





































7

maniPulating Play Frames:  
the yo momma Joke CyCle on youtube

steve stAnZAk

Despite their prevalence on school playgrounds, the Internet, and mass media, 
modern forms of the Dozens have garnered surprisingly little notice from 
folklorists. This lacuna is particularly unfortunate considering the important role 
played by folklorists such as Roger Abrahams in bringing this verbal dueling 
tradition to the attention of the scholarly community. Abrahams’s seminal 1962 
study, based on his fieldwork in a Philadelphia ghetto, examined the Dozens as 
performed in urban African American communities. When “playing the Dozens,” 
Abrahams tells us, participants direct ritual insults at their opponents’ family, 
most often their mothers. These insults are often highly stylized, contain sexual 
or obscene themes, and are sometimes rhymed, as in this Dozen collected by 
Abrahams:

I f----d your mother in a horse and wagon, 
She said, “‘Scuse me, mister, my p---y’s draggin’”1 (1962, 216).

Other Dozens are less stylized and more likely to be recognizable to a modern 
audience, as in the Dozen below, recorded in the 1960s.

Your mother’s so skinny, about that skinny, she can get in a Cheerioat 
and say, “Hula hoop hula hoop!” (Labov 1972, 133). 

Although a version of the above Dozen is still told among children today, there 
are still significant disconnects in both content and performance between the 
Dozens that were observed by Abrahams and those of contemporary children and 
adolescents. Little ethnographic or analytical work on the Dozens tradition has 
been conducted in the past several decades, despite their continuing presence 
in the social life of children and adolescents. My goal here is to demonstrate that 
not only have the Dozens survived and done well, but they have also adapted 
to changing social and technological contexts. This goal will be accomplished 
by examining one particular subgenre of the Dozens that remains exceedingly 
popular among children and adolescents: the Yo Momma joke. First, I will identify 
both the connections and disjunctions between the Dozens described by earlier 
scholars and one iteration of the Dozens—the Yo Momma joke cycle—so that a 
tentative formal and functional definition of the Yo Momma joke can be offered. 
Second, I will analyze Yo Momma jokes on the video social networking website 
YouTube, which has emerged as a key site for their performance. While the 
content of Yo Momma jokes is usually traditional, YouTube offers innovative new 
ways for participants not only to manipulate jokes’ performance contexts, but also 
to create new contexts entirely. Many Yo Momma jokes on YouTube are no longer 
functional ritual insults; instead, they have been embedded into virtual folk dramas 

CFR_2012.indb   7 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

8

in which performers act out hypothetical verbal duels. These mock-duels engage 
with the Yo Momma joke’s traditional form and content in ways that interrogate 
notions of play and seriousness.

Method

The most attention to Yo Momma jokes comes in the form of published joke 
collections and amateur websites. However, the jokes in these collections 
remove the performance elements of their original joking sessions and thus lack 
the contextual data necessary for this study. My research of Yo Momma jokes 
on YouTube takes into account those performance contexts absent from these 
collections. YouTube is a website that provides a digital space for Internet users 
to view, share, and comment on videos uploaded by anyone with access to a web 
connection and a device capable of recording video. Most users of YouTube only 
use the website for watching videos, but others create an account with the site 
in order to post their own videos, comment on existing videos, or “subscribe” to 
their favorite video producers. For active users, YouTube provides an arena for 
extended interaction with a diverse range of social groups.

One of the most persistent problems I encountered while collecting data for 
this project was the transient nature of the materials. Too frequently in the early 
stages of my research did I return to a video I had recently viewed, only to find it 
removed by the user. I can only speculate on the reasons why users remove their 
videos or even delete their accounts entirely, but I suspect that it has to do with 
how children constantly refashion their identities on the Internet. A video that 
inspired pride or amusement at age eleven might be seen as embarrassing at age 
thirteen. On the other hand, many of the videos I surveyed for this project have 
been on YouTube for several years. Still, after several frustrated experiences with 
removed videos, I began transcribing those videos I used for my research. As will 
be seen in several instances below, these transcripts have been useful in cases in 
which videos have since been removed.

For my data collection, I informally surveyed several hundred videos that their 
creators had identified as containing Yo Momma jokes.2 This method had some 
inherent limitations, as I could only find videos that were correctly labeled with 
this information. Patricia Lange, who has extensively studied social networks on 
YouTube, describes how video producers on YouTube manipulate tags and titles 
to control access to their videos (2007). In my searches, I was only able to find 
videos that were publicly identified as containing Yo Momma jokes. My search still 
revealed several thousand videos containing the search term “yo momma” or one 
of its variant spellings. The sample I use here was not arrived at randomly; it was 
limited by my choice of keywords and biased by the order videos were displayed 
by the YouTube website—I was much more likely to view videos that showed up 
in the first few pages of my search results than videos buried in the thirtieth page 
of search results. From these videos I found in my keyword searches, I sought 
out those that presented actual people performing Yo Momma jokes. I excluded 
a number of videos that were commercially produced (either from commercials, 
television shows, or movies) and videos that were simply Yo Momma jokes written 

CFR_2012.indb   8 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

9

in text on the screen, often accompanied by background music. Also excluded 
were a number of videos that dubbed Yo Momma jokes told by professional 
comedians, usually George Carlin, over some other scene.3

The use of Internet data raises ethical questions that have been insufficiently 
addressed by folklorists. In my own research, I have treated YouTube videos as 
broadcasted, published materials. The site itself promotes this view; comparisons 
to television are contained in both its logo and its name, as well as the site’s 
slogan “broadcast yourself.” Although the Internet is by and large a public venue, 
there is still a range of privacy expectations held by Internet users (Lange 2007). 
Users have means by which to limit access to their videos, and many seem to 
have either removed or limited the audience of their videos between the research 
period and publication. However, all videos examined for this project were 
available to public viewing at one point and accessible to search engines through 
creators’ use of appropriate tags and titles. Where possible, I have identified 
participants by first name. When real names are not identifiable, I use the 
username if it can be safely assumed that the performer is the same person as the 
video producer; otherwise I use descriptive identifiers. I have included user name 
and web addresses for all videos still online at the time of publication.

Arriving at a Definition of Contemporary Yo Momma Jokes

I will attempt to distinguish Yo Momma jokes from the Dozens based on my 
tentative observations, but an exact classification is difficult. The Dozens are a 
genre of ritual insults that encompasses a wide range of diverse forms, including 
the form now called the Yo Momma joke.4 These jokes are marked by a particular 
structure that has remained relatively stable over time. Despite this formal 
conservatism, contemporary Yo Momma jokes often differ significantly from those 
collected in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Thus, arriving at an updated definition of the Yo Momma joke must entail a 
reckoning with its history and a disentangling from the larger Dozens tradition. 
One notable discrepancy between the Dozens as collected and analyzed by earlier 
scholars and those Yo Momma jokes performed by youth today is the identity 
of their performers. Although some scholars acknowledge that the Dozens were 
also performed among white adolescents (Ayoub and Barnett 1965; Labov 1972, 
140-41), most analyses of the Dozens emphasize their function in the social and 
psychological lives of urban African American communities. John Dollard suggests 
that the insults act as a pressure valve to relieve some of the psychological 
anxiety felt by African Americans. He theorizes that this anxiety is displaced from 
the actual target of hostility onto the safer target of the peer group, where it is 
framed as play and made safe (1939, 20-21). Roger Abrahams partially rejects 
this hypothesis and offers two others. The first hypothesis centers on the typical 
family structure observed by Abrahams in South Philadelphia in the 1960s, which 
he classifies as a matriarchy. In this type of family structure, African American 
boys must struggle to form a masculine identity and in doing so are rejected by 
the family. Abrahams argues that forming this identity requires a violent shift from 
feminine to masculine values. This transformation is enacted through playing the 

CFR_2012.indb   9 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

10

Dozens, which not only attacks the feminine as embodied in the mother but also 
affirms the participants’ masculinity (Abrahams 1962, 213).

 Abrahams also touches upon a social function of the Dozens, theorizing 
that they contribute to the development of verbal skill essential to the successful 
social life of adult African Americans. Later scholarship on the Dozens emphasizes 
this social function rather than the psychological model favored by Dollard and 
Abrahams. Harry Lefever proposes that the Dozens act as a nonviolent means for 
social control, in which African American men learn how to control their temper 
while under verbal assault (1981, 76). Lefever argues that performing the Dozens 
among peers hardens African American men to obscene and vulgar insults that 
might have been directed at them by antagonistic whites. Ayoub and Barnett, 
examining instances of verbal insults in a white high school, suggest that playing 
the Dozens is important in establishing one’s identity within a peer group because 
the insults emphasize that peer group bonds are more important than protecting 
one’s mother from verbal attack (1965, 341).

Many of these functions theorized by scholars of the Dozens must be 
reevaluated, as they largely posit race as the primary factor in their telling. Yo 
Momma jokes have been common among non-blacks for decades,5 and although 
race still plays a role in contemporary Yo Momma jokes on YouTube, it is a 
much diminished one.6 Most of the Yo Momma joking sessions on YouTube 
were performed by white adolescent males, although African American, Latino 
American, and Asian American performers were also represented, as well as 
women, younger children, and young adults. The performance of Yo Momma 
jokes today must be disassociated on some level with research done by previous 
scholars working within completely different contexts, and new functional 
explanations should be investigated.

The function closest to the surface seems to be the entertainment value 
of the jokes themselves. Although the Dozens were certainly performed 
for entertainment, their competitive, dueling function seems to have been 
foregrounded. Performers of contemporary Yo Momma jokes, however, have 
reversed this emphasis, instead highlighting the role of Yo Momma jokes in 
providing amusement to both participants and audience. Yo Momma jokes on 
YouTube are often a performative event in which participants collaborate rather 
than compete.7 In all cases, these performances offer participants an opportunity 
to showcase not only their verbal skills, but also their ability to create a framework 
for performance. Most videos I observed were not candid recordings of 
spontaneous Yo Momma joke sessions, but rather framed as planned performances 
for a particular viewing audience. Several participants emphasized their role in 
constructing these Yo Momma joke sessions: 

Mike:  “Peace up.” 
Sean:  “Woooord.” 
Sean:  “Alright. Today, we’re going to do some mama jokes.” 
 . . . . .  
Sean:  “Um, so basically, we’re gonna go now. Hope you   
 enjoyed the video and we’ll see you later.” 

CFR_2012.indb   10 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

11

Mike: “Peace out to all my YouTubers, MySpacers.” 
Sean: “Oh yeah!” 
Mike: “Let’s go” 
Sean:  “Let’s go MySpace!” (scpafc 2007) 
 
Teenage Girl:  OK people, we’re going to teach you some good   
 your momma jokes.”8 

These performances are set apart from ordinary discourse by the very fact 
of their medium: the participants intentionally chose to record their joking 
sessions and post them on YouTube with titles and tags referencing Yo Momma 
jokes. In addition, participants frame these events as joking sessions through 
announcements of their intentions and their intended audience. In both examples, 
it is obvious that the joking session is planned rather than spontaneous, even 
though what happens within the joking session may be less scripted.

Although entertainment and performance concerns lie at the forefront of 
contemporary Yo Momma jokes, scholars have also proposed other functions. A 
cognitive function is intimated by Benjamin Bergen and Kim Binsted, who theorize 
that such jokes provide children with an introduction to verbal play and assist in 
the formation of conceptual relations between objects and people (2003). With 
Yo Momma jokes, the mind must work to grasp the relationships between the 
different constituent elements of the joke and in doing so grapple with linguistic 
devices such as hyperbole, understatement, imagery, and metaphor. In addition, 
these jokes are formulaic, built on structural models of varying complexity. 
Although linguistically simple to repeat, they are difficult to successfully create.9 

A socialization function has also been suggested. As noted above, Ayoub and 
Barnett hypothesize that playing the Dozens emphasizes peer bonds over familial 
ones. Similarly, Yo Momma jokes emphasize friendship bonds that are tested 
and stretched through the creation of a play framework. Labov and Lefever both 
claim that the Dozens are told largely among members of the same in-group, and 
my own research on contemporary Yo Momma jokes reinforces this assertion.10 
Children may play Yo Momma jokes because it is a social activity that may be 
done among friends and even, counter to expectations, among family members. 
These performances acknowledge the shared social framework of the participants. 

In addition, children may find this joking form fascinating because of the 
referential content of the jokes themselves. Numerous scholars have pointed out 
the prevalence of obscenity and subversion in children’s folklore (for an overview 
of this scholarship, see McMahon and Sutton-Smith 1999, 300-08), and Yo Momma 
jokes certainly possess both features. The obscenity in these jokes not only 
challenges adult conceptions of taste but is often attributed to the mother herself, 
disrupting her stereotypical role as defender against the obscene. 

Simon:  “Well listen, yo mama’s so fat when she’s on toilet she  
 need a map to find her asshole” (Halfcastkid 2008). 
Alex B.:  “Yo mama’s so manly her balls are bigger than yours!”  
  (bbumps123 2008)

CFR_2012.indb   11 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

12

Obscenity is not the only subversive feature of Yo Momma jokes. A joke from 
four-year old Aaron shows how Yo Momma jokes can subvert traditional family 
power structures:

Your mama’s so fat that 
she went and threw the fish tank in the car that  
she broke the, the like, she broke the shade with the part and said 
she said, “Mom, Dad, I broke my shade part” and then 
she went to the living room and changed again, had to stay home  
(thecomputernerd01 2007).

The mother here is presented as the very embodiment of excess, hardly 
discernable from the four-year-old child who tells the joke. The mother of the joke 
has no control over her body, emotions, or environment. She throws a fish tank in 
the car, which causes her own parents to punish her. By effectively transforming 
the mother into a child, Aaron creates through his joke a world turned upside-
down, one in which he is in control through his verbal skill and his mother is the 
one who is unrestrained and punished for it. 

The Structure of Yo Momma Jokes

In regard to form, Yo Momma jokes are distinct, stable, and easily identifiable. 
Attempts to define Yo Momma jokes on the basis of form have been recently 
undertaken by Bergen and Binsted, who classify Yo Momma jokes under the 
category of “scalar humor.” Briefly, scalar humor is defined as a subset of humor 
that manipulates ambiguous conceptual relations of scale in order to highlight 
incongruous relationships between objects or ideas (Bergen and Binsted 2003). 
Bergen and Binsted formulate a linguistic blueprint for scalar humor that follows 
the construction: “X IS SO Y THAT Z.” Although Yo Momma jokes utilize this 
formula, it is also used by non-humorous expressions, as in this example: “It was 
so cold in the arctic circle that we found frost on the lettuce” (2003, 6). Here, 
the relationship between the first clause and the second is sensible. The first 
clause sets up a scenario (“it was so cold in the arctic circle”) that is fulfilled in 
the second (“that we found frost on the lettuce”). This statement is not funny 
because the relationship between the two clauses is logical and expected. For this 
construction to be considered humorous, the implied relationship between the first 
clause and the second must fail to be fulfilled. This is accomplished by a number 
of rhetorical devices that manipulate or distort the implied relationship, such as 
hyperbole, understatement, polysemy, metaphor, or imagery. Consider the scalar 
joke “Yo’ mama’s so fat, when she was diagnosed with a flesh eating disease, the 
doctor gave her 5 years to live” (Bergen and Binsted 2003, 7). Like the previous 
example of the lettuce, this joke also uses the “X IS SO Y” construction. However, 
unlike the last example, this one is humorous because the second clause disrupts 
the logical relationship of scale implied by the first clause: the doctor’s prognosis is 
nonsensical except in the world of humor, where mothers of extraordinary weight 
reside. Humor results from the “X IS SO Y” construction when there is a “mismatch 

CFR_2012.indb   12 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

13

between the hearer’s expectations about the utterance and its actual realization” 
(Bergen and Binsted 2003, 3).

Although Bergen and Binsted offer a thorough examination of scalar humor 
based on linguistic analysis, they do not take performance contexts into account. 
Here, I wish here to make several modifications to their structural framework 
based on my own observations of Yo Momma jokes in performance. I propose 
four key constituent elements that contribute to the structure of Yo Momma jokes. 
The first and most characteristic element of these jokes I label the introductory 
formula. This element contains the formulaic opening that gives the joke cycle 
its name: “Yo Momma so,” containing both the subject of the insult as well as 
the required intensifier “so.” The introductory formula is the primary framing 
device for the joke; it signals to participants that a framework for play is being 
constructed and that the discourse within the frame is not to be taken seriously. 
The following failed start of a Yo Momma joke told by Alejandro11 illustrates 
several key features of the introductory formula:

Yo Momma’s so fat she— 
your momma’s so ugly— 
[Alejandro’s mother walks into the room] 
Sorry sorry sorry. 
This is a momma joke. Don’t— 
Run away.  
If you’re a mom, please run away.12

As can be seen from this example, Alejandro constructs a play frame using the 
introductory formula that gives him license to tell a Yo Momma joke. However, 
Alejandro has several concerns about the effectiveness of the frame. Either he 
doubts that this licensing given by the frame is adequate enough to allow telling 
of the joke in front of the actual insult target (a mother), or he is unsure that adults 
hearing the joke will understand the play framework that he constructs. In either 
event, Alejandro makes the play frame explicit to his audience, emphasizing that 
that what he’s saying “is a momma joke.” The presence of this overt declaration 
is perhaps due to Alejandro’s young age and his insecurity with the joke form; 
it is doubtful that older children would have found such distancing maneuvers 
necessary in this context. Although Alejandro firmly establishes this framework 
through the introductory formula and an unambiguous explanation, Alejandro still 
warns all mothers listening to “run away” while he tells his joke. The introductory 
formula as a framing element is crucial to successful performances.

Variations upon this formula are possible, but were rarely found in the videos 
observed. The intensifier “so” is critical to the effectiveness of the joke because 
it sets up the incongruity between scalar relationships that must be resolved by 
the audience. Therefore, the intensifier must always be present in the opening 
formula for a Yo Momma joke to be told successfully. The insult subject, however, 
is variable. A change in the insult subject to father or grandmother is found in 
some of the Dozens collected by Labov, but mothers were by far the most popular 

CFR_2012.indb   13 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

14

target. This was also the trend in my examination of contemporary Yo Momma 
jokes on YouTube.13 

Some notable exceptions appeared in my research, particularly in the jokes 
told by four-year old Aaron, who tells Yo Momma jokes to an older relative 
behind the camera. Aaron struggled with the joke structure, but firmly grasped 
the introductory element. Not only does the introductory formula define the Yo 
Momma joke cycle, but it is also formulaic, concise, and rarely variable—in other 
words simple and memorable enough for young children to learn easily. Although 
Aaron comprehended that this element was crucial for the reproduction of this 
joke type, he had considerably less competence in the other structural parts of the 
joke.

When your momma’s so fat that 
Spider-Man was so fat that 
Spider-Man comes down his web 
And he was scared that he was fat 
And then he said “What happened to me?” 
And then he was fat on my shirt 
So he popped out of my shirt (thecomputernerd01 2007).

Although this joke demonstrates a limited competence of the Yo Momma joke, it 
suggests a developing understanding of form. The introductory formula is present, 
but the statements that follow do not relate to this formula. Once Aaron has 
established a play framework with the introductory formula, he changes the insult 
subject from a mother to Spider-Man. The point of the introductory formula here 
is not to logically connect to the rest of the joke, but rather to signal the presence 
of a play framework. Aaron’s joke is much more dynamic than typical Yo Momma 
jokes, which are largely conservative and formulaic. Lost in this transcription are 
the environmental cues that Aaron draws upon in his own joke creation: Aaron 
is wearing a shirt bearing a depiction of Spider-Man. Although Aaron has not yet 
developed a repertoire of conventional Yo Momma jokes, he improvises using 
stimuli immediately present. Although he is not successful in his attempts to tell a 
Yo Momma joke, his attempts show a beginning understanding of form. 

The second structural component in the Yo Momma joke cycle is what I label 
the modifying element, that term which limits and clarifies the excessiveness of 
the subject denoted by the “so” intensifier in the introductory formula. The most 
common modifier in Yo Momma joke cycle is “fat,” but others are possible, such 
as “poor,” “ugly,” “black,” “dirty,” “old,” and even “short.” The main function of 
the modifying element is to define the type of scalar relationship that will be 
presented in the next section of the joke. In engaging with the joke structure, 
Aaron attempts to change the common modifying element “fat” to “ugly,” but is 
unsure how to do so effectively. The following example demonstrates a change 
in the modifying element that is immediately followed by a retreat back to the 
original “fat.” The insult subject is also modified, as above.

CFR_2012.indb   14 10/19/12   9:25:31 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

15

Your momma’s so fat that 
she ride a horse and the horse is so ugly, 
that the horse was so fat.

The first line is consistent with the standard introductory formula and modifying 
element. However, in the second line Aaron introduces a horse to the joke that 
quickly becomes the subject of the joke, which is first called “ugly” and then goes 
back to the original “fat.” 

The next two elements operate together in a cause-and-effect relationship 
that is informed by the modifying element. The causal component introduces a 
normative and neutral scenario to the joke that has not yet been influenced by the 
modifying element or intensifier of the introductory formula. As such, the causal 
component acts as a bridge between the first part of the joke (“yo momma’s so 
fat”) and its punchline. 

Simon:  “Your momma’s so fat she need a boomerang to put on 
her belt” (Halfcastkid 2008).

The elements of this joke do not quite match the structure I outline here, but can 
easily be standardized:

“Your momma’s so fat that when she put on her belt, she needed a  
boomerang.”

The causal component here is the mother putting on a belt, which is presented as 
a neutral scenario that should be easily possible. However, Yo Momma jokes are 
characterized by exaggeration and absurdity. Thus, the mother presented here is 
so excessively fat that she defies normalcy and the plausible scenario presented 
in the causal component is negated by the introductory formula and modifying 
element.

The last structural element to be considered here is the consequential 
component: the punch line of the Yo Momma joke that synthesizes the other joke 
elements. The consequential component is the result of applying the excessively 
modified mother subject to the normative scenario depicted in the causal 
component to produce an image of the mother in which she is unable to operate 
within the world, effectively reversing the causal component. Her inability to 
function in this world renders the subject foolish, obscene, and even deviant. This 
example, collected from Sean and Mike, exemplifies this phenomenon.

Sean: “Your momma’s so poor that when I ring the doorbell she  
 says ding.” 
Mike:  “Sean.” 
Sean: “I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry.” 
Mike: “Sean. Sean, yesterday I came to your house, and that’s  
 what you did.” 
Sean: “I didn’t do it.” 

CFR_2012.indb   15 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

16

Mike: “Yeah.” 
Sean: “I can’t afford a doorbell.” 
Mike: “How you gonna make fun of my mom if you do it too?” 
Sean: “You’re horrible.” 
Mike:  “Get out of here” (scpafc 2007).

The scenario set up in the above joke is one in which a doorbell is rung and, due 
to the presentation of the mother subject as being excessively poor, a situation 
emerges which lies outside the range of logical possibilities and is seen as 
ridiculous. This particular joke is a well-known example of the genre and thus not 
particularly original. However, the participants here carry the humor of the joke 
beyond the scenario presented by the joke’s structure through verbal maneuvers 
that position them further within the joking framework. Both boys play off each 
other, deliberately misinterpreting the joke as truth, despite its absurdity, and 
opening up an arena for verbal play that is at once part of the joke and yet  
outside it. 

Genre and Play Frames

Like the Dozens, contemporary Yo Momma jokes reside where jokes and verbal 
duels intersect. Despite this similarity, contemporary Yo Momma jokes still inhabit 
a distinct subgenre separable from the Dozens in particular and verbal duels in 
general. My observations have shown that contemporary Yo Momma jokes on 
YouTube, unlike the Dozens, emphasize the joking framework much more than 
the dueling framework. Although it is not uncommon for Yo Momma jokes on 
YouTube to take the form of a verbal duel between two participants,14 it is just as 
common for a video to feature just one person reciting a Yo Momma joke to the 
camera,15 or even just to display jokes in the form of written text on the screen. 
Even when a dueling framework between two or more participants is present, this 
framework is often radically different than those created in traditional verbal duels. 
Often, the duels are staged rather than spontaneous, and the number and identity 
of participants are manipulated by skillful digital editing.

As a form of verbal duels, contemporary Yo Momma jokes share many features 
with the Dozens. John McDowell defines verbal duels as “the competitive use of 
language within the confines of a game structure with rules that are codified and 
available to participants” (1985, 203). The content of verbal duels is often framed 
in formulaic patterns with a definite structure and generic content. Although some 
of the Yo Momma jokes I observed were obviously improvised, especially those 
told by younger children, most of the jokes were traditional. The same jokes were 
often heard in different joking sessions, performed by different participants. Even 
the jokes that were apparently improvised aligned themselves to the structural 
patterns defined above. Hence, these joking sessions can then be seen as highly 
ritualized and engaging with a generic pattern of verbal exchange.

A principle crucial to verbal dueling and to the examination of Yo Momma 
jokes considered here is what McDowell terms the “conservation principle.” 
Briefly, the conservation principle recognizes that verbal dueling is a discursive 

CFR_2012.indb   16 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

17

process in which participants pattern their responses based on previous utterances. 
Yo Momma joking sessions on YouTube often follow this conservation principle, 
allowing for a constant give-and-take between participants, or, as I also observed, 
between a single participant interacting with objects in his environment. An 
example from two adolescent brothers illustrates the conservation principle.

Brother 1:  “Your momma’s so fat people jog around her for 
exercise!”

Brother 2:  “Your mom’s so fat that when I jog around her for 
exercise she went ‘Stop it, you’re making me dizzy, 
yah.’”16

Two jokes told by the youngest informant, four-year-old Aaron, demonstrate 
the conservation principle as enacted between the solo participant and his 
environment. This first joke was told in the beginning of the session:

Your mama’s so fat that she looked into the mirror  
and she saw it and the mirror cracked  
and then it went into the living room,  
but it slide, it slide into the living room (thecomputernerd01 2007).

The following joke was told closer to the end of the session, when his cousin 
Amanda entered the room where he was conducting the joking session.

Your mama’s so— 
No Amanda, don’t come in. 
Your mama’s so fat that 
She saw a mirror was blue and orange 
And pink so Amanda was in the mirror.

Considering these two jokes as a progression within the same joking session, we 
see that Aaron conserved elements of the first joke (the mirror) and incorporated 
that element into a later joke that also incorporated Amanda, who encroached 
on his play space. Although this move is not as dialogic as the first example of 
the two brothers, it does indicate a move towards the direction of conservation 
between participant turns that allows for effective dueling.

Although Yo Momma jokes share certain features with verbal duels, the form 
of such duels in the Dozens and contemporary Yo Momma jokes differs in several 
important respects, particularly in how each constructs frameworks for play that 
structure the discourse that occurs within it. These frames free the joke teller from 
responsibility for the content of the joke and signal to the audience that what is 
to be said is not to be taken seriously, that the performer is “just joking.” This 
frame is central to most human cognitive and behavioral processes, but manifest in 
contemporary Yo Momma jokes in particular ways.

Erving Goffman describes frames as devices that organize and represent 
experience (1974). Frames accomplish this task by arranging discourse into 

CFR_2012.indb   17 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

18

demarcated spaces set off from other discourses through framing devices. 
Play is marked by particular framing behaviors, identified by Gregory Bateson 
as “interactive sequence[s] of which the unit actions or signals [are] similar to 
but not the same as those of combat” (1972, 179).17 Play is signaled through 
metacommunicative messages that indicate to participants aware of such messages 
that the next actions are not to be interpreted and evaluated as they normally 
would outside the frame. Goffman makes a similar observation: “playfulness 
and other keying may be involved which sharply reduce personal responsibility; 
that often what the individual presents is not himself but a story containing a 
protagonist who may happen also to be himself” (Goffman 1974, 541).

All communicative acts involve a certain level of framing and are subject to 
interpretation by the receiver of the message. The Dozens and other verbal duel 
forms are framed in a number of ways that establish and maintain the play frame. 
Labov writes: “Since responses to sounds [i.e., Dozens] are so automatic and deep-
seated, we must pre-suppose a well-formed competence on the part of members 
to distinguish ritual insults from personal insults” (1972, 153). The formulaic 
character and the high stylization of the Dozens serve to remove the insults from 
the context of normative speech acts and instead place them into the category of 
ritual speech. In addition to the formal structure of the Dozens, their referential 
content also frames them as play. Abrahams recognizes that the rules formulated 
for playing the Dozens seem to say “‘You can insult my family, but don’t exceed 
the rules because we are dealing with something perilously close to real life’” 
(1962, 211). Labov echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that the situations in which 
insults move from the ritual to the personal occur when the insults approach too 
closely to actual life. To create Dozens that are safe, therefore, requires a move 
from the probable to the “bizarre and unlikely” (1972, 157). This strategy also 
holds true for contemporary Yo Momma jokes, although performers on YouTube 
often exploit the ambiguous distinction between personal and ritual insults.

The participants involved are also an important consideration for understanding 
the framing of verbal duels. Dozens are often told among peer-group 
members who occupy the same in-group. This performative context allows for 
metacommunicative actions signaling the play frame to be understood by all 
participants as well as providing a safe verbal battleground for the Dozens to be 
played. Playing the Dozens requires participants to make themselves vulnerable 
to a certain amount of verbal abuse. This voluntary exposure to attack is a risk 
taken in all gaming activities and involves an assumption that all participants 
will play by the rules and that ritual insults will not give way to personal insults. 
However, there are situations in which this play frame breaks down. Labov notes 
that “with strangers it is considerably harder to say what is a safe sound, and there 
are any number of taboos that can be broken with serious results” (1972, 158). 
As a result, playing the Dozens is most often done between in-group members, 
and outside of this group this activity is usually intended to provoke a fight. 
Lefever notes a similar occurrence: “Fighting is associated more with the Dozens 
when it is played between exclusive out-group members, when it is played in 
regimented and restrictive settings and when it is played by adults” (1981, 80). In 
these breakdowns, a failure or an unwillingness to recognize the play frame results 

CFR_2012.indb   18 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

19

in a literal interpretation of the insult. For playing the Dozens to be successful, 
participants must operate within the same metacommunicative framework and be 
able to recognize the verbal acts that signal the play event. 

As verbal duels, contemporary Yo Momma joke performances on YouTube 
look much different than the Dozens collected in past decades. Although humor 
and play were certainly part of the Dozens, contemporary Yo Momma jokes 
emphasize the play and joking aspects to a much greater extent. I have classified 
Yo Momma jokes as “jokes,” and they are popularly referred to as such, but this 
generic distinction presents some inherent problems. As jokes, contemporary Yo 
Momma jokes do contain humor at their core and attempt, whether successfully 
or not, to provoke a laughter response. This attempt may be accomplished in a 
variety of ways, but Yo Momma jokes most often accomplish this by word play, 
absurd imagery, or the reversal of societal norms or expectations. These rhetorical 
maneuvers have been discussed above, and are most often inherent in the 
content of the jokes themselves. However, my observation of Yo Momma jokes 
on YouTube shows that participants are finding dynamic ways to revitalize jokes 
that are often seen by audiences as boring and clichéd.18 Performers on YouTube 
accomplish this through innovative framing techniques, such that the source of 
humor is less in the joke content itself than in the framework in which the joke is 
performed.

I have identified three techniques utilized by performers of contemporary 
Yo Momma jokes on YouTube to innovate this traditional joke form: obscuring 
participant identities, taking seriousness playfully, and taking play seriously.

Obscuring Participant Identities

Framing necessarily requires a different interpretation of events. In play 
frameworks, relationships that are not central to the play may be temporarily 
obscured so that the participants may engage in a joking session that would 
otherwise be unable to occur. Often, the relationships that are obscured are 
familial ones. In the following example taken from two adolescent brothers, their 
familial relationship is ignored for the sake of the play: 

Brother 1:  [interrupting] “Your mom’s so fat she goes into a 
restaurant, looks at the menu—”

Brother 2: “Hey.”
Brother 1: “—and says ok!”
Brother 2: “Your mom’s so fat, no wait, dude. Your mom’s my mom.”
Brother 1: “Oh shit.”19

This exchange closes the joking session and ends the video. The relationship 
between the brothers has been temporarily suspended so that they can tell Yo 
Momma jokes to each other; once reinstated, such jokes can no longer be told 
effectively. Several joking sessions between siblings follow this basic formula, with 
the main humor of the video deriving from the family relationship that is revealed 
at the end of the video.

CFR_2012.indb   19 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

20

One video that uses this technique (perhaps unintentionally) sets up the joking 
framework in the typical manner:

Jimmy: “Yo mama fight!”
Alex:   “Your mom’s so poor I saw her kicking a can down the 

street and I said ‘hey, whatcha doing?’ She said, ‘moving.’”
Jimmy:  “Yo mama’s so fat that she brought a little tiny spoon to 

the Super Bowl” (bbumps123 2008).

Whereas the previous examples relied on the revelation of familial relationships 
to provide the video’s humor, such a device within the video itself is unnecessary 
here because the two participants are identical twins.20 The humor here results 
from the obvious irony of the framework; the act of watching identical twins insult 
each other’s mother approaches the surreal. The identities of the participants 
cannot be obscured, only temporarily ignored by the audience. Still, the very 
constructedness of this joking framework is emphasized in several places. One 
commenter seems to either miss the point or is making an ironic joke of her own: 
“hello retards u have the same mama so u cant make a joke about ur mama.”21 
The relationship between the twins is further identified by the video’s title, “when 
brothers fight 3” and metacommentary at the end of the video:

hope you enjoyed
sadly this is our last video with violent
stuff because our dad said no more but please
comment and we will show our dad
thank you and comedy ideas by
jimmy and alex m 

As demonstrated by these examples, Jimmy and Alex M. do not require a grand 
revelation at the end of their video to point out the presence of a play frame and 
the obscuring of participant identities that resulted. These twins are able to both 
obscure and reveal their identities at the same time through the use of intersecting 
and contradictory frameworks.

Another video that plays with the idea of obscured familial relationships 
presents two siblings acting out a Yo Momma battle. It begins with the two 
sitting at a table. The older sister is playing a handheld video game when she is 
interrupted by her younger brother:

Brother:  “Yo momma’s so stupid that she thinks one plus one 
equals elephant.”22

At this point, music appropriate to verbal dueling begins playing in the 
background as the sister turns off her game and menacingly stands up from the 
table:

Sister:  “Let’s handle this the mature way.”

CFR_2012.indb   20 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

21

What follows are typical Yo Momma jokes told back and forth between the 
participants in dueling fashion. Despite the silly content of their jokes (e.g. “[your 
momma’s] so ugly she looked in the mirror and thought it was a picture of Michael 
Jackson”), the siblings adopt an appearance of seriousness that complements the 
dramatic music. The trope of taking these jokes seriously appears again and again 
in these videos, which serves to highlight their very playfulness. For these two 
participants, the video’s production implies, the Yo Momma battle has high stakes.

The revelation of their obscured familial relationship occurs at the end of their 
video, after the sister levies an insult that causes her younger brother to cry:

Sister:    “Yo momma’s so ugly that the storeowner uses her 
picture to keep the rats away.”

After this insult, the sister approaches her little brother and puts her arms on his 
shoulders in a manner meant to suggest consolation. However, this action too is 
pretense:

Sister:  “Um, little dude. Uh, your mom is still ugly.”

At this point, the sister runs away as the camera pans to an older woman, 
presumably their mother, coming out of a doorway. In a raised voice, she 
begins: “what the f—.” Here, the video conveniently ends, letting the audience’s 
imagination supply the rest of her outburst. From the video’s editing, it is obvious 
that the mother’s arrival is part of the performance, but it still serves to break the 
play framework these siblings have constructed by foregrounding the familial 
relationship between all the participants. Her invective at the end is a reply not 
only to her children’s fighting, but also to her place at the center of their duel as 
the target of their jokes.

Family relationships are not the only ones obscured by contemporary 
Yo Momma joke sessions. In several videos observed, the selfhood of the 
participant(s) is also concealed. Through video editing, some participants stage 
a joking session between themselves. In many, but not all, instances, this fact 
is obvious. User Spectator24 posted a video featuring his favorite Yo Momma 
jokes because he was “feelin’ real funny today.” Although Spectator24 is the only 
participant in the video, he still decides to frame it as a verbal duel between two 
participants. He accomplishes this through video editing, cutting back and forth to 
himself in different poses. One “participant” faces right to his assumed opponent, 
who faces left. No other attempts are made to disguise the self-identity of the 
participant(s). His imitation of an actual dual, however, is effective—there is even 
evidence of the conservation principle:

Spectator24 (facing right):  “Yo momma got one toe and one knee 
and they call her Tony, heh heh heh 
heh heh.”

CFR_2012.indb   21 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

22

Spectator24 (facing left):   “Dude, that’s not funny, that’s a serious 
problem. She can’t even wear sandals, 
you asshole” (Spectator24 2007).

Some videos use more advanced video editing techniques and costuming to 
disguise the fact that there is only one participant. One particularly skillful 
example is a video by user azaelive (2009). Many of azaelive’s videos feature his 
alter-ego persona, an outrageously crude woman named Monikka who sports long 
black hair and wears an excessive amount of black lipstick on her lips, under her 
eyes, and in her eyebrows. Azaelive’s Yo Momma video pits Monikka against “the 
other guy,” both played by azaelive. The jokes they tell are largely traditional, but 
what is innovative here is how azaelive edits the video so that both participants 
occupy the shot at the same time. Both participants are edited to be sitting next to 
each other on the same couch, giving the impression of an actual dual in real-time.

Taking Seriousness Playfully

A number of YouTube videos portray Yo Momma jokes inserted in the course 
of normal conversation, where a joking framework is not present. Instead, the 
performers pretend that their play is real life. Of course, this absence of a play 
frame is a fiction, as the video itself is a staged performance. These videos often 
offer an evaluation and commentary of the Yo Momma joke format, highlighting 
their simplicity. 

One video by user LuLu615 plays out another instance where seriousness is 
taken playfully when one girl uses an insult that is too true to life:

Natalie:  “You know, speaking of big-ass mommas, you know how 
I know yo’ momma’s fat? Because she irons her drawers 
on the driveway.”

Alex:   “Well, yo’ momma’s so fat when her beeper goes off 
people think she’s backin’ it up.”

Natalie:  “You know how I know yo’ momma’s so fat? Because 
people jog around her for exercise.”

Alex:   “Well, yo’ momma’s so fat she weighs 800 pounds” 
[mournful violin music begins in the background] “she got 
a clogged artery, had a triple bypass surgery, she died.”

Natalie: [slaps Alex across the face] “Not cool.”23 

The two girls here have created a play framework that allows for the telling of 
Yo Momma jokes, but Alex’s last joke clearly breaks that framework by using 
serious events for the content of a joke. Of course, as is usually the case in Yo 
Momma jokes on YouTube, this seriousness is actually part of the joke; Natalie’s 
mother presumably does not suffer from the afflictions alleged by Alex. This video 
indulges in a “what if” scenario that details what might happen “when simple 
jokes go wrong,” which is the video’s description. By acting out the breakdown of 

CFR_2012.indb   22 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

23

a play framework, Alex and Natalie’s video draws attention to those features that 
are integral to its construction.

A video titled “SO IS YO MOMMA!” by user AlexDH92 emphasizes the fact that 
Yo Momma jokes can be easily inserted into the course of everyday conversation. 
Like azaelive’s video discussed above, this video consists of only one performer 
who plays two parts. The entirety of the video consists of one character (whom 
I’ve labeled Alex 1) making a statement, followed by a mother insult spoken by 
another character (Alex 2). 

Alex 1:  [looking into a mirror] “God, I’m so ugly.”
Alex 2: “Well so is your momma!”
Alex 1: “This T.V. is so big!”
Alex 2: “And so yo’ momma’s boobies!”
Alex 1: “This show is so stupid.”
Alex 2: “Well, so is yo’ momma!”
Alex 1: [holding up a piece of paper] “I’ve got testicular torsion!”
Alex 2: “Well, so does yo’ momma!”
Alex 1:  [playing a video game] “You’re a s– [bleeping noises] little 

f– [bleeping noises]!”
Alex 2: “Well, so is yo’ momma!”24

The insults spoken here are highly abbreviated and unsophisticated when 
compared to standard Yo Momma jokes. The jokes here are left to the audience to 
parse and reconstruct. The first joke in the above transcript could be expanded to 
fit the structure:

“Yo momma’s so ugly that she’s as ugly as you.”25

This clumsy joke is neither complex nor original, but that is precisely the point 
of the video. Alex’s performance highlights the simplicity of the Yo Momma joke 
structure by demonstrating how easily the joke can be constructed in almost 
any speaking context. Even the joke about testicular torsion works on some 
level despite its impossibility due to both its humorous incongruity as well as its 
insinuation of masculinity. 

The video ends by testing the limits of the Yo Momma joke’s applicability to 
non-play frameworks. 

Alex 1: [talking on a cell phone] “What, she’s dead?”
Alex 2: “And so is yo’ momma!”
Alex 1:  “No, no, not now, my mum’s just died in a horrible car 

crash.”
Alex 2: “Ooo, that’s awkward.”
Alex 1: “Not as awkward as yo’ momma!”

This humorous turn reverses the roles played by the two participants throughout 
the video. Here, Alex 1 sets up a serious scenario that resists the imposition of a 

CFR_2012.indb   23 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

24

play frame by his double; Alex 2 recognizes that he has transgressed the boundary 
for appropriate play. However, in this instance the situation that establishes this 
boundary is imaginary, part of a play framework designed by Alex 1. Alex 2’s 
response “ooo, that’s awkward” denotes his disengagement from play. It is at 
this moment that the participants’ roles are reversed; it is now Alex 1 who turns 
seriousness into play.

A video by user ZKSbrothers also exploits the simplicity and wide applicability 
of Yo Momma jokes, but employs a more dramatic method of conveying this 
commentary. The description for this video summarizes the main plot:

After watching “Yo Mamma” jokes for many hours, Stephen becomes 
obsessed, and can’t stop making his own jokes (ZKSbrothers 2007).

The video includes a cast of five older teenage boys and is comprised of a number 
of scenes in which Stephen goes to extreme lengths to interrupt normal, non-play 
speech and activities, including sleeping, getting dressed, talking on the phone, 
and fishing. Throughout, Stephen hides nearby, waiting for the appropriate 
opportunities to interject. In one scene, Stephen runs to a group of three boys in 
order to tell them, “that’s what your mother said last night.” The last thing said 
in the video was “see you later,” but Stephen was too far away to possibly hear 
this, implying either that Stephen has preternatural hearing or commenting on the 
applicability of this insult to a wide variety of contexts.

In another scene, Stephen hides himself on the roof of a house and listens in 
on a conversation between two of the boys.

Boy in Brown Shirt:  “Sorry I was late coming over here. I, uh, was 
driving and there was this crazy kid that came 
out and he was screaming Yo Mamma jokes and 
it was really weird.”

Chris:    “Yeah, that was probably Stephen. He stayed up 
all night on the Internet watching those stupid 
Yo Mamma jokes and now he can’t stop.”

Stephen:  “Your mother can stop…last night!” [laughs]
Chris:   “Where is he? Where is he? What now?”
Stephen:  [Jumps off the roof]
Chris:   “Oh my God! Oh my God! Are you all right?”
Stephen:   “Ah, yeah, I’m fine. But your mom wasn’t!” 

[laughs]  

The video contains several other scenes that follow this general pattern. In each, 
Stephen disrupts seriousness with play and irritates his companions. The video 
ends when the other boys, provoked by Stephen’s antics, beat him up (during the 
beating, Stephen shouts, “your mom was this aggressive!”). 

The jokes in the above two videos are incredibly simplistic, even by Yo 
Momma joke standards, but this simplicity is evaluated and manipulated by 
the videos’ creators. As seen in these examples, serious actions are quite easily 

CFR_2012.indb   24 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

25

appropriated for play activity by these abbreviated Yo Momma jokes. Although 
these videos rely on these simplified Yo Momma jokes to drive the action, the 
creators are actually rejecting them as a legitimate source of humor. The humor 
in these videos comes not from the jokes themselves but rather from their 
performance contexts, the stuff that happens around the jokes. By devising the 
intricate framing techniques used in these videos, the creators add complexity to 
the traditional joke form and showcase their talents as innovators of play. 

Taking Play Seriously

Another technique used to create humor in Yo Momma jokes on YouTube is to 
deliberately ignore the play framework necessitated by joking. Of course, this 
disregard of frames is feigned by participants; no actual people were offended in 
the making of these jokes. By pretending to ignore these play frames, participants 
actually draw attention to them, highlighting the act of performance rather than 
the jokes’ actual content. This maneuver was used in a large number of the videos 
studied.

One extended example from Sean and Mike takes the referential content of the 
jokes themselves as being real events:

Mike:   “Man. Man, I’ve got to tell you something. Your momma’s 
so fat her senior picture, was taken aerial view. Aerial? 
You know. That that that’s fat.”

Sean:    “That’s where I was, that’s where my senior picture was 
taken. Yeah.”

Mike:   “You’re pretty fat. Whew. Man, your momma’s so fat, so 
so so fat she used a sock—. [laughing]. I’m joking, I’m 
joking. Your momma’s so fat, she used a pillowcase as a 
sock.”

Sean:    “Oh shit, I think that’s what I have on. Oh yea, that’s what 
I have. Uh oh.”

Mike:   “Fatness. Whew. [inaudible]. It’s ok, it’s ok. It’s alright, it’s 
alright. Man, your momma’s so fat that the doctor went 
to cut her leg open and gravy started flowing out, just 
flowin’ like a volcano.”

Sean:   “That happened to me two weeks ago.”
Mike:   “Are you serious?”
Sean:   “Yeah.”
Mike:  “You are pretty damn fat.”
  . . . . . 
Sean:    “Your momma’s so fat [whispering] that we’re in her 

right now. Shhh, don’t wake, don’t wanna wake up Her 
Fatness.”

Mike:  “What, what’s that stuff covering you?”
Sean:   “Poop? Poopie poopie poopie” (scpafc 2007). 

CFR_2012.indb   25 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

26

These jokes are not original (several commenters even accuse them of reading the 
jokes off a screen),26 but the metacommentary surrounding the jokes is. These two 
performers attempt to increase the humor of the jokes’ content by emphasizing 
their absurdity and insisting on their reality. These jokes move back and forth 
between play and seriousness. This movement is largely done through the self-
identification of one participant with his mother, who is being insulted by the 
other. The pretense of ignoring the play framework allows these two boys to 
gain extra mileage from traditional Yo Momma jokes by imagining their excessive 
effects as present in the real world.

Although other videos show performers ignoring the presence of a play 
framework, most take a much different course than the one above. One video that 
utilized this technique is a direct parody of the MTV television show Yo Momma. 
This program, which ran in 2006 and 2007, brought together the best verbal 
duelers from different urban neighborhoods to face off in verbal battles facilitated 
by celebrity host Wilmer Valderama. In a cyclical process typical of many folklore 
genres, the Yo Momma television show drew from folkloric dueling traditions, but 
was then re-appropriated by folk culture as in the parody video below. The Yo 
Momma battle in this video begins as expected:

Zero Degrees Kelvin:  “Yo. Yo momma is like a brick. She’s dirty, she’s 
flat on both sides, and she always get laid by 
Mexicans. 

   [crowd cheers]
Lil’ Mufasa:   “What’d you say about my momma?” 

(LutopianSociety 2008). 

At this point, however, Lil’ Mufasa pulls out a gun and shoots Zero Degrees 
Kelvin, killing him. Lil’ Mufasa has misinterpreted the joke as a real insult, but 
the audience then interprets his action as a legitimate response to the first joke. 
The crowd responds with the typical noises that follow an insult, and then the 
performer playing Wilmer Valderama consults with the judges and returns with a 
decision:

Wilmer Valderama:  “Alright, so, I had a tough decision to make. Uh, 
you both were good, but, um, I did feel that 
one of you stepped up the most and that one 
of you was dead-on with your jokes. So, now, 
we decided, and the winner is…Zero Degrees 
Kelvin.”

Wilmer then speaks to the dead Kelvin and presents him with his thousand-dollar 
prize. The video begins with an instance of play taken seriously but ends with 
seriousness taken playfully. Not only does the video toy with the differences 
between play and seriousness, but also with those between life and death; the 
participants are unable to distinguish between both conceptual categories. 

CFR_2012.indb   26 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

27

The last video I wish to consider is sophisticated in terms of both performance 
and editing. Like the previous video, “Gaelen and Paul’s First Fight” also hinges 
on a joke that is taken seriously by another participant. It begins with the two 
performers conversing while playing video games together:

Paul:   “Hey, hey. Dude. I got a joke. I thought about this earlier 
today. Yo momma is so fat—”

Gaelen: “What’d you say about my momma?”
Paul:  “Come on man, it’s just a joke.” [lightly shoves Paul]
Gaelen:  “What? Did you just exercise physical contact in my 

bubble?”
Paul:  “What?”
Gaelen: “Did you just touch me?”
Paul:  [stands up] “What does it matter, Mr. Sensitive?”
Gaelen: “I’m packing heat.”
Paul:  “Me too, bub.”
Gaelen: “Tomorrow. Downtown. High noon.”
Paul:   “No, no, I can’t do it then. I’m going downtown to see a 

movie with Joseph.” 
Gaelen: “Wait, why didn’t you invite me?”
Paul:   “I don’t know, you’ve been kind of annoying lately. The 

whole bean thing.”27

Gaelen:  “You gave me those! You, you know what? Ten minutes, 
front yard!”

  [long pause]
Paul:  “Man, we’ve got ten minutes to burn”28

The two resume playing video games together, and thirty minutes later (indicated 
by an on-screen message) they meet outside. In an imitation of a classic Western-
movie dueling scene, Gaelen and Paul stand back-to-back before pacing off 
in opposite directions. Both the background music and close-up shots of each 
participant’s eyes also bring to mind other Western-movie genre conventions. 
The music suddenly changes to epic choral music as the two draw their guns and 
shoot. Both of them are hit, shown by spurts of blood that are digitally edited 
into the shot. Gaelen comes out on top, however. The scene ends with Gaelen 
standing over Paul, his gun pressed against Paul’s head. He speaks, “I never liked 
comments about my momma.”

This video is particularly sophisticated in the ways it draws upon Western 
genre conventions to play with the idea of retribution, in this case for a joke taken 
seriously. However, at the same time that these performers are employing these 
conventions, they are also subverting them through parody and play. The end of 
the video reveals the playfulness of this Western-style gunfight explicitly, while 
at the same time imposing an additional play framework upon the entire video. 
After the end of the last scene, when Gaelen is just about to shoot Paul, the scene 
abruptly changes to show the two in a bedroom, looking over pages of paper, 
presumably a script:

CFR_2012.indb   27 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

28

Paul:   “And that’s it! Wouldn’t this be the most awesome movie 
idea you’ve ever read?”

Gaelen: “This is good stuff!”
Paul:  “Hey, hey. Your momma’s so fat—“
Gaelen: [menacingly, in slow motion] “What?”

Even in this scene, in which the viewer assumes that the play framework is not 
operating, is shown to be subsumed in yet another framework, as a Yo Momma 
joke is again taken seriously. This entire video contains several nested play 
frameworks that consistently interact with and interpenetrate each other. The 
viewer can never be quite sure in what framework the participants are operating at 
any time and this ambiguity is exploited by the two participants. 

Conclusion

Although original ethnographic work on the Dozens has declined in the last three 
decades since Labov’s treatment, this gap in the scholarly literature is not indicative 
of a decline in its performance. The Dozens have undergone significant changes 
since Abrahams and Labov conducted their fieldwork, but there are also telling 
similarities that demonstrate a continuity of form and content across generations of 
children and adolescents. A strictly textual study comparing the Dozens collected 
in the 1960s and 70s with those collected today might emphasize such continuity 
as evidence for the power of tradition. Analysis of performance contexts, however, 
shows that although the jokes remain the same, the message has not.

I have identified here one key site where Yo Momma jokes continue to be 
told among peers to an audience that evaluates their performance. My survey of 
contemporary Yo Momma jokes on YouTube shows that this form of the Dozens 
is still vital among youth who have adapted this traditional joke genre to changed 
social and technological contexts. Here, digital video technology has provided 
contemporary youth with means by which to innovate and reinvent a somewhat 
stale joke form, and Internet sites like YouTube have facilitated the communication 
of these creations with a wider audience. 

However, this study is far from conclusive. The videos here are only a sampling 
of those available on YouTube, and YouTube is only one website where such 
jokes are shared, reinvented, and performed. I have identified three techniques 
by which performers innovate Yo Momma jokes, but further research of a wider 
sample of jokes would undoubtedly uncover a wider range of maneuvers. 
Ethnographic work on Yo Momma jokes told offline would go far in identifying 
ways that Internet performance contexts shape the content, structure, and 
execution of jokes. This study points to the rich and vital possibilities of Internet 
folklore, but much work remains to be done by folklorists in the realm of 
vernacular culture on the Internet.

CFR_2012.indb   28 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

29

NOTES

1. This text is censored in the original article. 
2. Alternately spelled yo momma, yo mama, yo mamma, and yo moma. In 

video transcriptions, I have used the spelling “yo momma” unless other spellings 
are specified in the video’s tags or title, in which case I use that spelling. I use 
the grammatically incorrect “yo momma” rather than “yo’ momma” as an emic 
classification; no YouTube videos surveyed for this project used the contracted 
form in their tags or titles.

3. One video dubbed a skit by Weird Al Yankovic over the children’s cartoon 
“Naruto” (a video that has since been taken down due to a copyright violation) 
and another dubbed Yo Momma jokes from the Blue Collar Comedy Tour over a 
World of Warcraft video (krooltee 2008).

4. Labov identifies ten different forms the Dozens can take, based on form. See 
Labov 1972, 128-42.

5. In 1972, Labov briefly discussed Dozens performed among white peer 
groups. Notably, he observed that performances of the Dozens by white peer 
groups were largely restricted to a limited set of insult routines. One of these is 
what Labov calls the “You are so X that Y type,” which includes Yo Momma jokes 
(140-42).

6. One consistent connection to urban black culture that finds its way into Yo 
Momma jokes on YouTube consists of those videos inspired by the MTV television 
show Yo Momma, which ran for three seasons between 2006 and 2007. This show 
took place in large cities (Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta), emphasized urban 
culture, and pitted two people against each other in a verbal battle. The winner 
received a cash prize and advanced in the competition. The structure and content 
of these battles differed significantly from their vernacular counterparts, but it is 
obvious that some YouTube videos observed took inspiration from the television 
show.

7. However, sometimes the pretense of competition is maintained, although 
it is obvious to viewers that such competition is scripted. This is particularly true 
of those videos that take inspiration from the Yo Momma television show, which 
maintains a strong competitive element. I will touch on such staging later in this 
paper.

8. This video has since been removed by the user.
9. Although Bergen and Binsted use traditional Yo Momma jokes that are fully 

formed and divorced from performance contexts, my own ethnographic work with 
Yo Momma jokes on YouTube supports their cognitive function. As will soon be 
seen, young children are capable of grasping the structure of Yo Momma jokes, 
but often struggle with providing content that successfully manipulates scalar 
relationships.

10. Indeed, I could find no Yo Momma joking sessions performed between 
participants who did not know each other. This is not particularly surprising, as 
most of the sessions I observed on YouTube were videotaped and hence self-
selected for participants that knew each other. However, there are many other 
videos on YouTube that are recordings of spontaneous rather than scripted events 

CFR_2012.indb   29 10/19/12   9:25:32 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

30

observed by the recorder, and my survey did not turn up any recording of an 
impromptu Yo Momma joking session between strangers. Scholarship on the 
Dozens also largely upholds this trend, and I speculate that further ethnographic 
evidence on Yo Momma jokes in particular would uphold this claim. One notable 
exception is in the mass media. The Yo Momma television show on MTV pits 
participants from different neighborhoods against each other, but these battles are 
planned by producers for a mass media market.

11. Although I could not identify Alejandro’s exact age, he appears to be 
between five and eight years of age.

12. This video has since been removed by the user.
13. Of course, this trend is partly the result of the search terms I used in this 

study. However, a brief search for phrases such as “yo daddy,” “yo sister,” and “yo 
brother” returns videos that feature mostly Yo Momma jokes. Jokes with targets 
other than a mother are comparatively rare, and usually told at the same time as 
Yo Momma jokes.

14. As will be seen later, however, sometimes this duel framework is artificially 
created. For example, several videos constructed a dueling relationship through 
clever editing, thus pitting the participant against himself. This phenomenon will 
be explored later in the paper.

15. In some cases, the participant clearly intends for his audience to be the 
target of these jokes and invites video responses and comments as replies to his 
verbal attacks. One notable example of this type of video by YouTube celebrity 
Shane Dawson garnered several hundred video responses and more than 100,000 
comments as of September 2012, four years after the original video was posted 
(ShaneDawsonTV 2008).

16. This video has since been removed by the user.
17. The idea of play as faked combat is especially pertinent to verbal duel 

forms, as much of the tension inherent in such duels revolves around maintaining 
this distinction. 

18. Remarks on the unoriginality of the jokes themselves is one of the more 
frequent responses to Yo Momma joke videos on YouTube. Users often critique 
the video for using videos taken from somewhere else, although others often 
respond that Yo Momma jokes by their nature are unoriginal.

19. This video has since been removed by the user.
20. The conclusion of this joking session ends logically enough with simulated 

violence when one brother takes offense to a joke, which is another technique 
employed by performers of contemporary Yo Momma jokes to increase the humor.

21. Comment by user ilovejustin2525, found on the page for the video when 
brothers fight 3.

22. This video has since been removed by the user.
23. This video has since been removed by the user.
24. This video has since been removed by the user.
25. This kind of reconstructive work is modeled on Labov, who also looked at 

the structure of these abbreviated Dozens of the “X is so Y” type. For examples of 
how Labov reconstructed these abbreviated Dozens, see Labov 1972, 154.

CFR_2012.indb   30 10/19/12   9:25:33 AM



stAnZAk  mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes

31

26. The comment by user astalavista123321 is indicative of the general tone 
and language of other such comments: “ok that was so gay that gay people laugh 
at you for being gayi mean,wtf dude,the yo momma’s so fat, she fell in love and 
broke it and i think there was one more that was actualy funny, ok, but why the 
hell must you act like that? and the kid on the right side of the screen was fucking 
retarded..i mean,he kept forcing himself to laugh.and as many others have said,i 
even found the site were you were reading the jokes from, so bloody come up 
with one and take credit for it.”

27. This refers to another video by the two posted a month earlier, in which 
Gaelen eats some beans. His ensuing flatulence causes an explosion. The purpose 
of the video, other than entertainment, was for the pair to experiment with 
software that creates special effects. This video has since been removed by the 
user.

28. This video has since been removed by the user.

WORKS CITED

Abrahams, Roger D. 1962. Playing the Dozens. The Journal of American Folklore 
75 (297):209–20.

Ayoub, Millicent R., and Stephen A. Barnett. 1965. Ritualized Verbal Insult in White 
High School Culture. The Journal of American Folklore 78 (310):337–44.

azaelive. 2009. Yo mama jokes! Battle. YouTube; 2 min., 16 sec.; video. http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKOs-bFEKpM.

Bateson, Gregory. 1972. A Theory of Play and Fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of 
Mind, 177-93. New York: Ballentine.

bbumps123. 2008. when brothers fight 3. YouTube; 1 min., 47 sec.; video. http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V_tKSe8D7I.

Bergen, Benjamin, and Kim Binsted. 2003. The Cognitive Linguistics of Scalar 
Humor. In Language, Culture, and Mind, ed. M. Archard and S. Kemmer, 
1-13. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Dollard, John. 1939. The Dozens: Dialect of Insult. The American Imago 1 
(November):3–25.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. The Frame Analysis of Talk. In Frame Analysis: An Essay 
on the Organization of Experience, 496-559. Boston: Northeastern University 
Press.

Halfcastkid. 2008. Extreme Funny YO MAMA JOKES. YouTube; 1 min., 30 sec.; 
video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCJfWwp9F4E.

krooltee. 2008. World of Warcraft Yo mama fight, Horde vs Alliance. YouTube; 2 
min., 38 sec.; video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs98lY2pkIY.

Labov, William. 1972. Rules for Ritual Insults. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. 
D. Sudnow, 120–69. New York: The Free Press.

Lange, Patricia G. 2007. Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on 
YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (1). http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html.

Lefever, Harry G. 1981. “Playing the Dozens”–A Mechanism for Social-Control. 
Phylon 42 (1):73–85.

CFR_2012.indb   31 10/19/12   9:25:33 AM



mAniPulAting PlAy FrAmes stAnZAk

32

LutopianSociety. 2008. Yo Momma (Final Cut). YouTube; 3 min., 58 sec.; video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n2nysi4syM.

McDowell, John H. 1985. Verbal Dueling. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. 
T. A. van Dijk, 203-11. London: Academic Press.

McMahon, Felicia R., and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1999. The Past in the Present: 
Theoretical Directions for Children’s Folklore. In Children’s Folklore: A 
Source Book, ed. B. Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T. W. Johnson and F. R. 
McMahon, 293–308. Logan: Utah State University Press.

scpafc. 2007. Funny Yo Mama Jokes. YouTube; 4 min., 22 sec.; video. http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=reXD1k5AoGo.

ShaneDawsonTV. 2008. YO MOMMA YOUTUBE BATTLE! YouTube; 4 min., 59 
sec.; video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsukwnTEb8k.

Spectator24. 2007. My Top Yo Momma Jokes!!! YouTube; 4 min., 28 sec.; video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrN7MpdbuBI.

thecomputernerd01. 2007. Yo Mama Jokes ((( 4 Year Old Edition ))). YouTube; 3 
min., 19 sec.; video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syriAKa_OxA.

ZKSbrothers. 2007. ZKS Brothers: Yo Momma! YouTube; 8 min., 48 sec.; video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf8-eaPiceQ.

CFR_2012.indb   32 10/19/12   9:25:33 AM


	CFR_2012_Part2
	CFR_2012_Part3
	CFR_2012_Part4
	CFR_2012_Part5
	CFR_2012_Part6
	Pages from CFR_2012_Part7



