They are designed as preparatory sessions for those participants who have not had any previous exposure to humor research and who would like to participate in the ISHS conference and perhaps do some humor research in the future. The tutorials will be held by five highly recognized humor scholars and are planned from 9 to 5:30 pm, on Monday June 25, 2012.
The tutorials will be held at Wyzsza Szkola Europejska in Krakow, Westerplatte 11 (see the conference map here).
Download the Tutorials Schedule here (PDF file)
It is possible to register for the Tutorials only (without attending the whole Conference). If you wish to do so, visit http://www.konferencje-uj.pl/ and upon registration, choose "Pre-Conference Tutorial Participant" as your type of account.
1/ Professor Christie Davies, University of Reading, UK, Jokes: A Comparative, Historical and Social Analysis
2/ Professor Jessica Milner Davis, University of Sydney, Australia: Comedy and Humour: How do Literary Genres Relate to Humour Studies?
3/ Professor Giselinde Kuipers, University of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Humor and Social Boundaries: Studying Humor from a Social Science Perspective
4/ Professor Victor Raskin, Purdue University, Indiana, On the Road to the Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor
5/ Professor Willibald Ruch, University of Zurich, Humour and Laughter: How Does Psychology Define, Measure and Study Them?
150 PLN (~$50) per person, minimum 10 persons per each 6-hour long course. One participant can register for one tutorial only. It is possible (although not recommended) to register for the tutorial day, and not for the entire conference (then choose the Pre-conference tutorial participant as registration category). If interested in the tutorial, please register online - the tutorial AND conference participants will receive a small fee reduction.
Title: Jokes: A Comparative, Historical and Social Analysis
Presenter: Professor Dr Christie Davies
Timetable:
9.00 - 10:30
Types of jokes and how to compare them in order to study them.
11.00 - 12:30
Political jokes and disaster jokes
2.00 - 3:30
Ethnic jokes and jokes about social classes
4.00 - 5:30
Sex jokes and jokes about women and men.
Abstract:
This is a course on the comparative study of jokes aimed at analysing the social, political and historical context in which certain large sets of jokes are invented and told. Although some attention will be paid to the structure of jokes the main emphasis will be on the content of the jokes. This will be analysed in relation to society as a whole, rather than to interactions between individuals. The main method used will be to compare jokes between different societies to seek out similarities and differences and to look at changes and continuities in the jokes told in any particular society. One version of this method will be to consider the jokes that exist in one society but are absent in another society in close connection with it and where the same language is spoken. Another is to consider how and why jokes change as they migrate between such societies.
We will ask questions such as:
Why were the political jokes told in the former Soviet Union and its colonial empire so much more numerous and indeed better, not only than those told not only in democratic countries, but also in traditional authoritarian societies?
Why did jokes about distant disasters only begin in the mid-1960s?
Most countries have a local ethnic or regional group to whom stupidity groups get attached. What decides why a particular group becomes the butt of the jokes? How can we extend the argument to cover other ‘stupid’ groups in jokes such as athletes, blondes, carabinieri, orthopaedic surgeons?
Why have the Jews been pre-eminent in the invention of jokes, including jokes about their own group?
How are traditional, capitalist and socialist societies organized and stratified and how does this affect the nature of the jokes told?
How do jokes sneak round the social constraints on what we may say openly in relation to sex, aggression, death, politics, religion, race?
Men invent and tell many jokes about sets of women such as mothers-in-law, blondes, women drivers. Why do women not invent and tell jokes?
Although the main focus will be on jokes, other forms of humour will be discussed. It is not a course about the so-called theories of humour theory but there will be a critical appraisal of the analyses of Hobbes , Bergson and Freud and a firm rebuttal of both popular and politically correct views about the nature and consequences of joking.
The lecturer will draw a great deal on his own new book: Jokes and Targets, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011.
Health and safety warning: Much of the material discussed will be offensive to some people. Others may die laughing.
Title: Comedy and Humour: How do Literary Genres Relate to Humour Studies?
Presenter: Jessica Milner Davis PhD
Timetable:
9.00 am - 10:30 am
“Styles of Humour” and “Styles of Comedy”– Issues of Terminology and Genre in Humour Research
11.00 am - 12:30 pm
Farce: A Case Study in Understanding Comic Style
2.00 pm - 3:30 pm
Satire: The Challenge of Defining Satire and its Range
4.00 pm - 5:30 pm
Using Comic Genres in Humour Research: A Case Study of Test Materials
Abstract:
Literary criticism has traditionally used the term, comic style, to identify different shadings or tonalities in comedy, mostly for performative or stage comedy, but also in the comic novel, comic poetry etc. These differences can be likened to “flavours”, ranging from broad, physical comedy (slapstick or farce) to highly-wrought verbal wit (comedy of manners), from sentimental comedy where a happy ending for hero and heroine is very important (romantic comedy) to black and bitter comedies, absurdist or satirical in flavour. Many other terms are also involved, such as nonsense (often applied to verse), parody, irony, tragi-comedy etc. Others, like vaudeville and burlesque, vary in meaning, depending which side of the Atlantic you come from.
The situation has been rendered more complex by researchers in the psychology of humour adopting the term “styles of humour” to mean not distinctions of comic flavour, but patterns of using humour in everyday life (Rod A. Martin, The Psychology of Humor, Boston & London: Academic Press, 2007). This workshop will explore how to make sense of all this and whether the more traditional classifications of comedy can be useful in humour research. Important research by Giselinde Kuipers (Good Humor, Bad Taste, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006) identifying contemporary taste cultures in humour among subjects tested in The Netherlands and the USA shows that matters of aesthetics and taste are important variables in humour preferences, certainly for individuals and perhaps more broadly for cultures. Lab-based research needs to take this into account and this workshop will trial some potential cross-cultural test materials. Participants need to be prepared to view and respond to materials, some of which may be offensive, and to work through written questionnaires.
Title: Humor and Social Boundaries: Studying Humor From a Social Science Perspective
Presenter: Professor GIselinde Kuipers
Timetable:
9:00 - 9:45 am
Introduction: studying humor from a social science perspective
9:45 -10:30 am
Humor tastes and social boundaries: comparing across and within cultures
11:00 am -12:30 pm
Research exercise: interviewing about humor tastes, followed by presentation and discussion of research findings in group
2:00 - 2:45 pm
Humor and moral boundaries
2:45 -3:30 pm
Research exercise: analyzing humor scandals
4:00 -4:45 pm
Humor and the boundaries of cultural knowledge
4:45 -5:15 pm
Research exercise: What we need to know to get a joke
5:15 -5:30 pm
Concluding remarks
Abstract:
This tutorial has a dual aim. First, it gives an overview of social scientific approaches to the study of humor, through the notion of social boundaries. All social life is organized around boundary-drawing and social categorization: distinguishing the good from the bad, the funny from the boring, the moral from the immoral, the humorous from the non-humorous. Such categorizations are applied to people as well as things or utterances. Humor and laughter are among the strongest markers of social boundaries: those who laugh together feel connected, if only for a fleeing moment; whereas those who do not join in the laughter easily feel excluded or alienated. Drawing on theories and empirical studies from anthropology and sociology as well as political science and media and communication studies, we will investigate and discuss how humor draws social boundaries, and what the social consequences of such boundary drawing may be.
Second, this tutorial aims to develop empirical research skills. Participants will be presented with a range of empirical case studies (by the lecturer, as well as other humor scholars) and hands-on research exercises. Thus, they will be stimulated to translate both everyday observations and abstract theoretical notions into theoretically informed research questions, which can then be answered through systematic empirical research. Hopefully, we will be able to profit from the diverse backgrounds of participants in this tutorial in discussing humor tastes, humor scandals, and humorous genres and inside knowledge. Participants are kindly invited to bring along interesting cases, observations and examples for analysis.
Title: On the Road to the Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor
Presenter: Professor Dr. Victor Raskin, Dr. Christian F. “Kiki” Hempelmann, and ProfessorJulia M. Taylor
Timetable:
9.00 - 10:30 am
Why Theory? What is it and who needs it?
11.00 am - 12:30 pm
Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor (SSTH) and General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)
2.00 - 3:30 pm
Ontological Semantic Theory of Humor (OSTH)
4.00 - 5:30 pm
Computational Humor, Artificial Intelligence, Social Computing
Abstract:
First, we will explain our scientific paradigm for studying humor. We will introduce the notion of theory, with its clearly defined premises, body, methodology, and description. We will discuss the usability of such an approach and its applicability across the disciplines contributing to humor research. We will also consider why the linguistics of humor favors this approach.
Second, we will look at the history and development of the dominant linguistic theory of humor (SSTH-GTVH-OSTH) from its tentative formulations in the late 1970s to the current version. We will remind the participants that the Script-based Semantic theory of Humor was formulated only contingently, premised on the availability of a developed formal system of meaning representation, which did not become available until just a couple of years ago. We will look at the requirements that a full-fledged semantic theory of humor puts on the semantic foundation.
Third, we will look at the Ontological Semantic Technology as the answer to these requirements. We will discuss the ontology, lexicon, and commonsense rules on which the technology is based and figure out if any special material needs to be added to these resources to accommodate humor. We may have a chance to review the standard criticism of the theory from the point of view of the current state of the art.
Finally, we will discuss the nature and utility of computational humor, with its almost 20-year history. We will review the issues of humor generation, humor detection, and humor embedment into human-computer dialogues. In this context, we will talk about social computing and artificial intelligence. Do we still want a humanoid butler, and if so, do we want this robot to make jokes. If so, would you like to marry one?
Title: Humour and Laughter: How Does Psychology Define, Measure and Study Them?
Presenter: Willibald Ruch PhD & co teachers
Timetable:
9.00 - 10:30 am
Responses to humour: Enjoyment, smiling, and laughter
11.00 am - 12:30 pm
Learning the basics of FACS and how to apply it to humour research
2.00 - 3:30 pm
The dispositions to being laughed at: gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism
4.00 - 5:30 pm
Measuring the sense of humour: What instrument is good for what research question?
Abstract:
Psychology has a longstanding interest in the study of humour and laughter. Humour research as an interdisciplinary enterprise has profited a lot from general advances in psychology, such as theoretical and methodological breakthroughs. Furthermore, there is also a knowledge transfer from humour to psychology; for example positive psychology draws heavily on the work on humour and laughter as done by humour researchers. The present workshop will introduce to four domains of psychological research and present the state of the art in a) defining and measuring the emotional (experiential and behavioural) responses to humour, b) give a hands on experience on how the Facial Action Coding System (FACS, Ekman, Friesen, & Hager, 2002) can be used to assess any facial change including the various types of smiling and laughter, c) presents research and instruments relating to gelotophobia (i.e., the fear of being laughed at), gelotophilia (i.e., the joy of being laughed at), and katagelasticism (i.e., the joy of laughing at others), and d) discusses issues in the assessment of humour as a trait and state and presents current instruments and give fields of application for each one. The workshop will be interactive with lecture parts introducing to the topics, training elements (in the FACS part, bring a small mirror with you to monitor your action units), exposure to instruments (participants will be provided instruments and instructions on how to score them) and time for discussion and questions. Participants will learn how responses to humour have been conceptualised in the past and will be familiarized with how rating scales were designed and what aspects need to be asked for a comprehensive assessment of experience. Participants will learn about the morphology of smiles and laughter, learn to distinguish among types of smiling and laughter, learn about their evolution and the controversies on the relationship between them. They hear about the development of FACS, about its core elements, the action units (AUs), and which AUs define the Duchenne Display, and other expressions important in humour research. Delegates will hear about the three dispositions to laughing at and ridicule and see the instruments used in the research and what the current state of findings is. Finally, they learn essentials in the assessment of stylistic and ability aspects of humour. They learn when to apply what type of instrument and what the shortcomings and strengths are.