论文总字数：29808字

摘 要

幽默是人们日常生活中的调味剂，也是人们处理人际关系的润滑剂，在人际交往中起着至关重要的作用。幽默还可以展现个人的诙谐天赋，缓解紧张的气氛，而且往往意蕴深长。它长久以来吸引了无数专家学者投入到语言和幽默的研究中。黄西的白宫脱口秀表演作为一个绝妙的例子，展现出了言语幽默的无穷魅力。本文旨在从言语行为理论的角度研究黄西在白宫的脱口秀表演中所传递出的幽默。基于塞尔对言外行为的分类，本文着重分析了黄西脱口秀中阐述类、承诺类和表达类语句中所传递的言语幽默。

关键词：幽默；黄西脱口秀；言语行为理论

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 1

2.1 Previous Studies on Humor from the Perspective of Speech Act Theory 1

2.2 Studies on Joe Wong and His Talk Show in White House 2

3. Language Humor amp; Speech Act Theory 3

3.1 The Definition, Causes, and Functions of Humor 3

3.2 An Introduction to Speech Act Theory and the Speech-act- theory-based Studies on Humor 4

4. An Analysis of Joe Wong’s Talk Show from the Perspective of Speech Act Theory 6

4.1 Humor in Representatives 6

4.2 Humor in Commissives 9

4.3 Humor in Expressives 11

5. Conclusion 13

Works Cited 14

1. Introduction

Humor is a powerful element in the colorful world of language which acts as a flavoring agent among people in their daily life, showing humorous attraction, coordinating tense or embarrassing atmosphere, and creating certain connotations. Joe Wong’s talk show for American press conference 2010 is a splendid example showing great charm of language humor. Indeed, that conference has attracted great attention due to the rapier thrust and impressive remarks of the guests. Amazingly, Joe Wong, as a Chinese, can take on the stage and exert great influences on people present there, so it’s quite interesting and delightful to study his language. As known to many people, Joe Wong’s talk show is very typical and penetrating, which undoubtedly deserves to be held in White House and certainly caters to those American guests.

This thesis is intended to study the humor of his language from the perspective of Speech Act Theory. It is a leading theory in the branch of Pragmatics, which was first proposed by British philosopher John Austin and later improved by his student John Seal. According to this theory, people are performing actions when they are speaking. George Yule mentioned speech acts in his book The Study of Language: “The use of the term speech acts covers ‘actions’ such as ‘requesting’, ‘commanding’, ‘questioning’ and ‘informing’ (Yule, 2000:132).” The author will analyze the humor of Joe’s talk show mainly in representatives, commissives and expressives, with the aid of two leading functions of humor: solidarity-based function and aggression-based function.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Previous Studies on Humor from the Perspective of Speech Act Theory

In china, from the period of 1980s with the publication of Humorous Linguistics, some studies on language and humor have sprang out in different perspectives, ranging from vocabulary, pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, to cognitive psychology, rhetoric style and so on. Jin Guangyu has studied on humor focusing on the Zhao Benshan sketches with the implications of speech acts. (Jin Guangyu, 2008:41) Xiang Dan studies the humor in advertisements. In her opinion, “Verbal humor in advertisements is locutionary act which uses language to realize the functions of representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations” (Xiang Dan, 2009:108). So, the humor has been realized to reach the perlocutionary acts, attracting people’s attention and fulfilling amusement in communication.

2.2 Studies on Joe Wong and His Talk Show in White House

Joe Wong has a doctor degree on biochemistry, but later he becomes a famous and influential comic master, especially when he takes the stage of White House and presents his humorous art to so many leading people. His talk show in White House only lasts over ten minutes, but has exerted great influences on the audience and the progress of language art. The targets of his fun talk consist of president Obama, vice president Biden and some other politicians, which actually impresses the audience a lot. It also includes lots of current hot issues, such as today’s environmental problems, political conflicts and so on, which are all quite close to people’s life and concern.

Jiang Chengxia has studied Joe Wong’s talk show based on the view of Relevance Theory. He explains, “Humorous language is not actually coming from the language itself, but from people’s choice, adjustment and conformation to the situated context to the process of seeking the best relevance” (Jiang Chengxia, 2012:243). Jin Shengxi and Wang Bin think that the mutual cognitive environments of addresser and addressees form the preconditions for the successful realization of humor (Jin Shengxi, amp; Wang Bin, 2012:44). In their studies, Relevance Theory is applied to the study of the talk show and the result of their study is focused on the mutual cognitive environments of addresser and addressees, Xuan Jing studies this talk show in light of Cooperative Principle, Conversational Implicature and substitution. She says, “Humor can be divided into verbal and nonverbal humor and is a kind of ridicule appealing to reason (Xuan Jing, 2012:96).” She demonstrates the humor of Joe Wong’s talk show with details on these three aspects respectively. OuYang Qiaolin studies Joe’s talk show based on the view of intertextuality. She says, “Intertextuality is a prominent characteristic of talk show and intercultural intertextuality is the leading element to the success of a talk show” (OuYang Qiaolin, 2012:239). These scholars have made a lot of researches on Joe’ talk show from different perspectives, which inspires the author a lot in this study.

3. Language Humor amp; Speech Act Theory

3.1 The Definition, Causes, and Functions of Humor

Humor basically refers to something ridiculous but meaningful, and with thorough understanding, people would find deep-rooted connotations inside it. However, there is no sole definition of humor, and here shows one quite authoritative definition in a dictionary: “Humor is the quality in something that makes it funny; the ability to understand and enjoy amusing situations or to laugh at things” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, new edition, 2004:960).

Lin Yutang first introduced the concept of humor into China at a quite early time, as he mentioned in his book, “Humor has two types of meanings, broadly or narrowly. In western use, it usually includes words that make people laugh; even those vulgar jokes are included. In a narrow sense, humor is different from satirizing or deriding but they are all concerned with laughing” (Lin Yutang, 2002:39). Fang Cheng thinks that the origin of humor is language. Humor is a form of language formed gradually with the development of social culture, which is a sort of artistic language, expressive and lyric (Fang Cheng, 2003:6).

Humor has many different causes. It has always been derived from speeches against logical thinking and out of people’s recognition, and can be caused by verbal factors and nonverbal factors. On one hand, verbally, it may be caused by similar pronunciation of words mentioned in a conversation, and some tools may be borrowed to bring about certain humorous effects, such as jokes or satires. On the other hand, humor can be produced nonverbally, like pantomimes. Alastair Clarke claims there are eight patterns of humor which are the causes of all humor and believes that, “The first four are patterns of fidelity, by which we recognize the repetition of units within the same context, and the second four are patterns of magnitude, by which we recognize the same unit repeated in multiple contexts” (2009:262). Chaplin once said that humor is the best manifestation of wisdom. Indeed, humor is great wisdom, which makes comments on various people or things and reflects social life in special ways.

The functions of humor, also called humorous effects, are the results or outcomes of humorous phrases or sentences. Different scholars may have different classifications of these functions. Collinson divides them into three main parts: to resist boredom, to conform and to control others; and Hay defines three ones as solidarity-based, power-based and psychological functions. In terms of Joe’s talk show, the author tries to apply two main functions of humor: solidarity-based function and aggression-based function, which depends on the characteristics of Joe’ talk show. On one hand, Joe has to cater to the audience’s psychological views and tries to resonate with their feelings. On the other hand, Joe needs to be aggressive to certain people to create humorous effects.

3.2 An Introduction to Speech Act Theory and the Speech-act- theory-based Studies on Humor

Speech act theory is a leading theory in the pragmatic study of language which has been initially proposed by British philosopher John L. Austin in the 50s of the 20^th century and later further developed and codified by his student John R. Searle, an American philosopher. According to this theory, people are performing actions when they are speaking, not only just informing or describing things. A speaker might be performing three acts simultaneously when speaking: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act:

(1) A locutionary act is the act of uttering words, phrases, and clauses. It is the act of conveying literal meaning by means of syntax, lexicon, and phonology.

(2) An illocutionary act is the act of expressing the speaker’s intention; it is the act performed in saying something.

(3) A perlocutionary act is the act performed by or resulting from saying something; it is the consequence of, or the change brought about the utterance; it is the act performed by saying something. (Liu Runqing, amp; Wen Xu, 2006:149)

To make further explanation, in most times, a speaker may say utterances with no special meanings literally as the locutionary acts, but when the listeners think twice, some intensions may come out, which might create certain humorous effects as the illocutionary acts. Furthermore, it may cause some results or changes as the perlocutionary acts. In most cases, the humorous effects happen in dialogues. For example, Jin Guangyu uses dialogues in Zhao Benshan sketches to demonstrate the humor caused by the language. In these dialogues, speaker A makes a conversation, then speaker B may understand it correctly or incorrectly and these different understandings may cause certain humorous effects. (Jin Guangyu, 2008:41)

American philosopher-linguist John Searle further classified the illocutionary acts into five general types. Each type has a common, general purpose. First, representatives as a type of illocutionary act usually state or describe what the speaker believes to be true, but when the fact is against what the speaker thinks, some kind of humor would come out. Second, directives as one kind of illocutionary act always get the hearer to do something. If “something” is ridiculous or impractical, it may cause certain humor. Third, commissives which the speaker commits himself to some future course of action may result in humor because the promise can never be realized or just sounds like a joke. Fourth, expressives showing feelings or attitude towards an existing state could bring a quite exaggerated effect to the hearers which might lead to certain humor. Last, declarations as a kind of illocutionary act bring about immediate changes by saying something, but mostly they need to be announced by an authoritative or powerful person. If the speaker just declares something out of his ability, it may sound ridiculous and create humor. In the thesis, three types of illocutionary acts of Joe Wong’s talk show in white house will be elaborated to illustrate the humor production.

4. An Analysis of Joe Wong’s Talk Show from the Perspective of Speech Act Theory

People use words to perform acts. According to Searle’s classification of illocutionary acts, three types of them are mainly related to Joe’s talk show, which are representatives, commissives and expressives. Directives and declarations may rarely be mentioned, because in a talk show the performer may always be describing, expressing or promising but barely directing or declaring. So in this talk show, Joe uses these three acts to describe situations, express feelings, and make promises.

To make further explanations, the author will also draw support from two main functions of humor: solidarity-based function and aggression-based function to show how Joe interacts with the audience and create the humorous effects.

4.1 Humor in Representatives

In Joe’s talk show, he mainly uses representatives to achieve the humorous effects. Though representatives are just describing and stating things, they contain abundant and powerful information for audience to appreciate. Here are the examples of humorous effects caused by representatives:

“Good evening everyone, my name is Joe Wong. But to most people, I am known as ‘who (Hu)?’ which is actually my mother’s maiden name and the answer to my credit card security question.”

Here, Joe Wong uses representatives to point out his literal meaning, trying to introduce himself to the audience and referring to his mother’s maiden name Hu. This is the locutionary act to give a brief introduction and convey his basic information. Before the audience wonders why he talks like that, he quickly answers the puzzle of “Hu”. His intention, as an illocutionary act, is to use the ambiguity to confuse the audience and set up the humorous point. So the humorous result comes out and all people are laughing at this special self-introduction, which is the perlocutionary act.

“But joking aside I just want to reassure everybody that I AM invited here tonight.”

In this segment, Joe Wong literally tells the fact that he has been invited to White House to perform this talk show. This representative conveys information of the locutionary act. But Joe borrows the aggression-based function of humor to satirize that Salah had broken into White House dinner banquet. That is his intention to use this ridiculous news to mock at them, which is the illocutionary act of this utterance. The result, as the perlocutionary act, turns out to be an obvious comparison between Joe and Salah, which points out their improper behaviors and comes with irony and humorous effects.

“And I was driving this used car that had a lot of bump stickers that were impossible to peel off. One of them said ‘If you don’t speak English, go home’. And I did not know this for two years. ”

Literally, this representative states that Joe did not know the exact meaning of the sticker until two years later, and the locutionary act reveals the differences between ideality and reality. In reality, some established rules or principles are always broken. The illocutionary act is that Joe intends to show that he can survive in America even he can not speak English or even do not understand it, which desperately satirizes the so-called principles. Joe uses aggression-based function of humor again to create this humorous atmosphere.

“And like many other immigrants, we all want our son to become the president of this country and we are trying to make him bilingual, you know, Chinese at home, English in the public, which is really tough to do because many times I have to say to him in public, ‘hey, listen, if you don’t speak English, go home.’”

Joe’s literal meaning is that he, like every immigrant parent, wants to see their children having a promising future, such as becoming the president, and tries to train his son as a bilingual man. That’s the locutionary act. But “go home” has two kinds of meanings: one is going back to their house and speaking Chinese only in the family; the other is going back to their own countries and never staying at America any more. Joe’s intention is to use this pun to highlight the phenomenon of kids from other countries learning English so crazily. Then the perlocutionary act comes out to reach a joking effect as the result. The last sentence Joe speaks to his son sounds like a directive which is quite aggressive, but this directive can be understood differently and can not be realized immediately indeed, so humor comes out.

“And he would say to me, “hey dad, why do I have to learn two languages?” I said, ‘son, once you become the president of the United States, you are gonna have to sign the legislative bills in English, and talk to debt collectors in Chinese.’”

Literally, this representative describes Joe’s answer to his son’s confusion why he has to learn two languages. This is the locutionary act. However, his intention is trying to suggest that China is the biggest debt country to America and this is known to all Americans, which is the illocutionary act. The effect is that Americans are mocked and may feel awkward or embarrassed about their behaviors, which makes them have to laugh at their behaviors and the truth, which realizes the perlocutionary act.

“After becoming a US citizen, I immediately registered vote for Obama/Biden. (pause, turn to Biden) You are welcome. You had me at ‘Guess we can’. That was their slogan.”

Literally, the representative shows that Joe wants to support president Obama, vice president Biden and their slogan, which is the locutionary act. However, Joe deliberately says the slogan incorrectly as the intention to satirize the firmness of American government and leaders. This illocutionary act works with the aggression-based function of humor. It seems to be a slip of the tongue, but it exactly hits the point. This indirectly points out that he doubts about the slogan. The doubt of the authenticity of this slogan acts as the perlocutionary act.

“But now we have a president who is half black and half white. It just gives me a lot of hope. Because I am half not black, half not white. Two negatives make a positive. ”

In this representative, Joe’s literal meaning is to point out that he is in the same situation as president Obama who is half black and half white while he is half not black and half not white and that inspires him a lot. Joe uses president Obama’s skin color as a standpoint to make jokes, because Joe himself as a Chinese which is of yellow race is neither white nor black. Joe’s intention is to use this point to back him up as the illocutionary act, that’s quite interesting. He uses solidarity-based function of humor to try to share the same social knowledge with the audience, so that the humorous effect is produced.

“You maybe say even ‘hey, what will be your campaign slogan?’ You see, I spent 10 years in the past decade. Oh, you too? OK. So I understand that American people are suffering. So my campaign slogan will be ‘Who (Hu) cares!’”

This representative tells that Joe’s literal meaning is to show his slogan to the audience and points out the locutionary act as he cares about the suffering of American people. On the contrary, the slogan of Joe has two meanings: one is that Hu cares; the other is that who cares? (Nobody cares about you.) It depends on you to choose which meaning you want, so Joe’s intention is to use this ambiguity to reach the effects of joking, as the illocutionary act. The contradiction and ridiculous situation caused by the utterance is the perlocutionary act. This slogan sounds powerful on one hand and sounds indifferent on the other hand, so it becomes quite humorous and ridiculous.

4.2 Humor in Commissives

Commissives are promises the speaker commits himself to the future. In Joe’s talk show, he gives the audience several impractical and ridiculous commissives which can not be realized in the future, and then the humorous effect comes out from these commissives. Commissives usually works with the solidarity-based function to realize the humor. Here are the examples:

“If elected, I will make same sex marriage not only legal but required. That will get me the youth vote.”

This commissive is not impractical but won’t be supported. It points to a special social phenomenon that homosexual love is prevalent among young people. Joe uses the solidarity-based function to cater to the interests of American young people. Joe’s naive thought makes the audience laugh.

“And I have a quick solution to global warming. If elected, I will switch from Fahrenheit to Celsius. It was 100 degrees before. Now it’s forty. You are very welcome.”

Literally, in this commissive the locutionary act is that Joe wants to help people solve the problem of global warming and it seems that the global temperature drops dramatically in figures, but it is actually the same as before. The intention of Joe is to use this simple change of metering mode as a solution to make a joke at the situation and point out the seriousness of global warming, which is the illocutionary act. The result is that this idea brings no change to people and the words are absurd and funny. That’s the perlocutionary act. Joe uses solidarity-based function of humor to appeal to people’s wish of stopping global warming, but with the idea which is out of reality, the humorous effect comes out.

“And I am great with foreign policy. Because I am from China. And I can see Russia from my backyard. I believe that unilateralism is too expensive and open dialogue is too slow. So if elected, I will go with text messaging. I will text our allies just to say hi, and text our enemies whenever they are driving. OMG, you are making a nuclear weapon? But you are doing it wrong, LOL.”

Literally, Joe tries to explain his foreign policy as a president here. The locutionary act is his promises to make plans for foreign policy after election. The illocutionary act, as the intention, is to make comparisons with US government’s policy through these ridiculous suggestions which won’t work at all. So, the result turns out to be that people all laugh at these funny plans, which is the perlocutionary act. This commissive of Joe is totally impractical and runs in the opposite directions of the true situations which will never be fulfilled, so these distinctions create humor and make the audience laugh.

4.3 Humor in Expressives

Expressives are mainly speaker’s attitudes and feelings which is mostly subjective. In Joe’s talk show, he often expresses his feelings or thoughts in opposite ways, in which his intention is against the literal meaning, so that the result is humorous. Aggression of humor is highly applied to utterances to enhance the humorous effects. Here are the examples of expressives:

“I was born in China. Who didn’t?”

Literally, Joe tries to point out that he is born in China and everyone is born in China as the locutionary act. But his intention is to use the second sentence as a question to express American people’s arrogance. Aggression is pointed at American’s arrogance here. The indirect expression used here points out the importance of China to American people which is the perlocutionary act.

“I am honored to meet Vice president Joe Biden here tonight. I actually read your autobiography. And today I see you. I think the book is much better. ”

In this expressive, Joe’s tries to show his respect to vice president Biden literally that he is honored to meet Biden and has read his autobiography. This is the locutionary act. However, he talks in the opposite way in the final and expresses his true meaning with covert aggression. As he mentions Biden’s autobiography he praises the book, and satirizes that Biden is not that good and the book describes him excessively, which is his true meaning as the illocutionary act. And all the audience, even Biden himself, are amused by these words, which is the result caused by the utterance as the perlocutionary act. With this indirect speech, the implication shows the very opposite meaning.

“So to be honest, I was really honored to be here tonight and I prepared for months for tonight show and I show up in the white house and made jokes about president Obama, that was why he decided not to come. And he started to talk about immigration reforms. Take that, Steven Colbert.”

In this expressive, Joe wants to show how he is honored and well-prepared for this day literally. However, his intention is to hint that president is scared of being joked by him so not even shows up today. Joe’s distortion results in the humor.

“And president Obama has always been accused of being too soft. But he was conducting two wars, and they still gave him the Nobel Peace prize. And he accepted it. You can’t be more badass than that. Well actually, I am thinking the only way you can be more badass than that is if you take the Nobel Peace prize money and give it to the military.”

This expressive utilizes the aggression-based function of humor to criticize directly at the powerful president. Joe’s intention is to express two extreme different attitudes towards president Obama to create a ridiculous image of the president, and the lofty identification of president contrasts distinctly with the evaluation he receives, which leads to a humorous effect as a result.

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：29808字