Stand-Up Comedy Formula Decoded

type size: [A] [A] [A]

April 12, 2007 — Stand-up comedy routines, which often only involve a lone comedian on a stage with a microphone, appear to be simple performances, but a new study reveals many acts follow a complex formula strengthened by multiple linguistic techniques.

If done incorrectly or with malice, such routines can lead to serious problems, as recently illustrated by comics Don Imus and Michael Richards. The techniques, however, also help to explain the success of entertainers like Robin Williams, Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle and Eddie Izzard, two of whose routines were analyzed for the study.

"He is a very complicated performer," author Douglas Glick said of Eddie Izzard, "especially when you see how many pages it took me to describe analytically what (is for Izzard) 2-3 minutes of material at the most."

The study has been accepted for publication in the journal Language & Communication.

Glick, an assistant professor of anthropology at Binghamton University in New York, explained that many modern stand-up routines follow three steps. The first Glick describes as "foregrounding," which is coming up with a concept or situation that is unexpected.

During the second step, the comic "sets up a comparison that sets up the joke."

The third "pay off" step occurs when the comic leads the audience to "discover something else about the context of the performance — either in the performance, as for Izzard, or from our general cultural knowledge — that makes the comparison between what we expected, and what happened, funny."

Throughout the steps, the comic may also use techniques such as chronotopes, which can include creating imaginary people that speak in real time, but yet are meant to exist in a different time and space.

"Poetic parallelisms" are another technique. They refer to when a comic "does the same thing again and again" with, in some instances, slight variations or different levels of extremity. "It is a method for creating meaning for the audience," Glick said.

To illustrate the formula, he described two Izzard routines. During the first, Izzard speaks in his own British voice and says, "We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. We just sailed around the world and stuck a flag in them."

He then personifies Britain as a spoiled child who speaks to the Indians. A Cockney-speaking character personifies the Indians. This section correlates with Glick’s first step.

Izzard then develops a conversation between the spoiled child and the Cockney, comprising the second step.

While underlying humor peppers the conversation, a final payoff comes with "Britain" saying, "No flag, no country. You can’t have one. That’s the rules that I’ve just made up!"

Izzard then moves onto a second sketch about the pilgrim’s colonial treatment of the Native Americans. It echoes the first routine, and therefore adds yet another dimension and further meanings to the performance.

Asif Agha, associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, told Discovery News that he believes "Glick’s analysis of the British comedian Eddie Izzard is an important step in analyzing how such humor works, why it is socially acceptable, and why it appeals to so many people who otherwise find political issues to be remote from and even, to a degree, taboo."

Stephen Straight is a professor of anthropology and linguistics, as well as a vice provost, at Binghamton. He agreed the analysis helps show how humor works, but he points out it can also go awry, as during the recent Don Imus and Michael Richards events.

"The humor of comics typically depends upon constant and deliberate ambiguity of voice," Straight told Discovery News. "That is, in order to get the joke, a receiver must understand that the humor-maker is speaking in more than one voice at the same time."

But there does seem to be a point where comics can cross a line from humor into hurt.

"Yes, Imus was speaking in the voice of an imaginary rapper, as proven by a choice of words completely alien to his usual on-air persona," Straight said, "but to accept these words as humorous, the listener has to be able to accept them simultaneously as an expression of Imus’ ‘real’ voice.

"Listeners rightly accuse Imus of having used, not merely mentioned, a foul, racist and sexist slur."