Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:2 (2019) ► pp.650–684

Metaphor and metonymy in jokes

Evidence from Cognitive Linguistics and frame-shifting theory

| Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)
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.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, jokes, frame-shifting, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metaphor and metonymy
  • 3.Metaphor and metonymy in jokes
    • 3.1Non-metaphorical/metonymic shifts
    • 3.2Shifts based on metaphorical and/or metonymic reasoning
      • 3.2.1Shifts based on conceptual filling out
      • 3.2.2Shifts based on metaphor/metonymy replacement
    • 3.3Humorous vs. non-humorous metaphors and metonymies
    • 3.4Cued vs. non-cued jokes
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16047.her
References (95)
References
Alarcón, P. (2002). EL ACTO SEXUAL ES COMER: descripción lingüístico-cognitiva. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada (RLA), 401, 7–24.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 10 (4), 395–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts. Cognitive Stylistics, 161, 231–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research (pp. 91–110). Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3/4), 293–347.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1995). Remark and Reply. Standardization vs. Conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 181, 677–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.). (2011). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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) DOI logo
Bergen, B. & Coulson, S. (2006). Frame-Shifting Humor in Simulation-Based Language Understanding. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21 (2), 59–62.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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)
(2004). Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A view from cognitive linguistics. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 17 (4), 361–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3), 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2015). Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research. Berlin – Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 251, 309–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chamizo, P. J., & Sánchez, F. (2000). Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase: eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2 (3), 67–78.Google 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. Metaphorical.de, 171, 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, 31, 59–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Garden paths, red lights and crossroads. Israeli Journal of Humor Research, 11, 6–28.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2013). Developments in Linguistics Humour Theory. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humour process: the concept of incongruity. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 51, 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 41, 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, T. E. (Ed.). (2004). HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 17 (4). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2006). HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L. (Eds.). (2011). Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1).Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). theories are buildings Revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, J. (2002). Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 151, 73–91.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 11–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krikmann, A. (2008). Contemporary linguistic theories of humour. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 331, 28–58.Google Scholar
(2009). On the Similarity and Distinguishability of Humour and Figurative Speech. Trames, 131, 14–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Some empirical results about the nature of concepts. Mind and Language, 4 (1–2), 103–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legman, G. (2006). Rationale of the Dirty Joke: An Analysis of Sexual Humor. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2007). The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mio, J. S., & Graesser, A. C. (1991). Humor, Language, and Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6 (2), 87–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging Humor. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 41, 295–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, D. L. (2005). Frame-Shifting in Humor and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20 (4), 275–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G. (1999). Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Proceedings of AISB Symposium on Creative Language: Stories and Humour, 11, 78–85.Google Scholar
(2009). Variants of incongruity resolution. Journal of Literary Theory, 3 (2), 313–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997a). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 161–178.Google Scholar
(1997b). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS. Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos, 19 (1), 281–295.Google Scholar
(1999a). Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. In J. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 429–440). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(1999b). The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 11, 237–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Cognitive modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale: Earlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children‘s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 456–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1995). Postface to the second edition of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Humor Research 11 (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 19 (3), 305–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T. (2013). Humorous Similes. HUMOR: The International Journal of Humor Research, 21 (1), 3–22.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Akoto, Osei Yaw, Ebenezer Onumah & Benjamin Amoakohene
2024. Exploring incongruity and humour in Linguistic Landscapes in Ghana. Linguistic Landscape. An international journal 10:2 ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Ping
2024. Metaphorical Interpretation of Early Works of Art Using Symbolization Methods. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
2021. Interpretations based on delayed-domain (dis)appearance in printed advertising. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.