等级幽默的语用认知研究
|
摘要
幽默理论研究文献丰富，然而从语言学，尤其是从认知语言学视角来研究言语幽默并不多见；人们对言语幽默提出很多不同的解释模式，但鲜见综合模式。本文致力于研究一种特殊的言语幽默——等级幽默，即利用概念等级(conceptual scale)或等级含意(scalar implicature)而取得的幽默。这种幽默通常由两部分组成。前一部分通常将某人或某物描述成具有极高程度的等级特征，以制造某种心理期待；后一部分的实际描述却打破这种期待，出现“乖讹”(incongruity)，并引发某种相应的“意象”(imagery)，从而产生幽默效果。
本文在前人的研究基础之上，试图综合心智空间理论(Fauconnier，1994)、概念整合理论(Fauconnier & Turner，1998，2002)、构式语法(Goldberg，1995；Langacker，1987)、框架转移理论(Coulson，2000)、关联理论(Sperber & Wilson，1986／1995)等理论，提出一个以语用认知为取向的综合模式来解读言语幽默的生成及理解机制。该模式以体验(embodiment)哲学为基础，从构式(constructions)入手，以框架转移(frame-shifting)作为言语幽默中乖讹消除(incongruity-resolution)的认知机制，以认知识解(construal)作为幽默乖讹消除的具体手段，以话语关联(relevance)作为框架转移中对应映射(mappings)的保证，层层细致地分析和解读言语幽默的生成理解过程中的认知机制。全文共十章。第一章和第十章是序言和结语；第二章和第三章是对等级含意理论和言语幽默理论的综述；第四章对等级幽默的形式特征和表现形式进行描述；第五章提出本研究的理论模式；第六、第七、第八和第九章分别从框架转移、体验、识解、和关联等不同的视角对等级幽默进行详细分析。
本研究梳理了等级含意理论和言语幽默理论，澄清了一些模糊概念，提出了言语幽默研究的一个综合模式，对言语幽默在语用认知领域研究具有一定的理论参考价值和借鉴作用。另外，本研究还探讨了幽默研究和外语教学之间的关系，对提高学生幽默欣赏能力和外语交际能力，改进外语教学质量，增强教师课堂教学效果等，具有一定的现实指导意义。
Although a great deal of work has been done on humor in psychology, literature and sociology, less has been done in linguistics, especially in cognitive linguistics. Models of humor abound, but integrative models do not.
The present dissertation is confined to the study of a special type of humor, scalar implicature (SI for short) humor, from the pragmatic-cognitive perspective. This type of humor mainly resides in the manipulation of a conceptual scale by describing an entity (such as a person, object, or situation) typically in the first clause or part as having a great deal of some property, thus creating an expectation in the hearer's mind. This is then followed by a second clause or part that provides a punchline, whose characteristics and relation to the first clause or part are incongruous to the hearer's initial expectation. The resulting mismatch between the hearer's expectations about the utterance and its actual realization, as well as the imagery evoked, is the very thing that makes the utterance funny.
Based on the previous studies on humor, we propose an integrative model to explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying the production and interpretation of SI humor, by synthesizing mental space theory (Fauconnier, 1994), conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2002), construction grammar (Goldberg, 1995; Langacker, 1987), frame-shifting model (Coulson, 2000), and relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995), with the focus on its capacity to explain the sorts of inferences needed to understand SI humor, or verbal humor in general. In this model, frame-shifting serves as a cognitive resolution mechanism in understanding humor, embodiment as a cognitive resolution basis, cognitive construal as an incongruity unpacking device, while relevance serves as a pragmatic inference mechanism to guarantee the proper direction of frame-shifting.
The present dissertation is composed of ten chapters, including the general introduction at the outset and the conclusion at the end. Chapters 2 and 3 offer a literature review of SI studies and humor research; Chapter 4 attempts to construct a theoretical framework for the study of SI humor; Chapter 5 gives a linguistic description of SI humor; Chapters 6 to 9 are devoted to the exploration of SI humor from the perspectives of frame-shifting, embodiment, cognitive construal, and relevance.
With various pioneering efforts in view, the present study is, on one hand, to piece together their findings concerning humor as well as SIs and incorporate them into a fuller and richer picture in the attempt to clear off some misunderstandings related to humor. On the other hand, we try to dig into the depth of SI humor from a broader perspective in the light of cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. Hopefully, the current study will provide a good initial orientation in the cognitive linguistic approach to humor, and have some theoretic and practical values for the humor research.
本文在前人的研究基础之上，试图综合心智空间理论(Fauconnier，1994)、概念整合理论(Fauconnier & Turner，1998，2002)、构式语法(Goldberg，1995；Langacker，1987)、框架转移理论(Coulson，2000)、关联理论(Sperber & Wilson，1986／1995)等理论，提出一个以语用认知为取向的综合模式来解读言语幽默的生成及理解机制。该模式以体验(embodiment)哲学为基础，从构式(constructions)入手，以框架转移(frame-shifting)作为言语幽默中乖讹消除(incongruity-resolution)的认知机制，以认知识解(construal)作为幽默乖讹消除的具体手段，以话语关联(relevance)作为框架转移中对应映射(mappings)的保证，层层细致地分析和解读言语幽默的生成理解过程中的认知机制。全文共十章。第一章和第十章是序言和结语；第二章和第三章是对等级含意理论和言语幽默理论的综述；第四章对等级幽默的形式特征和表现形式进行描述；第五章提出本研究的理论模式；第六、第七、第八和第九章分别从框架转移、体验、识解、和关联等不同的视角对等级幽默进行详细分析。
本研究梳理了等级含意理论和言语幽默理论，澄清了一些模糊概念，提出了言语幽默研究的一个综合模式，对言语幽默在语用认知领域研究具有一定的理论参考价值和借鉴作用。另外，本研究还探讨了幽默研究和外语教学之间的关系，对提高学生幽默欣赏能力和外语交际能力，改进外语教学质量，增强教师课堂教学效果等，具有一定的现实指导意义。
Although a great deal of work has been done on humor in psychology, literature and sociology, less has been done in linguistics, especially in cognitive linguistics. Models of humor abound, but integrative models do not.
The present dissertation is confined to the study of a special type of humor, scalar implicature (SI for short) humor, from the pragmatic-cognitive perspective. This type of humor mainly resides in the manipulation of a conceptual scale by describing an entity (such as a person, object, or situation) typically in the first clause or part as having a great deal of some property, thus creating an expectation in the hearer's mind. This is then followed by a second clause or part that provides a punchline, whose characteristics and relation to the first clause or part are incongruous to the hearer's initial expectation. The resulting mismatch between the hearer's expectations about the utterance and its actual realization, as well as the imagery evoked, is the very thing that makes the utterance funny.
Based on the previous studies on humor, we propose an integrative model to explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying the production and interpretation of SI humor, by synthesizing mental space theory (Fauconnier, 1994), conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2002), construction grammar (Goldberg, 1995; Langacker, 1987), frame-shifting model (Coulson, 2000), and relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995), with the focus on its capacity to explain the sorts of inferences needed to understand SI humor, or verbal humor in general. In this model, frame-shifting serves as a cognitive resolution mechanism in understanding humor, embodiment as a cognitive resolution basis, cognitive construal as an incongruity unpacking device, while relevance serves as a pragmatic inference mechanism to guarantee the proper direction of frame-shifting.
The present dissertation is composed of ten chapters, including the general introduction at the outset and the conclusion at the end. Chapters 2 and 3 offer a literature review of SI studies and humor research; Chapter 4 attempts to construct a theoretical framework for the study of SI humor; Chapter 5 gives a linguistic description of SI humor; Chapters 6 to 9 are devoted to the exploration of SI humor from the perspectives of frame-shifting, embodiment, cognitive construal, and relevance.
With various pioneering efforts in view, the present study is, on one hand, to piece together their findings concerning humor as well as SIs and incorporate them into a fuller and richer picture in the attempt to clear off some misunderstandings related to humor. On the other hand, we try to dig into the depth of SI humor from a broader perspective in the light of cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. Hopefully, the current study will provide a good initial orientation in the cognitive linguistic approach to humor, and have some theoretic and practical values for the humor research.
引文
Ackerman, B. (1983). Children's judgments of the functional acceptability of referential communications in discourse contexts. Journal of Child Language, 10, 151-166.
Alexander, R. J. (1997). Aspects of verbal humor in English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Atlas, J. & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (Ed.). Radical pragmatics (pp.1-61). New York: Academic Press.
Atlas, J. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atlas, J. (1990). Implicature and logical form: The sem antics-pragmatics interface. Lecture 3. Manuscript of lecture delivered at Second European Summer School in Language, Logic and Information. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Atlas, J. (1992). Why 'three' does not mean 3: Scalar implicatures, truthconditions, and meaning. Unpublished ms. Pomona.
Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revisited: Joke similarity and joke representational model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3), 293-347.
Attardo, S. (1988). Trends in European humor research: Toward a text model. Humor, 1(4), 349-369.
Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of Grice's maxims in jokes. In K. Hall et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 16th Berkeley Linguistics Society Conference (pp.355-362). Berkeley: Berkeley University Press.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1996). Humor. In J. Verschueren et al. (Eds.). Handbook of pragmatics (pp.1-18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 395-420.
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant appropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793-826.
Attardo, S. (2001a). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. (Series: Humor Research 6). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2001b). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri and G. Riva (Eds.). Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp.165-185). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. & Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3-46.
Bara, B., Tirassa, M. & Zettin, M. (1997). Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological constraints on formal theories of dialogue. Brain and Language, 59, 7-49.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Begg, I., & Harris, G. (1982). On the interpretation of syllogisms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21,595-620.
Bergen, B. and Binsted, B. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind. CSLI.
Bergen, B. and Chang, N. (2004). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. (?)stman and M. Fried (Eds.). Construction grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions.
Bergen, B., Narayan, B. and Feldman, J. (2003). Embodied verbal semantics: Evidence from an image-verb matching task. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Bernáidez, E. (1984). A textlinguistic approach to jokes. A paper presented at Proceedings of the AEDEAN Conference. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
Bever, T., Mehler, J., & Epstein, J. (1968). What children do in spite of what theyknow? Science, 162 (3856), 921-924.
Binsted, K. (1995). Using humor to make natural language interfaces more friendly. In H. Kitano (Ed.). Proceedings of the IJCAI workshop on AI and entertainment.
Binsted, K. (1996). Machine humor: An implemented model of puns. University of Edinburgh: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Black-well.
Blakemore, D. (1988). The organization of discourse. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.).Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (vol. 4, pp.229-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1989). Denial and contrast: A relevance-theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 15-37.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blank, A. (1999). Co-presence and succession: A cognitive typology of metonymy.In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. (1997). Linguistic cues in the acquisition of number words.Journal of Child Language, 24 (3), 511-533.
Blythe-Lord, R. (1999). Humor: Its contribution to learning and understanding in educational interactive programs. [http://www.ateliers.demon.co.uk/hu]
Boden, M. (1988). Computer models of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boster, C. and Crain, S. (1993). On children's understanding of every and or. Paper presented at Proceedings of Early Cognition and Transition to Language.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
Braine, M., & Rumain, B. (1981). Children's comprehension of "or": Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 46-70.
Bredin, H. (1984). Metonymy. Poetics Today, 5, 45-58.
Breheny, R. (1997). A unitary approach to the weak and strong interpretation of definites. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 23-37.
Bremmer, J. (1997). Jokes, jokers and joke books in ancient Greek culture (pp.11-28). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brownell, H. et al. (1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and Language, 18, 20-27.
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over. University of California at Berkeley:Unpublished MA thesis.
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.). Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.447-477). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Cairns, H. and C. Cairns. (1976). Psycholinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Campbell, R. (1981). language acquisition, psychological dualism and the definition of pragmatics. In H. Parret et al. (Eds.). Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp.93-103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to L2 teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards et al. (Eds). Language and communication (pp.2-28). London:Longman.
Carey, S. (2001). Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: Evolution and ontogenesis. Mind and Language, 16 (1), 37-55.
Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10(2),173-185.
Carston, R. (1985). A reanalysis of some 'quantity implicatures'. University College London: Unpublished ms.
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (Ed.). Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp.155-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.). (1991). Pragmatics: A reader (pp.33-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carston, R. (1990). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1-31. Reprinted in Lingua, 96 (1995), 213-244.
Carston, R. (1993). Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua, 90, 27-48.
Carston, R. (1994). Conjunction and pragmatic effects. In R. Asher (Ed.).Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 2, pp.692-698). Pergamon Press and Aberdeen University Press.
Carston, R. (1996a). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 61-88.
Carston, R. (1996b). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 309-330.
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Carston, R. (2001). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 1-35.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Casad, E. (1982). Cora locationals and structured imagery. University of California,San Diego: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Cassidy, K. (1998). Three-and four-year-old children's ability to use desire-and belief-based reasoning. Cognition, 66, 1-11.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1995). The elaboration of sociolinguistic competence implications for teacher education. In J. Alatis et al. (Eds.). Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics (pp.699-710). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Cetola, H. (1988). Toward a co t, cognitive-appraisal model of humor appreciation. Humor, 1(3), 245-258.
Chapman, A. & Foot, H. (Eds.). (1976). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications. London: John Wiley and Son.
Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 273-302.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analyzing verbal play. London:Routledge.
Chierchia, G. (2000). Scalar implicatures and polarity items. Paper presented at NELS 31, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Chierchia, G. (2001). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. University of Milan-Bicocca: Unpublished ms.
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In A. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds.). Proceedings of the 25th Boston University conference on language development (pp.157-168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalistprogram. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Derivation by phase. MIT Working Papers.
Chrisley, R. and Ziemke, T. (2002). Embodiment. Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp.1102-1108). Macmillan Publishers.
Clark, D. A. (1968). Jokes, puns and riddles. New York: Doubleday.
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359.
Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4),430-477.
Clark, H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores et al. (Eds.). The process of language understanding (pp.297-332). Chiehester: John Wiley and Sons.
Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472-517.
Clark, M. (1970). Humor and incongruity. In J. Morreall (Ed.). The philosophy of laughter and humor (pp.139-155). NY: New York Press.
Colston, H. & Keller, S. (1998). You'll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499-513.
Coulson, S. & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4),175-196.
Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. (2002). What's so funny: Conceptual integration in humorous examples. [http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/coulson/funstuff/funny.html].
Coulson, S. (2003). The fight stuff: Hemispheric asymmetry and joke comprehension. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
Crain, S, Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2000). The acquisition of logical words. LOGOS and Language, 1, 49-59.
Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Bresnan, J. Choe & J. McDonough (Eds.). Proceedings of the 15th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp.94-110). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & Wood, E. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In L.Albertazzi (Ed.). Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp.51-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curc(?), C. (1995). Some observations on the pragmatics of humorous interpretations: A relevance-theoretic approach. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 27-47.
Curco, C. (1996a). The implicit expression of attitudes, mutual manifestness and verbal humor. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8,89-99.
Curco, C. (1996b). Relevance theory and humorous interpretations. In J. Hulstijn et al. (Eds.). Automatic interpretation and generation of verbal humor (pp.87-101). Enschede: University of Twente.
Curco, C. (1997a). The pragmatics of humorous interpretations: A relevance-theoretic approach. UCL: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Curco, C. (1997b). Relevance and the manipulation of the incongruous: Some explorations of verbal humor. In M. Groefema (Ed.). Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop (pp. 68-72). Chelmsford: Peter Thomas and Associates.
Curco, C. (1998). Indirect echoes and verbal humor. In V. Rouchota et al. (Eds.). Current issues in relevance theory (pp.304-325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cutrer, M. (1994). Time and tense in narratives and everyday language. University of California, San Diego: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Dagge, M. & Hartje, W. (1985). Influence of contextual complexity on the processing of cartoons by patients with unilateral lesions. Cortex, 21, 607-616.
Davies, C. (1989a). Potential sources of cross-cultural pragmatic failure in German and American conversational style. Paper presented at Southeast Conference on Foreign Languages and Literatures. Winterhaven, FL.
Davies, C. (1989b). The role of sense of humor in the interactional construction of cross-cultural rapport. Paper presented at Southeastern Regional TESOL Conference. Raleigh, NC.
Davis, C. (187a). Cross-cultural 'joking'. Paper presented at First Conference of the International Pragmatics Association. Antwerp, Belgium.
Davis, C. (1987b). A pragmalinguistic analysis of non-serious communication. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Linguistics Society of America. San Francisco, CA.
Di Pietro, R. (1976). Language as human creation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U. Press.
Dirven, R. & Porings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. Leuvense Bijdragen, 82(1), 1-28.
Dolitsky, M. (1983). Humor and the unsaid. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 39-48.
Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspects of the unsaid in humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1), 33-43.
Evans, J. (1995). Relevance and reasoning. In S. E. Newstead & J. Evans (Eds.). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove: Laurence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. S. B., & Newstead, S. E. (1980). A study of disjunctive reasoning. Psychological Research, 41(4), 373-388.
Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (1996). Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UCSD Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.). Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113-130). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133-187.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 283-304.
Faucolmier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G. (1975a). Polarity and the Scale Principle. Paper presented at the 11th Regional Meeting of the CLS.
Fauconnier, G. (1975b). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353-375.
Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, N.Y.:Cambridge University Press.
Feyaerts, K. & Br(?)ne, G. (2002). Humor through 'double grounding': Structural interaction of optimality principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. lund (Eds.). The way we think (pp. 313-336). Odense: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
Feyaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy. in language and thought (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Feyaerts, K. (2000). Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 59-78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Or: Some uses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(5), 913-921.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111-137). Seoul: Hanshin Pub. Co.
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fretheim, T. (1992). The effect of intonation on a type of scalar implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 1-30.
Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and its relation to the unconscious. Leipzig: Deuticke.
Freud, S. (1957). Humor (Vol. 21, pp.161-166). Hogarth Press.
Frisson, S. & Picketing, M. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25-6, 1366-1383.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
Gelman, R. (1993). A rational-constructivist account of early learning about numbers and objects. In D. Medin (Ed.). Learning and motivation (Vol. 30, pp.61-96). New York: Academic Press.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gelman, R., & Greeno, J. (1989). On the nature of competence: Principles for understanding a domain. In L. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing and learning: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.125-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gerrig, R. & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15-4, 197-208.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Fds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Giles, H. et al. (1976). Cognitive aspects of humor in social interaction: A model and some linguistic data. In A.J. Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter (pp.139-154). N.Y.: Wiley.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol,14, 241-257.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999b). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12, 425-436.
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16,465-485.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31,919-929.
Giora, R. (2001). Irony and its discontent. In G. Steen & G. Schram (Eds.). Psychology of language: In honour of Elrud Ibsch (pp. 163-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R. (2002). Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock et al. (Eds.). The April Fools" Day workshop on computational humor: Proceedings of the twentieth twente workshop on language technology (Series TWTL 20, pp.11-28). Enschede: UT Service Centrum.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. et al. (2000). Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 63-83.
Glenberg, A., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 558-565.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, J. & McGhee, P. (Eds.) (1972). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York/London: Academic Press.
Goldstein, J. (1970). Humor appreciation and time to respond. Psychological Reports, 27, 445-446.
Goldstein, L. (1990). The linguistic interest of verbal humor. Humor, 3 (1), 37-52.
Goutsos, D. (1997). Modeling discourse topic: Sequential relations and strategies in expository text. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Graesser, A., Long, D. & Mio, J. (1989). What are the cognitive and conceptual components of humorous text? Poetics, 18, 143-163.
Green, M. (1995). Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 83-112.
Greeno, J., Riley, M., & Gelman, R. (1984). Conceptual competence and children's counting. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 94-134.
Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (supplementary vol. 35, pp.121-168). Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.224-247).
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.22-40).
Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.). Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.113-127). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.41-57).
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge,. MA: Harvard University Press.
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L, Chierchia, G., & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅺ. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1990). Givenness, implicature and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Proceedings of the 16th Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on the Legacy of Grice (pp.442-453).
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
Haiman, J. (1990). Sarcasm as theater. Cognitive Linguistics, 1-2: 181-205.
Hamamota, H. (1998). Irony from a cognitive perspective. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications (Pragmatics and beyond 37, pp.257-270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hancher, M. (1980). How to play games with words: Speech-act jokes. Journal of Literary Semantics, 9, 20-29.
Harder, P. (2003). Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 91-96.
Hamish, R. (1976). Logical form and implicature. In T. Bever, J. Katz & T. Langedoen (Eds.). An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp.313-391). New York: Crowell.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermtiller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Published 1991 in the series Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.
Hofstadter, D. & Gabora, L. (1989). Synopsis of the workshop on humor and cognition. Humor, 2(4), 417-440.
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Indiana University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Horn, L. (1973). Greek Grice: A brief survey of proto-conversational rules in the history of Logic. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.205-214). Chicago.
Horn, L. (1984a). A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). Meaning, form and use in context (GURT '84, pp.11-42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. (1984b). Toward a new taxonomy for scalar inference. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). GURT. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61,121-174.
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Horn, L. (1992). The said and the unsaid. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.). Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅱ (pp.163-192). Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
Horn, L. (1996). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp.299-319). Oxford: Blackwell.
Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. Wadsworth: Belmont,CA. 4th edition.
Huber, O. & Leder, H. (1997). Are more compact cartoons more humorous? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(1), 91-103.
H(?)nig, W. (2002). British and German cartoons as weapons in World War L Invectives and ideology of political cartoons: A cognitive linguistics approach. Bern/Frankfurt A.M.: Peter Lang.
Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L., & Gelman, R. (2002). Children's early knowledge of numbers and quantifiers. University of Pennsylvania: Unpublished manuscript.
Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619-666.
Iwanska, L. (1996). Toward a formal account of context-dependency and underspecificity of natural language. Paper given at AAAI Symposium on Computational Implicature, March 1996.
Javidi, V. C. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). A comparative analysis of teachers' use of dramatic style behaviors at higher and secondary education levels. Communication Education, 37, 278-288.
Jodlowiec, M. (1991a). The role of relevance in the interpretation of verbal jokes: A pragmatic analysis. Jagiellonian University, Krakow: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Jodlowiec, M. (1991b). What makes jokes tick. UCL Papers in Linguistics, 3,241-253.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 244-253.
Kadmon, N. and Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353-422.
Kalmykova, G. (2003). The problem of logico-semantic analysis of a joke: What do Russians laugh at? Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
Kant, I. (1790). Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin: Lagarde.
Kaplan, R. & Pascoe, G. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 61-65.
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The "What's X doing Y?" construction. Language, 75(1), 1-33.
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59-111.
Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language and Society, 5, 67-80.
Kempson, R. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In C. Travis (Ed.). Meaning and interpretation (pp.77-103). Oxford: Blackwell.
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymv and certain types of word formation. In G. Radden & K-U. Panther (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Koenig, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In E. Traugott et al. (Eds.). On conditionals (pp.229-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koenig, J. (1991). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago linguistic society 27, Part 2: Parasession on negation (pp.140-155).
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
K(?)vecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreitler, S., Drechsler, I. & Kreitler, H. (1988). How to kill jokes cognitively? The meaning structure of jokes. Semiotica, 68(3-4), 297-319.
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragrnatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209-257.
Kyratzis, S. (2003). Laughing metaphorically: Metaphor and humor in discourse. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrof(?)o:20-25 July 2003.
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Negative polarity as inherent scope. University of Texas at Austin: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lambrecht, K. & Michaelis, L. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The ease of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215-247.
Landman, F. (1995). Plurals and maximalization. In S. Rothstein (Ed.). Events and grammar. Kluwer.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langaeker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1),1-38.
Lea, R. B. (1995). On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21(6), 1469-1482.
Lea, R. B. et al. (1990). Predicting propositional logic inferences in text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(3), 361-387.
Lea, R. B., & Mulligan, E. J. (2002). The effect of negation on deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 303-317.
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.). The pragmatic perspective (pp.61-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379-434.
Levinson, S. (1988). Generalized conversational implicature and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Unpublished ms.
Levinson, S. (1989). A review of relevance. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 455-472.
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition, 84 (2), 113-154.
Liu, F. (1995). Humor as violations of the reality principle. Humor, 8 (2), 177-190.
Liu, M. (2004). To amuse with words: On the speech act of amusement in humorous communication. SHISU: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Long, D. & Graesser, A. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing.Discourse Processes, 11, 35-60.
Lundmark, C. (2003). Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.). Emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Mandelblit, N. (2000). The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From syntax to morphology. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 197-252.
Marino, M. (1988). Puns: The good, the bad, and the beautiful. Humor, 1 (1),39-48.
Markman, E., & Seibert, J. (1976). Classes and collections: Internal organization and resulting holistic properties. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 561-577.
Martin, M. (1983). Humor and aesthetic enjoyment of incongruities. British Journal of Aesthetics, 23, 74-85.
Martin, R. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.). The sense of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mart(?)n-Arrese, J. (2003). Humor as ideological struggle: The view from cognitive linguistics. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logro(?)o: 20-25 July 2003.
Matsumoto, Y. (1995). The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 21-60.
McDonald, S. (1999). Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language, 68, 486-506.
McGardgle, J., & Donaldson, M. (1975). Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3, 341-350.
Meyer, D. E. (1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 242-299.
Michaels, S. (1997). Cognitive and affective responses to humorous advertisements. Wayne State University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Mill, J. S. (1867). An examination of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy. (3rd Ed.) London: Longman.
Minsky, M. (1980). Jokes and the logic of the cognitive unconscious. AI Memo N 1603. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Minsky, M. (1980). Jokes and the logic of the cognitive unconscious. AI Memo No. 603. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mitchell, H., Graesser, A. & Louwerse, M. (2002). The effects of context on the appreciation and comprehension of jokes. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse Chicago: June 2002.
Monck, W. H. S. (1881). Sir William Hamilton. London: Sampson, Low.
Morreall, J. (1982). Language, logic, and laughter. In W. Gutwinski & G. Jolly (Eds.). The 8th Lacus Forum 1981 (pp. 341-349). Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
Morreall, J. (1987). The Philosophy of laughter and humor. New York: State University of New York Press.
Moxey, L. M., Sanford, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. J. (2001). Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 427-442.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Musolino, J. (2002). The linguistic representation of numeraUy quantified expressions in the preschool child. Indiana University: Unpublished ms.
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2002). Preschool logic: Truth and felicity in the acquisition of quantification. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H. J. Do (Eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Boston University conference on language development (pp.406-416). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics, 38 (1), 1-32.
Neale, S. (1992). Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 509-559.
Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 55-62). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Newstead, S. E. (1995). Gricean implicatures and syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Memory & Language, 34(5), 644-664.
Newstead, S. E., & Griggs, R. A. (1983). Drawing inferences from quantified statements: A study of the square of opposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 535-546.
Norrick, N. (1986). A frame-theoretic analysis of verbal humor: Bisociation as schema conflict. Semiotica, 60, 225-245.
Nordck, N. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N. (2001). On the conversational performance of narrative jokes: Toward an account of timing. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(3), 255-274.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognitio, 78(2), 165-188.
Noveck, I. A., Chierchia, G., Chevaux, F., Guelminger, R., & Sylvestre, E. (2002). Linguistic-pragmatic factors in interpreting disjunctions. Thinking and Reasoning, 8(4), 297-326.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109-132.
Oaks, D. (1994). Creating structural ambiguities in humor: Getting English grammar to cooperate. Humor, 7, 377-401.
Oberlander, J. & Knott, A. (1996). Issues in cue phrase implicature. Paper given at the AAAI-96 Spring Symposium on Computational Implicature, Stanford, March 1996.
O'Hair, S. (1969). Implications and meaning. Theoria, 35, 38-54.
Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge.
Panther, K. & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paolillo, J. (1998). Gary Larson's Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! Humor:International Journal of Humor Research, 11 (3), 261-290.
Papafragou, A. (1998). The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind and Language, 13 (3), 370-399.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Morality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface.Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.
Papafragou, A. (2002). Mind-reading and verbal communication. Mind and Language, 17 (1-2), 55-67.
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semanties-pragmaties interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282.
Paris, S. G. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 16(2), 278-291.
Paterson, K. B., Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Dawydiak, E. (1998). Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(2), 290-306.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, (10), 437-442.
Pepicello, W. & Weisberg, R. (1983). Linguistics and humor. In P.E. McGhee & J.H. Goldstein (Eds.). Handbook of humor research (pp. 59-84). N.Y./Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Pepicello, W. (1987). Pragmatics of humorous language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 65, 27-35.
Perlmutter, D. (2002). On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humor: The delicate balance. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(2), 155-168.
Politzer, G. (1986). Laws of language use and formal logic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 47-92.
Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguisfic Research, 20, 83-103.
Pollio, H. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In J.S. Mio & A.N. Katz (Eds.). Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 231-253). Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pulverm(?)ller, F., Haerle, M., & Hummel, F. (2001). Walking or talking: Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing. Brain and Language, 78, 143-168.
Radden, G. & K6vecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:D. Reidel.
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4,295-329.
Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Guess patterns in acquisition. UiL OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Richardson, J. F. and Richardson, A. W. (1990). On predicting pragmatic relations. Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, parasession on the legacy of Grice (pp.498-508).
Riemer, N. (2002). When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy? In R. Dirven & R. P(?)rings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 379-406). Berlin/N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rips, L. (1975). Quantification and semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology, 7(3),307-340.
Ritchie, G. (2003). Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrof(?)o: 20-25 July 2003.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure, plans and implicature. Talk given in the AAAI-96 Spring Symposium Series: Computational Implicature: Computational Approaches to Interpreting and Generating Conversational Implicature.
Rose, S., & Blank, M. (1974). The potency of context in children's cognition: An illustration through conservation. Child Development, 45, 499-502.
Rothbart, M. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 37-54). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Rubba, J. (1996). Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.). Spaces, worlds and grammar (pp. 227-261). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruch, W. (2002). Humor. In C. Peterson et al. (Eds.). The values in action (VIA) classification of strengths. Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1993). Towards an empirical verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 123-136.
Sadock, J. (1984). Whither radical pragmatics? In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Saeed, J. (1996). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Samuel, J., & Bryant, P. (1984). Asking only one question in the conservation experiment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 315-318.
Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (1996). Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 144-155.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (pp. 135-144). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Scharten, R. (1997). Exhaustive interpretation: A discourse-semantic account. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (Ed.). (1963). Europaische Schlusselworter. Band I: Humor und Witz. Munich, Germany: Huber.
Schopenhauer, A. (1819). Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellun g. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Schultz, T. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of humor. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 11-36). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Seuren, P. (1985). Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seuren, P. (1993). Why does 2 mean '2'? Grist to the anti-Grice mill. In E. Hajicova (Ed.). Functional description of language: Proceedings of the conference (Prague, Nov. 24-7, 1992, pp.225-235). Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague.
Shammi, P. & Stuss, D. (1999). Humor appreciation: A role of the fight frontal lobe. Brain, 122, 657-666.
Shank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Shatz, M. (1978). The relationship between cognitive processes and the development of communication skills. In C. Keasey (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp.1-42). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Shatz, M. (1980). Communication. In P. Mussen (Series Ed.) & J. Flavell, & E. Markman (Vol. Eds.). Handbook of chiM psychology: Cognitive development (Fol. 3, pp.841-889). New York: Wiley.
Shipley, E. (1979). The class inclusion task: Question form and distributive comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 301-331.
Siegal, M., Waters, L., & Dinwiddy, L. (1988). Misleading children: Causal attributions for inconsistency under repeated questioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 438-456.
Smith, C. L. (1980). Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191-205.
Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology of laughter. MacMillan's Magazine, 1, 395-402.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In S. Davis (Ed.). Pragmatics: A reader (1991, pp. 550-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986a). Loose talk. In S. Davis (Ed.). Pragmatic.s: A reader (1991, pp.540-549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What is intelligence? (pp.179-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986b). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1987). Precis of relevance: Communication and cognition, and open peer commentary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697-754.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995a). Postface. In D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995b). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
Spivey, M. & Geng, J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235-241.
Staley, R. & Derks, P. (1995). Structural incongruity and humor appreciation. Humor, 8, 97-134.
Stanfield, R. & Zwaan, R. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. Panther and L. Thomburg (Eds.). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. John Benjamins.
Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.
Strawson, P. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-value. Theoria, 30, 96-118. Reprinted in Strawson, P. (Ed.). (1971). Logico-Linguistic Papers (pp.75-95). London: Methuen & Co.
Suls, J. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In J.H. Goldstein & P.E. McGhee (Eds.). The Psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81-100). New York/London: Academic Press.
Suls, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P.E. McGhee & J.H.Goldstein (Eds.). Handbook of humor research (pp. 39-58). N.Y./Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Sweetser, E. (2000). Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 305-334.
Talmy, L. (1975). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In C. Cogen et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 419-430). Berkeley (Ca.).
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Tanaka, K. (1992). The pun in advertising: A pragmatic approach. Lingua, 87, 91-102.
Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising language: A pragmatic approach to advertisements in British and Japan. London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thompson, V. (2000). The task specific nature of domain-general reasoning. Cognition, 76, 209-268.
Thornton, R. and Wexler, K. (1999). VP ellipsis. MA: MIT Press.
Travis, C. (1985). On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 187-229.
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hilland, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying online sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89-134.
Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
Vaid, J. et al. (2003). Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1431-1449.
van der Auwera, J. (1997). Conditional perfection. In A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (Eds.). On conditionals again (pp.169-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1991). Topic en comment. Expliciete en Impliciete Vraagstelling in Discourse. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Unpublished PhD thesis.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31,109-147.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1996a). Inferring from topics: Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 393-343.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1996b). In defense of semantics: Scalar inferences as topic-dependent entailments. In B. Di Eugenio et al. (Eds.). AAAI Spring symposium on computational implicature: Computational approaches to interpreting and generating conversational implicature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Veale, T. & O'Donoghue, D. (2000). Computation and blending. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 253-282.
Veale, T. (n. d.). Metaphor and metonymy: The cognitive trump-cards of linguistic humor. Unpublished ms.
Vega, G. (1990). Cross-cultural communication missteps. Text, 10, 385-411.
Wainer, J. and Maida, A. (1990). Good and bad news in formalizing generalized implicatures. Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on the legacy of Grice (pp.530-540).
Webb, K. (Ed.). (1978). The crack-α-joke book. CA: Puffin.
Welker, K. (1994). Plans in the common ground: Toward a generative account of implicature. The Ohio State University: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Whiten, A. (Ed.). (1991). Natural theories of mind. Oxford: Blackwen.
Wilson, D. (1995). Is there a maxim of truthfulness? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 197-212.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993a). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90,1-25.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993b). Pragmatics and time. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 277-298.
Wynn, K.(1992). Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220-251.
Yamaguchi, H. (1988). How to pull strings with words: Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 323-337.
Yus, F. (1995a). La significaci(?)n social de les máximas de Grice: El caso del comic alternative ingles. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 30-31,109-128.
Yus, F. (1995b). Conversational cooperation in alternative comics. University of Alicante: Unpublished ms.
Yus, F. (1998a). A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 30,305-345.
Yus, F. (1998b). Relevance: A thematic bibliographical list. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11,261-285.
Yus, F. (1998c). Relevance theory and media discourse: A verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics, 25, 293-309.
Yus, F, (2001). Literal/non-literal and the processing of verbal humor. Pragmalinguistica.
Yus, F. (2003). Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9),1295-1332.
Zigler, E., Levine, E. and Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children's humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,332-336.
Ziv, A. (1983). The influence of humorous atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 68-75.
Zwaan, R., Stanfield, R. & Yaxley, R. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.
蔡辉，尹星．(2005)．西方幽默理论研究综述．《外语研究》，1，5-8．
陈光亚．(2003)．浅析幽默短信的特征．《修辞学习》，6，34-36．
傅远碧．(2005)．手机短信特征探微．《修辞学习》，6，41-43．
龚卫东．(2006)．广义梯级含义理论及其运用．上海：外国语大学博士学位论文．
何文忠．(2003)．论话语交际中的幽默原则．《外语教学》，4，11-16．
何兆熊等．(2000)．《新编语用学概要》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
姜望琪．(2003)．《当代语用学》．北京：北京大学出版社．
蒋澄生，廖定中．(2005)．试析幽默的语用理据．《外语教学》．5，26-29．
蒋勇，侯国金．(2004)．对比参照点的语用功能．《外语教学》，3，9-14．
蒋勇，刘国辉．(2004)．最佳关联与幽默中的语义跃迁．《外国语言文学研究》，4，1-7．
蒋勇，马玉蕾．(2003)．CB与RT的整合性研究．《外语学刊》，1，31-36．
蒋勇．(2004a)，．夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能．《现代外语》，3，73-81．
蒋勇．(2004b)．虚拟思维在会话中的功能．<外语学刊》，3，16-23．
李兰萍．(2002)．语用原则与英语幽默．《天津外国语学院学报》，2，32-36．
栗静云．(2005)．《中国传统笑话》．银川：宁夏人民出版社．
刘苹．(2005)．言语幽默的语言学研究综述．《湘潭大学学报》(社科版)．5，152-154．
刘国辉．(2006)．言语幽默生成机制的认知探究．《四川外语学院学报》，2，135-139．
刘乃实，熊学亮．(2003)．浅析言语幽默的维护面子功能．《外语教学》，6，10-13．
刘乃实．(2005)．关联理论视角中的幽默乖讹与消解．《解放军外国语学院学 报》，28(1)，16-20．
吕光旦．(1988)．英语幽默的语用分析．《外国语》，1，53-56．
南佐民．(2000)．会话幽默的语义作用过程解析．《外语与外语教学》，11，18-20．
师静．(2000)．英语幽默中的歧义现象．《解放军外国语学院学报》，23(3)，35-37．
谭达人．(1997)．《幽默与言语幽默》．北京：三联书店．
王金玲，闰铁煜．(2004)．论幽默话语的语用语义特征．《外语学刊》，121(6)，63-65．
王金玲．(2002)．论幽默语言的特征与技巧．《外语教学》，110(3)，58-63．
王文斌，林波．(2003)．英语幽默言语的认知语用探究——兼论RT与CB的互补性．《外国语》，4，32-38．
王寅．(2005)．《认知语言学探索》．重庆：重庆出版社．
王寅．(2006)．《认知语法概论》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
王寅．(2007)．《认知语用学》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
王勇．(2001)．由关联理论看幽默言语．《外语教学》，1，23-27．
项成东，韩炜．(2003)．语篇象似性及其认知基础．《外语研究》，2，37-42．
项成东．(2001)，．歧义的功能．《外语教学》，2，82-85．
项成东．(2002)．歧义的语用研究．《外语教学》，4，35-40．
项成东. (2003a). Developing Learners' Cultural Capacity in TEFL in China. Teaching English in China, 3, 96-99.
项成东. (2003b). Pragmatic ambivalence and TEFL. Journal of International Languages Teaching and Studies, 4, 130-131.
项成东．(2003c)．歧义的认知机制．《四川外语学院学报》，3，80-84．
项成东．(2003d)．语篇模糊与空间映射理论．《外语与外语教学》，6，12-16．
项成东．(2004a)．《英汉歧义的动态研究》．哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社．
项成东．(2004b)．代词性和指示性间接回指语及其认知基础．《外语与外语教学》，2，10-14．
项成东．(2004c)．间接回指与语篇理解．《四川外国语学院学报》，3，87-90．
项成东．(2004d)．间接照应及其认知语用推理．《西安外国语学院学报》，3， 5-9．
项成东．(2006a)．相互理解的会话机制及其语用逻辑．《四川外语学院学报》，3，59-6
项成东．(2006b)．言语行为理论在会话分析中的运用及存在的问题．《外语与外语教学》，3，11-14．
项成东．(2006c)．元交际条件句的语用认知研究．《外国语》，6，46-50．
项成东．(2006a)．等级含义的语用研究综述．《当代语言学》，4，22-31．
项成东．(2007)．等级含意的关联解释．《外语与文化研究》(论文集)．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
徐庆利，王福祥．(2002)．关联理论对幽默言语及其翻译的诠释力．《外语教学》，5，21-25．
徐晓萍．(2005)．心智空间演绎最佳关联原则—以幽默的解析为例．《外语学刊》，3，11-17．
叶文玉．(1994)．浅谈讥讽在口语中的幽默效果．《外国语》，4，70-71．
俞东明．(1997)．语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究．《外国语》，6，18-23．
张春萍．(2005)．利用关联理论透析幽默语言．《学术交流》，11，140-141．
赵一农．(2002)．有标记语码转换的幽默功能．《外语学刊》，3，52-57．
Alexander, R. J. (1997). Aspects of verbal humor in English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Atlas, J. & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (Ed.). Radical pragmatics (pp.1-61). New York: Academic Press.
Atlas, J. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atlas, J. (1990). Implicature and logical form: The sem antics-pragmatics interface. Lecture 3. Manuscript of lecture delivered at Second European Summer School in Language, Logic and Information. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Atlas, J. (1992). Why 'three' does not mean 3: Scalar implicatures, truthconditions, and meaning. Unpublished ms. Pomona.
Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revisited: Joke similarity and joke representational model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3), 293-347.
Attardo, S. (1988). Trends in European humor research: Toward a text model. Humor, 1(4), 349-369.
Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of Grice's maxims in jokes. In K. Hall et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 16th Berkeley Linguistics Society Conference (pp.355-362). Berkeley: Berkeley University Press.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1996). Humor. In J. Verschueren et al. (Eds.). Handbook of pragmatics (pp.1-18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4), 395-420.
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant appropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793-826.
Attardo, S. (2001a). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. (Series: Humor Research 6). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2001b). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri and G. Riva (Eds.). Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp.165-185). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. & Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3-46.
Bara, B., Tirassa, M. & Zettin, M. (1997). Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological constraints on formal theories of dialogue. Brain and Language, 59, 7-49.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Begg, I., & Harris, G. (1982). On the interpretation of syllogisms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21,595-620.
Bergen, B. and Binsted, B. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind. CSLI.
Bergen, B. and Chang, N. (2004). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. (?)stman and M. Fried (Eds.). Construction grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions.
Bergen, B., Narayan, B. and Feldman, J. (2003). Embodied verbal semantics: Evidence from an image-verb matching task. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Bernáidez, E. (1984). A textlinguistic approach to jokes. A paper presented at Proceedings of the AEDEAN Conference. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.
Bever, T., Mehler, J., & Epstein, J. (1968). What children do in spite of what theyknow? Science, 162 (3856), 921-924.
Binsted, K. (1995). Using humor to make natural language interfaces more friendly. In H. Kitano (Ed.). Proceedings of the IJCAI workshop on AI and entertainment.
Binsted, K. (1996). Machine humor: An implemented model of puns. University of Edinburgh: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Black-well.
Blakemore, D. (1988). The organization of discourse. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.).Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (vol. 4, pp.229-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1989). Denial and contrast: A relevance-theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 15-37.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blank, A. (1999). Co-presence and succession: A cognitive typology of metonymy.In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. (1997). Linguistic cues in the acquisition of number words.Journal of Child Language, 24 (3), 511-533.
Blythe-Lord, R. (1999). Humor: Its contribution to learning and understanding in educational interactive programs. [http://www.ateliers.demon.co.uk/hu]
Boden, M. (1988). Computer models of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boster, C. and Crain, S. (1993). On children's understanding of every and or. Paper presented at Proceedings of Early Cognition and Transition to Language.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
Braine, M., & Rumain, B. (1981). Children's comprehension of "or": Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 46-70.
Bredin, H. (1984). Metonymy. Poetics Today, 5, 45-58.
Breheny, R. (1997). A unitary approach to the weak and strong interpretation of definites. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 23-37.
Bremmer, J. (1997). Jokes, jokers and joke books in ancient Greek culture (pp.11-28). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brownell, H. et al. (1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and Language, 18, 20-27.
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over. University of California at Berkeley:Unpublished MA thesis.
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994). Understanding figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.). Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.447-477). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Cairns, H. and C. Cairns. (1976). Psycholinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Campbell, R. (1981). language acquisition, psychological dualism and the definition of pragmatics. In H. Parret et al. (Eds.). Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp.93-103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to L2 teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards et al. (Eds). Language and communication (pp.2-28). London:Longman.
Carey, S. (2001). Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: Evolution and ontogenesis. Mind and Language, 16 (1), 37-55.
Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10(2),173-185.
Carston, R. (1985). A reanalysis of some 'quantity implicatures'. University College London: Unpublished ms.
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (Ed.). Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp.155-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.). (1991). Pragmatics: A reader (pp.33-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carston, R. (1990). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1-31. Reprinted in Lingua, 96 (1995), 213-244.
Carston, R. (1993). Conjunction, explanation and relevance. Lingua, 90, 27-48.
Carston, R. (1994). Conjunction and pragmatic effects. In R. Asher (Ed.).Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 2, pp.692-698). Pergamon Press and Aberdeen University Press.
Carston, R. (1996a). Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 61-88.
Carston, R. (1996b). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 309-330.
Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Carston, R. (2001). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 1-35.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Casad, E. (1982). Cora locationals and structured imagery. University of California,San Diego: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Cassidy, K. (1998). Three-and four-year-old children's ability to use desire-and belief-based reasoning. Cognition, 66, 1-11.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1995). The elaboration of sociolinguistic competence implications for teacher education. In J. Alatis et al. (Eds.). Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics (pp.699-710). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Cetola, H. (1988). Toward a co t, cognitive-appraisal model of humor appreciation. Humor, 1(3), 245-258.
Chapman, A. & Foot, H. (Eds.). (1976). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications. London: John Wiley and Son.
Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 273-302.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analyzing verbal play. London:Routledge.
Chierchia, G. (2000). Scalar implicatures and polarity items. Paper presented at NELS 31, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Chierchia, G. (2001). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. University of Milan-Bicocca: Unpublished ms.
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In A. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds.). Proceedings of the 25th Boston University conference on language development (pp.157-168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalistprogram. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Derivation by phase. MIT Working Papers.
Chrisley, R. and Ziemke, T. (2002). Embodiment. Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp.1102-1108). Macmillan Publishers.
Clark, D. A. (1968). Jokes, puns and riddles. New York: Doubleday.
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359.
Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4),430-477.
Clark, H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores et al. (Eds.). The process of language understanding (pp.297-332). Chiehester: John Wiley and Sons.
Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472-517.
Clark, M. (1970). Humor and incongruity. In J. Morreall (Ed.). The philosophy of laughter and humor (pp.139-155). NY: New York Press.
Colston, H. & Keller, S. (1998). You'll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499-513.
Coulson, S. & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: Human event-related brain response to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters, 316, 71-74.
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4),175-196.
Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. (2002). What's so funny: Conceptual integration in humorous examples. [http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/coulson/funstuff/funny.html].
Coulson, S. (2003). The fight stuff: Hemispheric asymmetry and joke comprehension. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
Crain, S, Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2000). The acquisition of logical words. LOGOS and Language, 1, 49-59.
Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Bresnan, J. Choe & J. McDonough (Eds.). Proceedings of the 15th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp.94-110). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & Wood, E. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In L.Albertazzi (Ed.). Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp.51-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curc(?), C. (1995). Some observations on the pragmatics of humorous interpretations: A relevance-theoretic approach. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 27-47.
Curco, C. (1996a). The implicit expression of attitudes, mutual manifestness and verbal humor. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8,89-99.
Curco, C. (1996b). Relevance theory and humorous interpretations. In J. Hulstijn et al. (Eds.). Automatic interpretation and generation of verbal humor (pp.87-101). Enschede: University of Twente.
Curco, C. (1997a). The pragmatics of humorous interpretations: A relevance-theoretic approach. UCL: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Curco, C. (1997b). Relevance and the manipulation of the incongruous: Some explorations of verbal humor. In M. Groefema (Ed.). Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop (pp. 68-72). Chelmsford: Peter Thomas and Associates.
Curco, C. (1998). Indirect echoes and verbal humor. In V. Rouchota et al. (Eds.). Current issues in relevance theory (pp.304-325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cutrer, M. (1994). Time and tense in narratives and everyday language. University of California, San Diego: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Dagge, M. & Hartje, W. (1985). Influence of contextual complexity on the processing of cartoons by patients with unilateral lesions. Cortex, 21, 607-616.
Davies, C. (1989a). Potential sources of cross-cultural pragmatic failure in German and American conversational style. Paper presented at Southeast Conference on Foreign Languages and Literatures. Winterhaven, FL.
Davies, C. (1989b). The role of sense of humor in the interactional construction of cross-cultural rapport. Paper presented at Southeastern Regional TESOL Conference. Raleigh, NC.
Davis, C. (187a). Cross-cultural 'joking'. Paper presented at First Conference of the International Pragmatics Association. Antwerp, Belgium.
Davis, C. (1987b). A pragmalinguistic analysis of non-serious communication. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Linguistics Society of America. San Francisco, CA.
Di Pietro, R. (1976). Language as human creation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U. Press.
Dirven, R. & Porings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. Leuvense Bijdragen, 82(1), 1-28.
Dolitsky, M. (1983). Humor and the unsaid. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 39-48.
Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspects of the unsaid in humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1), 33-43.
Evans, J. (1995). Relevance and reasoning. In S. E. Newstead & J. Evans (Eds.). Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Hove: Laurence Erlbaum.
Evans, J. S. B., & Newstead, S. E. (1980). A study of disjunctive reasoning. Psychological Research, 41(4), 373-388.
Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (1996). Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UCSD Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.). Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113-130). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133-187.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 283-304.
Faucolmier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G. (1975a). Polarity and the Scale Principle. Paper presented at the 11th Regional Meeting of the CLS.
Fauconnier, G. (1975b). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353-375.
Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, N.Y.:Cambridge University Press.
Feyaerts, K. & Br(?)ne, G. (2002). Humor through 'double grounding': Structural interaction of optimality principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. lund (Eds.). The way we think (pp. 313-336). Odense: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
Feyaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy. in language and thought (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Feyaerts, K. (2000). Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 59-78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Or: Some uses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(5), 913-921.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111-137). Seoul: Hanshin Pub. Co.
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fretheim, T. (1992). The effect of intonation on a type of scalar implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 1-30.
Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and its relation to the unconscious. Leipzig: Deuticke.
Freud, S. (1957). Humor (Vol. 21, pp.161-166). Hogarth Press.
Frisson, S. & Picketing, M. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25-6, 1366-1383.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
Gelman, R. (1993). A rational-constructivist account of early learning about numbers and objects. In D. Medin (Ed.). Learning and motivation (Vol. 30, pp.61-96). New York: Academic Press.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gelman, R., & Greeno, J. (1989). On the nature of competence: Principles for understanding a domain. In L. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing and learning: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.125-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gerrig, R. & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15-4, 197-208.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Fds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Giles, H. et al. (1976). Cognitive aspects of humor in social interaction: A model and some linguistic data. In A.J. Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter (pp.139-154). N.Y.: Wiley.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999a). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol,14, 241-257.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999b). Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 12, 425-436.
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16,465-485.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31,919-929.
Giora, R. (2001). Irony and its discontent. In G. Steen & G. Schram (Eds.). Psychology of language: In honour of Elrud Ibsch (pp. 163-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R. (2002). Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock et al. (Eds.). The April Fools" Day workshop on computational humor: Proceedings of the twentieth twente workshop on language technology (Series TWTL 20, pp.11-28). Enschede: UT Service Centrum.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. et al. (2000). Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 63-83.
Glenberg, A., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 558-565.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, J. & McGhee, P. (Eds.) (1972). The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York/London: Academic Press.
Goldstein, J. (1970). Humor appreciation and time to respond. Psychological Reports, 27, 445-446.
Goldstein, L. (1990). The linguistic interest of verbal humor. Humor, 3 (1), 37-52.
Goutsos, D. (1997). Modeling discourse topic: Sequential relations and strategies in expository text. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Graesser, A., Long, D. & Mio, J. (1989). What are the cognitive and conceptual components of humorous text? Poetics, 18, 143-163.
Green, M. (1995). Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 83-112.
Greeno, J., Riley, M., & Gelman, R. (1984). Conceptual competence and children's counting. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 94-134.
Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (supplementary vol. 35, pp.121-168). Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.224-247).
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.22-40).
Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.). Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.113-127). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice 1989 (pp.41-57).
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge,. MA: Harvard University Press.
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L, Chierchia, G., & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅺ. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1990). Givenness, implicature and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Proceedings of the 16th Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on the Legacy of Grice (pp.442-453).
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
Haiman, J. (1990). Sarcasm as theater. Cognitive Linguistics, 1-2: 181-205.
Hamamota, H. (1998). Irony from a cognitive perspective. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.). Relevance theory: Applications and implications (Pragmatics and beyond 37, pp.257-270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hancher, M. (1980). How to play games with words: Speech-act jokes. Journal of Literary Semantics, 9, 20-29.
Harder, P. (2003). Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 91-96.
Hamish, R. (1976). Logical form and implicature. In T. Bever, J. Katz & T. Langedoen (Eds.). An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp.313-391). New York: Crowell.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermtiller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Published 1991 in the series Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.
Hofstadter, D. & Gabora, L. (1989). Synopsis of the workshop on humor and cognition. Humor, 2(4), 417-440.
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Indiana University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Horn, L. (1973). Greek Grice: A brief survey of proto-conversational rules in the history of Logic. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.205-214). Chicago.
Horn, L. (1984a). A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). Meaning, form and use in context (GURT '84, pp.11-42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. (1984b). Toward a new taxonomy for scalar inference. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). GURT. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61,121-174.
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Horn, L. (1992). The said and the unsaid. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.). Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅱ (pp.163-192). Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
Horn, L. (1996). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp.299-319). Oxford: Blackwell.
Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. Wadsworth: Belmont,CA. 4th edition.
Huber, O. & Leder, H. (1997). Are more compact cartoons more humorous? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(1), 91-103.
H(?)nig, W. (2002). British and German cartoons as weapons in World War L Invectives and ideology of political cartoons: A cognitive linguistics approach. Bern/Frankfurt A.M.: Peter Lang.
Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L., & Gelman, R. (2002). Children's early knowledge of numbers and quantifiers. University of Pennsylvania: Unpublished manuscript.
Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619-666.
Iwanska, L. (1996). Toward a formal account of context-dependency and underspecificity of natural language. Paper given at AAAI Symposium on Computational Implicature, March 1996.
Javidi, V. C. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). A comparative analysis of teachers' use of dramatic style behaviors at higher and secondary education levels. Communication Education, 37, 278-288.
Jodlowiec, M. (1991a). The role of relevance in the interpretation of verbal jokes: A pragmatic analysis. Jagiellonian University, Krakow: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Jodlowiec, M. (1991b). What makes jokes tick. UCL Papers in Linguistics, 3,241-253.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 244-253.
Kadmon, N. and Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353-422.
Kalmykova, G. (2003). The problem of logico-semantic analysis of a joke: What do Russians laugh at? Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
Kant, I. (1790). Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin: Lagarde.
Kaplan, R. & Pascoe, G. (1977). Humorous lectures and humorous examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 61-65.
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The "What's X doing Y?" construction. Language, 75(1), 1-33.
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59-111.
Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language and Society, 5, 67-80.
Kempson, R. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In C. Travis (Ed.). Meaning and interpretation (pp.77-103). Oxford: Blackwell.
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymv and certain types of word formation. In G. Radden & K-U. Panther (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Koenig, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In E. Traugott et al. (Eds.). On conditionals (pp.229-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koenig, J. (1991). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. Chicago linguistic society 27, Part 2: Parasession on negation (pp.140-155).
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
K(?)vecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreitler, S., Drechsler, I. & Kreitler, H. (1988). How to kill jokes cognitively? The meaning structure of jokes. Semiotica, 68(3-4), 297-319.
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragrnatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209-257.
Kyratzis, S. (2003). Laughing metaphorically: Metaphor and humor in discourse. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrof(?)o:20-25 July 2003.
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Negative polarity as inherent scope. University of Texas at Austin: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lambrecht, K. & Michaelis, L. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The ease of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215-247.
Landman, F. (1995). Plurals and maximalization. In S. Rothstein (Ed.). Events and grammar. Kluwer.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langaeker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1),1-38.
Lea, R. B. (1995). On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21(6), 1469-1482.
Lea, R. B. et al. (1990). Predicting propositional logic inferences in text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(3), 361-387.
Lea, R. B., & Mulligan, E. J. (2002). The effect of negation on deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 303-317.
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.). The pragmatic perspective (pp.61-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379-434.
Levinson, S. (1988). Generalized conversational implicature and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Unpublished ms.
Levinson, S. (1989). A review of relevance. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 455-472.
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition, 84 (2), 113-154.
Liu, F. (1995). Humor as violations of the reality principle. Humor, 8 (2), 177-190.
Liu, M. (2004). To amuse with words: On the speech act of amusement in humorous communication. SHISU: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Long, D. & Graesser, A. (1988). Wit and humor in discourse processing.Discourse Processes, 11, 35-60.
Lundmark, C. (2003). Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrofio: 20-25 July 2003.
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.). Emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Mandelblit, N. (2000). The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From syntax to morphology. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 197-252.
Marino, M. (1988). Puns: The good, the bad, and the beautiful. Humor, 1 (1),39-48.
Markman, E., & Seibert, J. (1976). Classes and collections: Internal organization and resulting holistic properties. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 561-577.
Martin, M. (1983). Humor and aesthetic enjoyment of incongruities. British Journal of Aesthetics, 23, 74-85.
Martin, R. (1998). Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.). The sense of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mart(?)n-Arrese, J. (2003). Humor as ideological struggle: The view from cognitive linguistics. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logro(?)o: 20-25 July 2003.
Matsumoto, Y. (1995). The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 21-60.
McDonald, S. (1999). Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language, 68, 486-506.
McGardgle, J., & Donaldson, M. (1975). Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3, 341-350.
Meyer, D. E. (1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 242-299.
Michaels, S. (1997). Cognitive and affective responses to humorous advertisements. Wayne State University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Mill, J. S. (1867). An examination of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy. (3rd Ed.) London: Longman.
Minsky, M. (1980). Jokes and the logic of the cognitive unconscious. AI Memo N 1603. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Minsky, M. (1980). Jokes and the logic of the cognitive unconscious. AI Memo No. 603. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mitchell, H., Graesser, A. & Louwerse, M. (2002). The effects of context on the appreciation and comprehension of jokes. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse Chicago: June 2002.
Monck, W. H. S. (1881). Sir William Hamilton. London: Sampson, Low.
Morreall, J. (1982). Language, logic, and laughter. In W. Gutwinski & G. Jolly (Eds.). The 8th Lacus Forum 1981 (pp. 341-349). Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
Morreall, J. (1987). The Philosophy of laughter and humor. New York: State University of New York Press.
Moxey, L. M., Sanford, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. J. (2001). Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 427-442.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Musolino, J. (2002). The linguistic representation of numeraUy quantified expressions in the preschool child. Indiana University: Unpublished ms.
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2002). Preschool logic: Truth and felicity in the acquisition of quantification. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H. J. Do (Eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Boston University conference on language development (pp.406-416). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics, 38 (1), 1-32.
Neale, S. (1992). Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 509-559.
Nerhardt, G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 55-62). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Newstead, S. E. (1995). Gricean implicatures and syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Memory & Language, 34(5), 644-664.
Newstead, S. E., & Griggs, R. A. (1983). Drawing inferences from quantified statements: A study of the square of opposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 535-546.
Norrick, N. (1986). A frame-theoretic analysis of verbal humor: Bisociation as schema conflict. Semiotica, 60, 225-245.
Nordck, N. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N. (2001). On the conversational performance of narrative jokes: Toward an account of timing. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14(3), 255-274.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognitio, 78(2), 165-188.
Noveck, I. A., Chierchia, G., Chevaux, F., Guelminger, R., & Sylvestre, E. (2002). Linguistic-pragmatic factors in interpreting disjunctions. Thinking and Reasoning, 8(4), 297-326.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109-132.
Oaks, D. (1994). Creating structural ambiguities in humor: Getting English grammar to cooperate. Humor, 7, 377-401.
Oberlander, J. & Knott, A. (1996). Issues in cue phrase implicature. Paper given at the AAAI-96 Spring Symposium on Computational Implicature, Stanford, March 1996.
O'Hair, S. (1969). Implications and meaning. Theoria, 35, 38-54.
Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge.
Panther, K. & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paolillo, J. (1998). Gary Larson's Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! Humor:International Journal of Humor Research, 11 (3), 261-290.
Papafragou, A. (1998). The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind and Language, 13 (3), 370-399.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Morality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface.Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.
Papafragou, A. (2002). Mind-reading and verbal communication. Mind and Language, 17 (1-2), 55-67.
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semanties-pragmaties interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282.
Paris, S. G. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 16(2), 278-291.
Paterson, K. B., Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Dawydiak, E. (1998). Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(2), 290-306.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, (10), 437-442.
Pepicello, W. & Weisberg, R. (1983). Linguistics and humor. In P.E. McGhee & J.H. Goldstein (Eds.). Handbook of humor research (pp. 59-84). N.Y./Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Pepicello, W. (1987). Pragmatics of humorous language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 65, 27-35.
Perlmutter, D. (2002). On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humor: The delicate balance. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(2), 155-168.
Politzer, G. (1986). Laws of language use and formal logic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 47-92.
Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguisfic Research, 20, 83-103.
Pollio, H. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In J.S. Mio & A.N. Katz (Eds.). Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 231-253). Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pulverm(?)ller, F., Haerle, M., & Hummel, F. (2001). Walking or talking: Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing. Brain and Language, 78, 143-168.
Radden, G. & K6vecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:D. Reidel.
Recanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4,295-329.
Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Guess patterns in acquisition. UiL OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Richardson, J. F. and Richardson, A. W. (1990). On predicting pragmatic relations. Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, parasession on the legacy of Grice (pp.498-508).
Riemer, N. (2002). When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy? In R. Dirven & R. P(?)rings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 379-406). Berlin/N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rips, L. (1975). Quantification and semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology, 7(3),307-340.
Ritchie, G. (2003). Reinterpretation and viewpoints. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logrof(?)o: 20-25 July 2003.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure, plans and implicature. Talk given in the AAAI-96 Spring Symposium Series: Computational Implicature: Computational Approaches to Interpreting and Generating Conversational Implicature.
Rose, S., & Blank, M. (1974). The potency of context in children's cognition: An illustration through conservation. Child Development, 45, 499-502.
Rothbart, M. (1976). Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 37-54). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Rubba, J. (1996). Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.). Spaces, worlds and grammar (pp. 227-261). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruch, W. (2002). Humor. In C. Peterson et al. (Eds.). The values in action (VIA) classification of strengths. Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1993). Towards an empirical verification of the General Theory of Verbal Humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(2), 123-136.
Sadock, J. (1984). Whither radical pragmatics? In D. Schiffrin (Ed.). Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Saeed, J. (1996). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Samuel, J., & Bryant, P. (1984). Asking only one question in the conservation experiment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 315-318.
Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (1996). Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 144-155.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (pp. 135-144). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Scharten, R. (1997). Exhaustive interpretation: A discourse-semantic account. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Schmidt-Hidding, W. (Ed.). (1963). Europaische Schlusselworter. Band I: Humor und Witz. Munich, Germany: Huber.
Schopenhauer, A. (1819). Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellun g. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Schultz, T. (1976). A cognitive-developmental analysis of humor. In A.J Chapman & H.C. Foot (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 11-36). London/N.Y.: Wiley & Sons.
Seuren, P. (1985). Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seuren, P. (1993). Why does 2 mean '2'? Grist to the anti-Grice mill. In E. Hajicova (Ed.). Functional description of language: Proceedings of the conference (Prague, Nov. 24-7, 1992, pp.225-235). Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague.
Shammi, P. & Stuss, D. (1999). Humor appreciation: A role of the fight frontal lobe. Brain, 122, 657-666.
Shank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Shatz, M. (1978). The relationship between cognitive processes and the development of communication skills. In C. Keasey (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp.1-42). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Shatz, M. (1980). Communication. In P. Mussen (Series Ed.) & J. Flavell, & E. Markman (Vol. Eds.). Handbook of chiM psychology: Cognitive development (Fol. 3, pp.841-889). New York: Wiley.
Shipley, E. (1979). The class inclusion task: Question form and distributive comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 301-331.
Siegal, M., Waters, L., & Dinwiddy, L. (1988). Misleading children: Causal attributions for inconsistency under repeated questioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 438-456.
Smith, C. L. (1980). Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191-205.
Spencer, H. (1860). The physiology of laughter. MacMillan's Magazine, 1, 395-402.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In S. Davis (Ed.). Pragmatics: A reader (1991, pp. 550-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986a). Loose talk. In S. Davis (Ed.). Pragmatic.s: A reader (1991, pp.540-549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What is intelligence? (pp.179-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986b). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1987). Precis of relevance: Communication and cognition, and open peer commentary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697-754.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995a). Postface. In D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995b). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
Spivey, M. & Geng, J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235-241.
Staley, R. & Derks, P. (1995). Structural incongruity and humor appreciation. Humor, 8, 97-134.
Stanfield, R. & Zwaan, R. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. Panther and L. Thomburg (Eds.). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. John Benjamins.
Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.
Strawson, P. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-value. Theoria, 30, 96-118. Reprinted in Strawson, P. (Ed.). (1971). Logico-Linguistic Papers (pp.75-95). London: Methuen & Co.
Suls, J. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In J.H. Goldstein & P.E. McGhee (Eds.). The Psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81-100). New York/London: Academic Press.
Suls, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P.E. McGhee & J.H.Goldstein (Eds.). Handbook of humor research (pp. 39-58). N.Y./Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Sweetser, E. (2000). Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 305-334.
Talmy, L. (1975). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In C. Cogen et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 419-430). Berkeley (Ca.).
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Tanaka, K. (1992). The pun in advertising: A pragmatic approach. Lingua, 87, 91-102.
Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising language: A pragmatic approach to advertisements in British and Japan. London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thompson, V. (2000). The task specific nature of domain-general reasoning. Cognition, 76, 209-268.
Thornton, R. and Wexler, K. (1999). VP ellipsis. MA: MIT Press.
Travis, C. (1985). On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 187-229.
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hilland, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying online sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89-134.
Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
Vaid, J. et al. (2003). Getting a joke: The time course of meaning activation in verbal humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1431-1449.
van der Auwera, J. (1997). Conditional perfection. In A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (Eds.). On conditionals again (pp.169-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1991). Topic en comment. Expliciete en Impliciete Vraagstelling in Discourse. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Unpublished PhD thesis.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31,109-147.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1996a). Inferring from topics: Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 393-343.
van Kuppevelt, J. (1996b). In defense of semantics: Scalar inferences as topic-dependent entailments. In B. Di Eugenio et al. (Eds.). AAAI Spring symposium on computational implicature: Computational approaches to interpreting and generating conversational implicature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Veale, T. & O'Donoghue, D. (2000). Computation and blending. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4), 253-282.
Veale, T. (n. d.). Metaphor and metonymy: The cognitive trump-cards of linguistic humor. Unpublished ms.
Vega, G. (1990). Cross-cultural communication missteps. Text, 10, 385-411.
Wainer, J. and Maida, A. (1990). Good and bad news in formalizing generalized implicatures. Proceedings of the 16th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Parasession on the legacy of Grice (pp.530-540).
Webb, K. (Ed.). (1978). The crack-α-joke book. CA: Puffin.
Welker, K. (1994). Plans in the common ground: Toward a generative account of implicature. The Ohio State University: Unpublished Phi) thesis.
Whiten, A. (Ed.). (1991). Natural theories of mind. Oxford: Blackwen.
Wilson, D. (1995). Is there a maxim of truthfulness? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 197-212.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993a). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90,1-25.
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993b). Pragmatics and time. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 277-298.
Wynn, K.(1992). Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 220-251.
Yamaguchi, H. (1988). How to pull strings with words: Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 323-337.
Yus, F. (1995a). La significaci(?)n social de les máximas de Grice: El caso del comic alternative ingles. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 30-31,109-128.
Yus, F. (1995b). Conversational cooperation in alternative comics. University of Alicante: Unpublished ms.
Yus, F. (1998a). A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 30,305-345.
Yus, F. (1998b). Relevance: A thematic bibliographical list. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11,261-285.
Yus, F. (1998c). Relevance theory and media discourse: A verbal-visual model of communication. Poetics, 25, 293-309.
Yus, F, (2001). Literal/non-literal and the processing of verbal humor. Pragmalinguistica.
Yus, F. (2003). Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9),1295-1332.
Zigler, E., Levine, E. and Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children's humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,332-336.
Ziv, A. (1983). The influence of humorous atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 68-75.
Zwaan, R., Stanfield, R. & Yaxley, R. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.
蔡辉，尹星．(2005)．西方幽默理论研究综述．《外语研究》，1，5-8．
陈光亚．(2003)．浅析幽默短信的特征．《修辞学习》，6，34-36．
傅远碧．(2005)．手机短信特征探微．《修辞学习》，6，41-43．
龚卫东．(2006)．广义梯级含义理论及其运用．上海：外国语大学博士学位论文．
何文忠．(2003)．论话语交际中的幽默原则．《外语教学》，4，11-16．
何兆熊等．(2000)．《新编语用学概要》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
姜望琪．(2003)．《当代语用学》．北京：北京大学出版社．
蒋澄生，廖定中．(2005)．试析幽默的语用理据．《外语教学》．5，26-29．
蒋勇，侯国金．(2004)．对比参照点的语用功能．《外语教学》，3，9-14．
蒋勇，刘国辉．(2004)．最佳关联与幽默中的语义跃迁．《外国语言文学研究》，4，1-7．
蒋勇，马玉蕾．(2003)．CB与RT的整合性研究．《外语学刊》，1，31-36．
蒋勇．(2004a)，．夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能．《现代外语》，3，73-81．
蒋勇．(2004b)．虚拟思维在会话中的功能．<外语学刊》，3，16-23．
李兰萍．(2002)．语用原则与英语幽默．《天津外国语学院学报》，2，32-36．
栗静云．(2005)．《中国传统笑话》．银川：宁夏人民出版社．
刘苹．(2005)．言语幽默的语言学研究综述．《湘潭大学学报》(社科版)．5，152-154．
刘国辉．(2006)．言语幽默生成机制的认知探究．《四川外语学院学报》，2，135-139．
刘乃实，熊学亮．(2003)．浅析言语幽默的维护面子功能．《外语教学》，6，10-13．
刘乃实．(2005)．关联理论视角中的幽默乖讹与消解．《解放军外国语学院学 报》，28(1)，16-20．
吕光旦．(1988)．英语幽默的语用分析．《外国语》，1，53-56．
南佐民．(2000)．会话幽默的语义作用过程解析．《外语与外语教学》，11，18-20．
师静．(2000)．英语幽默中的歧义现象．《解放军外国语学院学报》，23(3)，35-37．
谭达人．(1997)．《幽默与言语幽默》．北京：三联书店．
王金玲，闰铁煜．(2004)．论幽默话语的语用语义特征．《外语学刊》，121(6)，63-65．
王金玲．(2002)．论幽默语言的特征与技巧．《外语教学》，110(3)，58-63．
王文斌，林波．(2003)．英语幽默言语的认知语用探究——兼论RT与CB的互补性．《外国语》，4，32-38．
王寅．(2005)．《认知语言学探索》．重庆：重庆出版社．
王寅．(2006)．《认知语法概论》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
王寅．(2007)．《认知语用学》．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
王勇．(2001)．由关联理论看幽默言语．《外语教学》，1，23-27．
项成东，韩炜．(2003)．语篇象似性及其认知基础．《外语研究》，2，37-42．
项成东．(2001)，．歧义的功能．《外语教学》，2，82-85．
项成东．(2002)．歧义的语用研究．《外语教学》，4，35-40．
项成东. (2003a). Developing Learners' Cultural Capacity in TEFL in China. Teaching English in China, 3, 96-99.
项成东. (2003b). Pragmatic ambivalence and TEFL. Journal of International Languages Teaching and Studies, 4, 130-131.
项成东．(2003c)．歧义的认知机制．《四川外语学院学报》，3，80-84．
项成东．(2003d)．语篇模糊与空间映射理论．《外语与外语教学》，6，12-16．
项成东．(2004a)．《英汉歧义的动态研究》．哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社．
项成东．(2004b)．代词性和指示性间接回指语及其认知基础．《外语与外语教学》，2，10-14．
项成东．(2004c)．间接回指与语篇理解．《四川外国语学院学报》，3，87-90．
项成东．(2004d)．间接照应及其认知语用推理．《西安外国语学院学报》，3， 5-9．
项成东．(2006a)．相互理解的会话机制及其语用逻辑．《四川外语学院学报》，3，59-6
项成东．(2006b)．言语行为理论在会话分析中的运用及存在的问题．《外语与外语教学》，3，11-14．
项成东．(2006c)．元交际条件句的语用认知研究．《外国语》，6，46-50．
项成东．(2006a)．等级含义的语用研究综述．《当代语言学》，4，22-31．
项成东．(2007)．等级含意的关联解释．《外语与文化研究》(论文集)．上海：上海外语教育出版社．
徐庆利，王福祥．(2002)．关联理论对幽默言语及其翻译的诠释力．《外语教学》，5，21-25．
徐晓萍．(2005)．心智空间演绎最佳关联原则—以幽默的解析为例．《外语学刊》，3，11-17．
叶文玉．(1994)．浅谈讥讽在口语中的幽默效果．《外国语》，4，70-71．
俞东明．(1997)．语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究．《外国语》，6，18-23．
张春萍．(2005)．利用关联理论透析幽默语言．《学术交流》，11，140-141．
赵一农．(2002)．有标记语码转换的幽默功能．《外语学刊》，3，52-57．