Comedy out of tragedy: impoliteness as a ritual of entertainment

3.2.1 The opening act

In the opening act, context is first established, and the act itself is not considered impolite. However, this is discussed to provide a contextual understanding that serves as a precursor to the upcoming impolite strategies employed by JC. The provided excerpt exemplifies how JC employs a situational setup to create a foundation for humor. In the act, JC starts by providing historical context related to her country, Singapore. She mentions that after gaining independence from British rule, Singapore was initially a struggling nation. This information sets the stage by offering the audience a clear understanding of the background situation, building credibility and rapport with them (Attardo and Chabanne 1992; Greenbaum 1999). The introduction or set-up of a joke is ritualized and serves to set “the background against which and in reason of which the punch line appears” (Attardo and Chabanne 1992: 169), allowing the audience to relate to the circumstances and be on the same page before the punchline is delivered.

(0:00) JC: my country ↑Singapore after we ↑gained

(0:03) independence from the British (0.2) we were a

(0:04) struggling little nation (0.2) in order to

(0:06) ↑survive (.) we formed a ↑union with a ↑larger (.)

(0:08) more ↑powerful country (.) ↓Malaysia=

(0.08) An audience member: =WOOO! ((scream)) ((laughs))

Following that, JC introduces another layer to the context by mentioning that Singapore entered into a union with Malaysia for survival. Independence is generally linked to self-sufficiency, yet Singapore, after gaining independence, depended on Malaysia for its survival. This shift creates a comedic effect, through the unexpected mention of Malaysia. This reflects the principles of the incongruity theory of humor, which explains that comedy often comes from the gap between what is expected and what actually happens, especially when it occurs in a safe or non-threatening way (Attardo 1994; Berger 1976; Canestrari and Bianchi 2013; Dynel 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Larkin-Galiñanes 2017; Meyer 2000). As Attardo and Chabanne (1992) add, an object or idea is not humorous by itself, it becomes humorous only when placed in a situation that makes it seem out of place or inappropriate. This incongruity is therefore ritualized: the unexpected or inappropriate is deliberately framed within the performance structure, allowing the audience to interpret the disruption as intentional and comedic rather than offensive. The audience’s laughter at 0:09 suggests their recognition of this disruption, likely triggered by the irony of Singapore once relying on Malaysia, despite JC’s framing of Singapore as more powerful today. This irony becomes part of the evolving joke and sets the stage for what follows.

3.2.2 Impoliteness act I: dissociating

This act follows immediately after JC’s successful opening, where she has already completed the core elements of Rutter’s (2000) stand-up introduction sequence: establishing context. What follows now is a transitional moment that shifts from contextualization to audience engagement and the introduction of impoliteness through dissociation. In this act, JC engages in a playful interaction with the audience by asking a question about their origin, specifically whether they are from Malaysia or Singapore. However, her response to the audience member’s answer, “Malaysia”, includes a seemingly impolite phrase (“fuck you, assholes”).

(0.11) JC: where are you from? Malaysia or Singapore?

(0:13) An audience member: ↑Malaysia!

(0.15) JC:↑Malay::sia? okay oh yeah fuck you assholes! (h) (0.3)

(0.18) Audience: ((laughs))

Although the phrase appears offensive, it works as part of a common strategy in comedy where social rules are bent to create humor. This moment can be seen as a playful manipulation of Rutter’s (2000) “framing of response” and “evaluation of the comedian” steps. Having established herself as a credible voice through national identity and audience rapport, JC now reframes the audience’s interpretative stance – moving from shared context to provocative distance, a mark of dissociative impoliteness. The laughter that follows suggests that the audience understands this breach as intentional and humorous, reinforcing Rutter’s (2000) point that stand-up is a co-constructed event.

This kind of shift can be explained through dissociation, which is a strategy where a speaker distances themselves from the other, refusing to acknowledge shared beliefs, values, or perspectives (Culpeper 1996). This targets the other person’s “positive face”, their need for approval and mutual respect, undermining social harmony and making them feel excluded (Culpeper 1996). In this interaction, dissociation occurs in two ways: first, between linguistic impoliteness and the stand-up comedy setting; second, between the comedian, JC, and the audience.

The first dissociation involves suspending established social norms. Her shift from a polite inquiry to the insult “fuck you, assholes” (Culpeper 2011) creates a rupture between expected decorum and comedic transgression. This provokes laughter by exploiting surprise, distancing herself from the audience while framing the insult as humorous rather than personal. The shared understanding of this frame affirms the humor despite the impoliteness.

In the second type of dissociation, JC distances herself from the audience by saying “fuck you, assholes” after referencing her Singaporean origin, targeting a Malaysian audience and drawing on the historical tension between the two nations post-1965. Rather than expressing real hostility, she satirizes their strained relationship, aligning with Lau’s (1969) observation that both countries treated each other as politically and socially foreign. The insult “fuck you, assholes” reflects the bitterness often found in post-breakup relationships, emphasizing the transition from love to animosity. The ritualized use of impoliteness highlights the unresolvable bitterness that persists even after the relationship is over, reinforcing the theme of “breakup revenge”.

3.2.3 Impoliteness act II: mocking

Following the first impoliteness act, JC shifts from engaging with the audience to adopting deliberately abrasive footing. Here, JC employs a series of statements that involve a form of superiority assertion, through the use of mocking and pointed criticism, which plays a pivotal role in generating comedic impoliteness.

(0:19) JC: >when my prime minister went on TV to ↑ announce that you guys had dumped us (.) he

(0:21) ↑cried::: (.) < because he thought we’re not gonna

(0:23) ↑survive without ↑you::: (.). But ↑then forty years

(0:25) later::: we ↑became a ↑first ↑world ↑country (.)

(0:27) and you ↑guys::: (.) Malaysia what are you ↑NOW

(0:30) still a <developing country:::! ? (0.2)

(0.34) Audience: ((cheers)) ((laughs))

(0:34) JC: ↑Awwww! ::: ↑Boo!::: (0.2)

(0:40) ↑Fuck you ↑Malaysia!::: (0.2)

(0.41) Audience: ((laughs)) ((clapping))

A key strategy here is sarcasm and mock politeness (Culpeper 2005, 2011), seen in JC’s exaggerated delivery of “↑Awwww! ::: ↑Boo!:::”. While it may seem sympathetic, the tone turns it into a cutting remark targeting Malaysia’s perceived inferiority. Her mocking imitation of crying further ridicules Singapore’s former Prime Minister and highlights the past dependency on Malaysia, evoking the metaphor of a breakup where one partner doubts the other’s ability to cope alone. Crucially, JC’s performative “boo” acts as a reversed disaffiliative response, parodying the traditional role of booing as audience disapproval (Clayman 1993). By sarcastically directing it at the audience, she reclaims control and reinforces her authority, preemptively mocking them for perceived national shortcomings. This inversion illustrates how comedians can co-opt audience resistance as part of their routine. JC also employs personal criticism and negative evaluation to assert a hierarchy between nations, contrasting Singapore’s “first world” status with Malaysia’s continued development. This reinforces a sense of inadequacy aligning with Culpeper’s framework (1996) by undermining Malaysia’s positive face, the desire to maintain a favorable self-image.

The clearest instance of impoliteness appears in the personalized vocative “Fuck you, Malaysia!”, which illustrates bald on-record impoliteness (Culpeper 1996, 2011). Though overtly aggressive, the phrase functions as a performative tool within the comedic frame rather than genuine hostility. Like a triumphant ex mocking a former partner, JC’s joke highlights Singapore’s superiority over Malaysia, reinforcing lingering tensions. Drawing on superiority theory (Attardo 2008; Culpeper 2005), the humor arises from perceived inferiority, with audience laughter signalling recognition and alignment with the implied hierarchy.

3.2.4 Impoliteness act III: condescending

Similar to Section 3.2.3, this routine shows another impoliteness framing. By casting the Malaysia–Singapore split as a “breakup”, and positioning Singapore as the triumphant ex-partner, JC reframes the audience’s interpretative stance.

(0:43) JC: Isn’t that ↑best breakup revenge?::: (.)

(0.:45) ((crowd laughs))

(0:46) now ↑Malaysia you’re

(0:47) trying to come around like in <Eh:, Singapore::,

(0:48) you’re looking good lah::, (0.2)>

(0:51) and we’re like <I know::,?

The line, “Isn’t that the best breakup revenge”, frames the historical separation of the two countries as a humorous “breakup”, setting the tone for the ensuing jokes. This allows JC to align herself with Singapore, using the breakup metaphor to describe the perceived post-separation dynamics between the two countries. In this act, JC employs “patronizing behavior (including condescending, belittling, ridiculing, and demeaning behaviors): Producing or perceiving a display of power that infringes an understood power hierarchy (cf. Equity rights)” (Culpeper 2011: 109), by claiming Singapore and Malaysia are not equal in terms of progress. The line “now Malaysia you’re trying to come around like in <Eh:, Singapore::, you’re looking good lah::,” reinforces this, portraying Malaysia as a dependent ex-partner seeking validation from a more successful Singapore. JC reinforces the notion that Singapore has moved forward and Malaysia is trying to catch up: “(0:46) trying to come around like in Eh:, Singapore::, (0:48) you’re looking good lah::”. Here, the humor relies on a perceived imbalance of power or progress. By implying that Malaysia, the “ex-partner”, is coming back to admire Singapore’s successes, the joke diminishes Malaysia’s agency and casts it as a dependent figure trying to reconnect with its more successful “ex”.

Further, it is through this humor that JC marks her alliance with Singapore, as a fellow member of the group by claiming, “and we’re like I know::”. The specific use of “we” can be related to the social identity theory, which posits that the groups to which individuals feel they belong significantly shape their self-perceptions, identities, and interactions with others (Abrams and Hogg 1998; Billig and Tajfel 1973; Tajfel 1970, 1979, 1981; Tajfel and Turner 2004). Nevertheless, the incorporation of the colloquial particle “lah” mimics real-life conversation. By employing this linguistic device, she briefly alleviates the “conventions of reserve and politeness” (Goddard 1994: 160). This aspect emphasizes the playful nature of the act rather than it being construed as an aggressive attack.

3.2.5 Impoliteness act IV: external mismatching

In this subsequent act, JC builds on the previous setup to deliver a punchline that further highlights the power imbalance between Malaysia and Singapore.

(0:54) but why haven’t you ↑visit me in ↑40 ↑years:::?

(0:57) ↓Aiyah I tried::: but you know:: ↑, MY

(01:03) airplanes cannot fly:: ↑, (0.5).

(01:05) Audience: ((laughs))

Culpeper’s (2011) concept of non-conventionalized impoliteness, which relies on the disruption of conversational expectations rather than formulaic rude expressions, can be applied to analyze this excerpt. The speaker’s question “but why haven’t you ↑visit me in ↑40 ↑years:::?” seems confrontational and carries an implication of neglect. The marked intonation, particularly the exaggerated rise on visit and 40 years, hints at disapproval, placing the interlocutor in a defensive position. However, the response, “↓Aiyah I tried::: but you know:: ↑, MY airplanes cannot fly:: ↑”, subverts the expected trajectory of an apology or explanation. Instead, the speaker uses humor, marked by exaggerated phonetic features, rising intonation, and a mocking facial expression, to deflect the implicit accusation. This response aligns with context-driven impoliteness (external mismatch), wherein the reference to “MY airplanes cannot fly” clashes sharply with the real-world connotation of aviation safety, particularly in the wake of Malaysia Airlines’ tarnished reputation following the MH370 tragedy. The response reframes the failure to visit as contingent upon larger systemic issues (the failure of Malaysia Airlines). This shift exemplifies non-conventionalized impoliteness through its creative violation of expectations, simultaneously positioning Malaysia as a less successful entity within the theme of “breakup revenge”.

Importantly, the exchange shows ritualized impoliteness that is expected within the context of comedy. By referring to a well-known aviation tragedy and Malaysia’s national image, the speaker’s impoliteness becomes more than just a personal insult; it acts as a comment on broader cultural issues. The humor, therefore, does not only affect the relationship between the speakers, but also touches on shared concerns about national identity and public perception. Stand-up comedy often serves as a way for comedians to question social norms, criticize cultural values, and encourage reflection through humor (Greenbaum 1999). In this context, ritualized impoliteness helps the audience deal with uncomfortable social topics, and strengthens a sense of group belonging through shared laughter.

3.2.6 Impoliteness act V: extending

Following the punchline in the previous act, JC extends the joke by making another direct reference to the MH370 tragedy.

(01:06) JC: [↑WHAT? Malaysian Airlines going missing not funny ↑HUH::?

(01:10) Audience: ((laughs))]

(01:10) JC: some jokes don’t ↓land::= (0.7)

Culpeper’s (2011) concept of form-driven and context-driven impoliteness is evident here, particularly in an external mismatch, where the humor (the surface content of the joke) directly clashes with the cultural and historical context surrounding the event (the tragic disappearance of the Malaysian plane). JC’s attempt to make light of a tragedy intentionally breaks the expected convention of respectful acknowledgment, especially within public discourse around such an event. Additionally, the rising intonation at the end of “not funny huh” indicates the speaker’s challenge or provocation, forcing the audience to acknowledge the humor (whether they choose to accept or reject it) (cf. Queen 2005). This contributes to form-driven impoliteness, where the surface form of the language (a direct, blunt question in response to a somber topic) violates conversational expectations around sympathy or seriousness.

Despite the sensitive topic, the audience’s laughter reflects the dual nature of humor in this context. It signals a ritualized acceptance of uncomfortable humor, with the audience implicitly acknowledging the discomfort of the subject matter. In comedy, an implicit contract allows jokes to disrupt boundaries due to the agreed-upon context of entertainment, normalizing taboo subjects within specific cultural settings like stand-up comedy. While the exact cause of the laughter cannot be definitively determined, one possible explanation, aligned with Hay’s (2001) argument, is that laughter without reservations often signifies agreement with the conveyed message. In this case, the audience’s laughter may suggest their endorsement of the view that humor about the tragedy is inappropriate. However, another plausible explanation is that the audience simply finds the joke funny, independent of its underlying critique or alignment with any sentiment regarding the tragedy. This interaction reflects ritual identities, allowing the audience to express their reactions, be it agreement, amusement, or both, without direct confrontation.

There are two interpretations of JC’s line, “some jokes don’t ↓land::=”. First, it signals that the joke about Malaysia Airlines was not funny or did not resonate with the audience, highlighting that it failed to achieve the intended humor. Second, the use of “land” can be seen as a reference back to the earlier joke about Malaysia Airlines and the MH370 tragedy, where the plane, in a literal sense, failed to land. This reflects form-driven impoliteness (Culpeper 2011), where the failure to “land” the joke corresponds to an external mismatch between the tragic event and the comedic tone. The mention of “land” also aligns with non-conventionalized impoliteness in the form of a creative, albeit risky, violation of conversational and cultural norms. Here, the humor undermines the gravity of the tragedy, intensifying its offensiveness through its context-driven insensitivity. As a result, the audience audibly expresses surprise at JC’s approach, suggesting that the external context mismatch, where the tragedy is misaligned with the comedic response, may have elicited varied reactions.

(01:14) An audience member: =Oh what the ↑hell!

(01:16) An audience member: ↑Oh my ↑God::::

(01:18) this joke ↑kills in Singapore ((laughs))

(01:15) Audience: ((laughs))

The phrase “Oh what the ↑hell!” may indicate discomfort for some audience members or, alternatively, a reaction of sheer surprise rather than unease. This highlights the clash between the light-hearted intent of humor and the emotional weight of the tragedy for certain listeners. While laughter is present, the reaction also underscores how humor addressing deeply sensitive topics can create tension.

Finally, JC responds to the audience’s mixed or negative reaction with a deflection, reinforcing the ritualization of impoliteness. By claiming that the joke “kills in Singapore”, JC redirects the perceived failure of the joke to an external factor, specifically the cultural context of Singapore, suggesting that the joke works in a region with different social norms and standards for humor. This response is an attempt to reframe the joke’s failure by validating its appropriateness elsewhere, thereby distancing the joke from the negative reception. The phrase also works as an attempt to regain control over the situation and reassert confidence in the joke’s value. Additionally, the reference to Singapore could also imply a contrast between the two countries: as Singapore is seen as a prosperous, “successful ex”, the joke is more acceptable there, in contrast to Malaysia’s post-crisis reputation. Thus, JC uses Singapore as a cultural anchor to mitigate the discomfort created by the sensitive subject matter and position the joke within a more acceptable context. As Kawalec (2020) argues, stand-up comedy is deeply embedded in Western traditions of spectacle and individual expression, where pushing limits and provoking tension are not only expected, but celebrated as part of the performer’s craft. Within this context, laughter becomes a culturally sanctioned response to even morally or emotionally sensitive material.

3.2.7 The closing act

Building on the impoliteness strategies examined in the earlier acts, from dissociation and mimicry to condescension and indirect mockery, the closing act functions as a strategic closure of the performance. In line with Rutter’s (2001) identification of re-incorporation as a key stand-up technique, the closing act exemplifies how JC revisits earlier themes of Malaysian inferiority through the punchline, “they don’t have internet”. This callback to earlier references, particularly in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.5, emphasizes the act’s cohesion and signals a narrative closing. By referencing a previously implied stereotype, the comedian invites the audience to recall shared frames of meaning, thus prompting laughter not from the punchline alone, but from its relation to prior discourse. As Rutter (2001) explains, such callbacks function as signposts that both reinforce the comedian’s structure and reward the attentive audience.

(01:20) An audience member: You are definitely ge(h)tting a↑ bad yelp review

(01:22) JC: I am getting a ↑bad yelp review from the Mala(h)ysians

(01:24) that’s okay they don’t have ↓internet ((laughs))

(01:25) Audience: ((laughs))

There are two interpretations of this interaction. First, the mention of a negative Yelp review may indicate audience dissatisfaction and a perceived failure of the joke. It interrupts the casual flow of the performance and introduces a more formal kind of criticism, suggesting a stronger disapproval of JC’s act. Possibly, the humor that exceeds the cultural or emotional limits of the tragedy prompts the audience member to take an oppositional stance, calling attention to the failure of the joke in an explicit way.

In the second possible interpretation, the interaction shifts as the audience member begins to engage more directly in the comedy by referencing the negative Yelp review. By doing so, they become active participants in the performance rather than passive consumers. This reflects Rutter’s (1997, 2000) observation that an audience member’s interjection is not simply a critique, but part of the performance dynamic, where the boundary between comic and audience becomes fluid. Rutter (1997, 2000) terms this kind of exchange “pseudo-dyadic”, a simulated one-to-one interaction within a group setting, which supports the illusion of intimacy while enabling a shared interpretive space. This participation is characterized by a back-and-forth rhythm that acknowledges the sensitive nature of the joke while simultaneously playing along with it. It becomes an instance of ritualized impoliteness in which a socially taboo subject, such as the Malaysian Airlines incident, is negotiated collaboratively and continuously extended by both the performer and the audience.

The joke “(01:24) that’s okay, they don’t have ↓ internet ((laughs))” exhibits context-driven impoliteness. This is evident in the cultural stereotype of Malaysia being technologically inferior to Singapore. By exaggerating this divide, JC creates humor that is predicated on a deeper context of regional rivalry and the historical “ex-partner” dynamic between Malaysia and Singapore. The mention of a lack of internet plays into the audience’s pre-existing knowledge of this disparity, making the joke humorous within this specific context.