Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 12:3 (2021) ► pp.437–460

Sancte et sapienter

Joint fantasizing as the interactional practice of micro and macro contextual understanding

| University of Łódź | Sechenov University
The practice of joint fantasizing concerns interacting participants’ collective construction of imaginary realities with internal consistency and coherence. Based on a corpus of conversations held by an informal Italian prayer community of elderly Catholic women, this contribution aims to show that joint fantasizing is not necessarily a humorous activity and is embedded in the participants’ social and personal background. The analysis also indicates that through joint fantasizing the participants conceptualize themselves as victims and idealized opponents of the unfair present and past societies. Framing joint fantasizing as a cross-contextual activity of social criticism allows us to understand that the participants use this interactional practice as an activity endowed with moral suffering and responsibility. This rhetorical seriousness contrasts with other studies in which joint fantasies are generally connected with playful, jocular and laughable practices.
Keywords: community of practice, context, elderly women, interactional pragmatics, Italian, joint fantasizing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Dataset, participants and context
  • 4.Data analysis
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18043.ind
References (56)
References
Béal, Christine and Kerry Mullan. 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: 107–140. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Berk, Ronald A. 2001. The active ingredients in humor: Psychophysiological benefits and risks for older adults. Educational Gerontology 27 (3–4): 323–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Roxane and Béatrice Priego-Valverde. 2011. Does prosody play a specific role in conversational humour?. Pragmatics & Cognition 191: 333–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2002/1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Mija M. Van Der Wege. 2001. “Imagination in discourse”. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. H. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 772–786. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chovanec, Jan. 2012. “Conversational humour and joint fantasising in online journalism”. Language and Humour in the Media, ed. by J. Chovanec & I. Ermida, 139–161. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, Justine Coupland, and Howard Giles. 1991. Language, society and the elderly: Discourse, identity and ageing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalby, Padmaprabha. 2006. Is there a process of spiritual change or development associated with ageing? A critical review of research. Aging & mental health 1 (1): 4–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damianakis, Thecla and Elsa Marziali. 2011. Community-dwelling older adults’ contextual experiencing of humour. Ageing & Society 3 (1): 110–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Catherine Evans. 1984. Joint joking. Improvisational humorous episodes in conversation. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 101: 360–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 2008. Who tells which story and why? Micro and macro contexts in narrative. Text & Talk 28 (3): 421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2008. Analysing narratives as practices. Qualitative Research 8 (3): 379–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds). 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2011. “Joker in the pack. Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations”. In: Dynel, M. (Ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, 217–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. “No child’s play: A philosophical pragmatic view of overt pretence as a vehicle for conversational humour”. Villy Tsakona, Jan Chovanec (eds). The Dynamics of Interactional Humour: Creating and Negotiating Humour in Everyday Encounters, 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta, and Fabio Indìo Massimo Poppi. 2018. In tragoedia risus: Analysis of dark humour in post-terrorist attack discourse. Discourse and Communication 12 (4): 382–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Risum teneatis, amici?: The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour. Journal of Pragmatics 1391: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frankl, Viktor. 1984. Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Books.Google Scholar
Goodson, Ivor, Shawn Moore, and Shawn Hargreaves. 2006. Teacher nostalgia and the sustainability of reform: The generation and degeneration of teachers’ missions, memory, and meaning. Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (1): 42–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2006. “Retrospective and prospective orientation in the construction of argumentative moves”. Text & Talk 261: 443–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness and Charles Goodwin. 1987. “Children’s arguing”. In: S. U. Philips, S. Steele & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, Gender & Sex in Comparative Perspective, 200–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Frank. 1974. “Conversational joking: a look at applied humour”. In: J. McDowell (Ed.), Folklore Annual of the University Folklore Association 6. 24–45. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 1995. Gender and Humour: Beyond a Joke. Victoria University of Wellington. (Unpublished MA thesis).Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2012. “Conversational interaction”. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 251–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Jocular language play, social action and (dis)affiliation in conversational interaction”. In: Bell, N. (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Language Play, 143–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002. Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friend. Humor 151: 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 351: 418–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail and John R. Lee. 1981. The rejection of advice: managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter’. Journal of Pragmatics: 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1999. “Coherent keying in conversational humour: contextualising joint fictionalisation”. In: W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, 125–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky. 2003. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Washington, D.C.: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lasch, Christopher. 1991. The true and only heaven: Progress and its critics. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Leary, James P. 1980. Recreational talk among white adolescents. West Folklore 391: 284–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linde, Charlotte. 1993. Life stories: The creation of coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinlay, Elizabeth. 2004. Humor: a way to transcendence in later life?. Journal of Religious Gerontology 16 (3–4): 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 2009. Dealing with life changes: humour in painful self-disclosures by elderly Japanese women. Ageing & Society 29 (6): 929–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal. 1993. Conversational Joking. Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. 2009. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Livia. 1985. Telling the American story A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo. 2020. Vincit Amor: Narratives of Sexual Promiscuity. Sexuality & Culture 241, 922–945. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo. 2021. Pro domo sua: Narratives of sexual abstinence. Sexuality & Culture, 25(2), 540–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo and Pietro Castelli Gattinara. 2018. Aliud pro alio: Context and narratives within a neo-Nazi community of practice. Journal of language and politics 17 (4): 552–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo and Sveinung Sandberg. 2020. A bene placito: Narratives of sex work. Narrative Inquiry, 30(2), 294–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo, and Alfredo Ardila. 2021. In Nomine Diaboli: The Ideologies of Organized Crime. European Journal of Criminology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priego-Valverde, Béatrice. 2006. How funny it is when everyone gets going! A case of co-construction of humour in conversation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 271.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stallone, Leticia and Michael Haugh. 2017. Joint fantasising as relational practice in Brazilian Portuguese interactions. Language & Communication 1 (55): 10–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Heather. 2004. Lift up your hearts: humor and despair in later life. Journal of Religious Gerontology 16 (3–4): 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Jocelyne and Michael Castelfranchi. 1981. “On the art of deception: how to lie while saying the truth”. In: H. Parret, M. Sbisà, J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. 749–777. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 2001. Communities of practice a brief introduction. Retrieved from [URL]
Wetherell, Margaret. 2013. Affect and discourse – What’s the problem? From affect as excess to affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity 6 (4): 349–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo & Heith Copes
2024. Identitas per Fabulam: Joint Fantasising in the Construction of Criminal Group Identities. Critical Criminology 32:2 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Sinkeviciute, Valeria
2024. Multimodal joint fantasising as a category‑implicative and category‑relations‑implicative action in online multi‑party interaction. Internet Pragmatics 7:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo
2022. Melita, domi adsum: Sessismo e eteronormatività nelle narrative enogastronomiche italiane. Italian Culture 40:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo
2023. Non serviam: Narrative dimensions of organized crime resistance and susceptibility. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 75 ► pp. 100627 ff. DOI logo
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo
2024. Per imaginem ad Veritatem: joint fantasizing of crime. Criminal Justice Studies 37:2 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.