The picture-book, a format constituted by the conjunction of two expressive codes, words and image, represents the great novelty of children's literature in recent decades. Furthermore, its diffusion progressively expands to the adult public. The lack of definition of the receiver is one of its most outstanding characteristics, according to some authors. The combination of codes turns the picture-book into a propitious ground for irony. As it is well known, in the field of literary studies the concept of irony has been the object of wide ranging interpretations. From pragmatic foundations, we analyze here how irony affects the final meaning of different albums. In all cases, similar interpretation guidelines can be established. With this, it is intended to help the child or adult receiver to extrapolate some of the reading guidelines outlined here to other ironic albums.
Article Details
How to Cite
Dueñas-Lorente, J.-D. (2022). Reading the irony in the picture-book. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2924
Dueñas-Lorente: Reading the irony in the picture-book
Introduction
As it will be seen, the combination of expressive codes, words and images - consubstantial
to picture books - favours the use of irony. However, the aim here is not to provide
a panoramic view of picture books that stand out for their ironic procedures, but
rather to point out and delimit some guidelines for the interpretation of irony in
the picture book. It is therefore a matter of proposing some reflections that can
guide the access of readers in training to the ironic picture book.
recalled that irony was until the 18t. century a simple expressive device, even “the
least important of all rhetorical tropes”, but at the end of the Romantic period it
became a Hegelian concept of unquestionable philosophical significance and later a
feature of the best modern literature that was little less than essential, so that
in our time we run the risk of identifying as irony most of the devices that invite
a non-literal interpretation of texts. In this sense, the authors agree on the difficulty
of delimiting a concept that has been widely modified over time, and which results
in major disagreements even today.
Irony in the construction of the meaning of the text
Traditionally, irony has been understood as a figure that consists of expressing “the
opposite” of what is literally said (; ). According to , irony is the ability to convey a mocking content under the guise of a serious statement.
From the research of the GRIALE group (Grupo de la Ironía. Alicante: Lengua Española),
it is concluded that “irony is saying the opposite of what the words say (prototypical
irony)”, but also “saying something different (non-prototypical irony)” from what
is expressly stated (). Among the many meanings that have been given to the term, identifies two that are particularly relevant: the ancient idea of irony as “concealment”
and the modern one as “self-parody”, which emerged after the rise of the self in Romanticism.
From a pragmatic approach, understands that irony “is a use of language that consists of issuing a false, ridiculous
or, in general, openly inappropriate statement to the situation in order to communicate
an implicit meaning that the listener must infer” (p. 205); thus, the ironist concentrates
several messages in a single statement, in order to question the language itself and
hinder a naïve interpretation by the receiver ().
The ironic text provokes a reflexive distance from the obvious or literal message
in the reader. In this sense, points out that modern literature cultivates irony to “express the paradoxes of the
human condition and the limits of our perception of reality”. Therefore, the reader
must “recognise the different strategies of self-questioning that this same discourse
brings into play” (p. 238). According to Marchese and Forradellas (2000), the recipient
of the ironic text must perform “semantic manipulation” (p. 221) to correctly decipher
the meaning, whether by virtue of context, intonation or other strategies. Following
Sperber and Wilson, notes that the ironic sense of an utterance is triggered when the interlocutor perceives
“an inconsistency” (p. 213), which usually arises from the mismatch between what is
said and the reality commented on.
Different modes of irony have been identified (Torres, 1999; ) within the framework of literary studies, according to the attitude of the ironist,
the procedures followed or other criteria. Muecke (1986) distinguished two main modalities:
verbal and situational irony. The first arises from the statement itself by means
of procedures (hyperbole, antiphrasis, antiphrases, lithotes, reductio ad absurdum) which results in the reader’s distrust if a literal interpretation is intended.
The second one arises from the confrontation of the statement with its context of
reference, so that the reader perceives a deviation or contradiction between the message
and its referent; in this case, irony is manifested preferably in the attitude of
the narrator, for example, if he or she appears excessively innocent or naïve. On
the other hand, the text in dialogue with other texts, as well as the image in relation
to others (remember the paradigmatic case of Anthony Browne), give rise to different
modes of irony, in accordance with what called “intertextual irony” and , “ironic echoes”.
However, certain indeterminacy in the meaning of discourse is inherent to irony. The
ironist provides marks or indications for the correct understanding of the utterance,
but the ambiguous nature of the message has to be made up for by the receiver through
inferences or implicatures (). Thus, it has been insisted (; Torres, 1999) that irony will only be interpreted if there is sufficient complicity
between sender and receiver in terms of the code used and the cultural context of
reference. It has therefore been pointed out that the children’s literature author
is unlikely to share with his hypothetical readers the set of references necessary
to encourage ironic play. In this sense, spoke of “the impossible irony” (p. 92) in children’s literature. However, it should
not be forgotten that the act of reception of the child reader is generally guided.
Children are introduced to literary reading by more experienced readers who provide
them with guidelines for interpretation whether in the classroom or in their family
environment. Here we will point out some reflections based on a guided reading of
ironic texts, with the idea that an early approach to indirect or figurative discourses
contributes to the construction of solid reading trajectories.
Irony in picture books
There is little need to insist on the aesthetic singularity of picture books in the
framework of children’s literature (). It has often been pointed out that the combination of word and image when constructing
the meaning, its most characteristic feature, appeals decisively to the reader of
our time, immersed from a very early age in contexts of multimodal communication (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ); it has also been pointed out that both their brevity and the variety of formats
and topics allow for early and stimulating contact with literature for readers in
training (; ). Many experts underline that the lack of definition of the target audience is one
of its main features (; ; ; ; ; ). It has even been noted that adults are ultimately the main recipients of the product,
either as mediators or as autonomous readers (; ). In any case, no one doubts that picture books, which emerged as a product aimed
specifically at children, has progressively widened its potential audience as it has
incorporated new resources and expressive possibilities.
As recalled, if irony “is the result of the simultaneous presence of different perspectives
(...), an explicit perspective, which appears to describe a situation, and an implicit
perspective, which shows the true paradoxical, inconsistent or fragmentary sense of
the situation under analysis” (p. 243), it can be inferred that in picture books the
word affirms or says at the same time that the image shows other parts of reality,
generally not captured in the text (, ); the word offers a subjective character; the illustration, an objective one (, ). According to , in picture books one code permanently contradicts or contradicts the other, so that
any form of interrelation between image and text can be understood as irony. Consequently,
irony is consubstantial to picture books given the tension between two codes, word
and image, which become two modes of enunciation, two discursive approaches in permanent
confrontation (, ).
From a more restrictive idea of the ironic, argued that in picture books words are equivalent to “what is said”, while illustrations
imply the “unsaid”, that is, that which has to be inferred. This way, the link between
texts and illustrations can be expressed according to three main models: redundancy,
when both codes are equivalent in terms of content; complementarity, when, from a
common expressive base, word and image expand each other; and counterpoint, in cases
where the complementarity of the codes leads to a considerable autonomy of each of
them; then we can speak of “ironic picture books”. The author pointed out four main
signs or markers of irony in picture books: the semantic distance between the codes,
the contrast in the style or point of view of the narration and the differences in
the development of the storyline between texts and illustrations.
propose a more detailed development of the above classification. They distinguish
five major modes of interrelation between text and illustration in picture books:
a relationship of symmetry, when there is redundancy between one element and the other;
of enhancement, when one of the codes expands the meaning of the other; of complementarity,
when a high degree of conjunction is achieved between text and image in the construction
of meaning; and finally, of counterpoint and contradiction, when both codes are nuanced
or contradict each other. In the latter two cases, we can speak of ironic intent on
the part of the author. Nikolajeva and Scott establish various possibilities of counterpoint
between the codes: a counterpoint centred on the addressee, when the work deals with
a double reception based on the contradictions between text and illustration; in style,
if text and image differ notably; counterpoint in genre, in plot, in the characterisation
of the characters; metafictional counterpoint, which occurs, for example, when the
illustration literally deals with the metaphorical unfolding of the text, or counterpoint
in the treatment of space and time. From this approach, any form of counterpoint impacts
the whole reading process.
In cases where texts and illustrations acquire sufficient meaningful autonomy (; ), each of the two codes (words and images) acts in its own way as a context or reference
for the other, and thus situational forms of irony may emerge within the work itself.
The reading of irony in picture books must therefore focus on appreciating how and
to what extent the discourse that emerges from the text and the discourse that emerges
from the illustration are distanced or contradictory, and on delimiting the role played
by each of them in the configuration of the general meaning of the work.
An added difficulty in delimiting irony in children’s literature is to differentiate
it from other procedures that also suggest figurative readings. For example, picture
books generally include allegory as a strategy for the creation of meaning (good examples
are the now classic titles by Leo Lionni, Iela Mari, Jutta Bauer, Arnold Lobel). Sarcasm
and satire are less frequent. Sarcasm can be understood as an extreme form of irony,
characterised by a marked aggressiveness or a clearly derogatory tone (). Satire is also expressed as criticism, although, unlike irony, it does not include
simulation of another’s discourse (). Parody, understood as burlesque imitation (), appears in picture books above all as a recreation of classic titles or characters.
The expression of veiled criticism or covert mockery thus finds its most usual channel
in irony. However, as made clear, irony is sometimes inextricably intertwined with other expressions of
mockery, humour or the grotesque.
Analysis of irony in picture books
The selection of the works under analysis has taken into account the proven critical
acceptance of the works and the variety of resources used in each of them. In our
analysis, we have tried to highlight - based on narratological and pragmatic concepts
- how, in ironic picture books, the overall meaning of the work emerges from the always
conflicting relationships between text and illustration. Likewise, a relevant and
reflective interpretation of the work has to limit the discourse that is denigrated
through irony. As we have said, if the ironic utterance contributes to questioning
certain areas of reality through criticism or humour, a careful reading must sufficiently
delimit the object of irony in each case.
The irony generated in the point of view is obviously contagious throughout the story.
Thus, in the French artist Gilles Bachelet’s picture book
, the reader already notices on the cover an obvious contradiction between text and
illustration. The author speaks of a cat as the main character of the story, but the
illustrations depict an elephant. The mismatch between codes is maintained throughout
the work, dedicated, moreover, to “À mon chat”, a statement that anchors the story in reality.
Figure 1Gilles Bachelet, Mon chat le plus bête du monde, 2004. Cover
As Marchese and Forradellas (2000) point out, irony requires “the ability to understand
the deviation between the surface level and the deep level of an utterance” (p. 221);
that is, it requires a process of reconstruction of meaning from the reader, as established
by , who distinguished several moments: first, the reader rejects the literal meaning
as mismatched, incomplete or too obvious; then he tries out possible alternative interpretations;
then he holds on to the conviction that it is impossible for the author to propose
the apparent or literal meaning of the utterance so that he infers non-explicit communicative
intentions; and finally, he ventures an interpretation which he judges to be accurate
even though he is often not sure that he has fully understood the utterance.
The reader necessarily wonders about the divergence between text and illustration
when facing Bachelet’s picture book. Throughout the story the elephant, always referred
to as a cat, adopts cat-like poses and manners, but its behaviour is unbridled elephant-like.
It rests in the most unexpected places in the house: in the sofa, the television or
the drawing table, but at the same time the illustrations show the disproportion between
the enormous size of the character and the spaces it occupies. The narrator, a homodiegetic
character, presents himself as overwhelmed by living with his pet: the animal messes
up the house with impunity, stains the documents, breaks objects, etc. Despite this,
the character-narrator, an illustrator by profession, repeatedly chooses his companion
as a model for his works, although he confesses that he has not managed to sell a
single one featuring the animal. However, the reader infers that the narrator is really
talking about a cat, even though it behaves like an elephant, i.e., a pet animal that
invades his living space, invades his privacy and spoils his work as if it were a
specimen of a wild species.
The divergence between perspectives (text and illustration) suggests the narrator’s
own contradictions and finally proposes a kind of satire towards those who, like him,
have opted for the presence of a cat in the family home. Moreover, it should not be
forgotten that the author dedicates the work “À mon chat”, when the cultural connotations
that this circumstance entails are well known. The dedication always denotes intellectual
or affective complicity. Thus, through the discursive complexity of irony, the narrator
questions his own paradoxical and contradictory behaviour.
The ironic counterpoint between illustration and text is also perceived in the point
of view of Pat Hutchins’
. As you may recall, Rosie is a hen who goes for a pleasant and carefree walk around
the farm where it lives. On the cover, the reader - not the main character - can notice
the menacing presence of a fox, which is never alluded to in the text. In the course
of the book, the fox attacks the hen five times, but various chance circumstances
intertwine between the two characters to invariably save the victim: a rake with which
the fox collides, a pond into which it falls, a pile of straw into which it sinks,
a sack of flour which hits it, a cart on which it unexpectedly collapses and with
which he unintentionally strikes a group of beehives, from which the bees emerge and
finally chase and drive the aggressor away. The reader is, therefore, witness to both
the fox’s stalking and the hen’s ignorance of the danger, who concludes its journey
unperturbed with a distracted and confident gesture.
Figure 2Pat Hutchins, Rosie’s walk, 1968. Cover
In short, the story is constructed from two points of view: that of words and those
illustrations (). The text speaks only of Rosie, the illustration depicts the hen, but also incorporates
the second character, the fox. The text, brief and enunciative, focuses on the main
character; the illustration amplifies the fragmentary perception of reality offered
by the first narrator. The illustration acts as an omniscient narrator, without completely
disproving the textual narrator. This results in the reader’s pleasant informational
superiority over the main character. The use of luminous colours, with a predominance
of reds, greens and yellows on white backgrounds, reinforces the idea that the main
character walks through a comfortable, harmonious, ordered world, as, indeed, she
seems to understand herself. In fact, in the panoramic view of the farm that is initially
offered, one can already perceive the circular route that the hen intends to follow.
It is therefore a well-organised environment, where risk is easily ignored. Nevertheless,
the story suggests a kind of protective design for the weak, hints at the existence
of a beneficent destiny that not only punishes evil, but also makes it an object of
ridicule, in a similar vein to that of many traditional tales that end with the triumph
of the victims.
In the picture books by Marta Altés that we are analysing, the text expresses the
perception of the narrator-main character, while the illustration expresses a broader
vision of reality, so that the character acquires a meaning to the reader that is
quite different from the one he himself proposes. Thus, in the picture book entitled
, starring a little dog who considers its work to be absolutely essential in the household,
whether it be “tasting” the food before the others, “warming up” the bed, “tidying”
the newspapers, etc. And since it invariably receives the adverb “no!” in response
to every action, the dog is convinced that this is its name. Only at the end does
it hesitate for a moment when it sees “Rufus” on its collar. The same procedure is
developed by the author in , where the main character is a child who gives a first-person account of his “artistic”
performances in the house where he lives. The main character draws on the walls, gives
new colours to the chairs, messes up the furniture to experiment with shapes and finally
carries out a great artistic intervention that consists of drawing on all the walls
of the house. Meanwhile, the mother remains absorbed in her meditation and relaxation
work. This way, the reader is presented with two opposing stories, the one in the
text and the one in the illustration, and undoubtedly perceives the latter as true.
The objective dimension provided by the illustration as opposed to the subjectivity
of the text, as pointed out, means that the image version predominates. The reader’s informational
superiority over the characters allows him to enjoy the contrasts between word and
image.
Slightly more aware of the fragility of his discourse is the cat that is the main
character of the book , also by Marta Altés. The main character boasts of its status as “king of the house”,
although it is assailed by numerous doubts when a dog joins the family life and receives
the attentions of all the members of the household. Finally, unlike in the previous
cases, the cat, the main character and narrator, accepts the new situation and, although
he proclaims itself “king of the house” until the end, the illustration informs us
that its behaviour expresses a servile acceptance of the new tenant. There is irony
here, then, between what the character says and what it does; contradiction arises
not only from the confrontation between the character and its context, but also from
the cat’s own behaviour, in which we perceive a psychological complexity that was
not present in the main characters of ¡No! and Soy un artista. In all three cases, the implicit perspective of the narrative, expressed through
illustrations, reveals and ridicules the incongruous behaviour of the characters and
the overly self-satisfied attitude they portray.
The same whitewashing procedure was followed by . Jessica, the most restless frog of the group, continually scours the island where
it lives in an effort to satisfy its curiosity. One day it finds a huge egg that her
classmates call a “chicken egg”. Even when the animal is born it is referred to as
a “chicken” by the frogs, although the reader sees a small crocodile represented,
with whom the frogs coexist naturally and with whom Jessica strikes up a deep friendship.
A bird later recognises the crocodile’s true identity and leads it to its mother,
a huge animal that greets it as “my sweet little alligator”. Jessica the Frog tells
its classmates about this episode: - “It’s incredible what happened to the chicken!”
And it refers to the encounter with the mother, to which one of the frogs responds:
- “Alligator! –Marilyn said- What a silly thing” And the three frogs couldn’t stop
laughing”. The diegesis thus progresses on two different levels: the meaning that
events acquire for the characters and the meaning that is revealed to the reader.
The reader enjoys a panoramic view, while the frogs, as characters, express a superficial
and erroneous perception of events.
In , the main character is a mouse that finds an apple and decides to hide it as its
most precious secret. The other animals ask about it, but the mouse always refuses
to answer. Finally, the tree under which the characters are talking bears fruit, i.e.,
numerous apples that fall to the ground and are picked up by the same animals that
had tried to get information from the mouse. The illustration, as a situation or context,
thus invalidates the mouse’s behaviour and its secret becomes an open secret. The
naivety of the main character is made clear to the rest of the characters by the very
sequence of events. Now the characters gradually acquire a complete vision of the
events narrated, equivalent to that of the reader.
In , inconsistency arises from the complicity between two disparate characters, a small
kitten and a huge gorilla. Differences in size, behaviour and habits between the two
main characters hint at an impossible relationship. Everything indicates that a cat
will be incapable of healing the gorilla’s loneliness, so the reader understands the
crazy solution adopted by the zoo officials when they decide that the two animals
should live together in order to mitigate the gorilla’s sadness. However, the relationship
turns out to be idyllic, although there is a moment when the gorilla explodes in anger
and smashes the television. The caretakers decide to separate the pair, so Linda,
the cat, takes the blame and is able to resume living with the gorilla. The title,
Little Beauty refers not only to the cat but to the story itself (): the happy relationship between two very different beings against all odds. Another
source of irony here is the description of the characters’ habitat: they speak of
a zoo, but the illustration depicts a domestic space, with wallpapered walls, armchairs
and television. It is then easy to deduce that the author not only describes the strange
relationship between a gorilla and a cat, but also refers to affective bonds that
are properly human. The semantic mismatch between text and illustration helps to establish
different levels of interpretation: a more playful level (which seems preferably aimed
at the child reader) and a more reflective one (intended, one might think, for the
adult reader). As noted, the picture book is based on a true story that took place in a California
zoo. The author then sought to highlight the often overlooked similarities between
the behaviour of gorillas and that of humans. In doing so, the implicit meaning of
picture books questions certain prejudices about human relationships, but it also
suggests an unassuming perception of men and women in nature as a whole.
Figure 3Anthony Browne, Little Beauty, 1988. Cover
A clear example of intertextual irony, in the sense uses the concept, is the picture book Et pourquoi? by Michel Van Zeveren, a very free version of the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Van Zeveren plays with the well-known final dialogue between the little girl and
the wolf, already disguised as a granny and about to eat her: “-What big ears you
have...”, etc. In Et pourquoi?, the girl’s scrutinising eagerness, who invariably asks “Why?”, exasperates the wolf
to the point of driving it to suicide. The characters take on a new dimension through
the inevitable contrast with traditional models. This way, the reader witnesses the
transformation of the wolf and the girl until their roles of victim and perpetrator
are reversed. The author thus invites us to reconsider the symbolic meaning traditionally
embodied by both characters.
insisted that texts propose reading mechanisms, that is, clues for their interpretation,
by means of which they instruct the reader with the aim of bringing the empirical
reader closer to the model reader. One of these strategies is “intertextual irony”,
i.e., any form of quote or dialogue between works. Through this strategy, any text
offers “two levels of reading”, that of the one who perceives the reference and that
of the one who does not recognise it. Eco’s approach infers that through references
to other texts a work triggers new processes of meaning creation, which the scholar
understood as irony between discourses that contradict each other.
Conclusions
From the picture books under analysis, some patterns of interpretation emerge that
are repeated: in principle, in all cases the author generates distrust in the reader
in the face of a literal reading of the work. Mistrust usually stems from the discursive
disagreement between text and illustration, which is expressed in the different points
of view adopted by one code and the other, and which is transferred to the plot development
of the events. This way, the recipient senses the need to reach a deeper meaning of
the book and initiates (Marchese & Forradellas, 2000) a process of “semantic manipulation”
(p. 221) until a coherent meaning can be glimpsed. As we can see, ironic messages
demand open endings, which require a distant and reflective attitude from the recipient.
Therefore, irony is finally translated into the questioning of prejudices or clichés,
in the need to go beyond the apparent vision of reality. As pointed out, the ironist brings together different messages in a single statement
and trusts the recipient’s ability to interpret them correctly.
As we said, in the works under analysis, we have found that discursive inconsistency
generally arises from mismatches between text and illustration. Only in Et pourquoi? there is no dissonance between the two codes. Here, the deep level of interpretation
is demanded by the explicit reference to another work, the traditional tale of Little Red Riding Hood. Michael Van Zeveren0s version of Little Red Riding Hood takes on an ironic dimension in contrast to the canonical version of the story. For
his part, Gilles Bachelet resorts in Mon chat to a clear contrast between text and illustration, as has already been pointed out.
However, in contrast to what usually happens in these cases, the reader must now choose
to give the text and not the illustration the value of truth. The profound meaning
of the work refers to the very incoherence of the homodiegetic narrator, with whom
the author can be identified: someone who lives with a domestic animal that alters
his way of life, that spoils his work, but which, at the same time, serves him as
a model in his illustrations or deserves the dedication of one of his books.
Pat Huchins’ Rosie’s walk offers a more traditional contrast between words and images.
Illustrations complete the perspective offered by texts Images act as a heterodiegetic
perception of events. The reader must now conclude that the final meaning of the story
is conveyed by illustrations. The book highlights the naivety of the main character,
but the author counterbalances the legendary cunning of the fox with a kind of cosmic
justice that favours the weak. And since the main character is saved again and again
by chance or chance, the empirical reader is confronted with an ending, of an evidently
intentional nature, which will lead him to reflect on the ultimate message of the
work, the fortune that invariably protects the trusting main character.
The three picture books by Marta Altés under analysis, ¡No!, Soy un artista and El rey de la casa, as well as Leo Lionni’s An extraordinary egg and Eric Battut’s Little Mouse’s Big Secret, base their ironic capacity on the contrast
between an internal focus of the story and an external focus. In internal focus, the
narrative perspective coincides with a character, who becomes the fictional subject
of the perception of events. In the external focus, provided by illustrations, the
perspective of the narrative is lies in a point in the diegetic universe outside of
any character (). The characters in the picture books by Altés, Lionni or Battut reviewed thus maintain
a biased view of the facts that contrasts with the omniscience provided by the illustration,
the frame of reference of the text. These are therefore cases of situational irony.
Irony arises from the characters’ deficient understanding of reality. The reader knows
the “true” story from the illustrations.
In sum, we have reviewed several prototypical examples of what can be called “situational
irony” adapted to picture books. Each of the cases offers its own variants, although
they are all based on the discursive dissociation between texts and illustrations.
is a clear example of “intertextual irony”, in Eco's sense of the term. Undoubtedly,
there are cases where both models of irony are combined in the construction of meaning,
a matter of great interest and complexity that would need to be addressed in other
studies.
We said that irony is intended to generate humour and criticism above all. This way,
the ironist conveys doubts about the relationship between the appearance and the background
of things, and also about the possibilities of human knowledge and of language itself
(verbal or iconic) as an instrument for categorising the world. The ways of expressing
irony are very varied, but they all require reading beyond the obvious, trying to
delve into what is suggested, since the ironist constructs uncertain discourses. Therefore,
inducing readers in training to deal with ironic texts means getting them used to
a reading, to understand literature or art as intentional recreations of life, through
which an author provokes certain intellectual and affective processes in the reader.
References
1
Albadalejo, T. (1989). Retórica. Síntesis.
2
Arizpe, E., & Styles, M (2004). Lectura de imágenes. Los niños interpretan textos visuales. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
3
Bajtin, M. (1989). La cultura popular en la Edad Media y en el Renacimiento. El contexto de François
Rabelais. Alianza Universidad.
4
Beltrán-Almería, L. (2017). GENUS. Genealogía de la imaginación literaria. De la tradición a la Modernidad. Calambur Editorial.
5
Booth, W. C. (1986) [1974]. Retórica de la ironía. Taurus.
6
Browne, A., & Browne, J. (2011). Jugar el juego de las formas. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
7
Colomer, T. (1996). El álbum y el texto. Peonza. Revista de Literatura Infantil y Juvenil, 39, 27-31.
8
Colomer, T. (2012). La literatura que acoge: Inmigración y lectura de álbumes. in
T. Colomer, & M. Fittipaldi (Coords.), La literatura que acoge: Inmigración y lectura de álbumes (pp. 7-25). Banco del Libro-GRETEL.
9
Díaz-Armas, J. (2008). La imagen en pugna con la palabra. Saber (e) Educar, 13, 43-57.
10
Díaz-Armas, J. (2010). La ilustración en lucha con la palabra. (Sobre algunas formas
de la ironía en el álbum)”. in Asociación Nacional de Investigación en Literatura
Infantil y Juvenil (ANILIJ), El humor en la literatura infantil y juvenil (pp. 155-169). ANILIJ-Universidad de Cádiz.
11
Doonan, J. (1993). Looking at Pictures in Picture Books. Thimble Press.
12
Durán, T. (1999). Pero, ¿qué es un álbum? In Literatura para cambiar el siglo. Una revisión crítica de la literatura infantil y
juvenil (pp. 73-82). Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez.
13
Durán, T. (2005). Ilustración, comunicación, aprendizaje. Revista de Educación. Núm. Extraordinario 2005, 239-253.
14
Durán, T. (2009). Álbumes y otras lecturas. Análisis de los libros infantiles. Octaedro-Sensat.
Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (1999). Metalinguistic Awareness and the Child´s Developing
Concept of Irony: The Relationship between Pictures and Text in Ironic Picture Books.
The Lion and The Unicorn, 23, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1353/uni.1999.0024
18
Lázaro-Carreter, F. (1990). Diccionario de términos filológicos. Gredos.
19
Lonna, I. (2015). Narrativa contemporánea: El libro-álbum. Economía creativa, 3, 66-80.
20
Lluch, G. (2008). De la ironia impossible a la imprescindible paròdia. In F. Carbó,
C. Gregori, G. Lluch, R. X. Roselló, V. Simbor., El bricolatge literari. De la paròdia al pastitx en la literatura catalana contemporània (pp. 92-122). Publicacions de l´Abadia de Montserrat.
21
Manresa, M., & Reyes, L. (2014). El álbum y el hábito lector. Peonza. Revista de Literatura Infantil y Juvenil, 108, 72-81.
22
Marcus, L. (2017). El álbum y el mundo visto desde los EE. UU. Fuera [de] Margen, 20, 44-46.
23
Nikolajeva, M., & Scott C. (2001). How Picturebooks Work. Garland.
24
Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about Pictures. The Narrative Art of Children´s Literature Books. The University of Georgia Press.
25
Nodelman, P. (2020). El adulto escondido. Definiendo la literatura infantil y juvenil. Pantalia Publicaciones.
26
Platas-Tasende, A. M. (2000). Diccionario de términos literarios. Espasa-Calpe.
27
Pozuelo-Yvancos, J. M. (1988). Teoría del lenguaje literario. Cátedra.
28
Reyes, G. (1990). La pragmática lingüística. El estudio del uso del lenguaje. Montesinos.
29
Reyes, G. (1994). Los procedimientos de cita: citas encubiertas y ecos. Arco Libros.
30
Reyes, G. (2018). Palabras en contexto. Pragmática y otras teorías del significado. Arco/Libros.
31
Reyes, L. (2015). La formació literaria a primária. Impacte d´unaintervenció educativa en l´evolució
de respostes lectores. [Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona]. TDX, Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa.
www.tdx.cat./handle/10803/308312
32
Ruiz-Gurillo, L. (2010). Las ‘marcas discursivas’ de la ironía. In J. L. Cifuentes-Honrubia,
A. Gómez González-Jover, A. Lillo, F. Yus-Ramos (Coords.), Los caminos de la lengua. Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó. (pp. 1-9). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
33
Salisbury, M. (2007). Imágenes que cuentan. Nueva ilustración de los libros infantiles. Gustavo Gili.
34
Salisbury, M., & Styles, M. (2012). El arte de ilustrar libros infantiles. Concepto y práctica de la narración visual. Blume.
35
Silva-Díaz, M. C. (2005). Libros que enseñan a leer. Álbumes metaficcionales y conocimiento literario [Dissertation, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona]. TRX, Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa
https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/4667/mcsdo1de1.pdf
36
Silva-Díaz, M. C. (2016). La investigación en el libro-álbum. Peonza. Revista de Literatura Infantil y Juvenil, 119, pp. 27-37.
37
Tabernero, R. (2019). La concepción adulta de la infancia. La construcción de los
personajes infantiles en los álbumes El maravilloso Mini-Peli-Coso de Beatrice Alemagna y en Poka&Mina. El despertar de Kitty Crowther. Tejuelo, 30, pp. 233-260.
38
Turrión, C. (2012). La ambigüedad de significado en el álbum y su lector implícito.
El ejemplo de El Túnel de Browne. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 5(1), 60-78. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.452
39
Van Der Linden, S. (2015). Álbum[es]. Ekaré.
40
Zavala, L. (2004). Cartografía del cuento y la minificción.Renacimiento.
Picture books analysed
41
Altés, M. (2013). ¡No! Thule.
42
Altés, M. (2014). Soy un artista. Blacki Books.
43
Altés, M. (2015). El rey de la casa. Blacki Books.
44
Bachellet, G. (2016) [2004]. Mon chat le plus bête du monde. Seuil Jeunesse.
45
Battut, E. (2014). Little Mouse’s Big Secret. Kókinos.
46
Browne, A. (2016) [1988]. Cosita Linda. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
47
Hutchins, P. (2013) [1968]. Rosie’s walk. Kalandraka.
48
Lionni, L. (2014) [1994]. An extraordinary egg. Ekaré.
