Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Over the last few years there has been a rapprochement between Cognitive Linguistics and semantic theories of humour based on the notion of or . By drawing on Ritchie’s version of the theory of frame-shifting (2005) and reviewing the cognitive linguistic account of humour, we shall demonstrate how the interpretation of jokes containing a metaphor or a metonymy involves two cognitive-pragmatic tasks: the completion of the metaphorical/metonymic mapping that results in a new frame, and the resolution of the joke’s incongruity via a contrast with the surrounding frames of the joke.

We also develop a classification of frame shifts according to their ontological structure (non-metaphorical/metonymic shifts and shifts based on metaphorical and/or metonymic reasoning) and the degree of the interpreter’s inferential activity (conceptual filling out and metaphor/metonymy replacement). In doing so, we attempt to identify some of the defining features of humorous metaphors and metonymies, as well as other phenomena that may also characterise jokes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alarcón, P.
    (2002) EL ACTO SEXUAL ES COMER: descripción lingüístico-cognitiva. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada (RLA), 40, 7–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, S.
    (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1997) The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 10 (4), 395–420. 10.1515/humr.1997.10.4.395
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1997.10.4.395 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110887969
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887969 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2002) Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts. Cognitive Stylistics, 16, 231–250. 10.1075/lal.1.12att
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.1.12att [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015) Humorous metaphors. InG. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research (pp.91–110). Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346343‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Attardo, S., & Raskin, V.
    (1991) Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3/4), 293–347.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach, K.
    (1995) Remark and Reply. Standardization vs. Conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 677–686. 10.1007/BF00983302
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00983302 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barcelona, A.
    (2002) On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (pp.207–224). Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (Eds.) (2011) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergen, B.
    (2004) The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. InM. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergen, B. & Binsted, K.
    (2015) Embodied grammar and humor. InG. Brone, K. Feyaerts and T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics meets Humor Research: Current Trends and New Developments (pp.49–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Draft version available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251795596_Embodied_Grammar_and_Humor (accessed16 May 2017) 10.1515/9783110346343‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergen, B. & Coulson, S.
    (2006) Frame-Shifting Humor in Simulation-Based Language Understanding. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21 (2), 59–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Black, M.
    (1962) Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K.
    (2002) Humor through ‘double grounding’: Structural interaction of optimality principles. InA. Hougaard & S. N. Lund (Eds.), The Way We Think (pp.313–336). Odense: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K.
    (2003) The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Paper presented at the8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, 20–25 July, 2003. wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/iclc/Papers/BroneFeyaerts.pdf (accessed20 July 2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (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. (Eds.) (2015) Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research. Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346343
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343 [Google Scholar]
  20. Carston, R.
    (1996) Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 309–330. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00109‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00109-X [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2004) Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. InL. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.633–656). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chamizo, P. J., & Sánchez, F.
    (2000) Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase: eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Coulson, S.
    (2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2 (3), 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dynel, M.
    (2009a) Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009b) Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. Metaphorical.de, 17, 27–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2011) Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 59–83. 10.1163/187731011X561009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561009 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2012) Garden paths, red lights and crossroads. Israeli Journal of Humor Research, 1, 6–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (Ed.) (2013) Developments in Linguistics Humour Theory. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Forabosco, G.
    (1992) Cognitive aspects of the humour process: the concept of incongruity. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 5, 9–26. 10.1515/humr.1992.5.1‑2.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1992.5.1-2.45 [Google Scholar]
  33. (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]
  34. Ford, T. E.
    (Ed.) (2004) HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 17 (4). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (Ed.) (2006) HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2006) Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  37. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529–562. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  38. Giora, R.
    (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183–206. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2002) Masking One’s Themes: Irony and the Politics of Indirectness. InM. M. Louwerse and W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics in Psychology and Literary Studies (pp.283–300). New York: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Giora, R. and Shuval, N.
    (2005) Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure. InS. Coulson and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought (pp.239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N. and Shuval, N.
    (2015) Know Hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. InG. Brône, K. Feyaerts and T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Meet Humor Research. Current Trends and New Developments (pp.129–146). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346343‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-007 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L.
    (Eds.) (2011) Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Grady, J.
    (1997) theories are buildings Revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 261–290. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  45. Herrero, J.
    (2002) Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 15, 73–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hines, C.
    (1999) Rebaking the Pie: The WOMAN AS DESSERT Metaphor. InM. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang and L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities. The gendered self in discourse (pp.145–162). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones?Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 11–25. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov [Google Scholar]
  49. Krikmann, A.
    (2008) Contemporary linguistic theories of humour. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 33, 28–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2009) On the Similarity and Distinguishability of Humour and Figurative Speech. Trames, 13, 14–40. 10.3176/tr.2009.1.02
    https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2009.1.02 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kyratzis, S.
    (2003) Laughing Metaphorically: Metaphor and Humour in Discourse. Paper presented at the8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, 20–25 July, 2003. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= (accessed20 July 2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1989) Some empirical results about the nature of concepts. Mind and Language, 4 (1–2), 103–129. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00244.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00244.x [Google Scholar]
  54. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  58. Legman, G.
    (2006) Rationale of the Dirty Joke: An Analysis of Sexual Humor. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Martin, R.
    (2007) The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C.
    (1991) Humor, Language, and Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6 (2), 87–102. 10.1207/s15327868ms0602_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0602_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. Müller, R.
    (2007) The Interplay of Metaphor and Humor in Oscar Wilde’s “Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime“. InS. Attardo & D. Popa (Eds.), New Approaches to the Linguistics of Humor (pp.44–54). Galati: Dunarea de Jos University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Oring, E.
    (2003) Engaging Humor. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Pollio, H. R.
    (1996) Boundaries in humor and metaphor. InJ. S. Mio and A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor, Implications and Applications (pp.231–253). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Radden, G.
    (2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. InJ. L. Otal, I. Navarro & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Raskin, V.
    (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Recanati, F.
    (1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4, 295–329. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00258.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00258.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Ritchie, D. L.
    (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]
  68. Ritchie, D. L., & Dyhouse, V.
    (2008) Hair of the Frog and other Empty Metaphors: The Play Element in Figurative Language. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 85–107. 10.1080/10926480801944251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480801944251 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ritchie, G.
    (1999) Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Proceedings of AISB Symposium on Creative Language: Stories and Humour, 1, 78–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (2009) Variants of incongruity resolution. Journal of Literary Theory, 3 (2), 313–332. 10.1515/JLT.2009.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JLT.2009.017 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1997a) Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 161–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1997b) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS. Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos, 19 (1), 281–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1999a) Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. InJ. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp.429–440). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (1999b) The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 1, 237–255. 10.18172/jes.50
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.50 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp.109–132). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp.103–123). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  77. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2011) Going beyond Metaphtonymy: Metaphorical and Metonymic Complexes in Phrasal Verb Interpretation. Language Value, 3 (1), 1–29. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2014) Cognitive modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  81. (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. InK. U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp.23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  82. (2011) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  83. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P.
    (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale: Earlbaum Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 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]
  85. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986) On defining relevance. InR. Grandy & R. Warner (Eds.), Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends (pp.143–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (1995) Postface to the second edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 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]
  88. (1983) Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. InP. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Humor Research1 (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]
  89. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  90. Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
    (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. InA. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp.67–82). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  92. (2002) Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.469–488). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.469
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.469 [Google Scholar]
  93. Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G.
    (2006) The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3), 305–338. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.016 [Google Scholar]
  94. Veale, T.
    (2013) Humorous Similes. HUMOR: The International Journal of Humor Research, 21 (1), 3–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Vosshagen, C.
    (1999) Opposition as a metonymic principle. InK. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp.289–308). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.17vos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.17vos [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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