CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0       Background to the Study

Natural language contains systematic variations on all levels of its structure, such as

phonology, morphology, lexicology and syntax. These variations offer the widest possibilities

of language use to fulfill different communicative functions in various contexts. To identify,

describe and analyse special and unique linguistic expressive means lies at the core of

stylistics. This implies that certain language units bear stylistic markers, as they appear in

particular contexts of human linguistic interaction.

Humour represents perhaps one of the most genuine and universal speech acts within

human interaction. People often make use of humour in social and cultural interactions

through the skillful manipulation of language. This manipulation is at diverse linguistic

levels, such as lexis, phonology and syntax. In order to investigate these linguistic levels and

other perceived extralinguistic factors at work in humour, stylistics is a useful tool. This is

because this social activity uses the expressive means of language. Lawal (Olusegun and

Adebayo 2008:66) recognises not just the various categories of language but also their use

and usage in social functions. To him, “variety and variability are inevitable features of

language which is a unique human attribute employed in widely differing circumstances for

performing multiplicity of social functions”.

Humour being one of the social functions, is realized, using the variety and variability

of language. These affect different categories of language, including the syntactic. To explain

how and why certain structures of language can effectively be seen as marking out in terms of

meaning, stylistics must be used as an inevitable basis for analysis. This is because it deals

with the description of the technical aspects of language, such as the technicalities used in

1

achieving humour. The question of technicality comes into focus as people do not interact in

a one-dimensional way.

Humans interact with one another in divergent ways and these ways include

information sharing, emotional exchanges, thoughts and feeling exchanges. People choose

diverse means of communicating their thoughts, feelings and emotional concerns to others.

Through the instrumentality of language, humans can pass information by means of humour.

Therefore, it is a natural phenomenon for humans to laugh at jokes, exchange humorous

stories for entertainment and information, tease one another and trade clever insults for

amusement on a daily basis. Raskin (1985:2) opines that:

Responding to humour is part of human behaviour, ability or competence, other parts of which comprise such important social and psychological manifestations of homo sapiens as language, morality logic, faith e.t.c

To Raskin, humour is an inextricable part of human nature. This goes further to

suggest that no human society exists without humour, since it is a part of human behaviour.

This behaviour (humour) is manifested in different forms to different people, settings and

situations. This is true because what becomes humorous may be highly restricted to a

particular group, culture and possibly experience. Raskin (1985:16) buttresses this point by

positing that “it seems to be generally recognized that the scope and degree of mutual

understanding in humour varies directly with degree to which the participants share their

social background”.

Raskin‟s position shows that humour is, for example, steeped in and shaped by

culture. What may be interpreted as humour in one cultural setting may be capable of

eliciting anger and violence in another. The sum total of the experiences we commonly share

as unified members of a homogeneous culture is the conducive premise for jokes, humorous

observations, puns, e.t.c.

2

Equally important in Raskin‟s position is the social background which may take into

account other variables like social situation and social setting. A given utterance, which may

be celebrated as humorous in one situation, is likely to be taken with scorn in another

situation. Similarly, the setting serves as a strong determini