Misplaced Pages

Humour: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:47, 11 December 2011 view source173.75.2.57 (talk)No edit summaryTag: repeating characters← Previous edit Revision as of 22:47, 11 December 2011 view source 173.75.2.57 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Redirect|Hilarity|the U.S. Navy ship|USS Hilarity (AM-241)}}
{{Redirect|Hilarious|the stand-up special by Louis C.K.|Hilarious (album)}}
{{Other uses}}{{Use British English|date=November 2010}}

] can imply a sense of humour and a state of amusement, as in this painting of ] by ].]]
'''Humour''' or '''humor''' (see ]) is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke ] and provide ]. The term derives from the ] of the ], which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humors (]: ''humor'', "body fluid"), control human health and emotion. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to experience humour, i.e., to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a '''sense of humour'''. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational. Though ultimately decided by personal ], the extent to which a person will find something humorous depends upon a host of variables, including ], ], ], level of ], ] and ]. For example, young children may favour ], such as ] puppet shows or cartoons such as '']''. ] may rely more on understanding the target of the humour and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences. Nonsatirical humour can be specifically termed "recreational drollery".<ref>Seth Benedict Graham '''' 2003 p.13</ref><ref>Bakhtin, Mikhail. ''Rabelais and His World'' . Trans. Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana University Press p.12</ref>

==Theories of humour==
{{main|Theories of humour}}
Many theories exist about what humour is and what social function it serves. The prevailing types of theories attempting to account for the existence of humour include ] theories, the vast majority of which consider humour-induced behaviour to be very healthy; spiritual theories, which may, for instance, consider humour to be a "gift from God"; and theories which consider humour to be an unexplainable mystery, very much like a ].<ref>], "The Planet Without Laughter", ''This Book Needs No Title''</ref>

==Understanding humour==


Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained. Author ] once said, "Humor 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."<ref></ref>

] lamented the misuse of the term "humour" (a ] ] from ]) to mean any type of ]. However, both "humour" and "comic" are often used when theorising about the subject. The connotations of "humour" as opposed to "comic" are said to be that of response versus stimulus. Additionally, "humour" was thought to include a combination of ridiculousness and wit in an individual; the paradigmatic case being Shakespeare's Sir John Falstaff. The French were slow to adopt the term "humour"; in French, "humeur" and "humour" are still two different words, the former referring to a person's ] or to the archaic concept of the four ].

===Ancient Greece===
Western humour theory begins with ], who attributed to ] (as a semihistorical dialogue character) in the '']'' (p.&nbsp;49b) the view that the essence of the ridiculous is an ignorance in the weak, who are thus unable to retaliate when ridiculed. Later, in Greek philosophy, ], in the '']'' (1449a, pp.&nbsp;34–35), suggested that an ugliness that does not disgust is fundamental to humour.

===India===
In ancient ], ]'s '']'' defined humour (''hāsyam'') as one of the nine '']'', or principle '']'' (emotional responses), which can be inspired in the audience by ''bhavas'', the imitations of emotions that the actors perform. Each ''rasa'' was associated with a specific ''bhavas'' portrayed on stage. In the case of humour, it was associated with mirth (''hasya'').

===Arabia===
The terms "]" and "]" became synonymous after Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was translated into ] in the ], where it was elaborated upon by ] and ] such as Abu Bischr, his pupil ], ], and ]. Due to cultural differences, they disassociated comedy from ]tic representation, and instead identified it with ] themes and forms, such as ''hija'' (satirical poetry). They viewed comedy as simply the "art of reprehension" and made no reference to light and cheerful events or troublous beginnings and happy endings associated with classical Greek comedy. After the ], the term "comedy" thus gained a new semantic meaning in ].<ref>{{citation|title=Comedy as Satire in Hispano-Arabic Spain|first=Edwin J.|last=Webber|journal=Hispanic Review|volume=26|issue=1|date=January 1958|publisher=]|pages=1–11|doi=10.2307/470561|jstor=470561}}</ref>

===Incongruity theory===
The Incongruity Theory originated mostly with ], who claimed that the comic is an expectation that comes to nothing. ] attempted to perfect incongruity by reducing it to the "living" and "mechanical".<ref>Henri Bergson, ''Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic'' (1900) English translation 1914.</ref>

An incongruity like Bergson's, in things juxtaposed simultaneously, is still in vogue. This is often debated against theories of the shifts in perspectives in humour; hence, the debate in the series ''Humor Research'' between John Morreall and Robert Latta.<ref>Robert L. Latta (1999) The Basic Humor Process: A Cognitive-Shift Theory and the Case against Incongruity, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110161036 (Humor Research no. 5)</ref>
Morreall presented mostly simultaneous juxtapositions,<ref>] (1983) Taking Laughter Seriously, Suny Press, ISBN 0873956427</ref> with Latta countering that it requires a "cognitive shift" created by a discovery or solution to a puzzle or problem. Latta is criticised for having reduced jokes' essence to their own puzzling aspect.

Humour frequently contains an unexpected, often sudden, shift in perspective, which gets assimilated by the Incongruity Theory. This view has been defended by Latta (1998) and by ] (2004).<ref>Brian Boyd, Laughter and Literature: A Play Theory of Humor
Philosophy and Literature - Volume 28, Number 1, April 2004, pp. 1-22</ref> Boyd views the shift as from seriousness to play. Nearly anything can be the object of this perspective twist; it is, however, in the areas of human creativity (science and art being the varieties) that the shift results from "structure mapping" (termed "]" by Koestler) to create novel meanings.<ref>Koestler, Arthur (1964): "The Act of Creation".</ref> Arthur Koestler argues that humour results when two different frames of reference are set up and a collision is engineered between them.

===Metaphor and metonymy===
], who takes a more formalised computational approach than Koestler, has written on the role of ] and ] in humour,<ref>Veale, Tony (2003): "Metaphor and Metonymy: The Cognitive Trump-Cards of Linguistic Humor" </ref><ref></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, ] and ]'s theory of ], and ] and ]'s theory of ].

===Social demographics===
As with any form of art, acceptance depends on social demographics and varies 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 Western 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. Eighteenth-century ] author ] said that "the more you know humour, the more you become demanding in fineness."

===Evolutionary explanation of humour===
Alastair Clarke explains: "The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognises a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter." The theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human evolution: "An ability to recognise patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species."<ref></ref>

In 2011, three researchers published a book that reviews previous theories of humor and many specific jokes. They propose the theory that humor evolved because it strengthens the ability of the brain to find mistakes in active belief structures, that is, to detect mistaken reasoning.<ref>{{cite book|author = Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and Adams, Reginald B. Jr. |title=Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind|publisher=The MIT Press|year= 2011|isbn=9780262015820}}</ref>

==Humour formula==
{{Ref improve section|date=October 2006}}
Humour can be verbal, visual, or physical. Nonverbal forms of communication - for example, music or art - can also be humorous.

===Root components===
*] of or imitative of ]
*]/], ]/], ].

===Methods===
*]
*]<!-- This is not about the NLP-type of reframing. Do not make this a wikilink to that ]. -->
*]
*]
*]

===Behaviour, place and size===

] explains in his lecture in the documentary "'']''"<ref>Rowan Atkinson/David Hinton, ''Funny Business'' (tv series), Episode 1 - aired 22 November 1992, UK, Tiger Television Productions</ref> that an object or a person can become funny in three different ways. They are:
*By behaving in an unusual way
*By being in an unusual place
*By being the wrong size

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

===Exaggeration===
{{Main|Exaggeration#Humour}}
"Some theoreticians of the comic consider exaggeration to be a universal comic device".<ref>Emil Draitser, ''Techniques of Satire'' (1994) p. 135</ref> It may take different forms in different genres, but all rely on the fact that "the easiest way to make things laughable is to exaggerate to the point of absurdity their salient traits".<ref>M. Eastman/W. Fry, ''Enjoyment of Laughter'' (2008) p. 156</ref>

==Humour and culture==
Different cultures have different expectations of humour so comedy shows are not always successful when transplanted into another culture. Two well-known sayings in ] are "Americans don't do ]" and ]. Whether these sayings have any validity has been discussed on a ] webpage.<ref></ref>

==See also==
*], the study of laughing and laughter
*]
*]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*Alexander, Richard (1984) ''Verbal humor and variation in English: Sociolinguistic notes on a variety of jokes''
*Alexander, Richard (1997) ''''
*{{citation | last = Basu | first =S | title= Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor | journal =Journal of Political Philosophy | publisher =Blackwell Publishing Ltd | date= December 1999 | volume =Vol. 7 | issue =No. 4 | pages =378–403 | url=http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/var.2006.22.1.14 | doi =10.1111/1467-9760.00082 | accessdate =2007-07-06 }} (Abstract)
*Billig, M. (2005). ''Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour''. London: Sage. ISBN 1412911435
*Bricker, Victoria Reifler (Winter, 1980) '''' Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;411–418
*{{Citation | last =Buijzen | first =Moniek | last2 =Valkenburg | first2 =Patti M. | title =Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media | journal =Media Psychology | volume =Vol. 6 | issue =No. 2 | pages =147–167 | year= 2004 | url =http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2?prevSearch=allfield%3A(buijzen) | doi =10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_2 }}(Abstract)
*Carrell, Amy (2000), '''', University of Central Oklahoma. Retrieved on 2007-07-06.
*{{Citation | last =García-Barriocanal | first =Elena | last2 =Sicilia | first2 =Miguel-Angel | last3 =Palomar | first3 =David | title =A Graphical Humor Ontology for Contemporary Cultural Heritage Access | publisher =University of Alcalá | place =Ctra. Barcelona, km.33.6, 28871 Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain, | year= 2005 | url=http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20050064.pdf | format=pdf | accessdate=2007-07-06}}
*Goldstein, Jeffrey H., et al. (1976) "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.
* Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and Adams, Reginald B. Jr. (2011), ''Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0-262-01582-0
*Holland, Norman. (1982) "Bibliography of Theories of Humor." ''Laughing; A Psychology of Humor''. Ithaca: Cornell U P, 209-223.
*] (2004) ] to his Italian translation of ]'s trilogy '']'', '']'' and '']'' (Bompiani, 2004, ISBN 88-452-3304-9 (57-65).
*Martin, Rod A. (2007). ''The Psychology Of Humour: An Integrative Approach.'' London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 13: 978-0-12-372564-6
*McGhee, Paul E. (1984) "Current American Psychological Research on Humor." Jahrbuche fur Internationale Germanistik 16.2: 37-57.
*Mintz, Lawrence E., ed. (1988) ''Humor in America: A Research Guide to Genres and Topics''. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1988. ISBN 0313245517; OCLC: 16085479.
*{{Citation | last1 = Mobbs | first1 = D. | last2 = Greicius | first2 = M.D. | last3 = Abdel-Azim | first3 = E. | last4 = Menon | first4 = V. | last5 = Reiss | first5 = A. L. | year = 2003 | title = Humor modulates the mesolimbic reward centres | url = | journal = Neuron | pmid = 14659102 | volume = 40 | issue = 5| pages = 1041–1048 | postscript = . |doi = 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00751-7}}
*Nilsen, Don L. F. (1992) "Satire in American Literature." ''Humor in American Literature: A Selected Annotated Bibliography.'' New York: Garland, 1992. 543-48.
*Pogel, Nancy, and Paul P. Somers Jr. (1988) "Literary Humor." ''Humor in America: A Research Guide to Genres and Topics''. Ed. Lawrence E. Mintz. London: Greenwood, 1988. 1-34.
*Roth, G., Yap, R, & Short, D. (2006). "Examining humour in HRD from theoretical and practical perspectives". ''Human Resource Development International, 9''(1), 121-127.
*Smuts, Aaron. "Humor". ''''
*{{citation | last =Wogan | first =Peter | title=Laughing At ''First Contact'' | journal =Visual Anthropology Review | date =Spring 2006 | volume =Vol. 22 | issue =No. 1 | pages =14–34 | publication-date =online December 12, 2006 | url=http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/var.2006.22.1.14 | doi =10.1525/var.2006.22.1.14 | accessdate =2007-07-06 }} (Abstract)

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|humor|humour}}
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
<!--| DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |-->
<!--| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |-->
<!--| but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link |-->
<!--| to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|-->
<!--| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |-->
<!--| |-->
<!--| Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED. |-->
<!--| See ] and ] for details |-->
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
*{{Dmoz|Recreation/Humor/|Humor}}
*
{{aesthetics}}
{{Defence mechanisms}}

]
]

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

Revision as of 22:47, 11 December 2011