Humour: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:58, 21 January 2007 view source202.89.38.146 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:29, 22 January 2007 view source 207.163.23.210 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'HAHA I AM FUNNAYY'Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			HAHA
	{{wiktionarypar\|humour}}

			I AM FUNNAYY
	:''This article discusses humour in terms of comedy and laughter. For other meanings, see ].''

	'''Humour''' (] '''humor''') is the ability or ] of people, objects, or situations to evoke feelings of ] in other people. The term encompasses a form of ] or human ] which evokes such feelings, or which makes people ] or feel ].
	The origin of the term derives from the ] of the ], which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours (]: , ''chymos'', literally: ] or ], metaphorically: ]) controlled human health and emotion.

	A '''sense of humour''' is the ability to experience humour, a quality which all people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative ]s, including ], ], maturity, level of ], and ]. For example, young children (of any background) particularly favour ], such as ] puppet shows. ] may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences.

	] is a sign of a sense of humour being present]]

	==Styles of humour==
	===Verbal===
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*], such as the ]
	*]
	*]
	*] / ]
	*], as in many ]s
	*]
	*]

	]

	===Non-verbal===
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*] or ]
	*]: luring someone into a humorous position or situation and then laughing at their expense

	==Techniques for evoking humour==
	Humour is a branch of ], there are about 200 ]s that can be used to make jokes.

	===Verbal===
	*]
	**] and ]
	**]
	**] (])
	**]
	**]
	*] with sounds that make them amusing in the language of delivery
	*], where a statement or situation implies both a superficial and a concealed meaning which are at odds with each other.
	*]
	**]s, often in the form of paradox "]s" of nature, such as ] or ]
	**], such as blonde jokes, lawyer jokes, racial jokes, ].
	**Sick Jokes, arousing humour through grotesque, violent or exceptionally cruel scenarios. Soldiers in the field of battle often use 'trench humour' to keep moral up in appalling circumstances.
	*]
	*]
	**]
	**]

	===Non-verbal===
	*]
	**Exaggerated or unexpected gestures and movements
	*], deriving humour from the way characters act in specific situations, without ]s. ''Exemplified by'' ] and ].
	*] humour, such "fish out of water"
	*]s
	*Deliberate ] and confusion with reality, often performed by ]
	*], that is, making people laugh without intending to (as with ]'s ''])
	*]: Photos or drawings/caricatures that are intentionally or unintentionally humorous.
	*]s
	*]{{fact}}: Similar to the ], but encompassing narrative in theatre or comics, or on film or video.

	==Understanding humour==
	Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained. Author ] once said that "Humour can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind." However, attempts to do just that have been made.

	The term "humour" as formerly applied in comedy, referred to the interpretation of the ] and the ridiculous. In this context, humour is often a ] experience as it depends on a special mood or perspective from its audience to be effective. ] lamented the misuse of the term (the German ] from English) to mean any type of comedy.

	Language is an approximation of thoughts through symbolic manipulation, and the gap between the expectations inherent in those symbols and the breaking of those expectations leads to laughter (This is true for many emotions, and is not limited to laughter){{cite needed}}. ] is explicitly this form of comedy, whereas ] takes more passive social norms relating to physicality and plays with them{{cite needed}}. In other words, comedy is a sign of a 'bug' in the symbolic make-up of language, as well as a self-correcting mechanism for such bugs{{cite needed}}. Once the problem in meaning has been described through a joke, people immediately begin correcting their impressions of the symbols that have been mocked. This is one explanation why jokes are often funny only when told the first time.

	Another explanation is that humour frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist. This, however, does not explain why people being humiliated and verbally abused, without it being unexpected or a shift in perspective, is considered funny - ref. '']''.

	Another explanation is that the essence of humour lies in two ingredients; the ] factor and the ]. First, something familiar (or ''relevant'') to the audience is presented. (However, the relevant situation may be so familiar to the audience that it doesn't always have to be presented, as occurs in ] humour, for example). From there, they may think they know the natural follow-through thoughts or conclusion. The next principal ingredient is the presentation of something different from the audience's expectations, or else the natural result of interpreting the original situation in a different, less common way (see ] or ]). For example:
	{{cquote\|''A man speaks to his doctor after an operation. He says, "Doc, now that the surgery is done, will I be able to play the piano?" The doctor replies, "Of course!" The man says, "Good, because I couldn't before!"''}}
	'']'' is noted for using this technique many times to evoke humour. Former show runner ] often refers to it as the “screw-you-audience” joke. A prime example is in the episode "]", wherein Patty and Selma are about to expose the secret of Marge's pregnancy:

	'''Selma''': (Looking at the very beginning of the phonebook) "Hi Mr. Aaronson, I'd like to inform you that Marge Simpson is pregnant."

	'''Selma''': (Looking exhausted at the very end of the phonebook) "Just thought you'd like to know, Mr. Zackowski. There! Aaronson and Zackowski are the town's biggest gossips. Within an hour, everyone will know.''

	Both explanations can be put under the general heading of "failed expectations". In language, or a situation with a relevance factor, or even a sublime setting, an audience has a certain expectation. If these expectations fail in a way that has some credulity, humour results. It has been postulated that the laughter/feel good element of humour is a biological function that helps one deal with the new, expanded point of view: a lawyer thinks differently than a priest or rabbi (below), a banana peel on the floor could be dangerous. This is why some link of credulity is important rather than any random line being a punchline.

	For this reason, many jokes work in threes. For instance, a class of jokes exists beginning with the formulaic line "A ], a ], and a ] are sitting in a bar..." (or close variations on this). Typically, the priest will make a remark, the rabbi will continue in the same vein, and then the lawyer will make a third point that forms a sharp break from the established pattern, but nonetheless forms a logical (or at least stereotypical) response. Example of a variation:
	{{cquote\|''A gardener, an architect, and a lawyer are discussing which of their ]s is the most ancient. The gardener comments, "My vocation goes back to the ], when God told ] to tend the garden." The architect comments, "My vocation goes back to the creation, when God created the world itself from primordial chaos." They both look curiously at the lawyer, who asks, "And who do you think created the primordial chaos?"}}

	In this vein of thought, knowing a ] in advance, or some situation which would spoil the delivery of the punchline, can destroy the surprise factor, and in turn destroy the entertainment value or ] the joke may have otherwise provided. Conversely, a person previously holding the same unexpected conclusions or secret perspectives as a ] could derive amusement from hearing those same thoughts expressed and elaborated. That there is commonality, unity of thought, and an ability to openly analyse and express these (where secrecy and inhibited exploration was previously thought necessary) can be both the relevance and the ]s in these situations. This phenomenon explains much of the success of comedians who deal with same-gender and same-culture audiences on gender conflicts and cultural topics, respectively.

	Notable studies of humour have come from the pens of ] in '']'' (Part V) and of Schopenhauer.

	There also exist linguistic and psycholinguistic studies of humour, ], ] and pretence. Prominent theoreticians in this field include ], ], ], Willibald Ruch, Victor Raskin, Eliot Oring, and ]. Although many writers have emphasised the positive or cathartic effects of humour some, notably Billig, have emphasised the potential of humour for cruelty and its involvement with social control and regulation.

	A number of ] writers have explored the theory of humour. In ], ] proposes that humour comes from pain, and that laughter is a mechanism to keep us from crying. ], on the other hand, proposes (in his first jokebook, ]) that the essence of humour is anticlimax: an abrupt change in point of view, in which trivial matters are suddenly elevated in importance above those that would normally be far more important.

	Approaches to a general theory of humour have generally referred to ] or some kind of analogical process of mapping structure from one domain of experience onto another. An early precursor of this approach would be ], who identified humour as one of three areas of human creativity (science and art being the other two) that use structure mapping (then termed "]" by Koestler) to create novel meanings<ref>Koestler, Arthur (1964): "The Act of Creation".</ref>. ], who is taking a more formalised computational approach than Koestler did, has written on the role of metaphor and metonymy in humour<ref>Veale, Tony (2003): "Metaphor and Metonymy: The Cognitive Trump-Cards of Linguistic Humor"</ref><ref>Veale, Tony (2006): "The Cognitive Mechanisms of Adversarial Humor"</ref><ref>Veale, Tony (2004): "Incongruity in Humour: Root Cause of Epiphenomonon?"</ref>, using inspiration from Koestler as well as from ]´s theory of structure-mapping, ]´s and ]´s theory of ] and ]´s and ]´s theory of ].

	===Humour evolution===
	As any form of art, humour techniques evolve through time. Perception of humour varies greatly among social demographics and indeed from person to person. Throughout history comedy has been used as a form of entertainment all over the world, whether in the courts of the kings or the villages of the far east. Both a social etiquette and a certain intelligence can be displayed through forms of wit and sarcasm.] German author ] said that "the more you know humour, the more you become demanding in fineness".

	==Humour formula==
	{{unreferenced\|date=October 2006}}
	Required components:
	* some ]/], ], ] or ].
	* appealing to ]s or to ]s.
	* similar to ], but not real
	Methods:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	] explains in his lecture '']'', that an object or a person can become funny in three different ways. They are:
	* By being in an unusual place
	* By behaving in an unusual way
	* By being the wrong size

	Most ]s fit into one or more of these categories.

	Humour is also sometimes described as an ingredient in spiritual life. Some Masters have added it to their teachings in various forms. A famous figure in spiritual humour is the ], who would answer all questions with a laugh{{fact}}.

	==See also==

	{\| style="background-color: transparent; width: {{{width\|100%}}}"
	<p></p>
	\| width="50%" align="{{{align\|left}}}" valign="{{{valign\|top}}}" \|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]s
	* ] and ]s
	* ]
	* ] (also known as funnies)
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]s, including ]s, ]s, and ]s
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]s and ]s
	<p></p>
	\| width="50%" align="{{{align\|left}}}" valign="{{{valign\|top}}}" \|
	* ], for example, lawyer jokes
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	* Humour and ]
	** ventromedial ]
	* ]

	*]

	<p></p>
	\|}

	==References==
	<references/>

	== Literature ==

	*''Mobbs, D., Greicius, M.D., Abdel-Azim, E., Menon, V. & Reiss, A. L.'' ''Humor modulates the mesolimbic reward centers''. , '''40''', 1041 - 1048, (2003).
	*Billig, M. (2005). ''Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour''. London: Sage.
	*'']'', ] to his Italian translation of ]'s trilogy '']'', '']'' and '']'' (Bompiani, 2004, ISBN 88-452-3304-9 (57-65).
	*Goldstein, Jeffrey H., et. al. "Humour, Laughter, and Comedy: A Bibliography of Empirical and Nonempirical Analyses in the English Language." It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Ed. Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. 469-504.
	*Holland, Norman. "Bibliography of Theories of Humor." ]ing: A Psychology of Humor. Ithaca: Cornell U P, 1982. 209-223.
	*McGhee, Paul E. "Current American Psychological Research on Humor." Jahrbuche fur Internationale Germanistik 16.2 (1984): 37-57.
	*Mintz, Lawrence E. Humor in America: A Research Guide to Genres and Topics. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1988.
	*Pogel, Nancy, and Paul P. Somers Jr. "Literary Humor." Humor in America: A Research Guide to Genres and Topics. Ed. Lawrence E. Mintz. London: Greenwood, 1988. 1-34.
	*Nilsen, Don L. F. "Satire in American Literature." Humor in American Literature. New York: Garland, 1992. 543-48.

	==External links==
	<!-- ============================================================================= -->
	<!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS -->
	<!-- If you think that your link might be useful, instead of placing it here, -->
	<!-- put it on this article's talk page first, for discussion with other members.-->
	<!-- ============================================================================= -->
	* Sense of the Comic
	*{{Dmoz\|Recreation/Humor/\|Humor}}
	*: a comprehensive classification and analysis
	*
	* - theme session at the 8th
	*
	International Cognitive Linguistics Conference at University of La Rioja, Spain, July 20-25, 2003 (includes speaker details and papers)

	]
	]

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

Revision as of 19:29, 22 January 2007

HAHA

I AM FUNNAYY