- Introduction
As I watch a comedy show, read any fictional literature, or listen to a song for the first time, I’m continuously awestruck by the creativity of artists. Not only does it take courage to put your work out there into the world, but to have the capacity for such complex creation seems like a gift few possess. However, while art can be deeply impactful, everyday use of language shows the unique skills people possess to produce new meaning. In daily dialogue, people communicate through jokes, puns, and endless forms of comedy. Comedic entertainment exists solely to make an audience laugh, and we use it ourselves to make life more joyful and unpredictable. One form of comedy is improvisational theater, in which language is used to delve into the absurd, hilarious, and everything in between. While improv is composed entirely on the spot, its structure, coupled with consistent practice, aids in developing reliable comedy for a given audience. By refining linguistic models through the lens of improvisational theater, the impact of environment on linguistic creativity can be gauged, and ultimately, we can uncover methods that foster the development of humor.
- Background on Linguistic Creativity
In the field of linguistics, the overarching term for the creative use of language is called “linguistic creativity.” Though it is universally recognized by linguists as a language hallmark, experts define linguistic creativity in several ways. Noam Chomsky, often referred to as “the father of modern linguistics,” defines linguistic creativity as “the ability of the ideal speaker in a homogenous speech community to combine a finite known stock of elements on the basis of a finite known stock of computational patterns” (Zawada 236). In other words, we integrate words and grammar structures we already know to produce creative language.
However, other linguists believe that Chomsky’s scope is limited. Britta Zawada, author of “Linguistic creativity from a Cognitive Perspective,” asserts that Chomsky’s generative view of linguistic creativity does not “account for creativity as the open-ended ability of all human beings to create and innovate in various ways” (Zawada 235). In her paper, Zawada redefines linguistic creativity to incorporate word-creation and the formation of new lexical meanings. She remarks that, “Linguistic creativity is primarily the activity of making new meaning by a speaker (in the broadest sense of the user of language in all forms and in all mediums), and the re-creation and re-interpretation of meaning(s) by a receiver” (Zawada 235). Utilizing her new definition, Zawada posits a continuum model of linguistic creativity. The continuum at one side is dependent on the existing mental lexicon and produces predictable outcomes. The opposite side is unpredictable and rooted in word-creation. The left, the conventional side, highlights Chomsky’s generative view, but the right includes Zawada’s alternative definition of linguistic creativity.
Though linguistic creativity is pervasive through all forms of communication, specific “instances may be motivated by a variety of reasons to be linguistically creative” (Zawada 240). We can pinpoint specific factors or motivations of linguistic creativity by analyzing various models of communication. For example, the format of literature stimulates individual style and flexibility, leading to high linguistic creativity. Similarly, in improv, the game format (detailed on page 8) and presence of an audience fosters strong linguistic creativity because of the structural and social pressures to produce humor and entertainment. By constructing a linguistic model for improvisational theater, we can show how the environment aids in high linguistic creativity.
- Background on Linguistic Models
Linguistic models can be created for various forms of communication based on the given activity taking place. Ferdinand de Saussure created what he titled a “cyclical and symmetrical model of oral interpersonal communication” where two speakers individually comprehend and respond to one another. This model, however, is limited when analyzing constant and complex communication in certain spheres of activity.
In response, M.M. Bakhtin, in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, presents an alternative model for speech communication (focused on oral speech). Bakhtin’s model revolves around a continual response and understanding between two speakers; there are no barriers between listening, understanding, and response. However, both Bakhtin’s and Saussure’s models of communication depend on the presence of at least two people, forming dialogic communication.
Along with cyclical and dialogic communication, Bakhtin proposes “speech genres.” Speech genres form when “each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of these utterances” (Bakhtin 60). Speech genres adapt to social context and serve important social and cultural functions. They are classified by use of particular language and stylistic features, traditions and norms, and the ways they serve specific audiences. Some examples are sermons, educational lectures, and news reports.
Additionally, Bakhtin defines the smallest unit of speech communication in his model as an “utterance,” which is marked by a change of speaker and carries a whole meaning. An utterance is a complex expression, shaped by many factors, and can take many different forms depending on the context of production. By utilizing Bakhtin’s theory of speech communication, we can begin to form a tailored model of language communication for improvisational theater and define the structures within which linguistic creativity is formed.
- Improvisational Theater
Improvisational theater is a sphere of activity in which people perform in front of an audience with the intention to entertain. Daniela Landert in her article “The spontaneous co-creation of comedy: Humor in improvised theatrical fiction” defines improv as “an art form in which performers improvise scenes spontaneously, without any time for planning and revision. The scenes are created collectively, and all performers share responsibility for the scene” (Landert 69). Landert’s paper posits two important connections. Firstly, she compares improv to spontaneous conversation, opening the possibility of creating a communicative model for improv. Secondly, Landert asserts that humor strategies which improv employs “are closely related to the characteristics of the communicative framework” (Landert 68). This idea can be developed to say that the communicative structure of improv fosters elevated levels of linguistic creativity, which results in humor.
At Dartmouth, I am a member of an improv group, Casual Thursday. Fifteen of us play a variety of improv games, practice three times a week, and perform in front of our peers. Improv is like chess; improvisers are always thinking ten steps ahead, predicting what their scene partner is going to say, welcoming absurdity and elaborate character choices, and then building off that. However, along with momentary choices, there are structures and rules in place that develop “good” improv. Landert asserts that “close observation, interpretation of contributions by the scene partner, and meaningful reactions to them are the basic building blocks of improvised theater” (Landert 70). She also discusses “verbal wit” and the creation of characters and plots, which rely on prominent levels of linguistic creativity, all formulated in front of an audience. For example, when we ask the audience for a word to start a scene, we have a strategy called A to C. We do not want to go for the direct meaning of a word, but rather an unpredictable use. Instead of using “wave” as a wave of the hand, we may begin the scene by surfing or curling someone’s hair. This is one way the guidelines within improvisational theater aid in high levels of linguistic creativity.
Furthermore, strong linguistic creativity, which Zawada defines on her continuum as “irregular” and “unpredictable” (Zawada 246), is what makes improv a humorous activity. Landert writes that “absurdity creates humor” (Landert 84). Both Zawada and Landert discuss the out-of-the-blue form of linguistic creativity, but Landert names it humor. The sense of ridiculousness, unpredictability, and spontaneity is what keeps the audience engaged. Therefore, if us performers fail with linguistic creativity, we fail to achieve our objective: entertaining the audience.
- Linguistic Model for Improv
To identify what enhances the volume of linguistic creativity in improv, we can build a linguistic model, following the structure of Bakhtin’s linguistic model of speech communication. Firstly, the model of improv is inherently dialogic. This means that communication occurs between two or more people. In Landert’s definition of improv, she clarifies that “the scenes are created collectively, and all performers share responsibility for the scene” (Landert 69). However, in shows and even in practice, there is an added level of dialogue between improvisers and the audience, due to their “ability to provide feedback to the collective sender” (Landert 74). Therefore, while there is communication between actors, whether verbal or non-verbal, we are also having a conversation with the audience. We are performing for and with them, simultaneously. The audience is a member of the communication process because their laughter, applause, or silence immediately alters the product of our improvisation. Additionally, for short-form improv, there is usually a “caller” who is off-stage. The caller facilitates the game’s format, asks for a word from the audience to start a scene, and then calls the end of a scene. This creates a third layer of dialogue between the improvisers on-stage and the caller, as the caller must anticipate where the scene is headed. In improv, every aspect of the dialogic process is cyclical, following Bakhtin’s model of speech communication as “any understanding of live speech, a live utterance, is inherently responsive” (Bakhtin 68). There is no ending or beginning in response, understanding, and action. While I am on stage, there is a system in my mind of comprehension working alongside production. I utilize my previous experience, my own style of humor, what my character would do, and what the audience wants to happen, along with a plethora of other items. At times, strong overlap and constant communication forces the structure of communication to become less cyclical, instead adopting a web-like form.
This connected system allows for independent creativity while still allowing collaboration; performers keep in mind what they want, what is expected to happen, and what other improvisers are doing. There are infinite outcomes. However, while improvisers constantly try to predict what their scene partner will do, unpredictability is what is funny for the audience, so improvisers must be able to think on their feet. The premise of unpredictability is outlined in improv’s speech genre: live and spontaneous comedic entertainment. The speech genre establishes a stable form, where performers produce for an audience. The activity aims to make the audience laugh, forcing the communication to have a stable humorous product and consistency in style and tone. In this case, speech genres and linguistic creativity work hand-in-hand. Comedic entertainment of any form cannot exist without linguistic creativity, because then the audience would be experiencing language they have already been exposed to. There is no humor or amusement in redundant communication.
To enhance the presence of humor in improv, the linguistic model heavily relies on structure and rules, which play a similar role to grammar in general language use. The structure can be placed into three categories: C.R.O.W., scene types, and collaboration. Improvisers utilize C.R.O.W. (character, relationship, objective, where) to establish a strong background and the “world” that characters live in. These “worlds” are built within the 4 scene types: Straight/Absurd, Character Driven, Alternate Reality, and Realistic (we tend to avoid realistic due to difficulty to produce humor). Scene types outline character relationships and how the relationships are absurd. Lastly, there is a rule for agreement on stage, often known as “yes, and…” This structure is the building block of collaboration in improv, and it forces each
performer to consistently observe and respond. By themselves, these structures are not linguistically creative, but their presence exists in order to facilitate creativity in communication. During a scene, these three fundamentals are consistently in mind, and when deviated from, the level of linguistic creativity and humor is often diminished.
All these structures operate within the game we choose. Games offer constraints (i.e. limits on the number of improvisers, goals for the scene, the conflict), and are used for varieties of short-form and long-form improv. Specific games rely on different forms of linguistic creativity, and therefore, produce various kinds of humor. The complexity of the improvisational model forces “an improviser on stage [to be] an actor, playwright, and director, all at the same time” (Landert 74). In the game Charlie, an off-stage improviser named “Charlie” must be described by two on-stage performers, and then enter the scene at some point. Here, the two improvisers are acting, creating a new character, and predicting future events all at once. In games, improvisers make character choices –such as accents and physicality– while also developing dialogue and spatial work within the space, all centered in linguistic creativity. A performer must produce verbal wit, unpredictable language use, and establish absurd worlds, hence, linguistic creativity is a main skill of improvisational theater.
Finally, the root of any improv scene is one word, which is collected by the caller from the audience. It may be a random word or a location, but it is the job of the improviser to construct a world around one utterance, which Bakhtin defines as a “real unit of speech communion” (Bakhtin 67). The utterance holds meaning, but the performers must interpret it in a creative manner. This word is the basis of improv’s linguistic creativity, which has various layers; the performers utilize the given word and employ imagination in dialogue as games force creativity through structure. Linguistic creativity produces the humor we need to be successful as we construct worlds on stage in front of an audience.
- Analysis of Model
By analyzing the improv linguistic model, we can begin to understand the ways that linguistic creativity is heightened within the sphere of activity. As discussed above, linguistic creativity is a product of its environment. Zawada remarks that lexical creativity (an aspect of linguistic creativity), “account[s] for the notion that human beings can create new meaning as the need arises.” Lexical creativity is defined as a “property of language that allows humans to create new meanings and concepts through figurative language, irony, wordplay, [and] humor” (“What Is Lexical Creativity | IGI Global”). The right of Zawada’s linguistic creativity continuum includes lexical creativity, representing strong linguistic creativity, with Chomsky’s generative creativity on the left as weak linguistic creativity. Improv produces creativity along the full scope of the spectrum. The word suggestions given by the audience, and the concept of A to C, fall on the left of the spectrum. Improvisers take a word, and instead of giving it new meaning, we file through our mental lexicon for all interpretations, and choose one based on unpredictability or humorous effect.
The game Five On, Five Off exemplifies generative creativity. In the game, five improvisers off-stage are given a multifaceted word, such as “bit” or “match.” Then, one by one, they enter the stage, and apply a new meaning. For instance, an improviser enters, doing a solo scene with one meaning (i.e. lighting a match), then another claps to enter, and the two do a scene built of a new meaning (i.e. a tennis match), until all five are on stage. Here, linguistic creativity is the basis of amusement for the audience. Though Zawada defines the linguistic creativity in this game as weak (because it utilizes a pre-existing stock of elements and their meanings), it still supports the comedy genre by offering clever word interpretation. Zawada, in her primary definition of linguistic creativity includes the “re-interpretation of meaning(s) by a receiver” (Zawada 235), which occurs when the audience gives us a word and we adapt its meaning to produce a scene.
However, improv most often utilizes strong linguistic creativity. Improv does not facilitate word-creation (on the right of the continuum), but the use of metaphor and puns is absurd and irregular, and therefore high in creativity. In linguistic creativity, “less frequent and unusual instances include linguistic games and speech play (such as puns, riddles, and play languages)” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett & Backhouse, 1977), which is the strong variety used in improv. Within the processes of linguistic creativity, “the mental or conceptual making of new meaning” (Zawada 236) is built from our “background knowledge and life experience” (Landert 70). In improv, through rigorous practice, performers also know what to avoid and what to lean on when struggling, which benefits our creation of humor, along with other practices.
Another way to ensure humor is through consistent comedic schemes, and in “The Spontaneous Co-creation of Comedy,” Landert theorizes three “humor strategies” (Landert 68), that are “closely related to the characteristics of the communicative framework” of improvisational theater. Her analysis is significant because it connects linguistics models (“the communicative framework”) to linguistic creativity through its product: humor. Through further analysis of Landert’s humor strategies, short-form improv can be connected to the linguistic creativity that takes place.
- Linguistic Creativity through Humor Strategies
The first humor strategy that Landert proposes is “metafictional frame breaking.” This strategy “occurs whenever the performers refer to or comment on the fact that they are performing a piece of improvised theater” (Landert 75). In improvisational theater, this most often occurs when actors break the “fourth wall,” acknowledging the audience’s presence. This directs the focus away from the world the actors are in and towards the creative process. Breaking counters the audience’s expectations for the scene and introduces an abrupt switch in worlds (from fiction to present reality), which creates humor through unpredictability. When an improviser recognizes there is humor in breaking, linguistic creativity can be employed to bridge between the two worlds, by disrupting the standard communication established in the fictional.
At times, metafictional frame breaking is an aspect of the game being played, and other times, it is used to acknowledge mistakes within the scene. For example, if one improviser sets up a scene at a table, and then walks through it, the other improviser calling the mistake out is often seen as humorous. If an improviser were to exclaim, “Watch out man! Run into the table and you might bruise,” they would be using linguistic creativity because the statement is rooted in previous experience with pain, but its meaning adapts to suit the fictional world of improv.
Within certain games, speaking to the audience increases the dramatics and unpredictability of a scene. In a game called “Award Winning Moments,” the caller claps and initiates either an “Oscar on” (a monologue from one of the characters) or a “tony” of a certain line (the characters improvise a musical number). Here, the actors are acknowledging the audience in their monologues and break away from the scene to do a musical number. The wit of musical numbers and change in worlds while breaking the fourth wall are aspects of linguistic creativity due to the ways they give new meaning to originally mundane lines or actions. The participation of the audience in the improvisational model is what allows for this brand of linguistic creativity, and what offers comedy. Metafictional frame breaking demonstrates how linguistic creativity can be used to manipulate language beyond the usual examples of puns or transformed lexical meaning but can include “making new meaning” (Zawada 235) by adapting language to fit the given sphere of activity.
The second humor strategy that Landert outlines is “non-contrived humor;” in short, unintentional humor. This strategy is hard to diagnose in improv because the constant objective is to amuse the audience. However, there are times when the actors make mistakes that are humorous, and in some ways, create greater comedy than intentional humor. Non-contrived humor is not built into improv games but is either a symptom of rapid communication which leads to mistakes or personal style choices.
For example, one improviser in Casual Thursday often speaks in analogies, and though not intentionally humorous, it is a strategy high in linguistic creativity due to “metaphoricity,” or the existence of metaphors (Landert 238). Due to strong linguistic creativity, the audience sees it as an abnormal and unpredictable choice, and therefore, amusing. Another example is when one of our improviser’s was served calamari in a scene, but did not know what it was, so they exclaimed, “Calamari is fish eggs! These are bones!” Though not intended to be funny, their mistake led to high amusement from the audience. The linguistic creativity in these scenes is not deliberate, but still forms new meaning, because either improvisors unconsciously utilize weak linguistic creativity through odd lexical or semantic choices, or they use strong linguistic creativity by way of metaphoricity.
The last humor strategy that Landert theorizes is “co-construction of humorous exchanges.” In improvised theater, plots and dialogues are “created collaboratively by the performers,” and “two of the most important skills of an improviser involve listening to the contributions of the other performers and building up on them in a meaningful way” (Landert 81). Collaboration manifests in dialogic communication and within linguistic creativity, as “acts of linguistic creativity occur as part of an external and social communicative process” (Zawada 249). The framework of “yes and…” exemplifies partnership, as improvisers must agree with their scene partners, one example being character-driven scene types, where actors “offer a series of alternatives that are more extreme or absurd than the previous suggestion” (Landert 83). Linguistic creativity is at the helm in this humor strategy because it relies on quick response and unpredictable collaboration. The game Charlie (mentioned on page 8) forces agreement of the on-stage and off-stage improvisers. The two on-stage performers give Charlie traits, which then must be creatively adopted by the third improviser. The variation and interpretation in given traits is a strong hallmark of linguistic creativity because the improviser must integrate background knowledge through unpredictable communication.
- Conclusion
In improv, we have a concept called the “game.” It is not the game we are playing, but rather the humorous bit that we poke at; it is what is considered funny. Often, what is considered funny is inherently absurd. Whether it is an alternate universe where people know they will be resurrected, a group of kids all vying for the family fortune, or a crazed Tupperware salesperson getting too personal with customers, preposterous scenes are innately funny. This is why linguistic creativity is the backbone of humor, and therefore, improvisational theater.
Linguistic creativity is built on giving new meaning as the need arises, while also using existing language to find “new resonances” (Zawada 235). In Zawada’s continuum, the more absurd and unexpected is stronger linguistic creativity. Therefore, the more improvisers use strong linguistic creativity, in tandem with weak linguistic creativity, the greater their craft. Furthermore, linguistic creativity is a product of its environment. It is dependent on the current situation, and in improv, as actors search for a “game,” the stage is the perfect host. The model created for improvisational theater produces linguistic creativity and humor to please the audience and entertain.
My improv group, Casual Thursday, performs three to four times per term on campus, to an audience of our peers. There is a lot of pressure to succeed while improvising in front of familiar faces and it is not easily done. By setting experts such as Landert, Zawada, and Bakhtin in dialogue, we can recognize that improvisation is not a simple feat; improvisers must learn basic rules, keeping in mind many guidelines, all while being humorous. Many believe that improv is simple: we go on stage, blurt out words, and hope we say something funny. However, we create entire worlds, fictional characters, and dialogue on the spot. It is easy to underestimate the skill that performers possess, but by outlining the underlying linguistic mechanisms of spontaneous humor, one can begin to recognize the complexity of improv as a form of entertainment.
Bibliography
Bakhtin, M. M., et al. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University Of Texas Press, 2010.
Zawada, Britta. “Linguistic Creativity from a Cognitive Perspective.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, June 2006, pp. 235–54, https://doi.org/10.2989/16073610609486419. Accessed 9 Mar. 2020.
Landert, Daniela. “The Spontaneous Co-Creation of Comedy: Humour in Improvised Theatrical Fiction.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 173, Feb. 2021, pp. 68–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.007. Accessed 30 Jan. 2021.
“What Is Lexical Creativity | IGI Global.” Www.igi-Global.com, www.igi-global.com/dictionary/creative-discourse-as-a-means-of-exploring-and-developing-human-creativity/66375.
Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann, and Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. “Speech Play: Research and Resources for Studying Linguistic Creativity.” Language, vol. 53, no. 4, Dec. 1977, p. 953, https://doi.org/10.2307/412929. Accessed 15 May 2019.