Startseite Linguistik & Semiotik 1. Language play in conversation
Kapitel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

1. Language play in conversation

  • Neal R. Norrick
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Language play has been understood in two contrastive ways, giving rise to two separate, but partly complementary research traditions: first, play with language as its object, and second, play with language as its medium. Language is clearly the object of play in games like crosswords, anagrams and punning, where metalingual focus (Jakobson 1960) on the forms of language replaces the coherence of ordinary discourse. This sort of play with language may become serious business, for instance in the creation of concrete poetry and advertising slogans (see Crystal 1998). But language may also be the medium of play in teasing a friend or exchanging embarrassing personal anecdotes, where a play frame (Bateson 1953, Fry 1963) or a non-serious key (Hymes 1972) holds sway. Properly framed, even pointedly negative remarks can come across as playful sarcasm rather than serious aggression (see Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997). But within the playful interaction, language may retain its literal meaning, as when friends flirtatiously pay each other compliments. The two types fall together when conversationalists non-seriously frame their interaction as play and also transform the means and routines of everyday talk, as when the flirtatious compliments become obviously exaggerated, allusive or punning (see Straehle 1993): Hence the complementary overlap between the two research paradigms on language play. My chapter will illustrate both sorts of language play and their convergence with examples from everyday conversation, and present ways of analyzing such interactions, particularly with regard to their significance for the organization of conversation, for our understanding of the forms of everyday talk, and for interpersonal relationships, especially concerning the interplay of humor and aggression.

Abstract

Language play has been understood in two contrastive ways, giving rise to two separate, but partly complementary research traditions: first, play with language as its object, and second, play with language as its medium. Language is clearly the object of play in games like crosswords, anagrams and punning, where metalingual focus (Jakobson 1960) on the forms of language replaces the coherence of ordinary discourse. This sort of play with language may become serious business, for instance in the creation of concrete poetry and advertising slogans (see Crystal 1998). But language may also be the medium of play in teasing a friend or exchanging embarrassing personal anecdotes, where a play frame (Bateson 1953, Fry 1963) or a non-serious key (Hymes 1972) holds sway. Properly framed, even pointedly negative remarks can come across as playful sarcasm rather than serious aggression (see Boxer and Cortés-Conde 1997). But within the playful interaction, language may retain its literal meaning, as when friends flirtatiously pay each other compliments. The two types fall together when conversationalists non-seriously frame their interaction as play and also transform the means and routines of everyday talk, as when the flirtatious compliments become obviously exaggerated, allusive or punning (see Straehle 1993): Hence the complementary overlap between the two research paradigms on language play. My chapter will illustrate both sorts of language play and their convergence with examples from everyday conversation, and present ways of analyzing such interactions, particularly with regard to their significance for the organization of conversation, for our understanding of the forms of everyday talk, and for interpersonal relationships, especially concerning the interplay of humor and aggression.

Heruntergeladen am 19.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781501503993-002/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen