English 524 Research Paper (2)

Running Head: What makes teasing more complex in a romantic relationship dynamic?

Blurred Lines: Exploring the complex

nature of teasing in the context of a romantic relationship dynamic.

Ashley Caprice ThomasEnglish 524-Sociolinguistics

Professor VickersDecember 2014


I. Literature Review

In the field of sociolinguistics, there has been much research in regard to teasing and

banter and its implications. Through these studies I have found that there are numerous ways in

which teasing is defined and numerous opinions on its purpose, function, and even its

implications. For example, in the article “The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments”, (Hample,

Han, Payne, 2009) the question of whether or not arguing can be verbal play and used for the

purpose of entertainment is explored. In the beginning of the article we see that Goffman’s

theory of Argument Frames (1974) is referenced to as a means to suggest that the desire for play

too can be used as a frame for arguing. Notably, the article summarizes the main point of

Goffman’s theory of argument frames by providing four key terms: Natural strip,

Transformation, Keys, and Lamination. The article goes on to explain that the natural strip of

something (in this case the natural strip of an argument) is “its essence, its base appearance and

character” (Goffman 1974 as mentioned by Hample et al. 2009). The article goes on to explain

that an ideas natural strip could then be transformed into something else by way of certain keys.

Keys can be understood by referencing to cryptology: “a message can be keyed (i.e. put into

code) so as to appear very differently” (Goffman 1974 as mentioned by Hample et al. 2009).

Lastly, when an ideas natural strip is transformed by way of keys the result is lamination, a new

appearance. The article utilizes Goffman’s theory of Argument frames to suggest that while

arguing in its natural strip is (as defined in this article) “eristic”, it could possibly be transformed

and thus result in a lamination of arguing; namely, aggressive play. However; as later explained

“frames are simultaneously internal and external, private and public” (Goffman 1974 as

mentioned by Hample et al. 2009), thus making a successful match with one’s intention and the

actual result becomes incredibly difficult. The article notes that in one’s attempt to use arguing


playfully they may not be aware of the actual outcome. In fact, the study done in this article

found that “while people are consistent in their self-perceptions about playfulness while arguing,

they are almost perfectly imperceptive about whether their arguments are actually playful”

(Hample et al. 2009). The article then suggests that amongst the many possible laminations of

arguing, play could be one if both participants in said arguments have the same frame and are

aware of what is happening. Despite this assertion, the authors of this article maintain the belief

that arguing cannot successfully be “playful”.

Following this idea, the article “From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and

identity display” (Boxer& Cortes-Conde, 1997) accepts the notion that aggressive verbal play,

like “playful arguing”, is complex and can result in miscommunication and even conflict. In this

article, Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) focus on conversational joking and they explain the term

by way of breaking it down into three distinct categories formerly known as humorous speech

genres. Included in this breakdown are: (1) joking about a non-present other (2) self-denigrating

joking (i.e. joking about one’s self) and (3) teasing. According Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997),

joking is defined as “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” (p. 280). Unlike joking however,

teasing makes a present participant the center of the playing. Because of this Boxer and Cortes-

Conde (1997) assert that “only teasing can bite or nip” and that “teasing runs along a continuum

of bonding to nipping to biting” (p. 279). This article goes on to claim that since teasing runs

along what is described as a continuum, boundaries are not always clear and the result could lead

to miscommunication and conflict. Teasing in this case then would be the aggressive verbal play

that mimics playful arguing mentioned in the previous article by Hample et al (2009). While both

articles agree on the aggressive nature of teasing and arguing (both similar in purpose) this


particular article is distinct in that it claims that while teasing can be biting, it also can index an

in-group status amongst participants. To better understand this idea, Boxer and Cortes-Conde

(1997) suggest that through conversational joking, participants expose both the status of their

individual identity and their relational identity. Put simply, it is through joking and teasing that

the closeness of the relationship is displayed as most teasing and joking is created by sharing past

experiences and having knowledge of personal information. Despite the ability for aggressive

verbal play like teasing to function in a positive light that forms bonding as its result, it is

difficult and can be “high risk” especially amongst intimates (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997).

The article explains that “the need for a clear play frame is necessary in conversational joking as

in joke telling, but intentional or unintentional ambiguity due to a lack of highly

conventionalized means for signaling the play frame can be problematic” (p. 278). Further,

Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) assert that when someone is telling a joke, even if the recipients

of said joke do not “get” the joke, the miscommunication does not result in conflict and is not

perceived as an insult or a face-threatening act because the intent of it being a joke is clear. In

conversational joking however (especially teasing), not understanding and not knowing the intent

will more than likely result in a face-threating act and thus result in conflict (Boxer and Cortes-

Conde 1997). Therefore, even though aggressive verbal play like teasing can index a close

relationship and be used for means of bonding, any failure of its use could actually challenge the

relationship of the participants involved and function negatively.

While both Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) and Hample et al. (2009) focus on the nature

of aggressive verbal play such as teasing and playful arguing, (both understood to be equal in

purpose thus used interchangeably for the purposes of this essay), the article “Risky laughter:

Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends” (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp,


2006) focuses on the function of aggressive verbal play, specifically teasing, between male and

female friends as well as the environment needed for teasing to be successful. Lampert and

Ervin-Tripp (2006) accept the idea mentioned by Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) that teasing

indexes closeness as teasing is most often accompanied by past shared experiences and shared

knowledge; however, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp’s (2006) opinion slightly differs in that they

suggest that unless the participants involved in the teasing dialogue know each other well, the

teasing is more likely to be misunderstood as an insult. This differs from the view of Boxer and

Cortes-Conde (1997) because while they suggest that teasing can be used between participants

who are not close to establish temporary bonds , Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) suggests that

teasing can only be used successfully in the context of closeness and familiarity. Because of this

difference, though it is small, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) focus the attention of their article

on friend dynamics before establishing the way in which teasing is used based on gender.

Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) claim that because teasing can be ambiguous, the giver

of the teasing often relies on “exaggeration to mark humorous intent, or pretense”. Following the

ideas of Hample et al. (2009) and Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) however, this article agrees

that with aggressive verbal play such as teasing “the risk is that someone may miss the playful

key, resulting in a miscommunication” (p. 53). Offering a similar solution along the lines of

frame matching (Goffman, 1974 as mentioned by Hample et al. 2009), Lampert and Ervin-Tripp

(2006) references Apter (1982) and suggests that “for humor to work as a rapport-building

device, speakers must be able to gauge when their remakes are less likely to be interpreted as

having serious implications and more likely to be taken as a switch to a more playful, paratelic

mode of information-processing” (p. 52). Following this premise, Lampert and Ervin Tripp

(2006) assert then that because humor only works as a rapport-building device by the giver of the


humor being aware of how it will be interpreted in a given time; then said giver must be familiar

with said recipient. The article uses this information as a means to support their claim of

closeness and familiarity being necessary attributes for the right kind of environment needed for

teasing to work successfully (Lampert and Ervin Tripp, 2006). Further, Lampert and Ervin Tripp

(2006) go on to suggest that because humor (such as teasing) must be tailored in such a way that

would allow the recipient to understand the playfulness of what the giver is saying, men and

women as a result change their “humorous remarks largely because role expectations of men and

women in interaction shape their sense of whether their joking remarks will be understood

primarily as humor” (p. 57). This idea mimics Goffman’s frame theory (Goffman 1974, as

mentioned by Hample et al. 2009) as it shows how women and men produce laminations of their

joking remakes as a means to insure that is would be understood by the opposite sex based on

role expectations established by a given society. Interestingly, in the case study conducted by

Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006), it was found that when women and men interacted in a group

dynamic women would increase their teasing and directed it toward men while the men, instead

of reacting harshly like they would with other men (as according to the study), they reacted in

such a way as to make light of the teasing. Unlike women’s interaction with other women in

which they used more self-denigrating humor as a means to build closeness (Lampert and Ervin-

Tripp, 2006) (Boxer and Cortes-Conde, 1977), they too, like men, laminated the natural strip of

their humor when in a mixed-group as a method for better interpretation of the intent of their

jokes. Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) suggests that the shift in this behavior could be due to the

perception of aggressive acts such as teasing being more appropriate when a woman is the giver

and the man is the receiver, as it is often viewed by both female and males that aggressive acts

such as teasing directed toward a woman by a man is generally more aggressive and less


tolerated (Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff 1996, as mentioned by Lampert& Ervin-Tripp 2006). Not

only did both female and male participants alter the way in which they used humor when in a

mixed sex group, they also relied more heavily on exaggerations to help cue their behavior as

joking. Furthermore, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) suggests that “if power relations are

relatively stable, as may be the case among brothers and sisters within families, teasing may

occur more freely between the sexes” (p. 56). Moreover, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp’s (2006)

study shows that men are more likely to engage in teasing banter when in an all males group and

are less likely to maintain this behavior when in a mixed sex group whereas women are more

likely to tease in a mixed-sex group than when in an all females group

Lastly, looking more closely at the nature of teasing in the context of intimates, (i.e.

friends, family, etc.) the article “No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and

Banter” (Dynel 2008) argues “that teases, even if ostensibly aggressive, i.e. face-threatening, are

geared towards solidarity, in conformity with the framework of politeness, including mock

impoliteness, holding between intimates” (p. 241). Backing up this claim, Dynel (2008) argues

that the very foundation of teasing is humorous in nature and is in no way intended to be

malicious. Dynel (2008) agrees with Lampert and Ervin Tripp’s (2006) notion of teasing being

unique to close relationships and, therefore , asserts that teasing functions mainly as a means for

rapport building between two familiar participants, and that this affect is inherent to the nature of

teasing. Interestingly, Dynel (2008) differs immensely with Hample et al. (2009), Boxer and

Cortes-Conde (1997), and even Lampert and Ervin Tripp (2006) in her understanding of teasing;

specifically, Dynel (2008) argues that “remarks which are truly abusive and do not carry

humorous force to be observed by the addressee should be dubbed putdown humor…” (p. 247).

Put simply, Dynel (2008) claims that teasing, even if considered to be “abusive” or “harsh” are in


fact frames of humor and that if it does not result in humor by the recipient than it is not teasing

at all. Dynel (2008) further supports her claim by distinguishing teasing and banter from put

down humor. As defined in the article, “Put down humor is aggressive verbalization which may

be veiled as, or mistaken for, teasing” (p. 249). Dynel (2008) asserts that put down humor,

though usually “rare in real life discourse” because of its rude nature that “…goes against the

grain of rudimentary politeness norms”, (p. 249) can, in some cases, be found in everyday

exchanges with the goal of “maintain[ing] the speaker’s power over the hearer” (p.250). In this

sense, put downs are understood to be aggressive in nature and is often used to denigrate the

recipient for purposes of control and power. Unlike teasing, put down humor “impair[s]

interpersonal bonds since the speaker elevates him or herself at the expense of the target… “(p.

250). Though Dynel (2008) defines teasing in a unique and positive matter, she does

acknowledge and address the complexities found in initiating successful teasing. Agreeing with

Goffman’s frame theory (1974) as mentioned by Hample et al. (2009), Dynel (2008) explains

that teasing, despite how seemingly aggressive it may come off to the “meta-recipient” (third

party) is “genuinely geared towards promoting rapport” because it “exists entirely within a play-

frame” (p. 253). Dynel (2008) also claims that teasing, specifically successful teasing must be

accompanied with “mutual knowledge (e.g. the propensity to joke), contextual factors (e.g. the

speaker’s emotions) and cues (e.g. voice modulation, winking)” (p. 248). Essentially, Dynel

(2008) claims that in order for teasing to be successful in the sense of it being comprehended by

the recipient, than there must be a set play frame that is indexed by internal factors such as intent

as well as external factors such as delivery and relationship. Because of this thin line between

the internal and the external, Dynel (2008) asserts that for successful teasing to be gauged and

not considered as put down humor, there must be individual “case stud[ies], which may even


entail ethno-methodological analysis of the relation between given conversationalists and the

attitudes they hold for one another” (p. 248). Dynel (2008) notes that the distinction between

teasing and put down humor is incredibly complex and usually cannot be determined by outside

observers who are “unfamiliar with the common ground shared by the interlocutors’ (p. 257).

Despite this difficulty, Dynel (2008) maintains the argument that while teasing can be hard to

gauge and is heavily dependent on numerous factors, when done successful it has the ability to

strengthen bonds and establish rapport. Dynel (2008) goes so far as to claim that “recurring

teasing is thus a facilitator of and a testament to a close relationship between participants” and

that “teasing does not have to be reciprocal, the only requirement being that the teased party

must not take offence…” (p. 257).

II. Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how teasing works in a romantic relationship

dynamic. While there has been much research that has explored the overall function of teasing

based on context and familiarity; and has even explored how teasing can be misconstrued

(Hample et al. 2009, Boxer & Cortes-Conde 1997, Lampert & Ervin-Tripp 2006, Dynel 2008)

there has yet to be any research done on how teasing can function differently and more

complexly in a romantic relationship dynamic and why. Through careful analysis, I will try to

answer: (1) Does teasing work differently in a romantic relationship and why? And (2) If teasing

is most successful when the two (or more) participants know each other well, what then causes

miscommunication between people who are in a romantic relationship dynamic, considering that

their level of intimacy and familiarity is often higher than that of a platonic relationship?


III. Data Collection Method & Analysis Procedures

The data for this essay was collected on October 13, 2014 and contains a dialogue

between Evan Keimach, a white 21 year old male, and myself, an African-American 21 year old

female. I will refer to Evan as “E” and to myself as “A” in the third person. The conversation

took place in my apartment; specifically in the dining room while sitting at the dining table.

During this conversation, Evan and I engage in “playful” teasing that turns into a long

disagreement on whether or not I should buy probiotic vitamins. The conversation was

transcribed the following day and will be referred to for the analysis portion of this essay.

I will look to the articles in the literature review portion of this essay to support my

claims and to point out any similarities or differences found in my data. Because a big portion of

understanding teasing and other forms of humor needs contextual and ethnographic information I

will be relying heavily on background information in order to better gauge what is happening in

the data. For the purposes of this research, I will utilize the definition of teasing as being a frame

for verbal play for the purpose of building rapport and initiating humor (Boxer-Cortes-Conde

1997, Lampert & Ervin-Tripp 2006, and Dynel 2008).

IV. Analysis & Findings

In order to better understand what is happening in the data, an understanding of what

constitutes a romantic relationship dynamic must first be established. A good way of

understanding the dynamic shared between two people involved romantically, is to compare it


with the dynamic shared between two people involved platonically. Below is a diagram of the

differences in both respective dynamics:

In a platonic relationship, the entire dynamic is built on a mutual yearning for friendship

and because of this the lines are often clear. What this means is that because both participants

involved in a platonic relationship (PR) desire a friendship connection only, it is easier to

develop that dynamic and establish the tone of the relationship. For example, any given person

can have multiple friendships that function entirely differently; they can have one friendship in

which they have a mutual understanding that allows them to be more aggressive with each other,

while having another friendship with a mutual understanding that prohibits them from being as

aggressive. Due to this one dimensional dynamic often involved in platonic relationships, the

lines are clear (lines as in boundaries) which thus makes it easier to utilize aggressive humor

such as teasing without miscommunication. Lampert & Ervin Tripp (2006) supports this idea by

claiming that “While there is room for the nip or bite [of teasing to occur] among some intimates,

this is not necessarily true with friends, acquaintances, and strangers” (p. 292). I believe that the

reason for their argument of teasing not necessarily “biting” or “nipping” in the context of a


platonic relationship, is due to the clear lines (boundaries) that are established and therefore

create the entire dynamic of the friendship. This is not to say that platonic relationships are

without misunderstandings; however, it does reduce the amount of confusion and

misunderstanding between the speaker’s intent and the listener’s interpretation, as both

participants often have mutual understanding of the way aggressive verbal play like teasing

functions in their friendship.

While a platonic relationship dynamic is often more stable and the boundaries/lines are

clear, a romantic relationship is much more complex. Looking at the diagram of dynamics, a

romantic relationship, like a platonic relationship, involves friendship; however, it also involves

intimacy. Because of this two part dynamic, the lines of a romantic relationship are blurred (the

boundaries are not as clear). This “need for friendship and intimacy” that constitute a romantic

relationship dynamic can often blur into each other and thus cause the speakers intent (when

initiating verbal aggressive play like teasing) and the listeners interpretation to conflict as both

the speaker and the listener may be needing two completely different aspects of the romantic

relationship dynamic at the same time. Dynel (2008) asserts that with teasing “Interlocutors must

take judicious decisions whether a given utterance might jeopardize the humorous ritual and

ridicule the target” (p.258). Because the speaker must be careful to gauge whether or not there

teasing will be interpreted as a joke or an insult further explains the difficulty in doing so in a

romantic relationship. In a platonic relationship the speaker can gauge whether or not their

teasing will be interpreted as a joke to the listener by way of considering past experiences and

looking to see if the friendship is built on aggressive verbal play; whereas, in a romantic

relationship, even if the friendship aspect can endure verbal aggressive play, they must gauge

whether or not their partner is needing friendship or needing intimacy.


Looking to the data, there are times in which A and E are on the same page and are

therefore utilizing verbal aggressive play like teasing successfully; however, shortly after in the

data there are times in which A and E are not on the same page and therefore misunderstandings

occur.

Example 1-Laughter as a cue for verbal play

2 (E): (clears throat) I finished my quiz first

in my class so, that’s what’s up, give me

some (raises hand signaling a high five)

3 (A): @@ (doesn’t give him a high five)

4 (E): Yea

5 (A): @

6 (E): I was like boom! I was the first quiz

on his desk I was so proud of myself cuz (H)

if I get a 90%, at least a 90% on that quiz…

that means to me that I did better than the

people who got a 100% cuz I did it quicker,

[efficiency]

7 (A): [Evan no that’s dumb]

8 (E): [Efficiency]

9 (A): No

10 (E): Is more important than accuracy,

11(A): [N0]

12 (E): Yes

13 (A): No

14 (E): Yes

15 (A): No

16 (E): Yes @

17 (A): @@@@

18 (E): @

19 (A): No!


In example 1, “E” initiates conversation about how he finished his quiz before his

classmates in line 1. Directly afterward he reaches for a high five however, “A” laughs and does

not give him the high five he reached for. We see here that by “A” laughing and not giving him a

high five that the play frame is established. Because the play frame was successfully established,

lines 7-19 are therefore playful as opposed to being serious and hurtful. Both “A” and “E” were

utilizing the friendship aspect of their romantic relationship dynamic and thus, successful teasing

occurred. While this example shows successful teasing, example 2 shows the opposite.

Example 2-When a bonding attempt fails

28 (A): Isn’t it weird...that there’s no:: like

water in this or liquid, I mean there is water

from like the water that the vegetables and

fruit hold but other than that there’s no

liquid and yet it produced liquid, isn’t that

weird!?

29 (E): Well there is water in them

30 (A): I just said tha::t! I’m saying there’s

no outsword, outside source (clicks on

mason jar top twice)

31 (E): But there’s a lot of water in them

32 (A): mmm k leave me alone

33 (A): That’s not what I’m talking about

34 (E): Why would they need an outside

source?

35 (A): Oh my gosh [Evan]

36 (E): [ok, ok, ok!] (clicking

noise from mason jar)

In line 28 “A” begins the dialogue by mentioning an observation that she has made in

regard to the green juice both her and “E” were drinking. Here “A” tries to make a connection by


ending her observation with a question to get “E’s” opinion on the subject; however, “E” does

not respond in the way “A” desires. In line 29 instead of “E” offering his opinion on the matter

as a way to bond with “A’s” observations, he challenges her. “A” does not respond well to “E’s”

teasing; however, “E” does not stop, in fact, “E” goes on to tease “A” in like 31 and again in line

34 despite “A’s” frustration. We see that in this example, the teasing that “E” initiated is

unsuccessful despite the fact that it succeeds the first example by only a couple of lines. While

“E” was challenging “A’s” observation as a means to playfully tease, “A” interpreted it as “E”

co-constructing her identity as a novice. As a result, “A” did not respond to “E’s” play frame and

thus became offended.

The question then is: Why does “A” interpret “E’s” teasing as a genuine insult as

opposed to playful teasing? Referring back to the diagram explaining the different relational

dynamics, we can see that “A” and “E” were indexing different needs. In this example, “E” was

indexing the friendship component of the relationship, while “A” was indexing the intimate part

of the relationship. To make matters worse, not only were “A” and “E” on different sides of the

romantic relationship dynamic, “E” also omitted linguistic cue’s (such as laughing, exaggerating

language etc.; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp 2006) to signify a play frame; instead, he relied on the

previous successful play frame in example 1; however, because of the blurred lines involved in a

romantic relationship dynamic, relying on a previous play frame proves to not be successful as

one participant in the RR dynamic may in fact be needing intimacy as opposed to friendship;

therefore, there must be a play frame established whenever one attempts to use verbal aggressive

play like teasing in the dynamics of a romantic relationship.


Example 3-Working one’s way to a play frame

66 (E): Want me to ask my Dad what he thinks about proboiotics?

67 (A): No!

68 (E): Why?

69 (A): Cuz I don’t want him to discourage me from buying it, I want it

70 (E): #

71 (A): He’s gonna say, “you could get a generic versio::n”, o::r-

72 (E): [All of]

73 (A): [#]

74 (E): All that is good advice [that’s helping you save money]

75 (A): [NO! @]

76 (A): @ No, or he’s gonna say “It’s a placebo effect”, I don’t wanna hear that! I wanna hear yea Ashley go buy it cuz it makes you feel go::d!

77 (A): (H) @ Eva::n @ What’s wrong [with that?]

78 (E): [Alright fine I won’t ask @]

79 (A): [Men are so UGH!]

80 (E): [@#@]

81 (A): You guys are ugh!

82 (E): Why::? Why do you wanna just buy, there’s other things you could buy to make yourself feel good, go buy a pair of shoes, or something, why probiotics?

83 (A): @@@@ [@ (claps hands) @]

84 (E): [Why? Why is that? @]

85 (A): @@@ (H) Because! Pro:biotics is good for my health! Shoes is just good for my external appearance, but who cares what you’re wearing when you’re dying…

86 (A): [Oh:::::::::::::::::::! That was deep!]

In Example 3, “A” and “E” work together to build a play frame in a unique way. In line

67 “A” answers aggressively to “E” asking if “A” wants him to ask his dad (who is a

pharmacists) what his opinion is on probiotics in line 66. Considering the background

information and the audio of this transcription, “A” used “No!” in the same way she used it in

example 1 line 19; however, the play frame does not successfully become established like it did

in Example 1. This is especially apparent in “E’’s” response. Instead of laughing, “E” (in line 68)


questions her and then muffles something under his breath. Clearly, “A” and “E” are on two

completely different side of their romantic relationship dynamic and “A’s” attempts at creating a

play frame are unsuccessful. Interestingly however, “A” continues her efforts of creating a play

frame by exaggerating her words. In line 71, when mimicking “E’s” father “A” over pronounces

her words to signify a play frame. According to Lampert and Ervin Tripp (2006), “when humor

is not expected, speakers may have to rely more heavily on presentational cues, such as prior

humorous context or exaggeration to mark humorous intent, or pretense” (p. 51). After

attempting to rely on prior humorous context and failing (i.e. A using NO! in the same way it

was used in example 1 line 19), “A” changed her efforts and relied on exaggerations. “A” also

used laughter in line 73 to further initiate the play frame and reveal her humorous intent.

Unfortunately, in her efforts, “E” did not respond to her play frame and thus responded in line 74

in a serious manner indexing that he may have been offended by “A’s” mimicry of his Father. At

this point it is clear that “A’s efforts of creating a play frame are barring no fruit; however, she

does not stop. In line 75 “A” responds again in the same manner she responded in example 1 line

19; however, she recreates is by laughing immediately after saying it. Here it can be noted that

“A” relies on prior humorous context while mixing it with laughter in hopes to produce a play

frame. Again in lines 76 and 77 “A” uses exaggeration and laughter to build the play frame

despite “E’s” obvious lack participation in the aggressive play. Finally, in line 78 “E” responds

in laughter and again in lines 80, 82, & 84 he uses a combination of laughter and exaggeration to

signify that he is finally in on the play frame.

From this example it can be noted that despite being on two different sides of the

dynamic of a romantic relationship, a play frame can still be achieved by way of utilizing

presentational cues such as previous humorous context, laughter, and exaggeration; however, it


can be risky as it can be interpreted by the listener that the speaker is not in tune with their needs

for intimacy and bonding.

V. Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to determine why verbal aggressive play like teasing is

riskier in the context of a romantic relationship dynamic despite there being a higher level of

mutual knowledge, shared past experiences, and familiarities. Based on my data and analysis I

found that in a romantic relationship the dynamic is built on friendship and a need for intimacy

which can create blurred lines in the boundaries of said relationship and therefore inevitably

results in conflict. This explains why verbal aggressive play like teasing can be riskier in the

context of a romantic relationship dynamic. Because the speaker and the listener could potential

want two completely different parts of the relationship dynamic at the same time, it makes sense

as to why verbal aggressive play like teasing can easily come off as genuine insults in the context

of a romantic relationship dynamic. I also found however, that if presentational cues like

previous humorous context, exaggeration, and laughter are used properly, than the play frame

can be successfully established despite the interlocutors wanting two different parts of their

romantic relationship dynamic.


VI. References

Hample, Dale, Bing Han, and David Payne. “The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments.” Argumentation 24.4 (2010): 405-21. Web.

Boxer, Diana, and Florencia Cortés-Conde. "From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display." Journal of Pragmatics 27.3 (1997): 275-94. Web.

Lampert, Martin D., and Susan M. Ervin-Tripp. "Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-directed Joking among Male and Female Friends." Journal of Pragmatics 38.1 (2006): 51-72. Web.

Dynel, Marta. "No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics Of Teasing And Banter." Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4.2 (2008): 241-61. Web.

Documents

English 524 Research Paper (2)