Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends

Lampert, Martin D.; Ervin-Tripp, Susan

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004

Cited by 170 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The degree to which partners cooperate in telling jokes, including self-defeating or potentially offensive jokes, may reveal new insights into the way that humor is co-created in public. Research employing conversational analysis methods (e.g., Hay, 2000;Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006) demonstrates that humor requires creative interplay between audience and joker. Future work should explore how romantic partners may help to mitigate uncomfortable responses (or a lack of response) to inappropriate jokes from the audience by participating as both joker and audience, and thereby maintaining relationship-specific face.…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it something I said? Sense of humor and partner embarrassment

Hall

2010

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript explores one romantic partner's humor use and the resulting embarrassment felt by the other partner using coorientation theory. Self-report and partner perception data were gathered from 106 couples (N ¼ 212) in romantic relationships, and two coorientation variables were calculated. Actor-Partner Independence Models estimated the relationships between four humor styles and partner embarrassment. Aggressive humor was related to partner embarrassment and self-defeating humor with feeling embarrassed by one's partner. For women, perceived similarity in aggressive and self-defeating humor mitigated embarrassment, and greater understanding of men's self-defeating humor was related to embarrassment. In Study 2, a 2 Â 2 experiment (N ¼ 222) tested whether self-defeating humor predicts embarrassment or whether embarrassment predicts self-defeating humor use, with results supporting the former.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it something I said? Sense of humor and partner embarrassment

Hall

2010

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intimates, more likely than strangers, can judge whether teases are devoid of truly abusive or downgrading potential, which is socially inappropriate even in close relationships. Teasing hence symbolises and enhances intimacy (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp 2006;Pawluk 1989).…”

Section: The Dichotomous Nature Of Teasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter

Dynel

2008

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bone of contention among researchers is whether the primary function of humour is the expression of aggression against the hearer or the promotion of solidarity between the interlocutors. It is commonly averred that teasing boasts a dichotomous nature, i.e. malignant and benevolent. The former coincides with the potential for criticising, mocking and ostracising the interlocutor, whereas the latter accounts for playfulness and bonding capacity.The overriding goal of the paper is to expound the rapportbuilding function, which is here postulated to be inherent to teasing. First and foremost, I will determine the scope of interest differentiating between putdown humour and teases, which may assume the form of retorts and develop into multi-turn teases, i.e. banter. Subtypes of teasing will be discussed with a view to proving that it is inherently devoid of genuine aggressiveness. The underlying premise is that teases, even if ostensibly aggressive, i.e. face-threatening, are geared towards solidarity, in conformity with the framework of politeness, including mock impoliteness, holding between intimates. Also, teases fulfil a few subordinate functions such as defunctionalisation or mitigation of face-threatening messages they may carry.

show abstract

“…For the mock and genuine impoliteness discourse contexts participants were asked to read a scenario containing key words that signaled to them that they should either feel angry or upset and want to insult the person in the scenario (genuine impoliteness) or that the person in the scenario was joking with the participant, causing the participant to want to joke back with them (mock impoliteness). Following Lampert and Ervin-Tripp's (2006) finding that both men and women are more likely to use wisecracks and teasing when their interlocutor is male, all the interlocutors in the discourse contexts were males so that participants were directing their utterances towards a male figure. Since taboo words and slurs are a common target for genuine and mock impoliteness exchanges, these words were used in both the mock and genuine impoliteness discourse contexts.…”

Section: Audiovisual Recordings and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness

McKinnon¹,

Prieto²

2014

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the impoliteness literature, an important distinction has been made between genuine and mock (or non-genuine) impoliteness (Culpeper 1996(Culpeper , 2011 Bernal 2008, among others). Even though mock impoliteness has generally been analyzed within an impoliteness framework, recent proposals suggest that it is an essentially different pragmatic phenomenon that requires a continuous conversational evaluation (Haugh and Bousfield 2012). The present study had the goal of assessing the offline evaluation process of target genuine vs. mock impoliteness utterances, specifically the role the situational/ discourse contexts, as well as prosodic and gestural patterns, play in their interpretation. A total of 97 participants were either asked to rate the degree of impoliteness of target genuine and mock impoliteness utterances in isolation (Experiment 1), or to rate the same utterances preceded with a set of matched and mismatched situational/discourse contexts which favored either a genuine or a mock impoliteness interpretation (Experiment 2). The results of the two experiments show that (a) evaluations of intended mock impoliteness utterances generate more uncertainty in listeners than intended genuine impolite utterances; and (b) mock impoliteness evaluations are characterized by a more active use of gestural cues. These results provide evidence that mock impoliteness triggers a more complex evaluation procedure of a phenomenon that lies on the boundary between polite and impolite behavior.

show abstract

Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends

Cited by 170 publications

References 20 publications

Is it something I said? Sense of humor and partner embarrassment

Is it something I said? Sense of humor and partner embarrassment

No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter

The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About