Article published in:
Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 118
References

References

Antonopoulou, E.
(2002) A cognitive approach to literary humour devices: Translating Raymond Chandler. In J. Vandaele (Ed.), Humour and translation. Special issue of The Translator , 8(2), 235–257.Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, E. A., & Nikiforidou, K.
(2009) Deconstructing verbal humour with construction grammar. In G. Brone & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 289–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, E., Nikiforidou, K., & Tsakona, V.
(2015) Construction grammar and discoursal incongruity. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 13–48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apter, M. J.
(1982) The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(1994) Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
(2015) Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Humor and cognitive linguistics (pp. 91–110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V.
(2017) Linguistics and humour theory. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 49–63). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aymone, A.
(2007) Interview with Victor Raskin. In D. Popa, & S. Attardo (Eds.), New approaches to the linguistics of humour (pp. 217–225). Galati: Editura Academica.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2003) The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2003) To awaken a sleeping giant: Cognition and culture in September 11 political cartoons. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 23–35). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Binsted, K.
(2015) Embodied grammar and humor. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics meets humor research: Current trends and new developments (pp. 49–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L.
(2003) Humor and meaning construction in everyday speech: A mental space analysis. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference , University of La Rioja, Spain.
[ p. 13 ]
Brône, G.
(2008) Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2027–2061. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 463–504). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Cognitive linguistics and humor research. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 250–266). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Coulson, S.
(2010) On the cognitive processing of deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: The case of double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47, 212–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K.
(2004) Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A view from cognitive linguistics. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 361–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T.
(2006) Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G., & Gibbs, R.
(2015) Behavioral complexities of ironic humor. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 147–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I.
(2012) Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 49, 539–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canestrari, C., Dionigi, A., & Zuczkowski, A.
(2014) Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 261–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cori, V., Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I.
(2016) The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.Google Scholar
Coulson, S.
(1996) The Menendez brothers virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67–81). Palo Alto: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2000) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005a) “What’s so funny?”: Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2, 67–78.Google Scholar
(2005b) Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.Google Scholar
(2005c) Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129–144). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2015) Frame-shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model. In: G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 167–190). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M.
(1998) Frame-shifting and sentential integration. Cognitive Science Technical Report, 98.02. UCSD.Google Scholar
[ p. 14 ]
Coulson, S. & Kutas, M.
(2001) Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders . Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Severens, E.
(2007) Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: When cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language, 100, 172–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.
(2006) Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 229–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Jongste, H.
(2013) Negotiating humorous intent. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 179–210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Mental models and humorous intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 107–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Culture and incongruity in The Office (UK). Language & Communication, 55, 88–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2009a) Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2009b) Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. metaphorik.de, 17, 27–48.Google Scholar
(2011) Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(1), 59–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) When does irony tickle the hearer?: Towards capturing the characteristics of humorous irony. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 105–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Isn’t it ironic?: Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4), 619–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language & Communication, 55, 69–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Irony, deception and humour: Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forabosco, G.
(1992) Cognitive aspects of the humour process: The concept of incongruity. Humor, 5, 9–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 45–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D.
(1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 15 ]
Gibbs, R.
(2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H.
(Eds.) (2007) Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giora, R.
(1991) On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5), 465–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In M. Dynel (Ed.). The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 19–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. & Fein, O.
(1999) Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor, 12(4), 425–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
(2015) Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation and pleasure. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
(2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor & Symbol, 32(1), 1–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hampe, B.
(Ed.) (2017) Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D., & Gabora, L.
(1989) Frame blends. Humor, 2, 417–440.Google Scholar
Jabłońska-Hood, J.
(2015) A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected British comedy productions in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kihara, Y.
(2005) The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 513–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, A.
(1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H.
(2006) Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 271–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maier, N.
(1932) A gestalt theory of humour. British Journal of Psychology, 23, 69–74.Google Scholar
Martin, R.
(2007) The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
[ p. 16 ]
Mayerhofer, B.
(2013) Perspective clashing as a humour mechanism. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayerhofer, B., Maier, K., & Schacht, A.
(2015) Priming interpretations: Contextual impact on the processing of garden path jokes. Discourse Processes, 53(8), 675–694.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayerhofer, B., & Schacht, A.
(2013) Salience, accessibility, and humorous potential in the comprehension of garden path jokes: A probabilistic approach. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 341–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) From incoherence to mirth: Neuro-cognitive processing of garden-path jokes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morreall, J.
(2010) Humor as cognitive play. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 241–260.Google Scholar
Nerhardt, G.
(1976) Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman, & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 55–62). London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Oring, E.
(1992) Jokes and their relations. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
(2003) Engaging humor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pálinkás, I.
(2014) Blending and folk theory in an explanation of irony. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 64–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
(2006) The linguistics of laughter: A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pollio, H.
(1996) Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In S. Mio, & A. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 231–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Raskin, V.
(1985) Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Ritchie, D.
(2005) Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 275–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G.
(2004) The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2006) Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Humor, 19(3), 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rojo López, A. M.
(2002) Frame semantics and the translation of humour. Babel, 48(1), 34–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) A cognitive approach to the translation of metonymy-based humor. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(1), 63–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samermit, P., & Gibbs, R.
(2016) Humor, the body, and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2, 32–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shelley, C.
(2001) The bicoherence theory of situational irony. Cognitive Science, 25, 775–818. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, T.
(1972) The role of incongruity and resolution in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 456–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J.
(1972) A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information processing analysis. In J. Goldstein & P. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 81–100). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 17 ]
(1983) Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1 (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C.
(2016) Mock politeness in English and Italian: A corpus-assisted metalanguage analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J.
(1981) Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 27–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(2014) The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Blending in language and communication. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 211–232). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uekermann, J., Daum, I., & Channon, S.
(2007) Toward a cognitive and social neuroscience of humor processing. Social Cognition, 25(4), 553–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
(2008) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2008) Figure-ground duality in humour: A multi-modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1), 63–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G.
(2006) The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 305–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., & Valitutti, A.
(2017) Tweet dreams are made of this: Appropriate incongruity in the dreamwork of language. Lingua, 197, 141–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(2017) Incongruity-resolution cases in jokes. Lingua, 197, 103–122.[ p. 18 ] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Understanding Conversational Joking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 310], Crossref logo
Attardo, Salvatore
2020.  In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ],  pp. 155 ff. Crossref logo
Dynel, Marta
2020. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 155  pp. 349 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2021. 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.