幽默感是人類有別於其他動物的特質之一，常藉由書面或口語的笑話形式表現。這其中，有些讓人捧腹大笑，有些則不然。笑話為何好笑？本文以語言學及心理學為基礎來探討此一議題。由於幽默感涉及說話者與聽話者間的雙向溝通，因此本研究將運用語意學的角度來檢視笑話的語言結構，並從心理學的視野來探討笑話給讀者或聽眾帶來的認知運作效應。
本文以質性研究的方式分析10個有趣的笑話以及10個無趣的笑話，並將分析的結果相互比較期能揭開笑話有趣的面紗。比較結果顯示，有趣的笑話和無趣的笑話有兩個共同點，即『腳本重疊』(script overlapping)與『詮釋轉向』(interpretation shift)。儘管存在共通之處，有趣的笑話及無趣的笑話在本質上仍有很大的歧異，兩者間的差別體現在下列四個向度：『體裁型態』(text pattern)、『腳本對立種類』(type of script oppositeness)、『認知機制』(cognitive mechanism)、『認知效應』(cognitive effect)。基於分析結果，本文得到四點結論。第一、『腳本重疊』可增加文章可讀性，有趣及無趣的笑話皆具備此一特質。第二、適當的文本篇幅有助讀者或觀眾理解笑話。第三、笑話中的『腳本對立』主題如與日常生活議題相關，較能引起共鳴，因而更為有趣。第四、經邏輯思考後才能理解的笑話帶給讀者或觀眾獲得新知的喜悅感，這類笑話通常較受青睞。

A sense of humor is one of human’s unique traits and is usually expressed by verbal language, such as jokes. However, some jokes are amusing but some are not. What makes a joke funny? This is the issue addressed in the thesis. Drawing on the linguistic (particularly semantic) and psychological theories of humor research, the present study attempts to explore the factors underlining successful jokes. Humor involves bi-directional communication between joke tellers and receivers. The study adopts a linguistic approach to examine the semantic structure of the joke constructed by the teller, as well as a psycholinguistic approach to investigate the cognitive effect of the joke perceived by the receiver.
Adopting a qualitative research method, the study selects ten funny jokes and ten lame jokes and compares them to uncover the features that distinguish them so that we can unveil the indispensable properties of funny jokes. The results of the analysis show that these two kinds of jocular texts are similar in “script overlapping” and “interpretation shift.” On the other hand, there are great differences between them in the following aspects: “text pattern,” “type of script oppositeness,” “cognitive mechanism,” and “cognitive effects.” Based on the results, some conclusions can be drawn. First, coherence grants readability, which is why both funny and unfunny texts display script overlapping. Second, appropriate text length makes jokes more readily accessible. Third, jocular texts connected to topics essential to human life are more likely to be perceived funny. Fourth, jokes whose incongruity could be solved in a logical way render the joy of discovery and expand the audience’s knowledge, and thus, they are favored.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Richard. (1986). Ostracism and indirect reciprocity: The reproductive
significance of humor. Ethology and Sociobiology 7, 253-270.
Attardo, Salvatore. (1988). Trends in European humor research: Toward a text
model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 1, 349-369.
Attardo, Salvatore. (1990). The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. In Kira Hall,
Michael Meacham and Richard Shapiro (Eds.), Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society 16(1), 355-362. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Attardo, Salvatore, & Raskin, Victor. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke
similarity and joke representation model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4, 293-347.
Attardo, Salvatore, & Chabanne, Jean Charles. (1992). Jokes as a text type.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 5, 165-176.
Attardo, Salvatore. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, Salvatore. (2001). Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, Salvatore. (2008). A primer for the linguistics of humor. In V. Raskin
(Ed.), The Premier of Humor Research (pp.101-156). New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Attneave, Fred. (1959). Applications of Information Theory to Psychology.
New York: Henry Holt.
Biegajło, Magdalena. (2014). “From Which Position Should I Get This Joke?!” A
Relevance-Driven Joke Interpretation: Naive Optimism, Cautious Optimism,
Sophisticated Understanding? International Studies in Humour 3(1), 2-14
Carrell, Amy. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 10, 173-185.
Chen, Ci-Rong. (2015). An Analysis of Humor Strategies in The Big Bang Theory
from Pragmatic Perspectives. M.A. thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.
Deacon, Terrence. (1997). The Symbolic Species. The Co-evolution of Language and
the Human Brain. London: Penguin Books.
Dunbar, Robin, & Curry, Oliver. (2016). Sharing a joke: The effects of a similar
sense of humor on affiliation and altruism. Human Nature 27 (2), 130-140.
Dynel, Marta. (2009). Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dynel, Marta. (2012). Garden-paths, red lights and crossroads: On finding our way
to understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying jokes. Israeli Journal of
Humor Research: An International Journal 1, 6-28.
Fillmore, Charles. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.
Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society,
(pp. 123–31). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Freud, Sigmund. (1960). Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York:
Norton.
Giora, Rachel. (1985). A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical
Linguistics 12, 115-135.
Giora, Rachel. (1988). On the informativeness requirement. Journal of Pragmatics
12, 547-565.
Giora, Rachel. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16,
465-485.
Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and Semantics, vol 3, Speech acts (pp. 41-59). New York: Academic Press.
Hobbes, Thomas 1651. Leviathan. London: Crooke. Facsimile edition: Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1909.
Hockett, Charles. (1977). The View from Language. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press.
Hong, Hui-Ru. (2003). A Linguistic Analysis of Mandarin Cold Jokes. M.A. thesis.
Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Jung, Wonil. (2003). The Inner Eye theory of laughter: Mindreader signals
cooperator value. Evolutionary Psychology 1, 214-253.
Lai, Ya-lin. (2012). Puns and Humor in TV Commercials: A Relevance-Theoretic
Approach. M.A. thesis. Taichung: Providence University.
Lu, Hsin-I. (2015). Ambiguity and Inference Processing in Joke Comprehension: An
Eye-movement Study. M.A. thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Mindess, Harvey. (1971). Laughter and Liberation. Los Angeles: Nash.
Morreall, John. (1983). Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Mulkay, Michael. (1988). On Humor. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nerhardt, Goran. (1976). Incongruity and funniness. Towards a new descriptive
model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a Funny Thing, Humour:
Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter
(pp. 47-51). New York: Wiley and Sons.
Palmer, Jerry. (1994). Taking Humor Seriously. London: Routledge.
Portoles, Jose. (1994). Pertinencia y pragmaitica. Revista de Occidente 154, 55-66.
Raskin, Victor. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Rosch, EIinor & Mervis, Carolyn. (1975). Family resemblance in internal
structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573-605.
Shu, Yi-Chih. (2007). Linguistic Strategies Adopted in the American Sitcom Friends.
M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories
of comprehension. In N.V. Smith (Ed.), Mutual Knowledge (pp. 61-85). London/
New York: Academic Press.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition
(2th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Suls, Jerry. (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 Humour (pp. 81-100). New York: Academic Press.
Suls, Jerry. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: A theoretical
and empirical synthesis. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot, (Eds.), It’s a Funny
Thing, Humor (pp.41-45). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Suls, Jerry. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee
and J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 1: Basic Issues (pp. 39-57). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tine, Chia-Hsin. (2014). A Comparative Study of American Humor and Chinese
Humor. M.A. thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.
Weisfeld, Glenn. (1993). The adaptive value of humor and laughter. Ethology and
Sociobiology 14, 141-169.
Wilson, Deirdre. (1994). Relevance and understanding. In B. Gillian, K.
Malmkjær, A. Pollit & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and Understanding (pp. 37-58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. (2004). Relevance Theory. In H. Laurence &
W. Gregor (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Yus, Francisco. (1998). A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 30,
305-345.
Yus, Francisco. (2003). Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics
35, 1295–1331.
Ziv, Avner. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.