The role of humor discourse in the construction of gender identity

  1. Esther Linares Bernabéu 1
  1. 1 Universitat d'Alacant
    info

    Universitat d'Alacant

    Alicante, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05t8bcz72

Journal:
Pragmalinguistica

ISSN: 1133-682X

Year of publication: 2019

Issue: 27

Pages: 112-132

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Pragmalinguistica

Abstract

This research examines the way in which gender identity is revealed in language practice and explores its theoretical and practical implications. More precisely, this article aims to explore some of the interesting ways in which female standup comedians use different speech styles marked by gender to deconstruct their imposed gender roles and, hence, reconstruct their identity as a sort of resilient process. We argue that the gendered speech styles in humorous discourse may be used regardless of the speaker’s sex to reassert one’s identity and break with the boundaries and constraints inflicted by society. In this sense, our purpose is to verify the hypothesis that planned humor discourse is the means comediennes use to perform unconventional gender identities and subvert the normative standards. For this aim, our study collects a corpus that comprised 15 monologues by seven famous north-American and British stand-ups such as Tina Fey, Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Kristen Shaal, Ellen DeGeneres or Bridget Christie. These monologues were transcribed and divided into humorous sequences, in order to examine the function of the different speech styles when using role-play and its relation with the humor styles proposed by Martin et al. (2003). They served to account the most prominent discursive features. The analysis of the effects achieved in relation to the construction and deconstruction of gender identity, as well as the study of the linguistic and paralinguistic elements used to trigger the comic effect has allowed us to prove tha the use of a certain gendered speech style in a humorous discourse can act as a sociopragmatic device not for breaking with sex roles stereotypes, but also for reinforcing and perpetuating some gender clichés

Bibliographic References

  • ATTARDO, S. (1994): Linguistic Theories of Humour (Vol. 1), Walter de Gruyter.
  • BANKS, M., & SWIFT, A. (1987): The Jokeʼs on Us: Women in Comedy from Music Hall to the Present Day. Unwin Hyman.
  • BIANCO, M. (2015): “Comedians Are Leading the Feminist Movement--And Here’s What That Says About Us,” mic.com,http://mic.com/arti-cles/113262/comedians-are-leading-the-feminist-move-ment-and-here-s-what-that-says-about-us#.ebLllcvyG. (Retrieved on 15th September2017)
  • BUTLER, J. (1990): Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion ofidentity. New York: Routledge.
  • BUTLER, J. (1993): “Critically queer”, GLQ: A journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1(1), 17-32.
  • CAMERON, D. (1990): "Discourses of desire: liberals, feminists, and the politics of pornography inthe 1980s", American Literary History, 2(4), pp. 784-798.
  • CAMERON, D. (1995): Rethinking language and gender studies: some issues for the 1990s, Language and gender: interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 31-44.
  • CAMERON, D. (1997): “Performing gender identity: Young men’stalk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity”, In Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U.(eds): Language and masculinity, 47- 65. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • CAMERON, D. (2009): “Theoretical issues for the study of gender andspoken interaction”, In Pichler, P., & E. M. Eppler: Gender and spoken interaction, pp. 1-17. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • CAMERON, D. & KULICK D. (2003): Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • COATES, J. (1993): Women, Men and Language. Harlow: Longman.
  • COATES, J. (1997): “Competing discourses of femininity”, In Communicating gender in context, edited by Helga Kotthoff and Ruth Wodak, 285-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • COATES, J. (1999): “Women behaving badly: Female speakers backstage”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (1), pp. 65-80.
  • COATES, J. (2003): Men talk: Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • COATES, J. (2007): “Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy”, Journal of Pragmatics,39(1), pp. 29-49.
  • COATES, J. (2014): “Gender and humor in everyday conversation”, Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives, 145-166.
  • CHIARO, D., & BACCOLINI, R (eds.).(2014): Gender and humor: In-terdisciplinary and international perspectives. Routledge.
  • CRAWFORD, M. & GRESSLEY, D.(1991): Creativity, caring and context - Women's and men's accounts of humor preferencesand practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15 (2): 217-231.
  • CRAWFORD, M. (1995): Talking difference: On gender and language (Vol. 7). London: Sage.
  • CRAWFORD, M. (2003): “Gender and humor in social context”, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), pp.1413-1430.
  • ECKERT, P. & MCCONNELL-GINET, S. (2003): Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • ECKERT, P. & MCCONNELL-GINET,S. (2007): “Putting communities of practice in their place”, Gender and Language 1 (1), pp.27-37.
  • GAL, S. (1995): “Language, gender,and power”, Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, pp. 169-182.
  • GIORA, R. (2003): On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.
  • GLASS, L. (1993): He says, she says: Closing the communication gap between the sexes. New York, NY: Pedigree.
  • HALBERSTAM, J. (1998): Female masculinity. Duke University Press.
  • HARRIS, R. J. & COOK, C. A. (1994):“Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are”, SexRoles, 30(7), 553-565.
  • HAY, J. (2001): “The pragmatics of humor support”, Humor: The International Journal of Humor Research 14, 55–82.
  • HOLMES, J. (2006). “Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humorand gender in the workplace”, Journal of pragmatics, 38(1),26-50.
  • HOLMES, J. & MARRA, M (eds.). (2010): Femininity, feminism and gendered discourse: A selected and edited collection ofpapers from the fifth interna-tional language and gender as-sociation conference (IGALA5). Cambridge Scholars Publish-ing.
  • HOLMES J., & SCHNURR, S. (2014):“Funny, Feminine, and Flirtatious. Gendered Discourse Norms at Work”, Chiaro, D. & R. Baccolini (eds). Gender and Humor, pp. 165-181
  • HOLMES, J., & KING, B. W. (2017):“Gender and sociopragmatics”, Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
  • JENKINS, M. (1985): “What's sofunny?: Joking among women”, In: S. Bremner, N. Caskey and B. Moonwomon, ed., Proceedings of the first Berkeley Women and Language Conference, pp. 135-151. Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group.
  • KITZINGER, C. (2007): “Is' woman'al-ways relevantly gendered?”, Gender and Language, 1(1), pp. 39-49.
  • KREFTING, R. (1978): All Joking Aside. Baltimore, MD: JohnHopkins University Press.
  • LINARES BERNABÉU, E. (2020): “El estilo de habla en el discurso directo como estrategia para la construcción del género en el monólogo humorístico”, Revista Signos, 53(102), pp. 123-143
  • LOCKYER, S. (2011): From toothpicklegs to dropping vaginas: Gender and sexuality in Joan Rivers' stand-up comedy perfor-mance. Comedy Studies, 2(2),pp. 113-123.
  • MALTZ, D. N., & BORKER, R. A.(1982): “A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication”, A cultural approach to interpersonal communication: Essential readings, pp.168-185.
  • MARTIN, R. A., PUHLIK-DORIS, P.,LARSEN, G., GRAY, J. & WEIR,K. (2003): “Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire”, Journal of research in personal-ity, 37(1), pp. 48-75.
  • MARTIN, R. (2007): The psychology ofhumour: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
  • MEYERHOFF, M. (1996): “Dealingwith gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable”, In V. L. Bergvall, J. M. Bing, and A. F. Freed (eds.), Language and Gender Research: Rethinking Theory and Practice (pp. 225–52). London and New York: Longman.
  • MEYERHOFF, M., & NIEDZIELSKI, N.(1994): “Resistance to Creolization: An intergroup account”, Language and Communication 14 (4), 313–30.
  • MINTZ, L. E. (1985): “Standup Comedy as Social and Cultural Mediation.” American Quarterly 37(1), pp. 71-80.
  • MULLANY, L. (2007): Gendered discourse in the professional workplace. Springer.
  • OCHS, E. (1992): “Indexing gender”, In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 11, pp. 335-358.
  • RASKIN, V. (1985): Semantic mechanisms of humour. Boston: Reidel.
  • RODGER, G. (2004): “Drag, camp and gender subversion in the music and videos of Annie Lennox”, Popular Music, 23(1), pp. 17-29.
  • RUIZ GURILLO, L. (2012): La lingüística del humor en español. Madrid: Arco Libros.
  • RUIZ GURILLO, L. (2014): “Infiriendo el humor. Un modelo de análisis para el español”, Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, vol. 59, p. 148-162.
  • RUIZ GURILLO, L. (2019a): Humor de género: del texto a la identidad en español. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Vervuert
  • RUIZ GURILLO, L. (2019b): “Performing gender through stand-up comedy in Spanish”, The European Journal of Humour Research, 7(2), pp. 67-86.
  • RUSSELL, D. (2002): “Self-deprecatory humour and the female comic”, thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory & culture, 2(1).
  • SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (1992): “Introduction”, in H. Sacks, Lectures onConversation (Vols I and II, G. Jefferson, Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (1997): "Whosetext? Whose context?", Discourse & society, 8(2), pp. 165-187.
  • STOKOE, E. H. & SMITHSON, J.(2001): “Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis, Discourse & Society, 12(2), pp. 217-244.
  • STOKOE, E. (2008): “Dispreferred actions and other interactional breaches as devices for occasioning audience laughter intelevision sitcoms”, Social Semiotics, 18, pp. 289-307.
  • TANNEN, D. (1992): “How men and women use language differently in their lives and in the classroom”, The Education Digest, 57(6), 3.
  • TIMOFEEVA TIMOFEEV, L. (2014):“El humor verbal en niños de Educación Primaria: desarrollo de la conciencia metapragmática”, Feminismo/s, 24, pp.195-219.
  • VEALE, T., KURT F. & GEERT BRONE(2006): “The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor”, Humor, 19, pp. 305–40.
  • YUS, F. (2002): “Stand-up comedy and cultural spread: The case of sex roles”, Babel AFIAL, 10,pp. 245-292.
  • YUS, F. (2016): Humour and Relevance, Vol. 4, John Benjamins Publishing company.
  • WILLIS, K. (2003): Making sense of humor: some pragmatic and political aspects (PhD dissertation, London Metropolitan University).
Data source: Dialnet