De-Anglicising humour studies

Cliff Goddard

Abstract


This Commentary has two main aims. The first is to argue that systematic approaches to “humour” have been hampered and skewed by terminological Anglocentrism, i.e. by reliance on terms and categories which are English-specific, such as ‘amusing’, ‘joking’, ‘serious’, and ‘mock’, and even by the banner term ‘humour’ itself. Though some humour scholars have recognised this problem, I contend that they have under-estimated its severity. Anglocentric terminology not only interferes with effective communication within the field: it affects our research agendas, methodologies and theoretical framings. Needless to say, humour studies is not alone in facing this predicament, which at its largest can be described as the global Anglicisation of humanities and social science discourse.

While calls to make humour studies more conceptually pluralistic are laudable, they cannot fully succeed while ‘full’ Anglo English remains the dominant scholarly lingua franca. The second aim of this paper is to argue that considerable progress can be made by “de-Anglicising English” from within, using a newly developed approach known as Minimal English. This allows re-thinking and re-framing humour terminology and agendas using a small vocabulary of simple cross-translatable English words, i.e. words which carry with them a minimum of Anglo conceptual baggage. For illustrative purposes, I will discuss how complex terms such as ‘wit, wittiness’ and ‘fantasy/absurd humour’ can be clarified and de-Anglicised using Minimal English.


Keywords


humour concepts; Anglocentrism; Minimal English; lexical semantics

Full Text:

VIEW FULL TEXT

References


Ameka, F. K. & Terkourafi, M. (2019). ’What if? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice’. Journal of Pragmatics 145, pp. 72-82.

Anchimbe, E. A. (2018). Offers and Refusals. A Postcolonial Pragmatics Perspective on World Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Arab, R. (2020). ‘Ethnopragmatics of hazer javabi, a valued speech practice in Persian’, in Mullan, K., Peeters, B. & Sadow, L. (eds.), Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication. Vol 1: Ethnopragmatics and Semantic Analysis, Singapore: Springer, pp. 75-94.

Arab, R. (forthcoming). To Be with Salt, To Speak with Taste: Metapragmatics of Playful Speech Practices in Persian. PhD thesis. Griffith University.

Attardo, S. (2004). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Béal, C. & Mullan, K. (2013). ‘Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural perspective: Comparing French and Australian corpora’, in Peeters, B., Mullan, K. & Béal, C. (eds.), Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-culturally. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 107-140.

Béal, C. & Mullan, K. (2017). ‘The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English’. Language and Communication 55, pp. 24–40.

Brise, L. (2017). Eating Regret and Seeing Contempt: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to the Language of Emotions in Igala (Nigeria). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Dynel, M. (2018). Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Mouton de Gruyter. [Esp. pp. 388-421]

Goddard, C. (2009). ‘Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence’. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (1), pp. 29-53.

Goddard, C. (2014). ‘On “Disgust”’, in Baider, Fabienne & Cislaru, Georgeta (eds.) Linguistic Approaches to Emotions in Context, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73-98.

Goddard, C. (2017). ‘Ethnopragmatic perspectives on conversational humour, with special reference to Australian English’. Language & Communication 55, pp. 55-68.

Goddard, C. (2018a). ‘“Joking, kidding, teasing”: Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison, but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humour’. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (4), pp. 487-514.

Goddard, C. (ed.) (2018b). Minimal English for a Global World: Improved Communication Using Fewer Words. London: Palgrave. [esp. Ch 3, pp. 29-70, ‘Minimal English: The science behind it’]

Goddard, C. (ed.) (In press/2021). Minimal Languages in Action. London: Palgrave.

Goddard, C. & Cramer, R. (2016). ‘“Laid back” and “irreverent”: An ethnopragmatic analysis of two cultural themes in Australian English communication’, in Carbaugh, D. (ed.), Handbook of Communication in Cross-Cultural Perspective, London: Routledge, pp. 89-103.

Goddard, C. & Levisen, C. (forthcoming). ‘Metapragmatics and shifting meanings of “sarcasm” in English and Danish’. [Under review]

Goddard, C. & Mullan, K. 2020. ‘Explicating verbs for “laughing with other people” in French and English (and why it matters for humour studies)’. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 33 (1), 55-77. Doi: 10.1515/humor-2017-0114.

Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and Meanings. Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, D. (2020). ‘From expensive English to Minimal English’, in Sadow, L., Peeters, B. & Mullan, K., (eds.), Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication. Vol 3: Minimal English (and Beyond), Singapore: Springer, pp. 33-52.

Jordan, P. (2017). How to Start, Carry On, and End Conversations. Scripts for Social Interaction for People on the Autism Spectrum. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.

Levisen, C. (2016). ‘The ethnopragmatics of speech acts in postcolonial discourse. Truth and trickery in a South Pacific tale’, in Schubert, C. & Volkmann, L. (eds.), Pragmatic Perspectives on Postcolonial Discourse: Linguistics and Literature, CSP, Newcastle Upon Tyne, pp. 41–64.

Levisen, C. (2018). ‘Dark, but Danish: Ethnopragmatic perspectives on black humor’. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (4), pp. 515-531.

Levisen, C. (2019a). ‘Biases we live by: Anglocentrism in linguistics and cognitive sciences’. Language Sciences 76. doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.05.010.

Levisen, C. (2019b). ‘Laughter interjections’. Scandinavian Studies in Language 10 (1). Available: https://tidsskrift.dk/sss.

Levisen, C. (2019c). ‘Linguistic worldviews and the cultural semantics of humour: A case study on Danish untranslatables’, in Głaz, A. (ed.) Languages – cultures – worldviews. Focus on translation, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 319-346.

Levisen, C. & Waters, S. (eds.). (2017). Cultural Keywords in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Mullan, K. & Béal, C. (eds.) (2018). ‘Conversational humour: Forms, functions and practices across cultures’. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4).

Sadow, L. (2019). An NSM-based Cultural Dictionary of Australian English: From Theory to Practice. PhD thesis, Australian National University.

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

Vanhatalo, U., Tissari, H. & Idström, A. (2014). ‘Revisiting the universality of Natural Semantic Metalanguage: A view through Finnish’. SKY Journal of Linguistics 27, pp. 67–94.

Waters, S. (this volume). ‘The lexical semantics of blague and blaguer: French ways of bringing people together through persuasion, deception and laughter’.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions Across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The Hazards of English as the Default Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (2018). ‘Minimal English as a new and transformative tool for effective health care communication in English-speaking countries’. Paper at International Symposium for Communication in Health Care, Australian National University, 13 February 2018.

Ye, Z. (2018). ‘The emergence of expressible agency and irony in today’s China: A semantic explanation of the new bèi-construction’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 39 (1), pp. 57-78.

Ye, Z. (2019). ‘The politeness bias and the society of strangers’. Language Sciences 76, 101183. Doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.06.009.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2020.8.4.Goddard

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Publication ethics and malpractice statement