Inherently funny word: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) →Further reading: Removing book as unreliable source – Alphascript books are simple reproductions of Wikipedia articles |
Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) Adding content, removing material supported only by original research and/or primary sources – see Talk:Inherently funny word#Using sources – adding list-defined references, other misc. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Certain nonsense '''words''' may possess '''inherent humor''', according to a 2015 study published in the ''Journal of Memory and Language''.<ref name="Lewis"/><ref name="University"/> The study's lead author, Chris Westbury at the [[University of Alberta]], suggests that the inherent humor of certain non-words can be explained by the property of [[entropy]].<ref name="University"/> Entropy, in this case, expresses how usual the letters in the word appear to be: the less commonly they are used, the lower the total entropy and the more funny they are likely to be found.<ref name="Shariatmadari"/> According to Westbury, "Some non-words are funny, and they’re weird when they are [...] But there’s actually a consistent relationship between how funny they are and how weird they are".<ref name="Lewis"/> |
|||
{{original research |date=December 2016}} |
|||
An '''inherently funny word''' is a word which can be found amusing without any given context, for reasons ranging from [[onomatopoeia]] to [[phonosemantics]]. Such words have been used by a range of influential comedians to enhance the humor of their routines.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-20/entertainment/8601280885_1_second-joke-comedy-trade-electric-chair/2 "The 10 commandments of comedy"]</ref> |
|||
The idea that humor can be predicted by a word's entropy corresponds to the [[incongruity theory]] of 19th-century German philosopher [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], who posited that humor is a product of one's expectations being violated.<ref name="Lewis"/><ref name="University"/> According to Westbury, "One reason puns are funny is that they violate our expectation that a word has one meaning".<ref name="University"/> |
|||
It is part of the mythology of actors and writers that the consonant [[plosive]]s (so called because they start suddenly or "explosively") ''p, b, t, d, k'', and ''g'' are the funniest sounds in the English language, with ''k'' often cited.<ref>[http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/words-that-sound-funny Grammar Girl: "Words that sound funny"]</ref>{{unreliable source|reason=Circular sourcing: article/podcast uses this Wikipedia article as a reference|date=December 2016}} |
|||
==What makes a word funny?== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Chris Westbury at the [[University of Alberta]] writes that there is a strong inverse [[correlation]] between funniness and the property of [[entropy]].<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Westbury, C. |author2=Shaoul, C. |author3=Moroschan, G. |author4=Ramscar, M. |date=January 2016 |title=Telling the world’s least funny jokes: On the quantification of humor as entropy |journal=Journal of Memory and Language |volume=86 |pages=141–156 |doi=10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.001 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X15001023}}</ref> Entropy, in this case, expresses how usual the letters in the word appear to be – the less commonly they are used, the lower the total entropy and the more funny they are likely to be found.<ref>{{cite news |author=Shariatmadari, David |date=26 November 2015 |title=From whong to quingel: the science of funny words |work=The Guardian |location=London, UK |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/26/from-whong-to-quingel-what-makes-a-word-funny}}</ref> |
|||
The concept that some words, especially those with a ''k'' sound, are inherently funny is a common trope stated in many fictional works. In the [[Neil Simon]] play ''[[The Sunshine Boys]]'', for example, a character says, "Words with a k in it are funny. Alka-Seltzer is funny. Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny. All with a k. L's are not funny. M's are not funny". Similarly, the ''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]'' episode "[[The Outrageous Okona]]" features [[Joe Piscopo]] as a [[comedian]] who, in attempting to teach the android [[Data (Star Trek)|Data]] the concept of humor, refers to words ending in a ''k'' as funny. |
|||
==Funny numbers== |
|||
{{user-generated|section "Funny numbers"|date=December 2016}} |
|||
According to [[Douglas Adams]], the idea that the answer to "[[Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything|the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything]]" in ''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]]'' is 42 is funny because it is an "ordinary, smallish" number.<ref>{{cite|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19229763|title=42|website=BBC|date=14 March 2007|archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20071220101545/www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19229763|archivedate=20 December 2007}}{{user-generated inline|certain=y|date=December 2016}}</ref> |
|||
In the 1996 video ''Caesar's Writers'', former writers for [[Sid Caesar]]'s ''[[Your Show of Shows]]'' discuss a skit in which [[Imogene Coca]] places a bet on a roulette wheel. The writers tried out several numbers before deciding "thirty-two" was the funniest number Coca could say.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://listserv.ucsb.edu/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211&L=nabokv-l&D=0&P=18531&F=P |title=Fw: Funny Numbers |series=Vladimir Nabokov Forum - Listserv 14.4 L-Soft|first=D. Barton|last=Johnson |website=listserv.ucsb.edu |date=25 November 2002 |accessdate=2013-03-26|archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080218225257/http://listserv.ucsb.edu:80/lsv-cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211&L=nabokv-l&D=0&P=18531&F=P|archivedate=18 February 2008}}{{user-generated inline|certain=y|date=December 2016}}</ref> [[Neil Simon]], one of the writers, went on to write ''[[Laughter on the 23rd Floor]]'', based on his experiences writing for Caesar. He claimed the [[23 (number)|''23'']] in the play's title was a transposition of ''32''. [[Carl Reiner]] created the [[Dick Van Dyke Show]] based on his experiences as a writer for "Your Show of Shows". In a first-season episode, "The Curious Thing About Women", [[Morey Amsterdam]]'s character, Buddy, explains that a package in a comedy skit they are writing should contain 32 pounds of hair, rather than 15, because "32 has always been a funnier number. I hear 32, I get hysterical!" |
|||
On the [[DVD commentary]] for the British sitcom ''[[I'm Alan Partridge]]'', its writers put forward their own theory of funny numbers, going against the more common view that smaller, specific numbers are funny and instead employing large, round numbers (e.g. "a million pounds"). [[Steve Coogan]], creator and star of the sitcom, said in an interview: "... like the number 37. Everyone uses that as a funny number. It's used quite a lot as a random comedy number, like 'that's the 37th time this has happened.' People should use random numbers more. Like 'fifty.' Alan Partridge's assistant is fifty. That was her age. And it sounded funny; I would say, 'this is my assistant [[Lynn Benfield|Lynn]], fifty.'"<ref>{{Citation |url=http://blog.moviefone.com/2008/08/22/interview-steve-coogan-on-hamlet-2/ |title=Interview: Steve Coogan on 'Hamlet 2'|archivedate=13 August 2011|archiveurl=https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110813113449/http://blog.moviefone.com/2008/08/22/interview-steve-coogan-on-hamlet-2|author=Jeffrey M. Anderson |date=22 August 2008 |publisher=cinematical.com}}{{user-generated inline|certain=y|date=December 2016}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Line 30: | Line 13: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist| |
{{reflist|refs= |
||
| ⚫ | <ref name="Lewis">{{cite web |author=Lewis, Danny |date= 7 December 2015 |title=Finally There’s a Scientific Theory for Why Some Words are Funny |work=Smithsonian |location=Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/finally-theres-scientific-theory-why-some-words-are-funny-180957462/}}</ref> |
||
<ref name="Shariatmadari">{{cite news |author=Shariatmadari, David |date=26 November 2015 |title=From whong to quingel: the science of funny words |work=The Guardian |location=London, UK |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/26/from-whong-to-quingel-what-makes-a-word-funny}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="University">{{cite web |author=University of Alberta |title=How funny is this word? The 'snunkoople' effect |work=ScienceDaily |date=30 November 2015 |url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130131847.htm}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
*[[Dave Barry|Barry, Dave]] (1991), ''Dave Barry Talks Back'', 1st edn., New York: Crown. ISBN 0-517-58546-4. |
*[[Dave Barry|Barry, Dave]] (1991), ''Dave Barry Talks Back'', 1st edn., New York: Crown. ISBN 0-517-58546-4. |
||
*[[Warren Shibles|Shibles, Warren]], "Humor Reference Guide: A Comprehensive Classification and Analysis" (Hardcover) 1998 ISBN 0-8093-2097-5 |
*[[Warren Shibles|Shibles, Warren]], "Humor Reference Guide: A Comprehensive Classification and Analysis" (Hardcover) 1998 ISBN 0-8093-2097-5 |
||
*{{cite journal |author1=Westbury, C. |author2=Shaoul, C. |author3=Moroschan, G. |author4=Ramscar, M. |date=January 2016 |title=Telling the world’s least funny jokes: On the quantification of humor as entropy |journal=Journal of Memory and Language |volume=86 |pages=141–156 |doi=10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.001 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X15001023}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/words-that-sound-funny Grammar Girl: <!--This web page cites the Wikipedia article "Inherently funny word", making it questionable as a source--> "Words that sound funny"] |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inherently Funny Word}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inherently Funny Word}} |
||
Revision as of 05:39, 23 January 2017
Certain nonsense words may possess inherent humor, according to a 2015 study published in the Journal of Memory and Language.[1][2] The study's lead author, Chris Westbury at the University of Alberta, suggests that the inherent humor of certain non-words can be explained by the property of entropy.[2] Entropy, in this case, expresses how usual the letters in the word appear to be: the less commonly they are used, the lower the total entropy and the more funny they are likely to be found.[3] According to Westbury, "Some non-words are funny, and they’re weird when they are [...] But there’s actually a consistent relationship between how funny they are and how weird they are".[1]
The idea that humor can be predicted by a word's entropy corresponds to the incongruity theory of 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who posited that humor is a product of one's expectations being violated.[1][2] According to Westbury, "One reason puns are funny is that they violate our expectation that a word has one meaning".[2]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Lewis, Danny (7 December 2015). "Finally There's a Scientific Theory for Why Some Words are Funny". Smithsonian. Washington, D.C.
- ^ a b c d University of Alberta (30 November 2015). "How funny is this word? The 'snunkoople' effect". ScienceDaily.
- ^ Shariatmadari, David (26 November 2015). "From whong to quingel: the science of funny words". The Guardian. London, UK.
Further reading
- Barry, Dave (1991), Dave Barry Talks Back, 1st edn., New York: Crown. ISBN 0-517-58546-4.
- Shibles, Warren, "Humor Reference Guide: A Comprehensive Classification and Analysis" (Hardcover) 1998 ISBN 0-8093-2097-5
- Westbury, C.; Shaoul, C.; Moroschan, G.; Ramscar, M. (January 2016). "Telling the world's least funny jokes: On the quantification of humor as entropy". Journal of Memory and Language. 86: 141–156. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.09.001.