Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T15:41:36.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Humor in Intercultural Interactions

from Part II - Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Kerry Mullan  and
Christine Béal
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

The purpose of analyzing interaction in naturally occurring conversation is to determine how participants behave during certain encounters. From the more specific point of view of cross-cultural comparison, the objective is to illustrate how participants from different languages and cultures interact in similar situations, and how the differences observed may be, ultimately, a source of problems in intercultural communication (see Kaur, this volume). Some aspects of language use may be easily identifiable, but others may be more diffuse and yet affect the exchange in deep, even if somewhat indirect, ways. This is the case with the expression of humor. In this chapter, humor is a discursive phenomenon that can be “superimposed” onto almost any type of interaction and is omnipresent in everyday conversation. At the same time, it is always intricately linked to the context in which it occurs and embedded in culture. Humor fulfills a large number of pragmatic functions beyond the surface-level objective of creating a light-hearted mood or making others laugh; in many cultures, it is one of the ways of managing personal relationships smoothly. As a result, participating in conversational humor is one of the most difficult skills to master in a second language.

Keywords

humorcultural valuescross-cultural interactionscross-cultural speech actsinteractional dimensions
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 301 - 333
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F. (eds.) (2012). Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches. Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béal, C. (ed.) (2002). Langue, Discours, Culture, Cahiers de Praxématique, 38. Montpellier: Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée.Google Scholar
Béal, C. (2010). Les Interactions Quotidiennes en Français et en Anglais, de l’Approche Comparative à l’Analyse des Situations Interculturelles. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béal, C. and Traverso, V. (2010). Hello, we’re outrageously punctual: Front door rituals between friends in France and Australia. Journal of French Language Studies, 20(1), 17–29.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Détrie, C. (2013). Les formes nominales d’adresse dans les émissions d’information radiophoniques: une approche comparative des pratiques dans les radios de service public en France et en Australie. Cahiers de Praxématique, 60. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.3889.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2013). Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural perspective: Comparing French and Australian corpora. In Peeters, B., Mullan, K., and Béal, C., eds., Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-Culturally, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107–139.Google Scholar
Béal, C. and Mullan, K. (2017). The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Special issue: Conversational humour: Spotlight on languages and cultures. Language and Communication, 55, 24–40.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bollinger, D. and Hofstede, G. (1987). Les Différences Culturelles dans le Management. Paris: Les Éditions d’Organisation.Google Scholar
Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. (2006). Des catégories pour l’humour? Questions de Communication, 10, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(1), 49–75.Google Scholar
Claudel, C. and Von Münchow, P. (eds.) (2013). Culture, Discours, Langues: Nouveaux Abordages. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
D’Iribarne, P. (1989). La Logique de l’Honneur, Gestion des Entreprises et Traditions Nationales. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Filani, I. (2021). The stand-up comedian as an egocentric communicator. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2002). Directive speech acts in Malay: An ethnopragmatic perspective. Cahiers de Praxématique, 38, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2006). “Lift your game, Martina”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Goddard, C., ed., Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–97.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2009). Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2017). Ethnopragmatic perspectives on conversational humour, with special reference to Australian English. Language and Communication, 55, 55–68.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Roberts, C. (1979). Cross-Talk: A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication. Southhall: The National Centre for Industrial Language Training, Havelock Centre.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2014). Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian interaction. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Weinglass, L. (2018). Divided by a common language? Jocular quips and (non)affiliative responses in initial interactions amongst American and Australian speakers of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. (1990). Key Concepts Underlying Structures of Cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, R. K. (1989). The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: a contrastive sketch. In Oleksy, W., ed., Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155–199.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2019). The use of humor in Spanish and English compliment responses: A cross-cultural analysis. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 32(3), 393–416.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1992). Ideologies of honorific language. Pragmatics, 2(3), 251–262.Google Scholar
Katsiki, S. (2000). L’échange votif en français et en grec. In Traverso, V., ed., Perspectives Interculturelles sur L’Interaction. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1994). Les Interactions Verbales, Vol. III. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2002). Système linguistique et ethos communicatif. Cahiers de Praxématique, 38, 35–57.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2005). Le Discours en Interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2012). L’approche comparative interculturelle en analyse des interactions: L’exemple des formes nominales d’adresse. In Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F., eds., Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches, Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (ed.) (2014). S’Adresser à Autrui. Vol. II: Les Formes Nominales d’Adresse dans une Perspective Comparative Interculturelle. Chambéry: Presses Universitaires de l’Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2010). Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2012). “I couldn’t agree more, but …”: Agreeing to disagree in French and Australian English. In Auger, N., Béal, C., and Demougin, F., eds., Interactions et Interculturalité: Variétés des Corpus et des Approches, Collection Transversales. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 319–346.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. (2020.) Humour in French and Australian English initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 86–99.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. and Béal, C. (eds.) (2018.) Conversational Humour: Forms, Functions and Practices across Cultures. [Special issue]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4).Google Scholar
Mullan, K. and Béal, C. (2018). Conversational humour in French and Australian English: What makes an utterance (un)funny? Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4), 457–485.Google Scholar
Mullan, K., Vincent-Durroux, L., and David, C. (2020). Humour in contrast across languages and cultures. [Special issue]. European Journal of Humour Research: Humour across Cultures – A Contrastive Approach, 8(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. 2003. Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1333–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oleksy, W. (ed.) (1989). Contrastive Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peeters, B., Mullan, K., and Béal, C. (eds.) (2013). Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-Culturally. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Renwick, G. W. (1983). If Australians are arrogant, are Americans boring? If Americans are boring, are Australians arrogant? In Smith, L. E., ed., Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English, pp. 117–123.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. and Stewart, M. (2008). Les interactions en site commercial à Montevideo et Edimbourg: “engagement” et “considération pour autrui.” In Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. and Traverso, V., eds., Les Interactions en Site Commercial, Invariants et Variations. Lyon: ENS Editions, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar
Schultz, J. (2014). More than a job: Working for life. Griffith Review, 45, 7–9.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural values orientations: Explication and application. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S., (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shardakova, M. (2012). Cross-cultural analysis of the use of humor by Russian and American English speakers. In Ruiz de Zarobe, L. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., eds., Speech Acts and Politeness across Languages and Cultures. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 199–237.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (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.Google Scholar
Stallone, L. and Haugh, M. (2017). Joint fantasizing as relational practice in Brazilian interactions. Language and Communication, 55, 10–23.Google Scholar
Stollznow, K. (2003). Whinger! Wowser! Wanker! Aussie English: Deprecatory language and the Australian ethos. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003.html.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981a). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 30, 133–149.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981b). The machine-gun question: An example of conversational style. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 383–397.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1983). When is an overlap not an interruption? One component of conversational style. In Di Pietro, R. J., Frawley, W., and Wedel, A., eds., The First Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Newark: University of Delaware Press, pp. 119–129.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s Not What I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes of Breaks Your Relations with Others. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traverso, V. (2000). Perspectives Interculturelles sur l’Interaction. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Vincent-Durroux, L., Mullan, K., David, C., Béal, C. and Poussard, C. (2020). Mastering Second Language Humour: The Ultimate Challenge. [Special issue]. European Journal of Humour Research: Humour Across Cultures – A Contrastive Approach, 8(4), 82–111.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985a). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2–3), 145–178.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985b). The double life of a bilingual: Cross-cultural pragmatics and different culture values. In R. Sussex and J. Zubrzycki, eds., Polish People and Culture in Australia. Canberra: Australian National University Press, pp. 187–223.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society, 15(3), 349–373.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Values Survey. (2020). All Rounds: Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid and Vienna: JD Systems Institute and WVSA Secretariat. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×