Potential Playfulness of Precedent Utterances (Survey Results)

Studying playful communicative practices presupposes analysis of spontaneous dialogue transcripts as well as experimental approaches to certain research questions. This article, in particular, describes a pilot experiment, in which the authors investigate playfulness potential of precedent utterances. 104 respondents were asked to react to seven stimuli taken from vastly different spheres of precedence, which yielded a whole of 728 reactions. The authors analyze which factors influence the criteria for choosing between playful and non-playful reactions in a dialog, as well as the structure of a playful response. The opposition between playful and non-playful responses in a dialog is based on the fact that non-playful responses are primarily conditioned by the principle of cooperation, while the playful response to a stimulus in a dialog is centered around meta-linguistic reflection on the form of the previous utterance. The component of the form that is subjected to playful interpretation is called the playful dominant of the utterance. There can be one or several dominants in one utterance. The authors answer two research questions: which factors influence the playful potential of a precedent utterance and what are the main strategies for maintaining playful communicative interaction. The study found that the precedence of the utterance was not a factor that increased the playful potential of the dialogic stimulus. The playful potential of an utterance is conditioned by a combination of factors, the most significant of which in our material were the presence of tabooed and unapproved communicative behavior (in our material: insult and reproach) and absurdity. The main strategies of playful response to precedent stimuli turned out to be confrontation, solidarization and avoidance. 

1. Huizinga J. Homo ludens. A study of the play element in culture. Routlege & Kegan Paul. London, Boston and Henly; 1949. 220 p. (In Eng.)

2. Levy J. Play behavior. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida; 1983. 232 p. (In Eng.)

3. Caillois R. Man, Play and Games. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press; 2001. 208 p. (In Eng.)

4. Sutton-Smith B. The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press; 1997. 288 p. (In Eng.)

5. Sannikov V.Z. The Russian language in the mirror of the language game. M.: Yaz. rus. kul'tury; 1999. 541 p. (In Russ.)

6. Ignatenko A.V. Features of the language game in Liu Zhenyun's prose on the example of the novel "I am not Pan Jinlian". Vestnik SPbSU. Language and Literature. 2022;3(14):507– 523. (In Russ.)

7. Baranova M.I. Chicano satire in “Klail City” by Rolando Hinojosa. Kazan Linguistic Journal. 2019;2(2):106–115. (In Russ.)

8. Gridina T.A. The psychological reality of meaning and the associative strategy of the language game. Psikholingvisticheskie aspekty izucheniya rechevoi deyatel'nosti. 2006;4:11–24. (In Russ.)

9. Shatskaya M.F. The functioning of actants of the subjective type in the context of a language game. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2008;23:151–162. (In Russ.)

10. Dynel M. There is method in the humorous speaker’s madness: humour and Grice’s model. Lodz Paper in Pragmatics. 2008;4(1):159–185. (In Eng.)

11. Holt E. Laughter at Last: Playfulness and laughter in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2016;100:89–102. (In Eng.)

12. Bateson G. A theory of play and fantasy. In The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology; 2006. P. 314 – 328. Cambridge. (In Eng.)

13. Sacks H., Schegloff E., & Jefferson G.A (1974). Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation. Language. 1974;50(4):696–735. (In Eng.)