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 negotiation of offensive humour through ‘only joking’ claims made by participants on the social media platform Reddit. Metapragmatic claims of jocular intent can be added to a post containing offensive humour pre-emptively or after a reaction by another participant. In both cases, the participant making the claim tries to show that problematic humour in the post is not meant to give offence, and that they should not be held accountable for such an intention. Using corpus methods and close analysis, we analyse indicators of jocular intent (e.g., “just kidding”, “take a joke”) to find out how offensive or problematic humour is presented, perceived and negotiated. The findings show how claims of jocular intent can be accepted or rejected after a negotiation of the offensiveness based on subreddit community norms. Offensive humour is negotiated verbally and through the upvote/downvote affordance of Reddit, indicating the ascription of accountability.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
2025-09-26
2026-09-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allison, Kimberley R., Kay Bussey & Naomi Sweller
    2019 “I’m going to hell for laughing at this”: Norms, humour, and the neutralisation of aggression in online communities. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3(CSCW). 1–25. 10.1145/3359254
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3359254 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altahmazi, Thulfiqar H.
    2024 Humorous but hateful: Linguistic impoliteness and visual dysphemism in anti-Muslim memes. Internet Pragmatics71. 219–248. 10.1075/ip.00106.alt
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00106.alt [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson, Marta
    2021 The climate of climate change: Impoliteness as a hallmark of homophily in YouTube comment threads on Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism. Journal of Pragmatics1781. 93–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arendholz, Jenny
    2013 (In)appropriate online behaviour: A pragmatic analysis of message board relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.229
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.229 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aslan, Erhan
    2022 Days of our ‘quarantined’ lives: Multimodal humour in COVID-19 internet memes. Internet Pragmatics51. 227–256. 10.1075/ip.00075.asl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00075.asl [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumgartner, Jason, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire & Jeremy Blackburn
    2020 The Pushshift Reddit dataset. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media141. 830–839. 10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347
     https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, Nancy D.
    2015 We are not amused: Failed humor in interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501501586
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501586 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton
    2011 Language and superdiversity. Diversities131. 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bou-Franch, Patricia
    2021 Evaluation, conflict and prescriptive metapragmatic comments: (Re)constructing transmedia stories. InMarjut Johansson, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen & Jan Chovanec (eds.), Analyzing digital discourses: Between convergence and controversy, 189–217. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑84602‑2_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84602-2_8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Caffi, Claudia
    1998 Metapragmatics. InJacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 581–586. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang, Wei-Lin Melody & Michael Haugh
    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
    2011 Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  13. Demjén, Zsófia
    2016 Laughing at cancer: Humour, empowerment, solidarity and coping online. Journal of Pragmatics1011. 18–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dynel, Marta
    2008 No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz papers in pragmatics4(2). 241–261. 10.2478/v10016‑008‑0001‑7
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0001-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017 Is there a tumour in your humour? On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing intercultural pragmatics: Cognitive, linguistic and sociopragmatic perspectives on language use, 55–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110546095‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-004 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2020 Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology. Language & Communication741. 1–14. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2021a Desperately seeking intentions: Genuine and jocular insults on social media. Journal of Pragmatics1791. 26–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.017 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2021b Humour and (mock) aggression: Distinguishing cyberbullying from roasting. Language & Communication811. 17–36. 10.1016/j.langcom.2021.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dynel, Marta & Fabio I. M. Poppi
    2019 Risum teneatis, amici?☆: The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour. Journal of Pragmatics1391. 1–21. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dynel, Marta
    2023 Irony and humor. InRaymond W. Gibbs, Jr & Herbert L. Colston (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of irony and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 237–254. 10.1017/9781108974004.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974004.019 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2024 Do we know whether to laugh or cry? User responses to @Ukraine’s dark-humour meme. Journal of Creative Communications19(3). 243–258. 10.1177/09732586241239908
     https://doi.org/10.1177/09732586241239908 [Google Scholar]
  22. Elder, Chi-Hé
    2021a Microaggression or misunderstanding? Implicatures, inferences and accountability. Journal of Pragmatics1791. 37–43. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.020 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021b Speaker meaning, commitment and accountability. InMichael Haugh, Daniel Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 48–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Elder, Chi-Hé & Michael Haugh
    2018 The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics151. 593–625. 10.1515/ip‑2018‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0021 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2023 Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics2181. 115–132. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  26. Erjavec, Karmen & Melita Poler Kovačič
    2012 “You don’t understand, this is a new war!” Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society151. 899–920. 10.1080/15205436.2011.619679
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679 [Google Scholar]
  27. Garfinkel, Harold
    1984(1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Glenski, Maria, Greg Stoddard, Paul Resnick & Tim Weninger
    2018 GuessTheKarma: A game to assess social rating systems. InProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2(CSCW), 1–15. 10.1145/3274328
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3274328 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1957 Meaning. Philosophical Review661. 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Marina Terkourafi
    2023 We need to talk about hearer’s meaning!Journal of Pragmatics2081. 99–114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugh, Michael
    2007 The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics391. 84–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2008 Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics51. 99–110. 10.1515/IP.2008.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics861. 36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. 2018 Corpus-based metapragmatics. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 619–644. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-024 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hayes, Rebecca A., Caleb T. Carr & Donghee Yvette Wohn
    2016 One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(1). 171–187. 10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz
    2007 Introducing metapragmatics in use. InWolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub [Google Scholar]
  39. Kádár, Daniel
    2013 Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230393059
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kleinke, Sonja & Birte Bös
    2015 Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. InMiriam Locher, Brook Bolander & Nicole Höhn (eds.), Relational work in Facebook and discussion boards/fora. Special issue of Pragmatics25(1). 47–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kohnen, Thomas
    2007 Text types and the methodology of diachronic speech act analysis. InSusan M. Fitzmaurice & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 139–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197822.139
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197822.139 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger
    1991 Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, Ping & Huiying Liu
    2021 Salience adjusting: Metapragmatic expressions in complaint responses. Journal of Pragmatics1761. 150–163. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Marwick, Alice E. & danah boyd
    2011 I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1). 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  45. Massanari, Adrienne L.
    2017 #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society19(3). 329–346. 10.1177/1461444815608807
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mitchell, Nathaniel & Michael Haugh
    2015 Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research111. 207–38. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mullan, Kerry
    2022 On the “dark side”: Facebook humour used for inclusion and exclusion. The European Journal of Humour Research101. 96–115. 10.7592/EJHR2022.10.2.644
     https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2022.10.2.644 [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Keeffe, Anne
    2018 Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 587–618. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-023 [Google Scholar]
  49. Orthaber, Sara
    2019 Aggressive humour as a means of voicing customer dissatisfaction and creating in-group identity. Journal of Pragmatics1521. 160–171. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Reddiquette
    Reddiquette 2025 Reddit Help. Available online: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette (Accessed12.6.2025)
  51. Robards, Brady
    2018 Belonging and neo-tribalism on social media site Reddit. InAnne Hardy, Andy Bennett & Brady Robards (eds.), Neo-tribes: Consumption, leisure and tourism, 187–206. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑68207‑5_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68207-5_12 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2001 Getting serious: Joke → serious ‘no’. Journal of Pragmatics331. 1947–1955. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00073‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schneebeli, Célia
    2020 Where lol is: Function and position of lol used as a discourse marker in YouTube Comment. Discours271. 10.4000/discours.10900
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10900 [Google Scholar]
  54. Shifman, Limor
    2019 Internet memes and the twofold articulation of values. InMark Graham & William H. Dutton (eds.), Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (2nd edn.), 43–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198843498.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843498.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2019 Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics1521. 216–227. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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]
  57. Swales, John M.
    1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Tagg, Caroline, Philip Seargeant & Amy Aisha Brown
    2017 Taking offence on social media: Communication and conviviality online. London: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑56717‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56717-4 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2007 Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction. InWolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 87–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.165.07tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.07tan [Google Scholar]
  60. 2018 Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread. InBirte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin & Nuria Hernández (eds.), The discursive construction of identities on- and offline, 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan [Google Scholar]
  61. 2021 “Stop arguing”: Interventions as metapragmatic acts in discussion forum interaction. InMarjut Johansson, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen & Jan Chovanec (eds.), Analyzing digital discourses: Between convergence and controversy, 219–244. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑84602‑2_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84602-2_9 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2024 “Ding ding ding we have a hypocrite!”: The metapragmatics of verbal hypocrisy in discussion forum interaction. InSandrine Sorlin & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), The pragmatics of hypocrisy, 74–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.343.04tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.343.04tan [Google Scholar]
  63. Treem, Jeffrey W. & Paul M. Leonardi
    2013 Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association361. 143–189. 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130 [Google Scholar]
  64. Verschueren, Jef
    2000 Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics101. 439–456.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. You guys are getting paid?
    You guys are getting paid?n.d.KnowYourMeme, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-guys-are-getting-paid (Retrieved12.6.2025)
  66. Yus, Francisco
    2021 Pragmatics, humour and the internet. Internet Pragmatics41. 1–11. 10.1075/ip.00067.yus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00067.yus [Google Scholar]
  67. Zappavigna, Michele
    2022 Social media quotation practices and ambient affiliation: Weaponising ironic quotation for humorous ridicule in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics1911. 98–112. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.003 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
Loading
Negotiating offensive humour online
Pragmatics & Cognition 32, 151 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24023.bir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accountability; intentionality; jocular intent; metapragmatics; offence; Reddit

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