Working Title:

Investigating Humor as Rhetoric in the Geographical-winning Toastmasters

Speeches
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of Study

1.1.1 Toastmasters International
1.1.2 Humor at Toastmasters
1.1.3 Rhetoric at Toastmasters
1.2 Overview Scope of Project
1.2.1 Research Gaps
1.2.2 Research Question
1.2.3 Synopsis of Methodology
1.2.4 Significances of Study
1.3 Summary
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Outlining Rhetoric

2.1.1 Key Theories of Rhetoric
2.1.1.1 The Three Rhetorical Appeals
2.1.1.2 The Five Canons of Rhetoric
2.1.1.3 Rhetorical Dramatism
2.1.2 Defining Rhetoric
2.2 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor
2.2.1 Key Perspectives of Humor
2.2.1.1 Humor Is Psychological
2.2.1.2 Humor Is Language
2.2.1.3 Humor Is Sociological
2.2.2 Defining Humor
2.2.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor
2.3 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Laughter
2.3.1 Key Perspectives of Laughter
2.3.1.1 Laughter Is Physiological
2.3.1.2 Laughter Is Social
2.3.1.3 Laughter Is Communicative
2.3.2 Defining Laughter
2.3.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Laughter
2.4 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor Techniques
2.4.1 Key Taxonomies of Humor Techniques

2.4.1.1 The 45 Humor Techniques (within 4 categories)

in Verbal Narratives
2.4.1.2 The 41 Humor Techniques (within 7 categories)
in Audiovisual Media
2.4.1.3 The 41 Humor Devices (within 10 categories)
in Advertisement Commercials
2.4.2 Defining Humor through Techniques
2.4.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor Techniques
2.5 Summary
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 A Physiological Emphasis on Humor

3.2 A Parsimonious Emphasis on Analysis
3.3 Aristotles Rhetoric of Ethos, Logos, Pathos
3.4 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin, 1991)
3.5 Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) Typology of Audiovisual Humor
3.6 Presenting the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as an Analytical Tool
3.7 Summary
CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 The Corpus

4.2 Humor-Rhetoric Scrutiny
4.2.1 Laughter Duration
4.2.2 Target (TA)
4.2.3 Situation (SI)
4.2.4 Narrative Strategy (NS)
4.2.5 Rhetoric Mode
4.2.6 Overall
4.3 A Pilot Illustration
4.4 Summary
CHAPTER 5

CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1 Further Theoretical Contributions

5.2.1 Introducing the Two Domineering Epideictic Humor Rhetoric
Speech Styles
5.2.2 Data-Validated Cross-Geographical Humor Rhetoric Examination
5.2.3 A Data-Grounded Typology of Public-Speaking Humor Techniques
(within higher order categories of public-speaking humor)
5.2 Projected Timeline for Completion
5.3 Summary
References
Appendices

ABSTRACT
Toastmasters International is a non-profit educational organization that presently
operates across 135 countries with the mission of helping members improve
their communication, public-speaking, and leadership skills ("Welcome to
Toastmasters International", 2015). For the program year of July 2014 to June 2015,
there was a total of 696,422 memberships paid to the 15,406 Toastmasters clubs
worldwide ("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015). Each year, Toastmasters
from all over the world compete in the Annual Toastmasters International Speech
Contest. To be conferred as a World Champion of Public Speaking, a Toastmasters
member has to win six consecutive levels of Toastmasters public speech contests: (i)
the Club level, (ii) the Area level, (iii) the Division level, (iv) the District level, (v)
the Inter-District Semifinals and (vi) the Inter-District Finals. Throughout all six
levels of the Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest, the competitive
speeches must be delivered in English. Contest rules and procedures are also
standardized across all six levels with a similar set of judging criteria for speeches.
The present project selects a corpus of 506 Toastmasters speeches internationally
presented at the Inter-District stage from 2012 to 2016 for humor rhetoric
investigation. For this project, humor is delimited to audible laughter. If a crafted
humor receives no audible laughter from the large audience, it is asserted that the
presented incongruity is not a humorous rhetoric for analysis in this study. For every
speech in the corpus (approximately seven minutes each), all naturalistic laughter
from the audience will be objectively recorded in terms of seconds. Specifically,
three hypotheses will be examined.
H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience
laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical-winning Toastmasters
speeches.
H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a
geographical-winning Toastmasters speech.
H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles
Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of
a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of
entertaining to impact thinking).
Additionally, the humor rhetoric at every laughter point will be typologically
analyzed in terms of Target (TA), Situation (SI), Narrative Strategy (NS) and
rhetoric. Humor rhetoric scrutiny in this project is theoretically guided by Aristotles
Ethos, Logos, Pathos, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin,
1991), and Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) typology of audiovisual humor. Through
synthesizing the observed TA, SI, NA and rhetoric in terms of general trends and
specific notability, this project aims to explicate with as much concrete
substantiation how humor rhetoric is applied in the winning Toastmasters speeches.
Inherently, the emitting findings bring important, practical implications for
extrapolation to other settings of communication.
Further theoretical contributions of this doctoral dissertation will be based
objectively on the findings of Phase 1 (as described above). If there is statistical
evidence for H3, I will select two exemplars to qualitatively elucidate how humor is
woven semantically, visually and acoustically as rhetoric for each respective style of

a winning Toastmasters speech. If there is any illuminating evidence of crossgeographical differences, I will incorporate cross-geographical discussion that is
strongly data-validated. In addition, I aim to contribute a data-grounded typology of
public-speaking humor techniques, likewise to Buijzen & Valkenburg (2004), where
proposed higher order categories of public-speaking humor are objectively based on
principle-component analysis.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context of Study
Relishing humor is what I have always gravitated towards. When I was a young
child, it was comedy-related television shows that fervently enthralled me. For
example, I would watch Mr. Bean over and over again. During middle school and
high school years, peers that I chose actively to spend time with were the playful
buffoons. During undergraduate days, I selected my exchange university based
solely on whether it offered the rare Psychology of Humor module. At that particular
exchange university (University of Western Ontario), I experienced for the first time
the organization of a campus Comedy Club - where members meet twice weekly to
do improvisation fun for shared laughter. I was entirely captivated and immersed in
all their humor antics. During graduate education, I committed strongly to do
narrative research but somehow veered towards humor studies. When internet
surfing, what I consistently indulge in are meme portals (e.g. 9gag.com) and parody
news (e.g. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart). This attraction to humor has been
perpetual over the course of my life narrative. I searched my soul for deep possible
reasons. I did not had an overly-serious upbringing nor childhood ordeals of being
severely ridiculed for humor to emerge as a defense mechanism. Neither had I ever
felt the necessity to rely on humor to be liked by others. I am not particularly
talented in joke-creating too or in manipulating my voice for comic effect. Based on
self-awareness, the most plausible reason that I can conjecture is that biologically, I
may be relatively releasing more oxytocin and dopamine when experiencing humor
versus doing other activities (e.g. painting, drawing, cooking).
The affection towards rhetoric is whereas environmentally developed. During my
military deployment in 2008, I was inspired by my platoon commander who was an
ardor orator, motivating a motley crew of us to serve altruistically with passion.
Along the same time period, I was also exposed to the charismatic speaking delivery
of Barack Obama. Words said and how they are articulated have the power to alter
minds. What and how one speaks is vital for personal influence. As such, upon
entering university in 2010, I joined Toastmasters to shape myself as an orator. After
five years of ordinary commitment, being artful is speaking is still not something
that comes instinctive to me. I struggle at times to find the precise words in the
moment and to deliver with conviction. However, I am still devoted to mastering
and advocating the craft of oral rhetoric. I believe with a wholehearted dogma that it
is important for every single person to somewhat experience personally a degree of
competency in rhetoric. This is not just for the benevolent intention of achieving the
skillset to effectively inspire humanity, but also for the experiential attentiveness
toward the copious rhetorical attempts of others.
It is my innate interest in humor and environmental influence of rhetoric and
Toastmasters that drive this dissertational foray into investigating rhetoric humor at
Toastmasters. What follows to foreground this study is a description of Toastmasters
International, followed by an exposition of how pertinent the humor and rhetorical
component are at a Toastmasters speech community.
1.1.1 Toastmasters International

Toastmasters International is a non-profit educational organization that presently

operates across 135 countries with the mission of helping members improve
their communication, public-speaking, and leadership skills ("Welcome to
Toastmasters International", 2015). Through its thousands of member clubs,
Toastmasters International offers a program of communication and leadership
projects designed to help people develop the arts of speaking, listening, and
thinking. Since 1924, Toastmasters International has been a structured platform
serving to train its members to be more effective leaders and communicators.
According to the February 2015 CEO Report issued by Toastmasters World
Headquarters, the member demographics at Toastmasters are characterized by
gender balance (52.7% female), higher education (76.7% hold at least a Bachelors
degree), high earners (29.6% have an annual income of at least USD$100, 000) and
a mature participation (24.7% are within ages 45 to 54 and 29.5% are at least age
55). Global positioning and annual membership numbers are also expanding with an
upward trajectory. Membership has grown consecutively every year since 1993
(Toastmasters CEO Report, 2015). The membership expansion of Toastmasters
International in the most recent seven years is capsulized in Table 1, where the
numbers are obtained from its publicly-accessible statistical management database
("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015).
Table 1: The Membership Expansion of Toastmasters International from 2008-2015
Program Year
Total Paid Memberships
1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 519,772
1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 543,680
1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 568,705
1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 587,685
1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 612,724
1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 656,942
1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 696,422
Numbers obtained from http://dashboards.toastmasters.org/

Number of Toastmasters Clubs

12,035
12,505
13,078
13,606
14,085
14,678
15,406

At the societal level, it is the demand in the marketplace for strong leaders and
speakers" that perpetuates the growth figures for Toastmasters International
(Toastmasters Mediacenter, 2014a). At the ground level, it is the positive and
supportive environment to constructively nurture public-speaking experiences which
appeals to members. A typical club meeting at the individual Toastmasters clubs
customarily consists three segments: (i) Prepared Speaking, (ii) Improvisatory
Speaking and (iii) Evaluations. In the Prepared Speaking section of the meeting,
members give a prepared presentation of a speech that the speaker crafts to meet
specific speech objectives (such as to inspire, to persuade or to entertain the
audience). In the Improvisatory Speaking section (labelled as table topics), members
are called on to speak extemporaneously to train quick organization of thoughts and
response eloquence to an impromptu question or topic. In the Evaluations section,
members who are pre-selected to be speech evaluators articulate (for two to three
minutes) an evaluative analysis of each prepared speech. It is customary as well to
have a General Evaluator to sharply comment on the language use of all members in
the session, which includes the orate performance of the table topics speakers and
the speech evaluators. As such, the Toastmasters organizational model stimulates
members to communicate with excellence through a participatory, social atmosphere

(Blanding, 1957). Even when the modernized world inundates with captivating
alternatives, Toastmasters International is able to retain its appeal as it offers an
encouraging community for members to experientially do quality communication.
As at 30 June 2015, Toastmasters International has burgeoned to 15,406
Toastmasters Clubs world-wide, where all clubs are presently divided into 96
Districts ("Toastmasters International Dashboard", 2015). Districts in Toastmasters
are geographically-bounded (Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 18). For
example, District 67 covers all 170 Toastmasters Clubs in Japan, while District 80
covers all 208 Toastmasters Clubs in Singapore. Each geographical District in
Toastmasters is sub-divided into Divisions and Areas that tend to be geographicallyguided as well for the most favorable network community support. In accordance to
the 2015 District Leadership Handbook, for every Area, there must consist four to
six Toastmasters Clubs. For every Division, there must consist at least three Areas
(whereby in practice, there are typically four to eight areas/division). For every
District, there must consist at least three Divisions (whereby in practice, there are
typically six to ten divisions/district). Each District must organize two District
conferences every year that are directed to be in October/November and April/May
(Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 23-24).
At the District conferences, speech contests are essential as they attract members and
guests to the event (Toastmasters District Management, 2015, p. 88). Guided by
standardized rulebooks updated annually, there are five official speech contests for
Districts to conduct: (i) International Speech Contest, (ii) Humorous Speech Contest,
(iii) Tall Tales Speech Contest, (iv) Table Topics Speech Contest and (v) Evaluation
Speech Contest. All speech contests begin at the Club level, before proceeding to the
Area, Division, District level. As stated in the Speech Contest Rulebook for the
program year 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016:
The Speech Contest Rulebook is protocol and applies to all official
Toastmasters speech contests. Modifications to rules may only be made
through the administrative protocol review process. Exceptions shall not be
permitted.
It is mandatory for all Districts to conduct the International Speech Contest
(Toastmasters International, 2015, p. 167). All speeches for the International Speech
Contest are to be presented in English, where a contestant is automatically
disqualified if the speech is less than four minutes 30 seconds or more than seven
minutes 30 seconds. Judging criteria to determine the winner is standardized to be
based on speech development, content effectiveness, speech value, delivery and
language (specific details are shown in Appendix 1). The International Speech
Contest is the only speech contest that goes beyond the District level, where the
winner of each District compete on an International stage in the Inter-District
Semifinals. The winner of each Semifinals then proceeds to the Inter-District Finals
(officially branded as the World Championship of Public Speaking). There are to be
a minimum of five voting judges at the Club and Area levels, a minimum of seven
voting judges at the Division and District levels, a minimum of nine voting judges at
the Inter-District Semifinals and 14 voting judges at the Inter-District Finals. At all
levels of the competition, a contestant is disqualified if the speech presented is not
substantially original. A speech is defined to be substantially original if at least 75%

of what is presented is originally conceptualized by the speaker. Contestants are

permitted to use the same speech throughout the first five levels (i.e. Club, Area,
Division, District and Inter-District Semifinals). At the Inter-District Finals,
contestants must present a speech that has not already been presented at a
Toastmasters International Speech Contest since January 1 of that same year. This
means that substantially original speeches that contestants have crafted, rehearsed
and performed in previous years are allowed.
The International Speech Contest is the quintessential aspect of the Toastmasters
institution. To represent a geographical District and present a speech at the InterDistrict Semifinals is a stringent process. A speaker has to consecutively win at all
four levels of Toastmasters speech contests in the same year (i) Club, (ii) Area,
(iii) Division and (iv) District. Rigorous competition is what spurs the standard of
delivering a compelling speech. The convention regulating the Inter-District
Semifinals and Finals to crown the World Champion of Public Speaking annually is
the hallmark event of Toastmasters. It attracts media attention, affiliates thousands
of Toastmasters across the globe to come together, and provokes innumerable
knowledge experiences. Beginning from 2012, all convention speeches made at the
Inter-District Semifinals and Finals are publicly available for immediate viewing
upon purchase. This project will only analyze speeches made at the Inter-District
Semifinals and Finals as they are the best exemplification of Toastmasters.
1.1.2 Rhetoric at Toastmasters
Rhetoric is the art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either
spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that
audience is made up of one person or a group of persons (Corbett, 1990, p. 3).
Artful oration to inform, persuade, and motivate audiences is the fundamental
emphasis of Toastmasters speeches. The entire structure of the institution gears its
members to experience public-speaking rhetoric. Chiefly, rhetorical awareness is
accomplished through the Evaluations section of every club meeting. Prepared
speeches are evaluated publicly by assigned evaluators on whether the purpose of
the speech is met and how the effectiveness of the speech can be enhanced. This
indoctrinated pedagogy brings salience not just to the speaker directly, but to the
audience as well on effective speaking.
To inform, persuade and motivate audiences are the functions of rhetoric. Regarding
typologies, Aristotle (in Rhetoric I as translated by Cope & Sandys, 2010a) divided
oratory into three branches of rhetoric: forensic, deliberative, epideictic. Forensic
rhetoric encompasses the legal oratory of past actions, through the means of
accusation and defense. Deliberative rhetoric comprises the legislative oratory of
future events, through the means of persuasion and dissuasion. Epideictic rhetoric
constitutes the ceremonial oratory of present time, through the means of praise and
blame. Although all three branches of oratory rhetoric can emanate in any
Toastmasters speech, it is the epideictic genre of rhetoric that is predominant. The
historical underpin of the name Toastmaster refers to a well-adored person who give
toasts at banquets and other ceremonial occasions (Toastmasters History, 2015).
At the Toastmasters setting, epideictic rhetoric of the present ceremony is
emphasized, be it to be in a demarcate setting of a eulogy or a jubilee. The primary
concern of an effective ceremonial orator is the present, in view of the state of things
existing at the time (Cope & Sandys, 2010a, p. 8). What is emphasized at

Toastmasters is the rhetoric moment-to-moment connection with the audience in

relation to what your purpose of speaking is at the setting.
When compared to other settings of public-speaking (e.g. informative lectures, TED
talks, and technical presentations), the purpose of Toastmasters speeches is less so
on giving valid information. In contrast to a corporate presentation genre that has
more necessity for objectivity and truth, room for poetic license is allowed at
Toastmasters. The narrating of first-person stories is the prevailing institutional
norm. Presenting a secondhand story, in itself, loses some of its immediacy
(Business Insider, 2015). It is commonplace for Toastmasters, especially at the
competitive level, to adjust stories and convey them in a first-person manner to
accentuate their message. Informing, persuading and motivating are the means of
which inspiring is the goal. Specifically, to inspire through personal narratives
(which may not necessarily be based on complete truths) is the characteristic
approach in Toastmasters speeches. The rhetor narrates either one richly-detailed
story or a series of connected stories for the purpose of inspiring crafted aims.
In particular, the quest for rhetoric perfection (in the performative seven minutes) is
most evident at the Inter-District stage. Neil Han, a Distinguished Toastmasters
(DTM), who had served as Club president, Area governor, Division Governor and
assistant District Governor in District 80 (Singapore), remarked that rhetoric is less
conspicuous at the beginner level, but more deliberate and intentional at the expert
level (personal communication, August 22, 2015). He noted how finalists, who are
non-Americans, adapted their accent to perform with an American inflection but
reverted back to their native accent during interviews (Han, personal
communication, August 22, 2015). Unlike a lax novice, a committed speaker is
mindful about the influence of every word, action and articulation when performing
onstage. The field of the contest includes professional-career speakers and speech
coaches. Competition at the Inter-District stage is serious as it mainly comprise
seasoned speakers, striving for the accolade to advance their credibility. Moreover,
Districts prepare its representative intensively. Constructive support, feedback and
encouragement are provided, which include invitations to multiple clubs within the
District to present and fine-tune the speech. In a sit-down interview, Mun Ng, the
2013 Founders District representative, revealed how he re-watched countless past
champion speeches given to him, practiced over 200 times the same speech and
had senior mentors go through line by line by line to refine his speech (Founders
District, 2013; OC Register, 2013). A District-representing Toastmasters speech
internationally presented at the Inter-District stage is a performance that is
thoroughly-prepared and well-rehearsed. Each line and sequencing of delivery is
strategically crafted. The manifested oral art of informing, persuading, motivating is
explicitly rhetoric in the judging ballot for the goal of inspiring.
1.1.3 Humor at Toastmasters
To be humorous when speaking publicly is not easy (Axtell, 1992, p. 84). It requires
an intricate sense of how to tell a joke, where the timing has to be incisive (Axtell,
1992, p. 90). Not only must the content and delivery evoke laughter, humor needs to
be appropriately sensitive to the audience (Morreale, 2010, p. 73). Humor poorly
executed or fundamentally offensive can backfire and erode the credibility of a
speaker (Livingston, 2010, p. 121). Nonetheless, humor when artfully applied can
increase the likeability of a speaker (Conkell, Imwold, & Ratliffe, 1999, p. 8), arouse

interest and keep attention (Grimes, 1955b, p. 247), unify the audience (Rutter,
1997, p. 182), disarm hostility and skepticism (Ross, 1998, p. 7), and reinforce the
message (Nicola, 2010, p. 295). Weaving humor that resonates into a public speech
bear beneficial impacts for both the speaker and the audience (Dynel, 2013, p. 62).
This importance and difficulty of incorporating humor in public-speaking is acutely
recognized by Toastmasters International. Through conscientious arrangements by
the institution, members are challenged to be effective in their application of humor
when speaking publicly. For example, there are 10 advanced speech projects for
members to undertake on Humorously Speaking and The Entertaining Speaker
to pursue competence in public-speaking humor. The reaction of the audience is the
paramount indicator for which these project speeches are evaluated on. In addition,
Humorous Speech Contests are regularly coordinated by the 96 Districts. As an
illustration, District 80 (Singapore) manages a Humorous Speech Contest every year
in October/ November. I have attended in-person four District-level Humorous
Speech Contests in Singapore, as well as served as a judge at the Club, Area and
Division level several times. Unlike the International Speech Contest, the statuary
judging ballot of the Humorous Speech Contest includes audiences laughter as a
major criterion component. Orated humor has to resonate with the audience. As
directed by the judging doctrine, the entertainment value of the speech is just as
important as the inspirational value of the speech.
Governed by the celebratory discourse undertone, where a hopeful mood is
convention over a somber or combative atmosphere, humor in Toastmasters
speeches is predominately clean and constructive towards a meaningful message.
Divisive and discriminatory jokes related to nationalities, race, sex, religion and
politics are avoided. The type of jokes at Toastmasters prevailingly relates to family,
health, dating, work and ageing. Internal jokes about Toastmasters are also pervasive
for a sense of socially-situated identity. The socially encouraging and informal
setting of Toastmasters is supportive towards an audience eager to laugh. This is in
contrast to more formal, serious public-speech settings (e.g. at parliament, at
religious congregation or at a dissertation defense) where making the audience laugh
should not be of a forefront aim.
Especially at a Toastmasters public-speech setting, injecting humor when telling
personal stories to make the audience laugh and yet receive a valuable message at
the same time is desired. When legal attorney David Henderson in his first attempt
won 6 straight speech contests to be the 2010 World Champion of Public-Speaking,
he purported that the one thing a speaker must do to win Toastmasters speech
contests is to make people laugh. An emotional response is generated when the
audience laugh, which places the hearer in a positive mood to be more convinced by
a speakers rhetorics (Donovan, 2012). Humor is not explicitly required in the
judging ballot of the International Speech Contest. However, humor is one of the
most potent rhetorical tool an orator can employ to augment speech effectiveness.
Heartfelt laughter brings therapeutic effects (Goldstein, Fry, & Salameh, 1987);
resonating humor enhance the rhetorics of a speech when good feelings are
generated. At the competitive Inter-District level, humor is implicitly necessary.
Toastmasters from all over the world willingly commit money and time to be
physically present at the International Convention for the experiential feelings of

empowerment. Humor that resonates is a means to the goal of stimulating in the live
audience meaningful ideas.
1.2 Overview Scope of Project
Each year, tens of thousands of Toastmasters from all over the world compete in the
Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest which is also recognized as the
largest public-speaking competition globally. To be conferred as a World Champion
of Public Speaking, a Toastmasters member has to win six consecutive levels of
Toastmasters public speech contests: (i) the Club level, (ii) the Area level, (iii) the
Division level, (iv) the District level, (v) the Inter-District Semifinals and (vi) the
Inter-District Finals. Throughout all six levels of the Annual Toastmasters
International Speech Contest, the competitive speeches must be delivered in English.
Contest rules and procedures are also standardized across all six levels with a similar
set of judging criteria for speeches. Rhetoric (i.e. artful oration to inspire) is
explicitly required. Humor (i.e. making the audience laugh) whereas is implicitly
required. This project selects a corpus of 506 Toastmasters speeches internationally
presented at the Inter-District stage from 2012 to 2016 for humor rhetoric
investigation. In this section, I will make plain the research gaps, the overarching
research question, and give a synopsis of the methodology before expressing the
significances of the project.
1.2.1 Research Gaps
Academic research regarding Toastmasters has been far and few. Currently, there
has only been five published academic papers involving it. Two are pass
commentaries while three are empirical research papers. In terms of academic
commentary, Blanding (1957) published in Today's Speech a three-page account of
how Toastmasters is an effective approach to develop communication skills.
Blanding was writing from his capacity as the Executive Secretary of Toastmasters
International, when he presented the history of the movement and how Toastmasters
produce self-education in speech. Boyd (1975) published in The Speech Teacher a
two-page account of the insights he received from being involved in a Toastmasters
community versus a Dale Carnegie course of effective speaking. Boyd concluded
that both approaches have their respective weaknesses and beneficial aspects. Thirty
years after Boyds (1975) paper, three published empirical research papers emerged.
First, Nordin and Shaari (2005) published in The English Teacher the findings from
implementing a series of Toastmasters meetings to a classroom of second language
(L2) learners in Malaysia. The results indicated that the Toastmasters format of
pedagogy is useful to help L2 learners (n = 65) enhance speaking skills. Second, YuChih (2008) published in Regional Language Center Journal the findings from
incorporating the Toastmasters format to an EFL (English as Foreign Language)
oral-communication class in Taiwan. Self-reports of students (n = 18) indicated
improvement in English language and public-speaking proficiency, as well as in
social and affective skills. Yu-Chih discussed how the Toastmasters approach gives
an authentic student-centered learning environment which stimulates cooperative
and autonomous learning. Third, Hsu (2011) published in International Journal of
Research Studies in Education that campus Toastmasters clubs enhance its student
members' global awareness. Hsu selected a focus group of 60 Toastmasters student
members from 20 college Toastmasters clubs in Taiwan to elucidate how the
cooperative structure of Toastmasters facilitates the promotion of globalization and
internationalization views. Appropriately, the pronounced global appeal of

Toastmasters International is evident. In the space of the most recent four years,
Toastmasters International has expanded its presence from 116 countries (in 2012)
to 126 countries (in 2014) and now to 135 counties (in 2015). The paucity of
academic attention to Toastmasters is unbefitting. The three published empirical
research papers involving Toastmasters were all based at a school setting. Students
were asked for their views or the Toastmasters pedagogy was incorporated into an
existing teaching format. It is imperative to note that students only form 3.9% of the
member demographics at Toastmasters (Toastmasters CEO Report, 2015). 74.5% of
members in Toastmasters are at least 35 years old and 82.9% of members are
working professionals in society. As such, this dissertation intends to provide a more
naturalistic research that befits Toastmasters. It will contribute a valuable academic
study while extending the empirical literature involving Toastmasters.
Secondly, humor and rhetoric on its own are widely studied. There are 1.4 million
and 1.5 million scholarly results for humor and rhetoric respectively on Google
Scholar search. However, the research integrating humor and rhetoric are
comparatively minute. In the specific research realm of humor rhetoric, less
empirical attention is invested towards the oral humor rhetoric compared to the
written humor rhetoric, even when the orated modality has a more influential reach
(insert citation). Explication of the relevant literature is detailed in Chapter Two.
Besides, public speaking to inform and persuade have been the emphasis of most
rhetoric research (see Corbett, & Connors, 1965; Rowan, 1994; Kaur, 2014). Public
speaking to both entertain and inspire has however been less empirically
investigated. This project aims to dissect how entertaining (through humor) is
rhetorical to inform, persuade, motivate and inspire. Principally, important
exploration in the niche research of epideictic humor rhetoric will be provided by
this project.
Moreover
I will present examples of flawed research here - to argue that my research is
necessary to fix the problem.
(Cogitated theory is divergent from applied practice)
- Universally, it is better to be non-humorous to be taken seriously
- A good leader is serious and non-humorous. Eg: Japan, China.
- Being perceived as a funny person is not the best way to inspire. Humor is
trivial, unimportant.
Furthermore
I will present examples of conflicting research here - to argue that my research is
necessary to resolve the problem.
(Different practical settings bring different inferences)
In summary, the proposed project will (1) contribute a naturalistic academic study to
extend the empirical literature involving Toastmasters, (2) provide valuable
exploration in the niche research of epideictic humor rhetoric, (3) redress the
pertinent theory-practice literature debate, and (4) give the first extensive datagrounded examination to an applied practical setting of a global public-speaking
competition.

+ (5) Explores clean, constructive humor, instead of vulgar, divisive humor (e.g. at
standup bars, satirical humor) inadequate research attention to constructive humor
+ Provide illustrations of emotional (pathos) humor which is rarely studied in
academia. Vs incongruity due to logic play logos humor.
[Comment: I will return to writing the research gaps and significances after
completing the literature review chapter.]
1.2.2 Research Question
This dissertation focuses on the overarching research question: How is humor
employed as rhetoric in the geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches. There are
three key elements: (i) humor, (ii) rhetoric, (iii) geographical-winning Toastmasters
speeches and three latent premises to this research inquest:
(A) There is rhetoric in the geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches.
(B) There is humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches.
(C) The humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches is rhetoric.
In this project, humor is defined as the physiological experience of mirth, brought by
appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity, presented through semantic,
acoustic and/or visual play [See Segment 2.2.2 for the literature basis of this
definition]. Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of ethos, logos, pathos to inform,
persuade, or motivate specific audiences [See Segment 2.1.2 for the literature basis
of this definition]. A geographical1-winning Toastmasters speech is defined as a
speech presented by a Toastmaster District winner at the International Inter-District
Semifinals or Finals. [See Segment 1.1.1].
[1Note that the term geographical is mostly interchangeable with the term district as
districts are geographical-based. However, I tend to use the label geographical because I
will be doing posterior analysis of geographical differences, not district differences (e.g. the
geography of India consists of Districts 41, 82, 92 and 98, see Appendix 2:
https://www.toastmasters.org/~/media/B9916EB493F34B499659AACFDB356696.ashx) ]

Premise A states that rhetoric is present in the geographical-winning Toastmasters

speeches. This is justified to be a truth, since it is explicit in the judging criteria for
the speech to be centered on a purpose through the orators delivery and choice of
language. In the first place, it is unimaginable for a speech that is seven minutes long
to not have any form of rhetoric. In a competitive speech representing a
Toastmasters District at the Inter-District stage, it is irrefutable that rhetoric to
inform, persuade or motivate the audience is embroiled in the presented speech.
Premise B states that humor is present in the geographical-winning Toastmasters
speeches. I cannot specify this to be a definitive truth as a speech can be devoid of
humor yet impactful to the audience. However, I assert Premise B to be an
acceptable proposition to work with in this project because the environmental press
of Toastmasters implicitly expects humor. The Toastmasters audience voluntarily
invested time, energy, money to be physically there for the social element of feeling
empowered and being entertained. A serious speech, with no laughter points, can
depress or bore the Toastmasters audience. Especially in a competitive speech on the

Inter-District stage, applying humor to stimulate the audience with ideas and a sense
of hope is presupposed.
Premise C states that humor in the geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches is
rhetoric. To justify whether a humor is rhetoric or not is completely opinion-based,
which in itself cannot be proven or disproven. As such, Premise C can never be a
definitive truth. However, I assert humor as rhetoric to be a reasonable working
proposition in the context of this project. A District-representing Toastmasters
speech internationally presented at the Inter-District stage is a performance that is
thoroughly-prepared and well-rehearsed. Each line and sequencing of delivery is
strategically crafted. This includes the layering of any punchlines. Humor employed
is rhetoric when it emphasizes errors in our logic and reasoning (logos), when it
appeals to our emotion and feelings (pathos), and when it endears us to the orators
character for likeability and trust (ethos).
The foundation of addressing the research question is therefore inductive reasoning.
Throughout this project, I am not deductively arguing for definitive truths, but
inductively reasoning how humor is employed as rhetoric in quintessential
Toastmasters speeches. This project assumes humor is rhetoric to illustrate how
humor is rhetoric.
1.2.3 Synopsis of Methodology
A corpus of 506 Toastmasters speeches presented at the Semifinals and Finals of
the 2012 to 2016 Annual Toastmasters International Speech Contest will be selected
for humor rhetoric investigation. For this project, humor is delimited to audible
laughter. If a crafted humor received no audible laughter from the large audience, it
is specified that the joke presented is not a humorous rhetoric for analysis in this
study. For every speech in the corpus (approximately seven minutes each), all
naturalistic laughter from the audience will be objectively recorded in terms of
seconds. Specifically, three hypotheses will be examined.
H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience
laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical winning Toastmasters
speeches.
H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a
geographical winning Toastmasters speech.
H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles
Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of
a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of
entertaining to impact thinking).
Additionally, the humor rhetoric at every laughter point will be typologically
analyzed in terms of Target (TA), Situation (SI), Narrative Strategy (NA) and
rhetoric. Humor rhetoric scrutiny in this project is theoretically guided by Aristotles
Ethos, Logos, Pathos, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin,
1991), and Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) typology of audiovisual humor. Through
synthesizing the observed TA, SI, NA and rhetoric in terms of general trends and
specific notability, this project aims to explicate with as much concrete
substantiation how humor rhetoric is applied in the winning Toastmasters speeches.

1.2.4
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Significances of Study

Theoretically emphasizes a rhetoric lens to approach humor

Elucidate how and when humor is employed in orated English rhetoric.
Cross-geographical discussion that is strongly data-validated.
A data-grounded typology / taxonomy of public-speaking humor techniques,
where proposed higher order categories of public-speaking humor are
objectively based on principle-component analysis.
Important, practical implications for extrapolation to other settings of
communication.
- Address present market demand
Humor is increasingly important
o Social media inundates with stimulation. Listening is now more optional
than ever before. Consumers have higher expectation towards
information. Content cannot merely inform but also need to entertain and
stimulate, lest it gets ignored.
Rhetoric is increasingly important
o The ability to sell is now deemed the most valuable skill businesses want
from employees (Forbes, 2015).
o Social media inundates with alternative viewpoints. Being exceptionally
rhetorical is now more necessary.
Mastering the balance of humor rhetoric is valuable
o Humor is one of the best tools to be rhetoric. Humor (that brings
constructive laughter) is required to keep in pace with the increasing
standard of information production.
o Humanity is now more demanding of quality cognitive stimulation and
affective experiences.
Therefore, this research offers important, relevant positioning for the present
time.
o Past global societal dynamics had an environmental press where means
of humor were less prevalent and devalued compared to pragmatic issues
1.3 Summary

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
[Insert Chapter Overview]
2.1 Outlining Rhetoric
The study of rhetoric, generally characterized as the art of selecting the most
effective means of persuasion, has a long and distinguished history (Sandler, Epps &
Waicukauski, 2010, p. 16). The oldest known parchment on how to speak effectively
was inscribed about 3000 B.C.E. to the eldest son of Pharaoh Huni (McCroskey,
1986, p. 261). The oldest known extant book on how to persuade effectively - the
Precepts - was composed about 2675 B.C.E by Egyptian Vizier Ptah-Hotep
(McCroskey, 1986, p. 262). These Egyptian works had minimal contributions to
rhetoric theory however as rhetorical theorists for several thousand years afterwards
were unaware of them. Nonetheless, these early archaic Egyptian texts are
significant in indicating at least 5000 years of scholarly interest in rhetoric.
Classical Greece (510 BC to 323 BC) was when serious analysis of oratory
persuasion first developed. Isocrates (436-338 B.C.) established the first academy of
rhetoric to teach rhetorical composition as a practical skill for human betterment
(Wagner, 1922). Plato (427-347 B.C.) offered theoretical guidance on properly
constructing a speech in the Phaedrus to define rhetoric as "the art of winning the
soul by discourse" (Freeley, 1960). Following which, Platos student Aristotle (384322 B.C.) created the seminal work the Rhetoric that to this day still underpins all
rhetoric theories (Anderson & Middleton, 2014; Bizzell & Herzberg, 2000).
Aristotles Rhetoric, which consisted three volumes, is widely acknowledged to be
the most influential and generative work on persuasion ever written (Golden,
Berquist & Coleman, 2003; Gross & Walzer, 2000). Throughout history ever since,
scholars have persisted to study rhetoric in varying contexts. This includes during
the Roman Empire (by Cicero, Quintilian and Longinus), during the Medieval (by
Augustine, Capella and Boethius), during the Renaissance (by Valla, Erasmus and
Ramus), during the Industrial Revolution (by Campbell, Priestley and Whately) and
in the Contemporary Era (by Burke, Weaver and Perelman). To cover all
perspectives and variations of rhetoric that scholars have discussed would not be
possible in this paper. As such, I will discuss only the three most dominant theories
of rhetoric. I will consequently relate these three most prevailing theories to the
context of Toastmasters, before outlining the operational definition of rhetoric in this
project.
2.1.1 Key Theories of Rhetoric
Among the scope of theories related to rhetoric, only two are timeless in its
pertinence: the Three Rhetorical Appeals and the Five Canons of Rhetoric (Hauser,
2002; Schiappa, 1999; Toye, 2013). Both theories have its roots from Aristotles
Rhetoric. The third key theory of rhetoric to be outlined is whereas a forerunning
contemporary rhetorical theory: Rhetorical Dramatism, as conceptualized by
Kenneth Burke (Burke, 1945, 1950, 1966, 1972; Bygrave, 2012; Simons, 2004).
2.1.1.1 The Three Rhetorical Appeals

From Aristotles Rhetoric (Bk. 1:2), there are three artistic proofs that an orator must
rely on to persuade any audience: ethos (the character appeal of the speaker), logos
(the logical appeal of the speech) and pathos (the emotional appeal of the speech).
Inartistic proofs are whereas sources external to the orator, such as pre-existing
facts, judicial laws and physical evidence. An orator invents and curates artistic
proofs from the static data of inartistic proofs to compose arguments that are
persuasive, interesting and useful to the audience. According to Golden, Berquist
and Coleman (1999), what defines the essence of any effective rhetoric is the adroit
application of the three artistic proofs: ethos, logos, pathos.
Ethos is the rhetorical appeal of what the orator says in the speech to reflect the
speakers character or personal credibility (Herrick, 2001, p. 84). In order to
establish ethos, the orator must establish practical wisdom [phronsis], virtue [aret]
and goodwill [eunoia] (Sloane, 2001, p. 266). Logos is the employment of logical
reasoning through sound, rational arguments to demonstrate a truth or an apparent
truth. Truth is not guaranteed by logos, only plausibility (Sloane, 2001, p. 459).
Logos does not denote what is eternally or certainly the case, but only what is made
to seem true to a given audience. Pathos is the application of emotions to affect the
judgement of the audiences. In applying pathos, the orator should have three foci: (i)
the frame of mind of the audience, (ii) the variation of emotions in and among
people, and (iii) the influence the speaker has on the emotions of the audience
(Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001). Therefore, there is no need to address all emotions, but
only those that bear upon the public argumentation (Sloane, 2001, p. 557).
Conceived almost 2500 years ago, the theory of the three rhetorical appeals has
stood against the test of time. Although nuances in the details of ethos, logos, pathos
have been regularly debated, the simple threefold core structure and guiding
principles of logic, emotion and character remain (Simons & Jones, 2011). It is a
recurrent and irrefutable theme throughout history that the effectiveness of any
speech decisively hinges on logic, emotions and the character appeal of the speaker.
2.1.1.2 The Five Canons of Rhetoric
Another enduring theoretical framework that has been revered across two
millenniums is the division of rhetoric into Five Canons: Invention (Inventio),
Arrangement (Disposito), Style (Elocutio), Memory (Memoria), and Delivery
(Pronuntiatio). Although Aristotle had substantial writings in Inventio, Disposito
and Elocutio, Cicero (107-43 B.C.E) is commonly credited as the rhetorician who
brought together and organized the Five Canons (Herrick, 2001, p. 96-97).
Quintilian (35-100 C.E) thereafter produced Institutio Oratoria that spanned 12
comprehensive books on training the oratorical process. Deep theoretical and
practical issues of the Five Canons were specified by Quintilian and the Five Canons
have been the backbone of rhetorical education ever since (McCroskey, 1986, p.
268).
According to Ciceros De Inventione, as translated by Hubbell (1949): Invention is
the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render ones cause plausible.
This includes finding resources and knowledge to substantiate the claims to be
made. Arrangement is the distribution of arguments thus discovered in the proper
order. This includes selecting and apportioning the organization of the materials to
be presented. Style (or expression) is the fitting of the proper language to the

invented matter. This includes being eloquent and appropriate in word-choices for
the pertaining discourse. Memory is the firm mental grasp of matter and words. This
includes remembering, reproducing and retaining through mnemonics. Delivery is
the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject
matter and the style. This includes performing on the nonverbal aspects such as
effective tonal modulations and physical expressiveness.
As a whole, the Five Canons is a systematic, chronological sequence that covers the
entirety of the oratorical process (Murphy, Katula & Hoppmann, 2014, p. 131). The
speaker has to first find (invent) ideas, then arrange them in an order, before
putting worded style to the ideas. The speaker has to remember (memorize) the
ideas, their order, and their words, before performing (deliver) the ordered and
worded ideas to an audience through voice and gestures. As such, the Five Canons
of Rhetoric are ever-relevant for all five components are indefinitely necessary to be
effective in public speaking (Crick, 2014, p. 9).
2.1.1.3 Rhetorical Dramatism
Among contemporary rhetoric theories, I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke are the
two scholars frequently credited for spearing the new rhetoric movement (Corbett &
Connors, 1999, p. 538). Contrasted to old rhetoric which focuses primarily on
persuasion, Richards focused on communication to view rhetoric as how language in
any kind of discourse works to produce understanding in an audience (McCroskey,
1986, p. 272). Likewise, Burke veered away from the sole emphasis on persuasion to
view rhetoric as identification and drama (Burke, 1951).
To Burke, rhetoric is dramatism where there are three key concepts: identification,
the dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption (Brock, 1985). Identification is the
common ground that exists between speaker and audience (Griffin, Ledbetter &
Sparks, 2015, p. 298). Burke viewed rhetoric as the study of various modes of
achieving this identification with the audience (Corbett & Connors, 1999, p. 539).
Unlike the term persuasion which stress upon deliberative design, the term
identification allows the inclusion of partially unconscious factors in its appeal
(Burke 1951, p. 203). The dramatistic pentad is a critics tool to uncover the
motives of any speaker through five elements of the human drama: act, agent,
agency, scene and purpose (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 294). Burke viewed
communication as generating symbols not just to transmit messages, but as an action
of rhetoric (Burke, 1969). Anything freely said for a purpose is a rhetorical act an
actor choosing to perform a dramatic action for a motive (Appel, 2012, p. 5-6).
Guilt-redemption is the perspective that purging guilt is the ultimate motive for all
public rhetoric, even if the rhetoric is unaware of its force (Griffin et al., 2015, p.
297). Burke viewed purging guilt (i.e. all noxious feelings) as the plot of all human
drama, or the root of all rhetoric (Bobbitt, 2007). Public speaking serves to purge,
through mortification or victimization, the guilt we feel as a result of our place in the
social order so as to ideally achieve the new order of transcendence (Burke, 1961).
The overarching frame of Burkes rhetorical theory is that life is drama. Dramatic
human symbolic behavior are rhetorical. Dramatism is an appropriate strategy for
viewing rhetoric, as well as life (Mangham, & Overington, 2005). Burkes work on
the linguistic resources of identification and the actional processes of symbols had
notably shifted the locus of rhetorical influence from arguments to symbols as the

means of evoking shared meaning (Sloane, 2001, p. 504). Appropriately, in the

Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, Sloane (2001, p. 503) hails Burkes interdisciplinary
dramatistic perspective as the single most important influence on the development
of modern rhetoric.
2.1.2 Defining Rhetoric
In the field of modern rhetoric research, it is generally accepted that the definition of
rhetoric has extended beyond an exclusive examination of persuasion (Foss &
Griffin, 1995; Hauser, 2002; King 2010). Communication to inform and motivate is
now also widely considered under the functions of rhetoric (Perelman, 1979; Marsh,
2001; Rowan, 1994). Specifically, the definition of rhetoric as the art or the
discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or
persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or
a group of persons (Corbett, 1990, p. 3; Corbett & Connors, 1999, p. 1) has been
widely employed and cited (see Berger, 2010; Davies, 1998; Lamb; 1998; Olali,
2014; Marsh Jr., 2001, 2012).
To put it succinctly and broadly: Rhetoric is the strategic means to inform, persuade
or motivate specific audiences. What then specifically is the strategic means depends
on the theoretical framework employed which gives a set of terminologies for
inquiry. For example, a framework employing the Five Canons will investigate the
means of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery on informing,
persuading and motivating specific audiences. Whereas, a framework employing the
dramatistic pentad will investigate the means of act (what), agent (who), agency
(how), scene (where) and purpose (why) on informing, persuading and motivating
specific audiences.
When applying the three most prevailing theories of rhetoric to the context of
Toastmasters, the terminologies provided by each theory are all explanatory in
accounting for the facets of Toastmasters speeches. A Toastmaster has to find ideas,
organize the knowledge, design flair to the content, retain awareness of the
components, before performing the speech. There has to be some drama (of who,
what, where, why and how) which is identifying with the audience, so that the
Toastmaster can purge ones noxious feelings for redemption/ transcendence.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of any Toastmasters speech crucially hinges on logic
appeal, emotional appeal and the character appeal of the speaker.
Each leading theory has its merits. However, one theory stands out for being the
most parsimonious and critically decisive in speech analysis. I flatly state the Three
Rhetorical Appeals to be the most emphatic theory to analyze rhetoric in
Toastmasters speeches. Effective use of ethos, logos and pathos is principally all that
is required to inform, persuade or motivate specific audiences. Inasmuch as the Five
Canons of Rhetoric is a framework most effective for training orators, this
framework is less effective for analyzing orated speeches. For example, to
investigate the memory of ideas is not the most direct influence contributive of
speech quality. Whereas, Rhetorical Dramatism is a comprehensive framework that
provides unique dramatic analysis of each speech. However, guilt-redemption is
psychological internal process and cannot be reliably deduced from the speech itself.
The dramatic pentad has five elements which as a whole explains rhetoric, but are
individually not vitally contributive for rhetoric. For example, the element of scene

do not always crucially influence the speech quality, such as at Toastmasters

Conventions where the scene of speech is generally standardized. Identification is
subjectively interpreted and as a singular construct do not resoundingly underlie all
symbolic rhetorical action. There is an added variance and uncertainty for each
factor added to a theory. I do not doubt that employing the rhetorical dramatism
framework of identification, dramatistic pentad and guilt-redemption will bring
more depth and details to speech analyses. However, it will also bring more cluttered
debate, which is not necessarily needed. In contrast to the elements of the
dramatistic pentad, ethos, logos, pathos can each stand alone as a factor to crucially
influence rhetoric.
Therefore, for the sheer purpose of outlining an operational definition that is most
pertinent to this Toastmasters project: Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of
ethos, logos, pathos to inform, persuade, or motivate specific audiences.
2.2 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor
The history of humor is equally long and distinguished. Amy Carrells (2008, p.
303-332) book chapter on the Historical Views of Humor included an archival
account of how eminent philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Hobbes (15881679), Kant (1724-1804) and Schopenhauer (1788-1860) regarded humor. However,
unlike rhetoric where the core ideas stood in place due to the voluminous writings of
early rhetoricians, the word humor has a convoluted history that has shifted in
connotations over the centuries. An analytical account of how the concept of humor
had historically evolved was provided by Wickberg (1998) that Martin (2007, p. 2026) streamlined. Plato viewed humor as malice, which biblical influences
subsequently reinforced when references to laughter in the Bible were mostly linked
to scorn, derision, or contempt (Koestler, 1964; Morreall, 1987). In the sixteenth
century, humor meant an odd, eccentric person, peculiar person, or any behavior that
deviates from social norms (Martin, 2007, p. 21). During the eighteen century,
humor became synonym with ridicule which meant active, aggressive attacks to
outwit and humiliate others (Martin, 2007, p. 22). However, by early nineteen
century, due to the efforts by British social reformers championing humanitarian
values, humour evolved as the chosen word to characterize benevolence for a
sympathy-basis of laughter, in contrast to aggressive-base wit (Martin, 2007, p. 23).
Over the course of the twentieth century, the distinction with aggression was blurred
Humor came to include aggression, as well as playfulness. Not to have a sense of
humor also meant inflexibility and excessive seriousness (Martin, 2007, p. 23-24)
Today, the word humor is an umbrella term with a generally positive, socially
desirable connotation, which refers to anything people say or do that is perceived to
be funny and evoke mirth and laughter in others (Martins, 2007, p. 20). To apply
past scholarly conceptualization and connotations of humor to a modern dataset at a
contemporary setting would not be sensible. Thus, in this paper, I will primarily
view humor with the lenses of modern connotations. Specifically, in this section, I
discuss the three perspectives of humor most scholarly domineering in present
humor research today. Consequently, I outline the operational definition of humor in
this project, before asserting the call for a rhetoric perspective of humor.
2.2.1 Key Perspectives of Humor

In present humor research today, the International Society for Humor Studies
(ISHS), officially established in 1989, is the chief scholarly organization. The
HUMOR journal, managed by ISHS, has four issues of publications each year. To
date, HUMOR has published over 500 peer-reviewed papers from varied fields of
study. Although humor research today draws upon multiple disciplines, perspectives
of humor from the academic disciplines of Psychology, Linguistics (& Literature)
and Sociology dominate at the present time (Raskin, 2008, p. 3-4).
2.2.1.1 Humor Is Psychological
According to Victor Raskin, the Editor-in-Chief of HUMOR from 1987-99 and the
Editor-at-Large since 1999 to present, In the current scientific/scholarly/academic
rigorous study of humor, psychology has the longest history (Raskin, 2008, p. 3).
The psychology of humor does not study the humor of humorous material only, but
rather emphasizes the study of humor with relation to peoples behavior (Ruch,
2008, p. 3). Peoples behavior refers to what can be objectively assessed, as well as
the subjective experiences of internal processes (Ruch, 2008, p. 3). Therefore, the
key tenet from the psychological view of humor is that humor is psychological;
humor stems from what an individual experiences. Humor psychologists thereafter
study humor with respect to individuals as a collective.
An individuals psychology is emphasized as the primary influence of humor from
this perspective. Via objective recording and/or subjective assessment of an
individuals behavior, psychologists thereafter make inferences about the humor of
individuals as an aggregate after multiple data from individuals are collected. This
philosophy towards knowledge construction has resulted in a considerable amount
of psychological-based humor theories. To examine how individuals appreciate
humor individually is a prominent theme of research by humor psychologists, with
over 20 psychometric measures on the sense of humor (Ruch, 1998, p. 405-412;
Martin & Sullivan, 2013). Out of which, the conceptualization that individuals
engage in four distinctive humor styles (affiliative, aggressive, self-enhancing, selfdefeating) stands out in its scholarly impact. The 32-item Humor Styles
Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir, 2003) which
psychometrically assesses affiliative humor style, aggressive humor style, selfenhancing humor style, and self-defeating humor style is currently the most cited
measure of humor. The HSQ is well-validated (Schermer, Martin, Martin, Lynskey,
& Vernon, 2013) and had been translated into numerous languages: such as Arabic
(Taher, Kazarian & Martin, 2008), Chinese (Chen & Martin, 2007), French
(Saroglou, Lacour & Demeure, 2010), German (Leist & Mller, 2013) and Turkish
(een, 2007). According to Martin (2007, p. 210-214), the four humor styles are
posited to be stable personality traits that are fairly consistent in and among
individuals.
Other prominent research themes of how individuals psychologically experience
humor are the widely-encompassing relief theory and superiority theory of humor.
The relief theory of humor is physiological-based and posits that humor is chiefly
for tension-release (Freud, 1905, p. 282; Gregory, p. 40; Meyer, 2000, p. 312). We
laugh to reduce internal stress (Fry, 1963), to ease social tensions (Schaeffer, 1981),
or to dissipate the unconscious, repressed id energy (Freud, 1960). Whereas, the
superiority theory of humor is emotion-based and posits that humor is chiefly to feel
superiority over others (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004, p. 148; Plato, 1975, p. 45-49;

Bain, 1859, p. 153). Mirth is psychologically experienced, inwardly or outwardly,

when we enjoy some sort of triumph over others due to their foolishness (Gruner,
1997), misfortunes (Singer, 1968) or ignorance (Berger, 1987). In the contemporary
humor research landscape, the relief and superiority theory of humor are accepted as
global principles, so much so that both are classified as essential early theories
(Martin, 2007, p. 31-56). The psychological nature of humor for relief and
superiority are well-established fundamentals which humor academics today
generally do not scholarly debate on.
2.2.1.2 Humor Is Language
The linguistics of humor, with literary humor, are next in major contributions to
modern humor research (Raskin, 2008, p. 4). The key tenet from the linguistic and
literary perspectives of humor is that humor is language. Language in this case
generally refers to semiotics which includes both linguistic and non-linguistic
signs and symbols for meaning-making. Semiotics encompasses semantics (relation
between signs and the denoted meaning), syntactics (relation among or between
signs in formal structures) and pragmatics (relation between signs and sign-using
agents of interpreters). The primary methodological approach from the Linguistics
and Literature discipline is the discourse analysis of humor, characterized by a focus
on actual, naturalistic data, such as transcriptions of recordings and literary
documents (Attardo, 2008, p. 116). Cognitive analysis of texts is emphasized.
Language is emphasized as the primary influence of humor from this perspective.
The Semantic Script-based Theory of Humor (SSTH; Raskin, 1979, 1981, 1985) is
the central antecedent for linguistics theories of humor. The SSTH examines
semantic roles and script oppositions in the application of semantic script theory to
humor, though not in the other way around (Raskin, 1986). The General Theory of
Verbal Humor (GTVH; Attardo & Raskin, 1991) was thereafter proposed to expand
the range of descriptive and explanatory dimensions covered by the SSTH. In
addition to Script-Oppositions (SO), Target (TA), Language (LA), Logical
Mechanism (LM), Situation (SI) and Narrative Strategy (NS) were added as
elements, purporting to account for all humor in verbal texts (Attardo, 1994).
Although Logical Mechanism as an element of humor has been much criticized (see
Davies, 2004, 2011; Oring, 2011), the GTVH stands out for its scholarly impact.
There has been multifarious applications of GTVH to various contexts, such as
experimental studies of university students (Samson & Hempelmann, 2011;
Summerfelt, Lippman, & Hyman, 2010; Vallade, Booth-Butterfield, & Vela, 2013),
twitter/social media blogs analysis (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004; Holton & Lewis,
2011; Whalen, Pexman, Gill & Nowson, 2013), effectiveness in advertisements use
(Chan, 2011; Damiano, 2014; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992) and conversational humor
(Bertrand & Priego-Valverde, 2011; Kotthoff, 2006; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006).
Presently, Raskin is pushing for the language of humor to move in a computational
direction (Raskin, 2015a, 2015b, 2009). Computational advancements in
Ontological Semantic Technology (OST) have resulted in Natural Language
Processing applications to analyze humor with formal logical reasoning (Lee &
Kwon, 2014; Raskin, 2009; McShane, Nirenburg & Beale, 2015). Through
engineering into computed systems text interpretations, the Ontological Semantic
Theory of Humor (OSTH; Raskin, 2009) is proposed as the next-level
formalization toward a firm semantic basis of humor (Taylor, 2014, p. 456-457).

When the rapid progression of OST technology is formalized, the OSTH may
correspondingly be the next postmodern theory that epitomizes contemporary humor
research via a computational language emphasis.
2.2.1.3 Humor Is Sociological
The discipline of sociology is third in its influence on modern humor research
(Raskin, 2008, p. 4). Giselinde Kuipers, the present Editor-in-Chief of HUMOR
since 2012, outlined five theoretical perspectives of humor by sociologists (Kuipers,
2008). The functionalist approach interprets humor in terms of the social functions it
fulfills for a society or social group (p. 364). The conflict approach views humor as
an expression or reflection of social conflict (p. 368). The symbolic interactionist
approach focuses on the role of humor in constructing meaning and social relations
(p. 373). The phenomenological approach conceptualizes humor as a specific
outlook, worldview, mode of perceiving and constructing the social world (p.
376). The historical-comparative approach attempts to understand the social role of
humor through comparisons in time and space (p. 378). The key tenet from the
sociology view of humor is that humor is a socio phenomenon.
Social forces are emphasized as the primary influence of humor from this
perspective. There is no sociological theory of humor but sociologys eclecticism
provides the fluidity for vital contributions (Kuipers, 2008, p. 389). A sociological
framework of analysis has advanced humor research in numerous facets, such as in
ethnic humor jokes (Davies, 1990, 1998, 2002), the comic conception in societies
(Davis, 1993), political humor (Benton, 1988; Speier, 1998; Lewis, 1997, 2008),
performative comedy (Lockyer, 2010, 2011, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), and religious
humor (Feltmate, 2011, 2012, 2013). Specifically, Davies (1991; 1998, p. 179)
strongly asserts all jokes to be neutral until the tone in which it is told can be
determined. Whereas, Lockyer (2015c, p. 599) evaluated dramatic visual
strategies to be important in the performance, expectation, interaction and intimacy
of performative comedians. Humor is not solely psychological or language-based,
but hinges crucially on the surrounding social influence of people, what we socially
see, and what we socially hear.
In terms of the latest scholarly emphasis, the sociology of humor is moving towards
analyzing the globalization of humor (Kuipers, 2014, p. 714). According to
Kuipers (2014), cross-national diffusion has led to culturally diverse humor
audiences that has resulted in growing attention towards social humor mechanisms. I
humbly state here that the present project, which examines the globalizing humor of
Toastmasters speeches, connects with the current scholarly direction among modern
humor academics.
Comment: As per Segment 2.1.1, the above three Sub-Segments have to be capped
at three paragraphs each, for word count and proportion considerations in the
confirmation proposal. The primary intention of the 9 above paragraphs is to lead to
my project conceptualization of humor but the politics of power guided the writings
too.
2.2.2 Defining Humor
Emeritus Professor of Anthropology Elliot Oring asserts robustly that all humor is
dependent on the perception of an appropriate incongruity (Oring, 1992, 2003,

2011). An appropriate incongruity is the perception of an appropriate relationship

between categories that would ordinarily be regarded as incongruous (Oring, 2003,
p. 1). Appropriateness need not be rooted in any kind of logical validity, however;
it requires only a psychological validity (Oring, 1992, p. 2). According to Attardo
(2008, p. 103), the idea that humor is the perception of an incongruity between a set
of expectations and what is actually perceived, goes back to Aristotle, but has been
famously restated by other theorists such as Immanuel Kant who viewed humor as
the play of thought (see Kant, 1790, p. 176, Carrell, p. 308).
Synthesizing the work from the various scholars and perspectives for a context most
suitable to analyze multimodal data, I present a broad definition of humor in this
paper. Humor is the psychological experience of mirth, brought by the
perception of an appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is
presented through semantic, acoustic and/or visual play. Linguistics emphasizes
cognition and semantics (Raskin, 1985; 1987; Raskin, Hempelmann & Taylor,
2009). Psychology asserts on mirth and the emotional aspects (Grimes, 1955; Fry;
1986; p. 83; Martin, 2007, p. 29). Sociology expounds the socio aspects, which is
wide-ranging to include what we hear and see socially (Davies, 2002; Kuipers,
2008; Lockyer, 2015c). Globally, the foundation of humor as incongruous play has
been well-explicated as well (Fry, 2010, p. 147; Oring, 1992; McGhee & Goldstein,
1983). It is to be highlighted that this is a stimulus definition of humor, instead of a
functional definition of humor. A functional definition of humor would describe
humor as communicative (see Lynch, 2002), for tension-release (see Porteous,
1998), for superiority (see Duncan, 1985). In this paper, I describe humor by its key
elements, instead of describing humor by its key consequences.
2.2.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor
Humor is an individuals psychology. Humor is language. Humor is sociological. I
assert here that the most useful link to tie the humor of individuals, language, and
society is rhetoric. Rhetoric is about informing, persuading, motivating individuals
in society through artful use of language. All humor in rhetoric is logical, emotional
and characterological, as further explicated in Section 3.3, to be operationally
examined in this project.
A rhetoric lens bring a vital amoralisitc and dramatistic connotation to humor. A
rhetoric lens elevate the artistic undertone and communicative functions of humor. A
rhetoric lens prescribes inherently the comprehensive Five Canons to humor. Humor
is not just invention; humor requires arrangement, style, memory and most
importantly delivery. The Five Canons is a detailed system time-refined through two
millenniums of scholars. A rhetoric emphasis of humor will augment humor studies
theoretically and practically.
The key contrast between rhetoric and humor is that rhetoric is experience while
humor is experiential. All humor can be rhetoric but not all rhetoric can be humor.
This is likewise to all experiential moments contributing to the experience of life,
but not all experiences in life can be encapsulated in one experiential moment. The
intention of this project transcends beyond scholarly interest to insist on the critical
experiencing of rhetoric while not forgetting the daily inward experiential seeking of
humor. This is akin to not neglecting the inward experiential seeking of gratitude

while we experience life. Rhetoric cannot effectively stand-alone without humor.

This dissertation seeks to provide the empirical links of humor and rhetoric.
2.3 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Laughter
Humor and laughter are closely-associated. Prior to the eighteen century, the
historical connotations surrounding laughter were largely negative (Wickberg,
1998). Laughter was solely seen as an aggressive act, which emanates from
perceiving an inferiority in another person (Martin, 2007, p. 22). The prevailing
social norm was that to laugh, especially in public, is impolite (Martin, 2007, p. 24).
No distinction was made between laughing at someone (e.g. aggressive ridicule) and
laughing with someone (e.g good-natured banter). Gradually, with the formalization
of debating in the eighteen century Europe, where wit grew to be a popular debate
technique, the intellectual aspects of laughter were elevated over the emotional
(Martin, 2007, p. 22). To create novel surprises in relationships between ideas for
laughter progressively grew to be a socially acceptable conversational art form
(Martin, 2007, p. 22). With theatre and plays involving dramatic comedy from
nineteen century onwards, laughter evolved to be seen as entertainment and socially
desirable (Martin, 2007, p. 23). Today, psychoneuroimmunology research evidences
laughter to be health-enhancing, which has brought applied examples such as
hospital clowns and laughter yoga promoting the humor and health movement
(Martin, 2007, p. 25-26). In everyday life of the present digital world, content
producers (such as memes) expound on the incongruities for humanity to regularly
laugh at, laugh with, and laugh away the social and political circumstances that we
live in (de Sata; 2015; Shifman, 2013). The connotation of laughter, within modern
lenses, is no longer chiefly negative. When synthesizing scholarly work regarding
laughter of the past 50 years, three prevailing themes emerged: laughter is
physiological (see Fry, 2010); laughter is social (see Glenn, 2003); laughter is
communicative (see Lynch, 2002).
2.3.1 Key Perspectives of Laughter
2.3.1.1 Laughter Is Physiological
2.3.1.2 Laughter Is Social
2.3.1.3 Laughter Is Communicative
2.3.2 Defining Laughter
In this dissertation, laughter is operationally defined as a physiological reaction, due
to individual mirth, that has socio-communicative functions.
2.3.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Laughter
Presence and absence of physiological laughter is rhetoric in communicating at
social settings.
At non-social settings however (i.e. when in isolation), laughter is physiological
individual mirth still, but not rhetoric in socially communicating anything.
Rhetoric, broadly defined, is the strategic means to inform, persuade or motivate
specific audiences. A rhetoric perspective of laughter regards laughter not merely as
entertainment, but as strategic means to inform, persuade, motivate.

My intent for advocating a rhetoric emphasis is to take the concept of laughter

beyond entertainment to mindfulness. What we laugh (and do not laugh) about is not
solely based on logic and emotion. Crucially, what we laugh (and do not laugh)
about has characterological elements.
The physiological awareness of individual mirth, with the socio-communicative
awareness.
2.4 Toward a Rhetoric Lens of Humor Techniques
In this section, I discuss the three most comprehensive taxonomies of humor.
2.4.1 Key Taxonomies of Humor Techniques
2.4.1.1 The 45 Humor Techniques (within 4 categories)
in Verbal Narratives
I. Language
1. Allusion
2.Bombast
3. Definition
4. Exaggeration
5. Facetiousness
6. Insults
7. Infantilism
8. Irony
9. Misunderstanding
10. Over literalness
11. Puns, Wordplay
12. Repartee
13. Ridicule
14. Sarcasm
15. Satire

II. Logic
16. Absurdity
17. Accident
18. Analogy
19. Catalogue
20. Coincidence
21. Comparison
22. Disappointment
23. Ignorance
24. Mistakes
25. Repetition
26. Reversal
27. Rigidity
28. Theme / Variation
29. Unmasking

III. Identity
30. Before / After
31. Burlesque
32. Caricature
33. Eccentricity
34. Embarrassment
35. Exposure
36. Grotesque
37. Imitation
38. Impersonation
39. Mimicry
40. Parody
41. Scale
42. Stereotype

IV. Action
43. Chase
44. Slapstick
45. Speed

2.4.1.2 The 41 Humor Techniques (within 7 categories)

in Audiovisual Media
I. Slapstick Humor
1. Slapstick
2. Peculiar Face
3. Peculiar Voice
4. Coincidence
5. Clumsiness
6. Stereotype
7. Ridicule
8. Malicious Pleasure
9. Repartee
II. Clownish Humor

IV. Surprise
18. Conceptual Surprise
19. Visual Surprise
20. Transformation
21. Exaggeration

VII. Satire
27. Satire
28. Irreverent Behavior
29. Outwitting
30. Peculiar Music

V. Irony
22. Irony
23. Sarcasm
24. Embarrassment
25. Puns
26. Scale

Miscellaneous
36. Imitation
37. Impersonation
38. Eccentricity
39. Sexual Allusion
40. Repetition

10. Clownish Behavior

11. Anthropomorphism
12. Speed
13. Chase
III. Misunderstanding
14. Misunderstanding
15. Ignorance
16. Disappointment
17. Peculiar Sound

41. Grotesque Appearance

VI. Parody
31. Parody
32. Bombast
33. Rigidity
34. Absurdity
35. Infantilism

2.4.1.3 The 41 Humor Devices (within 10 categories)

in Advertisement Commercials
Incongruity Theory

Superiority Theory

Relief Theory

I. Exaggeration
1. Exaggerated Outcomes
2. Understatement
3. Exaggerated Qualities
4. Overreactions

V. Putdowns
17. Mocked Peculiarities
18. Lofty Conquest
19. Society Satire
20. Stereotyping

VIII. Unruliness
30. Hysteria
31. Impulsive Outbursts
32. Displaced Irritation
33. Exercising Improprieties

II. Perceptional Discord

5. Odd Behaviors
6. Misrepresented Context
7. Bizarre Substitutions
8. Nonsense

VI. Awkwardness
26. Remorseful Regrets
27. Uncomfortable Settings
28. Exercising Humility
29. Revealed Secrets

IV. Social Order Deviancy

34. Society Irreverence
35. Forbidden Behaviors
36. Offensive Behaviors
37. Unleashed Mania

III. Irony
9. Visual Irony
10. Ironic Temperament
11. Ironic Persona
12. Situational Irony

VII. Malicious Joy

21. Bungling Behaviors
22. Unanticipated Spoiler
23. Unfortunate Happenstance
24. Deserved Repercussions
25. Cretins

X. Sentimental Humor
38. Child Innocence
39. Fear & Anxiety Relief
40. Melodrama
41. Inner Secrets

IV. Surprise Twist

13. Conceptual Surprises
14. Plot Trickery
15. Transformation
16. Visual Surprise

2.4.2 Defining Humor through Techniques

Specific strategies are important because
However, specific techniques (regardless the subject matter) are always
inexhaustible, due to the limitless possibilities of context. For example, there are

infinite specific techniques for earning money, for interactional success and for
writing a dissertation.
Parsimony is crucial.
2.4.3 A Rhetoric Perspective of Humor Techniques
2.5 Summary
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 A Physiological Emphasis on Humor
Humor is cognitive. Humor is emotion. Humor is language. Humor is sociological.
Humor can be emphasized in a plethora of various manners (eg rhetoric, play,
superiority, relief, health). However, what ties the different aspects of humor most
strongly is a physiological foundation. Energy is the bedrock of humor. This is
especially so in oratory rhetoric, where physiological delivery is the crux for humor.
All semantic content can be funny when delivered with the right physiological
foundation.

The original conception of humor began as a Latin word (humorem) to mean our
body fluids. The Greeks advocated that health depended on the balance of four body
humors: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. The physiological reference is
still retained today in modern medicine such as the aqueous and vitreous humors of
the eye.
Through fMRI research, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and possibly endorphins are
demonstrated to be released when participants experience humor.

Humor is experiential. Laughter and smiling are vital for they accentuate the
experiential. A joke cannot be cognitively assessed; it can only be physiologically
verified. For example, I can be telling the worlds funniest joke, but if the other
party display no physiological indicator(s), such as not even smiling, my joke is
ineffective, unrhetorical and not even a joke.
There are various Physiological Indicators of humor: the duration of a Duchenne
smile, the occurrence of pupils dilating, throwing back of the head, open body
language...

One purpose of this section is to guide readers from the broad definition to an
operationalized version.
Humor is the psychological experience of mirth, brought by the perception of an
appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is presented through
semantic, acoustic and/or visual play.

Humor is the physiological experience of mirth, brought by the perception of an

appropriate emotional-cognitive-socio incongruity that is presented through
semantic, acoustic and/or visual play.

3.2 A Parsimonious Emphasis on Analysis

Comprehensive, yet simple.
3.3 Aristotles Rhetoric of Ethos, Logos, Pathos
A humorous ethos brings mirth about the orator.
A humorous pathos brings mirth about emotions.
A humorous logos brings mirth about logic.
Mirth is experiential and physiological (Martin, 2007 p. 8)
[Ethos refer to the character appeal of the speaker,
Pathos refer to the emotional appeal of the speech,
Logos refer to the logical appeal of the speech]
In the context of this project for operationalization,
An effective humorous ethos brings audience laughter about the orator.
An effective humorous pathos brings audience laughter about emotions.
An effective humorous logos brings audience laughter about logic.
3.4 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin, 1991)
In the realm of linguistics, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) is the
forerunning theory for the cognitive analysis of humorous texts (Martin, 2007, p. 8992). The GTVH has been applied to analyze conversational data (Archakis &
Tsakona, 2005), jokes (Taylor, 2012), sitcoms (Elwood, 2006), poems (Attardo,
2001) and novels (Oltean, 2012). According to the GTVH, there are six Knowledge
Resources to decode humor (Attardo, 2001; Attardo & Raskin, 1991):
1. Script Opposition (SO): Script oppositions occur when there is a fundamental
conflict between real and unreal situations in the text. Possible classifications
include possible vs impossible, actual vs non-actual and normal vs abnormal.
2. Logical Mechanism (LM): Logical mechanisms describe how the two scripts
are linked together by 'local logic'. LM embodies the resolution component of
the Incongruity-Resolution model of humor.
3. Situation (SI): Situations are the context in which the humorous text is
situated. This includes the objects, activities, settings and assumed knowledge.
4. Target (TA): The target is the specific person, group, or institution being
ridiculed. Ideological concepts, such as love, can also be included as a target of
mockery.
5. Narrative Strategy (NS): The narrative strategy is the linguistic style or
structure employed to deliver the joke. This parameter relates to the text
organization, e.g. a dialogue, statement, analogy.
6. Language (LM): Language refers to the actual linguistic units. For instance,
the lexical, syntactic and phonological choices.

In this project, I will adapt the knowledge resources of Target (TA), Situation (SI),
and Narrative Strategy (NS) for humor-rhetoric analysis. Generally, there are
determinable categories for TA, SI and NS. Specifically, the targets of all peoplehumor can be classified into three categories: humor about self, humor about us and
humor about others (i.e. inclusive of a singular person). The situations that all humor
emanates from can only be due to the interplay of semantics, visuals and/or
acoustics sources. The narrative strategies for all humor can also be classified into
categories of various techniques which has pragmatic, analytical value.
The knowledge resources of Script-Opposition (SO), Logical Mechanism (LM) and
Language (LA) will however not be included. Generally, there are indeterminable
categories for SO, LM and LA. Specifically, script oppositions can be infinite, with
succinct labelling of the scripts being contentious. At times, there are more than two
opposing scripts involved, such as in a multi-modal joke. Logical mechanisms are
specific to each joke and therefore evasive for any form of aggregate analysis. At
times, there is no concrete logic involved, such as in an emotion-based joke.
Language components that result in the humor are also boundless. At times, there is
no language component involved, such as in a visual-expression joke.
3.5 Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) Typology of Audiovisual Humor
Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) typology of 41 audiovisual humor techniques under
7 higher order humor categories of satire, parody, irony, surprise, misunderstanding,
clownish and slapstick, will be employed as an initial working template in
categorizing narrative strategies. Critical inductive and deductive references will be
made to Bergers (1976, 1993) 45 humor techniques and Barrys (2013, 2015) 41
humor devices. An existing humor technique (or an existing humor category) will be
deleted from the Buijzen & Valkenburgs (2004) model only if, and when,
absolutely necessary. Likewise, a new humor technique (or a new humor category)
will be added into the model only if, and when, absolutely necessary. Achieving
maximum statistical variance with the least amount of humor techniques, through
recursive principal-component analysis and grounded data, is the guiding principle
for developing a parsimonious taxonomy of public-speaking humor.
3.6 Presenting the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as an Analytical Tool

Physiological Indicator1

Target

Narrative Strategy

Situation

Rhetoric Mode

What - Laughter Duration

Who - Target (TA)
When - Situation (SI)
How - Narrative Strategy (NS)
Why - Rhetoric Mode
3.7 Summary
Guiding principle of parsimony throughout
There is specificity in each aspect of a humor rhetoric.
Each aspect is vital and uniquely contributive.
There is no humor if one aspect is missing.
I will utilize a Humor-Rhetoric-5 as a means of analysis in this project.

CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
4.1 The Corpus
Year (Venue)
2012 (Orlando, Florida)
2013 (Cincinnati, Ohio)
2014 (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
2015 (Las Vegas, Nevada)
2016 (Washington, D.C)
Overall

Speeches in
Semifinals
86
88
91
96
98
459

Speeches in
Finals
9
9
9
10
10
47

Total
95
97
100
106
108
506

4.2 Humor Rhetoric Scrutiny

4.2.1 Laughter Duration
Physiological Indicator is operationalized as naturalistic audience laughter in this
study. Employing Media Player Classic, each occurrence of spontaneous audience
laughter is objectively recorded in terms of milliseconds. Laughter Duration will be
categorized into three categories: (a) less than 1.000 seconds, (b) between 1.000
seconds and 2.000 seconds, (c) more than 2.000 seconds.
In order for 2 seconds, speaker must generally pause. Hence it was calculated.
1-2 seconds, not hilariously funny enough or speaker did not pause
Less than 1 second, captured but not analyzed.
Laughter Duration is a continuous variable (on a ratio scale) with an absolute zero
point.
4.2.1.1 Examination of Three Specific Hypotheses
H1: An absence of crafted humor rhetoric (operationally defined as audience
laughter) is observed in less than 1% of all geographical-winning Toastmasters
speeches.
H2: The highest incidence of recorded laughter is in the first two minutes of a
geographical-winning Toastmasters speech.
H3: Cluster analysis will reveal two main types of humor rhetoric speech styles
Laugh prevailingly at the start (under the rhetorical intent to stimulate thinking of
a serious message) or laugh prevailingly throughout (under the rhetorical intent of
entertaining to impact thinking).
4.2.2 Target (TA)
A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of Target
rhetoric humor. Rhetoric humor targeting the self is hypothesized to be most
prevalent.

4.2.3 Situation (SI)

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of

Situational rhetoric humor. Rhetoric humor employing semantic-play is
hypothesized to be most prevalent.
Semantic play situation: Semantics create the humor in itself.
Visual play situation: Visuals create the humor in itself.
Tonal play situation: Tone create the humor in itself.
Semantic-Visual play: Semantics and Visuals are both key to the humor. There is no
humor without either factor. [Most prevalent in memes.]
Semantic-Tone play: Semantics and Tone are both key to the humor. There is no
humor without either factor. [Most prominent in radio humor, where there is zero
visual input]
Visual-Tone play: Visuals and Tone are both key to the humor. There is no humor
without either factor.
Semantic-Visual-Acoustic play: Semantics, Visuals, Tone are all vital for the humor.
There is zero humor if one factor is missing. Rare but possible. The epitome of a
perfect joke delivery.
(For each of the seven situations, I will provide two illustrative examples. One
emanating from a Toastmasters speech and one from a non-Toastmasters context).
4.2.4 Narrative Strategy (NS)
A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of
Narrative rhetoric humor. Narratological irony is hypothesized to be most prevalent.

4.2.5 Rhetoric Mode

A Chi-square test will be conducted to investigate the most prevalent form of humor
Rhetoric Mode. Humorous Ethos, Humorous Pathos, and Humorous Logos are
hypothesized to be equally prevalent. Humorous Ethos may have the highest
frequency count, but it is conjectured that there will be no statistical significance
indicating Humorous Ethos to be of a more prevailing form.
4.2.6 Overall
Laughter Duration is a continuous variable (on a ratio scale) with an absolute zero
point. TA, SI, NA, and Rhetoric Mode whereas are categorical variables and
quantitative examinations are based on frequencies.
A Chi-square test of independence will be conducted among the categorical
variables. It is conjectured that there will be statistical significance indicating TA,
SI, and NS to be independent from one another. This means that the Target of the
humor (be it others, we or self) do not influence the forms of Situational humor (be
it semantic, tonal, visual) observed and forms of humorous Narrative Strategy (be it
satire, parody, irony, surprise, misunderstanding, clownish, slapstick) employed, in a
recursive manner.
4.3 A Pilot Illustration
In this section, I utilize the Humor-Rhetoric-5 as a means of scrutinizing the four
World Champion Toastmasters speeches from 2012-2015.

4.4 Summary

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUDING REMARKS
5.1 Further Theoretical Contributions
5.2.1 Introducing the Two Domineering Epideictic Humor Rhetoric
Speech Styles
5.2.2 Data-Validated Cross-Geographical Humor Rhetoric Examination
5.2.3 A Data-Grounded Typology of Public-Speaking Humor Techniques
(within higher order categories of public-speaking humor)
5.2 Projected Timeline for Completion
All 398 geographical-winning Toastmasters speeches from 2012-2015 had been
downloaded and backed-up. Given that the technological infrastructure is already
firmly established, I do not foresee not attaining the remaining 108 geographicalwinning Toastmasters speeches from 2016. Since all data involved in this project are
publicly-accessible, where no personal data from all Toastmaster District
Champions will be collected, I anticipate no human ethical clearance required from
the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Data analysis starts immediately upon confirmation. Approximately-speaking, it will
involve a commitment of 500 hours to code all speeches. At a productivity rate of 25
hours per week, it will take 20 weeks to complete the data coding. Hence, by the end
of 2016, it is projected that all data-coding will be completed. Throughout 2017 and
up till the deadline of 10 August 2018, the remaining 65,000 words of data analysis
and writings will be produced.
The foremost priority is however not the mere submission of the dissertation. In the
consequent 36 months, all resources will be dedicated to a first-author theoretical
publication in a rhetoric journal, where humor and rhetoric must be in the title. This
is vital for my professional positioning where as many co-authors are desired. It is
likely that I will include the five World Champion Toastmasters speeches from
2012-2016 as empirical substantiation in the publication.
5.3 Summary
In terms of the application and consequences of humor, I advocate a rhetoric lens
Such a lens is most useful for (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5)
In terms of the foundation of humor, I advocate a physiological emphasis. Such an
emphasis is most useful for (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5)
I introduce the conceptualization of a Humor-Rhetoric-5. In this paper, I am not
proposing a theory. I am just presenting the model to be a means of analysis. There
are five key characteristics of this model: (1) a core to a system that is also flexible,
(2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and (5)
Humor is an interdisciplinary art. Rhetoric is an interdisciplinary art. This
dissertation merges the two timeless vortexes to outline its corollary magic.
Specifically, five vital research gaps are addressed: (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and
(5) Contributions of this dissertation are five-fold: (1) .., (2) ..., (3) .., (4) .., and
(5)

Appendix
Numbering Label

2012A1.1
2012A1.2
2012A1.3

2012A2.1
2012A2.2

Laughter
Duration (in ms)

Situation
Semantic play*
Visual play
Tonal play
Semantic-Visual play
Semantic-Tonal play
Visual-Tonal play
Semantic-VisualTonal play.

Target

People
Self*
Us
- (i.e. Toastmasters)
Others
- (e.g. a specified
person, groups,
relationships)
Non-People
Ideologies (eg love)
Institutions
(eg Toastmasters
International)
Others (eg items,
animals)

* indicates what is hypothesized to be most prevalent.

Narrative Strategy
41 audio-visual
humor techniques
clustered into 7
higher order humor
categories.
- Slapstick (hostility)
- Surprise
- Irony*
- Clownish behavior
- Satire
- Misunderstanding
- Parody
[Liberty has been
taken to utilized
Buijzen &
Valkenburgs (2004)
typology of audiovisual humor
techniques as an
initial working
template]

Rhetoric
Ethos*
Pathos
Logos.