1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Internet Pragmatics
  4. Volume 9, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Text-based, electronic communication, originally classified as secondary orality (Ong 1982), lacks immediate feedback, natural non-verbal cues, and shared physical context, impacting conversational flow and pragmatic interpretation. This contributes to the rarity of joke-telling in text-based conversations. This paper argues that cognitive factors, particularly the inferential overload effect, also play a role in the scarcity of sharing jokes, in the form of mini-narratives with a punchline, in text-based communication. Inferential overload, which occurs through weakly communicated assumptions that suddenly become manifest to the recipient, leads to emotional impact and amusement. This emotional response, underlain by non-propositional effects and essential for joke appreciation, is distinct from mere joke comprehension. The paper explores the distinction between joke comprehension and appreciation, supported by recent psychological and neuroscientific research. Additionally, it examines other reasons for the scarcity of jokes in text-based communication, related to social parameters and the dynamics of written online discourse.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00138.jod
2026-05-04
2026-06-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ip.00138.jod
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Assimakopoulos, Stavros, and Anna Piata
    2024 “Metaphor and the rhetorical effectiveness of ineffable meanings.” Paper delivered atEPICS XI. Pablo de Olavide University, 22–24 May 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, Salvatore
    1994 Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2020 “Memes, memeiosis, and memetic drift: Cheryl’s Chichier she shed.” Media Linguistics7(2): 146–168. 10.21638/spbu22.2020.201
     https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2020.201 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2023 Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. New York: Anthem Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron, Naomi
    2008 Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, Nancy
    2007 “Humor comprehension: Lessons learned from cross-cultural communication.” Humor20(4): 367–387. 10.1515/HUMOR.2007.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bihrle, Amy, Hiram Brownell, John Powelson, and Howard Gardner
    1986 “Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients.” Brain and Cognition5(4): 399–411. 10.1016/0278‑2626(86)90042‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2626(86)90042-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Braga, Adriana, and Robert Logan
    2023 “The joke as a medium.” New Exploration: Studies in Culture and Communication3(1). 10.7202/1097581ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1097581ar [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, Darren, Marc Wallace, Mandana Modirrousta, Joseph Polimeni, Nancy McKeen, and Jeffrey P. Reiss
    2015 “The neural basis of humour comprehension and humour appreciation: The roles of the temporoparietal junction and superior frontal gyrus.” Neuropsychologia791: 10–20. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.10.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carston, Robyn
    2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010a “Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: From a relevance theory perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics22(1): 153–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010b “Metaphor, ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society110(3): 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 “Figurative language, mental imagery, and pragmatics.” Metaphor and Symbol33(3): 198–217. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carston, Robyn, and Deirdre Wilson
    2019 “Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chiaro, Delia
    2018 The Language of Jokes in the Digital Age: #like #share #lol. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. de Saussure, Louis, and Tim Wharton
    2020 “Relevance, effects and affect.” International Review of Pragmatics121: 183–205. 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dynel, Marta
    2017 Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Galanter, Marc
    1998 “The faces of mistrust: The image of lawyers in public opinion, jokes, and political discourse.” University of Cincinnati Law Review66(3): 805–845.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Giora, Rachel
    1991 “On the cognitive aspects of the joke.” Journal of Pragmatics16(5): 465–485. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90137‑M
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90137-M [Google Scholar]
  20. Goel, Vinod, and Raymond J. Dolan
    2001 “The functional anatomy of humor: Segregating cognitive and affective components.” Nature Neuroscience4(3): 237–238. 10.1038/85076
     https://doi.org/10.1038/85076 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hay, Jenifer
    2001 “The pragmatics of humour support.” Humor141: 55–82. 10.1515/humr.14.1.55
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heintz, Sonja, Forabosco, Giovannantonio, Dionigi, Alberto, and Filippo Cioni
    2023 “Humor comprehension and appreciation: An analysis of Italian jokes.” Humor36(2): 245–262. 10.1515/humor‑2023‑0020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2023-0020 [Google Scholar]
  23. Herring, Susan, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen
    2013 “Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication.” InPragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, ed. bySusan Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, 3–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214468.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hertzon, Robert
    1991 “On the structure of punchlines.” Humor4(1): 61–108. 10.1515/humr.1991.4.1.61
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991.4.1.61 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ifantidou, Elly
    2021 “Non-propositional effects in verbal communication: The case of metaphor.” Journal of Pragmatics1811: 6–16. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Piata
    2021 “Metaphor and mental shortcuts: The role of non-propositional effects.” Pragmatics & Cognition28(2): 299–320. 10.1075/pc.21009.ifa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21009.ifa [Google Scholar]
  27. Jodłowiec, Maria
    2015 The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05190‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05190-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 “Indeterminacy in verbal communication: A relevance-theoretic analysis of aphorisms.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis133(1): 7–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jodłowiec, Maria, and Agnieszka Piskorska
    2024 “Dynamism of context: A case of joke interpretation.” Intercultural Pragmatics21(3): 431–449. 10.1515/ip‑2024‑3006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-3006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Marinkovic, Ksenija, Sharelle Baldwin, Maureen G. Courtney, Thomas Witzel, Anders M. Dale, and Eric Halgren
    2011 “Right hemisphere has the last laugh: Neural dynamics of joke appreciation.” Cerebral Cortex21(5): 115–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Morreall, John
    1983 Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Norrick, Neal
    1993 Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ong, Walter
    1982 Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen. 10.4324/9780203328064
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203328064 [Google Scholar]
  34. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2009 “Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics5(2): 241–270. 10.2478/v10016‑009‑0015‑9
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0015-9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Piskorska, Agnieszka, and Maria Jodłowiec
    2018 “Weak communication, joke targets and the punch-line effect: A relevance-theoretic account.” Studies in Polish Linguistics, 13(1): 25–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Raskin, Victor
    1985 Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, Harvey
    1974 “An analysis of the course of joke’s telling in conversation.” InExplorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. byRichard Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Schweinsberg, Ilse
    1987 “Telling jokes as a linguistic game.” InOn Narratives: Proceedings from the 10th Colloquium on Speech Communication, ed. byHellmut Geissner, 91–102. Frankfurt am Main: Scriptor Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Shammi, Prathiba, and Donald T. Stuss
    1999 “Humour appreciation: A role of the right frontal lobe.” Brain122(4): 657–666. 10.1093/brain/122.4.657
     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.4.657 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperber, Dan, and Deirde Wilson
    2008 “A deflationary account of metaphors.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond Gibbs, Jr., 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    2015 “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of PhilosophyXV(44): 117–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Togeby, Ole
    1983 “The structure of the joke.” InPapers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics, ed. byFred Karlsson, 45–61. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Vrticka, Pascal, Jessica Black, and Allan Reiss
    2013 “The neural basis of humour processing.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience14(12). 860–868. 10.1038/nrn3566
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3566 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wharton, Tim
    2003 “Interjections, language, and the showing/saying continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition11(1): 39–91. 10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha [Google Scholar]
  46. 2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2016 “That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited.” Lingua175–176: 20–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wharton, Tim, and Louis de Saussure
    2023 Pragmatics and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108869867
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869867 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wild, Barbara, Frank Rodden, Wolfgang Grodd, and Willibald Ruch
    2003 “Neural correlates of laughter and humour.” Brain1261: 2121–2138. 10.1093/brain/awg226
     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg226 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilson, Deirde, and Dan Sperber
    2004 “Relevance theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward. 607–632. Malden: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2006 “Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue.” Mind & Language211: 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  52. 2019 “Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
    2006 “Relevance and prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics38(10): 1559–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  54. Xie, Chaoqun
    (ed.) 2022 The Pragmatics of Internet Memes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.120
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.120 [Google Scholar]
  55. Yus, Francisco
    2011 Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2016 Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2017 “Humour and user’s identity: The case of memes on the internet.” Paper presented at the15th International Pragmatics Conference, Belfast, 16–21 July 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2023 Pragmatics of Internet Humour. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑31902‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31902-0 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yus, Francisco, and Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
    2023 “Interpreting Covid-related memes: The role of inferential strategies and context accessibility.” InThe Pragmatics of Humour in Interactive Contexts, ed. byEsther Linares Bernabéu, 6–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.335.01yus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.335.01yus [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00138.jod
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): inferential overload effect; joke appreciation; non-propositional effects; punchline effect; text-based communication; verbal joke; weak communication

Most Cited

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