A Study of the Conceptual Basis and Inferential Model of the Question and Answer Cold Jokes

Article Sidebar

PDF XML-DOAJ XML-Crossref
Published: Mar 25, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58803/JCLR.2023.388135.1011
Keywords:
Conceptual basis, Conversational implicature, Garden-path relevance, Inferential model, Question-and-answer cold joke
Statistics:
Abstract View: 220
PDF downloads: 64
XML-DOAJ downloads: 20
XML-Crossref downloads: 28
Crossref Citations: 0


View in:


Main Article Content

Qiuhong Xing
Hunan Normal University, China
ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5786-0159

Abstract

Question and answer cold joke (QACJ) is a language phenomenon with particular formal, semantic, and pragmatic features. Its existing analytical mode remains relatively simple, and rarely involves its conceptual basis and implicature inferring. The current study aimed to dig out its inferential model based on its conceptual basis under a comprehensive perspective. The particular formal and semantic features of the QACJ have laid the foundation for its four conceptual bases (i.e., intersected question and answer form, indirectly correlated logic, garden-path inferring, cold but humorous effect). Gudied by an integrated analytical framework, its forward and backward inferring models based on its conceptual bases have been proposed. The garden-path relevance inferring mechanisms are the red-light and the crossroad mechanisms, both relating to the presupposition entailing, optimal-relevance verification, and context shifting, all aiming at a phase in cold humor effect.

Article Details

How to Cite
Xing , Q. (2023). A Study of the Conceptual Basis and Inferential Model of the Question and Answer Cold Jokes. Journal of Contemporary Language Research, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.58803/JCLR.2023.388135.1011
Issue
Vol. 2 No. 1 (2023): Journal of Contemporary Language Research
Section
Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


References

Apuduwaili, R., Liu, Z. Q., & Xu, W. Z. (2017). A new explanation of implicature. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 6, 96-97. https://www.cnki.net/kcms/doi/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004447.html

Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, (27)3, 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8

Coates, J. (2007). Talking in a play frame: More on laughter

and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003

Demjén, Z. (2018). Complexity theory and conversational humor: tracing the birth and decline of a running joke in an online cancer

support community. Journal of Pragmatics, (133), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003

Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humor.

Language and Linguistic Compass, 5(3), 1284-1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00152.x

Fan, L., & Zhou, X. L. (2015). Metonymy within the framework of cognitive pragmatic inferencing. Foreign Language Research, 2, 18-22.

B2n.ir/u44317

Fang, C. Y., & Wang, M. (2009). Misinterpretation as a pragmatic strategy in conversational humor. Journal of Anhui University, 2, 63. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=3uoqIhG8C44YLTlOAiTRKgchrJ08w1e7aLpFYbsPrqF47tZsJ5wk1ft0pf1bnQ-SbMNjYz_tmIP2525HL0Vj7UPUS9CRS-M&uniplatform=NZKPT

Gibbs, R. W., & Brant, G. A. (2008). Striving for optimal relevance

when answering questions. Cognition, 106(1), 345-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.008

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003

Horn, L. R. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature[A]. In D. Schiferrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 13-22). Georgetown University Press. https://semantics.uchicago.edu/ kennedy/classes/ w14/implicature/readings/horn84.pdf

Hong, R. (2019). The analysis of cold jokes based on relevance theory. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 218-222. http:// doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0902.12

Hou, G. J. (2014). Pragmatic essence: Pragmatic competence vs pragmatic failure. World Book Publishing Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.

Long, D., & Graesser, A. (1998). Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse Processing, 11(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/

Norrik, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in everyday talk, Bloomington. Indiana University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/ record/1993-97322-000

Norrik, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333-1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00180-7

Shan, X. R., & Xiao, K. X. (2014). A frame-semantic approach to the mechanism of conversational humor. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 14(5), 20-23. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.05.005

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance, Communication

and Cognition. Blackwell.

https://monoskop.org/images/e/e6/Sperber_Dan_Wilson_Deirdre_Relevance_Communica_and_Cognition_2nd_edition_1996.pdf

Sun, L. Y. (2021). Deriving conversational implicatures from formal engagement: A dialogic syntax perspective. Modern Foreign Languages, 1, 19-20.

Wang, H. L., & Lu, Z. Y. (2014). Can cold joke make people cold? The relationship between temperature perception and emotional experience of cold jokes. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(4), 829-833. Retrieved from: http://www.psysci.org/EN/Y2014/V37/I4/829

Zhu, X. M. (2002). Psychological mechanism and cognitive bases of conversational humor[J]. Journal of Tongji University (social science edition), 1, 118.