CC BY
0PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
PRAGMATICS OF TEASING AS A TYPE OF JOKING BEHAVIOUR
Kolodiazhna K.
Postgraduate Student, Department of Lexicology and Stylistics of the English Language,
Kyiv National Linguistic University
Abstract
This paper is concerned with such linguistic phenomenon as teasing. Teasing is a universal practice that transcends age, gender and social differences. Despite its prevalence in daily communication, it is a difficult task to define it in terms of pragmalinguistics because of its multifaceted nature. Teasing is inherently ambiguous: it is observed in the discrepancy that exists between the outer form of the speech act of teasing and its content. Therefore, the addresser (the teaser) signals about his friendly or aggressive intention with the help of contextual cues. The present study aims to examine teasing as a type of joking behaviour that takes place in everyday life. We will use speech act analysis in order to clarify the mechanism of realization of the phenomenon under consideration. Also we have set a goal to uncover the role of the addresser and addressee (the teased) in the construction of teasing as a joint activity. The subject of the paper is teasing as a type of joking behaviour. The topicality of the paper is defined by the modern interest of linguistics in communicative, functional and interactive aspects of communicators' speech and by the general anthropological turn of linguistic studies. Thus we shall reveal the communicative and interactional aspects of teasing as a type of joking behaviour in a dialogical discourse.
Keywords: addressee, addresser, contextual cue, discourse, intention, speech act, target, teaser, teasing, utterance.
The verb 'tease' originates from Anglo-Saxon 'teasan' which means to 'tear to pieces' and from the French word 'attiser' meaning 'to add fuel to the fire' (Hay 1995:32).
The pioneer in making an attempt to describe teasing scientifically as a type of social relation was Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, an English social anthropologist and ethnologist (Radcliffe-Brown 1940:195) who explored the speech behaviour of aboriginal tribes in Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America. In his works dedicated to the given topic he regarded teasing to be a kind of joking relationships taking place between two people, one of whom is ascribed to tease, according to the custom shared in the community, while another person is not allowed to take the tease as an offence (Radcliffe-Brown 1940:195). According to the scholar there are two possible models of teasing: symmetric and asymmetric. In the symmetrical model two participants tease each other; whereas in the asymmetric model, one person is supposed to tease while another is not allowed to tease back. Radcliffe-Brown defined teasing as 'a peculiar combination of friendliness and antagonism... It is not meant seriously and must not be taken seriously' (Radcliffe-Brown 1940:104). Hence teasing is considered to be something controversial uniting features that exist in contrastive relations.
Later, teasing as a kind of speech behaviour was analysed by Roger D. Abrahams, an American anthropologist and ethnologist, who applied a psychoethno-logical method to study the collective games of lower-class African-Americans from Philadelphia and Texas (Abrahams 1962). The function of this verbal activity, which acquires the form of rhymed retorts, is to socialize the youngsters with the aim of increasing their tolerance of racial attacks and discrimination. Abrahams
(Abrahams 1962:209) claimed that these rhymed retorts have a lot in common with teasing owing to their playful and caustic nature.
Recently, teasing has been investigated from psychological (Eisenberg et al. 1981, Keltner et al. 1998, 2001, Shapiro 1991) and sociological (Eder 1993, Miller 1986, Radcliffe-Brown 1940) points of view as an integral element of daily communicative processes that transcends culture, age, gender, and socio-economic status level. Donna Eder defined teasing as 'any playful remark aimed at another person which can include mock challenges, commands, and threats as well as imitating and exaggerating someone's behaviour in a playful way. While content of teasing would often be negative or hostile if taken literally, the playful meaning is determined in part by cues from the teaser indicating that the remark should be taken in a playful manner' (Eder 1993:17).
Pragmalinguistically, teasing has been studied as a kind of speech act (Paul Drew 1987), as a kind of joking behaviour (Boxer et al. 1997, Norrik 1994), as a manifestation of ironic behaviour (Kotthoff 2003). Paul Drew defined it as 'the kind of playful humorous jibes' (1987:219).
All these definitions of the linguistic phenomenon claim that teasing is inherently playful but aggressive by all appearances and its content should not be taken literally as indicated by the teaser with the help of cues. The aforementioned citations suggest that teasing has a two-fold nature which generates the complexity of its interpretation by the addressee.
Major features
Here we are to discuss the important features of teasing as a type of joking behaviour. The major features which distinguish teasing from other types of joking behavior are its dialogical and provocative nature,
context dependence, localization (here and now), the combination of aggression, humour and ambiguity, playful element, verbal and non-verbal contextual cues. Let us examine each feature separately.
The dialogical nature reveals itself in the availability of the teaser and the target (the teased) of the teasing utterance. In our paper we define the teaser a person who produces the speech act of teasing, while the target is a person who is a recipient of the speech act of teasing. The dialogical nature of the speech act of teasing can be viewed clearly in the target's interpretation of the teasing utterance, which is only possible in a dia-logical discourse (Drew 1987:222). In the majority of cases the target's reaction is crucial to the interpretation of the speech act of teasing. Let us analyse the following example:
(1) Andrea: "It's been what nearly a week since he's interrogated me about every aspect of my life? I was wondering where my biggest fan had gone. " I finished typing my memo and hit print.
Cara: "You 're a lucky girl, I have to say. He's lost interest in me entirely, " she pinned dramatically. "He only has eyes for you. "
Andrea: I am lucky, aren't I? (Weisberger 2006:65).
Cara (the teaser) tries to hurt Andrea's (the target's) feelings by talking about a man who is disliked by her. The problem is that this 'admirer' isn't popular among women and his flirting is considered to be a kind of anticompliment for a woman. That is why it is unpleasant for Andrea that Cara aims to connect her somehow with this man. Andrea changes the course of the interaction into a friendly one playing along with her colleague and mocking herself. The illocutionary force of the utterance 'He only has eyes for you' is to provoke the target of teasing and elicit a certain reaction from her. The author's non-verbal contextual cue 'she pinned dramatically' underlines the illocutionary force of the teaser's utterance discovering a playful nature of the interaction. The teasing here becomes possible because of the common ground shared by the interlocutors which is known in pragmatics as a presupposition. Presupposition is the implicit component of the semantics of the utterance which serves as the precondition for understanding its content (Susov 2009:135). In (1) the presupposition is a notorious popularity of the 'admirer'. Hence, it does not do honor to a woman to be liked by such man. Literally, the teasing utterance takes the form of the statement that adds estimation and certainty to the words of the teaser, but this does not provide the addressee with the opportunity to argue Cara's remark. The target plays along with the teaser pretending to agree with the latter. This can be regarded as a defensive strategy that helps to maintain the face of the target.
In communication where teasing takes place two subsequent utterances form an adjacent pair: the first utterance is provocation, which can acquire the form of a question, request, greeting, statement etc., while the second utterance is the target's reaction to the proceeding utterance which acquires a form depending on the instigator's remark (Sacks 1973:291). However, another situation can be observed: the teasing utterance
may be the second component of the adjacency pair. This means that the teaser exploits the target's remark taking it as a base for producing the tease.
From the above mentioned it is logical to assume that teasing is highly dependent on the context of the situation. Under the term 'context' we mean that the speech act of teasing is relevant only in the on-going communication that takes place here and now and is can change. It is also important to underline that teasing as a type of joking behaviour foresees the presence of a turn-taking mechanism that presupposes the exchange of the interlocutors' roles.
The next major feature is provocation which we consider to be an integral part of a teasing utterance. The function of the provocation is to elicit a reaction from the target. Such provocation is intentional as it is specially embedded in the speech act of teasing by the teaser. If the provocation does not take place or is concealed by the target it is possible to talk about the infelicity of the speech act of teasing.
The provocation always refers to a) particular things about the target (appearance, dressing, manner of behaviour, manner of talking etc.); b) the relationship between the teaser and the target; c) some object of the target's interest (prefernces, tastes etc.) (Keltner 2001:235). This is why the target is obliged to react somehow to the teasing. Let us consider the following example where the provocation is directed at the object that belongs to the sphere of the target's interest:
(2) "But you gave your heart away freely. I was under the misconception that your husband was the only man in the past. How many others did you fancy yourself in love with besides Antonie?"
Her temper was ignited by his teasing. How dare he make light of that humiliating experience? She was reminded of Fiona and how casually he treated his past dalliances. Yet he dared to question her?
She smiled sweetly and gave a little shrug. "You can't expect me to answer such a question, Lucas. I'm not that sort of woman who keeps count."
"That many, eh? " He chuckled.
She gritted her teeth in exasperation. The rogue.
"Yes, that many. Can I help it if I'm fickle?"
He laughed quietly (Tender is the Storm, p. 190).
The conversation takes place between Lucas (the teaser) and Sharisse (the target) who love each other but do not want to reveal their feelings. The young man asks the woman about her previous relations with men with the intention to tease her. The teaser acts so in order to provoke the continuation of discussion about Sharisse's love affairs. Lucas hints at the woman's frivolous style of life in the past. The young woman tries to prevent any future teasing by saying that she had had so many men that she is unable to count them all. The target intends to prevent further teasing by playing along with the teaser and confessing to her frivolous behaviour. The teaser does not stop and encourages the woman to proceed by the teasing question ' That many, eh?\ Sharisse agrees with the teaser once again being more radical and having confessed that she is fickle. Here the provocation is based on a very delicate matter,
namely the young woman's reputation. Sharisse decides to play along with the teaser recognizing her own faults and at the same time being aggressively defensive in her retorts. Therefore we can say that the speech act 'Can I help it if I'm fickle?' is as ironic as it is absurd: in past times a young woman cherished her reputation a lot. The utterance is insincere taking into account its falseness. Sharisse pretends to take up an extreme position which is signalled by the exaggeration ('...I'm fickle'). The absurdity of the utterance leads Lucas to believe that Sharisse is intentionally misleading him in order to create a humorous effect. Here irony manifests its positive function: aggression is regarded to be less dangerous for the interlocutor's face when it acquires an ironic character.
Hence the provocative component is an integral part of teasing. We regard it to be the crucial factor that makes teasing possible. Provocative speech behaviour forces the target to produce utterances in response to teasing trying to defend him/herself. Such communication acquires the form of a turn-taking interaction where the teaser attacks and the target defends or the teaser attacks and the target tries to intercept the role of the teaser, so that the exchange of the communicative roles of the teaser and the teased takes place.
The following major feature of teasing as a joking behaviour is playful nature. Teasing is such type of joking behaviour which, apart from 'serious' attempts (to bring people together, to humiliate, to criticize), functions as a social play. During such communication interlocutors drop serious communicative goals and tease each other for the sake of deriving pleasure from the interactive process. According to A. Fill (Fill 1986:20), the playfulness in communication can be explained by the Principle of Game characteristic of language as a universal entity. Due to its playful nature teasing allows people to cross boundaries and discuss taboo topics. At the same time the teasers are not accused of the violation of ethical norms of communication or even if such accusation is done the teaser can justify him/herself. The practical realization of teasing as a kind of a social play in everyday life is possible due to the production of utterances which contain a mismatch between the grammatical form and the rules of its usage. The violation of the selection and the use of language takes place at all language levels: from the phonetic to textual (Norric 1994:34).
The next major feature that distinguishes teasing as a type of joking behaviour from other types of speech behaviour is the availability of verbal and non-verbal contextual cues. Following G. Gumperz (1992:231), under the term contextual cues we understand any aspect of the outer structure of an utterance: paralinguistic features, lexical and phonological units which provide the addressee with the clues for the correct interpretation of a utterance. There are two main types of contextual markers: verbal and non-verbal. In our paper, the emphatic repetition of personal and demonstrative pronouns, the usage of the superlative degree of adjectives, the exaggeration, the nicknaming, the words with negative connotation, the obscene words are considered as verbal contextual cues of teasing as a type of joking behaviour. Sing-song intonation, changes in tone,
changes of loudness of the teaser's voice, certain facial expressions, winking, smiling, gestures, posture we also regard as non-verbal contextual cues of teasing as a type of joking behaviour. Datcher Keltner (2001:233) in his analysis of teasing from a psychological point of view arrives at a certain conclusion that there is a pattern observed in communication involving teasing: the more verbal and non-verbal contextual cues accompany the speech act of teasing, the less aggressively it is perceived by the target as in the following example:
(3) Determinedly she forced herself to breathe evenly. "Do you mean all those times you invited me to your apartment, it wasn 't to see your art collection? " she teased, her eyes widening with _ false surprise.
"Only the one in my bedroom. " The laughter lit his _ face as he studied her solemnly" (Daily 2014:7).
Erica teases Forest ironically pretending not to understand his desire for her. The presupposition of the speech act of teasing is Forest's tempting behaviour. The long history of their dating makes Erica's utterance absurd: she can not but know about his desire. This absurdity is pragmatically justified. With the help of the non-verbal contextual cue that is the change of her facial expression (eyes widening) the teaser signals the meaning implied in the speech act. The target manages to interpret the utterance correctly which is proved by his reaction: he plays along with the teaser and supports the joking atmosphere of communication. The teasing is aimed at enhancing the intimate relation and supporting the flirtatious tone of communication.
Another example where the speech act of teasing is aggressive and aims to humiliate the target is the following:
(4) Some one tapped me on my shoulder. I spun around. It was Joe.
"How's dimples, little-little boo-boo? " he asked.
"Stop calling me that," I said.
"Now don't get excited,' he sneered. "It makes your face look like a tomato - a tomato with worm holes" (Wishinsky 2005:9).
Two boys of early school age meet each other during a break. One of them intends to tease the other boy. In this example the teasing takes the form of the question which does not require an answer as it is not aimed at getting information about the target's well-being. Hence the question is metacommunicative by its nature (Chkhetiani 1987:23), the teaser is intending to make contact, which the target views negatively. The teaser asks about the dimples of his interlocutor and calls him 'little boo-boo' having in mind to elicit negative emotions. This leads to the conclusion that the illocutionary force of the speech act of teasing is to offend the target. This fact is supported by the perlocutionary effect on the part of the target: 'Stop calling me that'. The teaser keeps on teasing and compares the target's dimples with a tomato with worn holes. The presupposition of the speech act of teasing is the specifics of the target's appearance and his isolation in the class. Here the speech act of teasing includes lexical and semantic elements which enhance each other and are viewed upon as verbal contextual cues of the speech act of teasing. Firstly, the teaser using such stylistic device as meiosis calls the target 'little', which humiliates the status of the
latter; secondly, 'boo-boo' is an offensive nickname: the repetition of the nickname adds more emphasis to the teasing effect. Finally, we can conclude that at early school age teasing is characterized by explicitness and aggressiveness that is linguistically realized in the form of such verbal contextual markers as nicknaming and comparisons to objects which evoke negative associations. Chkhetiani (2009:138) points out that the bases for offensive nicknaming are physical and mental defects which the target possesses. Nicknaming is considered a powerful creative feature of linguistic activity of children at an early school age which brings them pleasure and helps them to express themselves as individuals in the school community.
Furthermore, teasing is accompanied by such nonverbal contextual cue as the change voice: "Now don't get excited,' he sneered. Sneering adds more negative expressiveness to the speech act and signals the teasing nature of the interaction.
Other important features of teasing are aggression, humour and ambiguity (Keltner 2001:233). Teasing serves to satisfy a range of social and antisocial goals in daily communication. The aggression of teasing depends upon several factors: 1) the directness/indirectness of the illocutionary force of the speech act of teasing; 2) the presence/absence of verbal and non-verbal contextual cues which mitigate the illocutionary force of teasing; 3) the level of intimacy between the interlocutors which effects the choice of the topic of teasing; 4) the choice of language means for its realization in speech. Besides, no less important are such factors as gender, age, hierarchical relations which have a great influence upon the character of teasing (Keltner 1998:1235).
Though offensive in its form, teasing can be interpreted as humorous if people are in close friendly or intimate relations. The interlocutor's laughter signals that teasing is accepted as friendly and enhancing the solidarity inside the group. Nonetheless if the same speech act of teasing is directed to a stranger it can_be understood as an offence.
The humorous nature of teasing indicates that the utterance should not be considered as offensive and the implicit meaning is to be interpreted: the intended meaning of the speech act of teasing is the assertion of friendly relationships and explication of the fact that such relationships allow people to tell each other negative things without humiliating the target. Nevertheless, the coexistence of humour and aggression may cause the ambiguity of the teasing utterance which can be interpreted in two opposite ways as in the following example:
(5) "I am so puzzled, " I said totally embarrassed.
"You 're such a child sometimes, Anny," Tom teased her. "You act like you were born yesterday and do not know a thing. "
"So, then teach me" I retorted smiling at him mysteriously (Conroy 1986:269).
The fact that the interlocutors are socially close has a great influence upon the interactive process. Tom teases Anny saying that sometimes she behaves like a child. This testifies to the fact that they have a long history of friendship. Taking into account this fact, we can
assume that the girl has got used to such teasing and does not perceive it to be an offence, as is indicated in her response: the target plays along encouraging the continuation of such kind of talk and shows the teaser her positive attitude towards the utterance with the help of non-verbal contextual cues (' I retorted smiling at him mysteriously'). The intended meaning of the speech act of teasing is the hidden display of intimacy and closeness between the interlocutors. The illocutionary force of this utterance can be misinterpreted outside the social context. This adds to the fact that teasing is inseparable from the context in which it occurs. The context is the factor which eliminates the ambiguity of teasing. Taken in isolation a speech act of teasing can be interpreted as an offence. The context helps to mitigate the derision and to intensify the humorous effect in the teasing utterance.
Let us consider the instance where the speech act of teasing is perceived as a mockery:
(6) Hunt asked Finn:
"Would you give us the benefit of your thoughts? " He [the teacher] left one of those slight pauses in which we [the pupils] again noticed his subtle mockery.
"Idon'tknow, sir" (Barnes 2001:22).
The teacher asks the pupil to answer the question while teasing him. This can be proved by the following. Firstly, the teacher (the teaser) uses excessive politeness in his speech (the grammatical structure 'Would you...?') and lofty style ('the benefit of your thoughts') with the interlocutor who is hierarchically lower in status. This adds to the fact that the teaser involves irony in order to express his emotional evaluation of the target. Also the presence of irony secures a less imposing manner of the representation of the teaser's intent as it is expressed indirectly. Secondly, the teacher uses a short pause which is his individual indicator of teasing. Here the context plays a crucial role for the interpretation of the utterance where the implied illocutionary force aims at criticizing through teasing, whereas taken in isolation the meaning of the utterance is positive.
So, we understand teasing as a type of joking behaviour which is ambiguous by its nature and aimed at provoking the target to a reaction in response, commenting about something relevant to him/her. A speech act of teasing is accompanied by verbal and non-verbal contextual cues which signal out about the teaser's real intention (friendly or aggressive).
Mimicry as a Kind of Teasing
In daily communication a conscious imitation of the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of coparticipants takes place. When the interlocutor's utterance is imitated it signals that the speaker pursues a certain communicative aim. Goffman notes (1974:539) that a repetition of the interlocutor's words is always connected with the imitation of his/her accent and gesturing. If the imitation being is 'too strong' the imitator can be suspected of having aggressive intentions. Such kind of imitation we regard as mimicry of the interlocutor's speech which can be of two types: complete and partial. Under the term complete mimicry we understand the imitation of the outer form of the target's utterance and his/her manner of the speech delivery by the teaser,
while partial mimicry is the imitation of a particular element of the target's verbal and non-verbal behaviour by the teaser.
Mimicry belongs to the sphere of deviation from conventional norms of behaviour as far as the transgression takes place: the repetition of the interlocutor's utterance violates the Gricean cooperative principle, in particular the maxims of quality and relevance. Partington claims (2008:80) that mimicry bears a potential threat to the face of the addressee. In teasing behaviour the teaser tries on the social face of the target which undergoes the process of hyperbolic contortion: the teaser intends to mock the target's shortcomings by exaggerating them.
We regard mimicry as a hybrid product which is a combination of the communicative and behavioral personal qualities of the teaser and target (the addressee). Hyperbolization of the target's speech behaviour by the teaser is typical for teasing mimicry: the exaggeration is the teaser's reaction to the deviations and norm violations in the target's behaviour (Partington 2008:779-80). Trespassing the etiquette boundaries the teaser mocks the target's behaviour (Drew 1987:231). The teaser's utterance becomes a hyperbolized version of the target's utterance which undergoes the process of transformation and is marked linguistically: lexical units of the target's speech are paraphrased. These paraphrased lexical units have enhanced expressive and stylistic meaning: yacking - 'talking', bumping around - 'making love' (Drew 1987:231). In our paper we note that the target's and teaser's utterances are in polar relations. This means that these two utterances form opposite pairs where the teaser's utterance is the strong (marked) member of the pair and the target's utterance is the weak (unmarked) member of the same pair.
The following classification of the types of teasing mimicry can be offered here: 1) the teaser imitates the target's utterance literally and the manner of speech delivery in the exaggerated way; 2) the teaser imitates a certain element of the target's utterance putting it in another context; 3) the teaser imitates the target's manner of speech delivery, the non-verbal component.
In the first case, the teaser imitates the target's utterance with no changes but exaggerates the manner of speech delivery: the content of the target's and teaser's utterances are the same. The imitation lies in mocking the target's manner of speech delivery:
(7) But first we shall smooth your edges a bit," he said as if amused. "Rid your speech of those charming colloquialisms."
Grace bit her lip. "Sure and I don't understand what it is you 're saying? "
Bram smiled briefly, then mimicked her speech, prolongating every vowel somehow exaggeratedly "Sure and I don't understand..." He raised his eyebrows (Grace O'Malley, p. 64).
Grace has some defects in her pronunciation, in addition she uses inappropriate colloquialisms. Bram teasingly criticizes the girl's speech imitating it in a hyperbolized manner: the teaser intentionally prolongs the vowels as Grace does. The teaser's kinesics, namely his smiling points out that teasing takes place. The teasing
utterance violates the maxim of quantity and relevance as it does not give the answer to the target's question.
Pragmatically, the teaser's utterance can be classified as a constative. Implicitly, the speech act contains the illocutionary force of derision. This allows us to regard the teasing mimicry to be an effective tool for pointing out the target's communicative deviations.
The next type of teasing mimicry elucidates the case where the teaser mocks the target by exploiting a certain verbal element of the latter's utterance and putting it in another context. The ambiguous meaning of a lexical or syntactic unit is an inevitable condition for the realization of mimicry in the interactive process. The teaser changes the primary meaning of the lexical or syntactic unit and activates another meaning of it. In this case the literal meaning of the target's utterance is replaced by the teaser's meaning. Here we can observe the contrast between the teaser's and target's utterances again: the teasing utterance acquires a humorous character in contrast to the meaning of the target's utterance. By doing this the teaser gives a new interpretation to the target's utterance. Hyperbole becomes the crucial feature of the teaser's utterance generating absurdity out of his/her message and producing a humorous effect. Such teasing aims to mock the target and point out the incorrectness of his/her thought (the exception is the case of social play where the teasing mimicry is to satisfy the phatic function and the communicators derive pleasure from such interaction. Let us study the following example:
(8) "He [Nathan] glanced over at the pool. It was inviting and tempting, but so was sitting doing nothing. "Go ahead. The idea of changing into a suit seems too complicated."
"Who needs a suit?" To prove a point, she [Jackie] rose and shimmied out of her shorts.
"Jack..."
"Jack Daniels will do!" she said mimicking his tone. The thin bikinis she wore joined her shorts" (Loving Jack, p. 94).
The teasing utterance is based on the semantic ambiguity of the word 'Jack'. It is the woman's name and the name of a well-known alcohol brand. The target produces the speech act of address. The teaser does not react to the utterance as to the address but teasingly interprets it as an invitation to drink alcohol. The intention of the teaser is revealed by her intonation which imitates the target's one. The teaser aims at mocking the puritanical qualities of the target and pretends not to understand when the young man is trying to calm her. The contrast between the teaser's and target's utterances lies in the fact that the target's utterance contains the illocutionary force of precaution and the teaser's utterance contains the illocutionary force of teasing. Here we can observe the violation of the four Gricean cooperative maxims. Besides, such intentional misunderstanding is an effective tactic for the achievement of a certain goal by the addresser.
The next type of mimicry takes place when the teaser imitates the intonation of the target's speech. The teaser mocks the target, modifying the teaser's utterance with the help of hyperbolized intonation. Let us examine the following example:
(9) "And how many real men have you known? "
"You'll be surprised. "
"I bet I would. "
"Plenty, " she said confidently.
"Areyou sure?"
"Yeah, I'm sure, " she said imitating his voice, her brown eyes throwing out a challenge.
He laughed. "You 're a nutcase" (Deadly Embrace, p. 207).
The girl is the producer of the teasing utterance which imitates the target's voice. The teaser provocatively hints at her success among admirers and mocks the doubt of her interlocutor. The speech act of agreement 'Yeah, I'm sure' is a combination of an assertive and expressive: the addresser emotionally confirms the truthfulness of her words. Here we can observe the cooccurrence of two illocutionary forces in the same speech act: the expression of emotional attitude to the target's words and presentation of factual information. Teasing lies in the imitation of the target's voice. The imitation of the voice influences the semantics of the utterance by signalling the teasing intention of the addresser. The mimicry is successful as far as the perlo-cutionary effect is achieved: the target laughs.
Conclusions
To conclude teasing is characterized by the following features: dialogical nature, provocation, playfulness, the availability of verbal and non-verbal contextual markers, the combination of aggression, humour and ambiguity.
Mimicry is one of the types of teasing which aims at imitating the target's speech behaviour in the exaggerated way. By doing this the teaser intends to ridicule and point out the norm violations committed by the target.
It is worth mentioning that teasing as a type of joking behaviour which greatly depends on linguistic and extralinguistic context. Context is the factor which can completely modify a speech act of teasing changing it from aggressive into friendly and vice versa.
The obtained data can serve the platform for further studies of the platform under discussion.
References
1. Abrahams, R., 'Playing the Dozens', Journal of American Folklore, vol. 75, 1962, pp. 209-220.
2. Boxer D., and F. Cortes-Conde, 'From Bonding and Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display', Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 23, 1997, pp. 275-295.
3. Chkhetiani, T., 'Lingvisticheskie Aspekty Faticheskoy Metakommunikatsii', Ph. D. Thesis, Kyiv National Linguistic University, 1987. [In Russion]
4. Chkhetiani, T. 'Ukrainian Nicknames in Schoolchildren's Discourse: Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives', Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, series "Philology", vol.12, no. 2, 2009, pp. 137-141.
5. Drew, P. 'Po-Faced Receipts of Teases', Linguistics, vol. 25, 1987, pp. 219-253.
6. Eder, D., 'Go Get Ya a French!': Romantic and Sexual Teasing among Adolescent Girls', in D.
Tannen, (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 17-31.
7. Eisenberg, A. and Garvey C., 'Children's Use of Verbal Strategies in Resolving Conflicts', Discourse Processes, vol. 4, 1981, pp. 149-170.
8. Farrington, D., 'Understanding and Preventing Bullying', Crime and Justice, vol. 17, 1993, pp. 381-458.
9. Fill, A., 'Divided Illocution' in Conversational and Other Situations and Some of Its Implications', Interactional Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1986, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 17-34.
10. Goffman, E., Frame Analysis: An Essey on the Organization of experience, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1974.
11. Gumperz, J., 'Contextualization and Understanding', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, (ed.), Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 229-52.
12. Leech, G., Semantics: The Study of Meaning, 2nd edition, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1981.
13. Hay, J., 'Only Teasing!', New Zealand English Newsletter, vol. 9, 1995, pp. 32-35.
14. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A., Young, R., and E. Heerey, 'Just Teasing: A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Review', Psychological Bulletin, vol.127, 2001, pp. 229-248.
15. Keltner, D., Young, R., and E. Heerey, 'Teasing in Hierarchical and Intimate Relations', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.75, 1998, pp. 1231-1247.
16. Kotthoff, H., 'Responding to Irony in Different Contexts: On Cognition in Conversation', Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 35, 2003, pp. 1387-1411.
17. Lampert M., and S. Ervin-Tripp, 'Risky Laugher: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking among Male and Female Friends', Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 38, 2006, pp. 51-72.
18. Miller, P., 'Teasing as Language Socialization and Verbal Play in a White Working Class Community', in B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs, (ed.), Language Socialization across Cultures: Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 199-212.
19. Norrick, N., Conversation Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1994.
20. Partington, A., 'Teasing at the White House: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Face Work in Performing and Responding to Teases', Text and Talk, vol. 28, 2008, pp. 771 - 792.
21. Radcliffe-Brown, A., 'On Joking Relationships', Africa, vol. 13, 1940, pp. 195-210.
22. Sacks H., and E. Schegloff, 'Opening up Closings', Semiotica, vol. 8, 1973, pp. 289-327.
23. Shapiro, J., Baumeister R., and Kessler, J., 'Three-Component Model of Children's Teasing: Aggression, Humor, and Ambiguity', Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 10, 1991, pp. 459-472.
24. Susov, I., Pragmalinguistics, Vinnitsa, Nova Knyga, 2009. [In Russion]
25. Barnes, J., The Sense of an Ending, New York, Random House, 2011.
26. Collins, J., Deadly Embrace, Pocket Books, 2004.
27. Conroy, P., The Prince of Tides, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.
28. Daily, J., Sweet Promise, Open Road Media Romance, 2014.
29. Lindsey, J., Tender is the Storm, Avon, HarperCollins Publishers, 1985.
30. Moore, A., Grace O'Malley, NAL Trade, 2001.
31. Roberts, N., Loving Jack, InterMix, 1989.
32. Weisberger, L., The Devil Wears Prada, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
33. Wishinsky, F., Dimples Delight, Washington, Orca Echoes, 2005.
ДИНАМ1ЧН1 ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКИ МОВЛЕННСВО1 ПОВЕД1НКИ 1РЛАНДЦ1В
Бубнов Д.В.
Нацюнальний утверситет «Одеська юридична академ1я». Викладач. Астрант кафедри теоретичног i прикладной фонетики англшськог мови Одеського нацюнального
утверситету iменi 1.1. Мечникова
DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IRISH SPEECH BEHAVIOR
Bubnov D.
National University «Odessa Law Academy». Tutor. Post graduate student of Odessa National University Phonetics Department.
Анотащя
Дослвджения присвячено визначенню просодичних особливостей мовлення iрландцiв. Динашчний компонент просоди е маркером вшово! та гендерно! диференщаци iрландськоi мовленнево! поведшки. Ва-рiативний характер динамiчних особливостей, зокрема особливосл максимумiв штенсивносл на рiзних дшянках штонацшного контуру, зумовлено з одного боку неоднорщним характером iнтегральних процесiв всередиш кра!ни, а з iншого - особливостями жшочо! та чоловiчоi' мовленнево! поведiнки.
Abstract
The investigation is dedicated to defining prosodic peculiarities of Irish speech. Dynamic component of prosody is the marker of age and gender Irish speech behavior differentiation. The variable character of dynamic characteristics, in particular peculiarities of maximum intensity localization on different parts of intonation contour is conditioned, on the one hand by inhomogeneous character of integrational process within the country and on the other hand, by peculiarities of male and female speech behavior.
Ключов1 слова: динашчний компонент, мовленнева поведшка, максимум штенсивносл, просодичш особливосл.
Keywords: dynamic component, speech behavior, maximum intensity, prosodic peculiarities.
Дослвдження соцюлшгвютичних аспеклв фун-кцюнування англшсько! мови в 1рланди передбачае використання комплексного щдходу, який охоплюе питання, пов'язаш з аналiзом мовно! ситуацii в 1р-ландii, а також з проведенням акустичних досль джень просодичних характеристик (зокрема дина-мiчних) у мовленш iрландцiв.
Дослiдження особливостей функцiонування англшсько! мови на територii' Iрландii з урахуван-ням соцiальних факторiв, таких як тендер i вiк ш-формантiв, е невiд'емною частиною соцюлшгваль-ного аналiзу, що застосовуеться при опис мовних ситуацiй. Мовна ситуащя в Пiвнiчнiй 1рландп хара-ктеризуеться наявшстю двомовностi i диглосп. У свггт дослiджень особливостей функцiонування англшсько! мови в 1рландп актуальним уявляеться вислiв А. Д. Швейцера про те, що мовна ситуащя, бшнгизм i диглосiя е рiзнi аспекти i форми функ-цiонування сощально-комушкативних систем, якi складаються в результат взаемодii труп людей, якi вiдрiзняються етнiчною i соцiальною приналежш-стю. Таким чином, дослвдження етшчно].' i сощаль-но! приналежностi мовно! стльноти 1рландп е до-цiльним в процеа аналiзу мовно! ситуацii в репош.
За основне значения поняття мовно! ситуацii у на-шш роботi ми приймаемо визначення А. Д. Швейцера: «совокупность форм существования языка (языков, территориальных и социальных диалектов), обслуживающих континуум общения в определенной этнической общности или административно-территориальном объединении» [Швейцер 481-482].
Внесок у розробку аспеклв варiативностi сощ-альних i територiальних дiалектiв Велико! Британп зробили Т. I. Шевченко, О. Л. Присяжнюк, P. Trudgill, J. Wells та ш. Завдяки зусиллям вчених визначеш основнi структурнi вiдмiнностi дiалектiв i варiантiв, позначенi меж! !х поширення, видiленi актуальнi тенденци розвитку. Принципи типолопч-но! класифiкацii акценлв англiйськоi мови, запро-поноваиi Дж. Уеллсом [Wells] та П. Традгшлом на-разi мають мiжиародне визнання i використову-ються у пропонованш робол при опиа варiативностi просоди в мовленш мешканщв 1рла-ндп.
Результати соцiолiнгвальних дослiджень, як! проводились П. Л. Генр^ Дж. Едвардсом, Л.
