‘FECK OFF!’ EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPOLITENESS, LAUGHTER AND HUMOUR IN THE BRITISH-IRISH SITCOMS FATHER TED, BLACK BOOKS AND THE IT CROWD By Marianne Eve Cronin A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics School of English, Drama, American & Canadian Studies College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham August 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Despite the pervasive presence of linguistic impoliteness in many of Britain’s most celebrated situation comedies, there has been little research on the relationship between impoliteness and humour in the sitcom. Likewise, while research has identified entertainment as an outcome of impoliteness, there has been little emphasis on humour. The present research explores the relationship between linguistic impoliteness and humour in 54 episodes of the BAFTA-winning British-Irish sitcoms Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd (Channel4). In order to address earlier stylistic studies’ over-reliance on researcher intuition in identifying humour, the study uses audience laughter as confirmation of successful humour uptake. Applying a triangulated impoliteness analysis using the frameworks of Spencer-Oatey (2000), Culpeper (2011) and Leech (2014), the study finds that impoliteness is prevalent in the sitcoms studied, with 151 impolite utterances per hour and an average of 2.5 impolite utterances per minute. Exploring the distribution of impoliteness strategies, the results show a clear preference for impoliteness that attacks freedom and personal qualities. Results also showed that character-led differences in impoliteness contribute to characterisation. Most importantly, the thesis finds a statistically significant relationship between utterances containing impoliteness and audience laughter responses, pointing to a relationship between impoliteness and humour. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On a rainy Thursday when I was working at Warwick Medical School as a web design temp, I took an un-approved break to mess around on the internet and (hopefully) figure out what to do with my life. I stumbled across the ‘Find a Masters’ website and spotted that applications were open for an MA in Literary Linguistics at the University of Birmingham. Now, nearly five years on from that exact date, I find myself in the library writing the acknowledgements for my PhD thesis. This research was made possible by generous funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (Award Number 1514938) for which I will always be grateful. Essentially, they placed a £50,000 bet that I could complete a thesis and though there were times when I was tempted to abandon the PhD and move to Mexico (where I hoped Researchfish would be unable to find me), I am happy to say that they now have an outcome for all that money. I am grateful to Professor Jeannette Littlemore and Dr Mel Evans for their support and references that helped me get through the funding application process. From my very first email to the department enquiring about the MA course, to now, Dr Mel Evans has been a source of encouragement and support. Her enthusiasm for this project gave me the confidence to apply for the PhD and I’ll always remember her first literary linguistics seminar as the moment I remembered my love for stylistics. I want to thank her for being so supportive and reading my over-written and rambling drafts, even after she made the move to Leicester. I must thank Professor Michael Toolan for being a patron of my research from the beginning and being full of insightful questions and wisdom about the doctoral experience. I consider myself lucky to have had such a prolific figure in the field of stylistics as my supervisor and his careful proofreading of my drafts has been invaluable. Although I’m sure there are plenty of comma splices in this thesis, it won’t be for his lack of trying to get me to stop splicing! Finally, it’s ironic that I should have been writing a thesis about comedy during two of the least funny years of my life. Dr Paul Thompson stepped in as my supervisor when everything was falling apart (and I was looking at flight prices to Mexico). I was ready to give up and I genuinely don’t think that this thesis would have been completed without his support and feedback. Thank you to my friends, Georgia, Gemma, Sophie and Emma for lifting my spirits whenever they were low. We’ve shared adventures in various cities and countries, lots of rum-based cocktails and the occasional celebrity encounter. Thank you also to the friends I made in the ladybird-infested walls of the Westmere offices, Martine, Linda and Anne, you helped to keep me motivated, but more importantly, you made the PhD-writing process a lot more fun. Thank you to Jon Trevor and his Box of Frogs for welcoming me into their world and giving me the opportunity to have a go at performing comedy instead of just theorising about it. I am thankful for more hours of laughter than I could count. Katie, Alex and Kang have entertained me on days off in London, Thirsk and New York and they made my undergraduate years so much fun that I was eager to carry on studying. Our three years together in Lancaster were some of the best of my life (so far!). Harry, Freda and Ruby didn’t help much academically, but they did provide me with sage advice, adorable kittens and a photoshopped image of me meeting Angela Lansbury. A little while ago, I watched the home video of my first day at school. It was surprising to see the level of encouragement my parents gave me even at 4 years old. They might not have been so encouraging if they knew I’d still be in education 24 years later! I am grateful to them for choosing to send me to Catholic school and then spending the next 14 years of my life undermining everything I learned there. I think this might be why I identify with Ted’s well-meaning failure to function as a Catholic and Dougal’s moments of pure confusion about the doctrine. Finally, a wise person once told me you should never thank a romantic partner in your thesis because the hard copy in the library might outlive your relationship. But it would be impossible for me not to thank my (current!) partner for his unending support, optimism and encouragement. He has an enthusiasm for my PhD that often surpasses my own, to the point that he now considers himself a fan of Brown and Levinson and could recite every conference paper I’ve ever given. Thank you, Goose, for believing that things are possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. x List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xi List of Images ............................................................................................................................ xiii 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Connecting Impoliteness and Humour .................................................................... 3 1.2 Data Set ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Research Aims and Method ...................................................................................... 7 1.4 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................................... 9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Impoliteness .............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Brown and Levinson-Inspired Approach to Impoliteness ........................... 11 2.1.2 Maxim Approach to Impoliteness ................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Conventionalisation Approach to Impoliteness ............................................ 22 2.1.4 Discursive Approach ........................................................................................ 24 2.1.5 Taboo Words ..................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Analysing Dramatic Discourse ................................................................................ 26 2.2.1 Discourse Structure of a Sitcom ..................................................................... 27 2.3 Impoliteness and Stylistics ...................................................................................... 32 2.4 Impoliteness and Humour ....................................................................................... 39 2.4.1 Humour Theories .............................................................................................