But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness

Dynel, Marta

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2017.05.004

Cited by 50 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meaning as what is said as a goal of maxim fulfillment and implicature as a consequence of flouting maxim [8]. The maxim can create the meaning clearer and understandable.…”

Section: Maxim Of Manner Conversational Implicaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Meaning of Speaking by Conversational Implicature

Mandarani¹

2018

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intellectuals' Global Responsibility (ICIGR 2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Conversational implicature is related to theknowledge of what the speaker and the listener about something that is more focus to the understanding of the utterances said. Grice recommended that conversation will be understood if it is meet four maxims, so that the cooperative principle will be reached in conversation. In conversation people can use maxims of quality, quantity, relation and manner. Here the writers analyzed conversational implicature used by health analysts' students of UniversitasMuhammadiyahSidoarjoin their English speaking. This study used qualitative approach with descriptive method. The writer recorded the students' speaking, transcribed, and analyzed conversational implicatureof health analyst students of UniversitasMuhammadiyahSidoarjo. The result showed the students use conversational implicature in their speaking. The maximsuse isquality, quality relation and manner. This study is important to give one of strategies to convey the meaning from the speaker to the hearer in delivering the message of conversation.

show abstract

“…Meaning as what is said as a goal of maxim fulfillment and implicature as a consequence of flouting maxim [8]. The maxim can create the meaning clearer and understandable.…”

Section: Maxim Of Manner Conversational Implicaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Meaning of Speaking by Conversational Implicature

Mandarani¹

2018

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intellectuals' Global Responsibility (ICIGR 2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A thorny theoretical issue with conversational humour (CH) is how it can be at once playful, and yet communicate 'serious' meaning (Dynel 2017). Humour basically presupposes an activity people engage in precisely for the purpose of amusement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and then reducible to seriousness or the communication of serious message (Vincent Marrelli 1994;Lockyer & Pickering 2008;Haugh 2010). The noncategorical nature of humour motivates Dynel's (2017) reliance on the concept of untruthfulness as means to a more fruitful, abstract characterisation of humour in conversations. For Dynel (2017), the concept of untruthfulness provides an independent platform from which to conceptualise the humour vs. seriousness dichotomy, and because it operates at an abstract level, the labelling confusion that have plagued previous studies is avoided.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The noncategorical nature of humour motivates Dynel's (2017) reliance on the concept of untruthfulness as means to a more fruitful, abstract characterisation of humour in conversations. For Dynel (2017), the concept of untruthfulness provides an independent platform from which to conceptualise the humour vs. seriousness dichotomy, and because it operates at an abstract level, the labelling confusion that have plagued previous studies is avoided. Thus, Dynel (2017) draws from the neo-Gricean concept (un)truthfulness, which is a derivative of the first maxim of Quality, to categorise humour into two broad types, namely "autotelic humour (which resides in opting out of this maxim) and speaker-meaning-telic humour (which communicates truthful or covertly untruthful speaker meaning by means of fulfilment, flouting or violation of this maxim and the other ones as well)" (Dynel 2017: 83).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Dynel (2017), the concept of untruthfulness provides an independent platform from which to conceptualise the humour vs. seriousness dichotomy, and because it operates at an abstract level, the labelling confusion that have plagued previous studies is avoided. Thus, Dynel (2017) draws from the neo-Gricean concept (un)truthfulness, which is a derivative of the first maxim of Quality, to categorise humour into two broad types, namely "autotelic humour (which resides in opting out of this maxim) and speaker-meaning-telic humour (which communicates truthful or covertly untruthful speaker meaning by means of fulfilment, flouting or violation of this maxim and the other ones as well)" (Dynel 2017: 83). She indicates that theorising the pragmatic mechanism that underlies humour from the perspective of (un)truthfulness accounts for "a full spectrum of humour manifestations without causing any terminological contradictions" (Dynel 2017: 83).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Inya

2018

EJHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

When Both Utterances and Appearances are Deceptive: Deception in Multimodal Film Narrative

Dynel

2021

Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy &Amp; Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article gives a comprehensive theoretical account of deception in multimodal film narrative in the light of the pragmatics of film discourse, the cognitive philosophy of film, multimodal analysis, studies of fictional narrative and – last but not least – the philosophy of lying and deception. Critically addressing the extant literature, a range or pertinent notions and issues are examined: multimodality, film narration and the status of the cinematic narrator, the pragmatics of film construction (notably, the characters’ communicative level and the one of the collective sender and the recipient), the fictional world and its truth, the recipient’s film engagement and make believing, as well as narrative unreliability. Previous accounts of deceptive films are revisited and three main types of film deception are proposed with regard to the two levels of communication on which it materialises, the characters’ level and the recipient’s level, as well as the intradiegetic and/or the extradiegetic narrator involved. This discussion is illustrated with multimodally transcribed examples of deception extracted from the American television series House. In the course of the analysis, attention is paid to how specific types of deception detailed in the philosophy of language (notably, lies, deceptive implicature, withholding information, covert ambiguity, and covert irrelevance) are deployed through multimodal means in the three types of film deception (extradiegetic deception, intradiegetic deception, and a combination of both when performed by both cinematic and intradiegetic narrators). Finally, inspired by the discussion of Hitchcock’s controversial lying flashback scene in Stage Fright, as well as films relying on tacit intradiegetic, unreliable narrators (focalising characters) an attempt is made to answer the thorny question of when the extradiegetic (cinematic) narrator can perform lies (through mendacious multimodal assertions) addressed by the collective sender to the recipient, and not just only other forms of deception, as is commonly maintained.

show abstract

But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness

Cited by 50 publications

References 55 publications

Understanding the Meaning of Speaking by Conversational Implicature

Understanding the Meaning of Speaking by Conversational Implicature

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

When Both Utterances and Appearances are Deceptive: Deception in Multimodal Film Narrative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About