TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO

Título

Metaphor and simile in British humour

Autor/es

Leticia Mendoza Jiménez

Director/es

Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez

Facultad

Facultad de Letras y de la Educación

Titulación

Grado en Estudios Ingleses

Departamento

Curso Académico

2015-2016
 Metaphor and simile in British humour, trabajo fin de grado
de Leticia Mendoza Jiménez, dirigido por Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
(publicado por la Universidad de La Rioja), se difunde bajo una Licencia
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported.
Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden solicitarse a los
titulares del copyright.

© El autor
© Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones,
publicaciones.unirioja.es
E-mail: publicaciones@unirioja.es
 Trabajo de Fin de Grado

METAPHOR AND SIMILE IN BRITISH

HUMOUR

Autor:

LETICIA MENDOZA JMÉNEZ

Tutor/es: Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez

Titulación:

Grado en Estudios Ingleses [601G]

Facultad de Letras y de La Educación

AÑO ACADÉMICO: 2014/2015

0
 INDEX

1. Introduction 5

2. Methodology and corpus selection 7

3. Theoretical framework 8

3.1. Metaphor versus simile 8

3.2. The concept of metaphor throughout history 12

3.2.0. From the classic perspective to Romanticism 13

3.2.1. The metaphor in XX century: a new approach 14

3.3. Cognitive Linguistic: a general overview 16

3.3.0. Introduction 16
3.3.1. The Objectivist paradigm 16
3.3.2. The Subjectivist paradigm 17
3.3.3. The Experientialist paradigm 18

3.4. The Conceptual Metaphor: Lakoff and Johnson’s perspective 19

3.4.0. Introduction 19
3.4.1. Metaphors classification 20
3.4.2. Ruiz de Mendoza’s approach 22
3.4.3. A current perspective of metaphor 22

1
 3.5. Attardo and Veale on Humor 23

3.5.0. Introduction 23
3.5.1. Attardo’s perspective on Humor 24
3.5.2. Attardo’s perspective on Humorous Metaphors 25
3.5.3. Tony Veale’s perspective on Humor 27

4. Humorous metaphors and similes: A cognitive analysis 28

4.1. Introduction 28
4.2.Analysis 28

5. Conclusions 35

6. References 41

2
RESUMEN

La metáfora ha sido considerada durante mucho tiempo como un elemento

meramente ornamental, en ocasiones subordinada y casi siempre ligada a la retórica y a
la literatura. Sin embargo, con el surgimiento de la Lingüística Cognitiva y en concreto
con las aportaciones de George Lakoff y Mark Johnson, la concepción de la misma
cambia radicalmente y emprende un nuevo camino que llega hasta nuestros días, donde
encontramos un amplio abanico de teorías y perspectivas. Esta revolución cognitiva
hizo que la metáfora se convirtiese en un fenómeno mental, mucho más común y
necesario en nuestro pensamiento de lo que se había creído hasta entonces.

El objetivo de este estudio es doble: en primer lugar, ofrecer al lector una visión
general a cerca del cambio progresivo que la metáfora ha llevado a cabo hasta nuestros
días, haciendo hincapié principalmente en la aparición de la Lingüística Cognitiva y en
la nueva concepción y clasificación de las metáforas que aportan George Lakoff y Mark
Johnson entre otros. Este análisis no solo se limita al siglo XX, sino que también
proporciona al lector a grandes rasgos la visión de la metáfora en el siglo XXI
basándose en uno de los últimos estudios de George Lakoff. Por otra parte, se adentra
en el campo del humor y ofrece una visión general de las metáforas humorísticas
fundamentada en los estudios de Salvatore Attardo y Tony Veale. Finalmente, y para
poner en práctica las teorías estudiadas, se presenta un corpus con diferentes ejemplos
de metáforas humorísticas y sus correspondientes análisis desde varias perspectivas.

ABSTRACT

Metaphor has been considered a merely ornamental element for a very long time,
sometimes subordinate and almost always bound to rhetoric and literature. However,
with the birth of Cognitive Linguistics and George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s
contributions in particular, the understanding of this concept changes radically and it
undertakes a new path until nowadays, where we can find a broadening range of
perspectives. This cognitive revolution regarded metaphor as a more usual phenomenon
in our conceptualising system than what it was assumed to be until that moment.

3
 The main objective of this study is twofold: Firstly, to offer the reader an
overview of the progressive changes in metaphor studies until nowadays, emphasizing
the birth of Cognitive Linguistic and the new conception and classification of metaphors
originating in the work by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This analysis is not only
confined to 20th century; it also provides the reader with one of the most recent studies
of Lakoff about metaphors. Secondly, it delves into the field of humour and it offers a
general panorama of humorous metaphors founded on Salvatore Attardo and Tony
Veale’s studies. Finally, with the aim of putting all these theories into practise, an
analysis of a corpus containing different examples of humorous metaphors is presented.

4
 1. Introduction

“Our ordinary conceptual system,

in terms of which we both think and act,

is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.”

George Lakoff, Metaphors We Live By

Before the birth of Cognitive Linguistics, metaphor was considered an ornamental

and subordinate figure for a long time; in fact, it has always been bound to the fields of
rhetoric and literature. Moreover, its study has been of secondary importance until
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson brought it to the fore.

The main purpose of this essay is twofold: On the one hand, to show the reader
how the study of metaphor has changed over history, from the classic perspective to the
21st century, and the significance of the work carried out by George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson, in which metaphor was considered a pervasive phenomenon in language and
thought. They mainly defended and verified the existence of what they called
correlational metaphors, or metaphors based on experience. Until that moment,
metaphor was considered a mere comparison between two entities that shared some
characteristics, but these authors claimed that metaphors were more than a simply
comparison; they were part of our daily speech and unconsciously, humans express a
considerable amount of metaphors when they communicate, which cannot be accounted
for in terms of a comparison between two terms. They thus studied and analyzed a
number of metaphors that will be discussed in this essay.

On the other hand, this essay is also focused on how metaphors work in the
humorous field and, to this end, the main theories of two important authors have been
selected: they are Salvatore Attardo and Tony Veale. Nowadays, humor, and especially
verbal humour, is studied from the point of view of a number of scientific fields, but it
remains an elusive concept, difficult to be defined, because of the many different factors
that come into play in its production and comprehension. One of the few studies that

5
can be considered essential for the proper study of verbal humor from a linguistic
perspective is Salvatore Attardo (1994) which has been taken into account for this
essay. Moreover, this essay focuses on the articles written by Attardo (2015) and Veale
(2015).

The structure of this study is as follows: the first theoretical part is entirely
devoted to the discussion about the two key concepts of this study: metaphor and simile.
There have been many different points of view regarding these aspects until Lakoff and
Johnson’s (1980, 1999) studies came to light; in fact, Zoltán Kövecses (2002) devotes a
large part of his analysis to the distinction between these two concepts. Some other
authors also espouse this perspective and they will also be mentioned and studied in this
part of the essay.

The second theoretical part will be devoted to the discussion on how metaphor has
changed over history. Therefore, this overview will be divided into two main periods:
from the classic perspective to Romanticism and the period focusing on the metaphor in
the 20th century. This section will also take into account other basic theories about this
topic such as Ruiz de Mendoza’s work (1997, 1998, and 1999). By the end of the study
we will discuss Attardo and Veale’s main ideas on humour and metaphors.

Finally, an analysis based on a corpus selection of humorous metaphors will also

be provided. Conclusions, references and sources will be provided at the end of the
essay.

6
 2. Methodology and corpus selection

For explanatory adequacy purposes, a significant selection of humorous

metaphors included in jokes have been selected, mainly in order to analyze the diverse
cognitive operations involved in metaphors both from the linguistic and humoristic
point of view. The corpus of this research has been selected from a wide range of web
sources. In this research, one of the most difficult parts has been how to choose the most
relevant examples of humorous metaphors for a proper analysis, since as it is well
known, humorous examples are not easy to find in common corpora. For this reason, a
wide and varied range of humorous websites have been chosen with the aim of
providing readers with common and easy to understand examples with which they can
feel identified.

These examples perfectly show how humorous metaphors are used in our daily
life, being part of funny conversations most of the time. These jokes deal with daily
matters such as love relationships, and common topics of everyday conversations, such
as money, life and death, the weather, arguments, etc. In conclusion, we have searched
for up-to-date usage-based examples of humorous language that show how human
conversations are unconsciously full of humorous metaphors.

By selecting the examples provided in the analytic section, the aim of this
research is to support the theoretical section based on the linguistic proposals on
metaphor made by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, the accounts on humour found in
the work of Salvatore Attardo and Tony Veale.

The following section will deal with the theoretical framework of this study based
on the cognitive linguistic perspective about metaphor and on the main lines of research
on humorous metaphor.

7
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1.Metaphor versus simile

In order to achieve the aims of this study successfully, it is essential to provide the
reader with an explanation of the terms metaphor and simile, their differences and
similarities, and the main theoretical perspectives on this topic.
While it is true that several authors have devoted a large part o their linguistic
studies to putting forward differences and similarities between both phenomena, Lakoff
and Johnson (1980) do not give importance to this issue, probably because of their goal
to separate the conceptual account of metaphor from rhetorical approaches. An
exception is Zoltán Kövecses, who devotes part of his study to this distinction and, in
addition, the analytical part of this research contains both similes and metaphors.
Zoltán Kövecses1, in his book: Metaphor: a Practical Introduction observes that, for
most people, metaphor is “a figure of speech” in which we compare two things. He
exemplifies this observation with the sentence: He is a lion (Kövecses 2002: 7) where a
person’s courage and aggressiveness is compared with corresponding behavior in a lion.
He also makes reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which offers a definition of
metaphor in a more elaborate manner: “metaphor [is a] figure of speech that implies
comparison between two unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an explicit
comparison signaled by the words ‘like’ or ‘as’.
Other sources also offer some definitions and examples that deserve to be taken
into account:
A simile, is a figure of speech that directly compares two things through the explicit use
of connecting words such as like, as, so, than, or a verb like resemble. Although similes and
metaphors are generally seen as interchangeable, similes acknowledge the imperfections and
limitations of the comparative relationship to a greater extent than metaphors. Metaphors are
subtler and so they are rhetorically stronger; metaphors equate two things rather than simply
compare them.2

In other words, it could be said that by using a metaphor you are gathering or
concentrating the interpretative possibilities while by using the simile you open this

1
Zoltán Kövecses is a professor of linguistics at the Department of American Studies at Eötvös Loránd
University, Budapest, and an internationally recognized scholar and researcher in the fields of cognitive
linguistics and metaphor theory.
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile (Accessed on May 13, 2015.)

8
interpretative frame, so that the opposite effect is produced. Here, we can find several
examples to clarify this distinction:

(1) Curley was flopping like a fish on a line3

(2) The very mist on the Essex Marshes was like gauzy and radiant fabric4

In both (1) and (2) it is possible observe the explicit used of the word like. Here,
there is another example of a simile with the word as:

(3) He runs as fast as a lighting5

Moreover, Chiappe & Kennedy (2003) explore this matter in depth and they
propose several ideas: First, they point out that the Literal Theory of Figurative
Meaning claims that figurative statements are modeled by means of expression. They
verify this theory by means of metaphors and similes. According to them, metaphor is
preferred when the similarity between the topic and the vehicle is high. In literal
language the form in (4) is preferred:

(4) That is an apple

Compare (5), which is also literal:

(5) That is like an apple

The form in (4) sets up a closer relationship between subject and predicate than
the form in (5). This property of equative versus comparative sentences carries over into
figurative language, where X is Y is used for metaphor because in metaphor the
similarity relationship is closer than in the case of simile, which consequently makes
use of other forms, as is the case with X is like Y.

They also explain in another of their articles how a comparison can be expressed
by means of a metaphor or by means of a simile, as revealed in the following example:

(6) Politics is a circus

(7) Politics is like a circus.

3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile (Accessed on May 15, 2015.)
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile (Accessed on May 17, 2015.)
5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile (Accessed on May 20, 2015.)

9
 However, although this statement is clear and convincing, they wonder what
determines the way in which we decide to express a comparison, by using metaphor or
simile. In order to respond to this question, they study two potential factors: aptness and
comprehensibility (Chiappe & Kennedy 2003: 51-68).

They clarify these terms by defining them as follows: “To be apt is to capture
more important features of a topic. Comprehensibility means being relatively easy to
understand” (Chiappe & Kennedy 2003: 55). Obviously, aptness takes precedence over
comprehensibility in the case of metaphor, and comprehensibility over aptness in the
case of simile.

Before proceeding, it is essential to define two key concepts when we make a

figurative comparison that can be expressed trough a metaphor or a simile: topic and
vehicle. The topic is the subject of a figurative statement, as we can appreciate in the
following examples proposed by Chiappe and Kennedy:

(8) Man is a wolf

In the example (8), the topic, man, it is the subject of the statement while the
vehicle is the concept we are using to say something new about the topic, as in the
following example:

(9) My love is like a red, red rose.

Going back to the preference that we can have to express a metaphor in one way
or another, they draw our attention to the metaphor: ‘Life is a valuable gift’. This
metaphor captures some important features of life, such as the fact that it is precious and
we are lucky to have it. However, perhaps, it does not capture as many important
features of life as the expression ‘Life is a journey’ does. (Chiappe & Kennedy 2003:
55).
Finally, they also argue that a comparison can be easily understood yet it can be
inappropriate, or, on the contrary, it can be very appropriate but difficult to understand,
as is the case with poetic metaphors. They exemplify this observation by making

10
reference to Kundera (1984),6 who describes Bach music as “a rose blooming on a
boundless, snow-covered plain of silence”. 7
However, it must be said that this matter is not as simple as it may seem, since
metaphors go well beyond what these authors claim: Are all metaphors as simple as
they have been described so far? Of course not. This is where Lakoff and Johnson’s
work plays a decisive role, by providing us with a perspective on metaphor that has
proved to be a turning point.
According to Lakoff and Johnson there are metaphors, which they label
correlational, which directly arise from bringing together experiences that tend to co-
occur. They are those metaphors that have no element in common. How would previous
authors (with their simple and clear conception of metaphors as based on comparison)
explain the following metaphorical expression?:

(10) “Prices rise and fall”

In this example we cannot compare two entities that have something in common.
However, they are expressions that we use in everyday language without being
conscious of their metaphorical nature. Other straightforward examples are the one in
which we talk about love as if it were a journey and the one in which we talk about time
as if it were space.
Lakoff and Johnson taught us that metaphor is pervasive, or in other words,
people use metaphors without realizing that they do so and in most of our daily
conversations we use these kinds of correlational metaphors which are based on the co-
occurrence of events in experience. Therefore, they do not devote part of their study to
the differences or similarities between metaphors and similes, but they focus their
theories on this breakthrough about metaphorical thinking being based on correlation.
Following their steps, this study is going to be based on the study of correlational
metaphors, leaving the previous aspects aside. The following section will deal with the
concept of metaphor throughout history before the origin of Cognitive Linguistics.

6
Milan Kundera (1929) is a Czech-born writer who has been living in exile in France since 1975, having
become a naturalized citizen in 1981.
7
http://bachtrack.com/es_ES/st-john-passion-orchestre-symphonique-montreal (Accessed on May 13,
2015).

11
 3.2. The concept of metaphor throughout history: the classic versus the
modern perspective

The present study seeks to offer a panoramic view of the evolution of metaphor.
In this way, the reader will acquire a detailed knowledge of metaphor before Conceptual
Metaphor Theory originated with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980). For this
purpose, this section has been divided into two main parts: the first one covers the
period from the classic perspective to Romanticism, while the second part focuses on
the metaphor as a new concept in 20th century.

The justification of this division derives from the fact that the concept of
metaphor takes a different direction on account of the new theories and approaches of
the new century. In other words, it could be said that the metaphor has been considered
in two different ways: on the one hand, as a merely ornamental concept and, on the
other hand, as an essential part of language and knowledge of the human being. To
write this section, two doctoral dissertations, one by Moreno Lara (2004) and the other
by Martín de la Rosa (2002) have been taken into account as suitable sources of
information.

The concept of metaphor has considerably evolved from the perspective that
prevailed in the classic period until nowadays. Nevertheless, it does not mean that we
have only one perspective of metaphor. As Ignacio Bosque Muñoz8 has pointed out, the
study of metaphor has an interdisciplinary nature that is the cause of this “bibliographic
explosion”, to use his own words.

In this line, the next point deals with the evolution of metaphor until 20th century.

3.2.1. From the Classic perspective to Romanticism

Metaphor was considered merely as an aesthetic element in the classic period,

such as an ornamental figure or, in other words, as a distinctive trait of poetry, nothing

8
José Ignacio Bosque Muñoz (1951) is a Spanish linguist. He is a professor of Spanish Philology at the
Complutense University of Madrid.

12
like a beneficial tool for humans in their daily language. In fact, in that period it was
something unthinkable to consider our language full of metaphors that we, as humans,
express unconsciously, as Lakoff explains throughout his outstanding studies on
metaphors. It is demonstrated in this study, particularly, in the analytical part.

Metaphor was considered an infrequent and unusual element. Moreover, it was

regarded as a fundamental element in Rhetoric because of its figurative nature. As
Nubiola (2000) argues, metaphor was always acknowledged as being a characteristic
element of literary criticism. Moreover, he further adds that the deep chasm opened
between science, on the one hand, and the poetic language, on the other hand, made
metaphor not be considered as a matter of philosophical research.

As Moreno Lara (2004) points out, Aristotle is the first to study metaphor in
depth, in his Poética in particular. He completely separates metaphor from people’s
daily language use by endowing this phenomenon with so much relevance that it is
assigned a specific field. Even in his work Poética, as Martin de la Rosa (2002)
observes, Aristotle attributes a great value to the metaphor when he remarks: “The good
use of metaphor is an indication of ingenuity”.

Aristotle is the first thinker who both awards a great value and importance to
metaphor, something out of the ordinary, and looks at it from a more positive
perspective than ever before. However, while this is true, he keeps on breaking ground
with regard to scientific language, pushing it into the background of this field.

Following Moreno Lara (2004: 17), Quintiliano was another classic author who
considered metaphor as the best example of trope used to enrich the ordinary language
and to elevate it to the category of art. In the Middle Ages, and as might be expected,
metaphor is going to be related to the religious or spiritual field. Poetry must not only
transmit its author’s thoughts, but it is also indispensable to convey the presence of a
moral or religious message at any moment.

This conception about metaphor will remain until the Romantic period when a
small change is appreciated: a change regarding its understanding, as Romanticism tries
to distance itself from reason and the objectivism that prevailed at that time. Experts of
that time considered it not only as an ornamental figure, but also as a characteristic

13
feature of the imaginative capacity of the human being. Vico9 and Coleridge10 (who
talked about metaphor in an informal impressionist manner without analyzing it in an
objective way) are representatives of the prevailing thought of that time.

3.2.2. Metaphor in 20th Century: A new approach

For a proper development of this theoretical section I have decided to base it on

the classification offered by Martín de la Rosa (2002) about the main metaphorical
studies of the 20th century. In this period of time, we are facing a fundamental change
regarding the concept of metaphor: this is the moment when George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson’s theories place their roots.

This period can be divided into two main tendencies or groups: the constructivist
group and the non-constructivist one. The following figure lists the main theories:

Richards & Black: The Interaction Theory

Non-Constructivists
Searle & Grice: The Pragmatic Theory

Michael Reddy: The Conduit Metaphor

Constructivists

Sperber and Wilson: Relevance Theory

Figure 1. Diagram about the main theories about metaphor in XX Century.

The constructivist view of the metaphor offers a new and original approach to the
still-prevailing perspective so far. Within this view, metaphor is an element that allows
humans to generate or build diverse perspectives of reality that are around us. It also
contends that metaphor must not only be present in poetic language, but also in

9
Giovan Battista Vico (1668-1744) was an Italian political philosopher, rhetorician, historian, and jurist.
He criticized the expansion and development of modern rationalism and was an apologist of classical
antiguity.
10
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) was an English poet, literary critic and philosopher who, with his
friend William Wordsworth, was a founder of the Romantic Movement in England and a member of the
Lake Poets.

14
everyday language. Michael Reddy11 thinks that a large part of the expressions used
respond to what he calls: the Conduit Metaphor: a dominant class of figurative
expressions used when discussing communication itself. It operates whenever people
speak or write as if they “insert” their mental contents (feelings, meanings, etc.) into
“containers” (words, phrases etc.) whose contents are then “extracted” by listeners and
readers.12 Regarding this matter, Lakoff stated:

The contemporary theory that metaphor is primarily conceptual, conventional, and part of
the ordinary system of thought and language can be traced to Michael Reddy’s now
classic essay... With a single, thoroughly analyzed example, he allowed us to see, albeit in
a restricted domain, that ordinary everyday English is largely metaphorical, dispelling
once and for all the traditional view that metaphor is primarily in the realm of poetic or
'figurative' language. Reddy showed, for a single, very significant case, that the locus of
metaphor is thought, not language, that metaphor is a major and indispensable part of our
ordinary, conventional way of conceptualizing the world, and that our everyday behavior
reflects our metaphorical understanding of experience. (Lakoff 1993: 204).

Sperber and Wilson studied metaphors as the natural result of some of the abilities
and procedures used in verbal communication. For them, there is not discontinuity
between literal and figurative language, a claim that is endorsed in Ruiz de Mendoza
(2004: 20).

With regard to the non-constructivist perspective, Black claims that the prevailing
view so far has been very limited because it has been reduced to mere comparisons or
substitutions; thus he puts forward the Interaction Theory, which is based on the
assumption that the new meaning of a metaphorical expression arises from the
interaction between its two subject terms (Black 1979). This theory takes Richards’s
studies as its antecedent, and develops traditional theories. Within pragmatics, the
Gricean approach (e.g. Martinich 1984), assumes that metaphor involves the blatant
violation (or flouting) of Grice’s second maxim of quality (“Do not say what you
believe is false”; Grice 1975). Metaphor is an evident “lie”, which is not intended to
deceive and at the same time. However, this account does not separate well metaphor
from all other figurative uses of language, which are also the same kind of “evident”
violation of the second maxim of quantity.
11
Michael J. Reddy defined and described the conceptual metaphor. This discovery refocused debate
within and outside the linguistic community on the importance of metaphorical language.
12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduit_metaphor (Accessed on May 13, 2015).

15
 In conclusion, it could be said that in the 20th century a gap between literal and
figurative language prevails and metaphor is still regarded as a deviant use of language,
mainly for aesthetic purposes, although at the end of the 20th century some scholars
such as relevance theorists (Sperber and Wilson 1986) and cognitive linguists (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980) consider metaphor an everyday phenomenon that does not stray
away from “standard” uses.

3.3.Cognitive Linguistics: A general overview

3.3.0. Introduction

By the end of the seventies, The Cognitive Linguistic Science appears within the
experientialist paradigm, in opposition to the objectivist paradigm. In general terms, it
can be said that there were three different tendencies: The objectivist, the subjectivist,
and the experientialist paradigm. The birth of the Cognitive Linguistic Science took
place under the experientialist paradigm, which we are going to study in depth here.
In 1987 Cognitive Linguistics witnesses the publication of a landmark study:
Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, by George Lakoff. In this book, Lakoff (1987)
addresses such topics as conceptual categorization, the notion of Idealized Cognitive
Models (ICM), image schemas, metaphor (the object of this study) and metonymy.

3.3.1. The Objectivist Paradigm

In the objectivist tradition the interest regarding metaphor is marginal. It argues

that there is an objective reality that can be described or referred to, in absolute terms,
on the basis of true or false assertions. However, the Cognitive paradigm argues that
truth and falsehood do not exist in absolute terms; they are relative to the conceptual
frame that it is used. This is evinced in the following quotation by Lakoff taken from
Metaphors We Live By:

The problem was not one of extending or patching up some existing theory of meaning
but of revising central assumptions in the Western philosophical tradition. In particular, this
meant rejecting the possibility of any objective or absolute truth and a host of related

16
assumptions. It also meant supplying an alternative account in which human experience and
understanding, rather than objective truth, played the central role. In the process, we have
worked out elements of an experientialist approach, not only to issues of language, truth, and
under-standing but to questions about the meaningfulness of our everyday experience. (Lakoff
1980: 9-10 ).

Within the Objectivist paradigm entities are characterized by the properties that
they have in common, and in this consists, precisely, categorization. However, this
process is much more complex than it simply appears to be. Within this paradigm, the
prototype theory emerges. Until this moment, categorization was understood as
generalizing and discriminating among features of entities. However, Lakoff argues that
categorization not only concerns concrete entities, but also abstract ones, and that
categorization is made by humans in an unconscious way (Lakoff 1987: 5).

3.3.2. The Subjectivist Paradigm

As Martín de la Rosa (2002) explains, the subjectivist paradigm is the other side
of the coin. Objectivism and subjectivism are thus two incompatible perspectives. The
subjectivist paradigm suggests that there is an inevitable difference between humans
since the validity of their judgments or opinions is not present in objects but in the
subject, with his/her emotions, imagination, humanity, or artistic capacity.
Lakoff and Johnson explain (1980: 231) discuss the essentials of the subjectivist
paradigm, which can be summarized as follows:
- The most important things in life such as emotions, sensitivity and spiritual
consciousness are always subjective.
- The language of imagination, especially metaphorical language, is necessary
to express unique aspects of human experience.
- Objectivism forgets about the most relevant areas of the experience in favour
of the universal.

In conclusion, it could be said that objectivism and subjectivism are two opposite
perspectives: the objectivist paradigm speaks on behalf of science, impartiality, justice
among others, whereas the subjectivist paradigm deals with imagination, emotions, art,
etc.

17
 3.3.3 The Experientialist Paradigm

Lakoff (1987) defines the notion of Idealized Cognitive Model, or ICM, as the
way in which the established knowledge of a concept, such as mother or single, is
delimited by an idealized model of experience. In other words, ICMs are structures that
shape our knowledge. Lakoff differentiates four different kinds of ICM:

Propositional models, that is, organized items of knowledge from different

conceptual domains associated in a linguistic way. These models are the equivalent of
Fillmore’s (1985) frames. For example, in the buying frame we have a buyer, a seller,
merchandise, money, and a market. Each frame element is related to other frame
elements in linguistically specifiable ways: I bought a book from Mary/Mary sold me
the book are two different perspectives on the relationship between the buyer and the
seller.

Image Schemas, that is, schematized images (e.g. a container, a path) or spatial
and orientational concepts (e.g. up/down, front/back). Image schemas were put forward
and studied in detail by Johnson (1987) and they show in our everyday use of language:
I am in a tight spot/I got out of a tight spot sees a situation as if it were a container
where a person can feel trapped but from which one can try to escape.

Metaphors, which are cross-domain mappings, that is, sets of correspondences

between a source and a target domain, where the source is used to structure and reason
about the target. For example, we use the notion of a journey to talk about some aspects
of our experience with love. In this way, progress in the love relationship is seen as
motion forward towards a destination (Our relationship is heading in the right
direction) and difficulties in the relationship as impediments to motion (We are just
having some bumps along the way, but we really love each other).

Metonymy, which are domain-internal mappings where the source domain stands
for the target. For example, the ruler can stand for the army under his command within
the domain of war: Hitler invaded Poland.

There is a recent distinction, proposed by Ruiz de Mendoza (2011), which divides

these four ICM types into two broad kinds of models: operational cognitive models
(metaphor, metonymy) and non-operational ones (frames, image schemas).

18
Propositional models and image schemas, which are not operational, are used to
perform metaphoric and metonymic operations, but not the other way round.

3.4. Conceptual metaphor: Lakoff and Johnson’s perspective.

3.4.0. Introduction

Human beings use metaphors with the aim of dealing with abstract notions that
are beyond the realm of direct experience.

The cognitivist approach breaks away from the idea of metaphor substitution that
prevailed in the classic period. This new perspective rejects subjectivism and
objectivism in favor of the experientialist paradigm.

The prevailing view was that metaphor consists in the substitution of an element
for another one with which it shared relevant features. But this theory of substitution
does not take into account that there are cases in which it is not possible to find a
linguistic expression that will substitute for the one in the metaphor. For example, while
in Achilles is a lion the expression a lion substitutes for courageous, it is not easy to
find an expression that will adequately substitute for “win someone’s heart” in She won
my heart. This metaphor involves the much more complex thought of acting in such a
way that as a result someone will eventually love the actor. The substitution view
ignores the inclusive nature of the metaphor. For this reason, a better approach is to
think of metaphor in terms of the overlap of two conceptual domains, with a multitude
of characteristics.

So the Cognitive perspective prefers to talk about a mapping of domains rather

than about substitution. One domain, the source, is used to think and talk about another
domain, the target. For example, in Achilles is a lion, we think of a warrior’s behavior
in a battle (the target) as if it were the fierce, instinctual behavior of a lion when fighting
other animals (the source). In previous structuralist approaches to meaning, domains
were referred to as semantic fields. However, the notion of domain allows for any
frame-like connection between concepts (not just “type-of” links) while placing
boundaries on them from the point of view of specific cognitive tasks (not all our
knowledge on lions and warriors is at work in Achilles is a lion).
19
 3.4.1. Metaphor’s classification: orientational, ontological and structural.

In 1980, George Lakoff together with Mark Johnson published the first work
that will mean a before and an after regarding the conception of metaphor: Metaphors
we live by. The central idea of this study is that metaphor goes beyond being a mere
formal aspect of language and it allows humans to structure some concepts from others.
The way in which this occurs depends on our direct experience with the real
world that is around us, trough the use of our body. This is the study in which both
authors explain the well-known classification of metaphors into three main groups:
structural, orientational, and ontological.

Structural metaphors: Structural metaphors make use of one concept to come

to terms with another concept with which it has corresponding structure. A typical
example of this group is: AN ARGUMENT IS A WAR, where we think of people
contending verbally in terms of enemies in a battle, their ideas as weapons, and winning
or losing the debate as winning or losing the battle (e.g. He shot down all my arguments
‘defeated’).

Orientational metaphors: They are related with the spatial orientation:

up/down, inside/outside: MORE IS UP/LESS IS DOWN (e.g. Prices are going up
‘increasing’)

Ontological metaphors categorize a phenomenon in a peculiar manner trough

its consideration as an entity, substance or container (e.g. THE MIND IS A
CONTAINER, as in It’s in my mind).

In later work, Lakoff and Johson (1999) were very careful to separate more
drastically metaphor based on the nature of our bodily experience from metaphor
grounded in comparison. Metaphor based on bodily experience (or embodied metaphor)
was not only a matter of correlating events that co-occur and with which we relate
physically. Experiential correlation underlies the mixing up of concepts in our minds, a
phenomenon that receives the name of conflation. For example, the experience of piling
up objects (e.g. books) allows us to think of quantity in terms of height: the greater the
amount of books, the higher the pile. But because of the high frequency of this

20
correlation our minds conflate the two concepts. This results in our minds going beyond
resorting to height to talk about quantity and treating the two concepts as if they were
the same. The same happens with time-space correlation, which is why it is sometimes
hard to talk about time without using spatial categories (think of expressions like Time
flies and The time will come, where we see time as a moving object). This makes
correlation metaphor more basic to our thought than resemblance metaphor, although
some scholars, like Grady (1999), have defended the importance of finding an adequate
balance in the treatment of the two metaphor types.
To sum up, for centuries scholars regarded metaphor as a process in which two
similar entities were compared. However, there are metaphors in which both domains
(the source and the target domain) are not similar at all. These are correlational
metaphors, or in other words, metaphors based on experience such as MORE IS
UP/LESS IS DOWN, TIME IS SPACE, GOALS ARE DESTINATIONS (based on our
experience of reaching our goals as we get to destinations; We need to get to the end of
our task), and AFFECTION IS WARMTH (based on feeling a person’s body
temperature when they show affection through proximity; She is a cold/warm person).

3.4.2. Ruiz de Mendoza’s approach

Ruiz de Mendoza (1998, 1999) establishes two kinds of metaphors regarding the
type of mapping: they are on the one hand, the multiple correspondences, as in the case
of LOVE IS A JOURNEY or ARGUMENT IS WAR, where we can appreciate how
diverse metaphorical expressions generate multiple or diverse correspondences, and
metaphors of only one correspondence, such as PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS. Whereas in
the first group, numerous structural elements of the target domain are developed, only
one element plays a significant role in metaphors of the second group. These latter ones
are considered closer to metonymies.
The situational metaphors are included in the first group and they are used to
extract, from a generalization, an applicable consequence to other situations. For
example, He ran away with his tail between his legs maps a situation in which a dog
shows through submissive bodily posture that he has been punished and scared away to
one in which a person behaves submissively too and decides not to confront his
opponents. As Ruiz de Mendoza and Otal (2002: 47) claim, situational metaphors

21
present part of a scene that needs to be developed metonymically to reveal the complete
situation that is metaphorically projected in the target domain of the metaphor. In the
example above, the linguistic expression only depicts the part in which the dog runs
away showing submission, but not the part where the dog has been confronted and
punished, which is accessed metonymically. The classification does not end here.
According to these authors, situational metaphors are divided into scenic and non-
scenic, the formal being observed from the outside (our previous example) and the latter
from the perspective of inner experience (His heart pounded heavily). They also
distinguish three kinds of non-situational metaphors: metaphors of image schemas,
metaphors of image, and propositional metaphors, which roughly correspond to the
previous distinctions made in Lakoff and Johnson (1980).

3.4.3. A current perspective of metaphor

Since this study deals with Lakoff’s perspective on metaphor, it is essential to

provide the reader with an overview of later developments, even if briefly, so the
following lines deal with the work on the Neural Theory of Metaphor (Lakoff 2009).
This is very different work from the previous ones and it cannot be strictly applied to
linguistic data, and it is thus unnecessary for the aim of this essay. It mainly focuses on
the study of human’s brain and mind. In general terms, Lakoff supplies empirical
evidence that when the human being tries to interpret the metaphorical language, our
brain activates the same areas that are activated when we move. In other words, our
brain activates the same regions for both cases. To exemplify this, think of the verb
grasp. This verb can be literary understood as catching or grabbing something or in its
metaphorical sense as understanding (and getting to know) an idea. In this sense, our
brain stimulates the same region when we catch or grab a bottle of water for instance as
when we simulate grabbing it or when we use the verb grasp in its metaphorical sense.
Neural networks seem to be multifunctional and work at different levels of ideation,
which makes abstract thinking grounded in sensory-motor experience.

22
 3.5. Attardo and Veale on Humor

3.5.0. Introduction

Immersing in the study of humor is not an easy task for any linguist, since it is a
vast field with a wide range of perspectives and numerous cognitive and communicative
variables taking part in it. This makes it necessary to restrict the scope of this study with
the aim of offering the reader a clear and concise outlook of the main studies of humor
and the main lines of research.

As Santana López (2005) points out, the fact that humor has been converted into
an object of study of its own becomes clearly manifested in the appearance of the
academic interdiscipline called Humor Studies, at the end of the eighties. One of its
organs of representation is the official research journal entitled: Humor- International
Journal of Humor Research. In the area of Humor Studies there are three different lines
of investigation: (i) the semantic accuracy of the term humor, as humorous effect, (ii)
incongruity and superiority as the basic cognitive foundations of humor, and finally (iii)
the semiotic interaction between humor and audiovisual media and conventional literary
genres.

One of the key studies that has been selected for the proper understanding of this
field is Attardo (1994),13 which in general terms states that humor is the manifestation
of an incongruity between the expected situation and the current one. The General
Theory of Verbal Humor, which is based on Attardo’s views, coexists with other two
approaches to humor: Cognitive Linguistics, which relies on the concept of mental
space to explain humor, and Relevance Theory, which considers the search for optimal
relevance by the addressee as the only explanatory principle, as noted by Ruiz Gurillo
(2012).

23
 3.5.1. Attardo’s perspective on Humor

As Torres Sánchez (1997) explains, Attardo (1994) constitutes one of the few
theories that are considered essential for the proper understanding and study of verbal
humor from a linguistic perspective. Its main objective is to offer a general view of the
main humor studies from different perspectives. The book is merely descriptive,
although the author manifests his point of view through the analysis of two of the most
prominent humorous manifestations: puns and jokes.

Regarding the main ideas presented in this book, which deserve to be taken into
account in this study, Attardo makes a clear distinction between what he denominates
emic, for causing laughter or applause, and what theorists consider funny. He also
insists on the fact that the key of all humor is found in competence, understood as
“tactical knowledge” (in the sense that Chomsky’s followers give to this term).
The author classifies the main theories of humor into three groups:
- Superiority Theories
- Relief theories
- Incongruity Theories

As Torres Sanchez (1997) points out, the central part of this book is formed by a
series of chapters about jokes and puns. Much criticism has been leveled against this
part of the book since the author does not define or delimit both terms but simply takes
them for granted.

In the second chapter, Attardo puts forward a new model for the structural
analysis of jokes, based on the models of narrative analysis developed by Greimas14. He
also provides us with a typology of jokes in which he distinguishes two kinds of jokes:
referential and verbal jokes. The author focuses mainly on analyzing the humorous
phenomenon of puns, which, in his opinion, happen unconsciously.

Attardo also addresses a series of models for the analysis of humor and he
considers the Script Theory of Humor by Raskin (1985) as another feasible way of
understanding the notion of humor inspired by Generative Grammar. Finally, he also

14
Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917-1992) is a French-Lithuanian literary scientist, known among other
things for the Greimas Square. He is considered the most prominent of the French semioticians.

24
analyses jokes and humor in general from the point of view of Grice’s Cooperative
Principle and its maxims. At this point, Attardo considers not only irony, but also
metaphor, meiosis and hyperbole as other cases of violation of the first maxim of
quality.

3.5.2. Attardo’s perspective on Humorous metaphors.

For the study of humorous metaphors from Attardo’s perspective, I have selected
one of his articles entitled “Humorous Metaphors” (Attardo 2015). Henceforth, this
section will provide the reader with a general overview of this article and of Attardo’s
perspective on this issue in particular.

Attardo delves into a corpus of humorous metaphors collected on the internet.

One of his conclusions is that the folk usage of the term humorous metaphor is an
umbrella term that covers an array of phenomena: metaphors that describe inherently
funny referents, un-metaphors, mixed metaphors, and overdone metaphors. Each
phenomenon is illustrated by examples (11)-(14) respectively:

(11) As independent as a hog on ice;

(12) The red brick wall was the color of a brick red Crayola crayon (mapping one
domain on itself);

(13) That jumped on the bandwagon going nowhere (unrelated, sequentially

added metaphors);

(14) It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it on the wall.

He also points out that primary metaphors are basic and very general connections,
such as “good is up.”

Furthermore, Attardo explains that there are many folk categorizations of

humorous metaphors that also incorporate simple puns and are not metaphors at all.

Attardo’s discussion is of great value but it has some weaknesses that require
revision: First of all, it is based mainly on communicative processes and not on mental
processes. Moreover, and as Leonor Ruiz Gurillo points out (2011), from the

25
perspective of Cognitive Linguistics, humor cannot be dealt with on the basis of the
incongruity-resolution proposal, which maintains that one element is substituted for
another. This static notion clashes with the dynamism and plasticity of what in
Cognitive Linguistics is called a blended space, that is, a repository of combined
conceptual representations coming from other mental spaces, including metaphoric
source and target domains (Fauconnier and Turner 2002).

In the process of integration, emerging structure that does not belong to either the
source or the target may arise. Emerging structures explain what happens in the case of
humor. We can apply this insight to example (11) above. The expression “as
independent as a hog on ice” suggests pointless independence or freedom. It has been
argued that this expression comes from the Scottish game of curling, in which each
team slides a large flat stone over the ice towards the center of a circle. A hog is a stone
that has not gone all the way to the circle and sits in the way of further play. But the
reason why the term “hog” is used here and why it is associated with the idea of
“independence” is not clear in this explanation. A better explanation is one where we
think of a hog (a pig) that has managed to escape but ends up on a pond of ice, unable to
run out. The hog’s independence is fleeting, since it will be easily recaptured and
returned to its pen. It is not enough to classify this metaphor as having a funny referent.

Part of its humorous impact comes from the activation of a paradoxical scenario
in our minds where our freedom is not real freedom, to which we add the
unexpectedness of thinking of a pig sliding on ice unable to make its escape. All this
conceptual structure exceeds what the metaphoric source and target give us. The source
consists in a scenario where a pig hopelessly struggles to get off the ice and regain its
freedom. The target is the real situation where someone’s hopes of true independence
are thwarted. The paradoxical part, the fruitless escape attempt, and the other elements
in the blended space go beyond what we find in the source and the target.

3.5.3. Tony Veale’s perspective on humor.

This section provides the reader with an overview of Tony Veale’s approach to
humor. In particular, it is based on the article: “The humour of exceptional cases: Jokes
as compressed thought experiments” (Veale 2015).

26
 Veale (2015) explores the role of subversive counter-examples in thought
experimentation and humor. As he explains, he begins by considering the structure of
thought experiments. Moreover, he also explores the mechanics of subversion via
appropriate counter-examples in verbal humor, and demonstrates how exceptional cases
can be constructed from the raw lexico-conceptual components of conventional
linguistic constructions. Then, a particular genre of humor called “trumping” is also
described. He also looks to interpersonal considerations in both jokes and thought
experiments and he finally offers a case study of a particular linguistic form, the
stereotypical simile.

Generally speaking, he examines the similarities between thought experiments

and jokes, and he concludes that both forms of discourse are similar by virtue of their
subversive role in the undermining of habitually-held world-views.

In this way, he points out that: “it is preferred to view humor as a rather pointed
use of a more fundamental cognitive mechanism: the ability to probe the boundaries of
existing categories, to illuminate the unspoken limitations of these categories, and to
offer appropriate counter-examples that expose these limitations to ridicule”. (Veale:
2015: 87).

27
4. HUMOROUS METAPHORS AND SIMILES: A COGNITIVE ANALYSIS

4.1. Aims of this analysis on humorous metaphors.

The main objective of this analytical section of our study is to discuss in some
detail a selection of examples collected from a number of websites, as has been
previously mentioned. The examples deal with such topics as love, money,
relationships, etc., which are ordinarily found in everyday conversations. They are
analyzed from both a cognitive and a humorous perspective emphasizing the different
processes that are carried out unconsciously when we are joking.

4.2. Analysis

(1) Money doesn't talk; it swears15

From a linguistic perspective, a development is produced in this metaphor by

changing the word talk by another one that implies a stronger connotation as is the case
of swear. When we say Money talks we want to emphasize the power of money, we
want to express that money is important in our society and we make reference to the
significance of money nowadays, so this metaphor is important in determining what one
has to do. Here, a denial of the first metaphor is produced: Money doesn’t talk. It is an
ontological metaphor, MONEY IS A PERSON. This metaphor consists in the
personification of money, by attributing some human abilities such as the act of
speaking or swearing. Moreover, the second part of the humorous example reinforces
the significance of money, meaning that it is not only important, but it has power, it is
binding and decisive.

This is deduced from the metaphor: it swears. Te word swears is here a

hyponym of talks. As a result, it both develops and gives a different perspective on the
metaphoric target (one in which money is absolutely the only thing that counts).

15
http://www.bobdylan.com/es/node/25793 (Accessed on May 15, 2015.)

28
“Money swears” obtains its humorous impact from the cancellation of the scenario
invoked by “money talks” to make it more drastic.

When a person talks, the person acts by way of reasoning and persuasion, but
when a person swears, we have a binding promise and this only one possible course of
action. The following schema depicts the previous explanation:

Money talks Money doesn’t talk It swears

It is important Denial of the metaphor It is a hyponym of talks.

Figure 1. Diagram of the humorous metaphor: “Money doesn’t talk, it swears”.

So we have two figurative expressions:

(1) Money talks

(2) Money swears

Expression (1) is conventional. It conveys the idea that money allows people to
make decisions that are not going to be ignored (i.e. it “talks”). The expression is based
on two metonymies: from “money” to “people who have money” and from “talking” to
“communicating decisions that will not be ignored”. Once combined, the two
metonymies produce a scenario in which people who hold money have the power to
decide and be followed. This scenario can be applied to any situation where someone
has made a decision (whether fair or not) that goes undisputed.

Expression (2) is unconventional. Its humorous value resides in the exploitation

of the metonymic combination in (1), but with a change in the verb. Instead of “talks”,
(2) uses a hyponym of this verb, i.e. “swears”. To swear is to make a solemn declaration
that one says is true. But “swear” also has the meaning of “cursing” or using obscene or
blasphemous language. On one interpretation, (2) means that what the speaker says by

29
virtue of his social position and monetary power is absolutely binding on others. On
another interpretation, which gives rise to humor, what one decides on the basis of
money is a curse (either on the speaker himself or on others).

On an alternative interpretation (1) could be considered a metaphor, whereby an

object is endowed with human attributes, in the present case, the ability to speak. In this
interpretation, speaking is also metonymic, as in the initial explanation, for “making and
communicating important decisions” that are not going to face opposition.

(2) Marriage isn't a word, it is a sentence16

This example plays with the metonymic meaning of the words word and sentence,
since these two terms both designate grammatical units. But neither of the two is to be
taken in this sense. First, saying that “marriage is a word” is a way of minimizing the
importance of marriage (i.e. marriage is not an important institution based on mutual
promises, but just a word). Then, “sentence” is to be taken in another sense: as a
penalty. The metaphor is found in saying that “Marriage is a sentence understood as a
penalty”, since marriage is the legal union of two people to form a family. It could also
be conveyed as a simile: “Marriage is like a sentence”.

Nevertheless, neither the metaphor nor the related simile is by itself inherently
humorous without the previous contextualizing statement. Saying that marriage is not a
word would, in principle, suggest that the speaker thinks marriage is important. This
assumption is canceled out by the metaphor, where marriage is seen as a penalty and
humor arises from this counter-expectation.

Marriage is a word Marriage is a promise

Metonymy Metonymy

A promise A ceremony in which someone with

authority marries people

16
http://izquotes.com/quote/353828 (Accessed on May 20, 2015.)

30
 Figure 2. Diagram of the humorous metaphor: “Marriage isn't a word, it is a sentence”.

Marriage isn’t a word (denial of the whole metonymy)

WORDS
WORDS

PROMISE T2 SENTENCE

T /S
PROMISE

CEREMONY

Figure 3. Diagram of the humorous metaphor: “Marriage isn't a word, it is a sentence”.

(3) A relationship begins when you sink in his arms, and ends with your
arms in his sink17

This humorous example is based on the transformation from the metaphorical

meaning of the word sink to its literal meaning. From the first part of the example up to
the comma, the example transmits the reader a typical scenario of romanticism, recalled
by the metaphorical meaning of the word sink. This is the typical romantic scene of a
love relationship. The humorous shock comes when the literal meaning of the word sink
appears, and the reader, who does not expect the second part of the example, faces a
vulgar scene that clashes with the previous one. This is when humor is produced, when
the reader expects a situation but suddenly, the opposite occurs.

17

https://books.google.es/books?id=sXWjnG5LWO0C&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=A+relationship+begins+w
hen+you+sink+in+his+arms,+and+ends+with+your+arms+in+his+sink&source=bl&ots=JINbya0pTk&sig=P
Uu6K1bPwQDo_HSOQWI2gqcj_jw&hl=es&sa=X&ei=IGyOVenXEIjlUYjfnPAF&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=one
page&q=A%20relationship%20begins%20when%20you%20sink%20in%20his%20arms%2C%20and%20e
nds%20with%20your%20arms%20in%20his%20sink&f=false (Accessed on May 18, 2015. )

31
 (4) A woman who takes her husband about with her everywhere is like a
cat that goes on playing with a mouse long after she's killed it18

This humorous example is based on equalizing a demystified scene of a married

life in which the husband is bored with a scene in which a cat plays with a mouse. We
have a comparison of the A is like B form. On the one hand, the A part depicts an
inherently pitiable (and for some people laughable) situation in which a woman
deprives her husband from his right to a degree of independence: the scenario of a
woman forcing her husband to take part in all her activities, whether he likes them or
not, may give some people a chuckle. People may think of that man as not having
enough courage to confront his wife when she is too bossy. This may be laughable for
some, but not for everybody. The B part has the role of evidencing that the A part is
inherently humorous and it does so by constructing a ridiculous scenario that parallels
the elements and logic of part A. On the other hand, in part B we find a cat playing with
a mouse after killing the mouse. This is not an uncommon scenario, but it is shocking
and humorous at the same time if we think of it in terms of human logic: it is absurd to
play with the animal that you have killed, because it is dead. If a person did that, that
person would be considered insanely cruel. But a cat will do it, since cats do not have
human logic. Now, this shocking and absurd scenario is made to correspond, through
simile, with the one where a woman figuratively “kills” her husband and, on top of that,
uses him as a puppet master would pull the strings of his marionettes.

In conclusion, humor here is built on situational simile in an incremental way.

Part A is humorous in itself, but this may not be evident to everybody, so its inherent
humor is made evident and at the same time enhanced by making a parallel with the
second part.

(5) Time is a great healer, but a lousy beautician19

This example contains the understanding of time as an enabling factor. The source
domain is time as a healer. It is the metaphor EVENTS ARE ACTIONS (Lakoff 1993).
A personification of time is produced, so we see time as something that heals, although

18
http://www.famousquotesabout.com/quote/A-woman-who-takes/228434 Accessed on May 20,
2015.
19
http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/10587 (Accessed on May 20, 2015.)

32
the role of time in healing is only one of making it possible for healing processes to take
place. Humour is produced when the second part of the example invalidates the positive
thinking associated with the first part. This second part makes us think of the other side
of the coin: time involves the deterioration of beauty as an effect of aging. Interestingly,
the first part of the example is formed by a traditional metaphor that we take for granted
as communicating truth. The second part does not negate the truthfulness in the first
part, but simply recontextualizes (or reframes) the first part so that we can see time as a
destroyer too, which is the converse of TIME IS A HEALER. In essence, the real
meaning of this metaphor is that although we can think that time heals us, still waters
run deep, or in other words, nothing is as good as what it seems to be.

(6) Time works like a damp brush on watercolor20

This example is a simile that functions as a metaphor. What is meant by this

comparison between time and a damp brush on watercolor is that time does not
ameliorate or improve situations, but quite on the contrary. This is deduced from the
fact that when we use a damp brush on watercolor, a color distortion is produced.
Human beings think about time as a healer, or as something that solves our problems in
the long run. However, this metaphor invalidates this idea about time as a healing
factor. This example is very similar to the previous one but with the difference in the
reframing of the effects of time.

(7) A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fine weather,
and ask for it back again when it starts to rain21

This case recalls trough metaphor an ironic scenario where someone lends you an
umbrella that you do not need (this is the source domain) and when you really need it,
you are asked to return it. This scenario can be perfectly applied to real life, which is the
target. For example, it can be applied to the dramatic economic and political situation
that we are facing nowadays where banks have enticed people to take loans that they did

20
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/18999629651667624/ (Accessed on May 15, 2015.)
21
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/07/banker-umbrella/ (Accessed on May 17, 2015.)

33
not really need. Then, they claim the money back when it is difficult to return it given
the financial crisis and unemployment. Metaphor enables the reader to see the ironic
side of the dramatic situation and this is where humor is produced.

(8) Life is a journey, but don't worry, you'll find a parking space at the
end22

The end of life’s figurative journey is death. In this case, humor comes if we
compare this situation with our real life. When we travel by car, parking always takes us
some time. Humor here is based on the explicit exploitation of the metaphor that it
contains, i.e. LIFE IS A JOURNEY, to produce irony. Irony is based on the fact that
people who are driving want to find a place to park when they reach their destination,
but nobody wants to reach the end of one’s life. The metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY
only captures part of how we think about life, that is, when we think about life in terms
of goals and achievement. The journey is positive if we fill the goals that we meet. But
it is negative if we think of life as ending in death. So, the humorous effect is based, as
in other examples, on reframing the metaphoric target, the idea of life: life can be seen
from the perspective of fulfilling achievement or from the point of view of the passage
of time that leads to death.

22
http://refspace.com/quotes/Isaac_Asimov/Q3365 (Accessed on May 16, 2015.)

34
5. Conclusions

The main aim of this dissertation is firstly to provide the reader with an overview
of developments in metaphor theory. The overview ranges from the classic perspective
in which metaphor was considered as ornamental and a deviation from the norm, to the
emergence of Cognitive Linguistics as a science, where metaphor is seen as an everyday
phenomenon based grounded in common bodily experience. Within Cognitive
Linguistics, the new contributions by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson advocated the
existence of correlational metaphors, which are based on the co-occurrence of
experiential events. Metaphor was therefore seen as a usual phenomenon which was
part of our everyday language together with the literal language. Thus, metaphor
described not only those entities that shared some characteristics, but also those which
encompassed examples such as MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN or, TIME IS
SPACE, etc. This has been demonstrated in the analytical part of this study, where by
means of some metaphorical examples, it is possible to see how metaphors were and are
part of our daily language in an unconscious way, in topics such as the importance of
money in our society, love, death, relationships, etc. The erroneous conclusion
prevailing until that time defined metaphor as a simple substitution of one element for
another with which it had some characteristics in common. However, this perspective
did not take into account the fact that, on some occasions, it is impossible to find a
linguistic expression that replaces another one, as in the cases mentioned above. Both
authors defended the idea that metaphors are linked to our direct experience with the
world around us through the use of our body. They also categorized metaphors into
three main groups: structural, ontological and orientational.

Nevertheless, Lakoff’s initial work on metaphor has remarkably evolved until

nowadays, with The Neural Theory of Metaphor (2009). In this study, he analyses the
human brain and mind and explains that when the human being tries to decode the
metaphorical language, our brain activates the same areas that we activate when we
move.

Secondly, owing to the fact that the objective of this study is the analysis of
humorous metaphors, an overview of the main theories about humor has been proposed,
emphasizing the importance of Salvatore Attardo (1994). He states that humor is the

35
manifestation of an incongruity between the expected situation and the current one. This
perspective is supported in the analytical part of this study, where most of the examples
are based on a cancellation of an expected scenario by another one which is totally
unexpected for the reader. Creating counter-expectations may be achieved in at least the
following ways, which have surfaced in our analysis:

(1) By re-specializing a metaphorical term in such a way that it will become

ambiguous between two meanings, one of which is striking (e.g. “talks” is converted
into “swears”, which is ambiguous between promising and cussing);

(2) By re-defining a non-metaphorical term in such a way that it becomes

metaphorical (e.g. “word” is converted into “sentence”, which is metaphorical if taken
in the sense of “penalty”);

(3) By arranging the same terms in ways that invoke different, but still related,
scenarios, one of which is negative and carries implications that take away from the
positive bias of the other (“sink in one’s arms” is a positive metaphor of love, while
“arms in the sink” depicts a negative, unromantic scenario that contrasts sharply with
the former);

(4) By creating unexpected metaphorical analogies where the source domain

highlights a striking, laughable situation that has parallels with the target where the
analogous situation would have normally gone unnoticed (e.g. seeing a woman who
takes her husband everywhere she wants in terms of a cat toying with and carrying
around the mouse that it has killed; a similarly striking situation is found in the analogy
between lending an umbrella to someone when there is no need for it to ask it back
when there is and what banks do by lending money to people when they don’t need it
and claiming it back when they do.

(5) By drawing our attention away from a conventional metaphor that

communicates something we take to be true (e.g. we heal with the passage of time) to
another less conventional metaphor that highlights something that cancels out some of
the implications of the conventional metaphor (e.g. with lose our beauty with time, so
regaining health is not associated with long-term beauty); a similar effect can be
achieved without the initial metaphor if the active metaphor counteracts any apparently

36
truthful assumption we may have (e.g. if we see time as “a damp brush on a
watercolor”, we negate real improvement with time);

(6) By highlighting the ironical ingredient of a situation. This strategy is related to

the one in (4) above, since irony often underlies humor. For example, we think of the
association of life and journeys as positive: as time goes by and we get older, we
achieve more and more goals. But, ironically, the passage of time brings about
proximity to death, which is not desirable. Talking about “finding a parking space” at
the end of our life’s journey develops one of the elements of this metaphor (the
destination part) in a surprising and ironical way: what brings us closer to our goals,
brings us closer to death.

Other communicative strategies that exploit metaphor humorously are probably

possible. A larger compilation of examples in a future study may reveal them. In any
event, the ones accounted for above are, hopefully, an original contribution to the study
of metaphor and humor.

Conclusiones

El presente trabajo ha tenido como objetivo en primer lugar mostrar un panorama

general a cerca de la evolución de la metáfora desde la perspectiva que imperaba en la
época clásica, en la cual ocupaba un papel subordinado, pasando por la aparición de la
Lingüística Cognitiva como ciencia, con las aportaciones de George Lakoff y Mark
Johnson y llegando hasta hasta la actualidad, donde predomina un gran abanico de
perspectivas acerca de la misma. Ambos autores defendieron la existencia de las
llamadas metáforas correlacionales, o basadas en la co-ocurrencia de eventos en la
experiencia. La metáfora se convirtió en un fenómeno que formaba parte de nuestro
lenguaje diario de manera inconsciente, y dejó de ser una mera comparación entre dos
conceptos que compartían algunas características, dando explicación por tanto a
metáforas del tipo: MAS ES ARRIBA, MENOS ES ABAJO, EL TIEMPO ES
ESPACIO etc. Esto se ha podido demostrar en la parte analítica del presente estudio,
donde mediante una serie de ejemplos metafóricos se observa como las metáforas han
formado y forman parte de nuestro lenguaje diario de manera inconsciente, presentes en

37
temas como la importancia del dinero en nuestra sociedad, el amor, la muerte, las
relaciones de pareja etc. La perspectiva errónea que había imperado hasta entonces
definía a la metáfora como una mera substitución de un elemento por otro con el que
compartía algunas características, sin embargo, esta perspectiva no tenía en cuenta el
hecho de que en ocasiones, resulta imposible encontrar una expresión lingüística que
substituya a otra, como en los casos mencionados anteriormente. Ambos autores
defendieron la idea de que el funcionamiento de la metáfora está ligado a nuestra
experiencia directa con el mundo que nos rodea a través de nuestro cuerpo y las
clasificaron en torno a tres grupos: estructurales, ontológicas y orientacionales.

Sin embargo, los estudios llevados a cabo a cerca de la metáfora por George
Lakoff han evolucionado notablemente hasta la actualidad, entre los cuales merece la
pena destacar The Neural Theory of Metaphor (Lakoff 2009) en el cual analiza el
cerebro y la mente del ser humano y demuestra que cuando el ser humano intenta
descifrar el lenguaje metafórico, nuestro cerebro activa las mismas áreas que activamos
cuando nos desplazamos.

En segundo lugar, debido a que el objetivo de este trabajo es también el análisis

de metáforas humorísticas, se ha ofrecido al lector un panorama general acerca de las
principales teorías acerca del humor, destacando el estudio de Salvatore Attardo (1994),
donde defiende la idea de que el humor consiste en la manifestación de una
incongruencia entre la situación esperada y la actual. Esta postura se puede observar en
el análisis del presente trabajo, donde en la mayoría de los ejemplos estudiados se
observa como el golpe de humor proviene de la cancelación de un escenario
determinado por otro totalmente inesperado para el lector.

Crear contra-expectativas se puede conseguir al menos de las siguientes formas,

las cuales aparecen en nuestro análisis:

(1) Re-especializando un término metafórico de tal forma que se convierta en

ambiguo entre dos significados, uno de ellos llamativo o sorprendente (como
el caso de “talks” que se convierte en “swears”, el cual es ambiguo entre
“promising” y “cussing”).

38
(2) Re-definiendo un término no metafórico de tal forma que se convierta en
metafórico (como por ejemplo el caso de “word” que pasa a convertirse en
“sentence”, que es metafórico si se toma en el sentido de “penalty”).

(3) Colocando u ordenando los mismos términos de forma que invoquen

escenarios diferentes pero relacionados entre sí. Uno de ellos es negativo y
tiene implicaciones que salen de señales positivas del otro (por ejemplo, “sink
in one’s arms” es una metáfora positiva del amor, mientras que “arms in the
sink” representa un escenario negativo que contrasta bruscamente con el
anterior).

(4) Creando analogías metafóricas inesperadas, donde el dominio origen resalte

una situación llamativa e irrisoria que tenga paralelismos con el dominio meta,
donde la situación análoga normalmente habría pasado desapercibida ( como
es el caso de una mujer que lleva a su marido a todas partes como si fuese un
gato que está jugando y llevando al ratón que ha matado. Una situación similar
podemos encontrar en a analogía entre prestar un paraguas a alguien cuando
realmente no lo necesita y pedírselo de nuevo cuando sí lo necesita y la
situación actual en la que los bancos prestan el dinero a la gente que no lo
necesita y lo reclaman cuando hay una situación de necesidad para el cliente).

(5) Distrayendo nuestra atención de una metáfora convencional que comunica

algo cierto ( como es el caso de “we heal with the passage of time”) a otra
menos convencional que subraya algo que cancela algunas de las
implicaciones de la metáfora convencional ( por ejemplo la pérdida de nuestra
belleza con el tiempo, por lo que recuperar salud no está asociado con la
belleza a largo plazo); un efecto similar se puede conseguir sin la metáfora
inicial si la metáfora activa contraataca cualquier suposición aparentemente
verdadera que podamos tener ( por ejemplo, si observamos el tiempo como
“una brocha húmeda en acuarela”, negamos la mejora real con el tiempo).

(6) Subrayando el ingrediente irónico de una situación. Esta estrategia está

relacionada con el ejemplo (4), ya que la ironía es la base a menudo del
humor. Por ejemplo, pensamos en la asociación de la vida y los viajes como

39
 algo positivo: cuando el tiempo pasa y nos hacemos mayores, conseguimos
más objetivos. Pero, de manera irónica, el paso del tiempo conlleva a la
proximidad a la muerte, lo que no es deseado. Hablar de “encontrar parking”
al final de nuestro día se convierte en uno de los elementos de esta metáfora
(la parte del destino) de una manera sorprendentemente irónica: lo que nos
acerca a nuestros objetivos, nos acerca a la muerte.

Otras estrategias comunicativas que se aprovechen de las metáforas humorísticas

son también posibles. Una recopilación más amplia de ejemplos en un futuro estudio
puede demostrarlas. En cualquier caso, se espera que las mencionadas anteriormente
sean una contribución original al estudio de la metáfora y el humor.

40
6. References

Attardo, S. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. 2015. “Humorous metaphors”, in Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts, and Tony
Veale (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.

Black, M. 1979. "More about metaphor", in Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., and Chiappe, P. (2003). “Aptness is more important
than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes”. Poetics, 31, 51-68.

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

Fillmore, C. J. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding”. Quaderni di

Semantica, 6, 222–255.

Grady, J. 1999. “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs.

resemblance”. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.
79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Grice, P. H. 1975. “Logic and conversation” . In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and seman- tics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.

Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and
reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University

Press.

41
Kundera, M. 1984. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Trans. Michael Henry Heim.
Harper and Row Publishers: New York.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. 2009. “The Neural Theory of Metaphor” . In R. W. Gibbs, Jr., (ed.) The
Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press

Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor

and Thought, 2nd ed. (pp. 203–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Martín de la Rosa, V. (2002). Estudio contrastivo de la metáfora en el discurso

periodístico: el conflicto de las vacas locas en la prensa española e inglesa (Tesis
doctoral). Universidad complutense de Madrid.

Martinich, A.P., 1984, “A Theory for Metaphor,” Journal of Literary Semantics, 13(1):
35–56.

Moreno Lara, A. (2005). La metáfora conceptual y el lenguaje político periodístico:

Configuración, interacciones y niveles de descripción (Tesis doctoral). Universidad de
la Rioja. Logroño.

Nubiola, J. 2000. El valor cognitivo de las metáforas, en P. Pérez-Ilzarbe y R. Lázaro

(eds.), Verdad, bien y belleza. Cuando los filósofos hablan de los valores, Cuadernos de
Anuario Filosófico n° 103, Pamplona, pp. 73-84

Raskin V. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht. Boston. Lancaster: D.

Reidel.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 1997. "Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of

metonymy", Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6/2, pp. 161-178, University of Murcia,
Spain.

42
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 1998. "Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual
mappings", LAUD Essen (LAUD A462).

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 1999. "From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and

metonymy to conceptual interaction", LAUD Essen Series A: General & Theoretical
Papers; republished in Tomasz Komendzinski (ed.) 2002 Theoria et Historia
Scientiarum, An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies. Nicolaus
Copernicus University; Torun, Poland; pp. 107 – 143.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 1999. "The role of cognitive mechanisms in making

inferences", Journal of English Studies, no. 1, University of La Rioja, Spain; pp. 237-
255.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Díez, O. 2002. "Patterns of conceptual interaction".

In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralph
Pörings (eds.), 489-532. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2011. “Metonymy and cognitive operations”. In R. Benczes, A.

Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive
Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

Santana López, B. 2005. “La traducción del humor no es cosa de risa: un nuevo estado
de la cuestión”, en Romana García, María Luisa [ed.] II AIETI. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference of the Iberian Association of Translation and Interpretation
Studies. Madrid: AIETI, pp. 834-851.

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford

University Press.

Veale, T. 2015. “The Humour of Exceptional Cases: Jokes as Compressed Thought

Experiments”. In Brône, G., Feyaerts, K.J. and Veale, T. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics
and Humor Research (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics), Mouton de Gruyter, 69-
90.

43
44