At this point, it is worth questioning this view, as visual humor also has a huge place in the context of humor. Still, more needs to be done to evaluate the place of visual humor in the humor in general. What percentage does visual humor take and is the same comparable to the verbal humor? Upon completing this research, it will be possible to understand and explain the gap between visual humor and verbal humor.
On another note, I find it captivating when the authors indicate that verbal humor migrates to the visual aspect (Hempelmann & Samson, 2008). It is at this position that one would really question which humor takes the greatest percentage. Yet another question would focus on the extent of correlation between visual humor and verbal humor. Can the two do without each other, and if not, in what domains?
I also tend to agree with the authors when they indicate that conversation is possible through cartoons (Hempelmann & Samson, 2008). In my opinion, I am convinced that one can read humor from cartoons even without seeing the writing explaining what the cartons means. In this context, it is worth justifying that each of the humors plays a pivotal role in their own way. I am also convinced that either of the humors can replace the other in terms of relaying messages to its readers. The only disparity will be the profundity and intensity of the message relayed. For instance, if the cartoon is accompanied by text, then it brings out a stronger message as opposed to verbal humor. Pictures can be indicated to be more appealing as opposed to the verbal messages that leave its audience with the task of interpreting the intended message.
From the arguments, it is only reasonable to attest to the verity that visual humor plays a major role in evoking humor over the verbal one. I agree with the authors when they indicate that versions of visual humor that