The Comedy of Mitch Hedberg Im sick and tired of chasing my dreams, Im just gonna find out where theyre

going and meet up with them later. Mitch Hedberg is probably my favorite stand-up comedian. His career peaked in around 2000 and lasted until his untimely death in 2005, during which time he gained a cult following which has only continued to expand since. He is known for his incredibly offbeat and unique comedy, which often relies upon simple linguistic violations for its humor. Hedberg was not the type of comedian to go on a rant about a group of people or a profession. He never talked about politics, and his humor was rarely about current events. Rather, his style of comedy was mostly focused on day-to-day phenomena that pretty much everybody can relate to. He takes a normal mundane concept or phrase, and puts his own unique spin on it that often points out ridiculousness of the matter. He has a choppy, almost unprofessional delivery which to me speaks about the honesty of his comedy . Listening to Mitch Hedberg has made me see the world differently, in small ways rather than big. Listening to Mitch has not changed my views on religions, governments, or our place in the universe, but rather my view on escalators, sandwiches and dry cleaners. He will talk about the fire exit instead of the fire fighter, and you will never see the fire exit the same again. Mitchs comedy primarily utilizes simple pragmatic violations of different sorts . Many of his jokes focus on the difference between the impliciture and expliciture of various common statements . He will give an example of somebody saying a common phrase that has a well agreed upon impliciture, and spins it in such a way that one realizes the silliness of the expliciture. Sometimes he will do this by ignoring background information and looking at what the words literally say. Other jokes of Hedbergs deal with blended spaces. He will take rules that apply to one frame of object or individual and apply them to an incongruous frame where they do not make sense. He also

intentionally misinterprets metonymic statements and twists them in such a way that is humorous . Through these various means, Mitch creates a style of comedy that really makes you think about the way people talk. He points out little inconsistencies in our manner of speaking, and exploits them for his comedy . Many of Mitchs jokes deal with the conflict between expliciture and impliciture . He takes a common phrase that has some socially implied meaning and states it in such a way where the explicit meaning differs from the implicit. An example of this and probably my favorite Hedberg joke is the simple one liner I used to do a lot of drugs. I still do, but I used to too. The humor from this utterance seems to rise from the principles bounding Q based implicta in relation to Gricean Maxims. When thinking about the speaker based economy, it is important make your contribution as informative as required to satisfy the first maxim of quality . When somebody utters a phrase of the construction I used to X, the usual implicature is I used to X, but I do not X anymore, based on the principle of informitiveness. Saying I used to X automatically places the situation in the past, for example if I say I used to go to Campos Locos High in normal conversation, it is reasonable to infer in most cases that I no longer attend that particular high school. However when Hedberg says, I used to do a lot of drugs, I still do but I used to, too he is presenting us with a form where the expliciture of the utterance conflicts with impliciture of the phrase . The truth-value for this statement is true, and we recognize this immediately . Simultaneously we realize that while technically the statement is true, the manner in which it was stated implies a contradiction to the statement . He takes the impliciture of the phrase used to X and contrasts it with the expliciture of his statement in a comical way . This makes clear that the implicitures of the used to X construction go beyond the actual words, which is something I honestly never noticed about this phrase. Another one like this is, One time, this guy handed me a picture of him, he said,"Here's a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture is of you when you were younger. "Here's a picture of me when I'm older."

"You son-of-a-bitch! How'd you pull that off? Lemme see that camera... what's it look like? " This joke is focused on the impliciture of the when I was younger part of the phrase. Saying you have a picture from when you were younger is a fairly common phenomenon, to the point where the phrase seems to lose some of its meaning . It would seem to me if somebody showed me a picture of them when they were younger, usually theyre implying that they were significantly younger when the picture was taken. For instance if I showed a picture of me from when I was five, it would make plenty of sense to say the picture was from when I was younger. Possibly I have changed so much in looks that it would be surprising that I am the same person from the picture, hence the clarification . Now if I showed you my facebook profile picture from last week, it would be very strange to say that the picture was when I was younger. While it would technically be true, it would certainly be odd to say the least. I would think that there would need to be some significant form of maturation between the picture and my present self to merit me qualifying it with when I was younger. Mitch knows both of these things, and contrasts the impliciture of when I was younger with what the expliciture means in this context. It reveals that saying a picture was from when one was younger has a meaning that goes beyond the simplicity of the expliciture. Mitch reveals the redundancy of a common phrase with, I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, I hear music, as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work. This joke is obviously focusing on the phrase I hear music. This is a fairly common phrase, usually carrying the impliciture I am hearing music (coming from somewhere) right now . Rather than trying to explain the means by which was perceiving the music, Mitchs friend meant it more as an observation akin to, theres music. Mitch, on the other hand, is choosing to look at the expliciture of the phrase which in this case reads more like hearing is the way I perceive music. This clash between the impliciture of the phrase and the triteness of the expliciture is where the joke gets its humor. This common phrase is actually pretty stupid if you look

at it as an explanation rather than an observation, which is something I never noticed before . Another amusing quip of Mitchs is, I bought an ant farm, those fuckers didnt grow shit! This joke is an abuse of noun-noun compounds in the style of pumpkin bus and applejuice chair. The intended interpretation of the noun-noun compound ant farm as intended by the manufacturer is one where one farms ants . If one owned a real farm they could use their oxen to pull plows and the like, the ant farm is extending this metaphor to the ants world. Much like using real animals for real farming, the idea behind the ant farm is that the ants are doing the work for you. What Hedberg is doing here is interpreting the phrase ant farm as having the ants doing the farming . Rather than having the ants as a simple component in the farming process, under Mitchs interpretation the ants should be doing everything from sowing the seeds to harvesting the final product. It would be like if I said I owned a volunteer farm, presumably I would not be growing volunteers. At the same time if I said I owned a tomato farm it would be completely ridiculous to assume I had anthropomorphic tomatoes growing other plants . This joke is funny because we can interpret both of these realizations of ant farm with ease, but Mitch chooses the unexpected interpretation. Another goes, As a comedian you have to start the show strong and you have to end the show strong. You cant be like pancakes, all exciting at first but by the end youre fucking sick of em . What Mitch is doing here is extending a metaphor from performing comedy to eating pancakes. Most people (at least in America) have eaten pancakes at one time or another, and many of these people have had the experience of having too many pancakes . The nature of how pancakes are made makes it so it is just as easy to mix the batter for one pancake as ten, so pancakes are one sort of food that is often in surplus. In addition pancakes are really filling and the sort of food that sneaks up on you halfway through the meal. The sweetness of pancakes makes them delicious at first, but it can almost get annoying after one or two. This means they are the sort of food that are really enjoyable at first, but leave

you hating them by the end of the meal. Mitch is extending this shared experience of having too many pancakes to performing comedy by metaphor. While most people in the audience have probably never performed comedy, most of them have probably eaten pancakes. This allows us to understand some of what it means to perform standup through a shared experience. One of Hedbergs jokes goes, I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run. If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. What is happening in this joke is an abuse of the rules pertaining to the fire exit. It would make sense that there are certain things that should not be in front of the fire exit, though this rule should not apply to people. There is this frame of inanimate objects that should not block the fire exit, for instance the janitor should not leave the cleaning cart in front of the exit . Alternatively during the construction of the casino I am sure somebody paid special attention not to put a blackjack table or a bar right in front of the fire exit. These objects are highly immobile in case of a fire, and would pose a substantial danger in a worst case scenario. Mitch, on the other hand, has the ability to run and even open the fire exit. In fact, his close proximity to the fire exit probably entails that he would be the first one out and therefore would be out of the way first. The problem is there exists this frame of objects that should not block a fire exit, and to cover all these objects the rule is simply expressed as do not block the fire exit. It is when one applies this rule that is for inanimate objects to people that the humorous contradiction comes in. Mitch is highly mobile, and is not an actual threat in case of fire. Rather a rule that applies to a particular frame of object is being used on an improper frame, hence the confusion. A similar example occurs when Mitch says, I was walking by a dry cleaner at 3 a.m., and it said "Sorry, we're closed." You don't have to be sorry. It's 3 a.m., and you're a dry cleaner. It would be ridiculous for me to

expect you to be open. I'm not gonna walk by at 10 a.m. and say, "Hey, I walked by at 3, you guys were closed. Someone owes me an apology. This jacket would be halfway done!" This is funny because Mitch is not the intended reader of the sign. The sign is intended for this frame of people who show up maybe fifteen minutes to an hour after the dry cleaner closes. In this case the person was only little late, if they had been there on time they could have gotten their shirt in with that nights load of clothes. This would be of great inconvenience to that person with a job interview or a wedding in the morning who waited to the last minute to get their dry cleaning done . In this case it would make sense for the owner of the dry cleaner to be sorry to the lost customer, as both of them would be better off if the cleaning actually got done. In the case of Mitch, the sign does not apply. Of all the establishments that have the potential to be open at 3 AM, dry cleaners are pretty low on the list. Because of this the sign makes little sense to the person walking by in the wee hours. Mitch even says it would be ridiculous for me to expect you to be open to comment on this. The sign is up all night, but it is only really intended for the first few people who show up after it closes. In addition it is meant for people who actually have the intention to get something dry cleaned rather than some random passersby at 3 AM. Just like in the fire exit joke, Mitch is applying a statement (Sorry, were closed) to the wrong frame, at which point the original statement does not make sense. One of Hedbergs jokes that deals with politeness and metonymy goes, I have a roommate who says I need to shave and shower, does anybody need to use the bathroom? its like some weird-ass quiz where he reveals the answers first. In this case Mitchs roommate is just being polite, but Mitch is misconstruing it . There is some ambiguity in the phrase use the bathroom which leads to two possible interpretations . One way to interpret use the bathroom in this frame is as a metonymic euphemism for use the toilet, which is probably what Mitchs roommate intended. Having to use the toilet is a much more time sensitive issue than showering, in theory one could put off showering forever (though I wouldnt recommend it!). Because of this shared knowledge of bathroom

activities it would make sense that if anybody needed to use the toilet it would make sense to do so before the roommate began showering because its easier to put off a shower than a bowel movement. However, another interpretation of the phrase use the bathroom could just be to literally use the bathroom for anything, including shaving and showering. If one reads this as the interpretation for what Mitchs roommate said, then he answers his question before asking it. This is the weird-ass quiz where he reveals the answers first that Mitch is mentioning . His roommate is trying to be polite by using phrases that should usually have the implicta if you need to use the toilet Im giving you an opportunity to do so before I use the bathroom, but Mitch is interpreting his words literally, focusing on the expliciture. When you remove the implicita from these phrases, the expliciture is actually quite silly, and this is where the humor arises. Another metonymic joke of Mitchs goes, You know they call corn-on-the-cob "corn-on-the-cob," right? But that's how it comes out of the ground, man. They should call that "corn", and they should call every other version "corn-off-the-cob." It's not like if you cut off my arm you would call my arm "Mitch", but then reattach it and call it "Mitch-all-together." This joke focuses on the metonymic relationship between the words corn and corn-on-the-cob. When one says corn, what exactly one is referring to can only be inferred by context. In a farming situation, when one says the corn they may be referring to a single plant or possibly the whole field . This does not make sense in the eating context, as the husk and stalk are inedible and therefore irrelevant . When one looks at the realization of corn within the eating context, usually it is metonymic for the actual corn kernels . Cornon-the-cob is a metonymic expression referring to an ear of corn with the kernels attached . Mitch claims that because the corn-on-the-cob is more like how it comes out of the ground, that should be the one named corn . The on-the-cob part of corn-on-the-cob seems to imply that something has been done to the corn, when really something was done to get the corn off the cob. Mitch compares this metonymic expression for the corn frame and applies it to himself. This reveals that it actually is pretty silly to refer to corn as corn-on-the-cob, as we are adding a bunch of

unnecessary words. Another of Mitchs jokes deals with blends and goes as follows, I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Can I put my feet out the window? Man, you really like Tide... The first thing that Mitch is doing is introducing us to the blended concept of a racecar passenger. We all know that the phrase racecar driver is quite common and we have a mental space for it. We also know about people riding in the passenger seat of cars, and what Hedberg is doing is creating a blend of the racecar driver and Mitch riding shotgun. The questions that Mitch asks would all make sense of he was in the passenger seat on a long car ride, but are ridiculous in the context of a race. For instance, it would be reasonable for Mitch to ask to turn on the radio in his buddys car. However, it is unlikely that the racecar even has a radio, and even if it did it would not be safe to listen to it during a race . If he was in a friends car and they kept driving in circles the friend might be considered crazy, but in a race this is the point . Likewise it would take a strong commitment to ones detergent to merit painting a Tide logo on the hood, but in a racing context it makes perfect sense. This blended space of a racecar passenger takes characteristics that make sense in one context, and juxtapose them in such a way they seem silly. One of Mitchs jokes involving many Gricean Maxim violations is, I was walking down the street and my friend said, Isnt the weather trippy? to which I said, maybe its not the weather thats trippy but maybe its the way we perceive the weather that is in fact trippy then I realized I should have just said yeah . This joke focuses on the violations of the maxims quantity, relation and manner. On one level this statement is only tangentially related to what Mitchs friend said. While it does involve the concept of trippiness, it is a vastly different topic than Mitchs friend brought up. Mitchs friend was merely observing the weather, and Mitch goes off on this tangent about perception versus reality, which is odd. On another level this violates the maxim of quantity as Mitch is essentially agreeing with his friend in a mouthful of words, as Mitch points this out when he edits what he said to

just yeah. This ties in to the manner violation as the wording of the utterance is overly convoluted and hard to understand. Mitch is not avoiding any unnecessary prolixity in this case, and it is him pointing this out which makes the joke funny. Mitch plays with different definitions of things with the joke, I bought a house, its a two-bedroom house. But I think its up to me how many bedrooms there are, dont you? Fuck you, real estate lady, this bedroom has an oven in it. This bedroom has a lot of people sitting around watching TV. This bedroom is over in that guys house. Sir, youve got one of my bedrooms, are you aware? Dont decorate it! This joke is funny because it juxtaposes two different definitions of what a bedroom is. On one hand there is the real estate definition of a bedroom that is defined by the room having a closet or something like that, and this is the rule that Mitch is originally referencing . On the other hand theres the fact that any room with a bed in it could potentially be considered a bedroom, In theory one could put a bed in the kitchen and sleep there, as referenced my Mitchs this bedroom as an oven in it, or in the living room with this bedroom has a lot of people sitting around watching TV. Mitch further abuses the definition of a bedroom with the claim this bedroom is in that guys house. Even if one went off of the idea that a bedroom just needs a bed, this claim that somebody else owns one of Mitchs bedrooms is absurd . With each successive quip Mitch distorts the definition until it does not even make sense anymore . He initially started by making the real estate definition of a bedroom seem arbitrary, and continued hyperbolically into total irrelevance . One of Hedbergs jokes that abuses a simple syntactic construction is, I havent slept for ten days, because that would be too long. This is funny because there are two possible contradictory meanings the construction slept for X can hold. On one hand one could say I have slept for 24 hours which would mean I was asleep for a period of 24 hours (first interpretation). Alternatively, one could say I have not slept for 24 hours which would mean it has been 24 hours since I last slept(second interpretation). What is interesting here is that when one writes

or says the second interpretation, the first interpretation is inherently present because of the wording . What Mitch is doing is mixing these interpretations together so when he says I havent slept for ten days, you assume it means it has been ten days since he last slept. However when he adds because that would be too long he makes it clear that he actually meant that he had not slept for a period lasting ten days. The quickness of this delivery surprises us and makes us laugh as this is completely unexpected. Another one of Mitchs jokes that deals with how things are worded goes, I had to take a physical, and they asked me a lot of medical questions. And they were, like, yes and no questions, but they were very strangely worded. Like, 'Have you ever tried sugar -- or PCP?' This joke is referencing the different forms of or as mentioned by Grice. There are two ways to look at the word or, one as a logical disjunction (referred to as the strong reading) and one in the conversational sense (the weak reading) . In the strong reading it is the exclusive or used in the truth-conditional sense; I am either in the library or at home, not both. In the weak reading or is being used how it typically is conversationally, it is not necessarily exclusive. The humor comes from the conflict between these two readings. When taking the test it is unclear based on the wording whether the test-writer intends for the strong or the weak reading. Most people have tried sugar but have not tried PCP, so if one chooses the strong reading it would not be a problem to answer yes, as that could apply to somebody who had only eaten sugar. However if one uses the weak conversational reading, answering yes to this question would seem to implicate that the test taker had tried PCP. We all know that taking PCP is much more serious than eating sugar for many reasons , so it would make sense that one would not want to admit to taking PCP. Answering yes to the question might implicate that one had tried PCP when they had really just committed the more minor offence . One night Mitch was watching TV and a commercial came on, So it said, "You can have this product for four easy payments of 19.95." I would like to have a product that was available for three easy payments, and one

fuckin' complicated payment! We ain't gonna tell you which payment it is, but one of these payments is gonna be a bitch. The mailman will get shot to death, the envelope will not seal, and the stamp will be in the wrong denomination; good luck, fucker! The last payment must be made in wampum! This is funny because it reveals the triteness of the phrase three easy payments. Presumably this phrase started in a day when paying for things was not as easy as typing a credit card number into a computer. If these payments were easy to make, it would make sense to advertise them in a world where paying for things is not so accessible . It would also seem to me that this phrase originated in one or a few advertisements, and later became adopted as a sort of standard for the infomercial . Today it is so widely spread that nobody really thinks about the actual meaning of what they are saying, except Mitch. He reveals the triteness of this expression by comparing it to what a difficult payment would be . He creates the hyperbolic situation of the one fucking complicated payment by stating some of the most inconvenient things that could happen. The envelope not sealing is something relatable and not that out of the ordinary. Having to pay in a different currency would not be that strange if it was something like a Euro that you needed to use , but I do not even know where wampum comes from and hence the ridiculousness. The postman getting shot is probably the most inconvenient thing on this list, certainly rendering this as a complicated payment. This extreme example of something contrary to an easy payment shows that the easy in three easy payments is not entirely necessary . At this point they probably still perpetuate the phrase because it rolls of the tongue nicely, but it does not carry much weight. semantically One of Mitchs jokes goes, I had a parrot. The parrot talked, but it did not say "I'm hungry," so it died. This is humorous because of Mitchs misinterpretation of the birds speech . It is common background knowledge that parrots are not actually talking with their vocalizations . Rather their speech is pure mimicry, it is a mere

emulation of human speech sounds. While one can elicit a verbal response from a parrot, it is impossible to actually hold a conversation with one. Mitch is using this knowledge we have that parrots can speak but not legitimately communicate to make the joke funny. If Mitch had actually owned a parrot it would be unreasonable for him to think he was actually conversing with it. Likewise, it is obvious that he should not expect the bird to ask for food as this is beyond the birds conversational capabilities. Mitch is using rules for human conversation and applying them to his pet to a ridiculous end. This is another example of Mitch applying rules for one frame out of context . One of Mitchs jokes which exploits using background knowledge is This shirt is dry-clean only, which means its dirty. What Mitch is doing here is using our background knowledge of dry-clean only clothes and the nature of dry cleaning to joke about his shirt. Anybody who has had something dry cleaned knows that it is not as easy as simply washing the shirt yourself. You have to drive yourself to the dry cleaners, and on top of that it usually takes overnight for the job to get done. Usually when people go to get clothes dry cleaned, it is because they are particularly nice clothes that merit it or perhaps there is some important event that necessitates looking good . Either way it is not the sort of thing that people would be inclined to do for a normal everyday-wear shirt . Mitch knows this and turns it into a conditional statement. He is essentially saying that because of the hassles involved in getting this shirt cleaned, it does not merit cleaning. Mitchs comedy is a linguists dream. His jokes deal with simple, observable phenomena when people are speaking and the exploitation of them. He often examines the difference between impliciture and expliciture, and reveals that we often do not notice the meaning of the expliciture. He also takes rules that apply to one frame and applies them to an incongruous frame in such a way that it reveals the deeper structure of the rule . He also makes use of blended spaces from time to time, combining two concepts that are only tangentially related. His comedy is

really something special. He does not pick on people or groups of people, his vulgarity is not really that vulgar. He talks about simple misconceptions and plays with definitions. He exploits phrases that we utter without thinking, and shows us another perspective on their interpretation. He takes concepts by the ankles, shakes them, and sees what falls out of their pockets. Listening to Mitch has changed my life, but in little ways rather than big. I no longer care if I block a fire exit, because I know the right excuse if somebody confronts me. If I watch NASCAR I picture myself in the passenger seat. If I ever see a sign saying sorry were closed I respond with, you dont have to be sorry. I never refer to my house as a 3 bedroom house anymore, that is up to me. I know that all pictures are of me when I was younger. Essentially Mitchs comedy is simple, and just plain funny. I never feel guilty for laughing at a Mitch Hedberg joke, but rather I feel giddy and silly. I feel more people need to know about this mans short-lived comedy career, as his work is really worth your while.