4.1 Overall distribution of strategies
4.3.1 Teasing
Teasing is commonly used to make fun of someone or something through certain
behaviors. Children tease each other for many reasons, such as teasing about one’s
physical appearance, interests in same/opposite sex, physical/intellectual performance,
personal hygiene, etc. In the present study, it is frequent to find that children laugh at
someone’s unclear articulation, mispronunciation and misuse of words/expressions. To
attack the target, teasers may manipulate certain verbal elements or purposely distort the target’s utterances to achieve the goal of teasing. The unit for manipulation can be
as tiny as a sound, or as large as a sentence. Words and phrases with double meanings
can be a possible element for children to play with (i.e., a type of semantic play). In
short, teasers may exploit different aspects of linguistic structures (i.e., language play)
to arouse humor in teasing. When it comes to the verbal humor, linguistic ambiguity is
mostly used (Pepicello & Weisberg, 1983). Among many types of language play,
playing with sounds provides a fruitful source in children’s talk (Crystal, 1996). In
74
terms of the phonological triggers in verbal play, Dienhart (1999) provided a phonetic
consonance continuum, with true phonetic total identity at one end and with phonetic
true dissimilarity at the other. In the middle of the continuum, it can further be divided
into homonymy (i.e., two words sharing an identical form and sound), homophony (i.e.,
words with the same sound but different forms), paraphony (i.e., similar words but not
identical in phonological forms), and hahaphony (i.e., an artificial type of homophony
whereby the similarity of sounds is produced by a kind of pseudo-morphemic analysis).
The continuum is shown below. Among the four types in the continuum, homonymy
stands in the highest on the scale (the most similar to the true identity) while hahaphony
locates at the lowest on the scale (the most dissimilar to total identity).
Figure 4. Continuum of phonetic consonance (Dienhart, 1999, pp. 108–109)5 The following examples demonstrate the phonological strategies used in children’s
teasing sequences. In the present study, homophony, paraphony, and hahaphony are
5 In Dienhart (1999), not only phonetic forms but semantic forms were taken into consideration. In this part, we pay more attention to sounds than to semantic meanings. Thus, the continuum is slightly revised, with the omission of polysemy (i.e., a word with multiple meanings), which is the nearest to total identity.
observed. As mentioned in Dienhart (1999), homophony refers to words that have
similar pronunciation but have different forms/spellings and meanings, such as night
and knight. In example (8), CH, CJ, and RR were playing with toy blocks. YS suddenly
intruded into the playing area, and he accidentally stepped onto CH’s stuff. CH then
started to scold YS and YS tried all he could do to deny the charge. The overhearer RR
intervened in the conversation and expressed her alignment towards CH through
making fun of YS.
(8) ((CH accused YS of stepping onto his stuff.)) 1
2
YS: <F我沒有踩到禮物F>
..你真的很吵耶..<F hou=F>
RR: hou=猴子喔 YS: 你怎麼說我猴子
‘I didn’t step onto your gift.’
‘You’re so annoying. Hou!’
‘Hou..? (are you) monkey?’
‘How could you call me monkey?’
As shown in the example, YS moaned about his disaffection by lengthening the
interjection hóu, along with a loud voice. Then, RR deliberately imitated YS to show
her annoyance. Mimicking here was exploited as a way to make fun of YS. Immediately
following, she played with the phonological similarity (i.e., hóu) for aggressive
amusement. The two words she played with share an identical phonological form but
with different meanings (i.e., hóu in line 1 is an interjection while the one in line 2
means ‘monkey’). Such an example demonstrates the use of homophony in teasing.
In addition to homophony, ‘paraphony’ is observed. Paraphony, also called
near-76
homophony, refers to two similar words but differ in phonological forms, such as baked
beans and baked beings (Dienhart, 1999). Example (9) depicts a group chat consisting
of four children. During the conversation, YS was so excited that he bumped into RR’s
wound out of carelessness. Being irritated by the pain of the wound, RR reminded YS
of what he did. After hearing what RR said, everyone in the classroom burst into
laughter and started to tease RR about her unclear pronunciation.
(9) ((A group of children were playing at the back of the classroom.)) 1
‘Ouch, you touched my wound (shangkǒu).’
‘I’m sorry.’
‘What is you touched my sankǒu (a family of three)’
‘sankǒu (a family of three)’
‘sankǒu…you hit my sankǒu’
‘sankǒu…What is sankǒu?’
‘sankǒu’
‘(It means) a family of three people.’
Here, multiple strategies were used. At first, CJ initiated the process of teasing by
intentionally asking a rhetoric question to challenge RR, as presented in line 3. Then,
the conversation continued by the same rhetoric question and a couple of repetitive
forms of RR’s non-standard pronunciation (i.e., from line 4 to line 7). At the end, CH
played with the meaning of the distorted form 三口 sankǒu. As found in the rhetoric
questions and the repetitive forms, 傷口 shangkǒu [ʂɑŋ.kʰou] was purposely replaced
with 三口 sankǒu [sɑn.kʰou], a near homophone. The pronunciation differences
between the two words lie in the retroflexion ([ʂ] in 傷 vs.[s] in 三) and velarization
([n] in 傷 vs.[ŋ] in 三). Moreover, the meanings of the two words are dissimilar (i.e.,
傷口 shangkǒu denotes ‘wound’ while 三口 sankǒu refers to ‘three people’). The play
on paraphony, indeed, created humorous effects in this conversation.
Hahaphony (or hahafunny), according to Dienhart (1999), is defined as an
artificial type of (near) homophony whereby similar sounds are produced by a kind of
pseudo-morphemic analysis. The examples provided by Dienhart are spook-etti and
spaghetti. In the following example, YS tried to show off with the toy watch he made
in hopes of obtaining compliments from CJ. Out of YS’s surprise, CJ did not show his
admiration but responded in a playful manner. Still more, CJ started to make fun of YS.
The target term 聖魔 shèngmó was substituted by a pseudo form 聖喵 shèngmiao (see
line 2). The teasing form motivated YS to clarify what he said. However, YS was
recurrently interrupted. CJ interrupted the clarification through repeating the created
form 聖喵 shèngmiao. Similar to example (9), repetition was frequently used in this
example. The use of continuous repetition intensified the teasing effects. Moreover, it
distracted the interactant from finishing the speech.
(10) ((YS was showing off the watch he made.))
1 YS: <MRC 聖魔手錶 MRC> ‘(It’s) Shèngmó (trinity) watch.’
78
<MRC 聖喵 MRC> ‘Shèngmiao’ ((especially
emphasized.))
Repetition is commonly employed in verbal abuse. With a focus on both teasing and
insulting, (partial) repetitive forms are frequently observed. The repetition is used to
emphasize and increase the degree of aggravation, as shown in the following example.
In example (11), CH repeated the expression 老妖怪 lăo yaoguài ‘old monster’. Here,
a play with rhymes can also be noticed in CH’s utterances (i.e., 奇怪 qíguài ‘freakish’
rhymes with 老妖怪 lăo yaoguài).
(11) ((YS was accused of deliberately touching the teacher’s bookshelf.)) 1
Besides the phonological level of language play, examples illustrating other
linguistic strategies, such as syntactic strategies, are found. Among the syntactic level
of language play, referential ambiguity seems to be the most usual type in our data.
Referential ambiguity refers to a phrase or a sentence where the referent is unclear. The
succeeding example is an argument between two boys, CH and CJ.
(12) ((CJ persisted in denying the accusation.))
1 CH: 我要把你的東西丟掉 ‘I’m going to throw your stuff away.’
2 CJ: 老師=你 ‘Teacher! You…’((noticing the teacher’s absence)) 3 CH: (0)老師=[你 ‘Teacher, you…’((mimicking))
4 CJ: [你吵死了 ‘You are devastatingly noisy.’
5 CH: 你說老師你吵死了 ‘You said Teacher is devastatingly noisy.’
CH insisted that CJ had insulted him, yet CJ persisted in denying. With no resolution at
the end, CH threatened to throw CJ’s stuff as a way to show his strong disagreement with CJ’s claim (see line 1). Since CJ’s possession was at stake, CJ was planning to
report a threat to the teacher. In confrontation with CJ’s accusation, CH imitated CJ in
no time to prevent CJ from finishing the sentence, as in line 3. The utterances in line 2
and line 3 all ended with 你 nǐ ‘the second-person singular pronoun’. However, the
referents of the pronouns differed. In line 2, the referent of 你 nǐ could be the teacher
or CH. As for the pronoun used in CH’s imitation (in reference to line 3), it did not have
a specific reference because it was a pure mimicking (or it might refer to CJ). The
imitation was so annoying that CJ completed CH’s imitative utterances by recycling
the second-person singular pronoun used in line 3 and further criticized CH (i.e., he
said that CH was noisy), as presented in line 4. The recycled pronoun 你 nǐ specifically
referred to CH this time. CH, in return, cleverly blended CJ’s criticism and the reporting.
The referent of the pronoun, at the end, switched to Teacher (as shown in line 5). The
80
referential ambiguity and the blending of sentences did achieve the goal of making fun.
With an intentional referent to the teacher, the teasing utterances also functioned as an
implicit threat to prevent CJ from saying more.
In addition to the alternation of referent and combination of two discontinuous
phrases, referential ambiguity resulting from the absence of subject plays a role in
teasing, and it elicits a great verbal humor. In example (13), CJ suggested that CH
should take turns playing around with paper planes. CH was so excited that he could
not wait any longer. He could not help but ask JC to finish playing as soon as possible.
(13) ((CJ was about to fly the paper plane.)) 1
2 3
CH: 快一點飛啦
CJ: 我幹嘛飛我又不會飛 CH: 我說玩紙飛機耶
‘Fly (the paper plane) as quickly as possible.’
‘Why should I fly? I cannot fly.’
‘I mean flying the paper plane.’
In the above example, the absence of subject in line 1 led to an ambiguity which further
became an elicitation of a tease. Chinese, unlike English, is a null-subject (subject drop)
language. In other words, the presence of subject is optional. In terms of CH’s
utterances, it made sense only as the absent subject referred to the paper planes CJ were
playing with (i.e., 紙 飛 機 快 一 點 飛 啦 ). Without the presence of subject in the
sentence, CJ was aware of the referential ambiguity and intentionally referred the
absent subject to himself, as shown in line 2. He wittily made use of two strategies,
refutation and negated ability (in reference to Section 4.4) to show his non-compliance.
He firstly questioned CH on purpose (i.e., 我幹嘛飛 wŏ gànmá fei ‘Why should I
fly?’). Then, he showed his inability of flying (i.e., 我又不會飛 wŏ yòu búhuì fei ‘I
can’t fly.’). His utterances triggered the humor. Being aware of making a referential
ambiguity, CH clarified what he had said and specified the subject at the end of the
conversation, as shown in line 3.
Aside from the referential ambiguity, the humor in example (13) also resulted from
the incongruous interpretations of the same word. In the excerpt, the word 飛 fei served
as a polysemy that resulted in different interpretations. Polysemy refers to a word with
multiple meanings. Usually, the meanings are related to each other (i.e., in the same
semantic field). The word 飛 fei, to CH’s understanding, was interpreted as ‘to make
something fly’ while the meaning ‘to fly’ was deliberately chosen by CJ. In all, the
playfulness in example (13) can be analyzed from the perspective of semantic
ambiguity as well.
By far, we have displayed the use of language play in children’s teasing. From
some of the presented examples, exaggerated imitation is utilized, like example (6), (8),
(10) and (12). The teaser may imitate the target and further exaggerate the target’s
82
behaviors and the way of speaking (e.g., to distort the former pronunciation, as in (6)
and (10)). The imitation is usually along with a high-pitched voice. The elevation of
pitch is taken as a feature of exaggeration. In fact, the rising of pitch in mimicking is a
universal phenomenon, and it is not sex-specific. That is to say, people do raise their
pitch as mimicking regardless of the sex of the imitated model. A higher-pitched is
regarded as a register to signal the audience that the speaker is now diverging from their
regular behaviors and emphasizing he/she is imitating someone.
Besides, teasing may develop into a fiction or an overstatement as teasers and
targets are engaged in a playful teasing and they tease each other back and forth. Teasers
exaggerate what targets do and use their imagination to make teasing more entertaining.
An overstated simulacrum of reality creates a brand-new layer of a joint activity, just
as demonstrated in (14) and (15). Example (14) is a follow-up of example (9).
(14) ((The children were making fun of RR’s unclear pronunciation.)) 1
‘(It means) a family of three; a family of four.’
‘Wow…a family of six’
‘A family of eight’
‘A family of a hundred, a family of a hundred’
‘A family of a hundred’
‘A hundred’
‘Ten million people’
‘A trillion’
9
‘A family of one trillion people’
‘A family of infinite (trillion) people’
On the basis of the teasing of RR’s unclear pronunciation, the conversation
evolved into a play on the near homophone 三口 sankǒu ‘three people’. The teasers all
rejoined with a play on the literal meaning. They substituted the number terms in the
former phrase 一家三口 ‘a family of three’ (i.e., a word-play). The recurring patterns
with an alternation of the numeral quantifiers represented a hyperbolic use. It became
more hyperbole-prone as the number got larger and larger, from three, hundreds of,
millions of, billions of, to countless and infinite. Overall, the numerical expressions in
the excerpt generated hyperboles that enhanced the humorous effects in teasing.
Similar cases regarding exaggeration are found. The following example is about a
group of teasers cooperating in making up a story to tease the target. Originally, it was
a dyadic conversation (i.e., a talk between JB and CH). It turned into a group
conversation with an involvement of four children (i.e., with the participation of RR
and CJ) afterwards.
(15) ((CH wanted to change the seat with JB.))
1 JB: 你要跟蜘蛛換喔= ‘You’ll exchange your seat with a
84
‘As be seated, it turns into…’
5 RR: [就會卡住]讓你哭著叫媽媽 ‘You’ll be stuck in it and cry.’
6 JB: 然後牠們的盪鞦韆就卡在你的 屁股裡了
‘Then, their swings are stuck in your butt.’
‘evasion’ in refusal). He said that CH is going to exchange the seat with a spider. He
further stated that the swing for the spider is so small that CH might destroy the swing.
Other kids (e.g., RR and CJ) continued the story made up by JB in attempt to show their
strong alignment towards JB. For example, RR teased CH through exaggeratedly
describing how timid CH would be if he got stuck in the seat (see line 5). The made-up
story was too fictitious to occur in reality but it enhanced the playfulness in the teasing
episode. To disagree with the teasing, CH frequently made use of minimal disagreement
tokens (MDT) (e.g., 騙人啦 piàn rén (la) ‘you lied.’, and 最好啦 zuìhăo (la) ‘it’d
better be.’). An elucidation of MDT is presented in Section 4.4.9.
In summary, this section unveils the frequent strategies used in children’s teasing,
including language play (e.g., sound play, word play, and syntactic play), imitation, and
exaggeration. With the interplay of those strategies, offensive yet humorous effects are
created.