Previous work on teasing has examined the surface features of teasing interactions and has suggested that responses to teases are generally serious and are so because of the negative characterisations which are inherent in teases. The present study uses an inferential/strategic model for examining the social organisation of teases. Based on this analysis, it is argued that tease responses are formulated on the basis of the recipient's interpretation of the teaser's goal. It is claimed that tease recipients attempt to interpret the teaser's goal based on multiple clues to meaning. This interpretation then informs the type of response the recipient is likely to make: serious, humorous, or mixed. An analysis of teasing episodes revealed that there are three sources for clues to meaning: background knowledge, communciation content, and paralinguistic cues. This analysis attempts to provide a more encompassing explanation for the social organisation of teases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberts, J. K. and Hopper, R. (1983) An analysis of conversational teasing. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Dallas, Texas, May.
2.
Apte, M. L. (1983) Humor research, methodology, and theory in anthropology. In P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein(eds) Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
Bates, E. (1976) Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler.
5.
Beach, W. (1983) Background understandings and the situated accomplishment of conversational telling-expansion. In R. T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds) Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage.
6.
Bekoff, M. (1975) The communication of play intention: Are play signals functional?Semiotica15, 231-239.
7.
Damhorst, M. L. (1980) You've got to be kidding: A frame analysis of deception for the sake of amusement. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Acapulco, Mexico.
8.
Drew, P. (1987) Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics25, 219-253.
9.
Edelsky, C. (1981) Who's got the floor?Language in Society10, 383-421.
10.
Eisenberg, A. R. (1986) Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization Across Cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Farrell, T. B. (1983) Aspects of coherence in conversation and rhetoric. In R. T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds) Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage.
12.
Fine, G. A. (1983) Sociological approaches to the study of humor. In P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (eds) Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
13.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Methodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Handelman, D. and Kapferer, B. (1972) Forms of joking activity: A comparative approach. American Anthropologist74, 484-517.
16.
Hopper, R. (1983) Interpretation as coherence production. In R. T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds) Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage.
17.
Hopper, R. (1989) Conversation analysis and social psychology as descriptions of interpersonal communication. In D. Roger and P. Bull (eds) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
18.
Jackson, S. (1986) Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (eds) Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.
19.
Jacobs, E. C. (1985) The functions of humor in marital adjustment. Unpublished dissertation. New York: New School for Social Research.
20.
Jacobs, S. (1987) Language. In G. Miller and M. L. Knapp (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
21.
Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S. (1983) Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In R. T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds) Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage.
22.
Johnson, A. M. (1990) The 'only joking' defense: Attribution bias or impression management. Psychological Reports67, 1051-1056.
23.
Kane, T. P., Suls, J. and Tedeschi, J. T. (1977) Humour as a tool of social influence. In A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foote (eds) It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
24.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Loudon, J. B. (1970) Teasing and socialisation on Tristan da Cunha. In P. Mayer (ed.) Socialisation: The Approach from Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock.
26.
Martineau, W. H. (1972) A model of the social functions of humour. In J. H Goldstein and P. E. McGhee (eds) The Psychology of Humour. New York: Academic Press.
27.
Miller, P. (1986) Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a white working class community. In B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization Across Cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Nash, W. (1985) The Language of Humour. New York: Longman.
29.
Ochs, E. (1979) Introduction. In E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (eds) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
30.
Pawluk, C. J. (1989) Social construction of teasing. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour19, 145-167.
31.
Pomerantz, A. (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs55, 360-373.
32.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940) On joking relationships. Africa13, 195-210.
33.
Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds) (1989) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
34.
Shotter, J. (1973) Proglemena to an understanding of a play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour3, 47-89.
35.
Stephenson, R. M. (1951) Conflict and control functions of humor. American Journal of Sociology56, 569-574.
36.
Tannen, D. (1977) Well what did you expect?Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics3, 506-513.
