> Subject Reminder: Call for Papers: Cognitive-linguistic Approaches to
> Humour
> CALL FOR PAPERS
> Theme Session at ICLC 2003 =A0(Subject to ICLC Acceptance)
> Cognitive-linguistic Approaches to Humour
> July 20-25, 2003
> Logro=F1o (Spain)
> In concentrating on the conceptual and cross-cognitive aspects of
> language
> use, Cognitive Linguists have given centre stage to phenomena like
> metaphor
> that more traditional paradigms of linguistic inquiry have relegated to
> the
> periphery of cognitive processing. We believe another peripheralized
> area
> of conceptual inquiry, humour, will return similar dividends as the
> study
> of metaphor, inasmuch as it will shed light on crucial aspects of
> cognitive
> processing that extend beyond the purely =8Chumorous=B9. Jokes are
> incredibly
> fragile linguistic and conceptual constructs whose meaning depends
> vitally
> on a nexus of quantitative criteria (such as the timing of delivery,
> =A0and
> the activation of key expectations) and qualitative criteria (such as
> social context, cultural taboos, shared world models, etc.). The
> fragility
> of humour makes it an ideal linguistic form in which to theorize about
> the
> relationship between the quantitative and qualitative aspects of
> language
> and cognition.
> Nonetheless, humour is still a widely under-franchised topic with
> Cognitive
> Science in general, and Cognitive Linguistics in specific. This is
> perhaps
> ironic inasmuch as Cognitive Linguistics provides the most articulate
> tools
> with which to study the complex nexus of phenomena that combine to
> produce
> humour. We believe the field of Cognitive Linguistics has much to offer
> the
> study of humour, and vice versa, since the study of the latter may
> allow us
> to articulate a framework for exploring the systematicity, stability and
> dynamics of not just humour, but also (following Koestler), artistic
> creativity and scientific insight.
> If accepted as a theme session for ICLC 2003, this meeting will focus on
> theoretical as well as empirical observations of humour, both verbal and
> visual as well as one-line and narrative, in an attempt to promote and
> stimulate a multifaceted research effort from a cognitive linguistic
> perspective.
> There are several broad issues that this thematic session expects to
> address:
> - Theories and folk models: like language in general, humour is defined
> both by the people that use it and the ways in which it is used. This
> raises the question of how well our formal theories of humour resonate
> with
> more folk models of the phenomenon. For instance, different people make
> different distinctions between humour and wit, irony and sarcasm, satire
> and farce, etc. Do these domains of humour constitute a radial category
> with prototypical and non-prototypical members?
> - Existing theories of humour: How cognitively motivated are existing
> theories of humour, like Raskin=B9s semantic-script theory (SSTH) and
> Attardo
> and Raskin=B9s General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH)? To what extent do
> corresponding constructs already exist in Cognitive Linguistics (CL),
> and
> to what extent can these other theories inform CL.
> - Metaphor, metonymy, blending and humour: What is the interplay between
> these =8Cmechanisms=B9? Is there any structural relationship between
> metaphorically and/or metonymically structured utterances and =A0the
> appreciation of these utterances as being humorous? =A0Is any one
> mechanism
> more general than the others to the extent that it can accommodate the
> others, or do all four point to a fifth, all-embracing framework?
> Also, to what extent can humour be schematised in a similar way to
> metaphor? Are there humour equivalents to metaphor schema like =B3Love
> is a
> Journey=B2 or does humour necessarily imply a lack of schematization.
> - Visual and verbal: To what extent does visual humour, like cartoons,
> simply encode linguistic humour in imagistic terms? To what extent does
> linguistic humour rely on mental imagery? =A0Do image schemata play a
> similar
> role in visual and verbal humour or do they find different uses in each
> medium?
> - Other media: Mozart=B9s =B3Musical Joke=B2 demonstrates that humour
> is not
> confined to the purely verbal or visual. What constraints shape the use
> of
> humour in other media?
> - Generation versus Interpretation: Everyone is capable of understanding
> and enjoying humour, but very few amongst us are capable of generating
> genuinely new and creative examples of humour (i.e., the ratio of joke
> creation to joke repetition is tiny). What does this fundamental
> asymmetry
> between generation and interpretation say about humour in particular and
> cognition in general?
> - Timing and Delivery: Why is verbal humour (and in particular,
> narrative
> humour) so sensitive to issues of timing and delivery. Can we articulate
> the reasons more formally and if so, apply them to other domains of CL
> inquiry?
> - Ambiguity and the communicational aspects of humour What are the
> cognitive and communicational costs/benefits of the exploitation of
> ambiguity? Why do we actively seek ambiguity (wit/word play/ humour ??)
> in
> certain circumstances and do not always disambiguate automatically? Why
> do
> adverts/headlines based on the exploitation of ambiguity work so well?
> What
> happens in conversation when we use words/phrases with multiple
> meanings?
> - Experimental humour studies (language acquisition, =8A): Why do
> children
> latch onto jokes and riddles between age 7 and 8? Do autistic children
> fail
> to do so and if so why? In what (non-obvious) ways is the exploitation
> of
> humour related to the acquisition of language? What happens in the brain
> when we use and understand words with multiple meanings?
> KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
> Seana Coulson (University of San Diego) -- Humour and Conceptual
> Blending
> Tony Veale (University College Dublin) -- Quantitative Issues in Humour
> [Others to be announced later]
> DISCUSSANTS
> Brigitte Nerlich
> Kurt Feyaerts
> Geert Br=F4ne
> [Others to be announced later]
> PAPERS / ABSTRACTS:
> The presentation of each paper will take 20 minutes. There will be a
> period
> of collective discussion and questions at the end of the session.
> All abstracts should be maximum 500 words (about one page), including
> references, and they should specify research question(s),
> approach/method/data, and (expected) results. Each proposal will be
> reviewed anonymously by members of the international panel.
> DEADLINE: September 25, 2002
> Notifications of the Organizing Committee's decisions will be sent out
> by
> February 15, 2003.
> Electronic submissions are strongly encouraged. Add a Word-document with
> two sheets: one with the anonymous abstract and another with your data
> - author name(s)
> - affiliation(s)
> - telephone number
> - fax number
> - email address
> - title of presentation
> - (three or four) keywords
> Submit your proposal to the following email address:
> geert.brone@arts.kuleuven.ac.be
> Only those proposals following the abstract specifications will be
> considered.
> ORGANIZERS
> Tony Veale (University of Dublin), tony.veale@ucd.ie
> Kurt Feyaerts (University of Leuven), kurt.feyaerts@arts.kuleuven.ac.be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:25:45 GMT