Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp.246–270

The types and functions of humor in the work of a United States Senator

A case study of Senator Edward Kennedy

| Bentley University

This study investigates the role interactional competence plays in the performance of political roles by examining the use of humor in events such as speeches, election campaign rallies, press briefings and televised news interviews. In this case study of a prominent United States Senator (the late Senator Edward Kennedy), twenty publically available video recordings from the C-SPAN online archives are analyzed using a conversation analytic approach. Two main types of humor were found in these data, self-deprecatory humor and humor that criticizes others. Three main functions of humor were identified (subtle self-promotion, managing challenging political and interactional situations, and creating solidarity with an audience). The results of this study contribute to our understanding of how humor can play a role in doing the work of a Senator.

Keywords: political communication, political speeches, interactional competence, conversation analysis, humor, joking, talk in institutional settings
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review: Humor and politics
    • 2.1Self-deprecating humor
    • 2.2Humor as criticism
  • 3.Methods and data
  • 4.General observations about the use of humor in the data set
  • 5.Humor, social role and interactional competence
    • 5.1Self-deprecatory humor
      • 5.1.1Self-deprecatory and self-aggrandizing humor
      • 5.1.2Self-deprecatory humor based on a surprise contrast
      • 5.1.3Self-deprecating humor through fictional story telling
      • 5.1.4Self-deprecating humor through ‘pretend ignorance’
    • 5.2Humorous criticism of others
      • 5.2.1Humor through direct criticism
      • 5.2.2Humor through indirect criticism
      • 5.2.3Pretend criticism: Humor from obviously fake attacks
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • References
Published online: 10 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00095.gar
References
Ainsworth, Scott and Marcus Flathman
1995 “Unanimous Consent Agreements as Leadership Tools.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(2): 177–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka
2017 Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Jody C., Jonathan S. Morris, and Jeffrey Michael Coleman
2018 “Did the ‘Road to the White House Run Through’ Letterman? Chris Christie, Letterman, and Other- Disparaging Versus Self-Deprecating Humor.” Journal of Political Marketing 17(3): 282–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Amy B.
2012 “Comedy Types and Political Campaigns: The Differential Influence of Other-Directed Hostile Humor and Self-Ridicule on Candidate Evaluations.” Mass Communication and Society, 15(6): 791–812. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Anthony J. Madonna, and Mark E. Owens
2016 “Regulating the Floor: Tabling Motions in the U.S. Senate, 1865–1946.” American Politics Research 44(1): 56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chan, Ariel Shuk-ling and Foong Ha Yap
2015 “ ‘Please Continue to be an Anime Lover’: The Use of Defamation Metaphors in Hong Kong Electoral Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 871(2015): 31–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaturvedi, Neilan S.
2018 “Filling the Amendment Tree: Majority Party Control, Procedures, and Polarization in the U.S. Senate.” American Politics Research 46(4): 724–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chefneux, Gabriela
2015 “Humor at Work.” Language & Dialogue 5(3): 381–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clymer, Adam
1999 Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William & Morrow.Google Scholar
Dmitriev, Anatolii Vasil’evich
2008 “Humor and Politics.” Russian Social Science Review 49(1): 53–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Ofer and Peter Bull
2012 “Understanding Audience Affiliation in Response to Political Speeches in Japan.” Language & Dialogue 2(3): 375–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard and William Housley
2015 Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Angela Cora
2013 An Introduction to Interaction: Understanding Talk in Formal and Informal Settings. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip
2003 Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halkowski, Timothy
1990 “Role as an Interactional Device.” Social Problems 371: 564–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, Andrea C.
2011 “The Electoral Risks of Senate Majority Leadership, or How Tom Daschle Lost and Harry Reid Won.” The Forum 9(4): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayden, Jessica M., Matthew J. Geras, Nathan M. Gerth, and Michael H. Crespin
2017 “Land, Wood, Water, and Space: Senator Robert S. Kerr, Congress, and Selling the Space Race to the American Public.” Social Science Quarterly 98(4): 1189–1203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny
2010 “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 38(6): 1102–1129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Boston, MA: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, Steven and Peter Eglin
1997 Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, DC: IIECA & University Press of America.Google Scholar
Innocenti, Beth, and Elizabeth Miller
2016 “The Persuasive Force of Political Humor.” Journal of Communication 661(2016): 366–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inya, Onwu
2021 “ ‘The Legislature is the Engine Room of Democracy’: Constructing Ideological Worldviews through Proximisation Strategies in Nigerian Senate Debates.” Discourse & Society 32(2): 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1979 “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance Declination. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 43–59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kadkhodaee, Elham and Zeinab Ghasemi Tari
2019 “Otherising Iran in American Political Discourse: Case Study of a Post-JCPOA Senate Hearing on Iran Sanctions.” Third World Quarterly 40(1): 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayam, Orly
2018 “Donald Trump’s Rhetoric: How an Anti-Political Strategy Helped him Win the Presidency.” Language & Dialogue 8(2): 183–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, Rafi
2016 “The Bibi Sitter and the Hipster: The New Comical Political Discourse.” Israel Affairs 22(3/4): 788–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, Joseph S.
2009 “Humour and Insult in the House of Commons: The Case of Palmerston and Disraeli.” Parliamentary History 281, pt. 21 (2009): 228–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(3): 336–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overby, L. Marvin and Lauren C. Bell
2004 “Rational Behavior or the Norm of Cooperation?: Filibustering Among Retiring Senators.” The Journal of Politics 66(3): 906–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred-Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, Marissa Caldwell, Lisa Mikesell, Innhwa Park, and Nicholas Williams
2019 “Turn-taking and the Structural Legitimization of Bias: The Case of the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.” Language & Communication 691(2019): 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossing, Jonathan P.
2017 “No Joke: Silent Jesters and Comedic Refusals.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 20(3): 545–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1972 “On the Analysability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 325–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1984 “On Doing Being Ordinary.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 314–429. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 11, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Jeannine
2010 Linguistic Aspects of Verbal Humor in Stand-up Comedy. PhD dissertation in English. Saarland: Department of English, University of Saarland. Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Soulaimani, Dris
2018 “Talk, Voice and Gestures in Reported Speech: Toward an Integrated Approach.” Discourse Studies 20(3): 361–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Timothy
2010 Kennedy vs. Carter: The 1980 Battle for the Democratic Party’s Soul. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Stewart, Patrick A.
2010 “Presidential Laugh Lines: Candidate Display Behavior and Audience Laughter in the 2008 Primary Debates.” Politics and the Life Sciences 29(2): 55–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Have, Paul
2007 Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, Second Edition. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyten, Maykel and Wybren Nooitgedagt
2019 “Parliamentary Identity and the Management of the Far-Right: A Discursive Analysis of Dutch Parliamentary Debates.” British Journal of Social Psychology 581(2019): 495–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waisanen, Don
2015 “Comedian-in-Chief: Presidential Jokes as Enthymematic Crisis Rhetoric.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 45(2): 335–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Jon
2019 Camelot’s End: Kennedy vs. Carter, and the Fight that Broke the Democratic Party. New York City, New York: Twelve.Google Scholar
Winiecki, Donald
2008 “The Expert Witnesses and Courtroom Discourse.” Discourse & Society 19(6): 765–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar