“It's just a bit of cultural […] lost in translation”: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity
Section snippets
Introduction: a note on intracultural and intercultural research into humour
In the last several decades, a large number of analyses of such jocular verbal behaviours as teasing, mockery or banter in various cultural contexts have testified to an important role that jocularity plays in interactional practices. Much research into humour in interaction has been carried out in such settings as family and friends’ discourse (e.g. Alberts et al., 1996, Eisenberg, 1986, Boxer and Cortés-Conde, 1997, Hay, 2000, Holmes and Marra, 2002, Priego-Valverde, 2006, Haugh and
Data: interviews and reality television discourse
The data for this analysis comes from qualitative interviews carried out in Australia and the UK. The interviewees were recruited via random and snowball (chain) sampling and are all native speakers of Australian (16 interviewees) or British English (19 interviewees), either living in Australia or in the UK at the moment of interviewing, or having migrated to one of those countries from their homeland, i.e. Australia or the UK. The uniqueness of these interviews is that they were designed so
Jocular verbal behaviours in Australian and British cultural contexts
Jocular verbal behaviours such as teasing, banter, jocular mockery or jocular abuse have been extensively analysed in the last few decades (e.g. Straehle, 1993, Boxer and Cortés-Conde, 1997, Keltner et al., 1998, Keltner et al., 2001, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 2006, Lytra, 2007, Schnurr, 2009, Haugh, 2010, Haugh, 2014, Sinkeviciute, 2013). Although some studies have revealed that the targets are more likely to reject teases and feel insulted rather than to accept them (e.g. Drew, 1987,
Attempts at humour in Australian English: the participants’ level
The following extract from the reality television gameshow Big Brother Australia 2012 illustrates how jocular verbal behaviour, precisely jocular abuse or banter – a widespread verbal practice in different varieties of English (Haugh and Bousfield, 2012:1100) – functions as a means to lighten up a negative situation (in a seemingly friendly environment) and how differently it can be interpreted by speakers of Australian and British English. In [10], Bradley has just found out that he is
Attempts at humour in Australian English: the non-participants’ level
As we saw in section 4, jocular episode [10] presents a multi-party interaction that primarily involves two speakers of Australian English, George (the instigator) and Bradley (the target). What is also important is that the third-party, Layla, is British and it is possible to observe her serious reaction to what George is claiming and how it is different from the jocular banter between the two Australian male housemates. Although it would be too precipitous to claim that these different
Conclusions
This paper aimed to contribute to the areas of intracultural and intercultural research into humour, particularly in the cases when the same language is spoken in different cultural contexts. The analysis explored a jocular multi-party interaction with Australian and British participants from the Australian Big Brother house and observed how the interviewees (referred to as non-participants) from both cultural contexts evaluated that interaction.
Jocular verbal practices that have been analysed
Acknowledgements
Part of the data collection for this analysis was supported by a travel grant for a research stay in Australia from the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO – V4.301.14N). I would to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.
References (86)
- et al.
Conversational dynamics of humour: the telephone game in Greek
J. Pragmat.
(2003) - et al.
Conflict management in massive polylogues: a case study from YouTube
J. Pragmat.
(2014) (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches
J. Pragmat.
(2014)Towards an anatomy of impoliteness
J. Pragmat.
(1996)How English-learners joke with native speakers: an interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures
J. Pragmat.
(2003)“You talking to me?” The viewer as a ratified hearer
J. Pragmat.
(2011)Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction
J. Pragmat.
(2014)Perspectives on politeness
J. Pragmat.
(1990)Audience design in monologues: how vloggers involve their viewers
J. Pragmat.
(2014)Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse
J. Pragmat.
(2010)
Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face
J. Pragmat.
Mock impoliteness in interactions amongst Australian and British speakers of English
J. Pragmat.
Functions of humour in the conversations of men and women
J. Pragmat.
Risky laughter: teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends
J. Pragmat.
Constructing leader identities through teasing at work
J. Pragmat.
When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work
J. Pragmat.
‘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
Australian cultural scripts – bloody revisited
J. Pragmat.
That's not funny: understanding recipients’ responses to teasing
West. J. Commun.
Tourist advertising of Australia: impolite or situation-appropriate? Or a uniquely Aussie invite lost in translation
Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: a case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction
Appl. Linguist.
Interactional adjustments in humorous intercultural communication
Intercult. Pragmat.
How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction
Humor
From bonding and biting: conversational joking and identity display
J. Pragmat.
Styles and stereotypes: the linguistic negotiation of identity among Laotian American youth
Pragmatics
Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor
Humor
Who is the fairest of them all? Gendered readings of Big Brother UK
Humor in intercultural conversations
Semiotica
Po-faced receipts of teases
Linguistics
No aggression, only teasing: the pragmatics of teasing and banter
Lodz Pap. Pragmat.
Not Hearing Things – Hearer/Listener Categories in Polylogues. mediAzioni 1974-43829
Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk
A Critique of Politeness Theories
Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes
Watching the English
Laughter in Interaction
“Lift your game Martina!”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English
Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence
Intercult. Pragmat.
The languages of business: introduction and overview
Humour face and im/politeness in getting acquainted
Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation
Aust. J. Linguist.
Jocular abuse patterns in mixed-group interaction
Wellingt. Work. Pap. Linguist.
Male cheerleaders and wanton women: humour among New Zealand friends
Te Reo (J. Linguist. Soc. N. Z.)
Cited by (14)
Lessons in linguistics with ChatGPT: Metapragmatics, metacommunication, metadiscourse and metalanguage in human-AI interactions
2023, Language and Communication“We are not amused”. The appreciation of British humour by British and American English L1 users
2021, Language and CommunicationCitation Excerpt :With a few exceptions (see Sinkeviciute 2017a, 2017b, 2017c), intercultural humour appreciation among users of different dialects of English L1 has been under-researched. Sinkeviciute (2017a), for instance, focused on intracultural and intercultural humour in British and Australian contexts and found that the differences in jocular interactional practices between the two contexts are mainly qualitative rather than quantitative. Another valuable work on this issue was conducted by Béal and Mullan (2013, p. 108).
Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’
2019, Journal of PragmaticsCitation Excerpt :More precisely, via metapragmatic comments, this article examines what is the interview participants' position in relation to jocularity, whether focussing on its use, perception or reactions, and how, through their evaluative language, the interviewees express collective, individual or situated orientation to humour. Taking into consideration previous research findings regarding the prominence of jocularity in Australian and British cultural contexts (Haugh, 2010, 2014; Haugh and Bousfield. 2012; Goddard, 2009; Sinkeviciute, 2014, 2017c,d), it is argued here that jocularity plays an essential role in one's identity claims and negotiation in those contexts. The structure of the paper is as follows.
Risum teneatis, amici?<sup>☆</sup>: The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour
2019, Journal of PragmaticsAn intercultural pragmatic approach to English-Russian and English-German renditions of the formulaic That’s what she said-punchline in telecinematic discourse
2022, European Journal of Humour ResearchThe role of ‘familiarity’ in Mandarin Chinese speakers’ metapragmatic evaluations of Australian conversational humour
2022, European Journal of Humour Research