Cruel to be Kind and Kind to be Cruel: Sarcasm, Banter and Social Relations

Abstract

The present paper is concerned with the knowledge or cognitive representations which individuals must possess in order to understand utterances occurring in conversations. We examined Brown and Levinson's (1978) model which reconciles the Cooperative Principle of Grice (1975) with the face-wants of conversational interactants by relativising the operation of abstract principles of conversation to aspects of the social relationship between the speaker and hearer. In an empirical study of ironic sarcasm and banter, Brown and Levinson's model is found to require an additional relationship parameter, ‘relationship affect’, to account for the ways in which neutral observers interpret counter-to-fact insults and compliments. As predicted, the literal meanings of utterances are also found to influence observers' cognitive representations of the relationship between speaker and hearer. However, unexpected correlations among the relationship variables suggest that the model's additivity assumption may need to be relinquished.

Metaphor and readers’ attributions of intimacy

“…The rating scale ranged from 0, "not at all," to 6, "extremely well." In this context, it was important to point out that intimacy is not necessarily the same thing as rapport, which refers more specifically to feelings of liking and affiliation (Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988). Individuals who dislike each other strongly could nevertheless be quite well acquainted and therefore still be considered to be in some sense "intimate."…”

Arousing the receiver's involvement by flouting the communicative principles

“…In order to overeóme the aforesaid rejection, the writer should be the artificer of the audience's shift from hostility to solidarity Although comparatively little work has been done on the topic of how potential effects on readers may lead advertisers to choose humour (Alien, 1988), studies in face-to-face interaction suggest that sarcasm can have the effect of creating solidarity and may be facesaving (Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988;Seckman & Couch, 1989;Kreuz et al, 1991;Jorgensen, 1996).…”

Reconsidering power and distance

“…For example, Baxter (1984), Boxer (1993), Brown & Gilman (1989), Slugoski & Turnbull (1988) and Trosborg (1987) all use the term intimacy in association with distance. Baxter (1984) and Slugoski & Turnbull (1988), for instance, make the following comments respectively:…”

“…Indeed, it is true that intimates tend generally to like one another ... Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988:104 However, the scope of distance (and hence of intimacy) varies among the authors. Slugoski & Turnbull (1988) do not include affect as a component of distance/intimacy, whereas Baxter (1984) does. So in their hypothetical scenarios, distance/intimacy is manipulated differently.…”