Conversational humour in a Nigerian radio news programme: A case study of Lati inu aka aka Biodun/Kayode

Blessing T. Inya, Onwu Inya


This paper investigates the Generic Structure Potential (GSP) of Lati inu aka aka Biodun/Kayode (LIABK), a Nigerian secondary gatekeeping radio news programme, with the aim of indicating the stages of the genre where conversational humour typically occurs, and then it analyses humour types in the data through the neo-Gricean concept of untruthfulness and pragmatic act theory. The data for the study constitute a ten hour audio recording of Lati inu aka aka Biodun/Kayode from two radio stations in Ekiti and Ondo States, South-Western Nigeria. The GSP of LIABK is constituted by five obligatory elements: Opening (O), Advertisement (A), Pre-news Presentation (PnP), News Presentation (NP) and Closing (C). The genre-based expectations for O, PnP and C, and then NP are to provide entertainment and information to the listeners respectively. Thus, humour typically occurs in the O, PnP, and C stages of the programme, and rarely occurs in NP. Four humour types are indicated: song-as-humour, absurdity, joint fantasising and speaker-meaning-telic humour respectively. While song-as-humour resists being neatly categorised as autotelic humour, absurdity and joint fantasising are easily characterised as thus. The pragmatic act analysis reveals the incremental, sequential and co-constructed nature of the humour types. Furthermore, the pragmemes of entertainment and offering of opinion by the news presenters constitute the affordances or genre-based expectations that constrain the social activities that constitute LIABK. The study contributes to the scholarship on secondary gatekeeping in Nigeria broadcast media, conversational humour and pragmatics.


Conversational humour; Untruthfulness; Secondary gatekeeping; GSP; Pragmeme, Pragmatic act, Speaker-meaning, Biodun-Kayode, News

Full Text:



Capone, A. (2005). ‘Pragmemes: a study with reference to English and Italian’. Journal of Pragmatics 37(9), pp. 1355–1371.

Capone, A. (2016). ‘Introducing the notion of the pragmeme’, in Allan, K., Capone, A., & Kecskes, I. (eds.), Pragmemes and the theories of language use, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. xv-xxiv.

Chovanec, J. (2012). ‘Conversational humour and joint fantasizing in online journalism’, in Chovanec, J. & Ermida, I. (eds.), Language and Humour in the Media, Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 131-169.

Chovanec, J. (2017). ‘Interactional humour and spontaneity in TV documentaries’. Lingua 197, pp. 34-49.

Clark, H. H & Van Der Wege, M. M. (2001). ‘Imagination in discourse’, in Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H.H. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 772-86.

Culpeper, J. & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. UK: Palgrave.

Dynel, M. (2017). ‘But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness’. Lingua 197, pp. 82-102.

Dynel, M. (2011). ‘Joker in the pack: towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations’, in Dynel, M. (ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour Across Discourse Domains, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217-241.

Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, C. (1987). ‘Children’s arguing’, in Philips, S.U., Steele, S. & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, Gender & Sex in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-48.

Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan R. (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hasan, R. (2014). ‘Towards a paradigmatic description of context: systems, metafunctions, and semantics’. Functional Linguistics 1(9), pp. 1-54.

Haugh, M. (2010). ‘Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face’. Journal of Pragmatics 42, pp. 2106-2119.

Holt, E. (2016). ‘Laughter at last: playfulness and laughter in interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics 100, pp. 89-102.

Holton, A. E. & Lewis, S. C. (2011) ‘Journalists, social media, and the use of humour on Twitter’. The Electronic Journal of Communication 21(1&2). [Online] [Accessed October, 2017.]

Inya, O. (2012). ‘Generic structure potential of Christian apologetics’. Linguistik Online 55, pp. 75-87 .

Jefferson, G. (2004). ‘Glossary of transcription symbols with an introduction’, in Lerner, G.H (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13-31.

Kecskes, I. (2010). ‘Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts’. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1), pp. 2889–97.

Kotthoff, H. (1999). ‘Coherent keying in conversational humour: contextualising joint fictionalisation’, in Bublitz, W., Lenk, U. & Ventola, E. (eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, , pp. 125-150.

Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload. New York: Bloomsbury.

Lockyer, S. & Pickering, M. (2008). ‘You must be joking: the sociological critique of humour and comic media’. Sociol. Compass 2 (3), pp. 808-820.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell.

Mey, J. L. (2009). ‘Pragmatic act’, in Mey, J. L. (ed.), Concise Encyclopaedia of Pragmatics, Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier, pp. 748-756.

Mey, J. L. (2016). ‘Why we need the pragmeme, or: speech acting and its peripeties’, in Allan, K., Capone, A., & Kecskes, I. (eds.), Pragmemes and the Theories of Language Use, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 133-140.

Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Odebunmi, A. (2016). ‘Language, context and society: a theoretical anchorage’, in Odebunmi, A., & Ayoola, K. A. (eds.), Language, Context and Society, Ile-Ife, Nigeria: Obafemi Awolowo University Press, pp. 3-37.

Ojebuyi, B. R. & Ojebode, A. (2012). ‘Rhetorical strategies in secondary news presentation by radio stations in Oyo State, Nigeria’. Ibadan Journal of English Studies 8, pp. 62-74.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Raskin, V. & Attardo, S. (1994). ‘Non-literalness and non-bona-fide in language: an approach to formal and computational treatments of humour’. Pragmatics & Cognition 2, pp. 31-69.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, vols. I and II. Edited by Jefferson, G. Oxford: Blackwell.

Shaw, C., Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2013). ‘Having the last laugh: on post-completion laughter particles’, in Glenn, Ph.. & Holt, E. (eds.) Studies of Laughter in Interaction, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 91-106.

Stallone, L. & Haugh, M. (2017). ‘Joint fantasising as relational practice in Brazilian Portuguese interactions’. Language & Communication 55, pp. 10-23.

Singer J. (2014). ‘User-generated visibility: secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space’. New Media & Society 16 (1), pp. 55-73.

Vincent Marrelli, J. (1994). ‘On non-serious talk: some cross-cultural remarks on the un/importance of (not) being earnest’, in Parret, H. (ed.), Pretending to Communicate, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 253-275.

Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2000). ‘Truthfulness and relevance’. UCL Working Paper in Linguistics 12, pp. 215-254



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Publication ethics and malpractice statement