Conceptual blending in English and Serbian question-and-answer jokes: cultural transfer issues

Predrag Niketić

Abstract


This paper analyzes English and Serbian question-and-answer jokes using the cognitive linguistic theoretical framework of conceptual blending, which relies on mental spaces as cognitive packets of information used to interpret the world around us and within us. The analysis is used to illustrate how culture influences humour, specifically how the Anglo-American culture, the dominant and best-known foreign culture in Serbia, is used as a basis of jokes in English as well as Serbian. It is shown that the jokes in English can work on a non-English-speaking Serbian recipient culturally, but only if not impeded by linguistic obstacles, such as untranslatable puns. The selected Serbian jokes illustrate intercultural merging, as they use elements from both Anglophone and Serbian pop-cultures to create humour that is difficult to transfer back to Anglophone audiences, but now due to linguistic as well as cultural transfer issues. These issues revolve around humour translation, which is made difficult by linguistic aspects, cultural aspects, or both. Conceptual blending and the mental spaces involved provide a useful tool for adapting cultural/linguistic barriers to obtain more or less workable joke translations.

Keywords


Conceptual Blending; Incongruity Theory;

Full Text:

VIEW FULL TEXT

References


Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brône, G. (2008). ‘Hyper and misunderstanding’. Journal of Pragmatics 40, pp. 2027-2061.

Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K. (2003). ‘The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor’. University of Leuven, Department of Linguistics preprint no. 205.

Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. & Veale, T. (2006). ‘Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor’. Humor 19 (3), pp. 203-228. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic Leaps. Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551352

Coulson, S. (2002). ‘What’s so funny: Conceptual blending in humorous examples’.

Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/funstuff/funny.html

Coulson, S. (2005). ‘Extemporaneous blending: Conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio’. Style 39, pp. 107-122.

Coulson, S., Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2006). ‘Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model’. Humor 19, pp. 229-250. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013

Davies, C. (2005). ‘European ethnic scripts and the translation and switching of jokes’. Humor 18 (2), pp. 147-160. DOI: 10.1515/humr.2005.18.2.147

Delibegović Džanić, N. & Berberović, S. (2010). ‘On politicians in big women’s sunglasses driving buses with their feet in mouths: Late-night political humour and conceptual integration theory’. Jezikoslovlje 11 (2), pp. 197-214.

Retrieved November 21, 2012 from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/94310

Delibegović Džanić, N. & Berberović, S. (2017). ‘#ForgiveUsForWeHaveSinned: Conceptual integration theory and political Internet humour’, European Journal of Humour Research 5 (2), pp. 4-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2017.5.2.dzanic

Dynel, M. (2011). ‘Blending the incongruity-resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising’. International Review of Pragmatics 3 (1), pp. 59-83.

Eriksen, C. (2019). ‘Negotiating adversity with humour: A case study of wildland firefighter women’, Political Geography 68, pp. 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.08.001

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). ‘Blending as a Central Process of Grammar: Expanded Version’ (March 1, 1998), in Goldberg, A. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 113-130.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2007). ‘Conceptual integration networks’, in

Evans, V. et al. (eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, London: Equinox, pp. 360-419.

Filipović-Kovačević, S. (2010). Indirektna komunikacija u reklamama na engleskom i srpskom jeziku: kognitivnolingvistički pristup [Indirect Communication in English and Serbian Advertisements: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach]. Doctoral dissertation. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.

Filipović-Kovačević, S. (2011). ‘Anglicizmi kao međujezički pojmovni amalgami’ [Anglicisms as interlinguistic conceptual blends]. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 54(2), pp. 247-263.

Forceville, C. (2016). ‘Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors?’, in Gibbs Jr., R.W. (ed.), Mixing Metaphor, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223-239. doi: 10.1075/milcc.6.11for.

Grady, J., Oakley, T. & Coulson, S. (1999). ‘Blending and metaphor’, in Steen, G. & Gibbs, R.W. (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 101-24.

Krikmann, A. (2006). ‘Contemporary linguistic theories of humour’. Folklore 32, pp. 27-58. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol33/kriku.pdf

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.

Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, Mind, and Culture. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lundmark, C. (2003). ‘Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements’. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logroño, 20-25 July. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/iclc/Papers/Lundmark.pdf.

Lyttle, J. B. (2001). The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: the Case of Business Ethics Training. Doctoral Dissertation. Toronto: York University. Retrieved March 2 2018 from http://www.jimlyttle.com/PhD/Dissert2.html

Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

Monro, D. H. (1963). Argument of Laughter. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Monro, D. H. (1988). ‘Theories of Humor’, in Behrens, L. & Rosen, L. J. (eds.), Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (3rd ed.), Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, pp. 349-55. Retrieved February 20, 2018 from https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/monro.html

Mulder, M. P. & Nijholt, A. (2002). Humour Research: State of the Art. Technical report. CTIT. Twente: University of Twente.

Müller, C. & Schmitt C. (2015). ‘Audio-visual metaphors of the financial crisis: meaning making and the flow of experience’, in Gibbs Jr., R.W. & Corrêa Ferreira, L. (eds.), Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada/Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (2) (Special Issue: Metaphor and Metonymy in Social Practices), pp. 311-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-639820156315

Nash, W. (1985). The Language of Humour. No. 16 in English Language series. Harlow: Longman.

Prodanović Stankić, D. (2016). Verbalni humor u engleskom i srpskom jeziku [Verbal Humour in English and Serbian]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Raskin, V. (1998). ‘From the editor’, Humor 11 (1), pp. 1-4.

Rasulić, K. (2008). ‘Srpsko-engleske tvorenice u svetlu teorije pojmovne integracije’ [Serbian-English compounds in light of conceptual integration theory]. Semantička proučavanja srpskog jezika. Belgrade: SANU, pp. 269-289.

Rappoport, L. (2005). Punchlines: The case for racial, ethnic, and gender humor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Schnell, Zs. (2007). ‘Metaphor processing and the acquisition of idioms – a mentalistic model’, Acta Linguistica 54 (1), pp. 73-104.

Schnell, Zs. (2012). ‘The development of humour competence in Hungarian children – a cognitive approach’, in T. Litovkina, A., Szőllősy, J., Medgyes, P., Chłopicki, W. (eds.), Hungarian Humour. Humor and Culture 3, Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies, pp. 235-251.

Schnell, Zs. & Varga, E. (2012). ‘Humour, irony and social cognition’, in T. Litovkina, A., Szőllősy, J., Medgyes, P., Chłopicki, W. (eds.), Hungarian Humour. Humor and Culture 3, Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies, pp. 253-270.

Smuts, A. (2006). ‘Humor’, in Schneider, S. J. (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/

Suls, J. (1972). ‘A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons’, in Goldstein J. H. & McGhee, P. E. (eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, New York: Academic Press, pp. 81-100.

Turner, M. (2015). ‘Blending in language and communication’, in Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211-232.

Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. & Brône, G. (2006). ‘The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor’. Humor 19 (3), pp. 305-339. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2006.016

Wijewardena, N., Härtel, C.E.J. & Samaratunge, R. (2010). ‘Chapter 10: A laugh a day is sure to keep the blues away: managers' use of humor and the construction and destruction of employees' resilience’, in Zerbe, W. J., Härtel C. E. J. & Ashkanasy N. M. (eds.), Emotions and Organizational Dynamism (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Volume 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 259-278.

Yus, F. (2016). Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.niketic

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Publication ethics and malpractice statement