عنوان مقاله [English]
The objective of the present paper is to investigate the production of humor in pre-school children in linguistics point of view on the basis of Logical Mechanism Knowledge Resource. Logical mechanisms, along with and after Script Opposition, is the second most important variable in the General Theory of Verbal Humor. In this theory, Logical Mechanism accounts for the incongruity between two script oppositions. Participants in the present paper are 100 pre-school 4-6 years old children (50 girls and 50 boys), who were asked to tell a funny memory that happened to themselves. The children’s memories were video recorded and transcribed in special tables. The reason for a memory to be considered funny from children’s point of view is the incongruity of children’s memory. This incongruity was investigated on the basis of Warren and McGraw (2015) which is the most recent method of analysis for incongruity. In Warren and McGraw’s classification, the incongruity includes four logical mechanisms: surprise, atypicality, juxtaposition and violation. The results of the present investigation revealed that the participants used logical mechanism of surprise more than the other logical mechanisms. Logical mechanisms of atypicality and violation after logical mechanism of surprise are the most frequent logical mechanisms in children’s humorous memory constructions, while the logical mechanism of juxtaposition was the least functional in children’s humor productions. Regarding gender differences, it can be concluded that in pre-school children there was no meaningful difference in the types and numbers of humor productions between males and females. It was also revealed that logical mechanisms of surprise and atypicality had the highest frequency in children’s humor productions. The more frequent use of these two logical mechanisms showed a basic oppositon which is approvable in cognitive theories.
Alden, D. L., Hoyer, W. D., & Lee, C. 1993. Identifying global and culture specific dimensions of humor in advertising: A multinational analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 64–5.
Attardo, S.1994. linguistic Theories of Humor, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
ــــــــــــ. 2001a. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
ــــــــــــ. 2008a. Semantics and pragmatics of humor, Blackwell Language and Linguistics Compass.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 4, 293–348.
Attardo, Salvatore, Hempelman, Christian F., Di Maio, Sara. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions, Humor 15–1, 3–46, Walter de Gruyter.
Banas, A. J., N. Dunbar, D. Rodriquez & S. J. Liu. 2010. A review of humor in educational setting: Four decades of research. Communication Education 60(1). 115–144.
Booth-Butterfield, M. & Melissa W. 2010. Humorous communication as goal-oriented communication. In Deanna Fassett & John T. Warren (eds.), SAGE Handbook of Communication and Instruction, 221–240. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
De Mey, T. 2005. Tales of the unexpected: Incongruity-resolution in humor comprehension, scientific discovery and thought experimentation. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 14, 69–88.
Eysenck, H. J. 1942. The appreciation of humor: An experimental and theoretical study. British Journal of Psychology, 32, 295–309.
Forabosco, G. 1992. Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 5,45–68.
Gervais, M. & Saba W. 2005. The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach. Quarterly Review of Biology 80. 395–430.
Guo, J., X. Zhang & Xeromeritou, A. 2011. Humor among Chinese and Greek preschool children in relation to cognitive development. International Journal of Elementary Education 3(3). 153–170.
Hempelmann, Christian F. 2000. Incongruity and Resolution of Humorous Narratives Linguistic Humor Theory and the Medieval Bawdry of Rabelais, Boccaccio, and Chaucer, Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Ohio: Youngstown U.
Hempelmann, Christian F. & Attardo, S. 2011. Resolutions and their incongruities: Further thoughts on logical mechanisms. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24(2). 125–149.
Keramati Yazdi, S. 2009. Tosif va barrasi tanz dar matbooat zaban-e farsi az sal 1363 ta sal 1388 bar asas ruikardhaye karbordshenakhti. payannameh karshenasi Arshad Amuzash zaban farsi be gheyr farsi zabanan, Ferdowsi university of Mashhad.
Koestler, A. 1964. The act of creation. London, England: Arkana.
Kulka, T. 2007. the incongruity of incongruity theories of humor, Organon f14, No.3, 320-333
Latta, R. 1999. The Basic Humor Process: A Cognitive-Shift Theory and the Case Against Incongruity, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Loizou, E. 2005. Infant humor: The theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. International Journal of Early Years Education 13(1). 43–53.
ــــــــــــ.2011. Disposable cameras, humor and children’s abilities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 12(2). 148–162.
Loizou, E. & Kyriakou, M. 2016, Young children’s appreciation and Production of Verbal and Visual humor, Humor 29(1): 99-124
Lynch, O. H. 2002. Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication Theory, 12, 423–445.
Mahmoodi bakhtiyari, B.& Rezapoor, M. 2009. Barrasi vighegi-haye tanz-e kalami da asar Neil Simon: barrasi moredi namayeshname-haye shayeat va gomshodeh daryankerz, Nashriye Honar-hay-e- ziba- honar-hay-e namayeshi va mosighi, sh 38, 57-68.
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.
Mehrabi, Ho.,& Modares Khiyabani, S. 2012. Barrasi avamel-e zabani moaser dar sheklgiri tanz kalami, Majmooe maghalat Daneshgahe Alame Tabatabayee. Sh 281.
McGhee, Paul. E. 1979. Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: Freeman.
Monro, D. H. 1988. Theories of humor. In L. Behrens & L. J. Rosen (Eds.), Writing and reading across the curriculum (pp. 349–355). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Morreall, J. 1983. Taking laughter seriously. Albany: SUNY.
ــــــــــــ.1987. Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
ــــــــــــ.1999. Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Paolillo, John C. 1998. Gary Larson’s Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 11(3), 261–290.
Pitri, E. 2011. Children’s funny art and the form it can take over time. International Journal of Education through Art 7(1). 81–96.
Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Samson, A. C., Zysset, S., & Huber, O. 2008. Cognitive humor processing: Different logical mechanisms in nonverbal cartoons—an fMRI study. Social Neuroscience,3(2), 125–140.
Sezgin, Elif Y. & Hatipoglu, R. 2017. The study of the 5-6 year-old children’s Appreciation the humor at preschool Education, universal Journal of Educational Research 5(11): 1902-1911.
Shariat Panah, S. 2013. Tahlil-e gofteman Vag Vag Sahab bar paye nazariyeh omumi tanz kalami va ruykard ejtemaee-shenakhti Van dijk, payannameh karshenasi Arshad zabanshenasi hamegani, Ferdowsi university of Mashhad.
Shultz, T. R. 1976. A cognitive-developmental analysis of humour. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11–36). London, UK: Wiley.
Suls, J. M. 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information processing analysis. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (Vol. 1, pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Veale, T. 2004. Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 419–428.
Warren, Caleb, & McGraw, A. P. 2015. Differentiating what is Humorous From what is Not. Journal of personality and social Psychology, Psychology, 1-24.
Zamaniyan, N. 2007. Naghsh-e ebham dar latifeh-haye zaban-e farsi. Payannameh karshenasi Arshad zabanshenasi hamegani, university of Tehran.