Child-Directed Pun-Based Communication in Children’s Picture Books as Conceptual Blending
Abstract
While there is vast research on language play and punning contributed by linguists of various theoretical persuasions, little has been done on punning directed at a very young audience. This study attempts to address this gap by proposing a Cognitive Linguistics analysis of creative animal puns in the picture book for toddlers, I love you like no OTTER. As the title indicates, the intended humorous effects of language play, and specifically punning, hinge upon the recognition of the phonetic similarity between animal words, here otter, and another word, e.g., other, in well-known phrases conventionally used in confessions of love, e.g., I love you like no other. The methodology adopted for the analysis is Fauconnier and Turner’s model of conceptual blending, augmented with Brandt and Brandt’s modifications. We propose that meaning construction and interpretation in the studied material is licensed by figurative inferencing involving conceptual blending, metonymy, and metaphor. We demonstrate that meaning in child-directed communication, such as the kind under investigation, is created via text and visuals, which need to be analyzed in conjunction with one another. The study highlights, among others, the explanatory value of the modified conceptual blending model in an analysis of punning and the relevance of the undervalued generic space in analyzing creative pun-based formal blends. In this respect, the paper contributes to the methodological framework of Cognitive Linguistics.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (Ed.) (2014). Encyclopedia of humor studies, Vol. 2. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi [etc.]: Sage.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor, 4(3-4), 293–348. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991.4.3-4.293
Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Pragmatics & beyond: Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
Barczewska, S. (2020). Conceptual Blends Across Image Macro Genres. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 61(1):7-30.
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–249.
Brandt, P. A., & Cronquist, U. (2022). The Garden: blending in the semiotics of songs. Semiotica, 2022(246), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2021-0105
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing Deliberate Ambiguity in Newspaper Headlines: Double Grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959919
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2005). Expressivity and Metonymic Inferencing: Stylistic Variation in Nonliterary Language Use. Style, 39(1), 12–36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.1.12
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90137-M
Guo, R. & Yulia, A. (2024). Research on Creation Strategies of Picture Books for Children’s Cognitive and Imaginative Development. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8, 194-201. https://doi.org/10.26689/jcer.v8i11.8754
Hougaard, A., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2022). Who’s talking? Cognitive semiotics in the (new media) wild. Cognitive Semiotics, 15(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2022-2003
Jabłońska-Hood, J. (2020). Conceptual integration theory and British humour: an analysis of the sitcom Miranda. The European Journal of Humour Research, 7(4), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.jablonska
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Farsani, D., Hu, J., Eskandari, Z., Zhu, Y., & Banaruee, H. (2023). A Review of Studies Supporting Metaphorical Embodiment. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070585
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master metaphor list: Second draft copy. Cognitive Linguistics Group. University of California Berkeley. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lundmark, C. (2003). Puns and Blending: The Case of Print Advertisements. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PUNS-AND-BLENDING-%3A-THE-CASE-OF-PRINT-Lundmark/6ecfc15a8be6f20f54f46bb547e1db05a4cc35eb
Naciscione, A. (2020). Reproducibility of patterns of stylistic use of phraseological units: A cognitive diachronic view. In M. Omazić & J. Parizoska (Eds.), Reproducibility and Variation of Figurative Expressions: Theoretical Aspects and Applications (pp. 33–50). Bialystok: University of Bialystok.
Niland, A. (2023). Picture Books, Imagination and Play: Pathways to Positive Reading Identities for Young Children. Education Sciences 13, 511-519. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050511
Nodelman, P. (1991). The Eye and the I: Identification and First-Person Narratives in Picture Books. Children’s Literature, 19(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/chl.0.0494
Omazić, M. (2005). Cognitive linguistic theories in phraseology. Jezikoslovlje, 6(1), 37–56.
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (2011). Introduction. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Human Cognitive Processing: Vol. 27. Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (Vol. 27, pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
Partington, A. S. (2009). A linguistic account of wordplay: The lexical grammar of punning. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1794–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.025
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Studies in linguistic motivation. Cognitive linguistics research: Vol. 28. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Raskin, V. (1984). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6472-3
Rossner, R. (2020). I love you like no OTTER. Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks Wonderland.
Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp. 319–332). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lt2.68sin
Spencer, J. (2020). The Innovative Animals of Children’s Fiction. In J. Spencer (Ed.), Writing about Animals in the Age of Revolution (pp. 74–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198857518.003.0003
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Xu, T., Liu, M., & Wang, X. (2023). How humor is experienced: An embodied metaphor account. Current Psychology, 42(20), 16674–16686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02918-1
Ziye, D. (2024). A Cognitive Study of Puns in China Daily News Headlines from the Perspective of Conceptual Blending Theory. Lecture Notes on Language and Literature, 7(2), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.23977/langl.2024.070210
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2025-2503-01
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021