1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 32, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of claims to non-seriousness in ‘jocular pretence’ teasing sequences (Haugh 2016). Drawing on 50 hours of Greek scripted interactions from popular TV sitcoms, we examined 18 ‘biting’ (Boxer & Cortés-Conde 1997) teases involving overt claims to non-seriousness. Our analysis adopts an interactional pragmatic approach (Haugh 2013) with a particular focus on the sequential and moral/social implications of claims to non-seriousness, as well as on the ways these were informed by the conventions of the said genre. The analysis brings to the fore a systematic relation between the location and uptake of such claims, namely that they emerged after serious rejections of teases, and they were subsequently responded to in low-aligning ways. It also shows that these claims were used by teasers to project positive self-identities of politeness and sensitivity while preserving their relationship with the teasees. Overall, the analysis points to an intertwined relation between humour, identity, im/politeness-in-interaction.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24021.sal
2025-09-26
2026-06-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.24021.sal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aitaki, Georgia
    2019 Laughing with/at the national self: Greek television satire and the politics of self-disparagement. Social Semiotics29(1). 68–82. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1408893
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1408893 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alberts, Jess K.
    1992 Teasing and sexual harassment: Double-bind communication in the workplace. InLinda A. M. Perry, Lynn H. Turner & Helen M. Sterk (eds.), Constructing and reconstructing gender, 185–196. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Archakis, Argiris, Sofia Lampropoulou, Villy Tsakona & Vasia Tsami
    2015 Style and humor in Greek mass culture texts. InDorota Brzozowska & Władysław Chłopicki (eds.), Culture’s software: Communication styles, 16–38. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Attardo, Salvatore
    1994 Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 The linguistics of humor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, Nancy
    2015 We αre not amused: Failed humor in interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501501586
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501586 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bi, Xiaoyi & Elizabeth Marsden
    2020 Managing interpersonal relationships: Teasing as a method of professional identity construction. Journal of Pragmatics1651. 18–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bousfield, Derek
    2008 Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boxer, Diana, & Florencia Cortés-Conde
    1997 From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics27(3). 275–94. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00031‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00031-8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, Wei-Lin Melody & Michael Haugh
    2011 Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural apology. Intercultural Pragmatics81. 411–442. 10.1515/iprg.2011.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.019 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2021 Teasing and claims to non-serious intent in Chinese talk shows. East Asian Pragmatics61. 135–159. 10.1558/eap.18158
     https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.18158 [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2005 Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research11. 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011 Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, Paul
    1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics251. 219–53. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  16. Dynel, Marta
    (ed.) 2011 The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.210
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research81. 161–194. 10.1515/pr‑2012‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0010 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 Conceptualizing conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research121. 117–147. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0023 [Google Scholar]
  19. Edwards, Derek
    2008 Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics51. 177–199. 10.1515/IP.2008.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fairclough, Norman
    2003 Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  21. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2010 A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics21. 46–94. 10.1163/187731010X491747
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187731010X491747 [Google Scholar]
  22. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
    2001 Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics331. 1881–1900. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00034‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00034-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Georgalidou, Marianthi & Boukala, Salomi
    . forthcoming. The language of politics and the Greek paradigm. London: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Geyer, Naomi
    2010 Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics421. 2120–2130. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    1959 The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 1974 Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1981 Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Grainger, Karren
    2004 Verbal play on the hospital ward: solidarity or power?Multilingua23(1–2). 39–59. 10.1515/mult.2004.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, Paul H.
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 Contextualization and understanding. InAlessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Haddington, Pentti
    2011 Serious or non-serious? Sequential ambiguity and disavowing a prior stance. Functions of Language181. 149–182. 10.1075/fol.18.2.01had
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.01had [Google Scholar]
  32. Hatfield, Hunter & Jee-Won Hahn
    2011 What Korean apologies require of politeness theory. Journal of Pragmatics431. 1303–1317. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haugh, Michael
    2009 Face and interaction. InFrancesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and interaction, 1–30. London: Equinox. 10.3138/9781845537258‑002
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781845537258-002 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2010 Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation and face. Journal of Pragmatics421. 2106–2119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013 Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics581. 52–72. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2016 ‘‘Just kidding’’: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent. Journal of Pragmatics951. 120–136. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2022 Action ascription, accountability, and inference. InArnulf Deppermann & Michael Haugh (eds.), Action ascription in interaction, 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108673419.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419.005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Haugh, Michael & Derek Bousfield
    2012 Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics441. 1099–1114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Haugh, Michael & Kasia M. Jaszczolt
    2012 Speaker intentions and intentionality. InKeith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Haugh, Michael, Daniel Kádár & Marina Terkourafi
    2021 Introduction: Directions in sociopragmatics. InMichael Haugh, Daniel Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haugh, Michael & Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 Offence and conflict talk. InΜatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries & Jim O’Driscoll (eds.), Handbook of language in conflict, 196–214. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hay, Jennifer
    2000 Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics321. 709–742. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00069‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00069-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2001 The pragmatics of humour support. Humor141. 55–82. 10.1515/humr.14.1.55
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  44. Heath, Christian
    1988 Embarrassment and interactional organization. InPaul Drew & Andrew Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 136–160. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hirschon, Renée
    1992 Greek adults’ verbal play, or, how to train for caution. Journal of Modern Greek Studies101. 35–56. 10.1353/mgs.2010.0250
     https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2010.0250 [Google Scholar]
  46. Holt, Elizabeth
    2013 “There’s many a true word said in jest”: Seriousness and non-seriousness in interaction. InPhillip Glenn & Elizabeth Holt (eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction, 69–90. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781472542069.ch‑004
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472542069.ch-004 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hutchby, Ian
    2008 Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research. 4(2). 221–41. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.011 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InGene Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  50. Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh
    2013 Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaklamanidou, Betty
    2017 Introduction to the Greek sitcom: The case of I tris charites/The Three Graces. Filmicon: Journal of Greek Film Studies4(1). 138–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kapogianni, Eleni
    2013 Irony and the literal versus nonliteral distinction: A typological approach with focus on ironic implicature strength. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Karachaliou, Rania
    2018 Addressing in conversational narratives. Thessaloniki: Idryma Triantafillidi. [in Greek]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Karafoti, Eleni
    2019 Attending to a possible complaint: Preference for noticings, anticipatory apologies and preemptive accounts to forestall potential conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict20191. 2213–1272. 10.1075/jlac.00030.kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00030.kar [Google Scholar]
  55. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
    2009 Television discourse: Analysing language in the media. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lytra, Vally
    2007 Teasing in contact encounters: Frames, participant positions and responses. Multilingua261. 381–408. 10.1515/MULTI.2007.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
  57. Norrick, Neal R.
    1993 Repetition in canned jokes and spontaneous conversational joking. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research6(4). 385–402. 10.1515/humr.1993.6.4.385
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1993.6.4.385 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ogiermann, Eva & Vasiliki Saloustrou
    2020 Conceptualising politeness in Greece and Great Britain. Glossologia281. 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 1988 Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs551. 360–373. 10.1080/03637758809376177
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  61. Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R.
    1940 On joking relationships. Journal of the International African Institute131. 195–210. 10.2307/1156093
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1156093 [Google Scholar]
  62. Raymond, Geoffrey, & John Heritage
    2006 The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society351. 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sacks, Harvey
    1992 Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Saloustrou, Vasiliki
    . forthcoming. Lay (im)politeness evaluations in face-to-face interaction: A study of Greek friendship groups living abroad. InMaria Sifianou & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich eds. The Routledge series on (im)politeness. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Schieffelin, Bambi
    1986 Teasing and shaming in Kauli children’s interactions. InBambi Schieffelin & Ellinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures, 165–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Schnurr, Stephanie & Chan Angela
    2011 When laughter is not enough: Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics431. 20–35. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sifianou, Maria
    2023 On understandings of politeness in Greek, again!Roczniki Humanistyczne71(6). 251–271. 10.18290/rh237106.12s
     https://doi.org/10.18290/rh237106.12s [Google Scholar]
  68. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. InKeith H. Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Arbuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 1985 Language and the culture of gender. InElizabeth Mertz & Richard Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic mediation, 219–259. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑491280‑9.50016‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2014 “When a joke’s a joke and when it’s too much”: Mateship as a key to interpreting jocular FTAs in Australian English. Journal of Pragmatics601. 121–139. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2017 What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? “Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture131. 175–207. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0034 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2019 Conversational humour and (im)politeness: A pragmatic analysis of social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.8 [Google Scholar]
  73. Skalicky, Stephen, Cynthia M. Berger & Nancy D. Bell
    2015 The functions of ‘just kidding’ in American English. Journal of Pragmatics851. 18–31. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.024
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.024 [Google Scholar]
  74. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction411. 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  75. Thornborrow, Joanna
    2015 The discourse of public participation media: From talk show to Twitter. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Tsakona, Villy
    2023 Recontextualizing humor: Rethinking the analysis and teaching of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 2024 Exploring the sociopragmatics of online humor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.12 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tsami, Vasia
    2019 Metapragmatic stereotypes and humour: Interpreting and perceiving linguistic homogeneity in mass culture texts. European Journal of Humour Research71. 68–85. 10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.tsami
     https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.tsami [Google Scholar]
  79. Tzanne, Angeliki & Maria Sifianou
    2019 Understandings of impoliteness in the Greek context. Russian Journal of Linguistics23(4). 1014–1038. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2019‑23‑4‑1014‑1038
     https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1014-1038 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wedgwood, Daniel
    2011 The individual in interaction: Why cognitive and discourse-level pragmatics need not conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics81. 517–542. 10.1515/iprg.2011.024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.024 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wooffitt, Robin
    2005 Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. New York: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208765
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208765 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24021.sal
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Greek; impoliteness; metapragmatics; teasing; TV sitcoms

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error