Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Thielemann2020 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Giora (1997) => Graded Salience Hypothesis (意想不到) & Optimal Innovation Hypothesis (夠顛覆傳統)
    - - Raskin (1985)
        Norrick (1986)
    - - Zima (2013a; 2013b): format co-construction
        
        Change profiling of the phrase
        ex: return it => return for recycling
      - Brône (2008; 2009): trumpting sequence
  - - - wordplay
      - grammatical construction
    - - Violation of topical integrity =>
        humor (however, this is in opposite to Giora's relevance requirement
        
        Ex1: absurd humor (p.51)
        
        Ex2: accidental lapse (p.51)
      - Compositional completeness (the third part violates relevance requirement) => humor
      - Adjacency pair
        
        Hear's expectation
        
        Deviation of rules of order (Bilmes, 1988)
        
        Bousfield (2007) => psycho-social aspect of preference
        
        This is the case when a (psycho-socially) dispreferred action is realized in a preferred turn design, a situation which often characterizes conversational irony (Clift 1999) or mock politeness (Bousfield 2007).
        
        "Conversational expectations of what constitutes a next turn are fulfilled on the level of form, but undermined on the level of content” (Clift 1999: 529).
        
        Syntactic co-construction
    - - When identifying a strech of talk as a certain genre, expectation will be generated
    - - Politeness research is a good start for socail norms
        
        Mock politeness: sarcasm
        
        Mock impolitenes: teasing
      - 從teasing (playful violation of behavioral norms) 入手亦可知道對人們來說甚麼是social norm
  - - - Jaszczolt’s Default Semantics (p.121)
- - - - 剛好是CA的sequential context特質容易缺乏用來解釋reation to humor的要素 (p.28)
    - - Sequential context only allows 小範圍分析 (p.28)
      - 嚴謹，但容易落得視野狹隘 (p.28)
  - - - CA not interested in the reasons for laughter but
        focuses on practices which often attract laughter
  - - - Interactive frame (p.33)
        
        有賴contextualization cues來使humorous utterance有別於non-humorous one
        
        Linguistic cues
        
        Repetition (audible effect)
        
        學人家講話
        
        Iconicity
        
        學猴子叫
        
        Lexicalization imitation
        
        不誠懇的"哈哈"
        
        I'm joking
        
        Seriously (signals the termination of joking)
        
        Talking about trivial matters in very formal words or using formal address
        
        Pragmatic cues
        
        Why classified as pragmatic?
        
        They affect the organization of conversation, the strategy according to which interlocutors couch or ‘do’ their speech acts (p.70)
        
        Repetition
        
        Structural parallelism (一搭一唱創造完美syntactic組合)
        
        Animated speech
        
        Allusion
        
        Exaggeration and over/understatement (flouting maxim of quantity)
        
        p.69提到重要的詞，前面沒看到 (peripheral)
        
        Cues relating to contents
        
        Simile and metaphor
        
        Fictionalization (flouting maxim of quality)
        
        Detailed representation (flouting maxim of manner, be breif)
        
        Absurdity
        
        Topic choice (face-value-threatening, about deviant behaviors)
        
        Prosodic cues
      - Knowledge frame (p.33)
- - - - (1) how various forms and genres of humor trigger contrastive interpretations on different levels of talk-in-interaction – each time clashing with a cognitively privileged option that matches the expectations nurtured by norms and normalcy (在p.5-6亦有大力闡釋derailed norm).
      - (2) we will demonstrate how formal cues and features setting apart humorous sequences from surrounding, non-humorous discourse facilitate and contribute to this process.
- - - - Langacker (2001)
        
        Current Discourse Space (CDS)
        
        Space裡有啥:
        1) ground
        2) viewing frame
      - Clark (1996)
        
        Two-layered joint pretense
        
        缺點
        
        It did not elaborate on colateral signals to layered activities
  - - - Fauconnier and Turner’s blending theory (2003)
        
        What is blending?
        
        Novel conceptualizations
        
        How does blending go?
        
        Combintion and interaction of framed mental space
        
        Effects of blending?
        
        Emotional, rhetorical, etc.
        
        Examples?
        
        Ex1: Understanding waste disposal in terms of a sports game and turns it into a fun activity
        Ex2: The phrase “Murdock knocks out Iacocca” (metahpor)
      - Combination of conversation analysis with mental space allows interpretation other than introspection
        
        CA's discursive unit
      - cognitive-pragmatic實踐者:
        
        Langlotz (2008; 2013) =>
        將mental-space builder (cognitive) 及 contexualization cues (discourse) 概念兜在一起 (p.212)
    - - Combining ideas from discourse and conversation analysis with the cognitive approaches of mental space and blending theory to develop a framework for the analysis of humorous cognition in interaction
        
        Subgoal
        
        Empirical backstage of mental space
        
        A good start: Fauconnier's backstage cognition
        
        Impact of multimodal input
    - - 4.3.2.1 Frame-shifting
      - 4.3.2.3 Dissolution of entrenched blends
      - 4.3.2.2 Creative blends