BIG BANG THEORY HUMOR ANALYSIS

Linguistic analysis of humor and script interpretation in the Sitcom “The Big Bang Theory”. Discourse and Pragmatics

Carmen Romano 146458

UDLAP

1 Discourse and Pragmatics

Discourse and Pragmatics.

Linguistic analysis of humor and script interpretation

in the Sitcom “The Big Bang Theory”.

Carmen Romano Lamuño

UDLAP

Abstract:

In this project the humor in some scenes of the the situation comedy “The Big Bang

Theory” was analyzed from a linguistic perspective to provide data on the elements that

make the texts in these scenes (linguistically) funny and, according to the script opposition in

these texts, propose how, if at all, the viewer could have gathered data throughout the

episode to give the opposing script.

Results succeeded to analyze the texts using the General Theory of Verbal Humor

(GTVH) and all the Knowledge Resources (KR) were given to understand why the text is

funny from a linguistic perspective; it was also noted, that for some scenes, the viewer

required certain information given to him before to be able to come up with the second script

that would make the text humorous.

Key Words: Humor, Knowledge Resources, Script, funny, Verbal Humor.


1. INTRODUCTION:

Humor is found in our everyday lives, from daily interaction with other people

to the things we read, watch, and hear. The capacity of humor is universal and most

people enjoy laughing at funny situations, things, people, and many are certainly

willing to pay for this kind of entertainment. This may be one of the reasons mass

media invests yearly extremely large amounts of money directed to the sole purpose

of making audiences around the world laugh.

Even though humor as a concept is universal, the kinds of humor that each

individual finds funny may vary due to individual differences such as culture, beliefs,

time, experience, psychology, situation, society, and etcetera. (Raskin 1985)

Sharing most, or all, of these characteristics makes humor more effective but

these are not necessarily a requirement for something to be funny, since there are

universal jokes that work despite all of these individual differences in its audience.

(Raskin 1985)

In this project, the aspect of culture is important, because it is an American

sitcom the subject of analysis; according to Hu (2012): “With the progress of

globalization, we have easier access to American culture in many aspects,

especially from American movies and TV programs of various kinds.”(p. 1185) By

becoming more used to a culture, people from other countries and cultures can now

understand part of the humor that requires some cultural knowledge of a specific

culture, which in this case refers to that of the United States of America (U.S). Being

the U.S. a major World Power it certainly has a lot of influence on other countries in


many ways, and mass media is not the exception. This influence, especially that

from T.V. and cinema, may result in people from other countries and cultures

becoming somewhat acculturate to the American lifestyle by being exposed to it

through media, and hence, share a better understanding of their humor.

Redfield, Linton and Herskovitz (as cited in Nguyen, 2008) refer to the

process of acculturation as a change that results from continuous contact with a

different culture (p. 5), though it refers mostly to actually living within a different

culture and becoming used to it by being in contact with its people, the contact can

also be through different kinds of interactions, like the ones T.V. shows and movies

offer.

This aspect may help audiences throughout the world grasp humor in

American sitcoms in a better way, but understanding the culture, though helpful,

does not necessarily make a text humorous, because there are many other aspect

that are not necessarily culture bound, especially from a linguistic point of view.

Since the study of humor can be done from many different disciplines such as

psychology, philosophy, anthropology, and etcetera, it is useful to make clear that

the aim of this project is that of linguistic analysis and will view humor as a linguistic

phenomenon according to verbal theories of humor that will be discussed later. What

this study finds “funny” is only from the linguistic perspective and may or may not be

considered funny for the reader or the sitcom´s audience.

To be able to analyze humor in a sitcom it is necessary to first understand

what is humor and how it works, a brief explanation of humor will be helpful to

understanding the whole study.


1.1) Humor Theory

1.1 a) Definitions:

Ross (1998) states in her book that humor is “something that makes

people laugh or smile” (p.1), she acknowledges this is a straightforward definition

and that “exceptions can be found”, but she claims that the response to humor is a

decisive factor between something humorous and non humorous.

Ross (1998) believes humor has a very strong social bond and that “when

people are alone they rarely laugh” (p.1) she says that the same example of humor

can be funny or not depending on whether we sense a humorous response in others

or not. Raskin (1985) makes a similar statement when he claims that in most, or all,

cases humor requires at least two participants to be effective, but he notes that in

this electronic age, the participants do not need to be physically present. (P.15) This

means that a humorous text can be achieved through electronic media like T.V.,

movies, the Internet, and so on. (P.15)

Humor has a target; these targets can be a person, an institution, a belief,

and so on, and humor has a purpose with these targets. The context in which the

text happens is also very important and, for humor, it can range from the most

casual context to the most serious one like death, illnesses, and etcetera. (Ross,

1998)

Humor has also a stimulus, which is something that does not match with the

usual characteristics of something else. Leacock (as cited in Raskin, 1985) states

that humor happens in circumstances where one experiences an incongruous

circumstance that crashes with the usual, but is not sufficiently harsh or painful to

overweigh the pleasure of watching it. (p. 15)


1.1 b) Theories:

Many authors (Morreall, 1983; Raskin, 1985; Attardo, 1994; Ross, 1998)

consider that there are three major theories of humor: The incongruity theory, the

superiority or disparagement theory, and the release theories.

• Incongruity theory: Morrell (1983) says that this theory deals with the

cognitive side of humor, by being “an intellectual reaction to something

that is unexpected, illogical, or inappropriate in some other way.” (p.15)

He believes we live in an orderly word, and when something does not

match to our conventions we find it humorous. (P.15-16)

The key characteristic in this theory, according to Ross (1998), is the

element of surprise, which creates a conflict between what is expected

and what is actually said. (P. 7)

• Superiority theory: According to Attardo (1994) the earliest theories of

humor included aggression as one of its characteristics since, many

argued, humor existed because of others´ mishaps. (P. 49-50)

Hobbes (as cited in Raskin 1985) believes that laughter occurs from

sudden glory that arises from a sudden conception of the superiority of

one´s self compared to others. (p. 36) Rapp (as cited in Raskin1985)

states that it depends on the seriousness of the mishap and on the

culture to decide if it is funny or not. (p. 37)

Rapp (as cited in Morrell, 1983) also suggest that we can even laugh

at ourselves according to this theory by dissociating from our alter ego,

and feeling superior to it in some way as if though it were someone

else. (p. 12)


• Release theory: This theory refers mainly to the psychological aspect

of feeling liberated by laughter. When a nervous energy is caused by

restrains, prohibitions, mysterious issues, or taboos the person feels

more curious about these things and mentioning them can become

humorous. Taboos such as sex, and violence trigger humor when they

are broken because, according to this theory all the repression that

they have caused on people is released and results in laughter.

(Morreall, 1983, p. 22)

This summarizes the three main theories of humor and will hopefully help

understand better the analyzed jokes in the study.

1.1 c) Semantic Script-based Theory of Humor (SSTH):

Coined by Raskin (1985) this theory has two conditions: the first that two

scripts overlap, and the second, that these scripts are opposite (p.99). A script is “a

large chunk of semantic information surrounding the word or evoked by it… it

represents the native speaker´s knowledge of a small part of the world” (Raskin,

1985. p. 81) this “knowledge of the world” can also be explained by Peirce´s (as

cited in Attardo, 1994) “semantic networks” that are culture-bound and refer to all the

information a speaker has about his or her culture.

Speakers according to social conventions as well as personal experiences,

backgrounds, and culture internalize scripts in their brains. Every script is related

and evoked by a series of different lexical items, i.e. words (Raskin, 1985; Attardo,

1994); for instance, the script, or macro-script, which is what refers to the main idea,

dog can bring to our minds other scripts that have to do with common knowledge or


social conventions around it such as walking the dog, buying food for the dog,

adopting, pet, animal, friend, fur, Chihuahua, breeding, and etcetera.

The role of scripts in humor is crucial because a humorous text according to

Raskin´s SSTH should be compatible with two different scripts and these scripts

must be opposite in order to achieve its funniness and its element of surprise; the

scripts should first overlap, i.e. give two or more possible interpretations, but this

does not necessarily make a text funny, only ambiguous; when these two scripts

oppose the text becomes funny, at least from a linguistic point of view. (Raskin,

1985. p. 99; Attardo, 1994. p. 203-204)

1.1 c) Non-Bona Fide mode of communication (NBF):

The Bona-Fide (BF) mode of communication is that in which the speaker

follows Grice´s Maxims, which are a series of requirements for a text to be

appropriate (see Grice, 1975) one of these maxims requires the speaker to give

serious, real, and relevant information to the hearer who is in a co-operative

principle, that means he/she believes the text is true and relevant, and hence

cooperates with the speaker to be able to understand it more easily (Grice, as cited

in Raskin, 1985). With intentional jokes, however, the speaker knows the information

he or she is giving is neither true nor serious; hence, he/she changes to a non-Bona-

Fide (NBF) mode of communication. The hearer, however, must remain in a co-

operative mode, and expect the text given to him/her by the speaker to be neither

true nor relevant, but funny, and, hence, tries to grasp the opposition of scripts. If the

hearer believes the speaker is in a Bona-Fide mode of communication, i.e. expecting

the text to be true and relevant, the joke will not be understood and will not be

successful. (Raskin, 18985. p. 100-101)


1.1 c) The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH):

This is the theory with which the texts in this study will be analyzed; it is a

revised version of Raskin´s Semantic Script-Based Theory of Humor (SSTH) (see

Raskin, 1985) which looks mainly for script opposition in jokes. This revised version

is more complete because it includes some aspects that had not been considered in

the SSTH and can be expanded to verbal humor in general and not only to jokes.

(Garcia Teruel, 2012. p.21)

The elements present in the GTVH that will give a better understanding of

verbal humor are the Knowledge Resources (KR) coined by Attardo (1994); These

KR give an extra information on other areas of language like pragmatics, theory of

narrativity, and the text itself. These KR are:

• Script Opposition (SO): Based on Raskin´s (1985) SSTH. Looks for the

opposing scripts in the text. (Garcia Teruel, 2012. p.21)

• Logical Mechanisms (LM): Attardo explains this mechanism as a

“distorted, playful, logic” (1994, p.226) this means the logic inside the

nonsensical text. The most common logical mechanisms can be:

juxtapositions, garden paths, false analogies, figure ground reversals,

and chiastic arrangements, and others. (2001, p. 26-27)

• Situation (SI): Refers roughly to the place, the participants, and the

background where the joke happens. (Garcia Teruel, 2012) Jokes can

rely greatly on this KR or not, it depends on the nature of the joke.

(Attardo, 2001, p. 24)


• Target (TA): Refers to the person or object to which the joke is

directed. This KR requires a target and can only happen in ridicule.

(Attardo, 1994)

• Narrative Strategy (NS): Refers to the way the joke is presented, for

instance, if it is a question-answer joke, if it is a simple narrative, a

riddle, and so on (p.224). (Attardo, 1994)

Raskin (2008, as cited in Garcia Teruel, 2012) refers to this KR as the

genre of the joke. (P.22)

• Language (LA): this KR gives the information necessary for the

verbalization of a text and determines how it should be said in order to

be functional (p.223).

Due to the fact that these KR give more information on humor and can help

understand better the humorous text, this theory is the one that is used to analyze

the chosen scenes in this study; this will be further explained in the Methodology

section.

1.2) Situational Comedy: “The Big Bang Theory” (TBBT).

A situational comedy is a kind of T.V. series with fixed characters and

situations. It depends on a great deal on the reactions of the audience, which is

present in the filming process, and actors can take perform and improvise according

to this “live feedback” to make the scene more successful.

American situational comedies are the most widespread and are gaining

popularity throughout the globe, and TBBT is no exception. (Hu, 2012, p. 1185)


Banitz (as cited in Garcia Teruel, 2012) believes that situational comedy is a

very important part of today’s television (p. 26) and these are best broadcasted on

T.V. due to the fact that they can maintain a regular audience that becomes familiar

with the characters and the usual contexts of the show. (Kalliomaki, as cited in

Garcia Teruel, 2012)

A brief introduction to the sitcom TBBT will be given in order to have a better

understanding of its context and how it can have an effect on the viewer at the time

of choosing one script or the other.

1.2 a) Background:

Hu used this sitcom for his paper “An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang

Theory from Pragmatic Perspectives” and he was able to give a very complete

background about what the show is mainly about and its characters:

Set in Pasadena, California, the show is centered on five characters:

two roommate geniuses who work at the California Institute of Technology,

experimental physicist Leonard Hofstadter and theoretical physicist Sheldon

Cooper; their neighbor across the hall Penny, an attractive blonde waitress

and aspiring actress; and Leonard and Sheldon's equally geeky and socially

awkward co-workers and friends Howard Wolowitz, an aerospace engineer

and a non-PhD from JPL, and Rajesh Koothrappali, a particle astrophysicist

postdoc also working at Caltech. Leonard and Sheldon are brilliant

physicists, the kind of “beautiful minds” that understand how the universe

works. But none of that genius helps them interact with people, especially

women. All this begins to change when a free-spirited beauty named Penny

moves in next door. The geekiness and intellect of the four guys is


contrasted for comic effect with Penny’s social skills and common sense.

(2012, p. 1186)

1.2 b) History and awards:

TBBT was first released in the U.S. in 2007 and has been running since then.

It has now seven seasons with several 21-minute episodes and has been very

acclaimed globally. It has won 24 awards and has been nominated 80 times for

international prizes. Their producers are Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. (IMDB

Database, 2014)

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS:

The study´s main goal is to analyze the humorous texts according to the

previously mentioned GTVH and, according to the analysis results, provide

information on how the opposing script that makes the text funny could be given by

the audience.

2.1) Research questions:

• What are the characteristics of the verbal humor in three humorous

texts in the chosen episodes of “The Big Bang Theory”?

• Can the opposing script be given by the audience and not by the show

itself? If so, how?


2.2) Hypothesis:

• All verbal humor in the chosen scenes will be able to be analyzed

through the GTVH and the KR will provide extra information that will be

useful to the understanding of the humorous text.

• The audience will be able to provide a second script because they will

be in a cooperative mode and will grasp some cues from the context

given in the sitcom that will lead them to chose the correct opposing

script in some humorous texts so the act becomes funny.

Only two questions and hypothesis were chosen because of the lack of time,

however they will hopefully be clearly answered at the end of the paper and the

methodology and results will give more insight on the topic discussed.

3. METHOD:

The aim of this section is to propose a method that is able to analyze a

number of episodes from the sitcom using Attardo´s GTVH and, according to the

description and context of each of the the episodes chosen and the analysis of their

knowledge resources propose how (if at all) the show achieves a cooperative mode

of communication with the viewer so the latter can provide the second script to make

a text successfully humorous.

3.1) Instrument:

The instrument chosen for this purpose was the previously mentioned

General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). This theory was chosen over Raskin´s


Semantic Script-Based Theory of Humor (SSTH) because I consider the knowledge

resources a crucial element to be able to analyze results properly, especially for

proposing how the audience could be the one to choose the script.

The analysis of humor and of the knowledge resources should determine if

the texts are funny only from a linguistic perspective, this does not mean all the

viewers considered them funny.

3.2) Sample:

The sample consisted of three humorous texts chosen randomly from the

sitcom´s seasons one and two. Only these two seasons were taken into account

because they give a large enough repertoire of episodes and they were the ones

that made the show famous so their style should be less repetitive and formulaic

than the one in the last seasons.

The three chosen episodes were the following:

• “The Pancake Batter Anomaly” (Season one, episode 11)

The plot of this episode centers in Sheldon getting sick and being intolerable

to everyone around him due to his self-centered nature personality. Leonard,

Howard, and Rajesh try to get away from the situation and make up excuses to not

be with him and decide to hide in a cinema´s “Planet of the Apes” marathon until

Sheldon gets better. Penny ends up unwillingly taking care of him until she realizes

she has been set-up to do so when Leonard breaks his glasses and has to go home

to get a spare pair. (The Big Bang Theory Wiki, 2010)


• “The Barbarian Sublimation” (Season two, episode 3)

In this episode Penny is locked out of her apartment and stays in Sheldon

and Leonard´s place while she waits for the locksmith. In the meantime Sheldon is

playing an online game about barbarians and quests and teaches Penny how to use

it, she understands it quickly and becomes addicted to it. Her addiction interferes

with Sheldon´s life because she needs him for unlocking many tasks in the game, so

he tries to set her up with some dates and has Leonard to (unsuccessfully) talk her

out of her addiction. She realizes at the end she is addicted and quits playing. (The

Big Bang Theory Wiki, 2010)

• “The cushion Saturation” (Season two, episode 16)

In this episode two separate stories take place, however, the one relevant the

chosen scene has to do with Sheldon, Penny, and Leonard. Penny accidentally

shoots a paintball at Sheldon´s spot, which is Sheldon´s favorite place in the couch

and the only place he sits in; She and Leonard take the cushion to the drycleaner´s

after Sheldon notices but it takes a week to get it cleaned and Sheldon goes through

withdrawal the whole time. (The Big Bang Theory Wiki, 2010)

4. RESULTS:

In this section all the knowledge resources of each scene will be

analyzed and a brief proposition of the way the second script was given by the

author and how he/she came up with it will be given. This section is divided in three,

explaining each of the chosen scenes:


• “The Pancake Batter Anomaly” (Season one, episode 11)

Dialogue:

Leonard: Oh dammit, my glasses. Okay, I’m blind here guys, can you help me find

them?

Howard: Sorry. (Crunching sound) Found ‘em.

Leonard: Oh great.

Howard: Sorry, don’t you have a spare?.

Leonard: Yeah, at home.

Raj: Well if you leave now, you can be back before the gorillas rip the crap out of

Charlton Heston.

Howard: Unless Sheldon’s there, in which case you’ll be trapped forever in his whiny

hyper neurotic snot-web.

GTVH Analysis:

SO: Human/spider, sane/crazy, ending/forever; LM: Metaphor; SI: Sickness,

demanding friend; TA: Sheldon; NS: Narrative; LA: hyper neurotic snot-web.

Script Analysis:

In this scene Howard subtly compares Sheldon to a spider that will “trap them

forever”. This script opposition is mainly given by the show and does not rely on

previous knowledge from the audience. However, the audience could give the script

opposition of sane/crazy and ending/forever by using a previous knowledge of

Sheldon and how apprehensive and neurotic he is. This information can be grasped

throughout the episode even if one is unfamiliar with the show or the characters.


• “The Barbarian Sublimation” (Season two, episode 3)

Dialogue:

Leonard: What’s going on?

Penny: Leonard, guess what, I’m a level three warrior.

Leonard: Great, you know there are groceries outside of your apartment?

Penny: Yeah yeah yeah, shhh!

Leonard: I only bring it up because your ice cream is melting and it’s starting to

attract wildlife.

GTVH Analysis:

SO: Domestic animal/wildlife; LM: False analogy; SI: Groceries outside, cat

eating abandoned groceries; TA: n/a; NS: Dialogue; LA: n/a

Script Analysis:

In this scene the audience must know that the term “wildlife” refers to a cat

that was shown in a previous scene, if the viewer lacks this information he/she may

not be able to give the opposing script and, hence, will not find this statement to be

funny. Due to the context, the viewer could find the term “wildlife” an exaggeration,

since it is unlikely that there will be any wild animals inside an apartment building;

however, the knowledge is given previously to the viewers with the only purpose of

making Leonard´s text have an opposing script.

• “The cushion Saturation” (Season two, episode 16)

Dialogue:

(Penny is sitting on Sheldon´s place in the couch)

Sheldon: Hello, Penny.

Penny: Hello, Sheldon.


Sheldon: You’re in my spot.

Penny: Are you planning on sitting here?

Sheldon: No, I’m going to the comic book store.

Penny: Then what difference does it make?

Sheldon: What difference does it make?

Leonard: Here we go.

Sheldon: That is my spot. In an ever-changing world, it is a single point of

consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four-dimensional

Cartesian coordinate system, that spot at the moment I first sat on it would

be zero-zero-zero-zero.

GTVH Analysis:

SO: Function/place in the couch, change/consistency important/unimportant;

LM: Metaphor; SI: Explaining the importance of something, a cushion being ruined;

TA: n/a; NS: Dialogue; LA: spot.

Script Analysis:

To understand the Sheldon´s complex dialogue a viewer must be familiar with

Sheldon´s difficulty for using language appropriately according to the situation and

his hearers and his insistence on explaining simple things in a scientific and

complicated manner. Even though Sheldon´s dialogue abut the “spot” and the

function was probably not intended to be understood by the target viewer, he/she will

understand he is referring to something of great importance if he/she is familiar with

Sheldon´s obsessive behavior towards his “spot”. This knowledge of Sheldon´s love

for his “spot” could make the audience give the scripts of importance/unimportant,


change/consistency, and Function in a Cartesian coordinate system/place in a

couch.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS:

The analyzed texts fulfilled the linguistic requirements to be funny according

to the GTVH; these texts could be successfully analyzed through the mentioned

theory and the Knowledge Resources (KR) worked to enhance the information given

by the texts. This results were consistent with the hypothesis previously mentioned

that stated that all verbal humor the chosen scenes could be successfully analyzed

through this theory and that the KR would provide useful information to achieve a

better understanding of the joke.

As for the hypothesis regarding that the audience will be able to propose

correctly the opposing script, only some propositions were made on how this could

happen, however, there is no instrument sufficiently adept to measure this concept.

I would argue, however, that some humorous texts in sitcoms are purposely

created in a way that lets the audience participate by adding the opposing script, in

the results from the analyzed episodes, though still proposals, it seems quite clear

that it was the aim of the producers to let the audience stay in a cooperative principle

by letting them add the script.

If this were true, which could very possibly be, the aim of doing this could be

to engage the audience more to the show by creating a character/viewer

relationship, in which the character says something non-jokingly but the viewer,


thanks to the previous knowledge and cues given by the show, is able to actively

participate and provide the script that makes the dialogue funny.

Due to lack of time, only three scenes were analyzed, hence, this study

cannot be generalized neither to all situational comedy, not to the “The Big Bang

Theory” show. I would recommend further studies that take into account several

scenes not only from this show but also from other examples of American situational

comedy in order to achieve more generalizable results.

Another limitation was the method used to assess how the opposing script

was given by the viewer, though it was only a proposal of the way this could have

been done, it was done as objectively as possible, however, it may fail to depict

reality in some ways. For this issue, I would also suggest to analyze more scenes

with similar texts and to analyze them more thoroughly. It could also be helpful to

approach this issue through questionnaires for the viewers of the show, this could

give more information on the way they feel about their cooperation with the show´s

characters.

This study succeeded to analyze the linguistic humor of some texts from “The

Big Bang Theory” and concludes that it is possible for the viewer to be the one

adding the opposing script to some of the humorous dialogues, at least in this

sitcom, and this could be achieved by relying on a number of cues given by the

context and the characters as well as on the viewer´s knowledge of the show.


REFERENCES:

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: a semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Garcia Teruel, A. (2012). Cross-cultural humor: An analysis of the humor found in

the sitcom Friends and its translation to Spanish. Bachelor´s Degree Thesis.

Universidad de las Americas: Mexico.

Hu, S. (2012). An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatic

Perspectives. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6), 1185-1190.

Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New

York Press.

Nguyen, J. (2008). Acculturation, autonomy, and parent-adolescent relationships in

Hmong families. Michigan, USA: ProQuest LLC .

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel Pub. Co.

Ross, A. (1998). The language of humour. London, New York: Routledge.


The Big Bang Theory Wiki/Home. (2012, October 23). The Big Bang Theory Wiki.

Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://wiki.the-big-bang-

theory.com/wiki/Main_Page

The Big Bang Theory. (2014). IMDb. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898266/?ref_=ttawd_awd_tt

Big Bang Theory Transcripts. (n.d.). Big Bang Theory Transcripts. Retrieved May 13,

2014, from http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/

BIG BANG THEORY HUMOR ANALYSIS

Documents

Transcript of BIG BANG THEORY HUMOR ANALYSIS