Murphy 1

Ashling Murphy
Dr. Cummings
ENG 496
8 December 2015
Humor, Humour, and the Cultures that define them; A Comparative Examination of Humor as
rhetoric in Britain and the United States
British and American cultures have long had similarities compared to the remainder of
the developed world. Both countries are considered western with government leaders of both
nations maintaining strong relationships with one another. Both countries share movie stars and
pop singers with much of pop culture overlapping in the two places. Despite these social
similarities, the two countries have distinctive cultures that influence social life among other
things. Although they share celebrities and hit singles, one part of their cultures stands out as
uniquehumor. Issues of decorum guide the use of humor as rhetoric and determine what is
deemed comical, or inappropriate in a given setting. Using conceptual metaphors as a heuristic to
evaluate humor can help to determine what distinct aspects of each culture set the standards of
decorum and ultimately decide what is considered funny in the United Kingdom versus the
United States.
All cultures contain values, traditions, and rich linguistic histories that contribute to their
unique rhetoric. Because of the wide reaching presence of rhetoric and the distinct aspects of
culture that influence it, a singular definition of rhetoric is hard to pin down. Andrea Lunsford
defined rhetoric in 1995 as the art, practice, and study of all human communication (Booth 8).
This definition accurately reflects the dependent relationship between communication and
rhetoric and indicates that there are many forms of communication that qualify as rhetoric. This

Murphy 2
is true of humor, which contains its own distinct and varied features. Like other aspects of
rhetoric, humor is similarly influenced by culture and language. As for Britain and America, both
cultures manipulate the same language to create humor, but ultimately, how the language is
presented and what each audience finds funny boils down to cultural influence.
When evaluating world rhetoric, rhetorical approaches must be adapted as a result of
culture. This is clear in the relationships between rhetoricians and their audiences worldwide. In
other words, differences in customs and language account for the cultural distinctions amongst
rhetoric. There is little debate that both universal and distinctive characteristics of rhetoric exist.
Where the debate comes in is how to study and compare culturally different rhetoric when both
culture and rhetoric involve such vast definitions and understanding. In this case, we can turn to
the heuristics and components of rhetoric used to develop rhetorical artifacts as a means to
evaluate them.
This is the same for humor. Like rhetoric, humor also contains both distinctive and varied
features. And just like heuristics are used to examine rhetoric, theories have been developed on
how to evaluate humor. Specifically, scholars have developed a system for categorizing humor,
which can be helpful when exploring what various cultures find funny. It was originally
suggested by Eysenck that humor had three meanings. Eysenck described that a person had a
sense of humor if (i) others laugh at what he/she did; (ii) he/she laughs a great deal and is easily
amused; and (iii) he/she tells funny stories and amuses others. These three points were used to
categorize humor and were eventually expanded to include additional parameters. These
included, the way with which jokes is understood, the way in which humor is expressed, the
appreciation of humor, and the tendency to use humor as a coping mechanism (Waisanen).

Murphy 3
These principles can be used to evaluate humor as rhetoric and explore the extent to which
culture influences rhetoric.
In his piece, A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Decorum, author Waisanen notes
that, humor plays a prominent role in contemporary public culture as a means for justifying its
place in rhetorical studies (Waisanen). This notion is ever present with social media and
technology increasing the amount of rhetoric promoted in the public arena. While it is widely
understood that rhetoric is both universal and distinctive, the same is not always accepted of
humor. Though the topic of humor in rhetoric has not been widely studied, most scholars would
agree that humor has both universal and distinctive characteristics that influence the way it is
presented and ultimately determines what people find funny. As such, the study of humor across
cultures is intertwined with the study of rhetoric across cultures.
This is evident in A Sense of Humor Across Cultures, where the author describes
humor as a universal phenomenon that has an important role in varied contexts such as,
business negotiation, workplace interaction, advertising, and international media (Martin &
Sullivan). These uses characterize the universal aspects of humor as rhetoric and examine how
humor can be used to make human connections internationally. The author goes on to describe
the more distinctive features of humor by noting there is some evidence that national and
cultural differences exist in the qualitative and quantitative use of humor and how this is
expressed (Martin & Sullivan). With this statement, the author establishes that cultural influence
creates distinctive humor by establishing not just what is funny, but how this humor can be used
rhetorically.
This notion of distinct humor is evident in current interactions between Brits and
Americans. Notoriously, in a recent interview with British actress, Cara Delevingne, American

Murphy 4
television hosts accused her of being disinterested, tired, and rude when she failed to answer
their questions enthusiastically. People in both Britain and America took sides in the ensuing
feud and debate. The topics of sexism, entitlement, and professionalism were all mentioned as
possible explanations for the behavior of both Delevingne and her interviewers. Delevingne did
not speak explicitly of the incident but following the interview, she tweeted, Some people just
dont understand sarcasm or the British sense of humour (Delevingne). This was a pointed
response to her caustic American interviewers. In this instance, a difference in culture between
America and Britain led to a communication misunderstanding and ultimately exposed the
fragility of humor and its inability to always translate between cultures.
Scholarship on the topic of humor as rhetoric provides insight into the use of humor as
rhetoric and the topic of decorum. Specifically, the relationship of humor and rhetoric has been
examined since early scholarship on rhetoric emerged, with Quintilian dedicating a section of his
Institutio Oratoria to the topic. In his examination of humor and rhetoric, Quintilian was focused
on the strained relationship between humor and decorum and focused on the appropriateness of
humor in the public and political atmosphere (Waisanen). This is according to scholar Waisanen
who describes Quintilians writings as focused on the relationship between decorum and humor
and notes Quintilian felt the relationship was a tense one (Waisanen). The tension Quintilian
sensed draws from the discussion of what is appropriate and inappropriate humor and when it is
okay to use both subsets in a public setting. This could include what jokes can be inoffensively
made on a sensitive subject or in what formal settings it is okay to joke.
While discussing Britains sense of humor in British Comedy and Humor, author
Richard Alexander notes, the various comic and humorous modes encountered in the media
have a pervasive effect on British social life (Alexander). Here, Alexander asserts the degree to

Murphy 5
which British humor influences society and indicates that humor and British social life are
largely intertwined. This sentiment is echoed in Ricky Gervaiss piece, The Difference Between
American and British Humour written for Time Magazine. Gervais directed, produced, and
starred in the British, and original, version of the Office prior to its adaptation as an American
comedy. Gervais seems to agree with Alexander when he describes the way British social life
influences humor.
Specifically, Gervais notes, Theres a received wisdom that Americans dont get irony.
This of course is not true. But what is true is that they dont use it all the time. It shows up in the
smarter comedies but Americans dont use it socially as much as Brits. With this statement
Gervais indicates that Brits use irony both socially and humorously implying that the two
influence each other. He explains that because Americans do not use irony as freely in social
situations, that they tend to accept sarcasm less as a form of humor. In his view, American culture
simply does not allow for the acceptance of overly sarcastic humor.
Humors lack of transferability is characteristic of its distinctive aspects and represents
the influence of culture on unique rhetoric. This is especially evident when comparing British
and American humor wherein distinct forms of comedy decide what is funny in each culture. In
an effort to categorize British and American humor, Ricky Gervais describes, Americans are
more down the line. They dont hide their hopes and fears. They applaud ambition and openly
reward success (Gervais). Here, Gervais is describing American humor, but he could easily be
discussing any aspect of American rhetoric and life. This further highlights the link between
culture and humor and the influence this has on all aspects of social life.
What we can examine is the difference between what each culture expects rhetorically
from humor. According to Gervais, people in Britain expect more self-loathing humor than

Murphy 6
people in the US. Brits also expect more humor at the expense of others as well. Specifically,
Gervais declares, We tease our friends. We use sarcasm as a shield and a weapon. We avoid
sincerity until its absolutely necessary. We mercilessly take the piss out of people we like or
dislike basically. And ourselves. This is very important. Our brashness and swagger is laden with
equal portions of self-deprecation. This is our license to hand it out. Here Gervais describes the
teasing nature of British humor, and assures the audience that comedians are as likely to make
fun of others as they are themselves. Gervais also assures readers that it is considered okay for
comedians to make fun of others because they are also willing to make fun of themselves. With
this affirmation, Gervais explains culturally why this type of humor is deemed acceptable as
opposed to offensive. In other words, British social life allows for this sense of decorum whereas
American culture may not.
There are several examples of these differences in social life and the distinct senses of
humor they heed. Most notably, in 2010 Ricky Gervais hosted the Golden Globe awards and
shocked American audiences with his crude humor. Gervais followed the method he described
above, but his humor failed to translate to American audiences. Specifically, Gervais joked at the
beginning of the show about plastic surgery and quipped, Ive had some work done, too. Ive
had a penis reduction. Just got the one now. And it is very tiny. But then so are my hands, so
when Im holding it looks pretty big (So Long). According to Gervaiss understanding of
British humor, this joke should have been successful as he followed the pattern of joking about
himself, in order to merit his jokes against others. But instead, American audiences found the
joke crude and inappropriate. And to US viewers, it was crude compared to the song and dance
numbers performed by Anne Hathaway while hosting the Oscars, or Carrie Underwood while

Murphy 7
hosting the CMAs (So Long). In line with American cultural standards, Gervaiss humor was
not perceived as funny.
Many of the differences in these two senses of humor boil down to decorum, and what is
appropriate and inappropriate to say in each country. That is, what each group will find funny,
and what they will find inappropriate, offensive, or simply mean. In his evaluation of humor,
famous scholar Cicero spoke highly of humor and advocated for its use in speeches as a way to
add artistry. However, Cicero also warned of what he called the dual risk associated with
humorattending to the audience and making the orator look stupid (Herrick 102). Cicero felt
that offending an audience could easily discredit an orator and specifically noted that an
audiences sensibility must always be respected when using humor in speech. Cicero felt this
was vital to maintain[ing] dignity while speaking (Herrick 101). This indicates that even in
ancient times, it was important to respect an audience, and to know where they drew the line
with humor. Cicero noted there were limits with what an orator could convey as humor to his
audience and felt, the most difficult aspect of humor in rhetoric is knowing when to use it and
when to refrain (Herrick 101) This advice still rings true today and echoes sentiments Ricky
Gervais conveys in his piece.
When discussing the topic of offensive jokes Gervais asserts that he never actively tries
to offend while performing his standup routines. Instead, he claims his job isnt just to make
people laugh but also make them think and implies that sometimes that includes joking about
things that people may perceive as off limits. But Gervais asserts that there is no such thing.
Instead he writes, Theres no line to be drawn in comedy in the sense that there are things you
should never joke about. Theres nothing that you should never joke about, but it depends what
that joke is. With this profound statement, Gervais mirrors themes of decorum discussed earlier.

Murphy 8
By declaring that no topic is off limits in humor, Gervais indicates that how a joke is presented,
in what setting, and to what audience are the true factors in what determines humor. In other
words cultural standards dictate what is funny.
Further, these themes of decorum can be explored in todays modern teachings regarding
rhetoric and public speaking. Specifically, Waisanen notes that in modern instruction on speaking
well, humor is portrayed as risky and potentially offensive, and students are cautioned to avoid
using humor in introductory remarks (Waisanen). Here, the cultural expectations for speech
have shifted and the use of humor to achieve these goals has shifted as well. Whereas in Ancient
Rome humor may have added artistry to speech, modern expectations dictate that humor can be
offensive and must be used carefully when communicating.
When evaluating Quintilians teachings about humor, Waisanen describes the role humor
had played in ancient society and how this influences our understanding of humor in modern
cultures. Notably, scholars describe how Greek and Roman authors raised themes of
respectability, etiquette, and modesty in their discussion of humor. All of these principles were
highly influential on classical rhetoric and informed many of the rhetoricians decisions when
composing speeches (Waisanen). In his further evaluation of ancient humor in rhetoric, Waisanen
also notes that, Many Romans efforts to create artful speech may have also informed the use of
humor in their social and political contexts. Here, Waisanen insinuates that at the time, Roman
culture dictated that speech should be artful, and as such, Roman speakers used humor to that
end (Waisanen).
A similar application of cultural expectations is likely used to manipulate humor and
create acceptable speech in todays distinctive societies. Specifically, Waisanens research
indicates that in the past, humor was used in line with cultural standards providing evidence that

Murphy 9
a link between culture and humor not only exists, but also conceivably influences British and
American humor in distinctive ways.
Exploring both British and American humor would be helpful in distinguishing the
degree to which culture influences the rhetoric of two English speaking countries, and how the
language is used and accepted differently according to said cultures. As described previously,
research such as this requires a method and draws from theories regarding rhetoric and its study.
There are several heuristics that can assist in the study of humor across cultures and can provide
a method for determining humors place in society and culture. Most notably, Conceptual
metaphors as outlined by rhetoricians Lakoff and Johnson, can be used in the study of culture
and rhetoric.
Specifically, conceptual metaphors are used to organize thoughts into known terms. This
could help explain what various cultures and demographics find funny. This is because
conceptual metaphors provide insight into the terms a rhetorician thinks in (Johnson & Lakoff).
Subsequently, they would provide insight into the terms a comedian thinks in. For example,
conceptual metaphors could indicate how women are framed in humor or how race is framed in
humor. As such, this is one way to determine cultural differences.
The suggestion that humor is potentially offensive indicates that there are facets of humor
that reflect speech, and could be received both positively and negatively. Moreover, just as
speaking well varies between cultures, whether something is funny or not is determined by
cultural standards and can be evaluated in a manner similar to speech. Explicitly, British humor
is often viewed as crass compared to American comedy. Words that may seem off limits in the
states are thrown into jokes seamlessly and without offense in the U.K. Some even profess that

Murphy 10
British sarcasm is its own breed of humor, often misunderstood by the rest of the world for
rudeness.
Differences in cultural standards in Britain can account for misunderstandings regarding
humor; with varied factors influencing what is interpreted as funny across the pond while being
deemed offensive stateside. It seems the exchange between culture and humor goes both ways,
with each influencing the other. This is precisely what makes the comparison of British and
American humor so compelling, the two countries are similar yet culturally different and have
different senses of humor. Furthermore, when discussing the cynical nature of British sarcasm
Gervais notes, This is due to our upbringing; Americans are brought up to believe they can be
the next president of the United States. Brits are told, It wont happen for you (Gervais). With
this categorization of both cultures, Gervais implies that the way both Brits and Americans are
raised influences their sense and use of humor-- an important indication of cultures influence on
humor.
These distinctions between British and American culture are precisely what contributes to
the different senses of humor conveyed through comedies in Britain and America. The most
obvious of these differences comes from The Office a successful British comedy that was
rewritten for an American audience. Not only did the American version of the show involve a
new American cast and setting, it also required an American sense of humor. The British version
of the comedy would not have been as successful in the states because as discussed before,
British humor is cultural to Great Britain. In his comparison of humor for Time magazine,
gervais attempted to pinpoint the difference between the two shows. Ultimately he noted that the
lead character, Michael Scott, had to be made nicer for the American viewers because, as he put
it, Network American needs to give viewers a reason to like you, not just to watch you

Murphy 11
(Gervais). Again, culture influences humor to such an extent that the same comedy must be
written for a new country in order to meet cultural standards and expectations of what is funny.
These unique cultures have spawned distinct senses of humor that require comedic
artifacts separate from one another. It is this need for tailored humor that lead to the creation of
an American version of the British comedy series, The Office, or the British version of the
American stand-up show, Whose Line is it Anyway. Notably, the comedic success, The Office,
was originally shown on the BBC channel in Britain an featured an all British cast. Later the
show was redeveloped for an American audience, re-cast entirely, and featured on NBC
(Gervais). The necessity for two versions of the show stems from the distinct senses of humor in
the US and the UK as is evident in two similar scenes from the show. Specifically, one episode of
the American version of the show pits boss, Michael Scott, against new employee, Toby. In an
effort to convey his dislike for Toby, Michael declares, If I had a gun with two bullets and I was
in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and Toby, I would shoot Toby twice (The Chump).
Although the reference to these two hated men is recognizable by both countries, the reference to
Bin Laden means more to American viewers. Furthermore, the culture of gun use in the United
States renders this humor more acceptable, then in the United Kingdom where the ban on guns
would leave audiences confused and unsatisfied by this joke. In this instance, shows with an
identical premise needed to have different jokes in order to convey each countrys distinct sense
of humor.
According to linguist Boroditsky, research among various cultures and evaluation of
world rhetoric indicates that language shapes reality. This was clear in her research of language
in the shaping of gender identity around the world. But the study of different cultural rhetoric

Murphy 12
becomes innately more complicated when the cultures vary, while the language remains the
same. Although language accounts for much of rhetoric, it is not just the actual language itself
that helps to shape rhetoric, but a societys understanding and use of said language. This is key
when studying the rhetorical differences between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Both countries share the English language, but it is widely understood that differences between
British and American English exist and as such, differences in rhetoric exist as well. Conceptual
metaphors help to examine what is distinct about both rhetorics and what characteristics
constitutes using language well to create humor. Ultimately, an examination of British and
American humor allows for the diminishing of language as a factor in comparing world rhetoric
and will reveals the influence of culture on the study of comparative rhetoric.
Rhetoric is a complicated field of study and varies greatly across time and cultures. What
is considered valuable speech or good writing is influenced by a societys values, people, and
communicated history. Ultimately, humor, like rhetoric, is ingrained in culture and reflects the
interests of a countrys people. What is considered funny and when humor is considered
appropriate is influenced by culture and differs between countries. Although language plays a
role in humor, it is culture that dictates how language will be used to create humor. Even in
western countries of the same language, culture is distinctive enough to create a specialized
humor, specific to a society. What is funny and appropriate in one nation could be deemed harsh,
inappropriate, or offensive in another. In the end, with the pervasive use of language across
communication and the ability to openly embrace culture as an influence in rhetoric, humor is at
the hands of a nations people, and everyones a comic.

Murphy 13
Works Cited
Alexander, R. (1984). Arbeiten aus anglistik und amerikanistik: British comedy and humour:
social and cultural background.
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. Print.
Boroditsky, Lera. How Languages Shape Thought. Scientific American. 63-65. PDF.
Burke, Ken. Introduction. A Grammar of Motives. By Burke. 15. PDF.
Delevingne, C. [@Caradelevingne]. (2015, July 29). Some people just dont understand sarcasm
or the British sense of humour [Tweet]. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/Caradelevingne?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp
%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Friedman, S. (2011), The cultural currency of a good sense of humour: British comedy and new
forms of distinction. The British Journal of Sociology, 62: 347370. doi: 10.1111/j.14684446.2011.01368.x
Gervais, R. (2011, November 9). The Difference Between American and British Humour.
Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://time.com/3720218/difference-betweenamerican-british-humour/
Herrick, J. (2013). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Johnson, Mark, George Lakoff. Conceptual Metaphor in everyday Language. The Journal of
Philosophy Volume 77. Issue 8. (1980): 453-486. PDF.
Kennedy, George Alexander. Comparative Rhetoric : An Historical and Cross-cultural
Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Murphy 14
Lambardini, John (2013). Civic Laughter: Aristotle and the Political Virtue of Humor. Political
Theory, 41 (2), 203-230.
Martin, G. N., & Sullivan, E. (2013). Sense of humor across cultures: A comparison of british,
australian and american respondents. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 375384. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.liblink.uncw.edu/docview/1353528182?
accountid=14606
"So Long, Ricky Gervais." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 13 Feb.
2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2015. <http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/films/news/so-long-ricky-gervais-his-most-offensive-golden-globesmoments-8213513.html>.
The Chump The Office. NBC. New York, NY. May 13 2013.
Waisenan, D. (2015). A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Decorum: Quintilian's
Reflections on Rhetorical Humor. Advances In The History Of Rhetoric, 18(1), 29-52.
doi:10.1080/15362426.2014.974767

Murphy 15