1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Banter reframed
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article discusses banter by combining insights from previous work on pragmatics and discourse with recent developments in figurative language use within Cognitive Linguistics. Drawing on an initial corpus of examples from TV series scripts, this study connects observed usage patterns to prior conversational work on banter types. It then accounts for these patterns through an examination of their pragmatic functions and of such cognitive operations as echoing and contrast, which cooperate with well-known discourse-oriented cognitive mechanisms like frameshifting and reframing. Banter is pragmatically defined in terms of pretended impoliteness and speaker’s pretended distancing from pre-established assumptions in what has been termed second-order dissociation. This phenomenon is revisited here through the lens of cognitive modeling, highlighting its role in humor creation and relational bonding. This characteristic is analytically related to the previous usage patterns and their cognitive motivation. Finally, a distinction is introduced between and banter. The former is further subdivided, according to communicative function, into banter. The latter involves mental simulations of pretendedly disparaging humor, where participants either contribute to the simulation or try to outdo one another. This classification improves on earlier taxonomies by grounding banter types in identifiable cognitive-pragmatic patterns, offering a more systematic and explanatory account of the phenomenon.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00222.err
2025-05-16
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00222.err
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J. R.
    (1976) Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Attardo, S.
    (2001) Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysisBerlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110887969
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887969 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2020) Conversation analysis: humor in conversation I, The linguistics of humor: An introduction (Oxford Academic, online edn, 17 Sept. 2020). 10.1093/oso/9780198791270.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brône, G.
    (2012) Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215.463
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.463 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Culpeper, J.
    (1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dynel, M.
    (2008) Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, (), –. 10.2478/v10016‑008‑0001‑7
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0001-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2018a) Taking cognisance of cognitive linguistic research on humour. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00001.dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00001.dyn [Google Scholar]
  10. (2018b) Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501507922
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.–). Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, E.
    (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. E.
    (2012) Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery, and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hodges, A.
    (2015) Intertextuality in discourse. InD. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd. ed). (pp.–). Malden, MA: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118584194.ch2
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmes, J.
    (2006) Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Iza Erviti, A.
    (2021) Discourse constructions in English: Meaning, form, and hierarchies. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑71680‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71680-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D.
    (1998) Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.75.5.1231
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1231 [Google Scholar]
  19. Knoblock, N.
    (2020) Frameshifting: Creative impoliteness in conflict communication. Pragmatics & Cognition, (), –. 10.1075/pc.19013.kno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19013.kno [Google Scholar]
  20. Kotthoff, H.
    (1996) Impoliteness and conversational humour. Folia Linguistica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2007) Oral genres of humor: On the dialectic of genre knowledge and creative authoring. Pragmatics, .
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Labov, W.
    (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, G.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Linares-Bernabéu, E.
    (Ed.) (2023) The pragmatics of humour in interactive contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.335
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.335 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lozano Palacio, I.
    (2023) A multidimensional approach to echoing: categories, uses, and types. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00132.loz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00132.loz [Google Scholar]
  26. Mandon, N.
    (1998) Simulating ignorance. Irony and banter on Congreve’s stage. InM. Jobert & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of irony and banter (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.30.06man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.30.06man [Google Scholar]
  27. (2018) Simulating ignorance: Irony and banter on Congreve’s stage. InM. Jobert & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of irony and banter (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Norrick, N.
    (1993) Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Olweus, D.
    (1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Peña Cervel, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2022) Figuring out figuration. A cognitive-linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.14 [Google Scholar]
  31. Plester, B. A., & Sayers, J.
    (2007) Taking the piss: Functions of banter in the IT industry. HUMOR, (), –. 10.1515/HUMOR.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Roberts, W. B., & Coursol, D. H.
    (1996) Strategies for intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2021) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and grammar-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004439221
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2023) Irony and cognitive operations. EnR. Gibbs & H. L. Colston (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of irony and thought (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108974004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974004.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Verschueren, J.
    (2017) The pragmatics of humor in a serious story. ELUA, , –. 10.14198/ELUA2017.31.16
     https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2017.31.16 [Google Scholar]
  39. Walton, D. N.
    (2007) Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (2012) Explaining irony. InD. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00222.err
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: mock impoliteness ; Cognitive Linguistics ; banter ; humor ; figurative language

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