This thesis presents a contrastive analysis between the observational stand-up comedies of the Greek Lambros Fisfis and the American Jim Gaffigan. The analysis criterion was the different...Show moreThis thesis presents a contrastive analysis between the observational stand-up comedies of the Greek Lambros Fisfis and the American Jim Gaffigan. The analysis criterion was the different linguistic devices used on the grounds of the first Knowledge Resource, the Language, offered by the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin 1991), the four Humor Identification Forms (Shade 1996), and the five levels of linguistic analysis (morphology, syntax, phonetics-phonology, semantics, and pragmatics). To what extent does each comedian rely on the different linguistic devices corresponding to the five levels of linguistic analysis to elicit laughter from the audience? Subsequently, how different or similar is each comedian’s approach regarding the different levels of analysis from which they draw their devices and the different types of the devices themselves? To answer these questions, I present a comparative analysis of the linguistic devices used in 15 clips from Fisfis’ playlist on YouTube, “Να ένας Σοφός” (Here is a Wise Man) and Gaffigan’s playlist on YouTube, “Laugh Society” respectively. The results suggest that both comedians relied mainly on the Verbal Humor Identification Form, and Fisfis used more devices than Gaffigan on the morphological, phonetic-phonological, and pragmatic levels. Gaffigan, on the other hand, used more devices than Fisfis on the syntactic and semantic levels.Show less
This study aimed to gain understanding of the directive behavior of 4- and 5- year-old English-speaking children in child-to-child and child-caretaker interactions. The research analyzed 660...Show moreThis study aimed to gain understanding of the directive behavior of 4- and 5- year-old English-speaking children in child-to-child and child-caretaker interactions. The research analyzed 660 directives extracted from 10 hours of video recordings. The findings showed that the compliance with the directive was influenced by the speaker's familiarity with their surroundings and the degree of directness of the directive. Additionally, children who were more familiar with each other used more indirect directives, while 4-year-olds used more indirect directives than 5-year-olds. A pattern was observed where children phrased their directives differently when speaking to a teacher or to a peer, with directives to teachers being less direct and relying more on the teacher's inference skills.Show less
