Abstract
Does having a communicative role other than the speaker’s make a difference to the way pragmatic meaning is construed? Standard paradigms in interpersonal pragmatics have implicitly assumed a speaker-centric perspective over the years, however modern approaches have re-considered the role of listener evaluations. In the present study, I examine whether assuming different communicative roles (speaker, listener, observer) results in varying interpretations. A web-based experiment revealed that participants who took the perspective of different characters in short stories differed in the way they interpreted what the speaker meant. In most cases, participants in the role of the listener interpreted speaker meaning in more negative ways than participants in the other roles. The present study suggests that the directionality of the difference (negative inferences under the listener’s perspective) could be explained by taking into account affective factors.
About the author
Nikos Vergis researches the mechanisms that help us understand what others mean beyond what is said. He received his PhD in Linguistics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, and subsequently held an appointment as a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University, Canada, where he investigated the role of language and prosody in the communication of social intentions. Currently, he is a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Crete, Greece.
Note
This study is part of the author’s doctoral dissertation (Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). IRB approval was obtained before conducting the study.
References
Alberts, Jess K. 1992. A strategic/inferential explanation for the social organization of teasing. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 11(3). 153–177.10.1177/0261927X92113003Search in Google Scholar
Alberts, Jess K., Yvonne Kellar‐Guenther & Steven R. Corman. 1996. “That’s not funny”: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication 60(4). 337–357.10.1080/10570319609374553Search in Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bernal, Maria. 2008. Do insults always insult? Genuine impoliteness vs. Non-genuine impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (Ipra) 18(4). 775–802.10.1075/prag.18.4.10berSearch in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1). 121–126.10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles & John M. Wiemann (eds.). 1991. Miscommunication and problematic talk. Newbury Park: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. using language to cause offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Michael Haugh & Valeria Sinkeviciute. 2017. (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 323–355. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_13Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Mark H. 1994. Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Groot, André, Joan Kaplan, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, Shelly Dews & Ellen Winner. 1995. Understanding versus discriminating nonliteral utterances: Evidence for a dissociation. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 10(4). 255–273.10.1207/s15327868ms1004_2Search in Google Scholar
Dews, Shelly, Joan Kaplan & Ellen Winner. 1995. Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes 19(3). 347–367.10.1080/01638539509544922Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1987. Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25(1). 219–253.10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219Search in Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Boaz Keysar, Leaf Van Boven & Thomas Gilovich. 2004. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(3). 327–339.10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology 115(1). 3–15.10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. 2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol 15(1-2). 5–27.10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. & Herbert L. Colston (eds.). 2007 Irony in language and thought. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410616685Search in Google Scholar
Gilovich, Thomas, Kenneth Savitsky & Victoria Husted Medvec. 1998. The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(2). 332.10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.332Search in Google Scholar
Glenwright, Melanie, Brent Tapley, Jacqueline KS Rano & Penny M. Pexman. 2017. Developing appreciation for sarcasm and sarcastic gossip: It depends on perspective. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 60(11). 3295–3309.10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0058Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3). 213–231.10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Allen D. 1980. Mishearings, Misunderstandings, and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker‐oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry 50(3‐4). 31–74.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00016.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hancock, Jeffrey T., Philip J. Dunham & Kelly Purdy. 2000. Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Development 1(2). 227–248.10.1207/S15327647JCD010204Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 52–72.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003Search in Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. Diverging interpretations associated with the perspectives of the speaker and recipient in conversations. Journal of Memory and Language 53(4). 551–566.10.1016/j.jml.2005.06.002Search in Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2013. Identity work and face work across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 9(1). 35–54.10.1515/pr-2013-0002Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355.10.1075/pc.17.2.06kecSearch in Google Scholar
Keltner, Dacher, Ann M. Kring Lisa Capps, Randall C. Young & Erin A. Heerey. 2001. Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 127(2). 229–248.10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.229Search in Google Scholar
Kowalski, Robin M. 2000. “I was only kidding!”: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(2). 231–241.10.1177/0146167200264009Search in Google Scholar
Kreuz, Roger J. & Kristen E. Link. 2002. Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21(2). 127–143.10.1177/02627X02021002002Search in Google Scholar
Kruger, Justin, Nicholas Epley, Jason Parker & Ng. Zhi-Wen. 2005. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6). 925–936.10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925Search in Google Scholar
Kruger, Justin, Cameron L. Gordon & Jeff Kuban. 2006. Intentions in teasing: When “just kidding” just isn’t good enough. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(3). 412–425.10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.412Search in Google Scholar
Leary, Mark R. 2000. Affect, Cognition and the Social Emotions. In Joseph P. Forgas (ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of affect in social cognition, 331–356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9–33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Jacqueline K., Jeffrey T. Hancock & Philip J. Dunham. 2006. The roles of politeness and humor in the asymmetry of affect in verbal irony. Discourse Processes 41(1). 3–24.10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2Search in Google Scholar
Mehrabian, Albert & Norman Epstein. 1972. A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality 40(4). 525–543.10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.xSearch in Google Scholar
Mooney, Annabelle. 2004. Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics 36(5). 899–920.10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.006Search in Google Scholar
Pexman, Penny M. & Melanie Glenwright. 2007. How do typically developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony?. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20(2). 178–196.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.06.001Search in Google Scholar
Pexman, Penny M. & Kara M. Olineck. 2002. Does sarcasm always sting? Investigating the impact of ironic insults and ironic compliments. Discourse Processes 33(3). 199–217.10.1207/S15326950DP3303_1Search in Google Scholar
Pexman, Penny M. & Meghan T. Zvaigzne. 2004. Does irony go better with friends?. Metaphor and Symbol 19(2). 143–163.10.1207/s15327868ms1902_3Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25(1). 201–218.10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201Search in Google Scholar
Schwoebel, John, Shelly Dews, Ellen Winner & Kavitha Srinivas. 2000. Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol 15(1-2). 47–61.10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2011. Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im) politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3565–3578.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. Philosophy 3. 143–184.Search in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Toplak, Maggie & Albert N. Katz. 2000. On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10). 1467–1488.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00101-0Search in Google Scholar
Vergis, Nikos. 2015. The interplay of pragmatic inference, face and emotion. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Vergis, Nikos. 2017. The interaction of the Maxim of Quality and face concerns: An experimental approach using the vignette technique. Journal of Pragmatics 118. 38–50.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.009Search in Google Scholar
Young, Stacy L. & Amy M. Bippus. 2001. Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way?: Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships. Communication Quarterly 49. 35–5210.1080/01463370109385613Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Dependent variables
Q1. Speaker’s Commitment to the truth of his/her statement
Speaker Perspective: Do you believe what you say?
Listener Perspective: Does [the speaker] believe what s/he says?
Observer Perspective: Does [the speaker] believe what s/he says?
Most likely NO (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ (7) Most likely YES
Q2. Speaker’s Goal
Speaker Perspective: Are you teasing or being serious?
Listener Perspective: Is [the speaker] teasing or being serious?
Observer Perspective: Is [the speaker] teasing or being serious?
Teasing (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ (7) Serious
Q3. Speaker’s Attitude
Speaker Perspective: Are you trying to be friendly or mean to [the listener]?
Listener Perspective: Is [the speaker] trying to be friendly or mean to you?
Observer Perspective: Is [the speaker] trying to be friendly or mean to [the listener]?
Friendly (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ (7) Mean
Q4. Speaker’s emotional state
Speaker Perspective: Do you say what you say because you are happy or upset with [the listener]?
Listener Perspective: Does [the speaker] say what s/he says because s/he is happy or upset with you?
Observer Perspective: Does [the speaker] say what s/he says because s/he is happy or upset with [the listener]?
Happy (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ (7) Upset
Q5. Listener’s Reaction
Speaker Perspective: Will [the listener] be amused or hurt by what you say?
Listener Perspective: Will you be amused or hurt by what [the speaker] says?
Observer Perspective: Will [the listener] be amused or hurt by what [the speaker] says?
Amused (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ (7) Hurt
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
