1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.16047.her
2019-11-05
2023-09-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/resla.16047.her
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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=10.1.1.132.9689andrep=rep1andtype=pdf (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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.16047.her
Loading
Metaphor and metonymy in jokes
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32, 650 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16047.her
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.16047.her
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.16047.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cambio de marco; chistes; cognitive linguistics; frame-shifting; jokes; lingüística cognitiva; metaphor; metonimia; metonymy; metáfora

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