The 'snunkoople' effect in literature quantified. The what??

Credit: © flytoskyft11 / Fotolia 

The Snunkoople Effect: what makes a word funny?
Every writer at some time has wondered, what makes a word funny?  

 Is it the unexpected usage a' la S. J. Perelman?  ("I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.  What it was doing in my pajamas I'll never know," a line he allegedly wrote for Groucho Marx.)  

 Is it a straight up pun?

 Is it absurd usage?

 Is it the inspired nonsense of Lewis Carroll?

 As one of the most vexing problems in modern literary science, it has finally been researched resulting in a scale that rates the funniness of a word in objective terms based on the word's inherent entropy.  I have no idea what that means, either, but you've come this far, you may as well plunge ahead.

 I've long labored under the delusion that funniness is in the eye of the beholder.  Well, I'm wrong.  Despite the hilarity you may engender with your prose, it now has to pass the test of the The Snunkoople Effect.  Can we now expect some editor or producer to reject your best work because of a low Snunkoople score?  Despite your roommates rolling on the ground when you read it to them?  Or your mother responding, "that's nice, dear," when you read it to her?

 I'm sorry, but despite being a nerd, I'm not comfortable with nerds taking over the language.  We got enough problems dealing with rigid miserable Latinate grammarians.  (You can always spot these folks.  Their computer screens are covered in blue pencil marks.)

 Read at your own peril.
*  *  *  *  *

How funny is this word? The 'snunkoople' effect

How do you quantify something as complex and personal as humour? University of Alberta researchers have developed a mathematical method of doing just that -- and it might not be quite as personal as we think.

"This really is the first paper that's ever had a quantifiable theory of humour," says U of A psychology professor Chris Westbury, lead author of the recent study. "There's quite a small amount of experimental work that's been done on humour."

"We think that humour is personal, but evolutionary psychologists have talked about humour as being a message-sending device."

The idea for the study was born from earlier research in which test subjects with aphasia were asked to review letter strings and determine whether they were real words or not. Westbury began to notice a trend: participants would laugh when they heard some of the made-up non-words, like snunkoople.

It raised the question -- how can a made-up word be inherently funny?

The snunkoople effect
Westbury hypothesized that the answer lay in the word's entropy -- a mathematical measure of how ordered or predictable it is. Non-words like finglam, with uncommon letter combinations, are lower in entropy than other non-words like clester, which have more probable combinations of letters and therefore higher entropy.

"We did show, for example, that Dr. Seuss -- who makes funny non-words -- made non-words that were predictably lower in entropy. He was intuitively making lower-entropy words when he was making his non-words," says Westbury. "It essentially comes down to the probability of the individual letters. So if you look at a Seuss word like yuzz-a-ma-tuzz and calculate its entropy, you would find it is a low-entropy word because it has improbable letters like Z."

Inspired by the reactions to snunkoople, Westbury set out to determine whether it was possible to predict what words people would find funny, using entropy as a yardstick.

"Humour is not one thing. Once you start thinking about it in terms of probability, then you start to understand how we find so many different things funny."

For the first part of the study, test subjects were asked to compare two non-words and select the option they considered to be more humorous. In the second part, they were shown a single non-word and rated how humorous they found it on a scale from 1 to 100.

"The results show that the bigger the difference in the entropy between the two words, the more likely the subjects were to choose the way we expected them to," says Westbury, noting that the most accurate subject chose correctly 92 per cent of the time. "To be able to predict with that level of accuracy is amazing. You hardly ever get that in psychology, where you get to predict what someone will choose 92 per cent of the time."

People are funny that way
This nearly universal response says a lot about the nature of humour and its role in human evolution. Westbury refers to a well-known 1929 linguistics study by Wolfgang Köhler in which test subjects were presented with two shapes, one spiky and one round, and were asked to identify which was a baluba and which was a takete. Almost all the respondents intuited that takete was the spiky object, suggesting a common mapping between speech sounds and the visual shape of objects.

The reasons for this may be evolutionary. "We think that humour is personal, but evolutionary psychologists have talked about humour as being a message-sending device. So if you laugh, you let someone else know that something is not dangerous," says Westbury.

He uses the example of a person at home believing they see an intruder in their backyard. This person might then laugh when they discover the intruder is simply a cat instead of a cat burglar. "If you laugh, you're sending a message to whomever's around that you thought you saw something dangerous, but it turns out it wasn't dangerous after all. It's adaptive."

Just as expected (or not)
The idea of entropy as a predictor of humour aligns with a 19th-century theory from the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who proposed that humour is a result of an expectation violation, as opposed to a previously held theory that humour is based simply on improbability. When it comes to humour, expectations can be violated in various ways.

In non-words, expectations are phonological (we expect them to be pronounced a certain way), whereas in puns, the expectations are semantic. "One reason puns are funny is that they violate our expectation that a word has one meaning," says Westbury. Consider the following joke: Why did the golfer wear two sets of pants? Because he got a hole in one. "When you hear the golfer joke, you laugh because you've done something unexpected -- you expect the phrase 'hole in one' to mean something different, and that expectation has been violated."

The study may not be about to change the game for stand-up comedians -- after all, a silly word is hardly the pinnacle of comedy -- but the findings may be useful in commercial applications such as in product naming.

"I would be interested in looking at the relationship between product names and the seriousness of the product," notes Westbury. "For example, people might be averse to buying a funny-named medication for a serious illness -- or it could go the other way around."

Finding a measurable way to predict humour is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. "One of the things the paper says about humour is that humour is not one thing. Once you start thinking about it in terms of probability, then you start to understand how we find so many different things funny. And the many ways in which things can be funny."

Related stories:

Humorous writing that fails the Snunkoople Test
WRITING, READING & TECHNIQUE
Story Source:  Materials provided by University of Alberta, original written by Kristy Condon.  Chris Westbury, Cyrus Shaoul, Gail Moroschan, Michael Ramscar. Telling the world’s least funny jokes: On the quantification of humor as entropy. Journal of Memory and Language, 2016.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also cause liver damage,"
Read more

Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Violence. . . or to Control It?

Image
Dell EMC InFocus A staple of science fiction is a future where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to control people's behavior, or, in which AI supplants the human element. I have mixed feelings about AI, its uses, and our future.  For one thing, it's questionable that the human brain can increase in size or complexity without causing the system to slow down.  The brain of a "genius" isn't larger than yours or mine, its simply organized differently.  The difference between early versions of humans and modern humans is in large part, size.  Yes, brain organization plays a role, but until the latest iteration of us, brain size was the critical factor. If we as a species have survived based on brain size, and brain size has maxed out, how do we continue to evolve intellectually?  Better organization?  Yes, but can we ever hope to create and control this type of evolutionary activity? One solution to maxed human brain size is creating an interface
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f
Read more

The Downside of Being 'Class Clown'

Image
Source:  Bart's Blackboard Down side of being dubbed 'class clown' Class clowns' off-task antics amuse and delight their classmates during first and second grades, making them the most sought-after playmates on the playground in early elementary school.  But by the time these mischievous boys are promoted to third grade, they plummet to the bottom of the social circle as classmates' disapproval of their behavior grows, a new study found. Perhaps most worrisome is that by third grade, playful boys may be internalizing others' negative assessments and begin viewing themselves as social failures, possibly setting them on a course for a host of poor academic and developmental outcomes, said researcher Lynn A. Barnett, an educational psychologist and professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois. These sudden reversals in playful boys' social fortunes from first to third grade may be classmates' mirroring of teachers
Read more

M.I.T. Research Explains How Will Rogers Observation Works

Image
Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit required to learn by watching others. This circuit,
Read more