Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

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

Banter reframed

Toward a new analytical framework for understanding conversational humor types

ORCiD logo with link | University of La Rioja
Published online: 16 May 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00222.err
Abstract
This article discusses banter by combining insights from previous work on pragmatics and discourse with recent developments in figurative language use within Cognitive Linguistics. Drawing on an initial corpus of examples from TV series scripts, this study connects observed usage patterns to prior conversational work on banter types. It then accounts for these patterns through an examination of their pragmatic functions and of such cognitive operations as echoing and contrast, which cooperate with well-known discourse-oriented cognitive mechanisms like frameshifting and reframing. Banter is pragmatically defined in terms of pretended impoliteness and speaker’s pretended distancing from pre-established assumptions in what has been termed second-order dissociation. This phenomenon is revisited here through the lens of cognitive modeling, highlighting its role in humor creation and relational bonding. This characteristic is analytically related to the previous usage patterns and their cognitive motivation. Finally, a distinction is introduced between attribute-based and scenario-based banter. The former is further subdivided, according to communicative function, into other-directed, self-directed, and mixed banter. The latter involves mental simulations of pretendedly disparaging humor, where participants either contribute to the simulation or try to outdo one another. This classification improves on earlier taxonomies by grounding banter types in identifiable cognitive-pragmatic patterns, offering a more systematic and explanatory account of the phenomenon.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The socio-pragmatic foundations of banter
  • 3.Cognitive mechanisms underpinning banter
  • 4.Methodological framework
  • 5.Usage patterns in banter
    • 5.1Contestive banter: Cognitive tension through frameshifting
    • 5.2Collaborative banter: Shared scenarios, reframing, and joint meaning-making
  • 6.The dual nature of banter
    • 6.1Humor and affection
    • 6.2Mock derogation and playful criticism
  • 7.Banter types
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Conversation analysis: humor in conversation I, The linguistics of humor: An introduction (Oxford Academic, online edn, 17 Sept. 2020). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G. (2012). Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 463–504). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2008). Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
(2018b). Irony, Deception and Humour: Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul, Korea: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. E. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery, and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1099–1114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodges, A. (2015). Intertextuality in discourse. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd. ed). (pp. 42–60). Malden, MA: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 26–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iza Erviti, A. (2021). Discourse constructions in English: Meaning, form, and hierarchies. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1231–1247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (1996). Impoliteness and conversational humour. Folia Linguistica, 301, 299–327.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Oral genres of humor: On the dialectic of genre knowledge and creative authoring. Pragmatics, 171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linares-Bernabéu, E. (Ed.) (2023). The pragmatics of humour in interactive contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lozano Palacio, I. (2023). A multidimensional approach to echoing: categories, uses, and types. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 210–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandon, N. (1998). Simulating ignorance. Irony and banter on Congreve’s stage. In M. Jobert & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of irony and banter (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Simulating ignorance: Irony and banter on Congreve’s stage. In M. Jobert & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of irony and banter (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña Cervel, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2022). Figuring out figuration. A cognitive-linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plester, B. A., & Sayers, J. (2007). Taking the piss: Functions of banter in the IT industry. HUMOR, 20(2), 157–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, W. B., & Coursol, D. H. (1996). Strategies for intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 301, 204–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and grammar-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Irony and cognitive operations. En R. Gibbs & H. L. Colston (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of irony and thought (pp. 38–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2020). The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2017). The pragmatics of humor in a serious story. ELUA, 311, 311–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue