Humor u Turkom

8/8/2019 Humor u Turkom

1/18

73 March 2010 Edition

73Lagos Papers in English Studies: Vol5

FROM SCRIPTS TO STEREOTYPES: LINGUISTIC

HUMOR IN TURKISH COMIC STRIPS

DERYA AGIS M.A. Hacettepe University, English Linguistics

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we aim to analyze Turkish comic strips from a new

perspective. We intend to apply Attardo and Raskins (1991) linguistic

humor theory and Bucarias proposal on linguistic ambiguities to the

analyses of Turkish comic strips. We observe the linguistic ambiguities

used by politicians, mobsters, housewives and business-women

characterized in Turkish comic strips. We divide the linguistic

ambiguities we observe into three categories, as lexical, syntactic, andphonological. At the end of the study, we found out that the mobsters use

more lexical, syntactic, and phonological ambiguities than the politicians,

and the business-women use more lexical ambiguities than the

housewives, who use more syntactic and phonological ambiguities than

them. We present our findings within the framework of the study of

Attardo and Raskin (1991), and propose new themes for new researches.

1. INTRODUCTION

We aim to discuss the phonological, syntactic, and lexical ambiguities in Turkish

comic strips that were published in some Turkish magazines in this paper. For doing

so, we give first some background information about the theories through which we

are going to analyze our data. Later we discuss our data and findings with some

examples, and finally, we present new themes for new researches.

1. 1. INFORMATION ON THE REFORMULATED LINGUISTIC HUMOR

THEORY OF RASKIN AND ATTARDO (1991), AND LINGUISTIC

AMBIGUITIES IN JOKES

Attardo and Raskin (1991) propose a theory of verbal and linguistic humor on verbal

jokes as its most representative subset: this theory is an extension and revision of

Raskin's script-based semantic theory of humor (1985) and of Attardo's (1989) five-


2/18



level joke representation model (ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991). In this paper, a

hierarchical organization for six knowledge resources (KRs) is explained.

Attardo and Raskins (1991) six knowledge resources (KRs), thus, parameters

of joke difference are the following:

1) Language,

2) Narrative strategies,

3) Target,

4) Situation,

5) Logical mechanism, and

6) Script opposition.

The theory that a joke is created by script oppositions, logical mechanisms,situations, a target, narrative strategies, and language uses is the revision of Attardos

five-level model, which suggests that script opposition, such as smart/dumb, and

logical mechanisms, underlying figure-ground relations form the bases of the text of

joke: successively, a template is formulated by juxtaposing oppositions, and figure

and ground reversal, then a target, a stereotype for the joke is selected, and the

situation of the joke, where the joke will occur is presented (i.e., light bulb changing)

(see Attardo & Raskin, 1991). However, the most important part of joke formulation

is the production of the language to be used by selecting the appropriate words,syntactic structures, and sentence word orders (see Attardo & Raskin, 1991). After

these selections, the text of the joke appears. That is why we chose to observe the

language of jokes. See table 1 on details of the five-level joke representation model

of Attardo:


3/18



Table 1. Attardos five-level joke representation model (Attardo & Raskin,

1991)

Concerning the first KR, Attardo and Raskin (1991) argue that many jokes are

similar, thus, there is a joke similarity between jokes, and paraphrases and variants of

jokes in printed documents, as people retell jokes to others, changing several aspects

of these jokes. Here are some examples:

(1) How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb? Five. One to hold the

light bulb and four to turn the table he's standing on. (Freedman and Hofman, 1980)

(ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

(2) The number of Polacks needed to screw in a light bulb? Five--one holds the

bulb and four turn the table. (cf. Clements, 1969: 22) (ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

(1) differs from (2), regarding the choices of some words and syntacticconstructions. In (2), thenumber of replaceshow many , and the wordPolacks is used

for the wordPoles , and needed for does it take , for example. Besides, the last two

sentences of (1) are turned into just one sentence with a dash in (2); as well, a joke is

non-casual, and it aims at entertaining (Attardo & Raskin, 1991).


4/18



Concerning the narrative strategy in a joke, the second KR, a joke may differ

from (1) in the choice of a narrative strategy. Narrative strategy means the genre, or

rather microgenre of the joke, in other words, whether the text of the joke is set up as

expository, as a riddle, as a question and answer sequence, and so on(Attardo &

Raskin, 1991). However, remember that in this case, Gricean maxims are violated(see Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

(1) How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb? Five. One to hold the

light bulb and four to turn the table he's standing on. (Freedman and Hofman 1980)

(ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

(3) It takes five Poles to screw in a light bulb: one to hold the light bulb and four to

turn the table he's standing on. (Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

.

On the target of jokes, the third KR, we can say that each joke is based on the

description of a stereotype. The authors cite the following, regarding the targets of

jokes:

As such, it can be targeted at any individual or

group from whom such behavior is expected. These individuals or

groups are referred to as the target of the joke. In the literature and

personal experience, one runs into the same joke told of the Finns

(Kerman 1980: 455), Newfoundlanders (ibid : 455), Carabinieri(police) in Italy, Portuguese in Hawaii, West Virginians in Ohio, etc.

As Davies (1990b) conclusively demonstrates, jokes like (1) travel

widely around the world and are repeated in numerous similar

situations (Attardo & Raskin, 1991).

.

Moreover, on the fourth KR, the situation of jokes, every joke has some

propositions, which form the situation of the joke, as in (1). The activity forms the

core of the situation, including the participants, the objects, the instruments, etc. (see

Attardo & Raskin, 1991).

In addition to this, we cannot do without mentioning the fifth KR, the logical

mechanism of jokes: jokes are based on the figure-ground reversal of the gestalt


5/18



psychology, thus, on a logical mechanism, which is the fifth KR (see Attardo &

Raskin, 1991); we can see this reversal also in the first example of the researchers,

indicated above. They explain this reversal in the successive manner, concerning (1):

In the light bulb situation, the ground is provided by the staticenvironment, including, of course, the table or ladder used to reach the

socket, and the figure is the bulb which should be screwed into the

socket by being turned clockwise by the hand of the person doing it

and standing on the table or ladder. Joke (1) reverses the roles by

making the light bulb and the hand holding it static and making the

environment rotate. The figure-ground reversal is the logical

mechanism of joke (1) (Attardo & Raskin, 1991).

However, a simple joke, called chiasmus may not have any figure-ground or

paralogical elements, as in the example of the researchers numbered (21):

(21) Being honest isn't a question of saying everything you mean. It's a question of

meaning everything you say. (Milner 1972: 20) (ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

Besides, other logical mechanisms involve analogy, as in the twenty-fourth

example of the authors:

(24) George Bush has a short one. Gorbachev has a longer one. The Pope has it but

does not use it, Madonna does not have it. What is it? A last name. (See HUMOR

4:1; ctd. in Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

This joke leads to false priming, and demonstrates an additional linguistic

phenomenon, called garden path, which the authors depict in the following way:

Joke (24) exhibits an additional phenomenon known in linguistics as

"false priming" or "garden path." As in the sentenceThe astronomer

married a star , where the comprehension is hampered by the fact that

astronomer suggests, or primes, an inappropriate meaning of star (the

celestial body meaning instead of the heavenly!), the hearer of joke

(24) is led up the garden path toward the obscene antecedent of "it,"


6/18



that is "penis," even though he or she has no idea if the statements on

Bush and Gorbachev are correct (no commitment to the truth of the

humorous statements illustrated again) (Attardo & Raskin, 1991).

Moreover, the juxtaposition of two different situations, determined byambiguity, or homonymy is another type of logical mechanism, as in the thirtieth

example of the authors, Attardo and Raskin (1991):

(30) Who supports Gorbachev? Oh, nobody. He is still able to walk on his own.

In addition to these five parameters, leading to humor, there is another

parameter, or KR, the script opposition, whose explanation is given below:

The main claim of SSTH (Semantic Script

Theory of Humor) is that the text of a joke is always fully or in part

compatible with two distinct scripts and that the two scripts are

opposed to each other in a special way. In other words, the text of the

joke is deliberately ambiguous, at least up to the point, if not to the

very end. The punchline triggers the switch from the one script to the

other by making the hearer backtrack and realize that a different

interpretation was possible from the very beginning (Attardo & Raskin,1991, my emphasis with my explanation included).

SSTH (Semantic Script Theory of Humor) of Raskin (1985) suggests that there

are three levels of script-opposition: first, the joke opposes the real to the unreal at

the most abstract level; thus, it opposes the factual reality to an imagined one;

second, this may assume three possible forms, for existing at a lower level of

abstraction, as the actual vs. non-actual, normal vs. abnormal, and possible vs.

impossible, and finally, at the lowest level of abstraction, these three can be shown

by the following oppositions: good vs. bad, life vs. death, sex vs. non-sex, money vs.

no-money, high stature vs. low stature, etc. (see Attardo & Raskin, 1991).

Besides, language determines five KRs, mentioned previously (a target,

narrative strategies, situations, logical mechanisms, and script oppositions) (see

Attardo & Raskin, 1991).


7/18



At this point, we can mention that this theory should be applied to issues

related to linguistic pragmatics, observing the ambiguities in linguistic structures and

word classes. Developing the theory of linguistic humor, Attardo (1994) suggests that

linguistic humor is caused by deviation from proper languages, as in *(1) occurr,

etc. But later Attardo, Attardo, Baltes & Petray (2004) define several strategies usedto create ambiguity-based humor in their study of a corpus of two thousand jokes. In

their study, the referential jokes were more numerous than the verbal and alliterative

jokes; only 5.2% of jokes were based on syntactic ambiguity, but lexical ambiguity

was discovered in 92.5% of cases.

Successively, Bucaria (2004) divides (this division is customary in linguistic

literature) semantic ambiguity into three main categories of ambiguity, which are

indicated below:

1) Lexical,

2) Syntactic, and

3) Phonological.

The first category involves noun and verb ambiguity, and syntactic ambiguity

contains not only class ambiguity, but also other types of ambiguity, as it regards the

semantic shifts created by confusion between grammatical categories, and phrasal

attachment and ellipsis (Bucaria, 2004: 281). Phonological ambuiguity involvesmeaning confusion, caused by sound resemblances, as in the following example of

Bucaria:

(2) IS THERE A RING OF DEBRIS AROUND URANUS?

The ambiguity in (2) is caused by the phonological string /iurens/, that corresponds to

the noun Uranus, and to the phrase your anus.

In our study, we intend to discover which lexical, syntactic, and phonological

ambiguities are used by different social classes, represented by the characters in

Turkish comic strips. For doing so, first of all, we talk about the previous linguistic

studies conducted on Turkish humor, which affected us, we cite the renovations that

our study inserts into the linguistic humor studies, and we test our hypotheses, based


8/18



on the data we gathered from several Turkish comic strips. Later we conclude that

people from different social classes use different linguistic humor starategies.

1. 2. LITERARURE REVIEW

Several studies were conducted on linguistic humor in Turkish humor texts. Most of them were based on theories other than Attardo and Raskins (1991) theory, based on

six humor strategies.

Most articles on linguistic humor theories application to Turkish are on

Nasreddin Hodja. One of them is Mizahta stnlk teorisi ve Nasreddin Hoca

Fkralar (Superiority Theory in Humor and anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja ).

Trkmen (1996) applied the superiority theory of Hobbes to the anecdotes of

Nasreddin Hodja; he suggested that the anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja involved acts

of being happy, as a bad event had happened to any other living thing, and NasreddinHodja ridiculed those who seemed to be more intelligent and / or richer than him.

This article helped us understand some linguistic terms of humor.

Additionally, Trkmen (1997) dealt with humor theories, which included also

the superiority theory of Hobbes; this article also served us to understand better the

linguistic structures, used for mocking others, who think themselves superior to those,

who are actually superior to them.

Besides, O uz (1997) discussed the methods to be used in researches on

Nasreddin Hodja. He supposed that a Turkish humor element in an anecdote of Nasreddin Hodja would appear as an element, belonging to another culture, and it was

important to distinguish between the real anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja and the recent

versions of these anecdotes. Therefore, a good method should be used in analyzing

the origins of linguistic elements of humor that differ from culture to culture.

Sa lam (1997) wrote about the identity of Nasreddin Hodja, and his humor,

explaining the linguistic paradoxes that create humor in anecdotes of Nasreddin

Hodja. After reading this study, we decided to observe the linguistic humor use by

people, belonging to different social classes.

On the other hand, Yakc (1997) introduced us to the similar linguistic

elements used in various versions of anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja, narrated in Turkic

countries: the Azeris call the Turkish Nasreddin Hodja Molla Nasreddin, Uighurs

Nesirdin Efendi, Uzbeks Nasriddin Afandi, and Tatars Nasreddin Oca, for

instance. The themes of these anecdotes differ from culture to culture. In this case,


9/18



we become aware of the fact that each linguistic structure of humor involves culture-

specific cognitive elements. While we classify the language of people belonging to

different social classes, preparing our study, we also take into account the dialectical

and regional variations in their speech.

Additionally, a scientific article on linguistic humor, which does not deal withNasreddin Hodja, is Mehmet zmens 1990 sonras mizah dergilerinde mizah dili

(The linguistic humor in the humor magazines published after 1990 ), which

appeared among the papers of the Third International Turkish Language Congress,

held in 1996. In this paper published in 1999, zmen gives examples to the uses of

linguistic humor by people speaking diverse regional dialects, observing verbal

conjunctions, uses of tense, aspect, and time in comic strips, morphophonological

particularities of the words that have various senses, effects of the speech disorders on

the language use, intonation types, neologisms, as in vulgar language and slang,idioms, abbreviations, changes on peoples names, exclamations, and alliterations.

Our study differs from all of these previous studies, as it is based on the

linguistic humor theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991) in testing the lexical

ambiguities employed by people, belonging to different social classes. Moreover, we

also refer to Bucarias classification of linguistic ambiguities in linguistic humor

studies. This paper is based on a sociolinguistic research, investigating the language

of Turkish comic strips.

1. 3. HYPOTHESES (RESEARCH QUESTIONS)

In this study we test the following hypotheses, concerning the uses of linguistic

ambiguities in Turkish comic strips:

1. Do the mobsters use more phonological, lexical, and syntactic ambiguities than the

politicians in Turkish comic strips?

2. Do the housewives refer to more syntactic and phonological ambiguities than the

business-women in Turkish comic strips? Meanwhile, do the business-women use

more lexical ambiguities than the housewives in Turkish comic strips?

2. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

We gathered our data from several Turkish comic strips in some comic-strip

magazines. The Turkish magazines of comic strips from which we gathered our data

include Ademler ve Havvalar 3 (2005), Atom (2005/11), Frt (2005/47), Grgr


10/18



(2005/47), L-Manyak Uanhay (2005/11), Leman (2005/47), Leman (2005/48),

Lombak (2005/11), Kemik (2005/11), Kstah (2005/2), Penguen (2005/47), and

Penguen (2005/48).

As a statistical technique, we used Smiths Statistical Package for MacOs X in

order to test our hypotheses.

2. 1. DATA ON THE COMPARISON OF THE AMBIGUITIES USED BY

MOBSTERS AND POLITICIANS

Our Chi-square test results show that the mobsters use more lexical, syntactic, and

phonological ambiguities than the politicians in Turkish comic strips. Our hypothesis

is valid with a Chi-square of 10.4223 and a p-value equal to 0.0053 with the

calculation of their expected values, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Ambiguities employed by the mobsters and the politicians in Turkish

comic strips

2. 2. DATA ON THE COMPARISON OF THE AMBIGUITIES USED BY

HOUSEWIVES AND BUSINESS-WOMEN

Our hypothesis that the housewives refer to more syntactic and phonologicalambiguities than the business-women, as the business-women use more lexical

ambiguities than the housewives in Turkish comic strips is valid with its expected

values as the results of the Chi-square test show below in Table 3:


11/18



Table 3. Ambiguities employed by the business-women and the housewives inTurkish comic strips

Our findings are statistically significant with a Chi-square of 6.7024, and a p-value

equal to 0.0349.

As our results are statistically significant, and our hypotheses are valid, now

we can pass to the next section on some examples to our findings.

3. OBSERVATION OF SAMPLES FROM THE DISCOURSES OF THESTEREOTYPES

Now let us give some examples to the phonological, lexical, and syntactic ambiguities

used in the dialogues we observed in our study.

3. 1. PHONOLOGICAL AMBIGUITIES

A male mobster, a criminal makes this phonological joke, where both words of sa lar mean the one who provides something. But we have to mention that in the second

sentence it is a surname, used as if it were a verb phrase:

(1) Bunu kim sa lar? (Who provides this?)


12/18



Fikri Sa lar. (Fikri Sa lar; Fikri provides this) (Perker,Uykusuz...[Sleepless...], L-Manyak Uanhay , 2005/11)

This joke is typical in Turkish, as Turkish surnames involve also verb phrases. Fikri

Sa lar was a Turkish minister. The sentence provides the figure of a Turkishprototypical minister. The target, the criminal cannot find a solution to his problem,

and our stereotype refers to a word play. Moreover, the situation is created by the

question that needs to be answered, the script opposition, underlying the joke, is the

fact that nobody can solve the problem of the criminal. In the ground, there is the

problem to solve, a solution to be provided, and in the figure there is nobody.

On the other hand, a politician cannot pronounce the word d es, and plays

with the word, creating other meaningless words, inconvenient to the speech of a

stereotypical politician, and the situation where he exists; thus, a governor must notspeak so incorrectly.

(2) Pensilvanya desi...Dsei. Yok dse.. D es Dsrevic Sdue gelecekti

bugn. (The duchesh of Pennsylvania...The dusech. No duchess.. The duchess

Dserevic Sduchesh would come today) (Pek, Byk, ama gzel szler [Great, but

nice sayings], Leman , 2005/47).

An educated housewife utters a strange word prfsr instead of profesr ,talking to his son. The utterance shows us that the housewife is uneducated here; the

situation in which the housewife refers to an educated person leads to the stereotyping

of that person as an illiterate housewife due to her mispronunciation of a word, which

leads to its loss of meaning.

(3) Housewife: ...prfsr...

(...professor... in a vulgar mode of use)

(Ya aro lu, Komikaze,Penguen , 2005/47)

Another phonological error is encountered in the speech of a business-woman

who uses t, instead of sh; however, she does this, thinking about the English

original form of the verb to chat, which is etle mek in Turkish. As a result, we


13/18



conclude that the woman has a high cultural level, and forms a good target, i.e., a

perfect stereotype for a business-woman:

(4) A business-woman: Bayan ismi vererek etletmis sizle!

(He chatted with you introducing himself with a name for women!)(Perker, Edim, L-Manyak Uanhay , 2005/11)

3. 2. SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITIES

In our study, the syntactic ambiguities are caused by the lack of punctuation marks.

This shows the cultural background of the speakers, which serves to the formation of

targets, thus, stereotypes. The stereotypes make grammatical errors. In this case, also

some script oppositions are found directly in the sentences where the antonyms are

used.In (5) the lack of a punctuation mark causes a problem in the interpretation of

the sentence. We cannot distinguish between the two sentences, the dad knows the

mother and mom, dad knows (it). The politician should have used babam , thus

the wordbaba in its the first person singular possesive form. The lack of punctuation

causes our misinterpretation of the sentence. This is the script oppposition, as we do

not expect that politicians or warriors make grammatical errors.

(5) Baba bilir anne.(Dad knows mom.)

(Koak, blishan,Kstah, 2005/2)

As well, a working woman also makes a mistake by referring to two antonyms

in the same sentence, bad and beautiful, but this beautiful is used in the sense of good.

There should be a comma after demedi (he did not say). Gzelim means my

beautiful, but here it means my sweetie pie, my dear; though, it may also mean I

am beautiful, forming a verb phrase. Besides, it can be interpreted also as my dear

did not say a bad thing. These three definitions create an ambiguity here without the

use of a comma.

(6) Kt demedi gzelim.

(He did not say that it was bad, sweetie pie.)


14/18



(Perker, Uykusuz...[Sleepless...], L-Manyak Uanhay , 2005/11)

3. 3. LEXICAL AMBIGUITIES

The humor is caused by a script opposition between war and love in (7). Most words

are also metaphorical in the example. Our target, the defender of a country causes thescript opposition. The stereotype deviates from the properties of a real stereotype

which she forms, and becomes a lover. A war cannot be without an army. Therefore,

as a man and a woman goes to a war alone, another meaning is derived from the

sentence, thinking about a ground other than the battle field with the figures of a man

and a woman as a couple. The female spy wants to go alone with the emperor of the

enemy country to make love chatting just on sex and love. This scene causes the

linguistic humor in (7).

(7) Bir gn de yanna ordunu alma. kimiz gidelim savaa. Sadece sen ve ben

ba ba a.. Scack canl canl sohbetler. Kadn Casus Eva Bender (One day dont

take your army with you. Lets go to the war together. Just you and me all alone..

Hot and extremely alive chats. Woman Spy Eva Bender) (Pek, Byk, ama gzel

szler [Great, but nice sayings], Leman , 2005/48).

On the other hand, surprisingly, a housewife uses a foreign word warcraft

instead of a Turkish word. This leads to a script opposition, as the target, thehousewife stereotype knows a foreign word.

(8) u warcraft oynad n kadar dersine alsan o lum, imdiye kadar prfsr

olurdun. (If you had studied inas much as you had played with that warcraft, my

son, you would be a professor now.) (Yaaro lu, Komikaze,Penguen , 2005/47)

Moreover, a male, trying to steal a book from the library in order to sell it says

the following:

(9) Sanki u anda btn ktphanedeki herkes bana bakyor. Halbuki herkesin

bakt tek yer belki de ktphanedir. (I feel as if everyone were looking at me at

this moment. Though, perhaps the only place where everyone looks is the library.)

(Perker, Uykusuz...[Sleepless...], L-Manyak Uanhay , 2005/11)


15/18



The speaker tries to imply that everyone reads a book, or looks at the shelves of the

library in order to find a certain book. In place of the word ktphane (library), the

word raflar (shelves) should have been used.

Another script opposition is seen in the speech of an Ottoman sultan, whoadopts the use of an Arabic hero of a fairy tale, Alaaddin, who says al, susam

al! (Open yourself sesame! Open yourself!) for wanting something from his

jinni. The hero was calling the jinni for the realization of his wishes. As we see, the

unique occupation of an Ottoman sultan should be just making love and seeing naked

ladies. This behavior is not convenient for a sultan, in fact. Suzan is a female Turkish

name, by the way. She is regarded as a member of the Sultans harem in (10).

(10) Al Suzan al (Open yourself Suzan open yourself, thus, get off your clothes Suzan! Get off your

clothes!) (zkan, Krk Leblebi [Broken roasted chickpeas], Leman , 2005/47)

The best example to the script opposition is in the following example in (11).

We included the fortune teller among the business-women, as she does not stay at

home, and earns her own money. In the sentence, we see the opposition between the

word honest, implied with the relative clause yalan sylemeyen (the one who does

not lie), and the word pure, and the use of the verb yalan sylemek (to lie). Thetarget is the stereotype of a fortune teller who earns a lot of money predicting the

future of others by telling many lies without knowing anything about the future. The

situation is excellent. The fortune teller sits and predicts the future of a man, and asks

for money for her lies. No fortune teller tells that s/he is lying, and asks for money for

her / his lies. The language play with oppositions is crucial here, and the speech of

the fortune teller is illogical, as in the real world a fortune teller never admits that s/he

is earning money by lying.

(11) Bir saf ve yalan syleyemeyen falc, zerinde by var diye yalan syleyip, onu

kaldrmak iin senden 500 YTL istiycek... Bu byy kaldrmami istermisin?

(A pure fortune teller who never tells lies will tell the lie that there is some magic on

you, and will want 500 New Turkish Liras from you in order to break the spell. Do

you want me to break this spell?) (Yaaro lu, Komikaze,Penguen , 2005/47)


16/18



4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

At the end of our study, we found out that the mobsters use more phonological,

lexical, and syntactic ambiguities than the politicians in Turkish comic strips, and the

housewives refer to more syntactic and phonological ambiguities than the business-women, whereas the business-women use more lexical ambiguities than housewives

in Turkish comic strips.

This is just the first step in Turkish linguistic humor studies based on those

within the framework of the linguistic humor theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991). It

explains the linguistic ambiguities used in Turkish comic strips within the framework

of this theory, differing from the previous studies on Turkish linguistic humor.

To conclude, we can say that our study forms a basis for the Turkish linguistic

humor studies within the framework of the theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991). Inthe future, more studies on all the linguistic humor theories of Raskin and Attardo

should be conducted. One of these should observe the understanding of Turkish

humorous texts by Turkish aphasics and learners of Turkish as a second language. As

well, in another research, the linguistic ambiguities used in Turkish riddles should be

compared to those used in Turkish comic strips from a cognitive linguistic point of

view within the framework of the same above-mentioned linguistic humor theories.

5. REFERENCES

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Attardo, S., Attardo, D. H., Baltes, P., Petray, M. J. (1994). The linear organization of

jokes; Analysis of two thousand texts. HUMOR: International Journal of

Humor Research7 (1), pp. 27 54.

Attardo & Raskin, V. (1991). Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke

Representation Model. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research 4

(3- 4), pp. 293 347.


17/18



Bucaria, C. (2004). Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The caseof newspaper headlines. Humor 17 3, pp. 279 309.

O uz, M. (1997). Nasreddin Hoca Aratrmalarnda Metot Meselesi. (The Problem

of Method in the Researches on Nasreddin Hoca).Trk Yurdu, pp. 25 27.

zmen, M. (1999). 1990 Sonras Mizah Dergilerinde Mizah Dili. (The Linguistic

Humor in the Humor Magazines Published after 1990).Papers of the Third

International Turkish Language Congress, held in 1996. Ankara: Klarslan

Matbaaclk.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor . Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel.

Sa lam, S. (1997). Nasreddin Hoca: Kimlii ve Mizah. (Nasreddin Hodja: His

Identity and Humor).Trk Yurdu Pp. 28 31.

Trkmen, F. (November 1996). Mizahta stnlk Teorisi ve Nasreddin Hoca

Fkralar. (Superiority Theory in Humor and the Anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja).

Trk Kltr , pp. 649 655.

Trkmen, F. (1997). Mizah Teorileri ve Nasreddin Hoca. (Theories of Humor andNasreddin Hodja).Trk Yurdu , pp. 21 24.

Yakc, A. (1997). Trk Dnyasnda Anlatlan Nasreddin Hoca Fkralarndaki Baz

M terekler zerine. (On Some Similarities between the Anecdotes of

Nasreddin Hodja Narrated in the Turkic World).Trk Yurdu, pp. 34 37.

Statistical Tool:

Smiths Statistical Paxckage for MacOS X

http://www.economics.pomona.edu/StatSite/SSP.html

OUR DATA ARE FROM THESE RESOURCES:

Madra, P. (2005). Ademler ve Havvalar 3 . Istanbul: Yap Kredi Yaynlar.

Atom (2005/11)


18/18



Frt (2005/47)

Grgr (2005/47)

L-Manyak Uanhay (2005/11)

Leman (2005/47)

Leman (2005/48) Lombak (2005/11)

Kemik (2005/11)

Kstah (2005/2)

Penguen (2005/47)

Penguen (2005/48).

Humor u Turkom

Documents

Transcript of Humor u Turkom