This article discusses conversational data from a project on how pupils use irony and related forms of communication. It employs a Bakhtinian and frame analytic approach combined with a pragmatics of presumptive meaning to understand what sorts of irony nine-year-olds use. Some types of irony correspond to teasing, others more to critical comments or joint fantasy production. The children in the study often perform an authoritative, ironic voice directed at the supervising university students, thereby showing their knowledge of typical adult voices and stances, and the students join in the irony by “playing along.” Irony thus helps the students and children to create an in-group that plays with its knowledge of offi cial and unoffi cial stances and unites in sharing unoffi cial perspectives and attitudes.
2015. Responsibilization and Discipline. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44:3 ► pp. 251 ff.
Petitjean, Cécile
2015. Les pratiques humoristiques dans des interactions en classe de français. Comparaisons entre l’école obligatoire et post-obligatoire en Suisse romande. Langage et société N° 154:4 ► pp. 101 ff.
Reddington, Elizabeth & Hansun Zhang Waring
2015. Understanding the Sequential Resources for Doing Humor in the Language Classroom. HUMOR 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gradin Franzén, Anna & Karin Aronsson
2013. Teasing, laughing and disciplinary humor: Staff–youth interaction in detention home treatment. Discourse Studies 15:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
2021. Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 2024. 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.