The portrait of humorous social interaction in “Kontrakan Rempong” sitcom

Main Article Content

Sisila Fitriany Damanik
Eddy Setia
Syahron Lubis
Asmyta Surbakti

Abstract

The research aims to investigate the humorous social interactions semantically in Kontrakan Rempong sitcom by applying the three significant groups of humor concepts (superiority, relief, and incongruity), denoted as parameters of SSTH theory. The qualitative method was applied to represent and construct the variation in a situation, phenomenon, problem, or event. From the 20 episodes of Kontrakan Rempong sitcom, it was found that the actors normally uttered impoliteness superiority remarks to raise conflict, establish a target limit, and announce and support status. People can achieve self-reflexive pleasure in observing others' inferiority. From the relief-based humor analysis in Kontrakan Rempong sitcom, the taboo-breaking moments were even more influential in regenerating something stressful into something cheerful. It is a strategy for coming to terms with misfortunate aspects of life. From the incongruity-based humor analysis, it can be concluded that the events were perceived as incongruous since the arrangement of the constituent elements of the events was incompatible with the normal or expected ones. In Kontrakan Rempong, the context is important to bring laughter since it appears as a result of the reader's understanding of the context

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Damanik, S. F., Setia, E., Lubis, S., & Surbakti, A. (2023). The portrait of humorous social interaction in “Kontrakan Rempong” sitcom. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.58256/rjah.v4i2.1200
Section
Articles

How to Cite

Damanik, S. F., Setia, E., Lubis, S., & Surbakti, A. (2023). The portrait of humorous social interaction in “Kontrakan Rempong” sitcom. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.58256/rjah.v4i2.1200

References

Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2005). Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 18(1). 41-68. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2005.18.1.41

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor (vol.1, Humor research). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (2008) A primer for the linguistics of humor. In Raskin,V. (Ed.), The Primer of Humor Research, 101-156. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198492.101

Attardo, S. (2017). The general theory of verbal humor, In Attardo, S (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, 126-142. New York: Routledge.

Brock, A. (2016). The borders of humorous intent – The case of TV comedies. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.003

Bubel, C. M., & Spitz, A. (2006). One of the last vestiges of gender bias: The characterization of women through the telling of dirty jokes in Ally McBeal. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(1), 71-104. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor.2006.004

Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approach 4th ed.). California, SAGE Publication Inc.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35-72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35

Damanik, S. F., & Mulyadi, M. (2020). Indonesian humorous status in social media: An application of script-based semantic theory of humor. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.17237

Duncan, W. J., & Feisal, J. P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 17(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(89)80024-5

Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humor. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00152.x

Dynel, M. (2011a). I'll be there for you: On participation-based sitcom humor. In Dynel, M. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Humor across Discourse Domains, 311-333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Dynel, M. (2011b). Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English, 37(1), 41-61 https://doi.org/10.5817/bse2011-1-3

Dynel, M. (2013). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humor in film talk. In Dynel, M. (Ed.), Developments in Linguistic Humor Theory, 105-137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dynel, M. (2016). With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humor in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.010

Freud, S. (1960(1905)). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: Norton.

Gray, F. (2005). Privacy, embarrassment and social power: British sitcom. In Lockyer, S & Pickering, M. (Ed.), Beyond a joke: The limits of humor, 146-161. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gruner, C. R. (2000). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Hay, J. L. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 709–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00069-7

Hay, J. L. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55

Herman, V. (2005). Dramatic discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London & New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humor functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002

Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work. London: Blackwell Publishing.

Holmes, J & M. S. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace. London & New York: Routledge.

Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004

Larkin-Galiñanes, C. (2017). An Overview of humor theory. In Attardo, S (Ed.), The routledge handbook of language and humor: Routledge handbooks in linguistics, 4- 16. New York, NY: Routledge.

Martin, R. A., & Ford, T. (2018). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Academic Press.

Messerli, T. C. (2016). Extradiegetic and character laughter as markers of humorous intentions in the sitcom "2 Broke Girls". Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.009

Miczo, N., Averbeck, J. M., & Mariani, T. (2009). Affiliative and aggressive humor, attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60(5), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903260301

Mindess, A. (2011 (1971)). Laughter and liberation. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publisher.

Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.

Mullany, L. (2004). Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: Humor as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingua, 23(1–2), 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.002

Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00180-7

Raskin, V. (1984). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Springer Science & Business Media.

Schnurr, S. (2008). Leadership discourse at work: Interactions of humor, gender and workplace culture. Springer.

Tannen, D., Kendall, S., & Gordon, C. (2007). Family talk: Discourse and identity in four American families. Oxford University Press.

https://www.youtube.com/@Warintil.official