What kind of laughter? The triple function of “Hhh” as a contempt, intention, and interpretation marker

Pnina Shukrun-Nagar and Galia Hirsch
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev | Bar Ilan University
Abstract

The article examines the pragmatic functions of the Hebrew graphic laughter marker “hhh” in a particularly turbulent public-political discursive arena – online readers’ comments to Facebook posts by the two leading contenders for the post of Israeli prime minister during the 2020 election campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.

We argue that “hhh” fulfills three functions dependent on its co-text, textual position, and length: (1) contempt marker – conveying contempt, ridicule, or disgust, towards a previous comment or post, their authors, or the associated political wing; (2) intention marker – signaling the employment of pragmatic strategies in the comment; and (3) interpretation marker – indicating the deciphering of pragmatic strategies in a previous post or comment.

The findings indicate that in all three categories “hhh” is used mainly to taunt the rival political wing, at times by creating an alliance with other commenters at the expense of their common rivals.

Keywords:
Publication history

Date received: 7 May 2022

Date accepted: 7 June 2023

Published online: 28 November 2023

Table of contents

Compared to face-to-face communication, digital interaction demands an extra processing effort to identify the addressers’ attitude and intentions (Yus 2011), since all the gestural, proxemic, paralinguistic, and prosodic indicators accompanying the oral utterance are missing (Labinaz and Sbisà 2021, 151). In order to make up for this lack, online participants use markers such as: abbreviations or acronyms (“LOL”); repetition of letters; punctuation; capitalization; and visual aids, including emoticons/emojis, GIFs, and stickers. This way messages are connoted with oral qualities, giving rise to what Yus (2011) labels an “oralized written text”.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, Christian, Margot van Mulken, and Peter Jan Schellens
2013 “The Use of Co-Textual Irony Markers in Written Discourse.” Humor 26 (1): 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Sam, and Giselinde Kuipers
2013 “The Divisive Power of Humour: Comedy, Taste and Symbolic Boundaries.” Cultural Sociology 7 (2): 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., Gregory A. Bryant, and Herbert L. Colston
2014 “Where is the Humor in Verbal Irony?” Humor 27 (4): 575–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul H.
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Helmut
2021 “Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the 2016 Austrian Presidential Campaign.” In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice, ed. by Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland, 259–285. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverkate, Henk
1990 “A Speech Act Analysis of Irony.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer
2001 “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” Humor 14 (1): 55–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Galia, and Pnina Shukrun-Nagar
in press). “Flirting with the Israeli Prime Minister, Humorously.” The European Journal of Humour Research 10 (1). DOI logo
Hirsch, Galia
2020 “Irony, Humor or Both? The Model Revisited.” In The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 316), ed. by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 19–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, Pang-Chieh
2018 “No Laughing Matter: I Say LOL, You Say Ek1: How People Around the World Laugh Online.” Digg.Com. Accessed February 12th 2021. https://​digg​.com​/2018​/how​-different​-countries​-laugh​-online
Kalman, Yoram M., and Darren Gergle
2014 “Letter Repetitions in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Unique Link between Spoken and Online Language.” Computers in Human Behavior 34: 187–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalsnes, Bente, Anders Olof Larsson, and Gunn Sara Enli
2017 “The Social Media Logic of Political Interaction: Exploring Citizens’ and Politicians’ Relationship on Facebook and Twitter.” First Monday 22: 2–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karoui, Jihen, Farah Benamara, Véronique Moriceau, Viviana Patti, Crisitna Bosco, and Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles
2017 “Exploring the Impact of Pragmatic Phenomena on Irony Detection in Tweets: A Multilingual Corpus Study.” 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 262–272. Valencia, Spain. hal-01686475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katila, Julia, Yumei Gan, and Marjorie H. Goodwin
2020 “Interaction Rituals and ‘Social Distancing’: New Haptic Trajectories and Touching from a Distance in the Time of COVID-19.” Discourse Studies 22 (4): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Katharina
2019 “Stance Taking with ‘Laugh’ Particles and Emojis – Sequential and Functional Patterns of ‘Laughter’ in a Corpus of German WhatsApp Chats.” Journal of Pragmatics 142: 156–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopytowska, Monika
2013 “Blogging as the Mediatization of Politics and a New Form of Social Interaction: A Case Study of ‘Proximization Dynamics’ in Polish and British Political Blogs.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. by Piotr Cap, and Urszula Okulska, 379–421. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Giselinde
2011 “The Politics of Humour in the Public Sphere: Cartoons, Power and Modernity in the First Transnational Humour Scandal.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 14 (1): 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labinaz, Paolo, and Marina Sbisà
2021 “Speech Acts and the Dissemination of Knowledge in Social Networks.” In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice, ed. by Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland, 145–1725. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Sarah
2015 “Hahaha vs. Hehehe.” The New Yorker. https://​www​.newyorker​.com​/culture​/cultural​-comment​/hahaha​-vs​-hehehe (Accessed February 12th 2021.)
Lehti, Lotta
2011 “Blogging Politics in Various Ways: A Typology of French Politicians’ Blogs.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1610–1627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd
2011 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13 (1): 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyers, Laura Marie
2019 “What Everyone REALLY Thinks of Your ‘Haha’ vs. ‘LOL’ vs. ‘Hehe’ Texting Choices.” Popsugar Tech. Accessed February 17th 2021. https://​www​.yahoo​.com​/lifestyle​/everyone​-really​-thinks​-haha​-vs​-233237572​.html
Petitjean, Cécile, and Etienne Morel
2017 “ ‘Hahaha’: Laughter as a Resource to Manage WhatsApp Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 110: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raskin, Victor, and Salvatore Attardo
1994 “Non-literalness and Non-bona-fide in Language: An Approach to Formal and Computational Treatments of Humor.” Pragmatics and Cognition 2 (1): 31–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redeker, Gisela, and Helmut Gruber
2014 “Introduction.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence: Theories and Applications (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 254), ed. by Helmut Gruber, 1–23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shukrun-Nagar, Pnina
2019 “ ‘Well, Yair? When Will You Be Prime Minister?’: Different Readings of Ordinariness in a Politician’s Facebook Post as a Case in Point.” In The Construction of Ordinariness across Media Genres (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 307), ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Elda Weizman, 103–129. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020a “The Right to Speak and the Request to Remain Silent: Who Own Politicians’ Facebook Pages?” Israel Affairs 26 (1): 26–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b “ ‘Hero, Genius, King, and Messiah’: Ironic Echoing in Pro-Ethos and Anti-Ethos Readers’ Comments on Facebook Posts.” In The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 316), ed. by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 59–81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Ironic Echoes as a Strategy of Silencing in Online Comments to Politicians’ Facebook Posts.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 14 (1): 301–318. (Hebrew)Google Scholar
2022 “ ‘There Is No One Like You Bibi’: Israelis Write to the Prime Minister.” Israel Studies in Language and Society. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1981 “Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, Nili, and Azi Lev-On
2020 “MPs on Facebook: Differences between Members of Coalition and Opposition.” Digital Government: Research and Practice 1 (2): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsakona, Villy, and Diana Elena Popa
2011 “Humour in Politics and the Politics of Humour.” Studies in Political Humour: In between Political Critique and Public Entertainment 46: 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Marcelo Dascal
2005 “Interpreting Speaker’s Meanings in Literary Dialogue.” In Dialogue Analysis IX: Dialogue in Literature and the Media. Part 1: Literature, ed. by Anne Betten, and Monika Dannerer, 61–72. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda
2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2022 Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011 Cyberpragmatics. Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar