In this paper we have attempted to illustrate cognitive models of humor and metaphor on the basis of the pragmatic models presented in zume (1998, 1999a, 1999b) and the cognitive models illustrated in Kita-zume (2006). We have illustrated that the cognitively-based models presented here can clearly show the main characteristics of humor and metaphor which require both cognitive and pragmatic efforts to under-stand.
First we have studied humor, reviewing the three groups of theo-ries of humor as well as various types of techniques and the mechanism of humor. In an attempt to visualize the mechanism and elements that are commonly found in the theories above, we have illustrated cognitive models of humor.
Next, we have inquired into metaphor by introducing contemporary theories of metaphor, as well as traditional theories. We have illustrated cognitive models of metaphor to visually demonstrate the mechanisms and elements of metaphor.
The cognitive models show that there is a strong resemblance be-tween humor and metaphor, in that both humor and metaphor consist of two contrasting domains (domains 1 and 2) and the domain that con-nects the two (domain 3). The difference lies in domain 3. In humor, a stereotypical script in domain 1 is connected but twisted in domain 3, leading to a quixotic or socially unaccepted script in domain 2. In meta-phor, domain 3 involves analogies that open the way to two apparently distinguished domains.
Cognitive Models of Humor and Metaphor ~t.JJ\
Another characteristic common to humor and metaphor is that there are many implications involved both in humor and metaphor, as are illustrated in dotted squares and understanding them requires prag-matic efforts to interpret implied meanings.
To sum up, it has been argued that although humor and metaphor are classified into different categories, both humor and metaphor are creative linguistic forms consisting of two contrasting domains and the clever use of implications. Understanding humor and metaphor, there-fore, is an imaginative work that requires cognitive approaches to build up three domains as well as pragmatic efforts to interpret implied mean-mgs.
Notes
*
This is a revised version of a paper I presented at the 7th International Pragmat-ics Conference of the International PragmatPragmat-ics Association on July 13, 2000. I am grateful to Deirdre Wilson for her valuable comments and Salvatore Attardo for his kind comment and encouragement. lowe greatly to Michiko Takeuchi and To-moko Matsui for their friendly advice and helpful comments. I am also indebted to Robert Kowalczyk and Miyagi Sadamitsu for their valuable comments and sug-gestions. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Michael T. Wescoat for his valuable comments on an earlier draft. Finally, I want to thank the participants of the conference for their comments. The author's e-mail address is <[email protected] >.1 See Kitazume (2006) pp.125-50 which illustrates cognitive models of humor.
2 The cognitively-based models have been developed based on the basic models pre-sented in Kitazume (1999, 1999a, 1999b) in which various jokes including a large number of Tyson jokes are analyzed according to causes of laughter.
3 See Aristotle, Rhetoric III, 11 for details.
4 See Kant, Kritik of judgement, trans. 1. H. Bernard (London:Macmillan, 1892), p.223 for details.
5 See Koestler (1964) pp.1-3.
6 See Raskin (1985) pp.99-127.
7 See Ziv (1984) pp.70-80.
)c~ . ;;:1iIIf . )cft 18~ 1 {j- 2006.7
8 See Ziv (1984) p.88.
9 See Plato, Philebus, 48-50 and Republic, V, 452.
10 See Aristotle, Poetics 5 and Rhetoric, II, 12 for details.
11 See Thomas Hobbes (1650), Human nature, English works, ed. W. Molesworth (London: Bohn, 1840), voL 4, ch.9.
12 See Canter and Zillman (1973) pp. 321-9 for details.
13 See Ziv (1984) p.1l.
14 See Freud (1905), lokes and their relation to the unconscious for details.
15 See Raskin (1985) p.100.
16 See Freud (1905) pp.16-89.
17 See Koestler (1964) pp.32-8.
18 See Ziv (1984) pp.91-2.
19 See Raskin (1979), Raskin (1985) pp.99-127 and Linguistic theories of humor by Attardo, pp.195-229.
20 See Freud (1905) p.13.
21 See Raskin (1979) p.327.
22 See Kitazume (2006) pp.134-158.
23 See Minsky (1980) AI Memo No. 603
24 See Coulson (1997) pp.31-81 and Coulson (2001) pp.33-70.
25 See Ziv (1984) p.76 and p.90.
26 See Ortony (1979) pp.1-37 for details.
27 See Searle (1979) pp. 83-9 for details.
28 See Morgan (1979) pp.124-34 for details.
29 See Black (1979) p.27 for details.
30 See Richards (1936) pp. 95-6 for details.
31 See Black (1979) pp.27-30 for details.
32 See Schon (1979) pp.137-63 and Reddy (1979) pp.164-201 for details.
33 See Reddy (1979) pp.166-71 for details and Ortony (1979) pp.5-7 for the sum-mary.
34 See Lakoff and Johnson (1980) pp.7-9 for details.
35 See Lakoff (1979) pp.206-8 and Lakoff and Turner (1989) for details.
36 See Fauconnier (1997) pp.18-25.
37 See Fauconnier (1997) p.19. Fauconnier explains this process as "schema induc-tion".
38 and 39 They are quoted from New York Com Search, http://www.jokes.com//.
40 See Ziv (1984) p.22 for details.
41 This is quoted from New York Com Search, http://www.jokes.com//.
References
Aristotle (1954) Poetics In: Aristotle, Rhetoric, poetics, Random House, New York.
Cognitive Models of Humor and Metaphor ~tJ1\
Black, Michael (1962) Metaphor, In Max Black (ed.) , Models and metaphors, Cornell University Press, New York.
Black, Michael (1979) More about metaphor, In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Cantor, Joanne R. and Dolf Zillman (1973) Resentment toward victimized protago-nists and severity of misfortunes they suffer as factors in humor appreciation, lournal of experimental research in personality, 6, 321-9.
Coulson, Seana (1997) Semantic leaps: The Role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. University of California, San Diego, Ph.D. Dis-sertation.
(2001) Semantic leaps: The role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces, UCSD Cognitive Science Technical Report.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (1996) Blending as a central process of gram-mar, In Adele Goldberf (ed), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, Cam-bridge University Press, Stanford.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (1998) Conceptual integration network, Cogni-tive science 22.2:133-187.
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997) Mappings in thought and language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Freud, Sigmund (1905) lokes and their relation to the unconscious (Strachey trans.), The Hogarth Press, London.
Gruner, Charles R. (1978) Understanding laughter: The workings of wit and humor, Nel-son Hall, Chicago.
Hobbes, Thomas (1650) Human nature. In William Molesworth (ed.), The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Vol.4), John Bohn, London.
Hobbes, Thomas (1651) Leviathan, Grooke, London.
Kant, Immanuel (1892) Kritik of judgement, J.H. Bernard (trans.). London: Macmillan.
Kitazume, Sachiko (1998) A pragmatic study of Tyson jokes, Conference handbook 16, English Linguistic Society of Japan.
Kitazume, Sachiko (1999a) A pragmatic study of Tyson jokes, lELS 16 Papers from the sixteenth national conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan.
Kitazume, Sachiko (1999b) A pragmatic study of jokes, Where there's a "Hear hear"
here! Abstracts for 1999 international humor conference, International Society for Humor Studies.
Kitazume, Sachiko (2006) Cognitive models of humor, Literature, arts and cultural studies 3, Kinki University.
Koestler, Arthur (1964) The act of creation, Hutchinson Press, London.
Lakoff, George (1979) The contemporary theory of metaphor, In Andrew Ortony (ed.) , Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, New York.