Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The body-swap comedy, where someone finds themselves inhabiting an entirely different body, is a well-established Hollywood tradition. Crucially, American filmmakers have tried every twist and contortion of this genre premise at a point or another over the past few decades. And yet, other countries, such as Egypt, Japan, and South Africa, seem to have just now put different spins on the theme. Nevertheless, this genre is under-theorized and under-explored. Drawing on insights from blending theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), mental models (van Dijk 2014), and the actor’s process as described by, among others, Stanislavsky (19952008) and Brecht (19641970), this article provides cognitively plausible answers to the perennial questions: What is so funny in body-swap films? How do spectators make sense of this genre? How do blending processes operate in body-swap movies? Do spectators “live in the blend?” What patterns of compression or decompression are at work in body-swap templates? Can humor be a strong determiner of moral-political cognition? And what connections can be drawn between acting and cognitive neuroscience? A discussion of English and Arabic examples (i) points to some of the cultural concepts involved in body-swap films, (ii) shows how conceptual blending in humorous films serves to both perpetuate and modify culturally relevant concepts, and (iii) highlights the necessity to expand the current scope in compression, embodiment and identity research. More generally, then, this article presents a new cognitive theory of how cinema, television, or theatre communicates meaning. The most important aim of this study is thus to contribute to the small but growing number of publications that use the cognitive sciences to inform scholarly and practical explorations in theatre and performance studies, as well as to the study of Arab theatre and cinema, which are among the most neglected subjects in the field.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdel-Raheem, A.
    (2017) Decoding images: Toward a theory of pictorial framing. Discourse & Society, 28(4), 327–352. 10.1177/0957926517702978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517702978 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2018)  Multimodal humor: Integrating Blending Model, Relevance Theory, and Incongruity Theory. Multimodal Communication, 7(1), 1–19. 10.1515/mc‑2017‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen, R.
    (1993) Representation, illusion, and cinema. Cinema Journal, 32 (2), 21–48. Retrieved from: ncadjarmstrong.com/year-3-postmodern-moving/representation-illusion-and.pdf. 10.2307/1225603
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1225603 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1995) Projecting illusion: Film spectatorship and the impression of reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Asmolovskaya, Y.
    (2009) Conceptual blending in jokes. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Attardo, S.
    (1990) The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. InK. Hall, J. P. Koenig, M. Meacham, S. Reinman, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp.355–362). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1994) Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017) Humour and pragmatics. InS. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp.174–188). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-13 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bache, C.
    (2005) Constraining conceptual integration theory: levels of blending and disintegration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1615–1635. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  10. Barthes, R.
    (1986 [1964]) Rhetoric of the image. Trans. by Richard Howard. In: The Responsibility of Forms (pp.21–40). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bateman, J.
    (2017) Intermediality in film: A blending-based perspective. InJ. Wildfeuer, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Film text analysis: new perspectives on the analysis of filmic meaning (pp.141–162). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berger, A. A.
    (1993) An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bing, J., & Scheibman, J.
    (2014) Blended spaces as subversive feminist humor. InD. Chairo, & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp.13–29). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blair, R.
    (2008) The actor, image and action. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Cognitive neuroscience and acting: Imagination, conceptual blending, and empathy. TDR: The Drama Review, 53(4), 92–103. 10.1162/dram.2009.53.4.93
    https://doi.org/10.1162/dram.2009.53.4.93 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 10–11. 10.1162/dram.2010.54.1.10
    https://doi.org/10.1162/dram.2010.54.1.10 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bortoluzzi, M.
    (2009) An inconvenient truth: Multimodal emotions in identity construction. InJ. Vincent, & L. Forunati (Eds.), Electronic emotion: The mediation of emotion via information and communication technologies (pp.137–164). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Braha, Y., Byrne, B.
    (2011) Creative motion graphic titling: Titling with motion graphics for film. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brecht, B.
    (1964) Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, ed. and trans.J. Willett, New York: Hill and Wang.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1970) Űber Experimentelles Theater. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brickman, B. J.
    (2012) New American teenagers: The lost generation of youth in 1970s film. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brockett, G., Ball, J., Fleming, J., & Carlson, A.
    (2014) The essential theatre. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown, T.
    (2012) Breaking the fourth wall: Direct address in the cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Burnett, D.
    (2014, April2). Body swapping: the science behind the switch. The Guardian. Retrieved from10/10/2016: https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/apr/02/body-swapping-the-science-behind-the-switch
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Carnicke, S. M.
    (2000) Stanislavsky’s System. InA. Hodge (Ed.), Twentieth century actor training (pp.11–36). London. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Stanislavsky in focus: An acting master for the twenty-first century. London. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chekhov, M.
    (1985) To the actor. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cone, E.
    (1974) The composer’s voice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Coulson, S.
    (2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2003) Reasoning and rhetoric: Conceptual blending in political and religious rhetoric. InE. Oleksy, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Research and scholarship in integration processes (pp.59–88). Lodz, Poland: Lodz University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005a) What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology/Psicopatologia Cognitive, 2(3), 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2005b) Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Coulson, S., & Pascual, E.
    (2006) For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 153–181. Retrieved from17/10/2018: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/79ed/4738e6b6131fcc9cfe650ec1f903a3cc415c.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dannenberg, H.
    (2012) Fleshing out the blend: The representation of counterfactuals in alternate history in print, film, and television narratives. InM. Hartner & R. Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (Narratologia, vol. 34) (pp.121–146). Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110291230.121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291230.121 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dickey, M. D.
    (2015) Aesthetics and design for game-based learning. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315866666
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315866666 [Google Scholar]
  36. Druckman, J. N.
    (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256. 10.1023/A:1015006907312
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015006907312 [Google Scholar]
  37. Dynel, M.
    (2011a) Blending the Incongruity-Resolution Model and the Conceptual Integration Theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 59–83. doi:  10.1163/187731011X561009.
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561009 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2011b) ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1628–1644. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. The European Journal of Humor Research, 1, 22–60. 10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel
    https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2013.1.1.dynel [Google Scholar]
  40. (2017) Is there a humour in your humour? On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. InR. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing intercultural pragmatics: Cognitive, linguistic and sociopragmatic perspectives on language use (pp.55–78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110546095‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-004 [Google Scholar]
  41. El Refaie, E.
    (2011) The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(1), 87–108. (10.1515/HUMR.2011.005) doi: 10.1515/humr.2011.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J.
    (2011) A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299. 10.1177/0956797611398497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398497 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fauconnier, G.
    (2005) Compression and emergent structure. Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 523–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2000) Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3–4), 283–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2003) Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication: Sémiotique Cognitive, 19, 57–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fischer, D.
    (2000) Science fiction film directors, 1895–1998. North Carolina, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fludernik, M.
    (2015) Blending in Cartoons: The Production of Comedy. InL. Zunshine (Ed.), The oxford handbook of cognitive literary studied (pp.155–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Forceville, C.
    (2004) Review of Fauconnier and Turner (2002). Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 83–89. 10.1207/S15327868MS1901_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1901_5 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2014) Relevance Theory as a model for multimodal communication. InD. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp.51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2016a) Visual and multimodal metaphor in film: charting the field.” InK. Fahlenbrach (Ed.), Embodied metaphors in film, television and video games: Cognitive approaches (pp.17–32). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2016b) Conceptual metaphor theory, blending theory, and other cognitive perspectives on comics. InN. Cohn (Ed.), The visual narrative (pp.89–110). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. French, R.
    (1995) The subtlety of sameness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Giles, H., & Coupland, N.
    (1991) Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Goffman, E.
    (1974) Frame analysis: An easy on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gordejuela, A.
    (2017, July). Joint attention in the construction of film flashbacks. Paper presented at the14th International Cognitive Linguistics Association conference, Tartu, Estonia.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T.
    (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  58. Haidt, J.
    (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. 10.1037/0033‑295X.108.4.814
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hill, J.
    (2009) The Russian pre-theatrical actor and the Stanislavsky System. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from14/01/2018: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a6c/3b5ad0240af3175f5b451fec3ae78dea3d5d.pdf
  60. (2010) Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 9–10. 10.1162/DRAM_c_00002
    https://doi.org/10.1162/DRAM_c_00002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Holden, S.
    (2002, December13) She’s a sweetheart, then presto! she’s a sweet guy. The New York Times. Retrieved from10/11/2017: www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0CE6D8133AF930A25751C1A9649C8B63
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hougaard, A.
    (2005) Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1653–1685. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2008) Compression in interaction. InT. Oakley, and A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp.179–208). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. 10.1075/pbns.170.07hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.07hou [Google Scholar]
  64. Jabłońska-Hood, J.
    (2015) A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected comedy productions in focus. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05306‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05306-7 [Google Scholar]
  65. Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1983) Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kemp, R.
    (2010) Embodied acting: Cognitive foundations of performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from12/12/2017: d-scholarship.pitt.edu/8243/1/Kemp_ETD_8_27_2010.pdf
  67. (2012) Embodied acting: What neuroscience tells us about performance. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203126110
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126110 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kendon, A.
    (2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  69. Khouri, M.
    (2010) The Arab national project in Youssef Chahine’s cinema. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. 10.5743/cairo/9789774163548.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774163548.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Koestler, A.
    (1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lakoff, G.
    (1996) Moral politics: How conservatives and liberals think. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Landau, J.
    (2016) Studies in the Arab theatre and cinema. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315630182
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630182 [Google Scholar]
  73. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  74. Marín-Arrese, J.
    (2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5, 1–18. 10.1515/IP.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  75. McConachie, B.
    (2008) Engaging audiences: A cognitive approach to spectating in the theatre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230617025
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230617025 [Google Scholar]
  76. McConachie, B., & Hart, E.
    (2006) Introduction. InB. McConachie, & E. Hart (Eds.), Performance and cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn (pp.1–25). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203966563
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966563 [Google Scholar]
  77. McGinn, C.
    (2009) Imagination. InB. P. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann & S. Walter (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp.595–606). Oxford/NewYork: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Moinereau, L.
    (2004) Génériques de fin: les strategies du deuil. InV. Innocenti, & V. Re (Eds.), Limina/le sogliedel film: X. Convegnointernazionale di studisul cinema (77–88). Udine, Italy: Forum.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Monta, E., & Stanley, J.
    (2008) Directing for stage and screen. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230610453
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230610453 [Google Scholar]
  80. Morreall, J.
    (1983) Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., & Hawkins, C. B.
    (2010) Implicit political cognition. InB. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp.548–564). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Oakley, T.
    (2013) Toward a general theory of film spectatorship. Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from10/10/2017: https://case.edu/artsci/engl/Library/Oakley-TheoryFilmSpectator.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Oakley, T., & Tobin, V.
    (2012) Attention, blending, and suspense in Classic and Experimental Film. InMarcus Hartner and Ralf Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (pp.57–83). Hawthorne, NY: deGruyter. Retrieved from (1–21): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1513283. 10.1515/9783110291230.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291230.57 [Google Scholar]
  84. Pagán Cánovas, C., & Turner, M.
    (2016) Generic integration templates for fictive communication. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.) The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.45–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.03pag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.03pag [Google Scholar]
  85. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2014) Meaning construction in verbomusical environments: conceptual disintegration and metonymy. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 130–151. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  86. Pötzsch, H.
    (2012) Framing narratives: Opening sequences in contemporary American and British war films. Media, War & Conflict, 5(2) 155–173. 10.1177/1750635212440918
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635212440918 [Google Scholar]
  87. Ritchie, G.
    (2004) The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203406953
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203406953 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sandler, S.
    (2016) Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. 10.1075/hcp.55.02san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.02san [Google Scholar]
  89. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S.
    (2008a) With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219–1222. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02227.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x [Google Scholar]
  90. Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H.
    (2008b) Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109. 10.1177/0146167208317771
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771 [Google Scholar]
  91. Shafik, V.
    (2007) Arab cinema: History and cultural identity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. 10.5743/cairo/9789774160653.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774160653.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  92. Soto-Morettini, D.
    (2010) The Philosophical actor: A Practical meditation for practicing theatre artists. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance theory: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Stanislavsky, K.
    (1948) Ozhyvleniye vneshnikh obstoyatel’stv zhyzni p’yesy i roli [Reviving external circumstances of life in play and role]. InV. Meskheteli (Ed.), Ezhegodnik Moskovskogo khudozhestvennogo teatra, 1945, T. 1 [The Moscow art theatre yearbook for 1945, vol.1] (pp.317–338). Moscow: Izdanie muzeia Moskovskogo khudozhestvennogo akademicheskogo teatra SSSR imeni M. Gor’kogo.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Stanislavsky, K.
    (1954–1961) Sobraniesochinenii [Collected works], 8vols.Moscow: Iskusstvo.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. (1991) Sobraniesochinenii, vol. 4 [An Actor’s Work on the Role and From the Artistic Notebooks], Moscow: Iskusstvo.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. (1995) Inner impulses and inner action: Creative objectives.” InR. Drain (Ed.), Twentieth century theatre: A sourcebook (pp.253–257). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. (2008) An actor’s work: A student’s diary (Jean Benedetti, transl. & Ed.) London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203936153
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203936153 [Google Scholar]
  99. Stanitzek, G.
    (2009) Reading the title sequence (Vorspann, Générique). Cinema Journal, 48 (4), 44–58. 10.1353/cj.0.0142
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.0.0142 [Google Scholar]
  100. Steen, F., & Turner, M.
    (2013) Multimodal Construction Grammar. InM. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp.255–274). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Thabet, M.
    (2002) Kayfa taksir ʔil-ihaam fi ʔal-aflaam? 1. ʔal-ihaam ʔal-taʕaaqudi 2. ʔal-la ihaam [How to break illusion in film? 1. Contracted illusion 2. No illusion]. Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization (GEBO).
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Thibodeau, P. H., Boroditsky, L.
    (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE8(1), e52961. doi: 10.1371/journal.‑pone.0052961
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.-pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  103. (2015) Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–22. Retrieved from10/11/2016: journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133939&type=printable
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Tomasello, M.
    (2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  105. Turner, M.
    (2001) Cognitive dimensions of social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. (2006a) The art of compression. InM. Turner (Ed.), The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity (pp.93–114). New York: oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  107. (2006b) Compression and representation. Language and Literature, 15(1), 17–27. 10.1177/0963947006060550
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947006060550 [Google Scholar]
  108. (2014) The origin of ideas: blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. (2017) Conceptual compression and alliterative form. English Language and Linguistics, 21 (2), 221–226. doi:  10.1017/S1360674317000090.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000090 [Google Scholar]
  110. Unsworth, L., & Cléirigh, C.
    (2009) Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. InC. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp.151–163). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Van Dijk, T.
    (1997) Cognitive context models and discourse. InM. I. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness (pp.189–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aicr.12.09dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.12.09dij [Google Scholar]
  112. Van Dijk, T.
    (1999) Context models in discourse processing. InH. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Ed.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp.123–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. (2003) The discourse-knowledge interface. InG. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp.85–109). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. (2008) Discourse and context: a socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  115. Van Dijk, T.
    (2009) Society and discourse: how social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511575273
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273 [Google Scholar]
  116. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (2012) Knowledge, discourse and domination. InM. Meeuwis & J.-O. Ӧstman (Eds.), Pragmaticizing understanding: studies for Jef Verschueren (pp.151–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.170.10dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.170.10dij [Google Scholar]
  117. Van Dijk, T.
    (2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  118. Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W.
    (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Wehling, E.
    (2013) A nation under joint custody: How conflicting family models divide US politics. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
  120. William, J.
    (2017) Cognitive approaches to German historical film: Seeing is not believing. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑39318‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39318-6 [Google Scholar]
  121. Yus, F.
    (2011) Cyberpragmatics. Amserdam: John Benjmains. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  122. (2016) Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
  123. (2017) Relevance-theoretic treatments of humor. InS. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp.189–203). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑14
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-14 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error