Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019.

The interplay between humour and identity construction: From

humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

The interplay between humour and identity construction: From humorous identities to
identities constructed through humorous practices

Valeria Sinkeviciute
The University of Queensland, School of Languages and Cultures, Australia
v.sinkeviciute@uq.edu.au

Abstract

The Special Issue on “The interplay between humour and identity construction” brings together
scholars who explore the complex relationship between humour and identity. This introductory
article provides an overview of the existing research into different aspects of humour and
identity. Its focus is on humorous identities and identities that are constructed using humour. It
presents the key findings regarding how ‘joker’, professional, ethnic and gender identities are
constructed and negotiated in discourse. The last section provides a summary of the
contributions to this Special Issue.

Keywords
Humorous identity, professional identity, ethnic identity, gender identity

1. Introduction

Various settings and contexts are the focus of research into humour, for instance, interactions
among friends and family (Eisenberg, 1986; Boxer and Cortés-Conde, 1997; Zajdman, 1995;
Hay, 2000; Haugh and Bousfield, 2012; Béal and Mullan, 2013, 2017), workplace (Holmes
and Marra, 2002a, 2002b; Holmes and Schnurr, 2005; Schnurr, 2009; Schnurr et al., 2008) or
while getting acquainted (Haugh, 2010, 2011, 2014). As this research has shown, humour,
among other functions, also contributes to identity construction in interaction. More precisely,
the link between humour and identity can be particularly well-observed (i) when humorous
identities are promoted, and (ii) when social identities such as gender, ethnic or professional
are indexed through humorous verbal practices.

2. Humorous identities and identities constructed using humour

The construction and negotiation of a humorous identity is one of the key characteristics of
self-presentation in different types of discourse in which the participants project their ‘joker’
or ‘jester’ identity in front of other interlocutors. Such a role of a ‘funny’ person needs to be
negotiated through different humorous practices, after which the joker identity is further
claimed by the joker and confirmed by the other participants. Interestingly, the joker can
perform both functions, being the instigator in humorous sequences and being the target of
attempts at humour (Plester and Orams, 2008). By constructing the joker identity in the
workplace, for example, such a person can be regarded as an important part of an organisational
unit, since s/he can be expected to challenge the decisions of the authority on behalf of his/her
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

colleagues, creating a local business culture and offering a respite from business pressure
(Plester and Orams, 2008; see also Plester, 2009). This identity, of course, is easier to negotiate
in the workplaces where humour and fun form part of “joking culture” (Fine and De Soucey,
2005) and an idiosyncratic company identity, which is likely to be the case in more informal
rather than formal organisations (Plester, 2009). However, if in the workplace where such
jocular norms are promoted, an employee fails to engage in humorous practices and project
their humorous identity, they can be considered as ‘other’ and be given an ‘outsider’ status
(Collinson, 1988; Plester and Sayers, 2007; see also McCann et al., 2010).
While the ‘joker’ identity is somehow always present in humorous practices in different
settings and can sometimes be taken for granted, analyses of humour in relation to identity
construction have predominantly focused on the workplace environment with special attention
paid to how professional and social (e.g., ethnic and gender) identities are claimed and
negotiated.

2.1. Humour and professional identity construction

Indeed, professional identities can be successfully enacted through humour. For

instance, research has shown that group identity can be indexed through the use of subversive
humour that emphasises social boundaries and indicates how an individual does not fit into a
particular group (Holmes and Hay, 1997; Holmes and Marra, 2002a; Marra and Holmes, 2007;
Plester and Sayers, 2007; Schnurr and Chan, 2011; Archakis and Tsakona, 2005). Furthermore,
as Sanders’ (2004) ethnographic research into an extreme profession – prostitution – shows,
humour can be used to construct the women’s ‘working identities’ as the stereotypical ‘happy
hookers’ in front of the clients, thus allowing them to draw the line between their professional
and private lives. In addition, humour can help to negotiate leadership and power relations.
Being a manager, for instance, means displaying ‘doing power’, which in the workplace may
need to be done explicitly in order to “demarcat[e] between manager and managed” (Holmes
and Marra, 2002c), but with the help of jocular sequences positive relationships can still be
maintained. Interestingly, while in a New Zealand cultural context, alongside other employees,
the group leader or the person with a higher status can be the target of humour while
successfully maintaining one’s position in the team (Holmes and Marra, 2002a), in a Hong
Kong workplace environment, being teased by one’s colleagues and, especially, by one’s
superiors, can challenge or threaten one’s professional identity and one’s in-group status
(Schnurr and Chan, 2011; Plester and Sayers, 2007).
Undoubtedly, humour also functions as a way of re-enhancing professional and social
identity, e.g. through engaging in fantasy humour developed by different members of the same
team, thus constructing collegial identity (Holmes and Marra, 2002b) or using non-serious talk,
irony and mimicry to indicate the shared background of the professional in-group (even
between strangers), while disaffiliating from the out-group (Morriss, 2015). While self-
denigrating humour can also threaten the others’ workplace identity by minimising their
professional achievements, such a use of self-directed humour is likely to avoid challenging
one’s own professional identity (Schnurr and Chan, 2011) and can be seen as the safest way to
construct group co-membership (Van De Mieroop and Schnurr, 2018). While professional
identity construction and negotiation is likely to be more discursively explored in workplace
interactions, quite a different tendency has been noted in discourse about job interviews.
Analysing humour in authentic job interview data from Belgium, Van De Mieroop and Schnurr
(2018) conclude that it is primarily not one’s professional identity, but different types of social
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

identity that the participants tend to index. In order to claim shared identity and co-membership
with the other party, the interactants’ humorous practices orient to in-group vs out-group
distinctions based on ethnic/geographical belonging or are used to construct commonality via
self-disclosure.

2.2. Humour and ethnic identity construction

Another research focus has been on ethnic identity in humorous interactions that can be
indexed in various ways, such as engaging in practices that are in accordance with certain ethnic
values and norms or making the other the butt of the joke, thus pointing to the ‘us versus them’
dichotomy that is also pertinent to the construction of group identities in general (e.g.
Sinkeviciute, 2017). The former can be clearly observed in Māori workplaces, where self-
denigrating humour is consistent with the fundamental Māori value of modesty and the
avoidance of self-promotion (Holmes, 2006; Holmes, 2007). Furthermore, the use of humour,
e.g. in the form of irony, in combination with prosodic and lexical features, pragmatic markers
and socio-cultural choices associated with particular ethnic groups, can strongly suggest that
the speaker is making an ethnic identity claim (e.g. Holmes et al., 2003; Holmes, 2006; Holmes,
2007). For instance, Marra and Holmes (2007) observe differences in interactional patterns in
the workplace environment that, due to particular accepted conversational styles (e.g. lower
key supportive humour or confrontational and competitive humour), mark that context as a
Māori or a Samoan workplace, respectively (see also Holmes and Hay, 1997).

2.3. Humour and gender identity construction

Existing work on humour in relation to identity has also explored the ways in which
gender boundaries are constructed in and through jocular interactions. For example, contrary
to some existing stereotypes that women are likely not to engage in jocular practices in the
workplace, humour is pervasive and an important aspect of women’s workplace identity that
primarily helps to construct collegiality (Holmes et al., 2001; Holmes, 2006). Other illustrative
examples come from the studies that focus on how, employing humour, women perform
leadership identities in masculine domains, which helps them to balance their professional and
gender identities (Schnurr, 2008; Holmes, 2006; see also Holmes, 2007). By using humour,
women can display stereotypically masculine behaviours of controlling and silencing
subordinates or, on the other hand, by employing self-denigrating humour, try to minimise
status differences (Schnurr, 2008; see also Holmes, 2007). Masculine identity can be performed
via promoting the image of toughness, being able to take a joke, being powerful and assertive,
which can also project shared masculinity at work (Collinson, 1988). Furthermore, in relation
to organisational power in the workplace, particularly from the HR managers, humour can be
used in order to resist attempts at behavioural control and negotiate gender identity. Analysing
interactions during compulsory workshops on inappropriate behaviours (e.g. sexual references
or sexual harassment) in the workplace, Westwood and Johnston (2011) observe that the (male)
employees employ humour in order to challenge the idea imposed by the authority (HR
managers) of what constitutes appropriate behaviours and defend certain performances of
masculine identity at work (see also Lampropoulou and Archakis, 2015 for the analysis of
hegemonic masculinities in narrative performances). Such manifestations of masculine
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

identity, however, are not typical of many workplaces, where humour in relation to prejudice
and sexism is regarded as crossing the boundaries and likely to cause disharmony (Plester,
2009).
The construction of gender identity can also manifest itself through males’ and females’
reinforcement of traditional gender stereotypes and conservative gender identity, i.e. women
using supportive humour and males being involved in the practices of contestive humour, and,
most importantly, metapragmatically relating to such stereotypes in their interactions (Holmes
and Marra, 2002c; Holmes, 2006; see also Kotthoff, 2006; McCann et al., 2010). For example,
women can refer to appropriate clothes for special occasions or men’s inability to multi-task,
while men can tease their peer for being too ‘communicative’ and, thus, unmanly (Holmes and
Marra, 2002c; Holmes, 2006). On the other hand, gender identity can be discursively contested,
especially by women when they adopt a more contestive type of humour that is typically
associated with men in interaction. In addition, certain stereotypes can be challenged and
reversed by women, depicting men as “the weak species following base sexual desires”, while
females are claimed to be “strong, controlled and hard-working providers” (Sanders, 2004:
278). Also, as Holmes (2006) observes, another stereotypically positive masculine identity –
‘the good bloke’ – claimed by men can be challenged by women by explicitly disagreeing with
such identity ascription.
This section has provided a brief overview of the studies that illustrate a relation
between humorous practices and identity claims and negotiation in discourse. This Special
Issue aims to further explore the link between the two phenomena in different contexts.

3. Papers in this Special Issue

The main objective of this Special Issue is to bring together papers that focus on the interplay
between humour and identity construction. More precisely, the issue explores how various
humorous practices (whether successful or failed) are employed in order to position oneself
and the other in relation to identity claims as well as identity resistance. The contributions offer
variability not only in the discourses analysed (e.g. institutional discourse, interaction among
friends, social media, interviews), but also in the focus (i) on different types of identities
(individual, collective, professional, ethnic, gender, virtual as well as localised humorous
identity), (ii) on specific humour practices (teasing, irony, jocular putdowns, mockery,
sarcasm) that index the construction of those identities, and (iii) on different linguistic/cultural
backgrounds (Japanese, Slovenian, and American, Australian and British English). Using
different methods, including interactional sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, ethnography,
and metapragmatics, all the papers approach identity as a situated phenomenon that manifests
itself in various ways in the analysed contexts.
The first contribution, entitled “That match was ‘a bit like losing your virginity’: Failed
humour, face and identity construction in TV interviews with professional athletes and
coaches” by Kieran A. File and Stephanie Schnurr, analyses instances of failed humour in
the context of public-facing media interactions. The analysis illustrates how, depending on the
participants involved, attempts at humour can be successful and fail at the same time. The
authors demonstrate that, as a result of failed humour in the public domain, there can be
potentially detrimental effects on one’s professional and social identities.
Humour and identity in a professional context are also explored by Stephen J. Moody
in “Contextualizing macro-level identities and constructing inclusiveness through teasing and
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

self-mockery: A view from the intercultural workplace in Japan”. The study examines how
sociocultural differences between and macro-level identities of American interns and local
Japanese employees are used to create humour that, in turn, can facilitate social bonding of the
two groups and, on the other hand, contribute to marginalisation of the interns as incompetent
outsiders.
Disaffiliative humorous practices and in-group identity constructed in a Slovenian
customer-oriented setting are the topic of Sara Orthaber’s “Aggressive humour as a means of
voicing customer dissatisfaction and creating in-group identity”. The analysis shows how,
through aggressive humour on social media platforms, participants are able to index their
situated identities of disappointed and let-down customers, which also creates solidarity and
their shared group identity in relation to their negative experiences.
In “‘He’s got Jheri curls and Tims on’: Humour and indexicality as resources for
authentication in young men's talk about hair and fashion style”, Pia Pichler explores how
group identity is constructed in playful talk by young South London men, where humour is
used for both bonding with other group members as well as for policing group norms. The
author argues that references to hair and fashion choices allow the interactants not only to
construct their group membership in opposition to mainstream trends, but also to index their
black hip hop culture masculinity.
Humour and identity construction in informal interactions among friends is also
analysed by Sylvia Sierra in “Linguistic and ethnic media stereotypes in everyday talk: Humor
and identity construction among friends”. Examining stereotypical accents in relation to
varieties of American English in media references, the author looks at how individual
humorous identities as well as shared cultural identities are constructed in interaction through
‘voices’ and how some of them, interestingly, are subsequently resisted in playback interviews.
An interactional sociolinguistic analysis of a sense of humour and identity is illustrated
in Catherine Evans Davies’ paper “An autoethnographic approach to understanding identity
construction through the enactment of sense of humor as embodied practice”. The study shows
the importance of context in the construction of an individual sense of humour in ordinary life
and how it [a sense of humour] is seen as a dimension of one’s identity. The analysis discusses
instances of (failed) humour in both public and private domains, such as in routine service
encounters, interactions with friends and strangers and in the workplace, as well as personal
thoughts on humorous events.
In the last contribution entitled “Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics
of ‘doing humour’”, Valeria Sinkeviciute focuses on three types of identities that are indexed
via metapragmatic comments made by speakers of Australian and British English in relation to
humour: individual, collective and situated. The analysis of interview data shows that humour
can be perceived as part the mainstream values in a cultural context (collective identity),
personal choices in interaction (individual identity) and a localised phenomenon depending on
the context and interpersonal relationships (situated identity).
The seven papers in this Special Issue successfully contribute to the research into
humour and identity. Taken together, they offer different approaches to the data analysed and
explore various types of identity that is constructed and negotiated in humour discourse.

References
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

Archakis, Argiris and Villy Tsakona. 2005. Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A
new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor. Humor 18(1): 41-68.
Béal, Christine and Kerry Mullan. 2013. Issues in conversational humour from a cross-cultural
perspective: Comparing French and Australian corpora. In Bert Peeters, Kerry Mullan
and Christine Béal (eds.), Cross-Culturally Speaking, Speaking Cross-Culturally.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 107-139.
Béal, Christine and Kerry Mullan. 2017. The pragmatics of conversational humour in social
visits: French and Australian English. Language & Communication 55: 24-40.
Boxer, Diana and Cortés-Conde, Florencia. 1997. From bonding and biting: Conversational
joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–295.
Collinson, David L. 1988. ‘Engineering humour’: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-
floor relations. Organization Studies 9(2): 181-199.
Eisenberg, Ann R. 1986. Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In Language
Socialization Across Cultures. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of
Language 3. In Bambi B. Schieffelin and Elinor Ochs (eds.). New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 182-198.
Fine, Gary Alan and Michaela De Soucey. 2005. Joking cultures: Humor themes as social
regulation in group life. Humor 18(1): 1–22.
Haugh, Michael. 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics
42(8): 2106-2119.
Haugh, Michael. 2011. Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In Bethan L.
Davies, Michael Haugh and Andrew John Merrison (eds.), Situated Politeness. London
and New York: Continuum, pp. 165-184.
Haugh, Michael. 2014. Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian
conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(1): 76-99.
Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield. 2012. Mock impoliteness in interactions amongst
Australian and British speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1099-1114.
Hay, Jennifer. 2000. Functions of humour in the conversations of men and women. Journal of
Pragmatics 32: 709-742.
Holmes, Janet. 2006. Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace.
Journal of Pragmatics 38: 26-50.
Holmes, Janet. 2007. Humour and the construction of Māori leadership at work. Leadership
3(1): 5-27.
Holmes, Janet and Jennifer Hay. 1997. Humour as an ethnic boundary marker in New Zealand
interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies 18(2): 127-151.
Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra and Louise Burns. 2001. Women’s humour in the workplace:
A quantitative analysis. Australian Journal of Communication 28(1): 83-108.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002a. Over the edge? Subversive humor between
colleagues and friends. Humor 15(1): 65-87.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002b. Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes
to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1683-1710.
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2002c. Humour as a discursive boundary marker in social
interaction. In Anna Duszak (ed.), Us and Others: Social identities across languages,
discourses and cultures, pp. 377-400. John Benjamins.
Holmes, Janet and Schnurr, Stephanie. 2005. Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace:
negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 121-
149.
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2019. The interplay between humour and identity construction: From
humorous identities to identities constructed through humorous practices. Journal of
Pragmatics 152: 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.005

The article is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

Holmes, Janet, Maria Stubbe and Meredith Marra. 2003. Language, humour and ethnic identity
marking in New Zealand English. In Christian Mair (ed.), The Politics of English as a
World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies pp. 431-454.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kotthoff, Helga. 2006. Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics 38(1):
4-25.
Lampropoulou Sofia and Argiris Archakis. 2015. Constructing hegemonic masculinities:
Evidence from Greek narrative performances. Gender and Language 9(1): 83–103.
Marra, Meredith, and Janet Holmes. 2007. Humour across cultures: Joking in the multicultural
workplace. In Helga Kotthoff and Helen Spencer-Oatey (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural
Communication, pp. 153-172. Mouton deGruyter.
McCann, Pol Domici, David Plummer and Victor Minichiello. 2010. Being the butt of the joke:
Homophobic humour, male identity, and its connection to emotional and physical violence
for me. Health Sociology Review 19(4): 505-521.
Morriss, Lisa. 2015. Accomplishing social work identity through non-seriousness: An
ethnomethodological approach. Qualitative Social Work 14(3): 307-320.
Plester, Barbara. 2009. Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Employee
Relations 31(6): 584-599.
Plester, Barbara and Mark Orams. 2008. Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New
Zealand IT companies. Humor 21(3): 253-281.
Plester, Barbara A. and Janet Sayers. 2007. “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT
industry. Humor 20(2): 157-187.
Sanders, Teela. 2004. Controllable laughter: Managing sex work through humour. Sociology
38(2): 273-291.
Schnurr, Stephanie. 2008. Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: An analysis of
women leader’s use of humour at work. Leadership 4(3): 299-319.
Schnurr, Stephanie. 2009. Constructing leader identities through teasing at work. Journal of
Pragmatics 41: 1125-1138.
Schnurr, Stephanie and Angela Chan. 2011. When laughter is not enough. Responding to
teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 20-35.
Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra and Janet Holmes. 2008. Impoliteness as a means of
contesting power relations in the workplace. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher
(eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and
Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211-229.
Sinkeviciute, Valeria. 2017. Variability in group identity construction: a case study of the
Australian and British Big Brother houses. Discourse, Context and Media 20: 70-82.
Van De Mieroop, Dorien and Stephanie Schnurr. 2018. Candidates’ humour and the
construction of co-membership in job interviews. Language & Communication 61: 35-45.
Westwood, Robert and Allanah Johnston. 2011. Reclaiming authentic selves: Control, resistive
humour and identity work in the office. Organization 19(6): 787-808.
Zajdman, Anat. 1995. Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of
Pragmatics 23: 325-339.