Facework and Prosocial Teasing in a Synchronous Video Communication Exchange

  1. Barry Pennock-Speck 1
  2. Begoña Clavel-Arroitia 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

ISSN: 0210-6124

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 41

Número: 2

Páginas: 35-62

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.28914/ATLANTIS-2019-41.2.02 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This study centres on the analysis of prosocial teasing during a videoconference (telecollaboration) exchange between mixed-gender adolescent secondary school students from Spain and Germany. We contend that the provocative elements present in prosocial teasing activate a play frame, in Gregory Bateson’s terms, in which seemingly hostile face acts can be interpreted as playful behaviour. We argue that successful teasing can ultimately enhance the face of the teaser and that of the person being teased and thus build up rapport between them. Our analysis of the facework in the interaction during this telecollaboration exchange is based on Erwin Goffman’s notions of face, demeanour and deference and stands in opposition to the dominant (im)politeness paradigm put forward by Jonathan Culpeper, which has its roots in Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson’s seminal work.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

3.1. Selection of the Exchange The exchange analysed here was recorded during the Telecollaboration for Intercultural Acquisition Project (TILA), funded by the European Union. The secondary schools participating in the project were located in France, Germany, Holland, Spain and the UK. The Spanish cluster, coordinated by the authors of this article, comprised schools from Germany, Spain and the UK and the target languages were English and Spanish. From this cluster, we obtained fourteen viable recordings of videoconferences within a classroom context. Twelve recordings featured English (ENG) and Spanish (SPA) students and two involved German (GER) and Spanish students.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alexander, Richard D. 1986. “Ostracism and Indirect Reciprocity: The Reproductive Significance of Humor.” Ethology and Sociobiology 7 (3-4): 253-70.
  • Bateson, Gregory. 1976. “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In Schechner and Schuman 1976, 67-63.
  • Baxter, Leslie A. 1992. “Forms and Functions of Intimate Play in Personal Relationships.” Human Communication Research 18 (3): 336-63.
  • Boxer, Diana and Florencia Cortés-Conde. 1997. “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display.” Journal of Pragmatics 27 (3): 275-94.
  • Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Carlson-Jones, Diane and Jodi Burrus-Newman. 2005. “A Three-Factor Model of Teasing: The Influence of Friendship, Gender and Topic on Expected Emotional Reactions to Teasing during Early Adolescence.” Social Development 14 (3): 421- 39.
  • Chapman, Anthony J. and Hugh C. Foot, eds. 1977. It’s a Funny Thing, Humour. Oxford: Pergamon P.
  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Dooly, Melinda and Nuriya Davitova. 2018. “‘What Can We Do to Talk More?’ Analysing Language Learners’ Online Interaction.” Hacettepe University Journal of Education 33: 215-37.
  • Dynel, Marta. 2008. “No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (2): 241-61.
  • Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2013. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s P.
  • Ferguson, Charles A. 1975. “Towards a Characterization of English Foreigner Talk.” Anthropological Linguistics (1) 17: 1-14.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18 (3): 213-31.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1956. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” American Anthropologist 58 (3): 473-502.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Garden City.
  • González-Lloret, Marta. 2016. “The Construction of Emotion in Multilingual Computer-Mediated Interaction.” In Prior and Kasper 2016, 291-313.
  • Gorman, Glen and Christian H. Jordan. 2015. “‘I Know you’re Kidding’: Relationship Closeness Enhances Positive Perceptions of Teasing.” Personal Relationships 22 (2): 173-87.
  • Hall, Jeffrey and Xing Chong. 2015. “The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles.” Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 39 (1): 41-68.
  • Harter, Susan, Clare Stocker and Nancy S. Robinson. 1996. “The Perceived Directionality of the Link between Approval and Self-Worth: The Liabilities of a Looking-Glass Self-Orientation among Young Adolescents.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 6 (3): 285-308.
  • Hay, Jennifer. 2000. “Functions of Humor in the Conversations of Men and Women.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (6): 709-42.
  • Holmes, Janet and Stephanie Schnurr. 2005. “Politeness, Humor and Gender in the Workplace: Negotiating Norms and Identifying Contestation.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 121-49.
  • Keltner, Dacher et al. 1998. “Teasing in Hierarchical and Intimate Relations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (5): 1231-247.
  • Keltner, Dacher et al. 2001. “Just Teasing: A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 229-48.
  • Kowalski, Robin M. 2004. “Proneness to, Perceptions of and Responses to Teasing: The Influence of both Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors.” European Journal of Personality 18 (4): 331-49.
  • La Gaipa, John J. 1977. “The Effects of Humour on the Flow of Social Conversation.” In Chapman and Foot 1977, 421-27.
  • Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9-33.
  • Meskill, Carl and Natasha Anthony. 2007. “Form-Focused Communicative Practice via CMC: What Language Learners Say.” CALICO Journal 25 (1): 69-90.
  • Norrick, Neal. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
  • Pawluk, Cheryl J. 1989. “Social Construction of Teasing.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (2): 145-67.
  • Penman, Robyn. 1990. “Facework and Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9 (1): 15-38.
  • Prior, Mathew T. and Gabriele Kasper, eds. 2016. Emotion in Multilingual Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred K. 1940. “On Joking Relationships.” Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 13 (3): 195-210.
  • Rees, Charlotte E. and Lynn V. Monrouxe. 2010. “‘I Should Be Lucky Ha Ha Ha Ha’: The Construction of Power, Identity and Gender through Laughter within Medical Workplace Learning Encounters.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3384-99.
  • Rosenberg, Morris. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.
  • Satar, Müge H. 2015. “Sustaining Multimodal Language Learner Interactions Online.” CALICO Journal 32 (3): 480-507.
  • Schechner, Richard and Mady Schuman, eds. 1976. Ritual, Play, and Performance: Readings in the Social Sciences/Theatre. New York: Seabury P.
  • Schnurr, Stephanie and Angela Chan. 2011. “When Laughter Is Not Enough. Responding to Teasing and Self-Denigrating Humour at Work.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 20-35.
  • Smith, Peter K. 2016. “Bullying: Definition, Types, Causes, Consequences and Intervention.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 10 (9): 519-32.
  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 639-56.
  • Sugawara, Kazuyoshi. 2009. “Speech Acts, Moves and Meta-Communication in Negotiation: Three Cases of Everyday Conversation Observed among the Gui Former-Foragers.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 93-135.
  • Telles, Joel L. 1980. “The Social Nature of Demeanor.” Sociological Quarterly 21 (3): 321-34.
  • Thorne, Barrie and Zella Luria. 1986. “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds.” Social Problems 33 (1): 176-90.
  • Tragesser, Sarah L. and Louis G. Lippman. 2005. “Teasing: for Superiority or Solidarity?” The Journal of General Psychology 132 (3): 255-66.
  • Vandergriff, Ilona. 2013. “‘My Major Is English, Believe It or Not’: Participant Orientations in Nonnative/Native Text Chat.” CALICO Journal 30 (3): 393-409.
  • Vandergriff, Ilona and Carolin Fuchs. 2012. “Humor Support in Synchronous Computermediated Classroom Discussions.” Humor 25 (4): 437-58.
  • Van Vleet, Meredith and Brooke C. Feeney. 2015. “Play Behavior and Playfulness in Adulthood.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 9 (11): 630-43.
  • Warner, Chantelle N. (2004) “It’s Just a Game, Right? Types of Play in Foreign Language CMC.” Language Learning & Technology 8 (2): 69-87.
  • Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Whitesell, Nancy R. and Susan Harter. 1996. “The Interpersonal Context of Emotion: Anger with Close Friends and Classmates.” Child Development 67 (4): 1345-59.
  • Whitty, Monica T. 2003 “Cyber-Flirting: Playing at Love on the Internet.” Theory and Psychology 13 (3): 339-57
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet