The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolutio

Thecognitivelinguisticsofincongruityresolution:Markedreference-pointstructuresinhumorThebacillusoflaughterisabugdifficulttoisolate:oncebroughtunderthemicroscope,itwillturnouttobeayeast-like,universalferment,equallyusefulinmakingwineorvinegar,andraisingbread(ArthurKoestler,TheActofCreation)GeertBrône&KurtFeyaertsUniversityofLeuvenAbstract.Previousresearchincognitivesemanticshasfocusedonvariousmechanismsof‘dynamic’meaningconstruction,likemetaphor,metonymy,conceptualintegration,ironyandsarcasm.Thepresentpaperaimsatbroadeningthescopeofanalysistoincludethelargelyunderfranchisedtopicofhumor(inthebroadestsense)inthecognitiveparadigm.Inafirstsectionofthepaper,itisarguedthatCroft&Cruse’s(inpress)typologyofconstrualoperationsprovidesausefulkeyforfittinginthecognitivelinguisticcontributionintoexistinglinguistichumor-theoreticalframeworks(ase.g.Attardo’sGTVH).Inasecondpartofthepaper,onespecificconstrualoperation,metonymy,isexploredwithrespecttoitsfunctionalityinthecognitiveresolutionprocessofhumorinterpretation.Onthebasisofaheterogeneouscorpus,arangeofmarkedreference-pointconstructionsisabstractedandrelatedtoahigher-levelstrategyofbalancedprocessingdifficultyandoptimalinnovation(Giora2002).Thepaperclosesoffwithanoverviewofexperimental-psychologicalstudiesrelatingtothepresentaccountandsomequestionsthatneedfurtherempiricalbackup.1IntroductionSincethepublicationofKoestler’searlycognitivescientificapproachtohumorinTheActofCreation(1964),inwhichheinquiresintothecommoncognitivegroundsofhighlydisparatephenomenalikehumor,artisticcreativityandscientificdiscovery,cognitivepsychologistshaveexploredthecognitivemechanismsunderlyinghumorinterpretation.Cognitivelinguistics,withitsfocusoncross-cognitiveandconceptualaspectsoflanguageuse,shouldprovideanadequateframeworkfortheanalysisoftheinterplayofquantitativeandqualitativeaspectsin(verbal)humor.However,humorisstillalargelymarginalizedtopicinthecognitivelinguisticsparadigm,incontrastto2GEERTBRÔNE&KURTFEYAERTSthestudyofotherinstancesof‘creative’andnon-literallanguageuse,likemetaphor,metonymy,conceptualintegration,orthepotentially,butnotnecessarilyhumorousmechanismsofironyandsarcasm(Gibbs1994;Haiman1990;Geeraerts2002;Giora2001,2003;Giora&Fein1999a,1999b;Attardo2000,2001b,tonamejustafew).Theaimofthepresentstudyistwofold.Inthefirstpartofthepaper,wewillsituateapossiblecognitivelinguisticcontributionagainstthebackgroundoftheongoingdebatein(linguistic)humorresearch.Wewillarguethatinsightsfromthemostinfluentiallinguistichumortheories(Raskin1985;Attardo1994,2001;Giora1991)aretoalargeextentcompatiblewiththecognitivelinguisticframework,andthatbothcanmutuallybenefitfromeachother’sinsights.Ofsignificantimportancetohumortheoriesisthecentralcognitivelinguisticnotionofconstrual,whichcoversarangeofconceptualizationphenomena(metaphor,metonymy,conceptualblending,figure/groundeffects,etc.)insufficientlydealtwithinexistinghumorstudies.BasedonCroft&Cruse’s(inpress)typologyofconstrualmechanisms,weprovidesomeoftheresearchperspectivesforcognitivelinguists,anda(non-exhaustive)overviewofrecentworkonhumorinthatparadigm,amongwhichthecontributionstothethemesessionon‘CognitiveLinguisticApproachestoHumor’,heldatthe8thInternationalCognitiveLinguisticsConference(Logroño2003).Inasecondpartofthepaper,wewillsystematicallyaddressonespecificconstrualmechanisminitsrelevancetohumorprocessing,viz.metonymyasatypeofreference-pointconstruction.Arestrictedempiricalanalysisrevealsthatverbalaswellasnon-verbalincongruity-resolutionhumormakesuseofmarkedreference-pointstructuresinordertocomplicateordistorttheconventional,unmarked(salient)inferenceprocess,soastoachieve‘optimalinnovation’(Giora2002).Byapproachingthematerialwiththesecognitivelinguistictools,newlightisshedonpoorlyaddressedtheoreticalquestions(e.g.whatistheroleof‘theunsaid’inhumor?)aswellasexperimentalissues(e.g.whatistheinfluenceofthecomplexityoftheresolutionprocessonhumorappreciation?).3Thecognitivelinguisticsofincongruityresolution2LinguisticHumorTheories2.1Currentissuesandinsights:FoundationstobuildonDespitethefactthatresearchinlinguisticshaslargelydealtwithhumorphenomenaonlyinthemargin,thereisalineofresearchthatmustbeaccreditedalsoincognitivelinguisticapproaches.Morespecifically,thehumortheoreticalaccountsdevelopedbyRaskin(1985),Norrick(1993,2001),Graesseretal.(1989),Giora(1991,1997,2002,2003)andespeciallyAttardo(1994,1997,2001a,2002)provideanecessarybackgroundinthefield,inpartbecausetheirgroundingincognitivepsychologicalmodelsofhumor(incongruity-resolution(IR)models)tiesinwiththebasicphilosophyofcognitivelinguistics.1Indeed,althoughitdoesnotpresentitselfinthelargerterminological-conceptualframeworkofCL,Attardo’sGeneralTheoryofVerbalHumor(GTVH)iscognitivelinguisticinthesensethatitexplorestheinterfacebetweenlanguageandcognitioninhighlycreativelanguageuse.Itdoessothroughthestudyoftheinteractionofacombinationofcontributoryparameters(languagestructuralaswellasinterpersonal,sociolinguisticandpurelycognitive;infra2.1.1).Inessence,theconclusionthatthisresearchtraditioniscompa