How to do things with images: the editor, the cartoonist, and the reader

References

Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed. 2018. Multimodal humour: Integrating blending model, relevance theory, and incongruity theory. Multimodal Communication 7(1). 10.1515/mc-2017-0013Search in Google Scholar

The Action Committee on American-Arab relations: Yearbook: 1965-1966. 1967. New York: New World Press.Search in Google Scholar

Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617881Search in Google Scholar

Atlas, Jay David. 2000. Logic, meaning, and conversation: semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and the semantics/pragmatics interface. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 1997. Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: The perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics 27. 753–779.10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00063-XSearch in Google Scholar

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland. 1986/1964. Rhetoric of the image. Trans. by R. Howard. In R. Barthes (ed.), The responsibility of forms, 21–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Bechler, Rosemary. 2018. In memory of Razan al Najjar: Steve Bell’s cartoon. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/in-memory-of-razan-al-najjar-steve-bells-cartoon/.Search in Google Scholar

Bendixen, Michala. 2018. Denmark’s ‘anti-ghetto’ laws are a betrayal of our tolerant values. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/10/denmark-ghetto-laws-niqab-circumcision-islamophobic.Search in Google Scholar

Bicchieri, Cristina & Maria L. Dalla Chiara (eds.). 1992. Knowledge, belief, and strategic interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511983474Search in Google Scholar

Bounegru, Liliana & Charles Forceville. 2011. Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis. Visual Communication 10(2). 209–229.10.1177/1470357211398446Search in Google Scholar

Chadwick, Paul. 2018. The editor, the cartoonist, his image and her decision. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/24/steve-bell-razan-al-najjar-cartoon-guardian-editor.Search in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2006. Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse and Society 17(5). 563–581.10.1177/0957926506066345Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar

Diffee, Matthew. 2011. The best of the rejection collection: 293 cartoons that were too dumb, too dark, or too naughty for The New Yorker. New York: Workman Publishing Company, INC.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4). 475–523.Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Janis L. 1997. Political cartoons in the 1988 presidential campaign: Image, metaphor, and narrative. New York & London: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2011. The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24(1). 87–108.10.1515/humr.2011.005Search in Google Scholar

Engelmayer, Zeev. 2019. That Netanyahu cartoon wasn’t anti-Semitic. Haaretz. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-that-netanyahu-cartoon-wasn-t-anti-semitic-1.7173253.Search in Google Scholar

Faruqi, Daanish & Dalia Fahmy. 2017. Egyptian liberals, from revolution to counterrevolution. In Dalia F. Fahmy & Daanish Faruqi (eds.), Egypt and the contradictions of liberalism, 1–27. London: One World.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1971. Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. In Charles Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 272–296. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar

Flusberg, Stephen J., Teenie Matlock & Paul H. Thibodeau. 2018. War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 33(1). 1–18. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992.Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, Charles. 2011. Pictorial runes in Tintin and the Picaros. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 875–890.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.014Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, Charles. 2014. Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. In David Machin (ed.), Visual communication, 51–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110255492.51Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, Charles & Jens E. Kjeldsen. 2018. The affordances and constraints of situation and genre: visual and multimodal rhetoric in unusual traffic signs. International Review of Pragmatics 10(2). 158–178.10.1163/18773109-01002002Search in Google Scholar

Freedland, Jonathan. 2017. Donald Trump’s Jerusalem statement is an act of diplomatic arson. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/donald-trump-jerusalem-statement-capital-israel-middle-east.Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, Michael R. 1977. All the art that’s fit to befuddle. New York 10(11). 49–52.Search in Google Scholar

Greaves, Tony. 2018. Too sensitive over criticism of Israel? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/25/too-sensitive-over-criticism-of-israel.Search in Google Scholar

Green, Mitchel. 2014. Speech acts. In Edward Zalta, Uri Nodelman, Collin Allen & Lanier Anderson (eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 1–64. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar

Groarke, Leo. 2017. Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio. In Assimakis Tseronis & Charles Forceville (eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, 81–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.14.04groSearch in Google Scholar

Hornsby, Jennifer & Rae Langton. 1998. Free speech and illocution. Legal Theory 4. 21–37.10.1017/S1352325200000902Search in Google Scholar

Huges, Thomas. 2017. Who will protect press freedom now? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/30/press-freedom-censorship-fake-news-journalism.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobson, Daniel. 1995. Freedom of speech acts? A response to Langton. Philosophy & Public Affairs 24(1). 64–79.10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00022.xSearch in Google Scholar

Jay, Timothy. 2000. Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.91Search in Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas. 1983. Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kearns, Erin M., Allison E. Betus & Anthony F. Lemieux. 2019. Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others? Justice Quarterly 36(6). 985–1022.10.1080/07418825.2018.1524507Search in Google Scholar

KjØrup, SØre. 1987. Pictorial speech acts. Erkenntnis 12. 55–71.10.1007/BF00209915Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Guther & Van Leeuwen Theo. 1998. Front pages: (the critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In Allan Bell & Peter Garret (eds.), Approaches to media discourse, 186–218. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22. 305–330.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199247066.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Langton, Rae. 1998. Subordination, silence, and pornography’s authority. In Robert C. Post (ed.), Censorship and silencing: Practices of cultural regulation, 261–284. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar

Linfoot-Ham, Kerry. 2005. The linguistics of euphemism. A diachronic study of euphemism formation. Journal of Language and Linguistics 4(2). 227–263.Search in Google Scholar

Mani, Inderjeet & Mark T. Maybury (eds.). 1999. Advances in automatic text summarization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Marcu, D. 1999. Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text. In Inderjeet Mani & Mark T. Maybury (eds.), Advances in automatic text summarization, 123–135. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Markova, Ivana. 1978. Verbs of judging and the acts of judging. In Robin N. Campbell & Philip Smith (eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language, 163–170. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4684-2532-1_9Search in Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1975. Verbs of bitching. In D. Hockney, W. Harper & B. Freed (eds.), Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics, 313–332. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-1756-5_12Search in Google Scholar

Moir, Alan. 2008. Censorship and the working cartoonist. In Robert Phiddian & Haydon Manning (eds.), Comic commentators: Contemporary political cartooning in Australia, 55–61. Perth, WA: Network Books.Search in Google Scholar

Mottier, Véronique. 2008. Metaphors, mini-narratives and Foucauldian discourse theory. In Terrell Carver & Jernej Pikalo (eds.), Political language and metaphor: Interpreting and changing the world, 182–194. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Nelson, K. E. (ed.). 1983. Children’s language, vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Newman, Andrew Adam. 2007. MEDIA TALK; New life on the Web for a killed newspaper column. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30goldstein.html.Search in Google Scholar

Norling, Torgeir. 2006. A view from the West. https://chomsky.info/200606__/.Search in Google Scholar

Novitz, David. 1977. Pictures and their use in communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1063-4Search in Google Scholar

Olshtain, Elite & Liora Weinbach. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 108–122. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Perret, Roy W. 1987. Blasphemy. Sophia 26(2). 4–14.10.1007/BF02781167Search in Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 2018. The media exaggerates negative news. This distortion has consequences. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/17/steven-pinker-media-negative-news.Search in Google Scholar

Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.). 1991. Intertextuality. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Qian, Yufang. 2010. Discursive constructions around terrorism in the People’s Daily (China) and The Sun (UK) before and after 9.11. Oxford: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, François. 1987. Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rowson, Martin. 2019. The New York Times political cartoon ban is a sinister and dangerous over-reaction. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/new-york-times-cartoonists-ban-antisemitism.Search in Google Scholar

Sakuma, Amanda. 2018, December 30. John Kelly’s exit interview lifts the curtain on the chaos within the Trump White House. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/30/18161410/john-kelly-exit-interview-chaos-trumps-white-house.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1). 1–23.10.1017/S0047404500006837Search in Google Scholar

Shadmehr, Mehdi & Dan Bernhardt. 2015. State censorship. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 7(2). 280–307.10.1257/mic.20130221Search in Google Scholar

Simons, Ned. 2018. Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell denies anti-Semitism claims after drawing spiked by editor. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-denies-anti-semitism-claims-after-drawing-spiked-by-editor_uk_5b19054ce4b09578259f5b4a?cy&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368873_013Search in Google Scholar

Stephens, Bret. 2019. A despicable cartoon in The Times. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Tang, Lijun & Syamantak Bhattacharya. 2011. Power and resistance: A case study of satire on the Internet. Sociological Research Online 16(2). 1–9.10.5153/sro.2375Search in Google Scholar

Tewksbury, David. 2003. What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the internet. Journal of Communication 53(4). 694–710.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02918.xSearch in Google Scholar

Tong, Jingrong. 2009. Press self-censorship in China: A case study in the transformation of discourse. Discourse & Society 20(5). 593–612.10.1177/0957926509106412Search in Google Scholar

Tynan, Caroline. 2008. Metaphors and marketing: Some uses and abuses. In Philip Kitchen (ed.), Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis, 10–25. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230227538_2Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 1977. Text and Context. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 2008. Discourse and context: a socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511481499Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 2009a. Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 62–86. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 2009b. Society and discourse: how social contexts inl uence text and talk. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575273Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 2011. Discourse, knowledge, power, and politics: Towards critical epistemic discourse analysis. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 27–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.43.03vanSearch in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun. 2014. Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107775404Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Willis, Ken. 2005. Merry Hell: Humour competence and social incompetence. In Sharon Lockyer & Michael Pickering (eds.), Beyond a joke: The limits of humor, 126–145. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230236776_7Search in Google Scholar