Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 18, 2017

Are jokes funnier in one’s native language?

  • Ayşe Ayçiçeği-Dinn

    Ayse Aycicegi-Dinn graduated from Istanbul University and completed her master’s degree at Bogazici University and her Ph.D. at Marmara University. She conducted post-doctoral research at American University, Washington, D.C., and became a visiting scholar at Boston University, Boston, MA. Ayse Aycicegi-Dinn has worked as the vice-chair and chairperson of the department of psychology at Istanbul University, where she also served as vice-rector. At present, she is chairperson of the Department of Psychology and director of the Center for Research and Appplied Psychology at Istanbul 29 Mayis University. She has led several national and international projects in the field of cognitive psychology. She also translated major texts into Turkish including Cognitive Psychology, An Introduction to Experimental Design in Psychology: A Case Approach and Forty Studies that Changed the Psychology. Her research fields include neuropsychology, cross-cultural psychology and psycholinguistics.

    , Simge Şişman-Bal

    Simge Şişman-Bal is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Istanbul University, Turkey. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Experimental Psychology from Istanbul University. Her research interests include cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, and psycholinguistics.

    and Catherine L Caldwell-Harris

    Dr. Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Associate Professor at Boston University, directs the Psycholinguistics Laboratory in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. She brings her cognitive science training to a range of interdisciplinary questions, including cross-cultural psychology, bilingualism, foreign language learning and immigration. She has written extensively on how the emotional resonances elicited by language differ for bilinguals’ native and foreign language, beginning with her seminal study demonstrating that skin conductance amplitudes were larger when bilingual speakers listened to emotional phrases in their native language compared to a foreign language. Her diverse investigations into the emotions associated with language include lying, joking and evaluating trolley (and other) dilemmas. With computer-modeling colleagues, she is constructing a dynamic-systems model of the factors that influence the range of language-learning outcomes for immigrants to the U.S.

    EMAIL logo
From the journal HUMOR

Abstract

Appreciating the humor in jokes involves incongruity-detection and resolution, which requires good language skills. Foreign language comprehension is challenging, including interpreting words within their sentence context. An implication is that jokes in a foreign language will be more difficult to understand and therefore probably less humorous, compared to native language jokes. To study this question while preserving humor across translations, jokes were selected from Turkish and English websites to minimize language play and cultural references. Turkish university students rated both Turkish and English jokes for humor. Humor for foreign language jokes was positively correlated with ease-of-understanding of specific jokes and also by the individual-differences characteristics of English proficiency and likely career investment (e.g., preparing for a future career as English teacher or translator). We propose the proficiency X investment theory: Foreign language jokes will be experienced as funnier than native language jokes when proficiency levels are high (ranging from good to excellent) and bilinguals have a high level of L2 investment. When proficiency levels are only adequate, and without special investment in L2, native language jokes will be evaluated as funnier than foreign language jokes. With intermediate proficiency and investment, jokes can be experienced as similarly humorous in the two language. Important in this pattern is the proposal that weaker L2-proficiency can trade-off with language investment to bolster L2 humor appreciation.

About the authors

Ayşe Ayçiçeği-Dinn

Ayse Aycicegi-Dinn graduated from Istanbul University and completed her master’s degree at Bogazici University and her Ph.D. at Marmara University. She conducted post-doctoral research at American University, Washington, D.C., and became a visiting scholar at Boston University, Boston, MA. Ayse Aycicegi-Dinn has worked as the vice-chair and chairperson of the department of psychology at Istanbul University, where she also served as vice-rector. At present, she is chairperson of the Department of Psychology and director of the Center for Research and Appplied Psychology at Istanbul 29 Mayis University. She has led several national and international projects in the field of cognitive psychology. She also translated major texts into Turkish including Cognitive Psychology, An Introduction to Experimental Design in Psychology: A Case Approach and Forty Studies that Changed the Psychology. Her research fields include neuropsychology, cross-cultural psychology and psycholinguistics.

Simge Şişman-Bal

Simge Şişman-Bal is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Istanbul University, Turkey. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Experimental Psychology from Istanbul University. Her research interests include cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, and psycholinguistics.

Catherine L Caldwell-Harris

Dr. Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Associate Professor at Boston University, directs the Psycholinguistics Laboratory in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. She brings her cognitive science training to a range of interdisciplinary questions, including cross-cultural psychology, bilingualism, foreign language learning and immigration. She has written extensively on how the emotional resonances elicited by language differ for bilinguals’ native and foreign language, beginning with her seminal study demonstrating that skin conductance amplitudes were larger when bilingual speakers listened to emotional phrases in their native language compared to a foreign language. Her diverse investigations into the emotions associated with language include lying, joking and evaluating trolley (and other) dilemmas. With computer-modeling colleagues, she is constructing a dynamic-systems model of the factors that influence the range of language-learning outcomes for immigrants to the U.S.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul, Project Number: BYP-4580, and also The Scientific and Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), Project Number: 108K338.

References

Alm, Antonie. 2013. Extensive listening 2.0 with foreign language podcasts. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 73. 266–280.10.1080/17501229.2013.836207Search in Google Scholar

Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Ayşe, Simge Şişman-Bal & Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris. 2015. Does attending english-language university diminish abilities in the native language? Data from Turkey. International Journal of Applied Linguistics doi:10.1093/applin/amv052.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy D. 2007. How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 20(1). 27–48.10.1515/HUMOR.2007.002Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy D. 2011. Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly 45. 134–159.10.5054/tq.2011.240857Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy D. & S. Salvatore Attardo. 2010. Failed humor: Issues in nonnative speakers’ appreciation and understanding of humor. Intercultural Pragmatics 7. 423–447.10.1515/iprg.2010.019Search in Google Scholar

Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. 2015. Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Implications for everyday life. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24. 214–219.10.1177/0963721414566268Search in Google Scholar

Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L., Ann Kronrod & Joyce Yang. 2013. Do more, say less: Saying “I love you” in Chinese and American cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics 10. 41–69.10.1515/ip-2013-0002Search in Google Scholar

Chiaro, Delia. 2008. Verbally expressed humor and translation. In Victor Raskin ed., The primer of humor research, 569–608. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198492.569Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana & Marta Kutas. 2001. Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters 316. 71–74.10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02387-4Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana, Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas. 2006. Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 19(3). 229–250.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013Search in Google Scholar

Darvin, Ron & Bonnie Norton. 2015. Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35. 36–56.10.1017/S0267190514000191Search in Google Scholar

Derks, Peter & William A. Cunningham. 2005. Humor appreciation and latency of comprehension. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 18. 389–403.10.1515/humr.2005.18.4.389Search in Google Scholar

Derks, Peter, Lynn S. Gillikin, Debbie S. Bartolome-Rull & Edward H. Bogart. 1997. Laughter and electroencephalographic activity. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 10(3). 285–300.10.1515/humr.1997.10.3.285Search in Google Scholar

Derks, Peter, Rosemary E. Staley & Martie G. Haselton. 1998. ‘Sense’ of humor: Perception, intelligence, or expertise? In Willibald Ruch ed., The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic, 143–158. Berlin: William De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804607.143Search in Google Scholar

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2010. Emotions in multiple languages. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230289505Search in Google Scholar

Erdodi, L. & R. Lajiness-O’Neill. 2012. Humor perception in bilinguals: Is language more than a code? Humor 25. 459–468.10.1515/humor-2012-0024Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, R.C., Paul F. Tremblay & Anne-Marie Masgoret. 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal 81. 344–362.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.xSearch in Google Scholar

Hurley, Mathew M., Daniel C. Dennett & Reginald B. Adams Jr. 2011. Inside Jokes: Using humor to reverse engineer the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9027.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Jia, Gisela, Doris Aaronson & Wu. Yanhong. 2002. Long-term language attainment of bilingual immigrants: Predictive variables and language group differences. Applied Psycholinguistics 23. 599–621.10.1017/S0142716402004058Search in Google Scholar

Kroll, Judith F., Erica Michael, Natasha Tokowicz & Robert Dufour. 2002. The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research 18. 141–175.10.1191/0267658302sr201oaSearch in Google Scholar

Marian, Viorica, Heather K. Blumenfeld & Margarita Kaushanskaya. 2007. The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 50. 940–967.10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)Search in Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2005. Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511584305Search in Google Scholar

Pollio, Howard R. & Rodney W. Mers. 1974. Predictability and the appreciation of comedy. Bulletin of the Psychometric Society 4(4-A). 229–232.10.3758/BF03336718Search in Google Scholar

Poveda, David. 2005. Metalinguistic activity, humor and social competence in classroom discourse. Pragmatics 15(1). 89–108.10.1075/prag.15.1.04povSearch in Google Scholar

Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6472-3Search in Google Scholar

Raskin, Victor. 2008. Theory of humor and practice of humor research: Editor’s notes and thoughts. In Victor Raskin ed., The primer of humor research. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198492Search in Google Scholar

Raskin, Victor & Katrina E. Triezenberg. 2003. Levels of sophistication in humor intelligence agents. In Anton Nijholt (ed.), Proceedings of the Humor Interface Workshop at CHI-2003: Computer Humor Interface Conference. Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 6.Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten & Donald E. Powers. 2005. Effects of language of administration on a self-assessment of language skills (TOEFL® Monograph No. MS-27). Princeton, NJ: ETS.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, Andrew S. & Elke Stracke. 2017. Learner perceptions and experiences of pride in second language education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39. 272–291.10.1075/aral.39.3.04rosSearch in Google Scholar

Rothbart, Mary K. 1976. Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In Anthony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot eds., Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, 37–54. New York: Wiley.10.4324/9780203789469-3Search in Google Scholar

Ruch, Willibald. 2008. Psychology of humor. In Victor Raskin ed., The primer of humor research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198492.17Search in Google Scholar

Ruch, Willibald & Giovannantonio Forabosco. 1996. A cross-cultural study of humor appreciation: Italy and Germany. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 9. 1–18.10.1515/humr.1996.9.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Schmitz, John R. 2002. Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 15(1). 90–113.10.1515/humr.2002.007Search in Google Scholar

Shively, Rachel L. 2013. Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. The Modern Language Journal 97. 930–946.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12043.xSearch in Google Scholar

Vaid, Jyotsna. 2000. New approaches to conceptual representation in bilingual memory: The case for studying humor interpretation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1). 28–30.10.1017/S1366728900290111Search in Google Scholar

Vaid, Jyotsna. 2006. Joking across languages: Perspectives on humor, emotion, and bilingualism. In Aneta Pavlenko ed., Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation, 152–182. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853598746-008Search in Google Scholar

Vaid, Jyotsna, Belem G. Lopez & Francisco E. Martinez. 2015. Linking the figurative to thecreative: Bilingual’s comprehension of metaphors, jokes, and remote associates. In Roberto R. Heredia & Anna B. Cieślicka eds., Bilingual figurative language processing. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139342100.006Search in Google Scholar

Vaid, Jyotsna, Rachel Hull, Robert Heredia, David Gerkens & Francisco Martinez. 2003. Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics 35(9). 1431–1449.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00184-4Search in Google Scholar

Wicker, Frank W., Irene M. Thorelli, William L. Barron III & Amy C. Willis. 1981. Studies of mood and humor appreciation. Motivation and Emotion 5. 47–59.10.1007/BF00993661Search in Google Scholar

Appendix: Instructions and Jokes

Appendix Note. Instructions appeared in Turkish in the questionnaires administered to Turks. After each joke, we print in italics a brief comment about the locus of character disparagement, incongruity or expectation reversal.

Below we ask you to rate the humor of each joke on a 5-point scale as follows:

  1. not funny at all

  2. only slightly funny

  3. somewhat funny

  4. quite funny

  5. very funny

Note: Even if you have heard this joke before, still evaluate the joke for funniness as if were new to you.

You will also evaluate ease of understanding the overall meaning of the joke on 5-point scale

  1. very difficult to grasp the overall meaning or point of this joke

  2. main point is somewhat obscure or difficult to grasp

  3. neither easy or difficult to grasp meaning

  4. fairly easy to grasp joke’s meaning

  5. very easy to understand the overall meaning of the joke

If you had difficulty understanding the joke, choose the reason:

  1. I did not understand the meaning of some specific words

  2. Although I understood the meaning of all the words, the joke did not make sense to me

  3. Other reason (please indicate).

Hung. Temel was a patient in a mental hospital who rescued his friend from drowning in the pool. The hospital director told Temel, “Bring your friend here so he can thank you.” Temel said, “He can’t come.” “Why not?” the director asked. Temel answered, “Because I hung him to dry.”

Linguistic ambiguity word ‘hung’ switches interpretation from “rescue” script to “murder” script

Turkish version. Temel bir akıl hastanesinde hasta olarak yatıyormuş ve orada bir arkadaşını havuzda boğulmaktan kurtarmış. Hastanenin müdürü Temel’e “Kurtardığın arkadaşını çağır da sana teşekkür etsin” demiş. Temel “Gelemez ki” demiş. Müdür “Neden gelemezmiş?” diye sormuş. Temel cevap vermiş: “Çünkü kuruması için onu astım.”

Crash. A lawyer and a doctor hit each other while driving late at night. They call the police and then wait together. The lawyer takes out his bottle of whiskey and offers it to the doctor, who has some. The lawyer then puts it back into his pocket. “Aren’t you going to have any?” asks the doctor, to which the lawyer answers, “Sure, after the police have come and gone.”

Reversal of conventional expectation or standard of behavior leading to an insult or a trick

Turkish version. Bir avukat ve bir doktor gece geç saatte arabalarını sürerken birbirlerine vururlar. Polisi ararlar ve sonra birlikte polisin gelmesini beklerler. Avukat cebinden bir şişe viski çıkarır ve doktora ikram eder. Doktor içkiden biraz içer. Sonra avukat şişeyi cebine geri koyar. Doktor, “Sen içmeyecek misin?” diye sorar, avukat cevap verir “Tabi ki, polis gittikten sonra içeceğim.”

God. A man is praying to God. He suddenly hears God’s voice. The man asks God the following question: “Is it true that a million years in human time is only one second to you?” God answers: “Yes, that is true.” The man asks a second question: “Is it also true that a million dollars to us is only one cent to you.” God answers: “Yes, that is also true.” Then God says: “And how may I answer your prayers?” The man responds: “Please give me one cent.” God replies: “Yes, I will.” The man says: “Wonderful. When will I get the money?” God replies: “In a second.”

Literal meaning of “in a second.” vs. colloquial sense of “immediately” results in the joke’s protagonist being tricked. Initial script is petitioner prayer who wants to benefit from God’s power via a trick, with a switch to God out-witting the protagonist using the petitioner’s own technicality.

Turkish version. Bir adam dua ederken aniden Allah’ın sesini duyar. Adam Allah’a şu soruyu sorar: “İnsanlığın bir milyon yılının senin için sadece bir saniye olduğu doğru mu?” Allah cevap verir: “Evet. Bu doğru.” Adam ikinci bir soru sorar: “ Peki bizim bir milyon dolarımızın senin için bir sent olduğu da doğru mu?” Allah cevap verir: “Evet. Bu da doğru.” Bunun üzerine Allah şöyle der: “Peki senin dualarına nasıl karşılık verebilirim?” Adam yanıtlar: “Ne olur, bana bir sent ver” Allah yanıtlar: “Tamam, vereceğim.” Adam şöyle der: “Harika. Parayı ne zaman alacağım?” Allah yanıtlar: “Bir saniye içinde.”

Father. A man with 6 children was so proud of his large family that against his wife’s wishes he continually called his wife, “Mother of my 6 children.” One evening at the end of a party, he asked his wife, “Shall we go home, mother of my 6 children?” The wife got so angry at her husband’s stupidity that she shouted, “Whenever you want, father of my 4 children!”

Initial script is the spouse who annoys his wife by his pride in his 6 children. The frame shift is to the cuckolded husband who is now the victim.

Turkish version. Bir adamın 6 çocuğu vardı ve adam, bu geniş ailesiyle çok gurur duyuyordu. O denli gurur duyuyordu ki, karısı istemese de onu, “6 çocuğumun annesi” diye çağırıyordu. Bir gece gittikleri bir partinin sonunda adam karısına şunu sordu: “Eve gidelim mi, 6 çocuğumun annesi?” Kadın, kocasının bu salaklığına çok sinirlendi ve kocasına bağırdı; “Ne zaman istersen, 4 çocuğumun babası!”

Flood. The village was flooded causing everyone to run away except for Temel. “God will save me!” Temel said. A boat was sent for him, but he refused. “God will save me!” The flood got worse, and a plane came to save him. “God will save me!” He told the pilot, and refused to get on it. He died drowning, and when he got to heaven he asked God, “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “I sent you a boat and plane! What more did you want?”

Initial frame is a religious believer is a life-threatening situation who refuses material aid because he trusts in God. Second frame is a pragmatic God who exerts power via the material aid offered.

Turkish version. Köyü su bastı ve Temel hariç herkes bu yüzden köyden kaçtı. Temel, “Allah beni kurtaracak!” dedi. Köye bir bot gönderildi ama Temel bunu redetti ve yine “Allah beni kurtaracak!” dedi. Sel kötüleşti ve bu sefer onu kurtarması için köye bir uçak geldi. Temel yine, pilota “Allah beni kurtaracak!” deyip uçağa binmeyi redetti. Temel selde boğularak ölüp cennete gidince Allah’a sordu: “Beni neden kurtarmadın?”. Allah cevap verdi: “Sana bir bot, bir de uçak gönderdim! E daha ne istedin?”

Coffin. A man who had saved money all his life was about to die. He made his wife promise to put all of his money in a box and bury it with him. At his funeral, the wife put a box in the coffin next to her dead husband’s body. A friend asked, “You didn’t actually put all his money in that box?” “A promise is a promise. I put all that money in the bank and wrote him a check for it.”

Initial frame is dutiful wife carrying out husband’s request; frame shift is to a cagey wife who managed to fulfill the dead man’s request while also tricking him.

Turkish version. Hayatı boyunca tutumlu olup para biriktirmiş bir adam ölmek üzereydi. Tüm parasının bir kutuya konulup kendisiyle gömülmesi için, karısından söz vermesini istedi. Kadın kocasının cenazesinde, tabutun içine bir kutu koydu. Bunun üzerine kadının bir arkadaşı gelip sordu “Gerçekten onun bütün parasını o kutunun içine koymadın, değil mi?”. “Söz sözdür. Paranın hepsini bankaya yatırdım ve kocama da bir çek yazdım.”.

Grimace. A little girl was making a face. Her old aunt did not like to see that. She said, “When I was your age, my mother said if I continued making faces, I would become ugly.” The child thought for a minute. Then she said, “You should have listened to your mother.”

Character’s appearance disparaged. Initial frame from adult (superior character) dispensing advice to child (inferior position) switches to child dispensing advice in a manner that also disparages the supposedly superior adult.

Turkish version. Küçük bir kız suratıyla komik ifadeler yapıyormuş. Yaşlı teyzesi ise bu ifadeleri görmekten hoşlanmazmış. Bir gün kıza demiş ki: “Ben senin yaşındayken annem, o surat ifadelerini yapmaya devam edersem çirkin olacağımı söylerdi”. Çocuk bir süre düşünmüş ve sonra şöyle demiş: “Anneni dinlemeliymişsin.”

Cards. A man walked by a table in a hotel and saw three men and a dog playing cards. The dog seemed to be playing well. “This is a very smart dog”, the man said. “Not so smart,” said one of the men. “Every time he gets good cards he shakes his tail.”

Reversal of expectation; seeing the familiar in the novel.

Turkish version. Bir adam otelde masaya doğru yürürken üç adam ile bir köpeğin iskambil kağıdı oynadığını gördü. Üstelik köpek oldukça iyi oynuyor görünüyordu. “Bu çok zeki bir köpek” diye belirtti beyefendi. “O kadar da zeki değil” diye cevap verdi oradaki adamlardan biri. “Ne zaman iyi kartlar gelse, kuyruğunu sallıyor.”

Corpses. A lawyer looked at the three dead bodies and asked why they were all smiling. “The first guy won a lot of money and was so excited, his heart stopped,” was the answer. “The second guy saw his son being born and was so happy, his heart stopped.” The third corpse belonged to Temel. “Why is he smiling?” He was killed by a thunder, sir.” “Why is he smiling then” “He thought they were taking his picture.”

Character’s intelligence disparaged.

Turkish version. Savcı, üç ölüye de baktı ve hepsinin yüzünün neden güldüğünü sordu. Sorunun cevabı: “Birinci adam bir sürü para kazandı ve aşırı heyecanlandı, kalbi durdu” olur. “İkinci adam da oğlunun doğumunu gördü ve aşırı mutlu oldu, kalbi durdu.” der. Üçüncü ceset ise Temel’in cesediydi. -Bu neden gülüyor? - Efendim, ona yıldırım çarptı.- E peki neden gülüyor o zaman?

- Resmini çekiyorlar sanmış da ondan.

Angel. While undergoing heart surgery, a middle-aged woman saw the angel of death and asked, “Has my time come?” “No, you still have 43 years, 2 months and 8 days.” As soon as the surgery was over, she had a face lift and her breasts enhanced. Knowing she had many years in front of her, she left the hospital feeling like a young woman. But when crossing the street, an ambulance ran her over. She asked the angel of death when she arrived in heaven, “I thought I would live more than 40 years. Why did you let that ambulance kill me?” The angel of death answered, “I didn’t recognize you!”

Reversal of expected fortune due to character’s own action.

Turkish version. Orta yaşlı bir kadın geçirdiği kalp ameliyatı sırasında ölüm meleğini gördü ve ona sordu: “Zamanım geldi mi?”. “Hayır, hala 43 sene, 2 ay ve 8 günün var.” Ameliyat biter bitmez, kadın yüzünü gerdirdi ve göğüslerini büyüttü. Önünde daha yaşayacak bir sürü yılı olduğunu bilerek, hastaneden kendini genç bir kadın gibi hissederek çıktı. Ancak caddeyi geçerken ona bir ambulans çarptı. Cennete gittiğinde ise ölüm meleğine sordu “Hani daha 40 senem vardı? Ambulansın beni öldürmesine neden izin verdin?”. Ölüm meleği cevap verdi: “Seni tanımadım ki!”.

Martini. Every time before the man at the bar wanted a martini, he looked into his pocket. The barmen said, “Sir, I can bring you martinis all night long, but you have to tell me why you look into your pocket before you order each one.” “I am looking at my wife’s photo,” he answered. “As soon as she looks beautiful to me, it means it is time to go home.”

Reversal of conventional standard of behavior; appearance of protagonists’ wife is disparaged.

Turkish version. Barda oturan bir adam, martini istediğinde her defasında, cebine bakıyordu. Barmen ona şöyle dedi: “Efendim, size bütün gece boyunca martini getirebilirim. Fakat, her martini siparişinizden önce niçin gömleğinizin cebine baktığınızı bana söylemek zorundasınız.” Adam, “Karımın fotoğrafına bakıyorum” diye cevap verdi. “Ne zaman gözüme güzel gözükürse, işte o zaman eve gitme vaktim gelmiş demektir.”

Cement. A group of Japanese, American and Turkish took over building the third Bosphorous Bridge. When the bridge opened, it collapsed with a big noise. The Japanese boss said, “All my work for nothing, I lost all my sand” and killed himself. The American boss said, “All that steel was wasted.” He pulled out his own gun and shot himself. The Turkish contractor watched the two men die and said, “Thank God I didn’t put any cement into that bridge, otherwise I would be dead like them.”

Stupidity revealed by character’s own action; Reversal of conventional standard of behavior and an insult.

Turkish version. Japon, Amerikalı ve Türklerden oluşan bir grup, üçüncü Boğaz Köprüsünün yapımını üstlendi. Köprü açıldığında, büyük bir ses ile yıkıldı. Japon patron, “Bütün emeklerim boşunaymış, kumlarım gitti” diyerek kendini öldürdü. Amerikalı patron “Bütün çelikler boşa gitti” diyerek tabancasını çekti ve kendini vurdu. Türk müteahhit ise iki adamın ölümünü izledi ve şöyle dedi: “ İyi ki de köprüye çimento koymadım, yoksa ben de bunlar gibi ölmüş olacaktım.”

Worms. A teacher wanted to teach his students why alcohol was bad, so he put a worm in a cup of water and another worm in a cup of whiskey. The worm in the water swam and was happy, and the worm in the whiskey felt pain and died. “What have we learned from this lesson?” asked the teacher. A student said, “Drink alcohol and you won’t get worms.”

Reversal of expectation.

Turkish version. Öğretmenin biri, öğrencilerine alkolün neden kötü olduğunu öğretmek istedi. Bunun için, hem su dolu bir kaba hem de viski dolu bir kaba birer solucan koydu. Suyun içindeki solucan yüzüyordu ve mutlu görünüyordu. Viskinin içindeki solucan ise acı çekerek öldü. “Bundan ne öğrendik?” diye sordu öğretmen. Öğrencilerden biri ise şöyle dedi: “İçki içebiliyorsan asla solucan olamazsın”.

Dogs. Two female dog owners are fighting about which dog is more intelligent. First woman: “My dog is so intelligent, every morning he waits for the paper boy to come around and then he takes the newspaper and brings it to me.”

Second woman: “I know”

First woman: “How?”

Second woman: “My dog told me.”

One character tops the other.

Turkish version. Köpekleri olan iki kadın, hangisinin köpeğinin daha akıllı olduğu üzerine kavga ederler. Birinci kadın: “Benim köpeğim öyle akıllı ki, her sabah kapıcının gazeteyi getirmesini bekler ve sonra da gazeteyi alıp bana getirir.”

İkinci kadın: “Biliyorum”

Birinci kadın: “Nasıl biliyorsun?”

İkinci kadın: “Köpeğim söyledi.”

Teacher. Teacher: If you had one dollar and you asked your father for another, how many dollars would you have?

Little Johnny: One dollar.

Teacher (sadly): You don’t know your math.

Little Johnny (sadly): You don’t know my father.

Reversal of conventional standard of behavior; father is disparaged.

Turkish version. Öğretmen: Elinde 1 dolar olsa ve babandan bir dolar daha istesen, elinde kaç dolar olmuş olur?

Küçük Ahmet: Bir dolar.

Öğretmen (üzülerek): Sen matematikten hiç anlamıyorsun!

Küçük Ahmet (üzülerek): Asıl siz benim babamı bilmiyorsunuz.

Wedding. When I was young I didn’t like going to weddings. My grandmother would tell me, “You’re next.” She finally stopped nagging me when I started saying the same thing to her at funerals.

Reversal of conventional standard of behavior and a character is insulted.

Turkish version. Ben gençken düğünlere gitmeyi sevmezdim. Anneannem bana “Sırada sen varsın” derdi. Aynı şeyi ben de ona cenazelerde söylemeye başlayınca sonunda başımın etini yemeyi bıraktı.

Published Online: 2017-11-18
Published in Print: 2018-1-26

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 18.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2017-0112/html
Scroll to top button