Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 4:2 (2014) ► pp.261–283

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Humor understanding and knowledge

 | Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism, University of Macerata, Italy
Published online: 15 September 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.05can
According to the cognitive approach to humour, understanding of humorous texts implies a moment of surprise, even confusion of thought, produced by the recognition of an incongruity, defined as an incoherent piece of the text. The problem solving activity involved in humor understanding aims at resolving the incongruity. Our goal is to contribute to better define the surprise experience by describing its epistemic and evidential aspects. The tested hypothesis, verified through “thinking aloud method” and the descriptive tools provided by the Known-Unknown-Believed theory, is that this phase of humor understanding is linked to the worlds of knowledge of unknown and believed, referred to by means of consistent linguistic markers. The hypothesis resulted to be confirmed both for jokes and cartoons.
References (66)
Apter, Michael J. 1982. The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversal. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. “The Semantic Foundations of Cognitive Theories of Humor.” Humor . International Journal of Humor Research 10(4): 395–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Berlyne, Daniel E. 1969. “Laughter, Humor and Play.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 31, ed. by Gardner Lindzey, and Elliot Aronson, 795–852. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972. “Humor and Its Kin.” In The Psychology of Humor, ed. by Jeffrey H. Goldstein, and Paul E. McGhee, 43–60. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bongelli, Ramona, and Andrzej Zuczkowski. 2008. Indicatori Linguistici Percettivi e Cognitivi. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bongelli, Ramona, Carla Canestrari, Ilaria Riccioni, Andrzej Zuczkowski, Cinzia Buldorini, Ricardo Pietrobon, Alberto Lavelli, and Bernardo Magnini. 2012. “A Corpus of Scientific Biomedical Texts Spanning over 168 Years Annotated for Uncertainty.” Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on LREC’12 , ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis. European Language Resources Association.
Canestrari, Carla, and Ivana Bianchi. 2009. “The Perception of Humor: From Script opposition to the Phenomenological Rules of Contrariety.” In The Perception and Cognition of Contraries, ed. by Ugo Savardi, 225–246. Milan: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Perception of Contrariety in Jokes.” Discourse Processes 49 (7): 539–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “From Perception of Contraries to Humorous Incongruities.” In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, ed. by Marta Dynel, 3–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claparède, Édouard. 1933. La gènese de l’hypothèse, Vol. 241. Genevre: Librairie Kundig.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deckers, Lambert. 1993. “On the Validity of Weight-Judging Paradigm for the Study of Humor.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 6(1): 43–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duncker, Karl. 1935. Zur Psychologie des Produktiven Denken. Berlin: Springer. [On Problem Solving Activity]. 1972. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1992. “An Argument for Basic Emotions.” In Basic Emotions, ed. by Nancy L. Stein, and Keith Oatley, 169–200. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagen, Robert. 1981. Animal Play Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1992. “Cognitive Aspects of the Humor Process: The Concept of Incongruity.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 5 (1/2): 45–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Is the Concept of Incongruity Still a Useful Construct for The Advancement in Humor Research?” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1): 45–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 141: 55–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hempelmann, Christian F., and Salvatore Attardo. 2011. “Resolutions and Their Incongruities: Further Thoughts on Logical Mechanisms.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 24 (2): 125–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hempelmann, Christian F., and Willibald Ruch. 2005. “3 WD meets GTVH: Breaking the Ground for Interdisciplinary Humor Research.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 18(4): 353–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hillson, Tim. R., and Rod A. Martin. 1994. “What’s so Funny About That?: The Domains-Interaction Approach as a Model of Incongruity and Resolution in Humor.” Motivation and Emotion 18 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1977. “Jokes.” In The View From Language: Selected Essays, 1948-1974, ed. by Charles F. Hockett, 257–289. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Transcription Notation.” In Structures of Social Interaction, ed. by Maxwell J. Atkinson, and John Heritage, IX-XVI. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keith-Spiegel, Patricia. 1972. “Early Conception of Humor: Varieties and Issues.” In The Psychology of Humour, ed. by Jeffrey H. Goldstein, and Paul E. McGhee, 3–39. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1994. “The Theory of Territory of Information. The Case of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 21(1): 67–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izard, Carroll E. 1977. Human Emotions. New York: Plenum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macedo, Luís, and Amílcar Cardoso. 2001. “Modelling Forms of Surprise in Artificial Agents.” In Proceedings of the twenty-third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Johanna D. Moore, and Keith Stenning, 588–593. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, Norman R.F. 1932. “A Gestalt Theory of Humour.” British Journal of Psychology 231: 69–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGhee, Paul E. (ed.). 1979. Humor: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGhee Paul E., Willibald Ruch, and Franz-Josef Franz-Josef Hehl. 1990. “A Personality-Based Model of Humor Development During Adulthood.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 3(2): 119–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metz-Göckel, Hellmuth. 2008. “Closure as a Joke-Principle.” Gestalt Theory 30 (3): 331–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, Wulf-Uwe, Rainer Reisenzein, and Achin Schützwohl. 1997. “Towards a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise.” Motivation and Emotion 21 (3): 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morreal John (ed.). 1987. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerhardt, Göran. 1970. “Humor and Inclination to Laugh: Emotional Reactions to Stimuli of Different Divergence from a Range of Expectancy.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 111: 185–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. “Incongruity and Funniness: Towards a New Descriptive Model.” In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications, ed. by Anthony J. Chapman, and Hugh C. Foot, 55–62. London: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew, and Derek Partridge. 1987. “Surprisingness and Expectation Failure: What’s the Difference?” In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 106–108. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pepiciello, William J. 1989. “Ambiguity in Verbal and Visual Riddles.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 2 (3): 207–215.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philip, Gill, Ramona Bongelli, Carla Canestrari, Ilaria Riccioni, and Andrzej Zuczkowski. 2013. “Negotiating Narrative: Dialogic Dynamics of Known, Unknown and Believed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” Language & Dialogue 3 (1): 6–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, Graeme. 1999. “Developing Incongruity-Resolution Theory.” In Proceedings of AISB 991, 78–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Reinterpretation and Viewpoints. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 19 (3): 251–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothbart, Mary K., and Diana Pien. 1977. “Elephants and Marshmallows: A Theoretical Synthesis of Incongruity-Resolution and Arousal Theories of Humour.” In It’s a Funny Thing, Humour, ed. by Antony J. Chapman, and Hugh C. Foot, 37–40. New York: Pergamon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruch, Willibald. 1992. “Assessment of Appreciation of Humor: Studies with the 3 WD Humor Test.” In Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 91), ed. by Charles Donald Spielberger, and James Neal Butcher, 27–72. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Roy E. 1996. “Understanding Laughter in Terms of Basic Perceptual and Response Patterns.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 9 (1): 39–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samson, Andrea C., and Christian F. Hempelmann. 2011. “Humor with Backgrounded Incongruity: Does More Required Suspension of Disbelief Affect Humor Perception?” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 24 (2): 167–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samson, Andrea C., Stefan Zysset, and Oswald Huber. 2008. “Cognitive Humor Processing: Different Logical Mechanisms in Non-Verbal Cartoons – an fMRI Study.” Social Neuroscience 3 (2): 125–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiller, Paul. 1938. “A Configurational Theory of Jokes and Puzzles”. The Journal of General Psychology 181: 217–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1985. “Puns and Jokes.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 213–221. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shultz, Thomas R. 1974. “Development of the Appreciation of Riddles.” Child Development 451: 100–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. “A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Humour.” In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications, ed. by Antony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 11–36. London: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shultz, Thomas R., and Frances Horibe. 1974. “Development of the Appreciation of Verbal Jokes.” Developmental Psychology 101: 13–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shultz, Thomas R., and Robert Pilon. 1973. “Development of the Ability to Detect Linguistic Ambiguity.” Child Development 441: 728–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Ken. 1996. “Laughing at the Way We See: The Role of Visual Organization Principles in Cartoon Humor.” Humor International Journal of Humor Research 9 (1): 19–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suls, Jerry M. 1972. “A Two-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons.” In The Psychology of Humour, ed. by Jeffrey H. Goldstein, and Paul E. McGhee, 81–100. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. “Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation.” In Handbook of Humour Research, Vol.1: Basic Issues, ed. by Paul E. McGhee, and Jeffrey Goldstein, 39–57. New York: Springer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Someren, Maarten W., Yvonne F. Barnard, and Jacobijn A.C. Sandberg. 1994. The Think Aloud Method. A Practical Guide to Modeling Cognitive Processing. London: Accademic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, Tony. 2008. “Figure-Ground Duality in Humour: A Multi-Modal Perspective.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (1): 63–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viana, Amadeu. 2010. “Asymmetry in Script Opposition.” Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 23 (4): 505–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1989. “Comic Strips and Theories of Communication.” Word & Image 5 (2): 173–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zuczkowski, Andrzej, Ramona Bongelli, and Ilaria Riccioni. 2011. “Proposizione Costitutiva di Mondo e Indicatori Linguistici Percettivi e Comunicativi nella Lingua Italiana.” In Dimensionen der Analyse von Texten und Diskursen, ed. by Klaus Hölker, and Carla Marello, 41–61. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Kibalchenko, Irina & Tatiana V. Eksakusto
2025. Understanding Humour in the Cognitive Resource Structure of Academically Successful Students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE) 13:2 ► pp. 455 ff. DOI logo
Canestrari, Carla, Gonzalo Del Moral Arroyo, Angelo Carrieri, Morena Muzi & Alessandra Fermani
2023. Parental attachment and cyberbullying victims: the mediation effect of gelotophobia. Current Psychology 42:19 ► pp. 16401 ff. DOI logo
Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Carla Canestrari & Roberto Burro
2022. On pleasures of the mind related to humour and insight problem solving: an investigation of people’s awareness of what they like and why. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 34:6 ► pp. 778 ff. DOI logo
Malik, Aakriti
2021. Working with Humour in Psychotherapy. In The Palgrave Handbook of Humour Research, ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Malik, Aakriti
2024. Working with Humour in Psychotherapy. In The Palgrave Handbook of Humour Research, ► pp. 637 ff. DOI logo
Canestrari, Carla & Amadeu Viana
2019. Dialogical strategies in replies to offensive humour. Language and Dialogue 9:2 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Canestrari, Carla & Ivana Bianchi
2018. Perceptual opposites and the modulation of contrast in irony. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Canestrari, Carla, Erika Branchini, Ivana Bianchi, Ugo Savardi & Roberto Burro
2018. Pleasures of the Mind: What Makes Jokes and Insight Problems Enjoyable. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo
Dynel, Marta
2018. Taking cognisance of cognitive linguistic research on humour. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mocarski, Richard & Sim Butler
2016. A Critical, Rhetorical Analysis ofMan Therapy. Journal of Communication Inquiry 40:2 ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue