oa “We could shoot him…”

References

1. Aly, Waleed & Robert Mark Simpson
   2019 Political correctness gone viral. InCarl Fox & Joe Saunders (eds.), Media ethics, free speech, and the requirements of democracy, 125–143. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203702444‑8
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203702444-8 [Google Scholar]
2. Anscombre, Jean-Claude
   1995 La théorie des topoi: Sémantique ou rhétorique?Hermés151. 10.4267/2042/15167
   https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/15167 [Google Scholar]
3. AristotleGeorge A. Kennedy
   Aristotle 2007 On rhetoric, a theory of civic discourse (translated byGeorge A. Kennedy). (Original work published ca. 340 B.C.E.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Ball, Linden J. & Valerie A. Thompson
   2017 International handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat
   2007 Accommodation. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–536. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0017 [Google Scholar]
6. Bell, Allan
   1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society13(2). 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
7. Breitholtz, Ellen
   2020 Enthymemes and topoi in dialogue: The use of common sense reasoning in conversation. Leiden: Brill.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Breitholtz, Ellen & Christine Howes
   2020 Communicable reasons: How children learn topoi through dialogue. InProceedings of the 24th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Breitholtz, Ellen, Christine Howes & Robin Cooper
   2023 All the more reasons: Mismatches in topoi in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics2171. 172–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.006
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.006 [Google Scholar]
10. Breitholtz, Ellen & Vladislav Maraev
    2019 How to put an elephant in the title: Modelling humorous incongruity with topoi. InProceedings of the 23rd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Burnett, Heather
    2020 A persona-based semantics for slurs. Grazer Philosophische Studien97(1). 31–62. 10.1163/18756735‑09701004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09701004 [Google Scholar]
12. Cooper, Robin
    2023 From perception to communication: A theory of types for action and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192871312.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192871312.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
13. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011 Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
14. Davies, Christie
    1990 Ethnic humor around the world: A comparative analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Davies, Christie
    1998 Jokes and their relations to society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110806144
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806144 [Google Scholar]
16. Ducrot, Oswald
    1980 Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Ducrot, Oswald
    1988 Topoı̈ et formes topique. Bulletin d’Études de la Linguistique Française221. 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dynel, Marta
    2008 No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics4(2). 241–261. 10.2478/v10016‑008‑0001‑7
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0001-7 [Google Scholar]
19. Dynel, Marta
    2021 COVID-19 memes going viral: On the multiple multimodal voices behind face masks. Discourse & Society32(2). 175–195. 10.1177/0957926520970385
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520970385 [Google Scholar]
20. Farrell, Tracie, Miriam Fernandez, Jakub Novotny & Harith Alani
    2019 Exploring misogyny across the manosphere in Reddit. InProceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, 87–96. 10.1145/3292522.3326045
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326045 [Google Scholar]
21. Franzén, Anna G., Rickard Jonsson & Björn Sjöblom
    2021 Fear, anger, and desire: Affect and the interactional intricacies of rape humor on a live podcast. Language in Society50(5). 763–786. 10.1017/S0047404520000615
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000615 [Google Scholar]
22. Freud, Sigmund
    1905 Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. London: Hogarth.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Ginzburg, Jonathan
    2012 The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
24. Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matthew Purver, Greg J. Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Patrick G. T. Healey
    2011 Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse2(1). 199–233. 10.5087/dad.2011.109
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.109 [Google Scholar]
25. Hale, Adrian
    2018 “I get it, but it’s just not funny”: Why humour fails, after all is said and done. The European Journal of Humour Research6(1). 36–61. 10.7592/EJHR2018.6.1.hale
    https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2018.6.1.hale [Google Scholar]
26. Haugh, Michael
    2013 Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics48(1). 41–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 [Google Scholar]
27. Haugh, Michael
    2015 Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics861 (Special issue: Interdisciplinary perspectives on pragmatics: A Festschrift for Jonathan Culpeper). 36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
28. Henderson, Robert & Elin McCready
    2018 How dogwhistles work. InSachiyo Arai, Kazuhiro Kojima, Koji Mineshima, Daisuke Bekki, Ken Satoh & Yuiko Ohta (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 231–240. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑93794‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93794-6_16 [Google Scholar]
29. Kádár, Dániel Z., Vahid Parvaresh & Puyu Ning
    2019 Morality, moral order, and language conflict and aggression: A position paper. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict7(1). 6–31. 10.1075/jlac.00017.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00017.kad [Google Scholar]
30. Jackson, Sally & Scott Jacobs
    1980 Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech66(3). 251–265. 10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
31. Kuipers, Giselinde
    2015 Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of the joke. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501510441
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510441 [Google Scholar]
32. Larsson, Stieg & Mikael Ekman
    1999 Sverigedemokraterna — den nationella rörelsen. Ordfront förlag.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Leth, Palle
    2019 Is there any use for a notion of the correct interpretation of an utterance?Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics791. 83. 10.1515/9783110628937‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110628937-005 [Google Scholar]
34. Lev-Ari, Shiri
    2018 The influence of social network size on speech perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology71(10). 2249–2260. 10.1177/1747021817739865
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817739865 [Google Scholar]
35. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic81. 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
36. Linell, Per
    2009 Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte: IAP.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Maraev, Vladislav, Ellen Breitholtz, Christine Howes, Staffan Larsson & Robin Cooper
    2021 Something old, something new, something borrowed, something taboo: Interaction and creativity in humour. Frontiers in Psychology. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654615/full. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654615
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654615 [Google Scholar]
38. Mazzocconi, Chiara, Vladislav Maraev & Jonathan Ginzburg
    2018 Laughter repair. InProceedings of the 22nd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, 16–25.
    [Google Scholar]
39. McTernan, Emily
    2023 On taking offence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197613092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197613092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
40. Meaney, J. A., Steven Wilson, Luis Chiruzzo, Adam Lopez & Walid Magdy
    2021 SemEval 2021 task 7: HaHackathon, detecting and rating humor and offense. InProceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. 10.18653/v1/2021.semeval‑1.9
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.semeval-1.9 [Google Scholar]
41. Millas, Andrea Pérez
    2016 Forget whipping: Log in to Twitter for ignominy. Txt. Retrieved fromhttps://hdl.handle.net/1887/42725, 128–131.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy
    1978 Belfast: Change and variation in an urban vernacular. InPeter Trudgill (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English, 19–36. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Musolff, Andreas
    2004 Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
44. Noble, Bill, Ellen Breitholtz & Robin Cooper
    2020 Personae under uncertainty: The case of topoi. InProceedings of the probability and meaning conference (PaM), 8–16.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Noble, Bill, Vladislav Maraev & Ellen Breitholtz
    2022 Probabilistic pragmatics: A dialogical perspective. InJean-Philippe Bernardy, Rasmus Blanck, Stergios Chatzikyriakidis, Shalom Lappin, & Aleksandre Maskharashvili (eds.), Probabilistic approaches to linguistic theory, 227–258. Stanford, California, USA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2004 The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction37(3). 291–330. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2 [Google Scholar]
47. Rosengren, Mats
    2002 Doxologi: En essä om kunskap. Copenhagen: Retorikförlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Sayeed, Asad, Ellen Breitholtz, Robin Cooper, Elina Lindgren, Gregor Rettenegger & Björn Rönnerstrand
    2024 The utility of (political) dogwhistles: A life cycle perspective. Journal of Language and Politics. 24(2). 214–234.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Stalnaker, Robert
    2014 Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645169.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645169.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
50. Tayebi, Tahmineh
    2016 Why do people take offence? Exploring the underlying expectations. Journal of Pragmatics1011. 1–17. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.006 [Google Scholar]
51. Tsakona, Villy
    2013 Okras and the metapragmatic stereotypes of humour: Towards an expansion of the GTVH. InMarta Dynel (ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory, 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.1.03tsa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.03tsa [Google Scholar]
52. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2008 Context theory and the foundation of pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics101. 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Vladimirou, Dimitra, Juliane House & Dániel Z. Kádár
    2021 Aggressive complaining on social media: The case of #muckymerton. Journal of Pragmatics1771. 51–64. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.017 [Google Scholar]
54. Warren, Caleb & A Peter McGraw
    2016 Differentiating what is humorous from what is not. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology110(3). 407. 10.1037/pspi0000041
    https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000041 [Google Scholar]