Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008.  “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication Congress, Childhood, Methodology, Research and Ethics, I
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008. “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication Congress, Childhood, Methodology, Research and Ethics, I

on

  • 889 views

Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008. “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication ...

Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008. “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication Congress, Childhood, Methodology, Research and Ethics, Istanbul University and Communication Research Center, Istanbul, Turkey.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
889
Views on SlideShare
889
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008.  “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication Congress, Childhood, Methodology, Research and Ethics, I Agis, Derya. October 20 – 22, 2008. “A Cognitive Linguistic Humor Approach to the Animals in Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish Anecdotes.” 5th International Children and Communication Congress, Childhood, Methodology, Research and Ethics, I Document Transcript

  • A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC HUMOR APPROACH TO THE ANIMALS IN SEPHARDIC, SEPHARDIC-TURKISH, AND TURKISH ANECDOTES F. Derya Agiş1 Abstract In this study, I examine the animals in diverse Judeo-Spanish and Turkish anecdotes from the perspective of the linguistic humor theory developed by Attardo and Raskin in 1991. According to this theory of verbal and linguistic humor, a joke is created by script oppositions, logical mechanisms, situations, target, narrative strategies, and language. The theory is the revision of Attardo’s five-level model, which suggests that script opposition, such as smart/dumb, and logical mechanisms, underlying figure-ground relations form the bases of the text of joke. This study consists of the analyses of these in the Judeo- Spanish and Turkish anecdotes and the cultural elements belonging to different lands of the Ottoman Empire where Sephardim came after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. As a result, this study aims at showing that the children living all over the world can be educated in an excellent manner, being aware of the linguistic elements, leading to humor in the Sephardic, Sephardic-Turkish, and Turkish anecdotes. This study cites the distinctive qualities between animals and human beings. The children who read anecdotes where several animals are mentioned learn to use script oppositions, logical mechanisms, and other linguistic elements. Besides, they develop new cognitive skills. Ten children are tested before and after being taught Sephardic anecdotes from all over the world, Sephardic-Turkish anecdotes, and Turkish anecdotes with a teaching method based on the Cognitive Linguistic Humor Theory. The results show that children develop certain linguistic skills of understanding anecdotes belonging to different cultures, when they are strategically taught with our specific joke - teaching and cognitive skill - raising method entitled ‘Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method’ based on the work of Attardo and Raskin (1991). Our method intends to activate certain neurons and brain parts so that children can manage to understand the metaphorical qualities assigned to animals, interpreting the anecdotes correctly within the perspective of a certain culture, by understanding and respecting other cultures. The children are taught with some pictures, drawings, songs, idioms, and proverbs for interpreting the anecdotes without any mistakes. Key Words: Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method, Linguistic Theory of Humor, Sephardic Culture, Turkish Culture. Anecdotes 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper, I intend to show that understanding and peace should be taught to children belonging to different cultural groups via the correct interpretation of the symbolic meanings of 1 Research Assistant, Yeditepe University, Departments of Anthropology and Guidance and Psychological Counseling 1
  • words in certain Hodja tales. Sephardim, the Turkish Jews many of whom are living in Israel today, narrate Hodja tales in Judeo-Spanish by calling Hodja Djoha. These anecdotes full of linguistic humor elements, including script oppositions, logical mechanisms, situations, target, narrative strategies, and language, develop the cognitive linguistic skills of children not only by making them play with words, but also by imposing them a certain respect for cultural elements, customs, and traditions. Moreover, in case we teach the anecdotes of both cultures to children, these children will respect others from different cultures, who speak different mother tongues and have a different religion. However, at this point, a new method of teaching based on the Linguistic Humor Theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991) should be employed. In this study, first, we will make a literature review, talk about the Sephardim and Nasrettin Hodja, second, explain our methodology, explain the Linguistic Humor Theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991), talk about our participants, third, present our statistical findings and discuss the uses of the Linguistic Humor Theory in First and Second Language Acquisition, and finally, cite the uses of the Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method. 1. 1. Literature review One of the previous studies on the comparison of the Turkish Nasrettin Hoca (Hodja) and Djoha is the article of Bardavid (1997) where she demonstrates that Sephardim called intelligent and funny children Djoha, and this character is represented sometimes as a young, and sometimes as an old person in the Sephardic anecdotes; this character can be intelligent, stupid, clever, pure, sad, and happy in both cultures, and he has always moral values, whereas in the Turkish anecdotes, he is always old and regarded as a clever person for responding quickly. By the way, the Turkish Hodja speaks Turkish; however, the Sephardic Djoha Judeo-Spanish. Regarding other studies on Nasrettin Hodja, Sakaoğlu (1977) analysed the diffusion of the Hodja Nasrettin anecdote entitled “Do you believe in the donkey?” around the globe. Additionally, the Hodja anecdotes narrated by eight European travellers who were going from Anatolia to Jerusalem were analyzed etymologically by the same author (i.e. Sakaoğlu, 1981). Moreover, several studies were conducted on linguistic humor in Turkish humor texts. Most articles on linguistic humor theories’ application to Turkish are on Nasreddin Hodja: Türkmen (1996) applied the superiority theory of Hobbes to the anecdotes of Nasreddin Hoca; he suggested that the anecdotes of Nasreddin Hoca involved acts of being happy, as a bad event had happened to any other living thing, and Nasreddin Hoca ridiculed those who seemed to be more intelligent and / or richer than him. This article helped us to understand some linguistic terms of humor. 2
  • Besides, Oğuz (1997) discussed the methods to be used in researches on Nasreddin Hodja. He supposed that a Turkish humor element in an anecdote of Nasreddin Hoca would appear as an element, belonging to another culture, and it was important to distinguish between the real anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja and the recent versions of these anecdotes. Therefore, a good method should be used in analyzing the origins of linguistic elements of humor that differ from culture to culture. Sağlam (1997) wrote about the identity of Nasreddin Hodja, and his humor, explaining the linguistic paradoxes that create humor in anecdotes of Nasreddin Hodja. Our study differs from these previous studies, being based on the Linguistic Humor Theory of Attardo and Raskin (1991). Furthermore, it proposes that children can learn their culture and other cultures and traditions, if they are taught via a method based on the same cognitive theory, i.e. the ‘Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method.’ 1. 2. Sephardic Jews in Turkey Spanish Jews came to the Ottoman Empire in March 1492, since the Catholic monarchs of Spain, Isabella of Castilla, Ferdinand of Aragon and their prime minister Torquemada expelled them from Spain, as they did not want to be baptized and become Christians (Şarhon, n.d., para. 1). Until the end of the sixteenth century, Jews emigrated to Istanbul, Safed, Salonica, Jerusalem, and Cairo (Sarhon, n.d., para. 3). They took the name SEPHARAD, which means Spain in Hebrew; furthermore, they called themselves SEPHARDIM (Sepharads) (Şarhon, n.d., para. 3). Besides, the mother tongue of the Spanish Jews is called Judeo-Spanish, or Ladino. “The name "Ladino" is a variant of "Latin". The language is also called Judæo-Spanish, Sefardi, Dzhudezmo, Judezmo, and Spanyol; Haquitía” (Ladino Language, 2006, section 2, para. 1). As the Levantines were speaking Italian or French, the Byzantines were speaking Greek, and Turkish was spoken by the majority, the structure of these languages influenced the language, and several words entered the language from these languages, all spoken in the Ottoman Empire. 3
  • Moreover, l’Alliance Israélite Universelle was founded in Paris in 1860 for protecting the Jews all around the world; in 1865 it opened its first school in Istanbul; in addition, in the 1912s, there were 115 Alliance schools in Turkey (Sephiha, 1977, p. 43). Therefore, most of the well-educated Spanish Jews prefer to speak in French at home, being proud of the education they received at these schools. 1. 3. Djoha and Hoca (Hodja) Nasreddin Hodja was born in 1208 in the village of Hortu, in a district close to the city of Afyonkarahisar; he moved to Aksehir in 1237 so as to study with reknown scholars, such as Seyid Mahmud Hayrani and Seyid Haci Ibrahim; he had worked as a Muslim judge until he had passed away in 1284 (Sansal, 2005, para. 1). Turks call him “Nasrettin” or “Nasreddin Hoca;" Kazakhs, “Koja Nasreddin;” Greeks, “Hoja Nasreddin;” Azerbaijanis and Iranians, “Molla” or “Mulla Nasreddin;” Arabs, “Juha” or “Cuha”, and Tajiks, “Mushfiqi” (Sansal, 2005, para. 3), and the Sepharads “Djoha.” 2. METHODOLOGY This section explains the Linguistic Humor Theory, Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method, and our data, and gives some information on the participants tested. 2. 1. Linguistic Humor Theory Attardo and Raskin (1991) propose a theory of verbal and linguistic humor on verbal jokes as its most representative subset. In this paper, a hierarchical organization for six knowledge resources (KRs) is explained. Attardo and Raskin’s (1991) six knowledge resources (KRs), thus, parameters of joke difference are the following: 1) Language, 4
  • 2) Narrative strategies, 3) Target, 4) Situation, 5) Logical mechanism, and 6) Script opposition The theory that a joke is created by script oppositions, logical mechanisms, situations, target, narrative strategies, and language is the revision of Attardo’s five-level model, which suggests that script opposition, such as smart/dumb, and logical mechanisms, underlying figure-ground relations form the bases of the text of joke (Attardo and Raskin, 1991). As a next step a template is formulated by juxtaposing oppositions, and figure and ground reversal, then a target, a stereotype for the joke is selected, and the situation of the joke, where the joke will occur is presented. We call the latter “light bulb changing” due to a joke on light bulb changing and its different versions (Attardo and Raskin, 1991). However, the most important part of joke formulation is the production of the language to be used by selecting the appropriate words, syntactic structures, and sentence lineup. After these selections, the text of the joke appears. That is why we chose to observe the language of jokes. See table 1 on the details of the five-level joke representation model of Attardo: 5
  • Table 1. Attardo’s five-level joke representation model (Attardo & Raskin, 1991: 72) Concerning the first KR, Attardo and Raskin (1991) argue that many jokes are similar, thus, there is a joke similarity between jokes, and paraphrases and variants of jokes in printed documents, as people retell jokes to others, changing several aspects of these jokes. Here are some examples: (1) How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb? Five. One to hold the light bulb and four to turn the table he's standing on. (Freedman and Hofman, 1980) (as cited in Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 4) (2) The number of Polacks needed to screw in a light bulb? Five--one holds the bulb and four turn the table. (cf. Clements, 1969, p. 22) (as cited in Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 4) 6
  • (1) differs from (2), regarding the choice of some words and syntactic constructions. In (2), the number of replaces how many in (1), and Polacks is used for Poles, needed for does it take, for example. Besides, the last two sentences of (1) are turned into just one sentence with a dash in (2); as well, a joke is non-casual, and it involves an additional level of meaning to that of ordinary language, which is casual with the scope of entertaining (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, pp. 5 - 8). In fact, each joke is based on the description of a stereotype. The authors cite the following, regarding the targets of jokes: As such, it can be targeted at any individual or group from whom such behavior is expected. These individuals or groups are referred to as the target of the joke. In the literature and personal experience, one runs into the same joke told of the Finns (Kerman 1980: 455), Newfoundlanders (ibid: 455), Carabinieri (police) in Italy, Portuguese in Hawaii, West Virginians in Ohio, etc. (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 10). . Moreover, on the fourth KR, the situation of jokes, every joke has some propositions, which form the situation of the joke; as in (1). The activity forms the core of the situation, including the participants, objects, instruments, etc. In addition to this, we cannot do without mentioning the fifth KR, the logical mechanism of jokes. Jokes are based on the figure-ground reversal of the gestalt psychology, thus, on a logical mechanism, which is the fifth KR; we can see this reversal also in the first example of the researchers, indicated above. They explain this reversal in the successive manner, concerning (1): In the light bulb situation, the ground is provided by the static environment, including, of course, the table or ladder used to reach the socket, and the figure is the bulb which should be screwed into the socket by being turned clockwise by the hand of the person doing it and standing on the table or ladder. Joke (1) reverses the roles by making the light bulb and the hand holding it static and making the environment rotate. The figure-ground reversal is the logical mechanism of joke (1) (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 13). 7
  • However, a simple joke, called “chiasmus” may not have any figure-ground or paralogical elements, as in the example of the researchers numbered (21): (21) Being honest isn't a question of saying everything you mean. It's a question of meaning everything you say (Milner, 1972, p. 20) (as cited in Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 15). Moreover, the juxtaposition of two different situations, determined by ambiguity, or homonymy is another type of logical mechanism, as in the thirtieth example of the authors, Attardo and Raskin (1991, p. 17): (30) Who supports Gorbachev? Oh, nobody. He is still able to walk on his own. In addition to these five parameters, leading to humor, there is another parameter, or KR, the script opposition, whose explanation is given below: The main claim of SSTH (Semantic Script Theory of Humor) is that the text of a joke is always fully or in part compatible with two distinct scripts and that the two scripts are opposed to each other in a special way. In other words, the text of the joke is deliberately ambiguous, at least up to the point, if not to the very end. The punchline triggers the switch from the one script to the other by making the hearer backtrack and realize that a different interpretation was possible from the very beginning (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 18, my emphasis with my explanation included). At this point, we can mention that this theory should be applied to issues of linguistic pragmatics, observing the ambiguities in linguistic structures and word classes. Successively, Bucaria (2004) divides (this division is customary in linguistic literature) semantic ambiguity into three main categories of ambiguity, which are indicated below: 8
  • 1) Lexical, 2) Syntactic, and 3) Phonological The first category involves noun and verb ambiguity, and syntactic ambiguity contains not only class ambiguity, but also other types of ambiguity, as it regards the semantic shifts created by confusion between grammatical categories, and phrasal attachment and ellipsis (Bucaria, 2004, p. 281). Phonological ambuiguity involves meaning confusion, caused by sound resemblances. 2. 2. Data We gathered the Turkish anecdotes from the following book: Nasrettin Hoca Fıkraları (Anecdotes of Hodja Nasreddin), published by Çilek Publications in 2003. Besides, we chose the Judeo- Spanish anecdotes from the following books: Eli Shaul, Folklor de los Judios de Turkiya (Folklor of the Jews of Turkey), published in 1994, and from the book of Matilda Koen-Sarano, entitled Djoha Ke Dize?: Kuentos Populares Djudeo Espanyoles (What did Djoha say?: Popular Judeo-Spanish Stories), published in 1991. 2. 3. Participants Ten children speaking Turkish as their native language are tested before and after being taught Sephardic anecdotes from all over the world, Sephardic-Turkish anecdotes, and Turkish anecdotes with a teaching method based on the Cognitive Linguistic Humor Theory, i.e. the ‘Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method.’ These children were between 3 and 5 years old, and all were going to different nurseries in Ankara. 2. 4. Aim and scope of this study I intend to demonstrate that these anecdotes are good for the cognitive and psychological development, education and instruction of children, as they make children think, by imposing how to be good and tolerant members of the society. However, children are required to be instructed via our method based on the Linguistic Humor Theory, i.e. the Cognitive Linguistic 9
  • Humor Acquisition Method so that their cognitive development can be realized in a perfect manner. 2. 5. A Teaching Method Based on the Linguistic Humor Theory: Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method According to the “Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method,” children are required to hear two anecdotes belonging to two different cultures, and they are requested to categorize each word they hear into a different class (for example, under the main category of feasts, they categorize Ramadan as a Muslim feast, and Pesah, as a Jewish feast). As our topic is the concept of animal in Hodja and Djoha anecdotes, the children are required to categorize events under the titles of “LOGICAL” and “ILLOGICAL.” Besides, they have to categorize objects as ANIMATE, INANIMATE, FEMALE, MALE, ADULT, CHILD, PLANT, EATABLE, UNEATABLE, etc. By using colorful pens, they manage to categorize each event and object correctly. Furthermore, they describe what is normal or abnormal. Afterwards, they are requested to indicate the linguistic elements, such as words and word order that make the event abnormal. Children develop new linguistic abilities in this manner. They develop cognitive strategies, and put each event under the titles of the following knowledge resources (KRs), or parameters of joke difference: 1) Language, 2) Narrative strategies, 3) Target, 4) Situation, 5) Logical mechanism, and 6) Script opposition 2. 6. Brain Functions in Learning 10
  • Children can understand cultural elements and traditions of other cultures that they have never experienced first by learning to divide concepts into different categories. For this reason, they have to activate certain specific parts of their brains. Brodmann’s areas distinguish between different parts of the human brain: Figure 1. Brodmann’s areas (figure from Meier, 2008) 11
  • Function Brodmann Area Vision Primary 17 Secondary 18,19,20,21,37 Auditory 12
  • Primary 41 Secondary 22,42 Body Senses Primary 1,2,3 Secondary 5,7 Sensory, tertiary 7,22,37,39,49 Motor Primary 4 Secondary 6 Eye movement 8 Speech 44 Motor, tertiary 9,10,11,45,46,47 Table 2. Function(s) of each Brodmann’s area (adapted from Meier, 2008) When we make children watch and take part in theatretical plays, write poems whose topic is related with their own and others’ traditions and customs, sing songs belonging to different cultures, and play a game in a peaceful manner with the members of a different culture from theirs, etc., they learn to categorize cultural elements, as they distinguish between a Hupa, the symbolic door ornated with flowers through which the Jewish bride and the Jewish groom pass, when they get married in the synagogue, and an ordinary doorway or an arbour on which there are some flowers used just for ornamental purposes. Children who encountered a case where a Hupa is used and a garden where there is an arbour manage to understand which objecs are used in which situations by which cultural groups and in what types of occasions. Children should watch films, sing songs, and do any other activity by which they get acquainted with other cultural groups using their five senses and activating the right brain parts, as they get involved in the context of the target culture, and they begin to make sense of the target culture’s 13
  • sense of humor. Children learn the language and culture of the target group, as the Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition method introduces them to the songs, films, daily situations, and writings belonging to the target culture. In the next section, we deal with the analyses of Hodja anecdotes, and their meanings for children after showing our statistical findings. 3. FINDINGS We have found that the students were making more linguistic and conceptual classification errors before they had been instructed with the Cognitive Linguistic Acquisition model. 3. 1. Statistical Findings P = 0.004 14 Number of Linguistic Errors Number of Concept Classification Errors Pretest 32 23 Posttest 12 0
  • Table 3. Fisher’s test applied to the linguistic and conceptual errors of students before and after they had received instruction via the method of Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition As we see in Table 3, the performance of the students increased when we taught them with the method of Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition. The increase in their success is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.004, when the Fisher’s test is performed. 3. 2. Anecdotes and Their Analyses within the Framework of the Linguistic Humor Theory and the Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition Method 3. 2. 1. Hodja in Turkish and in Turkey The following anecdote was the most difficult anecdote among the Turkish ones. It is hard to associate a cat with an axe. However, here the cat is a metaphor depicting an avid person. The children were required to describe an avid person and the cats they have seen around, and map the common qualities of the avid people and the cats. However, before this type of an instruction, it was extremely hard for them to associate the axe, the lungs, and the cat’s eating styles. Two children said that the cat would have died, if s/he had eaten the axe. They were correct, as this linguistic ambiguity based on a script opposition indicates that avidity is dangerous, and it may bring harm. Although it is illogical for a cat to eat an axe, its metaphorical meaning leads to laughters. (1) What can the cat do with the axe? Hodja bought lungs for home too many times. He thought eating them joyfully after his wife would have cooked them. However, he found another type of meal whenever he sat on the table. Not resisting this anymore, Hodja asked his wife, “My dear wife, I bring lungs home, but I cannot eat them. What is happening to these lungs that I bring home?” His wife, “Don’t ask anything. The cat always catches the lungs that you bring home.” Hodja after hearing this, stood up, and took the axe on the door. He put it in the coffer. He knocked the coffer. He put the key in his pocket. His wife, who couldn’t understand what Hodja was doing, asked him, “Majesty! From whom do you hide the axe?” Hodja, returning to his wife, said “From the cat.” 15
  • His wife said, “Hhmm! What can the cat do with the axe?” “Woman, woman!...” said Hodja, “the cat that catches the lungs that cost two cents, won’t catch the axe that costs forty cents?” (in Eğlendiren, Düşündüren, Eğiten Nasrettin Hoca Fıkraları, 2003, p. 18) 3. 2. 2. Djoha in Judeo-Spanish In the following Sephardic Djoha anecdote, in the first sentence, there is a linguistic ambiguity, as the anecdote indicates that Djoha’s donkey fell down without depictig the place on which the donkey fell. Another ambiguity that leads to humor is also a linguistic ambiguity, as people were afraid of what Djoha’s father did, when they guessed bad events, like hitting people. However, he bought a new donkey. Most of the children failed to classify the meaning of the fall of the donkey after they had been instructed via the method of Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition. The lexical ambiguity is related to the unknown ideas on the anger of Djoha’s father. The anecdote is narrated to children with the pictures of a donkey that falls and different images of a father communicating with his son or daughter in caricatures. (2) Djoha and his donkey One day they made the donkey of Djoha fall down. He shouted at the people angrily and loudly, “You are falling down my donkey. The one who falls it down, has to pull it for me.” If you do not pull it, I will do what my father used to do.” Everybody was frightened about what his father was doing. Also, the thief was frightened. He stopped and asked, “What was your father doing, when they were falling his donkey?” He bought another one, replied Djoha (Shaul, 1994, p. 88). The anecdote above is narrated in Turkey by Sephardic Jews. However, there are also Sephardıc anecdotes of Djoha narrated not only in Turkey, but also in Israel. The following Judeo-Spanish anecdote was very problematic for children. They had some categorization errors on the animal of horse and donkey; for instance, they failed to say that donkeys were not as strong as horses. In the anecdote the horse is a metaphor: some children did not consider the horse as a person, but as a ghost. The horse throws Djoha, being loyal to his own owner. Children interpreted this differently: they said that the horse was as valuable as donkeys in carrying heavy loads. Besides, the hurry of Hodja seems very inappropriate in the situation. Therefore, here we see 16
  • that the horse replaced the role of a donkey and a driver. Besides, it is associated with the human destiny that carries people to a certain place and time about which we do not know anything. The children could not associate the destiny with the horse; they made mistakes on the conceptualiation of the donkey before they were taught with the method of Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition in which the used colorful pens classifying the animals of donkey and horse and listened to the song “Arkadaşım Eşek” (“My Friend Donkey”) of Barış Manço which describes the role of a donkey in the village life (see appendix 1 for the song’s original Turkish version and its English translation). The song narrates the nostalgy of a villager who misses his donkey that he has been recognizing as a friend since his childhood; moreover, the description of other animals in the village in the song draws a picture of the scenery of animals living in a farm. (3) The intentions of the horse The donkey of Djoha was ill; for this reason, he borrowed a horse. He got on the horse, but the horse that did not know him, tried to throw him down several times without being successful. He began to drive the horse through the fields. Djoha tried to change its direction, but he couldn’t. A friend of Djoha, who was working there at that moment in the fields, seeing him coming towards him, and seeming to be coming for giving him some important news, shouted at him, “Djoha, where are you running?” What happened?!” Djoha replied him, “I don’t know. This donkey of horse hadn’t told it to me yet.” Narrated by: Miriam Raymond – 1984 (as cited in Koen – Sarano, 1991, p. 189) 4. DISCUSSION This study shows that Hodja and Djoha anecdotes are very useful for the cognitive development of children. However, a brain stimulating technique is needed for the activation of the right brain parts interpreting humorous anecdotes full of metaphors. After the children were instructed via our method of Cognitive Linguistic Humor Acquisition, they acquired new skills of classifying concepts and words and their metaphorical meanings in accordance with the 17
  • culture to which they belong. The children must be taught with some pictures, drawings, songs, idioms, proverbs, and poems for interpreting the anecdotes without any mistakes. 5. REFERENCES Attardo & Raskin, V. (1991). Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4 (3 - 4), pp. 293 - 347. Bardavid, B. (1997). Bizim Hoca - Nasreddin Hoca. Toplumbilim (6), pp. 87 - 96. Bucaria, C. (2004). Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The case of newspaper headlines. Humor 17 – 3, pp. 279 – 309. Koen-Sarano, M. (compiler). (1991). Djoha Ke Dize?: Kuentos Populares Djudeo-Espanyoles. Gerusalemme: Kana. Ladino Language. (2006, February 26). Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladino_language Meier, S. E. (2008). Physiological Psychology, Brodmann’s area. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/psyc372/lessons/lesson03/lesson3_brodmann_area.htm Oğuz, M. (1997). Nasreddin Hoca Araştırmalarında Metot Meselesi. Türk Yurdu, pp. 25 – 27. Prepared by a commission. (2003). Eğlendiren, düşündüren, eğiten Nasrettin Hoca Fıkraları. Istanbul: Çilek.: 18
  • Sağlam, S. (1997). Nasreddin Hoca: Kimliği ve Mizahı. Türk Yurdu, pp. 28 – 31. Sakaoğlu, S. (1977). Bir Nasreddin Hoca Fıkrası. Yağmur, 1 (3), pp. 35 - 38. Sakaoğlu, S. (1981). Avrupalı Seyyahların Eserlerinde Nasreddin Hoca. Türk Folkloru Araştırmaları 1981, (1), pp. 59 - 73. Sansal, B. (2005). About Turkey. Retrieved October 06, 2006 from: http://www.allaboutturkey.com/nasreddin.htm. Sephiha, V. H. (1977). L’agonie des judeo-espagnols. Paris: Editions Entente. Shaul, E. (1994). Folklor de los Judios de Turkiya. Istanbul: Isis Press. Şarhon-Gerson, K. (n.d.). Judeo-Spanish Language and Culture. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.istanbulsephardiccenter.com/index.php?contentId=41&mid=31 Türkmen, F. (November 1996). Mizahta Üstünlük Teorisi ve Nasreddin Hoca Fıkraları. Türk Kültürü, pp. 649 – 655. Appendix 1. ‘Arkadaşım Eşek’ by Barış Manço 19
  • (at: “Şarkı Sözleri – Arkadaşım Eşek,” (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2008 from http://www.sarki-sozleri.com/sozler/baris-manco/arkadasim-esek.html) Arkadaşım Eşek Kaç yıl oldu saymadım köyden göçeli Mevsimler geldi geçti görüşmeyeli Hiç haber göndermedin o günden beri Yoksa bana küstün mü? Unuttun mu beni? Dün yine seni andım gözlerim doldu O tatlı günlerimiz bir anı oldu Ayrılık geldi başa katlanmak gerek Seni çok çok özledim arkadaşım eşek Arkadaşım eş arkadaşım şek arkadaşım eşek Yaban tayları çayırda tepişiyor mu? Çilli horoz kedilerle dövüşüyor mu? Sarıkız minik buzağıyı sütten kesti mi? Kuzularla oğlaklar sevişiyor mu? Uzun kulaklarını son bir kez salla Tüm eski dostlarımdan bir haber yolla Ayrılık geldi başa katlanmak gerek 20
  • Seni çok çok özledim arkadaşım eşek Arkadaşım eş arkadaşım şek arkadaşım eşek English Translation My Friend Donkey I did not count how many years passed since I migrated from the village It has been years since we did not meet You have not sent me any news since that day Did you get angry with me? Did you forget me? Yesterday I remembered you. My eyes were full of tears. Those of our sweet days became memories. We had to be separated. We have to resist it. I missed you very much, my friend donkey. My friend donkey, my friend donkey, my friend donkey Are the wild ponnies kicking each other in the lawn? Is the freckled hen fighting with the cats? Did Yellowgirl –a cow’s name- stopped giving milk to the tiny calf? 21
  • Are the lambs and goats making love? Wave your long ears for the last time Send me news from all of my old friends We had to be separated. We have to resist it. I missed you very much, my friend donkey. My friend donkey, my friend donkey, my friend donkey 22