Rhetoric
in
Stand-up
Comedy:
Explo
ring
Performer-Audience Interaction
JASON RUTTER ( Manchester)
My interest in thispaper is the organisation of jokes in performance andthe skills employed bythe comedian intelling jokes and the mannerof joke perfor
mance thatshapes audience response in the audience in thejoketellinginterac tion. Specifically, this paper looks at the ways in whichthesuccessful comedian
rewrites, manipulatesanddelivers a joke textin a manner which showsan awa
reness and consideration for her or his audience. It is performance techniques
such asthe ones I will identifybelow thatcontribute to marking the difference between a joke text andaperformed piece of comedy. By looking at how a joke
istold rather than analysing the abstracted joketext I will demonstrate the exi stence, and regular use by comedians,of a series of rhetorical devices that are as sociated with audience laughter.
The paperdoes notattempt to demonstrate how joke structure is ordered to
deliverpowerfulpunchlines orenhanceincongruity - such issueshave be well
coveredby script theory authors such as Attardo et al (1994), Attardo and Cha-banne(1992), Attardo and Raskin (1991)andRaskin(1985). Nor does it present
atheoryofhumour per se,letalone one thatis incompatible with traditional the
ories ofjokeproduction such as incongruity,superiority and release1. Instead it
offers in insituperspectiveon stand-up comedy whichpresents new views on
joking, laughter and the interaction between them.
1 For reviews ofhumour theory literature see Piddington (1933), Keith-Spiegel (1972), Paulos (1980),
The Stand-up
Audience
One difficulty in approaching the interaction atstand-up comedy venues is understanding the manner in which individuals become part of an audience.
Conversation analysishas historically given preference to understandingthein
teractions between pairs or small groups of individuals. Interactions involving
over ahundred people (as are often found in comedy clubs) present newpro
blems. This, of course, is not just an academicproblem butalso apractical one -comedy performers have to manage and negotiate audience responsesto maxi mum comedy effect during live performances.
One wayin which theaudiencecanbecomemoremanageable is through their
tendencyto act as acollectiveasthe stand-upinteraction. That istheinteraction
becomes “pseudo-dyadic”: while remaining individuals, audiencemembers cho
osetoact as partofacollective for aparticular piece of interaction.This is evi dent in stand-up comedy as, for the duration of the specific interaction, individual’s temporary waive their unique agency infavour of a interactive per sona as part of“anaudience.” Thisprocess entails a readinessto acceptthe re
sponses of other membersof the audience as appropriate andthentoreact appro
priatelyto them. View likethis, group laughterinaudiencesisas mucha product
of mutual trust as a reaction to a humorous event2. Individuals will follow re
sponses of othersin an audience by replication and without the direct influence
ofother stimulus or suggestion.
2 Fine(1983) argues that laughterin groupsituationsnot onlybecomespart of the group’s culture but
actsas a method throughwhich cohesion isdeveloped.
3 Forbrevity inthis paper I shall not provide descriptions and performance contextsto individual performersquotedin this paper.However,in order todemonstratethebroad relevance of the paper’s finding extracts are drawn from field recordings of professional and semi-professional comedians working in the northwest of England and commercially available recordings of national and international comedians.
For example, watchingvideo-taped audiences during stand-up performances
itisnot unusual toseesomeoneleanacrosstothe personsat next tothem and ask for clarification of what a performer’s punchline was while still laughing. In
such acircumstancethe laughter cannot bea response toa humorous stimulusas in effect the member oftheaudience has notyet receivedthis piece of informa
tion. Instead, their laughter can only be linked to the laughter of others. Asimilarexample can be found in a review foraperformance givenbyJohn ny Vegas3. Just as the most memorable segments of speeches given by politi
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
cians tendto those which received the longest applause and itis these that are
most oftenchosenforquotation in the media (Atkinson1984,Heritage & Great batch 1986, Clayman 1992) Vegas’ reviewer chose toquotea line from the show
which was received by huge audience laughter. The line quoted was, “Life’s a
postman but you’vegot a viciousdogcalledClive”. This is indeeda Vegas-like
metaphor but, as Vegashimself pointed outduringoneperformance,it is not his
line.
The misquotation is drawnfrom a section inwhich Vegas tells theaudience
about asking a psychologist forwhom hewasapatient out for a date and being
turned down by her. Having had his request denied Vegas tells the woman,
“Love’s apostmanbut you’vegot aviciousdogcalledpride”. The point here is that itapparentthatthereviewer’sresponseisnotbasedsolely on thejoketext.
The misheard version, while perhaps amusing, does not combine the postal
workers script (postman and dog)withthat ofemotion(love and pride) and so
lacks,accordingto joke theory,a neat incongruity/resolutionstructure. As such, again according to traditional theory, the reviewer could not have found this “mis-formed” jokeas funny asothers in the audience and so wouldhave a little reason to quote it as an example of Vegas’ successful joking.
Hence, it is apparentthat members of an audience look for, and respondto, cues giving guidance as to when laughter, applauseorcheers are necessary, desi red orappropriate that are outsidethejoke text (Rutter 2000).They are responsi vetothe actions of those aroundthemrapidlyidentifyingthebeginningsof laug hter or applauseand thencontributing to that response. Audience members pick upon cues such as the raising of hands to begin applause orthe beginning ofthe
applause itself such awareness is highlightedby Clayman as “mutual monito ring” (1993: 112) and it is this that firmlyreconceptualizes the audienceasacti ve, asa group which not only respondsto suggestivecues in the developing per
formance but demonstrates a self-awareness. Below, I suggest on manner in
whichcues are given by performer to the audience, namelythe use ofrhetorical techniques.
Common
Rhetorical Techniques
A comprehensive step towardsestablishing the rhetorical techniques can be
found in Heritage and Greatbatch’s (1986) study ofBritish political oratory.
They not only identifyaset of rhetoricaltechniques using in podium performan ce, but also establish a correlativelink between their use and audience response. In brief, their researchidentifies six distinct rhetorical formats present in politi
calspeech making namely:Contrast, List,Puzzle-solution,Headline-punchline, Positiontaking andPursuit.Eachof these can be found with varying regularity
in stand-up performance (Rutter 1997) making up something similar to Freud’s “auxiliary technical methods” in that they can be seen asnot“necessary condi
tions [tothe joke] but only as encouragements to the process ofjoking” (1976:
208).
Heritage and Greatbatch arguethat the rhetorical formats of politicalspeeches are notonly stylistic minutiae used to keep anaudience attentive and interested but also serve toforecast the completion of a politicalpoint, and moreimportant
lyfor this discussion, to signpost that audience action isexpectedandappropria te. They assert that any individual member of an audience hastomakethe deci sion as to whether to applaud a statement or not in real time and effectively
within a second of the statement being made (Heritage and Greatbatch 1986: 112). These signposts then assistin that decision making process by making ap parent notonly that audience contribution totheinteraction is required but what
the preferred response is. In political speechmaking thisis usually applause and
in stand-uplaughter but this is notexclusively the case.This assists in the volun tarytransformation ofindividuals into an audience and makes it both possible and profitable to see the audiences as a collective agent.
These devices notonly work towards consolidating thedecisions madeby an
audience during their mutualmonitoringbut they increasetheir efficiency byal lowing audiences to movetowards “independent decision-making” (Clayman
1993: 112).By recognising theprojectedpointof completion an audience mem
bercanmake decisionsastothe appropriateness of varying responses in advan ce of the event and without recourseto other spectators. Inthe comedy context, if a comedian employs a rhetorical technique which signifiesthat the end ofa
sentence coming up but also the end of aconversational turn (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974)and that thepreferredresponseis laughter, audience members can (if they choose)laugh assoon asan appropriate point is reached rather than evaluating other audience members. Thus,throughtheutilisation of theserheto
ricaltechniques, the risk involved in starting toapplaud orlaughis minimised.
Stand-up
Specific
Techniques
Heritage and Greatbatch’s system of techniques provides a specific under
standing of political speaking is can be also seen moregenerally as an outline of
the general features ofpodium talk. However, to develop an understanding of
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
Greatbatch’s work and explore theexistence of anumber of stand-up specific devices. Therefore, I want tointroduce here fourrhetoricaltechniques whichde monstrate more specific relevanceto the comedyfield. In turn, I will define and
provide examples of the additional categories ofRe-Incorporations,Alliteration and Assonance, Character Footing and Intonation.
Re-Incorporations
A re-incorporation,in this sense, is the reappearance of oneelement of a joke
(usually not a punchline) in astand-up performer’s routine. That is, a comedian willintroduce a topic at somepoint during their performance and then drop it
only to return to itlater inthe act. The thematic reappearance ofa line, idea or comment becomes a signposted pointfor laughter and is recognised by the au
dience as an appropriate spot forlaughterto follow. Usuallythese two moments in theperformance are separated by minutes, although the separationcan span
the lengthof an act4 making itdifficultto provide full examples within thecon finesof a paper. Extract 1 below, from WoodyAllen, give an unusually short example ofthis technique. In this example it isthe appearanceof aparaphrased version (line 50-52)of,And there’s a law in NewYork State against driving with a conscious moose on your fender - Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays (line
14-16) which contributes to precipitating the laughter that follows it. Extract 1: Woody Allen (Simplified)
1 WA: I shot a moose once.I was hunting up state New York and I 2 shot a moose, and I strap him onto thefender of my
3 car and I’m driving home along the West Side highway.
4 But whatI didn’t realise wasthat the bullet did not penetrate 5 themoose, itjust creased his scalp knocking himunconscious 6 and I’m driving throughtheHolland tunnel
7 Aud: ((Laughter))
4 Ben Eltontakes re-incorporation beyond the act length limit by referring in a routine on adverts to a
famous routine he had done in the past about people fighting for a doubleseattothemselveson trains. "Ittook place on a train, OK, that was the advert, OK. ‘S beautiful train, itatrain in heaven. Its so
gorgeous it should be going from St. Peter’s gate tothe thrown ofgod it’s so splendid right. And its rollingthrough themost gorgeous countryside and everyone onboard isalllazing and stretched out an
they’re all reading their booksand playing chess andnodding off. And nevermind thedouble seat
8 WA: and the moose wokeup.
9 Aud: ((Laughter))
10 WA: So I’m driving with a livemoose onmy fender
11 Aud: ((Laughter))
12 WA: and the moose is signalling fora turn, you know.
13 Aud: ((Laughter))
14 WA: Andthere’s a law in New York State against driving “I 15 with a conscious moose on your fender - Tuesdays,
16 Thursdays and Saturdays.
17 Aud: ((Laughter))
18 WA: And I’m very panicky and then it hits me, some friends 19 ofmine are having a costumeparty. I’ll go, I’ll take the 20 moose, I’ll ditch him at the party - it won’t be my 21 responsibility.
22 Aud: ((Laughter))
23 WA: So I drive upto the party and I knock onthe door. The 24 moose is next to me. My host comes to the door. I say
25 hello - youknow the Solomons.
26 Aud: ((Laughter))
27 WA: We enter. Themoose mingles.
28 Aud: ((Laughter))
29 WA: Did very well.
30 Aud: ((Laughter))
31 WA: Scored.
32 Aud: ((Laughter))
33 WA: Some guy was tryingto sell him insurance for an hour and
34 a half.
35 Aud: ((Laughter))
36 WA: 12 o’clock comes. They give out prizes forthe best costume
37 of the night. First prize goes to the Berkowitzes - a married
38 couple dressed as a moose.
39 Aud: ((Laughter))
40 WA: The moose comes in second.
41 Aud: ((Laughter))
42 WA: The moose is furious. He and theBerkowitzes lock antlers
43 in the living room.
44 Aud: ((Laughter))
45 WA: They knock each other unconscious. Now I figure here’smy 46 chance. I grab the moose, strap him onmyfender and shoot
47 backto the woods,but Igot the Berkowitzes.
48 Aud: ((Laughter))
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
50 And there’s a law in New York State
51 Aud: ((Laughter)) ◄
52 WA: Tuesdays, Thursdays and especially Saturday. —
53 Aud: ((Laughter))
54 WA: Thefollowing morning....
In any formof analysisbased on traditional humour theory the audiencelaug
hter oflines 51 and 53 is difficultto fully explain. Forexample, one approach
may suggest that theideaof bylaws prohibitingthe carrying ofpeople oncars on specific days raises laughter because of the incongruityoftheimage. However, this text-based analysis is limited. It cannot explain the relationship ofline
49-52totherest of the extract,suggest why Allen reusesthe phrase,orwhy this technique marks thej okeasinanywaydifferent from its usein lines 14-16.
A more contemporary example can be found in Extract 2. Here Tony Burgess uses re-incorporation when talking aboutthe cliches that his father would use
when talking to him.
Extract 2: Tony Burgess
1 TB: IfI cut myself onapiece of paper- this really pissesme off.
2
3
4
5 6
I just wanna be alonefor awhile.
Me dad’s just chirpin’ on in the background, “Oh paper cuts them arethe worst type of cuts, —
aren’t they.
They’re only small but they’re theworst type
ofcuts ya can
4---get. Theyare the worst type of cuts ya
can get.”
7 SoI, erm, stabbed him withanarmyknife justtoprove a point.
8 Aud: ((Laughter))
9 TB: (Which would you say was worse?) If paper cuts are the
10
11
worst type of cuts youcan receive why is it you don’t see more gangs armed with sheets of A4
12 Aud: ((Laughter))
13 TB: “Giz us all ya money punk,”
14 Aud: ((Laughter))
15 16
TB: “We’ve got a sheetof Basildon Bond(and we know what
to do) with it.” 17 Aud: ((Laughter))
18 TB: Itsone ofthese social cliches that. (If any)girl got pregnant
19 20
round ourway at the age of thirteen. (Right away) me
dad’s like,
21
22
“Oh, it’s bloody disgusting. I mean how did she getpregnant
23 Aud: ((Laughter))
24 TB: I’d keep those allegations to yourself
25 Aud: ((Laughter))
26 TB: “Thing is most parents don’t know what’s going on under
27 their very noses.”
28 Yeah, I agree, dad. Er, pass us those Rizlas5.
29 Aud: ((Laughter))
30 TB: “Oh and son.”
31 Yeah, dad, yeah.
32 “Watch itwith them Rizla papers. Might cutyourself.
<---33 Aud: ((Laughter))
5 Rizla is abrand of cigarette paper which are used, inthis context, for rolling a marijuana joint
6 Discussingre-incorporations whilst talking to theimprovisationalcomedian Neil Malarkey during my research he told methat whenteaching improvisation and theatre sports he advised performers to go back to somethingthey hadsaid before intheperformancewhen short of ideas
Burgess’ re-incorporation is somewhat more complex than Allen’s in two
ways. Firstly, unlike Allen’s re-incorporation, Burgess’s does notrepeatphrase ology but rather re-introduces a theme. Whereas Allen uses repetition of the phrase beginning “Andthere’salaw in New York State...” Burgess’re-incorpo
rationworks with theréintroductionofthethemeof paper cuts withina new con text. Secondly, Burgess’ re-incorporationtakes placenotafter a continuation in a singlenarrative in the way that Allen’s does butafter a thematic diversion.
It is apparent that althoughjoke theorycannot recognise the relationship be tween both Allen’s and Burgess’ re-incorporational joking and the rest of the
rest of the flowof the performance narrative. Becauseprevious research intojo king has tendedtoremove jokingfrom its communicative andinteractional sur rounding it cannotcreate aframework which linksthese re-incorporationswith
theirpreviousjoking introduction. However, it is apparent that the comedy au
dience does this withoutany difficulty. When re-incorporations are used theau dience can be seento recognise the previous use ofthe reintroduced phrase and realise that this re-introduction is a request fromtheperformerfor laughter from the audienc6.
Alliteration
and Assonance
Excessive alliteration, rhyme or repetition can itself create humorous joke
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
the use of alliteration asmethod of joke productionanditsuseas a performance
technique. Alliteration as a performance technique differs fromits use in joke formation in that the success ofthistechnique relies a great deal on not beingex cessive. What I am suggesting is that joke punchlines are structured by the per former to includealliteration,assonanceor,more rarely, rhyme. Inthese joke
tellings,themeaningcommunicatedbythepunchlineisnot reliant on therheto
rical technique usedbut its acts, once again, as a signpost totheaudience. The
coincidence of thistechniquewiththepunchlineof a joke (orother points ofhu
mour) highlights that the comedian’s turn is nearing completion and that laugh ter is the preferred response from the audience.
An example of the use of alliteration can be seeninExtract 3. Talking about the censorship of traditionalchildren’srhymesOliver Double deliversa comple
xly organisedsequence in which he offers a listof three different rhymes (line 6,
8-10, and 12). The firsttwoof these standin contrast tothethird whichinturn also uses alliteration and forms the punchline to the joking sequence.
Extract 3: Oliver Double 1 OD: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
‘Parently lot of thiscensorship comes from these born again
Christian groups in TheSates right, an’ this istrue. Read
about this recently.Theywantto bam primary school text books cause they saythey turn little kids to depravity. Righ- An acouple of genuine examples (that I wanted tor-) “Rain, rain, go away comeagain another day,” coz thy say
that’s
a prayerto the pagan weather god. Right. They alsowant to get rid of “Lavenderblue, dillydilly,Lavender green,” coz theysay its turning little kidsto homosexuality coz ofthe last line “When I amking, dilly dilly, you shall be queen.” Well, y’know ifthey
can make that out of that, what are theygoingto make out of
“Little hoy t blue come ¿low on your 4 ho::m”? 13 14 15 Aud: OD: hHHHHHHHHHHh That’s
what I wanna know.
The words, “littleboyblue come blow your horn,” uses arepetition of “b” whichhave beenitalicised in thetranscript. This is further emphasisedby Doub
le byhisplacing of stress on “blue”and the “b” of “blow” (line 12). This combi nation of performance techniques leads successfully into audience laughter. Alt
houghsimplerin construction, a similar use ofalliteration can be seen in Extract 4. HereHarryEnfieldusesthe repetition of“s”to signposthis point ofcomple tion.
Extract 4: Harry Enfield
1 HE: But, Er:: (0.6)Butwhen I was 4borna- I was so UGly 2 that my mother was sent toTprison for seven yearsfor
3 having4me.
I want to suggestthata basic joke text (Perhaps: I was such an ugly baby that my mother was put in jail) is made more successful in performance bytheallite ration of‘sent’and ‘seven’and thesibilantin‘years’ and ‘prison’.The simple re placement of ‘seven’ by ‘eight’ would, I believe, reducethe successof thejoke
(but not significantly alter thejoketext)and its replacement by‘six’ would also
effectthe humorous response, as while the alliteration is maintained the asso nancewith ‘prison’ and ‘seven’ is lost. Further, it may also be the case that if
‘sent to’ was replaced by ‘put in’ - which creates anewalliteration between “put in” and “prison” - thejoke would suffer as thetechniquebecomes moreapparent
because of the proximity of the alliteration.
Finally, Jo Brand, inExtract5,alsousesalliterationtosupport her punchline.
Like Double she creates her signposts by the alliteration ofthree words. Howe ver,in keeping withstand-up’s tendency to greater complexitythan other forms of podium speaking (Rutter 1997), theuse of alliterationiscombinedwitharhe torical techniques identified by Heritageand Greatbatch(1986) namely position taking (line 10) in which Brand talks ofmodels adopting political stances.
Extract 5: Jo Brand
1 JB: I even- even though t.a fCindy Crawtford had joined in 2 aswell cos I sawpaper erh yesterday an:: i there was a
3 headline, “Cindy Crawford, My worse nightmare.” (0.5) 4 .hhh an I though’ what’s that? l-Nutclear War? (0.4) 5 Kids starvin intAfrica? (0.7)No:p ¿Spot on he face
6 on theday of a photoshoot.
7 Aud: h-HHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh
8 JB: Good one there Cindy.
9 (1-4)
10 Politically correct or what? Ya /uckin /Ain ole /Ucker. <
11 (.) ur::m::
12 Aud: HHHHHHHHHHH
13 Aud: XX - XX -xxxxx-x-x
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
Character
Footing
Jokes, both thosetold in naturalconversation andthose toldin a professional
stand-up context, feature the adoption of accents, mimicry of vocal attributes,
and thecreation of characters throughvocal qualities. The term character foo
tingreferstothevoice that is adopted bystand-up performers for only ashort pe riod oftime within a stand-up sequence. Thesechangesin voice act not only as indicators ofwho said what inthe telling of a narrative but,in stand-up especial ly,as tools fororderingthe interaction. Character footing is usually associated with eitherthe quotation of a character ina narrative (as in Extract 6 taken from Greg Proops’ showat the Edinburgh Festival Fringe)orthecreationofa charac ter in a narrative (as in Extract 8). As such the shiftinperformers’ characterisa
tions,theirchangesfrom one character frame to another, is similarto changesin Goffman’s notion of footing (Goffman 1979, reprintedin Goffman 1981). Foo
ting for Goffman is “the alignments we take up toourselves and the others pre
sent asexpressed in the way we manage the production and reception ofan utte
rance” (Goffman 1981:128)7.
7 I wantto suggest that stand-up comedians use the adoption of character in two different ways in performance toenhance the success of a joke. Thefirst is character footing which I illustrate above. However, thereis alsoa more consistentadoptionofcharacter employed by stand-up comedians who adopt a theatrical persona for theduration oftheir act for exampleinthe cases of Emo PhilipsorRowan
Atkinson as Mr. Bean. I don’t wish to dwell onthis latter performance technique here beyond
highlighting its existence and difference to character footing. This I do for a number of reasons:
Firstly, the adoptionof character throughouta performers act takes stand-up away from is position as
theground zero ofperformancecomedy toa more theatrical style of performance. Secondly, because of its rarity especially among the performers who contributedto research that informedthis paper, itis uncertain whateffects,if any, the adoptionofperformancecharacters has on both the ordering and deliveryof performance and the relationship thisprecipitateswiththe audience.
As partof telling his story Proops uses twodifferentinstances of character fo oting. The first (line 7-8)ishis idea of howhe must soundtothe Edinburghtaxi driver. This he contrasts with the second instanceofcharacter footing which is a caricature of the taxi driver’s Scottish accent (line 10).
Extract 6: Greg Proops (Simplified)
1 I was doin the festival. Every night I was doin a show. Every
2 night (.) after the show I would get in a cab ask to go to my flat 3 and they would take me fuckin ANYWHERE but myfla:t. 4 Ended up inAberdeen half the time, you guys. They couldn’t
5 understand me, I couldn’t understand them I couldn’t understand 6 their burr they couldn’t understand my west coast I must ov just 7 sounded like THIS
8 nyee nyee nyanyee n SHIT n- nyaa nyaanyaanyaa WRO::ONG <-9 WaY: Nya nya nturn here tarten dude.
10 Coz this iswhat they sounded like to me
11 Huherha:r:::: ity au aaa-uh:: uhah:: ar:ahah u a SPECCYGET.
<-In a similar fashion, Sean Hughesusescharacterfootingtoquote another per son who he has contact with as part ofthe comedy narrative. However, in con
trastto Proops, Hughesonly portrays onecharacter but offers more instances of this character’sspeech. Hughes begins his sequence by talking about being left
aloneinthe house asa child and being afraid thatan intruder is also inthehouse. He talksabout shouting aroundcomers toscare the imagined intruder and chec king in cutlery drawers for no apparent reason.
Extract 7: Sean Hughes
1 SH: An yathere like anthe f the- the fact<islike y’know. Aused
2 tof luv it as well like cuz->the thing is<if there’s a psycho in
3 your house (0.7) <ya dhhead> (0.6)
4 Aud: hhhhhhh
5 SH: Yerj-Yer Tdead
6 Aud: hhhh
7 SH: >WHAT’SITDO? Ya gonna OPEN the closetanhe’s there
8 with a hatchet an e goes< (.)
9 "Ya gotme hhh!” <—
10 Aud: HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhh
11 Aud: XXXXXXxxxx
12 SH: “Nor::, here’sthe
13 hatchhhet. Ya go’ (me)” <—
14 Aud: hhhhhhhhhhh
15 SH: >“Iwuz gonna Thide under the bed wouldjav looked —■
16 under there? < Un:: Yeah:::
17 Aud: hhhhhhhhh
18 SH: I was gonna HAtchet youto d- °(oh dear)0. <—
19 Aud: hhhhhhhhhh
20 SH: (.) Arr: Hey::” J
21 Aud: hhhhhh
Hughes offers three instancesof character footing(9,12,13,15-20) in which he changes from narrator to character in the story to tell the imagined conversation
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
fully explained by an analysis that does not include the performance of the hu
morous sequence rather than the text itself. WhereasbothProops and Hughes
use voice of propas awayof quoting charactersin a narrativeinExtract 8Bill
Hicksemploysaslightly different approach. He uses characterfooting to play
the characterin his story ratherthan quotethemas he plays the roles ofan imagi
nary alter egoand a (American) child. Hicks alternates between the two charac ters for the period ofthe imagined dialogue:
Extract 8: Bill Hicks (Simplified)
1 BH: I am available for children’sparties > bythe way<
2 Aud: ((Laughter))
3 Aud: ((Applause))
4 BH: Kno some o ya’ll mighthavea young um coming of
5 6 7
8 Aud:
fa::ge an not wantto gotto the traditional clown
balloon animal (rap) this year< (.) might want to look me up (.) TBeelzefbozo (0.5)
((Laughter)) 9 BH: Clown form Thell
10 Aud: ((Laughter))
11 BH: (Hyuck) It’s Beelze ((Adopting American South accent))
12 13 14
15 Aud:
bozo ftim::e. (1.1) Tell me some’in who here outta you-1
younguns (.) has never tsmoked acigafrette? > C'mere
k-Tkids < ((Laughter)) 16 BH: Whatsya na:me. «-17 18 19 20
((“Child’s” voice)) To:mmy.
<-((South)) Tommy. How 4<o::le dar Tya? (1.1)
<-((Child’s)) TFive.
<-((South)) Five years oldlan youmean to tell) —
Beelzebozo 21
22 AUD
23 BH:
you not snokin cigarettes Tyet? —
<-((Laughter))
C’mere Tommy, p.hhp.hp.h p.h ((Wheezes twice))
<-Intonation
This particular stand-up technique is, even more than the others identified in
this paper, performancespecific. Thatis, it is only evident when the joke text becomes aperformance. It is notpart of the text of thejokeand therefore cannot be understood or explained byjoke theory or other previousformsofhumourre
search. However,theuse of intonation is no less importantto the understanding
of stand-up joking because ofthis.
One of the most striking and omnipresent characteristics of stand-up comedians’ performance istheir use ofintonation8. Thechanges ofpitch intheir delivery is used not only to provide a variedand interesting “tune” to theirscript, but also - and more fundamentallyforthe comedian and my argument here - to
signpost the completion of jokes andcreate an “invitationto laugh” (Jefferson 1979). Also notableabouttheuse of intonation in stand-up is that more thanany other format its level of presence meansthat it regularly operates in tandem with
other rhetorical techniques, both stand-up specific and those common in other forms of podium talk.
8 It isapparent that the rhetorical techniques identifiedin thispaper willhavevarying presence within any one performance. For example, by the very nature of introduction, intermission and re-introduction,re-incorporations will be very infrequent whencompared withthe use ofcontrasting intonation. Thisdoes notmean to say that they are anyless valid when considering thenegotiation of
turntaking that goes on between performer and audience.
In stand-up there is often present a contrast in tone between the principal
stress in the sentence that sets up the joke and a principal stressin the punchline. This usually takestheform ofa fall in intonationfollowed by a rise. This can be seen in Extract 9 in which Oliver Double talks about the joys of swearing.
Extract 9: Oliver Double
1 2
OD: Apart form anything else I like swearin’. Y’know I enjoy a good swea::::r Y’know > its greatfun swearin’.< ( ) 3 Obviously it pisses my mum off which is agreat top reason to
4 do it. I was going over to(Lincolnseriously) I was goingalong
5 in the carwith hertryingto annoy her, right, I was going “Bu:m, 6 poo, willy, wee-wee, dickcheeseontoast, > knobby, knobby.
7 knob. < Right.
8 Aud: HHH
9 OD: An she goes, “Oh, Oliver (.) Whathave I doto 10 deserve fyou? I said, “Ya ffucked 7da:dt.”
11 Aud: hHHHHHHHHHh
12 Aud: x-x
13 OD: She quiteliked that one .has w.hell actually.
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
In line 10, Double delivershis punchline, “You fucked dad”usingacontrast
inintonation between the lasttwo words. “Fucked” receives a downward into nationwhile “Dad”is said withanotable rise. Thisisfollowedby loud audience laughter. Moreover, thiscontrast is highlighted with the emphasis placedon the
beginning of each ofthe words. Thus the changeinstressand the contrast in in tonationcombine to signpostthe end of theturn and thatthe preferred response
is immediate audience laughter. The same pattern ofa fall-and-rise contrast in
intonation that issupportedby the stress of thepertinent words is found in Ex
tract 10. HereRoger Monkhouse is talking aboutthe Glastonbury Festivalthat
hadtakenplacethe week before in very hot weather andhad been shown on Bri
tish television for the first time.
Extract 10: Roger Monkhouse
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RM: Aud: RM: Aud:
Was it methough-cuz- > (pictures) of Glastonbury onChannel Four. <Wasitme (.) or was it unduly cynicalofRight Guard Antiperspirantto advertise theirproduct during the commercial
hHHHHHHHHHHHHHH=
=HHHHHHHHHhhh.
=breakwhen Channel Four areshowingGlaston-. I meanthat’s sick isn’t it that. That’s like advertising for IBUPA durin’
TCasualty9
9 BUPA is a company providinghealthinsurance services in the UKand Casualty is a British television
drama set intheemergencydepartment of a large city hospital.
HHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh
In line 7 Monkhouse stresses the beginning of “BUPA” and gives it a do wnward intonation compared tothe rest ofthe sentence. This is contrasted by him with the upward rise for“Casualty” in line 8 which again has the stresspla
ced on the beginning of the word.
In both Extract 9 and Extract 10the contrast inintonation does not highlight a
contrast inideas. Unlike theuseofcontrast as a meansof rhetorical signposting used in stand-upwhen contrasting ideasortexts, the contrasthere is not text-ba sedbut performance-based. Monkhouse is notoffering a contrast between the
private healthcarecompany and the televisionmedical drama just as Doubleis not contrasting “fucked” and “dad”.
Conclusions
Thispaper hasdemonstratedthat there are a number of rhetoricaltechniques
evident in the performancesofstand-up comedians in additionto thoseidenti
fied in other forms of performancetalk. Further, ithas shown that these techni
ques are stronglylinkedtoaudiencelaughter and accountfor instances oflaugh ter forwhich previousapproaches to joking provideonly limited explanations. Ithas shownthat by seeingstand-up comedy asa live, interactive process, it is
possible to gain insightintothe manner in which text, performanceand audience
fit together during live stand-up.
By shiftingfrom humour research’s traditional concern withthe joke textto
one that centres on the performance of jokesand their negotiated place within
stand-up interaction, the actions of audience membersstart to become apparent andits importance in successfulstand-upestablished. This makesapparent a si
tuation in which, while the joke teller may “manage” (Clayman 1992) the au
dience, s/he ultimately has no control over it. As in conversational interaction,
neitherparty inthe stand-up interactioncangovern the other’sactions or contri
butions nor be responsible forthose events thatmayoccurexternallyto the focu
sedinteraction such as, in thecomedy venue, glasses dropping, a microphone fa
iling or a heckler shouting comments. Against such a background the stimulus-response modelthat isso oftenimplicitin joke and humour theorybe comes less seductive in its abilityto providea general explanation ofjoking and laughter.
By exploring theperformativeand live aspects of comedy techniquesthe pro
cess of negotiation between performer and audience becomes apparent. The
way in which comedianssupportpunchlines (and otherpoints ofhumour) with requestsfor laughter or signpostpoints at which laughter is expectedbecomes apparent. Complimenting this is the understanding ofaudience members as acti ve participantsin performance interaction who look forand respond to rhetorical techniques when making decisionsabout laughing. These features provide the potential for rich investigation ofstand-upcomedy as interactiontobe pursed el sewhere.
Appendix:
Notes
on
Transcripts
The transcriptionsystem used within this paperis largely that created by Gail Jeffersonand developedby others working in conversationanalysis (Sacks et al.
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
1974; Psathas 1979; Atkinson & Heritage 1984). Those relevant to thispaper are summarized below.
<— Used inthe margins of thetranscript to indicate points of interest.
The sound proceeding isprolonged. Multiple colonsindicate incrementallylon ger prolonging.
An abrupt breakingoff of the wordbegun.
An upwardarrow indicates arise ofpitch in the sound thatfollows it. Similarly,
a downward arrow indicates intonation lowering.
°text° h
Indicates aloweringinvolume of speech.
Anintakeof breath. Thesymbol proceeded by a dot denotesan audible breath
out.
>text < Talk is delivered at anotably quicker pace than that which surroundsit
Conversely talk transcribed <thus> indicatesa slowing in pace.
CAPITALS Louder thanthe
surrounding talk.
text
1
Indicates a stress.
Onset of overlap.
In instancein whichthetalkof onespeaker leads into the speech ofanother wit
hout any pause.
(0.8) (•)
(text)
Denotes pauses in tenthsof seconds. Pause of lessthe three tenths of a second.
Transcriptionuncertaintyoften because of inaudibility. Empty brackets indicate
that whatwassaid was unintelligible onthe recording.
((text)) Indicateselements for which either notation does not exist orwouldbe unhelp ful. In thispaper it isalso usedto describe stage businessor changes invoicequ ality.
In order to transcribe group laughter a number of non-traditional symbols havebeen used in this paper. To this end I haveadaptedthe system used by Cla
yman (1993, 1992) to transcribeaudienceapplause at political speeches. Buil
ding onAtkinson(1984),Clayman uses“x”s to denote applause and keeps with a similarbasic pattern tothetranscription outlineaboveso that uppercase sym
bols indicate a rise in volume.
As such audience laughter is transcribed as follows:
hhhh HHHH -h-h-
-H-H-Quiet audiencelaughter. Loud audience laughter.
Quiet isolated laughter from individuals in the audience.
Bibliography
Atkinson, M., 1984, Our Masters’ Voices, London, Routledge.
Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J.C., 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversa tion Analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Attardo, S., Attardo, D.H., Blates, P., Petray, M.J., 1994, The Linear Organization of Jo
kes: Analysis of Two Thousand Texts. - Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 7 (1), pp.27-54.
Attardo, S. & Chabanne, J.C., 1992, Jokes as a Type Text (Humor and Textuality). — Hu
mor - International Journal of Humor Research, 5 (1-2), pp.165-176.
Attardo, S. & Raskin, V., 1991, Script Theory Resvis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Re presentation Model. — Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3-4),
pp.293-347.
Clayman, S.E., 1993, Booing: The Anatomy of a Disaffiliative Response. — American So
ciological Review, Vol. 58, pp.110-130.
Clayman, S.E., 1992, Caveat Orator: Audience disaffiliation in the 1988 Presidential
Debates. - Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 78, pp.33-60.
Fine, G.A., 1983, Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humor, in P.E. McGhee & JH. Goldstein (eds.). - Handbook of Humor Research: Basic Issues, New York,
Springer-Verlag, pp. 159-182.
Freud, Sigmund (Trans. Strachey, Ed. Richards). 1976(1905), Jokes and Their Relation
to the Unconscious, London, Pelican.
Goffman, E., 1981, Forms of Talk, Oxford, Blackwell. Goffman, E., 1979, Footing, "Semiótica", 25 (1/2), pp.1-29.
Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D., 1986, Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Re sponse at Party Political Conferences. — American Journal of Sociology, 92,
pp.110-157.
Jefferson, Gail, 1979, A Technique for Inviting Laughter and Its Subsequent Acceptance Declination ”, in G. Psathas (Ed.) - Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnometho dology, New York, Irvington.
Keith-Spiegel, P., 1972, ‘Early Concepts of Humor: Varieties and Issues”, in Jeffrey H. Goldstein & Paul E. McGhee (Eds.) The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Per spectives and Empirical Issues, New York, Academic Press, pp.3-39.
Lippitt, J., 1995a, Humour and Superiority, “Cogito”, 9 (1), pp.54-61.
Lippitt, J., 1995b, Humour and Release, “Cogito”, 9 (2), pp. 169-176. Lippitt, J., 1994, Humour and Incongruity, “Cogito”, 8 (2), pp. 147-153.
Morreall, John. 1983, Taking Laughter Seriously, Albany, State University of New York Press.
Paulos, J.A., 1980, Mathematics and Humor, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Piddington, R., 1933, The Psychology of Laughter: A Study in Social Adaptation, Lon
Rhetoric in Stand-up Comedy: Exploring ...
JASON RUTTER
Psathas, G., 1979, Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, New York, Irvin gton.
Raskin, V., 1985, Semantic Mechanisms of Humor, Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
Rutter, J., 2000, The stand-up introduction sequence: Comparing comedy comperes,
“Journal of Pragmatics”, 32, pp.463-483.
Rutter, J., 1997, Stand-up as Interaction: Performance and Audience in Comedy Venues.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford, England.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., 1974, A Simplest Systematics for the Organi
zation of Turn-Taking for Conversation, Language, 50, pp.696-73.
Retoryka
przedstawień komediowych
i
interakcja wykonawca
—
widownia
Artykuł poświęcony jest przedstawieniom komediowym, a w szczególności tech nikom retorycznym używanym przez odnoszących sukcesy aktorów. Autor wskazuje podstawowe techniki: powtórzenia, aliteracje i asonanse, zmiany głosu oraz intonacji. Uznaje, że ich użycie jest ściśle powiązane ze śmiechem widowni i analizuje przypadki śmiechu. Twierdzi, że aktorzy używają tych technik dla zasygnalizowania puent, przy których śmiech jest oczekiwaną reakcją widowni.
Widzowie to aktywni uczestnicy interakcji. Wychwytują oni retoryczne techniki i śmieją się lub nie reagująna nie śmiechem. Decyzja zależy od rezultatu negocjacji z ak torem. Autor może sterować widownią, jednak nie ma nad nią pełnej kontroli. Podważa to model bodziec-reakcja, często implicite obecny w wyjaśnieniach istoty śmiechu i hu moru.
