme in writings on humor in psycho-
therapy is that humor is a potent tool to help clients
reframe their perspective and adopt new ways of
experiencing and relating.
Theoretical Understandings of the
Action of Humorous Reframing
Many aspects of humor make it a potent agent for
change of perspective, or reframing. First, humor is
pleasant, attractive, and compelling. People seek to
enjoy humor with others and wish to be a part of
humor and laughter when it occurs around them.
Humor has the power to draw people in and pull
them through an initial frame into a new perspective.
In addition, the pleasure experienced in humor
reinforces the pursuit of humor and, in a parallel
manner, the pursuit of reframing; hence, humor can
substantially motivate a client to alter his or her mal-
adaptive frames. When humor is shared with others,
one experiences a tacit, pre-reflective sense that those
other(s) went through a progression of frames in the
humor perception similar to one’s own and found
the stimuli humorous for reasons similar to one’s
own. In other words, one sees others as aligned with
oneself in the final “reframed” perspective attained
through humor. Shared humor can hence contribute
to making the reframed perspective an enduring one
because one presumes that the humor perceptions
are shared and endorsed by others.
Something that also plays a role in humor’s effi-
cacy to reframe one’s perspective is that humor often
diminishes or trivializes the initial frame, prior to
the shift involved in humor perception. Because the
original perspective is put down, made irrelevant, or
632 Relationships, Nonromantic
ridiculed, the latter frame or perspective feels more
encompassing and insightful in comparison to the
initial frame.
Finally, humor essentially involves a shift.
Theories of humor universally recognize a shift
between perspectives as a central ingredient, whether
the theory is Thomas Hobbes’s “sudden glory” the-
ory or incongruity theory. This widespread recogni-
tion suggests that in its essence, humor involves the
juxtaposition of incompatible yet overlapping scripts
(or frames). If humor inextricably involves patch-
ing together two substantially different perspectives,
then it makes sense that humor is a natural means
for cognitive reframing.
Joshua Gregson
See also Psychology
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (2002). Semiotics and pragmatics of humor
communication. BABEL: Aspectos de Filoloxia Inglesa
e Alemana, 11, 25–66.
Buckman, E. S. (1994). Humor as a communication
facilitator in couples’ therapy. In E. S. Buckman (Ed.),
The handbook of humor: Clinical applications in
psychotherapy (pp. 75–90). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Ellis, A. (1987). The use of rational humorous songs in
psychotherapy. In W. Fry & W. Salameh (Eds.),
Handbook of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in
the clinical use of humor. Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Exchange.
Frankl, V. (1984). Man’s search for meaning. New York,
NY: Washington Square Press.
Fry, W. F., Jr., & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook
of humor and psychotherapy: Advances in the clinical use
of humor. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Fry, W. F., Jr., & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (1993). Advances
in humor and psychotherapy. Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Press.
Fry, W. F., Jr., & Salameh, W. A. (Eds.). (2001). Humor and
wellness in clinical intervention. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kuhlman, T. L. (1984). Humor and psychotherapy.
Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An
integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing
knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of
computer vision (pp. 99–128). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and
humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mosak, H. H. (1987). Ha ha and aha: The role of humor in
psychotherapy. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
Mosak, H. H., & Maniacci, M. (1993). An “Alderian”
approach to humor and psychotherapy. In W. F. Fry Jr.
& W. A. Salameh (Eds.), Advances in humor and
psychotherapy (pp. 1–18). Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Press.
O’Hanlon, B., & Beadle, S. (1999). A guide to possibility
land: Fifty-one methods for doing brief, respectful
therapy. New York, NY: Norton.
Strean, H. (1994). The use of humor in psychotherapy.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
RELATIONSHIPS, NONROMANTIC
Several humor theorists have taught us that humor
is fundamentally a social experience. For one, we
laugh much more when we are surrounded by other
people than when we are alone. Indeed, laughter is
contagious, and it has even been proven to work as
a form of therapy for people who are depressed or
just feel sad. Jokes are meant to be shared with oth-
ers, and comedians know that when the audience is
not being amused, the humor is probably not very
funny. Above all, humor can greatly reduce the ten-
sion among people and enable individuals who are
different from each other to get along and even live
together in harmony.
In his famous essay titled In Praise of Folly,
Desiderius Erasmus (1509/1941) eloquently cap-
tures the social value of humor and silliness. Written
in 1509, this essay is a long speech made by the god-
dess Folly on her own behalf in which she argues
that it is foolishness rather than reason that makes
possible everything we value most in life:
In sum, no society, no union in life, could be either
pleasant or lasting without me [Folly]. A people does
not for long tolerate its prince, or a master tolerate
his servant, a handmaiden her mistress, a teacher his
student, a friend his friend, a wife her husband, a
landlord his tenant, a partner his partner, or a
boarder his fellow boarder, except as they mutually
or by turns are mistaken, on occasion flatter, on
occasion wisely wink, and otherwise soothe
themselves with the sweetness of folly. (p. 28)
Erasmus’s point is that to have harmonious rela-
tionships with our colleagues, family members, or
friends, we need to be able to overlook some of their
blemishes and laugh when they make mistakes. It is
folly and our sense of humor, no less than reason,

that enable us to live together with others, form
close relationships with them, and tolerate their
shortcomings. In short, when used appropriately,
humor can even enhance intimacy in friendships and
other close relationships.
The fact that humor can enhance the quality of
our relationships with significant others suggests
that it may have a role to play in building intimacy
among friends and companions. Intimacy, in this
context, should not be confused with sexual encoun-
ters, although it is obvious that many intimate
relationships include the physical aspect. Rather, an
intimate relationship is one that we value for its own
sake as opposed to one in which two people use each
other or one that is relatively insignificant to us.
Based on this understanding of intimacy, the
question is this: How can humor enhance intimacy
in friendships and other close relationships? First, it
seems obvious that humor and laughter can increase
the pleasure of friendships. Noel Carroll (2002)
notes that “laughter among friends is a pleasure, and
one of the pleasures of friendship is the opportunity
to share laughter” (p. 205). Humor enables us to get
beyond the tense moments that we experience in our
relationships and move to a more comfortable place.
Because humor can increase pleasure among friends,
it seems reasonable to conclude that it can also lead
two people to become more intimate in the sense of
feeling that their relationship is getting closer and
becoming more meaningful.
In contrast, when a friendship between two per-
sons deteriorates, the earlier pleasure they enjoyed of
sharing a joke or just laughing together often begins
to dissipate as well. In such cases, one person’s sense
of humor no longer amuses the other and may even
annoy or offend him or her. Summing up this point,
John Morreall (1983) writes:
When two people are quarreling, one of the first
things they stop doing together is laughing; they
refuse to laugh at each other’s attempts at humor,
and refuse to laugh together at something
incongruous happening to them. As soon as they
begin to laugh once more, we know that the end of
the quarrel is at hand. (p. 115)
Second, humor and laughter can strengthen inti-
macy by exposing our identities and making us vul-
nerable in the face of others. As Carroll (2002) puts
it, “Laughter reveals something about who we are—
our beliefs, attitudes, and emotions—and, for that
reason, we are often only willing to be so open about
our sensibilities around friends” (p. 205). Carroll’s
Release Theories of Humor 633
point is that because laughter exposes our personal
whims and quirks, we tend to laugh in the company
of our friends rather than strangers. Yet precisely
because humor and laughter often leave us more
exposed and vulnerable, they can lead us to become
more intimate with our friends. That is, intimacy
with our significant others can be forged when we
use humor to take risks and disclose our deepest feel-
ings and beliefs.
Last, humor can enhance intimacy in relation-
ships by prompting people to view things from a dif-
ferent perspective and see something in a new light.
Our sense of humor and the capacity to laugh at
ourselves involves a willingness to consider ourselves
silly or foolish; it implies an openness to evaluate
some of our habitual ways of thinking or acting in
light of the perspectives of our significant others
whose viewpoints and preferences may be very dif-
ferent from our own. Ralph Waldo Emerson argued
correctly that friends do not always agree with each
other and that ideally they should challenge each
other’s point of view. The point is that by espousing
the perspectives of our friends and close relations,
we demonstrate that we care about their feelings
and beliefs and are open to becoming more intimate
with them.
Mordechai Gordon
See also Marriage and Couples
Further Readings
Carroll, N. (2002). Art and friendship. Philosophy and
Literature, 26(1), 199–206.
Emerson, R. W. (1876). Friendship. In Emerson, essays:
First and second series (pp. 183–206). New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin.
Erasmus, D. (1941). In praise of folly (H. H. Hudson,
Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work written 1509)
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany:
State University of New York.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive
philosophy of humor. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
RELEASE THEORIES OF HUMOR
Release theory focuses on the psychological and
physical processes of tension build-up in people
and the release of this tension by humor. According
to John Morreall, humor is best understood as a
634 Release Theories of Humor
release process in which laughter operates like a
safety valve in a steam pipe, releasing built-up ner-
vous energy. Herbert Spencer had a simple version
of the theory in which a laughter stimulus evokes
emotions but then shows them to be inappropriate.
This entry begins with a review of Sigmund Freud’s
analysis of humor, which focuses on the way in
which humor can help release built-up psychological
energy. The entry then examines humor as a poten-
tial source of liberation from psychological con-
straints, as suggested by M. M. Bakhtin and Harvey
Mindess. It then deals with the importance of the
social context within which humor occurs, as ana-
lyzed by Mary Douglas, and the healing potential of
humor, as described by William Fry. The entry con-
cludes with a look at Morreall’s theory of humor as
cognitive play.
Freud can be considered the father of the psy-
choanalytic approach to humor, which argues, in
essence, that humor is based on masked aggres-
sion, frequently involving human sexuality, and
that this humor offers us gratifications we all desire.
According to Morreall, Freud found three laughter
situations: jokes, the comic, and humor. In jokes,
laughter generates a release of psychic energy nor-
mally used to repress emotions such as hatred and
sexual desire. The psychic energy “saved” in the
comic is energy that can be used for thinking; and
the energy “saved” in humor is the energy of feeling
emotions that are suddenly rendered unnecessary.
As Freud explained in Jokes and Their Relation
to the Unconscious, what jokes do is make possible
our satisfying an instinct, whether a hostile or a lust-
ful one, in the face of an obstacle that tries to pre-
vent this satisfaction. By satisfying an instinct and
overcoming obstacles, humor generates a sense of
freedom and power. There are many other gratifica-
tions that humor provides, and Freud and his fol-
lowers, such as Martin Grotjahn, have explicated a
number of them. Implicit in Freud’s analysis is the
idea that humor has therapeutic value and releases
us, temporarily, from inhibitions. Freud’s book also
has some wonderful Jewish jokes in it.
Many other writers and scholars have offered
variations on release theory that are worth consid-
ering. One of the most important and influential
scholars who wrote about humor was the Russian
literary theorist M. M. Bakhtin, who argued that in
the Middle Ages, humor functioned as an impor-
tant release mechanism and a kind of safety valve.
As he writes in his classic study Rabelais and His
World:
As opposed to laughter, medieval seriousness was
infused with elements of fear, weakness, humility,
submission, falsehood, hypocrisy, or on the other
hand with violence, intimidation, threats, prohibi-
tions. As a spokesman of power, seriousness ter-
rorized, demanded and forbade. . . . Distrust of the
serious tone and confidence in the truth of laughter
had a spontaneous, elemental character. It was
understood that fear never lurks behind laughter
. . . and that hypocrisy and lies never laugh but
wear a serious mask. Laughter created no dogmas
and could not become authoritarian; it did not
convey fear but a feeling of strength. It was linked
with the procreating act, with birth, renewal, fer-
tility, abundance. Laughter was also related to
food and drink and the people’s earthly immortal-
ity, and finally it was related to the future of things
to come and was to clear the way for them.
(Bakhtin, 1984, pp. 94–95)
For Bakhtin, laughter functioned as a liberating
force; this is a theme that is found in the writings of
many release theorists of humor, although they may
not identify themselves as such. Bakhtin (1984) is
explicit on the function of humor as a life-enhancing
force:
Laughter liberates not only from external censorship
but first of all from the great interior censor; it
liberates from the fear that has developed in man
during thousands of years: fear of the sacred, of
prohibitions, of power. It unveils the material
bodily principle in its true meaning. (p. 94)
Bakhtin argued that humor is connected to the life
force, to bodily functions, and to a desire for free-
dom from restraint.
The British social anthropologist Mary Douglas
offers an insight into the relation between jokes and
societies. Jokes, she suggests, provide a kind of relax-
ation of consciousness in favor of the unconscious,
allowing them to function as liberating agents. Jokes
are conventionally defined as short narratives with
punch lines that generate mirthful laughter. Douglas
explains that jokes are tied to the social structure
in which they are found. As she writes in Implicit
Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (1975),
I confess that I find Freud’s definition of the joke
highly satisfactory. The joke is an image of the
relaxation of conscious control in favor of the
subconscious. . . . The joke merely affords
opportunity for realizing that an accepted pattern
has no necessity. Its excitement lies in the suggestion

that any particular ordering of experience may be
arbitrary and subjective. It is frivolous in that it
produces no real alternative, only an exhilarating
sense of freedom from form in general. (p. 96)
For Douglas, jokes always relate to the social situ-
ations in which they are found and involve a domi-
nant pattern of relations being challenged by a
different one—the one expressed in the joke. A joke
is seen and allowed when it offers a symbolic pattern
of a social pattern occurring at the same time.
According to Douglas (1975), “if there is no joke in
the social structure, no other joking can occur”
(p. 98). The exhilarating “freedom from form” in
Douglas’s analysis refers to the liberating nature of
jokes, and we can suggest that humor in general has
this function.
William Fry, a psychiatrist who has written
extensively on humor, has discussed the physiologi-
cal benefits of mirthful laughter. As he explained
in an address to the American Orthopsychiatric
Association in Washington, D.C., in April 1979,
laughter has a number of scientifically demonstrable
impacts on our bodies. As he explains,
Muscles are activated; heart rate is increased;
respiration is amplified, with increase in oxygen
exchange—all similar to the desirable effects of
athletic exercise. Stress is antagonized by humor in
both its mental or emotional aspects and its physical
aspect. Emotional tension, contributing to stress, is
lowered through the cathartic effects of humor.
Mirthful laughter is followed by state of
compensatory physical relations, diminishing
physical tension.
It is this diminution of tension and stress from
humor that ties his work to release theorists. Fry has
made numerous other contributions dealing with
the relation of humor and health, and a considerable
number of other scholars have done so as well.
Many scholars suggest that humor helps people
in a number of different ways. That is, humor has
a healing and liberating effect on people—both
the teller of jokes and those listening to them. The
notion of release of masked aggression may have
negative connotations, but we can also see release
in a positive light as enhancing our psychological
and physical well-being. This point is elaborated
by Harvey Mindess, a clinical psychologist, in his
book Laughter and Liberation. The first part of the
book deals with how laughter frees us from what
Mindess describes as “inner obstacles,” while the
Release Theories of Humor 635
second part investigates the relationship that exists
between humor and creativity. Humor helps “lib-
erate” us from various obsessions because humor
involves surprise, which frees us from the demands
of our superegos and “the chains of our perceptual,
conventional, logical, linguistic and moral systems”
(Mindess, 1971/2011, p. 28).
For Mindess, one of humor’s most important
powers is its ability to free us from the bonds of
conformity and to enable us to violate, at times,
the codes that shape our behavior. It is humor, he
argues, that provides a kind of elasticity and support
for nonconformist moments in our daily lives. As he
writes, “if we acquire . . . the frame of mind in which
humor flourishes—the individual, iconoclastic
outlook—we have set ourselves on the a [sic] spring-
board to freedom” (Mindess, 1971/2011, p. 41).
Morreall presents a variation on release theory in
which he suggests that humor is a form of cognitive
play. We must recognize, he suggests, that humor
is not serious, that it is social in nature, and that
it is a form of play. Elements in his theory can be
found in the four basic theories of humor: superior-
ity theory, incongruity theory, psychoanalytic theory,
and what we might call cognitive and communica-
tion theory. The notion that humor is a kind of play
is found in the cognitive and communication theory,
as elaborated by William Fry Jr., described earlier,
and the writings of Gregory Bateson, with whom
Fry collaborated. There are numerous books that
deal with the release theory of humor, and it remains
a subject of both controversy and interest among
humor scholars.
Arthur Asa Berger
See also Carnivalesque; Freudian/Psychoanalytic Theories
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H.
Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New
York, NY: Ballantine.
Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Berger, A. A. (1995). Blind men and elephants: Perspectives
on humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Douglas, M. (1975). Jokes. In Implicit meanings: Essays in
anthropology. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). New York, NY:
Norton.
636 Religion
Fry, W. (1963). Sweet madness: A study of humor. Palo
Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
Fry, W. (1979). Using humor to save lives [Address given at
the annual convention of the American Orthopsychiatric
Association in Washington, DC]. Retrieved from http://
www.humor.ch/inernsthaft/fry2.htm
Mindess, H. (2011). Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles,
CA: Nash. (Original work published 1971)
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive
philosophy of humor. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Morreall, J. (2009). Humor as cognitive play. Journal of
Literary Theory, 3(2), 241–260.
RELIGION
Religion and humor have holistic tendencies.
Religion’s ideal is to have an impact on many if
not all aspects of human life, especially those that
are important for the self. Humor intends to play
with all domains of human activity and life in gen-
eral, and it is stronger when it plays with important
human concerns. In this entry, the complex relations
between religion and humor are described. These
include how religion sees humor, how humor works
within religion, and how humor uses religion as a
target. Finally, recent psychological studies have shed
some light on the complex links between (a) religion
or individual differences in religiosity and (b) humor
or individual differences in sense of humor.
Religion’s Attitudes on Humor
Religious attitudes toward humor vary greatly
across religions and cultures, as well as across dif-
ferent historical periods within the same culture
or religion. This can be concluded from historical,
anthropological, sociological, and religious studies.
Interesting differences seem to exist, for instance,
between monotheistic religions and other religions,
between Western and Eastern cultures, and between
traditional and contemporary Christianity. Globally,
the latter poles of each of the difference pairs men-
tioned above are perceived to be more tolerant of,
and open to, humor and laughter, and to place a
higher value on them or some of their aspects. The
former poles are perceived to be more suspicious
of some or many aspects of humor, and especially
laughter, that could be qualified as immoral or con-
trary to spiritual ideals.
The variation in religious attitudes toward humor
and laughter seems to follow variations in the way
culture, and consequently religion, considers—values
or devalues—body and bodily expressions, eroticism
and sexuality, and emotions and their expression.
It also seems to parallel the differences between
(a) unstructured and fragmented religious beliefs,
practices, and divinities and (b) structured and inte-
grative religions disposing of personal, moralizing,
and exclusivist Gods. (Note that, intriguingly, the lat-
ter religions have historically succeeded over others.)
Contemporary theological and philosophical
thinking within religions that have historically been
suspicious of humor and laughter (typically, but not
only, Christianity) finds today several spiritual quali-
ties within them. Both religion and humor constitute
ways of transcending the self, searching for alterna-
tive meanings of things, and questioning the “super-
ficial” everyday reality. Humor can contribute to
self-criticism, reflexivity, creative doubt, intellectual
and spiritual maturity, and wisdom. It also has a
psychological strengthening value, thus contributing
to joy and well-being, which today are valued within
modern religious and nonreligious spiritualities. In
some new religious movements and expressions
(including fundamentalist ones), similar to some
Eastern religions and ancient Greek religion, one can
also find ritualized expressions of humor and prac-
tice of “spiritual,” even “holy laughter.”
Such positive attitudes remain, though at the
margin of the global expression of religiousness
across cultures, societies, and historical periods.
Indeed, even today, the majority of world believ-
ers within established religions (more than 70%
of the world population) belong to religions that
have expressed, or still express, ambivalence, seri-
ous concerns about, and criticism of, several aspects
of the comic, or at least prudent tolerance rather
than enthusiastic endorsement. This is the case typi-
cally of Christianity and Islam, but, to some extent,
also Buddhism and Hinduism. Partial suspicion of
humor does not constitute an exception across reli-
gions, but rather the rule.
Cross-cultural psychological research suggests
that, beyond important cultural variability, human
psychological functioning also presents some uni-
versals. This is also the case with the psychology of
humor (some universal psychological characteris-
tics, predictors, and consequences) as well as with
the psychology of religion (characteristics, predic-
tors, and consequences). If one combines this kind
of empirical psychological knowledge with religious
and philosophical considerations of humor marked
by prudence and suspicion, an almost fundamental

distrust, if not partial incompatibility, between
humor and religion emerges.
Humor entails a play on meaning, openness to the
possibility of a meaningless world, introduction of
disorder, and the transgression of societal norms. It
implies surprise, loss of control, openness to novelty
and ambiguity, and disengagement with regard to
truth, morality, and affection. Religion, on the other
hand, despite sharing with humor a willingness for
an alternative perception of reality, emphasizes the
meaningfulness of the world, order and structure
in life and closure in cognition, need for control,
discomfort with ambiguity and novelty, as well as
engagement with regard to truth, morality, and
interpersonal relations. Note that the historical reli-
gious mistrust of immoderate laughter was justified
because such laughter was perceived as constituting
a failure of the ideal of self-mastery. Consequently,
the religious condemnation of many kinds of humor
as immoral (i.e., sexual, sick, earthy, aggressive, and
disparaging of others) eliminates most of humor’s
essential components.
In fact, from a rigid moralistic perspective, humor
threatens and possibly violates all five major foun-
dations of morality across cultures: care (disparag-
ing and hostile humor), fairness/reciprocity (humor
betrays truth and the common rules of human com-
munication), loyalty, respect for authority (rebellious
humor), and purity/divinity (disgusting, sexual, and
blasphemous humor).
Humor in Religion
Although religions have often been suspicious of
humor and have condemned excessive laughter, they
are also expressions of human activity and creativity.
Consequently, humor is present in various manifes-
tations of religious creativity and in people’s and key
religious figures’ spiritual lives. Humor within reli-
gion thus plays the same psychological, sociological,
and anthropological functions that it plays in the
lives of individuals and groups in general. However,
given the specifications of the religious context, reli-
gious humor is characterized by several particulari-
ties that are worthy of being noted.
First, humor exists at the margins of core religious
activities and expressions. One can find humor in
decorative artistic expressions, for instance, at the
margins of illustrations in medieval religious manu-
scripts, at very secondary places in religious archi-
tecture and religious iconography, or in the margins
of religious sermons. The main goal of religious art
Religion 637
is to transmit normative religious teachings and to
provide spiritual opportunities for the experience of
the sublime and the emotion of awe when in con-
tact with a transcendent reality. These are not the
primary goals of humor, although humor may be
helpful here by offering some rest and reprieve when
individuals are engaged in religious and spiritual life.
(This was, indeed, what caused 13th-century phi-
losopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas to per-
ceive moderate humor and laughter to be legitimate,
seeing as how the latter allowed for some relaxation
in the middle of the spiritual fight.)
Second, an intriguing question is what kind of
humor, if any, exists in key religious figures’ lives
and writings, especially in the lives of the found-
ers of the dominant world religions and in major
foundational religious texts such as the Bible or the
Qur’an. For centuries, main religious texts and fig-
ures have been perceived in a highly idealized man-
ner, as sources of ultimate meaning, moral behavior,
and spiritual modeling. More recently, scholars in
religious studies, especially those in biblical studies,
but also historians and other social scientists, have
started to detect humor in religious texts and histori-
cal figures, or at least to reinterpret some elements
as possibly suggesting the presence of humor. Also,
anthologies of the humor of saints and important
religious figures (e.g., modern popes) have begun to
be published.
The investigation of humor in Christianity, com-
pared with other religions, has been intense. A strong
emphasis has been placed on the study of humor
in the Bible (Old and New Testaments), with par-
ticular attention to Jesus’s humor. An inspection of
this work confirms that humor is marginal in these
texts—this is not surprising, given the very nature of
the Bible compared with other kinds of literature—
but also that two kinds of humor are predominant.
The first is didactic, pedagogical humor that aims to
underline spiritual teachings and norms of religious
beliefs and behavior. When criticizing various beliefs
and behaviors as morally and religiously inappropri-
ate, biblical humor is usually ironic. Moral irony is
in fact the predominant type of humor in the major
religious texts, and hyperbole is often used to accen-
tuate the effect. The second major kind of biblical
humor is social, allowing for social inclusion into the
normative religious in-group and exclusion of vari-
ous out-groups, that is, other religions, nonbelievers,
or other ethnic groups. This is especially the case in
the Old Testament where God often shows humor
that disparages his enemies. Apart from moralizing
638 Religion
humor and irony and disparaging out-group humor,
it is hard to find in key religious texts and figures—
at least as far as the major world religions of today
are concerned—the typical kinds, topics, and targets
of humor that have made humans laugh heartily for
thousands of years (i.e., absurd, sexual, scatological,
morbid, and aggressive/insulting humor).
One can also find, in a very marginal manner,
religious burlesque-like expressions, be it through
exceptional rituals (e.g., carnival feasts, often con-
nected to the Easter calendar) or exceptional reli-
gious figures who, against the conventional social
order, endorsed a particularly joyful, clownish, or
foolish and rebellious way of life such as the saint
Philippe Neri in Catholicism or the Fools for Christ
in the Orthodox Church.
Third, religious humor also exists through a
substantial corpus of religious jokes that have been
orally transmitted among people for years and have
only recently been increasingly codified through
published volumes. There is also humor in religious
cartoons, or in political cartoons that heavily rely
on religious themes, often during religious holidays.
Of course, many everyday jokes may include some
religious elements. However, strictly speaking, reli-
gious jokes are those whose religious elements (e.g.,
“the minister, the priest, and the rabbi”) cannot be
replaced by other, secular equivalent elements (e.g.,
“the German, the French, and the Jew”) and whose
understanding presupposes some minimal knowl-
edge of the religious culture; otherwise, they would
just not be funny. Recent analyses of hundreds of
these jokes from Christian contexts suggest that
religious jokes often play on the typical religious
and spiritual oppositions of sacred/profane, moral/
sinful, life/death, spiritual-eternal/worldly-material,
and divine/human and are most often targeted at
religious professionals (clergy and monks) and, to
some extent, religious practitioners, rather than the
divine itself. In one of these studies that compared
church puns with secular puns in the United States,
the authors found, based on typical criteria from
humor theory, that the church puns were not plainly
humorous, possibly because these churches may still
tend to avoid humor.
Biblical themes (in particular, Adam and Eve’s
story, and Saint Peter’s gatekeeper role in heaven),
as well as stereotypes of other religious denomi-
nations or specific religious subgroups (e.g., jokes
on Catholics and Protestants or Catholic jokes on
Jesuits) rather than other religions, are two domi-
nant sources of religious Christian humor. Note
that a core characteristic of religious humor is to
reinforce norms rather than to question or demolish
them, or to question some religious practices in the
name of higher spiritual ideals.
Interreligious humor (i.e., humor on and between
religious groups) can be intimately related to inter-
ethnic humor. Humor on Jews often combines reli-
gious and ethnic/cultural sources and components.
Also, typical jokes making fun of canny versus
stupid groups usually apply to ethnic groups that
have historically been, respectively, predominantly
Protestant versus Catholic. Max Weber’s sociologi-
cal theory of the Protestant ethic of capitalism seems
thus to translate into jokes about excessively com-
petitive, individualistic, and achievement-oriented
and financial gain–oriented Protestants.
Humor on Religion
Laughing at religion, often but not necessarily from
an outsider’s perspective, has also been pervasive
possibly since the very existence of humor and reli-
gion. Religion has historically been (a) an important
societal source of power and force of establishment
and maintenance of social hierarchies; (b) a major
provider of ideas, norms, and practices aimed to
control sexuality; and (c) one of the rare ideological
systems that encompasses into one integrative set the
beliefs, emotions, behaviors, and groups that allow
humans to deal with deep existential needs and ulti-
mate concerns. For all of these reasons, religion,
together with secular authorities of political, moral,
and ideological power, has been a main target of
humor. Humor is indeed uncomfortable with total-
izing systems, ideas, and feelings; or better, humor is
nourished by these systems, in that it needs to criti-
cize them.
The history of satire on religion has followed the
cultural history of the interplay between powerful
religions, individual religious doubting, and social
anti-religious sentiment. It has also paralleled the
history of the conflict between protection of the
sacred from profanation and defense of individuals’
right to express their ideas, including those for or
against religion. Overall, it seems that there are three
major types of religious satire. One type focuses on
ironic criticism of religious professionals (e.g., the
many sexual jokes on clergy and monks) and norms
and practices of religious institutions and religious
devotees. This type may be aggressive at moments
of high anti-religious and anti-clerical hostility (such
as the wave of anti-religious cartoons following the

French Revolution). However, religious satire is also
present among sympathizers who question current
religious elements possibly in the name of higher
spiritual or moral values (e.g., the humor on religion
in The Simpsons). The third type, more radical in
content, but yet today more discrete in extent and
form, criticizes or ridicules the divine itself. This
type of humor is typically perceived as blasphemy
by believers.
The argumentation often used in the humorous,
ironic, or sarcastic criticism of religion is of the
same nature as the three major sources of religious
doubting and apostasy. Among doubters or atheists,
several religious aspects, or even the very central
elements of religious faith, are criticized for being
morally unacceptable (some religious norms may
be in conflict with universal moral values), intel-
lectually irrational (religious beliefs are, by defini-
tion, unverifiable and may appear implausible), or
socially irrelevant (religious practices often present
some discrepancy with an evolving society). The
alternative contemporary form of humor on religion
is a soft one, not strictly anti-religious: It mocks reli-
gious themes and symbols not because the target is
religion per se, but because religious parody is an
efficient strategy for memorizing the advertisement
of secular products.
Recently, in secularized Western countries,
emphasis has been placed on the subtle distinc-
tion between (a) religious ideas and sacred figures
and symbols that should no longer be legally pro-
tected, thus being possible subjects of ridicule, and
(b) religious individuals and groups who should not
be targets of prejudice for their beliefs, practices,
and affiliation. Therefore, in most of these societies
there is no longer a law against blasphemy, whereas
this is still the case in traditional and collectivistic
countries. At the same time, in the former societies,
clearer and stronger legal protection has been put
in place against interreligious and interconvictional
(between believers and nonbelievers) prejudice,
compared with the latter countries.
However, the strong connection between religion
and ethnicity/culture, and thus between interreli-
gious and interethnic prejudice, has made extremely
difficult the effort to distinguish, in some cases,
between (a) satire of religious ideas and symbols,
(b) interreligious prejudice, and (c) interethnic preju-
dice. The Danish “Muhammad cartoons affair”
in the mid-2000s and other, subsequent anti-Islam
satiric expressions in the West are typical examples.
In fact, two symmetric suspicions exist in the public
Religion 639
domain. On one hand, anti-Muslim satire may use
freedom of (anti-)religious expression to propagate
ethnic prejudice. On the other hand, violent protes-
tations by Muslim individuals and communities may
use the banishment of religious and ethnic prejudice
as a way to legitimize their unwillingness to allow
Islam to be criticized by others, especially outsiders.
Psychological Studies
A series of recent psychological studies has inves-
tigated the complex links between religion and
humor. More precisely, these studies investigated
three kinds of questions. The first is whether religi-
osity (i.e., individual differences on how religious or
nonreligious a person is) or specific forms of religios-
ity (e.g., orthodox and fundamentalist versus open-
minded faith) indicates any specifics on a person’s
sense of humor: global sense of humor, use of humor
as a coping mechanism, humor creation, and appre-
ciation of humor in general or specific humor styles
in particular. The second question is whether reli-
gious stimulation (i.e., activation of religious ideas,
symbols, and emotional experiences) has any impact
on humor. The third question is whether the experi-
ence of humor and amusement has any influence on
a person’s attitudes toward religion and spirituality.
When focusing on self-evaluations, it appears
that religious people do not tend to perceive them-
selves as having a low sense of humor. If anything,
self-reported spirituality is often accompanied by
positive attitudes toward humor and its apprecia-
tion as a virtue. However, when the emphasis on the
questionnaire is not on humor or religion per se
(either of which could accentuate some social desir-
ability), religious people and those who use religion
to cope with stress and adversity actually report low
use of humor as a means to cope (i.e., as a way to
face stress and adversity). More important, when
the evaluations come from others (e.g., spouses), it
appears that religious people tend to be perceived
by their spouses as generally using less humor, and
using less negative (i.e., hostile and earthy) humor in
particular.
When it comes to alternative measures of humor,
such as the appreciation of jokes provided to par-
ticipants or the spontaneous creation of humor in
the laboratory, the existing studies show first that
religious people tend not to spontaneously create
humor when they are requested to provide their
written responses in hypothetical situations inducing
stress. They also tend to not find funny the jokes
640 Religion
that reflect sick humor (i.e., those that are morbid,
disgusting, and disparaging of people with disabili-
ties), and orthodox religious people dislike incongru-
ity in humor, be it resolved or not. On the contrary,
being relativistic and ready to question one’s own
attitudes toward religion predicts an appreciation of
nonsense, absurd jokes, and high levels of spontane-
ous creation of humor in response to hypothetical
daily hassles.
In another laboratory study, exposure to a video
clip presenting various religious ideas, images, and
feelings led to the inhibition of participants’ ten-
dency to spontaneously use humor as a way to cope
with hypothetical daily hassles. In yet another study,
implicit activation (“priming”) of religious ideas
decreased participants’, especially religious practitio-
ners’, ratings of the funniness of cartoons provided
in the study.
Examining the opposite causal direction (i.e.,
from humor to religion), a series of laboratory stud-
ies investigated the consequences of inducing dif-
ferent positive emotions on participants’ attitudes
toward religion and spirituality. Positive emotions
such as awe, elevation, and admiration, also called
self-transcendent emotions, but not humor-related
amusement (all emotions were induced either
through video clips or through recall of personal
experiences) increased participants’ positive atti-
tudes toward spirituality and related feelings and
behavioral intentions.
In these psychological studies, the conflict, or at
least, discomfort, between humor and religion was
thus consistently attested through self-reports, peer
reports, and behavioral measures of appreciation
and creation of humor. The effect is clearer when it
comes to morally questionable forms of humor, but
it sometimes extends to the social, common form
of humor as well as to its common use as a coping
mechanism. Not surprisingly, therefore, in another
study measuring stereotypes (what group A thinks
about group B) and meta-stereotypes (what group
A believes group B thinks about group A) between
believers and nonbelievers, it turned out that the
two groups share the perception of high versus low
humor as being associated with, respectively, nonbe-
lievers and believers.
These series of psychological studies were mainly
carried out in Western, relatively secularized coun-
tries (Belgium, New Zealand, and the United States)
with a Christian, often Catholic, background. It
is of great interest to examine in future research
whether these results generalize to other religions
and non-Western cultural contexts. The possibility
is not excluded that in some other religious groups,
especially those where religion in not used primarily
as a way to gain self-control, humor usage may be,
on average, higher than among people of Catholic
or, more generally, Christian traditions. However, as
some universality in the psychological characteristics
of humor as well as in the psychological characteris-
tics of religion exists, it is reasonable to suspect that
the studies described in this entry reflect something
deeper, and possibly universal, regarding inherent
discrepancies between religion and humor. Both reli-
gion and humor are a means for reframing and tran-
scending everyday life experience. However, humor
does so by diminishing things seen to be important
in the visible reality, whereas religion does so by ide-
alizing the importance of things that are part of an
invisible reality.
In conclusion, religion and humor are neither
good friends nor eternal enemies. Their ties are
reminiscent of the ambivalent relations developed by
competitive neighbors who have been constrained to
live together.
Vassilis Saroglou
See also Biblical Humor; Buddhism; Christianity; Clergy;
Confucianism; Islam; Judaism; Taoism
Further Readings
Baconski, T. (1996). Le rire des pères: Essai sur le rire dans
la patristique grecque [The laughter of the fathers: Essay
on laughter in Greek patristics]. Paris, France: Desclée
de Brouwer.
Davies, C. (1992). The Protestant ethic and the comic spirit
of capitalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 43,
421–442.
Feltmate, D. S. (2010). Springfield’s sacred canopy: Religion
and humour in The Simpsons. Doctoral dissertation.
Retrieved from http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/
10012/5628
Geybels, H., & Van Herck, W. (Eds.). (2011). Humor and
religion: Challenges and ambiguities. London, UK:
Continuum.
Gilhus, I. S. (1997). Laughing gods, weeping virgins:
Laughter in the history of religion. London, UK:
Routledge.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2003). “99 nuns giggle, 1 nun gasps”:
The not-all-that-Christian natural class of Christian
jokes. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 16, 1–31.
Morreall, J. (1999). Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany:
State University of New York Press.

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and sense of humor: An a
priori incompatibility? Theoretical considerations from a
psychological perspective. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 15, 191–214.
Saroglou, V., & Anciaux, L. (2004). Liking sick humor:
Coping styles and religion as predictors. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 257–277.
Websites
Center for Psychology of Religion: http://www.uclouvain
.be/en-331357
RESOLUTION
See Incongruity and Resolution
REVERSAL THEORY
Reversal theory is a general psychological theory
of motivation, emotion, and personality that has
generated much research since the 1970s and con-
tinues to be applied in such areas as sport coach-
ing and management consultancy. As a general
theory, it shows how humor fits into a broad pat-
tern of motivations and emotions rather than being
an ad hoc theory of humor alone. Reversal theory
posits that humor will result from three features of
experience—playful arousal, cognitive synergy, and
identity diminishment—all of which are seen to be
essential ingredients. If any one of these is missing,
something other than humor will be experienced.
Thus, according to reversal theory, humor elicited
by jokes, cartoons, wit, parody, slapstick, sarcasm,
caricature, and farce occurs through one common
underlying process.
Playful Arousal
The observer must be in a playful state of mind,
which is another way of saying that he or she must
experience the world through a “protective frame,”
feeling safe from danger or serious consequences.
According to reversal theory, any arousal, includ-
ing that which derives from a comic stimulus, will
be felt as a form of pleasant excitement in this state.
However, if there is a reversal to the opposite serious
state, then the very same arousal will be experienced
instead as unpleasant anxiety, and the material
Reversal Theory 641
seen as threatening, offensive, or embarrassing. In
other words, the pleasantness/unpleasantness of the
arousal is inverted as one reverses between the play-
ful and the serious state. The trick of humor is to
remain within the protective frame when presented
with arousing material. The higher the arousal is
under these conditions, the funnier the situation will
seem to be—hence, the frequent use of sexual, vio-
lent, racist, religious, personal, and other arousing
content. Such content must not, however, destroy
the protective frame. Surprise also helps to raise
arousal, and cognitive synergies can themselves be
arousing, especially when they are surprising. Also,
a social context in which other people are laughing
helps both to maintain the protective frame (“if oth-
ers are laughing, it must be OK”) and to increase
arousal.
Cognitive Synergy
To be humorous, a communication must assign
mutually exclusive qualities or meanings to some
identity (person, object, statement, etc.). This kind of
incongruity is referred to in reversal theory as cogni-
tive synergy because it produces an effect that can-
not be achieved by either quality alone. The identity
apparently escapes from logic, and more specifically
from Aristotle’s law of identity, which says that an
identity cannot simultaneously be both A and not-
A. For example, a person cannot be both an adult
(A) and a child (not-A) at the same time. But a child
dressed up as an adult can indeed be funny because
she is perceived as having qualities of both adult
and child. Likewise, the identity in humor may be
a statement: Thus, a compliment that turns out to
be an insult can be funny. A sarcastic statement is
one that has an ostensible and a real meaning. In
slapstick, a man who is treated like an object can be
comic, because man and object are mutually exclu-
sive categories.
The enjoyment of the humor is said in reversal
theory to be felt at the moment of greatest aware-
ness of incongruity rather than afterward, as it is
according to some other theories. Communications
that do not contain cognitive synergy, such as sci-
entific papers or legal contracts, cannot be funny
(unless by mistake). Synergies may become complex:
for example, a child pretending to be a scarecrow
pretending to be a human pretending to be aggres-
sive. In fact, research shows that the more cognitive
work that has to be done to disentangle the synergy,
the funnier it will be.
642 Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices
Identity Diminishment
Third, the effect of the cognitive synergy must be to
downgrade the identity concerned. There must be
diminishment. Thus, recognizing the child as being
“only” a child rather than the woman she pretends to
be, diminishes the identity. If there is no diminishment,
then we have whimsy, or perhaps a pun or a riddle. If
there is enhancement rather than diminishment, then
we may have art. (Art also makes use of its own kinds
of synergies, such as metaphor and ambiguity.)
There are two ways in which diminishment can
be achieved. The first is disclosure. This means that
the first meaning applied to a situation is supplanted
by a second, diminishing, meaning, which discloses
that the first meaning was false. But both meanings
continue to resonate, so that taken as a whole we
have a cognitive synergy. The following simple one-
liner joke can serve as an example: “Change is inevi-
table, except from vending machines.” Here change
has two meanings. But the second meaning only
becomes apparent from the second half of the state-
ment and discloses that the first meaning was false.
If the identity is the word change, then it is dimin-
ished from a broad philosophical concept to a mere
coin. The second form of diminishment is distortion.
This usually comes in the form of exaggeration that
highlights a weakness and makes it more apparent.
For example, a caricaturist will exaggerate some
facial characteristic: The resulting synergy both is
and isn’t a representation of the person and, in any
case, diminishes that person.
Michael Apter and Mitzi Desselles
See also Humor Mindset; Humor Theories; Jokes; Play
and Humor; Psychology
Further Readings
Apter, M. J. (1982). Humour and reversal theory. In M. J.
Apter, The experience of motivation: The theory of
psychological reversals (pp. 177–195). London, UK:
Academic Press.
Apter, M. J., & Smith, K. C. P. (1977). Humour and the
theory of psychological reversals. In A. Chapman &
H. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing, humour (pp. 95–100).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Coulson, A. S. (2001). Cognitive synergy. In M. J. Apter
(Ed.), Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to
reversal theory (pp. 229–248). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor
elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663–688.
RHETORIC AND RHETORICAL
DEVICES
Rhetorical devices primarily describe aspects of style
in persuasive texts and are commonly referred to as
“figures of speech,” although they extend beyond
syntactic and semantic figures in explaining three
related phenomena in humorous texts. First, they
reveal various uses of topoi, or commonplace tools
for the invention or systematic discovery of persua-
sive arguments. Second, they explain how various
comedic devices—such as simile, metaphor, hyper-
bole, paradox, oxymoron, and personification—
support the construction and delivery of these
arguments. Third, they justify how humorous argu-
ments can be understood as appeals to logos (logic
or reason) by revealing how successful humor relies
on shared perspectives between author, audience,
and worldview.
Topoi
The first comprehensive organization of rhetori-
cal devices occurs in the anonymously authored
Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhetoric to Herennius),
although rhetorical devices have been named and
discussed as early as Plato’s Ion (Dialogue) and
more extensively in Book III of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.
Book IV of the four-part Rhetorica ad Herennium
contains a catalogue of levels and qualities of style,
arranged so that the orator could achieve—through
what James J. Murphy has called the “judicious use
of figures”—dignitas (distinction) in grand, middle,
and plain styles.
Following this catalogue are 45 “figures of
speech” (including 10 tropes or “special” figures of
speech) and 19 “figures of thought.” Of the 45 fig-
ures of speech, several have historically been relevant
in analyzing the communicability of humor, includ-
ing repetitio, the anaphoric repetition of a word
or phrase at the beginning of successive sentences;
contentio, the use of antithesis, or contrasting ideas
organized in parallel phrases; sententia, the use of
maxims; occultatio, or paralipsis, drawing attention
to a characteristic by seeming to pass over it; circum-
itio, or periphrasis, describing something according
to what it is not, and more specifically, substituting
a descriptive word for a proper name; superlatio, or
hyperbole; and permutatio, or allegory.
As did its antecedent and succedent treatises, the
Rhetorica ad Herennium most likely organized its

figures according to how they enabled orators to ful-
fill the common logical operations of addition, omis-
sion (or subtraction), substitution, and transposition
(or transferring). For example, several devices were
regularly discussed in Book II of Marcus Tullius
Cicero’s De oratore (On the Orator), a dialogue
composed circa 55 BCE but set in 91 BCE as a dis-
agreement among characters about the qualities and
talents comprising the ideal orator. In the dialogue,
the character named “Caesar” admires such acts of
omission and substitution for their ability “to turn
the force of a word to quite another sense than that
in which other people take it” (2.62.254) and for
eliciting surprise rather than laughter. These logical
operations were formalized as categories of thought
in Marcus Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria (The
Institutes of Oratory) in 95 CE, which significantly
aligned rhetorical devices with invention strategies,
or strategies concerned with the discovery of what
makes certain arguments possible.
Comedic Devices
Like rhetorical devices, comedic devices evolve in
number and classification as they become contem-
porized. As tropes, figures, and schemes that elicit
laughter, comedic devices have historically revealed
developments in how specific figures become linked
to the delivery of arguments they helped to invent.
Quintilian’s division of over 200 devices is more
extensive than Cicero’s, occupying much of Books
IV, IIX, and IX in his Institutio oratoria, and dif-
ferentiating between “figures,” which involved
changes in the syntactic structure of an utterance
for its emphasis or ornamentation, and “tropes,”
which involved substitutions of some words for oth-
ers so as to transform their meaning (e.g., metaphor,
synecdoche, metonymy). Book VI also includes a
long treatment on laughter, describing the role of
wit and humor in preparing the judge to receive
an appeal. Whereas Cicero’s comedic devices often
promoted distraction or conciliation among wit-
nesses, Quintilian’s comedic devices were intended
to redirect the good will of the judges in ethically
challenging cases. However, both De oratore and
the Institutio oratoria suggest eliciting come-
dic responses in certain parts of the speech, while
arousing more passionate responses—such as anger,
hatred, jealousy, pity—elsewhere in the speech,
separating the responses so as to better dispel the
judges’ pity and redirect their attention toward a
consideration of justice.
Rhetoric and Rhetorical Devices 643
Katherine Geffcken has noted Cicero’s apprecia-
tion for humor’s extra-logical functions—that is, its
capacity to exert control in an argument when logic
cannot succeed. In this sense, comedic devices are
better formed when they avoid arousing excessive
emotion, appealing instead to the audience’s sense
of recognition. She cites the 56 BCE Pro Caelio (In
Defense of Caeilius) as a principal example, in which
each character in Cicero’s speech represents a comic
figure that breaks established social codes through
antithesis, feigned apology, or double entendre.
These are strategies that Quintilian would later cite
as exemplary passages in Book VI of his Institutio
oratoria because they simultaneously reinforced and
drew attention away from the judges’ notions of
Caeilius’s character in order to redirect their atten-
tion to the character of Caeilius’s accuser.
Most of what Cicero and Quintilian indicated
as devices for humor or laughter was addressed less
enthusiastically in the ars praedicandi (art of preach-
ing), one of three arts that comprised a rhetorical
curriculum throughout the Middle Ages and was
published in a variety of forms. In this curriculum,
humorous devices were often discussed according to
their (un)suitability for the various realms of pulpit
and polis. Yet they occur again in Henry Peacham’s
1577 Garden of Eloquence, this time as a division
of 184 figures into sets of vernacular “tropes” and
“schemes,” catalogued according to how their gram-
matical and rhetorical forms could embellish words,
organize sentences, or amplify ideas, respectively.
For Peacham, the effectiveness of such schemes was
in the writer’s avoidance of excess or exaggeration,
and in their strategic use.
Appeals to Logos
Whereas rhetorical devices have historically
explained ways of achieving dignitas in oratory and
literacy, more recent theories of rhetorical agency
have repositioned them to better explain how
humor relies on shared perspectives between author,
audience, and worldview to be successful. An early
example of this tendency can be found in The New
Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-
Tyteca. Olbrechts-Tyteca’s 1974 work is predicated
on the idea that humor helps the realization of the
argumentation.
Cheryl Geisler observed that 21st-century theo-
ries of agency seem to be as concerned with ways
of reflection as they are with the resources and
means to act. In the study of rhetorical devices, this
644 Riddle
reflection may occur as a revelation of fallacies in
the rhetor’s or audience’s logic, or as a demonstra-
tion of how the roles of victim, subject, target, and
vehicle can become blurred in humorous texts. For
example, John Poulakos has argued that Cicero’s
comedic devices in De oratore and Pro Caelio make
good examples of what Greek philosophers called
dissoi logoi—literally, an argumentative strategy
that functioned according to the use of “different
words”—because they demand a cognizance of both
sides of a particular controversy or, in the case of De
oratore, of the competing worldviews that must be
accommodated to attain the ideal orator.
Twenty-first–century perspectives on rhetori-
cal devices are characterized by efforts to redefine
“strategies” as what Sean Zwagerman calls humor’s
“strategic uses”—broad and interdependent speech
situations that deconstruct persuasive logics, rather
than disparate figures of speech. This deconstruc-
tionist sentiment is echoed in what J. L. Austin has
called “whole chains of discourse” and in what
Kenneth Burke has called “dramatism,” that is, using
language, a symbolic system, to achieve intercoop-
eration among symbol-using beings. It is also echoed
in M. Jimmie Killingsworth’s redefinition of tropes
such as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony
according to the relationships they reveal between
writer(s), audience(s), and shared worldview(s).
For example, metaphor requires a kind of identifi-
cation of the audience(s) with something powerful
and often physical; metonymy requires a kind of
association with something contiguous; synecdoche
enables the representation of a whole through one
of its parts; and irony closes the interpretive dis-
tance between the writer and one set of audiences,
while increasing that distance for another set. For
Killingsworth and modern-day theorists, tropes and
other rhetorical “figures” can function at the level of
whole discourses as well as individual phrases, mak-
ing their classification somewhat fraught.
Tarez Samra Graban
See also Ancient Roman Comedy; Audience; Incongruity
and Resolution; Irony; Misdirection; Satire
Further Readings
Anonymous. (1954). Rhetorica ad Herennium [Rhetoric to
Herennius] (H. Caplan, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burke, K. B. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Burton, G. O. (2007). The four categories of change. Silva
Rhetoricae. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://
rhetoric.byu.edu/Four Changes/Four Changes.htm
Cicero. (1970). De oratore [On the orator] (J. S. Watson
Trans.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Frank, D. A., & Bolduc, M. K. (2011). Lucie Olbrecths-
Tyteca’s new rhetoric. In J. T. Gage (Ed.), The promise
of reason: Studies in the new rhetoric (pp. 55–79).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Geffcken, K. A. (1995). Comedy in the Pro Caelio.
Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.
Geisler, C. (2004). How ought we to understand the
concept of rhetorical agency? Report from the ARS.
Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34(3), 9–17.
Killingsworth, M. J. (2005). Appeal through tropes. In
Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary-language
approach (pp. 121–135). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Murphy, J. J. (1974). Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A
history of rhetorical theory from Saint Augustine to the
Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1974). Le comique du discours [The
humor of discourse]. Brussels, Belgium: Université de
Bruxelles.
Peacham, H. (1977). The garden of eloquence. Delmar, NY:
Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints. (Original work
published 1577)
Poulakos, J. (1993). Terms for sophistical rhetoric.
In T. Poulakos (Ed.), Rethinking the history of rhetoric:
Multidisciplinary essays on the rhetorical tradition (pp.
53–74). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Quinn, A., & Rathbun, L. (1996). Figures of speech.
In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric and
composition: Communication from ancient times to the
information age (pp. 269–271). New York, NY: Garland.
Quintilian. (1922). Institutio oratoria [Institutes of oratory]
(H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Loeb/Harvard
University Press.
Richards, J. (2008). Rhetoric. London, UK: Routledge.
Zwagerman, S. (2010). Wit’s end: Women’s humor as
rhetorical and performative strategy. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
RIDDLE
Riddle is a term commonly used to describe humor-
ous texts in a question-and-answer format that
exploit conceptual or linguistic ambiguity. In folk-
lore research, the term denotes a traditional genre
of verbal art, while in literature it implies a literary
trope. In linguistics and humor research, riddling
is often considered a discourse type establishing a

link between two scripts. It is assumed that riddling
is an aspect of the oral and/or literary traditions of
all cultures, and can be traced back to the ancient
civilizations of India and Greece. Etymologically, the
word riddle comes from the Old English raedels or
raedelse, meaning “counsel, opinion, conjecture.”
This entry defines riddle, presents a brief overview
of traditional and contemporary riddle forms (with
special attention to the devices of ambiguity and
humor), and touches on the significance of riddles in
the development of children’s sense of humor.
Definition and Forms
A riddle is composed of two parts: a question (or
image) and an answer connected by a cognitive link,
based on a metaphor, lexical or grammatical ambi-
guity, or some other “block element” making the
riddle more difficult to solve. A riddling occasion
presumes at least two participants: a riddler pos-
ing a question and a riddlee who is challenged to
find the question’s answer. This means riddling is
always competitive, and the relationship between
the two parties is hierarchic: The riddler (to whom
the answer is known) is in a superior position, until
the riddlee correctly comes to the solution.
In traditional societies, riddles are part of the ver-
bal art of adults and play an important role in rites
of passage such as initiation ceremonies, courtship,
weddings, and wakes. However, many individuals
may organize riddle contests or engage in leisure-
time riddling. The function of riddles is complex,
but inevitably they provide amusement and fulfill
the cognitive function of reaffirming the common
values in a community.
Traditional riddles are usually fix-phrased,
involving formulated or archaic language. Objects,
characters, and topics included in the riddle text are
drawn from an environment familiar to both the rid-
dler and riddlee. True riddles are descriptive texts
that, as Archer Taylor states, compare an object
to an entirely different object (e.g., in the riddle,
“Thirty white horses on a red hill. Now they dance,
now they prance, now they stand still.” The solution
is “teeth”).
Following true riddles, the most significant riddle
subgenres are joking questions, wherein puns shift
the frame of reference; wisdom questions, requir-
ing specific knowledge; neck riddles, based on odd,
personal experience presented in a narrative frame
of saving one’s life; and parody riddles, intended
to confuse the riddlee by using and frustrating
Riddle 645
conventional riddle patterns. Visual and literary
riddles also have a long and continuing history.
Classic riddles attached to the traditional, rural
lifestyle have now reached the state of static folk-
lore or become children’s lore. Riddling, as a type
of discourse, is still widely used, especially by young
adults. Contemporary riddle forms exploit the
question-and-answer format as a base for wordplay
and improvisation. Punning riddles or conundrums
mainly involve linguistic triggers, coupling similarity
of form with difference in meaning (e.g., “What is
black and white and red all over?” “A newspaper”).
A droodle is a visual form of conundrum. It is a sim-
ple drawing claimed to represent an unexpectedly
complex situation (e.g., a horizontal line described
as an old lady dragging a goat, yet only the rope can
be seen).
Riddle jokes, on the other hand, are more firmly
connected to context. They usually come in waves,
comment on current events in a humorous form, and
follow a formulaic construction. In these riddles, the
question sets up the punch line, usually provided by
the riddler; riddle jokes are basically jokes presented
in the form of a riddle. Most riddle jokes are topical,
reflecting up-to-date, local or global news, usually
of a tragic nature. They comment on accidents and
catastrophes, politics, and the situation of ethnic
minorities and are popular as long as they are topi-
cal. They are a way of speaking the unspeakable and
questioning contemporary values and norms.
Riddling in the Development of
Children’s Sense of Humor
A number of studies have shown that riddling plays
an important part in the early development of a
child’s sense of humor (roughly between the ages of
4 and 8 years). Initially, riddles are simply questions
with arbitrary answers, but children quickly become
capable of understanding and following the rules
related to riddling as a form of social interaction
(being a riddler means possessing [limited] author-
ity, and laughter should follow when a riddle or joke
is delivered). At around the age of 6 years, (lexical)
ambiguity is incorporated into simple descriptive
routines. By the age of 8 years, riddles of all sorts are
performed properly and enjoyed, even if the child
cannot explain why they are funny.
Riddles take objects from a familiar environment
and combine them in an unexpected way, follow-
ing basic rules that children gradually acquire. It is
a form of verbal play involving the language and
646 Ritual Clowns
culture they are growing up in. Therefore, this pro-
cess plays an important part not only in the develop-
ment of linguistic and cognitive skills but also in the
course of socialization.
Katalin Vargha
See also Ambiguity; Children’s Humor Stages; Joke
Cycles; Puns; Speech Play; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Bergen, D. (2009). Gifted children’s humor preferences, sense
of humor, and comprehension of riddles. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 4, 419–436.
Cook, E. (2006). Enigmas and riddles in literature.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaivola-Bregenhøj, A. (2001). Riddles: Perspectives on the
use, function and change in a folklore genre. Helsinki:
Finnish Literature Society.
McDowell, J. (1979). Children’s riddling. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Nørgaard, N. (Ed.). (2010). The language of riddles, humor
and literature. Six essays by John M. Dienhart. Odense:
University Press of Southern Denmark.
Taylor, A. (1951). English riddles from oral tradition.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
RITUAL CLOWNS
Ritual clowns reverse and challenge accepted norms
in their specific societies through theatrics. Performing
in ritual contexts in small-scale premodern societies
(as well in some modern ones), ritual clowns perform
their theatrics in costumes and masks. These pre-
modern ritual contexts resemble festivals in modern
societies in that the events intertwine the sacred and
the secular, the serious and the humorous.
Arguing that the ritual clown is rooted in pre-
modern religion, William Mitchell notes that the
ritual clown is tied to a powerful magical world.
However, as modern religions and scientific views of
the world circulated around the globe, they collided
with ancient beliefs, marginalizing the ritual clown
in the process and separating sacred domains from
secular, and ritual from humor.
Indigenous practices continue to integrate the
serious and the comic, enacting fundamental social
and cultural concepts such as gender roles, sexual
practices, political relations, and kinship rules. This
integration was described by Roy Sieber and Roslyn
Walker (1987) for African societies: “Much of what
we consider social, political, or cultural and thereby
secular is considered religious in African thought”
(p. 21). This view of the world as interrelated phe-
nomena permits the ritual enactment of reversals
that affirm the social order in some instances and
criticize it in others. Through the performance of
hyperbole, taboos, and buffoonery, ritual clowns
juxtapose the social and natural order with viola-
tions of it. They are licensed to perform parody
and satire directed at authorities, the opposite sex,
tourists, and outsiders, but also to call attention to
deviant or excessive behavior within the community.
This entry describes the special powers attributed
ritual clowns, provides examples of ritual clowns
in social context, and examines the contradictions
presented by ritual clowns.
Special Powers
One key to the ritual clown’s license resides in the
special powers he or she is believed to possess. While
clowns’ profane behavior elicits laughter from their
audience, they may also possess esoteric knowledge
and expertise through which they accrue respect.
Some clowns are credited with having mystical or
supernatural powers, others with being endowed
with healing abilities, and some with possessing
extraordinary physical skills. Through this duality—
the hidden power of the supernatural or superhu-
man and the public power of performance—clowns
embody a human paradox.
Clowns in Social Contexts
Ritual clowns may dress as the opposite sex or in rags
or in unique local variations, but they are universally
recognizable by their license to reveal clandestine
behaviors, violate taboos, and burlesque cherished
values or authority figures. The targets of their per-
formances range from the culturally profound to the
contemporary specific. This section provides several
examples of ritual clowning in various social con-
texts and societies throughout the world.
The role of ritual clowns is nowhere more com-
plex than among Native American cultures. North
American Indian groups characteristically have a
clown or a “contrary” figure. Most documented,
however, are the clown societies of the Pueblo Indians
of the southwestern United States, the Hopi and
Zuni in particular. Among the latter are two clown
societies, the Koyemci and the Newekwe, who enact
representations of sexual behavior and make jokes
on taboo topics. Although the Koyemci elicit humor

from the audience, they are nevertheless feared for
their supernatural powers. The Newekwe, who are
painted in black and white bands, enact burlesques
of missionaries, tourists, teachers, and Navajos.
Significantly, they are also a medicine society.
In a Mayan village in the Yucatan of Mexico,
a ritual clown is the star of a full-scale community
parody—a saint’s procession in which a large pig is
substituted for a saint. A clown dressed in tattered
clothing and faking drunkenness leads the proces-
sion and performs poetic recitations about illicit
sexual episodes and about tensions between villagers
and the state.
The Mende women of Sierra Leone perform a
women’s masquerade featuring the ndoli jowei,
a powerful female leader costumed in a carved
wooden helmet mask and black palm leaf. Two
other women maskers, the gonde and the samawa,
perform parody and satire. The gonde is “a clown-
like figure who overturns all the conventions proper
to ndoli jowei. She can also be frightening when
she shakes a bundle of switches at wrongdoers. The
samawa satirizes males, some of whom have vio-
lated the women’s conventions and suffer disease as
a result” (Phillips, 1995, p. 90).
Parody and burlesque are equally significant in
the Melanesian societies of Papua New Guinea,
where women frequently perform the role of ritual
clown. Among the Lusi-Kaliai people, clowning
occurs in rituals such as weddings and rites for first-
born children. Performing as transvestites (women
dressed as men), they parody the male behavior of
warriors, village leaders, drunks, and outsiders. In
his comments on clowning in the Pacific, Mitchell
(1992) observes that clowning “creates mayhem by
dismantling cognitive coherence and continuity”
and consequently serves as social criticism (p. 19).
In the United States, clowns have a crucial role
in the rodeo, a ritual drama of cattle culture. They,
too, are licensed to mention sexual behavior and to
jumble categories and violate taboos in the jokes
performed in the rodeo arena. With a painted face
and tattered clothes and a large red nose, the rodeo
clown appears drunk or stupid while his trained ani-
mal seems much smarter than he is, reversing the
relationship between the cowboy and horses and
cattle. In bull-riding events, after the bull has bucked
the cowboy off, the clown must distract the bull
away from the cowboy on the ground. Although he
appears very foolish, the clown enacts a heroic but
dangerous role, producing much respect from the
bull riders. Like other ritual clowns, he embodies a
Ritual Clowns 647
dual role, combining humor and apparent foolish-
ness with danger and heroism.
Contradictions
Embedded in specific social contexts, ritual clowns
open a fissure in the societal edifice with their non-
sense, revealing cultural ambiguities and social frail-
ties, overturning conventions through reversals, and
enacting tensions and taboos, some shrouded in
secrecy and others on display in public life. While
flirting with danger, challenging political or religious
authority, and affirming or reversing social practices,
clowns perform critical commentary. Juxtaposing
categories, transgressing boundaries, and jumbling
fundamentals, the clown transforms as she or he
entertains. Whether introducing alternative per-
spectives or affirming conventional practices, the
clown stretches the imagination with foolishness,
yet embodies the powers of the supernatural and the
capacities of the superhuman. These contradictions
combine to create the performing paradox known
as the ritual clown.
Beverly J. Stoeltje
See also Anthropology; Carnival and Festival; Clowns;
Clowns in Medical Settings; Fools; Feast of Fools;
Rituals of Inversion; Rituals of Laughter; Slapstick
Further Readings
Hieb, L. (1972). Meaning and mismeaning: Toward an
understanding of the ritual clown. In A. Ortiz (Ed.),
New perspectives on the Pueblos (pp. 163–195).
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Loewe, R. (2010). Maya or Mestizo? Nationalism,
modernity, and its discontents. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Mitchell, W. E. (Ed.). (1992). Clowning as critical practice.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Phillips, R. B. (1995). Representing woman: Sande
masquerades of the Mende of Sierra Leone. Los Angeles:
UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History.
Sieber, R., & Walker, R. A. (1987). African art in the cycle
of life. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Stoeltje, B. J. (1985). The rodeo clown and the semiotics of
metaphor. Journal of Folklore Research, 22(2/3),
155–177.
Stoeltje, B. J. (1992). Festival. In R. Bauman (Ed.), Folklore,
cultural performances, and popular entertainments
(pp. 261–271). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Towsen, J. H. (1976). Clowns. New York, NY: Hawthorn
Books.
648 Rituals of Inversion
RITUALS OF INVERSION
Rituals of inversion, also known as rituals of rever-
sal, occur when a ritual or special event provides a
frame that gives license for people to violate every-
day cultural norms and social codes. The modifier
ritual suggests that these violations are in some
sense considered temporary, playful, or restricted
to a special time and/or place. It is these constraints
and frames that provide license for behavior that
would incur social sanctions outside of the ritual
setting. Ritual inversions are frequently humorous
and often include satire and mockery—expressions
intended to elicit a humorous reaction from a given
segment of a population by recourse to making fun
of another at the other’s expense. This entry consid-
ers some common occasions for rituals of inversion
before examining the ritual inversion commonly
found in festival, with both historical and contem-
porary examples.
Rituals of inversion are either the special prov-
ince of certain ritual specialists, such as clowns, or
confined to specific special occasions, especially rites
of passage and annual calendar customs or festivals.
In many cultures, ritual clowns have license to mock
and play tricks on others and to engage in scato-
logical play. On special occasions such as rites of
passage or certain calendar customs, almost anyone
has the license to violate or invert everyday norms.
For example, during the rite of passage known as
“Crossing the Line,” sailors who are crossing the
Equator for the first time are subjected to a rite of
passage by their shipmates—a ritual that involves
cross-dressing, rough play, and ordinary sailors in
costume temporarily “taking over” the ship from the
officers. Another rite of passage sometimes marked
by rituals of inversion is the wedding anniversary.
In rural communities in the Great Plains, communi-
ties celebrate the wedding anniversaries of couples in
their midst with mock weddings—parodies of wed-
dings that involve cross-dressing and good-natured
mockery of the couple being honored.
April Fools’ Day is widely recognized as a day
when anyone may play practical jokes on others,
including targets that it would normally be inappro-
priate to joke with. Children may play jokes on par-
ents and teachers, and journalists may temporarily
abandon the strictures of their profession to publish
hoax stories in newspapers, on websites, or in televi-
sion and radio programs. At other times, the agents
of ritual inversion belong to a counterculture posi-
tioned in opposition to a mainstream institution.
Scholars have frequently noted that Carnival and
other traditional festivals are sites for institutional-
ized disorder, for rituals of reversal that counter and
deny the established order. In early modern Europe,
festivals included political satire, dressing in cos-
tumes, cross-dressing, drunkenness, and intense sex-
ual activity, as well as weddings and mock weddings.
Also in medieval and early modern Europe, the Feast
of Fools was another site for multiple forms of sym-
bolic inversion, including cross-dressing, masking as
animals, wafting foul-smelling incense, and electing
burlesque bishops, popes, and patriarchs. The thrust
of these burlesque forms was mockery of serious
ritual and of the dominant social order behind it.
Although the Feast of Fools did include rituals
of inversion, Max Harris has recently argued that
they were not designed as mockery but instead were
offered within a Christian context as thanksgiving
for the incarnation of Christ. The role reversals
exemplified God’s work at putting down the proud
and exalting the humble. Thus, in Harris’s recon-
struction, the Feast of Fools is best understood as a
sanctified rather than sacrilegious event.
An example of contemporary rituals of inversion
is found in Burning Man Festival, an annual art and
alternative cultural event that takes place in the des-
ert outside Reno, Nevada, in connection with Labor
Day weekend. Burning Man may be interpreted as
a counterculture. Countercultures are those groups
that situate themselves in ways that draw on themes
of conflict with the dominant values of a given group
or society. Countercultural protest may take the
form of direct opposition to dominant values, oppo-
sition also to power structures, or a combination
of these. Burning Man Festival may be interpreted
as the expression of a countercultural movement
that sets itself in opposition to modernity by way
of, according to J. Milton Yinger’s (1984) typology,
“the search for ecstasy and mystical insight” (p. 94).
One way to understand how rituals of inversion
work is the temporary autonomous zone (TAZ) the-
ory described by Hakim Bey. As the name implies,
the TAZ describes a fleeting fixture in space and time
where the individual can claim autonomy over the
self and complete freedom in opposition to authority
structures, a freedom that provides opportunities for
the individual to create new expressions of the self
and society. As such, the TAZ provides a context
for the nonviolent alteration of existing structures

and serves as a radical tactic of opposition to the
mainstream.
With these thoughts in mind, the connection can
be made between Burning Man as a festive coun-
terculture and a ritual expression of acts of social
inversion. As previously noted, Burning Man can be
understood as a counterculture situated in opposi-
tion to aspects of modernity, especially consumer
culture. Individuals come to the festival to carve out
their own place in space and time (the TAZ), which
includes social inversion as well as acts of creativity,
including the production of various forms of art, the
naming of various living areas within the broader
temporary community of the festival, seminars pre-
sented during the event, the taking of temporary
names unique to the festival event, forms of clothing,
gender bending, and many other things. Whatever
the form of opposition, each inverts the structures
it opposes in mainstream culture, or the “default
world” in the nomenclature of “Burners.” Burning
Man activities include costuming, cross-dressing,
sexual activity, weddings, and mock weddings—
the same activities known to have occurred during
carnival and festival in early modern Europe. An
argument could be made that Burning Man Festival
represents a contemporary expression of festival that
parallels the historical events, particularly the Feast
of Fools. Burning Man Festival provides an interest-
ing contemporary case study of rituals of inversion
in opposition to a mainstream social group that
helps deepen our understanding of the many facets
of humor.
John W. Morehead
See also Burlesque; Carnival and Festival; Clowns; Feast
of Fools; Hoax and Prank; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy;
Practical Jokes; Ritual Clowns
Further Readings
Babcock, B. A. (1978). The reversible world: Symbolic
inversion in art and society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Bey, H. (2003). TAZ: The temporary autonomous zone,
ontological anarchy, poetic terrorism (2nd ed.).
Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.
Bronner, S. J. (2006). Crossing the line: Violence, play, and
drama in naval equator traditions. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Rituals of Laughter 649
Burke, P. (1990). Popular culture in early modern Europe
(Rev. ed.). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Duvignaud, J. (1976). Festivals: A sociological approach.
Cultures, 3(1), 13–25.
Harris, M. (2003). Carnival and other Christian festivals:
Folk theology and folk performance. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Harris, M. (2011). Sacred folly: A new history of the Feast
of Fools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Manning, F. E. (1983). Cosmos and chaos: Celebration in
the modern world. In F. E. Manning (Ed.), The
celebration of society: Perspectives on contemporary
cultural performance. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling
Green University Press.
Morehead, J. W. (2011). Burning Man Festival: A life
enhancing, post-Christendom, “middle way.”
Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic.
Pieper, J. (1999). In tune with the world: A theory of
festivity. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
Smith, M. (2009). Arbiters of truth at play: Media April
Fools’ Day hoaxes. Folklore, 120(3), 274–290.
Taft, M. (1997). Men in women’s clothes: Theatrical
transvestites on the Canadian prairie. In P. Greenhill &
D. Tye (Eds.), Undisciplined women: Tradition and
culture in Canada (pp. 131–138). Montreal, QC,
Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Yinger, J. M. (1984). Countercultures: The promise and
peril of a world turned upside down. New York, NY:
Free Press.
RITUALS OF LAUGHTER
Rituals of laughter are traditional rites in which
laughter is deliberately performed for religious pur-
poses. They are often connected to folk festivals, as
in Japan, which has seven major traditional festivals
that feature formal, ritual performances of laughter.
This entry explains the religious significance of these
rituals, describes two examples, and compares them
with other annual calendar traditions around the
world also closely associated with laughter.
Japanese laughter rituals are embedded in the
Shinto myths of Japanese folk religion and in the
social organization of the community where each
festival takes place. Japanese people traditionally
believed in two kinds of gods: those bringing hap-
piness and those bringing misfortune and disaster.
Ritual performances of laughter (warai) are dedi-
cated to pleasing and entertaining the gods so that
they listen to the people’s prayers. Human laughter
650 Rituals of Laughter
at such rituals is a symbolic expression of divine
pleasure, invoking a positive response from the gods
to those who laugh and also lightening the hearts
and mood of the laughers themselves.
The seven surviving regional laughter rituals in
Japan differ in their details, but all are organized
by local community associations (ko). They do not
employ jokes or banter to stimulate laughter, but
they create a festive and indulgent spirit, including
eating and drinking. Despite obscure and ancient
origins, they continue to be popular today, attracting
media coverage and many visitors.
Warai-Ko
The laughter ritual Warai-ko in Hofu City, Yama-
guchi Prefecture, has been held annually since 1199
and today takes place on the first Sunday in Decem-
ber. The Warai-ko association, also founded in 1199,
has 21 hereditary members, each of whom hosts the
ritual in their house once every 21 years. Seated in
fixed order before a Shinto priest and altar, partici-
pants enjoy special food and drink and then take
turns in laughing on command either individually or
in pairs. One member acts as judge, evaluating the
quality of the laughs. At the climax of the rite, every-
one present—both Warai-ko members and Shinto
priest—laughs the last big laugh together. The ritual
must include three kinds of symbolic laughter, each
with a specific purpose: (1) to celebrate and give
thanks for the year’s good harvest, (2) to pray for
next year’s good harvest, and (3) to purge worries
accumulated during the year.
Mountain Goddess Festival
The Mountain Goddess festival (Yama-no-kami
Matsuri), also called the Stonefish Festival (Okoze),
has been held since 1856 in Owase, Mie Prefecture.
According to the folk origin narrative of the district,
the area was divided between seafarers and foresters.
When the mountain goddess and the sea goddess
encountered each other on the beach, they began
boasting about the number of their followers. The
sea goddess summoned the sea-bream, flat fish, and
mackerel, while the mountain goddess summoned
the fox, badger, and bear, resulting in a tie. Then the
stonefish emerged from the sea, giving his goddess
one more follower to win the contest. Since then, the
mountain goddess has always hated the stonefish.
At the festival, two people each carry a stonefish
before the mountain goddess’s shrine. Allowing
the fish to “peep out” from their robes, the bearers
show them to the goddess and burst into laughter
along with all the participants. The purpose of this
ritual laughter is to entertain the goddess by saying
the stonefish is incomparably uglier than herself —
so ugly it doesn’t even count as a member of the fish
class. This big, loud laugh ridiculing the fish pleases
the goddess, who will then descend to the fields in
the spring to protect agricultural activities.
Laughter and Annual Festivals
Other countries both east and west also highlight
humor and laughter in annual festivals. In Nepal,
Gaijatra, the Hindu festival of holy cows, is held in
memory of the recently deceased. Because cows are
thought to convey the souls of the dead to heaven,
the festival features a parade of cows, and people
dressed as cows. Gaijatra is intended to show laugh-
ter’s power to relieve earthly cares, and it is closely
related to the Nepalese tradition of social and politi-
cal satire. It is said to have begun when one of the
Malla kings of Kathmandu lost his son to illness and
sought to cheer up his bereaved queen with parades
of people in funny costumes, exhibitions of draw-
ings, and exchanges of jokes, all of which helped her
laugh and accept the harsh realities of life. Since the
19th century, Gaijatra has included topical satire of
social and political issues, permitted only during the
festival.
The annual European tradition of Carnival satire
provides an evident parallel, but jokes and humor-
ous performances are significant parts of annual rit-
ual events in many other cultures, including Native
American cultures with their ritual clowning. In the
West, the first of April is widely recognized as con-
veying license for people to play jokes on each other.
Similarly, the folk customs of trick-or-treating at
Halloween (October 31) and house visits on Bonfire
Night (November 5) often include trickery.
Although the laughter rituals of Japan differ from
other occasions of festive humor in formally empha-
sizing the physical role of laughter, they serve a
similar function. Whether ritualized or not, the shar-
ing of laughter and enjoyment changes mood and
attitude to life while reinforcing communal beliefs
about the universe. Formal performances of laughter
reveal much about the symbolic and practical effects
of festive communal humor and laughter.
Goh Abe
See also Carnival and Festival; Feast of Fools; Folklore;
History of Humor: Premodern Japan; Laugh,

Laughter, Laughing; Psychotherapy, Humor in;
Religion
Further Readings
Abe, G. (2003). A ritual performance of laughter in
southern Japan. In J. Milner Davis (Ed.), Understanding
humor in Japan (pp. 37–49). Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
Abe, G. (2010). Japanese ritual performance of laughter.
Society, 47(1), 31–34.
Gerbert, E. (2011). Laughing priests in the Atsuta Shrine
Festival. In H. Geybels & W. van Herck (Eds.), Humour
and religion: Challenges and ambiguities (pp. 54–65).
London, UK: Continuum.
Gilhus, I. S. (1997). Laughing god, weeping virgins:
Laughter in the history of religion. London, UK:
Routledge.
Panday, R. K. (2000). Nepalese humor. Kathmandu, Nepal:
Muskan Prakshan.
ROMAN VISUAL HUMOR
Visual humor is culture-specific, making it difficult
for outsiders to a culture to understand it. The more
context we have for a visual representation, the bet-
ter chance we have of understanding its humor. We
can understand the context surrounding a visual
Figure 1 Pompeii, Tavern of Salvius (VI. 14. 36), North Wall of Room A, Scenes III and IV. National Archaeological
Museum, Naples, inv. 11482.
Source: Drawing by the author, after E. Presuhn, 1882.
Roman Visual Humor 651
representation by analyzing the building where
it came from, by considering the circumstances
of viewing it, by questioning the meanings of the
image itself, and by comparing it with nonhumor-
ous images of the same type. But the most useful
question about context is how a humorous Roman
image indexes Roman attitudes about the practices
of everyday life.
To frame humor in terms of social dynamics,
sociologists have stressed the distinction between
intra-group humor, where members of a particular
social class or group can poke fun at each other, and
inter-group humor, the kind that pits one social class
against another. We find good examples of both
types of humor in Roman visual culture.
Intra-Group Humor
Typical of intra-group humor is a series of four cap-
tioned scenes painted on the walls of an ancient tav-
ern at Pompeii (see Figure 1). The in-group in the
Tavern of Salvius consists of the non-elites who fre-
quented taverns rather than entertaining at home, as
the elites invariably did. They were people with no
access to the upper classes; they were slaves, former
slaves, the freeborn working poor, and foreigners.
There are two ways to create social humor in this
situation: either to mock the elite who aren’t there or
to poke fun at members of your own group.
652 Roman Visual Humor

For example, scenes III and IV form a two-frame

narrative where two men get into trouble over gam-
bling. In scene III they are playing dice. The man
on the left holds the dice-cup in his right hand and
says: “I won.” His companion asserts: “It’s not
three; it’s two.” This disagreement turns ugly in the
following scene, where the two men, now stand-
ing, come to blows. The man on the left grabs his
dice-partner, who holds a fist up to his face. They
exchange insults. The man on the left says: “You no-
name. It was three for me. I was the winner.” The
other responds: “Look here, cocksucker. I was the
winner.” The innkeeper wants none of this. He tells
them: “Go outside and fight it out.”
What’s telling about these vignettes is that their
humor addresses anxieties of the in-group. The class
of people who frequented the tavern might have wor-
ried about getting thrown out for arguing. And the
pictures, like modern cartoons, depend on a viewer’s
ability to read to get the joke. The act of looking,
reading, and laughing empowers the viewer—and Figure 2 Pompeii, Masseria di Cuomo, Frieze of Aeneas
that’s where the laugh is. It’s a laugh of relief as the the Ape, 20 × 24 cm. National Archaeological
viewer thinks: “That could’ve been me!” Museum, Naples, inv. 9089.
Images meant for private viewing among a differ-
Source: Photo by Michael Larvey.
ent in-group, consisting of upper class Pompeians,
remind us that all social classes embraced intra-
group visual humor. The target of a series of frescoes with the anti-Sullan forces in the civil war of 89–82
belonging to an elite house is the Emperor Augustus BCE. Sulla punished the town by reducing it to a
himself and his dynastic propaganda. Augustus colony, confiscating elite lands, and planting new,
enlisted the poet Virgil to write the Aeneid in order pro-Roman colonists, who took over rule. Under
to make the Trojan prince Aeneas into Augustus’s Augustus, there was an expectation that everyone
ancestor. Aeneas flees Troy, wanders about, then pay homage to the emperor’s official propaganda.
prepares the stage for the founding of Rome. It is possible to reconstruct the original appear-
The target of this Pompeian visual parody is the ance of these fragments because of the many paral-
quintessential monument to Augustus’s claims: his lels for such friezes in rooms painted in the Augustan
great Forum in Rome. In it, Augustus made Aeneas period (see Figure 3). The owner of this little frieze
the centerpiece of the courtyard displaying the mem- harbored enough anti-Augustan sentiment to com-
bers of his clan, the gens Iulia, and Romulus the mission this dual spoof on Augustus’s blatant use of
centerpiece of the courtyard opposite it, celebrating Roman myth to bolster his dynasty. He or she hap-
Roman military and civic heroes. Although the orig- pily laughed at these parodies and knew that guests
inal statues have disappeared, reproductions of them invited into the room would laugh at them as well.
abound. But there’s also an outrageous spoof on The Aeneas-Romulus paintings constitute a second
this ideologically loaded pair of the fleeing Aeneas example of humor generated for the group or social
and the triumphant Romulus, consisting of several class that consumes it. It’s the joke that circulates
fragments of a painted frieze, excavated in a house among the knowing in-group, not suitable for
at Pompeii; they present our great heroes as dog- consumption beyond the strict social limits of that
headed apes, complete with tails and long phalluses group because of its potential to make its members
(see Figure 2). look like bad citizens.
Why would a Pompeian householder commission To employ the terms of sociology, because the
such an irreverent parody? It is clear some citizens intra-group situation applies to humor initiated
resented Roman rule in general and Augustus in par- in and consumed by the “in-group,” humor can
ticular. Pompeii was an independent town that sided control group behavior, intensify group identity, or

control conflict within the group. Situated within
a private house at Pompeii, the paintings serve to
intensify group identity among viewers who, like the
owner, were elite, or at least moneyed, individuals.
Inter-Group Humor
Parallel to these examples of intra-group humor, we
find many varieties of inter-group, or “them versus
us,” humor in Roman visual culture. The most out-
rageous are representations where the differences are
Figure 3 Frieze of Aeneas and Romulus, Hypothetical
Reconstruction
Source: Drawing by Onur . the humor becomes clear. A Greek label announces
Figure 4 Pompeii, House of the Doctor (VIII. 5. 24), Pluteus of Peristyle G, West Side, North Part, Pygmies at Outdoor
Banquet. National Archaeological Museum, Naples, inv. 113196.
Source: Photo by Michael Larvey.
Roman Visual Humor 653
not between the upper and lower classes but between
Romans and what postcolonial theory would call
the “Other.” In ancient Roman visual culture, this
kind of them versus us humor runs the gamut from
mockery of non-Romans (barbarians, Egyptians) to
laughter at deformed persons. A special case is the
so-called pygmy, a visual representation that “oth-
ers” Egypt by setting the actions of the foolhardy,
incontinent pygmy on the Nile in order to make
the pygmy opposite in every way from the ideals of
body type and behavior for proper Romans (see Fig-
ure 4). By the late 1st century BCE, after Romans
had finally subjugated Egypt, the noble Black Afri-
can (Aethiops) becomes a hyperphallic, incontinent
clown. Throughout the 1st century CE, visual repre-
sentations increasingly feature the pygmy rather than
the Aethiops. This is not the ethnic pygmy, unknown
to the Romans, but rather a clown type representing
individuals afflicted with dwarfism, including large
heads, small limbs, exaggerated penises, and pro-
truding buttocks. Found especially in garden paint-
ings and tombs, these pygmies function as comic
fertility symbols, copulating and defecating in the
Nile landscape, or they engage in foolhardy hunting
exploits against wild animals—negative examples of
the Roman valor (virtus) in battle.
In contrast to these “othering” scenarios featur-
ing seemingly ubiquitous pygmy follies, the groups
set in opposition in the paintings decorating the
Tavern of the Seven Sages at Ostia are ordinary men,
who appear seated on a common latrine bench at
the bottom of the walls, and the Sages, seated on
philosophers’ stools above (see Figure 5).
When we read the captions above both the Sages
and the seated men, the conflict that is the basis of
654 Roman Visual Humor
Solon of Athens, but the line of Latin above him
says: “To shit well Solon stroked his belly.” Above
Thales of Miletus we read: “Thales advised those
who shit hard to really work at it.” We learn that
“Cunning Chilon (of Sparta) taught how to fart
without making noise.”
As for the five men below, they must be sitting
and defecating, to judge from the words written
above their heads in Latin. The first man on the back
wall says, “I’m hurrying up”; he may be responding
to the man next to him who says: “Shake yourself
about so that you’ll go sooner.” Another man says:
“Friend, the adage escapes you. Shit well and force
the doctors to fellate you.” A more colloquial trans-
lation might be: “Hey buddy—don’t you know the
saying? If you shit well—to hell with the doctors—
you don’t need them.”
The humor here sets up a battle between intellec-
tuals and ordinary men, inter-group humor, where
one group (the non-elite tavern-goers) mocks the
upper classes represented by the Sages. A useful tool
for understanding the reversals in the visual humor
is Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalesque,
or the world-turned-upside-down. Among the many
reversals enacted in the painting is what Bakhtin
calls the reversal of upper and lower material bodily
strata. The upper register of the walls, with the
Seven Sages, stands for the head: intellect, reasoning,
the face. For ordinary persons, the Sages represent
the values of elites and their sophisticated systems
of philosophy, rhetoric, and religion. In contrast, the
bottommost register represents what Bakhtin calls
Figure 5 Ostia, Tavern of the Seven Sages (III. 10. 2–3),
Room 5, View of South and West Walls, Sages
and Sitting Men.
Source: Photo by Michael Larvey.
the lower material body, specifically the belly, geni-
tals, and anus.
Sexual Humor
The many humorous visual representations of
debased sexual practices are particularly useful for
understanding Roman attitudes toward sexuality.
The recently discovered vignettes in the Suburban
Baths at Pompeii derive their humor from the rep-
resentation of taboo sex acts such as cunnilungus
(performed by both men and women), fellatio,
threesomes (see Figure 6), foursomes, and a lesbian
encounter. In each of these representations, the artist
invokes a different taboo, such as that of the unclean
mouth or the rule against citizen males being pen-
etrated. For a Roman viewer who sees these debased
acts, the only proper response is laughter.
A less complex, mass-produced sexual humor
appears in the mold-made medallions applied to
the terracotta vessels produced in the Rhone Valley
of Roman France. Many of them get their humor
by showing women getting the upper hand in the
battle of the sexes: for instance, a woman taking up
her partner’s shield and sword, even while caption
has the man saying, “Look out!”—and we see that
he has lost his erection. Most of the medallions rely
on language to drive home the joke. A nearly intact
medallion still attached to its pot and recently found
Figure 6 Pompeii, Suburban Baths, Dressing Room 7.
Scene VI, a Threesome of a Man Being Penetrated
by Another Man Penetrating a Woman.
Source: Photo by Michael Larvey.

Figure 7 Lyons, Male-Female Couple on a Boat With
Caption NAVIGIUM VENERIS, Applied Medallion
on Vase, Terra-Cotta, Diam. 6½ in. Gallo-Roman
Museum, Lyons, inv. CEL 76451.
Source: Drawing by Armand Desbat.
in Lyons shows a man steering a riverboat while
penetrating his female partner (see Figure 7). The
caption says “The Steersmanship of Venus” or more
colloquially “On Course for Sex.” The pun on his
skills as navigator in both senses is funny even to us
moderns.
Roman visual humor, because it targets all the
practices of everyday life, from emperor worship to
defecation, provides uncannily close views of how
various communities formed their attitudes toward
these practices. Humor reveals acculturation, but
Roman Visual Humor 655
no single theoretical framework explains Roman
humor.
The eye that recognizes humor is, like the ear
that hears the joke, a socially conditioned one. To
look and laugh is to announce your position within
a complex social matrix. Humor can target anyone
and anything—whether it’s the overbearing ego of
an individual in your own group or the emperor
himself. More than most visual forms, humor allows
us to understand the cultural horizons of ancient
Romans.
John R. Clarke
See also Ancient Roman Comedy; Art and Visual
Humor; Carnivalesque; Ethnic Jokes; Gender Roles in
Humor; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Obscenity; Parody;
Prejudice, Humor and; Reversal Theory; Rituals of
Inversion; Satire; Sociology
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky,
Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Clarke, J. R. (2007). Looking at laughter: Humor, power,
and transgression in Roman visual culture, 100 B.C.–
A.D. 250. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions
of humor. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.),
The psychology of humor (pp. 101–125). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
ROMANTIC COMEDY
See Comedy; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; Tragicomedy
 S
SANSKRIT HUMOR
Humor was defined and established as a literary sen-
timent (rasa) by Indian aestheticians two millennia
ago. The comic sentiment (hasya rasa) was codified
along with eight other sentiments, including love,
heroism, and tragedy. Literature transformed uni-
versal emotions into refined aesthetic sentiments.
The comic sentiment mocks the serious ones and
arises out of their failure. So, for example, when a
beautiful woman, the heroine of a love story, rejects
the affections not of a handsome hero, but of an
obese drunkard, a parody of love creates a humor-
ous response. As the amorous sentiment falls apart,
the comic manifests. In one farce from the 11th cen-
tury, a general leaves his command in the middle of
battle, fleeing on the horse of the king himself, in
order to rendezvous with a ravishing consort. When
such a stock character of heroic stories misses the
battle for the sake of a prostitute, the failure of the
heroic sentiment gives rise to the comic.
The ways in which people react to humor were
also elucidated by the aestheticians: In his 16th-
century work Rasatarangani (River of Rasa), the
poet Bhanu Datta describes the various types of
laughter displayed in theatrical plays. Members
of the upper class smile and snicker at something
humorous. Middle-class characters laugh loudly
and show their teeth. Lastly, characters of the lowest
class let out bellowing guffaws with tears streaming
down their faces. The aestheticians represented each
sentiment by a different color and associated each
with a unique deity. The color representing comedy
657
was white—for when someone laughs we see the
whiteness of their teeth. For a play dominated by
the comic sentiment, a white flag or curtain would
be shown so the audience knew what to expect. The
associated patron deities are the pramathas, a gang
of divine pranksters. This entry discusses several
types of humor found in literary texts written or per-
formed in Sanskrit, the classical language of India.
The Farce
The classical Sanskrit prahasana was a satirical farce
aimed at exposing the hypocrisy of authority figures.
As always in literary satire, the justification is the
claim that it intends to heal society’s ills by exposing
the pretenses of the venerable. The ability to laugh at
those characters protects us from the power invested
in them.
Religious Figures Mocked
These farces were classified into two types accord-
ing to the characters in each. The first category
involves Indian religious figures such as Brahmin
priests, ascetics, yogis, and Jain and Buddhist monks.
For a society defined and in a sense ruled by figures
of religious authority, satire was particularly humor-
ous when directed at hypocrisy in the guise of piety.
In King Mahendravarmana’s 7th-century Matta-
vilasa (Drunken Sports), a Buddhist monk, speculat-
ing as to whether or not the Buddha, founder of his
religion, really did forbid monks wine and women,
entertains the notion that the Buddha would never
have done such a thing. Known for his compassion,
he would not have wanted to deprive us of fun.
658 Sanskrit Humor
Instead, the monk reasons, it must have been those
puritanical, jealous elders who composed such rules
in an effort to deprive young men of the joys in life.
The 9th-century comedy Agamadambara (Much
Ado About Religion) by Bhatta Jayanta showcases,
among other representatives of various Indian reli-
gious sects, the hypocrisy of naked Jain monks.
These ascetics are so extreme in their austerities that
they shed their clothes and pluck out all their hairs
one by one in order to show their detachment from
the body and all worldly things. However, religious
does not mean righteous. A servant, sent to sum-
mon an elder of the local Jain order, stumbles upon
a squabble between an ascetic and a nun. When the
nun angrily exits, the servant disguises himself as
a woman in order to trick the hypocritical ascetic.
Although the lusty Jain monk is distraught over the
nun’s departure, he quickly forgets his sorrow when
he sees the disguised servant. The holy man advances
eagerly on the boy (supposing he is a woman) and
when he reaches down the boy’s pants and gets a
hold of his genitals, his disappointment, folly, and
hypocrisy arouse the audience’s laughter.
Another butt of laughter is a Brahmin in the
12th-century Hasyacudamani (The Crest-Jewel of
Laughter) by Vatsaraja, supposedly knowledgeable
in astrology and soothsaying. When an acolyte asks
him his method of fooling people out of their money,
the elder is offended by such a forward remark and
smacks his student. Despite this, he proceeds to
explain that the best way to profit from being an
astrologer is to make your prognostications esoteric
and confusing.
Secular Authority Figures Mocked
The second class of Sanskrit prahasana goes
beyond religious figures to expose other supposedly
respectable and upstanding people in secular society.
Doctors, soldiers, bureaucrats, astrologers, profes-
sors, and other esteemed and honored figures are
all revealed as pretenders lacking in their supposed
skills.
Among the sundry characters in the 11th-
century Latakamelaka (Gathering of Rogues) by
Skankhadhara Kaviraja is the quack doctor, a stock
figure in Sanskrit satire (as around the world).
He is renowned for furthering the cause of Death
and indeed, when he steps onstage, he boasts that
diseases are nourished by his care. He claims sick
people have no need of Death when he is present
since he will certainly hasten their departure. When
a bawd’s daughter (also a prostitute) chokes on a
fish-bone, the doctor prescribes a remedy so utterly
idiotic that it actually makes the girl laugh so hard
at his incompetence that the fishbone flies out of her
throat. The quack uses this as a demonstration of
his expertise, but the audience is well aware it is her
laughter that saved her. Laughter, not doctors, evi-
dently has the greatest potential to cure and rescue
us from the abuses of dubious authority figures.
Sanskrit is the language of priests, philosophers,
gods, and sophisticated, learned people: Thus, using
it to portray vulgar debaucheries creates a comic
incongruity between the sacred language and what
it expresses. Full of dirty humor, the obscenities of
Sanskrit comedy are all the funnier when spoken
in a sanctimonious manner. In the 12th-century
Hasyarnava (The Ocean of Laughter), a doctor
is called to cure an old woman both because her
vagina has lost its lubricative facility and because she
has cataracts. A male prostitute laughs the quack
offstage when he prescribes driving a fiery stake into
the woman’s pupils—although the doctor points out
that logically if someone has no eyes, they cannot
have cataracts. Laughter drives such hypocrites off
the stage that is our own world even today.
Literary texts in which the heroic sentiment is
dominant are characterized by strong, powerful, and
brave men. The humor of heroism’s failure gives rise
to the comic sentiment. Thus, military leaders in the
prahasanas are depicted as cowardly and grossly ill
qualified. The military commander in The Ocean of
Laughter makes his stage entrance boasting to the
king that he has just killed a bee. This warrior is so
terrified of blood that he faints when he sees women
wearing red makeup.
Prostitute figures in Sanskrit satires act as foils to
falsely righteous men. No one expects them to be
moral and their beauty typically exposes the desire
of many a holy man. More often than not, the pros-
titute has a procuress mother who inevitably ends
up in a love triangle with her low-class daughter and
a man of high station, creating more humor.
The Comic Monologue
The prostitute is also a stock figure in the comic
Sanskrit monologues known as bhanas. These were
one-man, single-act shows in which the performer
plays walking through a bustling city from the rising
of the sun to the rising of the moon. He is always a
vita, a parasite down on his luck, and, according the
Kama Sutra, usually married but well respected in

the red-light district. One bhana begins with the vita
leaving his house because for the whole rainy season
he has been tortured by a horrible sound—his wife’s
nagging voice.
Unlike the falsely righteous characters of the pra-
hasanas who live concealed by pretenses, the vitas,
prostitutes, and bawds of the bhanas flaunt their
depravity. To the audiences, it was absurdly funny
that someone should be so brazen and upfront about
their unsavory behavior and degenerate nature and
they laughed at the characters’ audacity.
Since the bhanas were a kind of stand-up comedy,
much of the humor was physical. The vita would
walk around the stage, using body movement and
physical gesture to make his audience imagine what
he was doing. As he paraded in mime through non-
existent streets, he would engage in mock conversa-
tions with passers-by. Calling out their names, he
would then speak in an aside to himself in order to
inform the audience with whom he was about to
converse, making jokes about his subject.
Frequently in these imaginary exchanges, the vita
himself would laugh aloud and, when he did not
want his unreal conversation partner to hear, he
would turn his head, block his mouth with his hand,
and sarcastically utter a humorous aside to the
watching crowd. In one bhana, the parasite comes
across a squabble between two men from rival reli-
gious sects. The surviving text shows him relating
what they are saying to one another, presumably
jumping back and forth as he about-faces on stage
to replicate their bickering.
The vita also possessed a flair for comic vulgarity.
In the Dhurtavita Samavada (Loads of the Shady
Vita), he flamboyantly sings the praises of female
buttocks. Hyperbole intensifies the humor when
he proclaims a posterior heavy enough to weigh its
owner down to the point where she can barely walk.
In the Ubhayabhisarika (Both Girls Stepping
Out), the vita runs into a young prostitute dismayed
over having just had sex with an ugly, old, trade
caravan owner. The vita chuckles and tells her there
is nothing to worry about and, on the contrary, she
should congratulate herself, since having sex with
a nasty old man is undoubtedly more satisfying
than engaging in intercourse with a gorgeous young
man—the former is sure to pay much better.
In the same bhana, the vita spots a transvestite
and refers to this incongruous figure as one of the
“third sex.” In order to avoid the cross-dresser see-
ing him, he crosses the street while hiding his face,
but the transvestite recognizes him and calls him
Sanskrit Humor 659
over. Trapped, the vita congratulates him (or her) as
the most desirable of courtesans, for three reasons:
“she” has no breasts to get in the way during love-
making, “she” does not have to take a few days off
each month for her period, and, best of all, “she”
cannot get pregnant.
In the Padmaprabhritaka (Before Bearing Beauty,
attributed to King Shudraka), when the vita spots
another vita who has grown old, he cannot resist
making fun of him. He laughs at the older one’s pre-
posterous appearance, complete with grey hair dyed
black and individually plucked facial hairs to give
the appearance of a smooth, unshaven youth. The
old man’s vanity and failed attempts to look young
arouse laughter.
Poetry and Satirical Prose
Sanskrit humor was not limited to the stage. The
hasya rasa also informed poetry and humorous
satirical narrative, as the following examples show.
Kshemendra’s 11th-century Samaya Matrika
(The Courtesan’s Keeper) opens with the prostitute
protagonist distraught over her grandmother’s death
at the hands of a quack doctor. Filled with desire
for the courtesan, the doctor had given her his own
draught for staying young. Mistakenly thinking it
was medicine for herself, the girl’s grandmother
drank it and just as in the modern-day cartoon
image of the crook seeing dollar signs over every-
one’s heads, she began to see a world in which every-
thing seemed made of gold and exhausted herself.
The bawd protagonist of The Courtesan’s Keeper
relates a time when she was incredibly tired from
lovemaking all day. To avoid more intercourse, she
lied and told her innocent young customer that her
body was in pain. As dawn broke, she felt rather
guilty at having cheated the boy and convinced him
that if he put his penis in her vagina her pain might
subside: Sure enough, she told him, it does. The
naive boy however burst into tears, exclaiming that
a similar pain had killed his mother and if he had
known his penis possessed such healing power when
placed in a vagina, he could have saved her.
Prostitutes and their patrons are mocked in just
the same fashion as in the bhanas, with the humor
springing from the totally cavalier attitude of both
toward debauchery. The women constantly change
their clothes so their newest patron cannot see what-
ever unsavory token the previous customer has left
behind. If a moneyless man manages to make it past
the guardian bawd, all the women in the room fall
660 Sanskrit Humor
suddenly ill and are unable to entertain the intruder.
The same types of characters as are found in the
prahasanas displaying false pretenses are custom-
ers, including a general, a temple manager, and city
officials. One bawd even adds vitas to this list, for-
bidding them to enter her brothel since on the night
depicted, she is entertaining only so-called men of
merit.
Kshemendra’s Narma Mala (Garland of Mirth) is
an acerbic critique of bureaucracy. He describes gov-
ernment officials squandering their money, overly
willing to condemn others, displaying empty pomp
and circumstance, all to construct an importance
that cloaks their essential uselessness. The highest
ranking official in this text is in fact a wealthy fat
slob married to a gorgeous trophy wife. While he
showers this young woman with gifts, she is busy
with illicit adulterous affairs. Such cuckolds are also
stock figures in Sanskrit comic literature.
Besides their comic characters, these narratives
are rich in verbal humor. Garland of Mirth com-
pares a woman’s pubic mound to Mount Meru, a
holy place of pilgrimage, creating humor from the
incongruous juxtaposition of very sacred and very
profane. Other figures of speech such as hyperbole
and paronomasia are commonly and wittily used to
enhance the humor of Sanskrit poetic description.
The Fool
When the amorous or heroic sentiment dominates,
the hasya rasa often provides comic relief, often
through another standard figure in Sanskrit drama,
the fool, or vidushaka. He is a fat gluttonous brah-
min who typically thinks of nothing but eating and
like the pot-bellied, elephant-headed god Ganesha,
is particularly fond of sweets. While the serious
characters yearn for romance, revenge, and glory,
the vidushaka wants only one thing—more food.
Thus in the Abhijñānashākuntala (Recognition of
Shakuntala) by Kalidasa, composed in the first half
of the 1st millennium CE and regarded as one of the
great Sanskrit love stories, the hero, a king, recites
powerful love poetry while his vidushaka whines for
more food. The effect is very funny but also serves
to strengthen the sublime and amorous sentiment by
juxtaposing it to the base and comic.
As a rite of passage, Brahmin boys are given a
sacred thread that they must wear for life, a symbol
of their ritual purity as well as their prominence in
society. Nevertheless, in Shudraka’s Mricchakatika
(The Little Clay Cart), the hero of the play yanks
the vidushaka’s precious thread in order to make
him sit down beside him and stop chasing pigeons.
In Kalidasa’s 4th-century Malavikagnimitram (Fiery
Female Friend), the thread is even used as a tour-
niquet to block the flow of blood from a pretend
snakebite. Once again, humor is created by the
incongruity between the sacred and the profane.
The vidushaka has a fool’s appearance, convention-
ally bald with two locks of hair hanging down on
either side of his head, red eyes, and most often a
hunchback. Emphasizing his absurd appearance and
incongruous nature, his makeup is a motley of col-
ors, with his beard dyed green or yellow. As a bum-
bling idiot despite his Brahmin status, the vidushaka
speaks a vernacular language rather than Sanskrit.
Conclusion
The comic conventions established by Sanskrit
humor have had a widespread influence upon ver-
nacular literature as well as popular comedy and film
in contemporary India. Traditional prahasanas and
bhanas as well as more serious plays featuring the
vidushaka continue to be performed. Thus, the theo-
ries established by aestheticians millennia ago con-
tinue to influence modern Indian literature, theater,
and film.
Samuel Grimes
See also Aesthetics; Burlesque; Carnival and Festival;
Clergy; Comic Relief; Exaggeration; Farce; Fools;
Genres and Styles of Comedy; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy;
Low Comedy; Marriage and Couples; Obscenity;
Philosophy of Humor; Rhetoric and Rhetorical
Devices; Satire; Scatology; Stereotypes; Targets of
Humor; Tragicomedy; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Bhanudatta, B. (2009). Bouquet of rasa and river of rasa
(S. Pollock, Trans.). New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Bhat, G. (1959). The Vidusaka. Ahmedabad, India:
New Order Book.
Bhatta, J. (2005). Much ado about religion (C. Dezső,
Trans.). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Ghosh, M. (Trans.). (1975). Glimpses of sexual life in
Nanda-Maurya India: Translation of the Caturbhani
together with a critical edition of text. Calcutta, India:
Manisha Granthalaya.
Goswami, B. (Trans.). (1998). Sanskrit prahasanas: Sanskrit
text, English translation, and annotations. Kolkata:
Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.

Haksar, A. N. D. (Trans.). (2008). The courtesan’s keeper:
A satire from ancient Kashmir: Translation of
Kshemendra’s Samayamātāka from the original Sanskrit.
New Delhi, India: Rupa & Co.
Haksar, A. N. D. (Trans.). (2011). Three satires from
ancient Kashmir. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books.
Schwartz, S. L. (2004). Rasa: Performing the divine in
India. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Siegel, L. (1987). Laughing matters: Comic tradition in
India. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
SARCASM
See Irony
SATIRE
Satire is now popularly regarded as a mode of mass
media entertainment: humor or comedy with social
content. The established academic view is that satire
is a literary genre. As such, satire is largely a creation
of modern university disciplinary demarcation dat-
ing from the 19th century; the notion of literature
as a distinct type of canonical imaginative writing
has been expanded from the more venerable field of
poetics. The best historical evidence for satire being
a genre comes from the Juvenalian tradition of criti-
cal poetry—but this is largely innocent of humor-
ous intent. Conversely, the wit and humor typical
of Menippean satire persistently upsets the expecta-
tions of coherence on which conceptions of genre
rely. A corrective to modern expectations is found in
N. Bailey’s Etymological Dictionary of 1735, which
defined satire as either a form of poetry, or any sharp
rebuke. Even the association of satire with humor
is contingent and has traditionally been secondary
to claimed moral purpose. Considering the diversity
of phenomena that have been taken as satiric, any
single definition may be unsatisfactory—and indeed
any cohesive history of satire (beyond a narrative of
semantic adaptation) illusory. This entry discusses
changes in the meaning of satire, as well as its pur-
poses and targets.
The word itself indicates the difficulties involved:
Satire is a metaphorical derivation from the Latin
satira, a medley or stew. Quintilian (35–ca. 100 CE)
claimed that satire was a Roman invention, but he
seems to have had in mind poetry in Latin hexame-
ters and may have been reacting against a Hellenistic
Satire 661
cultural hegemony to which Romans were sensitive.
One meaning of satire remained a designation for a
form of poetry, most specifically associated with the
Roman poets Juvenal (ca. 60–130 CE) and Horace
(65–8 BCE) and this became a lively if sporadic tra-
dition of adaptive emulation that survived beyond
Alexander Pope (1688–1744). Other understand-
ings however, would extend the range of satire to
include Greek verse and especially the Attic Old
Comedy of Aristophanes (ca. 450–ca. 385 BCE).
During the Renaissance, philological interest in the
origins of the word satire was tied to an endeavor
to establish a proper meaning. This was never really
achieved, but Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614) argued
persuasively that the origins did indeed lie in Latin
rather than in the Greek satyr plays that accompa-
nied Attic tragedy.
Nevertheless, there remained some conceptual
plausibility to belief in an ultimately Greek origin
for satire, not least because the Roman satiric poet
Varro (116–27 BCE) wrote in the idiom of the
3rd-century BCE Greek poet Menippus, whose dia-
tribes are now lost. The name Menippus was used
in the satires of Lucian (ca. 120–180 CE) by which
time satire could be prose or—true to its metaphori-
cal origins—a medley of prose and poetry. Lucian’s
work is central to the unbroken and self-conscious
tradition of humorous satire running from the
Renaissance to the 19th century.
Purpose of Satire
From classical antiquity into the early modern
Western world, the provocation of laughter had the
critical purpose of exposing moral, social, and intel-
lectual failings. It was thus an important topic in
rhetorical theory, and over time such justifications
for corrective laughter have become synonymous
with satire. The reception and sustained author-
ity of Aristotle’s Poetics reinforced this association,
although neither in the Poetics nor the Rhetoric did
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) discuss satire. The first
dealt extensively with comedy, the second with the
means of persuasion, including the provocation of
laughter. Translations of The Poetics, however, were
apt to conflate comedy and Roman satire, while the
strongly ethical dimension both of poetry and the
proper functions of practical reasoning remained
in place. From the 16th century onward, Aristotle’s
works could be, and were, taken directly or indi-
rectly as foundational texts for the moral end or
purpose of satire.
662 Satire
There are, however, three aspects to be distin-
guished in this supposedly informing purpose for
the use of humor. First is the attempt to expose in
order to reform; the second is the affirmation of the
values implicit in the process of making someone a
laughingstock. Satire is by no means always subver-
sive or challenging and these aspects of satiric intent
are often communicated more easily in visual form.
William Hogarth (1697–1764), for example, turned
to satiric painting and his image of a gin-sodden
mother indifferent to her child (Beer Street and
Gin Lane, 1751) negatively affirms the established
virtues of sobriety and parental responsibility. The
third aspect lies in the need to punish or to persecute,
for which humor needs to be at its most destructive.
This also is likely to offer either reassurance, or even
the satisfactions of vengeance, to the righteous.
The location, as it were, of much satire at the
junction of rhetoric and moral philosophy also helps
explain the prominence of rhetorical tropes such as
irony and sarcasm in what is easily recognized as
satiric literature. Many nowadays take “humorous
means to a moral end” as actually defining satire.
It certainly captures a good deal, but still requires
us to overlook the early-modern distinction between
satire and humorous satire: It makes awkward, for
example, the conventional designation of George
Orwell’s 1949 dark novel 1984 as satire.
Historically, justifications for satirical writing
have been predominantly ethical rather than ludic.
Adopting the persona of the satirist—as for exam-
ple both Pope and Jonathan Swift (1667–1745)
did—was to assume a moral, even a philosophical
position asserted to be at odds with prevailing
evils. This claim on a moral office or responsibil-
ity amounted to an extension of the traditional
legitimating function of the poet as philosopher and
teacher. Concomitantly, satirists have frequently laid
claim to the virtues of courage and outspokenness—
Lucian’s own advertised virtue of parrhesia (straight-
speaking) was defended as necessary in a corrupt
environment. The fact that, from antiquity, the
satirist could be presented as a distinct persona serv-
ing a moral office helped stretch the range of satire
beyond any specific genre. Satire could be whatever
the satirist wrote, with as little or as much use of
instrumental humor as seemed required. Conversely,
those hostile to satirists largely ignored or dismissed
any wit or humor, concentrating instead on satirists
as irresponsible and cruel.
Satire can largely be seen as humor in the service
of some ethical end; but this understanding does not
exhaust the scope of the notion. First, because there
has been no overall restriction as to the form satire
might take, it might be found in work that is not
principally satiric. Thus, the novels of Jane Austen
(1774–1817) and Charles Dickens (1812–1870),
the tragedies of William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
and Ben Jonson (1572–1637), and the paintings of
Honoré Daumier (1808–1879) all have in different
degrees a satiric edge. If 1984 is satiric, so too might
be Pablo Picasso’s Guernica (1937). The satiric per-
meates the world of film and is common in all forms
of the mass media. The range of satire is probably
best grasped by considering the term adjectivally.
Second, between societies and subgroups within
them, there are marked differences over time in what
counts as humorous and also there are varying pat-
terns of social and even politically enforced taboo
concerning the legitimate subjects of humor. The
19th-century writer William Hone (1780–1842) was
tried for blasphemy because he had used a biblical
parody for satiric effect. As Margaret Rose argues
(1979), he was acquitted partly on the grounds
that the Bible had been the means and not a target
of his parodic satire. But this distinction between
means and ends can be uncertain. The reception of
the Monty Python film Life of Brian (1979) was
clouded by confusion as to whether Christianity
was itself being satirized. Many would insist that
satire making any reference to religion is unaccept-
able: That is certainly the case in some countries
now under Islamic law. Yet during the Middle Ages,
religion and its putative corruption was a principal
focus of much satire, and piety could easily generate
anti-clerical critique. When Christianity fractured
into hostile confessions with the Reformation, the
satire of opposing denominations became standard
fare to be found across a range of religious writings,
from theology to ecclesiological polemic.
Some societies and political groups have had little
toleration for the satire of leaders or have allowed
it only under limited circumstances. The genuine or
feigned fears of retribution have sometimes stimu-
lated satirists to adopt modes of protective indi-
rection, such as the satiric allegory Absalom and
Achitophel (1681) by John Dryden (1631–1700),
or Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945). Nowadays, satires
touching (though not necessarily targeting) children
and the disabled, or different minority, cultural,
or racial groupings, can also stimulate discomfort
or hostility. Further, there are different degrees of
acceptance for the vehicles conveying satirical intent.
The sexually explicit humor of Aristophanes has

usually been subject to censorship or euphemistic
translation. Scatological humor, quite conventional
between the 16th and 18th centuries as a medium
for satiric wit and denigration, fell from favor and
went into relative disuse during the 19th century.
General Satire Versus Personal Satire
The need for satirists to tread carefully has led to a
distinction between general satire directed at broad
moral failings such as hypocrisy and greed, and
personal satire designed to isolate and shame spe-
cific people or groups. This, however, does less to
establish any stable typology of satire than to stir
up arguments about what sort of rhetorical strat-
egy is likely to be most effective, and thus to empha-
size the instrumental uses of humor. Desiderius
Erasmus (1466–1536) considered direct personal
attack counterproductive, but thought generality
might include the satirist as the butt of humor and
encourage a greater degree of moral self-awareness.
Conversely, Pope held that generality allowed people
to see themselves as immune from critique by laugh-
ing only at others: For him, satire, to be effective,
had to offend its intended victims.
Satire as found in contemporary mass media is
particularly subject to low offense thresholds and
usually needs to be sensitive to effective libel and
slander laws, among other less structured forms
of retaliation. To remain popular entertainment,
it must either reinforce rather than criticize main-
stream conceptions of propriety or have a particu-
larly clear focus on a specific audience. Particularly
because of pressures to be ethically safe rather than
confronting, subversive, or courageous, contempo-
rary emphasis has shifted to making people laugh.
Moreover, different societies and their subsets
have adhered to differing standards of what counts
as morally proper. Consequently, satire expressing
generally unacceptable standards—such as that pro-
duced in the Third Reich during World War II—can
be delegitimated as mere propaganda. One man’s
satiric chastisement is another’s slanderous impu-
tation and humor is likely to be appreciated only
where the satire is liked. This drift toward the de
facto restriction of satire to that which conforms
to acceptable moral standards has been an impor-
tant factor in specifying its nature. Despite this, it is
naive to take at face value the satirist’s conventional
self-promotional positioning, which is that satire is
on the side of the angels, subversive of oppression,
and fights for freedom and decency, requiring the
Satire 663
courage to say what might be offensive. Satire is
too diverse and flexible a phenomenon to be seen
as existing in a fixed relationship to any ideological
group or social structure. Consequently it is not to
be seen as necessarily either radical or conservative
(a dichotomy that would anyway have made little
sense before the 19th century). Its value to those
feeling oppressed is well known, but its persuasive
potential has also long been recognized by political
elites. In England, for example, Queen Anne’s princi-
pal minister from 1710 to 1712, Robert Harley, was
himself a member of the satirical Scriblerus group;
in 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
cowrote and took part in a short Yes, Prime Minister
sketch, performed when the popular television series
was given an award.
Modern understandings often make political and
social failings central to satire and can even build
such preoccupations into attempted definition. Yet
Lucian’s satires were overwhelmingly directed to
those of the intellectual world. Their focus was on
religious gullibility, superstition, philosophy, and
rhetoric. Thus satire could be an idiom of philoso-
phizing, as it is in the writings of Thomas Hobbes
(1588–1679) and less formally in those of Thomas
More (1478–1535). This point is easily obscured by
seeing satire exclusively as a literary genre and not
also an intermittent part of the history of philosophy.
It is instructive to note that at the end of the 18th
century, T. J. Mathias’s much reprinted The Pursuits
of Literature regarded most of the written output
of a culture as constituting its literature, took the
philosopher to be a satirist and regarded philosophy
as enjoyable precisely because it can make us laugh.
Conal Condren
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Ancient Greek
Comedy; Aristophanes; Audience; Burlesque;
Caricature; Failed Humor; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Early Modern Europe;
History of Humor: Renaissance Europe; Insult and
Invective; Lampoon; Legal Restriction and Protection
of Humor; Literature; Obscenity; Parody; Personality,
Humor and Conversation; Persuasion and Humor;
Philosophy of Humor; Political Humor; Reception of
Humor; Scatology; Subversive Humor; Targets of
Humor; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Condren, C. (2011). Hobbes, the Scriblerians and the
history of philosophy. London, UK: Pickering &
Chatto.
664 Satire News
Elliott, R. C. (1960). The power of satire: Magic, ritual and
art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Frye, N. (1957). The anatomy of criticism. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Griffin, D. (1994). Satire: A critical reintroduction.
Louisville: Kentucky University Press.
Rose, M. (1979). Parody//Meta-fiction. London, UK:
Croom Helm.
Rosenheim, E. W. (1963). Swift and the satirist’s art.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sutherland, J. (1962). English satire. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Weinbrot, H. D. (2005). Menippean satire reconsidered:
From antiquity to the eighteenth century. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
SATIRE NEWS
Satire news is a type of political media content that
combines elements of both entertainment and pub-
lic affairs. Satire has been defined as pregeneric in
that all forms of satire reflect existing genres. Two
genres that have been used for satirical purposes
are the nightly television news broadcast (e.g., The
Daily Show With Jon Stewart, Saturday Night
Live’s “Weekend Update”) and news commentary
and punditry programming (The Colbert Report). In
addition to embracing television-based genres, satire
news can reflect the basic formatting of other media
outlets such as the daily newspaper (The Onion).
Researchers have argued that content of this kind is
used as a vehicle to present the human folly of poli-
tics as well as the inherent weaknesses of the news
industry. This entry discusses research done on satire
news, its effects, and possible directions for future
research.
Various strains of empirical research have begun
to investigate the audience for news satire, the infor-
mation it contains, and its potential effects. Viewers
of television news satire tend to be heavy news con-
sumers, politically knowledgeable, young, male, and
liberal, though partisans on both sides may inter-
pret news satire to align with their beliefs. Content
analyses have found that The Daily Show contains
roughly the same amount of substantive political
information as network news broadcasts and a large
percentage of its content is policy coverage. Viewing
news satire has been shown to produce negative
views of politics. However, viewership is also linked
to increased attention to political issues, campaign
news, political debates, and science news. Satire
news viewing predicts interpersonal political discus-
sion and numerous types of political participation.
Paralleling the empirical study of satire news is
critical, culturally based research on this type of
media content. Much of this work focuses on pro-
viding political and popular culture context for the
rise of this type of discourse. In addition, satire news
is discussed in relation to our changing media envi-
ronment. Research based in these epistemological
traditions has focused on both the entertainment
and journalism components of this concept. For
example, it has been argued that the rise of vari-
ous forms of satire news (e.g., The Daily Show, The
Colbert Report) is a reflection of a postmodern
media environment. As it has become increasingly
difficult to maintain strict professional boundaries
of expertise in a postmodern era, it is natural for
various forms of traditional news to begin looking
more like entertainment programming and for dif-
ferent types of entertainment-driven content to look
more like news. This metamorphosis of political
media content has led scholars to raise several nor-
mative concerns, such as that satire news in a cynical
vein encourages cynicism in viewers, as well as to
note specific democratic advantages this material
may afford a citizenry by questioning the dominant
version of events found in the news media.
The difficulty in studying satire news is that
it comes in many different forms, and that some
forms have received much more research atten-
tion than others. The knowledge generated to date
about the influence of satire news on a citizenry
is seemingly disparate, making it difficult to link
individual pieces of satire news research together
to form a coherent whole. Much research on politi-
cal satire still treats humor as a monolithic entity,
and only recently have researchers started to look
at the differential effects of unique types of satire
(e.g., Juvenalian vs. Horatian). We do know that
various types of satire news have the potential to
generate influence (direct or indirect) that spans the
hierarchy of effects from salience to knowledge to
attitudes to behaviors.
The phases of scientific inquiry include descrip-
tion, prediction, and explanation. The study of
news satire is a very young area of research that has
focused primarily on the first two phases, descrip-
tions and predictions. The third area, explana-
tion, is only now emerging. The small number of
studies that have referenced theories of effects
have discussed dual process models of persuasion,
media dependency theory, or media priming, but

no theories specific to satire or satire news have yet
been developed.
An area where theoretical progress is sorely needed
is in distinguishing various elements within satirical
messages. With rare exception, both the types of
satirical news and the components of satirical news
have remained largely undifferentiated. In addition,
research on satire in the mass media needs to incor-
porate existing scholarship from areas as diverse as
literature, media effects, and humor processing in
order to use a range of knowledge to develop robust
theories with strong explanatory power.
R. Lance Holbert and John M. Tchernev
See also History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Contemporary; Journalism; Political Humor;
Postmodern Irony; Satire; Spoofing
Further Readings
Amarasingam, A. (2011). The Stewart/Colbert effect:
Essays on the real impacts of fake news. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2008). Laughing matters:
Humor and American politics in the media age. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Baym, G. (2010). From Cronkite to Colbert: The evolution
of broadcast news. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Day, A. (2011). Satire and dissent: Interventions in
contemporary political debate. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E. (2009). Satire TV:
Politics and comedy in the post-network era. New York,
NY: New York University Press.
Hart, R. P., & Hartelius, J. (2007). The political sins of Jon
Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24,
263–272.
Hmielowski, J. D., Holbert, R., & Lee, J. (2011). Predicting
the consumption of political TV satire: Affinity for
political humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert
Report. Communication Monographs, 78, 96–114.
Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of
entertainment television and politics. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436–453.
Holbert, R. L., & Young, D. G. (2013). Exploring relations
between political entertainment media and traditional
political communication information outlets: A research
agenda. In E. Scharrer (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of media studies (Vol. V, pp. 484–504).
West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, J. (2010). Entertaining politics: Satiric television and
political engagement (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Satyr Play 665
Van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When
politics and popular culture converge. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Young, D. G. (in press). Theories and effects of political
humor: Discounting cues, gateways, and the impact of
incongruities. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.),
Handbook of political communication theories. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
SATYR PLAY
A satyr play, also called a satyr-drama, was a drama
performed at the Festival of Dionysus in Athens
from very early in the 5th century BCE. As part
of the festival, a drama competition was held, and
each competing tragic dramatist had to provide
three tragedies and one satyr-drama as entry into
the competition. The satyr-dramas provided a light
and humorous conclusion to the day’s entertainment
after the set of three tragedies and were often based
on a story from the same group of myths. They were
normally much shorter than Greek tragedies.
It is probable that each competing dramatist had
to provide both tragedies and a satyr-drama from
the first competition (in 501 BCE) onward; tragedy
and satyr-drama go naturally together since they
are both direct developments of the celebration of
Dionysus. In myth, in iconography, and in cult,
Dionysus’s followers include satyrs as well as his
human worshippers, bacchantes. We know from
vase paintings that the satyr chorus members wore
a bearded, slightly balding mask, with pointed ears
and a snub nose; they were naked except for a furry
loincloth, from which a phallus protruded at the
front and a horse-like tail from the rear. They invari-
ably accompanied their father, Silenus; his features
were similar, and he wore a body suit of white hair.
In the surviving play and fragments, the satyrs have
a consistent character: They were amoral hedonists
(especially in the pursuit of sex and wine), boastful
but cowardly.
Apart from small fragments, we possess one com-
plete satyr-drama (Euripides’s Cyclops), about one
hundred lines each from Aeschylus’s Fishermen and
Ambassadors to the Isthmian Games, and the first
four hundred lines of Sophocles’s Trackers. These
ribald, sometimes obscene dramas use techniques
that we would associate with farce and burlesque
to tell stories, based on Dionysiac ritual, in which
the sacred band of satyric worshippers of Diony-
sus, played by the chorus, comes into conflict with
666 Scatology
other, more normal gods and goddesses, heroes
and heroines—who have to survive their mockery,
abuse, deception, and (if female) the threat of sexual
harassment. Typically, the satyrs find themselves
temporarily freed from the service of Dionysus,
either voluntarily (Ambassadors) or under compul-
sion (Cyclops, where as the play opens, they are the
Cyclops’s prisoners); it is not clear from the frag-
ment of Trackers why Silenus and his sons are free
to enter Apollo’s service to try to find his cows. Their
natural curiosity is stimulated by an encounter with
some marvelous new discovery—Danaë and her
baby son Perseus washed ashore in a chest in Fish-
ermen; Hephaestus’s “new toys” in Ambassadors;
and Hermes’s strange invention, the lyre, whose
sound drives them crazy in Trackers. In Fishermen
and Trackers, the satyrs are confronted by a woman
or nymph who emerges miraculously from under
the sea or the earth (Danaë in Fishermen, Cyllene
in Trackers). In both these dramas, and in the lost
Amymone by Aeschylus, they harass or threaten to
harass this female; a god rescues her from them. In
Fishermen, they find themselves temporarily caring
for a heroic male infant (Perseus); it is possible that
in the lost second half of Trackers, they similarly
nurtured the boy Hermes.
All of this is grounded in aspects of Dionysiac
ritual; the surviving play and the fragments all take a
fairly straightforward story from myth—in Trackers,
the story of the invention of the lyre from the
Homeric Hymn to Hermes; and in Cyclops a famous
episode from the Odyssey (Book IX)—and inject the
satyrs into it, creating situations where their farci-
cal, burlesque, and amoral behavior clashes with the
more elevated world of gods, goddesses, and heroes.
These latter characters try to speak the language of
tragedy; Danaë in Fishermen, Odysseus in Cyclops,
Cyllene and above all Apollo in Trackers attempt a
heroic tone. However, their role as characters in a
satyr-drama soon punctures their rhetoric, and their
speech descends into bathos. Danaë becomes a sulky
teenager, Odysseus turns coward, Cyllene abuses the
satyrs like a fishwife, and Apollo’s noble rage and
grief soon become mere petulance.
It has been hard for many modern critics, nur-
tured on a firm division between high and low cul-
ture, to imagine the inclusive, wide-ranging tastes
of the Athenian theater, where poets had to satisfy
at once the demands of peasant and philosopher,
craftsman and priest. It is no surprise, therefore, to
find that Cyclops is among Euripides’s least admired
surviving dramas (though the English poet Percy
Bysshe Shelley knew better) and that Sophocles’s
Trackers was regarded even by one of the archaeolo-
gists who discovered it as “slight enough.”
The surviving fragments of two satyr-dramas by
Aeschylus provide strong support for the ancient
view that he was the best writer of satyr-drama.
They reveal the same mastery of dramatic form and
space that is evident in his surviving tragedies, allied
with a light and racy, but also crisp and incisive,
poetic style that seems to encapsulate the essence of
the genre.
Like Athenian tragedy, satyr-drama was written
to be theatrically effective. A powerful scene like
that beginning at line 92 in Trackers, where groups
of satyrs hunt, lying doglike on the ground to look at
the tracks and search for Apollo’s cattle, then retreat
in fear as they hear the terrifying new sound of the
lyre from the cave, was designed for open-air perfor-
mance before a vast, diverse audience. Thus, when
reading a satyr-drama, making an effort to imagine
the text in performance may elicit more meaning.
Michael Ewans
See also Ancient Greek Comedy; Aristophanes;
Burlesque; Farce; Greek Visual Humor; Genres and
Styles of Comedy; Masks; Menander; Monty Python;
Obscenity; Political Humor; Satire; Scatology;
Stereotypes; Subversive Humor; Travesty
Further Readings
Aeschylus. (1996). Fishermen and ambassadors to the
Isthmian games; fragments in Aeschylus: Suppliants and
other dramas (M. Ewans, Ed. & Trans.). London, UK:
Dent.
Euripides. (1956). Cyclops (W. Arrowsmith, Trans.). In
D. Grene & R. Lattimore (Eds.), Euripides II: The
Cyclops and Heracles, Iphigenia in Tauris, Helen.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harrison, G. W. M. (Ed.). (2005). Satyr drama: Tragedy at
play. Swansea, UK. Classical Press of Wales.
Seaford, R. (Ed.). (1984). Euripides: Cyclops. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Sophocles. (2000). Trackers. In M. Ewans (Ed.), Three
dramas of old age: Elektra, Philoktetes, Oidipous at
Kolonos—wirh Trackers and other selected fragments.
London, UK: Dent.
SCATOLOGY
Scatology is a biological term for the study of
excrement and excretion, but it is also used in

folkloristic studies to refer to speech, rituals, narra-
tives, pranks, and songs with or about feces, urine,
excretion, and anally produced emissions such as
flatulence. It is in this cultural sense that scatology
commonly relates to humor. A scatological analysis
typically interprets the symbolism and function of
feces in these expressions by referring to social and
psychological attitudes toward the material. Cen-
tral to this analysis is the idea that excrement and
excretion are taboo subjects related to the body,
usually kept private and hence comparable to other
risqué topics in humor such as sexuality. In humor
studies, different theories have been proposed for
what renders this serious, private matter the stuff
of laughter and the various ways that percep-
tions of excrement and excretion fit into cultural
systems and worldview.
An early universalistic perspective on scatology
came from evolutionary anthropology in which
changes in public rites related to feces were viewed
as signs of progress through stages of savagery,
barbarism, and civilization. John G. Bourke in
Scatalogic Rites of All Nations (1891/1994) pro-
posed that primitive cultures invested excretions of
feces and urine with mystical properties because they
externalized human substance. Theories of cultural
evolution posit that modern customs involving feces
are “survivals” of past beliefs that have lost their
original religious meanings. Sigmund Freud, the
father of psychoanalysis, commented that Bourke’s
work showed that excremental and sexual instincts
are not distinct from each other. The pleasure and
“narcissistic esteem” children derive from excretion
in an anal stage of development (usually from age 18
months to 3 years) persist into normal adult lives,
but society represses these feelings, forcing people to
keep them secret and feel shame and disgust at feces.
In psychoanalytic theory, a cognitive need arises to
project conflicts about the enjoyment of excretion
and one location for this projection is in humor.
Freud’s theory connecting excretion to psycho-
sexual development has been applied to various
forms of scatological humor. For instance, scholars
have analyzed (1) the ubiquity of fecal play among
children, (2) the framing of jokes and cartoons
with excretory themes as dirty, (3) the characteriza-
tion of human organizing and hoarding as signs of
constipatory “anal retention” subject to humorous
comment, (4) humorous inscriptions on institutional
bathroom walls, and (5) the symbolism of flatulence
in humor related to the embarrassment or aggres-
siveness of fecal odor. Related to digital culture,
Scatology 667
Simon Bronner has interpreted humor about the
similarity of “sitting at a computer” to the position
of excretion on a toilet as a sign of subversive play of
workers in office situations.
Particularly influential in these different queries
have been the post-Freudian humor studies of folk-
lorist Alan Dundes, who observed that not only are
children proud of their defecations, but they also
make use of them in asserting themselves against
adults or authority figures. For example, Dundes
interpreted a frequently collected joke told among
Navy personnel concerning a fecal “kush” being
thrown overboard (the punch line refers to the
sound of a “kush” in the water) as a subversive act
in defiance of strict, that is paternal, military disci-
pline. Dundes also considered cross-cultural differ-
ences in attitudes toward the taboo of feces such as
in his explanation of German humor about feces in
a cultural personality preoccupied with cleanliness
and order.
Bathroom graffiti, which Dundes labeled latrina-
lia, is a prime context for scatological humor. Dundes
suggested a behavioral correlation of humorous
inscriptions on bathroom stalls to fecal smearing
that protests institutional control of natural urges.
College students away from home, he contended, in
the safe confines of the stall exhibit their repressed
desires to play with feces. Some scholars have
interpreted more social than projective functions in
the creation of humorous “shithouse” poetry, and
argued that the communications in women’s bath-
rooms differ from those in men’s.
Gershon Legman categorized jokes about dirti-
ness relating to buttocks, toilets, farting, babies’
diapers, underwear, and anal sex under the heading
of the sexualization of scatology. He took the con-
troversial position that scatological jokes purposely
shock and essentially harm the listener (a verbal
equivalent of “pissing on” or “shitting on” the “butt
of the joke”) under the shallow pretext of recount-
ing a fictional hygienic incident. He hypothesized
that those listeners who laugh in answer to such an
assault are those most affected by social repression.
Challenges to this view have been made with alter-
native structural and sociological explanations that
the humor of defecation arises out of the “appro-
priate incongruity” between the private behavior of
excretion and the public nature of the joke.
Simon J. Bronner
See also Folklore; Graffiti; Xeroxlore
668 Schwank
Further Readings
Allen, V. (2007). On farting: Language and laughter in the
Middle Ages. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blank, T. J. (2010). Cheeky behavior: The meaning and
function of “Fartlore” in childhood and adolescence.
Children’s Folklore Review, 32, 61–86.
Bourke, J. G. (1994). The portable scatalog: Excerpts from
scatalogic rites of all nations (L. P. Kaplan, Ed.). New
York, NY: William Morrow. (Original work published
1891)
Bronner, S. J. (2011). Explaining traditions: Folk behavior
in modern culture. Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Bronner, S. J. (2012). Campus traditions: Folklore from the
old-time college to the modern mega-university. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi.
Dawson, J. (1999). Who cut the cheese? A cultural history
of the fart. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Dundes, A. (1989). Life is like a chicken coop ladder:
A study of German national character through folklore.
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Dundes, A. (2007). The meaning of folklore: The analytical
essays of Alan Dundes (S. J. Bronner, Ed.). Logan: Utah
State University Press.
Dundes, A., & Pagter, C. R. (1978). Work hard and you
shall be rewarded: Urban folklore from the
paperwork empire. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Legman, G. (1968). Rationale of the dirty joke: An analysis
of sexual humor (Second series). New York, NY:
Breaking Point.
Mechling, J. (2001). On my honor: Boy Scouts and the
making of American youth. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Praeger, D. (2007). Poop culture: How America is shaped
by its grossest national product. Los Angeles, CA: Feral
House.
SCHWANK
Schwank is a German term, now also used inter-
nationally, which originally meant a practical joke.
Presently it denotes a rather short humorous nar-
rative, song, or play depicting a comical action. As
opposed to the even shorter joke, it is more epic;
and the point is not at the end but within the story.
On occasions, there may be two or even three
punch lines. There is, however, not always a strict
borderline between schwank and joke. In the three
volumes of The Types of International Folktales,
schwanks are listed under the heading “Jokes and
Anecdotes.” The present entry analyzes structure
and style as well as the historical development of
schwank and gives a summary of its predominant
themes and motifs.
There has been discussion as to whether schwank
is a real genre or just a possibility within any genre
of folk poetry. In fact, practically all types of folk-
tales can be converted into schwanks by adding a
humorous element. In reality, there are many mixed
forms, such as schwank legends and schwank fairy
tales. Disclaiming that schwank is a genre and does
not have stable structural or stylistic criteria, how-
ever, disregards the creative qualities of comicality.
These materialize in its subject matter rather than
its literary form or composition. It is the comical
action that is in the center of the genre. In addition,
schwank presents its contents straight, disregarding
formal principles that other genres have to take into
account. And, like the joke, it neglects all taboos,
which made it widely unprintable during Victorian
times. Thus, schwank can be justly regarded as a
genre in its own right.
Schwank in the oral and also in the older liter-
ary tradition proffers a simple, straightforward
style. It outlines persons and actions with few and
concise descriptions. This is also the reason why in
the secondary literature there are fewer treatments
concerning the structure of schwank as opposed to
fairy tales, which have a much more complicated
form. As in other genres, the schwank plot is divided
into opening situation, crisis, and solution. The
more modern literary tradition, however, tends to
lengthen the subject matter by adding new elements
or by elaborating the story. The characteristic situa-
tion of a schwank is a contest between two parties,
one of which wins the fight. The winner need not
be the good one in a moral sense. He may be just
somebody who is cleverer and employs a more effec-
tive ruse, but nevertheless carries the sympathy of
the listeners or readers. Moral standards are thus
frequently disregarded. Ruses are the crux of the
matter. Pure entertainment rather than propagation
of ethic principles or other didactic intentions are
the aim of the genre. Notwithstanding these facts,
on occasion a moral may be found at the end of a
text—or perhaps with a wink during a recitation—
to justify, for instance, a grossly sexual tale as suit-
able for print or rendering.
Hermann Bausinger has analyzed the structure of
schwank, based on older interpretations. According
to Bausinger, there exist three types of action, similar
to the course of a sport contest:

Type 1: Ausgleichstyp Revanche (equalization by
revenge)—The loser of a first action takes revenge
and this time gets the better of his opponent.
Type 2: Ausgleichstyp Übermut (equalization
because of arrogance)—The winner of the first
action gets into high spirits, becomes inattentive,
and therefore loses.
Type 3: Steigerungstyp Revanche (intensification by
revenge)—The loser of the first action is beaten
again.
Examples of the above types describe more than one
action. Less frequent types with a single action are
called shrink types. The punch lines are not final
points but merely mark a change or reinforcement of
the former situation, after which the tale carries on.
The comic elements focus on action rather than on
language.
The protagonists of a schwank can be anyone,
ranging from low-class people to those at the top of
social hierarchies. They are not real individuals but
mere stereotypes. Some groups of persons appear
more frequently than others. One such group is
clergymen. They can be cunning and get the better
of their opponents. But the majority of schwanks
depict them as victims—the reason being that the
fall from an elevated position is especially effective.
An unmasked adulterous Catholic priest provides
a much better point than just a nondescript person
violating ethical standards. This also holds true for
other characters in top positions, for instance nobil-
ity, teachers, city managers, among others. Such
plots may employ social criticism. Schwank outlines
a cheerful counterworld.
Other characteristic schwank protagonists are
fictive persons: jokers like the oriental Nasreddin
Hodja or the German Till Eulenspiegel. The
“dumb” tradition is represented by likewise fictive
groups as the old Greek Abderites or the Wise Men
of Gotham and their equivalents in other cultures.
Conflicts are the basis for schwanks about men and
women, landlords or farmers and their farm hands,
and rulers and their subjects, to name only a few
possible opponents. Tall tales as narratives or on
postcards are also part of the schwank tradition,
often ascribed to particular tellers like, for instance,
the North American Paul Bunyan or the German
Baron Münchhausen. As compared to other folktale
genres, schwanks have a closer affinity to reality. Yet
schwanks do not directly reflect reality but diversify
it according to the rules of the genre or according
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor 669
to the intentions of the narrators. More so than any
other genre except the joke, schwank is the place for
direct sexual and fecal themes.
The history of schwank reaches far back into his-
tory, and it is assumed to be present in all cultures
worldwide. Some see the genre related to archetypes
as defined by the psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung.
Well researched is the schwank history of orien-
tal, (old) Egyptian, Sanskrit, Greek, Jewish, and
European traditions. Printed sources in Europe exist
since the Middle Ages, cumulated in collections like
the British jestbooks, the French fabliaux oder, and
the German Schwankbücher. Whether the printed
texts have influenced the oral tradition or vice
versa is an unsolved question. In the present day,
schwanks are well represented among oral tradi-
tions, for instance as “contemporary legends,” many
of which are actually schwanks and not legends.
Rainer Wehse
See also Cross-Cultural Humor; Humor Group; Targets
of Humor
Further Readings
Bausinger, H. (2007). Schwank. In R. W. Brednich (Ed.),
Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur
historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung
[Encyclopedia of fairy tales: Handbook of historical
and comparative folk narrative research] (Vol. 12,
pp. 318–332). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Masterson, J. R. (1943). Tall tales of Arkansas. Boston,
MA: Chapman & Grimes.
Wehse, R. (1979). Schwanklied und Flugblatt in
Grossbritannien [Schwank songs on broadsides in Great
Britain]. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
SCIENCE, SCIENCE FICTION,
AND HUMOR
It is easy to categorize science as a quintessentially
serious activity, but humor offers an unexpectedly
useful framework for reflecting on the scientific
method and discourse and for charting the role of
science in wider society. Just as humor has become
a fruitful and increasingly respectable field for both
hard and social sciences, science and science fic-
tion illustrate the nexus between humor, creativity,
and discovery developed in Arthur Koestler’s 1964
theory of bisociation. Far beyond the jokes used by
670 Science, Science Fiction, and Humor
teachers and researchers to lighten the presentation
of dense information, humor offers a standpoint
from which to scrutinize the assumptions of ratio-
nalist logic and to approach new problems and par-
adigms in creative ways. The annual Ig Nobel prize,
awarded by the Annals of Improbable Research
for “research that makes people laugh and then
think,” is widely respected by serious researchers,
while pseudoscience, satire, and hoax have char-
acterized the so-called postmodern science wars.
Like the dystopian humor characteristic of many
science-fiction narratives, these examples help chart
the fault lines between scientific and humanistic
thought.
Early Science and Science Fiction
While science fiction as a recognizable genre is
often categorized as a 20th-century phenomenon,
humorous writing on scientific themes dates back
at least to Aristophanes’s Clouds (produced 423
BCE), whose attack on the pretensions of Sophism
includes hoisting the philosopher Socrates up in a
basket to better observe the sun. A more obvious
predecessor to modern science fiction conventions
is Lucian’s prose satire The True History (2nd cen-
tury CE), which describes a voyage to the moon
including an interplanetary war fought by armies
of outlandish extraterrestrials. However, Lucian’s
parody of traveler’s tales is more fantasy—a genre
still frequently conflated with science fiction—than
science proper. Space and time travel recur as themes
in early modern works like Cyrano de Bergerac’s
Other Worlds: The Comical History of the States
and Empires of the Moon and Sun (1657–1662) and
Voltaire’s Micromégas (1752): Both works use the
still-common trope of external worlds to satirize the
shortcomings of earthbound society. In contrast to
the serious tone of much 20th-century science fic-
tion, humor and satire represent a key ingredient of
these earlier narratives.
Utopias feature prominently both in otherworldly
tales and in the Renaissance humanist tradition
that influenced modern scientific method, although
utopian humor is often ambiguous. The methodol-
ogy for scientific inquiry outlined in Francis Bacon’s
utopian New Atlantis (1624–1627) is lampooned
in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726), in
the form of a flying island populated by scientists
incapable of developing useful applications for their
knowledge. While Swift’s example exemplifies a
long tradition of satire directed against science, it
also suggests a link between humor understood as
a social corrective, and its potential for reinforcing
the skeptical, self-reflexive impulse of good scientific
practice.
Humor and Science in Popular Culture
The developing relationship between science and
popular culture is reflected in various strands
of 19th- and early-20th-century science fiction.
Often described as the earliest true science fic-
tion story, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or The
Modern Prometheus (1818) properly belongs to the
gothic horror tradition, though a rich vein of gro-
tesque humor is evident in later derivative works
such as Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder’s film Young
Frankenstein (1974). The works of Jules Verne
(1828–1905) revolve around futuristic extrapola-
tions of contemporary technology, tending more
toward adventure than humor. H. G. Wells’s The
Time Machine (1895), which sets the development
of time travel against a backdrop of social degen-
eration, and The War of the Worlds (1898), a dead-
pan account of a Martian invasion, show a greater
tendency toward imaginative, sometimes comically
unrealistic, plotlines, as well as moralistic satire. The
War of the Worlds has inspired several humorous
derivatives, ranging from Orson Welles’s famous
radio broadcast (1938), which reportedly caused
mass panic, to Jeff Wayne’s highly camp musical
adaptation (1978).
Influenced by the tradition of Wells as well as
contemporary popular science writing, Alfred
Jarry (1873–1907) postulated a “science of imagi-
nary solutions,” dubbed pataphysics, in his 1911
novel Exploits and Opinions of Doctor Faustroll,
Pataphysician. Pataphysics is interested less in gen-
eralities than in exceptions and in contradictions
between frames of reference, and Jarry’s eccentric
writing provides a unique reflection on the ferment
of scientific thought at the turn of the 20th century.
His key principle of “equivalence” curiously antici-
pates subsequent discoveries including relativity and
quantum mechanics, as well as the debates between
science and postmodern philosophy exemplified
by the 1996 “Sokal hoax,” in which editors of a
cultural studies journal published an article by New
York University physics professor Alan Sokal with-
out realizing it was a parody. While pataphysics
claims to be entirely serious, it arguably develops
a logic resembling that of humor into a mode of
(pseudo-)scientific enquiry.

Modern Science Fiction
The establishment of science fiction as a mainstream
genre over the course of the 20th century—in novels
and short stories, but also magazine serials, comics,
and on radio, film, and television—has also given
rise to a large number of subgenres. “Soft” science
fiction, exploring the social consequences of new sit-
uations or worlds, is perhaps closest to the tradition
of Swift and Voltaire; like works by these predeces-
sors, its humor tends toward the dystopian, often
revolving around the fate of individuals thwarted
by the consequences of scientific progress. “Soft”
authors noted for their humorous output include
Philip K. Dick (1928–1982) and Ray Bradbury
(1920–2012).
Despite the potential for humor latent in all
fantastical situations, much if not most modern sci-
ence fiction is essentially serious. From the 1940s
onward, “comic” science fiction began to emerge
as a distinct subgenre that frequently parodied the
unrealistic conventions of the genre as a whole.
Archetypal examples of this tradition include the
“short” short stories of Fredric Brown (1906–
1972), who uses humor to drive plotlines often only
a page or two in length, and the prolific Robert
Sheckley (1928–2005). The rise of epic-scale “space
opera” and of film as a widespread medium for sci-
ence fiction gave further impetus to this subgenre.
The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises are paro-
died in Mel Brooks’s film Spaceballs (1987) as well
as numerous popular culture references. And in an
amusing rejoinder to the recurring tropes of space
travel, anthropocentrism, and planetary apocalypse,
Douglas Adams’s five-part “trilogy” Hitchhiker’s
Guide to the Galaxy (1979–1992) opens with
destruction of the Earth in order to make way for
an intergalactic bypass.
Will Noonan
See also Aristophanes; Bisociation; Comic Versus
Tragic Worldviews; History of Humor: Early
Modern Europe; History of Humor: Modern and
Contemporary Europe; History of Humor: U.S.
Modern and Contemporary; Hoax and Prank;
Irony; Mock Epic; Parody; Pastiche; Postmodern
Irony; Satire; Subversive Humor; Tall Tale; Urban
Legends
Further Readings
Abrahams, M. (2002). The Ig Nobel prizes: The annals of
improbable research. London, UK: Orion.
Science, Science Fiction, and Humor 671
Adams, D. (2009). Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy: Part
one in the trilogy of five. London, UK: Pan.
Aristophanes. (1998). Clouds.Wasps.Peace (J. Henderson,
Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Asimov, I., & Jeppson, J. O. (Eds.). (1982). Laughing
space: Funny science fiction [Anthology]. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Barron, N. (Ed.). (2004). Anatomy of wonder: A critical
guide to science fiction (5th ed.). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Bergerac, C. de. (1976). Other worlds: The comical history
of the states and empires of the moon and sun
(G. Strachan, Ed. & Trans.). London, UK: New English
Library.
Garrott-Wejkswora, L. (2009). Comedic science fiction and
fantasy. In R. A. Reid (Ed.), Women in science fiction
and fantasy (Vol. 2., pp. 72–74). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Hugill, A. (2012). A useless guide to pataphysics.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jarry, A. (1996). Exploits and opinions of Doctor Faustroll,
pataphysician (S. W. Taylor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Exact Change.
Kimmel, D. (2007). A funny thing happened on the way to
the future. Internet Review of Science Fiction, 4(3).
Retrieved from http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/
10369
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London, UK:
Hutchinson.
Langford, D. (2005). Humor. In G. Westfahl (Ed.), The
Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy:
Themes, works, and wonders (pp. 401–404). Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Lucian of Samosata. (n.d.). The true history. Lucian of
Samosata project. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
http://lucianofsamosata.info/TheTrueHistory.html
Swift, J. (2009). Gulliver’s travels and a modest proposal.
London, UK: Capuchin Classics. (Original work
published 1726)
Voltaire. (2002). Micromégas and other short fictions
(H. Mason, Ed., & T. Cuffe, Trans.). London, UK:
Penguin.
Walsh, L. (2006). Sins against science: The scientific media
hoaxes of Poe, Twain, and others. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Wells, H. G. (1895–1898/1999). The time machine and the
war of the worlds. London, UK: Millennium.
Websites
Improbable Research, publisher of the magazine the Annals
of Improbable Research and the organization behind the
Ig Nobel Prizes: http://www.improbable.com
672 Second Language Acquisition
SCREWBALL COMEDY
See Movies
SCRIPT OPPOSITION
See Linguistic Theories of Humor
SCRIPT-BASED SEMANTIC
THEORY OF HUMOR
See Linguistic Theories of Humor
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
This entry brings together the topics of humor and
second language acquisition, focusing mainly on
issues concerning adult and adolescent language
learners, as the situation of child language learners,
who are still developing both humor and linguistic
competence, is too complex to address here. The
term second language acquisition can be understood
as encompassing all additional language learning,
rather than simply a second language. It includes lan-
guage learning that is undertaken in a classroom, as
well as that which takes place naturalistically, with-
out instruction. Both the use and understanding of
humor represent a formidable linguistic and cultural
challenge to language learners, yet it is crucial that
they meet this challenge, given the important role
humor plays in human interaction. This entry begins
with a discussion of two topics directly related to
the acquisition of a second language, focusing first
on whether language learning may be facilitated if
taught via the mode of humorous communication,
and second, on what knowledge a learner may need
to acquire about second language humor and how
this knowledge might be taught. Finally, because
social interaction is an important factor in language
development, issues relating to learner experiences
using and understanding second language humor
are discussed.
Language teachers have long incorporated humor
into the classroom in the belief that it facilitates
learning, if only by increasing student interest and
motivation. Research to confirm this has been lack-
ing; however, since the late 1990s, applied linguists
began taking an interest in this topic, often examin-
ing it under the rubric of “language play,” which
frequently, although not always, entails humor.
These scholars theorized that language play may be
an important—perhaps even necessary—component
of language acquisition, allowing learners to experi-
ment with new voices and new ways of expressing
themselves. Such experimentation is thought to
destabilize the learner’s system, preventing what is
known as fossilization, or the cessation of change
and development in the second language. In addi-
tion, they proposed that playing with and in a new
language may work to draw learners’ attention to
form meaning relationships within the language
being studied. Noticing the way that the language is
used is also important for facilitating development.
A body of empirical research investigating these
propositions is growing, and with it, evidence that
humor can facilitate second language acquisition is
beginning to mount. However, the majority of the
work so far has been qualitative and descriptive and
has mainly served to outline the various functions
that humor and language play may have for learners,
rather than to provide evidence for learning. Still, a
few studies have attempted to examine within a con-
trolled, quantitative paradigm whether encountering
a new language within a humorous context makes
it more memorable. The consensus of these studies,
thus far, is positive.
Although probably less common than peda-
gogy that incorporates humor for the purposes of
language acquisition, some language instructors do
attempt to teach students about the linguistic and
cultural norms of humor use by native speakers of
the language they are learning. Until recently, most
of this work had to be undertaken based merely on
the intuitions that teachers or textbook writers had
regarding native uses of humor. This is far from ideal,
as intuitions about language use are notoriously
poor, yet it is only recently that textbook writers
have begun relying on research reports of sociolin-
guistic behaviors in compiling textbooks. Another
problem is the lack of such systematic, sociolinguis-
tic research with respect to humor. While the forms
and functions of humor in some languages, such as
English and Japanese, are developing a substantial
body of research from which course developers
may draw, for many other languages such work is
scant or nonexistent. However, teachers may rem-
edy this by undertaking, along with their students,

investigations of humor use in the language they are
studying. Students might be asked, for instance, to
observe interactions (either live or via various forms
of media, including the Internet, film, books, and
television) and analyze for themselves such things
as how humor is contextualized, who uses what
type of humor with whom, and how different types
of humor are responded to. Studies of this type of
instruction with regard to other linguistic behaviors
like giving and responding to compliments show
that it is effective in improving learners’ awareness
of and performance in these types of interactions.
As of this writing, however, no such research exists
concerning the effectiveness of a humor curriculum.
Humor can be particularly difficult for learn-
ers to navigate in social interaction. Reports from
language learners who have had frustrating or
even humiliating experiences with second language
humor abound. Learners’ attempts at humor are
often corrected as errors, suggesting that their native
speaker interlocutors do not expect them to be able
to construct humor, and, in some cases, may even
see their attempts as a type of linguistic infringe-
ment. Despite this, some research demonstrates
that native speakers make accommodations for lan-
guage learners with respect to humor, for instance
by avoiding certain types of humor or by ignoring
learner attempts at humor that might be seen as
rude. Such accommodations, however, can also have
the effect of marginalizing learners, by assuming
they are unable to engage in this type of discourse.
On the other hand, there are also reports of learners
who enjoy playing with their new language and who
feel liberated by their ability to use humor in it. In
the classroom, student-initiated humor has generally
been dismissed as off-task behavior by both teach-
ers and scholars. Some research, however, suggests
that humor can play an important role in helping
learners negotiate the language classroom. Students
have been shown to use humor to cope with difficult
learning tasks, to challenge classroom norms, and to
construct particular identities for themselves.
Nancy Bell
See also Cross-Cultural Humor; Development of Humor;
Education, Humor in; Pedagogy; Translation
Further Readings
Bell, N. (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying
findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL
Quarterly, 45(1), 134–159.
Semantics 673
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and non-playful
incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62(1),
236–265.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native
speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on
humor as collaborative discourse across cultures.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385.
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2007). Riddles and puns in
the ESL classroom: Adults talk to learn. In A. Mackey
(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: Empirical studies (pp. 143–167). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
SEMANTIC SCRIPT THEORY
OF HUMOR
See Linguistic Theories of Humor
SEMANTICS
Semantics designates the study of meaning in vari-
ous academic disciplines and for various purposes.
This entry deals with linguistic semantics and its
usage in verbal humor.
Linguistic Semantics
Semantics is one of the main subdisciplines of lin-
guistics. Linguistic semantics, or semantics of nat-
ural language, is also one of the several distinct
disciplines that carry this name; the others are parts
of philosophy, mathematical logic, and semiotics.
All the semantics differ from each other in all the
components of a theory, namely in their purview,
premises, body, goals, falsifiability, and justification
and evaluation.
The purview of linguistic semantics includes all
the meaningful elements of natural language, from
the morpheme—a meaningful part of a word, such
as prefixes, roots, suffices, and infixes—to the word,
then the phrase, and finally the sentence. The mean-
ing of the word, lexical semantics, and that of the
sentence, compositional or sentential semantics, are
the main responsibilities of the semantics of natural
language.
The premises include the seemingly obvious asso-
ciation of every word in a language with one or more
674 Semantics
elements of reality (or their mental images), such as
objects, events, attributes, or relations between or
among those elements. In other words, the premise
states that each word in a language has a meaning
or several meanings, as in the case of polysemy, that
is, words having several senses, as most words of
most languages do. Clear indeed as this premise may
be to lay persons who have to learn new words of
their own or foreign languages by memorizing the
pairing between the sound (or spelling) of the new
word with its meaning(s), Austrian British philoso-
pher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), however, and the
whole British school of thought called “ordinary
language philosophy” denied this premise, thus add-
ing the urgency to making the premise explicit. This
premise may be referred to as essentialist.
Another premise is compositionality. It assumes
that, in the common case, a language unit, consist-
ing of two or more smaller meaningful units, has
a meaning that includes the component meanings.
Simplistically, it is the sum of those meanings;
in reality, it is a function depending on how these
smaller units are arranged within a larger one.
British American philosopher of language H. Paul
Grice (1975), the founder of linguistic pragmatics,
denied that it was the case, citing various contextual
violations and exceptions. But those may occur only
with a rule in place, and the compositional premise
is that rule.
The third premise is so ingrained in the very core
of human communication and, hence, language as
its main tool, that it is hardly ever explicated. It may
be referred to as the shorthand premise. Language
underdetermines reality by stating a very small part
of any situation and letting the hearers reconstruct
the whole picture on the basis of their shared com-
monsense knowledge. This premise of constantly
having to extend an explicit into a much larger
implicit narrative is so “natural” to human users of
language that numerous recall experiments of a few
decades ago confirmed the virtual impossibility of
recalling identically for several witnesses of a dialog
a week later what had been actually said verbatim.
Rather, the witnesses would recall various possible
parts of the situation, and it was always the same
situation. This “aura” around an explicitly stated
sentence is the mysterious “context” that scholars
bring up both to indicate the different interpreta-
tions of a sentence and the impossibility of full
description. The ubiquity of shorthand has been
brought home painfully in computational semantics
because the computer is unable to expand a sentence
referring to a situation into the whole picture. But
much more important here is that the shorthand
premise explains how the same sentence or even the
whole text may evoke two different whole pictures
that linguistic theories of humor call scripts.
The body of a semantic theory contains state-
ments about multiple pairings of sounds and (sets
of) meanings, in lexical semantics, and how they all
mesh together in sentences, in compositional seman-
tics. Various semantic theories chart this territory
differently: Until 1963, there had been no theories
of compositional semantics, just loose talk about the
meaning of the sentence, assuming quite a few of
undefined premises; the so-called formal semantics
of the last couple of decades cannot reach most of
lexical semantics—because it attempts to apply first-
order predicate logic to everything in language that
it can manage.
There are, in the body of semantic theory, some
statements that are almost universally shared among
various approaches. One such statement, in lexical
semantics, postulates that the meaning of a word,
once considered an elementary and indivisible unit,
itself is an aggregate of semantic features, many of
which recur within many lexical meanings. Thus,
the meaning of the English word man in its nonsexist
meaning that stands for “human,” that is both men
and women, can be analyzed as the combination
of the features of physical object, animate, human,
male, and adult. Not all features are created equal,
so human implies physical object and animate.
The original dream of reducing all the lexi-
cal meanings to a handful of binary features was
defeated by the fact that many specific lexical mean-
ings require the introduction of a new feature, and
they accumulate in numbers and lose their explana-
tory power. It is one thing for a feature to be appli-
cable to a large class of meanings, dividing it in half,
such as the male or female gender for the class of all
animates, and it is totally different for the “never-
married” feature that defines bachelor, the archaic
spinster and the phrasal old maid and is not appli-
cable to any other (hundreds of thousands) mean-
ings. Contrary to the stereotype of their enforced
and usually defeated chastity vows in jokes, monk
and nun are semantically defined by their member-
ship in cloistered religious communities, not by the
never-married feature, especially since some of them
might have been married before taking their vows.
In spite of the “lost dream” about the “handful”
of features, they are still used in various semantic
approaches. Recently, more and more scholars are

coming to a realization that something very much
like those features—and many more, but still within
hundreds, that is, three to four orders of magnitude
fewer than the meanings they should represent—
can be organized to connect concepts in an ontol-
ogy, a language-independent conceptual hierarchy,
in terms of which all the senses of all lexical entries in
any specific language can be defined. As shown in
the next section, ontology-based semantics makes
the early promise of the first full-fledged linguistic
theory of humor a reality.
Another important statement in the body of
semantic theory, this time in compositional seman-
tics, is that the exact way the meanings of the words
contributed to the meaning of the sentence in which
they are used is defined by the syntactic structure
of the sentence. It has always been known, taught,
and learned that the sentence “The mother loves the
daughter” and the sentence “The daughter loves the
mother” have different meanings because the nouns
trade the subject and object positions. Nevertheless,
it had been not until the 1963 publication by Jerald
J. Katz and Jerry A. Fodor—Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) linguist and psychologist,
respectively, and both early adherents of the MIT
most prominent linguist Noam Chomsky’s new par-
adigm in linguistic theory—of the first ever semantic
theory that the syntactic foundation of semantics
became explicit and obvious.
Starting with a syntactic tree of a sentence and
proceeding bottom up, they demonstrated the vari-
ous types of phrases, such as an adjective modifying
a noun in a noun phrase, a verb taking in an appro-
priate object, and for each type of phrase, defined a
rule of combining the lexical entries for the words.
The rules ranged in simplicity from mere concatena-
tion, that is, listing the lexical entries’ components
together to check whether an adjective sense is com-
patible with the noun sense or verb’s with object’s.
Katz and Fodor were criticized for many flaws in
their theory but not for using the syntactic tree as an
input for calculating the meaning of the sentence in
a well-defined syntax-dependent way.
The goals of semantic theory are, of course, to
represent the meaning of each sentence the way a
native speaker understands. For the falsifiability cri-
terion, a sentence must be found that the theory can-
not explain in a way that is compatible with human
interpretation and cannot be corrected to do so.
Justification and evaluation are provided by human
raters or, in the case of computer implementation,
by the results of an application. Evaluation can also
Semantics 675
be achieved by comparing the theory to its competi-
tors, if any. An important application of linguistic
semantics is to the field of humor research.
Semantics of Humor
Verbal humor cannot be perceived, let alone appreci-
ated, without understanding the joke-carrying text.
A text cannot be understood without knowing the
meanings of the words in it and of the ways they are
combined together. In other words, verbal humor
is nearly impossible without the full mastery of the
semantics of the language, that is, without utilizing
the semantic competence that a native or near-native
speaker must possess (much of which is actually uni-
versal). It is interesting to note a strand of research
in computational humor that claims the ability to
recognize jokes without understanding any text. It is
indeed possible to do with a degree of precision that
is not much higher than random, but, in any case,
the features that the ingenious statistics of machine
learning recognize are external to humor and rather
similar to recognizing a play in a foreign language
because each paragraph begins with a short string
followed by a colon (whose cue it is), followed by a
cue of often considerable length (the cue itself). The
comparison is a bit on the harsh side but the degree
of understanding the text is indeed commensurable.
It has been argued that humor competence is an
add-on to that competence because language is used
in humor differently than in ordinary, casual lan-
guage in a number of ways. In casual language, the
speaker tries, mostly unconsciously, to be unambigu-
ous to avoid misunderstanding; in humor, ambiguity
is often deliberate. In “serious” communication, the
speaker is committed to the factual truth of what is
said—not so in humor. In humor, surprisingly many
jokes follow a few popular patterns, whereas non-
humorous texts are less patterned.
One of the most popular patterns in humor is the
pun. In the simplest form, the pun is formed by a
word that has two different senses, and the joke is
phrased in such a way as to send the hearers toward
one sense and then abruptly switch them to a differ-
ent sense in the punch line. In English, due to its spell-
ing system, the switch may occur over words that
are pronounced the same way but spelled differently.
Christian Hempelmann’s 2003 doctoral dissertation
explored imperfect puns, where the deliberately con-
fused words are close in pronunciation rather than
being identical. Many humor consumers find puns
too obvious and jokes that are based on them cheap:
676 Semantics
They are often called the “groaners.” Consider the
following example:
Did you hear about the guy whose whole left
side was cut off?
He’s all right now.
Puns do switch the text from one situation to a dif-
ferent one: from left-right sides to being correct in
the example above. This is pretty much universal in
jokes, as per the dominant family of linguistic theo-
ries of humor. This is how humor takes full advan-
tage of the shorthand usage of language that
underdetermines reality.
Crafting a joke, one has to make sure that the first
situation, or script, that the hearers conjure up as the
whole picture is easily compatible with its text, and
so when the punch line hits and switches the hearers
to the alternative script, the compatibility remains.
Thus, replacing “whole left side” with “left limbs”
in the first sentence to make it less unrealistic will
destroy the joke, making “all” incompatible with
the first script.
The first full-fledged and fully defined theory of
humor is semantic. The script-based semantic theory
of humor (SSTH) postulated that the joke-potential
nature of a text could be established in the course of
normal semantic interpretation. It talked about joke
potential rather than simply a joke in full recogni-
tion that whether a text will be perceived as a joke
depends on a number of circumstances including the
quality and especially timing as well as the readi-
ness and willingness of the audience to treat this
semantic material as funny, which is impossible in
the case of taboos, prejudices, or mere unfamiliarity
with the culture, professional domain, or the target
personalities.
SSTH was scrupulously honest about the nature
of its claim that a text has a joke potential if it is
fully or partially compatible with two distinct and
opposing scripts. It made the claim contingent on
the availability of the full semantic interpretation
for each text, and none was yet in place at the time.
Nevertheless, most humor researchers were so
impressed with the first complete theory of humor
that they largely ignored the disclaimer, especially
if they were not linguists, let alone semanticists.
The main results were that, innocent of profes-
sional semantic analysis, humor scholars tended to
metaphorize the essential notion of script to talk
about the script of Emily Dickenson’s poetry and
the scripts of life (in both cases, the subject of the
real-world dissertations successfully defended at the
time). In fact, scripts were set up as just a simple
sequence of events corresponding to entering a res-
taurant, morning routines, filling up a car, going to
a store. The more complex an intended script, the
harder it would be for the author or teller of a joke
to guide the hearers through the reasonably easy
task of reconstructing the intended whole picture.
A complex whole picture would contain too many
forks or choices—and quite simply too many events
or sentences to go through. And it is known, if not
really explored, that the amount of mental effort
required of an audience should be just right: The
users reject obvious puns as too easy, but most reject
a sophisticated joke, such as
What’s the difference between the sparrow?
No difference whatsoever: The two sides of the
sparrow are perfectly identical, especially the
left one.
Absurd jokes take some acculturation, but this
one requires that the users perform a near-record
number of transitions from one link to another,
trying to get the joke. At a very coarse and simplis-
tic level, first, they must overcome the surprise of
the missing second item necessary for comparison
with a sparrow in order to answer the question
about any difference that the comparison may pro-
duce. Then, in a bold, unusual, and creative mental
move, they must imagine cutting the sparrow in
half vertically so as to acquire the two items from
one. Then, an answer is attempted—yet, it is coun-
terfactual: The two halves may be mirror reflec-
tions of each other, which means still nonidentical,
especially not so in terms of the invisible internal
organs the two halves contain. In principle, the
joke could end there, with the opposition of the
real script of a sparrow being a single item and
the unreal one of making into two halves. But a
secondary absurd joke is developed by reversing
the identity statement that does require two items
back into one by coining the ridiculous notion of
“especially identical” for just one of the two
halves. Most users refuse to work this hard, and
the joke fails to elicit amusement.
The semantic resources and methodologies that
were not available at the time SSTH emerged have
been since developed, and there is enough explana-
tory power in semantics to represent, formalize,
and even compute the entire line of reasoning in the
previous paragraph. This makes the consecutive

script-based guises of the linguistic theories of
humor a reality rather than the promise it origi-
nally was.
As semantics expands in its explanatory and
descriptive power, it covers the increasingly complex
territory of inference and reasoning that quite a few
semanticists, constrained by the limitations of the
so-called formal semantics that imposes a limited
purview on itself, have relegated to an amorphous
notion of context and to the informal discipline of
pragmatics. Ultimately, as the context is as com-
pletely formalized as necessary for representing and
explaining the semantics of every joke, pragmatics
may retreat more and more into the realm of indi-
vidual distinctions, different senses of humor. Recent
research outlines ways of eventually semanticalizing
that as well.
Victor Raskin
See also Incongruity and Resolution; Jokes; Linguistic
Theories of Humor; Maxim; Puns
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole &
J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3.
Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Hempelmann, C. F. (2003). Paronomasic puns: Target
recoverability towards automatic generation. Doctoral
dissertation. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/305319467
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a
semantic theory. Language, 39(4), 170–210.
Nirenburg, S., & Raskin, V. (2004). Ontological semantics.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Raskin, V., Hempelman, C. F., & Taylor, J. M. (2009).
How to understand and assess a theory: The evolution
of the SSTH into the GTVH and now into the OSTH.
Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 285–312.
Strapparava, C., Stock, O., & Mihalcea, R. (2011).
Computational humour. In P. Petta, C. Pelachaud, & R.
Cowie (Eds.), Emotion-oriented systems: The Humaine
handbook, cognitive technologies (Chapter 6.4). Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Senryu- 677
SENRYU-
Senryū and Haiku are related Japanese poetic genres.
Although whimsy, even humor, were original ele-
ments of Haiku, by the last decades of the 20th cen-
tury, Haiku had become well known outside Japan
as a serious form of poetry that can also be written
in English and other languages. Its genius is to cap-
ture, in a poem consisting of three lines of 5–7–5
syllables, a moment frozen in time. The classic and
widely known Haiku poem is one by Matsuo Bashō
(1644–1694; translations by Marguerite Wells
unless otherwise stated):
Furu ike ya (5) Ah, an old pond
Kawazu tobikomu (7) A frog jumps in
Mizu no oto (5) The sound of water
Senryū developed out of Renga, an ancient
verse-capping game where players were given a
verse and had to add another three lines to the
original. In 1757, for the first time, the winning
verses from a competition were printed in broad-
sheet form and the poems took off as an indepen-
dent verse form, becoming wildly popular. Thus,
the appearance of Senryū can be dated exactly; and
although Senryū and Haiku have the same 5–7–5
verse structure and Senryū appeared 2½ centuries
later than Haiku, Senryū clearly did not develop
from Haiku. Rather, both developed from the
same ancient Renga poetic tradition. This entry
discusses the genre and give some examples from
both the Edo period and the modern period.
From its inception, Senryū has been associ-
ated with competitions in which ordinary people
could participate and record their perceptions of a
perverse world. It is written with characters mean-
ing river willow, and is named after Karai Senryū
(1718–1790), who edited a competition anthology,
Yanagidaru (A Barrel of Willow) that appeared
regularly from 1765 until 1838, long after his death.
Senryū are often referred to as satirical (two of
R. H. Blyth’s well-known collected English transla-
tions of Senryū include “satirical” in their titles). But
wry observations of the foibles of people or society,
or even sarcasm or bitterness, do not by themselves
constitute satire. Asō Jirō’s book, What Is Senryū?
(1955), which sets out the rules of the genre, begins,
“There are people who say senryū is satire but that is
not so.” While it is possible to find satirical Senryū,
in general they are humorous social comment. They
are aphorisms that scan as poetry.
678 Senryu-

Edo Period Senryū Ikigawari Coming to life

Shinigawari Coming to death
The first Yanagidaru anthology was published in
Heta yakusha A bad actor (Okada: 276)
Edo in 1765, about 8 years after the first Senryū
broadsheet. The examples below are from Okada Killed in a previous scene, the hack actor is not a
Hajime’s Senryū: Ehon Yanagidaru (Senryū: specialist but doubles his roles and so comes back to
Yanagidaru Picture Book), which accompanies life to fight in a later scene.
its poems with reprints of woodblock prints by There is also social protest. One poem notes that
Yashima Gotake from the school of the great wood- in a filthy slum there is one white wall—naturally it
block artist Hokusai (1760–1849). is the pawnbroker’s, who prospers on the poverty
around him.
Omoshiroku Amusingly
Kasa o toraruru Robbed of his umbrella Gomigomi no In the midst of the garbage
Tsumuji kaze In a whirlwind (Okada: 76) Naka no shirakabe The white wall
Shichiya nari Is the pawnbroker’s
Since umbrellas came late to Europe, this poem may (Okada: 30)
predate a theme now universal in farce. Here, the
desperate clutching and clinging of the umbrella An early Senryū even gives humorous voice to a
owner is left to the imagination. wry comment that is, however, no plea for gender
equity or “women’s liberation”:
Hayarikaze The flu’s going round
Nobori ni mo Even on the banner
Mitsui no mise ni In the Mitsui shop
Shita ni natteru The lower one
Shō hantoshi Nearly half a year
Haha no mon Is the mother’s crest (Okada: 30)
(Okada: 80)
On the banner beside the typical Japanese carp
Even at this early point in its history, the Mitsui streamers that fly over the house for Boys’ Day, the
kimono shop (owned by the later Mitsui zaibatsu family crests are displayed: Of course, the mother’s
family, and now the huge Mitsukoshi Department crest is below the father’s crest.
Store) has so many staff living in its dormitory that
if one apprentice catches the flu, someone will be Bawdy Senryū
coughing for nearly 6 months afterward.
From time immemorial, bawdy humor has been part
Nyōbō o A bloke who fears of Japanese performance genres, including dance.
Kowagaru yatsu wa His wife When in the 18th-century Senryū found a place as
Kane ga deki Makes money (Okada: 164) comment written in elegant calligraphy on wood-
block printed Ukiyoe (“pictures of the floating
Why? Because he doesn’t spend it on women, drink,
world” that lay outside society and included the the-
or gambling and doesn’t dare waste it in any other
ater), some of these were also erotic. For example,
way either.
in Fūryū jūniki no eiga (Manners in the Blossoming
Some poems extracted fun from the Kabuki
of Flowers in the Twelve Seasons) by Isoda Koryūsai
theater:
(fl. 1764–1784), a husband and wife are pictured
Gakuyaban The prop man engaging in anal intercourse. The poem that graces
Iwa o mushitte Peels a rock this picture evokes the man’s fantasy of being a fish-
Hana o kami To blow his nose (Okada: 274) erman, triumphant over his catch. The poem reads
(Kuriyama and Fister [Trans]: 15)
The on-stage rock is made of a bamboo frame with
paper pasted over it: handy in need. Hito ami ni Captured by
Sukui agete ya A single swoop of the net:
Edo no uma The horse from Edo Kurage tori Trawling for jellyfish
Inaka shibai de In the country play
Hito to nari Turns into a human The movement of penetration is envisioned here as
(Okada: 276) the swoop of the fisherman’s net, targeting the soft-
ness of a jellyfish (a delicacy in Japanese cuisine).
A country actor appears on the city stage as a horse, While “jellyfish” refers to the woman’s buttocks,
and comes home to stardom, playing a human being. it is written with the characters for “sea” and
 Senryu- 679

“moon,” thus adding another erotic seascape refer- Ichi nimen Page one and two,
ence. Meanwhile the word “net” evokes both fish- Ōmu sanmen Aum; page three
ing and the mosquito net that surrounds the marital Sumi sōri In a corner, the Prime Minister
bedding. Here verbal humor allies itself with visual (Gardner [Trans]: 50)
art to achieve an elegantly comic effect about what
in other cultures might be “unmentionable.” Ichioku ga There was a time
Sennō sareta When they brainwashed
Twentieth-Century Senryū Toki mo ari One hundred million
(Gardner: 51)
By the end of the Pacific War, the whole Japanese
nation was living on two thirds of the calories Brainwashing was one of the techniques that Aum
needed to support body weight, and strange foods used and ichioku (a hundred million) is an epithet
were appearing: meaning the whole Japanese population.
Overwhelmingly, however, the jokes were rueful
Resutoran Restaurants
reflections on how people’s behavior changed as a
Hen na namae no Are making dishes
result:
Meshi ga deki With strange names
(Takasaki: 14) Chikatetsu ni Summoning courage
Yūki o dashite I will try
Senryū also noted that a lot of official orders
Notte miru Taking the subway
were being issued:
(Gardner: 48)
Mimi ni me ni My ears and eyes
Sekkyō ōku With so many sermons Chikatetsu no Subway stairs:
Tsukaretari Are tired (Takasaki: 142) Kaidan kaketara Rush up them
Mina tsurare And everyone follows
And the war dead were deified: Was the next lady (Gardner: 45)
one saw yet another war widow, her husband now
a god? Chikatetsu de A phone call comes:
Buji ni tsuita Arrived safely
Ano kata mo I turn Denwa kuru On the subway (Gardner: 47)
Kami no tsuma ka to Is that lady
Furikaeri Another wife of a god? The attacks came just before cherry blossom
(Takasaki: 218) season. Cherry blossoms are the ancient Buddhist
symbol of the evanescence of life, and also the
On March 20, 1995, the Aum Shinrikyō cult symbol of the warrior falling in battle, so in the
made its sarin gas attacks on five Tokyo subway following Senryū, the mention of flowers blooming
trains, killing 13 people, injuring 54, and affecting and falling is a many-layered allusion, quite apart
perhaps thousands more. Some of the Senryū written from the reflection that life goes on.
in response to this homegrown terrorism and pub-
lished in two major newspapers were collected by Konna toshi Even in a year like this
Richard A. Gardner in a 2002 article for Asian Folk- Demo hana wa saki Cherries bloom
lore Studies. The public shock was so great that Hana wa chiru Cherries fall (Gardner: 52)
open season for satire against Aum might have been
expected, and indeed, as Gardner’s selection shows, One can read Senryū merely for pleasure in their
satire did appear: humor; one can also see them as a record of social
mores and comment down the ages, pithily and
Meisō no In his meditations vividly conveying insight into Japanese culture and
Naka ni nakatta He did not see history as experienced by ordinary people.
Taiho geki The arrest drama (Gardner: 57) Marguerite Wells
Terebi wa The TV See also Aphorism; Genres and Styles of Comedy;
Shaberisugi. Keisatsu Talks too much. The police History of Humor: Modern Japan; History of Humor:
Damarisugi Don’t talk enough Premodern Japan; Irony; Poetry; Puns; Satire; Share;
(Gardner: 54) Verbal Humor
680 Sense of Humor, Components of
Further Readings
Asō Jirō. (1955). Senryū to wa nani ka: Senryū no tsukurikata
to ajiwaikata [What is senryū? How to make and appreciate
senryū]. Tokyo, Japan: Shibundō, Gakusei Kyōyō Shinsho.
Blyth, R. H. (1949). Senryu: Japanese satirical verses.
Tokyo, Japan: Hokuseido Press.
Blyth, R. H. (1960). Japanese life and character in Senryu.
Tokyo, Japan: Hokuseido Press.
Blyth, R. H. (1960). Oriental humour. Tokyo, Japan:
Hokuseido Press.
Blyth, R. H. (1961). Edo satirical verse anthologies. Tokyo,
Japan: Hokuseido Press.
Gardner, R. A. (2002). The blessing of living in a country
where there are Senryū!: Humor in the response to Aum
Shinrikyō. Asian Folklore Studies, 61(1), 35–75.
Horton, H. M. (2001). Laughs to banish sleep: Selections
from Seisuishō (1623) by Anrakuan Sakuden. In J. Solt
(Ed.), An episodic Festschrift for Howard Hibbett
(Vol. 6). Hollywood, CA: Highmoonoon.
Kobayashi, M. (2006). Senryū: Japan’s short comic poetry.
In J. Milner Davis (Ed.), Understanding humor in Japan
(pp. 153–177). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Isoda Koryūsai. (2004). Fūryū jūniki no eiga [Manners in
the blossoming of flowers in the twelve seasons]. In
Hayakawa Kita (Ed.), Kuriyama, & P. Fister (Trans.).
Nichibunken shozō: Kinse enbon shiryō shūsei III (Vol.
1, Isoda Koryūsai). Kyoto, Japan: Kokusai Nihon Bunka
Kenkyū Sentaa.
Okada Hajime. (1969). Senryū: Ehon Yanagidaru [Senryū
picture book: A barrel of Senryū]. Tokyo, Japan: Hōga
Shoten.
Rabson, S. (Trans.). (2003). Edo Senryū on waka and
women. In J. Solt (Ed.), An episodic Festschrift for
Howard Hibbett (Vol. 12). Hollywood, CA:
Highmoonoon.
Solt, J. (2000–2010). An episodic Festschrift for Howard
Hibbett (26 vols.). Hollywood, CA: Highmoonoon.
Takasaki Ryūji. (1991). Senryū ni miru senjika no sesō:
Kyōkasho ni kakarenakatta sensō II [Signs of the
times—the war and aftermath as seen in senryū: The
war not recorded in the textbooks, Part II]. Tokyo,
Japan: Nashi no Ki Sha.
Ueda, M. (1999). Light verse from the floating world: An
anthology of premodern Japanese Senryu. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
SENSE OF HUMOR,
COMPONENTS OF
Sense of humor is a personality concept that
is used to describe, predict, and eventually
explain humor-related differences among peo-
ple. Individuals may be high or low in sense of
humor and we assume some stability of this trait.
Likewise, it has all the other qualities of personality
traits, such as being a hypothetical construct (i.e.,
not directly observable but inferred via indicators),
consisting of individual differences (rather than
being of a dichotomous nature), and usually being
assessed via psychometrically sound instruments.
There are at least three variants of sense of humor
in the literature, namely (1) as an everyday expres-
sion or folk concept, (2) a scientific concept of nar-
row nature, or (3) a scientific concept of a broader
scope. Importantly, as discussed in this entry, these
variants differ in what is subsumed under them.
Core Ingredients
The expression “sense of humor” as it is used in
quotidian conversations is typically a very positive
one and it represents a socially desirable personal
asset. Its meaning was shaped by the rise of human-
ism and it acquired additional connotations further
on. By the end of the 17th century, people became
weary of put-down witticisms and it was argued that
people should not be laughed at because of pecu-
liarities since they were not responsible for them. As
Wolfgang Schmidt-Hidding (1963) explains, at first
good humor, later humor, was the term for humani-
tarian, tolerant, and benevolent forms of laughter.
At this time good humor also came to mean the sov-
ereign attitude of exposing oneself to adversity, such
as a “test of ridicule.” This may have been the ori-
gin of the notion of “sense of humor,” although this
expression was not yet in use. While sense of humor
was a positive trait from then on, it experienced fur-
ther shifts into a philosophical attitude, a worldview,
or a defense mechanism. This is a meaning that still
prevails in everyday conversations but it lacks preci-
sion. Also, until about 1980, there were no attempts
to measure it scientifically; that is, it remained a pre-
scientific folk-concept. Willibald Ruch proposed to
measure two components of humor aiming at the
good, namely benevolent and corrective humor (as
measured by a short instrument—the BENCOR).
Various authors in this tradition such as Franz-
Josef Hehl, Ruch, and Philipp Lersch proposed core
ingredients of the sense of humor. These are typically
short formulae that should explain the nature of
sense of humor. In this category, there are ingredi-
ents like not taking oneself too seriously, being able
to laugh at oneself, being able to distance from one’s

problems, to see the light side of things, to display
a smiling attitude toward life and its imperfections,
having an understanding of the incongruities of exis-
tence, or a cheerful composed frame of mind amidst
the adversities and insufficiencies of life. It is not
known whether these identified core ingredients are
homogeneous (i.e., are indicative of the same trait)
and which of these might be more central than oth-
ers, as there is no research utilizing these ingredients
and subjecting them to factor analysis. These defini-
tions clearly entail a virtuous view of humor and see
it as a highly developed human trait. At the same
time, they are vague and more metaphorical, which
might impair the likelihood of being measured suc-
cessfully. It is apparent, however, that sense of humor
is carefully distinguished from sense of fun, sense of
wit, sense of ridicule, sense of comic, or others. In
other words, the understanding of humor is in oppo-
sition to the understanding of wit, satire, ridicule,
and not an umbrella term for all kinds of the funny.
Components of the Sense of
Humor as Unitary Concept
While none of the contemporary approaches to
sense of humor emphasize the virtuous or humani-
tarian aspect of humor, several authors broke down
sense of humor into components, albeit in differ-
ent ways. In 1974, Sven Svebak postulated that the
sense of humor has three components, namely what
he called metamessage sensitivity, personal liking of
humor, and emotional expressiveness. While these
components are ordered sequentially to reflect the
sequence of taking up a humorous message, liking
it, and expressing amusement and laughter, Paul
McGhee sees the components structurally different
and ordered in terms of difficulty. In his multifaceted
concept of sense of humor, six other facets repre-
sent more genuine humor skills and humor behavior
and relate to individual differences in the fields of
enjoyment of humor, laughter, verbal humor, find-
ing humor in everyday life, laughing at yourself, and
humor under stress. The homogeneity of these fac-
ets has been supported empirically in the findings
of Willibald Ruch and Amy Carrell. The concept
by McGhee also has a further structural element,
namely the bipolar dimension of playfulness versus
seriousness. For McGhee, humor is a form of play,
namely play with ideas. Without a playful frame
of mind, one may see the same event as interesting,
puzzling, annoying, frightening, but not as funny.
While some people might be good at spotting the
Sense of Humor, Components of 681
incongruities, absurdities, and ironies of life, only
the mentally playful will find humor in them while
those with a serious attitude or frame of mind will
not treat them humorously. Therefore, playfulness is
seen as the foundation of the sense of humor.
Here, sense of humor is still meant to be some-
thing beneficial and positive, but it does not have the
virtuous connotation. These conceptualizations of
humor see it as a good antidote to stress, as McGhee
does, or as a variable describing individual differ-
ences in the enjoyment of humor as inherent in life
like Svebak does. None of these includes critical
forms of humor, such as satire, sarcasm, or ridicule.
Thus, these components relate to humor as a posi-
tive personality trait.
Components of the Sense of Humor as a
Comprehensive Multidimensional Trait
In the prior treatments of sense of humor, the
positive or even virtuous elements of humor were
emphasized and kept strictly separate from more
destructive forms. However, as humor is contempo-
rarily used as an umbrella term for everything that
is funny (including “aggressive” humor), it has also
been suggested that sense of humor needs to strip
off its exclusively positive connotations. If one were
to use sense of humor as an umbrella term for all
dispositions to humor behavior and experience, it
must also incorporate dispositions to mockery, ridi-
cule, or scatological humor. In this approach, sense
of humor is a neutral descriptive term referring to all
components of humor, be they negative, neutral, or
positive. Clearly, elements like the degree to which
individuals comprehend and appreciate jokes, car-
toons, and other humorous materials, their memory
for jokes or funny events, the amount they laugh
and are easily amused, their ability to create humor-
ous comments or perceptions, the tendency to tell
funny stories and amuse other people, the degree to
which people actively seek out sources that make
them laugh, and their tendency to use humor as a
coping mechanism are not subsumed under sense of
humor in the narrow sense, as they are either neu-
tral or slightly positive (but not virtuous). Likewise,
one can add the tendency to make funny remarks on
people’s apparent weaknesses or the habit of spoiling
fun by not telling jokes appropriately as components
of sense of humor in a broader sense (i.e., one not
restricted to the good). Such approaches are occa-
sionally labeled “styles of humor” to avoid a conflict
with the positive connotation of sense of humor.
682 Sexuality
Alternatively, one could call them trait humor as a
multidimensional concept. It has been argued that if
one wants to use humor as a neutral umbrella term
for all types of funny then sense of humor should
also be treated as a neutral term. Components of
humor (more precisely, everyday humorous con-
duct) of a less positive meaning are socially cold
humor, boorish humor, inept humor, mean-spirited
humor, or earthy humor as identified by Kenneth
Craik, Martin Lampert, and Arvalea Nelson (1996).
In this domain, dimensions of humor appreciation
and humor creation are also added. A comprehen-
sive approach to this third understanding of humor
does not yet exist and it will most likely be based
on a representative sampling of humor behaviors,
thoughts, and feelings subjected to factor analysis to
derive descriptive components.
Conclusion
There is disagreement on how to define sense of
humor. It is not even entirely clear how and when
one should use this expression. Nevertheless, there
have been speculations what the core of sense of
humor is, what components are best used to break
the scientific concept down to measurable elements,
and even to use it as a broad term like intelligence
or emotion to incorporate negative, neutral, and
positive components. Like for any personality trait,
it is important to define the substance of sense of
humor via facets or components. It remains one of
the foremost goals of humor research to fill this gap
in the literature. As the virtuousness aspect of humor
received attention again recently, one will need to
see whether the empirical research findings with
the BENCOR supports the utility (i.e., incremental
validity) of this component of sense of humor.
Willibald Ruch
See also Cheerfulness, Seriousness, and Humor; Factor
Analysis of Humor Items; Factor Analysis of Humor
Scales; Humor Styles; Humor Styles Measurement;
Test Measurements of Humor
Further Readings
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996). Sense
of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 9,
273–302. doi: 10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.273
Hehl, F.-J., & Ruch, W. (1985). The location of sense of
humor within comprehensive personality spaces: An
exploratory study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 6(6), 703–715. doi: 10.1016/0191-
8869(85)90081-9
Lersch, P. (1962). Aufbau der Person [Structure of
personality]. München, Germany: Barth.
McGhee, P. E. (1999). Health, healing, and the amuse
system: Humor as survival training. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Ruch, W. (1996). Measurement approaches to the sense of
humor: Introduction and overview. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 239–250.
doi: 10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.239
Ruch, W. (Ed.). (1998). The sense of humor: Explorations
of a personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ruch, W. (2008). The psychology of humor. In V. Raskin
(Ed.), A primer of humor (pp. 17–100). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruch, W. (2013, July 3). Humor in transgressions:
Benevolent and corrective humor. Keynote speech
presented at the 25th International Society for Humor
Studies Conference, Williamsburg, VA.
Ruch, W., & Carrell, A. (1998). Trait cheerfulness and the
sense of humor. Personality and Individual Differences,
24, 551–558. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00221-3
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Europäische Schlüsselwörter.
Band I: Humor und Witz [European key terms. Volume
I: Humor and wit]. Munich, Germany: Huber.
Svebak, S. (1974). Revised questionnaire on the sense of
humor. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15,
328–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1974.tb00597.x
SEXUALITY
The connections between sexuality and humor are
myriad and can be interpreted in several ways. This
entry focuses on two of the most common relation-
ships between humor and sexuality: the use and
appreciation of sexual humor and the role humor
plays in increasing one’s sexual desirability as a
mate. The entry also discusses individual and sex
differences as they pertain to both topics.
Sexual Humor
Sexual humor is a type of humor intended to elicit
laughter through references to sex or sexual activi-
ties. Sexual humor can come in many forms, such
as jokes, cartoons, or physical humor, and it is not
meant to increase the sexual libido of the appreci-
ator or the producer of humor. The sexual nature
of the humor can be either explicit or implied. For
example, the following joke does not include any

direct reference to sex, but the sexual nature of the
joke is clear:
“Is the doctor at home?” the patient asked in his
bronchial whisper.
“No,” the doctor’s young and pretty wife
whispered in reply. “Come right in.”
There are many individual differences in the use
and enjoyment of sexual humor. Some people find
such humor offensive and not funny, while others
enjoy telling and hearing sexual jokes. Studies have
found that sexual humor is appreciated more by
people who exhibit a high sexual drive, have more
positive attitudes toward sexuality, have greater
sexual experiences, and generally enjoy sex more.
When comparing men and women, men tend to
create and enjoy sexual humor more than women,
especially when it is explicit. Many sexual jokes and
cartoons target women and depict them in a dispar-
aging way; thus, it is not surprising that women may
not like them. When the target of the humor is men,
or the humor is not sexist, women seem to enjoy
sexual humor as much as men. Also, women in all-
female groups are more likely to tell sexual jokes
or share humorous sexual anecdotes, compared to
mixed groups, and their level of enjoyment of such
humor is equal to men’s.
Enhancing Desirability as a Mate With Humor
People with a good sense of humor are considered
to have many other desired attributes, such as being
friendly and social, intelligent, warm, and confident.
It is not surprising, then, that sense of humor is con-
sidered a valuable and attractive trait for a mate. In
fact, a good sense of humor consistently ranks as one
of the most desirable traits when looking for a mate
and is especially valued by women (men usually
value physical attractiveness the most). For example,
studies conducted on dating sites show that women
seek a mate with a sense of humor twice as much
as men do, and men who use humor in their ads
are more likely to find a date. However, men tend
to exaggerate their ability to produce high-quality
humor. Most men think of themselves as having
above average humor production ability, a statistical
impossibility.
Certain types of humor seem to be more attractive
than others. For example, self-deprecating humor
is highly valued, especially when it comes from a
high-status individual, maybe because it makes that
person more approachable and vulnerable. Also, less
Sexuality 683
aggressive and less sexual types of humor are much
more appreciated by women, especially in the early
stages of courtship. These types of humor are often
seen as being offensive and deter women from con-
tinuing to pursue a relationship. Thus, using sense of
humor to attract mates should be done intelligently,
which includes the ability to tell appropriate jokes to
the right person and at the right time.
It has been suggested that the different ways men
and women use and appreciate humor during the
mating game result from different evolutionary life
histories. Females in most mammalian species bear
the heavier costs of reproduction, such as pregnancy
and child rearing, while having shorter reproduc-
tion spans. Thus, females must be more careful
when choosing a mate because the consequences of
selecting the wrong mate could be dire. As a result,
females tend to be choosier when selecting mates,
while males fight with other males for female atten-
tion, trying to out-compete them and signal their
mate quality. If humor is a good signal for mate
quality, then we should expect men to try to impress
women with their sense of humor, while women
should be good evaluators of humor.
Recent studies find support for the different ways
men and women process, produce, and appreciate
humor in light of these evolutionary differences. On
average, men score higher than women on humor
creativity tasks, and those who have a good sense
of humor enjoy better mating success—start having
sex earlier, have a higher number of sexual partners,
and have more sex in general—compared to the less
funny individuals. Also, when men and women indi-
cate that they are interested in a mate with a sense
of humor, they often mean different things. Women
want someone that will make them laugh, while
men are interested in someone that will laugh at
their humor. Indeed, studies show that women tend
to laugh more and especially in response to male
speakers or when men are around.
Gil Greengross
See also Appreciation of Humor; Evolutionary
Explanations of Humor; Gender and Humor,
Psychological Aspects of; Gender Roles in Humor;
Marriage and Couples
Further Readings
Bressler, E., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor
on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27,
29–39.
684 Shakespearean Comedy
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2011). Humor ability
reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is
higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring
paradigms: The study of gender and sense of humor
near the end of the 20th century. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The
sense of humor: Explorations of a personality
characteristic (pp. 231–270). Berlin, Germany: Walter
de Gruyter.
Ruch, W., & Hehl, F. (1988). Attitudes to sex, sexual
behaviour and enjoyment of humour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 9(6), 983–994.
SHAKESPEAREAN COMEDY
To speak of “Shakespearean comedy” is to speak of
more than just the 12 plays of William Shakespeare
that resolve temporary problems more or less hap-
pily into social, family, or marital union, as comedy
usually does. In any account of Shakespearean com-
edy, it is also important to consider the humorous
elements throughout his work, for example in the
histories of Henry IV (Parts I and II, 1596–1598)
and Henry V (1599) and in his most famous trag-
edies, Hamlet (1600), Othello (1603), Lear (1605),
and Macbeth (1606), where humorous characters
and situations provide comic relief from the intense
tragic action unfolding all around. Alongside the 12
well-recognized comedies, Shakespeare’s first edi-
tors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, who put
together the First Folio (1623), also included in their
list of his comedies two late plays, The Winter’s Tale
(1609) and The Tempest (1610), which are com-
monly regarded as “romances,” along with two
others, Pericles (1607) and Cymbeline (1610). The
fact that Heminges and Condell included those two
romances indicates just how much Shakespeare’s
handling of romance draws on the convention of
comedy that the plot denouement should dissolve a
play’s conflicts and tensions. Such categorizing also
indicates just how much that particular plot arrange-
ment was thought to define comedy. “Comedy” in
Shakespeare’s cultural world, which was so greatly
influenced by Aristotle, was, once again, very much
defined by both plot construction and humor.
Shakespeare’s comic plots and preferred forms
of humor draw especially on the Roman writers of
comedy, Plautus and Terrence, and the Italian tra-
dition of commedia dell’arte but develop a distinct
style of their own that goes well beyond straight
farce and verbal wit. Particularly important sources
are Plautus’s plays Mostellaria, Menaechmi, and, to
a lesser extent, Amphitruo, and Rudens. Shakespeare
takes from such plays and the commedia dell’arte
the comic elements of trickery, disguise, confusion,
master-slave tension, checked desire, tokens such as
rings that bring recognition and plot resolution, and
stereotypical comic characters such as the senex (old
man) who locks up his daughter to prevent young
men from getting at her and the miles gloriosus
(braggart soldier) whose unbounded pride usually
ends with a good comeuppance. Some of these are
the elements of pure farce. Shakespeare takes them
and gives them a decidedly romantic cast, both in the
sense that he embeds characters with farcical roots
in plots driven by the quest for marital consumma-
tion of romantic love and also in the sense that his
comic plots often tilt toward the genre of romance
in their semitragic endings and supernatural inter-
ventions. For that reason, Shakespearean comedy
often feels quite distinct from the highly satirical cast
of the comedies of his contemporary Ben Jonson
(1572–1637). The romantic shape of Shakespearean
comedy also involves a significant role for the “witty
woman,” who, in many plays, is instrumental in
bringing about the necessary resolution to the plot’s
complications.
Critics have also pointed out that the materiality
of the Roman stage had an influence on its com-
edy and thus on the comedy of Shakespeare and his
contemporaries. For example, the doors onto the
proscaenium (stage) were often used to represent
oppositions between competing moralities, families,
or urban spaces. Shakespeare’s oppositions of place,
such as Athens and the wood in A Midsummer
Night’s Dream—perhaps draw on this aspect of
Roman comedy.
Shakespearean comedy mixes a variety of high
and low comic elements, many of which had
roots in Roman comedy and its Greek forebears,
Aristophanes and Menander. Low comedy includes
such elements as farce, the stage jig, and clown-
ish fools; high comedy elements include the learned
imitation of the classics, controlled verbal displays
of wit, and explorations of upper class manners.
Low comedy provides comic relief in Shakespeare’s
tragedies and some of the key elements of comedies
such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The
Merry Wives of Windsor. Yet, while Shakespeare’s
comedies never quite aim for the flavor of French
High Comedy or Italian commedia erudita, plays
like Love’s Labour’s Lost and Much Ado About
Nothing exemplify the comedy of manners and

verbal wit. In this respect, Shakespeare’s middle
ground between high and low forms of comedy has
more similarities with the “mixed genre” come-
dias de ingenio and comedias de ruido of Spanish
Golden Age drama.
Adapting Roman Models
for Elizabethan Tastes
The first four comedies Shakespeare wrote at the
beginning of his more than 20-year career were
The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Taming of the
Shrew, The Comedy of Errors, and Love’s Labour’s
Lost (ca. 1590–1594). Each of them may be charac-
terized as experiments in adapting Roman models
for Elizabethan tastes and interests. Each of those
four plays experiments with characteristics that
will become more common in later Shakespearean
comedy. The Two Gentlemen of Verona is perhaps
the earliest instance of Shakespeare’s interest in
romantic comedy, incorporating multiple pairings
and stereotypical names for the play’s “heroes”—
Valentine and Proteus (Latin, “changer”). Such
names epitomize the play’s interest in both the
courtly love conventions of Petrarchan discourse
and the volatility of erotic desire, respectively. The
“foolishness” of love drives much of the humor of
Proteus and Valentine’s servants, Lance and Speed.
At its height, the play’s tension revolves around
the faithful lover Valentine forgiving his friend
Proteus for betrayal and an attempted rape of the
former’s beloved, Silvia, by offering Silvia to him!
For such reasons critics have often felt that both
Two Gentlemen and The Taming of the Shrew
were Shakespearean warm-ups. Taming picks up
the names and characters of the servants Tranio
and Grumio out of Plautus’s Mostellaria, as well
as the farce stereotypes of the senex and shrew.
Shakespeare’s characters Baptista and his daugh-
ter Kate develop those stereotypes. Taming also
develops the farce elements of emotionally unself-
conscious characters and preposterous slapstick
violence, especially toward Kate who is subdued
by Petruccio, a suitor. Kate, the young marriage-
able “shrew,” is never beaten but Petruccio’s viola-
tion of her well-being and agency is so extreme it
all too easily remains farcical and unthreatening.
Shakespeare, however, complicates the farce ele-
ments by putting the play action within another
play. The comic gulling of Christopher Sly, which
frames the drama of Petruccio and Kate, makes
Shakespeare’s audience look through one further
Shakespearean Comedy 685
lens at the gender politics accompanying romantic
love in marriage.
The Comedy of Errors is a well-rounded exten-
sion of Plautus’s Menaechmi—replete with the farce
elements of doubled-up twins, mistaken identities,
locked-door gags, and violence removed from deep
suffering. Yet the play develops the assertiveness
of Taming’s Kate into the commanding presence
of Adriana, the frustrated wife of the philandering
Antipholus (of Ephesus). Adriana’s character partly
evinces the stereotype of the complaining shrew
but shatters it with intense lines about the pathos
of female suffering that evoke an audience’s empa-
thy by focusing on a poignant feeling. Consider the
following example, in which Adriana, speaking of
her own suffering, upbraids her sister for failing to
commiserate with her, arguing that since she is not
married and has never felt Adriana’s burden, her
sister cannot empathize: “A wretched soul, bruised
with adversity, / We bid be quiet when we hear
it cry. / But were we burdened with like weight of
pain, / As much or more we should ourselves com-
plain” (2.1.34–37). Despite all, this is a romantic
comedy that ends not only in multiple marriages
but also in the emotionally satisfying family resolu-
tions that Shakespeare would return to time and
time again. Dromio of Syracuse’s punning jest
about arrested clock-time (4.2.52–62) also points
to Shakespeare’s tendency, in many of the comedies
that follow The Comedy of Errors, to position
the main action in forests or other detemporalized
spaces, outside the rigid constraints of clock-time
on human freedom and happiness.
Love’s Labour’s Lost experiments with other
Plautine elements than those of farce that have been
described. Much of Roman comedy was written in
long metrical lines for chanting and would have been
staged with musical accompaniment. Shakespeare
takes the pleasures of language and sound to his
own heights in Love’s Labour’s Lost, filling it with
a humor driven largely by battles of wit between
its romantic protagonists, comic deflations of over-
reaching linguistic play by the braggart soldier
Armado, and the peevish pedantry of Holofernes in
contact with characters such as Constable Dull and
the “natural” (rustic) fool Costard. Shakespeare’s
miles gloriosus here, Armado, is not simply brought
down a peg. He repents of his deceit and self-impor-
tance (5.2.718–720) and self-consciously promises
to be a committed husband to Jaquenetta, whom he
has got pregnant (5.2.872–873). This takes him well
beyond the comic stereotype of the braggart.
686 Shakespearean Comedy
Shakespeare’s Comic Art Reaches Maturity
Shakespeare’s next six comedies take him into the
new century and the full maturation of his comic
art. They include some of his most famous: A
Midsummer Night’s Dream (1595), The Merchant
of Venice (1596), The Merry Wives of Windsor
(1597), Much Ado About Nothing (1598), As You
Like It (1599), and Twelfth Night, or What You
Will (1601).
Both A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The
Merchant of Venice are romantic comedies set
in the formal contexts of public and courtly life.
Their plots are driven by the need to escape from
the “civilized” demands of deference to authority
and financial obligation. Their forms of low com-
edy humor mix poignantly with darker undercur-
rents. The humor in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
is largely focused through the observing eyes of the
Vince Cardinale as Puck in the Pacific Repertory Theatre
production of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream,
at the Carmel Shakespeare Festival, September 2000.
Source: Wikimedia Commons/Pacific Repertory Theatre.
naughty fairy spirit Puck, or Robin Goodfellow.
Puck delights in slapstick and pratfalls (2.1.42–57).
At various points, Shakespeare aligns the audience
with Puck and his comic delight in the “foolish-
ness” that romantic love brings to otherwise digni-
fied human beings. Through his eyes the audience is
encouraged to view the extreme threats of violence
in acts 3 and 4 as merely farcical (3.2.110–121). Yet
the height of the discord in act 3 sees the two male
lovers ready to club each other to death, the female
lovers ready to scratch each other’s eyes out, and the
Queen of immortal fairies brought into bestial copu-
lation with a donkey. The Merchant of Venice, too,
combines the low comedy of Launcelot’s stand-up
and Gratiano’s vulgar jokes about women’s “rings”
with an incredibly poignant extension of a comic ste-
reotype, the avaricious Jew, Shylock. Again, like the
braggart Armado in Love’s Labour’s Lost, and even
more so, Shylock is not just ridiculed as an unseemly
stereotype. Shakespeare takes us deep into the ideo-
logical conflict that Shylock faces and which mar-
ginalizes him, evoking both our empathy toward his
plight at the same time as our disapproval of his vin-
dictive behavior. Fascinatingly, both A Midsummer
Night’s Dream and The Merchant of Venice quash
the darker undertones of their third and fourth
acts in fifth acts that sweep away the problems by
improbable forms of intervention and an unset-
tling return to the farce of buffoonish acting and
vulgar punning, respectively. In the case of Dream,
the intervention comes from magical love juice and
apparently benevolent fairies. In that of Merchant,
it is the intervention of the brilliant Portia dressed
up as a young male lawyer suddenly endowed with
sufficient legal credentials to convince the Duke and
the court of (her) being a wise and “learned” judge.
For the young male lawyers of the Inns of Court
in Shakespeare’s audience, the whole scenario is
meant to sound unlikely. With such interventions,
Shakespeare reminds us of the thin veil that stands
between comic resolution and the tragedies of life.
Just as in Dream, the romantic comedy As You
Like It compounds the comedy of thwarted sexual
desire with familial discord. Urban discontent again
finds recourse in the green world of a forest. As You
Like It’s forest of Arden has its own inverted court,
drawing on the myths of Robin Hood, where loyalty
and justice reign with a strong tinge of melancholy,
ironically, given the greenwood’s removal from the
city. Once again, the plot reaffirms the bonds of mar-
riage and family via the intervention of one of the
lovers, the witty and wise young woman Rosalind.

Shakespeare’s famous comedies Much Ado About
Nothing (1598) and Twelfth Night, or What You
Will (1601) take us into a form of romantic comedy
that has become a modern staple, as familiar from
Jane Austen as it is from Hollywood film. The lov-
ers end up together but only after internal struggles
that have more to do with character and feeling than
with the interferences of authority figures. With
Much Ado, Shakespeare approaches the kind of high
comedy of manners later popularized by the French
playwright Molière. A “battle of the sexes” humor
is present in the buffoonish war of wit between the
eventual lovers Benedick and Beatrice. Shakespeare
takes the eavesdropping scenes in Plautus’s Miles
Gloriosus and uses them not for the exposure of vice
but for the development of the romantic plot. While
the two lovers are eavesdropping, their friends trick
them into thinking that each is really in love with the
other, while only pretending to be hostile. Of course,
this just ignites the erotic fervor underlying their war
of wit. These moments enact the play’s concern with
the performance of certain states of mind and the
emotional shifts involved in love.
In Twelfth Night, Shakespeare revisits the comic
confusions of cross-gendered twins. Yet he darkens
the plot resolution with an episode involving the
character of Malvolio, the countess Olivia’s steward.
Malvolio’s name in Italian means “I dislike” and
hints also at “ill will.” He is a stereotypical killjoy.
While Malvolio is roundly mocked for his dampen-
ing spirit, the extreme trickery put upon him by Sir
Toby, Olivia’s drunken kinsman, is so severe it casts
a shadow over the joyful family reunions and mar-
riages the play ends with.
A similar ambivalence pervades the endings of
the late comedies that are often dubbed “problem
plays”—Measure for Measure (1603) and All’s
Well That Ends Well (1606)—and also the end-
ings of the later “romances” such as The Tempest
(1610). The denouements of these plays resolve
most of the romantic and familial conflicts but not
without significant struggles and lingering unhap-
piness for some characters. In All’s Well Bertram,
the young count of Rossillion, is far from pleased
by his enforced marriage to Helena at the king’s
behest. We legitimately ask whether Helena can
really be confident that marriage will be a happy
one. Since All’s Well is Shakespeare’s last clearly
identifiable comedy, it is reasonable to think that
the title forms an ironic comment on the enforced
closure implicit in comedy’s representation of the
world. The lingering discomfort is also reflected in
Shakespearean Comedy 687
the “tragicomic” romances. Caliban, for instance,
the pitiful “deformed slave” who inhabits the island
of Prospero in The Tempest, remains utterly dis-
possessed while the other characters are reunited.
In Cymbeline (1610), the strained relationships are
smoothed out but the emotional baggage of betrayal
and confusion lingers.
Comic Relief in Tragedy
In Shakespeare’s four great tragedies—Hamlet
(1600), Othello (1603), King Lear (1605), and
Macbeth (1606)—humor is used for comic relief.
Hamlet makes bawdy jests to Ophelia (3.2.121–
131) in the middle of the intense moment in which
Hamlet seeks to “catch the conscience of the king”
(2.2.603), while in the first scene of act 5, the grave-
diggers’ gallows humor flows seamlessly into Ham-
let’s morbid reflection on mortality. The tragedy in
Othello is punctuated with comic scenes of the gull-
ing of Roderigo. Lear’s Fool attempts to alleviate the
king’s suffering with little success. The comic door-
knocking in act 2 scene 2 of Macbeth immediately
follows the eponymous hero’s murder of the hapless
king and his harrowing expression of guilt.
Fools and fool figures, too, are a major aspect
of Shakespearean comedy. Foolish clown figures
turn up in all the genres Shakespeare wrote in and
function both to generate humor and to express
unsettling criticism. Shakespeare experiments with
a range of fool figures familiar in European literary
culture. For instance, the character of Bottom from
A Midsummer Night’s Dream exemplifies the figure
of the natural fool or rustic, who is unable to stand
up to the taunts of wittier characters and is regularly
made the butt of others’ jokes. Feste, from Twelfth
Night, on the other hand, provides an example of
the learned fool whose very wit holds a mirror up
to the vices and shortcomings of the society around
him. To that extent, he largely reflects the wise fool
figure that Erasmus developed in The Praise of Folly.
One of Shakespeare’s most fascinating fools is
the figure of Falstaff, who makes an appearance
in the two Henry IV plays and in the comedy The
Merry Wives of Windsor. The Falstaff of Merry
Wives combines two shades of the fool. He is a
lecherous “Lord of Misrule,” who gathers around
him the disreputable characters that enhance the
play’s bawdy farce, and cares not a jot for the sanc-
tity of social institutions such as marriage. At the
same time, he brings together the braggart soldier
and vice figure of medieval morality plays. In the
688 Share
Henry IV plays, Shakespeare retains Falstaff’s low
comedy credentials but also makes him parody the
wise fool. Shakespeare makes him stand up on the
battlefield and brazenly deconstruct the value of
honor for which people are dying all around him. In
Henry IV Part 1 (5.1.127–140), to the young Prince
Hal’s statement to Falstaff that “thou owest God a
death,” he replies,
’Tis not due yet. I would be loath to pay him before
his day . . . Well, ’tis no matter. Honor pricks me on.
Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on?
How then? Can honor set to a leg? no. Or an arm?
no. Or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honor
hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What is honor? A
word. What is in that word “honor”? What is that
“honor”? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He
that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he
hear it? No . . . Therefore I’ll none of it. Honor is a
mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.
This is partly a jest designed to make us laugh at
Falstaff’s unseemly cowardice, but, in being that,
it is also a veiled and careful critical unsettling of
contemporary preoccupations with honor. When
Shakespeare offers a critical voice on the world
around him, it is often put in the mouth of fools
and buried in the layers of both conservative and
less conservative humor.
Daniel Derrin
See also Ancient Roman Comedy; Boccaccio, Giovanni;
Carnivalesque; Cervantes, Miguel de; Clowns;
Comedy; Comic Relief; Comic Versus Tragic
Worldviews; Comic World; Commedia dell’Arte;
Farce; Folklore; Fools; Genres and Styles of Comedy;
Goldoni, Carlo; High Comedy; History of Humor:
Renaissance Europe; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Irony;
Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Low Comedy; Menander;
National and Ethnic Differences; Nonsense; Parody;
Play and Humor; Plautus; Satire; Spoofing;
Tragicomedy; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Doran, M. (1964). Endeavors of art: A study of form in
Elizabethan drama. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Gay, P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to
Shakespeare’s comedies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Miola, R. (1994). Shakespeare and classical comedy: The
influence of Plautus and Terence. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Ornstein, R. (1986). Shakespeare’s comedies: From Roman
farce to romantic mystery. Newark: University of
Delaware Press.
Ryan, L. (2009) Shakespeare’s comedies. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
SHARE
Share, pronounced as two syllables, sha-re (shar-
ray), is the general Japanese term for linguistic
humor, wordplay, wit, elegance of diction. The most
common meaning of the word is “decoration.”
Oshare (with an honorific o-) means anything from
dressed up, to elegance, or dandyism and foppery.
Share therefore means elegance of speech or writing:
thus anything from a simple pun to a tissue of poetic
rhetorical flourishes. Today when Japanese people
talk about Share meaning wordplay, puns of some
kind are generally indicated. This entry discusses
Share in Japan in both modern and traditional times.
The Japanese language is peculiarly well suited to
puns but not at all to rhyme. Like the Polynesian lan-
guages, Japanese has a small number of phonemes
and a consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel structure
(CVCV), with only five vowel sounds (the five pure
vowels). There are thus, in the written language,
only six ways in which any word may end—in one
of the five vowels or in the letter n—so rhyme occurs
all the time and is neither noticed nor used as Share.
Because there are huge numbers of possible syllables
in European languages (e.g., English can produce
thousands of different syllables), finding a rhyme is
clever; but in Japanese, with fewer than a hundred
possible syllables, it is not. Thus other forms of liter-
ary elegance developed in Japanese.
Because of the small number of possible syllables,
the same ones need to be used over and over, cre-
ating huge numbers of homophones. Lecturing in
Australia during the 1970s, dramatist Hisashi Inoue
(1934–2012) pointed out that the prime minister of
Japan can be delivering a perfectly serious speech
and make a horrendous string of puns. These will
not be noticed because the situation is defined as
inappropriate for punning.
Chinese characters were imported into Japan in
the 6th century CE. Their Chinese readings were
Japanized and Japanese readings attributed to
them. Almost all characters therefore have at least
two readings and many have more. Vocabulary
and characters were borrowed from several differ-
ent Chinese dialects, depending on which area of

China was culturally dominant at the time. Thus
the hundreds of different syllables and the various
ways they were pronounced in different dialects of
Chinese all had to be squeezed into the 90 or so syl-
lables of Japanese, multiplying again the number of
homophones. The standard Kenkyusha dictionary,
for example, lists 22 words read as kanshō, ranging
in meaning from spikenard (a rare plant), a chime,
and a government office, to meddling and sentiment.
These homophones can be unambiguously distin-
guished by being written in Chinese characters, but
if spelled out in the hiragana or katakana syllabaries
also used in Japanese, they may become ambiguous
and “punny.”
Some Modern Japanese Puns
Kotoba asobi uta (Wordplay Songs or Wordplay
Poems) by eminent poet Shuntarō Tanikawa (b.
1931) provides many accessible and charming
modern examples of wordplay. One is a poem that
plays on the pun IRUKA ᾏ㇜; ࠸ࡿ࠿ (dolphin)
and IRU KA ᒃࡿ࠿; ࠸ࡿ࠿ (Are you there?). Its
first line is
Iruka iruka?
This can mean
Are you there, dolphins? or
Dolphins, are you there? or maybe even
Dolphins, dolphins or
Are you there, are you there?
Two words in one line of poetry thus give four pos-
sible meanings. The second line has only two pos-
sible meanings:
Inaika iruka?
Are you not there, dolphins? or
Are you not there or are you there?
Dajare (Gratuitous Pun)
The word for pun most commonly used in daily
speech is the denigrating term Dajare, which means
“packhorse-share” and refers generally to a gratu-
itous pun or a “bad pun.” Someone who has made a
pun in normal Japanese conversation (this does not
happen often) may excuse it, marking it retrospec-
tively as a joke by saying, “I like Dajare.”
An example of a gratuitous pun is the name
of a hotel in Nara, one of the ancient capital cit-
ies of Japan. In 2011, the hotel was called “Cotton
100%.” This is written in Japanese as ྂࡗ㒔ࢇ
㸯㸮㸮㸣ࠊThis is read “Ko-t-to-N 100%,” and
Share 689
means “100% cotton,” but is written with characters
meaning “Old-t-Capital-N 100%.” In Japan, where
summer is humid and cotton clothes are known to
absorb perspiration, Cotton 100% implies good
quality. In accordance with the spirit of the Dajare,
the writing system has been somewhat tortured to
produce this joke so that we get three meanings: old
capital, Cotton 100%, and the implication of good
quality. Since there is no link of meaning between
old capital and cotton, it is not only tortured, but a
gratuitous pun.
Goro awase (Mnemonic pun)
The most common, indeed, virtually universal, use
of punning in modern Japanese is the use of the first
syllable of numbers as a mnemonic.
Because Japanese uses a counting system derived
from Chinese (ichi-ni-san 1, 2, 3) along with the
native counting system (hitotsu-futatsu-mittsu 1, 2,
3), many different syllables can be used to represent
numbers to assist memory. To simplify them, these
include
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
i ni mi shi go ro na ya ku
One story recounted by Hisashi Inoue concerns
a doctor who changed his telephone number
because his patients were remembering it by its
string of numbers 37564:
3 - 7 - 5 - 6 - 4
Mi - na - go - ro - shi
which means “massacre.”
If the unfortunate Dr. Massacre had lived in
Nagoya, he might have been better pleased with
this phone number:
4 - 7 - 7 - 1 – 7 - 5 - 8 - 4
Shi - na - na - i Na - go - ya - shi
Although nonsensical, it would be instantly and per-
manently remembered because it would mean: “Do
not die Nagoya City.”
Traditional Share
Wordplay in Japan developed long ago to a sophisti-
cated level. For example, in the Nō play Motomezuka
(14th to 15th centuries), traditional Japanese schol-
arship identifies “as many as twelve poetic allu-
sions, fourteen pivot words, six related words, two
Chinese verses and one preface appropriated from
690 Share
the Japanese classic traditions, all in the space of two
or three pages” (Terasaki, 2002). Thus 40% of the
above linguistic embellishments are puns. A modern
reader would study and appreciate these through an
edition where the traditional scholars’ analyses are
given on each page below the text, in the same way
that editions of the works of Geoffrey Chaucer and
other medieval European writers may be annotated
to make them understandable to readers of modern
European languages.
The Japanese humorous tradition specializes in
puns of various kinds and much of the humorous lit-
erature of the Edo period (1603–1868) interweaves
puns with other linguistic humor and wordplay that
may or may not be intended to be funny. Together
they are a way of embellishing diction and allowing
a rich world of allusion despite the severe constraints
of even a poem only a few syllables long.
This linguistic wit is most effective and reaches its
greatest heights of complexity in the written form.
The author has a choice of scripts to make meanings
explicit or ambiguous as desired, and readers can
untangle and savor the humor at their own pace so
that very great complications are possible, particu-
larly in comic poetry in the forms known as Kyōka
and Senryū.
Traditional Kinds of Japanese Pun
Fashion has affected wordplay as well as things like
clothing. As in the other arts, there has in the past
been a tendency for schools (or at least groups) to
form, with followers apprenticing themselves to a
master to learn a particular kind of Share.
Partly because of this tradition of individuals’
taking ownership of various genres and devices,
there seems to be no single generic term for pun in
Japanese. Share itself means wordplay, the bulk of
which are puns of one sort or another; but there
are also particular words for many different kinds
of pun. Nihongo no share (Japanese Wordplay),
by Suzuki Tōzō, devotes chapters to many kinds
of wordplay. Somewhat dauntingly, these include:
Shūku, Kyōgen (a kind of joke, not the theatrical
genre), Rikō, Kosegoto, Kasuri, Kuchiai, Mojiri,
Goro, Shiritori, Jiguchi, Sharekotoba, Herazuguchi,
and Murimondō. There is room here for only a brief
look at two types of pun.
Kakekotoba (Pivot Words)
A kakekotoba or pivot word is an ancient device,
which, at its most sophisticated, is a complex use
of a pun to form what Lewis Carroll (author of
Alice in Wonderland, 1865) might have called a
portmanteau sentence. Ideally, instead of collapsing
two words into one (a portmanteau word such as
Carroll’s slithy = slimy + lithe), the sentence pivots
on a pun, which collapses two sentences into one. It
thus jumps, via the punning pivot word, from half-
way through one sentence to halfway through the
second sentence. This gives two sentences for the
price of one, allowing great density of allusion.
The following example of a pivot word comes
from the Nō play, Matsukaze (Wind in the Pines):
Tachiwakare We part
Inaba no yama no But as soon as I hear
Mine ni ouru That on the peak of
Mount Inaba
MATSU to shi kikaba You PINE for me, A
WAITING PINE TREE
Ima kaerikomu I shall return
The pun in the fourth line of the verse relies on its
rendering in hiragana. The pivot word is matsu:
ࡲࡘ࡜ࡋࡁ࠿ࡤ
Matsu ᯇ means “a pine tree” and matsu ᚅࡘ
means “to wait.” When they are spelled out in hira-
gana however, they are both written ࡲࡘ and there-
fore become ambiguous. The pun on pining and
pine tree is Terasaki Etsuko’s, but pining as an impli-
cation of waiting in Japanese is legitimate poetic
license. What took four words to capture in English
(TO PINE, WAITING and PINE TREE), is elegantly
expressed in Japanese with the one word (matsu),
which results in the poem pivoting from an image
of a lone pine to an image of a lone woman waiting
(Terasaki, 2002, 35; Marguerite Wells, Trans.).
Kuchiai and Jiguchi
Kuchiai are a kind of extended pun where a whole
sentence (or part of one) parallels—although it is not
homophonous with—a more familiar phrase. It is
a parody on a pun and the word means something
like “Mouth-fit,” the implication perhaps being that
one needs to get one’s tongue around the puns, fit-
ting one’s mouth to the unfamiliar new words that
take so familiar a form. This name comes from the
area near Osaka, whereas in the Edo area (Tokyo), it
was called Jiguchi. Many literary genres of the Edo
period (particularly Kibyōshi) exploited Share and
punning.

A simple example quoted by Ono (1999, p. 37)
is a Kuchiai by Saitō Gesshin (1804–1878) on the
Japanese proverb that means the same as the English
“pearls before swine”:
Neko ni koban Gold coins to a cat
The Kuchiai is
Neko ni goban A Go board to a cat
A Go board (used in the ancient Chinese game of
Go) would be as much use to a cat as a chessboard.
Modern Kuchiai from Japanese television were
recorded by Heiyō Nagashima (2007, p. 75). One is
an advertisement featuring Nobunaga Oda (1543–
1582), the warlord who unified Japan. Exhorting
customers to place all their insurance policies with
the one company, Nobunaga says
Hoken tōitsu ja. Unify our insurance!
This is a Kuchiai on Nobunaga’s real historical
policy:
Nippon tōitsu ja. Unify Japan!
There are cases of Kuchiai used in English, for
example by Lewis Carroll (1865). In an extended
series of them, the Mock Turtle questions Alice
about the subjects that she took at school. His own
curriculum at the bottom of the sea included
Reeling and Writhing, Ambition, Distraction,
Uglification and Derision
(instead of Reading and Writing, Addition,
Subtraction, Multiplication and Division)
Mystery, Ancient and Modern with Seaography
(instead of History, Ancient and Modern with
Geography)
Drawling, Stretching and Fainting in Coils,
(instead of Drawing, Sketching and Painting in
Oils)
Classics: Laughing and Grief
(instead of Classics: Latin and Greek)
Conclusion
In English, all the different devices outlined above
would be called puns. Despite the difficulty of trans-
lating Japanese puns, it has been done, as is exem-
plified by the English translation of the classic,
Tōkaidōchū Hizakurige by Jippensha Ikku (1960).
Other translations (Shiba, 2003) are offered as
part of a Festschrift for Howard Hibbett, scholar
Sick Humor 691
in Japanese literature. An accessible Japanese collec-
tion of modern puns is Tanikawa (1982), which is
in hiragana and easy to read, although the Share are
challenging.
Marguerite Wells
See also Absurdist Humor; Ambiguity; Anti-Proverb;
Epigram; History of Humor: Modern Japan; History
of Humor: Premodern Japan; Jokes; Kyōgen; Pointe;
Puns; Senryū; Translation; Verbal Humor; Witz;
Xiehouyu
Further Readings
Carroll, L. (1865), Alice’s adventures in wonderland.
London, UK: D. Appleton.
Cohn, J. (Trans.). (2003). In the soup, hand-made: The
thousand sliced arms of the Bodhisattva of Mercy by
Shiba Zenkō. In J. Solt (Ed.), An episodic Festschrift for
Howard Hibbett (Vol. 14). Hollywood, CA:
Highmoonoon.
Jippensha Ikku. (1960). Hizakurige, or Shanks’s mare
(T. Satchell, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle.
Kern, A. L. (2006). Manga from the floating world:
Comicbook culture and the Kibyôshi of Edo Japan.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Asia Center.
Nagashima, H. (2007). Sha-re: A widely accepted form of
Japanese wordplay. In J. Milner Davis (Ed.),
Understanding humor in Japan (pp. 75–84). Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Ono Mitsuyasu. (1999). Kotoba asobi no bungakushi
[A literary history of wordplay]. Tokyo, Japan:
Shintensha Sensho 11.
Suzuki Tōzō. (1979). Nihongo no share [Japanese
wordplay]. Tokyo, Japan: Kōdansha Gakujutsu Bunko.
Tanikawa Shuntarō. (1982). Kotoba asobi uta [Wordplay
songs]. Tokyo, Japan: Fukuinkan.
Terasaki, E. (2002). Figures of desire: Wordplay, spirit
possession, fantasy, madness and mourning in Japanese
Noh plays. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies,
University of Michigan.
Wells, M. (1997). Japanese humour. London, UK:
Macmillan.
Wells, M. (2010). Translating humour for performance:
Two hard cases from Inoue Hisashi’s play, Yabuhara
Kengyō. In D. Chiaro (Ed.), Translation and humour
(pp. 134–157). London, UK: Continuum.
SICK HUMOR
Sick humor can be described as humor that breaks
social conventions as to what it is appropriate to
692 Sick Humor
joke about. The New Oxford Dictionary of English
defines sick humor as “having something unpleas-
ant such as death, illness or misfortune as its subject
and dealing with it in an offensive way.” Likewise,
Harvey Mindess, Carolyn Miller, Joy Turek,
Amanda Bender, and Suzanne Corbin (1985) see
sick humor as being about death, disease, deformity,
and the handicapped. These definitions complement
each other but also need to be completed by includ-
ing jokes about the human tendency toward cruelty.
Sick humor is often perceived as “tasteless,” maca-
bre, or morbid. Research literature doesn’t draw
a clear distinction between sick humor and black
humor. The New Oxford Dictionary of English’s
definition of black humor is “presenting tragic or
harrowing situations in comic terms,” which sug-
gests intersections between sick and black humor as
well as gallows humor. Black and even more so, sick
humor, have the potential of being offensive, some-
times intentionally so.
Examples for sick humor reported in research
literature are cruel jokes such as the “Shut up and
keep digging” joke cycle (e.g., “But mother I don’t
want to go to China.” “Shut up and keep digging.”;
“Mommy, I want a new dog.” “Shut up, we haven’t
finished eating this one yet.” [Sutton-Smith, 1960,
pp. 15, 17]), but also jokes about handicaps; disas-
ters such as the Chile mining accident in 2010 or
the September 11, 2001, terror attacks; the death
of celebrities; Holocaust jokes; and pranks at wakes
(e.g., making corpses move); or so-called graveyard
humor. While gallows humor generally refers to
actual threats and great dangers, sick jokes exist
both about fictional situations and events that actu-
ally have taken place. Typically, jokes about cruelties
or disasters present themselves as joke cycles with a
certain pattern. For example, in “Dead Baby” jokes
(e.g., “What’s red and white, red and white, pink,
pink, pink?—Baby in a blender” [Dundes, 1987,
p. 8]), the incongruity arises from a symbol of inno-
cence (a baby) that comes to a gruesome death. The
NASA joke cycle uses an actual event: the explo-
sion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986 that
was broadcast live over television and witnessed by
many people. This cycle usually starts with the same
joke: “What does NASA stand for?—Need another
seven astronauts” (Oring, 1987, p. 280).
Historical Development
Early documentation of sick jokes can already be
found in the oldest Greek collection of jokes, the
Philogelos (10th century CE). Another example of
sick humor is Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay “A
Modest Proposal” from 1729. Swift proposes that
the Irish should fight famine and poverty by eating
their own children at the age of 1, when they are
most tasty. Thus they would be able to save money
not only on food as they have their food resource
at home, but also on “maintenance” costs for the
children after the first year. Other predecessors to
sick humor cycles date back to the English poet
J. H. C. “Harry” Graham in the 1890s, who pub-
lished popular collections of rhymed verses playing
with macabre topics:
Billy, in one of his nice new sashes,
Fell in the fire and was burnt to ashes;
Now, although the room grows chilly,
I haven’t the heart to poke poor Billy. (Quoted in
Dundes, 1979, p. 146)
Graham’s rhymes might have inspired “Little
Willie” humor cycles, which came up in the 1930s
and usually involved a little boy who, for example,
kills other family members and either gets no more
than a raised finger or is even admired for what he
is able to achieve at the tender age of 6. Sick jokes
of the modern kind first appeared in the 1940s
(e.g., the little moron jokes). Jokes about disasters
only emerged when television started broadcasting
news about disasters directly into people’s living
rooms. By superimposing feelings of involvement
onto an actually uninvolved audience, says Christie
Davies in 2011, an absurd incongruity evolves that
leads to the sick jokes. The Internet makes it pos-
sible to distribute this kind of joke very quickly.
Appreciation of and Motivation
for Sick Humor
Psychologists have looked at personality or other
variables that might predict the appreciation of sick
jokes or humorous behaviors related to sick humor.
In these studies, appreciation of and behavior
related to sick humor are usually measured either by
rating the funniness of sets of sick jokes or by ques-
tionnaire measures. Men have usually been found
to appreciate sick humor to a higher degree than
women. People who appreciate sick humor tend to
be more liberal; more rebellious; less emotionally
responsive toward other people’s situations, both
positive and negative (e.g., fictional or real trage-
dies); and less religious and spiritual. However, they
seem to be more likely to engage in a coping style

that involves venting and the expression of their
own emotions in public, whether socially appropri-
ate or not. Persons liking earthy and sick humor
also seem to be less conformist and less agreeable.
Sick jokes are, however, not a homogeneous group
and appreciation for different kinds of jokes may
differ.
There are diverse views on the motivations for
and psychological functions of sick jokes. While
many scholars and researchers refer to the use of
sick humor as a means of coping with the subject
that is joked about, to speak the unspeakable, to
show Schadenfreude, or to deal with a somewhat
disturbed mind (e.g., a hidden wish to kill), other
researchers state that a joke in and of itself cannot
have any implication as to its morality or motiva-
tion. These scholars emphasize that what makes the
crucial difference to interpretations and implications
of jokes, in particular sick ones, is the context in
which the joke is told, that is, the cultural or social
environment, who the joke tellers and their audience
are, and factors such as tone of voice and introduc-
tion of the joke.
Ursula Beermann
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Coping
Mechanism; Doggerel; Gallows Humor; Insult and
Invective; Jest, Jestbooks, and Jesters; Joke Cycles;
Jokes; Obscenity; Philogelos; Play and Humor; Satire;
Scatology; Targets of Humor; Travesty
Further Readings
Brock, A. (2008). Humor, jokes, and irony versus mocking,
gossip, and black humor. In G. Antos & E. Ventola
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication
(pp. 541–565). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. (1996). Sense
of humor and styles of everyday humorous conduct.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 9,
273–302.
Davies, C. E. (2011). Jokes about disasters: A response to
tales told on television full of hype and fury. In C.
Hoffstadt & S. Höltgen, Sick humor (pp. 11–40).
Bochum, Germany: Projektverlag.
Dundes, A. (1979). The dead baby joke cycle. Western
Folklore, 38, 145–157.
Dundes, A. (1987). Cracking jokes: Studies of sick humor
cycles and stereotypes. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Herzog, T. R., & Anderson, M. R. (2000). Joke cruelty,
emotional responsiveness, and joke appreciation.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
13, 333–352.
Simple Form 693
Hierocles. (1983). The Philogelos, or, laughter-lover
(B. Baldwin, Ed. & Trans.). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
J. C. Gieben.
Graham, J. H. C. (2009). When Grandmama fell off the
boat: The best of Harry Graham. London, UK:
Sheldrake Press.
Mindess, H., Miller, C., Turek, J., Bender, A., & Corbin, S.
(1985). The Antioch Humor Test: Making sense of
humor. New York, NY: Avon Books.
Narvaez, P. (2003). Of corpse: Death and humor in
folklore and popular culture. Logan: Utah State
University Press.
Oring, E. (1987). Jokes and the discourse on disaster.
Journal of American Folklore, 100, 276–286.
Saroglou, V., & Anciaux, L. (2004). Liking sick humor:
Coping styles and religion as predictors. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 257–277.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1960). “Shut up and keep digging”: The
cruel joke series. Midwest Folklore, 10, 11–22.
SIMPLE FORM
Simple forms (SFs) refers to a concept of folk litera-
ture as the expression of elementary cognitive atti-
tudes (mental dispositions, modes of thought) and
provides a theoretical umbrella term to systemati-
cally cover various verbal folklore genres. As a term,
SF is the English translation of Einfache Formen
(EF), a book published in 1930 by art historian and
literary scholar André Jolles, which has continued
to give theoretical impulses as well as reason for
confusion and critique. This book was never trans-
lated into English, but it continues to be published in
German and remains influential.
Jolles was born in 1874 in the Netherlands. After
school, as a poet and promoter of the symbolist
movement, he founded and contributed to vari-
ous literary and cultural journals. Studying in Italy,
France, the Netherlands, and Germany, he finished
archeology and history at Freiburg University. In
1907, Jolles became a university teacher, moving
to Berlin in 1908. After receiving German citizen-
ship (1914), Jolles volunteered in World War I until
1916, then becoming professor of archeology and
art history in German-occupied Ghent (Belgium). In
1918, he was appointed professor of Flemish and
Dutch at Leipzig University, becoming professor
of comparative literature in 1923. From 1933 on,
Jolles was a supporter of Nazi ideology and a party
member, who after the war admitted only academic
consultation with the regime concerning the history
694 Simple Form
and symbolism of 18th-century Freemasonry. Jolles
became an emeritus professor in 1941 but remained
at the university until the end of the war, where he
taught seminars on the psychology of races and
cultures. He was one of the last honorees to receive
the renowned Goethe-Medaille für Kunst und
Wissenschaft (Goethe Medal for Art and Science) in
1944. Jolles died in 1946, before making a decision
about whether to return to the Netherlands.
Based on various prestudies from the 1920s,
Jolles attempted to define specifically and system-
atically what had before been termed Naturpoesie
(natural poetry) by Jacob Grimm in the early 19th
century. Grimm characterized natural poetry as
divinely inspired and spontaneous, as opposed to
Kunstpoesie (artistic poetry), the result of individual
acts of creation. In contrast to literary scholarship
focusing the individual genius (Genieästhetik),
Jolles postulated the “determination of form”
(Formbestimmung) and the “interpretation of pat-
tern” (Gestaltdeutung) as central morphological
tasks. Referring to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, he
defined this task with regard to poetry as a whole,
asking if the various patterns form a common, inter-
nally coherent and ordered whole, a system.
With special focus on folk literature, Jolles antici-
pated German morphological literary approaches
of the 1940s (Emil Staiger, Gunther Mueller, Horst
Oppel); he did not, however, concentrate on indi-
vidual texts: His rather phenomenological approach
is far from being structuralist in orientation, and his
interests in morphology must by no means be con-
founded with early structuralist ideas as, for exam-
ple, Vladimir Propp’s Morphology of the Russian
Folk-Tale (1928). Jolles’s approach, though similar
in inclination, also differs from ideas simultaneously
propagated by Roman Jakobson and Pëtr Bogatyrëv.
In their 1929 seminal essay “Folklore as a Special
Form of Artistic Creation,” these authors attempted
to determine similarities and differences of folklore
and literature, favoring a functional view, introduc-
ing the notion of “preventive censorship of the com-
munity,” and assuming that only the forms operating
in a given community will survive in folklore.
Thus, at a time when in Russia formalist
approaches to literature were already converting into
structuralism, Jolles adhered to a Romantic concept
of language as an “anthropomorphic deity” and
“Goddess language,” as early reviews phrased it.
In order to identify the patterns of this allegedly
closed system of simple forms, Jolles referred to so-
called mental occupations (Geistesbeschäftigungen)
underlying them. A summary of these simple forms
and their corresponding mental occupations fol-
lows: legend (Legende)—imitation; saga (Sage)—
family, or tribe; myth (Mythe)—knowledge; riddle
(Rätsel)—knowledge; saying (Spruch)—experience;
case (Kasus)—norm; memorabilia (Memorabile)—
real/actual; folk-tale (Märchen)—marvelous; joke
(Witz)—comic.
Jolles excluded transitions between SFs or
derivations from one SF to another. Although,
for example, both myth and riddle are related to
“knowledge,” emphasizing question and answer,
the riddle for him is a question asked in the present
to be answered in the future, whereas the myth is
a question from the past answered in the present.
Jolles refused to identify SFs with concrete genres
(and even less with specific texts). Rather, in anal-
ogy to the Saussurean opposition of langue (lan-
guage) and parole (speech) in linguistics, Jolles saw
an SF to exist only potentially (potentialiter); only
when (re-)produced in oral or written form does it
come into being actually (actualiter). When Jolles
therefore juxtaposed a “pure” SF (Reine EF) to an
“actual(ized)” SF (Aktuelle, Vergegenwärtigte EF),
he had in mind some kind of archetypes; referring
to the modern genotext–phenotext concept (based
on the well-known genotype-phenotype distinction
in genetics), one might adequately use the terms
genogenre versus phenogenre to refer to Jolles’s idea.
Jolles could thus interpret Ancient Greek victory
odes (epinikia) as well as modern sport reports to
be actualizations of the legend. For the joke, Jolles
considered relief or discharge as characteristic, when
something bound is released or (dis)solved—what
allows for a comparison with other concepts of
humor. Depending on historical, geographical, and
other factors, the pure SF joke may thus be actual-
ized in concrete genres such as the pun; Jolles here
even referred to the schwank, seeing its essence in the
derision of individual characters or typical figures.
Pure and actual(ized) SFs must not be confounded
with what Jolles called an analogical, related, or
derived SF, that is, individually authored texts, liter-
ary creations, based on or even pretending to be SFs,
as for example, literary tales, riddles, or even novels.
Modern concepts have elaborated the concept
of SF and (re-)interpreted it from different theoreti-
cal perspectives, including structuralist approaches
(e.g., those of Elli Köngäs-Maranda and Pierre
Maranda, and of Grigorij L. Permjakov), concen-
trating on analogies between SFs and processes of
elaboration or condensation, and semiotic attempts

considering SFs as prototypes of more elaborated
(“higher”) literary genres and cultural prototypes.
Historical-diachronical studies have demonstrated
interrelations between SFs, for example, myth and
riddle, originally being related by specific rituals.
Conceptually integrating cultural processes of step-
wise profanation (desecularization) and ridiculiza-
tion, or the process of making something ridiculous,
might well help explain the evolution of individual
SFs (sacred riddle → everyday riddle → joke
riddle → meta-linguistic riddle) and evolutionary
transitions between SFs (e.g., myth → folktale →
schwank → joke).
Peter Grzybek
See also Folklore; Jokes; Puns; Riddle; Schwank; Witz
Further Readings
Eismann, W., & Grzybek, P. (1987). Semiotische Studien
zum Rätsel [Semiotic studies about the riddle]. In
W. Eismann & P. Grzybek (Eds.), Simple forms
reconsidered II. Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer.
Grzybek, P. (1984). Semiotische Studien zum Sprichwort
[Semiotic studies about the proverb]. In P. Grzybek
(Ed.), Simple forms reconsidered I. Tübingen, Germany:
Narr. [Special issue of Kodikas Code · Ars Semeiotica.
An International Journal of Semiotics, 3/4]
Jolles, A. (1930). Einfache Formen: Legende, Sage, Mythe,
Rätsel, Spruch, Kasus, Memorabile, Märchen, Witz
[Simple forms: Legend, saga, myth, riddle, saying, case,
report of memorable events, tale, joke]. Tübingen,
Germany: Niemeyer.
Koch, W. A. (1994). Simple forms: An encyclopaedia of
simple text-types in lore and literature. Bochum,
Germany: Brockmeyer.
Köngäs-Maranda, E., & Maranda, P. (1971). Structural
models in folklore and transformational essays. The
Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
Permyakov, G. L. (1970/1979). From proverb to folk-tale:
Notes on the general theory of cliché. Moscow, Russia:
Nauka.
SITCOMS
Sitcoms, or situational comedies, are one of the
dominant forms of television and radio comedy
in the world, with a history aligned with that of
global broadcasting and a wealth of program-
ming from multiple nations. This entry outlines
the key characteristics of the majority of sitcoms,
Sitcoms 695
and examines how the humor within sitcoms com-
monly functions.
Defining Sitcoms
The most fruitful way to think of sitcoms is as a tele-
vision and radio genre. Genres are forms of culture
that have characteristics in common but can never
be concretely defined to the point that what belongs
in such a category is beyond discussion; therefore,
deciding what is and is not a sitcom is always up for
debate. That said, there are characteristics that can
be seen to recur often across the genre and that are
commonly understood to be indicative of sitcoms.
Sitcoms are a serial form of television and radio,
made up of many episodes (sometimes into the hun-
dreds) often across many years. This serial format is
common in broadcasting, where the regular nature
of the schedule encourages program making that is
episodic. This distinguishes sitcoms from comedy in
other media because, unlike the theater, film, or the
novel, sitcoms are not predicated on getting to the
end of the narrative. While individual episodes may
have self-contained stories, the ongoing, episodic
nature of sitcoms means that the overall ending is
repeatedly delayed, and, therefore, only the middle
portion of the story is presented to the audience.
This fact has caused many problems for the use of
traditional comedy analysis when one studies sit-
coms because most of those frameworks argue that
comedy can be defined by its happy ending. Analysis
of sitcoms has, therefore, had to develop new mod-
els that acknowledge the genre’s episodic structure.
This episodic structure accounts for the kinds of
settings that recur in sitcoms, as a program needs
to have a setup that can facilitate multiple charac-
ters and many episodes. Many sitcoms are set in the
home, where the main characters are a family and
the comedy centers on familial relationships and
misunderstandings. Similarly, sitcoms are often set
in workplaces, where multiple characters repeatedly
interact in a restricted setting. The idea of place is
key to sitcoms, and it is common for them to have
very few sets. Location shooting has traditionally
been rare in sitcoms; sitcoms are usually considered
a studio-bound genre.
Most sitcoms are 30 minutes long in broadcast
time and, in commercial broadcasting systems, must
include narrative breaks in order to accommodate
advertising. For many decades, the dominant way in
which sitcoms were filmed was in front of a live studio
audience, whose laughter was recorded and broadcast
696 Sitcoms
alongside the program. This laugh track remains one
of the most obvious defining characteristics of the
genre, even though there have been programs that
have not used it. Although the lack of a laugh track
has become more prevalent in recent years, the laugh
track remains an interesting characteristic of the
genre: It means that sitcoms are a form of culture that
acknowledges the audience it is performed for and
invites audiences at home to align themselves with
those who were at the recording, which can be seen
as being indicative of comedy’s communal nature and
the social aspects of humor and laughter.
The narrative structure of sitcoms is one that has
conventionally been examined as working within
an equilibrium-disequilibrium-equilibrium schema.
That is, an episode of a sitcom depicts a set of social
norms, which are then problematized via characters’
actions, external forces, or other events. The com-
edy in the sitcom therefore arises from characters’
attempting to reassert their equilibrium and the mis-
match between their characteristics and the situations
they are placed in. Sitcoms can be seen to rely heavily
on incongruity for their humor. Because many analy-
ses argue that sitcom episodes end when the initial
equilibrium has been restored, the genre has often
been criticized for being conservative and for suggest-
ing that a happy ending is one in which changes are
rejected. While such analyses may be appropriate for
individual episodes, the episodic nature of broadcast-
ing means that how narratives function in episodes
might be quite different from that for series, and the
potential progressive nature of sitcoms is one of the
key debates that arises from analyses of it.
Origins
The origins of sitcoms reveal why the laugh track
came into being. The genre evolved out of the move-
ment of comedians who had been working in theat-
rical traditions such as vaudeville and the music hall
into radio and television broadcasting. While the
theater allowed comedians to repeatedly perform
the same routine to different audiences, broadcast-
ing required large amounts of new material to fill
multiple episodes for a mass audience. To fill such
space, extra characters were added to the series and
plot lines were introduced. Radio comedy, therefore,
slowly evolved into a form in which comedy was
centered on multiple characters in a defined setting.
When television began, this format moved to the new
medium. Sitcoms can be seen as a logical solution to
the problem of how to do comedy in broadcasting.
The characteristics of sitcoms belie their theatrical
origins, whereas the serial nature of sitcoms takes
advantage of the particularities of broadcasting. In
that sense, sitcoms are a useful genre for the speci-
ficities of radio and television broadcasting.
Sitcoms’ theatrical origins can also be seen in
performance style, which is often quite different
from that of other radio and television genres. Per-
formance in sitcoms is often less naturalist than that
in straight drama and instead highlights comedic
moments through its excess. Such performance also
draws on the relationship between actors and the
audience in the studio to whom they are performing,
and actors’ pauses and responses often take audi-
ence reactions into account. In that sense, perfor-
mance in sitcoms often captures the theatrical nature
of the moment of recording and, unlike much tele-
vision fiction, acknowledges it is a piece of fiction
explicitly created for entertainment purposes. While
sitcoms without laugh tracks might be assumed to
move away from such a performance style because
of the lack of a relationship between performer and
audience, such programs often similarly employ
acting that is excessive compared to the norms for
drama. Performance, therefore, is a vital element in
sitcoms’ makeup and also routinely marks distinc-
tions between serious and comedic fiction.
Performance differences also depend on national
and cultural contexts. For example, analyses of U.S.
sitcoms argue that the genre must be understood
relative to its Jewish origins, as many writers and
performers of early sitcoms were Jewish and Jewish
culture has had an influence on American culture
as a whole. It has been argued that since the 1990s,
sitcoms have become much more open about their
Jewish aspects, when, in earlier times, production
teams on programs like The Dick Van Dyke Show
(1961–1966) were encouraged to make programs
more WASPish. A preponderance in American sit-
coms of self-aware characters whose comedy results
from their analysis of their own situation is seen to
be a result of sitcoms’ Jewish origins and thus, their
Jewish nature. By comparison, the United Kingdom
repeatedly depicts resolutely un-self-aware charac-
ters instead, and the comedy arises from those char-
acters’ failings, social inadequacies, and ignorance of
how others see them.
Representation and Culture
Analyses of sitcoms have often focused on issues of
representation, in a manner similar to debates about
 Sitcoms 697

comedy as a whole. For example, much work has

explored how women have been portrayed in com-
edy, especially as many sitcoms have male charac-
ters in the lead roles. Women have, therefore, often
served as the butt of comedy, and sitcoms have been
criticized for offering the male point of view as the
norm that audiences must identify with. Some critics
have argued that sitcoms have offered a powerful
place for funny women to appear and reach mass
audiences and that the comedy they offer critiques
patriarchal norms. For example, many feminist cri-
tiques cite Roseanne (ABC, 1988–1997) as offer-
ing a portrayal of women and femininity quite at
odds with the majority of such representations and
note that the humor used by the female characters
empowers them.
Representational debates similarly focus on issues
of race and ethnicity. For example, some sitcoms
have been criticized for their depictions of Black
and African American characters, which are seen
as comparable to racist uses of humor in a variety
of comedy. Multiple studies have been carried out
on the sitcom The Cosby Show (NBC, 1984–1992),
which was a highly successful program depicting
the routine events in an upper middle-class African
American family in the United States. In its depiction Bea Arthur in a publicity photo for the TV series Maude,
in which she starred. The sitcom, directed by Norman
of such lives in an everyday manner, with charac-
Lear, ran from 1972 to 1978.
ters who are knowingly funny and intelligent, the
program has been lauded as a breakthrough in Source: Wikimedia Commons.
such representations; however, the series has also
been criticized for failing to acknowledge the politi-
cal and social problems that individuals encounter series in the United States. Such programs are useful
and for conforming to racial stereotypes in some of for analyzing the cultural specificities of humor and
its performances. While it is impossible to come to the national norms of broadcasting. For example,
definitive conclusions in such debates, they show the comparisons of versions of The Office (BBC, 2001–
social significance often applied to sitcoms, whereby 2003)—which originated in the United Kingdom
the comedic content and representational strate- but has been remade in the United States, France,
gies of series are seen as indicative of wider social Germany, Canada, Chile, Sweden, and Israel—can
perceptions and norms. Thus, sitcoms have often be used to explore the kinds of jokes that people
been employed in studies of race, gender, and social in each of those countries find funny, and the ways
power as being powerfully emblematic of wider in which comedy functions in relationship with
social concerns, and the genre’s strategies are repeat- national broadcasting. Sitcom’s transnational move-
edly placed in the spotlight. ment across the globe suggests that it functions as a
The majority of sitcoms have been produced in powerful cultural and economic force.
the United States and the United Kingdom, and the
genre can claim to primarily be an English-speaking
The Future of Sitcoms
one. Programs made in both countries have been
exported all over the world, and so have become one Although this entry has focused on television and
of the key ways in which representations of those radio sitcoms, newer technologies have resulted
nations move across countries. Many countries also in new media where sitcoms can exist. There has
make their own versions of sitcoms that originated been a growth of sitcoms on the Internet due to
elsewhere; indeed, UK series have been remade into online broadcasting, and a number of writers and
698 Sketch Comedy Shows
performers have used the Internet to bypass tradi-
tional broadcasting systems to disseminate comedy.
This opens up the potential for sitcoms to become
a genre made by a wider range of people than was
previously the case, which may not only ensure the
genre’s future as a core element in worldwide com-
edy but also broaden the kinds of sitcoms available
to audiences. So, how the genre will develop in the
future is up for debate.
Brett Mills
See also Comedy; Gender Roles in Humor; Incongruity
and Resolution; Jewish Humor; Music Hall; National
and Ethnic Differences; Race, Representations of
Further Readings
Brook, V. (2003). Something ain’t kosher here: The rise of
the “Jewish” sitcom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Cook, J. (Ed.). (1982). B.F.I. Dossier 17: Television sitcom.
London, UK: British Film Institute.
Grote, D. (1983). The end of comedy: The sit-com and the
comedic tradition. Hamden, CT: Archon.
Mills, B. (2005). Television sitcom. London, UK: British
Film Institute.
Mills, B. (2009). The sitcom. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Edinburgh University Press.
Morreale, J. (Ed.). (2003). Critiquing the sitcom: A reader.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
SKETCH COMEDY SHOWS
Sketch comedy shows, also called sketch shows, are
a common form of television and radio comedy pro-
duced throughout the history of broadcasting and
evident in a number of nations. This entry outlines
the key characteristics of the majority of sketch com-
edy shows, and examines how the humor within
them commonly functions.
Defining Sketch Comedy Shows
Sketch shows are considered a radio and television
comedy genre, that is, a certain kind of comedy that
has a set of characteristics and is assumed to have
enough in common to constitute a set of norms or
traditions. While all genres encompass flexibility
and genre definitions can never be concrete or fixed,
defining sketch shows is perhaps more difficult than
doing so for other comedy genres, such as sitcoms.
Indeed, perhaps one of the key characteristics of
sketch shows is their flexibility, thereby ensuring
problems in definition.
Sketch shows are characterized by individual epi-
sodes that are made up of many shorter, typically
stand-alone, comedic pieces. There are as many
sketches as are necessary to fill the length of the
episode, which is commonly 30 minutes. Individual
sketches may vary in length from a couple of sec-
onds to many minutes, and there are few restrictions
on subject matter or form, other than those imposed
by the practical and economic factors within which
any particular program works. Sketch shows are
therefore a highly flexible format, which places few
boundaries upon its makers and can encompass a
multitude of performance styles, comedic intentions,
and varieties of humor.
Because sketch shows are made up of many indi-
vidual elements, and one episode is likely to be part
of a much longer series containing many episodes,
it is difficult to analyze in terms of narrative. This
has caused problems for the academic study of
sketch shows because many such frameworks define
comedy by its happy ending and it is not feasible to
delineate the narrative end of a sketch show. Indeed,
while many forms of media comedy have been
explored within academic study, sketch shows have
remained visibly absent from such analyses. There is
a real lack of work in this area, perhaps because it
is assumed that sketch shows are of less significance
than other comedic forms; however, it may also be a
consequence of the difficulty in transferring existing
analytical frameworks to the genre.
While sketch shows can be made up of many
entirely unrelated comic moments; in practice most
series use recurring characters, settings, and situ-
ations. Series can often come to be defined by the
key characters that recur in multiple sketches, and
later episodes of a particular series may foreground
such characters more, showing how series respond
to audience feedback and the comedic success of
particular elements. Sketch shows—like sitcoms—
also often employ catchphrases, which are sayings
or responses associated with a particular character
whose use of them commonly becomes the point of
a particular sketch. It is not uncommon for popu-
lar and successful catchphrases to catch on outside
the program and to be used by fans and viewers in
everyday speech. Catchphrases offer an interesting
counterpoint to many frameworks for the analysis
of comedy that assume surprise is a key element in a
successful joking moment because catchphrases are

pleasurable precisely because they are expected and
hoped for. The success of catchphrases points to the
communal pleasures that exist in comedy, whereby
audiences are invited to enjoy predicting the appear-
ance of a catchphrase as part of a community that
enjoys a particular sketch show or character.
Although the flexible nature of sketch shows
can encourage a wide array of settings and situa-
tions, series often focus on locations and characters
intended to be recognizable to the audience. Sketch
shows, therefore, frequently focus on families, work-
places, schools, and other everyday institutions.
Indeed, because segments in sketch shows are often
so short, commonplace settings are foregrounded
because there is not much time available to ensure
the audience knows what is going on; therefore,
recognizable locations become a shorthand way of
quickly setting up a sketch. Furthermore, recogniz-
able and recurring settings can be a way of cutting
costs in production, which can be more expensive for
sketch shows than for other forms of media comedy
because of the multiple sets and costumes needed
being significantly more than for, say, sitcoms. Most
sketch shows are filmed in studios rather than on
location although—as will be discussed later—newer
forms of technology are affecting this convention.
The majority of sketch shows are filmed in front
of live studio audiences, and therefore, they approxi-
mate a kind of live theater. The responses made by
audiences at such recordings are included in the
broadcast as a laugh track. As with sitcoms, a laugh
track is a key defining characteristic of sketch shows,
even though some series may not use it. The use of a
laugh track is an interesting feature of these genres,
as it means these programs acknowledge and aurally
include the audience for whom the program is made.
In that sense, the response to the comedy is seen to
be as important to the final broadcast as the comedic
content itself. It is quite common in sketch shows to
see the ways in which performers are responding to
the audience whose laughter is being recorded, and
therefore the “live” experience of such recording
becomes an element in the program. This is perhaps
most evident when sketch shows use catchphrases
and performers sometimes leave long pauses before
the expected phrase is uttered, inviting the audience
to enjoy the anticipation of its arrival. That genres
such as this retain the live audience as part of the
program must be emphasized, as this is quite at odds
with the majority of broadcast material, which, in a
realist mode, refuses to acknowledge its production
processes.
Sketch Comedy Shows 699
Comedy is often examined for what it says about
the culture that produces it, and debates about
humor’s progressive or regressive nature abound.
Exploring sketch shows in this way is problematic
because of the lack of coherent and linear narrative
and because the “meaning” of one particular sketch
might be quite at odds with that which precedes
or follows it. Recurring characters in sketch shows
tend to have little progression, and their comedic
value is predicated on their stability. Can we read
this as the genre therefore relying on regressive and
simplistically stable representations? Or does the
complex panoply of characters and sketches rubbing
up against one another instead construct a collage
of meanings, none of which can be definitively tied
down? The format of multiple elements common to
sketch shows remains difficult to grasp analytically.
Origins
Like much television and radio comedy, the origins
of sketch shows lie in the theater, in the traditions of
music hall in the United Kingdom and vaudeville in
the United States. Sketch shows’ format of multiple
unrelated elements making up a sequence of comedic
entertainment approximates neatly with theatrical
comedic traditions in which a series of performers
(comedians, singers, novelty acts) made up an eve-
ning’s bill. Early radio transplanted such acts whole-
sale into broadcasting, in essence acting merely to
disseminate to a wider listening audience material
that had been circulating onstage for many years.
Sitcoms have similar origins, though in that genre
the disparate elements came to coalesce around a
particular character and setting, and narrative
became foregrounded with the idea of story being
central. Sketch shows, however, retain a clearer link
with the theatrical antecedents that begat both sit-
coms and the sketch shows, rejecting the idea of nar-
rative being central as in sitcoms.
For some time variety was a key element in radio
and television broadcasting in the United Kingdom
and the United States, with many series explicitly
adopting theatrical conventions, such as perform-
ers standing in front of a curtain. While elements
of variety remain in much of broadcasting (such as
in chat shows and talent competitions), it is rather
rare now to see variety shows of the format that was
once popular on television. It can, then, be argued
that sketch shows are the closest we have now to
that variety heritage, and it is not uncommon for
sketch shows to signal that history again through
700 Slapstick
tropes such as performers standing in front of a
theater-like curtain. It is interesting to note that these
conventions persist, particularly as it is probable
that younger audience members are unlikely to have
ever experienced the theatrical traditions that are
being referenced. In that sense, it can be argued that
such conventions are now more accurately those of
sketch shows, with the link to a theatrical past little
more than a historical curiosity.
That said, it is not uncommon for performers and
writers in sketch shows to come out of a theatrical
context, though this is more likely to be via stand-up
comedy routes. In the United Kingdom, for example,
many broadcasting executives scour the comedy cir-
cuit at the annual Edinburgh Festival to find writers
and performers to whom they can offer broadcasting
contracts, and such performers are usually offered a
sketch show as their first commission. Presumably
this is because of the assumption that the format of
sketch shows is the most straightforward evolution
of stand-up and on-stage material. In that sense,
sketch shows remain an important training ground
for new talent, and it can be argued that in this genre
the future direction of broadcast comedy can be
most consistently discerned.
Furthermore, one of the key characteristics of
sketch shows is that it is extremely common for a
program’s performers to also be its writers; while
this sometimes occurs in other genres, it is not as
apparent to the extent it is in sketch shows. The
concept of the writer-performer correlates with ideas
about the authorship of comedy and suggests that
comedy relies on certain comic “voices” that are
particular to individuals and groups. Sketch shows
can therefore be examined in terms of the range of
voices offered, as well as those that are less com-
mon; for example, representations of different races,
genders, and ethnicities can—as with all comedy—
be explored.
The Future of Sketch Comedy Shows
New technologies offer a wide range of opportuni-
ties for sketch shows, especially because, as noted
above, the genre is one often employed by people
new to broadcast comedy. Many comedians and
comedy groups wanting to break into television
and radio comedy now post material online, often
setting up YouTube channels. This material is typi-
cally quite short, with individual sketches lasting
no longer than one minute or so, and aim to show
individuals’ skills in writing and performing jokes.
In that sense, the sketch is the calling card of the
aspiring comedy star, not least because such short
material is more easily produced on a limited bud-
get. While online material demonstrates that sketch
material can now be found in a wider range of
places than before, it also raises questions about
how sketch shows are defined: What is it that turns
many sketches into a sketch show? Is there any
worthwhile difference between many sketches on a
YouTube channel and those sketches collected into
a half-hour format and broadcast on a traditional
television channel? Thinking this through highlights
the particularities of sketch shows, and that mak-
ing sense of the genre requires exploring the rela-
tionships between individual sketches and the text
as a whole. To be sure, the growth of online mate-
rial suggests that sketches and sketch shows have an
ensured future, and they remain a key format for
highlighting the future of comedy and the work of
the next generation of comedians.
Brett Mills
See also Comedy; Comedy Ensembles; Comic Opera;
Humor Content Versus Structure; Music Hall;
Musical Comedy; Punch Line; Sketch Comedy Shows;
Travesty; Variety Shows
Further Readings
Creeber, G. (Ed.). (2009). The television genre book.
London, UK: British Film Institute.
Landy, M. (2005). Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Lockyer, S. (Ed.). (2012). Reading Little Britain: Comedy
matters on contemporary television. London, UK: I. B.
Tauris.
Tueth, M. V. (2005). Laughter in the living room:
Television comedy and the American home audience.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wilmut, R. (1980). From fringe to Flying Circus:
Celebrating a unique generation of comedy, 1960–1980.
London, UK: Methuen.
SLAPSTICK
Slapstick is a form of physical comedy generally
involving broad humor, horseplay, absurd situa-
tions, or violent actions. Other familiar examples
are pies in the face, pratfalls (landing on one’s back-
side), walking into walls, slipping on banana peels,
goofy faces, and “wedgies” (pulling up someone’s

underwear at the waistband so as to wedge it
between the buttocks). The term comes from a slap-
stick, a theatrical prop consisting of two sticks that
slap on each other so that they produce a loud clap
when applied with little force, thus simulating a hard
blow with no risk to the actors.
Film examples of slapstick include works by
or starring The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy,
Lucille Ball, Jerry Lewis, Dick Van Dyke, Mel Brooks,
Rowan Atkinson, Chris Farley, Michael Richards,
Sacha Baron Cohen, and Jim Carrey, which feature
cartoonish physical (and verbal) abuse, tit-for-tat
fights, near-elastic facial expressions, over-the-top
gesticulating, and general physical clowning. In fact,
some of these stars are so recognized for their slap-
stick talents that they’ve had difficulty succeeding in
serious roles.
Slapstick comedy also serves as a convention of
some of Hollywood’s earliest feature-length comedy
subgenres. For example, the Marx Brothers’ anar-
chic comedies such as Horse Feathers (Norman Z.
McLeod, 1932) and Duck Soup (Leo McCarey,
1933) incorporated broad physical humor alongside
complex double entendres, sight gags, and stream-
of-consciousness plots (Monty Python and the
aforementioned Mel Brooks almost singlehandedly
revived this declining subgenre in the 1970s). As
well, screwball comedies such as Bringing Up Baby
(Howard Hawks, 1938) and His Girl Friday (How-
ard Hawks, 1940) featured pratfalls and roughhous-
ing alongside rapid-fire verbal gymnastics, farce, and
heterosexual romantic plotlines. Today’s audiences
will recognize the same in screwball descendants
such as Bridget Jones’s Diary (Sharon Maguire,
2001) and Something’s Gotta Give (Nancy Mey-
ers, 2003). Finally, many of Hollywood’s animated
shorts were constructed almost entirely of slapstick
situations. Warner Bros.’s Wile E. Coyote, Elmer
Fudd, and Daffy Duck, for instance, frequently fall
down holes, fly off cliffs, shoot themselves in the
face, find their heads stuck in rocks, or crash into
painted images of caves. More recently, animated
television shows such as Spongebob Squarepants
(1999– ), Family Guy (1999– ), and Phineas and
Ferb (2007– ) carry on this tradition in some of their
episodes.
But Hollywood “talkies” and television shows
are not the only media to embrace slapstick. In fact,
since slapstick humor can also be understood and
appreciated without words, screen clowns such
as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd,
Mabel Normand, and Mack Sennett’s Keystone
Slapstick 701
Cops relied heavily on the form in their silent films.
For instance, to escape a skirmish and gunfire in
The Gold Rush (Charlie Chaplin, 1925), Chaplin’s
Little Tramp climbs up and down walls, ducks
under tables, and leaps dexterously from one piece
of furniture to the next. In a later scene, to avoid
plummeting to his death over a cliff, the character
seesaws across the floor in a teetering cabin as well
as shimmies up a gold-prospector’s body, ultimately
standing atop his companion’s head. Most famous
perhaps are the scenes from The Gold Rush in which
Chaplin’s Tramp, virtually dying of hunger, attempts
to eats his own shoe and in which the prospector,
also famished, hallucinates the Tramp as a giant
chicken. While silent, the comedy here is broad, the
situations absurd.
Still, silent cinema is not the first to employ slap-
stick. In fact, slapstick comedy originated in the 16th
century from a style of Italian theater known as com-
media dell’arte. In brief, commedia dell’arte features
stock character types, masks with exaggerated fea-
tures, copious props, women performers (for a time
at least), outdoor locations, satire, improvisation,
jokes, and themes of jealousy, love, and adultery. Sig-
nificantly, one of the stock characters, Arlecchino—
a clever and acrobatic but somewhat simpleminded
servant—carries a prop called a batocchino, which
in English translates to “slapstick.” Arlecchino’s
slapstick is made of two flat paddles of wood sepa-
rated at the handle, so when an unsuspecting char-
acter is whacked with it, often on the backside, the
audience hears a surprisingly loud sound. And then
they laugh. Heartily. This appeal to our baser selves
is one reason slapstick is often delineated as a form
of lowbrow comedy. Indeed, slapstick differs from
puns or wit or satire, for example, which usually
targets a more sophisticated audience.
Nonetheless, this slapstick style spread quickly
across 16th-century Europe and ultimately found its
way into the works of William Shakespeare, among
others. Theatergoers experience this most notably
in one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, The Comedy
of Errors (ca. 1590). Based on the confusion over
two sets of identical twins, The Comedy of Errors
includes farce, madcap chase sequences, and wrong-
ful beatings, the latter of which would have high-
lighted the slapstick for comedic effect. Slapstick
elements are also found in Shakespeare’s The Merry
Wives of Windsor (ca. 1600) in which Falstaff (he of
the red nose and large belly) is tricked into hiding in
a dirty laundry basket that is eventually tossed into
the Thames River. In the play, Falstaff also dresses in
702 Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns
drag, is pinched by “fairies” (local school children),
and beaten by a woman. Scholars have not always
been kind to The Comedy of Errors and The Merry
Wives of Windsor because of their inclusions of slap-
stick, but modern audiences of London’s National
Theatre for instance, continue to find them “a comic
delight” and “magnificently funny.”
The same may be said of the form in general.
After all, audiences are still flocking to media that
feature this broad, violent, and often silly physi-
cal humor. Some recent testaments to this notion,
most of which are wildly popular and financially
successful: the gross-out (or animal) comedies
of Judd Apatow; spoof or parody movies such
as Scary Movie (Keenan Ivory Wayans, 2000)
and Austin Powers: Goldmember (Jay Roach,
2002); sketch shows such as Saturday Night Live
(1975– ), Chappelle’s Show (2003–2006), and
Key & Peele (2012– ); reality programs such as
Jackass (2000–2002) and America’s Funniest
Home Videos (1989– ); and videos uploaded onto
YouTube by people who record their own slap-
stick experiences, hoping someone out there will
watch. From the 16th-century Italian stage, to
silent and sound cinema, to television, and now to
the Internet, slapstick comedy is still going strong.
Kelli Marshall
See also Commedia Dell’Arte; Farce; Gag; Lazzi;
Movies; Parody; Puns
Further Readings
Crafton, D. (1955). Pie and chase: Gag, spectacle, and
narrative in slapstick comedy. In K. B. Karnick &
H. Jenkins (Eds.), Classical Hollywood comedy
(pp. 106–119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dale, A. S. (2000). Comedy is a man in trouble: Slapstick
in American movies. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
King, R. (2011). The spice of the program: Educational
pictures, early sound slapstick, and the small-town
audience. Film History: An International Journal, 23(3),
313–330.
Nashawaty, C. (2012, April 6). The Three Stooges
collection, Vol. One [Review of DVD]. Entertainment
Weekly, pp. 70–71.
Parker, J. (2010, October). The Jackass effect. The Atlantic,
pp. 56–59.
Wagner, K. A. (2011). Have women a sense of humor?
Comedy and femininity in early twentieth-century film.
The Velvet Light Trap, 68, 35–46.
Websites
National Theatre Live (The Comedy of Errors): http://
www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/the-comedy-of-errors
SMILING AND LAUGHTER:
EXPRESSIVE PATTERNS
Although smiling and laughter are universal, study-
ing these phenomena is a highly complex process.
Unpacking the expressive patterns involved in
smiling and laughter helps researchers understand
and measure the meaning of the expression being
conveyed. For example, when Fredrick Redlich,
Jacob Levine, and Theodore Sohler (1951) pre-
sented patients with cartoons, they were also inter-
ested in the nonverbal responses, which they coded
while interacting or from video. Six responses
(N = negative response, O = no response, s = half-
smile, S = full smile, C = chuckle, and L = laugh-
ter) were identified as important and constituted
the “mirth spectrum.” Ordering them according to
intensity of response, Edward Zigler, Jacob Levine,
and Laurence Gould (1966) created the mirth-
response index. Occasionally, chuckle and negative
responses were not included, and often the index
ranges from no response (0 points) to half-smile
(1 point), smile (2 points), and laughter (3 points),
which was assumed by some research as being pro-
totypical and exhaustive.
What was revolutionary 50 years ago is no longer
tenable. Negative and positive responses are not on
a same dimension and might even blend into one
single expression (e.g., disgust jokes). Researchers
now doubt that laughter should be scored higher
than smiling as they propose that smiling and laugh-
ing signify different things and thus should not be
included in the same index. Importantly, types of
smiles, laughter, and negative responses do matter
for a comprehensive understanding, but research-
ers do not believe that words carry the information.
Rather, researchers believe it is important to provide
accurate morphological observation, that is, how
the laughter or smile is created. Moreover, current
assessment tools are used for all body movement
or all facial actions and are not restricted to smiling
and laughter. This entry discusses how researchers
measure and classify smiles and laughter as well as
the emotions expressed through smiles and laughter
and other nonverbal gestures.

Measurement of Smiles and Laughter
Facial measurement is typically based on facial elec-
tromyography (or facial EMG) or coding systems.
The former is economic but may be less valid. Sur-
face (or needle) electrodes gather signals generated
when muscles contract. A reference electrode is also
needed. Advantages include continuous measure-
ment and saving time. While fine-grained intensity
may vary, the amplitude is not standardized and not
comparable across people, as the strength of the sig-
nal is affected not only by degree of muscle contrac-
tion but also by factors such as muscle thickness,
exact muscle placement, skin thickness, and fat lay-
ers. Furthermore, muscles may “cross-talk,” espe-
cially when using surface electrodes (e.g., one elec-
trode placed on one muscle may actually pick up the
electric activity from the muscle below or next to it).
Coding systems differ in level of sophistication,
usually trading how much information they offer for
how time consuming they are. The leading tool, the
Facial Action Coding System (FACS) significantly
updated by Paul Ekman, Wallace V. Friesen, and
Joseph C. Hager in 2002, is an anatomically based,
comprehensive, objective technique for measuring
all observable facial movement, distinguishing 44
action units (AUs). These are the minimal units that
are anatomically separate and visually distinguish-
able. Each AU can be measured in terms of occur-
rence, intensity (5 steps), symmetry/asymmetry, and
duration. To become a certified coder of FACS, 100
hours of instruction and a final test are required.
Different variants (baby FACS, chimpanzee FACS)
exist. Although automated coding procedures that
identify many AUs exist, they do not catch all AUs
and are often inaccurate regarding intensity scores.
Hence, they are not yet able to replace manual
coding.
Important AUs for the study of smiling and laugh-
ter are AU12, AU6, AU7, AU25, AU26, and AU27.
AU12 (“lip corner puller”) refers to the contraction
of the zygomatic major muscle, which pulls the lip
corner up diagonally toward the cheekbone. AU6
(“cheek raiser and lid compresser”) and AU7 (“lid
tightener”) describe the actions of the outer and
inner part of the orbicularis oculi muscle. The action
of the former raises the cheek and causes crow’s
feet and bulging of the skin below the eye; the lat-
ter raises and tightens the lower eyelid. AU25 (“lips
part”) refers to parting lips, AU26 (“jaw drop”) to
lowering the jaw, and AU27 (“mouth stretch”) to
stretching the lower jaw.
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns 703
The Duchenne Display
Defining smiling as an upward turn of the lip
corners is not sufficient for adequate measurement
because it does not allow distinguishing among
movements by the five facial muscles inserting into
the lip corners: the zygomatic major (AU12), zygo-
matic minor (AU11, “nasolabial furrow deepener”),
levator anguli oris (or caninus; AU13, “sharp lip
puller”), buccinator (AU14, “dimpler”), and riso-
rius (AU20, “lip stretcher”). It is only the zygomatic
major muscle that creates the changes that are typi-
cal for a happy smile, the pulling of the lip corners
upward and backward. French anatomist Duchenne
du Bologne in 1872 discovered that the mere contrac-
tion of the zygomatic major muscle gave the impres-
sion of a fake smile; a happy expression additionally
required contraction of the orbicularis oculi (AU6).
Rediscovering this observation, Paul Ekman, Richard
Davidson, and Wallace Friesen (1990) named this
facial configuration the Duchenne display. The
Duchenne smile display may include parting of the
lips (AU25) and/or lowering (AU26) or stretching
(AU27) of the jaw, but other facial action casts doubt
that the individual is experiencing joy or a variant of
pleasurable emotion. The Duchenne smile is expected
to be within two-thirds of a second and 4 seconds, be
symmetrical, with both muscles reaching apex at the
same time and both onset and offset being smooth.
Willibald Ruch showed that the Duchenne smile
is the one elicited by humor stimuli. Studies with
jokes and cartoons, funny clips, and interactions
between experimenter and participants also elicited
laughter, and it became clear that the laughter in
response to humor is also based on the Duchenne
display, albeit a literature review showed that laugh-
ter in general may involve more muscles.
Smiling Is Less Than, Different From,
or Equal to Laughter?
The mirth-response index assigns lower numbers
to smiling than to laughter, assuming it is qualita-
tively comparable to but less than laughter. This idea
was pioneered by Charles Darwin (1872/1998) who
proposed that a graduated series can be followed
from “violent to moderate laughter, to a broad
smile, to a gentle smile, and to the expression of
mere cheerfulness” (p. 206). A second tradition is
based on ethological proposed results that smiling
and laughter have evolved independently from each
other across species. Hence, smiling and laughter
704 Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns
should be treated separately in experiments. A third
approach treats smiling and laughter equally, and
the intensity estimate is based on the intensity of the
facial expression (whether or not laughter syllables
are uttered).
There is evidence that laughter is indeed more
than smiling when occurring in response to humor;
it occurs at higher AU12 intensities and when people
rate jokes as funnier. The idea of a graduated series
cannot be applied when the emotions differ; that is, a
contempt smile is not just less than a happy laughter.
While Darwin’s work on smiling was based on the
findings of Duchenne du Bologne, for laughter he
added intensified contractions; but for “strongest”
or “violent” laughter, he postulated that “frowning”
occurs at the apex (i.e., a contraction of the corruga-
tor muscle, AU4 in FACS) as well.
Expressions of Emotions
Positive Emotions
For Darwin, laughter and smiling are expressions
of joy. Traditionally, humor research rarely included
joy but used more specific emotions. Meanwhile,
emotion research distinguishes among different
facets of joy. It is evident that in these models the
responses to humor are captured by the term amuse-
ment (i.e., awareness of incongruity in a situation
and feeling playful with others in the environment).
Michelle N. Shiota, Dacher Keltner, and Oliver P.
John (2006) list eight positive emotions: amuse-
ment, awe, contentment, gratitude, interest, joy,
love, and pride. Ekman (2003) posits that there are
16 universal enjoyable emotions. In addition to five
sensory pleasures (tactile, olfactory, auditory, visual,
and gustatory), there is amusement, contentment,
excitement, relief, wonder, ecstasy (self-transcendent
rapture), fiero (pride in one’s own achievements),
naches (pride in the achievements of others with
whom you have a relationship), elevation, gratitude,
and Schadenfreude (the joy of a rival’s misfortune).
Furthermore, he speculates that while the 16 enjoy-
able emotions differ in their parameters (onset/
offset, duration of apex and/or emotion event, and
intensity), they will be based on the Duchenne dis-
play smile (enjoyment smile).
Other terms or concepts were proposed. Some re-
searchers prefer the term mirth; however, no explicit
concept of what this emotion entails exactly has been
proposed. One concept that was fleshed out in detail
was exhilaration (understood as a quick raise and de-
cline in cheerful state or state of hilarity). Exhilaration
is the literal translation from the German term Erhe-
iterung, which is similar to amusement.
Darwin claims laughter is expressing joy, yet it
may occur during other positive emotional states
too. In the list of enjoyable emotions by Ekman, it
remains unclear which go along with laughter, but
amusement, Schadenfreude, relief, and tactile are
likely candidates.
Negative Emotions
Smiles also go along with negative emotions and
are created differently. The unilateral contraction
of the buccinator (AU14) muscle is indicative of
contempt. There is also a fear smile that involves a
symmetric AU20. Also, AU12 is involved in (among
other AUs) smiles during negative states, such as
sadistic and embarrassment smiles. Furthermore,
the AU12 is involved in blends of joy and negative
emotions, and in smiles masking negative emotion.
Laughter also goes along with negative states—
scorn, embarrassment, and hysteria being promi-
nent. It is not clear how these variants of laughter are
different from the prototype: for example, whether
they are also based on the Duchenne display smile or
whether their facial expression involves elements of
negative emotions.
Other Types of Smiling and Laughter
One important distinction is whether a smile (or
laugh) is emotional (spontaneous) or false (faked).
The latter are based on voluntary contractions of the
facial muscles (controlled by the motor strip of the
neocortex), which happens when wanting to appear
joyful when no joy is felt. In a phony smile a per-
son does not feel any emotion while smiling (i.e.,
sole AU12). In masking smiles, negative emotions
are felt (and partly expressed) that are insufficiently
covered by AU12 smiles. Markers of faked expres-
sions have been identified. In humor studies, AU13
has been observed, which still has unknown mean-
ing but occurs when there was some slight resent-
ment to jokes. Further smile types include flirtatious,
“grin and bear it,” and listener coordination smiles.
Various authors distinguish up to 20 different types
of smiles. No such classification exists for laughter,
but it is clear that contrived laughter exists as well.
Body Movements, Posture, and Gestures
Smiling is purely facial, but laughter (higher inten-
sity) involves the whole body. Darwin states that
during excessive laughter, the whole body is often

thrown backward and shakes, almost convulsing.
Some actions are associated with respiratory move-
ments; for example, backward tilting of the head
facilitates forced exhalations, and forced inhalation
interrupting two laughter cycles will raise and
straighten the trunk. Massive respiratory move-
ments underlying laughter pulses may cause the
observed shaking of the shoulders and vibrations
detectable on the trunk and extremities. However,
changes in posture and body movements have
received least attention in the study of laughter.
Tracey Platt and Willibald Ruch
See also Laugh, Laughter, Laughing; Laughter,
Psychology of; Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of
Further Readings
Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in
man and animals. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. (Original work published 1872)
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces
and feelings to improve communication and
emotional life. New York, NY: Time Books.
Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The
Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain
physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 342–353.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial
Action Coding System: A technique for the
measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Redlich, F. C., Levine, J., & Sohler, T. P. (1951). A mirth
response test: Preliminary report on a
psychodiagnostic technique utilizing dynamics of
humor. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21(4),
717–734.
Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis
& J. M. Haviland (Eds.), The handbook of emotions
(pp. 605–616). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of
laughter. In A. W. Kaszniak (Ed.), Emotion, qualia, and
consciousness (pp. 426–443). Tokyo, Japan: Word
Scientific.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006).
Positive emotion dispositions differentially
associated with Big Five personality and attachment
style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2),
61–71.
Zigler, E., Levine, J., & Gould, L. (1966). Cognitive
processes in the development of children’s
appreciation of humor. Child Development, 37(3),
507–518.
Social Interaction 705
SOCIAL INTERACTION
Humor plays a major role in interaction between
people—in conversation and other forms of spoken
discourse and in interactive writing such as online
communication and letter writing. The role of humor
in such contexts has been studied in various forms
of discourse analysis that examine both the formal
properties of humor and, importantly, the interac-
tional functions it fulfills. Humor may be an explicit
focus of such research, but studies of language play,
or creativity in language, often address similar phe-
nomena, and examples of these are included herein.
Formal Properties of Humor
Researchers have identified certain formal categories
of humor that occur in interaction between people.
For instance, Neal Norrick identifies four categories
of conversational humor: jokes, personal anecdotes,
wordplay, and irony. Norrick’s purpose is theoreti-
cal: to distinguish relatively clear examples of these
categories and identify differences among them in
terms of their humor mechanisms, internal structure,
and integration into discourse. A limitation of such
categories, however, is that they do not uniquely dis-
tinguish particular humorous utterances. In practice,
the situation is more complex than these prototypi-
cal “clear examples” might suggest. Norrick him-
self notes that categories blend in conversation, with
joke punch lines becoming wisecracks, witty repar-
tees growing into anecdotes, and so on.
Other work has focused on the internal struc-
ture of certain types of humor. In important early
research, conversation analyst Harvey Sacks ana-
lyzes a dirty joke in narrative form, told by a teenage
boy to friends, and presented as having been told to
the boy by his 12-year-old sister. Sacks identifies a
three-part sequential organization in the narrative
joke: a “preface,” a “telling,” and a “response”
sequence, and focuses in detail on how each sequence
is developed. He discusses further how the sequen-
tial organization of the joke packages information in
a way that is relevant to the interests of its original
teller and intended recipients (i.e., circulating among
a 12-year-old girl and her friends).
Many more recent studies have focused
on how humor is structured—produced and
responded to—within a particular interaction. The
following dialogue is from Ronald Carter’s study
of a 5-million-word corpus of spoken interaction
706 Social Interaction
in which several examples of language play were
identified:
Members of a family are preparing food for a party:
C: Foreign body in here. What is it?
B: It’s raisins and [inaudible]
C: Er oh it’s rice with raisins is it?
D: No no no. It’s not supposed to be [laughter] erm
C: There must be a raisin for it being
in there. [laughter]
(Adapted from Carter, 2004, p. 93; B, C, and D
refer to speakers)
The pun here (“there must be a raisin …”) emerges
during the course of a conversation while preparing
food. It plays on a previous mention of the word
raisin. It is a fleeting performance, responded to
by laughter from the audience. Such playful talk is
sometimes identified as “conversational joking” or
“situational humor,” in contrast to the more con-
ventional joke format evident in “joke telling.” How
such humorous talk is structured collaboratively has
been analyzed by various scholars, such as Diana
Boxer and Florencia Cortés-Conde, Jennifer Coates,
and Norrick, sometimes adopting Gregory Bateson’s
notion of play frame, the idea that conversationalists
can frame and signal their talk as playful and hence
not serious. Because such conversational humor is
usually spontaneous, its production requires on-the-
spot coordination between speakers. Coates adopts
a musical metaphor to explain this, comparing the
way conversationalists collaborate in a play frame to
the coordination required by jazz players.
Humor may exploit the potential of particular
modes and media. Angela Goddard’s 2011 research
on online play includes an instance where a new
arrival to a chat room is welcomed with a prolonged
and humorously exaggerated greetings routine. The
humor is enhanced, she argues, by the postings pop-
ping up, in rapid succession, on the screen. Janet
Maybin (2011) discusses creativity and play in letter
writing, for example, where two penfriends use meta-
phor playfully in repeated references to postal delays,
producing dialogic riffs that extend over several letters.
In these examples, as in the spoken dialogue above,
humor is collaboratively produced by participants,
and the forms it takes relate to the affordances and
constraints of the modes and media in which it is pro-
duced (face-to-face talk, online chat, letter writing).
In bilingual humor, interactants may exploit the
resources of different languages. This is easiest to see
in bilingual wordplay, such as, in an example from
the south of India, a joking reference to a cow eating
a door marked “Pull.” The joke plays on the similar-
ity in sound between the English word pull and the
Tamil word for grass (this and other examples have
been collected by R. Amritavalli and S. Upendran,
2011). In a 2012 study of play in digital media inter-
actions between bilingual (English and isiXhosa)
speakers in South Africa, Ana Deumert comments
that some types of humorous play (e.g., playful flirt-
ing) have been associated more with English than
with isiXhosa, but that other types (e.g., the play-
ful use of text message abbreviations) have spread
from English to isiXhosa. It is likely that what are
considered to be appropriate forms of humor across
languages will change over time.
A prolific strand of research employs conversa-
tion analytical methods to scrutinize how laughter
is used in conversation. In key early work, Gail
Jefferson (1979) demonstrates how speakers may
invite laughter by laughing at the end of what they
say. However, while laughter is often thought of as
a response to humor, the stimuli of laughter have
been widely acknowledged to be complex. Jefferson
has examined laughter in nonhumorous contexts;
and Phillip Glenn (2003) emphasizes the many other
stimuli of laughter including socializing, nervous-
ness, and embarrassment.
Functions of Humor
Researchers interested in humor in social interaction
tend to focus on its interactional functions as much
as the particular forms it takes. This is prefigured in
Sacks’s study of a narrative joke, where sequential
organization was related to the interests of speakers
and listeners. It may seem self-evident that humor is
often ludic: designed to amuse or entertain (as dis-
cussed by Cook, 2000). However, it also fulfills a
wider range of interactional functions.
Importantly, humor is associated with interper-
sonal functions and with the expression and nego-
tiation of identities between speakers and writers.
Humor is often thought of as “oiling the wheels” of
communication and with inclusivity and the expres-
sion of friendly relations. Maybin’s research on letter
writing suggests the playful dialogue evident in some
letters contributes to mutual alignment, strengthen-
ing correspondents’ experience of friendship. But (as
argued by Cook) humor may also serve as a form of
critique or to exclude others.
Various empirical studies reveal that humor may
be used to carry out potentially aggressive acts and,

simultaneously, to perform in-group rapport build-
ing (evident in research by, e.g., Boxer & Cortés-
Conde, Holmes, & Norrick). The use of forms such
as irony and (self-) teasing may create interpersonal
ambiguity or mitigate a potential face threat. In a dis-
cussion of such phenomena in higher education dis-
course, Yu Wang (2012) cites an example of playful
critique by a lecturer of his students. Referring to the
homework previously assigned to his students, the
lecturer comments, “You are going to tell me all
the things you’ve discovered, aren’t you?”
The lecturer’s critique of his students is ironi-
cally implied, and their (joint) understanding of
this implied meaning indicates a shared perception
of the students’ lack of commitment to homework.
This, in turn, indicates commonality between the
lecturer and students, and potentially enhances
their rapport.
A number of studies have focused on humor
and identity construction. Mary Crawford (2003)
provides a review of work on humor and gender.
In a major study of workplace discourse, Janet
Holmes shows how humor is used by female and
male workers to construct or, at times, challenge
and undermine stereotypical gender identities. She
also demonstrates that humor in the workplace is
associated with institutional power relations. Used
by someone in authority, humor may serve to bol-
ster power relations between speakers, but in other
contexts (e.g., when used by subordinates) it may
alternatively subvert or destabilize power relations.
Goddard’s study of online discourse suggests
that the lack of visibility in online spaces allows
participants to play with different social and institu-
tional roles. In the following example, a UK student
playfully adopts the voice of an authority figure (a
teacher) in addressing his fellow students:
Andrew: Come on children let’s talk about work.
Bilingual humor, such as the Tamil-English pun
discussed previously, expresses a bilingual and bi-
cultural identity: both telling a joke and showing
appreciation in laughter display familiarity with
two linguistic and cultural realms, allowing partici-
pants to identify, in this case, as English educated
and Indian Tamil-speaking.
Quantitative analyses of large corpora of spoken
interaction, such as research by Jennifer Hay (2001)
and Hilary Nesi (2012), have also explored sociocul-
tural-identity aspects of humor. Hay, for example, in
a quantitative analysis of a corpus of conversations
Social Interaction 707
between friends in New Zealand, noted that women
are much more likely to share funny personal anec-
dotes than men.
Studies of humor in institutional contexts (e.g.,
Holmes’s workplace study and Wang’s study of
humor in higher education discourse) have provided
evidence of how humor facilitates both interper-
sonal and institutional tasks in these contexts: For
Holmes, the boundaries between the two are perme-
able. Holmes focuses on the contention that humor
may stimulate workplace creativity. She finds that,
while instances are comparatively rare, and associ-
ated more with some workplace groups than oth-
ers, humor may indeed help generate constructive
ideas. Play and humor in classroom contexts are
also argued to facilitate learning, including language
learning (see Cook, 2000; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007).
Such studies tend to focus on the role of par-
ticular humorous episodes in particular settings and
demonstrate, among other things, the variability of
humor and the diverse functions with which it may
be associated, suggesting that a relatively contextual-
ized analytical approach is needed for its study. On
the other hand, these studies are not always informed
by theoretical work on humor, such as the general
theory of verbal humor, though this does receive dis-
cussion by Norrick. In a critical account of various
discourse approaches, Salvatore Attardo suggests that
these do not go beyond the general primary functions
of humor identified in earlier theoretical work, and
there may indeed be a tension between contextual-
ized approaches and the needs of general theory.
A value of the study of humor in social interac-
tion is that this has implications across several aca-
demic fields (e.g., pragmatics, conversation analysis,
sociolinguistics, applied linguistics) and may have
practical implications in areas such as workplace
communication or language in education.
Joan Swann and Yu Wang
See also Conversation; Cross-Cultural Humor;
Education, Humor in; Linguistic Theories of Humor;
Social Network; Workplace Humor
Further Readings
Amritavalli, R., & Upendran, S. (2011). Wordplay across
languages and cultures: Interview with G. D. Jayalakshmi.
In J. Swann, R. Pope, & R. Carter (Eds.), Creativity in
language and literature: The state of the art (pp. 103–105).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
708 Social Network
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2008). A primer for the linguistics of humour.
In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humour research
(pp. 101–155). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bateson, G. (1953). The position of humour in human
communication. In H. von Foerster (Ed.) Cybernetics,
Ninth Conference (pp. 1–47). New York, NY: Josiah
Macey Jr. Foundation.
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to
biting: Conversational joking and identity display.
Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 275–294.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of
common talk. London, UK: Routledge.
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter
and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29–49.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1413–1430.
Deumert, A. (2012). Txtpl@y: Creativity in South African
digital writing. In D. Allington & B. Mayor (Eds.),
Communicating in English: Talk, text, technology
(pp. 216–223). New York, NY: Routledge.
Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, A. (2011). look im over here: Creativity,
materiality and representation in new communication
technologies. In J. Swann, R. Pope, & R. Carter (Eds.),
Creativity in language and literature: The state of the art
(pp. 141–155). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humour support.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humour Research,
14(1), 55.
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation:
How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse
Studies, 2(2), 159–185.
Holmes, J. (2007). Making humour work: Creativity on the
job. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 518–537.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and
its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas
(Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology
(pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Irvington.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organisation of laughter in talk
about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 346–369).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maybin, J. (2011). Intimate strangers: Dialogue and
creativity in penfriend correspondence. In J. Swann,
R. Pope, & R. Carter (Eds.), Creativity in language and
literature: The state of the art (pp. 129–140).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 79–89.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in
everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359.
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. D. (2007). Learning to play,
playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language
users. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 556–578.
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s
telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer
(Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking
(pp. 337–353). London, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sacks, H. (1978). Some technical considerations of a dirty
joke. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of
conversational interaction (pp. 249–269). New York,
NY: Academic.
Schnurr, S., & Holmes, J. (2009). Using humour to do
masculinity at work. In N. R. Norrick & D. Chiaro
(Eds.), Humour in interaction (pp. 101–123).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wang, Y. (2012). Chinese students’ perceptions of humour
in British academic lectures. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, The Open University, Centre for Research in
Education and Educational Technology, UK.
SOCIAL NETWORK
A social network is a system of interrelationships
between actors within a social system. Most typi-
cally, the actors of interest are individuals within
some defined social group, such as members of a
family, students within a classroom, employees
within an organization, or residents within a town.
Researchers in disciplines such as anthropology,
sociology, psychology, epidemiology, and commu-
nications use social networks to define characteris-
tics of groups or individuals within the network. For
example, “dense” networks are those with many
interconnections between individuals. At the indi-
vidual level, individuals can be described as being
“central” (or popular) if they are connected to many
others, or as representing “structural holes” if the
individual helps bridge a relationship between two
otherwise unconnected people.
Social networks can be described using both
qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitatively,
social networks can be defined or portrayed through
techniques such as participant observation or inter-
views with members of social groups. Quantitatively,
social networks can be established through socio-
metric methods, in which researchers typically

ask individuals to provide numerical responses to
questions about some aspects of their relationships
with other group members. Social networks are
often represented graphically in a sociogram, which
depicts who each individual or “node” is connected
to, and sometimes the strength of those connections
(i.e., strong or weak ties), or their valence (i.e., posi-
tive or negative ties).
Social networks are relevant to the discussion of
humor because humor is thought to play an impor-
tant role in creating and maintaining the social rela-
tionships that define a social network, and social
networks provide the social context in which humor
behavior happens. In other words, humor is both a
cause and an effect of social networks, as it influ-
ences both whether and how people affiliate with
one another. This entry discusses the role of humor
in the formation, maintenance, and perpetuation of
social networks and as a consequence of social net-
work structure.
Humor and the Formation of Social Networks
Ties form within social networks for many reasons,
including proximity, similarity, social sharing of
knowledge, expertise, or kinship. However, humor
might also play an important role in forming social
relationships and shaping social networks inso-
far as it facilitates liking and interpersonal attrac-
tion. There is also considerable evidence to suggest
that humor appreciation and positive emotions are
closely related, even at a neurological level. When
we associate another person with positive emotions
(i.e., it “feels good” to be around him or her), we
want to be around that person more. In addition,
there is some evidence that the sound of another per-
son’s laughter tends to attract people to that indi-
vidual, and even more so over time. That is, over
time, we associate the pleasurable experience of
positive emotions with individuals with whom we
share humor and laughter, and the very sound of our
laughter tends to reinforce others’ bonds to us.
Cecily Cooper (2008), in her relational pro-
cess model of humor, expanded upon the impact
of positive affect on relationships by noting that
humor can be used to facilitate self-disclosure
and perceptions of similarity and can decrease
perceptions of hierarchy or status differences. For
example, people can use humor to reveal things
about themselves, which tends to heighten a sense
of closeness and intimacy. Similarly, the types of
things people joke about tend to reveal something
Social Network 709
about them, and if one’s humor makes that person
seem more similar to us, we like the person even
more. Finally, humor has the potential to reduce
perceptions of formal status differences between
people, which might otherwise represent barriers
to the development of relationships. In particular,
self-deprecating humor on the part of a higher sta-
tus person might alleviate concerns that a lower
status person might have about developing a rela-
tionship with a high-status individual. However, it
is important to note that humor can also be used
to reinforce status differences and limit the forma-
tion of relationships. For example, use of strongly
aggressive or sarcastic humor by high-status indi-
viduals, or humor that belittles or disparages oth-
ers, tends to make the high-status person less acces-
sible by others. In social network terms, positive
affect, liking, similarity, and hierarchical salience
can influence whether a given interpersonal bond
exists at all, and if it exists, whether it is strong or
weak, or positive or negative.
Humor and the Maintenance and
Perpetuation of Social Networks
Once a social network is formed, as in a work group
or group of friends, humor can play an important
role in its maintenance and perpetuation. Within
social groups, humor allows individuals to voice
concerns or anxieties about the group, or to relieve
stress experienced by the group’s members. In addi-
tion, humor helps people communicate about serious
matters in a less confrontational manner. Conflict
within social groups is inevitable, but if it is not han-
dled effectively, it can lead to member withdrawal,
or even complete dissolution of the group. Humor
is thought to be valuable in this regard because seri-
ous issues can be raised under the guise of “jok-
ing around.” For example, humor can be used by
a group member to communicate mild rebukes or
criticism of a group member in a way that reduces
defensiveness and helps the individual save face.
Another finding regarding humor and social
network maintenance is that social groups tend to
develop unique “joking cultures.” Joking cultures
involve a shared understanding of topics that are
appropriate or forbidden for the purposes of humor
and often involve a significant learning component
whereby subtle “inside” jokes are strongly shared
only by members of the in-group. Indeed, joking
cultures can determine the boundaries of the social
network, and the strength of ties within it.
710 Social Network
Some researchers, most notably Avner Ziv
(1979), have used sociometric techniques for exam-
ining characteristics of humor within social groups.
Typically, these techniques ask group members to
indicate something about the humor of other group
members, such as who has a good or bad sense of
humor or how frequently other individuals within
the social network use humor. These techniques
explicitly recognize the important social character
of humor and have the benefit of relying on an
accumulation of experience that social network
members have as both humorist and audience over
a longer period of time. Such measures also avoid
problems associated with self-report and can be
used to examine the relationships between humor
behavior within a group, and characteristics of
social networks such as density, centrality (popu-
larity), structural holes, and strong and weak ties.
Indeed, sociometric measures of humor tend to be
related to social network characteristics, such as
number of friendships, liking by others, network
centrality, and leadership.
Humor as a Consequence of
Social Network Structure
There is some evidence that the nature of social
relationships within a social network can influence
the type of humor that individuals use and can dic-
tate who is socially permitted to use various types of
humor. One interesting set of findings about humor
use within social networks concerns teasing behav-
ior. Researchers have generally found that individu-
als who are teased by others in the group tend to
be those with numerous and strong ties to others,
rather than newcomers or peripheral members of
the group. In addition, individuals who do a lot of
teasing also tend to be the target of teasing. These
findings suggest that good-natured teasing humor
(as opposed to ridicule or humiliation) is an indi-
cator of in-group status within social networks, as
indicated by a high number of strong ties to others.
Some of the more complicated findings regarding
humor and networks concern the role of hierarchical
status in driving humor behavior, and there has been
some debate surrounding this issue. Some scholars
have maintained that humor tends to occur much
more frequently in a downward direction in social
groups where individuals differ in terms of formal
hierarchical status. That is, humor by people such as
managers in organizations is more acceptable than
humor by low-status individuals, and that humor
tends to be more aggressive and aimed at maintain-
ing status differences and social control. In a simi-
lar vein, lower status individuals often push back
against perceived status discrepancies by engaging
in subversive humor such as mocking and ridicule
outside of the presence of high-status individuals.
However, other researchers have found that high-
status individuals can become part of the normal
pattern of humor interactions within groups, par-
ticularly if they are first accepted by others as friends
within the core social network. Also, as mentioned,
humor can be used to reduce the impact of formal
hierarchical differences between individuals. In social
network terms, this line of research suggests that peo-
ple with formal hierarchical status often use aggres-
sive humor to maintain social distance and weak ties
with others within the social network, and similarly,
lower status individuals can use subversive types of
humor to maintain that distance and to strengthen
ties with other low-status individuals. However, it is
also possible for high-status individuals to become
more accepted and to forge strong ties by avoiding
aggressive humor and perhaps using self-deprecating
humor to reduce apparent status differences.
Christopher Robert
See also Joking Relationship; Relationships,
Nonromantic; Subversive Humor; Teasing; Workplace
Control; Workplace Humor
Further Readings
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of
competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace
humor: A relational process model. Human Relations,
61(8), 1087–1115.
Duncan, W. J. (1984). Perceived humor and social network
patterns in a sample of task-oriented groups: A
reexamination of prior research. Human Relations,
37(11), 895–907.
Fine, G. A., & De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor
themes as social regulation in group life. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 18(1), 1–22.
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W.
(2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features
of number of friendships, social network centrality, and
sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23–40.
Scogin, F. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1980). Targeting and the
humorous episode in group process. Human Relations,
33(11), 831–852.
Ziv, A. (1979). Sociometry of humor: Objectifying the
subjective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 97–98.

SOCIOLOGY
Sociology is the scientific study of social relations
and human societies. It is an empirical social sci-
ence that employs a range of data and research
methodologies. Sociology is characterized by
theoretical pluralism: There is no one overarch-
ing theoretical perspective to which all sociologists
adhere. Sociology shares research methodologies
and theoretical perspectives with related social sci-
ences like anthropology, folklore, cultural studies,
communication, or social history. It differs from
these disciplines by its traditional focus on com-
plex contemporary societies and its insistence on
including all aspects of social life from microinter-
actions to long-term macrodevelopments.
Although humor and laughter are social phe-
nomena, sociologists have paid scant attention to
humor. The majority of sociological research deals
with “serious” topics: social problems and policy-
related issues. Hence, insofar as sociologists have
researched humor, it has been overwhelmingly
concerned with forms of humor considered prob-
lematic or dangerous like ethnic, sexist, or politi-
cal humor, and to the relation between humor and
social control, conflict, and exclusion. Systematic
attempts to develop a more wide-ranging sociologi-
cal theory of humor are scarce, and have remained
marginal within the field.
This entry first gives an overview of theoretical
perspectives on humor. Then, it discusses impor-
tant current (and recurring) debates in the sociol-
ogy of humor and gives an overview of research
methodologies and strategies in humor sociology.
Theoretical Perspectives
Sociological perspectives on humor can be divided
into five broad categories: functionalism, conflict
theory, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology,
and comparative-historical sociology. These five
perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
They highlight different aspects of humor and vary
greatly in scope. They are associated with specific
research methodologies and types of data, and
sometimes with wider societal or political views.
Functionalism
Functionalist sociology interprets humor in
terms of the social functions it fulfills for a society
or social group. Three general functions of humor
Sociology 711
are highlighted: relief, control, and social cohesion.
Functionalist analyses have argued that humor main-
tains and supports the social order, first, by acting as
a safety valve and allowing people to blow off ten-
sions inherent in social relations. Moreover, humor
serves as a means for social control, by reflecting
and reinforcing social hierarchies. In particular,
jokes and laughter ridicule and mock what does not
fit the social order, thus excluding and sanctioning
deviant behavior. Finally, humor upholds the social
order through maintaining social cohesion: It brings
people closer and cements social bonds. Humor
is quite unique in its capacity to perform all these
functions at once, combining the seemingly contra-
dictory functions of hierarchy building and tension
management with bringing about solidarity. Rose
Coser’s 1959 studies of humor in a hospital setting
are important examples of functionalist analysis.
Functionalist explanations of humor and laughter
are associated with various research methodologies,
ranging from small ethnographic studies to mac-
roanalyses of relations between humor and wider
social relations.
Functionalism was the dominant perspective in
sociology in the mid-20th century. Its insistence that
all social phenomena serve to maintain the social
order has been widely criticized. This assumption
makes functionalist explanations circular and basi-
cally untestable. Moreover, functionalism tends
to ignore that humor can also be detrimental for
the social order, failing to note or explain social
change or conflict. Since the 1970s, sociologists
rarely employ functionalism as a complete theory
or comprehensive framework. However, most social
analyses of humor cannot escape paying attention
to the functions humor fulfills. Today, sociologists
take care not to make a priori assumptions about
the functions of humor or its positive contributions
to the social order. Instead, context and content are
taken into account when establishing which produc-
tive or disruptive functions humor may fulfill for
whom and at which moment.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theories (also known as critical theories)
see humor as an expression of conflict, struggle, or
antagonism. In contrast with functionalist theories,
humor is interpreted not as venting off—and hence
as an avoidance or reduction—but as an expression
or correlate of social conflict: humor as a weapon,
a form of attack, a means of defense. The edited
712 Sociology
volume Humor in Society: Resistance and Control
by Chris Powell and George Paton (1988) offers
several examples of conflict approaches to humor.
Conflict theories of humor have been used especially
in the analysis of ethnic and political humor: In both
forms, humor has a clear target, and tends to be cor-
related with conflict and group antagonism. Conflict
analyses highlight the double-edged nature of
humor. Those in control can use humor to exercise
power; but people in less powerful positions may
use it to express resistance. For instance, political
or ethnic humor supports existing power relations
when the powerful mock the weak, but the weak
can also muster it to satirize or ridicule dominant
groups or persons. However, most analyses conclude
that “upward” humor is less common and less effec-
tive than “downward” humor supporting existing
power relations.
Conflict theory like functionalism is a broad per-
spective that claims to capture all forms of humor. It
is therefore associated with a wide range of methods,
from ethnography to cross-national comparative
research. Like functionalism, it has been critiqued
for its claim to explain all instances of humor using
a single framework and the danger of circularity
inherent in encompassing frameworks. Conflict
analyses of humor usually are embedded in wider
theoretical frameworks explaining culture and soci-
ety from social conflict, for example, (neo-)Marxism
or post-structuralism. They also have affinity with
superiority theories of humor.
The conflict approach is used most often to
explain and analyze potentially offensive forms of
humor, and thus is directly connected with societal
controversies about ethnic, sexist, or political humor.
This approach to humor (like all aggression or supe-
riority theories of humor) suffers somewhat from
conceptual unclarity: Hostility, aggression, superi-
ority, and ethnic or political rivalry are not clearly
distinguished or delineated. An important criticism
leveled at the conflict approach is that it takes humor
too literally, ignoring humor’s basic ambiguity: Even
if a joke mirrors societal antagonisms, this does not
mean that every telling of this joke expresses hostil-
ity or conflict. Also, conflict theories generally fail to
explain why and when people in situations of con-
flict decide to use humor rather than more serious
expressions of antagonism.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism here is used to describe
a range of microsociological approaches to humor
(ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, etc.)
that focus on the role of humor in the construction
of meanings and social relations in social interac-
tion. What all these approaches have in common is
that social relations and social reality are not seen
as fixed and given, but as constructed and negoti-
ated in the course of social interaction. A key figure
in the microsociology of humor is Erving Goffman,
who in 1974 analyzed the role of humor in “the
performance of self,” and coined the term framing
to describe the separation of serious interactions
from playful and nonserious modes of communi-
cation like humor. Symbolic interactionism also is
a common approach in sociolinguistic studies of
humor.
Humor, while not central to big social structures
and processes, plays an important role in every-
day interaction. Its ambiguity makes it well suited
to negotiations and manipulations of selves and
relationships. Symbolic interactionists have ana-
lyzed this through detailed studies of social inter-
actions, using ethnographic data or transcripts of
conversations. An important theme in this body
of research is the relation between gender and the
use of humor in interactions. Within humor stud-
ies, the microinteractionist approach gave a strong
impetus to small-scale studies of spontaneously
occurring humor, as an alternative to the analy-
sis of standardized forms of humor (joke cycles,
comedy performances) and joke ratings from ques-
tionnaires. Moreover, this perspective has made
laughter a central theme in sociological humor
studies, not only as an automatic response to a
humorous stimulus, but as a form of communica-
tion on its own.
Symbolic interactionist approaches to humor
are usually modest in their theoretical and explana-
tory ambitions. In the analysis of humor, symbolic
interactionism has been combined with function-
alist, conflict, or phenomenological theoretical
approaches. It is also quite compatible with the
classical incongruity, superiority, and relief theo-
ries. Critics of this approach have pointed out that
symbolic interactionist studies tend to be overly
descriptive and particular, and hence, hard to gen-
eralize. Moreover, the relation between micrositua-
tions and larger institutional and societal structures
often remains underanalyzed and undertheorized.
Phenomenology
The phenomenological approach to humor
conceptualizes humor as a specific worldview or

mode of perceiving and constructing the social
world. This humorous outlook is one option
among several in the social construction of real-
ity, which phenomenological sociologists see as
an ongoing social process. Humor stands out
from other worldviews—for instance, the serious
outlook dominant in everyday life, or spiritual
or religious modes of perception—because of its
nonserious, playful outlook. This nonseriousness
enables social experimentation and negotiation
and allows people to become aware of the con-
structedness of social life itself. The playful dis-
tantiation provided by humor is interwoven with
other modes of perception and happens through-
out everyday interactions. However, it can also
become a more sustained outlook that is embed-
ded in institutionalized roles (the comedian, the
satirist), humorous domains like comedy, and
rituals like carnival, which can function as an
alternative sphere of freedom and resistance. The
most complete and sophisticated analysis of the
social functions and consequences of the humor-
ous worldview is presented in Michael Mulkay’s
1988 On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in
Modern Society. Most phenomenologists do not
collect their own data, but instead rely on findings
from other studies, including a wide range of his-
torical, ethnographic, or textual data, to develop
an integrated perspective on humor.
Critics have pointed out that phenomeno-
logical approaches to humor tend to essentialize
humor. By focusing on humor as worldview, they
neglect other meanings and functions of humor,
including negative or dysfunctional effects. More-
over, phenomenological approaches overstate the
importance of humor by giving it a unique and
central function in social life—a claim that is hard
to test or substantiate. Finally, phenomenological
sociology often borders on philosophy and is hard
to operationalize: It provides inspiring insights
but it is unclear how these are to be used in
actual empirical research. However, unlike other
approaches, the ambiguity and nonseriousness of
humor are central to this perspective. Hence, phe-
nomenological sociology takes into account the
peculiarities of humor that are ignored or down-
played in especially the functionalist and conflict
frameworks.
Comparative-Historical Approach
Comparative-historical sociology attempts to
understand and explain the social role of humor
Sociology 713
through comparisons in time and place. Strictly
speaking, it is a method rather than a theory:
Comparative-historical studies of humor draw on
different theoretical traditions and may include
insights from functionalist, conflict, or phenomeno-
logical approaches as well as general sociological
theories. Most sociological work on humor since
the 1990s is probably best captured by this broad
umbrella term. Christie Davies’s work on jokes and
targets around the world is the prime example of
this comparative-historical approach. Comparing
joke cycles around the world, Davies found that
specific humorous scripts (e.g., stupidity, dirtiness)
are found in many places around the world and are
associated with specific relations between jokers
and their targets. Thus, comparison both unveils
humorous universals (people all over the world tell
stupidity jokes), and it uncovers the factors deter-
mining systematic variations in joking patterns
across cultures (social relations determine who
calls whom stupid). In other words, whom people
joke about reveals something about the relation-
ship between the jokers and the butts of their jokes;
and what people joke about reflects what they find
important and what is a source of concern to them.
Other comparative studies have used a similar
approach to analyze differences across social groups
and historical periods in topics of humor, humorous
styles and genres, as well as the status of humor.
Comparative-historical studies require research
materials that allow systematic comparison over
time and place. Archival research, for instance of
folklore or historical archives, as well as secondary
data analysis is common in this type of research.
Occasionally, comparative-historical studies are
based on original data collection, for instance data
comparing sense of or use of humor by men and
women, different ethnic groups, or different nations.
The main critique leveled against this type of
research is that it may reveal more about the societ-
ies or periods it compares than about humor per se.
Indeed, comparative-historical studies may pay very
little attention to the specificity of humor, treating
it as yet another cultural expression. Consequently,
comparative-historical studies work best when com-
plemented with more specific theoretical insights
from theories about humor and laughter.
Recent Developments and Debates
in the Sociology of Humor
The main debate in the sociology of humor (and
in humor studies generally) has to do with the
714 Sociology
potential serious implications of humor. This debate
has focused on “dangerous” or “contested” forms
of humor like political, ethnic, and sexist humor.
Conflict theorists (and some symbolic interactionists)
typically stress the serious potential of humor in social
conflict. For instance, they argue that anti-hierarchical
humor—for example, feminist humor, political satire
in totalitarian regimes—functions as resistance, and
that “top-down” humor supports power structures
and oppresses the powerless. Their opponents in the
debate typically counter that such theorists overstate
the import of humor: Its fundamental ambiguity
makes its “real” meaning impossible to establish, and
its impact negligible compared with real exercise of
force.
This debate has been rekindled in the 21st century
with a broader scope. After many centuries in which
humor and laughter had a bad reputation, modern
humor studies have stressed the beneficial charac-
ter of humor, both for society and for the psyche.
Phenomenological humor sociologists also stress the
positive aspect of humor. This has sparked a counter-
reaction: the emergence of the “critique of humor.”
Scholars like Michael Billig, Sharon Lockyer,
and Paul Lewis have pointed to the “dark side of
humor”: its capacity to hurt, shame, exclude, and
exercise social control. This debate repeated many
arguments of earlier debates about the seriousness or
harmfulness of ethnic and political humor. However,
it differed in its greater nuance in discussing various
types of humor and in its inclusion of claims from
psychological studies, distinguishing clearly between
positive and negative forms of humor.
Another important recent development in the
sociology of humor has been the growing attention
to mediated forms of humor. People increasingly
consume and share humor via (electronic) media.
This leads to new questions, as well as the rephrasing
and reframing of old questions. First, the question
arises whether the functions and social mechanisms
associated with humor in interactions are the same
in mediated interactions. For instance, in mediated
interactions jokers cannot always foresee or adapt
to their audience responses. Second, the rise of medi-
ated humor leads to the increasing globalization, or
cross-national diffusion, of humor. As a consequence,
humor audiences are increasingly culturally diverse.
This may lead to a greater diversity in responses,
sometimes with unexpected consequences. However,
the globalization of humor also provides research-
ers with fascinating new arenas to explore cross-
national differences in sense of humor: What jokes
travel where? How are jokes adapted as they move
across cultural or linguistic boundaries? Finally,
the growing attention to mediated forms of humor
has brought to the fore the issue of genre. Most
sociological humor scholarship has been concerned
with a limited number of humorous forms. People
increasingly enjoy humor not in face-to-face interac-
tion but through a variety of media: print, television,
the Internet. This mediatization of humor and the
rise of the Internet have resulted in the emergence of
new, mediated, humorous forms, and to the reinven-
tion of older humorous genres, many of which are
derived from earlier folk genres. Sociologists, as well
as communication scholars and folklorists, are cur-
rently debating the meanings and functions of these
new humorous genres and forms.
Research Methodologies
Sociology is a predominantly empirical discipline:
Attempts to theorize humor as a social phenomenon
are usually combined with empirical inquiry, and
theories are tested on the basis of empirical evidence.
Early sociological studies of humor typically draw
on rather impressionistic armchair analysis; recent
theoretical explorations of humor have also drawn
on a wide variety of sources and personal impres-
sions to substantiate theories. However, most studies
today rely on systematically collected data.
An important research method for studying
humor, in particular nonscripted or conversational
humor, is (ethnographic) observation of small-
scale interactions. Observations and ethnography
of humor have become increasingly systematic,
using sound or video recordings of humorous
interactions, and coding schemes to analyze data.
Sociologists of humor also have relied on surveys
and questionnaires, especially to map and compare
use and evaluation of types of humor in different
social groups. Many researchers have asked respon-
dents to rate jokes, and then compared responses
of, for instance, people with different ethnic back-
grounds, genders, political affiliations, or degrees
of hostility against the groups targeted in jokes.
A third common method for sociologists is to rely
on recorded instances of humor, such as comic texts
and registration of performances, archival materi-
als, jokes, historical writings, cartoons, literary
sources, or historical accounts by others. In this type
of research, various mediated forms of communi-
cation (e.g., Internet humor, television programs)
are also increasingly analyzed—although this is

more common in the adjacent field of communica-
tion studies. In humor research, such materials are
especially important because it is difficult to “catch”
humor in the everyday interactions where it is most
common. These materials can then be analyzed fur-
ther, for instance through qualitative or quantitative
content analysis. Moreover, sociologists have stud-
ied the reception of such secondary materials, using
other sources (e.g., newspaper reviews, commentar-
ies). The rise of the Internet has enabled research-
ers to trace the spread and reception of humorous
materials with increasing ease and sophistication.
Other sociological research methods have
been less commonly employed in humor studies.
Experimental research is common in humor psy-
chology but rarely used in sociology. Interviews and
focus groups (group interviews) are used occasion-
ally to elicit humor tastes and opinions on humor.
A recurring problem in this method is the problem-
atic relation between people’s statements and their
actual behavior. Finally, mixed-methods studies,
which combine different research methodologies to
answer a research question, are increasingly com-
mon in humor sociology.
Giselinde Kuipers
See also Culture; Ethnicity and Humor; Gender and
Humor, Psychological Aspects of; Political Humor;
Social Interaction
Further Readings
Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social
critique of humor. London, UK: Sage.
Coser, R. (1959). Some social functions of laughter. Human
Relations, 12, 171–182.
Davies, C. E. (1990). Ethnic humor around the world:
A comparative analysis. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Davies, C. E. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Kuipers, G. (2006). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of
the joke. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuipers, G. (2008). The sociology of humor. In V. Raskin
(Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 365–402).
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up: American humor in a time
of conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lockyer, S., & Pickering, M. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond the
joke: The limits of humour. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humour: Its nature and its place in
modern society. Oxford, UK: Polity.
South African Humor 715
Powell, C., & Paton, G. (Eds.). (1988). Humour in society:
Resistance and control. New York, NY: St. Martin’s
Press.
Robinson, D., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh:
Gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social
Forces, 80, 123–158.
Shiffman, L. (2007). Humor in the age of digital
reproduction: Continuity and change in Internet-based
comic texts. International Journal of Communication, 1,
187–209.
SOUTH AFRICAN HUMOR
There is a very small body of historical writing on
humor specific to South Africa, within a growing
corpus of literature on humor in the broader African
context. Much of this research is functionalist, ask-
ing, for example, as Ebenezer Obadare (2010) does:
“What can humor accomplish when faced with
unbending state power in a continent ravaged by the
most horrendous fatalities? If comics cannot remove
sit-tight despots, of what use are they?” (p. 92).
Humor certainly can operate as a subversive force,
exposing the incongruities both in the prominent
structures of power and in its quotidian exercise of
dominance, rendering the familiar unfamiliar and
thereby challenging the status quo and producing
opportunities for critique. So, humor can operate
as a weapon of resistance but, as this entry shows,
it can also act as an instrument of state control in
which an autocratic leader or regime uses satire to
undermine its challengers. Focusing largely on the
postapartheid transition from 1994 onward, this
entry discusses humor in South Africa’s fractured
history and fractious society.
Both models of humor appear in Sandra Swart’s
(2009) research into the laughter of the conquered
Boers (later Afrikaners) after the South African War
(1899–1902). Reading through diaries and war
chronicles, one observes how the Boers managed to
“keep joking” even during the worst of the conflict.
Humor could act as a way of passing on morality
tales and codes of behavior, thereby maintaining
social cohesion, defining the boundaries of the com-
munity, and fostering solidarity. Thus “the fraternal
laughter of insiders also posted a no trespassing sign
to outsiders.” Laughter could operate as a social
instrument, deployed to neutralize tension, to police
behavior, to reinforce group identity, and to lift
morale. In the aftermath of war, in the first “New
South Africa,” the defeated Boers smuggled in
716 South African Humor
political protest in comic camouflage, through satiri-
cal poems. The Boer republics became part of the
British imperial dominion and English was made the
sole official language. This lead to the kind of humor
embedded in the very mechanics of social power: A
familiar story told by Afrikaners was that their chil-
dren who dared speak more than the three hours of
“Dutch-Afrikaans” permitted at school had to bear
a board that read, “I’m a donkey, I spoke Dutch.”
Arguably, this was the humor of the powerful, but
not the all-powerful. The new regime still needed
to disparage those who did not conform in order to
protect the dignity of the new order.
As the century progressed, the apartheid state
enacted the Suppression of Communism Act
(1950) and the Publications and Entertainments
Act (1963) to crack down on dissent. In response,
Drum magazine—the most widely read among
Black South Africans at the time—used humor to
evade the censors and allowed artists to “accom-
modate to oppression without going mad” (Dodson,
1974, p. 318). Don Dodson has argued that much
of the humor was actually socially conservative—it
posed little threat to authority so it was permitted to
exist, it eased the troubled soul of the artist, and it
diverted, however briefly, an unhappy readership—
thus it really served “the interests of everyone in
an oppressive system” except “those who dare to
change it” (p. 328). This leads historians to challenge
the idea of the joke as a minirevolution: Sometimes
humor offers not insurgence but only its illusion. As
Khalid Kishtainy (1985) contended, “people joke
about their oppressors, not to overthrow them but
to endure them” (pp. 7, 179). Indeed, even overtly
political jokes may sometimes be accommodations
with authoritarianism: They permit the joke tellers
to feel as though they are exercising agency, but
without taking action. Thus, as Swart (2009) argued
of some of the post-South African War humor, some
“jokes are not an instrument of revolution but, quite
the reverse, an index of resignation.”
Nevertheless Drum reporters demonstrated cour-
age by investigating labor exploitation scandals
and prison conditions—its staff were under secu-
rity police surveillance and it was banned between
1965 and 1968. Many pieces in Drum simultane-
ously deployed irony to subtly sabotage the social
order. Likewise, many South African musicians
adopted satire to escape censorship. Other case
studies have shown how oppressed groups used
humor to critique apartheid. Thomas Blom Hansen
(2005) has demonstrated, for example, how South
African Indians, marginalized under apartheid,
employed spontaneous jokes, wordplay, and every-
day mockery of the stereotypes about themselves, all
of which offered a way to reflect on a painful past
and present. Mohamed Adhikari has considered
the nuances of a racist joke told against Coloureds
under apartheid, and noted how humor could be
rallied for retribution, observing the popularity of
the “Van der Merwe” joke in Coloured communi-
ties (which made fun of a stock Afrikaner character
who figured in the jokes as uncouth, boorish, and
stupid). Similarly, homosexual men, another group
oppressed by the conservative social order and dis-
criminatory laws, developed a gay argot with roots
in the witty, barbed moffietaal (homosexual lan-
guage) of Coloured drag culture, which filtered into
the White gay community. Many words in Gayle, an
English- and Afrikaans-based gay argot, are playful
alliterative formations using women’s names, such
as Priscilla for “police” and Jennifer Justice for “the
Law,” used with parody and self-irony. Their self-
deprecating humor posed a gallant resistance to the
dour conservatism of apartheid South Africa.
Humor may also be used for overt social engi-
neering. For example, after the first fully democratic
election in 1994, the South African Broadcasting
Corporation commissioned the situation comedy
Suburban Bliss at a cost of 11 million rand, to pro-
mote what Dorothy Roome called “nation-building
and cultural reconciliation” using humor as a way
to address sensitive issues for a racially diverse
audience.
Another body of comedic work appeals to a mul-
ticultural audience, which is still rare even in demo-
cratic South Africa, but makes no claims to such
social engineering. Instead, historians of the recent
past can use it as a complex lens into the historio-
graphical model: Afrikaans comedian Leon Schuster
(1951– ) started as a “candid-camera” prankster
for White South African audiences of the state
broadcaster in the 1970s, but converted to main-
stream movie making. He captured a considerable
and diverse audience for his earthy, slapstick films.
Indeed, his Mr. Bones became the highest gross-
ing South African movie. In it, a fictitious “tribe”
needs the help of a White sangoma (“witch doctor”
or, more properly, a practitioner of herbal medi-
cine, divination, and counseling), the eponymous
Mr. Bones (played by Schuster). Schuster has been
critiqued for his lowbrow brand of populism and
his refusal to offer serious political satire. Yet, other
critics have argued that Schuster uses comedy to

“conceal his motives”—to “negatively define black
people through laughter” (Mamatu, 2006, p. 6).
Indeed, Tsepo Mamatu accuses him of “cinemy-
thologising” the “Dark Continent” and infantilizing
Africans. Yet, Schuster’s movies have a broad Black
following in South Africa.
Political Satire
Interestingly, in postapartheid South Africa some of
the bravest political satire has come from a fast-food
chicken chain. The Nando’s chain, which special-
izes in fiery flame-grilled chicken marinated in peri-
peri sauce (using the chili pepper also known as piri
piri), also provides equally blistering political com-
mentary. Their advertisements deal with contem-
porary and quintessentially South African issues—
such as racism, neighboring Zimbabwe’s despotic
Robert Mugabe, and racial stereotyping. An adver-
tisement satirizing xenophobia was banned by the
state-funded public broadcaster. Nando’s responds
rapidly to sociopolitical events—frequently through
advertisements that “go viral,” through electronic
mail and social networking sites. Interestingly,
members of the public have also started to create
amateur versions in the same vein—which reflects
the exercise of agency by ordinary people who par-
ticipate in politics amid widespread alienation. In
one example, as a critique of the premier’s profli-
gacy and promiscuity, a local artist depicted South
African President Jacob Zuma in a painting called
The Spear of the Nation. In it Zuma adopts a pose
reminiscent of Soviet posters of Lenin, but with his
genitals exposed. The image triggered a defamation
lawsuit by Zuma’s ruling African National Congress
and outrage from both pro-state culture-brokers and
pro-freedom of expression groups. Cyberspace saw
the rapid dissemination of these two playful adver-
tisements, with or without official Nando’s endorse-
ment, with the tagline added (unofficially), “we are
not scared to show our cocks.”
The company itself claims that the South African
public has come to view Nando’s as a plucky vox
populi challenging the establishment’s pecking
order, and has compared itself to satirical cartoonist
Jonathan Shapiro. Like Nando’s, Shapiro (known
as Zapiro) has also focused a good deal of his satiri-
cal attention on the president’s sexual mores. Born
in 1958, in the 1980s Shapiro became active in the
newly formed anti-apartheid movement, the United
Democratic Front, and participated in the End
Conscription Campaign. He was arrested under the
South African Humor 717
This cartoon depicts President Jacob Zuma about to
engage in a rape of Lady Justice. Published in the South
African Sunday Times on September 7, 2008, it shows
Zuma being egged on by his political allies, who are
pinning Lady Justice to the ground.
Source: Zapiro.
Illegal Gatherings Act and scrutinized by govern-
ment intelligence agents.
Zapiro also caricatured the Spear of the Nation,
replacing the genitals with a showerhead. In 2005,
Zuma faced allegations of having raped a family
friend who was HIV-positive. He denied the rape alle-
gations and was later acquitted of rape charges, but
he acknowledged having unprotected sex with the
woman and testified that he took a shower afterward
in the misapprehension this would minimize the risk
of contracting the virus. Thereafter Zapiro depicted
him with a shower permanently attached to his head
(see cartoon). In another cartoon, Zapiro drew an
erect penis with a face and legs and a showerhead on
its head looking at itself in a mirror. The cartoon was
condemned by the ruling party and its allies.
Zapiro is part of a tradition of cartoonists dat-
ing to the mid-19th century. In South Africa’s ear-
lier political history, cartoonists played a significant
political role. Political cartoons (a perennial primary
source for historians) first drew heavily on British
satirical style, as in Sam Sly’s African Journal, which
appeared from 1843 to 1851, and upheld the con-
servative social mores of White settlers at the Cape.
Christopher Holdridge has shown how the “collec-
tive tittering” of colonists affords historians a win-
dow into the fissures within bourgeois culture and
the distinctive discourse of racism developing at
the Cape of Good Hope. The first prominent local
cartoonist, D. C. Boonzaier (1865–1950), satirized
socioeconomic developments, creating a stock
718 South African Humor
figure of Hoggenheimer, a corpulent cigar-smoking
capitalist. He also critiqued high politics, and was
widely regarded as (at least partly) responsible for
the fall of General Louis Botha, the first premier of
the Union of South Africa after emancipation from
British rule.
Ken Vernon has discussed the “penpricks” to
the state’s conscience by political cartoons under
apartheid, despite the shield provided by the often
draconian censorship laws. An example is Donald
Kenyon’s cartoon in the Daily Dispatch in 1977,
which referenced the murder of Black activist Steve
Biko in police custody. The minister of justice casu-
ally peruses a newspaper report of the death, while
Lady Justice helplessly gestures in the background,
seemingly to question “Why?”
Similarly, in the postapartheid milieu, Zapiro and
others have targeted high-ranking government offi-
cials. In 2008, in the run-up to Zuma’s corruption
trial, Zapiro portrayed Zuma undoing his belt to
rape Lady Justice, while she lay pinned down by his
political henchmen. This triggered a public debate
around issues of freedom of speech, gender vio-
lence, and racial stereotyping. The cartoon showed
an ANC cabal abusing the judiciary, theoretically a
shield against the abuse of power by the combined
executive and legislative authorities. It also prompted
the public to remember Zuma’s previous trial in
2006, in which he was acquitted of rape charges. In
2006, Zapiro was sued by Zuma in a multimillion
rand defamation lawsuit for the cartoonist’s depic-
tions of the ANC leader around the time of his rape
trial. After the publication of the “Rape of Justice,”
Zuma sued both the Sunday Times and Zapiro—for
5 million rand. But just before the case was supposed
to start, Zuma’s legal team dropped the “dignity”
claim of 1 million rand and reduced the defamation
damages amount from 4 million rand to 100,000
rand and an unconditional apology. Zapiro rejected
this offer. Days before the trial, Zuma withdrew his
case altogether. Zuma had to pay a portion of the
newspaper’s legal fees.
Stand-up comedy has taken off astonishingly
in South Africa in the last 2 decades. As noted by
Zoe Parker, women remain scarce in post-1994
comedy circuits, though: Perhaps while the racial
order has changed, with multicultural audiences
and performers, the gender order has been slower to
shift. Stand-up has become very politically thematic,
challenging the shifting ontology of democracy in
postapartheid South Africa. As Julia Katherine
Seirlis (2011) argues, this “before-and-after story”
narrates the transition between the “puritanical
strictures and censorship of the National Party’s
apartheid” and the “new possibilities for freedom . . .
in a democracy riddled with profound social
and political problems of extreme violence and
poverty—and run by the ANC, a ruling party with a
strong sense of entitlement to State power.”
Humor destabilizes the dignity of those in power,
rupturing hegemonic narratives. As Obadare has
shown, in 2002, a diplomatic rift was only just
avoided between South Africa and Nigeria when
Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo objected to
his ample belly being mocked by a pair of South
African radio DJs. Jokes do cross borders. As
Roome has argued, for example, there is a strong
overlap among multiple variations of trickster fig-
ures in Africa that crosses national borders—and
there are powerful thematic similarities in the humor
of the Hausa people and South African situation
comedies. The idiographic should not be confused
with the exceptional.
Tellingly, in the run-up to the ruling party’s elec-
tive conference at the end of 2012 and in the wake of
new accusations of corruption against Zuma, mem-
bers of the South African Communist Party, which is
allied with the ANC, militated for legislation to pre-
vent the parody of the office of the president and ren-
der illegal the impugning of the president’s “dignity.”
Perhaps this is the strongest indication of the power
of joking. Moreover, this move has a precedent: Two
generations before, the Nationalist Party leader Gen-
eral James Barry Munnik Hertzog tried to introduce
legislation in 1937 to “protect” leaders and foreign
heads of state and diplomats from “insults”—after
the German ambassador grumbled about the South
African press’ mockery of the Nazis. One of the ideas
behind the proposed new legislation was to cleanse
such “anti-” and “un-national” elements from the
press. The attempt was scuppered by General Jan
Smuts’s replacing Hertzog and declaring war on the
Third Reich. But when the Nationalists returned
to power, they promulgated the 1961 Republic of
South Africa Constitution Act criminalizing any act
calculated to violate the dignity of a state president.
Free of the censorship and media restrictions of
the apartheid era, South Africans now engage in
vigorous and often humorous criticism of society’s
powerful. It remains to be seen whether those in
power will hem in the freewheeling culture of humor
in South Africa.
Sandra Swart

See also Cartoons; Journalism; Political Humor; Satire;
Stand-Up Comedy
Further Readings
Adhikari, M. (2006). God made the White man, God made
the Black man . . .: Popular racial stereotyping of
coloured people in apartheid South Africa. South
African Historical Journal, 55(1), 142–164.
Cage, K., with Evans, M. (2003). Gayle—the language of
kinks and queens: A history and dictionary of gay
language in South Africa. Houghton, South Africa:
Jacana Media.
Dodson, D. (1974). The four modes of Drum: Popular
fiction and social control in South Africa. African
Studies Review, 17(2), 317–343.
Hansen, T. B. (2005). Melancholia of freedom: Humour
and nostalgia among Indians in South Africa. Modern
Drama, 48(2), 297–315.
Holdridge, C. (2010). Laughing with Sam Sly: The cultural
politics of satire and colonial British identity in the Cape
Colony. Kronos, 36(1), 28–53.
Kishtainy, K. (1985). Arab political humour. London, UK:
Quartet Books.
Mamatu, T. (2006). The colonising laughter in Mr. Bones
and Sweet and Short. Johannesburg, South Africa:
University of the Witwatersrand.
Mantzaris, E. A. (1985). Jokes, humour, and society: The
South African case. South African Journal of Sociology,
16(3), 111–116.
Mason, A. (2003). Black and White in ink: Discourses of
resistance in South African cartooning. In A. Zegeye &
R. L. Harris (Eds.), Media, identity and the public
sphere in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 147–168).
Boston, MA: Brill.
Merrett, C. (1994). A culture of censorship: Secrecy and
intellectual repression in South Africa. Cape Town,
South Africa: David Philip.
Obadare, E. (2009). The uses of ridicule: Humour,
“infrapolitics” and civil society in Nigeria. African
Affairs, 108(431), 241–261.
Obadare, E. (2010). State of travesty: Jokes and the logic of
socio-cultural improvisation in Africa. Critical African
Studies, 2(4), 92–112.
Page, M. E. (1981). “With Jannie in the jungle”: European
humor in an East African campaign, 1914–1918. The
International Journal of African Historical Studies,
14(3), 466–481.
Parker, Z. (2002). Standing up for the nation: An
investigation of stand-up comedy in South Africa post-
1994 with specific reference to women’s power and the
body. South African Theatre Journal, 16(1), 8–29.
Roome, D. (1999–2000). Humor as “cultural
reconciliation” in South African situation comedy:
South American Literature, Humor in 719
Suburban bliss and multicultural female viewers. Journal
of Film and Video, 51(3–4), 61–87.
Roome, D. (2002). The serious “consequences” of comedy:
Negotiating cultural change and difference through
humour. South African Theatre Journal, 16(1), 44–62.
Seirlis, J. (2011). Laughing all the way to freedom?
Contemporary stand-up comedy and democracy in
South Africa. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 24(4), 513–530.
Swart, S. (2009). “The terrible laughter of the Afrikaner”—
Towards a social history of humour. Journal of Social
History, 42(4), 889–917. Retrieved from http://sun025
.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/
geskiedenis/docs/The%20laughter%20of%20the%20
Afrikaner.pdf
Vernon, K. (2000). Penpricks: The drawing South Africa’s
political battlelines. Cape Town, South Africa:
Spearhead Press.
SOUTH AMERICAN LITERATURE,
HUMOR IN
Addressing humor in South America, specifically in
Latin American literature, involves a web of possi-
bilities and three major considerations: (1) infiltra-
tion in all literary genres, including some resurrected
from ancient times and those created by their
authors; (2) unpredictable apparitions, be they in
works that handle humor as an incidental aesthetical
resource mingled with other resources, or in works
that are preeminently humorous; and (3) manifesta-
tion in different kinds, be it as function of satirizing
vices, defects, and abuse of power and the neocolo-
nial attitudes in societies of Latin American nations;
or as what Ramón Gómez de la Serna called humor-
ismo, namely, a humor that is not strictly ideologi-
cal but ludic, whether in an intellectual or a popular
vein. This entry discusses humor in Latin American
literature, focusing on its development and trends
and highlighting several exemplary literary works.
Development
Humor has in fact been present in Hispanic American
literature from the onset. During the colonial period
(1492–1820), two major satirists emerged. The first,
Sor (Sister) Juana Inés de la Cruz (1651–1695), lived
in Mexico. A self-taught child prodigy and proto-
feminist, she wrote satires, among other works.
A woman, argues Sor Juana, in the Sátira filosófica
(Philosophical Satire, Poem 92), cannot win because,
720 South American Literature, Humor in

in the game of seduction: “If not willing, she wonderful folklore flavor and the polyphonic
offends / but willing, she infuriates” (translation by arrangement of voices. Macunaíma has been called
Margaret Sayers Peden). The second colonial author, an epic-comic poem, but its fictional concep-
Juan del Valle y Caviedes (1645–1697), lived in Peru. tion resembles the style of La vie de Gargantua et
He wrote social and political satires, targeting colo- Pantagruel (Gargantua and Pantagruel, ca. 1532–ca.
nialist administrators and the medical profession. 1564) by François Rabelais, and therefore provides
El Periquillo Sarniento (The Mangy Parrot), writ- a connection with Menippean satire.
ten in 1816 by José Joaquín Fernández de Lizardi—
the first Hispanic American novel—exposed readers
Trends
to a satirical outlook that swings between moral
didacticism and the mischievous mishaps of its main Anti-Poetry
character, Pedro Sarmiento. Throughout the 19th cen-
In 1952, Nicanor Parra and a group of his
tury, other works with humorous segments emerged
creative friends, among them Enrique Lihn and
in the new nations, such as Tradiciones peruanas
Alejandro Jodorowsky, as if following instructions
(Peruvian Traditions, 1872–1875) by Ricardo Palma
from Tristan Tzara to write a Dada poem with ran-
and Martín Fierro (1872–1879) by José Hernández.
domly pasted clippings from the daily news, exhib-
Yet, among the modernists, humor did not find a
ited in Ahumada Street at Santiago de Chile different
place of privilege. An exception to this is the poetry of
humorous collages extracted from newspapers. The
Colombian postmodernist Luis Carlos López. Avant-
humorous effect on passersby was evident. It was
garde fiction writers and poets of the early 20th cen-
the soundest foundation for the emergence of anti-
tury brought about a humor boom. As a consequence
poetry, which may be traced back to 1954, when
of literary trends that presumed rejection of a strictly
Parra’s book Poemas y antipoemas (Poems and
sentimental and pure conception of beauty rooted
Anti-poems) was published.
in romanticism, symbolism, and modernism, avant-
The essential strategy of anti-poetry stems
garde poets featured a critical, liberating attitude and
firstly from critical denial of the bourgeoisie’s
a high sense of ludic experimentalism, where irrever-
worldview, social alienation, and stupidity, and
ence for traditional life styles and aesthetic notions
secondly from rejection of poetry based on an
led to irony and humor.
emotional or subjective concept of beauty. Anti-
An author who considerably contributed to pro-
poetry is a revolt against the narcissist poetic
mote this new spirit was Spaniard Ramón Gómez
self. The lyric poet with a modernist background
de la Serna, inventor of greguerías, a concise genre
is replaced by the anti-poet, or by anti-poets
defined as metaphor + humor De la Serna’s sur-
invented by Parra as the characters energúmeno
real wit has been widely praised. Cutting-edge
(madman) and the Cristo de Elqui. Among the
poets, such as Argentinian Oliverio Girondo and
techniques that cause humorous effects are the
Uruguayan Alfredo Mario Ferreiro, were inspired
collage, the manipulation of dialogue, and other
by de la Serna in Veinte poemas para leer en el tran-
traditional humorous techniques. While not all
vía (Twenty Poems to Be Read on the Tram, 1922)
poems included in anti-poetry may be classified as
and El hombre que se comió un autobus (The Man
humorous, as there is an existential and pathetic
Who Ate a Bus, 1927), respectively. In addition to
streak that runs through them, it can be said that
the greguería, two other techniques are manifest
Parra’s anti-poetic humor takes four major direc-
and become of essence for humor in avant-gardism:
tions: satirical, against social and political order;
(1) collage as an experimental principle of unpre-
festive, by incorporation to the La cueca larga
dictable juxtaposition and combination of words
(a type of dance) of humor in popular Chilean
or fragments from socially disconnected languages;
poetry; dark, which spins around his obsession
and (2) free or analogical fantasy in the creation of
with death; and a more intellectual humor main-
poetic imagery, understood as transcending the nar-
tained within the boundaries of verbal wit, as in
row boundaries of the greguería.
Artefactos (Artifacts, 1972).
Macunaíma (1928) by Brazilian Mario de
Andrade is an avant-garde novel with multiple
Intellectual Humor
funny situations. This novel shows the survival of
the carnival tradition, as in the theory of Mikhail Among the writers who use intellectual humor,
M. Bakhtin, both for free fantasy nurtured by the we find Argentinians Macedonio Fernández and

Jorge Luis Borges, as well as Uruguayan Felisberto
Hernández. Although his style is quite different from
Parra’s, it may be said that Macedonio Fernández
designed an aesthetic negation proposal that he
called belarte, as it contemplated destruction of real-
istic effect in the novel. With this, according to Emir
Rodríguez Monegal (1972), Fernández created the
first Hispanic American anti-novel. As opposed to
realism, belarte prose occurs in two genres: the novel
and belarte of the illogical. The latter one is nurtured
by the conceptual joke, a type of intellectual humor
based on the absurd. Thus, “I have so little to say,
gentlemen, that I’m afraid it will take me too long
to find in a brief toast a tiny place to insert the end”
(Fernandez, 1974, Papeles de Recienvenido [New-
comer Papers], 122, translated by Leticia Damm).
Concerning the humor of Borges, one should
consider the parody in his joint work with Adolfo
Bioy Casares. While humor cannot be considered
a predominant feature in Borges’s poems and short
stories, in some of the latter intellectual humor
emerges. In “El Aleph” (The Aleph), for instance, the
verses of character Carlos Argentino Danieri are a
parody of affected poetry, and repetition of the Z in
the last names Zunino, Zungri, and Zunni in a single
sentence also creates a humorous effect. “El informe
de Brodie” (The Brodie Report) partially parodies
Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift, where one of the
absurd habits of the Yahoos is veneration of a single
god they call Estiércol (Manure). Through fantastic
fabulation, another short story writer who created
certain humorous effects was Felisberto Hernández.
Motifs such as the ladies hosiery salesman who uses
tears as bait to sell “El cocodrilo” (The crocodile) or
the repetitive effect of a publicity slogan injected on
a pedestrian, in “Muebles ‘El Canario’” (Furniture
“The Canary”) are conceptually humorous.
Popular Humor
Next to intellectual humor, another extensive
trend is popular humor. Excluding manifestations
of oral poetry from cantores populares (street sing-
ers), there are authors who forged their work in a
popular vein, generally associated with a wider
critical perspective against social order and oppres-
sion. Two poets who fully respond to humor in
this popular vein are Cuban Nicolás Guillén and
Venezuelan Aquiles Nazoa. With Motivos del son
(Motifs of Son, 1930), Guillén reproduced in poems
distinctive voices of Cuban Blacks and mulattos.
To the extent that poems such as “Negro bembón”
South American Literature, Humor in 721
(Boastful Black Man), “Mulata” (Mulattress), or
“Mi chiquita” (My Little Girl), for instance, cap-
ture critical facets of Black people’s conflicts, his
expression concurrently entails some tenderness and
humor. Something that also attracts a lot of atten-
tion in Guillén’s poetry is humor expressed openly:
“I already heard, mulata, mulata, I know you’ve
been sayin’ / my nose resembles / the knot of a neck-
tie” (83–84, translated by Leticia Damm). In general
terms, Guillén’s ambivalent and satirical popular
humor entails a liberating purpose against racial
discrimination, neocolonialism, and ethnocentrism.
Aquiles Nazoa, in turn, is one of the funniest
poets of the 20th century, and almost all the poems
in Poesía de amor y humor (Poem of Love and
Humor, 1976) are seasoned with a fair dosage of
humor. Nazoa keeps within poetic genres’ boundar-
ies and skillfully exploits rhyme to create humorous
effect. As compared to Parra and Guillén, Nazoa
stands out as most closely linked to circumstances
that occur around him. This means his poems chal-
lenge the daily news, anecdotes, and situations in
everyday life. His attitude is frank, similar to that
of both Parra and Guillén. Nazoa’s work also high-
lights free humorous fantasy and social critique.
Besides his poems, Nazoa also cultivated the liter-
ary genre known as astracanada; namely, versified
farce adaptations from classics such as the book of
Genesis in the Bible, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s
Faust, or William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.
La vida inútil de Pito Pérez (The Useless Life
of Pito Pérez, 1938) by José Rubén Romero is a
Mexican picaresque novel in line with El Periquillo
Sarniento. It is about a boozer rogue who for a
bottle a day tells his follies and adventures to a poet.
Although the novel does not maintain humorous
intensity throughout, it has some funny passages
and parodies critical of the Mexican society of its
time. En babia, el manuscrito de un braquicéfalo
(Daydreaming, The Manuscript of a Brachyce-
phalic), a 1940 novel by Puerto Rican author José
Isaac De Diego Padró, relates the carousing envi-
ronment where two playboys living in New York
spend their time. In this novel, humor occurs in a
grotesque vein, in outlandish situations, and, mainly,
in the mocking depiction of the characters. Both
Padrò’s novel and Arturo Cancela’s 1944 Historia
funambulesca del profesor Landormy (The Gro-
tesque Story of Professor Landormy) have been
scarcely studied in spite of their humor contents.
Cancela’s novel, as in his earlier Palabras socráticas
a los estudiantes (Socratic Words for Students) in
722 South American Literature, Humor in
1928, displays satirical irony and humor. In Historia
funambulesca del profesor Landormy we find the
ridicule of MODIVE (Monopolio Oficial de Ilustres
Visitantes Extranjeros; Official Monopoly of Dis-
tinguished Foreign Visitors), an elite of snobs who
are highly servile with a French archeologist who is
not precisely a dazzling intellectual but, simply for
being French, is overwhelmed with undeserved and
exhausting attentions.
Satirical and Ironic Humor
In the second half of the 20th century, many
authors wrote satirical humor. Two unmistakably
humorous authors are Mexican Jorge Ibargüengoitia
and Guatemalan Augusto Monterroso, a nation-
alized Mexican. Ibargüengoitia started out as a
playwright, but was also a journalist, essayist,
and author of both short stories and novels. The
satirical vein of his plays depicted either the sleazy,
low-expectations environment of Mexico in the
1950s and 1960s or historical events and scenar-
ios. Among his humorous plays are Llegó Margó
(Margot Arrived, 1951), Susana y los jóvenes
(Susan and the Young People, 1954), and chiefly the
comedy of errors El viaje superficial (The Superficial
Travel, 1960). Ibargüengoitia’s humor is considered
to be most intense and ingenious in his short stories,
mainly La ley de Herodes (Herod’s Law) in 1967.
Augusto Monterroso was a polygraphist but
mainly gained fame in the short literary genres. His
1978 novel Lo demás es silencio (The Rest Is Silence)
is best known, but short stories, fables, aphorisms,
and essays constitute most of his work. Beginning
with his first book in 1959, Obras completas
(Complete Works), readers may find a predilec-
tion for ironic style. In this book, his famous one-
sentence story resembling a joke—“When he awoke,
the dinosaur was still there” (p. 77, translated by
Leticia Damm)—is found.
Juan José Arreola and Rosario Castellanos also
contributed to Mexican literary humor. These two
authors’ work was not conceived under a humor-
ous standpoint, but they wrote two masterpieces
in which humor and satire blend: La feria (The
Fair) in 1963 by Arreola and El eterno femenino
(The Eternal Feminine) in 1975 by Castellanos.
La feria is a novel that, by means of a polyphonic
construction, recreates the voices of the inhabitants
of a village called Zapotlán el Grande in the state
of Jalisco, who are about to have their annual fair
to honor Saint Joseph, the city’s patron. With the
farce titled El eterno femenino, Castellanos—who
had gained fame as a poet, short story writer, and
novelist—produced one of the funniest works of
the 1970s. A complex and difficult to enact farce,
it pivots around Lupita, a young girl who goes to
the beauty shop to have her hair done on her wed-
ding day and, as a result of an electronic device in
the drier, takes a trip to her past and future that
makes her cancel her marriage plans. This farce
constitutes a feminist critique against machismo
and certain feminine attitudes.
Around 1967, a number of novels with manifest
satirical humor were published. With Tres tristes
tigres (Three Sad Tigers) in 1967, Cuban Guillermo
Cabrera Infante manages, by means of highly differ-
ent stylizations of Havana speech, a novel overflow-
ing with ingenuity and humor about the nightlife in
Havana of three young bohemians before the revolu-
tion. Cabrera Infante depicts in his novel the Cuban
choteo (puns) or relajo (messing around). One of the
most memorable and controversial passages is the
chapter “The death of Trotsky as told by different
Cuban writers, years after—or before” where he
intertwines a variety of parodies of Cuban writers.
Although as a whole Mario Vargas Llosa is
known for his neorealistic novels, he also expanded
into humor and satire with Pantaleón y las visita-
doras (Pantaleón and the Visitors, 1973) and La tía
Julia y el escribidor (Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter,
1977). The former one satirizes a real-life event:
the organization of a business to provide brothel
services to soldiers stationed in a jungle zone of
northern Peru. Pantaleón is the soldier who has
been commissioned to undertake the project, which
is conceived to prevent soldiers from raping local
females. This satire of machismo and the military
is written in diverse genres, a differentiation that
renders it a polyphonic novel, as it ends up in irony
and humor. Regarding La tía Julia y el escribidor,
Vargas Llosa uses the technique of confronting two
vastly dissimilar stories, the first one re-creating his
experience when he fell in love and secretly married
his aunt-in-law Julia and the second one a series of
outlandish stories told by a Bolivian typist named
Pedro Camacho who goes crazy and turns things
around, thus generating the humorous effect.
Popular Speech, Grotesque Realism,
and Carnivalization
The publication of Cien años de soledad (One
Hundred Years of Solitude) by Colombian Gabriel

García Márquez in 1967 constituted a turning point
for humor for the Hispanic American novel. How-
ever, García Márquez’s humor is not restricted to
this book; as found in El otoño del patriarca (The
Autumn of the Patriarch, 1975), Crónica de una
muerte anunciada (Chronicle of a Death Foretold,
1981), El amor en los tiempos del cólera (Love in
the Time of Cholera, 1985), and some of his short
stories, humor is a component of the author’s style.
Literary critic Mario Vargas Llosa recognized in Cien
años de soledad the common people’s viewpoint as
an element of his humor. Consequently, it may be
said that García Márquez is a cultured author who
writes in a common vein. Even more so, critics such
as Vargas Llosa and Óscar Collazos also found in
Cien años de soledad some images that recall La vie
de Gargantúa et Pantagruel by François Rabelais.
This is a paradigmatic work of grotesque realism
and carnivalism. Definitely, the humor in Cien
años de soledad degrades serious issues through the
physical-corporal principle and neutralizes the tragic
side of predestination in Macondo, the setting of the
novel.
With El mundo alucinante (Hallucinations) in
1969, Reinaldo Arenas used the biography of Fray
Servando Teresa de Mier, patriot of Mexican Inde-
pendence, to write a novel of adventures in which
he combines skepticism with humor. While his skep-
ticism addresses his social unconformity with the
Cuban revolutionary regime, his humor ranges from
irony to sarcasm. An evident feature throughout this
novel is the use of grotesque realism, which not only
mixes the hyperbolic with degradation, but also the
scatological and free fantasy. With Macunaíma and
Cien años de soledad, El mundo alucinante is one of
the novels that is pervaded with carnivalization, that
is, the liberating influence of popular humor.
Other Caribbean authors who created narrative
humor are Puerto Ricans Emilio Díaz Valcárcel,
Luis Rafael Sánchez, and Ana Lydia Vega. In some
way, these authors subscribe a trend initiated by
Cabrera Infante, who claimed he wrote in Cuban.
Both Díaz Valcárcel and Sánchez decided to do
likewise for their country. With Figuraciones en el
mes de marzo (Schemes in the Month of March,
1972), writing in Puerto Rican gains significance in
a number of letters received by character Eduardo
Leiseca and his wife Yolanda, both living in Madrid.
Four years after Figuraciones en el mes de marzo,
the novel La guaracha del macho Camacho (Macho
Camacho’s Beat) by Luis Rafael Sánchez was pub-
lished in 1976, which likewise includes humorous
South American Literature, Humor in 723
elements supported by stylization of popular speech,
grotesque realism, and carnivalization, although to
a lower extent than in Díaz Válcarcel’s work. Also
in this narrative tradition that depicts common
speech and people’s ways and manners is the book
Encancaranublado y otros cuentos de naufragio
(Encancaranublado and other Shipwreck Tales) by
Ana Lydia Vega (1982).
There have been other humorous writers, who
cannot be discussed for lack of space. Among them
are Peruvian Alfredo Bryce Echenique and Mexican
Sergio Pitol. The humor of Bryce Echenique stands
out, for instance, in the short story “Muerte de
Sevilla en Madrid” (Death of Seville in Madrid) and
the novel La vida exagerada de Martín Romaña
(The Exaggerated Life of Martín Romaña, 1981).
Pitol has deliberately written carnivalesque work
as in Trilogía del Carnaval (Trilogy of Carnival), as
clearly shown in Domar a la divina garza (Divine
Tame Heron, 1988), the first book of the trilogy.
Eduardo E. Parrilla Sotomayor
See also Literature; Poetry
Further Readings
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world
(H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Collazos, Ó. (1986). García Márquez: La soledad y la gloria;
su vida y su obra [Garcia Márquez: Solitude and glory,
his life and work]. Barcelona, Spain: Plaza y Janés.
Cruz, J. I. de la. (1997). Poems, protest, and a dream:
Selected writings (M. S. Peden, Trans.). New York, NY:
Penguin.
Cruz, J. I. de la. (n.d.). Sátira filosófica [Philosophical
satire, poem 92]. Retrieved from http://www-personal
.umich.edu/~dfrye/SORJUANA.html
Costa, R. de. (1999). El humor en Borges [Humor in
Borges]. Madrid, Spain: Catedra.
Cueto, S. (1999). Versiones del humor [Versions of humor].
Rosario, Argentina: Beatriz Vitervo Editora.
Díaz Bild, A. (2000). Humor y literatura: Entre la
liberación y la subversión [Humor and literature:
Between liberation and subversion]. La Laguna, Santa
Cruz de Tenerife: Universidad de la Laguna, Servicio de
Publicaciones.
Fernandez, M. (1974). Obras completas [Complete works].
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Corregidor.
Gómez de la Serna, R. (1943). Ismos [Isms]. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Poseidón.
Guillén, N. (2002). Obra poética (tomo 1) [Poetic works
(Vol. 1)]. La Habana, Cuba: Letras Cubanas.
724 Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
Monterroso, A. (1971). Obras completas y otros cuentos
[Complete works and other stories]. México: Editorial
Joaquín Mortiz.
Rodríguez Monegal, E. (1972). El boom de la novela
latinoamericana [The Latin American novel’s boom].
Caracas, Venezuela: Editorial Tiempo Nuevo.
Sotomayor, E. E. P. (2012). Vertientes imaginativas en cien
años de soledad [Imaginative aspects in One Hundred
Years of Solitude]. Germany: Editorial Académica
Española.
Vargas Llosa, M. (1971). García Márquez: Historia de un
deicidio [García Márquez: The story of a deicide].
Barcelona/Caracas: Barral.
SOUTHEAST ASIA, CARTOONING IN
Humor has played a key role in the cartooning tra-
ditions of Southeast Asia, where it has appeared
in political cartoons, newspaper strips, and comic
books, or cartoon and humor magazines. These
comics are invariably meant to spark laughter, poke
fun at the foibles of society, or uncover the mysteries
of politics and politicians. This entry discusses how
cartoons in Southeast Asia have dealt with politics
and other topics and describes some of the region’s
most popular cartoonists and their works.
Political Cartoons
As they do elsewhere, political cartoons in Southeast
Asia employ humor through exaggerated portray-
als of personalities, the ridiculousness of current
events made more ridiculous, and funny allusions to
various metaphors. Frequently, political cartooning
has been dwarfed during the region’s many periods
of oppression; nevertheless, it has managed to sur-
vive (sometimes barely) since colonial and dynastic
times. In fact, in three countries—the Philippines,
Indonesia, and Vietnam—the first political cartoons
were attributed to the independence fighters José
Rizal (1861–1896), Sukarno (Kusno Sosrodihardjo,
1901–1970), and Ho Chi Minh (1890–1969),
respectively. In Thailand, King Rama VI (ruled
1910–1925) supposedly drew that country’s first
cartoons so as to embarrass corrupt government
officials. Rama VI also designated the words paap
lor (parodic image) to identify cartoons.
Because all of Southeast Asia (except Thailand)
had been colonized by one power or another, it
was natural that the earliest cartoons should lam-
poon the foreign occupiers. Cartoons in Philippine
newspapers and satirical magazines made the
Spanish, and then the Americans, look foolish from
the 1890s until the1940s; in Myanmar, pioneering
cartoonists Ba Gale from the 1910s and Ba Gyan
shortly afterward made fun of the British; and the
same treatment was given to the British in Malaysia,
the Dutch in Indonesia, and the French in Indochina.
The first Singaporean cartoons in 1907, published
in Chinese reformist leader Sun Yat-sen’s political
organ, Chong Shing Yit Pao, satirized Qing Dynasty
officials of the time.
Political cartoonists have trod very cautiously
in each country at times because of intolerance of
criticism by authoritarian governments, both dur-
ing colonial periods and postindependence. In
Singapore, political cartoons were dropped from
the major newspaper chain, The Straits Times, from
1961 to 1979, and those that now exist deal with
universal or foreign issues. With the sole exception
of the works of Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque,
b. 1962), Malaysian cartoons are also tepid. For his
political cartoons, Zunar was arrested and jailed
for two days in September 2010 under Malaysia’s
Sedition Act. In the Philippines, conglomerate-
owned newspapers often stymie the efforts of politi-
cal cartoonists. To get around the censorship, much
subtlety is used in Southeast Asian cartoons, through
metaphors, hints, symbolism, innuendo, historical
allusions, and intentional mistakes. An example of
the last was a cartoon in an issue of Myanmar’s
government newspaper that showed a steadfast
Myanmar soldier with “Defecto (rather than De
facto) Government” emblazoned on his chest.
Comic Strips and Comic Books
The humor found in Southeast Asian newspaper
strips and comic books differs little from that else-
where, probably because of influences brought in by
colonizers. Usually, themes revolve around wacky
family adventures, husband-wife relationships,
country bumpkins trying to be city slickers, well-
intentioned idiots, young men’s misadventures while
trying to impress women, funny antics of humanized
animals, clashes of traditional and modern lifestyles,
and politics and society satirized.
The region’s earliest comics played on these
themes. Indonesia’s first newspaper strip Kho Wang
Gie’s Put On, in 1931, displayed the daily life of
a young, single, middle-class man and the never-
ending hassles and entanglements he faced both in
the big city and with his nagging mother, teasing

brothers, and difficult boss. In the Philippines, the
first comic strip, Kenkoy, drawn by Tony Velasquez
in 1929 for Liwayway Magazine, was a ludicrous
portrait of a Filipino trying to be an American;
some others that followed in the 1930s carried plots
and characters imitative of U.S. strips. The earliest
comic strip characters in Vietnam, Ly Toet drawn
by Nhat Linh and Xa Xe drawn by Nguyen Gia Tri,
played on the bodily physique of Western comedy
teams—one character thin (Ly Toet), the other short
and stout (Xa Xe). At the beginning, Ly Toet was
depicted as muddling through Vietnamese colonial-
ism, and from 1936–1941, the pair epitomized the
lower classes while at the same time they criticized
backward lifestyles, the wickedness of the colonialist
government, authoritarianism, and corruption.
Comic strips in Malaysia started with Wak Ketok
(Uncle Knock, named for his penchant for attack-
ing), created in 1939 by Rahim Kajai and Ali Sanat.
Like other pioneering strips, it used long captions,
often with proverbs and pantuns (folk ditties) and
elaborate rhyming sentences. Postindependence (in
1957), the cartoonists Raja Hamzah, Rejabhad, and
Mishar followed the well-worn social commentary
patterns of family life and husband-wife intrigues.
Prominent, beginning with his work in the 1960s,
has been Lat (Mohammad Nor Khalid), who cre-
ated Si Mamat (1968–1994) and then The Kampung
Boy. The latter was a cartoon book, published in
1979, which became a phenomenal success and has
been translated into many foreign languages. It is a
nostalgic account of Lat growing up in a village in
the 1950s and 1960s. Through its warm and sympa-
thetic depictions of people and places, the book did
much to promote interethnic harmony.
The history of the comic strip in Singapore
reflects the seesaw existence this form has had in
the region. Responsible for early strips was high
school teacher Qiu Gao Peng, who created Wang
Er in 1950, a character similar to the popular street
urchin character Sanmao in Mainland China. Three
years later, Qiu produced the weekly Mr. Nonsense,
which lasted only 2 years until it was stopped for
portraying Singaporean political leaders as pigs
and as Adolf Hitler. Strips were rare, short-lived,
and poorly executed in the 1960s and 1970s but
were invigorated in the following decade when the
Straits Times publishing group emphasized domestic
cartoons. Sprouting during that time were Victor
Teh’s Crocko, an environment-friendly cockroach;
Life’s Like That, a gag strip by Lee Chee Chew; the
pioneering strip by Cheah Sin Ann for The Straits
Southeast Asia, Cartooning in 725
This very intimate cartoon shows Malaysian cartoonist
Lat (Mohammad Nor Khalid) handling family life and
professional challenges in the mid-1980s.
Source: Lat.
Times, House of Lim, about a Chinese family called
Lim, with each episode based on a weekly theme;
Orchid Road by 18-year-old Colin Goh; and Mr.
Kiasu by Johnny Lau and James Suresh. The top-
ics of strips that followed in the late 1980s and
early 1990s featured quirky characters, bickering
married couples, a family headed by a rock fan–
guitarist father, impossible teenage buddies, and, in
the case of the very popular Mr. Kiasu, Singaporeans’
self-perceptions, so much on the mark that kiasuism
as a word came to represent the people’s obsession
with being number one and their fear of losing out.
Mr. Kiasu originated as a comic book issued once
yearly, and spun off into a strip, other media forms,
licenses, and products, including a McDonald’s
“Kiasuburger.”
The Straits Times group’s interest in publishing
domestic comic strips fizzled quickly, attributable
to the high costs of production and the cartoonists’
lack of new ideas, a number of which were based
on a very American-based type of humor and worn-
out slapstick jokes. Some recent strips include Hup’s
(Lee Hup Kheng) What’s Hup, an account of a boy’s
summer with his grandparents; Cheah’s popular
Billy and Saltie, tropical adventures of an Australian
aboriginal boy and a crocodile; and Lau’s Skipping
Class, the tale of a primary school student who can
travel between parallel school worlds on alternate
days—one day, the school is like a pressure-cooker,
the next, wacky and more creative.
726 Southeast Asia, Cartooning in
For years, humorous strips have found audi-
ences among newspaper and magazine readers in
Indonesia. Some have been collected into antholo-
gies, while G. M. Sudarto’s funny political strip
Oom Pasikom became the country’s first to be made
into a movie (in 1990, directed by Chaerul Umam).
Two popular cartoons that began in the 1970s are
Djon Domino by Johnny Hidajat and Panji Koming
by Dwi Koendoro. Hidajat drew for 10 to 15 peri-
odicals, producing a prodigious amount of work
daily. His modus operandi was to take an event or
issue and bring out five versions of Djon Domino
daily, each with its own title and joke. One version
was Djon Taremolneok (conglomerate spelled back-
wards in Indonesian), about big firms and their exec-
utives. The jokes and warm style of Djon Domino
made it a favorite in the 1970s through the 1990s. It
helped that the strip contained a daily number that
readers could use to play in the national lottery, as
well as occasional tinges of obscenity and sexuality
mixed with politics. Koendoro’s Panji Koming usu-
ally acted as a commentary on the matching of elite
positions with ignorance.
Newer Indonesian comic strips include Mr. Bei,
featuring a character who gets things wrong despite
good intentions; the politically oriented I Brewok;
Lotif, whose leading character often fouls up while
trying to attract women; Doyok, about a shrewd
thinker, sarcastic but realistic, who comments on
sociopolitical matters; and Benny & Mice, by Benny
Rachmadi and Muhammad Misrad, a blockbuster
comic about adults acting like teens and avoiding
societal norms.
In the later 20th century, Philippine daily news-
papers had an array of very popular stock char-
acter strips, and some are still running. Among
them were Larry Alcala’s Siopawman, a slapstick
parody of Superman; Slice of Life, a one-panel car-
toon with Alcala’s caricature carefully hidden in its
midst; Nonoy Marcelo’s Tisoy, about the dilemma
of urbanized youth; Ikabod, a comic with double-
coded dialogue characters that, during martial
law (1972–1981), managed to deflect while still
acknowledging then President Ferdinand Marcos;
Roni Santiago’s Baltic and Co., about the goings-
on in a typical business office; and Jess Abrera’s A.
Lipin, a current affairs-oriented strip. Cambodian
and Myanmar newspapers rarely carry any domes-
tic strips, while in Malaysia they more often appear
in Bahasa Malaysia language dailies. Strips in
Vietnamese newspapers dwindled significantly after
the early 1990s, with major dailies now devoid of
them. In Thailand, a few survive, the major one for
many years being Chai Rachawat’s village-based
Poo Yai Ma Kap Tung Ma Muen (Headman Poo Yai
Ma and the Village of Tung Ma Muen).
In most Southeast Asian comic books, humor
takes a backseat to other genres. This is evident
in the Philippines where the rich komiks tradi-
tion began in 1946 with Halakhak (a word that
sounds like and denotes laughter) but that favored
love, romance, and fantasy over humor. For many
years, funny comics were reserved for children (e.g.,
Filipino Funny Komiks for Children), and often
were spin-offs of television shows or imitations
of the American MAD magazine. Yet comedy or
romance-comedy comic books proved more likely to
be turned into feature films than other genres, dem-
onstrating their marketability.
In Thailand, a single company, Banlue Sarn, has
dominated the humor comics field, starting with its
first children’s comic book, Nuja (Little Children),
created by Jamnoon Leksomtic in 1957. Two
years later, the company added Baby by Wattana
Petchuwan and both can still be found. The com-
pany focuses on the advantages of funny comics
being easy to read and understand and their universal
appeal. Their anchor comic is Kai Hua Roh (Selling
Laughter), made up of one- and three-panel gags.
Many series in Kai Hua Roh have been converted
into comic books. While Banlue Sarn dominates,
other companies also publish children’s humor and
gag comic books.
Though now invisible in Cambodia, humorous
comic books had a brief life during the 1980s. Comics
about legends and romance, and educational comics
sponsored by nongovernmental organizations, make
up the country’s sparse offerings. Both historically
and in the present, Vietnamese comic books tend to
be poor quality reprints of Disney and other foreign
titles, pirated and recredited to Vietnamese authors,
as well as funny accounts of fairy tales and historical
events. A recently spoofed fairy tale is Banh Chung
Banh Day (Square and Round Glutinous Rice
Cakes), which mixed traditional folk wisdom with
contemporary culture. The story revolves around
the fabled origin of these traditional New Year foods
where a young prince dreamt that a god told him
how to prepare a special rice dish to offer his father
the king. In the funny comic book, the prince dreams
he has entered a popular television cooking contest.
Malaysian humorous comic books originated
in the early 1970s with Bambino and Bujol; but in
1998, when Art Square Group brought out Gempak,

humor comics began to thrive. Gempak, one of
Malaysia’s top magazines, was different—heavier
on plot and lighter on cheap laughs. In Myanmar,
humor has been the mainstay of comic strips and
comic books. Some famous comic books are Tin
Aung Ni’s Ko Pyar Leung (Mischievous One), which
became the subject of at least five films; Than Htun’s
Maung Ti Htwin (Mr. Inventor); and others by
Ngwe Kyi, based on humorous Myanmar folklore.
Cartoon and Humor Magazines
The country with the earliest dedicated cartoon and
humor magazines is undoubtedly the Philippines,
which spawned satirical periodicals such as Te
Con Leche, Biro-Biro, and others between 1898
and 1901 in order to lampoon both Spaniards and
Americans as colonial powers. Sporting the most
sustained history of such magazines is Malaysia,
which in 1973 already had Ha Hu Hum and had
developed at least 50 others since Gila-Gila (Mad
About Mad) started its own long life in 1978. Gila-
Gila, at one time Malaysia’s largest circulation mag-
azine, succeeds with an assortment of funny cartoons
based on traditional Malaysian literature, folktales,
animal fables, history, and film parodies. By 2000,
with a glut of Malaysian cartoon and humor maga-
zines, special audiences were being targeted—teens
(Ujang), religion (Lanun), and women (Cabai).
Other cartoon and humor magazines were pub-
lished in Vietnam, such as Tuoi Tre Cuoi (Youth
Laugh), conceived in 1984 by then Prime Minister
Vo Van Kiet and still appearing, and in Myanmar,
beginning with Aung Shein’s Popular in 1953,
which was succeeded by others, including the gov-
ernmental Shwe Thway, issued regularly since 1969.
Indonesia had Stop and Astaga (Good Lord) in the
1970s, followed in the 1980s and 1990s by Idola
(Ideal) and by two different cartoon magazines both
called HumOr.
Overall, the role of humor in Southeast Asian car-
tooning has proved less than stable, varying widely
over time and from country to country because of
disruptions in culture caused by war, political and
economic turmoil, the prevalence of different socio-
cultural and political backgrounds that define and
limit what is accepted as funny in each country, and
influence by foreign comics for both good or bad.
John A. Lent
See also Art and Visual Humor; Cartoons; Comic Books;
Comic Strips
Speech Play 727
Further Readings
Lent, J. A. (Ed.). (1997). Cartooning & comic art in
Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Journal of Social
Science, 25(1), 1–166.
Lent, J. A. (1998). Comics in The Philippines, Singapore,
and Indonesia. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 11(1), 65–77.
Lent, J. A. (2009). The first one hundred years of Philippine
komiks and cartoons. Tagaytay, Philippines: Yonzon
Associates.
Lent, J. A. (Ed.). (2014). Southeast Asian cartoon art:
History, trends and problems. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Lent, J. A. (in press). Asian comics. Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi.
Mahamood, M. (2004). The history of Malay editorial
cartoons (1930s–1993). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Utusan Publications & Distributors.
SPEECH PLAY
Speech play is the playful manipulation of elements
and components of language, in relation to one
another, in relation to the social and cultural con-
texts of language use, and against the backdrop of
other verbal possibilities in which speech play is not
foregrounded. The elements manipulated can be at
any level of language, from sound patterns to syntax,
semantics, and discourse; they can include the vari-
ous languages used in multilingual situations, and
relations between verbal and nonverbal communica-
tion. Speech play can be conscious or unconscious,
noticed or not noticed, purposeful or nonpurpose-
ful, and humorous or serious. Nonetheless, given
the focus on manipulation, speech play typically
involves a degree of selection and consciousness
beyond that of ordinary language use.
While speech play is present to some degree in
all speech—informal, formal, conversational, or
artistic—it is most evident in certain conventional
forms that are found in many societies. These
include play languages, puns, jokes, verbal dueling,
proverbs, and riddles. There is a close connection
between speech play and verbal art (verbal art is
a focus on the aesthetic use of language, both oral
and written). Speech play provides the means and
resources, such as metaphor, parallelism, and nar-
rative manipulations, out of which verbal art is
created. At the same time, there are various and
overlapping ends served by speech play, comic or
728 Speech Play
humorous, religious, rhetorical, mnemonic, com-
petitive, rehearsal, and artistic. After discussing the
academic study of speech play, this entry examines
the concepts and functions of play and its relation
to culture.
Academic Study
The study of speech play is relevant to various disci-
plines and scholarly concerns. For linguists, speech
play provides insight into linguistic structure by
revealing the ways in which various elements of
language can be manipulated in different contexts.
Speech play is relevant to both linguistic theory and
linguistic methodology. It provides insight into the
nature of language in general, as play is an impor-
tant component of language structure and language
use; play is inherent in grammar and grammar pro-
vides potential for play actualized in discourse. The
study of speech play also reveals information about
particular languages, indicating what parts are avail-
able for play, how, and why. Methodologically,
speech play provides a tool for the investigation of
both language structure and language use. From the
perspective of sociolinguistics, because speech play
often emerges from language, styles, and varieties in
contact, its study provides insights into the use and
the attitudes toward the sociolinguistic repertoire of
a community.
For anthropologists, speech play can be seen as
being at the heart of intersections among language,
culture, and society—testing, experimenting with,
and sometimes creating the boundaries of appropri-
ate behavior. While there is always some play for
play’s sake, play often involves culture exploring
and working out both its essence and the limits of
its possibilities. It can be a cultural theme, and as
such is at the heart of the intersection of language,
culture, thought, and individual expression. Play
occurs as people—not just children—work out,
experiment, exercise, and define the properties of
their languages, cultures, and societies, and espe-
cially the intersections and relations among them. In
this view, language and culture and their interaction
and intersection are viewed as dynamic, not static,
and in flux, not fixed. Methodologically, the study
of people’s speech play gives researchers a tool for
analyzing how natives express and live their own
language and culture. For literary critics, attention
to speech play focuses on the texture of language
use and helps define the nature of verbal art.
The study of speech play has a history that
relates to several disciplines, including anthropol-
ogy, linguistics, sociology, psychology, philosophy,
literary criticism, and folklore. Anthropologists have
treated play and humor as marginal to concerns
traditionally considered more basic, such as social
organization and kinship, or more recently, political
economy and the world system. Recent writing in
both literary criticism and anthropology considers
the concept of play to be central to their enterprise
but rarely provides extended and detailed linguistic
analysis of specific forms.
The discipline of linguistics has also marginal-
ized the study of speech play, with some significant,
mainly methodological exceptions. And yet, speech
play is critically relevant to linguistics. It enables one
to deal with not only standard topics in the study of
the grammars of languages, but also and especially
with topics that are salient for the speakers of par-
ticular languages, for example, an orientation to and
focus on form, shape, texture, movement, and direc-
tion, found in many languages, or sound symbolism
and onomatopoeia also common in the languages of
the world. An orientation to speech play also leads
one to recognize, indeed insist on, alternative rather
than unitary solutions to analytical problems. Pay-
ing attention to speech play argues for a plurality of
theories and methods, an openness to different ways
of conceiving of language and to different ways of
collecting and analyzing data.
Speech play, while sometimes humorous, is
often deeply serious and significant. It is precisely
because play is so important that it is so widespread
in the world. A focus on speech play contributes
to and is indeed a logical continuation of a tradi-
tion in anthropology and linguistics with regard
to the relationship between language and culture,
linguistic structures on the one hand and world-
view or perception on the other. There are aspects
of linguistic form and linguistic structure that only
emerge through the study of language use in ver-
bally playful and verbally artistic discourse. In fact,
speech play and verbal art involve language in its
essence, on display. Potentials inherent in language
are packed and pushed to their highest limits. Play-
fully imaginative and artistically creative language
constitute the richest point of intersection of the
relationship among language, culture, society, and
individual expression and therefore, the place in
which language, cognition, perception, and world-
view come together in their most distilled form.

Heteroglossia (languages, dialects, and speech
styles in contact and competition within communi-
ties) and intertextuality (combinations of forms of
discourse) can be both sources of play and results
of play.
Concepts and Functions of Play
The various meanings of the word play, in English
as well as other languages, are all relevant to an
understanding of speech play. One meaning is
“manipulation” and along with it freedom, but
always within a set of rules. In language, the dif-
ferent ways of pronouncing the same word or
expressing the same idea are quite analogous
to this sense of play. So is the lack of perfect fit
between and among the various levels and compo-
nents of language, Another meaning of play is that
of “performance,” as in the playing of a musical
instrument. Still another meaning of play is that of
playing a “game,” which raises the significant rela-
tion between play and games. Not all play takes
the form of games, with opponents and winners
and losers, but some forms, such as verbal dueling,
quite clearly do. Finally there is the idea of play
as the opposite of serious or literal, for which the
Latin-derived term ludic has been used.
Different languages and cultures combine these
concepts of play in different ways. In French as in
English, play (jouer) is used for manipulation, musi-
cal performance, games, and nonserious behavior
such as joking and jesting. In Spanish, the word
jugar is used for manipulation and games as well
as nonseriousness, while tocar (literally, “touch”) is
used for musical performance. In Kuna, an indig-
enous language of Colombia and Panama, totoe is
used for playing and joking in the sense of tricking
and fooling as well as playing games and dancing.
The Indonesian word main signifies playing games
as well as nonseriousness. In English, as in French,
the word play, as both a verb and a noun, is used
for theatrical performance. One of the functions of
reduplication in Indonesian languages is to indicate
that an object or activity is nonserious or for play. A
similar function is achieved in Kuna by means of the
use of a verbal prefix pinsa which has the meaning
“for the hell of” or “just for play.”
These different meanings of play lead us to the
very useful notions of frame and metacommuni-
cation, as developed by such scholars as Gregory
Bateson and Erving Goffman. Frame is the
Speech Play 729
definition/conception/organization of an activity as
real or literal, rehearsed or practiced, talked about
or lied about, or dreamt or fantasized. Play then is
a type of frame. Related to frame is the concept of
function of language and of communication more
generally. In addition to functioning referentially,
naming things and providing information about
them, language functions socially, expressively,
metacommunicatively, and poetically. Speech
play combines several of these functions. In turn,
speech play, as a form of language use, has various
functions: psychological, cultural, humorous, and
poetic.
These functions of language in general and
speech play in particular overlap with one another
and can be played down or foregrounded in particu-
lar instances. At one level, there is no language use
without speech play and verbal art being involved
to some degree. At the same time, there are verbal
forms in which speech play, verbal art, or both are
the central and total focus. The notion of conscious-
ness and purpose is notable here. There are forms of
play that are totally unconscious and unintended,
certain sound or word associations for example.
Others are conscious, intended, and performed, such
as jokes or stories. And there are various possibilities
in between, as when an unintended pun gets laughed
at and becomes the focus of commentary. This pro-
vides us with an insight into the nature of humor,
clearly intimately related to play. Many scholars,
including Sigmund Freud and Henri Bergson, have
noticed that humor results from surprise juxtaposi-
tions. The sudden coming into consciousness and
public awareness and commentary of an unintended
speech play is a good example. Add to this the
backdrop of entangled cultural and personal pre-
suppositions and assumptions and one can begin to
understand particular instances of humor, which can
be quite complex.
It is useful to ask where exactly play is located.
Play is located in language structure and grammar
and is an inherent aspect of the formal properties of
language. The inherent play aspects of language are
exploited in rhetorical and poetic forms, as well as in
discourse more generally. Play is located, again both
actually and potentially, in sociolinguistic situations,
in the juxtaposition of languages, dialects, and styles
in use. Play is also located in everyday speech in the
form of puns, word associations, repetitions and
parallelisms, and clever responses and comebacks
which feel creatively poetic. And play is located in
730 Spoofing
well-defined and developed discourse forms such as
play languages, jokes, put-ons, stories, riddles, prov-
erbs, and verbal dueling.
Relation to Culture
This focus on play fits well within current concep-
tions of discourse and culture, including language,
as constructed, imagined, negotiated, and (re-)
invented. Instead of viewing language and culture
as systems where everything holds together nicely
and neatly, they can be seen as open systems with
fuzziness, leaks, inventions, constructions, nego-
tiations, imaginations, and constantly emergent.
Discourse is crucial to the language and culture
intersection, the locus of the actualization of poten-
tials provided by language and culture as well as
personal experience. In this intersection, creativity,
imagination, and play are essential. Another way to
view this is that there is a lack of fit between words
and world so that while at times language reflects
the world, it often is the creator of experience and
perception. Again, speech play and verbal art are at
the heart of this process and help us to understand
not only relationships among language, culture,
and thought, but also the creative spirit that leads
to constantly new forms of expression and aesthetic
creation.
Joel Sherzer
See also Culture; Jokes; Play and Humor; Puns; Puppets;
Riddle; Verbal Dueling
Further Readings
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New
York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of
the comic. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work
published 1900)
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. London, UK: Penguin.
Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. London, UK: Hogarth.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the
organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-
element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nachmanovitch, S. (1990). Free play: Improvisation in life
and art. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
Sherzer, J. (2002). Speech play and verbal art. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Yaguello, M. (1998). Language through the looking glass:
Exploring language and linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
SPOOFING
English music hall entertainer Arthur Roberts (1852–
1933) introduced the word spoof into the English
language via a card game of his own invention. The
first mention of the game Spoof dates to 1884, and
within 5 years the term spoof entered into regular
usage distinct from Roberts’s parlor-room pastime.
Signifying trickery and nonsense, spoof was originally
synonymous with “hoax,” while the verb to spoof
meant to engage in deception or bluffing, particularly
in jest. By the mid-20th century, however, the con-
cept shifted toward its contemporary meaning, that
is, lighthearted satire or good-natured parody.
At the root of any act of spoofing is the use of
misrepresentation to make light of or ridicule a per-
son or thing. Like many forms of humor, spoofing
relies on the gap between reality and representation
(or more often, misrepresentation) to produce mirth.
Similar to parody, spoofing reproduces stylistic
peculiarities of an external subject to achieve humor;
however, spoofs typically target a distinct work or
genre for mockery, thus requiring a higher level of
parasitism than is necessary for parody.
While sharing a focus on the visual with bur-
lesque, spoofing rarely transgresses societal norms,
although poking fun at traditional mores is common.
Distinct from satire and harsher forms of lampoon-
ing, spoofing eschews polemics, generally avoids
overt political content, and rarely aims at normative
outcomes. In order to mitigate the inherent tension
between playful misrepresentation and actual decep-
tion, a spoof must be understood by its audience as a
hoax, otherwise its author runs the risk of confusing
the spectator and thus being “unfunny.”
Today, spoofing is most associated with genre-
busting cinema wherein a specific film or a well-
defined genre is parodied through the application
of deliberate anachronisms, breaking with character,
double entendre, intertextuality, and the purposeful
subversion of established conventions of the style.
The spoof film, despite its low level of respect within
the movie industry, enjoys a long history.
One of the earliest spoofs, Hellzapoppin’ (1941),
made fun of Citizen Kane—considered by many crit-
ics to be the best film ever made—and included the
following disclaimer: “Any resemblance between

Hellzapoppin’ and a motion picture are coinciden-
tal.” In the postwar era, the comedic duo of William
“Bud” Abbott and Lou Costello starred in a series
of horror send-ups including Abbott and Costello
Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Abbott and Meet the
Mummy (1955).
Following the cultural upheaval of the late
1960s, the spoof film emerged as a genre in its own
right, owing to a generational shift in audience
tastes and the rise of a cadre of daring comedians-
turned-filmmakers. With Blazing Saddles (1974),
Mel Brooks established himself as the auteur of the
spoof. Playing a number of the characters including
a Yiddish-speaking Indian chief, Brooks appeared
alongside his standard comedic lineup of Harvey
Korman, Dom DeLuise, and Madeline Kahn in a
full-length jape of the Western. Not totally devoid
of satiric content, Brooks’s film tilted at the genre’s
failure to deal honestly with issues of racial intoler-
ance in the American West. Following his parody
of the cowboy movie, Brooks took aim at silent
films, psychological thrillers, horror flicks, historical
epics, and sci-fi operas over the next two decades.
In his final spoof, Dracula: Dead and Loving It
(1995), Brooks directed actor Leslie Nielsen, whom
film critic Roger Ebert once labeled the “Laurence
Olivier of spoofs.”
With his supporting role in Airplane! (1980),
Nielsen established himself as the master of dead-
pan comedy within the spoof genre. He later won
starring roles in The Naked Gun series by directors
Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker,
the comedic trio behind The Kentucky Fried Movie
(1977), a film-length series of sketch comedies
mocking blaxploitation, kung fu, and other 1970s
genres. Abrahams also worked on the Godfather
spoof Mafia! (1988) and the Hot Shots! (1991 and
1993) parodies of the testosterone-driven action
films of the late Cold War. David Zucker continued
his work in the genre by taking over the successful
Scary Movie franchise (2000–2006) in 2003 follow-
ing the departure of its original creators, the Wayans
Brothers.
In the last decade, spoof cinema has become a
reliable commodity in Hollywood, with nearly every
summer blockbuster triggering a parody or—at the
very least—deserving of a segment within a mashup
spoof. Representative examples include the prosai-
cally named films Epic Movie (2007) and Superhero
Movie (2008).
British humorists have greatly contributed to
spoofing. The surreal comedy troupe Monty Python
Spoofing 731
parlayed its successful TV show into two spoof films:
The Holy Grail (1974), a goof on the Arthurian
legend, and Life of Brian (1979), a jaundiced reli-
gious epic focused on Jesus’s neighbor, Brian Cohen.
Around the new millennium, British comedians
Chris Morris and Sacha Baron Cohen generated
controversy with their respective spoof documen-
tary programs, Brass Eye (1997–2001) and Da Ali
G Show (2000–2004). More recently, English actor
Simon Pegg has made a career of intelligently spoof-
ing zombie films (Shaun of the Dead), cop buddy
flicks (Hot Fuzz), and alien encounter movies (Paul).
Spoofing is common in other humorous media
as well. Since it began publication in 1952, MAD
magazine has spoofed nearly every major motion
picture from The Caine Mutiny (1954) to the final
installment of the Harry Potter series in 2011, while
also going after television shows, comic books, and
other media. National Lampoon (1970–1978), a
competing magazine, also made spoofing a regular
part of its editorial repertoire, including a full-length
parody of MAD, which appeared in 1971. The
Onion has created a mini-empire of spoof, from its
national newspaper and website to a television show
and series of books on topics ranging from profes-
sional sports to world history. The Grammy Award-
winning artist “Weird Al” Yankovic even made a
career of spoofing pop hits, most famously Michael
Jackson’s “Beat It” (“Eat It”) in 1983.
Sketch comedy programs such as Saturday Night
Live (1975–present), In Living Color (1990–1994),
and MADtv (1995–2009) are famous for their use
of spoofing and have spawned a number of enter-
tainers who would go on to become masters of the
style, including the Wayans Brothers (Scary Movie)
and Mike Myers (Austin Powers). Late night talk
shows often include brief spoof segments between
the introductory monologue and the celebrity inter-
views. Conan O’Brien, a former writer for the spoof-
laden cartoon series The Simpsons (1989–present),
is particularly known for his parodies of television
commercials, awards shows, and other forms of
popular culture, while Saturday Night Live veteran
Jimmy Fallon has garnered kudos for his good-
natured spoofs of singer Neil Young and the reality
TV show The Jersey Shore.
Occasionally traversing the border between spoof
and satire, Comedy Central’s highly successful series
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert
Report undertake episode-length spoofs of contem-
porary cable news programming, frequently making
news in their own right.
732 Sports
In recent years, the conceptual reach of spoof-
ing has expanded beyond the boundaries of humor,
most notably with the use of the term to refer to
the employment of forged Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses for purposes of hiding the identity of the
sending computer. IP spoofing is most commonly
used as a tactic for conducting denial-of-service
attacks intended to crash a website or to test for
weaknesses in a computer network.
Robert A. Saunders
See also Burlesque; Hoax and Prank; Lampoon; Parody;
Satire
Further Readings
Bonnstetter, B. E. (2011). Mel Brooks meets Kenneth Burke
(and Mikhail Bakhtin): Comedy and burlesque in satiric
film. Journal of Film & Video, 63(1), 18–31.
Colletta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in
the age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Journal of
Popular Culture, 42(5), 856–874.
Day, A., & Thompson, E. (2012). Live from New York, it’s
the fake news! Saturday Night Live and the (non)politics
of parody. Popular Communication, 10(1–2), 170–182.
Gilbey, R. (2009, August 6). Spoofs: The films that ate
Hollywood. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian
.com/film/2009/aug/06/spoof-airplane-scary-movie
Miller, J. S. (2004). The horror spoofs of Abbott and
Costello: A critical assessment of the comedy team’s
monster films. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Roberts, A. (1927). Fifty years of spoof. London, UK: John
Lane.
Saunders, R. A. (2008). The many faces of Sacha Baron
Cohen: Politics, parody, and the battle over Borat.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Turner, M. R. (2003). Cowboys and comedy: The
simultaneous deconstruction and reinforcement of
generic conventions in the western parody. Film &
History, 3(2), 48–54.
SPOONERISM
See Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Puns
SPORTS
Sport may be defined as physical activity that is gov-
erned by a set of rules or customs and often engaged
in competitively. As a social activity, it is akin to
drinking alcohol: It’s apt to reveal aspects of the
personality of both participants and onlookers that
would otherwise not be apparent. This is because
sport necessarily entails stress and this, in turn, is
because sport is inherently competitive. Without a
winner and a loser, the French tennis player Suzanne
Lenglen once wrote, no game could exist. Neither
was it a dishonor to lose nor to desire ardently to
win. The tension that derives from trying to win,
or to avoid defeat, or to watch, empathetically, as
others engage in this struggle, is often a source of
humor. Humor has variously expressed, mitigated,
and even celebrated that tension. There are various
familiar manifestations of this.
Participants
Most males who have played contact sports have
at some stage received a painful blow to the genita-
lia. While they were doubled up in agony, it’s likely
that another player loudly advised “Don’t rub them.
Count them.” This joke long since became a male
rite, its main function being to remind men of their
masculinity, counseling them not to show that they
have been hurt (a male expectation across a variety
of cultures) and simultaneously to divert attention,
in a manly and heterosexual way, to the sexual role
of this appendage.
Humor can also be used either to mock or
undermine opponents. The boxer Muhammad Ali
(previously Cassius Clay) continually taunted his
opponents before their fights, using humorous jibes
and rhymes. Prior to fighting Sonny Liston for the
World Heavyweight title in 1964, he teased Liston
with a poem that contained the lines: “When Cassius
says a mouse can outrun a horse / Don’t ask how;
put your money where your mouse is!” This playful-
ness doubtless helped Clay deal with any fears he
may have had about the coming bout, while mak-
ing the other fighter a figure of fun. The poem was
incongruous behavior—childish levity in a serious
masculine social world.
Humor also expresses the at-all-costs competi-
tiveness that high-level sport now demands. Take
this exchange between two NFL players of the
1980s. On hearing Joe Jacoby of the Washington
Redskins make the familiar proclamation that “I’d
run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl,”
Matt Millen of the Oakland Raiders said: “To win,
I’d run over Joe’s mom, too.”
This underlines the fact that there is a strong gen-
der dimension to much sport humor. Examples of

the expression of humor in relation to women’s sport
are less evident in accounts of sport. This is because,
historically, by social convention, females have not
been expected either to play sport or to be amus-
ing. Despite important social changes in this regard,
less attention is therefore paid to women on these
two counts. Two developments can, however, be
observed here. One is the discomfiture that can still
be manifested, via humor, over the fact that women
have entered previously male sporting domains.
Consider this obviously sexist joke: “Question: Why
don’t women know how to ski? Answer: Because
it doesn’t snow between the kitchen and the bed-
room.” Like a lot of contemporary humor, this can
be read on at least two levels: It could be thought to
express genuine distaste for sporting females and,
equally, it could be using postmodern irony to sati-
rize those same (largely male) attitudes. The humor
of the passage is in the eyes of the beholder.
Secondly, though, humor is prominent in the
resistance to male expectation that women are
increasingly mounting. Take for instance these
T-shirt slogans aimed at women: “I run like a girl, so
try to keep up!” and “See Dick Run. See Jane Run
Faster.”
Onlookers
Fans, like families, often decry their own, usually to
protect themselves from disappointment. The come-
dian Bernard Manning once praised a new stand
recently built at Maine Road, home ground of his
club, Manchester City, adding, “The only trouble
was it was facing the fucking pitch.” Lately these
jokes have begun to play with contemporary sex-
ual diversity (and fears). Take this joke told about
Australian rugby:
Little Bruce was in his junior school class when the
teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
a living. All the typical answers came up; fireman,
policeman, salesman, politician. Bruce was being
uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked
him about his father. “My father’s an exotic dancer
in a gay club and takes off all his clothes in front of
other men. Sometimes, if the offer’s really good, he’ll
go out with a man, rent a cheap room and let them
sleep with him.” The teacher hurriedly set the other
children to work on some colouring and then took
Little Bruce aside to ask him, “Is that really true
about your father?” “No,” said Bruce, “My father
plays rugby for Australia, but I was just too
embarrassed to say.”
Stand-Up Comedy 733
When not playfully disparaging their own, fans
will use humor to disparage (usually superior)
opposition—when a team has beaten an ostensibly
superior and far wealthier club, its supporters will
raise a chorus of “Can we play you every week?”
and, with the growing gap between major football
(soccer) clubs and the others, a refracted class
resentment is expressed through the burgeoning
fund of jokes at the expense of big clubs such as
Manchester United, for example: “Q: Did you
hear that the British Post Office has just recalled
their latest stamps? A: Well, they had photos of
Manchester United players on them—folk couldn’t
figure out which side to spit on.”
Humor, then, has a fundamental part to play in
sport and exercise culture; it helps both players and
fans deal the fundamentals of that culture—winning
and losing and the relationship of that culture to
ever-fluctuating gender identities.
Stephen Wagg
See also Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of;
Humorous Names; Identity; Play and Humor
Further References
Snyder, E. E. (1991). Sociology of sport and humor.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26(2),
119–131.
Young, C. (2007). Two world wars and one World Cup:
Humor, trauma and the asymmetric relationship in
Anglo-German football. Sport in History, 27(1), 1–23.
SSTH
See Linguistic Theories of Humor
STAND-UP COMEDY
Stand-up comedy is a conversational form of pro-
fessional humorous talk that occurs on a stage in
front of and directed toward a responsive audience.
Although there is a clear demarcation between the
performer and the audience, the two are in dialogue,
and the audience collectively, albeit not uniformly,
contributes to the performance through their reac-
tions. Applause, booing, answers to questions,
pregnant pauses, and—above all—laughter are key
734 Stand-Up Comedy
elements within the overall comedic performance,
without which the text is fundamentally different.
Key to the success of stand-up is the creation of a
persona and a performed autobiography that helps
situate the performer in relation to the audience
and thus establish rapport despite sociocultural dis-
tances. With its growth since the 1960s and its per-
vasiveness through television, cable, and recordings,
stand-up comedy is one of the most conspicuous
forms of humor in the contemporary public sphere.
This entry discusses the style and aesthetics of stand-
up comedy, its antecedents, its use of amplification,
and the methods performers use to create intimacy
and build an audience.
Style and Aesthetics
Informality and a lack of contrivance are hallmarks
of its contemporary style. The stand-up comedian
performs for the most part without conspicuous
American stand-up comedian, actress, and writer Amy
Schumer, performing in 2006.
Source: Maryanne Ventrice/Wikimedia Commons.
staging, props, or costuming. Effective use is made
of the diegetic space of the (deliberately) bare stage,
namely a microphone stand and a stool or a table;
the performer wears a costume that is a deliber-
ate “non-costume” of what he or she would typi-
cally wear as an audience member. This informality
extends to the form of talk itself: It is in prose and
without musical accompaniment. Patterning of the
speech—rhythm, cadence, repetition—might emerge
out of this more prosaic talk, only to return again
to a less-stylized performance. Characterizations
are achieved through mimicry, gesture, and facial
expression, and not through costume or makeup:
Moreover, although gifted impressionists will create
opportunities for characterization by constructing
routines around particular voices, characterization
is a means within the more general flow of talk and
not an end in and of itself. The overall appearance of
spontaneity, even if and when the audience is aware
that what is being performed is not extemporane-
ous, is integral to the aesthetics of stand-up com-
edy. Props, costumes, and music break that illusion,
and comedic performances where they are in use are
typically reframed as different from, or a subtype of,
stand-up comedy proper.
Antecedents
While it is tempting to locate stand-up comedians
along an axis that includes both court jesters and
early American humorists such as Mark Twain
and Will Rogers, doing so frames stand-up com-
edy either by function or by content. Rather, if one
begins with identifying what the stand-up comedian
actually does, one sees that the more direct anteced-
ents are small-scale artistic verbal performances in
small groups, whether variously labeled stylin’ and
profilin,’ talking shit, or shit talk, or unnamed tra-
ditions of a recognized verbal artist momentarily
taking focus (and granted license to do so by those
present) on engaging in conversational play. This
differs from the jester tradition, in which the per-
son is irrevocably “othered” as opposed to emerging
from the group as a peer, and is different from the
monologist who performs a fixed text that works
independent of audience participation.
The Role of the Microphone and Amplification
Much as the microphone allowed for the intimate
singing voice of the crooner to take over from the
belter, use of the microphone allowed for the profes-
sionalization of this type of casual yet stylized talk

by making it feasible to occur on a stage. Prior to
amplification, the one voice of the comedian was
in dynamic competition with that of the crowd:
To cease control of the back and forth was to be
overwhelmed by it. To maintain control delivery
tended to be loud, rapid-fire, and direct, suitable for
the telling of jokes. With a microphone, the stand-
up comedian’s voice is equal to that of the crowd.
Speaking in a natural register allows for greater use
of tone and inflection; furthermore, tangents, false
starts, muttering, and other verbal transgressions
can occur and yet control can still be maintained.
Amplification not only allows for traditional verbal
art performances on a larger scale, it allows for that
unpatterned, unstylized talk that often precedes it: In
short, the microphone brought the intimate voice to
the stage, investing it with power. The microphone is
so central to the art of stand-up comedy that it is the
most frequent symbol used to represent it.
Creating Intimacy
If one of the requirements for intimate talk among
peers is a common reference frame—a storehouse
of shared experiences, beliefs, and opinions that can
be drawn from as subject matter for the performed
text—then for a comedian to move outside of the
peer group and engage with strangers requires strat-
egies of quick intimacy creation. Moreover, profes-
sionalism brings with it the idea that, in exchange
for money, the comedian will deliver a laughter-
inducing performance that meets the expectations
of the audience in a novel way. As older joke-telling
comedians had been part of already established
entertainment circuits (e.g., the African American
Chitlin’ Circuit, the Jewish Borscht Belt theaters in
the Catskills), comedians could experiment with
this newer form of talking comedy to an audience
that was ostensibly suitable, at least according to the
booking agents who ran the circuits.
Meanwhile, comedians appeared alongside folk
musicians in the burgeoning coffee house scenes in
urban centers and university towns, each invested in
performances marked by intimacy and, howsoever
defined, “authenticity.” The trope of the comedian
performing in front of a bare brick wall relates in
part to these stripped-down performances, and the
casual dress of Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce contrasts
with the tuxedos of the Las Vegas comedians of the
era. Mutual participation in the same cultural scene,
marked by both cosmopolitanism and a disenfran-
chisement from the dominant culture, served to
Stand-Up Comedy 735
frame the comedian as a potential intimate. Subject
matter would be rooted in the same concerns as the
audience’s: politics, popular culture, and the nego-
tiation of the quotidian urban landscape. The focus
on the everyday and speaking to the seemingly mun-
dane yet shared experiences provided a technique to
establish a common reference frame that could tran-
scend additional barriers to intimacy such as race,
gender, or region. These scenes caught the attention
of broadcasting tastemakers (such as Steve Allen,
Johnny Carson, and Ed Sullivan) and the comedi-
ans began to appear on network television, further
cultivating an audience for the form. The sheer eco-
nomics of stand-up comedy as an entertainment—
a solitary performer on a bare stage with a fixed
set-up—meshed with growing demand and encour-
aged a comedy club circuit. This club style emerged
as the dominant form in what was deemed main-
stream broadcasting, although niche programming
such as country variety shows and, later, specialty
cable allowed regional and ethnic forms to stake and
maintain a claim to the media landscape.
Building an Audience
Amplification changed the potential audience size
for intimate verbal art, but for stand-up comedy to
become viable as a profession the individual come-
dian needs to cultivate larger markets. Audiences
may be fluent with the idea of what a stand-up
comedian is—what they could expect from a stand-
up comedy performance—yet not know the specific
comedian at a particular performance. As one would
do with any nonintimate, the comedian is located by
the audience within certain social categories defined
by visual cues: In addition to a host’s introduc-
tion, comedians initially employ their appearance
and their costume to locate themselves within an
easily identifiable frame of reference for the audi-
ence’s interpretation. Expectations established by
this frame of reference may be immediately met or
thwarted once talk begins: Korean American Henry
Cho speaks with an undeniably Tennessee accent,
which early in his career was part of his introduc-
tory repertoire, whereas on his first appearance on
the Tonight Show, Bill Cosby began talking about
karate rather than speaking from an obviously Afri-
can American perspective. The comedian locates
him or herself in relation to the audience, and differ-
ence is addressed to create points of similarity.
Strategies of intimacy creation are more conspic-
uous the more the performer is not socioculturally
736 Stand-Up Comedy

similar to the audience, but the same processes of Mediation

quickly establishing a perspective and relating that
Proof of the requirement of a reactive audience for
perspective to that of the audience are present in all
stand-up comedy performances is how, on broad-
performances, whether that be through the subject
casts and recordings, the audience immediately
matter of mediated and popular culture, through
present to the performer at the recording venue is
observations on mundane commonplaces, or
always captured and forms an integral part of the
through establishing a solidarity of marginalization
what is presented to and interpreted by the nonpre-
by referencing an absent, dominating other. This
sent audience. However, two audiences inform the
performance of resistance and the creation of a mar-
performance: the finite reactive one that shapes the
ginalized self is irrespective of the off-stage privileges
text, and the indeterminate, nonpresent audience at
accorded to the performer either by the sociocultural
the receiving end of the performance’s mediation,
categorization or celebrity: The “oppressions” of
distant whether in space (as is the case with live or
everyday life—contemptuous politicians, market
as-live broadcasts) or in space and time (as in the
forces, family dynamics—are arranged to create an
case of syndicated broadcasts and recordings). The
empathetic character, with empathy decided at the
laughter and other reactions on the mediation pro-
discretion of the audience. As the performance is
vide an entry point for the media’s “at home” audi-
always framed as play, the audience tends to allow
ence, but those captured reactions need to build
this display of marginalization to occur despite its
upon material that is not so esoteric as to be alienat-
often obvious conceit.
ing for those not present. Material needs to be relat-
Further intimacy can be created through esoteric
able to the nonpresent audience that the comedian
references, referring to tacit insider knowledge
wishes to cultivate. Again, with time, the comedian
that can forge further connections to the audi-
might begin to develop a reputation with an audi-
ence. These connections can be made by making
ence and material can build on the extant goodwill.
references to the local cultural landscape and inter-
A comedian’s individual broadcast and recording
community rivalries, either through digressionary
history tends to demonstrate a shift toward the per-
observations at the beginning of a performance or
sonal and idiosyncratic.
as part of established routines that can be tagged
Although access to the broadest forms of distribu-
with an appropriate piece of inside understand-
tion has often been controlled by programmers and
ing. Additionally, on occasion the comedian will
bookers making decisions based on notions of either
build solidarity through making specific statements
the widest possible audiences or the most desirable
about faith positions or politics or other sensitive
markets (generally middle-class Whites), the osten-
issues that are affirmed through applause or cheers
sibly countercultural nature of stand-up comedy
rather than laughter.
has allowed for a surprising amount of mainstream
An autobiography and a persona are composed
commercial success for comedians from marginal-
on stage, if initially only in the broadest of strokes.
ized groups. Moreover, the economics of stand-up
Through repeated performances, through record-
have allowed for the development of large markets
ings, and through media exposure, the comedian
independent of a broad media presence, and newer
might develop a reputation and a known cumula-
forms of media (such as specialty cable television
tive repertoire: Audiences are not coming to perfor-
and digital distribution) have allowed for narrow-
mances to see “a” comedian but this specific one.
casting, or the widespread distribution of cultural
The strategies for establishing rapport with an audi-
products that do not intend or presume universal
ence are increasingly unnecessary, and the comedian
appeal.
anticipating this familiarity can bring shading and
texture to that initially sketchy autobiography and
Conclusion
more fully flesh out the persona into one increas-
ingly contiguous with the one lived offstage. If the Although manifested in a variety of specific styles,
comedian moves to a different or a larger market stand-up comedy at its most general is a profes-
(whether that means performing in more venues or sional humorous verbal art performance directed
receiving wider dissemination through broadcast), toward a responsive audience with whom the per-
the processes of establishing intimacy occur anew, former attempts to establish a form of intimacy
and the comedian must negotiate the expectations of and solidarity that is ultimately validated through
this new venue, market, or medium. laughter. It allows for a broad swath of topics and

messages, from attempts at psychological or politi-
cal profundity to exaggerated excursions into silli-
ness and the absurd. Although it is markedly differ-
ent from traditional storytelling it is rooted in the
same basic impetuses of meaning making and com-
munity building through narrative and verbal play.
Ian Brodie
See also Anecdote, Comic; Folklore; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: U.S. Modern and
Contemporary
Further Readings
Brodie, I. (2008). Stand-up comedy as a genre of intimacy.
Ethnologies, 30(2), 153–180.
Georges, R. A. (1969). Toward an understanding of
storytelling events. Journal of American Folklore,
82(326), 313–328.
Koziski, S. (1984). The standup comedian as
anthropologist: Intentional culture critic. Journal of
Popular Culture, 18(2), 57–76.
Mintz, L. E. (1998). Stand-up comedy as social and cultural
mediation. In N. A. Walker (Ed.), What’s so funny?
Humor in American culture (pp. 193–204). Wilmington,
DE: Scholarly Resources.
Misje, A.-K. (2002). Stand-up comedy as negotiation and
subversion. In S.-E. Klinkmann (Ed.), On the study of
imagination and popular imagination: Essays on fantasy
and cultural practice (pp. 87–112). Turku, Finland:
Nordic Network of Folklore.
STEREOTYPES
Stereotypes are forms of representation that evalu-
ate particular categories of people in homogenized,
unyielding terms. They implicitly claim that those
belonging to such categories have certain traits or
characteristics that are absolute and unchanging.
Those assigned to them are reduced to these traits
or characteristics without qualification. When stereo-
types are aligned with jokes or other comic modes,
the stock features associated with them are the source
and object of the humor, and the humor functions pri-
marily as a way of ridiculing, demeaning, and belit-
tling people outside of the social group that enjoys
the humor. This entry examines what is involved in
the relationship of stereotyping and humor; how
their combination operates and has a determining
effect on the humor; and how, at least to a degree,
reverse humor can be used to challenge stereotypes.
Stereotypes 737
When stereotypes are given expression in comic
frames, a particular perspective is being signaled.
This does not necessarily belong to any broader
outlook or worldview, but it does register the
discourse of expression as apparently nonserious,
though of course that may not be recognized or
accepted, and the comic expression may have seri-
ous implications, such as making the stereotypes
of those “joked about” gain hold despite—or
rather, because of—the laughter thus generated.
In any event, stereotypes within comic frames can-
not be regarded as straightforwardly equivalent to
stereotypes in general because their use in humor
modifies the status of their meaning and how the
stereotypes are understood. The general import of
a stereotype within a comic frame may be more or
less identical to the same stereotype outside that
frame, but where in another context, such as a war
film or a spy novel, the stereotypical representation
acquires a moral or political value relevant to the
outcome of the narrative, with comic stereotyping
what is represented acquires a different value—that
of being a warranted object of amusement and
hilarity in and of itself. The humor is legitimated
by the stereotype, and vice versa. The shift has vari-
ous implications for the operation, circulation, and
reception of a stereotype, and so we need to look
into the relationship between humor and stereotyp-
ing, and see what happens when they are brought
into combination.
The Nexus of Comicality and Stereotyping
An idealized conception of joking and engaging in
humor holds that they subvert our habitual ways
of seeing, make the familiar seem strange, or allow
us to accept the absurd in what we take seriously.
If we adhere to this conception we might suppose
that comic forms will work to undermine common
stereotypes in everyday circulation and the serious-
ness with which they are understood, that they will
compromise the conjunction between prejudicial
expectation and perceived reality that stereotyping
causes and confirms. In the main, this does not hap-
pen. Humor may of course have the effect that this
idealized conception of it claims, but in the nexus
of comicality and stereotyping humor’s transfor-
mative capabilities are usually diffused or nullified.
Humor is then used to reinforce and perpetuate
existing stereotypes, not only because the stereotype
is seen as the source of the humor, but also because
the comic dimension is unevenly weighted in favor
738 Stereotypes

The Chinese Exclusion Act was the subject of a 1905 cartoon by J. S. Pughe titled “How John may dodge the exclusion
act.” Vignettes show how the Chinese could emigrate to the United States—by coming “as an industrious anarchist,”
“disguised as an humble Irishman,” “as an English wife-hunter” with “pedigree” in his pocket, “as a cup-challenger” in
yacht races, or wielding knife and handgun, as a mean-looking “peaceful, law-abiding Sicilian.” The cartoon played on
stereotypes not only about Chinese but other ethnic groups as well.
Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC, Reproduction Number LC-DIG-ppmsca-25972.

of the stereotype. The stereotype also carries greater
rhetorical power and force than the humor so that it
becomes difficult for humor to acquire the capacity
to expose a stereotype as baseless and render it dis-
cursively harmless. The more usual consequence is
for a stereotypical trait or characteristic to transform
the quality of humor into a form of abuse, regardless
of whether this occurs in mundane conversation or
in the routines of professional comedians.
Although comic stereotyping is not equivalent to
stereotyping in general, it has by definition to oper-
ate by focusing on a singular aspect of behavior or
attitude, as for instance in the way it may isolate an
alleged inability or disinclination. This is then used
to define certain social groups since it is this inability
or disinclination, above all else, that is held to be
essential to who they are and what they do. The def-
inition is highly reductive because all individuality in
a person’s character or disposition is cast aside and
rendered peripheral in favor of this aspect, whether
it be the laziness of Mexicans, the stupidity of the
Irish, or the sexual promiscuity of the Essex girl
that is involved. Each of these stereotypes has been
regarded as comic, as for example with the joke that
Mexicans are short because when they were children
their parents told them that, upon growing up, they
would have to get a job.
While one particular feature may be identified as
the object of the humor, comic stereotyping is gener-
ally more complicated than this in that the identified
feature usually implies or depends upon another.
So, with the Q & A format of Essex girl jokes, ask-
ing why young women from this targeted English
county wear hoop earrings leads to the retort: They
have to have somewhere to rest their ankles. The
explicit claim that they are sexually promiscuous is
supported by the implicit claim that they are stupid,
and vice versa. The two claims mutually reinforce
each other even though in such jokes it is usually
only one or the other stereotype that is in the comic
frame at any one time. This process can be extended
so that a broader regime of stereotyping, such as

sexism or Orientalism—stereotyping Arabs and
Muslims based on romanticized images of Asia and
the Middle East—is implicated in any one comic
example. Regardless of the definite focus or more
general range that may in some sense be drawn in,
what is nevertheless always clear is that those who
are stereotyped are regarded as deserving of comic
ridicule or derogation.
This is where comic stereotyping performs a neat
trick. The serious import of stereotypes is disguised
by the comic frame in such a way that the comi-
cality appears to be the primary point, and not the
stereotype. This does not always happen of course.
Bernard Manning’s joke that the Irish have invented
a new type of parachute, one that opens on impact,
does not try to hide the imputation that the Irish
are innately stupid; indeed, it revels in this comically
framed insult. But in everyday interaction, where
such a joke causes offense and objections are voiced,
the comic frame easily becomes a disclaimer—as if
the joke is a joke and nothing more, and as if jokes
do not have any relation to, or interaction with,
other forms of social discourse. The disclaimer that
“it’s just a joke” means that it is not meant to be
taken seriously, and where it is, this is evidence that
the person or group to whom offence is caused can-
not take or appreciate the joke. That is the trick: to
turn culpability onto the object of comic abuse, and
not on its perpetrator. The object of comic stereotyp-
ing is then doubly hit, first by the stereotype, and
then by the accusation. The perpetrator is exoner-
ated, almost invisibly.
Stereotypes and Comic Ambiguity
It is in such ways that comic stereotyping both sup-
ports and conceals relations of power and domina-
tion, or inequalities of resource and opportunity. Yet
those with relatively little power or privilege may
also use stereotypes of other social categories in jok-
ing relationships, maybe as a way of salvaging status
or esteem, or perhaps by resorting to scapegoats by
giving expression to feelings of anger, frustration, or
disaffection deriving from their own lack of power or
advantage. Here again, the comic frame can obscure
the displaced aggression that is involved in these sit-
uations, but there are also cases where stereotypes
are—or appear to be—internalized, as for example
when Black people have adopted a comic persona
associated with stereotypes of them. Historically
there are well-known examples of this in the con-
text of blackface minstrelsy, but these always need
Stereotypes 739
careful analysis because all may not be as it seems.
Billy Kersands is an interesting case in point.
Kersands was the most famous Black comedian
of the late 19th century, in both Britain and North
America. He adopted the White-produced stereo-
type of the slow, dim-witted Black man, and played
up to racist physical grotesquerie by dancing with
a cup and saucer in his mouth. In one of his comic
songs, he even reiterated White-centered stereotypi-
cal fears by singing of “a big Black coon” running
away with his daughter. However, the fact of his
being Black altered the comicality of the song, pos-
sibly even mocking White fears, and his utilization
of African American vernacular culture in ways new
to minstrelsy not only helps to explain his appeal to
Black people but also initiated the process of under-
mining the racist Sambo stereotype even as he openly
acted it out on stage. Analytically, then, Kersands’s
comedic persona and act cannot be simply dismissed
as rubber-stamping the demeaning caricature of
Black stereotyping as portrayed by Whites in min-
strelsy and elsewhere. As he once said, without a
smile: “Son, if they hate me, I’m still whipping
them, because I’m making them laugh.” Kersands
faced a difficult dilemma and walked a perilous line:
Laughter has multiple causes and consequences.
Making White audiences laugh was nevertheless
a small but significant step toward regaining con-
trol over how he—and African American people
generally—were represented in public culture.
This example shows comic stereotyping is often
accompanied by considerable ambiguity, especially
as its performance can involve saying one thing
while doing another. Added to this, the intention in
a joke or comic act is not necessarily realized in how
it is received. This is particularly the case with comic
impersonation. It may be that it is taken as affirming
the stereotypical inferiority of the group represented
in the impersonation, and then by implication a
culturally sanctioned social hierarchy. When Whites
put on the blackface mask, for example, this invari-
ably affirmed the racialized demarcations between
“them” and “us,” yet at the same time it allowed
Whites a certain interval of license to indulge in
clownish buffoonery or enjoy a taste of what their
own social realities repressed. Alternative interpreta-
tive possibilities are intrinsic to comic impersonation.
It may, for instance, be intended to satirize the type
of person impersonated, as was the case with the
central character of Alf Garnett, the working-class
racist in the television situation comedy, Till Death
Us Do Part (BBC, 1965–1975), but contrary to this,
740 Stereotypes
some audience members celebrated Alf Garnett’s
stereotypical attitudes. The bigoted comic butt
became a role model for racists. The same happened
with Garnett’s North American counterpart, Archie
Bunker. Such transmutation was possible because of
the inherent ambiguities of comic impersonation.
Comic impersonation plays upon the polyse-
mous qualities of humor and the interpretative
possibilities—or, in a different take, the inter-
pretative difficulties—that can accompany such
impersonation. The TV and film character Ali G
is an obvious case of this. The impersonation was
composed of elusive layers of identity: a wannabe
English suburban homeboy adopting the stereotypi-
cal persona of a young inner-city Black American
who is unashamedly misogynistic, homophobic,
and affiliated with drug culture and gangsta rap,
being played by a Jewish middle-class gradu-
ate of Cambridge University, Sacha Baron Cohen.
Who was impersonating whom here? Was Ali G a
wigger—a White person who wants to be Black—
and how was the wigger stereotype being satirized?
Was Ali G White or Asian, was he a White pretending
to be Black, a White pretending to be Asian pretend-
ing to be Black, or a Jewish man pretending to be an
Asian pretending to be a White man pretending to be
Black? The difficulties increased as the possibilities
spread, and both critics and audience members were
drawn into a guessing game with no guaranteed
outcome. Yet despite the manifold ambivalences, the
young Black male stereotype was neither subverted
by the comic act nor amenable to being adopted by
Blacks themselves for their own satirical or comedic
projects. Even if we don’t see the persona of Ali G
as an attenuated and less fixed latter day version of
blackface entertainments, acting out the streetwise
Black male stereotype is a White privilege with no
equivalent reverse impersonation of a middle-class
White graduate by a young ghetto-bound Black.
Comically Reversing the Stereotype
The case of Kersands, outlined earlier, raised the
possibility of using humor to undermine or defuse
existing stereotypes. The scope for this was quite lim-
ited in White-controlled minstrel entertainment dur-
ing the period of Kersands’s career, but beyond such
racially determined theatrical constraints, the incon-
gruity and ambivalence of much humor and comedy
can be more assertively employed to resist stereotypes
and challenge the views and values stemming from
and supporting them. This is sometimes referred to
as reverse humor, with stereotypes being used in such
a way as to subvert their dominant meaning. A nice
illustration of this is Lenny Henry, a Black British
comedian, explaining why he felt it beneficial that
his White friends kept him company: “They’d be out
stealing hubcaps otherwise, you know what they’re
like . . .” This joke counters the stereotype of Black
criminality and highlights the prejudicial assump-
tions upon which it rests. Its reverse semantic effect is
that of turning the Black racist stereotype on its head
and attributing its alleged trait to White people.
Another example of reverse humor is provided
by the light bulb formula. This involves asking how
many people associated with a particular social group
are needed to change a light bulb. The answer usually
revolves around the group behaving or responding in
a stereotypical manner. When the question is asked of
how many feminists it takes to change a light bulb,
the response is: “That’s not funny!” Here the joke
relies on the stereotypical assumption that feminists
are overserious and far too earnest. They are lacking
in a sense of humor and unable to laugh at them-
selves; they are suspicious that any question might
lead to the reproduction of a sexist stereotype, and
so liable to take offence where none is intended. The
joke perpetuates the stereotype, but even with this
standard joke genre, reverse humor can occur. Here is
an example. Q: How many electricians does it take to
change a light bulb? A: One. The joke in this instance
is at the expectation of a stereotype being comi-
cally affirmed in the answer. Its humor achieves the
reversal of this expectation, with the straight-faced
response confirming that electricians are competent
in doing what they have been trained to do.
The strategy with reverse humor is to play with
the stereotype, as for instance by exaggerating it to
the point where it becomes clear it is a stereotype
and not a developed characterization, then using
the realization of this to divert the expected valida-
tion of a stereotype and so undermine the perceived
risible “otherness” that the stereotype contains and
sustains. In deploying this strategy, there is always
the risk of confirming the stereotype rather than dis-
pelling it, for while a stereotype can be comically
played with, the ambiguity of humor always under-
writes the possibility of responses being made in
quite alternative directions. It is in any case easy to
exaggerate the extent to which reverse humor may
be successful, for it is unlikely that racists would
accept the Lenny Henry example if their belief in
the stereotype of Black criminality is sufficiently
entrenched. Anti-racism cannot be guaranteed when

reverse humor depends upon, and amplifies, comic
ambiguities and the divergent interpretative possi-
bilities upon which humor pivots.
Knots of Symbolic Configuration
The strength and resilience of stereotypes should
not be underestimated. Once established, they can
prove highly resistant to challenge and critique,
not least because of the at-hand boundary-making
devices they offer in complex modern societies, and
because of their success in achieving representational
fixity in public discourse. When they are taken up
and allied with various forms of humor and com-
edy, their relation to the groups they target acquires
not only the added force of comic ridicule but also
a convenient alibi when offense is taken—the “only
joking!” exclamation of mock surprise, or some
other variant on this. Comic stereotyping is in this
respect even more difficult to counter than stereo-
typing in general, with the hurt and damage it can
cause having no means of redress because of seem-
ing confined to the joking relationship.
Public awareness and disapproval of this hurt and
damage has nevertheless grown in recent times. It is
now regarded as unacceptable to transmit negative ste-
reotypes of minorities or socially marginalized groups,
at least in the mainstream media. This advance is not
without its detractors, and pernicious forms of comic
stereotyping have not disappeared. They have contin-
ued to circulate in everyday interaction among certain
groups, resurfaced in various websites, and gained
textual presence in new forms of social media. Comic
stereotypes are tenacious and persistent.
They are so because of their paradoxical quality.
Humor encourages us to embrace ambivalence and
think in more fluid, less hidebound ways. Even with
a simple joke structure, there is a combination of
conventional description in the lead-up and unex-
pected outcome in the punch line, and where this is
expanded into more complex comedic forms, humor
can be used to counter settled assumptions and
static perceptions of others. Stereotypes operate with
an opposite descriptive logic in their legitimation of
such assumptions and perceptions; they aid and abet
rigid and hostile ways of seeing and thinking. When
they operate within comic frames, they are harder
to contest, not least because they are then associated
with the pleasurable qualities of laughing and being
amused. The humor both supports and exonerates
their tight knots of symbolic figuration. That is why
comic stereotypes need to be understood as having
Stress 741
psychological and sociological dimensions, for they
raise questions not only about how others are to be
regarded as we strive personally to make sense of
the world around us, but also about how others are
to be represented in public forms of discourse and
communication. These questions together are cen-
tral to what constitutes a positive sense of identity.
Michael Pickering
See also Ambiguity; Ethnic Jokes; Ethnicity and Humor;
Insult and Invective; National and Ethnic Differences
Further Readings
Billig, M. (2005) Laughter and ridicule. London, UK: Sage.
Lockyer, S., & Pickering, M. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond a joke:
The limits of humor. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lockyer, S., & Pickering, M. (2010). You must be joking:
The sociological critique of humor and comic media.
In M. Pickering (Ed.), Popular culture (pp. 247–258).
London, UK: Sage.
Pickering, M. (2001) Stereotyping: The politics of
representation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pickering, M. (2008). Blackface minstrelsy in Britain.
Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Wagg, S. (Ed.). (1998). Because I tell a joke or two.
London, UK: Routledge.
Weaver, S. (2011). The rhetoric of racist humor. Surrey, UK:
Ashgate.
STRESS
Stress is a concept originally described by Richard
Lazarus in 1984 as a process of an individual per-
ceiving and responding to environmental stimuli
requiring adaptation. As such, stress seems to come
from the realm of “negative psychology.” Humor,
which is described as a psychological phenomenon
that increases positive arousal and decreases nega-
tive arousal, is considered part of “positive psychol-
ogy” as introduced by Martin Seligman and Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi in 2000. However, as discussed in
this entry, there are more relationships between the
two than one may think at first sight.
Stress
In the case of stress, environmental stimuli seem to
challenge the personal resources of an individual
who encounters them, which is why they are usually
742 Subversive Humor
called stressors. One of the most obvious demonstra-
tions of the relationship between stress and humor
is nervous laughter. When nervous or distressed, a
person may laugh in a typical way. Although at first
sight, the person may seem to be having fun, that
individual is in fact experiencing an internal state of
anxiety or stress but expressing it through laughter.
Stress and Humor
In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers became inter-
ested in the physical manifestations of stress and
its relationship to humor. An important concept in
their work is arousal, referring to the response of the
autonomic nervous system to stressors. These bodily
responses are typically called fight-or-flight responses
because they prepare the body for physical action
(e.g., confronting an enemy or running away). They
include an increase in heart and respiration rates and
an extra delivery of blood sugars to the muscles to
enable them to perform fast actions. The question
for humor researchers in the 1960s and 1970s was
how arousal was related to humorous responses.
Berlynes’s Arousal Boost-Arousal
Jag Hypothesis
Daniel Berlyne (1972) proposed that humor
increases pleasurable arousal and decreases unpleas-
ant arousal, the so-called arousal boost–arousal jag
hypothesis. The arousal boost part of this hypoth-
esis states that certain combinations of new or
unexpected stimuli (as in humor) raise pleasurable
arousal. The arousal jag part of the hypothesis states
that humor reduces very high levels of negative
arousal, making humor pleasurable. Investigating
the arousal boost part of the hypothesis, Michael
Godkewitsch’s work in the 1970s showed that
high levels of sexual arousal in jokes were related
to a higher perceived funniness and a higher heart
rate. In 2008, Nicole Giuliani, Kateri McRae, and
James Gross confirmed this finding by showing that
people were more aroused (had faster respirations
and stronger heart activity) when watching amusing
films than when watching neutral films. Thus, it has
been shown that humorous material contributes to
higher levels of (pleasurable) arousal.
The arousal jag part of Berlyne’s hypothesis shows
quite another way in which humor may be plea-
surable to a person: by reducing negative arousal.
Usually this has been investigated using the concept
of humorous coping, the active use of humorous
behaviors or thoughts to adapt to stressors. These
humorous coping responses are aimed at avoiding
or reducing the unpleasant states or emotions that
accompany stressors. Although not many studies
have been done on the effects humorous coping may
have on negative arousal, an experimental study
conducted by Michelle Newman and Arthur Stone
in 1996 showed that it is possible to influence one’s
own arousal with humorous coping.
Sibe Doosje
See also Anxiety; Arousal Theory (Berlyne); Coping
Mechanism; Laugh, Laughter, Laughing; Mirth;
Positive Psychology; Release Theories of Humor
Further Readings
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of
humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Giuliani, N. R., McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The up-
and down-regulation of amusement: Experiential,
behavioral, and autonomic consequences. Emotion,
8(5), 714–719.
Godkewitsch, M. (1972). The relationship between arousal
potential and funniness of jokes. In J. H. Goldstein &
P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 143–158). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Godkewitsch, M. (1976). Physiological and verbal indices
of arousal in rated humour. In A. J. Chapman & H. C.
Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and
applications (pp. 117–138). London, UK: Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Newman, M. G., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Does humor
moderate the effects of experimentally-induced stress?
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18(2), 101–109.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology: An introduction. The American
Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
SUBVERSIVE HUMOR
While its most overt and recognized function is to
amuse and entertain, humor is duplicitous and has
the ability to serve other less positive functions.
Subversive humor is the label for humor that aims to
resist and challenge while implying that any critical
content is intended in jest. This often neglected sub-
versive function has received attention in the fields
 Subversive Humor 743

of organizational communication and workplace a questionable approach to business. The example

discourse where researchers investigate the ways in provides evidence of how subversive humor can be
which humor can be used to unsettle power asym- used to draw a dividing line between an “us” and
metries at work. Political resistance is another area a “them” by emphasizing the social boundaries
in which subversive humor is highly relevant due to between the speaker and the target of the humor.
its ability to create a safe space for dissenters. Here Humor may isolate the powerful person or group,
subversive humor (e.g., cartoons critiquing a regime identifying ways in which the person or group does
or jokes targeting entrenched gender discrimination) not conform to the shared norms and ideals of those
operates as a challenge to the status quo. These two who are subject to the domination.
distinct research areas are outlined below to demon-
strate the so-called dark side of humor.
Humor as Resistance
Humor and Power While the workplace is a context in which contest-
ing authority is not without consequences, the stakes
The inherent hierarchy in organizations has pro-
in political environments are often much higher. In
vided a fruitful context in which to examine humor
some extreme contexts, contentious statements can
as an acceptable strategy for conveying critical or
even be considered dangerous to the speaker. Here
negative intent. While powerful managers and lead-
again humor creates the opportunity for protests
ers may use humor to maintain control and repress
and criticisms to be made in a form that reduces the
subordinates, it is also available to those in less
risk of recrimination.
powerful positions as a socially acceptable means
A particularly well -ecognized form is the political
to subvert authority. The ambiguity of humor offers
cartoon, and some communities have long traditions
the opportunity to express dissatisfaction and under-
of making use of this form of subversive humor to
mine existing power relationships in a form that
resist oppression and extreme political regimes (e.g.,
is indirect and less likely to result in rebuke. As an
the Arab world, notably Egypt, and former commu-
example, consider this teasing comment: “Callum
nist countries such as East Germany). The comic veil
has to ask!” It refers to a pedantic manager who
of a cartoon that uses a caricature of a tyrannical
questions every move his team makes and it was con-
leader or regime to reveal cruel and unjust behavior
tributed by a more junior staff member. On the one
makes use of a safe space created by humor in the
hand, the quip amused the team (including Callum),
public domain. This form of confrontation again
but it simultaneously criticized the heavy-handed
uses the distancing effect of humor to provide a
control that the manager was taking, a complaint
socially acceptable and recognized means of encod-
that was unlikely to be expressed directly, especially
ing critical intent. Subversive humor becomes a
with Callum present. Similarly, in a longer extract,
political tactic or tool for expressing dissidence and
Barry and Eric challenge the motivation of an orga-
a culturally licensed way to reject repression.
nizational leader (Josh) who is only interested in
The use of humor as social protest has the potential
sales figures rather than the important and necessary
to mobilize a community against oppression in many
technical details on which their team focuses. Barry’s
forms. Historically, for example, the U.S. suffragette
challenge is implicit; it relies on shared understand-
movement of the late-19th century and early-20th
ings within the group about their senior and is sig-
century made use of humorous slogans, retorts, and
naled only by his laughter. Eric’s response is more
parodies of popular songs to demonstrate its anger
explicit as he provides the answer they expect to
and refusal to accept the gender discrimination that
receive from Josh. It is uttered in a derisive tone and
underlay a woman’s inability to vote. The modern
adds support to the humor created by Barry.
equivalent is the feminist joke, whether repeated in
Barry: I’ve sent an e-mail to Josh as well so it’ll
water cooler conversations among colleagues or as
be interesting to see what I get back from viral humor distributed by e-mail. These jokes typi-
Josh [laughs] cally aim to subvert gender stereotypes and sexist
Eric: Josh’ll look at it going “uh I can’t sell behavior, contrasting roles, behaviors, and attributes
anything” of men and women. Making ironic comments about
a woman’s subjugated role in the public arena, or in
In both utterances, the humor challenges the author- society more generally, aims to expose this represen-
ity of the leader who, in the view of the team, has tation of women as unacceptable. By highlighting
744 Supreme Court

gender ideologies, the jokes address a goal of pro- of his personal childhood, which will likely be for-
moting social change. ever remembered for its supremely embarrassing
Subversive humor is thus a potent tool for chal- nature and the resulting howls of laughter that fol-
lenging social inequalities, whether hierarchical dif- lowed.
ferences at work, an unjust political status quo, or
powerful societal stereotypes. It can be seen in many Justice Breyer: In my experience when I was
different forms from cartoons and slogans resisting 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you
political regimes, to song parodies and canned jokes know, we did take our clothes
that challenge dominant societal ideologies, or even off once a day, we changed for
gym, okay? And in my
simple throwaway quips against the senior members
experience, too, people did
of a business team. In these contexts, subversive sometimes stick things in my
humor affords the opportunity to express dissatis- underwear—
faction with power imbalances and prevailing atti- (Laughter.)
tudes and ideologies by making use of its distancing Justice Breyer: Or not my underwear.
effect. Because humor inherently carries a sense of Whatever. Whatever.
entertainment, the ambiguity protects the speaker
from the need to accept full responsibility for the Justice Breyer’s description of the teasing he received
critical content of his or her actions. as a boy drew raucous laughter and howls at the
justice’s indecorous comment. But Justice Breyer is
Meredith Marra not the only justice who has embarrassed himself.
Recently, during the Affordable Care Act Cases
See also Gender and Humor, Psychological Aspects of; (Florida v. Department of Health and Human
Political Humor; Workplace Humor; Workplace Services, Docket No. 11-400), Justice Antonin Scalia
Resistance offered a Freudian slip:

Further Readings
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Only joking? From
subculture to counter-culture in organizational relations.
In S. Ackroyd & P. Thompson (Eds.), Organizational
misbehaviour (pp. 99–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge?
Subversive humor between colleagues and friends.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
15(1), 1–23.
Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. (1995). “Having fun”?
Humor as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies,
16(5), 739–768.
’t Hart, M., & Bos, D. (Eds.). (2007). Humour and social
protest. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SUPREME COURT
As a term, Supreme Court humor may seem para-
doxical to readers. However, in a place where gods,
goddesses, angels, and statues of historical figures
suggest the solemn nature of the Court’s task, visi-
tors would hardly expect a U.S. Supreme Court jus-
tice to discuss his underwear. And yet, during Safford
Unified School District v. Redding (2009), Justice
Stephen G. Breyer openly revealed an intimate detail
Justice Scalia: You know the old Jack Benny
thing, “Your money or your
life?” and he says, “I’m
thinking. I’m thinking.” It’s
funny because it’s no choice….
Now whereas if the choice
were “Your life or your
wife’s?” that’s a lot harder….
You can’t refuse “your money
or your life?” but “your life or
your wife’s?” I could refuse
that one. (laughter).
Laughter overran the courtroom and forced Chief
Justice John Roberts to calm the Court, remarking,
“That’s enough frivolity for a while.” The Chief
Justice’s chiding sounded more appropriate for a
group of high school students than for members of
the Supreme Court. But these two examples suggest
that humor is alive and well at the Supreme Court,
offering scholars a rich area of study.
Despite the rich landscape of Supreme Court
humor, advocates generally avoid humor, perhaps
because the Court’s Guide for Counsel cautions
advocates by warning “attempts at humor usually
fall flat.” This suggestion may have arisen because
of advocates’ past uses of inappropriate humor.
In Roe v. Wade (1973), Jay Floyd, arguing for

the State of Texas, infamously set the tone for his
argument with a failed joke in his opening state-
ment. Floyd began, “Mr. Chief Justice and may it
please the Court. It’s an old joke, but when a man
argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are
going to have the last word.” Waiting for laughter
and hearing only silence, Floyd struggled through
the rest of his argument. Despite the Court’s warn-
ings and prior advocates’ blunders, humor occurs
regularly in the courtroom; however, few scholars
consider the topic, making it an underdeveloped and
richly dynamic area of study.
Justice Breyer’s earlier comment likely caught
audience members by surprise due to its personal
and indecorous nature; rarely do people—much
less Supreme Court justices—openly share their
personal experience with objects in their under-
wear. There is little doubt Justice Breyer’s comment
resulted from an unfortunate incident of logorrhea,
but he shares this affliction with others on the
Court, as readers saw in Justice Scalia’s willingness
to sacrifice his wife for his money. However, most
humorous situations at the Court lack embarrassing
qualities and tend to be good-natured in spirit. On
Halloween day in Chief Justice Robert’s first term,
a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz (2006).
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court and
rattled the nerves of justices and advocates. Easing
the tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked, “I think
we’re . . . I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on
new Chief Justices all the time.” Drawing laughter,
his comment prompted Justice Scalia’s welcom-
ing reply of “Happy Halloween,” which brought
about even more laughter from the audience and
the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
responded, “We’re even more in the dark now than
before.”
Like her other colleagues, Justice Elena Kagan
brings a humorous wit to the Court. During her
time as Solicitor General, she often invoked humor.
In United States v. Comstock (2010), Kagan called
Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” by mistake, but wryly
corrected herself, stating, “excuse me, Justice
Scalia—I didn’t mean to promote you quite so
quickly.” Laughter rang through the courtroom, and
Chief Justice Roberts responded, “Thanks for think-
ing it was a promotion”; Justice Scalia continued
the joking by turning to Chief Justice Roberts and
sarcastically remarking, “And I’m sure you didn’t.”
From these examples readers can recognize a lighter
side to the Court’s serious task.
Supreme Court 745
As noted, few scholars conduct research on the
topic of humor in the Supreme Court, even though
it occurs regularly. This area may lack attention
because transcript laughter notations and the iden-
tification of individual justices in transcripts only
began in the 2004–2005 term. In 2005, Jay Wexler
published the first study that considered Supreme
Court humor. The three-page article, “Laugh
Tracks,” tabulated the number of “(laughter)”
notations in the Court’s 2004–2005 oral argument
transcripts, crowning Justice Scalia “funniest jus-
tice” because he garnered the most laughs. Wexler’s
subsequent studies focused on the changes from the
2004–2005 to the 2006–2007 Court term. Wexler’s
research prompted significant attention from media
outlets and his studies have spawned further research
from other scholars.
Functionally, Supreme Court humor takes place
in a communication environment where signifi-
cant institutional, social, and intellectual barriers
influence communication between humans. These
barriers or social norms and explicit rules grant jus-
tices significant authority to control humor in the
courtroom. However, instead of limiting humor,
the justices occasionally invite it by jesting with
the advocates, regularly teasing other justices, or
laughing at their own misstatements. Although not
to the extent of the justices, advocates also prove
humorous, deriving humor most frequently by gen-
tly teasing the justices or the Court as a whole and
also laughing at their own personal mistakes. The
Court’s willingness to engage in and tolerate humor
from advocates dissolves normative barriers and
promotes a sense of equality among participants.
In an adversarial environment, surprisingly,
humor reveals the justices’ willingness to reduce
their power and control by diminishing significant
institutional, social, and intellectual barriers, in turn
allowing and inviting others to laugh at them and
with them. Humor’s ability to equalize members of
differing hierarchical positions is a testament to its
power. Instead of reinforcing or upholding positions
of superiority, the justices treat advocates as near
equals and enhance the communication environ-
ment in the judicial process by reducing barriers and
offering a more effective and egalitarian environ-
ment for communication.
Mark Twain has been quoted as saying, “[laugh-
ter] is the great thing, the saving thing. The minute it
crops up, all our irritations and resentments slip away
and a sunny spirit takes their place.” While humor is
neither a panacea for a justice’s grouchiness nor is
746 Supreme Court
likely to spur a justice into loquaciousness, it exerts
a powerful moment of temporary unity. Ineffable in
its impact, when a justice or lawyer makes a humor-
ous remark, particularly during a dull argument, a
significant shift can occur in the room: Tension or
boredom may briefly dissipate, the audience may
become more attentive, and the arguing advocate
may relax and become more composed. As a result
of a humorous moment, every person in the room
shares the same insight, takes part in the collective
laughter, and may feel a sense of equality that only
humor can generate.
Ryan A. Malphurs
See also Legal Education; Legal Restriction and
Protection of Humor
Further Readings
Affordable Care Act Cases, 567 U.S. __ (2012).
Barnes, R. (2011, January 17). Supremely funny: Study
covers court’s penchant for laughter. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/16/AR2011011604004
.html
Cassens Weiss, D. (2011, January 18). Scalia teases Breyer
the most, and gets the most laughs, new study
concludes. American Bar Association Journal. Retrieved
from http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/scalia_is_
funniest_and_grouchiest_justice_laughter_study_
concludes
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. __
(2006).
Liptak, A. (2005, December 31). So, guy walks up to a bar
and Scalia says . . . . The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/politics/
31mirth.html
Liptak, A. (2011, January 24). A taxonomy of Supreme
Court humor. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/25bar.
html?_r=0
Lithwick, D. (2011, March 1). He’ll be here all week. The
verdict is in: Chief Justice John Roberts is hilarious.
Slate Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/
articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_
dispatches/2011/03/hell_be_here_all_week.html
Malphurs, R. A. (2010). People did sometimes stick things
down my underwear. Communication Law Review,
10(2), 48–75.
Mears, B. (2011, June 16). Justice Kagan stays alert with a
little bench humor. CNN U.S. Retrieved from http://
www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/16/scotus.kagan.humor/
index.html
Peppers, T. C. (2011). Did you hear the one about Chief
Justice Burger and the itinerant litigant? The Green Bag,
15(1), 25–40.
Richey, W. (2010, June 30). Elena Kagan shows off sense of
humor in confirmation hearings. The Christian Science
Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/
USA/Politics/2010/0630/Elena-Kagan-shows-off-sense-
of-humor-in-confirmation-hearings
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. __
(2009).
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. __ (2010).
Wexler, J. D. (2005). Laugh track. The Green Bag, 9(1),
59–61.
Wexler, J. D. (2007). Laugh Track II—Still laughin’! The
Yale Law Journal, 117, 130–132. Retrieved from http://
www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-
part/supreme-court/laugh-track-ii-%E2%80%93-still-
laughin%E2%80%99!
SURPRISE
See Incongruity and Resolution
 T
An Artistic Construction
TALL TALE
The tall tale progresses deliberately, with each new
The tall tale is a fictional, exaggerated, humorous plot detail building on the statement that preceded it.
folk narrative, often told in the first person or as an The teller may begin his narrative in a serious man-
account of the experiences of a relative or friend. It ner, setting the scene with a description of an ordi-
contains an increasingly implausible series of events, nary activity, such as fishing. For example, a man is
usually related to the weather, rural life, or tradi- fishing with several friends in a small boat. He throws
tional male occupations. Other names for the tall tale out his line and feels a tug of tremendous force. After
include lie, tall story, windy, whopper, long bow,
and yarn. The act of telling a tall tale may be called
tall-talking, lying, or leg-pulling. These terms suggest
that the tall tale is a deliberately dishonest narra-
tive, which it is; yet its primary purpose is entertain-
ment. It thrives in oral performance, especially with
a skillful teller and an appreciative audience. As an
example of traditional folk humor, it has significant
artistic value and can be appreciated for its method
of presentation as well as for the tale itself.
Tall tales evoke the improbable. “The Wonderful
Hunt” is a well-known example that recalls the
adventures of a hunter who has such remark-
able luck that a single shot from his rifle kills both
birds in the air and animals on the ground. When
he wades into the water to get his game, even his An 18-foot-tall statue of Paul Bunyan, the giant lumberjack,
boots fill up with fish. “The Split Dog” describes a and his gigantic companion, Babe the Blue Ox, in Bemidji,
dog that was cut in half and stitched back together Minnesota. Tall tales about Paul and Babe circulated
with its back legs upside down. In another tale, the around lumberjack camps in the 1860s and were later
weather is so cold that people who speak to each popularized by American newspapers. The tales were used
other have to wait until spring for their words to in promotional brochures by the Red River Lumber
thaw out and be heard. This entry discusses how Company during the early 20th century. According to one
tall tales are constructed, how they flourished on the tale, Paul excavated the Grand Canyon when he
accidentally dragged his pickax behind him.
American frontier in the 1800s, and how tall-tale
images became popular as postcards in the 1900s. Source: Bobak Ha’Eri/Wikimedia Commons.

747
748 Tall Tale
a struggle of several days, he reels in a fish so big that
there is no room for anyone else in the boat. The tale
concludes by stating the fish is so big that its scales
are used to make shingles for a four-room house.
This final description signals the climax of the narra-
tive. Increasingly outrageous exaggerations have been
piled on top of each other in a perpendicular fashion
until the “tall” tale, a perilous structure, cannot sup-
port them. At this point the narrative’s credibility col-
lapses, and the audience responds with laughter, even
if they had been fooled, briefly, when it began.
The tall tale typically concludes with one final,
hilarious lie, as when the narrator describes the split
dog as being even better after its reconstruction, for
it could run on two legs until it was tired, and flip
over to the other two legs for added stamina. Other
tales end with understatement, such as the narrator
who remarked that it was indeed “fairly cold” on
the day that people’s words froze, or that the man
who killed so much game with one rifle shot was “a
pretty good hunter.”
A conclusion also can occur in response to a ques-
tion from the audience. For example, in the midst of
a story about a fisherman encountering an impos-
sibly thick bed of flounder, the narrator says that the
bed was made of rubber. When someone asks how
a bed of fish could be made of rubber, the narrator
Tall-tale postcard, “Showing Off the Corn,” created by William H. Martin, 1908.
Source: Reprinted with permission from the Wisconsin Historical Society (Image no. WHi-44614).
answers, “So I can stretch it to any size I want.” He
finishes the story with a humorous acknowledgment
of its falsehood (and his power to bend the truth),
moving the audience out of the realm of artful
deception and back to reality. If there is lively audi-
ence involvement with the narrator, the give-and-
take rapport between them adds to the success of the
performance. Inherent in this success is a willingness
to tell a lie and to be lied to, knowing that the end
result will be shared amusement.
The American Frontier
Although the tall tale flourished in Europe in
the hands of master liars like German Baron
Münchhausen (1720–1797), in the 1800s, the
American frontier proved to be fertile for lying sto-
ries. In a vast untamed continent, truthful accounts
of extreme weather, abundant crops or game, and
men of phenomenal strength lent themselves to
exaggerated, fictional narratives, especially if they
were being told to newcomers. These greenhorns
might find themselves listening to tales about a cat-
fish that could be saddled and ridden like a horse or
a bear so big that even its track weighed 11 pounds.
The protagonists of these tales, usually male,
enjoy remarkable success. They accomplish

impossible tasks, kill numerous animals, or display
overwhelming strength, especially during moments
of adversity. In one tale, a hunter bends the barrel of
his gun to shoot a deer that is disappearing around
the side of a hill. In another, a man defends himself
from a vicious dog by putting his hand into the dog’s
mouth, grabbing the dog by the tail, and turning the
dog inside out.
The Tall-Tale Postcard
The tall-tale postcard, a visual manifestation of the
verbal tall tale, enjoyed great popularity in America
in the early 1900s when the commercial postcard
was making its debut as an inexpensive way for
travelers to send home enticing images from faraway
places. Tall-tale postcards depicted a world that was
exaggerated beyond belief, where fruits and vegeta-
bles were larger than the people who harvested them
(see postcard image).
The pictorial juxtaposition of everyday settings
with ridiculously large objects created the same bal-
ance between absurdity and real life that tall-tale
narratives achieved verbally.
Nancy Cassell McEntire
See also Folklore; Jokes; Schwank
Further Readings
Brown, C. S. (1987). The tall tale in American folklore and
literature. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Henningsen, G. (1965). The art of perpendicular lying:
Concerning a commercial collecting of Norwegian
sailors’ tall tales (W. E. Roberts, Trans.). Journal of the
Folklore Institute, 2, 180–219.
McEntire, N. C. (2009). Tall tales and the art of exaggeration.
Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, 54, 125–134.
Randolph, V. (1951). We always lie to strangers.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Welsch, R. L. (1976). Tall-tale postcards: A pictorial
history. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes.
TAOISM
Taoism arose in China about five centuries before
the Common Era. The word Taoism is now applied
to many things in Chinese culture, including
religious rituals, divination, alchemy, and a world-
view. This entry focuses on the Taoist worldview
and its connections with humor.
Taoism 749
Chinese Worldviews
Several scholars have argued that the religions and
worldviews of China, including Taoism, are more
hospitable to humor than the monotheistic religions
of the West. The God of the Bible and the Qur’an
is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator, lawgiver,
and judge. He has the single correct understanding
of things, he dictates what is right and wrong, and
he determines everyone’s eternal fate. The gods of
China, by contrast, lack this perfection and power.
They are more like fallible human beings—indeed,
many of them used to be humans and became
divine only after death. They do not establish moral
codes and do not consign people to heaven or hell.
More like the gods of ancient Greece and Rome,
they show the kind of mental flexibility and toler-
ance for disorder needed to laugh about human
shortcomings.
Besides Taoism, the other great religious tradi-
tions of China are Confucianism and Buddhism.
Confucianism, which arose about the same time as
Taoism, shares with it features such as optimism
that might have inclined it toward a comic vision
of life. But in Confucianism there is an emphasis
on law, order, tradition, obedience, and propriety
that works against the anti-authoritarianism and
spontaneity valorized in the comic vision. Taoism
questions all of these and therefore is much more
inclined toward humor and the comic vision of life.
When Buddhism was brought to China in the 1st
century CE, it gradually combined with Taoism to
produce the tradition called Chan, which in Japan
became Zen. Like Taoism, Zen Buddhism has comic
tendencies.
Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu
There are two great writers in Taoism: Lao Tzu and
Chuang Tzu. The first is the purported author of
the Tao Te Ching. This text describes the Tao as the
ultimate reality, but it is not, as in Western religions,
a personal being. The Tao has no desires, issues no
commandments, requires and answers no prayers,
and does not interfere with the natural order of
events. Tao is sometimes translated “the Way.”
Another word that comes close is Nature, under-
stood not as the plants, animals, mountains, stars,
and other things in the universe, but as the force that
regulates all of them. One feature of Taoism that
makes it receptive to humor is its overall optimism
about this force: Like the writer of a comedy, the
Tao make events turn out for the best.
750 Taoism
According to the Tao Te Ching,
1. The Tao underlies everything. All events occur
within it.
2. The Tao does not exert itself. It includes
everything and so there is nothing for it to act
upon.
3. What happens in accordance with the Tao—
whatever is natural—is good.
4. Human beings are part of the Tao; they are not
above it. They will be happy to the extent that
they go along with the Tao.
5. Things and qualities exist as yin and yang—
opposites such as hot and cold, light and dark,
male and female. Yin and yang are not in conflict;
rather they complement each other and work
together. Opposition is the source of all growth.
Because the world naturally unfolds in a good
way, the Tao Te Ching says, it is foolish to try to
manipulate things or people. Being discontented
with one’s lot in life and wanting to change oneself
is unrealistic and self-defeating. Similarly, the desire
to change other people is a mistake. The best way to
deal with people is to let them develop in their own
way without imposing our ideas or standards on
them. This live-and-let-live attitude shows the comic
virtues of tolerance for diversity and tolerance for
people’s shortcomings.
While the Tao Te Ching is addressed to rulers and
maintains an air of dignity, the writing of Chuang
Tzu shows considerable playfulness and humor, and
makes generous use of irony, paradox, and hyper-
bole. It does not just tolerate human limitations and
shortcomings but celebrates them and makes fun
of human desires for self-improvement. Like Zen
Buddhism, which it influenced, the writing of Chang
Tzu also challenges standard rationality and logic in
a way that is often funny. As in comedies, nothing
in life need be what it seems, and our surprise can
be a source of delight and amusement. A famous
example is Chuang Tzu’s story in which he dreamed
he was a butterfly. On waking up, he was unsure
whether he was Chuang Tzu who had dreamed
he was a butterfly, or instead was a butterfly who
dreamed he was Chuang Tzu. Enriching the humor
here is Chuang Tzu’s humble self-critical stance:
In poking fun at his confusion after the dream, he
drops all pretense of being a sage dispensing wisdom
to the rest of us. Like a stand-up comedian, his best
jokes are on himself.
There is another way in which Chuang Tzu’s
writing is like stand-up comedy. Treated as a reli-
gious document, it has not always been interpreted
in the playful, imaginative way he intended. When
he wrote, for example, about flying “supermen”
who dined on air, sipped dew, were immune to heat
and cold, and lived forever, he was not serious. But
taking these passages literally, some readers took
them to be literal descriptions of “The Immortals”
and set out to develop magical techniques to
become immortal themselves. Chuang Tzu would
have laughed at their misinterpretations and at
their desire to outmaneuver death, which for him
was something natural and not to be feared. Playful
and comic writing, then, like serious and tragic
writing, requires a certain attitude on the part of
readers.
Taoism and the Comic Vision of Life
Western culture has two great dramatic traditions,
comedy and tragedy, with tragedy ranked superior
by virtually all authorities. Many literary critics have
written of the “tragic vision of life” in Western liter-
ature and religion. In Taoism, as in Chinese culture
generally, the tragic vision has never taken hold. The
Chinese do not celebrate the individual hero needed
for tragedy nor do they valorize struggle or protest
as responses to suffering. Instead they celebrate the
social group and cooperation rather than conflict.
Those emphases make Chinese culture, and espe-
cially Taoism, amenable to humor and to the comic
vision of life.
Part of having a sense of humor is the ability to
enjoy experiences in which something violates our
ordinary understanding of the world and our expec-
tations. A standard way to say that is that humorous
amusement is a way of enjoying incongruity. Not
all violations of our expectations are enjoyable, of
course. Instead of laughing, we may respond to
surprising events with fear, anger, disgust, or sad-
ness. Such responses are common when we make
mistakes or experience failure. To have a sense of
humor about life as a whole, we need a basic trust in
the universe. We have to believe that when things do
not go as we expected, there is probably something
to be enjoyed in that experience, something that calls
for laughter rather than fear, anger, disgust, or sad-
ness. Those who lack that trust tend to be suspicious
when their conceptual patterns and expectations are
violated. Paranoid people, for example, who tend to
see all surprises as threatening, seldom find anything

to laugh about in naturally occurring experiences of
incongruity.
Like some other religions and worldviews that
lean toward the comic, Taoism teaches the basic
trust in the universe required for having a sense of
humor about life as a whole. It says that everything
will work out for the best in the end, even if that
happy ending is not clear right now. The way events
naturally unfold, the Tao Te Ching teaches, cannot
be improved upon; someone who tries to redesign a
natural process is bound to spoil it.
This cosmic optimism allows Taoists to relax and
enjoy the surprises in their lives, especially the small
violations of their expectations that would other-
wise elicit negative emotions. With trust in the Tao,
the mistakes, failures, and disappointments of daily
life are not matters for great concern and often are
something to laugh about. This is not to say that
Taoists are always happy-go-lucky and carefree, but
their worldview fosters the development of a sense
of humor about life in general.
Here the yin/yang way of seeing opposites is con-
ducive to humor. Heroic visions of life, as found in
epic and tragedy, typically treat opposing things and
forces as enemies combating each other, and that
understanding suppresses our ability to enjoy things
that do not go our way. Understanding opposition
as the source of growth, as the Tao Te Ching does,
by contrast, allows us to appreciate and be amused
by what opposes us.
The fundamentally nonpractical stance of Taoism
also fosters a comic vision of life. Many analyses of
humor have discussed the opposition between laugh-
ing about something and having a practical attitude
toward it. Most humor is about a thing, situation, or
event not being as good as we expected it to be. This
is obvious in fictional humor such as stage comedy,
where for millennia stock characters have been the
drunk, the fool, the liar, the klutz, the pedant, the
coward, and others making mistakes and failing. As
Aristotle pointed out, while tragic characters tend to
be better than average people, comic characters tend
to be worse.
It is usually easy to suspend ordinary practical
concerns in comedy because we know that what
is happening is not real. But laughing about simi-
lar events in real life is often harder. Here Taoism
is supportive of humor because it advocates a non-
practical attitude. The leading virtue in Taoism is wu
wei—effortlessness, letting things happen naturally.
That fits nicely with the comic theme that the best
thing to do or say may be nothing, and that we may
Taoism 751
accomplish the most by not trying. While humor
often involves things going wrong, many comedies
are built on the theme of serendipity, happy acci-
dents, and good things falling into people’s laps.
With its valorization of wu wei, Taoism runs
counter to heroic ideologies based on force and
struggle. Since military action is the strongest form
of such action, Taoism rejects militarism. The person
who follows the Tao avoids weapons and conflict
and sees fighting as a last resort. Rejecting the heroic
ethos, too, Taoism rejects the militarist virtues of
pride, honor, and unquestioning loyalty. All of this
fits well with the pacifism of traditional Western
comedy that began with Aristophanes’s feminist
anti-war play Lysistrata and continues to today.
Because it rejects the use of force, Taoism is also
opposed to governments, especially those with bur-
densome laws and taxes. According to the Tao Te
Ching, the more laws that are passed and the more
taxes assessed, the greater the number of lawbreak-
ers and tax evaders. From this attitude comes a
general suspicion of city life and a preference for
agrarian village life.
Beyond its opposition to militarism and govern-
ments, Taoism questions hierarchical social systems
in general. Wherever there is someone exerting
authority over others, the proper attitude is at least
suspicion, and perhaps protest. Like its opposi-
tion to the military, Taoism’s general opposition to
authority is similar to the mocking of authority in
Western comedy.
Perhaps the most general link between Taoism
and humor lies in Taoism’s celebration of freedom
and spontaneity. In each situation, the best way to
act is not mechanically, according to personal habits
and cultural habits, but flexibly and creatively, the
way heroes in comedy typically do. The person who
lives that way is not only more in tune with nature,
but happier and more successful.
John Morreall
See also Biblical Humor; Buddhism; Christianity; Comic
Versus Tragic Worldviews; Confucianism
Further Readings
Morreall, J. (1999). Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Simpkins, C., & Simpkins, A. (1999). Simple Taoism: A
guide to living in balance. Tokyo, Japan: Tuttle.
Tzu, C. (1996). Chuang Tzu: The basic writings. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
752 Targets of Humor
Tzu, L. (2006). Tao Te Ching: A new English version
(S. Mitchell, Trans.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
TARGETS OF HUMOR
Any subject can be a target of humor, and indeed,
a Google search for “targets of humor” brings up
more than six million websites. Humor is an irre-
pressible force that, from time immemorial, has
skewered people, places, institutions, and anything
else one might think of. This entry discusses targets
of humor and how they are chosen, as well as how
they are related to various theories of humor and
techniques of humor.
Targets of Humor and Theories of Humor
One way to deal with a subject of this size is to con-
sider the targets of humor in terms of how humor is
understood in the most important theories of humor,
which are themselves targets of humor when pro-
ponents of one theory make fun of those who hold
other views about the nature of humor. The most
commonly accepted theories of humor—that is, the-
ories that explain why we find something funny—
are the incongruity theory, the superiority theory, the
release theory, and various cognitive theories about
humor as communication and metacommuncation.
The most common form of humor is the joke, which
can be defined as a short narrative with a punch line
that is meant to amuse and cause mirthful laughter.
But there are countless other forms of humor, such
as witticisms, puns, comic verse, parodies, and so
on. There is often an element of surprise in humor-
ous texts, as, for example, in the punch lines in jokes.
Incongruity Theory
Incongruity theory is based on the notion that
there is often a difference between what we expect
and what we get. In many cases, there is a comic
dimension to these chance events, accidents, or what
you will; thus, for an incongruity theorist, anyone
and anything can be a target of humor.
Superiority Theory
To a superiority theorist, humor expresses feelings
of superiority over others or even over a former state
of oneself—oneself “formerly,” as Thomas Hobbes
put it. For superiority theorists, a legitimate object of
humor is anyone who is not our equal. We laugh at
the characters in the comic strip Dilbert because we
recognize them as being like many people we know,
all of whom are inferior to us and thus are accept-
able targets.
Release Theory
According to the release (relief) theory, humor is,
in essence, a form of masked aggression that releases
built-up tensions. Because people have many hostile
and aggressive feelings, there are countless targets
for humor—generally tied to personal relation-
ships, sex, marriage, the family, politics, and so
on, that present themselves every day. One of the
classic examples of release theory occurred when
someone on a Groucho Marx radio program said
“Sometimes, I think I’m my worst enemy.” “Not as
long as I’m alive,” replied Groucho, not missing a
beat in reflecting his comic persona.
Communication and Metacommunication
The notion that humor is tied to communication
and metacommunication processes in our brains
that we do not completely understand, such as
paradox, suggests that any topic relating to human
communication and functioning in society is a legiti-
mate target of humor, though those who perpetrate
the humor may not fully understand what they are
doing and why their humor works. An example
is the definition of capitalism in a comment often
attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith: “Under capi-
talism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s
just the opposite.”
Spatiality and Targets of Humor
We can also look at targets of humor in terms of spa-
tiality or distance from the self. From this perspec-
tive, there is a continuum starting with oneself, one’s
spouse or partner, one’s children, one’s family, one’s
parents, one’s in-laws (especially mothers-in-law in
the United States), one’s gender, other genders, that
spreads outward to one’s boss, one’s colleagues at
work, one’s religion, other people’s religions, friends,
political figures, sports heroes, politicians, ethnic
groups and racial groups in one’s country, attitudes
toward money and sex, and various other preoccu-
pations of the common man and woman, and then
people in other countries and their national charac-
teristics.
Much of this humor involves certain figures who
are the most common targets of humor. Phyllis
Diller joked about “Fang,” her inept husband. The
 Targets of Humor 753

situation comedy Frasier had two contrasting broth-
ers: one effete and snobbish, the other slightly more
down to earth but never able to have a decent rela-
tionship with women, and both very different from
their blue-collar father. Jack Benny made a career
of being cheap. His joke writers put in a gag about
him being cheap once; it got such a terrific response
that they added other gags, and eventually he devel-
oped a brilliant comic persona that he exploited
for 40 years. Perhaps Benny’s most famous gag on
his radio show was when somebody held him up
and said “Your money or your life!” There was
silence for around 10 or 15 seconds, and the rob-
ber repeated, “Your money or your life!” Benny
replied “I’m thinking it over.” Much of Benny’s
humor was victim humor directed toward him-
self, which means he didn’t alienate others. Other
comedians make fun, ridicule, and insult everyone
and everything; for example, the comedian and
rabbi Jackie Mason makes fun of Jewish people,
Italians, Puerto Ricans, politicians, and countless
others.
Classification of Techniques Used in Humor
Research by Arthur Asa Berger (1997) on the tech-
niques found in humorous texts of all kinds resulted
in a list of about 45 techniques that can be found
in everything from Roman comedies to the theater
of the absurd, as well as in the routines of comedi-
ans and in jokes that are told informally or shared
on the Internet. All these techniques could be clas-
sified as humor involving identity, humor involving
language, humor involving logic and reasoning, or
humor that involves action or visual phenomena.
The classification of techniques is shown in Table 1.
These techniques are explained in detail in
Berger’s 1993 An Anatomy of Humor and 1997 The
Art of Comedy Writing. The repertoire of techniques
used by comedians shapes the targets they select as
the objects of their humor. For example, parody is
an important technique of humor, but for parody
to work, audiences must recognize the text being
parodied. Currently, comedians who parody televi-
sion news programs are very popular; many young
and not-so-young Americans get most of their news
from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and Stephen
Colbert’s The Colbert Report. Much of their satire is
political in nature.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes are a very common form of humor that
rely on notions people have about what members
of some ethnic, racial, or religious group are like
or what people from foreign countries are like (i.e.,

Table 1 Techniques Used in Humor

Logic Language Identity Visual

Absurdity Allusion Before/After Chase
Accident Bombast Burlesque Speed
Analogy Definition Caricature Slapstick
Catalogue Exaggeration Eccentricity
Coincidence Facetiousness Embarrassment
Comparison Insults Exposure
Disappointment Infantilism Grotesque
Ignorance Irony Imitation
Repetition Misunderstanding Impersonation
Reversal Overliteralness Mimicry
Rigidity Puns/Wordplay Parody
Theme and Variation Repartee Scale
Sarcasm Ridicule Stereotypes
Unmasking Satire

Source: Berger, A. A. (1997). The Art of Comedy Writing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, p. 3.
754 Targets of Humor
their national character). Following is an example of
a joke targeting national characteristics:
The United Nations asks a group of scholars to write
a book on elephants. The following books are
contributed: The French write The Love Life of the
Elephant. The English write The Elephant and
English Social Classes. The Germans write A Short
Introduction to the Elephant in Five Volumes. The
Italians write Elephants and the Renaissance in Italy.
The Americans write How to Grow Bigger and
Better Elephants. The Jews write Elephants and The
Jewish Question.
At various times in the United States, there were
popular joke cycles about Polish Americans (Polish
jokes), Jewish American “princesses” (JAP jokes),
and blondes. Some examples are “How many Poles
does it take to change a light bulb? Five. One to hold
the bulb and four to move the table on which the
first one is standing.” “How does a Jewish American
Princess commit suicide? She piles all her clothes on
her bed, gets on top of them, and jumps off.”
Other jokes may target specific demographic
groups, as in the following:
A man goes to Miami for a vacation. After four days
he notices he has a tan all over his body, except for
his penis. So the next day he goes to a deserted area
of the beach early in the morning, takes his clothes
off and lies down. He sprinkles sand over himself
until all that remains in the sun is his penis. Two little
old ladies walk by on the boardwalk and one notices
the penis. “When I was 20,” she says, “I was scared
to death of them. When I was 40, I couldn’t get
enough of them. When I was 60, I couldn’t get one
to come near me . . . and now they’re growing wild
on the beach.”
When much of Eastern Europe was controlled by
the Soviet Union, there were countless jokes about
socialism, the Russian character, and related matters.
(An example: Someone calls Radio Erevan in Russian
Armenia and asked “Would it be possible to bring
socialism to the Sahara?” “Yes,” replied the Radio
Erevan host, “But after five years we would have to
start importing sand.”) The targets of our jokes
often reflect matters of great concern to people. For
example, the Eastern European jokes and others like
them target governments that oppressed people. In
some cases, the targets are obvious—those who
oppress others—but in other cases, they may reflect
unconscious concerns that manifest themselves in
humor that does not seem immediately related to the
cause of the humor.
There are countless targets of humor, from our-
selves and our inadequacies to our friends and their
inadequacies, radiating out to other people, other
nationalities, and anyone who is, in any way, differ-
ent from us, as well as people who are like us. Certain
targets for humor seem preeminent. These include
sexuality, politics, ethnic and racial groups, and vari-
ous personality types one encounters as particularly
important targets for our humor—that is, the humor
we make (puns, wordplay, etc.)—and the humor of
professional comedians. But anyone and anything is
grist for our personal comic militancy, which is lim-
ited only by our imaginations and by the techniques
of humor with which we feel most comfortable.
Targeting Political and Religious Leaders:
Positive and Negative Impacts
In recent years, humor targeting religious and politi-
cal leaders has generated controversy and even
violence. Attempts to make Islam and the Muslim
prophet Muhammad a target of humor have
sometimes resulted in threats and bloody protests.
Extremists responded violently in 2005 and 2006
after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten pub-
lished cartoons lampooning Muhammad. The pro-
tests ignited a worldwide controversy over freedom
of the press and fundamentalist censorship. The U.S.
Department of State condemned the publication of
the cartoons, while defending the right of the news-
papers to publish them. Similar issues arose in 2012
when a French newspaper published caricatures
of Muhammad and an anti-Islam video appeared
on YouTube. Elsewhere, political satire has been
attacked. For example, in South Africa, President
Jacob Zuma sued a cartoonist and a media company
after the publication of an anti-Zuma cartoon.
In much of the world, however, people relish
humorous portrayals of politicians, religious lead-
ers, celebrities and just about everyone else, for they
permit us to laugh and obtain another measure of
pleasure from life. Humor is vitally connected to
human sociability; thus, everything that can serve
as a foil or a target for comedians and humorists is
valued the world over.
Arthur Asa Berger
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Ethnic Jokes;
Insult and Invective; Joke Cycles; Jokes; National and
Ethnic Differences; Prejudice, Humor and; Satire
 Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in Classroom on
Further Readings
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An
anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Berger, A. A. (1997). The art of comedy writing.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Boskin, J. (1979). Humor and social change in twentieth
century America. Boston, MA: Trustees of the Public
Library.
Davies, C. (1990). Ethnic humor around the world.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Davies, C. (2011). Jokes and targets. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Dundes, A. (1987). Cracking jokes: Studies of sick humor
cycles and stereotypes. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Mindness, H. (1971). Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles,
CA: Nash.
Ziv, A. (1988). Personality and sense of humor. New York,
NY: Springer.
TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS, EFFECT
OF HUMOR USE IN CLASSROOM ON
When teachers enact a variety of verbal and non-
verbal messages to elicit laughter and smiling from
students, they employ a teaching strategy labeled
instructional humor. Much of the research on this
topic has explored how teachers’ use of instruc-
tional humor affects students either positively or
negatively. Extant scholarship indicates that teach-
ers’ use of instructional humor increases students’
cognitive and affective learning, creates a comfort-
able learning environment, improves relationships
between students and teachers by reducing tension
and anxiety, and increases students’ willingness to
engage in outside-of-class communication. Poorly
executed or inappropriate instructional humor can
negatively impact student motivation and learning
and erode student-teacher relationships. This entry
looks at how the use of humor can affect students’
evaluations of teachers and how the effect may vary
depending on the type of humor used and the char-
acteristics of the teachers and students.
Teachers also reap a number of benefits from
using instructional humor. Use of instructional
humor is often associated with being labeled a “pop-
ular” or well-liked teacher. Instructors’ strategic
use of humor in the classroom can increase student
attendance, participation, and likelihood of forming
professional student-teacher relationships based on
755
trust. Not surprisingly, award-winning teachers use
moderate amounts of instructional humor. Research
also indicates that teachers’ use of humor is linked to
more favorable student evaluations.
Several studies have explored the connection
between instructional humor and student evalua-
tions of teachers. For example, in 1980, Jennings
Bryant, Jon S. Crane, Paul W. Comisky, and Dolf
Zillmann conducted seminal work in this area that
explored how teachers’ use of humor affected how
students evaluate their teaching. Their research
investigated the relationship between instructors’
use of different types of humor and student evalu-
ations of teaching effectiveness as well as individual
differences that confound this relationship. The
researchers asked 70 students to unobtrusively tape
record instructors’ lectures, transcribe the lectures,
and complete questionnaires on the instructors’
teaching effectiveness. Next, two coders indepen-
dently analyzed all of the humorous content and
identified the type of humor enacted (i.e., joke,
riddle, funny story, humorous comment), whether
the humor was prepared or spontaneous, whether
the humor involved the instructor or student,
who the target or butt of the humor was, and
whether the humor was related or unrelated to the
lecture content.
Bryant et al. found that humor was seamlessly
integrated into the instructors’ lectures; that humor-
ous enactments occurred an average of 3.34 times
during a 50-minute lecture; and that male instruc-
tors used more humor than female instructors.
Instructional humor was correlated with student-
reported teaching effectiveness. From their study
findings, the researchers argued that only male
instructors should use humor in the classroom
because female instructors’ use of the same humor-
ous behaviors seemed to diminish their classroom
effectiveness.
Katherine Van Giffen also investigated the rela-
tionship between instructional humor and student
ratings of teaching effectiveness in 1990 using a
different approach. A total of 849 students evalu-
ated the teaching effectiveness of 24 (12 male and
12 female) faculty members from different academic
departments who were selected because they used
humor in their lectures. Students indicated whether
the instructor was an effective teacher and the extent
to which the instructor used humor to maintain
student interest. Use of instructor humor was cor-
related positively with students’ overall perceptions
of teacher effectiveness. Unlike previous work from
756 Teachers’ Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in Classroom on
Bryant et al., Van Giffen noted that female instruc-
tors benefited more from humor use than male
instructors did. Van Giffen also noted that students’
perceptions of instructor humor use were not associ-
ated with perceived warmth and friendliness. These
findings are not particularly surprising because cer-
tain types of humor such as disparaging or tenden-
tious forms are often construed as aggressive and
hurtful by receivers.
Findings from this research indicate that there is
a positive relationship between instructional humor
and students’ evaluations of teacher effectiveness.
However, it is important to note the substantial dif-
ferences in how these two studies were conducted to
understand how to approach similar research in the
future. While Bryant and his colleagues’ work exam-
ined the type of humor used during actual lectures,
Van Giffen assessed students’ global perceptions of
instructional humor. In the Bryant et al. study, which
looked at the specific types of humor used, the find-
ings indicated that female teachers could only use
hostile and aggressive humor to enhance student per-
ceptions of teaching effectiveness, while males could
use any type of humor. While these findings are cer-
tainly perplexing, they illustrate the need to further
explore the type of instructional humor enacted,
the appropriateness of the humor, and source and
receiver characteristics that influence how humor is
perceived (i.e., sex, culture, age, personality differ-
ences, etc.). In order for instructors to learn how to
use humor effectively and appropriately, researchers
must not only study the effects of different types of
humor on teacher evaluations but also source and
receiver characteristics that influence how humor-
ous content is perceived.
Students who enact humor more often and per-
ceive themselves as effective at producing humor,
known as humor-oriented individuals, evaluate
humorous professors more favorably than students
who do not regularly enact humor. Research by
Melissa B. Wanzer and Ann B. Frymier (1999) on
the relationship between student and teacher humor
orientation and learning indicated that humor-
oriented students reported learning the most from
those instructors perceived as humor oriented. Steve
Booth-Butterfield and Melanie Booth-Butterfield
(1991) show that in order to truly understand the
relationship between teachers’ use of humor and
students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness, it is
important to measure the impact of individual dif-
ferences such as humor orientation.
The relationship between instructional humor
and student evaluations is a complex one that can
only be understood by studying all elements of the
interaction. Future research on this topic should
explore communication-based personality differ-
ences (i.e., humor orientation) or source character-
istics (i.e., sex, culture, age) that impact how humor
is enacted in the classroom. Similarly, receiver char-
acteristics should also be examined to determine the
role that individual differences play in how humor-
ous messages are interpreted.
Research indicates that the amount and type
of humor used by the instructor affects learning
outcomes. In 1990, Joan Gorham and Diane M.
Christophel found that students are cognizant of
instructors’ use of tendentious humor and that a
reliance on this type of humor negatively impacts
affect toward content area. More recent research,
such as that by Wanzer, Frymier, and Jeffrey Irwin in
2010, indicates that appropriate types of instructor
humor like “related humor” affects student learning
and motivation positively, while inappropriate types
such as “other disparaging and offensive” humor
do not increase learning; thus, it is also important to
examine how competent use of humor in the class-
room affects students’ assessments of their teachers.
Melissa Bekelja Wanzer
See also Education, Humor in; Pedagogy; Testing and
Evaluation
Further Readings
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1991). The
communication of humor in everyday life. Southern
Communication Journal, 56, 205–218.
Bryant, J., Crane, J. S., Comisky, P. W., & Zillmann, D.
(1980). Relationship between college teachers’ use of
humor in the classroom and students’ evaluations of
their teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
511–519.
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship
of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy
and student learning. Communication Education, 39,
46–62.
Van Giffen, K. (1990). Influence of professor gender and
perceived use of humor on course evaluations.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 3,
65–73.
Wanzer, M. B. (2002). Use of humor in the classroom: The
good, the bad, and the not-so-funny things that teachers

say and do. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Communication for teachers (pp. 116–125). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship
between student perceptions of instructor humor and
student’s reports of learning. Communication
Education, 48, 48–62.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An
explanation of the relationship between humor and
student learning: Instructional humor processing theory.
Communication Education, 59, 1–18.
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A., & Smith, T.
(2006). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor
by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178–196.
Ziv, A. (1979). L’humor en education: Approche
psychologique [Humor in education: A psychological
approach]. Paris, France: Editions Social Francaises.
Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor:
Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental
Education, 57, 5–15.
TEASING
Teasing has been of primary importance in research
on socialization because of its ambiguity both as a
means to strengthen solidarity through the creation
of intimacy, or through enforcement of conformity
to in-group behavior, whether it be within the fam-
ily, the classroom, or other social categories. Among
the important features of a tease is that the target
be a present participant in the conversation; thus,
teasing is a phenomenon that emerges in interaction,
playing with the meaning and using the context and
the interpersonal knowledge participants have of
each other to create a double-edged sword that can
both bond and bite. Teasing has been seen as a con-
tinuum that goes from bullying to banter. There is,
however, a debate in the literature on the biting and
bonding qualities of teasing. On one side, it is stated
that teasing excludes aggressiveness by definition, as
it is mock disrespect. On the other side, it is seen as
covertly aggressive behavior. Research on the per-
ception of teasing suggests that one’s role as teaser
or tease recipient determines which view is held. In
addition, the power relationship between teaser and
tease recipient might also be a determining factor in
these perceptions. In the end, ambiguity is at the cen-
ter of research in conversational joking and humor-
ous interaction in both its dangerous edge and its
bonding potential. The need to signal the play frame
Teasing 757
with disclaimers, such as “just kidding,” reveals
that as far as the target goes, teasing can indeed bite
despite the intentions of the teaser. This entry dis-
cusses how teasing works and the purpose it serves.
Teasing is structured around the relationship
between the teaser and the teased, since teasing must
be directed to a participant in the interaction; this
includes self-directed teasing. Teasing occurs pri-
marily among intimates (friends, family, partners)
since teasing among strangers is more likely to be
misunderstood. Studies of teasing in the classroom
and work context—where the power differential
is a major concern—center around differentiating
this behavior from bullying and harassment. The
difficulty in making the distinction is not only due
to the lack of cues or disclaimers but in ascertain-
ing the intentionality of the exchange. While jokes
involve incongruity resolution, sarcasm, and irony,
teasing relies on incongruity of meaning. In other
words, what is said is not what is meant, but what is
meant is actually never said. The content of a tease
is assumed to be always negative; nonetheless, cases
have been registered where the tease is meant to
challenge fixed roles and create new positive ones.
That can be seen in the following examples from
Florencia Cortés-Conde and Diana Boxer (2010).
Female 1: I told her [to Female 3] she needs a little
action
Female 2: yeah, a little action
Female 3: He called . . .
In the context of challenging female identities as less
sexually aggressive, the first two women tease the
third one about needing “a little action” (meaning a
sexual encounter). The content might seem negative,
but there is no bite in this tease. In general, how-
ever, teasing can function as underestimation or per-
missible disrespect that reinforce hierarchical roles
(mother, father, older sibling, etc.) or peer relation-
ships (friends, colleagues, etc.). It can be a way to
correct errors or behavior, while at the same time
permitting the interlocutor to save face, a way to
release aggression in a play format. A tease can lead
to a retort from the target and other playful turns
and this multiturn tease is considered banter:
Female 1: My husband’s been walking the dog
for a year.
Female 2: He went to get cigarettes.
Female 1: He went to get alcohol and cigarettes.
Female 3: What can I say, I’m waiting for him to
come back.
758 Teasing
Teasing as Socialization
Unlike irony and sarcasm, the point of the tease is
not the ambiguity itself, but the relationship it estab-
lishes between the teaser and the teased. In family set-
tings, teasing is a frequent occurrence allowing for a
parental correction of behavior or a sibling’s release
of tension. In this sense, teasing is a nip that creates
a play frame allowing one to learn a behavior in a
certain context; this can be the family context, the
workplace, the classroom, or the playground where
one can learn to stand up for oneself. Misuse of the
tease, even when the intention was just to play, can
constitute for the target of the tease a perception of
aggressive behavior, a put-down, and bullying. Put-
downs and bullying create distance and establish
hierarchy; teasing, on the other hand, builds rapport
between interlocutors by signaling a shared schema.
Among intimates and peers, teasing is a display of a
relationship that is strong enough to play with the
limits between bonding and biting.
Teasing as Mitigation
The ambiguity of teasing can be the result of a ten-
sion in the encounter between teaser and teased.
There is, however, no resolution of the emergent
incongruity as is the case with the joke. The incon-
gruity creates a playful frame that mitigates the ten-
sion and acts as a face-saving act. In the following
exchange, we find a tease that turns into banter as
intimate friends talk about divorce (Cortés-Conde
& Boxer, 2010):
Female 1: And then there is C*** here who engages
in slap therapy.
Female 2: How does that work?
Female 3: I kept thinking that if I slapped you
verbally you’d snap out of it.
Female 1: Please let up, let up. [playing at begging]
Female 3: [You should] get a B.A. in slap therapy
The multiturn tease alleviates the tension of the self-
disclosure and reveals the intimate bond between
friends: the one who engages in “slap therapy” as
a means to make her friend come to her senses, and
the one who is slapped and is grateful for it. There is
no bite in this exchange, but the tension is mitigated
by the humor of the interaction.
Self-Teasing
The self-tease is a remark that can be construed
as disparaging to the one that utters it. Here is an
example from Cortés-Conde and Boxer (2010):
Female 1: I get up off the couch. I walk with him
[her son] to the cabinet, I open up the
bottle, and I put it [aspirins] in his hand.
[Laughter] I’m cringing at what I’m doing,
but I love him to death. [high-pitched
sound] I just want to take care of him.
Female 2: But you love her [your daughter] just as
much?
Female 1: I do, but to her [her daughter] I just say
“they’re in the cabinet.” (Laughter)
Mama’s boy, mama’s boy! Of course he is
a mama’s boy, whatta I care? I’m his
mama! [Laughter]
The self-tease in this case is self-deprecating. There
is no avoiding the self-criticism in this statement, but
the tease relieves the tension of the self-disclosure
and the self-deprecation.
Florencia Cortés-Conde
See also Conversation; Incongruity and Resolution
Further Readings
Ahmed Al-Jabali, M. (2011). Same-sex and cross-sex teasing
categories and reactions among Jadara University
students. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 23.
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to
biting: Conversational joking and identity display.
Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–294.
Cortés-Conde, F., & Boxer, D. (2010, November).
Humorous self disclosures as resistance to socially
imposed gender roles. Gender and Language, 4(1).
Dynel, M. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The
pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in
Pragmatics, 4(2), 241–261.
Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational
humour. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5),
1284–1299.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M., & Lampert, M. D. (2009). The
occasioning of self-disclosure humor. In N. R. Norrick
& D. Chiaro (Eds.), Humor in interaction (chap. 1).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., &
Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis
and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2),
229–248.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oeming, C., &
Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and
intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(5), 1231–1247.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language and
socialization across cultures. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

TEST MEASUREMENTS OF HUMOR
Humor researchers use instruments to assess individ-
ual differences in humor, to display a person’s humor
profile, to relate these differences to other phenom-
ena (like personality or health), and to document
changes in humor due to interventions. The ques-
tion of what instrument to use arises. Is it one for
all research questions? Is it the one with the highest
number of subscales or the most recent one, the one
with the most sophisticated name? Several formal-
and content-related factors determine the choice of
which instrument to use for what purposes. This
entry first discusses the criteria used to determine if
a test is psychometrically sound. Second, currently
used humor instruments (joke/cartoon tests and
questionnaires) are presented.
Formal Criteria
Formal criteria refer to the construction and docu-
mentation of a test and to the psychometric proper-
ties. A well-documented test will contain informa-
tion on the nature of the concepts to be measured
(e.g., how spare vs. elaborated the variable defini-
tion is and if it is based on a theory), the type of con-
struction procedure employed (e.g., factor analytic,
empirical, rational), how elaborate the construction
stage was (e.g., how were the items generated, how
many samples were used, was there an item analy-
sis), and the psychometric properties.
Psychometric properties—mainly objectivity,
reliability, and validity—allow an evaluation of the
quality of the test measurement. According to Gus-
tav A. Lienert and Ulrich Raatz (1998), objectivity
is standardization in procedure, scoring, and inter-
pretation. Reliability is the degree to which the mea-
surement is free from error variance, that is, how
accurately the test measures. Validity of a test is the
extent to which it measures or predicts some crite-
rion of interest. Sufficient objectivity is the necessary
precondition for high reliability; and high reliability,
in turn, is required to achieve satisfying validity.
Reliability varies between 0 (unreliability) and 1
(perfect reliability), and should exceed .60 for group
assessment and .80 for individual assessment. Reli-
ability can be estimated through internal consistency
(i.e., the intercorrelations of all scale items; a fre-
quently reported measure for continuous measures
is Cronbach’s Alpha), the parallel-test method (cor-
relation of two parallel tests), and the retest method
Test Measurements of Humor 759
(stability; correlation of the same test across two
points in time).
Validity entails several aspects, of which con-
struct and content validity will be discussed in
more detail. Frederic Lord and Melvin R. Novick
(2008) distinguish between empirical and theoreti-
cal validity, that is, relations of a measurement with
observable variables versus latent variables (e.g.,
hypothetical, nonobservable constructs). Construct
validity belongs to theoretical validity and indicates
the efficiency of a test in terms of measuring what it
was designed to measure. It comprises convergent
(high correlations with scales that measure the same
or a similar construct) and discriminant validity
(low correlations with scales that measure a dis-
similar construct). Construct validity can be tested
in a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis,
which traditionally involves comparing correlation
matrices of at least two measures and traits. Modern
statistical approaches to conduct MTMM analyses
include structural equation modeling (SEM) and
multilevel modeling.
Content validity has been described as the degree
to which a test represents the criterion or construct
to be measured. Content validity can be ensured by
(a) defining the scope of the criterion or construct
of interest and (b) obtaining expert ratings of the
representativeness of the test items according to
the definition. In humor research, tests employing
jokes and cartoons to assess humor appreciation
or production are inherently content valid, as they
obtain direct ratings of the criterion at hand (like the
funniness of a joke or writing a humorous cartoon
caption).
The Measurements
The different kinds of humor assessment tools can
be grouped into eight categories:
1. Informal surveys, joke-telling techniques, or
diary methods;
2. Joke and cartoon tests;
3. Questionnaires, self-report scales;
4. Peer reports;
5. State measures;
6. Children’s humor tests;
7. Humor scales in general instruments; and
8. Miscellaneous and unclassified.
More than 60 instruments have been developed that
fall into one of these categories. Meanwhile, more
760 Test Measurements of Humor
than two dozen new measures were constructed.
A survey of the various instruments allowed some
conclusions about them, most of which are still valid
today. One was that over the entire span covered,
the instruments often purported to measure “sense
of humor” even when the methods used or the con-
tents diverged largely (questionnaires, joke/cartoon
tests) and zero correlations can be expected between
the instruments.
Until the 1980s, joke and cartoon tests were most
frequent and more recently questionnaires have been
more frequent. Little effort has been invested in peer-
evaluation techniques or experimental assessments.
Also, most instruments are for adults and few are
applicable to children. Many instruments are trait
oriented and thus not well suited for measuring
change (e.g., as needed in intervention studies).
Another observation was that the same labels do not
necessarily imply the same concepts (as in nonsense,
which may stand for harmless jokes or ones that
do not resolve incongruity), and scales with differ-
ent labels might still measure the same construct.
Also, there has been little interest in multiple opera-
tionalizations of the same construct to determine
convergent validity. This would allow determining
how much method variance and how much content
variance are in the measures. Another observation
is that very often an instrument was designed for
one study only, and only a couple of tests were pub-
lished with a company (e.g., the IPAT Humor Test of
Personality). While work was devoted to construct-
ing scales, comparatively little effort was spent on
working on the concepts.
Humor Assessment Tests Currently in Use
The selection of current instruments for the assess-
ment of humor traits and states in children and
adults that follows is not comprehensive, but it con-
tains measurements of humor with adequate psy-
chometric properties.
Joke and Cartoon Tests
• The 3 WD Test of Humor Appreciation
obtains ratings of funniness and aversiveness (each
on unipolar 7-point scales) of incongruity-resolution,
nonsense, and sexual humor. In addition, scores for
the total funniness and total aversiveness of humor,
structure preference (incongruity-resolution vs. non-
sense), and appreciation of sexual content (with
removed variance of structure) can be assessed.
There are different versions of the 3 WD, including
a short version (30 items, plus 5 “warming up”
items). Many studies across several nations showed
its construct validity.
• The Escala de Apreciación del Humor (EAHU;
Humor Appreciation Scale) measures six dimen-
sions of humor appreciation, of which two are
structure-related (incongruity-resolution and non-
sense), and four are content-related (sexual, black,
woman disparagement, and man disparagement).
The test comprises 32 items, which are rated on fun-
niness and aversiveness on unipolar 5-point scales.
• The Cartoon Punch Line Production Test
(CPPT) is a measure of quantity or fluency (i.e.,
number of produced punch lines) and quality or
origence (i.e., peer-rated funniness and originality)
of humor production. As many funny captions as
possible are written in response to 15 caption-
removed cartoons of incongruity-resolution, non-
sense, and sexual humor in a 30-minute time limit
(the short form, or CPPT-k, features six cartoons
and a 15-minute time limit). Besides quality and
quantity of humor production, wit and imagination
of the participant are assessed as well. The instru-
ment was tested for construct validity.
Questionnaires
• Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck (HBQD)
assesses 10 humor styles located on five bipolar
dimensions, namely socially warm versus cold,
reflective versus boorish, competent versus inept,
earthy versus repressed, and benign versus mean-
spirited. It consists of 100 humorous behaviors,
which are ranked on bipolar 7-point scales accord-
ing to their typicality using a Q-sort technique. In
contrast to Likert-type scales, which allow the com-
parison of results across individuals, this technique
forces a normal distribution of answers and thus
results in ipsative scoring (i.e., an intraindividual
ranking of the items).
• The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ) mea-
sures four everyday functions of humor (affiliative,
self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating). The
HSQ has 32 items with a unipolar 7-point answer
format. There is initial evidence for its construct
validity and a large body of studies showing predic-
tive validity. Recently, a children’s version of the
HSQ has been developed.
• The Sense of Humor Scale (SHS) measures
playful versus serious attitude, positive versus

negative mood, and six facets of sense of humor
(enjoyment of humor, laughter, verbal humor, find-
ing humor in everyday life, laughing at yourself, and
humor under stress), which can be combined into
one “humor quotient.” The instrument has 40 items
with a bipolar 7-point answer format.
• The State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory (STCI)
measures cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood
as traits and states using a 4-point answer format.
The trait version (STCI-T) assesses the temperamen-
tal basis of humor and comes in different versions (a
short, standard, and long form with 30, 60, and 106
items, respectively). The STCI-T has a well-studied
content and construct validity. The state version
(STCI-S) has 30 items and instructions for different
time spans (now, last week, last month, in general)
and is suited for pre- and post- comparisons. In
addition, a peer-report version and a version for
children and adolescents of the STCI-T exist.
• The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths
(VIA-IS) measures 24 character strengths with a
total of 240 items in a bipolar 5-point answer for-
mat. Humor (playfulness) forms one of these
strengths (assessed with 10 items), and is related to
the virtues of temperance, humanity, and wisdom.
Willibald Ruch and Sonja Heintz
See also Appreciation of Humor; Cheerfulness,
Seriousness, and Humor; Children’s Humor Research;
Factor Analysis of Humor Scales; 3 WD Humor Test
Further Readings
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carretero-Dios, H., Pérez, C., & Buela-Casal, B. (2010).
Assessing the appreciation of the content and structure
of humor: Construction of a new scale. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 23, 307–325.
doi:10.1515/humr.2010.014
Casu, G., & Gremigni, P. (2012). Humor measurement.
In P. Gremigni (Ed.), Humor and health promotion
(pp. 253–274). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Cattell, R. B., & Tollefson, D. L. (1966). The IPAT Humor
Test of Personality. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.
Craik, K. H., Lampert, M. D., & Nelson, A. J. (1996).
Sense of humor and styles of everyday humorous
conduct. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 9, 273–302. doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-
4.273
Testing and Evaluation 761
Köhler, G., & Ruch, W. (1995). On the assessment of “wit”:
The Cartoon Punch Line Production Test. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(Suppl. 1), 7–8.
Köhler, G., & Ruch, W. (1996). Sources of variance in
current sense of humor inventories: How much
substance, how much method variance? HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 363–397.
doi:10.1515/humr.1996.9.3-4.363
Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und
Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis].
Weinheim, Germany: Psychologie Verlagsunion.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (2008). Statistical theories of
mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., &
Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor
and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.
McGhee, P. E. (1999). Health, healing, and the amuse
system: Humor as survival training. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor:
Studies with the 3 WD humor test. In C. D. Spielberger
& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 27–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W. (1998). The sense of humor: Explorations of a
personality characteristic. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Ruch, W., & Köhler, G. (1999). The measurement of state
and trait cheerfulness. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De
Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in
Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 67–83). Tilburg, Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Sireci, S. G. (1998). Gathering and analyzing content
validity data. Educational Assessment, 5(4), 299–321.
doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0504_2
TESTING AND EVALUATION
The title of this entry has multiple interpretations,
each carrying some truth. Indeed, using testing and
humor in the same sentence sounds to many people
like an oxymoron. Some might argue that the use of
humor on a test can contaminate, or interfere with,
what the test is intended to measure because some
test takers won’t understand the humor. Yet humor
can reduce anxiety, thereby reducing another test-
ing contaminant. Claims made for humor used in
762 Testing and Evaluation
testing and evaluation include that humor encour-
ages the participants to appreciate and extend the
content on which they are being tested, and that it
improves test performance by raising self-esteem
and reducing anxiety, stress, depression, and loneli-
ness. It also is said to improve the test takers’ percep-
tion of the person giving the test.
This entry examines the impact of using humor
in testing and evaluation, first looking at test-takers’
self-report responses about such uses of humor and
then briefly considering what the test scores do
or don’t say about the use of humor in the testing
context. It then discusses types of humor and their
appropriateness, concluding with guidelines for
using humor with tests.
Research on Humor in Tests and Evaluations
Test-Takers’ Judgments
Several researchers have investigated test-takers’
opinions regarding humor in testing. Most of the
test takers were undergraduate students, some were
graduate students, and some were high school stu-
dents. The results were positive and consistent; for
example, students rated the humor as humorous
and helpful to learning, the instructor and the lesson
were rated highly, and anxiety was reduced. Some
students found the humor confusing or distracting,
but students more often found it amusing, comfort-
ing, supportive, and reassuring. In one study, stu-
dents who had taken an exam that contained humor
requested that subsequent exams include humor.
Effect on Test Scores
Despite extremely supportive data on test-taker
preferences for and judgments about the use of
humor in testing, the research does not provide
strong evidence for test score gains as a result of
humor. This is not surprising given the limitations
of these studies. For example, the use of humor may
be decidedly not funny to the participants, leav-
ing the humor treatment impotent for this sample
of people. Still, more generally, there is support for
using humor in testing as long as guidelines, includ-
ing those discussed below, are reviewed and care-
fully considered.
Types of Humor
If all the classifications used to conceptualize humor
were joined end-to-end, the collection of conceptu-
alizations would never end. In their 1979 study of
humor in the college classroom, Jennings Bryant,
Paul Comisky, and Dolf Zillmann identified the
types of humor used in lectures as jokes, riddles,
puns, funny stories, humorous comments, and other
humorous items. Funny stories, funny comments,
cartoons, and puns can all be used in a positive way
in the classroom or on tests. Sarcasm, ethnic humor,
aggressive or hostile humor, and sexual humor are
negative forms of humor and are inappropriate for
the classroom.
An illustration of an item and variations that use
humor: A Speed Bump cartoon by Dave Coverly
shows a speech writer advising a man seated at a desk
to keep “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”
in his speech but to remove “and clowns.” This lead
could be supported as a test item with questions such
as “Whose speech is being edited?” or “Who used
this line about ‘fear itself’ and why?” or as a multiple-
choice item with options such as (a) Winston
Churchill, (b) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (c) Herbert
Hoover, (d) Bill Cosby, and (e) Big Bird.
Guidelines for Using Humor
in Testing and Evaluation
The following guidelines can help ensure that the
use of humor will be helpful, or at least not inadver-
tently destructive, in the evaluation process. These
guidelines should be refined and extended to meet
the goals and challenges faced by the developer of
the assessment or evaluation.
Avoid negative humor. Test developers and profes-
sionals more generally should consider their prefer-
ences for and comfort with humor topics and types,
but in any case, should not use negative humor. Put-
downs of people, for example, can have terrible
consequences, and attacking one student can sour all
the students. Negative humor is improper, inappro-
priate, and counterproductive in class and in testing.
The 2002 work of methodologist and humor spe-
cialist Ronald Berk is especially helpful in developing
test items (multiple-choice, essay, performance items,
etc.) that use positive humor. He also elaborates on
why negativity should be avoided in instruction and
in testing.
Don’t wait until the test to use humor. An instruc-
tor should set the stage with humor before the test
or evaluation (if appropriate). The instructor could
use humor in class and perhaps even give practice

examinations that review the content and acclimate
students to the inclusion of humor. Further, in gen-
eral, the instructor could consider engaging in occa-
sional actions that help rule out any view of him or
her as lifeless, rigid, and humorless.
Be relevant. Test developers should use humor rel-
evant to the topic (if available). Some humor even
helps extend understanding of the topic as well as
providing a smile break. An example of a test item
used in a course on test development:
“Murphy can run faster than any other dog in the
neighborhood in his weight class.” This interpretation
is essentially
A. Domain referenced
B. Expectancy-table referenced
C. Norm-referenced
D. Lab-based
Test developers should consider where to incor-
porate humor in the test. Possibilities include in the
directions, headings for subsets of items, item stems
(the beginning of the item, or problem to be solved),
item options (answers), context-dependent material,
even reports for presenting test and evaluation
results. Some humor can be content relevant, some
content irrelevant. Humorous distractors may be
used to add interest to existing items.
Get feedback. Test developers should solicit reac-
tions to humor. The developers can select and refine
their humor creations and should seek oral or writ-
ten evaluations. No comedian would open on
Broadway relying on untested material.
Watch for misunderstandings. Test developers
should watch for humor that is too foreign for some
test takers. Groups that might not understand spe-
cific applications of humor include international or
second language students, and those who are intel-
lectually delayed. At a minimum, the developer
could acknowledge the limitation for such test tak-
ers, explain enough to ease anxiety, encourage ques-
tions about misunderstandings, and note the extra
learning being provided at no extra charge.
Don’t make the test harder. Humor should not
interfere with a test taker’s ability to answer the item
correctly. Test developers should ensure that a stu-
dent who doesn’t understand the humor but does
have a good grasp of the content can still respond
correctly to the test item. One goal of using humor
3 WD Humor Test 763
is to increase the likelihood of answering items cor-
rectly for the right reasons, perhaps by lowering
excessive anxiety, for example.
Humor can be a tricky variable to deal with in
research. If a test taker sees humor in a test but
doesn’t think it funny, did he or she receive the
humor treatment?
Be compatible. A review of item-writing guides by
Thomas M. Haladyna, Steven M. Downing, and
Michael C. Rodriguez advises only using humor on
tests if it is compatible with the teacher and learning
environment.
Robert F. McMorris and Zachary B. Warner
See also Aggressive and Harmless Humor; Appreciation
of Humor; Education, Humor in; Pedagogy; Teachers’
Evaluations, Effect of Humor Use in Classroom on
Further Readings
Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an instructional defibrillator:
Evidence-based techniques in teaching and assessment.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers’
humor in the college classroom. Communication
Education, 28, 110–118.
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C.
(2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing
guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied
Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.
McMorris, R. F., Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J.
(1997). Humor in educational testing: A review and
discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 10,
269–297.
McMorris, R. F., & Kim, Y. (2003). Humor for
international students and their classmates: An empirical
study and guidelines. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 14(1), 129–149.
Torok, S. E., McMorris, R. F., & Lin, W. C. (2004). Is
humor an appreciated teaching tool? Perceptions of
professors’ teaching styles and use of humor. College
Teaching, 52, 14–20.
3 WD HUMOR TEST
The 3 WD (3 Witz-Dimensionen) Test of Humor
Appreciation is a performance test measuring both
funniness and aversiveness of jokes and cartoons for
the three humor categories, incongruity-resolution
humor, nonsense humor, and sexual humor. Several
764 3 WD Humor Test

stages in the taxonomic development of the 3 WD funny but aversive. However, a joke can also be con-
test were necessary as a comprehensive assessment sidered not funny but be far from being aversive; or
of humor should cover a classification of humor it can make one laugh although there are annoying
stimuli, responses to humor, and a typology of the aspects (e.g., considering the punch line original or
receiver. Four samples of adults from Austria and clever but disliking the content).
Germany provided results for factor and item ana-
lytic studies of 120 jokes and cartoons. Stable factor Characteristics of the Scale
patterns across all four samples were selected and
Initially, three versions of the test (short form: 3
matched in pairs for content, mean funniness, load-
WD-K, parallel versions: 3 WD-A, and 3 WD-B)
ing patterns, and style, namely verbal or pictorial,
were constructed, and then the best items were
with or without captions.
combined in the final 3 WD. The 3 WD contains
From an individual difference perspective regard-
35 (forms A and B) jokes and cartoons, which are
ing the perception of humor, two different sources
rated on “funniness” and “aversiveness” using two
of pleasure have to be distinguished. Humor theo-
7-point scales. The funniness rating ranges from not
rists have long acknowledged two sources, content
at all funny = 0 to very funny = 6. The aversiveness
and structure (e.g., joke work vs. tendency, thematic
scale ranges between not at all aversive = 0 to very
vs. schematic, cognitive vs. orectic factors). Factor
aversive = –6. The first five items are to “warm up”
analytic studies confirm that both sources are
and therefore are not scored. The test booklet con-
potent variance-producing factors. Two structural
tains two or three jokes or cartoons per page. The
factors consistently appear: incongruity-resolution
instructions are typed on separate answer sheets
(INC-RES) humor and nonsense (NON) humor.
containing the two sets of rating scales. Six scores
The jokes and cartoons relating to these factors
can be derived from each form of the test: three for
have different contents (e.g., themes, targets) but
funniness of incongruity-resolution, nonsense, and
share structural properties and the way they are
sexual humor (i.e., INC-RESf, NONf, and SEXf)
processed. The jokes and cartoons pertaining to
and three for their aversiveness (i.e., INC-RESa,
INC-RES humor are characterized by punch lines
NONa, and SEXa). The six scores generated indi-
where a surprising incongruity can be completely
cate an individual’s humor preference at a general
resolved. The common facet in this type of humor
level. Structure preference index or SPI (obtained
is that the recipient first discovers an incongruity,
by subtracting INC-RES from NON, indicating the
which is then fully resolvable upon consideration of
relative preference for one type over the other) and
information in the joke or cartoon. The surprising
an index of liking of sexual content (built by remov-
or incongruous punch line was also found for non-
ing the variance due to liking of structure) have been
sense humor; however, the punch line may provide
derived and validated. Funniness and aversiveness of
no resolution or only a partial resolution (leaving
a humor type may be combined to form a general
an essential part of the incongruity unresolved), or
appreciation score.
create new absurdities or incongruities. In nonsense
Reviewing studies of the psychometric properties
humor, the resolution information gives the appear-
shows that the reliability estimates are satisfactory
ance of making sense out of incongruities without
to very good for the scales of all forms of the 3 WD.
doing so. Evidence in fMRI research suggests that
Internal consistency varies between .68 and .95,
different neural networks apply to INC-RES and
mostly exceeding .80. Parallel test reliability of the
NON humor. The third factor, sexual (SEX) humor,
six scales ranges between .67 and .93 with a median
may have either structure but is homogeneous with
of .86 when both scales are completed on the same
respect to the sexual content.
day. With a time lag of between 2 and 4 weeks, the
Factor analysis was used to uncover the dimen-
results had coefficients of between .54 and .85, with
sions of appreciation. Results show that the response
a median of .73.
mode is defined by two nearly orthogonal compo-
nents of positive and negative responses represented
Validity
by ratings of funniness and aversiveness. Maximal
appreciation of jokes and cartoons consists of high The 3 WD humor test has been extensively validated
funniness and low aversiveness, while minimal in, for example, aesthetics, personality, attitudes,
appreciation occurs if the joke is not considered needs, and intelligence. Appreciation of humor

structure reflects a generalized need to be in con-
tact with either structured and redundant stimulus
configurations (INC-RES) or ones high in stimulus
uncertainty (NON). Appreciation of sexual con-
tent is positively related to sexual experience and
libido, and more generally to toughmindedness and
extraversion.
Tracey Platt and Willibald Ruch
See also Appreciation of Humor; Factor Analysis of
Humor Scales; Humor Content Versus Structure
Further Readings
Ruch, W. (1981). Humor and personality: A three-mode
analysis. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische
Psychologie, 2, 253–273.
Ruch, W. (1992). Assessment of appreciation of humor:
Studies with the 3 WD humor test. In C. D. Spielberger
& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment (pp. 27–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W., & Malcherek, J. (2009). Sensation seeking,
general aesthetic preferences, and humor appreciation as
predictors of liking of the grotesque. Journal of Literary
Theory, 3, 333–351.
Ruch, W., & Platt, T. (2012). Separating content and
structure in humor appreciation: The need for a bimodal
model and support from research into aesthetics. In A.
Nijhold (Ed.), Computational humor 2012: Extended
abstracts of the 3rd International Workshop on
Computational Humor (pp. 23–27). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. (2008). Cognitive
humor processing: Different logical mechanisms in
nonverbal cartoons–an fMRI study. Social Neuroscience,
3, 125–140.
TICKLING
The word tickle refers to at least two somewhat dis-
tinct phenomena—labeled as knismesis and gargale-
sis by the prominent late 19th-century psychologist
G. Stanley Hall. Knismesis refers to the peculiar sen-
sation, akin to a moving itch, that is produced by
something moving lightly across the skin. One can
readily produce knismesis in oneself by lightly drag-
ging one’s fingernails across virtually any body area.
The annoying sensation can outlast the stimulation
by seconds and produces a desire to rub or scratch
Tickling 765
the stimulated area (doing so tends to obliterate
the sensation). This type of tickle usually does not
make people laugh. The type of tickle that produces
laughter, gargalesis, usually requires a heavier pres-
sure repeatedly applied to specific “ticklish” areas of
the body such as the ribcage or armpits. One of the
most intriguing aspects of gargalesis is that people
cannot produce it in themselves or at least cannot
do so to the point of laughter. The rest of this entry
focuses on laughter-inducing tickling.
Humor and Tickle
One of the most mysterious aspects of tickling is
that a physical stimulus can produce a response that
looks so much like that which occurs during amuse-
ment and humor. The fact that smiling and laugh-
ter appear during both tickling and humor has led
many to assume that the two reflect the same posi-
tive emotional state. Charles Darwin (1872/1965),
the father of evolution, was one of the most nota-
ble advocates of this view. He thought that tickling
was essentially a physical joke. In arguing for this,
Darwin suggested that both humor and tickling
require similar preconditions in order for laughter to
emerge, including an element of surprise, a pleasur-
able mental state, and a “light” elicitor (a light touch
for tickling and a nonserious topic for humor).
While this view has intuitive appeal, several
research findings suggest that tickle and humor are
not simply two forms of the same internal state.
For one, with humor there is a warm-up effect such
that jokes that occur later in a series are found to be
funnier than those that occur earlier in the series.
However, listening to jokes does not make people
laugh and smile more in response to tickling, and
being tickled right before listening to jokes does
not make the jokes seem funnier. Thus, there does
not seem to be a warm-up effect that transfers
from humor to tickling or vice versa, as would be
expected if the two states were really tapping into
the same internal experience.
Detailed analyses of facial expression also sug-
gest differences between tickle and humor. The smile
that accompanies positive emotional states such
as humor usually includes two facial actions: the
upturning of the lips (contraction of the zygomatic
major), and a crinkling around the eyes (contrac-
tion of the orbicularis occuli), called a Duchenne
smile. This type of smiling occurs less frequently
during tickling than during comedy, and when it
766 Tickling
does occur seems different. For example, in one
study, some people displayed Duchenne smiles even
when they were not feeling positive emotions (i.e.,
did not report being particularly happy or amused).
Duchenne smiles also were correlated with finding
the tickle sensation unpleasant for some people.
Furthermore, when tickled, people who report
generally not enjoying being tickled smiled just as
much as people who reported generally enjoying it.
The dissociation between smiling and self-reported
positive affect during tickling provides some support
for the hypothesis that tickle-induced laughter and
smiling are not dependent on positive affect. This
suggests that these expressions need not reflect mer-
riment and mirth any more than crying when cutting
onions need reflect sorrow and sadness.
Low-Level Physiological Response
Another prominent view of tickle is that rather than
being an emotional response, it is a low-level physi-
ological response that is akin to a complex reflex,
fixed action pattern, or some other type of species-
typical stereotypical response. This raises the ques-
tion of why we can’t elicit tickle-induced laughter in
ourselves. After all, we are perfectly able to elicit our
own knee-jerk reflex. It may be that tickle is more
similar to the startle reflex, which also cannot be
produced readily in oneself without the use of some
external aid such as a gunshot. Of note, both startle
and tickle seem to require some element of surprise
and both produce facial expressions that resemble
the types of expressions that usually occur during
emotion, but are arguably not in and of themselves
emotional states. This does not imply that the tickle
response is unmodifiable. In fact, some reflexes such
as startle can be influenced by mood or other psy-
chological states and so may be the case with tickle.
Sociality of Tickling
The fact that one cannot tickle oneself has led some
to suggest that ticklish laughter requires the belief
that another person is performing the tickling.
However, the one study that has directly examined
this possibility suggests that although ticklish laugh-
ter requires that some external source perform the
tickling stimulation, the emergence of laughter does
not require that one believe that source is human.
Experimenters found that people readily laughed
and smiled when they thought they were being
tickled by what appeared to be a fully automated
machine, and did so even when they thought they
were alone with the machine. (In fact, the tickling
was actually done by a carefully hidden research
assistant).
Ontogeny of Tickle
A newborn infant does not laugh. It is not until
somewhere around the fourth month of life that
laughter emerges in humans. Laughter in response
to being tickled appears to be even more delayed—
usually not appearing until approximately 6 months.
Tickling in Nonhumans
While many mammals appear to experience knis-
mesis (e.g., think of a dog scratching at a flea or a
horse swatting a fly), gargalesis seems less common
in the animal world. Primatologists, however, have
observed gargalesis in some primates such as chim-
panzees and gorillas during the course of rough-and-
tumble play. During such play bouts, chimpanzees
produce what appears to be a nonhuman primate
version of laughter—a breathy panting sound that is
accompanied by a relaxed open mouth and quiver-
ing lower jaw.
Christine R. Harris
See also Laugh, Laughter, Laughing; Laughter,
Psychology of; Laughter and Smiling, Physiology of;
Smiling and Laughter: Expressive Patterns
Further Readings
Darwin, C. (1965). The expressions of the emotions in man
and animals. London, UK: John Murray. (Originally
published 1872)
Davila-Ross, M., Owren, M. J., & Zimmermann, E.
(2010). The evolution of laughter in great apes and
humans. Communicative and Integrative Biology, 3,
191–194.
Hall, G. S., & Allin, A. (1897). The psychology of tickling,
laughter, and the comic. American Journal of
Psychology, 9, 1–42.
Harris, C. R. (1999). The mystery of ticklish laughter.
American Scientist, 87, 344–351.
Harris, C. R., & Alvarado, N. (2005). Facial expressions,
smile types, and self-report during humor, tickle, and
pain. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 655–669.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1997). Humour, tickle
and the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis. Cognition &
Emotion, 11, 103–110.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1999). Can a machine
tickle? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 504–510.

TOM SWIFTY
Tom Swifty might be considered the 20th-century
development of the form of folklore called weller-
ism. Wellerisms, named for Charles Dickens’s char-
acter Samuel Weller, are normally made up of three
parts: (1) a statement, (2) a speaker who makes this
remark, and (3) a phrase that places the utterance
into an unexpected, contrived situation (“Everyone
to his own taste,” as the farmer said when he kissed
the cow). What is typical for Tom Swifty? It is a
wellerism conventionally based on the punning
relationship between the way an adverb describes a
speaker and simultaneously refers to the meaning of
the speaker’s statement. The speaker is traditionally
Tom, his statement is usually placed at the beginning
of the Tom Swifty, and the adverb at the end of it,
for example, “I see,” said Tom icily (icily vs. I see).
Since a number of adverbs end with an –ly, origi-
nally this form of folklore was called Tom Swiftly,
but nowadays Tom Swifty or Tom Swiftie are more
frequently used. This entry gives a definition and his-
torical background of the Tom Swifty, addresses dif-
ferent types of punning employed in Tom Swifties,
and discusses topics emerging in them.
Tom Swifty is supposedly named after the fic-
tional character of Tom Swift or rather, two fic-
tional characters, Tom Swift Sr. and Tom Swift Jr.,
of adventure books that began in the early 20th
century and now total more than 100 volumes. The
original books were written by the prolific American
writer Edward Stratemeyer (1862–1930), who
under the pseudonym Victor Appleton, after hav-
ing published a number of books in the first Tom
Swift series, founded the Stratemeyer Syndicate and
later hired ghost writers to write Tom Swift novels.
The first novel of the first series, titled Tom Swift
and His Motor-cycle; or Fun and Adventure on the
Road, was published in 1910. While the first series
(1910–1941) portray Tom Swift Sr., the books after
that have depicted his son, Tom Swift Jr. In his vari-
ous incarnations, Tom Swift, usually in his teens, is
inventive, science minded, and adventurous.
In a true Tom Swifty, the pun is in the adverb: “Is
your name Frank Lee?” Tom asked frankly (frankly
vs. Frank Lee). However, not only adverbs can pro-
duce puns in Tom Swifties, but also verbs, nouns,
and even adjectives, for example, “I telephoned
John twice,” Tom recalled. Strictly speaking, such
puns were conventionally not called Tom Swifties,
but as the existence of numerous examples posted
Tom Swifty 767
on various websites under the term Tom Swifties
has proven, nowadays they are also generally clas-
sified as Tom Swifties. In a number of Tom Swifties,
the statement Tom says might consist of a proverb
or proverbial phrase: “Time flies,” said Tom ento-
mochronometrically (combining the scientific words
for insect and time).
Sometimes, in cases when the pun of a Tom Swifty
lies in the name of the speaker, the conventional
Tom is substituted by either a fictitious or real per-
son: “My extreme emotional instability arises from
a psychoneurosis,” hissed Eric (hissed Eric vs. hys-
teric); “I wonder why uranium is fluorescent,” said
Mary curiously (Mary curiously vs. Marie Curie).
Characters, or even titles of well-known poems,
novels, tales, or paintings might occasionally replace
the name of Tom: “I’m tired of smiling,” moaned
Lisa (moaned Lisa vs. Mona Lisa); “Do you call
this a musical?” asked Les miserably (Les miserably
vs. “Les Misérables,” the title of a novel by French
writer Victor Hugo and subsequent musical). The
first names or surnames of famous poets and writ-
ers, composers and singers, politicians and scholars,
and other famous personalities (hidden or referred
to in adverbs or statements) might also constitute
the base of puns: “I collect fairy tales,” said Tom
grimly (grimly vs. German folklorists the Brothers
Grimm); “Carmen is my favorite opera,” said Tom
busily (busily vs. the composer George Bizet). Puns
in Tom Swifties might also play upon or allude to
geographical names and places: “South Korea has a
lovely capital city,” said Tom soulfully (soulfully vs.
Seoul); “Don’t let me drown in Paris!” pleaded Tom
insanely (insanely vs. in the Seine).
The following Tom Swifty, based on phonetic
and graphemic similarity of words from two lan-
guages (English and German), is a good example
of a bilingual pun: “Mama is German,” Tom mut-
tered (muttered vs. Mutter). Certain puns in Tom
Swifties involve not simply single words but groups
of words: “This is the real male goose,” said Tom
producing the propaganda (propaganda vs. proper
gander); “I am wearing a ring” said Tom with aban-
don (abandon vs. a band on).
Paronomastic puns—puns involving two similar
but not identical strings of sounds and graphemes—
constitute by far the largest class of puns in Tom
Swifties: “Would you like to buy some cod?” asked
Tom selfishly (selfishly vs. shellfish); “I’ve an urgent
appointment,” said Tom in Russian (in Russian vs.
in rush). Numerous additional Tom Swifties have
provided good models for exploiting ambiguity
768 Tragicomedy
through the use of a single word that is polysemous
(i.e., having two meanings) or two words that are
homonymous (i.e., having identical graphemic and
phonemic representation): “I do not have a multiple
personality disorder,” said Tom, trying to be frank
(frank vs. Frank); “I’m here—with a gift!” said Tom
presently (presently vs. with a present). Homophones
(words pronounced the same but spelled differently)
are relatively rare: “I’ve only enough carpet for the
hall and landing,” said Tom with a blank stare (stare
vs. stair); “I visit my parents every Sunday,” said
Tom weakly (weakly vs. weekly).
Also in vein with the scope and emphasis of
the Tom Swift novels promoting the role of sci-
ence, invention, and technology, conventional Tom
Swifties also touch upon technical and academic
achievements, adventures, and inventions: “I
haven’t developed my photographs yet,” said Tom
negatively; “Eating uranium makes me feel funny,”
said Tom radiantly. Numerous texts of Tom Swifties
are sexually oriented: “I don’t believe in mixed mar-
riages,” said Tom gaily. There is hardly a topic Tom
Swifties do not address. Among the themes treated
in Tom Swifties are women and men, money and
love, marriage and divorce, alcohol and drugs, chil-
dren and parents, and God and religion.
Anna T. Litovkina
See also Anti-Proverb; Puns; Wellerism
Further Readings
Lippman, L. G., Bennington, K., & Sucharski, I. L. (2002).
Contextual connections to puns in Tom Swifties. The
Journal of General Psychology, 129(2), 202–208.
Mieder, W., & Kingsbury, S. A. (Eds.). (1994). A dictionary
of wellerisms. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
TRAGICOMEDY
Properly speaking, a tragicomedy is either a dra-
matic work that combines elements associated with
both tragic and comic forms, or one that sustains a
consistently tragic or heroic tone but avoids a cata-
strophic ending. The adjective tragicomic may be
more loosely applied to nondramatic literary forms
or to real-life situations in which humorous and
tragic aspects coexist, usually with the implication
that the combination is somehow disconcerting, that
an impulse to laugh at the comic element is inhibited
by a sense of disquiet or disgust.
Origins and Development
The term was first applied to drama, rather whimsi-
cally, by Plautus (b. 254 BCE). Ancient drama was
strictly divided into tragedy, which dealt with gods,
and comedy, which dealt with mortals; but the story
of Alcmene, a woman so virtuous that Jupiter could
seduce her only by adopting the form of her hus-
band Amphitryon, involved a crossover between
gods and mortals, so in dealing with it, Plautus was
almost required to invent a hybrid genre and called
it tragicomoedia. After Jupiter, assisted by Mercury
who also takes on the form of a low-born mortal,
Sosia, has seduced Alcmene, the real Amphitryon
returns home to a welcome that does not seem
to him commensurate with his long absence on a
noble military expedition. This focus on sexual infi-
delity and mistaken identity ensures that almost all
treatments of the story, including Plautus’s, remain
essentially comic, but the presence of Jupiter, the
exploration of serious themes (jealousy, exploita-
tion, outraged innocence, and distress), and the fact
that the play foreshadows the birth of Hercules, all
contribute a heroic and philosophical tone as coun-
terpoint to the silliness, innuendo, and imbroglio of
the humorous episodes. The genre of tragicomedy
came to be typified by the combination of the heroic
with the trivial, the intense with the domestic, and
the philosophical with the burlesque that character-
ized subsequent dramatizations of the same story,
notably those by Molière (1668), Heinrich von
Kleist (1807), and Jean Giraudoux (1929).
In the post-Renaissance world, tragicomedy
was first defined and illustrated in Italy: Giovanni-
Battista Guarini’s 1590 pastoral tragicomedy, Il
Pastor Fido (The Faithful Shepherd), exemplified the
genre. From defenses of that play emerged a theoret-
ical position (summarized in Guarini’s Compendium
of Tragicomic Poetry in 1601) that underscored
debates on drama for over a century in Italy, France,
and England. Tragicomedy depicted persons of high
birth (often but not necessarily in an Arcadian pas-
toral context), engaged in private rather than state
affairs. It explored passion and desire but avoided
their more destructive aspects; it could depict dan-
ger but ended with resolution and celebration. Its
humor should not be unruly or raunchy and should
always be modest. A typical tragicomedy thus
sounds and feels like a tragedy for most of its length,

but its ending, like that of a comedy, achieves a feel-
good resolution that should be neither artificial nor
contrived.
This purist definition excludes some related
but different phenomena. The moments of rib-
ald comic relief that punctuate Shakespearean
tragedies—Macbeth’s porter, Hamlet’s interaction
with gravediggers—do not turn those works into
tragicomedies. The Winter’s Tale is tragic during
most of its first half, exploring destructive passion
and depicting brutal death, while most of the action
in Bohemia is clearly comic, involving romance,
innuendo, and wit: Only the final sequence brings
the play potentially into the area of tragicomedy, and
even here, the convenient coupling of lower class
characters (Paulina and Camillo) allows an intru-
sion from a baser comic world of coincidence and
bawdry. This and similar plays are usually referred
to as romances.
English tragicomedies of the period include those
by John Fletcher and Philip Massinger, such as
Fletcher’s adaptation of Il Pastor Fido as The Faithful
Shepherdess (1608). Sir Philip Sidney (1554–1586),
champion of classical purity in poetry and drama,
did not spare “mongrel tragicomedy” from his
contempt, although what he called the incongruous
juxtaposition of “hornpipes and funerals” was for
him but a symptom of a wider ignorance of proper
Aristotelian principles. As the term tragicomedy
came into use in Jacobean England, it pointed more
to plot devices than to tone: The genre was likely to
be characterized by exoticism, grandiloquence, and
extreme examples of classical peripeteia (reversal of
fortunes).
French Classicism and Dramatic Genres
In France, too, tragicomedy was caught up in the
battle between those who sought to impose a clas-
sical aesthetic on theater and those who resisted
it. The most intense controversy surrounded Pierre
Corneille’s Le Cid (1637), initially described by
him as a tragicomédie, but later—with some tex-
tual changes but no fundamental reworking—as a
tragedy. Previously, Robert Garnier (Bradamante,
1582), Jean de Schelandre (Tyr et Sidon [Tyre and
Sidon], 1608), Jean de Rotrou (L’Hypocondriaque
[The Hypochondriac], 1628), Georges de
Scudéry (Ligdamon et Lidias, 1630), and the
prolific Alexandre Hardy (d. 1632) had ensured
that tragicomedy—alongside coarser farces—
dominated the Paris stage, characterized above all
Tragicomedy 769
by irregularity, rhetorical excess, and roughness.
Even Jean Mairet, one of the strictest defenders of
classical regularity, tolerated the label tragicomedy,
provided that it referred not so much to a mixture
of tones as to a serious literary play in which a
disaster threatens but is ultimately averted. In his
preface to his tragicomedy La Silvanire (1630), he
expounded the case for the classical Aristotelian
unities (of time, place, and action on stage), in
response to spirited defenses of irregularity by the
priest and literary theorist François Ogier (1597–
1670) and others.
Since neither version of Le Cid can easily
be taken as representing the tragicomic genre,
Corneille’s use of the label deserves further investi-
gation. Throughout the play, its star-crossed lovers,
Rodrigue and Chimène, are in despair after a petty
dispute between their families obliges Rodrigue—
under a code of honor endorsed by Chimène—to
challenge his beloved’s father to a duel in which
the older man is killed. Although never wavering
in her adoration of Rodrigue, Chimène refuses
to marry the killer of her father, and after further
military and legal ordeals (which he passes with
flying colors), even Rodrigue finally accepts with
dignity the king’s decree that he must wait a further
year in the hope that Chimène will come to accept
him. Although the only death in the play is that of
Chimène’s father, the threat of death is imminent
throughout and a happy ending, while possible,
lies far off in the future. Earlier, the king, seeking
to establish Chimène’s true feelings, bids the court
pretend that Rodrigue, although victorious in bat-
tle, has been mortally wounded. Corneille’s critics
saw this deceit as a lapse of tone and taste—the
king laying aside his crown for a jester’s cap. Few
directors, however, would play this scene for comic
effect, and there is nothing else approaching humor
in the play.
In adapting the play to suit the label tragedy,
Corneille shifted the emphasis of the denoue-
ment very slightly: In the original, tragicomic ver-
sion, Chimène demands to know how she can be
expected to marry her father’s killer “so soon,” and
so the king’s suggestion of a year’s grace on both
sides is logical, but by no stretch of the imagination
can a genuinely happy ending be considered a sure
outcome. In the later version of the play, Corneille
removes the emphasis on time, and Chimène’s last
words are a firm refusal to accept her fate as the
price of national security, thus generating tragic
intensity from the heroine’s desolate isolation in
770 Tragicomedy
a scene of militaristic rejoicing. The definition of
tragicomedy as a play serious in tone and subject
matter but where catastrophe is ultimately averted
needs to be pressed to its extreme to include either
version of Le Cid, and the fact that Corneille
changed the generic label with so small a shift in
the content shows how hesitant he was in handling
the genre at this turning point in the develop-
ment of classical French drama. His previous play,
L’Illusion comique (The Comic Illusion, performed
in March 1636), was defined as a comedy. It opens
with a pastoral scene outside a magician’s grotto,
portrays three deaths and an imprisonment, dis-
cusses love and jealousy, gives a thoughtful defense
of infidelity, and includes a generous act of forgive-
ness and self-abnegation. This serious material is,
however, combined with one of the most hilarious
caricatures in all French theater, the miles gloriosus
or boastful soldier Matamore; along with a highly
contrived happy ending, this gives the play more
in common with Shakespeare’s problem plays than
any other French play from this period. Even so,
Corneille appears not to have considered the label
tragicomedy in this case.
Don Juan: From Tirso to Molière and Mozart
The character of Don Juan/Don Giovanni was
another dramatic subject that flourished across
Europe in this period and sheds particular light on
the tragicomic genre. Juan is essentially a comic
figure who ends up dead. His dramatic life began
in the highly moralistic and melodramatic comedy
El Burlador de Sevilla (The Trickster of Seville)
by Tirso de Molina (d. 1648). He then featured
in several buffoonish versions in the commedia
dell’arte tradition, before entering France in two
tragicomedies, titled Le Festin de Pierre (The Stone
Banquet) and performed in 1659 by actor-drama-
tists Dorimond (1628–1664) and Jean de Villiers
(1600 or 1601–1681). Juan attained world litera-
ture status with Molière’s prose comedy Dom Juan
(1665) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s opera Don
Giovanni (1787), referred to by the librettist as a
dramma giocoso and by the composer as an opera
buffa. In all these works, the central character has
the energy, wit, and creativity of an inspired comic
genius, who wins the sympathy (grudging or other-
wise) of most audiences for his suppleness of mind,
but who causes death, dishonor, and heartache—for
which his own death and damnation are presented
as a fitting and just reward.
Molière’s comedy combines the literary and
moralizing qualities of his Spanish and French
models with the vulgar and physical comic style of
the commedia dell’arte; as a result, it lacks the clas-
sical coherence that was expected by theatrical pur-
ists by the mid-1660s. The play traces Dom Juan’s
moral development in an episodic structure—the
calculating seducer, having already married and
abandoned Done Elvire, attempts to capture two
young peasant girls, before turning into a defiant
freethinker and then a blatant hypocrite. In the
course of his exploits, he finds the statue of a com-
mander whom he has earlier killed (this episode
occurs on stage in the works of Tirso and Mozart
but is referred to only indirectly by Molière, per-
haps because its serious nature, acceptable in a
tragicomedy, would be out of place in a comedy).
He playfully invites the statue to dine with him, and
the play ends spectacularly when the statue drags
Dom Juan down to a flaming underworld. Serious
themes, debates, and actions are here set alongside
comic episodes, mostly generated by Dom Juan’s
cowardly and incompetent valet Sganarelle (the
role played by Molière himself) whose practical
response to the dramatic ending is concern for his
own wages.
Mozart’s librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte (1749–
1838), took from Tirso the melodramatic elements
surrounding the murder of the commander and
from Molière the witty verbal and mental dexterity
of the seducer. His servant Leporello combines the
moralizing earnestness of Tirso’s Catalinón with the
comic gluttony and cowardice of Sganarelle; but
Mozart—probably going beyond what his libret-
tist expected—could not resist enduing his female
victims with a tender and ethereal quality that they
attain in scarcely any other dramatization of the
Don Juan story. Indeed, the transforming power
of music makes opera less uncomfortable than
spoken drama with the juxtaposition of opposing
tonalities: Giacomo Puccini’s La Bohème (1896),
Richard Strauss’s Ariadne auf Naxos (1912),
even Benjamin Britten’s Peter Grimes (1945),
and many others, allow scenes and characters of
almost grotesque comedy to rub shoulders with the
pathos and heroic endurance of essentially tragic
structures. Don Juan himself reappears with tragi-
comic status in George Bernard Shaw’s Man and
Superman (1903), although this is more a comedy
of manners containing a philosophical interlude
than a real fusion. Shaw’s Juan, John Tanner, is the
quarry rather than the hunter, in what the author

described as “the tragicomic love chase of the man
by the woman.”
French Romanticism and Its Legacy
Provocative attempts were made to fuse together the
passion of tragedy with the intellectual challenge of
comedy during the brief flourishing of the French
Romantic theater, anticipated in theory by Denis
Diderot (1713–1784) and by Stendhal (1783–1842),
and exemplified in practice by the works of Victor
Hugo (Hernani, 1830, and Ruy Blas, 1838) and
Alfred de Musset (Lorenzaccio, 1834). Although
they did not use the label tragicomedy to define their
plays, Hugo did explicitly wish to combine what
he called “the grotesque and the sublime”—light
and shade, comic and tragic—taking, as he said in
the Préface to Ruy Blas, the depiction of passions
from tragedy and the exploration of characters
from comedy. Stendhal’s 1823–1825 essay, Racine
et Shakespeare, made it clear that the playwrights
he supported were rejecting classicism in favor of
a dramatic system derived from Shakespeare. The
humor of the works listed is in fact often closer to
Shakespeare’s use of comic relief to make an ulti-
mately tragic denouement even more poignant than
it is to the traditional pattern of a serious play in
which danger is ultimately averted.
Although Giuseppe Verdi (1813–1901) turned
to French Romantic dramatists as well as to
Shakespeare for many of his plots, he retained,
unlike some other operatic composers, a clear dis-
tinction between comic and tragic modes—Falstaff
(1893) is a fizzing comedy and La Traviata (1853)
a heart-stopping tragedy. Even Rigoletto (1851),
although it contains some elements of grotesque
humor, is consistently tragic in its tone as well as in
its ending. The most vibrant legacy of the Romantic
drame was not to opera or high culture but rather
to the French Boulevard Theater that flourished
in the late-18th and 19th centuries. Named for
the great Parisian boulevards where many of the
theaters were to be found, this style of theater
embraced a varied dramatic bill of fare that included
mélodrames (plays dramatizing real-life contem-
porary crimes such as murders), acrobatic shows,
and later comédies d’intrigue and vaudevilles.
Marcel Carné’s 1944 film, Les Enfants du Paradis
(Children of the Gods), memorably celebrates that
world. The French vaudeville is distinguished from
the later, raunchy American vaudeville show pres-
ently undergoing something of a feminist revival in
Tragicomedy 771
some English-speaking countries. Mélodrames were
dramas, usually romantic or tragicomic, in which
orchestral music accompanied spoken dialogue. The
shorter vaudeville form had plots that turned upon
a simple short song called a vaudeville, and was per-
fected by Eugène Scribe (1791–1861, master of the
so-called well-made play). Musical comedy inherited
these traditions, and popular works such as Andrew
Lloyd Webber’s French-inspired Phantom of the
Opera (1986) and Les Misérables (1987, loosely
based on Hugo’s 1862 novel) continue today the
spirit of heroic tragicomedy.
In both Victorian England and the United States,
melodrama flourished, borrowing heavily from the
French form and characterized by tragicomic plots
influenced by Gothic horror literature. This tends to
reduce characters to stereotypes and plots to sensa-
tionalism: In a context where high emotion and com-
edy rub shoulders, the serious is apt to seem histrionic.
At the other end of the cultural spectrum, Henrik
Ibsen’s A Doll’s House (1879) and Anton Chekhov’s
The Cherry Orchard (1904) show that with sensi-
tive handling and understated language, tragicomic
drama, far from trivializing the serious, can bring out
the significance of the trivial without sentimentality.
Contemporary Tragicomedy
In the 20th century, conventional generic divisions
were so widely blurred that almost all theatrical
activity drew on resources from both comic and
tragic traditions. Absurd Theater explored funda-
mentally serious themes through extremes of hilar-
ity and comic inventiveness. Death and destruction
can be very real and very violent in plays such as
Eugène Ionesco’s La Leçon (The Lesson, 1951) and
Rhinocéros (1959); but the distancing effects used
ensure that the abiding impression of these works
is of a mad world in which nothing is trustworthy.
An overwhelmingly bleak sense of pointlessness is
generated, confirming the cliché that comedy con-
veys hopelessness more powerfully than tragedy
does. In Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (per-
formed in 1953), despair is tangible alongside the
virtuoso wit that permeates the text. Tom Stoppard’s
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966)
shares with Waiting for Godot a focus on two mar-
ginalized characters who appear to lead a pointless
existence in a context where significance—if there
is any—is relegated to an undefined and unattain-
able elsewhere. As with the Theater of the Absurd,
Stoppard’s play indulges in wit and in comedy arising
772 Translation
from confusion of identity and from the breakdown
of logic; but its playfulness does not prevent it from
exploring themes of philosophical significance, such
as chance and the relationship between cause and
effect. Edward Albee’s 1962 play, Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? brings a tragicomic perspective to
domestic drama. It starts out as a dark comedy about
marital strife and sexual inadequacy, but as the jokes
and games-playing become increasingly bitter, the
play becomes ever darker, the comedy ever more
grotesque, and the implications ever more tragic.
Tragicomedy has proved itself a powerful struc-
ture, allowing full play to a wide range of dra-
matic emotions, once the fundamental break with
strict classical theory was achieved by the French
dramatists and theoreticians. It is, however, by no
means limited to the European theater, nor indeed
to the drama. Modern and postmodern tragicomic
novels, operas, films, and TV soap operas abound.
Worldwide, traditions such as the Sanskrit drama,
Japanese kabuki theater, Peking opera, even Javanese
wayang shadow drama, developed independently
their own forms of this inclusive and powerful
model, bequeathing different combinations of the
comic and the tragic—even the philosophic—to
their own dramatists and to audiences of today.
Edward Forman
See also Absurdist Humor; Ancient Roman Comedy;
Aristotelian Theory of Humor; Comic Relief; Comic
Versus Tragic Worldviews; Genres and Styles of
Comedy; History of Humor: Classical and Traditional
China; History of Humor: Modern and Contemporary
Europe; History of Humor: 19th-Century Europe;
History of Humor: Premodern Japan; Musical Comedy;
Plautus; Sanskrit Humor; Science, Science Fiction, and
Humor; Shakespearean Comedy; Stereotypes
Further Readings
Dutton, R. (1986). Modern tragicomedy and the British
tradition: Beckett, Pinter, Stoppard, Albee and Storey.
Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
Forman, E. (1981). Don Juan before Da Ponte. In
J. Rushton (Ed.), W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, V. A. (2004). The name and nature of tragicomedy.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Gassner, J. (1977). The duality of Chekhov. In E. K. Bristow
(Ed.), Anton Chekhov’s plays. New York, NY: Norton.
Hirst, D. L. (1984). Tragicomedy. London, UK: Methuen.
Howarth, W. D. (1988). Corneille: Le Cid. London, UK:
Grant & Cutler.
TRANSLATION
Translation is an extremely broad and far-reaching
notion that first and foremost refers to what Roman
Jakobson famously labeled interlingual translation,
namely the transfer of a message from one language
to another (e.g., English into Arabic, Spanish into
Russian, Chinese into Italian, etc.). Translating
humor between languages is notoriously considered
to be a particularly difficult task.
The role of script opposition, an aspect of the
general theory of verbal humor (GTVH) proposed
by Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin (1991), is
an essential element of verbal humor. According to
this theory, instances of verbal humor such as jokes,
gags, and witticisms are composed of two overlap-
ping scripts, one of which is concealed while simul-
taneously overlapping another more hidden script
in a watertight manner. Concurrently, however,
these two coinciding scripts also oppose each other
in such a way as to create a humorous incongruity.
A basic canned joke such as
Q: “What invention made it possible for
humans to walk through walls?”
A: “The door.”
contains two scripts, one that leads the recipient to
imagine an invention that would allow people to lit-
erally walk through solid walls and a second, more
straightforward, albeit “hidden” script that refers to
the everyday object that allows us to move between
the different parts of a building separated by walls,
namely doors. Such a joke presents no particular
problems in terms of translation because, while
playing upon the indistinctness of the preposition
“through” collocated with the concept of “cross-
ing walls” and thus conjuring up a literal as well as
a more commonsensical script, most modern lan-
guages possess similar notions regarding walls and
how to overcome them through the use of doors, as
can be seen by the Spanish and German translations:
P: “¿Cuál fue el invento que permitió a los seres
humanos atravesar las paredes?”
R: “La puerta.”
F: “Dank welcher Erfindung können Menschen
durch Wände laufen?”
A: “Türen.”
While Spanish and German are very different
languages in formal terms, both translations closely

mirror the original English witticism in both form
and content. Furthermore, the script opposition
remains identical in both languages. Translational
problems arise when verbal humor is either
extremely language specific, extremely culture spe-
cific, or, as is often the case, a combination of lingua-
cultural specificity.
Equivalence and (Un)translatability
The translation of humor challenges two major prin-
ciples of translation theory that have been greatly
debated over the centuries, namely those of equiva-
lence and translatability. Due to the very nature of
languages, which are all different from one another
in terms of, for example, diverse words, unlike syn-
tactic structures, grammatical systems, and so on,
formal equivalence in translation is virtually impos-
sible to achieve. Similarly, the notion of translat-
ability, which refers to the transfer of meaning from
one language to another without suffering major
changes with respect to the source text, is espe-
cially hard to sustain in the case of humor, owing
to factors pertaining to lingua-cultural divergence.
Yet verbal humor is translated—suffice it to think
of the verbal dexterity of writers such as William
Shakespeare, Giovanni Boccaccio, and James Joyce
and comedians like the Marx Brothers and Woody
Allen, all of whom have been successfully trans-
lated into dozens of languages. However, many such
translations are quite different from the original
texts. In fact, what is actually meant by (un)translat-
ability in the case of humor are the radical changes
that a text has to undergo from one language to
another, changes that often involve the forgoing of
formal equivalence in exchange for dynamic equiva-
lence. Dynamic equivalence refers to a type of cor-
respondence that sets out to produce an effect on
the target reader that is similar to the effect caused
by the source text on the source reader even if this
means forgoing formal likeness. Thus, in the case of
humorous texts, dynamic equivalence is the means
by which a humorous effect can be achieved even
though the translation may involve drastic depar-
tures from the source text in order to justify a posi-
tive humor response in the recipient.
Language and Culture
Hilaire Belloc’s well-known epigram: “When I am
dead, I hope it may be said / ‘His sins were scarlet
but his books were read’” exemplifies how verbal
humor can exploit linguistic ambiguity to extremes.
Translation 773
In this case, the lingua-specificity of the homophone
red/read, which is counterpointed with the term
scarlet creates two perfectly overlapping scripts in
which hidden oppositions pleasantly surprise and
amuse the reader. It is unlikely that there are other
languages in which the words red and read will
contain the same identical duplicity and this creates
a translational challenge that will inevitably lead
translators to employ a series of strategies that will
overcome the linguistic hurdles involved.
One of the most radical strategies adopted in the
translation of verbal humor is omission. It is not at
all unusual to find instances of verbal humor in a
book, play, or film that are absent in its translated
versions. Another common strategy is that of sub-
stitution of the humorous quip with a totally differ-
ent instance of verbal humor, although ideally, the
choice of substitution will involve retaining some-
thing of the source text, its essence, or what Anton
Popovič labeled the invariant core.
Q: “What do you call a man who forgets to put
on his underpants?”
A: “Nicholas.”
Theoretically the canned joke above can only be
translated into a language that has a man’s name
that sounds like a word meaning “without pants.”
(In the version above, Nicholas rhymes with knick-
erless.) However, an adequate Italian translation
could be
D: “Come chiameresti uno che si dimentica di
indossare le mutande?”
R: “Libero Lassotto”
The male name Libero literally means “free” while
the surname Lasotto can be deconstructed into
“Là” + “sotto” (literally “down there”—back trans-
lation “free down below”). Thus formal equivalence
has been retained in the question half of the joke,
while the concept of “lack of underwear” has been
embraced as the invariant code between source and
target while opting for dynamic equivalence.
The issue becomes more complex when verbal
humor involves culture specificity. Once more, the
British playground offers us the following riddle:
Q: “How do you make a sausage roll?”
A: “Easy, push it down a hill.”
This canned joke contains a pun on the word roll
combined with a highly culture-specific reference to
774 Travesty
the “sausage roll”—a typically British delicacy con-
sisting of a pork sausage wrapped in puff pastry. The
GTVH states that in order for verbal humor to be
understood, the recipient needs to possess a num-
ber of “Knowledge Resources” that include recogni-
tion of language and script oppositions. However,
the oppositions working in this riddle are cultural
as well as linguistic, so a functional solution could
be to replace the sausage roll with a foodstuff in the
target language that alludes to some kind of move-
ment. In Italian, saltimbocca (a veal cutlet) provides
a suitable replacement as the term saltimbocca liter-
ally means “jump in your mouth.”
D: “Come si fa un saltimbocca?” (How do you
make a saltimbocca?)
R: “Prendendo bene la rincorsa” (By taking a
running jump)
Translational matters are further complicated
when jokes are based on popular culture:
Patient: “Doctor, Doctor, I keep thinking
I’m Cliff Richard.”
Doctor: “Well, I must say, you’ve become
a shadow of yourself!”
The Knowledge Resources required to get this
joke involve recognizing (a) Cliff Richard, an elderly
pop singer from the 1950s who had a backup group
called The Shadows and (b) the idiomatic expression
“to be a shadow of oneself.” A translation needs not
only to come to terms with a personality who is
probably unknown beyond the British Isles, but also
to tie his name to a linguistic element within the text.
A feasible Italian translation could exploit an aging
Italian pop star, Little Tony, who like Cliff Richard
was popular in the 1950s and 1960s. Little Tony
was especially famous for the song “Un cuore
matto” (literally, “a crazy heart”) and as hearts can
be responsible for sickness, an invariant core has
been localized for an adequate Italian translation:
Paziente: “Dottore, Dottore, continuo a pensare
di essere Little Tony”
Dottore: “Ma lei e matto! e il suo cuore non e
da meno”
(Back translation: “Doctor, Doctor, I think I’m
Little Tony!”
“You must be crazy, and so is your heart.”)
Given that absolute translation of verbal humor
is unmanageable, it would appear that faithfulness
to the original text may best be relegated to second
place behind attempts at a re-created text recogniz-
able as humorous to target recipients.
Delia Chiaro
See also Audiovisual Translation; Linguistic Theories
of Humor
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed:
Joke similarity and joke representational model.
HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research,
4(3–4), 293–347.
Chiaro, D. (Ed.). (2005). Humor and translation [Special
issue]. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 18(2).
Chiaro, D. (2008). Verbally expressed humor and
translation. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor
research (pp. 569–608). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Chiaro, D. (Ed.). (2010). Translation, humor and literature.
London, UK: Continuum.
Delabastita, D. (Ed.). (1996). Wordplay and translation
[Special Issue]. The Translator: Studies in Intercultural
Communication, 2(2). Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Delabastita, D. (Ed.). (1997). Traductio: Essays on punning
and translation. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation.
In R. A. Bower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translation. Leiden,
Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
Popovi , A. (1976). A dictionary for the analysis of literary
translation. Edmonton, Canada: Department of
Comparative Literature, University of Alberta.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor.
Dordecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Vandaele, J. (Ed.). (2002). Translating humor [Special
issue]. The Translator, 8(2). Retrieved from https://www
.stjerome.co.uk/tsa/issue/16
TRAVESTY
In literary contexts, a travesty is a type of parody or
humorous distortion, in particular one that treats
a serious subject comically. In theatrical contexts,
travesty denotes the practice of performers playing

roles of the opposite sex, a tradition that often lends
itself to exaggeration and comedy. In popular par-
lance, the term is also used to describe a deplorable
version of something, most commonly found in the
phrase a travesty of justice, or in a shorthand ver-
sion, as in “The election process was a travesty”; in
this last sense, the term does not denote something
intentionally comic.
The term in English is originally derived from
the French past participle travesti, descended from
Italian trans (“across, to the opposite”) and vesti, the
past participle of vestire (“to dress”). Accordingly, in
its earliest incarnations, the word denoted a disguise
or cross-dressing, sometimes designating a person
disguised in clothes of the same sex, at other times
a person wearing clothes of the opposite sex, par-
ticularly a man in women’s clothes, and by exten-
sion dressed ridiculously or for the sake of parody.
This meaning of disguise or impersonation has been
expanded in various contexts. In modern France, a
travesti is a transvestite; in Latin America, a travesti
is a genetically born male who assumes the gender
identity of a woman.
In theatrical contexts, travesti or travesty has
come to denote the practice of actors playing the
roles of the opposite sex, often described by the
pseudo-French phrase en travesti. These roles have
not invariably been comic, although the possibili-
ties of comedy have been exploited in appropriate
situations, such as the tradition of men playing
comic older women in ballet and pantomime. These
roles are traditionally performed in extravagant
fashion so that the difference between the gender
of the performer and that of the role is ludicrously
exaggerated.
In literature, the travesty form was inaugurated
by the Italian writer Giovanni Battista Lalli, whose
L’Eneide travestita (1633) parodied Virgil’s Aeneid.
Lalli inspired the French man of letters Paul Scarron,
who published his own Virgilian burlesque, Virgile
travesti, between 1648 and 1653. Scarron in turn
influenced the English writer Charles Cotton, who
penned the immensely popular Scarronides; or,
Virgile Travestie, A Mock Poem on the First and
Fourth Books of Virgil’s Aeneis in English Burlesque
(1664–1665). Cotton’s poem began “I sing the
Man (read it who list, / A Trojan true as ever pist)
. . .” and continued in the same vein for hundreds
of couplets, with the earthy lampoon made sweeter
by the fact that the Aeneid was still a foundation of
every learned person’s education. Cotton’s burlesque
ignited a fashion for Virgilian travesties in English,
Travesty 775
and Scarronides was followed by Maronides, or
Virgil Travesty (1672) by John Phillips, nephew
and sometime collaborator of Milton, and by a host
of other examples. The texts utilized a familiarity
with Virgil as part of their humor, but that humor
was typically also directed at contemporary mores;
the texts were thus half mockery of Virgil and half
social satire. The apogee of the mock-heroic genre
was Alexander Pope’s Dunciad, published in three
versions beginning in 1728. The Dunciad was a full-
length parody of the Aeneid, a cultural and politi-
cal satire about the crowning of the king of Dulness
[sic]. By Pope’s time, the mock-heroic was a self-
explanatory and well-established genre, and the term
travesty had dropped out of titles. The Dunciad, like
Pope’s other mock-epic masterpiece The Rape of the
Lock, had outgrown its generic beginnings and is
more self-sufficient as a text than its progenitors,
though it still employs the contrast between the lofty
subject matter of its model and its own preposterous
narrative for comic effect.
This juxtaposition between the register and
genre of the original and that of the imitation char-
acterizes travesty and distinguishes it from similar
genres such as pastiche, the latter often defined as
a genre in which the elements are intermingled to a
greater degree. It is true, however, that critics have
struggled to differentiate the terms travesty, parody,
caricature, pastiche, and burlesque, with no criti-
cal consensus as to exactly where the demarcations
lie. Recent examples of the use of the literary term
travesty have tended to embrace the aspect of distor-
tion or debasement inherent in the phrase a travesty
of justice. Perhaps the most prominent example is
Tom Stoppard’s 1974 play Travesties, which brings
together Vladimir Lenin, James Joyce, and Tristan
Tzara, the founder of the absurdist cultural move-
ment Dada, against a backdrop and reenactment of
Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Ear-
nest. Wilde’s play intrudes into or is distorted into
Stoppard’s play so that the melding of movements,
absurdity, and history becomes a comic commen-
tary on meaning. The whole is a tour de force that
revives and extends the reach of literary travesty.
Other instances of the form do not employ the
word travesty as such but encompass the juxtaposi-
tion of serious original and absurdist distortion. An
early landmark of modern travesty is Alfred Jarry’s
(1903) short piece “La Passion considérée comme
course de côte” (“The Crucifixion Considered as an
Uphill Bicycle Race”), which inspired J. G. Ballard’s
“The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
776 Trickster

Considered as a Downhill Motor Race” (1973).

The two races are then portrayed as happening
concurrently in the Trilogy, Illuminatus! by Robert
Shea and Robert Anton Wilson (1975), a purpose-
ful travesty of all orthodoxies. Thus, the practice of
travesty lives on in many forms, both deliberate and
accidental.
Martha Bayless

See also Absurdist Humor; Burlesque; Caricature;

Comedy; Comic Opera; Genres and Styles of Comedy;
Insult and Invective; Inversion, Topsy-Turvy; Irony;
Lampoon; Mock Epic; Music Hall; Nonsense; Parody;
Satire; Sketch Comedy Shows; Subversive Humor;
Travesty; Variety Shows

Further Readings
Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second
degree (C. Newman & C. Doubinsky, Trans.). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press. (Originally published
1982)
Hoesterey, I. (2001). Pastiche: Cultural memory in art, film,
literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Karrer, W. (1997). Cross-dressing between travesty and
parody. In B. Müller (Ed.), Parody: Dimensions and
perspectives (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Rodopi.
Senelick, L. (2000). The changing room: Sex, drag, and
theatre. London, UK: Routledge.

The Norse trickster Loki, as portrayed in “The Punishment

TRICKSTER
The trickster is a type of character found in myths
and folk tales around the world, who throws cul-
tural boundaries into relief by crossing them in sly
and audacious ways. Tricksters often display pri-
mal and unbridled desire as well as clever thinking,
pursuing gratification in an almost infantile manner
even as their cravings remain decidedly adult. Ever
on the move, they illuminate the centers of culture
by carrying out their exploits from the margins. This
entry discusses different types of tricksters, issues
surrounding tricksters, and the appearance of trick-
sters in literature.
Trickster incarnations around the world include
Eshu (Nigerian), Hermes (Ancient Greek), Loki
(Norse), Till Eulenspiegel (German), Susa-No-o
(Japanese), Bricriu (Irish), Maui (Maori), and Agu
Tompa (Tibetan). Tricksters sometimes take ani-
mal form, such as Monkey (Chinese), the spiders
of Loki” by 19th-century French artist Louis Huard
Source: Keary, A., & Keary, E. (1893). The heroes of
Asgard: Tales from Scandinavian mythology. London, UK:
Macmillan; Wikimedia Commons.
Anansi (West African) and Ture (Central African),
Bre’r Rabbit (African American), and various Native
American manifestations, including Coyote, Hare,
Raven, and Mink. The medieval tale of Marcolf,
which gained particular popularity in Germany,
pits the physically deformed peasant in competi-
tive dialogue with the biblical paragon of wisdom,
King Solomon, during which the trickster trumps his
opponent’s every pronouncement with a base and
witty riposte. Lists of tricksters see a certain amount
of overlap with those of fools and clowns.
Paul Radin’s The Trickster: A Study in American
Indian Mythology, published in 1956, is considered
a breakthrough attempt to collect and theorize

Statue of the German trickster Till Eulenspiegel in Mölln,
Germany
Source: Hans Weingartz/Wikimedia Commons.
indigenous trickster cycles, although his critical
stance is problematized by contributors to Troubling
Tricksters: Revisioning Critical Conversations
(2010). Radin’s study includes an essay by psy-
choanalyst Carl G. Jung, who theorizes a trickster
archetype that embodies an undifferentiated con-
sciousness with divine aspirations. In the social
sciences, anthropologists like Claude Lévi-Strauss,
Victor Turner, and Mary Douglas have in their own
ways called attention to tricksters’ engagements with
categories of social thought and framing.
Trickster Qualities
William J. Hynes (1997) notes six characteristic
trickster-like traits, not all of which may appear in
any given manifestation: (1) ambiguity, anomaly,
or interplay of opposites; (2) deception and trick-
ery; (3) disguise and shape-shifting; (4) inversion of
situation or position; (5) uncertain or mixed birth,
somewhere between the godly and earthly; and (6) a
“sacred and lewd bricoleur” in Claude Lévi-Strauss’s
Trickster 777
sense of someone who resourcefully transforms
whatever objects are at hand, including the body’s
coarsest products. In many cases, trickster machina-
tions connect to narratives about origins or transfor-
mations of the world and its inhabitants. This last
feature leads sometimes to their characterizations as
culture heroes and spiritual guides.
Trickster figures and their mischievous exploits
are often humorous. They routinely engage in disap-
proved behaviors like lying and cheating, putting the
spectator in the ambivalent position of joining in the
ridicule while, perhaps, deriving vicarious pleasure
from it. Their best laid plans often reverse laugh-
ably upon themselves to humiliating effect, which
in common comic custom never prevents them from
returning to scheme another day.
Political and Ethical Issues
The dangers of attributing universal qualities or
effect to mythic and folk characters has been empha-
sized in recent years by storytellers and scholars in
whose cultures the trickster figure remains alive and
present. They warn against the imperialist impulse
in which Western scholars presume to analyze
trickster-related meanings without full and nuanced
awareness of cultural thought and practice. It should
be noted that the term trickster derives from 19th-
century anthropology and not the oral literatures
themselves.
Tricksters are almost always male and their
exploits are almost always justified within hetero-
sexual norms. Lewis Hyde (1998) mentions a few
female incarnations, including the pre-Christian
Sheela-na-gig and the ancient Greek Baubo. Franchot
Ballinger (2004) suggests that the gender imbalance
derives from the disinterest of male researchers in
recording instances of female tricksters in the field
or in seeking out female storytellers, who were more
likely to tell such tales, since female tricksters are
likely to be found in matrilineal cultures.
Trickster Tales as Oral Literature
Trickster exploits are often transmitted through
oral literatures, sometimes, as in Native American
contexts, either ritually or with culturally mandated
guidelines as to who can tell the stories and under
what circumstances. In other cases, trickster tales
circulate as stories told to children or otherwise
embedded in cultural custom. These embodied prac-
tices have an added level of interest from a humor-
studies perspective. Astute uses of voice, gesture,
778 Trickster
facial expression, characterization, and manipulation
of narrative tone can always court laughter over and
above the words being spoken.
It should also be emphasized that oral literatures
deny the possibility of a single fixed or authorized
text. A trickster tale may differ from teller to teller
and even telling to telling, undergoing change over
time as social and historical developments are
reflected in character shadings. A Native American
trickster like Coyote, who may once have served as
the frequent victim of his own misbehavior, turns
his machinations in some latter-day tales upon mer-
cenary White traders, exposing their arrogance and
gullibility.
Trickster tales are generally officially sponsored
narratives in which antisocial or unapproved
behaviors, however clever and entertaining, end
in some degree of comeuppance for the perpetra-
tor. At the same time, tricksters appear designed to
expose the fault lines in social frameworks by cross-
ing them with abandon, expressing the undeniable
straining of bodied drives against social mandates.
Often unconstrained by earthly and biological reali-
ties, they encourage playful thinking and alterna-
tive problem solving. The Native American writer
Gerald Vizenor has coined the phrase trickster dis-
course, as an avowedly comic impulse to disrupt,
counter, and subvert dominant and dominating cul-
tural narratives.
Tricksters in Other Literatures
The African trickster, Ananse, can be seen in Efua
Sutherland’s 1975 play The Marriage of Anansewa,
which draws directly upon local storytelling tradi-
tion. Derek Walcott’s Ti-Jean and His Brothers
(1958) employs a trickster figure in dramatizing
a Caribbean folk tale. The indigenous Canadian
playwright Tomson Highway has used the trickster
Nanabush as a shape-shifting embodiment for the-
atrically inventive effect as well as political interven-
tion in his 1986 The Rez Sisters. Puck from William
Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1595–
1596) may be seen as a trickster figure, as can, more
recently, the title character in Caryl Churchill’s play,
The Skriker in 1994. Trickster protagonists have
featured in contemporary novels by the likes of
Vizenor in Griever: An American Monkey King in
China (1986) and Chinese American author Maxine
Hong Kingston’s Tripmaster Monkey: His Fake
Book (1989).
Eric Weitz
See also Anthropology; Clowns; Folklore; Fools
Further Readings
Apte, M. (1985). The trickster in folklore. In Humor and
laughter: An anthropological approach. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.
Ballinger, F. (2004). Living sideways: Tricksters in American
Indian oral traditions. Norman: University of
Oklahoma.
Hyde, L. (1998). Trickster makes this world: Mischief,
myth, and art. New York, NY: North Point.
Hynes, W. J., & Doty, W. G. (Eds.). (1997). Mythical
trickster figures: Contours, contexts, and criticisms.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Radin, P. (1956). The trickster: A study in American Indian
mythology: With commentaries by Karl Kerényi and
C. G. Jung. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Reder, D., & Morra, L. M. (Eds.). (2010). Troubling
trickster: Revisioning critical conversations. Waterloo,
IA: Wilfred Laurier University.
 U
URBAN LEGENDS
An urban legend, in general, is an account of a
bizarre occurrence that is purported to have taken
place in the informant’s community, often happen-
ing to a friend of the narrator’s friend. Some such
stories are based on true events, though the details
are typically exaggerated and the events stream-
lined through multiple tellings. But in practice, most
urban legends turn out to be well-traveled apocry-
phal stories that have been told in a variety of loca-
tions with variant details. So the term urban legend
is often used in popular speech to refer to a “hoax”
or untrue story. While many such stories relate hor-
rifying or threatening events, such as encounters
with ghosts or sinister criminals, a large number
are intended to be humorous or satirical in nature.
Daniel Barnes has noted that the structure of many
urban legends is similar to that of pranks or practi-
cal jokes, in that the story leaves a significant detail
of the narrative untold, until it is presented at the
very end. Thus the narrator of a good urban leg-
end misleads the audience and then cleverly reveals
the trick in a device much like the punch line of a
typical joke. And while some commentators imply
that urban legends are a new form of folklore, in
fact some such stories can be traced back to similar
stories told in classical or medieval times as exempla
or fabliaux, satirizing common human failings and
reinforcing social mores.
Many such humorous legends involve sexual mis-
adventures. In one of the oldest, a couple engaged
779
in illicit fornication becomes stuck together in the
act of lovemaking. Medical help is required to sepa-
rate them, resulting in their exposure and mutual
embarrassment. The story, preserved in medieval
collections of sermon illustrations, survives in a
modern version in which a wife breaks in on the
sinning couple and uses Superglue to cement them
together. Another common “exposure” legend
describes a group who arrange a surprise birthday
party for a young woman. They wait in a darkened
room for her to enter, and then are surprised to find
her naked and often involved in some indiscreet act:
preparing to make love with her boyfriend, or entic-
ing the family dog, or simply shouting “come and
get it while it’s clean!” The story, generally related
as “absolutely true” and set in the narrator’s home
town, continues to emerge in new forms as sexual
mores continue to evolve. Yet another, current in
various forms since the 1800s, describes an unfaith-
ful husband who arranges to meet a prostitute in a
hotel room. When they meet face to face, the call girl
turns out to be his own wife, or in some versions, his
daughter.
Many such legends have a strong “revenge”
theme in which the errant partner is detected and
given a comic punishment. A legend popular in the
previous century describes a businessman travel-
ing by sleeper car who accepts the invitation of a
pretty woman to join her in her compartment. In
the morning, he finds that she has absconded with
his wallet, and worse still, the car he is in has been
switched to a different destination than the car with
his luggage and clothes. In a less sexually charged
780 Uses and Gratifications Theory
version, a wife traveling in the back of the family’s
travel trailer hears her husband stop for gas. Sleepily,
she goes to the station’s restroom, and the husband,
not knowing she had gotten out, drives off, leaving
her there in her pajamas. In one common story, the
person responding to an advertisement purchases a
fancy car at an absurdly low price. The woman sell-
ing it admits that it belonged to her husband, who
had run away with another woman, leaving instruc-
tions to “sell my car and send me the money.”
Other stories involve embarrassing accidents,
often portraying the participants as naive or simply
the innocent victims of a misunderstanding. In one
such, a husband starts to work underneath the fam-
ily car (or climbs under the sink to do some plumb-
ing). Sometime later, the wife walks past and, seeing
the man’s legs dangling out, reaches in and fondles
his genitals. Shortly after, she is surprised to find
the husband inside, who explains that he had asked
a more experienced neighbor to take over the job.
Another widespread story involves the unwise use
of a flammable chemical to cleanse a toilet. When
the person using it soon afterward drops a cigarette
butt into the bowl, an explosion results. In many
variants, the victim is further injured when a mem-
ber of the rescue squad cannot stop laughing at the
story and drops him off the stretcher. In such cases,
the absurdity of the situation is the source of humor,
rather than the failings of the participants.
Such narratives are obviously intended to be
funny and now are often circulated through the
Internet as joke texts (though still with the assertion
that they are “true stories”). However, even legends
that can be narrated as scary or cautionary stories
are often parodied or told “for laughs” in oral per-
formance. Gillian Bennett (1993) has indicated a
number of metanarrative markers to indicate this
intention in narrative texts, and Bill Ellis (1987) has
described a carnivalesque narration of “The Hook
in the Door,” usually a scare story, with overtly
comic and sexually suggestive innuendoes included.
Clearly one common function of all such legends is
to show one’s mastery of social situations, especially
dealing with sexuality, that are potentially dangerous
if handled unwisely. To that extent, urban legends
continue the function of older moral stories, in that
they illustrate what could happen if social rules of
decorum are violated. Yet by allowing audiences to
imagine violating social rules, the stories, like other
forms of humor, allow them to flout conversational
rules in a lawful way. Hence the conservative les-
sons underscored by the legends’ conclusions allow
the stories themselves to include content that would
not be allowed in most polite conversation. One of
the advantages of urban legends is that they both
acknowledge the attraction of rebellious behavior,
and at the same time, present a conservative moral
in a ribald and outrageous way.
Bill Ellis
See also Fabliau; Folklore; Hoax and Prank; Punch Line;
Spoofing
Further Readings
Barnes, D. R. (1984). Interpreting urban legends. ARV:
Nordic Yearbook of Folklore, 40, 67–78.
Bennett, G. (1993). The color of saying: Modern legend
and folktale. Southern Folklore, 50, 19–32.
Brunvand, J. H. (2002). Encyclopedia of urban legends.
New York, NY: Norton.
Ellis, B. (1987). Why are verbatim texts of legends
necessary? In G. Bennett, P. Smith, & J. D. A.
Widdowson (Eds.), Perspectives on contemporary
legend II (pp. 31–60). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic
Press.
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
THEORY
Uses and gratifications theory is a theory within the
field of communication focusing on the individual.
The premise states that people look for and select
media content, including humorous content, hoping
that it will satisfy a specific necessity. These media
uses will then have different consequences for dif-
ferent individuals. The theory attempts to answer
questions such as why people choose to access
humorous content from a vast array of media con-
tent available, and what are some of the intended
consequences of such media consumption. This
entry provides a definition for the theory of uses and
gratifications as it relates to humor, contextualizes
it within the field of communication, examines the
specific motivations and consequences for the use of
humorous content, and explains how recent techno-
logical advancements have made this an especially
valuable approach.
Among the assumptions that make uses and
gratifications such a unique perspective is the under-
standing that audiences are active consumers as
opposed to passive recipients of media messages.

Audiences look for and select media messages that
can satisfy their needs. Another assumption is that
audience members anticipate the gratifications they
will get from their media use when deciding their
media consumption. Media competes then not
only with other media for that audience member’s
attention but also with other communication forms
that could satisfy the specific need of the individual.
In the case of humorous entertainment media, for
instance, media companies not only compete with
each other to provide humorous content but also
compete with nonmediated humor entertainment
providers, such as stand-up comedy acts.
Although the extent to which an audience mem-
ber plays an active role in the media selection can
vary, uses and gratifications theory states that indi-
vidual differences will lead to different consumption
of media content and, therefore, constrain the effects
of media. Social and psychological factors influence
the individual’s selection of media content.
Uses and gratifications theory is rooted in a
functional analysis of mass media. In 1948, Harold
Lasswell, one of the most influential communication
theorists, identified the main functions played by
mass media within a societal level; in other words,
he identified why societies use media. These func-
tions included the surveillance of the environment,
correlation of social parts, and transmission of social
norms. Entertainment and anxiety reduction, which
are intrinsically related to humor, are among other
societal functions of media added by other scholars
to this list later on. A shift of focus from the societal
level of functional analysis to an individual level of
functional analysis of mass media marked the begin-
ning of the conceptualization of uses and gratifica-
tions theory.
What started in the 1940s as descriptive research
had, by the 1970s, grown into a deeper search for
reasons individuals seek media messages and a typol-
ogy for how these messages satisfy specific needs.
Uses and gratifications theorists, such as Elihu Katz,
Michael Gurevitch, and Hadassah Haas, have inden-
tified five basic needs sought by audience members.
Among those needs are cognitive needs, affective
needs, personal integrative needs, social integrative
needs, and tension release needs. It is within the
affective needs (e.g., pleasurable experience) and
tension release needs (e.g., escape and diversion) that
humorous messages have been sought.
In an attempt to synthesize the empirical study
of uses and gratifications theory, which by the
1970s had been extensively replicated and explored
Uses and Gratifications Theory 781
internationally, Katz, Jay Blumler (1974), and
Gurevitch created an operational definition of uses
and gratifications theory as being concerned with
(1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs,
which generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass
media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential
patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other
activities), resulting in (6) needs gratifications and
(7) other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended
ones. (p. 20)
Some critics of the theory state that it is too
individualistic, too narrowly focused on the indi-
vidual. Although one could argue that there is lack
of generalization, the focus on the individual and
the social and psychological factors influencing
individual choices of media selection have brought
about new perspectives in the analysis of media
effects. Scholars in the field of communication
have addressed some of this criticism by creating
models providing synthesis to the uses and gratifi-
cations approach. The use of self-reporting as the
main research methodology for uses and gratifica-
tions theory was also highly criticized. Early stud-
ies of uses and gratifications relied on individuals
identifying for themselves why it is that they
choose the media that they choose. Although some
audience members are conscious of the gratifica-
tion sought in their media choices, not all media
decisions come at a conscious level. More recent
studies have utilized experiments and other meth-
odologies to understand audiences’ unconscious
decision-making processes.
Dolf Zillmann, a prolific scholar in the area of
entertainment communication, has conducted
experimental research to understand the reasons
behind message selection. His 1988 research focuses
on the connection between media choices and mood
regulation. His mood management theory asserts
that individuals select stimuli (such as media con-
tent) to minimize bad moods and maximize good
moods. In other words, individuals choose, con-
sciously or unconsciously, to regulate their moods
and try to put themselves in a positive mood.
Messages containing humor are especially power-
ful tools to enhance moods, which helps explain the
popularity of humor in mediated messages. Scholars
tackling the issue of mood management have found,
for example, that women’s choices for media mes-
sages correlate to their menstrual cycle, and that
media messages containing humor are more likely
selected by women in their premenstrual phase. The
782 Uses and Gratifications Theory
idea being that these women unconsciously select
media messages containing humor as a way to coun-
terbalance the depressive mood associated with that
menstrual cycle phase. The individual, in this case, is
still active in the selection of the media message. It is
not, however, a selection done at the conscious level.
Mood management theory focuses on the affective
needs of the individual and is an application of uses
and gratifications theory to communication mes-
sages containing humor.
The affective need, or the emotional need, is
considered an important motivation in the media
message selection. This is especially true with enter-
tainment types of media messages. It is no coinci-
dence that we have seen an increase in the offering
of entertainment programs in media, as well as the
hybridization of media genres, such as infotain-
ment and the inclusion of humor in news programs.
Gratifications sought in such programs include
wanting to be in a better mood but also feeling mor-
ally good and competent. Anne Bartsch, Roland
Mangold, Reinhold Viehoff, and Peter Vorderer
(2006) developed the concept of metaemotions to
account for the different aspects of emotional grati-
fications that can come into play simultaneously
as individuals attempt to make a media selection.
These authors also emphasized the fact that many of
such selections are not done consciously.
There is a rise of entertainment-type media mes-
sages offered, with a plethora of programming
containing humor as its main component. Humor
has also become an important component of media
genres that did not traditionally incorporate humor
in their messages, such as journalism. It is common
now to have large segments of the news dedicated
either to humorous topics or framed with a humor-
ous topic line. A whole new genre of media message
has been created to indicate this mesh of entertain-
ment and information, called infotainment. Not
only have these types of contents been offered more
often, but there are also more individuals choosing
to accesses these messages to fulfill certain needs.
Recent technological advancements in commu-
nications have increased the potential offerings of
media messages to individuals. These advancements
include the proliferation of media channels with the
development of cable and satellite television, the
Internet and its sites offering content from media
companies and from regular citizens, and the vast
number of software applications for mobile devices.
With this increase in media channels, there has
also been increased offering of mediated humorous
messages. This scenario has increased competition
for audience attention among media providers, but
it has also offered new ways audiences can express
their individual choices and satisfy their particular
needs. It has provided new ways that audiences can
practice their active role, a basic assumption to use
and gratifications theory.
In this newer environment, with so many media
message choices available and competing with each
other and with nonmediated communications,
understanding what people do with media and the
consequences of this use has become more perti-
nent than ever. One popular choice of media type
is entertainment, particularly humorous messages.
Mood management theory, an offshoot of uses and
gratifications theory, has offered some explanations
as to why people choose media messages containing
humor and with what consequences. Other studies
focusing on affective needs have also advanced the
understanding of why we choose to access messages
containing humor and what are some of the effects,
on the individual level, of this particular type of
media message use.
Vanessa de Macedo Higgins Joyce
See also Audience; Comedy; Framing Theory; Journalism;
Psychology; Satire News; Sociology; Stand-Up Comedy
Further Readings
Bartsch, A., Mangold, R., Viehoff, R., & Vorderer, P.
(2006). Emotional gratifications during media use—An
integrative approach. Communications, 31, 261–278.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and
gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly,
37(4), 509–523.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974).
Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In
J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass
communications: Current perspectives on gratifications
research (Vol. 3, SAGE Series in Communication
Research, pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and functions of
communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The
communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York, NY:
Harper.
Rubin, A. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on
media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 165–184).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through
communication choices. The American Behavioral
Sciences, 31(3), 327–341.
 V
VARIETY SHOWS
Variety shows were composed of a series of perfor-
mances, unconnected by a narrative structure or
unifying theme. Variety was part of theater in the
United States from at least the 18th century and
emerged as an independent theatrical form in the
mid-19th century. The second half of the 19th cen-
tury saw the development of a support infrastruc-
ture for variety, and the division of the genre into
respectable and disreputable strands, which devel-
oped respectively into vaudeville and burlesque
in the early 20th century. Vaudeville was severely
affected by the Great Depression in the 1930s and
further undermined by competition from radio, film,
and television. By the mid-20th century, vaudeville
was in severe decline, but many of the performers
who had once worked in that genre moved into the
newer forms of entertainment, especially film and
television. Influence from vaudeville can be seen in
the fractured narratives of early musical comedies,
both film and staged works, and through the inter-
polation of novelty acts from vaudeville into these
works. Television further adapted vaudeville into the
televised variety show, which featured singers, danc-
ers, and comedians as well as interviews, and also
into the talent show in which amateurs competed in
songs, dances, and comedy for prizes and to launch
careers as professional entertainers. This entry dis-
cusses the evolution of variety shows out of the vari-
ety acts presented during theater performances, the
spread of variety shows and development of circuits
783
of variety show theaters, and the different types of
acts featured in variety shows.
Variety Acts Lead to Variety Shows
The earliest presentations of variety acts occurred in
the context of spoken theater. They were known as
olios because performers appeared at the front of the
stage in front of the oiled drop cloth that was low-
ered between acts during set changes. These perform-
ers distracted the audience, especially the rowdy men
who were seated in the pit and gallery of the theater.
Given that alcohol was freely available in the audi-
torium, and men in the audience expected theater to
be an interactive experience, olio acts functioned to
prevent fights and other disturbances in these areas
of the theater. By the 1840s, variety shows began
to be staged independently of drama in concert
rooms attached to saloons in New York. During the
1850s, variety spread to Philadelphia, Washington,
D.C., and other large cities on the East Coast of the
United States. The spread of variety as an indepen-
dent form did not end the practice of staging olio
performances, and as new popular forms emerged,
they also included olios. Before the Civil War, variety
olios had become a standard part of both melodrama
and minstrelsy, and independent variety shows had
increased in scale, offering two acts of individual per-
formances, followed by a comic one-act play, a reen-
actment of sensational topical events such as train
crashes, or, sometimes, staged circus displays.
The grand scale of variety shows in New York was
brought to a halt by the passage of a law, popularly
784 Variety Shows
An 1877 wood engraving showing “The Western Drama—
A Variety Show Entertainment” in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Source: Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, Vol. 45, No.
1150, October 13, 1877. Library of Congress Prints and
Photographs Division, Washington, DC, Reproduction
Number LC-USZ62-2109.
known as the Anti-Concert Saloon Law, in 1862.
The costs of staging shows had been underwritten by
income from alcohol sales, and this law forbade any
variety manager from holding both a liquor license
and a theatrical license. This law shut many New
York theaters, and those that survived did so by cut-
ting back on the lavish displays and introducing a
higher admission charge. They reduced the number
of acts from three to two: a variety first act followed
by a one-act comic play or burlesque. In order to
please their now more sober but no less volatile
audience, managers began to rely more heavily on
both male and female performers who used com-
edy and song to engage the sympathies of their male
audience. Other more sensational acrobatic, dance,
and novelty acts continued to be staged but on a
smaller scale than earlier, and the most valued vari-
ety performers were those who could assist in the
acts of other performers and in the comic afterpiece
as well as appearing in their own act. Away from
New York City, variety managers appear to have
staged a much more simple show, and the changes to
the licensing laws in New York brought that city in
line with variety elsewhere.
During and after the Civil War, variety shows
expanded into the Midwest and then into Southern
cities following trading routes, including the
Mississippi River route as well as rail routes. In order
to provide a regular supply of performers to these
theaters, a variety support infrastructure emerged
in the same period that included agents, specialist
press that catered to variety performers, and a struc-
ture for advertising and reviewing performances.
By 1872, the most sought-after variety performers
could command salaries of $150 or more per week,
although most performers earned $75 or less. Even
so, these wages were significantly higher than the
wages earned by the working-class audiences who
patronized variety shows, and they reflect the great
demand for skilled variety performers. In 1873, the
United States was plunged into a deep and long-
lasting depression, largely due to overspeculation on
railroads, which had been rapidly expanding since
the 1860s. The financial crash caused theaters all
over the nation to close, and for the first time in a
decade or more, variety was no longer expanding.
As had been the case in 1862, the managers
who survived this crash did so by quickly adapting
to the circumstances. The touring variety troupe
was the most important development that emerged
from this depression, and it further encouraged the
development of infrastructure that could support
troupes that spent the best part of the season on the
road. It also encouraged the formation of circuits
of theaters in which regional managers worked
cooperatively to be able to attract the best perform-
ers to their theaters by guaranteeing a minimum
number of weeks’ bookings. Managers with inter-
ests in more than one theater became increasingly
common by the 1880s; probably the best-known
variety circuit was the Keith-Albee circuit, but
this was just one of many circuits that emerged in
the 1880s. The 1880s and 1890s saw the further
consolidation of variety into circuits dominated by
individual managers, and variety performers found
themselves unable to negotiate for improvements in
wages or performing conditions. Indeed, the grow-
ing infrastructure associated with the Keith-Albee
circuit, which included a booking agency and a
system of manager reports to inform the booking
process, left performers at a distinct disadvantage.
Several attempts to organize a union during the
1880s were unsuccessful, as was a strike in the early
20th century. But during this period, vaudeville, as
variety was now known, had competition, both
from low-class variety staged in dime museums and
other disreputable theaters, as well as from radio
and then film. By the 1940s, vaudeville was clearly
in decline, although it never really disappeared
 Variety Shows 785

completely; rather it was absorbed into radio and

television in the 1950s.

Types of Variety Acts

The kinds of acts that appeared in variety differed
greatly depending on the century in which variety
shows were staged. In the early 19th century, clas-
sically trained female ballet dancers and male jig
and clog dancers were particularly popular as olio
acts. Singers sometimes appeared in this context too.
The earliest saloon shows relied heavily on male and
female singers, who entertained their audiences and
also led them in communal sing-alongs. Because of
limited performance space, dancers were less com-
mon in this context. During the 1850s, as concert
saloons staged more and more elaborate shows on
larger raised stages, circus acrobatic and trapeze acts
were in great demand, as were classical ballet danc-
ers, who held great appeal for their male audience.
Singers were at a great disadvantage in the noisy
auditorium, but the anti-concert saloon law ben-
efited them by removing alcohol and serving girls
from the auditorium. The 1870s saw an increase in
the number of singers active on the variety stage,
and they continued to dominate variety into the
20th century, although dancers and acrobatic nov- An 1894 promotional poster for the Sandow Trocadero
elty acts continued to be popular. Troupes of ballet Vaudevilles (1894), showing dancers, clowns, trapeze
dancers appeared in variety until the 1873 depres- artists, and costumed dogs.
sion, but these women were among the first per-
Source: Strobridge Lithographing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio,
formers to be eliminated from the program after the
and New York. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs
crash, primarily because they had only a single skill.
Division, Washington, DC, Reproduction Number
After 1880, only the lowest-class variety shows that LC-USZC4-12307.
offered a sexually suggestive show to an all-male
audience featured corps of dancers in the can-can.
Respectable variety increasingly came to rely on
performers who could sing and dance, had comic in the song would have allowed the performer to
skills, and the ability to improvise. While vaudeville retain control of the performance, preventing the
resulted in increased standardization of acts, the audience from jumping into the chorus early. Singers
all-around performer continued to be highly valued also frequently inserted longer spoken monologues
into the 20th century. that relied heavily on puns and wordplay as well as
Most of the singers active in variety shows were topical references into the middle of songs. During
comedians, but rather than offering spoken routines those sections, the accompanying theater orchestra
of jokes, they presented a small number of character most likely stopped playing, leaving the pianist, who
types through song. Variety songs relied on a stan- often led the ensemble, to vamp until the sung mate-
dardized structure and comic singers interpolated rial resumed. Comic skills and the ability to impro-
lines of spoken commentary on the text or some vise comedy were the most valued skills possessed
local topic, most often between the verse and the by these performers, and songs were often delivered
chorus. While there is little discussion of audiences in heightened speech. In many ways, these comic
singing along with choruses in variety in the 1870s, character singers can be seen as the precursors to
the insertion of a spoken monologue at that point stand-up comedians.
786 Verbal Dueling
The characters represented by comic singers were
most often based on an ethnic or racial identity. The
blackface minstrel character came to variety from
minstrelsy and functioned in a fairly similar way
in both contexts, although in variety the blackface
character was always the butt of the joke. The Irish
character also came from minstrelsy, and other
ethnic characters, including the “Dutch” (German)
and the “Hebrew” (Jewish), were added during the
1870s and 1880s. During the 1870s, there was only
one comic role available for female performers—that
of the male impersonator. These women depicted
high-class men offering both the fantasy of leisure
and class critique to the men in their audiences.
Other female comic roles, such as the Irish tough girl
depicted by Maggie Kline, appeared toward the end
of the 19th century and were soon joined by Jewish
female characters, but female comics were always
vastly outnumbered by men.
In the 20th century, this tendency continued,
although women sometimes acted as the straight
partner to a comic. This was particularly true for
husband and wife acts. Both the audience and vari-
ety, and later vaudeville, managers seem to have
found the idea of women in comedy disturbing. The
overwhelming role for women was to be pretty and
tuneful. While women could perform novelty acts
that involved nontraditional roles, such as acrobats
or multi-instrumentalists, these women were always
exceptions, and there is no indication that women
ever took part in the kind of knockabout comedy
performed by acrobats. There seems to have been a
great reluctance for women to appear grotesque or
unattractive, on the part of performers, managers,
and the audience. This tendency continued well into
the 20th century, although by mid-century there
were certainly female performers in ethnic roles
who were willing to rely on physical comedy for
humor.
Gillian M. Rodger
See also Comedy; Dialect Humor; Low Comedy; Sketch
Comedy Shows; Travesty
Further Readings
Jenkins, H. (1992). What made pistachio nuts? Early sound
comedy and the vaudeville aesthetic. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Rodger, G. M. (2010). Champagne Charlie and Pretty
Jemima: Variety theater in the nineteenth century.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Slide, A. (Ed.). (1994). The encyclopedia of vaudeville.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Snyder, R. W. (1989). The voice of the city: Vaudeville and
popular culture in New York. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Staples, S. (1984). Male-female comedy teams in American
vaudeville, 1865–1932. Ann Arbor: UMI Research
Press.
VAUDEVILLE
See Comic Opera; Music Hall; Musical
Comedy; Sketch Comedy Shows; Travesty;
Variety Shows
VERBAL DUELING
Among the array of verbal practices that count as
speech play, verbal dueling is a practice in which the
talk that frequently characterizes everyday humor
interactions is formalized and ritualized to produce
a competitive display of wit and dexterity. Verbal
dueling requires at least two participants who know
and understand the performance conventions that
govern the language game for their social group. In
a verbal duel, a participant produces an utterance; a
second participant must then surpass the utterance
of the first with a repartee that listeners consider to
be cleverer than the contribution of the first partici-
pant. The participant manipulates linguistic features
at any level, in relation to each other and in relation
to the sociocultural contexts in which they occur, to
produce an unexpected redirection or reinterpreta-
tion of a previously introduced idea. The result is
language that is innovative, humorous, and creative.
Within the category of verbal dueling lie games of
ritual insult, where participants vie in publicly hurl-
ing insults and invectives at each other. The African
American game of ritual insult known variously as
dozens, sounding, ranking, snapping, capping, and
scoring has had a global impact on popular culture.
Researchers have observed verbal dueling cross-
culturally and diachronically. It generally has specific
conventions that vary with the sociocultural context
of a group. Joel Sherzer (2002), who has studied
speech play across cultures, observes that rhyme
and rhythm, as well as phonological, syntactic, and
semantic play, may be involved in verbal dueling. In

some cultures, it is poetic or combines with musical
dueling. Shakespearean literature is a rich source of
verbal dueling. In a scene from Romeo and Juliet, for
example, Mercutio and Romeo engage in dialogue
in which Mercutio conceptualizes Romeo’s wit as
cheverel and a “most sharp sauce.” The two then
compete in creatively redirecting focus and meaning
through metaphoric extension.
In contemporary United States, verbal dueling
often occurs in public venues, as an icebreaker at
business and social gatherings and among friends.
Joel Sherzer relates an exchange where an unex-
pected pragmatic juxtaposition of meaning leads
to a verbal duel based on a proverb. Researchers
associate verbal dueling in some cultures exclusively
with men, but in this exchange in the United States,
the exchange takes place between two female par-
ticipants. In complaining about finding dates, the
first participant quotes the first clause of the famil-
iar proverb: “You can lead a horse to water . . . .”
While commiserating with the first participant, the
second participant has the last word in creativity;
she provides a clever and innovative alternative to
the standard follow-up clause “but you can’t make it
drink,” pointing out instead that “you can’t make it
ask you for a date.”
While the broad category of verbal dueling
involves competition in displaying wit and clever-
ness, there is not necessarily an intent to attack the
other participant. In the subcategory of ritual insult,
on the other hand, the goal is to outdo an opponent
in uttering insults. Despite the apparent aggressive-
ness of ritual insult, the practice is often a form of
friendly teasing, done without animus. Ritual insult
often follows a standard structure that includes
a linguistic or not linguistic form that serves as a
marker that the material is in the spirit of a game.
Certain topics are acceptable in ritual insult, while
others can lead to interpretation of a playful jibe as a
serious insult. One cue that an insult is not meant as
a serious affront is the sheer implausibility of a claim
made by a participant; if a participant makes a claim
that the targeted participant could take as true, it
might be seen as a serious affront.
The nature of the social relationship that holds
between the participants and the audience witness-
ing a game of insult is a central criterion in determin-
ing the potential for an insult to receive a humorous
interpretation. Performance before other members
of a social group tends to mediate interpretation of
an insult as part of a game, rather than as a seri-
ous insult. Listeners who are part of the social group
Verbal Dueling 787
share background knowledge, conventions, assump-
tions, and cultural understandings that color their
interpretations. They presumably also share good-
will and solidarity with members of the group.
Researchers have observed joking practices
involving insult among groups from diverse regions
of the world, including Australia, Turkey, Africa, the
Aleutian Islands, and Greenland. In some cultures,
games of ritual insult serve the function of a safety
valve, relieving tension or settling disputes without
seriously antagonistic confrontation; even in these
instances, there is often an element of play. In Israel,
for example, both boys and girls are encouraged to
engage in a game of formalized ritual insult called
brogez, in order to regulate conflict. Greenland
Eskimos use ritual insult as a way of settling an
argument between two men. The tribe assembles to
watch the men engage in sessions where they accom-
pany themselves on drums as they hurl invectives
and satirical abuse at each other. They may, during
the course of the event, make aggressive, threaten-
ing gestures toward each other. The bashing sessions
sometimes continue, at intervals, for many months
or even years. The game of insult ends when either
one of the participants runs out of witty insults
or the audience shows through its reactions that
one participant has clearly outdone the other. The
winner of the verbal matches is then determined
to be the winner of the dispute that triggered the
competition. The victor gains or maintains prestige
within the group, while the loser may experience
loss of face or even disgrace that sends him into
voluntary exile.
In the European tradition, a form of ritual insult
known as flyting existed in early Anglo-Saxon
and Germanic cultures. Flyting derives from an
Old English word that means “to contend” or “to
strive,” generally in a sense of scolding or wrangling.
The genre of flyting flourished during Viking times;
its popularity in England declined and the genre dis-
appeared in the 15th century, though the tradition
held an important place in Scots literature during the
Renaissance. Originally, episodes of flyting occurred
before street crowds that spontaneously formed to
hear the competition. Opponents in flyting used
sexual and scatological reference to bait and tease
each other, as if attempting to instigate a physical
confrontation. The insulting and egging on of oppo-
nents, largely through accusations of cowardice and
perceived sexual perversion, allowed a public outlet
for venting, without participants actually engaging
in violence. The verbal rivalry between Beowulf and
788 Verbal Dueling
Unferth in the epic Beowulf provides an example
where flyting is a prelude to battle and a form of
combat itself. Stefan Einarsson (1957) cites instances
of flyting in Icelandic literature. One such story has
two missionaries to Iceland accused of homosexual-
ity: The bishop is said to have given birth to nine
children, with his assistant being the father.
Outrageously implausible insults occur in the
African American tradition of playing the dozens.
A game of dozens begins when a speaker, usually
a male adolescent, delivers a humorously insult-
ing statement to another person, who is generally
a member of his social group. He speaks in a loud
voice, for the benefit of other members of his social
group who are usually present and able to wit-
ness the game of dozens. To save face, the speaker
receiving the insult is then obligated to enter the
game by responding with an insult meant to sur-
pass the insult of the first speaker in cleverness and
wit. The responding insult may be unrelated to the
first or it may build on an idea expressed in the
previous insult.
In the dozens, the focus is typically on topics that
are taboo, such as incest, personal flaws, sexual
topics, and relatives. Topics such as dead relatives
and menstruation are disallowed. “Mother” is the
primary target; a participant may make ridiculous
mother claims regarding weight, style of dress, smell,
poverty, and ugliness. The following examples of
dozens are from the 1972 work of William Labov,
who conducted extensive research on the linguistic
practices of African American male adolescents. The
insults are framed in the syntax and phonology of
African American Vernacular English, as in the fol-
lowing insult targeting ugliness in a mother: “Your
mama sent her picture to the lonely hearts club. They
wrote her back and said, ‘We ain’t that lonely.’”
“At least my . . .” is one of several conventional
markers that may launch a response to an insult.
The example below illustrates an initial insult that
attacks mother, followed by an insult beginning with
“at least” that builds on the first by making a com-
parison meant to surpass the first insult in a display
of verbal acumen and wit.
Participant 1: Your mother live in a garbage can.
Participant 2: Least I don’t live on 1122 Boogie
Woogie Avenue, two garbage cans
to the right.
In the sequence above, the second participant
expands and elaborates on the idea of a garbage can
as a home by creating a community of garbage can
homes located at a dubious site named for an ele-
ment of earlier African American culture. The insult
does not specifically mention mother, but an indi-
rect message is that she also lives there. Because of
the sacred position that mother holds, joking about
mother may have implications of smashing an icon,
in the African American community, as well as in
other groups in which mother insults occur.
Researchers identify “mother rhymes,” similar
to those that occur in the contemporary African
American tradition of the dozens, among Yoruba,
Efik, Dogon, and Bantu groups. In West African
societies, community members sang “songs of
derision,” where they engaged in satirical public
commentary to express complaints and criticisms
of others. Songs of derision allowed speakers to
avoid face-to-face confrontation, providing a safer,
more effective way of criticizing and dealing with
conflict; the target of a song was forced to accept
the public criticism, similar to the way Americans
must “be a good sport.” Scholars believe that slaves
brought West African songs of derision with them
to America. In the fields, slaves in America pub-
licly used coded satirical commentary to air com-
plaints against other slaves and against the master.
Researchers believe the contemporary game of doz-
ens evolved from West African mother rhymes and
songs of derision; dozens, particularly those of past
generations, are often characterized by rhymes and
distinctive rhythms
The practice of battling in hip-hop culture has
roots in the African American community that
connect it closely with the tradition of playing the
dozens. Battling, also known as freestyling, is a
rap competition in which two rival hip-hop artists
compete in extemporaneously boasting and insult-
ing each other in rhyme. A difference between play-
ing the dozens and battling is that while the dozens
requires making claims that are absurd or impos-
sible, artists engaged in battling produce insults that
they may intend for an audience and opponent to
perceive as true. As in other forms of ritual insult,
what can count as an insult is dependent on the val-
ues of the culture in which the battle takes place. As
a counterculture grounded in the African American
urban environment, the hip-hop movement rejects
establishment values. This plays out in battling
results that privilege the difficulties associated with
urban street life, while disparaging the comforts
of suburban life. A battling scene from the movie
8 Mile (2002), featuring the White artist Eminem,
highlights the markedness of establishment values.

In the movie, Eminem battles an African American
artist. White hip-hop artists have experienced diffi-
culty gaining acceptance in hip-hop culture because
of perceptions of affluent background and lack of
cultural authenticity. Eminem turns the tables by
producing an insult that casts his African American
opponent as an imposter who comes from a subur-
ban home where he has an intact nuclear family.
Through battling, ritual insult has expanded
from the African American community to become
a part of international hip-hop. In the United States,
it has become a part of popular culture; youth of
all ethnicities engage in playing the dozens, and the
Internet is rife with examples of “yo mama” jokes.
In 2006 and 2007, MTV aired a game show called
Yo Momma in which contestants vied against one
another in playing the dozens. Speech play having
elements of ritual insult occurs in relation to more
serious issues, as well. Jerome Neu (2007), who has
studied the nature and effects of insults, observes
that in the longstanding feud between Gore Vidal
and Norman Mailer, at a social event, Vidal made
a cleverly phrased criticism of Mailer’s most recent
book. Mailer responded with his fist, knocking
Vidal to the floor. Maintaining composure while ris-
ing from the floor, Vidal continued to insult with
the quick repartee, “Once again, words have failed
Norman.” Neu acknowledges that this story is “per-
haps apocryphal.” We do not know with certainty
that Vidal delivered the quote or, if delivered, what
the exact phrasing was. Still, versions of the story
appear in various locations.
Politicians engage in a type of public insult that
is to some extent ritualized when they regularly hurl
insults and criticisms at each other. Since opponents
in an election are not often in each other’s presence,
they typically refer to each other in the third person
in describing what they portray as failed policies and
flawed vision. When an election is over, they shake
hands and often share a joke or engage in other non-
insulting forms of speech play.
Jacquelyn Rahman
See also Play and Humor; Verbal Humor
Further Readings
Einarsson, S. (1957). A history of Icelandic literature. New
York, NY: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hughes, G. (1998). Swearing: A social history of foul
language, oaths and profanity in English. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Verbal Humor 789
Katriel, T. (1985). Brogez: Ritual and strategy in Israeli
children’s conflicts. Language in Society, 14, 467–490.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the
Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Morgan, M. (2002). Language, discourse and power in
African American culture. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Neu, J. (2007). Sticks and stones: The philosophy of insult.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, J. (2012, June). The N word: Its history and use
in the African American community. Journal of English
Linguistics, 40, 137–171.
Sherzer, J. (2002). Speech play and verbal art. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
van Dam, T. (1954). The influence of West African songs of
derision in the New World. African Music, 1(1), 53–56.
Wajnryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted: A good look at bad
language. New York, NY: Free Press.
VERBAL HUMOR
The term verbal humor has been used in two dif-
ferent and incompatible ways. This entry discusses
both uses separately.
Verbal Humor as Opposed
to Referential Humor
Verbal humor can be used to distinguish humor that
is expressed verbally but is not “referential humor.”
Verbal humor is humor that involves, crucially and
besides the normal semantic and pragmatic mecha-
nisms of any form of humor, a reference to the lin-
guistic form of the signifier of the utterance or parts
of it. The signifier is the physical medium of the lin-
guistic expression (sounds, written letters, etc.). This
includes all “formal” levels: the phonetic, phonolog-
ical, morphological, and syntactic levels. Referential
humor, on the contrary, is based only on semantic
and pragmatic factors, or the meaning of words and
their context.
The distinction between referential and verbal
humor is meant to parallel the distinction, already
introduced by Cicero, between humor de re (of the
subject matter) and de dicto (of the expression).
Cicero’s exact wording in De oratore LIX (sections
240, 248) is as follows: jokes (facetiae) can be “about
what is said” (dicto) or about “the thing” (re). This
opposition has been used by many scholars often
with a different terminology and without acknowl-
edging the original source, including Violette Morin
790 Verbal Humor
(referential vs. semantic) Umberto Eco (situational
play vs. play on words), Pierre Guiraud (bon mots
[quips] vs. puns), Charles Hockett (prosaic vs.
poetic), Sigmund Freud (verbal vs. conceptual), and
many others.
Neurolinguistic research suggests that there is a
neurological basis for the distinction. MRIs have
shown that different areas of the brain are involved
in the processing of verbal and referential jokes (pho-
nological and semantic jokes, respectively, in Vinod
Goel and Raymond Dolan’s terminology). Verbal/
phonological jokes activate Broca’s area, which is
used in language processing, while referential ones
do not.
Cicero went so far as to propose a test for the
determination of whether an instance of humor is
verbal or referential. The test consists of translating
the text into a different language or paraphrasing
it. If the change in wording results in the loss of the
humor, then the humor is verbal, otherwise it is refer-
ential. This test is not without its flaws, as systematic
and unsystematic parallelisms may exist between lan-
guages that would allow one, albeit infrequently, to
translate a given pun from one language to another
while preserving the humor. So one would need to
refine the test, stipulating that it needs to work if
the text is translated into any language, thus making
the test impractical. Furthermore, skilled translators
can often find equivalent situations or wordings that
allow the construction of an equivalent joke in the
target language and it thus becomes difficult to assess
whether the translation is literal enough to warrant
being considered as valid in the test. Therefore, while
both interlinguistic translation and paraphrasing can
serve as good heuristics to decide whether a given
instance of humor is verbal or referential, they can-
not be used for scientific purposes.
The decision as to whether an instance of humor
is verbal or referential must therefore include a full
linguistic analysis. The criterion will be whether ref-
erence must be made in the analysis to a formal level
of language or whether only reference to semantics
and pragmatics is necessary. In the former case,
the humor is verbal, in the latter referential. For
example, in the pun “Why did the cookie cry?” “Its
mother had been away for so long,” the string of
phonemes underlying “away for” can be interpreted
as ambiguous with the string “a wafer.” Clearly,
if the pun is translated in another language, the
humor is lost (since the overlap between “a wafer”
and “away for” will no longer be present). Any
description of the semantic mechanisms underlying
the joke will likewise have to reference the phono-
logical/phonetic level.
It is important to stress that verbal humor is not
limited to puns, although puns can be considered the
prototypical example of the category. Verbal humor
includes morphological and syntactic ambiguity and
any situation in which one linguistic form may be
subject to two (or more) analyses.
However, there exist some phenomena such as
alliterative humor in which the repetition of pho-
nemes or morphemes has a humorous effect, which
also fall under the category of verbal humor. These
phenomena are not tied to ambiguity in any signifi-
cant way, thus showing that ambiguity need not be a
defining characteristic of verbal humor.
Finally, there exist ambiguous cases, such as
pragmatic ambiguity (i.e., cases in which there is an
ambiguity in the text, but it does not depend on the
form of the signifier of the text) that could be clas-
sified as either verbal or referential, depending on
one’s definition of linguistic form.
Verbal Humor as Opposed to
Nonverbally Expressed Humor
Verbal humor has also been used to indicate all lin-
guistically expressed humor, as opposed to visual or
gestural humor, for example. In this second sense,
verbally expressed humor is the larger class, which
includes “verbal humor” in the sense discussed in
the first part of the entry (i.e., nonreferential humor).
Verbally expressed humor seems to exclude from its
scope all paralinguistic markers, such as smiling, eye
movements, and so forth that have been recently
linked to the production of humor and are not
expressed verbally.
It should be noted that the general theory of
verbal humor, uses the term verbal humor in the
broader sense, in its name, but that it makes full use
of the narrower distinction, specifying particular
requirements for nonreferential verbal humor.
Salvatore Attardo
See also Ambiguity; Humor Markers; Linguistic Theories
of Humor; Translation
Further Readings
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chiaro, D. (2004). Investigating the perception of
translated verbally expressed humour on Italian TV.
ESP Across Cultures, 1, 35–52.
Eco, U. (1983). Introduzione [Introduction]. In R.
Queneau, Esercizi di stile [Exercises in style] (V–XIX).
Turin, Italy: Einaudi.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum
Unbewussten [Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious]. Leipzig, Germany: Deuticke.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious
(J. Strachey, Trans.). New York, NY: Norton.
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). The functional anatomy of
humor: Segregating cognitive and affective components.
Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 237–238.
Guiraud, P. (1979). Les jeux de mots [Puns] (2nd ed.).
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Verbal Humor 791
Hockett, C. F. (1977). Jokes. In C. F. Hockett, The view
from language: Selected essays, 1948–1974
(pp. 257–289). Athens: University of Georgia.
(Reprinted from M. E. Smith, Ed., Studies in linguistics
in honor of George L. Trager [1973, pp. 153–178].
The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.)
Morin, V. (1966). L’histoire drôle [The funny story].
Communications, 8, 102–119.
Ritchie, G. (2000). Describing verbally expressed humour
(Informatics Report Series EDI-INF-RR-0012).
University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://www.era
.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3403
Ritchie, G. (2001). Current directions in computational
humour. Artificial Intelligence Review, 16(2), 119–135.
 W
WELLERISM
The term wellerism is the international designa-
tion for a unique subgroup of proverbs. A weller-
ism usually consists of three parts: a short statement
that is often a proverb or a proverbial expression,
a speaker uttering it, and an unexpected situation
in which the discourse takes place. Typical weller-
isms from folk speech are “‘There’s no fool like an
old fool,’ as the old man said when he married his
fourth wife”; “‘Let there be light,’ murmured the
raven-haired beauty, as she drew forth the peroxide
bottle”; and “‘Keep your mouth shut,’ said Daniel,
as he entered the lion’s den.” While such triadic for-
mulations have also been called quotation proverbs,
Yankeeisms, perverted proverbs, or anti-proverbs,
the 19th-century word wellerism has been adopted
as the general term. It was coined from the character
Samuel Weller, who in Charles Dickens’s novel The
Pickwick Papers (1836) makes ample use of such
verbal twists that add considerable humor to his
pregnant observations, among them “‘I only assisted
natur,’ ma’m,’ as the doctor said to the boy’s mother,
arter he’d bled him to death” and “‘If I do see your
drift, it’s my ’pinion that you’re a comin’ it a great
deal too strong,’ as the mail-coachman said to the
snowstorm, ven it overtook him.”
To be sure, wellerisms did not originate with
Dickens. They have been traced back to the
Sumerian cuneiform tablets of about 2500 BCE;
they have been found in writings of the ancient
Egyptians; and they were certainly popular already
793
in classical antiquity, with Plato citing “‘The water
will tell you,’ said the guide when the travelers asked
him how deep the river was.” Wellerisms have also
been found in the oral tradition of Africa, but they
gained particular popularity in northern Europe,
with Martin Luther in Germany using their biting
humor as an expressive form of satire. Following the
success of Dickens’s Pickwick Papers in the United
States, wellerisms became incredibly popular in
magazines and newspapers as short statements full
of puns, wit, humor, irony, and satire. The media
experienced a literal welleristic craze with pages full
of invented wellerisms based on this formerly orally
transmitted genre of folk speech. The new literary
creations exploited the triadic structure of the tradi-
tional wellerism to express various kinds of criticism
by way of joking indirection. Some of these texts
contained serious satirical comments regarding 19th-
century American society and politics, while others
were created for the sheer fun of verbal play that
could also include sexual humor by way of a sanc-
tioned folkloric structure. An example of frontier
humor might be “‘Put on the steam! I am in haste,’
cried the snail that had crept into a railroad car”;
having a bit of fun with the Bible comes through in
“‘Eaves dropping again,’ said Adam, as his wife fell
out of a tree”; and a wellerism like “‘Business before
pleasure,’ as the man said when he kissed his wife
before he went out to make love to his neighbor’s,”
enabled witty people to express some sexual humor
in a rather puritanical environment.
Many of these wellerisms were one-day printed
wonders and did not gain any currency among the
794 Witz
folk. There are, however, some wellerisms that are
known nationally or even internationally, such as
“‘Much noise and little wool,’ said the devil and
sheared a pig”; “‘Everyone to his taste,’ said the
farmer and kissed the cow”; and “‘I see,’ said the
blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw.”
The last example also exists in the truncated form
of “‘I see,’ said the blind man” with its obvious
grotesque humor. Wellerisms based on the blind
man seeing abound in many variants in numerous
languages, with the third part verbalizing such gal-
lows humor as “to his deaf dog as they stepped off a
cliff,” “as he fell in the well,” “as he threw away his
glasses,” “as he walked into the wall,” “to his deaf
wife,” and so on. Such cruel wellerisms would be
considered politically incorrect today, but they indi-
cate changing social norms of acceptable folk humor,
in this case at the expense of a disadvantaged person.
But people to this day are well aware that weller-
isms are perfectly suited for humorous relief, as can
be seen from more modern texts as “‘All’s well that
ends well,’ said the monkey as the lawnmower ran
over his tail” and “‘I won’t have guts enough to do
that again,’ as the bug said as he hit the windshield.”
Besides Dickens, such modern writers as the dra-
matist Bertolt Brecht and the detective fiction writer
Leslie Charteris also cited or coined wellerisms, with
the latter being known for a series of suggestive texts
as “‘This is my idea of a night out,’ as the bishop
said to the actress” and “‘But I’m not nearly satis-
fied yet,’ as the actress said to the bishop.” Some of
these actress-bishop wellerisms have taken hold of
the folk imagination, and new texts with sexual or
obscene messages, albeit by way of welleristic indi-
rection, can be found in oral and written communi-
cation. Wellerisms as a folk speech genre continue
to compete with jokes, one-liners, puns, and other
short forms of humor, and while they often exag-
gerate or enter the obscene or scatological sphere,
they represent a common well-structured form of
verbal humor that extends from the nonsensical to
the sublime by way of parody, punning, joking, or
more generally stated, the delight of speech play.
Wolfgang Mieder
See also Anti-Proverb; Folklore; Gallows Humor;
Obscenity; Parody; Puns; Speech Play
Further Readings
Baer, F. (1983). Wellerisms in The Pickwick Papers.
Folklore, 94, 173–183.
Carson Williams, F. (2002). Wellerisms in Ireland.
Burlington: University of Vermont.
Mieder, W. (1982). Sexual content of German wellerisms.
Maledicta, 6, 215–223.
Mieder, W. (Ed.). (1985). The proverb. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. (Reprinted from A. Taylor,
The proverb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1931.)
Mieder, W. (1989). American proverbs. A study of texts
and contexts. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Mieder, W., & Kingsbury, S. (1994). A dictionary of
wellerisms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Speroni, C. (1953). The Italian wellerism to the end of the
seventeenth century. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
WITZ
The German concept Witz (pl. Witze) is relevant
to humor research in two ways. In contempo-
rary German Witz refers to the text type joke.
Etymologically the word Witz is related to English
“wit”: originally it denoted knowledge or wisdom,
however over time it came to be associated with the
important poetic terms wit and esprit, as discussed
below.
Contemporary Witz
In contemporary German, Witz is a short, humor-
ous, and fictional prose narrative that ends with a
laughter-triggering punch line (in German, Pointe).
Sometimes a stricter definition, which includes addi-
tional features such as orality, anonymity of the
author, or the use of present tense, is used to nar-
row down the genre. In addition, the way in which
it is differentiated from other humorous short forms
such as anecdote, aphorism, fabliau, farce, riddle, or
sketch may also be defined differently.
It is difficult to determine the role of Witz in rela-
tion to the general historical development of jokes.
German jokes tend to be differentiated either in
terms of the particular ethnic or social group that
produced them (e.g., jüdische Witz, or Jewish joke),
or the ethnic groups that have been the butt of
them (e.g., jokes about people from East Friesland
[Ost-Friesenwitz] or jokes about Jewish people
[Judenwitz]). It is also difficult to say anything
about Witz in the context of the totalitarian politi-
cal system of the Third Reich or the socialist regime
of the former German Democratic Republic as

relatively few serious studies have been conducted
in this area.
In Germany, the study of jokes, respectively Witze,
began in disciplines such as philosophy and psychol-
ogy, but since the 1970s, other disciplines such as
linguistics and literary studies have found this an
area of interest (although research in literary stud-
ies is strongly influenced by older concepts of Witz).
Initially, the German tradition of joke studies was
marked by an interest in ordering jokes according
to their diverse typologies. The most prominent joke
typology was proposed by Sigmund Freud’s 1905
Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten
(The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious).
Freud’s identification of joke techniques (e.g., ver-
dichtung [condensation], doppelsinn [double mean-
ing]) was partly derived from linguistic observation,
partly from his psychoanalytic Interpretation of
Dreams (1899). Besides typological issues, there
has also been a continuous interest in the internal
structure of jokes. For instance, the Dutch-German
scholar André Jolles hypothesized in his 1929 study
Einfache Formen (Simple Form) that a particular
spirit or mental attitude will manifest in a particular
literary form, and that the process of “untying” con-
ventional mental connections will ultimately materi-
alize in jokes.
History of the Word and Concept
The contemporary meaning of Witz as the German
name for the text type joke came to the fore during
the 19th century. However, due to the word’s com-
plex etymological history, Witz also represents an
important aesthetic concept.
In Old German, wizzi referred to the domain
of knowledge, reason, and wisdom. This ancient
meaning of Witz has—with the exception of a few
derivations such as Mutterwitz (“mother wit”)—
disappeared from contemporary German usage.
During the 17th century, the concept of Witz
was influenced by a philosophical and poetical
debate sparked by the French essayist Dominique
Bouhours’s (1962/1671) assertion that a German
bel esprit was a rare thing (p. 223). In the ensuing
prominent (and frequently nationalistic) debate,
esprit was frequently translated as Witz, as a par-
ticular talent for producing witty expressions. The
debate, in which German scholars drew on the
British concept of wit, respectively “true wit” and
“false wit” to support their arguments, and during
which the meaning of Witz came to be increasingly
Witz 795
associated with French esprit and English wit, also
touched on aesthetic issues such as what constituted
the best kind of Witz and how it could be appropri-
ately employed in literature.
As a consequence of this philosophical and
poetical debate, Witz came to be associated with the
human faculty of discovering similarities between dis-
similar things (cf. e.g., Christian Wolff: Vernünfftige
Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen
[Reasonable Thoughts About the Human Being’s
Dos and Don’ts], 1733, §308f.), a faculty that had
previously been regarded as a key talent in rhetori-
cal invention, for instance in Aristotle’s third book
of Rhetoric (chap. 10) on the invention of meta-
phor, or in Renaissance treatises on conceits. As a
consequence, Witz became an important aesthetic
term. Toward the end of the 18th century, it was
reinterpreted to mean a general combinatorial force
beyond objective similarities.
The last phase in the terminological development
of Witz resulted from the difficulty in differentiating
between the mental disposition when using Witz and
the actual products of Witz. It was during the 19th
century that Witz began to refer mostly to jokes.
A very early example of this can be found in Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe’s conversations with Johann
Peter Eckermann on “Berlin jokes” at the beginning
of the 19th century. In contemporary German usage,
this has now become the typical meaning of Witz.
Ralph Müller
See also Joke; Pointe; Punch Line; Simple Form
Further Readings
Bouhours, D., & Brunot, F. (1962). Les entretiens d'Ariste
et d'Eugène [Conversations of Ariste and Eugène]. Paris,
France: A. Colin. (Original work published 1671)
Freud, S. (1960): Jokes and their relation to the
unconscious. In J. Strachey, A. Freud, A. Strachey, & A.
Tyson (Eds.), The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 8).
London, UK: Hogarth Press. (Original work published
1905)
Gabriel, G. (1997): Logik und Rhetorik der Erkenntnis:
Zum Verhältnis von wissenschaftlicher und ästhetischer
Weltauffassung [Logic and rhetoric of knowledge: On
the relationship between scientific and aesthetic
perception of the world]. Paderborn, Germany: Mentis
Verlag.
Hill, C. (1993). The soul of wit: Joke theory from Grimm
to Freud. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
796 Workplace Control
Jolles, A. (1958): Einfache Formen: Legende, Sage, Mythe,
Rätsel, Spruch, Kasus, Memorabile, Märchen, Witz
[Simple forms: Saints’ legends, saga, myth, riddle,
proverb, example, report of memorable events, fairy
tale, joke] (2nd ed.). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Preisendanz, W. (1970). Über den Witz [On the joke].
Konstanz, Germany: Universitätsverlag.
Röhrich, L. (1977). Der Witz: Figuren, Formen, Funktionen
[Joke: Characters, forms, functions]. Stuttgart,
Germany: Metzler.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963). Humor und Witz [Humor
and wit]. München, Germany: Hueber.
Wenzel, P. (1989). Von der Struktur des Witzes zum Witz
der Struktur: Untersuchungen zur Pointierung in Witz
und Kurzgeschichte [From the structure of the joke to
the joke of the structure: Studies on the pointedness in
jokes and short stories]. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
Winkler, M., & Goulding, C. (2000). Witz. In K. Brack &
M. Fontius (Eds.), Ästhetische Grundbegriffe [Basic
aesthetic concepts] (Vol. 6, pp. 694–729). Duisburg,
Germany: Metzler Verlag.
WORKPLACE CONTROL
The term workplace control refers to attempts by
managers to get workers to do what is required to
meet the organization’s goals. This entry discusses
some direct and indirect uses of humor that have
been documented over the years to control workers.
A workplace, unlike most other places, has both
a common purpose and an authority structure to
keep the energy focused on that purpose. For this
reason, workplace humor could be classified into
three broad categories: (1) humor that tends to sup-
port the purpose; (2) humor that tends to thwart
that purpose; and (3) humor, usually silly, that has
nothing to do with that purpose.
Humor that resists the purpose of the organiza-
tion or that resists attempts by management to push
for the organization’s purpose is usually character-
ized as resistance, while silly humor, which is irrel-
evant to the purpose of the organization, is usually
characterized as comic relief. Humor that supports
the purpose of the organization, either directly or
indirectly, has received less attention.
Direct Worker Control
The idea of using humor for any kind of control is
usually traced to the early superiority theories of
Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. For example, Richard
Stephenson argues that sarcasm, caricature, or par-
ody can be used to ridicule deviant behavior and
thus discourage people from repeating it. Humor can
be used to tease people who violate social or other
norms and encourage them to get back in line. Using
humor this way in the workplace might be called
direct workplace control. This is different from the
more indirect method of using humor to vent resis-
tance so that it does not become dangerous.
In an article based on her 1957 doctoral thesis
in cultural anthropology, Pamela Bradney described
the efforts of clerks in a London department store
to tease trainees who demonstrated deviant behav-
iors. In this way, they brought new employees in line
with the norms and expectations of the workplace.
Since then, similar work has shown that humor can
be used to gently correct the behaviors of those in
machine shops and restaurant kitchens.
Another way that humor is used to control people
is by the cultural rules about who is authorized to
joke with whom. Anthropologist Alfred Radcliffe-
Brown (1881–1955) has written that we can learn
about levels of authority and respect by noting who
jokes with whom. In a recent era, it was de rigueur
for male comedians to make fun of their mothers-in-
law, for example. Studies of this phenomenon have
shown how mental health workers show deference
to psychiatrists and similar power relationships. For
a managers, though, this presents an opportunity to
demonstrate respect (or lack thereof) through their
willingness to joke with or about others.
Of course, this sort of chiding humor can be a
diversionary tactic to hide aggressive messages that
would be unacceptable if expressed directly. When
this happens, the attempt at worker control often
backfires. The manager who is seen as backbiting
gains neither power nor respect. Also, there is a very
different way to use humor in support of the organi-
zation and its goals.
Indirect Worker Control
More common than direct ridicule of deviant
behavior is an indirect form of workplace control.
Workers are allowed or encouraged to vent resis-
tance harmlessly through humor, much as a pres-
sure release valve in a machine might prevent an
explosion. For example, Scott Adams’s comic strip
Dilbert is rightly seen as cynical commentary on
vacuous management theories. However, unlike the
subversive humor that led to the unionization of
some call centers in India, or the effective resistance

to management documented in Brazil by Suzana B.
Rodrigues and David L. Collinson (1995), Adams’s
humor expresses a grudging acceptance of the situ-
ation as absurd, but survivable. After giving vent
to the alienation and dehumanization of the office
cubicle, employees return to work refreshed and
invigorated.
There is even a certain joy in having the work
to complain about. This is evident in a workplace
when an equipment breakdown stops the work
and employees notice that they miss joking about
the working conditions. Humor has been shown
to deflect workers’ awareness of the dehumanizing
aspects of the job. Those who would prefer to see
the workers experience the pain and rise up against
it characterize such humor as an “anesthetic.”
Other examples include the “banana time”
documented by Donald Roy (1960), during which
workers put down their tasks as one worker rou-
tinely stole and enjoyed another’s banana. This
“clowning” behavior was not initiated or officially
sanctioned by management but was wisely tolerated
by supervisors who recognized the value of letting
the workers have a moment to vent their feelings of
helplessness and dependence with this entirely harm-
less show of force.
Co-Opting Worker Humor
Anna Pollert documented the joking in a Bristol
tobacco factory and how supervisors appropriated
it to soften discipline. Although the joking routines
were initiated by the workers, company leadership
was “allowed” to tap into them and use them for
pro-organization purposes. Whether the involve-
ment of supervisory staff is welcomed or not is an
important indicator of the health of the relationship
between supervisors and their employees.
Some writers, such as Simon Critchley, have tried
to decode, from the humor in use at an organization,
the incongruity that drives it. For example, much
humor is based on the incongruity between the way
things are, from the perspective of the jokers, and the
way they think things ought to be. Thus, a thought-
ful analysis of employee humor might unearth sug-
gestions for how to build a workplace that workers
would find rational, reasonable, and not funny.
Meta-analysis supports the idea that workplace
humor in general is correlated with positive out-
comes such as satisfaction and workplace cohesion,
but it is not clear which is causing what. It seems
likely that any factors leading to satisfaction and
Workplace Control 797
cohesion would also lead to happy relationships
among workers. Humor can be used as a positive
factor in controlling workers and their work, but its
effects are not entirely predictable and any attempt
by management to co-opt the fun might backfire
severely.
Jim Lyttle
See also Management; Workplace Humor; Workplace
Resistance
Further Readings
Boland, R. J., & Hoffman, R. (1983). Humor in a machine
shop: An interpretation of symbolic interaction. In L. R.
Pondy (Ed.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 187–198).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bradney, P. (1957). The joking relationship in industry.
Human Relations, 10 (2), 179–187. doi:10.1177/
001872675701000207
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in
the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Collinson, D. L. (1988). Engineering humor: Masculinity,
joking and conflict in shop-floor relations.
Organizational Studies, 9(2), 181–199.
Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues. Psychiatry,
23, 81–95.
Critchley, S. (2013). Humour as practically enacted theory,
or, why critics should tell more jokes. In R. Westwood
& C. Rhodes (Eds.), Humour work and organization
(pp. 17–32). London, UK: Routledge.
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2009). Just be yourself! Towards
neo-normative control in organisations? Employee
Relations, 31(6), 569–583. doi:10.1108/
01425450910991730
Mak, B. C. N., Liu, Y., & Deneen, C. C. (2012). Humor in
the workplace: A regulating and coping mechanism in
socialization. Discourse & Communication, 6(2),
163–179. doi:10.1177/1750481312437445
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C.
(2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2),
155–190. doi:10.1108/02683941211199554
Noon, M., & Blyton, P. (2007). The realities of work:
Experiencing work and employment in contemporary
society (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. (1995). Having fun?
Humour as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies,
16(5), 739–768. doi:10.1177/017084069501600501
Roy, D. F. (1960). Banana time: Job satisfaction and
informal interaction. Human Organization, 18,
158–168.
798 Workplace Humor
Stephenson, R. M. (1951). Conflict and control functions
of humor. American Journal of Sociology, 56(6),
569–574.
Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2003). “Subterranean worksick
blues”: Humour as subversion in two call centres.
Organization Studies, 24(9), 1487–1509. doi:10.1177/
0170840603249008
WORKPLACE HUMOR
The international success of the television show The
Office and the lasting and far-reaching success of the
cartoon strip Dilbert both demonstrate that though
the workplace is often a serious and formal place, it
can also be a productive site for humor. When we
chuckle at the lampooning of modern “office speak”
in The Office, or when we cut out a Dilbert cartoon
on the absurdity of office bureaucracy and post it on
our cubicle wall, we are acknowledging the humor
on some level fits our own organizational experi-
ences. Scholarship of organizational humor often
looks beyond humor made about the modern work-
place and focuses more on jokes and humor made
within the workplaces. Humor scholarship focuses
on the everyday use of humor in organizational set-
tings and reveals humor at work is more than trivial
banter. It is an essential part of organizational life.
In the last 10 years, there has been a significant
amount of research on humor’s use at work. Using
a broad brush, these studies focus on how humor
facilitates the formation and maintenance of organi-
zational culture, managerial effectiveness, and how
employees use humor to make sense of and perform
their complex roles in organizations. Why this focus
on workplace humor? Humor is a pervasive and
meaningful aspect of organizational life. Focusing on
what (or who) organizational members joke about,
how they joke (e.g., the language they use), where
they joke (the location they choose or are allowed to
tell jokes in), or with whom they share humor (the
audience they share a workplace joke with) reveals
and offers a unique and often unfiltered glimpse into
an organization’s culture.
Researchers focus on humor to better under-
stand everyday experiences in organizational life.
Specifically, researchers have focused on how work-
place humor is used at work to do the following:
form and maintain workgroup cohesion and group
boundaries (who is in the in-group and who is an
outsider); manage emotional stress at work; make
the monotony of work bearable; make sense of con-
tradictory aspects of organizational life and policy;
negotiate power, both formal hierarchical power
and social power; and structure everyday tasks and
workplace relations. Humor is found in almost
every workplace and clearly it does much more
than make work life bearable. Many organizational
scholars argue humor makes work “work,” or func-
tion. Humor many not be an essential cog but it is
the grease that keeps the engine running.
Humor is seldom without a power dimension;
there is after all often a butt to a joke, but due to the
hierarchical and formal nature of work, workplace
humor is often revealing about the power dynam-
ics in a particular workplace. As a result, there is
a rich history of critical organizational scholarship
that examines how workplace power is actualized
via legitimate power (legal basis for power), dis-
positional power (traits or a sense of power), and
situational power (position of power within an
environment or task). With each of these forms of
power, there are discursive power practices, or the
social and political strategies that shape the identity
of actors and the capacity to act (agency) within
their social contexts.
Organizational humor scholars provide richly
detailed workplace examples of humor as an essen-
tial part of discursive power practices. Humor is
part of the power play used to exert control over
others, but it is also used to resist attempts by to
others trying to exert control. Managers use humor
to directly and indirectly control their employees.
Humor is also used by employees to control and
influence their workplace peers and the labor
process. Humor is used to form and maintain
labor-related identities (e.g., the gendered iden-
tity of work, professional identity of work, and/
or the prestigious nature of work and the work-
ers themselves). Critical scholars not only focus on
humor as a means of control but also as a form of
resistance, where employees use humor to criticize
and challenge managerial authority, organizational
policy, or both.
Functional Use of Humor
The functional use of humor on an interpersonal
level is the tactical use of humor by organizational
members to achieve an end goal. The functional use
of humor on an interpersonal level is often deter-
mined through discourse analysis of conversations
at work. The analysis is based on a sender-focused

transmission model of interpersonal communi-
cation. This model is often termed S.M.C.R, for
sender, message, channel, and receiver. A large
work discourse data set could include audio or
video recordings of weekly team meetings over a
period of 6 months to show humorous messages in
organizational context. The researcher observes the
humor message within conversation and notes: who
the sender of the message was, the humor message
itself, and the humor effectiveness. A humor mes-
sage is noted as effective on two levels. The first is
on the humor’s level—that the humor message elic-
ited a positive verbal or nonverbal response from
the receiver, such as a smile or a laugh. The second
level is determining effectiveness, that is, whether
the humor successfully communicated the sender’s
intentions. This is more complicated because the
researcher has to determine the intended meaning
or purpose of the sender. This can be determined
by questioning the sender on the form of humor
used, the sender’s intention, and whether the sender
felt the humor was successful for the intended
purpose. This sender-focused transmission model
has revealed a wide range of interpersonal func-
tions for humor at work. This use of workplace
humor includes but is not limited to the follow-
ing: to transmit verbally aggressive messages; to
demean others; to control others; to defend the ego
against possible attack; to put others in place; to
disarm potentially aggressive others; to decrease
aggression; to minimize others’ anxiety; to disclose
difficult information; to allow others to cope with
difficult situations; to allow insight into another’s
state of mind; to adjust to a new role; to ease ten-
sions around new information and situations; to
express feelings; and to avoid revealing important
or sensitive information.
Functional humor on an organizational level is
humor used to increase managerial and organiza-
tional effectiveness and has gained increased aca-
demic and business interest in recent years. Popular
instructional books detail how humor can be used
by managers to increase organizational goals,
increase profit, increase worker compliance, and
reduce employee stress. Humor is held as an impor-
tant component of a successful business culture.
The research on organizational level humor and
its function over time is not typically based on the
sender-message model but rather on qualitative case
study research (e.g., organizational ethnography,
organizational narrative research). It considers more
than the sender’s intention or message effectiveness.
Workplace Humor 799
It focuses instead on the receiver’s interpretation of
the joke and the broader influence the humor had
within the workplace relationship and the work pro-
cesses. Many organizational ethnographers report
that they discovered or realized the importance of
humor unintentionally. The researcher often went
into a workplace to observe an organizational pro-
cess over time and recognized the continued use
of humor. As a result, humor is typically “uncov-
ered” as a consistent aspect of workplace dialogue
and often recognized as a part of completing a
successful relational task. An example from recent
research is the importance of humor’s use by both
employees and managers during an employee’s job
performance review to reduce tension but also to
underscore strengths and weaknesses during the
evaluation process. Another example is the routine
humor used by pediatricians during patient exams
and by obstetricians and other medical staff early
in the child birthing process to reduce tension. In
both of these examples, the researchers, like many
who are engaged in the study of a workplace over
time, recognize and regard humor as an important
part of performing a certain task but also as part of
maintaining the organization’s unique culture.
However, just because humor can be used to
improve organizational culture and processes does
not mean it can easily be deployed or always have
the intended effect. Organizational researchers often
warn that humor is a double-edged sword and
attempts to manage humor may actually suppress it.
Attempts to control humor may lead to a resurgence
of undesired (unproductive) forms of workplace
humor.
Managerial Use of Humor at Work
Humor has been linked with effective transforma-
tive and transactional leadership alike. Leaders who
use humor find innovative solutions to problems.
Managers and those of high hierarchical status can
use humor effectively to gain compliance without
emphasis on the power differentials between them-
selves and their subordinates. The managerial use of
humor to reduce the sting of authoritative intent has
been well documented in humor studies of the work-
place. Recent research demonstrates that the use of
humor to soften authoritative intent is especially
significant for female managers as they use humor
daily to reduce distance but also help negotiate the
paradoxes and pitfalls of being both a woman and a
middle manager in gendered organizations.
800 Workplace Humor
Workplace Humor as Uniting and Dividing
Workplace humor functions to strengthen work-
place collegiality and team fidelity. It helps facilitate
relationship initiation as well as reduce tensions. It
can defuse anger as well as soften criticism; how-
ever, humor can “bite”—be used to tease and hurt.
Case study research shows that subtle quips and
overt jocular abuse are used by workers to point out
flaws or distance others at work. Within friendship
groups at work, humor can be both bonding and
cruel, particularly in blue-collar work environments.
This inclusion (bonding) and exclusion (distancing)
role of relational humor at work engenders in-group
and out-group conflicts. At work these in- and out-
group boundaries are (re)produced by excluding
individuals (or groups) who do not have the stock
knowledge of the in-group’s references, skills, lan-
guage, and sense-making process.
Workplace Humor and Identity
Professional and organizational identity is not con-
structed in isolation but in relation to organizational
processes, structures, and the group we interact with
and see ourselves as part of in our everyday work,
from a relational perspective. This area of organi-
zational humor research focuses on how workers
use humor to react to and manage their personal
identity in response to their stressful work. Humor is
used to elect meanings that affirm one’s sense of self,
as well as to demonstrate how this humor conforms
and constrains the group’s identity and sense-making
process at work. Employees depend on humor to
clarify and affirm their sense of self. Humor is used
in the process of organizing work itself to retain,
protect, and reify the values and agency of workers
within their actual work process. Humor is revealed
to be more than a coping device in order to do one’s
job. It is a means through which the workers main-
tain identity as they make sense of and perform their
organizing role.
Employee Use of Humor at Work
The most documented form of employee-specific
humor in case studies is humor used by employees
to safely criticize a higher member or an organiza-
tional process. It has long been argued that subor-
dinate humor (directed at a superior) functioned
as sanctioned disrespect, especially if the humor
had clear support from the audience—that is, gen-
erated immediate laughter in the workplace. It is
“sanctioned” or allowed simply because jokes are
very difficult to object to by the target of the humor,
especially if the target has hierarchical power. If a
subordinate’s joke is told in a meeting and is laughed
at by some of the people present, the superior must
challenge the response of the audience to the humor,
as well as the underlying meaning of the message.
What can be equally difficult is when the supe-
rior must separate the humor completely from the
message before objecting to it and possibly sanc-
tioning the teller. To do this the superior must first
acknowledge the humor (the basis of laughter),
excuse the audience for laughing, and finally, sepa-
rate the objectionable message from the joke. The
manager would have to say something like this: “It
is OK to laugh at the perceived lack of planning (the
meaning) on my part, and I too think it is funny,
but in this context, the joke does not fit or is even
inappropriate because. . . .” Clearly for a superior to
sanction subordinate humor is difficult because by
objecting to a joke, the superior risks the appearance
of being viewed as oversensitive, not being able to
take a joke, or having no sense of humor. As a result,
doing so exposes one to the risk of appearing weak
on traits associated with strong leadership.
However, this does not mean that a workplace
joke’s content is always beyond contestation or is
unsanctionable at work. If the joke is targeted at
someone without authority (e.g., an intern), a man-
ager with little risk to his or her own standing can
object to its use. The leadership trait of concern for
employees’ well-being trumps the need to be seen as
being thick-skinned or having a sense of humor. If
the joke could be considered offensive (e.g., sexist or
racist), a superior can easily object to it and, in many
workplaces, peers can object as well, especially if
the joke did not elicit a humorous response from
others. Even though humor is difficult to sanction,
the humor defense “I was only joking” is rarely an
effective defense for offensive humor at work, espe-
cially if the target of the humor or fellow coworkers
communicate that they did not find the humor to
be “funny” on the grounds of its content. Indeed, if
an organizational member formally communicated
objection to a joke’s content as offensive or hostile,
the employer must make reasonable steps to avoid
future humor of this kind or risk being held legally
responsible for harassment.
Though subordinate humor is used to resist the
hierarchy, it does not change the hierarchical power
structure. Workers use humor to make fun of a
manager, policy, or practice in the workplace and, in

so doing, temporarily resolve organizational incon-
gruity and paradox. However, humor does not seem
to subvert or have a transformational effect on the
target of the joke. With incongruity or relief as its
basis, without removing the cause for the tension
itself, the brief respite gained from resistance humor
is akin to blowing off steam and is thus called safety
valve resistance. Discourse analysis of recorded
workplace meetings over time demonstrates that
employees in these situations use subordinate humor
frequently to challenge the status quo on three lev-
els: individual—to take down a superior member of
a group; organizational—to challenge the values of
the larger organization; and societal—to challenge
the values of the broader society.
With the focus on humor as a release of tension
there are two developing areas of organizational
humor research: (1) how employees use humor to
control each other, or concertive control humor,
and (2) the use of humor by employees as actual
resistance to managerial control or change orga-
nizational process. Concertive control asserts that
workers develop the means for their own control
as self-managed teams. Their communication norms
become the basis for rules that replace the central-
ized and hierarchical system of control. Concertive
control humor occurs when in-group members use
humor discourse to ensure all members of an organi-
zational activity conform to the members’ standards
and norms. Resistance humor has been observed
as an effective medium for preserving self- and in-
group identity by resisting external control of the
labor process. Perhaps nothing reflects the duality of
humor more than the difference between concertive
control humor and subversive humor.
Owen Hanley Lynch
See also Workplace Control; Workplace Productivity;
Workplace Resistance
Further Readings
Collinson, D. L. (1988). Engineering humor: Masculinity,
joking and conflict in shop floor relations. Organization
Studies, 9(2), 181–199.
Collinson, D. L. (2002). Managing humor. Journal of
Management Studies, 39(3), 269–288.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work:
How humor contributes to workplace culture. Journal
of Pragmatics, 34, 1683–1710.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership
style. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 19(2), 119–138.
Workplace Productivity 801
Lynch, O. H. (2009). Kitchen antics: The importance of
humor and maintaining professionalism at work.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37,
444–464.
Lynch, O. H. (2010). Kitchen talk: Cooking with humor:
In-group humor as social organization. HUMOR:
International Journal of Humor Research, 23,
127–160.
WORKPLACE PRODUCTIVITY
Although some people perceive humor to be a dis-
traction from serious work, abundant research has
identified multiple ways in which humor actually
contributes to enhancing people’s workplace pro-
ductivity. This entry discusses the ways in which
humor can increase workplace productivity.
Although it is often assumed among employers
that humor is a distraction that diverts their employ-
ees’ attention from achieving their serious work
objectives, research has identified and described var-
ious benefits of humor at work—especially in regard
to increasing workplace productivity. Empirical
studies conducted in a range of different workplaces,
including a hotel kitchen, police briefing rooms,
health care settings, white-collar workplaces, fac-
tory floors, and many more, have found that rather
than being a waste of time and resources, humor
may actually perform a wide array of positive func-
tions in a workplace context. One of these posi-
tive functions is the ability of humor to contribute
to people’s workplace productivity. The impact of
humor on workplace productivity can be observed
in several activities. Among the diverse positive func-
tions of humor that have been identified by research
studies in workplace contexts are constructing
and maintaining collegial relationships, facilitating
teamwork, relieving tensions and dealing with stress
(e.g., between staff and management but also among
colleagues), stimulating people’s intellectual activ-
ity and preventing boredom and fatigue, sparking
up discussions, and encouraging lateral thinking,
or solving problems through an indirect approach.
These functions are briefly discussed below.
Constructing and Maintaining
Collegial Relationships
In its most basic function, humor facilitates the con-
struction and maintenance of positive and collegial
relationships among colleagues and contributes to
802 Workplace Productivity
creating a positive workplace atmosphere. These
functions, in turn, may have positive effects on peo-
ple’s productivity at work. More specifically, friendly
collegial relationships and a positive workplace
atmosphere contribute to creating a place where
people are more likely to enjoy their work, and as a
consequence, they may be more satisfied with their
jobs, are more likely to deal well with stress and
change, and are less likely to be sick. In short, people
who enjoy their work are generally reported to per-
form better.
Relieving Tensions and Dealing With Stress
Humor may also function as a valve to release
stress and express anxiety or dissatisfaction with
the management or any other aspect of work-
place reality. In this context, humor may provide
a relatively safe channel through which the status
quo and “the way things are done around here”
may be challenged and criticized. In other words,
it may enable employees to voice their resistance
toward institutional practices in acceptable ways.
And wrapping a negative message (such as a com-
plaint or criticism) in humor—especially when it is
directed upward—makes it not only more accept-
able but makes it also safer for those who have
uttered it as they can always say that they were
“just joking.”
Stimulating Intellectual Activity and
Preventing Boredom and Fatigue
Another positive function of humor and the laughter
(or other responses) that it often triggers lies in its
ability to spice up boring routines and make people
more alert. This function is particularly useful in
lengthy meetings or heated discussions. When used
in these contexts, humor may encourage people’s
participation and involvement; it may also build
bridges between opposing viewpoints, and it may
facilitate the communication of potentially threat-
ening messages (such as disagreements). Moreover,
humor in the form of apparently nonsense sugges-
tions (e.g., during a brainstorming activity) may
encourage thinking from a new perspective, which
may result in participants coming up with creative
ideas and solutions.
Exploiting the Positive Functions of Humor
Given these various positive functions of humor, it
is perhaps not surprising that this close link between
humor, creativity, and ultimately productivity is also
increasingly recognized by companies, which are
developing ways of encouraging their employees to
have fun and to use humor to shake up their every-
day workplace routines. Often quoted examples of
such concrete implementations include the estab-
lishment of “humor rooms” that provide employ-
ees with a dedicated space in the company where
they can take some time out to play and enjoy them-
selves. The underlying motivation for these rooms
is that after some fun and playtime, employees will
be more creative and productive in performing their
work-related tasks.
As the examples and discussion above have
shown, humor at work is far from being superflu-
ous. It performs a wide variety of positive functions
in a workplace context and should thus be taken
seriously. In particular, the various positive functions
humor may perform to increase people’s creativity
and productivity illustrate why humor is a valuable
asset in a workplace context.
Stephanie Schnurr
See also Humor and Relational Maintenance;
Management
Further Readings
Brown, R. B., & Keegan, D. (1999). Humor in the hotel
kitchen. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, 12(1), 47–70.
Caudron, S. (1992). Humor is healthy in the workplace.
Personnel Journal, 71, 63–68.
Clouse, R. W. (1995). Corporate analysis of humor.
Psychology, 32(3–4), 1–24.
Holmes, J. (2007). Making humor work: Creativity on the
job. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 518–537.
Huang, K.-P., & Kuo, W.-C. (2011). Does humor matter?
From organization management perspective. Journal of
Social Sciences, 7(2), 141–145.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C.
(2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the
workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2),
155–190.
Morreall, J. (2009). Applications of humor: Health, the
workplace, and education. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The
primer of humor research (pp. 449–478). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plester, B., & Sayers, J. (2007). Taking the piss: Functions
of banter in the IT industry. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 20(2), 157–187.
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more
than telling jokes. Small Group Research, 20, 151–166.

WORKPLACE RESISTANCE
In the last 30 years, organizational scholars have sys-
tematically studied workplace humor to understand
its role within organizational settings. Workplace
humor has been studied from a variety of practi-
cal and theoretical perspectives, and it is clearly
documented that humor functions as a form of
workplace resistance. Workers use jokes and other
forms of humorous interaction to resist managerial
power and control and to create and maintain some
amount of dignity in the workplace, whereas man-
agers in a variety of white- and blue-collar industries
use humor to resist unwanted stereotypes of par-
ticular occupations. Understanding how and why
humor functions as workplace resistance is an essen-
tial element in any comprehensive work on humor,
especially since most people will work for an organi-
zation at some point in their lives. Humor provides
one communicative avenue for workers to resist
managerial attempts to further control their work
lives. This entry first provides a brief discussion of
the theoretical underpinnings behind workplace
humor in general and then highlights two types of
humorous workplace resistance: illusory and sub-
stantive resistance.
Workplace Humor
The earliest forms of humor research explored
the psychological reasons behind why people use
humor rather than analyzing humorous interactions
and comments. The consensus in the psychologi-
cal literature was that people use humor for three
main reasons: to relieve tension, to create a feeling
of superiority over others, and to highlight incon-
gruous events. Humor studies have explored the
relationship between these three theories and have
demonstrated the processes through which people
use workplace humor to simultaneously achieve all
three functions.
The type of workplace humor that is enacted is
an outcome of the work environment. Scholars have
analyzed how workers use humor to create, sustain,
and transform the meanings of masculinity in indus-
trial settings. In blue-collar workplaces, workers
socially construct their identities in response to the
power imbalance between themselves and manage-
ment. Masculine forms of vulgar, offensive, and
aggressive humor are common to this context, which
is much different than the forms of humor occurring
Workplace Resistance 803
in corporate or white-collar contexts. Since white-
collar workers are expected to use professional
language, workers in corporate settings often use
nonderogatory humorous statements to publicly
disagree with authority figures and to engage in
practical jokes with other coworkers. Although
workplace bullying is found in many white-collar
environments, many of these offenses are malicious
personal attacks rather than attempts at nonmali-
cious workplace humor.
For example, many white-collar workers will use
humor to disguise a disagreement with a boss during
a meeting. Cloaking a disagreement with the boss in
a humorous manner allows any coworkers who hear
the statement to interpret it in a number of socially
acceptable ways. Corporate workers also engage in
a variety of practical jokes, pranks, or spoofs. These
actions are to point out the silliness of many corpo-
rate policies and settings. Practical jokes can range
from covering a coworker’s desk with aluminum foil
to sending a phony “You’re Fired” e-mail. In short,
workers can use humor as a form of workplace resis-
tance without using racist, sexist, or other deroga-
tory comments. Although nonderogatory humor
does take place in blue-collar workplaces as well, the
majority of blue-collar humor studies have looked at
the negative, dysfunctional humor in these settings.
The key component of workplace humor, however,
is that other workers understand and share the
meanings that emerge from the humorous actions.
Humor scholars analyze how individuals create
shared meanings and how these meanings develop
during interactions. Meanings are not simply static
entities but rather are dynamic and fleeting ideas
that people try to manage. Humor is viewed as one
way to try and manage shared or ambiguous work-
place meanings. Workplace humor, as a form of
resistance, is also directly tied to context. Contexts
include workplace relationships, the physical set-
ting of the workplace, relevant economic, political,
and cultural factors, and other unique characteris-
tics of the workplace such as hierarchical ordering,
promotion norms, and conflict management proce-
dures. Studies have shown that the more ambigu-
ous the workplace context, the more workers and
managers will use humor to resist ambiguous poli-
cies, procedures, and rules. For example, workers
sanction individuals and cause and diffuse conflict
caused by coworker competition through humor-
ous comments. Workplace humor can also enforce
worker created norms, can call attention to differ-
ences between management and workers, and can
804 Workplace Resistance
differentiate groups of workers and their associated
job duties.
In addition to highlighting differences, humor
gives organizational employees the opportunity
to express disagreement in a socially acceptable
manner, which is a form of relieving tension. For
example, expressing a potentially taboo topic in a
humorous manner allows employees to discuss
uncomfortable topics in front of management. This
process can build cohesion and trust between the
two groups, but it can also increase tension, anxi-
ety, and blame shifting. Humor allows employees
to probe the attitudes, perceptions, and feelings of
coworkers and management in a nonthreatening
manner. In defining boundaries, humor directed
toward organizational outsiders can clarify both
social and moral boundaries. As a coping device,
humor helps individuals reduce anxiety over failure,
frustration, and stress.
Within an organizational setting, humor has the
ability to help people cope with problems, act as a
tension release valve, offer a new perspective, and
provide provisional relief from restrictive regula-
tions. Although humor can be used to reduce ten-
sion, build relationships, socialize new members,
save face, and manage conflict, it can also function
to dissolve relationships, increase anxiety, demean
others, and differentiate in-group from out-group.
These contradictory processes often occur simulta-
neously and the outcomes are dependent on whose
perspective is being presented. This dysfunctional
humor is what scholars are referring to when they
study subversive humor, gallows humor, or negative
humor. Workers and managers who use humor for
antisocial purposes often produce negative work-
place outcomes. Negative humor can contribute to a
divided work force, create conflict, and generate bit-
ter feelings between coworkers and between workers
and management. This humor can be used by both
sides to strategically reinforce power relationships
and lead to a wider hierarchical gap.
Humorous Workplace Resistance
Illusory Resistance
When workers think they are resisting managerial
dictates with humorous actions they can actually be
reinforcing them. Unless the status quo is changed
due to a humorous action, the resistance that is
achieved from it is illusory rather than substan-
tive. For example, giving a boss a “World’s Worst
Boss” coffee mug, questioning a managerial policy
in a joking manner, and even vandalizing company
property to get a laugh from coworkers all leave the
organizational power structure intact. These humor-
ous actions do nothing to make substantive change
in the workplace. Rather, when management allows,
acknowledges, or even takes part in humorous acts
initiated by workers, these actions reinforce the
managerial norms that are already in place. Workers
are bolstering their subordination through the very
acts that they believe are resisting authority. An
extended example will better explain this process.
Blue-collar workers can simultaneously resist
managerially authorized forms of identity expres-
sion and reinforce negative public stereotypes
associated with their workplace identities. Humor
norms that include sexist, racist, or otherwise crude
humor lead to the reification of negative stereotypes,
and the resulting pattern of dirty humor reinforces
media stereotypes regarding working-class values
and behaviors. The humorous process objectifies
the negative stigma associated with their work. The
employees do not realize how dirty humor confirms
negative public stereotypes of their work, nor do
they recognize how dealing with insecurities through
dirty humor only strengthens such stereotypes. To
resist the threat of being labeled incompetent, these
workers make crude jokes and vandalize company
property. Superiority humor may relieve tension
and resist stigma during immediate situations, but it
objectifies the stigma of the employees and industry
longitudinally.
Researchers have described how workers and
managers in certain occupations actively search for
ways to reframe the negative views attributed to
their jobs. In these settings, humor is less a form of
resistance against authority and more of an identity
management mechanism that helps workers deal
with an occupation with low societal prestige. In
many cases, the acts deemed humorous by the in-
group workers not only reinforce managerial norms
of identity expression but they also strengthen soci-
ety’s negative stereotype associated with manual
labor. For example, if a petroleum industry worker
places an “Oil Field Trash: Make My Day” sticker

on his truck, he may be attempting to be humor-
ous, as explained by incongruity theory, but this
action strengthens society’s view of manual laborers
as uneducated and aggressive, even if this is not the
case. Although he is trying to resist negative societal
attributions associated with his occupational iden-
tity, he is in fact supporting them. In short, when
workplace humor maintains rather than challenges
the status quo advocated by management or societal
expectations, it may be argued that these humorous
actions are actually in line with authoritative objec-
tives and are not resisting anything.
Substantive Resistance
Substantive humorous resistance can be defined
as any humorous action that leads to real change in
the workplace. This change can include but is not
limited to modifications in organizational policy;
union organizing; direct and unambiguous chal-
lenges to organizational mission, vision, and val-
ues; and modification to organizational processes.
Substantive changes can occur in both white- and
blue-collar organizational settings, and the change
can be a result of a humorous interaction initiated
by management or workers.
The following subversive humorous functions and
outcomes occur in the work environment. Workers
use humor to socialize new organizational members
to unsanctioned work norms like “working to the
rule.” This means that workers will play pranks on
employees who are working too quickly because
they feel if management notices the new employee’s
efficiency all other workers will be forced to pick up
their work pace. This type of resistance, resistance
to productivity, hits organizations in their most
vulnerable spot: profit margins. Workers can also
humorously disagree with organizational policies,
and if they are persistent, they can get those policies
altered. For instance, a corporate worker could say,
“Another round of riveting performance evaluations
will brighten my day.” This strategic comment can
start an employee-management dialogue that could
end with a change in performance evaluation policy.
Workers in manual labor and industrial settings
have also used humor to remove restrictive break-
time policies, to alter employee surveillance, and to
increase their pay.
Workplace Resistance 805
Workplace humor as resistance can function
as a form of misbehavior, cynicism, deviance, and
distance creation, but unless real organizational
changes emerge in response to these behaviors,
the individual who engages in workplace humor
is achieving more of a psychological release rather
than a substantive form of resistance. When orga-
nizations respond with policy-based or procedural
changes that emanate from a humorous interaction,
however, it can be argued that workplace humor is
serving as a substantive form of resistance. Overall,
employees and management both use humor to
accomplish personal and organizational functions.
They use humor to resist each other, to resist unfair
organizational policies, and to resist negative soci-
etal stereotypes in real and illusory ways.
Zachary A. Schaefer
See also Hoax and Prank; Subversive Humor; Workplace
Control; Workplace Humor; Workplace Productivity
Further Readings
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Only joking? From
subculture to counter-culture in organizational relations.
In S. Ackroyd & P. Thompson (Eds.), Organizational
misbehavior (pp. 99–120). London: Sage.
Collinson, D. L. (1988). Engineering humor: Masculinity,
joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization
Studies, 9, 181–199.
Lynch, O. H. (2007). Humorous organizing: Revealing the
organization as a social process. Saarbrücken, Germany:
VDM.
Lynch, O. H. (2009). Kitchen antics: The importance of
humor and maintaining professionalism at work.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37,
444–464.
Lynch, O. H. (2011). Cooking with humor: In-group
humor as social organization. HUMOR: International
Journal of Humor Research, 23(2), 127–159.
Schaefer, Z. A. (2013). Getting dirty with humor:
Co-constructing workplace identities through
performative scripts. HUMOR: International Journal of
Humor Research, 26(4), 511–530. doi: 10.1515/humor-
2013-0035
Tracy, S. J., Myers, K. M., & Scott, C. W. (2006). Cracking
jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity
management among human service workers.
Communication Monographs, 73, 283–308.
 X
XEROXLORE
Xeroxlore and photocopylore are two terms folklor-
ists apply to a corpus of humorous traditional materi-
als that circulate in physical form and are reproduced
through mechanical means, such as photocopiers,
scanners, mimeographs, typing, and printing. Much
of this corpus has been shown to circulate in the
United States, Great Britain, South America, and
European nations. Like jokes, legends, and other folk-
lore speech genres, xeroxlore texts have no known
creator, are updated to remain current, and evolve
into variants. Within the field of folklore, xeroxlore
has been assumed to be an offshoot of the joke tradi-
tion. This entry discusses the content of xeroxlore,
the major analytical approaches to it, its transmission
and use in social life, and the role of graphics.
In form, xeroxlore is very heterogeneous and
probably cannot be defined as a genre or sub-
genre based on structure. Some of the documented
stories and jokes are not specific to xeroxlore but
also circulate orally. In addition to narratives, there
are parodies of official forms, lists of one-liners,
and drawings. Graphics are often roughly drawn,
crass, and obscene in their content. Sexual and
scatological acts are portrayed explicitly, and no
personage—political, religious, sports, management,
or worker—escapes a scathing portrayal.
The introduction and improvement of printers,
computers, faxes, and other technological means of
replication enabled the mass dissemination of xerox-
lore texts. Partly because these innovations were
expensive when introduced and were located in
807
businesses, workplaces became one of the primary
sites of xeroxlore transmission. Drawings accom-
pany or comprise a large percentage of xeroxlore
texts, and disseminating graphics requires an easy
means of mechanical reproduction. Since repro-
ductive technologies, including the Internet, have
become common in homes and small offices, the
transmission of xeroxlore has become much more
widespread. The content of xeroxlore may be
affected by technology in a profound manner: nar-
ratives and jokes that are shared in xeroxlore are
often longer than in oral tradition. Brevity has been
a hallmark of American humor but this appears less
true in xeroxlore.
Analysis of xeroxlore has been hampered by the
reluctance of academic presses to publish the coarser
materials. Consequently, the more “literary” exam-
ples (parodies of memos, letters, regulations, etc.)
are probably overrepresented in publications while
drawings are probably still underrepresented.
Alan Dundes described xeroxlore as work
related, urban, and concerned with contemporary
ills. Since xeroxlore contains sarcasm, irony, and
even vitriol in jokes about incompetent bosses and
malfunctioning bureaucracy, folklorists have tended
to read it as subversive of corporate cultures. These
two ideas—that xeroxlore expresses protest or sub-
version and that xeroxlore is particularly associated
with the modern corporate work environment—
have informed the scholarly discourse since then.
Arguments purporting that xeroxlore is subver-
sive rest on several observations. The first is that the
content of the texts often violates social rules and
decorum, emphasizing the body and bodily functions
808 Xiangsheng
Trouble
Trouble Trouble
Trouble Trouble Trouble Trouble
Figure 1 Xeroxlore Parodies Often Depend on the
Reader’s Familiarity With Corporate Forms
and reasserting earthiness and the carnivalesque. The
second sign of subversion, according to folklorists, is
that xeroxlore involves the personal use of regulated
(company) property. Xeroxlore also represents mis-
spent time (from the corporate viewpoint). It is the
production of noninstrumental goods for individual
and small group—not corporate—use.
Xeroxlore is transmitted in several ways. Like
most folklore, it is shared within networks of friends
and family. Coworkers and colleagues share xerox-
lore at work but also take it home and share it with
acquaintances outside work settings. In some busi-
ness organizations, limited display of texts is pos-
sible in areas out of the public eye; people may post
xeroxlore texts on bulletin boards, tape them to the
sides of file cabinets, or hang them on cubicle walls.
A xeroxlore text is not re-created in performance
in the same way as an urban legend or oral joke.
Nonetheless, when people choose to pass on xerox-
lore texts or display them, they and their audiences
negotiate and enact rules of social interaction within
the frames of humor. Because face-to-face interac-
tion is not required in transmission of xeroxlore in
the workplace, a joker may choose to give a text
to an employee anonymously. Like humor gener-
ally, the initiator or joker may be motivated by
anything from sharing laughter to a malicious desire
to ridicule. A text can be placed on a desk quietly
or inserted into an interoffice mail package and the
joker may, like a practical joker, assume credit and
responsibility retroactively or choose to remain hid-
den, depending on his or her motive and the reader’s
reaction.
Some people collect and maintain files of xerox-
lore to select and share at opportune moments.
Others take the trouble to retype or redraw texts
that have become too faint or too unclear due to
extraneous marks; they may alter or update the texts
at that time.
The frequent use of graphics in xeroxlore texts
offers some new areas for research. The interrelation
of drawings, forms, and words in conveying the
meanings of the texts bears study. Office parodies,
for example, are dependent on the reader’s familiar-
Trouble ity with corporate forms, language style, and infor-
mation conduits to create the joke. Additionally,
Trouble Trouble many xeroxlore texts incorporate drawings to carry
the message. At a gross level, the relation of the
drawing to the text might be summarized in one of
three ways. In one type, the drawing is “mere deco-
ration” or extraneous (e.g., a caption that reads “I
must be a mushroom, they keep me in the dark and
feed me bullshit” below a picture of a mushroom).
A second type requires both drawing and text in jux-
taposition to create the meaning (e.g., a caption that
reads “Before Work / After Work” below two car-
toons of Garfield—the first looking sleek and happy,
the second frazzled and upset). A third type consists
of a drawing alone or accompanied by an extrane-
ous caption (e.g., a mouse gives “the finger” to a
large bird of prey swooping down to devour him).
Nancy P. Michael
See also Carnivalesque; Folklore; Internet Humor; Jokes;
Scatology; Workplace Humor
Further Readings
Bell, L. M., Orr, C., & Preston, M. J. (1976). Urban
folklore from Colorado: Photocopy cartoons. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Dundes, A., & Pagter, C. R. (Eds.). (1978). Work hard and
you shall be rewarded: Urban folklore from the
paperwork empire. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Jones, M. O. (1997). Photocopylore at
work: Aesthetics and collective creativity and the social
construction of organizations. Studies in Cultures,
Organizations and Societies, 3, 263–287.
Michael, N. (1995). Censure of a photocopylore display.
Journal of Folklore Research, 32, 247–259.
Preston, M. J. (1994). Traditional humor from the fax
machine. Western Folklore, 53, 147–170.
Roemer, D. M. (1994). Photocopylore and the
naturalization of the corporate body. Journal of
American Folklore, 107, 121–138.
Smith, P. (1984). The complete book of office mis-practice.
London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
XIANGSHENG
Xiangsheng is a staged comic performance genre
popular throughout China, with regional variations.
 Xiangsheng 809

It is usually performed by two male actors but As Zhang Letian (2012) has pointed out, after
sometimes as a monologue (dankou xiangsheng), or 1949 the key problem for xiangsheng artists was
with three or more actors. A few women have also how to use the weapon of sarcasm in a construc-
recently taken up the performance form, initially in tive way, as approved by the party, that is, direct-
Taiwan but also on the mainland. The performance ing it at “enemy” elements that the party targeted.
is scripted, with minimal action, costuming, or scen- Sometimes the actors ironically turned their weapon
ery, and the humor is derived from the dialogue and against themselves, making themselves out to be
not from clowning. There are frequent references to politically naive or backward. Unfortunately this laid
Peking and local operas, or, in traditional scripts, them open to accusations of disloyalty to the party.
to local street color such as vendor calls. Because Notable xiangsheng writers and performers
of its reliance on puns, slang, references to current include Hou Baolin (1911–1993). He had trained
affairs, and historical allusions, it is often difficult to sing Peking Opera and was admired for his vocal
to translate. technique. His work adhered to party policies but
Xiangsheng is sometimes called “crosstalk” or he was still able to extract humor from everyday
“comic dialogue” in English, because it refers to two situations, as can be seen in the following excerpt
performers talking to each other in a comic way. from his script titled “Getting Drunk” (Zui jiu). The
Unlike much Western stand-up comedy, it is for- second actor in this routine, which can be viewed on
mally structured, with introduction, development, YouTube, was Guo Qiru (1900–1969):
and conclusion, but still as a form it bears remark-
able resemblance to Japanese Manzai or Western Hou: The more drunk someone is, the
comic dialogues such as those of William “Bud” more he boasts. . . .
Abbott and Lou Costello. Perhaps each in its own Hou [slurring “Look at me, it wouldn’t matter if
way fulfills the basic social need for humor to help speech and I drank another half pint.”
cope with the difficulties of life. unsteady on feet]:
In the Republican period (1911–1949), xiangsh- Guo: It wouldn’t matter at all. The other
eng flourished in Beijing and Tianjin, the two main one wouldn’t concede, what did he
cities of North China, where living standards were say?
higher and the entertainment sector flourished. Hou: “Hey, half pint—still not drunk.
Xiangsheng actors came mainly from poor families, Hey, when you talk, your tongue’s
and the plots that they developed reflected work- shorter.”
ing-class black humor, attacked the foibles of the Guo: His tongue wasn’t working
rich and powerful, and mocked foreign colonials. properly either.
However, they were not pointedly political as the Hou: “Look, let’s drink another bottle—
performers aimed to amuse and retain loyal audi- drink another bottle.”
ences on whom they depended for their livelihood. Guo: Oh, drinking from the bottle.
After the Chinese Communist Party came to Hou: “Let’s drink from the bottle.”
power in 1949, all actors were enrolled in collec- Guo: If that’s not boasting, what is?
tives and educated in Marxism and Mao Zedong Hou: As soon as he hears that, this one
thought. “Xiangsheng modernization groups” were goes, “Get this.”
formed, to weed out unseemly language and subject Guo: What is he doing?
matter from old scripts and to compile new ones Hou: He gets a torch out, slaps it on the
in keeping with party objectives of building social table and switches it on. When he
cohesion and loyalty and modernizing the economy. switches it on, a beam of light
Only a narrow range of subject matter was per- comes out.
mitted. Artists struggled to survive under succes- Guo: Oh! A column of light shines up.
sive political campaigns. These culminated in the Hou: Ah, listen to what he says—is he
Cultural Revolution of 1966–1976 when no xiang- drunk or not?
sheng or other theatrical performances were allowed Guo: What does he say?
(apart from the eight model operas sanctioned by Hou: “Come on, climb up this column.”
Mao Zedong’s wife, Jiang Qing). At this time, many Guo: That’s a column for climbing up?
old scripts and recordings were destroyed and some Hou: How can you climb up it?
performers were persecuted to death. Guo: What does he do?
810 Xiangsheng
Hou: When he hears that. [looks up and
down without speaking.]
Guo: Just look at him.
Hou [makes “Don’t try it on. I know [what
dismissive gesture]: you’re up to]. If I climb up—if I
climb up, you’ll switch it off and
I’ll fall down.”
(Translation by Jocelyn Chey.)
Economic reforms in the 1980s brought liberal-
ization of thought and artistic expression. After a
period when xiangsheng seemed on the decline,
there has been a resurgence of the genre, not
unconnected with the fact that it is eminently
suited to dissemination on Youku and other video-
sharing applications. Because of the updating of
subject matter and stage conventions, many com-
mentators now categorize xiangsheng as either
traditional or contemporary. Contemporary works
are generally sharper, more sarcastic, and more
political than older ones, while retaining lightness
of touch and popular appeal.
Some performers today have achieved rock-star
eminence, such as Zhou Libo (b. 1967), who is based
in Shanghai. Zhou’s work, influenced by Western
stand-up comedy, is largely unscripted monologues
in Shanghai dialect, as well as Mandarin Chinese and
even English, concerning contemporary issues and
national and international affairs. Other immensely
popular performers include Guo Degang (b. 1973)
in Beijing. His stage performances were censored
and studio closed in 2010 because his mockery of
political leaders was too close to the bone. Another
star performer in Northeast China is Xiao Shenyang
(b. 1981), who uses local dialect for humorous effect
and assumes a disconcerting androgynous persona
to confuse the audience. Here is an excerpt from one
of his monologues:
Sometimes I was lucky in love. The other day, with
my little bag, dear friends . . . As you know, I come
from Northeastern China, somewhere near Shen-
yang . . . with my little bag, I was walking on the
street. Piapiade. I was walking. Piapiade. As I was
walking, a girl came up to me, who looked quite
outstanding, and quite pretty. She was about 17 or
18 and excitedly asks me, “Bro, are you the guy
who performs in the ‘two-person act’? The guy
named Xiao Shenyang?” I responded: “Yeah. So?”
“Bro, every time I look at you, I think that I see the
sea.” How sweet she was, dear friends! That was
the first time I was praised as “the sea”! I was so
happy! I asked, “Do you like me? Are you falling
in love with me?” This girl’s answer was so
irritating. “Bro, please don’t misunderstand me,”
she said, “I get seasick. When I see the sea, I just
throw up.”
Translation by Steven Lin, with some adaptation by
the author; see Alice Xin Liu (2009).
Jocelyn Chey
See also Comedy Ensembles; Dialect Humor; History of
Humor: Modern and Contemporary China; History
of Humor: Modern Japan; Improv Comedy; Social
Interaction; Stand-Up Comedy; Verbal Humor;
Xiangsheng, History of
Further Readings
Chuantong xiangsheng ji [Traditional xiangsheng
collection]. (1981). Shanghai, China: Shanghai wenyi
chubanshe.
Du, W. (1998, June). Xiaopin: Chinese theatrical skits as
both creatures and critics of commercialisation. The
China Quarterly, 151, 382–399.
Goldkorn, J. (2004). Stifled laughter: How the communist
party killed Chinese humour. Retrieved March 27,
2012, from http://www.danwei.org/tv/stifled_laughter_
how_the_commu.php
Hou, B. (1980). Xiangsheng and me—An interview with
Hou Baolin. In M. Dun (Ed.), Chinese literature
(p. 101). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Press.
Link, P. (1984). The genie and the lamp: Revolutionary
xiangsheng. In B. McDougall (Ed.), Popular Chinese
literature and performing arts in the People’s Republic
of China, 1949–1979 (pp. 83–111). Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Link, P. (2007). The crocodile bird: Xiangsheng in the early
1950s. In J. Brown & P. G. Pickowicz (Eds.), Dilemmas
of victory: The early years of the People’s Republic of
China (pp. 207–231). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Liu, A. X. (2009). Who the hell is Xiao Shenyang?
Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://www.danwei
.org/video/post_37.php
Zhang, L. (2012). Satire and humour in contemporary
Chinese art. In C. Roberts (Ed.), Go figure:
Contemporary Chinese portraiture (pp. 58–72).
Canberra, Australia: National Portrait Gallery.
Websites
The complete performance of the Xiangsheng routine
“Getting Drunk” (Zui jiu): http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=2IGTExwACYA

XIANGSHENG, HISTORY OF
One of the most popular humor forms in China
throughout the last century and up to the pres-
ent time is the verbal art of “crosstalk,” the name
being the conventional (flawed) translation of the
Chinese term xiangsheng, literally “face and voice,”
indicating that the art form primarily emphasizes
facial expression and vocal skills. Crosstalk is one
of a large number of Chinese folk oral performance
literature forms in the category of quyi (“vocal
arts,” or sometimes translated as “minor perform-
ing arts”). Westerners seeing the form for the first
time are usually strongly reminded of American
stand-up comedy, particularly the classic American
comedy duos such as Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis,
or 1960s TV acts like Rowan and Martin and the
Smothers Brothers. Indeed, the surface similarity is
striking: two performers stand up on a stage in front
of a live audience and engage in rapid-fire humor-
ous repartee, with their interaction following the
tried-and-true formula of a straight man acting as
an exasperated foil to the muddle-headedness of an
illogical clowner. However, whereas much American
standup is structured as a series of jokes on differ-
ent topics, a crosstalk performance consists of a set
routine with a general theme that sets up a context
for comedic interplay. The closest parallel would be
Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s on First?”
routine, which is very similar in style and structure
to a crosstalk piece.
The content of crosstalk concentrates on lan-
guage and wordplay. Puns, homonyms, dialects,
idioms, and double entendre abound. Performers
are expected to have mastered four basic aspects
of performance: shuo (speaking ability), xue (imi-
tation skills), dou (joking ability), and chang (sing-
ing). A typical performance might involve parodies
of Peking Opera, verbal jousting with word games,
reciting of outlandish tongue-twisters, Chinese char-
acter puzzles, twisted versions of pop songs, or an
astounding verbal memory feat called guankou—
“talk strings” or “word fountains,” in which the
performer recites lists of hundreds of geographic
place names or regional dishes with dizzying rapid-
fire delivery.
The origins of crosstalk date from the late Qing
Dynasty, following the death of the Xianfeng
emperor in 1861, when a ban on entertainment
during the mourning period forced out-of-work
opera performers out into the street to earn their
Xiangsheng, History of 811
livelihood. The result was a kind of ad hoc street
theater involving lively dialogues and slapstick
humor to attract the crowds. In the early part of the
20th century, the art form gradually moved into the
teahouses and theaters as a new vocal performing
art in and of itself.
The political upheavals and social disruptions
of the 1930s and 1940s made it difficult for the art
form to develop in a mature fashion, and crosstalk
humor became increasingly earthy, bawdy, and
politically incorrect, lampooning corrupt officials,
country bumpkins, prostitutes, and various aspects
of polite society. It is said that if a woman with chil-
dren inadvertently wandered into a crowd of male
spectators watching a performance, the performers
would stop the performance, bow to the woman
and politely suggest that she leave the area.
When Mao Zedong took power in 1949, cross-
talk found itself at a crisis point. The traditional
pieces that developed in the turbulent previous
decades were considered too unhealthy and politi-
cally out of step with the new proletarian commu-
nist ideology. A group of writers and performers was
assembled to revise and clean up the crosstalk rep-
ertoire to provide humor performances for the new
society. The task force was spearheaded by popular
performer Hou Baolin, who would go on to become
the most beloved crosstalk performer of all time,
producing a body of classic recordings that are still
listened to by Beijing cab drivers.
During the Cultural Revolution, crosstalk became
a sterile propaganda tool, with performers instructed
to write pieces that emphasized gesong, “praise” for
the new society, rather than fengci, “satire.” The
result was a decade of decidedly unfunny pieces with
titles like “Emulate [Proletarian Model Citizen] Lei
Feng,” and “Chairman Mao’s Policies Are Correct.”
Mao Zedong himself was a fan of crosstalk, and for
a time invited crosstalk performers to perform at pri-
vate parties every Saturday evening at his residence
in Zhongnanhai. Ironically, however, Mao had no
interest in the new, sanitized, and politically correct
pieces, requesting that the actors perform the tradi-
tional, down-to-earth repertoire.
After the fall of the Gang of Four after the death
of Mao, crosstalk regained its former vitality. With
new acceptable targets for satire—the “White-boned
Demon” (Mao’s wife), and the Gang of Four, and the
excesses of the era’s political movements—crosstalk
performers now could offer audiences genuinely
cathartic laughter. Crosstalk flourished, and a new
crop of young performers sprang up who were able
812 Xiehouyu
to address new social topics and experiment with
new styles of performance.
As television became part of Chinese life in the
1980s, crosstalk evolved from its theatrical roots
into a form more suited for the new electronic
medium. Many of the traditional pieces were quite
long, up to an hour in length, and in order to meet
stringent time demands of television, long introduc-
tions and digressions had to be pruned. Though
many aficionados found the resulting pieces lack-
ing in the subtlety and complexity of the traditional
performances, a single crosstalk show could now
be watched and enjoyed by hundreds of millions
of viewers, and is now a ritual part of the annual
CCTV Spring Festival Gala.
David Moser
See also History of Humor: Classical and Traditional
China; History of Humor: Modern and
Contemporary China; Xiangsheng
Further Readings
Link, P. (1984). The genie and the lamp: Revolutionary
Xiangsheng. In B. McDougall (Ed.), Popular Chinese
literature and performing arts in the People’s Republic
of China, 1949–1979. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Link, P. (2007). The crocodile bird: Xiangsheng in the early
1950s. In J. Brown & P. G. Pickowicz (Eds.), Dilemmas
of victory: The early years of the People’s Republic of
China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moser, D. (1989). Lao She and Xiangsheng. Spring and
Autumn Papers, Graduate Journal of the Center for
Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, Vol. V, No. 1.
Moser, D. (2004). Stifled laughter: How the communist
party killed Chinese humor: A history of Chinese
crosstalk. Retrieved from http://www.danwei.org/tv/
stifled_laughter_how_the_commu.php
XIEHOUYU
The xiehouyu is a common figure of speech in stan-
dard Chinese and many dialects. The term is often
translated into English as “a proverb with the second
part suspended” but is better left in Chinese as it is a
unique linguistic form. Herbert Giles, an early China
scholar and dictionary compiler, defined xiehouyu
as “set phrases of which only the protasis is uttered,
and the apodosis is understood by the speaker, not
literally but in a punning sense” (Giles, 1912/1967,
entry for character no. 4361, quoted in Sun, 1981,
p. 521). Many xiehouyu contain no puns, but cer-
tainly contain humor. This arises from the incongru-
ity of the protasis or second part being understood
from an unexpected angle. Adding to the trangres-
sive quality of the humor, many xiehouyu are very
colloquial or even vulgar.
The form has been compared to Cockney rhym-
ing slang (in which, for instance, “my old China”
stands for “plate/mate”), but the latter depends
entirely on rhyme, whereas xiehouyu draw their
humor from double entendre. However, the two fig-
ures of speech are both ways of sharing humor with
an in-group. Cockney rhyming slang arose from
street gang code words. Xiehouyu draw on shared
common references and historical and literary allu-
sions not immediately comprehensible to outsiders.
When used in conversation, the hearers are expected
to recognize the allusion and acknowledge complic-
ity in understanding with smiles or laughter (“Wink,
wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?”).
In December 1970, American journalist Edgar
Snow interviewed Mao Zedong, chairman of the
Chinese Communist Party. In an article published in
Life on April 30, 1971, Snow wrote, “As he courte-
ously escorted me to the door, he said he was not a
complicated man, but really very simple. He was, he
said, only a lone monk walking in the world with
a leaky umbrella.” Mao was in fact using a com-
mon xiehouyu that revealed he was by no means
the uncomplicated, simple man that he told Snow
he was.
Mao used only the first part of the xiehouyu,
leaving Snow to intuit the second, but it seems he
failed to grasp the reference or the full meaning. The
complete saying is: Lao heshang da san: wu fa wu
tian 侩␴⯂ㇻ⁀烉䃉檖䃉⣑ (literally, when the old
monk opens his umbrella: there is no hair and no
sky). A Chinese Buddhist monk is tonsured so that
he has no hair, and when he opens his umbrella he
obscures the sky. The deeper meaning is understood
by a hearer who knows that fa 檖 (hair) is a hom-
onym for fa 㱽 (law) and that tian ⣑ can refer to
the sky or to Heaven or God. The real meaning is
therefore that neither law nor moral principle apply
to the situation or person under discussion.
Xiehouyu are common in everyday usage. For
instance, one might tell another person not to inter-
fere by saying, “Stop acting like a dog catching
mice,” using the first part of the xiehouyu: Gou na
haozi: duo guan xianshi (literally, Dog catches mice:
excessive meddling in irrelevant matters). Since

catching mice is the proper business of cats, if a dog
took up this practice, it would be meddling in the
cat’s affairs. The second part is not expressed but its
meaning is understood by the listener.
The wit of some xiehouyu may be appreciated
only by those with a modicum of education in
Chinese history and literature because they involve
cultural references. These need more explanation
for non-Chinese. One such equates roughly to the
English expression, “to kill two birds with one
stone”: Zhang Fei tai Cao Cao: yi ju liang de ⻝梃
㉔㚡㑵烉ᶨ冱ℑ⼿ (literally, Zhang Fei carries Cao
Cao: there is one lift for two De’s). Most Chinese are
familiar with the classical historical novel San guo
yanyi (Romance of the Three Kingdoms), a 14th-
century work still popular today and immortalized
in drama and opera. General Zhang Fei and the
warlord Cao Cao are two of the main characters
in this novel. Their second, unofficial names were
respectively Yi-de 侤⽟ and Meng-de ⬇⽟. If Zhang
Fei carried Cao Cao, there would be two (people
named) De involved in one lift. The listener would
know this without it being stated and would also
understand that the character used in both personal
names De ⽟ was a homonym for de ⼿, which
means to gain or achieve something. From this he or
she would derive the meaning as one action achiev-
ing two results.
Xiehouyu are found in many dialects as well as
in Standard or Mandarin Chinese. These are not
usually intelligible to people from other dialect
groups. Cantonese dialect provides many examples,
Xiehouyu 813
including, for instance, A tsai yam sha shi: yau hei
kong m cheut (literally, a dumb man drinks sarsa-
parilla [carbonated soft drink]: there is gas but he
cannot speak of it). In Cantonese the word hei 㯋
(Standard Chinese qi) has two meanings, referring
both to gas or air and also to anger, so the intuited
meaning of the second part of this xiehouyu is “to
swallow one’s anger.”
Jocelyn Chey
See also Anti-Proverb; Aphorism; Epigram; Irony;
Maxim; Puns
Further Readings
Chengyu xiehouyu daquan [Encyclopedia of proverbs and
xiehouyu]. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://
cy.5156edu.com/cyxhy.html
Chey, J., & Milner Davis, J. (Eds.). (2011). Humour in
Chinese life and letters: Classical and traditional
approaches. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University
Press.
Giles, H. A. (1967). A Chinese-English dictionary (2nd rev.
ed.). Taipei, Taiwan: Ch’eng-wen. (Original work
published 1912)
Ma, J.-H. S. (2009). Chinese xiehouyu: Classical and
contemporary folk expressions and allegories. Hong
Kong, China: Commercial Press.
Sun, C. C. (1981). As the saying goes: An annotated
anthology of Chinese and equivalent English sayings
and expressions, and an introduction to Xiehouyu
(Chinese wit). St. Lucia, Australia: Queensland
University Press.
Appendix A

CHRONOLOGY
Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
2600 BCE First recorded political joke in Egypt about how to entertain a pharaoh.
2055–1650 BCE The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor and The Mouse as Vizier are written in
ancient Egypt’s Middle Kingdom.
ca. 2000 BCE Inscription of The Epic of Gilgamesh, probably the oldest written narrative,
found in Sumer. It includes comic scenes.
1999–1001 BCE The story of “The Poor Man of Nippur” is documented from this millennium.
It is the clearest example of humorous literature in Babylon.
1887–1064 BCE (20th dynasty) The Contendings of Horus and Seth is written in Egypt.
1499–1401 BCE Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt has the Deir el-Bahri temple complex built, in which
a bas-relief depicts the Queen of Punt as obese.
1298–1187 BCE (19th dynasty) The Instructions of Dua-Khety, also known as The Satire of the
Trades, is written in ancient Egypt. This work makes fun of various jobs
performed by common workers.
1292–1069 BCE (Ramessid period) The Turin Erotic Papyrus is created. This ancient Egyptian work
displays crude and sexual humor. It gets its name from the Museum of Egyptology in
Torino, Italy.
999–699 BCE The Chinese Book of Poetry is compiled, containing the earliest comic poems in
Chinese literature.
999–1 BCE The Illiterate Doctor of Isin, a text that uses humor for didactical purposes, is
composed in Babylon.
750 BCE Founding of Rome.
620 BCE Presumed date of birth of Aesop, an ancient Greek author of fables.
599–501 BCE In this century, material from the stories of the wise Assyrian Ahiqar are
discovered on an Aramaic papyrus. These stories become much of the base work
for the later written The Aesop Romance.
551–479 BCE Lifetime of Chinese philosopher Confucius.
550–375 BCE Time span during which comic images are painted on vases in Athens.
540–450 BCE Period of Doric Comedy. Epicharmus writes numerous comedies in ancient
Greece.
501 BCE First drama competition that included satyr plays in the Festival of Dionysus in
Athens.

815
816 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
500–422 BCE First works in Old Comedy in ancient Greece; comedic works by Susarion,
Chionides, Magnes, Crates, Cratinus, and Eupolis are written. None of these has
been preserved.
499–401 BCE Satyr plays featuring a chorus of satyrs and based in Greek mythology start to
be written. They contain themes of, among other things, drinking, overt sexuality
(often including large phallic props), pranks, and general merriment.
487–486 BCE First known comedies are performed at Festival of Dionysus in Athens, marking
the beginning of the traditional Old Comedy period.
440–437 BCE The leading Greek politician Cleon attempts to prosecute Aristophanes for his
plays’ political statements.
430 BCE Mimes become popular. The most famous are by Sophron, of Syracuse, Italy, the
author of prose dialogues in the Doric dialect.
427–287 BCE First theories of humor are written: Plato’s (427–347 BCE) Filebus, Aristotle’s
(384–322 BCE) Poetics, Theophrastus’s (372–287 BCE) Moral Characters.
411 BCE Aristophanes (ca. 447–ca. 385 BCE) writes Lysistrata, one of the earliest
examples of political humor.
404 BCE Traditional end of Old Comedy period in ancient Greece.
403–ca. 321 BCE Middle Comedy period in ancient Greece.
400–300 BCE Phlyax plays (phlyakes or hilarotragedy) are common. These are plays of a burlesque
dramatic form featuring heavy use of masks that developed in the Greek colonies of
Magna Graecia.
399–301 BCE The Longer Rules, which contains probably the first attempt at classifying
laughter as good or bad, is written by Basil the Great in Byzantium.
342/341– Menander, a pupil of Theophrastus, writes more than 100 plays in ancient
291/290 BCE Greece. Only one (known as Dyskolos, The Misanthrope, or The Bad-Tempered
Man) is preserved nearly complete.
ca. 335 BCE Aristotle writes Poetics, the first known book to examine systematically laughter
and the comic.
321 BCE New Comedy begins in ancient Greece. It is traditionally believed to have begun
after the death of Alexander the Great. Love is a central subject of this period’s
works.
300 BCE Fabula Atellana, a tradition of farces, parodies, and satires influenced by late
Greek models, becomes common in Rome.
285 BCE First Alexandrine commentary on Aristophanes is written in Greece, by
Lycophron.
ca. 250 BCE Menippus, a Greek cynic philosopher, writes satires mixing prose and verse.
250–240 BCE Mimeiambics, realistic mimes in choliambic verse often depicting bawdy
situations, are common. A papyrus containing some 700 readable lines of
mimeiambics by Herodas (or Herondas) is extant from this time.
240 BCE Native Italian dramas, such as Atellan farces, phlyakes, and Fescennine verses,
dominate the Roman stage.
ca. 210–160 BCE Roman Comic Theater period.
193–160 BCE Lifetime of Dongfang Shuo, one of the most famous court jesters in Chinese
history.
 Chronology 817

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
184 BCE Death of Roman playwright Plautus.
159 BCE Death of Roman playwright Terence.
146 BCE Roman conquest of Greece.
143 BCE Traditional date of the end of New Comedy.
100 BCE Marcus Tullius Cicero writes De oratore, which contains a discussion of humor.
18 BCE Roman lyric poet and satirist Horace writes Ars poetica.
0 CE Traditional date of the birth of Christ.
ca. 75 Petronius writes Satyricon, possibly the first surviving Western novel with
sophisticated satirical humor in it.
95 Roman orator Quintilian writes Insitutio oratoria (The Institutes of Oratory).
101–199 During this century, The Aesop Romance is written. It is a highly fictional
biography of the wily and cunning Aesop.
120–180 Greek writer Lucian writes Dialogues of the Gods, Dialogues of the Dead, Lucius
or The Ass (source of Apuleius’s Golden Ass), and The True Story (ancestor of
modern science fiction).
ca. 160 Roman writer Apuleius writes The Golden Ass.
165 Lucian writes the satire The Passing of Peregrinus.
ca. 220 Xiaolin (Forest of Laughter), the first collection of jokes in Chinese literature, is
written. It is usually ascribed to Handan Chun.
329–379 Life of Basil of Caesarea, a Greek bishop who writes over 300 Letters,
condemning laughter under any circumstance.
347–420 Life of Saint Jerome. He writes the Letters in which he condemns laughter.
387 John Chrysostom writes The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch,
regarding the citizens of Antioch ridiculing statues. Claims that laughter is
diabolical.
401–599 Philogelos (The Laughter-Lover) is written. It is a collection of about 265 jokes
written in Greek.
410 Sack of Rome by the Visigoths.
425 Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius and Western Roman Emperor Valentinian
forbid comedies and circus games on Sundays and on religious holidays.
480–547 Life of Saint Benedict from Norcia (founder of the Benedictine order), who
forbade laughter and humor in his Holy Rule for the Benedictine order.
491–518 Choricius, of Gaza, Greek sophist and rhetorician, writes an apology of laughter,
against its Christian detractors. First recorded mention of the healing properties
of laughter.
ca. 500 Approximate beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe. Humor has a small place
in society and is not widely recorded. It is often seen in gargoyles, margins of
manuscripts, feasts, and carnivals.
501–599 During this century, the Ioca monachorum is written, in a question-and-answer
format with “funny” questions.
501–599 The text of the Shishuo xinyu (New Account of Tales of the World), which
records the deeds of famous people from the 3rd to 5th centuries, emerges in
China. The content is similar to that of the Forest of Laughter.
818 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
501–599 Buddhism arises in China.
524 Boethius, in his commentary of Porphiry, defines laughter as the “proprium” of
man, an Aristotelian definition meaning a property common to all the members
of a class.
540–604 Pope Gregory I the Great claims that only two types of laughter are acceptable:
that against evil and that in praise of good.
542 First outbreak of the plague.
570 Birth of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, who records incidents of prophetic
humor in the hadith.
581–618 The reign of the Sui dynasty in China, during which an official called Hou Bai
is ascribed to have written the next collection of humorous anecdotes after the
Forest of Laughter.
601–699 King Mahendravarmana writes Mattavilasa (Drunken Sports), a short one-act
Sanskrit play, in India.
601–699 In China, the text of the Forest of Laughter is first recorded in the bibliography
chapter of the Sui dynasty’s history.
712 Japan’s oldest chronicle, the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters), is presented to
the empress. It contains Japan’s first recorded comedy performance, a myth
surrounding the sun goddess, Amaterasu Ōmikami.
712 Death of the Arabic poet Umayyad ‘Umar Ibn Abī Rabī‘a, who used humor and
satire in love verses.
723 The earliest possible date that the extant version of Chinese Qiyan lu (Record of
Bright Smiles) found in the caves of Dunhuang can be from.
742–814 Lifetime of Charlemagne, who gathered the best of literati from around the
world. Their humor survives today in various records from the time.
801–899 Bhatta Jayanta writes Agamadambara (Much Ado About Religion) in India.
814 Death of Abu Nuwas, who is considered the most prominent figure of humorous
Arab poetry.
868 Death of al-Jāhiz, the Arabic author of the famous Kitāb al-Bukhalā’ (Book of
Misers), which consists of social critiques in the form of funny stories.
891 Liu Hsieh’s Chinese text The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is
known to have been read in Japan. This represents the first text in Japan to have
discussed a theory of humor.
892 Japan’s oldest dictionary, the Shinsen Jikyo, defines the Japanese word for funny
as “an ugly appearance, so funny that one cries aloud.”
935–1002 The Benedictine canoness Hroswitha of Gandersheim lives and writes a religious
set of plays to create an alternative to Terence’s licentious works.
ca. 1000 Old English riddles are collected in the Exeter Book.
ca. 1000 The first record of personal humor in Japan in Sei Shōnagon’s Makura no Sōshi
(Pillow Book).
ca. 1052 Sketches that include obvious farce appear in Sarugaku, a form of theater that is
the origin of the Japanese comic theater Kyōgen.
1053–1140 Lifetime of Abbot Toba in Japan. A Buddhist priest known for his whimsical
cartoon scrolls that heavily influenced contemporary Japanese comic art.
 Chronology 819

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1096–1141 Hugh of St. Victor, a German theologian, distinguishes between gaudium (Latin,
joy) and risus (Latin, laughter). He considered gaudium good, risus bad.
1101–1199 Vatsaraja’s Hasyacudamani (The Crest-Jewel of Laughter) is written in
India.
1101–1199 The Executioner or the Doctor, a Byzantine satire targeting medical practitioners,
is written by Theodore Prodromos.
1115–1180 John of Salisbury (theologian, scholar, student of Abelard) accepts modest
cheerfulness while decrying excessive jesters.
1117–1200 Ibn al-Jawzī’s Akhbār al-h.amqā wa al-mughaffalīn (Stories of Fools and
Madmen), an Arabic collection of jokes and anecdotes, is written.
1138 Baucis et Traso, a 12th-century renaissance Latin comedy, is written
anonymously in France.
1148 The Flemish Ysengrimus, an early Latin fabliau and mock epic, is written. This
is also an early medieval form of humor, the beast fable.
1150–1200 Latin comedies are prevalent in the Renaissance of the 12th century.
1170 Roman de Renart is written, with anthropomorphic animal tales and satire. This
is another example of a beast fable.
1180 Speculum stultorum is written. It is a satire of monks that involves a donkey
(Brunellus) that thinks its tail is too short and travels to several universities
(Salerno, Paris) seeking remedies. It is also considered to be a beast fable.
1199 First annual Warai-Ko laughter ritual is held in Hofu City, Yamaguchi Prefecture,
Japan. It still takes place today.
ca. 1200 The fabliaux, short comic verse tales composed for listening audiences, begin to
appear anonymously. They are common in France during the 12th, 13th, and
early 14th centuries.
1201–1499 Renga, a Japanese game of linking short witty verses, is played and later develops
into the poetic genre of Haiku and then into the comic genre of Senryū.
1226–1240 Jacques de Vitry, French cardinal and theologian, writes his sermons, which
contain the first collection of exempla, or brief, often funny moral anecdotes
used in sermons.
1230 The Carmina Burana, a Goliardic collection of poems dating back to the late
11th and 12th centuries, is written down. It is a Bavarian text, parts of which are
humorous and/or licentious.
1248 Rutebeuf, a French poet, writes Poèmes de l’infortune (Poems of Misfortune),
with the themes of poverty, cold, gambling, women, and debauchery.
1260 Rutebeuf’s Le dit de l’herberie (The Tale of the Herb Market) is written.
1265–1321 Lifetime of Dante Alighieri, author of the Divine Comedy.
1271–1368 The reign of the Yuan dynasty in China, during which a collection of humorous
texts called the Shuofu (Outskirts of Texts) is compiled, where Lü Benzhong’s
Xuanqu lu (Records of Laughing) and Tian Hezi’s Shanxue ji (Collection of
Good Jokes) are both preserved.
1281 Il novellino (The Hundred Old Tales), an anonymous collection of 100 stories,
some humorous, is written.
1300s Luo Guanzong writes Romance of the Three Kingdoms in China.
820 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1320 Robert de Basevorn, the author of The Form of Preaching, a treaty on preaching
published in Paris, says that humor is acceptable in a sermon at most three
times.
1320 Watriquet de Couvins writes The Three Ladies of Paris, marking the approximate
end of the genre of fabliaux.
1330 Franco Sacchetti writes Il trecentonovelle (The Three Hundred Short Stories).
1349–1351 Giovanni Boccaccio writes The Decameron, which consists of a hundred mostly
comic/satirical tales.
ca. mid-1300s The term kyōgen (“mad words”) is first used to describe stage art in Japan.
1368–1644 The Ming period in China; collecting humorous stories becomes popular among
educated people.
ca. 1400 The Bunbuku Chagama (The Badger That Turned Into a Tea Kettle), one of the
most amusing Japanese folktales featuring a trickster, emerges.
1400–1500 The Renaissance begins in Italy.
1401–1453 The Comedy of Katablattas is written in Byzantium; it is ascribed to John
Argyropoulos.
1431–1445 Council of Basel, which bans in 1435 the Feast of Fools and Feast of Asses.
1453 Fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, to the
Ottomans.
ca. 1470 Lodovico Carbone writes Cento trenta novelle o facetie (One Hundred Thirty
Short Stories or Jokes), a jestbook in the Italian vernacular.
1478 William Caxton publishes Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, one of the
earliest texts printed in English.
1492 “Discovery” of America by Christopher Columbus.
1492–1549 Lifetime of Marguerite de Navarre, Francis I’s sister, who wrote (but died before
completing) a spin-off of The Decameron called The Heptameron.
1501–1599 The term clown comes into use.
1508 Aldus Manuntius prints the first modern edition of the Greek text of Aristotle’s
Poetics.
1509 Desiderius Erasmus (Erasmus of Rotterdam), a major humanist, publishes Praise
of Folly, a satire.
1511 Vettore Fausto publishes De comoedia libellus (Booklet Concerning Comedy).
1516 Thomas More, English Renaissance humanist, publishes Utopia.
1518 Niccolò Machiavelli writes La mandragola (The Mandrake Root), one of the
earliest plays with commedia dell’arte–like characters and plot.
1526 A Hundred Mery Talys (Anonymous), the first of the “Shakespeare jestbooks,”
is published.
1528 Baldesar Castiglione publishes The Book of the Courtier.
1528 The Council of Sens forbids the use of stories for laughter in preaching.
1532 The Prince by Machiavelli is published.
ca. 1532 Tales and Quicke Answeres, one of the earliest known English jestbooks, is
published.
 Chronology 821

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1532–1564 François Rabelais’s five-volume mock epic The Life of Gargantua and of
Pantagruel is published in France.
1545 First record of the formation of an Italian professional acting troupe, at Padua.
1548 Italian literary theorist Francesco Robortello publishes his Treatises on Humor.
1550 Vincenzo Maggi publishes De ridiculis (Concerning the Ridiculous).
1550–1627 Lifetime of Zhao Nanxing, who compiles a collection of humorous Chinese texts
called Xiaozan (Appraisal of Jokes).
1551 Italian poet and author Girolamo Muzio publishes his Dell’arte poetica (On
Poetics).
1555–1605 Lifetime of Chinese Jiang Yingke, who compiles a collection of hitherto forgotten
humorous texts called Xue Tao xiaoshuo (Xue Tao’s Stories).
1558 Queen Elizabeth I begins her reign. The Elizabethan era begins in England.
1561 Italian scholar Giulio Cesare Scaligero publishes Poetices libri VII (Seven Books
on Poetics), which deals with humor.
1562 Italian poet and scholar Giangiorgio Trissino’s Poetica is published in full,
posthumously. It articulates an Aristotelian theory of literature, including
comedy.
1565 First references to commedia dell’arte characters (e.g., Zanni and Pantalone) in
connection with acting companies of commedia dell’arte.
1568 First mention of the Gelosi Company of commedia dell’arte in Milan, Italy.
1570 Italian literary critic Lodovico Castelvetro publishes On the Art of Poetry.
1570 Paintings depicting commedia dell’arte appear.
1571 Gelosi Company of commedia dell’arte makes its first visit to Paris, where it acts
at the house of the Duke of Nevers before Charles IV. Company of Zan Ganassa
(Alberto Naseli) also in Paris this year. This marks the beginning of foreign
touring by commedia troupes and first illustration of the character Arlecchino.
1572 Bernardo Pino da Cagli publishes Breve considerazione intorno al componimento
de la comedia de’ nostri tempi (A Short Consideration Concerning the
Composition of Comedy in Our Times) in Italy.
1573 English playwright Ben Jonson is born. His comedy of humors is the first forum
in which humor and the comic are systematically linked.
1574–1646 Lifetime of Feng Menglong, who produced the most famous humorous texts
collection of the Ming period in China: Xiaofu (Treasury of Laughs).
1575 Gelosi Company is invited to Venice, Italy, to play for French King Henri III (the
third son of Catherine de Medici).
1576 Henry III of France requests the Italian company of commedia dell’arte he had
seen in Venice to perform in Paris.
1579 Laurent Joubert publishes his Traité du ris (Treatise on Laughter), the earliest
substantial work on laughter in the vernacular.
1587 Confidenti Company of commedia dell’arte performs in Spain.
1591 English playwright John Lyly publishes Endymion.
1594 Robert Greene, an Elizabethan playwright, publishes Friar Bacon.
822 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1594 Sforza Oddi, a lawyer from Perugia, Italy, publishes Erofilomachia, a comedy
that was widely successful in the Renaissance and the Baroque periods.
1595 English author Philip Sidney publishes An Apology for Poetry.
1595 Around this time, William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is first
performed, as well as Romeo and Juliet.
1598 Ben Jonson publishes Every Man out of His Humor, in which he defines a
metaphorical application of the theory of humors to comedy.
1599 Thomas Dekker, an Elizabethan playwright, publishes The Shoemaker’s
Holiday.
1603 Death of Queen Elizabeth I. End of the Elizabethan era in England.
1605 The first part of Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quijote is published.
1605 Philogelos is translated into Latin.
1607 English playwright Francis Beaumont publishes The Knight of the Burning
Pestle, which influences the latter parts of Don Quijote.
1615 The second part of Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quijote is published.
1618 Philogelos is translated into German for the first time.
1621 Robert Burton publishes The Anatomy of Melancholy in Britain.
1623 William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) First Folio is published.
1633 Philip Massinger, English playwright, publishes A New Way to Pay Old Debts.
1637 Chi soffre speri (Who Suffers May Hope), which is known as the first true comic
opera and composed by Virgilio Mazzocchi and Marco Marazzoli, is performed
in Rome.
1644–1912 The reign of the Qing dynasty in China, when the original material of Feng
Menglong’s Treasury of Laughs is adapted and merged in the Xiaolin guangji
(Extensive Records of the Forest of Laughter), a joke collection that is still
published today.
1649 French philosopher René Descartes completes The Passions of the Soul, which
includes a description of laughter.
1650 English philosopher Thomas Hobbes publishes Human Nature, which contains
a definition of laughter as superiority.
1651 Thomas Hobbes publishes Leviathan, proposing arguably one of the most
influential theories of humor, the “sudden glory” or “superiority” theory.
1658 Comédie Italienne shares the Petit Bourbon in Paris with Molière’s company of
commedia dell’arte, the Compagnie de Monsieur.
1659–1673 French playwright Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin) writes 31 comedies for the
court of Louis XIV.
1660 Kyōgen-ki, the first known collection of written scripts for Kyōgen plays, is
published.
1678 Isaac Barrow, an English bishop, publishes Several Sermons on Evil Speaking,
which condemns laughter, but only when “foolish and impertinent.”
1678 In Japan, Fujimoto Kizan publishes Ōkagami (The Great Mirror) in which he
discusses the proper way for a courtesan to laugh.
1680 The Hôtel de Bourgogne in Paris is given to Comédie Italienne.
 Chronology 823

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1684 Narukami (The Thunder God), a Japanese Kabuki play, is staged. It features a
comical seduction scene notable for its trappings of high comedy.
1687 Ihara Saikaku, one of Japan’s most famous comic authors, publishes Nanshoku
Ōkagami (The Great Mirror of Male Love), an example of Japan’s common
sexual humor.
1688–1704 The Yakusha Rongo (The Actors’ Analects) is compiled by Kabuki actors in
Japan and outlines three general styles of comic roles and advises on acting in
them.
1695 English dramatist William Congreve publishes Concerning Humour in Comedy.
1697 Comédie Italienne is expelled from Paris for satirizing the royal mistress,
Madame de Maintenon.
1700s Hasidic rabbis in Poland-Russia create the philosophical vertl, a paradoxical
quip or snap anecdote.
1708–1709 Anthony A. Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, publishes “A Letter Concerning
Enthusiasm to My Lord Sommers” and “An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and
Humour.”
1711 English writer Joseph Addison publishes humorous essays in The Spectator, Nos.
35, 62, and 249.
1712 English poet Alexander Pope publishes the first version of The Rape of the Lock.
1725 Francis Hutcheson publishes Reflections Upon Laughter in Scotland.
1726 Jonathan Swift publishes Gulliver’s Travels, one of the best known examples of
prose satire.
1728 Alexander Pope publishes anonymously the first version of The Dunciad.
1729 Jonathan Swift publishes his A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of
Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and
for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, possibly one of the great satirical
works of all time.
1733 La serva padrona (The Maid as Mistress) is composed by Giovanni Battista
Pergolesi and helps spread Italian comic opera throughout Europe.
1736–1825 Lifetime of German author Johann Paul Friedrich Richter, who, in an influential
essay in his Vorschule der Aesthetik (School of Aesthetics), defines humor as
“inverted sublime.”
1739 Carlo Goldoni becomes dramatist for Medebach’s company of commedia dell’arte in
Venice.
1741 Twenty-eight jokes from Philogelos appear in English in an anonymous article
(believed to have been authored by Samuel Johnson) published in The
Gentleman’s Magazine under the title “The Pedants, or Jests of Hierocles.”
1742 Antonio Sacchi, the great Arlecchino, forms his own company of commedia
dell’arte.
1743 Carlo Goldoni writes Servant of Two Masters for Sacchi.
1744 Corbyn Morris publishes An Essay Towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,
Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule in England.
1747 In colonial America, Benjamin Franklin draws “The Waggoner and Hercules,”
which is believed to be the first political cartoon.
824 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1748–1752 Lord Chesterfield writes most of his letters, published as Letters to His Son, by
his son’s widow in 1774. He approves of smiling but not of laughter.
1749 English novelist and dramatist Henry Fielding publishes Tom Jones.
1752 French writer Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) publishes Micromégas.
1752 English author and poet Charlotte Lennox publishes The Female Quixote.
1759 Voltaire publishes Candide.
1759–1768 Irish-born English novelist Laurence Sterne publishes The Life and Opinions of
Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.
1762 Goldoni leaves Venice to work with the Comedie Italienne in Paris.
1762 England’s first caricature book, A Book of Caricaturas, is published by Mary
Darly.
1771 Japanese author Hiraga Gennai’s Gesaku (meaning “playful works”) is translated as
On Farting.
1773 Irish-born dramatist Oliver Goldsmith publishes An Essay on the Theatre; or, A
Comparison Between Laughing and Sentimental Comedy.
1773–1853 Lifetime of Ludwig Tieck, one of the German founders of romanticism, who
wrote the novel Des Lebens Überfluß (Life’s Luxuries).
1775–1821 Lifetime of Italian political satirist Carlo Porta.
1775–1850 Traditional span of the romantic movement in Europe.
1785–1859 Lifetime of English essayist Thomas de Quincey, writer of On Murder Considered
as One of the Fine Arts.
1788 Antonio Sacchi, the last great Arlecchino/Harlequin player of commedia
dell’arte, dies.
1790 German philosopher Immanuel Kant publishes Critique of Judgment.
1790 Rakugo begins to move from large households onto the stage in Japan.
1791–1863 Lifetime of Italian poet Giuseppe Gioachino Belli, writer of humorous sonnets.
1797–1856 Lifetime of German poet Heinrich Heine who wrote satirical political poetry.
1798–1874 Lifetime of German political satirist August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben.
1799–1837 Lifetime of Russian author Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin.
1801–1862 Lifetime of Austrian actor and writer Johann Nepomuk Nestroy.
1803 Leandro Fernández de Moratín (1760–1828) publishes El baron (The Baron).
1803?–1856 Lifetime of Yiddish- and Hebrew-language poet Solomon Ettinger, who created
epigrams and the comedy Serkele.
1804–1806 English writer Sydney Smith publishes Elementary Sketches of Moral Philosophy,
which contains a section “On Wit and Humour.”
1806 Spanish dramatist and poet Leandro Fernández de Moratín publishes El sí de las
niñas (The Maidens’ Consent).
1808 German writer Heinrich von Kleist (1777–1811) publishes his successful play
Der zerbrochne Krug (The Broken Jug).
1810–1899 Lifetime of Avrom-Ber Gotlober, who created satirical and parodic poetry and
wrote the comedy Der dektukh (The Bridal Veil).
 Chronology 825

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1811 English writer Jane Austen (1775–1817) publishes Sense and Sensibility.
1812 Adamantios Korais translates Philogelos into French and Modern Greek.
1812–1888 Lifetime of English nonsense writer Edward Lear.
1812–1891 Lifetime of Russian novelist Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov.
1813 Jane Austen publishes Pride and Prejudice.
1813–1880 Lifetime of Antonio García Guttiérrez, whose play Simón Bocanegra turned into
Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Simon Boccanegra.
1814 Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park is published.
1815 Jane Austen’s Emma is published.
1815–1888 Lifetime of Eugène Labiche, the foremost French author of comic theater of his
time.
1816 English writer Thomas Love Peacock (1785–1866) publishes Headlong Hall.
1817 Thomas Love Peacock publishes Melincourt.
1818 English writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge publishes Lecture IX: Wit and Humour.
1818 Manuel Eduardo de Gorostiza (1789–1851) publishes Indulgencia para todos
(Indulgence for All).
1818 Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey is published posthumously.
1818–1824 English poet Lord Byron (1788–1824) writes the epic satire Don Juan.
1819 German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer publishes The World as Will and
Idea.
1819 William Hazlitt publishes Lectures on the English Comic Writers.
1820 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin publishes Ruslan i Liudmila (Ruslan and
Liudmila).
1821 German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) publishes his satirical
novel Wilhem Meisters Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship).
1822 German author Ernst Theodor Wilhelm Hoffmann (1776–1822) publishes
Lebensansichten des Katers Murr (The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr).
1827 Chinese author Li Ruzhen finishes Flowers in the Mirror.
1832–1837 French writer Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850) publishes Cent contes drôlatiques
(The Hundred Comical Tales).
1833 French writer Alfred de Musset (1810–1857) publishes his most famous play On
ne badine pas avec l’amour (One Does Not Take Love Lightly).
1833 Manuel Eduardo de Gorostiza publishes Contigo Pan y Cebolla (With You, Bread
And Onion).
1835 Augustus Baldwin Longstreet publishes Georgia Scenes: Characters, Incidents,
&c., in the First Half Century of the Republic, one of the foundational texts of
the U.S. frontier humor.
1835–1836 Nikolai Gogol (1809–1852) publishes The Nose.
1837 English writer Charles Dickens (1812–1870) publishes The Pickwick Papers.
1837–1901 Victorian era (Queen Victoria’s reign).
1839 Charles Dickens publishes Oliver Twist.
826 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1840 Spanish dramatist Manuel Bretón de los Herreros (1796–1873) publishes El pelo
de la dehesa (The Countryside).
1841 English novelist William Makepeace Thackeray’s (1811–1863) Catherine is
published.
1841–2002 The British humor magazine Punch is published (with interruptions).
1842 Nikolai Gogol publishes The Overcoat.
1848 William Makepeace Thackeray publishes The Book of Snobs.
1850 Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov publishes his novel Oblomov.
1851 Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev (1818–1883) publishes Mesiats v derevne (A Month
in the Country), his Chekhovian comedy.
1852 William Makepeace Thackeray publishes Charity and Humour.
1853–1925 Lifetime of Eduardo Scarpetta, who is commonly regarded as the creator of
dialectal theater in Italy.
1855 French writer Charles Baudelaire publishes On the Essence of Laughter.
1855–1905 Lifetime of French writer and humorist Alphonse Allais.
1856 English writer George Eliot publishes German Wit: Heinrich Heine.
1856 Russian satirist Mikhail Evrgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin (1826–1889) publishes
Provincial Sketches.
1857 Charles Dickens publishes Little Dorrit.
1858–1929 Lifetime of French novelist Georges Courteline.
1859 Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain publishes The Emotions and the Will.
1859 French folklorist Alfred Canel uses the term blason populaire for the first time
in Blason populaire de la Normandie (Blason populaire of Normandy).
1859–1916 Lifetime of Yiddish author and playwright Sholem Aleichem (Sholem Naumovich
Rabinovich), who created the characters that later appear in Fiddler on the Roof.
1860 English philosopher Herbert Spencer publishes The Physiology of Laughter.
1860–1904 Lifetime of Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, the prolific writer of short
stories, many of which are comic.
1860–1937 Lifetime of Scottish author James Matthew Barrie, who wrote humorous works
of fiction for adults and children and is best known for Peter Pan.
1862–1921 Lifetime of great French vaudeville author Georges Feydeau.
1863 French writer Théophile Gautier (1811–1872) publishes Le Capitaine Fracasse
(Captain Fracasse).
1864–1918 Lifetime of German satirist and expressionist Frank Wedekind.
1865 English writer Lewis Carroll’s (1832–1898) Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is
published.
1867–1916 Lifetime of Natsume Sōseki, the first modern Japanese writer to successfully use
humor in the novel.
1868 Restoration of the emperor to power and beginning of Meiji era in Japan.
1869 French writer Alphonse Daudet (1840–1897) publishes Lettres de mon moulin
(Letters From My Mill).
 Chronology 827

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1870 English dramatist and librettist William S. Gilbert (1836–1911) writes the
operetta The Palace of Truth.
1870–1916 Lifetime of remarkable Edwardian humorist Saki.
1871 William S. Gilbert writes his operetta Pygmalion and Galatea.
1871 Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There is
published.
1871–1950 Lifetime of Carlo Alberto Salustri (a.k.a. Trilussa), the best known Italian
dialectal writer of his time.
1872 Charles Darwin publishes The Expression of the Emotions in Man and
Animals.
1872 The first policy statement is issued in Japan encouraging the use of humor in
theater.
1872 English author Samuel Butler (1835–1902) publishes his scathing satire
Erewhon.
1872 Alphonse Daudet publishes Tartarin de Tarascon.
1872–1956 Lifetime of English writer Max Beerbohm.
1873–1907 Lifetime of French author Alfred Jarry, who is best known for the character of
Père Ubu.
1874–1936 Lifetime of Austrian writer Karl Kraus, editor of Die Fackel (The Torch).
1876 The Harvard Lampoon, the longest continually published humor magazine to
date, starts publishing.
1877 English writer George Meredith (1828–1909) publishes The Idea of Comedy and
the Uses of the Comic Spirit, an essay notable for its contribution to the theory
of humor.
1877 James Sully publishes Ridicule and Truth.
1880 French writer Guy de Maupassant (1850–1893) publishes his best known work,
Boule de suif (Ball of Fat).
1881 The first cabaret, Le Chat Noir (The Black Cat), is opened by Radolphe Salis, in
Paris.
1881 French writer Gustave Flaubert’s (1821–1880) unfinished comic novel Bouvard
et Pécuchet is published posthumously.
1881–1936 Lifetime of Lu Xun, who compiles the most complete collection of humorous
anecdotes from premodern China.
1883 Italian writer Carlo Collodi (1826–1890) publishes The Adventures of Pinocchio.
1885 A Shakespearean play (a Kabuki version of the Merchant of Venice) is staged for
the first time in Japan, in Osaka.
1885 English dramatist Arthur Wing Pinero (1855–1934) publishes his farce The
Magistrate.
1886 Arthur Wing Pinero publishes The Schoolmistress.
1887 Irish writer Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) publishes The Canterville Ghost.
1889 The Moulin Rouge is built in Paris.
1889 English writer Jerome K. Jerome (1859–1921) publishes Three Men in a Boat.
828 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1892 Oscar Wilde publishes Lady Windermere’s Fan.
1892–1901 The Idler, the British humor magazine started by Jerome K. Jerome, is published.
1893 Irish writer George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) publishes Mrs. Warren’s
Profession.
1893 Georges Courteline publishes Messieurs les ronds-de-cuir (The Employees).
1894 George Bernard Shaw publishes Arms and the Man and Candida.
1895 Oscar Wilde writes the plays The Importance of Being Earnest and An Ideal Husband.
1895 George Bernard Shaw publishes The Man of Destiny.
1895 Richard Felton Outcault’s The Yellow Kid, one of the earliest comic strips,
begins publishing in the New York World.
1897 The Happy Hypocrite, by Max Beerbohm, appears in The Yellow Book.
1897 French poet and dramatist Edmond Rostand (1868–1918) publishes his verse
comedy Cyrano de Bergerac.
1899 The satirical magazine Die Fackel (The Torch) begins publication in Austria.
1899–1900 French philosopher Henri Bergson publishes Le rire (Laughter), proposing his
theory of the comic.
ca. 1900 Nonsense humor appears in China and becomes increasingly popular starting in
the 1980s.
1900–1999 The Japanese terms Manga for “cartoon” and Anime for “animation” become
English words, marking Japan’s worldwide contribution to humor.
1901–1910 Edwardian era (reign of King Edward VII) in England.
1903 English literary critic Edmund Kerchever Chambers publishes The Mediaeval
Stage, in the first volume of which he presents more than 150 pages of records
on fools’ festivals.
1904 A comedy genre called Shinkigeki (New Comedy), which produces plays and
extended comedy skits, begins in Japan.
1905 George Bernard Shaw publishes Major Barbara.
1905 Sigmund Freud publishes Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten (The
Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious).
1908 Italian writer Luigi Pirandello publishes L’umorismo (On Humor).
1911–1913 Gustave Flaubert’s Dictionary of Accepted Ideas is published posthumously
using his notes.
1914 German-language writer Franz Kafka publishes The Metamorphosis.
1914–1918 World War I.
1916 Dadaism, centering on a nonsensical theme and pop culture, begins in neutral
Zürich, Switzerland, during World War I and peaks.
1919 The Marx Brothers rise to fame.
1920 Dadaism begins to die out. Surrealism begins; it is best known for the visual
artworks and writings of the group members. The works feature the element of
surprise, unexpected juxtapositions, and non sequiturs.
 Chronology 829

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1920–1929 Radio program Amos ‘n’ Andy is first broadcast; notable for having Black
characters who were not servants or wholly based on stereotypes.
1921 Jacques Copeau founds L’École du Vieux-Colombier, which rejuvenates French
acting. Copeau’s use of masks influences the practice of mimes.
1921–2000 Life of Israeli cartoonist Kariel Gardosh.
1929–1941 Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975) formulates the concept of the
“carnivalesque.”
1929–1946 The radio program The Goldbergs runs, presenting Jewish life in an accessible
way. Later became a television series that ran from 1949 to 1956.
1932 The Tankō bushi (Coal Mine Song), a song exemplifying early modern folk
humor in Japan, is released on gramophone record.
1934 Italian writer Luigi Pirandello wins the Nobel Prize in Literature.
1938 Orson Welles broadcasts on radio a series of news bulletins reporting Martian
attacks (based on H. G. Wells’s short novel The War of the Worlds, 1898)
sending many people into a frenzy and thus making hoax history.
1947 Kitano Takeshi, Japan’s most influential TV comedy performer, known for his
taboo-breaking humor, is born.
1949 Samuel Beckett publishes his absurdist play Waiting for Godot.
1951 CBS first airs the Amos ‘n’ Andy television series, the first TV series to feature
an all-Black cast. The show was canceled in 1953 following protests by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
1960 Daniel Berlyne proposes the arousal theory of humor.
1961 Lenny Bruce (1925–1966) first faces obscenity charges but is acquitted.
1961–1969 Richard Pryor introduces a new style of stand-up comedy that still influences
stand-up comedians today.
1964 Arthur Koestler publishes The Act of Creation, which introduces the influential
bisociation theory of humor.
1964 Fiddler on the Roof is first performed.
1964 Lenny Bruce is convicted on obscenity charges.
1965 Mikhail Bakhtin’s Rabelais and His World is published.
1969–1974 Monty Python’s Flying Circus, one of the most famous sketch comedy TV
programs, is on the air. The show quickly gained cult status.
1970 Cold humor appears in Taiwan for the first time and spreads in China in the
next decade.
1973 Yaakov Kirschen’s series Dry Bones is first published in the Jerusalem Post.
1975 Saturday Night Live airs for the first time.
1975–1979 Oneida American Indian comedian Charlie Hill begins performing.
1976 First humor conference, held in Cardiff, Wales.
1978 Gerald Vizenor, an Anishinaabe American Indian who is believed to be the first
to include the trickster tradition in his novels, publishes Darkness in Saint Louis
Bearheart.
830 Appendix A

Date(s) Event(s)/Publication
1979–1992 English writer Douglas Adams writes Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series.
1980 Italian writer Umberto Eco publishes The Name of the Rose.
1980–1989 Jerk humor appears as one of the three distinguishable forms of modern humor
in China.
1980–1999 Xiangsheng (Chinese crosstalk) becomes popular and reaches its climax.
1982 Don and Alleen Nilsen found World Humor and Irony Membership (WHIM) at
the University of Arizona.
1985 Mahadev Apte publishes Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach.
1985 Victor Raskin proposes the first formal linguistic theory of humor: the semantic
script theory of humor (SSTH).
1987 International Society of Humor Studies is founded.
1987–1992 The Cosby Show airs on NBC.
1988 Last WHIM conference is held at Purdue University.
1988 HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research begins publication.
1988 Humoresques begins publication in France.
1988–1997 Roseanne airs on ABC.
1989–1998 Seinfeld airs on NBC.
1990 Christie Davies publishes Ethnic Humor Around the World.
1990–1999 Internet humor emerges as a dominant medium of communication.
1993 American Indian writer Sherman Alexie publishes The Lone Ranger and Tonto
Fistfight in Heaven.
1998 Jon Stewart takes over hosting Comedy Central’s The Daily Show.
2000 E’gao Internet spoofs first appear in China.
2001 The first fMRI study on humor, carried out by Vinod Goel and Raymond
J. Dolan, appears in Nature Neuroscience.
2001–2003 The British workplace comedy The Office is on the air.
2003–2006 Chappelle’s Show airs on Comedy Central.
2005 Chinese film director Chen Kaige’s blockbuster The Promise is released and
subsequently spoofed by Hu Ge in A Bloody Case Caused by a Steamed Bun.
ca. 2007 LOLcats, advice animals, and rage comics start becoming popular forms of Internet
humor.
2007 Rod Martin publishes The Psychology of Humor.
2008 The Primer of Humor Research, edited by Victor Raskin, is published.
2010 Memes start emerging as a prominent medium of Internet humor.
2011 A Japanese minister resigns after making an inappropriate comment regarding
the 2011 tsunami and resultant nuclear crisis in his country.
2012 Stephen Colbert forms his own “super PAC” during the 2012 presidential
election on his show The Colbert Report, a spin-off of The Daily Show With Jon
Stewart.
2014 The Encyclopedia of Humor Studies is published.
Appendix B

HUMOR ASSOCIATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

The following is a nonexhaustive listing of associations and programs, as well as stand-alone journals that
deal primarily or completely with humor research. Whereas some of these associations and publications have
existed for more than 25 years, many associations and sometimes journals appear suddenly and disappear
almost as quickly. Therefore, the main criterion for inclusion in this listing is a certain stability and continuity
in operation. Whenever possible, Internet contact information has been provided. Because Internet addresses
change often, these should be taken as merely orientational.

American Humor Studies Association

This society promotes research and criticism of American humor. The American Humor Studies Association
(AHSA) sponsors a scholarly journal, Studies in American Humor, as well as a biannual newsletter, To Wit.
For more information, see http://americanhumorstudiesassociation.wordpress.com.

American School of Laughter Yoga

Although the center is located in Los Angeles, California, the online resource provides information on
the underlying theories and practice of laughter yoga, tips on how laughter can improve the overall
quality of life, as well as online training sessions. For more information, see http://www.laughteryogaamerica
.com.

Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor

The Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor (AATH) is a nonprofit association that seeks to
promote the most up-to-date research on the connection between humor, laughter, and well-being, as well
as provide resources, education, and support for its members who come from various interdisciplinary
health care professions. The AATH sponsors two publications: E-zine and Humor Connection. For more
information, see http://www.aath.org.

Association for the Study of Play, The

This academic organization promotes interdisciplinary research surrounding the concept of play. The
Association for the Study of Play’s (TASP) multidisciplinary scope includes play research from fields such
as anthropology, biology, communication, culture studies, education, history, kinesiology, philosophy,
psychology, sociology, and more. TASP publishes Play Review, a quarterly newsletter, as well as Play &
Culture Studies, an annual volume. TASP also holds an annual conference. For more information, see
http://www.tasplay.org.

Australasian Humor Studies Network

The Australasian Humor Studies Network (AHSN) was developed to create and maintain a network
between humor scholars across Australia and New Zealand. One of the AHSN’s priorities is to provide

831
832 Appendix B

resources and support to students dealing with humor-related topics in various fields. The AHSN holds
annual colloquia and offers an e-newsletter. For more information, see http://sydney.edu.au/humourstudies/
about.shtml.

Big Apple Circus—Clown Care

This community outreach program performs circus acts for hospitalized children in more than 16
facilities nationwide. For more information, see http://www.bigapplecircus.org.

Bumper “T” Caring Clowns

This nonprofit volunteer-based organization provides humorous performances for hospital patients
and their families in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. For more information, see http://www
.bumpertcaringclowns.org.

Caring Clowns International

This charity-based organization consists of more than 40 clowns around the world whose primary aim
is to bring laughter to those who need it most. The members perform in a variety of venues, from prisons
to orphanages. For more information, see http://www.caringclownsinternational.org.

Carolina Health and Humor Association

Carolina Health and Humor Association (Carolina HaHa), a nonprofit organization, provides art
therapy programs as well as humor training, health care, and other stress relief methods to promote and
support healthy living. For more information, see http://www.carolinahealthandhumor.org.

Centro Ricerca Umorismo

Centro Ricerca Umorismo (CRU) is an Italian resource for humor researchers. The website offers
discussions on research in the field and provides information regarding other humor-related organizations.
For more information, see http://www.ricercaumorismo.it.

Clowns Without Borders

The members of this organization devote their time to bringing laughter to children in areas of crisis
around the world, such as conflict or famine zones, refugee camps, places receiving relief following
natural disasters, and other crises. For more information, see http://www.clownswithoutborders.org.

Comedy Cures Foundation

This nonprofit organization provides both live and digital forms of therapeutic comedy programs for
children and adults who face difficulties in life such as illness, disabilities, or abuse. For more information,
see http://www.comedycures.org.

Comedy Studies
Based in the United Kingdom, this journal offers insight on various interdisciplinary aspects of comedy
and comedians. Contributors include writers, academics, comedians, and more. For more information,
see http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk.

CORHUM, Association française pour le développement des recherches sur le comique

This organization promotes interdisciplinary research surrounding humor and laughter, including but
not limited to the historical, sociological, anthropological, linguistic, and psychological aspects.
CORHUM has a biannual publication, Humoresques, which is distributed by the House of Human
Sciences. For more information, see http://www.humoresques.fr.
 Humor Associations and Publications 833

Fools for Health

Based in Canada, members of this group role-play as clown-doctors in hospital settings in order to
bring laughter to patients and their families.

Gliner Center on Humor Communication and Health

This center is a branch of the University of Maryland’s Department of Health Services Administration.
The purpose of this center is to explore the ways in which humor and laughter can facilitate good health.
While maintaining a relationship with the academic research of humor and health, this organization also
provides various outreach programs to educate the community on the benefits of humor in relation to
good health. For more information, see http://www.sph.umd.edu/hlsa/Gliner/index.cfm.

Ha-P
This organization is geared toward providing information and opportunities to discover the importance
of optimism, laughter, and happiness on life. Ha-P offers workshops, from professionals and motivational
speakers, and programs such as the Joy Care Leadership. For more information, see http://www.ha-p.com.

Humor Gráfico
Humor Gráfico is an international organization based out of the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid,
Spain, that aims to promote the recognition of the cartoonist profession, as well as a cartoonist’s role in
culture. For more information, see http://www.humorgrafico.org.

Humor in America
This blog covers American humor and humor studies. The blog invites authors to submit articles on a
variety of topics, such as humor theory, the pedagogy of humor, interviews with humor scholars or comedians,
humorous literature, and many more. For more information, see http://humorinamerica.wordpress.com.

Humor Project, Inc., The

This online resource focuses on the positive power of humor by offering up-to-date information
regarding humor-related conferences, publications (both academic and nonacademic), life-coaching tips,
and discussion boards. For more information, see http://www.humorproject.com.

International Society for Humor Studies

This scholarly organization supports the advancement of humor studies and research. The majority of
the society’s members are academics from a wide variety of disciplines. The International Society for
Humor Studies (ISHS) publishes the quarterly journal, HUMOR: International Journal of Humor
Research, and holds annual conferences and workshops. The society is a hub for connections in the field
of humor research; it offers information and resources about other organizations, as well as connections
with the researchers themselves. For more information, see http://www.hnu.edu/ishs.

International Society for Luso-Hispanic Humor Studies, The

The International Society for Luso-Hispanic Humor Studies (I.S.L.H.H.S.) promotes the study of
humor in the Spanish and Portuguese languages to encourage the expansion of communication and
research in the field of humor. For more information, see http://ilhhumorsoc.org.

International Studies in Humour

International Studies in Humour (ISH) accepts interdisciplinary research in the field of humor for its
biannual publication. For more information, see http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/ephraim/Humor-E-Journals/
IntStudiesHumour/Global/links-webpage.htm.
834 Appendix B

International Summer School and Symposium on Humour and Laughter

Also known as the Humour Summer School, this organization focuses on providing students and
established researchers with the fundamental theories and methods in humor-related research, as well as
past and present approaches used in the field. The annual course is held at various international locations.
For more information, see http://www.humoursummerschool.org.

Israeli Journal of Humor Research

This international e-journal is the publication of the Israeli Society for Humor Studies, with an
interdisciplinary academic focus in the field of humor. For more information, see http://www.israeli-
humor-studies.org/site/index.asp?depart_id=122789.

Israeli Society for Humor Studies, The

This society, based in Israel, supports international interdisciplinary research in the field of humor. The
society publishes two e-journals: Israeli Journal of Humor Research and Humor Mekuvvan: A Research
Journal in Humor Studies. For more information, see http://www.israeli-humor-studies.org/122789/The-
Israeli-Society-for-Humor-Studies.

Japan Humor and Laughter Society

This society’s primary goal is to minimize professional and academic barriers of humor researchers and
increase understanding of the relationship between humor and laughter. Members of the society include
academic professors, as well as nonacademic professionals.

Laughter Heals Foundation

The primary purpose of this nonprofit organization is to promote physical and mental healing through
laughter. For more information, see http://laughterheals.org.

Lawhaha.com
This online news source was started by law professor Andrew McClerg. The website touches on topics
of legal education, legal oddities, and humorous law-related stories. For more information, see http://
lawhaha.com.

Le Rire Médicin
Le Rire Médicin is a French association of medical professionals dedicated to bringing humor to
hospital patients. Founded in 1988, this association organizes training workshops for hospital clowns.
For more information, see http://www.leriremedecin.asso.fr.

Museum House of Humour and Satire

Located in Gabrovo, Bulgaria, this museum exhibits cultural artifacts and historical records revolving
around the local carnivals and humor folklore of Gabrovo. The exhibits not only portray the history of
Gabrovo but also showcase the hardships that led to the distinct Gabrovo humor so ingrained in that
culture. Artwork, antique wagons, masks and other carnival attire, and instruments are among the many
pieces one can find at the Museum House of Humour and Satire. For more information, see http://www
.humorhouse.bg/enindex.html.

North East Texas Humor Research Conference

The North East Texas Humor Research Conference (NETHRC) is a regional organization that holds
annual conferences focusing on multidisciplinary areas of humor research. The conferences are held in
the North East Texas area and typically include plenary, roundtable, paper, and poster sessions, as well
as workshops.
 Humor Associations and Publications 835

Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association

The Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (PCA/ACA) consists of scholars and
nonscholars who share common ideas and interests about a specific topic in the field of popular culture.
Such topics may include film, advertising, politics, literature, gender studies, and many more. The PCA/
ACA publish two journals: the Journal of Popular Culture, which is a peer-reviewed journal with a broad
interdisciplinary focus published six times a year, and the Journal of American Culture, which focuses
mainly on the arts. The PCA/ACA also offers regional, national, and international annual conferences.
For more information, see http://pcaaca.org.

Rx Laughter
This nonprofit group seeks to aid individuals dealing with life’s greatest challenges, such as trauma,
addiction, grief, illness, or pain, by means of laughter and comedy entertainment. For more information,
see http://www.rxlaughter.org.

Umorismo Formazione
This Italian organization offers educational activities surrounding humor and humor theory, such as
workshops, laughter therapy, comedy lessons, and training models aimed toward improving the social
and cultural quality of life. For more information, see http://www.lescuoledirecitazione.it/piemonte/
torino/umorismo-formazione.
Audrey C. Adams
Index

Entry titles and their page numbers are in bold.

Aaron, Paul, 2:555 Adams, Audrey C., 1:360–361

Aarons, Debra, 1:393 Adams, Douglas, 2:671
AATH (Association for Applied and Therapeutic Adams, John Quincy, 2:514
Humor), 1:251, 2:831 Adams, Reginald B., Jr., 1:168
Abbott, William “Bud,” 1:78, 98, 133, 145, 189, Adams, Scott, 1:147, 2:796–797. See also Dilbert
254, 2:520, 524, 731, 809 (by Scott Adams)
Abboud, Māroun, 1:58 Adamson, Andrew, 2:527
Abe, Goh, 1:319 Adaptive versus maladaptive humor, 1:49–50,
Abelson, Robert, 1:228 123, 200
Abolitionist movement, 2:622 Addiction to telling jokes, 1:91
Abraham (prophet), 1:56–57, 82, 127, 410 Adhikari, Mohamed, 2:716
Abrahams, Jim, 2:526, 731 Adkin, Neil, 1:99
Abrahams, Roger, 1:241 Adler, Alfred, 2:631
Abrera, Jess, 2:726 Adolescence:
Abstract versus tendentious jokes, 1:354 disposition toward ridicule in, 1:258
Absurdist humor, 1:1–4 humor development in, 1:122, 123, 124,
in anti-proverbs, 1:48 126–127, 199
in comic strips, 1:156 joke cycles used in, 1:415, 416
inversion/topsy-turvydom and, 1:394–395 Adorno, Theodor, 2:530
of Monty Python, 1:1, 4, 2:518, 519, 520 Adrjan, Pawel, 2:570
in music, 2:532, 533, 535 Advertisement, 1:4–10
naming of, 1:264 anti-proverbs in, 1:48
satire and, 1:2–3 art and, 1:65
semantics of humor and, 2:676 attention and, 1:7–8
theater of (see Theater of the absurd) hoaxing in, 1:338–339
Abu al-’Alā’ al-Ma’arrī (writer), 1:56 persuasion in, 1:4, 5, 7–8
Abu Nuwas (poet), 1:55–56 political satire in, 2:717
Accent, sociolinguistic, 1:72, 203 theoretical explanations for humor in, 1:5, 7–9,
Acciaiuoli, Niccolò, 1:87 10–11
Accidental humor, 1:351 See also Advertising, effectiveness of humor in
Accidental puns, 2:552 Advertising, effectiveness of humor in, 1:10–13
Ace, Jane, 1:335 attention and, 1:11, 12, 2:563
Action units, in facial movement, 2:703, 704 failure of, 1:11
Actor guilds, 1:162 high-context humor for, 1:289
Actors’ theater, 1:161. See also Commedia dell’arte persuasion and, 1:10, 11, 12, 2:563–564
Adage, 1:50. See also Aphorism See also Advertisement
Adamov, Arthur, 1:3, 2:463 Advocacy, in journalism, 1:423–424

837
838 Index
Aeschylus, 1:33, 60, 159, 2:553, 665, 666
Aesop, 1:42, 411, 2:501, 598
Aesthetic measure of objects, 2:489
Aesthetics, 1:13–15
in ancient Greece, 2:459
arousal theory and, 1:62
in design, 1:196
humor as aesthetic experience, 1:13–14
Indian, 2:657
of stand-up comedy, 2:734
See also Art and visual humor
Affect-as-information theory, 1:11
Affect-transfer hypothesis, 1:4–5, 8, 11
Affiliative humor:
aggressive humor versus, 1:283
in aging adults, 1:19
anxiety and, 1:50
in bullying, 1:199
characteristics of, 1:16, 364, 366
in the classroom, 1:208
personality and, 1:366, 367, 2:562
psychological health and, 1:282
in relational maintenance, 1:353
See also Aggressive and harmless humor
Afghanistan, Zanbel-e-Gham magazine in, 2:478
Afigbo, A. E., 1:379
Africa:
ancient Roman mockery of, 2:653
Clowns Without Borders in, 1:134 (illustration)
integration of the serious and comic in, 2:646
ritual clowns in, 2:647
ritual temporary inversion in, 1:110
tricksters in, 2:776
West African societies, 1:20, 2:776, 788
See also Akan humor; Ancient Egypt, humor in;
Igbo humor; South African humor
African American Vernacular English, 2:739, 788
African Americans:
Bre’r Rabbit trickster and, 2:776
Chitlin’ Circuit and, 2:735
comic representations of, 1:202, 203, 2:621,
622–625, 697, 739
contests-in-insults among, 1:385–386
counterlanguage and code used by, 2:623–624
exploitation of, 2:521
featured as comedians, 2:625
folk traditions of, 1:239, 2:542
hip-hop culture and, 2:788–789
humor of, 2:541–542, 623
humor of, socially conscious, 2:624–625
humor of, to attack stereotypes, 1:218, 2:624, 739
joke cycles about, 1:414
marginalization of, 1:333
as minstrelsy performers, 2:622–623, 624, 739
name-related humor, prejudice, and, 1:373
playing the dozens game of, 1:86, 2:786, 788
self-deprecating folklore among, 1:386
stereotypes of, 1:202, 331, 414 (see also Racial
stereotyping)
stereotypes of speech of, 1:202, 203, 2:622, 624
stereotypes of the Black male, 2:740
in U.S. frontier humor, 1:331, 332
See also Africa
Afrikaners, 2:715, 716
Aggression theory of humor, 1:128, 2:575. See also
Aggressive and harmless humor
Aggressive and harmless humor, 1:15–18
aggressive, nature of, 1:16–17, 364, 366
aggressive, versus affiliative humor, 1:283
in anti-proverbs, 1:48
bullying and, 1:199
children and, 1:123, 199, 200
in the classroom, 1:208
gender and, 1:262
harmless, nature of, 1:16
illness and, 1:200
personality and, 1:50, 283, 366–367, 2:562
in topsy-turvydom, 1:393–394
Aging and humor, 1:18–20, 134, 136, 356
Ago-n element in Aristophanes’s comedies, 1:60
“A-ha!” moment, 1:183
Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, 1:149
AHSA (American Humor Studies Association), 2:831
AHSN (Australian Humor Studies Network),
2:831–832
AIDS, 1:345, 2:578. See also HIV
Akan humor, 1:20–22
Akram, Osman, 2:478
Al-adab al-hazlī (jocular literature), 1:55, 57–58
Albee, Edward, 2:772
Alcala, Larry, 2:726
Alden, Dana, 1:8, 11
Aleichem, Sholem, 1:318
Alexie, Sherman, 1:27
Alexios II (emperor), 1:99
Alexios Komnenos (emperor), 1:99
Alexiou, Margaret, 1:98
Aleykhem, Sholem, 1:412
Alfonso the Magnanimous (king), 1:408
Al-Hakīm, Tawf īg, 1:58
 Index 839

Al-Hamadhānī (writer), 1:55 race representations of, 2:625

Al-Harīrī (writer), 1:55 ritual clowning and, 1:132, 2:483, 646–647
Ali, Muhammad, 2:732 teasing in, 1:25–26
Ali G character, and stereotyping, 2:740 trickster tradition in, 1:24–25, 27, 218, 2:776,
Ali Sanat, 2:725 777–778
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (by Lewis See also First Nations
Carroll), 2:487, 543–544, 690. See also American Library Association, 1:256
Carroll, Lewis American Orthopsychiatric Association, 2:635
Al-Jāhiz (writer), 1:55 American Psychological Association (APA), 1:342,
Allah, 1:404, 405–406. See also God 2:588
Allais, Alphonse, 1:317, 2:462 American School of Laughter Yoga, 2:831
Allegories: Amir, Lydia, 1:79
in animal-related humor, 1:42 Amis, Martin, 2:555
as a figure of speech, 2:642 Amos, John, 2:624
in the history of farce, 1:235 Amritavalli, R., 2:706
in Japan, 1:312, 323 Amusement and emotions, 1:52, 75, 157, 2:588, 704
satiric, 2:662 Amygdala, 1:89, 90, 2:511
Allen, Fred, 1:336 Analytical philosophy, 1:370
Allen, Gracie, 1:336 Ancient Egypt, humor in, 1:28–31, 243, 2:585. See
Allen, Steve, 2:735 also Assyrian and Babylonian Humor
Allen, Woody, 1:213, 217, 366, 413, 2:521, 524, Ancient Greece, the tragic emotions in, 1:159
526, 773 Ancient Greek comedy, 1:31–35
Allport, Gordon, 1:261 aesthetics and, 1:14, 2:459
Al-Māzinī, Ibrāhīm, 1:58 animal fables and, 1:42
Alter, Robert, 2:462 and comic versus tragic worldviews, 1:159–160
Alternative comics, 1:147. See also Comic books farce in, 1:234
Altman, Robert, 2:526 Greek jokebook, 2:565–566
Altsech, Moses, 1:12 impact on ancient Roman comedy, 1:34, 35
Aluzinnu (Babylonian professional), 1:69 masks in, 1:32, 2:484–485, 484 (illustration)
Ambiguity, 1:22–24 Middle Comedy, 1:33–34, 59
children’s development and, 1:124, 126 mime in, 2:506
comic stereotyping and, 2:739–740 New Comedy, 1:32, 34, 35, 140, 141, 2:502–504
in conversational humor, 1:175 Old Comedy, 1:32–33, 59, 60, 140, 141, 273
expectation and, 2:455 performance conditions for, 1:32
Freudian perspective of, 1:250 political humor, 1:31, 32, 33, 34, 59, 60
in identity, 1:377 visual humor, 1:271–275
isotopy and, 1:83 See also Aristotelian theory of humor; Greek
lexical versus structural, 1:23 visual humor
psychology of, 1:221 Ancient Greek epigrams, 1:212
syntactic, 2:459 Ancient Mesopotamia. See Assyrian and
of teasing, 2:757, 758 Babylonian humor
in the workplace, 2:803, 805 Ancient Roman comedy, 1:35–39
See also Puns epigrams in, 1:212
Ambrose, Saint, 1:128 farce in, 1:234
American Council of Mathematics, 2:488 fathers as targets in, 1:38
American Humor Studies Association (AHSA), impact of, on theatrical traditions, 1:141
2:831 impact of ancient Greek comedy on, 1:34, 35
American Indian cultures, humor in, 1:24–28 masks in, 1:35, 2:484, 485
anthropological analysis and, 1:45 metacomedy, 1:36–38
marginalization and, 1:333 mime in, 2:506
840 Index
visual humor, 2:651–655
See also Byzantine humor; Roman visual
humor
Andersen, Lars, 1:337 (illustration)
Anderson, Clive, 1:213
Anderson, Eddie, 1:335
Anderson, Leroy, 2:532
Andrade, Mario de, 2:720
Andreini, Francesco, 1:162
Andreini, Giovan Battista, 1:162
Andreini, Isabella, 1:162
Andrews, Julie, 2:526
Andronikos I Komnenos (emperor), 1:99
Anecdote, comic, 1:39–41
in Arabic literature, 1:55, 57, 58
Byzantine, 1:99
in Chinese jestbooks, 1:246–247
conversational and personal, 1:177
in Igbo life, 1:380
in Islam, 1:402, 403, 405
in Jewish humor, 1:40, 411, 413
jokes compared to, 1:40, 177
in music hall songs, 2:534–535
Anekdot, in Russian humor, 2:542
Anger, 1:158–159, 385, 2:499, 500, 529
Anglo Americans, 2:621. See also Whites
Animal comedy (genre), 2:521. See also Farce
Animal-related humor, 1:41–42
beast fables, 1:298–299
behaving like humans, 1:28, 29, 30, 41
in comic strips, 1:156
on the Internet, 1:389
in Jewish humor, 1:411
in medieval art and literature, 2:496, 500–501
See also Nonhuman species
Animation:
by Disney, 1:41, 2:523
in the history of humor, 1:334, 335
in Japan, 1:311
by Monty Python, 2:518, 519
in the movies, 2:520, 522, 523, 527, 701
on television, 2:547
as a visual style, 1:147
Anime (animation), 1:311. See also Animation
Annan, Noël, 1:213
Anne (queen), 2:663
Anrakuan Sakuden, 1:323
Ansari, Aziz, 2:625
Antecedent-focused humorous coping, 1:179–180
Anthony, Norman, 2:468, 471
Anthropology, 1:43–47
approaches of, 1:43–45
cultural expression and, 1:45–47
evolutionary, 2:667
situation analysis in, 1:44–45, 46
of speech play, 2:728
trickster terminology from, 2:777
Anthropomorphic elements:
in ancient Egyptian human, 1:30
in comic books, 1:147
in comic strips, 1:156
in visual art, 1:64, 67
See also Animal-related humor
Anti-defamation laws, 2:475
Anti-female humor, 1:260. See also Gender issues;
Gender roles in humor
Anti-feminist anti-proverbs, 1:48
Anti-feminist fabliaux, 1:225
Anti-heroes, 1:79, 312, 326, 329, 2:517, 523,
539, 619
Anti-Islam expressions and media, 2:639, 754
Anti-limerick, 2:454
Anti-male humor, 1:260. See also Gender issues;
Gender roles in humor
Anti-Muslim humor, 2:639
Anti-poetry, 2:720
Anti-proverb, 1:47–49, 242, 2:517, 793
Anti-Semitism, 1:149, 245, 305, 411, 412, 413,
2:470
Anxiety, 1:49–50
and exposure to humorous materials, 1:281
Freud on, 1:49
humor for reduction of, 1:18, 2:558, 600
in phobias, 1:50, 180, 2:600
relief from, 1:129, 134 (see also Relief theory)
See also Phobias
APA (American Psychological Association), 1:342,
2:588
Apartheid, 2:715, 716, 717, 718
Apatow, Judd, 1:383, 2:527, 702
Apes:
laughter in, 1:53, 219
laughter-related vocalizations in, 2:439
play signals in, 1:15
See also Animal-related humor; Nonhuman species
Aphorism, 1:50–52, 137, 213, 2:468, 491, 677
Apollinaire, Guillaume, 2:463
Apothegm, 1:50. See also Aphorism
Appian (writer), 2:460
Appleton, Victor, 2:767
 Index 841

Appraisals: sociocultural factors in, 1:186, 188, 190, 241

reappraisals, in reducing stress and threats, 1:282
simultaneous, for humor appreciation, 1:54
simultaneous, in benign violation theory, 1:76
Appreciation of humor, 1:52–55
benign violation hypothesis on, 1:54
in brain-damaged patients, 1:166–167
cognitive aspects as crucial to, 1:136–137
cognitive development and, 1:122
cognitive models of, and mindset, 1:361–362
cognitive phases involved in, 1:198
complexity and, 1:164, 165
conditions for, 1:52–54
creativity in, 1:184, 185
frontal brain structures in, 1:168
gender and, 1:259–260, 262
in gifted children and adults, 1:120
heritability of, 1:284
humor comprehension linked to, 1:184, 185
individual differences in, 1:373, 2:561
internal motivation and, 1:137
mirth and, 1:168, 2:510
neuropsychology of, 1:88, 89, 91, 167–168
personality and, 2:561, 562, 606
positive emotions and, 2:709
psychiatric disorders and, 2:600–602
3 WD test of, 2:760, 763–765
See also Comprehension of humor
Appropriate and inappropriate humor:
in advertising, 1:7, 11
by aging individuals, 1:19
children learning about, 1:121
computer-generated, 1:347, 348
Confucianism and, 1:172, 173, 174, 290
between couples, 2:482, 483
in education, 1:207–208, 209, 210, 2:446, 559,
560, 755, 756, 762
Freudian perspective on, 1:250
humor development and, 1:197, 199, 200
in irony, 1:398, 401
maxims and, 2:492–493
in metaphors, 2:504–505
in music, 2:528, 529, 532
in name selection, 1:373
neuropsychology of humor and, 1:90, 91
practical jokes and, 2:593
prejudice and, 2:595, 596
in psychotherapy, 2:609, 610
religion and, 1:99, 128, 2:637
sick humor and, 2:691, 693
in the workplace, 2:481, 800
April Fool’s Day, 1:337 (illustration), 2:593, 648
Apte, Mahadev, 1:xxxi, 43–44
Apter, Michael, 1:53, 384
Apuleius (writer), 1:327, 2:460
Aquinas, Saint Thomas, 1:129, 2:570, 637
Arabic culture, humor in, 1:55–59
anecdotes in, 1:55, 57, 58
in hadith literature, 1:58
in Islamic jurisprudence, 1:58
limits of, 1:59
in medieval Arabic literature, 1:55–56
in modern Arabic literature, 1:58–59
in the Qur’an, 1:56–57
the Qur’an in Arabic jocular literature, 1:57–58
See also Islam
Aragonès, Sergio, 1:147
Arbuckle, Fatty, 2:522
Arbuckle, Roscoe, 2:522
Archer, Jeffrey, 1:213
Archie comics, long run of, 1:147
Architecture and sculpture, interaction between,
2:496–498
Archpoet, the, of medieval Europe, 1:299
Arcimboldo, Giuseppe, 1:182
Arden, Eve, 1:335
Ardolino, Emile, 2:527
Arenas, Reinaldo, 2:723
Aretino, Pietro, 1:328
Argentina, HUMOR and Satyricón magazines in,
2:474, 477
Arguedas Cortés, Gilda Rosa, 2:571
Argumentation, model of, 1:70
Argyropoulos, John, 1:100
Ariosto, Ludovico, 1:142, 326, 328, 2:514
Aristocratic society in premodern Japan,
1:319–321, 324
Aristophanes, 1:59–60
Borges and, 2:591
caricature and, 1:103
censorship of, 2:662
creativity of, 1:182
as the father of comedy, 1:59
in Greek comedic patterns, 1:140
in the history of satire, 2:661
homosexuality as a subject for, 1:343
incongruity theory and, 2:568
influence of, 1:101, 102, 144, 266, 328, 329,
396, 2:567, 684
842 Index
mathematician role used by, 2:487
Menander compared to, 1:60, 2:465, 503
Plato’s criticism of, 2:574
scientific themes of, 2:670
surviving works of, 1:31, 32–33, 59, 159
visual gags of, 1:253
See also Frogs (by Aristophanes); Lysistrata (by
Aristophanes)
Aristotelian theory of humor, 1:60–62
Aristotle:
on comedy and ugliness, 1:320
concept of audience and, 1:70
on Hegemon of Thasos, 2:552
on humor as a rhetorical strategy, 2:585
influence of, 1:407, 2:684
on irony, 1:398
on laughter, 1:135, 295, 2:567
law of identity, 2:641
and the philosophy of humor, 2:567, 568,
569, 570
Poetics of, 1:60, 61, 286, 2:459, 661
Rhetoric of, 1:60, 61, 2:642, 661
rules for comedy set by, 1:286
superiority theory and, 1:341, 2:567, 796
systematic thinking on comedy by, 1:xxxi
three Aristotelian parts, 1:254
on tragedy, 1:14, 60, 61, 159
on tragic and comic characters, 1:157
See also Aristotelian theory of humor
Armin, Robert, 1:408
Arno, Peter, 2:471
Arousal and tension, physical and psychological
aspects of, 1:158–159
Arousal jag, 1:62, 63, 2:742
Arousal theory (Berlyne), 1:62–63
arousal jag in, 1:62, 63, 2:742
and the course of a joke, 1:62–63, 62 (figure)
See also Release theories of humor; Relief theory
Arousal-safety theory, 1:5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 53. See also
Release theories of humor; Relief theory
Arreola, Juan José, 2:722
Art and visual humor, 1:63–68
in ancient Greece, 1:271–275
in ancient Rome, 2:651–655
in caricature, 1:103–105
in contemporary art, 1:64, 65–66
hoax and prank in, 1:338
humorous stimuli in, 1:374
medieval, 2:494–502
in public art, 1:66–67
in religious art, 2:637
subversive humor and, 1:67
See also Aesthetics; Comic books; Comic strips
Art therapy, 2:832
Arthur, Bea, 2:697 (illustration)
Artifacts, in the design process, 1:196, 197
Artificial intelligence, 1:347, 348. See also Humor,
computer-generated
Artistic freedom, 1:328–329
Asceticism, 1:128–129, 173
ASD (autism spectrum disorder), 1:188, 199–200,
2:601
Ashbee, Henry Spencer, 1:117 (illustration)
Ashby, Hal, 2:526, 527
Ashby-Sterry, Joseph, 1:315
Asians:
as comedians, 1:218, 2:625
comic portrayals of, 2:625
stereotypes and racism attacked by, 1:218, 2:625
See also China; Japan; Southeast Asia
Aso- Jiro-, 2:677
Asperger, Hans, 2:601
Assessment. See Testing and evaluation
Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor
(AATH), 1:251, 2:831
Association for the Study of Play, The (TASP),
2:831
Association française pour le développement des
recherches sur le comique, 2:832
Assyrian and Babylonian humor, 1:68–70. See also
Ancient Egypt, humor in
Astaire, Fred, 2:540 (illustration)
Asthma, 1:278
Asymmetry, fundamental, 2:580
Atellani genre, 1:141
Athenaios, 1:100–101
Atkinson, Rowan, 1:144, 255, 2: 507, 701
Attack humor, 1:10. See also Aggressive and
harmless humor
Attardo, Salvatore, 1:xxxi
on Bergson’s Laughter, 1:78
on discourse approaches, 2:707
on Freud’s analysis of jokes, 1:354
on the GTVH, 1:354, 2:456, 772
on humor markers, 1:359, 360
on humorous metaphors, 2:505
on humorousness versus funniness, 2:630
on irony, 1:398, 399
on levels of failed humor, 1:232
on overlap and opposition, 1:72
 Index 843

on the perception of humor, 2:631 Azerbaijan, Molla Nasreddin magazine in, 2:475.
on punch lines, 2:611, 612 See also Nasreddin stories
on scripts, 2:489–490
Attention: Ba Gale, 2:724
in advertising, 1:7–8, 11, 12, 2:563 Ba Gyan, 2:724
classroom humor to increase, 1:208 Babcock, Barbara, 1:393, 2:460
and inattention, 1:254, 2:564 Babies. See Infancy
Aubouin, Elie, 1:384, 2:493 Babylonian humor. See Assyrian and Babylonian
Auden, W. H., 1:51 humor
Audette, Marc-Antoine, 1:339 Baccolini, Raffaella, 1:72
Audience, 1:70–71 Bach, P. D. Q., 2:530
in determining a comic or humorous style, 1:265 Bachorowski, Jo-Anne, 2:437, 490
essential participation of, in mime, 2:506 Backhaus, Mio and Peter, 1:313
frames in, 1:249 Bacon, Francis, 1:50, 51, 2:670
identity and, 1:378 Bad mood, 1:118–119. See also Cheerfulness,
laugh tracks and, 2:696, 699 seriousness, and humor
misdirection encouraged in, 2:512 Badges, pilgrim, 1:301
in music halls, 2:535–536 Bagge, Peter, 1:147
perspective of, in failed humor, 1:231–232 Bahrain, The Nugget humor magazine in, 2:476
primary and secondary, 1:71 Bailey, N., 2:661
stand-up comedy, and, 2:733–736 Bain, Alexander, 1:135, 341
in uses and gratifications theory, 2:781 Baker, George P., 1:285
in verbal dueling, 2:787 Baker, Ronald L., 1:20, 239
Audiovisual translation, 1:71–74. See also Bakhtin, Mikhail, 1:43, 47
Translation on carnivalesque, 1:106, 109–110, 111, 112,
Auerbach, Erich, 2:460 301, 305, 2:526, 654, 720
Auguste clown, 1:132, 132 (illustration), 134, 135 on enunciation, pastiche, and parody, 2:554
Augustine, Saint, 1:128 on the liberating force of laughter, 2:634
Augustus (emperor), 1:407, 2:652 on low comedy, 2:464
Aung Shein, 2:727 on Rabelais’s work, 1:105, 295, 305, 395
Austen, Jane, 1:285, 315, 2:460, 553, 662, 687 Bakhtinian spirit of carnival indulgence, 1:234. See
Austin, Alfred, 1:204–205 also Carnival and festival
Austin, J. L., 2:644 Baldwin, Barry, 2:565, 566
Australia, Cane Toad Times and Melbourne Punch Ball, Lucille, 1:255, 335, 2:525, 622, 701
magazines in, 2:472, 475 Ballard, J. G., 2:775
Australian Humor Studies Network (AHSN), Ballinger, Franchot, 2:777
2:831–832 Ballyhoo (magazine), as a massive cultural
Ausubel, Nathan, 1:411 presence, 2:471
Autant-Lara, Claude, 2:525 Balzac, Honoré de, 1:316
Authenticity, 1:19, 2:735 Ban Gu, 1:346
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 1:188, 199–200, Banana-skin pratfall, 1:52, 76, 186, 204
2:601 Banas, John, 1:207, 208
Autobiographical comics, 1:67 Bandes-dessinées (graphic novel genre), 1:156
Avi, Devor, 1:163 (illustration) Bangladesh, Unmad magazine in, 2:477
Avoidance and respect relationships, 1:44 Banksy (graffiti artist), 1:269, 270,
Avorgbedor, Daniel K., 1:20 270 (illustration)
Axiomatic theory, 1:369–370 Baraldi, Patrizia, 1:167
Ayckbourne, Alan, 2:504 Bariaud, Françoise, 1:198
Aykroyd, Dan, 1:383 Barks, Carl, 1:147
Ayyoub, Dhu-’n-Nu-n, 1:58–59 Barlow, Bill, 2:470
844 Index

Barnes, Daniel, 2:779 Belloc, Hilaire, 2:773

Barr, Robert, 1:315 Belushi, John, 1:383
Barr, Roseanne, 1:22–23, 422 Belvaux, Rémy, 2:515
Barrault, Jean-Louis, 1:329, 2:509 Bem, Daryl, 2:594
Barrie, J. M., 1:143, 316 Ben-Amos, Dan, 1:240
Barron, W. L., 1:228 Benchley, Robert, 1:423, 2:523
Barry, Dave, 1:423 BENCOR instrument, 2:680, 682
Barry, Lynda, 1:147 Bender, Amanda, 2:692
Barthes, Roland, 1:39 Benedict, Saint, 1:128
Bartók, Béla, 2:529, 532 Benevolent and corrective humor, 2:680
Bartolo, Angela, 1:167 Benign appraisal, 1:52, 53, 54, 76
Bartsch, Anne, 2:782 Benign humor, 1:16. See also Aggressive and
Baseman, Gary, 1:67 harmless humor
Basil the Great, 1:99 Benign versus mean-spirited style, 1:227, 364, 366
Baskin, Leonard, 1:104 Benign violation theory, 1:54, 75–77, 368, 2:603
Basso, Keith, 1:45 Benigni, Roberto, 2:525
Bateson, Gregory, 1:45, 2:635, 706, 729 Bennett, Alan, 1:212, 2:519
Bathroom graffiti, 2:667 Bennett, Gillian, 2:780
Bathroom humor. See Scatology Bennett, Mary P., 1:279
Batteux, Charles, 2:582 Benny, Jack, 1:5, 336, 2:523, 528, 753
Battling (verbal dueling), 2:788–789 Benson, E. F., 1:204
Baudelaire, Charles, 1:103, 2:572 Bentler, Peter, 1:229
Baumgartner, Jody, 1:249 Bentley, Richard, 2:514
Bausinger, Hermann, 2:668 Benton, Janetta Rebold, 2:495–497 (illustrations)
Baym, Nancy, 1:389 Benuzzi, Francesca, 1:167
Beard, Harry R., 2:518 (illustration) Beolco, Angelo, 1:328
Beard, Isobel, 2:518 (illustration) Berenson, Tom, 1:73
Beardsley, Aubrey, 2:555 Bergen, Doris, 1:121
Beast fables, 1:298–299. See also Animal-related Bergen, Edgar, 1:335
humor Berger, Arthur Asa, 2:753, 753 (table)
Beatles, The, 2:526, 531 Berger, Peter L., 1:84
Beaton, Kate, 1:148 Bergerac, Cyrano de, 2:670
Beattie, James, 1:52, 2:493, 568 Bergman, Ingmar, 2:519
Beaumarchais, Pierre, 1:141, 143, 407 Bergson, Henri, 1:xxxi
Beaumont, Francis, 1:95, 2:435 biographical information on, 1:77, 78
Bebel, Heinrich, 1:408 farce techniques outlined by, 1:234
Beckett, Samuel, 1:1, 3, 141, 143, 144, 2:445, 463, on the mechanical, 2:509, 556
545, 771 among modern theorists, 1:304, 305
Bedouin jokes, 1:58 Pirandello and, 2:572, 573
Bedroom farces, 1:143 on reciprocal interference, 1:254
Beerbohm, Max, 1:315 as a resource for anthropologists, 1:43
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1:182, 338, 2:532 on situational inversion, 1:395–396
Béjart, Armande, 2:518 on surprise juxtapositions, 2:729
Bekynton, Thomas, 2:502 and typologies for advertisement humor, 1:9
Bell, Marc, 1:67 Bergson’s theory of the comic, 1:77–80
Bell, N. D., 2:707 on the essence of comedy, 1:78
Bell, Nancy, 1:232, 2:584 reappraisal of, 1:77–78
Bellamy, Ralph, 2:524 (illustration) theory of the mechanical and, 1:78–79
Bellamy Brothers, 2:529 Berk, Lee S., 1:279
Belli, Giuseppe Gioachino, 1:317 Berk, Ronald, 2:762
 Index 845

Berkeley, Busby, 2:521, 522 Biological psychology, 2:605

Berkeley, George, 2:451 Bioy Casares, Adolfo, 2:721
Berle, Milton, 1:23, 24 Bipolarity of humor, 1:140–141
Berlin, Andy, 1:7 Birchmore, Tom, 2:623 (illustration)
Berlin, Irving, 2:539 Birkhoff, George, 2:489
Berlusconi, Silvio, 2:586 Birthday paradox, 2:551
Berlyne, Daniel, 1:62, 164, 2:742. See also Arousal Bisexual individuals, 1:11
theory (Berlyne) Bishop, Elizabeth, 2:581
Berman, Shelley, 1:383 Biskup, Tim, 1:67
Bernard, Tristan, 2:462 Bisociation, 1:83–85
Bernbach, William, 1:5 for humor appreciation, 1:52
Berni, Francesco, 1:326 humor as, 1:46
Bernstein, Deena K., 1:120 in Koestler’s theory of humor, 1:83–84, 2:669
Bernward (bishop), 2:498 Bizarre, the (as an aesthetic mode), 1:15
Bettini, Maurizio, 1:35 Bizet, George, 2:767
Bey, Hakim, 2:648 Black, Henry, 2:627
Bhabha, Homi, 2:592 Black, Jessica, 1:200
Bhanu Datta, 2:657 Black, Lewis, 2:598
Bharata (writer), 1:320, 2:508 Black African (Aethiops) in ancient Roman visual
Bhatia, Vijay, 1:263 humor, 2:653
Bhatta Jayanta, 2:658 Black Americans, and stereotyping, 2:739, 740. See
Biafra, Igbo ethnic group in, 1:378 also African Americans
Bial, Henry, 2:579 Black (ethnic or racial) humor:
Biancolelli, Domenico, 2:444 anthropological analysis of, 1:45
Bibbiena, Cardinal, 1:328 to attack stereotypes and racism, 1:218
Biblical humor, 1:80–83 in Cuba, 2:721
Byzantine humor and, 1:99 marginalization and, 1:333
comic patterns in, 1:141 See also Racial stereotyping
at the Feast of Fools, 1:238 Black (humour noir) humor, 1:264, 308, 2:521
in the Hebrew Bible, 1:80, 81–82, 255, 410, Black (tragic or morbid) humor:
425–427 the absurd and, 1:1, 251
in medieval Europe, 1:300 cold humor compared to, 1:303, 2:542
in the New Testament, 1:80, 82–83 in the history of humor, 1:308, 336
religion and, 2:637–638 Jewish humor and, 1:412, 413
scorn, hostility, and Biblical laughter, 2:567 in joke cycles, 1:416
tragedy transformed to comedy in, 2:460 naming of, 1:264
See also Christianity; Judaism sick humor compared to, 2:692
Biden, Joe, 2:599 See also Dark humor; Gallows humor
Bierce, Ambrose, 1:213, 316, 2:468 Blackface:
Big Apple Circus-Clown Care, 2:832 in burlesque, 1:97
Big Bang Theory, The (television sitcom), 1:xxx, 188 dialect humor and, 1:202
Biko, Steve, 2:718 marginalization and, 1:333
Bilgere, George, 2:582 in musical comedy, 2:538
Bilingual comedians, 1:189 as racial mimicry, 2:486
Bilingual or bicultural humor, 1:185, 187, 2:706, 707 racism and, 2:622
Bilingual puns, 1:187, 2:575, 767 stereotyping, ambiguity, and, 2:739
Billig, Michael, 1:217, 218, 2:714 in variety acts, 2:786
Billings, Josh, 2:468 See also Race, representations of
Bin Laden, Osama, 1:416 Blacks. See African Americans; Black (ethnic or
Binet, Alfred, 2:572 racial) humor; Race, representations of
846 Index
Blank parody, 2:556
Blank-face comedy, 2:507
Blason populaire, 1:85–87, 386
Blending, and metaphors, 2:504–505
Block, Herb, 2:598
Blogs, 1:194, 336, 346, 392, 422–423, 424, 2:833.
See also Internet humor
Blood pressure:
effect of humor or laughter on, 1:278–279,
2:558–559
mirth associated with, 2:511
Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) contrast,
1:89, 90
Blumler, Jay, 2:781
Blyth, R. H., 2:677
Boal, Augusto, 1:111
Boccaccio, Giovanni, 1:87–88
Decameron of, 1:87–88, 226, 299, 327, 2:460
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
exceptional influence of, 2:460
film adaptation of, 1:329
translation of works of, 2:773
Bodel, Jean, 1:226
Body movements, 2:704–705. See also Smiling and
laughter: expressive patterns
Boers, after the South Africa War, 2:715–716
Bogad, L. M., 2:578
Bogatyrëv, Pëtr, 2:694
Bogdanovich, Peter, 2:526
Boiardo, Matteo Maria, 1:326
Boito, Arrigo, 1:317
BOLD (blood-oxygen-level-dependent) contrast,
1:89, 90
Boleslawski, Richard, 2:524
Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria, 1:72
Bolton, Guy, 2:538
Bombeck, Emma, 1:423
Bonaventure-Monnier, Henri, 1:316
Boniface VIII (pope), 1:300
Bonner, Sherwood, 1:332
Bonzel, André, 2:515
Booby traps, 2:592
Book of Misers (by al-Jahiz), 1:55
Book of Poetry (Shijing), 1:289, 290
Boone, Daniel, 1:239
Boonzaier, D. C., 2:717–718
Boorish versus reflective style, 1:227, 364, 365
Booth, Shirley, 1:335
Booth-Butterfield, Melanie, 2:756
Booth-Butterfield, Steve, 2:756
Boredom, humor for prevention of, 2:802
Borge, Victor, 1:351, 2:528
Borges, Jorge Luis, 1:xxix, 2:591, 721
Borowitz, Andy, 1:422, 423
Bosch, Hieronymus, 1:64, 294, 2:500, 501, 502
Botero, Fernando, 1:66–67
Botha, Louis, 2:718
Bouhours, Dominique, 2:795
Boulanger, Louis, 1:237 (illustration)
Boulay, Charlotte, 2:582
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1:286
Bourke, John G., 2:667
Bow, Clara, 2:507
Bowen, Barbara, 1:78
Bowie, David, 2: 507 (illustration)
Box and Cox (by John Madison Morton), 1:235
Boxer, Diana, 2:706, 757
Boxman-Shabtai, Lillian, 1:390
Boyd, Zachary, 1:204
Boynton, Henry Walcott, 1:424
Bozzetto, Bruno, 2:520
Bracciolini, Poggio, 1:327, 408
Bracco, Lorraine, 1:73
Brackett, Charles, 2:524
Bradbury, Ray, 2:671
Bradney, Pamela, 2:796
Bradshaw, Peter, 2:554
Brahms, Johannes, 2:532
Brain, neuropsychology of humor, 1:88–92,
167–168
in the aging adult, 1:19
biological psychology and, 2:605
EEG and its findings, 1:88, 90–91, 92
fMRI and its findings, 1:88, 89–90, 92, 2:764
humor development and, 1:200, 201
in laughter and smiling, 2:439, 442–443
lesion studies of, 1:91, 92, 167
mirth and, 2:511
in verbal versus referential humor, 2:790
See also Cognitive aspects; Comprehension of
humor; Physiological aspects
Brain-damaged patients, 1:91, 166–167
Brainstorming, 1:197
Brand, ads, and humor, 1:8, 11, 12, 2:564
Brant, Sebastian, 1:244
Brassens, Georges, 1:329
Brazil, Pancada magazine in, 2:476
Brecht, Bertolt, 1:144, 244, 312, 2:794
Brempong, Owusu, 1:20
Brennan, Eileen, 1:422
 Index 847

Brenner, Athalya, 1:410 in the history of Chinese humor, 1:291

Breton, André, 1:264, 308, 2:521 in the history of humor, 1:319, 320, 321, 323
Bretón de los Herreros, Manuel, 1:317 the Laughing Buddha, 1:93–94
Breyer, Stephen G., 2:744, 745 Taoism and, 1:93, 94, 2:749
Brezhnev, Leonid, 2:542 Bullying:
Brice, Fanny, 1:98, 335 Gelotophobia, ridicule, and, 1:257, 258, 259
British music halls, 2:534–537 humor development and, 1:123, 199
Britten, Benjamin, 1:153, 2:770 pranks compared to, 1:140
Broaden-and-build theory, 2:588 teasing and, 2:757, 758
Broadway musical, 2:485. See also Musical comedy See also Harassment
Brône, Geert, 1:84 Bumper “T” Caring Clowns, 2:832
Bronner, Simon, 1:138, 415, 2:667 Bunner, H. C., 2:468
Brontë, Anne, 1:315 Buñuel, Luis, 2:525
Brontë, Emily, 1:315 Burchiello (Domenico di Giovanni), 2:543
Brookes, Peter, 2:553 Burgdorf, Jeff, 2:439
Brooke-Taylor, Tim, 1:145 Burgos, Javier de, 1:317
Brooks, James L., 2:527 Burke, Kenneth, 1:107, 148–149, 2:644
Brooks, Mel, 1:233, 413, 418, 2:520, 526, 540, Burlesque, 1:95–98
602, 670, 671, 701, 731 as a distinct communication genre, 1:149
Brougham, John, 1:96–97 in Europe, 1:95, 96, 294, 306–307, 316
Brown, Fredric, 2:671 frames and, 1:149, 150
Brown, Gilbert, 1:27 generic categorization of, 1:264
Brown, J., 1:24 high versus low burlesque, 1:396
Brown, Penelope, 1:343, 2:583–584 illustrations of, 1:96
Brown, Ray Chubby, 1:377 inversion and, 1:396
Brownell, Hiram, 1:166 in Japan, 1:320
Browning, Robert, 1:269, 2:581 reportorial, 2:468
Broyard, Anatole, 1:51 symbolic inversion and, 1:107
Bruce, Lenny, 1:413, 2:548, 598, 735 as a training ground, 1:98
Bruegel, Pieter, 1:64 variety shows and, 2:783, 784
Bruegel, Pieter (the elder), 1:106, 294, 2:464 vaudeville compared to, 1:97
Brunvand, Jan Harold, 1:339 Burma:
Brusati, Franco, 2:525 Shudaung humor journal in, 2:477
Bruscambille (comedian), 1:409 See also Myanmar
Brutsche, Martin H., 1:278 Burnand, F. C., 1:236 (illustration)
Bryant, Gregory, 1:360, 398 Burnand, Francis, 1:97
Bryant, Jennings, 2:755, 756, 762 Burnett, Leo, 1:6
Bryce Echenique, Alfredo, 2:723 Burning Man Festival, 2:648, 649
Bryennios, Nikephoros, 1:99 Burns, George, 1:336
Bubbles in comic strip panels, 1:156 Burnstick, Don, 1:26
Buber, Martin, 1:411 Burton, Robert, 1:296
Bucaria, Chiara, 1:72, 74 Burton, Tim, 2:527
Buchwald, Art, 1:423, 2:598 Burton, William, 1:96
Buckstone, John Baldwin, 1:316 Busch, Wilhelm, 1:155
Budai (the Laughing Buddha), 1:93–94 Bush, George H. W., 2:598
Budd, Leighton, 2:469 (illustration) Bush, George W., 2:458, 459, 586, 598, 599
Buddha, 1:92, 93–94, 2:657 Buster Brown (by Richard Outcault), 1:146
Buddhism, 1:92–95 (illustration)
attitude of, toward humor, 1:92–93, 2:636 Butler, David, 2:524
Chan/Zen Buddhism, 1:93, 94, 2:749, 750 Butler, Gerard, 1:391 (illustration)
848 Index

Butler, Judith, 1:343 Capp, Al, 1:146

Butler, Samuel, 1:95, 315, 396, 2:435, 461 Capra, Frank, 2:522, 523, 524
Buttons, Red, 1:98 Carbone, Lodovico, 1:408
Byrn, Marcus Lafayette, 1:330 Cardinale, Vince, 2:686 (illustration)
Byron, H. J., 1:96 Cardiovascular system:
Byron, Lord, 1:315, 2:514, 581 in laughter and smiling, 1:277–278, 2:437,
Byzantine humor, 1:98–102 442
Byzantium, 1:98, 99, 100, 101. See also Byzantine and physical benefits of humor, 1:277–278,
humor 2:558–559
Carducci, Giosuè, 1:317
Cabaret traditions in Europe, 1:305–306 Carell, Steve, 1:383
Cabrera Infante, Guillermo, 2:722, 723 Carey, Jim, 2:527
Caesar, Julius, 1:405 Caricature, 1:103–105
Caesar, Sid, 2:526 in the Bible, 1:410
Cage, John, 2:533 distortion in, 1:374
Cai Mo, 1:291 exaggeration in, 1:104, 222
Calderon, Pedro, 1:142 in Greek visual humor, 1:273, 273 (figure),
Calderón de la Barca, Pedro, 1:328 274 (figure)
Caldwell, Erskine, 1:332 history of, 1:104, 155, 317, 319, 333
California Funk art movement, 1:65 humorous stimuli for, 1:374
Calkins, Earnest E., 1:5 Jewish humor and, 1:410, 413
Callahan, John, 1:250 in magazines and newspapers, 1:104, 2:468,
Calligraphic shapes in graffiti, 1:270–271 472, 474, 476
Calvin, John, 1:130, 2:556, 620 masks and, 1:103, 105, 2:486
Calvino, Italo, 1:329 in medieval visual humor, 2:496, 501
Cambodia, cartooning in, 2:726 of Muhammad, 2:754
Camille, Michael, 2:502 pastiche and, 2:555–556
Camões, Luís Vaz de, 1:326 political, 1:103, 104, 113, 2:447, 468, 553, 586,
Camp (style), 1:343, 2:670 598, 743
Campbell, John, 1:398, 399 for ridicule, 2:796
Camus, Albert, 1:3 stereotyping and, 2:486, 739
Canada, First Nations of, 1:24, 26, 27 in tragicomedy, 2:770
Canary, Daniel, 1:353 Caring Clowns International, 2:832
Cancela, Arturo, 2:721–722 Carlin, George, 2:548, 598
Candid Camera (television show), 1:334–335, 337 Carlyle, Thomas, 1:351
Candid camera technique, 1:253, 2:716 Carmona, Elia, 2:474
Canel, Alfred, 1:85 Carné, Marcel, 2:523, 771
Canned humor, 1:53, 170, 209, 253, 351, 417, 2:561 Carnival and festival, 1:105–109
Canned jokes, 1:53, 170, 177, 209, 417, 2:494, caricature in, 1:103, 105
628, 629, 744, 772, 773 in European history, 1:294–295, 300–301
Canny jokes, 1:214–215, 216, 245 farce and, 1:234
Canterbury Tales, The (by Geoffrey Chaucer), inversion in, 1:106–109, 394, 395, 2:648
1:130, 226, 299, 2:460, 820. See also Chaucer, laughter rituals in, 2:650
Geoffrey masks in, 1:107, 108, 108 (illustration),
Cantoni, Alberto, 2:572 2:483–484
Cantor, Eddie, 1:98, 2:521, 522, 538 performative comedy and, 1:141–142
Cantor, Joanne R., 1:361 ridicule of clergy in, 1:130
Cao Xueqin, 1:41, 292, 2:463 ritual calendar and, 1:46
Capitalism, and humor in the United States, symbolic inversion in, 1:106–109, 110
1:334–335 See also Carnivalesque
 Index 849

Carnivalesque, 1:109–112 Catastrophe theory, 2:489, 490 (figure)

Bakhtin on (See Bakhtin, Mikhail) Catchphrases, 1:415, 2:519, 535, 698–699
in music halls, 2:534–535 Catharsis, comic, 1:61–62
in Plautus’s works, 2:576 Catherine the Great (empress), 1:297, 2:514
shock value of, 1:329 Catholicism:
in South American literature, 2:723 in early modern Europe, 1:296
as subversion or stabilization, 1:110–111 humor in, 2:638, 640
urban legend and, 2:780 religious calendar of, 1:105
See also Carnival and festival seminary training in, 1:130
Caro, Marc, 2:525 See also Christianity
Carolina Health and Humor Association, 2:832 Cattell, Raymond, 1:227, 228, 229
Carrell, Amy, 1:230, 2:630, 681 Cavalcanti, Mainardo, 1:87
Carrey, Jim, 1:133, 253, 2:701 Cawthra, Ben, 1:66 (illustration)
Carroll, Lewis, 1:2, 3, 316, 393, 394, 2:462, 487, Cecchi, Giovan-Maria, 1:235
543–544, 690, 691 Cedric the Entertainer (actor), 2:625
Carroll, Noel, 1:265, 2:633 Celebrity roasts, 1:339, 386
Carroll, Patty, 1:65 Céline (Louis Ferdinand Destouches), 2:465
Carson, D. K., 1:199 Cellier, Alfred, 1:393
Carson, Johnny, 2:599, 735 Censorship:
Carston, Robyn, 1:399 of Aristophanes, 2:662–663
Carter, Angela, 1:213 and the closing of publications, 2:472, 473
Carter, Jimmy, 2:597 of erotica, 1:240
Carter, Ronald, 2:705 in France, 2:475
Cartoon Punch Line Production Test (CPPT), 2:760 in Italy, 2:586
Cartoonist profession, Humor Gráfico for, 2:833 in Japan, 1:310
Cartoons, 1:112–116 in Kazakhstan, 1:149
anxiety and, 2:600 mocking of, 1:318
caricature in, 1:104 of obscenity, 2:548
“cartoon” term, introduction of, 2:476 in premodern Japan, 1:323
fMRI imaging studies and, 1:167, 168 in Reformation and Counter-Reformation, 1:142
history and use of, 1:112–114 self-censorship, 2:548
humor not always evident in, 1:116 in 17th-century England and France, 1:143
Manga, 1:156, 311 in South Africa, 2:716, 717, 718
mathematical humor in, 2:487 in Southeast Asia, 2:724
political (see Political cartoons) in Spain, 2:474
in premodern Japan, 1:319, 321 threat of, in British music halls, 2:537
in Southeast Asia, 2:724–727 in Turkey, 2:475
3 WD test of appreciation of, 2:760, 763–765 Centro Ricerca Umorismo (CRU), 2:832
See also Comic books; Comic strips; Graphic Cervantes, Miguel de, 1:116–118
novels; Southeast Asia, cartooning in burlesque used by, 1:95
Carus, Paul, 1:341, 342 comic characterization by, 2:460
Carvey, Dana, 2:598 and the commedia dell’arte, 1:142
Casadonte, Donald, 2:490, 490 (figure) creativity of, 1:182
Casaubon, Isaac, 2:661 deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
Casey, Bernadette, 1:263 in European history, 1:295, 326, 328
Castel-Bloom, Orly, 1:414 heroicomic work of, 1:396
Castellanos, Rosario, 2:722 influence of, 1:329
Castiglione, Baldesar, 1:408 on inversion, 1:394
Castle, Vernon and Irene, 2:538 Menippean satire and, 2:460
Castro, Fidel, 2:586 parody used by, 1:117, 2:553
850 Index
Cesarani, David, 1:84
Chaban parlor performance, 1:324
Chafe, Wallace, 2:437 (figure), 438
Chalepah, Adrianne, 1:26
Chalmers, Thomas, 2:523
Chambers, E. K., 1:110–111, 238
Chamfort, Nicholas, 1:50
Chan, Jackie, 1:253, 2:507, 527
Chan, Yu-Chen, 1:200
Chan Buddhism, 1:93, 94. See also Zen Buddhism
Chandler, Raymond, 1:213, 2:555
Chaplin, Charlie, 1:133, 251, 253, 334, 351–352,
396, 411, 412, 2:444, 464, 507, 520, 522, 567,
622, 701
Chapman, Anthony, 1:xxxi
Chapman, George, 1:296
Chapman, Graham, 1:306, 2:518, 519
Chappell, Fred, 1:332
Chappelle, Dave, 1:422
Character comedy, in movies, 2:520
Character strengths, 2:561–562, 589
Charlemagne (monarch), 1:298, 2:514
Charles, Larry, 2:516
Charles II (king), 1:143, 286
Charles IV (king), 2:495
Charles V (emperor), 2:620
Charles VII (king), 1:238
Charteris, Leslie, 2:794
Chase, Charlie, 2:523
Chase, Chevy, 2:598, 598 (illustration)
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 1:95, 141, 226, 299, 2:501,
581, 690. See also Canterbury Tales, The (by
Geoffrey Chaucer)
Cheah Sin Ann, 2:725
Cheerfulness, seriousness, and humor, 1:118–120
in autism spectrum disorder, 2:601
cheerfulness: neuropsychology of, 1:90
cheerfulness: relational maintenance and, 1:353
state-trait model of, 1:118–119
Cheerfulness Inventory, State-Trait, 1:119, 2:561,
606, 761
Chekhov, Anton:
comedy of manners and, 1:287
comic characterization by, 2:460
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
farce used by, 1:143, 235, 266
low and high comedy in, 2:465
short stories of, 1:143, 235, 317, 367
tragicomedy by, 2:771
transformative influence of, 1:143
Chelm, Poland, as a foolstown, 1:245
Chen, Hsueh-Chih, 1:200
Chen Kaige, 1:210, 211
Chérest, Aimé, 1:238
Chesnutt, Charles W., 1:332
Chesterton, G. K., 1:128, 2:543
Chevalier, Maurice, 2:523
Chi soffre speri (comic opera), 1:150–151
Chiari, Piero, 1:267–268
Chiaro, Delia, 1:72, 74
Chicago Imagists art movement, 1:65
Children:
acting like, 2:579
in ancient Roman comedy, 1:38
clowns feared by, 1:180–181
clowns in medical settings for, 1:134, 135
in Igbo life, 1:379–380
insults and taunts used by, 1:385
language-impaired, 1:171
name-related humor for, 1:372–373
obscenity experiences in, 2:548
personal anecdotes of, 1:177
playing by, 2:579
riddles, puns, paradox, and, 2:551–552
scatology and, 2:667
Children’s humor and giftedness, 1:120–121
Children’s humor research, 1:121–125
cognitive approaches, 1:121–122
emotional approaches, 1:125
on genetic factors, 1:284
linguistic approaches, 1:123–125
social approaches, 1:122–123
See also Development of humor
Children’s humor stages, 1:125–127
adolescence, 1:122, 123, 124, 126–127, 199
complexity and, 1:164–165
developmental psychology of, 2:606–607
humor comprehension and, 1:136
infancy, 1:120, 122, 125–126, 198, 2:766
mechanisms of humor in, 2:494
Piaget’s stages and, 1:122
preschool years, 1:122, 126, 198
school years, 1:122, 123–124, 125, 126
See also Children’s humor and giftedness;
Development of humor
Chile, The Clinic magazine in, 2:473
China:
Bergson’s influence in, 1:79–80
Buddhism in, 1:93, 94
Confucianism in, 1:172–174
 Index 851

e’gao of, 1:210–212 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 1:135, 407, 408, 2:566,
Forest of Laughter of, 1:246–248, 291 568, 585, 612, 613, 643, 644, 789, 790
history of humor in, classical, 1:289–293 Cinema. See Movies
history of humor in, modern, 1:302–304 Cingulate, 1:89, 91
huaji of, 1:248, 345–346 Circulatory system. See Cardiovascular system
humor magazines in, 2:473 Circus clowns, 1:132, 134. See also Clowns
Internet spoofing in, 1:210–212 Civil rights movement, 1:203, 2:578, 624
political cartooning in, 2:724 Civil War era, U.S. magazines and newspapers in,
worldviews of, 2:749 2:468
xiangsheng of, 2:808–812 Clair, René, 2:521, 522
xiehouyu of, 2:812–813 Clark, Bob, 2:527
Chinese, stereotypes about, 2:738 (illustration) Clark, D. A., 1:23
Chinese jestbooks, 1:246–248 Clark, Herbert, 1:399
Chinese meanings and tones, 1:189 Clark, Sam H., 2:470
Chipiez, C., 1:274 (figure) Clarke, Alastair, 2:557
Cho, Henry, 2:735 Clarke, Lewis Gaylord, 2:468
Cho, Margaret, 1:203, 2:625 Classical conditioning, 1:8
Chomsky, Noam, 2:457, 675 Classroom humor. See Education, humor in
Chopin, Frédéric, 2:532 Clay, Andrew Dice, 1:385
Chorus in ancient Greek plays, 1:32, 33, 34, 2 Clay, Cassius, 2:732
:485, 665 Cleese, John, 1:145, 251, 253, 306, 307, 2:518,
Chou, Tai-Li, 1:200 519, 520
Chow, Stephen, 1:303, 2:527 Clemens, Samuel, 1:423, 2:468. See also Twain,
Christ Jesus. See Jesus Mark
Christensen, Michael, 1:134 Clements, Ron, 2:527
Christianity, 1:127–129 Cleon (politician), 1:31, 59
Arabic jocular literature and, 1:58 Cleopatra (queen), 1:405
attitude of, toward humor, 2:636 Clergy, 1:129–131
carnival celebrations (see Carnival and festival) attacks on, in Renaissance works, 1:326
Church Fathers of, 1:99, 128 in fabliaux, 1:225, 226
a comic world seen in, 1:161 festivals engaged in, 1:110, 130, 237–238
dogmatism and sacredness in, 1:129 humor used by, 1:129, 130–131
humor in, 2:637–638 mockery of, 2:657–658
medieval, 1:128–129, 2:495–502 in pre-modern Japan, 1:320, 321, 323
Messianic joy of, 1:129 priest fools, 1:244
See also Biblical humor religious in-jokes among, 1:301
Christophel, Diane M., 2:756 Cleveland, Carol, 2:519
Christopher of Mytilene, 1:101 Cline, Thomas, 1:12
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Clinical psychology, 2:607
1:278, 280 Clinton, Bill, 1:415, 2:585–586, 597, 598, 599
Chrysostom, John, 1:99, 128 Clocks (brief looks to the audience), 1:133
Chuang Tzu, 2:749, 750 Close, Del, 1:382
Chudnow, Dick, 1:382 Clowes, Daniel, 1:67
Chunyu Kun, 1:346 Clown therapy, 1:134–135
Church architecture and sculpture, visual humor in, Clowns, 1:131–133
2:494–502 in ancient Roman comedy, 1:35, 36
Church Fathers, 1:99, 128 anthropological study of, 1:46
Churchill, Caryl, 2:778 associations of, 2:832
Churchill, Winston, 1:367, 2:587 Bergson’s theory and, 1:78
Cibber, Colley, 2:514 circus clowns, 1:132, 134, 2:832
852 Index
evil, 1:181
fear of, 1:180–181
film clowns, 1:133
holy fools in Buddhism, 1:93
illustrations of, 1:132, 133, 134
in medical settings, 1:133–135
miming by, 1:133, 2:506, 507, 508, 509
in music halls, 2:536
ritual clowns, 1:106, 132, 2:483, 646–647, 648
See also Fools
Clowns, War of the, 1:151
Clowns in medical settings, 1:133–135
Clowns Without Borders, 1:133, 134 (illustration),
2:832
Coal Mine Song (Tanko- bushi), 1:310–311
Coates, Jennifer, 2:706
Coccio, Ben, 2:515
Cockney dialect, 1:202, 2:536, 537, 812
Cocteau, Jean, 2:485
Coen, Joel and Ethan, 1:256, 2:527
Coercion, humor for, 2:480–481
Coeur, Jacques, 2:495, 495 (illustration)
Cognition, social, 1:89, 199
Cognitive aspects, 1:135–138
advertisement humor and, 1:7, 8, 12
in aging adults, 1:19, 136
for children, 1:121–122
cognitive challenge and, 1:137
cognitive mastery and, 1:136
creativity, 1:182, 183, 184
in cultural experience, 1:190
for humor appreciation, 1:52, 136–137, 198,
361–362
incongruity concept, 1:135–136 (see also
Incongruity and resolution)
negative processing bias, 2:600
nonsense humor and, 1:137, 2:543
one-step model, 1:136
in psychiatric disorders, 2:600, 601
simple form and, 1:136, 2:693
See also Brain, neuropsychology of humor;
Children’s humor stages; Development of
humor
Cognitive behavioral therapy, 2:631
Cognitive challenge, 1:137
Cognitive dissonance theory, 2:594–595
Cognitive neuroscience, 1:166. See also Brain,
neuropsychology of humor; Comprehension of
humor
Cognitive play, humor as a form of, 2:635
Cognitive psychology, 1:xxxi, 77, 2:604, 630
Cognitive response theory of advertising effects,
1:7, 8
Cognitive shifts, psychological benefits of, 1:282
Cognitive synergy, 2:641, 642
Cognitive versus orectic aspects, 1:354
Cohan, George M., 2:538
Cohen, Sacha Baron, 1:149, 377, 413, 2:516, 521,
701, 731, 740
Colbert, Stephen, 1:149, 345, 422, 2:596, 599, 753
Colbert Report, The (television show), 1:149,
249, 334, 2:485, 585, 587, 596, 599, 664,
731, 753
Cold humor, in China, 1:303, 2:542
Cold versus warm style, 1:227, 230, 364, 365, 366
Coleman, Joe, 1:67
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 2:581
Collage, in South American literature, 2:720
Collazos, Óscar, 2:723
Collective identity, 1:378
Collectivist cultures, 1:210
College humor, 1:138–140
on bathroom walls, 2:667
legends, 1:138–139
magazines of, 2:470
parodies, 1:139–140
pranks, 1:139 (illustration), 140
riddle-jokes, 1:138
in university newspapers, 1:147
Collegial relationships, facilitated by humor,
2:801–802
Collins, Billy, 2:581
Collinson, David L., 2:797
Collodi, Carlo, 1:317
Colman, George, 1:316
Colonial history:
anthropology and, 1:44, 45
ethnicity, humor, and, 1:215, 216–217, 218
in Southeast Asia, 2:724, 725, 727
Colors, for representation of aesthetic sentiments,
2:657
Colston, Herbert, 1:398, 400
Coluche (comedian), 1:409
Columbus, Chris, 2:527
Comedian comedy, as stepping out of character,
2:524
Comedic style, 1:265. See also Genres and styles of
comedy
Comedy, 1:140–144
aesthetics and, 1:14

bipolarity of, 1:140–141
scope of, 1:140
Comedy, ancient. See Ancient Greek comedy;
Ancient Roman comedy
Comedy Central cable company, 1:17, 334, 409,
2:731
Comedy Cures Foundation, 2:832
Comedy duos:
Abbott and Costello, 1:78, 98, 133, 145, 189,
254, 2:520, 524, 731, 809, 811
Allen and Hoff, 1:336
Benny and Livingston, 1:336
Burns and Allen, 1:336
Burns and Evans, 1:104 (illustration)
Laurel and Hardy, 1:3, 133, 145–146, 253,
2:507, 520, 523, 701
Lucas and Williams, 1:145
Martin and Lewis, 1:145, 2:524, 811
Mike and Meyer, 2:538
Morecambe and Wise, 1:145
Nichols and May, 1:382
Reeves and Mortimer, 1:145
Rowan and Martin, 1:422, 2:811
Weber and Fields, 1:97, 98
See also Comedy ensembles
Comedy ensembles, 1:144–146. See also Comedy
duos; Improv comedy
Comedy identities, 1:378
Comedy of humors, 1:350
Comedy of manners, 1:143, 286–287, 2:520–521.
See also High comedy
Comedy Studies (journal), 2:832
Comedy teams. See Comedy duos; Comedy
ensembles
Comic, the:
four basic realms of meaning of, 1:365
as one of Freud’s laughter situations, 2:568
role of, in ensembles, 1:145
Comic auteurs in the movies, 2:526
Comic books, 1:146–148
comic strips and, 1:146, 147
as an extension of cartooning, 1:112
history of, 1:146–147, 146 (illustration)
in Southeast Asia, 2:725, 726–727
superheroes in, 1:147, 156
See also Cartoons; Comic strips
Comic catharsis, 1:61–62
Comic dialogue, 1:155, 264, 2:809
Comic frame, 1:148–150
in communication theory, 1:148
Index 853
tragic frame and, 1:148, 149, 150
in 21st-century political communication, 1:149
See also Framing theory
Comic genres. See Genres and styles of comedy
Comic heroes, 1:160, 286, 412, 2:517. See also
Heroes
Comic lists on the Internet, 1:389
Comic mimesis, 1:61, 62
Comic opera, 1:150–153
intermezzo as a precursor, 1:151, 152
poster for, 1:153 (illustration)
Comic relief, 1:153–155
performative comedy and, 1:140–141, 142, 143
tragicomedy distinguished from, 1:154
See also Release theories of humor
Comic strips, 1:155–156
comic books and, 1:146, 147
as an extension of cartooning, 1:112
gag humor in, 1:146, 147, 156
history of, 1:114, 146, 155, 306, 335
incongruity and, 1:156
in Southeast Asia, 2:724–725
See also Cartoons; Comic books
Comic style, 1:265, 266. See also Genres and styles
of comedy; Humor styles
Comic versus tragic worldviews, 1:156–160
in ancient Greece, 1:159–160
in comic versus tragic heroes, 1:159–160
incongruities and, 1:157–158
in mental flexibility versus rigidity, 1:159
stress and, 1:158–160
Taoism and, 2:750
Comic vision, 1:160, 161
Comic world, 1:160–161
Comic-mask characters, 1:233. See also Masks
Coming-of-age rituals, 1:385. See also Rites of
passage
Comisky, Paul, 2:762
Comisky, Paul W., 2:755
Commedia dell’arte, 1:161–164
carnivalesque and, 1:111
characters drawn from, 1:141, 151, 163
Donatus’s commentaries and, 1:325
in European history, 1:294–295, 328–329
farce as a specialty of, 1:233, 235
Goldoni’s reform program for, 1:162,
163–164, 268
influence of, 1:161–162
lazzi in, 1:162, 2:443–444
masks in, 1:146, 163, 163 (illustration), 268, 2:485
854 Index
mime in, 2:506–507
and the movies, 2:525, 573
primary characteristic of, 1:162
Shakespeare and, 2:684
slapstick in, 2:701
social masking in, 2:486
stylized nature of, 1:142
tragicomedy and, 2:770
Commedia erudita, 1:142
Commentary cartooning, 1:113–114. See also
Political humor
Communication models, 1:70
Communication theory, 1:148, 248–249,
2:635, 781
Communitarian universal spirit, 1:47
Comparative-historical sociology, 2:713
Competent versus inept style, 1:227, 364, 365, 366
Competitiveness, 2:732
Complexity, 1:164–166, 2:629–630
Components of humor, factor analysis for,
1:226–231
Components of sense of humor. See Sense of
humor, components of
Compositionality premise of linguistic semantics,
2:674
Comprehension, as an outcome in advertising, 1:7
Comprehension of humor, 1:166–169
in brain-damaged patients, 1:166–167
cognitive complexity and, 2:629–630
cognitive mastery and, 1:136
cognitive psychology of, 2:604
creativity, insight, and, 1:183, 184
humor appreciation linked to, 1:184, 185
humor production linked to, 1:184, 185
incongruity-resolution and, 1:166, 167, 168
individual differences and, 1:166, 373
neuroimaging and, 1:167–168
in the normal brain, 1:167
psychiatric disorders and, 2:601, 602
See also Appreciation of humor; Brain,
neuropsychology of humor
Compton, Henry, 1:244 (illustration)
Computational detection of humor, 1:169, 170, 171
Computational humor, 1:169–172
arguments in defense of, 1:169–171
bottom-up versus top-down techniques for,
1:171–172
humor detection and, 1:169, 170, 171, 355–356
See also Humor, computer-generated
Computational semantics, 2:674, 675
Computers. See Computational humor; Humor,
computer-generated; Humor detection;
Internet humor
Concanen, Alfred, 1:236 (illustration),
2:536 (illustration)
Conceptual art, 1:66
Concertive control, 2:801
Condell, Henry, 2:684
Condensation mechanism, 1:354
Conditioning, classical, 1:8
Condren, Conal, 1:265
Conflict management, 1:353, 2:709
Conflict theories, 2:711–712, 714
Confucianism, 1:172–174
Buddhism and, 1:94
in Chinese history, 1:290, 291, 303, 2:542
Confucian virtues, 1:172, 173, 174
huaji-ists and, 1:346
the ideal Confucian state, 1:172
jestbooks and, 1:247
proper humor, precepts of, 1:173–174
Taoism and, 1:94, 2:749
vigilance toward humor in, 1:172–173
Confucius, 1:94, 172, 289
Congreve, William, 1:286
Congruency, principle of, 1:137
Conrad, Paul, 2:598
Conscious and unconscious factors, 1:250, 251,
2:729. See also Freudian/psychoanalytic
theory
Constable, G., 1:99
Constantine (emperor), 2:585
Constitutional law, 2:447–448
Contadin, Fernand J. D., 1:306
Content versus structure of humor, 1:354–355,
374–375
Contests, schwanks as, 2:668–669
Contests-in-insults rituals, 1:385
Contextualization cues, for inclusion, 1:387
Contract law, 2:449
Contrast stimuli, in fMRI studies, 1:89, 90
Conundrums, 2:645. See also Riddle
Conversation, 1:174–179
assumptions shared in, 1:175
categories of conversational humor, 2:705
creativity in, 1:176, 183
folklore in, 1:240
gender, humor generation, and, 1:260, 262
humor markers in, 1:360
joke telling in, 1:177–178, 2:706
 Index 855

joking relationship and, 1:419–420 Corsini manuscript, 2:444

laughter in, 1:175, 176–177, 178, 2:438, 706 Cortés-Conde, Florencia, 2:706, 757
in relational maintenance, 1:353 Cortesi, Paolo, 1:407
scaffolding in, 1:387 Cosby, Bill, 1:250, 366, 2:625, 697, 735
standard formulas in, 1:175 Coser, Rose, 2:711
syntax, interruptive laughter, and timing in, 1:178 Costello, Lou, 1:78, 98, 133, 145, 189, 254, 2:520,
Conversational humor: 524, 731, 809
features of, 1:175–176 Cotton, Charles, 2:775
stand-up comedy as, 2:733 Coulrophobia, 1:180–181
See also Conversation Coulson, Seana, 1:84, 167
Conversational joking, 2:706. See also Counter-Reformation, 1:142, 162
Conversation Couples. See Marriage and couples
Cook, G., 2:706, 707 Court jesters, 1:173, 243, 244 (illustration), 292,
Cook, Peter, 2:519 408, 2:734. See also Huaji-ists, the; Jest,
Cooke, George, 1:104 (illustration) jestbooks, and jesters
Cooper, Anthony A. See Shaftesbury, Earl of Courteline, Georges, 1:78, 316
Cooper, Cecily, 2:709 Courts. See Legal restriction and protection of
Cooperation, maxim of, 2:491–492 humor; Supreme Court
COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Cousins, Norman, 1:250, 2:440
1:278, 280 Couvins, Watriquet de, 1:225
Copeau, Jacques, 2:509 Covarrubias, Miguel, 1:104
Copernicus (astronomer), 2:573 Coverly, Dave, 2:762 (box)
Coping humor, 1:195, 227, 230, 281–282, 283, Coward, Noël, 1:143, 213
2:561–562 Cox and Box (by F. C. Burnand and Arthur S.
Coping Humor Scale, 1:281, 2:561 Sullivan), 1:236 (illustration)
Coping mechanism, 1:179–180 Coyne, Jason, 1:269 (illustration)
aggressive humor as, 1:17 CPPT (Cartoon Punch Line Production Test), 2:760
in aging adults, 1:18 Craig, Edward Gordon, 1:164
in children, 1:120, 200 Craig, Vincent, 1:26
in the classroom, 1:208 Craik, Kenneth, 1:119, 227, 230, 364, 365, 2:682
clinical psychology of, 2:607 Crane, Jon S., 2:755
clowns for improvement of, 1:135 Cratylistic fallacy, and puns, 2:613
comic relief as, 1:154 Crawford, Mary, 1:261, 2:707
for depression, 1:195 Creation of humor. See Creativity; Humor
harmless humor as, 1:16 production
in physical well-being, 1:179, 180, 201 Creativity, 1:181–185
in psychological health, 1:281–282 assessment of, 1:183
in the workplace, 2:799, 800, 804 cognitive psychology of, 2:604
See also Self-enhancing humor; Stress correlations with, 1:122
Copyright, 1:211, 2:448 culture’s reliance on, 1:190
Coraci, Frank, 2:527 evolutionary perspective of, 1:184–185, 220
Corbin, Suzanne, 2:692 in humorous coping, 1:180
CORHUM, Association française pour le Koestler on, 1:83, 84
développement des recherches sur le comique, in the language-culture intersection, 2:730
2:832 in play, 2:578, 579
Corneille, Pierre, 1:142, 2:769–770 quality and number linked in, 1:363
Cornwell, Neil, 1:3 research conceptualization of, 1:181–183
Corporate culture, 2:479 six P’s of, 1:182
Correll, Charles, 2:624 in the workplace, 2:802
Corrozet, Gilles, 1:408 See also Humor production
856 Index
Crichton, Charles, 1:73, 2:527
Critchley, Simon, 1:214, 217, 305, 2:797
Critical theories, 2:711. See also Conflict theories
Croatia, Feral Tribune magazine in, 2:473
Croce, Benedetto, 2:572
Crockett, David, 1:331
Crockett, Davy, 1:239
Cromwell, Oliver, 2:567
Crosby, Bing, 2:523, 524
Cross-cultural humor, 1:185–189
categories of, 1:185–188
core virtues and, 2:589
masks in, 2:483
See also Audiovisual translation; Intercultural
humor
Cross-cultural naïveté, 1:45
Cross-dressing, 1:97, 106–107, 108, 2:775. See
also Drag (costume); Reversals; Transvestites
Crossing the Line (rite of passage), 2:648
Crossley-Holland, Kevin, 1:245
Cross-national teasing, in American Indian cultures,
1:25–26
Crosstalk, 1:303, 321, 2:809, 811–812. See also
Xiangsheng
Crowley, Aleister, 1:329
CRU (Centro Ricerca Umorismo), 2:832
Cruel jokes, 1:174, 415, 2:692. See also Sick humor
Cruel wellerisms, 2:794
Cruikshank, George, 1:104
Crumb, Robert, 1:67, 147
Cruz, Sor Juana Inés de la, 2:719–720
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 2:741
Cuckoldry, tales of, 1:87
Cues, 1:11–12, 361, 362, 387
Cukor, George, 2:524
Cultural anthropology, 1:43. See also Anthropology
Cultural evolution, 1:309, 2:667
Cultural incompetence, 1:188
Cultural misunderstanding in a globalized world,
2:542
Culture, 1:189–191
“a culture” versus “culture,” 1:190–191
animal jokes and cultural standards, 1:42
anthropological study of, 1:43–47
classroom humor and, 1:210
collectivist cultures, 1:210
comic worlds reflected in, 1:161
as a complex mechanism, 1:190
corporate culture, 2:479
cross-cultural humor, 1:185–189, 2:483, 589
cultural preoccupations, and literature, 2:459
high- and low-context cultures, 1:288–289
intercultural, 1:387–388
joking cultures, 2:709
mind, spirit, and, 1:46
music and, 2:528, 529–530
pattern recognition and, 2:558
permeable and fluid, 1:330
phonological jokes and, 2:571, 572
postmodern irony and, 2:589–590, 591, 592
puppetry in, 2:617
religion and, 2:636–637, 638, 639, 640
sitcoms and, 1:188, 2:695, 696–697
speech play and, 2:727, 728, 729, 730
translation and, 1:72, 73, 2:773–774
verbal dueling and, 2:786–789
and who jokes with whom, 1:44, 2:796
See also Akan humor; American Indian cultures,
humor in; Igbo humor; South African humor
Culture-bound forms of humor, 2:541. See also
National and ethnic differences
Curie, Marie, 2:767
Curtis, Jamie Lee, 1:73
Curtis, Tony, 1:254
Curto, Silvio, 1:29, 29 (illustration)
Customary joking relationship, 1:419–420
Cycles. See Joke cycles
Cynicism, destructive and negative nature of, 1:365
Czech Republic, Dikobraz humor magazine in, 2:473
Da Ponte, Lorenzo, 2:770
Da Vinci, Leonardo, 1:104, 112
Dadaism and Dada, 1:3, 65, 308, 2:522, 720, 775
Daigo- (emperor), 1:320
Daily Show With Jon Stewart, The (television
show), 1:149, 165, 334, 383, 424, 2:564, 585,
587, 599, 664, 731, 753
Daishi, Ko-bo-, 1:320
Dalai Lama, 1:93
Dali, Salvador, 1:15, 329
DaMatta, Roberto, 1:46
Damm, Leticia, 2:721
Dance:
of the Akan people, 1:20
ancient comedy and, 1:33, 35
in burlesque, 1:97
in Japan, 1:311, 319, 320, 323, 324,
2:432–433, 678
masks and, 2:484, 485, 486
mime and, 2:506, 507, 508, 509
 Index 857

in musical comedy, 2:538, 539, 540 (illustration) Defays, Pierre Richard, 1:306
in play, 2:577, 578, 579 Defense mechanism, 1:193–194
in variety shows, 2:783, 784, 785 humor as, 1:179, 193–194, 357, 2:609
D’Andeli, Henri, 1:225 perspectives on, 1:193–194
Dangerfield, Rodney, 1:217 sense of humor and, 2:680
Danish cartoon of Muhammad, 1:115, 2:542, Defoe, Daniel, 1:327
639, 754 Degradation/superiority theory, 1:83. See also
Dante Alighieri, 1:129, 130, 154, 2:543 Superiority theory
Daoism, 1:141, 247, 290–291. See also Taoism Del Negro, Giovanna P., 1:241
D’Arbes, Cesare, 1:268 Delacroix, Eugène, 1:104
Darden, Severn, 1:383 Deleuze, Gilles, 1:77
Dark humor, 1:38, 64, 65, 66, 67, 281, 336. See DeLillo, Don, 2:463
also Black (tragic or morbid) humor; Gallows Deloria, Vine, Jr., 1:27, 45, 333
humor DeLuise, Dom, 2:731
Darly, Mary, 1:104 Democratization, in the history of humor in
Darwin, Charles, 2:441, 703, 704, 765 Europe, 1:307–308
Darwinian theory. See Natural selection; Sexual Democritus (philosopher), 1:100
selection theory Demosthenes (orator), 2:565
Dasate, Jean, 2:509 Denmark:
Daudet, Alphonse, 1:316 cartoon lampooning of Muhammad in, 1:115,
Daumier, Honoré, 1:104, 2:662 2:542, 639, 754
Davenant, William, 1:95 Svikmøllen magazine in, 2:477
Davidson, Richard, 2:703 Denton, John, 1:73
Davies, Catherine Evans, 1:187 Depardieu, Gerard, 2:525
Davies, Charles, 1:368 Depp, Johnny, 1:253
Davies, Christie, 1:xxxi, 214, 215, 217, 415, 416, Depression, 1:194–196
2:541, 692, 713 and exposure to humorous materials, 1:281
Davis, Jim, 1:147 humor styles and, 1:195
Dawkins, Richard, 1:391 sense of humor and, 2:561, 562, 600
Day, Doris, 2:525 Der Witz, in Freud’s laughter situations, 2:567–568
De Bergerac, Cyrano, 2:461 Desbat, Armand, 2:655 (figure)
De Luna, Michael Hernandez, 1:65–66 Descartes, René, 2:567
De Mendoza, Diego, 1:327 Deschamps, Jérôme, 2:510
De Musset, Alfred, 2:771 Descouens, Didier, 1:267 (illustration)
De Quincey, Thomas, 1:315 Desensitization, systematic, 2:610
Dead baby joke cycle, 1:241, 415, 2:692 Design, 1:196–197
Dead metaphors, 2:552 Detachment, emotional, 1:282. See also Emotions
Deadpan humor, 1:145, 223, 372, 2:507, 522, 526, Detection of humor. See Humor detection
597, 731 Detection of incongruity, 1:89, 166, 167, 168. See
Dean, Andrew, 1:315 also Humor detection; Incongruity and
Death, humor about. See Gallows humor resolution
Debugging mechanism, humor as, 1:221–222 Deumert, Ana, 2:706
Deburau, Jean Gaspard, 2:507 Development of humor, 1:197–201
Decameron (by Giovanni Boccaccio), 1:87–88, cognitive development, 1:136, 198
226, 299, 327, 2:460. See also Boccaccio, disability and, 1:199–200, 201
Giovanni health and, 1:200
Decroux, Étienne, 2:509 heritability in, 1:284–285
Deed, André, 2:522 humor comprehension and, 1:136
Defamation, 1:307, 323, 385, 2:450, 475, neuroanatomy and, 1:200
717, 718 riddling in, 1:200, 2:645–646
858 Index

social development, 1:126–127, 198–199 Dirty limericks, 2:452, 453

See also Children’s humor and giftedness; Children’s Dirty words, Carlin’s list of, 2:548
humor research; Children’s humor stages Discourse analysis, 1:178, 2:630, 705, 798, 801
Devil, 2:498, 499, 500. See also Satanic humor Discourse markers, 1:202, 359. See also Humor
Devilish plays (diableries), 1:145 markers
Devrient, Ludwig, 1:40 Disengagement, 1:15, 157, 158–159
Dewey, John, 2:567 Disney, Walt, 1:147, 2:523
Dews, Shelly, 2:584 Disparagement:
Di Giovanni, Domenico, 2:543 in advertisements, 1:9, 11
Diabetes, 1:279–280 as aggressive humor, 1:17, 123
Diableries (devilish plays), 1:145 in ethnic jokes, 1:54, 214
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental function of, 1:193
Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), 1:180 the hostility of jokes and, 1:373
Dialect diversity, 1:203, 335 of other groups, 1:54, 123, 190, 214
Dialect humor, 1:201–203 prejudice, humor and, 2:594–596
Diamond, I. A. L., 1:254 self-disparagement, 1:209, 284, 2:542, 758
Diana (princess), 1:416 See also Aggressive and harmless humor; Insult
Díaz Valcárcel, Emilio, 2:723 and invective
Dick, Philip K., 2:671 Disparagement theory, 1:5, 10, 11, 2:505
Dickens, Charles, 1:202, 315, 2:462, 465, 580, Disposition theory, 1:208
662, 793 Disraeli, Benjamin, 1:315
Dickinson, Emily, 2:581, 676 Dissonance, for exclusion, 1:388
Dickman, Matthew, 2:582 Distance:
Didactical purposes, humor for, 1:42, 69–70, 174, emotional, 1:282
404, 2:485, 637 hypothetical, 2:603
Diderot, Denis, 1:51, 143 psychic, 1:354
deeply sympathetic work by, 1:294 psychological, 1:54, 76, 2:602–603
as encyclopédiste and satirist, 1:297 social, 1:53, 2:602
influenced by picaresque, 2:461 spatial, 1:53, 2:602, 752–753
Italian comic opera supported by, 1:151 temporal, 1:53, 2:602
tragicomedy anticipated by, 2:771 Distance theory, and metaphor, 2:504–505
Diego Padró, José Isaac De, 2:721 Divergent thinking, 1:182. See also Creativity
Dignitary harms, in the law, 2:450 Djalili, Omid, 1:378
Dilbert (by Scott Adams), 1:147, 156, 2:752, Dobkin, David, 2:527
796–797, 798 Documentary format, 2:515. See also
Diller, Phyllis, 2:752 Mockumentary
Dilmen, Nevit, 1:405 (illustration) Dodgson, Charles, 2:462. See also Carroll,
Dionysus (Greek god), 1:2, 31–33, 60, 140, 141, Lewis
145, 272, 2:665 Dodson, Don, 2:716
Diphilus (writer), 1:34 Do-gen (monk), 2:431
Dirks, Rudolph, 1:146 Doggerel, 1:95, 203–205
Dirty cartoons, 2:667 Dolan, Raymond J., 1:167, 2:790
Dirty humor, 2:658, 804 Dolbeault, Joel, 1:78
Dirty jokes: Dole, Bob, 2:597
in adolescence, 1:126, 188 Domenichi, Lodovico, 1:408
analysis of, 2:705 Dominance, humor used for, 1:262
folkloristic analysis of, 1:241 Don Quijote (by Miguel de Cervantes), 1:116–118,
framing of, 2:667 117 (illustration)
limericks and, 2:452 in European history, 1:295, 297, 326
sequential organization of, 1:21 in the evolution of the novel, 2:461, 462
 Index 859

inversion in, 1:396 Duchenne smile, 1:257, 2:441, 442–443, 703,

parody in, 1:117, 2:553 704, 765–766
See also Cervantes, Miguel de Duchess of Orléans, 2:581
Donatus (grammarian), 1:325 Dueling, verbal. See Verbal dueling
Dongfang Shuo (huaji-ist), 1:290–291, 292, 346 Duffett, Thomas, 1:95
Donne, John, 2:582 Duhamel, Denise, 2:582
Donner, Richard, 2:527 Dumont, Margaret, 2:523
Doré, Gustave, 1:104, 329 Dunbar, Norah, 1:207
Dorimond (actor-dramatist), 2:770 Duncan, Isadora, 1:372
Dorkin, Evan, 1:147 Duncombe, S., 2:578
Dorson, Richard, 1:239 Dundes, Alan, 1:138, 239, 240, 241, 415, 2:667,
Dossi, Carlo, 1:317 692, 807
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 2:475 Dunstan, Saint, 2:498
Double act, 1:145. See also Comedy ensembles Duos, comedy. See Comedy duos
Double entendre, 1:88, 104 Dürer, Albrecht, 2:555
Double takes, 1:133, 254 Dürrenmatt, Friedrich, 1:308
Douglas, Mary, 1:45, 46, 395, 2:634–635, 777 Duvivier, Julien, 2:525
Douglas, Norman, 2:452 Dvořák, Antonín, 2:532
Doukas (historian), 1:100 Dyce, Alexander, 1:157 (illustration)
Down syndrome, 1:199 Dyer, Richard, 2:554, 556
Downing, Steven M., 2:763 Dynamic equivalence, in translation, 2:773
D’Oyly Carte, Richard, 1:153 (illustration) Dynel, Marta, 2:504, 505
D’Oyly Carte Opera Company, 1:153 (illustration),
287 EagleBear, Vaughn, 1:27
Dozens, playing the, 1:86, 2:786, 788 EAHU (Escala de Apreciación del Humor), 2:760
Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), 1:115 Earthy versus repressed style, 1:227, 364, 366
Drag (costume), 1:377, 2:527, 578, 702, 716. Eastern Orthodox Christianity, 1:130
See also Cross-dressing Ebeogu, Afam, 1:379
Draitser, Emil A., 2:571 Ebert, Roger, 2:731
Drescher, Fran, 1:72 Eckermann, Johann Peter, 2:795
Dressler, Marie, 2:523 Eco, Umberto, 2:554, 590, 591, 790
Drive reduction theory, 1:62 Edgerly, John, 1:228
Driver, Jon, 1:200 Edison, Thomas, 1:253, 2:522
Droodle, 2:645 Editorial cartoons, 1:113, 114, 115–116, 2:598.
Drops (comments to the audience), by clowns, 1:133 See also Political cartoons
Droyanov, Alter, 1:411 Education, humor in, 1:207–210
Dryden, John, 1:212, 286, 2:435, 465, 662 effect of, on students, 1:207, 208, 209, 210,
DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 2:755
Mental Disorders), 1:180 effect of, on teacher evaluations, 2:755–756
Du Bellay, Joachim, 1:326–327 effect of, on teachers, 2:755
Du Bois, John, 1:400 individual differences in, 1:209–210, 2:755, 756
Du Cambout, Henri-Charles, 2:459 in legal education, 2:446
Du Fu, 1:291–292 in mathematics, 2:488
Du Maurier, George, 2:453 to mitigate a face threat, 2:707
Du Maurier, Gerald, 2:452 power differences and, 1:207–208
Dubbing, for movies, 1:72 for second language acquisition, 2:672
Dubuffet, Jean, 1:67 on tests and evaluations, 1:209, 2:762–763
Duchamp, Marcel, 1:3, 14, 65 See also Pedagogy
Duchartre, Pierre Louis, 2:444 Edwardes, George, 2:538
Duchenne, Guillaume, 2:441, 703, 704 Edwards, Blake, 2:526
860 Index
EEG (electroencephalography), 1:88, 90–91, 92,
2:605
EFA (exploratory factor analysis), 1:229
Effectiveness formula for humor, 2:490
Egalitarianism, 1:46, 330
E’gao: culture of Internet spoofing in China,
1:210–212
Eggins, Suzanne, 1:40
Ego, id, and superego, 1:193, 217, 250, 394
Egypt:
El Koshary Today fake-news website, 2:474
Roman visual humor and, 2:653
Egypt, ancient. See Ancient Egypt, humor in
Ehrenreich, Barbara, 2:578
Einarsson, Stefan, 2:788
Einstein, Albert, 1:77, 138
Eisterhold, Jodi, 1:399
Ekman, Paul, 2:703, 704
Elaboration likelihood model (ELM), 1:208–209
Elderly. See Aging and humor
Electroencephalography (EEG), 1:88, 90–91, 92,
2:605
Electromyography (EMG), 2:491, 703
Electronic media. See Internet humor; Social media,
electronic
Elephant jokes, 1:1–2, 241, 417
Elias, Amy, 2:590
Elijah (prophet), 1:81, 127
Eliot, George, 1:315
Eliot, T. S., 2:555, 556
Elisha (prophet), 1:82, 127
Ellis, Albert, 2:631
Ellis, Bill, 2:780
ELM (elaboration likelihood model), 1:208–209
Elpers, Josephine Woltman, 1:12
Elton, Ben, 1:233
El-Yasin, Mohammad, 2:571
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 1:50, 51, 2:581, 633
EMG (electromyography), 2:491, 703
Eminem (hip-hop artist), 2:788–789
Emoticons, 1:389
Emotional moods, and creativity, 1:83
Emotions:
affected by clown therapy, 1:135
affected by humorous advertisements, 1:11, 12
amusement and, 1:52, 75, 157, 2:588, 704
art and, 1:63
basic, as noted by Descartes, 2:567
children’s humor research and, 1:125
in comic versus tragic worldviews, 1:157,
158–159
and Confucian vigilance and regulation,
1:172–173
emotional detachment, 1:282
emotional disengagement, 1:15, 158–159
emotional distance, 1:282
emotional well-being and harmless humor, 1:16
evolutionary perspective for, 1:157, 158, 219, 222
group emotions, 1:358
in Koestler’s theory, 1:84
in laughter, 2:437–438, 439, 440
metaemotions, 2:782
mirth and, 2:510–512, 588, 704
mixed, and moral violations, 1:54
music and, 2:528, 529, 530, 531
negative (see Negative emotions)
neuropsychology of, 1:89, 90, 91, 92, 200
personality, sense of humor, and, 2:563
positive (see Positive emotions)
stress response and, 1:179
surprise and, 1:383
Endocrine and immune systems, effect of laughter
and humor on, 1:278–281
Endorphins, 1:279, 2:559
English language:
African American Vernacular English, 2:739, 788
dominance of, in humor circulation, 2:542
not the native language of most Internet users,
1:391
stereotypes of, in race portrayals, 2:622,
623 (illustration), 624
Enlightenment, the, 1:217, 296–297, 411, 2:543
Ensembles. See Comedy ensembles
Entman, Robert, 1:249
Entreé (circus clown act), 1:132
Epanorthosis, in Plautine jokes, 2:576
Epic of Gilgamesh (ancient Sumerian narrative),
2:460
Epic-comic poetry, 2:720
Epigram, 1:50, 212–214, 318, 2:462, 582
Episodes of a joke, 2:611
Epitaph doggerel, 1:204
Equilibrium-disequilibrium-equilibrium schema,
2:696
Erasmus, Desiderius:
aphorism by, 1:50
fool literature of, 1:244
in the history of nonsense, 2:543
 Index 861

in the history of performative comedy, 1:144 stereotypes in, 1:215, 216–217, 390
In Praise of Folly by, 1:2, 128, 295, 2:543, See also National and ethnic differences
632, 687 Ethnic scripts, 1:215
influence of, 1:329, 2:687 Ethnicity and humor, 1:215–219
as the major satirist of the early 16th century, anthropological analysis of, 1:45
1:325 blason populaire and, 1:85, 86, 386
Rabelais and, 2:619 children and, 1:123
Roman joke quoted by, 1:407 conflict analysis of, 2:712
on satire, 2:663 definitions for, 1:215–216
on social masking, 2:483 dialect humor and, 1:202
on the social value of humor, 2:632–633 ethnicity separated from race, 1:216
Erdrich, Louise, 1:27 identity and, 1:85, 190
Erickson, Milton, 2:631 religion and, 2:639
Erickson, Robert, 2:529 self-deprecation and, 1:217–218
Erotic, the: sociological analyses of, 2:712, 714
in burlesque, 1:95, 97 stereotypes and, 1:216–217, 218
folklore and, 1:240 the trickster and, 1:218
in Senryū, 2:678, 679 See also Marginalization; National and ethnic
and Shakespearean comedy, 2:685, 687 differences; Race, representations of
See also Sexuality Ethnographic observation, 2:714
ERP (event-related potentials), and the brain, Ethnography, 1:43, 240–241, 416, 2:799. See also
1:90–91, 167 Anthropology
Erudite model, 1:142 Ethnophaulism, 1:85
Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1:259 Ettinger, Solomon, 1:318
Escala de Apreciación del Humor (EAHU), 2:760 Etymology. See Humor, etymology of
Esoteric versus exoteric humor, 1:386 Eudes of Sully (bishop), 1:238
Essentialist premise of linguistic semantics, 2:674 Euler, Leonard, 2:487
Esser, Claudia, 1:230 Euripides, 1:33, 60, 159, 2:435, 553, 665, 666
Esslin, Martin, 1:3, 264 Europe, history of humor in:
Esther (biblical queen), 1:410, 427 early modern, 1:293–298
Estonia, Pikker magazine in, 2:476 medieval, 1:298–302
Ethics: modern and contemporary, 1:304–309
Confucian ethics of humor, 1:172–174 in music, 2:528, 529, 530–531, 532–533
of ethnic humor, 1:215 19th-century, 1:314–318
journalistic, 1:421 Renaissance, 1:325–329
and justification for satire, 2:662 Eusebius of Emesa (bishop), 1:99
and taunting for conformance, 1:385 Eustathios of Thessaloniki (bishop), 1:100
and the tragic and comic frames, 1:148 Event-related potentials (ERP), and the brain,
and the trickster, 2:777 1:90–91, 167
Ethnic identities, 1:85, 190 Evolutionary anthropology, 2:667
Ethnic jokes, 1:214–215 Evolutionary explanations of humor, 1:219–222
blason populaire in, 1:86 and benign violation theory, 1:75
Byzantine, 1:100 and creativity, 1:184–185, 220
explanations for existence of, 1:214–215 cultural evolution, 1:309, 2:667
folklore and, 1:241 and emotions, 1:157, 158, 219, 222
foolstown jokes and, 1:245, 246 and gender, 1:220, 261
humor appreciation in, 1:54 in Koestler’s theory, 1:84
on the Internet, 1:390 and laughter, 2:439, 440
in joke cycles, 1:414–415 mechanisms for, 1:219–220
862 Index
in partner selection, 2:481–482, 683
in pattern recognition, 2:557, 558
and play, 1:53, 220–221
and production of humor, 1:363
in reproduction, 1:219, 220
and social bonding, 1:221
strong evidence for, 1:219
in survival, 1:219, 220, 221
Exaggeration, 1:222–224
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29
in caricature, 1:104, 222
by children, 1:126
in graffiti, 1:270
irony and, 1:223
in mime, 2:506, 508
in music, 2:529, 530, 532
in presidential humor, 2:598
in psychotherapy, 2:610
understatement and, 1:223
See also Hyperbole
Exclusion humor, 1:387–388
Excretion, 2:666–667. See also Scatology
Exeter Book, of riddles, 1:299–300
Exhilaration, and emotions, 2:704
Existential absurd, the, 1:1
Existentialism, 1:3
Exoteric versus esoteric humor, 1:386
Expectations:
absolute and relative, 2:612
in music, 2:528, 529, 530–532
surprise, incongruity, and, 1:383, 384
violation of, in both tragedy and comedy,
1:157–158
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 1:229
Expressions, facial. See Facial expressions; Smiling
and laughter: expressive patterns
Extraversion, 1:90, 2:562
Eye puns, 2:614. See also Homographs, in puns
Eysenck, Hans-Jürgen, 1:165, 227, 228, 354
Fabliau, 1:225–226
in the Canterbury Tales, 1:226, 299
in the Decameron, 1:87, 299
in medieval European history, 1:299, 2:460
Face, and politeness, 2:583, 584
Facebook, 1:140, 170, 2:603
Face-saving, 1:262, 2:583, 709, 758
Face-threatening acts, 2:584
Facial Action Coding System (FACS), 2:703
Facial EMG, 2:703
Facial expressions:
blank-face comedy and, 2:507
evolution of, and laughter, 1:15
gelotophobes and, 1:257, 259
for human-friendly robots, 1:170
infant learning about, 1:198
with “K” sounds, 1:363
manipulation of, in caricature, 1:104
in mime, 2:506, 507, 508, 509
in mirth, 2:511
musical humor and, 2:529
in tickling versus humor, 2:765–766
See also Smiling and laughter: expressive
patterns
FACS (Facial Action Coding System), 2:703
Factor analysis of humor appreciation dimensions,
1:227, 229, 230, 2:764
Factor analysis of humor items, 1:226–228. See
also Personality, humor and
Factor analysis of humor scales, 1:228–231. See
also Personality, humor and
Fadiman, Clifton, 2:487
Failed humor, 1:231–233
in advertising, 1:11–12
audience perspective of, 1:231–232
benign violation hypothesis on, 1:54
humor reception and, 2:630
lack of cognitive mastery and, 1:136
lack of positive cues and, 1:12
lack of understanding and, 1:177
levels of, 1:232
non-laughter response to, 2:629
politeness in response to, 2:584
speaker’s perspective of, 1:232
See also Reactions to humor, non-laughter
Faiman, Peter, 2:525
Fairbairn, Ronald, 1:250
Fairey, Shepard, 1:112
Fake news, 2:472, 473, 474, 475, 599. See also
Mockumentary; Satire news
Faked nonfiction, 2:515, 516
Faked smiling or laughter, 2:704
Fakhruddin ‘Ali-Safi, 1:403
Faldella, Giovanni, 1:317
Fallon, Jimmy, 2:446, 731
False-alarm theory, 1:52. See also Arousal-safety
theory
Falsifiability, principle of, 1:369
Family environment and sense of humor, 2:607
Fantasy assimilation, 1:361
 Index 863

Fantasy-ideas, in ancient Greek comedy, 1:32, 33, inversion at, 1:237–239, 395, 2:648, 649
34, 60 jests and, 1:407
Farce, 1:233–237 performative comedy and, 1:141
Bergson on, 1:78, 234 ridicule of clergy at, 1:130, 131 (illustration), 300
in China, 1:292 See also Fools
as comedy reduced to fundamentals, 1:233 Federal Communications Commission, U.S.,
comic structures of, 1:234 2:448, 548
in Europe, 1:234–235, 316, 318, 328, 329 Feiffer, Jules, 2:598
found around the world, 1:233 Fein, Ofer, 1:399
in Japan, 1:234, 321, 2:433 Fellini, Federico, 2:525, 573
lazzi and, 2:445 Female infanticide, 1:57
low comedy and, 2:464 Feminist aspects:
in the movies, 2:521 anti-feminist anti-proverbs, 1:48
nature of, 1:233 anti-feminist fabliaux, 1:225
performative comedy and, 1:142, 143 feminist art movement, 1:65, 67, 105
in Sanskrit humor, 1:234, 2:657–658 feminist joke, subversive power of, 2:743
in Shakespeare’s works, 1:235, 2:684, 685, Internet humor and, 1:390
686, 687 in Lysistrata, 2:751
in South America, 2:721, 722 Molière and, 2:518
techniques of, 1:233–234 profeminist humor, 1:260
Farley, Chris, 1:383, 2:701 stereotyping and, 2:740
Farquhar, George, 1:144, 286 See also Women, representations of
Farrell, Joseph, 1:163 Feng Menglong, 1:248, 292, 293
Farrelly, Bobby, 2:527 Fenton, James, 1:51
Farrelly, Frank, 2:610 Fenton, Lavinia, 1:96 (illustration)
Farrelly, Peter, 2:527 Ferguson, Mark, 1:17, 2:595
Farrow, Mia, 2:526 Fernández, Macedonio, 2:720, 721
Farzat, Ali, 2:473 Fernández de Lizardi, José Joaquín, 2:720
Fascism, 1:159 Fernández de Moratín, Leandro, 1:317
Fasnacht festival, symbolic inversion in, 1:108 Ferreiro, Alfredo Mario, 2:720
Fast Fourier transforms, 2:490–491 Ferrell, Will, 2:527, 598
Fathers, as targets of ancient Roman comedy, 1:38 Festinger, Leon, 2:594
Fatigue, humor for prevention of, 2:802 Festival and carnival. See Carnival and festival
Fauconnier, Gilles, 1:84 Festival of Dionysus, 1:31, 2:665. See also
Faulkner, William, 1:332 Dionysus (Greek god)
Favart, Charles, 1:151 Festive abuse, 1:386
Favreau, Jon, 2:527 Fey, Tina, 1:150, 383
Fawcett, Captain Billy, 2:470 Feyaerts, Kurt, 1:84
Faxlore, 1:389 Feydeau, Georges, 1:78, 143, 235, 316
Fayed, Dodi, 1:416 Fictionality, and mockumentaries, 2:516
FCC (Federal Communications Commission), Fidelity, patterns of, 2:557, 558
2:448, 548 Field, Joseph, 1:330
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), 2:578 Field, Matthew, 1:330
Fear, as an emotion in stress, 1:158–159. See also Fielding, Henry, 1:95, 296, 297, 395, 2:461, 462,
Anxiety; Phobias 526, 553, 555
Feast of Asses, 1:130 Fields, Gracie, 2:523
Feast of Fools, 1:237–239 Fields, Lew, 1:97, 98, 2:538
burlesque in, 1:95 Fields, W. C., 1:51, 98, 2: 507, 522, 523
carnivalesque and, 1:110–111 Fight-or-flight response, 1:158, 2:511, 742
farce in, 1:235 Figure-ground reversal, 2:494
864 Index

Figures of speech, 2:642. See also Rhetoric and in European history, 1:294
rhetorical devices fools in, 1:244
Film clowns, 1:133 history of, 1:239–240
Films. See Movie humor types; Movies on the Internet, 1:389
Finden, William, 1:237 (illustration) in Japan, 1:319, 322, 2:679
Fine arts, aesthetics, and humor, 1:14–15 living tradition of, 1:240
Fink, Gereon, 1:200 modernity and, 1:241–242
Firenzuola, Agnolo, 1:328 name-related humor and, 1:373
First Amendment protections, 2:447–448, 450 scatology in, 2:667
First Nations, 1:24, 26, 27, 67, 2:484 (illustration). simple form and, 2:693, 694
See also American Indian cultures, humor in stereotypes in, 1:85–86
Fisher, Bud, 1:146 technology and, 1:242
Fister, P., 2:678 wellerism and, 2:767, 793–794
Fitzball, Edward, 1:316 xeroxlore and, 1:240, 389, 2:807, 808
Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 2:551 See also Schwank
Fitzgerald, Michael, 1:200 Fónagy, Ivan, 2:504
Flagg, James Montgomery, 2:468, 470 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2:578
Flatulence, 1:75, 2:527, 667 Fool societies, 1:244
Flaubert, Gustave, 1:50, 51, 316, 2:462 Fools, 1:243–245
Fleischer, Dave, 2:522, 523 artificial fools, 1:243–244
Fleischer, Max, 2:522, 523 in folklore, literature, drama, 1:244
Fletcher, Anne, 2:527 holy fools, 1:93, 244
Fletcher, John, 2:769 natural fools, 1:243
Flexus art movement, 1:65 in Sanskrit humor, 2:660
Floyd, Jay, 2:744–745 in Shakespeare’s works, 1:244, 407–408, 2:684,
Flying Circus. See Monty Python 685, 687–688
Flyting (ritual insult), 2:787–788 social masks used by, 2:486
fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), See also Clowns; Feast of Fools; Foolstowns;
1:88, 89–90, 92, 167–168, 2:605, 764 Trickster
Fo, Dario, 1:111, 265, 2:509 Fool’s errands, 2:592–593
FOAF (friend of a friend) tales, 1:373 Fools’ Festivals, 1:300. See also Feast of Fools
Focus groups, 1:71 Fools for Christ, 2:638
Fodor, Jerry A., 2:675 Fools for Health, 2:833
Folengo, Teofilo, 1:326 Foolstowns, 1:245–246
Folk humor: Foot, Hugh, 1:xxxi
categories of, 1:240 Forabosco, Giovannantonio, 2:493
in China, 2:811 Ford, Gerald, 2:598, 598 (illustration)
in Islam, 1:402, 403, 405–406 Ford, Thomas E., 1:17, 2:595
in Japan, 1:310–311 Forest of Laughter and traditional Chinese
in Jewish humor, 1:411 jestbooks, 1:246–248, 291
in music halls, 2:536 Formby, George, 2:523, 537
tall tale as, 2:747 Forsyth, Bill, 2:525
in U.S. history of humor, 1:333, 336 Fossilization, in second language acquisition, 2:672
wellerisms as, 2:794 Foucault, Michel, 1:xxix
See also Folklore Four humours of bodily fluids, 1:117
Folk wit, 1:46 Fowles, John, 2:590
Folklore, 1:239–243 Fox, George L., 1:97
of the Akan people, 1:20 Fox, William Price, 1:332
about animals, 1:41, 42 Fox Tree, Jean, 1:398
blason populaire in, 1:85–86 Foxtrot, 2:538, 540

Foxworthy, Jeff, 1:26
Fractured proverb. See Anti-proverb
Frame of mind, in the state-trait model, 1:119
Framing theory, 1:248–250
animal-related humor and, 1:41, 42
anthropological analyses and, 1:45
bisociation and, 1:84
communication theory and, 1:248–249
framing in a variety of locations, 1:249
speech play and, 2:729
symbolic interactionism and, 2:712
See also Comic frame; Reframing
France, newspapers and magazines in:
Le Canard enchaîné, 2:475
Charlie Hebdo, 2:472
Hara-Kiri, 2:474
Francesca, Shishonia, 1:27
Francis de Sales, Saint, 1:129
Francis I (monarch), 1:327, 2:620
Frank, Melvin, 2:524
Frank, Russell, 1:415
Frankl, Viktor, 2:631
Franklin, Benjamin, 1:113, 115, 335, 409, 423,
2:598, 599 (illustration)
Fratellini, Annie, 2:510
Fraternal and identical twin studies, 1:284,
2:606–607
Frayn, Michael, 1:144, 233
Freberg, Stan, 1:6–7
Frederick Barbarossa (emperor), 1:299
Fredrickson, Barbara, 2:588
Freedman, Florence, 1:245
Freedom:
artistic, 1:328–329
of expression, 1:271, 275, 308, 2:447–448, 717
in laughter, 1:100
nonsense experienced as, 2:543
of speech, 1:31, 2:718
time and, 1:77, 79
Freeman, Cliff, 1:7
Freestyling (verbal dueling), 2:788–789
Freud, Sigmund, 1:xxxi
anthropology and, 1:43
on antisocial drives, 1:52
on anxiety, 1:49
on defense mechanisms, 1:179, 193, 2:609
on excremental and sexual instincts, 2:667
as the father of psychoanalysis, 2:567, 634, 667
folk humor anthologizing by, 1:411
gallows humor and, 1:255
Index 865
in the history of humor in Europe, 1:304, 305
on humorous coping, 1:179
on the id, superego, and ego, 1:193, 217, 250, 394
on insulting situations, 1:386
on jokes, 1:53, 368, 412, 2:583
on jokes, analysis of, 1:186, 354
on jokes, tension, and arousal, 1:62, 193
on jokes, typology for, 2:795
on laughter situations, 2:567–568
Pirandello and, 2:572
power of the irrational and, 2:573
on release of built-up energy, 2:634
Roman joke quoted by, 1:407
on self-deprecating humor, 1:217
on surprise juxtapositions, 2:729
on techniques of humor, 2:493
on verbal versus conceptual humor, 2:790
Witz and, 2:567–568, 795
Freudian slips, 1:193, 393, 2:576, 744
Freudian/psychoanalytic theory, 1:241, 250–251.
See also Freud, Sigmund; Psychoanalytic
perspective; Psychotherapy, humor in
Frey, Jacob, 1:408
Friedman, Hershey, 1:80, 81, 82
Friedman, Tom, 1:66
Friend of a friend (FOAF) tales, 1:373
Friendships, humor for enhancing, 2:633
Friesen, Wallace V., 2:703
Friston, Karl, 1:200
Frogs (by Aristophanes), 1:2, 31, 33, 60, 141, 144,
234, 2:435, 459, 553. See also Aristophanes
Frontal aging hypothesis, 1:19
Frontal areas of the brain, 1:89, 167, 168, 2:442.
See also Prefrontal cortex
Frontier humor, U.S., 1:330–332
Fry, William, 1:xxxi, 278, 2:634, 635
Frye, Northrop, 1:140, 329, 2:460
Frymier, Ann B., 1:208, 2:756
Fujimoto Kizan, 1:323
Fujiwara no Akihira, 1:321
Fujiwara Teika, 1:321, 2:431
Fulgentius (writer), 2:565
Fun, as a comic style, 1:365
Funambuli (rope dancers), 1:69, 2:507
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
1:88, 89–90, 92, 167–168, 2:605, 764
Functionalism, 2:711
Funès, Louis de, 1:306
Funniness versus humorousness, 2:630
Funny, perception of, 1:320
866 Index

Funt, Allen, 1:334 representation of, 1:343–345

Futurismo movement, 1:308 in South Africa, 2:716
speech mannerism jokes about, 2:458
Gadda, Carlo Emilio, 2:589 stand-up comedy about, 2:733
Gag, 1:253–255, 2:507 stereotypes of, 1:343
Gag-a-day comic strips, 1:147, 156 See also Homosexuality, representation of
Gaiman, Neil, 1:256 Geertz, Clifford, 1:43
Galao, K., 1:414 Geffcken, Katherine, 2:643
Galbraith, John Kenneth, 2:752 Gehring, Wes, 2:523
Galen (physician), 1:350 Gehry, Frank, 1:67
Gallows humor, 1:255–256 Geisel, Theodor (Dr. Seuss), 1:115
or “black” humor, 1:233, 264 Geisler, Cheryl, 2:643
in the history of U.S. humor, 1:336 Gelastic seizure, 2:438, 443
importance of point of view in, 1:255–256 GELOPH 15 questionnaire, 1:257
sick humor compared to, 2:692 Gelosi Company of professional actors, 1:162, 163
See also Black (tragic or morbid) humor; Dark Gelotophilia, 1:258
humor Gelotophobia, 1:50, 256–259
Galtung, Johan, 1:344 bullying and, 1:257, 258, 259
Game shows, 1:12, 305, 2:515, 519, 560, 789 humorous stimuli and, 1:374–375
Gandolfini, James, 1:73 personality psychology of, 2:606
Gangnam Style music, 1:391 studies of, 1:257, 2:600
Gao E, 1:141, 2:463 Gender and humor, psychological aspects of,
Garbo, Greta, 2:523 1:259–261
García Márquez, Gabriel, 2:722–723 in humor appreciation, 1:259–260
Gardner, Howard, 1:166 in humor creation, 1:260–261
Gardner, Martin, 2:489 in sports, 2:732–733
Gardner, Richard A., 2:679 See also Gender roles in humor; Sexuality
Gardosh, Kariel, 1:413 Gender bending, 1:343
Gargalesis, 2:765, 766. See also Tickling Gender differences:
Gargantua and Pantagruel (by François Rabelais), in adolescent humor preferences, 1:123
1:66, 103, 105, 111, 295, 326, 395, 2:461, in appreciation of sick humor, 2:692
619–620, 720, 723. See also Rabelais, François in bathroom communications, 2:667
Gargoyles, 1:64, 2:501, 502 (illustration) in children’s sense of humor, as rated by adults,
Garland, Lynda, 1:98, 99, 100 1:121
Garnier, Robert, 2:769 controversy on studies of, 1:363
Gary, Romain, 1:412 in creation and enjoyment of sexual humor,
Gaskell, Elizabeth, 1:315 2:683
Gates, Henry Louis, 1:333 in evolutionary life histories, 1:220
Gattis, Merideth, 1:198 exaggerated by radio voices, 1:336
Gaudi, Antonio, 1:67 in folk humor engagement, 1:241
Gaultier-Garguille (comedian), 1:409 in graffiti works, 1:270
Gautier, Théophile, 1:316 in humor appreciation, 2:683
Gay, John, 1:95, 96 (illustration) in humor creativity, 1:220
Gayle language/argot, 2:716 in humor processing, 1:90
Gays: in humor production, 1:260–261, 262, 363,
the comic frame and, 1:149 2:482, 683
at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, 1:46 in instructional humor, 1:209, 2:755, 756
Human Rights Campaign and, 1:11 Internet humor and, 1:390
pranks, suicide, and, 1:140 in laughing and smiling, 1:220, 2:438
prejudice against, 2:596 more often in style than in engagement, 1:259

no significant differences in frequency of humor
use, 1:263
in parenting, 1:184
in partners, 2:481–482
in roles (see Gender roles in humor)
in sense of humor preferences, 1:261,
2:481–482, 683
in small groups, 1:357
in telling of dirty jokes, 1:241
in types of humor enjoyed, 1:262
Gender identity, 1:114, 262, 343, 2:707, 733
Gender ideologies, 2:744
Gender issues:
false righteousness and, 2:658
female politicians, humor directed at, 2:587
gender inequality, 1:67, 386
gender violence, 2:718
identity and gender, 1:114, 262, 343, 2:707, 733
media messages and, 2:781–782
raising awareness of, 1:105
stereotypes, 1:115, 262, 270, 331, 390, 414,
2:595, 707, 740
symbolic interactionism and, 2:712
voting rights, 1:114, 2:743
workplace humor, 1:262, 2:707, 803
Gender roles in humor, 1:262–263
in the classroom, 1:209
cross-cultural perspective of, 1:187, 188
in folk humor, 1:241
indigenous practices and, 2:646
in joking relationships, 1:418
in limericks, 2:453
reversals of, and anthropology, 1:46
reversals of, as travesty, 2:774–775
reversals of, in ancient comedy, 1:33, 38
reversals of, in carnival and festival, 1:106–107, 108
reversals of, in medieval Europe, 1:300
in sexual humor, 1:260
in sports, 2:732–733
in traditional Chinese stories, 1:292–293
in tricksters, 2:777
in variety acts, 2:786
in verbal dueling, 2:787
in watching xiangsheng, 2:811
in the workplace, 1:262, 2:707, 803
See also Gender and humor, psychological
aspects of; Sexuality
Gender stereotypes, 1:115, 262, 270, 331, 390,
414, 2:595, 707, 740
Gender violence, 2:718
Index 867
Genders of humor in China, 1:302
General effects approach to humor, 1:18
General theory of verbal humor (GTVH):
computer-generated humor and, 1:348
knowledge resources of, 1:354, 374, 384, 2:456
logical mechanism of humor and, 1:384, 2:494
script opposition, translation, and, 2:772, 774
social interaction and, 2:707
on the term “verbal humor,” 2:790
Generation of humor. See Computational humor;
Humor production
Generative irony, 2:591
Genet, Jean, 1:3, 2:463
Genetic contributions to humor, 1:284–285,
2:606–607
Genetic fitness, humor as an indicator of, 1:184
Genette, Gérard, 2:554–555, 556
Gennai, Hiraga, 1:324
Genres and styles of comedy, 1:263–267
audience’s role in determining style, 1:265
categories of, 1:264
comedy itself as a genre, 1:264
elements affecting, 1:266
genres and styles contrasted, 1:264–265
performative comedy and, 1:141–144
in romantic and sentimental comedy, 1:265–266
styles of humor and comedy, 1:264–265
See also Humor styles; Humor styles
measurement
Gentry, Philippe, 2:509, 510
Germany, Titanic magazine in, 2:477
Germi, Pietro, 2:525
Gerrig, Richard, 1:399
Gershwin, George, 2:538, 539
Gershwin, Ira, 2:539
Gerson, Jean, 1:238
Gerstler, Amy, 2:582
Gesaku (Edo period fiction), 1:324
Gest, S. D., 1:199
Gestural markers, 1:360. See also Smiling and
laughter: expressive patterns
Ghalib, Asadullah, 1:405
Gibbon, Edward, 1:98
Gibbs, Raymond, 1:398, 399, 400
Gibson, C. D., 2:587 (illustration)
Gibson, Charles Dana, 2:469, 470
Gibson, Henry, 1:422
Gide, André, 2:463
Giehse, Therese, 1:305
Giftedness, 1:120–121
868 Index

Gilbert, John, 1:117 (illustration) Goldberg, Lewis, 1:229

Gilbert, W. S., 1:287, 316, 393, 2:454, 551 Goldberg, Whoopi, 1:366, 2:527
Giles, Herbert, 2:812 Goldoni, Carlo, 1:267–269
Gilgamesh, Epic of (ancient Sumerian narrative), as comic opera librettist, 1:152, 267
2:460 as comic playwright, 1:143, 267
Gill, André, 1:104 lazzi used by, 2:444, 445
Gilliam, Terry, 1:306, 307, 2:518, 519, 520, 525 monument to, 1:267 (illustration)
Gillray, James, 1:104 reform program of, 1:162, 163–164, 268
Giora, Rachel, 1:398, 399, 400 Goldsmith, Oliver, 1:143, 212
Giraldo, Greg, 2:446 Goldtooth, Dallas, 1:26
Girard, Antoine, 1:409 Goliardic poetry, 1:299
Giraudoux, Jean, 2:768 Gómez de la Serna, Ramón, 2:720
Girondo, Oliverio, 2:720 Goncharov, Aleksandrovich, 1:317
Gish, S., 1:130 Good news-bad news jokes, 2:611
Giuliani, Nicole, 2:742 Goodby, Jeff, 1:7
Givens, Adele, 2:625 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 2:583
Gladman, John, 1:110 Gordon, George, 1:315, 2:514
Glasgow, R. D. V., 1:395 Gordon, Jeff, 1:134
Glass, Kimberly, 1:199 Gordon, Mel, 2:444
Gleason, Jackie, 1:98, 2:622 Gordon, Michael, 2:524–525
Glenn, Phillip, 2:706 Gordon, Steve, 2:526
Gliner Center on Humor Communication and Gorgias (rhetorician), 2:574
Health, 2:833 Gorham, Joan, 2:756
Globalization, 1:188, 387, 390–391, 2:541, 542, 714 Gorostiza, Manuel Eduardo de, 1:317
Gnome, 1:50. See also Aphorism Gosden, Freeman, 2:624
Goatly, Andrew, 2:492, 505 Gossage, Howard Luck, 1:6, 7
God: Gossman, Lionel, 1:39
in Arabic jocular literature, 1:58 Gotham, England, as a foolstown, 1:245
in the Bible, 1:81–82, 83, 127, 410, 425–426, Gotlober, Avrom-Ber, 1:318
427, 2:567, 637, 749 Gottfredson, Floyd, 1:147
as a clown-like figure, 1:308 Gould, Laurence, 2:702
a comic world seen in, 1:161 Goya, Francesco, 1:104
in medieval sculpture, 2:497, 498 Gozzi, Carlo, 1:163, 164, 268
in the Qur’an, 1:56, 57, 403, 404, 2:749 Gracián, Baltasar, 2:582
Goddard, Angela, 2:706 Graesser, Arthur, 2:505
Gödel, Kurt, 2:489 Graffiti, 1:269–271
Godkewitsch, Michael, 2:742 in the bathroom, 2:667
Gods and goddesses: humor in, 1:270–271
of ancient Greece and Rome, 1:31, 33, 34, illustrations of, 1:269, 270
2:666, 749 Graham, J. H. C. “Harry,” 2:692
in ancient Sumeria, 1:70, 2:460 Graham-Bermann, S. A., 1:199
of China, 1:346, 2:749 Grammatical structure:
of Japan, 1:105, 319, 320, 322, 323, 2:650 in ambiguity, 1:23
Goel, Vinod, 1:167, 2:790 of animal jokes, 1:41, 42
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 1:142, 318, 2:514, in comic strips, 1:146, 156
694, 795 complexity and, 1:165
Goffman, Erving, 1:343, 2:483, 583, 593, 712, 729 in exaggeration, 1:222–223
Gogol, Nikolai, 1:318, 2:462 in race representation, 2:622
Goh, Colin, 2:725 translation and, 2:773
Going viral, 1:71, 336, 2:717 in visual puns, 1:65
 Index 869

Grandfather paradox, 2:551 Grotowski, Jerzy, 2:509

Grant, Cary, 2:524 (illustration) Group identity, 1:190, 208, 218, 329, 419,
Graphic novels, 1:67, 112, 156, 2:555. See also 2:652–653, 715, 801
Cartoons Groups, humor in. See Humor group
Grass, Günter, 2:465 Groups, in- and out-, 1:190–191, 193–194, 378
Gratifications and media messages. See Uses and GTVH. See General theory of verbal humor
gratifications theory (GTVH)
Graves, Michael, 1:67 Guan Hanqing, 1:292
Gray, Jeanette, 1:16, 199, 230 Guarini, Giovanni-Battista, 2:768
Greece, ancient. See Ancient Greek comedy; Guerlac, Suzanne, 1:77, 79
Aristophanes; Aristotelian theory of humor; Guerrilla Girls, 1:67, 105
Greek visual humor Guest, Christopher, 2:521
Greek visual humor, 1:271–275 Guglielmi, Waltlraud, 1:28, 29
comic categories of, 1:272–275 Guilds of actors, 1:162
examples of, 1:272–274 (figures) Guillén, Nicolás, 2:721
See also Ancient Greek comedy Guinness, Alec, 2:525
Greeting card doggerel, 1:204 Guiraud, Pierre, 2:790
Gregory, Dick, 2:598 Guo Degang, 2:810
Greguerías (South American genre), 2:720 Guo Qiru, 2:809
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, 1:83, 84 Gur, Inbal, 1:400
Gressley, Diane, 1:261 Gurevitch, Michael, 2:781
Grice, Herbert Paul, 1:399, 2:491–493, 674 Guthrie, Woody, 2:599
Griffith, D. W., 2:522 Gutiérrez, Antonio García, 1:317
Grimaldi, Joseph, 1:133 Guysing (masking custom), 2:484
Grimm, Jacob, 2:694 Gwynne, Fred, 2:552
Grimm brothers, 1:239, 2:767 Gyri of the brain, 1:89, 91, 2:443
Grimmelshausen, Hans Jakob Christoffel von,
1:327 Haas, Hadassah, 2:781
Grinde, Nick, 2:523 Habermas, Jürgen, 1:296
Grock (clown), 1:133 Hadith literature, 1:58
Groening, Matt, 1:147, 2:488 Hager, Joseph C., 2:703
Grojnovski, Daniel, 1:317 Haiku, 1:263, 314, 322, 2:677. See also Senryu-
Grooms, Red, 1:65 Haile, Christopher Mason, 1:330
Gross, James J., 1:179, 200, 2:742 Hakīm, Tawfīg al-, 1:58
Gross, Lawrence, 1:xxx Haladyna, Thomas M., 2:763
Grossi, Tommaso, 1:317 Haldon, John, 1:98, 101
Grotesque, the: Hall, Alexander, 2:524
as an aesthetic mode, 1:15 Hall, G. Stanley, 2:765
in caricature, 1:103 Halliday, Mark, 2:582
in carnival and festival, 1:105, 108, Halliwell, Stephen, 1:100
108 (illustration) Halloween, 1:141, 338, 416, 2:484, 486, 593,
in Europe, 1:294, 296, 297, 305, 306, 308, 318 650, 745
in the history of visual humor, 1:64 Hallström, Per, 1:77
in the movies, 1:336, 2:522, 526 Halpern, Charna, 1:382
in music, 2:531, 532 Hamadhānī, al- (writer), 1:55
in South America, 2:721, 722 Hamby, Barbara, 2:581
in theater of the absurd, 1:308 Hammerstein, 2nd, Oscar, 2:539
in U.S. frontier humor, 1:330 Hammett, Dashiell, 2:524
Grotesque realism, 1:305, 2:722–723 Hammond, Darrell, 2:598
Grotjahn, Martin, 2:634 Hamzah, Raja, 2:725
870 Index

Handan Chun, 1:246, 247, 291 Haydn, Franz Joseph, 1:182, 2:530, 531 (figure),
Handel, George Frideric, 1:151 532, 533 (figure)
Handke, Peter, 1:144 Hayes, Laura, 2:625
Handler, Daniel, 1:372 Hayes, Terrance, 2:582
Hanff, Minnie Maude, 1:5 Haynes, Todd, 2:556
Hannah, Barry, 1:332 Hays Code, 2:526
Hansen, Thomas Blom, 2:716 Hazanavicius, Michel, 1:233, 287, 2:525
Hao, Yanfen, 2:505 HBQD (Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck), 1:227,
Ha-P (organization), 2:833 230, 260, 365–366, 2:606, 760
Harassment, 1:207, 2:449, 624, 666, 757, 800. See Healing, humor for, 2:635
also Bullying Health benefits of humor, physical, 1:277–281
Hardy, Alexandre, 2:769 aging and, 1:18
Hardy, Dudley, 1:153 (illustration) brain processes and, 2:443
Hardy, Oliver, 1:3, 133, 145–146, 253, 2:507, 520, for the cardiovascular system, 1:277–278,
523, 701 2:558–559
Hardy, Thomas, 1:141 clowns and, 1:134
Harīrī, al- (writer), 1:55 humor groups for, 1:358
Harlequin (stock character), 1:162, 163, 164, 294, limitation of research on, 1:280
2:444, 486, 507 mirth and, 2:511
Harley, Robert, 2:663 for the musculoskeletal system, 1:278, 2:567
Harmless and aggressive humor. See Aggressive and for the neuroendocrine and immune systems,
harmless humor 1:278–281, 2:442
Harold, the (improv structure), 1:382, 383 in pedagogical use of humor, 2:558–559
Harrigan, Edward, 2:538 for the respiratory system, 1:277, 278, 2:442, 558
Harrington, John P., 2:623 (illustration) stress, tension, arousal, and, 1:158–159
Harris, Andrea, 1:200 See also Physiological aspects
Harris, George Washington, 1:331, 332 Health benefits of humor, psychological, 1:281–284
Harris, Joel Chandler, 1:332 aging and, 1:18–19
Harris, John, 2:451 benefits of humor not to be assumed, 1:283
Harris, Max, 1:111, 395, 2:648 clowns and, 1:134–135
Harris, Sidney, 2:487 for enhancing the positive, 1:282–283
Harrison, George, 2:519 Freudian theory on, 1:250–251
Hart, Lorenz, 1:144, 2:539 from harmless humor, 1:16
Hart, Tony, 2:538 in humor development, 1:200
Harte, Bret, 2:620 humor groups for, 1:358–359
Hartocollis, P., 1:79 laughter and, 1:117, 2:440
Hartup, W. W., 1:199 in pedagogical use of humor, 2:558
Harvard Lampoon, 1:422, 2:435–436, 469 personality, humor, and, 2:561–562, 563
Harvey, Pax, 1:26 for reducing the negative, 1:281–282
Harvey, Steve, 2:625 religion and, 2:636
Harzenbuch, Juan Eugenio, 1:317 stress, tension, arousal, and, 1:159
Hašek, Jaroslav, 1:3, 244, 2:545 Health care systems:
Hauff, Wilhelm, 1:318 clowns working in, 1:134–135
Hauptmann, Carl, 2:485 humor groups in, 1:358–359
Havel, Václav, 2:545 Hearst, William Randolph, 1:5, 155, 423, 424
Hawks, Howard, 2:524, 701 Heart rate:
Hawn, Goldie, 1:422 effect of laughter on, 1:278–279, 2:442
Hay, Jennifer, 1:262, 2:707 mirth associated with, 2:511
Hay, Will, 2:523 sexual arousal in jokes and, 2:742
Hayashi, Takashi, 1:279 Hebb, Donald, 1:62
 Index 871

Hebrew Bible, 1:80, 81–82, 255, 410, 425–427. norms of, 1:342, 2:777
See also Old Testament sense of humor and, 1:261
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1:135, 2:572 See also Homosexuality, representation of
Hegelianism, 1:77 Hetzron, Robert, 2:611, 612
Hegemon of Thasos (writer), 2:552 Hibbett, Howard, 1:323, 2:691
Hehl, Franz-Josef, 2:680 Hichens, Richard, 1:315–316
Heidegger, Martin, 2:591 Hicks, Bill, 2:598
Height, Bob, 2:622 Hicks, William, 1:408
Heine, Heinrich, 1:186, 318, 412, 2:462, 514 Hidajat, Johnny, 2:726
Helitzer, M., 1:23 Hidalgo Downing, Raquel, 1:398
Heller, Joseph, 1:3, 256, 336, 2:545 Hidden camera technique, 1:253, 2:716
Helmbold, George, 2:467 Hierarchical status. See Status differences
Heminges, John, 2:684 Hierocles (writer), 2:565
Hemispheres of the brain, 1:89, 90–92, High comedy, 1:285–288
166–168, 2:443 characteristics of, 1:285–286
Hempelmann, Christian F., 2:489, 675 as comedy of manners, 1:286–287
Henning, Magnus, 1:305 of hoaxes and pranks, 1:337
Henri III (king), 1:163 low comedy compared to, 1:285–286, 2:465
Henry, Lenny, 2:740 as a traditional comic genre, 1:264
Henry, O., 1:367 High-context cultures and messages, 1:288, 289
Henry VI (king), 1:110 High-context humor, 1:288–289
Hepburn, Katharine, 2:524 Highlighting, for exclusion, 1:388
Herakleitos (philosopher), 1:100 Highsmith, Carol M., 1:132 (illustration)
Herakles and the twelve labors, 1:273, 274, Highway, Tomson, 2:778
274 (figure), 275 Hill, Charlie, 1:26, 2:625
Here/Now/Me/Real/Practical perspective, 1:157, 158 Hill, Terence, 1:307
Heritability, 1:284–285. See also Genetic Hilzinger, Sonja, 1:39
contributions to humor Hindemith, Paul, 1:338
Herman, Jerry, 2:539 Hindu festivals, 1:105, 2:650
Hermit’s performance in symbolic inversion, 1:107 Hinduism attitude toward humor, 2:636
Hernández, Felisberto, 2:721 Hip-hop culture, 2:788–789
Hernández, José, 2:720 Hippocampus, 1:90
Heroes: Hirschfield, Al, 1:104
anti-heroes, 1:79, 312, 326, 329, 2:517, 523, Hirst, Terry, 2:474
539, 619 Hisashi, Inoue, 1:309–310, 312, 2:609, 688, 689
comic, 1:160, 286, 412, 2:517 Hispanic American literature, 2:719. See also South
superheroes, 1:147, 156, 274, 2:731 American literature, humor in
tragic, 1:159–160 Hispanics, 2:625–626
See also Mock-heroic works Historiographical anecdotes, 1:39. See also
Heroicomic burlesque, 1:394, 396 Anecdote, comic
Heroicomical poem, 2:555 History of humor: ancient world. See Ancient
Herriman, George, 1:146 Egypt, humor in; Ancient Greek comedy;
Hertzog, James Barry Munnik, 2:718 Ancient Roman comedy; Assyrian and
Hervey, John, 2:435 Babylonian humor
Hess, Jared, 2:527 History of humor: classical and traditional China,
Heteroglossia, 2:729 1:289–293
Heteronormativity, 1:342, 343, 344 Buddhism and, 1:93, 94, 291
Heterosexuality: Confucianism and, 1:172–174, 290, 291
homosexuality and, 1:342, 343 Daoism and, 1:290–291
manliness and, 2:732 jestbooks in, 1:246–248
872 Index
jokes and joke books in, 1:291, 292–293
Shijing (Book of Poetry) in, 1:289, 290
See also History of humor: modern and
contemporary China
History of humor: early modern Europe, 1:293–298
absurdist humor in, 1:1, 2–3
carnival in, 1:105–109, 294–295
humor and humors in, 1:295–296
incongruity theory and, 1:297–298
performative comedy in, 1:141, 294, 295
Rabelais and commedia dell’arte in, 1:294–295
satire and Enlightenment humor in, 1:296–297
superiority theory and, 1:296
See also History of humor: modern and
contemporary Europe
History of humor: medieval Europe, 1:298–302
Boccaccio and the Decameron in, 1:87–88,
226, 299
Christianity in, 1:128–129, 299, 300, 301
clergy of, 1:130, 301
comedic writing in, 1:299–300
fabliaux in, 1:225–226, 299
Feast of Fools in, 1:237–238, 300
jests and jesters in, 1:407–408
performers and audiences in, 1:301
visual humor in, 2:494–502
History of humor: modern and contemporary
China, 1:302–304
crosstalk in, 1:303
e’gao in, 1:210–212
monumental figures in, 1:302–303
xiangsheng in, 1:303, 2:808–812
xiehouyu in, 2:812–813
youmo and huaji in, 1:302
See also History of humor: classical and
traditional China
History of humor: modern and contemporary
Europe, 1:304–309
atrocities of war and, 1:308
British music halls in, 2:534–537
democratization and political satire in, 1:307–308
humor theories in, 1:304–305
media development and, 1:306
in the movies, 2:525–526
performative comedy in, 1:143–144
urbanization and, 1:305–306
See also History of humor: early modern Europe
History of humor: modern Japan, 1:309–314
early 20th century, 1:310–311
Kyo-gen, Rakugo, and Manzai in, 1:310 (see also
Kyogen)
Manga and Anime in, 1:156, 311
Meiji period, 1:309
recent humor, 1:312–314
Shingeki (New Theater) in, 1:310
wartime humor, 1:311–312
See also History of humor: premodern Japan
History of humor: 19th-century Europe, 1:314–318
as age of transition, 1:314–315
in England, 1:315–316
in France, 1:316–317
in German-speaking countries, 1:318
in Italy, 1:317
in Russia, 1:317–318
in Spanish-speaking countries, 1:317
History of humor: premodern Japan, 1:319–325
aristocratic society in, 1:319–321, 324
Edo period of, 1:322–324
evolution to modern forms, 1:321
merchant society in, 1:322–323
tribal society in, 1:319
warrior society in, 1:321–322
See also History of humor: modern Japan
History of humor: Renaissance Europe, 1:325–329
the classics and, 1:325
commedia dell’arte in, 1:162–164, 328–329
Erasmus, More, and Rabelais in, 1:325–328
jestbooks in, 1:408
mock epics in, 1:326, 329
nonsense as humanistic discussion in, 2:543
performative comedy in, 1:141, 142
short stories in, 1:327–328
theatrical comedy in, 1:328–329
History of humor: U.S. frontier, 1:330–332
characteristics of, 1:330–331, 332
humorist names and pseudonyms, 1:331
tall tales in, 1:330, 331, 2:747, 748–749
History of humor: U.S. modern and contemporary,
1:332–336
antecedent to stand-up comedy, 2:734
burlesque in, 1:96–98
capitalism and, 1:334–335
humor of public figures in, 1:335, 336, 409
magazines and newspapers in, 2:467–471
marginalization of groups in, 1:333–334
media development and, 1:335–336
variety acts and shows in, 2:783–786
See also Movies; Radio; Television; Vaudeville
 Index 873

Hitler, Adolf, 1:158, 334, 396, 413, 2:470, 523, 725 Hominids, social cooperation in, 1:221. See also
HIV, 1:45, 2:717. See also AIDS Nonhuman species
HMT (Humorous Message Taxonomy), 1:9 Homographs, in puns, 2:612, 614
Ho Chi Minh, 2:724 Homonyms, 1:48, 2:548, 614, 768
Hoax and prank, 1:337–340 Homophobia, 1:345
on April Fool’s Day, 1:337 (illustration) Homophobic humor, 1:11, 343–345, 377
in business, 1:339 Homophones:
college pranks, 1:139 (illustration), 140 in anti-proverbs, 1:48
etymology and origins of, 1:337–338 bilingual, 1:189
forms and media of, 1:338–339, 2:475 in Japanese, 2:688, 689
mockumentaries and, 2:516 in puns, 1:48, 2:612, 613, 614
practical jokes as hoaxes, 2:592, 594 in Tom Swifties, 2:768
pranks by candid-camera technique, 2:716 translation of, 2:773
pranks in the workplace, 2:803, 805 Homosexuality, representation of, 1:342–345
Sokal hoax, 2:670 as accepted individuals, 1:345
urban legends as hoaxes, 1:339, 2:779 in anti-proverbs, 1:48
visual humor in, 1:254, 338 comic frame for, 1:149
See also Fake news definitions for, 1:342–343
Hobbes, Thomas, 1:296, 297, 340–342, 394, as gender benders, 1:343
2:451, 461, 556, 567, 632, 663, 752, 796 heterosexuality and, 1:342, 343
Hobbes plus theory, 1:342 humor theories and, 1:343
Hobbesian theory, 1:340–342 as sex-obsessed and predatory, 1:344
Hobden, Karen, 2:595 as stigmatized and deviant, 1:343–344
Hockett, Charles, 2:790 as victims, 1:344–345
Hoff, Portland, 1:336 See also Gays; Heterosexuality; Lesbians; Sexual
Høffding, Harald, 1:341, 342 orientation
Hoffmann, E. T. A., 1:318 Hone, William, 2:662
Hoffmann, Frank, 1:240 Hood, Thomas, 1:315
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, August Heinrich, Hooper, Johnson Jones, 1:330, 331
1:318 Hope, Anthony, 1:315
Hofmann, Jennifer, 1:119 Hope, Bob, 1:5, 335, 2:523, 524, 525, 597–598
Hogan, Paul, 2:525 Hopkins, Claude, 1:5
Hogarth, William, 1:104, 182, 296, 2:555, 662 Horace (poet), 1:299, 326, 407, 2:661
Hoicka, Elena, 1:198 Hormones, effect of laughter and humor on, 1:279,
Hokusai (artist), 2:678 280, 2:511
Holdridge, Christopher, 2:717 Horn, John, 1:229
Holkins, Jerry, 1:148 Horne, James W., 2:523
Holliday, Judy, 2:525 Hospitals, clowns working in, 1:134
Holmes, J., 2:480 Hostile audiences, humor for addressing, 1:71
Holmes, Janet, 1:262, 2:584, 707 Hostility/superiority theory, 1:xxxii, 367. See also
Holocaust, the, 1:147, 409, 412, 2:692. See also Superiority theory
Nazi regime Hou Bai, 1:247
Holst, Gustav, 2:530 Hou Baolin, 2:809, 811
Holt, Jim, 1:xxxii Houlihan, Patrick F., 1:29, 30
Holy fools, 1:93, 244 Howard, Russell, 1:345
Holzer, Jenny, 1:65 Hoyer, Wayne D., 1:9, 11, 12
Homeostasis maintenance, 1:62 Hroswitha of Gandersheim, 1:299
Homer (poet), 1:154, 396, 2:460, 513, 514, 666 HSQ (Humor Styles Questionnaire), 1:50, 230,
Homeric laughter, 1:127 260, 366–367, 2:606, 607, 760
874 Index
Hu, Li-tze, 1:229
Hu Ge, 1:210, 211
Huaji-ists, the, 1:247, 345–347, 408
Huard, Louis, 2:776 (illustration)
Hughes, Langston, 2:620
Hughley, D. L., 2:625
Hugo, Victor, 1:110, 130, 237 (illustration),
2:767, 771
Huizinga, Johan, 2:577, 579
Hull, Clark, 1:62
Human interest stories, 1:39, 234
Human-centered design, 1:197
Human-computer interface. See Computational
humor; Humor, computer-generated; Humor
detection
Humanism, 1:145
Human-like personality, added to computers, 1:170
Humor (bodily fluids). See Humours (or humors)
construct of bodily fluids
HUMOR (journal), 1:xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 2:833
Humor, computer-generated, 1:347–350
computational humor and, 1:169, 170, 171
natural language processing for, 1:347, 348–349
Humor, etymology of, 1:350–351
in the 18th century, 1:350–351
four humors (or humours) and, 1:350
and languages of ancient Mesopotamia, 1:68
many synonyms for humor and related subjects,
1:xxx–xxxi
in the 19th century, 1:351
in the 20th century, 1:351
umbrella term, humor as, 1:xxxi, 351, 2:589
Humor, forms of, 1:351–352
Humor, restriction and protection of. See Legal
restriction and protection of humor
Humor and health. See Health benefits of humor,
Physical; Health benefits of humor,
Psychological
Humor and relational maintenance, 1:352–354. See
also Conversation; Marriage and couples;
Social interaction
Humor appreciation. See Appreciation of humor
Humor Appreciation Scale (Escala de Apreciación
del Humor), 2:760
Humor as an umbrella term, 1:xxxi, 351, 2:589
Humor components, factor analysis for, 1:226–231
Humor comprehension. See Comprehension of
humor
Humor conferences, 1:xxxi, 2:831, 833, 834
Humor Connection (online publication), 2:831
Humor content versus structure, 1:354–355
Humor creation. See Humor production
Humor de re versus humor de dicto, 2:789–790
Humor detection, 1:169, 170, 171, 355–356
Humor development. See Children’s humor stages;
Development of humor
Humor generation. See Humor, computer-
generated; Humor production
Humor Gráfico, 2:833
Humor group, 1:18, 357–359
Humor in America (blog), 2:833
Humor markers, 1:72, 202, 359–361, 391, 398, 400
Humor Mekuvvan (journal), 2:834
Humor mindset, 1:361–362
Humor orientation, 1:18–19, 209–210, 2:756. See
also Humor styles
Humor preferences:
of children and adolescents, 1:123, 125, 126, 198
complexity and, 1:164, 165
gender and (see Gender differences)
identity and, 1:378
motivation, competence, and, 1:137
for seriousness versus cheerfulness, 1:119
simulation of, 1:169
stimuli and, 1:374–375
of students, 1:209
test measurement of, 2:760, 764
in testing and evaluation, 2:762
Humor processing, neuropsychology of, 1:88–92
Humor production, 1:362–364
correlates of, 1:363
creativity and, 1:182–185, 363
gender and, 1:260–261, 262, 363, 2:482
how to improve, 1:363
test measurements of, 2:760
Humor Project Inc., The, 2:833
Humor relatedness, in advertising, 1:9
Humor rooms, 2:802
Humor scales (in factor analysis), 1:227, 228–231.
See also Test measurements of humor; Tests,
questionnaires, scales, inventories
Humor studies, the field of, 1:xxx–xxxii
associations and publications in, 1:xxxi, xxxii,
2:831–835
coalescing of the field, 1:xxxi
conferences in, 1:xxxi, 2:831, 833, 834
defining feature of, 1:xxxi
maturity in, 1:371
Humor styles, 1:364–365
in aging adults, 1:18–19
 Index 875

anxiety and, 1:49–50 peculiar names, 1:189

bipolar styles, 1:364, 365–366 for some Igbo aliases, 1:381
clinical psychology of, 2:607 Humorous stimuli, characteristics of, 1:373–375
comical styles, 1:365 Humors (or humours) construct of bodily fluids,
conceptualizations for, 1:364–365 1:117, 296, 350, 371
in coping with depression, 1:195 Humour noir, 1:264, 308, 2:521. See also Black
creativity and, 1:182 (tragic or morbid) humor
in factor analyses, 1:227, 230 Humour Summer School, 2:834
heritability of, 1:284–285 Humours (or humors) construct of bodily fluids,
personality, sense of humor, and, 2:562, 563 1:117, 296, 350, 371
positive/negative styles, 1:364, 366–367 Humphrey, Chris, 1:110
psychological health and, 1:283 Hup (cartoonist), 2:725
in relational maintenance, 1:353 Hurd (bishop), 1:286
“styles of humor” and, 1:265 Hurston, Zora Neale, 1:332, 2:620
See also Genres and styles of comedy; Hussain, Taha, 1:56
Personality, humor and Hustler v. Falwell, 2:447
Humor styles measurement, 1:365–367 Hutcheon, Linda, 2:555, 590
HBQD for, 1:227, 230, 260, 365–366, 2:606, 760 Hutcheson, Francis, 1:297, 2:567
HSQ for, 1:50, 230, 260, 366–367, 2:606, Hutchings, Arthur, 1:338
607, 760 Hybrid comedies in movies, 2:521
See also Test measurements of humor; Tests, Hyde, Lewis, 2:777
questionnaires, scales, inventories Hyers, Conrad, 1:82
Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), 1:50, 230, Hylton, Jack, 2:452
260, 366–367, 2:606, 607, 760 Hynes, William J., 2:777
Humor techniques, classification of, 2:753, 753 (table) Hyperbole:
Humor theories, 1:367–371 in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:28, 29, 30
counterexamples for, 1:169, 369, 370 in carnival and festival, 1:105, 108, 109
creation of, 1:75 as a comedic device, 2:642
formal theory, 1:369 irony and, 1:398, 2:492, 637
informal theories, 1:367–371 in music hall songs, 2:535
linguistic theories of humor, 2:455–457 in the New Testament, 1:128
Platonic, 2:574–575 in Sanskrit humor, 2:659, 660
testing of, via computational humor, 1:169–170 in U.S. frontier humor, 1:330
theory, reality, phenomenology, and, 1:369–370 See also Exaggeration
three historical humor theories, 1:216 Hypertextuality, 2:554–555
See also Incongruity theory; Release theories of Hypothalamus, 1:89, 90, 2:511
humor; Relief theory; Superiority theory Hypothetical distance, 2:603
Humor therapy, 1:18, 358–359
Humor training, 1:195, 283 Ibargüengoitia, Jorge, 2:722
Humoral theory of four bodily fluids, 1:350 Ibn Ezra, Abraham, 1:410
Humoresques (journal), 2:832 Ibsen, Henrik, 2:771
Humorist, 1:371–372 Iconography, 1:xxxiii, 197, 2:498, 501, 637, 665.
Humorlessness, 1:118, 119, 230, 232, 2:601 See also Medieval visual humor
Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck (HBQD), 1:227, Id, ego, and superego, 1:193, 217, 250, 394
230, 260, 365–366, 2:606, 760 Idea generation, creativity in, 1:182–183
Humorous Message Taxonomy (HMT), 1:9 Idealization, and humor theories, 1:370
Humorous names, 1:372–373 Identical and fraternal twin studies, 1:284,
in the Bible, 1:81, 82 2:606–607
blason populaire and, 1:86 Identity, 1:377–378
as memory aids on radio, 1:335 in aging adults, 1:19
876 Index

ambiguity in, 1:377 Imperfect and perfect puns, 1:348, 2:458,

Aristotle’s law of, 2:641
audiences and, 1:378
collective, 1:378
college identity, 1:138
comedians and, 1:377–378
constructed via performance, 1:343
diminishment of, 2:642
ethnic, 1:85, 190
forming of, 1:241
gender and, 1:114, 262, 343, 2:707, 733
group (see Group identity)
hidden by masks, 1:181
impersonation and, 1:377, 2:740
joking relationships and, 1:419
layers of, 1:377
negotiation of, 2:706
neutralized by mimes, 2:507
personal, jokes for presenting, 1:175
positive sense of, 2:741
professional, 1:262, 358
reversal of, 1:107
self-identity, 2:801
sexual, 1:342
social masking and, 2:485–486
threats to, and humor appreciation, 1:52–53
in the workplace, 2:800, 801, 803, 804
Idioms, 1:24, 73, 124, 126, 176
Idle, Eric, 1:306, 2:518, 519, 520
Idrīs, Yūsuf, 1:58
If/then relationship, 1:369
Igbo humor, 1:378–381
Iglesias Recuero, Silvia, 1:398
Ihara Saikaku, 1:311, 323
IHPT (instructional humor processing theory),
1:208–209
Ikku, Jippensha, 1:309
Ikoonu (poetic insult of similes), 1:380
Illiterate Doctor of Isin, The (ancient Babylonian
text), 1:69
Illustrated novels, 1:155. See also Graphic novels
Imaging, brain. See Brain, neuropsychology of
humor
Immanuel Frances of Tuscany, 1:410
Immanuel of Rome, 1:410
Immune system:
effects of laughter and humor on, 1:159,
278–280, 2:442, 570
humor linked to functioning of, 1:200
response to fear, anger, and sadness, 1:158–159
613–614, 675
Impersonation:
ambiguities in, 2:739–740
dialect impersonation, 1:202
identity and, 1:377, 2:740
male impersonators, 2:786
in presidential humor, 2:598
stereotyping in, 2:739–740
travesty and, 2:775
Importance of Being Earnest, The (by Oscar Wilde):
as a masterpiece of farce, 1:329
as the supreme example of high comedy, 1:285
See also Wilde, Oscar
Impressionists, stand-up, 2:734. See also
Impersonation
Improv comedy, 1:381–383
brief history of, 1:142, 382
commedia dell’arte and, 1:161, 162, 382
humor groups for, 1:358
lazzi in, 2:445
legal skills and, 2:446
sitcoms, mockumentary, and, 2:516
“Yes, and . . .”, 1:382
Improv exercises, in the design process, 1:196
Improvisation, illusion of, 1:37, 253. See also
Improv comedy
Improvisational comedy. See Improv comedy
Inappropriate humor. See Appropriate and
inappropriate humor
Inattention principle, 1:254
INC RES (incongruity resolution), 1:136. See also
Incongruity and resolution
Inclusion humor, 1:387
Incongruity:
in animal jokes, 1:41–42
appropriate, 2:493
Bergson as a theorist of, 1:78–79
in the Bible, 1:128
children and, 1:120, 122, 126, 198, 199–200
cognitive studies and, 1:135
cognitive synergy as, 2:641
comic versus tragic attitude toward, 1:157–158
for computer-generated humor, 1:348
congruent, 2:493
in European history, 1:308
in the evolution of the novel, 2:462
in hoaxes and pranks, 1:340
in legal issues, 2:449
metaphor and, 2:504

in music, 2:529, 530–532
in obscenity, 2:547, 548
perception and enjoyment of, 2:569
perspective by incongruity, 1:148, 149
sitcoms and, 2:696
in stereotyping, 2:740
stimuli and, 1:340
surprise and, 1:368, 383
in teasing, 2:757, 758
an understanding attitude toward, 1:365
for visual humor in art, 1:64
in workplace humor, 2:797, 801, 803, 805
See also Incongruity and resolution; Incongruity
theory
Incongruity and resolution, 1:383–385
the absurd and, 1:1, 2
advertisements and, 1:5–6, 9, 10, 11, 12
in autism spectrum disorder, 2:601
in the classroom, 1:208
complexity of, 1:165
in content versus structure of humor, 1:354
creativity in, 1:183
detection component of, 1:89, 166, 167, 168
evolutionary perspective for, 1:221
at the heart of wit, 1:5
in humor appreciation, 1:52, 53, 54
in humor comprehension, 1:166, 167, 168
in humor development, 1:198
humorous stimuli for, 1:374, 375
justification in, 1:384, 2:493
mathematics of, 2:489–490
mechanisms of humor for, 2:493–494
metaphor and, 2:504
in music, 2:531, 532
neuropsychology of, 1:88, 89, 91
nonsense and, 2:544–545
philosophy of humor and, 2:569
pointe in, 2:583
resolution as a complex matter, 1:384
resolution component of, 1:88–89, 166, 167,
168, 384
surprise and, 1:368, 383
3 WD model and, 1:384
3 WD test and, 2:763, 764, 765
two-step model for, 1:135–136
See also Incongruity; Incongruity theory
Incongruity theory, 1:xxxii
aesthetics, humor, and, 1:14–15
cognitive psychology and, 2:604
on ethnicity and humor, 1:216
Index 877
in European history, 1:294, 297–298, 2:461
in farce, 1:234
Freudian psychoanalysis as part of, 1:250
homosexuality, humor, and, 1:343
humor appreciation and, 1:52
humor production and, 1:363
as an informal theory, 1:368
inversion, topsy-turvydom, and, 1:394
liability theory and, 2:449
in New Testament gospels, 1:128
on perspective shifting, 2:632
philosophy of humor and, 2:568–570
Plato’s anticipation of, 2:574
surprise and expectations in, 1:383–384
on targets of humor, 2:752
on violated expectations, 1:158
in the workplace, 2:805
See also Incongruity; Incongruity and resolution
India, humor publications in:
Faking News website, 2:473
Random Magazine, 2:477
Shankar’s Weekly, 2:477
Individual differences:
benign violation theory on, 1:76
in children’s development, 1:120
in cognitive competence, 1:137
in education, 1:209–210, 2:755, 756
in enjoyment of sexual humor, 2:683
heritability and, 1:284–285
in humor appreciation, 1:373, 2:561
humor comprehension and, 1:166, 373
in humor perception, 2:764
in humor production, 1:184, 2:606
in mirth experiences, 2:511
in motivational value, 1:137
neuropsychology of, 1:90
psychology of, 2:605–606
religion and, 2:636, 639–640
in sense of humor, 1:365, 2:680, 681
in sexual humor, 2:683
stimulus characteristics and, 1:374–375
testing of, 2:759, 764
uses and gratifications theory on, 2:781
See also Gender differences; Humor styles;
Personality, humor and
Indonesia, cartooning in, 2:724, 726
Inept versus competent style, 1:227, 364, 365, 366
Infancy:
humor development in, 1:120, 122, 125–126,
198, 2:766
878 Index
laughter or smiles in, 1:120, 122, 125, 198, 219,
2:439, 766
Infanticide, 1:57
Information theory, 1:164
Infotainment, 1:248, 2:782
In-groups and out-groups, 1:190–191, 193–194,
378, 2:652, 709, 800, 804. See also
Marginalization
Innocent III (pope), 1:238
Innocent versus tendentious jokes, 1:354
Inoue Hisashi, 1:309–310, 312, 2:688, 689
Inside jokes, 1:288–289, 353
Insight and humor, 1:183–184. See also Creativity
Instructional humor, 2:755–756. See also
Education, humor in
Instructional humor processing theory (IHPT),
1:208–209
Instruments, measurement. See Tests,
questionnaires, scales, inventories
Insult and invective, 1:385–387
in adolescent humor, 1:126
Akan jokes connected with, 1:20
Byzantine, 1:100–101, 102
cross-cultural perspective of, 1:188
Igbo poetic insult of similes, 1:379–380
ritual insults, 1:86, 188, 385–386, 419,
2:786–789
Insult comedy, 1:14, 385, 386
Integrated musical, 2:539. See also Musical comedy
Intellectual activity, stimulated by humor, 2:802
Intellectual property, 2:448
Intentional humor, 1:4, 5, 351, 352, 372, 387,
2:630. See also Canned humor; Spontaneous
humor; Unintentional humor
Intentional relatedness, in advertising humor, 1:9
Interaction, social. See Social interaction
Interactional sociolinguistics, 1:178
Intercultural humor, 1:387–388. See also Cross-
cultural humor
Intermezzo (precursor to full comic operas),
1:151, 152
Internal motivation, and humor appreciation, 1:137
International Journal of Humor Research
(HUMOR), 1:xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 2:833
International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS),
1:xxxi, 2:833
International Society for Luso-Hispanic Humor
Studies (I.S.L.H.H.S.), 2:833
International Society of Pranksters and Hoaxers,
1:337
International Studies in Humour (journal), 2:833
International Summer School and Symposium on
Humour and Laughter, 2:834
International Theatre of the Oppressed
Organisation, 1:111
Internet humor, 1:389–393
American Indian comedians and, 1:26
anti-proverbs as, 1:48
audiences for, 1:71
by cartoonists, 1:147–148
by comedy ensembles, 1:145
cross-cultural, 1:188–189
in Europe, 1:307, 308
exploiting the potential of, 2:706
fake news as, 2:473, 474
First Amendment and, 2:447
globalization and, 1:390–391, 2:542
Internet spoofing in China, 1:210–212
mathematical humor as, 2:487
media message selection and, 2:782
memes and, 1:391–392, 391 (illustration)
new genres for, 1:389, 390, 392
new joking themes in, 1:389–390
news as, 1:422–423, 2:473, 474
online magazines for, 2:471
playing with roles in, 2:707
political humor as, 2:585, 599, 717
presidential humor as, 2:599
public sharing of, 1:336
sitcoms as, 2:697–698
sketch comedy as, 2:700
sociological study of, 2:714, 715
stereotyping and, 1:390, 2:741
swearing on the Internet, 2:548
urban legends as, 1:339
verbal dueling as, 2:789
videos on the Internet, 1:336, 389, 390, 391,
397, 2:516, 599, 700, 702, 754, 809
visual culture and, 1:390
See also Blogs; Social media, electronic
Internet Protocol spoofing, 2:732
Interpretation, misdirection in, 2:512–513
Intertextuality, 2:541, 729. See also Audiovisual
translation
Intimacy and humor, 2:633, 735, 736
Introversion and extraversion, 1:90
Invective and insult. See Insult and invective
Inventories. See Tests, questionnaires, scales,
inventories
Inversion, rituals of. See Rituals of inversion
 Index 879

Inversion, topsy-turvy, 1:393–397 in the Qur’an, 1:56

anthropology of, 1:46, 47 sarcasm compared to, 1:398
in carnival and festival, 1:106–109, 395 second-order intentions and, 1:124
complete inversion, 1:396–397 in similes, 2:505
in Greek visual humor, 1:273, 274 situational, 1:397
humor theory and, 1:394–395 in South Africa, 2:716
humor types in, 1:393–394 superiority expressed in, 1:365
literary inversion, 1:396 suspensive and generative, 2:591
nonsense/absurdity compared to, 1:394–395 types of, 1:397–398
play and, 2:579 Irving, Washington, 2:467
rituals of inversion, 1:106–109, 237–239, 395, Irwin, Jeffrey, 1:208, 2:756
2:648–649 Iser, Wolfgang, 2:580
situational inversion, 1:395–396 ISH (International Studies in Humour), 2:833
social structures and, 1:395 ISHS (International Society for Humor Studies),
symbolic inversion, 1:106–109, 110, 393 1:xxxi, 2:833
See also Reversal theory; Reversals; World upside Islam, 1:402–406
down attitude of, toward humor, 2:636
Inverted U-shaped curve, 1:62, 164 Muhammad and, 1:56–59, 115, 149, 403–404,
Ionesco, Eugène, 1:1, 3, 144, 2:463, 545, 771 2:639
Iran, Kayhan Caricature and Tofigh publications Mullah Nasreddin and, 1:405–406,
in, 2:474, 477 405 (illustration)
Ireland, The Phoenix magazine in, 2:476 the Qur’an and, 1:56–58, 59, 403, 404
Irish jokes, 1:216–217 typologies for humor in, 1:402
Irony, 1:397–402 See also Arabic culture, humor in
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29 Islamic jurisprudence, 1:58
in anthropological humor, 1:43 Islamic literature, 1:56. See also Arabic culture,
in Arabic literature, 1:55, 58 humor in
in the art of visual humor, 1:64, 65 I.S.L.H.H.S. (International Society for Luso-
in the Bible, 1:81 Hispanic Humor Studies), 2:833
in cartoons, 1:115, 116 Isoda Koryu-sai, 2:678
children and, 1:124–125, 126, 2:606 Isotopy, 1:83, 84. See also Bisociation
in China, 1:211, 292, 302 Israeli Journal of Humor Research, 2:834
complexity and, 1:165 Israeli Society for Humor Studies, 2:834
in conversational humor, 1:176 Italian-style comedy, 1:161. See also Commedia
in epigrams, 1:213 dell’arte
in Europe, 1:294, 315, 316, 317, 326 Italy, Il Becco Giallo and Il Male magazines in,
exaggeration and, 1:223 2:472, 475
humor distinguished from, 2:573 Ivarson, Jan, 1:72
humor markers in, 1:360, 398, 400 Ives, Charles, 2:531
hyperbole and, 1:398, 2:492, 637 Iwerks, Ub, 2:523
intellectual, 2:463
in Jewish humor, 1:410, 411, 412, 413 Jab-line, 1:417
in joking relationships, 1:420 Jackson, H., 2:543
modernist, 2:590 Jackson, Michael, 2:603, 731
in music, 2:531, 532–533 Jacoby, Joe, 2:732
non-laughter responses to, 2:629 Jūhiz, al- (writer), 1:55
paradox and, 2:551 Jainism, 2:657, 658
in perspective by incongruity, 1:149 Jakobson, Roman, 2:694, 772
politeness and, 2:584 Jalaluddin Rumi, 1:404
postmodern, 1:154, 397, 2:590–592, 733 James I (king), 1:143
880 Index

Jameson, Frederic, 2:556 Jewish American princess jokes, 2:754

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, 1:149 Jewish humor, 1:410–414, 2:542
Janata, Petr, 1:168 Borscht Belt theaters and, 2:735
Janes, Leslie, 1:17 foolstown jokes, 1:245–246
Janneying (masking custom), 2:484 gallows humor, 1:255
Jansen, William Hugh, 1:241 Hebrew Bible, 1:410 (see also Biblical humor)
Japan: in Israel, 1:413–414
Buddhism in, 1:93, 94 logical argumentation and, 1:411, 413, 2:542
cross-cultural humor and, 1:186–187 medieval humor, 1:410–411
Haiku of, 1:263, 314, 322, 2:677 in the modern West, 1:412–413
history of humor in, modern, 1:309–314 in 19th-century Europe, 1:411–412
history of humor in, premodern, 1:319–325 Rabbinic humor, 1:410
hoaxing in, 1:338–339 representations of, 2:786
Kyo-gen of, 1:94, 141, 234, 254, 310, 322, schnorrer (beggar) in, 1:428
2:431–433, 509 self-deprecation, 1:217–218, 386
laughter rituals in, 2:649–650 sitcoms and, 2:696
magazines in, 1:311, 2:474 translation of, 1:72, 187
physical humor in, 1:253–254 See also Jews; Judaism
Rakugo of, 1:310, 323, 324, 2:626–628 Jewison, Norman, 2:527
Senryu- of, 1:313, 314, 2:677–679 Jews:
Share of, 1:313, 324, 2:688–691 in Arabic jocular literature, 1:58
Japan Humor and Laughter Society, 2:834 and blason populaire, 1:85
JAPE (Joke Analysis and Production Engine), folklore from, 1:239
1:171, 347–348 joke cycles about, 1:414
Jarry, Alfred, 1:3, 317, 395, 396, 2:460, 463, 485, liberation of, and Purim, 1:105
670, 775 and the Qur’an, 1:56, 57
Jasnow, Richard, 1:29, 30 stereotypes of, 1:414
Jeer pressure, 1:17 See also Holocaust, the; Jewish humor; Judaism
Jefferson, Gail, 1:360, 2:706 Ji Yun, 1:293
Jeffreys, E., 1:101 Jiang Qing, 2:809
Jenkins, Florence Foster, 2:530 Jiang Yingke, 1:248
Jerk humor, in China, 1:303, 2:542 Jillette, Penn, 1:373
Jerome, Jerome K., 1:315 Jingles, advertising, 1:5
Jerome, Saint, 1:128 Jippensha Ikku, 1:324, 2:691
Jerrold, Douglas, 1:316 Joan of Arc, 2:514
Jervas, Charles, 1:96 (illustration) Joanna I (queen), 1:87
Jest, jestbooks, and jesters, 1:407–409 Jodelle, Étienne, 1:328
in antiquity, 1:407 Jodorowsky, Alejandro, 2:720
in China, 1:173, 246–248, 407, 408 John, Oliver P., 2:704
European, 1:301, 407–409 John of Salisbury, 1:301
jestbooks, 1:246–248, 408, 409 John XXIII (pope), 1:131
jesters, 1:83, 99, 173, 243, 292, 322, 408, 2:734 Johnson, Ragnar, 1:84
See also Huaji-ists, the; Joke books Johnson, Samuel, 1:50, 212, 296, 405, 2:566, 582
Jesus: Johnstone, Keith, 1:382
at the center of Christianity, 1:127 “Join or Die” (by Benjamin Franklin), 1:113, 115,
laughter and, 1:99, 127–128 2:598, 599 (illustration). See also Franklin,
and the Life of Brian, 2:731 Benjamin
reconciliation of mankind through, 1:129 Joke Analysis and Production Engine (JAPE),
sayings of, 1:80, 82–83, 128, 161 1:171, 347–348
Jeunet, Jean-Pierre, 2:525 Joke and cartoon tests for humor assessment, 2:760

Joke books, 1:291, 2:565–566. See also Jest,
jestbooks, and jesters
Joke cycles, 1:241, 414–417, 2:692, 713, 754
Joke potential, 2:676
Joke prompts, 1:22
Jokelore, 1:20
Jokes, 1:417–418
addiction to telling of, 1:91
anecdotes compared to, 1:40, 177
arousal theory on, 1:62–63
benign violation theory on, 1:76
as bisociative play, 1:46
blason populaire in, 1:86
canned, 1:53, 170, 177, 209, 417, 2:773
children and, 1:120, 121, 124, 125, 126
in the classroom, 1:207, 208, 209
cognitive work involved in, 1:136
in computational humor, 1:169, 170, 171
in conversational humor, 1:175–176, 177–178
cross-cultural, 1:186, 187, 188
cruel, 1:174, 415, 2:692
dead baby jokes, 1:241, 415, 2:692
dirty (see Dirty jokes)
elephant, 1:1–2, 241, 417
ethnic, 1:54, 86, 100, 214–215
Freud on (see Freud, Sigmund)
“gags” interchangeable with, 1:253
good news-bad news, 2:611
humor mindset cued by, 1:362
inside jokes, 1:288–289
on the Internet, 1:389, 390–391, 392
as intrinsically subversive, 1:45
knock-knock, 1:169, 170, 171, 198, 2:551, 613
legal issues for, 2:449, 450
light bulb, 1:136, 138, 169, 171, 345, 417,
2:740, 754
linguistic theories on, 2:455–457
mechanisms of, 2:612–613
meta-joke, 1:417–418, 2:529
misdirection in, 2:512–513
phonological (see Phonological jokes)
and poems, similarity between, 2:580, 581
politeness and, 2:584
pulses or episodes of, 2:611
riddle jokes, 1:138, 175, 300, 2:544, 645
self-referential, 1:418
semantic, 1:89, 167, 168, 2:790
sequential components of, 1:21–22
sexist, 2:587, 596, 602, 605, 733
shaggy-dog, 1:368, 417
Index 881
sick, 1:241 (see also Sick humor)
simple form jokes, 2:694
spontaneous, 1:417
stupidity jokes, 1:214, 216, 245
for testing a humor theory, 1:169
3 WD test of appreciation of, 2:760, 763–765
types of, brain activations for, 1:167–168
typology for, 2:795
verbal (see Verbal jokes)
visual, 1:65
yo mama jokes, 2:789
Joking, obligatory, 1:44
Joking around, 1:170, 2:709
Joking culture, 1:190–191, 2:709. See also Joking
relationship
Joking questions, 2:645. See also Riddle
Joking relationship, 1:418–421
anthropological analyses of, 1:43, 44–45
blason populaire in, 1:85–86
conversational humor and, 1:176
cross-cultural perspective of, 1:188
customary, 1:419–420
folklore and, 1:241
of the Igbo, 1:379
in interaction, 1:419–420
kin-based, 1:418
practical jokes in, 2:593–594
punning, irony, and sarcasm in, 1:419–420
as ritualized banter, 1:386
stereotyping and, 2:739
voluntary, 1:418–419
See also Akan humor; Verbal dueling
Jolles, André, 1:417, 2:693–694, 795
Jolson, Al, 2:624
Jonah (prophet), 1:82, 410, 425–426
Jones, Chuck, 2:520
Jones, Terry, 1:306, 2:518, 519, 520, 525
Jonson, Ben, 1:60, 142, 296, 325, 329, 350, 2:461,
662, 684
Jordan, J., 2:578
Joseph and his brothers, in the Hebrew Bible,
1:426–427
Joubert, Laurent, 1:xxxi, 295–296
Journal of American Culture, 2:835
Journal of Irreproducible Results in, 2:474, 489
Journal of Popular Culture, 2:835
Journalism, 1:421–425
advocacy and opinion in, 1:423–424
blurring lines in, 1:421, 422–423, 424
ethics in, 1:421–422
882 Index

in satire news, 2:664 Kant, Immanuel, 1:1, 13, 135, 217, 297, 368, 394,
truth and, 1:421, 422, 423, 424 2:491, 532, 568, 569, 570
See also Magazines and newspapers, U.S.; Karai Senryu-, 2:677
Magazines and newspapers outside the Karr, Alphonse, 2:462
United States; Satire news Kasdan, Lawrence, 1:73
Journals and associations in humor studies, 1:xxxi, Kästner, Erich, 1:307
xxxii, 2:831–835 Katagelasticism, 1:258, 374–375
Joyce, James, 2:463, 465, 544, 589, 773, 775 Katagiri, Jin, 1:338–339
Judaeus, Isaac, 1:295 Katari, Madam, 1:251
Judaism, 1:425–429 Katomyomachia (by Theodore Prodromos), 1:101
Hebrew Bible, humor in, 1:425–427 Katz, Albert, 1:398, 399
humorous imagery, 1:427 Katz, Elihu, 2:781
Midrash, 1:410, 427 Katz, Jerald J., 2:675
Talmudic logic, 1:427–428 Katz, Mickey, 1:413
Torah, 1:56, 410, 427, 428 Kaufman, George S., 2:539
See also Biblical humor; Holocaust, the; Jewish Kaye, Danny, 2:524
humor; Jews Kazhdan, A., 1:99
Jump, John, 1:396 Keary, A., 2:776 (illustration)
Junes, James, 1:26 Keary, E., 2:776 (illustration)
Jung, Carl Gustav, 1:163, 2:669, 777 Keaton, Buster, 1:133, 253, 396, 2:444, 507, 520,
Jungen, Brian, 1:67 522, 523, 701
“Just joking” or “only joking,” 1:17, 2:741, Keaton, Diane, 2:526
800, 802 Keeler, Ken, 2:488
Justification: Keene, Donald, 1:309
in disparagement theory, 1:11 Keillor, Garrison, 1:334
and evaluation, 1:369, 2:673, 675 Kellaris, James, 1:12
in incongruity and resolution, 1:384, 2:493 Keller, Hans, 1:338
Justsum, Sarah, 1:198 Kelley, Willam, 1:168
Justus, James H., 1:330 Kelly, Gene, 2:521
Juvenal (poet), 2:661 Keltner, Dacher, 2:704
Juxtaposition: Kemp, Lindsay, 2: 507 (illustration), 509, 510
in the art of visual humor, 1:64 Kendall, George Wilkins, 1:330
in burlesque, 1:95 Kenji, Miyazawa, 1:310, 311
in graffiti, 1:270 Kennedy, David, 1:7
for humor appreciation, 1:52 Kennedy, Jacqueline, 2:587
of meaning, for resolving incongruity, 1:167 Kennedy, John E., 1:5
in perspective by incongruity, 1:149 Kennedy, John F., 1:416, 2:587, 597, 775–776
speech play and, 2:729 Kentaro, Kobayashi, 1:338–339
Kenya, Joe humor magazine in, 2:474
Kabuki theater, 1:323, 324, 2:508 Kenyon, Donald, 2:718
Kafka, Franz, 1:2, 141 Keppler, Joseph, 2:468, 598
Kagan, Elena, 2:745 Keret, Etgar, 1:414
Kagel, Mauricio, 2:533 Kern, Jerome, 2:538
Kahn, Madeline, 2:731 Kerry, John, 2:599
Kaiser criterion in factor analysis, 1:229 Kersands, Billy, 2:622, 739, 740
Kajai, Rahim, 2:725 Kesava Shankara Pillai (Shankar), 2:477
Kaldellis, A., 1:100 Keystone Cops, 1:253, 2:444, 507, 520, 522, 701
Kalidasa (writer), 2:660 Khalid, Mohammad Nor, 2:725, 725 (illustration)
Kalman, Maira, 1:64 Kharms, Daniil, 1:308
Kan’ami (father of Zeami), 2:431 Kho Wang Gie, 2:724
 Index 883

Khrushchev, Nikita, 2:542 Kramer, Stanley, 2:526

Kierkegaard, Søren, 1:397–398, 2:568, 569 Krasner, Paul, 2:471
Killer cell activity in the immune system, 1:279, Kraus, Karl, 1:307, 318
280, 2:442 Kraus, Kurt, 1:137
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, 2:644 Kreisler, Johannes, 1:318
“Kilroy was here,” 1:269 (illustration) Krishtafovich, Igor, 2:490
Kim, Nick, 2:487 Krone, Helmut, 1:5
Kim Jong il, 2:586 Kruger, Barbara, 1:65
Kimata, Hajime, 1:278 Krylov, Ivan, 1:42
King, Thomas, 1:27, 2:625 Kshemendra (poet), 2:659, 660
Kingston, Maxine Hong, 2:778 Kubrick, Stanley, 1:4, 256, 264, 336, 2:521, 526
Kirby, David, 2:581 Kuiper, Nicholas, 1:199, 200
Kirschen, Yaakov, 1:413 Kuipers, Giselinde, 1:286, 390
Kishon, Ephraim, 1:413 Kuniyoshi (artist), 1:64
Kishtainy, Khalid, 2:716 Kuriyama (translator), 2:678
Kitchen, Denis, 1:147 Kurtzman, Harvey, 1:147
Kitcho-, Katsura, 2:627 Kutas, Marta, 1:167
Klee, Paul, 1:182 Kyo-gen, 2:431–433
Klein, Dana, 1:199 ancient Roman comedy and, 1:141
Klein, Melanie, 1:250 Buddhism and, 1:94
Kleist, Heinrich von, 1:39, 318, 2:768 comic banter in, 1:254
Kline, Kevin, 1:73, 2:507 elements of, 2:431–432
Kline, Maggie, 2:786 farce in, 1:234, 2:433
Kluckholn, Clyde, 1:43 in the history of Japan, 1:310, 322
Knismesis, 2:765, 766. See also Tickling masks used in, 2:431 (illustration), 432,
Knock-knock jokes, 1:169, 170, 171, 198, 432 (illustration), 433 (illustration)
2:551, 613 mime in, 2:432, 509
Knox, Ronald, 2:451
Koans, 2:533, 545 La Cava, Gregory, 2:524
Koendoro, Dwi, 2:726 La Fontaine, Jean de, 1:42, 226
Koenig, Julian, 1:5 La Guardia, Fiorello, 1:97
Koestler, Arthur, 1:49, 83–84, 180, 2:669 La Ribot (performance artist), 2:510
Köhler, Gabriele, 1:119, 230 La Rire Médicin, 2:834
Kohut, Heinz, 1:251 La Rochefoucauld, François de, 1:50, 213, 2:491
Koizumi, Junichiro, 2:586 La serva padrona (famous intermezzo by Pergolesi),
Kojiki (Japan’s oldest chronicle), 1:319 1:151
Kokkeibon (Funny Books), 1:324 La vie de Gargantua et Pantagruel. See Gargantua
Kominsky-Crumb, Aline, 1:67, 105 and Pantagruel (by François Rabelais)
Ko-mos (revelry scene), 1:33, 60 Labiche, Eugène, 1:78, 143, 316
Kondabolu, Hari, 2:625 Labov, William, 2:788
Köngäs-Maranda, Elli, 2:694 Lacan, Jacques, 1:251
Korais, Adamantios, 2:566 Lacanian psychoanalysis, 1:251
Korman, Harvey, 2:731 LaCapa, Drew, 1:27
Korotkov, David, 1:230 Lachman, Jamie, 1:134 (illustration)
Koster, Henry, 2:524 Lahr, Bert, 1:98
Kotthoff, Helga, 1:400 Lakoff, Robin, 1:262
Kotzebue, August von, 1:143 Lalli, Giovanni Battista, 2:522, 775
Kraepelin, Emil, 2:583 Lamb, Charles, 1:286, 310
Krafft, Charles, 1:67 Lamb, Mary, 1:310
Krahulik, Mike, 1:148 Lamour, Dorothy, 2:524
884 Index

Lampanelli, Lisa, 1:385 in China, 1:291, 293, 302

Lampert, Martin, 1:119, 227, 230, 259, 2:682
Lampoon, 2:435–436
burlesque as, 1:96, 98
caricature as, 1:113
commentary cartoons as, 1:115
Harvard Lampoon, 1:422, 2:435–436, 469
National Lampoon, 1:358, 422, 2:436, 471,
526, 731
parody and, 2:435–436
in presidential humor, 2:597
Landi, Stefano, 1:150
Landis, John, 2:471, 526, 527
Lane, Melissa, 1:398
Langdon, Harry, 1:253, 2:520, 522
Language and linguistics. See Linguistic theories of
humor; Linguistics; Second language
acquisition; Translation
Language play, 2:672
Language-based humor, brain processing of, 1:89
Language-bound forms of humor, 2:541. See also
National and ethnic differences
Lannaghan, Helen, 2:510
Lao She, 1:302–303
Lao Tzu, 2:749
Laozi (Tao philosopher), 1:94
Larivey, Pierre, 1:328
Larra, Luis Mariano de, 1:317
Larry the Cable Guy (comedian), 2:622
Larsen, Gwen, 1:16, 199, 230
Larson, Gary, 1:43, 2:609
Larvey, Michael, 2:652–654 (figures)
Lasker, Albert, 1:5
Lasseter, John, 2:527
Lasswell, Harold, 2:781
Lat (cartoonist), 2:725, 725 (illustration)
Late-night television, 1:249, 307, 2:526, 587, 599,
731. See also Saturday Night Live (television
show)
Latin American literature, 2:719. See also South
American literature, humor in
Latta, Robert L., 1:84
Lau, Johnny, 2:725
Laugh, laughter, laughing, 2:436–439
in Akan humor, 1:20, 21
in American Indian culture, 1:25, 26
in Arabic culture, 1:55, 56, 57, 58
in the Bible, 1:81–82, 127
Buddhism and, 1:92, 93–94
Byzantine humor and, 1:99–100
Church Fathers on, 1:99, 128
clowning and, 1:135
collective identity in, 1:378
contagious nature of, 2:440, 512
in conversations, 1:175, 176–177, 178, 2:438
dangers of, 1:127
emotions in, 2:437–438, 439, 440
as essentially redemptive, 1:79
in Europe, early modern, 1:293–294, 295–296, 297
in Europe, medieval, 1:301
in Europe, modern, 1:304, 308
expected immediately after a punch line, 1:176–177
expressive patterns in, 2:702–705
Freud’s laughter situations, 2:567–568
function of, 2:437–438, 440–441
gelotophilia and, 1:258
gelotophobia and, 1:50, 256–259
gender differences in, 1:220, 2:438
Hobbesian theory on, 1:340–342
hostility linked with, 1:81, 82
in humor development, 1:122–123, 126, 199
in infancy, 1:120, 122, 125, 219, 2:439, 766
in Japan, 1:309–310, 313, 319, 321, 323–324
Koestler’s theory and, 1:83, 84
mirth and, 2:511 (see also Mirth)
multileveled in Don Quijote, 1:117–118
neuropsychology of, 1:90, 91
in nonhuman species, 1:53, 75, 219, 2:439
non-laughter responses to humor, 2:628–629
pathological, 1:91, 2:439
and philosophy of humor, 2:567–568, 570
physiology of, 1:221, 277, 278, 2:436–437, 439,
441–443, 490, 635
production of, 2:436–437
psychology of, 1:117, 2:439–441
the Qur’an and, 1:56
rituals of, 2:649–650
silence instead of, 1:177, 2:628
sympathetic, 1:351
Laugh track, 1:409, 2:696, 699
Laughing Buddha, 1:93–94
Laughing gas, 1:119, 2:438, 511
Laughter (by Henri Bergson), 1:77, 78, 79
Laughter, psychology of, 2:439–441
biological roots of laughter, 2:439
function of laughter, 2:437–438, 440–441
psychological health and, 1:117, 2:440
sounds of laughter, 2:436–437, 437 (figure),
439–440, 440 (figure)
 Index 885

Laughter, rituals of. See Rituals of laughter libel and slander laws, 2:663
Laughter and smiling, physiology of, 2:441–443 See also Lawsuits
covert physiological changes in, 2:436–437, Legge, James, 1:290
442–443 Legman, Gershon, 1:239, 241, 2:452, 667
expressive displays and, 2:441 Leg-pulls, 2:592
See also Smiling and laughter: expressive patterns Lehár, Franz, 1:153, 2:538
Laughter Heals Foundation, 2:834 Lehrer, Tom, 2:488
Laughter yoga, 2:831 Lehrman, Henry, 2:522
Laurel, Stan, 1:3, 133, 145–146, 253, 2:507, 520, Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, 2:581
523, 701 Leksomtic, Jamnoon, 2:726
Law. See Legal education; Legal restriction and Leland, Charles G., 2:468
protection of humor; Supreme Court Lemon, Mark, 1:40
Lawhaha.com (website), 2:834 Lenglen, Suzanne, 2:732
Lawrence, D. H., 2:555 Lenin, Vladimir, 2:775
Lawrence, Mary Wells, 1:6 Lennox, Charlotte, 2:553
Lawsuits, 1:211, 307, 333, 2:448, 449, 717, 718, 754 Leno, Dan, 2:536
Lazaridis, Nikolaos, 1:30 Leno, Jay, 2:599
Lazarus, Richard, 2:741 Lent, John, 2:471
Lazzi, 1:33, 59, 162, 2:443–445 Léodepart, Macée de, 2:495, 495 (illustration)
Le Brunn, George, 2:623 (illustration) Lersch, Philipp, 2:680
Le Cid (by Pierre Corneille), 2:769–770 Lesbians:
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, 1:110 in ancient Roman visual humor, 2:654
Leach, Edmund, 1:46 at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, 1:46
Leadership, 1:262, 263, 2:799, 800 Human Rights Campaign and, 1:11
Lear, Edward, 1:2, 3, 316, 2:451, 462, 543 representations of, 1:344, 345
Lear, Norman, 2:697 (illustration) stereotypes of, 1:343
Learning, effects of humor on, 1:207, 208–209, See also Homosexuality, representation of
2:559. See also Education, humor in Lesion studies, 1:91, 92, 167
Learning disabilities, 1:199, 200–201 Leslie, Frank, 2:468
Lecoq, Jacques, 1:133, 2:509, 510 Lesotho, 1:134 (illustration)
Lee, Bobby, 2:625 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 2:582
Lee, Charles, 1:204 Lester, Richard, 2:526
Lee, Choi, 1:9 Letterman, David, 2:458, 587, 599
Lee, Jason, 1:373 Levine, David, 1:104, 2:598
Lee, Pinky, 1:98 Levine, Etan, 1:410
Lee, Richard, 1:45 Levine, Jacob, 1:228, 2:702
Lee Chee Chew, 2:725 Levinson, Stephen, 1:343, 2:583–584
Lee Hup Kheng, 2:725 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 2:777
Leech, Geoffrey N., 2:491, 492, 493 Levy, Marc, 2:581
Leech, John, 2:553 Lewinsky, Monica, 1:415, 2:586
Left hemisphere of the brain, 1:89, 90–91, 92, Lewis, C. S., 1:160
167, 2:443 Lewis, Henry Clay, 1:330, 331, 332
Legal education, 2:445–447 Lewis, Jerry, 1:145, 251, 2:520, 524, 525, 811
Legal restriction and protection of humor, Lewis, Paul, 2:714
2:447–450 Lexical ambiguity, 1:23
contract law and, 2:449 Lexical semantics, 2:674
defamation and, 1:307, 323, 385, 2:450, 475, Leybourne, George, 2:536, 536 (illustration)
717, 718 Li Ruzhen, 1:292
First Amendment in, 2:447–448, 450 Liang, Keng-Chen, 1:200
intellectual property protection, 2:448, 449 Liangas, George, 1:278
886 Index

Libel laws, 2:663. See also Legal restriction and stereotyping through, 2:622
protection of humor See also Linguistic theories of humor;
Liberation humor and liberation theory, 1:80, 368, Sociolinguistics; Translation
2:634. See also Release theories of humor; Lipps, Theodor, 2:572, 583
Relief theory Lipps, Thomas, 1:304
Licedei (performance artist), 2:510 Lipsky, Oldrich, 1:397
Lichtenberg, Georg C., 2:543 Liston, Sonny, 2:732
Lichtenstein, Roy, 2:553 Literary nonsense, 2:543. See also Nonsense
Liebling, A. J., 1:213 Literature, 2:459–464
Lienert, Gustav A., 2:759 comic characterization in, 2:459–460
Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy. See early literary humor, 2:460
Tristram Shandy (by Laurence Sterne) evolution of the novel, 2:460–463
Life of Gargantua and of Pantagruel. See self-conscious works, 1:297, 395, 2:461–462, 463
Gargantua and Pantagruel (by François in the 20th century, 2:463
Rabelais) Little Tony (Italian pop star), 2:774
Light bulb jokes, 1:136, 138, 169, 171, 345, 417, Little Willie humor cycles, 2:692
2:740, 754 Liu, Alice Xin, 2:810
Lihn, Enrique, 2:720 Liu, Shr-Jie, 1:207
Limericks, 2:450–455 Liu Hsieh, 1:320
in advertising, 1:5 Liu Yiqing, 1:291
lines and rhymes of, 2:451, 454 Livingston, Mary, 1:336
in the nonsense genre, 2:543 Lloyd, Harold, 1:133, 2:520, 522, 701
subject matter of, 2:451–453 Lloyd, Marie, 2:536
subverting of expectations by, 2:454–455 Lloyd Webber, Andrew, 2:771
Liminal, the, 1:106, 110 LM (logical mechanism of humor), 1:374, 384,
Lin, Steven, 2:810 2:456, 457, 494, 611
Lin Changzhi, 2:473 Loadings, factor. See Factor analysis of humor
Lin Yu-tang, 1:302, 2:463 items; Factor analysis of humor scales
Lincoln, Abraham, 1:316, 2:597 Lobachevsky, Nikolai, 2:488
Linder, Max, 2:522 Lockyer, Sharon, 2:714
Linguistic semantics, 2:673–675 Loesser, Frank, 2:539
Linguistic theories of humor, 2:455–457 Lofaro, Michael A., 1:331
GTVH (see General Theory of Verbal Humor Logical mechanism of humor (LM), 1:374, 384,
(GTVH)) 2:456, 457, 494, 611
ontological semantic theory, 2:456–457, 494 Logue, Christopher, 2:452
semantic script theory, 1:9, 84, 348, 369, Lollobrigida, Gina, 1:368, 405
2:455–457, 676–677 Long form improv, 1:383
See also Linguistics; Semantics Longer Rules, The (by Basil the Great), 1:99
Linguistic versus nonlinguistic humor, for children, Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 1:97
1:126 Longstreet, Augustus Baldwin, 1:330, 331
Linguistics, 2:457–459 Lope de Vega, 1:142, 325, 328, 2:507
as an academic discipline, 2:457–458 Lopez, George, 2:625
ambiguity and, 1:22–24, 2:459 López, Luis Carlos, 2:720
in children’s humor research, 1:123–125 Lorca, Federico García, 2:581
of cross-cultural humor, 1:185–186, 187, 188, 189 Lord, Frederic, 2:759
of dialect humor, 1:202–203 Lord, Peter, 1:72
humor markers in, 1:359–361 Lord Byron, 1:315, 2:514
psycholinguistics, 1:264, 2:604 Loren, Sophia, 1:368
second language acquisition and, 2:672–673 Louis XIV (king), 1:143, 163, 296, 2:517
of speech play, 2:728 Lovgen, Stefan, 1:338
 Index 887

Low Cloud, Charles Round, 1:26 Mackin, Jonna, 1:218

Low comedy, 2:464–466 MacManus, Theodore F., 1:5
high comedy compared to, 1:285–286, 2:465 MacNelly, Jeff, 2:598
as a traditional comic genre, 1:264 Macrobius (writer), 1:407
Low-context cultures and messages, 1:288, 289 MAD (magazine), 1:147, 2:467, 471, 474, 476,
Lowell, Robert, 2:581 477, 726, 731
Lü Benzhong, 1:247 Madden, John, 2:527
Lu Xun, 1:246 Madonna (singer-actress), 2:583
Lubin, Arthur, 2:525 Madrigal comedy, 1:150
Lubitsch, Ernst, 2:523 Maeda Isamu, 1:321
Luborsky, Lester, 1:227 Magazines and newspapers, U.S., 2:467–472
Lucas, Matt, 1:145 advertising humor in, 1:5, 8
Lucian (writer), 1:101, 325, 2:460, 620, 661, 662, American Indian columnists in, 1:26
663, 670 cartoons in, 1:114–115, 2:468–469, 470, 471
Luckovich, Mike, 1:115 comic books as magazines, 1:147
Luketic, Robert, 2:527 comic strips in, 1:146, 147, 155–156, 335
Lully, Jean-Baptiste, 1:151 in the development of media, 1:335
Lumière, Auguste, 1:253, 2:522 frontier humor in, 1:331
Lumière, Louis, 1:253, 396, 2:522 humor groups and, 1:358
Luo Guanzhong, 1:292 journalism and, 1:421–422, 423
Lurie, Allison, 2:552 for lampooning, 1:358, 422, 2:435–436
Luschei, Erich S., 2:491 little magazines of humor, 2:469–470
Luther, Martin, 1:129, 130, 296, 2:793 outlook for, 2:471
Lwin, Thakin, 2:477 pictorial, 2:468–469
Lying stories, 2:747, 748. See also Tall tale regional magazines, 2:470–471
Lynch, Jay, 1:147 satire news in, 2:664
Lyons, Viktoria, 1:200 spoofing by, 2:731
Lyotard, Jean-François, 2:591 in wartime and postwar eras, 2:470–471
Lyric poetry, 2:581, 720 wellerisms in, 2:793
Lyrical dissonance, 2:532 Magazines and newspapers outside the United
Lyrics, for musical humor, 2:528–529 States, 2:472–478
Lysistrata (by Aristophanes): in Africa, 2:474, 475, 476, 477, 716
as the great comedy of sex, 1:59 alphabetical list of, 2:472–478
important lessons in, 1:160 in Asia, 2:472, 473, 475, 476, 477, 478, 724–727
mime in, 2:506 in Australia, 2:472, 475
as political satire, 2:585 in China, 2:473
startling fantasy-idea in, 1:60 closed down, 2:472, 473, 475, 477
Taoism and, 2:751 Danish newspaper cartoon of Muhammad,
See also Aristophanes 1:115, 2:542, 639, 754
Lytton, Edward Bulwer, 1:315 in Europe, 1:104, 115, 307–308, 315, 318, 409,
2:472–478
Mabley, Jackie “Moms,” 2:624 in Japan, 1:311, 2:474, 475
Mac, Bernie, 2:625 in the Middle East, 2:473, 474, 476, 477
MacArthur, Douglas, 2:529 in South America, 2:473, 474, 476, 477
Machale, Desmond, 2:487 in Southeast Asia, 2:724–727
Machamer, Jefferson, 2:470 Magic tricks, 1:337, 2:513
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1:142, 328, 2:485 Magliozzi, Tom and Ray, 1:372
Machine learning, 1:356. See also Computational Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 2:790
humor Magnetic resonance imaging, functional (fMRI),
Mackendrick, Alexander, 2:525 1:88, 89–90, 92, 167–168, 2:605, 764
888 Index

Magnitude, patterns of, 2:557, 558 Mardi Gras, 1:46, 110, 129, 130, 2:483–484,
Magoulias, H. J., 1:100 486 (ok to omit). See also Carnival and festival
Magritte, René, 1:3 Marginalia, 1:300
Maguire, Sharon, 2:701 Marginalization:
Mahendravarmana (king), 2:657 aggressive humor and, 1:17
Maher, Bill, 1:421, 423, 424, 2:598 effect of, on humor, 2:542
Maier, Norman, 2:493 folklore and, 1:239
Mail art, 1:65 history of U.S. humor and, 1:333–334
Mailer, Norman, 2:789 in intercultural humor, 1:387–388
Mainardi, Arlotto, 1:408 stereotyping and, 2:741
Maintenance: the tragic frame and, 1:149–150
relational, 1:352–353 See also Oppressed groups; Stigmatized groups
social, 1:358–359 Marguerite de Navarre (queen), 1:327
Maintenon, Madame de, 1:163 Mariage de Figaro (by Pierre Beaumarchais),
Maio, Gregory, 2:595 1:141, 143
Mairet, Jean, 2:769 Marie de France, 1:225
Maistre, Xavier de, 2:462 Marin, Cheech, 2:625
Maladaptive versus adaptive humor, 1:49–50 Marionette, 2:616. See also Puppets
Malapropisms, 1:97, 2:614 Marivaux, Pierre de, 1:144, 163
Malaysia: Markers. See Humor markers
cartooning in, 2:724, 725, 726, 727 Markie, Biz, 2:529
Gila-Gila and other humor magazines in, Marks, Rodney, 1:339
2:478, 727 Marot, Clément, 1:2
Male impersonators, 2:786. See also Cross-dressing Marquis, Don, 1:213
Mamatu, Tsepo, 2:717 Marra, Meredith, 2:584
Management, 2:479–481 Marriage and couples, 2:481–483
coercion and control in, 2:480–481, 796–797 feeling, humor, and, 2:580
humor as a tool in, 2:479–480 gender differences and, 2:481–482
subversive humor and the power of, 2:743 good and bad uses of humor in, 2:482–483
Manasses, Constantine, 1:100, 101 joking relationships in, 1:418
Manfredi, Nino, 2:525 music hall songs about, 2:535
Manga cartooning, 1:156, 311, 2:475 political humor on, 2:587
Mangold, Roland, 2:782 relational maintenance in, 1:353
Mann, Brenda, 1:386 sharing of humor preferences in, 2:482
Mann, Klaus and Erika, 1:305 social psychology of, 2:605
Manners, comedy of, 1:143, 286–287, 2:520–521. war and, in Lysistrata, 1:160
See also High comedy Marshall, Garry, 2:527
Manning, Bernard, 2:733, 739 Marshall, George, 2:524
Mansfield, Jane, 2:525 Martin, Dean, 1:145, 2:524, 811
Manuscript marginalia, 1:300 Martin, Demetri, 2:446
Manzai (street performance genre), 1:321 Martin, Dick, 1:422, 2:811
Mao Zedong, 2:809, 811, 812 Martin, Edward S., 2:469
Map of humor words, 1:266 Martin, R. A., 1:199
Maranda, Pierre, 2:694 Martin, Rod, 1:xxxi, 16, 230, 353, 364, 366, 2:442
Marazzoli, Marco, 1:150 Martin, William H., 2:748 (illustration)
Marceau, Marcel, 2: 507 (illustration), 509, 510, Martinelli, Tristano, 1:163
510 (illustration) Marvell, Andrew, 1:329
Marcelo, Nonoy, 2:726 Marx, Chico, 2:523
Marchesini, Giovanni, 2:572 Marx, Groucho, 1:213, 2:523, 752
Marcos, Ferdinand, 2:726 Marx, Harpo, 2:523, 528
 Index 889

Marx Brothers, 1:1, 146, 250, 253, 352, 396, 412, McAfee, H., 2:465
2:520, 522, 523, 524, 545, 701, 773 McBurney, Simon, 2:510
Marxism, 2:712, 809 McCain, John, 1:150
Marxist criticism, and postmodernism, 2:590, 591 McCarey, Leo, 2:523, 524, 701
Marxist political framework, 1:110 McCarthy, Cormac, 1:332
Marzolph, Ulrich, 1:402 McCausland, Sally, 1:265
Mascots of athletic teams, 2:484 McClatchy, J. D., 2:580
Masks, 2:483–487 McClerg, Andrew, 2:834
in ancient Greek performances, 1:32, McCullough, Lynette, 1:9
2:484–485, 665 McDermot, Phelim, 2:510
in ancient Roman performances, 1:35, 2:484, 485 McDougall, Walt, 2:598
Aristotle on, 1:61 McDowell, Andrea G., 1:29
caricature and, 1:103, 105 McGhee, P. E., 1:199
for clowns, 1:132, 133, 181, 2:483 McGhee, Paul, 1:119, 122, 230, 249, 2:606, 681
in commedia dell’arte, 1:146, 163, 268 McGonagall, William Topaz, 1:205
conscious or real self and, 1:251, 2:485–486 McGrath, Liz, 1:67
illustrations of, 1:108, 133, 157, 163, 2:431, McGraw, A. Peter, 1:75 (figure)
432, 433, 484, 503 McGraw, Peter, 1:368
in Kyo-gen and No-, 2:431, 432, 433, 485, 507 McKay, Adam, 1:383, 2:527
mime and, 2:508, 509 McLeod, Norman, 2:524
in ritual and festival contexts, 1:132, 2:483–484, McLeod, Norman Z., 2:701
646, 647 McLuhan, Marshall, 2:552
social masking, 2:483, 485–486 McManus, George, 1:146
in theater and comedy, 1:32, 35, 146, 163, 268, McNeill, W. K., 1:241
2:484–485 McNutt, Alexander, 1:330
Maslow, Abraham, 2:588 McRae, Kateri, 2:742
Mason, Jackie, 2:753 Meaning-based generation of humor, 1:348–349
Massinger, Philip, 2:769 Meaningless ways of expression, 2:543. See also
Mass-mediated lore, 1:242 Nonsense
Masuji, Ibuse, 1:310, 312 Means, Tatanka, 1:26
Masurksy, Paul, 2:527 Mean-spirited versus benign style, 1:227, 364, 366
Mate choice. See Sexual selection theory Measurement:
Mathematical humor, 2:487–489 of exaggeration, 1:223
Mathematics and humor, 2:489–491 in framing theory, 1:249
Mathias, T. J., 2:663 humor styles measurement, 1:50, 230, 365–367
Matsuo Basho-, 2:677 test measurements of humor, 2:759–761
Matthews, Jacqueline, 2:584 See also Tests, questionnaires, scales, inventories
Mauldin, Bill, 2:470 Mechanical, theory of the, 1:78–79
Maupassant, Guy de, 1:316 Mechanism of humor response, restrictions on,
Maxim, 1:50, 51, 2:491–493 2:558
May, Elaine, 1:382 Mechanisms of humor, 2:493–494
Mayakovsky, Vladimir, 1:164 Aubouin on justification, 1:384, 2:493
Mayall, John, 1:244 (illustration) logical mechanism, 1:374, 384, 2:456, 457,
Maybin, Janet, 2:706 494, 611
Mayer, Orlando Benedict, 1:330 Oring on appropriate incongruity, 2:493–494
Mayoux, Jean Jacques, 1:2 Media messages, in uses and gratifications theory,
Māzinī, Ibrāhīm al-, 1:58 2:780–782
Mazurky, Paul, 2:526 Mediated humor:
Mazzocchi, Virgilio, 1:150 and folklore, 1:240, 242
Mbakwe, Sam Onunaka, 1:379 and humor markers, 1:360–361
890 Index
mood enhancement by, 2:781
sociological questions about, 2:714
in stand-up comedy, 2:736
uses and gratifications theory on, 2:782
See also Internet humor; Movies; Radio; Social
media, electronic; Television
Medieval Arabic literature, humor in, 1:55–56. See
also Arabic culture, humor in
Medieval Europe. See History of humor: medieval
Europe
Medieval Jewish humor, 1:410–411
Medieval visual humor, 2:494–502
behaving badly, 2:501–502
climbing on buildings, 2:496
eating the architecture, 2:496
illustrations of, 2:495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502
in marginalia, 1:300
modifying the architecture, 2:496–497
moralizing messages, 2:498–500
supporting the architecture, 2:497–498
working in medieval life, 2:498
See also Art and visual humor
Medina, Joey, 2:625
Meek, C. K., 1:379
Mei Lan Fang, 2:508
Méliès, Georges, 2:522
Melting pot, 2:621
Memes, on the Internet, 1:391–392,
391 (illustration)
Men, representations of:
of the Black male, 2:740
in fabliaux, 1:225
in frontier humor, 1:330
in graffiti, 1:270
in Internet humor, 1:390
in sitcoms, 2:622
Men and women. See Gender and humor,
psychological aspects of; Gender differences;
Gender issues; Gender roles in humor
Menander, 2:502–504, 503 (illustration)
Aristophanes compared to, 1:60, 2:465, 503
first example of high comedy from, 1:286
in Greek comedic patterns, 1:140
influence of, 1:34, 2:502–503, 575, 684
mime used by, 2:506
surviving works by, 1:31, 32, 34, 2:502
Ménard, Léon, 1:131 (illustration)
Mencken, H. L., 2:470
Menippean satire, 1:2, 2:460, 720
Menippus (satirist), 1:2, 2:460, 661
Mental health. See Health benefits of humor,
psychological
Meredith, George, 1:285, 286, 315, 2:462–463, 465
Mesopotamian society, humor in, 1:68–69, 2:585
Message elaboration in the ELM perspective, 1:209
Messianic joy, 1:129
Messmer, Otto, 2:522
Meta-artistic purposes, 2:553
Metacomedy, 1:36–38, 2:575
Metacommunication, 2:593, 729, 752
Metaemotions, 2:782
Metafictional methods, 2:553
Metahumor, 1:231–232, 2:463, 494
Meta-joke, 1:417–418, 2:529
Metalinguistics, and children’s humor research,
1:123, 124
Metaphor, 2:504–506
Bergson’s analysis of, 1:78
bisociation and, 1:84
children’s humor research on, 1:124
as a comedic device, 2:642
dead metaphor, 2:552
distance theory and, 2:504–505
and the etymology of humor, 1:350
exaggeration and, 1:223
folk categorizations of, 2:505
frame as, 1:148
in music hall songs, 2:535
Oring’s approach to, 2:504–505
Tsur and Pollio’s approach to, 2:504
visual metaphor, 1:113, 2:505
visual puns as, 1:197
Metastasio (Italian poet), 1:151
Meta-stereotypes, 2:640
Meton (mathematician), 2:487
Meyer, Delia, 1:134 (illustration)
Meyer, Leonard, 2:529
Meyerhold, Vsevolod, 1:235
Meyers, Nancy, 2:701
Michael III (emperor), 1:99
Microblogs, 1:423, 424. See also Blogs; Social
media, electronic
Microphone, in stand-up comedy, 2:734–735
Middle Ages. See History of humor: medieval
Europe
Middle Comedy of ancient Greece, 1:33–34, 59
Midrash, 1:410, 427
Mieder, Wolfgang, 1:47
Mier, Fray Servando Teresa de, 2:723
Mikes, George, 1:212
 Index 891

Miles, John, 1:410 Misrepresentation, in spoofing, 2:730

Militarism, 1:159, 160 Mitchell, Carol, 1:241
Millen, Matt, 2:732 Mitchell, John Ames, 2:468–469
Miller, Carolyn, 2:692 Mitchell, William, 1:96, 107, 2:646, 647
Miller, Dennis, 2:598 Mitrache, Otilia, 1:230
Miller, Geoffrey, 1:184 Mixed-methods research, 2:715
Miller, Howie, 1:27, 2:625 Mock epic, 2:513–515
Miller, Jonathan, 2:519 ancestry of, 2:513–514
Miller, Marilyn, 2:538 in burlesque, 1:95
Miller, Max, 2:537 in European history, 1:299, 396, 2:461, 514, 775
Miller, Michael, 1:278 fabliaux and, 1:226
Milligan, Spike, 1:145, 212, 2:519 pastiche of, 2:555
Milner, G. B., 1:84 by Pope, 1:396, 2:461, 514, 775
Milner, Ryan, 1:392 by Rabelais, 1:326, 329, 2:619–620
Milner Davis, Jessica, 1:78, 235, 264, 265, 266 as travesty, 2:514, 552
Milton, John, 1:296, 2:514, 552, 775 Mockery:
Mime, 2:506–510 in the art of visual humor, 1:64
in Asia, 2:508–509 in the Bible, 1:81, 127
audience and, 2:506, 507, 508 Byzantine, 1:101
in Byzantine humor, 1:99 caricature as, 1:103
by clowns, 1:133, 2:506, 507, 508, 509 dialect humor as, 1:202
hoaxing in, 1:338 influence of commedia dell’arte on, 1:163
in Kyo-gen and No-, 2:432, 508, 509 in mathematical humor, 2:487
in Rakugo, 2:626 name-related humor and, 1:373
See also Pantomime of other groups, as a widespread tendency, 1:190
Mimesis, comic and tragic, 1:61 as payback, 1:45
Mimi genre, 1:141 in presidential humor, 2:597, 598
Mimicry, 1:235, 238, 395, 2:506, 734. See also in the Qur’an, 1:57
Mime in Roman visual humor, 2:653
Mind in the humor experience, 1:135. See also in Sanskrit humor, 2:657–658, 659
Cognitive aspects in sports, 2:732
Mindess, Harvey, 2:634, 635, 692 Mock-heroic works, 1:35, 101, 312, 2:513, 514,
Mindset, humor, 1:361–362 552–553, 555, 775
Ministers, 1:130. See also Clergy Mockumentary, 2:515–516, 521
Minstrelsy, 1:97, 333, 2:486, 537, 538, 622–624, Mockusoaps, 2:516
739, 786. See also Blackface Mode adoption, 2:628, 629
Mio, Jeffery, 2:505 Modernism, 1:3, 2:589–590, 591
Miracle plays, 1:145 Molière, 2:516–518
Mirth, 2:510–512 artistic freedom of, 1:329
emotions and, 1:16, 2:510–512, 588, 704 Bergson’s theory and, 1:78
humor appreciation and, 1:168, 2:510 comedy of manners and, 1:286, 2:687
in humorous coping, 1:179, 180 creativity of, 1:182
motivational aspects of, 2:512 deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
as an outcome of affiliative humor, 1:16 farce used by, 1:234, 2:517
physiological aspects of, 2:511 Greek and Roman influences on, 2:504, 516
Mirth-response index, 2:702, 703 in historical context, 1:142–143, 296, 2:516–517
Misattribution, and humor appreciation, 1:53 low and high comedy of, 2:465
Misdirection, 2:512–513. See also Ambiguity memorable characters of, 2:460
Mishar (cartoonist), 2:725 mime used by, 2:507
Misrad, Muhammad, 2:726 satire used by, 2:517
892 Index

social masking used by, 2:486 Morley, Christopher, 2:471

tragicomedy and, 2:768, 770 Morocco, TelQuel magazine in, 2:477
Molina, Tirso de, 1:142, 328, 2:770 Morphology:
Mondale, Walter, 2:587 form, pattern, and, 2:694
Mondegreens, in Plautine wordplay, 2:576 for humorous effect, 2:458–459
Monet, Claude, 1:104 laughing, smiling, and, 1:257, 2:702
Monicelli, Mario, 2:573 in phonological jokes, 2:571, 572
Mo’Nique (comedian), 2:625 Morreall, John, 1:xxxi, 2:570, 633, 634, 635
Monologues: Morris, Chris, 2:731
of one-liners on late-night TV, 2:446, 599 Morris, Ivan, 1:312
in Sanskrit humor, 2:658–659 Morris, Jonathan, 1:249
in variety acts, 2:785 Morrissey, Maureen, 2:504
Monroe, Marilyn, 1:254, 2:525 Mortality rates, and sense of humor, 2:562
Monroe, Randall, 2:487 Mortimer, Bob, 1:145
Montaigne, Michel de, 1:50, 51, 295, 329, 2:552 Morton, John Madison, 1:235
Monterroso, Augusto, 2:722 Moses (prophet), 1:81, 403, 404, 426, 427
Monty Python, 2:518–520 Mother, as the target in playing the dozens, 2:788
absurdist humor of, 1:1, 4, 2:518, 519, 520 Mother Teresa, 2:569
as Aristophanic comedy, 1:60 Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (by Stith
banning of, 2:547 Thompson), 1:240
as carnivalesque entertainment, 1:111 Motion pictures. See Movies
as comedy ensemble, 1:145 Motivation:
dialect humor in, 1:203 internal, and humor appreciation, 1:137
in European history, 1:306–307 mirth and, 2:512
gallows humor of, 1:256 in the workplace, 1:251, 2:479
high burlesque of, 1:396 Motomasa (No- playwright), 2:509
as a humor group, 1:358 Mott, Edward Spencer, 1:316
members of, 1:306, 2:518 Mottola, Greg, 2:527
in the movies, 2:519, 520, 525, 662 Mountain Goddess festival, 2:650
phonological jokes by, 2:571 Movie humor types, 2:520–522
slapstick in, 2:701 examples of, 2:520–521
spoofing by, 2:731 ten categories of, 2:520
visual gags by, 1:253 Movie posters, visual humor in, 1:65
Mood. See Cheerfulness, seriousness, and humor Movie Production Code, 2:526
Mood management theory, 2:781–782 Movies, 2:522–528
Moore, Alan, 2:473 American Indian humor in, 1:26
Moore, Dudley, 2:519, 526 audiovisual translation for, 1:72, 73
Moore, Idora McClellan, 1:332 in China, 1:210–211
Moore, Julia Ann, 1:204 comedy ensembles in, 1:145, 146
Moore, Julianne, 2:554 comic frame in, 1:149
Moore, Mary Tyler, 2:622 comic portrayals of race in, 2:622, 624, 625
Moore, Michael, 1:111 commedia dell’arte in, 2:525, 573
Moral axiology of tragic and comic frames, commercialization of humor by, 1:334
1:148–149 dark humor in, 1:336
Morality plays, 1:142, 145, 235, 2:485, 687 in Europe, 1:306, 307
Moran, Joseph M., 1:168 farce used in, 1:235
More, Thomas, 1:295, 326, 329, 2:663 film clowns in, 1:133, 181
Morecambe, Eric, 1:145 fools in, 1:244
Moretti, Nanni, 2:573 gallows humor in, 1:256
Morin, Violette, 2:789–790 gay stereotypes in, 1:343
 Index 893

high comedy in, 1:287 Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale (MSHS),

hoaxing in, 1:339 1:227, 2:561
humor relief in, 1:154 Multilingualism, 1:189, 391, 2:542, 727
improv comedy in, 1:383 Multimedia translation, 1:72. See also Audiovisual
inversion in, 1:396, 397 translation
in Japan, 1:313 Multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis, 2:759
Jewish humor in, 1:413 Mummers’ plays, 2:507
lampooning in, 2:471 Mumming, 2:484
mime in, 2:507 Münchhausen, Baron, 2:748
mockumentaries in, 2:515, 516, 521 Muñoz-Basols, Javier, 2:570, 571
Monty Python in, 2:519, 520, 525, 547, Murfree, Mary N., 1:332
571, 662 Murger, Henri, 1:316
music halls and, 2:536, 537 Murphy, Eddie, 1:253, 2:527
National Lampoon and, 1:358, 422, 2:436, 471 Murphy, James J., 2:642
in the 1920s-1950s, 2:522–525 Murray, Bill, 1:383, 2:527
in the 1960s-2000s, 2:525–527 Murray, Elizabeth, 1:65
obscenity in, 2:548 Musculoskeletal system, effect of laughter on,
pastiche in, 2:554 1:278, 2:567
performative comedy and, 1:143 Muses, 1:31 (illustration), 362
Renaissance works adapted by, 1:329 Museum House of Humour and Satire, 2:834
screwball comedy in, 1:14, 254, 2:521, 523–524, Music, 2:528–534
526, 701 establishing play mode in, 2:529–530
in the silent film era, 2:507, 522, 622, 624, 701 incongruity in, 2:529, 530–532, 531 (figure)
in South Africa, 2:716–717 instruments used in, 2:529, 530, 532
spoofing in, 2:730–731 target of musical humor, 2:528–529
spoofing of, 2:731 See also Songs and humor
visual and verbal gags in, 1:253, 254 Music hall, 2:534–537
watching types of, and physical health, 1:279 burlesque in, 1:97
Mozart, Leopold, 2:529 comic songs in, 2:534–535, 536, 537
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 1:14, 152, 182, illustrations of, 1:104, 2:534, 536
2:529, 530, 770 performer-audience interaction in, 2:535–536
Mr. Bean, 1:144. See also Atkinson, Rowan Musical. See Musical comedy; Musical play
MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), 2:790. See also Musical comedy, 2:537–540
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) the golden age and after, 2:539–540
MSHS (Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale), masks in, 2:485
1:227, 2:561 in the movies, 2:521
MTMM (multitrait-multimethod) analysis, 2:759 musical plays and, 2:539
Müchler, Karl, 1:40 origins of, 1:153, 2:538
Muecke, Douglas C., 1:360, 399 peak of, 2:538–539
Mueller, Gunther, 2:694 Musical play, 1:152, 2:538, 539–540. See also
Mugabe, Robert, 2:717 Musical comedy
Muhammad (prophet): Musical revue, 1:97
Arabic culture and, 1:56–59 Musicals, 2:485, 539, 540. See also Musical comedy
cartoon lampooning of, 1:115, 2:542, 639, 754 Musker, John, 2:527
comic framing of, 1:149 Muslihuddin Sa’di, 1:404
Islam and, 1:403–404 Muslims:
Mukherjee, Ashesh, 1:11, 12 anti-Muslim humor, 2:639
Mulaik, Stanley, 1:229 and the Nasreddin Hodja festival, 1:108
Mulkay, Michael, 1:84, 2:713 and the Qur’an, 1:57
Müller, Liliane, 1:227 See also Islam
894 Index

Musset, Alfred de, 1:316 Neely, Michelle, 1:200

Myanmar: Negative emotions:
cartooning in, 2:724, 727 aesthetics of, 1:14, 15
See also Burma expressive patterns in, 2:704
Myers, Mike, 1:383, 2:526, 731 music and, 2:530, 531
Myers, Scott, 1:353 physiology of, 2:442, 511
Myrick, Daniel, 2:516 psychotherapy and, 2:608
Mystery novels and films, 1:12, 65 undoing or reduction of, 1:123, 281–282, 283,
364, 2:602
Nachman of Bratslav, 1:411 worldview and, 1:158
Nadj, Josef, 2:510 See also Positive emotions
Nagashima, Heiyo-, 2:691 Negative life events, and coping humor,
–
Nagisa, Oshima, 1:313 1:281–282
Nagle, Josh, 1:67 Negative politeness, 1:419, 2:584
Name-related humor. See Humorous names Nelson, Arvalea, 1:119, 227, 230, 2:682
Nando’s (South African fast-food chain), 2:717 Nerhardt, Göran, 1:383–384
Nankivell, Frank, 1:311 Neri, Philippe, 2:638
Napier, Mick, 1:382 Nervous energy, and the relief theory, 2:567
Napoleon (emperor), 1:405 Nervous laughter, 1:5, 2:742
Narayanan, Shrikanth, 2:490 Nesi, Hilary, 2:707
Narcissism, 1:217, 250, 251, 386 Nestroy, Johann, 1:235, 318
Nardi, Peter, 2:577 NETHRC (North East Texas Humor Research
Nashe, Thomas, 1:327 Conference), 2:834
Nasreddin Hodja festival, 1:108–109 Neu, Jerome, 2:789
Nasreddin stories, 1:405–406, 405 (illustration), Neuroendocrine and immune systems, 1:278–281,
2:475 2:442
Nast, Thomas, 1:104, 113, 2:468, 596, 598 Neuroimaging. See Brain, neuropsychology of
National and ethnic differences, 2:541–542 humor
African American humor, 2:541–542 Neuropathology, 1:166. See also Brain,
British humor, 2:542 neuropsychology of humor
Chinese humor, 2:542 Neuroticism, 1:90
Jewish humor, 2:542 New Comedy of ancient Greece, 1:32, 34, 35, 140,
Russian humor, 2:542 141, 2:502–504
in sitcoms, 2:696, 697 New Testament, 1:80, 82–83, 127–128, 2:637. See
See also Cross-cultural humor; Ethnic jokes; also Biblical humor
Ethnicity and humor; Intercultural humor Newell, Mike, 2:527
National Lampoon, 1:358, 422, 2:436, 471, 526, 731 Newman, M. G., 1:180
Native American cultures. See American Indian Newman, Michelle, 2:742
cultures, humor in Newmeyer, Fred C., 2:522
Native Americans, race representations of, 2:625 News:
Natural language, semantics of, 2:673–675 fake, 2:472, 473, 474, 475, 599
Natural language processing systems, 1:347, infotainment and, 2:782
348–349 journalism and, 1:421–424
Natural selection, 1:184, 219. See also satire of (see Satire news)
Evolutionary explanations of humor Newspapers. See Magazines and newspapers, U.S.;
Nazi regime, 1:244, 307, 412, 2:472, 525, 602, Magazines and newspapers outside the United
718. See also Holocaust, the States
Nazoa, Aquiles, 2:721 Nguyen Gia Tri, 2:725
Neal, Joseph C., 2:468 Ngwe Kyi, 2:727
Neck riddles, 2:645 Ng’weno, Hilary, 2:474

Nhat Linh, 2:725
Nichelli, Paolo, 1:167
Nichols, Mike, 1:382, 2:526
Nielsen, Leslie, 2:526, 731
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1:40, 50–51, 2:572, 580, 591
Nievo, Ippolito, 1:317
Nilsen, A. P., 1:256
Nilsen, Alleen, 1:xxxi
Nilsen, D. L. F., 1:256
Nilsen, Don, 1:xxxi
Nimoy, Leonard, 2:527
9/11. See September 11, 2001
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas), 1:119, 2:438, 511
Niwaka comical skits, 1:324
Nixon, Richard, 1:415, 2:598, 599
Niyel festival, symbolic inversion in, 1:106–107
Njakiri (Igbo joking relationship), 1:379
No- theater (twin genre to Kyo-gen), 2:431, 432,
485, 507, 508–509, 689, 690
Nobunaga Oda, 2:691
Nocetti, Luca, 1:167
Nonhuman species:
laughter in, 1:53, 75, 219
laughter-related vocalizations in, 2:439, 766
play and play signals in, 1:15, 220
smiling in, 1:219
tickling in, 2:766
See also Animal-related humor
Non-laughter reactions to humor, 2:628–629
Non-linguistic humor, 1:186. See also Nonverbal
humor
Nonromantic relationships. See Relationships,
nonromantic
Nonsense, 2:543–545
the absurd and, 1:1, 2, 2:545
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29
in burlesque, 1:96
in children, 1:120
in China, 1:303, 2:542
cognitive aspects of, 1:137
complexity of, 1:165
incongruity-resolution and, 2:544–545
inversion/topsy-turvydom and, 1:394–395
of Lear and Carroll, 2:543–544
for making fun of rationality, 1:365
neuropsychology of, 1:89
versus nonsense, in Don Quijote, 1:117
in Ruch’s 3WD model, 1:384
3 WD test of appreciation of, 2:763, 764, 765
Nonsense jokes, 1:373, 374
Index 895
Nonsense verse, 1:204, 2:450, 451, 462, 543, 544.
See also Limericks; Nonsense
Nonseriousness and laughter, 2:438
Nonverbal humor:
cross-cultural, 1:186
in education, 2:755
humorous stimuli for, 1:374–375
intercultural factors and, 1:387
miming, 2:506–510
potential for, many factors in, 1:46
and terminology for verbal humor, 2:790
See also Art and visual humor; Visual humor
Nonverbal responses to humor, 2:628–629. See
also Smiling and laughter: expressive patterns
Norman, Marc, 2:527
Normand, Mabel, 2:522, 701
Norrick, Neal, 2:584, 705, 706, 707
North Cyprus magazines: Penguen, Uykusuz, and
Ziligurti, 2:476–478
North East Texas Humor Research Conference
(NETHRC), 2:834
North Korean political joke, 2:586
Northern Ireland, The Vacuum newspaper in,
2:477
Norway, Vikingen magazine in, 2:477–478
Nott, Henry Junius, 1:330
Novak, B. J., 1:422
Novak, William, 1:411
Novel, humor and evolution of, 2:460–462
Novella, genre of, 1:87–88
Novick, Melvin R., 2:759
Nye, Bill, 2:468
Oaks, Dallin D., 1:23, 2:459
Obadare, Ebenezer, 2:715, 718
Obama, Barack, 1:112, 392, 2:587
Obasanjo, Olusegun, 2:718
Obayd-e Zakani, 2:585
Object relations theory, 1:250
Objectivity, of test measurements, 2:759
Obligatory joking, 1:44
O’Brien, Conan, 1:422, 2:731
O’Brien, Flann, 1:3, 2:463
Obscenity, 2:547–549
acceptable limits of, 2:549
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29
in ancient Greek humor, 1:32
FCC on, 2:448, 548
First Amendment and, 2:447
language categories and, 1:46
896 Index
in limericks, 2:452–453, 455
in medieval Europe, 1:301
in Sanskrit humor, 2:658
sexuality as central to, 2:547
social and cultural variation in, 2:547
watershed moments in history of, 2:548
See also Scatology; Vulgarity
O’Casey, Sean, 1:143
O’Connell, Walter, 2:610
O’Connor, Flannery, 1:128, 332
Offenbach, Jacques, 1:152–153
Ogier, François, 2:769
Ogilvy, David, 1:7
O’Grady, Paul, 1:377
Oǧuz, Aral, 2:473
Ojukwu, Chukwuemeka, 1:379
Okada Hajime, 2:678
Okrent, Daniel, 1:40
Okuni (actress), 1:323
-
Okura Toraaki, 1:323
Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, 2:643
“Old aunt” character at carnival, 1:108,
108 (illustration)
Old Comedy of ancient Greece, 1:32–33, 59, 60,
140, 141, 273
Old Southwest, humor of the, 1:330–332
Old Testament, 1:127, 2:637. See also Biblical
humor; Hebrew Bible
Oldenburg, Claes, 1:66
Olios (early variety acts), 2:783, 785
Oliphant, Pat, 2:598
Olivier, Laurence, 2:731
Olson, James, 1:17, 2:595
Olsvanger, Immanuel, 1:411
Olympics, the, 2:484 (illustration)
Omaha, Larry, 1:27
One-liners, 1:171, 212, 356, 414, 2:587, 597,
611, 807
Onion, The (newspaper and other media), 2:467,
471, 599, 664, 731
Online news, 1:422–423. See also Internet humor
Online YouTube videos. See Videos on YouTube
“Only joking” or “just joking,” 1:17, 2:741,
800, 802
Ono Mitsuyasu, 2:691
Onomatopoeic words, 2:613, 728
Onstad, Chris, 1:148
Ontological semantic theory of humor (OSTH),
1:348–349, 2:456–457, 494
Ontological semantics, 2:490
Openness, in relational maintenance, 1:353
Opera buffa and opera seria, 1:150, 151, 152. See
also Comic opera
Opéra comique, 1:151–152. See also Comic opera
Operettas, 1:153, 316, 393, 2:523, 538
Opinion journalism, 1:423–424
Oppel, Horst, 2:694
Opper, Frederick Burr, 2:469 (illustration)
Oppliger, Patrice, 1:264
Opposing ideas, holding of, and paradox,
2:551–552
Oppositeness, in linguistic theories of humor,
2:455–456, 457
Opposition and overlap, in audiovisual translation,
1:72–73
Oppressed groups, 1:110–111, 2:592, 716. See also
Marginalization; Stigmatized groups
Oppressions of everyday life, in stand-up comedy,
2:736
Optimal arousal level, 1:62, 63
Orcagna, Andrea, 1:130
Orectic versus cognitive aspects, 1:354
Organizational humor, 2:798–801. See also
Workplace humor
Orientalism, 2:514, 739
Orientation, humor, 1:18–19, 209–210, 2:756. See
also Humor styles
Orienting reflex, 1:15
Oring, E., 2:692
Oring, Elliott, 1:1, 40, 239, 240, 354, 384, 413,
2:493, 504–505
Orthographic puns, 2:614. See also Homographs,
in puns
Ortolani, Benito, 1:321
Orton, Joe, 1:34, 60, 144, 2:504
Orwell, George, 1:42, 265, 2:537, 662
Osamu, Dazai, 1:310, 311
Osawa, Sandra, 1:26
Osborne, John, 1:144
OSTH (ontological semantic theory of humor),
1:348–349, 2:456–457, 494
Ostraca (pottery shards), humor written on, 1:29
Ostropolier, Hershel, 1:411
Other-denigrating humor, 1:208, 2:653,
653 (figure). See also Insult and invective
Ott, Fred, 2:522
Otto, Beatrice, 1:244
Ottogary, Willie, 1:26
Outcalt, Richard Felton, 1:114, 146,
146 (illustration), 155, 155 (illustration)
 Index 897

Out-groups and in-groups, 1:190–191, 193–194, Parapraxes, in Plautine jokes, 2:576. See also
378, 2:652, 709, 800, 804. See also Freudian slips
Marginalization Paratelic state, 1:53
Overeem, Sebastian, 1:278 Parechesis, in Plautine wordplay, 2:576
Overlap and opposition, in audiovisual translation, Parish, Peggy, 2:552
1:72–73 Park, Nick, 1:72
Ovid (poet), 1:327 Parker, Dorothy, 1:213, 423, 2:471
Owren, Michael J., 2:440 (figure), 490 Parker, Trey, 1:60, 149
Oxymoron, 1:29, 2:552, 642 Parker, Zoe, 2:718
Oz, Frank, 2:527 Parkin, John, 1:79
Parody, 2:552–554
Pacing. See Timing in ancient Greek humor, 1:33, 272–273, 2:553
Packer, Alfred G., 1:256 in ancient Roman humor, 1:38, 2:576, 652
Paganini, Niccolò, 2:532 in the arts, 1:64, 65, 67, 272–273, 2:553, 652
Pain and humor, 1:18, 201 in the Bible, 1:410
Pakistan, Arousal and Shabkhand publications in, blank, 2:556
2:472, 477 in burlesque, 1:95, 97
Palazzeschi, Aldo, 1:308 Byzantine, 1:99, 101
Paletz, David L., 2:597 in caricature, 1:103, 104
Palin, Michael, 1:306, 2:518, 519, 520 in China, 1:210–212, 291
Palin, Sarah, 1:150, 339, 2:587 in college humor, 1:139–140
Palma, Ricardo, 2:720 comedic framing and, 1:150
Panama, Norman, 2:524 in Europe, early modern, 1:294, 295, 297
Pandolfi, Vito, 1:162 in Europe, medieval, 1:298, 300
Panel cartoons, 1:112, 113–114 in Europe, modern, 1:306, 307–308
Panel of a comic strip, 1:156 in Europe, 19th-century, 1:314, 315–316, 318,
Pan-Indian ideas and customs, 1:333. See also 2:473
American Indian cultures, humor in hoaxing and, 1:339
Panini (grammarian), 2:457 in Japan, 1:311–312
Panksepp, Jaak, 2:439 in Jewish humor, 1:410
Pantagruel. See Gargantua and Pantagruel (by lampoon and, 2:435–436, 553
François Rabelais) in magazines and newspapers, 2:471, 474, 477
Pantomime, 1:96, 98, 2:485, 506. See also Mime in mockumentaries, 2:515, 516
Papyri, 1:29, 34 modernist, 2:590
Parabasis, 1:32, 33, 60 of Monty Python, 2:518, 519
Parables, 1:56, 161, 411, 2:498 in the movies, 2:520, 553
Paradigmatic and syntagmatic puns, 2:614 in music, 2:529, 532, 553
Paradox, 2:551–552 in music halls, 2:535, 536, 537
in Borges’s work, 1:xxix of the news, 1:422 (see also Satire news)
children and, 2:551–552 of a parody, 1:333
as a comedic device, 2:642 pastiche differentiated from, 2:554–555
irony and, 2:551 pictorial, 1:272–273, 2:553
Koestler’s theory on, 1:83 postmodernist, 2:590–592
mathematical logic and, 2:489 in presidential humor, 2:598
in the New Testament, 1:128 in puppetry, 2:617
nonsense humor and, 2:544, 545 Qur’anic, 1:58
as a rhetorical device, 2:551 of riddles, 1:137
in symbolic inversion for carnival, 1:107 for ridicule, 2:796
of tragedy, 1:15 by ritual clowns, 2:647
Paradoxical intention, 2:631 of a scholarly article, 1:338
898 Index
science, science fiction, and, 2:670
spoofing and, 2:730, 731
of trademarks, 2:448, 449
travesty and, 2:552, 553, 774, 775
visual, 1:64, 65, 67, 272–273, 2:553, 652
in xeroxlore, 2:807, 808, 808 (figure)
See also Spoofing
Parody riddles, 2:645
Paronomasia, 1:29, 2:660, 767–768
Paronymy, 1:48, 2:613
Parra, Nicanor, 2:720, 721
Parrott, James, 2:523
Partington, Alan, 1:400
Pascal, Blaise, 1:52, 135
Pascal, Mattia, 2:572
Pasolini, Pier Paolo, 1:329
Pass-along humor, 1:389
Pastiche, 1:339, 2:531, 553, 554–557
Pastor, Tony, 1:97
Pathological laughter, 1:91, 2:439
Paton, George, 2:712
Patriarchy, damage done by, 1:159
Pattern recognition, 2:528, 557–558
Patterson, Russell, 2:470
Paul (New Testament writer), 1:128
Paulding, James Kirke, 2:467
Paulos, John Allen, 2:489, 490, 490 (figure)
Paulsen, Gary, 1:373
Pavesi, Maria, 1:72
Payne, Alexander, 2:527
Payne, Jack, 2:452
PCA (principal component analysis), 1:229
PCA/ACA (Popular Culture Association/American
Culture Association), 2:835
Peacham, Henry, 2:643
Peacock, Thomas Love, 1:315
Pedagogy, 2:558–560
pedagogical humor, 2:558–559, 560
second language acquisition and, 2:672–673
See also Education, humor in; Teachers’
evaluations, effect of humor use in
classroom on
Peden, Margaret Sayers, 2:720
Peek-a-boo games, in children’s humor
development, 1:125
Pegg, Simon, 2:731
Pensoneau, Migizi, 1:26
Pepys, Samuel, 2:465
Perelman, Chaim, 2:643
Perelman, S. J., 2:471
Peretz, Leib, 1:412
Pérez y González, Felipe, 1:317
Perfect and imperfect puns, 1:348, 2:458,
613–614, 675
Performance art, 1:66, 67
Performance of self, 2:712
Performative comedy, in historical context,
1:141–144, 301
Pergolesi, Giovanni Battista, 1:151
Perillo, Lucia, 2:581
Periphrases in the Qur’an, 1:56
Permjakov, Grigorij L., 2:694
Perón, Isabel, 2:477
Perón, Juan, 2:477
Perrot, G., 1:274 (figure)
Perrucci, A., 2:444
Personality, humor and, 2:560–563
humor appreciation and, 2:561, 562
humor production and, 1:363
humor style as personality trait, 1:365–367
measures for analysis of, 1:119, 227, 2:561
personality psychology and, 2:605–606
reception of humor and, 2:630
sense of humor as a personality construct, 2:561,
562–563
See also Factor analysis of humor items; Factor
analysis of humor scales; Humor styles;
Sense of humor, components of
Personality psychology, 2:605–606. See also
Personality, humor and
Personality traits, the Big Five, 1:366, 2:606. See
also Personality, humor and
Personification as a comedic device, 2:642
Perspective by incongruity, 1:148, 149
Persuasion and humor, 2:563–565
in advertising, 1:4, 5, 7–8, 10–12, 2:563–564
conditions for humor effect, 2:564
creativity as persuasion, 1:182
designing for persuasion, 1:196
in health promotion, 2:565
in political entertainment, 2:564
PET (positron emission tomography), 2:605
Petchuwan, Wattana, 2:726
Peter (disciple of Jesus), 1:128
Peter of Corbeil (bishop), 1:238
Peters, Russell, 2:625
Petrarch (humorist), 1:408
Petronius (writer), 2:460
Pettibon, Raymond, 1:65
Petty, George, 2:470
 Index 899

Petty, William, 2:435 Physical humor, as a humor form, 1:351–352

Pexman, Penny, 1:398, 399, 400 Physical or spatial distance, 1:53, 2:602, 752–753
Phaedrus (fabulist), 1:42 Physiological aspects:
Phallus humor, 1:32, 33, 2:652, 665 arousal level, 1:5, 62–63
Phenomenology, 1:370, 2:694, 712–713, 714 of comic versus tragic worldviews, 1:158, 159
Phiddian, Robert, 1:265, 339 expressive patters in smiling and laughter,
Philagrius (grammarian), 2:565 2:703–705
Philemon (playwright), 1:34, 2:502 of fight-or-flight emotions, 1:158, 2:511, 742
Philip the Arab (emperor), 2:566 of laughter, 1:221, 277, 278, 2:436–437, 439,
Philip the Macedonian (king), 2:565 441–443, 490, 635
Philippines: of mirth, 2:511
cartooning in, 2:724, 725, 726, 727 of smiling, 2:441–443
Hoy! magazine in, 2:474 of stress, 2:742
Philistion (writer), 2:565 of tickling, 2:766
Phillips, John, 2:775 See also Health benefits of humor, physical
Phillips, R. B., 2:647 Piaget, Jean, 1:122, 2:606
Phillips, Todd, 2:527 Picaresque style, 1:327, 329, 402, 2:460–461, 721
Philogelos, 2:565–566 Picaro character, 2:520, 525
Philosophical theory of value, 1:148 Picasso, Pablo, 1:13, 15, 65, 329, 2:662
Philosophy of humor, 2:566–570 Piccolo da Monteforte, Pietro, 1:87
Confucianism and, 1:172–174 Pie-in-the-face routine, 1:253
incongruity theory, 2:568–570 Pien, Diana, 1:120, 384
relief theory, 2:567–568 Pilgrim badges, 1:301
superiority theory, 2:566–567 Pilpul, and Jewish humor, 2:542
See also Aesthetics; Incongruity and resolution; Piñera, Sebastián, 2:587
Incongruity theory; Relief theory; Pinero, Arthur Wing, 1:316
Superiority theory Pingstone, Adrian, 1:270 (illustration)
Philostratus (writer), 2:565 Pinter, Harold, 2:458, 545
Phobias: Pinup girls, 2:470
coulrophobia, 1:180–181 Pirandello, Luigi, 1:xxxi, 2:572–574
gelotophobia, 1:50, 256–259, 374–375, 2:600, 606 as a bridge into the 20th century, 2:463
homophobia, 1:345 essay On Humor by, 2:572, 573
homophobic humor, 1:11, 343–345, 377 in the history of humor in Europe, 1:304
social phobia, 2:600 in the history of performative comedy, 1:144
xenophobia, 2:717 on the opposite, 2:573
Phoenix, John, 2:468 Pitol Sergio, 2:723
Phonological jokes, 2:570–572 Pius XII (pope), 1:131
brain processing of, 2:790 Pixérécourt, René-Charles Guilbert de, 1:143
culture and, 2:571, 572 Place, Mary Kay, 1:73
in neuroimaging studies, 1:89, 167 Placement of humor, in advertisements, 1:12
puns compared to, 2:571 Planché, J. R., 1:96
structure of, 2:570–571 Plath, Sylvia, 2:581
See also Puns Plato, 1:xxxi, 127, 341, 2:566–567, 574–575, 585,
Phonological markers, 1:360 613, 642, 793
PhoPhiKat-45 questionnaire, 1:258 Platonic theory of humor, 2:574–575
Photocopylore, 1:389, 2:807. See also Xeroxlore Plautus, 2:575–577
Photoshopped assemblages of humor, 1:242 creativity of, 1:182, 2:575
Phryne (courtesan), 2:576 farce used by, 1:234
Physical benefits of humor. See Health benefits of impact of ancient Greek works on, 1:34,
humor, physical 2:502, 575
900 Index
influence of, 1:141, 142, 144, 162, 327, 328,
329, 2:516, 684, 685, 687
masked acting for, 2:485
mime used by, 2:506
neologisms of, 2:575–576
surviving plays of, 1:35, 36, 37–38
tragicomedy of, 2:768
visual gags used by, 1:253
Play & Culture Studies (annual), 2:831
Play and humor, 2:577–579
anthropological analysis of, 1:45
conceptualizations of play, 2:577–578, 729–730
designing for play, 1:196
evolutionary perspective for, 1:53, 220–221
humor appreciation and, 1:53
humor development and, 1:123, 198–199
in nonhuman primates, 1:220
in social interaction, 2:706, 707
TASP (association), 2:831
See also Speech play
Play Review (newsletter), 2:831
Play signals and facial displays, 1:15
Playful state of mind, 1:53, 76, 384, 2:641
Playfulness, 2:575, 681, 704
“Playing the dozens” game, 1:86, 2:786
Pléiade group, 1:326, 327
Plutarch (biographer), 2:566
Poelvoorde, Benoît, 2:515
Poetry, 2:579–582
anti-poetry, 2:720
in China, 1:289–291, 293, 302
doggerel, 1:95, 203–205
in Europe, medieval, 1:298, 299, 2:460
in Europe, modern, 1:305, 308
in Europe, 19th-century, 1:315, 316, 317, 318
in Europe, Renaissance, 1:326–327, 329
goliardic, 1:299
humor, feeling, and, 2:580, 581
Igbo poetic insult of similes, 1:379–380
in Islam, 1:402, 404, 405
in Japan, modern, 1:311, 313–314
in Japan, premodern, 1:319–320, 321, 322
in Japan: Haiku, 1:263, 314, 322, 2:677
in Japan: Senryū, 1:313, 314, 2:677–680
in Japan: Share, 2:689
in Jewish humor, 1:410
lyric, 2:581, 720
mock epic poetry (see Mock epic)
nonsense verse, 1:204, 2:450, 451, 462, 543, 544
poems and jokes, similarity between, 2:580, 581
pointe in, 2:582, 583
in Sanskrit humor, 2:659–660
simple form and, 2:694
in South Africa, 2:716
in South America, 2:719, 720, 721, 722
See also Fabliau; Limericks
Pointe, 2:582–583
in the Decameron, 1:87–88
Witz and, 2:794
See also Punch line; Witz
Poire, Jean-Marie, 2:525
Polish jokes, 1:203, 409, 415, 417, 2:754
Politeness, 2:583–585
in conversational humor, 1:175
in joking relationships, 1:419–420
maxims of, 2:492
positive and negative, 1:419, 2:584
Political cartoons:
cartoonists’ views and, 1:115
critical of religious leaders, 2:478
First Amendment and, 2:447
history of, 1:112, 2:468, 586 (illustration),
587 (illustration)
for humorous coping, 1:180
joke cycles and, 1:415–416
for presidential parody, 2:598
and September 11, 2001, 1:115–116
in South Africa, 2:717–718, 717 (illustration)
in Southeast Asia, 2:724
subversive humor of, 2:743
See also Commentary cartooning; Editorial
cartoons; Political humor
Political correctness and incorrectness, 1:85, 263,
266, 343, 386, 415, 2:468, 794, 811
Political humor, 2:585–588
in ancient Egypt, 2:585
in ancient Greece, 1:31, 32, 33, 34, 59, 60
Byzantine, 1:101
caricature and, 1:103, 104, 113, 2:447, 468,
586, 598
carnivalesque and, 1:111
in China, 1:211, 2:587
conflict analysis of, 2:712
dialect humor in, 1:203
in Europe, 1:296, 301, 305–308, 315–318, 2:586
framing and, 1:249
in Japan, 1:311, 322, 2:586
in joke cycles, 1:415–416
magazines and newspapers, non-U.S., 2:472–478
magazines and newspapers, U.S., 2:467–468, 471
 Index 901

in Mesopotamia, 1:69, 2:585 Porter, William T., 1:331, 2:468

in modern Arabic literature, 1:59 Portmanteau terms, 2:544
about North Korea, 2:586 Posey, Alexander, 1:26
persuasion and, 2:564 Positive affect:
presidential (see Presidential humor) advertising and, 1:8
seriousness or harmfulness of, 2:714 brain processes and, 2:442
in South Africa, 2:716 cheerfulness and, 1:119
targets of, 2:754 in depression, 1:194, 195
See also Political cartoons; Political satire; in education, 1:208, 209
Satire news personality and, 2:562, 563
Political participation, 1:334 in psychological health, 1:282–283
Political party symbols, introduced by Thomas in psychotherapy, 2:609
Nast, 1:104, 113 social networks and, 2:709
Political performance, 2:578 in tickling, 2:766
Political satire: Positive cues, in humorous advertisements, 1:11–12
in Asia, 2:472 Positive emotions:
in cartoons, 1:113, 115, 2:468, 473 advertising and, 1:11
dialect humor in, 1:203 amusement and, 1:52, 75
in Europe, 1:307–308, 2:473, 519 disorders and, 2:601–602
in French opérettes, 1:152–153 expression of, 1:283, 2:704
journalism and, 1:421–422 humor appreciation and, 2:709
as a mainstay of political humor, 2:585 laughter, smiling, and, 2:437, 440–441, 607,
in musical comedy, 2:539 709, 765–766
persuasion research on, 2:564 mirth and, 1:16, 2:510, 511, 512, 588
in presidential humor, 2:597–599 neuropsychology of, 1:91, 92
in South Africa, 2:717–718, 717 (illustration) in persuasion, 2:564
in South America, 2:720 physiology of, 2:442, 605
in the U.S. magazines and newspapers, 2:467, positive psychology and, 1:194, 2:588
468, 471 religion, spirituality, and, 2:640
in wellerisms, 2:793 See also Negative emotions
See also Political humor; Satire news Positive life events, 1:282
Polivka, Bolek, 2:510 Positive politeness, 1:419, 2:584
Pollack, Sydney, 2:527 Positive psychology, 2:588–589
Pollert, Anna, 2:797 health and, 1:283
Pollio, Howard, 1:228, 2:504 humor as character strength in, 2:561–562, 589
Polunin, Slava, 1:133 limitations in research of, 2:589
Polysemy, 2:614–615, 674, 740, 768 positive emotions, humor, and, 1:194, 2:588
Pomerantz, A., 2:707 roots of, 2:588, 741
Pompeii, 2:651–652, 651–654 (figures), 653, 654 Positivity, in relational maintenance, 1:353
Ponder, M. R., 1:228 Positron emission tomography (PET), 2:605
Pop art, 1:65 Postcolonialism, 1:44, 45, 188, 2:592
Pope, Alexander, 1:51, 95, 296, 396, 2:435, 461, Posterior areas of the brain, 1:89, 91
555, 661, 662, 663, 775 Postmodern art, 1:65
Popovič, Anton, 2:773 Postmodern farce, 1:235
Popper, Karl, 1:367, 369 Postmodern irony, 2:589–592
Popular Culture Association/American Culture comic relief compared to, 1:154
Association (PCA/ACA), 2:835 modernist irony compared to, 2:590
Pornography, 1:328, 2:547. See also Obscenity philosophy and, 2:590–591
Porta, Carlo, 1:317 romantic irony compared to, 1:397
Porter, Cole, 2:539 in sexist humor, 2:733
902 Index
Postmodern literature, 1:154, 414, 2:589, 590, 591
Postmodern media environment, 2:664
Postmodern science wars, 2:670
Poststructuralism, 1:77, 2:590
Posture, 2:704–705. See also Smiling and laughter:
expressive patterns
Potential of humor, 1:46, 51, 184, 2:676
Pottery shards, humor written on, 1:29
Poulakos, John, 2:644
Pound, Ezra, 1:51
Powell, Chris, 2:712
Powell, Falvey C., 1:227
Power:
in the classroom, 1:207–208
in comic stereotyping, 2:739
cross-cultural humor and, 1:188
in the forbidden, 2:548
imbalance in, sexist humor for, 2:594
joking, politeness, and, 2:584
maintained by aggressive humor, 1:17
power differences, humor used for, 1:262
in small groups, 1:357
subversive humor and, 2:743, 744
in teasing, 2:757
in the workplace, 2:480–481, 707, 798
Powers, John E., 1:5
Practical jokes, 2:592–594
acceptable occasions for, 2:593
at college, 1:140
tales of, by Boccaccio, 1:87
types of, 2:592–593
in the workplace, 2:803
Pragmatics, 1:9, 124, 2:458, 590
Prank and hoax. See Hoax and prank
Pratfall on a banana skin, 1:52, 76, 186, 204
Preferences. See Humor preferences
Prefrontal cortex, 1:19, 89, 90–91, 200
Prejudice, humor and, 2:594–596
aggressive humor in, 1:17
in joke cycles, 1:414–415
name-related humor and, 1:373
social psychology of, 2:605
Prejudiced norm theory, 1:17, 2:595
Prepacked humor, 1:351. See also Canned humor
Pre-riddles, 1:120
Preschool years, humor development during, 1:122,
126, 198
Presidential humor, 2:596–600
in the history of political humor, 2:585–586, 587
against presidents and candidates, 2:597–599
by presidents and candidates, 2:597
research on effects of, 2:587–588, 597
See also Adams, John Quincy; Bush, George H.
W.; Bush, George W.; Clinton, Bill; Kennedy,
John F.; Lincoln, Abraham; Nixon, Richard;
Obama, Barack; Reagan, Ronald;
Roosevelt, Franklin D.; Roosevelt,
Theodore; Taft, William Howard;
Washington, George; Wilson, Woodrow
Preston, Michael, 1:415
Presuhn, E., 2:651 (figure)
Priest fools, 1:244
Priestly, J. B., 2:485
Primary and secondary audiences, 1:71
Primary metaphors, 2:505
Primates (nonhuman), smiles or vocalizations in,
1:15, 53, 75, 219, 2:439, 766. See also
Nonhuman species
Principal component analysis (PCA), 1:229
Prior brand evaluations, and humorous
advertisements, 1:12
Process emotion regulation, 1:179
Procopius (historian), 1:39
Prodromos, Theodore, 1:99, 101
Product involvement, and humorous
advertisements, 1:12
Production of humor. See Humor production
Productivity, workplace. See Workplace
productivity
Profeminist humor, 1:260
Professional identity, 1:262, 358
Prokofiev, Sergei, 1:182
Prompts, joke, 1:22
Propaganda, 1:86, 115, 2:663, 811
Propp, Vladimir, 2:694
Protection and restriction of humor. See Legal
restriction and protection of humor
Protective frame, 2:641
Protestants and humor, 2:638. See also Christianity
Prototypicality, 1:264
Proust, Marcel, 2:554
Proverb:
anti-proverbs, 1:47–49, 242, 2:517, 793
aphorism compared to, 1:51
proverb cue, in the Akan tradition, 1:22
proverb lore, in Igbo life, 1:380
wellerism subgroup of, 2:793–794
Provine, Robert R., 2:438, 490
Proyer, René, 1:230
Prudnyk, Mykhailo, 2:476

Pryor, Richard, 1:251, 2:527, 625
Pseudo-ethnic jokes, 1:215
Pseudo-punch line, 2:611–612
Psychiatric disorders, 2:600–602
anxiety, 2:600 (see also Anxiety)
autism spectrum disorders, 1:188, 199–200, 2:601
depression, 2:600 (see also Depression)
schizophrenia, 2:601, 610
See also Psychology
Psychic distance, 1:354
Psychoanalytic perspective:
in children’s humor research, 1:125
for commedia dell’arte characters, 1:163
for humor as a defense mechanism, 1:193
for insults, 1:385
See also Freudian/psychoanalytic theory
Psycholinguistics, 1:264, 2:604
Psychological benefits of humor. See Health
benefits of humor, psychological
Psychological distance, 1:54, 76, 2:602–604
Psychology, 2:604–608
of ambiguity, 1:221
biological, 2:605
clinical, 2:607
cognitive, 1:xxxi, 77, 2:604, 630
comic versus tragic worldviews and, 1:158, 159
content versus structure in, 1:354
developmental, 2:606–607 (see also Aging and
humor; Children’s humor stages)
of gender and humor, 1:259–261
of laughter, 1:117, 2:439–441
as the leading discipline in humor studies, 1:xxxi,
xxxii
of personality, 2:605–606 (see also Personality,
humor and)
positive (see Positive psychology)
social, 1:xxxi, 193–194, 385, 2:604–605
See also Brain, neuropsychology of humor;
Freudian/psychoanalytic theory; Health
benefits of humor, psychological; Psychiatric
disorders
Psychometrics, 1:184–185, 258, 2:561, 759, 760,
764. See also Test measurements of humor
Psychotherapy, humor in, 2:608–611, 631. See also
Freudian/psychoanalytic theory
Pu Songling, 1:292
Public art, 1:66–67
Public relations, comic hoaxing in, 1:338–339. See
also Advertisement
Puccini, Giacomo, 1:153, 317, 2:770
Index 903
Puck (magazine), 2:468, 469 (illustrations),
586 (illustration)
Pughe, J. S., 2:586 (illustration), 738 (illustration)
Puhlik-Doris, Patricia, 1:16, 199, 230
Pulci, Luigi, 1:326
Pulitzer, Joseph, 1:155 (illustration), 423, 424
Pulses of a joke, 2:611
Punch (magazine), 2:476
influence of, 2:468, 469, 472, 474, 475, 477
limericks in, 2:452
publication dates for, 2:585
worldwide imitations of, 1:315
Punch line, 2:611–612
and age of the listener, 1:19, 120, 126
in an anecdote, 1:40
in animal jokes, 1:41
anxiety and, 1:49
arousal theory on, 1:62, 63
benign violation theory on, 1:76
in comedy ensembles, 1:145
computational humor and, 1:170, 171
humor comprehension and, 1:166–167, 168
in the incongruity-resolution model, 1:135–136
jab-line and, 1:417
laughter expected immediately after, 1:176–177
misdirection and, 2:512, 513
multiple, 2:611, 668
neuropsychology of, 1:91
pseudo-punch line, 2:611–612
in Rakugo, 2:627
See also Incongruity and resolution; Pointe
Punning riddles, 2:645
Puns, 2:612–615
accidental, 2:552
in ancient Egyptian comedy, 1:30
in ancient Greek comedy, 1:33
in ancient Roman comedy, 2:576
in ancient Roman visual humor, 2:655
in anti-proverbs, 1:48
benign violation theory on, 1:76
bilingual, 1:187, 2:575, 767
bisociation and, 1:46
in burlesque, 1:96
childhood development and, 1:126
in China, 1:303
classifications of, 2:612–615
cognitive rules for resolving, 1:167
computational humor and, 1:171
in conversational humor, 1:176–177, 419–420
cross-cultural, 1:186, 187
904 Index
in design artifacts, 1:197
eye puns, 2:614
homographs in, 2:612, 614
homonyms in, 1:48, 2:548, 614, 768
homophones in, 1:48, 2:612, 613, 614
humorous stimuli for, 1:374
in Japanese, 1:313, 2:688, 689–691
in joking relationships, 1:419–420
logical mechanism in, 2:494
malapropisms as, 2:614
in Mesopotamia, 1:70
in neuroimaging studies, 1:89, 167
nonsense humor and, 2:544
paradigmatic and syntagmatic, 2:614
perfect and imperfect, 1:348, 2:458, 613–614, 675
phonological jokes compared to, 2:571
polysemy in, 2:614–615, 768
semantics of humor and, 2:675–676
sexual, 2:548
spoonerisms as, 2:614
in Tom Swifties, 2:767–768
translation of, 2:458
visual (see Visual puns)
See also Ambiguity; Phonological jokes
Puppets, 2:615–618
Purchase intention, and humorous advertising, 1:8
Purgation and purification, 1:61
Pushkin, Aleksandr Sergeyevich, 1:318
Puttenham, George, 2:465
Pygmies, mockery of, 2:653, 653 (figure)
Pynchon, Thomas, 1:3, 2:463
Qi ao (often-quoted Chinese poem), 1:290
Qian Zhongshu, 1:79, 287, 2:463
Qin Shi Huang, 1:346
Qiu Gao Peng, 2:725
Q-Sort Deck. See Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck
(HBQD)
Quality of life, and sense of humor, 2:562–563
Queer theory, 1:343. See also Homosexuality,
representation of
Queneau, Raymond, 2:463
Questionnaires. See Tests, questionnaires, scales,
inventories
Quine, Willard Van Orman, 2:551
Quintilian, Marcus, 1:135, 2:643, 661
Quiproquo (comic device), 1:78
Qur’an, the:
Arabic jocular literature and, 1:57–58
humor in, 1:56–57, 403, 2:637
Islam and, 1:404, 405
not subject to ridicule in Arabic literature, 1:57, 59
See also Islam
Raab, Lawrence, 2:581–582
Raatz, Ulrich, 2:759
Rabbinic humor, 1:410. See also Jewish humor;
Judaism
Rabbis, 1:130. See also Clergy
Rabelais, François, 2:619–620
caricature and, 1:103
carnivalesque literature of, 1:111
creativity of, 1:182
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
Erasmus and, 2:619
in European history, 1:294–295, 326
influence of, 1:329, 395
inversion in works of, 1:108, 395
low and high comedy in, 2:465
Menippean satire and, 2:460, 461
mock epics of, 1:326, 329, 2:619–620
nonsense humor of, 1:2, 2:543
popular-festive laughter and, 1:105
Rabelaisian humor, 1:266
satire of, 2:619–620
Sterne, Burton, and, 1:296
visual humor of, 1:66
See also Gargantua and Pantagruel (by François
Rabelais)
Race, representations of, 2:620–626
of African Americans, 1:202, 203, 2:621,
622–625, 697, 739
of Asians, 2:625
in frontier humor, 1:331
of Hispanics, 2:625–626
in musical plays, 2:539
of Native Americans, 2:625
as stereotypes, 2:621–622, 624, 625, 739
in variety acts, 2:786
in visual media, 2:621–626
of Whites, 2:621–622
in written media, 2:620–621
See also Ethnicity and humor; Racial stereotyping
Rachawat, Chai, 2:726
Rachmadi, Benny, 2:726
Racial stereotyping:
attacks on, 1:218, 2:623–624, 739
blackface and (see Blackface)
comic ambiguity and, 2:739, 740
dialect and, 1:202

in frontier humor, 1:331
in joke cycles, 1:414–415
in minstrelsy (see Minstrelsy)
political satire and, 2:717, 718
representation of race and, 2:621–622, 624, 625
sitcoms and, 2:697
See also Race, representations of; Stereotypes
Racism:
addressed in musical plays, 2:539
in adolescent humor, 1:127
attacks on, 1:218
in the classroom, 1:207
as a continuing U.S. issue, 1:203
in cross-cultural humor, 1:187
on the Internet, 1:390
name-related humor and, 1:373
race representation and, 2:622, 624, 625
in South Africa, 2:717
Racist humor, 1:216, 2:594. See also Prejudice,
humor and; Racism; Stereotypes
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 1:43, 44, 45
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred, 1:386, 2:796
Radday, Yehuda T., 1:410
Radin, Paul, 1:45, 2:776
Radio:
advertising humor on, 1:5, 8
comedy ensembles on, 1:145, 146
comic portrayals of race on, 2:622, 624
in Europe, 1:307
in Japan, 1:310
Jewish humor on, 1:412
mockumentary on, 2:515
music halls and, 2:536
obscenities on, 2:548
political mockery on, 2:718
sitcoms on, 2:695, 696, 697
sketch comedy on, 2:698, 699, 700
talk radio, 1:424
in U.S. humor history, 1:335–336
variety shows on, 2:785
War of the Worlds on, 1:338, 340, 2:670
Radner, Gilda, 1:383
Rae, Nola, 2:509
Rahim Kajai, 2:725
Rahman, Jacquelyn, 2:623–624
Rainald of Dassel (archchancellor), 1:299
Raja Hamzah, 2:725
Rakugo, 1:310, 323, 324, 2:626–628
Rakuten, Kitazawa, 1:311
Rama VI (king), 2:724
Index 905
Ramis, Harold, 2:526
Ramos Carrión, Miguel, 1:317
Ramsay, George, 1:40
Randall, Tony, 2:525
Range, Gabriel, 2:515
Rappoport, Leon, 1:17
Rapport, 1:175, 177, 419, 2:707
Raskin, Victor, 1:xxxi
classic work of, 1:368
on ethnic scripts, 1:215
GTVH and, 1:354, 2:456, 772
on ontological semantics, 2:490
on oppositions, 1:52
on overlap and opposition, 1:72
SSTH and, 1:9, 84, 369, 2:455
See also General theory of verbal humor (GTVH);
Semantic script theory of humor (SSTH)
Rational absurd, the, 1:1. See also Absurdist humor
Rational emotive therapy, 2:631
Ravi, Dharun, 1:140
Raynal, Guillaume-Thomas, 1:39
Reactions to humor, non-laughter, 2:628–629. See
also Laugh, laughter, laughing
Reagan, Ronald, 2:587, 597
Realist assimilation, 1:361
Recall:
in advertising, 1:7, 9, 11, 2:564
in education, 1:208, 209
Received pronunciation accent, 1:203
Reception of humor, 2:629–630. See also
Appreciation of humor; Comprehension of
humor
Reciprocal interference, 1:254
Recycling, in conversation, 1:175, 419, 421
Red Corn, Ryan, 1:26
Reddy, Vasudevi, 1:199
Redlich, Fredrick, 2:702
Reductio ad absurdum (logical technique), 1:1
Redwater, J. R., 1:27
Reese, Stephen, 1:249
Reeves, Matt, 2:515
Reeves, Vic, 1:145
Referential humor, 1:351, 354, 2:789–790
Referential humor, self-, 1:28, 235, 2:529
Reflective versus boorish style, 1:227, 364, 365
Reflexivity, 1:203, 389–390, 2:515, 516, 636
Reformation, the, 1:142, 2:619, 620, 662
Reframing, 2:630–632. See also Framing theory
Reiner, Rob, 2:515, 521, 527
Reiss, Allan, 1:200
906 Index
Reitman, Ivan, 2:526
Rejabhad (cartoonist), 2:725
Relational maintenance. See Humor and relational
maintenance
Relational process model, 2:709
Relationships, nonromantic, 2:632–633. See also
Social interaction
Relativism, 2:514, 590, 591
Release theories of humor, 2:633–636
arousal-safety version of, 1:5
Bakhtin and Mindess on, 2:634
bisociation and, 1:84
classic example of, 2:752
Douglas on social context, 2:634–635
in farce, 1:234
Freud’s analysis of, 2:634
Fry on healing potential, 2:634, 635
Jesus’s reconciliation and, 1:129
Morreall on cognitive play, 2:635
on targets of humor, 2:752
See also Arousal theory (Berlyne); Relief theory
Relevance theory, 1:399
Reliability, psychometric, 1:257, 258, 366, 2:759
Relief, comic. See Comic relief
Relief theory:
arousal, safety, and, 1:5
comic relief and, 1:154
on ethnicity and humor, 1:216
Freud and, 1:250, 394, 2:567–568
homosexuality, humor, and, 1:343
inversion, topsy-turvydom, and, 1:394
Messianic joy and, 1:129
in the philosophy of humor, 2:567–568, 570
symbolic interactionism and, 2:712
in the workplace, 2:803
See also Release theories of humor
Religion, 2:636–641
attitudes of, toward humor, 2:636–637
comic worlds and, 1:160–161
humor about religion, 2:638–639
humor in religion, 2:637–638
psychological studies on, 2:639–640
religious leaders as humor targets, 2:754
See also Biblical humor; Buddhism;
Christianity; Clergy; Islam; Judaism;
Qur’an, the; Taoism
Renaissance. See History of humor: Renaissance
Europe
Renard, Jules, 1:317
Renga (verse capping), 1:322
Representations of homosexuality. See
Homosexuality, representation of
Representations of men. See Men, representations of
Representations of race. See Race, representations of
Representations of women. See Women,
representations of
Representativeness of a sample, in factor analysis,
1:227
Repressed versus earthy style, 1:227, 364, 366
Reproduction, from an evolutionary perspective,
1:219, 220
Residual incongruity (RES INC), 1:136. See also
Incongruity and resolution
Resistance:
in attacks on ethnic stereotypes, 1:215, 217, 218
in carnivalesque, 1:109, 110
and defense mechanisms, 1:194
in e’gao in China, 1:211
Resistance humor, 1:218. See also Resistance
Resolution and incongruity. See Incongruity and
resolution
Respect and avoidance relationships, 1:44
Respiratory system:
in laughter and smiling, 1:277, 278, 2:436–437,
442, 705
mathematical analysis of, 2:490
and physical benefits of humor, 1:277, 278,
2:442, 558
stress and, 2:742
Response-focused humorous coping, 1:179
Restoration comedy, 1:143, 296
Restriction and protection of humor. See Legal
restriction and protection of humor
Retention of classroom materials, 2:559. See also
Recall
Reuchlin (Hebrew scholar), 1:325
Revelry, in the bipolarity of humor, 1:140–141. See
also Carnival and festival
Revenge themes, 1:69, 225, 380, 416, 2:669, 779
Reversal theory, 2:641–642
cognitive synergy in, 2:641, 642
creativity in, 1:183
identity diminishment in, 2:642
on negative antecedents of humor, 1:52
on playful state of mind, 1:384, 2:641
See also Inversion, topsy-turvy; Reversals
Reversals:
in animal-related humor, 1:42
anthropology of, 1:46, 47
caricature and, 1:103
 Index 907

in carnival and festival, 1:105, 106–109 sick humor in, 1:241

figure-ground, 2:494 simple form and, 2:694, 695
gender reversal, 1:33, 38, 46, 106–107, 108, true riddles, 2:645
300, 2:774–775 Riddle jokes, 1:138, 175, 300, 2:544, 645
in ritual clowning, 2:646, 647 Riddling, as a type of discourse, 2:644–645. See
rituals of, 1:106–109, 237–239, 394, 395, also Riddle
2:648–649 Ridewell, John, 1:100
in Roman visual humor, 2:654 Ridicule:
of social order, 1:103 in adolescent humor, 1:126
of word order, in anti-proverbs, 1:48 aggressive humor used for, 1:17
See also Inversion, topsy-turvy; Reversal theory of deviant behavior, 2:796
Reverse humor, to challenge stereotypes, 2:622–623, disparagement theory on, 1:5, 10
740–741 laughter for, 1:56
Reversed lighting technique, 2:508 of other groups, 1:190
Revue entertainment, 1:305 in premodern Japan, 1:320
Reward-related brain structures, 1:89, 90, 167, in presidential humor, 2:597–599
168, 222 sensitivity toward, 1:257, 258
Reymundo, Alex, 2:625 in spoofing, 2:730
Rhetoric and rhetorical devices, 2:642–644 in stereotyping, 2:739, 741
appeals to logos, 2:643–644 Ries, Al, 1:7
comedic devices, 2:643 (see also Metaphor) Right hemisphere of the brain, 1:90–91, 92,
topoi, 2:642–643 166–167, 2:443
See also Aristotle Riney, Hal, 1:7
Riccobono, Luigi, 1:163 Ringelnatz, Joachim, 1:305
Rice, E. E., 1:97 Le Rire (Laughter, by Henri Bergson), 1:77, 78, 79
Rice, Elmer, 2:485 Risi, Dino, 2:573
Richard, Cliff, 2:774 Ritchie, Graeme, 1:84
Richard, Pierre, 2:525 Rites of passage, 1:45, 46, 2:483, 593, 645, 648,
Richards, Michael, 1:255, 2:701 660. See also Coming-of-age rituals
Richardson, Samuel, 1:163, 2:462 Ritual:
Richardson, Tony, 2:526 ancient Greek comedy and, 1:31
Richter, Jean (Johann) Paul, 1:297, 318, 394, 2:462 anthropological study of, 1:45–46
Rickles, Don, 1:385 in carnival and festival, 1:105–107, 395
Riddle, 2:644–646 music and, 2:528
in the Akan tradition, 1:20 See also Carnival and festival
about animals, 1:41 Ritual clowns, 2:646–647
autism and, 1:200 in communal societies, 1:132
in Buddhism, 1:93 masks worn by, 1:132, 2:483, 646, 647
children and, 1:120–121, 124, 2:552, 645 in social contexts, 2:646–647, 648
cognitive work involved in, 1:136 symbolic inversion and, 1:106
components of, 2:645 See also Clowns
humor development and, 1:200, 2:645–646 Ritual insults. See Insult and invective
in Japan, 1:313 Ritualized banter, 1:386. See also Joking
in Jewish humor, 1:410 relationship
in medieval Europe, 1:299–300 Rituals of inversion, 2:648–649
neck riddles, 2:645 on April Fools’ Day, 2:648
parody of, 1:137 at the Burning Man Festival, 2:648, 649
parody riddles, 2:645 at carnival and festival, 1:106–109, 394, 395, 2:648
pre-riddles, 1:120 at the Feast of Fools, 1:237–239, 395, 2:648, 649
punning riddles, 2:645 See also Reversal theory; Reversals
908 Index

Rituals of laughter, 2:649–651 Rooney, Andy, 1:423

at annual festivals, 2:650 Rooney, Mickey, 2:523
at Mountain Goddess festival, 2:650 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1:415, 2:539, 598
of Warai-ko, 2:650 Roosevelt, Theodore, 1:102, 2:586
Ritz Brothers, 2:524 Rorty, Richard, 2:591, 592
Rivers, Joan, 1:251, 377 Rose, Margaret, 2:554, 662
Rizal, José, 2:724 Rosen, Kay, 1:65
Roach, Hal, 2:523 Rosenkranz, Karl, 1:103
Roach, Jay, 2:526, 527, 702 Rosenthal, Franz, 1:403
Roasts, celebrity, 1:339, 386 Ross, Harold, 2:471
Roback, Abraham, 2:571 Ross, Herbert, 2:526
Robbins, Stephen E., 1:77–78 Rossini, Gioachino, 1:152
Roberts, Arthur, 1:338, 2:730 Rostand, Edmond, 1:316
Roberts, John, 2:744, 745 Rosten, Leo, 1:413
Robots, 1:170 Roth, Phillip, 1:413
Robun, Kanagaki, 1:309 Rothbart, Mary K., 1:120, 384
Rock, Chris, 1:218 Rothgänger, Hartmut, 2:490
Rodeo festival, 1:107–108, 2:647 Rothschild, Salomon, 1:186
Rodgers, Richard, 1:144, 2:539 Rotrou, Jean de, 2:769
Rodrigues, Suzana B., 2:797 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1:143, 151
Rodriguez, Dariela, 1:207 Rowan, Dan, 1:422, 2:811
Rodriguez, Michael C., 2:763 Rowlandson, Thomas, 1:104
Rodriguez, Paul, 2:625 Rowling, J. K., 1:373
Rodríguez Monegal, Emir, 2:721 Rowson, Martin, 2:555, 556
Rogers, Carl, 2:588 Roy, Donald, 2:797
Rogers, Will, 1:26, 98, 2:522, 523, 596, 734 Royko, Mike, 1:423
Role reversals. See Reversal theory; Reversals Ruch, Willibald:
Rolle, Esther, 2:624 on components of humor, 2:680, 681
Roman visual humor, 2:651–655 on content versus structure, 1:354
examples of, 2:651–655 (figures) on the Duchenne smile, 2:703
inter-group humor in, 2:653–654 Eysenck, Cattell, and, 1:228
intra-group humor in, 2:651–653 and the GTVH, 2:456
sexual humor in, 2:654–655 and the HBQD, 1:227
See also Ancient Roman comedy on humor appreciation, 2:606
Romania, Academia Caţavencu and Bilete de on humor in everyday life, 1:265
Papagal magazines in, 2:472 on methodology, 1:230
Romano, Ray, 1:255 on mirth, 1:368
Romantic comedy, 1:265–266 on nonsense humor, 1:384, 2:544–545
in the movies, 2:521 on the poles of good and bad humor, 1:365
of Shakespeare, 2:685–687 and the state-trait model, 1:118, 119
types of, 1:266, 2:521 3WD model of, 1:384
Romantic irony, 1:397, 2:532 Ruel, Jim, 1:27
Rome, ancient. See Ancient Roman comedy; Rumi, Jalaluddin, 1:404
Roman visual humor Runcie, Robert, 1:131
Romea y Parra, Julián, 1:317 Rush, Geoffrey, 1:253
Romero, José Rubén, 2:721 Rushdie, Salman, 2:592
Romney, Mitt, 1:336 Russell, Bertrand, 1:77, 79, 2:451, 489
Roncalli, Angelo, 1:131 Russell, Mark, 2:598
Ronsard, Pierre de, 1:327 Russell, Rosalind, 2:524 (illustration)
Roome, Dorothy, 2:716, 718 Russell, Roy E., 1:84
 Index 909

Russia: Santiago, Roni, 2:726

animal fables of, 1:42 Sarah (Abraham’s wife), in the Bible and Qur’an,
in the history of humor, 1:317–318 1:57, 82, 127
magazines in (Chayan), 2:473 Sarbiewski, Maciej Kazimierz, 2:493
performative comedy in, 1:143 Sarcasm:
totalitarianism and, 2:542 in animal-related humor, 1:42
Rutebuef (poet), 1:226 benign violation theory on, 1:76
Ruzante (Paduan playwright), 1:328, 329 in the Bible, 1:81, 425, 426
Rx Laughter (nonprofit group), 2:835 in caricature, 1:103
Ryden, Mark, 1:67 children and, 1:124, 126, 2:606
Ryskind, Morrie, 2:539 complexity and, 1:165
Ryu- nosuke, Akutagawa, 1:310, 311 in conversational humor, 1:174, 176
experimental findings on, 1:398–400
Sacchi, Antonio, 1:162 in the history of humor, 1:303, 393
Sachs, Hans, 1:234 hostility expressed in, 1:365
Sacks, Harvey, 1:21, 2:705, 706 humor markers in, 1:360, 398
Safety valve: irony compared to, 1:398
carnivalesque as, 1:110 in joking relationships, 1:420
humor as, 1:221, 2:634, 711 in magazines and newspapers, 2:470, 474
nonseriousness and, 2:438 in social networks and microblogs, 1:423
ritual insult as, 2:787 in visual humor, 1:64
in the workplace, 2:801 in the workplace, 2:480, 481, 796
Safety-arousal. See Arousal-safety theory in xiangsheng, 2:809
Sahl, Mort, 2:598, 735 See also Irony
Said, Edward, 2:514 Sardou, Victorien, 1:316
Saint Phalle, Niki de, 1:67 Sarkozy, Nicholas, 1:339
Saint-Cloud, Pierre de, 2:460 Sarris, Andrew, 2:524 (illustration)
Saint-Saëns, Camille, 1:182, 2:529 Satanic humor, 1:56. See also Devil
Saito- Gesshin, 2:691 Satie, Erik, 2:533
Saki (humorist), 1:315 Satire, 2:661–664
Saks, Gene, 2:526 absurdist humor and, 1:2–3
Salience-based interpretations, 1:399–401 in advertising, 1:5, 6–7, 9
Salinger, J. D., 1:327 in Akan and Igbo humor, 1:21, 379
Salis, Rodolphe, 1:305 in American Indian cultures, 1:26, 45
Salisbury, Laura, 1:216, 217 in ancient Egypt, 1:29, 30
Salmone (mime), 1:99 in ancient Greece, 1:31, 32, 33, 59, 2:661
Saltykov-Shchedrin, Mikhail Evrgafovich, 1:318 in ancient Rome, 1:38, 2:460, 576, 661
Salustri, Carlo Alberto, 1:317 animal-related humor and, 1:42
SAM (sympathetic-adrenal-medullary) system, 2:511 in the art of visual humor, 1:64, 65, 67
Samaras, Isabel, 1:67 in the Bible, 1:82, 410, 425
Samson, Andrea, 1:200 in burlesque, 1:95, 96, 98
San Isidro Labrador fiesta, 1:107 Byzantine, 1:99, 101–102
Sanat, Ali, 2:725 in caricature, 1:103–104, 105
Sanawbarī, Abbasid as-, 1:56 at carnival and festival, 1:107–109, 2:650
Sánchez, Eduardo, 2:516 in China, 1:211–212, 291–292
Sánchez, Luis Rafael, 2:723 contempt expressed in, 1:365
Sandler, Adam, 2:527, 528 defense mechanisms and, 1:194
Sanskrit humor, 1:234, 2:445, 657–661 as a distinct communication genre, 1:149
Santa Claus interpretation by Thomas Nast, in editorial cartoons, 1:115
1:104, 113 in Europe, early modern, 1:294, 295, 296–297
910 Index
in Europe, medieval, 1:298, 299, 300, 301,
2:500–501
in Europe, modern, 1:304, 305, 307–308
in Europe, 19th-century, 1:314–319
in Europe, Renaissance, 1:325–326, 327, 329,
2:619–620, 661
in evolution of the novel, 2:461
gifted children and, 1:121
hoaxing and, 1:339
in Japan, 1:311, 313, 321, 323
in Jewish humor, 1:410, 411, 412, 413–414
lampoon and, 2:435
in magazines and newspapers, 2:467, 468, 471,
472–478
in medieval Arabic poetry, 1:55
in medieval visual humor, 2:500–501
Menippean, 1:2, 2:460
mock epic as, 2:513 (see also Mock epic)
in mockumentaries, 2:515, 516
in modern Arabic literature, 1:59
Molière’s influence on, 1:142
by Monty Python, 2:518, 519, 520
in the movies, 2:521
in musical comedy, 2:539
in news (see Satire news)
pastiche and, 2:555–556
political (see Political satire)
in presidential humor, 2:597–599
in puppetry, 2:617
purpose of, 2:661–663
of religion, 2:638–639
by ritual clowns, 2:647
in Sanskrit humor, 2:657, 658, 659–660
science, science fiction, and, 2:670
in South Africa, 2:715, 716, 717–718
in South America, 2:719–720, 721, 722
as a style or genre, 1:265
in wellerisms, 2:793, 794
See also Spoofing
Satire news, 2:664–665
audience for, 2:664
and the blur between news and comedy, 1:421
The Colbert Report for, 1:249, 2:587, 596, 599,
664, 731, 753
The Daily Show for, 1:424, 2:587, 599, 664,
731, 753
entertainment, journalism, and, 2:664
in the history of political humor, 2:585
The Onion for, 2:599, 664
presidential humor in, 2:599
Saturday Night Live for, 2:664
as spinning the news, 1:422
See also Fake news
Satire of the Trades (ancient Egyptian text),
1:29–30
Satiric allegory, 2:662
Saturday Night Live (television show), 1:145, 149,
150, 383, 422, 2:526, 598, 664, 731
Saturnalia, Roman, 1:105, 130
Satyal, Rajiv, 2:625
Satyr play, 1:159, 2:485, 665–666
Satyrs, in Greek visual humor, 1:272, 273
Saunders, Jennifer, 1:255
Saw, as trite wisdom, 1:50. See also Aphorism
Scala, Flaminio, 1:162
Scales. See Factor analysis of humor scales; Tests,
questionnaires, scales, inventories
Scalia, Antonin, 2:744, 745
Scanning, brain. See Brain, neuropsychology of
humor
Scapigliatura (disheveled) movement, 1:317
Scarpetta, Eduardo, 1:317
Scarron, Paul, 1:95, 2:461, 514, 775
Scatology, 2:666–668
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29
in Europe, 1:295, 299, 300, 305, 326, 329
in Japan, 1:312, 313, 322, 323, 324
as a medium for satire, 2:663
in music hall songs, 2:535
in Roman visual humor, 2:653, 654, 655
sexualization of, 2:667
theories on, 2:667
See also Obscenity; Vulgarity
Schauwecker, Detlev, 1:311
Schechner, Richard, 2:577
Schelandre, Jean de, 2:769
Schematic versus thematic aspects, 1:354
Scherfig, Lone, 2:525
Schertzinger, Victor, 2:524
Schickele, Peter, 1:182, 2:530–531
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1:359
Schizophrenia, 2:601, 610
Schlegel, Friedrich, 2:532
Schmidt-Hidding, Wolfgang, 1:266, 364, 2:680
Schnurr, Stephanie, 1:262
Schoenberg, Arnold, 1:153
School years, humor development during, 1:122,
123–124, 125, 126
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 2:568–569
Schorr, Todd, 1:67
 Index 911

Schubert, Christian, 2:530 Self-centeredness, humor antithetical to, 2:581

Schultz, N. W., 1:199 Self-conscious anti-hero, 1:329
Schultz, Thomas, 2:569 Self-conscious comic routines, 1:3
Schumann, Robert, 2:532 Self-conscious creators of humor and laughter, 1:371
Schumer, Amy, 2:734 (illustration) Self-conscious works, 1:297, 395, 2:461–462, 463
Schuster, Leon, 2:716–717 Self-defeating humor:
Schwank, 1:299, 2:668–669, 694 in aging adults, 1:19
Science, science fiction, and humor, 1:170, anxiety and, 1:50, 2:562
2:669–671 bullying and, 1:199
Screen translation, 1:72. See also Audiovisual characteristics of, 1:364, 366, 367
translation depression and, 1:195, 2:562
Screwball comedy in movies, 1:14, 254, 2:521, detrimental effects of, 1:283, 2:606, 607
523–524, 526, 701 heritability and, 1:284
Scribe, Eugène, 1:143, 266, 316, 2:771 HSQ analysis of, 1:261
Script opposition: measures of, 2:760
antonyms and, 2:456 personality and, 1:367, 2:562–563
GTVH and, 1:348, 374, 2:772 Self-denigrating humor, 2:480
for humor appreciation, 1:52 Self-deprecating humor:
in the mathematics of humor, 2:490 in advertisements, 1:6
translation and, 2:772, 773, 774 in affiliative humor style, 1:364
See also Linguistic theories of humor in computational humor, 1:170
Script-based semantic theory of humor. See critique, criticism, and, 1:377
Semantic script theory of humor (SSTH) in ethnic humor, 1:217–218, 386
Scriptprov, 1:383 ethnicity and, 1:215, 217–218
Scripts, linguistic theories on, 2:455–456, 676. See in folklore, 1:241
also Semantic script theory of humor (SSTH) mate selection and, 2:683
Scripts and frames, 1:41, 42, 2:631. See also non-laughter response to, 2:629
Framing theory; Reframing politeness and, 2:584
Scudéry, Georges de, 2:769 by politicians, 2:587, 597
Sculpture: for resistance to apartheid, 2:716
and architecture, interaction between, 2:496–498 status differences and, 2:709, 710
humor expressed in, 1:28, 1–29 (illustration), teasing as, 1:26
1:66–67 Self-directed humor, 1:45, 2:757
Searle, John, 1:399 Self-disclosure by a therapist, 2:609–610
Sears, Richard Niles, 1:354 Self-disparaging humor, 1:209, 284, 2:542, 758
Sebillet, Thomas, 1:235 Self-effacing humor, 1:64, 177
Second City, 1:382, 383 Self-empowering humor, 2:621, 624
Second language acquisition, 2:672–673 Self-enhancing humor:
Second-order intentions and irony, 1:124 in aging adults, 1:19
Seeking funny others, strategy of, 1:208 anxiety and, 1:50
Seelig, Joseph, 2:509 characteristics of, 1:364, 366
Sei Sho-nagon, 1:320–321 in the classroom, 1:208
Seidman, Steve, 2:524 health and, 1:200, 282, 283, 2:606, 607
Seinfeld, Jerry, 1:255, 413 heritability and, 1:284
Seirlis, Julia Katherine, 2:718 HSQ analysis of, 1:261
Self, sense of, 1:75, 91, 377, 2:800. See also low depression levels and, 1:195
Identity measurement of, 2:760
Self-awareness, 1:36, 78, 234, 327, 350, 358, personality and, 1:366, 367, 2:562, 563
2:463, 663, 696 Self-esteem, 1:283, 364, 2:558, 562, 606, 607, 762
Self-censorship, 2:548 Self-identifying group, 1:216
912 Index
Self-identity, 2:801
Self-image, 1:177, 343, 413
Self-mockery, 1:55, 211, 291–292, 2:519
Self-motivation, humor used for, 2:558
Self-perception theory, 2:594
Self-protection, humor used for, 1:262
Self-psychology, 1:251
Self-referential humor, 1:28, 235, 2:529
Self-referential jokes, 1:418
Self-refinement, in Confucianism, 1:174
Self-reflexivity, 1:203
Self-teasing, 2:757, 758
Seligman, Martin, 2:588, 741
Sellers, Peter, 1:255, 2:526, 527
Semantic jokes, 1:89, 167, 168, 2:790
Semantic script theory of humor (SSTH), 2:455–457
bisociation and, 1:84
computer-generated humor and, 1:348
on humor in advertisements, 1:9
semantics of humor and, 2:676–677
theory, reality, phenomenology, and, 1:369
Semantics, 2:673–677
advertising and, 1:9
in children’s humor research, 1:124
general, deductive theory of, 1:83
linguistic semantics, 2:673–674, 674–675
neuropsychology and, 1:89
OSTH and, 1:348–349
potential and, 1:46, 2:676
rules of, for resolving incongruity, 1:167
semantics of humor, 2:675–677
SSTH and, 2:676–677
as a study of meaning, 2:458, 673
syntactic foundation of, 2:675
Semino, Elena, 2:505
Semiotics, 1:9, 71–72, 2:673
Semrud-Clikeman, Margaret, 1:199
Sender, message, channel, receiver (S.M.C.R.)
model, 2:799
Seneca (philosopher), 1:100
Sennett, Mack, 2:520, 522, 701
Senryu-, 1:313, 314, 2:677–680. See also Haiku
Sense of humor, components of, 2:680–682
cheerfulness, seriousness, and, 1:119
clinical psychology of, 2:607
as a comprehensive trait, 2:681–682
conveyed by personal anecdotes, 1:177
core ingredients, 2:680–681
evolutionary perspective for, 1:220
in factor analyses, 1:227, 230–231
gender and, 1:261
giftedness and, 1:120–121
protective function of, 2:601–602
psychological work on, 2:561–562
as a unitary concept, 2:681
See also Personality, humor and
Sense of humor as a personality construct, 2:561,
562–563
Sense of Humor Questionnaire, 2:561
Sense of Humor Scale (SHS), 2:760–761
Sentimental comedy, 1:265–266
Sentimental humor and wit, in advertisements, 1:9
September 11, 2001, 1:115–116, 416, 421,
2:692
Serials, sitcoms as, 2:695. See also Sitcoms
Serious relief, 1:154. See also Comic relief
Seriousness, as a state and a trait, 1:118–119. See
also Cheerfulness, seriousness, and humor
Setup:
in different interpretations, 2:512–513
in hoaxes and pranks, 1:339–340
implied, in one-liners, 2:611
in the incongruity-resolution model, 1:135–136
in narrative jokes versus anecdotes, 1:177
See also Incongruity and resolution; Punch line
Seven Deadly Sins, 2:499–500
Seville, David, 2:529
Sexism:
acceptability of, perceived, 1:17
as a form of stereotyping, 2:738–739
tolerance of, and prejudice, 2:596
See also Gender issues; Sexist humor
Sexist humor:
aggressive humor used for, 1:17
anti-proverbs in, 1:48
in the classroom, 1:207
in limericks, 2:453
perception of tolerance for, 2:596
for perpetuating power imbalances, 2:594
by politicians, 2:587
social distance and, 2:602
social psychology of, 2:605
in sports, 2:733
See also Gender issues; Sexism; Women,
representations of
Sexist jokes, 2:587, 596, 602, 605, 733
Sexual identity, 1:342
Sexual orientation, 1:208, 342, 343, 2:449, 605.
See also Heterosexuality; Homosexuality,
representation of
 Index 913

Sexual selection theory, 1:184–185, 219–220. See Shakespearean comedy, 2:684–688

also Evolutionary explanations of humor absurdist humor in, 1:2
Sexuality, 2:682–684 bilingual puns in, 1:187
in adolescent humor, 1:127 burlesque and, 1:95, 97, 98
advertising humor and, 1:5, 9, 11 comic characterization by, 2:460
in ancient Egyptian culture, 1:29 comic relief in, 1:154, 2:687–688
in ancient Greek comedy, 1:33, 34 dialect humor in, 1:202
in ancient Roman comedy, 1:38 farce in, 1:235, 2:684, 685, 686, 687
in ancient Roman visual humor, 2:654–655 fools in, 1:244, 244 (illustration), 407–408,
in anti-proverbs, 1:48 2:684, 685, 687–688
burlesque as erotic entertainment, 1:97 gallows humor in, 1:256
cultural expression and, 1:46 high and low comedy in, 1:285, 2:465, 684–685
and desirability as a mate, 2:683 in historical context, 1:142, 143, 144, 295, 296,
in fabliaux, 1:225 327, 328–329, 2:684–685
humor appreciation and, 1:259–260, 2:763, and humor as aesthetic experience, 1:14
764, 765 impact of New Comedy and Menander on, 1:34,
incongruity and, 2:547 2:504
Lysistrata as the great comedy of sex, 1:59 impact of the Roman model on, 1:34, 2:684,
in music halls, 2:535, 536, 537 685, 687
obscenity and, 2:547–548, 549 (see also lazzi in, 2:444
Obscenity) mime and mimicry in, 2:507
political humor and, 2:586 paradox and, 1:128
in premodern Japan, 1:319, 323 parodied by others, 2:556
in Sanskrit humor, 2:659 parody used by, 2:553
scatology and, 2:667 the plays: first four comedies, 2:685
teasing and, 1:25 the plays: next six comedies, 2:686–687
in trickster stories, 1:24, 27 the plays: the tragedies, 2:687–688
in urban legends, 2:779–780 popular and populist, 2:580
in U.S. magazines and newspapers, 2:468, 470, 471 slapstick in, 2:701–702
in variety acts, 2:785 social masking in, 2:483, 486
See also Erotic, the; Gender and humor, throughout Shakespeare’s works, 2:684
psychological aspects of; Gender roles in trickster figure in, 2:778
humor uproarious, 2:581
Shadwell, Thomas, 2:435 verbal dueling in, 2:787
Shadyac, Tom, 2:527 Shammi, Prathiba, 1:167
Shaffer, Peter, 2:508 Shanes, Justin, 2:446
Shaftesbury, Earl of, 1:297, 394, 2:461, 463 Shankar (Kesava Shankara Pillai), 2:477
Shag (artist), 1:67 Shapiro, Jonathan, 2:717. See also Zapiro
Shaggy-dog jokes, 1:368, 417 (cartoonist)
Shaggy-dog stories, 1:2, 213, 395 Share, 1:313, 324, 2:688–691
Shakespeare, William, 1:2 Sharpe, R. S., 2:451
artistic freedom of, 1:328–329 Sharpness, L. R., 1:199
on brevity and proverbs, 1:51 Shaw, George Bernard, 1:143, 213, 287, 315, 316,
continued inspiration from, 1:329 2:454, 465, 770
creativity of, 1:182 Shea, Robert, 2:776
cultural world of, 2:684 Sheckley, Robert, 2:671
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141 Shelley, Cameron, 1:397
performance companies of, 1:145 Shelley, Mary, 2:670
tragicomedy and, 2:769, 770, 771 Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 2:666
translation of works of, 2:773 Shelton, Gilbert, 1:147
914 Index

Shepard, B., 2:579 Sima Qian, 1:346

Shepherd, David, 1:382 Similarity of jokes, in linguistic theories, 2:456, 457
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 1:95–96, 143, 286 Simile, 1:223, 379–380, 2:505, 642
Sherman, Cindy, 1:64 Simon, Neil, 2:526
Sherzer, Joel, 2:786, 787 Simple form, 1:136, 417, 2:693–695, 795
Shiba Zenko-, 2:691 Simpson, Norman Frederick, 1:144
Shijing (Book of Poetry), 1:289, 290 Simultaneity:
Shikitei Sanba, 1:324 in benign violation theory, 1:76
Shillaber, B. P., 2:467–468 for humor appreciation, 1:52, 54
Shimizu Isao, 1:321, 323 Singapore, cartooning in, 2:724, 725
Shinto, 1:94, 319, 2:649–650 Singing. See Songs and humor
Shiota, Michelle N., 2:704 Singspiel, 1:152. See also Comic opera
Shishuo xinyu (by Liu Yiqing), 1:247, 291 Sins, and medieval visual humor, 2:498, 499–500
Short form improv, 1:382–383 Sitcoms, 2:695–698
Shostakovich, Dmitri, 1:182, 2:529, 531, 532 cultural factors in, 1:188, 2:695, 696–697
Shotley, Kristine, 1:26 defining of, 2:695–696
Shrigley, David, 1:65, 66, 66 (illustration) future of, 2:697–698
SHRQ (Situational Humor Response nature of humor in, 1:335, 2:696
Questionnaire), 2:561 origins of, 2:696
SHS (Sense of Humor Scale), 2:760–761 portrayal of gays in, 1:343
Shudraka (dramatist), 2:660 portrayal of gender roles in, 2:622, 697
Shultz, Thomas, 1:384 portrayal of race in, 2:622, 624
Shuntaro-, Tanikawa, 1:313, 2:689, 691 for social engineering, 2:716
Shyamalan, M. Night, 2:583 stock characters in, 1:141, 188
Sick comics, 2:598 translation for, 1:72, 187
Sick humor, 2:691–693 verité aesthetic within, 2:516
in adolescence, 1:126 Situation comedy, in Greek visual humor,
appreciation and motivation for, 2:692–693 1:273–275, 274 (figure). See also Sitcoms
black humor compared to, 2:692 Situational humor, 2:706. See also Conversation
as disgust humor, 1:264 Situational Humor Response Questionnaire
folkloristic analysis of, 1:241 (SHRQ), 2:561
historical development of, 2:692 Situational inversion, 1:395–396
in joke cycles, 1:414 Situational irony, 1:397
religious people and, 2:640 Skankhadhara Kaviraja, 2:658
Sick jokes, 1:241 Skelton, John, 1:326
Sidney, George, 2:526 Skelton, Red, 1:335
Sidney, Philip, 1:286, 327, 328, 2:769 Sketch comedy shows, 2:698–700
Sieber, Roy, 2:646 characteristics of, 2:698–699, 700
Sight gag, 1:59, 253 Monty Python sketch style, 1:307
Silence: origins of, 2:699–700
instead of laughter, 1:177, 2:628 parody and, 1:422
in music, 2:531, 532, 533 Scriptprov as sketch comedy, 1:383
Silent films, 2:507, 522, 622, 624, 701. See also spoofing by, 2:731
Movies Slade, Diana, 1:40
Sills, Paul, 1:382 Slander laws, 2:663. See also Legal restriction and
Silvas, Abel, 1:27 protection of humor
Silverman, Sarah, 1:385 Slapstick, 2:700–702
Silvers, Phil, 1:98 benign violation theory on, 1:76
Silverstein, Rich, 1:7 in comedy ensembles, 1:146
Sim, Dave, 1:147 as the earliest form of film comedy, 2:520

in Europe, 1:306, 307, 2:701
farce and, 1:233–234, 2:701
by film clowns, 1:133, 2:701
low comedy and, 2:465
in movies, 2:520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 526, 527,
701, 702
and the slap-stick, 2:464–465, 701
on television, 2:701, 702
Slaves and slavery:
in ancient Greek comedy, 1:2, 32, 33, 34,
2:503, 574
in ancient Roman comedy and art, 1:35, 36, 37,
38, 141, 2:575, 576, 651
in ancient Roman Saturnalia, 1:105
in the Bible, 1:426
comic portrayal of, 2:622
in mock epic poetry, 2:514
in the New World, 2:542, 788
in Shakespeare’s works, 2:684, 687
songs of derision and, 2:788
in the United States, 1:333, 2:622, 624
Sleeper effects, of persuasion, 2:564–565
S.M.C.R. (sender, message, channel, receiver)
model, 2:799
Smiling:
in China versus America, 1:302
effect of, on physical health, 1:278, 279
gender differences in, 1:220
in infancy, 1:125, 198
laughter and, 2:437
mirth and, 2:511 (see also Mirth)
in nonhuman species, 1:219
physiology of, 2:441–443
in place of laughter, 2:628
psychological health and, 1:282
in the state-trait model, 1:118
Smiling and laughter: expressive patterns,
2:702–705
Duchenne smile, 1:257, 2:441, 442–443, 703,
704, 765–766
emotions and, 2:704 (see also Emotions)
facial EMG, 2:703
FACS action units, 2:703, 704
mirth-response index, 2:702, 703
posture, gesture, body movement, and, 2:704–705
spontaneous versus faked, 2:704
in ticking versus humor, 2:765–766
See also Facial expressions
Smith, Chris, 1:148
Smith, Cyril, 2:586
Index 915
Smith, Paul, 1:242
Smith, Robert, 2:487
Smith, Seba, 2:467
Smith, Solomon Franklin, 1:331
Smothers Brothers, 2:598, 811
Smuts, Jan, 2:718
Snark, in social networks and microblogs, 1:423.
See also Sarcasm
Snickers bar Super Bowl ad of 2007, 1:11
SNL. See Saturday Night Live (television show)
Snow, Edgar, 2:812
Snowball device, 1:78
Social anxiety, 2:600. See also Anxiety
Social approaches to children’s humor research,
1:122–123
Social bonding, from an evolutionary perspective,
1:221
Social cognition, 1:89, 199, 2:601. See also
Cognitive aspects
Social cooperation, 1:221
Social development of humor, 1:126–127, 198–199.
See also Children’s humor stages; Development
of humor
Social distance, 1:53, 2:602
Social engineering, 2:716
Social humor, 1:282
Social interaction, 2:705–708
aggressive and harmless humor in, 1:16–18
for aging adults, 1:19
Akan humor in, 1:20–22
children’s humor and, 1:122–123, 126
conversational humor and, 1:174–178, 260–261,
2:706
formal humor properties in, 2:705–706
functions of humor in, 2:706–707
gender’s determining role in, 1:262
high- or low-context, 1:288–289
joking relationships and, 1:44, 418–420
relational maintenance and, 1:352–353
social development and, 1:198–199
social maintenance and, 1:358–359
social psychology of, 2:604
teasing in, 1:25–26, 2:707
in the workplace, 2:479–481, 707
See also Relationships, nonromantic
Social maintenance, 1:358–359
Social masking, 2:483, 485–486
Social media, electronic:
Facebook, 1:140, 170, 2:603
folk humor in, 1:242
916 Index
online news via, 1:423, 424
panel cartoons in, 1:112–113
political satire via, 2:717
pranks involving, 1:140
separating serious from nonserious posts,
1:170–171
stereotyping in, 2:741
Twitter, 1:71, 140, 170, 336, 423, 424
urban legends communicated by, 1:339
YouTube, 1:144, 336, 391, 397, 2:700, 702,
754, 809
See also Blogs; Internet humor
Social movement theory, 1:71
Social network, 2:708–710. See also Social media,
electronic
Social psychology, 1:xxxi, 193–194, 385, 2:604–605
Social satire, 1:103. See also Caricature; Satire
Social structure:
anthropology of, 1:43, 44–45
dialect humor and, 1:203
inversion of, 1:395
jokes tied to, 2:634–635
ritual and, 1:386, 395
subversion of, 2:617
violence and, 1:345
See also Social interaction
Social value of humor among nations, 2:541. See
also National and ethnic differences
Socialization process, 1:122, 2:646, 758
Socially warm versus cold style, 1:227, 230, 364,
365, 366
Sociocultural framework, humor deeply anchored
in, 1:190. See also Cross-cultural humor;
Culture
Sociogram, 2:709
Sociolinguistic incompetence, 1:188
Sociolinguistics:
on audiovisual translation, 1:72–73
on conversational humor, 1:178
cross-cultural humor and, 1:186, 188
on speech play, 2:728
and symbolic interactionism, 2:712
Sociology, 2:711–715
comparative-historical studies, 2:713
conflict theories, 2:711–712, 714
functionalism, 2:711
phenomenology, 2:712–713, 714
research methodologies in, 2:714–715
symbolic interactionism, 2:712, 714
Sociometric techniques, 2:708, 710
Socrates, 1:59, 397, 2:435, 567, 574, 575, 670
Socratic irony, 1:397
Socratic method of teaching, 2:446
Sogaku, Harada, 1:93
Sohigian, Diran John, 1:79, 287
Sohler, Theodore, 2:702
Sokal, Alan, 1:338, 2:670
Solidarity-based humor:
in the classroom, 1:208
gender and, 1:260, 262
joking relationships and, 1:419
solidarity and teamwork, 2:479
in stand-up comedy, 2:736
See also Affiliative humor
Sommore (comedian), 2:625
Sondheim, Steven, 1:98, 144
Songs and humor:
in the Akan tradition, 1:20
in American Indian cultures, 1:26
in ancient Greece, 1:32, 33
in ancient Rome, 1:35
derisive, 2:788
in music halls, 2:534–535, 536, 537
in musical comedy, 2:537–540
parody for, 2:529
See also Music
Sophia de Montferrat (empress), 1:100
Sophocles, 1:14–15, 159, 160, 2:665, 666
Sorori Shinzaemon, 1:322
So-sei (Buddhist priest), 1:320
So-seki, Natsume, 1:310
Sosrodihardjo, Kusno (Sukarno), 2:724
Sotie (genre of French plays), 1:142
Soubeyran, Jean and Brigitte, 2:510 (illustration)
Source approach to humor, 1:18
Sousa, John Philip, 2:519
South African humor, 2:715–719
by Desmond Tutu, 1:130
Drum magazine and, 2:716
as an instrument of state control, 2:715, 716
Mshana and Noseweek magazines and, 2:475, 476
in political cartoons, 2:717–718,
717 (illustration)
in political satire, 2:717–718
self-directed, 1:45, 2:716
in stand-up comedy, 2:718
as a weapon of resistance, 2:715, 716, 717–718
South American literature, humor in, 2:719–724
anti-poetry of, 2:720
development of, 2:719–720

intellectual humor of, 2:720–721
popular humor of, 2:721–722
satirical and ironic humor of, 2:722
Southeast Asia:
Buddhism in, 1:94
cartooning in, 2:478, 724–727
humor magazines in, 2:477, 478
lazzi in, 2:445
mime in, 2:508
Southeast Asia, cartooning in, 2:478, 724–727
Southern, Terry, 1:336
Soviet Union, former:
Bezbozhnik and Krokodil magazines in,
2:472, 475
Russian humor and, 2:542
Space travel, 2:670, 671. See also Time travel
Spain, El Jueves magazine in, 2:474
Spatial or physical distance, 2:602, 752–753
Specialist humor, 2:487–489
Speck, Paul S., 1:9
Speech, freedom of, 1:31, 2:718
Speech play, 2:727–730
culture and, 2:727, 728, 729, 730
functions of play, 2:729–730
in verbal dueling, 2:727, 729, 730, 786, 789
See also Jokes; Proverb; Puns; Riddle; Verbal
dueling; Wordplay
Speech rate, 1:360
Spencer, Bud, 1:307
Spencer, Herbert, 1:62, 135, 2:567, 568, 634
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2:492
Spenser, Edmund, 1:326
Sperber, Dan, 1:399
Spiegelman, Art, 1:147
Spiridellis, Evan, 2:599
Spiridellis, Gregg, 2:599
Spirituality, 2:636, 639–640. See also Religion
Spoken language, conversational humor in. See
Conversation
Spolin, Viola, 1:381, 382
Spontaneous humor:
in adolescence, 1:123
in the classroom, 1:209
conversational, 1:16, 176, 177
in gags, 1:253
as a humor form, 1:351
on the Internet, 1:389
in jokes, 1:417
in psychotherapy, 2:609–610
See also Improv comedy
Index 917
Spontaneous jokes, 1:417
Spontaneous versus faked smiling and laughter,
2:704
Spontaneous versus volitional laughter, 2:439
Spoof films, 2:730–731. See also Spoofing
Spoofing, 2:730–732
etymology of, 1:337–338, 2:730
of the Internet, in China, 1:210–212
on the Internet, 2:473
of Internet Protocol addresses, 2:732
in magazines and newspapers, 2:731
misrepresentation in, 2:730
in the movies, 2:730–731
parody and, 2:730, 731
on television, 2:731
See also Hoax and prank; Parody; Satire
Spooner, William Archibald, 1:393
Spoonerisms, 1:393, 2:614
Sports, 2:732–733
blason populaire from fans of, 1:86
comic anecdotes in, 1:40
gender dimension in, 2:732–733
mascots in, 2:484, 484 (illustration)
onlookers in, 2:733
participants in, 2:732–733
Spradley, James, 1:386
Springs, Elliot White, 1:5
Springs Mills’ infamous advertisement, 1:5,
6 (illustration)
SSTH. See Semantic script theory of humor (SSTH)
Staël, Madame de (Anne Louise Germaine), 1:297
Stafford, Laura, 1:353
Staiger, Emil, 2:694
Stand-up comedy, 2:733–737
antecedents of, 2:734
audience and, 2:733–734, 735–736
creativity in, 1:182
in Europe, 1:306
key to the success of, 2:734
mediated, 2:736
microphone and amplification in, 2:734–735
multiple humor forms in, 1:352
obscenity in, 2:548–549
portrayals of race in, 2:621, 622, 625
precursors to, in variety acts, 2:785
in Sanskrit humor, 2:659
social commentary in, 2:625
in South Africa, 2:718
style and aesthetics in, 2:734
xiangsheng compared to, 2:809, 811
918 Index
Stanley, John, 1:147
Stanwyck, Barbara, 2:524
State-trait model, 1:118–119
State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory (STCI), 1:119,
2:561, 606, 761
Statistical factor analyses. See Factor analysis of
humor items; Factor analysis of humor scales
Status differences:
aggressive humor and, 1:17, 2:710
humor for indicating, 1:357
minimization of, 2:479–480
politeness and, 2:584
self-deprecating humor and, 2:683, 710
in social networks, 2:709, 710
in the workplace, 2:479–480, 797, 803, 804
STCI (State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory), 1:119,
2:561, 606, 761
Steamed Bun e’gao case, 1:210–211
Steblin, R., 2:530
Steinberg, Saul, 1:104, 182
Stemberger, John, 1:336
Stendhal (writer), 2:771
Stephenson, Richard, 2:796
Stereotypes, 2:737–741
abuse and, 2:738, 739
in American Indian cultures, 1:24, 25, 26
in ancient Roman comedy, 1:35, 36, 37, 38
about animals, 1:41, 42
anthropologists and, 1:43
blason populaire and, 1:85–86
cartoons of, 2:738 (illustration)
comicality and, 2:737–739
in conversational humor, 1:175
in dialect humor, 1:202
in ethnic jokes, 1:215, 216–217, 245, 414–415
ethnicity, humor, and, 1:216–217, 218, 2:486
in farce, 1:234
in frontier humor, 1:331
of gay men, 1:343
gender, 1:115, 262, 270, 331, 390, 414, 2:595,
707, 740
identity and, 1:378, 2:740, 741
on the Internet, 1:390, 2:741
in joke cycles, 1:414, 2:754
meta-stereotypes, 2:640
paradoxical quality of, 2:741
of philosophers, 2:574
prejudice and, 2:594, 595
racial (see Racial stereotyping)
religion and, 2:640
resilience of, 2:741
reverse humor for challenging, 2:622–623,
740–741
shared, in cross-cultural humor, 1:185, 187
subversion of, 1:378
targets of, 2:753–754
teasing based on, 1:25
in the workplace, 2:803, 804, 805
Stern, Barbara B., 1:9
Sterne, Laurence:
in European history, 1:294, 296, 297
low and high comedy used by, 2:465
nonsense genre used by, 2:543
self-conscious technique used by, 1:297, 395,
2:462
See also Tristram Shandy (by Laurence Sterne)
Stevenson, Adlai E., 1:213
Stevenson, Robert, 2:526
Stewart, Jon, 1:149, 165, 422, 424, 2:599. See also
Daily Show With Jon Stewart, The (television
show)
Stigmatized groups, 1:45, 343–344. See also
Marginalization; Oppressed groups
Stiller, Ben, 2:527
Stimuli, humorous. See Humorous stimuli,
characteristics of
Stoeltje, B. J., 1:108
Stone, A. A., 1:180
Stone, Arthur, 2:742
Stone, Matt, 1:60
Stoppard, Tom, 1:235, 287, 2:527, 771, 775
Storytelling, 1:177, 208, 421, 423, 2:626–627. See
also Folklore
Straight man, 1:33, 45, 97, 145, 146, 253–254, 2:811
Straight woman, 2:523
Straparola, Giovanni Francesco, 1:327
Stratemeyer, Edward, 2:767
Strauss, Johann, 1:153, 2:529
Strauss, Richard, 1:153, 2:532, 770
Street art or performance, 1:269, 270, 321, 2:811.
See also Graffiti
Stress, 2:741–742
arousal theory and, 1:62, 63, 2:742
comic disengagement and, 1:158–160
humor for decreasing or coping with, 1:16, 18,
2:558, 802
physiological aspects of, 2:742
sports, winners, losers, and, 2:732
stressors and, 1:179–180, 2:742
See also Coping mechanism

Stress response, 1:179, 2:511
Stressors, 1:179–180, 2:742
Strohminger, Nina, 1:62 (figure)
Structural ambiguity, 1:23
Structural functionalist theory, 1:44
Structural model of humor, via factor analysis,
1:226
Structural relatedness, in advertising, 1:9
Structure (versus content) of humor, 1:354–355,
374–375
Structure (organization) of jokes, 1:355
Strunk, William, Jr., 1:xxx
Stuart, Ruth McEnery, 1:332
Stubbe, M., 2:480
Students. See College humor; Education, humor in
Studies in American Humor (journal), 2:831
Stupidity jokes, 1:214, 216, 245
Sturges, Preston, 2:521
Sturgis, Russell, 2:554
Stuss, Donald, 1:167
Styles of humor, 1:123, 227, 264–265, 2:467, 589,
605–607, 681. See also Humor styles; Humor
styles measurement
Styne, Jule, 2:539
Subaltern humor, 1:45. See also Ethnicity and
humor
Subordinate humor, 2:800–801
Subtitling, for movies, 1:72
Suburban life, 1:114, 2:740, 788–789
Subversive humor, 2:742–744
in the art of visual humor, 1:67
carnivalesque and, 1:110, 111, 301
concertive control humor compared to, 2:801
in e’gao in China, 1:211
in graffiti, 1:270
habitual ways of seeing and, 2:737
inversion and, 1:395
by Lewis Carroll, 2:544
in limericks, 2:454–455
by Monty Python, 2:519
in the movies, 2:523, 526
in performative comedy, 1:141
power and, 2:743, 744
presidential humor as, 2:597
in puppetry, 2:617
as resistance, 2:743–744
social movements and, 2:578, 743
stereotypes, identity, and, 1:378
in U.S. frontier humor, 1:311
in xeroxlore, 2:807–808
Index 919
Sudarto, G. M., 2:726
Sudden glory theory, 1:340–342, 2:632. See also
Superiority theory
Suffrage movement, 1:114, 2:743
Suicide, pranks resulting in, 1:140
Sukarno (Kusno Sosrodihardjo), 2:724
Sulla, Lucius Cornelius, 2:652
Sullivan, Arthur, 1:236 (illustration), 287, 2:551
Sullivan, Barry, 1:40
Sullivan, Ed, 2:735
Suls, Jerry M., 1:166, 167, 384, 2:569
Sultan Bahu, 1:404
Sumner, John S., 2:470
Sun Rui, 2:473
Sun Yat-sen, 2:724
Sundaram, Shiva, 2:490
Superego, ego, and id, 1:193, 217, 250, 394
Superheroes, 1:147, 156, 274, 2:731
Superiority theory, 1:xxxii
Aristotelian theory as a foundation for, 1:62
Bergson’s theory and, 1:78
conflict theories and, 2:712
content versus structure and, 1:354
on content-related stimuli, 1:373–374
on ethnicity and humor, 1:216, 217, 218
in European history, 1:294, 296, 2:461
in farce, 1:234
Freudian psychoanalysis and, 1:250
Hobbesian theory and, 1:340–342, 2:461
homosexuality, humor, and, 1:343
humor appreciation and, 1:52, 54
in humor for control, 2:796
in humor in groups, 1:357
as an informal theory, 1:367–368
inversion, topsy-turvydom, and, 1:394
Koestler’s theory and, 1:83
in name-related humor, 1:373
Old Testament and, 1:127
philosophy of humor and, 2:566–567,
568, 570
Plato’s anticipation of, 2:575
satire and, 1:64
in targets of humor, 2:752
in the workplace, 2:796
Supralinguistic ability, 1:200
Supreme Court, 2:744–746
on the First Amendment, 2:447
humor by advocates at, 2:744–745
humor by justices of, 2:744, 745
Suresh, James, 2:725
920 Index

Surprise: of conversational humor, 1:175, 178

as emotional reaction to the unexpected, 1:135 morphology, semantics, and, 2:458
for humor appreciation, 1:52, 53, 54 of music, 2:530
incongruity and, 1:368, 383 sentence structure and, 2:455
as part of humor reception, 2:629 of verbal dueling, 2:788
for pattern recognition, 2:557–558 Syria, al Domari newspaper in, 2:473
in speech play, 2:729 Systematic desensitization, 2:610
in style of a work, 1:274
theories of, 1:383 Tacitus (historian), 2:565
See also Incongruity; Incongruity and resolution; Taft, William Howard, 2:586
Incongruity theory Takasaki Ryūji, 2:679
Surprise Symphony (by Franz Joseph Haydn), Takeshi, Kitano, 1:312–313
2:530, 531 (figure), 532 Takizawa Bakin, 1:324
Surrealism: Tales. See Folklore; Schwank; Tall tale
absurdist humor and, 1:3 Taliaferro, Hardin E., 1:332
black humor and, 1:308 Talk radio, 1:424
in epigrams, 1:213 Tall tale, 2:747–749
in graffiti, 1:270 on the American frontier, 1:330, 331, 2:747,
humor in, 1:65 748–749
of Monty Python, 2:518, 519, 731 construction of, 2:747–748
play and, 2:579 folklore and, 1:239
Survival humor, 1:333, 2:537 about Paul Bunyan, 2:669, 747 (illustration)
Suspending judgment, in improv comedy, 1:382 postcards depicting, 2:748 (illustration), 749
Suspensive irony, 2:591 practical joke as, 2:593
Sutherland, Efua, 2:778 Talmud, 1:410, 411, 412, 413, 425, 427–428
Sutton-Smith, B., 2:692 Tāmir, Zakariyya, 1:59
Suyama Keiichi, 1:321 Tan Kai, 1:248
Suzuki, Daisetsu, 1:93 Tanikawa Shuntaro-, 1:313, 2:689, 691
Suzuki To-zo-, 2:690 Tanko- bushi (Coal Mine Song), 1:310–311
Svebak, Sven, 2:442, 681 Tao Te Ching (on Taoism), 2:749–750, 751
Swart, Sandra, 2:715 Tao Tuan-ming, 1:302
Sweden, Grönköpings Veckoblad magazine in, 2:473 Taoism, 1:93, 94, 346, 2:749–752. See also
Swift, David, 2:526 Daoism
Swift, Jonathan, 1:2, 42, 223, 296, 339, 394, 400, Tarantino, Quentin, 1:256
2:435, 461, 487, 543, 581, 585, 662, 670, Tarchetti, Iginio Ugo, 1:317
671, 692, 721 Targets of humor, 2:752–755
Switzerland, Nebelspalter humor magazine in, disposition theory on, 1:208
2:476 gender of, 1:260
Symbolic interactionism, 2:712, 714 humor techniques and, 2:753, 753 (table)
Symbolic inversion, 1:106–109, 110, 393. See also incongruity theory on, 2:752
Inversion, topsy-turvy in music, 2:528–529
Symbolic thought, reliance of culture on, 1:190 in political humor, 2:585–586, 754
Sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SAM) system, release theory on, 2:752
2:511 religious leaders as, 2:754
Synecdoche, 1:29, 145, 2:551, 643, 644 spatiality and, 2:752–753
Synergy, 1:52 stereotyping and, 2:753–754
Synge, John Millington, 1:143 superiority theory on, 2:752
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic puns, 2:614 See also Victimization
Syntax: Tarski, Alfred, 2:489
of advertising, 1:9 Tashlin, Frank, 2:524, 525

TASP (The Association for the Study of Play),
2:831
Tassoni, Alessandro, 2:513
Tate, James, 2:582
Tati, Jacques, 1:255, 2:520, 525
Tatischeff, J., 1:306
Taylor, Drew Hayden, 1:27
Taylor, Ronald, 1:9
Taylor, Sam, 2:522
Taylor, Tom, 1:316
TAZ (temporary autonomous zone), 2:648–649
Teachers’ evaluations, effect of humor use in
classroom on, 2:559, 755–757. See also
Education, humor in
Teams, comedy. See Comedy duos; Comedy
ensembles
Teasing, 2:757–758
in American Indian cultures, 1:25–26
children’s development and, 1:123, 126
for control, 2:796
in conversational humor, 1:176
differentiated from bullying and harassment,
2:757, 758
in joking relationships, 1:418, 419
in mathematical humor, 2:487–488
as mitigation, 2:707, 758
nonreciprocal, in the classroom, 1:208
power in, 2:757
self-teasing, 2:757, 758
social network structure and, 2:710
as socialization, 2:758
in sports, 2:732
Technology and humor. See Computational humor;
Humor, computer-generated; Internet humor;
Mediated humor; Social media, electronic;
Xeroxlore
Teh, Victor, 2:725
Teika, Fujiwara, 1:321, 2:431
Television:
advertising humor on, 1:5, 8
American Indian humor on, 1:27
audiovisual translation for, 1:72, 73
carnivalesque entertainment on, 1:111
in China, 1:211
Comedy Central’s success on, 1:17, 334, 409
comedy ensembles on, 1:145
comic frame and, 1:149, 150
comic portrayals of race on, 2:622, 624
comic relief on, 1:154
complexity of episodes on, 1:165
Index 921
farce on, 1:235
framing on, 1:249
game shows on, 1:125, 305, 2:515, 519, 560, 789
high comedy on, 1:287
in the history of performative comedy, 1:141, 144
in the history of U.S. humor, 1:334, 335, 336
improv comedy on, 1:382, 383
in Japan, 1:310, 312–313
Jewish humor on, 1:412, 413
journalism on, 1:421, 422, 424
late-night, 1:249, 307, 2:526, 587, 599, 731
laughter on (live or laugh track), 1:409,
2:696, 699
mathematical humor on, 2:488
media message selection and, 2:782
mockumentaries on, 2:515, 516
Monty Python on, 2:518–520
news with entertainment on, 1:421 (see also
Satire news)
nonsense humor on, 1:303
obscenities on, 2:548
presidential humor on, 2:597, 598–599
revue entertainment on, 1:305
satire news on (see Satire news)
sitcoms on (see Sitcoms)
sketch comedy on, 2:698, 699, 700
slapstick on, 2:701, 702
spoofing on, 2:731
stand-up comedy on, 2:735
stereotypes on, 1:343, 2:697
as a talent incubator, 2:526
variety shows on, 2:783, 785
visual and verbal gags on, 1:253, 255
Temperament and humor, 1:118–119, 199, 230
Temple, Shirley, 2:523
Tempo. See Timing
Temporal areas of the brain, 1:89, 167, 168, 200
Temporal distance, 1:53, 2:602
Temporary autonomous zone (TAZ), 2:648–649
Tenacious D. (music group), 2:528
Tendentious versus abstract jokes, 1:354
Tension:
arousal and, 1:62, 158–159
humor for relief of, 1:153, 193 (see also Comic
relief)
relaxation and, in Confucianism, 1:174
See also Stress
Terasaki Etsuko, 2:690
Terence (playwright):
impact of ancient Greek works on, 1:34, 2:502
922 Index

influence of, 1:141, 299, 325, 328, 329, 2:516, 684 Theory L, 1:84. See also Release theories of humor
masked acting for, 2:485 Theory of mind (ToM), 1:89, 168, 198, 200, 374,
mime used by, 2:506 375, 2:600–601, 606
surviving plays of, 1:35, 36–37, 38 They Might Be Giants (music group), 2:528
Tesauro, Emanuele, 2:582 Thick description in anthropology, 1:43
Test measurements of humor, 2:759–761 Thierfelder, Andreas, 2:565
categories of, 2:759–760 Thissen, H. J., 1:30
tests currently in use, 2:760–761 Thom, René, 2:489
See also Humor styles measurement Thomas, Gerald, 2:525
Testing and evaluation, 2:761–763 Thomas, Isaiah, 2:467
humor in, guidelines for using, 2:762–763 Thomas, Terry, 2:526
instructional humor and, 1:209, 2:762–763 Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 1:129, 2:570, 637
Tests, questionnaires, scales, inventories: Thompson, Lydia, 1:97
Cartoon Punch Line Production Test, 2:760 Thompson, Michael, 1:66
Coping Humor Scale, 2:561 Thompson, Stith, 1:240
Escala de Apreciación del Humor, 2:760 Thompson, William Tappan, 1:331
GELOPH 15 questionnaire, 1:257 Thoms, William John, 1:239
Humor Styles Questionnaire, 1:50, 230, 260, Thorelli, I. M., 1:228
366–367, 2:606, 607, 760 Thorpe, Thomas Bangs, 1:330–331
Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck, 1:227, 230, Thorson, James A., 1:227
260, 365–366, 2:606, 760 Thought balloons, 1:156
Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale, 2:561 Three Stooges, 1:251, 334, 352, 362, 2:524, 701
PhoPhiKat-45 questionnaire, 1:258 3 WD Humor Test, 1:384, 2:760, 763–765
Sense of Humor Questionnaire, 2:561 Through the Looking Glass (by Lewis Carroll),
Sense of Humor Scale, 2:760–761 1:2, 393, 394–395, 2:543, 544. See also
Situational Humor Response Questionnaire, 2:561 Carroll, Lewis
State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory, 1:119, 2:561, Thurber, James, 1:422
606, 761 Tian Hezi, 1:247
3 WD Test of Humor Appreciation, 2:760, Tickling, 2:765–766
763–765 benign violation theory on, 1:76
Values in Action Inventory of Strengths, 2:589, 761 in children, 1:126, 2:766
See also Factor analysis of humor items; Factor laughter and, 2:438, 765
analysis of humor scales mirth and, 2:511
Thackeray, William Makepeace, 1:315 neuropsychology of, 1:90
Thailand, cartooning in, 2:724, 726 in nonhumans, 2:766
Thales (philosopher), 2:574 as a physiological response, 2:766
Than Htun, 2:727 sociality of, 2:766
Thatcher, Margaret, 2:586, 663 Tieck, Ludwig, 1:318
Theater clowns, 1:133 Tigges, Wim, 1:2, 2:545
Theater of the absurd, 1:1, 3 Time:
destabilizing techniques of, 2:463 freedom and, 1:77, 79
establishment of, 1:144, 308 mechanical, 1:77, 79
masks in, 2:485 passage of, as distance, 1:53, 2:602
nonsense humor and, 2:545 space, symbolic forms, and, 1:106
pure farce and, 1:235 Time travel, 2:525, 551, 670. See also Space travel
tragicomedy in, 2:771 Time-course of humorous ideas, 1:184
See also Absurdist humor Timing:
Theatre of the Oppressed, 1:111 Bergson’s analysis of, 1:78
Thematic versus schematic aspects, 1:354 in comic operas, 1:150
Thénard (actor), 2:518 (illustration) in conversational humor, 1:178
 Index 923

crucial to a gag, 1:255 Don Juan/Don Giovanni character in, 2:770–771

in design, 1:197 farce distinguished from, 1:233
in the fantasy-idea, 1:60 history of, 1:143, 2:768–770, 771
in farce, 1:233 oscillating style of, 1:265
in humor groups, 1:358 satyr plays as, 2:485
in the movies, 2:523 Training, humor, 1:195, 283
in music, 2:530, 536–537 Traits and states, 1:118–119, 2:561, 606, 761
of persuasive influence, 2:564 Transformed proverb. See Anti-proverb
of semantic material, 2:676 Transgender individuals, 1:11
and the simultaneity of appraisals, 1:76 Translation, 2:772–774
Tin Aung Ni, 2:727 audiovisual, 1:71–74
Tinge hypothesis, 2:584 across borders, 2:541
Tinguely, Jean, 1:14 cross-cultural humor and, 1:185, 186–187, 188
Toba (Buddhist priest), 1:321 culture and, 1:72, 73, 2:772–773
Tolkien, J. R. R., 2:435 GTVH and, 2:772, 774
ToM (theory of mind), 1:89, 168, 198, 200, 374, phonological humor and, 2:570, 571
375, 2:600–601, 606 script opposition and, 2:772
Tom Swifty, 2:767–768 for testing referential humor, 2:790
Tomoko, Ninomiya, 1:313 translatability and, 2:773
Töpffer, Rudolphe, 1:155 See also Linguistics
Topoi, 2:642–643 Transvestites, 1:38, 2:659. See also Cross-dressing
Topsy-turvydom, 1:393. See also Inversion, Travesty, 2:774–776
topsy-turvy burlesque as, 1:95, 96, 97
–
Toraaki, Okura, 1:323 mock epic as, 2:514, 552
Torah, 1:56, 410, 427, 428 parody and, 2:552, 553, 774, 775
Toru, Norman, 1:254 usages of the term, 2:774–775
Toulmin, Stephen, 1:70 Tremolo, 2:437
Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri de, 1:104 Trickster, 2:776–778
Townsend, Robert, 2:521 in American Indian cultures, 1:24–25, 27, 218,
Toyotomi Hideyoshi, 1:322 2:776, 777–778
Tracy, Spencer, 2:524 anthropological study of, 1:45
Trademark law, 1:211, 2:448, 449 ethnicity, humor, and, 1:216, 218
Tragedy: in oral literature, 2:777–778
aesthetics, incongruity, and, 1:14–15 portrayals of, 2:776 (illustration),
benign violation hypothesis on, 1:54 777 (illustration)
early opera and, 1:150 in practical jokes, 2:592, 593
origins of, 2:768–769 the tricked trickster, 1:274
psychological distance and, 2:602, 603 trickster cycles, 2:777
Shakespeare’s great tragedies, 2:687–688 worldwide incarnations of, 1:319, 322, 327,
as a target of humor, 1:37–38 2:776
Tragic frame, 1:148, 149, 150. See also Framing See also Fools
theory Tristram Shandy (by Laurence Sterne), 1:2, 111,
Tragic heroes, 1:159–160 297–298, 395, 2:460, 462. See also Sterne,
Tragic humor. See Black (tragic or morbid) humor Laurence
Tragic mimesis, 1:61 Troiano, Massimo, 1:162
Tragic worldview. See Comic versus tragic Tropes, 2:643. See also Rhetoric and rhetorical
worldviews devices
Tragicomedy, 2:768–772 Trout, Jack, 1:7
comic relief distinguished from, 1:154 Troy, Hugh, 1:338
contemporary, 2:771–772 Trudeau, Garry, 1:422, 2:598
924 Index
Trueblood, Elton, 1:80, 82
Truism, 1:51, 65. See also Aphorism
Truman, Bess, 2:598
Truman, Harry, 2:598
Trust, in improv comedy, 1:382
Tsoanyane, Sibongile, 1:134 (illustration)
Tsosie, Ernest David, III, 1:26
Tsur, Reuven, 2:504
Tucholsky, Kurt, 1:307
Tucker, Sophie, 1:413
Turek, Joy, 2:692
Turgenev, Ivan Sergeyevich, 1:317
Turin papyrus, 1:29
Turkey, humor magazines in:
Bayan Yam, 2:472
Diyojen and Girgur, 2:473
El Gugeton, 2:474
Leman and Marko Pas‚ a, 2:475
Penguen, 2:476
Uykusuz, 2:477
Ziligurti, 2:478
Turn taking, in conversational humor, 1:176, 177
Turnèbe, Odet de, 1:328
Turner, Mark, 1:84
Turner, Victor, 1:46, 106, 110, 2:777
Turpin, Ben, 2:520
Tutu, Desmond, 1:130
Twain, Mark, 1:14
as an antecedent to stand-up comedy, 2:734
blason populaire of, 1:85
creativity of, 1:182
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141
epigram by, 1:212
gallows humor of, 1:256
on humor, tragedy, and time, 2:602
influenced by picaresque, 2:461
in journalism, 1:423, 424, 2:468
on laughter, 2:745
in the magazine and newspaper industry, 1:335,
2:469
as a modern humorist, 1:371
political humor of, 2:586
popular and populist, 2:580
race representations used by, 2:620
on the secret source of humor, 2:581
on sorrow as a source of humor, 1:52
U.S. frontier humor and, 1:330, 332
witty jests of, 1:409
written dialect by, 1:202
Tweed, William Marcy (“Boss”), 1:113
Twin studies on heritability, 1:284, 2:606–607
Twitter, 1:71, 140, 170, 336, 423, 424
Tzara, Tristan, 2:720, 775
Tzetzes, John, 2:565
‘Ubayd-i Zakani, 1:404
Ubu roi (by Alfred Jarry), 1:3
Ugliness, and the perception of funny, 1:320
Ukraine, Perets’ newspaper in, 2:476
Umam, Chaerul, 2:726
‘Umar Ibn Abī Rabī’a (poet), 1:55
Umorismo Formazione, 2:835
Unconscious and conscious factors, 1:250, 251,
2:729. See also Freudian/psychoanalytic theory
Underground press, 1:147, 336, 2:473
Unintentional humor, 2:530, 630. See also
Intentional humor
United Kingdom, humor publications in:
Dodgem Logic, 2:473
Fun, 2:473
Private Eye, 2:476
Punch, 2:476
Viz, 2:478
The Vacuum, 2:477
See also Europe, history of humor in
United States, history of humor in:
frontier, 1:330–332
magazines and newspapers in, 2:467–472
modern and contemporary, 1:332–336
University newspapers, comic books in, 1:147. See
also College humor
Upendran, S., 2:706
Upside-down world, 1:393, 396. See also Inversion,
topsy-turvy
Urban folklore, 1:389
Urban legends, 2:779–780
as hoaxes, 1:339, 2:779
Internet site for, 1:373
sexual misadventures in, 2:779–780
xeroxlore compared to, 2:808
Urbanization and urban entertainment, 1:305–306
U.S. Constitution, First Amendment of,
2:447–448, 450
U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
2:448, 548
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2:578
U.S. Supreme Court, 2:447, 744–746
Use-centered and user-centered design, 1:197
Uses and gratifications theory, 2:780–782
Ustinov, Peter, 1:51
 Index 925

Uys, Jamie, 2:525 Verbal dueling, 2:786–789

Uzbekistan, Mushtum humor magazine in, 2:475–476 in diverse cultures, 2:787–788
with epigrams, 1:213
Valenti, Peter, 2:524 in joke cycles, 1:415
Valentino, Rudolph, 2:520 rapport, interaction, and, 1:419
Validity, psychometric, 1:257, 258, 2:759, 764–765 ritual insult in, 2:786, 787, 788, 789
Valle y Caviedes, Juan del, 2:720 in Sanskrit drama, 1:286
Value, theory of, 1:148 speech play in, 2:727, 729, 730, 786, 789
Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), See also Joking relationship
2:589, 761 Verbal gags, 1:253, 254. See also Gag
Van Bruggen, Coosje, 1:66 Verbal humor, 2:789–791
Van den Borgh, Jacob, 2:497 nonverbally expressed humor versus, 2:790
Van der Post, Laurens, 1:313 and phonemic and semantic forms, 1:46
Van Dyke, Dick, 2:526, 622, 696, 701 referential humor versus, 2:789–790
Van Gennep, Arnold, 1:106 wide use of, 1:351
Van Giffen, Katherine, 2:755, 756 See also General theory of verbal humor (GTVH)
Van Itallie, Jean-Claude, 2:485 Verbal jokes, 1:41, 167, 253–255, 367, 369, 390,
Van Thriel, Christoph, 1:119 395, 2:458, 593. See also Jokes
Vanbrugh, John, 1:143 Verbal markers, 1:360
Vargas, Alberto, 2:470 Verdi, Giuseppe, 1:152, 317, 2:531, 771
Vargas Llosa, Mario, 2:722, 723 Verga, Giovanni, 1:317
Variety shows, 2:783–786 Verne, Jules, 1:141, 2:670
burlesque and, 2:783, 784 Vernon, Ken, 2:718
evolution from variety acts, 2:783–785, Verse. See Poetry
784 (illustration) Verse fable, 1:225
sketch shows and, 2:699 Vertl genre, in Jewish humor, 1:411
types of acts in, 2:785–786, 785 (illustration) VIA-IS (Values in Action Inventory of Strengths),
vaudeville and, 2:783, 784–785, 786 2:589, 761
Varillas, Antoine de, 1:39 Vian, Boris, 1:308
Varro (poet), 2:460, 661 Vice and humor, 1:366
Vatsaraja (dramatist), 2:658 Victimization:
Vattimo, Gianni, 2:591 aggressive humor for, 1:199
Vaudeville: gelotophobia and, 1:257
burlesque compared to, 1:97 homosexual representation and, 1:344–345
comedy ensembles in, 1:146 See also Targets of humor
comic opera and, 1:152 Vidal, Gore, 2:789
French vaudeville, 1:143, 266 Videos on YouTube, 1:336, 391, 397, 2:700, 702,
music halls and, 2:534 754, 809
musical comedy origins in, 2:538, 539 Viehoff, Reinhold, 2:782
sketch comedy origins in, 2:699 Vietnam, cartooning in, 2:724, 725, 726, 727
variety shows and, 2:783, 784–785, 786 Villiers, Charles, 1:95
Vaughn, Amy, 1:199 Villiers, Jean de, 2:770
Veale, Tony, 2:505 Violation theory. See Benign violation theory
Veatch, Thomas, 1:54 Violence:
Veber, Frank, 2:525 children’s humor and, 1:125
Vega, Ana Lydia, 2:723 in dark humor, 1:64
Vega, Ricardo de la, 1:317 ethnicity-related humor and, 1:216
Vehicles, writing on, and Akan humor, 1:21 senseless, and the absurd, 1:3
Velasquez, Tony, 2:725 subversive humor to confront, 1:67
Ventrice, Maryanne, 2:734 (illustration) and the tragic and comic frames, 1:148–149
926 Index

Violet Trick motif, 1:300 Walcott, Derek, 2:778

Virgil (poet), 2:461, 514, 552, 652, 775 Waldoks, Moshe, 1:411
Virtual communities, 1:389 Walker, Alice, 1:332
Virtues, core, 2:589 Walker, Hal, 2:524
Vision, comic, 1:160, 161 Walker, Kara, 1:104
Visual collages, on the Internet, 1:390 Walker, Roslyn, 2:646
Visual humor: Walkingstick, Kay, 1:67
art and, 1:63–68, 103–105, 338, 374 Walpole, Horace, 1:39
brain processing of, 1:89 Walter, Elizabeth, 1:200
Greek, 1:271–275 Wang, Y., 2:707
for hoax and prank, 1:254, 338 Wang Guo-wei, 1:302
as a humor form, 1:351 Wang Shuo, 1:303
medieval, 1:300, 2:494–502 Wanzer, Melissa, 1:208, 209
in premodern Japan, 1:319–321, 323 Wanzer, Melissa B., 2:756
Roman, 2:651–655 War of the Clowns, 1:151
visual gags as, 1:253–254 War of the Worlds (radio program), 1:338, 340,
See also Masks 2:515, 670
Visual jokes, 1:65 Warai-ko (laughter ritual), 2:650
Visual metaphor, 1:113, 2:505 Ward, Artemus, 1:335, 2:468
Visual parody, 1:64, 65, 67, 272–273, Ward, Bill, 2:470
2:553, 652 Ward, William, 1:28
Visual puns: Warde, Frederick, 1:244 (illustration)
in art, 1:64, 65 Warm versus cold style, 1:227, 230, 364, 365, 366
for ASD individuals, 2:601 Warner, Joel, 1:xxxii
in design artifacts, 1:197 Warren, Allan, 2: 507 (illustration)
in Greek visual humor, 1:272, 272 (figure) Warren, Caleb, 1:75 (figure)
iconic nature of, 2:615 Wartime and postwar eras, U.S. magazines and
in medieval visual humor, 2:495, 497 newspapers in, 2:470–471
nonverbal structure of, 1:374 Washington, George, 1:409
Visual satire, 1:103. See also Caricature; Satire Watkins, Mel, 2:624
Vizenor, Gerald, 1:26, 27, 218, 2:778 Watriquet de Couvins, 1:225
Vo Van Kiet, 2:727 Watterson, Bill, 2:556
Vocal music, 2:528–529, 530, 532 Waugh, Evelyn, 1:256, 2:526
Volitional versus spontaneous laughter, 2:439 Wayans, Damon, 1:422, 2:731
Volkstheater, 1:143 Wayans, Keenan Ivory, 1:422, 2:702, 731
Volkswagen Beetle advertisements, revolutionary Wayne, Jeff, 2:670
nature of, 1:5–6 Web, the. See Internet humor
Voltaire, 1:297, 325, 2:461, 514, 670, 671 Web series, comedy ensembles on, 1:145
Vorderer, Peter, 2:782 Webcomics, 1:147–148
Vossel, Simone, 1:200 Weber, Joe, 1:97, 98, 2:538
Voth, Ben, 1:148 Weber, Keith, 1:353
Voting rights, 1:114, 2:743 Weber, Max, 2:638
Vulgarity: Wedekind, Frank, 1:318
in ancient Egyptian humor, 1:29 Weidner, Ralph, 1:200
in burlesque, 1:96, 97 Weihe Xu, 2:463
in ethnicity-related humor, 1:217, 218 Weingartz, Hans, 2:777 (illustration)
in mimicry, 2:507 Weininger, Otto, 1:305
in music halls, 2:534, 537 Weir, Kelly, 1:16, 199, 230
in Sanskrit humor, 2:659 Well-being, and sense of humor, 2:562–563
See also Obscenity; Scatology Wellerism, 2:767, 793–794
 Index 927

Welles, Orson, 1:338, 340, 2:515, 670 impact of the Renaissance on, 1:329
Well-made play, 1:266 on masks, 2:486
Wellman, William A., 2:524 parody written about, 1:316
Wells, H. G., 1:315, 338, 340, 2:670 performative comedy and, 1:143
Wells, Marguerite, 1:266, 309, 320, 2:677, 690 satire used by, 1:315
Welty, Eudora, 1:332 serious relief used by, 1:154
Wenner, M., 2:579 travesty and, 2:775
Wenzel, Peter, 1:40 witty humor of, 1:404, 2:520–521
West, Mae, 2:522, 523 Wilder, Billy, 1:254, 2:521, 524, 525
West African societies, 1:20, 2:776, 788. See also Wilder, Gene, 2:670
Africa Wiligelmo (sculptor), 2:497
Wexler, Jay, 2:745 Wilkes, John, 2:435
Whalen, Juanita, 1:400 Wilkins, George, 1:408
Wheel operators, for burlesque troupes, 1:97 Wille, Friedrich, 2:487
WHIM (World Humor and Irony Membership), Williams, David, 1:145
1:xxxi Williams, Emma, 1:199
WHIM Serial Yearbook (WHIMSY), 1:xxxi Williams, Robin, 1:188, 336, 2:527
White, E. B., 1:xxx, 2:471 Williams, William Carlos, 2:581
White face, in mime, 2:507, 507 (illustration), 509 Wilmot, John, 1:143
White privilege, and stereotyping, 2:740 Wilson, Deidre, 1:399
Whiteface clown, 1:132, 133 (illustration), 134, Wilson, Robert Anton, 2:776
135, 181 Wilson, Woodrow, 1:102
Whitehead, Alfred North, 1:80, 425 Winner, Ellis, 2:584
Whites: Winters, Jonathan, 2:526
comic representations of, 2:621–622 Wisdom literature, 1:50. See also Aphorism
minstrel shows originally by and for, 1:333 (see Wisdom questions, 2:645. See also Riddle
also Minstrelsy) Wise, Ernie, 1:145
stereotyping by, 2:739 Wisecrack, 1:47, 213. See also Anti-proverb
wearing blackface, 2:486, 622, 624, 739 Wit:
See also Anglo Americans in contrastive language, 1:365
Whitman, Walt, 2:580 Freud on, 1:49
“Who’s on First?” routine, 1:78, 98, 189, 254, humor contrasted with, 1:350
2:524, 811 incongruity and resolution at the heart of, 1:5
Wickberg, Daniel, 1:297 Witherspoon, Reese, 2:527
Wicker, F. W., 1:228 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 2:674
Wickram, Georg, 1:408 Witticism, 1:103, 165, 181, 2:462, 580, 680, 773
Wieden, Dan, 1:7 Witz, 2:567–568, 794–796. See also Pointe
Wieland, Christoph Martin, 2:514 Witzelsucht (addiction to telling jokes), 1:91
Wiener, Norbert, 1:138 Wodehouse, P. G., 1:141, 287, 2:538
Wiesel, Elie, 1:411 Wolfenstein, Martha, 1:125
Wig, Gagan S., 1:168 Wolff, Christian, 2:795
Wild Mare Race, symbolic inversion in, 1:107–108 Women, representations of:
Wilde, Alan, 2:591 in ancient Roman comedy, 1:35–36
Wilde, Oscar: in early studies of sexual humor, 1:259
aphorisms of, 1:137 in fabliaux, 1:225, 226
comic characterization by, 2:460 in frontier humor, 1:331
deep analysis of the work of, 1:141 in Greek visual humor, 1:272
on epigrams, 1:213, 2:462 in Internet humor, 1:390
high comedy of, 1:285, 316 in limericks, 2:452, 453, 454
impact of ancient Greek comedy on, 1:34, 2:504 in music halls, 2:535
928 Index

in musical comedy, 2:538 Workplace resistance, 2:803–805

in political humor, 1:115, 2:585, 587 World Humor and Irony Membership (WHIM),
and representations of race, 2:622 1:xxxi
in Roman visual humor, 2:654–655 World upside down, 1:29, 300, 396–397,
in sitcoms, 2:622, 697 2:500–501, 654. See also Inversion,
and subversive humor, 2:743 topsy-turvy; Reversal theory; Reversals
in variety acts, 2:786 Worldviews:
See also Feminist aspects; Gender roles in humor; in China, 2:749
Gender stereotypes; Sexist humor comic versus tragic, 1:156–160
Women and men. See Gender and humor, incongruous, 1:191
psychological aspects of; Gender differences; phenomenological perspective on, 2:712–713
Gender issues; Gender roles in humor; Wright, Edgar, 2:525
Marriage and couples Writing on vehicles, and Akan humor, 1:21
Women’s suffrage, 1:114, 116, 2:743 Written markers, 1:360–361
Wooster, Bertie, 1:287 Wu Cheng’en, 2:460
Word map of humor words, 1:266 Wudi (emperor), 1:290, 346
Wordplay: Wulf, Steve, 1:40
in art, 1:64, 65 Wycherly, William, 1:143, 286
in the Bible, 1:410 Wyler, William, 2:526
bilingual, 2:706 Wyndham Lewis, D. B., 1:204
in burlesque, 1:96
by children, 1:126, 199 Xenophobia, 2:717
in conversational humor, 1:174, 176 Xeroxlore, 2:807–808
in the Decameron, 1:88 example of, 2:808 (figure)
intellectual enjoyment in, 1:266, 364, 366 folklore and, 1:240, 389, 2:807, 808
in Japanese, 2:688, 689, 690 Internet humor and, 1:389
in Jewish humor, 1:410, 412, 413, 2:542 Xiangsheng, 2:808–810
in music halls, 2:536 history of, 1:303, 2:811–812
in the nonsense genre, 2:543, 544, 545 performance of, 2:808–809, 811
by Plautus, 2:576 script and monologue excerpts from, 2:809–810
in social interaction, 2:705, 706 Xiangsheng, history of, 1:303, 2:811–812
speech play and, 2:729 Xiao Shenyang, 2:810
See also Speech play Xiaolin (Forest of Laughter), 1:246–248, 291
Wordsworth, William, 1:204, 2:581 Xiehouyu, 2:812–813
Workplace control, 2:796–798 Xiqu (Chinese opera), 2:508
by co-opting worker humor, 2:797 Xu, W., 1:174
directly and indirectly, 2:796–797
management, power, and, 2:480–481 Yaffee, Marc, 1:27
Workplace humor, 2:798–801 Yamaguchi, H., 2:513
for coercion and control, 2:480–481, 796–797 Yamazaki So-kan, 1:322
employee use of, 2:797, 800–801 Yankah, Kwesi, 1:22
gender and, 1:262, 2:707, 803 Yankovic, Al, 2:529, 731
identity and, 2:800, 801 Yarbrough, Jean, 2:524
managerial use of, 2:796–797, 799 Yashimi Gotake, 2:678
motivational use of, 1:251, 2:479 Yeari, Menahem, 1:399
subversive, 2:743 Yeats, William B., 1:244
theoretical foundation of, 2:803–804 Yellow Kid, The (by Richard Felton Outcalt),
xeroxlore and, 2:807 1:114, 155, 155 (illustration)
Workplace productivity, 2:801–802 “Yes, and . . .”, 1:382
management and, 2:479, 481, 801, 802 Yinger, J. Milton, 2:648
resistance to, 2:805 Yo mama jokes, 2:789
 Index 929

Yoga, laughter, 2:831 Zen Buddhism, 1:93, 94, 2:749, 750

Yo-ji, Yamada, 1:312 Zen koans, 2:545
You Meng, 1:346 Zeno, Apostolo, 1:151
You Zhan, 1:346 Zeugma, 1:29
Youku video sharing, 2:810 Zhang, Qin, 1:210
Young, Chic, 1:146 Zhang, Yong, 1:12
Young, Neil, 2:731 Zhang Letian, 2:809
Youngman, Henny, 2:580 Zhao Nanxing, 1:248
YouTube, 1:144, 336, 391, 397, 2:700, 702, Zhou Libo, 2:810
754, 809 Zhuangzi’s humor, 1:290, 302
Yu Lüxing, 1:248 Ziegfeld Follies, 1:97, 98
Yunmen (Chan Buddhism master), 1:291 Zigler, Edward, 2:702
Yusufi, Mushtaq Ahmad, 1:405 Zillmann, Dolf, 1:361, 2:755, 762, 781
Ziv, Avner, 1:xxxi, 384, 2:493, 710
Zaccarello, M., 2:543 Žižek, Slavoj, 1:251
Zajdman, Anat, 2:584 Zotto, Antonio Dal, 1:267
Zall, Paul M., 1:408 Zucker, David, 2:526, 731
Zamborlin, Chiara, 1:388 Zucker, Jerry, 2:526, 731
Zapiro (cartoonist), 2:717, 717 (illustration), 718 Zuikei (premodern Japanese priest), 1:321
Zappa, Frank, 1:373, 2:528 Zulkiflee Anwar Haque, 2:724
Zarzuela (comic opera genre), 1:317 Zuma, Jacob, 2:717, 717 (illustration), 718, 754
Zeami (No- theorist), 2:431 Zunar (political cartoonist), 2:724
Zeami Motokiyo, 1:322 Zwagerman, Sean, 2:644
Zemeckis, Robert, 2:527 Zwick, Joel, 2:527