The European Journal of Humour Research

Vol 4, No 1 (2016)

An orchard invisible: Hidden seeds of wisdom in the English and Croatian proverbial apples

Draženka Molnar,Dubravka Vidaković Erdeljić


In the paper we analyse humorous modified proverbs in light of the theory of conceptual integration. Unlike traditional proverbs, which teach us something and elucidate some aspects of human life, modified proverbs are here primarily to entertain us. The theory of conceptual integration is particularly suitable for the interpretation of modified proverbs since they present novel structures that are not part of our mental lexicon and which we need to interpret online in dynamic meaning construction. Our examples of humorous modified proverbs show that although jokes are verbalised in the form of proverbs, the humour is derived from the same mechanisms that are employed in other types of verbal humour: puns, play on words, metonymies, elements of surprise, exploitation of taboos, etc. The evidence for this is found in the fact that those modified proverbs that employ only some of these elements, or do not employ any of them, are found to be less humorous or not humorous at all.


Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Humor Research 6. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Barcelona, A. (2000). ‘Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy’, in Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.

Barcelona, A. (2003 [2000]). ‘On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor’, in Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–58.

Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K. (2004). ‘Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A view from cognitive linguistics’. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research 17 (4), pp. 361–372.

Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coulson, S. (2006). ‘Constructing meaning’. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (4), pp. 245–266.

Croft W. (1993). ‘The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies’. Cognitive Linguistics 4, pp. 335–370.

Deane, P. D. (1992). Grammar in Mind and Brain. Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Díez Velasco, O. I. (2000). ‘A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some hand metonymies in English and Spanish’. Atlantis 22 (2), pp. 51–67.

Díez Velasco, O. I. (2001–2). ‘Metaphor, metonymy, and image schemas: an analysis of conceptual interaction patterns’. Journal of English Studies (3), pp. 47–63.

Dynel, M. (2009). ‘Creative metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour’. 17, pp. 27–48.

Fauconnier, G. & Turner M. (1994). ‘Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces’. Technical Report No. 9401. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California: San Diego. Available online: [Accessed 23 November 2015].

Fauconnier, G. & Turner M. (1999). ‘Metonymy and conceptual integration’, in Panther, K. & Radden, G. (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–90.

Giora, R. (1991). ‘On the cognitive aspects of the joke’. Journal of Pragmatics 16 (5), pp. 465–485.

Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford – New York – Auckland – Bangkok: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Klaić, B. (1962). Rječnik stranih rijeci. Zagreb: Zora.

Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson.

Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). ‘Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistics View’. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), pp. 37–77.

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

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. (1993). ‘Reference-Point Constructions’. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1), pp. 1–38.

Mieder, Wolfgang (1985). ‘Popular views of the proverb’. Proverbium 2, pp. 109–143.

Molnar, D. & Vidaković Erdeljić D. (2009). Paremija u pisanoj javnoj komunikaciji u hrvatskome i engleskom jeziku. Jezikoslovlje (10) 1. Osijek: Filozofski fakultet, pp. 45–58.

Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). ‘Towards a theory of metonymy’, in Panther, K. & Radden, G. (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–59.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (1998). ‘On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon’. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (3), pp. 259–274.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (1999). ‘From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction’. Laud Nº 492: Essen. pp. 1–21.

Suls, J. M. (1983). ‘Cognitive processes in humor appreciation’, in McGhee, P. E. &. Goldstein, J. H (eds.), Handbook of Humor Research. Volume 1. New York, pp. 39–57.

Schulz, T. R. (1974). ‘Order of cognitive processing in humour appreciation’. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie 28 (4), pp. 409–420.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Two volumes. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Tourangeau, R. & Sternberg R. (1981). ‘Aptness in Metaphor’. Cognitive Psychology 13, pp. 27–55.

Veale, T. (2004). ‘Incongruity in Humor. Root cause or epiphenomenon?’ HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research 17 (4), pp. 419–428.