Cover not available
Part of
The Pragmatics of Irony and Banter
Edited by Manuel Jobert and Sandrine Sorlin
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 30] 2018
► pp. 1–24

Chapter 8
The point of banter in the television show Pointless

| Aix Marseille Univ, LERMA, Aix-en-Provence, France
This paper explores within the television quiz show . Building on previous theories of , I suggest that the composite nature of the phenomenon can usefully be analysed within an interactional pragmatic model, such as that proposed by Lecercle (1999). Using this model to analyse various episodes of , I seek to demonstrate that is created within a dynamic interpersonal process. I focus on the sequential interaction between speaker and the various hearers involved in the exchange, as opposed to isolated utterances. I propose that any analysis of needs not only to study the linguistic aspects of a series of utterances, but also the sociocultural context and the that each participant brings to the exchange.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining
  • 3.Theories on
  • 4. within an interactional pragmatic framework
  • 5. and
  • 6.The actants in the process of
    • 6.1Interaction between speaker(s) and hearer(s)
    • 6.2From dyadic relations to multiple participants
    • 6.3Reacting to
    • 6.4Language and encyclopaedia
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.30.08pil
References
Bousfield, Derek
2007 Never a truer word said in jest. A pragmalinguistic analysis of impoliteness as banter in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I. In Contemporary Stylistics, Marina Lambrou & Peter Stockwell (eds), 209–220. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2008 Impoliteness in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 167]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boxer, Diana & Cortés-Conde, Florencia
1997 From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.
1987[1978] Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith
1997 Excitable Speech. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn & Wearing, Catherine
2015 Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: “The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in TheoryMiriam A. Locher & Derek Bousfield (eds), 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Haugh, Michael & Sinkeviciute, Valeria
2017 (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In The Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness, Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Kádár (eds), 325–356. Houndmills: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dews, Shelly & Winner, Ellen
1997 Attributing meaning to deliberately false utterances. In The Problem of Meaning Behavioural and Cognitive Perspectives, Charlotte Mandell & Allyssa McCabe (eds), 377–414. Amsterdam: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25: 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2008 No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4(2): 241–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Friend or foe? Chandler’s humour from the metarecipient’s perspective. In Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics 2009, Vol. II: Pragmatics of Semantically Restricted Domains, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka (ed.), 175–205. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2010b Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. MediAzioni 9. [URL] Google Scholar
2011a “You talking to me?” The viewer as ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1628–1644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b I’ll be there for you: On participation-based sitcom humour. In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 210], Marta Dynel (ed.), 311–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Setting our house in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research 8: 161–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta & Sinkeviciute Valeria
2017 Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication 55: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek
2000 Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 347–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Aubrey B. & Adams, Katherine L.
1994 Interpersonal Communication. Pragmatics of Human Relationships. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fox, Kate
2004 Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff
2009  Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English. Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(1): 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction Ritual Essays on Face to Face Behavior. New York NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
1981 Replies and responses. Forms of Talk, 5–77. Philadelphia PA: University of Philadelphia Press (Originally published as Goffman, Erving. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257-313).Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas, J.
1966 Sémantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 183–198. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2010 Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation and face. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2106–2119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Bousfield, Derek
2012 Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heerey, Erin A., Capps, Lisa, Keltzer, Dacher & Kring, Ann M.
2005 Understanding teasing: Lessons from children with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33(1): 55–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
2006 Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 26–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Schnurr, Stephanie
2005 Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 121–149.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel
1987 Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Talk and Social Organisation, Graham Button & John Lee (eds), 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Joly, André & O’Kelly, Dairine
1989 Analyse linguistique des textes anglais. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Marta
2010 Banter – a case of phatic communication? In In the Mind and across Minds: A Relevance-theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation, Ewa Walaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk & Agnieszka Piskorska (eds), 188–223. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lecercle, Jean-Jacques
1999 Interpretation as Pragmatics. New York NY: St. Martin’s Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
2015 Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 5–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Bousfield, Derek
(eds) 2008 Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Rod A.
2007 The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington MA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A., Puhlik-Doris, Patricia, Larsen, Gwen, Gray, Jeanette & Weir, Kelly
2003 Individual differences in uses of humour and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humour Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37: 48–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal
1993 Conversational Joking. Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9): 1727–1739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nowik, Ewa Karolina
2005 Politeness of the impolite: Relevance theory, politeness and banter. In Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 2, Aniela Korzeniowska & Małgorzata Grzegorzewka (eds), 157–166. Warszawa: The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
2008 Banter – An attempt at a relevance-theoretic account. In Relevant Worlds: Current perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, Ewa Walaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska & Małgorzata Grzegorzewka (eds), 105–118. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Plester, Barbara A. & Sayers, Janet Grace
2007 “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research 20(2): 157–187.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R.
1940 On joking relationships. Journal of the International African Institute 13(3): 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinkevicuite, Valeria
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: 121–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English. An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language and Communication 55: 41–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slugoski, Ben R. & Turnbull, William
1988 Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 101–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2000 Culturally Speaking. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2008 Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Culturally Speaking, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 11–47. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2001 Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
2008 Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Locher & Bousfield (eds), 45–74.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. & Kintsch, Walter
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vergis, Nikos
2015 The interplay of pragmatic inference, face and emotion. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Rivers, Damian J. & Andrew S. Ross
2021. “This channel has more subs from rival fans than Arsenal fans”: Arsenal Fan TV, football fandom and banter in the new media era. Sport in Society 24:6 ► pp. 867 ff. DOI logo
Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.