Faculty
Professor Lita Lundquist, Professor Ole Fogh Kirkeby, Professor Anker Brink Lund

Course Coordinator
Professor Lita Lundquist

Basic knowledge of and/or interest in language and sociology

Cross-cultural communication implies a host of possible barriers, not least in professional settings. Language, culture, mentality, and social norms ruling in work situations all add to putting successful communication at risk. For any cross-linguistic and cross-cultural interaction there may be differences on several dimensions, e.g. for instance systematic differences between languages, considerable differences in mentality and social behaviour as determined by different roles and stereotypes, which all may stem from different processes of civilisations in the respective countries. Thus, there seems to be multiple barriers preventing communication between actors from two language communities to ever be successful. There are, however, also factors, which may contribute to creating shared worlds between participants from different countries, and it is my hypothesis that humour is one of them. In this course, the main aim is to study whether the hypothesis holds that humour can neutralize linguistic and cultural barriers and create a shared world, if only momentarily.

In the course, the use of humour (different kinds of humour, spontaneous humor, irony, etc.) in specific language- and culture interactions (e.g. Danish vs. English, French, German, Spanish) will be studied within different theoretical frameworks: linguistics (Raskin, Attardo, Lundquist, Pinker), psychology (Freud, James, Damasio), philosophy (Bergson, Høffding, Rorty, Kirkeby) and sociology, with a focus on national differences in work situations, business negotiation and marketing strategies (Hofstede, Schramm-Nielsen; D’Iribarne, Jan Molin, Ole Kierkeby). The overall theoretical aim is to link linguistics and sociology, and to put to test the hypothesis that systematic differences in language structure (lexicon, syntax, text and argumentation) are linked to systematic differences in national identity (as e.g. Danish ‘pragmaticism’ as opposed to French ‘cartesianism’), which again can be spotted as differences in organization of work situations.

A methodological aim is to introduce students to qualitative interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann). The participants will have to carry out and present analyses of interviews in which they make use of the different theoretical approaches, in order to point out effects of use of humour in professional settings in their respective language- and culture relations, and to explain these in the light of the theories presented.

The outcome of the course depends on the student’s active participation – in presenting theories and using linguistic and sociological concepts in analysing interviews, with the aim of explaining the use of and reactions to humour in real life professional settings. Students will be asked within few weeks to actively participate in making interviews, the presentation of which will count as 10% of the final exam. The chief objective is to develop the participant’s competence within cultural intelligence.

Ø Tape and analyse interviews of real life professional situations

Ø Identify the effects – positive and or negative – of using humour in professional settings, business negotiations and effective marketing

Ø Explain the effects of using humour by means of concepts from linguistics, psychology and sociology

Ø Evaluate the role of emotions in professional settings

Ø See relations between language, organization of work situations and national identity

Ø Relate language to society and linguistics to sociology

Ø Develop cultural intelligence

48 hours take-home examination consisting of an essay (3 pages) on a given topic, involving analysis of cases of humour together with a questionnaire (10 questions) testing the mastering of the different theoretical approaches.

Selected chapters/pages from the following texts:

Obligatory reading

Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Freud, Sigmund. 2001. The Joke and its Relation to the Unconsciousnes. N.Y.: Penguin Books.

Gundelach, Peter. 2000. "Joking relationships and national identity in Scandinavia." Acta Sociologica 43 no. 2:113-122.

Hofstede, Geert ; Usunier, Jean-Claude , 2003. Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture and their Influence on International Business Negotiations. In International business negotiations, Pervez N. Ghauri og Jean-Claude Usunier (Ed).

James, William. 1884. "What is an Emotion?" Mind 9:188-205.

Kvale, Steinar and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. InterViews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Inc.

Lundquist, Lita. 2009. "Humour as a mediator in cross-cultural professional settings. Examples from Danish and French." CBP Working Papers 66.

Lundquist, Lita. 2010. “Humour in intercultural professional settings. A shortcut to language, cognition and identity”. In I. Korzen (ed.) Lingua, cognitizione e identità. Firenze: Presses Università di Firenze.

Facultative reading

Bergson, Henri. 1981. Le rire. Essai sur la signification du comique. 399th ed. Paris: Quadrige/PUF.

Chafe, Wallace L. 2007. The Importance of Not Being Earnest. The feeling behind laughter and humor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

D’Iribarne, P. et al. 1998.Cultures et mondialisation. Gérer par-delà les frontières. Paris: Seuil.

Hatch, Mary J. 1997. "Irony and the Social Construction of Contradiction in the Humor of a Management Team." Organization Science 8(3): 275-288.

Høffding, Harald. 1916. Den store Humor. København: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

Kirkeby, Ole Fogh , 2003. Er tillid en tilbøjelighed? : Om fænomenet tillid set i forhold til begreberne alvor, ironi, humor. Erhvervspsykologi, Vol. 1, nr. 1.

Molin, Jan. 2006. Selvironi som ledelseskompetence. Erhvervspsykologi, Vol. 4, nr. 1. 26-45.

Pinker, Steven. 2007. The Stuff of Thought. N.Y.: Penguin Books.

Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.