Editing Joke (section)

== Telling jokes ==
Telling a joke is a cooperative effort;{{sfn|Raskin|1985| p=103}}{{sfn|Attardo|Chabanne|1992}} it requires that the teller and the audience mutually agree in one form or another to understand the narrative which follows as a joke. In a study of [[conversation analysis]], the sociologist [[Harvey Sacks]] describes in detail the sequential organisation in the telling of a single joke. "This telling is composed, as for stories, of three serially ordered and adjacently placed types of sequences … the preface [framing], the telling, and the response sequences."{{sfn|Sacks|1974| pp=337–353}} Folklorists expand this to include the context of the joking. Who is telling what jokes to whom? And why is he telling them when?{{sfn|Dundes|1980|pp=20–32}}{{sfn|Bauman|1975}} The context of the joke-telling in turn leads into a study of [[joking relationship]]s, a term coined by anthropologists to refer to social groups within a culture who engage in institutionalised banter and joking.

=== Framing: "Have you heard the one…" ===
[[Frame analysis|Framing]] is done with a (frequently formulaic) expression which keys the audience in to expect a joke. "Have you heard the one…", "Reminds me of a joke I heard…", "So, a lawyer and a doctor…"; these conversational markers are just a few examples of linguistic frames used to start a joke. Regardless of the frame used, it creates a social space and clear boundaries around the narrative which follows.{{sfn|Sims|Stephens|2005|p=141}} Audience response to this initial frame can be acknowledgement and anticipation of the joke to follow. It can also be a dismissal, as in "this is no joking matter" or "this is no time for jokes".

The performance frame serves to label joke-telling as a culturally [[marked]] form of communication. Both the performer and audience understand it to be set apart from the "real" world. "An elephant walks into a bar…"; a person sufficiently familiar with both the English language and the way jokes are told automatically understands that such a compressed and formulaic story, being told with no substantiating details, and placing an unlikely combination of characters into an unlikely setting and involving them in an unrealistic plot, is the start of a joke, and the story that follows is not meant to be taken at face value (i.e. it is non-bona-fide communication).{{sfn|Raskin|1992}} The framing itself invokes a play mode; if the audience is unable or unwilling to move into play, then nothing will seem funny.{{sfnm |1a1=Ellis |1y=2002 |1p=3 |2a1=Marcus |2y=2001}}

=== Telling ===
Following its linguistic framing the joke, in the form of a story, can be told. It is not required to be verbatim text like other forms of oral literature such as riddles and proverbs. The teller can and does modify the text of the joke, depending both on memory and the present audience. The important characteristic is that the narrative is succinct, containing only those details which lead directly to an understanding and decoding of the punchline. This requires that it support the same (or similar) divergent scripts which are to be embodied in the punchline.{{sfn|Toelken|1996|p=55}}

The narrative always contains a protagonist who becomes the "butt" or target of the joke.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}} This labelling serves to develop and solidify [[stereotypes]] within the culture. It also enables researchers to group and analyse the creation, persistence and interpretation of joke cycles around a certain character. Some people are naturally better performers than others; however, anyone can tell a joke because the comic trigger is contained in the narrative text and punchline. A joke poorly told is still funny, unless errors or omissions make the intended relationship between the narrative and the punchline unintelligible.

=== Punchline ===
The [[punchline]] is intended to make the audience laugh. A linguistic interpretation of this punchline/response is elucidated by [[Victor Raskin]] in his [[Theories of humor#Script-based semantic theory of humor|Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour]]. Humour is evoked when a trigger contained in the punchline causes the audience to abruptly shift its understanding of the story from the primary (or more obvious) interpretation to a secondary, opposing interpretation. "The punchline is the pivot on which the joke text turns as it signals the shift between the [semantic] scripts necessary to interpret [re-interpret] the joke text."{{sfn|Carrell|2008|p=308}} To produce the humour in the verbal joke, the two interpretations (i.e. scripts) need to both be compatible with the joke text and opposite or incompatible with each other.{{sfn|Raskin|1985|p=99}} Thomas R. Shultz, a psychologist, independently expands Raskin's linguistic theory to include "two stages of incongruity: perception and resolution." He explains that "… incongruity alone is insufficient to account for the structure of humour. […] Within this framework, humour appreciation is conceptualized as a biphasic sequence involving first the discovery of incongruity followed by a resolution of the incongruity."{{sfnm |1a1=Shultz |1y=1976 |1pp=12–13 |2a1=Carrell |2y=2008 |2p=312}} In the case of a joke, that resolution generates laughter.

This is the point at which the field of [[neurolinguistics]] offers some insight into the cognitive processing involved in this abrupt laughter at the punchline. Studies by the cognitive science researchers [[Seana Coulson|Coulson]] and [[Marta Kutas|Kutas]] directly address the theory of script switching articulated by Raskin in their work.{{sfn|Coulson|Kutas|1998}} The article "Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders" measures brain activity in response to reading jokes.{{sfn|Coulson|Kutas|2001|pp=71–74}} Additional studies by others in the field support more generally the theory of two-stage processing of humour, as evidenced in the longer processing time they require.{{sfn|Attardo|2008|pp=125–126}} In the related field of [[neuroscience]], it has been shown that the expression of laughter is caused by two partially independent neuronal pathways: an "involuntary" or "emotionally driven" system and a "voluntary" system.{{sfn|Wild|Rodden|Grodd|Ruch|2003}} This study adds credence to the common experience when exposed to an [[off-color humor|off-colour]] joke; a laugh is followed in the next breath by a disclaimer: "Oh, that's bad…" Here the multiple steps in cognition are clearly evident in the stepped response, the perception being processed just a breath faster than the resolution of the moral/ethical content in the joke.

=== Response ===
Expected response to a joke is [[laughter]]. The joke teller hopes the audience "gets it" and is entertained. This leads to the premise that a joke is actually an "understanding test" between individuals and groups.{{sfn|Sacks|1974|p=350}} If the listeners do not get the joke, they are not understanding the two scripts which are contained in the narrative as they were intended. Or they do "get it" and do not laugh; it might be too obscene, too gross or too dumb for the current audience. A woman might respond differently to a joke told by a male colleague around the water cooler than she would to the same joke overheard in a women's lavatory. A joke involving [[toilet humour]] may be funnier told on the playground at elementary school than on a college campus. The same joke will elicit different responses in different settings. The punchline in the joke remains the same, however, it is more or less appropriate depending on the current context.

=== Shifting contexts, shifting texts ===
{{see also|Humor styles}}
The context explores the specific social situation in which joking occurs.{{sfn|Dundes|1980|p=23}} The narrator automatically modifies the text of the joke to be acceptable to different audiences, while at the same time supporting the same divergent scripts in the punchline. The vocabulary used in telling the same joke at a university fraternity party and to one's grandmother might well vary. In each situation, it is important to identify both the narrator and the audience as well as their relationship with each other. This varies to reflect the complexities of a matrix of different social factors: age, sex, race, ethnicity, kinship, political views, religion, power relationships, etc. When all the potential combinations of such factors between the narrator and the audience are considered, then a single joke can take on infinite shades of meaning for each unique social setting.

The context, however, should not be confused with the function of the joking. "Function is essentially an abstraction made on the basis of a number of contexts".{{sfn|Dundes|1980|pp=23–24}} In one long-term observation of men coming off the late shift at a local café, joking with the waitresses was used to ascertain sexual availability for the evening. Different types of jokes, going from general to topical into explicitly sexual humour signalled openness on the part of the waitress for a connection.{{sfnm |1a1=Walle |1y=1976 |2a1=Oring |2y=2008 |2p=201}} This study describes how jokes and joking are used to communicate much more than just good humour. That is a single example of the function of joking in a social setting, but there are others. Sometimes jokes are used simply to get to know someone better. What makes them laugh, what do they find funny? Jokes concerning politics, religion or sexual topics can be used effectively to gauge the attitude of the audience to any one of these topics. They can also be used as a marker of group identity, signalling either inclusion or exclusion for the group. Among pre-adolescents, "dirty" jokes allow them to share information about their changing bodies.{{sfn|Sims|Stephens|2005|p=39}} And sometimes joking is just simple entertainment for a group of friends.