FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1514549556> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1514549556 endingPage "152" @default.
• W1514549556 startingPage "123" @default.
• W1514549556 abstract "1. Introduction The range of criteria that have been used for classifying verbal jokes is large and includes, among others, such terms as theme, subject, cycle, target (butt), level of propriety, origin, narrative form, and length of the text. All types of classification have their own validity as well as their own practical uses (for instance, for public speakers wishing to embellish their speeches with a joke or two a classification by subject or theme might be particularly useful, etc.) One persistent problem the classification of jokes has been the urge to apply multiple mutually incompatible criteria to produce a single classification (see Raskin 1985: 29 for a critical assessment of such taxonomies). Even if a single classification criterion can be agreed on, a further problem arises of the choice of values for the classification variables: typically, they come from open, unconstrained sets. Thus, there may be little correspondence between two classificatory efforts even if they claim to use the same criterion. For instance, Stanley (1980) has subject categories such as teaching terrors or in the drink, which are absent from Johnson (1989), while the latter has sex education and politics, none of which appears the former collection. This particular problem seems to be related to the predominantly semantic nature of the classificatory criteria, and it reflects the open-endedness of semantic systems. On a more general level, the enormity of the problem of classifying jokes a principled and uniform manner is caused by the richness of types of humour tokens, including verbal jokes. It may thus be impossible principle to usefully categorize jokes along a single parameter. A recent multi-parameter joke model proposed by Attardo - Raskin (1991) holds some taxonomic potential, but fails to capture the distinction, important for this author as well as for many others (Milner 1972, Hockett 1973, Shultz -- Horibe 1974, Frumusani 1986, Shultz - Robillard 1980, Skowronska 1989, Spector 1990, Attardo 1993, Attardo 1994, Lew 1996a, 1996b), between linguistic and non-linguistic jokes. For the basis of this distinction and arguments its favour see Lew (1996a, 1996b). Given the complexity of the phenomenon of humour and the daunting variety of joke types, I think it may be beneficial to build taxonomies of specific separate types of jokes. Within the smaller types, uniformity of classification criteria should be easier to achieve. One such type is linguistic jokes. As shown Lew (1996a, press), linguistic jokes may depend on linguistic ambiguity, understood as that property of a fragment of text which allows for two or more significantly different semantic interpretations to be arrived at by a substantial proportion of typical text recipients. (2) Attardo et al. (1994) have found that 431 of the 441 verbal (this term roughly corresponds to my linguistic) jokes, that is 98%, were ambiguity-based, within a total sample of 2000 printed jokes (linguistic or otherwise). Although Attardo et al. (1994) did not probably use an equally broad sense as here, this difference should not affect the qualitative implications of the finding, namely that very nearly all linguistic jokes are ambiguity-based. Such jokes may be classified according to the type of ambiguity that they involve, and this is the principal aim of the present paper. Depending on the length, extent, or, more precisely, status within the linguistic system of the fragment of a joke's text that is open to two radically different interpretations, more than one type of ambiguity can be distinguished, consequence yielding different classes of ambiguity-based linguistic jokes. Apart from a purely theoretical-descriptive interest, there are important practical benefits of having such a classification which go beyond humour studies per se. For example, jokes classified by the type of ambiguity involved can be, and have been, used to test the perception of ambiguity children, thus contributing to research on language acquisition and development (Shultz - Pilon 1973, Shultz - Horibe 1974, Fowles - Glanz 1977, Shultz - Robillard 1980, Horgan 1981, Hirsh-Pasek - Gleitman - Gleitman 1986, Sinclair - Jarvella - Levelt 1986, Klein 1992). …" @default.
• W1514549556 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1514549556 creator A5062808281 @default.
• W1514549556 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W1514549556 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W1514549556 title "Towards a taxonomy of linguistic jokes" @default.
• W1514549556 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W1514549556 type Work @default.
• W1514549556 sameAs 1514549556 @default.
• W1514549556 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W1514549556 countsByYear W15145495562014 @default.
• W1514549556 countsByYear W15145495562018 @default.
• W1514549556 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1514549556 hasAuthorship W1514549556A5062808281 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C2776612492 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C33566652 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C111472728 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C111919701 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C138885662 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C144024400 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C15744967 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C161191863 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C199033989 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C2776612492 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C2777855551 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C33566652 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C41008148 @default.
• W1514549556 hasConceptScore W1514549556C41895202 @default.
• W1514549556 hasLocation W15145495561 @default.
• W1514549556 hasOpenAccess W1514549556 @default.
• W1514549556 hasPrimaryLocation W15145495561 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W1658587968 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W1715295215 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W1969762243 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2002040604 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2056661687 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2069812862 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2078488825 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2180864600 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2187176654 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2398707480 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2408143125 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2496321464 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2531966142 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2577547690 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W2613589075 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W3012424645 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W634230072 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W637769144 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W651319892 @default.
• W1514549556 hasRelatedWork W858397246 @default.
• W1514549556 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W1514549556 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1514549556 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1514549556 magId "1514549556" @default.
• W1514549556 workType "article" @default.