Cover not available

Article published In: Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 97–127

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

Mental models, humorous texts and humour evaluation

 | Fachhochschule Dortmund
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00005.jon
Abstract
This paper investigates how a mental-model theory of communication can explain differences in humorous texts and how aesthetic criteria to evaluate humour are dependent on the way mental models are exploited. Humour is defined as the deliberate manipulation by speakers of their private mental models of situations in order to create public mental models which contain one or more incongruities. Recipients can re-construct this manipulation process and thereby evaluate its nature and its quality. Humorous texts can be distinguished in terms of ownership of the manipulated mental model, the relationship between the speakers’ private and their public (humorous) mental model, as well as the speed required in the humorous mental model construction. Possible aesthetic criteria are the quality of the mental model manipulation, the pressure under which the humorously manipulated mental models have been constructed and the quality of the presentation of humorous mental models.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mental-model theory
    • 2.1Humorous intent is a form of prior intent
    • 2.2Mental-model manipulation, humorous play and aesthetic criteria
    • 2.3Basic requirement: Paratelic meta-motivational state in the current situational context
  • 3.Humorous texts and their aesthetic evaluation
    • 3.1Humour independent of the current situational context
      • 3.1.1Using pre-constructed fantasy mental models
        • 3.1.1.1Canned jokes
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.1.1.2Riddles
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.1.1.3One-liners
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.1.1.4Shaggy-dog stories
          • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.1.2Using pre-constructed real-life mental models with apparently incongruous elements
        • 3.1.2.1Funny anecdotes
          • Aesthetic criteria
    • 3.2Humorous mental models constructed in the current situational context
      • 3.2.1Joint construction of humorous fiction
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.2Manipulating lexemes and phrasemes
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.3Witticisms
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.4Irony
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.5Retorts
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.6Sarcasm
        • Aesthetic criteria
      • 3.2.7Teasing, banter, putdowns, self-denigrating humour
        • 3.2.7.1Teasing
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.2.7.2Banter
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.2.7.3Putdowns
          • Aesthetic criteria
        • 3.2.7.4Self-denigrating humour
          • Aesthetic criteria
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Apter, M. J., & Desselles, M. (2012). Disclosure humor and distortion humor: A reversal theory analysis. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 25(4), 417–435.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). A primer for the linguistics of humor. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 101–156). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme, 341, 174–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BBC. (2011). The office: 10th anniversary edition [DVD]. London: BBC Worldwide.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bent, S. A. (1887). Short sayings of great men: With historical and explanatory notes (classic reprint) (sixth edition, revised and enlarged). Boston: Ticknor and Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analyzing verbal play. London: Routledge. 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
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 92–110). Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284–1299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 217–241). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. 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, 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
Dynel, M., Brock, A., & de Jongste, H. (2016). A burgeoning field of research: Humorous intent in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 951, 51–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gervais, R., & Merchant, S. (2003). The office: The scripts, series 1. London: BBC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between humor and aesthetic experience. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 46(1), 110–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(2), 161–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Mirroring people: The science of empathy and how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerr, J. H., & Apter, M. J. (Eds.). (1991). Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Rockland, MA: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Joint construction of humorous fictions in conversation: An unnamed narrative activity in a playful keying. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 195–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macdonald, N. (2015). The moth joke: Video fragment from a Conan O’Brien show published on YouTube. Retrieved June 11, 2017, from [URL].
Mahy, C. E. V., Moses, L. J., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2014). How and where: theory-of-mind in the brain. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 91, 68–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malle, B. F. (2002). The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 265–284). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsh, M. (2012). Foiled again: The playful ethics and aesthetics of jokes. Western Folklore, 71(3/4), 291–306.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1285–1320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M. (1981). The complete neurotic’s notebook. Secaucus, N.J.: Castle Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morreall, J. (1981). Humor and aesthetic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 15(1), 55–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oring, E. (2016). Joking asides: The theory, analysis, and aesthetics of humor. Logan: Utah State University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humour seriously. London/New York: Routledge. 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
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priego-Valverde, B. (2006). How funny it is when everybody gets going!: A case of co-construction of humor in conversation. Círculo de Linguística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 271, 72–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V., & Dynel, M. (2017). Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication, 551, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stallone, L., & Haugh, M. (2017). Joint fantasising as relational practice in Brazilian Portuguese interactions. Language & Communication, 551, 10–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2010). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass, London: MIT Press.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
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1994). Outline of relevance theory. Links & Letters, 11, 85–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

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. Playing with Mental Models [Topics in Humor Research, 9], 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