The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that my appropriate incongruity perspective is not some unusual or idiosyncratic approach to the analysis of humor (Hempelmann 2019: 531). It is simply a form of incongruity-resolution, but as I have explained elsewhere (Oring 2003: 2–3), I have problems with the term resolution because the incongruities in jokes, unlike those in problems and puzzles, are never fully resolved. Consequently, understanding what makes a joke involves identifying an incongruity as well as that which serves to make that incongruity psychologically appropriate though not logically or commonsensically valid. Otherwise, the appropriate incongruity perspective can be traced back the Scottish Enlightenment (Oring 1992: 1–2) and even earlier (Locke 1798 [1690], 1: 131–132). It is not at all new, and my contribution has been in consistently applying it to the analysis of specific joke texts in an effort to understand what it is that makes them humorous and to understand as well, why certain other efforts at the analysis of humorous texts often seem to miss the mark. The characterization of the joke “He is a man of letters; he works for the Post Office” as depending upon the opposition “he is a writer vs. he is not a writer” is that of the Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH). My point is that anything that is not an identity is an opposition in this formulation. Unless B = A, B is necessarily ~A. If a postal worker is not a writer, he necessarily is a “notwriter”—an “opposition.” For some reason, Hempelmann chooses to analyze this joke in terms of high prestige and low prestige occupations which seems to me at once unnecessary and mistaken. Adding the matter of prestige complicates rather than simplifies the analysis. Even if one might argue that the status of a writer is more prestigious than that of a postal worker, why is it necessary for the understanding of the joke? Why introduce the metric of social value into this analysis unless Hempelmann is subscribing to the thesis that the incongruities in jokes must be of a descending sort (Hutcheson 1750: 19–20; Kant 1987 [1790]: 203; Spencer 1860: 400)? Furthermore, if the text were, “He is a man of letters; he splices genes,” a debate might ensue over the relative prestige of

中文翻译：

---

形式化幽默：对 Christian Hempelmann 和 Julia Taylor Rayz 的回应

首先需要指出的是，我适当的不协调观点并不是某种不寻常或特殊的幽默分析方法（Hempelmann 2019：531）。这只是解决不协调问题的一种形式，但正如我在别处解释的那样（Oring 2003：2-3），我对解决这个词有疑问，因为笑话中的不协调与问题和谜题中的不协调不同，从未完全解决。因此，理解什么是笑话涉及识别不协调以及使这种不协调在心理上适当但在逻辑或常识上无效的因素。否则，适当的不协调观点可以追溯到苏格兰启蒙运动 (Oring 1992: 1-2) 甚至更早 (Locke 1798 [1690], 1: 131-132)。它一点也不新鲜，我的贡献是一直将它应用于特定笑话文本的分析，以努力理解是什么使它们变得幽默，并理解为什么某些其他分析幽默文本的努力似乎常常没有达到目标. 笑话的特征“他是个文人；他为邮局工作”，因为取决于“他是作家与他不是作家”的对立，这是幽默的语义脚本理论（SSTH）。我的观点是，在这个表述中，任何不是身份的东西都是对立的。除非 B = A，否​​则 B 必然是 ~A。如果邮政工人不是作家，他就必然是“非作家”——“反对派”。因为某些原因，Hempelmann 选择从高声望和低声望的职业来分析这个笑话，这在我看来既不必要又是错误的。添加声望问题会使分析复杂化而不是简化。即使有人会争辩说作家的地位比邮政工人的地位更高，但为什么要理解这个笑话呢？为什么要在这种分析中引入社会价值的度量，除非 Hempelmann 同意笑话中的不协调必须是降序的论点（Hutcheson 1750: 19-20; Kant 1987 [1790]: 203; Spencer 1860: 400）？此外，如果文字是，“他是一个文人；他拼接基因，”可能会引发一场关于其相对声望的争论 即使有人会争辩说作家的地位比邮政工人的地位更高，但为什么要理解这个笑话呢？为什么要在这种分析中引入社会价值的度量，除非 Hempelmann 同意笑话中的不协调必须是降序的论点（Hutcheson 1750: 19-20; Kant 1987 [1790]: 203; Spencer 1860: 400）？此外，如果文字是，“他是一个文人；他拼接基因，”可能会引发一场关于其相对声望的争论 即使有人会争辩说作家的地位比邮政工人的地位更高，但为什么要理解这个笑话呢？为什么要在这种分析中引入社会价值的度量，除非 Hempelmann 同意笑话中的不协调必须是降序的论点（Hutcheson 1750: 19-20; Kant 1987 [1790]: 203; Spencer 1860: 400）？此外，如果文字是，“他是一个文人；他拼接基因，”可能会引发一场关于其相对声望的争论 斯宾塞 1860：400）？此外，如果文字是，“他是一个文人；他拼接基因，”可能会引发一场关于其相对声望的争论 斯宾塞 1860：400）？此外，如果文字是，“他是一个文人；他拼接基因，”可能会引发一场关于其相对声望的争论