Volume 31, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



While teasing can cause offence, participants on television variety or game shows are generally expected to tolerate it. In this paper, we examine comments posted on YouTube in response to reports of a leaked recording of a television host in Taiwan swearing at and insulting a guest who teased the host about his “inability to take a defeat”. In so doing, we examine both the perceived limits of teasing (i.e. what is considered allowable and what goes too far), and the perceived limits of taking offence in response to teasing (i.e. what ways of indicating offence are considered allowable and what goes too far). We conclude that instances where there are disputes about whether taking offence is warranted by the teasing in question provides us with a useful lens to examine the role ideological discourses play in (re-)constituting the underlying moral fabric of social interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Bergmann, Jörg R.
    1998 “Introduction: Morality in Discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction31(3–4): 279–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolander, Brook, and Miriam A. Locher
    2014 “Doing Sociolinguistic Research on Computer-Mediated Data: A Review of Four Methodological Issues.” Discourse, Context and Media3:14–26. 10.1016/j.dcm.2013.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014 “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics73:19–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Charmaz, Kathy
    2000 “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods.” InHandbook of Qualitative Research, edited byNorman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 509–535. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1):35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Oliver Holmes
    2013 (Im)politeness and Exploitative TV in Britain and North America: The X-Factor and American Idol. InReal Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action, edited byNuria Lorenzo-Dus and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 169–198. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137313461_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313461_9 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davies, Bethan
    2018 “Evaluating Evaluations: What Different Types of Metapragmatic Behaviour Can Tell Us About Participants’ Understandings of the Moral Order.” Journal of Politeness Research14 (1):121–151. 10.1515/pr‑2017‑0037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0037 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul
    1987 “Po-faced Receipts of Teases.” Linguistics25:219–253. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dynel, Marta
    2014 “Participation Framework Underlying YouTube Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics73:37–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Glasser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss
    1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Günthner, Susanne
    1995 “Exemplary Stories: The Cooperative Construction of Moral Indignation.” Versus70/71:147–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gruber, Helmut
    2019 “Genres, Media, and Recontextualisation Practices.” Internet Pragmatics2:54–82. 10.1075/ip.00023.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00023.gru [Google Scholar]
  16. Haugh, Michael
    2015 “Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics86:36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2016 “‘Just kidding’: Teasing and Claims to Non-Serious Intent.” Journal of Pragmatics95:120–136. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 “Theorising (Im)politeness.” Journal of Politeness Research14(1):153–165. 10.1515/pr‑2017‑0058
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0058 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haugh, Michael, and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
    2019 “‘The Apology Seemed (In)sincere’: Variability in Perceptions of (Im)politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics142:207–222. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haugh, Michael, and Danielle Pillet-Shore
    2018 “Getting to Know You: Teasing as an Invitation to Intimacy.” Discourse Studies20 (2):246–269. 10.1177/1461445617734936
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734936 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 “Offence and Conflict Talk.” InHandbook of Language in Conflict, edited byJim O’Driscoll and Lesley Jeffries, 196–214. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haidt, Jonathan, and Selin Kesebir
    2010 “Morality.” InHandbook of Social Psychology (5th edn), edited bySusan Fiske, Dan Gilbert and Lindzey Gardner, 797–852. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002022
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002022 [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, Chun-chieh
    2014Taiwan in Transformation. Retrospect and Prospect (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jayyusi, Lena
    1991 “Values and Moral Judgement: Communicative Praxis as Moral Order.” InEthnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited byGraham Button, 227–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611827.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kádár, Dániel
    2017Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2020 Capturing Injunctive Norms in Pragmatics: Meta-Reflective Evaluations and the Moral Order. Lingua237: 102814. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102814
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102814 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kádár, Dániel, and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kádár, Dániel, Puyu Ning, and Yongping Ran
    2018 “Public Ritual Apology – A Case Study of Chinese.” Discourse, Context & Media26:21–31. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kienpointner, Manfred, and Maria Stopfner
    2017 “Ideology and (Im)politeness.” InPalgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, edited byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh and Daniel Kadar, 61–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
    2009 “‘You’re Barking Mad, I’m Out’: Impoliteness and Broadcast Talk.” Journal of Politeness Research5 (2):159–187. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Luckmann, Thomas
    1995 “On the Intersubjective Constitution of Morals”. InThe Prism of the Self, edited bySteven G. Crowell, 73–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8408‑1_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8408-1_6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316336922
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316336922 [Google Scholar]
  34. Parvaresh, Vahid, and Tahmineh Tayebi
    2018 “Impoliteness, Aggression and the Moral Order.” Journal of Pragmatics132:91–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    2016 “Criticizing Another’s Child: How Teachers Evaluate Students During Parent-Teacher Conferences.” Language in Society45 (1):33–58. 10.1017/S0047404515000809
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404515000809 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rawls, Anne Warfield
    2010 “Social Order as Moral Order.” InHandbook of the Sociology of Morality, edited bySteven Hitlin and Stephen Vaisey, 91–121. NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑6896‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2017a “What Makes Teasing Impolite in Australian and British English? ‘Step[ping] Over Those Lines […] You Shouldn’t Be Crossing’.” Journal of Politeness Research13 (2):175–207. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0034 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017b “‘Everything He Says to Me It’s Like He Stabs Me in the Face’: Frontstage and Backstage Reactions to Teasing.” InMultiple Perspectives on Language Play, edited byNancy Bell, 169–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2016 “The Bases of (Im)politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East-West Debate.” East Asian Pragmatics1 (1):73–106. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  40. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Jianyu Xing
    2019 “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Interpersonal Relations and the Evaluation Process: Culture, Norms, and the Moral Order.” Journal of Pragmatics151:141–154. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  41. Su, Hsi-Yao
    2019 “The Metapragmatics of Taiwanese (Im)politeness: Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Limao.” Journal of Pragmatics148:26–43. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  42. Taiwan Network Information Centre
    Taiwan Network Information Centre 2019Taiwan Internet Report 2019. Taipei: TWNIC.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tayebi, Tahmineh
    2016 “Why do People Take Offence? Exploring the Underlying Expectations.” Journal of Pragmatics101:1–17. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  44. Verschueren, Jef
    2012Ideology in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yu, Ning
    2016 “Spatial Metaphors for Morality: A Perspective from Chinese.” Metaphor and Symbol31 (2):108–125. 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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