DOI: 10.55804/jtsuSPEKALI-16-17

1. Introduction

We can rightly consider humor as a genre of discourse in which pragmatics is of crucial importance, because a joke is an expression of the speaker’s personal attitude and lacks objectivity and factual solidity. Aggressive humor, which combined several important idiomatic resources within the framework of this study, has always been considered as one of the characteristic signs of satirical discourse; the concept of aggressive humor originates from Z. Freud [Freud, 1960], who was one of the pioneersto talk about the possible cruel nature of humor. Humor can be a part of aggressive communication, and the combination of these two types of discourse certainly has distinct and goal-oriented pragmatic functions. These functions can be combined under the common umbrella of the desire of persuasion and influence, which is one of the main directions of the field of rhetoric [Aristotle, 25: 87–108].

We can demonstratethe dominant role of linguistic tools and linguistic resources in the pragmatics of humor with such examples as fairy tale, fable, satire, comedy or documentary discourses. The linguistic resources used in each of them serves the successful implementation of specific discourse goals. Without personification, metaphor, onomatopoeia, hyperbole and irony, adequate pragmatic functioning of the above-mentioned genres maynot be possible.

Following the analysis of the aggressive humor discourse, we tried to determine the place of sarcasm and irony in the given discourse. These are the tools that M. Toplak [2000] considers one of the most severe forms of criticism and recognizes it as a trope tool between pragmatics and semantics.

As for the intercultural aspect of the work, the parallel study of American and Georgian aggressive humor made it possible to observe the interdependence of humor and culture. More specifically, through research, we tried to determine the degree of aggressiveness of the humor of each (Georgian - collectivist [Hofstede, 1967:73] and American - individualistic [Hofstede, 1967:73]) country, according to the frequency and nature of the use of sarcasm and irony.

8 out of 20 “stand-up” monologues analyzed in the study represent the speeches of Muslim comedians, which aimed to observe the pragmatic functions of the discourse of subgroups under special stereotype pressure. The material needed for the research was obtained from YouTube platform and onlinedictionaries. Comparison of American and Georgian aggressive jokes gave us the opportunity for intercultural observation.

1.1 Humor

Humor is a complex social and psychological phenomenon and a crucial aspect of our daily social interactions. The ability to perceive humor is called “sense of humor” and is different for every person. There are many reasons for this difference. It can be factors of such a wide scale and importance as: culture, cultural similarities and differences or peculiarities, as well as those linguistic mechanisms that determine the success of humorous expressions.

1.2 Verbal aggression

Verbal aggression is defined as a strong tendency of a person in conflict to attack another person’s standing (person’s reputation in society) [Rusieshvili, 2010:198] in order to cause psychological pain [Infante... 1986]. Manifestation of verbal aggression is carried out by attacking personal traits, through humiliating human competence, insulting, cursing, ridiculing, mocking, scorning and non-verbal signs [Infante... 1990, 1992].

1.3 Pragmatics of aggression

S. K. Steinmetz [Steinmetz, 1977:19] defined aggression as the intentional use of physical and verbal force to achieve one’s goal. According to Steinmetz [1977:19], aggression is based on the intention of the act of communication, its success or failure, as well as the instrumental or expressive use of the act and its legitimacy or illegitimacy. This definition suggests that aggression can serve as a kind of additional/spare tool for comedians. Aggressive discourse may help comedians to shape their audience’s behavior according to their own expectations, even if it conflicts with their moral values. That is, the audience appreciates and, to some extent, showsapproval (with laughter, applause, etc.) about the validity of breaking various social norms. D. A. Infante [Infante, 1987: 158] claims that aggression is embedded in the context of interpersonal communication. He states that interpersonal communication demonstrates aggression if it directly uses force, physical and/or symbolic, to at least dominate over and possibly hurt, defeat or even destroy the object of the attack (human body, material possessions, face, position or behavior). As G. Yule [1996] points out, if a speaker says something that threatens another person’s standing, it is an act of “face attack”. M. Rusieshvili[2010] believes that sarcasm is one of the most powerful linguistic tools for “face attack”. Javier Contreras Armijo and others [2011] argue that sarcasm is the most successful way to make a person laugh. Therefore, the introduction of aggressive humor along with the correct use of idiomatic resources may be an unrivaled strategy for a successful performance for a comedian.

1.4 Aggressive humor

Humor has the power to establish and/or disrupt order. For example, joking can be both aggressive and an instigator of social bonding [Norick, 2003]. J. Holmes [2000] claims that humor can be both repressive and subversive; more specifically, it is equally effective in suppressing the existing conflict and in the process of its aggravation. D. Boxer and F. Cortes-Conde [1997] assure us that a joke in a conversation can acquire both connection and criticism, the so-called “Click” function. Moreover, it can be used both to maintain control and as a tool to provoke, irritate and overthrow the authority figure by subordinates. J. V. Culpeper [1996] makes the list of negative impoliteness strategies, which are rejection, exclusion or ridicule as he considers them a tool to emphasize the difference between the interlocutors’ powers. He also states that impolite speech is a kind of marker of the  speakers’ attitudes towards each other [Culpeper, 2011]. M. Billig [2005] writes that humor is a necessary component of social life and it is fundamentally related to social order (especially in the case of ridicule). The author argues that laughter is a rhetorical element and has certain, less studied connections with humor and contextual awkwardness. In general, people not only laugh with others, but also laugh at others, and take some pleasure in such disruptions of the social order. The cited theories confirm that humor can be a part of aggressive communication and it really has clearly formed pragmatic goals, such as: socialization, attitude display and establishing oneself in society.

1.5 Mechanisms of irony

Due to the importance and complexity of irony, it is constantly in the center of attention of the readers. We can say that experiments and research related to it are ongoing. Below we present two current theories about ironic expressions that have taken a central place in our research.

1.6 Echoic mention theory

D. Sperber and D. Wilson [1981: 306] suggest the concept of echoic mention to shed more light on the concept of irony and describe it as follows: when speaking ironically, the speaker echoes the previously heard opinion of the other by emphasizing his/her negative attitude. The purpose of the statement is to criticize the original statement - its author - the belief or opinion expressed in the statement. Successful interpretation of what is said depends on the listener’s ability to analyze the utterance as an instance of “mentioning”, and also to understand the speaker’s attitude towards the particular utterance. Unlike H. Grice [1975], D. Sperber and D. Wilson [1981] does not consider irony to be a violation of the maxim of truth. They claim that all examples of irony should be understood as echoing (echoing) of different types and degrees. For example, there are instantaneous and delayed echoes; the source of some of them is directly stated and some originate from thoughts and ideas; some refer to a real source while others - to an imaginary one.We will also come across a case in which the speaker voices the hopes and expectations of a specific person allusively (based on his/her own expectations), etc. Ultimately, their main point is that all instances of irony involve a mention.

1.7. Pretense theory

S. Nakamura’s [2007] theory of allusive accusation is based on some of the previously formulated irony (D. Sperber and D. Wilson [1981]) and H. Grice’s [1975] dominant theory and suggests that an ironic remark achieves its effect by alluding to a disappointed expectation.

The theory was confirmed by three experiments. The experiments showed the following: insincerity and allusion were more frequent in ironic expressions than in non-ironic ones; expressing negative attitudes with ironic expressions occurs at the expense of disappointing positive expectations, and it is not a distinctive characteristic of irony; overly polite offers are more often used in ironic contexts than less polite ones. The author considers that the reason is that the ironic expression equally expresses both the speaker’s attitude and his intention. S. Nakamura points out that allusion to past expectations is a prerequisite for irony – we blame the speaker for not fulfilling our allusive expectations [Nakamura, 2007].

2. Research material and methodology

The analysis carried out within the research included several stages. These stages and criteria are based on such theoretical materials as: sarcasm, irony, implication, the concept of “face” and the concept of the key part of a humorous expression (punchline). Components in the analysis of utterances were arranged in the following order: type of utterance, implication, overt intention of utterance, hidden intention of utterance, violated social norm, target, and key part of utterance.

The final part of the research in the case of stand-up comedy monologues included the selection of monologues on the YouTube platform and TV shows. The next step was to transcribe the monologues; finally, each humorous expression used in the monologues was analyzed in detail. Each expression/term used in the study was selected as the most representative example (containing aggression and violation of social norms) for the study purposes.

A detailed discussion of the components is as follows:

The principle of violation of the maxim is based on H. Grice’s [1975] cooperative principle. According to this principle, we have four maxims: quality (telling the truth), (being precise), relevance (talking about the case) and manner (speaking clearly). Ignoring them causes the viewer to feel confused, uncertain, contradicted, and instinctive to look for implication.

According to P. Brown and S. Levinson’s model [Brown...1987], the acts of attacking “the face” [Rusieshvili, 2010:198] and protecting and maintaining it are also important components in the identification of sarcastic expressions. Face is defined here as our standing in society. The act of attacking one’s face (a face-threatening act) is an attempt to damage it in some way and is directed against the interlocutor’s wishes. The act of protecting the face (face-saving act) has a deterrent effect on the face, which can reduce the negative effect on different levels.

In some cases, the “shared knowledge” and “general truth” segments helped us understand the irony of specific terms.

Here are some examples:

Excerpt from Louis C. Kay’s performance at the Beacon Theater^[1]:

“I was thinking the other day, what if there was a baby who was born… and there’s been a lot of fu**ed up babies, there's all kinds of babies born. There's been babies with, you know, that connected at the base to a dog or whatever; there's pity babies with three legs with hands on them; there's been Chinese babies.”

Violated Social Norm 1: Abuse of children with physical disabilities.

Violated Social Norm 2: Insulting the Chinese.

Excerpt from a monologue by Muslim comedian Rami Youssef^[2]:

“Obviously, I don’t agree with the ban. Of course, not. But the problem is I do agree with like, every third thing that Trump says. It’s like a weird, multiple choice test. He’ll be like: Mexicans are rapists, Muslims have got to go, the Government is broken, it could do better. I’ll be like: “One of those is true.”

Examples from "The Vano’s Show"^[3]:

Excerpt 1:

Context: [After criticizing active anti-European propaganda in the country, the presenter continues] “By the way, this occupier did not allow the residents of the border villages to visit the graves of their relatives. So what? As long as they don’t take away our “Georgianness (Georgian identity”, they can take away the lands and the graves of our ancestors, man, as much as they want!"

The key part: “So what? As long as they don’t take away our “Georgianness (Georgian identity)”, they can take away the lands and the graves of our ancestors, man, as much as they want!"

(1) Deprivation of Georgian citizenship is a problem.

(2) Confiscation of lands and graves of ancestors is not a problem.

Shared knowledge: The government of Georgia pursues a relatively lenient policy towards the occupying country.

General truth: the integrity of the country and the memory of the ancestors are indispensable components of the concept of national identity of any country. 

Excerpt 2:⁴

Context: "According to NDI research, 23 percent of respondents think that we are already members of NATO. (...) Well,good for you, living in an orderlycountry. It is us who should worry about catching up.“

(1) 23 percent of the population lives in an orderly country.

(2) The presenter does not live in an orderly country.

Shared knowledge: Georgia has serious economic, social and political problems.

General truth: NATO member countries have sound economic and social conditions as well asgood political situation.

3. Results

Social norms violated in the research material included such sensitive topics as: racism, sexism, homophobia, expression of negative/nihilistic attitude towards family, child and parent relationship; ignoring duties such as decent citizenship, respect for the elderly, denial of parental duties.

Racist, sexist and homophobic statements by comedians should be seen as a kind of signal from them that they are not afraid of condemnation and exclusion. On the contrary, their influence increases in direct proportion to the number and severity of the violation of social norms [Van-kleef... 2012] and they are more consistent with their own goals [Galinsky... 2003]. Ignoring other social obligations has a similar effect. Usually, a bad parent or a rude neighbor wouldbe ostracized, but this is not the case. Establishing oneself as an authority helps comedians to overcome situational pressures [Galinsky... 2008] and allows them to act according to their wishes without the fear of negative consequences [Galinsky... 2003].

The monologues of comedians representing the Muslim religious minority are a good example of understanding aggressive (sarcastic and/or ironic) humor as a verbal defense weapon. The main part of the discourse of Muslim comedians here is also ironic or sarcastic. Ironic and sarcastic expressions were associated with the most painful stereotypes about the Muslim population.These unreasonable stereotypes might be the following: Islam is a violent religion; all Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists; all Muslims are Arabs or Central Asians; it is impossible for a person to be a Muslim and, at the same time, a patriotic American citizen; Islam degrades women and puts them in a state of absolute obedience.

4. Conclusion

Research has revealed that irony and sarcasm are the leading linguistic tools characteristic of aggressive humorous discourse, which a) enhances its aggressiveness and, most importantly, b) makes it more goal-oriented. Expressing the speaker’s negative attitude/evaluation using sarcasm and irony makes the discourse more spectacular and humorous.

The second dominant strategy is the violation of social norms. Ignorance of social obligations (dignified citizenship, respect for the elderly, denial of parental duties), ignorance of sensitive topics for society (racism, sexism, homophobia) and expression of negative/nihilistic attitudes towards concepts that are dear to society (family, child-parent relationship) provide the speaker with an air of authority and win listeners’ support (at the expense of group identification).

Aggressive (sarcastic and/or ironic) jokes are an effective way to fight against the most painful attitudes/stereotypes towards the speaker and to make them gradually disappear – this was shown very clearly by the discourses of comedians representing the Muslim religious minority. Sarcasm and its strategies in specific circumstances (in conditions of a “Face-threatening” act, without a “Face-saving act”) can become an effective tool for at least transforming the attitudes and stereotypes of the addressee.

The intercultural aspect of the research showed us that the aggressiveness of the humor of two different cultures and its corresponding linguistic tools may be due to their level of development and different cultural values; its traditionalist tendencies and stereotypes can become an obstacle for the nation.

Finally, the use of aggressive humor enhances the rhetorical effect of all the above-mentioned discourses following the successful implementation of their pragmatic goals.

[1] This example is taken from the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xwW4VHWMw

[2]This example is taken from the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9R6vtcD09I&t=51s

[3]This example is taken from the page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4giYgMeo8&t=164s

[4]The given examples are taken from the following website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL4giYgMeo8&t=164s