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

Pragmatic accounts of speaker’s accountability over the intended import of utterances recognize that, when engaging in a non-serious, humorous mode of communication, speakers may not be held committed to what they have said (or implicated). Still, the overt signalling of jocular intent does not rule out the possibility of humour being perceived as offensive. In this paper, we pursue the argument that the perception of humorous text and talk is determined only in part by the original intention of its producer, with the general audience’s eventual reception being additionally affected by further input from influential social actors, whose trustworthiness is automatically assessed as high. Our analysis is centred around a satirical skit delivered by Trevor Noah, the then host of , which was heavily criticised for insinuating that Rishi Sunak’s assumption of the Prime Minister position in the UK was met locally with racist backlash on the basis of Sunak’s ethnic origin. Given this discursive shift, which we showcase using quantitative and qualitative measures, we argue that the humorous frame and jocular intent are fundamentally affected by processes of recontextualisation, which may bypass the audience’s cognitive mechanisms of epistemic vigilance.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
2025-09-26
2026-05-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archakis, Argiris & Villy Tsakona
    2019 Racism in recent Greek migrant jokes. Humour: International Journal of Humour Research32(2). 267–287. 10.1515/humor‑2018‑0044
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0044 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, Robert
    1999 An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics9(1). 119–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008 Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics5(2). 231–260. 10.1515/IP.2008.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  4. Assimakopoulos, Stavros
    2021a Beyond meaningnn and ostension: Pragmatic inference in the wild. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Tim Wharton (eds.), Beyond meaning, 11–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c1 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2021b Interpretation, relevance and the ideological effects of discursive practice. Pragmatics & Cognition28(2). 394–415. 10.1075/pc.21015.ass
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21015.ass [Google Scholar]
  6. 2022 Ostension and the communicative function of natural language. Journal of Pragmatics1911. 46–54. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021 [Google Scholar]
  7. Attardo, Salvatore
    1994 Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Attardo, Salvatore, Manuela Maria Wagner & Eduardo Urios Aparisi
    (eds.) 2011 Prosody and humor. Pragmatics & Cognition19(2). 189–201. 10.1075/pc.19.2.01att
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.2.01att [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery & Ruth Wodak
    2008 A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19(3). 273–306. 10.1177/0957926508088962
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baym, Geoffrey
    2005 The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication22(3). 259–276. 10.1080/10584600591006492
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492 [Google Scholar]
  11. Becker, Amy, & Don Waisanen
    2013 From funny features to entertaining effects. Review of Communication13(3). 161–183. 10.1080/15358593.2013.826816
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.826816 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bednarek, Monika & Caple, Helen
    2012 ‘Value added’: Language, image and news values. Discourse, Context & Media1(2–3). 103–113. 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bell, Nancy
    2009 Responses to failed humor. Journal of Pragmatics411. 1825–1836. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 We are not amused. Failed humor in interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501501586
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501586 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bell, Nancy & Salvatore Attardo
    2010 Failed humor: Issues in non-native speakers’ appreciation and understanding of humor. Intercultural Pragmatics7(3). 423–447. 10.1515/iprg.2010.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.019 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brewer, Paul R. & Jessica McKnight
    2017 “A statistically representative climate change debate”: Satirical television news, scientific consensus, and public perceptions of global warming. Atlantic Journal of Communication25(3). 166–180. 10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453 [Google Scholar]
  17. Caucci, Gina M. & Roger J. Kreuz
    2012 Social and paralinguistic cues to sarcasm. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research25(1). 1–22. 10.1515/humor‑2012‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2012-0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chilton, Paul
    2005 Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. InRuth Wodak & Paul Chilton (eds.), A new research agenda in Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, 20–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi [Google Scholar]
  19. de Jongste, Henri
    2013 Negotiating humorous intent. InMarta Dynel (ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory, 179–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.1.09jon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.09jon [Google Scholar]
  20. Droog, Ellen F.
    2023 Bridging the features and effects divide in satirical news research. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dynel, Marta
    2011 Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversation. InMarta Dynel (ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, 217–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.210.15dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.15dyn [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 — Doing pragmatics interculturally, 55–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110546095‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-004 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021 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]
  24. Dynel, Marta, Alexander Brock & Henri de Jongste
    2016 A burgeoning field of research: Humorous intent in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics951. 51–57. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Elder, Chi-Hé
    2021 Speaker meaning, commitment and accountability. InMichael Haugh, Dániel Z. 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]
  26. Elder, Chi-Hé, Eleni Kapogianni & Ibi Reichl
    2023 ‘Only joking’: Negotiating humour in interaction. Presentation at the18th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fairclough, Norman & Ruth Wodak
    1997 Critical discourse analysis. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, 258–284. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Friedman, Sam & Giseldine, Kuipers G.
    2013 The divisive power of humour: Comedy, taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology7(2). 179–195. 10.1177/1749975513477405
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975513477405 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fry, William F.
    1963 Sweet madness. A study of humor. Palo Alto: Pacific Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
    1999 Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164054 [Google Scholar]
  31. Goffman, Erving
    1974 Frame analysis. An essay in the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gray, Jonathan, Jones, Jeffrey P. & Ethan Thompson
    2009 Satire TV: Politics and comedy in the post-network era. New York: NYU Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Grice, Paul
    1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hansen, Maj-Britt & 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]
  35. Hariman, Robert
    2008 Political parody and public culture. Quarterly Journal of Speech941. 247–272. 10.1080/00335630802210369
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630802210369 [Google Scholar]
  36. Haugh, Michael
    2008 Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics5(2). 99–110. 10.1515/IP.2008.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012 On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics9(2). 161–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 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]
  39. Haugh, Michael & Valeria Sinkeviciute, V.
    2019 Offence and conflict talk. InMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries & Jim O’Driscoll (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language in conflict, 196–214. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hay, Jennifer
    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]
  41. Holmes, Janet
    2000 Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies2(2). 159–185. 10.1177/1461445600002002002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hunston, Susan
    2011 Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ifantidou, Elly
    2023 Newspaper headlines, relevance and emotive effects. Journal of Pragmatics2181. 17–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  44. Källstig, Amanda & Carl Death
    2021 Laughter, resistance and ambivalence in Trevor Noah’s stand-up comedy. Critical African Studies13(3). 338–355. 10.1080/21681392.2020.1743191
     https://doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2020.1743191 [Google Scholar]
  45. Khan, Kamran
    2019 Hate crimes: Language, vulnerability and conflict. InMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries & Jim O’Driscoll (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language in conflict, 417–432. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑23
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-23 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kotthoff, Helga
    1999 Coherent keying in conversational humour: Contextualising joint fictionalisation. InBublitz, Wolfram, Lenk, Uta, Ventola, Eija (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 125–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.10kot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.10kot [Google Scholar]
  47. 2006 Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor191. 271–304. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  48. LaMarre, Heather L., Kristen D. Landreville, Dannagal Young & Nathan Gilkerson
    2014 Humor works in funny ways. Mass Communication and Society17(3). 400–423. 10.1080/15205436.2014.891137
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891137 [Google Scholar]
  49. Maillat, Didier
    2013 Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics591. 190–199. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  50. Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald
    2009 Defining manipulative discourse. International Review of Pragmatics1(2). 348–370. 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2011 Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. InChristopher Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai [Google Scholar]
  52. Mark, Tekena Gasper
    2022 Stand-up comedy and the performance of race and identity in Trevor Noah’s ‘It makes no sense and learning accents’. South African Theatre Journal35(2). 114–130. 10.1080/10137548.2022.2136743
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10137548.2022.2136743 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mazzarella, Diana
    2021 “I didn’t mean to suggest anything like that!”. Mind & Language38(1). 218–236. 10.1111/mila.12377
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12377 [Google Scholar]
  54. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2015 On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns. Humor28(3). 469–490
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Peifer, Jason T. & Taeyoung Lee
    2019 Satire and journalism. InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.871
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.871 [Google Scholar]
  56. Petrović, Tanja
    2018 Political parody and the politics of ambivalence. Annual Review of Anthropology471. 201–216. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102215‑100148
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100148 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sperber, Dan
    2010 The guru effect. Review of Philosophy and Psychology1(4). 583–592. 10.1007/s13164‑010‑0025‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0025-0 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria OriggiDeirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language251. 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    2015., Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy15(44). 117–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tandoc, Edson C. Jr., Lim, Zheng Wei & Rich Ling
    2018 Defining “fake news”: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism6(2). 137–153. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
     https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tsakona, Villy
    2024 Liquid racism in Greek online satirical news. The European Journal of Humour Research12(1). 135–156. 10.7592/EJHR.2024.12.1.825
     https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2024.12.1.825 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tsakona, Villy & Diana E. Popa
    2011 Studies in political humour: In between political critique and public entertainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.46
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.46 [Google Scholar]
  63. van Leeuwen, Teun
    2008 Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Weaver, Simon
    2011 The rhetoric of racist humour: US, UK and global race joking. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Wharton, Tim
    2008 ‘Meaning’ and ‘showing’: Gricean intentions and relevance-theoretic intentions. Intercultural Pragmatics5(2). 131–152. 10.1515/IP.2008.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilson, Deirdre
    2018 Relevance theory and literary interpretation. InTerence Cave & Deirdre Wilson (eds.), Reading beyond the code: Literature and Relevance theory, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Wodak, Ruth
    2007 Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition151. 203–225. 10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
Loading
Using humour to call out racism
Pragmatics & Cognition 32, 178 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24026.ass
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemic vigilance; humorous intent; political satire; racist backlash; speaker’s accountability

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