Meaning And Humor Comprehension of Chinese-English Pseudo Words Among Chinese EFL Speakers: A Conceptual Blending Perspective

Anni Wang

doi:10.54097/f62rg584

Authors

Anni Wang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/f62rg584

Keywords:

conceptual blending theory; Chinese–English pseudo words; Chinese EFL speakers; meaning; humor.

Abstract

Assuming that Chinese–English pseudo words (CEPWs) are humorous and have multiple meanings, this study, based on the conceptual blending theory (CBT), investigates the comprehension of meaning and humor in CEPWs for Chinese speakers learning English as a foreign language (EFL). Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions: 1) What is the humorous effect of CEPWs as perceived by Chinese EFL speakers? 2) What is the comprehensive understanding of CEPWs among Chinese EFL speakers according to CBT? and 3) How are Chinese EFL speakers’ understanding of CEPWs and their perception of the humorous effect related? This study adopted a mixed method of quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) approaches. It surveyed 114 native Chinese EFL speakers and interviewed 12 of them. Quantitative data were collected via a questionnaire disseminated on the online questionnaire platform wenjuan.com, gathering 114 valid responses. After collection, the quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 20 software. The findings revealed that CEPWs are more humorous than their Chinese originals. A conceptual blending model of Chinese EFL speakers’ comprehension of CEPWs was proposed, which allows these speakers to generate numerous interpretations of CEPWs. The humor in CEPWs comes from homophony, bilingual speech, and conceptual blending, facilitated by the meaning correspondence of English words in the CEPW and context. This suggests that the incongruity between input spaces and the emergent structure of conceptual blending is involved in creating humor. CEPWs meet the criteria for puns, providing a new perspective on this phenomenon. The findings provided empirical data, based on which a model of Chinese EFL speakers’ comprehension process of CEPWs was devised, providing insights into the cognitive process behind the use of Internet language.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Knospe, S. (2015). A cognitive model for bilingual puns. In A. Zirker & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Wordplay and metalinguistic / metadiscursive reflection: Authors, contexts, techniques, and meta-reflection (pp. 161–194). De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110406719-008

[2] Knospe, S. (2016). Through the cognitive looking glass: Studying bilingual wordplay in public signage. In S. Knospe, A. Onysko, & M. Goth (Eds.), Crossing languages to play with words: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 195–230). De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110465600-011

[3] Stefanowitsch, A. (2002). Nice to miet you: Bilingual puns and the status of English in Germany. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(4), 67–84.

[4] Kleeman, J., & Yu, H. (Eds.). (2010a). 半途而废. In Oxford FLTRP English Chinese Chinese-English dictionary (p. 21).

[5] Kleeman, J., & Yu, H. (Eds.). (2010b). 大可不必. In Oxford FLTRP English Chinese Chinese-English dictionary (p. 141).

[6] Wang, S., & Peng, Y. (2022). Blending, integration and empathy: Research into cognitive pragmatic mechanism of online homophonic Chinese-English mixed idioms. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 30(4), 1–6. https://cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDLAST2023&filename=XAWX202204001&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=ycpVRs4wibJdf_hEwLGarL1W4akH1xlYuO2JuSQLFJMT-QIXbFkDH-VifGDs8MlA

[7] 50k Stewed Duck Snacks become 500k! Netizens created a meme “Duck不必,” which was then recognized by Austin Li. (2019, December 12). Sina Entertainment. http://ent.sina.com.cn/s/m/2019-12-12/doc-iihnzahi6997177.shtml

[8] Lu, S., & Huang, J. (2020). Research on the phenomenon of “English homophonic mosaic” in Chinese network language. Research on International Chinese Education, 4, 239–250. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CCJD&dbname=CCJDLAST2&filename=YGJJ202000019&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=OolSvzL0GyzpPKdSr1lH959G43sHud5VD9FImD0WTrntJDZkmDiu5izylFZivqva

[9] Liu, Y. (2018). The study of mixing English partial tone in Chinese and its cause of generation. Journal of Jiangsu Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 44(5), 56–59. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDLAST2018&filename=XZSB201805007&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=n_sk2kSxtGUMYkt-XBhdIygqoPNsv383nkk6CJeXJEfnUmBHtME1YKrNjqwPgzQe

[10] Huang, B. (2013). Research into the word-building and pragmatic functions of homophones in net language. Journal of Ocean University of China (Social Sciences), 2, 113–117. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2013&filename=ZGHZ201302022&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=U7Cy6tuxJc9xwcJaxHKzrdrQ0_7j0s31MMoRszju8xaHYV2zqNxAMg-8j7C76uvB

[11] Xu, M. (2013). A cultural study of unrelated homonym in Internet language. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 33(6), 69–76. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDHIS2&filename=WYLL201306009&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=JOw68umRsjpUFkFNfrtpIouBZvmZyH7kzG82DwbdZgjh5mh8f4GgYpU0Xw-bVECW

[12] Zhu, Y. (2008). On the homophony strategies and cybertalk signs. Chinese Language Learning, 4, 77–83. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2008&filename=HYXX200804014&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=rb5MBLzadczmKYLAjhhIAPZzSiGZnGJrxtlL616iPmvkG0Nw3mSJKmzw8ftUezs4

[13] Attardo, S. (2018). Universals in puns and humorous wordplay. In E. Winter-Froemel & V. Thaler (Eds.), Cultures and traditions of wordplay and wordplay research (pp. 89–110). De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110586374-005

[14] Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Mouton de Gruyter.

[15] Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. Hutchinson & Co.

[16] Partington, A. S. (2009). A linguistic account of wordplay: The lexical grammar of punning. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1794–1809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.025

[17] Cunningham, W. A., & Derks, P. (2005). Humor appreciation and latency of comprehension. Humor, 18(4), 389–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humr.2005.18.4.389

[18] Feingold, A. (1983). Measuring humor ability: Revision and construct validation of the humor perceptiveness test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56(1), 159–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1983.56.1.159

[19] Vaid, J. (2000). New approaches to conceptual representations in bilingual memory: The case for studying humor interpretation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(1), 28–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1366728900290111

[20] Kozbelt, A., & Nishioka, K. (2010). Humor comprehension, humor production, and insight: An exploratory study. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 23(3), 375–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/humr.2010.017

[21] Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches En Communication, 19, 57–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.14428/rec.v19i19.48413

[22] Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press.

[23] Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/378014

[24] Lundmark, C. (2003, July). Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements. In 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logroño, 20, 25.

[25] Kang, X., & Gao, W. (2019). The cognitive mechanism of humor―Based on Conceptual Blending Theory and relevance theory. Sino-US English Teaching, 16(7), 293–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1539-8072/2019.07.002

[26] Fujii, A. (2008). Meaning construction in humorous discourse: Context and incongruities in conceptual blending. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 183–191). Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110199123.1.183

[27] Nerhardt, G. (1977). Incongruity and humor [Doctoral dissertation]. Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.

[28] Suls, J. M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp. 81–100). Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-288950-9.50010-9

[29] Pollio, H. R. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and applications (pp. 231–253). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315789316-14

[30] Wang, W. (2004a). Towards the on-line cognitive mechanisms involved in verbal humor interpretation. Journal of Ningbo University (Liberal Arts Edition), 17(2), 6–9. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2004&filename=NBDS200402001&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=UpB9DE6YOz4AuF2RLpcHgbUiJotMaR8tvIQWA0ZXPSa57RTPpvtHgcIdmT0lNDB0

[31] Wang, W. (2004b). The research and application of conceptual blending theory: Retrospection and reflection. Foreign Languages Research, 1, 6–12. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2004&filename=NWYJ200401001&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=sLqn-BIZhJ2d92S98QFYZEkAP2GkiCUppfFGZ1F6B_ReydNK_oBOK6N3hTaUD8OC

[32] Dictionary Editorial Office of Linguistics Institute of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (Ed). (2012). 幽默. In Contemporary Chinese dictionary (6th ed., p. 1571). Commercial Press.

[33] Xun, E., Rao, G., Gao, X., & Zang, J. (2016). The construction of the BCC Corpus in the age of Big Data. Corpus Linguistics, 3(1), 93–109. https://www.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CCJD&dbname=CCJDLAST2&filename=YLYY201601009&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=RkAKcyP2EzEK7NIGcfNDC-XWkzu_7-bZdagmrN1bJMNILx0rHMHotbRkSmxCVGls