Over the last few years there has been a rapprochement between Cognitive Linguistics and semantic theories of
humour based on the notion of script or frame. By drawing on Ritchie’s version of the theory of
frame-shifting (2005) and reviewing the cognitive linguistic account of humour, we
shall demonstrate how the interpretation of jokes containing a metaphor or a metonymy involves two cognitive-pragmatic tasks: the
completion of the metaphorical/metonymic mapping that results in a new frame, and the resolution of the joke’s incongruity via a
contrast with the surrounding frames of the joke.
We also develop a classification of frame shifts according to their ontological structure
(non-metaphorical/metonymic shifts and shifts based on metaphorical and/or metonymic reasoning) and the degree of the
interpreter’s inferential activity (conceptual filling out and metaphor/metonymy replacement). In doing so, we attempt to identify
some of the defining features of humorous metaphors and metonymies, as well as other phenomena that may also characterise
jokes.
Attardo, S. (2015). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research (pp. 91–110). Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3/4), 293–347.
Bach, K. (1995). Remark and Reply. Standardization vs. Conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 181, 677–686.
Barcelona, A. (2002). On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang.
Bergen, B. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp. 79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bergen, B. & Binsted, K. (2015). Embodied grammar and humor. In G. Brone, K. Feyaerts and T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics meets Humor Research: Current Trends and New Developments (pp. 49–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Draft version available at: [URL] (accessed 16 May 2017)
Bergen, B. & Coulson, S. (2006). Frame-Shifting Humor in Simulation-Based Language Understanding. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21 (2), 59–62.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University press.
Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K. (2002). Humor through ‘double grounding’: Structural interaction of optimality principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. Lund (Eds.), The Way We Think (pp. 313–336). Odense: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2003). The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, 20–25 July, 2003. [URL] (accessed 20 July 2016)
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.
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3), 203–228.
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (Eds.). (2015). Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research. Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 251, 309–330.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. (2004). Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chamizo, P. J., & Sánchez, F. (2000). Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase: eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés. Granada: Comares.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. (2005). What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2 (3), 67–78.
Dynel, M. (2009a). Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dynel, M. (2009b). Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. Metaphorical.de, 171, 27–48.
Dynel, M. (2011). Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 31, 59–83.
Dynel, M. (2012). Garden paths, red lights and crossroads. Israeli Journal of Humor Research, 11, 6–28.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humour process: the concept of incongruity. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 51, 9–26.
Forabosco, G. (2008). Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research?Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 41, 45–62.
Ford, T. E. (Ed.). (2004). HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 17 (4). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ford, T. E. (Ed.). (2006). HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 434–458.
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529–562.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183–206.
Giora, R. (2002). Masking One’s Themes: Irony and the Politics of Indirectness. In M. M. Louwerse and W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics in Psychology and Literary Studies (pp. 283–300). New York: John Benjamins.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. and Shuval, N. (2005). Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure. In S. Coulson and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought (pp. 239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N. and Shuval, N. (2015). Know Hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts and T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Meet Humor Research. Current Trends and New Developments (pp. 129–146). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L. (Eds.). (2011). Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1).
Grady, J. (1997). theories are buildings Revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 261–290.
Herrero, J. (2002). Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 151, 73–91.
Hines, C. (1999). Rebaking the Pie: The WOMAN AS DESSERT Metaphor. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang and L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities. The gendered self in discourse (pp. 145–162). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krikmann, A. (2008). Contemporary linguistic theories of humour. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 331, 28–58.
Krikmann, A. (2009). On the Similarity and Distinguishability of Humour and Figurative Speech. Trames, 131, 14–40.
Kyratzis, S. (2003). Laughing Metaphorically: Metaphor and Humour in Discourse. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, 20–25 July, 2003. [URL] (accessed 20 July 2016)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1989). Some empirical results about the nature of concepts. Mind and Language, 4 (1–2), 103–129.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38.
Legman, G. (2006). Rationale of the Dirty Joke: An Analysis of Sexual Humor. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Martin, R. (2007). The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). Humor, Language, and Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6 (2), 87–102.
Müller, R. (2007). The Interplay of Metaphor and Humor in Oscar Wilde’s “Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime“. In S. Attardo & D. Popa (Eds.), New Approaches to the Linguistics of Humor (pp. 44–54). Galati: Dunarea de Jos University Press.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging Humor. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Pollio, H. R. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In J. S. Mio and A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor, Implications and Applications (pp. 231–253). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 41, 295–329.
Ritchie, D. L. (2005). Frame-Shifting in Humor and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20 (4), 275–294.
Ritchie, D. L., & Dyhouse, V. (2008). Hair of the Frog and other Empty Metaphors: The Play Element in Figurative Language. Metaphor and Symbol, 231, 85–107.
Ritchie, G. (1999). Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Proceedings of AISB Symposium on Creative Language: Stories and Humour, 11, 78–85.
Ritchie, G. (2009). Variants of incongruity resolution. Journal of Literary Theory, 3 (2), 313–332.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997a). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 161–178.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997b). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS. Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos, 19 (1), 281–295.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999a). Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. In J. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 429–440). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999b). The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 11, 237–255.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2011). Going beyond Metaphtonymy: Metaphorical and Metonymic Complexes in Phrasal Verb Interpretation. Language Value, 3 (1), 1–29.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321–357.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale: Earlbaum Assoc.
Shultz, T. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children‘s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 456–477.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). On defining relevance. In R. Grandy & R. Warner (Eds.), Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends (pp. 143–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Postface to the second edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Suls, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Humor Research 11 (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp. 67–82). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2002). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 469–488). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3), 305–338.
Veale, T. (2013). Humorous Similes. HUMOR: The International Journal of Humor Research, 21 (1), 3–22.
Vosshagen, C. (1999). Opposition as a metonymic principle. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 289–308). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Akoto, Osei Yaw, Ebenezer Onumah & Benjamin Amoakohene
2024. Metaphorical Interpretation of Early Works of Art Using Symbolization Methods. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1
Mulahmetović Ibrišimović, Anela
2023. Metonymic Uses of Body Parts Hand in the English Language and Ruka and Šaka in the Bosnian Language. Društvene i humanističke studije (Online) 8:3(24) ► pp. 211 ff.
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.