Jokes, Culture and Identity

Song Mei Lee-Wong

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Abstract Universally, jokes form an important part of communication and interaction. They can be considered to be representative of a collective voice, (the community) whose meanings rest on a shared culture, language and even aspirations. A community, which may be described as a gathering of “a crowd of one” because “Our sense of self is not something that we solely control; furthermore it is not something that can be divorced from how we see and are seen by others. We really are a crowd of one-and one in a crowd” (Clippinger, 2007:21); the crowd of one motivates, configures and shares jokes of interest to them, and in so doing identify who they are/are not.

Specifically, this paper examines the lexico-semantics of jokes constructed by Singapore’s ‘heartlanders’ (usually people at the grass root level who are well versed in the local vernaculars). Through humour, they claim the public space of free speech to give expression to their perceived social reality (Habermas, 1984). The jokes could be self disparaging, making fun of the community’s social behaviour and values, institutions or matters of public interest, for example, these two ‘New Work Rules’ in Singapore:

DEATH OTHER THAN YOUR OWN - This is no excuse (for not coming to work) DEATH YOUR OWN – This will be accepted It can be argued that one of the most significant functions of humour in the larger socio-political context is that it extends to a particular community or sub- community a degree of laxity in self expression as well as free censorship.

The corpus of jokes is analysed at the lexical and discourse level. The analysis shows use of irony and sarcasm, use of vernacular utterance particles, colloquialisms, Singapore slang, and code-mixing of Singapore English with local dialects/language(s). Wit and humour is also successfully communicated by wordplay - a linguistic device facilitated by Singapore’s multilingualism and multiculturalism.

Key words: social reality; identity; public space; culture; community

INTRODUCTION In the search to understand humor more than a hundred different theories have been proposed during the last three millennia (Feinberg, 1978). Conceptualizations and theories range from the traditional: from Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, to Hobbes (1651) and Schopenhauer (1819), to the modern: Bergson (1900, 1947), Freud (1935), and the more contemporary such as Morreall (1983). The classifications include the relief or release theories, superiority or aggression theories, incongruity theories, the cognitive, social and psychoanalytical theories. Of more recent times, Raskin (1985) and Attardo (1994) proposed the semantically and pragmatically motivated theories. Despite the diversity of methods of approach, humor is universally perceived as both human and social. Studies on ‘ethnic humor’ and ‘national styles of humor’ theorize on the elements of aggression, hostility, superiority, triumph, derision and disparagement present in these jokes. Davies, (1996) on ‘Who gets called stupid?’ speaks of Poles as the butt of ethnic jokes in the United States and the Irish in Australia (1996:42). Humor and its social function is strongly emphasized by the Superiority Theory of Bergson (In Morreall, 1987: 117) which postulates that primarily the appreciation of jokes is a group phenomenon: “You could hardly appreciate the comic, if you felt isolated from others.…Our laughter is always the laughter of a group” (Bergson. In Morreall, 1987:119). Bergson’s vivid illustration in his “fundamental observations on the Comical” is a compelling example of the importance of the social in the comic:

A man was asked why he wasn’t crying during a sermon which had everyone else in tears. “I’m not from the parish,” he answered. What this man thought about tears is even more true of laughter. However frank it may seem, laughter always conceals a subconscious thought of community, one might almost say of complicity, with laughing companions real or imaginary.” (de Sousa. In Morreall, 1987: 241-242). [Italics mine] Community and culture are at best indistinguishable. “What qualifies as a joke can be expected to vary between cultures or societies; … within a given culture or society, there will be a general recognition of what constitutes a joke” (Ritchie, 2000:16). Laughter implies cultural understanding as well as cultural biases. Ziv (1988) in his review of national styles of humor commented that despite the fact that the articles in the book all sharing a common western culture, nevertheless were found to contain differences, not because languages differ but that “history and tradition also create differences“(Ziv, 1988: xi). Take for instance, the following two jokes from Davis and Croft (1988) on Australian humor:

A very pompous pommy walked up to an Aussie in Sydney because he was lost and looking for the subway, he said, “Excuse me, old fellow, could you tell m how I could get underground?” and the Aussie said, “Sure thing, drop dead, you pommy bastard.

A local farmer’s wife had a baby and the farmer came into the hospital to see them for the first time. “You’ve got a fine boy,” said the sister, smiling, “but as you know, he is premature, so he is very small.” “Ah, well, “said the farmer, “a season like this you are lucky to get your seed back.”

As an example of aggressive humor in Australia, the first joke also highlights the Australian ethos of egalitarianism. “No one is spared the aggressive search for equality of Australian humor… Tall poppies are aggressively knocked off what are believed to be their pompous pedestals” (1988:24). The second example, on the other hand, was used to exemplify Australian humor as a defense mechanism. It reflects the early pioneer spirit: the choice of laughter instead of tears when faced with the harsh reality of life in the bush. Non Australians unfamiliar with the tradition and culture of the Australian bush might not appreciate such humor. These jokes contrast sharply with the following ones from Singapore, an urban island- state nation. To understand the social salience of a joke, it is imperative that one takes cognizance of its socio-cultural context, or social reality. In Habermas’s terms (1998: 48-49; 90) social reality comprises the following domains: (a) The external reality of that which can be “perceived” i.e. “everything that can be explicitly asserted as the content of statements”.

(b) The internal reality of that which a speaker would like to express as her intentions …

(c) The normative reality of that which is “socially and culturally recognized”

It can be seen that these three domains (the assertion of statements, the expressed intentions and the socially and culturally recognized reality of a speaker) are integral to understanding a joke. In other words, a joke is socially constituted, and conditioned to a degree. The communicative contents of jokes are therefore understood by the intended particular joke audience because they share a common socio-cultural history, a national identity and values. Jokes inadvertently carry the collective voice of many in the community. Through the avenue of jokes, this group of people communicates their intention to be heard and to share their laughter with the joke audience. Alternatively, they may be described as claiming what amounts to Habermas’s concept of ‘public space’ (1998) which is generally defined as free participatory speech accorded by institutions of democratic societies. In the context of Singapore, public space is comparatively limited to an extent for reasons that are discussed below. Should the two jokes cited for illustration be considered a claim for public space? There is some evidence which points to the possibility of such a consideration. ‘Ah Beng Talks about Singapore History and Current Affairs’ and the ‘7 Cs of Work Rules’ communicate issues which have social import to the Singaporean community. BACKGROUND Singapore is an island city state with a land area of only 271.8 square miles situated on the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. As an ex British colony full independence was gained on 9th August 1965 following the separation from Malaysia. It was an emotional and intimidating experience. There was this threat that “if Singapore’s foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia’s interests, we couId always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johore” (Lee Kuan Yew, 1998:663). Singapore’s current multi-racial population is only 5 million consisting of Chinese, Malays, Indians, Asians and Caucasians of diverse ethnic origins, The Chinese, of diverse linguistic groups make up the largest sector of the residents – 74.2%. The population density of Singapore is comparatively high, more than eighty percent of the population live in low cost state-built high-rise housing. To promote social cohesion housing policy dictates that that each block of flats has a fair distribution of all ethnic groups. (Wikepedia). Linguistic pluralism is one of the major characteristics of Singapore. English, the legacy left by earlier British colonial rule, is the first language, the medium of instruction and the lingua franca of Singaporeans. English, Mandarin (Putonghua), Malay and Tamil form the four official languages in Singapore. At the same time, Singapore’s Chinese speech community shares amongst its speakers a variety of Chinese dialects, the major ones being Hokkien (from Fujian in China), Chaozhou (from Shantou) and Cantonese (from Guangzhou). Code-switching between these languages and dialects is a frequent occurrence in a Chinees majority-speaking diglossic community. Singapore English is best described along a cline of proficiency: the most native-like is the acrolect, the next range is the mesolect, and at the bottom is the basilect, described as furthest from the acrolect in accuracy, pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary (Platt, 1977). The basilect is popularly known as Singapore English, or Singlish, which is occasionally used as a deliberate expression of youth subculture (Lee- Wong, 2001) and/or a marker of Singapore identity. Ah Beng, the creator of the narrative of Joke 1 identified as a typical user of Singlish, is caricatured and lampooned and has become the butt of locally-flavoured jokes.

THE SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF JOKE 1 Ah Beng Talks about Singapore History and Current Affairs (see End Notes) There is a double entendre here as Ah Beng, the scapegoat of jokes now turns joker – the politician, reflecting on Singapore’s political past and present. ‘Ah Beng Speaks Up’ may be described as a socially constituted and conditioned narrative meant for the mirth of Singaporeans. The text sketches the history of Singapore, its separation, the occasional friction between Singapore and the neighbours, and the frustration of being on the receiving end from ‘other’: threats of having their water supply cut: ‘They turn off tap, only we all cannot last” and the belittlement of Singapore ‘one small red dot’ on the map. The text contains lexico-semantics of victimization and disparagement: So every time their country got something wrong, They all say Singapore’s behind it all along. Maybe they think we mouse and they cat, That’s why they suka suka/’as they please’ anyhow talk like that

The stoicism of Singaporeans as hardworking and determined, a nation of doers and winners is well sketched. Contrasting the poverty of “last time” to the affluence of “nowadays”, there is a palpable sense of triumph and pride. There is a display of comic relief as well as a sense of superiority- being Number One is fun.

Last time also got no money to buy ice-cream cone. Nowadays even small kids can also afford hand phone. Sea port, airport also can become Number One. He! He! Sometimes think about it also very fun.

Social Reality and Public Space: Coffee shop and Soap Box As a self-appointed spokesperson, Ah Beng may be seen to be claiming a degree of public space in political discourse. In the sixties and seventies, Singapore’s ‘coffee shops’ were the enclaves for such political discourse. Today, public speaking is regulated and a discourse of this nature is rare. Speakers who wish to speak publicly need to register with the authority concerned to secure official approval. It is noteworthy to mention that the government policy is aimed at promoting racial and political harmony within Singapore and with its neighbours. Consequently, public space is limited concerning racial, religious or political issues. Singaporeans thus are by and large boxed by this “socially and culturally recognized” reality (Habermas, 1998: 48-49).

Verbal Humour: Code-Mixing, Wordplay and Singlish The main feature of verbal humor in Ah Beng’s joke is that the properties of the language involved are not amenable to direct translation into another language (Ritchie, 2004:224). For Singaporeans, the use of Singlish is in itself hilarious. Ah Beng further adopted the strategy of code-mixing, ingenuously choosing words from different languages and dialects and then mix them up in a frivolous way with Singlish. Malay lexemes and vernacular expressions are intra-sententially inserted in an English sentence, as shown in these examples:

English with Malay (Bahasa Melayu) in the following lines:

They all think water is like one big ketupat (cooked rice wrapped in palm leaf as a side dish to go with sticks of grilled meat) …we small can makan/’be eaten’ (i.e. being bullied) …they suka suka anyhow talk like that (say what they like without due regard for the other) English with a local dialect – Hokkien, in the following: Under the ang mo/red hair (the British)… … we both like 2 durians (thorny fruit)… poke each other until buay song/’uncomfortable’ ..our towkay/’boss’ cry like mad (the emotional state of the then prime minister)

Code-mixing is also carefully exploited to set up sentence-final rhyming couplets creating a kind of jocular rap-like rhythm. For example, in Verse 1: ‘complain’ rhymes with ‘brains’; ‘along’ with ‘song’; ‘take’ with ‘leg’; ‘mad’ with ‘sad’, and ‘die’ with ‘rice’ (the final consonant /s/ is often left out by some speakers, so rice sounds like [rai]; and so on. Further, to add to the jauntiness of the verse and to enhance the Singlish flavour of speech style, vernacular pragmatic particles and exclamations (italicized) are used.

Examples: hor: ‘I think hor maybe they don’t understand us very well Aiyoh: ‘Aiyoh! They all think the water is one big ketupat.

The text is intended to sound silly and funny. Yet, there is a hint of underlying aggression – disparagement of other (‘we’ cat, ‘they’ mouse mentality). As Feinberg (1978: 204) puts it, “Nonsense humor permits us to do that… Word-play utilizes aggression against linguistic conformity. By twisting words out of their customary meanings we revolt against the rigidity of language, we express our individuality”. I might add we express identity and solidarity. The butt of the joke is on ‘the other’ who intended ‘us’ to cry but the irony is on who laughs last.

THE SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS OF JOKE 2 The 7 Cs of Work Rules Background Singapore’s amazing economic success despite the limitations of size and population is well documented. Much of this success however relies on a relentless rigorous work regime - long working hours including some weekends. A complaint to the Singapore newspaper, the Straits Times (15th May 2010) by the spouse of an elementary school teacher provides an appropriate background to understanding the nature and irony of the joke. She described his working hours (16th May, 2010 Yahoo News Singapore) as follows:

He wakes up at 5.00 am, leaves home by 6.00am to reach school by 7.00 am to do guard duty. After remedial lessons, co-curricular activities and administrative duties, he reaches home at 8.00pm for dinner before he starts to work from home

This writer would understandably relate to the absurdity of the work rules below.

This is guarantee to improve the economy and push Singapore into the new millennium. These rules will first be implemented in the Civil Service on 1st of Jan 2000 and will be encouraged in the private sector. NTUC union workers greatly welcome these changes as it will help more Singaporeans to achieve the new 7 Cs. WORK RULES

1. SICKNESS: No excuses will be acceptable. We will no longer accept your doctor's statement as proof of illness, as we believe that if you are able to go to the doctor, you are able to come to work. 2. LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR AN OPERATION: We are no longer allowing this practice. We wish to discourage any thoughts that you may not need all of whatever you have, and you should not consider having anything removed. We hired you as you are, and to have anything removed certainly makes you less than we bargained for. 3. DEATH, OTHER THAN YOUR OWN: This is no excuse. If you can arrange for funeral services to be held late in the afternoon, however, we can let you off an hour early, provided all your work is up to date. 4. DEATH, YOUR OWN: This will be accepted as an excuse, but we would like at least two weeks notice, as we feel it is your duty to teach someone else your job. 5. PERSONAL HYGIENE: Entirely too much time is being spent in the washrooms. In the future, you will follow the practice of going in alphabetical order, for instance, those with surnames beginning with 'A' will be allowed to go from 9:00-9:05, and so on. If you are unable to go at your appointed time, it will be necessary to wait until the next day when your time comes around again. 6. QUANTITY OF WORK: No matter how much you do, you'll never do enough. 7. QUALITY OF WORK: The minimum acceptable level is perfection. 8. ADVICE FROM OWNER: Eat a live toad the first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you the rest of the day. 9. THE BOSS IS ALWAYS RIGHT. 10. WHEN THE BOSS IS WRONG, REFER TO RULE 9.

Rule 9 & 10 are classical rules that will never change but we are glad now we have officially put it down in writing. Irony, Social Salience and Public Space There is a hint of black humor in these Work Rules, particularly, the rules that no body parts can be removed in an operation because “we hired you as you are”, and that only ‘Death, your own’ can be accepted as an excuse for not turning up for work’. There are elements of irony and satire in Rules 1 – 4, the irony of giving your all, inclusive of all body parts and that only your own death as opposed to someone else’s can be excused for not turning up for work, but only after giving two weeks’ notice. The lexico-semantics of ‘sickness’, ‘operations’, ‘death your own/other than your own’, ‘never do enough’ ‘the acceptable level (of work) is perfection’ suggest an extremely morbid and challenging work situation. So perhaps, Winston Churchill was right when he said, “The secret ingredient of humor is not joy but sadness” (Feinberg, 1978: 148). An Australian on reading this joke made a pertinent remark to the effect that in Australia, there is the saying that “we need a nervous breakdown weekend’, but apparently in Singapore there is no time for even a nervous breakdown. The ‘normative reality’ (Habermas, 1998: 48-49; 90) as suggested by the joke is that there is indeed no breathing space, and indeed such space might be sought through the comic relief of black humor. The Work Rules stipulate conditions that undermine ‘normal’ work requirements which though appear absurd and laughable nevertheless capture the sense of deadening defencelessness. That space may be created through comic relief echoes “a constant text in Australian humor …The underdog battling to survive in a hostile environment, and the reading that things are so lousy that you can only laugh …” (Davis and Croft, 1988:5). The line that “ NTUC (National Trades Union Congress) union workers (predominantly in retail and service industry) greatly welcome these changes as it will help more Singaporeans to achieve the new 7Cs” suggests another aspect of the social reality of this society – the implication that workers identify earnings with material well-being. The 7 Cs allude to Singaporeans’ shared knowledge of the joke on the 5 Cs Singaporeans aspire: credit card, club card, car, cash and condominium. This line implies a complicity of material culture with work culture, a collusion which perhaps Singaporeans can identify with given the fact that Singapore is the 4th wealthiest country in terms of GDP per capita, the world’s 4th leading financial centre, and has the world’s 9th largest foreign reserves (Wikepedia).

COMPARING JOKE 1 WITH JOKE 2 In accordance with Bergson’s (1900 In Machovec, 1988:8)) basic elements in his theory of humor, the Singapore jokes are seen to be uniquely human and social. It is less certain as to whether these jokes can be considered objective or indifferent. Rather the 7 Cs of Work Rules contain elements that may be described as depressive and sardonic, even incongruous (that leave is approved if it is for one’s own death as opposed to someone else’s). There is support for the sympathy /empathy theory which states that “Exaggeration to absurdity … [in] contrived situations is another aspect of sympathy…. It renders reality less painful” (Eastman, 1922 In Machovec, 1988:69). In contrast, Ah Beng’s joke is positive and playful; it contains elements of derision and techniques of wit achieved through code-mixed and code-fused sentences. The quality of the verbal humor of Ah Beng is its unique use of Singlish, and in Eastman’s words, “it cannot be tinkered and revamped and translated about like an old trunk, from one nation, … or language into another. It is a chemical gem…” (Eastman, 1922 In Machovec, 1988:8).

CONCLUSION Through playful mirth, absurdity and exaggeration, the creators/narrators of the jokes claim what may be termed de facto public space in a society where it is in short supply. These jokes show the functional value of humor in a specific culture and context using a linguistic style that the joke audience can identify with. As a form of social discourse the jokes are characterized by their highly communicative content that sketches the Singaporean identity. Humor has been described as complex, varied and polarized, and these jokes could serve to add to the variety.

End Notes Ah Beng Speaks up Ah Beng talks about Singapore history and current affairs...

Under the *'ang mo' we all live happily together, no complain. Malaysia & Singapore is one big family in our brains. One day we both like 2 durians cannot get along. Got sharp thorns, poke each other, until 'buay song.' One moment like brothers, can give and take. Next moment we kena kicked out by the leg. Wah! Our towkay also cry like mad, we all also feel very very sad. Our neigbours all say, 'Wah they all sure to die! They got nothing, how to get next bowl of rice?'

So 'boh pian,' we all work day and night. We also join the army so that we can fight. We don't care others 'see us no up'. But actually inside we very pain in the heart. Then slowly hor we grow rich and a bit fat. Now others talk about us also got some respect. They scratch their heads and say 'Very funny! Got nothing how come they can still make money?'

Last time also got no money to buy ice-cream cone. Nowadays even small kids can also afford hand phone. Sea port, airport also can become Number One. He! He! Sometimes think about it also very fun. But some people look at us also not happy. Actually they jealous don't want to say only. So every time their country got something wrong. They all say Singapore's behind it all along. Everybody know we water no enough. They turn off tap only we all cannot last.

They threaten us with water supply and shout 'Cut! Cut! Cut!' Aiyoh! They all think the water is one big ketupat. We all hear already also 'buay tahan' Wah liao, they think we small can makan! But now they 'cow pay cow bu' we all not very scared. We want to build water desalination plant already so not so bad. But their own economy now all go bust. Got to sell water otherwise money no enough. Then another neighbor say Singapore no friend friend, Got so much money, a bit more also donno how to lend.

They say we all only one small red dot, like the center of a big dartboard. Maybe they think we mouse and they cat, that's why they suka suka anyhow talk like that. But we all still send them a lot of rice. Show the world we actually very very nice. Sometimes we 'cho ho sim' also kena whack. But we all gentleman wan, don't want to fight back. I think hor maybe they don't understand us very well. That's why relationship sometimes like heaven sometimes like hell Some say aiyah our prosperity is all due to luck, that's why we all siao siao' can still win the Tiger Cup I think hor, Singapore is like chilli padi in a pot - Size small small but still very very hot. (* The bold expressions indicate the use of colloquialisms, the local dialect and Malay)

REFEERENCES

Attardo, Salvatore (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bergson, H. (1900). Laughter. In W. Sypher (ed.) (1947). Comedy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books

Clippinger, John Henry (2007). A Crowd of One. New York: Public Affairs.

Davis, Christie (2002). The Mirth of Nations. New Jersey: Transaction.

Davis, Hyram and Peter Crofts (1988). Humor in Australia. In Avner Ziv (ed.), National Styles of Humor. London: Greenwood.

Eastman, M. (1922). The Sense of Humor. New York: Charles Scribner’s.

Feinberg, Leonard (1978). The Secret of Humor. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Habermas, Jurgen (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1 Reason and Rationalization of society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press

Lee Kuan Yew (1998). The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Times Editions.

Lee-Wong, Song Mei (2001). The Polemics of Singlish. English Today 65, Vol. 17 No. 1. London: Cambridge University Press.

Machovec, Frank J. (1988). Humor: Theory, History, Applications. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas.

Morreall, John (1987) (ed.), The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. New York: State University of New York.

Platt, John (1977). The sub-varieties of Singapore English: their societal and functional status’ In William Crewe (ed), The English Language in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Raskin, Victor (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Holland: Dordrecht.

Ritchie, Graeme ( 2004). The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Routledge.

Ziv, Avner (1988) (ed.) National styles of Humor. London: Greenwood.

Retrieved February, 2010. http://www.asianjoke.com 7Cs of Work Rules

Retrieved February, 2010. http://www.asianjoke.com. Ah Beng speaks up.

Retrieved March, 2010. http://www.google.com Wikepedia