Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp.246–270

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The types and functions of humor in the work of a United States Senator

A case study of Senator Edward Kennedy

 | Bentley University
Published online: 10 June 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00095.gar
Abstract
This study investigates the role interactional competence plays in the performance of political roles by examining the use of humor in events such as speeches, election campaign rallies, press briefings and televised news interviews. In this case study of a prominent United States Senator (the late Senator Edward Kennedy), twenty publically available video recordings from the C-SPAN online archives are analyzed using a conversation analytic approach. Two main types of humor were found in these data, self-deprecatory humor and humor that criticizes others. Three main functions of humor were identified (subtle self-promotion, managing challenging political and interactional situations, and creating solidarity with an audience). The results of this study contribute to our understanding of how humor can play a role in doing the work of a Senator.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review: Humor and politics
    • 2.1Self-deprecating humor
    • 2.2Humor as criticism
  • 3.Methods and data
  • 4.General observations about the use of humor in the data set
  • 5.Humor, social role and interactional competence
    • 5.1Self-deprecatory humor
      • 5.1.1Self-deprecatory and self-aggrandizing humor
      • 5.1.2Self-deprecatory humor based on a surprise contrast
      • 5.1.3Self-deprecating humor through fictional story telling
      • 5.1.4Self-deprecating humor through ‘pretend ignorance’
    • 5.2Humorous criticism of others
      • 5.2.1Humor through direct criticism
      • 5.2.2Humor through indirect criticism
      • 5.2.3Pretend criticism: Humor from obviously fake attacks
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • References
References (48)
References
Ainsworth, Scott and Marcus Flathman. 1995. “Unanimous Consent Agreements as Leadership Tools.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(2): 177–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka. 2017. Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Jody C., Jonathan S. Morris, and Jeffrey Michael Coleman. 2018. “Did the ‘Road to the White House Run Through’ Letterman? Chris Christie, Letterman, and Other- Disparaging Versus Self-Deprecating Humor.” Journal of Political Marketing 17(3): 282–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Amy B. 2012. “Comedy Types and Political Campaigns: The Differential Influence of Other-Directed Hostile Humor and Self-Ridicule on Candidate Evaluations.” Mass Communication and Society, 15(6): 791–812. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Anthony J. Madonna, and Mark E. Owens. 2016. “Regulating the Floor: Tabling Motions in the U.S. Senate, 1865–1946.” American Politics Research 44(1): 56–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Ariel Shuk-ling and Foong Ha Yap. 2015. “‘Please Continue to be an Anime Lover’: The Use of Defamation Metaphors in Hong Kong Electoral Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 871(2015): 31–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, Neilan S. 2018. “Filling the Amendment Tree: Majority Party Control, Procedures, and Polarization in the U.S. Senate.” American Politics Research 46(4): 724–747. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chefneux, Gabriela. 2015. “Humor at Work.” Language & Dialogue 5(3): 381–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clymer, Adam. 1999. Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William & Morrow.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dmitriev, Anatolii Vasil’evich. 2008. “Humor and Politics.” Russian Social Science Review 49(1): 53–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard and William Housley. 2015. Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia, Angela Cora. 2013. An Introduction to Interaction: Understanding Talk in Formal and Informal Settings. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halkowski, Timothy. 1990. “Role as an Interactional Device.” Social Problems 371: 564–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatcher, Andrea C. 2011. “The Electoral Risks of Senate Majority Leadership, or How Tom Daschle Lost and Harry Reid Won.” The Forum 9(4): 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayden, Jessica M., Matthew J. Geras, Nathan M. Gerth, and Michael H. Crespin. 2017. “Land, Wood, Water, and Space: Senator Robert S. Kerr, Congress, and Selling the Space Race to the American Public.” Social Science Quarterly 98(4): 1189–1203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2010. “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 38(6): 1102–1129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Boston, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hester, Steven and Peter Eglin. 1997. Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, DC: IIECA & University Press of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Innocenti, Beth, and Elizabeth Miller. 2016. “The Persuasive Force of Political Humor.” Journal of Communication 661(2016): 366–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inya, Onwu. 2021. “‘The Legislature is the Engine Room of Democracy’: Constructing Ideological Worldviews through Proximisation Strategies in Nigerian Senate Debates.” Discourse & Society 32(2): 196–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1979. “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance Declination. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 43–59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kadkhodaee, Elham and Zeinab Ghasemi Tari. 2019. “Otherising Iran in American Political Discourse: Case Study of a Post-JCPOA Senate Hearing on Iran Sanctions.” Third World Quarterly 40(1): 109–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, Rafi. 2016. “The Bibi Sitter and the Hipster: The New Comical Political Discourse.” Israel Affairs 22(3/4): 788–801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meisel, Joseph S. 2009. “Humour and Insult in the House of Commons: The Case of Palmerston and Disraeli.” Parliamentary History 281, pt. 21 (2009): 228–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2016. “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(3): 336–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Overby, L. Marvin and Lauren C. Bell. 2004. “Rational Behavior or the Norm of Cooperation?: Filibustering Among Retiring Senators.” The Journal of Politics 66(3): 906–924. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred-Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, Marissa Caldwell, Lisa Mikesell, Innhwa Park, and Nicholas Williams. 2019. “Turn-taking and the Structural Legitimization of Bias: The Case of the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.” Language & Communication 691(2019): 97–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossing, Jonathan P. 2017. “No Joke: Silent Jesters and Comedic Refusals.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 20(3): 545–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1972. “On the Analysability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 325–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984. “On Doing Being Ordinary.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 314–429. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 11, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Jeannine. 2010. Linguistic Aspects of Verbal Humor in Stand-up Comedy. PhD dissertation in English. Saarland: Department of English, University of Saarland. Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soulaimani, Dris. 2018. “Talk, Voice and Gestures in Reported Speech: Toward an Integrated Approach.” Discourse Studies 20(3): 361–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanley, Timothy. 2010. Kennedy vs. Carter: The 1980 Battle for the Democratic Party’s Soul. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stewart, Patrick A. 2010. “Presidential Laugh Lines: Candidate Display Behavior and Audience Laughter in the 2008 Primary Debates.” Politics and the Life Sciences 29(2): 55–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, Second Edition. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verkuyten, Maykel and Wybren Nooitgedagt. 2019. “Parliamentary Identity and the Management of the Far-Right: A Discursive Analysis of Dutch Parliamentary Debates.” British Journal of Social Psychology 581(2019): 495–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waisanen, Don. 2015. “Comedian-in-Chief: Presidential Jokes as Enthymematic Crisis Rhetoric.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 45(2): 335–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, Jon. 2019. Camelot’s End: Kennedy vs. Carter, and the Fight that Broke the Democratic Party. New York City, New York: Twelve.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winiecki, Donald. 2008. “The Expert Witnesses and Courtroom Discourse.” Discourse & Society 19(6): 765–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue