- Архангельский В.Л. (1964). Устойчивые фразы в современном русском языке. Ростов-наДону.
- Кунин А. В. (1995). Фразеология современного русского языка. Москва.
- Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Ermida, Isabel. (2008). The Language of Humour Narratives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Jerome, Jerome K. (Jerome Klapka). (1997). Three men in a boat. London: Bloomsbury Pub. 6. Raskin, Victor. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor
THE INTERLEVEL ANALYSIS OF VERBAL HUMOUR RESOURCES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
prof.I.T.Rustamov
Jizzakh state pedagogical institute
Linguistic mechanism of producing humorous effect has been widely studied by V. Raskin (1985), I. Ermida (2008) and S. Attardo (1994). While providing full insight into the problem of verbal humour, their works, however, lack rigorous classification of units having humour potential. This has prompted us to conduct an interlevel analysis and prove that there are certain resources for humour on each level of the English language.
Language levels are subsystems of units constituting a language hierarchy. Traditionally, four levels are distinguished, namely, phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactical levels. However, V. Archangelskiy (1964) and A. Kunin (1995) suggest that phraseology can split from lexical level and function autonomously. Similarly, due to the recent increased attention to text as a superior unit, it is possible to single out text level.
According to Script-based Semantic Theory by V. Raskin, humour emerges when two opposite scripts unexpectedly overlap. Taking this framework as a methodological basis, we intend to illustrate how the incongruity of two contrast scenarios is realized on the phonetical, morphological, lexical, phraseological, syntactical and text levels (1985).
Sound is one of the most productive sources of humour. It may take a form of a wordplay of homophonic words. Humorous effect, in this case, results from the simultaneous junction of unrelated meanings in the similar-sounding words: Reading while sunbathing makes you well red. In this sample, there is the interplay between the adjective ‘red’ and Past Participle of the verb ‘read’. These words (word forms) sound the same and create ludicrous ambiguity.
Another peculiar comic phenomenon that takes place on the phonological level is the homophony of juncture, or consecutive sounds across word boundaries. The following example is intended to clarify the issue: Why can you not starve in the desert? – Because of the sandwiches (sand which is) there. In the sample above, humourous effect is produced when the addressee discovers twofaced nature of the words, which conceal similar-sounding fragments. Interestingly, this joke-carrying text fits the question-answer model. In real life settings, the addresser usually takes a pause after the question part in order to put the addressee in an expecting mode and let him/her elaborate on the matter. When the latter fails to answer the question, the addresser finishes the joke-carrying text, which immediately reveals the facetious homophony.
In respect to morphology, word formation can become a prolific tool for humour initiators. In the monograph by I. Ermida, one who takes interest in how suffixes, prefixes and other morphemes create humour can find numerous examples. In the joke taken from the book, comic effect is produced by blending two words, namely ‘alcohol’ and ‘holidays’: Christmas season is the alcoholidays (Ermida, 2008, p. 156).
On the lexical level, polysemantic words are exploited to create intentional ambiguity. That is, the dictionary meaning of a word twists with a new contextual meaning that this word acquires in the context, thus, yielding comic effect. Let us consider the following example: Did you hear about the crook who stole a calendar? He got twelve months. The verb ‘get’ is known for its high compatibility, which is the reason why its meaning can vary considerably depending on the context. In this joke, it can refer to the verb ‘stole’ and mean ‘obtained illegally’ and the passive construction ‘was sentenced to’, which is not mentioned in the text, but can be implied from the word combination ‘twelve month’. The latter is also responsible for adding to confusion. ‘Twelve month’ might be a paraphrase of the word ‘calendar’ and an allusion to prison term.
Concerning lexical means of humour, it is also necessary to mention that humorous effect can be achieved by the juxtaposition of words with self-contrary meanings. This phenomenon is known as a paradox [1] : Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
Paradoxes are often confused with nonsense [2] , but the principle difference is that paradoxes create humorous impact, which borders on irony. Paradoxes can make people both laugh and reflect, while nonsense are merely amusing in their absurdity. Here is the example of comic nonsense:
Ladies and jellispoons:
I come before you
To stand behind you
To tell you something
I know nothing about.
Another interesting means of creating the comic is the transformation of phraseological units, set expressions and proverbs. Here, the humourous effect results from an unexpected switch to alternative variant of well-known phrases. Don’t bite the hand that looks dirty. The original proverb – Do not bite the hand that feeds you – has an educational value and teaches people to respect those who provides them with necessitates. Moreover, it is metaphorical. The alternative continuation, however, is merely utilitarian. Therefore, the beginning of the joke makes the addressee expect a familiar ending and switches on a particular script. However, he/she is faced with an alternative script, which has an obvious and straightforward meaning.
In conclusion, instances of comic ambiguity can be found across language levels in the English language, which demonstrates that the language is a prolific source for humour production and interpretation.
REFERENCES
