Dyer 1
Darby Dyer
ENGL 5903.50
Dr. Greer
July 6 th , 2013
Annotated Bibliography: Criticism and Defense of Puns
Bates, Catherine. “The Point of Puns.” Modern Philology 96.4 (1999): 421-38. JSTOR.
Web. 28 June 2013.
As Bates begins her article, she describes the Oxford English Dictionary’s treatment of the pun as deriving from an “unascertained origin” (421). Thus, Bates asserts that the trope’s obscure lexical background suits its function of giving the wrong names to the wrong things. In fact, the pun was often characterized by its deviancy and because of its obscurity has been linked to its impertinency. Bates elucidates that dictionaries suggest just as the pun has no point in origin, it also has no point or purpose. Therefore, Bates accurately explains that many critics do not recognize the literary function of the pun but instead agree with the dictionaries—that a pun is merely a “bastard” (423). Bates explicates that because the pun disturbs the system of communication by which meaning is conveyed, it has been treated as an anarchist. In fact, Bates articulates that the disorderliness of the pun conflicts with the Aristotelian norm. However, some critics are less abominating, and some even go so far as to consider the pun as an exemplary product of language or the mind.
Though Bates claims that the pun is required to make sense; accordingly, to understand the pun, one must disambiguate it. And Bates develops a needed point—that if puns can be interpreted, sense can be retrieved from nonsense. Subsequently, Bates skillfully differentiates between the “good” pun and the “bad” pun, providing examples of each. Bates

Dyer 2 discusses the linguistic risk of puns and uses an excerpt from book 9 of Paradise Lost to determine readers’ sensitivity to the potential risk of puns. But Bates also presents permissible reasons for playing it safe with puns. As Bates concludes her article, she appropriately justifies the use of puns—that they essentially enhance literary meaning.
Brown, James. “Eight Types of Puns.” PMLA 71.1 (1956): 14-26. JSTOR. Web. 2 July
2013.
Brown declares that a pun is more than merely a sound, for we distinguish the pun semantically. However, Brown accurately elucidates that the “pun effect is a function of multiple meaning” (14). And Brown explains that for a pun to be classified as a pun, the hearer must be able to recognize both meanings of the word. Brown advocates the use of the pun, for it allows one to escape from literal directness and take a step toward the achievement of symbolic metaphor. Brown describes the commonality of two-fold and even three-fold puns but elucidates the infrequency of four-fold puns. Brown divides puns into two large groups—syntax and sense—and subsequently identifies the limitations within each group. Following Brown’s distribution of pun groups, he identifies, analyzes, and provides examples of the eight types of puns: first—“the variable pun meaning is literal to both the syntax and sense of the sentence”; second—“the variable meaning of the pun word is literal to the syntax and metaphoric to the sense of the sentence”; third—“the variable meaning of the pun is metaphoric to the syntax and literal to the sense of the sentence”; fourth—“the variable pun meaning is metaphoric to both the syntax and sense of the sentence”; fifth—“one of cumulative literal iteration […that] lends itself to the achievement of irony”; sixth—“requires that the variable pun meaning be literal to the syntax and

Dyer 3 metaphoric to the sense of the sentence”; seventh—“requires that the variable meaning of the pun word be literal to the sense and metaphorical to the syntax in which it occurs”; and eighth—“the variable pun meaning is metaphoric to both the syntax and the sense of the sentence it occurs in” (19, 20, 21, 22, 23). And Brown concludes his article by meticulously analyzing the triple context pun as well as syntactical ambiguity and classifying the pun as a symbolic phenomenon that possesses literary power and importance.
Hartsock, Ernest. “In Defense of Punning.” American Speech 4.3 (1929): 224-27.
JSTOR. Web. 6 July 2013.
Similar to Bates article on “The Point of Puns,” Hartsock categorizes puns as “good” and
“bad.” Hartsock accurately identifies the greatest age of the pun as the greatest age of
English literature—the Renaissance in England—for he explains that illustrious literature arises from skillful experimentation with words. Hartsock asserts that Puritans often criticized punning; however, Hartsock reproves that Milton and other Puritans could seldom pun well. Hartsock thus critiques Milton’s deficient sense of humor, and harshly suggests that his works would have been less egotistical if he had implemented humor.
Hartsock goes on to disparage the selected works of Thomas Hood, for he claims that
English departments rarely select works that reveal his skillful habit of punning but instead illustrate his lapses in sentimentality. Hartsock then declares that only the educated fully understand and enjoy puns. Hartsock identifies the contemporary (of the twenties) authors who incorporated puns. When discussing Millay’s use of puns, Hartsock professes that she imitated Shakespeare’s punning techniques. And as Hartsock concludes his speech, he

Dyer 4 precisely reiterates that although puns are universal, only some individuals have the intellect needed to understand them.
Lederer, Richard. “A Primer of Puns.” The English Journal 70.6 (1981): 32-36. JSTOR.
Web. 2 July 2013.
As Lederer begins his article, he provides the Greek origin of pun—paranomasia or “equal word”—and skillfully critiques the ubiquitous definition of pun as simply a play upon words. He elucidates that the definition does not address the nature of the wordplay nor the words that are being played upon. Thus, Lederer presents examples of puns and explicates the puns’ effects. Lederer explains accurately that punning presents a challenge, because one must be concise and clever to master this exercise of the mind. Lederer subsequently shares how prevalent puns are, for he insists that we have all been exposed to them and from an early age comprehend that the same sounds can have different meanings. Lederer meticulously describes that one advances in punning from Silly Billy jokes to specialized one-liners, providing examples within each category. And he proficiently shares the pervasiveness and effectiveness of puns in advertisements, public service messages, classroom classics (Odyssey, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, etc.), and so on.
Lederer concludes his article by dexterously identifying and analyzing the six methods of pun making--the single-sounded pun, the double-sounded pun, the spoonerism, the meld pun, the palindrome, and the acronym—and providing practical advice to other punsters, particularly that few people laugh at puns; however, it is often because they are envious that they did not come up with it first.

Dyer 5
Rot, Sander. “On the Philological Essence of Shakespearian Humour.” Modern
Language Studies 13.3 (1983): 62-70. JSTOR. Web. 2 July 2013.
Rot describes the importance of humor in Shakespeare’s works; though, he explains that many translations, even ones today, neglect the humor of his plays, thus preventing Non-
English readers from experiencing Shakespeare’s plays at their full value. Therefore, Rot clearly asserts that he plans to explore the philological essence of Shakespeare’s puns. With regard to humor, Rot elucidates that in an authentic representation of life in literature, tragedy and comedy can be interwoven. Rot then skillfully defends Shakespeare’s function of the two, for he has received much criticism for incorporating humor in tragedies. While
Shakespeare’s integration of humor has been frequently analyzed as well as criticized, Rot crystallizes the criticism by saying that although Shakespeare does not always have a specific aim for his humor, he does, however, reveal “the manifestation of spontaneous joy and zest for life,” for it precisely embodies the people of England (63). Rot differentiates between Shakespeare’s utilization of humor in the three periods of his creative work. Rot declares that the comic devices—humor of situation, humor of characters, and humor expressed by linguistic-stylistic means—Shakespeare uses are closely interwoven.
Subsequently, Rot meticulously describes each device and specifies which plays they are most prominently employed. When discussing the humor expressed by linguistic-stylistic means, Rot depicts the skill of wordplay that appears in Shakespeare’s plays, methodically specifying the most skillful punsters Shakespeare creates. Rot explains that Shakespeare’s puns are rooted in homonymy and conflicting monosemes of lexical units and presents varied examples and analyzes of each, revealing the diversity of Shakespeare’s puns.