Teasing and claims to non-serious intent in Chinese talk shows

Authors

  • Wei-Lin Melody Chang University of Queensland
  • Michael Haugh University of Queensland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.18158

Keywords:

teasing, conversational humour, intention, offence, mandarin chinese, broadcast talk

Abstract

While teasing can sometimes cause offence, the limits of what counts as acceptable teasing is a function of the localised sequential environment and broader socio cultural context in which it occurs. In this article, we examine the sequential and moral implications of claims to non-serious intent in teasing sequences arising in television talk shows. Drawing from an analysis of over 28 hours of variety shows broadcast in Mainland China and Taiwan, we examined 25 sequences involving claims by participants to be ‘kidding’ (kaiwanxiao). From this analysis it emerged that claims to be ‘kidding’ are used in these contexts to: (1) disclaim any (potential) offence caused through teasing, (2) signal a return to serious talk following teasing, (3) reproach the other for teasing that is construed as going too far, (4) and boost the humorous impact of self-boasting in response to teasing. While the first two are consistent with the usage of equivalent expressions in other languages, the latter two have not been identified in studies to date, thereby underscoring the importance of studying jocular forms of teasing in different linguistic and sociocultural contexts.

Author Biographies

Wei-Lin Melody Chang, University of Queensland

Wei-Lin Melody Chang is Lecturer in Chinese in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. Her research interests include (im)-politeness and face, intercultural communication and business discourse, and teaching Chinese as a second language.

Michael Haugh, University of Queensland

Michael Haugh is Professor of Linguistics in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. His research interests include pragmatics, conversation analysis, intercultural communication, and humour studies, with a particular focus on the role of language in social interaction.

References

Bell, N. (2015). We are not amused: Failed humour in interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501586

Bi, X., & Marsden, E. (2020). Managing interpersonal relationships: Teasing as a method of professional identity construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.003

Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). Face and face practices in Chinese talk-in-interaction: A study in interactional pragmatics. Sheffield: Equinox.

Chang, W.-L. M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural apology. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 411–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.019

Chang, W.-L. M., & Haugh, M. (2020). The metapragmatics of ‘teasing’ in Taiwanese Chinese conversational humour. European Journal of Humour Research, 8(4), 7–30.

Chang, W.-L. M., Haugh, M., & Su, H.-Y. (2021). Taking it too far: The role of ideological discourses in contesting the limits of teasing and offence. Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20003.cha

Chao, Y. R. (1968). The grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chey, J., & Davis, J. M. (Eds.) (2011). Humour in Chinese life and letters: Classical and traditional approaches. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Chen, X. (2019). ‘You’re a nuisance!’: ‘Patch-up’ jocular abuse in Chinese fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.015

Chen, G. H., Ruch, W. F., & Li, Y.-N. (2017). Temperamental basis of sense of humor: Validating the state-trait-cheerfulness-inventory in Mainland China. Humor, 30(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0036

Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022767

Clift, R., & Haugh, M. 2021). Conversation analysis and sociopragmatics. In M. Haugh, D. Kádár, & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics (pp. 616–638). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35

Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Johnson, D. E. (2017). (Im)politeness: Metalinguistic labels and concepts in English. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical and sociopragmatic perspectives (pp. 135–147). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-008

Davies, J. M., & Chey, J. (Eds.) (2013). Humour in Chinese life and culture: Resistance and control in modern times. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219

Goddard, C. (2018). ‘Joking, kidding, teasing’: Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humour. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 487–514. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0017

Gong, L., & Ran, Y. (2020). Discursive constraints of teasing: Constructing professionality via teasing in Chinese entertainment interviews. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0005

Haddington, P. (2011). Serious or non-serious? Sequential ambiguity and disavowing a prior stance. Functions of Language, 18(2), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.01had

Haugh, M. (2012). Conversational interaction. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 251–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.014

Haugh, M. (2016). ‘Just kidding’: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004

Haugh, M. (2017a). Teasing. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 204–218). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-15

Haugh, M. (2017b). Mocking and (non-)seriousness in initial interactions amongst American and Australian speakers of English. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Handbook of communication in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 104–117). London: Routledge.

Haugh, M. (2018). Corpus-based metapragmatics. In A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp. 619–643). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-024

Holt, E. (2016). Laughter at last: Playfulness and laughter in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.012

Hubler, A., & Bublitz, W. (2007). Introducing metapragmatics in use. In W. Bublitz & A. Hubler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub

Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings: Vol. 2. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873269

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness, impoliteness and ritual: Maintaining the moral order in interpersonal interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465

Li, X. T. (2014). Multimodality interaction and turn-taking in Mandarin conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.3

Li, X. T. (2020). Interpersonal touch in conversational joking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1786970

Lin, C.-H. (2010). The utterance-final particle la in Taiwan Mandarin. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 27(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.27.09lin

Liu, F.-h. (2000). The scalar particle hai in Chinese. Cahiers de linguistique - Asie orientale, 29(1), 41–84. https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.2000.1565

MOE. (2015). Ministry of Education dictionary. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

Mullan, K., & Béal, C. (2018). Introduction: Conversational humor: Forms, functions and practices across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0015

Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Norrick, N., & Chiaro, D. (Eds.) (2009). Humour in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.182

Pan, Y., & Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Politeness in historical and contemporary Chinese. London: Continuum.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5

Schegloff, E. (2001). Getting serious: Joke ? serious ‘no’. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1947–1955. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4

Senft, G. (2017). ‘Control your emotions! If teasing provokes you, you’ve lost your face …’: The Trobriand Islanders’ control of their public display of emotions. In A. Storch (Ed.), Consensus and dissent: Negotiating emotion in the public space (pp. 59–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.19.04sen

Senft, G. (2018). Pragmatics and anthropology: The Trobriand Islanders’ ways of speaking. In C. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces (pp. 185–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.09sen

Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004

Sinkeviciute, V. (2017). What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? ‘Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing’. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 175–207. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0034

Sinkeviciute, V., & Dynel, M. (2017). Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication, 55, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.001

Skalicky, S., Berger, C. M., & Bell, N. D. (2015). The functions of ‘just kidding’ in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.024

Verschueren, J. (1985). What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver

Xu, Z. (2014). Contextual dimensions in interactional humour: How humour is practiced in selected American and Chinese situation comedies. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.009

Yang, N., & Ren, W. (2020). Jocular mockery in the context of a localised playful frame: Unpacking humour in a Chinese reality TV show. Journal of Pragmatics, 162, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.04.006

Yue, X. D. (2010). Exploration of Chinese humor: Historical review, empirical findings, and critical reflections. Humor, 23(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2010.018

Yue, X. D., Jiang, F., Lu, S., & Hiranandani, N. (2016). To be or not to be humorous? Cross cultural perspectives on humour. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01495

Zhao, L. (2020). Mock impoliteness and co-construction of hudui rituals in Chinese online interaction. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0004

Published

2021-06-16

How to Cite

Chang, W.-L. M. ., & Haugh, M. . (2021). Teasing and claims to non-serious intent in Chinese talk shows. East Asian Pragmatics, 6(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.18158

Issue

Section

Articles