- Home
- e-Journals
- Pragmatics & Cognition
- Previous Issues
- Volume 19, Issue, 2011
Pragmatics & Cognition - Volume 19, Issue 2, 2011
Volume 19, Issue 2, 2011
-
Prosody and humor
Author(s): Salvatore Attardo, Manuela Maria Wagner and Eduardo Urios-Aparisipp.: 189–201 (13)More Less
-
Recognizing sarcasm without language: A cross-linguistic study of English and Cantonese
Author(s): Henry S. Cheang and Marc D. Pellpp.: 203–223 (21)More LessThe goal of the present research was to determine whether certain speaker intentions conveyed through prosody in an unfamiliar language can be accurately recognized. English and Cantonese utterances expressing sarcasm, sincerity, humorous irony, or neutrality through prosody were presented to English and Cantonese listeners unfamiliar with the other language. Listeners identified the communicative intent of utterances in both languages in a crossed design. Participants successfully identified sarcasm spoken in their native language but identified sarcasm at near-chance levels in the unfamiliar language. Both groups were relatively more successful at recognizing the other attitudes when listening to the unfamiliar language (in addition to the native language). Our data suggest that while sarcastic utterances in Cantonese and English share certain acoustic features, these cues are insufficient to recognize sarcasm between languages; rather, this ability depends on (native) language experience.
-
Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor in conversation
Author(s): Salvatore Attardo, Lucy Pickering and Amanda Bakerpp.: 224–247 (24)More LessThis case study extends the findings of Pickering et al. 2009 to the domain of conversational humor. We find that, as was the case in humorous narratives, conversational humor is not marked by higher pitch or volume, increased speech rate, or significant pauses. Unlike narrative humor, conversational humor is not produced at a lower pitch and slower rate than non-humorous parts of the text. We find that smiling and laughter tend to occur with humor.
-
Prosody in spontaneous humor: Evidence for encryption
Author(s): Thomas Flamson, Gregory A. Bryant and H. Clark Barrettpp.: 248–267 (20)More LessThe study of conversational humor has received relatively little empirical attention with almost no examinations of the role of vocal signals in spontaneous humor production. Here we report an analysis of spontaneous humorous speech in a rural Brazilian collective farm. The sample was collected over the course of ethnographic fieldwork in northeastern Brazil, and is drawn specifically from the monthly communal business meetings conducted in Portuguese. Our analyses focused on humorous utterances identified by the subsequent presence of laughter. Acoustic features of these utterances were compared to non-humorous utterances by the same speakers of similar length and immediately preceding them to look for prosodic contrasts. This corpus provided a unique opportunity for examining the way people mark their humorous productions in a non-humorous environment. Contrary to the notion that speakers must mark their production of humor in order to facilitate audience understanding, no significant marking of a joking “frame” was detected across a range of acoustic dimensions. The only consistent difference — that the set-up and punch line segments were louder than baseline speech before it — does not well support a marking hypothesis and more likely reflects speaker adjustments to the acoustic conditions of the meeting hall. We present these data from the perspective of the encryption theory of humor that predicts speakers will not generally mark spontaneous, conversational humor in most contexts.
-
Formulaic jokes in interaction: The prosody of riddle openings
Author(s): Christy Birdpp.: 268–290 (23)More LessWhile both humor and prosody in interaction have received scholarly attention in recent years, the prosody of humor has not been extensively explored. This study begins to fill this gap by investigating whether prosodic cues can be identified for riddles told in interaction, focusing on wh-questions in riddles versus ordinary conversation. The analysis demonstrates that in comparison to conversational wh-questions, riddles have less pitch variation both within the utterance and at the syllable level. It is argued that riddles do not contain such wide pitch excursions because they do not require contextual disambiguation. While this study provides no evidence that riddles must be prosodically packaged in a specific way, the analysis suggests that the pitch of riddles is constrained due to interactional context. This constrained pitch is argued to work in conjunction with the formulaic syntax and content of riddle questions to signal to hearers that a joke is being told.
-
Verbal irony in the wild
Author(s): Gregory A. Bryantpp.: 291–309 (19)More LessVerbal irony constitutes a rough class of indirect intentional communication involving a complex interaction of language-specific and communication-general phenomena. Conversationalists use verbal irony in conjunction with paralinguistic signals such as speech prosody. Researchers examining acoustic features of speech communication usually focus on how prosodic information relates to the surface structure of utterances, and often ignore prosodic phenomena associated with implied meaning. In the case of verbal irony, there exists some debate concerning how these prosodic features manifest themselves in conversation. A form-function approach can provide a valuable tool for understanding speakers’ varied vocal strategies in this domain. Here I describe several ways conversationalists employ prosodic contrasts, laughter, and other speech characteristics in their attempts to communicate effectively and efficiently. The presented examples, culled from spontaneous conversation recordings, reveal just a small sample of the enormous variation in delivery styles speakers adopt when communicating with ironic language.
-
Rich pitch: The humorous effects of deaccent and L+H* pitch accent
Author(s): Ann Wennerstrompp.: 310–332 (23)More LessThis paper argues that intonation contributes to the humorous meaning of a certain class of jokes. Examples of both canned and spontaneous jokes show that two intonation patterns, the intonation of contrast, or “L+H* pitch accent”, and the intonation of given information, or “deaccent”, can contribute to a humorous effect. Both of these patterns act as cohesive devises in discourse: they trigger a mental search in the mind of a hearer for a cohesive tie that may not be obvious from the lexicogrammatical structure alone. A punch line effect is created if this search yields an unexpected incongruity between the hearer’s initial mental model of the joke discourse and a humorous alternative. The hearer must shift his “script” (Raskin 1984) of the discourse in an unexpected way. To the extent that intonation facilitates processing by directing attention to particular elements in the information structure of the discourse (Chafe 1994), the processing of jokes depends in part on their intonation. The implications of this premise for the processing of humorous texts will be discussed for the two intonation patterns in question. It is argued that intonation analysis can lead to a broader understanding of cognitive processes and structures.
-
Does prosody play a specific role in conversational humor?
Author(s): Roxane Bertrand and Béatrice Priego-Valverdepp.: 333–356 (24)More LessIn this paper we use Conversation Analysis (CA) to investigate conversational humor in talk-in-interaction. We attempt to better understand how the latter is produced and co-constructed by participants in accounting for the devices used by participants in their sequential environment. The framework of CA enables us to take into account the various means available to speakers to communicate, orient to the others, etc. From our data, reported speech, confirmation request/answer, and repetitions appear as the main discursive devices to create humor (presented as the result of the appearance of the incongruity). We focused on prosodic cues that are strongly involved in these devices and then contribute to the humorous tonality of the talk. Finally, the co-construction of conversational humor is mainly described through the notion of orientation and prosodic orientation.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 31 (2024)
-
Volume 30 (2023)
-
Volume 29 (2022)
-
Volume 28 (2021)
-
Volume 27 (2020)
-
Volume 26 (2019)
-
Volume 25 (2018)
-
Volume 24 (2017)
-
Volume 23 (2016)
-
Volume 22 (2014)
-
Volume 21 (2013)
-
Volume 20 (2012)
-
Volume 19 (2011)
-
Volume 18 (2010)
-
Volume 17 (2009)
-
Volume 16 (2008)
-
Volume 15 (2007)
-
Volume 14 (2006)
-
Volume 13 (2005)
-
Volume 12 (2004)
-
Volume 11 (2003)
-
Volume 10 (2002)
-
Volume 9 (2001)
-
Volume 8 (2000)
-
Volume 7 (1999)
-
Volume 6 (1998)
-
Volume 5 (1997)
-
Volume 4 (1996)
-
Volume 3 (1995)
-
Volume 2 (1994)
-
Volume 1 (1993)
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699943
Journal
10
5
false
