1887
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article is meant to give a state-of-the-art picture of cognitive linguistic studies on humour. Cognitive linguistics has had an immense impact on the development of humour research and, importantly, humour theory over the past few decades. On the one hand, linguists, philosophers and psychologists working in the field of humour research have put forward proposals to explain the cognitive processes underlying specifically humour production and reception (e.g. the incongruity-resolution framework and its refinements). On the other hand, humour research has drawn on theories and concepts advanced in contemporary cognitive linguistics taken as a whole (e.g. mental spaces, conceptual blending, salience or conceptual metaphor). The different notions and approaches originating in these strands of research are in various ways interwoven in order to give new insights into the cognitive workings of humour.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00001.dyn
2018-05-31
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonopoulou, E.
    (2002) A cognitive approach to literary humour devices: Translating Raymond Chandler. In J. Vandaele (Ed.), Humour and translation. Special issue of The Translator , 8(2), 235–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, E. A. , & Nikiforidou, K.
    (2009) Deconstructing verbal humour with construction grammar. In G. Brone & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp.289–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonopoulou, E. , Nikiforidou, K. , & Tsakona, V.
    (2015) Construction grammar and discoursal incongruity. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.13–48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Apter, M. J.
    (1982) The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Attardo, S.
    (1994) Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015) Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Humor and cognitive linguistics (pp.91–110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Attardo, S. , & Raskin, V.
    (2017) Linguistics and humour theory. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp.49–63). Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aymone, A.
    (2007) Interview with Victor Raskin. In D. Popa , & S. Attardo (Eds.), New approaches to the linguistics of humour (pp.217–225). Galati: Editura Academica.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barcelona, A.
    (2003) The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergen, B. K.
    (2003) To awaken a sleeping giant: Cognition and culture in September 11 political cartoons. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.23–35). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergen, B. K. , & Binsted, K.
    (2015) Embodied grammar and humor. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics meets humor research: Current trends and new developments (pp.49–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brandt, L.
    (2003) Humor and meaning construction in everyday speech: A mental space analysis. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference , University of La Rioja, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brône, G.
    (2008) Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2027–2061.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.463–504). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214215.463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.463 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2017) Cognitive linguistics and humor research. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp.250–266). Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brône, G. , & Coulson, S.
    (2010) On the cognitive processing of deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: The case of double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47, 212–236.10.1080/01638530902959919
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959919 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brône, G. , & Feyaerts, K.
    (2004) Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A view from cognitive linguistics. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 361–372.10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.361
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.361 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brône, G. , Feyaerts, K. , & Veale, T.
    (2006) Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–228.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bryant, G. , & Gibbs, R.
    (2015) Behavioral complexities of ironic humor. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.147–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Canestrari, C. , & Bianchi, I.
    (2012) Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 49, 539–564.10.1080/0163853X.2012.710524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.710524 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2013) From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp.3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.02can
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.02can [Google Scholar]
  22. Canestrari, C. , Dionigi, A. , & Zuczkowski, A.
    (2014) Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 261–283.10.1075/ld.4.2.05can
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.05can [Google Scholar]
  23. Cori, V. , Canestrari, C. , & Bianchi, I.
    (2016) The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Coulson, S.
    (1996) The Menendez brothers virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp.67–81). Palo Alto: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2005a) “What’s so funny?”: Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2, 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2005b) Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005c) Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson , & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp.129–144). Berlin: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2015) Frame-shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model. In: G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.167–190). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Coulson, S. , & Kutas, M.
    (1998) Frame-shifting and sentential integration. Cognitive Science Technical Report, 98.02. UCSD.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Coulson, S. & Kutas, M.
    (2001) Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders . Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71–74.10.1016/S0304‑3940(01)02387‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)02387-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Coulson, S. , & Severens, E.
    (2007) Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: When cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language, 100, 172–187.10.1016/j.bandl.2005.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  33. Coulson, S. , Urbach, T. P. , & Kutas, M.
    (2006) Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 229–250.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. de Jongste, H.
    (2013) Negotiating humorous intent. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp.179–210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.09jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.09jon [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) Mental models and humorous intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 107–119.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2017) Culture and incongruity in The Office (UK). Language & Communication, 55, 88–99.10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  37. Dynel, M.
    (2009a) Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2009b) Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. metaphorik.de, 17, 27–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011) Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(1), 59–83.10.1163/187731011X561009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561009 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2013) When does irony tickle the hearer?: Towards capturing the characteristics of humorous irony. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp.105–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.07dyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.07dyn [Google Scholar]
  41. (2014) Isn’t it ironic?: Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4), 619–639.10.1515/humor‑2014‑0096
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0096 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2017) Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language & Communication, 55, 69–87.10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2018) Irony, deception and humour: Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501507922
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fauconnier, G.
    (1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  46. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Forabosco, G.
    (1992) Cognitive aspects of the humour process: The concept of incongruity. Humor, 5, 9–26.10.1515/humr.1992.5.1‑2.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1992.5.1-2.45 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2008) Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research?Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 45–62.10.2478/v10016‑008‑0003‑5
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0003-5 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gentner, D.
    (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  51. Gibbs, R.
    (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2017) Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107762350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gibbs, R. , & Colston, H.
    (Eds.) (2007) Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. New York: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Giora, R.
    (1991) On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5), 465–486.10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90137‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90137-M [Google Scholar]
  55. (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2011) Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately?In M. Dynel (Ed.). The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp.19–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.210.03gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.03gio [Google Scholar]
  58. Giora, R. & Fein, O.
    (1999) Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor, 12(4), 425–436.10.1515/humr.1999.12.4.425
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1999.12.4.425 [Google Scholar]
  59. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kotler, N. , & Shuval, N.
    (2015) Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation and pleasure. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-007 [Google Scholar]
  60. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kronrod, A. , Elnatan, I. , Shuval, N. , & Zur, A.
    (2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141.10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. Giora, R. , Givoni, S. , Heruti, V. , & Fein, O.
    (2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor & Symbol, 32(1), 1–18.10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934 [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hampe, B.
    (Ed.) (2017) Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108182324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hofstadter, D. , & Gabora, L.
    (1989) Frame blends. Humor, 2, 417–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jabłońska-Hood, J.
    (2015) A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected British comedy productions in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05306‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05306-7 [Google Scholar]
  66. Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kihara, Y.
    (2005) The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 513–530.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.513
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.513 [Google Scholar]
  68. Koestler, A.
    (1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchison.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kotthoff, H.
    (2006) Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 271–304.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  70. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Maier, N.
    (1932) A gestalt theory of humour. British Journal of Psychology, 23, 69–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Martin, R.
    (2007) The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mayerhofer, B.
    (2013) Perspective clashing as a humour mechanism. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp.211–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.10may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.10may [Google Scholar]
  75. Mayerhofer, B. , Maier, K. , & Schacht, A.
    (2015) Priming interpretations: Contextual impact on the processing of garden path jokes. Discourse Processes, 53(8), 675–694.10.1080/0163853X.2015.1092373
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1092373 [Google Scholar]
  76. Mayerhofer, B. , & Schacht, A.
    (2013) Salience, accessibility, and humorous potential in the comprehension of garden path jokes: A probabilistic approach. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp.341–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.16may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.16may [Google Scholar]
  77. (2015) From incoherence to mirth: Neuro-cognitive processing of garden-path jokes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 550. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00550
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00550 [Google Scholar]
  78. Morreall, J.
    (2010) Humor as cognitive play. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 241–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nerhardt, G.
    (1976) Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman , & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp.55–62). London: Transaction Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Oring, E.
    (1992) Jokes and their relations. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. (2003) Engaging humor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Pálinkás, I.
    (2014) Blending and folk theory in an explanation of irony. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 64–98.10.1075/rcl.12.1.03pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.03pal [Google Scholar]
  83. Partington, A.
    (2006) The linguistics of laughter: A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Pollio, H.
    (1996) Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In S. Mio , & A. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp.231–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Raskin, V.
    (1985) Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Ritchie, D.
    (2005) Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 275–294.10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3 [Google Scholar]
  87. Ritchie, G.
    (2004) The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. (2006) Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Humor, 19(3), 251–270.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.014 [Google Scholar]
  89. Rojo López, A. M.
    (2002) Frame semantics and the translation of humour. Babel, 48(1), 34–77.10.1075/babel.48.1.03lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.1.03lop [Google Scholar]
  90. (2009) A cognitive approach to the translation of metonymy-based humor. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(1), 63–83.10.1556/Acr.10.2009.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  91. Samermit, P. , & Gibbs, R.
    (2016) Humor, the body, and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2, 32–49.10.1075/cogls.3.1.02sam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.02sam [Google Scholar]
  92. Shelley, C.
    (2001) The bicoherence theory of situational irony. Cognitive Science, 25, 775–818.10.1207/s15516709cog2505_7
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2505_7 [Google Scholar]
  93. Shultz, T.
    (1972) The role of incongruity and resolution in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 456–477.10.1016/0022‑0965(72)90074‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(72)90074-4 [Google Scholar]
  94. Suls, J.
    (1972) A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information processing analysis. In J. Goldstein & P. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp.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]
  95. (1983) Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1 (pp.39–57). New York: Springer.10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑5572‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  96. Taylor, C.
    (2016) Mock politeness in English and Italian: A corpus-assisted metalanguage analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.267
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.267 [Google Scholar]
  97. Tourangeau, R. , & Sternberg, R. J.
    (1981) Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 27–55.10.1016/0010‑0285(81)90003‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90003-7 [Google Scholar]
  98. Turner, M.
    (2014) The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. (2015) Blending in language and communication. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.211–232). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-011 [Google Scholar]
  100. Uekermann, J. , Daum, I. , & Channon, S.
    (2007) Toward a cognitive and social neuroscience of humor processing. Social Cognition, 25(4), 553–572.10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.553
    https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  101. van Dijk, T. A.
    (2008) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  102. (2009) Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575273
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273 [Google Scholar]
  103. (2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107775404
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  104. Veale, T.
    (2008) Figure-ground duality in humour: A multi-modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1), 63–81.10.2478/v10016‑008‑0009‑z
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0009-z [Google Scholar]
  105. Veale, T. , Feyaerts, K. , & Brône, G.
    (2006) The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 305–340.10.1515/HUMOR.2006.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.016 [Google Scholar]
  106. Veale, T. , & Valitutti, A.
    (2017) Tweet dreams are made of this: Appropriate incongruity in the dreamwork of language. Lingua, 197, 141–153.10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  107. Yus, F.
    (2017) Incongruity-resolution cases in jokes. Lingua, 197, 103–122.10.1016/j.lingua.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00001.dyn
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bisociation , blending , frame , humour , incongruity(-resolution) , irony , mental model , mental space and metaphor
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