Why no one's laughing at your jokes. Wrong predictions in conversational humor

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Humor

2.1 Defining humor

2.1.1 Superiority Theory

2.1.2 Release Theory

2.1.3 Incongruity-Resolution Theory

2.2 Relevance Theory and conversational humor

2.2.1 Grice's Cooperative Principle and humor

2.2.2 Yus' Relevance-Theoretic claims regarding humor

3. Humor in conversation

3.1 Purposes of conversational humor

3.2 Narrative jokes, conversational jokes, and play frame

3.2.1 Narrative jokes

3.2.2 Conversational jokes

3.2.3 Play frame and its markers

3.3 Importance of context and common ground

4. Failed Conversational Humor

4.1 Defining failure

4.1.1 Humor versus laughter

4.1.2 The speaker's judgment

4.2 Recognition, understanding, and appreciation

4.3 How to fail

4.3.1 Humorous framing and joke incongruity

4.3.2 Failure reasons derived from RT

5. Analysis

5.1 Two cases of failed conversational humor

5.1.1 "I'm still working on it."

5.1.2 "Chances are you're peeing."

5.2 Review

6. Conclusion

Objectives and Research Themes

This thesis investigates the causes of failure in conversational humor, specifically focusing on the speaker's incorrect predictions regarding the listener's inferential processes. It explores why, despite the ubiquity and social utility of humor, conversational jokes frequently fail to elicit the intended humorous effect, utilizing Relevance Theory and Incongruity-Resolution Theory to analyze these communicative breakdowns.

• The cognitive mechanisms behind humor perception and generation.
• The role of context and common ground in successful and failed conversational joking.
• The categorization of humor failure into levels of recognition, understanding, and appreciation.
• The impact of speaker predictions and the ranking of interpretations in the listener's mind.
• Practical analysis of conversational humor failure through real-world case examples.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. Introduction: Presents the motivation for studying humor failure in everyday conversation, introducing the core challenge of identifying the steps where humor generation and perception misalign.

2. Humor: Examines foundational humor theories including Superiority, Release, and Incongruity-Resolution, and integrates Gricean pragmatics and Relevance Theory to model humor processing.

3. Humor in conversation: Explores the social purposes of humor, distinguishes between narrative and conversational jokes, and emphasizes the critical importance of the "play frame," context, and common ground.

4. Failed Conversational Humor: Defines humor failure, establishes a hierarchical framework based on recognition, understanding, and appreciation, and reviews triggers like humorous framing and prediction errors.

5. Analysis: Applies the theoretical framework to two specific case studies taken from YouTube videos, systematically evaluating where and why speaker predictions failed.

6. Conclusion: Summarizes findings, affirming that the internal ranking of interpretations is a vital, albeit complex, factor in conversational humor success or failure, and suggests directions for future research.

Keywords

Conversational humor, Humor failure, Relevance Theory, Incongruity-Resolution, Inferential steps, Speaker predictions, Common ground, Play frame, Pragmatics, Cognitive communication, Interpretation ranking, Humor support, Miscommunication, Mind-reading, Interpersonal dynamics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this thesis?

This work explores the reasons why conversational humor fails, specifically focusing on the speaker's inaccurate predictions about how a listener will process and infer the meaning of a joke.

What are the central thematic fields covered?

The research bridges cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, covering humor theories, the structure of conversational interactions, and the psychological processes involved in humor perception.

What is the main research goal?

The aim is to identify the crucial points where the generation and perception of conversational humor diverge, providing readers with insights to anticipate potential failures and avoid awkward social interactions.

Which scientific methods are utilized?

The thesis employs a combination of theoretical analysis—primarily using Relevance Theory and Incongruity-Resolution Theory—and qualitative case study analysis of recorded conversational excerpts.

What content is addressed in the main body?

The main body defines humor theories, explains conversational structures like the "play frame," categorizes failure types, and conducts a detailed inferential analysis of real-world humor failures.

Which keywords characterize this work?

Key concepts include conversational humor, Relevance Theory, inferential steps, common ground, play frame, and the ranking of interpretations.

How does the author define humor failure?

Failure is defined from the speaker's perspective based on the listener's reactions; if the listener is not amused—regardless of whether they overtly show it—the humorous attempt is considered to have failed.

What role does the "ranking of interpretations" play?

The author argues that listeners rank potential meanings of an utterance by relevance. A joke often fails because the speaker incorrectly assumes the listener will prioritize the humorous interpretation over the literal or standard one.

Can humor failure be intentional?

Yes, the analysis indicates that some speakers may deliberately create "failed" humor as part of a larger social structure, such as a running gag or a specific joint activity among friends.