Comedy in Serie: Knop
Was wandelt sich am Komischen: Brock
Was wandelt sich am Komischen? Comedy-Formate unter Veränderungszwang. In: Block, Friedrich W. (Hrsg.), Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2011 The Mighty Boosh – ein Comedyformat zwischen Muster und Variation, In: Luginbühl, Martin / Perrin, Daniel (Hg.), Muster und Variation. Medienlinguistische Perspektiven auf Textproduktion und Text. Bern: Lang. (= Sprache in Kommunikation und Medien 2). 189-215.
Linguistic Theories of Humor: Attardo
Sandig: Text als prototypisches Konzept
“The Sitcom” by Brett Mills
- See also: http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/1/63.full.pdf
- google books: http://books.google.de/books?id=7HmFmw6OBSMC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22this+means+that+genre+study%22&source=bl&ots=1QrtNV-3Dt&sig=_iu0gJul8GV4SIA1tFt-hwz-sao&hl=de&sa=X&ei=soq8UPHlJ43BtAaz1IDwAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22this%20means%20that%20genre%20study%22&f=false
- reference: http://www.euppublishing.com/book/9780748637522
The Sitcom by Brett Mills, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009, p/bk 185 pp. ISBN 978-0-7486-3752-2Laurence RawBakent University, Ankara, Turkey
Sitcom has proved problematic for critics of popular culture. Brett Mills claims that this can be explained by the desire to prove that popular culture has “a political dimension” (6). Sitcom as a genre is treated as trivial and of little social consequence.
The Sitcom endeavors to redefine our perception of the genre. Based on extensive research plus interviews with (mostly British) television practitioners ± writers, directors, producers ± the book examines sitcom in terms of the industry that produces it, the programs which constitute it, and the audiences which consume it. For those working in television, the challenge with every sitcom is to forge a compromise between artistic and commercial concerns. This is especially true in the contemporary world, where most sitcoms are made by independent companies selling their products to the major networks. The notion that sitcoms can be nursed for one or two series,until they acquire a distinctive identity (which often happened in the past when they were made in-house by the networks) is now considered passé: ratings assume paramount significance in determining the future of any new series.Mills spends considerable time explaining why sitcoms have exerted such popular appeal. He approaches the topic in terms of four theories: the Superiority Theory (outlining the relationship between the joke-teller, the audience, and the butt);the Incongruity Theory (looking at the content and structure of jokes); the Relief Theory (suggesting that comedy fulfills a need in the individual and within society);and the Cue Theory (focusing on a program’s textual elements and their relationship to the society that produces them). However the task of trying to understand why audiences like sitcoms proves more problematic; to date little research has been published on the topic. Mills offers the results of a mini-survey conducted among his students in Missouri and Indiana Universities, and concludes that cultural factors shape their responses: “not laughing at jokes which others [British audiences, for example] find funny resulted in a feeling of exclusion” (113). At the same time Mills concludes that sitcom, unlike other television genres, is something which audiences actively seek out in a comedy zone, “desiring to be made to laugh” (122).The book concludes with a look into the tele visual crystal ball to see what sitcoms might look like in the future. Most professionals are convinced that ‘traditional’ long-running sitcoms are dead; but the success of shows like The Simpsons (1989-) suggests that such pronouncements are premature, to say the least.Perhaps sitcoms, as with other genres, will continue to evolve in response to changing viewing patterns; in the future we might be watching them online rather than on the main stream networks.I have only two criticisms of Mills’ work. First, I’d have welcomed more analysis of the ways in which groundbreaking sitcoms such as Father Knows Best and I Love Lucy exerted a profound influence on the ways in which viewers of the 1950s saw themselves, and whether the same can be said of present-day sitcoms (for example, The Office in its British and American incarnations). Secondly, I’d have welcomed more emphasis on American rather than British sitcoms; many of the examples discussed here will mean little to American readers, even if they have been broadcast on cable television. Nonetheless, The Sitcom provides a valuable and comprehensive analysis of the genre, while offering suggestive pointers for future academic research.
Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Heinemann
Early conceptions of humor (Keith-Spiegel)
Keith-Spiegel P (1972). Early conceptions of humor: Varieties and issues. In J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee (Eds.). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, pp. 4–39. New York: Academic Press.
the definition of humor in western culture was negative in the beginning and gradually turned positive. In the past, Keith-Spiegel (1972) and Herring and Meggert (1994) thought that humor was a multi-layered concept that encompassed satires, jokes, slapstick and sarcasm, among other negative behavior.
Pattern recognition theory
Alastair Clarke advances this theory as “an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively, it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognises a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter.” The theory further identifies the importance of pattern recognition in human evolution: “An ability to recognise patterns instantly and unconsciously has proved a fundamental weapon in the cognitive arsenal of human beings. The humorous reward has encouraged the development of such faculties, leading to the unique perceptual and intellectual abilities of our species.”
Mechanism/function of humor: evolutionary theory
Research identifies the reason humor is common to all human societies, its fundamental role in the evolution of homo sapiens and its continuing importance in the cognitive development of infants
A new publication answers centuries’ old questions regarding the mechanism and function of humour, identifying the reason humour is common to all human societies, its fundamental role in the evolution of homo sapiens and its continuing importance in the cognitive development of infants.
Alastair Clarke explains: “The theory is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how and why any individual finds anything funny. Effectively it explains that humour occurs when the brain recognizes a pattern that surprises it, and that recognition of this sort is rewarded with the experience of the humorous response, an element of which is broadcast as laughter.
Text Structures of TV Comedies: WS 20112012
Over the last 10 years, British TV comedies have developed many interesting formats, from retro-parodies (“Look around You”, “Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace”) to documentary-type comedies (“The Office”, “Marion and Geoff”) and weird sitcoms (“The Mighty Boosh”, “Green Wing”). In this seminar, we use a text-linguistic approach as well as central humour theories to describe the defining properties of specific formats. We watch several examples of comedies and work both deductively and inductively to produce adequate descriptions of text patterns in TV comedies.”