Abstract In this paper we focus primarily on the second dimension of the model designed for the comparative cross-cultural analysis of conversational humor outlined in (Béal, Christine & Kerry Mullan. 2013. Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural perspective: Comparing French and Australian corpora. In Bert Peeters, Kerry Mullan & Christine Béal (eds.), Cross-culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-culturally. 107–139. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.), namely the linguistic devices and discursive strategies used by speakers to create humor in social interaction. Using a range of illustrative examples we will show that although a number of similar strategies occur in both the French and Australian English data (play on words, personification, implicit references, borrowing words from other languages), there are also marked differences in terms of preferential choices between French and Australian speakers when it comes to the mechanisms that make a particular utterance or exchange a humorous one. In particular, the French speakers in our data displayed a greater tendency to play with the language itself, while the Australians showed a preference for incongruity and absurdity, and collaborative scenarios with escalation. A number of comparative examples of failed humor are also examined. It will be seen that the responsibility for the failure in all cases lies less with the speaker and more with the hearer; i.e. the problem is not actually with the linguistic device employed, but with the hearer’s non-appreciation of the humor or lack of humor support.

中文翻译：

---

法语和澳大利亚英语的会话幽默：是什么使话语变得（滑稽）有趣？

摘要在本文中，我们主要关注于（Béal，Christine和Kerry Mullan。2013中概述的用于会话幽默的比较跨文化分析的模型的第二维度。从跨文化的角度来看会话幽默的问题：比较法语以及澳大利亚语料库。在伯特·彼特斯（Bert Peeters），凯里·穆兰（Kerry Mullan）和克里斯汀·贝亚尔（ChristineBéal）（合编），跨文化交流，跨文化交流。107–139。通过演讲者在社交互动中创造幽默感。通过一系列说明性示例，我们将表明，尽管在法语和澳大利亚英语数据中都出现了许多类似的策略（玩单词，拟人化，隐含参考，借用其他语言的单词），在讲特定发音或交流幽默的机制方面，法语和澳大利亚语使用者在优先选择方面也存在明显差异。尤其是，我们数据中的讲法语的人更倾向于使用该语言，而澳大利亚人则更倾向于不一致和荒谬的语言，以及不断升级的协作场景。还检查了失败的幽默的许多比较示例。可以看出，在所有情况下，失败的责任都不在于说话者，而更多的是听者。也就是说，问题实际上不在于所使用的语言设备，而在于听众对幽默的不理解或缺乏幽默的支持。