學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 客家笑話敘事結構及語意分析
An investigation of narrative structure and meaning in Hakka jokes作者 黃品荷
Huang, Ping-He貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei-Ling
黃品荷
Huang, Ping-He關鍵詞 客家笑話
敘事結構
言語幽默普遍理論
腳本理論
笑點
Hakka jokes
Narrative structure
General theory of verbal humor
Script theory
Punchline日期 2018 上傳時間 23-Jul-2018 16:48:59 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文主要目的在探討客家笑話敘事結構及語意內容的表現與關聯性。本篇的語料共有164則客家笑話，研究結果有四點發現：(一) 根據Labov (1997) 敘事結構，客家笑話結構組成共分為五類：「O-CA-R」、「A-O-CA-R」、「A/O-CA-R」、「O-A-O-CA-R」以及「其他」，且多以導向 (O)、複雜行動 (CA) 及笑點 (PL) 為主要結構組成要素。(二) 笑話主題主要包含：戇痴人物、性議題、負面人性、疾病殘缺及族群偏見，但主題與結構間並無明顯直接關聯性，然而仍可看出大部分主題皆以「O-CA-R」及「A/O-CA-R」為主要呈現形式。(三) 根據Attardo和Raskin (1991) 言語幽默普遍理論，客家笑話使用的語言特徵不僅多使用對話方式呈現，笑話鋪陳過程中共採用了15項邏輯機制，其中類比及同音異字佔最多。笑點的功能為觸發對立腳本的轉換，使得讀者理解笑話並產生詼諧、幽默的感受。(四) 笑話中語言表現及文化背景反映客家腔調和特殊人文社會的價值。
This study investigates the narrative structure and meaning of 164 Hakka jokes. There are four major findings. First, based on Labov’s (1997) narrative structure theory, Hakka jokes can be classified into five types: O-CA-R, A-O-CA-R, A/O-CA-R, O-A-O-CA-R and others. The main elements include orientation, complication action and punchline. The two patterns O-CA-R and A/O-CA-R are the major types. Second, the themes include five categories: foolishness, sexual relation, negative humanity, sickness and disability, and ethnic prejudices. Howerer, there seems to be no correlation between themes and structures. Third, according to Attardo and Raskin’s (1991) General Theory of Verbal Humor, Hakka jokes adopt conversations as major linguistic forms, and 15 logical mechanisms are employed to elaborate the content. Analogy and near homophones are the most prevalent mechanisms among all. Furthermore, the function of a punchline not only triggers opposing scripts but also brings out humorous effects upon the audiences. Fourth, the linguistic performance of Hakka jokes can reflect Hakka culture and unique social values.參考文獻 王勻芊，2014。〈客家故事中笑話的荒誕性分析〉。發表於桃園「第十五屆研究生客家學術論文研討會」，桃園：國立中央大學客家學院/客家語文暨社會科學學系。江俊龍，2012。〈客家民間故事的類別與型式〉。中正漢學研究，2，95-122。吳餘鎬，2003。〈台灣客家李文古故事研究〉，嘉義：國立中正大學中國文學研究所碩士論文。李蘭、江宜珍、邱玉蟬、鄭其嘉、吳文琪、楊蕙如，2008。〈國中生的幽默概念及表現類型：焦點團體討論結果〉。台灣公共衛生雜誌，27(6)，519-529卓芳宇，2013。〈中文版《讀者文摘》之笑話研究〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學國文學系在職進修碩士論文。周平，2011。《幽默的心理緣起與社會緣起：一個關係-過程的笑話社會學取徑》。邱福棟，1993。〈笑話理解理論的結構〉，新竹：國立清華大學語言學研究所碩士論文。洪慧如，2003。〈中文冷笑話之語言分析〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。胡萬川，2010。民間文學口傳性特質之研究—以台灣民間文學為例。台灣文學研究學報，11，199-220。范姜灴欽，2004。〈台灣客家民間傳說研究〉，台北：國立東吳大學中國文學系碩士論文。范姜灴欽，2013。〈台灣客家生活故事研究〉，台北：國立東吳大學中國語文學系民間文學博士論文。郎心怡，2014。〈以[失諧─解困]理論探討義大利語,英語,西班牙語和華語女性笑話之幽默〉，台南：國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文。秦微雲，1999。〈中文口說故事敘述文之結構初探〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。陳巧陵，2006。〈當代笑話之研究〉，台中:國立臺中教育大學語文教育學系碩士班碩士論文。陳克嫻，2003。〈明清長篇世情小說中的笑話研究──以《金瓶梅》、《姑妄言》、《紅樓夢》為中心之考察〉，花蓮：國立花蓮師範學院民間文學研究所碩士論文。陳秋良，2015。〈笑亦有道－談晚明詼諧寓言的雅謔理論〉。興大人文學報，54，135-165。陳學志，1991。〈「幽默理解」的認知歷程〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。陳學志、鄭昭明、卓淑玲，2001。〈笑話中幽默因于的訊息整合歷程研究〉。《中華心理學刊》，43(2)，137-1。陳麗娜，2009。〈中國民間故事類型研究〉，花蓮：國立東華大學民間文學研究所博士論文。舒宥慈，2007。〈美國情境喜劇笑話之語言分析:以六人行為例〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文。黃獻慶，2006。〈連載漫畫翻譯策略之研究〉，高雄：國立高雄第一科技大學應用英語系碩士班碩士論文。楊雅心，2004。〈台灣民間笑話研究〉，高雄：國立高雄師範大學國文教學碩士班碩士論文。劉俊佑、盧鴻毅，2012。〈為何而笑？解讀《FHM男人幫》雜誌中的黃色笑話〉。臺灣性學學刊，18(2)，51-74。劉淑爾，2013。《類型研究視野下的中彰民間故事》。秀威資訊劉肇中，2009。〈台中東勢客家民間故事研究〉，彰化：國立彰化師範大學國文所碩士論文。鄭乃真，2014。〈傻女婿性教育故事研究〉，花蓮：國立東華大學中國語文學系碩士論文。賴旬美，1998。〈中國古代寓言型笑話研究〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學中國文學系碩士論文。羅金珠，2017。〈臺灣北部客家笑科研究〉，桃園：國立中央大學客家語文暨社會科學學系碩士論文。Aarne, A. (1961). The Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography, The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, Helsinki. ISBN 951-41-0132-4.Abdalian, A. (2006). Why`s That Funny?? An extension to the Semantic Script Theory of Humor. Linguistics Thesis: Swarthmore College.Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 16(1), 355-362.Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Attardo, S. (2002). Translation and humour: an approach based on the General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH). The Translator, 8(2), 173-194.Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis (it) ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3-4), 293-348.Attardo. S., Hempelmann. C. F. & Di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3-46.Beeman, W. O. (1999). Humor. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1/2), 103-106.Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor Scholarship and TESOL: Applying Findings and Establishing a Research Agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134-159.Douglas, M. (1968). The Social Control of Cognition: Some Factors in Joke Perception. Man, New Series, 3(3), 361-376.Feyaerts. K., & Brône. G. (2003). The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Preprint. 2005. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: 1–58Freedman, M., & Hoffman, P. (1980). How many Zen Buddhists Does it Take to Screw in a Lightbulb? New York: St. Martin’s.Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9, 1-6.Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton.Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16(5), 465-485.Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 56(2), 161-183.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantic. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 3, 41-59.Hatch, M.J., Ehrlich, S.B. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies 14(4), 505–526.Hay, J. (1995). Gender and humour: Beyond a joke. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of pragmatics, 32(6), 709-742.Hempelmann, C. F., Taylor, J. M., & Raskin, V. (2012). Tightening up joke structure: not by length alone. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society. 34(34).Hofstadter, D., Gabora, L. (1989). Synopsis of the Workshop on Humor and Cognition. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2(4), 417–440.Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 26-50.Labov, W. (1997). Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 395 –415.Labov, W., Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, June (ed). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seatle: University of Washington Press, 12-44.Legman, G.(1968).Rationale of the dirty joke: An analysis of sexual humor.New York, NY:Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.Long, D., Graesser, A. (1988). Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing, Discourse Processes 11(2): 35-60.Masaeli, B., & Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2016). A Linguistic Analysis of Persian Online Jokes in Light of General Theory of Verbal Humor. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(7), 230-239.Masaeli, B., Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2016). A Linguistic Analysis of Persian Online Jokes in Light of General Theory of Verbal Humor. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3 (7), 230-239.Ouyang, J., & McKeown, K. (2014). Towards automatic detection of narrative structure. Proceedings of LREC14, Reykjavik, Iceland.Petrenko, M. (2007). The narrative joke: Conceptual structure and linguistic manifestation (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).Polimeni, J., Reiss, J.P. (2006). The first joke: exploring the evolutionary origins of humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 347–366.Raskin, V. (1979). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 325-335.Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor Boston: Reidel.Raskin, V. (2012). Semantic mechanisms of humor (Vol. 24). Springer Science & Business Media.Raskin, V., Hempelmann, C. F., & Taylor, J. M. (2009). How to understand and assess a theory: the evolution of the SSTH into the GTVH and now into the OSTH. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 285-311.Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.Rozin, P., Rozin, A., Appel, B.& Wachtel, C. (2006). Documenting and Explaining the common AAB pattern in music and humor: Establishing and breaking expectations. Emotion. 6 (3), 349–355.Ruhlemann, C. (2013). Narrative in English Conversation: A Corpus Analysis of Storytelling. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 89-113.Shultz, J. (1976). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. In Antony, J. C., Hugh, C. F (Eds.), It`s a Funny Thing, Humour: Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter. 41-45.Shultz, J. M. (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. New York: Academic.Smith, D. (2015). Manipulating Components of Joke Construction and its Effect on Funniness. Holster Scholar Projects. 18.Smith, J. (2006). Narrative: sociolinguistic research. University of York, York: UK.Swanson, R., Rahimtoroghi, E., Corcoran, T.and Walker M. A. (2014). Identifying narrative clause types in personal stories. In 15th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue.Taylor, J. M. (2012). Do Jokes Have to Be Funny: Analysis of 50 “Theoretically Jokes”. AAAI Artificial Intelligence of Humor Symposium.Ungerer, F., Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.Veale, T. (2005). Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419-428.Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small group behavior, 20(2), 151-166. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
104555009資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104555009 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei-Ling en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃品荷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Ping-He en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃品荷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Ping-He en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 23-Jul-2018 16:48:59 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 23-Jul-2018 16:48:59 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 23-Jul-2018 16:48:59 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104555009 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118801 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 104555009 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文主要目的在探討客家笑話敘事結構及語意內容的表現與關聯性。本篇的語料共有164則客家笑話，研究結果有四點發現：(一) 根據Labov (1997) 敘事結構，客家笑話結構組成共分為五類：「O-CA-R」、「A-O-CA-R」、「A/O-CA-R」、「O-A-O-CA-R」以及「其他」，且多以導向 (O)、複雜行動 (CA) 及笑點 (PL) 為主要結構組成要素。(二) 笑話主題主要包含：戇痴人物、性議題、負面人性、疾病殘缺及族群偏見，但主題與結構間並無明顯直接關聯性，然而仍可看出大部分主題皆以「O-CA-R」及「A/O-CA-R」為主要呈現形式。(三) 根據Attardo和Raskin (1991) 言語幽默普遍理論，客家笑話使用的語言特徵不僅多使用對話方式呈現，笑話鋪陳過程中共採用了15項邏輯機制，其中類比及同音異字佔最多。笑點的功能為觸發對立腳本的轉換，使得讀者理解笑話並產生詼諧、幽默的感受。(四) 笑話中語言表現及文化背景反映客家腔調和特殊人文社會的價值。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study investigates the narrative structure and meaning of 164 Hakka jokes. There are four major findings. First, based on Labov’s (1997) narrative structure theory, Hakka jokes can be classified into five types: O-CA-R, A-O-CA-R, A/O-CA-R, O-A-O-CA-R and others. The main elements include orientation, complication action and punchline. The two patterns O-CA-R and A/O-CA-R are the major types. Second, the themes include five categories: foolishness, sexual relation, negative humanity, sickness and disability, and ethnic prejudices. Howerer, there seems to be no correlation between themes and structures. Third, according to Attardo and Raskin’s (1991) General Theory of Verbal Humor, Hakka jokes adopt conversations as major linguistic forms, and 15 logical mechanisms are employed to elaborate the content. Analogy and near homophones are the most prevalent mechanisms among all. Furthermore, the function of a punchline not only triggers opposing scripts but also brings out humorous effects upon the audiences. Fourth, the linguistic performance of Hakka jokes can reflect Hakka culture and unique social values. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 致謝 iv目錄 v表目錄 vii圖目錄 viii中文摘要 ix英文摘要 x第一章、前言 11-1 研究動機 11-2 研究目的 31-3 客家笑話來源 51-4 論文架構 7第二章、文獻回顧 82-1 Labov (1997) 敘事結構 82-2笑話相關研究 112-3 幽默理論 152-3-1 幽默社會功能 152-3-2 語意腳本幽默理論(Semantic Script Theory of Humor) 172-3-3 言語幽默普遍理論(General Theory of Verbal Humor) 182-4 笑話認知歷程 242-4-1 笑話理論 252-4-2 腳本理論 (scripts theory) 272-5 小結 30第三章、研究方法 313-1 研究材料 313-1-1 客家故事收錄 313-1-2 客家笑話分類 333-2 資料編碼 343-3 研究範圍與限制 39第四章、研究結果與討論 404-1 客家笑話敘事結構 404-1-1 客家笑話結構分布 404-1-2 客家笑話主題與結構偏好 434-1-3 小結 504-2 客家笑話語言特徵 514-2-1 笑話邏輯機制 524-2-2 笑話腳本轉換 684-3 客家笑話對立腳本及文化意涵 724-3-1 客家笑話對立腳本 724-3-2 社會風俗 744-3-3 文化意涵 77第五章、結論 80參考文獻 83附錄：客家笑話列表 89 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3057195 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104555009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 客家笑話 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 敘事結構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 言語幽默普遍理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 腳本理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 笑點 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Hakka jokes en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Narrative structure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) General theory of verbal humor en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Script theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Punchline en_US dc.title (題名) 客家笑話敘事結構及語意分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) An investigation of narrative structure and meaning in Hakka jokes en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王勻芊，2014。〈客家故事中笑話的荒誕性分析〉。發表於桃園「第十五屆研究生客家學術論文研討會」，桃園：國立中央大學客家學院/客家語文暨社會科學學系。江俊龍，2012。〈客家民間故事的類別與型式〉。中正漢學研究，2，95-122。吳餘鎬，2003。〈台灣客家李文古故事研究〉，嘉義：國立中正大學中國文學研究所碩士論文。李蘭、江宜珍、邱玉蟬、鄭其嘉、吳文琪、楊蕙如，2008。〈國中生的幽默概念及表現類型：焦點團體討論結果〉。台灣公共衛生雜誌，27(6)，519-529卓芳宇，2013。〈中文版《讀者文摘》之笑話研究〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學國文學系在職進修碩士論文。周平，2011。《幽默的心理緣起與社會緣起：一個關係-過程的笑話社會學取徑》。邱福棟，1993。〈笑話理解理論的結構〉，新竹：國立清華大學語言學研究所碩士論文。洪慧如，2003。〈中文冷笑話之語言分析〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。胡萬川，2010。民間文學口傳性特質之研究—以台灣民間文學為例。台灣文學研究學報，11，199-220。范姜灴欽，2004。〈台灣客家民間傳說研究〉，台北：國立東吳大學中國文學系碩士論文。范姜灴欽，2013。〈台灣客家生活故事研究〉，台北：國立東吳大學中國語文學系民間文學博士論文。郎心怡，2014。〈以[失諧─解困]理論探討義大利語,英語,西班牙語和華語女性笑話之幽默〉，台南：國立成功大學外國語文學系碩士論文。秦微雲，1999。〈中文口說故事敘述文之結構初探〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。陳巧陵，2006。〈當代笑話之研究〉，台中:國立臺中教育大學語文教育學系碩士班碩士論文。陳克嫻，2003。〈明清長篇世情小說中的笑話研究──以《金瓶梅》、《姑妄言》、《紅樓夢》為中心之考察〉，花蓮：國立花蓮師範學院民間文學研究所碩士論文。陳秋良，2015。〈笑亦有道－談晚明詼諧寓言的雅謔理論〉。興大人文學報，54，135-165。陳學志，1991。〈「幽默理解」的認知歷程〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。陳學志、鄭昭明、卓淑玲，2001。〈笑話中幽默因于的訊息整合歷程研究〉。《中華心理學刊》，43(2)，137-1。陳麗娜，2009。〈中國民間故事類型研究〉，花蓮：國立東華大學民間文學研究所博士論文。舒宥慈，2007。〈美國情境喜劇笑話之語言分析:以六人行為例〉，臺北：國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文。黃獻慶，2006。〈連載漫畫翻譯策略之研究〉，高雄：國立高雄第一科技大學應用英語系碩士班碩士論文。楊雅心，2004。〈台灣民間笑話研究〉，高雄：國立高雄師範大學國文教學碩士班碩士論文。劉俊佑、盧鴻毅，2012。〈為何而笑？解讀《FHM男人幫》雜誌中的黃色笑話〉。臺灣性學學刊，18(2)，51-74。劉淑爾，2013。《類型研究視野下的中彰民間故事》。秀威資訊劉肇中，2009。〈台中東勢客家民間故事研究〉，彰化：國立彰化師範大學國文所碩士論文。鄭乃真，2014。〈傻女婿性教育故事研究〉，花蓮：國立東華大學中國語文學系碩士論文。賴旬美，1998。〈中國古代寓言型笑話研究〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學中國文學系碩士論文。羅金珠，2017。〈臺灣北部客家笑科研究〉，桃園：國立中央大學客家語文暨社會科學學系碩士論文。Aarne, A. (1961). The Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography, The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, Helsinki. ISBN 951-41-0132-4.Abdalian, A. (2006). Why`s That Funny?? An extension to the Semantic Script Theory of Humor. Linguistics Thesis: Swarthmore College.Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 16(1), 355-362.Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Attardo, S. (2002). Translation and humour: an approach based on the General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH). The Translator, 8(2), 173-194.Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis (it) ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3-4), 293-348.Attardo. S., Hempelmann. C. F. & Di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3-46.Beeman, W. O. (1999). Humor. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1/2), 103-106.Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor Scholarship and TESOL: Applying Findings and Establishing a Research Agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134-159.Douglas, M. (1968). The Social Control of Cognition: Some Factors in Joke Perception. Man, New Series, 3(3), 361-376.Feyaerts. K., & Brône. G. (2003). The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Preprint. 2005. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: 1–58Freedman, M., & Hoffman, P. (1980). How many Zen Buddhists Does it Take to Screw in a Lightbulb? New York: St. Martin’s.Freud, S. (1928). Humour. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9, 1-6.Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton.Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16(5), 465-485.Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 56(2), 161-183.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantic. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 3, 41-59.Hatch, M.J., Ehrlich, S.B. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies 14(4), 505–526.Hay, J. (1995). Gender and humour: Beyond a joke. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of pragmatics, 32(6), 709-742.Hempelmann, C. F., Taylor, J. M., & Raskin, V. (2012). Tightening up joke structure: not by length alone. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society. 34(34).Hofstadter, D., Gabora, L. (1989). Synopsis of the Workshop on Humor and Cognition. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2(4), 417–440.Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 26-50.Labov, W. (1997). Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 395 –415.Labov, W., Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, June (ed). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seatle: University of Washington Press, 12-44.Legman, G.(1968).Rationale of the dirty joke: An analysis of sexual humor.New York, NY:Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.Long, D., Graesser, A. (1988). Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing, Discourse Processes 11(2): 35-60.Masaeli, B., & Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2016). A Linguistic Analysis of Persian Online Jokes in Light of General Theory of Verbal Humor. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(7), 230-239.Masaeli, B., Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2016). A Linguistic Analysis of Persian Online Jokes in Light of General Theory of Verbal Humor. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3 (7), 230-239.Ouyang, J., & McKeown, K. (2014). Towards automatic detection of narrative structure. Proceedings of LREC14, Reykjavik, Iceland.Petrenko, M. (2007). The narrative joke: Conceptual structure and linguistic manifestation (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).Polimeni, J., Reiss, J.P. (2006). The first joke: exploring the evolutionary origins of humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 347–366.Raskin, V. (1979). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 325-335.Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor Boston: Reidel.Raskin, V. (2012). Semantic mechanisms of humor (Vol. 24). Springer Science & Business Media.Raskin, V., Hempelmann, C. F., & Taylor, J. M. (2009). How to understand and assess a theory: the evolution of the SSTH into the GTVH and now into the OSTH. Journal of Literary Theory, 3(2), 285-311.Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.Rozin, P., Rozin, A., Appel, B.& Wachtel, C. (2006). Documenting and Explaining the common AAB pattern in music and humor: Establishing and breaking expectations. Emotion. 6 (3), 349–355.Ruhlemann, C. (2013). Narrative in English Conversation: A Corpus Analysis of Storytelling. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 89-113.Shultz, J. (1976). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. In Antony, J. C., Hugh, C. F (Eds.), It`s a Funny Thing, Humour: Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter. 41-45.Shultz, J. M. (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. New York: Academic.Smith, D. (2015). Manipulating Components of Joke Construction and its Effect on Funniness. Holster Scholar Projects. 18.Smith, J. (2006). Narrative: sociolinguistic research. University of York, York: UK.Swanson, R., Rahimtoroghi, E., Corcoran, T.and Walker M. A. (2014). Identifying narrative clause types in personal stories. In 15th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue.Taylor, J. M. (2012). Do Jokes Have to Be Funny: Analysis of 50 “Theoretically Jokes”. AAAI Artificial Intelligence of Humor Symposium.Ungerer, F., Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.Veale, T. (2005). Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419-428.Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes. Small group behavior, 20(2), 151-166. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.GIL.001.2018.A07 -
