Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:01:31.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Conversational Humour

from Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Marta Dynel  and
Valeria Sinkeviciute
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

This chapter aims to give an overview of the interdisciplinary linguistic research on conversational humour, depicting it as a vital sociopragmatic phenomenon in human interaction. First, we address the key concepts and theoretical approaches found in this field. Second, we focus on a wide spectrum of discourse domains in which those different types of humour are typically deployed. Furthermore, this chapter provides an overview of sociocultural variables in the research on conversational humour, such as intercultural (involving interlocutors from different cultural backgrounds) and cross-cultural (comparing social practices in different cultures) aspects. Our fourth goal is to present the sociopragmatic functions, both discursive and interpersonal, of humour in human interaction. Finally, a number of case studies are offered throughout the chapter in order to illustrate how language users engage in and refer to humorous practices in different interactional settings.

Keywords

humourconversational humourcross-culturalintercultural
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 408 - 429
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahams, R. (1962). Playing the dozens. Journal of American Folklore, 75, 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberts, J., Kellar-Guenther, Y. and Corman, S. (1996). That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 337–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, E. and Sifianou, M. (2003). Conversational dynamics of humour: The telephone game in Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(5), 741–69.Google Scholar
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ardington, A. (2006). Playfully negotiated activity in girls’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. ([1955] 1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In Bateson, G., ed., Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler, pp. 177–93.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2017). The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Language and Communication, 55, 24–40Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2007a). Humor comprehension: Lessons learned from cross-cultural communication. Humor, 20(4), 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. (2007b). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. (2009). Responses to failed humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1825–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. (2015). We Are Not Amused: Failed Humor in Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bippus, A. M. (2009). Making sense of humor in young romantic relationships: Understanding partners’ perceptions. Humor, 13(4), 395–418.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding and biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 275–95.Google Scholar
Brône, G. (2008). Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2027–61.Google Scholar
Buttny, R. (2001). Therapeutic humor in retelling the clients’ tellings. Text, 21(3), 303–26.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (1994). Metapragmatics. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 5. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 2461–6.Google Scholar
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G. and Banks, J. (1997). On the role of humour appreciation in interpersonal attraction: It’s no joking matter. Humor, 10(1), 77–89.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2003). Humor in intercultural conversations. Semiotica, 146, 287–306.Google Scholar
Chiaro, D. (1992). The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chiaro, D. (2009). Cultural divide or unifying factor? Humorous talk in the interaction of bilingual, cross-cultural couples. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar
Chimbwete-Phiri, R. and Schnurr, S. (2017). Negotiating knowledge and creating solidarity: Humour in antenatal counselling sessions at a rural hospital in Malawi. Lingua, 197, 68–82.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. (2012). Conversational humour and joint fantasizing in online journalism. In Chovanec, J. and Ermida, I., eds., Language and Humour in the Media. Newcastle: CSP, pp. 139–61.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. (2017). Interactional humour and spontaneity in TV documentaries. Lingua, 197, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29–49.Google Scholar
Collinson, D. (1988). “Engineering humour”: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181–99.Google Scholar
Coser, R. L. (1959). Some social functions of laughter. Human Relations, 12, 171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the social functions of humour among the staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81–95.Google Scholar
Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1413–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, P., Vinita Mahtani-Chugani, M. A., Sanchez Correas, M. A. and Sanz Rubiales, A. (2018). The use of humor in palliative care: A systematic literature review. American Journal of  Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 35(10), 1–13.Google Scholar
Damianakis, T. and Marziali, E. (2011). Community-dwelling older adults’ contextual experiencing of humour. Ageing and Society, 31(1), 110–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2006). Gendered sense of humor as expressed through aesthetic typifications. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 96–113.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2016). Laughing at cancer: Humour, empowerment, solidarity and coping online. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2018). Complexity theory and conversational humour: Tracing the birth and decline of a running joke in an online cancer support community. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–53.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In Dynel, M., ed., The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2012a). Humour on the house: Interactional construction of metaphor in film discourse. In Chovanec, J. and Ermida, I., eds., Language and Humour in the Media. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2013a). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2013b). When does irony tickle the hearer? Towards capturing the characteristics of humorous irony. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 298–320.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2014). Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 619–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016a). With or without intentions: Accountability and (un)intentional humour in film talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016b). Conceptualising conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(1), 117–47.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017a). But seriously: On conversational humour and (un)truthfulness. Lingua, 197, 83–102.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017b). Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language and Communication, 55, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2018a). Theoretically on Mock Politeness in English and Italian. Journal of Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 149–65.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2018b). Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Mouton Series in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2018). In tragoedia risus: Analysis of dark humour in post-terrorist attack discourse. Discourse and Communication, 12(4), 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2019). Risum teneatis, amici?: The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 1–21.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Poppi, F. I. M. (2020). Arcana imperii: The power of humorous retorts to insults on Twitter. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8(1), 57–97.Google Scholar
Eder, D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed., Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments and Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Emerson, J. P. (1969). Negotiating the serious import of humor. Sociometry, 32, 169–81.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. and Lampert, M. D. (1992). Gender differences in the construction of humorous talk. In Hall, K., Buchholtz, E. and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 108–17.Google Scholar
Ferreira, A. V. A. (2012). The humorous display of transgressor femininities: ‘Sharing a laugh’ in Spanish/Galician friendly talk among young women. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(1), 121–47.Google Scholar
Fine, G. A. and De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor, 18, 1–22.Google Scholar
Ford, T. E. and Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgalidou, M. and Kaili, H. (2018). The pragmatics of humour in bilingual conversations. In Tsakona, V. and Chovanec, J., eds., The Dynamics of Interactional Humor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, N. (2010). Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2120–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., Bryant, G. and Colston, H. (2014). Where’s the humor in irony? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 575–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2006). “Lift your game Martina!”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Goddard, C., ed., Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–97.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2009). “Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Gradin Franzén, A. and Karin, A. (2013). Teasing, laughing and disciplinary humor: Staff–youth interaction in detention home treatment. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 167–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, E., Papa, M. and Brooks, G. (1992) Functions of humour in conversation: Conceptualization and measurement, Western Journal of Communication, 56(2), 161–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, K. (2004). Verbal play on the hospital ward: Solidarity or power? Multilingua, 23(1–2), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habib, R. (2008). Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1117–45.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2011). Serious or non-serious? Sequential ambiguity and disavowing a prior stance. Functions of Language, 18(2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2106–19.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Jocular language play, social action and (dis)affiliation in conversational interaction. In Bell, N., ed., Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 143–68.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness in interactions amongst Australian and British speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. (1994). Jocular abuse patterns in mixed-group interaction, Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 26–55.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humour in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–42.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. Humor, 14(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
Hirst, J. (2009). Sense and Nonsense in Australian History. Melbourne: Blanc Inc Agenda.Google Scholar
Homes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159–85.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Hay, J. (1997). Humour as an ethnic boundary market in New Zealand interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18(2), 127–51.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002a). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor, 15(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002b). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1683–1710.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. (2013). ‘‘There’s many a true word said in jest’’: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. In Glenn, P. and Holt, E., eds., Studies of Laughter in Interaction. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Kane, T. R., Suls, J. and Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humor as a tool of social interaction. In Chapman, A. J. and Foot, H. C., eds., It’s a Funny Thing, Humour. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
Kapogianni, E. (2011). Irony via “surrealism”. In Dynel, M., ed., The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–68.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A., Young, R. and Heerey, E. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–48.Google Scholar
Kochman, T. (1983). The boundary between play and nonplay in black verbal duelling. Language in Society, 12, 329–37.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4–25.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2007). Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor, 19(3), 271–304.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2009). An interactional approach to irony development. In Norrick, N. R. and Delia, C., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–78.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 120–69.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. and Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51–72.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lennox Terrion, J. and Ashforth, B. E. (2000). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humour and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55–88.Google Scholar
Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R. and Scambler, D. J. (2000). What do you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 403–27.Google Scholar
Long, D. L. and Graesser, A. C. (1988). Wit and humour in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 11, 35–60.Google Scholar
Lundquist, L. (2014). Danish humor in cross-cultural professional settings: Linguistic and social aspects. Humor, 27(1), 141–63.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2015). Jocular mockery in computer-mediated communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 289–327.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2007). The Psychology of Humor. An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Martin, R. and Ford, T. (2018). The Psychology of Humour. An Integrative Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martineau, H. W. (1972). A model for the social function of humour. In Goldstein, J. H. and McGhee, P. E., eds., The Psychology of Humour. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–25.Google Scholar
Mateo, J. and Yus, F. (2013). Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Painful to playful: Quotidian frames in the conversational discourse of older Japanese women. Language in Society, 40(5), 591–616.Google Scholar
McCreaddie, M. A. (2016). Poor wee souls and fraggle rock: The visceral humor of nurse-peers in a non-accomplishment setting. Humor, 29(2), 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moalla, A. (2015). Intercultural strategies to co-construct and interpret humor. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 366–85.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. (1988). On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. M. (2011). On humour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 500–514.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. and Klein, N. (2008). Class clowns: Talking out of turn with an orientation toward humor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. and Spitz, A. (2008). Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(10), 1661–86.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2006). The Linguistics of Laughter. A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pizzini, F. (1991). Communication hierarchies in humour: Gender differences in the obstetrical/gynaecological setting. Discourse and Society, 2, 477–88.Google Scholar
Plester, B. A. and Sayers, J. (2007). “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor, 20(2), 157–87.Google Scholar
Plester, B. and Orams, M. (2008). Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies. Humor, 21(3), 253–81.Google Scholar
Priego-Valverde, B. (2009). Failed humor in conversation: A double voicing analysis. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165–86.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940). On joking relationships. Africa, 13, 195–210.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, A. (2015). Laughter in times of uncertainty: Negotiating gender and social distance in Bahraini women’s humorous talk. Humor, 28(4), 511–39.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S. and Collinson, D. (1995) ‘Having fun?’ Humour as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16(5), 739–68.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-edged sword. A study of humour and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4–28.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: An analysis of women leader’s use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299–319.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Chan, A. (2011). When laughter is not enough: Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humor at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Holmes, J. (2009). Using humour to do masculinity at work. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–23.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Rowe, C. (2008). The “dark side” of humour: An analysis of subversive humour in workplace emails. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 109–30.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2013). Decoding encoded (im)politeness: ‘Cause on my teasing you can depend’. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–88.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2014). “When a joke’s a joke and when it’s too much”: Mateship as a key to interpreting jocular FTAs in Australian English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 121–39.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2015). “There’s definitely gonna be some serious carnage in this house” or how to be genuinely impolite in Big Brother UK. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(2), 317–48.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2016). “Everything he says to me it’s like he stabs me in the face”: Frontstage and backstage reactions to teasing. In Bell, N., ed., Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 169–98.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017a). What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? “Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 13(2), 175–207.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017b). Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English: An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language and Communication, 55, 1–9.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017c). “It’s just a bit of cultural […] lost in translation”: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity. Lingua, 197, 50–67.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019a). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 216–27.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019b). Conversational Humour and (Im)politeness: A Pragmatic Analysis of Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. and Dynel, M. (2017). Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language and Communication, 55, 1–9.Google Scholar
Stallone, L. and Haugh, M. (2017). Joint fantasising as relational practice in Brazilian Portuguese interactions. Language and Communication, 55, 10–23.Google Scholar
Straehle, C. (1993). ‘Samuel?’ ‘Yes dear?’ Teasing and conversational rapport. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. New York: Open University Press, pp. 210–29.Google Scholar
Terrion, J. and Ashforth, B. (2002). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humour and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55–88.Google Scholar
Terry, C. M. (1997). The function of humor for prison inmates. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(23), 23–40.Google Scholar
Tsakona, V. (2018). Online joint fictionalization. In Tsakona, V. and Chovanec, J., eds., The Dynamics of Interactional Humor: Creating and Negotiating Humor in Everyday Encounters. Topics in Humor Research 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–55.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. and Creel, S. (2017). Conviviality through creativity: Appealing to the reblog in Tumblr Chat posts. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 59–69.Google Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. and Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor, 19, 305–40.Google Scholar
Vine, B., Kell, S., Marra, M. and Holmes, J. (2009). Boundary-marking humor: Institutional, gender and ethnic demarcation in the workplace. In Norrick, N. R. and Chiaro, D., eds., Humor in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–39.Google Scholar
Young, L. S. and Bippus, A. M. (2001). ‘Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way? Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships.’ Communication Quarterly, 49(1), 35–53.Google Scholar
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 325–39.Google Scholar
Zare, J. (2016). Self-mockery: A study of Persian multi-party interactions. Text andTalk, 36(6), 789–81.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D. and Stocking, H. (1976). Putdown humor. Journal of Communication, 26, 154–63.Google Scholar
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humour. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×