Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2018) ► pp.376–409

Mental models, (de)compressions, and the actor’s process in body-swap movies

 | Maria Curie-Skłodowska University
The body-swap comedy, where someone finds themselves inhabiting an entirely different body, is a well-established Hollywood tradition. Crucially, American filmmakers have tried every twist and contortion of this genre premise at a point or another over the past few decades. And yet, other countries, such as Egypt, Japan, and South Africa, seem to have just now put different spins on the theme. Nevertheless, this genre is under-theorized and under-explored. Drawing on insights from blending theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), mental models (van Dijk 2014), and the actor’s process as described by, among others, Stanislavsky (1995, 2008) and Brecht (1964, 1970), this article provides cognitively plausible answers to the perennial questions: What is so funny in body-swap films? How do spectators make sense of this genre? How do blending processes operate in body-swap movies? Do spectators “live in the blend?” What patterns of compression or decompression are at work in body-swap templates? Can humor be a strong determiner of moral-political cognition? And what connections can be drawn between acting and cognitive neuroscience? A discussion of English and Arabic examples (i) points to some of the cultural concepts involved in body-swap films, (ii) shows how conceptual blending in humorous films serves to both perpetuate and modify culturally relevant concepts, and (iii) highlights the necessity to expand the current scope in compression, embodiment and identity research. More generally, then, this article presents a new cognitive theory of how cinema, television, or theatre communicates meaning. The most important aim of this study is thus to contribute to the small but growing number of publications that use the cognitive sciences to inform scholarly and practical explorations in theatre and performance studies, as well as to the study of Arab theatre and cinema, which are among the most neglected subjects in the field.
Keywords: body-swap comedy, mental models, (de)compression, the method acting process, spectatorship, moral cognition, Egyptian vs. American popular culture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminology
    • 2.1(De)compression
    • 2.2Mental models
    • 2.3Drama and film connectors: An integrated theory
  • 3.Two body-swap films
    • 3.1Made in Egypt
      • Summary
      • Analysis
      • Moral cognition
    • 3.2 The Hot Chick
      • Summary
      • Analysis
      • Moral cognition
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00026.abd
References (123)
References
Abdel-Raheem, A. (2017). Decoding images: Toward a theory of pictorial framing. Discourse & Society, 28 (4), 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Multimodal humor: Integrating Blending Model, Relevance Theory, and Incongruity Theory. Multimodal Communication, 7 (1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. (1993). Representation, illusion, and cinema. Cinema Journal, 32 (2), 21–48. Retrieved from: [URL]. DOI logo
(1995). Projecting illusion: Film spectatorship and the impression of reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asmolovskaya, Y. (2009). Conceptual blending in jokes. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. In K. Hall, J. P. Koenig, M. Meacham, S. Reinman, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 355–362). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2017). Humour and pragmatics. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 174–188). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bache, C. (2005). Constraining conceptual integration theory: levels of blending and disintegration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1615–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. (1986 [1964]). Rhetoric of the image. Trans. by Richard Howard. In: The Responsibility of Forms (pp. 21–40). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. (2017). Intermediality in film: A blending-based perspective. In J. Wildfeuer, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Film text analysis: new perspectives on the analysis of filmic meaning (pp. 141–162). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bing, J., & Scheibman, J. (2014). Blended spaces as subversive feminist humor. In D. Chairo, & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp. 13–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blair, R. (2008). The actor, image and action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Cognitive neuroscience and acting: Imagination, conceptual blending, and empathy. TDR: The Drama Review, 53 (4), 92–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 10–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortoluzzi, M. (2009). An inconvenient truth: Multimodal emotions in identity construction. In J. Vincent, & L. Forunati (Eds.), Electronic emotion: The mediation of emotion via information and communication technologies (pp. 137–164). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Braha, Y., Byrne, B. (2011). Creative motion graphic titling: Titling with motion graphics for film. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brecht, B. (1964). Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, ed. and trans. J. Willett, New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
(1970). Űber Experimentelles Theater. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Brickman, B. J. (2012). New American teenagers: The lost generation of youth in 1970s film. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Brockett, G., Ball, J., Fleming, J., & Carlson, A. (2014). The essential theatre. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2012). Breaking the fourth wall: Direct address in the cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Burnett, D. (2014, April 2). Body swapping: the science behind the switch. The Guardian. Retrieved from 10/10/2016: [URL]
Carnicke, S. M. (2000). Stanislavsky’s System. In A. Hodge (Ed.), Twentieth century actor training (pp. 11–36). London. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Stanislavsky in focus: An acting master for the twenty-first century. London. Routledge.Google Scholar
Chekhov, M. (1985). To the actor. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cone, E. (1974). The composer’s voice. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Reasoning and rhetoric: Conceptual blending in political and religious rhetoric. In E. Oleksy, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Research and scholarship in integration processes (pp. 59–88). Lodz, Poland: Lodz University Press.Google Scholar
(2005a). What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology/Psicopatologia Cognitive, 2 (3), 67–78.Google Scholar
(2005b). Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39 1, 107–122.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pascual, E. (2006). For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 153–181. Retrieved from 17/10/2018: [URL]Google Scholar
Dannenberg, H. (2012). Fleshing out the blend: The representation of counterfactuals in alternate history in print, film, and television narratives. In M. Hartner & R. Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (Narratologia, vol. 34) (pp. 121–146). Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, M. D. (2015). Aesthetics and design for game-based learning. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23 (3), 225–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011a). Blending the Incongruity-Resolution Model and the Conceptual Integration Theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3 1, 59–83. DOI logo.Google Scholar
(2011b). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1628–1644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. The European Journal of Humor Research, 1 1, 22–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Is there a humour in your humour? On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing intercultural pragmatics: Cognitive, linguistic and sociopragmatic perspectives on language use (pp. 55–78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2011). The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 24 (1), 87–108. (10.1515/HUMR.2011.005) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22 (3), 295–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (2005). Compression and emergent structure. Language and Linguistics, 4 (6), 523–538.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3–4), 283–304.Google Scholar
(2002). The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2003). Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication: Sémiotique Cognitive, 19 1, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, D. (2000). Science fiction film directors, 1895–1998. North Carolina, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2015). Blending in Cartoons: The Production of Comedy. In L. Zunshine (Ed.), The oxford handbook of cognitive literary studied (pp. 155–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2004). Review of Fauconnier and Turner (2002). Metaphor and Symbol, 19 1, 83–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Relevance Theory as a model for multimodal communication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2016a). Visual and multimodal metaphor in film: charting the field.” In K. Fahlenbrach (Ed.), Embodied metaphors in film, television and video games: Cognitive approaches (pp. 17–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016b). Conceptual metaphor theory, blending theory, and other cognitive perspectives on comics. In N. Cohn (Ed.), The visual narrative (pp. 89–110). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
French, R. (1995). The subtlety of sameness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An easy on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordejuela, A. (2017, July). Joint attention in the construction of film flashbacks. Paper presented at the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Association conference, Tartu, Estonia.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 1, 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 814–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. (2009). The Russian pre-theatrical actor and the Stanislavsky System. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from 14/01/2018: [URL]
(2010). Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 9–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holden, S. (2002, December 13) She’s a sweetheart, then presto! she’s a sweet guy. The New York Times. Retrieved from 10/11/2017: [URL]
Hougaard, A. (2005). Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1653–1685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Compression in interaction. In T. Oakley, and A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 179–208). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jabłońska-Hood, J. (2015). A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected comedy productions in focus. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, R. (2010). Embodied acting: Cognitive foundations of performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from 12/12/2017: [URL]
(2012). Embodied acting: What neuroscience tells us about performance. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khouri, M. (2010). The Arab national project in Youssef Chahine’s cinema. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: How conservatives and liberals think. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, J. (2016). Studies in the Arab theatre and cinema. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, J. (2008). Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5 1, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConachie, B. (2008). Engaging audiences: A cognitive approach to spectating in the theatre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConachie, B., & Hart, E. (2006). Introduction. In B. McConachie, & E. Hart (Eds.), Performance and cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C. (2009). Imagination. In B. P. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann & S. Walter (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 595–606). Oxford/NewYork: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moinereau, L. (2004). Génériques de fin: les strategies du deuil. In V. Innocenti, & V. Re (Eds.), Limina/le sogliedel film: X. Convegnointernazionale di studisul cinema (77–88). Udine, Italy: Forum.Google Scholar
Monta, E., & Stanley, J. (2008). Directing for stage and screen. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., & Hawkins, C. B. (2010). Implicit political cognition. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 548–564). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, T. (2013). Toward a general theory of film spectatorship. Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from 10/10/2017: [URL]
Oakley, T., & Tobin, V. (2012). Attention, blending, and suspense in Classic and Experimental Film. In Marcus Hartner and Ralf Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (pp. 57–83). Hawthorne, NY: deGruyter. Retrieved from (1–21): [URL]. DOI logo
Pagán Cánovas, C., & Turner, M. (2016). Generic integration templates for fictive communication. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.) The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 45–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2014). Meaning construction in verbomusical environments: conceptual disintegration and metonymy. Journal of Pragmatics, 70 1, 130–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pötzsch, H. (2012). Framing narratives: Opening sequences in contemporary American and British war films. Media, War & Conflict, 5 (2) 155–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, S. (2016). Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008a). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19 (12), 1219–1222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008b). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (8), 1096–1109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shafik, V. (2007). Arab cinema: History and cultural identity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soto-Morettini, D. (2010). The Philosophical actor: A Practical meditation for practicing theatre artists. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance theory: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanislavsky, K. (1948). Ozhyvleniye vneshnikh obstoyatel’stv zhyzni p’yesy i roli [Reviving external circumstances of life in play and role]. In V. Meskheteli (Ed.), Ezhegodnik Moskovskogo khudozhestvennogo teatra, 1945, T. 1 [The Moscow art theatre yearbook for 1945, vol.1] (pp. 317–338). Moscow: Izdanie muzeia Moskovskogo khudozhestvennogo akademicheskogo teatra SSSR imeni M. Gor’kogo.Google Scholar
(1954–1961). Sobraniesochinenii [Collected works], 8 1 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo.Google Scholar
(1991) Sobraniesochinenii, vol. 4 [An Actor’s Work on the Role and From the Artistic Notebooks], Moscow: Iskusstvo.Google Scholar
(1995). Inner impulses and inner action: Creative objectives.” In R. Drain (Ed.), Twentieth century theatre: A sourcebook (pp. 253–257). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008). An actor’s work: A student’s diary (Jean Benedetti, transl. & Ed.) London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanitzek, G. (2009). Reading the title sequence (Vorspann, Générique). Cinema Journal, 48 (4), 44–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–274). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thabet, M. (2002). Kayfa taksir ʔil-ihaam fi ʔal-aflaam? 1. ʔal-ihaam ʔal-taʕaaqudi 2. ʔal-la ihaam [How to break illusion in film? 1. Contracted illusion 2. No illusion]. Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization (GEBO).Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Boroditsky, L. (2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8 (1), e52961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS ONE, 10 (7), 1–22. Retrieved from 10/11/2016: [URL]
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive dimensions of social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
(2006a). The art of compression. In M. Turner (Ed.), The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity (pp. 93–114). New York: oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b). Compression and representation. Language and Literature, 15 (1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The origin of ideas: blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Conceptual compression and alliterative form. English Language and Linguistics, 21 (2), 221–226. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L., & Cléirigh, C. (2009). Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 151–163). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (1997). Cognitive context models and discourse. In M. I. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness (pp. 189–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Context models in discourse processing. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Ed.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2003). The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2008). Discourse and context: a socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Society and discourse: how social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2012). Knowledge, discourse and domination. In M. Meeuwis & J.-O. Ӧstman (Eds.), Pragmaticizing understanding: studies for Jef Verschueren (pp. 151–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wehling, E. (2013). A nation under joint custody: How conflicting family models divide US politics. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
William, J. (2017). Cognitive approaches to German historical film: Seeing is not believing. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics. Amserdam: John Benjmains. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Relevance-theoretic treatments of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 189–203). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Prater, Lenise & Evie Kendal
2024. Rape by Deception in Popular Culture: The Hidden Harm in Body-swap Narratives. Australian Feminist Studies ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Panjikar, Padmini C., Soumik Saha, Amrita Chatterjee & Mainak Banerjee
2022. Microwave assisted rapid synthesis of bicyclo aza-sulfone derivatives from aldehydes via aldoxime formation followed by Michael addition-1,3-dipolar cycloaddition with divinyl sulfone in one-pot. Tetrahedron Letters 111 ► pp. 154209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.