Alradhi, (2016) uses a slightly different point of view regarding the theoretical framework of humour while referring to Attardo, (1994: 1). He categorised humour into three families of psychoanalytic, social and cognitive. The families are then subdivided into smaller subcategories as presented in table 1. Other theories of humour that will be discussed in the following section are the linguistic theories with particular interest to the general theory of verbal humour (GTVH) and semantic script theory of humour (SSTH)
Table 1: Families of humour theories
Cognitive
Social
psychoanalytic
Incongruity
Hostility
Release
Contrast
Triumph
Economy
Aggression
Sublimation
Derision
Liberation
Superiority
Disparagement
Alradhi argues that the theory of incongruity only considers the cognitive aspect of humour when classifying a script as humorous without any consideration to the social or the emotional elements (Martin 2007: 63). While citing McGhee (1979, mentioned in Attardo 1994: 48), Alradhi states that an incongruous posse a coherent arrangement of the so-called “constituent elements”. The notion means merely a humorous effect occurs when an inconsistency is observed between what is expected and what happens.
Mulder and Nijholt (2002: 4) as cited by Alradhi argue that the aspect of “congruous resolution” rather than incongruity itself is the most vital aspect of the theory because it is responsible for creating a humorous situation. The arguments by Alradhi conform the incongruity-resolution theory; the theory suggests that humorous script puts the recipient off script in the initial stages and the revelation of the punchline comes as a surprise later (Schwarz 2010: 46). Therefore, to comprehend a given joke, the recipient has to be able to resolve the incongruity.
Superiority theories describe humour to possess a degree of hostility while against stupid acts of other persons (ibid: 47). Many types of research that Alradhi cites use different names about this theory for instance hostility, superiority theories by Morreall (1987), disparagement theories as stated by Suls (1977) and disappointment and frustrated expectation theories, derision theories described by MacHovec (1988). According to the work of Aromaa (2011: 12) cited by Alradhi humour in this context is supposed to humiliate or mock certain groups who behave in a particular unacceptable manner. The humour should help express superiority by emphasising the inferiority of the people in question. (Schwarz, 2010: 46; Morreall, 1987). In support of these assertions are Schwarz (2010: 48), who claims that humour is a means of displaying power and dominance and Rapp (1951: 21), who is convinced that humour is likeable to physical humanity engagement.
The release theories describe humour as an expression of liberation or freedom from psychological tension. The tension theories may be a result of suppressed desires or social restrictions. According to Alradhi, the approach was introduced by Sigmund Freud. In his assertion, the theory explains humour with particular emphasis to the psychological effects on the target group of concern. The researcher explains that humour should be able to relieve the tension of the recipient that might have been a result of social constraints in the society. (Raskin 1985: 38-39). Smut (2006) while referring to the theory, describes the effect of humour as to help release psychic energy through laughter; Spencer (1860) refers to the impact as the release of the pent-up energy while Schwarz (2010: 55), refer to it as to “represents a synthesis of release, hostility, and incongruity theories”
Alradhi, however, argues that linguistic theories of humour are however concerned with semantic, pragmatic and synthetic aspects of humour. The section will describe the two types of linguistic theories, The General Theory of Verbal Humour and The Semantic Script Theory of Humour.
The SSTH as a linguistic theory is tailored towards the determination of whether or not a verbal script is humorous (Raskin, 1985: 47). In his sense, a script is a piece of semantic information regarding routine, basic situation, procedures and standards which makes sense to the targeted speaker of a given local language. According to this theory, a script is characterised can be assumed to possess a single humour when it; is compatible partly or wholly and secondly have opposing ideas to each other. These sentiments prove that every humorous scrip should have two parts, the two parts of the script should be opposing contextually and situationally the researcher also explains about the three different opposition types that presented in a humorous script: normal/abnormal, actual/non-actual and possible/impossible (Raskin, 1985: 99).
Alradhi while citing Attardo (2002: 176-177), argues that the GTVH is a theory tasked to explaining the meaning of humour. The theory is supplemented by other aspects which include, script opposition (SO), knowledge resources (KRs) language (LA), narrative strategy (NS), target (TA), situation (SI) and logical mechanism (LM). Firstly, The Language referred the actual text wording useful for the functional elements’ placement. It constitutes the joke since it touches on the syntactic, phonetic, phonological, morphophonemic, pragmatic levels, the morphological, syntactic, semantic and lexical composition of the humorous script. Attardo argues that the concept of paraphrasing is crucial for the understanding of LA; any sentence can be paraphrased using different wording. The approach may involve using synonyms or other syntactic constructions. This sort of rewording can also be applied to humorous scripts (2002: 177).
The (NS) is the micro-genre of the joke and is represented by the visual representation of a real-life scenario as expressed in dialogue-type, expository and pseudo-riddles and riddles (Attardo and Raskin 1991:300). TA is responsible for outlining the description of the ridiculed population that the humour refers to. The choice of such a target is based on the level of the stereotype associated with a particular group in the society as explained by Attardo (2002: 187). The Situation as explained by Alradhi refers to the context of the humour regarding time, object, place and any other elements that play roles in the script. These elements are in most cases responsible for holding the humour.
LM is responsible for the manner of representation of the humorous script about its backroad and figure in creating a logical flow of the joke. The logical mechanism can, however, affect the understanding of a joke by the audience. In the event of a wrong comprehension, the punch line should be responsible for setting thongs straight for the target group. The scripts can be described as normal or abnormal as far as logical flow is concerned (Attardo and Raskin, 1991:304-306). Lastly, the aspect of SO is responsible for the overlapping or opposition in the presented humorous scripts, the opposition and earlier explained refers to when one part represents what is expected while the other part is unexpected (Attardo 1994: 203-205).