Tag: (E) joke
Goddard, Cliff, & Kerry Mullan (2020). Explicating verbs for “laughing with other people” in French and English (and why it matters for humor studies). Humor, 33(1), 55-77.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0114
Abstract:
This study undertakes a contrastive lexical-semantic analysis of a set of related verbs in English and French (English to joke and to kid, French rigoler and plaisanter), using the NSM approach to semantic analysis. We show that the semantic and conceptual differences between French and English are greater than commonly assumed. These differences, we argue, have significant implications for humor studies: first, they shed light on different cultural orientations towards “laughter talk” in Anglo and French linguacultures; second, they highlight the danger of conceptual Anglocentrism in relying on English-specific words as a theoretical vocabulary for humor studies.
Rating:
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) joke, (E) kid, (E) plaisanter, (E) rigoler
Goddard, Cliff (2018). “Joking, kidding, teasing”: Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 487-514. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2018-0017
Terms like to joke (and joking) and to tease (and teasing) have a curious double life in contrastive and interactional pragmatics and related fields. Occasionally they are studied as metapragmatic terms of ordinary English, along with related expressions such as kidding. More commonly they are used as scientific or technical categories, both for research into English and for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparison. Related English adjectives such as jocular and mock are also much used in a growing lexicon of compound terms, such as jocular abuse, mock abuse, jocular mockery, and the like.
Against this background, the present paper has three main aims.
In the first part, it is argued that the meanings of the verbs to joke and to tease (and related nouns) are much more English-specific than is commonly recognized. They are not precisely cross-translatable even into European languages such as French and German. Adopting such terms as baseline categories for cross-cultural comparison therefore risks introducing an Anglocentric bias into our theoretical vocabulary. Nor can the problem be easily solved by attributing technical meanings to the terms.
Detailed analysis of the everyday meanings of words like joking and teasing, on the other hand, can yield insights into the ethnopragmatics of Anglo conversational humour. This task is undertaken in the second part of the paper. The important English verb to kid and the common conversational formulas just kidding and only joking are also examined. The semantic methodology used is the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach.
Building on the NSM analyses, the third part of the paper considers whether it is possible to construct a typological framework for conversational humour based on cross-translatable terminology.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) amusing, (E) funny, (E) humour, (E) joke, (E) kid, (E) laugh, (E) tease, (T) English
Rowen, Roslyn (2012). “Shit bloke! You’re always geeing me up like that”: A lexical semantic analysis of negative personal descriptors and “jocular” speech-act verbs in informal Australian English. BA (Hons) thesis, Griffith University.
This thesis explores the meaning and social functions of eight negative personal descriptors (asshole, crumb, shit bloke, wanker, wuss, nark, shit-stirrer, bogan) and four “jocular” speech act verbs (joke, tease, stir (up), gee up) in the colloquial Australian English spoken in Brisbane and surrounding areas. Data on usage comes from a corpus of recordings of informal interaction in natural settings. The method of semantic analysis is reductive paraphrase, using the semantic primes of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach.
There has been little lexical-semantic research on colloquial “social” terms in contemporary Australian English and this study contributes to filling this gap. In addition, there is a cultural angle. It is widely held that culture fosters new schools of thought and as such that language can be seen as a vessel for conveying the social realities and beliefs of a particular culture, including the mainstream “Anglo Australian” culture. Not all linguists agree, however, arguing, for example, that Australian English does not have a unique or distinct culture. Examining specifically Australian English words, especially colloquial ones, and how they are used in social interaction, can shed light on this issue. The thesis argues that the meanings and uses of these words correlate with cultural values and attitudes that are specific to Australian English.
Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) asshole, (E) bogan, (E) crumb, (E) gee up, (E) joke, (E) nark, (E) shit bloke, (E) shit stirrer, (E) stir, (E) stir up, (E) tease, (E) wanker, (E) wuss
Wierzbicka, Anna (1985). A semantic metalanguage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Language in Society, 14(4), 491-514.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011489
Abstract:
This paper discusses a number of speech acts and speech genres from various languages, approaching them through the words that name them. It is claimed that folk names of speech acts and speech genres are culture-specific and provide an important source of insight into the communicative routines most characteristic of a given society; and that to fully exploit this source one must carry out a rigorous semantic analysis of such names and express the results of this analysis in a culture-independent semantic metalanguage. The author proposes such a metalanguage and illustrates her approach with numerous detailed semantic analyses. She suggests that analyses of speech acts and speech genres carried out in terms of English folk labels are ethnocentric and unsuitable for cross-cultural comparison. She shows how folk labels of speech acts and speech genres characteristic of a given language reflect salient features of the culture associated with that language, and how the use of the proposed semantic metalanguage, derived from natural language, helps to achieve the desired double goal of insight and rigour in this area of study.
More information:
A more recent publication building on this one is:
Chapter 5 (pp. 149-196) of Wierzbicka, Anna (1991), Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rating:
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) address, (E) application, (E) ask, (E) japirlyung, (E) joke, (E) kawał, (E) lecture, (E) order, (E) paper, (E) podanie, (E) referat, (E) satosu さとす, (E) speech, (E) talk, (E) threaten, (E) warn
Wierzbicka, Anna (1987). English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) absolve, (E) abuse, (E) accept, (E) accuse, (E) acknowledge, (E) acquit, (E) add, (E) admit, (E) admonish, (E) advise, (E) advocate, (E) affirm, (E) agree, (E) allow, (E) announce, (E) answer, (E) apologize, (E) appeal, (E) apply, (E) appoint, (E) approve, (E) argue, (E) ask, (E) assert, (E) assure, (E) attack, (E) authorize, (E) baptize, (E) bargain, (E) beg, (E) bemoan, (E) beseech, (E) bet, (E) bewail, (E) blackmail, (E) blame, (E) blaspheme, (E) bless, (E) boast, (E) book, (E) calculate, (E) call, (E) call for, (E) call on, (E) cancel, (E) challenge, (E) charge, (E) chat, (E) christen, (E) claim, (E) command, (E) comment, (E) compare, (E) complain, (E) compliment, (E) concede, (E) conclude, (E) condemn, (E) confess, (E) confide, (E) confirm, (E) congratulate, (E) conjecture, (E) consent, (E) consult, (E) content, (E) contradict, (E) converse, (E) convict, (E) convince, (E) counsel, (E) count, (E) counter, (E) credit, (E) criticize, (E) curse, (E) dare, (E) debate, (E) decide, (E) declare, (E) decline, (E) decree, (E) deduce, (E) defend, (E) defy, (E) demand, (E) denounce, (E) deny, (E) deplore, (E) describe, (E) direct, (E) disagree, (E) disapprove, (E) discuss, (E) dismiss, (E) dispute, (E) dissuade, (E) emphasize, (E) enquire, (E) enthuse, (E) estimate, (E) exclaim, (E) excommunicate, (E) excuse, (E) explain, (E) exult, (E) farewell, (E) forbid, (E) forecast, (E) forgive, (E) gather, (E) give, (E) gossip, (E) grant, (E) greet, (E) guarantee, (E) guess, (E) hint, (E) implore, (E) imply, (E) infer, (E) inform, (E) inform on, (E) inquire, (E) insinuate, (E) insist, (E) instruct, (E) insult, (E) intercede, (E) interrogate, (E) introduce, (E) invite, (E) joke, (E) justify, (E) lament, (E) lecture, (E) maintain, (E) moan, (E) mock, (E) nag, (E) name, (E) narrate, (E) negotiate, (E) note, (E) notify, (E) object, (E) observe, (E) offer, (E) order, (E) pardon, (E) permit, (E) persuade, (E) plead, (E) pledge, (E) point out, (E) praise, (E) predict, (E) prescribe, (E) presume, (E) proclaim, (E) profess, (E) prohibit, (E) promise, (E) pronounce, (E) prophesy, (E) propose, (E) protest, (E) prove, (E) quarrel, (E) query, (E) question, (E) reassure, (E) rebuff, (E) rebuke, (E) recant, (E) recapitulate, (E) reckon, (E) recommend, (E) recount, (E) refuse, (E) refute, (E) reject, (E) relate, (E) remark, (E) remind, (E) renounce, (E) repeat, (E) reply, (E) report, (E) reprimand, (E) reproach, (E) reprove, (E) request, (E) require, (E) reserve, (E) resign, (E) resolve, (E) retort, (E) reveal, (E) ridicule, (E) say goodbye, (E) scold, (E) sentence, (E) speculate, (E) state, (E) stress, (E) suggest, (E) sum up, (E) summarize, (E) summon, (E) suppose, (E) suspect, (E) swear, (E) talk, (E) tell, (E) testify, (E) thank, (E) threaten, (E) urge, (E) veto, (E) volunteer, (E) vote, (E) vouch for, (E) vow, (E) warn, (E) welcome, (E) wish, (E) wonder
