Laughter as an immediate responsive communicative action of recipients in English ideation speeches
Abstract
The article deals with study of responsive communicative actions of recipients in English ideation speeches that are expressed as laughter. English ideation speech is a structured and time-limited oral speech by an ideator using multi-modal actions relevant for communication , that is happening in front of the audience (recipients), directly or indirectly included into communication, that is the same time and space coordinates with the ideator (directly in a studio where the ideator performs live) or at different time and space coordinates (watching recorded performance of the ideator). Ideation speeches are to convey certain ideas to the audience so that they are implemented into social practice. Responsive actions of recipients are implicit-evaluative (number of views of ideation speech video) or explicit-evaluative (comprehensive written evaluation in comments and unexpanded evaluation through choosing evaluating adjectives form a given list). Immediate responsive actions can be spontaneous, initiated by recipients themselves, and non-spontaneous, initiated by the ideator. Spontaneous immediate responsive actions are expressed as laughter, exclamations, applause, that prove communicative success of speech, acceptance of the ideator and the ideator`s idea. Study of responsive actions of recipients gives an opportunity to determine success or failure of a certain initial communicative strategy of ideator. Audience's laughter is the sign of success of the ideator's ommunicative act to change the mode from serious to humorous. Laughter shows that recipients comprehend and understand the point of a joke. In some cases laughter expresses different emotional reactions of recipients, like, for instance, surprise, disgust, excitement, etc.
Downloads
References
Aleshyn, S. (1974, March 14). Smeh mozhet vse [Laughter can do everything]. Literaturnaya gazeta, p. 8.
Anderson, C. (2016). TED Talks. The Official TED Guide to Public Speaking. Houghton Mifflin Harcout. Boston, New York: Mariner.
Attardo, S., and Raskin, V. (1991). Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3/4), 293–348.
Bahtin, M.M. (1979). Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of word art]. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ.
Bahtin, M.M. (1986). Literaturno-kriticheskie statyi [Literary-critical articles]. Moscow: Hudozhestvennaya literature Publ.
Bilyk, A.M. (1992). Komicheskiy smeh [Comic laughter]. Visnyk Kharkiv. nats. un-tu im. V.N. Karazina. – V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National Univ. Messenger, 373, 27–33 (in Russian).
Bondarenko, E.V., Martynyuk, A.P., Frolova, I.E., Shevchenko, I.S. (2017). Kak narisovat portret ptitsy: metodologiya kognitivno-kommunikativnogo analiza yazyka [How to paint a picture of a bird: methodology of cognitive-communicative analysis of language]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
Borev, Yu.B. (2002) Smeh: istoki i funktsii [Laughter: sources and functions]. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ.
Dementyev, V.V. (1998). Sotsiopragmaticheskiy aspect teorii rechevyh zhanrov [Socio-pragmatical aspect of speech genres theory]. Saratov: Saratov Pedagogical Institute Publ.
Graham, D., and Bachmann, T.T. (2004). Ideation: The birth and death of ideas. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gusserl, E. (2001). Logicheskie issledovaniya [Logic research]. Moscow: Dom intellektualnoy knigi Publ.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. NewYork: The Macmillan Company.
Makarov, M.L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa [Discourse Theory Basics]. Moscow: ITDGK Gnozis Publ.
Martynyuk, A. (2008). Nesootvetstvie norme kak istochnik smehovogo effekta v tekste angloyazychnogo anekdota [Incongruity of norm as a source for laughter effect in English anecdote]. Zapysky z romano-hermansloyi filolohiyi. – Notes on Romance and Germanic philology, 20, 80–90 (in Russian).
Martynyuk, A. (2016). The Art of Metaphoric Political Insult within the Cognitive Framework. In: E. Chrzanowska-Kluczewska, and O. Vorobyova (eds.). Language – Literature – the Arts: A Cognitive-Semiotic Interface. Frankfurt am Main; Bern: Peter Lang Edition, pp. 245–261.
McGhee, P. E. (1972). On the cognitive origins of incongruity humour: fantasy assimilation versus reality assimilation. In: J.H. Goldstein, P.E. McGhee (eds.). The psychology of humour. N.Y.: Academic Press, pp. 61–80.
Minskiy, М. (1988). Ostroumie i logika kollektivnogo bessoznatelnogo [Wit and logic of collective unconscious]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. – New developments in foreign linguistics, 23, 281–309 (in Russian).
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humour. Dordrecht-Boston-Lancaster: D. Reidel.
Samokhina, V.O. (2012). Zhart u suchasnomu komunikatyvnomy prostori Velykoyi Brytaniyi ta SShA [Joke in contemporary communicative space of the Great Britain and the USA]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
Skidanova, V.A. (2005). Humor u folklorniy tvorchosti ukrayianskoho narodu [Humour in the folk art of Ukrainian people]. Doksa. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats z filolohiyi ta filosophiyi. – Doksa. Collection of scientific papers on philology and philosophy, 7, 111–118 (in Ukrainian).
Suls, J. (1972). A Two-stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons: An Information Processing Analysis. In: J.H. Goldstein, and P.E. McGhee (eds.). The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. New York: Academic Press, pp. 81–100.
TED: Ideas worth spreading (n.d.). Available at: https://www.ted.com
Vygotskiy, L.S. (1999). Myishlenie i rech [Thinking and speech]. Moscow: Labirint Publ.
