UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO

Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia

Corso di Laurea Triennale in

Lingue Moderne (Mediazione Linguistica)

AN EXAMINATION ON THE AMERICAN TV

LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW

Relatore:
Prof. Alessandro Parenti

Laureando:
Luis Antonio Pederzini Velázquez

ANNO ACCADEMICO 2015-2016

1
2
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO
Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia

Corso di Laurea Triennale in

Lingue Moderne (Mediazione Linguistica)

AN EXAMINATION ON THE AMERICAN TV

LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW

Relatore:
Prof. Alessandro Parenti

Laureando:
Luis Antonio Pederzini Velázquez

ANNO ACCADEMICO 2015-2016

3
4
5
Con amore, alla mia famiglia e ai miei amici.

i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

0.1. FIRST CHAPTER 3

0.1.1. DEFINING THE AMERICAN TV TALK SHOW 3
0.1.2. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF A TV TALK SHOW 4
0.1.3. THE MAJOR TALK SHOW SUBGENRES 6
0.1.4. THE LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW MACRO-
FRAMEWORK 9
0.1.4.1. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE PARTICIPATORY MICRO-
FRAMEWORK: PRIMARY OR SECONDARY PARTICIPANTS 9
0.1.4.2. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROCEDURAL MICRO-FRAMEWORK:
COMEDY PIECES OR SEGMENTS 11

0.2. SECOND CHAPTER 14

0.2.1. ANALYSIS IN THE USE OF LANGUAGE OF THE TELEVISION
INSTITUTION 15
0.2.2. INTERPERSONAL AND MASS COMMUNICATION 15
0.2.3. TELEVISION DICHOTOMIES 18
0.2.4. TELEVISION GENERIC FUNCTIONS 23
0.2.5. VERSATILITY IN INFOTAINMENT PROGRAMMING 24
0.2.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW AS AN
INFOTAINMENT INSTANCE 28

0.3. THIRD CHAPTER 31

0.3.1. SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF THE LATE-NIGHT TV MONOLOGUE IN HUMOR
RESEARCH 31
0.3.2. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF HUMOR 32
0.3.3. BASIC APPROACH TO THE LINEAR ORGANIZATION OF THE JOKE
SEMANTIC THEORY 33
0.3.4. THE MONOLOGUE PUNCHLINE JOKE FORMULA 37
0.3.4.1. THE TOPIC 38
0.3.4.2. THE ANGLE 39
0.3.4.3. THE PUNCHLINE 39

0.4. FOURTH CHAPTER 41

0.4.1. JUSTIFICATION 42
0.4.2. A CASE-STUDY OF: THE LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW 42
0.4.2.1. THE PREMIERE. 44
0.4.2.2. THE OPENING MONOLOGUE 47
0.4.2.3. THE INTRODUCTORY MONOLOGUE JOKE 51

CONCLUSION 57

LEGEND 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY 63

SITOGRAPHY 67

iii
iv
INTRODUCTION

In the past years the vast universe of television programming in the United States of

America has become a very popular topic for research, insofar as considerable scholarly

attention has been paid to the aspects of the different formats it embraces, including that

of the late-night entertainment talk show. Such a term is used to describe those shows that air

from 11:30 p.m. until 1:00 a.m., or so, and have been fixtures of Late-Night TV almost

since the dawn of television. This dissertation will examine the American television

phenomenon of the late-night entertainment talk show, with the main purpose of building up an

overall picture of what such a phenomenon is all about. In particular, under the guidance

of a number of intellectuals from different domains whose recent research can be related to

it. More important, however, for the validity of their research, and thus of that of the

current dissertation, is the analysis that will be ultimately addressed in the interest of

exploring to what extent the theoretical foundations they have developed are consistent

with the late-night entertainment talk show. That being the case, at a first general stage, it can be

said that this dissertation is divided in two parts: A former part, which is composed of the

first three chapters, with all the theoretical foundations that can be related to the

phenomenon studied in this dissertation as provided by intellectuals such as Toplyn (2014),

Seewoester (2013), Attardo (1994), and others. And a later part, composing the fourth and

last chapter in which the there is an application of some of the theoretical foundations that

are developed in the first three chapters, into the practical analysis of the general aspects

respecting a particular case of the late-night entertainment talk show, through the eyes of this

author. At a second more specific stage, from the point of view of the source of the

content, rather than the content itself, it is possible to say that the first three chapters of

this dissertation are organized in what could be defined as a vertical principal axis (more

1
than a horizontal one), inasmuch as the focus of the first chapter is mostly from an

organizational point of view, and with special respect to the talk show (form) and the late-

night entertainment talk show; that of the second chapter is mostly discursive/linguistic, and

with special respect to the late-night entertainment talk show and the monologue (segment); that

of the third chapter is mostly from a semantic point of view, with special respect to the

monologue and the monologue (punchline) joke. Although, in this respect, some theoretical

foundations of the particular domain each chapter is trying to cover respectively,

sometimes might actually contain, or even overlap with those of the other chapters.

Ultimately, this dissertation uses a case-study methodology to explore the validity of the

theoretical foundations developed throughout the three first chapters. In other words,

there will be an application of some of those theoretical foundations, into the practical

analysis of the general aspects of a case-study, that is to say the first episode of the

‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen, also known as, the first late-night entertainment talk show (and

what comes with it). Taking everything into consideration, this dissertation is substantive

for the topic, not only because it gives validity to the studies evaluated here, but also

because it gives introduction to an all-embracing systematic guideline capable of supporting

the analysis if not of all, at least a large number of the other versions of the American TV

late-night entertainment talk show.

2
0.1. FIRST CHAPTER

This chapter is mainly dedicated to determine where the late-night entertainment talk show is

located throughout the vast universe of television programming in the United States of

America. From the very beginning, on account of the multifariousness that characterizes

this domain, there is a necessity for establishing a general definition of the television sub-

variant to which the so-called late-night entertainment talk show pertains; that is to say: the talk

show form. To clear up matters further, before getting to introduce the television

phenomenon examined here (within a generic historical background), the chapter

continues by individualizing the taxonomical classification (together with its criteria) taken

into account for the identification of the late-night entertainment talk show, as well as its

distinction from the other talk show television formats; these being a sort of second-grade

television sub-variants with which it shares no less than a set of principles that defines

them all as American television talk shows. Furthermore, after the introduction of the late-

night entertainment talk show is determined, the chapter finally deals with a more detailed

description of its distinct features, from an organizational point of view. Along these lines,

particular emphasis is placed on some of its structural components existing at a

participatory and procedural level, specially on that which is of critical importance to the

show (and hence to the current dissertation).

0.1.1. DEFINING THE AMERICAN TV TALK SHOW

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines a talk show as “a television

[…] show in which noted people, such as authorities in a particular field, participate in

discussions or are interviewed and often answer questions from viewers or listeners”

(Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries, 2015). Nonetheless, when American

3
people think these days of the term talk show, they usually conjure up an idea not far from

that of the Late-Night TV programming. A presumable assumption behind the

misconception of the former and its replacement with the latter is that throughout the

decades talk shows have been on the air, the Late-Night subgenre has grown steadily in

popularity among viewers in the United States, compared to those from across the other

countries or markets.

Perhaps a more likely reason for people having trouble in their efforts to understand

the meaning and exact limits of the television talk show, as a genre, could be the lack of a

comprehensive history knowledge that gives a clearer idea of its evolution and illustrates

the variations occurring inside its common structures. Bernard M. Timberg, and Robert J.

Erler (2002) have believed this to be a consequence of the fact that “many of the best

examples of early talk-show hosts and formats are gone, or available only in archives or

from the hands of private collectors” (Timberg & Erler, 2002: 6). Before examining the

main talk shows seen on television today, however, it is first important to clarify that the

establishment of an American television talk show definition capable of embracing every and

each of its versions, requires the consideration of the TV talk show as a modern

broadcasting creation “rule-governed form of expression” (Timberg & Erler, 2002: 3).

0.1.2. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF A TV TALK SHOW

The two scholars propose 4 guiding principles that govern in all successful talk shows, and

at the same time differentiates it from any other genre of TV, such as news journals, reality

shows, home shopping channels and so on.

The first principle is that a talk show is invariably anchored by a host (or a team of

hosts) to whom, in his role as an authority, is often delegated complete responsibility, or at

least a high degree of control, not only over the show itself, via the stimulation, guidance

4
and facilitation attributed to the contributions and roles offered by the participants of the

program, but throughout the extent of its production, marketing and organizational areas,

as well.

The second principle is that a talk show is experienced in the present tense. Whether it

is broadcast live, or not, the talk show must maintain the illusion that everything that takes

place in it, is actually happening, beyond any doubt, at the very moment. Talk shows are, in

this sense, a common space and time allowing the host and the audience to have an

intimate and immediate experience.

The third principle is that a talk show is a “product – a commodity competing with

other broadcast commodities” (Timberg & Erler, 2002: 4). Ever since developments in

video technology came about with good implications for the broadcasting industry, talk

shows have been relatively cheap to produce. In any case, even a broadcast commodity as

inexpensive as a talk show can be pulled from the air if it doesn’t raise enough money over

time. For this reason, the TV Networks and its components, make every effort to obtain

the widest possible viewership, considering that the higher the ratings of the show, the

more money advertisers shell out.

The fourth principle is that, while the whole give-and-take on a talk show must appear

to be spontaneous, it must also be highly structured. As will be shown in the next chapter,

this last observation contains, in a nutshell, the recognition of the ‘versatile’ attitude

connected with talk shows concerning the boundaries between traditional dichotomies,

such as public vs. private, everyday conversation vs. institutional, monologic vs. dialogic

etc.

5
0.1.3. THE MAJOR TALK SHOW SUBGENRES

Although the set of principles that is intrinsic to the American TV talk show genre, is

common to most of its sub-variants, the distinct features that help to identify and

distinguish them from one to another have prompted some scholars to device a large

number of classifications. Cornelia Ilie (2006) claims five major criteria are used to assign

the various talk show formats into the different categories of the talk show taxonomy: (i)

discussion topics (from contemporary political issues to social or moral problems); (ii)

categories of participants, particularly in terms of social and popularity status (celebrities or

ordinary members of the public); (iii) broadcasting time (early morning, daytime, or late night);

(iv) organizational and interactional frameworks (staging conventions and seating

configurations for show guests and audience); and (v) ethical considerations (the producers’

and hosts’ moral concerns).

Accordingly, the third criterion seems to be the most widely used in talk show

research, in part because of its strong association with the dayparting1 scheduled practice

on television. For instance, like Timberg and Erler, Barbara Dumanski notes 3 major

subgenres in the Encyclopedia of Media and Communication (2013), each of which predominate

at a specific programming block during the broadcast day:

The early-morning news talk magazine show. After a series of experiments carried out by a

couple of networks, consisting of some variety and informational TV shows that started to

be aired before noon during the late 1940’s, a lasting form of this subgenre was ultimately

pioneered thanks to Dave Garroway. From 1952 to 1959, Garroway was chosen by NBC's

president Sylvester “Pat” Weaver to host a news-entertainment experiment in breakfast

1
In broadcast programming, the term dayparting refers to the practice of dividing the broadcasting 24-hour
day into several parts for scheduling purposes. Among the most common television dayparts, there are:
breakfast, daytime, prime time, late night and overnight.

6
television, ‘The Today Show’, which featured a mix of entertainment and news, rather than

social issues or comedy, targeted to an audience of people getting ready for work and

school. Through the years, the successive versions of this format (‘Today’ and ‘Good

Morning America’) have continued to update that combination with interviews, musical

performances and lifestyle features, this may also be explained by the fact that the early

television hosts frequently go on to anchor news or entertainment shows occurring during

latter parts of the day, as Barbara Dumanski points out (2013). TV executives know better

than anyone that, compared to those of the daytime and late-night blocks, early-morning

talk shows have always reached a limited number of viewers. But, because the advertising

revenue is very high, “the competition between the networks for early-morning viewers has

been always intense” (Eastman & Ferguson, 2012: 257).

The daytime audience-participation show. The late 1960’s witnessed the emergence of such

subgenre’s basic form. It was the host Phil Donahue, who based on his hot topic phone-in

afternoon live radio talk show ‘Conversation Piece’, premiered the longest-running

syndicated2 daytime TV talk show mixing news, entertainment and public affairs called

‘The Phil Donahue Show’ (1967-1995), this being the first of its kind to allow members of

a live audience to interact in direct dialogue with guest celebrities or experts, and the host

himself. While the orientation of daytime talk shows like Donahue’s was more serious,

civilized and restrained, by taking care of social or policy issues according to authors like

Laura Grindstaff (2002), on Timberg and Erler’s viewpoint, over the course of the

following years, the purely and entertainment-oriented commercial values of a great

2
The term syndicated makes allusion to those programs that originally are not specific to any network, in
order to be sold to many different television stations to be shown. There are different types of syndication,
namely, first-run syndication, off network syndication or public broadcasting syndication.

7
number of the controversial tabloid TV shows3 began to supplant more and more the

daytime television talk show. Once the whole tabloid fiasco was over, despite its negative

consequence for daytime television, variety daytime shows like ‘The Ophra Winfrey Show’,

‘The Dr. Phil Show’ and ‘The Ellen DeGeneres show’ have reached out popularity among

stay-at-home parents, seniors citizens and college students viewers, obtaining in this way a

great financial success through syndication.

The late-night entertainment talk show. Modeled on NBC’S the ‘Tonight!’ show (the ‘!’ would

be eventually deleted), with Steve Allen4 (a talented pianist and entertainer), as its original

host (1954-1957), this subgenre has its origin in an earlier invention of the NBC president

Pat Weaver, the ‘Broadway Open House’ first network program broadcasted late at night.

The late-night form is based on playful encounters between the host, usually a comedian,

and the guests who talk about controversial topics, personal issues or current projects they

wish to promote. Beyond this, it may also include additional comedy segments or pieces

(such as the opening monologue). With many other local stations, apart from NBC, creating

viable alternatives within the same format to fight over viewership, and the publicity

generated by controversies like the Late-Night Wars5, involving multiple TV hosts (David

Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien along with others), curiously, the entertainment late-

3
Tabloid TV show has been drawn from the term tabloidization, a recent media phenomenon that is especially
associated to the daytime audience-participation show format. Accordingly, an explanation in greater detail
about tabloidization (and conversationalization) will be given in chapter 2.

4
What is now known as simply ‘The Tonight Show’, started out as a late-night New York talk-variety TV
program debuting in June 1953 on WNBT-TV what is now WNBC-TV. After its first year on the air, on
September 27, 1954, NBC picked up the talk show and broadcasted it nationally, renaming it the ‘Tonight!’
show (the ‘!’ would be eventually deleted; and the ‘The’/ ‘Show’ and the name of the host would be
eventually added).

5
For the Late-Night Wars see, for example, Carter (2010) providing a (historical) overview of the second
most polemic conflict surrounding the American late-night talk show, between Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien
for The Tonight Show; the first being between Jay Leno and David Letterman in the early nineties’, which is
the subject of Carter's The Late Shift (1994).

8
night talk show has remained at the forefront of the talk-show subgenres, in terms of

popularity, for nearly 60 years.

One has to acknowledge that none of the items mentioned above should be considered as

absolute. Throughout the history of the TV talk show, these major subgenres have been

repeatedly updated or modified under the influence of both internal and external factors, in

order to respond adequately to the changing technological, economic and cultural

conditions in which they are produced. As a matter of fact, scholars such as Cornelia Ilie

(2006) attribute the difficulty of defining television talk shows, on the whole, to the fact

that “they represent rapidly changing hybrid media phenomena, they display intertextuality

through overlaps with other mediatized forms of talk, and they endlessly reconstruct

themselves by violating and transgressing their own discursive conventions” (Ilie, 2006:

489).

0.1.4. THE LATE-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT TALK

SHOW MACRO-FRAMEWORK

Dumanski’s (2013) classification works out satisfactorily for delimiting and differentiating

the concept of the late-night entertainment talk show, as well as for exposing a conceptual

structure intended to serve as a preamble in the development of its components.

Furthermore, two complementary subordinate (micro) frameworks relate to the treatment

of these components at a more detailed level (i.e. the participatory framework and the

procedural framework).

0.1.4.1. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE PARTICIPATORY

MICRO-FRAMEWORK: PRIMARY OR SECONDARY
PARTICIPANTS

9
Characteristically, talk shows are brought together, through the mediation of a series of

structural components that can be sorted into different basic types. At first sight, the

following type of participants seem to be involved in the late-night variety talk show:

The hosts. As previously stated above, only in some occasions, a talk show host embodies

merely the figure of a leading character who interviews the invited guests or other performers,

presents most of the entertainment pieces and “hosts” the show. The truth is that,

whenever they are not required to act as program managers, sellers or entrepreneurs of the

institution that a late-night talk show represents for its advertisers, network executives and

syndicators, the hosts are up to deal with the flow of their shows’ performance in person.

Moreover, whereas not all late-night television talk shows have one, most of them make

use of a sidekick as a co-host who shares the stage with the host and participates in scripted

or semi-scripted comedy pieces. Examples of late-night talk show sidekicks that have

proven to be legitimate on TV may include bandleaders, announcers, parking lot security

guards, etc.

The guests. It consists of a person, or a group of people, who are learned or presumably

have specialized knowledge in relation to a particular work or area of expertise. Their

appearance on stage provides the show with a kind of entertainment that doesn’t consists

exclusively of entertainment, and which content may be intrinsically interesting to the

audience, giving in this way a rating bump and improved value to the network. In addition

to this, frequently talk shows guests that work for the network to promote some of its

other offerings.

The audiences. In television studies, the term audience refers to any group of people exposed

to a certain type of media product. And like in many of the other shows on TV, the target

10
of a late-night talk show can be characteristic of two different groups: the house audience,

and its surrogate, the studio audience.

The broadcasters and advertisers find a use to the former as an indicator, not only for

the number of viewers watching the show, which is reflected in ratings data, but also for

the type of viewership that it reaches according to some variables or set of variables, such

as age, class, gender, and more. As to the latter, its physical presence helps the show’s staff

and producers to measure the degree of effectiveness or ineffectiveness in the quality of a

certain joke, segment or episode of the show; or the show itself, which is reflected in the

spectator’s immediate reaction. All this in order to decide whether something is more likely

to engage the interest of a much wider audience or not, and if so, then whether it should be

aired or not.

The other performers. On the late night talk show, there are many other elements that by

means of their role in participation, may offer the directors, producers, and other network

decision-makers many more directions to go with the show. Among those secondary

performers populating the talk show workplace could be the members of the band, the

staff, or even the crew.

0.1.4.2. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROCEDURAL

MICRO-FRAMEWORK: COMEDY PIECES OR SEGMENTS

Now, for every single performing participant on stage, or anyone of the sort, there are

more than a hundred professionals behind the scenes, specialized in different areas, taking

a supportive, and yet essential part in the creation, production and airing of the show that

is brought to Americans’ TV screens every night. One good example, among others, is the

group of writers working backstage, who in fact has to “factor in the particular

characteristics of all of these show elements [whether they appear in front of the cameras

11
or not] when they write” (Toplyn, 2014: 24). In this regard, the author of the Comedy Writing

for Late-Night TV also displays a list of the parts that are normally written at the hand of

these characters, in their approximate order of appearance. At a procedural level, such

comedy segments or pieces, can be identified as structural components within the shows:

The cold opening (or cold open). The first piece is a short comedic scene that appears even

before the opening title sequence that is used to set up the show and entice the audience. It

usually features the host, but sometimes the presence of some of the guests to be

interviewed on that particular night is also included. Also, since a cold opening concerns for

the most part “something that supposedly took place right before the show started”

(Toplyn, 2014: 26), it is almost always prerecorded.

The monologue (or opening monologue). Once that the host makes his entrance at the beginning

of the show, he stands at the front of the stage and delivers “a series of verbal jokes”

(Toplyn, 2014: 27) scripted in advance, referring to current news or events, in order to

energize and engage the audience with humor. (A more detailed analysis of the monologue

will be undertaken below).

The main comedy piece. Following the monologue and preceding the first commercial break, “a

Desk Piece, an Audience Piece, a prerecorded Field Piece, or one of the many other

comedy pieces” (Toplyn, 2014: 28) that hooks the audience’s attention is presented by the

host sitting at his desk, whether it is non-scripted, semi-scripted or full-scripted.

The bumpers. These comedy pieces can add more entertainment to the show thorough a

visual or audiovisual transitional element, which “briefly appears right before and/or after a

commercial break” (Toplyn, 2014: 30).

12
The guest segment (and extras). During a panel segment, or the portion in which the host

interviews the invited guests, an extra comedy piece of any form, especially scripted for

such celebrities, can occasionally be performed in the show, to boost the “entertainment

value to what would otherwise be a fairly predictable encounter” (Toplyn, 2014: 28).

The second comedy piece. In addition to the main comedy piece, a show can deliver between the

end of the first half and the starting of the second one, either a whole new different

comedy bit, a further installment “of some other scripted activity that began earlier in the

show” (Toplyn, 2014: 31), allowing to hold onto the audience’s interest gained so far.

The cold close. As opposed to the cold opening, this short comedic scene appears “at the very

end of the show, during or possibly even after the closing credits” (Toplyn, 2014: 31). And,

similarly to its counterpart, it is almost always recorder in anticipation of the show, because

it might deal with things that presumably should happen right afterwards.

At this point of the argument, it is necessary to indicate that, for reasons that will become

clearer below, only some of the structural components mentioned earlier will be

approached in greater detail in the following chapter, with specific attention paid to their

contribution in the particular process of communication that takes place during what Joe

Toplyn (2014) describes as “the most indispensable comedy segment in a late-night

comedy [masquerading as entertainment]/talk show [: the monologue]” (Toplyn, 2014: 49).

13
0.2. SECOND CHAPTER

Having set a structural overview of the late-night entertainment talk show in the previous

chapter, enables us to move in a less organizational and more-and-more theoretical

direction, so to bring forward a description of the (communicative) action between a

number of participants that takes place within some segments or comedy pieces of the

television phenomenon examined in this dissertation. Therefore, a step back is taken into a

general illustration of the communicative processes occurring within the different frames

of interaction in television, if considered as an institution, as well as, the dichotomies

involved in such processes (social spheres: public or private; forms of talk: every-day-

speech or institutional; communication; monologic or dialogic etc.). All this, together with

the exposition of the central information/entertainment communicative functions

underlying the institutional character of television in a society, is crucial for understanding

how language is used differently depending on the respective communicative function a

particular television form (or format) has to fulfill. However, the bottom line in this

chapter is that, as a consequence of two recent phenomena of tabloidization and

conversationalization, which significantly shape the face of certain versatile programming, the

late-night entertainment talk show can be ultimately describe, in this respect, as a type of format

that combines both types of communicative function (and specific-communication

language); making it a good example of what is known as infotainment television. The

chapter finishes with a brief discussion about the social significance that the late-night

entertainment talk show has as an infotainment instance of the television institution (in the

realms of politics and democracy, to be specific).

14
0.2.1. ANALYSIS IN THE USE OF LANGUAGE OF THE
TELEVISION INSTITUTION

Though often studied only as a mass medium, television, taken as a whole, corresponds

also to a social institution producing constructed objects in the form of programs. An

attempt to illustrate the overall configuration of television in its institutional character has

been made in Between Institutional Talk and Everyday Conversation: The Language Use of Television,

by Katja Elisabeth Franke (2011). In her view, the fact that television per se is an

institution, “emphasizes the existence of an institutional frame for interaction (with a

possible and expectable impact on the ways in which language is applied within this)”

(Franke, 2011: 2).

0.2.2. INTERPERSONAL AND MASS COMMUNICATION

Perhaps, one of the main features of the television institutional frame of television is the

occurrence of two different types of communication: interpersonal and mass

communication. Correspondingly, interpersonal communication refers to a two-way

communication process consisting of an interactive meaning construction, which is

expressed through a series of communicative acts performed by clearly defined

interlocutors, for as much as the addresses’ direct and immediate feedback typically follows

the communicator’s intervention. Mass communication, in opposition, indicates a one-way

communication process that lacks of the interaction processes by reason of which meaning

is created between a communicator and a (heterogeneous and anonymous) addressee,

featuring in this way an indirect and delayed feedback to the message of a communicator.

The resulting distinction between the speech situation of mass communication and

interpersonal communication is grounded in the spatio-temporal distance that exists among

the interlocutors, i.e. the communicator and the addressee. While the interpersonal

15
communication is characterized by the interlocutors sharing same space and time of

interaction; the mass communication characteristically shows, in terms of time or space,

non-corresponding interlocutors, whose interaction, in opposition, requires the use of a

device that effectively functions for the transmission and reception of the contents from

communicators to addressees. In the case of television, such a device corresponds to the

technological communication transmitter/receiver located between the content source (the

representatives of television) and the content destination (the house audience).

Franke (2011) provides a comparative figure to distinguish the specific characteristics

of these communication types on the basis of the interlocutors features, as well as their

kind of communication.

Figure 1: The characteristics of interpersonal and mass communication compared (Franke,

2011)

16
The occurrence of both types of communication, ultimately leads Franke (2011) to the

division of the institutional frame characterizing television shows, into multiple single

frames of interaction, each of which entails, either interpersonal or mass communication.

Next figure shows the multi-level nature of the institutional frame of television

proposed in Franke’s work (2011). Respectively, the first frame of interaction has a bearing

on the “interpersonal communication within the television studio constituting the

institutional speech situation” (Franke, 2011: 23). The second frame of interaction instead,

“is defined by the process of mass communication whereby the communicative activities

taking place within the first frame of interaction are televised” (Franke, 2011: 23). Still, the

third frame of interaction depends upon the “interpersonal communication [resulting from

any] further discussion of what has been received” (Franke, 2011: 23); stimulated among

the audience members.

Figure 2: The multi-level institution frame of television (Franke, 2011)

17
0.2.3. TELEVISION DICHOTOMIES

In particular, the second frame of interaction, being the actual process of mass

communication in television, takes on the role of a bridge between the two interpersonal

communication processes of the first and third frame of interaction; both of which have

interlocutors ideally pertaining to opposite social spheres: the public sphere, that is a circle

composed of interlocutors participating in the institutional setting of the television studio,

and the private sphere (or circle) with its interlocutors located in their home or any other

private setting. Accordingly, these social spheres feature two different forms of talk: the

institutional talk (public talk) and the everyday conversation (private talk)6.

In a further comparative figure, Franke (2011) indicates a series of factors that are of

importance for the definition of both ways of talking, namely they are: the appropriate

conversational topic, i.e. public and/or private; the appropriate speech style, i.e. formal or informal;

the extent of speech regulation, i.e. extent of pre-determination of appropriate communicative

actions and their order in discourse; the predominant type of politeness, i.e. person-oriented or

role-oriented politeness, the access to the speech situation, i.e. extent of access restriction, public

access or lack of public access, and the place and time of conversation, i.e. fixed or free.

6
‘Public’ and ‘private’ are mostly used by Franke (2011) to relate to: “the degree of general social acceptance
and – resulting from this – the overall socially regarded suitability of a conversational topic for occurrence in
the public and/or private sphere” (Franke, 2011: 47). However, the focus of interest here, will concern both
forms of talk being expressed in the overall choice of linguistic and discursive features (with an appropriate
conversational topic among these features).

18
Figure 3: The characteristics of institutional talk and private talk (Franke, 2011)

Furthermore, the sum of the correlations across the distinct degrees characterizing the six

factors associated with private and public talk, is useful not only for the illustration of the

overall differences among both ways of talking or talk forms (and their respective social

spheres), but also to stress the fact that most of Franke’s (2011) findings (or discoveries)

about the communication constituting the different institutional speech situations analyzed

so far, seem to be only concerned with the prototypically dialogical interaction taking place

between the common interlocutor dyad. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that when

it comes to the first frame of interaction of some television programming (such as the talk

show, news and many other forms), such dialog-based talk not always take place.

19
Occasionally, the communication shown is exclusively monolog-based instead, in

particular, as a result of the absence of any true verbal interaction, or the complete absence

of a defined recipient, i.e. the studio audience.

One particular case is that of the introductory stand-up performance of the (late-night

entertainment) talk show host (i.e., the monologue), where the unique character of the studio

audience participation (as more than a simple defined recipient), ironically suggests that

there is a misnomer in calling these segments, or comedy pieces, in such a way. As a matter

of fact, in a (unfortunately) little known article in Developments in Linguistic Humor Theory, the

scholar Sarah Seewoester Cain highlights (2013) how the name of the segment can

mistakenly lead people to think that the communication during such segment is without

question monolog-based. Not only that but, even some of its definitions (including those

used here before), if taken in the least restricted sense, seem to plausibly fit such

terminology at first sight. Along these lines, Seewoester (2013) implicitly proposes a

reconsideration of the relationship between a traditional monologue7 and the (late-night

entertainment talk show) monologue, on the grounds that “while [it is true that] the host may be

a lone performer on his stage, clearly he is not just performing for the [studio] audience but

with his [studio] audience, in a fluid yet complex dialogue […] ” (Seewoester, 2013: 176).

In other words, on Seewoester’s (2013) viewpoint, the communication taking place

during the monologue seems to have a dialogical character for the reason that it could never

be executed without the presence of a further interlocutor, apart from the primary-speaker

host. Consequently, it could be said that such interaction requires the participation of the

studio audience, whether it is a primary speaker or not. It is for this reason that the article

primarily gives attention to the vital participatory role of the studio audience as (non-

primary speaker) co-constructors and contributors of the comedy piece discourse. In

7
Monologue as “a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, especially one dominating or
monopolizing a conversation”. Dictionary.com, Monologue, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monologue>.

20
addition to this, it is also shown how the studio audience has a potential for dynamic

participation in such a particular manner as to be ratified in a series of different participation

status8, in this way, going beyond the defined listener/hearer role of the common speaker-

hearer dyad, or the so-called addressee of the communicator-addressee dyad, as considered

by Franke (2011); and yet, lying somewhere at the nexus of the primary-speaker role (of the

participants on stage) and the non-speaker role (of the house audience).

On that account, leaving aside the whole explanation about how the studio audience

participatory role is treated differently from one of the studied researchers to another, it

follows that Seewoester (2013) makes known a list that enhances all9 the possible

participation statuses of the studio audience, together with the unique way in which the studio

audience uptakes them during the (late-night entertainment) talk show monologue,

considered by those researchers:

Responder. “The ratified participant who may not hold the floor, but provides feedback

about how some prior talk has been receipted or some information on how the participant

is projecting further activities in the talk” (Gardner 2001; Seewoester, 2013: 153). Relative

to this is the participation status the studio audience uptakes through the utilization of

response tokens such as applause or laughter.

Addressee. “The ratified participant to whom a speaker directs his visual attention and to

whom he expects to turn over the speaking (here production) role” (Goffman 1981;

Seewoester, 2013: 153). In respect to this participation status, different strategic postures,

8The exact nature of the audience’s participation statuses considered by Seewoester (2013) comes from a
Goffmanian observation about the topic: “the relation of any one such member to [an] utterance can be
called his ‘participation status’ relative to it […] (Goffman, 1981: 137)”.

9 As reported by Seewoester (2013) “the role of speaker is not discussed since most of the audience
responses (at least the en masse audience responses) are accounted for by means of responder”
(Seewoester, 2013: 154).

21
gazes, gestures and verbal tactics are at the talk show host’s disposal, in order to address

the studio audience and invite them into the performance sequence.

Third party. “The unaddressed ratified hearer who has the potential to contribute verbally to

an interaction” (Dynel 2010; Seewoester, 2013: 153). Accordingly, this concerns the studio

audience participation status during the interactions that occur between the host, the sidekick,

or the other performers.

Recipient. “The hearer who participates in interactions by interpreting utterances and

meanings conveyed nonverbally but who cannot contribute verbally to (fictional)

conversational interchanges” (Dynel 2011; Seewoester, 2013: 153). A case of this

participation status can be related to that of the pre-recorded skits in which the studio

audience is invited to watch what is going on the television screens located within the

studio.

Despite the fact that the analysis in this dissertation is specific to a particular case-study10,

and further research on other programs of its kind may be necessary to corroborate and

incorporate such claims into more inclusive assumptions, Seewoester (2013) demonstrates

how the studio audience, in their role as non-primary speakers, is very important for the

co-construction of the speech situation characterizing dialogic-based comedy segments

(such as the monologue), and so, how it is capable of benefiting the progression and

execution of entertainment, or humor, during the (late-night entertainment) talk show.

10
In particular, Seewoester bases her study on (2013) “[…] the introductory stand-up performance of
Conan O’Brien, host of the late night US talk show CONAN” (Seewoester, 2013: 145). However,
because such segment matches almost perfectly with the type of monologue studied here, it works fairly
well for the current purposes of this dissertation.

22
0.2.4. TELEVISION GENERIC FUNCTIONS

For a more detailed analysis of the institutional character of television in a society, it is

likewise important to enlarge upon the social responsibility that is expected from this mass

medium as a consequence of its omnipresent power status and its enormous

communicative range in society. In other terms, the fact that TV describes a potentially-

accessible-to-everyone carrier of potentially-accessible-to-everyone information, implies the

requirement of some communicative functions to be fulfilled.

Among the central communicative functions underlying the establishment of the social

institution of television, of Franke’s (2011) interest are those of information and

entertainment, whose maximum expression can be achieved only when executed within a

program that is structured in the most suitable way from a linguistic viewpoint.

Respectively, the news and the talk show forms in general (and the daytime talk show

format in particular) traditional television formats feature the communicative functions of

information and entertainment, which are then realized linguistically by the presence of a

function-specific talk.

On the one hand, it is the institutional talk (public talk) that is regarded as the type of

talk that constitutes the most appropriate means for the objective information of the

public, as a group of people. And since the whole range of different sub-formats,

composing the superordinate news form, classically perform the information function of

the institution, it could be expected that such format would put into use the institutional

talk as appropriate means for the performance of the task of informing. Everyday

conversation (private talk), on the other hand, is seen as the way of talking that fits best the

task of entertaining. Then, because the talk show form (including those considered here)

classically executes the entertainment function of the institution, it could be assumed that it

23
makes use of private talk (in the form previously defined) as the appropriate, more

subjective, means for the objective entertainment of the public.

0.2.5. VERSATILITY IN INFOTAINMENT

PROGRAMMING

If one takes up the ideas of the communicative function and the function-specific talk

form together for a moment and pick up some general pre-considerations concerning the

actual institutional character of television again, the following phenomena allow the space

for the further treatment of everything that can be found between the opposite extremes of

the wide variety of news and the (daytime) talk show formats, and their use of language.

The starting point for the analysis here is the phenomenon of tabloidization. It concerns

a process of change in the concrete choice of media contents as well as their stylistic

realization, with respect to some contemporary television formats, toward becoming more

and more entertaining (and hence more “tabloid”) in nature. More necessary, however, for

the current purpose is a facet of the tabloidization phenomenon that pertains exclusively to

language use. That is, the phenomenon of conversationalization, which describes the specific

linguistic process whereby some contemporary television formats tend to include with

growing frequency features that are typical of everyday conversation, thus turning

increasingly “conversationalized” in nature.

Actually, both phenomena are considered to be in conflict with the actual demands of

the institutional character of television for a respective language that is institutional and

thus more formal than everyday conversation. Besides, they are also in conflict with the

demands of a function-specific language for the communicative function pertaining to

certain television formats. Yet, Franke (2011) observes that all this seems to constitute a

structural and conceptual paradox nowadays, insofar as the contemporary media of

television has shown an increasing tendency towards tabloidization (and conversationalization)

24
just as a marketing strategy, in particular, with the primary intention of meeting the unique

and specific communicative needs of the audience.

A final concept for the analysis of the language proceeding from television in its

institutional character given by Franke (2011) is that of the conceptual continuum of language,

whose properties centrally include, according to the author, the depiction of “how and to

what extent [certain] television formats can ‘go conversational’ when they ‘go tabloid’”

(Franke, 2011: 407). On this basis, the previously determined television forms of news and

(daytime) talk show, as associated to their respective communicative functions and hence

to their function-specific language, can be regarded as two extreme poles on a scale with

many possible in-between formats or sub-variants which, because of their various degrees

of structural versatility, are more or less conversationalized (and tabloidized) in nature.

Notwithstanding, it is useful to clarify that whereas the daytime talk show, in particular,

reflects the static format ideally fulfilling the specific entertaining communicative function

(as opposed to the superordinate news form), the talk show in its generic conception

curiously allows a more open or heterogeneous overall structure, and so do some of its

sub-types. Therefore, the special composition of each of such versatile formats shows an

inherent complexity that complicates a proper valid nomenclature capable of resolving

their definition vagueness.

The neologism Infotainment – coming from the blend of the terms information and

entertainment – has been often used in this area to denote those television formats lying

somewhere in-between the two ends of the conceptual continuum of language, for the reason

that the status of their communicative functions does not show a clear information or

entertainment orientation, and that the status of their talk form (and hence language) has

not a clear public or private nature.

As concerns the talk show genre, though scholars like Katja Elisabeth Franke (2011)

might implicitly disagree with the assumption that it does constitute an instance of

25
infotainment (due to its central entertainment function), many others have been referring to

it as “designed both to inform and to entertain” (Tolson, 1991: 178), or even more

explicitly, as “a typical ‘infotainment’ programme” (Schutz, 1997) and “a subcategory of

‘infotainment’” (Ilie, 2001). Along these lines, it could be said, that the in-between status of

communicative function of this programming is hereby accompanied by a corresponding

in-between status form of language.

In conjunction with this, Cornelia Illie (2001) dedicates one of her works to examine

the hybrid composition of the talk show by adopting a comparative perspective of its

multiple communicative behavior patterns. More than that, in Semi-institutional discourse: The

case of talk shows, Ilie (2001) captures the “semi-institutional” (Ilie, 1999, 2001: 490), or

“quasi-conversational” (Gregori-Signes, 2000; Ilie, 2001: 490), nature of the talk show as a

particular instance of broadcast discourse, through the establishment of a couple of figures

with all the discursive and linguistic features (belonging to institutional or non-institutional

talk) that characterize talk shows to different degrees, when considered as a totality.

However, when considered each of its sub-variants individually, it is possible to see that the

recurrence and distribution of such features vary from one show to the other depending on

their particular framing, i.e. “the personalities and life-roles of the show guests, the charisma

and authority of the show host, and the expectations raised by the particular character [or

composition] of the show in question” (Ilie, 2001: 490).

26
Figure 4: Discursive features of talk shows as semi-institutional discourse (Ilie, 2001)

Figure 5: Linguistic features of talk shows as semi-institutional discourse (Ilie, 2001)

27
0.2.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF LATE-NIGHT
ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW AS AN
INFOTAINMENT INSTANCE

Among the many possible versatile formats that are located between the outmost ends of

the previously mentioned conceptual continuum of language, the aforementioned late-night

entertainment talk show describes a format so versatile in its structural conception, it is not by

chance that one can find many of its different versions in American television; each of

them with different features. In this way, if one recognizes that the late-night talk show

(and in practice, all Late-Night TV) corresponds to a point in case of infotainment, then one

should expect the communicative function and use of language of this form, to be of a

mixed nature so as to belong to the “cluster of program types that blur traditional

distinctions between information-oriented and entertainment-based genres of television

programming” (Baym, 2008: 1).

From the moment these informative and entertaining forms and their features,

continued to be more deeply integrated through time, late-night talk shows became one of

the many sources of ‘informative entertainment’ or ‘entertaining information’ in American

TV. Of particular interest, has been the increasing prominence of content about

contemporary politics (as informative news) within entertainment venues (including the

talk show one).

“This has created a complex spectrum of hybrid programming with a potentially wide

range of implications for public information, political communication, and democratic

discourse” (Baym, 2008: 1), Geoffrey Baym points out (2008) in his dissertation:

Infotainment. And, to such a degree, entertainment industry has designed the show in such a

way that it ensures the delivery of information about the political world to the viewership.

In addition, even political parties and their individual representatives have embraced any

available space on the late night media platform in their efforts to influence the citizenry.

28
Not only that but also, in spite of the difficulties in treating the infotainment programming

related to the non-monolithic features of its almost indistinguishable admixture content,

scholars from different fields have concentrate in the analysis and/or critique of the late-

night talk show as object of study in politics.

Accordingly, it would seem that the scholarly approaches to infotainment can be divided

broadly into two different groups with opposite opinions on the subject. On the one hand,

many critics have argued that by proving content in this manner, media have failed as an

efficient source of political information and entertainment in the use of the democratic

process. To be more specific, they are of the opinion that the infotainment content in current

late-night shows have being everything but political in its vast majority, on the grounds that

it is constantly rooted in mere cynicism and trivialization in order to be funny (or at least

enjoyable). For them, the genuine political satire, which content raises from outrage,

corresponds to a more suitable democratic tool, while Late-Night TV only reinforces the

notion that “political participation is pointless, parties and candidates are interchangeable,

and democracy is futile” (Peterson, 2008: 18). In accordance with this viewpoint, one could

assume that such programming has an anti-political character, and so an anti-democratic

effect. More’s the pity, according to them, late-night comedy does more than simply

induce apathy, and vulgarize, people’s discourse, it also adds something of its own

dimensions to our understanding and interpretation of current events as well. The result,

on their opinion, has been “a crisis of public communication” (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995;

Baym, 2008: 3) by reason of the deconstructive role of infotainment in “degrading the quality

of public information, dissuading from critical inquiry, and transforming rational argument

into emotive spectacle” (Baym, 2008: 3). Unlike the very political news content that serve

in a better way to the audience citizens, though being richer in factual detail and thoroughly

serious in tone.

29
 On the other hand, there are arguments of an expanding body of academics that

strongly suggest that late night infotainment programming can actually be of a positive

political character and effect, not just for the citizens, but also for the democracy of their

country, with the main reason for this claim being that “infotainment is argued to have the

potential to make news and politics pleasurable” (Baym, 2008: 3), specially for “people who

otherwise would pay little or no attention to news and political information” (Baum, 2003;

Baym, 2008: 3). Following this, such exposure may be result in the increase of their factual

knowledge about the political world, which at the same time can be correlated “with

increased levels of political engagement among certain types of audiences” (Moy, Xenos, &

Hess, 2005; Baym, 2008: 3).

Whether we should agree or disagree with any of the previous statements, and to what

extent, is not easy to tell given that the wide diversity of infotainment programming,

complicates any of the efforts, both by scholars and critics, to generalize effects across

specific programs (such as those of the Late-Night TV). At the end, like Geoffrey

mentions (2008) in his work, if truth be told, regardless the “uncertainty about its effects

and disagreement about its significance, it is clear that infotainment programming is

becoming an increasingly important phenomenon for democratic politics […] information”

(Baym, 2008: 3-4). That is evidently the case of the late-night entertainment talk show, whose

political fare is woven throughout several comedy segments (or the occasional in-person

appearances of some public figures) and exists in its original, most common manifestation,

in the monologue segment.

30
0.3. THIRD CHAPTER

In the first chapter it was shown that, from all the structural components forming the late-

night entertainment talk show, the monologue segment (or piece of comedy) is probably the one

of more importance to the show itself. That being so, during the description of the

(communicative) action between the participants that takes place within every transmission

of the television phenomenon, which is studied in the second chapter, special attention was

put on some discursive/linguistic aspects that are specific to the monologue. And, in addition

to this, (even if not of particular importance to the dissertation) chapter two finished with a

brief remark on its potential contribution not only to the development of the late-night

entertainment talk show (from a structural and operational point of view), but also to its social

significance as an infotainment instance of the television institution. Furthermore, as it was

seen in this chapter, it is also possible to make a link between the most important

component of the phenomenon studied here and some aspects in the realms of semantics.

In particular, through the humoristic value that the series of jokes of which the monologue is

composed, have for a particular contemporary theory of humor intended to be presented;

not to mention the further postulations of other specialists in connection with this field.

0.3.1. SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF THE LATE-NIGHT TV

MONOLOGUE IN HUMOR RESEARCH

On the basis of some discussions in the previous sections, one could already start assuming

that the monologue is, if not the most, one of the most important segments or comedy pieces

in a late-night comedy entertainment talk show. While it had not always perfectly succeeded in

fulfilling everyone’s expectations, its popularity among certain people has allow it to

become a staple of Late-Night TV ever since the beginning. Some intellectuals have

attributed this popularity to the night-to-night repeatability of such segment. More

31
specifically, the lack of variation in their inner-structure is believed to be the cause of it

becoming so popular; in particular, due to the effect of familiarization it brings forth.

From another side of the issue, the stability caused by the repetitive characterization of

the monologue, has contributed to its systematic study in more than one field of research.

Thus, a last approach to the monologue comedy piece, or segment, from a semantic point of

view will be described below.

0.3.2. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF HUMOR

As is commonly accepted among scholars, contemporary theories of humor are divided

into three great families:

1. The incongruity (a.k.a. incongruity contrast) theories. These theories are

essentially cognitive, that is to say that “they are based on some objective
characteristics of a humorous text or other act (situation, event, picture,
etc.)” (Krikman, 2006: 27). Put differently, people laugh as a consequence
of acknowledging a discrepancy between the conceptions that they hold or
expect in their minds and what actually happens, which turns to be
harmless.

2. The hostility/disparagement (a.k.a. aggression, superiority, triumph or

derision) theories, which are social in substance and so, they are found on
“the (negative) attitude of the producer and/or user of humour towards its
target [a person or group] and the often alleged aggressive character of
laughter” (Krikman, 2006: 27). By way of explanation, one could say that
people laugh when they feel like winners towards some object, i.e. someone
being embarrassed or humiliated.

3. The release (a.k.a sublimation, liberation or even economy) theories are

basically psychoanalytic, meaning they depend on the on the recipient of
humour […] as one of the so-called substitution mechanisms which enable
to convert one’s socially tabooed aggressive impulses to acceptable ones

32
 and thus avoid wasting additional mental energy to suppress them.”
(Krikman, 2006: 28). In other words, it is presupposed that people joke
about these subjects (or recipients) as a way of releasing feelings of tensions
like inhibitions, conventions or laws.

Nonetheless, taking everything into consideration, as Krikman (2006) points out in his
paper “most of the humour theories ever proposed are actually mixed theories, and many
contemporary researchers believe that humour in its totality is too huge and multiform a
phenomenon to be incorporated into a single integrated theory” (Krinkman, 2006: 28).

0.3.3. BASIC APPROACH TO THE LINEAR

ORGANIZATION OF THE JOKE SEMANTIC
THEORY

Linguistic Theories of Humor (1994), a contribution to the understanding of the relationship

between humor and language, is the first monograph published by one of the most

prominent figures on the field, Salvatore Attardo. In chapter two of Attardo’s (1994) work,

the last section is dedicated to the development of the modern humor theory of the linear

organization of the joke (or in practice, the punchline joke). But because the analysis of this

theory depends, in varying degrees, upon the semantic model of the joke called isotopy-

disjunction model (or IDM), that is “a text-processing model which is based on the idea that,

in a joke, an otherwise ‘normal’ linear processing of the text is disrupted by an ‘anomalous’

element that is peculiar to a joke text” (Attardo, Hughes, Baltes & Petray, 1994);

throughout the first sections of the chapter, Attardo (1994) goes into some detail in the

exposition of two fairly technical notions this model is based on: the isotopy (or sense) and

the narrative function.

To that end, Attardo firstly touches upon the discoveries in the analysis of text

jokes that derive from the isotopy theory of the influential linguist/semiologist Algirdas

Julien Greimas. In this regard, the first section follows a “deductive introduction of the

33
notion isotopy, starting from the definition of the smallest semantic unit, and through the

various ways these units are combined [not to mention the observations about such

definitions and the applications of the whole terminological apparatus by other authors]”

(Attardo, 1994: 61). What is significant for the theory of the linearity of the joke, however,

is the conclusion of the section, in which Attardo comes up with a way to better express

the definition of isotopy, after Greimas’ assumptions, by establishing that “the notion of the

isotopy parallels that of semantic unification, and ultimately overlaps with the idea of

“meaning” or “sense” of a sentence/text.” (Attardo, 1994: 61).

The following section presents an analysis of the joke text findings that derive from

the narrative function theory, proposed by the renowned semiologist Violette Morin, who is

more interested in the structure of the text joke, rather than in its composition. In

connection with this, Attardo examines (1994) the “exact nature of Morin’s definition of

function, the nature of the three functions that are necessary to describe the text of the

joke, according to Morin and others, and finally the fact that the three functions are not

specific to the joke, but are present in any narrative text [not to mention the observations

about such definitions and the applications of the whole terminological apparatus by other

authors]” (Attardo, 1994: 85).

A definition of the narrative functions in the text joke, as applied by Morin, would

be that they are “empty spaces that can be filled by almost any event or action that fulfills

some requirement […] because they refer only to the development of the text” (Attardo,

1994: 87). Upon this principle, although the analysis accepts Morin’s conception of the

joke-text as the result of the concatenation of a narrative function triplet (normalization,

interlocking, and disjunction), Attardo (1994) puts forward an innovative way to provide an

overview of each one of the three functions, by using opaque labels for them. Accordingly,

function 1 (F1) “consists of a textual sequence, often narrative, that introduces the

characters, determines the situation, and in general establishes the contest of the events

34
narrated in the text”; function 2 (F2) “introduces the need for a resolution in the story

[…]”; function 3 (F3) “occurs at the end of the text, and concludes the narration” (Attardo,

1994: 88-89).

As roughly noted above, at the end of this section, Attardo arrives to the

conclusion that the narrative function tri-partite model is actually common to all narrative,

humorous or not, texts. But since all forms of joke text are, or can be reduced to, narrative,

it follows that every joke text matches the three function theory. Still and all, it is worth to

mention that, like Attardo reveals (1994), “while the narrative organization of the text [in a

narrative function tri-partite model] is not specific to the joke because it is shared by all

narrative texts, the special way in which F3 closes the narration (disjunction) is specific to

the [punchline] joke” (Attardo, 1994: 91).

Another issue left suspended during the discussion of the isotopy and the narrative

function, together with their relevance to the IDM, is expressly addressed in the beginning of

the third section: the disambiguation process. Taken by Attardo (1994) as the most crucial

phenomenon involved in the humorous functioning of the text, the disambiguation process,

such process consists in “combining the senses of each lexical item in the text of the joke

to find a meaningful interpretation of the text” (Attardo, Hughes, Baltes & Petray, 1994).

In this view, according to the definition of the IDM, two moments in the disambiguation

process of a are to be distinguished in the joke text (in particular, a punchline joke text). That is,

“in the first part of the process, a first isotopy/sense (S1) is established, until the recipient

encounters an element that causes the passage11 from the first sense to a second sense (S2)

antagonistic to the first one” (Attardo, 1994: 89). Consequently, the change from S1 to S2

requires the presence of a pair of mechanisms (i.e., disjunction/connection) operating

through an “element that causes the passage from the serious to the humorous sense, and

hence is responsible for the humorous effect itself” (Attardo, 1994: 89), such element is the

11
Another feature of the passage from S1 to S2 that is mentioned in Attardo’s work is that it “must be
‘unexpected’, on the one hand, and ‘immediate’, on the other” (Attardo, 1994: 95).

35
disjunctor, or the very punchline. This element is usually at the end of the text joke (within

function 3) and sometimes, it needs to operate very closely with a connector, which must

necessarily appear before the disjunctor (within Function 2), and can be defined as the

“element that enables the switch between the two senses in the joke” (Attardo, 1994: 89).

Having discussed the notions of isotopy, narrative function and disambiguation process,

before turning to Attardo’s conclusion on his analysis revolving around the text joke (with

especial emphasis on its linear organization), it is necessary to introduce a distinction

between the two main different types of jokes considered by Attardo. The reason for doing

so is to show how the mechanisms exploited at the joke text, disjunction/connection (and

their respective elements) show some differences if verbal or referential jokes are involved.

In other words, two different types of (punchline) jokes can be distinguished as far as the

use of the disjunctor and the connector is concerned. While referential jokes “are based

exclusively on the meaning of the text and do not make reference to the phonological

realization of the lexical items” (Attardo, 1994: 95); verbal jokes “in addition to being based

on the meaning of the elements of the text, make reference to the phonological realization

of the text” (Attardo, 1994: 95). In this way, “the typical verbal joke text differs from the

[typical] referential joke in that it presupposes a lexicalized12 connector” (Attardo, Hughes,

Baltes & Petray, 1994). Nevertheless, to simplify matters, the discussion will proceed

assuming Attardo would take no notice of the diversity that is present in (punchline) jokes,

and rather approach both, referential and verbal jokes, as a sole entity; as what Attardo

refers to as verbalized jokes, so to say those jokes that are expressed by means of a linguistic

system (or any of its derivatives).

If much or all of the analysis provided in the three sections of Linguistic Theories of

Humor (1994), making use of the Greimas’, Morin’s and other theoreticians’ terminology

may seem overly complex, the final description of the (punchline) joke text, given in the

12
Here the term ‘lexicalized’ is used in the sense that the connector is expressed with a word or a series of
words.

36
last paragraph of the chapter, attempts to make it more accessible and easier to understand,

although it is exactly for this reason that some of the concepts previously mentioned are

not implicitly or explicitly referred.

The picture of the text which results from the above model is as follows: The text
begins by setting a context, which will be the background of the joke. This can be
done very briefly, or omitted altogether if the context is inferable from the text. An
element (disjunctor) then occurs in the text which causes a passage from the sense
reconstructed thus far in the joke to a second, opposed sense. This element occurs
at the end of the text, a position which is the location of the rhyme13 of the last
sentence of the text14.
(Attardo, 1994: 107)

0.3.4. THE MONOLOGUE PUNCHLINE JOKE

FORMULA

More recently, some aspects of Attardo’s contemporary humor theory of the linear

organization of the joke have been borrowed by the subordinate postulations of other

specialists in humor research. Not only that but also, because the very aim of their findings

and discoveries, at a general level, is that of producing universally applicable theories that

facilitate the process of explaining humor in a more organized way (within the realms of

possibility), such models have become so versatile, they are also used in many other areas,

including that of comedy writing (for Late-Night TV).

13
Attardo (1994) highlights an association between: the notions of the theme/rheme of a text (or sentence), the
former being the initial “old” information about which something is said, and the rheme, the next “new”
information that is said about the old one (the theme); together with the FSP (see Firbas (1964)) and
references there about the functional sentence perspective) notions of the element with the highest communicative
dynamism, at the final part of a text (or sentence), and the other element with the lowest communicative
dynamism, which usually has an initial position. Subsequently, Attardo point out (1994) that “on the basis of
the final position of the disjunctive element in a joke and of the FSP notion of theme and theme, one can
predict that the disjunctor is the rheme of the last sentence of the text of the joke.” (Attardo, 1994: 100).

14
As a matter of fact, in some cases the position of the disjunctor (punchline) is not final, notwithstanding,
because all the linguistic material occurring after such element is superfluous for the fruition of the text joke
(i.e., non-rhematic), according to Attardo, it can be deleted without loss of meaning for the punchline.

37
 Even authors like Joe Toplyn (2014) have taken notice of the fact that most of the

writing approaches that apply to the late-night talk shows’ monologue, which turns out to be

nothing more than a series of verbal15 punchline jokes, also apply to joke texts on the

whole. In fact, other than analyzing each type of participants and comedy pieces in the

Late-Night TV (see above), Toplyn provides his own version of the punchline joke structure

(and composition) that seems to account for a large number of cases by successfully

reducing some of the earliest propositions to a simpler, better understood basic formula.

Along these lines, on Toplyn’s viewpoint (2014), there are three parts in a monologue

(punchline) joke (with respective characteristics they should16 show). They are, in their

order of appearance, the topic, the angle and the punch line.

0.3.4.1. THE TOPIC

The initial part of the joke is the topic, that is to say “a concise statement of the news item

that the joke is based on” (Toplyn, 2014: 54). And according to Toplyn (2014), each of the

topics of a monologue joke should meet 6 specific conditions, namely, a good topic has to

be: (1) factually true, (2) not intentionally funny, (3) one sentence long, (4) something that

will capture most people’s interest, (5) something that your audience will let you joke about

and (6) something that your host is willing to joke about.

15
It is not clear what the reasons are for Toplyn describing the series of joke that characterize the Late-Night
talk show’s monologue as verbal. But because the author never touches upon the diversity that is present in
(punchline) jokes, one can only assume that his conception of ‘verbal jokes’ can be compared to that of
Attardo’s ‘verbalized jokes’.
16
As it will be seen in the next chapter, the list of characteristics that Toplyn (2014) attributes to the topic, the
angle or the punchline, are intended to serve as a support or guide only for the “good” functioning of a joke
(and each of its parts). Thus, leaving space for some particular cases in which a joke (perhaps not a “good”
one, but a “fair” one) is delivered, even with such characteristics being approached at different levels of
accuracy.

38
0.3.4.2. THE ANGLE

The middle part of the joke is the angle, which is described as “the particular direction that

the joke takes in getting from the topic to the punchline” (Toplyn, 2014: 68). In giving such

definition, Toplyn (2014) suggests that such particular direction corresponds to one of

many other possible angles that can be chosen, each of which could be used to come up

with a new different joke (based on the same topic). To this end, it is to be noted that for

Toplyn (2014) the only characteristic the second part of the monologue joke shares with

the first one, when well-thought-out, is that it should be one sentence long, at most.

0.3.4.3. THE PUNCHLINE

The third and last part of the joke is the punch line. In Toplyn’s words (2014), it stands for

“a surprising revelation of a harmless truth [resulting in a laugh]” (Toplyn, 2014: 70); so it

stands to reason that if a monologue joke punch line is to meet the right qualities, it should

be both: (1) surprising; in the sense that more abrupt the turn from what the audience

expected to the incongruity that doesn’t fit tidily into the rest of the joke (i.e., topic and

angle), the bigger the laugh it will produce. (2) possibly true (or rationally acceptable); to

mean that the audience will get a bigger laugh if the apparent incongruity actually makes

sense to them and they agree with what the punch line is saying.

Furthermore, though the monologue joke typically consists of a word or phrase, its

punchline doesn’t have to be necessarily verbal (or verbalized), such a punchline can be either

a short video clip, an altered photograph or any other visual item.

39
Now, according to Toplyn (2014), if one visualizes a joke the way the comedy writer Gene

Perret does, the topic of such joke could be represented by a circle, with a line of certain

angle starting from it that seems to be travelling towards a specific direction, right before

veering off sharply in a different one: the punchline.

Figure 6: Graphic model of the joke basic structure (Toplyn, 2014)

Angle
Topic
Punch Line

40
0.4. FOURTH CHAPTER

So far, the present dissertation has attempted to build up an overall picture of what the late-

night entertainment talk show is all about. Consequently, in order to fully understand the

phenomenon studied here, special consideration has also been given to its location between

its most immediate superior, i.e. the talk show (form), its most immediate inferior, i.e. The

monologue (segment); and even a further inferior of the monologue (segment) itself; the

monologue (punchline) Joke. All this in what could be defined as a vertical principal axis. If

one wants to be very simplistic (but maybe not completely accurate17) in what has been told

about the three of them respectively throughout the previous chapters (and their source

domain), one can say that the focus of the first chapter was mostly from an organizational

point of view, and with special respect to the talk show (form) and the late-night entertainment

talk show; that of the second chapter was mostly discursive/linguistic, and with special

respect to the late-night entertainment talk show and the monologue (segment); that of the third

chapter was mostly from a semantic point of view, and with special to the monologue and the

monologue (punchline) joke. All this with a view to cover as good as possible the studies

that seem to be of primary relevance to each and every of such elements. What follows

here is the application of some of those theoretical foundations, as developed in the first

three chapters, into the practical analysis of the general aspects of a case-study: the first

episode of what is considered to be the first ‘late-night entertainment talk show’ (and what

comes with it).

17
Although some of the theoretical foundations pertaining to the particular domain each of the chapters will
try to cover, sometimes might contain, or even overlap with those of the other chapters.

41
0.4.1. JUSTIFICATION

Although most of the different versions of the late-night entertainment talk show might deserve

that at least the same amount of attention is being paid to them here, in order to keep the

analysis within reasonable limits, it has been chosen to enlarge only upon a specific

transmission of that program whose contributions seem to have succeeded the most in

assessing the conditions favorable for the television phenomenon to occur and grow into

the institution that is today. Ever since, for the sake of simplicity and partiality, the criteria

that lies behind the selection of this particular case-study (and the elements it comports)

does not include any other consideration other than its evident importance to the late-night

entertainment talk show development, different conclusions concerning the accuracy of this

selection could be reached.

All in all, the case-study works fairly well for the main purpose of this dissertation.

But, it is important to clarify that most of the analysis provided in this dissertation is

expected to be as inclusive as possible, with the idea of covering if not all, most of the

different versions of the phenomenon studied here. And, it could be exactly for this reason

that specific circumstantial exceptions to the analysis that require further notice, may

probably arise in consequence.

0.4.2. A CASE-STUDY OF: THE LATE-NIGHT

ENTERTAINMENT TALK SHOW

“If you have ever turned on the TV after the 11 o’clock news and laughed, you owe Steve

Allen a debt of gratitude”18. With this words, Entertainment weekly acknowledges the

biggest contribution to the American popular culture in a fitting tribute to the legendary

18
Article, Ew.com, Giants of TV, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.ew.com/article/2001/01/05/giants-tv>.

42
entertainer who will forever be known as “The Father of Late Night, the man who created

the TV-talk-show format we go to sleep with and led the way for Johnny, Dave and Jay

[…]” (McGuigan, 2000: 91; Alba, 2005: 15). Steve Allen, as already introduced before,

created and hosted what is considered to be the first version of the late-night entertainment

talk show (and in practice, all Late-Night TV) as we now know it, that is to say: the

‘Tonight!’19 show (with the ‘!’ later deleted). From the time of Allen’s guidance, NBC’s ‘The

Tonight Show’ has gone on to become “America’s longest running entertainment show

and most successful late-night TV show” (Alba, 2005: 16). And if it is true that much of

what the television program stands for nowadays, was built (in some form) during the

Allen-era; it is also true that the resultant of such a modern television legacy would not be

in the place that it is today without the input of his surrogates. As a matter of fact, over the

course of its more than 60 years of transmission, ‘The Tonight Show’ has had officially six

regular hosts, starting with Steve Allen (1954–1957), followed by Jack Paar (1957–1962),

Johnny Carson (1962–1992), Jay Leno (1992–2009, 2010–1914), Conan O'Brien (2009–

1910), and Jimmy Fallon (2014–present). Not to mention the several recurring guest hosts

that would momentarily substitute the regular host (for example, when they were ill or have

other commitments). Everything considered, although a detailed description about the

other talk show versions that descended from that of Steve Allen will not be retained, the

individual reader has to rely on experts’ shared opinion that regardless of how less, or

much, the format of the show could have been modified or updated in some aspects under

the influence of the internal or external factors specific to each and every of its versions, it

is for sure that at least the basic elements of the talk show have not changed ever since the

very beginning of the ‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen.

19
“It aired under the name ‘Tonight’ for several of its early years, eventually settling on ‘The Tonight Show’
after the seating of long-time host Johnny Carson in 1962. In later decades, network programmers,
advertisers, and the show's announcers would refer to the show by including the name of the host; for
example, it is currently announced as The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon”. Wikipedia.org, The Tonight
Show, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tonight_Show>.

43
0.4.2.1. THE PREMIERE.

There is great chance that people from New York who turned their television dial to NBC

at 11:15 P.M.20 on the evening of September 27, 1954, might have eye-witnessed the first

moments of the ‘Tonight’ show’s premiere with Steve Allen. Unfortunately, the entire

episode is not currently available to the public, and only some bits of the transmission are

at the disposition of the people; however, the memory of the people behind the articles

containing the synopsis, critics or other notes about the talk show, allow us to understand

much of what the ‘Tonight’ show premiere was all about (and so the ‘Tonight’ show as

well).

In the general run of things, as it can be understood from the analysis of the

transmission data, Allen's version of the show is provided in a way that actually meets most

of the organizational theoretical foundations characterizing the typical late-night

entertainment talk show, as developed by Toplyn (2014) in Comedy writing for late-night tv.

Accordingly, among the structural components of the first episode of the ‘Tonight’ show

that would become classic later on, those of ‘participatory’ relevance to the development of

the show that are certainly involved, are:

 The host, Steve Allen, a talented pianist and entertainer around which the whole

show revolved around, and whose job was to keep the show running, with the help

of his team and the fellow radio personality Gene Rayburn as Allen’s kickside, and

announcer in the show, being responsible of delivering opening and closing spiels

for the show, introduce the performers and more. It is also to be considered how

Supposedly, the first fifteen minutes of the first ‘Tonight’ show were only shown on very few stations in
20

New York during that time.

44
 the show was momentarily determined by the regular guest-host21 Ernie Kovacs,

who had his own cast and regulars, including his own kickside/announcer, Bill

Wendell.

 The guest or numerous guests, the show featured each night, including celebrities,

musicians and many other people who were invited to be interviewed by the host,

or provide the show with some sort of entertainment. For instance, one of Allen’s

guest was comedian Johnny Carson (a future successor to the show).

 The audiences in the ‘Tonight’ show had a vital role, not only for the appreciation of

the show itself, but also for its production. In contrast with Allen’s local and

national house audience, the studio audience was repeatedly incorporated into any

of the segments, or comedy pieces, hence, being of big influence on the search of

humor.

On the one hand, if one takes into account Toplyn’s list (2014) of talk show participants,

but as rearranged through the (micro) participatory framework seen before, every single

one of the here-called ‘primary participants’ are of absolutely crucial importance for the

development of the ‘Tonight’ show; and so can be persistently found participating through

the whole episode (and in further episodes as well). Instead, the members of the band, the

staff and the crew, or as they are called here: ‘secondary participants’, might have not

always been brought to a similar level of importance on the show, in terms of participation.

On the other hand, when it comes to the structural components of ‘procedural’ relevance

for the development of the show considered in Comedy writing for late-night tv by Toplyn

21
Ernie Kovacs, a comedian who came over from the faltering DuMont Television Network, was the regular
Monday and Tuesday guest-host for the 1956–1957 year-period, when Steve Allen had to cut back his
involvement in the ‘Tonight’ show to three nights a week, probably due to the time-consuming separate
weekly prime-time show he was offered to host on Sunday nights.

45
(2014), but as rearranged here in the (micro) procedural framework of the first chapter; it is

not very clear from the obtained information whether some segments, or comedy pieces,

such as the cold open, the bumpers, and the cold close, were part of the show, or not.

Notwithstanding, they bear little importance here, since they are not of absolutely crucial

importance in the shows’ development. At least, not like the ones the ‘Tonight’ show

unquestionably included (in some cases more than once22):

 An opening monologue by Steve Allen, sometimes from his desk and some other times

at the piano (unlike the typical monologue of the modern talk shows in which the

host is standing in front of the stage); giving a string of jokes on some letters,

newspaper articles or whatever strikes his fancy, even while playing with the keys.

 The main comedy pieces and secondary comedy pieces, or other segments after the opening

monologue, and all throughout the rest of the show and between commercials. From

the street interviews outside the studio with the passerby, to those segments that

involved the studio audience, the in-house band members or the announcer (or

sidekick); such as comedy bits, games or simple bantering.

 Guest segments (and extras) that can either feature one celebrity monopolizing the

whole show (internationally or not) or more celebrities appearing in a different

number of spots, with breezy discussions on a topic of current interest or even

further extra comedy pieces (i.e. sketches, monologues, musical performances etc.)

22
Given the general structure versatility, together with the almost unlimited time availability of the show,
which had a 105-minute duration with commercials (unlike the 60-minute duration of modern talk shows); A
surprising number of segments, or comedy pieces, were assorted by Steve Allen to fill every program.

46
0.4.2.2. THE OPENING MONOLOGUE

Although, as mentioned before, not too much of the very first episode of the ‘Tonight’

show documentation survives, or is readily accessible, one bit of the transmission that has

been rebroadcasted many times on the ‘Tonight’ show anniversary special, or in some of its

documentaries, is that of Allen's opening monologue. As a matter of fact, there is only one

video clip23 of that segment, or comedy piece, that can be found on the internet. In it (right

after the appearance of a graphic with something that seems to read ‘NBC’), it is possible

to appreciate Allen seated at his piano, welcoming the audience to the first episode of the

show and making a couple of funny remarks (yet enough for the current analysis) about the

program to entertain them.

Before getting to the actual analysis of the video clip, however, it should be noted

that, based on its intuitive interpretation, the content in this opening segment (or comedy

piece) seems to be addressed to a certain destination, that being the home-viewing audience

who has just joined that particular transmission and apparently needs some information so

that it can get an idea of what is about to be displayed on their screens. Be that as it may,

with reference to the multi-level institution frame characterizing television shows (Franke,

2011), it is nonetheless true that, when it comes to the first frame of interaction,

comprising interpersonal communication in the studio in which at least two interlocutors

(i.e., communicator-addressee, or speaker-hearer) are presented, the studio audience, in

their role as non-primary speakers, is very important for the co-construction of the speech

situation characterizing the opening monologue (and so that of the many other dialogic-based

comedy segments), as well as the progression and execution of entertainment, or humor,

during the program. And so, ultimately, it would be wrong to assume that the

communicator/speaker Steve Allen, is only addressing his funny remarks to the home-

23
Video clip.Youtube.com, Tonight Show-clip from the first episode, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8AYUfBt1dE>.

47
viewing audience, and not to the studio audience. For this, among other things, the

‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen premier’s opening monologue is provided in a way that

actually meets most of the linguistic/discursive theoretical foundations characterizing the

typical opening monologue, as developed in Developments in Linguistic Humor Theory by

Seewoester (2013), and in correspondence with some of the aspects introduced in Between

Institutional Talk and Everyday Conversation: The Language Use of Television by Franke (2011).

Within the current account, the studio audience’s relationship to the participation

framework during this segment, exhibit a range of perspectives and interpretations worth

qualifying in an analysis that focuses on the unique way in which the studio audience of

Allen’s show uptakes some of the participation statuses developed by the different researches

Seewoester studies in her paper (2013).

Accordingly, for the current analysis, repeated watching, listening, and reviewing of

the video clip showing the first moments of the premiere was conducted in order to obtain

a transcription using the Du Bois et al. (1993) discourse transcription system (see the

legend below).

(Originally aired in: 27/09/1954)

1 (VIDEO CLIP BEGINS)

2 (GRAPHIC WITH UNCERTAIN MESSAGE APPEARS)
3 ANNOUNCER: From New York City,
4 the National Broadcasting Co. presents "Tonight,"
5 starring Steve Allen.
6 AUDIENCE: (CLAPPING)
7 STEVE ALLEN: In case you’re just joining us,
8 this is ‘Tonight’ ,
9 … and,
10 I can't think of too much to tell you about it,
11 except I want to give you the bad news first:
12 This program is going to go on forever.
13 AUDIENCE: (LAUGHTER)
14 STEVE ALLEN: Boy,
15 you think you're tired now [@@@@]
16 AUDIENCE: (SPORADIC LAUGHING)
17 STEVE ALLEN: Wait till you see 1 o'clock roll around.

48
18 It’s a ---
19 …It's a lo=ng sho=w,
20 goes on from ele=ven thirty - here in the East that is,
21 that is - from ele=ven thirty to one in the morning.
22 STEVE ALLEN: And we especially selected this particular theater.
23 This is a New York theater called the Hudson,
24 and we especially selected this for this very late show,
25 because this theater is ---
26 Oh..
27 I think it sleeps about eight hundred people.
28 AUDIENCE: (LAUGHTER)
29 STEVE ALLEN: … and ---.
30 That worked out.
31 the think with the <X speech X> didn’t worked out very good.
32 AUDIENCE: (LAUGHTER)
33 STEVE ALLEN: … This is a ---
34 kind of a mild little show.
35 I don’t expect you to say:
36 Boy?
37 What a program?
38 No,
39 just look at it and,
40 .. you know,
41 decide in about a week what you think about it,
42 .. you know.
43 It’s not a Spectacular.
44 AUDIENCE: (SPORADIC LAUGHING)
45 .. It’s a ---
46 AUDIENCE: (SPORADIC LAUGHING)
47 STEVE ALLEN: It's going to be a kind of a Monotonous.. I think.
48 That’s more the idea.
49 I’ll just be here,
50 and I’m not going to take up too much of your time.
51 … <X speech X> covers everything.
52 This is actually the.. third number in a series of shows.. that,
53 Pat Weaver in the,
54 .. NBC network,
55 plans to project perhaps indefinitely
56 The first program that you know,
57 is the fine show that Dave Garroway does in the morning,
58 called ‘Today’.
59 And then there’s Ariene Francis’ program in the afternoon,
60 called ‘Home’,
61 And this is the third program of the series,
62 .. as I said this is called ‘Tonight’.
63 And if this program is the success that the other two were,
65 they are going to put on another program called ‘Son of
Tonight’.
66 AUDIENCE: (LAUGHTER)
67 ((VIDEO CLIP ENDS))

49
Returning to the hypothesis/question posed at the beginning of this analysis, it is now

possible to state that as regards the participation status of the:

 responder; the studio audience uses response tokens such as applause or laughter to

provide vital information to the other interlocutor, the host Steve Allen, regarding

how they are receiving his remarks (whether they find them humorous or not), in

this way, affecting and projecting the manner in which the continued interaction

will take place. Even some parts of Steve Allen’s opening monologue go unnoticed

given the interrupting unexpected laughter of the audience, to which the host takes

as over-kind, but still as a good sign to move ahead (lines 43-47). In addition, at

some point Steve Allen reinforces the fact that his statement was not intended to

invite as much laughter as it did, by stating “that worked out” after the audience

laughter (lines 27-30).

 addressee; the studio audience is expected to turn over the production role (or

without a primary-speaker response) through postures, gazes, gestures and verbal

tactics employed by the host Steve Allen. Respectively, Steve Allen sometimes

alternates his eye gaze and posture between the sides of the studio instead of the

center toward the camera (lines 19-28). He incorporates gesture (in lines 36–37),

spreading and agitating his arms wide to put accent to his imitation of an impressed

audience. Also, Steve Allen uses verbal tactics to designate that studio audience

knows what he is talking about, through the use of a second person “you” (line 56),

together with his posture and eye gaze.

With respect to the participation statuses of the studio audience, as considered by Seewoester

(2013), those of the third party and the recipient have not been analyzed here. The reason

50
behind this decision is that, apart from the fact that they are not exactly displayed in the

video clip in question here, during the opening monologue, on the one hand, the studio

audience could not have played the role of a third party, inasmuch as the sidekick (or the other

performers) would not have the same interaction with the host, as they did in other segments;

and on the other hand, the studio audience could not have played the role of a recipient,

insofar as no television screens (or anything like that) were used on stage at that time.

0.4.2.3. THE INTRODUCTORY MONOLOGUE JOKE

As stated in Inventing Late Night (Alba, 2005), which is a recollection about the story of

Steve Allen and the original the ‘Tonight’ show written by the author Ben Alba (2005), the

first show of the first ‘Tonight’ show opened with its host, casually sitting at his piano, and

ominously entertaining his audience with the following (punchline) joke:

In case you’re just joining us, this is Tonight, and I can't think of too
much to tell you about it, except I want to give you the bad news first:
This program is going to go on forever.
(Allen, 1954)

From there on, Allen continued to quipped some other funny remarks regarding the

particular episode of the show, among other things. In this respect, although it may not

correspond to the example par excellence of an (opening) monologue punchline joke, an

analysis can be carried out of the one Allen quipped at first, in view of the fact that it is

provided in a way that actually meets most of the semantic theoretical foundations

characterizing the typical punchline joke, as developed by Attardo (1994), and then taken up

by Toplyn (2014). First of all, on the subject of the Linear Organization of the Joke theory

that is introduced in Linguistic Theories of Humor (Attardo, 1994), a great number of the

aspects of Greimas’ isotopy, Morin’s narrative function, together with Attardo’s isotopy-disjunction

51
model (IDM), can likewise be explained as a result of the analysis of this introductory

monologue joke of the ‘Tonight’ show premiere. At a first stage, as a result of the analysis

of the three theories respectively, one can draw the following observations:

 The joke text can display two different senses or isotopies, namely, a former serious

sense with a negative connotation (S1) and a latter humorous sense with a positive

connotation (S2).

 The joke text can be divided in a narrative function tripartite, accordingly, a first

function (F1) that establishes the context in which it is been told, including: the

characters (the host and the audience) and the situation (the opening part of the

program); a second function (F2) that introduces the need for a resolution of what

the commentator (the host) is talking about; and a third function (F3) that

concludes the narration of the joke, hence, provoking a reaction on the addressee

(the audience).

 The joke text operates the disjunction/connection mechanisms required for the

change from (S1) to (S2), through the two elements of:

 The disjunctor (“forever”), which causes the passage from the former sense

of the joke, to the latter one, and hence provoking a humorous effect

through an incongruity.

 The connector (“bad news”), which enables the switch between both senses

of the joke.

At a second stage, in keeping with an overall description of the punchline joke studied here,

and how some of the aspects previously mentioned, work all together in order to produce a

52
humorous effect, a further observation to be drawn from this could be that: The joke

revolves on the fact that from the beginning the host establishes that the (home) audience

may be just appreciating that opening part of the show (“In case you’re just joining us”).

Followed by his immediate warning that something, which is unknown to the audience

with a negative connotation, may be connected with this (“I want to give you the ‘bad

news’ [the connector] first: This program is going to go on […]”). When then he suddenly

resolves any conjectures by taking an obviously different sense instead, all this through an

explanatory conclusion that has an unexpected positive connotation (‘—forever’ [the

disjunctor or punchline]”); supposing that the audience would not really care about the

remaining duration of the show, or an eventual extension of it.

Secondly, in consonance with the subordinate postulations of Toplyn in Comedy writing

for late-night tv (Toplyn, 2014) and his own version of how the joke text is supposed to be

structured (and work), the three parts that compose this introductory monologue joke of

the ‘Tonight’ show premiere, in their order of appearance, would be:

 “In case you’re just joining us, this is Tonight, and I can't think of too much

to tell you about it, except I want to give you the bad news first:”. As the topic

because, it mostly holds to Toplyn’s definition (2014) of the initial part of a joke

text, that is “a concise statement of the news item that the joke is based on”

(Toplyn, 2014: 54); that being the warning that something, which is unknown to

the audience with a negative connotation is going to happen. All this, even if one of

the suggested characteristics is being approached at a different level of accuracy, in

this way, being (1) factually true (at least for the audience, and for some time24) (2)

not intentionally funny, (3) one sentence long, (4) something that will capture most

24
Actually, this is the only characteristic that is not approached by the example to its fullest. However, if it is
true that the topic of this joke is not based on a real story that comes from a reputable news source, it is also
true that it is delivered in such a way that it seemed to be an irrefutable truth.

53
 people’s interest, (5) something that your audience will let you joke about and (6)

something that your host is willing to joke about.

 “This program is going to go on […]”. As the angle, for the reason that, like

Toplyn says (2014), this middle part of a joke text “sets the particular direction that

the joke takes in getting from the topic to the punchline” (Toplyn, 2014: 68);

expressly, the duration of the program. And in addition, the length of the joke text

corresponds to that of a sentence, or almost a sentence.

 “[…] forever”. As the punchline, given that, in Toplyn’s words (2014), this final part

of the joke text stands for “a surprising revelation of a harmless truth [resulting in a

laugh]” (Toplyn, 2014: 70); thus, meeting its suggested characteristics, apart from

having the advised length (a word or a sentence), respectively: being surprising as it

has a humorous positive connotation, which is accentuated by the use of a

hyperbole, rather than a serious negative one; and true (or at least rationally

acceptable) as the apparent incongruity actually makes sense to the audience (for

the actual somehow exaggerated duration of the program).

Correspondingly, as pointed out by Toplyn (2014), if one visualizes the joke the way the

comedy writer Gene Perret does, the graphic model of its structure would be something

similar to this:

54
“In case you’re just joining “This program is going to go on […]”
us, this is Tonight, and I
can't think of too much to
tell you about it, except I
want to give you the bad
news first:”

“[…] forever”

55
56
CONCLUSION

The final analysis in this dissertation was undertaken in order to explore to what extent the

theoretical foundations of scholars from different domains, as developed in the three

previous chapters, can be evaluated and validated, insofar as they are consistent (or not)

with the late-night entertainment talk show. In particular, this last chapter set out an application

of some of those theoretical foundations, into the practical analysis of the general aspects

of a case-study: the first episode of the ‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen, also known as, the

first late-night entertainment talk show (and what comes with it). For the most part, the

outcomes of this analysis have found that a vast majority of the theoretical foundations

developed by such scholars are consistent with the case in point of the late-night entertainment

talk show, and hereby also with many others the late-night entertainment talk shows,

inasmuch as the criteria that lies behind the selection of this transmission of that program

(and the elements it comports) has a bearing on the consideration of its importance for the

development of the phenomenon studied here, rather than the consideration of its

compatibility with what had been said about it. All this in order to give an indication of the

inclusivity potential of the analysis in its capacity to support the analysis if not of all, at least

a large number of the other versions of the American TV late-night entertainment talk show. By

way of explanation, the exact importance of the analysis in the fourth chapter is clearly

endorsed by the following findings.

Respectively, in the interest of the organizational domain and with special respect

to the talk show (form) and the late-night entertainment talk show (which prevail in the first

chapter); a first section has shown that the particular episode (i.e., the premiere) of the

‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen in question here, used to be delivered in a way that it

actually goes along with a great number of aspects of Toplyn’s (2014) list of talk show

participants and segments provided in Comedy writing for late-night tv (Toplyn, 2014), but as

57
rearranged through the (micro) participatory and procedural frameworks seen in the first

chapter of this dissertation. Along these lines, it was possible to draw the conclusion that

the structural components of such (micro) frameworks that are of absolutely crucial

importance to the development of the program in question here can be persistently found,

such as the host(s), the guests and the audiences participants, or the opening monologue, the main

comedy piece (and the second comedy piece), the guest segment (and extras) comedy pieces.

Moreover, in the interest of discursive/linguistics domain, and with special respect to the

late-night entertainment talk show and the monologue (segment); (which prevail in the second

chapter); a second section has shown that the opening monologue segment of the particular

episode (i.e., the premiere) of the ‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen in question here, used to

be delivered in a way that it actually goes along with a great number of aspects of the about

the studio audience’s relationship to the participation framework during this segment, as

developed by Seewoester (2013) in Developments in Linguistic Humor Theory (Seewoester,

2013), and in correspondence with the first frame of interaction, comprising interpersonal

communication in the studio, as introduced in Between Institutional Talk and Everyday

Conversation: The Language Use of Television by Franke (2011). On that account, it was shown

that, in their role as non-primary speakers, studio audience of Allen’s show certainly

uptakes at least the half of the participation statuses considered by Seewoester (2013) during

the opening monologue, namely, those of the responder and the addressee, unlike those of the third

party and the recipient. And thus, it was possible to ultimately concluded that, for the most

part, Allen’s studio audience is very important for of the co-construction of the speech

situation characterizing this opening monologue (and so, that of its other dialogic-based

comedy segments), as well as for the progression and execution of entertainment, or

humor, during the program. Furthermore, in the interest of semantics domain, and with

special respect to the monologue and the monologue (punchline) joke (which prevail in the

second chapter); a third section has shown that the introductory monologue (punchline)

58
joke of the particular episode (i.e., the premiere) of the ‘Tonight’ show with Steve Allen in

question here, is delivered in a way that it actually goes along with a great number of

aspects of Greimas’ isotopy, Morin’s narrative function, together with Attardo’s isotopy-disjunction

model (IDM), as employed in the Linear Organization of the Joke theory that is developed

in Linguistic Theories of Humor (Attardo, 1994). In this fashion, it was possible to come to the

conclusion that such joke text can display two different isotopies (or senses), be divided in

a narrative function tripartite, and operate the disjunction/connection mechanisms.

Subsequently, it was also shown that such joke text is in consonance with Toplyn’s (2014)

version of how a joke is supposed to be structured (and work), for the reason that it can be

divided in a topic, an angle, and a punchline, and appropriately represented by means of his

graphical model.

In general, therefore, it seems that the case-study works fairly well for the main

purpose of this dissertation. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify that some specific

circumstantial exceptions may arise as a consequence of the all-embracing nature of this

systematic guideline. In this dissertation, among the case-study aspects that may require

further notice there are, just to name some of them: the actual presence and influence of

the procedural components (such as the cold open, the bumpers, and the cold close) and the

participatory components (such as the members of the band, the staff and the crew); the

actual act of displaying of the studio audience as a third party and a recipient during the opening

monologue; the actual fulfillment of the ‘true fact’ suggested characteristic concerning the topic

of the monologue punchline joke.

59
60
LEGEND

Transcription conventions based on Du Bois et al. (1993)

(carriage return) Intonation unit

. Final intonation contour (falling pitch)

, Continuing intonation contour (level pitch or slight rise)

? Appeal intonation contour (high rise in pitch)

-- Truncated intonation unit

- Truncated word

@ One pulse of laughter

= Lengthening

.. Short pause

... Medium pause

... (.7) Long pause

(H) Inhalation

(Hx) Exhalation

X Inaudible syllable

<VOX speech VOX> Speech with unique voice quality

<@ speech @> Speech said while laughing

<X speech X> Uncertain transcription

() Voice noises

(( )) Researcher comments or non-spoken environmental factors

61
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alba, B. (2005). Inventing Late Night: Steve Allen and the Original Tonight Show. New York,
Prometheus Books.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin/New York,
Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., Hughes A., S., Baltes, P. & Petray, Marnie J. (1994). “The Linear Organization
of jokes: Statistical Analysis of Two Thousand Texts”. In: Humor – International
Journal of Humor Research, 7(1), pp. 27-54. Retrieved 11 July 2016, from
doi:10.1515/humr.1994.7.1.27.
Baum, M. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence Political
Communication. In: Political Communication, 20, pp. 173-190. Retrieved 11 July 2016,
from
<http://www.facoltaspes.unimi.it/files/_ITA_/COM/Def-Infotainment.pdf>.
Baym, G. (2008). "Infotainment". In: D., Wolfgang (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of
Communication. Blackwell, Blackwell Publishing. pp. 1-4. Retrieved 11 July 2016,
from
<http://www.communicationencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405
131P995_chunk_g978140513199514_ss32-1>.
Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The crisis of public communication. Routledge, London.
Carter, B. (1996). The Late Shift: Letterman, Leno & the Network Battle for the Night. New York,
Hyperion.
Carter, B. (2010). The War for Late Night: When Leno Went Early and Television Went Crazy.
New York, Penguin.
Cogan, B., & Kelso, T. (2009). “Talk Shows”. In: B. Cogan, & T. Kelso, (ed.), Encyclopedia of
politics, the media, and popular culture. California, ABC-CLIO, pp. 104-111.
Danesi, M. (2009). Dictionary of Media and Communication. London, M.E. Sharpe.
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse
transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, pp. 45-89.
Dumanski, B. (2013). “Talk Shows”. In: M. Danesi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Media and
Communication. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Dynel, M. (2010). “Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues.” In
mediAzioni, 1974-43829. Retrieved 11 July 2016, from
<http://mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it/images/stories/PDF_folder/documentpdf/201
0/dynel_2010.pdf>.
Dynel, M. (2011). “’I’ll be there for you’: on participation-based sitcom humour”. In M.
Dynel (ed.), Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam, John
Benjamins.
Eastman, S. T. & Ferguson, D. A. (2012). Media Programming: Strategies and Practices (Ninth
Edition). Boston, Cengage Learning, pp. 257.

63
Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries (2015). The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language (Fifth edition), (no place), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. Retrieved 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monologue>.
Firbas, J. (1964). “On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis”. In: Travaux
Linguistiques de Prague, 1, pp. 267-280.
Franke, K. E. (2011). Between Institutional Talk and Everyday Conversation: The Language Use of
Television (Doctoral dissertation). Englisches Seminar, pp. 2, 23, 47 & 407.
URN:NBN : urn:nbn:de:gbv:084-11110809280.
Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gray, T. (2015). Jon Stewart and 12 Other Hosts Who Changed Late-Night TV. Retrieved 25
June 2016, from
<http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/daily-show-jon-stewart-steve-allen-
david-letterman-1201556388/>.
Gregori-Signes C. (2000). “The tabloid talkshow as a quasi-conversional type of face-to-
face interaction.” In Pragmatics, 10, 2, pp. 195-213.
Grindstaff, L. (2002). The money shot: trash, class, and the making of TV talk shows. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, p. 19. ISBN 978-0-226-30911-8.
Grindstaff, L. (2005). “Talk shows, television”. In: Gregg, R., McDonogh, G. W. & Wong,
C. H. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Contemporary American Culture. London/New York,
Routledge, pp. 708-709.
Ilie, C. (2006). “Talk Shows”. In: K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics
(Second Edition) (Vol. 1). Oxford, Elsevier Ltd., pp. 489-494.
Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972). “Early Conceptions of Humor: Varieties and Issues”. In: J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhe (eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical Perspectives and
Empirical Issues. New York/London, Academic Press.
Krikman, A. (2006). “Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour”. In Folklore: Electronic
Journal of Folklore, issue: 33 / 2006, pp. 27-28. Retrieved 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol33/kriku.pdf>.
McDonogh, G. W. (2005). “Late-night television”. In: Gregg, R., McDonogh, G. W. &
Wong, C. H. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Contemporary American Culture. Routledge,
London/New York, pp. 412-413.
McDonogh, G. W. (2005b). “Morning television”. In: Gregg, R., McDonogh, G. W. &
Wong, C. H. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Contemporary American Culture. London/New
York, Routledge, p. 484.
McGuigan, C. (2000). The Father of Late Night. In: Newsweek, 136, 20, p. 91
Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). “Communication and citizenship: Mapping
the political effects of infotainment”. In: Mass Communication & Society, 8, 2, pp. 111
131.
Munson, W. (2016). All Talk: The Talkshow in Media Culture. Philadelphia, Temple
University Press. Project MUSE. Retrieved 11 July 2016, from
<https://muse.jhu.edu/>.

64
Penz, H. (1996). Language and Control in America TV Talk: An Analysis of Linguistic Strategies
(Vol. 12). Dischingerweg, Gunter Narr Verlaf Tübingen.
Peterson, R. L. (2008), Strange bedfellows: How late-night comedy turns democracy into a joke. New
Jersey, Rutgers University Press.
Schutz, A. (1997). “Self-presentational Tactics of Talk-show Guests; a Comparison of
Politicians, Experts and Entertainers”, In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7(21),
pp. 1941-1952.
Seewoester C., S. (2013). “Giving voice to the studio audience: Ratified and dynamic
participation statuses in a television stand-up performance”. In: Dynel, M. (ed.),
Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
ISBN: 9789027202284, pp. 153-176.
Shaw, V. N. (2013). Conspicuous and Inconspicuous Discriminations in Everyday Life. New
York, Routledge.
Timberg, B., & Erler, B. (2002). Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. Texas, University
of Texas Press, pp. 3-6.
Tolson, A. (1991). “Televised chat and the synthetic personality”. In: P. Scannell (ed.),
Broadcast talk. London, Sage, p. 178.
Tolson, A. (2001). Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Toplyn, J. (2014), Comedy writing for late-night tv: How to write monologue jokes, desk pieces, sketches,
parodies, audience pieces, remotes, and other short-film comedy. New York, Twenty Lane
Media.

65
66
SITOGRAPHY

Biography.com, Steve Allen: A ‘The Tonight Show’ First, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.biography.com/news/steve-allen-tonight-show>.

Cocktailcalendar.wordpress.com, September 27: Tonight Starring Steve Allen, Accessed 11 July

2016, from
<https://cocktailcalendar.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/september-27-tonight-starring-
steve-allen/>.

Dictionary.com, Monologue, Accessed 11 July 2016, from

<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monologue>.

Emmys.com, Tonight (The Tonight Show with Steve Allen), Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<https://www.emmys.com/foundation/interviews/shows/tonight-tonight-show-steve-
allen>.

Ew.com, Giants of TV, Accessed 11 July 2016, from

<http://www.ew.com/article/2001/01/05/giants-tv>.

Museum.tv, Talk Shows, Accessed 11 July 2016, from

<http://www.museum.tv/eotv/talkshows.htm>.

Stevenallen.com, Steve Allen & “Tonight”, Accessed 11 July 2016, from

<http://www.steveallen.com/television_pioneer/tonight.htm/>.

Splitsider.com, Looking Back at the Very First Tonight Show, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<http://splitsider.com/2011/11/looking-back-at-the-very-first-tonight-show/>.

Vulture.com, Late-Night Monologues Aren’t Perfect But They Are Necessary – They’re Just Not for
You, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/defense-of-the-late-night-monologue.html>.

Wikipedia.org, The Tonight Show, Accessed 11 July 2016, from

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tonight_Show>.

Youtube.com, Tonight Show-clip from the first episode, Accessed 11 July 2016, from
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8AYUfBt1dE>.

67