225

I Really Wanna Make You Laugh:

Stand-Up Comedy and Audience Response
Paul McIlvenny, Sari Mettovaara and Ritva Tapio
Department of English
University of Oulu
I really wanna make you laugh, okay. (Bill Nelson)
I love this audience. (Frank Skinner)
Im joking. Quack Quack! Im a comedian. (Arsenio Hall)
1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper we will sketch some preliminary research that explores how
live and improvised humour is interactively accomplished in public broadcast
transmissions or in videotaped live shows. Our spotlight will focus on
professional stand-up comedy, which is a rather strange and precarious line of
work in which to succeed one must routinely win the attention, approval and
laughter of a large assembly of people. The key elements of live stand-up
comedy are clearly expressed in the quotations that head this introduction - they
are taken from shows by some of the comedians in focus in this study and they
illustrate the demands of making an audience laugh, of winning their approval
and the danger of crossing social and cultural taboos.
The work of Sacks, Jefferson and other conversation analysts on the social
organisation of laughter and Atkinsons studies of interactional patterns of
speaker talk and audience response in public political discourse will form the
basis for an analysis of fragments of natural performance comedy in order to
begin to answer the following questions. What conversational devices does a
stand-up comedian use to elicit laughter and other audience responses? In what
ways can a comedian continue after eliciting an audience response? And how
can the comedian focus on the audience members in the construction of audience
identity and response? The work reported here is intended to challenge the
assumption that audiences act spontaneously and have little to do with what
performers do on stage. It is clear that the notion of a standard routine comedian tells joke, audience laugh, comedian continues to next joke - does not

226

do justice to the variety and complexity of the interaction between comedian and
audience in contemporary performances.
2. STAND-UP COMEDY: ORIGINS AND PRESENT DAY

Serious talk often commands the most attention both in everyday life and in
academic research, so it is sometimes hard to recognise the pervasiveness of
humour, merry-making and comedy in a myriad of forms across cultures and
settings. Indeed, we should appreciate the routine use of humour (both
spontaneous and standardised) in everyday conversation by ordinary people and
that it requires no special gift. But it is also true, as Apte (1985, p. 199) notes,
that although the linguistic performance of most native speakers of a language
is suitable for everyday social interaction, few individuals excel in using speech
for the purpose of dramatization. We acknowledge the power of humour in
everyday life, but in this paper we wish to concentrate on those select few in
British and American culture who have excelled in using and exploiting humour
in front of an audience.
In Europe, jesters, clowns, fools and wits have entertained Kings, Queens
and ordinary folk since medieval times: Shakespeare in the 16th century used
them as incisive social critics and observers. In the 16th century in Italy
commedia dellarte refined the improvisatory comic social satire. From the late
18th century onwards in America, the fairground, the circus arena, the 19th
century lecture circuit, the American burlesque and the vaudeville stage have all
contributed to the development of what we now know as stand-up comedy.
Since the Second World War stand-up has thrown up gifted English speaking
performers such as Lenny Bruce, Billy Connolly, Bill Cosby, Robin Williams,
Richard Pryor and Whoopie Goldberg.
Indeed, stand-up comedy has become very popular in the last 10 years in
Britain and America. It increasingly finds its way onto mainstream TV and sales
of videos of stand-up performances are high if judged by the high profile they
command in high street record shops. Also, live performance stand-up comedy
has many venues in London; for example, in the summer of 1992 there could
easily be 70 different events each week spread over 15 or so clubs (TIME OUT
listings magazine). More alternative stand-up - improvised, theatrical or
cinematic - has also become popular in America, Britain and Europe (The
acclaimed British improvised comedy TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway?

227

was adapted for the Finnish market by Neil Hardwick and broadcast as Instant
Entertainment).
So what makes a skilful comedian? Improvisation, in addition to
memorisation and editing, is essential in live stand-up comedy as in many other
live performance types. We should also note that a skilful comedian is more than
a joke-telling machine to tickle an audience with funny but forgettable content;
good humour on stage often has a serious import behind it. Both Koziski (1984)
and Mintz (1985) recognise the important role of the comedian as critic and
observer of human life. One reason for the critical place of humour in western
societies, and maybe in all human societies is that it escapes the censor, thus
allowing a dangerous use and abuse of convention. But the danger can be
difused because the humorous mode separated from the realm of serious
discourse enables performers to deny the import of a humorous remark by
claiming it was only a joke (Mulkay 1988).
3. PUBLIC SPEAKING AND POLITICAL ORATORY

In order to begin an analysis of stand-up comedy it is profitable to compare

it to public speaking in general. The aim of a comedian as well as a public
speaker is to keep the attention of the audience and create affiliative audience
responses. Studies of public speaking, specifically political oratory, have shown
that one is not just born to be a good speaker but that one can improve ones
performance by studying what actually happens in a performance by a good
speaker. Good public speakers do not only speak but they manipulate the
audience in order to elicit affiliative responses (Atkinson 1984, p. 12). The
purpose of this paper is to show that comedians use similar as well as special
techniques in their routines. Indeed, the scant literature on stand-up comedy
does hint that the power and authority with which some comedians hold their
audiences attention and gain agreement with their points of view seem almost
shaministic (Koziski Olson 1988, p. 109).
Atkinsons work on political speakers and their rhetorical methods for
constructing political speeches that engage the audiences participation,
primarily through applause, was a stepping stone for the study reported here. We
can ask if similar rhetorical techniques are used by the stand-up comedian to
elicit laughter as by the politician to elicit applause.

228

4. LAUGHTER IN EVERYDAY CONVERSATION

Jeffersons observations that laughter is not chaotic and that it cannot just
be described simply as spontaneous laughter in transcripts have led to the full
recognition that laughter is sensitively organised to the contingencies of talk.
Jefferson (1985) has shown that laughter is of different forms, such as huh or
hah, and is precisely timed according to the talk-in-progress and the evolving
social situation. For example, it has been misleadingly claimed that laughter
floods out during an utterance and is uncontrollable. Jefferson demonstrates
that often the laughter embedded in an utterance is precisely timed to overlap
and hide sensitive or taboo words and phrases. In addition, Jefferson (1979) has
examined how laughter can be invited by a current speaker by the placing of a
laugh particle upon completion of an utterance. In this study, we attend to the
precise transcription of the comedians personal laughter and the communal
laughter of the audience, ie. its form, duration and contour. We also extend our
scope to cover other audience responses that we believe are also sensitively
organised, such as cheers, whoops, whistles, etc..
5. THE STUDY

Videotapes of stand-up comedians - broadcast on public TV or released as a

video for the general public (usually containing more offensive material) formed the core material for the study. Altogether, the shows of varying lengths
of nine stand-up comedians were analysed.
Linguistic resources for artistic verbal performance include words, phrases,
intonation patterns, tempo, voice quality, volume, and rhetorical devices such as
repetition, ellipsis, metaphor and alliteration (Apte 1985, p. 199). Of course,
linguistic resources are crucial to the success of a comedians show, but this
paper concentrates on how conversational devices are used to build humour and
to elicit audience responses.
5.1 Types of Audience Response
Audience responses in stand-up comedy are generally more varied and
more frequent than in political oratory. Both affiliative and dis-affiliative
responses were found in our corpus. Affiliation can be shown with laughter,
applause, cheers, whoops and whistles. In addition, a response of fairly recent
origin has emerged in the USA: that of the barf (like a low dog bark) with an

229
accompanying rotating hand gesture as seen in Arsenio Halls show.
Disaffiliation is not so common in the shows of good comedians, unless elicited
deliberately, but can include jeers, boos and verbal heckles. Skilful comedians
can cut-down a heckler with ease.
Atkinson (1984) has noted some features of applause in public discourse it is a collective activity with a normative duration of 8 seconds and a
characteristic loudness curve that builds quickly to a peak and then dies away
slowly before falling rapidly at the end. Atkinson recognises that cheering has
quite a different dynamic than applause - it is usually brief and contains an
extended vowel sound that others can join in with. Is laughter a quite differently
organised response than applause? One obvious difference is that laughter is
much more prevalent, and quite local and personal. There is a need for close
attention to the flow of the performance because of the pressure in joking
situations to understand the puzzle/joke and display recognition as quickly as
possible in your local environment of friends or buddies. Pollio & Edgerly
(1976) claim from experimental studies that members of groups who watched
recorded comedians shows reacted differently according to the make-up of the
group (eg. strangers, friends, plant). As an illustration of this point, we note that
comedians often comment on the audience response directly by creating an
imaginary dialogue between one member and another that illustrates the
importance of the accountability of laughter - they may point to one couple and
say she said to him: dont laugh its rude. Also, laughter in an audience can
identify specific groups and
hlight a
particularly strange or idio
udience
response.
However, audiences often react not just with one response, but
simultaneously with two or more. It appears that responses are ordered in quite
specific ways such that their appearance and layering is tailored to the
performance in progress, eg. applause emerges from laughter (and drowns it out)
to show particular appreciation of the recent material. Other vocal responses
(cheers, whoops, whistles) have different characteristics - they are usually loud
and distinctive; the cheers are easy to join, but whistles and whoops are quite
individual responses of short duration.
What we need to remember for this paper is that the production of

230
responses by audiences demonstrates that close attention is being paid to the
immediately preceding segment of talk. In fact, an audience is both shaped by
the talk it is attending and through its responses help shape what will be made
of that talk (Goodwin 1986, p. 311), ie. its interpretation. Also, this is the only
immediate way in which a performer can test, gauge and establish audience
approval. As a byproduct, it is also a resource for the analyst. One last point to
note in this connection is that it has become common practice to explicitly cue
laughter for television recordings and even to add canned laughter to shows in
post-production. However, it is often clear for an attentive viewer that
something is amiss - the audience laughs too aggressively or the timing is
wrong. This clearly illustrates that audience responses are not just bland,
predictable and uniform, but that they are sequentially sensitive and precisely
timed to the witnessable performance in progress.
5.2 Laugh Traps

The elicitation of audience response by a claptrap has been a focus of

Atkinsons research on political oratory (Atkinson 1984). In order to get
applause a politician must make it clear that he has come to the final stage of
delivery of an applaudable message and make clear the point at which his
message is to be completed (p. 48). Here we can extend this analysis to consider
laughtraps - devices used by comedians to trap laughter. Stand-up comedians
must also prepare the audience for the laughable message and make clear the
point at which laughter is appropriate, for example after the punch line. Thus,
we ask of our material how it is that audiences recognise a laughable message
and at what precise time laughter is appropriate.
As most books on textual humour report, much humour in language is built
on the structure of language and its natural ambiguity. Very common standard
forms include conventional or fossilised linguistic structure, eg. syntactic form.
In the following two examples we see how the packaging of a recognisable
structure leads to a recognisable trajectory of a second pair part that plays in
some way with the structure of the first pair part. Example 1 shows how a two
item list of qualities consisting of an adjective-noun structure is used in the
second pair part (B) to humourous effect by reversing the position of the
adjectives in the two structures. In Example 2, the first pair part proverb (A)
contains a two-item comparative structure it takes more energy to... than to...

231

EXAMPLE 1 - [Bill Hicks: B18]

BH:
A->
B->

maybe i'm just jealous man.

everyone at the beach is wfect y'know
(turns to look at audience))
mn:'d tite eeth.
i've got ate skin(.)mned tieth.

AUD:
BN:

hHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[khuh
[NOT my environment

which is exploited in the second pair part response (B), inviting laughter. In this
case, a dialogue is constructed between a stranger and the comedian in which the
retort by the comedian humorously twists a conventional proverb. In these
examples the production of a conventional format, followed by the same format
with humourous play allows an audience to track the laughable message and
predict its completion.
EXAMPLE

2 - [Bill Hicks: B 1 9 ]
i got a(.)clas face: that
i don't know what's wrong with my face but
people i don't even know walk up to me out of the
blue
((imitative))
and go <<what's wrong>>.
(0.5)
hhhhhhhhhhh-h-h-h

BH:

AUD:
BH:
A->
AUD:
BH:
AUD:
BN:

B->

nothing. (0.7)
<<well it ukes more energy to &xn than it does
to tie>> ((face))
[hh-h-hyeah (y'know)it ukes more energy to &.nt that out
than it &es to leave me atine.
[hhHHHHHHHHHhhh
hhhhhhpJh_hh_hhhhhh
x x
-x-l
[yeah really(. why don't you

Such an approach that looks at the structure of language and its role in the
production of humour is interesting and important, but in this paper we look
specifically at conversational devices that are used to elicit laughter. In this
section we will discuss the list, contrast pair and disclaimer devices, each of
which can do particular work to build tension before a punch line. At various
points we will note features of intonation, timing, stress, volume, tempo and
gesture that may be important.

232
EXAMPLE3 - [Smith&Jones: B17]
S:
J:

al?+s: and ak:k their u:sk >is ever with us:<.

verily

S:

tch so long as there is opussion and f;yranny

in the m:rld.
they must w the tight of hnpe
lyes: J
hrning,
yeh
TEN:D the -me of commsion,
right
(0.5)
an' >&ir the'SHIt a bit from time to time<.
[hhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHH

(.)
1->
J:
S:
J:
S:
J:
S:
AUD:

2->
3->

AUD:
J:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[( )you seem to know a lot about this Am]nes:ty:

Atkinson (1984) has shown that lists of three play an important part in
political oratory: the audience recognises the list and claps after the third item,
which usually begins with and and contains the applaudable message. In
Example 3 we see that in this laughtrap there are 3 items in the list and the third
item is preceeded by and and contains the laughable message or punch line.
Indeed the joke is built on the shift in discourse style between the first two items
of the list - very formal and solemn - and the third item which is colloquial. The
intonation of the third item is falling (not continuing) and the tempo is increased.
In Example 4 we find not only a list of three but also an embedded contrast
pair, which often begins with a puzzle the solution of which is offered in two
EXAMPLE 4 - [Dame Edna: B3]
DE:
1A1
2A2
AUD:
DE:
AUD:
DE:
AUD:

3B

of course, y're not just looking at my frock=

=i wonder who's looking at my bt
because i am wearing a hat=
=i'm not wearing my (.) &at show hostess's hat,
my (.) Elbourne: '-star millionairess's
hat either
IhhhHHHHHHHHhhhh
[?I'M:] 'EAR'ing (.)
wait for this TMMy'gmy gynaeco'yIlcR_l-hat.
h hhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhh
[because TALL my
guests tonight are m:gnant.
(.)THEy are.
[hHHHHHH]Hhhhh

233
opposite parts which generally have similarities in grammatical structure, length
and content (Atkinson 1984, p. 73). At first Dame Edna raises a puzzle about
my hat (she is not wearing a hat). Through a three part list structure she builds
a contrast pair that contains the laughable message in the third item. The first
two items (Al, A2) tell of what hats she is not wearing; the third item (B) gives
the second part of the contrast pair - the hat she is supposedly wearing - which
resolves the puzzle metaphorically. Thus Dame Edna skilfully uses two devices
to simultaneously signal the impending laughable message. In addition, falling
intonation, stress on the key word gynaecological and the explicit cue wait for
this all add to the power of the punch line.
Next we shall look at a device that has not yet been found in political
oratory, viz. pre-positioned alignment in which a speaker aligns to something
before it is said. One particular form, a disclaimer, is used in everyday
conversation to prevent the hearer from reacting in a negative way to what the
speaker will say (Hewitt & Stokes 1975). McLaughlin (1985, p. 202) claims that
their function is to mark an upcoming utterance as a candidate basis for
negative typification, and to ask for the hearers indulgence. The typical form
of a disclaimer is illustrated in Example 5 by the utterance i know i sound just
like a tourist which is pre-positioned before but ( ) could you please please tell
mehhuhh.... The disclaimer device is structured to wind up the audience for the
punch line by adding disclaimers appropriate for the humorous message. By
their nature disclaimers delay the onset of the target utterance and allow time to
judge the response and thus change that target. In this example, two disclaimers
(Dl, D2) with similar format, both start with i know and are followed by a
EXAMPLE 5 - [Emo Phillips: B6]
AUD:
EP:

AUD:

-xas soon as i got here,

i pulled someone over an' i said look huh .hh
i know y're &k of thishhuh (.)
i know i sound just like a mristhuhh .h
[-h-h-h(.)
but ( )could you ease &&ase -11 mehhuhh
where they we (.) 'bull's eyhehh .HHHHH HUH .HH
[-h-hhhh?ZRBEfHBHHHHRU

AUD:
EP:

HHHhhhhhhh (hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)hhhhhhhh
[AN' IT'S RIGHT 'HEREHHHH .hhh huh oh

D1
D2
AUD:
E2:

234
breath and pause, are used to build a tension before the punch line (T). Before
the crucial name (a famous crass TV programme in Britain) Emo pauses and
then delivers it with falling intonation. He has thus given many clues to the form
expected and the timing of the applaudable message. In addition, his eccentric
character uses peculiar and often ingressive breath markers at appropriate points
to invite laughter.
Example 6 illustrates an extreme case of the use of the disclaimer. Mark
EXAMPLE 6 - [Mark Little: B4]
ML:

->
->

L
D1
L
D2

AUD:
L
-> D3+L
L
P
AUD:
AUD:
ML:

AUD:

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO is just er:

do something from my impressionist era (.) in
australia=
=something that i've become a J.&tle bit er:
an' you're gonna hate me for this (.)
.h it's just that i've become a utle bit erm:
>well this is an Mu1 thing to sy< especially
on television .h an' in front of a big crowd=
[(hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)
=>it's just that i've become a Ziddle bit- (.)
oh yer gonna hate- oh- i've become a liddwell< .hh(.)I'VE BECOME a I'VE BECOME a
J.&tle bit 'famous. ah
(1.0)
[hhhhhhhhphhhhh
ccccccccccccccccccccc
cccccccccccccccccccwww""-----[I KNOW THAT'S A BYGGER OF A THING TO sB:Y (.)
but it doesn't matter=
=>what do you do for a iQb< (.) i'm a mrse
what do you do (.) i'm famous::stiff
.hhh
[-c-cccc
[hhhhh

Little uses three disclaimers (D1, D2, D3) interspersed between repetitions of the
lead line (L), ie. ive become a little bit. The lead line is missing the punch
word famous. The disclaimers seem designed to prevent the audience from
becoming offended for what the comedian is going to say and to express his
modesty and concern for what the audience thinks of him. In fact, the
disclaimers cleverly build an absurd overmodesty that is so clearly flouted by the
final statement (P) about the comedians fame. We note that in the audience
response initial laughter is overwhelmed by cheers and then a whoop. In
summary, we have shown in this section that comedians can draw upon a variety
of conversational devices when inviting audience response. Further research

235
will show how the different types of audience response are related and organised
in relation to the comedians talk.
5.3 Post-Response Continuation in Overlap

We will now shift our attention to describing some patterns in comedian

continuations after audience response. Often the continuation is in overlap with
the audience response. If we look at Anglo-American conversational interaction,
overlap is minimised and often dealt with as a source of trouble (Sacks et al
1978). In public speaking, overlap has a simpler character as the setting
demands a certain orderliness which is engendered by a stricter and more
explicit turn-management system. We found that in stand-up comedy a
continuation by the comedian in overlap with an audience response can result in
the audience reacting in at least two ways: to stop responding or to continue or
enhance their current response.
Example 7 illustrates a straightforward and very common form of
continuation using loudness in which the response to a punch line is overlapped
by an utterance shifting to the next part of the act. The next example (Example
8) is more interesting in that it demonstrates that at other points in an act when
EXAMPLE 7 - [Mark Little: C7]
ML:

i have been in the country er: two weeks now.

(0.5) an' i mlise that you have every 'righTh.

AUD:

hhHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[ wwwwwwww"w-----[WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO is just er:
(2.0)
do something from my immsionist era...

ML:

->

. continuation is not so obvious extra work has to be undertaken in

th the audience response. This often requires material to be recycled
ation with an increase in volume. In the first half of Example 8 a
invited (R2) before reaching the punch line of a joke. Bob Nelson
quickly to overlap (C) with the response - loudness followed by
im ready im ready - and to lead into the visual gag based on the
g e of New York. One could describe this as keeping the audience on
h may be necessary because of the difficulty in relating the latter
:ontent to the early audience response elicitation (R2).
other form of continuation a comedian may prefer to work on current

236

EXAMPLE 8 - [Bob Nelson: C5, C8, B12]

BN:
->
->
AUD:

R1
R2

I'M m WT nervous though

because i m from new 'York and i know i know
how to & this.
[i15) r:;z;h;e;-:yo:r--l and er: r,JO,")
I-x- --x--x--x--xxx

AUD:
BN:
BN:

i'm mdy for this (.)

an' we're gonna have a good time i'm ready
i jus' wanna let you know
there's IXL heckling (0.5)
during my set=they say i'm a little harsh un- (.)
i don' wanna the show t' get ugly or anything
[((jacket off))

B:
AUD:

'OKay

AUD:

HHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
--x-x- -x- -x-x- -x-x-x-x[okay i f;hink we understand each other 'now: er
---->

O'okay,

<------------(7,5)---here we go.' ((exposes gun))

[ha hhhhhhhHhHHHHHHHhHhHHHHHH
[-x-x-x-x-x-x-

BN:

Pl->

AUD:
BN:

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh'hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
P2-> (0.5) [i don't aink there'll be any -trouble. heh

AUD:
BN:

hahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
P3-> never is (.) unfortunately heheh
(1.0)

AUD:

hhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh
]
>this a this looks real doesn't it?
look real (0.5)
does this look real to you?

BN:
BN:

C->

humorous material in progress, rather than to move onto new material or

activities by refusing or competing with audience response, and hence a
comedian can encourage the audience to continue with their response. Example
8 illustrates some play continuations after the visual punch line. In this case
they are connected to the humorous material the audience is currently responding
to and they are presented with normal voice. Also, a laugh particle is present at
the end of each continuation utterance. Jefferson (1979) has argued that in
conversational interaction a laugh particle invites laughter when the status of a

237
laughable message may be ambiguous. They are motivated here for an
important reason: they incite further audience response at the precise time when
the trajectory of the continuation may suggest the audience stop laughing and
attend to the next matter.
This phenomena parallels the finding in political oratory that charismatic
speakers, such as Tony Benn or Martin Luther King, repeatedly overlap their
audience responses using further claptraps (Atkinson 1984, p. 99). Indeed,
orators are often refusing the invited applause through the veil of modesty;
however, in stand-up comedy we find that comedians are actively and
deliberately pursuing further response. There are interesting variants of this
device, for example an interesting mix of two techniques of continuing in
overlap was the trademark of a British comedian called Frankie Howard. He
would typically invite audience response through the casual and apparently
unintentional use of innuendoes and then refuse the invited laughter with the
catchphrase Ooh No, dont titter. This clever combination of refusal and play
. . .
..
.

238
EXAMPLE 9 - [Ben Elton: C2]
AUD:
BE:
B->

-x-x-x-xthe &:gn (0.8)for <mad mQrks> (0.6)

is a triangle(0.5)containing
a m(O.g)digging.

AUD:
BE:

hhhhhh
[WHY.

AUD:
BE:
AUD:
BE:

hhhHHHHHHhhh
[WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME you saw anyone
&going at the side of the aad
[(h h hh)hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[OR ANYTHING

AUD:
BE:

(hhhhhhh)
ELSE GOING ON for aat &ter=

BE:
AUD:
BE:

P->

=i'll tell you what (sign for) the roadworks should

be (0.5) a triangle (0.4) full of (0.6) a:& all.

Pl

hHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[my:= ALL (0.5)
(2.5)

AUD:
BE:
AUD:

hhhhhhhhhhhh
[will go on till September.
(2.0)
IhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
f -*-*-*-

AUD:

HHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-x-x-x-x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lw--- "-- "- "- "- s-s[&lays due to ak all,
(3.0)

BE:

P2

AUD:
BE:
P3

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x-x-x- -x[ an' then (1.0) then it should be (0.5)

>another (sign)< (0.5)
tik all end
(.)

AUD:
BE: P4P5

hhhHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
(0.5)end(0.5)of && all=there is no more(.)- all

AUD:
BE: P6P7

HHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh'hhhhhhhhhhh
(l.O)&& all is over (1.O)you may proceed without

AUD:
BE:

hhh'hhhhhHHHHHHHHHh-h-h-h-h-h- -h-I
&J& all(l.O)for three hundred yards just enough time

BE:

to get into third when tick all

will begin all over again
(2.0)
LhhhhHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh
[-*- -*hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-h-h-hladies and gentleman ( . ) when they `really...

AUD:
AUD:
BE:

c->

239

applause dies down he prefaces the continuation with anthen (1.0) then it
should be as if moving onto new material. Thus he orients to the terminal
nature of applause whilst shifting back to the prior humorous format, ie. roadsign
texts with fuck all replacing the activity. Skilfully he manages to invite (P3) a
further response from silence and to play (P4-P7) further with that. He finally
moves onto a new development of the joke with the conventional attentionseeking phrase (C): ladies and gentleman, after which the audience cease
responding.
So, it is clear that the organisation of comedian talk and audience response
in stand-up comedy is a multi-faceted phenomena that does not conform to the
standard model proposed by Atkinson for public speaking, ie. a joke + punch
line, then an 8 second audience response, followed by the next joke + punch line,
etc.. A live comedy show can best be described as consisting of a rich
interaction between a comedian and audience, in which the comedians talk and
the variety of audience responses are intricately interwoven. As we have seen,
continuations in overlap with an audience response are fine-tuned to the work of
creating and maintaining laughter whilst moving stepwise through a show.
5.4 Reference to Membership Categories: Constructing Audience Identity

Next we will look at a classic way for a comedian to involve and find out
about the audience. In conversational interaction, it has been found that
participants are continually invoking members categories that are inferencerich, in that a great deal of knowledge that members have about a society is
available through these categories, and any member of any category is
presumptively a representative member (whether they like it or not) (Sacks 1989,
p. 271-2).
In the stand-up comedy show a comedian may on many occasions use a
membership category to involve the audience in identifying, affiliating or
disaffiliating with such a category, usually with some explicit response. Then
the comedian can build humour on the knowledge available through the
membership category; either making favourable or unfavourable references. In
political oratory, Atkinson (1984, p. 37) has shown how favourable references to
us or unfavourable references to them are used to invite applause from a
supportive audience. The comedian has more of a problem in that an audience is
a disparate group of people that do not as a matter of course clearly identify with

240

a particular membership category, such as a political cause.

We show how comedians may craftily use such references to gauge
audience receptivity and provide a platform from which to launch a joke or
comment related to that membership category. One aspect of this device is the
delivery of a reference to a membership category which invites an audience
response. Different responses are possible, such as applause, cheers or groans
depending on the affiliation or assessment demanded.
In the next two examples, a favourable reference to something we identify
with - usually something clearly bounded and that a disparate audience will
have in common - elicits a response. In Example 10, Emo Philips clearly
articulates (A) the home town where the show is taking place, pauses, breathes
audibly, and elicits a cheer to which he responds with the news receipt token
EXAMPLE 10 - [Emo Phillips: B14a]
w--[<i can'; Jell y~-(_l.~)-h_ow excited i am (2.0)
w
"""""
[w--w--w-

AUD:
EP:
AUD:
EP:
AUD:

R->

EP:

to be in mTENGha;m
--w--w-

.hh
oh::
oh:
[-c-c-ccccccccccccccccc
Lpx-

as soon as i got here i pulled someone over

an' i said `look...

oh:. He proceeds to tell a joke that relies on the audiences complicity in

laughing at the fact that a crass TV programme is made in the town.
The membership category does not have to be residence in a geographical
location, but can be related to an achievement, a result or an event. In Example
11, Arsenio Hall refers (R) to a football game between his home team and
another team: the home team is simply referred to as the raiders. After a slight
EXAMPLE 11 - [Arsenio Hall: Bll]
AH:
R->
AUD:
AH:

ye:::s my name is &ll((handclap))arsenio hall

and yesterday i watched the a:iders bnsas
city &.iefs' 'wme (.h)
'aa- 0
[yeah yeh (1.2) [tough outcome for us but it
was a gnod g.ame (.) an' you know (.) what i er er
i learned there's a a -back (.)
for the &efs named

241

pause the audience grumble or groan (they had performed badly) and Arsenio
provides a second assessment in the standard position. He then goes on to make
a humorous comment about one of the opposing team members.
In Example 12, Frank Skinner refers (R) to the home town as having the
oldest football club in the world, which is an achievement worthy of some sort
of response. The cheers start during his comment (P) on his discovery. The
standard receipt token yeah occurs after a slight pause and then, in contrast to
previous examples, he slights (P) the team for their visible signs of age.
EXAMPLE 12 - [Frank Skinner: B13]
FS:
R->
P->
AUD:

FS:
AUD:
FS:

it's ni:ce to be in mtingum (.) ahi-incidentally nottingham is the hame of the

el:dest faatball dub in the "m:rld
AN' IT SHO:WS
i discovered in fact (.) yeah (2.0)
I-cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccJ
I-,- - x - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x[s-s-w------l
es
Phhhhhhhhhh
[as the bloke over there said
(<<can tee>>)

doesn't

it

From the analyses above we can see that the delivery of a membership
category inviting response most likely involves a clear mention of the category, a
pause and then a post response receipt, acknowledgement or assessment token.
Of course the exact reference choice is very important, however it usually occurs
at lulls in the show routine when no joke is currently in progress. Through the
use of this device the comedian can construct and establish audience identity.
Indeed, Mintz (1985, p. 78) notes that working the room - constructing the
homogeneity of the group for the audience itself - is essential if laughter as an
expression of shared values is to occur.
However, delivery does not guarantee an immediate response as we shall
see in the next example. If we return to the long Example 8, we see Bob Nelson
attempt, as in Example 10, to mention (Rl) a home town (the category dweller
of New York; the show is not in New York), but the audience falters in its
response to the mention (R2). The 0.5 second pause elicits only a whoop, and he
recycles the reference. The earlier recycle i know i know and the filler and
er: are interesting in that these types of talk resources often occur in postpunchline position at or just after audience response in anticipation of an

242
audience response flooding out a continuation by the comedian. They are not
rich in content nor topic development but they save a certain amount of modesty
for the poor comedian who can no longer continue because of the unexpected
audience response. The second time, Bob Nelson does get his audience to
respond but rather weakly. The typical receipt token yeah appears a short way
into the response. The reference to New York is essential for the success of the
visual gag that appears later.
The next example is most interesting because it clearly highlights the
power of a reference to a home place, and thus that audience members are
constantly tracking for possible references that they can respond to. In Example
EXAMPLE 13 - [Arsenio Hall: B15]
AH:

AUD:

ah:
a young lady by the name of mdy 'kexnp
a- speaking of words (0.5) ((looks to left))
( ) interesting spelling thing
ah wendy kemp tip is an &ghth ader
who mn the zsno mlling tie in &xas
(.)
and erm ((looks around audience))
yes-x-x-x-x-x- uhehh] (2.0)
[-x-x-x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AUD:
AH:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x-xis that for FOR WDY? OR FOR TEXAS.

AH:

WAS that for mdy? or for aas.

Rl+R2->

AUD:

(wendy)
[ tE:X:S)

AH:
AUD:

oh: ok s:s yEKS (0.5)tias(.)

[hhhhhhh

AH:

well she won the reno spelling bee there

and the ?~ss asked her...

13, Arsenio Hall primes a joke by announcing the achievement of a schoolgirl in

a spelling competition (Rl+R2). This is a typical applaudable message and it
could be that Arsenio Hall invites a response with the pause and filler and er:.
However, he seems genuinely surprised by the response and also raises the
empirical ambiguity of the object of the response by saying: is that for Wendy
or for texas? The proximity of the mention of the state in which she won to the
audience response does seem to give support to his construction of an
ambiguity and it would seem that the type of response - applause - does not

243
favour of the other. At the onset of the spontaneous
ll gives the classic receipt token yes and after receiving an
uity question, he repeats it as if responding again but to a
the applause prompted by the reference to Texas.
e looked at favourable references to membership categories
e is taken as representative of. But, unfavourable references
In Example 14, Mark Little is clearly Australian and has
ark Little: Bl6]
only been in the sountry a shart Lime
you might have noticed that er:
mss (.) actually got ont- onto me
and actually -ted me in the ms
aying
you were a &nch of tinging 'ms .h
****
[ (no) ccccc
cccccccccccccccccccc-ccc-cccc-cccc[i'd like to take i would like to tike this
Lrmity to aaogise for that (.) er:
lowered; waves hands))

show of using this as material. He makes an unfavourable

ou (the English) and the audience respond after a slight
jeering cheer. Instead of responding with the yeah receipt
wn the response with his hands - which both acknowledges
of the response and yet claims the response given is uncalled
vith the beginnings of an apology that leads into his joke.
e examples and in every show we have studied so far,
use of this special device that draws on membership
humorous message is usually packaged in two halfs: the first
curs at lulls in the show, elicits the audience response to the
second half launches into the humorous message bouncing
nowledge available from the category which has now been
section of the audience.

: we have illuminated a little of the complexity of the

244

asymmetric interaction between stand-up comedian and audience, and that we

have not destroyed your enjoyment of stand-up comedy. In future we hope to
address some of the following issues that have arisen in the course of this study.
How does performance comedy differ from humour in everyday life? How are
interactional and linguistic resources used to construct humour on stage? How
does a comedian accomplish a successful joke and invite laughter? What sorts
of response does an audience give during a comedians set? How does a
comedians material change according to situated performance and audience
response? What happens when the audience doesnt laugh? What does it mean
to have the elusive comic timing? Too much for just one paper.
Before we close we would like to acknowledge the inherent problems that
one encounters both theoretically and empirically when analysing humour. As
Mulkay (1988, p. 28) points out: analysts of humour operate within a different
discursive mode from participants in humour.... Analysts of humour are, of
course, unavoidably committed to assessing humour according to the
requirements of the serious mode. But, in so doing, we must be alert to the
dangers involved. In sum, for an analyst of humour it is not yet clear whether
or not the serious and humorous modes of discourse are incommensurable.
While we appreciate the depth of this problem, we feel that our study has
scratched an interactional surface. Whether further and deeper analyses of
humour and improvisation can really come to grips with the phenomena we shall
see.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This paper is the result of the work of a student research group; in

particular, the work of two students, Ritva Tapio and Sari Mettovaara, forms a
substantial part of the paper. Threads were tied and other sections added by Paul
McIlvenny.

245
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS:

Amalgamated, with additions, from Heritage(l989), Atkinson(1984) and

Jefferson(1985).
.CAPS
"kjil"

louder than surrounding speech

.
,

quieter than surounding speech

stressed syllable
prolongation
slower than surrounding speech
faster

distinctive voice quality

terminating intonation
continuing
"

question

falling tone
rising tone

t
(1.0)
(.)
0000
[ooo
=

higher pitch than normal

1 second silence
micropause

but

:
<jls>
>hgj<
<<tg>>

(
)
(fdfg)
((dfg))
huh, hah, heh
.h
hhhh
-h-x-x-xxxxx
ccc
-cw--s---

"

overlap onset
latched utterance
stop or cut-off
untranscribable
transcribers guess
comments
laugh particle
inbreath
laughter
isolated laugh
isolated clap
sporadic applause
applause
cheers
isolated cheer
single whoop; tail indicates duration
single whistle

246

REFERENCES:

Apte, M.L. (1985). Humour and Laughter. London: Cornell University Press.
Atkinson, M. (1984). Our Masters Voices: The Language and Body Language
of Politics. London: Methuen.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience Diversity, Participation and Interpretation. Text
6(3): 283-316.
Heritage, J. (1989). Current Developments in Conversation Analysis. In Roger,
D. & Bull, P. (ed), Conversation. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters.
Hewitt, J. & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40:
l-11.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A Technique for Inviting Laughter and Its Subsequent
Acceptance Declination. In Psathas, G. (ed), Everyday Language: Studies
in Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum.
Jefferson, G. (1985). An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter.
In Dijk, T. van (ed), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3. London:
Academic Press.
Koziski Olson, S.K. (1988). Standup Comedy. In Mintz, L.E. (ed), Humour in
America. London: Greenwood Press.
Koziski, Stephanie (1984). The Standup Comedian as Anthropologist: Intentional
Culture Critic. Journal of Popular Culture 18: 57-76.
McLaughlin, M. (1985). Conversation: How Talk is Organised. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage.
Mintz, L.E. (1985). Standup Comedy as Social and Cultural Mediation.
American Quarterly 37(1): 71-80.
Mulkay, Michael (1988). On Humour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

247

Sacks, H. (1989). Harvey Sacks - Lectures 1964-1965. Human Studies 12(3-4).

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jeffferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the
Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 50: 696-735.

Paul McIlvenny
Sari Mettovaara
Ritva Tapio
Department of English
University of Oulu
PL 191
SF-90101 Oulu
FINLAND