ONYMIC PUN IN MEMETIC DISCOURSE AS A CONTINUATION OF LITERARY TRADITION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-4077-2025-213-2Keywords:
cultural studies, literary discourse, meme, memetic discourse, stylistic device, pun, onymic punAbstract
The article focuses on investigating onymic puns in the memetic discourse – stylistic devices based on onymic play that form an integral part of memes. The pun is viewed as a specific linguistic construction that allows two lexical meanings to be activated simultaneously within one context. The clash of two different meanings in the pun leads to a misunderstanding, resulting in the addressee’s defeated expectations, the wider the gap between these meanings – the brighter the image is created, the stronger the humorous effect is achieved.The pun can be interpreted not only as a stylistic phenomenon but also as a pattern interrupt. The pun functions as a cognitive dissonance mechanism: the recipient anticipates a specific semantic continuation, a pattern, but the sudden appearance of an alternative meaning subverts this expectation. This unexpected shift interrupts the habitual pattern of perception, triggering surprise and often laughter.The linguistic triggers involved in the pun may include portmanteau occasionalisms, polysemous words, homophones, homographs, paronyms, and visual elements alone, which create a visual pun. Whether caused by polysemy, homophony, or graphical similarity, puns ignite our fantasy, distorting our cognition, confusing it, creating the unexpected.Memetic discourse is polymodal, relying on the interplay between verbal and visual components. Their interaction generates a specific – and often unexpected – punning effect, depending on the role of the visual component. Visual involvement in pun creation may take three degrees of visualisation: 1) moderate, when an image merely illustrates the idea without contributing to the wordplay; 2) equipollent, when the image participates equally in the pun; and3) dominant, when purely visual puns – not wordplay but image play – arise through semantic clashes between overlapping visuals.According to their onymic features, puns can be categorized as anthroponymic, ideonymic, toponymic, chrematonymic, or ethnonymic.
References
Бацевич Ф. С. Основи комунікативної лінгвістики: підручник. Київ : Видавн. центр Академія, 2004. 344 с.
Soloviova N., Salata I., Sorochan L. Literary discourse in foreign language teaching. Literary discourse: theoretical and practical aspects / eds. M. Vardanian, V. Hamaniuk, M. Berezhna et al. Riga : Publishing House “Baltija Publishing”, 2020. P. 214-231.
Nissenbaum A., Shifman L. Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s/b/board. New Media & Society. 2017. Vol. 19, no. 4. P. 483–501.
Hempelmann C. Puns. Encyclopedia of humor studies / ed. S. Attardo. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 2014. P. 612–615.
Leech G. N. A linguistic guide to English poetry. Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 256 p.
Miller T., Hempelmann C., Gurevych I. SemEval-2017 task 7: detection and interpretation of English puns. Proceedings of the 11th International workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), Vancouver, Canada. Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/s17-2005.
Brown J. Eight types of puns. PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 1956. Vol. 71, no. 1. P. 14–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/460188.
McAlpine E. James Merrill's puns. Essays in criticism. 2018. Vol. 68, no. 4. P. 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/escrit/cgy020.
Attridge D. Unpacking the portmanteau; or, Who's Afraid of Finnegans Wake?. On puns: the foundation of letters / ed. J. Culler. Oxford : Basil Blackwell Ltd., 2004. P. 140–155.
Ulmer G. The puncept in grammatology. On puns: the foundation of letters / ed. J. Culler. Oxford : Basil Blackwell Ltd., 2004. P. 164–189.
Jaech A., Koncel-Kedziorski R., Ostendorf M. 2016. Phonological pun-derstanding. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: human language technologies. San Diego, California, 2016. P. 654–663.
Attardo S. Universals in puns and humorous wordplay. Cultures and traditions of wordplay and wordplay research / ed. E. Winter-Froemel and V. Thaler. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2018. P. 89–110. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328605576_Universals_in_puns_and_humorous_ wordplay (date of access: 25.04.2025).
Wales K. A dictionary of stylistics. 3rd ed. London and New York : Routledge, 2014. 497 p.
Yanyan Z., Wei L. Joint detection and location of english puns. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: human language technologies. 2019. V. 1. Minneapolis, Minnesota. P. 2117–2123.
Attardo S. Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 1994. 426 p.
Carroll L. Alice’s adventures in Wonderland. URL: https://hornbakelibrary.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/ the-mouses-tale/ (date of access: 25.04.2025).
Moore C.A. Seriously Funny: Metaphor & the Visual Pun. URL: https://catherineannemoore.medium.com/metaphor-the-visual-pun-1cd7ec7bd044 (date of access: 25.04.2025).
Kince E. Visual puns in design: the humorous image as a communication tool. NewYork : International Universities Press, 1982. 168 p.
Giorgadze M. Categories of visual puns. European Scientific Journal, ESJ. 2016. Vol. 11(10). URL: https://test.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6855 (date of access: 25.04.2025).
Hempelmann C. F., Miller T. Puns. The Routledge handbook of language and humor. New York, NY : Routledge, 2017. P. 95–108. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-8.
Hempelmann C.F., Samson A. Visual puns and verbal puns: descriptive analogy or false analogy? New Approaches to the Linguistics of Humor / eds. D. Popa and S.Attardo. Galati: Duarea de Jos Andrea, 2007. P. 180–196.
Nayyar R. The best memes of 2024. URL: https://hyperallergic.com/973911/the-best-memes-of-2024/ (date of access: 25.04.2025).






