Metaphor and Metonymy The Cognitive Trump-Cards of

1MetaphorandMetonymy:TheCognitiveTrump-CardsofLinguisticHumour1.IntroductionLanguageisperhapsthedominantmediumofhumorousexpression.Verbalhumouris,ofcourse,linguisticbydefinition,butevenvisualhumourintheformofcartoonscanoftenderiveitsmeaningfromanunderlyinglinguisticexpressionsuchasaconventionalmetaphororidiom.Thelanguageofhumourrangesfromtheimmediacyofbodilyformandfunction,itallitssensory,sexualandscatologicalglory,tothesublimereachesofabstractthought.Toadequatelycapturethisrangeinatheoryofhumour,oneneedsalinguisticframeworkthatrecognizestheseend-pointsandeverythinginbetweenasformingagenuinespectrumofinter-relatedconcepts,asopposedtoacollectionofarbitrarycontentdomainsthatareeachformallyequivalentatanabstractlevel.Cognitivelinguisticsisonesuchframework,viewinglanguagenotasaseparatementalmodulebutasahighly-groundedandexperientialfacetofgeneralhumanintelligencethatistightlyandinseparablyintegratedwithotherkeyfacetsofbehaviour,suchasconceptualreasoning,spatialandtemporalawareness,visualprocessingandmotor-processing.Thisdisdainformodularitymeansthatcognitivelinguisticscannotofferaclinical,autonomoustheoryofanyonefacetoflinguisticcognitionwithoutnecessarilydrawinguponeveryotherfacet.Butinthisrejectionofmodularityliesgreatdescriptivepower:atheoryoflinguistichumourcandrawuponeverysuchfacetwithease,crossingfunctionalboundariesasneededandallowingtheinterpretationandgenerationprocessestovieweachcomponentofmeaning(lexical,semanticandpragmatic)asre-entrantandavailableateveryleveloflinguisticanalysis.Ofcourse,notalllinguistichumourneedsthiskindofflexibilityofprocessingandintegrationofcognitivefaculties.Butthefactthatsomekindsdo,anddrawtheirhumourdirectlyfromthispower,suggeststhattotheextentthatlanguageisrepresentedatallinatheoryofhumour,itshouldbeconsideredfromacognitivevantage-point.Inthispaperweconsiderakindofhumourthatisfoundmostofteninconciseverbalwitticismsasopposedtonarrativejokes,whichexploitsconceptual2phenomenasuchasmetaphorandmetonymyatthedeepestlevel.Therelationshipbetweenhumourandmetaphorisnotacontroversialone:novelexamplesofeachevokeacertaindegreeoftensioninachievingstrikingcomparisonsorimplications.Koestler(1964)makestherelationshipexplicitbypositingeachtobetheresultofacommonpsychologicaloperationcalledbisociation,thatcombinestwoormoreconceptualstructuresthatinsomekeysenserepresentationallyorthogonal.Veale(1996)describeshowamodelofmetaphoricinterpretationcancapturethisbisociativeoperationintermsofagraph-theoreticprocesscalledanalogicalstructure-mapping(Gentner,1983),whileadditionallydescribinghowthemathematicalcatastrophe-theoreticviewofPaulos(1980)canberealizedasaformofmetaphorictensionwithinsuchamodel.Morerecently,Attardo(2002)describeshowstructure-mappingcanbeusedasthebasisforalogicalmechanismintheGeneralTheoryofVerbalHumour(GTVH),withsuchmappingsprovidingastructuredbasisforrecognizingthesemanticorpragmaticoppositionsneededtodetectthepointsoftensioninajokeandtriggertheframe-switchingunderlyinghumorousnarratives.Butmetaphorcandomorethanprovidecognitiveinsightsintotheworkingofhumour;itcanitselfbepartofthelogicalmechanismthatmakeshumourwork.Wewillconsiderheresomeexamplesofhumourwherethemetaphorissotightlyintegrateditcannotbehandledbystructuralsubstitutionalone.Rather,humorousinterpretationwillhingecruciallyonengagingthesemetaphorsataconceptuallevel,andexploitingthesaliencegapthatarisesbetweenaliteralandfigurativereadingsinthemindofeachspeaker(seeGiora(1997)foradiscussionofthegradedsaliencehypothesisincognitivemodelsoflanguage).Suchexampleswillshowthatwecannotassumethatlinguisticknowledgeisaresourcethatisusedsolelyinarrivingatthelogicalformofahumorousutteranceornarrative,onlytobediscardedinfavourofwhollylogicalandconceptualreasoningmechanismsfromthatlevelonward.Rather,metaphorsandmetonymiesmayneedtobeaccommodatedexplicitlyinthelogicalform,whilethelogicalmechanismmayneedtouseexplicitlymetaphoricandmetonymicformsofinferencetodealwiththemadequately.Furthermore,totheextentthatthesemetaphorsevokeidiomsorotherlexicalassociationsthataresalienttotheirinterpretation,thelogicalmechanismmayalsoneedtoincorporatelexico-semantic(i.e.,linguistic)considerationsintoitsreasoning.Thelesson,andthusthemotivation,ofCognitiveLinguisticsisthatsomejokesmayinvolvelanguageallthe3waydown,sothatnolevelofanalysisinthesejokesmaybeentirelyfreeoflinguisticconsiderations.2.MetaphoricTrumpingMetaphorisawonderfullyversatileconceptualtool,asadeptatpuncturingegosasitisasstrokingthem.Considerthefollowingjuxtapositionofbooktitles,thefirstnamingagenuinebookbyGermanrocketscientistWernervonBraun,thesecondaresponsetothehubrisofthefirstbyasarcasticcritic.(1)“Iaimforthestars”(acoffee-tablebookpromotingspacetravelbyNASAscientistandformer-GermanrocketscientistWernervonBraun,designeroftheV2rocketthatravagedLondoninWWII).(2)“Iaimforthestars,butIkeephittingLondon”(alternatetitlesuggestedbyacriticofvonBraun’scontributiontoNaziGermany’srocketprogramme).ThereisastrikingsemanticoppositioninherentinvonBraun’sworkforNASAthatcarriesovertothetitleofhisbook.Thefutur