The drama of dialogue action in distinct discourse spaces

References

1. Attardo, Salvatore
   2020 The Linguistics of Humor. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
2. Attardo, Salvatore
   2023 Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. London, New York: Anthem Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Billig, Michael
   2005 Laughter and Ridicule: Toward a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446211779
   https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211779 [Google Scholar]
4. Cap, Piotr
   2008 “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics401: 17–41. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 [Google Scholar]
5. Carrell, Amy
   1997 “Humor Communities”. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research10 (1): 11–24. 10.1515/humr.1997.10.1.11
   https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1997.10.1.11 [Google Scholar]
6. Chłopicki, Władysław
   2009 “The “Szkło kontaktowe” show: A return to the old irrationality?” InPermitted laughter: socialist, post-socialist and never-socialist humour, ed. byArvo Krikmann and Liisi Laineste, 171–181. Tartu: ELM Scholarly Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Colman, Andrew M., and Gorman, L. Paul
   1982 “Conservatism, Dogmatism, and Authoritarianism in British Police Officers.” Sociology16 (1): 1–11. 10.1177/0038038582016001004
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038582016001004 [Google Scholar]
8. Daviess, Beth
   2019 “Making Memes and Shitposting: The Powerful Political Discourse of Alt-right Meme Culture” (June 5, 2019). Available athttps://ssrn.com/abstract=4118990
9. Eagleton, Terry
   2019 Humour. Yale: Yale University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Heinz, Sonja
    2020 “Benevolent and Corrective Humor, Life Satisfaction, and Broad Humor Dimensions: Extending the Nomological Network of the BenCor across 25 Countries.” Journal of Happiness Studies21 (7): 2473–2492. 10.1007/s10902‑019‑00185‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00185-9 [Google Scholar]
11. Hietalahti, Jarno
    2023 “Book review: Weaver, Simon (2022). The Rhetoric of Brexit Humour: Comedy, Populism and the EU Referendum. London and New York: Routledge.” The European Journal of Humour Research11 (1): 218–222.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Kecskes, Istvan
    2010 “The Paradox of Communication: A Socio-Cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Society1 (1): 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
13. Kecskes, Istvan
    2016 “A Dialogic Approach to Pragmatics.” Russian Journal of Linguistics20 (4): 26–42. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2016‑20‑4‑26‑42
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-26-42 [Google Scholar]
14. Kuipers, Giselinde
    2009 “Humor Styles and Symbolic Boundaries.” Journal of Literary Theory3 (2): 219–240. 10.1515/JLT.2009.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JLT.2009.013 [Google Scholar]
15. Kuipers, Giselinde
    . forthcoming. “Humour and Polarization: How the Clown Style in 21st Century Drives People Apart, in Politics and Beyond.”
    [Google Scholar]
16. Laaksonen, Salla-Maria, Joonas Koivukoski, and Merja Porttikivi
    2022 “Clowning around a Polarized Issue: Rhetorical Strategies and Communicative Outcomes of a Political Parody Performance by Loldiers of Odin.” New Media & Society24 (8): 1912–1931. 10.1177/1461444821989621
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821989621 [Google Scholar]
17. Ruch, Willibald
    1992 “Assessment of Appreciation of Humor: Studies with the 3 WD Humor Test.” InAdvances in Personality Assessment, Vol.91, ed. byCharles D. Spielberger and James N. Butcher, 27–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Săftoiu, Răzvan
    2014 “Review of Cap, Piotr. 2013. Proximization. The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing.” Language and Dialogue4 (3): 497–499. 10.1075/ld.4.3.10saf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.3.10saf [Google Scholar]
19. Sienkiewicz, Matt and Nick Marx
    2022 That’s not Funny: How the Right Makes Comedy Work for Them. Oakland: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Underhill, James
    2009 Humboldt, Worldview and Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Underhill, James
    2012 Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: Truth, Love, Hate and War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511862540
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862540 [Google Scholar]
22. Verhulst, Brad, Lindon J. Eaves, and Peter K. Hatemi
    2012 “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies.” American Journal of Political Science56(1): 34–51. 10.1111/j.1540‑5907.2011.00568.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x [Google Scholar]
23. Weaver, Simon
    2022 The Rhetoric of Brexit Humour: Comedy, Populism and the EU Referendum. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Weigand, Edda
    2017 “The Mixed Game Model: A Holistic Theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Weigand, Edda
    2021 “Dialogue: The Complex Whole.” Language and Dialogue11 (3): 457–486. 10.1075/ld.00106.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00106.wei [Google Scholar]
26. Zijp, Dick
    2014 Re-thinking Dutch Cabaret: The Conservative Implications of Humour in the Dutch Cabaret Tradition. MA Thesis. University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Żygulski, Kazimierz
    1976 Wspólnota śmiechu. Studium socjologiczne komizmu [Community of Laughter. A Sociological Study of Comedy]. Warszawa: PIW.
    [Google Scholar]