Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double Grounding

Discourse Processes

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 212-236

  Brône, Geert ^a   Coulson, Seana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952823158     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530902959919     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Alexander, R. J. (1997). Aspects of verbal humour in English. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
2. Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter.
3. Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor, 4, 293-347.
4. Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
5. Bergen, B., & Binsted, K. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 79-92). Stanford, CT: CSLI Publications.
6. Binsted, K. (2006). Computational humor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21, 59-69.
7. Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2005). Headlines and cartoons in the economic press: Double grounding as a discourse supportive strategy. In G. Erreygers & G. Jacobs (Eds.), Language, communication and the economy (pp. 73-99). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
8. Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. (2009). Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains & gaps. Berlin: de Gruyter.
9. Bucaria, C. (2004). Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The case of newspaper headlines. Humor, 17, 279-309.
10. Câmara Pereira, F. (2007). Creativity and artificial intelligence. A conceptual blending approach. Berlin: de Gruyter.
11. Chafe, W. (2007). The importance of not being earnest: The feeling behind laughter and humor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
12. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. B. Flores D'Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 297-332). Chichester, England: Wiley.
14. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1983). Understanding old words with new meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 591-608.
16. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
17. Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Coulson, S. (2006). Constructing meaning. Metaphor & Symbol, 21, 245-266.
19. Coulson, S., & Matlock, T. (2001). Metaphor and the space structuring model. Metaphor & Symbol, 16,295-316.
20. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2003). Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 51-79). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
21. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meanings in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1510-1536.
22. Coulson, S., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2006). Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor, 19, 229-250.
23. Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related brain potential study. Memory and Cognition, 30, 958-968.
24. De Knop, S. (1985). Linguistic and extralinguistic aids for reconstruction and interpretation of metaphors in headlines. In W. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 243-262). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
25. Dor, D. (2003). On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 695-721.
26. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Fauconnier, G.,& Turner, M. (1998).Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science,22,133-187.
28. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
29. Ferretti, T. R., Schwint, C. A., & Katz, A. N. (2007). Electrophysiological and behavioral measures of the influence of literal and figurative contextual constraints on proverb comprehension. Brain and Language, 101, 38-49.
30. Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2002). Humor through double grounding: Structural interaction of optimality principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. Lund (Eds.), The way we think (Odense working papers in language and communication) (Vol. 23; pp. 313-336). Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
31. Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2005). Expressivity and metonymic inferencing: Stylistic variation in non-literary language use. Style, 39, 12-36.
32. Gavins, J., & Steen, G. (2003). Cognitive poetics in practice. London: Routledge.
33. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
34. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35. Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 465-486.
36. Giora, R. (2003). On our mind. Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Suval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115-141.
38. Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 92-96.
40. Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In G. J. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101-124). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
41. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
42. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Publication Relations Research, 11, 205-242.
43. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
44. Iarovici, E., & Amel, R. (1989). The strategy of the headline. Semiotica, 77, 441-459.
45. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Katz, A. N., & Ferretti, T. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 36, 193-221.
48. Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretation in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 375-385.
49. Kittay, E. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
50. Koestler, A. (1989). The act of creation. London: Penguin. (Original work published 1964)
51. Lagerwerf, L. (2002). Deliberate ambiguity in slogans. Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3, 245-260.
52. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
53. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
54. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Langacker, R. W. (1987).Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol.1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
56. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter.
57. Mårdh, I. (1980). Headlinese. On the grammar of English front page headlines. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
58. Martinet, A. (1991). Expressivité [Expressivity]. Le Linguistique, 27, 3-14.
59. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38,283-312.
60. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com
61. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389-407.
62. Mukařovský, J. (1964). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on esthetics, literary structure and style (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
63. Mukařovský, J., & Havránek, P. (1964). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on esthetics, literary structure and style (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
64. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1-20.
65. Partington, A. (2006). The linguistics of laughter: A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London: Routledge.
66. Perfetti, C. A., Beverly, S., Bell, L., Rodgers, K., & Faux, R. (1987). Comprehending newspaper headlines. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 692-713.
67. Renan, Y. (1984). Disautomatization and comic deviations from models of organizing experience. Style, 18, 160-176.
68. Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge.
69. Sabban, A. (1998). Okkasionelle variationen sprachlicher schematismen. Eine analyse französischer und deutscher presse- und werbetexte [Ad hoc variations of linguistic patterns. An analysis of French and German press and advertising texts]. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
70. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
71. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
72. Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (2002). Cognitive stylistics. Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
73. Šklovskij, V. (1965). Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3-57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1917)
74. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
75. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguity with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227-267.
76. Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London: Routledge.
77. Traugott, E. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressivemeaning: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalisation. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics (pp. 245-271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
78. Vaid, Y., Hull, R., Heredia, R., Gerkens, D., & Martinez, F. (2003). Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1431-1449.
79. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
80. Veale, T. (2005). Figure-ground reversal in humour and metaphor. Unpublished manuscript.
81. Veale, T. (2006). Re-representation and creative analogy: A lexico-semantic perspective. New Generation Computing, 24, 223-240.
82. von Humboldt, K. W. (1836). Über die verschiedenheit des menschlichen sprachbaues und ihreneinfluss auf die geistige entwickelung des menschengeschlechts [On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species]. Berlin: Königliche Academie der Wissenschaften.
83. Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
84. Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine readable dictionary, Version 2. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 6-11.