HUMOR AS A DIDACTIC TOOL IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH CHILDREN’S LITERATURE: A COMPARATIVE STYLISTIC AND PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SHUM BOLA AND THE ADVENTURES OF TOM SAWYER
Abstract
Humor is often seen as a captivating aspect of children's literature, yet its educational significance goes well beyond mere entertainment. This article delves into the use of humor as a teaching tool in Uzbek and English children's stories by conducting a comparative stylistic and pragmatic analysis of Gafur Gulom’s "Shum bola" (The Mischievous Boy) and Mark Twain’s "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." The research seeks to uncover how humorous scenes, dialogues, and storytelling methods lead young readers to reflect on morals, become socially aware, and learn behaviors without overt moralizing. In "Shum bola," humor is intricately linked to the traditional Uzbek way of life and the daily experiences of common people, highlighting cultural values like diligence, patience, honesty, and community spirit. The comedic elements often stem from social circumstances, economic struggles, and the main character’s interactions with his environment, creating laughter that also imparts lessons on responsibility and empathy. Conversely, Twain’s novel uses irony and satire to critique societal hypocrisy and strict adult authority, particularly in the realms of school, family discipline, and community norms. Tom’s playful antics serve as a means of exploring freedom and individuality, emphasizing personal initiative and independent choices. The article employs a methodological approach that combines stylistic analysis (such as hyperbole, irony, dialogue humor, and expressive vocabulary) with pragmatic methods (including speech acts, implicature, and face strategies) to identify recurring humor patterns and their educational roles. The results show that humor in both works acts as a "soft pedagogical force," influencing ethical understanding and cultural values while maintaining entertainment and reader engagement.
Keywords
humor, didactic function, children’s literature, stylistics, pragmatics, satire, irony, Uzbek literature, English literature, Tom Sawyer, Shum bolaHow to Cite
References
Hale A. There is an after-life (for jokes, anyway): The potential for, and appeal of, ‘immortality’ in humor. HUMOR. 2018;31(3):507–538. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0105
Metapragmatics of Humor. John Benjamins; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.14
Franklin RG, Adams RB. The reward of a good joke: Neural correlates of viewing dynamic displays of stand-up comedy. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2011;11(4):508–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0049-7
Greenberg J. Modernism, Satire and the Novel. Cambridge University Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844065
Dynel M. Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. HUMOR. 2014;27(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0096
Filik R, Ţurcan A, Ralph-Nearman C, Pitiot A. What is the difference between irony and sarcasm? An fMRI study. Cortex. 2019;115:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.025
Loizou E. Infant humor: The theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2005;13(1):43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760500048329
Fife J. Peeling the onion: Satire and the complexity of audience response. Rhetoric Review. 2016;35(4):322–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2016.1215000
Sanford S, Eder D. Adolescent humor during peer interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1984;47(3):235. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033820
Attardo S. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Mouton de Gruyter; 1994.
Attardo S. Humor Theory Beyond Jokes: Theoretical Issues. John Benjamins; 2001.
Berger AA. The Art of Comedy Writing. Routledge; 2017.
McGhee PE. Humor: Its Origin and Development. W. H. Freeman; 1979.
Kuipers G. Good Humor, Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke. De Gruyter; 2006.
Culpeper J. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
