GTVHGeneral Theory of Verbal Humor (text analysis)
GTVHGroupe Thibault Van Houtte and Associates (Canada)
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Even recently, Gert Brone, Kurt Feyaerts, and Tony Veale (2006: 209), the prominent instigators of attacks on Victor Raskin's and Salvatore Attardo's theories of humour (known as SSTH and GTVH) from the part of the 'new wave' of cognitive linguists, seem to consider humour scholars to be more guilty in this.
The now best-known and increasingly debatable theories of verbal humour proposed by Raskin and Attardo (SSTH and GTVH), though announced by their creators as strictly linguistic, actually also have much in common with the ideology and conceptual apparatus of psychological IR models.
Attardo (1997) introduces his Setup-Incongruity-Resolution model (SIR) that aims to relate his basic model of verbal humour (GTVH) using traditional IR approaches (and indirectly also with his linear Isotopy-Disjunction Model of jokes, or IDM (see Attardo 1994: Ch.2, Attardo et al.
This linkage is somewhat surprising as a whole, because the GTVH model in its initial version (see e.g.
In the last few years, the traditional script-based linguistic theories of humour (SSTH and GTVH) have undergone increasingly stronger attacks from both the 'non-script-spirited' traditionalists and the younger generation of cognitive linguists.
2006) which provides some politically correct notes on the principal shortcomings of the SSTH and GTVH; calls upon humour scholars and cognitive linguists to make efforts to establish closer collaboration, thus bringing new and fascinating and increasingly complicated phenomena of creative language within reach of their scientific capabilities; lists the abundant conceptual and thematic contribution cognitive linguistics and pragmatics can make to that partnership (salience, conceptual metaphor, metonymy, viewpoint, prototypicality, mental spaces, frame-shifting, usage-based models); describes mutual benefits that could be acquired; delineates some perspectives and directions for further research.
Attardo, substantially, does not admit any reproaches made towards the SSTH and GTVH. I do not aim to reiterate here my own remarks (made elsewhere) on these models (Krikmann 2007).