The Goon Show – Pioneers of Absurd Humour

A Cultural and Linguistic Analysis of the Language of Humour

Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von Michael Wappl

am Institut für Anglistik Begutachter: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Univ.-Doz. Dr. David Newby, B.A., M.Sc.

Graz, Juli 2009

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Research questions 1 1.2 Material and Methodology 2

2. The Phenomenon of Humour 4

2.1 Humour, Laughter, Joke 4

2.2 The Three Theories of Humour 7 2.2.1 Superiority Theory 8 2.2.2 Release Theory 10 2.2.3 Incongruity Theory 13

2.3The Theories of Humour in The Goon Show 21

3. Linguistic Mechanisms of Verbal Humour 22

3.1 Phonology 22 3.2 Morphology 23 3.3 Syntax 25 3.4 Semantics 29 3.5 Pragmatics 32 3.6 Slips of the Tongue 33

4. The Absurd – a phenomenon of philosophy and literature 35

5. The story of The Goon Show 43

5.1 The characters in The Goon Show 50

6. Analysis of Examples of Humour from The Goon Show 55

6.1 Analysis of Examples of Verbal Humour 55 6.1.1 Phonology 55 6.1.2 Morphology 56 6.1.3 Syntax 57 6.1.4 Semantics 58 6.1.5 Pragmatics 62 6.1.6 Slips of the Tongue 64 6.1.7 Interplay of linguistic mechanisms in examples of verbal humour 65

6.2 Analysis of Examples of Absurd Humour 68 6.2.1Absurdness of language and meaning 68 6.2.1 Absurdness of concept and situation 72

6.3 Analysis of Examples of Radio-Specific Humour 81 6.3.1 Radio-specific humour depending on the conventions of radio drama 82 6.3.2 Radio-specific humour depending on sound effects 86

6.4 Analysis of Examples of Running Jokes 88

7. Conclusion 93

8. Abstract 97

9. Deutsche Zusammenfassung 99

10. Bibliography 101

Acknowledgements

First and most of all, I have to thank my sister, Christina, and my parents, Josefa and Heinz. They were the ones who encouraged me to challenge this project and supported me morally and financially.

Secondly, I want to thank my friends Sascha, Robert and Wolfgang and my colleagues from the scouts (Most of all Indy, Stefan, Steff, Gerhild and Ingrid) for lending me an ear and listening to my doubts and worries whenever I needed it.

Thirdly, I want to thank my colleagues Gerhild Kastrun, Andreas Kaplan, Mario Piffer and Lars Roesky for reading through some chapters and giving me advice.

Then I have to thank Dr. David Newby for his continuous support and academic guidance.

Also I want to thank my German teacher from school, Mag. Ernst Saller, who introduced me to the world of The Goon Show .

Finally, I want to thank the Goons. Thank you Spike Milligan for writing the scripts; and Peter Sellers, Michael Bentine and Harry Secombe for acting them out together with him. The Goon Show provides people with endless hours of amusement and is a cultural landmark in comedy and humour.

1 Introduction

My interest in The Goon Show can be dated back to when I was in sixth grade in gymnasium. Our German teacher Mag. Ernst Saller played the famous “What time is it Eccles?”- sketch to us in one of his exceptional lessons. After this lesson I asked him to copy a few episodes on tape for me. Although I did not understand much of their conversations when I listened to them the first time, the Goons have always been in my mind from that time on. At university the interest in The Goon Show was combined with my interest in the field of linguistics. This happened in a seminar called “Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Comedy”, which sparked my interest to unravel how humour works through the right use of language. This diploma thesis tries to unveil how the various techniques and mechanisms of humour were applied in my favourite radio comedy series, The Goon Show .

1.1 Research question

In the course of this paper the following questions will be considered:

• What is the secret behind the success of The Goon Show ? • What are the underlying structures of their humour? • To which of the three theories of humour does their kind of humour belong? • What are the mechanisms of humour in The Goon Show ?

In the course of this diploma thesis these research questions will be pursued from a theoretical and practical point of view. The theoretical part starts in chapter 2 with a brief definition of the terms “humour”, “laughter” and “joke” to set the limits of one term in relation to the other. Then social, psychological and philosophical theories about the nature of humour, namely the Superiority, the Psychic Release and the Incongruity Theory of Humour, will be surveyed in chapter 2.2. The theoretical part of this thesis continues in chapter 3 and 4, which consider basic mechanisms of humour within verbal and absurd humour. Chapter 3 will take a close look at linguistic mechanisms of humour taken from the linguistic fields of Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and the phenomenon of Slips of the Tongue.

- 1 - Then Chapter 4 directs the scope to the phenomenon of the absurd. In this chapter the absurd will be approached from linguistic and philosophical perspectives and considerations will be given to how it was applied in The Theatre of the Absurd. Chapters 3 and 4 provide the mechanisms of verbal and absurd humour and therefore also the tools for the analysis of humour, which will be applied in the analysis of extracts from The Goon Show in chapter 6. The next chapter, chapter 5, is a transitional section between the theoretical and practical part of this paper. It contains an overview of the history of The Goon Show , which also provides a short biography of its protagonists and the development of its format throughout the ten series. Furthermore, a separate section on the characters is included to give a better insight into the fictional world of The Goon Show . This is meant to show the relation these characters take towards each other in the dialogues, and offers a first overview of their catch phrases. For the analysis of humorous extracts from The Goon Show in chapter 6, the examples of humour are classified into four categories. These categories are Verbal Humour, Absurd Humour, Radio Specific Humour and Running Jokes. Each of these sections shows how the appropriate mechanisms of humour were applied in the episodes of The Goon Show . In addition to that, this chapter tries to demonstrate which of the three theories, which are examined in chapter 2, the humour in The Goon Show is built on. Finally, chapter 7 will recapitulate the main theories from the previous chapters in order to consider whether and how the research questions are answered. It therefore demonstrates where the success of The Goon Show resides. Further it attempts to explain why The Goon Show is still the most often repeated radio programme in the world.

1.2 Material and Methodology

For the purpose of analysing examples of humour in chapter 6, 55 episodes were selected from the 169 episodes of the 8 available series (recordings of series one and partly also two are no longer available). The transcripts of these episodes were either taken from the BBC Transcription Service or downloaded from a Goon Show fan website called “ The Goon Show Site”, on which listeners were asked to post their versions of transcriptions from their private recordings of Goon Show episodes. “All transcripts have been transcribed by a small but hardworking group of Goon fans across the world“, wrote the editor of this webpage Lee Inskip (Inskip,2003 ed. http://www.thegoonshow.net/script.asp).

- 2 - From this resulting corpus the most telling and humorous passages were marked and subsequently analysed concerning the mechanisms of humour found in these extracts. These examples were then categories according to the mechanisms of humour in The Goon Show . In addition to that, this examination is meant to reveal which of the three theories of humour, presented in chapter 2, is the predominant one in The Goon Show .

- 3 -

2 The Phenomenon of Humour

2.1 Humour, Laughter and Jokes

Humour has been the subject of intensive philosophical, psychological, sociological, linguistic and cultural research. The definition of humour as such could be the topic of a whole diploma thesis. Scholars even argue that humour cannot be defined. “As a matter of fact, the claim that humour is undefinable has been advanced several times”, confirms Escarpit (1960). (quoted in Attardo 1994: 3).

Over decades the terms “humour,” “laughter“ and also “joke” have been used interchangeably, sometimes even synonymously, by different researchers. Immanuel Kant in his work Critique of Judgement (1790) talks about “laughter“ as an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing. Henri Bergson also calls the phenomenon “laughter” in his book Le Rire, or Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (1900), which includes an early version of the Incongruity Theory. Sigmund Freud, the most prominent proponent of the Psychic Release Theory, refers to “jokes” when he describes the mechanisms of humour in his treatment Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious (1905).

Most of the other researchers of Theories of Humour refer to “humour”, when they describe the phenomenon of arising laughter by various means such as jokes. The term “humour” in this thesis will be used as an umbrella term incorporating the terms “laughter” and “joke” somehow in it.

In order to define these terms dictionaries prove helpful, as they provide clear cut definitions. In the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2004) humour is referred to as follows:

humour (United States humor ) noun 1 the quality of being amusing, especially as expressed in literature or speech. the ability to appreciate or express humour. 2 a state of mind: her good humour vanished. Archaic: an inclination or whim. 3 (also cardinal humour ) historical each of four fluids of the body (blood, phlegm, yellow bile or choler, and black bile or melancholy), formerly thought to determine a person's physical and mental qualities.

- 4 - The “Merriam-Webster dictionary” goes in the direction of the main theory of humour in this thesis, the Incongruity Theory, and defines “humour” as the “quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous” (http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/humor[1]). Thus humour will be regarded throughout the thesis as the quality and ability to evoke feelings of amusement in other people, and to perceive such feelings produced by others.

The term “laughter” has sometimes been used synonymously with “humour” in various works of humour theory. Salvatore Attardo describes the reasons for the identification of “humour” with “laughter”: The assumption behind this identification of humour and laughter is that what makes people laugh is humorous, and hence the property is seen as symmetrical – what is funny makes you laugh and what makes you laugh is funny. This leads to the identification of a mental phenomenon (humour) with a complex neurophysiological manifestation (laughter).(Attardo, 1994:10)

However, in this thesis the term “laughter” will be used to describe a significant sign of amusement in people. Thus laughter is a sign, but not the only measurement of the success of amusing people. This use of the term is confirmed by the definitions of various dictionaries in which the word “laughter” is described as: A movement (usually involuntary) of the muscles of the face, particularly of the lips, with a peculiar expression of the eyes, indicating merriment, satisfaction, or derision, and usually attended by a sonorous and interrupted expulsion of air from the lungs. ( Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 )

The online encyclopedia “Wikipedia” (2009) provides a definition that supports the view of this paper to a large extent: Laughter is an audible expression or appearance of merriment or amusement or an inward feeling of joy and pleasure (laughing on the inside). It may ensue (as a physiological reaction) from jokes, tickling and other stimuli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter).

According to the definitions “laughter” is a bodily reaction and one possible response to the reception of humour. However, laughter is not the only sign for the reception of humour. Amusement and merriment can be evoked in people as well, even if they do not react by laughing.

In relation to “laughter” and “humour”, a “joke” is generally considered to be a means of expressing humour. The definition found in the online dictionary “Dictionary.com” (2006) shows this: 1. Something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act 2. Something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce 3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter

- 5 - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke)

However, jokes are not the only means to evoke laughter or rather produce pieces of humour. Other similar means of producing humour are puns, quibbles, riddles, gags, witticisms and so forth. A more complete list of means of producing humour is provided by the list of synonyms for the term “joke” taken from Roget's 21 st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition (2008):

Main Entry: Joke Synonyms: antic, bon mot, buffoonery, burlesque, caper, caprice, chestnut*, clowning, drollery, epigram, escapade, farce, frolic, gag, gambol, game, ha-ha*, hoodwinking, horseplay*, humor, jape, jest, lark, laugh, mischief, monkeyshine*, mummery, one-liner, parody, payoff, play, pleasantry, prank, pun, put-on, quirk, raillery, repartee, revel, rib, sally, saw, shaggy-dog story, shenanigan*, snow job, sport, spree, stunt, tomfoolery, trick, vagary, whimsy, wisecrack, witticism, yarn

This section does not attempt to do what is impossible, namely to create a single definition of the term “humour”. It tries to establish a relation, in which the terms “humour”, “laughter”, and “joke” are applied throughout this thesis. It should be pointed out that since the three terms have been used interchangeably in former times it may appear in the following chapters that the three terms are used synonymously in quotations from works of scholars, who did not distinguish between these terms. The term that is of main interest in this paper is “humour”. It operates as an umbrella term for the phenomenon of amusing people or provoking laughter by various means such as puns, jokes and many more.

- 6 -

2.2 Three Theories of Humour

Theories about humour date back as far as the first written comedies. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero were among the first to create a theory of humour. Subsequently there was a long gap until the next significant contributions in this field. The Middle Ages proved to be a very dark period for the investigation of humour, as laughing was regarded as something wicked. In Western Europe the whole attitude towards humour was in general very hostile and it took almost until the Renaissance for humour to gain importance again. Over the next centuries philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schoppenhauer, Sigmund Freud and Henri Bergson became interested in the field of humour and dedicated works to this phenomenon. Later also linguists such as Arthur Koestler, John Morreall, Viktor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo linked linguistic theories to the phenomenon of humour. From the 1980s and 1990s onwards an enormous expansion of scientific research of humour in various fields of science and a consequent increase, almost an explosion, of publications could be observed. In the last few decades a vast and hardly comprehensible field of humour research was established, which includes scientific fields such as psychology, medicine, philosophy, literature and linguistics, and many related disciplines such as neuroscience. This paper tries to give an overview of the major philosophical, psychological and most important linguistic theories of humour. In 1987 John Morreall established a division into “The Three Families of Theories”:

Cognitive Social Psychological Incongruity Hostility Release Contrast Aggression Sublimation Superiority Liberation Triumph Economy Derision Disparagement (Morreall 1987. quoted in Attardo 1994: 47)

Morreall’s categorisation offers an overview and a good way of comparing different approaches to theories of humour. However, these Theories may also be subdivided into the Superiority Theory, the Release Theory and the Incongruity Theory. The categorisation into cognitive, social and psychological theories, Morreall’s main classification, will not be neglected. It will be applied as a means of argumentation about the association and distribution of various scholars to one of the three theories.

- 7 - 2.2.1 Superiority Theory

The first theory of humour that is treated in this paper looks at humour from a social perspective and is called Superiority Theory. The basis of this theory is the claim that the cause of humour rests in a feeling of superiority towards somebody or something. “The superiority theory of laughter states that human beings are moved to laugh when presented with a person or situation they feel themselves, to be intellectually, morally, or physically above.” (Stott 2005: 132). According to this view, the nature of humour is a hostile and aggressive one, and therefore it is often also called hostility theory.

This theory can be dated back to Aristotle, who claimed that we laugh at “the ordinary and improper”. He concentrates almost exclusively on the “laughing at” kind of humour. Plato took a similar approach: “Plato considers humour a negative phenomenon, because this emotion is based on malevolence and envy, in particular laughter caused by the hardship or ill-fortune of another, or mockery of someone of lower status or privilege.” (Krichtafovitch 2006). This turned out to be the prevailing attitude towards humour in the Middle Ages, when humour was considered as a negative expression of hostility.

Thomas Wilson in his work “The Arte of Rhetoricke” (1567) provides another conception of laughter. The occasion of laughter and the meane that maketh us merrie . . . is the fondnes, the filthiness, the deformitie, and al suche evil behaviour, as we se to bee in each other. For we laugh always at those thinges, which either onely, or chiefly touche handsomely, and wittely, some speciall fault, or fond behavior in some one body or some one thing. (quoted in Stott, 2005: 132)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the English philosopher, was the main representative of the proponents of this theory. He writes in his often quoted book Leviathan in 1651: “The passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.” (Stott 2005: 133). According to Hobbes humour is a pleasure that rests on ‘self- congratulation’ gained by the misfortune of others. He regards humour as “the pleasure that hath no name”’ and continues to argue that sudden glory, which causes laughter “is the passion which maketh those Grimaces called laughter.” (Hobbes 1840: 43). As such laughter is always antagonistic and conflictual, establishing a hierarchy at the moment of pleasure.

- 8 - This is certainly the case in one of the most archetypical examples of humour based on the concept of superiority, the “slipping on the banana skin”- sketch, which has been used in slapstick comedy series on TV. In this example people may laugh at the misfortune of the person who slipped on the banana skin and demonstrate by laughing at this person that they feel superior. As such it represents the prototypical case for a “laughing at” scenario. The superiority/hostility theory of humour (Attardo 1994: 49–50) maintains that laughter results from a comparison between us and the others or between our former self and our present self. Humor (and laughter) occurs when this comparison reveals that we are in some way ‘superior’ to the others or that our present self is ‘superior’ to our former self. (Archakis, Tsakona 2005)

Hobbes claims that those who laugh are momentarily released from an awareness of their own lack of ability. According to him the people most likely to laugh are those ‘that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are “forced to keep themselves in their own favour, by observing the imperfections of other men” (cf. Ross 1998: 53). In their article in the journal “Humor” Archakis and Tsakona (2005) add “Moreover, it may be the case that Superiority may be revealed not just by laughing at others' deficiencies but also by showing that one can laugh at (and rise above) one's own imperfections.”

Alexander Bain, a nineteenth-century philosopher, extends this view. He argues that it is possible for laughter to express one's sympathy with someone else's triumphs. Bain thinks that all laughter involves what he calls “degradation” of its object. The degraded object of humour does not have to be a person. The object or ‘butt’ of humour does not always need to be in an inferior position. He writes “it could be anything that is conventionally treated with respect.” (cf. Cameron 1993: 12)

Another aspect of the social perspective of humour is a that it represents a form of mockery and attacks power and status. Some humour, which can be classified to humour belonging to the superiority theory, is an attack on people in superior positions. This can be perceived in political satire and in jokes about politicians, lawyers, celebrities and so forth. This kind of humour is founded on jealousy of power, status and money as well as the consequent feeling of inferiority towards those people in higher positions. However, the perception of this kind of humour as being amusing depends heavily on the audience’s attitude towards the topics of such jokes.

Such as Aristotle, Henri Bergson can be mentioned as a representative of both, the superiority and the incongruity theory of humour. - 9 - in his major contribution Henri Bergson (1859-1941) devotes a certain amount of his considerations Laughter: an Essay on the Meaning of the Comic to the social meaning of laughter. For Bergson “Humour serves as a social corrective, helping people recognize behaviours that are inhospitable to human flourishing. A large source of the comic is in recognizing our superiority over the subhuman” (Smuts 2006: 13). As such it aims at correcting our behaviour whenever what we do deviates from what is socially expected. People who become targets of humour are made responsible for their incongruous and deviant actions.

Bergson furthermore claims that laughter is only connected to humans or to something that can be connected to humans. “A landscape,” writes Bergson, “may be beautiful, inviting, magnificent, drab, or repulsive; but it is never funny.”(quoted in Krichtafovitch) Finally, Bergson asserts that laughing and consequently humour only occur in a social environment as he stated that the lone man never laughs.

Furthermore, Kotthoff (1998) adds to the social dimension of laughter a further claim that there are two kinds of targets of humour. The “out group” targets and the “in group” ones. This is described in Ross (1998) as follows: “Much language serves as a way of establishing bonds with others, of working out who is with you and who is outside the group.” Lundberg agrees with him and he claims that “In a workplace, joking defines and re- defines the differentiated social groupings, reinforces the ranking of group members both within and between groups, and c1arifies the status of one group to another” (Ross 1998: 62). People do not only laugh at others in inferior positions, but establish group and power relations with this kind of humour.

2.2.2 Release Theory

In this chapter theories of humour under the heading Release Theory established mainly by philosophers and psychologists, will be presented. These theories are grouped together in because they all follow the same principles for the production of humour. “The psychic release theory of humour explains the triggering of laughter by the sense of release from a threat being overcome - such as a reduction of fears about death and sex” (Ross 1998: 63). If humour touches upon the limits of what is socially acceptable, a ‘threat’ is created out of the fear that the limit will be crossed. Once the joke turns out to be harmless

- 10 - and the true nature of the joke, namely to amuse, is revealed, some nervous energy has already accumulated. This energy has to be let out and will be transformed into laughter. This is what the ‘release’ or relief theory have in common. Nevertheless, different proponents of this theory describe and approach the mechanisms producing humour differently:

The two most prominent representatives of the release theory are without any doubt Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Herbert Spencer was mainly interested in the effects of humour, not its cause and describes them in his work The Physiology of Laughter (1860) as follows: Strong emotional upheavals lead to a build-up of nervous energy. This energy seeks to escape, and most easily does so through those muscles which, because of low mass, have the least inertia: the mouth muscles, the mimetic muscles, the vocal apparatus, and the respiratory musculature. If those channels prove to be insufficient for the release of nervous energy, other escape channels are used, and the entire body begins to shake in convulsions. (Archakis, Tsakona 2005)

This view is related to his hydraulic theory of nervous energy, in which excitement produces energy that has to be let off like steam from boiling a kettle. However, Spencer did not develop his views of humour any further, but Sigmund Freud did. In his major work on this topic, namely Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905), Freud divided the phenomenon into the terms of wit or rather jokes, the comic and humour. His comes to the following conclusion: “The pleasure of wit originated from an economy of expenditure in inhibition, or the comic from an economy of expenditure in thought, and of humour from an economy of expenditure in feeling (Freud 1905)” (quoted in Archakis, Tsakona 2005)

Freud's theory is in general agreement with Spencer's model of laughter as redirected internal energy. However, he extended it beyond a biological explanation and explained the need for energetic redirection as the circumvention of internal prohibitions put in place by the superego. Jokes in Freud can be used as a means of making public statements abut taboo topics. As such they represent ”a purpose being satisfied whose satisfaction would otherwise not have taken place” (Freud, 2001: 117). (cf. Stott 2005:139). According to Freud (1905)

Humour is a means of obtaining pleasure despite the distressing affects which interfere with it; it acts as a substitute for the generation of these affects, it puts itself in their place. If we are in a situation which tempts us to release painful affects according to our habits, and motives then urge us to suppress these affects in statu nascendi, we have the conditions for humour. In the cases just cited, the person affected by misfortune, pain, etc., could obtain humorous pleasure while the disinterested party laughs over the comic pleasure. We can only say that the pleasure of humour results at the cost of this discontinued release of affect; it originates through the economized expenditure of affect. (quoted in Archakis, Tsakona 2005)

- 11 - Andrew Stott in his 2005 book Comedy – the new critical idiom describes it: “Laughing is the audible signal that the energy required for 'cathexis', the accumulation of energy around an idea , has been lifted and can now be dispersed in a pleasurable fashion. The joker, says Freud has saved his psychological expenditure. We should say that his pleasure corresponds to this economy. Our insight into the mechanism of laughter leads us rather to the introduction of the proscribed idea by means of an auditory perception, the cathectic energy used for the inhibition has now suddenly become superfluous and has been lifted, and is therefore now ready to be discharged by laughter. (Freud, 2001:148-149)” ( quoted in Stott 2005: 139-140)

As such the joker gains pleasure on the one hand from saved energy and on the other hand in doing what he always wished to, namely act without inhibition or rather break out of these inhibitions. “Laughter, then is the bang of anti-social thoughts colliding with a censorious wall. In laughter the conditions are present under which a sum of psychical energy which has hitherto been used for cathexis is allowed discharge (Freud 2001: 148)” (quoted in Stott 2005: 140). Freud’s concept of internal economy is a system that keeps the balance of what the joker always wanted to say, but was repressed from doing because it is not socially acceptable. So it also acts as a means of maintaining mental health.

Throughout the discussion about laughter Freud (1905) distinguishes between 'innocent' and 'tendentious' jokes. On the one hand, the innocent joke refers to a play on words such as a pun or word game and is regarded as humorous because of its technique and formal quality. On the other hand, the tendentious joke can be subdivided into either a hostile joke or an obscene joke. Whereas the first is operating through aggressiveness such as in satire, the latter serves merely the purpose of exposure by touching on taboo topics such as sex and excreta. Nevertheless, both kinds of jokes act in terms of a drive of the unconscious to break out of social inhibitions. “From this principle, Freud theorized , that humour works because it appeals to unconscious thoughts that remain largely hidden in the majority of our social interactions” (Stott 2005: 138).

Crichtley (2002: 102f.) points out that Freud's line of argumentation in his later article “Humour” from 1927 is slightly different. It is not so much an interest in joking that helps us to discharge otherwise damaging emotions. Moreover, we unconsciously exploit humour and also dreams in order to express socially unacceptable feelings and attitudes in a disguised way, and thus outwit the repressive Super-Ego.

- 12 - As the title of the subchapter, “Why the super ego is your amigo”, in Simon Critchley’s book On Humour (2002) suggests, the conception of the super-ego, known from Freud’s division of the ego, has to be revised in some respects. In Freund’s conception of the super-ego, it is mainly known for having a rather repressive nature. Freud himself described in his 1927 paper on humour that in other connections we know the superego as a ‘severe master’. However, in connection with humour this view is a different one. The super-ego has undergone a significant maturation from the ability to learn to laugh at oneself. Such a super-ego is not reppressive and a severe master, but a consoling and comforting kind of friend. The phrase ‘super-ego II’ has been coined by Simon Critchley (2002: 103): “If ‘ super-ego I’ is the prohibiting parent, scolding the child, then ‘super-ego II’ is the comforting parent. Or better still, ‘ super ego II’ is the child that has become the parent: wiser and wittier, if slightly wizened.” In his final paragraph of the paper “Humor” (1927) Freud writes “If it is really the super-ego which, in humour, speaks such kindly words of comfort to the intimidated ego, this will teach us that we still have a great deal to learn about the nature of the super-ego” (Freud 2001).

In general, release theories, do not provide reasons why something can be considered humorous and what the underlying mechanisms of the production of humour are. However, it is still plausible to argue that laughter is a response to humour derives from a psychological phenomenon.

2.2.3 Incongruity Theory

“Incongruity” is the term, which has been widely applied in theories concerned with the triggers of humour. Theories belonging to this group all argue that humour relies on an expectation that has been built up and is finally destroyed by a certain incongruity, rather than following an congruous and logically straight line as expected. The incongruity theory focuses on the element of surprise. It states that humour is created out of a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke. This accounts for the most obvious feature of much humour: an ambiguity, or double meaning, which deliberately misleads the audience, followed by a punch line. (Ross 1998: 7)

“Incongruity” has a very broad meaning and is a kind of umbrella term, under which various reasons of being incongruous exist. These reasons may come from many different sources. They make up a spectrum reaching from verbal ambiguity and misleading ambiguity of concepts to even absurd clashes between what is expressed through language and what is - 13 - possible to realise in real life. However, common to all of them is the destroying of expectations by a certain incongruity. As James Russell Lowell writes in 1870, 'Humour in its first analysis is a perception of the incongruous'. Humour is produced by the experience of a felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and what actually takes place in the joke, gag, jest or blague. (Critchley 2002: 3)

It is commonly agreed upon that one of the earliest proponents of the incongruity theory was the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who claimed that we tend to laugh at the “ordinary and the improper”. He argues in his famous work Rhetoric that the best way to get an audience to laugh is to set up an expectation and deliver something that contains a twist. Aristotle says that “the effect is produced even by jokes depending upon changes of the letters of a word; this too is a surprise. You find this in verse as well as in prose. The word which comes is not what the hearer imagined” (cf. Smuts 2006: 13). Aristotle also concluded that is must be possible to perceive the incongruity and that the hearer is capable of a resolution of this incongruity.

In the course of this chapter, theories of humour, belonging to the subcategory of incongruity will come either from philosophers such as that of Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and Henri Bergson or from a more linguists such as that of Arvu Krikuman, John Morreall, Viktor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo. Though it has been argued that linguistic theories cannot be restricted to the term of incongruity alone, linguists are interested in the mechanisms on which verbal ambiguity or linguistic incongruity rely in the production of humorous statements. As verbal or conceptual ambiguity trigger incongruity, these theories are included among the variants of the incongruity theory.

One of the proponents of the incongruity theory who approached the phenomenon from the philosophers’ side is the German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In his work Critique of Judgment (1790), Kant gives an account of the role of incongruity in humour: "In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing." (cf. Smuts 2006: 13) In Humour and History (1993: 15)Keith Cameron states: “What he thinks provokes laughter is the reasonably subtle build up to an astonishing conjunction of two disparate ideas.” By comparing the act of listening to music to being amused by humorous acts Kant

- 14 - describes the mechanisms as following: “In music certain auditory sensations provoke aesthetic ideas, which in their turn provoke further sensations. In humour, however, it begins the other way round, with absurd or incongruous ideas provoking sensations” (Cameron 1993: 15). According to this view the term ‘sensations’ can be compared to excitement or what was considered in the release theory as nervous energy. However, Kant never states what the incongruity is: “It is very surprising that such a rationalist fails to make it c1ear whether he thinks the absurdities that generate humour are logical or factual.” (Cameron 1993: 16). “The only requirement he defines for the quality of incongruity is that the jest must contain something that is capable of deceiving the audience for a moment” (cf. Attardo 1994: 48).

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) in his revelations about incongruity reflected more on the relation between a thought or rather concept and the real object. On this basis, he developed his so called ‘theory of the absurd’: The cause of laughter, as he wrote in the first book of The World as Will and Idea , section 13, “in every case is simply the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects that had been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity” (quoted in Kastrun 2007:17). For him humour relies on some kind of misalignment between the concept or rather thought and the real object. “Schopenhauer thinks there must always be some discrepancy between rational concept and perceived object. Indeed his interest in laughter derives from his seeing it as a striking manifestation of this great metaphysical truth” (Cameron 1993: 17). The graver this misalignment or incongruity is, the greater the humour that can be observed through the expression of laughter. For Schopenhauer there are two ways in which concept and object can diverge: either the concept demands too much of the object or vice versa. In every case it is the difference between what is real and what is expressed in thought that accounts for humour. “Success in recognition of the absurd, recognition of non-correspondence between a concept and the real thing is, according to Schopenhauer, the reason for laughter.” (Krichtafovitch 2006)

As with Aristotle, Henri Bergson can also be associated with both the Superiority and the Incongruity Theory, depending on how their theories are approached. So Bergson’s theory on the mechanisms how humour works has to be assigned to incongruity theory, whereas his considerations on the social meaning of humour can be attributed to the superiority theory.

- 15 - His famous claim in Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (1900) is that humour is triggered by the conflict between the human and the mechanical, or as he says "mechanical encrusted upon the living". So people laugh every time a person creates the impression of being an inanimate object. In other words, he is interested in the incongruity between mechanical and living objects, which is a certain kind of absurdity. As Bergson argues about absurdity he had following claim to make: So we see that absurdity, when met with in the comic, is not absurdity in general. It is an absurdity of a definite kind. It does not create the comic; rather, we might say that the comic infuses into it its own particular essence. It is not a cause, but an effect--an effect of a very special kind, which reflects the special nature of its cause. Now, this cause is known to us; consequently we shall have no trouble in understanding the nature of the effect. (quoted in Krichtafovitch 2006)

Théophile Gautier enlarged on his view and claimed that the comic in its most extreme form was the logic of the absurd. He concluded that what makes us laugh is the absurd realized in concrete shape, a “palpable absurdity" or rather “an apparent absurdity, which we swallow for the moment only to rectify it immediately afterwards” (cf. Krichtafovitch 2006). Whereas the philosophical representatives of the incongruity theory are mainly concerned with general theories of how humour works, linguists are more concerned with the elements by which humour is triggered. They put the emphasis on the elements of language such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Krikumann argues in his article “Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour” (2004) that linguistic theories of humour also belong to the category of incongruity theories: “All of them belong to, or are descendants of, or congenial with the incongruity theories just mentioned, though some authors of them prefer to deny it.” In the following section, the theories of the main representatives of linguistic theories of humour, Arthur Koestler, Viktor Raskin and Salvatore Attardo, will be discussed as representing the incongruity theory.

The first of the three was the Hungarian born Arthur Koestler (1905-1983). In his book The Act of Creation (1964) about the creativity in the use of language, he devoted a section on humour. There he developed the concept of bisociation, on which humour rests. This concept of bisociation is what he called the “two planed” nature of any creative act. In the case of humour, it means comic collision of or oscillation between two frames of reference ~ worlds of discourse ~ codes ~ associative contexts, in the case of scientific discovery – objective analogy, in the case of art – the image. (Krikumann 2004: 28)

He was the predecessor of many who argue that the source of humour is the opposition of two different scripts or rather frames of reference.

- 16 - Therefore a sudden bisociation of a mental event with two habitually incompatible matrices ~ associative contexts ~ frames of reference causes a sudden jump from one matrix to another, but our emotions cannot follow such quick toggling and so our psychological tension finds the solution in laughter […] (Krikumann 2004:29)

Although this last statement resembles the ideas of the release theory, the focus here is on the elements that cause the bisociation, or in other words incongruity. Koestler argues that the collision of two diverging if not opposite scripts, also called “bisocitative matrices”, causes confusion at first. “Only after having deduced the opposition of the frames at hand can laughter erupt.” (Kastrun 2007: 41). In order words humour is based on the intellectual achievement of detecting the incongruity between the two different bisociative matrices.

The Russian born linguist Viktor Raskin further developed the theory of Arthur Koestler. In his ‘Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour’, known under the acronym SSTH, he concentrates on the mechanism of script oppositions and gives the following explanation in his book Semantic Mechanisms of Humor (1985): A text can be characterized as a single-joke-carrying text if both of the conditions are satisfied. (i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts (ii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite in a special sense defined […] (iii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are said to overlap fully or in part on this text. (quoted in Krikumann 2004: 31).

The notion of ‘script’, which is crucial for the understanding of his theory is described by his partner in humour research, Salvatore Attardo, as follows: A script is an organized chunk of information about something (in the broadest sense). It is a cognitive structure internalized by the speaker which provides the speaker with information on how things are done, organized, etc. (Attardo, 1994: 198).

As such scripts are essential elements of knowledge that determine our behaviour, our common routines and in general the ways in which we go about social activities. Sometimes in the course of combining scripts in conversation and social interaction, two or more may overlap in some confusing way. The overlapping of scripts is not funny in itself. The second condition comes in, which says that these scripts have to be of an opposite nature in order to appear funny. “Thus, if a text is compatible fully or in part with two scripts, and the two scripts happen to be opposed to each other, then, and only then, will the text be classified as funny by the SSTH” (Attardo 1994: 295). Generally speaking, Each joke describes some “real” situation and evokes another, “unreal” situation. They can be manifested as oppositions between the 1) actual and non-actual, non-existing situation, 2) expected and abnormal, unexpected states of affairs, 3) possible, plausible and impossible, less plausible situation (Raskin 1985, quoted in Krikumann 2004)

- 17 -

Viktor Raskin also developed the notions of the “script switch trigger” and “punch line” further. The notion of the script-switch trigger is defined as the passage in the text where the transition from one script to another is undertaken. However, this transition that happens within the development of a humorous utterance should not be revealed until the end, when the punch line comes in. The punch line is the final element that presents the incongruity or opposition of the two scripts.

For Raskin jokes and any kind of humorous utterances are forms of ‘non-bona-fide’ communication. The words non bona fide are Latin and mean literally translated “not of good trust” or rather ‘untrustworthy’. Humorous discourse is untrustworthy as it violates the Cooperative Principle, which prevails in bona-fide communication. The Cooperative Principle, established by Paul Grice , relies on the assumption that people cooperate with each other in communication. They shape their utterances according to four maxims, in order to help the recipient interpret the speaker’s message.

Maxims of Quantity Make your contribution as informative as required, but not more, or less than is required. Maxims of Quality Do not say what your believe to be false or of which you lack evidence. Maxim of Relation Be relevant. Maxims of Manner Be clear, brief and orderly. (Yule, 1996: 145)

However, humorous utterances violate at least the Maxim of Manner, as they are ambiguous in some respect. Many humorous examples also violate the Maxim of Relation, as they suddenly present a certain incongruity. It is even argued that ‘good jokes’ violate all of the four maxims. Humour relies on a deceiving effect that misleads the audience’s expectation and finally destroys it. This resulted in Raskin establishing a new Cooperative Principle and together with that four new maxims of non-bona-fide communication or rather humour. This new cooperative principle turns the one of Grice on its head: “The hearer does not expect the speaker to tell the truth or to convey him any relevant information. Rather, he perceives the intention of the speaker as an attempt to make him, the hearer laugh (Raskin 1985:103)”(quoted in Kastrun 2007: 43) and the correlating four maxims of non-bona-fide communication are:

- 18 -

Maxim of Quantity Give exactly as much information as is necessary for the jokes; Maxim of Quality Say only what is compatible with the world of the joke; Maxim of Relation Say only what is relevant to the joke; Maxim of Manner Tell the joke efficiently. (quoted in Attardo 1994: 206)

At this point it is important to state that humour belongs to non-bona-fide communication, although it may contain elements of bona-fide information. However, jokes and humorous utterances, do not exclusively occupy the non-bona-fide communication mode. There are other modes of communicating such as lying and play-acting that also violate the maxims of bona-fide communication, but are not amusing.

This Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour (SSTH) is not the last of linguistic theories about humour. The already mentioned scholar of Viktor Raskin, Salvatore Attardo, altered Raskin’s theory. Salvatore Attardo wrote his PhD dissertation thesis under the supervision of Viktor Raskin and the two subsequently went on and revised the Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour in the book Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model (1991). As a result of their cooperation Attardo’s theory is established and described at large in his work Linguistic Theories of Humor (1994): “Whereas the SSTH was a “semantic” theory of humour, the GTVH (the General Theory of Verbal Humour) is a linguistic theory ”at large” – that is, in includes other areas of linguistics as well, including, most notably, textual linguistics, the theory of narrative, and pragmatics.”

This broadening of scope is achieved through the introduction of five other areas, called knowledge resources (KRs), alongside the already established category of script opposition. According to Attardo these 6 knowledge resources should be considered when analysing humorous utterances. These are linearly and hierarchically ordered as follows: script opposition (SO), logical mechanism (LM), situation (SI), target (TA), narrative strategy (NS) and language (LA). In this list the former always determines the latter.

Language (LA) This KR is mainly interested in the exact wording and verbalisation of a humorous utterance.

- 19 - It includes all the choices at the phonetic, phonologic, morphophonemic, morphologic, lexic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels of language structure that the speaker is still free to make, given that everything else in the joke is already given and cannot be tinkered with (Raskin/Attardo, quoted in Krikumann 2004)

He argued that the wording of the joke is essential and doubts the translatability of ‘good humorists’ jokes’.

Narrative Strategy (NS) As the word strategy reveals, this knowledge resource is concerned with the build-up and the development of jokes and how they are presented. It refers largely to what is called in literary studies the ‘genre’ of the joke; whether is it set up as a riddle, as a simple narration, as a dialogue and so forth. Along with this, he also emphasises the final position of the punch line for the successful organisation of jokes.

Target (TA) As was mentioned in the discussion of the superiority theory, Attardo argues that there has to be someone or something functioning as the ‘butt’ or rather target of humour. Raskin and Attardo argue that there are not many jokes that do not have a target. However, they emphasise that there is no correspondence between stereotypes which are exploited in humour and reality.

Situation (SI) Whereas the knowledge resource of narrative strategy refers to the genre of humour, ‘situation’ can be considered as the ‘stage props’. These are the target, other participants, activities, objects, instruments and so forth that are necessary for the humour of the utterance. (cf. Attardo 1994: 225). He argues further that any joke must take place in some kind of situation, some relying more on that than others. Thus the knowledge resource of ‘situation’ is another necessary prerequisite for the production of humour.

Logical Mechanism (LM) The knowledge resource called ‘logical mechanism’ is the parameter that accounts for the logical organisation in which scripts are brought together in humour. This can account for logical juxtaposition, false analogies, figure ground reversal and so forth. These kinds of ‘distorted, playful logics’ are essential for the deception of the audience going on in humour. They represent a world that does not work properly outside of humour, as humour is considered as a kind non-bona-fide communication.

- 20 -

Script Opposition (SO) This is the last remaining mechanism of Raskin’s ‘Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour’ in Attardo’s ‘General Theory of Verbal Humour’. Although Attardo argues that it is the most abstract of the six knowledge resources, he emphasised its essential position. “Any humorous text will present a SO;”, and he went on arguing, “the specifics of its narrative organisation, its social and historical instantiation, etc. will vary according to the place and time of its production” (Attardo 1994: 116).

2.3 The Theories of Humour in The Goon Show

Of the three Theories of Humour, the Incongruity Theory in its many variations is expected to emerge as the predominant one in the creation of humour in The Goon Show . The Goons mainly build their humour on the mechanism of breaking an expectation which was built up before. They employ the effect of surprise established by exploiting an ambiguity or rather unexpected occurrence of an incongruous utterance, and therefore destroying the audience’s expectation.

The other two theories of humour will not be left unconsidered in the analysis of examples of humour, but they both employ only a minor role in the creation of humour in The Goon Show .

Due to the role of the BBC as a moral instance in Great Britain after the Second World War, the Goons were subject to attempts at censorships by the BBC authorities. Joking on taboo topics such as sex or bodily functions was prohibited. So breaking taboos, which is the major characteristic of the Psychic Release Theory is built on, was mostly prohibited throughout the ten series of The Goon Show .

The Goons generally opted for a broad approach to humour which everybody could follow without having much previous and specialised knowledge. So they avoided making fun of topical issues, politicians and people in higher positions. There is not much mockery on topical issues and generally on the mighty people, which would be characteristic examples of the Superiority Theory. Nevertheless, the Superiority Theory can be observed in the relationship of the characters towards each other. Sometimes weaker or stupid characters are the victims or “butts” of humour. Whenever humour is created at their cost, this makes the audience feel superior towards them, which is a major trait of the Superiority Theory. - 21 -

3 Linguistic Mechanisms of Verbal Humour

The three theories of humour, presented in the previous chapter, presented a rather conceptual and theoretical approach to the phenomenon of humour. In contrast to this, the next section will examine the elements in language that trigger humour through different kinds of ambiguity. The ambiguities are built on mechanism from different linguistic fields, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Different units of language will be examined, ranging from phonemes and morphemes to phrases and sentences, all of which can certain trigger humour.

3.1 Phonology

The first area to be examined is phonology, the study of sounds in a language. Sounds are the basic elements that make up words and therefore language as well as humour. Many jokes are based on the fact that there can be two possible interpretations of the same sounds as in the example:

What's black and white and red/read all over? A newspaper. (cf. Ross 1998: 9)

The term that refers to words that are pronounced the same but spelt differently such as red and read in this example is ‘homophone’. So these two words are homophones and trigger the ambiguity of the utterance. Ross (1998: 9) describes this phenomenon as follows: “There are many homophones in the English language, because the English system of spelling is not based on representing each sound or phoneme with a distinct letter or symbol.” The vowel in the middle of the words ‘red’ and ‘read’ are pronounced the same and are also represented by the same phonetic symbol, namely [ e] . This children’s riddle may not appear funny to all of us. Nevertheless, it reveals the mechanism on which ambiguity is based, which can also be seen in this example from The Goon Show : Grytpype-Thynne: I thought I saw a Greek urn buried in the sand. Moriarty: What’s a Greek earn? Grytpype-Thynne: It’s a vase made by Greeks for carrying liquids. Moriarty: I didn’t expect that answer. Grytpype-Thynne: Neither did quite a few smart alerk listeners. (Alexander 1997: 51)

- 22 -

3.2 Morphology

The English system of word formation offers several ways to create ambiguities and thus to create humour. The linguistic field of morphology is concerned with the way how words are formed. Word formation processes that trigger humour can be derivation, compounding, coinage, blending, clipping and so forth. The basic linguistic unit of morphology is the morpheme, which is also the smallest unit of meaning. On the one hand, there are words that can occur alone as single words and are called free morphemes. These can be classified into lexical and functional morphemes. Whereas lexical morphemes are words that carry content such as nouns, adjectives and verbs, functional morphemes are words such as prepositions, conjunctions, articles and pronouns. On the other hand, morphemes that do not convey meaning, when they occur alone, are called bound morphemes. They are added to a free morpheme and thus are called affixes. These are either prefixes, when added to the beginning, or suffixes, when added to the end. Furthermore they are divided into either derivational or inflectional morphemes. Derivational morphemes are added to create new words. Inflectional morphemes have a distinct grammatical function, as they indicate a word's tense, number, aspect, and so on. (cf. Yule 1996: 75-78).

Q: What’s a baby pig called? A: A piglet. Q: What’s a baby toy called? A: A toilet. (Ross, 1998: 15)

In this example the mechanism, called derivation, is exploited in a humorous way. The suffix “-let” is falsely applied to create what seems to be a derivational morpheme. On the other hand, the word “toilet” cannot be divided further and turns out to be a free lexical morpheme.

This is also the case as in the phenomenon of the so called blocked morpheme, as in the following extract from The Goon Show , quoted in Chiaro (1992: 36):

Seagoon: A penguin please. Sellers: Certainly, I’ll look in the catalogue. Seagoon: But I don’t want a cat, I want a penguin! Sellers: Then I’ll look in the penguin-logue.

- 23 - In this example the suffix “-logue” is treated like a derivational morpheme, but linguistically it cannot be separated from catalogue. On the other hand, the word catalogue is a lexical morpheme or rather lexeme and cannot be split up further. Hence the thirds syllable is treated as a separate lexical morpheme and “catalogue” is falsely regarded as a lexical compound. The joke works on the false presupposition that “-logue” was applied correctly to “cat” and “a”, both being free morphemes, the first lexical and the latter functional.

Another mechanism of word formation is compounding. Compounds are formed when free morphemes are combined to produce a single word. The order of appearance of the morphemes is important as it makes up for the meaning of the arising new word.

Seagoon: Lady Marks. Where is her ladyship at the moment? Headstone: Me lady hasn’t got a ship at the moment. (Extract taken from the episode “The Affair of the lone banana”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 26 th of October 1954)

Headstone interprets the word ladyship as a compound of two free lexical morphemes. Within the word “ladyship” the morpheme “lady” is a free and lexical one indeed, but the morpheme “-ship” is a noun suffix, which has the function of denoting the condition and quality of the noun it is added to. So it does not refer to a vessel. The audience recognises the word “ladyship” as a formal expression for a lady immediately, but the Goons deliberately try to separate the word into two free lexical morphemes and construct an unexpected ambiguity by that. This ambiguity becomes apparent at the end, when Headstone reveals his unusual understanding of the word.

Conversion is another process of word formation and also a mechanism that can be exploited as a trigger of humorour. This is the case when a word switches its word class and mutates, for example from a noun to a verb or vice versa and so forth. It can be argued that this is also the case with the process of back-formation, when verbs are made from nouns.

What is not so obvious as an element of humour, but prominent as a word formation process, is the coinage of completely new words, or neologisms. At first, the creation of new words does not have an inherently humorous effect, but The Goon Show proved this assumption to be wrong. As Alexander (1997: 34) states “Word formation, especially the forming of neologisms, can have a humorous side of it.” This can be seen in the following example: Quatermass: Listen someone’s screaming in agony – fortunately I speak it fluently- Willium: Oh sir. Ohh me krills are plurned.

- 24 - (Alexander 1997: 37)

As is the case with the language used by non-sense poets such as Edward Lear and especially Lewis Carroll, the quality of the sounds of the words produces a kind of familiarity in the audience although these words cannot be found in the English lexicon. They do not appear in any dictionary, but sound as if they could be actual words. Halliday (quoted in Chiaro 1992: 37) also refers this phenomenon as the “anti- language of The Goon Show ”. They invented a few neologisms as the non-sense word “Lurgi”, conversational fillers such as “Needle Nardle Noo” or “Ying-Tong-Idle-I-Poo” or expressions of the characters’ mood, such as “Sapristi” or “Indelible”. These expressions even entered the English language on a regular basis, and they were used by listeners in everyday conversation.

3.3 Syntax

Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim Man Eating Piranha Mistakenly Sold as Pet Fish Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant (Ross 1998: 20)

Although we recognise these examples as recogniseable English sentences, they all carry a certain amount of ambiguity. In these examples the ambiguity does not lie in individual words, but in their syntactic arrangement. As these humorous examples were taken from newspaper headlines, the sentences are all elliptical. Thus ambiguity can easily be resolved by adding the missing elements: A squad helps a victim, who was bitten by a dog. A piranha, which is man eating, was mistakenly sold as a pet fish. A trial is held against a young person at the Juvenile Court, who is accused of shooting.

Structural ambiguities are commonly exploited in humour. First, the focus is on the way in which phrases are structured and then on the analysis of sentences and the interplay of their parts.

Phrases in English are always defined by a headword and this can be further defined by its modifiers, which can come before and after the head or occur on both sides. The meaning depends on the way these define and interact with each other to attain meaning, as this example of a misunderstanding quoted in Ross (1998: 20) shows. “Our son was involved in a terrible road accident. Yes, the roads are terrible round here.” - 25 - In the phrase “a terrible road accident”. However, the replier marked the boundaries of the phrase differently as he took the adjective terrible as a modifier for the word road only and shifted the emphasis in an unintended direction. Alexander (1997: 42) describes this effect as follows: “Some jokes depend on the fact that despite identical surface structure two different underlying structures are brought into play”.

As more complex examples are concerned with the interplay of several parts of complete sentences, the examination will move beyond the level of phrases to investigate sentence structures. Whereas the number of elements in sentences is limited, the various possible combinations which trigger ambiguity are not. Sentences consist of at least a subject and a verb, but they can also contain objects, indirect objects, complements and adjuncts, also referred to as adverbials. Combinations of words which seem to have identical surface structure at first sight, might prove to be different, as shown below:

S V A S V O Time/ flies/ like an arrow. Fruit flies/ like/ bananas. (Ross 1998)

Whereas the first sentence follows the structure of subject, verb and adjunct, the latter has the structure of subject, verb and object. Moreover, what really makes this comparison funny is the difference in the form class of the words flies and like. Approached from a structural perspective, the ambiguity can be seen from the structure of this sentences.

Another comparison can be made between the object and the complement. The complement mainly serves the purpose of adding information to the subject, whereas the object introduces some new element. The difference can be seen in these sentences:

S V O S V C Jane / kicked / a doctor. Jane / became / a doctor. (Ross 1998: 22)

In the following example, also found in Ross (1998: 23), the question whether there is an object or compliment is essential to decode the sentence correctly: “Police found drunk in a shop window” A distinction avoids this humorous ambiguity.

- 26 - Sometimes the absence of an object can also cause ambiguity, as this instruction from Trimmets treacle puddings shows:

Open tin and stand in boiling water for twenty minutes (Chiaro 1993: 41).

In this case an object or a referring pronoun would be needed to understand what should stand in the boiling water in an without ambiguity.

Another source of ambiguity may be the direct and indirect objects. Verbs such as ‘give’ or ‘find’ can be followed by both, direct and indirect objects as these sentences show: He found her a rose. He gave her a rose. She found him an idiot. (adapted from Ross 1998: 22)

Also this famous example operates in a similar fashion : “Call me a taxi. You’re a taxi.” (Ross 1998:22).

Although they may not be thought of as triggers of humour in the first place, prepositions can cause ambiguities depending on the context in which they occur. A house owner in Golders Green was forced to leave his house through dangerous cracks in the wall. (Alexander 1997:49)

Or as the ambiguous use of the preposition ‘in’ in Groucho Marx’s famous quote shows: “I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas I’ll never know.” (Ross 1998:25).

They can be mistaken as being part of a phrasal verb or idiom in contrast to their function when they appear alone. In this example Spike Milligan, the script writer of most of the episodes of The Goon Show , demonstrates the two sided nature of another preposition:

“The court will now stand for Judge Schnorrer – and if you’ll stand for him you stand for anything” (Alexander 1997: 48)

- 27 - On the one hand, “stand for” refers to the audience standing up from their seats, but on the other hand it can be part of a phrasal verb, which is used synonymously with the verb “to tolerate”. Leech refers to this kind of example as “punning repetition”. He comments (1969:210): “A double meaning can […] be brought to one’s attention by a repetition of the same sequence, first in one sense and then in another” (quoted in Alexander 1997: 48). The punning repetition in many variations was a special feature of The Goon Show .

A further type of ambiguity is based on pronoun reference. In this case pronouns can be referred to as ‘deixis’ or rather deictic elements. Interpretation of the deictic function depends on the context in which they occur. It may be that the interpretation depends on whether the reference is anaphoric or cataphoric, referring back or forth to elements. Anaphroic refers by definition to “the use of a linguistic unit, such as a pronoun, to refer back to another unit. In contrast to this “cataphoric” refers to the use of a linguistic unit, such as a pronoun, to refer ahead to another unit. (Dictionary.com 2009 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anaphoric, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cat aphoric). However, in some cases the intended reference remains unclear, as in the utterance a math’s teacher made: “All eyes on the blackboard and watch me run through it” (Ross 1998: 25). If the pronoun “it” in the example involving the teacher represented an anaphoric reference, the teacher would be expected to literally run through a blackboard. The reference of the pronoun “it” in this example will be regarded as cataphoric, referring forward to the

example that the mathematics teacher is going to explain.

Ambiguous anaphoric reference of pronouns is deliberately employed in jokes in The Goon Show : Secombe: I first wrote this show on the deck of my yacht in the Mediterranean. Sellers: And you…er…submitted it to the BBC? Secombe: No. Sellers: Why not? Secombe: Have you ever tried to get the deck of a yacht into a Broadcasting House? (Alexander 1997: 45)

The reference of the pronoun “it” in Seller’s first utterance is anaphoric but ambiguous. Firstly, it may refer to the show and its script. Secondly, it can also be a reference to the yacht and thirdly its deck. However, the last two possible interpretations are less expected than the first one. So the absurd notion of a yacht entering the BBC studios can be constructed from

- 28 - the ambiguous reference of the pronoun ‘it’ as well. This comes as a surprise to the audience, which is a basic quality of successful punch lines.

In all these examples, ambiguity arises from the structures in which words occur and how they are interpreted and not in specific words. This mechanism of constructing an ambiguity on words that may express two meanings according to the context they occur in, is one of the mechanisms examined in the following section on Semantics.

3.4 Semantics

Semantics is concerned with the study of meaning. One branch of semantics examines sense relations between words. These relations are for example synonyms and antonyms, the previously mentioned homonyms and polysemes and others such as hyponyms and metonyms.

Synonyms are words that express the same sense and can even be interchangeable in sentences, such as “hide” and “conceal” or “answer” and “reply”. However, synonyms do not always imply total sameness, but represent an idea of similarity. This can result in odd formations of sentences, when two words are exchanged although unsuitable in some contexts.

Antonyms are words that convey opposite concepts in terms of meaning, for example “big” and “small”, “hot” and “cold” or “true” and “false”. Furthermore, there are different kinds of antonyms. Gradable antonyms are those such as “big” and “small”, which can be used in comparative constructions as “bigger” and “smaller”. The difference between the two words can be graded, which is not the case with non-gradable antonyms such as “dead” and “alive”.

A concept that is similar to the one of homophony, referred to in the section on phonology, is the concept of homonymy. Two words are homonymic if they are identical in spelling and pronunciation, but have a different origin and convey different meanings. They have a separate entry in a dictionary, as in this example:

What makes a tree noisy? Its bark. (Ross 1998: 17).

- 29 - In this example the word “bark” is responsible for the ambiguity. This is a case of homonymy because “bark”, the noise made by a dog and the outer material of a tree’s stem have got different dictionary entries due to their differing etymology. Homonymy is a very wide spread phenomenon especially in English. Compared to other languages, English seems very prone to being humorously exploited through ambiguities such as homonyms due to following reasons: It is said to stem from specific typological features, such as analytical structures and minimal morphology. […] hence, it is arguably the structure of the English language which predisposes its speakers to engage in specific types of wordplay. (Alexander 1997: 25)

Homonymy and polysemy usually occur in connection with lexis, as they are based on the similarity of form. However, it is the difference in the meaning of lexemes that trigger ambiguity, as in this example from The Goon Show : Sound Effect: Lone Cricket Chirping Bloodnok: Listen – What’s making that sound? Seagoon: Cricket Bloodnok: How can they see the bat in this light? (Alexander 1997: 51)

The homonym used in this example is the word “cricket”. Although the sound effect alludes to the animal chirping in the grass, the game played with a bat and a ball can be meant in this example as well. However, the success of the humour in this example relies on the fact that the ambiguity is not revealed until the word “bat” occurs and brings in the second sense. Until the final utterance, the audience assumes that there is coherence between the sound effect and the word cricket. However, Bloodnok does not follow this expectation as he encodes the second possible meaning of the word “cricket”.

A more subtle way of playing on words relies on the phenomenon of polysemy. Polysemes are words that have one form, but express different somehow related meanings. So there is one entry in the dictionary for these words, where the different senses of the word are listed. However, the distinction of whether words are homonyms or polysemes is rather complex. Leech is quoted in Chiaro (1992: 40) as saying: “Why should we decide that there are two separate nouns 'mole' rather than two separate meanings of the same word?” Punning on polysemy is referred to be the more intricate one, which this often quoted example from The Goon Show shows: Bloodnok: You can't come in, I'm in the bath. Seagoon:(off) What are you doing in the bath? Bloodnok: I'm watching television. Seagoon:(off) What's showing? Bloodnok: My dear fellow - nothing. I've got a towel round me. (quoted in Chiaro 1992: 40) - 30 -

In this example the ambiguity is caused by the word “showing”. This verb has two different meanings, which are simultaneously kept in play here. The first and more expected meaning is that television shows some kind of programme, but the second meaning that some parts of the naked human body can be seen is the less expected. Although the first meaning is expected, the second one comes in causing the incongruity of this utterance and triggers amusement in the listeners.

When the meaning of one word is also contained within that of another, the superordinate term is referred to as a hypernym and the subordinate is the hyponym. So “duck”, “robin” and “hawk” are all co-hyponyms of the hypernym “bird”, which is itself a hyponym in relation to the term “animal”. Similar to this is the connection between words which are in a whole-part or container- content relation, which is called metonymy (cf. Yule 1996: 122). These terms can even replace the concept they are part of or associated with, such as the “Downing Street” or “the crown” can stand for the “rulers of Great Britain” in newspaper articles. This is one of the mechanisms of humour at work in this example, which will be examined further in the analysis of examples in the category of verbal humour in chapter 6:

Sellers: 1917. England was at war. Secombe (French accent): France was at war. Eccles: I was at lunch! (Extract from the episode “World War One” broadcast on February, 24 th 1958 on BBC Radio)

Semantics is not only interested in literal denotative meaning, but also the collocations they occur in. So incongruity in semantic relations sometimes results in strange combinations: 1 My uncle always sleeps in the day. 2 My uncle always sleeps awake. 3 My uncle always sleeps standing on one toe. (Ross 1998: 31)

Although the first sentence conveys meaning, which is an unusual social custom, the other meaning of these two sentences appears somehow ‘strange’. Ross (1998: 31) puts it as follows: The second example contradicts what we know about language and meaning, with the contradiction between 'sleep' and 'awake'. The third contradicts what we know about the world - it is not physicaIly possible to sleep on one toe.

So here we move from the semantically incongruous to what can be categorised to the notion of the ‘absurd’. What is remarkable in these examples is that we still try to make sense of

- 31 - sentences such as the latter two. Thus we classify them as “non-sense” rather than “nonsense”. The phenomenon is described in Ross (1998) as following: “In creative uses of language, such as poetry the new combinations are exciting precisely because they extend the range of possible meanings and cause a sudden shift in perception.”

Rhetorical devices proved to be especially useful in explaining semantic incongruity. Among them contradiction, paradox, oxymoron, tautology, analogy, simile, metaphor, irony, hyperbole, litotes and the list of three should be mentioned. Basically, rhetorical devices are means of persuasion. They are meant to convey meaning in a special figurative way to evoke an emotional response in the listener. Thus they are very prone to be exploited humorously through the comparison of the figurative and the literal meaning. Playing on the metaphorical and the literal meaning of words to trigger ambiguity can create humour. It even raises some of the jokes to the level of the absurd which came to be associated with The Goon Show (cf. Alexander 1997: 52):

Seagoon: (introducing a special guest) Very Well. Mr. Dyall the floor is yours but remember, the roof is ours (Alexander 1997: 53).

3.5 Pragmatics

Another approach to examining how sentences acquire meaning is through the field of pragmatics. Whereas semantics is concerned with the literal meaning of words in utterances, pragmatics also examines the implied or intended meaning. According to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to understand the relationship between signs and their users, while semantics tends to focus on the actual objects or ideas to which a word refers, and syntax (or "syntactics") examines relationships among signs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics)

Pragmatics is mainly interested in how utterances acquire meaning in context. A man who was rather progressive in this linguistic field, was the British philosopher John L. Austin (1911-1960). In his major work How To Do Things with Words (1955) he concentrated on what he calls “ performative utterances”. According to Austin, speakers perform so called “speachs acts” when they make an utterance.

Sometimes the function of the utterance does not produce the intended effect. Although the question, “Can you close the window?” can be understood as a question about - 32 - the ability of the listener to close windows, it is more likely to be a request to close it. Such speech acts in which the function of the utterance is different to the intended effect are called indirect speech acts. However, these speech acts can be exploited in humorous ways. The purpose of the utterance can be understood apart from its intended force. This can be observed in this example

Have a nice day! Thank you, but I have other plans.” (Ross 1998: 41).

3.6 Slips of the Tongue

In the last section it proved difficult to establish a clear-cut distinction between categories of analysis. Also ‘Slips’ of language such as the ‘Freudian slip’, ‘Spoonerisms’ and ‘Malapropisms’, cannot be put into one category alone. They all employ various different mechanisms from different linguistic fields to achieve humour.

Slips of the Tongue are humorous misalignments or rearrangements of parts of words or whole words in a sentence. The omission of the ‘h’ in the book title ‘English trough Reading’, can be regarded as a slip. (cf. Chiaro 1992: 25). Slips are exchanges of letters or rather mistakes with humorous consequences. The psychologist Sigmund Freud was interested in the phenomenon of slips of the tongue. He regarded these slips as an “abbreviation of a stream of thought”. They can be explained in two ways. First, as a sequencing problem in the production of an utterance. Gerhild Kastrun (2007: 29) sums this up in this way: “[…]one thought which had already been formulated should either occur later in that utterance or is meant to go totally unmentioned – either way, this particular thought accidentally slips into the on-going sentence”. In other words the ‘brain’ seemed to be ahead of the ‘tongue’. Second, they can be considered as a revelation of subconsciously hidden feelings of the psyche. Freud argues for the second approach in his lengthy analyses of so called “Fehlleistungen”. A common pun illustrates this mechanism: "A Freudian slip is like saying one thing, but meaning your mother" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip). Whether hidden feelings or thoughts about the mother interfered in this example remains unanswered, but the result is a humorous description and also example of the phenomenon.

- 33 - The famous Oxford Don William Archibald Spooner was especially prone to lapses concerning initial sounds or words in a sentence. This kinds of a slip was even named after him, namely a Spoonerism. Spoonerisms are slips of the tongue, which create totally new utterances by the switching of initial consonants of words, as in this famous example: “You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford on the town drain” (Chiaro 1992: 18).

Seagoon: Dear listener, I realised I had them! Without that CD plate on the the piano their cook was goosed! (Extract taken from the episode “The Case of the Missing CD Plates”, broadcast by the BBC radio on October, 18 th 1955)

The expression ”their cook was goosed” is a clearly humorous slip, which can be categorised as a Spoonerism. It alludes to the intended idiom “someone’s goose is cooked”, which is an informal expression of “to ruin someone's hopes, plans and chances. The exchange of words does not have the effect of inferring the word order of the sentence, but the resulting sentence makes sense in a humorous way as well.

The character of Mrs. Malaprop in R.B. Sheridan’s comedy “The Rivals” (1979) lent her name to the next kind of slip. In her case it was the misuse of words similar to those intended that made her famous. “Mrs. Malaprop tries to use words which she is not accustomed with, or what Bolinger calls ‘uneducated blends’, cases of ‘higher level coding falling back on lower level coding’ (1968: 139-140)” (Chiaro 1992: 20). So her attempt to create the impression of her being very witty and educated is spoilt by her lack of education. Since she always uses words of similar sound patterns, which are humorously incongruous. This phenomenon can also be observed in The Goon Show: Sellers:[…] To my right rises the great wooden old platform from which this solemn ceremony will be perfumed. (Extract taken from the episode “The Starlings”, broadcast by the BBC radio on August, 31 st 1954)

- 34 -

4. The Absurd – a phenomenon of philosophy and literature

Language is described in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2006) as “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings” (http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/language). In An Introduction to Language , Fromkin and Rosman (1978: 12f.) describe this relationship: “The sounds and meanings of words are related in arbitrary fashion. […] Language, then, is a system which relates sounds with meanings, and when you know a language you know this system.” However, it can happen that the meaning of words exceeds the represented concepts in a way that it is does not conform with reality. The words used and the correlating meaning cannot be realised in real life. A term has to be introduced to represent this phenomenon, which is explained in the following paragraphs, and this is “absurd”.

According to a definition of the Random House Dictionary (2009) the absurd is: absurd –adjective utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation. –noun the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd)

Martin Esslin approaches the task of a definition of ‘the absurd’ as follows:“ ‘Absurd’ originally means ‘out of harmony’, in a musical context. Hence its dictionary definition: out of harmony with reason and propriety; incongruous, unreasonable, illogical” (1968: 23).

In essence, the absurd describes the inconsistency between an utterance and reason or common sense. Absurd describes the way that a circumstance can be encoded into language, but does not exist in real life. It is important not to mistake the term “absurd” with others such as “abstract”, “surreal” or “irrational”. In this respect, it is essential to consider the relation of the term “absurd” to other quite similar, but not synonymous terms; and the way they should be used according to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1998):

Usage: Absurd , Irrational , Foolish , Preposterous . Of these terms, irrational is the weakest, denoting that which is plainly inconsistent with the dictates of sound reason; as, an irrational course of life. Foolish rises higher, and implies either a perversion of that faculty, or an absolute weakness or fatuity of mind; as, foolish enterprises. Absurd rises still higher, denoting that which is plainly opposed to received notions of propriety and truth; as, an absurd man, project, opinion, story, argument, etc. Preposterous - 35 - rises still higher, and supposes an absolute inversion in the order of things; or, in plain terms, a "putting of the cart before the horse;" as, a preposterous suggestion, preposterous conduct, a preposterous regulation or law.

Ross (1998: 27) describes “language as a web of conventions which constructs meaning”. ‘Artistic acrobats’ of language, such as the German non-sense poet Christian Morgenstern, claim that “language has to be smashed in order to think properly”(Ross 1998: 27). It could be argued that poets escape the so called ‘linguistic straitjacket’. In an analysis of humour based on or exploiting the concept of the absurd, “it should be possible to discuss how the existing conventions of language have been stretched to reveal wider possibilities for language and thought” (Ross 1998: 27).

Chiaro approaches this phenomenon from the perspective of both joker and recipient. She describes the relation of the joker and the recipient in the following way: “Being game to a world in which anything goes but which would be totally out of the question in reality by even the wildest stretches of the imagination, appears to be a tacit rule between joker and recipient” (Chiaro 1992: 10). So for the realisation of an absurd piece of humour the recipient’s common sense must be suspended for a moment in order to alter the possibilities of meaning in a language.

When we try to make sense of what seems absolutely logical, we try to find the smallest common denominator between language and a possible underlying concept. In his book The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy Palmer refers to this circumstance: “That is, when we notice something as incongruous, we also simultaneously understand it to be in some minor way congruous” (1978: 9) and adds that “the meaningless combination of words or the absurd putting together of thoughts must nevertheless have a meaning” (1978: 179). Palmer (1978: 44) distinguishes between two distinct sources of comic surprise, which can be applied to the absurd as well. The first is a contradiction of knowledge and expectations about the outside world. This appliess the absurd as it is defined so far, in which language exceeds the concepts it represents. Second, he refers to the surprise in a series of expectations about the course of events to come. The latter phenomenon can also be applied as a means or rather trigger of absurd humour. It is termed a “non-sequitur. The term which literally means ‘it is not to be followed’, or rather ‘it does not follow’. In relation to absurd humour, it refers to an abrupt change of topic in conversation, as can be seen in the adaption of the famous ‘light bulb joke’: “How many Poles does it take to screw in

- 36 - a light bulb? Five, One to hold the light bulb and four to turn the table he’s standing on”. (Attardo 1994: 22): “How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? fish“ (Attardo 1994: 272). The answer is not only unexpected but also inappropriate and illogical. Whether intentional or not, the purpose of such a random succession of comments in a conversation can be confusing or humorous, or even both at the same time. As such non-sequiturs can even be counted among the features of absurd humour.

Nevertheless, it was left unconsidered so far where the phenomenon absurd humour and the term absurd stem from. Generally, there are two areas from which the term “absurd” derives. First, the ‘absurd’ has its origin in the field of philosophy and second it also has its roots in literature such as non-sense poetry and the Theatre of the Absurd.

Absurdism established as a philosophical discipline stemming from the Existentialist and Nihilist movement. It can be claimed that people try to find meaning in their existence. However, this attempt ultimately fails, as they claim that no such meaning exists in the universe. Johannes de Silentio states in this context that the word "absurd" does not mean "logically impossible" but rather "humanly impossible". (1843: 17).

One of the first representatives of Absurdism, already mentioned above under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, was the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He calls the kind of despair man experiences in a meaningless world ‘defiance’. According to Kierkegaard (1941) there are three types of defiance, which he describes as the only solutions of the absurd man: a rejection or escaping from existence (suicide), a rejection of help from a higher power, and acceptance of his absurd (and despairing) condition.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) developed his definition of the absurd upon Kierkegaard’s claim. He regards the absurd as a conflict between man’s desire for significance or to make meaning of the world and the cold meaningless universe, which does not denote meaning. Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus (1991: 64): "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide." Similar to the concept of defiance by Kierkegaard Camus states that this leaves three

- 37 - options for the individual: commit suicide, consider the meaninglessness of existence as a leap of faith or accept it. Camus (1991: 64) himself opts for the third one, saying that “man has to embrace his absurd condition”. According to Edward Slowik in his article “Existentialism in Monty Python” “one of the most important themes in existentialism is the fate of the individual in acquiring his or her own answer to the meaning of life. Camus calls this quest, ‘living without appeal’“ (Hardcastle, Reisch 2006: 178). The freedom of the individual is according to Camus (1991: 55f.) established in his ability to create his own meaning and purpose for himself. “If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free.” Considering absurd humour in Monty Python’s film Life of Brian, Kevin Schilbrack states in an article about the relation of nihilism and humour: “One cannot rebel against the absurd, but one can laught at it” (Hardcastle, Reisch ed. 2006: 23).

The special relationship between humour and philosophy is described in Alan Richardson’s article “Tractato Comedo-Philosophicus” in Monty Python and Philosophy. Nudge Nudge, Think Think! edited by Hardcastle and Reisch (2006). He investigates that alongside the philosophical interest in the meaninglessness of existence, theatre and especially comedy developed an interest in the absurd and the non-sense elements of life. Moreover, he compares philosophical revelations to those of the absurd humour of Monty Python. He argues for the view that “Philosophy is formally just like absurd comedy without being funny” (Hardcastle, Reisch ed. 2006:221). For Richardson the intellectual pleasure of understanding philosophical revelations of Leibnitz or Kant is similar to the understanding of an intricately plotted Monty Python sketch. The drive to understand the underlying concepts of our existence can be replaced by the pleasure such a piece of humour offers; namely a pleasure of a world in which the subjects of humour and philosophy have the same purpose. Thus he concludes: “A philosophy that reached self-consciousness is a philosophy that simply becomes humour.” (Hardcastle, Reisch ed. 2006: 228).

Although Existentialism and Surrealism as well as sometimes Nihilism are mentioned among the precursors of Absurdism, the term has to be considered on its own. Existentialism, Nihilism and Absurdism developed different traits and cannot be regarded synonymously, even in respect to the treatment of the term absurd.

- 38 -

Not only did Kierkegaard and Camus describe the phenomenon best, they even coined the term “absurd”, which was introduced alongside the Existentialist and the Surrealist movement. Some representatives of Absurdism such as Camus and theatre playwrights such as Ionesco and Beckett were acquainted with followers of Existentialism such as Sartre or Surrealists such as Breton and Arrabal. They all lived in Paris in the early decades of the 20 th century. Paris also proved to be a fruitful ground for the upcoming theatre plays later categorised by Martin Esslin under the name the “Theatre of the Absurd” in his book by the same name. The famous Quartier Latin saw authors such as Jean Genet, Samuell Beckett as well as the Romanian Eugene Ionesco work and write side by side.

The Theatre of the Absurd is the branch of literature that comes closest to the phenomenon of absurd humour and will therefore be compared to it in the analysis of absurd humour. Similar to The Goon Show , which was broadcast from 1950 to 1962, the Theatre of the Absurd arose in the late 1940s and had its peak in the 1950s. The authors associated with the Theatre of the Absurd, took up the notion that life is meaningless from the prevailing philosophy at that time. In their plays they realised the meaninglessness of life through the modern use of dramatic means. Martin Esslin (1968: 24) describes it as such: “[…] the Theatre of the Absurd strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought.” So the Theatre of the Absurd moved away from realistic characters and plots towards an abandonment of many theatrical conventions incorporated in “well-made plays”.

The Absurdist notion of Camus’ philosophy that man has to embrace the absurdity of a meaningless life immediately entered the Theatre of the Absurd. It also took up the position to embrace the absurdity of the human condition as it merely presents it in being. “In the Theatre of the Absurd, the spectator is confronted with the madness of the human condition, is enabled to see his situation in all its grimness and despair. (Esslin 1968: 404).” In these plays the spectator is faced with the senselessness of the human situation and can be liberated by facing it. Esslin refers to this circumstance as follows: “For the dignity of man lies in his ability to face reality in all its senselessness; to accept it freely, without fear, without illusions – and to laugh at it” (Esslin 1968: 419).

- 39 -

In the Theatre of the Absurd as well as in pieces of absurd humour, characters are confronted with their meaningless lives. They are caught in hopeless situations and struggle to cope with the repetitive nature of their actions. “Stupid characters who act in mad ways have always been the butt of derisive laughter in the circus, the music hall and the theatre,“ says Martin Esslin (1968: 402). Characters such as Pozzo and Lucky or Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are often featured in pairs in which the one is dependent in some way on the other. These characters are tragic figures in their existence, but can become entertaining and amusing in their portrayed within a piece of absurd humour.

Plots in the Theatre of the Absurd are often cyclical. Sometimes even basic principles of causality can break down. Traditional plots are an absolute mismatch in the Theatre of the Absurd, and meaningless absurd plots are the norm. Emptiness, absence, unexplained phenomena or menaces and mere nothingness are among the most common topics in their plots. Nonetheless, humour as in The Goon Show goes on to alter the possibilities of reality in their plots, creating situations normally found only in comic strips, in which the limits of reality are seemingly not existing.

Not only are the normally fixed categories of time and place rendered ambiguous, language also featured as a means of Absurdism. Absurd language ranges from naturalistic dialogue interrupted by non-sequiturs to the exploitation of meaningless clichés to word play and seemingly meaningless nonsense. With regard to the use of language in the Theatre of the Absurd Esslin (1968: 397) states: The world of the word has shrunk. Moreover, the abandonment of language as the best instrument of notation in the spheres of mathematics and symbolic logic goes hand in hand with a marked reduction in the popular belief in its practical usefulness. Language appears more and more as being in contradiction to reality.

The most common feature in dialogues of absurd humour and those in plays of the Theatre of the Absurd is the previously mentioned non-sequitur. The non-sequitur and other means of absurd language may on the one hand result in estrangement or rather bewilderment about the unnatural use of language in certain situations, but on the other hand this can also serve the purpose of being entertaining in a humorous way.

Moreover, it is the challenge to make sense of the absurd notions and the resulting clash, which makes people laugh. As long as the language in use is still recognisable and - 40 - comprehensible English, people try to make sense and fail to find a real life realisation or equivalent to the concept denoted by language. In this respect, there is no need for a full explanation of what absurd utterances literally mean. Nevertheless, the analysis of examples of absurd humour will look at the way they divert from common sense and logic.

Basically there are two aspects of the absurd, which are relevant for the analysis of humour in this thesis. The first has its roots in the philosophical area of Absurdism and incorporates the linguistic approaches to this phenomenon. The second stems from the literary subgenre of the Theatre of the Absurd, which gave the philosophical notion of the absurd a realisation and representation in drama. For the analysis of examples categorised as absurd humour both aspects will be taken into consideration. The first approach to absurd humour will look at the way how the Goons expanded the limits or rather broke the boundaries of meaningful language. The philosophical view of Absurdism claims that there is no underlying meaning in the universe. In this respect, language gradually loses its meaning as well. The Goons departed from normal logical representation and entered the absurd. They altered the possibilities of meaning in language to an absurd level and the audience was challenged to make sense of these utterances. However, most of the times they stopped before language was totally incomprehensible. The “analysis of absurd humour depending on an absurdness of language and meaning”, in chapter 6.2.1, will look at the way how the language of The Goon Show alters and exceeds its possibilities and in which way it departs from logic and common-sense. Second, the notion that there is no underlying meaning in the universe was also adopted in literature by theatre playwrights who wrote plays that were subsequently attributed to the Theatre of the Absurd. The absurdity in such plays found its expression in The Goon Show mainly through utterly absurd concepts and situations, which occurred in the course of the action. These absurd concepts and situations are realised in The Goon Show, which incorporates elements known from the Theatre of the Absurd. These elements are absurd plots, meaningless dialogues full of non-sequiturs and strange characters often appearing in interdependent pairs, who get involved in the strangest situations. Thus The Goon Show can be classified as a ‘Radio play of the Absurd’. These absurd concepts and situations and the way humour is created upon them will be examined in chapter 6.2.2, “the analysis of absurd humour depending on an absurdness of concept and situation.

- 41 - Before moving to the analysisof humour, a history and the characteristic features of The Goon Show will be presented in the following chapter, called “The Story of The Goon Show ”. Besides an historical overview of the milestones of The Goon Show , this chapter will provide a close examination of the format and the characters of The Goon Show , which will be taken up later in the analysis of Radio-Specific Humour (chapter 6.3) and Running Jokes (chapter 6.4).

- 42 -

5 The Story of The Goon Show

The story of The Goon Show is also the story about four of the most talented and revolutionary comic entertainers in Great Britain after the Second World War. These four, so called original Goons, were Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers and their mastermind Spike Milligan. The first to see the light of the day was Terence Alan Milligan, also known as Spike Milligan. He was born on April, 16 th 1918. He spent his childhood in India, returned to England in 1934 and served in the Royal Artillery in the Second World War. “His early experiences of life bred in him a detestation of officialdom and the establishment in general, including the military.” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 25), recalls Jimmy Grafton. This attitude was reflected later in the satirical plots of The Goon Show . Three years after Milligan, Harry Donald Secombe was born in Swansea on September, 8 th 1921. He was born into a Welsh middle class family and his acting career started early in his life. During the war, he served in North Africa, where he met Spike Milligan for the first time. He fondly remembers the situation of Gunner Milligan running after a large howitzer: “We did meet when the gun came over the cliff, and that’s a well- known story, but I next met him when the Army formed something called the Central Pool of Artists at a place just outside Naples.” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 91) On January, 26 th 1922 Michael Bentine was born in Watford, Hertfordshire to an English mother and a Peruvian father. In contrast to the other Goons, Bentine enjoyed a very good education at Folkestone Private School and went on to Eton College. During the war he served as a military intelligence officer for the Royal Air Force. After the war he became a comedian and script writer and worked in London’s West End. The fourth and youngest of the Goons was Peter Sellers. Born as Richard Henry Sellers in Southsea, Hampshire on the 8 th of September into a family of artists, his destiny seemed predetermined. He had a superb acting gift for mimicry and impersonation. Similar to Bentine he served in the Royal Air Force in World War Two. After the war he returned to the entertainment business as a comedian at the London Windmill Theatre (Inskip, Ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast/peter_sellers.asp).

As soon as the Second World War ended, the four Goons established their individual solo careers. Harry Secombe and Spike Milligan were old army comrades, who were both

- 43 - transferred as entertainers to The Central Pool of Artists after being wounded. Together with Bill Hall, Secombe and Milligan performed as the “Billy Hall Trio” after the war. At the Windmill Theatre they became acquainted with Michael Bentine, who collaborated with Tony Sherwood in the show “Sherwood and Forest”. He introduced Harry to the Grafton Arms, which Harry recalls: “The pub became a sort of a base. Then I met up again with Spike, introduced Spike to Mike at the pub and later Peter came along.” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 94). Peter Sellers was the first of the Goons to enter the world of radio in the radio programme “Showtime”. Michael and Harry then got to know Peter in a show called “Third Division – Some Vulgar Fractions”, in which they contributed with other variety comedians of that time. The task of bringing these four individual talents together in The Goon Show was fulfilled by Jimmy Grafton, a comedy scriptwriter and landlord of their favourite pub. It was mainly to his merit that the four got together and collaborated in their common project. Spike Milligan recounts the birth of The Goon Show , when they first collaborated in playing Goon Show-like sketches to the pub audience: Somehow or other I ended up at Jimmy Grafton’s pub in Victoria and I used to tell jokes. Harry was there – I’d play the piano and Harry would sing. Peter would come in and do a few impressions. Michael Bentine was there. We all used to laugh a lot. We had a strange sense of humour. Jimmy was writing for Derek Roy and I asked me if I would like to write for him. (Farnes,ed. 2003: 10,11).

Spike Milligan took on the challenge as a script writer, although the first steps were rather hard. “His early attempts at written work were an incredible mixture of funny lines and bad spelling, nonsensical padding and nonexistent punctuation; but through it all was discernible the unmistakable promise of a great comic talent”, remembered Jimmy Grafton (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 26). In England after the Second World War, radio was the most important medium of mass entertainment and the BBC had a monopoly position. The prevailing form of radio comedy was adopted from variety theatre and included three sketches separated by two musical links. (cf. Farnes, ed. 2003: 49). Once more Jimmy Grafton seized the opportunity and produced a sample record tape with them to play to BBC programme planners. They gained the attention and sympathy of BBC producer Roy Speer and were given the chance to perform a pilot episode in Studio One in Aeolian Hall. However, they were turned down by the BBC Programme planners, who thought “the whole show was too crazy”. (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 34). Nevertheless, they kept trying and made use of Peter Sellers’s popularity and contacts to achieve the breakthrough of The Goon Show . Pat Dixon was already acquainted with most

- 44 - of the Goons from the show “Third Division – Some Vulgar Fractions”, in which he worked together with Harry Secombe, Michael Bentine and Peter Sellers. Eventually Peter managed to bring some samples of dialogue recorded with Spike to the attention of Pat Dixon. Pat was known as a radical within the, BBC hierarchy and a bit of a firebrand - when he backed an idea it was difficult, if not impossible to stop it. Pat supported this idea and the Goons got their chance with another pilot recording on 4 th of February 1951. (Farnes, ed. 2003: 16 )

The BBC accepted their attempt and handed the task of producing the show over to Dennis Main Wilson, who introduced the later script writer Larry Stephens to the cast. So The Goon Show was about to start, which led to the first occasion for Spike Milligan to argue with the BBC authorities. Spike Milligan wanted it to be called The Goon Show : “It was my idea for us to call ourselves The Goons. It was the name of the huge creatures in the Popeye cartoons who spoke in balloons with rubbish writing in them. The name certainly predates the beginning of the war. I started using the "Goons" in the army” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 50). In addition to that the word 'goon' was also used by R.A.F. prisoners-of-war to refer to their German guards. (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 35) However, the BBC programme planners objected to this title, and so they made a compromise by calling them “Crazy People”. The first edition of “Crazy People” was broadcast on the 28 th of May, 1951. The format of these early episodes resembled the kind of standard variety format, which was the dominating one on the comedy market after the war: They consisted of four or five unconnected sketches, separated by musical items from the Ray Ellington Quartet, The Stargazers (a close-harmony singing group), and Max Geldray, the Dutch harmonica player; accompanied by Stanley Black and the BBC Dance Orchestra. (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 37)

From the beginning the kind of humour in The Goon Show aimed at bringing any situation to its illogical conclusion. Jimmy Grafton recalls: “Many people have enjoyed it, but none more than those (at heart) three small boys who each Sunday, for more than a decade, were let out from the school of life to run amok in the playground of their imagination” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 40). Although the first episode was only broadcast through the London Home Service, the other regions soon joined. The first series contained 17 episodes and the listening figures soon rose from 370,000 to 1.8 million. Some later characters already emerged and the standard variety format gradually developed into the well-known format of The Goon Show . The BBC acknowledged the success of “Crazy People”. So the second series followed soon and was broadcast from the 22 nd of January 1952 onwards. The programme planners ultimately gave in to call it The Goon Show . After the band the Stargazers had left, Harry

- 45 - Secombe emerged as the main singer and established himself as the leading actor in the first sketch. The number of sketches was reduced to four, but most of the times the sketches still represented separate items. However, the first changes of the format were soon to emerge, as they started to put the emphasis on more coherence. The same characters re-appeared from time to time and some sketches were prolonged to two parts. The eighth episode of that series called “Her” presented a single plot to run through the whole episode for the first time, which was the Goons’ version of Rider Haggard’s “She”. However, behind the scenes the trouble between the BBC and Spike Milligan resulted in severe shouting matches. Milligan wanted to deliver his ideas in his individual and unique way. He comments on their quarrels: I had to rage and bang and crash. I got it all right in the end, and it paid off, but it drove me mad in the process, and drove a lot of other people mad. And that's why I don't think I could be a success again on the same level, because I just couldn't go through all the tantrums (Wilmut, Grafton 1981:44).

The co-writer of many Goon Show scripts, Eric Sykes, describes the relationship between the Goons and the BBC: Most things that Spike has done have not been well understood by the BBC hierarchy. The Goons wasn't an ordinary, gentle, Barbara Cartland sitcom. It was more like anarchy and because they didn't understand it, I'm sure they thought that the sooner the public tired of it the better (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 72).

The end of the second series brought Milligan near to his first nervous breakdown and was accompanied by major changes in the cast. Their first producer Dennis Main Wilson, the announcer Andrew Timothy and one of the founders, Michael Bentine, left the show. Bentine himself explained: “I was always a breakaway Goon with an urge to apply my logical nonsense as opposed to their nonsensical logic“ (Farnes, ed. 2003: 113). For the third series Wallace Greenslade replaced the original announcer and became immensely popular through this appearance in The Goon Show . The change of producers from Dennis Main Wilson to Peter Eton brought about more changes to the format. He helped the Goons to develop their use of radio techniques and established and introduced certain methods and elements adapted from drama. Eton made them rehearse and perform to a higher standard and stick to the script in a more disciplined manner. He encouraged Milligan to write longer stories with a consistent plot. Eton commented on the influence The Goon Show had on society: “The Goons were a strong reaction against the pomposity we all shared during the War. […] People like Spike and Larry tried to cut through this” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 120). Whereas Sellers and Secombe used their newly gained popularity to get bookings for their comedy appearances in Variety Theatres all over the country, the lions share of work,

- 46 - namely the script writing, was done almost exclusively by Spike Milligan. Harry Secombe remembers: We never saw the script in advance. We would see it at four o'clock on the Sunday afternoon when we sat down for the first read-through. Spike would be watching us like a hawk to see where the laughs came and when they did come he was always so relieved! (Farnes, ed. 2003: 101)

This third series also brought about Spike Milligan’s first nervous breakdown. He describes his situation at that time as such: My crack-up came from overwork, professional problems, and responsibility thrust on to a personality unprepared for it. The madness built up gradually. I found I was disliking more and more people. Then I got to hating them. Even my wife and baby. And then there were the noises. Ordinary noises were magnified in my brain until they sounded a hundred times as loud as they were, screaming and roaring in my head .And the process is so insidious that the awful thing was that I had no idea that I was mentally sick . . . [Finally] I thought, "Nobody is on my side. They are letting me go insane. I must do something desperate so they will put me in hospital and cure me. I know what I'll do. I will kill Peter Sellers! (Farnes, ed. 2003: 115 116)

Fortunately, he did not kill Peter Sellers, but he was hospitalised and missed 12 episodes. His share of work in script writing was taken over by his long time contributors Larry Stephens and Maurice Wiltshire, and most of his characters were performed by Peter Sellers. The fourth series began on October, 2 nd 1953 and saw the two last changes of The Goon Show to its later format. The major characters of The Goon Show Seagoon, Bloodnok, Eccles, Bluebottle, Moriarty, Grytpype-Thynne, Banister and Crun started to appear on a regular basis and to develop their special characteristics. With the arrival of Eric Sykes as a co-author, the story of the episode developed to a single plot, presented in three sections with musical interludes in between. Eric Sykes, co-writer of The Goon Show , describes the work of the Goons as such: The Goon Show sounded like it was all just cobbled together and they were saying the first thing that came into their heads, but that's the secret of good writing. The script was all written down and they were actually standing there reading it. […] There was a lot of discipline involved in The Goon Show and the strength of the Show was that it sounded like indiscipline. (Farnes, ed. 2003: 166)

The fifth series was broadcast from the 28 th September 1954 onwards. For the first time the shows were also recorded by the BBC Transcription Service, which made them available for overseas radio stations to purchase and broadcast. Due to their high standard and wide popularity the listening figures rose to an average of 4 ½ million. Secombe comments on their popularity: Spike would make up something like “ying tong yiddle I poo" and you would go out in the street and hear somebody saying it. That was the part of it all that I found frightening. That kind of power is frightening, but it was very exciting. By the time the show became a sort of cult, people used to fight to get in there, fight to get tickets for the recordings at the Camden Theatre. (Farnes, ed. 2003: 101)

- 47 - In the sixth series, from September, 20 th 1955 onwards, Milligan developed more of his strange illogical world. The characters became rounded off and the plots became wilder and more intricate. With their popularity at an all-time high, the producer Pat Dixon quit after the 7 th series because he felt that Goons were about to become totally uncontrollable. Then the 8 th series saw three different producers, Charles Chilton, Roy Speer and Tom Ronald, come and go. Listeners criticised the fact that the episodes of the eighth series varied in quality and that the cast seemed to have more fun than the audience. (cf. Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 64). From 1957 to 1958 the BBC also encouraged the Goons to rework some older scripts of the fourth series, which were broadcast under the title of the “Vintage Goons” on the Home Service prior to the ninth series or sold to radio stations abroad (cf. Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 66f.). The choice to give the young and almost inexperienced producer John Browell a chance, turned out to be a stroke of luck for The Goon Show . Due to his influence they could get hold of the new technology of tape recording. He also put the emphasis on more discipline. Browell says: “Milligan's own system of logic, which usually involved leaving out several essential steps of reasoning on the way to a conclusion that seemed correct if inexplicable, was almost fully developed by now” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 69) Writer Ian Wood described the results of his commitment: The Goon Show had reached its peak, and the team had grown into perfect sympathy with each other, with radio and with their audiences. They had achieved an instinctive knowledge of timing, which every comedian must have . . . knowing how to use an audience . . . how and when to kill a laugh, and how and when to build another on top of it, and few English comedians have ever been able to do this properly (Farnes, ed. 2003: 132).

The 9 th series ended on February, 23 rd 1959 with the episode “The £50 Cure”, which was also planned to be the final one. The fans, however, were not prepared to give up the show without a struggle. At the end of the recording session a petition signed by 1,030 listeners was handed over to the Goons. It read, “We, the undersigned, implore you, Spike Milligan, not to leave the country and forsake England for Australia, but to remain here and continue to write, produce and perform The Goon Show for ever and ever.” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 71) Persuaded by this unprecedented move, they went on to add a tenth series of another six episodes. Milligan told the Daily Mail in an interview with Paul Tanfield: “The show was starting to degenerate. It had to come to an end” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 71).Finally, the show

- 48 - came to an end with the episode “The Last of the smoking Seagoons” on January, 28 th 1960. Milligans résumé on the whole show printed in the Radio Times was: It cost blood to put that show on for me. sheer agony. It wrecked my first marriage and it wrecked my health. My nervous breakdown happened while I was on the show and I've been a neurotic ever since. So you can say I gave my sanity to that show (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 73).

Harry Secombe describes The Goon Show : “We got rid of established comedy because we thought, enough is enough, they've become fat cats while we've been in the army, so out you go, lads” (Farnes, ed. 2003:102). He also refers to Milligan and says: “The greatest tribute you can pay to Spike's genius is that The Goon Show s read funnily. A lot of radio stuff relied on funny voices. We did funny voices, but we had funny scripts to do and that was the magical thing” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 103). For the celebration of the 50 th anniversary of the BBC in 1972, John Browell took over the duty to reunite The Goon Show for the recording of “The Last Goon Show of All“. Norma Farnes, the editor of the book The Goons The Story (2003: 3), recalls the situation: “Spike wrote the script, they all turned up, Harry brought the brandy, Peter did not have laryngitis and Spike remembered the date”. Spike Milligan remembers this situation: “It was like we had never been away. We had all changed. We had become more mature. Peter went into films; Harry went into prayers on Sunday and I tried to earn a living writing books” (Farnes, ed. 2003: 60).

For their great achievement in the field of cultural entertainment, the four Goons, Bentine, Milligan, Secombe and Sellers, were all honoured and received the title Commander of the British Empire. It is said that they remained close friends until one after the other passed away. After The Goon Show Spike Milligan wrote a large number of books, including poetry, fiction and autobiographies. His later works included the “Q” television series and the stage show “Oblomov”. He is considered by many as the “grandfather of modern British comedy”. Spike, aged 83, was the last of The Goons to die in 2002 (Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast/spike_milligan.asp). Harry Secombe went on to have a successful career both in movies and stage comedy. In addition to that, he became a TV presenter and a famous singer, particularly in musicals such as “Pickwick”. Secombe went on to present religious radio programmes such as the “Songs of Praise” and “Highway”. He was the only one of the three Goons to live a happy family life and had four children with his wife, Myra Atherton. Harry

- 49 - Secombe died of prostate cancer aged of 79 in 2001 (Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast/harry_secombe.asp). Peter Sellers is nowadays one of the best-known celebrities from Great Britain. Already during the recordings of The Goon Show he was starring in a number of successful Hollywood films including “Ladykillers” (1955) and “I'm All Right Jack” (1959). Some of the best films he played in include “Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964) and “Being There” (1979). However, most people still remember him as Inspector Clouseau in Blake Edwards’s “The Pink Panther” films. Sellers was married four times and had 3 children. Peter was the first of the Goons to die in 1980, aged only 54. (Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast/peter_sellers.asp) When Michael Bentine left The Goon Show in 1952, he went on to perform and write books, radio- and TV- shows. As the “fourth of the Goons” he received a CBE for Services to Entertainment as well. He died in 1996, aged 74. (Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast/michael_bentine.asp) Nevertheless, The Goon Show outlived their creators and has not disappeared from the radio even up to the present days. The series has remained consistently popular ever since . It is still being broadcast once a week by the ABC in Australia, as well as on BBC 7.

5.1 The characters in The Goon Show

One of the most remarkable aspects of The Goon Show is its employment of various characters. Although the cast was only three men strong, they managed to create over a dozen different well-established personalities for their fictional characters. Roger Wilmut (1981: 47), the author of the book The Goon Show Companion , describes the ability of The Goon Show cast to bring to life the various characters: Most other Variety programmes never quite succeed in preventing the listener from visualizing a group of artists in a studio, whereas in ' The Goon Show ' one is always able to visualize the characters in a situation -despite the fact that the scripts never take themselves seriously, and often draw attention to the fact that the show is taking place in a radio studio.

Peter Sellers proved to be one of the most talented impersonators of many different and variable roles. It is claimed that: “Peter Sellers’s talent for performing the Goon characters was so great, that 4 additional actors were required to perform the parts when he was unable to attend a recording in January 1959” (Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/facts.asp).

- 50 - Moreover, he could even act out most of Milligan’s characters in his absence. Eric Sykes, script writer of the fifth and sixth series, referred to this: “Peter Sellers created most of those characters and The Goon Show relied to a great extent on its characters" (Farnes, ed. 2003: 173). The second largest number of parts were acted out by Spike Milligan. Roger Wilmut (1981: 79) commented: “His gallery of characters is smaller than Sellers's, but each of them is brilliantly observed and caricatured“ However, the main character, who led through the plot in most of the episodes as a kind of protagonist, Neddie Seagoon, was played by Harry Secombe. He developed his major character on his own and did not play many other characters than the popular Neddie Seagoon.

Many of the famous characters gradually emerged already from the first series. This included Eccles, Bloodnok, Flowerdew as well as characters who were later dropped again such as Herschell and Jones, and Sir Harold Porridge. Secombe first emerged as a regular character under his own name and gradually developed the famous Neddie Seagoon. (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 42). As the show developed, Neddie Seagoon was the leading character appearing in every kind of plot. Another character who appeared alone, developing the action and leading on the plot such as Neddie Seagoon, was Major Bloodnok. Many other major characters tended to appear in interdependent pairs. These pairs were formed by the villains Grytpype and Moriarty, the utter idiots Bluebottle and Eccles as well as Henry Crun and his partner, the spinster Minnie Banister. The following list is meant to demonstrate the cast’s achievement in playing the number of characters which each of them impersonated: Harry Secombe's Characters: Major character: Neddie Seagoon Minor characters: • Welshmen • Yorkshiremen Uncle Oscar • Unteroffizier Krupp • Private Bogg • Nugent Dirt • Izzy

Spike Milligan's Characters: Major characters: Eccles • Minnie Bannister • Count Jim Moriarty Minor characters: Throat • Little Jim • Spriggs • Yakamoto • Cor blimey • Thingz • Hugh Jampton • Fu Manchu

Peter Sellers' Characters: Major characters: Major Bloodnok • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne • Bluebottle • Henry Crun Minor characters: Cynthia • William "Mate" Cobblers • Mr Lalkaka • Eidelberger • Flowerdew • Cyril • Fred Nurke • Gladys • Lew/Ernie Cash • Churchill • Hearn • And some more minor roles with telling names.

- 51 - Michael Bentine's Characters: Prof. Osric Pureheart, Scrongleshot Bowser, Councillor Major J. D., Windermere Ropesock (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 107)

It was not only the four Goons who incorporated all the characters, but also the announcers and the musicians Max Geldray and Ray Ellington contributed in acting out minor roles or appeared as themselves in the fictional surroundings of the episodes. The Goon Show became so popular that guest appearances became a regularity. Other BBC announcers such as John Snagge and comedy actors such as Dick Emery Valentine Dyall, Jack Train, A.E. Matthews, Bernhard Miles and Dennis Price appeared in a minor role or simply as themselves. All together, there were not many female parts because the cast was exclusively male. So these parts were often impersonated by female guests, such as Charlotte Mitchell and Cecile Chevreau.

After this overview a brief description will be given of the major characteristics and the relations of the characters towards each other in the episodes: Ned Seagoon is the honest and naïve character around whom the plot revolves most of the times. His constant unemployment and patriotism often cause him to get involved in major troubles accepting every job that is offered to him. He is described as a short and rather fat man and uses catch phrases such as: “Needle Nardle Noo” and “What what what what what what what…” (cf. Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp). Major Bloodnok is a corrupt military officer, who is a total coward and will betray anybody for money. His appearance is often announced by a special theme, deriving from the beginning of the show. In addition to that, he is often accompanied by a great explosion, which alludes to the fact that he suffers from flatulence (cf. Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp). Other characters often appeared in pairs, and their dialogues were mainly acted out by Sellers and Milligan. Bluebottle and Eccles are one of these pairs. Bluebottle is a young idiot and boy scout from Finchley. He is supposed to accept any task for a packet of sweets and is often supported by his close friend Eccles. The habit of uttering or rather reading out the stage directions for himself as a fictional character became his significant characteristic. However, he is often killed in some other way at the end of episodes, which is followed by his major catch phrases: “You rotten swine – you deaded me again!” and “I don’t like this game” (cf. Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp).

- 52 - His congenial companion Eccles is a man whose lack of intelligence and wits became his major trait. He appears either in a team with Eccles or as a kind of lackey of Ned Seagoon. When other people order him to shut up, he frequently joins in until no one else speaks any more. This and his occasional and unpredictable yelping of “Oohhh” became catch phrases and a major signs of recognition for Eccles in The Goon Show (cf. Inskip, ed. 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp). Another pair of characters is that of the show’s villains Count Jim Moriarty impersonated by Milligan and Sellers’s character Hercules Grytpype-Thynne. Moriarty represents a French aristocrat, who supports his lifestyle by criminal activities. As the series progressed he gradually developed from an international criminal into a poor impecunious idiot. This deterioration was not planned, but rather occurred as a natural process out of his role’s development in the plot. His near-French utterances such as “Sapristi Bombet” or “Sacristi Knockos” became catch phrases as well. His sidekick Hercules Grytpype-Thynne is a well-educated cad, who collaborates with Moriarty to swindle Ned Seagoon. His catchphrases such as “You silly twisted boy” and “I don’t wish to know that” became famous all around the country (cf. Inskip 2003 http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp). Another prominent pair is that of Minnie Banister and Henry Crun. Minnie Banister, played by Spike Milligan, is a flirtatious spinster, cohabitating with Henry Crun. Her partner Crun is a decrepit elderly man, who struggles to cope with the actions around him. Concerning the use of catch phrases, the character Little Jim has to be mentioned as well. His appearance is always accompanied by the sound of a water splash, which is followed by the only single line he says throughout the entire Goon Show, which is: “He’s fallen in the water”. So whenever a water splash appears in the show, little Jim turns up and utters his catch phrase, even in the least expected occasions. This frequent but unpredictable appearance of Little Jim made him a well-recognised part of the show.

Some characters are even based on real people the Goons met in their lives, for example Major Bloodnok, Bluebottle and also Eccles to some extent: The inspiration for the character of Major Bloodnok was an Indian Army major whom Sellers had met during his service in India. Sellers entertained his colleagues by posing as this major in the Officers' Mess, where he had no right to be. (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 82). Bluebottle, one of the most popular characters in the show, was originally inspired by a large scoutmaster with a high-pitched voice. He was sent round by Bentine to see Sellers

- 53 - and wanted to persuade Sellers to participate at a boy's club concert. This high pitched voice aroused Sellers’s fascination and was eventually developed into Bluebottle. (Wilmut, Grafton, 1991: 84). The Scoutmaster, called Ruxton Hayward, commented on this himself: I didn't realise that Bluebottle was based on me until Peter Sellers said so on Parkinson Meets The Goons in 1972. It was just natural behaviour to me. I do know that people have always liked to impersonate my voice, and apparently, I am instantly recognisable. I wonder if other people ever suspected that Bluebottle was based on me? It is always the victim who is the last to know ... but I feel privileged to have influenced the Goons. (Farnes, ed. 2003: 195)

Eccles is a combination of a naïve village idiot and Walt Disney's Goofy. The latter's good- natured willingness to try anything and make an incredible mess of it became the typical feature of Eccles. Jimmy Grafton added: “I think that, fundamentally, he is Spike. I've always told him that I think Eccles is the true Milligan, and the rest is just a cover.” Milligan's reaction to this claim was: “I'm afraid he's right, yes, yes. That's it, man, you know, I don't want to think about earning money, I just want to be an idiot” (Wilmut, Grafton 1981: 85).

- 54 -

6 Analysis of Examples of Humour from The Goon Show

For the analysis of examples of humour found in the episodes of The Goon Show , the extracts will be categorised into four categories; Verbal Humour, Absurd Humour, Radio-Specific Humour and Running Jokes. In the next four sections, the categories of Humour in The Goon Show will be presented. Then the examples of humour will be analysed according to the mechanisms on which humour works in the various categories. Finally, a discussion will be given as to which of the three theories the examples of humour are based on.

6.1 Analysis of Examples of Verbal Humour

For the analysis of examples of verbal humour the linguistic mechanisms, which were presented in chapter 3, will be used as means to demonstrate how the humour in the extracts from The Goon Show is created. These mechanisms stem from the linguistic fields of Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and the phenomenon Slips of the Tongue. In the section entitled “Interplay of Linguistic Mechanisms in Examples of Verbal Humour” it will be demonstrated that these mechanisms do not occur separately but work together to create humour. In addition to that, the final paragraph of the analysis of each example then shows which of the three theories of humour, Superiority-, Psychic Release- or Incongruity Theory, can be applied to an analysis of the pieces of humour in the extracts.

6.1.1 Phonology

As the kind of humour in this category only occurs in the acoustic version on the radio and not in the written transcript, it will be approached through the linguistic field of Phonology. Bluebottle: First you must free Robin Moriarty: Tie him to a stake! Bluebottle: No! Do not tie me to a stake Moriarty: Why not? Bluebottle: I'm a vegetarian. Hee, yehee. Moriarty: Alright... (Extract taken from the episode “Ye Bandit Of Sherwood Forest”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 28th of December 1954)

The ambiguity of the words “stake” and “steak” is based on the identical pronunciation of these words. This fact can be demonstrated by the phonetic transcription of these words,

- 55 - which is \’steIk\ for both of them. They share the same pronunciation but convey different meanings, which makes them an example of homophony. As there is no difference in pronunciation between these words, the meaning is dependent on the context in which the words occur. The ambiguity of these words allows two contexts to be relevant for the understanding of the utterances at the same time up to line 4. This phenomenon is described by Raskin (1985) as script-opposition: “Two different scripts or rather underlying concepts are possible in the understanding of the text.” On the one hand, the action of the episode and Moriarty’s order lead the audience in the direction of thinking of a pole Bluebottle is tied to. On the other hand, there is the concept of the piece of meat, which is represented by the same phonetic scheme. This second concept does not become apparent until the end of this extract, and therefore the ambiguity is not resolved until the punch line. The sudden revelation of the second less expected concept contradicts the audience’s expectation and is incongruous with what the audience is led to infer from the context. To sum up, this extract is an example of the Incongruity Theory of Humour based on the linguistic phenomenon of homophony.

6.1.2 Morphology

The linguistic field of Morphology and more precisely the process of derivation proves to be useful in the analysis of humour in the following extract.

Bluebottle and Eccles: Whoaoaoaoayay Seagoon: If he comes out driving a leather omnibus. Arrest him. Bluebottle: Is this man armed? Seagoon: Armed and legged. Bluebottle and Eccles: Whoaoaoao. (Extract taken from the episode “The Mysterious Punch-Up-The-Conker”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 7th of February 1957)

Although the word ”armed” contains the lexeme ”arm”, it derives from the Latin word ”arma” meaning weapons and not the limb. Nevertheless, both lexemes could have added morphologically possible derivations, as the stem of both words is ”arm” and the derivational suffix ”–ed” is added to them to create an adjective. Seagoon also applies this derivational process to the word ”leg”, which is a part of the body as well. By the use of the word ”leg” he alludes to the common collocation of “arm and leg”. So he brings in the second concept the word ”armed” can express and reveals the

- 56 - ambiguity of it. This causes a sudden clash with the concept of weapons, which has been decoded in the context of arresting a man at the beginning. The audience believes that there is coherence within a dialogue following the principles of cooperative communication. However, the coherence in this dialogue is broken when Seagoon creates the ambiguity of the adjective ”armed”. So the audience’s expectation that the man the characters intend to catch is carrying a weapon is destroyed by the sudden occurrence of the second concept, which could also be expressed by the word “armed”. This unexpected incongruity creates a surprise which accounts for the humorous effect and makes this extract another example for the Incongruity Theory of Humour.

6.1.3 Syntax

Sometimes the Goons also employ meta-linguistic means to entertain their audience. In this extract they play on the conventions of punctuation marks in sentences, which is part of the field of Syntax. Grytpype: I'll do the talking, Moriarty. Moriarty: Right, and I'll put in the punctuation. Grytpype: Neddy Moriarty: Comma! Grytpype: How would you like to earn five pounds? Moriarty: Question mark! Grytpype: All you have to do is to go and collect the rent from Death Grange. Moriarty: Full stop. (Extract taken from the episode “The Rent Collectors”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 17th of January 1957)

The extract starts with a misunderstanding between Moriarty and Grytpype, which paves the way for the following foregrounding of punctuation marks. Moriarty does not want to be interrupted by Grytpype all the time, so he performs an indirect speech act, which should result in Grytpype listening to him. However, Moriarty misunderstands this utterance and ironically keeps on interrupting by adding the punctuation marks. The punctuation marks in this extract are already conveyed by the intonation and word order of Grytpype’s utterance, but then also mentioned explicitly by Moriarty. The redundant mentioning of punctuation marks breaks the convention of conversation not to mention them explicitly in order to surprise the audience and create humour.

- 57 -

6.1.4 Semantics

Semantic ambiguities depending on homonymy and polysemy are at the centre of interest in the analysis of the next example of humour. According to Alexander (1997:51), the technique of exploiting ambiguities for humorous purposes is a major characteristic of The Goon Show :

Crun: …This is Minnie Banister, the world famous poker player – give her a good poker and she’ll play any tune you like.

The introduction of Minnie Banister by Henry Crun suggests that she is good at playing the card game “poker”. However, this utterance takes a different turn through Crun’s punning on the homonymy of the word “poker” as well as on the polysemy of the word “player”. At first, the audience is triggered to believe that the word “poker” refers to the card game. In its first occurrence the word “poker” derives from the French word “poque”, which is the title for a similar card game. Then an apparent reference to her musical skills follows, which reveals the ambiguity of the homonym “poker”. So in its second occurrence, the word “poker” refers to a metal rod for stirring a fire with. Furthermore, the polysemy of the word “player” adds another ambiguity to the one of “poker”. The first context of a person playing the card game is replaced in the second occurrence of the word “player” by the notion of a musician playing tunes on a mental rod used as a musical instrument. This second meaning is the less expected one because of the introduction of the poker player as “world famous”. Whereas there are a few people who achieved world-wide popularity with playing the card game, playing the iron rod as an instrument is absurd. So the audience is led to consider the more familiar context of the card game first. In this single utterance homonymy and polysemy work together to create a witty example of punning. The ambiguity of both words is exploited to create a surprise by bringing in the non-sensical second meaning of a “poker player”.

The polysemy of the word “early” provides for the humour in the next extract. Homonymy and polysemy both refer to the phenomenon of two word which have the same form but can convey two different meanings. However, a necessary precondition for polysemy is that the two meanings of the words are related in some way, which is not the case in homonymy.

- 58 - Caesar: Gad, he's up early. Moriaritus: He must be one of the early Britons. (Extract taken from the episode “The Histories of Pliny the Elder”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 28th of March 1957)

According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2004) the adjective “early” has two different meanings which are related by the underlying concept of time:

early - adjective 1 before the usual or expected time. 2 of, at, or near the beginning of a particular time, period, or sequence.

In the first sentence Caesar refers to someone getting out of bed sooner than expected. However, the lexeme ”early” in Moriartus’s utterance is used to describe the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The ambiguity of the word “early” is does not occur until the collocation of “early” and “Britons” brings in the second meaning. The ambiguity of the word “early” is based on different meanings resulting from the same word, which is a precondition for the phenomenon of polysemy. It enables the punster to bring in a second meaning using the same word, as they even share a common underlying meaning. The resulting pun creates a surprise, which is, according to the Incongruity Theory, responsible for the humour in this extract.

Another creative example of polysemy can be observed in this extract from the episode “The Man Who Never Was”: Bloodnok: What a stupid idiot that Sergeant is! Leaving a spy at liberty. Herr Comesitdown: Please believe me, I'm not a shpy, I come here seeking political asylum. Bloodnok: Well, take a bus to the House of Commons, that's the finest political asylum in the world! Ooohh! They're all there you know. (Extract taken from the episode “ The Man Who Never Was”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 17th of February 1958)

The main trigger of humour is the ambiguity of the word ”asylum”, which can refer to a state giving protection and shelter to political fugitives as well as to an institution for the care of sick and insane people. Herr Comestidown asks for political protection, so Bloodnok sends him to the House of Commons, which he describes as a mental institution. The ambiguity lies in the plot of the episode when a spy seeks ”political asylum” and its similarity to the notion of a ”mental asylum”. It is the unusual description by the adjective ”finest” which leads the audience away from the context of political protection and creates the impression that the House of Commons is an institution for the treatment of sick people, in this respect politicians. This

- 59 - impression is also supported by the last sentence. So Bloodnok establishes a derogatory connection between the politicians in the House of Commons and a mental asylum. In contrast to the examples before, the Superiority Theory of Humour can be applied to this extract. Attardo (1994: 49f.) states that people try to heave themselves into a superior position by making fun at the cost of others: The superiority/hostility theory of humour maintains that laughter results from a comparison between us and the others or between our former self and our present self. Humour (and laughter) occurs when this comparison reveals that we are in some way ‘superior’ to the others or that our present self is ‘superior’ to our former self. (quoted in Archakis, Tsakona 2005) .

In this example the members of the House of Commons are the victims as the humour is created at their cost. So people who feel inferior to others in higher positions such as politicians can turn the social order on its head in this example of humour.

Chiaro (1992) remarks on their use of linguistic mechanisms in humour that “the Goons often joked ‘phrasally’ ”: Grytpype: Well, Neddie, I'm going to be frank. Seagoon: Right, I'll be Tom. Moriarty: I'll be Gladys. (Extract from the episode “World War One” broadcast on BBC Radio on February, 24th 1958)

In this example the Goons build a joke on the ambiguity of a specific phrase, namely “to be frank”. Whereas Grytpype refers to the adjective which derived from the Latin word “francus”, meaning free, the other two recognise it as the proper name. The word “frank” in this context is a homonym, having one form but two unrelated meanings. It can also be argued to be a homophone because the humour only comes out in spoken language, as in the transcript the adjective is written with a small letter unlike the noun, which would be written unmistakably with a capital letter. Both uses of the phrase “to be frank” can be considered as understandable up to the point where the male character Moriarty wants to name himself Gladys. So the incongruity is not fully revealed until he enters the absurd dimension, in which he takes on a female name. In this example the dialogue takes an unexpected turn when Seagoon puns on the ambiguity of the word “frank”, but Moriarty even moves this piece of humour into the absurd. It can be argued that Seagoon and Moriarty together flout Maxims of Conversation established by Grice(1985). Both flout the Maxims of Relation, as their utterances are not relevant to the content of Grytpype’s statement. Moreover, Moriarty flouts the Maxim of Quality, when he chooses a female name.

- 60 - For Victor Raskin the flouting of the Gricean Maxims represents a precondition for a successful piece of humour. The audience recognises that Grice’s cooperative principle of communication is flouted. To conceive the intended purpose of the humorous devices underlying these utterances it is useful to consider the “cooperative principle of humour” established by Raskin (1985:103): “The hearer (audience) does not expect the speaker to tell the truth or to convey to him any relevant information. Rather, he perceives the intention of the speaker as an attempt to make him, the hearer laugh.” So the expectation that the participants of the dialogue cooperate in communication according to Grice’s principle of communication is broken twice in this example for the purpose of a surprise in order to make the audience laugh. This makes it another examples of humour which can be explained according to the Incongruity Theory.

The semantic properties of various words is in the centre of interest in the analysis of the following example: Grytpype: […] Seagoon, you are to make your way to Hungary via Budapest. Seagoon: Will I have to go abroad? Grytpype: If all else fails, yes. It's dangerous work. Seagoon: I suppose I'll have to take risks? Grytpype: Oh yes, and a small pot of tea. Seagoon: What does this mean? Grytpype: It means you've been chosen to go abroad with a packet of Risks and a small pot of tea. (Extract from the episode “The Whistling Spy Enigma”, broadcast on BBC Radio on September, 9th 1954)

Their dialogue starts with the order from Grytpype to his loyal contractor Seagoon to make his way to Hungary. This order appears illogical, as the task to make his way to Hungary is already fulfilled once he arrives in Budapest. In semantic terms Budapest represents a hyponym of the word Hungary. Thus the mentioning of Budapest is redundant. The following question is redundant as well, since he could not get from England to Hungary without going “abroad”. However, Grytpype replies and ignores this redundancy. This introduction sets the tone for the following pun which plays on the different meanings of the verb “to take” in different contexts. Grytpype reveals to Seagoon that his mission will be dangerous; who therefore concludes that he will have to “take risks”. However, Grytpype does not respond coherently and adds that he also has to take a small pot of tea with him, which brings in another meaning of the verb “to take”. When he answers the last of Seagoon’s questions, Grytpype makes it clear that his understanding of the verb “to take” is a more physical one, in contrast to the idiomatic usage in the phrase “to take risks”.

- 61 - This punning is made possible as “take” is one of the most variable verbs in English. The Collins Cobuild Dictionary (2002) states that “take is used in combination with a wide range of nouns, where the meaning of the combination is mostly given by the noun”. Thus the verb “take” is likely to be the subject of punning, as it has a strong potential for polysemy. Moreover, the term “packet of risks” alludes to the word “rusks”, which is a dry biscuit often transported in packets as well. In phonological terms “risk” and “rusk” are minimal pairs. If in this context “risks” were be replaced by “rusks”, the resulting utterance would make more sense than the actual one. So some people in the audience might be triggered to think of “rusks” instead of “risks”. Exploiting the concept of the hyponymy of the word “Budapest” in relation to “Hungary”, the definition of the meaning of “abroad” and the polysemy of the verb “ to take” in various contexts are the semantic mechanisms on which the humour in this extract relies. These mechanisms are responsible for incongruities with the expected bona-fide way of conversation. The only purpose these incongruities serve is to create humour, which makes this extract an example of the Incongruity Theory.

6.1.5 Pragmatics

Sometimes it is rather too obvious that the misunderstandings between Goon Show characters are intentionally created to provoke laughter. Moriarty: I don't know, they haven't tried him yet. Seagoon: Do you think they suspect him? Moriarty: That's difficult to say. Seagoon: ”Do you think they suspect him?” It is a bit difficult to say, yes; you try it. Moriarty: Yes. Do-you-think-they-sus-pect-him? Seagoon: Of course they suspect him! Moriarty: What? Seagoon: Why, he's even been sentenced to 94 years in jail! Moriarty: Caramba! How did you hear this? Seagoon: Two little things called... Ears. Moriarty: You cunning English, you have everything. Why, that's what I came here to tell you! (Extract taken from the episode “ The Spanish Suitcase”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 7th of December 1954)

Here the Goons produce a misunderstanding based on simple conventionalised phrases such as “That's difficult to say” or “How did you hear this?”. Decoding the underlying speech acts in these utterances could have prevented these misunderstandings. So a closer analysis of speech acts will reveal that this is the mechanism of humour in this extract. The key to the correct understanding of the utterance “That's difficult to say” lies in the adjective “difficult”. The intended meaning of the sentence does not refer to difficulties in

- 62 - the pronunciation of the utterance, but to the uncertainty of the speaker. Although the latter sense of this sentence has become conventionalised in everyday use, Seagoon opts for the first meaning, which is unexpected and reveals the ambiguity of the utterance. However, the discussion about the suspicion is redundant, as the person they discuss has already been sentenced. Moriarty seems to be surprised by this fact and asks how he got this information. The intention of this question is once again mistaken by Seagoon in an unexpected way. He refers to the physical process of hearing something and not how Seagoon received the information. So the utterance is once more ambiguous. In both cases Moriarty’s utterances represent an indirect speech act, as they are meant to convey a certain underlying intention, but do not express this explicitly. Searle in his major work Speech Acts (1969: 178) describes indirect speech acts as follows: In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer.

He introduces the notions of “primary” and “secondary” illocutionary acts. The primary illocutionary act is the indirect one, which is intended but not literally performed. The secondary illocutionary act is the direct one, performed in the literal utterance of the sentence. Applying this to the creation of humour Fromkin and Rodman (1978:186) state: “Still, much humour is achieved by characters who take everything literally.” Also Seagoon recognises Moriarty’s utterances each time as if it was a direct speech act and does not react according to his intention. These are typical examples of misinterpreting the illocutionary force of an indirect speech act. So the humour lies in the clash between Moriarty’s illocutionary acts and the unsuccessful perlocutionary effect, which is how Seagoon reacts. However, the audience perceives the indirect speech acts and their underlying intention due to their conventionalised usage in everyday discourse. So both of Seagoon’s misunderstandings and reactions to Moriarty’s indirect speech acts represent the incongruities with the common-sense expectations of the audience, which create the humour in this extract.

In this short dialogue the normal everyday action of buying a ticket is the basis for the creation of humour: Seagoon: Slaughter Hill, please. Conductress: Slaughter Hill? Ooh, you're asking for trouble, you are. Seagoon: No, I'm asking for a ticket. Ha-ha-ha. You're too tall for me. Ha-ha-ha. H-hem. (Extract taken from the episode “The Rent Collectors”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 17th of January 1957)

The name of the station Seagoon wants to go to evokes some connotations in the Conductress of it being in a dangerous area. She therefore tries to warn Seagoon about going there using

- 63 - the phrase “to ask for”. Whereas she performs an indirect speech act and wants to express a warning, Seagoon does neither recognise the indirect speech act and does not react appropriately. Another meaning of this phrase follows immediately, when Seagoon ignores her warning by restating his initial request to buy a ticket. He performs a direct speech act, namely an assertive, instead and brings in another meaning of the phrase “to ask for”. In the end, he refers back to another possible indirect speech act performed by the Conductress. Whereas one interpretation of the intention in her indirect speech act is that the Conductress wants to warn him about the area “Slaughter Hill”, Seagoon misunderstands her utterance as an offer to fight with her. This notion is alluded to in his remark “You're too tall for me”. Although he recognises that she was performing an indirect speech act before, he misinterprets the intention of it and creates another witty remark. This extract reveals the ambiguity and versatility of the phrase “to ask for”. The intricacy of this example of humour lies in the fact that the audience always tries to infer the most coherent meaning from the context, but Seagoon refers twice to other less expected interpretations of her utterance. This causes surprise and triggers humour following the Incongruity Theory.

6.1.6 Slips of the Tongue

Inside this dialogue there is an example of a humorous slip of the tongue, which can be classified as Spoonerism. Seagoon: Death Grange. Deeaath Grange. What a bit of luck, dear listeners. That's the place where I have to collect the rent. I can kill two stones with one bird. Ellington: I'll show you the way, old man. Just follow me... (Extract taken from the episode “The Rent Collectors”, broadcast on BBC radio on the 17th of January 1957)

Seagoon not only interchanges the words “stone” and “bird”, but creates an utterance which is absurd and humorous. It can be argued that the audience recognises the proverbial saying “to kill two birds with one stone” in it. There is a clash between the absurd result of switching these words and the recognition of the original proverbial saying in it. The surprise which triggers humour in this example does not rely on a semantic ambiguity. It is the absurd result of switching the words which represents an incongruity with the audience’s expectation that the original proverb should have been used in this context. So they immediately recognise the substitution of words, but also consider the result of this substitution as suprisingly absurd and humorous.

- 64 -

6.1.7 Interplay of linguistic mechanisms in examples of verbal humour

The next example of verbal humour is interesting in three different ways, as it can be analysed through mechanisms from the fields of Semantics, Morphology and Phonology. The analysis of this extract thus demonstrates that the linguistic mechanisms do not occur separately but work together to create humour. Moriarty: Snap! And now, my friend, to business. My name is Count Moriarty. Have you ever heard of Lurgi? Seagoon: There's no one of that name here. Moriarty: Sacristi Bombet! Listen to me while I tell you a tale... In twelve-ninety-six on the Isle of Ewe. Seagoon: Where? Moriraty: Isle of Ewe. Seagoon: I love you, too. Shall we dance? (Extract from the episode “Lurgi Strikes Britain”, broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 9th 1954)

The first piece of humour, which is analysed through the field of Semantics, is Seagoon’s misunderstanding of Moriarty’s question as to whether he has ever heard of Lurgi. Moriarty refers to the fictional contagious disease, which is called Lurgi and is spread among the inhabitants of England in this episode. This neologism, namely “Lurgi”, even entered the English language. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2004) “Lurgy” is a noun and defined as a British humorous expression for an unspecified illness, which has its origin in the 1950s when it was frequently used in the British radio series The Goon Show . Nevertheless, Seagoon mistakes it for the name of a person. He infers that there is a coherence between the name Lurgi and the introduction “My name is Count Moriarty ”, so he takes it as another proper name of a person. However, Moriarty wanted to introduce the topic of the disease “Lurgi” instead, which makes him utter the words “Sacristi Bombet”. An analysis of the humour in The Goon Show shows that the similar word “Sapristi” also occurs several times and exclusively in utterances of the character Hercules Grytpype-Thynne. It remains unclear due to the sound quality of the recording whether the word “Sapristi” is in use in this example as well, but the form ‘sacristi’ was used by the official BBC transcript. This utterance, whether in the form of “sapristi” or “sacristi”, can be counted among the catch phrases of Grytpype-Thynne, which are also considered in chapter 5. However, the audience is still able to makes sense of the words “sacristi bombet”, although they are not part of the English language. This phenomenon can also be observed in the non-sense poems of Edward Lear and Lewis Caroll. Both wrote poems using coinages that

- 65 - resembled the English schemes of pronunciation and lexis, but these words were completely new inventions, also called “nonce words”: Nonce words frequently arise through the combination of an existing word with a familiar prefix or suffix, in order to meet a particular need (or as a joke). The result is a special kind of pseudo word: although it would not be found in any dictionary, it is instantly comprehensible. If the need recurs (or the joke is widely enjoyed), nonce words easily enter regular use (initially as neologisms) just because their meaning is obvious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_word)

One way of making up for the lack of a defined meaning of nonce words is to consider the context of the utterance they occur in. As Seagoon misunderstands Moriarty’s question, the latter has every reason to be dissatisfied with Seagoon’s answer. So the audience can take this utterance as a verbalisation of his discontent. Another way to decode the meaning of such coinages is to compare them to existing expressions. The words in the dictionaries that are most similar to them are “sacristy” and “bomb”, but these cannot be inserted in this example. However, the utterance “Sacristi Bombet!” also alludes to the expression “sacre bleu”. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (2007) this expression is “used as a mild oath to express surprise and annoyance”. As Moriarty is annoyed by Seagoon’s reply, the expression “sacre bleu” fulfils the same purpose as “sacristi bombet” and could have been used here as well. The field of Phonology is in the centre of interest in the investigation of humour in the following utterances. Moriarty goes on to tell his tale or rather wants to start telling the story. He does not get very far, as he is again interrupted by Seagoon. The reason for this interruption is revealed in the punch line of this phonological pun. The humour of this pun lies in the phonological similarity of the combinations “Isle of” and “I love” as well as on the homophones ‘Ewe’ and ‘you’, which create the ambiguity of these sentences. Whereas Moriarty refers to the place of the origin of Lurgi, Seagoon mistakes it as the phonologically similar expression of his love. Supposing that the participants of a dialogue obey the rules of cooperative bona-fide communication, there are two different misunderstandings in it. The first one is a semantic misunderstanding of the word “Lurgi” and the second one is a misinterpretation of homophones, which belongs to the field of Phonology. However, these misunderstandings are even included intentionally. Both reveal a hidden ambiguity for humorous purposes; the first one of the semantic property of a proper- noun and the second of the phonetic scheme of a phrase. As such the speakers engage in non-

- 66 - bona-fide communication described by Raskin (1985) and pursue the purpose of creating humour according to the Incongruity Theory of Humour.

The humour in this example is immediately apparent, but its underlying mechanisms have to be analysed according to different aspects of verbal humour. Sellers: 1917. England was at war. Secombe (French accent):France was at war. Eccles: I was at lunch! (Extract from the episode “World War One” broadcast on BBC Radio on February, 24th 1958)

First, the reference to the year 1917 establishes a coherence with the utterance that England was at war. So the following story is assumed to take place in a context during the First World War. This is supported by Secombe’s utterance that “France was at war”. However, this congruity or coherence is shattered by the following utterance, which is neither congruous or coherent with the First World War in the year 1917, nor with the action of soldiers fighting in this war. Thus it can be argued that Eccles’s utterance flouts the Maxim of Relation, which is part of the cooperative principle established by Grice. The cooperative principle states that people try to cooperate in communication, and the Maxim of Relation claims that people should relate their utterances to the prevailing context to communicate in an unmistakable manner. Clearly Eccles has no intention to communicate cooperatively and makes a humorous comment instead. He destroys the expectation arising from the context which has been established by the coherence of the first two utterances and flouts the Maxim of Relation for humorous purposes. Approaching the phenomenon of humour in this example from another direction, the semantic properties of some words in these utterances have to be considered. Whereas the names of the countries England and France function as metonyms for the people living in those countries, Eccles only just to himself. This egocentric switch of perspective serves the purpose of establishing a surprising contrast. Another contrast can also be observed in the different use of the phrase “to be at something”. He creates a clash between the French and English soldiers fighting in war and himself eating lunch. So he contrasts waging of war with his peaceful action of having lunch. A further device which is exploited in this example is a rhetorical one, the “List of Three”. The succession of three examples can serve the purpose of establishing a comparison leading to a climax at the end, if the most important is placed in the third place. In this example a list of three is begun, but not completed. - 67 - Mentioning England and widening the scope to France establishes two thirds of a list of three and creates the expectation that the scope will be widened a third time as well. On the contrary, Eccles provides an anti-climax at the end of the list, turning this convention of rhetoric on its head. He spoils this convention as he narrows down the scope to focus just on himself. The effect on which the humour of this dialogue rests is the breaking of expectations. These expectations rely on the congruity and expected coherence within the context of war established in the utterances of Sellers and Secombe. So Eccles’s utterance represents another example of incongruity, which is meant to trigger laughter in the audience.

6.2 Analysis of Examples of Absurd Humour

In the 1950s, when philosophy was dominated by Existentialism and Absurdism, playwrights and poets expanded and even broke the limits of convention and meaning too. The Goons also entered absurd dimensions in the creation of humour. The discussion of the phenomenon of the absurd in chapter 4 reveal that there are basically two distinct kinds of absurd to be found in examples of humour within The Goon Show . The first will be called “absurdness of language and meaning” and the second is the “absurdness of concept and situation”. The occurrence of these two kinds of absurd and their influence on the production of humour will be considered in the analysis of the following extracts.

6.2.1 Absurdness of language and meaning

First, the analysis revolves around the way how humour is created on the basis of an absurdness in the use of language and the corresponding creation of meaning. The dominating Absurdist philosophers Kierkegaard and Camus claimed that there is no underlying meaning at all in the universe, and that language has lost its meaning as well. This notion was formerly exploited by non-sense poets such as Lewis Caroll (1832-1898) and Edward Lear (1812-1888), who wanted to escape the ‘linguistic straightjacket of language and meaning’.

- 68 - In The Goon Show the boundaries of meaningful realistic language are often broken in order to create humour. The boundaries of meaning in language are expanded to the limits of logic and common sense and are even pushed into the absurd to create pieces of humour. Chiaro (1992: 10) describes this kind of humour which depends on the absurdness of language and meaning as: “Being game to a world in which anything goes but which would be totally out of the question in reality by even the wildest stretches of the imagination, appears to be a tacit rule between joker and recipient”. So common sense and sometimes even logic have to be suspended for a moment in order to perceive the nonsensical as humorous.

In the following example, it is Grytpype Thynne who leads the conversation in an absurd direction by his punning statement. What seems to be the compulsory handshake situation after a contract was signed turns finally into an absurd pun on the expression “to give somebody a hand”.

Seagoon: Very well, we'll be partners. Grytpype-Thynne: Shake. Seagoon: I give you my hand. Grytpype-Thynne: I gave him my foot, it was a fair swap. (Extract from the episode “Dishonoured” broadcast on January 26th, 1959 on BBC Radio)

Due to its conventionalised use “I give you my hand” represents the metaphorical notion to shake hands with somebody. However, Grytpype Thynne’s intention to give him his foot instead is leads from verbal punning to the absurd. If shaking hands is the result of the idiomatic utterance “to give someone your hand”, the notion of giving someone your foot can be argued to represent kicking someone. The interpretation of this notion in its literal sense, as Grytpype-Thynne finally takes, would lead into the absurd, as people cannot literally swap hands or feet. Thus the audience’s expectation that this dialogue follows the conventions of common-sense is broken and this pun lead to an interpretations that is of an absurd nature. As soon as Grytpype-Thynne leaves the suggestion to shake hands unconsidered and puns on the corresponding idiomatic expression, the dialogue enters rather absurd dimensions. He destroys the conventional interpretation in this dialogue to deliberately create a surprise. This unexpected turn into the absurd represents an incongruity with the audience’s expectations and creates humour according to the Incongruity Theory of Humour.

Negations and negatives prove to be useful grammatical devices exploited by the Goons on various occasions to create absurd humour.

- 69 - Minnie Bannister: Can't you hear, Henry, there's no-one knocking at the door. Henry Crun: Then I won't answer it, Min. You never know who it might not be. Minnie Bannister: Aaaaaaah! But it might not be somebody we know. Henry Crun: Oh, then I'd better see who isn't there. (Extract from the episode “The Rent Collectors”, broadcast on January, 17th 1957 on BBC Radio)

What triggers this absurd treatment of negatives is the misunderstanding of the conventionalised phrase “Can’t you hear”. The phrase is accepted due to its use in conversation. Nevertheless, it is illogical and should be treated as the positive phrase “can you hear?”. The participants of this dialogue do not consider the negative notions in the utterances, which contradicts their function and meaning in conversation. So the absurdness of this extract is created by neglecting negatives and negations in the utterances. Whenever they occur they either do not affect the meaning of the utterances in the dialogue, or they are treated in the same way as positives. However, the audience still expects that the negative notions convey the appropriate meaning. This expectation is broken consistently throughout this dialogue to create another example of absurd humour. The unusual treatment of negatives represents a distinct departure from conventionalised usage, which is expected by the audience.

The absurdness of language in the following example relies on ignoring the negative notion conveyed by the reply “Nothing”: Moriarty: What can you see? Grytpype: Nothing. Moriarty: But which direction is it going in? (Extract from the episode ”World War One” broadcast on February, 24th 1958 on BBC Radio)

In this extract the word “Nothing”, which is meant to convey the absence of something, is treated contrary to its function as a negative. The word “nothing” is seemingly considered to be something people can even see. Moriarty’s final utterance is redundant as well as absurd. It represents a piece of language, whose meaning cannot be realised in real life. However, the audience still tries to make sense of this absurd statement and recognises it as being humorous. The people in the audience recognise the absurd nature of this statement and stop trying to realise the meaning in real life. So it can be argued that the audience suspends the conventions of logic and common-sense for a moment to perceive this statement as an example of absurd humour.

- 70 - The next extract from an interrogation builds up expectations twice only to break them immediately for the purpose of entertaining the audience by the resulting pieces of humour. Seagoon: What did this attacker look like? William: I dunno, I dunno, I didn't see him, mate. Seagoon: I see. And would you recognise him if you didn't see him again? William: Straight away! Although you know, sir, I must admit, me eyes ain't what they used to be. Seagoon: No? William: No, they used to be me ears. (Extract from the episode “The Mysterious Punch-Up-The-Conker”, broadcast on February, 2nd 1957 on BBC Radio)

The situation of this extract resembles an interrogation and the corresponding dialogue known from police investigations. When William answers Seagoon’s investigative question and states that he did not see the attacker, Seagoon still proceeds to ask if he would recognise the attacker. If William does not know what the attacker looks like and did not see him, how could he recognise him? In this case Seagoon totally ignores the negative in the notion of ‘not seeing him’. He wants to establish a situation similar to that of an identity parade at a police station, when the process of recognising the attacker is repeated. However, his assumption that “not seeing an attacker” is an active process, which can be repeated, is highly absurd. This absurd interpretation of meaning sets the stage for the next play on words. The witness expresses further doubts as to whether he would recognise the attacker since he to mistrusts his eyes and states that they are not what they “used to be”. The expectation is built up that he uses this expression in its conventionalised way to convey the meaning that his eyes are not operating as well as they used to. A second interpretation of the phrasal idiom “used to be” comes in and takes the dialogue into the absurd. William alters the perspective and paves the way for the absurd idea that his ears somehow take over the part of his eyes. In this extract there are two examples of absurd humour only within a short dialogue. Both times the conventions of language and meaning are exploited and taken into the absurd. Once more the breaking of the boundaries of realistic and conventional conversation represent an incongruity with the audience’s expectation that the dialogue follows the rules of cooperative conversation as well as common-sense.

The following extract provides a very showing variant of absurd humour . Seagoon: Bloodnok, grand news. We have managed to send an elephant up the Falls in the atom-proof dustbin, and it lived. Bloodnok: What? No other dustbin has ever done it and lived. (Extract from the episode “Ned's Atomic Dustbin”, broadcast on January, 1st 1959 on BBC Radio)

- 71 - In this extract the context of an atom-proofed dustbin going up, instead of down, the Niagara Falls with an elephant in it already represents an absurd concept. Nevertheless, this absurd situation sets up the creation of an absurd piece of humour. The main trigger of humour in this example lies in the ambiguity of the anaphoric reference conveyed by the pronoun “it”. In this example “it” can either refer to the elephant, which is the expected referent, but also to the dustbin. In this dialogue the character Bloodnok chooses the less expected reference and creates a surprise. Then he adds an additional absurd dimensions, when he refers to the dustbin as an animate object, which survived the challenge of going up the “Falls”. What makes this extract an absurd piece of humour is that Bluebottls ignores the absurd situation described by Seagoon. This surprising reference to the dustbin is unexpected and humorous at first, but the consideration of the dustbin as an animate object represents the ultimate trigger which makes this an absurd piece of humour.

On the one hand, the humour of this extract relies on the ambiguity of the anaphoric reference of the pronoun it. On the other hand, the absurd concept of an elephant and an atom-proved dustbin going up the Niagara Falls is the underlying concept on which the absurdness of this example rests. This extract is not only an example of absurd humour depending on an absurdness of language, but it is also based on the absurdness of its concept or rather situation. This category will be analysed in the following section.

6.2.2 Absurdness of concept and situation

The second kind of absurd humour in The Goon Show depends on an absurdness of the concepts and situations in the episodes. The creation of humour according to this category does not depend on the language in use and the breaking of its boundaries of conveying meaning. The following pieces of humour consist of elements which are also known from the Theatre of the Absurd. These are dialogues full of non-sequiturs as well as absurd plots and absurd situations, which the characters have to face. These are all elements that entered the world of drama through the plays of the Theatre of the Absurd. The Goon Show can therefore also be classified “absurd radio drama” or “radio play of the absurd”.

- 72 - In The Goon Show ordinary everyday situations often take an unexpected turn, which caters for the humour based on the absurdness of concept and situation. Grytpype-Thynne: All in good time, laddy. Now first, will you sign this contract, in which you guarantee to move the piano from one room to another for five pounds. Seagoon: Of course I'll sign. Have you any ink? Grytpype-Thynne: Here's a fresh bottle. Seagoon: [gulp] Gad! I was thirsty. Moriarty: Sapristi indelible! Do you always drink ink? Seagoon: Only in the mating seasons. (Extract from the episode “Napoleon’s Piano”, broadcast on October 11, 1955 on BBC Radio)

The situation in this extract is another example in which Seagoon gets tricked by the villain Grytpype-Thynne. He signs a contract that binds him to move a piano from one room, the Louvre, to another, supposedly in Grytpype-Thynne’s estates; which makes this a case of burglary instead of furniture moving. There is nothing absurd in using a bottle of ink to sign a contract. On the contrary, Seagoon’s action of drinking this bottle is highly absurd. Grytpype-Thynne neither gives away what the content of the bottle is , nor does he refer to ink explicitly, when he offers Seagoon a “fresh bottle”. He lets Seagoon drink the content and then he makes the utterance ’sapristi indelible’, which can be regarded as an expression of excitement. For the audience the action of offering a bottle creates the presupposition that Seagoon will use the ink from the bottle to sign the contract. This presupposition is subsequently destroyed by Seagoon, who drinks from the bottle. So the audience is puzzled what the content of the bottle is. When Moriarty reveals the content to be ink, this represents a clash with the audience’s knowledge about what can be drunk. The answer Seagoon gives to that question is as unusual as remarkable. The Goons adopted the answer “Only in the mating season” as a response on various occasions established it as a running joke in The Goon Show . This unusual response represents a perfect example of a non-sequitur in a dialogue, as it does not answers the question and therefore does not follow any coherence. The occurrence of this running joke is another momentum of surprise. This kind of humour created through running jokes is analysed in section 6 of this paper 4, the Analysis of Running Jokes. To conclude, the main trigger of humour in this extract lies in the absurd concept of Seagoon drinking from a bottle of ink to quench his thirst. This unexpected and absurd concept is included intentionally to create humour. Thus the use of ink as a beverage represents an incongruity to the audience’s expectations.

- 73 - In the episode “The Greatest Mountain in the World” the British National Geographic Society wants to organise a climbing expedition to the greatest mountain in the world for reasons of prestige. As Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the Himalayan mountains, was already climbed before, they want to aim for the absurd goal of climbing the highest mountain under water. This absurd situation is treated throughout the episode in rather realistic terms and the logistics for this adventure are considered in this extract. Seagoon: How are we going to carry all the heavy equipment? Bloodnok: Camels Seagoon: Camels? Camels live under water? That's mad! Bloodnok: Of course it is, only mad camels could live under water. We're in condition tonight. Do you think I am crazy? Seagoon: Yes Bloodnok: What a splendid judge of character this fellow is. Now what's this? Ah! Yes, provisions. Most important, paraffin cookers for cooking paraffin. Seagoon: You can't cook under water (Extract from the episode “The Greatest Mountain In The World”, broadcast on March, 1st 1954 on BBC Radio)

The suggestion to take camels to carry the equipment for the underwater mission is highly absurd. However, this is considered as a realistic possibility by the character Bloodnok. In this dialogue he neither cares about the conventions of logic, nor does he care about the conventions of semantics. He mistakes the compound noun “paraffin cookers” for an equipment people can cook paraffin with, which is a misconception of its meaning. Throughout the dialogue Seagoon’s reasonable considerations contrast with Bloodnok’s absurd reasoning. Whereas Bloodnok accepts the absurdness of their adventure, Seagoon represents the realistic side and develops a mistrust against climbing and cooking under water. He wants to reveal the absurdness and impossibility of Bloodnok’s considerations. So the dialogue between Seagoon and Bloodnok represents the clash between the realistic bona-fide and the absurd non bona-fide mode of communication; and it is exactly the clash between these two modes where the humour in this extract lies in. Whereas Seagoon like the audience ‘represents’ the realistic side each of Bloodnok’s utterances and his attitude represent an incongruity with the conventions of logic, reason and common-sense. Nevertheless, he tries consistently to be persuasive in his absurd revelations. So each time he breaks their expectations, he creates a surprising incongruity to establish an example of absurd humour.

The following dialogue between Eccles and Bluebottle starts surprisingly with the unexpected question why Eccles is not wearing any trousers. So the dialogue leaves the conventions of everyday life and goes beyond common sense to create an absurd piece of humour.

- 74 - Bluebottle: […] I say, Eccles. Why are you not wearing any trousers? Eccles: Well, it's lunchtime. Bluebottle: Oh! What did you have for lunch? Eccles: My trousers. (Extract from the episode “The Junk Affair”, broadcast on October, 7th 1957 on BBC Radio)

The whole conversation revolves around the topics of wearing trousers and lunch. However, it is highly absurd to combine these two contexts and eat one’s own trousers for lunch. Thus the humour relies on the unexpectedness of Eccles’s action. Whereas Bluebottle always engages in the serious bona-fide mode of communication, Eccles never leaves the non-bona fide mode. The two modes clash through the dialogue, which creates a conversation that is absurd on the level of concept. Eccles’s first reply represents a punch line to finish a piece of humour, as it is an unexpected breaking of expectations, namely of the convention of wearing trousers. However, this is expanded and taken further into the absurd by Eccles second reply. He constructs an absurd situation which combines both of the topics, wearing trousers and having lunch, into one absurd concept of eating one’s trousers for lunch. This sudden combination of the two topics and the resulting absurd concept occur as surprise and therefore creates humour in the audience.

The solution to the problem that Seagoon and his crew are stranded in their boat without a means of moving the boat forward is expanded to be a further example of absurd humour: Seagoon: We had no oars, but luckily we found two outboard motors and we rowed with them. (Extract from the episode “The Greatest Mountain In The World”, broadcast on March, 1st 1954 on BBC Radio)

Although a solution to the problem of being stranded seems to be found with the discovery of the outboard motors, the emphasis is then put on the goal of looking for objects to row with. So the outboard motors are used such as oars to row with, which is totally unexpected and absurd. The audience is led to believe that the whole problematic situation is solved by the discovery of the outboard motors. They believe that the outboard motors are used according to their main function as ship motors, so the usage Seagoon refers to is the decisive incongruity to their expectations and makes it an effective piece of humour. Although this example consists of only one utterance, it still demonstrates the mechanism by which the Goons left realistic circumstances and drifted off into the absurd by adding an unexpected and unrealistic turn to the situation.

- 75 - One of the most famous examples of a series of connected pieces of humour is without a doubt the “What time is it Eccles”-sketch. The constant destroying of the audience’s expectations by breaking conventions of ordinary life is remarkable in this extract. Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles? Eccles: Err, just a minute. I, I've got it written down 'ere on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning. Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles? Eccles: Well, umm, if a anybody asks me the ti-ime, I ca-can show it to dem. Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man... Eccles: What is it fellow? Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted. Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock. Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock? Eccles: Ah, den I don't show it to dem. Bluebottle: Ooohhh... Eccles: [Smacks lips] Yeah. Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock? Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper! Bluebottle: Oh, I wish I could afford a piece of paper with the time written on. Eccles: Oohhhh. Bluebottle: 'Ere Eccles? Eccles: Yah. Bluebottle: Let me hold that piece of paper to my ear would you? - 'Ere. This piece of paper ain't goin'. Eccles: What? I've been sold a forgery! Bluebottle: No wonder it stopped at eight o'clock. Eccles: Oh dear. Bluebottle: You should get one of them tings my grandad's got. Eccles: Oooohhh? Bluebottle: His firm give it to him when he retired. Eccles: Oooohhh. Bluebottle: It's one of dem tings what it is that wakes you up at eight o'clock, boils the kettil, and pours a cuppa tea. Eccles: Ohhh yeah! What's it called? Um. Bluebottle: My granma. Eccles: Ohh... Ohh, ah wait a minute. How does she know when it's eight o'clock? Bluebottle: She's got it written down on a piece of paper (Extract from the episode “The Mysterious Punch-Up-The-Conker” broadcast on February, 2nd 1957 on BBC Radio)

In the beginning of the dialogue between these two congenial or rather equally stupid partners, Eccles and Bluebottle, the former is asked for the time. Eccles replies that he has got it written down on a piece of paper, which is about the most unusual reply to such a question. This is utterly absurd concerning its realisation in everyday life, as the only accepted means for time measurements are watches in their different variations that show the passing of time through their arms or numerals. This answer puzzles Bluebottle and he asks his friend what the use of a piece of paper would be. Eccles answers that its use is in showing it to people who want to know the time. Though this is a repetition of the reason he gave before, it also represents an answer most people in the audience may not have expected.

- 76 - Then Bluebottle expresses exactly what the audience may have wanted to know as he recapitulates and asks what the use of this paper will be if it is not eight o’clock. Once more Eccles answers wittily and gives the utterly absurd and unexpected answer that he does not show it then. When Bluebottle asks how he knows when it is eight o’clock, Eccles refers back to his piece of paper again, which tells him when it is eight o’clock. Up to this point in the dialogue, Bluebottle tries to convince Eccles that his argumentation is illogical and that a piece of paper is unsuitable to tell the time with, as it will show the writing ‘eight o’clock’ any time he looks at it. He wants to demonstrate the weakness of Eccles’s illogical argumentation. However, Eccles seems to be convinced of this absurd concept and defends it in an absurd but witty way of argumentation. This way contradicts the attitude and expectations of the audience, who still believe in the realistic conventions of time measurement. Although there is no logical consistency in Eccles’s utterances, Bluebottle seems to be convinced of this absurd concept once the discussion about the piece of paper has come full circle. From that point in the dialogue, namely line 18, onwards the piece of paper is accepted as a means of showing the time and therefore also treated by them in the same way as a watch. This can be seen in Bluebottle’s holding the piece of paper to his ear and also in his funny statement that it is not “going”. So the remark that it is a forgery and stopped at eight o’clock seems logical in the context of regarding it as a watch. Then they move away from the piece of paper to a time measuring object Bluebottle’s grandfather got when he retired. Bluebottle takes over the lead role in the dialogue and describes the object as something that has got various other unusual functions such as waking up his grandfather, boiling the kettle and pouring a cup of tea. This little riddle is then resolved wittily, when he reveals that the mysterious object is his grandmother. The explanation that he refers to his grandmother is logically consistent, but the way he introduces her as the answer of this riddle is uncommon and unexpected. Bluebottle misleads the audience and Eccles by the way he describes various functions. Eccles asks Bluebottle how his grandmother could know when it is eight o’clock. So he paves the way for Bluebottle referring back to a piece of paper with the writing “eight o’clock” on it functioning as a means of time measurement. In doing so, Bluebottle demonstrates that he is already familiar with the absurd concept of showing the time with a piece of paper, as he knows it from his grandmother.

- 77 - In a way they have come full circle again and round off the sketch with the final punch line of Bluebottle referring back to the first lines of the sketch. So it can be observed that the whole sketch is composed in a certain circular structure concerning the occurrence of its topic. The absurdness of this example lies in the concept of adopting a piece of paper as a watch. The absurd concept of time measurement with a piece of paper is responsible for the breaking of expectations in this dialogue to create a surprising effect and thus humour. It contrasts with the audience’s expectation about the conventions of time measurement in logical terms. So each of the characters’ absurd arguments for this concept represents a surprising incongruity with the audience’s expectations, and is therefore meant to create humour according to the Incongruity Theory.

The way language and action can diverge is a remarkable feature known from the Theatre of the Absurd . Martin Esslin describes this phenomenon in his defining work The Theatre of the Absurd (1968:26) as: “The element of language still plays an important part in this conception, but what happens on the stage transcends, and often contradicts, the words spoken by the characters.” This divergence was also employed in the absurd humour of The Goon Show , which can be observed in the following extract from the episode “The Whistling Spy Enigma”, broadcast on September, 28 th 1954 on BBC Home Service. When the audience follows the episode on the radio they totally rely on the information they can receive from the interplay between language and sound effects to recognise what is going on. However, the spoken language and the sound effects in this extract diverge from representing the action. This leads to an absurd incongruity in the succession of utterances and sound effects, which will be demonstrated in the following extracts: Seagoon: Mr, Crun, sir, open this door at once Crun: I can't, it's locked, and the key's lost Seagoon: Curse, the door's locked Crun: Try the window that's open Seagoon: Right

Up to this point the situation is laid out in a realistic way through the dialogue. Crun is inside the house, whereas Seagoon and Eccles want to get in. The audience has to trust Crun’s claim that the door is locked and the key lost. Fx: Tries to open a locked wooden window frame Seagoon: Oh curse! The window's locked as well Crun: It's open Seagoon: It's locked. Come out and see for yourself Crun: I will Fx: Door opened and shut

- 78 - The window seems to be locked as well, but the sound effect at the end reveals that the door is not locked. So the audience infers from the information of the last sound effect that Crun gets outside, and all of them are then outside the house. From this point on there is a distinct incongruity between the information conveyed by sounds and language. In this absurd representation the language or rather the utterances are responsible for conveying the knowledge and the state of recognition of the characters, whereas the sound effects add further information about the action going on and the circumstances the characters are in. Crun: Now, let me try it Fx: Tries to open a locked wooden window frame Crun: [struggles] You're right, you know, the window is locked. What a state of affairs, the window and the door Eccles: Oh, I'll go inside and open it Seagoon: Bravo! Eccles: Okay Fx: Door opened and shut

Eccles goes inside to prove the window is really closed, but nobody seems to notice the open door. This circumstance is represented by the sound effects of opening and shutting it, but it is not mentioned or considered by any character. Eccles: [from inside] Hello, Mr. Crun? It's no good, the window's locked from the inside as well Seagoon: There's a fine how do you do! Crun: Where? Seagoon: Are you sure you can't find the key to the door? Crun: My dear military gentleman, come inside and look for yourself Seagoon: Right. Lead on Fx: Door opened and shut

The sound effects do not affect the characters’ recognition of the circumstances in this situation, which is a distinct incongruity to what the audience expects from dialogues including sound effects in a conventional radio drama. However, there is more information added by the sound effects than is considered by the characters in their utterances. Whereas Crun and Seagoon go in again, they do not recognise that their main problem of getting into the house is then solved. Crun: Now, it used to hang on the nail behind this door Seagoon: Well, it's certainly not there. Looks as if we're locked out Fx: Three knocks on door

Although they are inside and cannot be locked out as such, they illogically conclude that they are locked out because they have lost the key. Suddenly someone knocks on the door, which reminds the audience of the beginning of the dialogue. Who could this be? The audience at this point in the dialogue has no other information than that they are all inside the house. Crun: Who's there?

- 79 - Eccles: It's me, Eccles. I got the window open! If you come out you can crawl in through it Crun: We can't come out, the door's locked and we've lost the key

Nobody would have expected Eccles to knock, as the audience has still got the information that he is inside and that the window is closed. Eccles explains and resolves the surprise about why he is knocking on the door from the outside. Then Eccles and Crun discuss in the most unusual and complicated way how to solve their problem. On the other hand, the audience recognises the logical fallacy and absurd misapprehensions in the characters’ argumentation. Eccles: Oooh, can I come in and help look for it? Fx: Door opened Crun: Of course, come in Fx: Door shut

Eccles goes inside again to search for the key, which is again represented by the sounds of an opening and a shutting door. Nevertheless, they still show no sign of recognition that the door is open. Up to this point, this notion is only represented by sound effects and still not mentioned explicitly by any character in any utterance. However, they even do not recognise that they are all inside already and that their prior goal of getting into the house through the door has already been achieved. Eccles: Thank you. Crun: Now let me see. Aughhh! Eureka! Symphavidalis! I found it! It was in my pocket all the time Seagoon: Good show. Fx: Key being turned in lock

Then their last requirement for opening the door is also fulfilled, when the key is found. However, in realistic terms open doors normally do not allow a key to be turned in the direction in which the door is opened. This unrealistic sound effect contradicts the common-sense logic about doors and can only be comprehended by the audience as a part of the absurd representation of language and sound effects in this extract. Nevertheless, this is still not the end of the dialogue, as there is another punch line at the end: Crun: Now, I'll just unlock the door and let them in Fx: Door opened Crun: Good heavens! All that trouble for nothing! Seagoon: Why? Crun: There's nobody out here Seagoon: The fools must have got impatient and run away (Extracts from the episode “The Whistling Spy Enigma”, broadcast on September, 28th 1954 on BBC Radio)

- 80 - Their illogical conclusion to open the door is redundant as there is no one waiting outside. So the unexpected conclusion that the people knocking got impatient and ran away is a logical consequence in these absurd surroundings. Throughout this extract the spoken dialogue represents the knowledge of the characters, whereas the sound effects convey additional information about the movement of the characters and the circumstances of the door and the window. The audience gets the impression that the characters soon loose the original purpose and ignore the information conveyed by the sound effects. The audience knows about the convention of adding information relevant for the action by sound effects. Moreover, they expect theses conventions to be fulfilled and followed in a conventional radio drama. So each time a sound effect is ignored and does not affect the characters’ knowledge and recognition in this extract, this represents a distinct incongruity to the audience’s expectations. The conclusion can be drawn that this incongruous divergence of language and sound effects in this example is employed for humorous purposes. This kind of representation resembles the way dialogues and action are constructed in the Theatre of the Absurd. The audience instead expects the language and sound effects to convey information in a cooperative and effective manner. However, this expectation is broken deliberately to create a certain surprising effect, which is meant to create humour reflected by the Incongruity Theory. There is still another perspective in this example, which is not unconsidered so far: In contrast to the characters, the audience includes the information from the sound effects. This establishes the basic condition for a phenomenon which is known from the literary analysis of dramas, as discrepancy of awareness. The discrepancy of awareness and some more phenomena of literature found in radio dramas such as The Goon Show will be the main focus of the next section, the Analysis of Radio Specific Humour.

6.3 Analysis of Examples of Radio Specific Humour

From the first to the third series the format of The Goon Show developed from a loose succession of sketches, adopted from variety theatre, into a fully fledged radio drama or rather radio comedy. The format The Goon Show became famous with consists of a single plot presented in three parts with musical pieces by Max Geldray and Ray Ellington in between; and it remained like this until the end.

- 81 - In contrast to the performance of a drama in a theatre, the audience in a radio play lacks any visual information and depends totally on what is conveyed by the dialogue and the sound effects. The Goons took up this condition and exploited it further for humorous purposes. They developed two kinds of radio specific humour, which will be analysed in this chapter: The first is based on conventions of theatre, as a The Goon Show can be classified as radio drama and incorporates the same characteristics as a conventional drama performed in theatre. Secondly, they exploited the function of sound effects to provide additional information to what is contained in the dialogues to create another kind of radio specific humour.

6.3.1 Radio-specific humour depending on the conventions of radio drama

As a representative of the genre “radio drama” The Goon Show is generally considered to follow the conventions of theatre. In contrast to this, the Goons take up the basic conventions of radio broadcasting to exploit them for humorous purposes. Conventions of drama, such as the convention of the dramatic illusion, the fourth wall and the discrepancy of awareness are exploited and broken to create humour. For an analysis of these conventions stemming from the world of theatre, the terminology has to be applied from the field of literary studies. The most basic convention in a drama, the dramatic illusion, describes the state that the audience accepts the fact that the actors are acting out the characters in the fictional surrounding of the plot. In the following examples the characters often step out of their fictional roles and refer to the underlying condition of being a fictional character in a radio play explicitly. The characters speak in a kind of meta-language about the conventions of radio broadcasting and foreground them in order to create humour.

The convention of the dramatic illusion and its breaking is described by Timothy J. Moore (1998: I, II): As any playgoer is aware, spectators at a play simultaneously forget and remember that they are in a theatre. They believe, on the one level that the action occurring onstage is „real“, yet at the same time that what they see is a performance. At any moment of performance, actors can encourage the spectators’ forgetful belief by ignoring the audience and maintaining the pretence that their words and actions are „real“ rather than part of a performance, or they encourage awareness of the fact of performance by addressing the audience directly or referring explicitly or implicitly to their own status as performers. [...] The most common way of making the distinction has been to talk about dramatic illusion and the violation or breaking of that illusion. - 82 - The convention of the dramatic illusion determines that the characters have no recognition of their own fictionality, which is exploited in the following example:

Lalkaka: Yes alright. Steady Mr Lackagee. Most imperative that we keep this in great perspective so we can condition right, you understand. Lakagee: I totally understand what you are saying. Lalkaka: Shabas Lakagee: One moment Mr Lalkaka, would it not be more advantageous if we stood the door in the upright position. Lalkaka: You are speaking line 3 and I haven't spoken line 2 yet. Lakagee: Ah but I am wondering whether the line 1 you are saying was replaced with some other utterings (Extract from the episode “The Red Fort” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 11 th 1957)

At the beginning of the dialogue between these two Hindustani characters their confused way of structuring their utterances leaves the audience unsure what they are talking about. Then Lakagee reveals that they did not even understand each other, when he states his suggestion how to put the door correctly. Suddenly Lalkaka enters a meta-level and then they refer to the script explicitly. In their final utterances both act upon the basis of having some kind of knowledge about producing a radio comedy by reading out lines from the script. They speak in a kind of meta-language and demonstrate a kind of recognition characters in the fictional surroundings of a radio comedy are not supposed to display. They violate the dramatic illusion, step out of their fictional role and destroy the dramatic illusion for a moment to create a surprise and therefore also humour. This breaking of the dramatic illusion represents a sudden incongruity with the convention of the dramatic illusion.

Although Sellers was one of the most versatile mimes of voices, he could not play two characters at the same time. What needs to be known to understand why Crun and Grytpype are never in the same room is that both characters were played by Peter Sellers. Moriarty: It was my friend Mr Grytpype Thynne. Crun: I can't see him. Moriarty: That's because you are playing him, he's never around when you're here. Crun: I don't understand .... Moriarty: Neither do the audience, that's why it isn't getting a laugh! (Extract from the episode “The £1,000,000 Penny” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 17th 1958)

Moriarty breaks the dramatic illusion by referring to this circumstance to create humour. By stepping out of the fictional world of the characters, Moriarty spoils the dramatic illusion. He creates a surprising incongruity to the conventions the audience expects and makes this piece of humour an example of the Incongruity Theory.

- 83 -

The convention of the fourth wall is incorporated primarily in so called well-made plays. Vera and Ansgar Nünning (2001:81) describe the fourth wall in their book Grundkurs anglistisch- amerikanistische Literaturwissenschaft as:

Die heutige Standardbühne, die so genannte Guckkastenbühne, sowie die Lichtregie, der Gebrauch von Kulissen und Requisiten fördern hingegen die Illusionsbildung: Die Schauspieler können so agieren, as trenne eine unsichtbare „vierte Wand“ das Geschehen auf der Bühne von den Zuschauern.

“The term fourth wall now applies to the boundary between any piece of fiction and the audience. When this boundary is broken, it is called breaking the fourth wall” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall). The following dialogue shows how the breaking of the fourth wall, a phenomenon which is also known from the Theatre of the Absurd, creates humour. In this dialogue the barrier between the audience listening to the play, and the characters in it, is broken down by the character German: German: Good evening. You are looking for a man who might specialise in piano robberies from ze Louvre. Seagoon: How do you know? German: I was listening on ze radio and I heard you say. (Extract from the episode “Napoleon's Piano” broadcast on BBC Radio on October, 11th 1955)

In this extract German acts as if he was also part of the audience and was listening to the play at the time as it was acted. This behaviour breaks the convention of the fourth wall, which implies that only the audience listens to the play on the radio and receives information uttered by the characters. German shows meta-knowledge and makes the effect of the fourth wall of radio drama explicit by his final statement and breaks it in order to create a surprise.

In this extract Cynthia Fruit refuses to pose for Seagoon, the discrepancy of awareness between the audience and the characters is revealed for humorous purposes. Seagoon: Steady Miss Fruit, keep still . Cynthia Fruit: It's awfully cold posing like this. Seagoon: I've got the candle on! Now, there! There we are, you can relax. It's a masterpiece. Cynthia Fruit: What is it. Seagoon: The plans of a new British dustbin. Cynthia Fruit: And you've had me posing nude for that? (Extract from the episode “Ned's Atomic Dustbin” broadcast on BBC Radio on January, 5th 1959)

Whenever a character does not participate actively in the action happening on stage, it is assumed that this character is not in the same room as the other characters and does not receive the information uttered in the dialogue on stage. However, the audience follows the

- 84 - whole play on stage and listens to all of the characters right from the beginning onwards and gathers all the information given in any utterance. So sometimes the audience has got an advantage of knowing more than one of the characters or even vice versa, which is called “discrepancy of awareness”: Die verschiedenen Formen dialogischen und monologischen Sprechens haben weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Relationen zwischen der jeweiligen Informiertheit der verschiedenen Figuren und der der Leser bzw. Zuschauer. Wenn Letztere einen Informationsvorsprung oder –rückstand gegenüber den Figuren haben, so spricht man von diskrepanter Informiertheit (discrepant awareness). (Nünning, Nünning 2001: 93).

The same phenomenon can be observed on the radio as well. In radio plays the audience is dependent on the characters as well as on the sound effects to gather information in a play. The people in the audience totally rely on information transmitted by language and sound effects and lacks any visual source of information. The characters have got a distinct visual advantage over the audience, on which the discrepancy of awareness in this extract is based. In this extract the audience possesses less insight and knowledge about the circumstances of the situation this dialogue occurs in. The audience only gets the information that Cynthia Fruit is posing and Seagoon is supposed to be painting or rather drawing something. When he even refers to his work as a “masterpiece”, this utterance creates a certain expectation in the audience. The audience expects that there is coherence between Seagoon’s drawing and Cynthia Fruit’s posing. This extract demonstrates how humour is created on a discrepancy of awareness, as the audience has got a disadvantage of recognition and lacks visual information. So the last two utterances both destroy the expectation that there is coherence within the dialogue and therefore represent a surprising incongruity to this expectation, which is meant to create humour.

In The Goon Show the announcer Wallace Greenslade introduces the episode at the beginning, announcing the musical interludes and listing the cast at the end of each episode. As an announcer in The Goon Show he possesses a two-fold nature. One the one hand, he acts out his profession as a BBC announcer and newsreader on the radio and represents a non-fictional part of The Goon Show . On the other hand, he sometimes plays himself as a fictional character as well. The boundary between him appearing as an announcer and him as a character became more and more blurred over the years: Greenslade: This is the BBC Home Service. Fx: Penny in mug. Greenslade: Thank you. Tonight's broadcast comes to you from an Arab Stench-Recuperating Centre in Stoke Poges. The play is considered unsuitable for people.

- 85 - Secombe: Tell the eager masses what we have in store for them. Greenslade: Rubbish. Secombe: Thank you. Yes, it's rubbish - but to make it more interesting we call it.... (Extract from the episode “The Phantom Head Shaver (of Brighton)” broadcast on BBC Radio on October , 19th 1954)

In realistic terms BBC announcers are supposed to keep to their role and not to denounce the programme they have to announce as unsuitable or “rubbish”. Nonetheless, it is not a surprise that Greenslade intervenes in this way. In this extract the convention of an announcer who appears at the beginning of a radio drama and addresses or rather welcomes the audience is exploited to create humour. This time he deviates from his usual way of introducing the episode in order to surprise the people listening to him. This sudden deviation represents an incongruity to his usual and expected way of introducing The Goon Show and is included intentionally to surprise the audience in order to create humour.

6.3.2 Radio-specific humour depending on sound effects

The second kind of radio-specific humour is based on the elements of S ound effects. On the radio they can serve the same purpose as stage props and stage directions in a play in the theatre, namely to convey additional information to that included in the text of the characters. Throughout the ten series Spike Milligan and his co-writers of The Goon Show together with the help of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop developed a fine instinct for the use of sound effects for various purposes, which were sometimes very surreal. Roger Wilmut and Jimmy Grafton (1976: 78f.) recalled in their book The Goon Show Companion : One of the most amazing aspects of Milligan's writing is his ability to describe a complex effects sequence which in the realisation of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop sounds hilariously suitable, if inexplicable. As the series progressed, the noises became more and more complex. […] Once the Radiophonic Workshop brought the full range of electronic techniques to bear on a recording of Bloodnok’s stomach in action.

The Goons could not miss the opportunity to exploit this feature to create humour. Mentioning the sound effects explicitly, playing on their function of conveying additional information and even entering a meta-level by referring to the production and the origin of sound effects, prove to be effective means for the creation of humour. How the Goons exploit all these characteristics of sound effects will be demonstrated in the following section.

Although it is not explicitly mentioned, when Flowerdew adds the statement, people can imagine has happened. The sound recording of the arriving train constructs the picture of a

- 86 - train entering the station in the minds of the audience, which is then exploited to create a piece of humour: FX: [Train arriving] Flowerdew: [Screams] There should be a law against trains letting off steam when people are wearing kilts..! (Extract from the episode “The Great String Robberies” broadcast on BBC Radio on January, 13th 1958)

The sound effect “[Screams]” comes as a surprise and triggers the audience’s curiosity as to what might be the reason for it. So the scream creates a certain tension, which is resolved in Flowerdew’s humorous explanation. Flowerdew’s utterance leads the audience to infer that a kilt has been lifted by a train letting off steam. This encounter occurs surprisingly and operates efficiently as a kind of punch line in this piece of humour.

Sound effects are used in radio plays to create mental pictures of objects and actions in the minds of the audience. They normally operate as a fictional part of a radio play. However, Bloodnok mentions the origin of the sound effect explicitly to create humour: Bloodnok: Wait! Great galloping crabs! Look in the sky. Grams: Propeller plane Bloodnok: It's a recording of a helicopter. Saved! (Extract from the episode “Napoleon's Piano” broadcast on BBC Radio on October, 11th 1955)

Bloodnok deliberately exploits the convention of sound effects to represent objects in the fictional surroundings of a radio play by referring to the sound effect and the technical means of producing it. Bloodnok foregrounds this mechanism and violates the dramatic illusion. This produces a clash between the fictionality of the remaining episode and the realistic aspects of the production of sound effects.

The convention of sound effects creating the impression of objects and the means by which in these sound effects are played in, are both exploited in this extract. Grams: Slow motor-boat. Seagoon: What's that? It's a nautical gramophone playing a recording of a motor-boat. (Extract from the episode “The Rent Collectors” broadcast on BBC Radio on January,17 th 1957)

Instead of accepting the function of the sound effect to convey the existence of a motor boat, Seagoon refers to the sound itself and even states its source. Moreover, he even calls the source of this sound effect a “nautical gramophone” and alludes to the notion of seafaring. The conventions of sound effects being added in by gramophones in radio dramas is taken up explicitly in this extract. So mentioning the sound effect and even its source

- 87 - represent incongruities with the audience’s expectations that these elements remain underlying features of a radio drama.

The repetition of the nonsense word “rhubarb” represents the attempt to convey the notion of a plenary hall full of people mumbling and talking at the same time: Seagoon: I called an all night meeting, but held it in the day because the light was better. Cast: rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. (Extract from the episode “The Mysterious Punch-Up-The-Conker” broadcast on BBC Radio on February,7 th 1957)

Instead of recording the mumbling sound of people in a hall, a restaurant or a café, the cast produces this sound effect by themselves throughout the ten series of The Goon Show . They allude to the way how the sound effect of a larger group of people was created for crowd scenes in early radio programmes of the 1920s and 1930s. “This was often parodied by Spike Milligan, who would try to get the same effect with only three or four people. After some time, Harry Secombe began throwing in the word "custard" during these scenes” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goon_Show#Rhubarb.2C _rhubarb.2C_rhubarb.21). By the constant use of elaborate pre-recorded sound effects the Goons set a high standard, which creates the expectation in the audience that this standard of sound effects will be met all the times. So mumbling in “rhubarb” instead of playing a recording not only plays on the production of sound effects, but also breaks the audience’s expectations concerning their standard. The sound effect in the following example developed into a kind of running joke throughout The Goon Show , which will be considered closer in the next chapter.

6.4 Analysis of Examples of Running Jokes

In The Goon Show most of the characters often repeat individual phrases, which became catch phrases over the time. These catch phrases represent a characteristic feature of the characters in The Goon Show . The character specific catch phrases were already mentioned in chapter 5.2, on the characteristic features of the characters in The Goon Show . In addition, there are also running jokes in The Goon Show which occur in the course of the action of the episode and do not depend on or belong to an individual character exclusively, such as the previously mentioned catch phrases. These situation-dependent running jokes will be the topic of the next section; the analysis of running jokes in The Goon Show .

- 88 - • Only in the mating season

Seagoon: Now Look here, Major, enough of this tomfoolery. Bloodnok: Do you play the saxophone? Seagoon: Only during the mating season. (Extract from the episode “Foiled by President Fred (In Honour Bound)” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 1 st 1955)

Bloodnok: Hello, Moriarty? Moriarty: Yes. Do you play the saxophone. Bloodnok: Only in the mating season. (Extract from the episode “Foiled by President Fred (In Honour Bound)” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 1 st 1955)

Moriarty: Sapristi indelible! Do you always drink ink? Seagoon: Only in the mating seasons. (Extract from the episode “Napoleon's Piano” broadcast on BBC Radio on October, 11 th 1955)

The four cast members of The Goon Show , Bentine, Milligan, Secombe and Sellers, had their professional roots in variety theatre and adopted a few running jokes from working in shows after the Second World War. The running joke “Only in the mating season” was originally established in variety shows around the country and lived on through its constant usage in The Goon Show . Analysing the reply “Only in the mating season” in these extracts in conversational terms reveals it as a typical example of a “non-sequitur”. There is no logical reason for any of the characters to reply “Only in the mating season”, except for humorous purposes. As there is no reason or coherence in this reply, it certainly flouts the Maxim of Relation established by Grice (1975) as a part of the cooperative principles of communication. The Maxim of Relation says that people should be relevant in communication, whereas a non- sequitur flouts this attempt. Running jokes such as “Only in the mating season” always represent an incongruity to trigger humour by their unexpected occurrence, as it is also the case with other examples of humour according to the Incongruity Theory.

• Shut up Eccles

Minnie Bannister: I'm asking a civilian question. What is Lurgi? Henry Crun: That's another thing I want to know! What is Lurgi? Minnie Bannister: What is Lurgi? Henry Crun: Shut up Minnie Bannister: Shut up Henry Crun: Shut up Minnie Bannister: You shut up! (Extract from the episode “Lurgi Strikes Britain” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 9 th 1954)

The Shut up Eccles Running joke can also be observed in the episode the House of Teeth:

- 89 - Seagoon: Shut up. Bluebottle: Shut up. Eccles: Shut up, Eccles. Seagoon: Shut up, Eccles. Bluebottle: Shunt unpe, Enkles. Cast: Shut up, etc....

In various episodes Eccles is faced with the harsh order to shut up, uttered by other characters. However, he never worries much about it. On the contrary, he joins in saying to shut up although it is directed against himself. Whereas Eccles is supposed to be quiet, he breaks this expectation by repeating “shut up” to himself. This is a certain incongruity to the expected behaviour and therefore triggers humour by its surprising occurrence.

• Bluebottle reads out stage directions

The following examples will focus on the uniqueness and peculiarities of Bluebottle. In many occasions Bluebottle engages in strange monologues commenting on himself when he reads out the stage directions for the character Bluebottle from the script. Bluebottle: Enter invisible Bluebottle with bronchitis and smog mask around both knees to keep leggy- peggies warm! Voila! No audience applause! That is because of the fog. Here, I don't... eeeeh!

Bluebottle: Ee-hee-hee! So that is why it's warmer. Thinks: I must ask mummy to make me a pocket so I can wear my head in it. Speaks: Pardon me, can you direct me to the BBC? I'm appearing in the naughty Coon Show.

Bluebottle: Yes - moves right - puts dreaded dynamite under signal box for safety - does not notice dreaded wires leading to plunger up in signal cabin. Thinks. I'm for the dreaded deading alright this week. (All three extracts from the episode “Forog” broadcast on BBC Radio on December, 21 st 1954)

However, Bluebottle as a fictional character is not supposed to read out the stage directions for the characters from the script. According to Nünning and Nünning (1981:84) the stage directions remain unmentioned in the performance of a play, or rather radio drama: Während die Äußerungen der Figuren den so genannten „Haupttext“ darstellen, der von Schauspielern auf der Bühne laut gesprochen wird, besteht der “Nebentext” vor allem aus Hinweisen für die szenische Umsetzung eines Stückes (stage directions).

This convention is part of the dramatic illusion of a play and is spoilt by Bluebottle in order to create a humorous effect. Furthermore, he utters a monologue which resembles an aside in a drama in this extract:

Bluebottle: He he he be, yes - well, you will not need this deaded money for him drowning. Thinks - this will save Lloyds a lot of money and who knows, a managerial job for Bluebottle. Thinks again - thanks to brains, the new wonder head-filler. Well, I must be going, goodnight everybody, Exits left. nd (Extract from the episode “The Canal” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 2 1954)

- 90 - Before Bluebottle continues to reveal what he “thinks again” he inserts an unusual comment about his brain that resembles an advertisement slogan. However, this advertisement does not emphasise any other positive feature of the brain but to fill one’s head. It contradicts the expected intention of an advertisement to praise the special quality of the product. Thus this advertisement is surprising in order to create humour. He ends his monologue with a comment and another example of reading out the stage direction: “exits left”. Although the audience expects the dramatic illusion to be intact in a theatrical performance such as a radio play, Bluebottle enters a meta-level and destroys their expectation by doing so. His reading out of stage directions as well as performing aside-like monologues represent a kind of incongruity to the convention of the dramatic illusion.

• Yee-Akaboo

Conditions of a successful running joke are not fulfilled until it is used in and transferred to other episodes. This effect can be demonstrated with reference to the catch phrase “Yee Akaboo” in the following example: Greenslade: Listeners, does it strike you as at all significant that in a story that concerns a gorilla that wears boots, Eccles is bare footed? Could it be that these clues will bare feet? Sit it over while we hear from that booted mouth organist, Bwana Max Geldray! Yee-akaboo! (Extract from the episode “The Booted Gorilla” broadcast on BBC Radio on November, 30 th 1954)

Originally, the catch phrase came into existence in the episode “Lurgi Strikes Britain”, which was the 7 th episode of the 5 th series. In this episode it was introduced as the sound uttered by a person infected with the disease “Lurgi”. However, the disease Lurgi is not mentioned in the extract from the episode “the Booted Gorilla”, which was broadcast three weeks later. Still the audience recognises “yee- akaboo” as the catch phrase connected with the fictional disease Lurgi and are amused every time they hear it again. Without the context of the disease Lurgi the occurrence of the catch phrase “Yee- Akaboo” represents an example of a non-sequitur, as it is thrown into the conversation almost at random and only for the purpose to create a surprise, which triggers humour. Thus the appearance of “Yee-Akaboo” in the episode “The Booted Gorilla” and in many other episodes later on is a good example of running jokes and catch phrases in The Goon Show . The constant repetition of this catch phrase increases the audience’s recognition of it and also demonstrates the development of a non-sense phrase into as a popular running joke, which can also be observed in the next example, the most popular representative of running jokes in The Goon Show :

- 91 -

• Ying Tong Iddle I Po

The famous non-sense utterance “Ying-Tong-Iddle-I-Po” developed into one of the audience’s favourite running jokes throughout The Goon Show . Moreover, “Ying-Tong-Iddle- I-Po” even entered England in 1956 and it was transformed into the popular “Ying Tong Song”: It was a hit in the UK on two occasions; its highest position was #3 in the UK charts in 1956, reaching a position of #9 when re-issued in 1973. It is a nonsense song, consisting of small verses interspersed by a completely nonsensical chorus. Secombe usually sang the lead vocals, accompanied by Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan, who would sing along as various Goon Show characters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ying_Tong_Song).

The way the catch-phrase “Ying Tong Iddle I Po” operates as a running joke in a dialogue can be observed in the following extract:

Grytpype: It means you've been chosen to go abroad with a packet of Risks and a small pot of tea Seagoon: For what reason? Grytpype: Reason? Does there have to be a reason? Seagoon: Ying-Tong-Iddle-I-Po (Extract from the episode “The Whistling Spy Enigma” broadcast on BBC Radio on September, 28 th 1954)

It can happen at any stage in a dialogue in The Goon Show that some character suddenly utters the phrase “Ying-Tong-Iddle-I-Po!”. This phrase can considered as nonsense, as it does not have any specific meaning or purpose. Due to this lack of a definite meaning it does not fit any particular situation or context and its occurrence is an excellent example of a non-sequitur since it breaks any continuity and congruity of a dialogue and represents a surprising incongruity whenever it occurs. This makes it a very effective trigger for humour explained by the Incongruity Theory. Referring to the success of The Goon Show , Harry Secombe once said: “Spike would make up something like “ying tong yiddle I poo" and you would go out in the street and hear somebody saying it. That was the part of it all that I found frightening. That kind of power is frightening, but it was very exciting” (Farnes, ed. 2003:101).

- 92 -

7. Conclusion

In this diploma thesis it was my aim to examine the mystery of the success of the Goon Show by analysing how their humour works. To explain the secret behind the success of the Goon Show on an academic basis, first the theoretical background how humour works is presented. Thus a close analysis of the three dominant theories of humour, The Superiority Theory, The Psychic Release Theory and The Incongruity Theory, is included in chapter 2. For the closer analysis of the two largest categories of humour in the Goon Show, Verbal Humour and Absurd Humour. Chapter 3 presents the linguistic mechanisms how humour is created through language, and chapter 4 is a close analysis of the philosophical, literary and linguistic phenomenon of the absurd. The background to the remaining two categories of humour, Radio-Specific Humour and Running Jokes, is included in chapter 5, which deals extensively with the history and characteristic features of the Goon Show. Among other topics this chapter presents the exploiting of conventions of radio broadcasting for humorous purposes and the extensive employment of running jokes and catch phrases in the Goon Show. The four categories, Verbal Humour, Absurd Humour Radio-Specific Humour and Running Jokes, are then in the centre of interest in the practical part of this thesis, the analysis of humorous extracts from the Goon Show in chapter 6. This chapter tries to answer the question how the humour in the Goon Show works. Thus the mechanisms of humour, presented in the previous chapters, will be applied to the selected extracts.

In the examples of Verbal Humour, analysed in chapter 6.1, the decisive effect of humour is a breaking of conventions known from the linguistic fields of Phonology, Morphology, Lexis, Syntax, Pragmatics and the phenomenon Slips of the Tongue. Moreover, these categories often work together to create humour by a quick succession of breaking various linguistic mechanisms soon after another, which are considered in the section “the interplay of various linguistic mechanisms in examples of verbal humour”. Exploiting one of these linguistic mechanisms to create a humorous ambiguity represents an incongruity to the audience’s expectation in order to create a surprise and therefore also humour.

The examples of the Analysis of Absurd Humour are based on two kinds of absurdness to create an unexpected incongruity for humorous purposes. In examples belonging to the

- 93 - category of absurdness of language and meaning the possibilities of meaning in language are altered and even broken to create an absurd piece of humour. Although the conventions of logic and common sense are expected by the audience to be followed in the dialogues, this expectation is frustrated deliberately to create humour. The second kind of absurdness is established by absurd concepts and situations. Although the Goon Show is a fictional radio comedy, the audience expects the situations, concepts and circumstances to be acted out in realistic terms within the episodes. This expectation is broken several times, when absurd situations and concepts are incorporated in the plot to create humour.

The next section, 6.3, is occupied with the creation of humour based on the conventions of radio drama. As a radio comedy the Goon Show incorporates dramatic elements such as the convention of the fourth wall and the discrepancy of awareness to keep up the dramatic illusion. These conventions and the dramatic illusion itself are often foregrounded or spoilt in extracts from the Goon Show. Sometimes the characters step out of their fictional world and speak in a kind of meta-level about the underlying conventions on which the dramatic illusion is built. The second kind of radio-specific humour is created upon the employment of sound effects in the Goon Show. In the Goon Show the characters sometimes step out of the fictional world of the episode and speak in a kind of meta-language about the conventions of using sound effects to create a humorous situation.

The fourth and last category of the analysis of humour puts the emphasis on the usage of running jokes in the Goon Show. Running Jokes are individual phrases or sentences which occurred as a central element in one episode and were transferred to other occasions to create a surprise and thus humour. Unsuitable remarks like these which occur unexpectedly in a dialogue can also called non-sequiturs can be called non-sequiturs. These non-sequiturs occur totally unmotivated as an universal statement independent from their former purpose, which creates a surprising effect in the audience, which triggers humour.

In addition to that, the analysis of humour in this chapter also deals with the question which of the three theories of humour can be applied best to the extracts of the Goon Show. As the Goon Show opted for a rather broad and non-topical approach to humour, politicians and people in higher positions are seldom the victims of mockery in their episodes.

- 94 - So the Superiority Theory of Humour is only applied in the form that there are weaker and stupid characters appearing, such as Eccles, Bluebottle and Seagoon. So the audience can feel superior to these characters who are often the victims of humour, and laugh at their weakness and stupidity. However, this form of humour based on the Superiority Theory occurs very often together with other mechanisms of humour. Thus exploiting the weaknesses of characters can be observed, but this appears in most cases only as an underlying condition and not the major trigger of humour.

In the times after the Second World War, the BBC radio channels were the dominant medium of information and entertainment and represented a moral instance, which sometimes operated with grave censorship in its programmes. Also the Goons, especially the script writer Spike Milligan, got involved in conflicts and arguments with the BBC authorities due to censorship- issues. So sexual references and jokes on taboo topics such as excrements and bodily functions had to be avoided in the Goon Show. As taboo topics are the main trigger for pieces of humour according to the Psychic Release Theory, this theory also plays an subordinate role in the production of humour in the Goon Show. However, sometimes the Goons managed to get in obscene comments and sexual references by ad-libbing or hiding them in telling names, such as “Hugh Jampton” which comes out in Cockney-slang, rhyming to “Hampton Wick” and further to “prick” (cf. Wilmut, Grafton 1981 :78).

So it is indeed the remaining theory of humour, the Incongruity Theory, on which most pieces of humour in the Goon Show are built. The technique of building up an expectation in the audience and destroying this by a sudden and unexpected occurrence of an incongruity to this expectation can be observed in most extracts. Thus it can be called the predominant method of creating humour.

To many people living in England in the 50s and 60s the Goon Show was one of the greatest cultural achievements of that time. However, the Goon Show is still repeated up to the present days on radio programmes such as BBC7 and all around the world. Thus it can be called the most successful radio programme of all times. Their incomparable success is a phenomenon up to the present days. This achievement on the field of comedy can also be perceived in later works such as those of the Monty Pythons. The Monty Python mastermind Terry Gilliam paid a huge tribute to Spike Milligan:

- 95 - “I never thanked him properly for opening the doors to English humour for me and being the illegitimate father of Python” (http://www.thegoonshow.net/tributes.asp). The Goons were indeed the pioneers of absurd humour and shaped the kind of humour for later generations up to now.

- 96 - 8 Abstract

It is the aim of this diploma thesis to unravel the mystery of the success of The Goon Show by analysing how the humour in it works. To unravel the secret behind the success of The Goon Show on an academic basis, first the theoretical background how humour works is presented. Thus a close analysis of the three dominant theories of humour, The Superiority Theory, The Psychic Release Theory and The Incongruity Theory, is included in chapter 2. For the closer analysis of the two largest categories of humour in The Goon Show , Verbal Humour and Absurd Humour, the mechanisms on which humour is created are presented in the chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 presents the linguistic mechanisms how humour is created through language, and chapter 4 is a close analysis of the philosophical and linguistic phenomenon of the absurd. The background to the remaining two categories of humour, Radio-Specific Humour and Running Jokes, is included in chapter 5, which deals extensively with the history and characteristic features of The Goon Show . Among other topics this chapter presents the way how the Goons exploit conventions of radio broadcasting and employ running jokes and catch phrases in The Goon Show . All four categories are then in the centre of interest in chapter 6, the practical analysis of humorous extracts from The Goon Show . In the analysis of Verbal Humour, the linguistic mechanisms, presented in chapter 3, will be applied on the examples of humour from The Goon Show . Moreover, the interplay of these linguistic mechanisms in the production of humour will be analysed in this section. Then the analysis of examples of humour focuses on the way the phenomenon of the absurd was exploited to create humour. The examples of the Analysis of Absurd Humour from chapter 6.2 are based on two kinds of absurdness; first the absurdness of language and meaning and the second the absurdness of concept and situation. The next section, the Analysis of Examples of Radio-specific Humour, is occupied with the creation of humour based on the conventions of radio drama and on the conventions concerning the usage of sound effects. The fourth and last category of analysing humour puts the emphasis on the usage of running jokes in The Goon Show . Besides the analysis of mechanisms of humour in the extracts, the question which of the three theories of humour is the most applicable to the extracts of The Goon Show is also considered in this chapter.

- 97 - All together, these four categories of humour represent the four pillars on which the success of The Goon Show is built. Thus the analysis of examples of humour in chapter 6 tries to answer most of the research questions and unravels the mystery behind the unequalled success of The Goon Show . Up to the present day The Goon Show is the most often repeated and therefore most popular radio programme in the world.

- 98 - 9 Deutsche Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Diplomarbeit hat es sich zum Ziel gesetzt dem einzigartigen Erfolg der britischen Hörspielkomödie The Goon Show mit wissenschaftlichen Mitteln auf den Grund zu gehen. Aus diesem Grund sind die Forschungsfragen, die dieser Arbeit zu Grunde liegen, eher global formuliert. Sie fragen nach den Mechanismen und Strukturen des Humors in der Hörspielkomödie und gehen der Frage nach welche der vorhandenen Humortheorien am Besten auf die humorvollen Beispiele angewandt werden können. Im großen und ganzen gliedert sich diese Diplomarbeit in einen theoretischen und einen empirischen Teil. Der theoretische Teil bildet die Grundlage für die spätere Analyse von Beispielen des Humors in Auszügen aus den Texten der Skripten. In Kapitel 2 werden nach einer Definition der Begriffe Humor, Lachen und Witz, die drei vorherrschenden Humortheorien präsentiert. Diese beinhalten die soziologischen Aspekte der Überlegenheitstheorie, ebenso wie die psychologischen Ansätze der Freisetzungstheorie und schließlich auch die Mechanismen der Inkongruenztheorie, um Humor hervorzurufen. Kapitel 3 und 4 befassen sich hierauf mit Mechanismen wie Humor auf der Grundlage von sprachlichen Mechanismen und der des Absurden generiert wird. Die sprachlichen Mechanismen decken dabei einige Felder der Linguistik wie Phonologie, Morphologie, Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik ab und analysieren auch so genannte sprachliche Fehlleistungen. Kapitel 4 hingegen dreht sich vollends um das Phänomen des Absurden und seine Auswirkungen auf Humor und bietet einen Überblick über die philosophischen und literarischen Ansätze des Absurden. Danach stellt Kapitel 5 eine Art Übergang vom theoretischen zum empirischen Teil der Arbeit dar. Im wesentlichen bietet es eine chronologische Übersicht der Ereignisse, die zum Erfolg der Hörspielkomödie The Goon Show beigetragen haben. Gleichzeitig beschreibt es jedoch die wesentlichen Charakteristika und das einzigartige Format der Sendung, was vor allem für die Analyse von Radiospezifischem Humor und den immer wiederkehrenden Witzen von Wichtigkeit sein wird. Damit sind dann alle Grundlagen für die Analyse der Beispiele von humorvollen Auszügen aus den Skripten der Sendung gelegt. Das gewählte Analysematerial wurde aus insgesamt 55 Sendungen zusammengetragen und für die Analyse in vier Kategorien eingeteilt: Sprachlicher Humor, Absurder Humor, Radiospezifischer Humor und fortlaufend wiederkehrende Witze.

- 99 - In Kapitel 6.1 werden die sprachlichen Mechanismen aus Kapitel 3 zur Analyse an Beispielen sprachlichen Humors angewandt. Kapitel 6.2 widmet sich der Art und Weise wie Humor auf der Grundlage des Absurden entsteht. Dies gründet sich auf zwei unterschiedliche Arten des Absurden, nämlich einer sprachlichen und einer, die auf Situationen und Konzepten beruht. Danach analysiert Kapitel 6.3 wie eine Art von Humor, die auf den Konventionen von Hörspielen im Radio beruht. Abschließend befasst sich die Analyse mit einer Eigenheit des Humors in der Hörspielserie The Goon Show , die man heutzutage aus Filmen und TV Serien kennt, nämlich den ständig wiederkehrenden Schlagwörtern und Witzen. Außerdem hat es sich die Analyse der Beispiele zur Aufgabe gesetzt, die Forschungsfrage auf welche der drei Humortheorien sich der Humor in der Goon Show begründet, zu beantworten. Zu diesem Zweck wird die grundlegende Art und Weise wie Humor in jedem Beispiel generiert wird am Ende der Analyse der Mechanismen, auf die der Humor in dem Beispiel beruht, rekapituliert. Die vier Kategorien aus Kapitel 6 bilden im übertragenen Sinn die Säulen auf denen der Erfolg der Goon Show ruht. Gerade in der Analyse der Beispiele in den vier Kategorien geht diese Arbeit dem einzigartigen Erfolg der Hörspielserie The Goon Show auf den Grund. Denn bis heute ist die Goon Show die am öftesten wiederholte und somit auch populärste Radiosendung der Welt.

- 100 -

10 Bibliography

Alexander, Ricard J. (1997) Aspects of Verbal Humour in English. Tübingen: Günther Narr Verlag

Archakis, Argiris and Villy Tsakona (2005). “Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor”. In: Attardto Salvatore,ed. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research. Volume 18, 41-68

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

Bergson, Henri (1989). Laughter : an Essay on the Meaning of the Comic [1900]. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

Cameron, Keith (1993). Humour and History. London: Intellect Books

Chiaro, Delia (1992). The Language of Jokes. Analysing Verbal Play. London: Routledge.

Cohn, Ruby (1990). “Introduction Around the Absurd” In: Brater, Enoch and Ruby Cohn (ed.) (1990). Around the absurd: essays on modern and postmodern drama . Michigan: University of Michigan Press

Critchley, Simon (2002). On Humour. London: Routledge

Esslin, Martin (1962). „Der Common Sense des Nonsense – Das Groteske im modernen angelsächsischen Drama“ In: Grimm, Esslin, Harder U. Völker (1962). Sinn oder Unsinn. Basel, Stuttgart: Basilius Presse

Esslin, Martin (1968). The Theatre of the Absurd. Revised and enlarged edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

- 101 - Farnes, Norma, ed. (2003): The Goons: The Story. London: Virgin Publishing

Fromkin, Victoria and Robert Rodman (1978) An Introduction to Language. Second Edition. Great Britain: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Freud, Sigmund (1958). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten. [1905]. Frankfurt: Fischer Bücherei.

Hardcastle, Gary L. and George A. Reisch, ed. (2006). Monty Python and Philosophy. Nudge Nudge, Think Think! Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company

Heidsieck, Arnold (1971). Das Groteske und das Absurde im modernen Drama . Zweite, unveränderte Auflage. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz: W. Kohlhammer

Kastrun, Gerhild (2007) Diploma thesis: Shaking the foundations : a linguistic analysis of iconoclastic humour in British drama and film in the 1960's and 1970's Graz: Geisteswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Karl Franzens Universität Graz

Nünning, Vera and Ansgar (2001). Grundkurs anglistisch-amerikatistische Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag

Moore, Timothy J. (1998). “Introduction” (p.I-II) The theatre of Plautus – Playing to the audience. Texas:University Press

Palmer, Jerry (1987). The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy. Ed. Ray Carpenter. London: British Film Institute

Pfister, Manfred (2002). A history of English laughter: laughter from Beowulf to Beckett and beyond. ed. Manfred Pfister. Amsterdam: Rodopi

- 102 - Raskin, Victor (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Ross, Alison (1998). The Language of Humour. London:Routledge.

Searle, John (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: University Press

Stott, Andrew (2005). Comedy – the new critical idiom. New York: Routledge.

Wilmut, Roger; Jimmy Grafton (1976). "A Goonography", The Goon Show Companion - A History and Goonography. London: Robson Books,

Yule, George (1996). The Study of Language. 2nd edition Cambridge: CUP.

Webliography: Dictionary.com ”joke” “absurd” [Online] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd [2008 October, 25]

Dictionary.com "anaphoric“, „cataphoric" [Online] in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition . Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anaphoric http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cataphoric. [2009, July 1]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2008). [Online] http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/humor[1], [2008, November 21]

Krikuman, Arvo (2004). “Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour”. [Online]. http://www.folklore.ee/~kriku/HUUMOR/Nlj_lingtheor.pdf [2008, October 25]

- 103 - Krichtafovitch, Igor (2006). “Humor Theory: Formula of Laughter” [Online] http://www.humortheory.com/english/index.html [2008, October 29]

Inskip, Lee , ed. (2003). “Scripts”, “Cast”, “Characters” , “Tributes” The Goon Show Site [Online] Pythonline Daily lama.http://www.thegoonshow.net/, http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts.asp, http://www.thegoonshow.net/cast.asp, http://www.thegoonshow.net/characters.asp http://www.thegoonshow.net/tributes.asp [2008, October 29]

Wikipedia (2009). “Laughter”, “Pragmatics”, “Freudian Slip”, “Nonce Words” [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_word [2009, February 20]

Electronic Sources: “Collins Cobuild on CDRom” (2003). [CD-ROM] Software: Lingea ldt. Publishers: Harper Collins

“Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Edition)” (2004). [CD-ROM] Software: Tony Smith. Oxford University Press

- 104 -