以格萊斯之言談合作原則對笑話作跨語言與跨語言成分之解析

A Cross-linguistic and Cross-linguistic Component Analysis of Jokes under the Gricean Framework

Ritchie (2003) refutes the possibility of formulating a theory of how humor works due to its complex and idiosyncratic nature. In the literature, theories of humor language have been extremely divergent (Lyttle, 2003; Schmidt & Williams, 1971). Furthermore, Krikmann (2006, p. 28) indicates that most of these theories are 'mixed', 'multiform' and cannot 'be incorporated into a single integrated theory.' Attardo (2002) also criticizes current theories of linguistic humor as not being sufficiently formalized to be effectively evaluated. This may also explain why after reviewing the contemporary linguistic theories of humor, Krikmann's (2006, p. 55) attitude 'tends to be agnostic.' Thus, the purpose of this study is to adopt Grice's conversation maxims to explore some of the cross-linguistic and the cross-linguistic component aspects of jokes. Based on this preferred framework to account for jokes, it is found that jokes analyses may simultaneously involve in multiple levels of the language, and in both the linguistic and non-linguistic contexts, and that some jokes can survive the translation into a different language, while others cannot. This is because verbal jokes are often language, social and culture-sensitive (Langacker, 2001, as cited in Kotthoff, 2006). Therefore, it can be concluded that the Gricean framework is universal in the intra-linguistic sense, rather than in the inter-linguistic sense. The attempt of adopting a single integrated theory to account for all kinds of humor language may not be a feasible approach. Typological studies on humor and humor language is suggested for the future research.Ritchie（2003）曾因幽默語言或行為之複雜性與每個案例之特殊性而駁斥要公式化的建構一套幽默語言或行為之理論的可能性。在相關文獻中，與幽默語言有關的理論也極為分歧（Lyttle，2003；Schmidt & Williams，1971）。再者，Krikmann（2006，p.28）也認為這些理論既「混雜」又「多樣」，無法「被整合為單一完整的一套理論」。Attardo（2002）則批評說目前一些與幽默語言相關的理論都不夠正式化到足以被作有效的評論。這種情形也足以說明為何在對於許多當代與幽默語言相關的理論作過檢視之後，Krikmann's（2006，p.55）的態度會「傾向於未定論」。因此，本論文擬採用Grice的談話準則來對笑話作跨語言與跨語言成分之分析。根據這個個人偏好的理論架構對笑話所作的解析，結果發現，笑話的解析會同時涉及多重語言成分（或層次），也會同時涉及語境和非語言情境；也發現有些笑話經翻譯成另外一種語言仍然能保有其幽默之成分，但是有些則否。這是因為語言型態之幽默通常是據高度的語言、社會與文化敏感性的（Langacker，2001，as cited in Kotthoff；2006）。因此，以Grice的理論架構，就以在任何單一語言之內來解析笑話而言，它具有普遍性；但是它不具有跨語言解析笑話之普遍性。因此，企圖以一套完整的理論來解析所有的語言幽默並不是一個可行之途徑。對於幽默或幽默語言作分類性的理論研究將會是未來可以著力之處。