ABSTRACT
The perception of humor, including teasing, with regard to politeness has changed dramatically over the past few decades, as the traditional conceptualization of politeness undertaken in the spirit of linguistic universals (Lakoff, 1973; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983) has gradually given way to a new understanding inspired by the insights of social theory (Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003; Locher & Watts, 2005; 2008). Current models reject the essentialist and prescriptive treatment of politeness as “formal diplomatic protocol” that speakers follow in order to refrain from overt aggression (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 1), advancing instead the notion of rapport management, which embraces all types of verbal behavior, not only pro-social (cooperative and polite) but also antagonistic and conflictual (Eelen, 2001; cf., Culpeper, 1996; Kienpointner, 1997; Locher & Watts, 2008), and the whole spectrum of subjective judgments that “people make about the social appropriateness of verbal and nonverbal behavior” (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, p. 97). Instead of focusing on individual face wants (Brown & Levinson, 1987), new studies approach verbal interaction as a moment-to-moment performance of affiliative and disaffiliative stances by participants who are engaged in the mutual construction of interpersonal relationships (Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003; Terkourafi, 2005; 2015; Bousfield, 2008; Arundale, 2010; Haugh, 2013). Echoing works in sociology and social anthropology, new studies view verbal behavior as a social practice that increases or decreases relational capital while promoting or impeding social conjunction (Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003; Locher & Watts, 2005). Attention to the situated and co-constructed nature of (im)politeness shifts the emphasis from the speaker’s intentions to the hearer’s reception of the message. Similarly, the context of the interaction, both local and global, becomes more prominent as interactants attend to a host of linguistic and paralinguistic data, including shared knowledge and beliefs (Clark, 1996) as well as behavioral expectations—e.g., contractual/legal agreements, behavioral conventions, and interactional principles similar to conversational maxims (Spencer-Oatey, 2005).
