Cover not available

Article published In: Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 1–18

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

Taking cognisance of cognitive linguistic research on humour

 | University of Łódź
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00001.dyn
Abstract
This article is meant to give a state-of-the-art picture of cognitive linguistic studies on humour. Cognitive linguistics has had an immense impact on the development of humour research and, importantly, humour theory over the past few decades. On the one hand, linguists, philosophers and psychologists working in the field of humour research have put forward proposals to explain the cognitive processes underlying specifically humour production and reception (e.g. the incongruity-resolution framework and its refinements). On the other hand, humour research has drawn on theories and concepts advanced in contemporary cognitive linguistics taken as a whole (e.g. mental spaces, conceptual blending, salience or conceptual metaphor). The different notions and approaches originating in these strands of research are in various ways interwoven in order to give new insights into the cognitive workings of humour.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: The cognition of humour and irony
  • 2.Cognitive theories of humour
  • 3.Humour in the light of general cognitive theories
  • 4.Content of this thematic section
  • Note
  • References
References (107)
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Humor and cognitive linguistics (pp. 91–110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.
Brône, G. (2008). Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2027–2061. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 463–504). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). On the cognitive processing of deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: The case of double grounding. Discourse Processes, 471, 212–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I. (2012). Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 491, 539–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., Dionigi, A., & Zuczkowski, A. (2014). Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 261–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). “What’s so funny?”: Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 21, 67–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 391, 107–122.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (1998). Frame-shifting and sentential integration. Cognitive Science Technical Report, 98.02. UCSD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S. & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders . Neuroscience Letters, 3161, 71–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Severens, E. (2007). Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: When cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language, 1001, 172–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jongste, H. (2013). Negotiating humorous intent. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 179–210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Mental models and humorous intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 951, 107–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Culture and incongruity in The Office (UK). Language & Communication, 551, 88–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M., (2009a). Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. metaphorik.de, 171, 27–48.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Isn’t it ironic?: Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4), 619–639. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language & Communication, 551, 69–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Irony, deception and humour: Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humour process: The concept of incongruity. Humor, 51, 9–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 41, 45–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. New York: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5), 465–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor, 12(4), 425–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 191, 115–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2017). Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D., & Gabora, L. (1989). Frame blends. Humor, 21, 417–440.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jabłońska-Hood, J., (2015). A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected British comedy productions in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kihara, Y. (2005). The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 161, 513–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 271–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, N. (1932). A gestalt theory of humour. British Journal of Psychology, 231, 69–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayerhofer, B. (2013). Perspective clashing as a humour mechanism. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). From incoherence to mirth: Neuro-cognitive processing of garden-path jokes. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 550. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morreall, J. (2010). Humor as cognitive play. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 241–260.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Engaging humor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pálinkás, I. (2014). Blending and folk theory in an explanation of irony. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 64–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2006). The linguistics of laughter: A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, D. (2005). Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Humor, 19(3), 251–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). A cognitive approach to the translation of metonymy-based humor. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(1), 63–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samermit, P., & Gibbs, R. (2016). Humor, the body, and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 21, 32–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shelley, C. (2001). The bicoherence theory of situational irony. Cognitive Science, 251, 775–818. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. McGhee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1 (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 27–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2014). The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uekermann, J., Daum, I., & Channon, S. (2007). Toward a cognitive and social neuroscience of humor processing. Social Cognition, 25(4), 553–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T. (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
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 305–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T., & Valitutti, A. (2017). Tweet dreams are made of this: Appropriate incongruity in the dreamwork of language. Lingua, 1971, 141–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017). Incongruity-resolution cases in jokes. Lingua, 1971, 103–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Errami Fennane, Salma
2025. Banter reframed. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Linares Bernabéu, Esther
2023. Co-constructing humour and gender identity in live stand-up comedy. In The Pragmatics of Humour in Interactive Contexts [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 335], ► pp. 200 ff. DOI logo
Linares-Bernabéu, Esther
2021. Cognitive strategies and figurative language in subversive stand-up comedy: the case of trumping (Estrategias cognitivas y lenguaje figurativo en el monólogo humorístico subversivo: el caso de la baza lúdica). Studies in Psychology 42:2 ► pp. 428 ff. DOI logo
Attardo, Salvatore
2020. Humor. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Dynel, Marta
2020. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 155 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Buján Navarro, Marta
2019. Humour in interaction and cognitive linguistics: critical review and convergence of approaches. Complutense Journal of English Studies 27 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Understanding Conversational Joking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 310], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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