Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor
Transcript of Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249929554
Introduction:Cognitivelinguisticapproachestohumor
ArticleinHumor-InternationalJournalofHumorResearch·August2006
DOI:10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012
CITATIONS
12
READS
311
3authors,including:
GeertBrône
UniversityofLeuven
46PUBLICATIONS178CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
KurtFeyaerts
UniversityofLeuven
32PUBLICATIONS124CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyKurtFeyaertson25January2015.
Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.
Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approachesto humor
GEERT BRONE,1 KURT FEYAERTS,1 and TONY VEALE2
Ever since the publication of Victor Raskin’s seminal work on the Seman-
tic Mechanisms of Humor (1985), linguistic humor research has had a de-
cidedly cognitive orientation. The cognitive psychological roots of the Se-
mantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH) presented in the aforementioned
book, have been adopted in a large number of studies that have appeared
since. In this respect, Attardo, in a recent discussion on the cognitive turn
in literary studies, points out ‘‘that linguists who study humor may well
be pleased to find out that they were doing cognitive stylistics all along’’
(2002: 231). Indeed, the two most influential linguistic humor theories of
the last two decades, the SSTH and the General Theory of Verbal Humor
(GTVH, Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 1994, 1997, 2001a), along
with a number of other theoretical studies (Giora 1991; Kottho¤ 1998;
Yus 2003) share some significant features with the broad linguistic frame-
work that is the methodological angle of the present thematic issue, viz.
Cognitive Linguistics (CL).
What is Cognitive Linguistics? Although introducing a highly diversi-
fied research endeavor like CL is a book project in itself (see e.g. Taylor
2002; Croft and Cruse 2004; Geeraerts and Cuyckens 2006), we necessar-
ily limit ourselves to the pinpoint motto of the Cognitive Linguistics Series
(Mouton de Gruyter):
Cognitive Linguistics subsumes a variety of concerns and broadly compatible the-
oretical approaches that have a common basic outlook: that language is an inte-
gral facet of cognition which reflects the interaction of social, cultural, psycho-
logical, communicative and functional considerations, and which can only be
understood in the context of a realistic view of acquisition, cognitive development
and mental processing . . . It seeks insofar as possible to explicate language struc-
ture in terms of the other facets of cognition on which it draws, as well as the
communicative function it serves.
Humor 19–3 (2006), 203–228 0933–1719/06/0019–0203
DOI 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.aaa 6 Walter de Gruyter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 203)
The brief mission statement above can be interpreted as a reaction on two
levels against the formalist, Chomskyan tradition. First, rather than hy-
pothesizing that language is a separate cognitive module in the mind,
with its own principles, CL approaches language as part and parcel of
cognition, guided by general cognitive principles that are not restricted
to linguistic organization. In consequence, one of the major objectives of
cognitive linguists is the study of the reflection of general conceptual
mechanisms in language and linguistic structure. Second, the phrase ‘‘a
realistic view of acquisition, cognitive development and mental process-
ing’’ can be interpreted as a reaction against the generative-linguistic hy-
pothesis that grammar is essentially innate (‘‘Universal Grammar’’), and
exposure to language in use only plays a secondary role in language de-
velopment. CL argues, in contrast, that an individual’s knowledge of a
language is ‘‘based in knowledge of actual usage and of generalizations
made over usage events’’ (Taylor 2002: 27). In other words, grammar is
considered to be usage-based, grounded in experience (and hence not as
schematic as the generative grammar). This claim has important method-
ological consequences relevant to the present issue. If language acquisi-
tion is a bottom-up process of generalization over usage events, then lin-
guistic analysis should equally be bottom-up and data-driven, starting
from actual language in use and making generalizations/schemas on the
basis of patterns in the usage (rather than working the other way around,
formulating transformations of abstract principles so as to fit the surface
appearance of language). The further methodological implications of this
general CL claim of a usage-based grammar are elaborated in the next
section (‘‘humor theoretical interest in cognitive linguistics’’).
Given this somewhat simplifying description of CL, it should be noted
that the SSTH and GTVH both share with cognitive linguistics the funda-
mental interest in the interrelationship between language and cognition in
language use. In general, most recent linguistic humor research makes the
same basic assumption with respect to humor that cognitive linguistics
does with respect to linguistic structure in general, viz. that (humorous)
language is not to be treated as an isolated, autonomous cognitive phe-
nomenon. On the face of it, this observation may appear trivial, since
there seems to be general agreement that understanding verbal (as well
as non-verbal) humor implies the activation of higher-order cognitive
processes. Nevertheless, the observation that the same cognitive-semantic
strategies underlie cases of punning, referential humor, and visual humor
(Attardo 1996: 2) is highly relevant, since it implies a gradual loss of the
204 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 204)
artificially drawn boundaries between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
that have been proposed in formalist theories of language. This question-
ing of traditional boundaries in linguistic structure is one of the corner-
stones of cognitive linguistics, since it aims at uncovering the role of do-
main general conceptualization principles at all levels of linguistic
structure.
This overlap in the basic philosophy of both traditions opens up re-
search perspectives for both cognitive linguists and humor researchers.
Thus, the aim of the present issue, dedicated to studies that analyze vari-
ous semantic aspects of verbal humor from the perspective of cognitive
linguistics, is essentially twofold. First, by embedding the linguistic study
of humor within a larger terminological-conceptual framework that
claims a cognitive-functional perspective, like cognitive linguistics, humor
researchers are urged to treat humorous language in relation (and in con-
trast) to general patterns of linguistic and cognitive structure rather than
in isolation. In other words, adopting the tools developed in cognitive lin-
guistics can shed new light on the specific semantic construal of humorous
texts and the ‘‘marked’’ character that these texts are generally considered
to have (Giora 1991, 2003; Kottho¤ 1998). Second, from the perspective
of cognitive linguistics, a linguistic framework that claims a focus on the
cross-cognitive and conceptual aspects of language use should be able to
naturally cover cases of linguistic expressivity that are motivated through
the marked, non-prototypical use of the everyday cognitive mechanisms
described in that paradigm. After all, humor is interpreted on the fly in
everyday discourse, just like the other cases of ‘‘figurative language’’ cog-
nitive linguistics has given center stage to, like metaphor, metonymy and
conceptual integration. And just like these other cases, the study of hu-
mor can yield interesting insights into some of the specifics of cognitive
processing, insights that extend beyond the perspective of linguistic hu-
mor theories alone. In the following paragraphs, both the humor theoret-
ical interest in cognitive linguistics and the cognitive linguistic importance
of studying humor is discussed in more detail, in order to give an overall
picture of this mutual interest.
1. Humor theoretical interest in cognitive linguistics
Given the cognitive orientation that most linguistic humor research has,
there should be a high compatibility between CL and humor research,
Introduction 205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 205)
which promotes the exchange of insights in two directions. The true chal-
lenge for both traditions is to explore some of the ‘‘waste land’’ that can
be covered through this cooperative e¤ort (for an argument in favor of a
take-what-you-need strategy, see Ritchie 2004). In this section, we focus
somewhat more on the two cornerstones of the cognitive linguistics para-
digm introduced above, and the interesting implications these assump-
tions have for humor theories.
The first pillar of cognitive linguistics, the one that most clearly sepa-
rates CL from truth-conditional and generative approaches to language,
is the hypothesis that meaning is essentially conceptualization (Langacker
1987). This view runs counter to the classic formalist belief that there is a
one-to-one mapping between external world and linguistic-conceptual
structure. Rather, dynamic semantic theories like CL argue that ‘‘situa-
tions can be ‘‘construed’’ in di¤erent ways [ . . . ] and di¤erent ways of en-
coding a situation constitute di¤erent conceptualizations’’ (Lee 2001: 2).
In other words, situations can be framed in di¤erent ways and these dif-
ferent framings result in a di¤erent semantic structure. Bearing in mind
this cognitive linguistic view on language as a recipe for constructing
meaning, a recipe which relies on a lot of independent cognitive activity
(Saeed 1996: 319), the notion of conceptualization processes is of central
importance. Or as Croft and Cruse (2004: 42) put it, ‘‘in cognitive linguis-
tics conceptualization is the fundamental semantic phenomenon; whether
alternative construals give rise to di¤erences in truth conditions or not is a
derivative semantic fact.’’ So one of the tasks cognitive linguists set out to
do is to uncover the conceptualization processes that are used in everyday
language use. Over the last two decades, a whole range of construal oper-
ations or conceptualization mechanisms have been uncovered (Langacker
1987; Talmy 2000; Taylor 2002; Croft and Cruse 2004). These operations
are considered to be cognitive in nature in that they are active on all levels
of linguistic and conceptual organization, and are instances of more gen-
eral cognitive processes as described in cognitive psychology (Croft and
Cruse 2004: 45). Croft and Cruse present an overview of the vast litera-
ture on construal and propose an alternative, more encompassing (in
comparison to Talmy and Langacker) typology of construal operations,
including the general categories of attention and salience, comparison,
perspective and viewpoint, and Gestalt (see also Veale et al., this issue).
If these construal operations are indeed basic-level semantic-conceptual
mechanisms, then they may not only account for the semantic construal
of conventional language use, but also for more marked cases, like
206 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 206)
humor. And indeed, linguistic humor researchers have focussed on the
functionality of some of these operations in the semantics of jokes and
other humorous texts. For example, one of the fundamental construal
mechanisms that underlie various semantic phenomena, is comparison,
which has been developed in phenomenology and cognitive psychology.
And the most powerful reflection of this basic cognitive faculty is the hu-
man need for categorization or framing, i.e. viewing a linguistic expres-
sion against the background of a frame of reference or prior experience.
The hypothesis that frames (or scripts) as structured categories grounded
in experience (Fillmore 1982) play an essential role in producing and
comprehending linguistic utterances has not only been extremely influen-
tial in the development of the semantic theory of cognitive linguistics, but
is also the foundation of the SSTH and GTVH. The SSTH (Raskin 1985)
basically argues that jokes revolve around the opposition, overlap and
switch between two (or more) scripts or frames. Jokes, on this view, are
partly or fully compatible with two di¤erent, (con)textually opposed
scripts, only one of which is saliently activated in the first part of the
text. The punch line of the joke turns out to be incompatible with the first
script interpretation (incongruity), but there is a lexical cue in the text
(script-switch trigger) that enables the switch or shift from the first inter-
pretation to the second, backgrounded script (resolution). Coulson (2000)
and Coulson et al. (this issue) elaborate on this idea with a discussion of
frame-shifting within a larger cognitive linguistic framework of language
comprehension, labeled the space structuring model. It is argued that this
model better accounts for the influence of context in meaning construc-
tion and the flexible mechanisms that are involved in that process than
the SSTH and GTVH. The psychological reality of frame-shifting is sub-
sequently tested in a number of psycho- and neurolinguistic experiments.
The minimalist description above of the basic semantic idea of the
SSTH and Coulson’s approach touches upon a second principle of con-
strual that has gained increasing interest in both cognitive linguistics and
humor research, viz. salience. Jokes, it is argued, typically have a first,
contextually salient interpretation that is discarded at the punch line in
favor of a more marked reading (Giora 1991: 470). But as Giora has ex-
tensively argued, salience, defined as the coded meanings that are fore-
grounded in our mind, plays a central role not only in humor, but in a
large range of semantic phenomena, like metaphor (Giora 1997, 2003),
metonymy (Gibbs 1999; Langacker 1993), irony (Giora 2001; Giora
and Fein 1999a, 1999b), idioms (Giora 2003), and stylistic innovation in
Introduction 207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 207)
general (Giora 2002, 2003). According to Giora’s graded salience hypoth-
esis, salient information is always accessed before any other, less salient
information, and this very general organizational principle is exploited
in many types of ‘‘expressive’’ language use, like novel metaphor, pun-
ning, irony, and humor.
Apart from the function of salience and framing, other general concep-
tualization mechanisms have been treated, directly or indirectly, at vari-
ous places in the humor literature, like figure-ground constellations (Hof-
stadter and Gabora 1989: 422; Attardo and Raskin 1991: 303; Attardo
2001a: 19; borrowed from Talmy 1975), metaphor (Pollio 1996, based
on Lako¤ ’s conceptual metaphor theory), and conceptual mappings in
general (Attardo et al. 2002). But since it is not our intention to give a
full review of all of these points of contact in the domain of semantic
principles, we will not further explore these issues here (for a more de-
tailed overview, see Brone and Feyaerts 2003). The basic intention of this
rough sketch is to illustrate some of the commonalities in the semantic
construal of di¤erent types of language use and open up new perspectives
for research exploring exactly this question of how everyday cognitive
mechanisms are exploited in various ways for humorous, stylistic, or
other purposes.
Despite this obvious movement towards cognitively motivated seman-
tic humor analysis, the tension between marked and unmarked semantic
construal, which can be plotted using the meaning construction mecha-
nisms of CL, and which accounts for the e¤ect of unexpectedness or in-
congruity (Kottho¤ 1998: 50), has not been explored to its fullest in
most of the linguistic humor research. The contributions to the present
issue are intended to open this debate. As mentioned above, the implica-
tions of these studies are not relevant to humor research alone, in that
they illustrate one of the central claims of CL, viz. that the human con-
ceptual system is prototypically structured and highly flexible (see also
the section on ‘‘cognitive linguistic interest in humor’’). The contributions
by Veale et al. and Kottho¤ especially draw attention to the heuristic im-
portance of prototypicality for describing humor in terms of ubiquitous
cognitive categories of construal and communication.
One central aspect of construal that has been widely discussed in CL,
but which has been poorly dealt with in humor research, is the role of im-
agery in linguistic meaning. Particularly the phenomena involving con-
ceptual mappings, like metaphor, metonymy and analogy, have been the
subject of an ever-growing body of research. Conceptual metaphor,
208 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 208)
defined as the conceptualization of one domain (target) in terms of an-
other domain (source), can be considered as a construal operation, since
the choice of a particular domain for conceptualizing a target inherently
construes the target in a specific fashion (cf. Croft and Cruse 2004: 194).
Although it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is a theoretically
interesting (vague) conceptual boundary between humor and metaphor/
analogy (Koestler 1964; Hofstadter and Gabora 1989), humor theorists
have, until recently, only focused on the potentially humorous ambiguity
of a literal vs. figurative reading of a metaphorical expression (Alexander
1997; Attardo 1994). Pollio (1996) explores the boundaries in humor and
metaphor, using insights from the interaction theory of metaphor (Black
1962) and the Lakovian approach (Lako¤ and Johnson 1980; Lako¤
1987). It is argued that humorous bisociation (to use Koestler’s 1964
term) di¤ers from metaphorical conceptualization in the profiling of do-
main boundaries. Whereas metaphors essentially fuse the source and tar-
get to form a single entity (Gestalt), suppressing the obvious domain
boundaries, humorous stimuli (un)intentionally emphasize the dissimilar-
ities between domains. Veale et al. (this issue) follow a similar argument,
in that they illustrate that in many cases of interactional humor, utter-
ances with an underlying metaphorical (and/or metonymical) structure
are used as a cue for a trumping strategy. This strategy consists of a
speaker B subverting a speaker A’s utterance, e.g. by distorting the
source/target structure of the initial metaphorical utterance.
Metonymy, in a cognitive linguistic approach, is generally viewed as a
cognitive mechanism enabling the selection of a salient reference point in
a frame to refer to a di¤erent concept in the same frame or to the frame
as a whole (Langacker 1993; Panther and Radden 1999). This conceptual
approach to metonymy covers phenomena that were previously treated in
pragmatics as inferences or conversational implicatures (Gibbs 1999; Pan-
ther and Thornburg 2003). Given the general agreement that humor in-
terpretation involves complex inferential activity, metonymy can be ar-
gued to play a substantial role in this process. Barcelona (2003) argues
that the inferential work in joke interpretation is facilitated by pre-
existing metonymic connections in a cognitive frame. Metonymic con-
nections, on his account, are the driving force behind the script switching
process (Raskin 1985) that yields the resolution. Brone and Feyaerts
(2003) illustrate, using various types of verbal as well as non-verbal
humor, that the interpretation process is often complicated through
the use of marked metonymic reference-point structures. This process of
Introduction 209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 209)
de-automatization results in a balanced processing di‰culty, which is ar-
gued to contribute to the humorous e¤ect (see also Giora 1991, 2003).
Another construal operation that has only very recently received scru-
tiny in humor research is viewpoint. If meaning, in the CL framework is
essentially construed from a specific perspective, then adopting a di¤erent
viewpoint automatically entails a di¤erent conceptualization. Of particu-
lar interest for humor researchers is the treatment of viewpoint in mental
spaces theory (Fauconnier 1994 [1985], 1997). The theory of mental
spaces has been introduced to linguistics and cognitive science to co-
herently deal with a wide range of problematic semantic phenomena,
such as indirect reference, pragmatic functions (Nunberg 1979), referen-
tial opacity, (counterfactual) conditionals, compositionality, etc. Mental
spaces, on Fauconnier’s account, are small conceptual structures ‘‘that
proliferate when we think and talk, allowing a fine-grained partitioning
of our discourse and knowledge structures’’ (Fauconnier 1997: 11). On
this account, viewpoint is dealt with in terms of di¤erent mental spaces:
the viewpoint space is the structure from which others are accessed.
Humor research has only very recently touched upon the relevance of
mental spaces. Ritchie (this issue) argues that the accepted dichotomy be-
tween referential and linguistic jokes is not sanctifying, since both create
an event which is open to alternative interpretations, albeit by di¤erent
means. By the same token, the generally accepted view that a reader/
hearer of a joke is forced into a reinterpretation from an incorrect to a
correct interpretation of a lexical element or grammatical construction,
thus performing a frame-shifting operation, does not account for all (or
even the majority) of verbal jokes. Ritchie explores a number of jokes
that revolve around a misinterpretation by a story character, and pro-
poses an account of viewpoint shifts/reinterpretations in terms of mental
spaces. Attardo (2001b) uses a mental space account of ironical mode
adoption. Mode factive utterances (i.e. utterances allowing mode adop-
tion), such as irony, metaphorical utterances, fiction, etc., trigger the con-
struction of a new mental space (next to the base/reality space) so as to
allow the hearer to avoid having to reject the utterance as ill-formed. In
accordance with Fauconnier’s presupposition float principle (1994 [1985]:
61), it is argued that the construction of e.g. an ironical mental space
avoids a clash between the presuppositions of an utterance and those of
the speaker and hearer.
What this brief overview of some of the general purpose construal op-
erations and their relevance for humor research aims to show is that CL
210 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 210)
indeed provides some articulate tools that have not been fully explored
in linguistic humor theories. Uncovering patterns in the semantics of hu-
morous texts, using these mechanisms, can provide useful insights into
the essentially marked character of these texts. The tension between
normal and marked use (or between prototypical and peripheral use) of
semantic-pragmatic devices seems to play an essential role in the humor
game. One of the general conclusions that can be drawn from the papers
in the present issue is that a prototypical model is needed for the use of
conceptualization operations, di¤ering core cases in conventionalized lan-
guage use from more marked uses. Analogously, from a more pragmatic
point of view, the contribution by Kottho¤ advocates a highly flexible de-
scription of communication principles in terms of prototypical categories.
The second cornerstone of the cognitive linguistic philosophy of lan-
guage is that linguistic structure is usage-based. Usage-based models of
language essentially state that a speaker’s linguistic system is grounded
in usage events, and hence is experientially driven (Langacker 1987,
1988; Barlow and Kemmer 2000). Langacker (1988: 131) notes concisely
that ‘‘[i]n describing cognitive grammar as a ‘usage-based’ model of lan-
guage structure, I have in mind the ‘maximalist’, ‘non-reductive’, and
‘bottom-up’ character of the general approach (as compared to the mini-
malist, reductive and top-down spirit of the generative tradition).’’ If the
linguistic system is indeed inherently tied to usage (‘‘bottom-up’’), then
the primary source of information is the actual use of language in context.
In contrast to most formal approaches to language, CL argues that lin-
guistic and non-linguistic context both play an essential role in the pro-
duction and processing of language. There is no strict boundary between
linguistic and contextual information, in that features of contextual (and
pragmatic) information can, through conventionalization, become part of
the linguistic system as such. The linguistic utterance as such merely func-
tions as a cue the processor uses as a starting point in the meaning con-
struction process (supra).
Uncovering the tight interaction between contextual and linguistic un-
derstanding is the main research goal of the steadily growing field of cog-
nitive discourse analysis (Langacker 2001; Van Hoek et al. 1999). One of
the advantages of such a perspective is that it can provide ‘‘a valuable
corrective to the often-assumed dichotomy between cognitively-oriented
studies, which often ignore the interactional aspects of discourse, vs. in-
teraction models, which often de-emphasize cognitive processes’’ (Barlow
and Kemmer 2000: xvii). This multidimensional approach can be of
Introduction 211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 211)
obvious interest to humor researchers studying the interpersonal and in-
ferential nature of humor. On the level of interpersonal dynamics, it needs
to be observed that many cases of humor directly or indirectly draw on
collaborative (Kottho¤, this issue) and adversarial (Veale et al., this
issue) strategies in interaction. Speakers in running (humorous) discourse
often build on previously introduced strands or themes (Davies 1984),
and thus either proceed on a humorous topic in collaboration with other
participants, or counter another participant’s utterance by means of ad-
versarial humor strategies (cf. Davies 1984 on the thematic principles of
contradiction and elaboration). The semantics of multi-agent forms of
humor has been poorly analyzed in humor research, especially in compar-
ison to the bulk of literature on (canned) jokes, which often does not refer
to the context these jokes are delivered in. Cognitive linguistics explicitly
states that language is grounded in discourse and social interactions (Lan-
gacker 2001: 143), which means that the context of speech and shared
knowledge all play a central role in semantics, and they cannot be sepa-
rated from the ‘‘core meaning’’ of an utterance. Langacker’s notion of a
current discourse space, defined as a mental space ‘‘comprising those ele-
ments and relations construed as being shared by the speaker and hearer
as a basis for communication at a given moment in the flow of discourse’’
(2001: 144), illustrates this unified treatment of semantics. On this view,
meaning arises in discourse through a range of cues, rather than by sim-
ply processing stored semantic information (see also the papers by Kotth-
o¤ and Coulson et al., this issue).
Apart from the general theoretical importance, positing a usage-based
model of language and conceptualization has major methodological impli-
cations as well. Usage-based theories hypothesizing a tight relationship
between linguistic structures and real usage necessarily need to base their
claims on the observation of actual data, rather than on constructed ex-
amples. This has led to a renewed attention to the empirical support of
theoretical claims, both on the level of production and processing. Pro-
duction data can be drawn from corpora collecting usage material. This
way, corpus analysis can chart linguistic variation at all possible levels,
including sociolectic, dialectic, idiolectic, but also expressive variation.
As a central instance of linguistic variation, expressivity and creativity
should not be neglected in a usage-based model (see also the next section).
Kottho¤ (1998, this issue) and Priego-Valverde (2003) illustrate that a
semantic-pragmatic account of meaning construction in humor can draw
interesting insights from corpus-based conversation analysis.
212 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 212)
Data on the processing of linguistic input can be drawn from simula-
tion experiments like reading times, priming tests, ERP-analyses, etc.
Vaid et al. (2003) provide an overview of the various accounts that have
been proposed of the di¤erent stages of meaning activation in joke com-
prehension. In order to empirically test the conflicting hypotheses in the
literature, the authors used a lexical decision semantic priming experi-
ment to measure the time course of meaning activation. Coulson et al.
(this issue) report on a number of studies that test the psychological real-
ity of frame-shifting (supra) in joke comprehension. Self-paced reading
times for one-line jokes (see also Coulson and Kutas 1998) show that
jokes that require frame-shifting take longer to process than straight end-
ings. These data suggest that frame-shifting requires an extra processing
cost. A complementary ERP-experiment (event-related brain potentials)
was conducted to get a more fine-grained view of the cognitive process
involved in frame-shifting (see also Coulson and Kutas 2001). It is argued
that a sustained negativity 500–900 ms is the ERP e¤ect that indexes the
frame-shifting needed for joke comprehension. In a third experiment,
Coulson et al. measure eye movements to examine whether the reinterpre-
tation process of frame-shifting involves an increased amount of regres-
sions (leftward eye movements) in comparison to non-joke endings. The
eye tracking data show that total viewing duration is longer for jokes
than for non-joke controls, and that participants make more regressive
eye movements when frame-shifting is required for the interpretation. In
general, these empirical studies show a renewed awareness of the need for
experimental backup of theoretical hypotheses, a need that has been ex-
pressed, among others, by Attardo (2001a: 208). Nevertheless, this field
is still in its infancy (partly because it is notoriously di‰cult to design
methodologically sound tests), and needs a fair amount of basic data.
In summation, in this first section we have connected some of the basic
concepts of the Cognitive Linguistics framework to the specific linguistics
of humor in an attempt to uncover common ground and new perspectives
for both cognitive linguists and humor researchers. As a stepping stone,
we used two of the key ideas in CL. First, the broad, dynamic view on
meaning as comprehensive conceptualization leads to a focus on the re-
flection of higher-level construal mechanisms or conceptualization opera-
tions in language. Although some of these mechanisms have been studied
at length in their relevance in the meaning construction process in humor
(e.g. framing, salience), others have gone largely unnoticed (e.g. meta-
phor, metonymy). It is argued in a number of papers in this issue that
Introduction 213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 213)
including these general cognitive mechanisms may contribute to the de-
velopment of a genuinely cognitive account of verbal (as well as non-
verbal) humor. A second trigger in the discussion is the cognitive linguis-
tic view on linguistic structure as usage-based. The implications of this
basic claim for the scope of semantic analysis and for the methodologies
that are used, are not trivial. From the perspective of production, the cog-
nitive semantic analysis needs to take into account the rich conceptual
landscape in which meaning emerges, including semantic, pragmatic, con-
textual, cultural, and even (inter)personal information. This multidimen-
sional perspective may contribute to a better understanding of the way
in which di¤erent cues jointly trigger a humorous e¤ect. On the level of
processing, a cognitive linguistic account generates direct hypotheses that
can be tested in a simulation setting. This may provide a new impetus
for the much-needed interaction between descriptive-theoretical work and
empirical testing in linguistic humor research.
This general account of the potential contribution of a cognitive lin-
guistic perspective on humor does not, as such, motivate why cognitive
linguists interested in linguistic structure in general, may find the study
of humor compelling and worthwhile. In the next section, we pursue the
question why cognitive linguists should (occasionally) deviate from the
accepted path of conventional language use to study more creative cases.
To a large extent, this interest arises from looking at the arguments pro-
posed in this section from a di¤erent angle.
2. Cognitive linguistic interest in humor
There are several levels on which a cognitive linguistic theory of meaning,
defined in a broad sense, might benefit from the inclusion of humor and
creative language as an object of research. Not claiming any exhaustive-
ness in this regard, we will restrict our observation to those matters which
appear most relevant to the aim and set-up of this issue.
Vis-a-vis its characterization as a usage-based, dynamic theory of
meaning as conceptualization, treating language on a par with other cog-
nitive abilities, Cognitive Linguistics is urged to take creativity into ac-
count as a fundamental cognitive ability. In their study of scalar humor,
Bergen and Binsted (2003) emphasize the theoretical as well as method-
ological importance of broadening one’s empirical scope to cover cases
of creativity as well: ‘‘Only by expanding our range of data to include
214 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 214)
this most human of cognitive behaviors do we do justice to our theories of
language. Artificially restricting language data to that which is considered
core or central can only serve to keep our models of language blind to the
realities of human language knowledge, and thus hobbled with respect to
the scientific method.’’ Generally, the analysis of creative language use—
used as a cover term including all kinds of verbal humor and wit—allows
a more accurate picture to be drawn of the way in which our experience is
structured by cognitive construal mechanisms such as metaphor, meton-
ymy, figure/ground-arrangement, frames, etc. In the following, the im-
pact of this observation will be discussed in more detail both with respect
to the level of descriptive semantic theory as well as regarding psycholin-
guistic experiments on the processing of language.
From the perspective of semantic theory, we draw attention to four di-
mensions of semantic structure, in which the functionality of analyzing
non-conventionalized, creative language use for CL theory becomes ap-
parent. A first aspect pertains to the basic CL claim concerning the non-
restrictive, encyclopedic nature of the meaning of an utterance. In many
humorous contexts like jokes, collaborative or adversarial interaction,
wordplay etc. (see Kottho¤; Veale et al., this issue), the successful pro-
cessing of the intended meaning heavily depends on the activation of
experiential (cultural, social, embodied . . .) knowledge shared by both
speaker and hearer in the current discourse space (Langacker 2001). The
witty e¤ect in an exchange like (1), for instance, hinges only partially on
the exploitation of the linguistic structure of the verb to aim for. Crucial is
the activation of encyclopedic knowledge concerning Von Braun’s early
career as a scientist at the service of Nazi-Germany (see Veale et al., this
issue).
(1) Von Braun (S): I aim for the stars! (title of co¤ee-table book)
Book critic (H): I aim for the stars, but I keep hitting London.
(title of book review)
A second aspect of meaning construal which is inherent to any semantic
structure, but frequently exploited in creative language use, concerns the
varying degrees of salience displayed by di¤erent meanings of a single
word with respect to its usage in a given context or frame. Salience of a
word or utterance is defined in Giora (1997: 185) as ‘‘a function of its
conventionality, frequency, or givenness status in a certain (linguistic
and non-linguistic) context’’ (see also Giora 2003: 15¤ ). In the same
vein, Attardo (2001a) relates salience phenomena to the activation of
Introduction 215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 215)
scripts against the background of which meanings are being profiled. In
humorous utterances like (1), it is apparent that at any moment in unfold-
ing discourse, a speech act participant may decide not to realize the cog-
nitively salient meaning by altering the conceptual background.
A third aspect, in which the analysis of humorous material might add
to a more comprehensive view on conceptualization concerns the inclu-
sion of discourse as a relevant dimension for an adequate determination
of semantic structure. With regard to a discursive-cognitive analysis of
jokes, Giora (1991: 469) formulates the marked informativeness require-
ment, according to which ‘‘jokes and point-stories are markedly infor-
mative. Their final informative messages are marked in that they are too
distant, in terms of the number of similar features, from the messages pre-
ceding them’’. As such, they provide a cognitive link to the preceding
text, but at the same time they violate the expected, conventional pattern
of gradual increase in informativeness (see also Coulson 2000: 33¤; Coul-
son and Kutas 2001). In her pragmatically oriented contribution, Kotth-
o¤ (this issue) emphasizes the impact of discursive elements on the gener-
ation of a humorous meaning in collaborative conversation. In CL, this
observation parallels a broadening of the analytical scope, integrating dis-
course elements into the paradigm of Cognitive Grammar as apparent in
the Current Discourse Space model, as proposed by Langacker (2001).
Finally, the analysis of creative language use (humor) highlights proto-
typicality as a major structural characteristic of semantic-conceptual or-
ganization. Although since the very beginning, CL has embraced prototy-
picality as a basic feature of categorization, which integrates flexibility
with structural stability (see, among others, Geeraerts 1989, 1997), most
studies in the field have related this notion to the structure of lexical-
semantic categories. Linguistic studies of creative language demonstrate
that humorous e¤ects tend to be generated through the exploitation of
prototypical categories throughout the current discourse space. Interest-
ingly, these categories are not restricted to the level of lexical semantics
(Veale et al., this issue), as they are also identified on the pragmatic plane
(Kottho¤, this issue). In their survey of di¤erent kinds of verbal as well as
non-verbal humor, Brone and Feyaerts (2003) demonstrate that even on a
meta-linguistic level, construal mechanisms appear as prototypically or-
ganized categories. Their analysis of one-panel cartoons and di¤erent
types of verbal expressions illustrates that a balanced processing di‰culty
is achieved through the strategic manipulation and distortion of the pro-
totypical metonymic reference-point structure, according to which ‘‘a
216 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 216)
well-chosen metonymic expression lets us mention one entity that is sa-
lient and easily coded, and thereby evoke—essentially automatically—a
target that is either of lesser interest or harder to name’’ (Langacker 1993:
30). Such manipulations may rely on, for instance, the profiling of non-
essential side elements in a visual setting or an event structure as reference
points, or also the non-profiling of highly salient elements (‘‘profile gap’’,
Brone and Feyaerts 2003: 31¤ ). The analysis of these phenomena in
terms of non-prototypical cases of metonymic construal, rather than
humor-specific logical mechanisms, strongly invites an integrated, non-
modular CL account of humor. At the same time, however, it calls upon
CL to further refine its heuristic tools in order to live up to its name as the
framework most suitable for the analysis of dynamic meaning construc-
tion. More specifically, as instances of creative language use show, con-
strual mechanisms seem to require a more elastic definition in terms of
prototypical characteristics in order to bring even full creativity (Bergen
and Binsted 2003) within reach of basic cognitive construal mechanisms.
By adopting a construal approach to incongruity resolution, the linguistic
interest in humor interpretation might stretch beyond the purely humor
theoretical perspective. Instead of focusing on the uniqueness of the hu-
mor phenomenon (e.g. in logical mechanisms), a CL account may reveal
the way in which day-to-day cognitive capacities are explored and pushed
to the limit for humorous purposes.
Besides its relevance for descriptive semantic theory, the analysis of cre-
ative language use (humor) also promises new insights to psycholinguistic
studies on the processing of language. In the context of this issue we
briefly refer to two observations whose relevance extends beyond the se-
mantic structure of humorous utterances alone. A first benefit of tackling
humorous material through the application of experimental methods con-
cerns the psychological reality of frames, more specifically, the process of
frame shifting. In their observation of regressive eye movements, Coulson
et al. (this issue) confirm earlier reading time findings by Coulson and
Kutas (1998, 2001) as they note that ‘‘people were more likely to make
regressive eye movements when they read the joke than the straight end-
ings, as if they wanted to re-examine earlier parts of the sentence for clues
to which alternative frames should be retrieved’’ (Coulson et al., this
issue). A second, related observation pertains to the multifold interaction
between the processing of both word and surrounding context (message).
Analyzing the complexity of frame-shifting jokes, Coulson et al. (this
issue) arrive at an upgraded notion of context compared to traditional
Introduction 217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 217)
psycholinguistics. Whereas the traditional psycholinguistic approach to
meaning construction focuses on the way in which context determines
the processing of lexical items (rather than how these items may have
any impact on the representation of the broader discourse event (context,
frame, message . . .), Coulson et al. (this issue) use frame-shifting jokes to
demonstrate ‘‘the need for a model of message-level processing prompted
by language’’.
3. Outline of the issue
In the opening paper of the issue Seana Coulson, Thomas Urbach and
Marta Kutas present the space structuring model, a cognitive linguistics
inspired model of linguistic comprehension that focuses on the interaction
between sentence processing and text processing. Using insights from that
model, the authors report on a number of experiments that test the psy-
chological reality of frame-shifting, the semantic and pragmatic reanalysis
that is necessary for the interpretation of the punchline of a joke. In the
case of frame-shifting, the lexical processing of the punchline triggers the
construction of cognitive models in working memory. Previous self-paced
reading and ERP (event-related brain potentials) experiments both sug-
gest that frame-shifting involves an additional processing cost in compar-
ison to non-joke controls. The eye-tracking study presented in this issue
confirms the results of previous studies under the more natural reading
conditions this methodology provides. In addition to the other studies,
the eye movement data show that the extra cognitive cost is not simply a
question of word recognition, since the length of the readers’ initial gaze
duration of a word did not di¤er significantly for jokes and controls.
Rather, the cost is related to higher-level processing, as indexed by the
longer total viewing duration of words in jokes. The fact that jokes elicit
more regressive eye movements upon encountering the punch word than
straight controls provides additional evidence for the psychological reality
of a reanalysis process like frame-shifting.
Graeme Ritchie starts from the widely accepted idea in humor theories
that many jokes consist of a set-up phase, which has a salient interpreta-
tion and a punch line that suddenly forces the reader or hearer to reinter-
pret the set-up di¤erently. However, the level at which the reinterpreta-
tion process occurs, is not as unambiguous as most theories observe,
since the initial misinterpretation can be situated on the level of either
218 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 218)
the reader/hearer or a character in the joke. In order to capture this strat-
ification, Ritchie presents an account in terms of viewpoints or belief sets,
formalized by means of mental spaces (Fauconnier 1994 [1985]). It is ar-
gued that the reinterpretation process does not necessarily have to be di-
rectly in the mental space of the audience, but rather, it su‰ces that it
happens in a viewpoint that is accessible to the audience (nested view-
point). An in-depth analysis shows that the change of interpretation can
occur in the hearer’s viewpoint, in the narrative viewpoint or in the view-
point of a story character, hence widening the canonical view that the
reinterpretation process involves a hearer making a revision from a previ-
ously false to a correct interpretation. What is more, the higher-level, for-
mal treatment of forced reinterpretation provides a generalization that
can not be captured by some other taxonomies (like e.g. the widely ac-
cepted verbal-referential distinction). In using a mental space account to
capture this generalization, Ritchie seems to corroborate one of the basis
claims of cognitive linguistics, viz. that it is possible to account for a wide
range of phenomena, verbal as well as non-verbal, using a restricted set of
basis conceptual mechanisms.
Although Helga Kottho¤ ’s analysis of conversational humor formally
figures as a pragmatic approach, this contribution also provides valuable
input to the recent discussion in Cognitive Linguistics to pursue the con-
cept of ‘usage-based linguistics’ to the full (see, among others, Geeraerts
2003). Specifically, three key notions of CL-theory may be identified, mo-
tivating the relevance of this paper for the theoretical orientation of the
present issue. First, and most importantly, Kottho¤ highlights flexibility
as a crucial characteristic of semantic/pragmatic categories such as com-
munication principles. By doing so, she adopts an ecological view on (lin-
guistic) categorization, which basically boils down to the adaptation
of prototype theory to linguistic analysis. Without any restriction, this
theory still represents one of the methodological cornerstones of CL, pro-
viding a structural explanation for the di¤erentiation between, among
others, preferred (salient) and non-preferred (less-salient) meaning struc-
tures. Although she does not explicitly argue in terms of ‘prototypicality,’
a major point of Kottho¤ ’s paper concerns the flexible extension of com-
municative principles, thus rejecting an ‘‘explosion of maxims’’ in favor
of ‘‘maxim exploitation’’ allowing humorous utterances to be described
as ‘‘[d]eviations from normal conventional ways of speaking.’’ Second,
Kottho¤ clearly adopts an encylopedic view on semantics according to
which meaning resides in the interplay of linguistic, social and cultural
Introduction 219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 219)
factors. Although this may not be an exclusive characteristic of CL, it
does represent an essential facet of its characterising semantic structure
in terms of conceptual structure. Third, Kottho¤ ’s approach—although
mainly articulated in terms of a pragmatic model—adheres to Lan-
gacker’s description (2001) of the ‘‘viewing frame’’ (or: ‘‘immediate scope
of predication’’) being built up through di¤erent channels of conceptual-
ization which, besides the objective content, also contain features such as
gesture, intonation, sequencing, etc. As Kottho¤ puts it: ‘‘In order to de-
scribe the production of meaning in concrete sequences, other sorts of
knowledge must be referred to (e.g. knowledge of sequencing, stylistic
expectations, discursive genres and contextualization procedures) which
constitute a collateral system of communication.’’ To put it the other
way around: in recent years, Langacker (CDS-model) and CL have them-
selves embraced a more discursive approach of meaning description, thus
complementing the traditional CL-focus on lexical-semantic and gram-
matical constructs.
It is clear that on the basis of each of these three notions alone, a lin-
guistic analysis cannot be claimed to be part of the Cognitive Linguistic
paradigm, especially since the two latter may be characteristic for other
approaches as well. Yet, it is the combined application of these three
features, which renders this contribution particularly relevant for a CL-
approach of humor.
Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts and Geert Brone pursue a similar argument
for the case of adversarial humor in conversation, using the cognitive lin-
guistic notion of construal operations. A specific adversarial humor strat-
egy is singled out, which revolves around the subversion of the linguistic
forms of exchange. Based on a technical definition of this phenomenon
they label ‘‘trumping’’, the authors illustrate how agents in a conversa-
tional setting can ‘‘reflect’’ and ‘‘distort’’ the linguistic-conceptual con-
strual set up in a prior turn in conversation. A typology of trumping
mechanisms is presented, based on the di¤erent levels of linguistic organi-
zation on which the reflection or parallelism in the trumping game can be
situated. More specifically, the use insights from cognitive linguistics re-
veals that adversarial agents exploit the various conceptual mechanisms
underlying an opponent’s utterances in order to turn the tables in the hu-
mor game. In doing so, an agent can trump an adversary by demonstrat-
ing a ‘‘hyper-understanding’’ of the lexico-conceptual meaning of an op-
ponent’s utterance. A humorous e¤ect arises partly because the sudden
manipulation of construal operations like metaphor, metonymy and
220 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 220)
salience abruptly redirects the information flow of the discourse space set
up in the previous utterance(s) (Langacker 2001). On the basis of the
analysis, the authors conclude that a cognitive semantic account in terms
of general principles of conceptual organization provides an adequate ac-
count of the tension markedness and transparency in humor and exhibits
an ecological validity that is lacking in most linguistic humor research.
4. Perspectives for future research
If cognitive linguistics is to live up to its reputation as a framework of dy-
namic meaning construction, it should be demonstrably capable of han-
dling the most dynamic aspects of humorous meaning. The papers in
this special issue, we believe, go some way toward providing such a dem-
onstration. However, many key questions remain either unanswered, or
worse, unasked, and cognitive linguistics must prove its value on these
questions also. For instance, how does humor relate to other cognitive
and social phenomena that appear to have a strong family resemblance?
Such phenomena include: gossip ( jokes, like scandalous stories of the mis-
behavior of others, are amongst the most contagious memes that human
society has evolved; what makes these forms such compelling vehicles
for dynamic meaning, and what meaning-construction and meaning-
grounding mechanisms do they share?); insults (not always humorous,
but the most valued are always creative; why does society prize indirect
and ambiguous assaults on character as clever over more direct and un-
ambiguous attacks?); understatement (surely some mechanism of under-
specification is shared with humor?); overstatement (like metaphors, hu-
mor often exploits literal mistruth); and so on. Since cognitive linguistics
refuses to box language and meaning into strict modular compartments
of mind, we should expect the cognitive ecology it fosters to have direct
application to all of these questions.
In line with this cognitive ecology, according to which humor figures
among other cognitive phenomena requiring a holistic, integrated ap-
proach, future research is expected to benefit from an even more intensi-
fied focus on commonalities with day-to-day communication in terms of
construal mechanisms, principles of communication, etc. On this view,
the awareness of prototypicality as an inherent property of conceptual
and linguistic categories is of crucial importance. To what extent and in
what ways a flexible category structure may be stretched for humorous
Introduction 221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 221)
purposes represents a complex research topic. Ultimately, pursuing this
approach must lead to the conclusion that humor is a marked (deautom-
atized ) yet structurally not irregular kind of language use. In terms of
specific research questions further elaborating this general hypothesis,
several topics of interest may be discerned. Closing o¤, we therefore o¤er
a survey of four such topics, located on a theoretical/descriptive as well
as an empirical/methodological spectrum. Each of these topics comprises
an indicative, yet non-exhaustive list of concrete research questions.
4.1. The relationship between creativity and humor
Circumscribing the boundaries of humorous language is not a straight-
forward task. Although the mechanisms of humor on the one hand, and
those of metaphor, irony and linguistic creativity on the other are not
identical, neither are they are clearly demarcated categories of cognition.
To what extent does humor exploit di¤erent kinds of figurative and idi-
omatic language use? Is there a real di¤erence between literal and figura-
tive humorous language use, or is the di¤erence as elusive, and in some
ways ideological, as it is in the study of metaphor? Just as all metaphors
are neither literally anomalous nor false, neither should a joke rely on the
perception of an incongruity to force a humorous interpretation. Cer-
tainly, metaphors can be stretched so far as to cross the line from persua-
sive analogy into humorous juxtaposition, but metaphors can be perceived
as humorous without negating their truth-theoretic content. Humor, like
other forms of playful creativity, rely to some extent on the ‘‘ludic’’ spirit
of participants. Further research is required to elucidate precisely which
mechanisms of mind are shared by creative language and humorous lan-
guage, and which, if any, predates the other.
4.2. Construal mechanisms in humor
Di¤erent types of humorous texts involve the creative manipulation of
cognitive mechanisms such as metaphor, metonymy, compression, figure/
ground alignment, generalization, specialization, etc. in order to achieve
an interpretational e¤ect of deautomatization. To what extent does the
interpretation of di¤erent types of humorous texts involve cognitive
mechanisms of construal? Do these mechanisms operate in the same, a
222 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 222)
similar or a di¤erent way compared to non-humorous language use? To
what extent can conceptual mechanisms be characterized as essentially
flexible, prototypically organized categories?
4.3. Interplay of quantitative and qualitative variables
Humorous utterances are extremely fragile linguistic and conceptual con-
structs, the meaning of which depends vitally on a nexus of quantitative
criteria (such as the time of delivery, and the activation of key expecta-
tions) and qualitative criteria (such as social context, cultural taboos,
shared world models, etc.). This fragility of humorous language makes it
an ideal linguistic form in which to theorize about the relationship be-
tween the quantitative and qualitative aspects of language and cognition.
How can we objectively determine the complexity of a given stimulus or
complexity of the intended cognitive resolution process? Should this be
based on degree of conventionality, contextual expectation, complexity
of inferential work, the cognitive mechanisms that are exploited (e.g.
frame-shifting), or maybe a combination of all of these parameters?
4.4. Empirical methods on the processing of humor
Many of the notions introduced in support of conceptual models of
humor are in serious need of experimental (which is to say, psycholinguis-
tic, neurolinguistic and corpus-linguistic) support if they are to hold theo-
retical water. Cognitive linguistics, in prescribing a usage-based model of
language, explicitly aims to develop a conceptual apparatus that is both a
beneficiary of insights from, and a source of testable hypothesizes for,
psycholinguistics (Tomasello 1998, 2002; Barlow and Kemmer 2000).
With respect to this inherent symbiosis between theory and empiricism,
the analysis of humor elicits a set of compelling issues that present a
methodological and theoretical challenge to cognitive science. To what
extent do the existing empirical methods meet the requirements of testing
the processing of complex data such as humorous expressions? What type
of methodological adjustments may be required with regard to their ap-
plication to di¤erent types of humor? To what extent can formalization
models be useful in delineating hypotheses testable in an experimental
environment?
Introduction 223
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 223)
Many of the questions raised here are still largely unsolved, though
they have an important catalyzing role to play in deciding the future
direction of our discipline. Indeed, we expect that in the short-term a
cognitive-linguistic approach to humor will raise as many questions as it
helps to answer. With this inevitability in mind, we conclude this intro-
duction with a question that is, for the most part, rhetorical, since we be-
lieve we already have a partial answer that is worth sharing. If the remit
of Cognitive Linguistics is considered in its broadest sense, as the Cogni-
tive Science of language, then no account of humor will be complete with-
out a computational dimension. This does not necessarily mean that re-
searchers should implement computational realizations of their models,
merely that the models are unambiguous to the extent that such realiza-
tions are at least possible. The goal of course is to take subjectivity out
of the loop and to somehow capture that aspect of a humorous meaning
that humans themselves cannot always quantify without recourse to ‘‘it’s
funny because it makes me laugh.’’ This is an immense challenge and one
that we should at least aspire to. Our question then is: how should one
engage of a computationally-viable program of humor research in a cog-
nitive linguistics framework? One should, we suggest, select a humorous
sub-phenomenon that is at once both small and easily circumscribed
(light-bulb jokes, puns, hyperbolic insults, etc.) and conceptually scalable.
Scalability is the key issue here: having constructed a detailed model of a
very specific humorous niche, one will of course want to build on this
model to capture further aspects of the humor phenomenon, but one can
only scale if an upgrade path exists between the initial niche and the
broader picture. Note that scalability depends not only on the phenome-
non itself, but also on how the phenomenon is tackled and on the as-
sumptions that are made in formalizing a model.
For instance, we would submit that while punning has the potential to
be a scalable phenomenon, the sub-phenomenon of wholly-homophonous
punning is not scalable yet that the sub-phenomenon of polysemous-
punning is scalable. We base this claim on the realization that polyse-
mous punning requires a conceptual as well as a phonetic understanding
of the domain of discourse, and this opens the door to more complex
forms of conceptual humor. Speaking for ourselves and our own contri-
bution to this special issue, consider how the phenomenon of the ‘‘trump-
ing insult’’ can be seen as a scalable sub-phenomenon. Starting with
a very limited model of deautomatized idioms, one can construct a
computationally-viable model of trumping that subverts well-known
224 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 224)
idioms using just lexico-semantic information. Thus, from this humble be-
ginning, trumps like ‘‘he is the cream in my co¤ee; yes, sour cream’’ can
be understood and generated. From here it is a steep, but essentially
climbable upgrade path to trumps like ‘‘I am a great believer in the idiom
‘drown your sorrows’, but I can never persuade my wife to go swimming
with me.’’ And from here it is an even steeper climb to humorous sub-
version in general, such as ‘‘the world would have a lot less litter if they
gave pointed sticks to blind people’’.
To this end, we believe that humor researchers should always have an
upgrade path, no matter how ambitious, and that we should always ask
the questions: ‘‘how formalizable is this phenomenon, how scalable is
this phenomenon, and where does its upgrade path lead?’’
1University of Leuven2University College Dublin
Note
Correspondence address: [email protected]
References
Alexander, Richard J.
1997 Aspects of Verbal Humour in English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Attardo, Salvatore
1994 Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
1996 Humor. In Verschueren, Jef et al. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics.
1997 The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor. Interna-
tional Journal of Humor Research 10 (4), 395–420.
2001a Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
2001b Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detec-
tion. In Anolli, Luigi, Rita Ciceri, and Giuseppe Riva (eds.), Say Not
to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication. Amsterdam: IOS Press,
165–185.
2002 Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts. In Semino, Elena and Jonathan
Culpeper (eds.), Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analy-
sis. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231–250.
Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin
1991 Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representational model.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4 (3), 293–347.
Introduction 225
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 225)
Attardo, Salvatore, Christian F. Hempelmann, and Sara Di Maio
2002 Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and
their resolutions. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 15 (1),
3–46.
Barcelona, Antonio
2003 The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from
jokes and funny anecdotes. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg
(eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 81–102.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.)
2000 Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bergen, Benjamin, and Kim Binsted
2003 The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In Achard, Michel and Suzanne
Kemmer (eds.), Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Black, Max
1962 Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Brone, Geert and Kurt Feyaerts
2003 The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point
structures in humor. University of Leuven, Department of Linguistics pre-
print no. 205.
Coulson, Seana
2000 Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Con-
struction. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, Seana, and Marta Kutas
1998 Frame-Shifting and Sentential Integration (Cognitive Science Technical Re-
port No. 98.02). La Jolla, CA: UCSD.
2001 Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor
comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters 316, 71–74.
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Catherine E.
1984 Joint joking. Improvisational humorous episodes in conversation. In Brug-
man, Claudia et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of Berkeley Press,
360–371.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 [1985] Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982 Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the
Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.
Geeraerts, Dirk
1989 Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27, 587–612.
1997 Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2003 Decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th-century linguis-
tics and literary theory. In Mengel, Ewald, Hans-Joerg Schmid, and Michael
Steppat (eds.), Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth. Trier: Trier Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag, 369–379.
226 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 226)
Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.)
2006 Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.
1999 Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Gunter
Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins, 61–76.
Giora, Rachel
1991 On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 465–485.
1997 Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothe-
sis. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (3), 183–206.
2001 Irony and its discontent. In Steen, Gerard and Dick Schram (eds.), The Psy-
chology and Sociology of Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–184.
2002 Optimal innovation and pleasure. In Stock, Oliviero et al. (eds.), The April
Fools’ Day Workshop on Computational Humour: Proceedings of the Twen-
tieth Twente Workshop on Language Technology (Series TWTL 20). En-
schede: UT Service Centrum, 11–28.
2003 On our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Giora, Rachel, and Ofer Fein
1999a Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol 14, 241–257.
1999b Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 12 (4), 425–436.
Hofstadter, Douglas, and Liane Gabora
1989 Synopsis of the workshop on humor and cognition. Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 2 (4), 417–440.
Koestler, Arthur
1964 The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson.
Kottho¤, Helga
1998 Spaß Verstehen. Zur Pragmatik von konversationellem Humor. Tubingen:
Niemeyer.
Lako¤, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lako¤, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
1988 A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127–161.
1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1), 1–38.
2001 Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2), 143–188.
Lee, David
2001 Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunberg, Geo¤rey D.
1979 The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philos-
ophy 3, 143–184.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Gunter Radden (eds.)
1999 Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Introduction 227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 227)
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg (eds.)
2003 Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics and Beyond 113).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pollio, Howard R.
1996 Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In Mio, Je¤ery Scott and Albert N.
Katz (eds.), Metaphor: Implications and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum, 231–253.
Priego-Valverde, Beatrice
2003 L’humour dans la conversation familiere: description et analyse linguistiques.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Raskin, Victor
1985 Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Ritchie, Graeme
2004 The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London/New York: Routledge.
Saeed, John
1996 Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Talmy, Leonard
1975 Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Cogen, C. et al. (eds.), Proceed-
ings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berke-
ley, CA, 419–430.
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, John
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, Michael (ed.)
1998 The New Psychology. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language
Structure, vol. 1. Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2002 The New Psychology. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language
Structure, vol. 2. Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vaid, Jyotsna, Rachel Hull, Roberto Heredia, David Gerkens, and Francisco Martinez
2003 Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor.
Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1431–1449.
Van Hoek, Karen et al. (eds.)
1999 Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Yus, Francisco
2003 Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1295–1331.
228 G. Brone et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(AutoPDF V7 7/6/06 08:18) WDG (148�225mm) TimesM J-1537 Humor, 19:3 PMU:I(CKN[A])6/6/2006 pp. 203–228 1537_19-3_01 (p. 228)