Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Psychology of Language and Communication

1 Issue per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.200
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.380

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Appreciation of Ambiguous Humorous Messages: The Influence of Processing Mode and Presentation

Adam Kucharski / Celina Timoszyk-Tomczak
Published Online: 2015-05-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0003


In the current study it was assumed that participants of the act of communication do not always follow the rules of cooperation, and sometimes build their utterance in a way that misleads the listener. It depends on the communicative competence of the listener and the message sender if an interaction between them takes place. Th e aim of this research was to assess to what extent deliberate, incorrect identification and the mode of communication in which the text is presented makes the audience lose their orientation in both bona-fide (informative) and non-bona-fide (playful) mode formulations. In order to answer these questions, two experiments were conducted using three types of texts: informative text with a humorous digression, humorous informative text, and a real life parody joke. Th e information preceding the presentation of the texts and the order in which they were shown was manipulated. Respondents assessed how funny each of the texts was. 85 high secondary school students participated in the survey. Th e conducted statistical analyses enabled us to establish that the information appearing at the beginning, i.e. the type of message (informative/humorous), can affect the recipient’s reaction and assessment of how funny a particular text was. Th e research results indicate that poor intensity of comicality in the messages may be aggravated by not indicating that they were intended to induce a humorous effect. This reveals the specific nature of humorous messages, bringing about an effect that is categorically inconsistent with the stimulus that precedes it.

Keywords: humour; bona-fide communication; non-bona fide communication; informative precedence; humour appreciation; humour competence


  • Algeo, J. (1977). Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech, 52 (1/2), 47.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Algeo, J. (1980). Where do all the new words come from? American Speech, 55 (4), 264-277.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Algeo, J. (1993). Fift y years among the new words: A dictionary of neologisms 1941-1991. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Altmann, G.T.M. (1997). The ascent of Babel: An exploration of language, mind and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Behind the Grammar (2010). Top 10 made up words. Retrieved from: http://behindthegrammar.com/2010/07/top-10-made-up-words/ Bryant, M.M. (1974). Blends are increasing. American Speech, 49 (3/4), 163-184.Google Scholar

  • Calude, A. & Pagel, M. (2011). How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366 (1567), 1101-1107.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Church, K.W., Gale, W., Hanks, P., Hindle, R., & Moon, R. (1994). Lexical substitutability. In B.T.S. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational Approaches to the Lexicon (pp. 153-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cook, P. & Stevenson, S. (2010). Automatically Identifying the Source Words of Lexical Blends in English. Computational Linguistics, 36 (1), 129-149.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Crystal, D. (2012). The story of English in 100 words. London, UK: CPI Group.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near synonyms. In S.T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis (pp. 19-56). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, D. & Gries, S.T. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 23-60.Google Scholar

  • Edmonds, P. & Hirst, G. (2002). Near synonyms and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics, 28 (2), 105-144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fandrych, I. (2008). Pagad, chillax and jozi: A multi-level approach to acronyms, blends, and clippings. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication, 2 (2), 71-88.Google Scholar

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of the performance of nonparametric and parametric MANOVA test statistics when assumptions are violated. Methodology: European Journal Of Research Methods For The Behavioral And Social Sciences, 1 (1), 27-38.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Fleck, D.W. (2006). On the origin and cultural significance of unusually large synonym sets in some Panoan languages of Western Amazonia. Anthropological Linguistics, 48 (4), 335-368.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S.H. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics, 42 (3), 639-667.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 34, 121-150.Google Scholar

  • Gutierrez, R., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Vasiljevic, M. (2012). Just an anger synonym? Moral context infl uences predictors of disgust word use. Cognition & Emotion, 26 (1), 53-64.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hicklin, M. (1930). Scribes seek snappy synonyms. American Speech, 6 (2), 110-122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hormes, J. & Rozin, P. (2010). Does “craving” carve nature at the joints? Absence of a synonym for craving in many languages. Addictive Behaviors, 35 (5), 459-463.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, T.J., Meinke, D.L., Van Mondfrans, A.P., & Finn, J. (1965). Word frequency of synonym responses as a function of word frequency of the stimulus and list position of the response. Psychonomic Science, 2 (8), 235-236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelly, M.H. (1998). To ‘brunch’ or to ‘brench’: some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics, 36 (3), 579-590.Google Scholar

  • Kitzinger, C. & Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80 (2), 176-198.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15 (2), 369-382.Google Scholar

  • Liu, D. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern?: A corpusbased behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (1), 56-87.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liu, D. & Espino, M. (2012). Actually, genuinely, really, and truly: A corpus-based Behavioral Profile study of near-synonymous adverbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17 (2), 198-228.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lounsbery, J. & Reitherman, W. (1977). The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. United States: Walt Disney Mackin, R. (1978). On collocations: ‘Words shall be known by the company they keep’. In P. Strevens (Ed.), In Honour of A. S. Hornby (pp. 149-165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Miller, G.A. & Charles, W.G. (1991). Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6 (1), 1-28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nayak, A. (2011). Portmanteau words: The key to creativity. A review of Arun K. Behera’s book “The World of Portmanteau Words”. Language in India, 11 (10), 487-489.Google Scholar

  • Pagel, M. (2008). Rise of the digital machine. Nature, 452, 699.Google Scholar

  • Partridge, E., Ganville, W., & Roberts, F.G. (1948). A dictionary of Forces’ slang. London, UK: Secker and Warburg. Piñeros, C. (2004). The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical morphology of Spanish. Probus: International Journal of Latin & Romance Linguistics, 16 (2), 203-240.Google Scholar

  • Pound, L. (1933). Miscellany. American Speech, 8 (4), 76-80.Google Scholar

  • Prenner, M. (1928). Slang synonyms for ‘drunk’. American Speech, 4 (2), 102-103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scott-Phillips, T.C. (2007). The social evolution of language, and the language of social evolution. Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (4), 740-753.Google Scholar

  • Smith, K. & Nordquist, D. (2012). A critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13 (2), 291-312.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Steffens, N.K. & Haslam, S. (2013). Power through ‘us’: Leaders’ use of wereferencing language predicts election victory. Plos ONE, 8 (10), 1-6.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

  • Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Wiktionary (2013). English citations of confuzzle, confuzzles, confuzzling and confuzzled. Retrieved from: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:confuzzle Withington, R. (1932). More ‘portmanteau’ coinages. American Speech, 7 (3), 200-203.Google Scholar

  • Xiao, R. & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27 ( 1), 103-129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-05-29

Published in Print: 2015-05-01

Citation Information: Psychology of Language and Communication, Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 29–43, ISSN (Online) 2083-8506, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0003.

Export Citation

© by Adam Kucharski. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in