Working Title: Investigating Humor as Rhetoric in the Geographical-winning Toastmasters’

Speeches

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Abstract

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of Study

1.1.1 Toastmasters International

1.1.2 Humor at Toastmasters

1.1.3 Rhetoric at Toastmasters

1.2 Overview Scope of Project

1.2.1 Research Gaps

1.2.2 Research Question

1.2.3 Synopsis of Methodology

1.2.4 Significances of Study

1.3 Summary

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Outlining Rhetoric

2.1.1 Key Theories of Rhetoric

2.1.1.1 The Three Rhetorical Appeals

2.1.1.2 The Five Canons of Rhetoric

2.1.1.3 Rhetorical Dramatism

2.1.2 Defining Rhetoric

2.2 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor

2.2.1 Key Perspectives of Humor

2.2.1.1 Humor Is Psychological

2.2.1.2 Humor Is Language

2.2.1.3 Humor Is Sociological

2.2.2 Defining Humor

2.2.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor

2.3 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Laughter

2.3.1 Key Perspectives of Laughter

2.3.1.1 Laughter Is Physiological

2.3.1.2 Laughter Is Social

2.3.1.3 Laughter Is Communicative

2.3.2 Defining Laughter

2.3.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Laughter

2.4 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor Techniques

2.4.1 Key Taxonomies of Humor Techniques

2.4.1.1 The 45 Humor Techniques (within 4 categories)

in Verbal Narratives

2.4.1.2 The 41 Humor Techniques (within 7 categories)

in Audiovisual Media

2.4.1.3 The 41 Humor Devices (within 10 categories)

in Advertisement Commercials

2.4.2 Defining Humor through Techniques

2.4.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor Techniques

2.5 Summary

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 A Physiological Emphasis on Humor

3.2 A Parsimonious Emphasis on Analysis

3.3 Aristotle’s Rhetoric of Ethos, Logos, Pathos

3.4 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin, 1991)

3.5 Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) Typology of Audiovisual Humor

3.6 Presenting the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as an Analytical Tool

3.7 Summary

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 The Corpus

4.2 Humor-Rhetoric Scrutiny

4.2.1 Laughter Duration

4.2.2 Target (TA)

4.2.3 Situation (SI)

4.2.4 Narrative Strategy (NS)

4.2.5 Rhetoric Mode

4.2.6 Overall

4.3 A Pilot Illustration

4.4 Summary

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1 Further Theoretical Contributions

5.2.1 Introducing the Two Domineering Epideictic Humor Rhetoric

Speech Styles

5.2.2 Data-Validated Cross-Geographical Humor Rhetoric Examination

5.2.3 A Data-Grounded Typology of Public-Speaking Humor Techniques

(within higher order categories of public-speaking humor)

5.2 Projected Timeline for Completion

5.3 Summary

References

Appendices

ABSTRACT

Toastmasters International is a non-profit educational organization that presently

operates across 135 countries with the mission of helping members improve

their communication, public-speaking, and leadership skills ("Welcome to

Toastmasters International", 2015). For the program year of July 2014 to June 2015,

there was a total of 696,422 memberships paid to the 15,406 Toastmasters clubs

worldwide ("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015). Each year, Toastmasters

from all over the world compete in the Annual Toastmasters International Speech

Contest. To be conferred as a World Champion of Public Speaking, a Toastmasters

member has to win six consecutive levels of Toastmasters public speech contests: (i)

the Club level, (ii) the Area level, (iii) the Division level, (iv) the District level, (v)

the Inter-District Semifinals and (vi) the Inter-District Finals. Throughout all six

levels of the Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest, the competitive

speeches must be delivered in English. Contest rules and procedures are also

standardized across all six levels with a similar set of judging criteria for speeches.

The present project selects a corpus of 506 Toastmasters’ speeches internationally

presented at the Inter-District stage from 2012 to 2016 for humor rhetoric

investigation. For this project, humor is delimited to audible laughter. If a crafted

humor receives no audible laughter from the large audience, it is asserted that the

presented incongruity is not a humorous rhetoric for analysis in this study. For every

speech in the corpus (approximately seven minutes each), all naturalistic laughter

from the audience will be objectively recorded in terms of seconds. Specifically,

three hypotheses will be examined.

H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience

laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical-winning Toastmasters’

speeches.

H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a

geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speech.

H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles –

Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of

a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of

entertaining to impact thinking).

Additionally, the humor rhetoric at every laughter point will be typologically

analyzed in terms of Target (TA), Situation (SI), Narrative Strategy (NS) and

rhetoric. Humor rhetoric scrutiny in this project is theoretically guided by Aristotle’s

Ethos, Logos, Pathos, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin,

1991), and Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) typology of audiovisual humor. Through

synthesizing the observed TA, SI, NA and rhetoric in terms of general trends and

specific notability, this project aims to explicate with as much concrete

substantiation how humor rhetoric is applied in the winning Toastmasters’ speeches.

Inherently, the emitting findings bring important, practical implications for

extrapolation to other settings of communication.

Further theoretical contributions of this doctoral dissertation will be based

objectively on the findings of Phase 1 (as described above). If there is statistical

evidence for H3, I will select two exemplars to qualitatively elucidate how humor is

woven semantically, visually and acoustically as rhetoric for each respective style of

a winning Toastmasters speech. If there is any illuminating evidence of cross-

geographical differences, I will incorporate cross-geographical discussion that is

strongly data-validated. In addition, I aim to contribute a data-grounded typology of

public-speaking humor techniques, likewise to Buijzen & Valkenburg (2004), where

proposed higher order categories of public-speaking humor are objectively based on

principle-component analysis.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of Study

Relishing humor is what I have always gravitated towards. When I was a young

child, it was comedy-related television shows that fervently enthralled me. For

example, I would watch Mr. Bean over and over again. During middle school and

high school years, peers that I chose actively to spend time with were the playful

buffoons. During undergraduate days, I selected my exchange university based

solely on whether it offered the rare Psychology of Humor module. At that particular

exchange university (University of Western Ontario), I experienced for the first time

the organization of a campus Comedy Club - where members meet twice weekly to

do improvisation fun for shared laughter. I was entirely captivated and immersed in

all their humor antics. During graduate education, I committed strongly to do

narrative research but somehow veered towards humor studies. When internet

surfing, what I consistently indulge in are meme portals (e.g. 9gag.com) and parody

news (e.g. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart). This attraction to humor has been

perpetual over the course of my life narrative. I searched my soul for deep possible

reasons. I did not had an overly-serious upbringing nor childhood ordeals of being

severely ridiculed for humor to emerge as a defense mechanism. Neither had I ever

felt the necessity to rely on humor to be liked by others. I am not particularly

talented in joke-creating too or in manipulating my voice for comic effect. Based on

self-awareness, the most plausible reason that I can conjecture is that biologically, I

may be relatively releasing more oxytocin and dopamine when experiencing humor

versus doing other activities (e.g. painting, drawing, cooking).

The affection towards rhetoric is whereas environmentally developed. During my

military deployment in 2008, I was inspired by my platoon commander who was an

ardor orator, motivating a motley crew of us to serve altruistically with passion.

Along the same time period, I was also exposed to the charismatic speaking delivery

of Barack Obama. Words said and how they are articulated have the power to alter

minds. What and how one speaks is vital for personal influence. As such, upon

entering university in 2010, I joined Toastmasters to shape myself as an orator. After

five years of ordinary commitment, being artful is speaking is still not something

that comes instinctive to me. I struggle at times to find the precise words in the

moment and to deliver with conviction. However, I am still devoted to mastering

and advocating the craft of oral rhetoric. I believe with a wholehearted dogma that it

is important for every single person to somewhat experience personally a degree of

competency in rhetoric. This is not just for the benevolent intention of achieving the

skillset to effectively inspire humanity, but also for the experiential attentiveness

toward the copious rhetorical attempts of others.

It is my innate interest in humor and environmental influence of rhetoric and

Toastmasters that drive this dissertational foray into investigating rhetoric humor at

Toastmasters. What follows to foreground this study is a description of Toastmasters

International, followed by an exposition of how pertinent the humor and rhetorical

component are at a Toastmasters speech community.

1.1.1 Toastmasters International

Toastmasters International is a non-profit educational organization that presently

operates across 135 countries with the mission of helping members improve

their communication, public-speaking, and leadership skills ("Welcome to

Toastmasters International", 2015). Through its thousands of member clubs,

Toastmasters International offers a program of communication and leadership

projects designed to help people develop the arts of speaking, listening, and

thinking. Since 1924, Toastmasters International has been a structured platform

serving to train its members to be more effective leaders and communicators.

According to the February 2015 CEO Report issued by Toastmasters World

Headquarters, the member demographics at Toastmasters are characterized by

gender balance (52.7% female), higher education (76.7% hold at least a Bachelor’s

degree), high earners (29.6% have an annual income of at least USD$100, 000) and

a mature participation (24.7% are within ages 45 to 54 and 29.5% are at least age

55). Global positioning and annual membership numbers are also expanding with an

upward trajectory. Membership has grown consecutively every year since 1993

(Toastmasters CEO Report, 2015). The membership expansion of Toastmasters

International in the most recent seven years is capsulized in Table 1, where the

numbers are obtained from its publicly-accessible statistical management database

("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015).

Table 1: The Membership Expansion of Toastmasters International from 2008-2015

Program Year Total Paid Memberships Number of Toastmasters Clubs

1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 519,772 12,035

1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 543,680 12,505

1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 568,705 13,078

1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 587,685 13,606

1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 612,724 14,085

1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 656,942 14,678

1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 696,422 15,406

Numbers obtained from http://dashboards.toastmasters.org/

At the societal level, it is “the demand in the marketplace for strong leaders and

speakers" that perpetuates the growth figures for Toastmasters International

(“Toastmasters Mediacenter”, 2014a). At the ground level, it is the positive and

supportive environment to constructively nurture public-speaking experiences which

appeals to members. A typical club meeting at the individual Toastmasters clubs

customarily consists three segments: (i) Prepared Speaking, (ii) Improvisatory

Speaking and (iii) Evaluations. In the Prepared Speaking section of the meeting,

members give a prepared presentation of a speech that the speaker crafts to meet

specific speech objectives (such as to inspire, to persuade or to entertain the

audience). In the Improvisatory Speaking section (labelled as table topics), members

are called on to speak extemporaneously to train quick organization of thoughts and

response eloquence to an impromptu question or topic. In the Evaluations section,

members who are pre-selected to be speech evaluators articulate (for two to three

minutes) an evaluative analysis of each prepared speech. It is customary as well to

have a General Evaluator to sharply comment on the language use of all members in

the session, which includes the orate performance of the table topics speakers and

the speech evaluators. As such, the Toastmasters organizational model stimulates

members to communicate with excellence through a participatory, social atmosphere

(Blanding, 1957). Even when the modernized world inundates with captivating

alternatives, Toastmasters International is able to retain its appeal as it offers an

encouraging community for members to experientially do quality communication.

As at 30 June 2015, Toastmasters International has burgeoned to 15,406

Toastmasters Clubs world-wide, where all clubs are presently divided into 96

Districts ("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015). Districts in Toastmasters

are geographically-bounded (Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 18). For

example, District 67 covers all 170 Toastmasters Clubs in Japan, while District 80

covers all 208 Toastmasters Clubs in Singapore. Each geographical District in

Toastmasters is sub-divided into Divisions and Areas that tend to be geographically-

guided as well for the most favorable network community support. In accordance to

the 2015 District Leadership Handbook, for every Area, there must consist four to

six Toastmasters Clubs. For every Division, there must consist at least three Areas

(whereby in practice, there are typically four to eight areas/division). For every

District, there must consist at least three Divisions (whereby in practice, there are

typically six to ten divisions/district). Each District must organize two District

conferences every year that are directed to be in October/November and April/May

(Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 23-24).

At the District conferences, speech contests are essential as they attract members and

guests to the event (Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 88). Guided by

standardized rulebooks updated annually, there are five official speech contests for

Districts to conduct: (i) International Speech Contest, (ii) Humorous Speech Contest,

(iii) Tall Tales Speech Contest, (iv) Table Topics Speech Contest and (v) Evaluation

Speech Contest. All speech contests begin at the Club level, before proceeding to the

Area, Division, District level. As stated in the Speech Contest Rulebook for the

program year 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016:

“The Speech Contest Rulebook is protocol and applies to all official

Toastmasters speech contests. Modifications to rules may only be made

through the administrative protocol review process. Exceptions shall not be

permitted.”

It is mandatory for all Districts to conduct the International Speech Contest

(Toastmasters International, 2015, p. 167). All speeches for the International Speech

Contest are to be presented in English, where a contestant is automatically

disqualified if the speech is less than four minutes 30 seconds or more than seven

minutes 30 seconds. Judging criteria to determine the winner is standardized to be

based on speech development, content effectiveness, speech value, delivery and

language (specific details are shown in Appendix 1). The International Speech

Contest is the only speech contest that goes beyond the District level, where the

winner of each District compete on an International stage in the Inter-District

Semifinals. The winner of each Semifinals then proceeds to the Inter-District Finals

(officially branded as the World Championship of Public Speaking). There are to be

a minimum of five voting judges at the Club and Area levels, a minimum of seven

voting judges at the Division and District levels, a minimum of nine voting judges at

the Inter-District Semifinals and 14 voting judges at the Inter-District Finals. At all

levels of the competition, a contestant is disqualified if the speech presented is not

substantially original. A speech is defined to be substantially original if at least 75%

of what is presented is originally conceptualized by the speaker. Contestants are

permitted to use the same speech throughout the first five levels (i.e. Club, Area,

Division, District and Inter-District Semifinals). At the Inter-District Finals,

contestants must present a speech that has not already been presented at a

Toastmasters International Speech Contest since January 1 of that same year. This

means that substantially original speeches that contestants have crafted, rehearsed

and performed in previous years are allowed.

The International Speech Contest is the quintessential aspect of the Toastmasters

institution. To represent a geographical District and present a speech at the Inter-

District Semifinals is a stringent process. A speaker has to consecutively win at all

four levels of Toastmasters speech contests in the same year – (i) Club, (ii) Area,

(iii) Division and (iv) District. Rigorous competition is what spurs the standard of

delivering a compelling speech. The convention regulating the Inter-District

Semifinals and Finals to crown the World Champion of Public Speaking annually is

the hallmark event of Toastmasters. It attracts media attention, affiliates thousands

of Toastmasters across the globe to come together, and provokes innumerable

knowledge experiences. Beginning from 2012, all convention speeches made at the

Inter-District Semifinals and Finals are publicly available for immediate viewing

upon purchase. This project will only analyze speeches made at the Inter-District

Semifinals and Finals as they are the best exemplification of Toastmasters.

1.1.2 Rhetoric at Toastmasters

“Rhetoric is the art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either

spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that

audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” (Corbett, 1990, p. 3).

Artful oration to inform, persuade, and motivate audiences is the fundamental

emphasis of Toastmasters speeches. The entire structure of the institution gears its

members to experience public-speaking rhetoric. Chiefly, rhetorical awareness is

accomplished through the Evaluations section of every club meeting. Prepared

speeches are evaluated publicly by assigned evaluators on whether the purpose of

the speech is met and how the effectiveness of the speech can be enhanced. This

indoctrinated pedagogy brings salience not just to the speaker directly, but to the

audience as well on effective speaking.

To inform, persuade and motivate audiences are the functions of rhetoric. Regarding

typologies, Aristotle (in Rhetoric I as translated by Cope & Sandys, 2010a) divided

oratory into three branches of rhetoric: forensic, deliberative, epideictic. Forensic

rhetoric encompasses the legal oratory of past actions, through the means of

accusation and defense. Deliberative rhetoric comprises the legislative oratory of

future events, through the means of persuasion and dissuasion. Epideictic rhetoric

constitutes the ceremonial oratory of present time, through the means of praise and

blame. Although all three branches of oratory rhetoric can emanate in any

Toastmasters speech, it is the epideictic genre of rhetoric that is predominant. The

historical underpin of the name Toastmaster refers to a well-adored person who give

toasts at banquets and other ceremonial occasions (“Toastmasters History”, 2015).

At the Toastmasters setting, epideictic rhetoric of the present ceremony is

emphasized, be it to be in a demarcate setting of a eulogy or a jubilee. The primary

concern of an effective ceremonial orator is the present, in view of the state of things

existing at the time (Cope & Sandys, 2010a, p. 8). What is emphasized at

Toastmasters is the rhetoric moment-to-moment connection with the audience in

relation to what your purpose of speaking is at the setting.

When compared to other settings of public-speaking (e.g. informative lectures, TED

talks, and technical presentations), the purpose of Toastmasters speeches is less so

on giving valid information. In contrast to a corporate presentation genre that has

more necessity for objectivity and truth, room for poetic license is allowed at

Toastmasters. The narrating of first-person stories is the prevailing institutional

norm. Presenting a secondhand story, in itself, loses some of its immediacy

(Business Insider, 2015). It is commonplace for Toastmasters, especially at the

competitive level, to adjust stories and convey them in a first-person manner to

accentuate their message. Informing, persuading and motivating are the means of

which inspiring is the goal. Specifically, to inspire through personal narratives

(which may not necessarily be based on complete truths) is the characteristic

approach in Toastmasters speeches. The rhetor narrates either one richly-detailed

story or a series of connected stories for the purpose of inspiring crafted aims.

In particular, the quest for rhetoric perfection (in the performative seven minutes) is

most evident at the Inter-District stage. Neil Han, a Distinguished Toastmasters

(DTM), who had served as Club president, Area governor, Division Governor and

assistant District Governor in District 80 (Singapore), remarked that rhetoric is less

conspicuous at the beginner level, but more deliberate and intentional at the expert

level (personal communication, August 22, 2015). He noted how finalists, who are

non-Americans, adapted their accent to perform with an American inflection but

reverted back to their native accent during interviews (Han, personal

communication, August 22, 2015). Unlike a lax novice, a committed speaker is

mindful about the influence of every word, action and articulation when performing

onstage. The field of the contest includes professional-career speakers and speech

coaches. Competition at the Inter-District stage is serious as it mainly comprise

seasoned speakers, striving for the accolade to advance their credibility. Moreover,

Districts prepare its representative intensively. Constructive support, feedback and

encouragement are provided, which include invitations to multiple clubs within the

District to present and fine-tune the speech. In a sit-down interview, Mun Ng, the

2013 Founder’s District representative, revealed how he “re-watched countless past

champion speeches” given to him, “practiced over 200 times the same speech” and

had senior mentors go through “line by line by line to refine his speech” (Founder’s

District, 2013; OC Register, 2013). A District-representing Toastmasters speech

internationally presented at the Inter-District stage is a performance that is

thoroughly-prepared and well-rehearsed. Each line and sequencing of delivery is

strategically crafted. The manifested oral art of informing, persuading, motivating is

explicitly rhetoric in the judging ballot for the goal of inspiring.

1.1.3 Humor at Toastmasters

To be humorous when speaking publicly is not easy (Axtell, 1992, p. 84). It requires

an intricate sense of how to tell a joke, where the timing has to be incisive (Axtell,

1992, p. 90). Not only must the content and delivery evoke laughter, humor needs to

be appropriately sensitive to the audience (Morreale, 2010, p. 73). Humor poorly

executed or fundamentally offensive can backfire and erode the credibility of a

speaker (Livingston, 2010, p. 121). Nonetheless, humor when artfully applied can

increase the likeability of a speaker (Conkell, Imwold, & Ratliffe, 1999, p. 8), arouse

interest and keep attention (Grimes, 1955b, p. 247), unify the audience (Rutter,

1997, p. 182), disarm hostility and skepticism (Ross, 1998, p. 7), and reinforce the

message (Nicola, 2010, p. 295). Weaving humor that resonates into a public speech

bear beneficial impacts for both the speaker and the audience (Dynel, 2013, p. 62).

This importance and difficulty of incorporating humor in public-speaking is acutely

recognized by Toastmasters International. Through conscientious arrangements by

the institution, members are challenged to be effective in their application of humor

when speaking publicly. For example, there are 10 advanced speech projects for

members to undertake on “Humorously Speaking” and “The Entertaining Speaker”

to pursue competence in public-speaking humor. The reaction of the audience is the

paramount indicator for which these project speeches are evaluated on. In addition,

Humorous Speech Contests are regularly coordinated by the 96 Districts. As an

illustration, District 80 (Singapore) manages a Humorous Speech Contest every year

in October/ November. I have attended in-person four District-level Humorous

Speech Contests in Singapore, as well as served as a judge at the Club, Area and

Division level several times. Unlike the International Speech Contest, the statuary

judging ballot of the Humorous Speech Contest includes audience’s laughter as a

major criterion component. Orated humor has to resonate with the audience. As

directed by the judging doctrine, the entertainment value of the speech is just as

important as the inspirational value of the speech.

Governed by the celebratory discourse undertone, where a hopeful mood is

convention over a somber or combative atmosphere, humor in Toastmasters

speeches is predominately clean and constructive towards a meaningful message.

Divisive and discriminatory jokes related to nationalities, race, sex, religion and

politics are avoided. The type of jokes at Toastmasters prevailingly relates to family,

health, dating, work and ageing. Internal jokes about Toastmasters are also pervasive

for a sense of socially-situated identity. The socially encouraging and informal

setting of Toastmasters is supportive towards an audience eager to laugh. This is in

contrast to more formal, serious public-speech settings (e.g. at parliament, at

religious congregation or at a dissertation defense) where making the audience laugh

should not be of a forefront aim.

Especially at a Toastmasters public-speech setting, injecting humor when telling

personal stories to make the audience laugh and yet receive a valuable message at

the same time is desired. When legal attorney David Henderson in his first attempt

won 6 straight speech contests to be the 2010 World Champion of Public-Speaking,

he purported that “the one thing a speaker must do to win Toastmasters speech

contests is to make people laugh”. An emotional response is generated when the

audience laugh, which places the hearer in a positive mood to be more convinced by

a speaker’s rhetorics (Donovan, 2012). Humor is not explicitly required in the

judging ballot of the International Speech Contest. However, humor is one of the

most potent rhetorical tool an orator can employ to augment speech effectiveness.

Heartfelt laughter brings therapeutic effects (Goldstein, Fry, & Salameh, 1987);

resonating humor enhance the rhetorics of a speech when good feelings are

generated. At the competitive Inter-District level, humor is implicitly necessary.

Toastmasters from all over the world willingly commit money and time to be

physically present at the International Convention for the experiential feelings of

empowerment. Humor that resonates is a means to the goal of stimulating in the live

audience meaningful ideas.

1.2 Overview Scope of Project

Each year, tens of thousands of Toastmasters from all over the world compete in the

Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest – which is also recognized as the

largest public-speaking competition globally. To be conferred as a World Champion

of Public Speaking, a Toastmasters member has to win six consecutive levels of

Toastmasters public speech contests: (i) the Club level, (ii) the Area level, (iii) the

Division level, (iv) the District level, (v) the Inter-District Semifinals and (vi) the

Inter-District Finals. Throughout all six levels of the Annual Toastmasters

International Speech Contest, the competitive speeches must be delivered in English.

Contest rules and procedures are also standardized across all six levels with a similar

set of judging criteria for speeches. Rhetoric (i.e. artful oration to inspire) is

explicitly required. Humor (i.e. making the audience laugh) whereas is implicitly

required. This project selects a corpus of 506 Toastmasters’ speeches internationally

presented at the Inter-District stage from 2012 to 2016 for humor rhetoric

investigation. In this section, I will make plain the research gaps, the overarching

research question, and give a synopsis of the methodology before expressing the

significances of the project.

1.2.1 Research Gaps

Academic research regarding Toastmasters has been far and few. Currently, there

has only been five published academic papers involving it. Two are passé

commentaries while three are empirical research papers. In terms of academic

commentary, Blanding (1957) published in Today's Speech a three-page account of

how Toastmasters is an effective approach to develop communication skills.

Blanding was writing from his capacity as the Executive Secretary of Toastmasters

International, when he presented the history of the movement and how Toastmasters

produce self-education in speech. Boyd (1975) published in The Speech Teacher a

two-page account of the insights he received from being involved in a Toastmasters

community versus a Dale Carnegie course of effective speaking. Boyd concluded

that both approaches have their respective weaknesses and beneficial aspects. Thirty

years after Boyd’s (1975) paper, three published empirical research papers emerged.

First, Nordin and Shaari (2005) published in The English Teacher the findings from

implementing a series of Toastmasters meetings to a classroom of second language

(L2) learners in Malaysia. The results indicated that the Toastmasters format of

pedagogy is useful to help L2 learners (n = 65) enhance speaking skills. Second, Yu-

Chih (2008) published in Regional Language Center Journal the findings from

incorporating the Toastmasters format to an EFL (English as Foreign Language)

oral-communication class in Taiwan. Self-reports of students (n = 18) indicated

improvement in English language and public-speaking proficiency, as well as in

social and affective skills. Yu-Chih discussed how the Toastmasters approach gives

an authentic student-centered learning environment which stimulates cooperative

and autonomous learning. Third, Hsu (2011) published in International Journal of

Research Studies in Education that campus Toastmasters clubs enhance its student

members' global awareness. Hsu selected a focus group of 60 Toastmasters student

members from 20 college Toastmasters clubs in Taiwan to elucidate how the

cooperative structure of Toastmasters facilitates the promotion of globalization and

internationalization views. Appropriately, the pronounced global appeal of

Toastmasters International is evident. In the space of the most recent four years,

Toastmasters International has expanded its presence from 116 countries (in 2012)

to 126 countries (in 2014) and now to 135 counties (in 2015). The paucity of

academic attention to Toastmasters is unbefitting. The three published empirical

research papers involving Toastmasters were all based at a school setting. Students

were asked for their views or the Toastmasters pedagogy was incorporated into an

existing teaching format. It is imperative to note that students only form 3.9% of the

member demographics at Toastmasters (Toastmasters CEO Report, 2015). 74.5% of

members in Toastmasters are at least 35 years old and 82.9% of members are

working professionals in society. As such, this dissertation intends to provide a more

naturalistic research that befits Toastmasters. It will contribute a valuable academic

study while extending the empirical literature involving Toastmasters.

Secondly, humor and rhetoric on its own are widely studied. There are 1.4 million

and 1.5 million scholarly results for ‘humor’ and ‘rhetoric’ respectively on Google

Scholar search. However, the research integrating humor and rhetoric are

comparatively minute. In the specific research realm of humor rhetoric, less

empirical attention is invested towards the oral humor rhetoric compared to the

written humor rhetoric, even when the orated modality has a more influential reach

(insert citation). Explication of the relevant literature is detailed in Chapter Two.

Besides, public speaking to inform and persuade have been the emphasis of most

rhetoric research (see Corbett, & Connors, 1965; Rowan, 1994; Kaur, 2014). Public

speaking to both entertain and inspire has however been less empirically

investigated. This project aims to dissect how entertaining (through humor) is

rhetorical to inform, persuade, motivate and inspire. Principally, important

exploration in the niche research of epideictic humor rhetoric will be provided by

this project.

Moreover…

I will present examples of flawed research here - to argue that my research is

necessary to fix the problem.

(Cogitated theory is divergent from applied practice)

- Universally, it is better to be non-humorous to be taken seriously

- A good leader is serious and non-humorous. Eg: Japan, China.

- Being perceived as a funny person is not the best way to inspire. Humor is

trivial, unimportant.

Furthermore…

I will present examples of conflicting research here - to argue that my research is

necessary to resolve the problem.

(Different practical settings bring different inferences)

In summary, the proposed project will (1) contribute a naturalistic academic study to

extend the empirical literature involving Toastmasters, (2) provide valuable

exploration in the niche research of epideictic humor rhetoric, (3) redress the

pertinent theory-practice literature debate, and (4) give the first extensive data-

grounded examination to an applied practical setting of a global public-speaking

competition.

+ (5) Explores clean, constructive humor, instead of vulgar, divisive humor (e.g. at

standup bars, satirical humor) – inadequate research attention to constructive humor

+ Provide illustrations of emotional (pathos) humor – which is rarely studied in

academia. Vs incongruity due to logic play – logos humor.

[Comment: I will return to writing the research gaps and significances after

completing the literature review chapter.]

1.2.2 Research Question

This dissertation focuses on the overarching research question: How is humor

employed as rhetoric in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speeches. There are

three key elements: (i) humor, (ii) rhetoric, (iii) geographical-winning Toastmasters’

speeches and three latent premises to this research inquest:

(A) There is rhetoric in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speeches.

(B) There is humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speeches.

(C) The humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speeches is rhetoric.

In this project, humor is defined as the physiological experience of mirth, brought by

appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity, presented through semantic,

acoustic and/or visual play [See Segment 2.2.2 for the literature basis of this

definition]. Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of ethos, logos, pathos to inform,

persuade, or motivate specific audiences [See Segment 2.1.2 for the literature basis

of this definition]. A geographical1-winning Toastmaster’s speech is defined as a

speech presented by a Toastmaster District winner at the International Inter-District

Semifinals or Finals. [See Segment 1.1.1].

[1Note that the term ‘geographical’ is mostly interchangeable with the term ‘district’ as

districts are geographical-based. However, I tend to use the label ‘geographical’ because I

will be doing posterior analysis of geographical differences, not district differences (e.g. the

geography of India consists of Districts 41, 82, 92 and 98, see Appendix 2:

https://www.toastmasters.org/~/media/B9916EB493F34B499659AACFDB356696.ashx) ]

Premise A states that rhetoric is present in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’

speeches. This is justified to be a truth, since it is explicit in the judging criteria for

the speech to be centered on a purpose through the orator’s delivery and choice of

language. In the first place, it is unimaginable for a speech that is seven minutes long

to not have any form of rhetoric. In a competitive speech representing a

Toastmasters District at the Inter-District stage, it is irrefutable that rhetoric to

inform, persuade or motivate the audience is embroiled in the presented speech.

Premise B states that humor is present in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’

speeches. I cannot specify this to be a definitive truth as a speech can be devoid of

humor yet impactful to the audience. However, I assert Premise B to be an

acceptable proposition to work with in this project because the environmental press

of Toastmasters implicitly expects humor. The Toastmasters audience voluntarily

invested time, energy, money to be physically there for the social element of feeling

empowered and being entertained. A serious speech, with no laughter points, can

depress or bore the Toastmasters audience. Especially in a competitive speech on the

Inter-District stage, applying humor to stimulate the audience with ideas and a sense

of hope is presupposed.

Premise C states that humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speeches is

rhetoric. To justify whether a humor is rhetoric or not is completely opinion-based,

which in itself cannot be proven or disproven. As such, Premise C can never be a

definitive truth. However, I assert humor as rhetoric to be a reasonable working

proposition in the context of this project. A District-representing Toastmasters

speech internationally presented at the Inter-District stage is a performance that is

thoroughly-prepared and well-rehearsed. Each line and sequencing of delivery is

strategically crafted. This includes the layering of any punchlines. Humor employed

is rhetoric when it emphasizes errors in our logic and reasoning (logos), when it

appeals to our emotion and feelings (pathos), and when it endears us to the orator’s

character for likeability and trust (ethos).

The foundation of addressing the research question is therefore inductive reasoning.

Throughout this project, I am not deductively arguing for definitive truths, but

inductively reasoning how humor is employed as rhetoric in quintessential

Toastmasters’ speeches. This project assumes humor is rhetoric to illustrate how

humor is rhetoric.

1.2.3 Synopsis of Methodology

A corpus of 506 Toastmasters’ speeches presented at the Semifinals and Finals of

the 2012 to 2016 Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest will be selected

for humor rhetoric investigation. For this project, humor is delimited to audible

laughter. If a crafted humor received no audible laughter from the large audience, it

is specified that the joke presented is not a humorous rhetoric for analysis in this

study. For every speech in the corpus (approximately seven minutes each), all

naturalistic laughter from the audience will be objectively recorded in terms of

seconds. Specifically, three hypotheses will be examined.

H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience

laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical winning Toastmasters’

speeches.

H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a

geographical winning Toastmasters’ speech.

H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles –

Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of

a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of

entertaining to impact thinking).

Additionally, the humor rhetoric at every laughter point will be typologically

analyzed in terms of Target (TA), Situation (SI), Narrative Strategy (NA) and

rhetoric. Humor rhetoric scrutiny in this project is theoretically guided by Aristotle’s

Ethos, Logos, Pathos, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin,

1991), and Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) typology of audiovisual humor. Through

synthesizing the observed TA, SI, NA and rhetoric in terms of general trends and

specific notability, this project aims to explicate with as much concrete

substantiation how humor rhetoric is applied in the winning Toastmasters’ speeches.

1.2.4 Significances of Study

1. Theoretically emphasizes a rhetoric lens to approach humor

2. Elucidate how and when humor is employed in orated English rhetoric.

3. Cross-geographical discussion that is strongly data-validated.

4. A data-grounded typology / taxonomy of public-speaking humor techniques,

where proposed higher order categories of public-speaking humor are

objectively based on principle-component analysis.

5. Important, practical implications for extrapolation to other settings of

communication.

- Address present market demand

Humor is increasingly important

o Social media inundates with stimulation. Listening is now more optional

than ever before. Consumers have higher expectation towards

information. Content cannot merely inform but also need to entertain and

stimulate, lest it gets ignored.

Rhetoric is increasingly important o The ability to sell is now deemed the most valuable skill businesses want

from employees (Forbes, 2015). o Social media inundates with alternative viewpoints. Being exceptionally

rhetorical is now more necessary.

Mastering the balance of humor rhetoric is valuable

o Humor is one of the best tools to be rhetoric. Humor (that brings

constructive laughter) is required to keep in pace with the increasing

standard of information production. o Humanity is now more demanding of quality cognitive stimulation and

affective experiences.

Therefore, this research offers important, relevant positioning for the present

time. o Past global societal dynamics had an environmental press where means

of humor were less prevalent and devalued compared to pragmatic issues

1.3 Summary

….

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

[Insert Chapter Overview]

2.1 Outlining Rhetoric The study of rhetoric, generally characterized as the art of selecting the most

effective means of persuasion, has a long and distinguished history (Sandler, Epps &

Waicukauski, 2010, p. 16). The oldest known parchment on how to speak effectively

was inscribed about 3000 B.C.E. to the eldest son of Pharaoh Huni (McCroskey,

1986, p. 261). The oldest known extant book on how to persuade effectively - the

Precepts - was composed about 2675 B.C.E by Egyptian Vizier Ptah-Hotep

(McCroskey, 1986, p. 262). These Egyptian works had minimal contributions to

rhetoric theory however as rhetorical theorists for several thousand years afterwards

were unaware of them. Nonetheless, these early archaic Egyptian texts are

significant in indicating at least 5000 years of scholarly interest in rhetoric.

Classical Greece (510 BC to 323 BC) was when serious analysis of oratory

persuasion first developed. Isocrates (436-338 B.C.) established the first academy of

rhetoric to teach rhetorical composition as a practical skill for human betterment

(Wagner, 1922). Plato (427-347 B.C.) offered theoretical guidance on properly

constructing a speech in the Phaedrus to define rhetoric as "the art of winning the

soul by discourse" (Freeley, 1960). Following which, Plato’s student Aristotle (384-

322 B.C.) created the seminal work the Rhetoric that to this day still underpins all

rhetoric theories (Anderson & Middleton, 2014; Bizzell & Herzberg, 2000).

Aristotle’s Rhetoric, which consisted three volumes, is widely acknowledged to be

the most influential and generative work on persuasion ever written (Golden,

Berquist & Coleman, 2003; Gross & Walzer, 2000). Throughout history ever since,

scholars have persisted to study rhetoric in varying contexts. This includes during

the Roman Empire (by Cicero, Quintilian and Longinus), during the Medieval (by

Augustine, Capella and Boethius), during the Renaissance (by Valla, Erasmus and

Ramus), during the Industrial Revolution (by Campbell, Priestley and Whately) and

in the Contemporary Era (by Burke, Weaver and Perelman). To cover all

perspectives and variations of rhetoric that scholars have discussed would not be

possible in this paper. As such, I will discuss only the three most dominant theories

of rhetoric. I will consequently relate these three most prevailing theories to the

context of Toastmasters, before outlining the operational definition of rhetoric in this

project.

2.1.1 Key Theories of Rhetoric

Among the scope of theories related to rhetoric, only two are timeless in its

pertinence: the Three Rhetorical Appeals and the Five Canons of Rhetoric (Hauser,

2002; Schiappa, 1999; Toye, 2013). Both theories have its roots from Aristotle’s

Rhetoric. The third key theory of rhetoric to be outlined is whereas a forerunning

contemporary rhetorical theory: Rhetorical Dramatism, as conceptualized by

Kenneth Burke (Burke, 1945, 1950, 1966, 1972; Bygrave, 2012; Simons, 2004).

2.1.1.1 The Three Rhetorical Appeals

From Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Bk. 1:2), there are three artistic proofs that an orator must

rely on to persuade any audience: ethos (the character appeal of the speaker), logos

(the logical appeal of the speech) and pathos (the emotional appeal of the speech).

Inartistic proofs are whereas sources external to the orator, such as pre-existing

facts, judicial laws and physical evidence. An orator invents and curates artistic

proofs from the static data of inartistic proofs to compose arguments that are

persuasive, interesting and useful to the audience. According to Golden, Berquist

and Coleman (1999), what defines the essence of any effective rhetoric is the adroit

application of the three artistic proofs: ethos, logos, pathos.

Ethos is the rhetorical appeal of what the orator says in the speech to reflect the

speaker’s character or personal credibility (Herrick, 2001, p. 84). In order to

establish ethos, the orator must establish practical wisdom [phronēsis], virtue [aretē]

and goodwill [eunoia] (Sloane, 2001, p. 266). Logos is the employment of logical

reasoning through sound, rational arguments to demonstrate a truth or an apparent

truth. Truth is not guaranteed by logos, only plausibility (Sloane, 2001, p. 459).

Logos does not denote what is eternally or certainly the case, but only what is made

to seem true to a given audience. Pathos is the application of emotions to affect the

judgement of the audiences. In applying pathos, the orator should have three foci: (i)

the frame of mind of the audience, (ii) the variation of emotions in and among

people, and (iii) the influence the speaker has on the emotions of the audience

(Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001). Therefore, there is no need to address all emotions, but

only those that bear upon the public argumentation (Sloane, 2001, p. 557).

Conceived almost 2500 years ago, the theory of the three rhetorical appeals has

stood against the test of time. Although nuances in the details of ethos, logos, pathos

have been regularly debated, the simple threefold core structure and guiding

principles of logic, emotion and character remain (Simons & Jones, 2011). It is a

recurrent and irrefutable theme throughout history that the effectiveness of any

speech decisively hinges on logic, emotions and the character appeal of the speaker.

2.1.1.2 The Five Canons of Rhetoric

Another enduring theoretical framework that has been revered across two

millenniums is the division of rhetoric into Five Canons: Invention (Inventio),

Arrangement (Disposito), Style (Elocutio), Memory (Memoria), and Delivery

(Pronuntiatio). Although Aristotle had substantial writings in Inventio, Disposito

and Elocutio, Cicero (107-43 B.C.E) is commonly credited as the rhetorician who

brought together and organized the Five Canons (Herrick, 2001, p. 96-97).

Quintilian (35-100 C.E) thereafter produced Institutio Oratoria that spanned 12

comprehensive books on training the oratorical process. Deep theoretical and

practical issues of the Five Canons were specified by Quintilian and the Five Canons

have been the backbone of rhetorical education ever since (McCroskey, 1986, p.

268).

According to Cicero’s De Inventione, as translated by Hubbell (1949): Invention is

the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one’s cause plausible.

This includes finding resources and knowledge to substantiate the claims to be

made. Arrangement is the distribution of arguments thus discovered in the proper

order. This includes selecting and apportioning the organization of the materials to

be presented. Style (or expression) is the fitting of the proper language to the

invented matter. This includes being eloquent and appropriate in word-choices for

the pertaining discourse. Memory is the firm mental grasp of matter and words. This

includes remembering, reproducing and retaining through mnemonics. Delivery is

the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject

matter and the style. This includes performing on the nonverbal aspects such as

effective tonal modulations and physical expressiveness.

As a whole, the Five Canons is a systematic, chronological sequence that covers the

entirety of the oratorical process (Murphy, Katula & Hoppmann, 2014, p. 131). The

speaker has to first find (“invent”) ideas, then “arrange” them in an order, before

putting worded “style” to the ideas. The speaker has to remember (“memorize”) the

ideas, their order, and their words, before performing (“deliver”) the ordered and

worded ideas to an audience through voice and gestures. As such, the Five Canons

of Rhetoric are ever-relevant for all five components are indefinitely necessary to be

effective in public speaking (Crick, 2014, p. 9).

2.1.1.3 Rhetorical Dramatism

Among contemporary rhetoric theories, I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke are the

two scholars frequently credited for spearing the new rhetoric movement (Corbett &

Connors, 1999, p. 538). Contrasted to old rhetoric which focuses primarily on

persuasion, Richards focused on communication to view rhetoric as how language in

any kind of discourse works to produce understanding in an audience (McCroskey,

1986, p. 272). Likewise, Burke veered away from the sole emphasis on persuasion to

view rhetoric as identification and drama (Burke, 1951).

To Burke, rhetoric is dramatism where there are three key concepts: identification,

the dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption (Brock, 1985). Identification is the

common ground that exists between speaker and audience (Griffin, Ledbetter &

Sparks, 2015, p. 298). Burke viewed rhetoric as the study of various modes of

achieving this identification with the audience (Corbett & Connors, 1999, p. 539).

Unlike the term persuasion which stress upon deliberative design, the term

identification allows the inclusion of partially unconscious factors in its appeal

(Burke 1951, p. 203). The dramatistic pentad is a critic’s tool to uncover the

motives of any speaker through five elements of the human drama: act, agent,

agency, scene and purpose (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 294). Burke viewed

communication as generating symbols not just to transmit messages, but as an action

of rhetoric (Burke, 1969). Anything freely said for a purpose is a rhetorical act – an

actor choosing to perform a dramatic action for a motive (Appel, 2012, p. 5-6).

Guilt-redemption is the perspective that purging guilt is the ultimate motive for all

public rhetoric, even if the rhetoric is unaware of its force (Griffin et al., 2015, p.

297). Burke viewed purging guilt (i.e. all noxious feelings) as the plot of all human

drama, or the root of all rhetoric (Bobbitt, 2007). Public speaking serves to purge,

through mortification or victimization, the guilt we feel as a result of our place in the

social order so as to ideally achieve the new order of transcendence (Burke, 1961).

The overarching frame of Burke’s rhetorical theory is that life is drama. Dramatic

human symbolic behavior are rhetorical. Dramatism is an appropriate strategy for

viewing rhetoric, as well as life (Mangham, & Overington, 2005). Burke’s work on

the linguistic resources of identification and the actional processes of symbols had

notably shifted the locus of rhetorical influence from arguments to symbols as the

means of evoking shared meaning (Sloane, 2001, p. 504). Appropriately, in the

Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, Sloane (2001, p. 503) hails Burke’s interdisciplinary

dramatistic perspective as “the single most important influence on the development

of modern rhetoric”.

2.1.2 Defining Rhetoric In the field of modern rhetoric research, it is generally accepted that the definition of

rhetoric has extended beyond an exclusive examination of persuasion (Foss &

Griffin, 1995; Hauser, 2002; King 2010). Communication to inform and motivate is

now also widely considered under the functions of rhetoric (Perelman, 1979; Marsh,

2001; Rowan, 1994). Specifically, the definition of rhetoric as “the art or the

discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or

persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or

a group of persons” (Corbett, 1990, p. 3; Corbett & Connors, 1999, p. 1) has been

widely employed and cited (see Berger, 2010; Davies, 1998; Lamb; 1998; Olali,

2014; Marsh Jr., 2001, 2012).

To put it succinctly and broadly: Rhetoric is the strategic means to inform, persuade

or motivate specific audiences. What then specifically is the strategic means depends

on the theoretical framework employed which gives a set of terminologies for

inquiry. For example, a framework employing the Five Canons will investigate the

means of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery on informing,

persuading and motivating specific audiences. Whereas, a framework employing the

dramatistic pentad will investigate the means of act (what), agent (who), agency

(how), scene (where) and purpose (why) on informing, persuading and motivating

specific audiences.

When applying the three most prevailing theories of rhetoric to the context of

Toastmasters, the terminologies provided by each theory are all explanatory in

accounting for the facets of Toastmasters speeches. A Toastmaster has to find ideas,

organize the knowledge, design flair to the content, retain awareness of the

components, before performing the speech. There has to be some drama (of who,

what, where, why and how) which is identifying with the audience, so that the

Toastmaster can purge one’s noxious feelings for redemption/ transcendence.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of any Toastmasters speech crucially hinges on logic

appeal, emotional appeal and the character appeal of the speaker.

Each leading theory has its merits. However, one theory stands out for being the

most parsimonious and critically decisive in speech analysis. I flatly state the Three

Rhetorical Appeals to be the most emphatic theory to analyze rhetoric in

Toastmasters speeches. Effective use of ethos, logos and pathos is principally all that

is required to inform, persuade or motivate specific audiences. Inasmuch as the Five

Canons of Rhetoric is a framework most effective for training orators, this

framework is less effective for analyzing orated speeches. For example, to

investigate the memory of ideas is not the most direct influence contributive of

speech quality. Whereas, Rhetorical Dramatism is a comprehensive framework that

provides unique dramatic analysis of each speech. However, guilt-redemption is

psychological internal process and cannot be reliably deduced from the speech itself.

The dramatic pentad has five elements which as a whole explains rhetoric, but are

individually not vitally contributive for rhetoric. For example, the element of scene

do not always crucially influence the speech quality, such as at Toastmasters

Conventions where the scene of speech is generally standardized. Identification is

subjectively interpreted and as a singular construct do not resoundingly underlie all

symbolic rhetorical action. There is an added variance and uncertainty for each

factor added to a theory. I do not doubt that employing the rhetorical dramatism

framework of identification, dramatistic pentad and guilt-redemption will bring

more depth and details to speech analyses. However, it will also bring more cluttered

debate, which is not necessarily needed. In contrast to the elements of the

dramatistic pentad, ethos, logos, pathos can each stand alone as a factor to crucially

influence rhetoric.

Therefore, for the sheer purpose of outlining an operational definition that is most

pertinent to this Toastmasters’ project: Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of

ethos, logos, pathos to inform, persuade, or motivate specific audiences.

2.2 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor

The history of humor is equally long and distinguished. Amy Carrell’s (2008, p.

303-332) book chapter on the Historical Views of Humor included an archival

account of how eminent philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Hobbes (1588-

1679), Kant (1724-1804) and Schopenhauer (1788-1860) regarded humor. However,

unlike rhetoric where the core ideas stood in place due to the voluminous writings of

early rhetoricians, the word humor has a convoluted history that has shifted in

connotations over the centuries. An analytical account of how the concept of humor

had historically evolved was provided by Wickberg (1998) that Martin (2007, p. 20-

26) streamlined. Plato viewed humor as malice, which biblical influences

subsequently reinforced when references to laughter in the Bible were mostly linked

to scorn, derision, or contempt (Koestler, 1964; Morreall, 1987). In the sixteenth

century, humor meant an odd, eccentric person, peculiar person, or any behavior that

deviates from social norms (Martin, 2007, p. 21). During the eighteen century,

humor became synonym with ridicule which meant active, aggressive attacks to

outwit and humiliate others (Martin, 2007, p. 22). However, by early nineteen

century, due to the efforts by British social reformers championing humanitarian

values, humour evolved as the chosen word to characterize benevolence for a

sympathy-basis of laughter, in contrast to aggressive-base wit (Martin, 2007, p. 23).

Over the course of the twentieth century, the distinction with aggression was blurred

Humor came to include aggression, as well as playfulness. Not to have a sense of

humor also meant inflexibility and excessive seriousness (Martin, 2007, p. 23-24)

“Today, the word humor is an umbrella term with a generally positive, socially

desirable connotation, which refers to anything people say or do that is perceived to

be funny and evoke mirth and laughter in others” (Martins, 2007, p. 20). To apply

past scholarly conceptualization and connotations of humor to a modern dataset at a

contemporary setting would not be sensible. Thus, in this paper, I will primarily

view humor with the lenses of modern connotations. Specifically, in this section, I

discuss the three perspectives of humor most scholarly domineering in present

humor research today. Consequently, I outline the operational definition of humor in

this project, before asserting the call for a rhetoric perspective of humor.

2.2.1 Key Perspectives of Humor

In present humor research today, the International Society for Humor Studies

(ISHS), officially established in 1989, is the chief scholarly organization. The

HUMOR journal, managed by ISHS, has four issues of publications each year. To

date, HUMOR has published over 500 peer-reviewed papers from varied fields of

study. Although humor research today draws upon multiple disciplines, perspectives

of humor from the academic disciplines of Psychology, Linguistics (& Literature)

and Sociology dominate at the present time (Raskin, 2008, p. 3-4).

2.2.1.1 Humor Is Psychological

According to Victor Raskin, the Editor-in-Chief of HUMOR from 1987-99 and the

Editor-at-Large since 1999 to present, “In the current scientific/scholarly/academic

rigorous study of humor, psychology has the longest history” (Raskin, 2008, p. 3).

The psychology of humor does not study the humor of humorous material only, but

rather emphasizes the study of humor with relation to people’s behavior (Ruch,

2008, p. 3). People’s behavior refers to what can be objectively assessed, as well as

the subjective experiences of internal processes (Ruch, 2008, p. 3). Therefore, the

key tenet from the psychological view of humor is that humor is psychological;

humor stems from what an individual experiences. Humor psychologists thereafter

study humor with respect to individuals as a collective.

An individual’s psychology is emphasized as the primary influence of humor from

this perspective. Via objective recording and/or subjective assessment of an

individual’s behavior, psychologists thereafter make inferences about the humor of

individuals as an aggregate after multiple data from individuals are collected. This

philosophy towards knowledge construction has resulted in a considerable amount

of psychological-based humor theories. To examine how individuals appreciate

humor individually is a prominent theme of research by humor psychologists, with

over 20 psychometric measures on the sense of humor (Ruch, 1998, p. 405-412;

Martin & Sullivan, 2013). Out of which, the conceptualization that individuals

engage in four distinctive humor styles (affiliative, aggressive, self-enhancing, self-

defeating) stands out in its scholarly impact. The 32-item Humor Styles

Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir, 2003) which

psychometrically assesses affiliative humor style, aggressive humor style, self-

enhancing humor style, and self-defeating humor style is currently the most cited

measure of humor. The HSQ is well-validated (Schermer, Martin, Martin, Lynskey,

& Vernon, 2013) and had been translated into numerous languages: such as Arabic

(Taher, Kazarian & Martin, 2008), Chinese (Chen & Martin, 2007), French

(Saroglou, Lacour & Demeure, 2010), German (Leist & Müller, 2013) and Turkish

(Çeçen, 2007). According to Martin (2007, p. 210-214), the four humor styles are

posited to be stable personality traits that are fairly consistent in and among

individuals.

Other prominent research themes of how individuals psychologically experience

humor are the widely-encompassing relief theory and superiority theory of humor.

The relief theory of humor is physiological-based and posits that humor is chiefly

for tension-release (Freud, 1905, p. 282; Gregory, p. 40; Meyer, 2000, p. 312). We

laugh to reduce internal stress (Fry, 1963), to ease social tensions (Schaeffer, 1981),

or to dissipate the unconscious, repressed id energy (Freud, 1960). Whereas, the

superiority theory of humor is emotion-based and posits that humor is chiefly to feel

superiority over others (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004, p. 148; Plato, 1975, p. 45-49;

Bain, 1859, p. 153). Mirth is psychologically experienced, inwardly or outwardly,

when we enjoy some sort of triumph over others due to their foolishness (Gruner,

1997), misfortunes (Singer, 1968) or ignorance (Berger, 1987). In the contemporary

humor research landscape, the relief and superiority theory of humor are accepted as

global principles, so much so that both are classified as essential early theories

(Martin, 2007, p. 31-56). The psychological nature of humor for relief and

superiority are well-established fundamentals which humor academics today

generally do not scholarly debate on.

2.2.1.2 Humor Is Language

The linguistics of humor, with literary humor, are next in major contributions to

modern humor research (Raskin, 2008, p. 4). The key tenet from the linguistic and

literary perspectives of humor is that humor is language. Language in this case

generally refers to semiotics – which includes both linguistic and non-linguistic

signs and symbols for meaning-making. Semiotics encompasses semantics (relation

between signs and the denoted meaning), syntactics (relation among or between

signs in formal structures) and pragmatics (relation between signs and sign-using

agents of interpreters). The primary methodological approach from the Linguistics

and Literature discipline is the discourse analysis of humor, characterized by a focus

on actual, naturalistic data, such as transcriptions of recordings and literary

documents (Attardo, 2008, p. 116). Cognitive analysis of texts is emphasized.

Language is emphasized as the primary influence of humor from this perspective.

The Semantic Script-based Theory of Humor (SSTH; Raskin, 1979, 1981, 1985) is

the central antecedent for linguistics theories of humor. The SSTH examines

semantic roles and script oppositions in the application of semantic script theory to

humor, though not in the other way around (Raskin, 1986). The General Theory of

Verbal Humor (GTVH; Attardo & Raskin, 1991) was thereafter proposed to expand

the range of descriptive and explanatory dimensions covered by the SSTH. In

addition to Script-Oppositions (SO), Target (TA), Language (LA), Logical

Mechanism (LM), Situation (SI) and Narrative Strategy (NS) were added as

elements, purporting to account for all humor in verbal texts (Attardo, 1994).

Although Logical Mechanism as an element of humor has been much criticized (see

Davies, 2004, 2011; Oring, 2011), the GTVH stands out for its scholarly impact.

There has been multifarious applications of GTVH to various contexts, such as

experimental studies of university students (Samson & Hempelmann, 2011;

Summerfelt, Lippman, & Hyman, 2010; Vallade, Booth-Butterfield, & Vela, 2013),

twitter/social media blogs analysis (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004; Holton & Lewis,

2011; Whalen, Pexman, Gill & Nowson, 2013), effectiveness in advertisements use

(Chan, 2011; Damiano, 2014; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992) and conversational humor

(Bertrand & Priego-Valverde, 2011; Kotthoff, 2006; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006).

Presently, Raskin is pushing for the language of humor to move in a computational

direction (Raskin, 2015a, 2015b, 2009). Computational advancements in

Ontological Semantic Technology (OST) have resulted in Natural Language

Processing applications to analyze humor with formal logical reasoning (Lee &

Kwon, 2014; Raskin, 2009; McShane, Nirenburg & Beale, 2015). Through

engineering into computed systems text interpretations, the Ontological Semantic

Theory of Humor (OSTH; Raskin, 2009) is proposed as the “next-level

formalization” toward a “firm semantic basis” of humor (Taylor, 2014, p. 456-457).

When the rapid progression of OST technology is formalized, the OSTH may

correspondingly be the next postmodern theory that epitomizes contemporary humor

research via a computational language emphasis.

2.2.1.3 Humor Is Sociological

The discipline of sociology is third in its influence on modern humor research

(Raskin, 2008, p. 4). Giselinde Kuipers, the present Editor-in-Chief of HUMOR

since 2012, outlined five theoretical perspectives of humor by sociologists (Kuipers,

2008). The functionalist approach interprets humor in terms of the social functions it

fulfills for a society or social group (p. 364). The conflict approach views humor as

an expression or reflection of social conflict (p. 368). The symbolic interactionist

approach focuses on the role of humor in constructing meaning and social relations

(p. 373). The phenomenological approach conceptualizes humor as a specific

“outlook”, ”worldview”, ”mode” of perceiving and constructing the social world (p.

376). The historical-comparative approach attempts to understand the social role of

humor through comparisons in time and space (p. 378). The key tenet from the

sociology view of humor is that humor is a socio phenomenon.

Social forces are emphasized as the primary influence of humor from this

perspective. There is no sociological theory of humor but sociology’s eclecticism

provides the fluidity for vital contributions (Kuipers, 2008, p. 389). A sociological

framework of analysis has advanced humor research in numerous facets, such as in

ethnic humor jokes (Davies, 1990, 1998, 2002), the comic conception in societies

(Davis, 1993), political humor (Benton, 1988; Speier, 1998; Lewis, 1997, 2008),

performative comedy (Lockyer, 2010, 2011, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), and religious

humor (Feltmate, 2011, 2012, 2013). Specifically, Davies (1991; 1998, p. 179)

strongly asserts all jokes to be neutral until the tone in which it is told can be

determined. Whereas, Lockyer (2015c, p. 599) evaluated “dramatic visual

strategies” to be important in the performance, expectation, interaction and intimacy

of performative comedians. Humor is not solely psychological or language-based,

but hinges crucially on the surrounding social influence of people, what we socially

see, and what we socially hear.

In terms of the latest scholarly emphasis, the sociology of humor is moving towards

analyzing the “globalization of humor” (Kuipers, 2014, p. 714). According to

Kuipers (2014), cross-national diffusion has led to culturally diverse humor

audiences that has resulted in growing attention towards social humor mechanisms. I

humbly state here that the present project, which examines the globalizing humor of

Toastmasters speeches, connects with the current scholarly direction among modern

humor academics.

Comment: As per Segment 2.1.1, the above three Sub-Segments have to be capped

at three paragraphs each, for word count and proportion considerations in the

confirmation proposal. The primary intention of the 9 above paragraphs is to lead to

my project conceptualization of humor but the politics of power guided the writings

too.

2.2.2 Defining Humor

Emeritus Professor of Anthropology Elliot Oring asserts robustly that all humor is

dependent on the perception of an appropriate incongruity (Oring, 1992, 2003,

2011). An appropriate incongruity is the perception of an appropriate relationship

between categories that would ordinarily be regarded as incongruous (Oring, 2003,

p. 1). “Appropriateness need not be rooted in any kind of logical validity, however;

it requires only a psychological validity” (Oring, 1992, p. 2). According to Attardo

(2008, p. 103), the idea that humor is the perception of an incongruity between a set

of expectations and what is actually perceived, goes back to Aristotle, but has been

famously restated by other theorists such as Immanuel Kant who viewed humor as

“the play of thought” (see Kant, 1790, p. 176, Carrell, p. 308).

Synthesizing the work from the various scholars and perspectives for a context most

suitable to analyze multimodal data, I present a broad definition of humor in this

paper. Humor is the psychological experience of mirth, brought by the

perception of an appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is

presented through semantic, acoustic and/or visual play. Linguistics emphasizes

cognition and semantics (Raskin, 1985; 1987; Raskin, Hempelmann & Taylor,

2009). Psychology asserts on mirth and the emotional aspects (Grimes, 1955; Fry;

1986; p. 83; Martin, 2007, p. 29). Sociology expounds the socio aspects, which is

wide-ranging to include what we hear and see socially (Davies, 2002; Kuipers,

2008; Lockyer, 2015c). Globally, the foundation of humor as incongruous play has

been well-explicated as well (Fry, 2010, p. 147; Oring, 1992; McGhee & Goldstein,

1983). It is to be highlighted that this is a stimulus definition of humor, instead of a

functional definition of humor. A functional definition of humor would describe

humor as communicative (see Lynch, 2002), for tension-release (see Porteous,

1998), for superiority (see Duncan, 1985). In this paper, I describe humor by its key

elements, instead of describing humor by its key consequences.

2.2.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor

Humor is an individual’s psychology. Humor is language. Humor is sociological. I

assert here that the most useful link to tie the humor of individuals, language, and

society is rhetoric. Rhetoric is about informing, persuading, motivating individuals

in society through artful use of language. All humor in rhetoric is logical, emotional

and characterological, as further explicated in Section 3.3, to be operationally

examined in this project.

A rhetoric lens bring a vital amoralisitc and dramatistic connotation to humor. A

rhetoric lens elevate the artistic undertone and communicative functions of humor. A

rhetoric lens prescribes inherently the comprehensive Five Canons to humor. Humor

is not just invention; humor requires arrangement, style, memory and most

importantly delivery. The Five Canons is a detailed system time-refined through two

millenniums of scholars. A rhetoric emphasis of humor will augment humor studies

theoretically and practically.

The key contrast between rhetoric and humor is that rhetoric is experience while

humor is experiential. All humor can be rhetoric but not all rhetoric can be humor.

This is likewise to all experiential moments contributing to the experience of life,

but not all experiences in life can be encapsulated in one experiential moment. The

intention of this project transcends beyond scholarly interest to insist on the critical

experiencing of rhetoric while not forgetting the daily inward experiential seeking of

humor. This is akin to not neglecting the inward experiential seeking of gratitude

while we experience life. Rhetoric cannot effectively stand-alone without humor.

This dissertation seeks to provide the empirical links of humor and rhetoric.

2.3 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Laughter

Humor and laughter are closely-associated. Prior to the eighteen century, the

historical connotations surrounding laughter were largely negative (Wickberg,

1998). Laughter was solely seen as an aggressive act, which emanates from

perceiving an inferiority in another person (Martin, 2007, p. 22). The prevailing

social norm was that to laugh, especially in public, is impolite (Martin, 2007, p. 24).

No distinction was made between laughing at someone (e.g. aggressive ridicule) and

laughing with someone (e.g good-natured banter). Gradually, with the formalization

of debating in the eighteen century Europe, where wit grew to be a popular debate

technique, the intellectual aspects of laughter were elevated over the emotional

(Martin, 2007, p. 22). To create novel surprises in relationships between ideas for

laughter progressively grew to be a socially acceptable conversational art form

(Martin, 2007, p. 22). With theatre and plays involving dramatic comedy from

nineteen century onwards, laughter evolved to be seen as entertainment and socially

desirable (Martin, 2007, p. 23). Today, psychoneuroimmunology research evidences

laughter to be health-enhancing, which has brought applied examples such as

hospital clowns and laughter yoga promoting the “humor and health” movement

(Martin, 2007, p. 25-26). In everyday life of the present digital world, content

producers (such as memes) expound on the incongruities for humanity to regularly

laugh at, laugh with, and laugh away the social and political circumstances that we

live in (de Sata; 2015; Shifman, 2013). The connotation of laughter, within modern

lenses, is no longer chiefly negative. When synthesizing scholarly work regarding

laughter of the past 50 years, three prevailing themes emerged: laughter is

physiological (see Fry, 2010); laughter is social (see Glenn, 2003); laughter is

communicative (see Lynch, 2002).

2.3.1 Key Perspectives of Laughter

2.3.1.1 Laughter Is Physiological

2.3.1.2 Laughter Is Social

2.3.1.3 Laughter Is Communicative

2.3.2 Defining Laughter

In this dissertation, laughter is operationally defined as a physiological reaction, due

to individual mirth, that has socio-communicative functions.

2.3.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Laughter

Presence and absence of physiological laughter is rhetoric in communicating at

social settings.

At non-social settings however (i.e. when in isolation), laughter is physiological

individual mirth still, but not rhetoric in socially communicating anything.

Rhetoric, broadly defined, is the strategic means to inform, persuade or motivate

specific audiences. A rhetoric perspective of laughter regards laughter not merely as

entertainment, but as strategic means to inform, persuade, motivate.

My intent for advocating a rhetoric emphasis is to take the concept of laughter

beyond entertainment to mindfulness. What we laugh (and do not laugh) about is not

solely based on logic and emotion. Crucially, what we laugh (and do not laugh)

about has characterological elements.

The physiological awareness of individual mirth, with the socio-communicative

awareness.

2.4 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor Techniques

In this section, I discuss the three most comprehensive taxonomies of humor.

2.4.1 Key Taxonomies of Humor Techniques

2.4.1.1 The 45 Humor Techniques (within 4 categories)

in Verbal Narratives

I. Language II. Logic III. Identity IV. Action

1. Allusion 16. Absurdity 30. Before / After 43. Chase

2.Bombast 17. Accident 31. Burlesque 44. Slapstick

3. Definition 18. Analogy 32. Caricature 45. Speed

4. Exaggeration 19. Catalogue 33. Eccentricity

5. Facetiousness 20. Coincidence 34. Embarrassment

6. Insults 21. Comparison 35. Exposure

7. Infantilism 22. Disappointment 36. Grotesque

8. Irony 23. Ignorance 37. Imitation

9. Misunderstanding 24. Mistakes 38. Impersonation

10. Over literalness 25. Repetition 39. Mimicry

11. Puns, Wordplay 26. Reversal 40. Parody

12. Repartee 27. Rigidity 41. Scale

13. Ridicule 28. Theme / Variation 42. Stereotype

14. Sarcasm 29. Unmasking

15. Satire

2.4.1.2 The 41 Humor Techniques (within 7 categories)

in Audiovisual Media

I. Slapstick Humor IV. Surprise VII. Satire

1. Slapstick 18. Conceptual Surprise 27. Satire

2. Peculiar Face 19. Visual Surprise 28. Irreverent Behavior

3. Peculiar Voice 20. Transformation 29. Outwitting

4. Coincidence 21. Exaggeration 30. Peculiar Music

5. Clumsiness

6. Stereotype V. Irony Miscellaneous

7. Ridicule 22. Irony 36. Imitation

8. Malicious Pleasure 23. Sarcasm 37. Impersonation

9. Repartee 24. Embarrassment 38. Eccentricity

25. Puns 39. Sexual Allusion

II. Clownish Humor 26. Scale 40. Repetition

10. Clownish Behavior 41. Grotesque Appearance

11. Anthropomorphism VI. Parody

12. Speed 31. Parody

13. Chase 32. Bombast

33. Rigidity

III. Misunderstanding 34. Absurdity

14. Misunderstanding 35. Infantilism

15. Ignorance

16. Disappointment

17. Peculiar Sound

2.4.1.3 The 41 Humor Devices (within 10 categories)

in Advertisement Commercials

Incongruity Theory Superiority Theory Relief Theory

I. Exaggeration V. Putdowns VIII. Unruliness

1. Exaggerated Outcomes 17. Mocked Peculiarities 30. Hysteria

2. Understatement 18. Lofty Conquest 31. Impulsive Outbursts

3. Exaggerated Qualities 19. Society Satire 32. Displaced Irritation

4. Overreactions 20. Stereotyping 33. Exercising Improprieties

II. Perceptional Discord VI. Awkwardness IV. Social Order Deviancy

5. Odd Behaviors 26. Remorseful Regrets 34. Society Irreverence

6. Misrepresented Context 27. Uncomfortable Settings 35. Forbidden Behaviors

7. Bizarre Substitutions 28. Exercising Humility 36. Offensive Behaviors

8. Nonsense 29. Revealed Secrets 37. Unleashed Mania

III. Irony VII. Malicious Joy X. Sentimental Humor

9. Visual Irony 21. Bungling Behaviors 38. Child Innocence

10. Ironic Temperament 22. Unanticipated Spoiler 39. Fear & Anxiety Relief

11. Ironic Persona 23. Unfortunate Happenstance 40. Melodrama

12. Situational Irony 24. Deserved Repercussions 41. Inner Secrets

25. Cretins

IV. Surprise Twist

13. Conceptual Surprises

14. Plot Trickery

15. Transformation

16. Visual Surprise

2.4.2 Defining Humor through Techniques

Specific strategies are important because …

However, specific techniques (regardless the subject matter) are always

inexhaustible, due to the limitless possibilities of context. For example, there are

infinite specific techniques for earning money, for interactional success and for

writing a dissertation.

Parsimony is crucial.

2.4.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor Techniques

2.5 Summary

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 A Physiological Emphasis on Humor

Humor is cognitive. Humor is emotion. Humor is language. Humor is sociological.

Humor can be emphasized in a plethora of various manners (eg rhetoric, play,

superiority, relief, health). However, what ties the different aspects of humor most

strongly is a physiological foundation. Energy is the bedrock of humor. This is

especially so in oratory rhetoric, where physiological delivery is the crux for humor.

All semantic content can be funny when delivered with the right physiological

foundation.

The original conception of humor began as a Latin word (humorem) to mean our

body fluids. The Greeks advocated that health depended on the balance of four body

humors: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. The physiological reference is

still retained today in modern medicine such as the aqueous and vitreous humors of

the eye.

Through fMRI research, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and possibly endorphins are

demonstrated to be released when participants experience humor.

Humor is experiential. Laughter and smiling are vital for they accentuate the

experiential. A joke cannot be cognitively assessed; it can only be physiologically

verified. For example, I can be telling the world’s funniest joke, but if the other

party display no physiological indicator(s), such as not even smiling, my joke is

ineffective, unrhetorical and not even a joke.

There are various Physiological Indicators of humor: the duration of a Duchenne

smile, the occurrence of pupils dilating, throwing back of the head, open body

language...

One purpose of this section is to guide readers from the broad definition to an

operationalized version.

Humor is the psychological experience of mirth, brought by the perception of an

appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is presented through

semantic, acoustic and/or visual play.

Humor is the physiological experience of mirth, brought by the perception of an

appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is presented through

semantic, acoustic and/or visual play.

3.2 A Parsimonious Emphasis on Analysis

Comprehensive, yet simple.

3.3 Aristotle’s Rhetoric of Ethos, Logos, Pathos

A humorous ethos brings mirth about the orator.

A humorous pathos brings mirth about emotions.

A humorous logos brings mirth about logic.

Mirth is experiential and physiological (Martin, 2007 p. 8)

[Ethos refer to the character appeal of the speaker,

Pathos refer to the emotional appeal of the speech,

Logos refer to the logical appeal of the speech]

In the context of this project for operationalization,

An effective humorous ethos brings audience laughter about the orator.

An effective humorous pathos brings audience laughter about emotions.

An effective humorous logos brings audience laughter about logic.

3.4 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin, 1991) In the realm of linguistics, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) is the

forerunning theory for the cognitive analysis of humorous texts (Martin, 2007, p. 89-

92). The GTVH has been applied to analyze conversational data (Archakis &

Tsakona, 2005), jokes (Taylor, 2012), sitcoms (Elwood, 2006), poems (Attardo,

2001) and novels (Oltean, 2012). According to the GTVH, there are six Knowledge

Resources to decode humor (Attardo, 2001; Attardo & Raskin, 1991):

1. Script Opposition (SO): Script oppositions occur when there is a fundamental

conflict between real and unreal situations in the text. Possible classifications

include possible vs impossible, actual vs non-actual and normal vs abnormal.

2. Logical Mechanism (LM): Logical mechanisms describe how the two scripts

are linked together by 'local logic'. LM embodies the resolution component of

the Incongruity-Resolution model of humor.

3. Situation (SI): Situations are the context in which the humorous text is

situated. This includes the objects, activities, settings and assumed knowledge.

4. Target (TA): The target is the specific person, group, or institution being

ridiculed. Ideological concepts, such as love, can also be included as a target of

mockery.

5. Narrative Strategy (NS): The narrative strategy is the linguistic style or

structure employed to deliver the joke. This parameter relates to the text

organization, e.g. a dialogue, statement, analogy.

6. Language (LM): Language refers to the actual linguistic units. For instance,

the lexical, syntactic and phonological choices.

In this project, I will adapt the knowledge resources of Target (TA), Situation (SI),

and Narrative Strategy (NS) for humor-rhetoric analysis. Generally, there are

determinable categories for TA, SI and NS. Specifically, the targets of all people-

humor can be classified into three categories: humor about self, humor about us and

humor about others (i.e. inclusive of a singular person). The situations that all humor

emanates from can only be due to the interplay of semantics, visuals and/or

acoustics sources. The narrative strategies for all humor can also be classified into

categories of various techniques which has pragmatic, analytical value.

The knowledge resources of Script-Opposition (SO), Logical Mechanism (LM) and

Language (LA) will however not be included. Generally, there are indeterminable

categories for SO, LM and LA. Specifically, script oppositions can be infinite, with

succinct labelling of the scripts being contentious. At times, there are more than two

opposing scripts involved, such as in a multi-modal joke. Logical mechanisms are

specific to each joke and therefore evasive for any form of aggregate analysis. At

times, there is no concrete logic involved, such as in an emotion-based joke.

Language components that result in the humor are also boundless. At times, there is

no language component involved, such as in a visual-expression joke.

3.5 Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) Typology of Audiovisual Humor

Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) typology of 41 audiovisual humor techniques under

7 higher order humor categories of satire, parody, irony, surprise, misunderstanding,

clownish and slapstick, will be employed as an initial working template in

categorizing narrative strategies. Critical inductive and deductive references will be

made to Berger’s (1976, 1993) 45 humor techniques and Barry’s (2013, 2015) 41

humor devices. An existing humor technique (or an existing humor category) will be

deleted from the Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) model only if, and when,

absolutely necessary. Likewise, a new humor technique (or a new humor category)

will be added into the model only if, and when, absolutely necessary. Achieving

maximum statistical variance with the least amount of humor techniques, through

recursive principal-component analysis and grounded data, is the guiding principle

for developing a parsimonious taxonomy of public-speaking humor.

3.6 Presenting the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as an Analytical Tool

What - Laughter Duration

Who - Target (TA)

When - Situation (SI)

How - Narrative Strategy (NS)

Why - Rhetoric Mode

3.7 Summary

Guiding principle of parsimony throughout

There is specificity in each aspect of a humor rhetoric.

Each aspect is vital and uniquely contributive.

There is no humor if one aspect is missing.

I will utilize a Humor-Rhetoric-5 as a means of analysis in this project.

Target Situation

Physiological Indicator1

Narrative Strategy Rhetoric Mode

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

4.1 The Corpus

Year (Venue) Speeches in

Semifinals

Speeches in

Finals Total

2012 (Orlando, Florida) 86 9 95

2013 (Cincinnati, Ohio) 88 9 97

2014 (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 91 9 100

2015 (Las Vegas, Nevada) 96 10 106

2016 (Washington, D.C) 98 10 108

Overall 459 47 506

4.2 Humor Rhetoric Scrutiny

4.2.1 Laughter Duration

Physiological Indicator is operationalized as naturalistic audience laughter in this

study. Employing Media Player Classic, each occurrence of spontaneous audience

laughter is objectively recorded in terms of milliseconds. Laughter Duration will be

categorized into three categories: (a) less than 1.000 seconds, (b) between 1.000

seconds and 2.000 seconds, (c) more than 2.000 seconds.

In order for 2 seconds, speaker must generally pause. Hence it was calculated.

1-2 seconds, not hilariously funny enough or speaker did not pause

Less than 1 second, captured but not analyzed.

Laughter Duration is a continuous variable (on a ratio scale) with an absolute zero

point.

4.2.1.1 Examination of Three Specific Hypotheses

H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience

laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical-winning Toastmasters’

speeches.

H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a

geographical-winning Toastmasters’ speech.

H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles –

Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of

a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of

entertaining to impact thinking).

4.2.2 Target (TA)

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of Target

rhetoric humor. Rhetoric humor targeting the self is hypothesized to be most

prevalent.

4.2.3 Situation (SI)

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of

Situational rhetoric humor. Rhetoric humor employing semantic-play is

hypothesized to be most prevalent.

Semantic play situation: Semantics create the humor in itself.

Visual play situation: Visuals create the humor in itself.

Tonal play situation: Tone create the humor in itself.

Semantic-Visual play: Semantics and Visuals are both key to the humor. There is no

humor without either factor. [Most prevalent in memes.]

Semantic-Tone play: Semantics and Tone are both key to the humor. There is no

humor without either factor. [Most prominent in radio humor, where there is zero

visual input]

Visual-Tone play: Visuals and Tone are both key to the humor. There is no humor

without either factor.

Semantic-Visual-Acoustic play: Semantics, Visuals, Tone are all vital for the humor.

There is zero humor if one factor is missing. Rare but possible. The epitome of a

perfect joke delivery.

(For each of the seven situations, I will provide two illustrative examples. One

emanating from a Toastmasters speech and one from a non-Toastmasters context).

4.2.4 Narrative Strategy (NS)

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of

Narrative rhetoric humor. Narratological irony is hypothesized to be most prevalent.

4.2.5 Rhetoric Mode

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of humor

Rhetoric Mode. Humorous Ethos, Humorous Pathos, and Humorous Logos are

hypothesized to be equally prevalent. Humorous Ethos may have the highest

frequency count, but it is conjectured that there will be no statistical significance

indicating Humorous Ethos to be of a more prevailing form.

4.2.6 Overall

Laughter Duration is a continuous variable (on a ratio scale) with an absolute zero

point. TA, SI, NA, and Rhetoric Mode whereas are categorical variables and

quantitative examinations are based on frequencies.

A Chi-square test of independence will be conducted among the categorical

variables. It is conjectured that there will be statistical significance indicating TA,

SI, and NS to be independent from one another. This means that the Target of the

humor (be it others, we or self) do not influence the forms of Situational humor (be

it semantic, tonal, visual) observed and forms of humorous Narrative Strategy (be it

satire, parody, irony, surprise, misunderstanding, clownish, slapstick) employed, in a

recursive manner.

4.3 A Pilot Illustration

In this section, I utilize the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as a means of scrutinizing the four

World Champion Toastmasters speeches from 2012-2015.

4.4 Summary

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1 Further Theoretical Contributions

5.2.1 Introducing the Two Domineering Epideictic Humor Rhetoric

Speech Styles

5.2.2 Data-Validated Cross-Geographical Humor Rhetoric Examination

5.2.3 A Data-Grounded Typology of Public-Speaking Humor Techniques

(within higher order categories of public-speaking humor)

5.2 Projected Timeline for Completion All 398 geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches from 2012-2015 had been

downloaded and backed-up. Given that the technological infrastructure is already

firmly established, I do not foresee not attaining the remaining 108 geographical-

winning Toastmasters speeches from 2016. Since all data involved in this project are

publicly-accessible, where no personal data from all Toastmaster District

Champions will be collected, I anticipate no human ethical clearance required from

the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Data analysis starts immediately upon confirmation. Approximately-speaking, it will

involve a commitment of 500 hours to code all speeches. At a productivity rate of 25

hours per week, it will take 20 weeks to complete the data coding. Hence, by the end

of 2016, it is projected that all data-coding will be completed. Throughout 2017 and

up till the deadline of 10 August 2018, the remaining 65,000 words of data analysis

and writings will be produced.

The foremost priority is however not the mere submission of the dissertation. In the

consequent 36 months, all resources will be dedicated to a first-author theoretical

publication in a rhetoric journal, where humor and rhetoric must be in the title. This

is vital for my professional positioning where as many co-authors are desired. It is

likely that I will include the five World Champion Toastmasters speeches from

2012-2016 as empirical substantiation in the publication.

5.3 Summary

In terms of the application and consequences of humor, I advocate a rhetoric lens

Such a lens is most useful for (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5) …

In terms of the foundation of humor, I advocate a physiological emphasis. Such an

emphasis is most useful for (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5) …

I introduce the conceptualization of a Humor-Rhetoric-5. In this paper, I am not

proposing a theory. I am just presenting the model to be a means of analysis. There

are five key characteristics of this model: (1) a core to a system that is also flexible,

(2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5) …

Humor is an interdisciplinary art. Rhetoric is an interdisciplinary art. This

dissertation merges the two timeless vortexes to outline its corollary magic.

Specifically, five vital research gaps are addressed: (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and

(5) … Contributions of this dissertation are five-fold: (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and

(5) …

Appendix

Numbering Label Laughter

Duration (in ms)

Situation

Target

Narrative Strategy Rhetoric

2012A1.1 Semantic play* Visual play Tonal play Semantic-Visual play Semantic-Tonal play Visual-Tonal play Semantic-Visual-Tonal play.

People Self* Us - (i.e. Toastmasters) Others - (e.g. a specified person, groups, relationships) Non-People Ideologies (eg love) Institutions (eg Toastmasters International) Others (eg items, animals)

41 audio-visual humor techniques clustered into 7 higher order humor categories. - Slapstick (hostility) - Surprise - Irony* - Clownish behavior - Satire - Misunderstanding - Parody

[Liberty has been taken to utilized Buijzen & Valkenburg’s (2004) typology of audio- visual humor techniques as an initial working template]

Ethos* Pathos Logos.

2012A1.2

2012A1.3

…

2012A2.1

2012A2.2

…

* indicates what is hypothesized to be most prevalent.