Playful aggression fails to capture the edge of the antics of the jester and fool. In terms more felicitous to scientific inquiry, my colleagues Ann Kring and Lisa Capps and I defined a tease as an intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers. We referred to provocation instead of aggression because a tease involves an act that is intended to provoke emotion, to discern another’s commitments. The provocation is evident in the content of the verbal utterance or some physical act, like a poke in the ribs, the proverbial pinch of the cheek, or a tongue protrusion. The tease, in a funny way (and I’m not teasing), is like a social vaccine. Vaccines are weak forms of pathogens (for example, smallpox) that, when injected, stimulate the recipient’s immune system—the inflammation response, killer T cells that recognize the dangerous pathogen, bind to it and kill it. The tease seeks to stimulate the recipient’s emotional system, to reveal the individual’s social commitments.
The more mysterious element is what is unsaid in the tease. This family of linguistic acts we called off-record markers. These are the nonverbal actions that swirl around the hostile provocation and signal that it is not to be taken literally but instead in the spirit of play. Here we turned to philosophical accounts of literal and nonliteral communication to find principles that account for the art of the tease, philosophical principles that organize the antics of the fool and that help differentiate the bully from the sage.
THIS AND NOT THIS
In the mid-1960s, philosopher Paul Grice outlined four principles of communication that would profoundly shape the study of pragmatics—that is, how people speak. Sincere communication, according to Grice, involves utterances that are to be taken literally. These statements should adhere as closely as possible to four maxims (see table below). Statements should follow the rule of quality—they should be truthful, honest, and based in evidence. Statements should be appropriately informative—the rule of quantity—and avoid the Strunk and White catastrophes of being too wordy or opaquely succinct. Statements should be relevant and on topic and avoid meandering into digressions, irrelevances, or stream-of-consciousness flights of fancy. Finally, in honoring the rule of manner, statements should be direct, clear, and to the point (sorry if I’ve violated this one).
Utterances that follow these four simple rules are on-record, and are to be taken literally. When an MD provides a prognosis about a life-threatening condition, she should follow these four rules of on-record communication. So too should the financial advisor announcing the unexpected loss of a family fortune—these are not the best moments for exaggeration, intentional falsehoods, fantastical description, obvious repetition, digression, meandering, or catchy metaphors or poetic obliqueness. Much of our social life, in fact—romantic declarations, sealing business deals, critiques at work, teaching young toddlers reaching to touch red-hot burners or rabid dogs—transpires in this realm of literal, on-record communication.
GRICE’S MAXIMS OF COMMUNICATION
LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLE
CRITERION
VIOLATIONS
QUALITY
TRUTH
EXAGGERATION, FANTASTICAL DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
INFORMATIVENESS
REDUNDANCY, REPETITION, EXCESSIVE BREVITY
RELATION
RELEVANCE
DIGRESSION
MANNER
CLARITY
VAGUENESS, OBLIQUENESS, METAPHOR
When we intentionally violate Grice’s maxims, we signal that alternative interpretations of the utterance are possible. We say “this” with our words, and “not this” with violations of Grice’s maxims, pointing to other possible meanings of our utterance. We signal “not this” by resorting to obvious falsehoods or exaggerations of the truth (which violate the rule of quantity). We can provide too much information, for example in systematic repetition, or too little information, thus violating the rule of quantity. We can dwell in the irrelevant to violate the rule of relation. And we can resort to various linguistic acts—idiomatic expressions, metaphors, oblique references—that violate the rule of manner and its requirements of clarity and directness.
As important as sincere speech is to our social life, so too is this realm of nonliteral communication. Our brief utterances can take on the opposite meaning of what the words denote (irony, satire). We can connect disparate concepts in communicative acts that leap beyond narrow literal denotation (metaphor). We can endow our utterances with multiple layers of unbounded, aesthetically pleasing meaning (poetry).
The relevance of Grice’s maxims to teasing, ironically enough, is revealed in linguists Brown and Levinson’s 1987 classic, Politeness. Brown and Levinson carefully document how in the world’s languages speakers add a layer of politeness to their utterances when what they say risks embarrassing the listener or themselves. Politeness is achieved through systematic violations of Grice’s four maxims.
Consider the simple act of making a request. If someone asks you for the time, or directions, or to pass the rutabagas, or not to talk so loudly during the previews, that act is fraught with potential conflict. The recipient of the request is imposed upon and risks being revealed as incompetent, boorish, or disinterested in social conventions. The requester risks being perceived as intrusive and impolite. To soften the impact of requests and other potentially impolite acts such as recommendations, or criticism, people violate Grice’s maxims to communicate in more polite fashion. Say your best friend is being a bit boisterous, with elbows flying, at your Friday evening line dancing group that you’ve generously invited him to. To encourage a bit more restraint, you might politely resort to indirect questions (“Have you ever seen yourself dance?”), rhetorical questions (“Have you done line dancing before?”), metaphors (“Wow, you holler like a howler monkey”) and obliqueness (“I bet you’d be a terrific clown”). We break the rules of sincere communication to be polite. Equipped with this analysis of nonliteral communication, a careful examination of the tease reveals that teasing and politeness are surprisingly close relatives.
THE ART OF THE TEASE
What gives the tease the playful genius of the jester’s satire are systematic violations of Grice’s maxims. A first principle is exaggeration, which marks the playfulness of the tease by deviating from Grice’s rule of quality. Teasing can involve copious detail, excessive profanity, or an exaggerated characterization. In a study of the conversations of a very loving family, the mother referred to a young son as “horse mouth” when he did not speak clearly. We tease with dramatic and exaggerated shifts in our pitch—we mock the plaintiveness of another with high-pitched imitations, and the momentary obtuseness of another with slow-moving, low-pitched utterances. Parents will tease children about their excessive possessiveness by using vowel elongation and exaggerated pitch: “Mine!” We tease by imitating, in exaggerated form, the mannerisms of others—the bread and butter of a preteen’s around-the-clock, eye-rolling mockery of his or her parents.