1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English Text Construction
  4. Volume 16, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we look at characterisation in the popular fiction genre Chick Lit by analysing laughter-talk in conversational humour. This is the first systematic analysis of how a variety of humour phenomena are linguistically realised in the genre despite humour being as aspect recurrently referred to as intrinsic to the genre. We use a combination of methods, both corpus-based and qualitative in nature, to identify instances in which laughter occurs, which we (broadly) associate with the presence of humour. Thus, with the use of self-compiled corpora, we assess the nature of humorous mechanisms in the genre. We conclude by arguing that humorous encounters are genre-defining and essential for characterisation. Humour analysis allows us to argue that Chick Lit protagonists are prototypically presented as non-aggressive, non-threatening individuals, which also contributes to the depiction of down-to-earth characters readers expect in the genre.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
2024-02-29
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archer, Dawn, Andrew Wilson & Paul Rayson
    2002 Introduction to the USAS category system. https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas_guide.pdf
  2. Attardo, Salvatore
    2020 The linguistics of humor. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Billig, Michael
    2005 Laughter and ridicule: Toward a social critique of humour. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446211779
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211779 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chick Lit Books
    Chick Lit Books, chicklitbooks.com/ (21 November 2022)
  5. Chick Lit Writers
    Chick Lit Writers, chicklitwriters.com/ (21 November 2022)
  6. Colston, Herbert & Jennifer O’Brien
    2000 Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics32(11). 1557–1583. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00110‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dunning, Ted
    1993 Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics19(1). 61–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dynel, Marta
    2009 Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass3(5). 1284–1299. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00152.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00152.x [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011 Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. InMarta Dynel (ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, 217–241. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.210.15dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.15dyn [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. European Journal of Humour Research1(1). 22–60. 10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel
     https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel [Google Scholar]
  11. 2017 But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness. Lingua1971. 83–102. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferris, Suzanne & Mallory Young
    2006a Introduction. InSuzanne Ferris & Mallory Young (eds.), 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (eds.) 2006b Chick Lit: The new woman’s fiction. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203036211
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203036211 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gabrielatos, Costas
    2018 Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. InCharlotte Taylor & Anna Marchi (eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse: A critical review, 225–258. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315179346‑11
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179346-11 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gelder, Ken
    2004 Popular fiction: The logics and practices of a literary field. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203023365
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203023365 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hardie, Andrew
    2014 Log ratio: An informal introduction. ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS). cass.lancs.ac.uk/log-ratio-an-informal-introduction/ (08 January 2021)
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Harzewski, Stephanie
    2011 Chick Lit and postfeminism. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hewett, Heather
    2006 You are not alone: The personal, the political and the “new” Mommy Lit. InSuzanne Ferris & Mallory Young (eds.), 119–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kotthoff, Helga
    2000 Gender and joking: On the complexities of women’s image politics in humorous narratives. Journal of Pragmatics32(1). 55–80. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00031‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00031-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2006 Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humour. Humor191. 217–304. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2007 Oral genres of humor: On the dialectic of genre knowledge and creative authoring. Pragmatics17(2). 263–296. 10.1075/prag.17.2.04kot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.2.04kot [Google Scholar]
  22. Lampert, Martin D. & Susan M. Ervin-Tripp
    2006 Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics38(1). 51–72. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lucariello, Joan
    1994 Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General123(2). 129–145. 10.1037/0096‑3445.123.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  24. Marszalek, Agnes
    2019 Constructing inferiority through comic characterisation: Self-deprecating humour and cringe comedy in High Fidelity and Bridget Jones’s Diary. InBenedict Neurohr & Lizzie Stewart-Shaw (eds.), Experiencing fictional worlds, 119–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.32.07mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.32.07mar [Google Scholar]
  25. Martin, Rod A.
    2007 The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑012372564‑6/50024‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372564-6/50024-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Missler, Heike
    2016 The cultural politics of Chick Lit: Popular fiction, postfeminism and representation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315626536
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626536 [Google Scholar]
  27. Montoro, Rocío
    2007 Stylistics of Cappuccino Fiction: A socio-cognitive perspective. InMarina Lambrou & Peter Stockwell (eds.), Contemporary stylistics, 68–80. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2012 Chick Lit: The stylistics of Cappuccino Fiction. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Norrick, Neal
    1993 Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 1994 Involvement and joking in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics22(3–4). 409–430. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90117‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90117-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2004 Non-verbal humor and joke performance. Humor17(4). 401–409. 10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.401
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.401 [Google Scholar]
  32. Palmer, Jeremy
    1991 Potboilers: Methods, concepts and case studies in popular fiction. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203330791
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203330791 [Google Scholar]
  33. Partington, Alan
    2006 The linguistics of laughter. A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203966570
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966570 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2008 From Wodehouse to the White House: A corpus-assisted study of play, fantasy and dramatic incongruity in comic writing and laughter-talk. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics4(2). 189–213. 10.2478/v10016‑008‑0013‑3
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0013-3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rayson, Paul
    2008 From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(4). 519–549. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray [Google Scholar]
  36. Schneider-Mayerson, Matthew
    2010 Popular fiction studies: The advantages of a new field. Studies in Popular Culture33(1). 21–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23416317
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinkeviciute, Valeria & Marta Dynel
    2017 Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication551. 1–9. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wells, Juliette
    2006 Mothers of Chick Lit? Women writers, readers and literary history. InSuzanne Ferris & Mallory Young (eds.), 47–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yardley, Cathy
    2006 Will write for shoes: How to write a Chick Lit novel. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zillmann, Dolf & S. Holly Stocking
    1976 Putdown humor. Journal of Communication26(3). 154–163. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1976.tb01919.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01919.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Ziv, Avner
    1984 Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
Loading
Chick Lit
English Text Construction 16, 214 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.22028.mon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-based analysis; female writing; humour; popular fiction

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error