Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper deploys the tools of relevance theory to establish a common pragmatic mechanism operating in humorous texts (stand-up comedy, jokes, sketches) themed on the omnipresence of the Internet and social media in human life. It is postulated that this mechanism resides in incongruity between shared cultural assumptions expressing high esteem for rational actions and informative communication, and private assumptions endorsed by internet application users, who find phatic communication pleasurable. It is claimed that incongruity so understood is not a central but additional pragmatic mechanism in various humorous genres, and it tends not to be resolved, as tension between these two sets of assumptions lingers on.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Attardo, Salvatore
    2001Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110887969
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887969 [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin
    1991 “Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research4(3–4): 293–347. doi:  10.1515/humr.1991.4.3‑4.293
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991.4.3-4.293 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carr, Alan
    2004Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Human Strengths. Hove: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203506035
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203506035 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiaro, Delia
    1992The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London: Routlege. 10.4324/9780203327562
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327562 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dynel, Marta
    2012 “Garden paths, red lights and crossroads: On finding our way to understanding the cognitive mechanisms underlying jokes.” Israeli Journal of Humor Research1(1): 6–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Forabosco, Giovannantonio
    2008 “Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research?” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics: 45–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol.3, Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Jodłowiec, Maria
    2015The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05190‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05190-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kreuz, Roger J., and Sam Glucksberg
    1989 “How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General118: 374–386. 10.1037/0096‑3445.118.4.374
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.374 [Google Scholar]
  10. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2017The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674977860
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860 [Google Scholar]
  11. Morreall, John
    1983Taking Laughter Seriously. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Pilkington, Adrian
    2000Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.75
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.75 [Google Scholar]
  13. Piskorska, Agnieszka, and Maria Jodłowiec
    2018 “Weak communication, joke targets and the punch-line effect: A relevance-theoretic account.” Studies in Polish Linguistics13: 25–44. doi:  10.4467/23005920SPL.18.002.8464
    https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.18.002.8464 [Google Scholar]
  14. Raskin, Victor
    1985Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ritchie, Graeme
    2004The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203406953
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203406953 [Google Scholar]
  16. Sedikides, Constantine, Tim Wildschut, Jamie Arndt, and Clay Routledge
    2008 “Nostalgia past, present, and future.” Current Directions in Psychological Science17(5): 304–307. 10.1111/j.1467‑8721.2008.00595.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00595.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Sperber, Dan
    1996Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Suls, Jerry M.
    1972 “A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons.” InPsychology of Humor, ed. byJeffrey. H. Goldstein, and Paul.E. McGhee, 81–100. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑288950‑9.50010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-288950-9.50010-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Thai, Michael, Alex Borgella, and Melanie S. Sanchez
    2019 “It’s only funny if we say it: Disparagement humor is better received if it originates from a member of the group being disparaged.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology85: 103838. doi:  10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103838
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103838 [Google Scholar]
  21. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2002 “Truthfulness and relevance.” Mind111: 583–632. 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012Relevance and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  23. Yus, Francisco
    2004 “Pragmatics of humorous strategies in El club de la comedia.” InCurrent Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. byRosina Márquez-Reiter, and María Elena Placencia, 320–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.123.25yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.123.25yus [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 “An inference-centered analysis of jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of humorous communication.” InIrony and Humor: Highlights and Genres, ed. byLeonor Ruiz Gurillo, and M. Belén Alvarado Ortega, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.231.05yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.231.05yus [Google Scholar]
  25. 2016Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2019 “A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic internet.” InEmotion in Discourse, ed. byLaura Alba, and Lachlan Mackenzie, 161–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.302.07yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.07yus [Google Scholar]
  27. Ziv, Avner
    2009 “The social function of humor in interpersonal relationships.” Society47(1): 11–18. doi:  10.1007/s12115‑009‑9283‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-009-9283-9 [Google Scholar]
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