j0mllld~

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

From bonding to biting:

Conversational joking and identity display
Diana Boxer, Florencia Cort6s-Conde*
Program in Linguistics, University 6f Florida, 112 Anderson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Received July 1995, revised version February 1996

Abstract

Teasing and joking are instruments by which social control is exerted and through which
social identity is displayed. Situational humor, or conversational joking - especially teasing -
has been seen as a double-edged sword that both diffuses and controls conflict. Little atten-
tion has been given, though, to the bonding role of joking. Through an ethnography of speak-
ing approach, we examine conversational joking among interlocutors in two different speech
communities. The data shows that there are two types of moves in joking: one that is directed
at a participant in the conversation, laaving the potential of biting; the other that is directed at
an absent other, having the potential of bonding. We compare types of situational humor with
particular attention to interlocutor variables, Joking used to perform social identity is most
strongly determined by the gender of participants and social distance between them. Conver-
sational joking does not act only as. a means of social control and identity display, but also
functions to develop a relational identity among participants.

I. Introduction

It is axiomatic that conversational humor is a highly valued verbal art across

societies. Indeed, in much of western civilization, humor is an essential ingredient
of everyday interaction and of ,;ocialization. While conversational joking has been
studied by various linguists over the past two decades (e.g. Phillips, 1973; Davies,
1986; Straehle, 1993; Norrick, 1994; Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 1994; Kotthoff, 1996)
and across cultures and ethnic groups (e.g. Schieffelin, 1986; Miller, 1986; Eisen-
berg, 1986), there has been little attempt to sort out the factors that contribute to the
functions of joking and teasing in social interaction. We do so in this article.
First, we draw a distinction between conversational joking (CJ), or situational
humor, and joke telling (JT). We then attempt to disambiguate that which is ordinar-
ily referred to as 'joking' from 'teasing'. Where does word play fit in? What are the
functions and outcomes of verbal interactions that involve joking, teasing and word

* Tel.: +1 (352) 392-2070; Fax: +1 (352) 392-8480; E-mail: fcc@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu

0378-2166/97/$17.00 Copyright © 199'7Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S0378-2166(96)00031-8
276 D. Bo.~er. F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

play? Are these culture-specific? Which of these activities leads to stronger bonds
between participants and which serve as negatively-tinged behaviors that function to
alienate interlocutors from each other? In this study we focus on situational humor
as a means for analyzing the way identity is displayed and how relationships are
affirmed and reaffirmed through such display. We assert that an even more impor-
tant part of CJ can be not only the display but also the development of a relational
identity among participants which leads to a sense of membership in a group. In so
doing, we take into account various approaches to the concept of identity display and
development, including "performed social identity" (Erickson and Schultz, 1983),
and positioning (Hamilton, 1995). We will show that conversational joking, when it
involves teasing, functions on a continuum that ranges from bonding to nipping to
biting. This study, then, focuses on CJ in its various forms and discusses in detail the
myriad types of activity it engenders, the sociolinguistic variables that condition its
use in ordinary social conversation, and the varied outcomes of the speech genre. We
offer here a first look at CJ across two speech communities, one North American (in
Philadelphia, US) and one South American (in Buenos Aires, Argentina).

2. Method

This study takes an ethnography of speaking approach to the data collection and
analysis. The data consists largely of transcribed sequences of audio-taped conversa-
tions among interlocutors of varying relationships in the above two cities. A small
portion of the data was derived from field notes.
The data was collected through participant-observation; it was not originally col-
lected with the intention to study joking as a speech behavior but merely as samples
of spontaneous speech for comparison across the communities. Conversational jok-
ing as a salient speech activity emerged from the analysis. As members of the
respective speech communities, we used our in-group knowledge in locating occur-
rences of situational humor. 2 Twenty-two sequences from each data set were
selected as representing the types of CJ present in everyday talk.
Conversational settings in these two large urban communities include homes,
restaurants and bars, stores, and gyms. Interlocutor relationships vary from family
members to friends and acquaintances to strangers, with most being status equals.
Ages vary from thirty to mid forties. Both genders are represented; however, there
are fewer male-to-male transcriptions than other gender combinations. This is no
doubt due to the gender of the researchers. Notwithstanding, part of the ethnography

Length of audio-tapes ranged from ten-minute segments to longer, two-hour conversations from
which joking sequences were taken. Asterisks in the transcription represent segments that were inaudi-
ble. Periods in parentheses indicate partial deletion of segments of the transcription that were not rele-
vant to the analysis of situational humor.
"The insights one has into one's native language and into the behaviorwithin one's own speech com-
munity permits a level of analysis which is far deeper than that which can be reached in other field sites"
(Schneider, 1968: vi).
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conae / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 277

of speaking approach taken here stems from field notes taken on observations of
varying gender combinations in face-to-face interactions.

3. Conversational joking and 'joke-telling'

Conversational joking is clearly a different speech activity from joke telling. Joke
telling is a highly conventionalized and socially bound speech behavior; CJ or situ-
ational humor is a play frame created by the participants, with a backdrop of in-
group knowledge, encompassing not only verbal features but also suprasegmentals
and non-verbal communication. In situational humor 'being there' becomes a very
important part of 'getting it'. In joke telling the cues are highly formalized and
socially marked. The cue is often an introductory statement such as "listen to this
funny one", or, "I've got a good one, let me see if I can remember it". In CJ, how-
ever, creating the play frame is fundamental, since the humor not only emerges in
the situation itself but from the appropriate cues that make it a laughing matter.
There are no set formulae to clearly indicate the play frame. We can see this in the
following example from a conversation in Argentina (English translation follows):

(1) Family setting: Andr6s is married to Ana; Silvia is the sister of Andr6s. There
is a silent other, the husband of Silvia.
AndrOs: Lo que pasa es que compr6 una camisa de poplin.
Ana: LDe qu6 color? (...)
AndrOs: [Azul] LTe acord~is la que me habla comprado yo, y la que les habfamos
comprado a ellos? Mils oscuro (...)
Silvia: LY los zapatos?
AndrOs: Verde, tipo marejada.
Ana: No, no conmigo no vas a salir ***
AndrOs: Era una belleza, ***
Ana: En serio, me est~is *** (...). Me est~is jodiendo.
AndrOs: Me querfa, me querfa vender una lila, pero le dije no, una lila no quiero.
Me parece sucia.
Silvia: [laughter]
Ana: LQu6 quer6s que te diga? Hubiera preferido lila antes que azul.

Translation:
AndrOs: What happened is that I bought a poplin shirt.
Ana: What color?
AndrOs: [Blue] Do you remember the one I had bought, and the one that I had
bought for them? Darker.
Silvia: And the shoes?
AndrOs: Green, heavy sea surge style.
Ana: I'm not going out with you!
AndrOs: It's a beauty.
Ana: Are you serious, you're ***. You're pulling my leg.
278 D. Boxer, F. CortOs-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

AndrOs: S h e wanted to sell m e a lilac one, but I said, I d o n ' t want a lilac one, it
s e e m s dirty.
Silvia: [laughter]
Ana: Frankly, I would have preferred lilac instead of blue.

A shared schema is necessary to understand the underlying possible conflict in

this interaction. Color combination is an important component of defining good taste
in Argentine society as in other communities; 3 thus, what are considered to be inap-
propriate color combinations can be a point of conflict. In this segment, Andr6s does
not give the needed play frame cues that would diffuse the issue of the color of the
shirt. Ana will not be seen with a man who is willing to show bad taste in public; but
is her husband really such a man, or is this threat just part of ' p l a y ' ? The unlikely
comparison of the green of the shoes to the exaggerated phrase 'heavy sea surge
style', seems to indicate that this is CJ. But when Ana answers in a teasing tone,
Andr6s plays 'straight m a n ' and ignores her need for a disclaimer. Thus, at the end
of the segment she seems to interpret the exchange as a possible conflict - Frankly,
1 would have preferred lilac. The intonation pattern of this utterance signals annoy-
ance. Silvia, on the other hand, seems to interpret the frame as 'play', as is attested
by her laughter. The question is whether Andr6s is exaggerating to tease his wife, or
is he introducing the theme to annoy her and create conflict? In other words, this
might not be a joking matter.
As this example shows, the need for a clear play frame is as necessary in CJ as in
joke telling, but intentional or unintentional ambiguity due to a lack of highly con-
ventionalized means for signalling the 'play' frame can be problematic. In joke
telling one might not get the joke, but there is no doubt as to the intent of the speech
genre; in CJ, not getting it might result in a possible conflict. Misunderstandings
and/or misfires are, thus, more likely and imply increased risk beyond the level of
loss of face. 4

4. Types of conversational joking

We consider joking and teasing as two very distinct activities, despite the fact that
the distinction between them in the existing literature remains murky. Joking is often
viewed as a superordinate genre encompassing teasing, word play, and such verbal
devices as sarcasm and mockery. Such is Norrick's (1993) view of CJ. We assert
that joking differs from teasing in important ways that have the potential to lead to
differing outcomes in a conversational exchange.

3 Chambers (1995) notes that class although perceived as a function of occupation can also be
"expressed by certain non-essential traits such as style of dress (going well beyond traditional work
clothes) and also manners, recreation, entertainment, and tastes in the broadest senses" (1995: 37).
4 Appropriate teasing and joking is culture-specific. In many communities or groups joking about God
or using profanity in word play might be construed as offensive, in others not. Thus, knowing what one
can joke about and how far one can go with the joke is an essential part of being good at conversational
joking.
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 279

Much of the existing research on the subject has focused on teasing as a means of
socialization (particularly of children) and has concentrated on its inherent ambigu-
ity as a means of social control (e.g. Eisenberg, 1986; Miller, 1986; Schieffelin,
1986). In her study of Kaluli society, Schieffelin discusses teasing and shaming as
related speech genres that function as a means to socialize children in the art of
manipulating others in order to obtain what one needs and wants. Eisenberg states
that teasing works as a means of social control precisely because of the inherent
ambiguity that either allows someone to play along by teasing back or to feel shamed
by a lack of understanding of the play frame. Miller also captures this ambiguity in
her consideration of teasing as "the ability to stand up for oneself, to speak up in
anger, and to fight if necessary" (1980: 200). Since it is not the intention of these
studies to delineate the differences between teasing and other types of humorous
interactions, they analyze teasing as a speech genre in its own right.
In our study, teasing emerges as one of three humorous speech genres, the other
two being (2) joking about an absent other; and (3) self-denigrating joking. In dis-
tinguishing these three types of CJ we take into account the recipient and object of
the joke as important parameters. Given our definition, only teasing can bite or nip,
since this activity must be direcl:ed at a participant. On the other hand, joking and
self-denigration can bond without intentional biting. In this bonding relationality is
developed.

4.1. Teasing

Teasing requires that the conversational joking be directed at someone present.

This person is either the addressee or a hearer and becomes the center of an interac-
tion in which a humorous frame has been set up. Teasing runs along a continuum of
bonding to nipping to biting. Because this is a continuum, these constructs are not
mutually exclusive and the boundaries are not always clear. As with all talk, much
depends on the identification of context, and indeed the exact message cannot be
interpreted without encoding/decoding the metamessage. This metamessage can be
"made apparent, either by a di,;claimer ... or by the use of contextualization cues,
such as exaggerated intonation., laughs, or winks" (Eisenberg, 1986: 184). Thus,
"the playful nip denotes the bite, but it does not denote what would be denoted by
the bite" (Bateson, 1987: 180). On the other hand, if the tease is not accompanied
by appropriate cues, it can actu~dly bite. 5 There are clear cases of teasing that bonds
without a nip or bite; clear cases of teasing that bites and that therefore does not
bond; and less clear cases where a bite can actually serve to bond (e.g. among inti-
mates). Each of these cases depends heavily on shared schema. "Teasing creates ten-
sion, as one is never completely sure which way an interaction might swing, owing

5 The intention might actually be one of disguised aggression. In fact, teasing is frequently used as a
form of releasing aggression in a non-threatening way among intimates and in a threatening way among
interlocutors who are status unequals as a show of power. We will not deal with this aspect of teasing
here, since it has been amply studied in Miller (1986), Eisenberg (1986), Schieffelin (1986), and Straehle
(1993).
280 D. Boxer, F. CortOs-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

to the unstable nature of many of the teasing frames" (Schieffelin, 1986: 167). An
example from the North American data illustrates the possible nip:

(2) Family setting: Bob: male who is ill; Molly: female friend; Denise: wife of
Bob.
Bob: I walk at the edge of the envelope, every day. I wake up, "I am still here." And
then I continue on, I push myself out of bed. I thank God. You become religious.
Molly: Well, I'll tell you, you've gotta change your perspective on things a little bit.
Bob: Of course you do. I was telling [Denise] my perspective is deeply changed.
Now I have to help others who have the disease.
Denise: You don't have enough energy to help anybody right now.

The couple in the above sequence uses teasing in the place of quarreling as a reg-
ular part of their verbal interaction. In this specific case, Bob has had a long illness
and has not been able to do much in terms of household activities. The fact that there
is an audience, Molly, contributes to the play frame for diffusing a potentially con-
flictive situation. The nip is inherent in the statement that Bob cannot help others if
he does not have any energy to help his wife. It is a nip rather than a bite. "Teasing
and shaming [can be attempts] to inhibit or change a person's actions as well as con-
vey a particular affective message about the relationship of those individuals
involved and an audience or potential audience of family, peers and community"
(Schieffelin, 1986: 166). In teasing, speakers often wish to reconcile attempts to
change behavior with maintaining existing bonds with their interlocutors, particu-
larly with intimates. Suprasegmentals and non-verbal features of the interaction are
important cues that distinguish whether the tease is one that bonds, nips or bites.
Given different contextualization cues (e.g. lack of audience, intonational contours,
stress), the nip could be a bite. Clearly, a shared schema is essential in the uptake.

4.2. Joking about absent others

(3) Chatting at home: Two close female friends.

Bonnie: Back problems are the scourge of modem man.
Cheryl: The spine is just ill designed
Bonnie: Exactly. We're not supposed to ...
Cheryl: LM. Pei [noted architect] must have designed it.

We consider joking any type of verbal activity that creates a play frame, but does
not make any of the participants in the conversation the center of the playing. Indeed
in aiming the humor at an absent other party or parties, the interlocutors, joker and
hearers, unite in a clear bond. Thus joking is safer than teasing. There is less ambi-
guity and the bond is clearer.
We consider word play as a sub-category of this type of joking. The topic, or the
form that the word play takes, can constitute a type of bonding against another rep-
resented in the words chosen with which to play. Hill (1993) considers the use of
junk Spanish - terms such as 'No problemo' and 'Hasta la vista, Baby' - as a form
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 281

of word play used against a threatening other (in this case the Chicano community).
This form of word play can also be used to diffuse a conflictive and threatening
situation such as that of migration. Moyna (1994), studied word play among a
small, expatriate Uruguayan community in Gainesville, Florida, finding such exam-
ples as:

(4) "Vengo de la Infiernary" (I'm coming from the infirmary).

The play on words is from 'infierno' meaning 'hell'. The equation of the university
infirmary with hell is a comment on the US health care system. Another play on
words in Moyna's data was:

"Gailesbiano", (Gay/lesbian)

This was intended to refer to a resident of Gainesville, instead of using the more
appropriate translation "Gainesvileano".
The absent other(s) are those who are not members of this expatriate community.
As such, the word play functions to create a special in-group terminology that bonds
the participants and unites them against the 'others'. While other speakers of Span-
ish within the larger community would have an understanding of the terminology,
the special meaning created by the in-group could only be appreciated by those who
created it. From this perspective then, we view word play as subsumed by joking.

4.3. Self-denigrating humor, or self-teasing

Another category in our taxonomy is self-denigrating humor. It consists of any

play-activity that makes the speaker the center of the verbal playing. The speaker
and referent are one and the same and the put down must be initiated by the speaker.
Self-denigrating humor can fall under the rubric of griping (Boxer, 1993a), as shown
in the following example.

(5) Two female strangers in swimming pool:

Ann: What is this supposed to work on, your legs, stomach?
Barb: Your legs mostly. I don't think it does much for the stomach.
Ann: Oh, I'm not interested in the thighs. They,re beyond hope.
Barb: I've gained five pounds since I started swimming five years ago.

By complaining about one's own physical, emotional or intellectual shortcomings,

speakers show themselves self-effacing, allowing the addressee to perceive them as
approachable.
Norrick (1993) explored the use of self-denigrating jokes to present positive self-
images:
"Funny personal anecdotes end up presenting a positive self-imagerather than a negative one.... they
convey a so-called sense of humor, which counts as a virtue in our society.They present a self with an
ability to laugh at problems and overcomethem - again an admirablecharacter trait. So apparentlyself-
282 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

effacing personal anecdotes redound to conversational rapport and positive face for the teller in several
ways at once." (1993: 47)

Thus, self-denigrating humor is one of the three categories of conversational joking.

These involve, respectively, (1) a verbal play that is directed towards an absent third
person (or group) or, (2) a present participant; alternatively, (3) it is self-directed.
Joking and self-denigrating humor are safer forms of humor than teasing, since the
brunt of the joking is not present.
We examine next the factors that might influence verbal play as well as the out-
come of this play in terms of participants' interaction.

5. Outcome and function of verbal play

Having defined the play frames as three distinct types, we must next examine
what occurs inside the frame. Tannen (1993) suggests that in most everyday conver-
sation, realignment between participants is continually being negotiated. Hall (1993),
in her study of chismeando (gossip) among Dominican women, characterizes this
particular oral practice as one that creates and articulates the social position and rela-
tionship of the participants. Erickson and Schultz (1982) highlight how 'performed
social identity' is achieved through social interaction in interviews. Others speak of
'positioning' in family interactions (Hamilton, 1995) and 'footing' (Goffman, 1983)
as indicating changes in the frame. All of these imply a connection between partici-
pants that is taking place and/or changing with perhaps exception of Hall (1993).
Their principal aim is to explore the structure of the interaction. Our intention is to
build on their analysis and explore the general processes that have functional conse-
quences regarding the creation of identities. Realignment negotiation can have two
possible outcomes: (1) the display of individual identity (ID); and/or (2) the negoti-
ation of a relational identity with others and through others (RID).
Identity display (ID) and relational identity display/development (RID) can be
the most important functions of joking, teasing and self-denigrating humor. The
participants not only display identity but create new ones based on their past, pre-
sent and future relationship. While identity display has been presupposed in the lit-
erature on everyday conversation, the fact that participants develop a relational
identity through such speech events as CJ has been largely ignored. We believe that
it is in situational humor that one can observe with most clarity the RID, because in
joking and teasing we can display the intimacy of our identities as friends, family
members, and members of an in-group. For transitory encounters RID can imply a
low risk activity, where the relational identity is also transitory. For 'intimates' or
'friends' this is a high risk game where the relational identity displayed is based on
past encounters, and where the encounter taking place might re-affirm or weaken
the existing relationship. If this is a high risk game we are led to ask why people
play it. The fact is that if the negotiation of RID is successful through the joking
and teasing, the outcome will be the much sought-after result of bonding between
participants.
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 283

5.1. Joking that bonds

Joking that bonds is a widely used strategy in uniting interlocutors against the
foibles of an absent other. Bonding against others perceived as different allows us to
become a unit without having to define what we are for each other. What makes us
part of an in-group is having in common an 'out group'. Relational identity is not
necessary in this uniting; what is the commonality is the word play and/or poking
fun at others. In this there is identity display through reducing the 'others' to some
laughable characterization that makes them different from us.
We have found numerous inst~mces of joking that bonds. The following sequence
is part of a longer conversation in which three women are discussing their dates with
younger men:

(6) In home setting: Intimate female friends.

Corina: A1 dia siguiente me llama *** atiendo el tel6fono y me dice "Hola,
Corina." " S f ? " [laughter] "No te das cuenta?" todo ...
Sara: Si. "Soy tu prlncipe azul c6mo te olvidaste de mi voz." [laughter]
In6s: "i C6mo !"
Corina: "/,No adivinas? .... No." Dice "Soy David."
In6s: Sf.

Translation:
Corina: The following day he calls. I answer and he says "Hi, Corina."
[I say] " Y e s ? " "Don'tyou know who I a m ? " and all that.
Sara: Yes ! "I'm your prince cJ~arming. How could you forget my voice ?"
ln6s: "How! ?"
Corina: "Can't you guess?" "No." He says "I'm David"
ln6s: Yes.

Corina is introducing the voice of the absent other to mock him. The intonation
pattern, an exaggerated lowering of the voice to emulate that of a man in an attempt
at seduction, indicates the play frame. This is a joint production in which meaning is
co-constructed (Tannen, 1989; Hamilton, 1995). Ana and In6s participate not only
with laughter but also introduce constructed dialogue. The shared knowledge about
'how men think and act' is what bonds them.
In the North American data we find a similar type of joking that bonds:

(7) Close female friends.

Bonnie: I found even a funnier store than Harry's. It's called Larry's. She [the sales-
woman] said, she starts in with me that I should have been there a few weeks ago
cause "there was gorgeous" [merchandise]
Cheryl: That's a typical line.
Bonnie: Typical.
Cheryl: They had gorgeous. [laughs]
Bonnie: "We had gorgeous. We had gorgeous." She sits down and crosses her legs
and I'm getting undressed. Well, I'm not an extremely modest person among my
284 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

friends, this strange lady is sitting there, so I tell myself, "Bonnie, don't be silly,"
she sees ladies in various stages of undress.

This is another case of joking against an absent other using constructed dialogue. It
exemplifies female storytelling with identity display through exaggeration and voic-
ing. The fact that they are close friends allows for much freedom in the exaggeration,
causing humor, This is identity display, but moreover relational identity display in
that part of the humorous effect is the common knowledge of the "typical" line "we
had gorgeous". Here both RID and ID have a bonding effect. The RID has a regional
aspect to it, for it is inherent in the common identity of the interlocutors as New
Yorkers. This is evident in their use, not only of constructed dialogue, but dialect
variants within it. This constitutes uniting against the other despite the fact that the
participants also belong to the same wider community as the 'other'. The uniting is
against the lower social class evident in dialectal differences that encompass phono-
logical and lexical distinctions.

5.2. Self-denigration as a case o f lD

It would seem that self-denigration, unlike joking or teasing, will always involve
identity display. Self-denigration does not typically constitute a case of RID. The
following is an example of the function of such joking among women in a service
encounter. A customer has requested that an employee (whom she perceives as a
sales clerk) allow her to enter the fitting room. The employee tries to open the fitting
room with a key and has trouble.

(8) Salesclerk: The manager is always the worst!

Paralinguistic and extralinguistic cues such as intonational contour and eye gaze
allow the customer to perceive the statement as a joke, that is, that the sales clerk is
really the manager. This is a clear example of identity display in that only through
the self-denigrating humor is the employee able to identify herself as a person of
higher status in the commercial establishment. At the same time, by presenting her-
self as human and therefore not altogether competent, she creates a positive image
for herself in minimizing the power inherent in her position.
Women seem to do this type of joking more than men. As Tannen notes, women
tend to "downplay their authority while exercising it" (1994: 177). Indeed, there
appear to be striking differences in self-denigrating joking between males and
females. We explore these differences further below in the discussion of gender.

5.3. Teasing that bonds." RID and ID

The maximum form of bonding we have found in our data is among women talk-
ing about men. In our definitions, teasing can imply a nip or bite, that is, a playful
bite within the teasing frame. Recall that the nip can denote the bite without actually
biting (Bateson, 1986). Nevertheless, as we have seen in sequence I, the play frame
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 285

is not always easy to interpret. A misfire can occur and the playful nip can indeed
become the bite. In fact, because the nip can become a bite it is a very useful tool for
social control. We have found numerous cases among family members in which the
teasing disguises the bite, or makes it tolerable, both in the North American as well
as the South American data.
The fact that teasing can hide aggression is not new, as we have seen above (cf.
Miller, 1986). What is new is that there is a certain type of teasing with no possible
bite in it, which thus can only have the function of intimate bonding and RID. We
found this type of bonding in the., North American data:

(9) Two close female friends on weekend ski retreat

Carol: Ooh, my feet got cold, I don't know why my feet got cold all of a sudden.
Jane: You need a hot drink. You're drinking cold soda.
Carol: I know. I can't drink a hot drink.
Jane: You don't drink hot drinks, it's not part of your religion.
Carol: Right [laughs].

These are close female friends in which the addressee teases the other about not
drinking hot drinks. It bonds them by showing that she knows this about the other,
displaying a past history. This is; relational identity display that demonstrates insider
knowledge, despite the fact that they had not seen each other in some two years.
The next sequence, from the South American data, is the beginning of the same
conversation taking place in sequence 6. Corina is the one designated by the other
two participants to start telling the story about her date with a younger man. This
man, as well as the outcome of the date, is known by the other two participants and
before they allow Corina to start the story they proceed to tease her. Corina is intro-
duced by Sara as an absent third (a frequent strategy for teasing, discussed in
Straehle 1993 as reducing the referent to childlike status).

(10) H o m e setting: Intimate female friends

Sara: Yo lo tinico que quiero, 1o tlnico que quiero recordar ac~i y dejar sentado es
que yo le dije, y ella inconscientemente lo debe haber dejado guardado "Vos llamalo
al pendejo" que hace falta un poco de .... asf, revitalizaci6n de ciertas funciones.
Corina: Llam6 61.
ln~s: un poco de accirn.
Corina: circulaci6n de la sangre.
Sara: Un poco de acci6n.
Corina: Bueno te cuento ...

Translation:
Sara: All I want to say, the on'ty thing I want to state here is that I told her, and she
unconsciously must have regi,gtered it " Y o u call the little twerp" we need a bit of,
that is, the revitalization o f certain functions.
Corina: He called.
ln~s: a little action.
286 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

Corina: circulation o f the blood.

Sara: A little action.
Corina: Well, I'll tell you ...

In this sequence the teased feels no threat, since the ultimate goal of 'making the
blood circulate' was achieved successfully. Thus, it implies shared knowledge of
common needs and approval of those needs. The teasing bonds with no bite. The
shared double meaning is both pleasant and re-establishes the relational identity
these three women have, one of closeness and understanding of each other. This is
emphasized by the fact that these three friends have not been together in at least a
year; this could possibly explain the need to re-create the bond they have shared in
the past. No possible bite can be interpreted in this teasing. The view that "we all
need to make our blood circulate, we all need some action" is a shared and accepted
belief by the in-group. The fact that this belief may not be shared by the larger soci-
ety increases the bonding. Bonding here is thus a result of the intimacy of shared
views and the resistance to a social norm that would require that women show no
interest in sex for the sole sake of sex.
In both sequences, RID occurs among women who have not seen each other in
some time, but who were close friends. We find that the teasing reaffirms closeness
as one of the major goals of the conversation.
In sum, teasing always implies RID, since the teased and the teaser are present and
participate actively in the play. The RID in teasing can have an outcome that ranges
from bonding to biting. The bond developed in a teasing frame can become more
intense, but the risks are high with certain interlocutors. Quite distinct from teasing,
which is for the most part a RID activity, joking can function as either ID or as RID.
Self-denigrating joking typically implies ID. We can postulate a continuum of RID
to ID, with teasing showing the maximum RID to self-denigration showing the min-
imum RID and maximum ID. As always, it is a question of degrees.

6. Factors affecting the type of verbal playing

Two sociolinguistic factors have emerged as having the strongest effect in joking
and teasing: social distance and gender.

6.1. Joking and social distance

High risk teasing typically takes place among interlocutors who are intimates.
Wolfson (1989) proposed a theory of social distance called 'the bulge', in which she
claimed that what strangers and intimates have in common is the relative certainty of
their relationships. Thus, one would expect high risk teasing to take place among
these two groups of extreme social distance. Boxer (1993) showed this not to hold
true for at least one type of speech behavior, complaining and commiserating. In
teasing, interlocutors take the risk of biting only with intimates, not with strangers.
This is so far borne out in the data for the present study.
 D. Boxer. F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 287

With interlocutors who are tinnily members or intimates, teasing in our data
shows a bite that can create conflict rather than diffuse it. The following sequence
shows this happening among intimates:

(11) Home setting: Andr6s: Father of the baby; Silvia: Mother of two-year-old and
sister of Andr6s; Mario: Father of two-year-old. Ana, the wife of Andr6s, is the
silent participant in this case. Four-month baby and Nano, a two year old who is
playing in the background.
Andr6s: Est~ enorme ese beb6. Lo estoy mirando y est~i enorme. Ester casi tan
grande como el Nano.
Silvia: *** [laughter]
Andr6s: i Je I/,Apostamos ?
Mario: Y aparte es tan inteligente, tan inteligente.
Andr6s: zA vos te parece?
Silvia: Ahora, como Nano, /,1o dudo? [laughter] (Nano looks at his mother) iVos
sos muy inteligente!
Andr6s: E1 otro dia dijo "papal", con Silvia nos reimos. Dos dias despu6s, agarr6,
me mir6, y dijo "pap~i". (2: [laughter]) Ya no nos reimos tanto ***. [laughter]

Translation:
AndrOs: This baby is enormous. He is looking so much bigger. He is almost as big
as Nano.
Silvia: ***[laughter].
Andrds: Do you want to bet?
Mario: A n d on top o f it, he is so intelligent, so intelligent.
AndrOs: Do y o u t h i n k so?
Silvia: B u t never as intelligent as N a n o . Y o u are very intelligent, a r e n ' t y o u ?
AndrOs: [talking about the baby] The other day he said "Dad", with Ana we
laughed. Two days later, he went, he looked at me and said "Dad" (Silvia:
[Laughs]) We didn't laugh so much *** [laughter].

The teasing, started by Mario - he is so intelligent, accompanied by voicing and

exaggeration - hides a bite, a bite directed at the boasting father, Andr6s. Andr6s
shows no remorse for his conduct and acts as if Mario had been serious, not teasing
- Do you really think so ? What follows is a teasing competition among parents. This
teasing hides the bite and diffuses the possible conflict.
Relational bonding is frequent among interlocutors of medial social distance, that
is friends and acquaintances, as well as among strangers. Among friends, the type of
teasing that bonds derives from a need for affirming or re-affirming friendship. With
strangers, however, the bonding is through joking and word play, not through teas-
ing. Strangers establish a momentary bond through CJ and especially word play that
functions as displays of the individual identity of the speaker. An example from the
North American data illustrates:

(12) Two female strangers in line at pharmacy. (Referring to Dr. Scholl's corn pads)
A: They used to make these smaller, but now this is all I can find
288 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

B: Maybe corns are coming in different shapes these days.

A: This is the third place I've looked and this is all I can find. And there are only a
few in here, where there used to be about twenty.
B: Inflation. They don't want to charge more, so they just give you less.
A: Maybe they're thicker or something.
B: Technology of footpads is improving.

Identity display is evident here. Strangers can present themselves in a certain way by
joking to show their highly developed sense of irony. It tells the hearer that the
speaker has a sense of wit and thus has the potential of functioning to create a
momentary bond. Despite the fact the above interlocutors are strangers and know
that this interaction is a limited and temporary one, the attempt at humor serves to
make light of a situation and establish a momentary good will. The bond cannot be
termed 'relational', as it is clear that no relationship will be formed.
In the South American data we find even a stronger need for identity display
among 'friendly strangers'. This sequence is part of a conversation taking place in a
bar, among a mixed group:

(13) Group meeting in a bar. Four females and two males. Eduardo and Faustino
meet each other for the first time, they are acquainted with some of the females and
meet Patricia for the first time. The females have a range of social distance going
from intimate friends to acquaintances.
Bea: Perd6n, perd6n, porque ac~i hay una especialista que te va a explicar la difer-
encia entre el plfitano y la banana./,Sab6s que no es lo mismo? [looking at someone
near her]
Vero: /,C6mo? /,No es 1o mismo?
In6s: Mir~i 1o que dijo: "/,C6mo que no es lo mismo?" [laughter from a subgroup]
Bea: No es 1o mismo/,Preguntale? [pointing at Patricia]
Faustino: /,C6mo es la definici6n?
Patricia: El pl~itano es una fruta caribefia. Realmente es un vegetal, es mucho m~is
grande que la banana [laughter]
In6s: Esta dicho al rev6s, para mf son todas bananazas. (...)
Eduardo: Lo que pasa, yo te explico, yo te explico. Banana es el nombre fntimo. Se
le dice carifiosamente. [laughter] Es como el sobrenombre del pl~itano.
In~s: iQu6 linda bananita!
Faustino: Claro, que vas a decir "platanito." i Queda fefsimo!
Patricia: Tambi6n existen las bananitas.
Eduardo: Ah bueno, est~ bien, no estamos hablando del tamafio.
Patrieia: /,Yo crefa que s/?
Eduardo: No, no, no ...
Faustino: Es de la calidad.
Eduardo: Es de la calidad del nombre. Vos decis "quiero un pl~itano" queda como
muy formal. Muy ***, ten6s que estar de traje y corbata para decir plfitano.
Faustino: /,C6mo anda con el pl~itano?
Bea: Dios nos cr/a y nosotros nos juntamos todos. [laughter]
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 289

Translation:
Bea: Excuse me, excuse me, we have here a specialist that will explain to you the
difference between the plantain and the banana. Did you know it's not the same
thing?
Vero: What? It's not the same thing?
ln~s: Do you believe what she said? "What do you mean it's not the same thing?"
Bea: No, it's not. Ask her [Patricia].
Faustino: What's the definition?
Patricia: The plantain is a Caribbean fruit. It's a vegetable really. It's bigger than a
banana.
ln~s: You're getting it backwards, f o r me they are all big bananas.
Eduardo: The problem is, I'll tell you, I'll tell you. Banana is an intimate name.
You use it as a term o f endearment. It's like the nickname o f the plantain.
ln~s : What a beautiful little banana.
Faustino: Of course, what can you call it: "little plantain." It sounds horrible!
Patricia: There are also little bananas.
Eduardo: OK, that's fine, we are not talking about the size!
Patricia: I thought we were ?
Eduardo: No, no, no ...
Faustino: It's about quality.
Eduardo: The quality o f the name. You say " I want a plantain" it's too formal,
you have to use a suit and a tie to say plantain.
Faustino: H o w is it going with the plantain?
Bea: God raises us and we get together.

The distinctions between 'banana' and 'plantain' is Central American and does not
exist in Argentina. There are two levels of play going on: one involves the terms
'banana/plantain'; the other play is sexual in nature. The males are actively inter-
rupting and doing most of the word play; females seem to be taking on the role of
the straight partner (the one that gives the cue for the pun). The absent participant of
this joking is the Caribbean community that makes the distinction between the plan-
tain/banana. This group bonds against the distinction that has no experiential place in
their dialect. Relational Identity is not present here since this group has no past his-
tory, but there is a possibility of forming one. Thus the display of wit, the competi-
tion among the males to intervene and show themselves in front of these women,
who might become friends or more, seems at a peak. In fact, this was just one of the
many highly competitive word play activities the group was involved in during this
conversation. In neither of these two circumstances (those of sequence (12) and
(13)), would teasing be deemed appropriate.
It is with intimates that we see the bite, not with interlocutors on the other extreme
of social distance. The following is an example of family members joking/teasing
with a nip:

(14) Gail, Rose: female sisters--in-law. Dave: husband of Gail

Gall: I have a fungus infection~ in my ear.
290 D. Boxer, F. CortPs-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

Rose: What kind?

Gaii: It's from an infection I had many years ago and it never left my ears.
Rose: You can't do anything about it?
Gail: No. Once you have it you can't get rid of it. I t ' s like a t h l e t e ' s f o o t in m y
ears.
Gail and Rose: [both laugh]
Dave: She crawls through the locker room. [all laugh hysterically].
Gail: I get crusty, and when I get up in the morning I can't hear because there's
fluid in my ears.
Dave: In her sleep sometimes, the whole bed shakes cause she's got her fingers
in her ears ... it wakes me up when l'm sound asleep!

First, the joke is a self put-down that displays identity, using a humorous analogy.
Second, Dave teases Gail by carrying the analogy further, displaying his own humor.
He continues with the identity display through the joking/teasing. The teasing nips.
Thus, where joking with strangers/friendly strangers establishes a momentary
bond through performed social identity, it is with intimates that we tend to see the
teasing that nips or even bites. With intimates we have a past history of RID that
allows us to play with the frame. With strangers, on the other hand, where no past
history has been created, we need to display our identity, to show them we are
'good' people, not dangerous, 'witty', safe to be around.

6.2. Gender

Gender strongly conditions the type of verbal play that occurs in everyday talk.
We have seen intimations of this in sequences 9 and 10, in which teasing bonds
through RID. Women and men appear to employ different strategies of injecting
humor into a conversation. We note clear differences in the data between the male
propensity to use verbal challenges, put-downs and storytelling (Maltz and Borker,
1982; Tannen, 1990) and female attempts to establish symmetry. For example, the
topic of bodies/figures/physique takes on a different form for women and men.
Women frequently employ verbal self-denigration through irony about their own
physical shortcomings. The goal might be to establish some common bond by telling
the addressee that we are not full of conceit. Males appear to feel freer to tease
others about bodies. This is seen in the following tease among grown men playing
basketball:

(15) A: Man you've got a big butt. How can you lumber down the court?
B: (No response)

This could be interpreted as a real bite, but if the interlocutors are close enough it is
merely a nip. This type of nip was interpreted by the male participants as typical
speech behavior of male bonding during athletic competition. When consulted about
their teasing, the interlocutors indicated that in such activity as basketball playing (in
North American speech communities) men will pick out the physical weakness of
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 291

the opponent and use it as a tease. This teasing serves to establish and/or reinforce
hierarchy.
For women, on the other hand, to tease about bodies is to touch something that we
have been trained to take seriously. After all, if we don't care about our bodies we
are not doing our job. If women's work is to look good, teasing about this is to touch
a place of real insecurity (M.J. Hardman, personal communication), thus it will only
happen in self-denigration. Notice in the next sequence that although the women
laugh or agree with the perception of the speaker, they do not continue or add to the
self-tease:

(16) Intimate friends.

Sara: Adem~s yo creo que si tengo cara con ... me doy cuenta de que cuando 1o
tengo medio aplastado parezco una mina de los afios treinta y e s horrible, entonces
planchado va a ser as/medio onda Modigliani
C o r i n a : [laughter]
In6s: Sf, eso seguro.

Translation:
Sara: And also, I believe that I have a face with [in reference to her long face, the
sentence is incomplete in the original] ... I know that when I have it flat [the hair] I
look like a women of the 30's, it"s horrible, then if I iron it I'll look Modigliani style.
lnds: Yeah, sure.

Verbal self-denigration about appearance seems to be more a female activity than

male.
Also in the Argentine data we find several salient examples of the differential role
that gender plays in joking. Sequence (13) above (about banana vs. plantain) con-
tains word play that involves a clear case of identity display on the part of the men.
The women participate little if at all in this exchange; in fact they have set the men
up to show their wit and play tile word game. The two men, on the other hand, are
in competition, as can be attested by their frequent interruption of each other.
Quite distinct from the type of teasing that men typically engage in, we have
found striking instances of teasing that bonds among women. We have seen how
with teasing a nip can become a bite, especially among family members. This is true
both in the Argentine and the North American data. The clearer cases of teasing that
bonds, however, are found among female friends that are bonding as women in resis-
tance to some wider held norm.

(17) Two female friends

Ellen: I was thinking of a lemon cake for dessert but it's $15.00. Who wants to
spend $15.00 for a cake?
F r a n : Oh, you mean you're not going to bake it yourself?

This is a fairly typical case of female bonding through teasing. The fact is that they
know neither one likes to bake. This background knowledge and the tease that plays
292 D. Boxer. F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

upon it creates a bond of solidarity through relational identity display as well as reaf-
firmation of shared identity (e.g. we don't bake). Thus, while diffusing the com-
plaint, the response serves another, important function, that of RID - an RID in
which the tease has neither nip nor bite, but bonds.
According to Van Dijk (1988), discourse creates and transmits social representa-
tions and social norms. He also adds that resistance to that power can also be dis-
cursive. In the cases of teasing that bonds that we have seen, the participants seem to
be involved in resistance to the social representation of women. The RID they are
displaying is not one that accommodates to what is or was considered to be the
model for women.

7. Conclusion

We have attempted here to sort out the fine distinctions in joking/teasing behav-
ior, the variables that condition their use, and the possible outcomes of such
exchanges in the context of face-to-face interaction. It is part of our communicative
competence as native speakers of any language to understand the functions of such
activity, but these functions and their limits are certainly below the level of con-
sciousness.
First, it is important to understand how far one can reasonably go with joking or
teasing on certain topics and with certain interlocutors. An insight into what bonds
and what bites can contribute to more felicitous interactions. Some of us overstep the
boundaries, particularly with conflictive topics, interlocutors of certain social dis-
tance relationships and of the other gender. We have seen, for example, that CJ can
function to display identity among strangers; we have seen that self-teasing can
function to display and develop individual and relational identity and thus bond par-
ticipants; and we have seen that teasing among intimates plays on relational identity
and can therefore nip or even bite. While there is room for the nip or bite among
some intimates, this is not necessarily true with friends, acquaintances and strangers.
An understanding of how CJ as a verbal activity functions ought to contribute to our
knowledge of how to do things with words.
We have found more similarities than differences in CJ across the speech com-
munities studied here. Clearly, while humor is culture-specific, its social function in
terms of individual and group identity formation appears to cross cultural bound-
aries. Works such as Hall (1993) on gossip and Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985)
on acts of identity suggest that discourse is fundamental to the development of self-
hood. This sense of self and of self as a member of a group can be observed at the
micro level in speech events such as conversational joking, where participants dis-
play and develop either their individual or their relational identity. Situational humor
is one of the speech genres that accomplishes this, and it does so poignantly because
it is culture-specific; that is, it requires, more than any other speech genre, in-group
knowledge. Thus, although we have found more similarities in our data than differ-
ences, this does not suggest that joking and teasing is done the same way in both of
these communities. While joking across communities reveals structural similarities,
 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294 293

the differences a p p e a r in the specific topics, taboos, and w a y s o f establishing bonds.

M e m b e r s o f one c o m m u n i t y m i g h t e n g a g e in m o r e teasing that b o n d s while the other
do m o r e teasing that bites. The universals lie in the notion that C o n v e r s a t i o n a l Jok-
ing functions on a c o n t i n u u m from ID to RID, and that m a x i m u m R I D can be
a c c o m p l i s h e d through j o k i n g and teasing that bonds.
Certainly w h a t m a k e s for a g o o d laugh differs across societies. T h e b o t t o m line is,
" W e all e n j o y a g o o d l a u g h " . This study o f conversational j o k i n g begins to elucidate
w h a t m a k e s for a g o o d laugh and w h y in two different c o m m u n i t i e s and in t w o dif-
ferent languages.

References
Attardo, Salvatore, 1994. Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bateson, Gregory, 1987. Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Bateson, Gregory, 1991. A sacred unily: Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Harper
Collins.
Boxer, Diana, 1993a. Complaining and commiserating: A speech act view of solidarity in spoken Amer-
ican English. New York: Peter Lang.
Boxer, Diana, 1993b. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of
Pragmatics 19: 103-125.
Chamber, John K., 1995. Sociolinguistic theory. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
Chiaro, Delia, 1992. The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. London: Routledge.
Eisenberg, Ann R., 1986. Teasing: Verbal play in two mexicano homes. In: Bambi B. Schieffelin and
Elinor Ochs, eds., Language socialization across cultures, 183-198. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Erickson, Frederick and Jeffrey Schultz, 1982.The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic
Press.
Goffman, Erring, 1983. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hamilton, Heidi, 1995. The aging of a poet: Intertextuality and the co-construction of identities in the
open family letter exchange. Paper presented at the Georgetown Linguistics Society, February 18.
Hill, Jane, 1993. Is it really 'No problemo'? Junk Spanish and Anglo racism. SALSA I. Texas Linguis-
tic Forum 33, 1-12. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
Hall, Joan Kelly, 1993. Oye, oye 1o que ustedes no saben: Creativity, social power, and politics in the
oral practice of chismeando. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1): 75-98.
Kotthoff, Helga, 1996. SpaB Verstehen. Zur Pragmatik yon Konversationellem Humor. Habilitations-
schrift, Universitat Wien.
Le Page, R.B. and Andrre Tabouret-Keller, 1985. Acts of identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Maltz, D. and R. Borker, 1983. A caltural approach to male-female miscommunication. In: John
Gumperz, ed., Language and social identity, 196-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moyna, Irene, 1994. Nosotros los americanos: Humorous code-switching and borrowing as a means to
defuse culture shock. Unpublished paper, University of Florida.
Miller, Peggy, 1986. Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a white working class com-
munity. In: Bambi B. Schieffelin and Elinor Ochs, eds., Language socialization across cultures,
199-212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norrick, Neal R., 1993. Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni-
versity press.
Phillips, Susan U., 1973. Teasing, punning, and putting people on. Paper presented at the American
Anthropological Association Meeting, New Orleans, November.
Schieffelin, Bambi B., 1986. Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's interactions. In: Bambi B. Schi-
effelin and Elinor Ochs, eds., Language socialization across cultures, 165-181. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
294 D. Boxer, F. Cort~s-Conde / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 275-294

Schneider, D.M., 1968. American kinship: A cultural account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Straehle, Carolyn A., 1993. "Samuel? Yes, dear?" Teasing and conversational rapport. In: D. Tannen,
ed., 1993, 210--211.
Tannen, Deborah, 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, Deborah, 1990. You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tannen, Deborah, 1993. Framing in Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah, 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Van Dijk, Teun A., 1988. Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text 8(1/2): 129-157.
Wolfson, Nessa, 1988. The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In: J. Fine, Second
language discourse: A textbook of current research, 21-38. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.