Muhammad Maulidya Firjatullah(1), La Sunra(2*), Riola Haya Nur(3),

(1) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(2) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(3) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(*) Corresponding Author



The purpose of this study, Verbal Humor in Hololive English Selected Clips Best of Hololive EN – October, was to examine the art of verbal humor. As a first step, the researchers sought to determine what sorts of humour were used by viewers in the Best of Hololive EN - October. Another goal was to use GTVH to linguistically analyze the verbal comedy in Hololive English Selected Clips Best of Hololive EN - October. Hololive English Selected Clips Best of Hololive EN - October was used as a starting point for examining the many sorts of linguistic humor. Hololive English Selected Clips Best of Hololive EN - October linguistically analyzed verbal comedy, the second objective. The research was primarily concerned with the intricacies of human behavior. Document or content analysis was used to acquire the information needed for the investigation. Humans were the primary source of data in this study. For the first study topic, we used Shade (1996)'s verbal humour categorisation, while for the second, we used Attardo's GTVH (1994). The investigation yielded a number of discoveries. In Hololive English Selected Clips Best of Hololive EN – October, there were 21 verbal humours that fit into 9 of the 12 categories. Seven jokes were collected out of a total of 21 pieces of verbal comedy that featured inside the study's subject. After parody, pun, irony, tall tale, sarcasm, riddle, satire, and farce, the second-highest appearance was pun 4. GTVH's six Knowledge Resoures (KRS): Script Opposition, Logical Mechanism, Situation, Target (TA), Narrative Strategy (NS), and Language were used to analyze the verbal humour detected (LA). An investigation of verbal humor was carried out in a hierarchical manner, beginning with its most fundamental component.

Full Text:



Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Attardo, S. (1994).Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis.

Collins, H. (1996). 101 American English riddles: Understanding language and culture through humor. Chicago: Passport Book.

Core Knowledge Language Arts. (2013). Fairy tales and talltales: Tell it again. New York: The Guilford Press.

Eyre, S. (2014). It’s a funny old world: The construction of possible worlds in jokes and stand-up comedy.

GAO. (1989). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written material.

Goebel, B. (1958). Humor writing: Activities for the English classroom. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Jay, T. (2003).The psychology of language. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Ltd.

LeBoeuf, M. (2007). The power of ridicule: An analysis of satire.

Lew, R. (1996). An ambiguity-based theory of the linguistic verbal joke in English. (Doctoral dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, 1996).

Magnotta, E., &Strohl, M. (2011). A linguistic analysis of humor: A look at Seinfeld. The Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 21, 126– 135.

Mullins, A. (2010). Limericks for laugh: An anthology for zingers. Brisbane: Customercorp Pty Ltd.

Ortega, M. B. A. (2013). An approach to verbal humour in interaction.

Pasaribu, T., &Kadarisman, A. (2015). Decoding logical mechanism and stereotyping in gender cyber humors. InPress: CELT journal.

Raskin, V. (1985).Semantic mechanism of humor. Boston: D. Reidel.

Ross. A. (1998).The language of humour. London:Routledge.

Shade, A.R. (1996). Licence to laugh: Humor in the classroom. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.

Shakespeare, W. (1633). The tragedy of Richard III, a play script

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 630 times | PDF view : 107 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Flag Counter


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.