Metaphorical creativity contributing to multimodal impoliteness in political cartoons

References

Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed. 2021a. Multimodal metaphor and (im)politeness in political cartoons. Journal of Pragmatics 185. 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.006.Search in Google Scholar

Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed. 2021b. Where Covid metaphors come from: Reconsidering context and modality in metaphor. Social Semiotics. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2021.1971493.Search in Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney. 1985. Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 23(4). 281–300.10.1515/iral.1985.23.1-4.281Search in Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney. 1987. Intergrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal, prosodic and kinesic choices in Speech. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110872910Search in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 2001. Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110887969Search in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore, Christian F. Hempelmann & Sara Di Maio. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor 15(1). 3–46.10.1515/humr.2002.004Search in Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002149.Search in Google Scholar

Batchelor, Susan, Michele Burman & Jane Brown. 2001. Discussing violence: Let’s hear it from the girls. Probation Journal 48. 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/026455050104800208.Search in Google Scholar

Bateman, John A. & Karl-Heinrich Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. New York & London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Benczes, Réka & Bence Ságvári. 2018. Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics 29(1). 121−154. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0139.Search in Google Scholar

Berlyne, Daniel E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Century Psychology Series.Search in Google Scholar

Boden, Margaret. 2003. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Abacus.10.4324/9780203508527Search in Google Scholar

Bornstein, Robert F. & Paul R. D’Agostino. 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63. 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545.Search in Google Scholar

Bousfield, Derek & Dan McIntyre. 2018. Creative linguistic impoliteness as aggression in stanley Kubrick’s Full metal Jacket. Journal of Literary Semantics 47(1). 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2018-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. (edited and introduced by John B. Thompson; translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson). Oxford: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, Per Aage. 2004. Spaces, domains and meaning. Essays in semiotics. Peter Lang: Bern.Search in Google Scholar

Brickman, Philip, Redfield Joel, Harrison Albert A, & Crandall Rick. 1972. Drive and predisposition as factors in the attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8. 31–44.10.1016/0022-1031(72)90059-5Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Lucien & Pilar Prieto. 2017. (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness, 357–379. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_14Search in Google Scholar

Burgess, Curt & Kevin Lund. 1997. Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12(2&3). 177–210.10.1080/016909697386844Search in Google Scholar

Canestrari, Carla & Ivana Bianchi. 2013. From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In Marta Dynal (ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/thr.1.02canSearch in Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 2004. Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Chassay, Clancy & Julian Borger. 2009. Guardian investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian.Search in Google Scholar

Christensen, Bo T., Linden J. Ball, & Rolf, Reber. 2020. Perceptual fluency effects in judgments of creativity and beauty: Creative objects are perceived fluently yet they are visually complex. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 32 (1). 45–66.10.1080/20445911.2019.1689986Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2013. Impoliteness: Questions and answers. In Denis Jamet & Manuel Jobert (eds.), Aspects of impoliteness, 2–15. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2016. Impoliteness strategies. In Alessandro Capone & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Interdiscplinary studies in pragmatics, culture, and society, 421–445. Cham Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan & Claire Hardaker. 2017. Impoliteness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 199–225. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_9Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00118-2.Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.). 2017. The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2014. Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Christie. 2011. Logical mechanisms: A critique. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24(2). 159–165.10.1515/HUMR.2011.010Search in Google Scholar

Deignan, Alice. 2010. The evaluative properties of metaphors. In Graham Low, Zazie Todd, Alice Deignan & Lynne Cameron (eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in use, 357–373. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.26.21deiSearch in Google Scholar

Demjén, Zsófia & Claire Hardaker. 2016. Metaphor, impoliteness, and offence in online communication. In Semino Elena, Zsófia & Demjén (eds.), The routledge handbook of metaphor and language, 353–368. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315672953Search in Google Scholar

den Uyl, Marten & Herre van Oostendorp. 1980. The use of scripts in text comprehension. Poetics 9. 275–294.10.1016/0304-422X(80)90023-6Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Janis. 2014. Cartoons. In Salvatore Attardo, Encyclopedia of humor studies, 112–116. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Elleström, Lars. 1996. Some notes on irony in the visual arts and music: The examples of Magritte and Shostakovich. Word & Image 12 (2). 197–208.10.1080/02666286.1996.10434249Search in Google Scholar

El Refaie, Eisabeth. 2009. Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience responses. In Charles Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 173–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215366.3.173Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.005.Search in Google Scholar

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2013. Cross-modal resonances in creative multimodal metaphors: Breaking out of conceptual prisons. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2). 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.2.02elr.Search in Google Scholar

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2014. Looking on the dark and bright side: Creative metaphors of depression in two graphic memoirs. a/b: Auto/Biography Studies 29(1). 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2014.921989.Search in Google Scholar

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2019. Visual metaphor and embodiment in graphic illness narratives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190678173.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1998. Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 251–280. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers [updated version appeared in S. Davis & B. Gillon, (Eds.) (2004), Semantics: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press].10.4324/9781315085678-10Search 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

Feinstein, Hemine. 1982. Meaning and visual metaphor. Studies in Art Education 23. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319679.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon W. Bach & Robert Thomas Harm (eds.), Universals of linguistic theory, 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1984. Contrastive pragmatics. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems, 110–141. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110824025.119Search in Google Scholar

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

Freedman, Leonard. 2009. The offensive art: Political satire and its censorship around the world from Beerbohm to Borat. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.10.5040/9798400692765Search in Google Scholar

Freud, Sigmund. 1905. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of sigmund freud, James Strachey (ed. & trans.). vol. 8, 9–236. London: Hogarth Press.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 2014. Literal vs. nonliteral language ― Novelty matters. In Thomas M. Holtgraves (ed.), Handbook of language and social psychology, 330–347. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Idit Elnatan, Noa Shuval & Adi Zur. 2004. Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal Innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol 19. 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni & Ofer Fein. 2015. Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol 30(4). 290–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered, Heruti & Ofer Fein. 2017. The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol 32(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934.Search in Google Scholar

Givoni, Shir & Rachel Giora. 2018. Salience and defaultness. In Frank Liedtke & Astrid Tuchen (eds.), Handbuch Pragmatik, 207–213. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-04624-6_20Search in Google Scholar

Gleason, Jean Berko & Sandra Weintraub. 1976. The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society 5. 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006977.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Sage L. & Claire Hardaker. 2017. (Im)politeness in digital communication. In Jonatahn Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness, 785–814. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_30Search in Google Scholar

Greenall, Annjo Klungervik. 2001. Towards a socio-cognitive account of flouting and flout-based meaning. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology Unpublished doctoral thesis. Available at: https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnuxmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/242748/121592_FULLTEXT01.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.Search in Google Scholar

Greenall, Annjo Klungervik. 2009a. Towards a new theory of flouting. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2295–2311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.008.Search in Google Scholar

Greenall, Annjo Klungervik. 2009b. Gricean theory and linguicism: Infringements and physical violence in the relationship between manuel and basil fawlty. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.05.017.Search in Google Scholar

Greif, Esther Blank & Jean Berko Gleason. 1980. Hi, thanks, and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society 9. 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500008034.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1989/1991. Studies in the way of words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate. 2005. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197532Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick. 1994. Linguistic norms and pragmatic exploitations, or why lexicographers need Prototype Theory, and vice versa’. In Ferenc Kiefer, Gábor Kiss & Júlia Pajzs (eds.), Papers in computational lexicography: Complex ’94. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick. 2004. Corpus pattern analysis. In Geoffrey Williams & Sandra Vessier (eds.), Euralex proceedings, vol. 1. Lorient, France: Universite de Bretagne-Sud.Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick. 2013a. Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick. 2013b. Creatively exploiting linguistic norms. In Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts & Charles J. Forceville (eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon, 119–138. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110295290.119Search in Google Scholar

Heartfield, John. 1934. Blood and iron. Available at: http://creatividadnatural.blogspot.co.il/2010_10_01_ archive.html.Search in Google Scholar

Hempelmann, Christian. 2019. The predictable semiotic essence of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 32(4). 531–535.10.1515/humor-2019-0060Search in Google Scholar

Heyduk, Ronald G. 1975. Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 17(1). 84–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03204003.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Downing, Laura & Blanca Kraljevic Mujic. (eds.) 2020. Performing metaphoric creativity across modes and contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ftl.7Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Downing, Laura, Blanca Kraljevic Mujic & Begoña Núñez-Perucha. 2013. Metaphorical creativity and recontextualization in multimodal advertisements on e-business across time. Metaphor and the Social World 3(2). 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.05hid.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas & Liane Gabora. 1989. Synopsis of a workshop on humor and cognition. Humor 2(4). 417–440.Search in Google Scholar

Janisse, Michel P. 1970. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure: A replication and extension. Psychonomic Science 19(2). 77–78. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03337428.Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking: Fast and slow. New York: Straus & Giroux.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufmann, James C. 2016. Creativity 101. New York: Springer.10.1891/9780826129536Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research 13(1). 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0019.Search in Google Scholar

Kogan, Nathan, Kathleen Connor, Augusta Gross & Donald Fava. 1980. Understanding visual metaphor: Developmental and individual differences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 45(1). 85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165832.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010a. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010b. A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4). 663–697.10.1515/cogl.2010.021Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2). 321–347.10.1515/cog-2016-0052Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108859127Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam Locher. 2013. The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969. A guide to english poetry. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1985. Stylistics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse and literature, 39–57. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ct.3.04leeSearch in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Levant, Efrat, Ofer Fein & Rachel Giora. 2020. Default sarcastic interpretations of attenuated and intensified similes. Journal of Pragmatics 166. 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.015.Search in Google Scholar

Leifer, Joshua. 2019. November 19. Trump is systematically ending the viability of a future Palestinian state. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/19/trump-is-systematically-ending-the-viability-of-a-future-palestinian-state.Search in Google Scholar

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

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9–33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Search in Google Scholar

Maalej, Zouheir. 2001. Processing pictorial metaphor in advertising: A cross-cultural perspective. Academic Research 1. 19–42.Search in Google Scholar

Maiz-Arevalo, Carmen. 2013. ‘Just click ‘like’’: Computer-mediated responses to Spanish compliments. Journal of Pragmatics 51. 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.003.Search in Google Scholar

Marks, Lawrence E. 1996. On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11(1). 39–66.10.1207/s15327868ms1101_3Search in Google Scholar

McClelland, David C., Atkinson, John W., Clark, Russell A. & Lowell, Edward A. 1953. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.10.1037/11144-000Search in Google Scholar

McDougall, Siné & Irene Reppa. 2013. Ease of icon processing can predict icon appeal. In Masaaki Kurosu (ed.), Human-computer interaction. Human-centred design approaches, methods, tools, and environments. HCI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8004. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-39232-0_62Search in Google Scholar

Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615238Search in Google Scholar

Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In Patrick Henry Winston (ed.), The psychology of computer vision, 211–280. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Morreall, John. 2004. Verbal humor without switching scripts and without non-bona fide communication. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17(4). 393–400.10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.393Search in Google Scholar

Mukařovský, Jan. 1970. Standard language and poetic language, Paul L Garvin (ed. & trans.). In Donald C. Freeman (ed.), Linguistics and literary style, 40–56. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.10.1075/llsee.12.11mukSearch in Google Scholar

Munsinger, Harry & William Kessen. 1964. Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 78(9). 1–24.10.1037/h0093865Search in Google Scholar

Musolff, Andreas. 2001. Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21(3). 216–229.10.1080/01434630008666402Search in Google Scholar

Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007.Search in Google Scholar

Oakley, Todd. 2007. Image schemas. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert, Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0009Search in Google Scholar

Onysko, Alexander. 2016. A note on the relation between cognitive linguistics and wordplay. In Sebastian Knospe, Alexander, Onysko & Maik Goth (eds.), Crossing languages to play with words: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 71–78. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110465600-005Search in Google Scholar

Oring, Elliott. 2011. Parsing the joke: The general theory of verbal humor and appropriate incongruity. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24(2). 203–222.10.1515/HUMR.2011.013Search in Google Scholar

Oring, Elliot. 2016. Joking aside: The theory, analysis and aesthetics of humor. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.10.7330/9781607324928Search in Google Scholar

Oring, Elliott. 2019a. Oppositions, overlaps, and ontologies: The general theory of verbal humor revisited. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 32(2). 151–170.10.1515/humor-2018-0066Search in Google Scholar

Oring, Elliott. 2019b. Formalizing humor: A response to Christian Hempelmann and Julia Taylor Rayz. HUMOR 32(4). 537–543.10.1515/humor-2019-0059Search in Google Scholar

Paolillo, John C. 1998. Gary Larson’s Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! Humor, 11(3). 261–290.10.1515/humr.1998.11.3.261Search in Google Scholar

Rayz, Julia Taylor. 2019. Oppositions, overlaps, and ontologies: A response to Elliott Oring. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 32(4). 525–529.10.1515/humor-2019-0062Search in Google Scholar

Ritchie, Graeme. 2004. The linguistic analysis of jokes. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203406953Search in Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4Search in Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382–439.10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9Search in Google Scholar

Saegert, Susan C. & Jerald M. Jellison. 1970. Effects of initial level of response competition and frequency of exposure on liking and exploratory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3). 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029952.Search in Google Scholar

Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon C. Garrod. 1980. A demonstration of the situational basis of text-comprehension through implicit assignments of roles to entities. Glasgow: Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Schilperoord, Joost. 2018. Ways with pictures: Visual incongruities and metaphor. In Gerard Steen (ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process, 11–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.18.02schSearch in Google Scholar

Schilperoord, Joost & Lisanne van Weelden. 2018. Rhetorical shadows: The conceptual representation of incongruent shadows. Spatial Cognition and Computation 18(2). 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2017.1298113.Search in Google Scholar

Schütz, Alfred & Thomas Luckmann. 1973. The structures of the life-world, vol. 1. Translated by Richard M. Zaner. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2004. [Review of the book On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language, by Rachel Giora]. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 2185–2189. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(04)00119-5.Search in Google Scholar

Simonton Dean Keith. 2012. Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal 24. 97–106.10.1080/10400419.2012.676974Search in Google Scholar

Sorlin, Sandrine. 2013. The power of impoliteness: A historical perspective. In Denis Jamet & Manuel Jobert (eds.), Aspects of linguistic impoliteness, 45–58. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Sorlin, Sandrine. 2017. The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 132–146.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2021. Intercultural politeness: Managing relations across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316810071Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance theory: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Stokes, Susan. 1998. Pathologies of deliberation. In Jon Elster (ed.), Deliberative democracy, 123–139. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139175005.007Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD Thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(2). 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237.Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2017. Covention and ritual (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár, The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness, 171–195. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_8Search in Google Scholar

Thielemann, Nadine. 2020. Understanding conversational joking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.310Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen. 2008. ‘Reasonable hostility’: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 4(2). 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.009.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen & Sarah J. Tracy. 1998. Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research 25(2). 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00444.x.Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun. 1971. Some problems of generative poetics. Poetics 2. 5–35.10.1016/0304-422X(71)90009-XSearch in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London & New York: 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 sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511481499Search 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. Academic Press, New York.Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony. 2008. Figure-ground duality in humor: A multi-modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4(1). 63–81. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0009-z.Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony. 2012. Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts & Charles Forceville. 2013a. Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.10.1515/9783110295290Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts & Charles Forceville. 2013b. E unis pluribum: Using mental agility to achieve creative duality in word, image and sound. In Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts & Charles Forceville (eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon, 37–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.10.1515/9783110295290.37Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony & Yanfen Hao. 2013. Talking points in linguistic creativity. In Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts & Charles Forceville (eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon, 99–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.10.1515/9783110295290.99Search in Google Scholar

Vitz, Paul C. 1966. Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science 11(2). 105–114.10.1002/bs.3830110204Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Search in Google Scholar

Wiley, Jennifer & Keith Rayner. 2000. Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition 28(6). 1011–1021.10.3758/BF03209349Search in Google Scholar

Wundt, Wilhelm M. 1874. Grundzung der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.Search in Google Scholar

Yule, George. 1996. The study of language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zajonc, Robert B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848.Search in Google Scholar

Zajonc, Robert B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preference needs no inferences. American Psychologist 35. 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151.Search in Google Scholar

Zajonc, Robert B. 2000. Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In Joseph P. Forgas (ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition, 31–58. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zillmann, Dolf & Joanne R. Cantor. 2017. A disposition theory of humour and mirth. In Antony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications, 93–115. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203789469-6Search in Google Scholar