Book•
Linguistic theories of humor
01 Jan 1994-
TL;DR: The taxonomy of puns, the relations between the linguistic form and the content of humorous texts, and other past and current topics in language-based research into humor are discussed in this paper.
Abstract: So this English professor comes into class and starts talking about the textual organization of jokes, the taxonomy of puns, the relations between the linguistic form and the content of humorous texts, and other past and current topics in language-based research into humor. At the end he stuffs all
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Evaluating the coherence of computer-mediated interaction by surveying research on cross-turn coherence reveals a high degree of disrupted adjacency, overlapping exchanges, and topic decay.
Abstract: Text-only CMC has been claimed to be interactionally incoherent due to limitations imposed by messaging systems on turn-taking and reference, yet its popularity continues to grow. In an attempt to resolve this apparent paradox, this study evaluates the coherence of computer-mediated interaction by surveying research on cross-turn coherence. The results reveal a high degree of disrupted adjacency, overlapping exchanges, and topic decay. Two explanations are proposed to account for the popularity of CMC despite its relative incoherence: the ability of users to adapt to the medium, and the advantages of loosened coherence for heightened interactivity and language play.
926 citations
Cites background from "Linguistic theories of humor"
...The absence of traditional forms of feedback does not prevent users from innovating alternative methods of signaling listenership and negotiating turn alternation....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: This book is divided into two parts: a philosophical part I and a practical part II, in which the authors present their text-meaning representation (TMR) and demonstrate how it is used in language analysis and critique many alternative views of semantics.
Abstract: In this book, Nirenburg and Raskin present an important body of work in computational linguistics that they and their colleagues have been developing over the past 20 years. For a unifying perspective, they organize their assumptions, theories, and techniques around the theme of ontological semantics. Along the way, they critique many alternative views of semantics, which they distinguish from their own. Their analyses contribute to a much-needed debate about the history and future of computational linguistics, but to preserve some balance, teachers and students should keep a few of the alternatives on their reference shelf. The book is divided into two parts: a philosophical part I and a practical part II. The first part consists of an introductory chapter 1 and four chapters that survey important but controversial issues about linguistics, both theoretical and computational. In those chapters, the authors make a good case for their version of ontological semantics, but the alternatives are not treated in detail. In part II, the authors present their text-meaning representation (TMR) and demonstrate how it is used in language analysis. Any discussion of technical material must use some notation, and TMR is sufficiently flexible to illustrate a wide range of semantic-based methods that could be adapted to many other formalisms. For most readers, part II would be the more important. Chapter 1 is a good 25-page overview of computational linguistics with an emphasis on semantics. Students and novices, however, need examples, and none are given until chapter 6. The authors suggest that ‘‘a well-prepared and/or uninterested reader’’ skip the remainder of part I and go straight to chapter 6, which begins with an excellent five-page example. The authors follow that advice when they teach courses from this text. In Chapter 2, the authors present their ‘‘Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Linguistics.’’ Their ideas are well taken, and some are as old as Socrates: Examine the assumptions, challenge conventional wisdom, and test conclusions against experience. The basis of their approach is what they call the four components of a scientific theory:
408 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined conversational joking among interlocutors in two different speech communities and found that there are two types of moves in joking: one that is directed at a participant in the conversation, having the potential of biting; the other one being directed at an absent other.
395 citations
01 Apr 2012
TL;DR: The research described in this paper is focused on analyzing two playful domains of language: humor and irony, in order to identify key values components for their automatic processing in social media, such as ''tweets''.
Abstract: The research described in this paper is focused on analyzing two playful domains of language: humor and irony, in order to identify key values components for their automatic processing. In particular, we are focused on describing a model for recognizing these phenomena in social media, such as ''tweets''. Our experiments are centered on five data sets retrieved from Twitter taking advantage of user-generated tags, such as ''#humor'' and ''#irony''. The model, which is based on textual features, is assessed on two dimensions: representativeness and relevance. The results, apart from providing some valuable insights into the creative and figurative usages of language, are positive regarding humor, and encouraging regarding irony.
327 citations
Cites background from "Linguistic theories of humor"
...Attardo [1, 2] tries to explain verbal humor2 as a phenomenon that suggests the presence of some knowledge resources, such as language, narrative strategies, target, situation, logical mechanisms or opposition, in order to produce a funny effect....
[...]
...Despite these inconveniences, different disciplines such as philosophy [19], linguistics [1], psychology [32], or sociology [20], have attempted to study humor in order to provide formal insights to explain better its basic features....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors argue that group joking is embedded, interactive, and referential, and these features give it power within the group context, and demonstrate that the joking culture serves to smooth group interaction, share a common belief, separate the group from outsiders, and secure the compliance of group members through social control.
Abstract: Every interacting social group develops, over time, a joking culture: a set of humorous references that are known to members of the group to which members can refer and that serve as the basis of further interaction. Joking, thus, has a historical, retrospective, and reflexive character. We argue that group joking is embedded, interactive, and referential, and these features give it power within the group context. Elements of the joking culture serve to smooth group interaction, share a‰liation, separate the group from outsiders, and secure the compliance of group members through social control. To demonstrate these processes we rely upon two detailed ethnographic examples of continuing joking: one from mushroom collectors and the second from professional meteorologists.
241 citations