One of the challenges faced by researchers working on conversational humour across languages is that the particular scientific metalanguage we use to talk about the phenomenon in question influences and shapes our understanding of it. The aim of this paper is to explore the import of such issues for research on conversational humour through an examination of the labels used by Taiwanese speakers of Mandarin Chinese when talking about what is broadly termed “teasing” in English. Our aim is to better understand the connotations of these various native terms, how they relate to each other, and how they are deployed by speakers when referring to “teasing” events. The study draws on interviews with native Taiwanese informants and an analysis of large web-based corpus of Mandarin Chinese, the zhTenTen17 Traditional Corpus, to show that “teasing” is conceptualised in complex ways by Taiwanese speakers of Chinese, and because of that the same “teasing” event is open to construal in different ways by those speakers. We conclude that metapragmatic studies of conversational humour in different languages are important if we are to avoid bleaching out important cultural properties and thereby distorting our objects of analysis.
Béal, C., & Mullan, K. (2013). ‘Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural perspective: comparing French and Australian corpora’, in C. Béal, K. Mullan, & B. Peeters (eds.), Cross-culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-culturally, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 107-140.
Béal, C., & Mullan, K. (2017). ‘The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English’. Language and Communication 55, pp. 25-42.
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). ‘From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display’. Journal of Pragmatics 27, pp. 275-294.
Chang, W., Haugh, M. & Su, H. (forthcoming). ‘Taking it too far: the role of ideological discourses in contesting the limits of teasing and offence’. Pragmatics.
Charmaz, K. (2000). ‘Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods’, in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 509-535.
Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, B. (2018). ‘Evaluating evaluations: what different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order’. Journal of Politeness Research 14 (1), pp. 121-151.
Dynel, M. (2017). ‘Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. academics: A battle over the etic and emic ‘sarcasm’ and ‘irony’ labels’. Language and Communication 55, pp. 69-87.
Dynel, M., & Poppi, F. I. M. (2019). ‘Risum teneatis, amici?: The sociopragmatics of RoastMe’. Journal of Pragmatics 139, pp. 1-21.
Goddard, C. (2018). ‘‘Joking, kidding, teasing’: Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humour’. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (4), pp. 487-514.
Goddard, C., & Mullan, K. (2020). ‘Explicating verbs for ‘laughing with other people’ in French and English (and why it matters for humour studies)’. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 33, pp. 55-77.
Haddington, P. (2011). ‘Serious or non-serious? Sequential ambiguity and disavowing a prior stance’. Functions of Language 18 (2), pp. 149-182.
Haugh, M. (2016). ‘The role of English as a scientific metalanguage for research in pragmatics: Reflections on the metapragmatics of ‘politeness’ in Japanese’. East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1), pp. 39-71.
Haugh, M. (2017a). ‘Teasing’, in S. Attardo (ed.), Handbook of Language and Humour, London: Routledge, pp. 204-218.
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, London: Routledge, pp. 104-117.
Haugh, M. (2019). ‘The metapragmatics of consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English’, in E. Ogiermann & P. G. Blitvich (eds.), From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-225.
Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). ‘Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness’. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics 53(4), pp. 389-414.
Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2019). ‘“The apology seemed (in)sincere”: variability in perceptions of (im)politeness’. Journal of Pragmatics 142, pp. 207-222.
Haugh, M., & Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). ‘Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy’. Discourse Studies 20 (2), pp. 246-269.
Haugh, M., & Weinglass, L. (2020). ‘“The great Australian pastime”: pragmatic and semantic perspectives on taking the piss’, in K. Mullan, B. Peeters, & L. Sadow (eds.), Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication, Singapore: Springer, pp. 95-117.
Hubler, A., & Bublitz, W. (2007). ‘Introducing metapragmatics in use’, in W. Bublitz & A. Hubler (eds.), Metapragmatics in Use, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-26.
Jakobson, R. (1971). Word and Language. The Hauge: Mouton.
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychly, P. & Suchomel V. (2013). ‘The TenTen corpus family’. 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference (UCREL), Lancaster University, 22-26 July.
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smzr, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). ‘The Sketch Engine’. EURALEX Conference, Lorient, France.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ku, K., Ho, S., Chan, E., Chik, M., & Chan, D. (2016). ‘Chinese translation and psychometric testing of the humour styles questionnaire children version (C-HSQC) among Hong Kong Chinese primary-school students’. The European Journal of Humour Research, 4 (3), pp. 61-75.
Lin, D. (2008). ‘Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words’. International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL), Montreal, Canada.
Manser, Martin H. (2010). Oxford Chinese Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MOE (2015). Ministry of Education Dictionary. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Mullan, K., & Béal, C. (2018). ‘Conversational humor: forms, functions and practices across cultures’. Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (4), pp. 451-456.
Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational Joking. Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, N., & Chiaro, D. (eds.). (2009). Humour in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pratt, S. B. (1996). ‘Razzing: ritualised uses of humour as a form of identification among American Indians’, in H. B. Mokros (ed.), Interaction and Identity, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 237-255.
Schiefflin, B. B. (1986). ‘Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children’s interactions’, in B. B. Schiefflin & E. Ochs (eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165-181.
Silverstein, M. (1993). ‘Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function’, in J. A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-58.
Sinkeviciute, V. (2017). ‘‘It’s just a bit of cultural [. . .] lost in translation’: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity.’ Lingua 197, pp. 50-67.
Sinkeviciute, V., & Dynel, M. (2017). ‘Approaching conversational humour culturally: a survey of the emerging area of investigation’. Language and Communication 55, pp. 1-9.
Test, G. (1980). ‘The roast: American ritual satire and humour’, in R. Browne (ed.), Rituals and Ceremonies in Popular Culture, Bowling Green Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, pp. 160-177.
Trier, J. (1931). Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes: Vol. 1. Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.
Ullman, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
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), pp. 439-456.