跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 23:49
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:黃淑樺
研究生(外文):Shu-Hua Huang
論文名稱:共編幽默:胡鬧中創造意義
論文名稱(外文):Co-constructed Humor: Creating Sense in Nonsense
指導教授:賴春燕賴春燕引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chun-Yen Lai
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:英國語文學系研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:99
中文關鍵詞:即興幽默互動模式知識架構共編幽默共同編造幽默
外文關鍵詞:conversational jokingknowledge schemaco-constructed humorhumor
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:585
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:50
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
幽默是日常對話中常出現的現象,常見的種類有戲弄、嘲諷、趣聞、講笑話以及即興幽默。本篇文章的目的在於探討朋友之間共同編造即興幽默的現象。作者認為對話者在玩笑中貢獻的創意跟他們共有的知識架構和彼此間的相互默契有很大的關係。本文的首要目的是闡明對話者的創意與知識架構之間的關係,並進而找出這種即興幽默是否有它固定的特有篇章架構。
本研究的參與者為六名台灣女大學生。研究者本身亦兼參與者。她們都是研究法課程讀書會之成員。本文所分析的範例對話是在讀書會時所錄製。本研究利用對話分析及作者本身的群體知識,發現參與者的創意的確與知識架構有很大的關聯。這也表示參與者即使在開玩笑時也遵照語言溝通合作原則。此外,作者也發現共編幽默有固定的篇章節構。同時,作者也注意到,比起平常的對話,開玩笑所造成的認知衝突會引起更多不同的結果。在文獻上,利用知識架構來分析共編幽默的研究極少,本文章的最大貢獻是為此種研究提供了一個有意義的範例。
Humor often occurs in everyday conversations and there are various genres such as mocking, teasing, joke-telling, anecdotes, and situational joking. The present study investigates the phenomenon of co-construction in situational humor, which occurs quite often between close friends. The researcher hypothesizes that the success of co-construction depends on the conversationalists’ shared knowledge schemas and their tacit agreement. It aims, firstly, to illustrate the relationship between the participants’ knowledge schemas and how they contribute to the co-constructed humor. Secondly, it aims to figure whether there is a fixed discourse structure for the phenomenon concerned.
The participants were six female Taiwanese students who joined a study group for a research method class. The researcher herself was one of the participants. The conversations analyzed were recorded when the participants were having discussions. They were analyzed through sequential conversation analysis and the researcher’s in-group knowledge. The notion of knowledge schema is applied to support the analyses.
The analyses of the conversations show that the participants’ contributions are all related to the evoked topics. This indicates that the participants obey the cooperative principle when interacting in the play frame, as proposed in Raskin (1985). The discourse structure of co-constructed humor is found to be consistent. Moreover, schema conflicts in the play frame seem to cause more diverse results than in the serious frame. The researcher’s attempt to apply knowledge schemas to co-constructed humor is successful. This fills up the gap in the literature, in which knowledge schemas are rarely used in analyzing situational humor.
Table of Contents

CONVENTIONS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT iii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Conversational joking 1
1.2 Co-construction in conversational joking 2
1.3 Knowledge schemas in co-constructed conversational joking 3
1.4 Objective and purpose of the study 4
1.5 Outline of the chapters 5

Chapter 2 Literature review 6
2.1 What is humor? 6
2.2 Theories of humor 7
2.2.1 Classical theories of humor 7
2.2.2 Linguistic theories of humor 8
2.3 Humor studies 9
2.4 A working definition of conversational joking 10
2.5 Co-construction in conversational joking 12
2.6 Interactive frames and knowledge Schemas 14
2.7 Knowledge schemas and co-construction 18
Chapter 3 Methodology and theoretical framework 21
3.1 Hypotheses and research questions 21
3.2 Research method: conversation analysis 22
3.3 Participants 24
3.4 Data collection 25

Chapter 4 Analyses and discussions 26
4.1 Conversation 1: drinking coffee in a ghost house 26
4.1.1 Sequential analyses of the conversation 45
4.1.2 Making sense in nonsense: schemas in co-constructed humor 48
4.1.2.1 Episode 1 49
4.1.2.2 Episodes 2-4 50
4.2 Conversation 2: going to the hospital together 52
4.2.1 Sequential analyses of the conversation 69
4.2.2 Making sense in nonsense: schemas in co-constructed humor 73
4.3 Conversation 3: pale complexion 76
4.3.1 Sequential analyses of the conversation 81
4.3.2 Making sense in nonsense: schemas in co-constructed humor 82
4.4 Concluding remarks 85
4.4.1 Further discussions 86
4.4.2 The discourse structure of co-constructed humor 88

Chapter 5 Conclusion 90
5.1 Findings of the study 90
5.2 Significance of the study 92
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further studies 92

REFERENCES 94
References
Askildson, L. (2005). Effects of humor in the language classroom: Humor as a pedagogical tool in theory and practice. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT, 12, 45-61. Retrieved from
http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp/AWP12/AWP12%5BAskildson%5D.pdf.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor, 4, 239-347.
Bateson, G. (1953). The position of humor in human communication. In H. von Foerster (Ed.), Cybernetics, ninth conference (pp. 1-47). New York: Josiah Macey Jr Foundation.
Beck, C. T. (1997). Humor in nursing practice: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 34(5), 346-352.
Bednarek, M. A. (2005). Frames revisited—the coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 685-705.
Bergson, H. (1990). Le rire: Essai sur la signification du comique. Paris: PUF.
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275-249.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1977). Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 41-55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Coates, J. (1996). Woman Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coates, J. (2005). Masculinity, collaborative narration and the heterosexual couple. In J. Thornborrow and J. Coates (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of narrative (pp. 89-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laugher and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29-49.
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361-1385.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (2006). Conversation analysis (Vols. 1-4). London: Sage.
Eder, D. (1988). Building cohesion through collaborative narration. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(3), 225-235.
Eder, D. (1998). Developing adolescent peer culture through collaborative narration. In S. M. Hoyle and C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 82-94). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ermida, I. (2008). The language of comic narratives: Humor construction in short stories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Everts, E. (2003). Identifying a particular family humor style: A sociolinguistic discourse analysis. Humor, 16(4), 369-412.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111-137). Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (Eds), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Goodwin, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls. Oxford: Blackwell.
Greenwood, A. (1998). Accommodating friends: Niceness, meanness, and discourse norms. In S. M. Hoyle and C. T. Adger (Eds), Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 68-81). New York: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habib, R. (2008). Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1117-1145.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709-742.
Holcomb, C. (1997). A class of clowns: Spontaneous joking in computer-assisted discussions. Computers and Composition, 14, 3-18.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principle, practices, and applications. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Kotthoff, H. (1999). Coherent keying in conversational humor: Contextualising joint fictionalization. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, and E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 125-150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1387-1441.
Lai, C. Y. (2006). Pragmatic structure and humor in Chan language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of Manchester.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51-72.
Leung, C. B. (2009). Collaborative narration in preadolescent girl talk: A Saturday luncheon conversation among three friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1341-1357.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, humor and Chinese people. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, C. C. (2003). Taiwanese versus Japanese sense of humor. The National Chi Nan University Journal 6(2), 83-112.
Liao, C. C. (2007). One aspect of Taiwanese and American sense of humor: Attitudes toward pranks. Journal of Humanities Research 2, 279-314. National Chiayi University.
Liao, C. C., & Yano, Y. (2005). Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese perceptions of humor through watching a movie. Journal of Humanities Research 1, 103-128. National Chiayi University.
Lyttle, J. (2007). The judicious use and management of humor in the workplace. Business Horizons, 50, 239-245.
Mallett, J., & A’hern, R. (1996). Comparative distribution and use of humour within nurse-patient communication. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33(5), 530-550.
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2004). “There’s millions of them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 149-184.
McCreaddie, M., & Wiggins, S. (2009). Reconciling the good patient persona with problematic and non-problematic humour: A grounded theory. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1079-1091.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-system theory. In P. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N. (1994). Involvement and joking in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 409-430.
Norrick, N. (1997). Twice-told tales: Collaborative narration in familiar stories. Language in Society, 26, 199-220.
Norrick, N. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333-1359.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humor in business: A double-edged sword. A Study of humor and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4-28.
Sacks, H. (1989). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitz, J. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor, 15, 89-113.
Schnurr, S. (2009). Constructing leader identity through teasing at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1125-1138.
Shanon, B. (1981). What’s in the frame? Linguistic indicators. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 35-44.
Sudol, D. (1981). Dangers of classroom humor. English Journal, 70(6), 26-28.
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
Trachtenberg, S. (1979). Joke telling as a tool in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 89-99.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
Wood, L., & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top