The Primer of Humor Research 2008
DOI: 10.1515/9783110198492.183
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Humor in anthropology and folklore

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
12

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
17
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…As Oring argues, blond jokes are not really about blondes nor women because blondes are “merely a ‘placeholder’ for joking about a particular set of values for which the blond is regarded as a symbolically appropriate—though not a sociologically accurate—representation” (Oring, 2003, p. 66). They are about the inappropriateness of traditional values concerning women in the modern world (Oring, 2003, 2008). Contrary to jokes, successful satire requires that the satirist's moral stance is at least implicitly present, although the satirist must remain impersonal so that the presented values could be understood as common ones, shared by the society (Frye, 1957/2000).…”
Section: Humor and Satirementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Oring argues, blond jokes are not really about blondes nor women because blondes are “merely a ‘placeholder’ for joking about a particular set of values for which the blond is regarded as a symbolically appropriate—though not a sociologically accurate—representation” (Oring, 2003, p. 66). They are about the inappropriateness of traditional values concerning women in the modern world (Oring, 2003, 2008). Contrary to jokes, successful satire requires that the satirist's moral stance is at least implicitly present, although the satirist must remain impersonal so that the presented values could be understood as common ones, shared by the society (Frye, 1957/2000).…”
Section: Humor and Satirementioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Elliot Oring (2008), anthropological and folkloristic interest in humour has dealt primarily with joking relationships, the ritual use and meanings of humour and various folk genres of it (see also Apte 1985); the scope of my investigation falls into the nal category mentioned. Moreover, the wider phenomenon of humour has compelled generations of researchers from diverse research traditions to tackle the subject from a number of di erent angles (see e.g.…”
Section: Empirical Focus and Frames Of Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…My interpretation of the meanings generated by humour is based on the assumption that the humorous mode is produced in a narrative or a situation through an ambivalent, incongruous or surprising element. It can take the form of a con ict, which can be, among other things, emotional, conscious, linguistic, logical, or social (Knuu ila 1992: 44-46;Oring 2008). For instance, Victor Raskin's semantic theory on verbal humour explains that the humorous mode in narrative is produced through a clash of opposing cultural scripts, such as true / false, to cite one example of opposition (Raskin 1985: 99-117.…”
Section: Empirical Focus and Frames Of Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performativity of joke-telling, which includes their capacity to create sociability, sharedness, and a range of other pragmatic acts, has recently begun to receive more scholarly attention. While anthropological research has often addressed humor as embedded in the cultural practices under study (Oring 2008; Raskin 2008), sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have started to explore more systematically the performative qualities of joke-telling rather than, for example, their apparent versus opaque meaning per se—this being one way of theorizing how jokes ‘work’. This has resulted in descriptions of diverse pragmatic functions of joke-telling as embedded in various sociocultural contexts such as supporting HIV patients (Black 2012), constructing identity (Bucholtz, Skapoulli, Barnwell, & Lee 2011; Managan 2012), and assessing the ‘racial’ in US public discourse (Hartigan 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This capacity of jokes to comment on the sociocultural surround comes not only from the content of jokes, through the 'what is said', 7 or denotational text, but also through the manner in which jokes are delivered, or their interactional text (for this distinction, see Silverstein 1997;Wortham 2001). While anthropological research has often addressed humor as embedded in the cultural practices under study (Oring 2008;Raskin 2008), sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have started to explore more systematically the performative qualities of joke-telling rather than, for example, their apparent versus opaque meaning per se-this being one way of theorizing how jokes 'work'. While anthropological research has often addressed humor as embedded in the cultural practices under study (Oring 2008;Raskin 2008), sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have started to explore more systematically the performative qualities of joke-telling rather than, for example, their apparent versus opaque meaning per se-this being one way of theorizing how jokes 'work'.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%