Ambiguity theories in verbal jokes also suggest the major reasons for not seeing a joke as funny, which reckon that the joke recipients (readers or hearers), especially the language learners, may not perceive the linguistic ambiguity involved in the joke as their vocabulary and knowledge of interpretation are limited. Lew (1996) further comments on this issue that “whether a given recipient evaluates a joke (or other stimulus) as funny, and to what degree, depends on a wide range of factors, including the following: cultural and ethnic identity, set of attitudes, identification with characters and subject, mode of delivery of the stimulus, mood, sex, age, family traditions, situational setting, and most certainly a host of other factors. Moreover, different factors contribute with different weight for different people. Social and personality differences in humor appreciation are important and active fields of humor studies” (p.57). This linguist also cites the works of various outstanding scholars on the same field that share his view. Cunningham 1962, Zippin 1966, Leventhal and Mace 1970, Chapman 1973, Cantor 1976, Suls 1977, Lundell 1993 are as such.
Besides, according to Nash (1985:4), personal taste is a “crucial aspect of humor, so it is unlikely that any two people will coincide in their raking of the jokes.” Temporary
(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes
mood, taboo subjects or words, the joke type and style also contribute a great deal to the appreciation of the joke, which psychologically explains the fact that one acknowledges the text as “joke but not a funny one” (Nash, 1985:8). Additionally, Nash (1985) realizes that for many times, the humor in general and the jokes in particular make us laugh even though it is hard to explain why, like the case of (15) below:
(15) Weather forecast for tonight: dark
(Nash, 1985:4) Sentence (15) states the obvious, which is odd of a forecast; but then again, it is ridiculous that the weather forecast does state the obvious things. Perhaps, this could be the comment on this joke.
In general, from the findings of previous studies, determinants towards the joke understanding and seeing the joke texts as funny can be divided into some branches as follows:
a. Cultural and ethnic identity: referring to the social differences between people of different ethnicities in one country as well people of different nationalities. This factor actually aims at the key feature of verbal jokes, which is culture-based.
b. Personal taste or the so-called “personal differences” by Lew (1996): including identification with the subject, set of attitudes, mood, sex, family tradition and the likes. Those factors, in fact, can change over time and situations, affecting greatly the way one and the same person appreciates a single joke.
c. Mode of delivery: referring to the types and forms of the joke, whether it is written or spoken. Quality and tone of voice, pace and speed of speaking and intonation are also considered governing factors. Nevertheless, they are all related to spoken jokes, which need a detailed phonetic analysis, therefore, should be treated as out of the scope of this paper. In addition, context of delivery is included in this type, which states that when told in different places, in different situational settings, a certain joke may receive different reactions.
d. Clever use of language: this factor in fact targets at the language ability of the joke recipients, which asserts that the jokes‟ funniness can be appreciated only when the
(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes
hearers of the jokes share the implication of the joke-tellers. If it is hard for the recipients to understand what is being told, it causes much trouble for them to respond or to see the joke text as a funny one.