Communication in Seinfeld Essay Example

of forms and phrases such as "master of your domain" and "yada yada yada" demonstrates this, as well as the re-analysis of lexical items to derive new meanings that contribute to the language's productivity.

A potential reinterpretation of Seinfeld's unique language consists of terms like soup nazi and anti-dentite, which could inspire phrases such as grammar nazi for someone strict about grammar and anti-grammarite for someone indifferent to grammar. The impact of Seinfeld on American culture has been substantial, making it an invaluable resource for research. Prior studies on related topics include Schwarz's (2010) exploration of Jerry Seinfeld's stand-up comedy and Karmen's (1998) analysis of comedy in television sitcoms.

Seinfeld is an un-researched corpus, according to current knowledge. The methodology we use is based on the Incongruity Theory (Paolos, 1980; Morreall, 1987; Schwarz, 2010) and the Interactional Sociolinguistic discourse analysis (Gumperz, 1982). Applying these frameworks, we examine the discourse in two clips of Seinfeld. Our focus is on the linguistic elements that contribute to creating humor, including genre changes, alterations in footing, metaphors, exaggeration, moral short-comings, and ignorance.

According to the Incongruity Theory, humor arises when there is an unexpected violation of expectation. This violation needs to occur within a suitable emotional context, which includes elements such as the setting, characters, prior conversation, relationships between the characters, and the topic. It is worth mentioning that the surprising outcome must be consistent with the particular situation's setting, as Morreall (1987) stated.

The theory of Incongruity examines various forms of incongruities that contribute to the emergence of humor. These include moral deficiencies, which involve the violation of social norms; ignorance, which entails violating

knowledge; impersonation, which involves pretending to be another person; physical deformities, which defy our perceived standards of appearance; and failed actions, which encompass the inability to successfully complete a task. When these incongruities are combined with an appropriate setting, they create the conditions for humor to arise.

The Interactional Sociolinguistic Methodology for discourse analysis (Gumperz, 1982) highlights the significance of social interactions in discourse. It focuses on the formation of relationships, power negotiations, and identity development. These factors influence speakers' choices in their words, structures, and prosodic elements. The social interaction itself affects how speakers communicate, and interlocutors have specific roles within these interactions. Gumperz (1982) defines contextualization cues as linguistic features that convey understood knowledge and presuppositions in a given context. Speakers use these cues to express their intended meaning, while listeners draw inferences based on their understanding of the situation and their relationship with the speaker. Moreover, listeners consider how each utterance relates to preceding and subsequent statements.

The contextualization cues used in social interaction depend on the specific context, interlocutors' relationship, and prior discourse. "The Marine Biologist" episode of the show occurs at both the beach and a coffee shop frequently visited by the characters. The characters in this scene include George, his girlfriend, Jerry, Kramer, Elaine, and a whale. In this episode, George meets a girl and attempts to impress her by dishonestly stating that he is a marine biologist.

While at the beach, George and his girlfriend stumble upon a beached whale. Despite pretending to be a marine biologist, George takes it upon himself to save the whale in order to uphold his false image. Unexpectedly, he

successfully rescues the whale. The main source of humor in "The Marine Biologist" lies in impersonation, where someone or something pretends to be what they are not. In this case, George's portrayal as a marine biologist sharply contrasts with his true unemployed and ignorant nature when it comes to marine life. According to Paolo's definition of humor, the incongruity between this impersonation and the appropriate emotional atmosphere within the scene generates humor within the story's context. In the analyzed clip, George narrates his heroic whale rescue to Jerry and Kramer while Elaine eventually joins them.

We analyze multiple layers of incongruity and the linguistic elements used to create them, as well as generate humor. In our analysis, we examine the contextualization cues employed to achieve the desired humorous outcome. The main linguistic technique employed to reinforce George's portrayal as a marine biologist is the shift in genre to a narrative style of communication.

We examine the contextualization cues employed to facilitate this genre shift. The video begins with a 20-second period without dialogue, indicating the transition into George's extraordinary story. The prosody, pitch change, and intonation are examples of the contextualization cues being analyzed. [20 seconds of silence] I then proceeded to enter the water (see Figure 1). In line 1, Figure 1, the prolonged pause in conversation is utilized to heighten the anticipation and significance of what is going to be announced; the silence prior to a tale of magnificent scale.

When George begins telling his story, his voice tone lowers, his pitch stays the same, and the rhythm of his speech becomes melodic. These contextualization cues cause George to adopt

a narrative style of speech. Another cue that supports this shift is George's intentional use of certain words (Gumperz, 1982). 8 17 38 Figure 2.

The examples in Figure 2 illustrate how George uses unusual words in everyday American conversation. Examples include phrases like "divine intervention," "kinship of all living things," and "crashing down upon me." These linguistic choices suggest a change in the way the dialogue is presented, helping the listener to recognize that there has been a shift. These contextual hints also reinforce George's transition to a storytelling style of conversation, which highlights the inconsistency of his portrayal as a marine biologist.

Another example of the contextualization cues used to support George’s role as an impersonator is footing change. This process is when a speaker outwardly expresses a changed identity or altered relationship with the listener (Goffman, 1981). In the following example (Figure 3), George alters his relation to the listeners by saying, "I don’t know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things THE SEA WAS ? ANGRY THAT DAY MY vFRIENDS. I could barely see from the waves [crashing down upon me]. The Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 21, 126–135 © 2011 Elizabeth Magnotta & Alexandra Strohl 130 9 10 Figure 3. things< but I tell you Jerry AT THAT MOMENT (1. 0) I was a vmarine biologist [(2. 0)]. In this moment of heroism, George doesn't just play the role, but genuinely believes in his new identity by explicitly stating (line 10) his change in relationship to the listener, who is both the audience and Jerry.

The

entire show has an additional layer of incongruity that sets up the scene. Despite George's failures in various aspects, such as unemployment and living with his parents, he surprisingly becomes successful by saving the mammal's life. This unexpected outcome aligns perfectly with the show's theme, highlighting the incongruity between failure and success, George's personality, and his successful resolution to the situation. Through our analysis of "The Marine Biologist," we can see how humor is created as George convincingly impersonates a marine biologist. Additionally, this analysis sheds light on the linguistic tools used by the speaker to convey meaning and how contextualization cues are interpreted by the listener to understand the intended meaning within the surrounding discourse and scene.

In this scene, the contextualization cues are employed as effective linguistic tools to highlight and enhance the incongruities that arise from a change in genre, George's marked lexical choices, and the overarching concept of George as a failure in all aspects of life but unexpectedly successful as a marine biologist. It takes place at George's workplace and features George, his boss, and the office cleaning lady as the main characters.

The scene takes place in the boss's office where George is being accused of having sexual relations with the office cleaning lady on his desk. This particular episode emphasizes moral failings and lack of knowledge. Engaging in sexual activities at work goes against American moral standards, as demonstrated by the public response to the "Zipper Gate" scandal involving President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Ignorance, or a lack of comprehension, is also brought to attention during this scene. George attempts to defend himself by pointing

out inconsistencies and employing humor to alleviate the tension.

The lack of knowledge inconsistency in Figure 4 is apparent when George's boss inquires, "Is that correct?" regarding the accuracy of an accusation. George's reply, "Was that wrong?" is incongruous for several reasons. To begin with, by responding to a question with another question, George provides an unfavorable answer that contradicts expected norms of conversation. This deviates from the expectations established by Goffman (1981) and Gumperz (1982) concerning pairs of adjacent utterances. Additionally, instead of acknowledging his own actions, George deceitfully claims ignorance about the inappropriate nature of workplace sexual behavior.

Evidence of lying is indicated by the rising pitch throughout the utterance (Vrij, 2000). Figures 4 shows the sequence from 6 to 10, with Boss, Audience, and George participating. In English, prototypical questions can be distinguished by a rising pitch at the end of the utterance (Gumperz, 1982). However, in this case, line 10 is delivered with an elevated pitch throughout, and George's voice sounds tight and constricted. The word "wrong" is also given extra emphasis and length, indicating George's effort to highlight his ignorance about the (un)acceptability of the action.

George's defense against allegations of violating social code in American culture is centered around the use of contextualization cues. These cues are employed to create distance between George and the alleged action he committed. One method George uses is pronominalization, where a noun is replaced with a pronoun to establish distance between the speaker and the entity involved. Another method is footing change, as described in section 4.1. Finally, prosodic contour and intonation are used. George's boss explicitly refers to the

act as sexual intercourse, but George instead refers to his behavior using the pronoun "that." We analyze this usage of "that" as signaling three separate meanings.

The text discusses the difference in using "that" as a complementizer (line 2) and as a reference to sexual intercourse (line 17). In the latter case, "that" is more concise. Reducing words and using pronouns are methods to divert attention from the relationship between the actor and the action. In line 22, George argues that if everyone is engaging in sexual intercourse, then he should also be allowed to do so. The word "that" in this context is not abbreviated but instead emphasized through an upward tone, as George tries to justify that sex at work is considered socially acceptable.

The text reveals the use of pronominalization and its significance. This is evident in line 17, where the shortening of "that" implies unacceptability. On the other hand, in line 22, George emphasizes the importance of "that" to signal acceptability. Additionally, in line 16, Figure 9, George refers to "anyone or anything" to distance himself from the allegation of having sexual intercourse in his office. This reference to a nameless third party serves to highlight the person who failed to inform him about the rule against such behavior. 2 3 10 12 16 17 22 Figure 5.

The text discusses the manifestation of ignorance through George's identity alteration. George feigns ignorance of social and moral norms in order to divert his boss's attention. He explicitly claims ignorance, stating that if someone had told him about such behavior in the workplace, he would not have known.

The contextualization cues used by George to distance himself from his alleged actions are also emphasized through prosodic elements like pitch and volume. George suggests that there are individuals who may engage in intimate acts in office spaces, implying a potential justification for his behavior.However, 'Zipper gate' serves as an example emphasizing that although George's lie in response to his boss's accusation and question is expected, the content of his lie is deemed socially unacceptable and inappropriate. This violation of our assumption of shared knowledge is evident from the raised pitch and speech patterns George exhibits, which indicate his deceit.

These incongruities in the sitcom are emphasized through contextualization cues such as footing, pronominalization, and prosody in George's dialogue. These elements work together to create the humor in the scene. In summary, this sitcom uses incongruous concepts and events in different situations to comment on human nature. It mocks the flaws and weaknesses that are common among all people, regardless of their background. Furthermore, it covertly and overtly references our behavioral and discourse norms, using them as comedic material.

Elizabeth Magnotta and Alexandra Strohl conducted a study in linguistics that explores humor. The researchers examine a new dataset to demonstrate how contextualization cues in discourse enhance our understanding of how speakers communicate meaning and how listeners interpret meaning within a specific scene and preceding conversations. This research was published in 2011 and can be found in The Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria (Vol. 21, pp. 126-135).

The research will further explore whether the language itself is humorous or if it serves as a platform for humor to be

expressed. The following references on this topic may be helpful:

• Goffman, Erving. (1981). Forms of Talk. The University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.
• Gumperz, John. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
• Hurd, Robert. (2006). Taking Seinfeld Seriously: Modernism in Popular Culture. New Literary History, 37(4), 61-776. The Johns Hopkins University Press. doi: 10.1353/nlh.2007.0005
• Jefferson, Gail.(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.John Benjamins Publishing Co.
• Karman, B.(1998). Postmodern power play: a linguistic analysis of postmodern comedy.MA thesis, department of English, Youngstown State University.
• Morreall,J.(1987) .The philosophy of laughter and humor.Albany,NY.State university press.
• Paulos,J.A(1980) .Mathematics and Humor.The university of Chicago press

The text includes references to various academic works, such as "Linguistic aspects of verbal humor in Stand-up Comedy" by Jeannine Schwarz (2010) and "Detecting lies and deceit: the psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice" by A. Vrij (2000). It also mentions an appendix by Jefferson (2004) that contains a transcription glossary with symbols representing genre change, footing change, exaggeration, and metaphor. Additionally, it includes a glossary of transcript symbols that indicate elements like pauses, laughter, loudness, intonation, elongation, and emphasis. The text is from the Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria (2011) written by Elizabeth Magnotta and Alexandra Strohl.