Cover not available

In:The Pragmatics of Irony and Banter
Edited by Manuel Jobert and Sandrine Sorlin
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 30] 2018
► pp. 141–164

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 8
The point of banter in the television show Pointless

 | Aix Marseille Univ, LERMA, Aix-en-Provence, France
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.30.08pil
Abstract
This paper explores banter within the television quiz show Pointless . Building on previous theories of banter, I suggest that the composite nature of the phenomenon can usefully be analysed within an interactional pragmatic model, such as that proposed by Lecercle (1999). Using this model to analyse various episodes of Pointless , I seek to demonstrate that banter is created within a dynamic interpersonal process. I focus on the sequential interaction between speaker and the various hearers involved in the exchange, as opposed to isolated utterances. I propose that any analysis of banter needs not only to study the linguistic aspects of a series of utterances, but also the sociocultural context and the encyclopaedic knowledge that each participant brings to the exchange.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining banter
  • 3.Theories on banter
  • 4. Banter within an interactional pragmatic framework
  • 5. Banter and Pointless
  • 6.The actants in the process of banter
    • 6.1Interaction between speaker(s) and hearer(s)
    • 6.2From dyadic relations to multiple participants
    • 6.3Reacting to banter
    • 6.4Language and encyclopaedia
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Bousfield, Derek. 2007. Never a truer word said in jest. A pragmalinguistic analysis of impoliteness as banter in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I. In Contemporary Stylistics, Marina Lambrou & Peter Stockwell (eds), 209–220. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 167]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boxer, Diana & Cortés-Conde, Florencia. 1997. From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987[1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn & Wearing, Catherine. 2015. Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 79–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: “The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in TheoryMiriam A. Locher & Derek Bousfield (eds), 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Haugh, Michael & Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2017. (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In The Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness, Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Kádár (eds), 325–356. Houndmills: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dews, Shelly & Winner, Ellen. 1997. Attributing meaning to deliberately false utterances. In The Problem of Meaning Behavioural and Cognitive Perspectives, Charlotte Mandell & Allyssa McCabe (eds), 377–414. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1987. Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25: 219–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2008. No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4(2): 241–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010a. Friend or foe? Chandler’s humour from the metarecipient’s perspective. In Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics 2009, Vol. II: Pragmatics of Semantically Restricted Domains, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka (ed.), 175–205. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. MediAzioni 9. <[URL]> Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011a. “You talking to me?” The viewer as ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1628–1644. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. I’ll be there for you: On participation-based sitcom humour. In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 210], Marta Dynel (ed.), 311–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Setting our house in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research 8: 161–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta & Sinkeviciute Valeria. 2017. Approaching conversational humour culturally: A survey of the emerging area of investigation. Language & Communication 55: 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2000. Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 347–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, Aubrey B. & Adams, Katherine L. 1994. Interpersonal Communication. Pragmatics of Human Relationships. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Kate. 2004. Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London: Hodder.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2009. Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English. Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(1): 29–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual Essays on Face to Face Behavior. New York NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Replies and responses. Forms of Talk, 5–77. Philadelphia PA: University of Philadelphia Press (Originally published as Goffman, Erving. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257-313).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas, J. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 183–198. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation and face. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2106–2119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Bousfield, Derek. 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1099–1114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heerey, Erin A., Capps, Lisa, Keltzer, Dacher & Kring, Ann M. 2005. Understanding teasing: Lessons from children with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33(1): 55–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2006. Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 26–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Schnurr, Stephanie 2005. Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 121–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Talk and Social Organisation, Graham Button & John Lee (eds), 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joly, André & O’Kelly, Dairine. 1989. Analyse linguistique des textes anglais. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Marta. 2010. Banter – a case of phatic communication? In In the Mind and across Minds: A Relevance-theoretic Perspective on Communication and Translation, Ewa Walaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk & Agnieszka Piskorska (eds), 188–223. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lecercle, Jean-Jacques. 1999. Interpretation as Pragmatics. New York NY: St. Martin’s Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2015. Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 5–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Bousfield, Derek (eds). 2008. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington MA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Rod A., Puhlik-Doris, Patricia, Larsen, Gwen, Gray, Jeanette & Weir, Kelly. 2003. Individual differences in uses of humour and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humour Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37: 48–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal. 1993. Conversational Joking. Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9): 1727–1739. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nowik, Ewa Karolina. 2005. Politeness of the impolite: Relevance theory, politeness and banter. In Relevance Studies in Poland, Vol. 2, Aniela Korzeniowska & Małgorzata Grzegorzewka (eds), 157–166. Warszawa: The Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Banter – An attempt at a relevance-theoretic account. In Relevant Worlds: Current perspectives on Language, Translation and Relevance Theory, Ewa Walaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Aniela Korzeniowska & Małgorzata Grzegorzewka (eds), 105–118. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plester, Barbara A. & Sayers, Janet Grace. 2007. “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research 20(2): 157–187.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1940. On joking relationships. Journal of the International African Institute 13(3): 195–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinkevicuite, Valeria. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Funniness and “the preferred reaction” to jocularity in Australian and British English. An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language and Communication 55: 41–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slugoski, Ben R. & Turnbull, William. 1988. Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 101–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Culturally Speaking. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Culturally Speaking, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 11–47. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
, 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Locher & Bousfield (eds), 45–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. & Kintsch, Walter. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vergis, Nikos. 2015. The interplay of pragmatic inference, face and emotion. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rivers, Damian J. & Andrew S. Ross
2021. “This channel has more subs from rival fans than Arsenal fans”: Arsenal Fan TV, football fandom and banter in the new media era. Sport in Society 24:6 ► pp. 867 ff. DOI logo
Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue