Conversational Humour and (Im)politeness

A pragmatic analysis of social interaction

| The University of Queensland
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027204134 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027262110 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Conversational Humour and (Im)politeness is the first systematic study that offers a socio-pragmatic perspective on humorous practices such as teasing, mockery and taking the piss and their relation to (im)politeness. Analysing data from corpora, reality television and interviews in Australian and British cultural contexts, this book contributes to cross-cultural and intercultural research on humour and its role in social interaction. Although, in both contexts, jocular verbal practices are highly valued and a positive response – the ‘preferred reaction’ – can be expected, the conceptualisation of what is seen as humorous can vary, especially in terms of what ‘goes too far’. By examining how attempts at humour can occasion offence, presenting a distinction between ‘frontstage’ and ‘backstage’ perceptions of jocularity and looking at how language users evaluate jocular behaviours in interaction, this study shows how humour and (im)politeness are co-constructed and negotiated in discourse. This book will be of interest to scholars and students in pragmatics, conversational humour, (im)politeness, intercultural communication, discourse analysis, television studies and interaction in English-speaking contexts.
[Topics in Humor Research, 8]  2019.  xi, 274 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.8
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xi
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–9
Chapter 2. Meanwhile in the world of (im)politeness
12–29
Chapter 3. Data: From corpora to reality television to interviews
32–60
Chapter 4. Conversational humour: Jocular verbal behaviours
62–89
Chapter 5. Jocular verbal behaviours in Australian and British cultural contexts
92–123
Chapter 6. Frontstage and backstage reactions to jocularity
126–148
Chapter 7. Negative evaluations of jocularity
150–171
Chapter 8. Interviewees’ attitudes to jocularity
174–243
Chapter 9. Conclusions
246–249
References
251–272
Subject index
273
“There are far too many studies that talk the talk (blind us with yet more theoretical notions and terms) without walking the walk (doing the necessary empirical footwork). This study, couched in lucid prose, brilliantly does both. Focusing on humour in interactions, it eclectically combines theory from (im)politeness and humour research, and drives it all robustly forward with data from corpora, reality television discourse and qualitative interviewing. Trailblazing, to say the least!”
“This book offers fascinating insights into British and Australian jocular practices based on interviews and the discourse of reality television shows, an excellent source of publically available natural language data. I highly recommend Valeria Sinkeviciute’s work to everybody interested in cross-cultural and inter-cultural studies on conversational humour and (im)politeness.”
“In this thoroughly empirical study of phenomena at the crossroads of humor and politeness, Valeria Sinkeviciute shows how interpretations of verbal behavior can go in different directions, even at the same time, and for the same participants, at different levels of publicness. Her work makes it impossible for pragmaticians to avoid thinking about meaning in terms of meaning potential.”
“To conclude, this work is a very welcome addition to the field of interactional pragmatics, and constitutes an engaging, well-structured discussion of the data at hand. This book will be of interest to those who study pragmatics or intercultural communication, whether they be seasoned academics or undergraduate students who are new to either linguistics or media studies.”
“The volume covers a wide range of relevant issues that may ring a bell for other researchers in the field to further investigate building on its invaluable findings. The book is highly recommended as a resource to departments that include pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies in their programs. It is useful for those who seek elaborative writing on humor and its interpretation across cultures. The book also has a rich reference list of numerous related studies, which are worthwhile to read on the topic.”
“To conclude, this work is a very welcome addition to the field of interactional pragmatics, and constitutes an engaging, well-structured discussion of the data at hand. This book will be of interest to those who study pragmatics or intercultural communication, whether they be seasoned academics or undergraduate students who are new to either linguistics or media studies. The work may also appeal to fans of Big Brother, who may enjoy reading about the show in a way that they had not come across before!”
References

References

Agha, A.
(2006) Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alberts, J. K., Kellar-Guenther, Y., & Corman, S. R.
(1996) That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60(4), 337–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M.
(2011) Interpreting interviews. Los Angeles and London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, E. & Sifianou, M.
(2003) Conversational dynamics of humour: the telephone game in Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(5), 741–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. E.
(2008) Verbal aggression and impoliteness: Related or synonymous? In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 181–207). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ardington, A.
(2011) Tourist advertising of Australia: Impolite or situation-appropriate? Or a uniquely Aussie invite lost in translation. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh & A. J. Merrison (Eds), Situated politeness (pp. 251–269). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B.
(1999) An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative for a politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B.
(2006) Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 33–54). London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2003) Introduction: The pragmatics of humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1287–1294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & di Luzio, A.
(Eds.) (1992) The contextualization of language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, S. J.
(1945) The Australian language. Sydney and London: Aungus and Robertson Ltd.Google Scholar
Barbe, K.
(1995) Irony in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F.
(2003) Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453–1469. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, R.
(2005) On the duty of not taking offence. Journal of Moral Education, 34(3), 265–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G.
(1987) A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson, Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 183–198). Northvale, New Jersey and London: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
Bax, M. & Kádár, D. Z.
(2011) The historical understanding of historical (im)politeness. Introductory notes. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12(1–2), 1–24.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2012) Understanding historical (im)politeness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazalgette, P.
(2001) Golden Age? This is it. The Guardian. Available from http://​www​.theguardian​.com​/media​/2001​/nov​/19​/broadcasting​.comment2 (accessed on 25 May, 2016).Google Scholar
Beck, S., Clabaugh, S. E., Clark, R. A., Connelly Kosovski, M., Daar, R., Hefner, V., Kmetz, T., McDaniel, S., Miller, L., Moriarty, C., Qian, Z., Raja, S., Ramey, M. & Ratnadeep, S.
(2007) Teasing among college men and women. Communication Studies, 58(2), 157–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M.
(2013) “There’s no harm, is there, in letting your emotions out”: A multimodal perspective on language, emotion and identity in MasterChef Australia . In N. Lorenzo-Dus & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 88–114). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. M.
(1995) “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence.” In J. E. Alatis, C. A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (Eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects, Georgetown University roundtable on language and linguistics (pp. 154–168). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D.
(2005) Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Interactional adjustments in humorous intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. D.
(2007) How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20 (1), 27–48.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D.
(2009a) Impolite responses to failed humour. In N. R. Norrick & D. Chiaro (Eds.), Humour in interaction (pp. 143–163). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Responses to failed humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1825–1836. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Responses to incomprehensible humour. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 176–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernal, M.
(2008) Do insults always insult? Genuine impoliteness versus non-genuine impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. Pragmatics, 18(4), 775–802. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bignell, J.
(2005) Big Brother: Reality TV in the twenty-first century. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, J.
(1988) The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biltereyst, D.
(2004)  Big Brother and its moral guardians: Reappraising the role of intellectuals in the Big Brother panic. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 9–15). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, J. L.
(2013) “No eres inteligente ni para tener amigos… Pues anda que tú” [“You are not even clever enough to have any friends… Look who’s talking!”]: A quantitative analysis of the production and reception of impoliteness in present-day Spanish reality television.” In N. Lorenzo-Dus & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action (pp. 218–244). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
(2000) Gossipy events at family dinners: Negotiating sociability, presence and the moral order. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 213–240). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R. & Georgesen, J. C.
(2003) Taking offense: Effects of personality and teasing history on behavioral and emotional reactions to teasing. Journal of Personality, 71(4), 557–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, F.
(2003) Ordinary television. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D.
(2007) Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impoliteness exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2185–2216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 127–153). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. In M. A. Locher & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 101–134). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. & Cortés-Conde, F.
(1997) From bonding and biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bubel, C. M. & Spitz, A.
(2006) “One of the last vestiges of gender bias”: The characterization of women through the telling of dirty jokes in Ally McBeal. Humor, 19(1), 71–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, W. & Hübler, A.
(Eds.) (2007) Metapragmatics in use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M.
(2004) Styles and stereotypes: The linguistic negotiation of identity among Laotian American youth. Pragmatics, 14 (2/3), 127–147.Google Scholar
Bryson, B.
(2000) Down under. London: Black Swan.Google Scholar
Caffi, C.
(1994) Metapragmatics. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Volume 5), (pp. 2461–2466). Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cann, A. & Calhoun, L. G.
(2001) Perceived personality associations with differences in sense of humor: Stereotypes of hypothetical others with high or low senses of humor. Humor, 14(2), 117–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, A.
(1997) Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10(2), 173–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, G.
(2004) Epilogue – in front of our eyes: Notes on Big Brother . In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 250–257). London and New York: Wallflower PressGoogle Scholar
Cavender, G.
(2004) In search of community on Reality TV: America’s Most Wanted and Survivor . In S. Holmes & D. Jermyn (Eds.), Understanding reality television (pp. 154–172). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Centorrino, M.
(2004) Grande Fratello: Interactions between tension and obscenity in Big Brother Italy. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 151–167). London and New York: Wallflower PressGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.
(2007) The importance of not being earnest. The feeling behind laughter and humor. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, D. & Griffiths, M.
(2004) Who is the fairest of them all? Gendered readings of Big Brother UK. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 30–61). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K.
(2003) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holtein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311–330). London and New Delhi: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W.
(2003) Humor in intercultural conversations. Semiotica, 146, 287–306.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J.
(2011) Humour in quasi-conversations: Constructing fun in online sports journalism. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domain (pp. 243–264). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christie, C.
(2015) Epilogue. Politeness research: Sociolinguistics as applied pragmatics. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 355–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.
(2011) “No, like proper north”: Re-drawing boundaries in an emergent community of practice. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.). Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2013) “Maybe she just hasn’t matured yet”: Politeness, gate-keeping and the maintenance of status quo in a community of practice. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2), 211–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R.
(2012) Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1303–1312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Don’t make me laugh: Responsive laughter in (dis)affiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 73–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clissold, B.
(2004) Candid Camera and the origins of Reality TV: Contextualising a historical precedent. In S. Holmes & D. Jermyn (Eds.), Understanding reality television> (pp. 33–53). London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
COED
(1977) The compact edition of Oxford English dictionary, volume II P-Z. OUP.Google Scholar
Coleman, S., & Ross, K.
(2010) The media and the public: “Them” and “Us” in media discourse. London: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corner, J.
(2002) Performing the real. Television & New Media, 3(3), 255–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). SKS Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J.
(1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) (Im)politeness in dramatic dialogue. In J. Culpeper, M. Short & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context (pp. 83–95). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2005) Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232–3245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!” Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp.57–83). Berlin: De Gruyten Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) (Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1128–1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A.
(2003) Impolitenes revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M.
(2014) Pragmatics and the English Language. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Politeness theory and integrative pragmatics. A talk at the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, Belgium. 28 July 2015.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V.
(2017) (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 323–355). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., O’Driscoll, J., & Hardaker, C.
(2019) Notions of politeness in Britain and North America. In E. Ogiermann & P. Garces-Conejos (Eds), From speech acts to lay understandings of politeness. Multilingual and multicultural perspectives (pp. 175–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Kádár, D. Z.
(Eds.) (2010) Historical (im)politeness. Bern and Berlin: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Holmes, O.
(2013) (Im)politeness and exploitative TV in Britain and north America: The X-Factor and American Idol . In N. Lorenzo-Dus & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 169–198). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G. & Ichino, A.
(2013) Imagination and make-believe. In B. Gaut & D. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp. 320–329). Routledge, London, New York.Google Scholar
Davies, C. E.
(2003) How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2004-) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/bnc/.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. & Merrison, A. J.
(2011) Situated politeness. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Delbridge, A. & Butler, S.
(1999) The Macquarie Dictionary, its history and its editorial practices. Lexikos, 9, 152–171.Google Scholar
Desai, C.
(2009) Ragging: Let’s say NO to it. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 41(2), 59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobs, A. M., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P.
(2013) Impoliteness in polylogal interaction: Accounting for face-threat witnesses’ responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 112–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Docker, J.
(2005) Is the United States a failed society? Borderlands ejournal, 4(1).Google Scholar
Drew, P.
(1987) Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, A. J. A.
(1818) Character, manners, and customs of the people of India. Philadelphia: M’Carey & Son.Google Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2007) The linguistics of laughter. A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk: Alan Partington, Routledge Studies in Linguistics, Oxon, 2006, 262 pp., ISBN10: 0-415-38166-5/ISBN13: 978-0-415-38166-6. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1870–1878. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(2), 241–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1284–1299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2009c) Where cooperation meets politeness: Revisiting politeness models in view of the Gricean framework. Brno Studies in English, 35, 23–43.Google Scholar
(2010) Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. mediAzioni 1974-43829, http://​mediazioni​.sitlec​.unibo​.it.Google Scholar
(2011a) Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 217–241). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) A web of deceit: A neo-Gricean view on types of verbal deception. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 139–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011c) “You talking to me?” The viewer as a ratified hearer. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1628–1644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011d) Entertaining and enraging: The functions of verbal violence in broadcast political debates. In V. Tsakona & D. E. Popa (Eds.), Studies in political humour (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Humour on the house: Interactional construction of metaphor in film discourse. In J. Chovanec & I. Ermida (Eds.), Language and humour in the media (pp. 83–106). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2012b) Setting our house in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 161–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013a) Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 105–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013b) Being cooperatively impolite: Grice’s model in the context of (im)politeness theories. In I. Kecskes, & J. Romero-Trillo (Eds), Research trends in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 55–83). Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 329–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Conceptualizing conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(1), 117–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. Academics: A battle over the etic and emic ‘sarcasm’ and ‘irony’ labels. Language & Communication, 55, 69–87.Google Scholar
(2018a) No child’s play: A philosophical pragmatic view of overt pretence as a vehicle for conversational humour. In V. Tsakona & J. Chovanec (Eds), Creating and negotiating humor in everyday interactions (pp. 205–228). Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018b) Lying and humour. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), Oxford handbook of lying (pp. 326–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. & Sinkeviciute, V.
forthcoming). Conversational humour. In M. Haugh, D. Z. Kádár & M. Terkourafi Eds. Handbook of sociopragmatics Cambridge University Press
Dyrenfurth, N.
(2015) Mateship. Melbourne and London: Scribe.Google Scholar
Eelen, G.
(2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K.
(1992) On the historicity of politeness. In R. Watts, I. Sachiko & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 71–107). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. R.
(1986) Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language 3 (pp. 182–198). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eisterhold, J.
(2007) Failed humor in American discourse. Proceedings of the Paper Presented at International Society for Humor Studies. RI, Newport.Google Scholar
Endemol Australia
Big Brother. http://​www​.endemolshine​.com​.au​/bigbrother/. (21 March, 2018.)
Endemol UK
Big Brother. http://​www​.endemolshineuk​.com​/shows/. (21 March, 2018.)
Espelage, D. L. & Asidao, C. S.
(2001) Conversations with middle school students about bullying and victimization. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 49–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, M. A. & Ford, T. E.
(2008) Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor, 21(3), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, T. E. & Ferguson, M. A.
(2004) Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, D.
(2004) ‘Jump in the pool’: The competitive culture of Survivor fan networks. In S. Holmes & D. Jermyn (Eds.), Understanding reality television (pp. 270–289). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, K.
(2004) Watching the English. The hidden rules of English behaviour. Hodder, London.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. & Nolen, W.
(1981) The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. & Haugh, M.
(2014) The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P.
(2010) A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 46–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. & Lorenzo-Dus, N.
(2013) Identity and Impoliteness: The Expert in the Talent Show Idol . Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 97–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N.
(2013) Reality television: A discourse-analytical perspective. In N. Lorenzo-Dus & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 9–23). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García-Pastor, M. D.
(2008) Political campaign debates as zero-sum games: Impoliteness and power in candidates’ exchanges. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 101–123). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geyer, N.
(2010) Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2120–2130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C.
(2013) Welcome to Bogan-ville: reframing class and place through humour. Journal of Australian Studies, 37(1), 62–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, P.
(2003) Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, P., & Holt, E.
(2013) Introduction. In P. Glenn & L. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (London, pp. 1–22). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Goddard, C.
(2006) “Lift your game Martina!”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English”. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp. 65–97). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) “ Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) ‘Early interactions’ in Australian English, American English, and English English: Cultural differences and cultural scripts.” Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1038–1050. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
(1972 [1967]) On face-work: An analysis ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman, Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour (pp. 5–45). Middlesex and Ringwood: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
(1979) Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A.
(1992) Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gosch, E.
(2007) Protesters take their ‘Pom’ whinge to UN. The Australian. Available from http://​www​.theaustralian​.com​.au​/news​/nation​/protesters​-take​-their​-pom​-whinge​-to​-un​/story​-e6frg6nf​-1111112897773 (accessed on 26 May 2016).Google Scholar
Gorden, R. L.
(1971 [1969] Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Grainger, K.
(2011) ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 167–188). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyten Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P.
(1975 [1967]) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grindsted, A.
(1997) Joking as a strategy in Spanish and Danish negotiations. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & S. Harris (Eds.), The language of business: An international perspective (pp. 159–182). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Y.
(1990) Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1987) Foreword. In P. Brown & S. Levinson, Politeness: Some universals in language usage (pp. xiii–xiv). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1992) Contextualization revisited. In P. Auer & di Luzio, A (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 39–53). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Berenz, N.
(1993) Transcribing conversational exchanges. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 91–121). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Harris, S.
(2001) Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The limits of politeness re-visited: Courtroom discourse as a case in point.” In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 85–108). Berlin: De Gruyten Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S. & Bargiela-Chiappini, F.
(1997) The languages of business: Introduction and overview. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & S. Harris (Eds.), The languages of business: An international perspective (pp. 1–18). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hartley, F.
(2014 [1860]) The ladies’ book of etiquette and manual of politeness. London: Hesperus.Google Scholar
Haugh, M.
(2004) Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese. Multilingua, 23(1/2), 85–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The discursive challenge to politeness research. An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 295–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Face and interaction. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 1–30). London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2010a) Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 7–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 165–184). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2013) Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58 53–72.Google Scholar
(2014) Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 76–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) “Just kidding”: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 120–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Teasing. In Salvatore Attardo (ed.), Routledge handbook of language and humor. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017b) Mockery and (non-)seriousness in initial interactions amongst American and Australian speakers of English. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Handbook of communication across cultures (pp. 104–177). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018) Corpus-based pragmatics. In A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds), Methods in pragmatics (pp. 619–643). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., & Hinze, C.
(2003) A metapragmatic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeneness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581–1611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh M., & Watanabe, Y.
(2009) Analysing Japanese ‘face-in-interaction’: Insights from intercultural business meetings. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 78–95). London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. & Bousfield, D.
(2012) Mock impoliteness in interactions amongst Australian and British speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. & Sinkeviciute, V.
(2018) Accusations and interpersonal conflict in televised multi-party interactions amongst speakers of (Argentinian and Peninsular) Spanish. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(2), 248–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Offence and conflict talk. In M. Evans, L. Jeffries & J. O’Driscoll (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language in conflict (pp. 196–214). Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, J.
(1994) Jocular abuse patterns in mixed-group interaction. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 26–55.Google Scholar
(2000) Functions of humour in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) The pragmatics of humor support. Humor, 14(1), 55–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heerey, E. A., Capps, L., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M.
(2005) Understanding teasing: Lessons from children with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(1), 55–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, London and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, A.
(2002)  Big Brother: The Real Audience. Television & New Media, 3(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Watching Big Brother UK. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 25–39). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Restyling factual TV: Audiences and news, documentary and reality genres. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Reality TV. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hill, B., Sachiko I., Shoko I., Kawasaki, A., & Tsunao O.
(1986) Universals of linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, J.
(2009) Sense and nonsense in Australian history. Blanc Inc Agenda, Melbourne.Google Scholar
(2010) The Australians: Insiders and outsiders on the national character since 1770. Melbourne: Black Inc Agenda.Google Scholar
Holmes, J.
(2000) Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Politeness and postmodernism – an appropriate approach to the analysis of language and gender? (Review article) Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(1), 108–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 26–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Marra, M.
(2002) Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor, 15(1), 65–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. & Schnurr, S.
(2005) Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Vine, B.
(2012) Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties of New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1063–1076. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F.
(1997) Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice (pp. 113–129). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holt, L.
(2012) Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 430–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holt, E.
(2013) “There’s many a true word said in jest”: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 69–89). London, New Delhi, New York and Sydney: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. & Taylor, M.
(2013) Xenophobe’s® guide to the Aussies. London: Xenophobe’s® Guides.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I.
(1991) The organization of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 119–137). London, Newbury Part and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
(1996) Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ide, S.
(1989) Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 223–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A.
(1992) The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 299–323). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350–377). New York and London: The Technology Press Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Willy and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Janney, R. W. & Arndt, H.
(1992) Intracultural tact vs intercultural tact. In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 21–41). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A.
(1993) The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasiński, D.
(2004) Metalanguage: Why now? In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland & D. Galasiński (Eds.), Metalanguage. Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 3–8). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
1972 Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jones, J.
(2004) Emerging platform identities: Big Brother UK and interactive multi-platform usage. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 210–231). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, G., Taavitsainen, I., & Breustedt, B.
(2008) Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, D. Z.
(2013) Intercultural politeness research. Opening lecture at the 1st Postgraduate Conference on Linguistic Politeness , Huddersfield, UK, 8 March 2013.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M.
(2013) Understanding politeness. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., & Márquez-Reiter, R.
(2015) (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from intervention. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
Kasper, G.
(1990) Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keats, D. M.
(2000) Interviewing: A practical guide for students and professionals. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I.
(2017a) Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
(2017b) Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 13 (1), 7–13.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D.
(1998) Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1231–1247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A.
(2001) Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
(2004) Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, M.
(1997) Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of oimpolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4(2), 251–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 243–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, R.
(2003) Staging the real: Factual TV programming in the age of ‘Big Brother’. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kiliçbay, B.. & Binark, M.
(2004) Media monkeys: Intertextuality, fandom and Big Brother Turkey. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 140–150). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T.
(2009) Historical corpus pragmatics: Focus on speech acts and texts. In A. H. Jucker, D. Schreier, & M. Hundt (Eds.), Language and computers (Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse, Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29)), (pp. 13–36). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H.
(1996) Impoliteness and conversational joking: On relational politics. Folia Linguistica, 30(3–4), 299–326.Google Scholar
(2007) Oral genres of humor: On the dialectic of genre knowledge and creative authoring. Pragmatics, 17(2), 263–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, R. M.
(2004) Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to teasing: The influence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 331–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A.
(2007) Is sense of humor a positive personality trait? In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 159–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lachenicht, L. G.
(1980) Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. Paper in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 13(4), 607–688. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladegaard, H. J.
(2011) Stereotypes and the discursive accomplishment of intergroup differentiation: Talking about ‘the other’ in a global business organization. Pragmatics, 21 (1), 85–109.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T.
(1973) The logic of politeness: Minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, (pp. 292–305).Google Scholar
(1989) The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 101–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, M., & Ervin-Tripp, S.
(2006) Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E.
(1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Law, R.
(1997) Masculinity, place, and beer advertising in New Zealand: The Southern man campaign. New Zealand Geographer, 53(2), 22–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
(2005) Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Foreign Languages, 6.Google Scholar
(2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewdon, C.
(2012) Kruger: Big Brother to be more ‘family friendly’, ‘more emphasis on challenges’. Available from http://​www​.throng​.com​.au​/2012​/01​/kruger​-big​-brother​-to​-be​-more​-family​-friendly​-more​-emphasis​-on​-challenges/ (accessed on 25 May, 2016).Google Scholar
Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Scambler, D. J.
(2000) What do you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 403–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Limberg, H.
(2008) Threats in conflict talk: Impoliteness and manipulation. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 155–179). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Local, J.
(1996) Conversational phonetics: some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 177–230). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A.
(2006) Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J.
(2005) Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D.
(2008) Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 1–13). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J.
(2008) Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N.
(2008) Real disorder in the court: An investigation of conflict talk in US television courtroom shows. Media, Culture & Society, 30(1), 81–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) “You’re barking mad, I’m out”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 159–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P.
(Eds.) (2013) Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P.
(2013) Impoliteness in US/UK talent shows: A diachronic study of evolution of a genre. In N. Lorenzo-Dus & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 199–217). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LPRG (Linguistic Politeness Research Group)
(Eds.) 2011 Discursive approaches to politeness. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1993) Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 9–32). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lytra, V.
(2007) Teasing in contact encounters: Frames, participant positions and responses. Multilingua, 26, 381–408. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mao, L. R.
(1994) Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maples, M. F., Dupey, P., Torres-Rivera, E., Phan, L. T., Verren, L., & Tlanusta Garrett, M.
(2001) Ethnic diversity and the use of humor in counseling: Appropriate or inappropriate? Journal of Counseling & Diversity, 79, 53–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. A.
(2001) Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Approaches to the sense of humour: A historical review. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 15–60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathijs, E., & Hessels, W.
(2004) What viewer?: Notions of ‘the audience’ in the reception of Big Brother Belgium. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Rds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics, (pp. 62–76). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Mathijs, E. & Jones, J.
(2004) Introduction: Big Brother International. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Rds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 1–8). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(1988) Reexamination of the universality of face. Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 207–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCann, P. D., Plummer, D., & Minichiello, V.
(2010) Being the butt of the joke: homophobic humour, male identity, and its connection to emotional and physical violence for me. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 505–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, C.
(1966) Profile of Australia. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
McSween, C. E., Enron, H., Johnson F., McKenzie-Smythe, H., De Milo, I., & Jayfox, M.
(2011) Boganomics. The science of things bogans like. Sydney: Hachette Australia.Google Scholar
McSween, C. E., Enron, E., Johnson F., McKenzie-Smythe, H., De Milo, I., & Jayfox, M.
(2013) Things bogans like: Tribal tatts to reality TV: How to recognise the twenty-first century bogan. Sydney: Hachette Australia.Google Scholar
Meers, P., & Van Bauwel, S.
(2004) Debating Big Brother Belgium: Framing popular media culture. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 77–92). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, J.
(1985) No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miall, A., & Milsted, D.
(2014) Xenophobe’s® guide to the English. Xenophobe’s® Guides Ltd.Google Scholar
Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F.
(2004) Depth interviewing. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 185–202). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Glassner, B.
(1997) The ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’: Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 99–112). London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mills, S.
(2002) Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 69–89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 19–56). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyten Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Discursive approaches to politeness. Opening lecture at The 1st Postgraduate Conference on Linguistic Politeness , University of Huddersfield, 8 March 2013.Google Scholar
Mitchell, N., & Haugh, M.
(2015) Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 207–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, S.
(2014) Meet Marina, the next Big Brother intruder, a feisty Russian nurse. News Corp Australia. Available from http://​www​.news​.com​.au​/entertainment​/tv​/reality​-tv​/meet​-marina​-the​-next​-big​-brother​-intruder​-a​-feisty​-russian​-nurse​/news​-story​/893b4c8d7cf3a9cbcf6359d684ec3d6e (accessed on May 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Mullany, L.
(2008) “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace.” In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 231–251). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) Im/politeness, rapport management and workplace culture: Truckers performing masculinities on Canadian ice-roads.” In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 61–84). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakane, I.
(2007) Silence in intercultural communication. Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norbury, P.
(2011) Culture Smart! Britain: The essential guide to customs & culture. UK: Kuperard.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(1993) Conversational joking. Humor in everyday talk. Boomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Involvement and joking in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 409–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R., & Spitz, A.
(2008) Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1661–1686. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obana, Y., & Tomoda, T.
(1994) The sociological significance of “politeness” in English and Japanese languages. Report from a pilot study. Japanese Studies Bulletin, 14(2), 37–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olding, R.
(2010) When patriotism gets under your skin. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://​www​.smh​.com​.au​/national​/when​-patriotism​-gets​-under​-your​-skin​-20100326​-r328​.html (accessed 30 September 2015).Google Scholar
Olivieri, K. M.
(2003) A semantic analysis of teasing-related speech act verbs in Australian English. Armidale: University of New England BA Hons thesis.Google Scholar
Orwell, G.
(1950) 1984. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Park, R. E.
(1950) Race and culture. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Partington, A.
(2006) The linguistics of laughter: A corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. Routledge, London. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Teasing at the White House: A corpus-assisted study of face work in performing and responding to teases. Text & Talk, 28(6), 771–792. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawluk, C. J.
(1989) Social construction of teasing. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(2), 145–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, B.
(2004a) Tall poppies and egalitarianism in Australian discourse. From key word to cultural value. English World-Wide, 25(1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004b) “Thou shalt not be a tall poppy”: Describing an Australian communicative (and behavioral) norm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 71–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Penney, B.
(2012) Culture Smart! Australia: The essential guide to customs & culture. UK: Kuperard.Google Scholar
Pitout, M.
(2004)  Big Brother South Africa: A popular form of cultural expression. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 168–180). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B.
(2007) The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 207–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plester, B. A., & Sayers, J.
(2007) “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor, 20(2), 157–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
(2013) Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Backwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Prevignano, C. L., & di Luzio, A.
(2003) A discussion with John J. Gumperz. In S. L. Eerdmans, C. L. Prevignano, & A. di Luzio (Eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Priego-Valverde, B.
(2006) How funny it is when everybody gets going! A case of co-construction of humor in conversation. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac), 27, 72–100.Google Scholar
Pullin Stark, P.
(2009) No joke–this is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF). In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings (pp. 152–177). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pullin, P.
(2011) Humour and the integration of new staff in the workplace: An interactional study. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 265–287). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.
(1940) On joking relationships. Africa, 13, 195–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reber, E.
(2012) Affectivity in interaction. Sound objects in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, J.
(1998) Lovable larrikins and awful ockers. Journal of Australian Studies, 22(56), 78–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaniuk, T.
(2013) Interviewee laughter and disaffiliation in broadcast news interviews. In P. Glenn, & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laugher in interaction (pp. 201–220). London and New Delhi: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roscoe, J.
(2001)  Big Brother Australia. Performing the ‘real’ twenty-four-seven. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4(4), 472–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Interview with Peter Abbott. Continuum, 16(2), 225–234.Google Scholar
(2004) Watching Big Brother at work. Production study of Big Brother Australia. In E. Mathijs, & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 181–193). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Ross, D.
(2013) Xenophobe’s® guide to the Scots. London: Xenophobe’s® Guides.Google Scholar
Roulston, K.
(2010) Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 199–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rowen, R.
(2017)  Bogan as a keyword of contemporary Australia. In C. Levisen, & S. Waters (Eds.), Cultural Keywords in Discourse (pp. 55–82). Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rowen, R., & Haugh, M.
(2017) Bogans, lawyers and teachers: On the interactional achievement of word meanings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(3), 327–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
(1992) Lecture 10. ‘Everyone gets a chance to talk’. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation. Volume I (pp. 701–710). Oxford & Cambridge (USA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scannell, P.
(1991) Introduction: The relevance of talk. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 1–13). London, Newbury Part and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
(2002) Big Brother as a television event. Television & New Media, 3(3), 271–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, S.
(2009) Constructing leader identities through teasing at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1125–1138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, S., & Chan, A.
(2011) When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 20–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, S., & Holmes, J.
(2009) Using humour to do masculinity at work. In N. R. Norrick, & D. Chiaro (Eds.). Humour in interaction (pp. 101–123). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, S., Marra, M., & Holmes, J.
(2008) Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 211–229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, M. L., & Wolkomir, M.
(2003) Interviewing men. In J. A. Holtein, & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 55–71). London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sell, R. D.
(1992) Literary texts and diachronic aspects of politeness. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 109–129).. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sharp, I.
(2012) CultureShock! Australia: A survival guide to customs and etiquette. New York: Marshall Cavendish Editions.Google Scholar
Shei, C.
(2013) How ‘real’ is reality television in China? On the success of a Chinese dating programme. In N. Lorenzo-Dus, & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 43–65). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D.
(2014 [1993]) Interpreting qualitative data. Los Angeles, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1993) Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic Function. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, P.
(2011) “That’s not ironic, that’s just stupid”: Towards an eclectic account of the discourse of irony. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 33–50). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V.
(2010) A comparative analysis of politeness in first encounter conversations in British English film and peninsular Spanish film. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology, HS2, 71–93.Google Scholar
(2013) Decoding encoded (im)politeness: “Cause on my teasing you can depend”. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 263–288). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) “There’s definitely gonna be some serious carnage in this house” or how to be genuinely impolite in Big Brother UK. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(2), 317–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016a) “It’s never meant to be offensive…”: An analysis of jocularity and (im)politeness in Australian and British cultural contexts. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
(2016b) “Everything he says to me it’s like he stabs me in the face”: Frontstage and backstage reactions to teasing”. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 169–198). Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? “Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing”. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 175–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English: An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language & Communication, 55, 41–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017c) “It’s just a bit of cultural […] lost in translation”: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity. Lingua, 197, 50–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017d) Variability in group identity construction: A case study of the Australian and British Big Brother houses. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 70–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.pragma​.2018​.08​.005
Sinkeviciute, V., & Dynel, M.
(2017) Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication, 55, 1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skalicki, S., Berger, C. M., & Bell, N. D.
(2015) The functions of “just kidding” in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 18–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, C.
(2007) Reality TV: The Big Brother phenomenon. International Socialism, 114.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
(2000) Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2002) Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 95–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3565–3578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, A. G., & O’Brien, S. E.
(1910) Material for a Dictionary of Australian Slang. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Stollznow, K.
(2004)  Whinger! Wowser! Wanker! Aussie English: Deprecatory language and the Australian ethos. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Straehle, C.
(1993) ‘Samuel?’ ‘Yes, Dear?’ Teasing and conversational rapport. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 210–230). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suls, J.
(1983) Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. In P. E. McGhee, & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research 1 (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tan, T.
(2008) CultureShock! Great Britain: A survival guide to customs and etiquette. Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.
(2009) Mock politeness, Paper presented at Linguistic Politeness and Rudeness II (LIARII), Lancaster University, 30 June – 2 July 2009.Google Scholar
(2011) Negative politeness forms and impoliteness functions in institutional discourse: A corpus-assisted approach. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 209–231). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2015a) Mock politeness in English and Italian: A corpus-assisted study of the metalanguage of sarcasm and irony. Lancaster University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
(2015b) Beyond sarcasm: The metalanguage and structures of mock politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 127–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Mock politeness in English and Italian. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tedeschi, J. T., Smith, B. B., & Brown, R. C.
(1974) A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81(9), 540–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
(2003) Generalised and particularised implicatures of linguistic politeness. In P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Perspectives on dialogue in the new millennium (pp. 149–164). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 237–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (?pp. 45–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 159–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terry, J.
(2007) New techniques for training and motivating your company’s multicultural management team. Employment Relations Today, 34(1), 37–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The Lonely Planet guide to Australian language & culture
(2013) Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Thornborrow, J.
(2015) The discourse of public participation media: From talk show to Twitter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thornborrow, J. & Morris, D.
(2004) Gossip as strategy: The management of talk about others on reality TV show ‘Big Brother’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 246–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tincknell, E., & Raghuram, P.
(2004)  Big Brother: Reconstructing the ‘active’ audience of cultural studies? In S. Holmes, & D. Jermyn (Eds.), Understanding reality television (pp. 252–269). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tolson, A.
(1991) Televised chat and the synthetic personality. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 178–200). London, Newbury Part and New Delhi: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
(2006) Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Moments of truth: Telling it like it is on The Jeremy Kyle Show . In N. Lorenzo-Dus, & P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 266–287). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K.
(2008) Reasonable Hostility: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 169–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tragesser, S. L., & Lippman, L. G.
(2005) Teasing: For superiority or solidarity? The Journal of General Psychology, 132(2), 255–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, G.
(2010) Ordinary people and the media. Los Angeles and London: SAGE.Google Scholar
van der Bom, I., & Mills, S.
(2015) A discursive approach to the analysis of politeness data. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 179–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Zoonen, L.
(2004) Desire and resistance: Big Brother in the Dutch public sphere. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 16–24). London and New York: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J.
(1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland & D. Galasiński (Eds.), Metalanguage. Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 53–73). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Plotting Meaning Landscapes. Lecture at the IPrA Forum , University of Antwerp, 21 March 2014.Google Scholar
Vincent Marrelli, J.
(1994) On non-serious talk: Some cross-cultural remarks on the (un)importance of (not) being earnest. In H. Parret (Ed.), Pretending to communicate (pp. 253–275). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006 [2002]) Truthfullness. In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (revision). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voss, L. S.
(1997) Teasing, disputing, and playing: Cross-gender interactions and space utilization among first and third graders. Gender and Society, 11(2), 238–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walkinshaw, I.
(2016) Teasing in informal contexts in English as an Asian lingua franca. JELF, 5(2), 249–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J.
(1989) Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 131–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. xi–xlvii). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K.
(Eds.) (1992) Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wells, M.
(2001) There’s no such thing as reality tv. The Guardian. Available from http://​www​.theguardian​.com​/media​/2001​/nov​/05​/mondaymediasection​.bbc (accessed on 25 May 2016).Google Scholar
Wengraf, T.
(2001) Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werkhofer, K. T.
(1992) Traditional and modern views: The social construction and the power of politeness. In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 155–199). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(2002) Australian cultural scripts – bloody revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1167–1209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C.
(2006) Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P.
(2004) Jamming Big Brother USA: Webcasting, audience intervention and narrative activism. In E. Mathijs & J. Jones (Eds.), Big Brother international. Formats, critics and publics (pp. 194–209). Wallflower Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
Winterson Richards, J.
(2014) Xenophobe’s® guide to the Welsh. London: Xenophobe’s® Guides.Google Scholar
Xie, C, He, X., & Lin, D.
(2005) Politeness. Myth and truth. Studies in Language, 29(2), 431–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C.
(2013) Two interactional functions of self-mockery in everyday English conversations: A multimodal analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zajdman, A.
(1995) Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 325–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kostadinova, Viktorija, Marco Wiemann, Gea Dreschler, Sune Gregersen, beáta Gyuris, A I Zhong, Maggie Scott, Lieselotte Anderwald, Beke Hansen, Sven Leuckert, Tihana Kraš, Shawnea Sum Pok Ting, Ida Parise Alessia Cogo, Elisabeth Reber & Furzeen Ahmed
2021. English Language. The Year's Work in English Studies Crossref logo
Parvaresh, Vahid & Tahmineh Tayebi
2021.  Taking offence at the (un)said: Towards a more radical contextualist approach. Journal of Politeness Research 17:1 ► pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2021. 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.

Subjects & Metadata

Linguistics

Discourse studies
Humor studies
Pragmatics
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019028750 | Marc record