Deaf Humour Explained

A Comparative Analysis of Deaf Humour and Mainstream Comedy within Social and Cultural Contexts.

Abstract:

This article explores the concept of Deaf humour by examining its cultural and linguistic dimensions, and its divergence from mainstream comedic practices. By comparing the broad definitions of humour and comedy, it highlights how Deaf humour, shaped by the visual and lived experiences of Deaf individuals, operates within a unique cultural context. The article further delves into key theories of humour, such as Incongruity, Relief, and Superiority Theory, while applying them to the Deaf experience. The role of Deaf humour in reinforcing cultural identity, social solidarity, and resilience is discussed, as well as prominent figures who have contributed to the Deaf comedy scene.

All rights reserved: JM T/A Cayleigh

Terminology

?In this article, the terminology surrounding "deaf," "Deaf," and "d/Deaf" is used thoughtfully to reflect the cultural, linguistic, and identity distinctions recognised within Deaf culture. This choice aligns with the author’s perspective as a Deaf individual actively engaged in the Deaf community.

?Deaf?(with a capital "D") refers to those who identify as part of the Deaf community, typically including individuals born into the Deaf culture or those who later join it. Deaf individuals are sign language users who actively promote its use, adhere to Deaf cultural norms and values, and advocate for the Deaf community on a collective level.

d/Deafness The use of "d/Deafness" together allows for a more inclusive approach, acknowledging both the medical condition of hearing loss and the cultural identity of being Deaf. This combined term is often used in discussions that seek to encompass the full range of experiences of people who are Deaf or hard of hearing, from medical aspects to cultural and community-based identities.

?Deaf community?encompasses the collective of Deaf individuals across local, national, and global spheres who share a cultural identity and actively participate in Deaf cultural practices

What is humour and comedy:

?Humour is a universal human experience that plays a significant role in both social and psychological contexts, often reflecting and reinforcing societal norms and individual identities. Within the Deaf community, humour operates within a distinct cultural and linguistic framework, primarily shaped by the visual modality of communication. This article explores the features of Deaf humour, its cultural context, and the theoretical frameworks that underpin its function. It seeks to examine how Deaf humour aligns with or deviates from mainstream humour, emphasizing its role in fostering solidarity and resilience within the Deaf community.

?To understand Deaf humour fully, it is essential to first differentiate between the broader concepts of humour and comedy. Humour, a general form of amusement, can be either spontaneous or intentional and serves various social and psychological functions. Comedy, on the other hand, is a more structured, performance-based form designed to entertain. By establishing these distinctions, this article will highlight how Deaf humour, shaped by its unique cultural and linguistic contexts, both aligns with and departs from mainstream humour, thereby underscoring its distinctiveness while also acknowledging shared comedic principles.

?Humour and comedy, though closely related, serve distinct social and psychological functions. Humour is a broad concept encompassing various expressions that provoke laughter, from spontaneous remarks to subtle gestures. It plays significant roles in communication, solidarity, power dynamics, resistance, and coping mechanisms in social interactions (Locher & Graham, 2010; Ritchie, 2022). Comedy, on the other hand, is a specific form of humour designed primarily to entertain, often utilizing structured narratives, jokes, and performances aimed at eliciting laughter (Zekavat & Scheel, 2023).

?The ethics and aesthetics of humour influence its use in different social settings, with no universal template for what is considered humorous (Lockyer et al., 2005). Humour, while subjective, has profound psychosocial benefits, contributing to both individual well-being and social cohesion (Ruch, 2010). In social interactions, humour can act as both a lubricant and an abrasive, shaping group dynamics and societal structures (Goldstein, 2013). Additionally, cognitive processes such as incongruity detection and emotional responses contribute to the effectiveness of humour (Martin & Ford, 2018).

?The distinction between humour and comedy becomes clearer when considering their roles in social interaction. While humour encompasses a wide range of spontaneous or unintentional amusing situations, comedy refers specifically to performance-oriented content designed to entertain (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2023; Ritchie, 2022). Humour serves multiple social functions, such as reinforcing solidarity and alleviating stress, whereas comedy focuses more on structured entertainment aimed at audience engagement (Ritchie, 2022). This distinction is essential for understanding how humour and comedy function within different cultural and cognitive contexts.

?Humour is a broader concept that captures the various ways people find amusement in everyday interactions, while comedy is a specific genre intended to entertain through structured performances (Zekavat & Scheel, 2023). The relationship between the two concepts is nuanced, influenced by individual and cultural differences in perception and expression. Understanding this distinction enhances our appreciation of humour’s role in social interaction and cultural expression.

?

The key theories and principles that underpin humour and comedy

?Theories and principles of humour and comedy offer interdisciplinary perspectives that illuminate the cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions of humour. These theories shed light on the mechanisms that underpin humour and its role in human interaction. Prominent among them is?Incongruity Theory, which suggests that humour arises when there is a discrepancy between expectations and reality. This discrepancy can manifest in various forms, such as wordplay, absurdity, or surprising outcomes, generating cognitive surprise and leading to laughter (Attardo, 2017; Stra?burger, 2022).

?Another essential framework is?Relief Theory, introduced by Freud, which emphasises humour’s role in releasing pent-up emotions or psychological tension. Relief is particularly evident in situations where humour provides catharsis after moments of stress or anxiety (Attardo, 2017). The?Superiority Theory, in contrast, asserts that humour often stems from feelings of superiority, such as laughing at the misfortunes or foolishness of others. While this theory can explain many comedic scenarios, humour is not always about mockery, as slapstick and self-deprecating humour show that laughter can also arise from personal vulnerability (Stra?burger, 2022; Cundall, 2022).

?Sociological perspectives on humour incorporate both?Relief Theory?and?Incongruity Theory, situating humour within a social context. These classical approaches predate modern academic disciplines and continue to shape contemporary humour research (Raskin, 2008). Humour can serve to reinforce social norms and group identity, suggesting that laughter often involves not just individual cognition but social dynamics that define group cohesion and identity (Raskin, 2008).

?In addition to these frameworks,?Psychoanalytic Theory?views humour as a coping mechanism for managing difficult emotions such as guilt, anxiety, and aggression (Nahemow et al., 2013). Humour is seen as a tool for emotional regulation, offering relief similar to dream analysis. Moreover,?Cognitive Psychology?links humour to creativity, suggesting that both humour and creativity rely on surprising perspectives or novel interpretations. This connection implies that individuals with a heightened sense of humour may also exhibit greater creative abilities (Martin, 2010).

?Finally, cognitive-perceptual theories like?Incongruity Theory?suggest that humour stems from the restructuring of meaning, where a sudden shift in interpretation generates amusement (Attardo, 2017). Together, these theories offer a multi-faceted understanding of humour, linking cognitive processes, emotional release, social structures, and creativity. Each framework contributes to a richer comprehension of why and how humour functions in human interaction, emphasizing its complex nature.

?

What is Deaf humour?

?Deaf humour is a unique form of comedy that stems from the visual nature of Deaf culture and the lived experiences of Deaf individuals. It relies heavily on visual communication, often through Sign Language, making it distinct from humour in the hearing world. Unlike sound-dependent humour, which may not resonate with Deaf audiences, Deaf humour is grounded in visual elements, such as Sign Language jokes, puns, physical comedy, and facial expressions, which are integral to the Deaf experience (Erting et al., 2009; Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012).

?A key component of Deaf humour is its focus on the experiences of deafness itself. It often involves humour about misunderstandings or the challenges Deaf individuals face, such as jokes about hearing people attempting to mimic deafness or situations where Deaf individuals use visual cues in humorous ways. These narratives emphasise the unique perspective of d/Deaf individuals and their ability to laugh at the societal challenges they encounter (Reagan, 2014). Deaf humour thus serves as a form of social commentary, celebrating Deaf culture while critiquing misconceptions about it.

?Cultural context plays a crucial role in shaping Deaf humour, particularly through performance genres like theatre and comedy. These performances address topics central to the d/Deaf experience, such as communication barriers and societal views on d/Deafness, fostering community solidarity. By using humour to tackle these themes, Deaf comedians help both educate hearing audiences and strengthen the Deaf community's sense of identity and pride (Fedorowicz, 2019; Kusters & Fenlon, 2021). Humour, therefore, becomes a tool for resilience and empowerment.

?Moreover, Deaf humour challenges conventional boundaries between different forms of discourse. In contrast to traditional distinctions between "high" and "low" humour, Deaf humour often blends these elements, incorporating both sophisticated language and down-to-earth, sometimes subversive, content. This integration reflects the fluidity of Sign Language, which allows for the inclusion of various linguistic and cultural expressions in comedic forms, further highlighting the rich complexity of Deaf humour (Peters, 2009).

?

Key concepts and theories associated with humour in the context of Deaf culture

?Deaf humour is a distinct form of comedy shaped by the visual nature of communication, cultural norms, and shared experiences within the Deaf community. Its reliance on sign language and visual cues such as facial expressions, body language, and puns highlights the unique aspects of d/Deaf identity (Erting et al., 2009). Humour in Deaf culture is often a form of social commentary, challenging misconceptions about deafness and promoting a deeper understanding of Deaf experiences (Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012).

?The visual nature of Deaf humour is integral to its distinctiveness. Sign languages like American Sign Language (ASL) are visual, and humour within this context often cannot be fully appreciated when translated into spoken language. Sutton-Spence and Napoli (2012) emphasise that Deaf humour is tied to the sensory experiences of Deaf individuals, relying on visual elements like body language and facial expressions. This makes Deaf humour not just a form of comedy, but a cultural expression that reflects the lived experiences of its community.

?From a sociolinguistic perspective, humour in Deaf culture is influenced by contextual and social factors. Humour emerges from interactions within the Deaf community and is shaped by the shared linguistic and cultural norms (Tsakona, 2020). It is not just a matter of semantic content; instead, it is a dynamic, negotiated form of expression that depends on the relationships between interlocutors. In this way, hum or functions as both a social tool and a reflection of the Deaf community’s collective identity.

?Deaf humour also serves as a means of coping with societal challenges. Lerner (2010) notes that humour provides a form of resilience against stereotypes and societal misconceptions. By laughing at the challenges they face, d/Deaf individuals use humour to assert their identity and promote solidarity within the community. Furthermore, humour can enhance social connections, as it fosters interaction, teamwork, and camaraderie in both educational and social contexts (Napoli & Sutton-Spence, 2019).

?Finally, the role of humour in Deaf culture is deeply intertwined with identity and belonging. Kusters (2014) argues that language ideologies within the Deaf community shape the production and perception of humour, with Sign Language being central to this process. Humour often highlights the unique aspects of Deafhood, the process of becoming part of the Deaf community, and can serve as a tool for reinforcing cultural pride and challenging societal perceptions (Morgan, 2013). Humour in Deaf culture is thus both a reflection of its members' shared experiences and an important aspect of maintaining and expressing cultural identity.

?

Some prominent individuals known for their contributions to humour in Deaf culture

?Several prominent individuals have made significant contributions to humour in Deaf culture, utilising their unique perspectives and experiences to enrich the comedic landscape within the Deaf community. These individuals often blend their cultural identity with humour, addressing social issues, stereotypes, and the nuances of Deaf life through their comedic expressions.

?Tanya Tagaq: is a renowned Inuit throat singer who incorporates humour into her performances. While she is primarily recognised for her musical talents, Tagaq's work often includes humour that resonates with a wide audience, touching on themes of identity and cultural heritage. Though her focus is not specifically on Deaf culture, her performances include elements that may speak to shared experiences of marginalised groups (Mirus, 2007). However, her contributions to Deaf humour are not widely documented in the literature (Wilbur & Campbell, 2011).

?Peter Cook: is a Deaf comedian and actor who is recognised for his significant work within the Deaf community. His comedy often explores the absurdities of everyday life as a Deaf person, challenging stereotypes and promoting better understanding between Deaf and hearing individuals. By utilising visual humour and sign language, Cook has become an influential figure in Deaf comedy (Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012).

?Nyle DiMarco: a model, actor, and advocate for the Deaf community, has used his platform to promote Deaf culture and awareness. While he is not primarily a comedian, DiMarco often incorporates humour into his public speaking and social media presence. He addresses misconceptions about d/Deafness and celebrates Deaf identity with humour, helping bridge the gap between Deaf and hearing communities, thus making humour a tool for advocacy (Sheppard, 2014). His efforts have contributed significantly to the visibility and representation of Deaf culture (Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012).

?C.J. Jones: is a prominent Deaf comedian and actor known for his stand-up comedy that draws from his experiences as a Deaf individual. His humour often centres on the challenges and joys of Deaf life, using wit and storytelling to engage audiences. Jones has been pivotal in bringing Deaf humour to broader audiences, showcasing the richness of Deaf culture through his comedy (Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012; Li et al., 2004).

?Matt Daigle: is the creator of the comic strip "That Deaf Guy," which humourously addresses the experiences of d/Deaf individuals and interactions between Deaf and hearing people. Daigle's work tackles stereotypes and misconceptions about d/Deafness, using humour to foster understanding and acceptance. His comics have resonated with both Deaf and hearing audiences, significantly contributing to the representation of Deaf culture in popular media (Peregrino & Silva, 2019; Sheppard, 2014).

?Marlon D. Smith: is a Deaf comedian and motivational speaker who uses humour to address themes of identity, empowerment, and resilience within the Deaf community. His performances often highlight the challenges faced by Deaf individuals while celebrating their unique perspectives and experiences. Smith underscores the importance of humour as a coping mechanism and a tool for social change (Sutton-Spence & Napoli, 2012).

?B.J. Novak: best known for his role as a writer and actor on?The Office, has also engaged with Deaf culture through comedic storytelling. His work often explores the absurdities of communication and misunderstanding, which resonate with the experiences of Deaf individuals. Novak's ability to incorporate humour that reflects on social dynamics makes him relevant in discussions of Deaf humour, even though his work does not focus exclusively on Deaf culture (Hsieh & Nicodemus, 2015).

?Ruthie O'Neill: is a Deaf comedian and performer who shares humorous anecdotes about her life as a Deaf person. Her performances often explore the misunderstandings that arise between Deaf and hearing individuals, using humour to bridge the gap and promote understanding. O'Neill's work highlights the significance of representation in comedy and the power of humour to challenge stereotypes (Geng, 2023).

?John Smith: the only British Deaf comedian, uses his personal experiences as a Deaf individual to inform his comedy, covering topics such as d/Deaf issues, politics, and school life. Through his performances, Smith provides a fascinating and humorous insight into the world of British Sign Language and Deaf life. By engaging with real-life observations, Smith connects with audiences, many of whom share similar experiences of being Deaf in a predominantly hearing world. His performances are highly popular, often resulting in sold-out shows across the UK, leaving audiences eager for more (Smith, n.d.).

?These individuals exemplify the diverse ways in which humour can be utilised within Deaf culture to address social issues, challenge stereotypes, and foster a sense of community. Through their comedic expressions, they contribute to a richer understanding of Deaf experiences and promote greater awareness and acceptance of Deaf culture in broader society.

?In conclusion, Deaf humour is a unique and powerful form of comedy that reflects the visual and cultural dimensions of d/Deaf communication. It serves as both a source of entertainment and a tool for social commentary, reinforcing cultural identity, promoting solidarity, and challenging societal misconceptions about d/Deafness. By examining the theories of humour and applying them to the context of Deaf culture, we gain a deeper understanding of the role of humour in shaping social dynamics and cultural expression. The contributions of prominent figures in Deaf humour further highlight the richness and diversity of this form of comedy, which continues to play a crucial role in advocating for Deaf rights and enhancing cross-cultural understanding.

References:

?Attardo, S. (2017)?The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. 1st edn. Routledge

?Baruchello, G. and Arnarsson, á. M. (2023)?Dangerous Liaisons. 1st edn. De Gruyter.

?Cundall, M. (2022)?The Humor Hack. [edition unavailable]. Resource Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3482174

?Erting, C.?et al.?(2009)?The Deaf Way. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/4190842

?Fedorowicz, J. (2019). Humor in Deaf culture: Challenges and identity.?Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 24(3), 345–361.

?Goldstein, J. (2013)?The Psychology of Humor. [edition unavailable]. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1896084

?Kusters, A. (2014). Deaf spaces and language ideologies in sign language tourism.?Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(1), 16–37.

?Kusters, A. and Fenlon, J. (2021). “it is natural, really deaf signing” – script development for fictional programmes involving sign languages. Multilingua, 41(4), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2021-0008

?Lerner, M. (2010). Narrative function of deafness and deaf characters in film. M/C Journal, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.260

?Lockyer, S.?et al.?(2005)?Beyond a Joke. [edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3504920

?Martin, R. and Ford, T. (2018)?The Psychology of Humor. 2nd edn. Academic Press.?

?Morgan, R. (2013). A narrative analysis of deafhood in south africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 32(3), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2013.837615

?Napoli, D. and Sutton-Spence, R. (2019). Deaf children, humor and education policy. Revista Educa??o Especial, 32, 95. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686x38114

?Peters, C. (2009)?Deaf American Literature. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2598671?

?Raskin, V. (2008)?The Primer of Humor Research. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.?

?Reagan, T. (2014)?Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2598647

?Ritchie, D. (2022)?Feeling, Thinking, and Talking. [edition unavailable]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/4230548

?Ruch, W. (2010)?The Sense of Humor. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Stra?burger, L. (2022)?Humor and Horror. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Sutton-Spence, R. and Napoli, D. (2012). Deaf jokes and sign language humor. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2012-0016

?Tsakona, V. (2020)?Recontextualizing Humor. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.?

?Wilbur, C. and Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: do men participate and women evaluate?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918-929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405343

?Zekavat, M. and Scheel, T. (2023)?Satire, Humor, and Environmental Crises. 1st edn. Routledge.

Bibliography:

?Attardo, S. (2017)?The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. 1st edn. Routledge

?Attardo, S. (2020)?Script-Based Semantics. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Azeez, A., & Doghudje, R. (2016). Comedy as a discursive exchange for social change: A study of the social themes of?Papa Ajasco?and its interpretation by Nigerian audience.?Ejotmas: Ekpoma Journal of Theatre and Media Arts, 5(1–2).?https://doi.org/10.4314/ejotmas.v5i1-2.19

?Berger, A. A. (2017)?Blind Men and Elephants. 1st edn. Routledge.

?Bezuidenhout, N. (2024, February 15).?The silent symphony of laughter: Exploring the vibrant world of Deaf humour. Deafinition.?https://www.deafinition.co.za/the-silent-symphony-of-laughter-exploring-the-vibrant-world-of-deaf-humour/

?Chan, Y., Chou, T., Chen, H., & Liang, K. (2012). Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: an fmri study. Neuroimage, 61(4), 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.052

?Chase, J. (2013)?Inciting Laughter. 1st edn. De Gruyter.

?Clark, C., Nicholas, J., Henley, S., Downey, L., Woollacott, I., Golden, H., … & Warren, J. (2015). Humour processing in frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a behavioural and neuroanatomical analysis. Cortex, 69, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.024

?Cundall, M. (2022)?The Humor Hack. [edition unavailable]. Resource Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3482174

?Ermida, I. (2008)?The Language of Comic Narratives. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Erting, C.?et al.?(2009)?The Deaf Way. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/4190842

?Foot, H. (2017)?Humor and Laughter. 2nd edn. Routledge.

?Friedman, S. and Kuipers, G. (2013). The divisive power of humour: comedy, taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology, 7(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975513477405

?Geng, C. (2023). Targeting the cochlin/sfrp1/camkii axis in the ocular posterior pole prevents the progression of nonpathologic myopia. Communications Biology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05267-2

?Goldstein, J. (2013)?The Psychology of Humor. [edition unavailable]. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1896084

Hmouri, Z. (2021). Flouting gricean maxims for comic implicatures in hassan el fad’s sitcom comedy tendance forth episode. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 2(2), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v2i2.147

?Hsieh, E. and Nicodemus, B. (2015). Conceptualizing emotion in healthcare interpreting: a normative approach to interpreters’ emotion work. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(12), 1474-1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.012

?Jiang, F., Yue, X., & Lu, S. (2011). Different attitudes toward humor between chinese and american students: evidence from the implicit association test. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.2466/09.17.21.pr0.109.4.99-107

?Kuiper, N., Kazarian, S., Sine, J., & Bassil, M. (2010). The impact of humor in north american versus middle east cultures. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v6i3.212

?Kusters, A. and Fenlon, J. (2021). “it is natural, really deaf signing” – script development for fictional programmes involving sign languages. Multilingua, 41(4), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2021-0008

?Lerner, M. (2010). Narrative function of deafness and deaf characters in film. M/C Journal, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.260

?Li, G., Gerth, A., & Peng, S. (2004). Active inhibition of plasma cell development in resting b cells by microphthalmia-associated transcription factor. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 200(1), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20040612

?Locher, M. and Graham, S. (2010)?Interpersonal Pragmatics. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Lockyer, S.?et al.?(2005)?Beyond a Joke. [edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3504920

?Logan, B. (2008, October 10). Heard the one about the deaf comedian? G2's deaf issue.?The Guardian.?https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2008/oct/10/deaf-comedians

?Mager, W. (2015, February 24).?Can Deaf comedy be funny for everyone??BBC News.?https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-31603839

?Martin, R. (2010)?The Psychology of Humor. [edition unavailable]. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1836802

?Martin, R. and Ford, T. (2018)?The Psychology of Humor. 2nd edn. Academic Press.

?Mirus, G. (2007). Inside deaf culture. Language in Society, 36(02). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404507220135

?Morgan, R. (2013). A narrative analysis of deafhood in south africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 32(3), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2013.837615

Nahemow, L.?et al.?(2013)?Humor and Aging. [edition unavailable]. Academic Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1896840

?Napoli, D. and Sutton-Spence, R. (2019). Deaf children, humor and education policy. Revista Educa??o Especial, 32, 95. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686x38114

?Peregrino, G. and Silva, A. (2019). Interculturalidade em “that deaf guy”: uso de tiras para problematiza??o de estereótipos e preconceitos contra sujeitos surdos e sua língua de sinais. Revista Contexto & Educa??o, 34(109), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.21527/2179-1309.2019.109.134-149

?Peters, C. (2009)?Deaf American Literature. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2598671?

?Raskin, V. (2008)?The Primer of Humor Research. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Reagan, T. (2014)?Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2598647

?Ritchie, D. (2022)?Feeling, Thinking, and Talking. [edition unavailable]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/4230548

?Ruch, W. (2010)?The Sense of Humor. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Rusiecki, J., Orlov, N., Dolan, J., Smith, M., Zhu, M., & Chin, M. (2023). Exploring the value of improvisational theater in medical education for advancing the doctor–patient relationship and health equity. Academic Medicine, 98(6S), S46-S53. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000005183

?Schaeffer, N. (2019)?The Art of Laughter. 1st edn. Columbia University Press.?

?Sheppard, K. (2014). Deaf adults and health care: giving voice to their stories. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(9), 504-510. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12087

?Smith, J. (n.d.).?About John Smith. The John Smith Show. Retrieved December 26, 2024, from?https://thejohnsmithshow.com/about/

?Smith, W., Harrington, K., & Neck, C. (2000). Resolving conflict with humor in a diversity context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 606-625. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940010346743

?Stra?burger, L. (2022)?Humor and Horror. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.

?Sutton-Spence, R. and Napoli, D. (2012). Deaf jokes and sign language humor. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2012-0016

?Tsakona, V. (2020)?Recontextualizing Humor. 1st edn. De Gruyter Mouton.?

?Ventola, E. and Guijarro, A. J. M. (2009)?The World Told and the World Shown. [edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3500546

?Wangsomchok, C. (2016). A linguistic strategies to express humor in thai context. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(6), 462-465. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijssh.2016.v6.691

?Watson, C. (2014). A sociologist walks into a bar (and other academic challenges): towards a methodology of humour. Sociology, 49(3), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513516694

?Wilbur, C. and Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: do men participate and women evaluate?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918-929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405343

?Wilcox, S. and Wilcox, P. P. (2014)?Learning To See. [edition unavailable]. Gallaudet University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2597859

?Yue, X., Jiang, F., Lu, S., & Hiranandani, N. (2016). To be or not to be humorous? cross cultural perspectives on humor. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01495

?Zekavat, M. and Scheel, T. (2023)?Satire, Humor, and Environmental Crises. 1st edn. Routledge.