LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/C|RC/DateDue.indd-p.1

i _—..——___—_—

LAUGHTER IN INTERACTION: THE DISCOURSE FUNCTION OF LAUGHTER IN
WRITING TUTORIALS
By

Mary Ruth Thompson Zdrojkowski

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of English

2007

ABSTRACT
LAUGHTER 1N INTERACTION: THE DISCOURSE FUNCTION
OF LAUGHTER IN WRITING TUTORIALS
By
Mary Ruth Thompson Zdrojkowski

Laughter is a multi-faceted paralinguistic cue speakers use to signal alignment or
misalignment, or to reveal underlying emotional states. This dissertation broadens
existing knowledge about how interlocutors use laughter in institutional settings by
focusing on the types of laughter used and their relation to power difi‘erentials in
interaction that takes place in university writing center tutorials.

Drawing upon research from sociolinguistics, writing center theory and practice,
institutional discourse, and humor studies; and using the lenses of politeness theory and
the concept of facework, this study looks at the dynamics of laughter in interactions
between tutors and students. This dissertation employs a hybrid methodology using (1)
Conversation Analysis techniques of audio-and video recordings which are then
transcribed and examined for patterns of interaction, (2) Enthnomethodological
techniques of participant interviews and triangulation through trained data coders, and (3)
quantification and analyses of laughter types as well as discourse features indicative of
claims to power.

The data for this study consists of ten audio and video taped writing tutorials that
took place in a university writing center. Trained coders rated initiations of laughter
according to whether (1) the laughter initiation was designed to show affiliation, to

mitigate a comment so as to relieve tension for the speaker or the bearer, or to show

disaffrliation; or whether (2) the hearer’s response to laughter was one of four afiiliative
types, was neutral, or was one of three disaffiliative types.

Major findings were that laughter did much to accomplish mutual facework, that
participant roles were somewhat more egalitarian than in other institutional dyads, and
that the tutor both initiated more and responded to more laughter by the student than did
professionals in other contexts. Also, students in this study employed a greater number of
responses to tutor laughter than did laypersons in other contexts. Both participants used
laughter primarily to preserve their own positive face and mitigate tension for
themselves.

Findings of this study have implications for methodologies used in the study of
laughter, for firrther investigation of the relationship between power differentials and the

use of laughter, and for writing center praxis.

Copyright by
MARY RUTH THOMPSON ZDROJKOWSKI
2007

This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Charles Thompson,
and to the loving memory of my mother, Wilma Maxine Thompson.

Thanks Mom and Dad.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My communities of support are many, and without them this dissertation would
not have come to be. Three in particular stand out.

My academic community includes scholars on my Guidance Committee chaired
by Kathleen Geissler, an inexhaustible advocate who kept a ready supply of light bulbs at
the end of the tunnel, and Marilyn Wilson, Mary Bresnahan, and Ellen Cushman who
were friends as well as advisors. My academic community also includes colleagues at
Eastern Michigan University, and fortunately for me several brilliant linguists who kindly
responded to the most humble of questions: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Seely, and
Salvatore Attardo have been especially helpful. Crucial to this dissertation are the tutors
and students who allowed themselves to be taped and scrutinized yet who must remain
anonymous. I owe a special debt to Nancy Ainsworth-Vaughn whose love of and
curiosity about verbal interaction inspired me. I would also like to mention Megan and
Kenne, my coders, for your patience and your keen insights. To all of you, I give thanks.

My family community, who stood beside me always, includes my husband
Wayne, our daughters Kate and Megan, and our son Jerzy. Mark, I include you in this
circle as well and will always appreciate your vote of confidence when you gave me such
a comfortable desk chair. Julie, John, Helen, and Randy—thanks for having big shoulders
and an even bigger sense of devotion to family. To all of you, my thanks and love.

My community of friends includes both scholars and family mentioned above as
well as Pat and Cindy who kept me mostly sane. Finally, and with the very utmost of

gratitude and respect, I mention Veronica Grondona, whose keen intellect, ready wit, and

vi

ceaseless acts of friendship helped me go the distance. Veronica, you are a wonderful

dissertation doula. To my community of fiiends, my eternal thanks.

vii

 

 

PROLOGUE: THE EVOLUTION OF THIS STUDY

When I began this project, I did not set out to study laughter, although that is what
emerged as the focus. At the time I began to collect data, I had directed a writing center at
a four-year regional university in the Midwest for two years, and set out to help fill a gap
in writing center research on tutor-student talk in writing tutorials. There had been much
scholarship on what should be discussed in a tutorial, how the agenda should be set, and
whether the tutor or the student should be more authoritative. However, while much
discussion focused on what should be done, little was known about what actually went on
in the verbal interaction between participants in writing tutorials.

I wanted to collect data which would allow me to see first-hand the discourse
strategies tutors and students used as they proceeded to discuss a piece of student writing.
I chose discourse analysis, specifically Conversation Analysis (CA), as the methodology
through which I could study how tutors and students went about doing such things as
deciding what to talk about, asking for or offering suggestions, and how authority/power
was negotiated and realized through verbal interaction. CA methodology uses tape
recordings of actual speech events, transcribes those recordings, and then looks for
patterns of interaction over a range of data. This methodology would allow me to have on
tape the actual conversation that occurred between participants, and I would not have to
rely on hastily written and woefully inadequate observation notes to see how the
moment-to-moment business of verbal interaction was carried out.

After I had concurrently video and audio-taped 36 writing tutorials, I watched the
videos looking for significant patterns in how the participants discussed the student’s

Writing keeping in mind such questions as “Who decides what topics to talk about?”

viii

“How are weaknesses in student writing approached?” “Who decides when to change
topics?” Does the tutor seem more a representative of the academy or an ally of the
student?” I noticed that for the most part, the model of conferencing that was used in our
tutor training sessions (that ideally the student sets the agenda and that the tutorial should
be student-centered), was not generally what was actually used: students didn’t seem to
articulate their concerns, and tutors, assuming an authoritarian persona, generally decided
what should be discussed and for how long. As the course of interaction proceeded, I also
noticed that while at times the interaction seemed to be somewhat tense—particularly
when tutors’ suggestions were either not understood or not accepted by the student—
there were also times when the interaction seemed more like casual, care-free
conversation between friends.

As I then began making transcripts from the audiotapes, I paid close attention to
the sections in which the interaction seemed unusually tense or casual. In the course of
listening closely to the audiotapes, I noticed several instances of laughter, sometimes
unilateral and subtle—not much more than fleeting exhalations of air, and other times
long voiced laughter that the participants shared. Many of these instances had no apparent
humorous stimulus, and yet did not occur to be randomly interjected. Further, many
instances of laughter, though clearly audible, did not elicit from the other participant
additional laughter or even an acknowledgement that laughter had occurred at all. I
became intrigued as to what role this discourse feature played in the coordination of
speech between tutors and students, and as I listened to more audiotapes, I consistently
found laughter occurring when student and tutor seemed most or least aligned. To me,

these opposite degrees of alignment could also be framed as opposite degrees of sharing

ix

authority: when the tutor/student roles are seen dichotomously as expert/novice,
professional/lay person, or teacher/student, power in discourse—power to talk the most,
ask the questions, decide what or what not to talk about—is more easily claimed by the
person with more status and more easily relinquished by the person with less status.

Finding out concurrently that (1) I had quite a few instances of laughter in my
data, (2) there was quite a bit written about the role of laughter in institutional settings,
and (3) there existed virtually nothing written about laughter and writing tutorials, I
decided to focus this study on the function of laughter and its relation to authority in
writing tutorials. I situated this study in the discipline of Interactional Sociolinguistics,
which looks at the ways language is used in interaction, and for the purposes of this
study, the ways language and laughter are used in institutional discourse. Further, this
study draws heavily on the literature in the interdisciplinary field of Humor Studies, in
particular the subfield of Laughter Studies which includes perspectives from psychology,
anthropology, sociology, linguistics, and communication studies.

What follows in this project consists of Chapter 1: Literature Review, in which I
highlight existing knowledge about the functions of laughter; Chapter 2: Methodology, in
which I discuss how the data were collected and analyzed; Chapter 3: Results, in which I
present primarily quantitative data; Chapter 4: Initiations, in which I focus on the types of
laughter speakers use, Chapter 5: Responses, in which I focus on the types of responses
by hearers to speakers’ uses of laughter; Chapter 6: Discussion, in which I summarize the
ways laughter is used in tutorials and its relation to authority; and finally Chapter 7:

Conclusion, in which I summarize the major findings of this study, the applications of

those findings to writing center praxis, and the ways in which this study might lead to

further research.

 

xi

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ . .......... xvii
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS ...................................................... xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1. WRITING CENTER TALK AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY .................................... 1
1.2. THE INSTITUTIONAL NATURE OF WRITING CENTERS .............................. 3
1.3. AN OVERVIEW OF LAUGHTER STUDIES PRE-1970’S ................................... 5
1.3.1. DECIDING WHAT TO STUDY .......................................................................... 5
1.3.2. HUMOR AND LAUGHTER STUDIES PRE-1970’S .......................................... 6

1.3.2.1 . Philosophical Theories ................................................................ 6

1.3.2.2. Superiority Theories ................................................................... 7

1.3.2.3. lncongruity Theories ................................................................... 7

1.3.2.4. Relief Theories ............................................................................ 8
1.3.3. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL THEORIES .................................................... 8
1.3.4. SHIFT TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................... 10
1.3.5. SHIFT TO A SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE .......................................... 11

1.3.5.1. The Impact of Technology ....................................................... 12

1.3.5.2. The Field of Sociolinguistics ................................................... 12
1.4. 1970’S AND BEYOND: LAUGHTER AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY.. ............... 14
1.4.1. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF LAUGHTER .............................................. 17
1.4.2. STUDIES OF THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF LAUGHTER ............. . ............... 18
1.5. ISSUES IN STUDYING LAUGHTER-IN-INTERACTION ................................ 21
1.5.1. TRANSCRIBING THE FINE NUANCES OF LAUGHTER ............................. 21
1.5.2. THE PLACEMENT OF LAUGHTER ................................................................ 27
1.5.3. THE SOCIAL NATURE OF LAUGHTER ........................................................ 31
1.5.4. VOLUNTARY VS. SPONTANEOUS LAUGHTER ......................................... 32
1.5.5. SHARED LAUGHTER VS. UNILATERAL LAUGHTER ............................... 32
1.5.6. FUNCTIONS OF LAUGHTER-IN-INTERACTION ........................................ 34
1.5.7. GENDER AND LAUGHTER ............................................................................. 36
1.6. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY ......................... 38
1.6.1. FACEWORK THEORY ...................................................................................... 38
1.6.2. DIMENSIONS OF HUMOR STYLES ............................................................... 43
1.6.3. POWER IN DISCOURSE ................................................................................... 47
1.7. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 49
1.8. NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ......................................................................... 49

xii

 

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 51

2.1. IMPETUS FOR THE STUDY ............................................................................... 51
2.2. DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 53
2.2.1. SETTING ............................................................................................................. 53
2.2.2. PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................. 57
2.2.2.1. Tutors ........................................................................................ 57
2.2.2.2 Students ...................................................................................... 60
2.2.3. PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................... 61
2.3. INITIAL REVIEW OF DATA ............................................................................... 63
2.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY GUIDING
THE STUDY ........................................................................................................ 68
2.4.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 68
2.4.2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 68
2.5. CODING DATA ..................................................................................................... 72
2.5.1. CODING CATEGORIES .................................................................................... 72
2.5.2. SELECTION AND TRAINING OF CO-RATERS ............................................ 73
2.5.3. CODING SESSIONS .......................................................................................... 76
2.6. DATA SUBSET SELECTION ............................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES ................ 80 , .
3.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 80 4;;
3.2. CODING LAUGHTER .......................................................................................... 81
3.2.1. TYPES OF INITIATION LAUGHTER .............................................................. 82
3.2.1.1 Affiliative ........................................................................................................... 82
3.2.1.2. Mitigation for Self (M') .................................................................................... 82
3.2.1.3. Mitigation for Other (M2) ................................................................................. 83 ,
3.2.1.4. Disaffiliative (D') ............................................................................................. 83 .-
3.2.1.5 Disaffiliative (D2) .............................................................................................. 83
3.2.1.6. Unclear (U) ....................................................................................................... 84
3.2.2. TYPES OF RESPONSE LAUGHTER ............................................................... 84
3.2.2.1. Affiliative/Shared (A/S) .................................................................................... 84 1
3.2.2.2. Affiliative/Verbal (A/V) ................................................................................... 84 3‘
3.2.2.3. Affiliative/Non-Verbal (A/NV) ........................................................................ 85 3:
3.2.2.4. Affiliative/Delayed (A/D) ................................................................................. 85 .5.
3.2.2.5. Neutral (N) ........................................................................................................ 85 ‘3
3.2.2.6. Disaffiliation/NO Laugh (D/NL) ....................................................................... 86 ‘5:
3.2.2.7. DisaffiliationNerbal (DN) ............................................................................. 86 :3
3.2.2.8. Disaffliative/Non-Verbal (D/NV) ..................................................................... 87 f};
3.2.2.9. Disaffiliative/Delayed (D/D) ............................................................................ 87 3?
3.3 MEASURES OF AGREEMENT ............................................................................ 88 g
3.3.1. RELIABILITY .................................................................................................. 88 ~
3.3.2. SIMPLE AGREEMENT ..................................................................................... 89
3.3.3. DISAGREEMENT AMONG CODERS ............................................................. 89
3.4. RESULTS OF QUANTIFICATION OF LAUGHTER ......................................... 9o
xiii

 

—¥—

 

3.4.1. FREQUENCY OF LAUGHTER PER TUTORIAL ........................................... 90

3.4.2. LAUGHTER AND TUTORIAL DURATION .................................................. 92
3.4.3 LAUGHTER TYPES AND FREQUENCIES ...................................................... 94
3.4.3.1 Initiation (1) Types ............................................................................................. 94
3.4.3.2 Response (R) Types ........................................................................................... 99
3.5. DISCOURSE PHASES AND LAUGHTER ........................................................ 103
3.5.1. DISCOURSE PHASES IDENTIFIED .............................................................. 103
3.5.2. DISCOURSE PHASE DURATION ................................................................. 105
3.5.3. DISCOURSE PHASE AND LAUGHTER INITIATION ................................. 106
3.5.3.1. Opening Phase ................................................................................................ 106
3.5.3.2. Diagnostic Phase ............................................................................................. 109
3.5.3.3. Directive Phase ............................................................................................... 110
3.5.3.4. Closing Phase .................................................................................................. 112
3.5.3.5. Post-Closing Phase ......................................................................................... 113
3.6 AGE AS A FACTOR IN LAUGHTER PRODUCTION ...................................... 1 13
3.7. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAUGHTER AND SPEECH
ACTIVITIES INDICATIVE OF POWER ......................................................... 116
3.7.1. VOLUBILITY ................................................................................................... 1 17
3.7.1.1. Total Words and Turns ................................................................................... 118
3.7.1.2. Ratio of Tutor: Student Words Per Turn and Words per Minute ................... 120
3.7.1.3. Laughter, Duration, and Words/Turn ............................................................. 121
3.7.2. DIRECTIVES .................................................................................................... 123
3.7.2.1. Distribution of Directives ............................................................................... 123
3.7.2.2. Directives, Duration, and Laughter ................................................................ 125
3.7.2.3. Mitigated Directives ....................................................................................... 126
3.7.3. QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................... 128
3.7.3.1. Frequency of Questions .................................................................................. 131
3.7.3.2. Numbers of Questions and Laughter Initiations ............................................ 132
3.7.4. BACKCHANNELS ........................................................................................... 132
3.7.4.1 Frequency of Backchannels ............................................................................. 133
3.7.4.2. Backchannels and Duration ............................................................................ 134
3.7.4.3. Laughter Initiations and Backchannels .......................................................... 134
- 3.7.5. OVERLAPS ....................................................................................................... 136
3.7.6. INTERRUPTIONS ............................................................................................ 138
3.7.7. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAUGHTER, OVERLAPS,
AND INTERRUPTIONS ................................................................................ 139
3.7.8. TOPIC CHANGE .............................................................................................. 140
3.7.9. SUMMARY OF DISCOURSE FEATURE DATA .......................................... 142
3.7.9.1. Raw Counts of Speech Activities .................................................................. 143
3.7.9.2. Percentages by Tutorial of Each Speech Activity ......................................... 144
3.7.9.3. Percent of Speech Activities Initiated by Tutor in Each Tutorial .................. 147
3.8. GENDER ............................................................................................................. 149
3.8.1 GENDER AND FREQUENCIES OF INITIATION
AND RESPONSE TYPES .............................................................................. 149
3.8.1.2. Dyads, Gender, and Initiations ....................................................................... 149
3.8.1.2. Dyads, Gender, and Responses ....................................................................... 153

xiv

 

-\

if,
i...

3.8.2 GENDER AND SPEECH ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 155

CHAPTER 4: INITIATIONS .................................................................. 157
4.1. MITIGATION FOR SELF (Ml) ........................................................................... 157
4.2. MITIGATION FOR THE OTHER PERSON (M2) ............................................. 165
4.3. AFFILIATIVE (AF) ............................................................................................. 170
4.4. PROBLEMS IN CODING LAUGHTER INITIATIONS .................................... 175
4.4.1 CODERS’ DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES OF PARTICIPANTS’
INITIATIONS .................................................................................................. 1 76
4.4.2. PROBLEMS IN DEFINING CODING CATEGORIES ................................... 187
4.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 190
CHAPTER 5: RESPONSES .................................................................... 191
5.1. WHAT COUNTS AS A RESPONSE .................................................................. 191
5.2. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE TYPES .......................................................... 193
5.2.1. AF FLIATIVE RESPONSES: RESPONDING POSITIVELY TO
LAUGHTER ...................................................................................................... 194
5.2.2. NEUTRAL RESPONSES: WHAT DO THEY INDICATE? ........................... 202
5.2.2.1 Neutral Responses that Show Alignment ................................ 208
5.2.2.2. Neutral Responses that Are Disaffiliative .............................. 213
5.3 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 215
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION .................................................................. 217
6.1. THE NATURE OF POWER NEGOTIATION IN WRITING
TUTORIALS ...................................................................................................... 217
6.2. RATES OF LAUGHTER IN INSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSE ......................... 223
6.3. WHAT LAUGHTER INITIATIONS SAY ABOUT TUTORIAL
DYNAMICS ....................................................................................................... 227
6.3.1. TENSION-RELIEVING LAUGHTER ............................................................. 228
6.3.1.1. Tension for Students ....................................................................................... 229
6.3.1.2. Tension for Tutors .......................................................................................... 232
6.3.2. AF FILIATIVE LAUGHTER ............................................................................ 234
6.4. WHAT RESPONSES TO LAUGHTER SAY ABOUT TUTORIAL
DYNAMICS ....................................................................................................... 237
6.4.1 NEUTRAL RESPONSES .................................................................................. 238
6.4.2. AFFILIATIVE RESPONSES ............................................................................ 241
6.5. GENDER .............................................................................................................. 245
6.6. HUMOR STYLES .................................................................................. . ............. 247
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ................................................................ 258
APPENDIX A.1 ....................................................................................... 265

XV

 

APPENDIX A.2 ....................................................................................... 266

APPENDIX A.3 ....................................................................................... 267

APPENDIX A.4 ....................................................................................... 269

WORKS CITED ...................................................................................... 270
xvi

 

 

List of Tables

Table 2.1 - Corpus Overview .......................................................................................... 58
Table 2.2 - Data Coding Sheet ......................................................................................... 75
Table 3.1 - Reliability Statistics of Raters Across Individual Tutors .............................. 88
Table 3.2 - Reliability Statistics of Raters Across All Tutors .......................................... 88
Table 3.3 - Simple Agreement Between Raters ............................................................... 89
Table 3.4 - Number of cases in which coder agreement could not be reached ................ 90
Table 3.5 - Laughter Initiation (I) Occurrences per Tutorial ........................................... 91
Table 3.6 - Initiations and Duration Ranked by Time ..................................................... 93
Table 3.7 - Initiations and Duration Ranked by (I) .......................................................... 93
Table 3.8 - Frequency of Initiation types as percentages of Tutorial 11 ......................... 95
Table 3.9 - Percentage by type of each participant’s total Initiations .............................. 98

Table 3.10 - Distribution of Primary Response (R) by Type and as % of

Tutorial Total (R) ....................................................................................... 100
Table 3.11 - Distribution of Primary Response (R) by Type and as % of

Participant Total (R) ................................................................................... 102
Table 3.12 - Discourse Phase Duration .......................................................................... 106

Table 3.13 - Distribution in Opening Phase of Primary (1) Type
and as % of Total n ................................................................................... 107

Table 3.14 - Distribution in Diagnostic Phase of Primary (1) Type
and as % of Total n ................................................................................... 110

Table 3.15 - Distribution in Directive Phase of Primary (1) Type
and as%ofTotaln ................................................................................... 111

Table 3.16 - Distribution in Closing Phase of Primary (1) Type
and as % of Total n ................................................................................... 112

Table 3.17 - Distribution in Post-Closing Phase of Primary (1) Type
and as % ofTotal n ................................................................................... 113

xvii

 

Table 3.18 - Age, Class Standing, Gender, and Laughter .............................................. 114

Table 3.19 - Volubility (% of total turns and total words) ............................................. 119
Table 3.20 - Words/Tum T:S Ratio .............................................................................. 120
Table 3.21 - Words/Minute T:S Ratio ........................................................................... 120
Table 3.22 — Laughter, T:S word/tum ratio, and Duration ............................................. 122
Table 3.23 - Directives: Total n, Ratios, Distribution, and Occurrence
by Phase .................................................................................................... 124
Table 3.24 - Directives: Duration, T : S Ratio, and Laughter Initiations ....................... 126
Table 3.25 - Percent of Mitigated Directives ................................................................. 128
Table 3.26 - Total # of Questions by Rank .................................................................. 131
Table 3.27 - Questions by Rank of T:S Ratio and Gender Dyad ................................... 131

Table 3.28 - Comparison of Number of Laughter Initiations to Number of
Questions .................................................................................................. 132

Table 3.29 - Backchannels (6) by Total n, Tutor:Student and StudentzTutor

Ratios, and Distribution by Phase ............................................................ 133
Table 3.30 - Duration and backchannel n ...................................................................... 134
Table 3.31 - Duration and backchannel n ..................................................................... 134
Table 3.32 - Laughter, Backchannels, and Percent of Laughter

as Backchannel ......................................................................................... 135
Table 3.33 - Overlaps Ranked by Total n, Tutor”Student and Student” Tutor

Ratios, and Discourse Phase Distribution ................................................ 137
Table 3.34 - Interruptions Ranked by Total n ................................................................ 139
Table 3.35 - Laughter, Overlaps, and Interruptions ....................................................... 140
Table 3.36 - Total Topic Initiation Distribution by Rank .............................................. 141
Table 3.37 - Duration and Topic Initiation .................................................................... 141

xviii

Table 3.38 - Laughter and Topic Initiation .................................................................... 142

Table 3.39 - Raw Totals for Each Speech Activity ........................................................ 143
Table 3.40 - Percentages by Tutorial of Each Speech Activity ..................................... 145
Table 3.41 - Speech activities by Percent of Total Data Set FSEL and GJWS ............. 146
Table 3.42 - Percent of Speech activities Initiated by Tutor in Each Tutorial ............... 147
Table 3.43 - Percent Tutorial Initiation Type by Gender Dyads .................................... 149
Table 3.44 - Affiliative (A) Laughter by Dyad Gender ................................................. 150
Table 3.45 - Self-Mitigating (M1) Laughter by Gender Dyad ....................................... 150
Table 3.46 - Percent Tutorial Response Type by Gender Dyads ................................... 153
Table 3.47 - Gender and Speech activities: Average Number of

Occurrences per Participant Gender and Role .......................................... 155
Table 4.1 - Participant M1 laughter as percentage of all I Types in tutorial .................. 159
Table 4.2 - Coder Disagreements as % of Total Initiations (I) ...................................... 177
Table 4.3 - Student Initiation Disagreement Types .............................................. . ......... 188

Table 5.1- Distribution of Tutor (N) Responses in Relation to Number of Stude

(S) (1) Type ............................................................................................... 207
Table 5.2 - Distribution of Student (N) Responses in Relation to Number of

Tutor (T) (1) Type ..................................................................................... 209
Table 6.1 '- Raw counts of laughter and rate per turn ..................................................... 226

xix

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

T: (Tutor is speaking)

S: (Student is speaking)

CAPS: loud voice

( ): transcriptionist’s comment

[ ]: overlapping speech

=: latched speech

brief pause. One . equals one second

..(7): a pause of 7 seconds

?: rising intonation

<Qxxxxxxe> words within arrows indicate speaker is quoting someone
<xxxxxx> words within arrows are spoken in a hushed or quite voice
:::::lengthening or stretching out of a word

um-hum: agreement

unh-unh: disagreement

<U..4U> unclear passage for 4 seconds

@: pulse of laughter

hahaha: laughter with “ah” vowel

hehehe: laughter with “ee” vowel

hhhh: laughter with is exhaled through nose, mouth closed
hnnn: laughter with a voiced nasal sound, mouth closed

V. LAUGH: voiced laughter with mixture of vowel sounds
©xxxxxx©: utterance said in smiley or playful voice

T: I’ll go= =through this revision and see what you’ve done

S: =ok= [what’s wrong]

T: and then we’ll talk..(reads silently 2 minutes)..oh this is an interesting beginning
and I WANT to read on. when you say here <Q I was all alone in my car except
for my fear Q>= ok, I’ll read through the rest of the draft

S: =yeah I was SO scared. ..

T: as quickly as I can and <U...3U> and then we’ll go from there. would you like

something to drink while you’re waiting= = ©may@be a beer?©

S: =no I’m fine= hhhh

this is a re:::ally different hh writing center

T: ...© we@@@ll we try to be helpful©

XX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter begins with a general discussion of the need for more research
focused on the verbal discourse that occurs between tutors and students in writing
centers, and moves to the specific lack of research focused on the function of laughter in
writing tutorial interaction. Next, factors which characterize writing centers as
institutional spaces are discussed. Following this, an overview of laughter research
particularly pertaining to institutional contexts is presented, and finally this study’s

theoretical orientation in discussed.

1.1. WRITING CENTER TALK AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY

Research into the dynamics of verbal institutional discourse has, over the past
twenty years, become a rich source of understanding and improving institutional
effectiveness. In academic writing centers—institutions within institutions—talk is the
lingua-franca between students and tutors, and understanding what gets communicated
and how it gets communicated is paramount to making each writing tutorial as successful
as possible. As Stephen North observed, talk is the essence of the writing center:

Talk is everything. If the writing center is ever to prove its worth in other than

quantitative terms—numbers of students seen, for example, or hours of tutorials

provided—it will have to do so by describing this talk: what characterizes it

what effects it has, how it can be enhanced (82).

Indeed, many university writing centers post mission statements of the centrality of talk

tO writing center praxis: “The writing advisors here at Salt Lake Community College

Writing Center, like to talk. We talk about what you think about your writing, what you
expect from it, and most importantly, how you write” (Student Writing Center). “Our
Writing Center offers to Denison students a place to study and talk about writing”
(Writing Center) or “Even good writers come to the Consulting Center for Research and
English Writing (CREW) because they know it's useful to talk about what they're writing
and to get some feedback” (CREW).

In 1984, those who work in writing centers were given a wake-up call about the
lack of research on tutorial talk when North said, “We don’t know very much, in other
than a practitioner’s anecdotal way, about the dynamics of the tutorial,” (82) and
reminded again in 2002 when Joan Hawthorne noted that “there may be a mismatch
between our theories and our practices, a mismatch that can be addressed only through a
more thorough analysis of writing center sessions as they occur in practice,” and that
“discourse analysis is a rich and relatively untapped source of important insight into
writing center practice” (2). It is not surprising, then, that researchers have begun to focus
not only on the content and effectiveness of tutorials, but also the dynamics of the
interactional nature of the speech event itself.

While many of the 127 results Of a keyword search for “writing center” in
Dissertation Abstracts focus on administrative, technological, and WAC issues
surrounding writing centers, a handful do look at the tutorial itself, and two studies are
mircoanalyses of tutor—student talk that include attention to laughter. Terese Thonus
examined such features of writing center verbal interaction as discourse phases,
volubility, overlaps, type and frequency of directives and their mitigation, backchannels,

and laughter; and Marjory Ann Boudreaux looked at non-verbal behavior including

laughter in the first five minutes of a writing conference (accessed 3 May 2007). Further,
writing center talk research had been published in other academic venues. Kevin Davis et
a1. identified and coded conversational moves; Susan R. Blau, John Hall, and Tracy
Strauss examined questions, echoing, and the use of qualifiers; and David C. Fletcher
examined how authority is granted or claimed by tutors and students, but none of these
studies looked at laughter. However, one area—an area that has amassed a significant
body of literature in other institutional contexts—has received scant attention in writing
center literature: the conversational uses of laughter. With the exception of Thonus’s and
Boudreaux’s studies, both of which looked laughter as but one of many analytical
categories, virtually nothing exists in the literature on tutorial interaction that focuses on
laughter beyond its indication of participant solidarity. Laughter is a highly sophisticated,
multi-functional communication device that peOple use to create and interpret social
interaction not only in casual speech events, but also in formal, institutional interactions.
Since laughter has been shown to be an important discourse feature in other institutional
contexts, not to examine how laughter influences writing center tutorials is to miss an

opportunity to improve writing center praxis.

1.2. THE INSTITUTIONAL NATURE OF WRITING CENTERS

A writing center is an institution-within—an institution, and its purpose is to
verbally interact with students to help them become better writers. In comparing the
verbal interaction Of institutional speech to what is considered casual speech, the context

within which the interaction takes place is influential. Though there is no “hard and fast

distinction to be made between the two in all instances of interactional events, nor even at
all points in a single interactional event” (Drew and Heritage 21), there are some widely
used criteria that differentiate institutional discourse from everyday conversation:

1) Institutional interaction involves an orientation by at least one of the

participants to some core goal, task, or identity (or set of them)

conventionally associated with the institution in question.

2) Institutional interaction may Often involve special and particular

constraints on what one or both of the participants will treat as allowable

contributions to the business at hand.

3) Institutional talk may be associated with inferential frameworks and

procedures that are particular to specific institutional contexts (22).

Writing tutorials, like teacher-student writing conferences, take place in academic

institutions; however, writing tutorials are not synonymous with writing conferences, and
in this study, the distinction will be made. As Thonus points out, “In the writing
conference, the student’s instructor acts as a consultant whereas in the writing tutorial,
the tutor is on the staff of a writing center that is neither linked to nor answerable to the
student’s classroom instructor” [italics original] (32). She further notes that teachers
evaluate students’ writing while tutors do not, tutorials are much longer than typical
writing conferences, and many tutorials are voluntary whereas teacher-student
conferences are not. In the present study, the speech event that takes place between tutors

and students in a writing center shall be referred to as a tutorial.

1.3. AN OVERVIEW OF LAUGHTER STUDIES PRE-l970’S

1.3.1. DECIDING WHAT TO STUDY

Everyone knows what laughter is, yet studying laughter is a complex, difficult
undertaking. Laughter has been variously defined as an emotion, an instinct, or a
behavior, and has been classified as solely a response to humor. Traditionally, laughter
has been marginalized by mainstream linguistics, but has been widely investigated by
researchers in sociolinguistics, and contemporary research Shows laughter to be a highly
sophisticated device that people use to create and interpret social interaction in both
formal and informal settings. This present day view of laughter evolved over many
centuries, and for the most part involved disentangling laughter from being either
synonymous with or in response to humor. A synopsis Of this evolution follows.

Selecting what scholarship to use when studying laughter is problematic since the
body of literature on laughter is immense: philosophers from Plato to the present have
attempted to answer why we laugh, and scholars in both the arts and sciences have
through the years addressed the physiological mechanisms that produce laughter, the
evolutionary advantages of laughter, the psychology of laughter, the health and medical
values of laughter, the universality of laughter, the descriptions of the sounds of laughter,
and have more recently focused on the social functions of laughter. Laughter scholarship
has also been intricately entwined with humor scholarship, and to discuss the history of
laughter scholarship is to discuss the history of humor scholarship. Several scholars have
made this task easier by compiling overviews of the history of humor and laughter

research, and as humor scholar Salvatore Attardo writes, since the “body of literature

concerning humor is so large. . .it is not pragmatically possible for any single scholar to
cover it in its entirety. . .reviews and syntheses of the literature on humor are readily
available” (15). Attardo mentions several reviews—“Piddington 1993; Bergler 1956;
Keith-Spiegel 1972; McGhee 1979; Raskin 1985; Morreal 1987; Holland, 1982”———and
even though many are quite extensive, they only begin to cover the range of disciplines
and cultures concerned with Studies of humor and laughter (14-15). For example, Attardo
points out that Goldstein and McGhee “quote about 400 works concerning humor
published between 1000 and 1971, but remarkably, the bibliography covers only the
Anglo-Saxon world” (15). Therefore, in light of the breadth of the field of humor and
laughter studies, and of the numerous literature reviews readily available, this discussion
will focus only on the major trends in scholarship until the 1970’s when laughter began to

be more closely studied in its own right.

1.3.2. HUMOR AND LAUGHT ER STUDIES PRE-1970’S

Early research in laughter emphasized the philosophical, and physical/ biological,
dimensions of laughter. These early studies of laughter, though not particularly useful in
explaining laughter in institutional interaction, are worth noting since they are illustrative

of the many lenses through which laughter has been viewed.

1.3.2.1. Philosophical Theories

What, exactly, laughter is or why humans laugh has been the Object Of much

 

‘1—1

I'll

philosophical debate. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, reason that it is an
emotion, and as such should be kept under control (Morreall, Philosophy 10,14). Henri
Bergson argues the opposite: humor and laughter can only exist in the absence of
emotion. These two extremes, and the many gradations between them, comprise what
Elizabeth Graham, Michael Papa, and Gordon Brooks cite as over 100 theories of humor
(161). In philosophy, three major theoretical strains have emerged to explain why we
laugh or find something funny. Patricia Keith-Spiegel has categorized these theories into

Superiority theories, lncongruity theories, and Relief theories.

1.3.2.2. Superiority Theories

Superiority theories, first proposed by Plato and Aristotle (see Keith-Spiegel for a
discussion of how these were expanded in 1651 by Hobbes, 1988 by Bain, 1911 by
Bergson, and by many others), argue that what makes us laugh or what we find funny is
when we find ourselves in a superior position to someone else. “Elation is engendered
when we compare ourselves favorably to others as being less stupid, less ugly, less
fortunate, or less weak” (Keith-Spiegel 6). We laugh when the bank discovers the
mistake was theirs, when the driver speeding past us gets pulled over by the police, or

when a lover who jilts us gets jilted.

1.3.2.3. lncongruity Theories
lncongruity theories attempt to explain the object of amusement, and generally
attribute the association of disjointed ideas or situations as the basis for humor and/or

laughter. The dog dressed in pajamas makes us laugh since we usually don’t associate

 

 

dogs with human clothing. In jokes, the listener is led to one set of expectations, and then
is surprised when another set is revealed to apply as well. Keith-Spiegel discusses over
twenty theorists whose notions of humor include the clash of “uncommon mixtures of
relations and the contrariety of things,” “inconsistent or unsuitable circumstances united
into one complex assemblage,” or who view “the cause of laughter to be the perception of
contrast” (7-9). She writes the most Often noted proponents of lncongruity Theory are

Immanuel Kant (1790), Arthur Schopenhauer (1819), Henri Bergson (191 1), and Arthur

Koestler (1964).

1.3.2.4. Relief Theories

Relief theories view the function of humor and laughter to be a release of stress or
tension, and joke cycles following tragic events or laughter at funerals would be
explained by such reasoning. Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud are perhaps the most
noted proponents of Relief Theory, according to Keith-Spiegel, and she mentions another
twelve theorists who have incorporated notions of Relief or Release into their theories

(10-11). The venting of pent-up anxiety or nervous energy takes place through laughter.

1.3.3. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Research into the physical processes of laughter has focused mainly on how we
laugh, and has also lead to theories about why we laugh or what evolutionary function
laughter has served. Scholars as early as Francis Bacon (in Glenn, Laughter 9) have

supplied detailed descriptions of the facial, vocal and bodily manifestations of laughter,

(U

'T'

 

but it was perhaps Charles Darwin’s 1872 highly detailed description of the mechanics of
laughter and his theory of evolution that gave most impetus to a scientific approach to the
study of laughter (200). John Morreal] points out that many early scholars focusing on the
evolutionary aspects of laughter believe laughter to have no survival value, and in fact
could “only be disadvantageous” (Taking 3). “Laughter often involves major
physiological disturbances. There is an interruption of breathing and the loss of muscle
tone; in heavy laughter there may be a loss of muscle control—the person’s legs may
buckle, he may involuntarily urinate, etc.” (3). However, many scholars thought the
opposite, and much writing produced in the late 1800’s through the 1940’s focused on
what adaptive advantages humor and laughter might serve. Research took a turn towards
investigating the similarities between human laughter and apparent laughter in other
species. Some theories held that laughter and humor are but “vestiges of archaic adaptive
behaviors” and that the similarity between laughter and an assault stance--“exposed teeth,
contorted face, sprawling movements of the limbs”—suggests that laughter serves an
aggressive function; indeed, Albert Rapp shows how “present day ridicule can be traced
to the primitive thrashing of enemies” (qtd. in Keith-Spiegel 6). Aggression theories
postulate that laughter is a hostile action, its auditory presentation evolved to scare off
attackers or to signal victory, and laughter’s visual manifestation—the smile with its
accompanying teeth-barring—serves as a way to ward off enemies. On the other hand,
many theorists postulated that laughter and smiling were an alternative to combat and that
in pre-lingual times, these communicative acts signaled “appeasement to potential

adversaries,” group safety, or “good fortune” (Glenn Laughter 14). Since laughter

 

 

 

appears early in life and is a universal phenomenon, many theorists used these

observations to argue that laughter is instinctual.

1.3.4. SHIFT TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Some scholarship dealing with theories about laughter was produced in the period
between 1900 and 1950 and is reviewed in detail in Keith-Spiegel (16-19), but as
anthropologist Mahadev L. Apte notes, “theorizing [about humor and wit] reached its
peak in the nineteenth century and in the first half of the twentieth” (267). Further,
psychologist and humor scholar Robert Provine observes that while there is a long history
of philosophical analysis, the “history of empirically based laughter and humor science is
little more than 100 years old” (18). Scholars began to envision laughter as more than
merely an “overt expression of humor—an indicator that the person is in an ‘amused
frame of mind’ or experiencing something as ‘funny”’(16). In the early part of the
twentieth century, while laughter was not yet viewed as an interactional strategy, laughter
began to be conceptualized not only as a response to humor, but also to other stimuli as
well as well as being related to, though not the same as, smiling. Looking at laughter
from a psychological point of view, Freud, in 1905, developed his tension-release theory
of humor during this time, and postulated that in order for humans to keep their
inhibitions in check, considerable psychic energy must be spent. Building on relief
theory, Freud argued that humor and laughter can serve as a release valve by tricking the
superego into liberating psychic energy. Humor can allow us to give in to aggressive,

hostile, or obscene desires by disarming the superego, and thereby saving energy. An

10

 

 

insult can be veiled as a compliment through the use of laughter. Later, in 1951,
philosopher David H. Monro further shifted the focus of laughter from a response to
humor to 10 “non-humorous” causes of laughter: “(1) tickling, (2) laughing gas (nitrous
oxide), (3) nervousness, (4) relief after a strain, (5) the defense mechanism of ‘laughing it
Off,’ (6) joy or the expression of high spirits, (7) play, (8) release from restraint, (9)
make-believe, and (10) the victory expression of ‘ha-ha’ after winning a game or contest”

(17).

1.3.5. SHIFT TO A SOCIOLINGUIS TIC PERSPECTIVE

In the 1960’s, two developments occurred concurrently which would drastically
alter the nature of investigations into laughter: (1) the development of the portable
cassette tape recorder (and other technologies), which would allow language in use to be
captured and repeatedly reviewed, and (2) the theories, methodologies, and assumptions
from many disciplines coalesced into what would become known as the field of
sociolinguistics. This latter development was the result of the heightened milieu of social
unrest in which institutionalized social inequality—along with the language that
perpetuated it—was put under the microscope. These two developments chartered the
course of language study that would become multi-disciplinary and continue to the
present. First, this discussion will focus on the development of technologies that enabled
the study of laughter, and then refocus on how those studies were carried out in the

humanities and sciences.

11

A u“

56;.

lull

.- “I

I
5.. -

1:»-

at...

\w
..__

:“'.'r‘
'N»,

311-.
b in,

I... ,

an“.
.

few
11‘.

f“
11-4
A i

1.3.5.1. The Impact of Technology

The impact of technology greatly affected the nature of laughter studies. In 1963,
Phillips introduced the compact audio cassette, and as its use as a data gathering device
became widespread, researchers were able to more closely study language in interaction.
This technology allowed researchers to hear and analyze the many subtle and fleeting bits
of laughter that are present in conversation—bits that would eventually prove significant
in studies Of conversational interaction. Previously, language researchers had to rely on
field notes of language in interaction, and in attending to topics of conversation,
discourse strategies and conversational devices went unnoticed. Other advances in
technology—heart monitors, respiration monitors, video recording devices, chemical
tests to measure various chemicals in the blood, sensors to record eye movement, and
others—allowed sophisticated testing for physical and metabolic evidence of what,
exactly, goes on during laughter. Inquiry into laughter further shifted from the
philosophical nature of laughter to those concerning what happens physiologically to

induce laughter.

1.3.5.2. The Field of Sociolinguistics
The field of sociolinguistics was also deveIOping in the latter half of the twentieth
century. Prior to the 1970’s, the field of linguistics had largely ignored laughter as part of
language. Apte states:
The reason for such neglect is that linguists do not consider laughter an
integral part of any linguistic system. Although individuals in all cultures

intuitively perceive that a variety of meaningful messages are

12

 

(/)

communicated by different kinds of laughter, these meanings are neither
as precise nor as amenable to rigorous analysis as the rest of the language
system (250).

Laughter was relegated to the classification of paralanguage along with such other
phenomena as “the grunt, cough, belch, weeping, and moaning” (Apte 250). These
sounds can have interactional meaning, but the meaning is not as identifiable as with
linguistic units such as words. While clearing one’s throat or voluntarily producing a
cough can discreetly signal a speaker to watch what he or she is saying, and while a laugh
can convey much to interlocutors, traditional linguistics had been more concerned with
language as an autonomous system independent of a social context. Further problems
with studying laughter from a linguistics point-of—view are that laughter is not clearly
articulated, sometimes voiced and sometimes not, and as Markku Haakana points out, has
“often been seen as an uncontrollable index of emotion” (Laughing Matters 9). How
then did the present interest by linguists in laughter deveIOp?

At the beginning of the 1960’s, the Chomskyan approach to the study of
linguistics abstracted language from the social and contextual influences surrounding its
use. Linguistics at that time focused mainly on the sounds, words, and sentences—the
grammar—of languages, and sought to explain what language is and what it means to
know a language. However, as the 1960’s progressed, wide—spread social reform and
unrest were taking place: post World War II saw countries with emerging independence
trying to decide on “official” languages, movements for minority rights in the United

Sta tes were occurring, and issues such as gender equality, social injustice, and unequal

distribution of power in relationships were studied with increasing intensity. Chomskyan

13

linguistics failed to explain the ways in which people actually use language to
communicate. Disciplinary fields such as education, social science, anthropology,
psychology, and communication began to examine the social functions of language in
human interaction. Factors such as formal vs. informal settings, the social identities of
speakers, variations and dialects, language attitudes, ethnicity of speakers, and so forth
were examined, and as studies proliferated and the interdisciplinary nature of the field
became more complex, subfields developed and research methodologies from these other
disciplines intertwined and changed the way language was investigated. The analysis of
spoken discourse—aided by the technology of tape recorders—began to show the many

ways in laughter were used by speakers and hearers to accomplish conversational goals.

1.4. 1970’s AND BEYOND: LAUGHTER AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY

The 1970’s through the present have witnessed a number of disciplines beginning
to look empirically at laughter, and as research progressed, previous theories of
superiority, incongruity, or relief were not enough to explain the many circumstances in
which laughter takes place. While laughter is certainly often a response to something
funny, to one-upsmanship, to something ridiculous, or to the release of psychological
tension, it is also a response to tickling, an attempt to break down or put up barriers with
another person, and much more. Though scholars have continued to develop theories of
humor or laughter that would be comprehensive, most theories remain applicable to only

the: discipline in which they originate.

A number of disciplines evolved theories that eventually lead to a social view of

14

laughter. In psychology, for example, Freudian theories of humor, which were closely
aligned with relief theories in that they were based on an arousal-relief model, gradually
lost dominance as empirical studies began to emerge. Researchers such as Howard Pollio,
Rodney Mers, and William Lucchesi challenged prior scholarship on laughter that was
based on either common sense scales of laughter and smiling or “humor diaries.” They
stated that empirical studies to date had focused on variations of a scale with “low-level
bodily expression of cheerfulness at one end and paroxysms of violent laughter at the
other” and which typically used common-sense terms arranged as:
(1) No response noted
(2) Smile—varying in magnitude from a gentle smile with small cheek
furrows to a broad smile producing a total pattern
(3) Laugh—ranging from a laugh with normal voice sounds to a deep—
throated one involving moderately active head and shoulder movements
(4) Explosive laugh—profound body movements, changes in respiration,
tears, etc.” (213)
Pollio, Mers & Lucchesi also noted that other prior research involved participants
- keeping “humor diaries” in which they would record all of the things they laughed at
each day. In order to gather more naturalistic data, Pollio, Mers & Lucchesi’s study
employed a Bruel and Kj aer sound-level recorder and the placement of a microphone in
the center of audiences at an amateur musical production, a movie, and near a television
speaker in a quiet room when a sitcom with canned laughter was airing. The researchers
th en analyzed the data by transposing auditory laughs to visual representations. While

their immediate analysis focused on the contribution of cognitive and motivational

15

 

 

ii~

..l.

 

factors in humor appreciation, they began to see social value of laughter. Laughter was no
longer seen as just an expression of humor. In fact, Glenn reported that laughter “is so
inconsistently associated with humor that experimental psychologists have abandoned
using it as a reliable indicator that the subject perceives something as funny” (Laughter
24). Studies in psychology, in addition to measuring reactions to humorous stimuli such
as eyebrow raising, respiration rates, etc., also note that laughter is influenced by the
presence of other people: people laugh more when others around them are also laughing
(see Glenn Laughter for a review).

Several general reviews of contemporary scholarship on laughter exist (see Ruch
and Ekman, Glenn, Apte, Provine, and Morreall).While debates continue about
constructing a general model of humor and laughter that would account for the varied
circumstances in which laughter occurs and which would explain the nature of laughter
(see Ramachandran and the “False Alarm” theory, Attardo and Raskin and the “General
Theory of Verbal Humor,” and Moreall (Taking) and his theory that laughter results from
a “Pleasant Psychological Shift”), the present discussion is not concerned with theories of
the nature of laughter, but rather with the function of laughter in interaction, and in
particular institutional interaction. Investigations germane to laughter in interaction have
yielded results and observations that are consistent across studies, and these will be noted
by topic below.

Gail Jefferson, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel Schegloff note that “people orient not
simply to the presence or absence of laughter in conversation, but to its length,
placement, acoustic shape, and coordination with other bits of talk,” (cited in Glenn

Laughter 128) and these orientations have directed the course of investigations into

16

t
b-v-fl

.. _
55‘“-
D

'3" ‘
\
,.'P

.
99-»

A. f'
luku‘u

9- .,
‘bik’;

V'rr

~"H:

9“.
I‘ll

‘il

LL
rt.
'.

laughter. Research endeavors tend to fall into three groups: those concerned with the
psychological functions of laughter, those that look at the social function of laughter, and
those that look at the verbal interactional features of laughter. The present discussion in
concerned with the latter group of studies; however, since any particular study of laughter
often builds upon knowledge constructed in other disciplines, a brief mention of

psychological and sociological studies will be helpful.

1.4.1. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF LAUGHTER

Laughter studies in psychology often occur in labs, tend to use the terms humor
and laughter interchangeably, and focus “on a variety of corollary issues about humor,
personality, social dynamics, and cognition” (Provine 19). Paul Devereux, in a review of
studies of the psychology of laughter, shows that laughter has been examined in its
relation to sense of humor, attitudes revealed, and in the relationship of its production to
stimuli such as alcohol or laugh tracks. The focus of most psychologically oriented
studies is “What do people do when they laugh?” Many of these studies are done in
laboratory conditions: students are recruited from psychology courses, and either are
asked to rate the funniness of a selection of jokes, or have some metabolic or respiratory
function, or a facial action measured as they watch a funny video or listen to a laugh track
(see Ruch & Ekman). Examples of other investigations include measuring the effects of
exposure to humor before and after an unpleasant stimulus (see Cann, Calhoun, and
Nance) or measuring the effects of voicing, an acoustic feature of laughter (see

Bachorowski and Owren). There is considerably more research on the functions of humor

17

 

than there is on the functions of laughter, due in great part to the problem that laughter is
more difficult to study than humor: unlike humor—which can be introduced as a variable
in clinical experiments in the form of funny videos, questionnaires with jokes, etc—the
phenomenon of laughter is very difficult to elicit in a lab, so it must be studied in the

field.

1.4.2. STUDIES OF THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF IAUGHTER

The social and communications sciences’ studies of laughter look at how laughter
functions in society as a communication device, and how it reveals, establishes, or
complicates people’s roles in interaction. Research in social approaches to studying
laughter tends to address such questions as “When does laughter occur?” “What are
people doing socially when they laugh?” “Who has the right to laugh and at whom” and
“Does laughter function differently in everyday conversations than it does in institutional
discourse?” Researchers operate under the assumption that verbal interaction is
sequentially organized, and that laughter influences the course of this interaction. While
many studies have focused on the talk-in-interaction of everyday, casual conversation,
the studies below are selected for their focus on institutional discourse. There is no “hard
and fast distinction to be made between the two in all instances of interactional events,
nor even at all points in a single interactional event” (Drew and Heritage 21). However,
there are some widely used criteria that differentiate institutional discourse from
everyday conversation. Institutional discourse occurs in settings that are “task-related,

involve at least one person who represents a formal organization of some kind,” and the

18

task is “primarily accomplished through the exchange of talk between professionals and
lay persons (1). Janet Holmes notes that the nature of discourse in professional situations
is “fundamentally dynamic’ and that as the interaction proceeds, “the constant
realignment of participants” shifts from “doing power” to “doing collegiality” to even
“doing friendship” (379). Participants can become more or less at ease with each other as
topics shift and social identities can become less clearly defined.

Studies of laughter in institutional interactions have taken place in medical
settings (see Coser, West, Haakana, Saunders, and Astedt-Kurki), group therapy sessions
(see Schenkein), job interviews (see Adelsward), welfare offices (see Rostilla),
international business negotiations (see Adelsward and Oberg), youth detention homes
(see Osvaldsson), New Zealand government departments (see Holmes), New Zealand
businesses (see Holmes and Marra), service encounters in bookshops in England and
Italy (see Gavoli), career counseling (see Nevo), mentoring (see Johnson and Ridley),
manufacturing and retail in the UK (see Mullany), and women colleagues in Information
Technology positions discussing workplace barriers (see Allen, Reid, and
Riemenschneider).

Some of these studies examining the uses of laughter, though, are problematic in
the same sense that Holmes (4) faults much humor research. The data reflect indirect
methods of how people actually use humor: field notes from conversations rather than
video/audio recordings, self-report data, interview responses, and questionnaires designed
to capture people’s reflections on how they actually use humor. As concerns laughter,
without audio recordings, fleeting, often ephemeral particles of laughter in conversation

cannot possibly be noted and analyzed. For example, Paivi Astedt-Kurki , in her study of

19

humor between nurse and patients and among staff, recruited 17 nurses and asked them to
keep diaries and record for one week all instances of humor. While laughter was
mentioned in Astedt-Kurki’s introduction as having “many positive effects on both a
person’s physiology and the psyche” the data collected mentioned laughter in such ways
as a nurse’s retelling of an instance of forgetfulness in class in which she begins to
deliver a lecture that she has forgotten she delivered the week before: “I slap my forehead
with my hand and burst into laughter and the class joins me” (454). The laughter is noted
as the nurse recalls it, but perhaps not as it may actually have happened. The class may
have laughed because they thought it was appropriate, but not because they thought her
forgetfulness was funny. Indeed, the class may have been troubled by this lapse.

Most studies of laughter are qualitative. Haakana discusses the problems with
quantitative studies of laughter: while in the future quantitative studies may become more
prevalent, they need to become “nuanced and contextualized enough to meet the
complexity Of interactional practices” (Laughter in Medical Interaction 229). For
example, mere counts of instances of not accepting invitations to laugh does not fully
shed light on the different reasons why an interlocutor may decline to share the laughter.
Listeners sometimes don’t accept an invitation to laugh because they are aligned with the
speaker rather than not aligned. For example, if a speaker begins to relate a problem and
laughs while explaining it, the listener may interpret the laughter as a way to hide
embarrassment over the problem: for the listener not to laugh may be an indication that

the listener chooses to focus on the seriousness of the problem.

20

1.5. ISSUES IN STUDYING LAUGHTER-INJNTERACTION

This section shall be concerned with studies that incorporate the techniques of
discourse analysis in investigating laughter as talk-in—interaction—laughter as it actually
occurs and is recorded and transcribed. Of primary importance to consider when
analyzing laughter in a particular context are the types of laughter and their transcription,
their placement in the interaction, whether the laugh occurs in a conversational slot in
which it is expected or if it occurs spontaneously, whether the laughter is shared by the
participants or is unilateral, and the ways in which power differentials such as age, rank,

or gender are configured among the participants.

1.5.1. T RANSCRIBING THE FINE NUANCES OF LAUGHTER

Discourse analyses of spoken texts rely on recordings—audio as well as video—
of speech events and careful, accurate transcription of those recordings. Jane Edwards
notes that the transcript “plays a central role in research on spoken discourse,” and
“enables the researcher to focus efficiently on the fleeting events of an interaction”
(Edwards and Lampert 3). The researchers must make choices about what types of
information “to preserve (or to neglect), what categories to use, and how to organize and
display the information in a written and spatial medium” (3). Felicia Roberts and Jeffrey
Robinson also emphasized the importance of accurate transcriptions: “Conversation

analysists understand that transcripts are at least third- generation versions of data (the

21

first being in vivo interaction and the second being audio or videotapes of interaction)”
( 1 ).

Tape recorders allow the many different sounds of laughter to be captured, and
video recorders allow facial expressions to be viewed in slow motion and close up. While
early researchers of conversation indicated laughter in a transcript (if at all) with a simple
insertion of the word “laugh,” or maybe added the word “smile” in the margin, soon it
became evident that a more complex system would be needed. Systems were developed
to account for various phonemic and prosodic details, as well as paralinguistic features,
suprasegmental prOperties, utterance alignment, and others. “Because the placement of
laughter can be of great consequence for a conversational interaction. . .it is important to
note it carefully” (Edwards and Lampert 67). Laughter can occur within a word, by itself,
or between words, can extend over a number of syllables, and can make up an entire
conversational turn (Glenn Laughter 43). In addition to the placement of laughter, the
type of laughter is important as well. Not all laughs are alike, and one simply has to think
of the lexical manifestations of laughter that are present in English—guffaw, titter, sneer,
giggle, snigger, cackle, chortle, howl, chuckle, snicker—to see the variation. The same
- holds true for smiles: they can be a grimace, a smirk, a grin, and can be a half-smile or an
ear-to-ear smile. To further complicate matters, people often talk while they are
smiling—a phenomena Schegloff termed the “smile voice” and which also has been
referred to in the literature as “smily” or “smiling” voice (qtd. in Haakana Laughing
Matters 79).

Both smiling and laughter are expressive behaviors and can be indicative as well

as communicative and therefore of interest to those studying interaction. However,

22

scholars disagree about the relationship between laughter and smiling and how that
relationship should be transcribed, and this disagreement warrants discussion. Since the
same face muscles are involved in both laughing and smiling, some scholars have chosen
to interpret a smile as a voiceless laugh on a continuum from “no response” to “explosive
laugh. Laughter and smiling can be thought of as a continuum with smiling occurring
first—a silent laugh—and then the vocalization of laughter occurring. Pollio, Mers, and
Lucchesi rank reactions to humorous stimuli: no response, smile, laugh, and explosive
laugh, and Jan Van Hooff (1972) uses a two-dimensional continuum that shows on one
dimension that “increased barring of the teeth reflects increasingly non-hostile or friendly
attitude” while “increased mouth Opening and vocalization accompany increased
playfulness” (qtd in Glenn Laughter 14-15). Developmentally, researchers such as Apte
and Glenn (Laughter) generally agree that initial smiling can begin as early as five weeks
with social smiling occurring between the second to fourth month. Smiling and laughter
are present in all cultures although the reasons for and stimuli of these behaviors vary
from culture to culture (Stewart 2)

Additionally, since smiling and laughter tend to occur together, and both can be a
response to a common stimuli as well as can show pleasure or amusement, many
researchers see them as differing only in intensity (Glenn Laughter 15). Julia Vettin and
Dietrnar Todt found both smiling and laughter to contribute to a common communicative
role:

Laughter is a prominent nonverbal human behavior. It is ubiquitous and
typically consists of a vocal and a visual signal complex: the laughter

vocalization and the associated facial expression (Darwin, 1982; Ruch &

23

 

Ekman, 2001). Both signal complexes contribute to the communicative
role of laughter (Ekman, Friesen, OSullivan, & Scherer, 1980; Grammer
& Eibl-Eibesfeld, 1990), although there is evidence that the laughter
vocalization is sufficient to elicit laugh-related responses (Lawson,
Downing & Cetola, 1998; Martin & Gray, 1996) (93).

However, others, “see [laughter and smiling] as distinct, although related,
phenomena” (Glenn Laughter 15). “Laughter is associated more with aggression,
dominance, or hostility; smiling is associated more with submissive friendliness” (16).
Further, Antony Chapman notes that while laughter and smiling “converge functionally as
non-verbal expressions of humor appreciation” they “probably have different phylogenetic
origins” (157). “No doubt mirthful smiles are attenuated laughs on occasion, but this is not
always the case. Laughter and smiling are indubitably alternative responses under other
circumstances and therefore these expressive responses cannot be conceptualized along a
Single continuum” (158).

Technology has unveiled fine nuances in the production of laughter and smiling,
and has forced researchers to examine how these nuances might affect interaction.
Willibald Ruch and Paul Ekman present a detailed review of laughter and smiling in
terms of respiration, vocalization, facial action, and body movement, and observe that
laughter is a human phenomenon that emerges later than smiling and happens in about
the fourth month. It is innate and estimated to be about 7 million years old, and “it is safe
to assume that laughter—like other utterances such as moan, sigh, cry, groan, etc—was
there before man developed speech and served as an expressive-communicative social

signal” (1). Laughter can be spontaneous or emotional, which cannot be controlled, or it

24

can also be done voluntarily such as when someone does a fake laugh or smiles in silent
response to an insult. Jonathan Miller, writing from a cognitive neuropsychological
stance, makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary smiling as well. He
mentions victims of strokes that affect the motor neurons in the cerebral cortex often are
paralyzed on one side of the face. When asked to smile, these patients can only smile on
one side of their face. However, when amused, there is “bilateral symmetry in their
performance” (8). Coughing and belching are similar, too, in that they can be done
involuntarily or voluntarily—reasons why traditional linguistics has ignored these
phenomena and banished them to the realm of paralinguistic aspects. It is interesting to
note, though, that a contrived cough serves an interesting communicative function when
Person A wants to get Person B’s attention.

Ruch and Ekman point out that while much of the research is inconclusive, it
does Show, on an anatomical level that many of the same muscles that are involved in
laughter—but not all—are involved in smiling. They find this distinction to be of
importance in “how to detect whether laughter is faked or felt, how to distinguish among
different types Of emotional laughter on a morphological basis, and what is the
relationship between smiling and laughter” (424). This relationship is important to the
researcher of laughter in interaction to help interpret the function of laughter if it is
accompanied by smiling, or if smiling is indeed a silent form of laughter. Glenn writes
that “smiling and establishing mutual eye gaze can work to create an environment ripe for
beginning shared laughter,” though smiling is not a necessary cue to shared laughter
(Laughter 4).

In addition to transcription decisions that must be made regarding smiling and

25

laughter, the conventional transcription markings developed by Jefferson for such
features as overlapping speech, interruptions, rising or falling intonation, pauses and the
like, have to be augmented if the researcher’s focus necessitates indicators for quality of
laughter, duration, volume, phonology, visual cues, and coordination with other laughter.
Many researchers indicate how many exhalations or pulses of laughter occur with the @
symbol, and other researchers assign such syllables as ‘huh’ ‘heh’ or ‘hah’ to
approximate the “prototypical laugh particle [that] is a syllable consisting of aspirated
“h” sound plus a vowel” (Glenn Laughter 46). The letter h (or several) may indicate an
exhalation while a .h may indicate an inhalation (which often represents an ending of
laughter or the possibility of speaker change). Shifts in pitch or other acoustic variability
may be important to note. For example, J 0 Anne Bachorowski and Michael Owren
investigated whether listeners responded differently to the absence or presence of
voicing, a “salient, distinguishing acoustic feature” of laughter, and found that “voiced,
songlike laughs were significantly more likely to elicit positive responses than were
variants such as unvoiced grunts, pants, and snortlike sounds” (252). Thus, whether or
not a laugh is voiced may be important to indicate on a transcript. Additionally, open
mouthed laugh particles are less nasal than closed-mouth particles, and sometimes a
transcript may indicate this difference through the use of “hih” for open mouthed laughter
and “hnn” or @N for closed-mouth laughter. Some sociologists use a much simpler
version which describes laughter in parenthesis “(laughs shortly) or (laughing in-breath)”
and “mark words uttered through laughter with (H) for louder sounds and (h) for more

silent sounds. . .and a smiling voice with f. (e. g. £can you explain£)” (GrOnnerOd 33).

26

Transcription decisions depend foremost on the purpose of the study undertaken.
As Jefferson notes:

I take it that when we talk about transcription we are talking about one
way to pay attention to recordings of actually occurring events. While
those of us who spend a lot of time making transcripts may be doing our
best to get it right, what that might mean is utterly obscure and unstable. It
depends a great deal on what we are paying attention to. It seems to me,
then, that the issue in not transcription per se, but what it is we might want

to transcribe, that is, attend to (“Exercise” 25).

1.5.2. THE PLACEMENT OF LAUGH T ER

Laughter is not a random contribution to interaction, but rather occurs at strategic
points. A laugh at the end of an utterance, or a laugh that occurs during the utterance in
progress in known as a first laugh and can serve as an invitation to laugh (see Jefferson
“Technique”): speakers may use this slot in the flow of conversation to elicit affiliative
laughter from the bearer. Hearers may signal affiliation by accepting the invitation to
laugh, or may decline, which may signal disaffiliation or affiliation under certain
circumstances. Neal Norrick shows laughter to be part of an adjacency pair in which
laughter is the expected response to a humorous utterance, and “a failure to laugh at the
correct juncture suggests a lack of understanding—or, under the right circumstances, a
lack of amusement” (23). Silence as a response when laughter is expected is, to use Rose

Coser’s widely cited metaphor, like initiating a handshake only to have one’s out-

27

stretched hand ignored (“Laughter”). Not laughing when expected can be a sign of
misalignment, or in the case of professionals in institutional settings, can be a Sign of
“professional cautiousness” or “neutrality”: “Laughter is an affective action that is often a
deviation from these attributes; we would not even expect the doctor to be very affective,
in fact, we might find this to be a sign of unprofessionality” (Haakana Laughter in
Medical Interaction 228). By not sharing laughter, persons of higher status can maintain
a distance between themselves and the lay person and an objective role or stance.
However, a speaker’s first laugh is not always an invitation for a laugh response
from the hearer. A first laugh by a speaker that accompanies the announcement of a
trouble or complaint is a signal that something serious is going on. Jefferson states:
“A laughing troubles —teller is doing a recognizable sort of job. He is
exhibiting that, although there is this trouble, it is not getting the better of
him; he is managing; he is in good spirits and in a position to take the
trouble lightly. He is exhibiting what we might call ‘troubles-resistance’.
But this does not mean that. . .a recipient is invited to join in the
merriment, to also find the thing laughable. . .In troubles-talk, it appears to
be a recipient’s job to be taking the trouble seriously; to exhibit what we

9”

might call “troubles-receptiveness (“Organization”16).

First laughs can also be uttered by the bearer at the end of the speaker’s turn, and
can also “routinely appear at an earlier recognition point at which the laughable nature of
the utterance-in-progress becomes evident” (Glenn “Initiating” 128). This latter

placement of laughter by the hearer during the speaker’s turn shows a quick

understanding—at least from the hearer’s point-of—view—of the speaker’s developing

28

topic. If the speaker was not intending his or her utterance as humorous, the laugh serves
as a cue that a repair or that an elaboration of the topic will be necessary.

Adelsward and Oberg found in a study of international negotiations that the
placement of laughter can serve as discourse boundary device, can signal what topics are
more or less important, and that unilateral laughter occurs more often with participants
who are at a disadvantage (411). In an earlier study, Britt-Marie Oberg found that
negotiations—even informal ones—proceed through phases: there is a greeting phase,
followed by information exchange, discussion, decision, and finally a leavetaking phase
(in Adelsw'ard and Oberg 418). Adelswiird and éberg found approximately the same
phases to occur in the negotiations they studied, and about 60% of all laughter occurred
in the transitions between phases and topic boundaries. Adelsward and Cberg made use
of Goffman’s term “footing” to explain that in these phase and topic shifts, there is a
slight change of footing, a “change that often simultaneously releases, and is marked by,
laughter” (420).

Nick O’Donnell-Trujillo and Katherine Adams observe that laughter can signal a
tum—taking cue: “In its most robust sense, to laugh is to momentarily lose control of
- speaking” (177). If a speaker begins to laugh while speaking, and the speaking dissolves
into laughter, this offers the bearer an opportunity to initiate a speaking turn. An outburst
of laughter such as this (what Goffman calls flooding out) breaks the ordinary interactive
frame (cited in Osvaldsson 518).

Laughter also occurs when awkward or socially inappropriate moments enter the
conversation, and in institutional encounters awkward moments are frequent and can

result in embarrassment: a teacher may have to discuss poor academic performance with

29

a student, a patient may need to disagree with a doctor’s suggestion, or an employer may
need to suggest a performance improvement plan to an employee. Ilmari Rostila found
that in encounters between social workers and clients, “laughter is often used when and
where the client is either reproached or the discussion otherwise touches upon client
responsibility” (202). Clients respond by laughing rather than accepting responsibility for
shortcomings. As mentioned above, Hakaana’s study revealed that patients often laugh at
the beginning of the medical interview when they are presenting symptoms that they feel
are unusual or “atypical” and “may need extra legitimizing as a reason for the visit”
(“Laughter as a Patient’s Resource” 1). Laura Gavioli, in a cross-cultural study of the
remedial function of laughter in service encounters in bookshops (such as the socially
awkward moment when an employee must tell a customer that a book is not available or
that the customer is at the wrong desk), analyzed where laughter occurs in relation to
turns. “In the English corpus, laughter is recurrently tum-initial, anticipating an account
by the assistant in the same turn, whereas in the Italian corpus, it is recurrently turn-final,
leaving to the customer the possibility of eliciting an account and/or an alternative
solution” (369). Finally, Osvaldsson studied discursive practices in Swedish youth
detention homes, and found that laughter established “participants’ orientation toward a
situation as sensitive or tense” and that laughter was an “efficient tool” for allowing both

professional and lay persons to participate in the flow of talk” (517).

30

1.5.3. THE SOCIAL NATURE OF LAUGHTER

In an early study of the social functions of laughter in a hospital setting, Coser
remarked:

Laughter, like all other expressions of emotions, as well as most
physiological reactions, is regulated by society. It is expected to remain
under control: ‘mad laughter’, ‘hysterical laughter’, are disapproved. This
is to say that laughter is socially patterned. . ..[it] is expected to occur only
within patterns of interaction. . ..The man who laughs or chuckles to
himself is looked at as ‘probably crazy’. . ..Laughter, like language, is
supposed to function within a communicative relationship and the man
who laughs to himself, like the man who talks to himself. . .is considered

an asocial man (171).

It has been well documented that people laugh more when others are present than
when alone. Provine , in his ten-year study of laughter, discussed the sociality of laughter
and stated that people were about 30 times more likely to laugh when other people were
present than when they were alone. “Laughter almost disappeared among solitary
subjects not exposed to media stimulation” (45). Provine argued that laughter is a vocal
signal that “we seldom send unless there is an audience” (43). An audience can not only
respond with laughter, but can also initiate laughter in others as well. For example, the

sound of laughter in movie theaters and in sound tracks can cause people to laugh.

31

1.5.4. VOLUNTARY VS. SPONTANEOUS LAUGHTER

Laughter served in pre-speech times as an expressive—communicative social signal
(Ruch & Ekman 410). There are different types of laughter for these functions—
spontaneous and voluntary—and the difference lies not only with intent, but also with
how the sound is produced. Spontaneous laughter is emotional in nature and follows an
impulse. In this type of laughter, there is no attempt to suppress or control the laugh: this
laughter is enjoyable. On the other hand, voluntary laughter—also called fake laughter—
is intentionally produced and can be used to signal someone not only that we appreciated
a humorous utterance even if we did not enjoy it, but also that we did not appreciate
something intended to be funny. In the first case, particularly in multi-party
conversations, a bearer may “get” a joke, but not find it particularly amusing. Out of
politeness, or to join others who may be laughing, the listener may make an attempt to
produce what sounds like a spontaneous or genuine laugh. In the latter case, a listener
may actually be offended by an utterance and signal this dissatisfaction with a contrived,

sarcastic laugh.

1.5.5. SHARED LAUGH T ER VS. UNILA T ERAL LAUGH TER

People can laugh in unison (shared laughter) or they can laugh alone (unilateral
laughter). What is unique as a conversational feature of either of these instances, is that
laughter can occur without following the basic rule of tum-taking as established by

Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson in 1974: one party at a time speaks (see “Simplest”). If

32

the speaker laughs, the listener can laugh simultaneously, and the listener can laugh alone
before the speaker completes his or her turn. As Sacks et al. note, laughter seems to be a
parallel activity to the norms of tum-taking.

Researchers have demonstrated certain generalizations about when shared
laughter or unilateral laughter is likely to occur. Jefferson found that when shared
laughter occurs in two-party conversations, the speaker usually laughs first and the
listener laughs second (“Technique”). Glenn (1989) found that in multi-pany
conversations, more than 70% of the time, a listener laughs first and initiates shared
laughter (145). In institutional interaction between lay people and professionals, lay
people frequently laugh at their own utterances as a strategy to present or discuss a
problem, laugh more than professionals, and respond more often to professional’s
invitations to laugh than the reverse. Jama Gronnerod, in her study of research interviews
of non-professional rock musicians, found that interviewees “often laughed alone when
presenting a contradiction between ideal images and the realities of band life” or in
moments when they seemed troubled (35). Haakana shows that patients routinely use
laughter at the beginning of the medical interview if they believe their problem to be
“untypical”or “strange” (“Patient’s” 187). Additionally, West found that patients’
invitations to laugh were accepted by physicians less than were physicians’ invitations for
patients to laugh: “Physicians invited laughter much less readily than their patients, but
their laughter invitations had a better likelihood of eliciting acceptances from their
recipients” (127). Explanations for why these patterns tend to occur, and the effects on

subsequent interaction lie in an examination of the conversational purposes of laughter.

33

1.5. 6. FUNCTIONS OF LA UGH TER-IN-IN TERA C TI ON

As an expressive-communicative device, laughter serves many functions both
positive and negative, Perhaps the most positive function of laughter is its power to align
participants: speakers can laugh to cue listeners how to take an utterance, and listeners
can laugh to cue how the utterance was taken. Coser remarked that “To laugh, or to
occasion laughter through humor and wit, is to invite those present to come close.
Laughter and humor are indeed like an invitation, be it an invitation for dinner, or an
invitation to start a conversation: it aims at decreasing social distance” (emphasis added
172). Laughter can promote social bonding and encourage affiliation, and building on
Coser, Jefferson refers to this action by a speaker as an “invitation to laugh”: speakers
invite laughter by laughing first themselves, and listeners can signal alignment by also
laughing or as Jefferson terms it, accepting the invitation (see “Technique”). Listeners
can also laugh first and indicate alignment with the speaker. Conversely, laughter can
signal disaffiliation, can distance participants, and can promote feelings of superiority or
disparagement. This negative type of laughter can occur when a listener laughs at an
inappropriate place, i.e., when the speaker is intending to be taken seriously. Also, by not
accepting an invitation to laugh (what Jefferson terms a declination of laughter
invitation), listeners can signal disaffiliation.

Jefferson, in 1979, used a simplistic, yet highly effective way to account for the
other functions of laughter: “laughing with” and “laughing at.” This dichotomy has
served to classify subsequent research into the many diverse conversational uses for

laughter. “Laughing with” laughter can be used as a backchanneling device to support the

34

current speaker, to signal a play frame (see Glenn and Knapp); to “regulate the flow in
interaction and mitigate the meaning of the preceding utterance” (Vettin and Todt 93); to
“solidify members of a group against outsiders,” to boost morale (Glenn Laughter 30); to
allow the speaker to bring up discussion of delicate, uncomfortable, or socially
inappropriate topics (see Jefferson “Organization,” Haakana “Patient’s,”Gr¢nner¢d), to
allow people to participate in conversation without using words (see Osvaldsson); and to
serve as a signal to the speaker to elaborate further (see O’Donnell-Trijullio and Adams).
On the other hand, “laughing at” laughter can be used to ridicule, to make uneasy, to
judge, to display nervousness (see Schenkein 345); to allow speakers to “boast, to
challenge or to make emotionally-laden statements” (Stewart 5); and to interrupt or
contradict the current speaker.

Recognizing the differences between “laughing with” and “laughing at” is often
difficult for participants in the midst of interacting. People continuously shift alliances
with each other: at one moment they may be in complete agreement and at the next
moment in utter opposition, and most often are somewhere in-between these two
extremes. Further, “Because laughter can invoke such a wide variety of cues (humor,
sarcasm, irony, facetiousness, evasion, etc.) its occurrence in conversation can make the
recognition of specific accomplishments problematic” (O’Donnell-Trujillo and Adams,
184). For researchers studying interaction, differentiating “laughing with” from “laughing
at” requires careful analysis. Glenn states, “Four keys, which may be present in any
laugh-relevant sequential context, help distinguish laughing at from laughing with:
laughable, first laugh, (possible) second laugh, and subsequent activities” (“Laughing at”

43.) In likely cases of laughing at, the laughable is some co-present as a butt; first laugh

35

is by someone other than the butt; the (possible) second laugh occurs in multi-party
conversations and is not done by the same person doing the first laugh, or in two-party
conversations, laughter is not shared; and the subsequent activities might include such

strategies as extending the topic through word or phrase repetitions.

1.5. 7. GENDER AND LAUGH T ER

Most studies show that women laugh more than men, and that if a man laughs, the
woman usually joins in, but when a woman laughs, the man frequently remains silent.
Provine in his study of 1,200 bouts of laughter in public places, found that male speakers
laugh only slightly more than male listeners; female speakers laugh considerably more
than female listeners; male speakers laugh 7% less than female listeners; and female
speakers laugh 126% more than male listeners (27-28). Laughter can serve a supportive
function in conversation, and since women are generally believed to play a more
supportive role in conversation than are men, it follows that women would laugh more to
support men. Pamela Fishman writes:

As with work in the usual sense, there appears to be a division of labor in
conversation. The people who do the routine maintainance work, the
women, are not the same people who either control or benefit from the
process. Women are the “shitworkers” of routine interaction, and the
“goods” being made are not only interactions, but, through them, realities
(99).

Further, Hay summarizes gender and laughter studies in conversation: “Much

36

research has found that women are generally more conversationally supportive of humor
than men. . .even when they do not find the humor funny. Several researchers have found
that women respond to humor with laughter more than men do...” (58). Women’s
gendered role, it is widely believed, influences them not only to laugh in support of
men’s conversation, but also to smile in support.

The visual manifestation of laughter—smiling—is also noted to occur more often
in women than in men. Francine Deutsch researched the consequences of the observed
behavior that women smile more than men. Male and female college students rated the
characteristics of men and women after receiving a verbal description and photographs of
both women and men. The findings showed that “the absence of smiles has a greater
impact on perceptions of women than of men. When not smiling, women were perceived
as less happy, less carefree, less relaxed than men. . .if women fail to perform expressive
and warm nonverbal behavior, they will be evaluated more harshly than men” (341).

However, more recent studies have begun to question these long held beliefs that
women use laughter and smiling much more frequently than men. Jefferson argues in her
recent investigations using both quantitative and case-by-case data, that while this
stereotype is inviting to use, it does not occur in the magnitude prior studies claim.
Rather, stereotypes are “crude expressions”--a constitute “gloss” for a whole complex of
regularities (“Note” 131) Further, Martin Lampert and Susan Ervin-Tripp, say that the
long held assumption that women are more likely than men to laugh at nonsensical, non-
aggressive humor and that men are allowed more leeway in public humor, find that this
portrayal is inaccurate (52). While earlier studies were done in laboratory settings and on

analyses of joking performances, conversations collected in “more naturalistic and

37

intimate settings suggest that the humor of men and women is more variable than earlier
reports have claimed” (3). Louise Mullany refuted earlier scholarship that women lack a
sense of humor in workplace interactions, and argued instead that female chairs use
repressive humor as a mitigation strategy—a “linguistic politeness device when

attempting to gain control” (14).

1.6. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY

This study is concerned with the ways in which participants use laughter in
interaction and how the use of laughter is related to power as realized in discourse. In
order to interpret the ways in which the participants in this study use laughter, I draw
upon theories from two disciplines: facework theory from the discipline of interpersonal
communication, and since individuals frequently use humor to elicit laughter, the
construct of dimensions of humor styles as theorized in the discipline of psychology. In
gathering data and defining power, I draw upon discourse theory and in particular the

work of the late Nancy Ainsworth-Vaughn.

1.6.1. FACEWORK THEORY

Through both initiating and responding to laughter, non-verbal communication
takes place which allows participants to convey emotions, negotiate power, and to signal
their willingness to become more or less aligned. These uses of laughter not only allow
interaction to proceed, but also allow participants to project an image of themselves, to

support or challenge the image the other person projects, and to allow participants to see

38

beneath the projected images each presents. Theories of how the self is projected and
interpreted fall under the name of “facework” and are based largely on the initial writing
of Erving Goffman who, in his 1959 publication The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life, argues that individuals essentially perform identities much in the same way actors
perform characters. Individuals try and control the impression others receive of them
through their words, gestures, and actions. A particular performance according to
Goffman, “may be defined as all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion
which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants (15). Goffman posits
that “When an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to acquire
information about him or to bring into play information about him already possessed” (1).
Clues about a person (‘sign-vehicles’) are emitted through two different kinds of sign
activity: “the expression that he gives and the expression that he gives ofi” (italics original
2). Expressions a person gives are conscious, and through “verbal symbols or their
substitutes” convey what a person wishes others to know or think about him or her. On
the other hand, expressions given ofif are “performed for reasons other than what the
information” was given for. Expressions given off can be done consciously or
unconsciously. In applying Goffman’s theory to laughter, we can see not only that
individuals can give impressions through laughter, but also that individuals can give off
impressions both intentionally and unintentionally. For example, in the case of
Jefferson’s observations of “troubles telling,” a person who intentionally laughs gives the
impression that the troubles are not getting the best of him or her when indeed the
troubles may be difficult to handle. On the other hand, by laughing often and for no

apparent reason, a person may give off the impression of being nervous or anxious.

39

In 1978, building upon Goffman, Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson
introduced politeness theory incorporating the notion of “face” or “the public self-image
that every member wants to claim for himself ’ (61 ). Face consists of two aspects:
negative face, which is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-
distraction—i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition,” and positive face,
which is “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the
desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants (61).
Individuals want to maintain positive face, and it is of mutual interest for speakers and
hearers to maintain each other’s face. According to Brown and Levinson, some actions
intrinsically threaten face (face-threatening acts of FTAs) such criticisms, requests,
apologies, embarrassing statements that cause an interlocutor to “lose face” or an
imposition which restricts the freedom of the bearer. An example of the latter, in tutorial
terms, would be a bald request such as “This is the wrong word so change it” or “This
paragraph doesn’t fit here. Move it.” However, interlocutors most often try and maintain
each other’s positive face, and so FTAs can be minimized through such strategies as
indirect requests (“I wonder if this paragraph would make more sense over here”) or
mitigated language (“Perhaps you just might give a little bit of thought to using a
different wor ”.)

In the context of tutorials, deciding on a face—the projected public image one
wishes to convey—can be problematic particularly for tutors. On the one hand, they are
representatives of an academic institution, and so they may wish to maintain an
authoritative face and distance themselves from a closer, more personal relationship with

students. On the other hand, since tutors are students themselves, they may wish to

40

—#!‘I

project an image of confidant or peer. Through laughter, both these images can be
constructed: the limited use of laughter can maintain distance, and the intentional
initiation of laughter can close the distance. In addition to deciding on a public face,
tutors as well as students find themselves in a specialized situation in that tutors need to
deliver face-threatening comments while students must accept them. Students come to the
writing center either voluntarily or by the mandate of a teacher, and in so doing ask for
advice, which normally is “intrinsically threatening to negative face wants (i.e.the desire
to be unimpeded)” and because advice messages are directives, “impose symbolic
constraints on a support seeker’s autonomy” (Burleson and MacGeorge 397). Tutors give
advice that students may or may not welcome, and in order to negotiate maintaining the
student’s positive face, tutors may use laughter as a mitigating strategy, or at the risk of
the laughter being received as ridicule, tutors may avoid its use. Students also negotiate a
public face as they shift between presenting themselves as competent writers whose only
problem is making careless mistakes or as incompetent writers who are ignorant of
writing conventions. The use of laughter is a strategy by which students can maintain
face in such potentially embarrassing activities as troubles telling, and laughter can also,
when used supportively, help students to maintain the positive face of tutors.

Expanding on the work of Goffman and Brown and Levinson, Stella Ting-
Toomey and her colleagues developed face-negotiation theory to more fully explain what
happens in conflict situations, and how cross-cultural aspects of facework come into play.
Face-negotiation theory argues that “face is an explanatory mechanism for different
conflict management styles in different cultural groups” (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 600).

Cultural groups may consist of such units as family groups, co-workers, nations, or in the

41

case of writing centers, academic communities. “Conflict” is defined as “the perceived
and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between
two or more parties over substantive and/or relational issues,” and indeed much of the
interaction that takes place in tutorials involves discussion of the incompatibility of a
student’s writing with the expected values of content and form that the academic
community requires (Ting-Toomey, 599-600). “Conflict management style” refers to
“general tendencies of patterned responses to conflict in a variety of interactive
situations” and as Putnam and Wilson note, can be reduced to three primary types: “(a)
control, forcing, or dominating; (b) solution-oriented, issue—oriented, or integrating; and
(c) nonconfrontational, smoothing, or avoiding” (qtd in Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 601 ).
These types, according to Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, can be associated with whose face an
individual is more interested in saving: “Self-face is associated positively with
dominating conflict styles. . .other-face is associated positively with avoiding conflict
style. . .and integrating [nonconfrontational style] [is] associated positively with both self—
and other-face (603).

Depending on an individual’s cultural upbringing and his or her orientation to the
culture of a writing center, the ways in which self is presented and maintained as well as
the ways the face of the other is regarded will vary with the individual. The use of
laughter is a strategy that can be used to talk about delicate matters by lightening a
potentially unpleasant discussion, and can be used by both tutors and students to maintain
self-face as well as other-face. For example, tutors can use laughter to poke fun at the
student’s teacher for making so many corrections on the student’s paper. The cause for

tension is then deflected from the student’s shortcomings as a writer to the teacher’s

42

focus on problems. Also, students can use laughter as a response to a tutor’s critical
comment and thereby indicate that he or she is accepting of the comment.

Facework then allows individuals to work their way through conflict and
uncomfortable situations without damaging the self-esteem of themselves or the other. I

shall invoke the concept of facework in Chapter 6 as I discuss the results of this study.

1.6.2. DIMENSIONS OF HUMOR STYLES

Helga Kotthoff, in a review of literature on humor and gender, notes that humor
can be an indicator of status, and “Anyone who makes other people laugh has, as Coser
(1960) states, momentary control of the situation. Using humorous remarks, an actor can
redefine a situation and redirect peoples’ attention. To this extent, humor in formal
contexts is linked to a high situational status can affirm one’s dominance in the hierarchal
social structure”(8). In investigating laughter, how a participant uses humor to invite
laughter warrants attention.

Laughter is one strategy participants use in doing facework, and though laughter
. has often been used interchangeably with humor (as discussed earlier in this chapter), it is
not the same. However, as Provine observes, humor is a precursor in roughly 20% of
laughter initiations in casual conversation, and though one would expect a lower
percentage in institutional discourse, humor nonetheless is worth considering since it can
be used to induce as well as to respond to laughter.

An individual’s use of humor can be related to notions of performance and

facework. Goffman notes, “It is sometimes convenient to divide the stimuli which make

43

up a personal front into ‘appearance’ and ‘manner’ according to the function performed
by the information that these stimuli convey” (24). Appearance, for Goffman, “refers to
those stimuli which function at the time to tell us of the performer’s social status,” and
manner “may be taken to refer to those stimuli which function at the time to warn us of
the interaction role the performer will expect to play in the oncoming situation” (24). He
gives two examples:
Thus a haughty, aggressive manner may give the impression that the
performer expects to be the one who will initiate the verbal interaction and
direct its course. A meek, apologetic manner may give the impression that
the performer expects to follow the lead of others, or at least that he can be
lead to do so (24).

A person’s sense of humor and the extent of its expression can affect that person’s
manner and the consequent image the other forms of that person. For example, a person
who makes frequent use of acceptable humor will probably project an image of a person
who is fun to be around, doesn’t take life’s problems too seriously, and who makes others
laugh. Conversely, a person whom others deem as having no sense of humor will
probably not be viewed favorably. However, in the context of tutorials, the use of humor
can be a two-edged sword: humor used to induce laughter, when successful, can bring
participants closer together; when humor is used too often, the user may appear to not
take his or her work seriously, or when a failed humor attempt occurs, the result may be a
further distancing of participants.

An individual’s sense of humor, and his or her inclination to project or not project

a humorous manner is a function of personality. Just as the construct of personality has

 

been studied and various measurement scales devised to place on a continuum such
dichotomous features as introversion/extroversion, optimism/pessimism, or
intuition/thinking, humor researchers have devised models to describe the construct of
sense of humor. Psychologist Rod Martin, who has done much research on humor styles,
posits four dimensions which differentiate individuals’ use of humor, and which may be
used to understand how participants in this study use humor to elicit laughter. (1)
Afi‘iliative humor is humor used to “engage in witty banter to amuse others, to facilitate
relationships, and to reduce interpersonal tension” (Sec. 1.1) Individuals whose humor
style is affiliative, use humor “to put others at ease. . .[and] are also likely to engage in
self-deprecating humor, say funny things about themselves. . .[and this] enhances
interpersonal cohesiveness.” (2) Self—enhancing humor “involves a generally humorous
outlook on life, a tendency to be frequently amused by the incongruities of life.” People
who use self-enhancing humor use it to create a humorous perspective that allows them
cope with stress and to regulate emotion. (3) Aggressive humor is humor in the form of
“sarcasm, teasing, ridicule, derision, ‘put down,’ or disparagement humor. . .It also
includes the use of humor to manipulate others by means of an implied threat of
ridicule. . .In general, people with an aggressive humor style have a tendency to express
humor without regard for its potential impact on others.” (4) Self-defeating humor
involves “excessively self-disparaging humor, attempts to amuse others by doing or
saying funny things at one’s own expense as a means of ingratiating oneself or gaining
approval. . .or the tendency to engage in humorous behavior as a means of hiding one’s

underlying negative feelings.” Individuals who use self-defeating humor “may be seen as

45

 

 

witty. . .[but] there is an element of emotional neediness, avoidance, and low self-esteem
underlying their sense of humor.”

These dimensions of humor, according to Martin, are not distinct and often
overlap. Any individual may, at different times, use humor that exhibits some of these
dimensions; however, in the present study, where participant roles are more defined than
in casual conversation, roles may influence the predominance of one dimension of humor
within each individual, and may affect subsequent initiations and/or expectations of
laughter. For example, one of the tutor’s roles, in theory, is to make students comfortable
in discussing weaknesses in their writing, or in revealing their ignorance of writing
conventions. Tutors who have an affiliative humor style may quite comfortably use
humor to, as Martin posits, “facilitate relationships” or to “put others at ease,” (or in
facework theory to maintain the positive face of the other) and while that same tutor may
also in everyday conversations among friends use aggressive humor in teasing and
joking, he or she would most likely not use aggressive humor directed at the student in a
writing tutorial.

However, occasionally tutors do use humor affiliatively, but in a way that has
aggressive overtones for some target other than the student. As Martin notes, “relatively
benign forms of affliative humor may often involve some degree of disparagement, such
as when groups of friends or colleagues enhance their feelings of group identity,
cohesiveness, and well-being by making fun of other groups or individuals outside the
group who are disliked or pose some threat to them,” (Sec. 1.1). Tutors and students
using humor to disparage some “other,” and who seek a laughter response as verification

that the underlying message was received, is evident in the present study.

46

A person’s humor style or humorous manner can be related to that person’s
communication orientation toward conflict in the sense of whether he or she is more
concerned with self-face, other—face, or mutual-face. A person concerned primarily with
maintaining his or her own positive face might be prone to using self-enhancing humor
whereas a person concerned with maintaining positive mutual-face may employ an
affiliative humor style. Self-defeating humor is indicative of someone who has trouble
maintaining his or her own positive face and may in fact be a plea for the bearer to do

some face- giving or other-concerned facework.

1.6.3. POWER IN DISCOURSE

Much of the research into the uses of laughter in institutional discourse has been
done in the context of doctor-patient interviews. As mentioned earlier in this chapter,
West and Haakana looked at laughter in doctor-patient discourse, and found that who
initiated laughter and who supported laughter was heavily dependant on who had the
most power. In both these studies, doctors were assumed to have more inherent power
than patients; however, neither researcher attempted to examine the relative degree of
power individual doctors held as compared to individual patients.

In Claiming Power in Doctor-Patient Talk, anthropological linguist Nancy
Ainsworth-Vaughn contrasts the recurrent theme in philosophical and social-theory
analyses that sees power as “implementing one’s agenda” with that of educational
theorist Nicholas Burbules’ view that power is synonymous with domination, and finds

both views inadequate to describe claims for power that occur in interaction. In the first

47

view, the outcome of having one’s agenda implemented assumes an either-or outcome.
Ainsworth-Vaughn argues that “It is often difficult to say whose agenda prevail[s] in the
end because participants modif[y] their proposals on the basis of what they hea[r] during
the negotiation” (43). A major problem with Burbules’ View, according to Ainsworth-
Vaughn, is that assuming power is always domination also assumes that there must be a
conflict of interest in order for one person to dominate or have power over another. She
explains, “If there is no conflict of interest, power is not realized. Thus, Burbules does
not see parents as exercising power when they protect young children from danger
against the child’s will. It is in the interest of the child to be protected” (41). Ainsworth-
Vaughn points out that Burbules is looking solely at the outcome and not the process
involved, and she argues that in the process of protecting the child, the parent exercises
power. Thus, Ainsworth-Vaughn sees that power can be exercised through a process of
action.

Ainsworth-Vaughn distinguishes between “agency” and “structure” as bases for
claiming power, and this distinction is applicable to tutorial discourse. “Discourse moves
are part of agency. Structural power in medical encounters is that arising from the
speaker’s affiliation with the social institution... (italics original 42). Tutors have
structural power in that they are representatives of an academic institution, and they may
claim or relinquish power, as may students, through discourse moves. Ainsworth-Vaughn
asserts, using the term “identity” in much to same way Brown and Levinson use “face,”
that “Identity is constructed in part by successful claims to speaker rights—the right to
take a turn, to hold the floor an appropriate length of time, to initiate and pursue a topic,

to finish a point” (43). In her study, Ainsworth-Vaughn examines how power is

48

 

negotiated through the discourse moves of questions, interruptions, overlaps, topic
control, and tum-taking, and building upon her work, I also include these features in the

present study.

1.7. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

In this study, I assume that participants wish to present themselves in a positive
light and use linguistic and paralinguistic strategies to maintain their positive face as well
as the positive face of the other. I also assume that laughter is used both intentionally and
unintentionally to supplement messages communicated by participants during talk-in-
interaction. Further, I assume that participants negotiate and claim power through
discourse moves, and that by quantifying these moves, individual differences in the

degree to which power is claimed by participants can be seen.

1.8. NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Laughter is an important multi-faceted discourse device that participants use to
communicate a variety of messages in both everyday and institutional interactions. While
laughter in interaction has been researched in a variety of other institutional settings,
there is a virtual void of scholarship concerning the use of laughter by participants in
writing tutorials. Further, while prior research has demonstrated consistently that laughter
in institutional discourse is related to the unequal distribution of power between

participants in dyads or among participants in multi-party interactions, no studies have

49

 

examined writing tutorials to bring to the surface the relationship between laughter and
power as measured by discourse features.

The present study, by looking beneath the surface of both initiated and responsive
laughter, can contribute to the general body of knowledge concerning laughter and the
specific body of knowledge of tutor-student interaction. My hope is that my research will
also benefit applied linguistics and writing center praxis by making tutors more aware of

what students might be saying beneath the guise of laughter.

50

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, I describe the impetus for the study; the corpus of data including
the setting in which the data were collected, the participant selection procedure, and the
data collection process; the research questions that were grounded in and emerged from
the data; the rationale for a hybrid approach to the analysis of the linguistic and

interactional features of laughter in writing center tutorials; and the coding process.

2.1. IIVIPETUS FOR THE STUDY

Research interest in academic spoken discourse has a long tradition involving
corpus linguistics—collections of texts “collected according to some set of principled
criteria” (Simpson and Swales 227). From the early pioneers of studies of specific
corpora of written or recorded and transcribed texts such as Charles Carpenter Fries’ The
Structure of English (1952), which emphasized a “descriptive approach grounded in
empirical data” (Simpson and Swales 8), to contemporary researchers relying on such
massive computerized corpora as the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE), descriptive or applied linguists have had two main research agendas: “(1) to
look at the linguistic elements emerging from the data, that is, investigate language as a
resource [emphasis added]; and (2) to investigate the kinds of discourse practices that are
characteristic or less characteristic of university settings” (167).

The academic talk-in-interaction that occurs between tutors and students in
writing centers—the talk that is the impetus for this study—is institutional discourse, and

exhibits the characteristics which distinguish institutional discourse from everyday

51

conversation (Drew and Heritage 22). Tutors represent a formal organization, and their
“professional identities are somehow made relevant to the work activities in which they
are engaged” (4); the interaction is goal oriented; there are “special and particular
constraints on what one or both of the participants will treat as allowable contributions to
the business at hand [italics original]” (22); and the interaction occurs in a designated
setting. Much research has been done on the teacher-student talk-in-interaction that
occurs in traditional classrooms (see Cazden), yet little has been done to investigate the
verbal discourse in writing centers. Writing center tutors share with classroom
composition instructors the goal of helping students to become better writers; however,
unlike classrooms in which one instructor deals with several students concurrently, the
working environment of writing centers is based primarily on one-on-one conferencing.
Also, while classroom instructors have highly visible or inherent status signs—the
authority/responsibility to assign grades to papers, the power to pass or fail students, a
personal office, a privileged seat in the classroom—the identity of writing center tutors is
not based on such powers. While tutors do serve aslinstitutional representatives, and do
make evaluations about student papers, tutors do not assign grades, do not pass or fail
students: their space is usually not private but rather but one of several public conference
tables, and their role is not as gatekeeper, but rather as consultant. Additionally, tutors,
unlike credentialed and/or tenured classroom instructors, are often graduate students or
part-time lecturers who may be fairly close in age to the students with whom they work.
Granted, many entry level writing courses may be taught by graduate assistants, but as
mentioned above, traditional classroom settings lend an inherent power to the classroom

instructor that writing center tutors do not command.

52

in!“

 

How then might this unique status of tutors affect talk-in-interaction? Since the
status of participants in writing center tutorials is more equal than that of teachers and
students in classrooms, how might the discourse strategies differ? Might writing center
discourse be more conversational in nature than that which occurs in classrooms?

With these questions in mind, I turned to applied linguistics, and in particular
Conversational Analysis (CA), as a methodology to study the institutional processes that
go on in writing tutorials. Research endeavors in academic spoken discourse have long
relied on CA, with its focus on the analysis of audio and video recordings of interaction,
and which offers the “advantage that it cuts across basic problems associated with the gap
between beliefs and action and between what people say and what they do” (Drew and
Heritage 5). Since I was keeping in mind power differentials, I decided to supplement the
CA analysis of the data with quantitative analyses of discourse features that were
indicative of claims to power in discourse. I began this research project to explore the
linguistic strategies participants use in writing center tutorials, and collected data as

described in the following section.

2.2. DATA COLLECTION

2.2.1. SETTING

Eastem Michigan University’s Writing Development Center (WDC), or The
Writing Center as it is known today, has operated as some variant of an institution-
within—an-institution since the early 19705. Originally, a rather creative interpretation of

the Michigan laws governing the distribution of funds earmarked for instructional support

53

 

 

for adult education enabled certified secondary school teachers to be hired by the
Ypsilanti Public School Adult Education Program. These teachers were then sent to
EMU, and EMU students below the age of twenty were offered this tutorial service. As a
result of this collaborative effort, by 1982 the program employed a half-dozen full—time
teachers who were paid by the hour and who operated under an Adult-Ed remedial
philosophy. The WDC was not viewed campus-wide writing center where “good” writers
went in search of a responding audience, but rather as a fix-it shop where students under-
prepared to write at the college were sent to master basic English.

As the 1990s began and the laws governing the distribution of Adult Ed funds
were changed, writing support at EMU nearly vanished as funding and personnel to
support a writing center dwindled along with the center’s visibility. The WDC relocated
from a ground—floor room in the biggest classroom building on campus to a difficult-to-
find comer room on the sixth floor in an interior faculty-office hallway. Soon, outside
pressure from external review boards as well as internal pressure for writing support
resulted in the Provost’s office developing a Developmental English Fund to be '
administered through the English Department and to help support writing and reading.
The WDC was at first directed by a faculty member with one course release time, and
then by a part-time lecturer who, together with five FI‘E in the form of five graduate
students who were majoring in English, comprised the staff.

It was at this point that I was hired as the director, and I soon discovered that
though the WDC was no longer programmatically or financially tied to Adult Ed,
its persona in the university community was. Students who used the WDC were primarily

at-risk students enrolled in ENG 120: Basic English Composition (a course which

54

 

counted towards graduation but not for fulfilling the General Education requirement of a
introductory composition course) or those in ENG 121: Freshmen Composition. In both
these courses, students were required by their instructors to make at least one
appointment during the semester. Additionally, about a third of the total number of
student appointments were made by non-native English speakers. Many faculty across
campus who knew of the center’s existence believed it continued to operate under the old
remedial education philosophy, and referred students who, in the words of one
department head, “needed their writing hygiene cleaned up.” Expectations about the
WDC from both faculty and students were that tutors in the WDC were there to help
“fix” papers in terms of sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, and mechanics.

Tutor training in 1997, when the data for this study was collected, consisted of a
three-hour workshop before the WDC opened in the fall semester, and weekly hour-long
staff meetings throughout the fall. In establishing an institutional identity—an identity
that would ultimately guide the tutorials, primary emphasis was first placed on tutoring
for higher—order concerns such as content, organization, and argument, and secondarily
addressing grammar and mechanics. Tutors were traditionally graduate students majoring
in English who worked part-time in the WDC and taught either a section of ENG 120 or
assisted in a large lecture section of a literature class. The year this data was collected, I
had also hired linguistics majors, TESOL majors, and two undergraduate tutors who were
funded through a program which was designed to academically support minority
students. The actual taping began at the tail end of the fall semester, and was completed
during the winter semester.

Tutors were used to being observed: the WDC served as a research site for classes

55

 

 

 

in English Education as well as Introduction to Composition courses. Students from these
courses observed the goings-on in the WDC and occasionally sat in on a tutorial and took
notes. Some English Education students’ presence became routine as they followed a
particular student’s progress over the course of several visits to the WDC. Additionally,
for purposes of tutor evaluation, I had sat in on tutorials and had given feedback to each
tutor on his or her performance. This acquaintance with being observed was perhaps
beneficial when I eventually sought out participants for this study.

The room in which the WDC was located was L-shaped, consisting of a 13’ x 9’
reception/filing and supplies area adjoined to a 6’ x 23’ wing in which were arranged in
close proximity six conference tables: an acoustic nightmare. Due to scheduling logistics
dependent on both tutor and my own availability, I was faced with the prospect of having
to record when there might be three or four simultaneous tutorials occurring with barely
more than four feet separating the tables and participants. Fortunately, only seven of the
36 taped tutorials occurred concurrently with more than two additional T/S dyads, so
background noise was not a constant interference.

In order to minimize the effect of concurrent tutorials, the taping area was set up
against the back wall around the comer from the main desk. The participants sat at a
small rectangular table which was placed perpendicular to the back wall. Behind the back
of the person seated on the right was another wall, and behind the person seated on the
left was a large window. Suspended from a bookshelf on the back wall was a small
microphone which was hooked to a Marantz 201 audio recorder, which then fed into a
Symphonic VCR which I kept in a six-feet tall supply cabinet with double doors located

approximately six feet away against the right wall. For video input, I had a Plexiglas

56

 

 

 

l
i
-.l
if
j
l
l

.Iflt-q. 2.4.1 ‘ --

 

1".

rt.
.5

.-

‘ ‘9-
‘1‘- W‘.

...“A

#3. ’45... 4

.I Pg- r
I: O
- ..J;

1.."

 

panel made to replace a suspended ceiling tile, and mounted a multi-purpose JVC video
camera above the panel. The video input went to the VCR. I hooked a small, 5-inch tv
monitor to the VCR, and was able to ascertain when video was being input to the system.
When the left-hand door to the supply cabinet was opened, my presence was partially
obscured from the participants. This allowed me occasionally to unobtrusively check the

recording equipment.

2.2.2. PARTICIPANTS

Table 2.1: Corpus Overview on the following page shows the pseudonymous
four-letter code given to each tutorial (the first two letters stand for the tutor, the second
for the student), the gender composition of the dyad, the date and time of the tutorial,
whether the visit was the student’s first or second, whether or not the visit was required,
the course number, the length of the visit, the number of other dyads in the room, each

student’s class level, the ages of participants, and the difference in ages in each dyad.

2.2.2.1. Tutors

In accordance with the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (U CRIHS) procedures at Michigan State University, I applied for and was
granted approval to collect data. I also applied for and was granted approval through the
Human Subjects Review Committee at my home institution, Eastern Michigan

University, to collect data. In recruiting tutors to participate, during a

57

Table 2.1 Corpus Overview

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tape TIS Date Time #v Reg CRN It Lfih 1t TIS Level S Age T Age ADiff.
ALBC M/F 3/31/1997 12:00 2 N P. Essay 53:47 3 SR 27.8 33.7 5.11
ALCK M/F 3/13/1997 12:30 1 TS ENG 121 36:48 3 S 20.1 33.7 13.6
ALMS M/M 4/9/1997 2:00 1 TS ENG 121 33:23 1 SR 25 33.8 8.8
ALMT M/M 4/14/1997 12:30 1 N ENG 417 28:48 3 SR 26.9 33.8 6.11
ALTK M/M 4/10/1997 12:30 1 N PHIL 225 25:37 2 S 20.9 33.8 12.11
ALWL M/F 4/10/1997 2:00 1 Y ENG 121 28:42 1 SR 21.1 33.8 12.7
CRAM M/M 3/27/1997 9:30 1 N ENG 120 29:59 1 F 22.2 34.7 12.5
0900 WP 3/27/1997 10:00 1 N ENG 121 36:01 1 F 18.7 34.7 16
CRHC M/F 4/3/1997 11:30 1 N LIT 101 31:27 2 S 19.8 34.7 14.11
CRLK M/F 3/13/1997 10:00 2 N CT 420 55:39 2 SR 24.1 34.7 10.6
CRMR M/F 12/3/1996 ? 1 N LIT 106 31 :41 F 19.2 34.3 15.1
CRSB M/M 4/3/1997 2:00 1 Y ENG 121 47:14 ? F 19.4 34.7 15.3
FSEL M/F 4/7/1997 2:00 1 Y ENG 121 33:26 1 F 19.2 26.10 6.9
FSKP M/M 4/7/1997 2:30 1 Y ENG 121 32:06 0 F 19.3 26.10 6.8
FSSS M/M 3/18/1997 1 Y ENG 120 13:58 ? F 18.8 26.9 8.1
FSTM M/M 4/1/1997 1:30 1 N ENG 121 44:27 2 JR 21 26.10 5.10
FSTS M/F 4/2/1997 1:30 1 N PHED 591 29:11 2 GR 25.3 26.10 0.8
FSWK M/F 4/10/1997 12:00 1 Y ENG 121 25:56 3 F 18.4 26.10 7.7
GJKB F/F 4/7/1997 1:00 1 TS WMST200 31 :57 3 F 32.11 24.3 8.8
GJKJ F/F 3/26/1997 1 :00 1 Y ENG 121 36:01 2 F 18.3 24.2 5.11
GJMJ F/M 3/31/1997 2:00 1 N INDT 320 36:42 2 S 20.7 24.2 3.7
GJPC PM 4/1/1997 3:30 2 Y ENG 121 51 :09 0 F 18.1 24.2 6.1
GJWB F/M 3/24/1997 3:00 1 Y ENG 121 22:50 0 F 19.2 24.2 5
GJWS F/F 3/26/1997 12:30 1 N ENG 121 29:36 2 S 47.1 24.2 22.11
HCBJ Fl' 4/9/1997 ? 1 Y ENG 121 35:28 ? F 19.1 22.4 3.3
HCCA F/F 4/3/1997 10:00 1 TS ENG 121 27:39 1 F 18.11 22.3 3.4
HCFJ F/M 3/18/1997 1:00 1 N ENG 121 19:40 1 F 19 22.3 3.3
HCKB F/F 4/3/1997 9:30 1 Y ENG 121 19:17 1 F 19.3 22.3 3
HCPR F/M 3/27/1997 1:30 1 Y ENG 121 37:21 2 F 18.5 22.3 3.10
HCTD F/M 4/10/1997 10:00 2 Y ENG 120 34:06 1 F 19.6 22.4 2.10
OMCK F/F 12/4/1996 11:30 2 TS HIST 315 20:45 2 JR 26.2 25.2 1
OMHJ PM 3/25/1997 2:00 1 N ENG 326 29:04 3 SR 21.8 25.2 3.6
OMHM F/M 4/1/1997 1:00 1 N P. Essay 37:06 2 JR 24.5 25.2 0.9
OMMM F/F 4/8/1997 2:00 1 Y ENG 121 18:32 3 F 18.7 25.3 4.10
OMRN F/F 4/8/1997 1 1 :30 1 N ENG 121 44:27 1 F 19.1 25.3 6.8
OMZM F/M 12/4/1996 ? 1 TS ENG 121 19:28 ? F 18.6 24.1 5.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T/S = Tutor-Student dyad; #v = number of visit to the WDC; #T/S=other dyads in room

58

 

 

 

regular staff meeting I discussed the need in writing center literature for studies which
focus on the spoken discourse of tutorials. I explained that I was collecting data to study
instructor-student communication, and while the data would likely serve as the basis for
my dissertation, it would serve a wider function as a catalyst to further studies as well as
to improve future tutor training. I explained I would simultaneously video and audio tape
tutorials. Confidentiality was promised, consent to view or listen to the tapes at any time
was given, and I made explicit that volunteers had the right to withdraw completely at
any time. Tutors were informed that their participation was strictly voluntary, and would
have no effect on continued or future employment. The tutors were either graduating at
the end of the semester, or were going to be assigned to teaching full-time in their second
year, so the possibility of working in the WDC was not dependent on either the tutors’
participation or performance.

I explained that I hoped to acquire a corpus comprised of interaction between
equal numbers of male and female tutors as well as equal numbers of male and female
students and that the gender dyads would be equally distributed among the six tutors. The
tutors were informed that I would try to select student volunteers so that each tutor would
work with three male and three female students for a total of six taped tutorials each.
Fortunately three male tutors and three female tutors volunteered; two female tutors and
two male tutors were graduate assistants, and one female and one male tutor were
undergraduates.

Tutors’ majors were primarily within the English department and included
linguistics, professional writing, and literature. One tutor was majoring in a foreign

language. The tutors ranged in age from 22 years 3 months to 34 years 8 months. All

59

tutors signed consent forms. (See Appendix A. l .).

2.2.2.2 Students

Since this study was not designed to look at cultural differences or English as a
second-language as variables in the discourse functions of laughter, I excluded students
who were non-native speakers. During the time slots I would be available to tape
tutorials, I left instructions at the reception desk to schedule only native speakers, or
speakers without obvious accents to the participating tutors. As students came for their
appointments, I met them at the desk and explained that I was doing a study of tutor-
student communication, discussed confidentiality, and asked if they would be willing to
be video and audio-taped. Only a few students declined to be included in the study. Two
walk-in students—students without appointments—also agreed to be in the study.

The students were also told orally that they could withdraw their consent at any
time, and that if they wished, they could view the video tape and/or listen to the audio
tape. Further, they were asked to agree to a post-tutorial telephone interview with me
that would occur within 24 hours of the tutorial. All students signed the consent form
(see Appendix A.2.).

Background data on the student participants are presented in Table 2.1. Students
ranged in age from 18 years 3 months to 47 years 1 month, and represented levels from
freshman to graduate. Equal numbers of male and female participants were recruited. Of
the 36 students who participated, there were 21 freshmen, four sophomores, three juniors,
six seniors, and one graduate student. The majority (21 of 36) were working on papers

from ENG 121, three were from Basic Writing, two were from introductory literature

60

 

classes, and the remainder of the students were from 200-400 level courses. One graduate
assistant from an occupational therapy course participated. Students came to the WDC
for various reasons: 14 were required as part of their course work to attend at least one
tutorial, six noted that their teacher “suggested” they come, and 16 came of their own
volition. Most students (31) were working with their particular tutor for the first time;
however, five students (one with each of five tutors) had met their tutor on a previous
occasion. Six students (3 male and 3 female) were African Americans; one was a non-
traditional student, a middle-aged Caucasian female, and the rest were Caucasians who

ranged in age from18 years 1 month to 27 years, 8 months.

2.2.3. PROCEDURE

Once a student agreed to participate, I introduced the tutor, directed the dyad to
the taping area, let them decide who was to sit in each chair, and further explained the
process and what I would be collecting: the WDC information sheet, the working draft to
be photocopied before the tutorial began and upon its completion, the assignment sheet,
any notes made on additional paper, and later a final draft. The information sheet (see
Appendix A3). is used in the WDC to gather information about the course in which the
student is working, what the student would like help with, whether or not the student is
required by the instructor to come to the WDC—information that is entered into the
WDC database. I wanted a copy of the draft before and after the tutorial to see (1) what
comments either the tutor or the student might have written and which would not be

visible on the videotape, (2) to aid in transcription when either the tutor or student were

61

reading aloud—possibly in a low voice, and (3) to see what changes had been made in
the draft that may be attributable to the tutor’s suggestions.

I thought perhaps notes might help clarify interaction, and a few students did take
additional notes or the tutor sketched a brief outline. If a student did not have a copy of
the assignment sheet, I asked that he or she send me one, and I was able to obtain copies
of all assignments. Two students were working on essays for reasons other than
coursework, and so did not have a specific set of guidelines. I gave each student a campus
mail envelope and $1.00 to cover the costs of photocopying his or her final draft that
would be submitted to his or her instructor.

An additional collected item was the routinely collected post-tutorial evaluation
sheet completed anonymously by the student and placed in a box as the student exited the
WDC (See Appendix A.4.).

As the tutor and student filled out the paperwork, I photocopied the necessary
materials. As the tutorial began, I made sure the recording devices were working, and
then went around the comer so as not to be a visible influence. Occasionally, I checked
the equipment, but as stated earlier, the open storage cabinet door made my presence less
intrusive.

Once the tutorial was underway, I took field notes about how many other tutorials
were going on in the room at the time, what interruptions may have occurred, and how
the tutorial seemed to be progressing. After each tutorial had concluded, I again requested
that the student send me a photocopy of the final draft that was to be submitted to the
course instructor, and asked each participant when a convenient time would be to call and

do a brief post-tutorial interview.

62

 

So that confidentiality would be maintained, I assigned all tutors, students,
recordings, and collected materials a two-letter code and did not reveal this code to

participants, coders, or other people.

2.3. INITIAL REVIEW OF DATA

After each day of taping, I made a copy of the audio tape(s) on a Telex Copyette
high-speed cassette tape duplicator, and a VHS recorder-to-VHS recorder copy of the
video(s). Since the VHS tape was copied in real time, I was able to view each tape and
get an overall impression of the interactional dynamics of the conference. I took notes on
the subject of the draft, the student’s main concerns, and whether or not the discussion
followed the draft line by line or proceeded more globally. By reviewing the tapes, I was
also able to discover that certain tutors in the background had voices that carried, and that
the audio portion of some tapes had much interference from this background noise.
During subsequent tapings in those time slots, I tried to place other tutors in the room as
far from the taping area as possible. However, since the space in the room was very
limited, and often all scheduled tutors had appointments, portions of some tapes are
difficult to hear.

Once the data collection was completed, I began to review the tapes to get a sense
of the nature of the talk-in-interaction in the WDC, and to see whether or not it was more
conversational in nature than classroom discourse. Initially, I began to look at the tapes
focusing on questions since studies of classroom discourse had shown that teachers asked

the most questions, and the nature of the questions generally followed an Initiation-

63

 

Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequence. Additionally, question asking is associated with
power differentials, and in asymmetrical relationships, the person with the most power
tends to ask the most questions. In the post-tutorial interviews I had taped with the tutors
and students, one of the questions I asked was “Who seemed to ask the most questions?”
and I was curious as to whether the participants’ intuition was in line with what had
actually occurred.

As time went on, and I reviewed more tapes, I began to notice that some tutorials
seemed almost conversational in nature while others were more typical of institutional
interaction. Tutorials which seemed the most conversational in nature included such
linguistic features as overlapping speech, an informal lexical choice, the inclusion of
topics not directly germane to the tutorial agenda, and those features noted in Drew and
Heritage: “expressions of surprise, sympathy, agreement, or affiliation in response to lay
participants describings, claims” (24). What seemed the most surprising feature of the
tutorials, though, was the use of laughter, and in particular the use of laughter to suggest
feelings other than amusement. For example, the following excerpt is from a tutorial
involving a 24 year old female tutor and a 47 year old female student. The discussion is

about whether or not to indent the first paragraph in a report:

Excerpt 2.] GJWS (turn_s 103-111)
(1) T: um just to caution you too..make sure you just indent that there..

(2) S: . Now is that..is that
(3) are you sure about that? [is..is essay form. . .is]
(4) T: ...Well if she wants it in essay form: everything should be
(5) S: that the first one

(6) T: should be indented five spaces..yup

(7) S: ok because I don’t think >I
(8)really

(9) don’t think< I did my other papers..I think I did them all THAT way But

64

(10)T: oh really?
(11)S: you know what? um my my department head. >l worked in teacher ed<
(12)and..um..I

(13)T: Hum?
(14)S: know HE does his..stuff and then he has me format it for him and fix it and
(15)T: umhum

(l6)S: THAT’S where I got it and so I would I started indenting them you know and I
(l7)T: [and that’s how it is?] hmmm

(18)S: and so I would I started indenting them you know and I thought well maybe he
(19) does it everytime..maybe he’s correct..he’s got his PhD I don’t (smiles and laughs)
(20) T: (smiles and laughs)
(21) S: © so maybe he does know a little bit more than I do © (©=smiley voice)

The tutor (T) has noticed that the first paragraph of the essay is not indented five
spaces while the remainder of the paragraphs are. The student (S) questions the tutor in
lines 2-3, and in line 9 states that she’s done other papers the same way. T in line 10
expresses surprise that the other papers were acceptable with the first paragraph not
indented, and so in line I 1, S begins to bring in the authority of her boss—the department
head—who has her format his papers with the first paragraph not indented. She mitigates
this disagreement with T in line 19 by attributing her ideas to a higher authority and then
laughs and smiles. T joins in the laughter as well. What S has apparently accomplished
through the use of laughter is a refutation of T’s advice in such a way that T is neither
threatened nor offended. Indeed, T smiles and laughs as well.

I became increasingly intrigued by participants’ use of laughter to accomplish
interactional goals, and so decided to do a close analysis of laughter in my corpus.
However, I soon discovered that episodes of laughter were often fleeting; might occur in
single, difficult-to-discem pulses; sometimes occurred in seemingly inappropriate places;

and that speakers often began laughing virtually simultaneously making it difficult to

distinguish who laughed first. I realized that in order to make any detailed observations of

65

 

laughter, I would have to play sections of each recording repeatedly. Since VHS tape is
prone to stretching and breakage, I eventually copied the recordings to DVD format. I
first captured each video using Storm Video software, and then striped each tape with a
time code. Striping the time code directly onto the tape eliminated the possible future
problem of relying on the individual tape counters of whichever VCRs might be used to
view the tapes in subsequent coding sessions. After the videos were captured and striped,
each one was burned to a DVD.

As the earlier transcribed example of laughter suggests, participants use laughter
as more than a response to a humorous stimulus: laughter is also used as a linguistic
strategy to accomplish interactional goals. In Chapter 1, the review of the literature on
laughter suggests several linguistic functions of laughter that may be useful in an analysis
of how participants use laughter in negotiating their way through writing center tutorials.
As discussed in Chapter 1, Jefferson and later Haakana both show that in interactions
between patients and physicians, patients often laugh to ease embarrassment during
“troubles telling” or presentation of what they feel are unusual symptoms or when talking
about very personal matters. In writing tutorials, students must often lay bare their lack of
knowledge and misconceptions about the writing process and academic writing
conventions, and in this data, I noticed that many times laughter accompanied these
instances. Glenn notes the long recognized distinction between laughing at and laughing
with, and since either can be used by participants in writing tutorials—speech events in
which mistakes are often discussed—how participants perceive each others’ laughter that
may occur during these discussions determines the course of the interaction (“Laughing

at” 43). Adelsward and Oberg studied the function of laughter in international

66

negotiations and focused on when laughter occurred, what the object of laughter was, and
whether the participants laughed jointly or unilaterally. They found that laughter serves
as a discourse boundary device, signals the importance or unimportance of topics, as well
as signals the degree of sensitivity of topics, and that unilateral laughter is more frequent
in those with less power Tutorials are also negotiation activities in which the participants
need to decide which topics are of most importance, when to shift the focus of these
topics, and when to conclude.

Chafe observed various emotional states that laughter characterized such as
“nonseriousness,” unpleasantness, and ridicule (39.) Writing tutorials can be tense and
anxiety producing, and shared laughter, as in conversational laughter, can be seen as a
way to reduce the seriousness/tension of the encounter. When used inappropriately, a
tutor’s laughter can be seen by a student as a type of ridicule. More recently, in a study of
laughter in the British National Corpus (BNC) Ulrike Giinther categorized laughter
according to its function in discourse: affiliative laughter supports humor; contextualizing
laughter cues “an utterance as non-serious, emphasize[s] its laughability or mitigate[s]
some implicit criticism”; disaffiliative laughter is placed in an inappropriate slot and
expresses disapproval or criticism; reflexive laughter is sequence final and “applauds
one’s own humorous contribution and is preceded by some other speaker’s laugh;
heterogeneous laughter is laughter that does not permit an unequivocal interpretation and
is functionally ambivalent—its meaning is unclear from the transcripts (153-160). In
writing tutorials, tutors’ roles shift from coach, to fellow student, to the institutional
authority, and I was interested in discovering how participants align themselves through

laughter. Additionally, tutors must critically read students’ work, and how negative

67

comments are mitigated or not and whether or not the receiver is offended or not might

be better understood through an examination of the uses of laughter.

2.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

GUIDING THE STUDY

2.4.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

For the purposes of this study, and on the basis of the above discussion of laughter
research traditions, I decided to use as a research guide the following questions:

(1) How do participants use laughter in writing tutorials?

(2) Who laughs first and why?

(3) What is the hearer’s response to laughter?

(4) Are there gender differences in how participants use laughter?

(5) What are the relationships between claims to power and initiations of ‘

laughter?

2.4.2. METHODOLOGY

In order to investigate these questions, I chose a methodology that would allow

me to investigate laughter as it actually o‘ccurred in interaction. As discussed in Chapter

1, laughter has been studied from such disciplinary perspectives as biology, philosophy,

psychology, and anthropology, and while such perspectives certainly yield insight into

68

the evolutionary and social advantages of laughter, they do little to advance knowledge of

how laughter functions in the moment-to-moment communicative activities of

conversational interaction. Glenn points out that the research methods used in these

disciplines tend to:
...treat people not as rule-engaging social actors, but as animals whose actions
may be described in neutral, objective language. Laughs get described in isolation
from their naturally occurring contexts. Descriptions tend to favor dramatic,
extended, hearty laughs, at the expense of the (probably more common) small,
subtle, conversational laughs that pepper people’s talk so pervasively that it is
difficult to even notice them. (Laughter 32)

Further, Mulkay stresses the need for a research perspective to investigate how laughter

functions in interaction:
If laughter is more than a mere reflex response to environmental cues, if it does
contribute systematically to the sign language of the humorous mode and is
employed in subtle ways to communicate about the meaning of the ongoing
interaction, techniques must be found to investigate the fine detail of laughter in
natural settings. We must find a research perspective that not only allows for the
possibility that social actors methodically employ laughter as an interactional
resource, but‘also treats such laughter as a topic for careful investigation. (qtd. in

Glenn Laughter 110)

While traditional linguistics has largely ignored laughter and banished it to the
realm of the paralinguistic along with gestures, smiles, gaze, silence and the like,

Conversation Analysis (CA) has from its earliest beginnings paid attention to laughter

69

naturally occurring in both conversational and institutional settings. This
phenomenological, descriptive tradition has its roots in sociology, and is based upon the
ethnomethodological orientation to the analysis of social action as attributed to Garfinkle
and more specifically shaped by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson. CA assumes that
interactions between people are organized in systematic, describable ways. As Glenn
notes, “The overarching purpose of research is to describe peoples’ methods (thus the
label ethnomethodology) for ‘doing’ everyday life” (35). CA analysts study recordings
and transcripts of naturally occurring interactions in both everyday conversation as well
as in institutional settings, and in so doing, look at such phenomena as questions and
answers, topic changes, interruptions, and other features (such as laughter) noticeable in
audio and more recently video recordings. CA studies are referred to as “talk-in-
interaction” studies since they focus on the text itself and the participants’ inherent
understanding of the speech event itself.

CA researchers sometimes, though not often, provide descriptive statistics across
a collection of data, and look at such phenomena as who is most likely to initiate
laughter, whether students laugh more than instructors, or if doctors share laughter more
than patients. While quantification of data has been useful in studying the frequency of
various discourse features such as interruptions, overlaps, number of speaker turns, etc., it
is not be the most useful way to study laughter in interaction, but when coupled with CA,
I felt it would help to give a fuller picture of what went on in tutorials. In CA, analysis
proceeds inductively, and claims are based on particular instances of a phenomena
recurring in patterns. Some CA researchers use descriptive statistics, but laughter is not,

as Schegloff points out something that can be counted: “People do not laugh per minute”

70

 

(103-104). Further, as Glenn notes, “Claims of a recurrent pattern do not rest on

frequency or statistical probability but on demonstration in examples and explication of
the practices, orientations, rules, competencies, expectations, etc., which participants
display in their conduct” laughter 38). The goal of CA is not to find a statistical trend,
but rather to explain conversational practices as they appear in time-bound situations, and
to “go beyond characterizing a single instance or a collection of instances of some
phenomenon to connect analysis to wider theoretical, conceptual, or methodological
issues” (40).

There is a vast amount of literature on CA methodology, and I will not go into
detail here (see for instance Glenn, Laughter), but will mention that in CA, researchers
often code data for analysis. To answer Questions 2 and 3 about how participants initiate
and respond to laughter, I devised coding categories and employed co-raters to code
selected data, and this process is discussed in the next section. To answer Question 4
about gender and Question 5 about power, I began with frequency measures based upon
the coding results, and looked for trends such as who is more likely to initiate laughter,
whether women laugh more than men, etc. However, frequency counts in CA are used
only as a starting point, and arriving at a numerical distribution is not the goal of the
research, but rather as Glenn points out a “cause for examination of details of particular
instances” (Laughter 39). Answers to Questions 2-5 will serve as the basis for an
analysis of the Question 1, the primary research question: How do participants use

laughter in writing tutorials?

71

 

2.5. CODING DATA

2.5.1. CODING CATEGORIES

Underpinned by the studies of laughter mentioned in the preceding discussion,
and driven by the data I had reviewed, I constructed the following coding categories:
I. Who Laughs First and Why

A. Participants

1. T=Tutor (T initiates laughter)

2. S=Student (S initiates laughter)

3. T/S=Simultaneous Initiation (In some instances, even after repeatedly
listening to the instance of laughter, we could not distinguish the
initiator’s laugh).

B. Reason for Initiation
1. Affiliative: (A) =laughter supports prior speaker’s utterance or action
2. Mitigation:
a. (M') = laughter used to relieve tension for self or to cue hearer
b. (M2) = laughter used to relieve tension for other
3. Disaffiliative:
a. (D') = miscommunication
b. (D2) =disapproval of prior utterance or action
11. Response to Laughter

A. Participants
1. T=Tutor (T responds)
2. S=Student (S responds)
3. T/S=Simultaneous laughter
B. Type of Response
(1) Affiliative:
a. (N5) = Affiliative/Shared: hearer immediately joins in laughter
b. (AN) = Affiliative/Verbal: speaker’s utterance shows support
for laughter
c. (A/NV) = Affiliative/Non-Verbal: smile, head nodding, clapping
or other body gesture or movement to indicate
alignment
(1. (ND) = Affiliative/Delayed: verbal or non-verbal support
occurring later than 3 seconds after initiation
(2) Neutral: (N) =response appears neither affiliative nor disaffiliative

72

 

(3) Disaffiliative:

a. (D/NL) = Disaffiliative/No Laugh: no laugh occurs where one is
expected

b. (DN) = Disaffiliative/Verbal: utterance showing either
miscommunication or disapproval

c. (D/NV) = Disaffiliative/Non-verbal: facial expression or body
movement showing either miscommunication or
disapproval of laughter

d. (D/D) = Disaffiliative/Delayed: negative response occurring
later than 3 seconds after laughter

2.5.2. SELECTION AND TRAINING OF CO-RA TERS

I recruited graduate students in linguistics to be co-raters. I wanted students who
had taken core courses in discourse analysis, phonology, and semantics, and who were
native speakers of American English raised in the United States. Two female graduate
students who fit these requirements agreed to go through two norming sessions and to
code all data I selected from my data set. They were paid $15.00/hr.

Over the course of two two-hour sessions, co-raters were familiarized with the
terminology of the coding categories. Modifications in the terminology were made as
data emerged which did not fit the categories, and we added a category of “Unclear”

- under “Reason for Laughter” since in some instances, the purpose for the laughter was
not clear. Additionally, since data do not always fit into neat categories, and new
situations may emerge once the actual coding has begun, we included an option to use an
asterisk indicating that the coding doesn’t fit the situation. In these cases, we each had a
notebook in which we recorded why the coding categories did not fit this particular

situation.

73

When we had reached agreement over several examples from the data set—
examples which were not intended for the subset of data that would actually be used in
the study—final versions of the coding sheet were made. Each sheet was designed for
recording information about eight examples, and the sheets were numbered sequentially.

Below in Table 2.2 is the coding sheet we used in the actual coding sessions.

74

 

Table 2.2: Data Coding Sheet

RATER: TAPE:

(A) WHO LAUGHS FIRST AND WHY:

I 2 3 4

Time
AFF
MITIG
DISAFF
UNCL

 

 

 

AFF=Affiliative MlTIG=Mitigation DISAFF=Disaffiliative
l= relieve tension for self l=miscommunication
UNCL=Unclear or cue hearer 2=disapproval of prior utterance
reason for laughter 2= relieve tension for other

 

 

(B) RESPONSE TO LAUGHTER:

(1) AFFILIATION:

1
Shared
Verbal
Non-verbal
Dela

 

(2) NEUTRAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neutral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) DISAFFILIATION:

1
No Lau
Verbal

Non-verbal
Dela

 

 

 

REASON FOR DISAFFILLATION:
' miscommunication 2 disapproval of prior utterance

 

 

T=Tutor S=Student *=coding doesn’t fit situation. See notes for explanation.

75

2.5.3. CODING SESSIONS

Laughter is context dependent and is a response that is frequently delayed.
Additionally, a comment one speaker makes that is either made with a smiley voice or
that induces laughter in the hearer may refer back to another comment which occurred
several conversational turns earlier. Presenting co-raters with isolated instances of
laughter, or even laughter that is shown with only brief contextualization risks missing
subtle or finely nuanced meaning. Therefore, I decided to show my co-raters tutorials in
their entirety. Additionally, since I wanted to see if laughter occurs during discourse
boundaries as Adelsward found (419), seeing and hearing complete stretches of data was
warranted.

In each session, the DVD was played on a laptop connected to a television
monitor. The two co-raters were seated so that they could not view one another’s coding
sheet. I sat at a table apart from the television monitor, and ran Windows Media Player so
that I could pause the DVD or click and drag the cursor to a particular point in the DVD.
The control bar was not visible on the television monitor; only the tape with the time
code striped on it could be seen so as not to distract the co-raters. The co—raters were
instructed to say “Stop” each time they heard laughter, and I paused the tape at that point.
Only instances in which we all heard a sound and agreed it was laughter were coded.
Smiling, while often accompanying laughter, was not counted as silent laughter as many
researchers have done, because the participants’ faces were usually not fully visible. The
recording camera was stationary, and due to shifting body positioning while discussing

the draft, faces were usually partially turned away from the camera.

76

Upon pausing the tape, I would back up approximately 30 seconds and replay the
section. Paralleling protocol in standard transcription procedure, I played the section in
question no more than three times before noting “unclear” in the transcript.

Occasionally, either one of the co-raters or myself would indicate on the coding
sheet that a particular judgment of the coder needed further explanation. Sometimes,
especially in the course of deciding if a hearer’s response was a result of the speaker’s
laughter or the content of the speaker’s comment, the response was marked as unclear
and an explanation added in the coder’s notebook.

After each tape was finished, we individually wrote holistic impressions of the
tutorial, and recorded what we noticed about the interaction in the dyad and what general

impression a participant’s laughter made on the other participant and on us.

2.6. DATA SUBSET SELECTION

I had several hours worth of data, and decided to do a stratified sample since I
wanted to see how laughter was distributed over the range of data. From the initial review
of all 36 tapes in the data set, I saw that tape length ranged from 13 to 55 minutes.
Tutorial appointments in the WDC typically last about 30 minutes, and 23 of the 36
ranged from 25 to 37 minutes. As the data in Table 2.1 show, three tapes were over 51
minutes, and six were under 20 minutes. The three longer tapes were of tutorials in which
the tutor and student had previously worked together, and the shorter tapes were of

tutorials in which the student had only a few very specific questions. My first criterion for

77

sample selection was that the tape fall in the average of 25-37 minute range, a range
which most likely would reflect a typical tutorial.

In reviewing the data on the students who participated, I saw that they ranged in
age from 18 years 3 months to 47 years 10 months, and that while their status ranged
from freshmen to graduate students, most (21 of 36) were freshmen. I next looked at the
course for which they were drafting essays, and 23 of the 36 came to the WDC for a first-
year writing course. Two students came to review personal essays, and the remainder
came for courses in philosophy, literature, occupational therapy, history, women’s
studies, and physical education.

The tutors’ ages ranged from 22 years 3 months to 34 years 7 months. The
youngest tutor, a female undergraduate, coincidently was scheduled only with freshmen,
all of whom were between 18 and 19 years old. This made for a consistent age variation
between tutor and student. The second oldest tutor—a 33-year-old male—was scheduled
with sophomores and seniors who ranged in age from 20-27 years of age, and thus
tutored over a wider range of ages.

There were similarities across many of the tutorials which would help in a
representative, stratified sample: each tutor had at least one female and one male student
from a first-year writing course, and all but one tutor, OM, had first-year writing tutorials
which fell in the desired length of time range. The tapes from this latter tutor were
problematic in other ways: the tutor’s working schedule was such that there were usually
other tutorials occurring in the room at the same time, and the background noise made
discerning laughter difficult; the tutor silently read the student’s draft for many minutes at

a time—up to 15 minutes in one tape—and so interaction was minimal. I decided not to

78

 

include the data from this tutor, and focus the study on two tapes from each of the other
three male and two female tutors. I then selected students who fit the profile of coming to
the WDC for the first-year writing course, whose tutorial length was in the 25-37 minute
range, and who had not had a previous meeting with the tutor. The final data set consisted
of the male tutor/male student dyads of ALMS, CRAM, and FSKP; the female
tutor/female student dyads of GJWS and HCCA; the male tutor/female student dyads of

ALCK, FSEL, and CRCC; and the female tutor/male student dyads of GJWB and HCPR.

I now turn to the analyses of each tutorial followed be a more generalized analysis

across all tutorials.

79

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES

3.1. INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 3, data from this study are quantitatively analyzed. This chapter will
provide a description of the coding categories and will present quantitative data from the
ten tutorials in tables so that global comparisons can be made across all tutorials for the
following categories: (1) initiations of laughter, (2) responses to laughter, (3) occurrences
of laughter and tutorial duration, (4) discourse phases and laughter, (5) participant age
and number of initiations of laughter, and (6) speech activities indicative of power
including volubility, directives, questions, backchannels, overlaps, interruptions, and
topic changes. Additionally, data regarding the relationship between participant gender
and initiations of and responses to laughter will be presented.

Subsequent chapters will explore the importance of these results. In Chapters 4
and 5, initiations and responses respectively will be more closely examined, and the
discussions will draw upon not only the data presented in this chapter, but also will
' incorporate participant and coder observations as well as excerpts from the transcripts to
illustrate the interactional features of the laughter data. In Chapter 6, the discussion will
return to the research questions asked in Chapter 2 through a distillation of the major

findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses.

80

3.2. CODING LAUGHTER

One way of understanding how laughter functions in interaction is to tabulate how
often it occurs. Quantifying laughter may, on the surface, seem counterintuitive since, as
Schegloff points out, “People do not laugh per minute” (103-104). However, in
examining how laughter functions in tutorials, quantitative analyses are nonetheless
useful in describing patterns across data. In parallel research concerning doctor-patient
interviews, West and Haakana (Laughing Matters) counted laughter initiations as did
Thonus in her study of writing tutorials, and these studies yielded data from which
conclusions could be drawn about which participant laughed more and under what
circumstances. To see whether or not laughter in writing tutorials follows similar
patterns, quantifying such happenings as to where in the interaction laughter takes place,
who laughs first and how often, and what types of initiations and responses are most
frequent is useful. In order to assess frequencies of different types of laughter, descriptive
categories can be developed and each laughter instance coded to establish into which
category it best fits, and to establish that individual instances of laughter are coded
consistently from co-rater to co—rater, measures of inter-rater reliability can be used.

As described in Chapter 2, the coding categories in this study were derived from
norming sessions, and were based on tutorials which were not subsequently used in the
final data sample. The categories into which the data were coded were grouped according
to the reason for initiation of laughter and the type of response to laughter. Reasons for
laughter initiation were divided into six types: (1) affiliative, (2) mitigation to relieve

tension for self or to one hearer, (3) mitigation to relieve tension for other, (4)

81

disaffiliative due to miscommunication, (5) disaffiliative due to disapproval of prior
utterance, and (6) unclear. Responses to laughter were divided into nine types: (1)
affiliative/shared laughter, (2) affliliative verbal, (3) affiliative non-verbal, (4)
affiliative/delayed laughter, (5) neutral, (6) disaffiliative/no laugh, (7) disaffiliative
verbal, (8) disaffiliative non-verbal, and (9) disaffiliative delayed. While developed to
account for cases in the norming session, two of the coding categories—disaffiliative
verbal and disaffiliative delayed—tumed out not to be applicable in the final data sample.

Descriptions of the coding categories are listed below.

3.2.1. TYPES OF INI TIA T ION LAUGH TER (T=Tutor, 8: Student)

3.2.1.1 Affiliative (A): laughter which supports the prior speaker’s utterance
(Tape ALCK: T=Male, S=Female. S is reading aloud from WDC form as she fills it out
See Line 15.)
12 S : “I came to the Writing Development Center because my teacher suggested I
13 come”..(53) She REQUIRED me to, she said (sarcastic tone) “It might be a GOOD
14 idea”:
15 T: =(V. LAUGH)
3.2.1.2. Mitigation (Ml): laughter which is produced to relieve tension for self
or which cues bearer as to speaker’s emotional state.
(Tape CRAM: T=Male, S=Male. T has asked what S’s concerns are about essay. See
Line 173.)
172 S: Um.well.I was about to write.um should I be more descriptive in it? I
173 mean, um..I know I need to be more descriptive in my papers but.(V. LAUGH)

174 T: Well you
175 do uh (student’s name) you do a very nice job of cutting to the chase

82

3.2.1.3. Mitigation (M2): laughter which is produced to relieve tension for
other speaker
(Tape ALCK: T=Male, S=Female. T has been explaining parallel structure, and S is
not understanding. See Line 332.)

328 T: so when you have
329 these all strung together noun, noun, noun, noun, noun adjective, and noun, it kind
330 of..you try and read it, trembling, shaking, weakness, heavy-breathing, headache
331 light-headed.does that? does that come out to you at all?..Just throwing in light-
332 headed?= =no?= =ah-hahaha.um, well
333 S: =©No©= =©but you know what you’re talkin’about©=
334 T: like I said

3.2.1.4. Disaffiliative (D1): laughter which reveals speaker’s prior utterance

was not understood, or misunderstood
(Tape FSEL: T=Female, S=Female. T is reading S’s essay aloud. T stops, picks up essay
from table, leans back in chair, sighs, and makes a comment. S’s response in Line
171 is a contrived laugh.)

170 T: hm::m..o:::h you weave a TANGLED web: =if a person decided to stand up
171 S: =uh\1’\l/=

3.2.1.5. Disaffiliation (D2): laughter which indicates prior speaker’s utterance

was offensive
(Tape HCCA: T=Female, S=Female. T is commenting on information provided in an

essay about Australia. See Line 298.)

297 T: I’m surprised, like, you don’t mention more about the aborigines actually. I
298 thought it would be in there more, but I guess not (hxlrunh)?

83

3.2.1.6. Unclear (U): reason for laughter is unclear
(Tape FSKP: T=Male, S=Male. T is reading aloud essay on what constitutes poetry and
art. It is unclear why T begins to laugh in Line 235.)
233 T: “Rowe goes on to state that such a work that does not accomplish this goal
234 is not art. Because art is something that one can intend to make and if one has an

235 intention, they must have a goa@ @ @l”= =That’s a little circular
236 S: =(V. LAUGH:::=, smiles, crosses arms)

3.2.2. TYPES OF RESPONSE LAUGH T ER (T=Tutor, S=Student)

3.2.2.1. Affiliative/Shared (AIS): laughter which supports prior speaker’s
laughter
(Tape GJWS: T=Female, S=Female. T suggests that on a return visit, it’s often better to
make an appointment with the same tutor—one who is already familiar with the
essay. See Line 392.)

389 T: ...someone familiar with what you’re doing

390 S: [right] [I don’t wanna have to tell a new
391 person everything I@ @ @ just told you about my movie
392 T: [exactly..sur@ @ @e]

3.2.2.2. Affiliativererbal (A/V): an utterance which supports prior speaker’s
laughter
(Tape ALCK: T=Male, S=Female. T makes a comment questioning the tone of one
of S’s sentences. See comment said in smiley voice in Lines 400-401.)
397 T: (pauses after reading paper silently, quotes text) “to.be.of.a. great
398 .understanding?”
399 S: Tried getting’, you know, aI-IA@ @ @ but:

400 T: =©but (Jihunhw) tried to get
401 scholarly or something©?

84

3.2.2.3. AffiliativefNon-Verbal (A/NV): paralinguistic features such as smile,
wink, nod, or other unvoiced actions which indicate alignment with
speaker
(Tape ALMS: T=Male, S=Male. T advises putting a definite article before a plural
noun. See Line 228. )
222 T: what you probably need to do is put another article in before traffic lights. You
223 say, “McDonald’s and” you know “one or two traffic lights also remind you that
224 you’re not far from the city:
225 S: =how about “several traffic lights”:
226 T: =Sure. I suppose the closer you get to the truth, the better off it is
227 S: Yeahahaha
228 T: (smiles)
3.2.2.4. Affiliative/Delayed (AID: a response which indicates alignment, does
not occur immediately adjacent to speaker’s laughter
(Tape ALMS: T=Male, S=Male. T discussing a paper mill in S’s essay that discharged
various colored inks on different days into an adjacent river. A well-known story
was that the day of the week was evident by the color of the river. See Line 135.)
127 T: the colored papers, like for the Sunday sections, and

128 they used to color just for Sunday papers I guess, so they would do it throughout
129 the week, like the advertising:

130 S: =yeah:
131 T: =and so one week they would put the green through,and one week the red OR
132 S: [V. LAUGH]

133 T: one day the red and one day the yellow:
134 S: =yeah, I’ve heard some. . .it’s pretty..well, I like to fish, and a couple of people
135 T: [hunh4I] (delayed laugh)

3.2.2.5. Neutral (N): lack of an acknowledgment that laughter occurred
(Tape CRCC: T=Male, S=Female. T and S are discussing where to put a narrative

in essay. See Lines 94-95 in which no acknowledgement of S’s overlapping

85

laughter can be seen.)

87 S: to have it in my paper because it’s like a story that I made up myself to go along
88 with the rest of my paper: =1 don’t know, I asked my
89 T: =why wouldn’t you put it at the beginning?=

90 S: roommate and she’s majoring in writing and she told me to put my intro FIRST

91 with my thesis statement and then somehow get to this story...

92 T: let me [ask you this.

93 S: [but I don’t know hahaha]

94 T: .say you’re] approaching this for the first time, you’re the
95 reader..Um..what would be the most ezye catching piece of vignette or piece of

3.2.2.6. Disaffiliation/No Laugh (D/NL): hearer does not laugh in slot in
which shared laughter would be expected.
(See Line 392 and 394.)

(Tape FSEL T=Male, S=Female. T and S are discussing S’s course teacher.)

389 T: I heard he’s really rough. Is he?=

390 S: =Yeah I don’t know, I didn’t think I was, well
391 he grades like on a portfolio: :50 he gives you really low gra@ @des.and he’s
392 T: =um-hum= (leans back in chair and cracks knuckles)

393 S: like“ Don’t worry about it” ©Am I gonna fail this cla@ @ @ss or wha@ @t@?

394 T: (sighs.23) well (73 pass as T puts hands behind head and stretches, faces away
from S to gaze out window, sighs again.)

395 S: I don’t know if he’s staying here though..I think he’s going somewhere else

396 T: oh
3.2.2.7. Disaffiliation/Verbal (DIV): an utterance which indicates hearer’s

misalignment with speaker
(No responses were coded as DIV in the final data sample, although in the norming

session, one instance occurred. A tutor was silently reading a student’s paper and

laughed. The student responded with, “Why you people always laughin’ at my writing?”)

86

3.2.2.8. Disaffliative/Non-Verbal (DINV): paralinguistic feature such as a
scowl, frown, single exhalation through nose as in a snort expressive
of scorn

(Tape FSEL T=Male, S=Female. T and S are discussing S’s course teacher. See Lines
392 and 394.)

389 T: I heard he’s really rough. Is he?=

390 S: =Yeah I don’t know, I didn’t think I was, well

391 he grades like on a portfolio: :50 he gives you really low gra@ @des.and he’s

392 T: =um-hum= (leans back in chair and cracks knuckles)

393 S: like“ Don’t worry about it” ©Am I gonna fail this cla@ @ @ss or wha@ @t©?

394 T: (sighs.2s) well (75 pass as T puts hands behind head and stretches, faces away
from S to gaze out window, sighs again.)

395 S: I don’t know if he’s staying here though..I think he’s going somewhere else

396 T: oh

3.2.2.9. Disaffiliative/Delayed (DID): a response which indicates
misalignment, but which does not occur immediately adjacent to
speaker’s laughter
(Tape HCTD T=Female, S=Male. T is silently reading S’s paper. Tape was not
transcribed in its entirety. This portion begins at 7:00 into the tutorial, but line numbering

begins at 1. See Lines 2-4.)

1 S: (tapping fingers on binder)

. 2 T: (voiced @)
3 8: (looks at paper) (4) There you go cuttin’ up my papers
4 What is the matter with you people?
5 T: say what? (smiles and looks up)
6 S: (@ I said there you go cutting up my
7 papers
8 T: No I wasn’t..it’s good.. it’s funny
9 S: (@)

(No responses were coded as DID in the final data sample.)

87

3.3. MEASURES OF AGREEMENT

3.3.1. RELIABILITY

In order to establish the degree to which the three raters agreed, or the degree to
which the coding was consistent, the intra-class correlation coefficient Cronbach’s Alpha
was applied to the coding results for each tutor and is summarized below (see Tables 3.1
and 3.2). This measure also assesses for the influence of which tutor was being analyzed.
The average level of agreement was 0.863, and a value of 0.70 or higher is considered an
acceptable measure of agreement. Levels of agreement between coders regarding
individual tutors ranged from 0.71 for Tutor 1 to 0.92 for Tutor 3. Some instances of
responses to laughter were coded as exhibiting more than one feature i.e. a participant
may respond by smiling—a non-verbal feature—as well as saying something—a verbal
feature—in response to a laugh. For ease of data tabulation, multi-coded responses were
tabulated according to the primary feature—the feature that was at the top of the coding
box (See Table 2.2).

_T_able 3.1 Reliability nggistics of Raters Across Individual Tutors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutor # of cases Cronbach’s Alpha
FS (male) 65 0.880
AL (male) 30 0.864
CR (male) 27 0.924
GJ (female) 31 0.716
HC (female) 41 0.860

 

Table 3.2 Reliability Statistics of Raters Across All Tutors

 

# of cases Cronbach’s Alpha

 

 

194 0.863

 

 

 

88

3.3.2. SIMPLE AGREEMENT

Additionally, measures of simple agreement were calculated to describe the

agreement levels between individual raters and is shown in Table 3.3.

flble 3.3 Simple Agreement Between Raters

 

# of cases Coders 1®2 Coders 1¢>3 Coders 2¢>3 Average

 

 

194 0.83 0.82 0.86 0.84

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.3. DISAGREEMEN T AMONG CODERS

Although the derived Cronbach’s Alpha level was acceptable in all tutorials, there
were instances of disagreement among raters in each tutorial. In this study, for the
purposes of analysis, if two out of three coders agreed on a particular coding instance,
that instance was tabulated according to the majority code. For example, if Coders 1 and
3 agreed that T’s response was N and Coder 2 thought that same response was D/NL, the
response was counted as N. If at least two coders did not agree on a case, the particular
case was put into a separate category listed in the “Notes” column in Tables 3.8-3.11. Of
the ten tutorials, five had no cases in which none of the coders agreed. Of the remaining
five, there were 10 cases in which at least two coders could not agree: four were initiation
occurrences and six were response occurrences. Table 3.4 shows the tutorials, the number
of occurrences out of the tutorial total that could not be agreed upon, whether the

occurrence was an initiation or a response, and the participant involved. Table 3.4 shows

89

that all of the cases involved tutors, and that over half (6 of 10) of the cases involved

tutor HC, who will be discussed in more detail in the following two chapters.

Table 3.4 Number of cases in which coder agreement could not be reached

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutorial # of total Initiation Response Tutor Student
FSEL 1 / 31 1 V
CRCC 2/ 7 2 V
GJWB 1 / 7 1 V
HCPR 3 / l4 3 V
HCCA 3 / 27 3 V

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4. RESULTS OF QUANTIFICATION OF LAUGHTER

As described in Chapter 2: Methodology, each instance of laughter that was not
preceded by laughter was counted as an Initiation (I), and what immediately followed
was counted as a Response (R). The frequency of laughter in each tutorial was calculated

as the number of (1).

3.4.1. FREQUENCY OF LAUGHT ER PER TUTORIAL

The total number of Initiations in the data was 194, or an average of 19.4 cases
per tutorial. Table 3.5 shows the number of occurrences of laughter initiation per tutorial.
All of the ten tutorials contain laughter, and while three reveal fewer than 10 occurrences,
over half show 20+ occurrences. The number per tutorial range from a low of 4 to a high

of34.

90

 

Table 3.5 Laughter Initiation (I) Occurrences per Tutorial

 

Dyad (# of I) 0-10 11-20 21-30 30-35

 

FSKP (34) V

 

FSEL (30) /

 

HCCA (27)

 

ALCK (26)

 

\'\'\

GJWS (24)

 

CRAM (20) ./

 

HCPR (14) V

 

CRCC (7)

 

GJWB (7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\'\‘\

ALMS (4)

 

Several factors might account for the variation in number of laughter occurrences
among the ten tutorials. These factors will be mentioned briefly here, and then discussed
in detail in subsequent sections. (1) The duration of individual tutorials might be directly
proportional to the number of occurrences of laughter: a lengthier tutorial might afford
more opportunity for laughter to occur than might a shorter one. (2) Particular phases in
speech events or phase boundaries are more apt to include laughter than other phases. In
Adelsward and Oberg’s study of international negotiations, humor and laughter
frequently occur in the opening phase and tended to serve as ice-breakers (419-20).
Humor and laughter also occur near the end of the negotiations phase as a signal to wrap
things up. Further, Jefferson found laughter in medical exams to occur during certain
phases in which patients are “troubles telling” (“Organization”). (3) Participants’ ages
relative to one another in the dyads as well as relative to the other tutors and students
might also be a factor. (4) As several studies have revealed, in institutional contexts the
person with more authority laughs less and does not tend to support the laughter of

persons with less authority. In this study, power as evidenced through measures of speech

91

activities will be explored in its relation to occurrences of laughter. (5) As the literature
review in Chapter 1 indicates, gender influences laughter: women tend to support men’s
talk more than men support women’s talk, especially through backchanneling, and since
laughter serves as a clear backchannel, finding more backchannel laughter initiated by
female tutors and students than by male tutors and students would not be surprising.
Further, women more than men tend to lessen discourse tension by mitigating critical
comments directed toward others, tend to internalize critical comments, and try to reduce
social distance through affiliative moves. Tutorials involve tutors delivering critical
comments, students hearing about and revealing weaknesses in their writing, and since
both of these discourse activities can be tension-producing and require much facework, it
is not surprising that laughter that serves to mitigate or relieve tension would be present.
(6) Dimensions of a participant’s humor style or personality influence how laughter is

used to both express emotion or state of mind as well as to respond to other interlocutors.

3.4.2. LAUGH T ER AND TUTORIAL DURATION

The relationship between number of laughter initiations and length of tutorial was
examined. Table 3.6 shows that the tutorials range in length from 22:50 minutes to 37:21
or a difference of approximately 15 minutes. The average length of a tutorial was 32:40,
and the average number of laughter initiations was 19.4. Table 3.7 contains the same data
as Table 3.6, but rather than the tutorials being ranked based on duration, they are ranked

according to the number of laughter initiations.

92

These tables show that tutorial length and the number of laughter initiations are
neither directly nor inversely proportional. The tutorial with the fewest occurrences of

laughter (ALMS=4) falls slightly above the average tutorial duration of 32:40.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.6 Initiations and Table 3.7 Initiations and

Duration Ranked by Time Duration Ranked by (1)
Duration # of (I) # 0f (1) Duration
HCPR(37:21) 14 34 FSKP (32:15)
ALCK(36:48) 26 30 FSEL (33:26)
CRCC(36217) 7 27 HCCA(27 :39)
CRAM(34:39) 20 26 ALCK(36:48)
ALMS(34:04) 4 24 GJWS(28:46)
FSEL (33:26) 30 20 CRAM(34:39)
FSKP (32:15) 34 14 HCPR(37:21)
GJWS(28:46) 24 7 CRCC(36: 17)
HCCA(27:39) 27 7 GJWB(22:50)
GJWB(22:50) 7 4 ALMS(34:04)

x =32:40 2:19.41 i=19.4 7:32:40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the next two fewest number of occurrence (n=7), GJWB is the shortest tutorial
(22:50) yet CRCC is the third longest (36:17). The two tutorials with the highest number
of laughter initiations (FS KP=34; FSEL=30) fall near the average duration of 32:40
(FSKP=32:15; FSEL=33:26). That these two tutorials are the closest to the average
duration of all tutorials could suggest a relationship between a particular duration and the
amount of laughter, but the data from the other tutorials does not show a pattern that
longer or shorter tutorials have more or less laughter. A more likely explanation could be
that while the gender of the students in these two tutorials is not the same, the same tutor
is present in both tutorials suggesting that the number of laughter initiations is a function

of this particular tutor being present. However, since the data at this point does not reveal

93

whether FS or his students initiated more laughter, why the laughter was initiated, or
what the responses were, a general overview of the types and frequencies of laughter in
the data is in order.

The next tables presented show frequencies of occurrence of initiation and
response types, as well as how the occurrences are distributed across not only all

tutorials but also across individual participants as well.

3.4.3 LAUGHT ER TYPES AND FREQUENCIES

3.4.3.1. Initiation (1) Types
In Table 3.8, the data is arranged to show how the laughter initiation in the data set is
distributed, and within each tutorial, how much laughter is initiated by each participant.
The initiation types are shown as percentages of the total initiations in each tutorial
(Initiation Type n + Tutorial total n), as well as the average percentage each type is of
the whole data set. Although the total number of laughter initiations in the entire data set
is 194, in one case in FSEL, all coders agreed that both the tutor and student began
laughing simultaneously, and since it was unclear who initiated the laughter, this

particular occurrence was not included. The total n for these analyses was 193.

94

ozwcotOEozazEama "me
552558325235:85 "A .e

.220 L8 cocawE—z HANS:

:9. Le 8:52: "£5

5 L8 :88. :09.

Bean 2238 o»: o: 523 E 3on .8 .38: Z _
.c e .38. E coca—:28 “oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EBBDHSV sous—E.‘ .1. As Sov— ..A_m=oo:3_=E_m wig—was. names mad. .88 use E u
w: a; a: a... a... *9. as ea. 0&2»: a 2.8%
an en - .5 e. .5 , so 5 ea .4.—5:33.:
o o o o s3 o SE m 2
Earn 8:1" 83 321 a $93 a _ amoun— ergo:
o c o o 0.302 sane 32qu m R
.9 E! c 33.n— .§.u~ 842 - Seam 9:50:
o c o C see". _ swam .322 m a
_ e. . to . a $3.»... a sane. -88.": .ng
o o o o .33. Sana s88 m a
o - c o a .823 . .a $33,. 9:958
o o o o $38 $21 $81 m A
o . a . a I c o ‘ o . b. .7095
o o o o scene $83 4.8%. m R
.c o c a, , , $3: an! . 824 _ 7255
o o o o s3”. somum snhum m 4
e o o c .. c enun— SRA .. pt;
.31. o o o smwufi azum sane. m cm
._ b c. _. .o $21... , sen— .sfluw @812. 9.38.2
o o o o sand SS”. _ swans m an
, sous .o ., o. a sane .eonu Rana: FARE
an". o o o o sewn” seems.“ $3.13 m .2”
_ , ‘ o, . o 1.: san— o o . an i. ans—mm".
.882 SE. secs :9 s eggs as: s 2E. 259259 a
E as .593. .45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: .82 .atoSH + e 09:. 28:32:: 2 Wrong. Lo womacoonom mm 385 SEES we >25:on w.m

 

 

2.3

95

Table 3.8 shows that on the average, students initiate most of the laughter in
tutorials (72%). HCRP is an outlier at the low end with the student initiating only 7% of
the laughter. In all other tutorials, the student initiates laughter at least 54% of the time,
and if the average for student laughter initiation is recalculated without the outlier, the
average becomes 78%. At the high end, in CRCC, the student initiates 100% of the
laughter. Of note for its relatively equal number of initiations is GJWS in which the
student initiates laughter 54% of the time while the tutor is responsible for the remaining
46%.

The last two rows in Table 3.8 show the total number of laughter initiations in the
data set broken down by percentages. The category with the highest number of
occurrences—nearly half (43 %)—is mitigation for self (M1) by students, followed by
affiliative (A) laughter by students (27%). Together these two types account for fully
70% of laughter initiations in the entire data set. What this suggests is that in these
tutorials, student laughter is foremost an expression of their own tension, and secondly a
means to support tutors’ discourse.

Tutors also initiate laughter to mitigate for self (9%) more often than to affiliate
. (7%) but to a far lesser extent overall than do students. Additionally, tutors initiate
laughter to mitigate for other (6%) and in three instances (all by HC) as a disaffiliative
move either through miscommunication (l occurrence) or offensiveness (2 occurrences).
However, overall in this data laughter is rarely used by either tutors or students in a
hostile or disaffiliative manner.

Table 3.9 displays the data on reasons for initiation so that the ways in which

individual participants use laughter are expressed. These aggregate percentages show that

96

on the average, tutors’ use of laughter to mitigate for self (33%) or to show affiliation
(27%) are nearly equal, and almost as frequently tutors use laughter to mitigate students’
tension (22%). Students, however, are 1.5 times more likely than tutors to initiate
laughter to mitigate for self (60%), and 1.4 times more likely than tutors to initiate
laughter to show affiliation (38%). Students do not use laughter to relieve tension that
tutors might be experiencing.

In Table 3.9, tutorials HCAA and HCRP are noteworthy for the number of
occurrences of laughter initiation that fall outside of the A, M‘, and M2 types. While the
number of these anomalies is small (8), they account for over half of the number (13) of
such cases in the total data set. Additionally noticeable is that in HCPR, the tutor initiates
93% of the laughter whereas in all other tutorials, the student initiates the most of the
laughter. As will be discussed in the following two chapters, tutor HC is somewhat

atypical.

97

ozmcotOEozam—Eum—Q "Awe

. ...a .L Lupe

.550 new gamma—2 "£5

:3 5 559:: "is
gaseous: SEES u 2: s3.

5 .8 .832 :8:
Bob“ €2.00 95 o: 553 E 880 we Lopes...
.= e E 33.3.8 52.
538:8.sz wEnwzs Smog wank. .88 0:0 E _.

e =
“SEEEE 3.85% Bob

: .5332...— uo at an 0...; e

.3 =39 “592:3 + e 33. sonata: 325:5 :38 9:8 E5 :03 «o o a a o Saoocom mm 28¢.

 

98

3.4.3.2. Response (R) Types

Response types of participant laughter were analyzed, as were initiations, from
two perspectives: as percentages of the total responses in each tutorial (Table 3.10) as
well as percentages of individual participants’ responses (Table 3.1 1). Since, as shown
previously, students initiate 72% and tutors 28% of the laughter in the data set,
correspondingly 72% of the responses in the data set come from tutors, and 28% of the
responses come from students.

The response type comprising the largest percentage in the data set—3.5 times as
large as the next most frequent response—is a neutral response by tutors (42%) and is
shown in Table 3.10. This is not surprising when compared to other research on
institutional discourse that shows institutional representatives don’t support the lay
person’s laughter. However, when the other affiliative tutor responses are combined (A/ S,
A/V, A/NV, AID), tutors do support student laughter 25% of the time. The next largest
number of responses is shared equally between tutor affiliative/shared laughter (12%) and
student neutral responses (12%). Student affiliative/shared laughter comprises 10% of the
total responses. The remaining affiliative response types—verbal, non-verbal, and
delayed—range from 1-7% of the total data set, and only one disaffiliative occurrence is
present. Tutors (5%) and students (4%) are about equal in their affiliative non-verbal
responses, and in their affiliative/delayed responses (1% each). Coders did not agree on

the remaining six occurrences, and again, half of these were responses by tutor HC.

99

BEoQEEEEE "A99

_Bs>-=oz\u>§_c§o "97:9
Eszozéfiaa use
3.5 oZBzEEaEuSzEV

.5502 LE
BEuQEEEE "52v
Enb>éo2®>s~=£< n32);

.anuuZo>:a_—E< HA>\<V
cuS:m\o>zu:E< "82v ”>mv—

Ev co 02w." 8: Ba
30:: m yo N 58. 3 €53 E 830.

2 9c 5 83—3—8 82
images—2:: wciwsfi cameo mach .88 28 E ..n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so 22 ea § 22. en «a sun sum»: s .535
3». .5 . 3a? 5.. 8m .5. Su— .5. . Easiness...
o gowns c o o s8". Osman: m 3

8. $8! a e c a c 88»... Rafi—um
o Deana o o o s. in swonm m R

32% A. shmue, o . szum $21" $23, sans fiéuum
a s3". o 05me swonm as?“ set: w a

. o 32%, o saum 5an 32mm .53.. . 919,8
o s22 o o o o s2". m 5

$32 . a min“ o c o .1 o 833. vim—BB
o o o o o o o m a

§~u~ o $3 a 82.1; c a 8:3. . Woman
o o o o C so?“ senm m 8

c smug sea. $83. 88". seam gr . big
o c o o o s81 933 m w

a s3». 83."— 822 w o , a . a . enhum big
o sane o s32 swoum $32 $3: m cm

a. $3...» a s33 82% $22. 8892 . .73
o Osmonm o sans o seam sum”: m gm

c , 83%. c a $23 $3 88%“ bin—E
o o c c o $82 $8". m an

88". swim a c 82.4 so?“ sauna TEE
@202 See sz 53 92>: is 83 95:35 3.23 3.38

 

 

 

wflvfiflu WNW

 

SSHHH .3: 3o h 1.39: H we so 8 can 03% >5 3G omcofiom Ems—cm we cossnEmE 2 .m 2an

100

 

Table 3.11 shows how each participant’s responses to laughter were proportioned.
On the average, tutors gave neutral responses over half the time (59%) while surprisingly
students’ neutral responses accounted for 44% of their total responses. This goes against
the trend found in Haakana (“Laughing”) and West that shows that the lay person
supports the institutional representative's laughter. Students do respond with
affiliative/shared laughter 35% of the time while tutors respond in a similar fashion only
17% of the time: students produce affiliative laughter by a ratio of 2:1 as compared to
tutors.

Table 3.11 also shows that tutors use affiliative/verbal responses nearly twice as
often as do students, but students use affiliative/non-verbal responses twice as often as do

tUtOI'S .

101

35:02 HAZV QC :0 oohwa no: EU

BEBEEESE Lee BEBEEEZ "83 age n he N .32 a 52; s 83.
En>§z§§§a§ "9&8 Eb>-=oz\o>§§< "$23 a g a 328.8 .oz
Eb>§§=§a§ use weu>33§§< "$3 £88535: using. 5&3 may .88 25 5 ._
i=3 ozozfiegfiufizav BEmEEEE "83 ”Ex

 

“scamnm confine m 3855 6:5 .6 s a as o a a m 88 8m BEE 8:33.25 :5 22¢

102

3.5. DISCOURSE PHASES AND LAUGHTER

3.5.1. DISCOURSE PHASES IDENTIFIED

Jefferson (“Organization”) found that laughter is likely to occur during “troubles
telling” in medical encounters, and Adelsward and Oberg identified phases in
international negotiation activities in which laughter most often occurs such as during
initial greetings or openings and at phase boundaries. In order to more fully understand
how laughter functions in writing tutorials, discourse phases were identified to facilitate
locating places within tutorials in which laughter is more or less likely to occur. Each of
the ten tutorials was examined to see if it fit the framework for institutional discourse as
identified by Michael Agar—diagnosis, directives, and reports--and Beverly S. Hartford
and Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig—openings, and closings. Openings do not always occur,
but generally are present and constitute 1-2 turns. This is when the professional and
layperson initially meet, greet each other, and may exchange conversational pleasantries
about the weather, the traffic, or ask how the other is doing. The diagnosis phase is short
and occurs early in the event. Both participants come to these speech events with certain
frames. Agar terms these Institutional Frames and Client Frames. According to Agar,
visitors to the institution bring Client Frames, which are specific ways they think about
themselves, their problems, and what the institution can do for them. On the other hand,
the professional operates from Institutional Frames, which are ways to “describe people,
their problems, and the possible solutions”. Agar explains that “Diagnosis is that part of
the discourse where the institutional representative fits the client’s ways of talking about

the encounter to ways that fit the institution” (149). For example, a student may come to

103

the WDC seeking help for some broad term such as “grammar.” Since tutors are trained
to discuss grammar not in a general sense, but rather in the context of the student’s own
writing, the tutor may begin the tutorial by asking the student to focus on a specific area
in the paper that he or she is concerned with. The Directive phase comprises the greatest
number of turns, and is where the business or main purpose of the speech event takes
place. Agar then identifies a Report phase in which the institutional representative
summarizes what took place in the encounter and produces either orally or in written
form a text which can be archived. The layperson may or may not be present. In doctor-
patient encounters, the doctor records notes after the patient has left. In academic
advising sessions, Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig show that the Report phase consists
mainly of advisors recording the “agreed-upon schedule in the student’s file” or “signing
a registration ticket” (95). Finally, the Closing is almost always present and can vary
greatly in length. In this phase, points of the discussion may be recapped, or the
participants may return to a more conversational discourse mode in which they wish each
other well, make plans for future visits, and perhaps thank each other. Typically,
however, the institutional frame of the encounter imposes a time constraint that neither
allows for an extended Closing nor for a segue into more conversational mode of
interaction.

In this data, some adjustments to phase analysis were necessary: due to the small
confines of the Writing Development Center, by the time the student had entered the
room, was invited to participate in the study, and had signed the Informed Consent form,
the tutor and student had already made their initial contact before the recording

equipment was turned on. Consequently, only very short segments of the Opening phase

104

were available for analysis. Also, the Report phase and the Closing phase were not
distinct and were therefore combined. Typically in the WDC, Closing behaviors (either
linguistically marked such as a tutor’s asking “Ok, are there any other questions?” or
signaled paralinguistically such as reaching for forms to complete or reaching for a
backpack) begin before the Report phase, and continue simultaneously. As participants
utter closing comments, they both fill out forms: the tutor completes the WDC
Information sheet (see Appendix A.3.), and the student fills out the Evaluation form (see
Appendix A.4.).

Though eight of the ten tutorials ended with the Closing, in two of the tutorials
either the tutor left to photocopy the student’s paper and discourse began upon the tutor’s
return, or I entered and took the paper to be photoc0pied and the participants remained
seated at the table talking about matters other than the student’s paper. These portions

were included in the data and labeled as the Post-C losing phase.

3.5.2. DISCOURSE PHASE DURATION

The following table (Table 3.12) shows the total length of each tutorial, the
average length, the duration of each phase of the ten tutorials, and the average length of
each phase. The phase durations are typical of other institutional discourse with the
directive phase lasting the longest, approximately 68% of the total time. Not all tutorials
exhibit all phases; for example the opening phase is not present in two of the tutorials and
the post-closing phase is present in only two tutorials. When only the tutorials exhibiting

these phases are averaged, the length of the phase increases.

105

Table 3.12 DISCOURSE PHASE DURATION ( ¢=highest

Jrlowest)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL OPENING DIAGNOSIS DIRECTIVE CLOSING P.CLOSING
FSEL 33:26 0:51 2:22 21:17 1:57 6:59 1}
FSKP 32:15 0:47 1:53 26:11 3:24 n/a
ALCK 36:48 0:18 8:05 27:19 1:06 n/a
ALMS 34:04 4:25 6:10 18:16 4:57 1* 0:15 4!
CRAM 34:39 0:15 6:44 25:28 2:12 n/a
CRCC 36:17 0:04 Jr 4:10 31:24 It 0:39 4' n/a
GJWB 22:50 4! n/a 5:49 16:17 0:44 n/a
GJWS 28:46 5:50 if 1 :06 ~11 20:24 1:26 n/a
HCCA 27:39 n/a 12:14 ¢ 14:55 4’ 0:30 n/a
HCPR 37:21 L 1:43 5:45 27:33 2:20 n/a
i 32:40 1:25 (n=l0) 5:26 22:49 1:56 0:43 (n=10)
length 1:46 (n=8) 3:37 (n=2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5.3. DISC OURSE PHASE AND LA UGH T ER INI T IA T ION

While the types of initiations of and responses to laughter present in the discourse
phases will be examined in more detail in the following chapters, the interactional
dynamics of the phases will be discussed in this section. Tables showing what percentage
of the total tutorial laughter is present in each phase are shown below. Not unexpectedly,
in all but one tutorial (F SEL) most of the laughter initiations occur in the directive phase
since it is the longest phase. However, in each of the opening, diagnostic, and post-
closing phases, at least one tutorial in the data set includes laughter initiation occurrences
in the range from 13-39% of the tutorial total, and so those tutorials will be shown in the
tables for those phases.

3.5.3.1. Opening Phase

As mentioned in Chapter 2, there were some logistical problems in the process of

recruiting student participants that could have interfered with the normal course of

106

interaction in the opening phase. The usual procedure when a student came for an
appointment was for either the receptionist to greet the student and show him or her to the
tutor’s table, or if a receptionist wasn’t scheduled to work and a tutor was at the front
desk, the tutor would escort the student. Either way, since the WDC was quite small, the
student and the tutor were in each other’s line of vision almost immediately, and initial
greetings took place as the interaction began. However, in this study, I was also involved
in the initial few minutes of the participants’ meeting since I needed to explain the
purpose of the recording to the student, and obtain informed consent. Usually, by the time
this was done and before the recording equipment was turned on, the tutor and student
had already begun to interact. Consequently, some data was not captured that might have

given further enlightenment as to the how the course of interaction was set in motion.

Table 3.13 Distribution in Opening Phase of Primaryfl) Type and as % of Total 11
Regular = Tutorial Total; Bold = % of Phase Total; T=Tutor S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of total n Tutorial (A) (M‘) (M2) (D') (D2) (U) % by
in tutorial T , S
2 / 31: FSEL- T 0 0 ‘ 0 0 0 0 T: 0%
6% S l=50% l=50% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
3 / 24: GJWS-J 1:33.95 0, 123.3% 0 o o T: 66%
13% S 0 1d3% 0 0 0 0 S: 33%
Key: (A) = Affiliation (D1): Disaffiliation/Miscommunication
(M’)= Mitigation for self (D2): Disaffiliation/Offensive
(M2): Mitigation for other (U )= Unclear

Additionally, some instances of laughter were recorded, but were not coded. For
example, initiations which do not show up in Table 3.13 include seven in the opening of
CRAM. Due to technical difficulties, the video recording began 4:40 after the audio
recording, and since facial expressions and other paralinguistic cues could not be seen,

this data was not coded. However, the audio recording clearly reveals laughter, and of

107

these seven occurrences, two were student initiated, three were tutor initiated, and two
began simultaneously. Also missing from the coded data are occasional occurrences of
laughter that were difficult to discern while watching video, but became apparent when
transcribing from audio tapes. Laughter is fleeting, may consist of a single unvoiced
exhalation, and may be embedded in the middle of words: laughter can be an almost
imperceptible cue.

From the data that was captured, though, patterns of interaction emerge across the
phases and show that much mutual facework goes on. First, it is the student’s perceived
lack of writing skills, (usually validated by the classroom instructor) that brings the
student to the tutorial, and which sets the stage for the opening phase. Much goes on
psychologically for both tutors and students at this point: students may come to the
meeting with feelings of anxiety about their writing, feelings of resentment towards the
classroom instructor’s requirement for attendance, or for some, a wish for validation that
their writing is good. Tutors also can bring feelings of anxiety stemming from self-doubt
about their own mastery of writing, and in a situation where their tutoring skills are being
recorded, may be even more anxious. On the other hand, some tutors have a high degree
of confidence and particularly if their chosen field of study is composition, are excited
about helping students to improve their writing. Finally, in this study the semester was
nearing the end, and the WDC was experiencing high traffic so that tutors were booked
with back-to—back appointments. Many from time-to-time expressed feeling pressured to
get through as much of the student’s paper as possible before time ran out.

So openings are interactionally complex as participants simultaneously break the

ice, communicate feelings, and set the agenda for the tutorial. Table 3.13 shows that in

108

the opening phase, laughter occurs in only two tutorials, FSEL (Male/Female) and GJWS
(F/F). In FSEL, the two initiations account for 6% of the total laughter in the tutorial, and
the student initiates both of them. The three initiations in GJWS account for 13% of the
tutorial total, and the tutor initiates two of the three occurrences. That these two dyads
contain laughter is not surprising: as additional data will show later, female student BL is
a frequent supporter of male tutor FS’s humor, and she also uses much (M1) laughter—
laughter that relieves one’s own tension. In GJWS, the two women are very connected in
their discourse throughout the tutorial—frequent overlaps, much shared laughter, and

frequent use of backchannels.

3.5.3.2. Diagnostic Phase

In the diagnostic phase, four dyads stand out for the relatively high percentages of
their total number of laughter instances that occur in this phase: HCCA (F/F)=15%;
ALCK (M/F)=l9%; CRAM (M/M)=30%; and CRCC (M/F)=43%. In this phase, the
agenda is set: tutors ask students about the assignment and their reasons for coming to the
WDC, and students bring up problems that they are having. On the following page, Table
. 3.14 shows that for all tutorials, with the exception of CRAM, one participant in the dyad
does all the initiating of laughter. This is perhaps not surprising since this is a time when
students are tense at having to reveal their weaknesses, and tutors are trying to put
students at ease. As Table 3.14 shows, the type of laughter initiations consist, for the
most part, of tutors using affiliative laughter, and students using some affiliative laughter,

but more frequently, tension-relieving laughter for themselves. One exception is tutor FS

109

who in FSKP (M/M), uses laughter that relieves his own tension, and as will be shown

later in this study, FS was quite intimidated by the topic of student KP’s paper.

flble 3.14 Distribution in Diagnostic Phase of Primary (1) Type and as % of Total n
Regular = Tutorial Total; Bold = % of Phase Total; T=Tutor S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Tutorial (A) (M‘) (M2) (0‘) (D2) (U) % by
Dyad n T , S
4 / 31: FSEL—'1' 0 o 0 , 0 0 0 T: 095
0.13% FSEL--S 3=75% 1= 25% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
2/ 34: FSKP-T 0 2:100% 0 0 0 Ag 0 T=100%
0.06% FSKP--S 0 0 0 0 0 0 S: 0%
5 / 26: ALCK—T 4:00% 0 1:20!» o 0 ’ 0 T=100%
19% ALCK--S 0 0 0 0 0 0 S: 0%
o / 4: ALMS-11‘ 0 0 0 0T 0 - 0 n/a
0% ALMS--S 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a
6 / 20: CRAM-41‘ 1=17% 0 0 0 o 0 1 T: 17%
30% CRAM-S 2:33% 3=50% 0 0 0 0 S: 83%
3 / 7: CRCC—T 0 0 0 0 0 0
43% CRCC-S 0 3=100% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
0 / 7= GJWB—T 0 0 0 0 0 0 nla
0% GJWB--S 0 0 0 0 0 0 nla
1/ 24: GJWS-1‘ 0 0 0 0 0 0 T: 0%
0.04% GJWS--S 0 l=100% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
4 / 27: HCCA-T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T= 0%
15% HCCA--S 0 4:100% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
1 / l4: HCPR—T 0 0 0 0 0 l=100% =100%
“ 0.07% HCPR--s o 0 0 0 0 o 3= 0%
Key: (A) = Affiliation (D’)= DisaffiliationfMiscommunication
(M')= Mitigation for self (D2): Disaffiliation/Offensive
(M2): Mitigation for other (U): Unclear

3.5.3.3. Directive Phase

Table 3.15 shows that the directive phase is where most of the laughter occurred
in all tutorials with the exceptions of FSEL (M/F) in which only 35% occurred (see
“Post-Closing Phase” below for an explanation of the distribution in FSEL). This is the
phase in which the business of tutorials—making suggestions, asking questions,

accepting or rejecting advice—takes place. This is a time when participants begin to feel

110

more or less comfortable with each other, and the amount and types of laughter reflect
this interaction. However, this is also the phase in which tension may surface as problems
are brought to the surface and discussed. In this data, the three instances of disaffiliative
laughter occurred during the directive phase, and while they constitute such a small
percentage of the laughter in the data set (1%), that they were all uttered by the same
participant—female tutor HC—is worth noting here and discussing further in subsequent
chapters.

flble 3.15 Distribution in Directive Phgse of Primary (I) Type and Q% of Total n
Regular = Tutorial Total; Bold = % of Phase Total; T=Tutor S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Tutorial (A) (M1) (M2) (D‘) (D2) (U) % by
dyad n T , S
11/31: FSEL—T 1= 9% 0 0 0 0 0 T: 9%
35% FSEL--S 6:55 % 4:36% 0 0 0 0 S: 91 %
32 / 34: FSKP-31‘ 1: 3% 3=9% 3=9% . 0 0 2: 6% T: 27%
94% FSKP--S 13:42% 10:31 % 0 0 0 0 S: 73%
20 / 26: ALCK~T 0 1:: 5% 4:20% 0 0 0 T: 25%
77% ALCK--S 3=lS% ll=SS% 0 0 0 l: 5% S: 75%
4 /4: ALMS-T l=25% 0 0 0 0 0 T: 25% ’
100% ALMS--S 2=50% l=25% 0 0 0 0 S: 75 %
14/ 20: CRAM—T 0 0 'l=7% 0 0 0 T: 7%
70% CRAM-S 4:29% 9=64% 0 0 0 0 S= 93%
4 / 7: CRCC—T 0 0 0 0 0, ‘0 T: 0%
57% CRCC--S l=25% 3:75% 0 0 0 0 S=100%
7 / 7: GJWB-T 0 l=l4% A 0 0 0 0 T: 14%
100% GJWB-5 2=28% 4=58% 0 0 0 0 S: 86%
19/ 24: GJWS-T ,4=21% , 0, 4=21% 0 ~ 0 ‘0 A T= 42%
79% GJWS--S 2:1 1 % 9=47 % 0 0 0 0 S: 58%
21 / 27: HCCA—T 1: 5% 2:- 9% ' .1: 5% 0 - 16% o T: 24%
78% HCCA--S :28% 10=48% 0 0 0 0 S: 76%
13 / l4: HCPR-'1' 0 *' ’ 6:46% 0 1=8% ' 1:8% 4:30% '1‘: 92%
93% HCPR--S 0 l: 8% 0 0 0 0 S: 8%
Key: (A) = Affiliation (D1): Disaffiliation/Miscommunication
(Ml): Mitigation for self (D2)= Disaffiliation/Offensive
(M2): Mitigation for other (U): Unclear

111

3.5.3.4. Closing Phase

The closing phase is brief, and as Table 3.16 shows, three tutorials—FSEL (M/F),
ALCK (M/F), and GJWS (FIB—contain one instance of affiliative laughter each, and
HCCA (F/F) contain one instance of (M1) laughter. That more laughter is not present at
the beginning of this phase may be surprising in light of Adelsward and Oberg’s study of
international negotiations which, as discussed in Chapter 1 of this study, found that about
60% of all laughter occurred in the transitions between phases and topic boundaries,
points at which there is a slight change of footing, a “change that often simultaneously
releases, and is marked by, laughter” (420). In tutorials, as the discussions in the directive
phase wind down, one might expect either tension-relieving laughter or perhaps
affiliative laughter as participants begin to change their projected face from that of the
institutionally-constructed role of tutor or student. However, since the closing phase in
tutorials usually consists of filling out paperwork that may not have been done at the
beginning, institutional roles may continue to be, according to Goffman “performed,” and

participants may not use this time to move closer.

Table 3.16 Distribution in Closing Phase of Primary (I) Type and as % of Total n
Regular = Tutorial Total; Bold = % of Phase Total; T=Tutor S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of total 11 Tutorial (A) (01‘) (MI) (If) (Dz) (U) % by

in tutorial T , s

1/31= FSEL--T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T= 0%
3% FSEL--S l=100% 0 0 0 0 0 S=100%

1/2o= ALCK-~T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T= 0%
4% ALCK-~S l=100% 0 0 0 0 0 s= 100%

1 /24= GJWS--T l=100% 0 0 0 0 0 T=100%
4% GJWS-.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 s= 0%

2/27= HCCA--T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T= 0%
7% HCCAuS 0 2=100% 0 0 0 0 S=100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(D: )= Disafliliation/Miscommunication
(D')= Disafl'lliation/Ofiensive
(U)= Unclear

Key: (A) = Affiliation
(M:)= Mitigation for self
(M‘)= Mitigation for other

112

3.5.3.5. Post-Closing Phase

The post-closing phase was present in only FSEL (M/F), and contained 39% of
the laughter initiated by either FS or EL. The tutorial was finished, and the participants
were making small talk as they waited for me to photocopy EL’s essay. The 11 instances
of laughter were all initiated by EL, and were in response to a story that FS was telling
about his own writing projects. This particular segment of interaction is discussed in

greater detail in Chapter 6: Discussion and appears as Excerpt 6.6.

Table 3.17 Distribution in Post-Closing Phase of Primary (1) Type and as % of Total n
Regular = Tutorial Total; Bold = °/o of Phase Total; T=Tutor S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% oftotal n Tutorial (A) (M') (M2) (0') (D2) (U) % by
in tutorial T , S
12 / 3l= FSEL--T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T= 0%
39% FSEL--S 9=74°/o 2=17% 0 0 0 1=8°/o S=100%
Key: (A) = Affiliation (D')= Disaffiliation/Miscommunication
(M')= Mitigation for self (Dz)= Disafilliation/Offensive
(M2)= Mitigation for other (U)= Unclear

3.6 AGE AS A FACTOR IN LAUGHTER PRODUCTION

Table 3.18 shows that 7 out of 10 students in this study were freshmen, 2 were
sophomores, and one was a senior. Students’ ages ranged from an 18 year 5 month old
male to a 47 year 1 month old female non-traditional student. The tutors consisted of both
undergraduates and graduates and ranged in age from a 22 year 3 month old female
undergraduate to a 33 year 7 month old male graduate. The average age of the students

was 22 years 8 months, but without the outlier of the non-traditional student, the average

113

age fell to 20 years 1 month. This is 9 years 8 months younger than the average tutor age

of 28 years 3 months.

Table 3.18 Age, Class Standing, Gender, and Lau ter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T/S T/S 8 Age T Age Age Laughter

Dyad Gender Level Lgth yr.mth yr.mth om. Initiations
ALCK MIF GI s 38:48 20.1 33.7 13.8 26
LA_LMS WM 8/88 34:04 25 age 8.8 4
CRAM M/M G/ F 34:39 22.2 34.7 12.5 20
CRCC M/F G/ F 36:17 18.7 34.7 16 7
FSEL MIF W 'F 33:26 192 28.10 6.9 31
FSKP M W F 32:15 19.3 28.10 6.8 34
GJWB F/M G/ F 22:50 19.2 24.2 5 7
GJWS F/F G! s 28:46 47.1 24.2 22.11 24
HCCA F/F Ul F 27:39 18.11 22.3 3.4 2"
HCPR FIM U/ F 37:21 18.5 223 3.10 14
x : 32:40 22.8 28.3 9.8 ‘9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T/S = Tutor/Student dyad: Male=M; Female=F;
T/S Level: T=Graduate (G) Undergraduate (U) S=Freshman (F), Sophomore (S),
Senior (SR)

In Table 3.18 there is no consistent relationship between the differences in age
between tutors and students and the number of occurrences of laughter present in the
tutorial, nor is there consistency between a student’s or tutor’s age and the number of
laughter occurrences. However, some observations can be made based on Table 3.18 that
could explain the high rates of laughter in tutorial GJWS (F/F) and the tutorials in which
tutors HC (F) and FS (M) are involved. Age data that is the most inconsistent with other
age data in the table involves the dyad of GJWS (F/F) in which the student is older than
the tutor by 22 years. This difference in age may be relevant as far as the dynamics of the
tutorial go and may account in part for the relatively equal numbers of other speech
activities that have been presented in Chapter 3.

Other inconsistent data involve tutors HC (female) and FS (male) both of whom

are undergraduates. In the tutorials in which they are involved, the laughter occurrences

114

are both in the double digits and three of these four account for the three highest number
of occurrences in the set. For each graduate tutor, 50% of his or her tutorials consist of 7
or fewer laughter occurrences. How far apart in age participants are does not seem to play
a role; however, class standing does seem to play a role. The proximity in class standing
of the undergraduate tutors to their students may effect either an increase or decrease in
the rate of laughter per minute. Unlike other institutional contexts such as a doctor-patient
interview, or a lawyer-client meeting in which the professional has been credentialed,
undergraduate tutors, like the students with whom they work, have not yet earned a
degree. This may affect laughter in quite different ways: on the one hand, while the
students are not aware of the difference in class standing, the tutors are, and that may
affect the degree to which tutors are comfortable in their role as authority and the degree
to which laughter associated with tension might be produced; on the other hand, because
tutors are in the same place as students in “the system” this may foster a more affiliative
dynamic and hence more shared laughter. Without considering the types of laughter most
prevalent in these dyads, the effect of proximity in class standing on laughter production
cannot be determined.

Table 3.18 also shows that while the participants in ALMS (MM) and GJWB
(F/M) are closer in age than the participants in either FSEL or FSKP, in both cases the
number of laughter occurrences is very low, 4 and 7 respectively. However, both tutors
are graduate students while their students are undergraduates. The relationship between
tutors FS and HC to their students and the resulting high numbers of laughter occurrences

are most likely due to the participants being peers rather than being close in age.

115

3.7. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAUGHTER AND SPEECH

ACTIVITIES INDICATIVE OF POWER

To determine if laughter initiation is related to authority or power, quantifying
speech activities indicative of claims to power can be enlightening. This section explores
the relationship between occurrences of laughter and speech activities indicative of
power: volubility, directives, questions, topic initiations, interruptions, backchannels, and
overlaps. While these speech activities do not inherently affect laughter, they are
included as additional data to be used to examine whether or not participants’ use of
laughter is related to their relative status in the dyad. Further, these quantitative analyses
will be used in the next section to examine tutors’ consistencies in their interactions with
same and opposite gender students. While these features have been widely researched
and frequently used as indicators of power differentials, they do have interactional uses
other than claiming power. A few factors which may affect the numbers of occurrences
of these speech activities include the nature of the assignment, the participants’
familiarity with the topic, the student’s writing ability and familiarity with writing terms,
the participants’ conversational styles, whether or not the tutor has had a course with the
student’s instructor, and participant humor style. For example, an essay plagued with
ambiguities or full of technical terms may result in more frequent questions by the tutor
than would a tutorial involving a clearly written essay on a topic with which the tutor was
familiar. Nonetheless, since these speech activities do in general indicate who makes

claims to more speaking rights, they will be included as a means to evaluate the nature of

116

tutorials in terms of power and its relation to the occurrences and types of laughter

present.

3. 7.1. VOLUBILI TY

Verbal interaction takes place through participants taking turns speaking and
listening. A speaking turn can be loosely defined as speech uttered by a speaker followed
by silence from that speaker. A turn can be as short as a syllable, or can consist of longer
utterances such as phrases or sentences, or even several sentences. Some utterances by a
participant who does not have the floor do not count as turns. For example, backchannels
such as “uh-huh,” “okay,” or “yeah” are used as feedback by the listener for the current
speaker. Additionally, overlaps and failed interruptions—utterances which occur
simultaneously before current speaker has finished her or his turn but do not result in
current speaker giving up the floor—are also not counted as turns.

Volubility is a measure of fluency and is calculated as words/turn or
words/minute. It might seem reasonable to assume that the more participants talk, the
more laughter might occur, but it was found to be the case earlier in this chapter
regarding duration and number, that more opportunity to talk is neither inversely nor
directly proportional to the amount of laughter produced. The same could also be the case
with volubility, so word counts might be insightful as they relate to laughter. However, in
the context of tutorials, sheer numbers of words spoken by one participant or the other in
and of itself is not a particularly illuminating piece of information: either tutors or

students may read an essay aloud thereby occupying a good deal of the floor without

117

making claims to power. Also, institutional encounters inherently have a layperson
asking a professional for advice, and as noted by Deborah James and Janice Drakich,
“Previous research has indicated that those who have high status with regard to a status
characteristic such as race, organizational rank, or occupation participate more in task-
oriented dyads or groups than do those who have low status with regard to that
characteristic” (289). Based on prior research, we would expect tutors to talk more than
students: “For example, Craig and Pitts (1990), in study of university tutorials, found that
male and female tutors did not differ in average number of verbal acts initiated, but that
male tutors nevertheless took up more overall talking time; the same was true of male and
female students in male-led tutorials. Presumably this was because males were producing
longer utterances (although this was not explicitly measured)” (James and Drakich 291).
Perhaps then a better measure of volubility would be to use number of words/tum as the
basis on which to compare tutorials.

3.7.1.1. Total Words and Turns

Each tutorial was analyzed for the number of turns each participant took as well
as the total number of turns per tutorial. Additionally the number of words each
participant spoke as well as the total number of words in each tutorial were calculated.
Table 3.19 shows the results of this analysis. The high figure(s) for each category is/are
indicated by (T ) and the low figure(s) is/are indicated by (~1« ). The averages appear in
boldface in the bottom row.

As Table 3.19 shows, the number of tutor and student turns is approximately
equal: no tutorial includes a percentage difference greater than 6% between the number

of turns for tutors and students. However, the number of words spoken is quite

118

disproportionate: tutors speak on the average 74% of the time while students speak 26%
of the time. While several studies show that those with the most power speak the most,
the high number of tutor words in writing center discourse can also sometimes be
accounted for by the practice in which the tutor reads the student’s paper aloud thus
occupying the floor for long periods of time. While some tutors have the student read

his/her paper aloud, in this data sample, only the tutors read papers aloud.

Table 3.19 Volubility (% of total turns an:d total words) (E=highest 1=lowest)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of Total Tin'lllns StudentTlms Total '11!!! Wads StuderIWonls
laughter T urns % of 11 % of # Words %of 11 % of #
Initiations m total m total
FSEL 34 115 51% 59 49% 56 4205 92%: 3885 am 3201
FSKP 31 120 53%! 63 47%1 57 4601 85% 3937 15% 664
HCCA 27 119 49%1 59 51% 60 26331 78% 2 22% 567
ALCK 26 2231 49961 11 51% 113 4828 65% 3139 35% 1681
0st 24 142 49%1 7o 51%) 72 53d 51%1 2748 49%} 2613f
CRAM 20 165 52% 85 48% 80 4359 70% 3037 30% 1322
HCPR 14 138 49% 68 51%[ 70 4881 76% 3733 24% 1148
CRCC 7 114 52% 60 48% 55 5127 80% 4121:. 20% 1006
GJWB 7 531 53%;" 281 47%1 251 3692 81% 2999 19% 693
ALMS 4 114 52% 59 48% 55 2835 73% 2068 27% 767

19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130.3 51% 66 49% 64 4280 74% 3153 26% 1126

 

Table 3.19 shows that the amount of laughter in tutorials in this data is not a
function of the number of turns a participant takes. The tutorials with the most laughter
and the least laughter—FSEL and ALMS respectively—differ by 30 occurrences of
laughter, but by only one turn. Worth noting here and discussing later in this chapter,
though, is that male tutor FS speaks the highest percentage of words in the data (92%)
and is tied for the highest percentage of turns (53%). FS is also the tutor in the dyads with
the most occurrences of laughter—FSEL and FSKP—yet in FSEL he initiates only one

occurrence of laughter.

119

3.7.1.2. Ratio of Tutor: Student Words Per Turn and Words per Minute

To compare volubility of these tutorials, which have a 15 minute difference

between the longest and the shortest, words per turn and words per minute are useful

measures. Table 3.20 and Table 3.21 below show the results of these analyses.

LabIe 3.20 Words/Tum T:S Ratio

Table 3.21 Words/Minute T:S Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutorial (T :S) T words/turn S words/turn Tutorial (min) Ratio Tutor Student
T:S words/min words/min
FSEL 11.5: 1 65.8 5.7 FSEL(33:26) 12.12] 117.7 9.7
FSKP 5.3: 1 62.4 11.6 FSKP(32:15) 5.9:] 123.0 20.8
GJWB 3.9: 1 107.1 27.7 GJWB(22:50) 4.3:] 130.4 30.0
CRCC 3.8: 1 68.7 18.3 CRCC(36217) 4.1:1 114.5 27.9
HCCA 3.7 1 35 9.5 HCCA(27:39) 3.6:1 73.8 20.2
HCPR 3.3: 1 54.9 16.4 HCPR(37:21) 3.221 100.9 31
ALMS 2.5:] 35 13.9 ALMS(34:04) 2.7:] 61.9 22.6
CRAM 2.2: 1 35.7 16.5 CRAM(34:39) 2.321 86.8 37.8
ALCK 1.9:] 28.5 14.9 ALCK(36:48) 1.9:1 84.8 45.4
GJWS 1.1: 1 39.2 36.3 GJWS(28:46) 1.1:] 94.8 90.1
i=3] 53.2 17.1 X (32,40) 2.9 98.9 33.6

 

 

computation

 

* duration rounded to nearest minute for

 

In Table 3.20, in line with discourse research of dyads with unequal power, this

data shows that tutors take longer turns than students, and average slightly over three

. times the number of words per turn as do students. However, there is a great range

within this data indicating that while some tutorials are drastically one-sided in terms of

tutor dominance, the words per turn in others are distributed nearly equally. For example,

GJWS (F/F) shows a T to S words/turn ratio of 1.1: 1 and ALCK (M/F) shows a ratio of

1.9: l—indications that tutorand student speak in nearly equal measure. The high range is

comprised of the two tutorials of male tutor FS: FSKP (W) at 5.3: 1 and FSEL (M/F)

at 11.5: 1, indicating that in this data, tutor FS is consistent from tutorial to tutorial in

terms of his volubility dominance. There are tutors who have higher numbers of words

120

 

per turn than FS—GJ in GJWB (FM) and CR in CRCC (M/F)—but students in those
two dyads also have much higher numbers of words per turn than do FS’s students, and
therefore the tutor to student ratio is less than in tutorials involving FS.

In relation to laughter, the four dyads just mentioned—FSEL, FSKP, GJWB and
CRCC—present some unusual dynamics: FSEL (34) and FSKP (31) have the most
laughter in the data set, while in GJWB and CRCC each has only 7 instances of laughter
and only ALMS has fewer (4) instances of laughter.

Calculating words per turn is useful to see who takes longer turns, but it still does
not put tutorials on an equal basis to account for differences in duration, nor does it seem
to account for differences in laughter occurrences. Words per minute is a measure often
used to compare volubility across interactions, and Table 3.21displays the data resulting
from those calculations. The progression from the highest ratio of tutor to student words
per minute to the lowest is the same as in the ratio of words per turn, but the data in Table
3.21 do show that more of FSKP is filled with tutor’s words than is FSEL even though
FSEL has a higher tutor to student word/tum ratio. What this demonstrates is that even
though there are more total words in FSKP than in FSEL, FS dominates more in FSEL by

taking longer turns.

3.7.1.3. Laughter, Duration, and Words/1‘ urn
To see what ratios of words per turn and words per minute might suggest about
the dynamics of interaction and thereby the participant use of laughter, Table 3.22 is

presented to compare the measures side-by-side. Four tutorials are selected to discuss for

their rank in occurrences of laughter: FSEL and FSKP for their high rank and CRCC and

121

GJWB for their likeness in low rank. In Table 3.22, FSEL and FSKP are made more

visually explicit through shading, and CRCC and GJWB by the symbol 0.

Table 3.22 Laughter, T:S word/turn ratio. and DLation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dyad Laughter Duration T:S T:S words/turn rank
Initiations words/turn
ESE. ’ "34 " HCPR (37:21) 3.3 FSEL 1.1.551 I
FESKP _. ' ’31 . ALCK (36:48) 1.9 FSKP 5.3: 1 ‘ ..
HCCA 27 CRCC (36:17) 3.8 9 GJWB 3.9:19
ALCK 26 CRAM (34:39) 2.2 CRCC 3.8: 1 Q
GJWS 24 ALMS (34:04) 2.5 HCCA 3.7 1
CRAM 20 FSEL (33:26) 11.5 HCPR 3.321
HCPR 14 FSKP (32:15) i 5.3 ALMS 2.5: 1
CRCC 7 0 GJWS (28:46) 1.1 CRAM 2.2:1
GJWB 7 9‘ HCCA (27:39) 3.7 ALCK 1.9:1
AIMS 4 GJWB (22:50) 3.9 9 GJWS 1.1: l
i: 19 X: (32.40) 3.1 i= 3.1: l

 

 

 

 

While there seems to be no apparent relation between how long a tutorial lasts and
the number of laughter occurrences, there does seem to be a relation between the high
and low ends of numbers of laughter occurrences and the high ratio of tutor to student
words per turn. The four tutorials selected show the tutor does the most talking, and why
this might result in high or low numbers of laughter cannot be understood apart from
considering how other speech activities might come into play, and this will take place

later in this section.

122

3. 7.2. DIRECTIVES

Directives are those speech acts issued by the speaker with the intent to get the
listener to perform an act or to change his or her behavior. They can be issued by any
participant, but in the case of writing tutorials, are most often issued by tutors since tutors
are in the position to suggest what students might do to improve their papers. However,
students also issue directives; for example, students may state what they want the tutor to
focus on in the essay rather than waiting for the tutor to decide what needs to be
addressed. Directives may be literal such as in (1) below, or they may be implied as in
(2).

(1) CRAM: Line 317—8 (discussion about how to end paper)

T: Do the same thing in your conclusion. Tie it all back together with life, liberty, and
happiness.

(2) ALCK: Lines 247-9 (discussion of what to say in a critique of an article)

T: It sounds like they could use some more statistics of how many people have this..um
do they tell at what ages people get this? Or why..why this happens? That would be a
problem with me.

3.7.2.1. Distribution of Directives
Table 3.23 shows the data on directives including the total n for each tutorial,
tutor-to-student and student-to-tutor ratios, the distribution of directives issued, and

where the directives occur in the tutorial phases. The averages are in boldface in the

bottom row.

123

IableL’B Directives: Total n, Ratios, Distribution, and Occurrence by Phase

(ratio#=x: 1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T:S S;T Distribution Opening Diagnosis Directive Closing Post-.
n ratio ratio ( n / 8) Closing
# # (n / 2)
105 25.2 CRCC(T)=101 0 O 99 2 nla
0.04 (S)= 4 0 0 4 0 n/a
97 11.13 V ALCK(T)= 89 0 3 82 4 n/a
0.09 .. (S)= 8 l 2 l 4 n/a
94 17.8 ‘ 7 , CRAM(TF 89 1 ll 75 2 n/a ' '
0.06 (S)= 5 0 2 3 0 n/a
65 64.“): HCPR(T)=64 2. 2 . 2 57 3 . nIa
0.01 (S)= 1 0 1 0 0 n/a
63 62.00 ' HCCACD=62 do '6 52 4 Na
0.02 (S)= 1 n/a 0 0 1 n/a
57 57.00 ' * GJWB(T)= 57 uh I 52 4 Mt
0.00 (S)= 0 n/a 0 0 0 n/a
55 12.75 ALMS(T)= 51 1 1 46 2 1
0.08 (S)= 4 1 3 0 0
44 44.00 FSEL (I)=44 3 l 29 10 1
0.00 (S)= 0 0 0 0 0
43 7.60 GJW S (T): 38 0 2 33 3 n/a
0.13 (S)= 5 0 0 5 0 n/a
40 39.00 FSKP (T): 39 2 1 34 2 n/a
0.02 (S)= 1 0 0 1 0 n/a
i: 33.7, '1?sz R: 11.25 i: 2.8 71:54.6 i=3.6 i=1.0
66.3 0.05 i: (S)= 2.9 i = 0.25 i= 0.8 35= 1.4 i=0.5 8 =0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.23 shows that on the average, 66.3 directives occur in a tutorial, and the

total number of occurrences ranges from 40-105. Not surprisingly, tutors give more

directives than do students (a ratio of 33.79 to 1), and most directives occur during the

directive phase. After calculating what percentage of directives occurs in each phase, the

result is that 86% of tutor directives and 48% of student directives occur during the

directive phase. This difference in averages is not surprising since students, on the

infrequent occasions when they do issue directives, most likely use them to express their

agendas during the diagnostic phase, and tutors give suggestions during the directive

phase.

124

 

Some idea of the differences in tutorial dynamics in terms of the distribution of
power can be inferred from the rank of tutor to student ratios, which differs significantly
from the rank of the number of directives. Table 3.23 shows that in the first column,
which shows the rank of number of directives, CRCC is the tutorial with the highest
number of directives (105), and contains 150% more directives than the tutorial with the
lowest number of directives, FSKP (40). However, in the second column, which shows
tutor-to student rank, tutor HC (female undergraduate) emerges as the participant with the
highest tutor to student directive ratio. Additionally, dyads involving male undergraduate
tutor FS, though exhibiting relatively low numbers of directives, show high ratios of tutor
to student directives. What this shows is that the high numbers of directives don’t

necessarily correspond to high tutor-to student ratios.

3.7.2.2. Directives, Duration, and Laughter

To see if the number of directives is a function of duration, and to see what
directives can imply about laughter, Table 3.24 follows. The number of directives
appears to be related to the duration at least in the upper ranges. The four longest tutorials
do show the four highest numbers of directives, though not in order. In other words, the
longest tutorial does not have the most directives. The next two tutorials with the most
laughter occurrences occur during the two shortest tutorials. The middle duration range
shows no particular relation to the numbers of directives in the remaining tutorials, so this
data suggests that longer and shorter tutorials have more directives than do those of

average length.

125

Table 3.24 Directives: Duration, T : S Ratio, and Laughter Initiations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutorial # of Tutor: Student Laughter
Duration Directives Directives Rank Initiations
HCPR (37:21) 65 HCPR 64:1 14
ALCK (36:48) 97 HCCA 62:1 27
CRCC (36:17) 105 GJWB 57:1 7
CRAM (34:39) 94 FSEL 44:1 31
ALMS (34:04) 55 FSKP 39:1 34
FSEL (33:26) 44 CRCC 25:1 7
FSKP (32:15) 40 CRAM 17:1 20
GJWS (28:46) 43 ALMS 12:1 4
HCCA (27:39) 63 ALCK 11:1 26
GJWB (22:50) 57 GJWS 7.621 24
i: 32:40 i=66.3 i: 33.8:1 i: 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible explanations for shorter tutorials having many directives might be time
constraints (perhaps the student arrived late or was a walk-in and an appointment was
scheduled for the next time slot) or the type of help the student wanted (editing or
proofreading comments by the tutor would be more unilateral than would be asking for
elaboration or clarification of an argument).

In Table 3.24, in the columns on the right, laughter initiations show the highest
numbers near the middle of the directives rank, and high numbers at the low and high
ends. Again the proximity of HC’s tutorials to each other, and the proximity of FS’s
tutorials to each other--both with high numbers of laughter, suggests a particular dynamic
perhaps of the type of laughter involved. ALCK and GJWS—with relatively low tutor to

student directives ratios may suggest another type of laughter.

3.7.2.3. Mitigated Directives
One other interesting aspect of directives is whether or not the speaker attempts to
mitigate or soften the imperative nature of directives. Directives can be mitigated through

the use of syntactic downgraders, and in this study, determination of whether or not a

126

directive was mitigated was based on the presence of one or more of the features of
downgraders as specified in Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper’s
“Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project” (CCSARP).

Interrogatives: CRCC Line 116-7:

T: So could you use the story as sort of an opening tease for the entire piece?
Subiunctive: GJWB Line 61

T: You might want to reword it.

Conditional: CRAM Line 113

S: Actually, I would just like you to read it over and maybe suggest something.
Aapgqg FSKP Line 92

T: I’m thinking that’s a little off

E1189; ALMS Line 52 (if a past tense form is used with a present time reference)
T: I was wondering if we might do something with this.

Politeness Marlgr; GJWB Line 394

T: All right well, if you wouldn’t mind..uhfilling out, uh just filling this out
Understater: HCPR Line 148

T: I mean it’s kind of vague is what I ’m saying.

Mg HCPR Line 10

T: Yeah, just if you could describe just in a sentence

In order to analyze participants and how their use of directives affects tutorial

dynamics and therefore laughter, Table 3:25 was constructed. This table shows that tutors

mitigate directives much more often than students, and that the two female tutors—G1

127

and HC—mitigate at rates higher than the male tutors. Male tutors FS and CR are
consistent in their rates of mitigation, and male tutor AL is within 15% of the same rate
for both his tutorials. This consistency perhaps suggests politeness strategies are not

related to the student, but rather are a function of the tutor’s gender.

Table 3.25 Percent of Mitigated Directives T=Tutor, S=Student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% mitigation of participant n % mitigation by rank

Tutorial (n) TUTOR STUDENT TUTOR STUDENT
CRCC 105 39/101=39% 1 / 4=25% GJWS 97% GJWS 100%
ALCK 97 58 / 89=65% 4 / 8=50% GJWB 86% HCCA 100%
CRAM 81 32/ 76=42% 4/ 5=80% HCPR 86% ALMS 100%
HCPR 65 55 / 64=86% 0/ 0=0% HCCA 82% CRAM 80%
HCCA 63 51 /62=82% 1 / l=100% ALMS 80% ALCK 50%
GJWB 57 49 / 57=86% 0 / 0=0% FSEL 73% CRCC 25%
ALMS 55 41 /51=80% 4 / 4=100% FSKP 69% HCPR 0%
FSEL 44 32/44=73% 0/0:0% ALCK 65% GJWB 0%
GJWS 43 37 / 38=97% 5 / S=100% CRAM 42% FSEL 0%
FSKP 40 27/ 39=69% 0/ 1=0% CRCC 39% FSKP 0%

i=66.3 X: 71.9% i=45.5% i: 71.9% i=45.5%

3. 7.3. QUESTIONS

One type of institutional speech event is the “interview”: the person in power
(doctor, lawyer, social worker) asks questions and the other person answers. Writing
tutorials, in theory, are not structured in this fashion, but rather are ideally framed as a
discussion in which the reader/tutor and writer/student converse on a more egalitarian
level. Tutors do ask questions, but students are encouraged to ask questions about their

writing. Much research in discourse has focused on the relationship between questions

128

and power and has yielded the widely accepted idea that the person who holds the most
power asks the most questions.

Nancy Ainsworth-Vaughn, in her discussion of questions and power in doctor-
patient interaction, argues that questions, since they are directives, claim power in at least
four ways: (1) “First, a question chooses the next speaker,” (2) “A question calls for a
particular type of response,” (3) “Some questions entail the expectation that the floor will
be returned to the questioner,” and (4) “Questions aim to elicit information, and
information empowers its possessor” (76). She further points out that questions have been
linked to power in various studies focusing on such disciplines as politics, education, and
law, and in studies of asymmetrical dyads, “typically the speaker who has the power to
reward [teacher, physician, attorney] asked the most questions” (76). In order to ascertain
if the data in this study, like the studies Ainsworth-Vaughn mentions, support the
findings that link questions to power, the number of questions asked by each participant
was counted.

One widely inclusive definition of questions that West uses involves the speech
activity of an adjacency pair, or a sequence of utterances in which one utterance calls for
a certain response: a question asks for an answer (qtd. in Ainsworth-Vaughn 78).
However, Ainsworth-Vaughn, in developing her own operational definition of a question,
discusses weaknesses with relying solely on the adjacency pair to determine whether or
not an utterance is a true question: answers cannot always be differentiated from
responses. and answers may not be adjacent to questions. She identifies several
characteristics which help to identify a question: the utterance expresses ‘the speaker’s

wish for an informative answer of some type”; it is linguistically marked by a subject-

129

verb inversion, the use of a WH word (who, what, when, where, why) at the beginning of
the utterance, rising intonation at the completion; or the utterance implies uncertainty
such as “‘I was wondering whether’ or ‘I didn’t know if’” (83).

In identifying questions in this data, the above criteria were used as a guide in
determining whether or not an utterance was a true question. Rhetorical or tag questions
were not counted as true questions, and questions that were merely rephrasings of a
question within the same turn were counted as one question. Additionally, repairs or
questions asking the speaker to say an utterance again because the listener had not heard
it were not counted nor were markers of surprise such as “Oh really?” or “You don’t
say?”

For example, a rhetorical question is found in CRAM:

Excerpt 3.1 (CRAM Lines 348-354) (Tutor clarifying his comments about how student

could conclude)

T: so know that as I’m talking about things you can do with it, it’s all in the spirit of
support as in hey, you’ve done a lot already: =how these are some possibilities or

S: =ok=

T: some ways you might think about it: =and not along the lines of hey, where’s your

S: =01";

T: conclusion?=

S: Yeah, I know what you’re saying, I mean I appreciate that

The tutor says “hey, where’s your conclusion?” and even though there was a rising

intonation after the word “conclusion” and the word “where” was used, the tutor was

using a question construction to illustrate a point. Further, the student did not supply an

answer, but rather a response to indicate that the phrase was not part of a question/answer

adjacency pair.

130

3.7.3.1. Frequency of Questions

Tables 3.26 and 3.27 below present the results of the question analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 326 Total Table 3.27 mestions by Rank of T:S Ratio and Gender
# of Questions bLRank Dyad
Dyad Duration n Total n of Tutor Student T:S Gender
ALCK (36:48) 75 Questions Questions Questions Ratio Dyad T/ S
HCPR (37:21) 74
CRAM (34:39) 64 CRCC 60 93% (56) 7% (4) 16.2 M/F
CRCC (36:17) 60 HCCA 41 88% (36) 12% (5) 7.2 FIFT « '
FSKP (32:15) 47 CRAM 64 83% (53) 17% (11) 4.8 M/M
HCCA (27:39) 41 HCPR 74 77% (57) 23% (17) 3.4 - 7787M
FSEL (33:26) 35 GJWB 20 75% (15) 25% (5) 3.0 ’. 'FjM‘“
GJWS (28:46) 34 FSEL 35 63% (22) 37% (13) 1.7 M/F
ALMS (34:04) 30 FSKP 47 60% (28) 40% (19) 1.5 M/M
GJWB (22:50) 20 ALMS 30 57% (17) 43% (13) 1.3 M/M
3(- =32.40 43 ALCK 75 40% (30) 60% (45) 0.7 M/F
GJWS 34 32% (11) 68% (23) 0.5 7 'FIF
32 48 69% (33) 31% (15) 4.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.26 shows the total number of questions for each tutorial which range from
a low of 20 to a high of 75. Generally, more questions are asked in longer tutorials
although in ALMS (M/M), there are fewer than half as many questions compared to
CRAM (M/M), which has approximately the same duration. When questions are
analyzed for frequency counts of tutors and students, as Table 3.27 indicates, on the
average tutors ask twice the number of questions as do students. ALMS once again
becomes notable for the nearly equal numbers of questions asked by both AL and MS.

Table 3.27 also shows a high degree of consistency among the tutors as to the
percentage of questions they ask in their tutorials. The most variation occurs in ALCK
(WP) and GJWS (F/F) in which female students ask a lot of questions. There appears to

be no correlation between questions and gender.

131

3.7.3.2. Numbers of Questions and Laughter Initiations
The relationships between questions and laughter can be explored through Table

3.28 which compares the raw counts of each.

flble 3.28 Comparison of Number of Laughter Initiation_s to Number of Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# OF IN ITIATION S # OF QUESTIONS
Tutorial Total Tutor Student Tutorial Total Tutor Student
FSKP 34 11 23 ALCK 75 30 45
FSEL 30 1 29 HCPR 74 57 17
HCCA 27 5 22 CRAM 64 53 11
ALCK 26 10 16 CRCC 60 56 4
GJWS 24 11 13 FSKP 47 28 19
CRAM 20 2 18 HCCA 41 36 5
HCPR 14 13 1 FSEL 35 22 13
CRCC 7 0 7 GJWS 34 11 23
GJWB 7 l 6 ALMS 30 17 13
ALMS 4 l 3 GJW B 20 15 5
i=l9 2:55 8:13.23 2:48 2:33 i=15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There appears to be little relation between laughter and number of questions asked

other than GJWB (WM) and ALMS (M/M) which are consistently low in each.

3. 7.4. BACKCHANNELS

When a listener wishes to affirm what a speaker is saying, but does not wish to
take over the floor, a backchannel may be used. Markers such as “okay,” “um-hm,”
“yeah,” “no way” may be inserted in between a speaker’s words, or may overlap.
Laughter can also be used as a backchannel, and how frequently this is done in this study
will be shown after Table 3.29, which presents overall counts of backchannels, tutor-to-

student and student-to—tutor ratios, counts by tutorial phase.

132

3.7.4.1 Frequency of Backchannels

Table 3.29 Backchgnels (6) by Total n, Tutor:StudenL and Student:Tutor Ratios,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Distribution by Phase
T:S S:T Tutorial Opening Diagnosis Directive Closing P.Closing
n (- (-
209 1.34 GJWS (T)=120 18 7 94 l ’ n/a
0.74 (S)= 89 O 4 79 6 n/a
198 0.21 GJWB (T): 35 n/a 10 -24 1 n/a 2
4.65 (S)=163 n/a 8 145 10 n/a
161 0.13 HCCA (T): 19 n/a 11 7 1 nla
7.47 (S)=142 n/a 13 126 3 n/a
134 0.22 CRAM(T)= 25 0 11 2 12 2 n/a
4.36 (S)=109 1 13 94 1 n/a
104 0.44 CRCC (T )= 32 0 17 14 1 n/a
2.25 (S)= 72 1 7 60 4 n/a
88 0.25 FSKP (T): 18 0 2 16 0 n/a
3.89 (S)= 70 1 2 55 12 n/a
82 0.03 FSEL (T)= 3 l 0 1 0 l
26.33 (S = 79 4 5 44 9 17
80 0.60 HCPR (T)= 30 0 11 15 4 n/a
1.67 (S)= 50 2 1 46 1 n/a
63 0.36 ALMS (T)= l7 1 1 12 3 0
2.70 (S)= 46 0 1 42 2 l
61 0.79 ALCK (1‘): 27 2 8 17 0 n/a
1.25 (S): 34 0 3 30 1 n/a
7;: 0.43 'i' = (‘1‘)—.=32,6 n (8)=2.9 u= 7.8 n: 21.2 11:13 It (2)=0.5
118 5.53 X = (S)=85,4 n (8)=1.l n: 5.7 It: 72 It: 4.9 n (2)=9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 to a high of 198. Students overwhelmingly produced the greatest number of

Table 3.29 shows the number of backchannels per tutorial ranged from a low of

backchannels by a ratio of 5.53 to every 1 tutor backchannel. Not surprisingly, most of

the backchannels occurred during the longest phase, the directive. GJWS, a female tutor

paired with an older, female student was unusual for two reasons: the tutor produced

more backchannels than the student by a ratio of 1.34 to l, and 18 (15%) of the tutor’s

 

backchannels occurred during the opening phase. FSEL (M/F) is also worthy of note for

the unusually high student to tutor ratio of 26.33.

133

3.7.4.2. Backchannels and Duration

Tables 3.30 and 3.31 below reveal that the number of backchannels is not
necessarily related to the length of the tutorial, and as far as the three shortest tutorials are
concerned, is actually inversely proportional. These three tutorials all involve a female
tutor. As numbers in Table 3.30 show, in the case of GJWS (F/F), the tutor does most of

the backchanneling while in GJWB (FM) and HCCA (F/F) the students do most of the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

backchanneling.
_T_able 3.30 Duration Tiable 3.31 Duration
and backchannel n MW
(arranged by n rank) (arranged by duration rank)
Duration n 1 Duration i n
GJWB (22:50) 198 HCPR(37:21) :80
GJWS (28:46) 1 188 ALCK(36:48) .61 .
HCCA (27:39) 161 1 CRCC(36:”) 1 “L7
CRAM (34:39) 134 ; CRAM(34:39) 134 ‘.
CRCC (36:17) 104 ,1 ALMS(34:04) j 60 :
FSKP (32:15) .- 88 FSEL(33:26) 38g:
FSEL (33:26) 1 82 FSKP(32:15) ‘ 88 i
HCPR (37:21) 1 80 GJWS(28:46) ~ ‘ ' x 188 j
ALCK (36:48) 61 HCCA(27:39) , " 161—1
,ALMS (34:04) 60 GJWB(22:50)“ 198
x =32:40 116j‘ x =32:40 , 116

 

 

 

 

 

3.7.4.3. Laughter Initiations and Backchannels

Laughter is frequently used as a backchannel, and as a response can indicate
appreciation of a laughable, feelings of tension, embarrassment, or amusement. Speakers
can use laughter to cue the intent of their utterance, but this type of laughter is not a
backchannel: only hearers backchannel. Some interlocutors frequently use laughter as a
backchannel, and this is evident in Table 3.32 which shows the percent of participant

laughter that is composed of backchannels.

134

Table 3.32 Laughter, Backchannels, and Percent of Laughter as Backchannel

(arranged in descending order by % of laughter as backchannels)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dyad Laughter {-Channel % of Participant

(# per participant) (# per participant) Laughter

as Backchannel
Tutor Student Tutor Student Tutor Student

FSEL l 29 3 79 0= 0% 24: 30%
FSKP 11 23 18 70 1= 5% 20: 29%
ALCK 10 16 27 34 5: 19% 7: 21%
HCCA 5 22 19 142 0: 0% 18: 13%
CRAM 2 18 25 109 2: 8% 8: 7%
ALMS l 3 17 46 0= 0% 3: 7%
GJWS 11 13 120 89 11: 9% 3: 3%
GJWB l 6 35 163 0: 0% 3: 2%
CRCC 0 7 32 72 0: 0% l: 1%
HCPR 13 1 30 50 1= 3% 1: 2%

X = 5.5 X = 13.8 8 =32.6 8 =85.4 i = 6% 31 = 10%

 

Table 3.32 shows that the students in tutorials FSKP (M/M), FSEL (M/F), ALCK
(WP), and HCCA (F/M) have the greatest percentage of laughter used as a backchannel.
Tutors FS and HC—undergraduates—show no instances of laughter as backchannel with
students EL and CA (both female) and only one instance with KP (male). This shows
students supporting tutor laughables, but not the reverse. In ALCK (M/F), student CK
shows 21 % of laughter as backchannels, but tutor AL shows almost as much: 19%. When
the averages in the bottom row of Table 3.32 are calculated as student-to-tutor ratios, the
data show an overall pattern of students laughing more than tutors (S:T ratio of 2.5),
using more backchannels than tutors (S:T ratio of 2.6), and of those backchannels,
exhibiting higher numbers as laughter than do tutors (S:T ratio of 1.6). An interesting

exception is HCPR (FM) in which the tutor initiates more laughter, and shows a higher

percentage of laughter as backchannels.

135

 

 

3. 7.5. OVERLAPS

For the purpose of this study, overlaps were defined as simultaneous speech that
Speaker B initiates but that does not cause Speaker A to lose the floor. Overlaps can
show a degree of connectedness such as when Speaker A begins to ask a question, and
Speaker B begins to answer before Speaker A has completed asking the question.
However, overlaps can also signal an attempt to take over the floor, and if the attempt is
successful, then an interruption has occurred. Laughter is not considered an overlap, but
is rather, as Sacks points out, the one speech activity that can be done simultaneously
when another person is speaking, and is often welcomed by the current speaker as
evidence of alignment. Compare these two examples of simultaneous speech:

(1) GJWS Lines 180-185. GJ=Female tutor (T), WS=Female student (S) discussing an
instructor student had the previous year.

180 S: Well I took um, the 120 class: =um last wintem =with Jane Reed?=
181 T: =um-hm: =um=hm=

182 =hm=

183 S: =1 don’t [know if you know who she is she’s] a lecturer, excellent teacher:
184 T: [I don’t know who that is, no]

185 T: =um-hm:

186 S: =she got me off to a good start I think

. (2) GJWS Lines 29- Student is talking about a movie the previous night about
women’s
prisons—the topic of her paper.

29 S: I started working on this last ni@ @ght and I thought no, I can’t [do this I have to]
30 T: [voiced laugh:::::]
31 S: sit down and take [notes on this] movie, so I’m gonna see if she’ll let me do a paper
32 T: [voiced laugh]

In Example 1, T overlaps S in line 184 and S, while continuing to have control of

the floor responds to T’s acknowledgement that she does not know who Jane Reed is. In

line 183, S asks an indirect question by using rising intonation after the instructor’s name

136

as well as saying in line 183 “I don’t know if you know who she is.” T is able to overlap
and answer the question and S is able to maintain the floor.

In Example 2, S uses Ml laughter in “ni@ @ ght” to mitigate the fact that she
began this paper only the night before. T uses voiced laughter simultaneously with S’s
talk in both Lines 30 and 32, and shows affiliation towards S. Like overlaps, laughter
does have semantic value and can cue the current speaker how to proceed, but since
laughter is considered by traditional linguistics as a paralinguistic device, it is classified

as a backchannel in much the same way “um-hm” and “hm::m” are.

Table 3.33 Overlaps Ranked by Total n, Tutor”Student and Student” Tutor Ratios,
@ Discourse Phase Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T:S S:T Tutorial Opening Diagnosis Directive Closing Post
n ratio ratio (n=8) Closing
(n=2)
27 0.80 GJWS (T)=12 l 0 9 2 n/a
1.25 (S)=15 1 0 13 1 n/a
9 0.50 CRAM (T)=3 0 0 3 0 n/a
2.00 (S)=6 1 1 4 0 n/a
8 3.00 ALCK (M 0 0 '5 1 n/a
0.33 (S)=2 0 0 2 0 n/a
5 1.50 CRCC (TF3 0 3 0 0 u/a
0.67 (S)=2 0 l 1 0 n/a
5 0.25 FSKP (T)=1 0 0 1 0 n/a
4.00 (S)=4 0 0 3 1 n/a
4 1.00 HCPR (TF2 0 0 2 0 n/a
1.00 (S)=2 0 0 2 0 n/a
4 1.00 ALMS ('1')=2 ’0 0 0 2 0
1.00 (S)=2 0 0 2 0 0
4 0.33 GJWB (T)=I n/a 0 1 0 I nla
3.00 (S)=3 n/a 3 0 0 n/a
2 1.00 HCCA (T)=1 n/a 0 1 - A 0 ula
1.00 (S)=l n/a 1 0 0 n/a
0 0.00 FSEL (TFO 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 (S)=0 0 0 T 0 0 0
i = 0.94 i: (13:3.1 i=0.” i=0.3 71:22 3:05 i=0»
63 1-43 i : (S)=3.7 i=0.25 8 =0.6 71:27 71:02 31:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

 

Table 3.33 shows the total number of overlaps for each tutorial as well as how
they are distributed throughout the phases. This data shows that one speaker at a time
generally holds the floor. Of the ten tutorials, nine have fewer than 10 overlaps occurring
over the average duration of 32:40. Students tended to overlap tutors at a ratio of 1.4 to
1, and did so in all phases except the closing. No overlaps occurred during the post-
closing phase.

What is unusual in this data are the 27 overlaps that occur in GJWS, a dyad in
which a female tutor works with a female student who is older by 22 years. This age
difference is the greatest in the data set, nearly twice that of the next closest dyad.
Women dyads tend to have more overlaps than do dyads of mixed genders, and in this
data, it appears that male dyads also have more overlaps than do mixed dyads. Perhaps
men and women both feel more comfortable overlapping a speaker’s speech if the
speaker is of the same gender. Without the outlier of GJWS’s 27 overlaps, the average

number per tutorial drops from 6.8 to 3.1.

3. 7.6. IN T ERR UPT IONS

Interruptions occur when Speaker B starts to speak before Speaker A has finished,
and Speaker B takes over the floor. More interruptions occurred than did overlaps and
may suggest that in this data, having one’s speech interrupted is preferable to talking at
the same time. Table 3.34 shows the distribution of interruptions across the ten tutorials.
The average number of interruptions per tutorial is 13.2 which is nearly twice the average
number of overlaps per tutorial (6.7). What is perhaps most striking is the high number of

student interruptions in GJWS (F/F, 24), ALCK (WP, 16), and HCCA (F/F,13). As Table

138

3.34 shows, in the top five tutorials in terms of total interruptions, the student almost

always interrupts the tutor more than the tutor interrupts the student.

_T_able 3.34 Intermtions Ranked by Total n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T:S S:T Tutorial Opening Diagnosis Directive Closing Post
11 ratio ratio (n=8) Closing
(n=2)
31 0.29 GJWS (T)=7 1 0 I 4 2 ' n/a ’
3.43 (S)=24 2 l 17 4 n/a
22 ‘ 0.38 ALCK (T): 6 0 1 4 1 . Na 2.
2.67 (S)=16 0 0 15 1 n/a
15 0.67 ALMS (T): 6 0 O 5 1 0
1.50 (S)= 9 0 1 8 0 0
14 0.56 HCPR (T): 5 0 2 3 0 n/a
1.80 (S)= 9 0 l 8 0 n/a
14 0.08 HCCA (T): 1 n/a 0 T 1 0 n/a
13.00 (S)=13 n/a 1 11 1 n/a
12 1.40 CRAM (T): 7 0 0 7 0 nla
0.71 (S)= 5 0 2 3 0 n/a
7 0.75 GJWB (T): 3 1118 1 2 . 0 oh
1.34 (S)= 4 n/a 0 4 0 n/a
6 1.00 CRCC (T): 3 0 2 l 0 nla
1.00 (S)= 3 0 0 3 0 n/a
6 1.00 FSKP (T)=3 0 0 3 0 all
1.00 (S)=3 0 O 2 1 n/a
5 0.67 FSEL (T):2 0 l O 1 . 0
1.50 (S)=3 l 0 1 0 1
—= 0.53 i:(l)=4.3 iii-0.13 55:11.7 2:30 51:82.5 2:00
13-2 2.80 x : (S): 8.9 x:038 x=0.6 31:72 71:07 x=05

 

3. 7. 7. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAUGH T ER, OVERLAPS, AND

 

IN TERR UPT I ONS

The relationship between laughter, overlaps, and interruptions can be seen in
Table 3.35. Tutors initiate laughter and interrupt about twice as often as students, and

tutors and students overlap each other with about the same frequency. Unusual numbers

139

occur in tutorial GJWS (F/F), which has Significant laughter, overlaps, and interruptions
and in both ALCK (M/F) and HCCA (F/F), which have quite a few interruptions. On the

other hand, students in tutorials FSEL (M/F) and CRCC (M/F) do very little interrupting

or overlapping.

Table 3.35 Laughter, Overlapagand Interruptions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dyad Laughter Overlaps Interruptions

(# per participant) (# per participant) (# per participant)

Tutor Student Tutor Student Tutor Student

FSEL 1 29 0 0 2 3
FSKP 1 1 23 1 4 3 3
ALCK 10 16 6 2 6 16
HCCA 5 22 l 1 l 13
CRAM 2 l8 3 6 7 5
ALMS 1 3 2 2 6 9
GJWS ll 13 12 15 7 24
GJWB l 6 1 3 3 4
CRCC 0 7 3 2 3 3
HCPR 13 1 2 2 5 9

i = 5.5 i : 13.8 3(- =3.10 i :3.70 8 =4.3 K :8.9

3.7.8 TOPIC CHANGE

According to Kathy Davis in Power under the Microscope, “control over
topicality is one of the primary ways that power is exercised by professionals in
institutional encounters” (304). In writing tutorials, students bring their writing to be
discussed, and who sets the agenda is the subject of much writing center scholarship.
Some students, such as female students CK in ALCK (M/F) and WS in GJWS (F/F),

direct what gets talked about more than the tutor does, while other students such as male

140

student KP in FSKP (M) or female students CA in HCCA (F/F) or EL in FSEL (M/F)
minimally initiate topics.

Table 3.36 shows that these tutorials range in numbers of topic initiations from a
high of 32 to a low of 20 with an average number of topic initiations of 25. Tutors who
stand out in the data for their particularly high tutor-to-student ratio of topic changes are
FS (M) in both his tutorials and HC in HCCA (F/F). Table 3.37 shows that duration is not

particularly related to the number of topic initiations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.36 Total Tgpic Initiation Table 3.37 Duration and Topic
Distribution by Rank Initiation
Total n % by T:S S:T Tutorial #Topic
Participant ratio ratio Duration Initiations
FSKP 32 “F29 9.67 HCPR (37:21) 28
(S)= 3 0.10 ALCK (36248) 25
CRAM 28 (0:24 6.00 CRCC (36:17) 20
(S): 4 0.17 CRAM (34:39) 28
HCPR 28 (13:20 2.50 ALMS (34:04) 26
(S)= 8 0-40 FSEL (33:26) 24
“MS 25 {3‘23 ~ 550 018 FSKP (32:15) 32
- ' GJWS (28:46) 23
HCCA 26 {3:2? 25.00 0.04 HCCA (27:39) 26
ALCK 25 11):“ 0.79 GJWB (2250) 20
(S)=l4 1.27 X= 32:40 X= 25.2
FSEL 24 (T)=21 7.00
(S)= 3 0.14
GJWS 23 (Dr-'10 0.77
(S)=l3 1.30
CRCC 20 (T)=l3 1.86 ' 1
(S)= 7 0.54
GJWB 20 (0:15 3.00
(S)= 5 0.34
i: 25.2 'x' : ('1'):19.0 3.06 0-33
i=6): 6.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

In relation to laughter, Table 3.38 shows that for T:S ratios of 7 or above, there is

a correlation between raw high numbers of laughter and the T:S ratio of topic initiations.

141

A further examination of Table 3.38 shows that high numbers of student laughter are

directly proportional to high numbers of tutor topic initiation, at least in the upper ranges.

Table 3.38 Laughter and Topic Initiation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dyad and Laughter # of Topic Topic Initiation T:S Ratio of
Laughter (# per participant) Initiations (#per participant) Topic
Rank Tutor Student Tutor Student Initiation.
FSKP 34 11 23 32 29 3 9.67
FSEL 31 1 29 24 21 3 7
HCCA 27 5 22 26 25 1 25
ALCK 26 10 16 25 11 14 0.79
GJWS 24 11 13 23 10 13 0.77
CRAM 20 2 18 28 24 4 6
HCPR 14 13 1 28 20 8 2.50
CRCC 7 0 7 20 13 7 1.86
GJWB 7 1 6 20 15 5 3
ALMS 4 1 3 26 22 4 5.50
31: 19 i: 5.5 i: 13.8 i: 25.2 i: 19 i: 6.2 2:306

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. 7.9. SUMMARY OF SPEECH ACTIVITY DATA

What the quantitative analyses of speech activities have yielded so far are raw
counts and their relation to tutorial duration and number of laughter initiations. The
purpose of this section is to assemble those counts into a format in which general
observations can be made here about the relations between speech activities indicative of
power and laughter initiation occurrences, and discussed in later chapters in relation to

the types of laughter used in tutorials.

142

3.7.9.1. Raw Counts of Speech Activities

Table 3.39 was prepared to summarize the raw counts of each speech activity in
the quantitative analyses presented so far. The table displays the number of occurrences
of the following speech activities: laughter, directives, questions, backchannels, overlaps,
interruptions, and topic changes. The numbers of instances for each feature are
highlighted and ranked in descending order under each feature’s heading. The average

(8) numbers of occurrences for each feature are in boldface and are indicated in the

bottom row.

Table 3.39 Raw Totals for Each Speech Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if Laughter Directives Questions (-Channels§ Interruption] Topics Overlaps _
10112111) (mat!) ’(Tmltt) (Total#) 1 (Mitt) ‘ (Todt!) (radii) .
FSKP 131 CRcc1105 Alrxl75 (118/$209 les1311=Sl<P 32 0108127
FSEL131ALCK197 HCPR.” G1WBI98 AbCK22CRAM 28 CRAM9
HCCA 27 (RAM {91 CRAMfot 110015.161 AIMS 15 HCPR 28 A1_1(K;8
ALCK 26110311165 (ammo (8.4111134 HCPR114A1MS 26 CRCCES
GJWS .224 HOCA§63 FSl<P§47~CRocho4 HCCA314HOCA126 FSKP 5
caAMiztiolw13157HttA141r81<P88 (RAM’leLCK 325 HCPR 4
HCPR’14ALM8155 FSELlssrsnsz GJWB[7FSE]. 24.ALMS4’
CRCC 7 FSEL [44 GJWSFM HCPR 80 010126 GJWS 23 GJWB 4’
(111N317 lesin AlMS'30ALCK61 FSKP 6 CRCC zorlocmz
AIMSHFSKPg-to GJWB20AIM’560PSE1501WB 20mm
8:19 i=166 i=48 x=118 2: pg: 25 x=,7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The numbers in the bottom row reveal that for the average tutorial, most Speech

activities number in the double digits somewhere between 13 and 66 occurrences. The

exceptions—backchannels and overlaps—are present in triple and single digit averages of

118 and 7 respectively. While this in and of itself merely demonstrates that speech

activities are present in this data in varying numbers, what is worth noting is that highest

number of occurrences for both backchannels and overlaps, as well as for interruptions,

are present in the same dyad: GJW S (F/F). AS will be discussed in excerpts 3.3 and 3.4

143

 

later in this chapter, GJWS is a dyad of two women who, as will be seen in Chapter 4, use
laughter affiliatively, and as research has shown, women tend to show connectedness in
interaction through the use of backchannels, overlaps, and interruptions. Conversely,
Table 3.39 shows that speech activities which tend to show an unequal distribution of
power—directives, questions, and topic changes—occur in relatively low numbers for
GJWS, which falls within the lower three slots for each feature. However, the dyad of
CRAM, which consists of two males, while occupying the top three slots in terms of
directives, questions, and topics, also shows a relatively high number of backchannels
and overlaps, and so perhaps factors other than gender are at play in the dynamics of
these tutorials. Before drawing any conclusions at this point, though, the point should be
made that Table 3.39 does not reveal which participant in the dyad accounts for what
portion of occurrences—only the total number is shown. Without a closer look at
distributions of occurrences within each tutorial, few explanations for variations among

tutorials can be offered.

3.7.9.2. Percentages by “Tutorial of Each Speech Activity

Table 3.40 presents an alternate way of looking at quantitative data by showing
the number of occurrences for each speech activity as a percentage of the total data set, or
what percent of each feature occurred in which tutorial.

In Table 3.40, under each speech activity’s heading, the percentages are ranked in
descending order. For laughter, Table 3.40 shows a nine—fold difference between the
highest and lowest percentages. Table 3.40 also shows a fairly consistent range among

activities other than laughter in terms of high to low percentages. All but overlaps exhibit

144

a range from a two to five-fold difference between the lowest percentage of occurrences
and the highest, and while this indicates some degree of variation among dyads in the use
of any particular speech activity, it also shows that there are general boundaries and a

degree of uniformity as to how these speech activities are used. For example, most

Table 3.40 Percentages by Tutorial of Each Speech Activity

 

:- . v “If

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. - 1 arm ' 19210.8 Fulcrum W ~ ‘
.,. .(%of Z‘ . (% of (%of. (% of (%of~ (% of t (%of j W,
Data Set) Data Set) DataSet) j . Data Set) } Data Set) Data Set) 1‘ Dia- Set) . j
FSKP 18 CRCC 16 ALCK 16 FSKP l3 GJWS 24 GJWS 17 GJWS 40
FSEL 16 ALCK 15 HCPR 15 (RAM 11 ALCK 17 GJWB 16 (RAM 13
HCCA 14 (RAM 14 CRAM l3 PEPR 11 AIMS 11 HCCA 14 ALCK 12 .
ALCK 13 HCPR 10 CRCC 13 AIMS 10 l-KB? 10 (RAM 12 (RCE 7
GJWS 12 HCCA 10 FSKP 10 m 10 m 10 our 9 FSKP 7
CRAM 10 GJWB 8 HCCA 9 ALCK 10 (RAM 9 FSKP 8 AIMS 6
HCPR 7 ALMS 8 FSEL 7 F311 10 GJWB 5 FSEL 7 l-U’R 6
CRCC 4 FSEL 7 GJWS 7 GJWS 9 FSKP 5 1m 7 GJWB 6
GJWB 4 GJWS 6 ALMS 6 (RC1: 8 (RC1: 5 ALCK 5 rm 3
ALMS 2 FSKP 6 GJWB 4 GJWB 8 F31 4 ALMS 5 FSEL 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

features have between 13 and 24% as the high end with the exception of overlaps,

in which, as noted earlier, 40% occur in GJWS (F/F). At the other end of the range,
almost all features have lows in the single-digits with the exception again of overlaps
none of which occurred in FSEL, a dyad of a 26-year-old male tutor who is an
undergraduate, and a 19-year—old female student who, like FS, is an undergraduate. This
unusually wide range in overlaps is interesting since both GJWS (40 overlaps) and FSEL
(0 overlaps) have similar amounts of laughter (12% and 16% of the total data set
respectively). To see if this difference may be more of a function of the particular dyads,
or of the tutors involved, or if this percentage difference is merely an outlier, we can look

at Table 3.41 below and see if there is a pattern across speech activities for FSEL.

145

 

Table3.41 SpeedigaivhiesbyPaoanofTaaleaSamamQWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laughter Directives Questions Topics Interruptions (-Channels M
(%of (%of (%of (%of (%of (%of (%of
IhaSet) DaaSet) DmSet) DamSet) DataSa) DaIaSer) M36)
FSKP 18 cm: 16 AMIK 16 FSKP 13 GIVES 247m 17 GJWS 40
m. 16 AILTK 15 HCPR 15 CRAM ll AIEK l7 GJWB l6 CRAM l3
HCEA 14 CRAM l4 CRAM 13 HCPR ll AUVIS 11 HCIZA 14 ALCK 12
ALCK l3 HCPR IO CRO: 13 AIJVIS 10 HG’R IO CRAM 12 CRCI: 7
(£18 713m 10 FSKP 10 MIA 10 HCCA 10 (Rec 9 FSKP 7
(RAM 10 GJWB 8 KIA 9 ALCK 10 CRAM 9 FSKP 8 AUWS 6
HCPR 7 AIJVIS 8 PEEL 7 FSEL 10 GJWB 5 m 7 HG’R 6
CRCIL‘ 4 PEEL 7 (31218 7 jGIWS 9 FSKP 5 HCPR 7 GJWB 6
GJWB 4 GJWS 6 NM 6 (Rm 8 CRCII 5 ALCK 5 IrKI‘A 3
AIJWS 2 FSKP 6 GJWB 4 GJWB 8 m. 4 AUWS 5 m. 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F SEL consistently ranks among the four lowest percentages of all speech
activities, yet has the second highest number of laughter initiations, and while GJWS is
also among the four lowest percentages in three speech activities other than laughter,
GJWS is either the first or second highest in backchannels, interruptions, and overlaps.
These differences may be influenced by gender (FSEL 2 male tutor/female student,
GJWS = female tutor/female student) since much research shows women interacting with
other women are more connected in their speech in terms of backchannels, interruptions,
and overlaps than are women interacting with men. However, Tannen cautions against
generalizing too much about gender differences: “Attempts to understand what goes on
between women and men in conversation are muddled by the ambiguity and polysemy of
power and solidarity. The same linguistic means can accomplish either, and every

utterance combines elements of both” (Gender 46).

146

3.7.9.3. Percent of Speech Activities Initiated by Tutor in Each Tutorial

What may prove more insightful than gender in explaining the differences in the
amounts of laughter among tutorials is the degree of tutor dominance exhibited through
speech activities. Up to this point, the data has not shown which participant initiated what
percentage of the occurrences. Table 3.42 below shows what percentage of each speech

activity in a particular tutorial was initiated by the tutor.

Table 3.42 Percent of Speech activities Initiated by Tutor in Each Tutorial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3114 F311
28 ii:

 

Laughter Directives Question Topics Interruptions (-Channels Overlaps
(% of dyad) (% of dyad) (%ofdyad) (% of dyad) (% of dyad) (% of dyad) (% of dyad)
HCPR 93 FSEL 1(D CR(I 93 HGZA % (RAM 58 GJWS 5'7 ALCK 75
GJWS 46 GJWB 1(1) KIA 88 FSKP 91 CR(I 50 ALCK 44 CR(I fl)
ALCK 39 KRR 99 CRAM 83 P811 88 FSKP 50 HCPR 38 HCPR 50
FSKP 32 KIA % HCPR 77 (RAM 86 GJWB 43 CR(I 31 AIMS 5)
ALMS fi FSKP % GJWB 75 AIMS fi AIMS 4) AIMS 27 HCIA 50
I-ICIA 19 CR(I % FSEL 63 GJWB 75 F811. 4) FSKP Z) GJWS 44
GJWB 14 CRAM 95 FSKP a) KPR 71 HCPR % CRAM 19 CRAM 33
(RAM 10 AIJVLS 93 AIMS 57 (RCI‘ 65 ALCK 27 GJWB 18 GJWB 25
FSEL 3 ALCK 92 ALCK 4) AIIIK 44 GJWS ZS HCIZA 12 FSKP Z)

O 88 32 43 7 0
28 96 w 75 33 46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

><|
ll

>4|
ll

 

The averages in the bottom row show that for directives, questions, and topic initiations,
tutors initiate between 69%—96% of the occurrences. The highest percentage

of these are directives, and would be expected in a situation in which one participant
came asking for advice and another were there to give it. There is not much difference
between the highest (100) and lowest (88) percentages of directives/dyad given by tutors,
and this feature does not appear to be related to the amount of laughter a tutor initiates.
However, even though the averages for questions, and topics are 69% and 75%
respectively, Table 3.42 shows that students do ask a good number of questions and do

get to direct the topic; in fact, students in GJWS (F/F) and ALCK (M/F) ask questions

147

and change topics over half the time. Tutors in GJWS and ALCK also have the second
and third highest rates of laughter initiated by tutors.

Other salient features of Table 3.42 involve tutor HC, who in HCPR (F/M)
initiates 93% of the laughter—more than twice the amount of the next highest number
(46% in GJWS)—and tutor CR, who in CRCC (M/F) initiates no laughter. HC and CR
also both rank high in numbers of questions asked: their combined four tutorials have the
highest numbers of questions in the data set. Since questions are a specific type of
directive, and issuing directives claims power, both HC and CR can be seen as quite
dominant in these tutorials. In contrast to the dominant styles of HC and CR, the tutoring
styles of female tutor G] in GJWS (WP) and male tutor AL in ALCK (M/F) result in
these two tutorials having the lowest numbers of directives (although their percentage is
still high), fewer than 41% of the questions, and fewer than 45% of the topic initiations.
Both tutors use high numbers of backchannels, another sign of connectedness.

A pattern emerges that tutors who are the most and least dominant as measured
by speech activities tend to be involved in tutorials that have either very high or very low
numbers of laughter initiations. Male tutor FS issues a high percentage of directives in
FSEL (M/F) and initiates high numbers of topics in both FSEL and FSKP (M/M). These
two tutorials also have the highest percentages of laughter in the data set. Female tutor
HC in HCCA issues a high number of directives, questions and topics, and HCCA ranks
third highest in laughter initiation. At the other end of degree of tutor dominance, female
tutor G] in GKWS (F/F) and male tutor AL in ALCK (M/F), are relatively low in
dominance as measured by directives, questions, and topic initiations, and rank high in

backchannels as well as laughter initiation.

148

3.8. GENDER

3.8.1 GENDER AND FREQUENCIES OF IN! TIA TION AND RESPONSE TYPES

In Tables 3.43 through 3.45 located below, the data is arranged to show the

effects of dyad participants’ gender on the amount and type of laughter used in initiations

and responses to laughter. These are summative tables based on individual analyses.

3.8.1.2. Dyads, Gender, and Laughter Initiations

Table 3.43 Percent Tutorial Initiation Type by Gender Dyads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TUTORIAL n % (A) % (M‘) %(M?) %(D‘) %(D1) (U) .
3? MALE/ T 3.7 13.3% 3% 50% 0 0 0 1
x FEMALE/S 17. 3 34% 63% 0 0 0 3% If
- I 7 - , .. . ., . - . - .
- ‘ . . 2 . . . 4 . r I
x FEMALE/'1‘ 7 0% 73 % 0% 4% 4% 19%
x MALE/ s 3. 5 16.5% 83.5% 0% . - 0%1. 0% 0% 7
xMALE/T 4.7 56 %‘ i 35% A 25.7% f 17%“ 6% 6%
x MALE/S 14. 7 49 7"- 51% 0% 0% 0% 0%
x FEMALE/T “s 37.5 % 520%““ A 32.5%8 L 0% A 10% 0% l
x FEMALE/S 17.5 21 % 79% 0% 0% 0% 0% j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.43 shows how gender is related to laughter initiations. As the total
number of initiations for each category shows, the combination of FM dyads (female
tutor, male student) shows a substantial difference in the amount of laughter present for
both tutors and students. In each of the other dyad combinations, students initiate much

more laughter than do tutors: in M/F dyads, students initiate 4.7 times as much laughter

149

as do tutors; in MM dyads, students initiate 3.1 times as much; and in F/F dyads,
students initiate 2.2 times as much. In F/M dyads, it is the tutor who initiates the most
laughter, and does so by twice as much. When viewed from a power-based perspective, a
patriarchal society traditionally assumes the male is the one with the most power, and in-
line with prior research in the dynamics of laughter in institutional interaction, the person
with the most power laughs the least. In the same gender dyads—M/M and F/F—the
ratios of student-to-tutor laughter are lesser since the power-differential of gender is not
present, but comparing the two dyads to each other, male tutors still laugh less than
female tutors, and male students laugh less than female students.

However, the types of laughter present need to be analyzed before differences in
numbers of initiations can be attributed to solely to claims to power. The two most
prevalent types of initiations in this data (as presented in Table 3.9) are Affiliative (A)
and laughter that mitigates for self (M1). In Tables 3.44 and 3.45 below, the average
percentages of participants’ use of (A) and (M1) laughter are presented and ranked by

Table 3.44: Affiliative (A) Table 3.45: Self-Mitigating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laughter by Dyad Gender (M') Laughter by Gender Dyad
(Tutor/Student) (Tutor/Student)

Tutors Students Tutors Students
MM 56% W 49% PM 73% FM 83.5%
F/F 37.5% M/F 34% MM 38% PIP 79%

M/F 13.3% F/F 21% PIP 20% M/F 63%
FM 0% FM 16.5% M/F 3% MM 51%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tutors and students. Table 3.44 shows that male tutors use (A) laughter—laughter
designed to bring participants closer together—more frequently than any other

participants, and that male students use (A) laughter almost as much as male tutors and

150

more than other participants. What is surprising in this data is that female tutors do not
use (A) laughter at all with male students, and that female students use more (A) laughter
with male tutors than with female tutors.

Table 3.45, which looks at (M’) laughter—laughter that is used to relieve one’s
own tension—shows that both female tutors working with male students, and male
students working with female tutors, use the highest percentage of (M') laughter. Female
students working with either male or female tutors also show high frequencies of (M1)
laughter use. Male tutors working with female students rarely use laughter to mitigate
their own tension; in fact, only 3% of all initiations fall into this category.

Gender appears to affect participant roles, or in Goffman’s terms “performance,”
especially those of tutors. While widely held assumptions that women are more nurturing
than men,'more egalitarian than men, and prefer more closely aligned interaction than do
men would lead to the expectation that women would be more likely than men to use (A)
laughter to draw the student closer, some scholarship suggests otherwise. Shari Stenberg,
writing on the difficulties women often have in both believing in credibility of their own
authority and in sharing that authority, writes, “Acting as a liberatory authority often
involves a knowledge of when to “fade” from the foreground to the background, when to,
as Ira Shor names it, “wither away. But female subjects have already learned to render
themselves invisible; how does one give up authority she has never felt in the first
place?” (141). Stenberg explains differences male and female teachers have in power
differentials with students:

As Lil Brannon argues, the male critical teacher maintains his privilege

through a “double move”: he resists the image of the all knowing, distant,

151

 

 

authoritative figure but paradoxically gains power by becoming the
“star”—the heroic, emancipatory teacher (1993, 460). Even when he
“withers away,” his authority is taken for granted. Female teachers, in
contrast are often read first and foremost as caretakers, nurturers—not
intellectuals or authorities. “Withering away” may be read as “natural”

behavior; the female teacher is not “able” to take center stage. (141)

Another way to perhaps explain the more frequent use of (A) laughter by male
tutors than by female tutors, according to sociologists Aysan Sev’er and Sheldon Ungar,
is that humor, and I expand this to include humorous playframes invoked through
laughter, may “serve as a functional tool for educators who want to give an ‘affable’
impression of themselves, lighten up a topic, or prolong the attention span of their
students’ interest and participation” (89-90). Further, invoking playframes or being
“unserious” can “lubricate social interaction” between teachers and students (88).
However, Sev’er and Ungar argue from a power-based approach that men and women
have unequal status when it comes to being “unserious.” Based on feminist assertions that
“men define reality for both men and women in work and leisure,” male instructors feel
freer to “entertain and enliven” their classes while female instructors generally avoid
being unserious, or use humor “reactively to regain control of classroom disruptions”

( 88-90). In tutorials, these same dynamics may apply, and in this data, the humor styles
of male tutors as compared to female tutors would support Sev’er and Ungar’s argument.

Female tutors when working with male students, in this data, use no (A) laughter

to better align themselves, and use the highest percentage of self-mitigating (M')

152

laughter. On the other hand, male tutors working with female students do use (A)

laughter somewhat (13.3%), but appear to be confident enough that they use very little

(M‘) laughter (3%).

On a cautionary note, though, this study represents only a small number of

tutorials, and no broad generalizations can be extended from this data. For example, in

ALMS, one of the dyads in the (WM) data, there are only four instances of laughter

initiation in the entire tutorial, and AL’s single initiation, an instance of (A) laughter,

therefore counts as 100% of his total. This outlier may skew the results. Additionally,

38% of female tutor HC’s initiations were coded as “Unclear”: the coders could not

decide why she was laughing, and it is difficult to conclude much as a result.

3.8.1.2. Dyads, Gender, and Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.46 Percent Tutorial Response Type by Gender Dyads !

l

TUTORIAL n % % % % % % % I

(A/S) (AN) (NNV) (A/D) (N) (D/NL) (U) i

x MALE/T 17.3% 11.7% 11% 6.7% 0% 59.7% 1% 9.6% '

x FENIALE/S 3.7% 37.7 % 76.7% - 3.3% 70% -29 % 0% 0%

XFEMALE7'1‘ 3.5%) 0%” 11.5% f 0% 0% 91.5% 0% i 5.7% J

x MALE] s 7 % 3.5% 0% 0% . 0% 9.65%.. 0% 0% ‘
x MAIE/ T 14.7% 12.3% “5%“ “1‘2““ 11% 156.7% 0%M 70%
x MALE! s 4.7% 82% 0 % 13 % 0% 6 % 0% 0%

T ” ’ i ’5’“ T511? 71.12..." ”L." ' ..g 3;“: ’ .

fFEMALE/r I 17. 5“ A28 %7 “121% 18.5% 0% 34 % 0% 7%
3E FEMALE/S 8 53 % 9 % 13. 5% 0% 24. 5% 0% 0%

 

 

The relationships between gender and responses to laughter in this data support
the observations in the preceding section about the differences between male and female
tutors’ approach to fostering alignment. Table 3.46 shows that the combination of FM

dyads results in far fewer affiliated/shared and affiliative/non-verbal responses and far

153

more neutral responses by both tutor and student than in other dyads. Participants in HM
dyads do not try to distance themselves through disaffiliative laughter, but they are
seemingly either content in adhering to institutional roles or are not willing to take risks
associated with closer alignment.

F/F dyads show students and tutors use a high and nearly equal percentage of
affiliative laughter, whereas in M/F and WM dyads, the students produce far more
affiliative laughter than do the tutors. Additionally, the averages in this study show a
number of differences in how males and females respond to laughter initiations in
interactions in same and mixed gender dyads. Both male and female students in same sex
dyads, (MM) and (F/F), accept tutor invitations to laugh by using affiliative/shared (A/S)
laughter at least 50% of the time. In other dyad combinations, (A/S) laughter is used
between 7% (FM) and 18% (W). The tutors in same sex dyads are also more likely to
join in (NS) laughter than are tutors in mixed-sex dyads. Perhaps individuals are more
confident in reading the signals of when to join in laughter when the signal is given by
someone of their own gender. Students in same sex dyads are also the most likely to use
non-verbal signals to indicate that they support the laughter of the tutor: 29% of students’
responses in (MM) dyads and 19% of student’s responses in (F/F) dyads are
affiliative/non-verbal whereas only 8% of students’ responses are (A/NV) in (M/F) dyads
and 0% in (F/M) dyads.

Neutral responses account for about half of both tutor and student responses in
(M/F) dyads, yet the percentages for both participants are much higher in (F/M) dyads:
72% for female tutors and 93% for male students. In these mixed-gender dyads, one

explanation might be that participants are less skilled at picking up on subtle laughter

154

cues when the speaker is of a different gender, and in PM dyads in particular, the tutor
may be reluctant to show a face other than that of an authority. In same sex dyads, tutors
gave neutral responses--(M/M)=68% and (F/F)=38%--far more often than did students—
(M/M)=l4% and (F/F)=19%. Students in these dyads were more likely to give affiliative
responses than neutral ones perhaps because they were surer of the intent of the tutor’s

invitation to laugh.

3.8.2 GENDER AND SPEECH ACTIVITIES
The quantitative analyses of the relationships between gender and speech

activities are summarized in Table 3.47 below.

Table 3.47 Gender and Speech Jactivities: Average Number of
Occurrences per Participant Gender and Role

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discourse Male Female Male Female
Feature Tutors Tutors Students Students
Laughter (I) 4.2 7.5 10.2 17.4
Directives 66.7 55.3 2.2 3.6
Mitigated 38.1 48 1.6 2.2
Directives
Questions 34.3 29.8 13 18
Topics 20 17.5 4.8 7.6
Interruptions 4.5 4.0 6.0 l 1.8
(-Channels 20.3 51 87.6 83.2
{-Channels 6.4 3 9.4 13.6
as Laughter
Overlaps 2.62 4.0 3.4 4.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

While the data sample is too small to generate conclusions to apply to data
outside of this study, certain widely accepted observations about gender can be applied to
this data: women mitigate directives more than men, women use laughter as a
backchannel more than men, and women overlap speech more than men. Also, when
tutors are compared to tutors, the data is consistent with other studies about gender: men
tutors issue more directives, ask more questions, and initiate more topics than women.
Further, when tutors are compared to students, the institutionalized dichotomy of power
is obvious: tutors issue more directives, ask more questions, and initiate more topics than
students; students laugh more, use more backchannels, and use more laughter as
backchannels than tutors.

However, some data seems inconsistent with norms. Female students issue more
directives, ask more questions, and initiate more topics than do male students, but that
may be a function of the nature of tutorials and the underlying assumptions that the
purpose of the tutorial is to talk, and women, who are typically more uncomfortable with
silence than are men, work harder to keep the conversation going. Surprising, too, is that
male students utter more backchannels than do female students, but this most likely
occurs due to the high number of backchannels by the male student in GJWB (PM), who
utters 163 backchannels far surpassing the student average of 85.4.

The impact of gender on laughter in tutorials will be discussed further in

subsequent chapters.

156

CHAPTER 4: INITIATIONS

In Chapter 3, the global data on laughter Initiation Types (I Types) revealed that
for the six I Types coded, three accounted for 92% of participant initiation laughter in the
total data set: Mitigation for self (M')=52%, Affiliative (A)=34%, and Mitigation for the
other person (M2)=6%. In this chapter, the discussion will first focus on representative
examples of each major I Type, and then examples from the 8% of anomalous cases.

Next, factors that might affect I Type initiation between participants will be examined.

4.1. MITIGATION FOR SELF (M1)

In the norming sessions for this study, we observed participants frequently
initiating laughter when they seemed nervous, insecure, or unsure about something they
had said or were about to say. This anxiety-related communicative use of laughter allows
both tutors and students to express, and in the process, relieve feelings of embarrassment
related primarily to the loss of positive face that comes through having to reveal
ignorance, an especially anxiety-producing situation in the atmosphere of academia. In
coding data, we defined (Ml) laughter as laughter which is produced to relieve tension for
self or that cues hearer to speaker’s emotional state. (M') laughter may or may not be
produced intentionally.

On the average, of initiations of all types in the data set, 43% were (M')s by
students, and 9% were (M')s by tutors. Since the next most prevalent I Type is Affiliative

laughter by students (27%), it is clear the majority of laughter in this data set is due to

157

student tension or anxiety. The data in Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 also show that the highest
percentage of tutor-initiated laughter is also (Ml) Type (9%) followed by (A) Type (7%),
but the occurrences of (M') for tutors are far fewer than for students relative to the total
data set and to the other 1 types. For all participants, laughter functions more to
communicate and release anxiety than it does to promote affiliation.

Table 4.1 shows the percentage of (M') initiations in each tutorial that are tutor
initiated, student-initiated, and the difference in percentage points between them. The
average tutorial contains 36% more Ml laughter by students than tutors. However, in
HCPR, unlike any of the other tutorials, the tutor uses six times more (Ml) laughter than
does the student (a pattern that will be addressed in Chapter 6: Discussion). Without
averaging in this outlier, the average rises to 44% more Ml laughter by students than

IUIOI‘S.

Table 4.1 Participant (M1) laughter as percentage of all 1 Types in tutorial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TUTORIAL % by Tutor % by Student % more by student
(total of all I types)

CRCC (7) 0% 86% 86%
CRAM (20) 5% 60% 55%
HCCA (27) 7% 59% 52%
ALCK (26) 4% 52% 48%
GJWS (24) 0% 46% 46%

GJWB (7) 14% 57% 43%
FSEL (30) 0% 27% 27%

ALMS (4) 0% 25% 25%
FSKP (34) 21% 35% 14%
HCPR (14) 43% 7% -36%

 

 

 

 

 

Average % more Ml laughter by student than tutor = 36%

 

158

 

The data about MI laughter in Table 4.1 shows that tutor CR’s tutorials contain the two
highest percentages of students initiating laughter that somehow mitigates something
about themselves or their discourse. There are several reasons why this might be so, but
in light of the limited number of any occurrences of initiation in CRCC (7), there is not
much textual evidence on which to base a solid argument. However, GJWB (7) and
ALMS (4) also contain only a few occurrences, yet the student-initiated (Ml) laughter is
considerably less than in CR’s tutorials. What then might account for the relatively high
number of student-initiated Ml laughter occurrences in CR’s tutorials?

One factor that could affect the dynamics of the verbal interaction between male
tutor CR and these two students is in how authority is negotiated. First, as evidenced in
the speech activities analyses (see Table 3.42 in Chapter 3), CR asks most of the
questions (93% in CRCC and 83% in CRAM), interrupts in both tutorials at a higher
percentage than other tutors, and issues between 95-96% of the directives: he is quite
authoritarian and directive. In CRCC, in which the tutor is male and the student female
(M/F), CC comes to the tutorial already having had her confidence badly shaken by
submitting an assignment in which she had misunderstood the directions and
subsequently received a poor grade. Having had to explain this to CR, and in the process
losing positive face, CC continues to lose face as CR asks several questions to which CC
has no answer. Accompanying CC’s several of answers of “I don’t know” is (M')
laughter.

III the case of CRAM (M/M), AM is another student who does not have much
confidence, and is embarrassed by his ignorance at many points in the tutorial. In Excerpt

4.1 below, CR uses a word with which AM is not familiar, and while it is debatable as to

159

whether or not CR was asserting his authority by using a word that he suspected AM
didn’t know, in the course of tutorials, tutors often use writing terms with which students
are not familiar. Students, like AM demonstrates below, can intentionally or
unintentionally make use of the dual function of (M') laughter to not only cue their
emotional state, but also to serve as a means to relieve tension.

In the course of Excerpt 4.1, male tutor CR is simultaneously speaking as he

writes on male student AM’s essay about exploitation of workers by employers:

Excerpt 4.] (CRAM turns 93-9'D

T: that’s that’s a powerful idea if you could develop that (4 s) a:nd. .. let’s see.. just

S: ok..

T: a spelling deal there, and then you MIGHT (writing). a .. conclusion.. that..provides. ..

closure.. =to the letter.and do you know the word recapitulates?= =it’s one

S: wrap-up,yeah= =no=

T: of those long words and (writing) re. . .capitulates

QS: [(V.LAUGH)it] sounds like it (uhunh LAUGH» I never ever I never
heard that word before:

T: =It recapitulates, it restates..you ever heard like in a sports commentary, a RECAP?=

S: =yeah
ok, yeah: [oh, that’s what that is, ok] =ok=

T: =RECAPitulates, ok?= = so you’re recapping, what are the
main points? It’s a cool word, isn’t it?= =your

QS: [Oh, wow, I have a new word] =yeah, recap, recap,(V.LAUGH) 0k:

In the turns marked with (11>) S’s voiced laughter (V.LAUGH) can be seen. In the
first case, S’s laugh precedes his admission that he does not know the meaning of
“recapitulates.” To admit not knowing, especially in the culture of academia, is often self-
pejorative, and with good reason: in written assignments, course content tests, and class

discussions about assigned readings, to show ignorance is not only to lose what politeness

theory deems “positive face” but also to lower a test or essay grade. For 8 to have to

160

answer “no” when T asks if S knows the meaning of “recapitulates” causes
embarrassment for S, and T’s next comment, “it’s one of those long words” might seem
condescending, implying that S probably doesn’t know long words. S begins to laugh
before T has completed this comment and again as S comments “I never ever I never
heard that word before.” Both of these (Ml) initiations occur during S’s admission of his
unfamiliarity of the word, and allow S to both reveal his embarrassment and to cover it
up or mitigate his feeling of embarrassment by appearing to not take things too seriously.

In the second case, after T has shown that the sports term “recap” is based on
“recapitulation,” and S is able to show that he does indeed have at least some knowledge
of the word (“yeah, recap, recap”) and thereby restoring some degree of positive face, S’s
laughter allows some of his tension to be relieved.

Another example of laughter related to student tension is in Excerpt 4.2 from
GJWS. WS is a non-traditional, 47-year-old female student who has just related a long
narrative in which she describes how she became interested in the topic of her paper,
mothers in prison, and how she happened upon a film the previous night about
incarcerated women. Female tutor G], 24 years old, directs the discussion to the course

instructor’s explicit directions to include a thesis statement.

Excerpt 4.2 (GJWS turns 14-17)

S: Ok, what do I need to do?=

T: =Ok, well FIRST I was wondering maybe we could kind of work on
this together: =and wh:at I would like you to do for me um, is just point out to me

S: =yep=

T: wh:at your thesis is? Because, just from reading what your teacher had, you know, she

obviously wants a thesis statement and thezn= = wants your support throughout
S: =um-hm:
T: your paper.= :80, I thought maybe we can look at THAT,= = and see where

161

 

S: =right= =ok=

T: to go from there:

S: =Sure. Ok, um, I want to point out my thesis would be the importance
of children visiting their mothers in prison: =so I pretty much need to say

T3 =Ok, ok u:m=

l:98: that: =How? (uhhuhhuh)(smiles)

T: =YES= I think she: is looking for . a dezfinite . you know,
STATEMENT =

G] answers WS’s question using a politeness strategy of heavily mitigating
suggestions. For example, in T’s first turn from this excerpt, she says, “I was wondering
maybe we could kind of work on this together.” The bolded words are GJ ’5 way to
lessen, or mitigate the subsequent face-threatening speech act of having to point out that
WS’s thesis is not clear. GJ continues with, “what I would like for you to do for me um,
is just point out to me what your thesis is?” WS then clearly articulates her thesis, but at
w, reveals that she doesn’t know how to write it, and laughs and smiles. Her laughter at
this point allows her to lessen the embarrassment of needing help with a thesis.

Tutors also use (M') laughter though to a far lesser extent than do students. Tutors
represent the university and knowledge about writing, and to not be able to formulate
advice can cause anxiety and self-doubt for tutors. In Excerpt 4.3 below, female tutor HC
focuses on sentence clarity. In the first line, HC has ready suggestions for alternative
wording. She then explains that she underlined things in the draft that “sounded a little bit
awkward” and could be said in a “different way.” When HC finds an introductory clause

that she underlined, she does not have a ready alternative, and falls back on repeating her

previous instruction to say it in a different way.

162

Excerpt 4.3 (HCCA turns 42-47)

1-1

: but: = I didn't think he was. Um, I would say either say, "Still to this day it's
=m-hm=

: decorated in his . own elegant . ah preference,” you know: =or Japanese
=um-hm:

: style or whatever: = or [some]thing like that: =Ok, now things I

=ok= [ok] =that's good:

: under[lined] =ok= Yeah, things I underlined are things that

[I’ll just write it down (?)]=

: sounded a little bit awkward [that] maybe you could say in a different way:

[ok] =uh-huh=
: =like, "With its difficult and looked down upon beginnings," um . sounds like a lot of
words anyway . Maybe you could say it diff @ @ @erently

OHH’HR’HH’HWHY’

At ED “diff @ @ @erently,” HC laughs within the word perhaps out of frustration.
She draws attention to the introductory clause “With its difficult and looked down upon
beginnings,” hesitates, and not being able to articulate why the clause sounds awkward,
says, “sounds like a lot of words anyway.” Using the hedge “maybe,” she then releases
the frustration of not having a ready alternative by laughing as she says, “Maybe you
could say it “diff @ @ @erently.”

Another case of a tutor using (M') laughter involves male tutor FS reading male
student KP’s essay on discerning the semantics of poetry. Prior to F8 working in the
WDC, he had worked in a different campus office which dealt primarily with students on
academic probation whose writing skills were very low. FS admits later in the post-
tutorial interview that he was a bit intimated by the depth of KP’s topic and KP’s
command of vocabulary and rhetorical style. Ironically, in the post-tutorial interview, KP
admits that he was a bit nervous because he hadn’t “really put a whole lot of thought in

beforehand” and that he knew “some of my sentence structure was pretty odd.”

163

In Excerpt 4.4 below, FS is reading aloud from the essay, and isn’t sure what KP

is saying and repeats a phrase three times:

Excerpt 4.4 (FSKP) (Words spoken in a quiet voice are enclosed by <Q. . .Q>
T: <QThe English language is, is living, is a livingQ> .. Ok, <Qliving and flourishing
throughout the world>Q. Many different cultures, dialects, and fields of study influence
the use of language..this causes defining words within the language to be a complex and
perhaps impossible task..the nature of language is the communication of one’s perception
to another. Insofar as perceptions of any one thing can be. understood to .. vary
considerably. insofar as perceptions of any one thing can be understood insofar as
perceptions of any one thing can be understood to vary considerably, the choice of

S: (lnh.V.LAUGH)
T: language style by the speaker and writer can also be predictably different. In the

ED English language, euphemisms and cinnamons are (wha@ @ cinnamons)

S: (V.LAUGH)
T: synonyms are abundant, and add to this discourse complexity, add to this discourse
complexity by offering many words...

In w, FS, who is reading quickly aloud, stumbles over the word “synonym” and
pronounces it as “cinnamons.” His (M') laughter is functional on two levels. First, it
allows him to laugh at his own mistake, and to show KP that mistakes are acceptable.
This serves as an invitation to laugh, and KP’s response of a voiced laugh shows that he
is aligned with FS. On a deeper level, this laughter allows PS to case some of the tension
that had been building during the first part of the excerpt—tension on the part of both
participants. FS repeats a phrase three times, and as indicated in the post-tutorial
interview, he was a bit insecure in evaluating KP’s writing. FS was not sure of KP’s
meaning, and attributed it more to his own inability to follow KP’s thoughts than KP’s

inability to write clearly. At the same time, KP was realizing that his sentence structure

sounded odd. While the coders assigned KP’s first laugh as (M')——a revelation of his

164

own discomfort—PS may well have interpreted KP’s speech action as laughing at him,

and thus raising FS’s own level of discomfort.

4.2. MITIGATION FOR THE OTHER PERSON (M2)

Rather than mitigating feelings for oneself, (M2) laughter is used to help ease
tension or embarrassment for the other person. In this data, as Tables 3.8 and 3.9 show,
(M2) laughter accounts for only 6% of all laughter initiations in the data set, but accounts
for an average of 22% of tutors’ initiations. No student initiations were coded as (M2)
though this is not surprising since it is inherent in tutorials that tutors would try to make
students feel at ease rather than the reverse.

In the first example of (M2) laughter, from the opening of GJWS, female tutor GJ ,
24 years old, is silently reading 47-year-old non-traditional female student WS’s essay
while WS fills out paperwork. Two minutes and 50 seconds into the tape, GJ shifts in her
chair slightly, puts her elbow on the chair arm, brings her hand to her chin, and rests her
' chin on her hand. WS looks up, follows G] ’s gaze to the essay, and moves her pencil over
the area on the page at which G1 is looking. WS then mentions her citations as shown in

Excerpt 4.5 below.

Excerpt 4.5 (GJWS turns 1-2)

S: I know my [um.. cite, ]uh um, the cites, they’re not right: :1 know they’re

T: [nodding] =ok=
S: not right. . I just hurried up and um, [you know], did ‘em= [wringing hands]
l9T: (smiles) [uhhahaha] = Did what you could,

165

right?=
S: =yeah (smiles slab)

This excerpt demonstrates the powerful communicative effect even small
paralinguistic cues can have on interaction. The action of GI ’s resting her chin on her
hand communicates, however misguided, to WS that G] is concerned with a place in the
essay in which a citation occurs. WS responds with a semantically complicated turn that
communicates on several different levels. First, she shows her expertise about writing:
she does know that the citations are not right, and says so twice. The reason she gives for
them not being right is that she was short on time so she “just hurried up and um, you
know, did them.” This implies on the surface that if she had had enough time, the
citations would have been done correctly. This turn could also serve as an indirect request
for help with citations: WS draws attention to something being wrong, and does not
request that GJ just ignore the citations. Since the purpose of a tutorial is to improve
writers and writing, drawing attention to the citations could be a request for help. This
turn could also serve as a directive in setting the agenda since WS brings up the first
topic. However, in the subsequent discourse throughout the tutorial, citations are not
mentioned again even when G] asks if there is anything else WS would like to discuss. A
reasonable interpretation of WS’s statements are that she is confident of doing the
citations on her own, but is offering an excuse as to why there may be mistakes in them.
Mistakes, for whatever reason, do cause loss of face and subsequent tension.

Judging from the discourse that follows WS’s statements, GJ intuits that WS is
not asking for help, but rather is explaining the reasons for any citation errors. By using

the paralinguistic one of (M2) laughter at '3, G] is able to show that she understands the

166

 

 

constraints that limited time puts on writing, and at the same time let WS know that
writing in a hurry is not always a serious offense. This laughter serves as what Coser calls
an “invitation to come close” (172). G], to further show that she understands WS’s
hurried and incomplete citations, supplements the (M2) paralinguistic cue by saying, “Did
what you could, right?” The overture for closeness is successful as WS responds with a
“yeah” a smile, and two exhalations of unvoiced laughter.

G] ’s laugh could lead to affiliation, and WS’s response shows that it does, but in
this study we defined (M2) laughter specifically as laughter initiated to ease the other’s
tension whereas Affiliative laughter initiation was defined as laughter that occurred after
the other person had made an attempt to be humorous. In Excerpt 4.5 above, WS’s
statement “I just hurried up and um, you know, did ‘em” was offered as an explanation
rather than as an attempt to be humorous, and so G] ’s laughter was coded as (M2).

The next excerpt illustrates first an A initiation, which will be discussed in more
detail in the following section, and then an (M2) initiation. Male tutor AL and female
student CK are just over a minute into the tutorial. CK explains that while she has always
gotten A’s and B’s in high school AP English, now she is getting C minuses. She has
asked AL to look at her essay and to “tear it apart so I can at least get a B.” CK is filling
out the WDC information sheet as AL looks over the draft, and CK interrupts AL’s

reading several times.

Excerpt 4.6 (ALCK turns 3-10)

S: I’ve never done a paper like that..sophomore in college. When I was in high school, I
was always in AP English, college essay research, so like I got As and Bs and now I’m
like first English class I’m gettin’ C minuses. I was like (tilts head, smiles, and uses

I-)sarcastic tone) “O:OOOH, a lot that,= =uh, high school helped me.”=

167

T:(unwrapping gum and putting in mouth) =uh-huh= =golly

S: (4 5) That’s what we’re s’posed to do: =And this is what I came up with . just

T: =okay=

2-)S: TEAR it apart (palms pounding on table) so I can at least get a B on this PLEASE:
T: 2A1]

right (2 5) You just need to fill out here like down here for now and (unclear) just the
first page.=
3: =13 today the 11th? Or what is today? The 13‘“?=
T: =That’ 3 what I’m thinkin’ (asks
another instructor) Is this the 13th? (hears reply In background.) Yeah. (7 s)
S: (reading information sheet aloud as she fills it out) I came to the Writing
Development Center because.=
39T: =to be harrassed by my teachers:
S. =1 came to the Writing
Development Center because my teacher suggested I come. (5s) She REQUIRED me to
4-) she said. (Sarcastic tone, looks at T and smiles)“It might be a good idea’ =
T: =huh @ @ @ @
(smiles but does not look up and continues to read)
S: (4 s) I know it’s shit. You can just laugh. I, I tried on this, I don’t, I’ve never [really]
T: [ I was]
JUST reading this (shakes head, shrug): =(smiles and V. LAUGH)
S: =Oh=

In this tutorial, the participants are of two very different personality types. Tutor
AL is quiet, reserved, understated in both demeanor and humor, and reads CK’s essay
silently without looking up. Student CK is effervescent; animated in voice, facial
expression, and hand movement; impatient, and uses almost steady eye contact. There are
several times during the course of the tutorial that these personality types conflict,
notably when one or the other participant makes an attempt at humor—an attempt to
induce a laughter initiation—and it fails. Such situations occur three times in the above
brief excerpt from ALCK, and while the humor is an attempt to initiate laughter, it is not
a laughter initiation since CK does not laugh first.

Student CK begins the tutorial with a narrative about how her high school English

preparation did little to prepare her for college level work. She makes an attempt at

168

humor in the third line by tilting her head, smiling, and saying in a sarcastic tone,
“OzOOOH, a lot that, uh, high school helped me,” but AL does not laugh in the expected
slot perhaps because he is busy unwrapping a stick of gum, putting it in his mouth, and
looking for a place to discard the wrapper. He does acknowledge her statement with a
“Golly” but by then is looking at the draft she is handing him and not making eye contact
with her.

Again, at 29, CK tries an attempt at humor by using a self-effacing tone, “Just
TEAR it apart” which implies the essay is filled with problems, but that CK can
withstand the criticisms because she wants a better grade. However, once again AL does
not support the attempt at humor with laughter, but rather acknowledges her request with
an “All right” and then proceeds to point out what CK needs to fill out on the WDC
Information Form.

AL also makes an attempt at humor, and CK does not laugh in the expected slot.
In line 16, Al’s interjection of “to be harassed by my teachers” is obviously intended as
humorous since students do not come to the WDC to be harassed, yet CK ignores the
comment. It is possible that she didn’t hear AL’s comment, but that is unlikely since she
stopped speaking when he began, and started again when he had finished.

Finally, CK makes one more attempt at humor when she says in a sarcastic tone,
“It might be a good idea,” and this time AL does laugh affliatively, yet he continues to
read. After a pause of four seconds, CK becomes uncomfortable with the silence, and
begins again to make self-disparaging comments: “I know it’s shit. You can just laugh.”
AL keeps reading, and CK continues, “I tried on this, I don’t, I’ve never really.”

Exasperated that he has once again been interrupted while trying to read, AL replies with

169

 

an edge in his voice, “I was JUST reading this,” and then shakes his head and shrugs his
shoulders as if laughing, but no laughter is audible on the tape. After CK replies, “Oh,”
AL mitigates his earlier comment with a smile and M2 laughter to soften the impact of his
comment.

Distinguishing between (M1) and (M2) laughter is not always clear cut. For
example, at Q in Excerpt 4.6 above, AL’s smile and laughter could be interpreted as
much as an attempt to relieve his own tension as to relieve CK’s. His exasperation at her
discomfort with silence and ensuing need to interrupt his reading, is revealed by his
brusque comment of “I was JUST reading this,” and his shaking his head and shrugging.
When CK replies with an embarrassed “Oh,” AL might have laughed to express his own
embarrassment at having revealed his frustration. However, in this case, all coders
marked the laugh as (M2) because they felt that even though AL may have been

clarifying his own communication, he was doing so to relieve CK’s tension.

4.3. AF FILIATIVE (A)

Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 shows that of all the laughter initiations in the data, (A)
laughter accounts for 34%. Students produced the most—27 %—while tutors produced
7%. As shown in Chapter 1, the participant with the least power, the layperson, typically
supports the professional person’s humor through laughter, but the reverse usually does
not happen, so that it is not surprising in this data that students do four times as much (A)

laughter as do tutors. However, in Table 3.9 in Chapter 3, which shows how the average

170

student and the average tutor use initiations, the differences are less dramatic. Of all
student initiations, 38% are (A) laughter, and of all tutor initiations, 27% are (A).

(A) laughter is used for different purposes by tutors and students. Tutors do use
(A) to support students’ attempts at humor, but more frequently use it to show empathy,
understanding, or alignment with a student’s predicament. Students, on the other hand,
generally use (A) laughter to show support for something the tutor has said. In Excerpt
4.6 (ALCK, reprinted below), male tutor AL uses (A) laughter at Q to support female

student CK’s humor.

Excerpt 4.7 (ALCK turns 9-11)

 

S: :1 came to the Writing
Development Center because my teacher suggested I come.(55) She REQUIRED me to
she said. (Sarcastic tone, looks at T and smiles)“It might be a good idea”:

T: =huh@ @ @ @

'9 (smiles but does not look up and continues to read)

S: (4 s) I know it’s shit. You can just laugh. I, I tried on this, I don’t, I’ve never [really]

T: [ I was]
JUST reading this (shakes head, shrug): =(smiles and V. LAUGH)

2982 :01]:

CK has used an exaggerated and animated tone, and mocks her instructor: “It
might be a good idea.” AL smiles and laughs to support CK’s attempt at humor.
However, while an (A) initiation is intended to show support, it does not always result in
aligning the participants. As noted earlier, AL laughs affiliatively, but CK rnisinterprets
his laugh, and instead becomes defensive. AL must then initiate a repair by using (M2)
laughter.

In the next example, male tutor FS is working with male student KP—a highly

skilled writer who enjoys playing with language. At first the tutorial doesn’t go smoothly.

171

FS was used to working with students who lacked developed writing skills, and KP’s
level of expertise was a bit surprising to F3. In the post-tutorial interview, FS mentioned
that
this guy had English down pat, in fact, if he wasn’t able to explain some of the
points in the paper so well, I would have sworn he plagiarized it cause it’s all on
semantics and whatnot of poetry of the English language and how it—it’s just an

amazing paper and the vocabulary is beyond my level.

Both coders commented that at first, the tutorial didn’t seem to be going well: “FS made
several attempts at humor and KP didn’t respond” and “T and S started out looking
somewhat ill at ease with each other.” The misalignment was also felt by KP. From KP’s
perspective, as he mentions in the post-tutorial interview, he was a bit nervous: “I didn’t
know what to expect from someone critiquing my paper. . .I usually don’t get much of
that.” KP also explained that “some of my sentence structures were odd” and that he felt
he was an unsuccessful writer because the students in his first—year writing class didn’t
understand the humor in his writing.

As the tutorial progressed, though, FS was able to see that KP was really playing
with the words and audience, and FS began to show through laughter his appreciation of
KP’s subtlety. In the excerpt below, after an instance of (M') laughter by each FS and
KP, the two participants begin to align and eventually join in shared laughter. In an essay
about the complexity of the English language and its often ambivalent constructions, KP

writes:

172

 

In the sentence, “Garlic offends me,” how is it to be known if the offense is
intended to be directed at the olfactorance of garlic, the sight or taste of garlic, the
associations one has with the use of garlic (a strictly carnivorous human could be
offended by the mention of any vegetation; a vampire could be offended by garlic
because of its physical deterrence from his or her prey), or even the spelling of the
word?

In Excerpt 4.8 below, tutor FS reads the sentence aloud. FS has just been
discussing with KP how to revise a sentence fragment, and FS decides to circle it and
have KP revise it later. FS continues reading aloud, and speaks in a smiley voice (text
between @s) when he comes to “Garlic offends me.” FS’s use of a smiley voice and an
exaggerated tilting of his head initiate what Bateson characterizes as a play frame or a
“state created by metacormnunicative signals which frame or bracket messages as
nonserious” (qtd. in Glenn Laughter 137). Play frames can be potentially risky to use
since hearers may not interpret the metacommunicative signals such as voice change,
facial expression, or gestures, and misalignment may occur. In the excerpt below, we can
trace how the participants negotiate their way through the potential ambiguity that is

inherent in play frames, and arrive at affiliative laughter and alignment.

Excerpt 4.8 (FSKP turn_s 43-45)

T: circle it for now and you can figure that one out later. In the sentence ©Garlic Offends
[ me© how] is it to be known if the offense is inten intended to be directed at the

S: [smiles]

T: olfactorance of gar@ @lic..OLFACTORANCE of garlic. do you actually use this
[word? Or] did: =did you, did you look it up?=

S: [smiles] =I= =No, I se, I ser, I seriously do use that
word: = I love it: [uhhaha@ @ @ @ continues to smile] [uhhah@ @]
T: =ok= =[ok allright . I know what it is, it’s the] smell, but [still. . .]

173

the sight or ta@ @ste of garlic (turns, shrugs): [T =C’mon If you’re gonna use it there

S: =(smiles):

T: why don’t you use it here? It’s the VISUAL aspect of [garlic (shrugs) or, ]um. .’what 5
S: [(smiles) uha@ @ @]

T: taste? Well, umm" I don tknow off the top [of my head] <U. .2U> you should do it for
S: [right, yeah]

T: all of ‘em though, c’mon, you know, go for it:

S: =uhah@ @ @=(continues to smile)

T: =the associations one

ha@ @s with the use of garlic” a strictly carnivorous human coullld be offended by
the mention of any vegetation, a vampire could be offended by garlic because of Its
physical deterrence from his or he@ @ @r prev, or even the ge@ @lling of the
wo@ @rdQ Ol_(, well you’re bein’ an asshole there aren’t you: = 0k

S: =(uhaha@ @ @ )=

KP smiles in response to FS’s obvious amusement at “Garlic offends me,” a smile
that FS does not see since he continues reading while looking down at the page. Some
laughter researchers consider a smile as a form of unvoiced laughter—the far end of a
spectrum that, on the opposite end has laughter so intense that speaking becomes
impossible—and KP’s smile, if considered a type of laughter, could be evidence of his
alignment with FS. However, since FS did not see KP’s smile, FS does not, at this point,
know if KP is willing to engage in non-serious talk about the essay. (We did not include
smiles in our coding, since the nature of writing tutorials involves much time with one or
both participants’ gaze directed at an essay page and therefore prevents perception of this
interactional cue).

Signaling his amusement and appreciation of KP’s choice of the word
“olfactorance”, and possibly relieving tension if perhaps KP did not pick up on the play
frame, FS uses (M') laughter when saying “gar@ @lic.” As FS repeats “olfactorance”
and asks KP if he actually uses this word, FS looks up at KP and sees that KP is smiling.

FS may at this point realize KP’s acknowledgment of a play frame, but smiling can be

misleading: people can use a smile to mask embarrassment, hostility, or other emotions.

174

FS, who speaks quickly and has a much lower tolerance for silence than KP, does not
wait for a more elaborate response from KP than a smile, and immediately bridges the
silence by beginning another question. KP, who usually pauses a bit before answering,
does begin to answer with an utterance of “,”I but does not attempt to take the floor and
instead defers to FS’s finishing the question. After KP answers “No, I seriously do use
that word. . .I love it” he uses a long voiced (Ml) laugh and smile to show FS that while he
does have “olfactorance” in his everyday vocabulary, he also does not take himself too
seriously.

During the ensuing discussion in which FS teasingly suggests KP use words for
“sight” and “taste” which would be as elevated in style as “olfactorance” is to smell, KP
initiates three (A) instances of laughter (indicated by gray shading) to which FS responds
to with Affiliative Shared laughter. Finally, FS initiates some (A) laughter in his last turn
in this excerpt (indicated by underlining). The two speakers are at last aligned as
evidenced in the text, and continue the tutorial through more relaxed and connected

discourse.

4.4. PROBLEMS IN CODING LAUGHTER INITIATIONS

As with all paralinguistic communicative devices used by humans such as tone,
prosody, facial expression, sighing, or body language, a person’s laughter is unique and
subject to different interpretations by different receivers. Additionally, when identifying
types in something as ephemeral and unique as a person’s laughter, any classification

system can serve only as a guide, and not an exact description of types that will fit every

175

 

 

situation or context. In this study, while all three coders agreed on the type of laughter
initiation in 147 out of 194 cases (75 %), there were 47 cases in which only two coders
agreed, and four cases in which none of the coders agreed. In analyzing the distribution
of these disagreements, what emerges is that for any given tutorial, one coder does most
of the disagreeing, and it is not always the same coder who differs from the others. Table
4.2 below, for each tutorial, the number of times only two coders agree are presented
along with which coder—A, B, or C—disagreed the most and the number of

disagreements that coder had.

Table 4.2 Coder Disagreements as % of Total Initiations (I)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutorial / (1) total # of disagreements = % Coder = major % of

of (1) Total disagreements
FSKP/34 9=26% A=6/9 (67%)
HCCA / 27 8 = 30% C = 6 / 8 (75%)
GJWS/24 7=29% B =4/7 (57%)
ALCK / 26 6 = 23% C = 5 / 6 (83%)
CRAM / 20 4 = 20% C = 3 /4 (75%)
HCPR/14 4 = 29% C = 3 /4 (75%)
FSEL/31 4=13% A=2/4 (50%)
ALMS/4 3=75% C=2/3 (67%)
GJWB / 7 2 = 29% B/C = l / 2 (50%)
CRCC / 7 0

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.1 C ODERS ’ DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES 0F PARTICIPANTS’ INI TIA T IONS

As Table 4.2 shows, Coder C had the highest number of disagreements in five
tutorials, Coder A in two, and Coder B in one. One likely explanation for this variation is
that I was Coder C, and in my capacity as Director of the WDC, I was familiar with the

tutors and how they interacted with students. Additionally, the student in ALCK (M/F)

176

 

 

 

 

was a student of mine, and had come to the WDC for an assignment in my course. My
familiarity with these participants gave me an alternate perspective on their discourse,

sense of humor, and style of communication, particularly in tutorials in which tutor HC

 

was present. As Table 4.2 shows, in tutorials HCCA and HCPR, in 75% of the cases in i
which one coder disagreed, I was the dissenting vote. However, my familiarity with the

participants only partly explains the congregations of disagreements, since much of my

 

unconforrnity in coding had to do with student initiations rather than tutor initiations. For
example, In HCCA, in 6 out of the 8 cases that all three coders did not agree, I was the
dissenter, yet 4 of my 6 disagreements involved the students’ initiation type and not the
tutor’s. Further evidence that my familiarity with the tutors cannot fully explain the
differences in coding, is that in tutorials involving FS as a tutor, Coder A disagreed with
the other two coders the most often, and in tutorials involving GJ as a tutor, Coder B
disagreed 57% of the time in GJWS and 50% of the time in GJWB.

Perhaps it is safe to say that personality types—both the participants’ and the
coders’—are a factor. There could be differences between coders and participants in, for
example, degrees of introversion and extroversion, or passivity and aggression, and
whereas one coder might see a tutor with a good sense of humor, another coder might see
this same tutor as sarcastic. Also, interpersonal communication is problematic, and when
viewed vicariously becomes even more so. Coders experience tutorial interactions via
tape recordings, and cannot always see clearly such message enhancers as eye contact or
facial expression, nor can they always hear subtle auditory cues such as sighing and
laughter. Further, one coder may be more perceptive than another in observing these

message enhancers. As a result, much subjective interpretation of participants’

I77

 

communication takes place when coding, and there are bound to be differences in the
impressions coders have of participants. That the inter-rater reliability in this study was
so high overall, seems surprising in light of the many factors which might cause
differences in coding.

To see how differing coders’ perspectives of participants’ use of laughter
initiations as well as problems inherent in the classification system itself, a look at the
tutorials involving HC will be useful. Tutorials HCCA and HCPR involved a 22-year-old
female undergraduate tutor who, in interactions with other tutors and me, showed a
highly developed sense of humor. HC laughed a lot in casual conversation, and readily
joked with her peers and me displaying fluency in using not only the traditional female
venue of self—deprecating humor, but also in using sarcasm and irony. HC, even though
still an undergraduate, had had experience tutoring writing: she had worked for several
months with at-risk students in a student support services program which focused
primarily on clarity of expression, and while this experience had given her a great deal of
practice in identifying an essay’s problems, it had offered little training in ways to
mitigate critical comments. By the time the data for this study was collected, I had
observed a great deal of growth in HC’s tutoring skills. However, at the time the coding
sessions took place, while I tended to focus on how far she had come, and how she used
her sense of humor to put students at ease, Coders A and B saw quite a different picture.

Tutorial HCPR (F/M) contains one of only two examples in the data set (the other
is in HCCA) of laughter initiations which any coder labeled as D2 or
Disaffliliative/Offensive laughter, and contains the most problematic discourse in the data

set. There were four cases in the total data set of 194 in which none of the coders agreed,

178

 

and three of the four cases occurred in HCPR. In HCPR, HC is working with an 18-year-
old male freshman on an assignment about when an individual’s freedom comes in
conflict with community standards, and much of the discussion focuses on the clarity of
PR’s arguments, and some inconsistencies in the examples he uses. The interaction is
tense at times perhaps because the participants had different expectations of what the
tutorial would entail. In the post-tutorial interview, when asked about whether or not his
visit to the WDC was what he expected, PR replied “I thought they were just gonna be
like reading my paper and saying whether it was good or not or whatever.” He didn’t
expect to have to be much of an active participant. In HC’s post-tutorial interview, she
comments on PR’s lack of involvement with the tutorial: “[At first] he looked like he
wasn’t sure what we would do..he just looked like he had kind of a blank stare when I
came over to him and asked him to show me what the assignment was.” HC further
explained that in order to draw PR into participating, she asked a lot of questions, and
eventually, “with each thing I questioned him about that he got more into it.”
Occasionally HC laughed when asking questions, and this was cause for
confusion among the coders. Excerpt 4.8 below is rather lengthy, but is included in its
entirety to demonstrate how some initiations are ambiguous. This excerpt occurs at 16:32
minutes, nearly half way through the tutorial, and just after a lengthy discussion about
including early in the essay clarification about written and unwritten laws as they affect
an individual’s behavior. Also, HC has commented that PR’s examples sometimes don’t
connect to the tOpic sentences of his paragraphs, and some paragraphs need more
examples to illustrate the topic sentence. This is a second draft for PR, and he is

unenthusiastic about making additional revisions.

179

Excerpt 4.9 (HCPR turns 51-67)

T: Like, maybe you need to say that early on that there are basically two kinds of laws,
you know? Urn there are written laws and there are unwritten laws that if you stray
from those unwritten laws, um, you know, you're considered not exactly in the
mainstream, you know, you're like an outcast, or you're not generally accepted, or
you're--you have a lot of problems, you know, don't have an easy way, you know
[inaudible]. That might be something that you need to address earlier on, you know?
(3 5) Don't be afraid to make changes, too. I mean, it's only gonna help your paper

'9 y@ @ @ou know. -— = Um, does that make sense, though?= =yeah.

S: =Yeah.- — =um-hm:

T: All right.=

S: . = ‘Cause I'm planning on putting more examples In there, so [inaudible] I
didn't have that In the end there:

T: =You need the foundation, you know, earlier. Yeah.
OK . So we understand what's going on: =Now (2 5) ok, “every citilzen' s free]

S: =um- -hm= [Tl Sigh, yawn]

T: and should be able to do whatever they want as long as they obey the laws that have
been set upon them.” AhT1(audible sigh), all right. (2 s) See these are kind of general
statements. That‘ s the problem I have with it.. like "every citizen's free" .. well, as in

2') no slavery?" .—(hunh ha): =That's what you, that’s

S: =1 gue::s ss?(shrugs and smiles a bit):

T: what needs to be clarified a little bit. every citizen' 8 free In the sense that, you know,
there' 5 no written law that makes slavery, you know, a legal operation, right?=

s; =uh-huh=

T: =Um (2 s) “and should be able to do whatever they want as long as they obey the laws
that have been set upon them.” Well can they really though? without being stigmatized
you know?= :80 these are things that you need to think about, ok? A little bit

S: =um- -hm=

3-)T: more. All right, so we'll move on (hunh)‘ ‘There are many individuals who can't find
happiness without taking advantage of their individual rights, which In their eyes is
perfectly fine, but in mine and many others it is not." Ok. "For example,
individuals who sell drugs know that they are disobeying the law, but they don’t care
because they're only looking to benefit themselves.” (4 5) Ok, I don't know if he wants
you to say your opinion here . like “but in mine”, or I think, or whatever . urn, you're
giving your argument and you're giving an example for it, but I don't know if you need
to say I or my or: =ok? “individuals who sell drugs know

S: =(unclear, but smiles and nods):

T: that they' re disobeying the law, but they don’ t care because they are only looking to
benefit themselves. Individuals also find happiness by doing things that they think are
right even if others around them are strongly against them.” Ok. 80 "can't find
happiness without taking advantage of their individual rights, which in their eyes is
perfectly fine. " NOW think about this. Your example 1s selling drugs.— - =Is

S: =uh- huh:

180

T: that legal by the written laws?= =No?= =ok= =ok. So, but you said

S: =uh- uh: =no, no: =no=

T: there are many individuals who can't find happiness without taking advantage
[ of their individual rights]

S: [of their individual rights], which, so I should, without taking advantage of, of the
law?=

T: =but the, but it's illegal though. [Selling]

S: [Yeah but] they're taking advantage of the law if
they're breaking it.

4-)T: (3 5) well, I don't know how you mean (hunh-hunh). They ARE
breaking the law.- —

S: =uh- huh. Ok, then “there are many individuals who can't find
happiness without breaking the law.”

T: =Ok. Maybe you want to say it like that then.
Doesn't that sound more clear?= =ok. I dont know, maybe you want to make a

SI =uh— huh:
5-)T: note? (hunh) (10 s as S writes) All right. Does that make sense?

At '9, all coders agreed that the tutor uses an (M') initiation to soften her
criticism that PR needs to address written versus unwritten laws earlier in the essay. HC
then asks for verification that her suggestion makes sense (“Um, does that make sense
though?”), and PR responds that it does and that he plans to put in more examples. HC
intensifies her suggestion through an unmitigated directive, “You need the foundation,
you know, earlier. Yeah. OK. So we know what’s going on.” PR gives a minimal
response of “um-hum” and then HC moves on to the next sentence. Frustration appears to
be building in both PR and HC as PR does an audible sigh and yawns when HC continues
reading, and HC does an audible sigh at the completion of PR’s next sentence. HC pauses
briefly, and then makes four comments pausing between each one with no backchannels
from PR. When she finally asks for clarification at 2-),“well, as in no slavery?...(hunh-
ha),” she laughs. All coders marked this as a (D2) initiation since it followed HC’s
exasperated sigh and appeared to be ridiculing PR for his lack of clarity and absence of a

response to her comments.

181

 

 

 

 

In HC’s next turn, she points out phrases that are confusing, and tells PR, “So

 

these are things you need to think about, ok? A little bit more. All right, so we’ll move
on, (hunh) (39).” Coder A commented in her notes that she couldn’t tell why HC
laughed, and so Coder A marked the initiation as Unclear (U). Coder B felt that HC was
ridiculing both PR’s ambiguity and lack of response to her comments, as well as his
neutral response to her laughter, and so marked this laugh as D2 or disaffiliative laughter
that is offensive to the bearer. I interpreted it as M1 laughter expressed to relieve the
uncertainty, and thus tension HC felt about whether or not PR understood or accepted her
comments since he offered no feedback.

HC then moves through more of PR’s essay, and comes to another sentence that is
unclear to her. She asks PR, “NOW think about this . Your example is selling drugs.” She
then tries to get PR to see where the confusion lies, and he twice interrupts her. Finally, in
4'), HC says, “well, I don’t know what you mean (hunh-hunh).” All coders were in
agreement that this was a (D') initiation, or disaffiliative laughter due to not
understanding the speaker’s comment. However, within the next four turns, once again
HC laughs and none of the coders can agree why. PR comes up with a statement that is
acceptable to HC, but he doesn’t make an effort to write it down perhaps because he
thinks he’ll remember it. HC asks PR if the sentence is “more clear” and he agrees. HC
then says, “ok. I don’t know . maybe you want to make a note? (hunh).” Coder A again
felt that this laugh was placed oddly and was unsure of the purpose and marked it (U).
Coder B found it to be offensive, (D2), and was an attempt to prod PR into making note

of the statement. I thought it was (M') and designed to augment her use of the word

182

 

“maybe” as part of a politeness strategy to mitigate her directive that he make a note of
the sentence.

In the post-tutorial interviews, summative comments about HCPR were revealing
about the impressions the participants made on the coders. Coder A commented that
“This conference seems very awkward and uncomfortable. The tutor laughs first nearly
all the time, but I can’t figure out why. It seems unpleasant, but I can’t pinpoint why. The
student rarely responds to the tutor’s laughter, perhaps because he doesn’t know how to
read what she means.” Coder B makes a similar observation: “The tutor is not graceful in
her criticisms of the student’s paper and laughs at odd times and in what seems to me to
be a somewhat derisive manner. At least, that’s the cumulative impression. . .[the student]
seems ill at ease for most of the discussion. I’m not sure he knows what to make of the
tutor either. He’s not very responsive.” My own impression was quite different, and was
heavily influenced by my prior knowledge of HC. In casual conversation with HC, I
noticed that she is very connected verbally to whomever she talks: she uses lots of
backchannels and tag questions, and I think reads people quite well. In HCPR, PR often
gives no response, and at times is obviously bored. I thought the awkwardness of periods
of no verbal reciprocity from PR made HC anxious, and her laughter was a way to relieve
her own tension.

My familiarity with HC could account for my 75% of the number of initiation
coding disagreements in HCPR, but it would not account for my 75% (6 of 8) of the
initiation coding disagreements in HCCA (F/F): 4 of my 6 disagreements involved the
students’ initiation type and not the tutor’s. In all of these four cases, both Coders A and

B thought that the student’s initiations were (Ml), and I thought that three were (A) and

183

 

 

 

one was (M2). In HCCA, CA, a female student just shy of her 19url birthday, brings a draft
of an assignment which was to write a research paper on a topic of the student’s choice.
CA chose to write about Sydney, Australia, because she wanted to go there someday.
What all three coders observed about CA was that though she smiled a lot and talked
readily about her paper, she seemed to have a case of the nervous giggles. There were 27
instances of laughter initiation in HCCA, for all of which at least two coders agreed.
There were 19 instances that all three coders agreed on, and of these, 11 were initiated by
the student and were coded as (M') laughter—laughter to relieve the student’s tension.
However, as the tutorial progressed, 4 were also marked as (A), as tutor and student
became more affliated.

Excerpt 4.10, which occurs about 23 minutes into a 27:39 minute tutorial,
contains four laughter initiations, on the latter two of which I did not agree with Coders A
and B. As part of her research, CA has interviewed a travel agent, and much of the essay
involves descriptions of restaurants, museums, and beaches at the expense of the history
of Sydney. So far, most of the tutorial has focused on word choice and sentence structure
problems, and as HC has started referring to those as “How could you say it differently?”
type of problem.

Excerpt 4.10 (HCCA turns 72-75)

T: =um::m ok, aboriginal prob’ly is big A: [yeah]
S: =big A, [yeah]
T: I'm surprised like you don't mention more about the aborigines actually: :1 thought
S: =um-hm:

l-)T: they would be in there more, but uhzzh, I guess not (hunh-ha.) [all right]

S: (unclear).(haha[:::::ha])

T: That would be a really cool paper to: =Um, bring it back if you write it:
S: =uh-huh, right:

T: it: =Ok, "and a glass roof to cover it off," urn, cover it off is a little bit

2-)s: =ok (hahaha::h)=

184

 

 

T: like .( gestures) how could you say it differently? kind of thing:

3-)S: =um-hm yea@ @ @h 0k:
T: =uh “exotic plants throughout. located throughout and a glass roof = =to cover .
S: =um-hm:

T: even”(eye contact) = or “and a glass roof" period lnha= =Ok, uh "to relax, sit back,
“as: =lnhaha= =Yeah, 0k:

T: and enjoy the scenery Manly and Bondi are the most famous beaches of the city." ok

At '9, HC does one of two (D2) initiations in the data set (the other is discussed
above in HCPR) after commenting on CA’s failure to include more about the aborigines.
All coders agreed that this laughter was disaffiliative and caused the student
embarrassment, although we were not sure what CA said immediately afterward and
before she joined in the laughter. One of us thought CA said, “Sorry,” and another
thought she said, “Next time,” and the third was unsure. However, we did agree CA’s
tone was apologetic in nature and her response laugh indicated embarrassment. HC
appears to be affected by CA’s embarrassment, and makes a repair by acknowledging
CA’s writing ability in giving advance approval of a paper should CA decide to write it.
At 29, CA does what all coders agreed is an (A) laugh and shows that she is aligned with
HC.

HC then jumps to the next place in the essay that she had underlined during her
initial read-through. As she searches for the words to describe what the problem is with
“and a glass roof to cover it of she makes a face by puffing out her cheeks, and
gestures with a side-to-side body motion before calling up the phrase “how could you say
it differently? kind of thing.” At 3'), CA initiates what Coders A and B labeled an (M')
laugh because they felt CA was anxious about her word choice. I labeled this instance an

(A) laugh, because I thought CA was laughing in support of HC’s predicament of being

at a loss for words and using humorous body language to express herself.

185

 

 

 

HC then offers an alternative phrasing, “exotic plants throughout..located
throughout and a glass roof” at which point CA indicated alignment by saying, “um-hm.”
HC finishes with, “to cover” then begins to offer yet another suggestion, “even” and
looks up to make eye-contact with CA who at this point laughs. Coders A and B
interpreted this as an (M1) initiation, while I thought CA was supporting HC’s suggestion
and thus labeled it an (A) interpretation.

Even after allowing that the majority of my disagreements in HCCA were with
the coding of the student’s initiations rather than the tutor’s, and thus perhaps bringing
less credence to the argument that my familiarity with the participant affected my
perception, the argument could still be made that my familiarity with the tutor colored
my perceptions of the student’s initiations. For example, at 3') in Excerpt 4.10 above,
after HC describes CA’s wordiness as a “how could you say it differently? kind of thing,”
perhaps my appreciation of HC’s paralinguistic delivery cues of humorous comments in
casual conversation made me place more emphasis on her use of body gesture as she
made her remark. Since I believed the remark to be intended as humorous, I may have
interpreted CA’s laughter as (A) and thus supportive of HC’s humor, while Coders A and
B, who, like CA had only this one tutorial in which to formulate an opinion of HC’s
personality, saw CA’s laughter as indicative of nervousness. Indeed, in their coding
session notes, both coders commented that CA seemed nervous. Coder A commented that
“The student laughed nervously throughout. . .The tutor didn’t seem to respond to many
instances of the student’s nervous laughter” Coder B said, “The student seems to laugh
nervously most of the way through and seems very uncomfortable. . .The tutor is not very

smooth and doesn’t seem very comfortable giving criticism.” Indeed, the student did

186

 

 

 

seem nervous: 11 of the 19 initiations we agreed upon were coded as (M') laughter in

which the student reveals her nervousness.

4.4.2. PROBLEMS IN DEFINING CODING CATEGORIES

However, even though my familiarity with the tutor may have affected my
perception in some of the instances of disagreement, not all instances of disagreement
were a result of my coding. Of the 47 cases in which two, but not all three coders agreed,
the dissenting vote was by Coder C in 25 cases, by Coder A in 14 cases, and by Coder B
in 8 cases. The disagreements involved students in 22 cases and tutors in 25 cases, and
there were some patterns in distinguishing which types of initiations tended to be

problematic. In Table 4.3, these patterns are shown.

Table 4.3 Student Initiation Disagreement Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Coders Agree 3rd Coder Coder/ # of disagreements
M‘ A A/S, B/1,C/4 =10

A M‘ N], B/l, C/5 =7

MI MI All, B/l, C/2 =4

A D A/O, B/O, C/l =1

 

 

 

 

 

In student initiations, there were two types of situations that accounted for 17 of
the 22 disagreements. In the more prevalent situation, 10 instances occurred in which two
coders assigned an (M'), and one coder assigned an (A). Coder A dissented in 5 of the 10
cases, Coder C in 4, and Coder B in one. In the other situation, 7 instances occurred in
which two coders assigned an (A), and the third coder assigned an (M'). Coder C

accounted for 5 of these dissentions, and Coders A and B each accounted for one. In

187

 

 

HCCA, there were two instances in which Coder A disagreed with Coder B and me, and
rather than demonstrating a pattern of a particular coder’s perception of a participant,
these examples are more demonstrative of problems in which examples don’t fit neatly
into one category or another.

Excerpt 4.11 below, also from HCCA (F/F), demonstrates one such problem with
initiations that may fit into one or more categories. HC and CA are a little over a minute
into the tutorial, and after HC has asked CA about the essay topic—Sydney, Australia—
HC then gives CA the pink WDC Information sheet to fill out while HC reads the essay.
There is some (Ml) laughter on CA’s part as HC gives her the form to fill out, and then
there is a several minutes’ pause as HC silently reads CA’s paper and makes marks on it.
Excerpt 4.11 (HCCA turns ]3—16)

: right All right, Sydney, Australia. Did you, did they give you . the pink sheet?= =Here
' :no:

: you can fill this out [while] I'm doing this so you don't feel: =left out: =haha=
. [Ok] =ok hunh= =hunh=

: (5 5) Is this a first draft . too?= = Can I write?=

° =yeah: =yeah, go right ahead. (7m 355 reads)
: Scenerenery (smiles) scen ::ery @ @..@ @... [ ahahahah] '

198: Yeah (V. LAUGH) ©it was getting’ late [last night]© [haha]haha

T: (56 3 reads) Oh yeah=(marks on paper)=l thought so..(raises eyebrows and tilts head)
298: =hunha=

T: they had to be there in Aus[tralia]

3 9 S: [yeah]ahaha=

amaze—1.02%

Students usually exhibit either nervousness or boredom by fidgeting or yawning
as tutor’s make silent judgments about the essay, and CA was no exception as she
followed HC’s gaze down the essay. When HC comes to the misspelling of scenery—
“scenerenery”—and says it aloud, CA laughs a bit anxiously at 19. We all coded this as
(M') since CA was relieving her anxiety as well as the tension the silence had produced.

HC responds to the initiation by smiling affiliatively and accepting the invitation to

188

laugh. CA then offers in a smiley voice, “it was getting late last night,” and HC’s
laughter continues.

After another silence of 56 seconds, HC says, “Oh yeah,” and scratches out a
word that she had just written. CA does what we all agreed was an (M') initiation
because HC decides CA’s original text was fine. HC does not share vocally or verbally in
CA’s laughter, but does tilt her head and raise her eyebrow in a playful manner as she
says, “I thought so..they had to be there in Australia.” In later examining the photocopy
of the essay, what HC had written and then crossed out was the word “shark” after the
sentence “Here, visitors can get a true hands-on experience of sea urchins, shore crabs,
and many other living creatures.” When, in the next sentence HC discovers CA mentions
sharks, HC goes back and crosses out “sharks.”

At 3 9, CA does what Coder B and I thought to be an (M') initiation, but Coder A
thought to be an (A) initiation, and in this case a rationale could be made for either
decision. Although CA’s gaze is directed toward the essay on the table, she is reading it
upside down, and viewers of the videotape can’t be sure she can read what HC has
written in cursive and then crossed out. CA’s laugh could be tension relieving for herself
because even though she may not know what HC thought the problem was, HC decided it
wasn’t a problem. On the other hand, CA’s laugh could be seen as (A) and supportive of
HC’s humorous gestures to mitigate her error in thinking CA doesn’t mention sharks, a
widely-known inhabitant of Australian seas.

In coding tutor’s initiations, similar disagreements arose although rather than
problems with differentiating between (M') and (A) laughter, there were more problems

differentiating between (M') and (M2) or between (A) and (M2) laughter. Students rarely

189

 

 

used (M2) laughter since their roles were not to make tutors comfortable. Tutors, on the
other hand, were more concerned with making students feel at ease and both (A) and
(M2) could achieve this purpose. There were differences in our definitions of the purpose
of (A) and (M2) laughter. The first, (A), is laughter that supports prior speaker’s utterance
or action, and the second, (M2), is laughter used to relieve the tension of the other person,

but both types could help in aligning participants.

4.5. CONCLUSION

The data in this study revealed that students initiate the most laughter (72%) and
that their primary purpose in doing so is to relieve tension that arises from face-
threatening situations such as having to reveal a lack of knowledge or discussing a draft
which the classroom instructor had heavily criticized. Tutors, though initiating far fewer
instances of laughter, also used primarily (M') laughter as they also had moments of
anxiety in the course of having to formulate helpful suggestions while delivering critical
comments. Though to a lesser degree, both students and tutors used (A) laughter to show
‘ support for the other person; however, students used (A) laughter four times as often as
tutors. Tutors were the only ones to use laughter that relieved tension for the other
person, (M2), and while they did not use it often, it did constitute 22% of tutor initiations.

This data supports other research in institutional interaction that shows the

participant with the most power initiates less laughter than does the other person.

190

 

 

CHAPTER 5: RESPONSES

In this chapter, the ways in which tutors and students respond to laughter are
examined. Exemplars of these responses are drawn from transcripts of tutorials, and
discussion is triangulated through participants’ post—tutorial interviews as well as through

observations taken from the coders’ notes.

5.1. WHAT COUNTS AS A RESPONSE?

In Chapter 4, the question of “Who initiated the laughter?” was shown to be
complex and dependent on whether “initiation” was defined as “introducing a laughable”
such as when a current speaker uses laughter to cue as a laughable what he or she is
saying, or as “volunteering laughter upon recognition of a laughable” such as when the
hearer laughs before current speaker laughs. As a consequence of how researchers define
initiations, definitions of what counts as responses vary. Jefferson (“Technique”), and
then later West use an operational either/or approach to defining a response to an
I invitation to laugh based on whether or not a bearer accepts or declines the invitation. In
accepting an invitation, according to Jefferson, the hearer laughs, and in declining an
invitation, the hearer does not laugh but rather “talks over the ongoing production of
laughter” by the speaker (qtd. in West 123). Jefferson does allow that not all laughter
invites more laughter, and as discussed in Section 5.2.2 below (Neutral Responses: What
do They Indicate?), there are some situations in which simplistic definitions as to what

constitutes an appropriate response are problematic.

191

 

 

Adelsward in studies of Swedish institutional interactions, Haakana in studies of
doctor-patient interaction, and Glenn (Laughter) in studies of the sequential organization
of laughter in interaction demonstrate that responses to laughter include much more than
the presence or absence of shared laughter, and increasingly, expanded definitions of
responses take into account not only the semantics of initiations, but also the complexity
of communicative tools interlocutors have at their disposal to indicate their reaction.
Incorporating these expanded definitions into the present study, responses to laughter (R
Types) were defined as verbal and non-verbal utterances, or gestures such as smiles or
body movements which occurred immediately after or in close proximity to laughter
initiation, and which indicated that laughter had somehow affected the bearer. We
looked and listened for affiliative response indicators in the hearer such as reciprocal
laughter or laughter particles, partial or full smiles, winking, nodding of the head, verbal
indicators of alignment in the subsequent discourse, shoulder shaking, tilting the head
either forward or backward, or other signs that the laugh somehow resulted in a positive
emotional state and had bridged the distance between participants. We also looked and
listened for disaffiliative response indicators in the bearer such as no laugh in a
conversational slot where laughter would be expected, facial expressions such as sneers
or looks of embarrassment, verbal indicators of misalignment in the subsequent
discourse, body language such as crossing the arms and moving away from the laugher,
or other signs that the laugh somehow had resulted in a negative emotional state and had

created distance between the participants.

192

 

 

5.2. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE TYPES

In Chapter 3, the global data on laughter Response Types (R Types) revealed that
among the nine R Types along the continuum from affiliative to disaffliative responses
derived from the norming sessions, only six types appeared in the final data set, and with
the exception of one instance of a Disaffiliative/No Laugh response, all responses were
either Affiliative or Neutral. No examples were coded as Disaffliative/Verbal,
Disaffliative/Non-Verbal, or Disaffiliative/Delayed laughter.

Also shown in Chapter 3, students initiate 72% of the laughter, and therefore tutor
responses account for 72 % of the total number of responses. As with initiations, only a
few (R) Types account for the majority of responses. Both tutors and students use Neutral
(N) as the most frequent R Type (T=59%, S=44%), and Affiliative/Shared (A/S)—
laughter in response to laughter—as the second most frequent R Type (T=I7%, S=35%).
Interestingly, looked at another way, student (A/S) responses outnumber tutor (A/S)
responses 2:1.

For tutors, responses that do not include laughter, but which indicate alignment
through words or gestures, are the third and fourth most common responses: in third
place, Affiliative/Verbal (A/V) responses account for 11% of all tutor responses, and in
fourth place, Affiliative Non-Verbal (A/NV) responses account for 7% of all tutor
responses. For students, these latter responses are reversed in frequency: (A/NV)
responses are the third most frequent, accounting for 14% of responses, and (AN)
responses are the fourth most frequent, accounting for 7% of the total student responses.

Of the remaining R types—Affliative/Delayed (A/D) and Disaffliative/No Laugh

193

 

 

(D/NL)—only tutors use these types and no more than 1% of the responses are of either
type. This chapter will focus on the major (R) types encountered.

Although (N) responses are the most prevalent, they are also the most
complicated to interpret. Since affiliative (R) Types—(A/S), (A/V), (A/D)and (A/NV)—
are more straightforward, they will be discussed first, and then two types of (N)
responses—those that show alignment and those that show disaffiliation—will be

discussed.

5.2.1. AF F LIA T IVE RESPONSES: RESPONDING POSI T I VELY T 0 LA UGH T ER

In this study, affiliative responses to laughter initiations—responses that bring
participants closer together—were classified as follows: shared laughter (A/S), verbal
indicators of alignment (A/V), or non-verbal alignment gestures (A/NV). Any of these
can occur simultaneously with the initiation, immediately following the initiation, or
delayed somewhat after the initiation (A/D). These ware not mutually exclusive
categories: a responder might laugh, smile, and say something all in one response. When
more than one response indicator occurred simultaneously, we coded each indicator, but
for simplicity in calculating the number of responses, the indicators were assigned value
hierarchically with shared laughter in the primary slot, and then verbal and non-verbal
responses in the secondary and tertiary slots respectively. For example, if a response was
coded as (AIS) as well as (A/NV), in the final calculations, it was counted as (MS)
laughter.

Totals of all affiliative (R) Types for tutors and students show that tutors respond

194

 

 

affiliatively 36% of the time, and students respond affiliatively 56% of the time. While
these numbers reflect relatively the same inherent power relationship between
participants as in other institutional discourse (lay participants support the professional
participants’ laughter more than the reverse), these numbers show less of a difference
between the two. In this data sample, tutors respond affiliatively at a higher rate than in
other institutional situations, and students respond affiliatively at a lower rate than in
other institutional situations.

What then, as compared to other types of institutional interaction, might be
different about writing tutorials that would result in more affiliative responses by tutors
and fewer by students? One possible explanation might be that while as Haakana
(Laughing) observed, doctors tend to desire, maintain, and even increase professional
distance by not initiating or responding to laughter, tutors use laughter to decrease
professional distance, to put students at ease, and to create a more collaborative
atmosphere. Tutorial GJWS demonstrates such interactional dynamics.

Of all tutorials in the data set, GJWS contains by far the highest percentage of
affliative laughter responses: tutor GJ has a 76% affiliative response rate, and WS has a
91% affiliative response rate. Further, GI and WS are the most connected participants in
terms of eye contact, physical proximity, and discourse. Finally, they often construct
shared laughter sequences to negotiate their way through what could be problematic
discourse. The participants are both female, but in a reversal of traditional roles, the
student is older, by 23 years, than the tutor. This situation could present interactional
problems: if an older student needs to ask a younger tutor for advice, or if a younger tutor

needs to be critical of an older student’s work, awkwardness could result from these non-

195

 

 

 

 

traditional perspectives. However, GJ and WS manage these problematic areas using
sequentially constructed shared laughter. Two such possibly awkward moments are
discussed below.

In the following excerpt from the opening of GJWS, WS, a 47-year-old female
student is telling G], a 24-year-old female tutor, about her proposal for an essay on
incarcerated mothers who have small children on the outside. WS is explaining that her
essay would have been more developed, but that the previous night a germane TV
documentary, Prison with Secrets, was broadcast. Not having a fully articulated draft is
embarrassing to WS, and she offers the rationale that she felt it would be better to watch

the show and take notes than it would be to work on the proposal.

Excerpt 5.1 (GJWS turns 9-12)

S and then last night
on tv, and I wanted to ask um, our teacher this, we have a lazst paper,= =it has

T: =um-hm:

S: to be um, she’s having us turn in a proposal on what we’d like to do for our last paper
and I wanted to go into the Internet and find information on this: =topic, but last

T: =um-hm:

S: night on tv there was a movie called um.. prison with secrets: [excellent movie]

T: =hmm [no, I never heard]
of it. RE::ALLY?=

I9S: =excellent, and I’m going, (91 started working on this last ni@ @ght
and I thought no, I can’t [do this,] I have to sit down and take [notes on this]

2-)T: [V.LAUGH] [V.LAUGH]

S: movie, so I’m gonna see if she’ll let me do a paper©.= =on like a movie review

T: =YEAH=

T: that could be interesting: =YEAH especially too, you could

S: =yeah, it was a good movie:

T: probably compare like, maybe how realistic. the movie was compared to [what the U]

S: [you know, it
reazlly, it really was,= =

T: =um:

196

 

 

As student WS narrates the events of the previous night, GJ is an attentive listener
who frequently uses backchannels, maintains eye contact, and leans toward WS thereby
achieving a closer personal space.. At 19, WS invites laughter by using a smiley voice
and M1 laughter within her turn: ©“I started working on this last ni@ @ght.”© GJ
mirrors WS’s smile, nods affu'matively, and at 29, responds twice with shared laughter
signifying alignment with WS’s dilemma. GJ further demonstrates her alignment with a
backchannel of “YEAH.” WS’s admission that she not only was beginning the
assignment the night before her WDC appointment, but that she opted to watch a tv show
instead risks admonishment in some form from GJ ; however, GJ is accepting and
understanding of WS’s choice and uses laughter to communicate these feelings. As noted
in Chapter 1, for the recipient of troubles-telling to accept the speaker’s invitation to
laugh can be counterproductive, but in this case, G] ’5 response in interpreted by GW as
affiliative, and encourages WS to elaborate on her idea for a paper.

GJWS continues with WS including several narratives about her visits to
women’s prisons and her professor’s PhD work on incarcerated mothers, and GJ offers
advice about how to organize the experiences to expand WS’s early proposal draft. About
five minutes before GJWS concludes, a situation arises which could result in
misalignment: WS questions GJ’s advice. The situation involves potential awkwardness
on both GJ ’s and WS’s part: student WS must reject the advice of the tutor, and tutor GJ
must defer to WS’s invocation of a higher source of authority, a many-times published

department head for whom she had previously worked:

197

 

 

Excerpt 5.2 (GJWS turns 112-118)

T: YEAH, so far I think you
have a good start on it: =U:m just to caution you to make
=ok good. good good good:
sure you just indent that there .=
=Now, is that, is that . are you sure?.about that?=
=well
if she wants an essay form everything [should be] [Indented five
S: [It’s essay essay] form? is it [the first one?]
T: spaces [yup]
198: [ok] because I don’t think I I really don’t think I did my other papers, I think I
did them all THAT way: But you know what?= =um, my my department
2-)T: =Oh realLY?= =Hm=
398: head, I worked in teacher ED and um, I know HE does his stuff and then he
has me format it for him: =and fix it, [and THAT’S where I GOT it.]= =And so
T: =um- -hm= [and that’s how it is?] =hm=
S: I would I started indenting them, you know: =you know and I thought well
T: =yeah:
498: maybe, he does it every time, maybe he’s correct. ©He’ s got his PhD, I don t©=
5-)T. =[uh haha] =yeah=[Well
69S: [hahaha] so maybe he does know a little bit more tha@ @ I do=. =[I, I,I’ll
T: [sometimes to like . yeah,] ask her because I know like in business letters and things,
S: [ask her. That’s a good point]
T: you don’t indent, um: =because it’s just the different format for doing like
S: =oh, ok=
T: business letters or business proposals or something. - =Um, they don’t indent and
S: =um- -hm=
T. they’ 11 double space in between, so there’s a extra space [in] between to signify a new
S: [oh]
T: paragraph.= =So, maybeUust check with her,] yeah, [usually in business letters],
798: =yeah: [in business letters?]. [and that’s because they’ re]
' T: =proposals and things like that. [Right] But they’ re they’ re never
S: single spaced?= [Right]
T: indented, I know - =But, um I don’t know and maybe if your professor says well, it
S: =oh=
89T: doesn’t matter it [doesn’ tmatter either] [uh- hahaha] :50:
99S: [©OH it matters to her©] [yes it] matters to he@ @r.= =Ok so
you think I’m off to an ok start?= [Ok great. ]That’s what I needed to know.
T: =yeah [I think so]

This segment demonstrates the cooperative and cordial nature with which both OJ

and WS construct their interaction and shows both participants are sensitive to the face

198

 

 

needs of the other. GJ initiates the topic of indenting, and twice mitigates her concern
with the downgrader “just”: U:m just to caution you to make sure you just indent that
there” (italics added for emphasis). At 19, student WS carefully mitigates syntactically
and lexically her challenge to GJ ’5 advice to indent: “Now, is that, is that . are you
sure?.about that?... because I don’t think I I really don’t think I did my other papers, I
think I did them all THAT way.” GJ expresses surprise, (29 “oh realLY?”) and uses
rising intonation to signal a genuine question rather than a disagreement disguised as a
question. GJ listens, maintains eye contact, and nods in understanding as WS explains.
Again avoiding a direct challenge to G] ’s authority, WS brings in the authority of her
former boss (3 9) and explains he is the reason she has this idea: “and THAT’S where I
GOT it.” Then at 49, in a smiley voice that signals a play frame and invites laughter, WS
further relates that “©He’s got his PhD, I don’t©.” GJ accepts the invitation to laugh at
5 9, and WS responds at 69 with shared, affiliative laughter that signals both
participants are in alignment.

The discussion continues with GJ explaining that indeed business letters use a
format of not indenting, and at 79, the interaction digresses from the “one speaker at a
time” rule as WS tries to interrupt GJ twice, but GJ retains the floor. At 89, GJ offers a
way to end the debate about which format to follow by suggesting WS ask her teacher if
it matters one way or the other. Overlapping GJ’S statement at 99, WS says in a smiley
voice, “OH it matters to her” once again inviting GJ to laugh. GJ accepts, alignment is
restored, and a topic boundary created so that the interaction can move on.

WS’s last invitation to laugh (©“OH it matters to her”©), GJ’s acceptance of the

invitation, and WS’s subsequent (AIS) response show the sequential, cooperative effort

199

 

 

that is required for participants to arrive at shared laughter. In and of itself, the comment
“OH, it matters to her,” is not funny: what matters to a professor is serious business since
the professor has the power to issue a grade. However, through communicative devices
such as intonation and prosody, interlocutors are able to shift the frame of comments and
take them from a serious frame to a playful or ironic frame, and invite others to do the
same. In responding through shared laughter, participants are able to smooth over
difficulties.

Shared laughter has other functions as well, as Excerpt 5.3 shows. In the
following exchange from CRAM, 34-year-old male tutor CR and 22-year-old male
student AM have been exchanging laughter throughout a relatively long diagnostic phase
(6 min 44 sec). As Adelsward notes, laughter often occurs during the transitions between
phases, and she describes, “laughter has a discourse-structural function, and establishes
joint meanings such as ‘let’s take a break’ and ‘we are now starting to round off an old
topic’” (Adelsward and Oberg 427). AS CR and AM move from the diagnosis phase to
the directive phase, much affiliative laughter takes place. The tutorial thus far had
focused on AM’s concern about the organization of his paper, and AM has been
discussing his professor’s use of “the outline technique” for composing.

Excerpt 5.3 (CRAM turns 39-53)

T: :1 ask that because outlines work really well for some people and not at all for other
people. Different people set up papers or ideas: =in their mind in different

S: =um-hum:

l9T: ways: = so if that’s a technique that works well for you..GREAT= [terriffic]

S: =yeah: =oh yeah [yes] I

like it I mean you know I can I can keep things organized group you know like as far as
29in groups in this one go there an (unclear) won’t go where two’s are or thi@ @ngs like

that: = I know what you’re saying though:
39T:=um-hum= =um-hum..Uh, where are you from?=
S: =From Detroit Michigan: =oh, 1 been

200

 

T' =Ok, you got a cool accent, an interesting accent:

S: all over (uh ha[hah])= =yeah..down south all over:

49T: [have] you really?= (starts to reach for essay) =I’m I’m happen to be
from Austin Texas: =and I [I use] to have a:

S: =Austin Texas: [aw, I] :1 know you hate the weather

S: here now:

T: =(e[hahahaha]) It’s taken a long it’s taken some getting used to, I do like that sun:

598: [uh he he he he huh] [uh:::::h ha ha]

=yeah: =January, I know you hate it:

T: =but a =aww man, it gets so grey up here:

S: =yeah
uh=huh=

69T: =<oh god>..so I’ve lost my accent but I [do I do miss] Texas and the South .Ok

S: [uh hahaha]

T: so is this a final draft to be turned in? =are you gonna revise this

S: umzm actually um:m..

T: more?=

S: =that’s yeah, uh I want to revise it I’m trying to, you know=.. [Iwrote]

T: =ok [you’re]

798: that paper for you to see.(uh ha ha ha )= =yeah I had an

T: = I feel privileged..huh~l’ ~10:

S: appointment so and then I mean then then I can turn it in to her:

T: =Well, let’s look at it
together. . ..

CR tries to close the topic at I9, with a summative “so if that’s a technique that
works well for you..GREAT.” AM backchannels with “oh yeah,” and CR does not begin
a new topic, but rather utters another tum-completion unit: “terrific.” However, AM is
not quite ready to close the topic, and overlaps CR’s “terrific” with “yes I like it... At
29, laughter embedded in “thi@ @ngs” was coded by all three coders as M1 laughter,
and while this could be interpreted as laughter which relieves AM’s struggle to articulate
the usefulness of outlines to him, a more likely explanation based on subsequent
discourse (“I know what you’re saying though”). At 3 9, CR does not respond with
affiliative laughter, but rather gives a neutral response in the form of an “um-hm”

backchannel. After AM’s final turn, CR changes the topic.

201

 

Between 3 9 and 49, CR engages AM in some transitional small talk about
where AM is from, and at 49, CR begins to reach for the essay which is on the table, but
stops this physical gesture of initiating shutting down the topic when AM says,
“yeah..down south all over.” CR realizes he shares in common with AM the south and
begins a small narrative about his own origins in Texas. At 5 9, AM joins CR in robust
shared laughter, and they are able in Coser’s words, to “come close” for a few exchanges.

At 69, CR begins to summarize and close the topic by beginning his turn with
“so.” He shows that it has been some time since he left the south (“so I’ve lost my
accent”), and AM shows alignment with an (A) initiation. However, rather than closing
the topic by responding with shared laughter, CR closes the topic with a final comment
that he does miss the south—a comment that shows he values the part of the country that
AM has visited.

At 79, AM provides a candidate for a laughable, “I wrote that paper for you to
see.(uh ha ha ha), and CR reacts with a complex verbal, prosodic, and delayed affiliative
response: “I feel privileged..huh~ll~lr.” Both participants then transition from the
diagnostic to the directive phase of the tutorial. By careful co-construction of laughter

sequences, participants are able to smoothly move from one topic to another.

5.2.2. NEUTRAL RESPONSES: WHAT DO THEY INDICATE?

Rather than a great number of any one distinct response indicator, or combination

of response indicators whether linguistic or paralinguistic, by far the most common

participant behavior observed in this data in response to laughter was 3 Neutral (N)

202

 

 

 

response or actually a lack of any response indicator. On the surface, this frequent lack of
response may seem to indicate that participants at times interact through parallel rather
than connected discourse with the bearer seemingly oblivious to the laugher’s
communication whereas both Affiliative (A) and Disaffiliative (D) R Types indicate
connectedness: through (A), hearers indicate by joining in the laughter that they share the
laugher’s philosophical or emotional state of mind, and through (D), hearers show that
offense has been taken as a result of the laughter. However, with an (N) response, the
hearer’s state of mind is not clearly communicated, and the speaker/laugher doesn’t know
whether or not the laughter was heard, whether or not the responder is offended by the
laugh but is too polite to indicate such an emotion, or whether or not the responder
wishes to share the laugh, but feels to do so would be inappropriate in an institutional
setting. Indeed, many scenarios are possible in which the hearer does not react; however,
while the bearer may not respond with affiliative laughter, some of these (N) responses
are made for affiliative reasons, and while the bearer does not respond with disaffiliative
laughter, some (N) responses can be made for or result in disaffiliation.

That the majority (59%) of tutor responses are (N) is not surprising in light of
other studies of institutional discourse which show that the professional participant is less
likely to respond to the lay person’s laughter while the layperson frequently responds
affiliatively to both the professional’s laughter invitations as well as to physician’s
volunteered laughter. West, in her study of laughter in medical encounters, finds that
“The ‘success rate’ for doctor’s invitations. . .is better than that of patients’: Physicians’
invitations were accepted in two of the nine instances in which they were initiated,

whereas patient’s invitations to laugh ‘succeeded’ on only four of the 66 total occasions

203

 

 

they were issued” (127). However, how the figure of 59% in my data compares to other
types of institutional discourse is debatable. On the one hand, an (N) response rate of
59% for tutors in writing tutorials can seem low when compared to other types of
discourse in institutional settings. For example, when compared to doctor-patient
interaction in which the doctor is allowed close physical proximity to patients, tutors
maintain a wider personal space between themselves and students and therefore may not
be as perceptive to laughter invitations. A doctor, while examining a patient, would be
attentive to a patient’s visual or auditory cues or body language that might indicate
laughter since the focus of the visit is on the patient’s physical and often emotional well-
being. Granted doctors do not always maintain eye contact with patients while doing such
routine professional activities as examining ears, listening to heartbeats, or recording
notes, but for the most part, the doctor’s focus is on the patient and not on an object
between them. However, tutoring by nature requires tutors to frequently and for long
stretches of time direct their gaze downward to a text which they must comprehend, and
this focus-on-object lessens their attentiveness to laughter cues from students, and would
seem to create situations in which tutors are less apt to give either affiliative or
disaffiliative responses.

On the other hand, the number of (N) responses by tutors may seem on the surface
high since in writing center theory, due to the collaborative nature of the discourse, the
power differential between the tutor and student should be less than between a doctor and
patient. That sharing of power is central to writing center theory and praxis is evident in
the Call for Papers from the 23rd National Conference on Peer Tutoring: Negotiating

Authority in the Writing Center (2006):

204

As trainees in the writing center, peer tutors are initiated into a specialized

 

practice designed to identify and, in some cases, resist exercises of power
and authority in the academy. Many have been selected to become tutors
because of excellent writing skills, and have long played the role of editor
and expert in their classrooms and with their friends. But in the course of
training, these same students are advised to subordinate such skills to the
authority of the writer and learn to think of themselves as collaborator,
facilitator, guide, or to balance “minimalist” with more “directive”

techniques. (“Call for Papers”)

 

However, overall in this study, tutors give responses other than (N) in 41% of the
cases: tutors are responsive to student laughter only 9% less than half the time. Clearly,
tutorials show somewhat more of a collaborative effort on the part of the tutor in the
sequential structuring of laughter than do the higher status participants in other types of
institutional discourse.

Similar to the ways in which tutor responses differ from professionals’ responses
in other institutional interactions, student (N) responses also differ slightly from what the

literature shows about lay persons supporting the laughter of professionals: student (N)

 

responses outnumber affiliative responses. While student (N) responses do account for a
lesser percentage (44%) of their total responses than do tutor (N) responses (59%),
students and tutors differ only by 15%. In line with other research on laughter in
institutional discourse, the participants with lesser power—students—initiate the most
laughter (72%), but when they respond to the initiations of tutors, they are not as

supportive of tutors’ laughter as might be expected. Of the total 194 laughter responses in

205

the data set, students made 54, and while this small number precludes making any

 

substantial generalizations about student responses, some patterns did emerge.

In this data set, (N) responses tend to occur following some Initiation types more
than others. Table 5.1 shows how tutors’ (N) responses, in the shaded columns, occur in
relation to the three most frequent student Initiation Types: (A), (M'), and (U). Table 5.2
shows how students’ (N) responses, in the shaded columns, occur in relation to the three
most frequent tutors Initiation Types: (A), (M1), and (M2). Following a general discussion

of Tables 5.1 and 5.2, exemplars of flavors of (N) responses will be presented.

Table 5.1: Distribution of Tutor (N) Responses in Relation to Number of Student (S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Type
Tutorial Total Tutor w s=(1) Type A S=(I) Type M‘ S=(I) Type U
(N) T:(R) Type N T:(R) Type N T:(R) Type N
Raspmses/ # S/A # rm #3 /MT # TIN # S/U #T/N
Total (R) ‘
FSEL 21 I 29 20 16 8 5 0 0
FSKP .15 /23 11 6 12 9 0 0
CRAM 13 I 18 : 6 4 12 "9 0 - 0
HCCA 10 122' 6 1 16 97 0 0
ALCK 8 [-16 3 1 12 ,_ 6 1 *l
GJWB ' 5 I 6 * 2 2 4 ~ 3 0 p
CRCC I 4'/ 7“. 1 1 6 13 0 0 .
GJWS ‘ 3 1.133 2 0 4 3, 0 0
ALMS ‘1 :41-3. 0 0 1 .1 ' 0 , 0+2
HCPR #41 I ‘1 ' 0 0 1 1 0 .0 ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Table 5.1, with the exception of FSEL, which will be discussed in more detail

later in this chapter, the data show that of tutors’ (N) responses, most occur after student
Ml laughter—laughter that either mitigates the students’ own tension, or cues hearers as
to students’ frame of mind. While Ml initiations may be used to signal negative feelings

such as embarrassment or those that underlie troubles-telling, Ml initiations may also be

206

used to signal positive feelings such as mirth or cue the heater that a laughable is being
introduced, is in progress, or has just been completed—the laughter invites more laughter.
In the case of troubles-telling, an (N) response would be acceptable, but in the case of an
invitation to laugh, an (N) response could be problematic feedback for the speaker.

As is shown in Table 5.1, FS is the tutor in two tutorials: FSEL (WP) and FSKP
(M/M). Students EL and KP initiate the highest numbers of (A) laughter, 20 and 11
initiations respectively. Female student EL’s (A) initiations are met by FS’s (N) response
75% of the time while male student KP’S (A) initiations are met with FS’s (N) laughter
about 50% of the time. FS’s tutoring style includes frequent attempts at humor, and both
EL and KP support FS’s humor. However, EL, according to Coder A, laughs a lot, but
“never seems like she finds anything truly funny” and “her laughter is frequently very
short,” and perhaps this is why FS does not share or extend EL’s laughter as much as he
does KP’s. In FSKP, conversely, according to Coder A, “T and S are sort of teasing each
other. They seem to grow a lot more comfortable as time goes on, and the amount of
laughter seems to reflect this.” FS shares more of KP’s laughter than in FSEL. (Tutorials
involving FS will be elaborated upon later in this chapter.)

For the remainder of the tutorials in Table 5.1, the results are fairly consistent and
show that students initiate more (Ml) laughter than they do (A), and that tutors give (N)
responses more often in relation to (M1) initiations than they do to (A) initiations.
Further, the proportions, though not the numbers of (N) responses in relation to (A) and
(M') initiations are fairly consistent from tutorial to tutorial.

Table 5.2 shows student (N) responses in relation to tutor (1) Types, and perhaps

most visually stunning in the table is the numbers of zeros—the result of the high

207

 

 

 

percentage of student initiations and therefore the low numbers of student responses. Of
the total 54 student responses in the data set, 24 are (N), with the following distribution:
there are a total of 14 tutor (A) initiations with a total of 6 student (N) responses, and a
total of 15 tutor (Ml) responses with a total of 9 student (N) responses, and most of this
data comes from 5 tutorials. The remaining 9 responses are spread throughout M2, Dl , D2,

U, and (1) Types in which coders could not agree.

Table 5.2 Distribution of Student (N) Responses in Relation to Number of Tutor (T)
(1) Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tutorial 1' Total 5‘31 T: (I) TypeA T: (1) Type MI T: (1) Type M2 ‘
Student (N) s: (R)T eN s: (R) TypeN S=(R)T eN '
I Responses/F1 # T/A '# SIN #TIM‘ 113 SN" 1, # TIM2 HES/N
11‘1f'1‘0'tal'tnga ' f - if?"

HCPR* 11,12 I13 0 ‘ ’ 0 6 .3175“ . 0 ~70 ;

ALCK 1511-3105;.r 4 ‘3 1 1 ~ 5 .2. .

HCCA Elsa 2 '2 0 .~ 10 0 r. ,0 .11

FSKP If -s-2:.J'-11;;:.:: 2 0 _ 7 1'" pg 0 1 .0 x

GJWB 1.1..'*-‘1—‘I,:1’-1E-“ 0 ' o - 1 31 0 ' 0 1'

GJWS If 117,111": 31 6 1 l 0 - 19? *1 0 ‘0 1,

CRAM t. (20.2/12,; 0 0 0 0: 0 * 0

ALMS 1; «Di/II 0 o ‘ 0 ,0 0 '0 ‘

FSEL 1 oat-€1.31.) 0 ' 0 0 0 0 .10..

CRCC 11i-‘0;I;-f‘_ 7'11 0 .10 0 , 0 0 ‘ A; 0 _

*HCPR also included the following (1) Types and N responses: 1 T/Dl with 1 S/N;

 

1 T/ D2 with 1 SIN; 2 TM with 2 SIN, and 3 cases in which two coders did not agree on
the (1) Type with 3 S/N.

5.2.2.1 Neutral Responses that Show Alignment
When a speaker invites laughter, the desired response is usually for the bearer to
join in and share the laughter. However, there are circumstances in which reciprocal

laughter is not desired, and to laugh would even be cause for misalignment. For example,

208

 

if a student makes a self-deprecating comment and initiates laughter, for the tutor to
laugh could imply that s/he agrees with the student’s negative self-assessment. In this
case, for the tutor to not respond is more affiliative than sharing the laughter. Jefferson
notes that in “troubles-telling,” a “recurrent phenomenon was found: A troubles-teller
produces an utterance and then laughs, and the troubles-recipient does not laugh, but
produces a recognizably serious response” (“Organization” 346), and that this “seems to
run directly counter to a procedure whereby a recipient displays affiliation with a prior
speaker” (348). Jefferson argues that by laughing, the troubles-teller is showing that
things are not so bad:
He is exhibiting that, although there is this trouble, it is not getting the
better of him; he is managing; he is in good spirits and in a position to
take the trouble lightly. He is exhibiting what we might call troubles-
resistance. But this does not mean that. . .a recipient is invited to join in
the merriment, to also find the thing laughable, to affiliate with a prior
speaker’s exhibited position on it. III troubles-talk, it appears to be a
recipient’s job to be taking the trouble seriously; to exhibit what we might
call ‘troubles-receptiveness.’ (351)

Like other institutional interactions such as doctor—patient or social worker-client
interviews, students who come to the WDC often discuss embarrassing topics such as
their lack of writing skills, poor study habits, or lack of general knowledge about the
assignment topic that brought them to the WDC. Whereas in casual conversation between
friends, the troubles-recipient has discourse strategies for responding such as cajoling or

light-hearted teasing to commiserate with the troubles-teller, in institutional encounters

209

 

 

 

these options are limited and risky: the bearer doesn’t know the speaker well enough to
predict what effect shared laughter might have. The responder, should he or she laugh,
risks seeming to not take the troubles seriously or seeming not to care.

In this study, students often engage in troubles-telling, as illustrated in Excerpt 5.4
below in which a female tutor is working with a male student. Female tutor G], a
graduate student, has been working with male student WB, a freshman, on an essay about
censorship in which WB has had to argue for the opposite of what he argued for in an

earlier paper. The excerpt occurs about one minute from the end of the tutorial:

Excerpt 5.4 (GJWB turns 44-46)

S: ..Well, see I actually I had . I had
to write a paper FIRST on: =my like original belief you know?= =When

T: =um- -hm= =um- -hm=

S: actually I just took the same structure as the first paper and I just. like rearranged
every sentence. you know I got a D on that first paper: =and I, I just

T: =um-hm:

S: rearranged everything and um changed it to the opposite view: =you know sort of

T: =ok=

S: So, um.. but um. you know I my reasons for my OTHER point of view was to um, um
I thought that there there SHOULD be you know LIMITED censorship on
things like: =you know EVERYTHING can’t GO you know or uh, ah I don’t

T: =um-hm:

' l9S: know, it was huhhuh" it was just um. Idon’ tknow (huhhuhhuh) [It’s]

T: [Well] sometimes

S. THIS paper was just I I didn’t really even" uh, do a a nice job at all. on it:

T: =Well, I
DON’T KNOW, [I.. I ]think that you have a lot of good IDEAS 1n here.- — =1

2-)s: [huhuhhuhhuh] =yeah there is:

T: REALLY do. um, I don t thInk it’s something you know to just say oh: = this is

S: =yeah:

T. horrible: = ’cause I think you DO, you have a lot of good ideas In here

3-)s: =huhhuh=

T: urn= =and, I me, I mean, this is really probably a VERY difficult assignment to

S: =um-hm:

T: write:

210

 

 

In Excerpt 5.4 above, WB admits that he has not worked very hard on this draft.
This admission is doubly embarrassing for WB to bring up in front of a writing tutor, an
authority on writing: not only did he receive a “D” on his first paper, but he also based a
second paper on the flawed structure of the prior one. When he tries to explain his
rationale for limited censorship, he gets confused and laughs at 19: “you know
EVERYTHING can’t GO you know or uh, ah I don’t know, it was (huhhuh)..it was just
um . I don’t know (huhhuhhuh).” Both these Ml initiations occur while WB has the floor,
and according to Glenn, “Laugh invitations tend to occur either following a turn at talk
(“post-utterance completion”) or while the turn is still in progress (“within-speech”)”
(Laughter 54). WB’s laughter shows up both in the middle and at the end of his utterance.
Hearers can either accept or decline invitations to laugh, and in the case of “troubles
telling,” the recipient should not laugh. GJ does not join in or share WB’s laughter, and
thus an (N) response occurs.

At 29 and 3 9, WE again initiates Ml laughter, but this time the initiations are at
points of possible turn completions for GJ. GJ says, “Well, I DON’T KNOW” with
louder than usual volume, and though she does succeed in taking the floor to offer
complimentary comments, WB interjects more laughter thereby cueing GJ as to his
continued tension. GJ continues to offer encouragement (“I don’t think it’s something
you know to just say oh, this is horrible”) and WB again laughs perhaps relieved to hear
that his paper does have some redeeming qualities. Again, in both cases GJ does an (N)
response and reaffirms her positive opinion of WB’S ideas: “I think that you have a lot of
good IDEAS in here” and “’cause I think you DO, you have a lot of good ideas in here.”

In the next example, a 34-year-old male tutor, CR, is working with a 22-year-old

211

 

male student, AM, on a letter to the editor assignment. Excerpt 5.5 occurs early in the

diagnosis phase.

Excerpt 5.5 (CRAM turns 28-35)

T: =sure= =(8 3) ok (13 s) “powerful phrasing” all right . so we’ll consider the
organization and consider the connections betwezzen . your . the reason your various
reasons in that thesis statement and justification of your opinion (5 3) ok so yozu
actually wrote the paper in class.= =ok it says “you will

S: =Um::m, no no no no:

T: write this paper in class and we will discuss revision ideas. Then you will have the
chance to revise it outside of class” Is that, that’s not exactly how it happened?=

S: =no it’s
not exa@ @ctly how it happened . [the] problem was um.. she got me some outline

‘-)T: [ok]

S: to write in class so we did the outline.=

T: =Ok, was that helpful by the way?= =Does

S: =yeah:

T: that does that [help] you?=

S: [yeah] :1 love outlines I mean I, I at first when I’m when I first

came into her class I was having problems because I had forgot about the outline

techniques that: :1 was taught .and um and she put it right up on the board and I

T: =um-hum:

S: remembered so I hadn’t really been havin problems you know organizing not THAT

bad [V.LAUGH] you know what I’m sayin= =like I did before by using the

29 T: [um-hum] =um-hum: .

S: outline technique:

T: :1 ask that because outlines work really well for some people and not
at all for other people.

At both 19 and 29, tutor CR does not share in AM’s self-mitigating laughter.
AM is somewhat embarrassed that he had forgotten how to use an outline, and his
laughter, rather than serving as an invitation to laugh, serves to let CR know that AM
realizes outlines are important and that for him to forget to use one is a failure. Self-

mitigating laughter during “troubles telling,” according to Jefferson as quoted earlier in

this study, allows that speaker to show that “He is exhibiting that, although there is this

212

 

 

trouble, it is not getting the better of him; he is managing; he is in good spirits and in a
position to take the trouble lightly. He is exhibiting what we might call ‘troubles
resistance’” (351). By showing his “troubles resistance,” through (M') laughter, AM is

also helping to restore his positive face.

5.2.2.2. Neutral Responses that Are Disaffiliative

In contrast to (N) responses that result in closer alignment, (N) responses can also
foster misalignment. In Chapter 4, Excerpt 4.6 from tutorial ALCK (M/F) was included
to demonstrate an interactional sequence the end result of which is tutor AL’s M2
laughter—laughter designed to ease tension for the other person, and in this case,
laughter which is aimed at face-restoration for CK. This sequence also demonstrates how
a hearer’s unresponsiveness can lead to further tension in the speaker and can result in

misalignment. Excerpt 4.6 is reprinted here and relabeled here as Excerpt 5.6.

Excerpt 5.6 (ALCK turns Tm:

S: I’ve never done a paper like that..sophomore in college. When I was in high school, I
was always in AP English, college essay research, so like I got As and Bs and now I’m
like first English class I’m gettin’ C minuses, I was like (tilts head, smiles, and uses

19sarcastic tone) “O:OOOH, a lot that,= =uh, high school helped me.”=

T: (unwrapping gum and putting in mouth) =uh-huh: =golly

S. (4 5) That’ s what we’ re s ’posed to do: =And this is what I came up with . just

T: =okay=

29S: TEAR it apart (palms pounding on table) so I can at least get a B on this PLEASE:

T: =All

right (2 S) You just need to fill out here like down here for now and (unclear) just the
first page.- .—

S: =Is today the 11th? Or what 18 today? The 1301?:

T: =That’ s what I’m thinkin’ (asks
another instructor) Is this the 13th? (hears reply In background.) Yeah. (7 s)

S: (reading information sheet aloud as she fills it out) I came to the Writing
Development Center because .=

213

 

 

 

39T: =to be harrassed by my teachers:

S: :1 came to the Writing
Development Center because my teacher suggested I come. (5s) She REQUIRED me to
she said. (Sarcastic tone, looks at T and smiles) “It might be a good idea”:

4-) T: =huh@@@@

(smiles but does not look up and continues to read)

S: (4 s) I know it’s shit. You can just laugh. I, I tried on this, I don’t, I’ve never [really]

5 9T: [ I was]
JUST reading this (shakes head, shrug): =(smiles and V. LAUGH)

S: =Oh=

At 19, student CK extends an invitation to laugh, but tutor AL declines to accept.
CK’s comments about high school are troubles telling, but she signals through voice
contours of a sarcastic tone, a smile, and a tilting of her head that she wants AL to join
her in laughter. He does not join in, but rather unwraps a stick of gum, and says, “uh-
huh.” He indicates through this backchannel that he has heard her, but she is not satisified
that he has heard in the way she wants to be heard. CK then at 29 adds the gesture of
pounding on the table to get AL to laugh, but again, he does not join in but instead tends
to the business of paperwork.

At this point, CK resigns herself to filling out paperwork for a few seconds, but
soon initiates more talk. At 3 9, AL interjects an attempt at humor, “to be harrassed by
my teachers,” but CK does not pick up on it. CK tries a sarcastic tone and a smile again
while quoting her instructor, “It might be a good idea,” and this time, at 49, AL does
laugh. However, based on his earlier Neutral responses that did not foster alignment but
which actually fostered misalignment, CK does not know how to interpret AL’s laughter.
At 5 9, AL then must do restorative facework (“I was JUST reading this”) and add (M2)

laughter to realign the interaction.

In troubles telling, self-defeating humor by a student can put the tutor in an

214

awkward position, particularly early in a writing tutorial: the tutor has not yet read the
student’s essay, and is not in a position to honestly disagree with negative self-
assessment. In the case of ALCK, coders noted in their observation logs that “This
student makes a lot of self-deprecating jokes, which the tutor largely seems to ignore,”
and “He usually did not respond to 8’5 humor.” The literature on humor and laughter
shows that the professional usually does not support the layperson’s humor, and instead
maintains a distance to preserve professional status. This may account for AL’s lack of
response to CK’s attempts at humor, but in the remainder of this tutorial, CK makes four
attempts at affiliation through laughter, and three (75%) of them result in an affiliative
response from AL. A more likely explanation for AL’s failure to join in CK’s self-
defeating humor and laughter is that rather than wishing to maintain his professional
distance, he was unsure of how to respond: to join in the laughter might have suggested
he agreed with her negative self-assessment. Although his intent may have been to foster
alignment by not laughing, the result was actually misalignment. AL mentions CK’s
repeated self-defeating humor. In the post-tutorial interview, when asked what was
memorable about this tutorial, AL said CK commented, “ ‘I’m a terrible writer’ ‘I’m a
really bad writer’ She kept saying that over and over. I usually don’t get that when I do a

tutoring session. . .usually it’s not that blatantly negative.”

5.3 CONCLUSION

While much of the data in this study support the findings of other investigations

into laughter responses in institutional discourse, two important differences emerge. First,

215

 

while students do, as other research shows, support the laughter of the professional more
often than the reverse, tutors in this data respond affiliatively at a higher rate than do
professionals in other institutional contexts. Second, students in this data use a higher
frequency of neutral responses than do laypersons in other institutional contexts. These
two findings suggest perhaps that tutors in this study foster alignment more than other
professionals, but that students are not necessarily made more comfortable in situations
involving less than traditional power dichotomies. Further discussion of the effects of
interactional dynamics that take place in writing centers will be discussed in the

following chapter.

216

 

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

In this chapter, I bring together the quantitative and qualitative results from
Chapters 3-5, and return to the research questions posed in Chapter 2. I discuss the role of
facework as it operates in the interplay among the nature of tutorials, types of laughter,
discourse features indicative of authority, and individual participant characteristics which
affect the amount and type of laughter used by participants in this study. First, the nature
of negotiation for power and its association with laughter in writing tutorials is discussed.
Second, the laughter in this study is compared quantitatively to laughter in other
institutional contexts to see if perhaps writing tutorial interaction elicits more or less
laughter than other institutional interactions. Third, I discuss what role laughter initiations
play and what these laughter initiations can indicate about the dynamics of tutorial
interaction. Fourth, I discuss what responses to laughter can indicate about the dynamics
of tutorial interaction. Fifth, I discuss what this study reveals about the influence of
gender, and conclude with a discussion about humor and humor styles and how they

operate in mutual facework.

6.1. THE NATURE OF POWER NEGOTIATION

IN WRITING TUTORIALS

Two questions asked at the beginning of this study—“How do participants use
laughter in writing tutorials?” and “What are the relationships between claims to power
and initiations of laughter?”—first necessitate describing the nature of writing tutorials

and inherent factors which might affect the use of participant laughter. As noted in

217

 

Chapter 1, writing tutorials are institutional encounters as defined by Drew and Heritage:
they involve a professional and lay person, operate within a frame of expectations as to
how the speech event is to proceed, and are oriented to some core institutional goal or
task (22). Indeed, writing centers are institutions-within-institutions, and are framed not
only by school, college or university generic roles of teacher and student and the
accompanying inherent imbalance of power, but also by more specific philosophies of the
ways in which tutors can help students to become better writers. Like other institutional
frameworks in which the interactional characteristics and functions of laughter have been
studied—doctor/patient appointments, group therapy sessions, and job interviews—
writing tutorials involve interaction between persons of unequal power, and the data in
this study tend to support the unequal power differentials and patterns of laughter found
in other institutional discourse. Unlike casual, everyday speech events between friends or
acquaintances of relatively equal status in which laughter is associated with having fun or
occurring in humorous contexts such as telling jokes or teasing, laughter in formal,
structured institutional events, while it can indicate alignment, is often associated with
tension, embarrassment, and even ridicule though this last function rarely occurs. Much
facework—both preventative and restorative—is required of students and tutors as they
attempt to maintain the positive face of themselves and the other. Potential face—
threatening acts (FTAS) occur with great frequency as tutors critique students’ essays and
students perhaps question tutors’ authority. Laughter is a preventative and restorative
facework strategy used by participants to save positive face, mitigate negative face, and
lessen the impact of FTAS. The function of laughter in institutional discourse is indeed

multi-facteted, and as Adelsward notes, “[Llaughter accomplishes complex interactional

218

 

 

 

goals. . .it occurs non-randomly, is socially constructed and has a number of cognitive and
emotive functions. . .it has a modifying function and it cues the interlocutors as to how to
interpret an utterance. . .It is used as a strategy to create and sustain status and to handle
face threats” (Humor 412).

Differences in relative power between participants in typical institutional
encounters are the result of such factors as the professional having more education,
specialized credentials, an authoritative position granted by the institution, and the power
to make decisions or grant permissions which affect the layperson. However, power and
authority in writing centers are, at least in theory, more negotiable than in other
institutional frameworks, and therefore less unilateral laughter and more shared laughter
would be expected to be seen in this data as compared to data in other institutional
contexts. Tutors—unlike institutional representatives such as doctors or lawyers, or, in
the academic world, academic advisors or classroom teachers—do not have the same
degree of power as professionals who write prescriptions, represent clients in court, grant
admission to courses, or issue grades. Further unlike the professional representatives in
often-studied institutions, some tutors are nearly the same age as the students who come
to them for help, and tutors—at least in this study—are also students. This close
proximity in age and sameness in occupation of tutors and students theoretically lessen
the power differential between discourse participants as do other variables such as a
collaborative environment or even the tutors’ choice of casual shirts and jeans in lieu of
the more typical institutional uniform of dress clothes. These subtle differences may
make the interaction more conversational in nature as compared to other institutional

speech events, and may affect the types of laughter present.

219

 

Writing Centers, in theory, are spaces in which tutors nurture camaraderie among
themselves and students, and as Farrell-Childers notes, “Laughter is not foreign to writing
centers; in fact, some of the best learning occurs once anxieties are lessened in a
comfortable atmosphere conducive to learning. . .peers encourage risk taking, play with
language, question the validity of ideas, laugh at their own mistakes, and empathize with
each other’s frustrations” (112 italics added). Further articulating this negotiability, in its

Call for Papers, The 23rd National Conference on Peer Tutoring: Negotiating Authority

 

in the Writing Conference asked for proposals that explored this philosophy:
As trainees in the writing center, peer tutors are initiated into a specialized
practice designed to identify and, in some cases, resist exercises of power
and authority in the academy. . ..But in the course of training, these same
[tutors] are advised to subordinate such skills to the authority of the writer
and learn to think of themselves as collaborator, facilitator, guide, or to
balance “minimalist” with more “directive” techniques. In turn, writers I
come to the writing center seeking the authority that the title and training
of tutor implies, but often meet with tutors learning to share their authority
with the writers.

Questions of power and authority are. further complicated by the
role of the writing center within the university at large. Harvey Kail and
John Trimbur identify writing centers as “semiautonomous” institutional
spaces located “outside the normal channels of teaching and learning”...
[where] tutors and writers negotiate a subtle and flexible line between

submission and authority, collaboration and control. (“Call for Papers)

220

 

Tutors and students may come to a tutorial unsure of how to operate in a less
dichotomous assignment of roles than tutor-as—authority and student-as-novice, and
negotiating power—or more specifically control of the tutorial—can create confusion and
tension for both parties as positive face is threatened. In this study, on several occasions
tutors attempted to lessen the distance between themselves and their students by
introducing laughables, or in 49% of tutor-initiated laughter, either used laughter that was
affiliative or that was meant to ease the student’s tension: laughter serves to maintain the
other’s positive face. This is quite different from patterns in other institutional contexts.
For example, Haakana, in his research into doctor-patient discourse, found that “doctors
do not often laugh with the patients” and “doctors do not often introduce laughables”
(280). However, as the analyses in Chapter 3 of speech activities indicative of power
revealed, tutors in this study generally present themselves as authorities and are directive
rather than collaborative in their suggestions. While students do also occasionally assert
control over the direction of the tutorial, more frequently they show anxiety and
confusion as evidenced by the use of preventative facework through laughter (and in
some cases excessive laughter) that mitigates their own tension. In this study, none of the
participants had met before, and so they began as strangers to each other, but not as
strangers to the speech event of discussing a piece of writing. The participants’
knowledge of institutional roles varied from individual to individual, but since all had
been through at least twelve years of educational institutionalization, all were familiar
with the assumption that when discussing students’ writing, students were there to get

advice and tutors were there to give it.

221

 

 

The dynamics of this process were not the same across the ten tutorials, though,
since students varied in the degree to which they needed or were willing to accept advice,
and tutors varied in the degree to which they assumed a directive stance. Tutors, in fact,
had had explicit training in structuring a tutorial so that it was student-directed with a
student-set agenda, yet when the transcripts in this study were analyzed for accepted
measures of discourse power—number of questions asked, number of directives issued,
measures of volubility in turn length and percentage of words spoken—the results show
that in these tutorials, nearly all tutors claimed the power that their institutional role gave
them, and nearly all students readily deferred that power. However, this is not to say that
participants’ individual personalities, or as Goffman would say their individual
performances, did not affect the degree to which they adhered to their institutional roles;
in fact, the ways tutors interacted with students were quite different from tutor to tutor,
and even the same tutor could interact differently with one student than another. Students
also varied in their manner of interaction in such ways as making or not making
suggestions, engagement with the assignment, being open to tutor suggestions, and
apologizing for their perceived lack of writing skills.

One additional factor that cannot be discounted is that the participants were being
taped, and this likely influenced tutors’ desire to appear knowing and competent by
assuming an authoritarian persona, and students were likely anxious that their writing
struggles were being recorded for viewing by others. Perhaps the participants in this
study were more concerned than usual with the face they projected since they were being
recorded. They may have done more mutual facework—preserving their own positive

face as well as that of the other—because there was an audience.

222

 

4‘ __' ~

To see if the nature of writing tutorials affects the production of laughter as

compared to laughter in other institutional contexts, rates of laughter can be compared.

6.2. RATES OF LAUGHTER IN INSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSE

Haakana, in his study of laughter in doctor-patient talk, was interested in finding
out if laughter has institutional features, that is, whether or not the “laughing sequences in
the doctor-patient talk have some kind of institutional fingerprint” (“Laughing” 34). He
found, as in other types of institutional discourse, that laughter production was
asymmetrical in terms of power relations with doctors laughing less than patients—fewer
initiations and fewer instances of sharing patient’s laughter than the reverse. The data in
the present study presents a somewhat similar overall picture, but with significant
variations particularly in the lower percentage to which the participants with a lesser
degree of power—students—support the laughter of the participant with a higher degree
of power. To determine why these differences might arise, a starting point could be to
compare differences in the rate of laughing events per minute, a statistic that in and of
itself is not particularly revealing since as Schegloff points out, laughter is not something
that is measured in “laughs per minute” (103-4). Nonetheless, comparing the amount of
laughter across institutional speech events can be illuminating as to whether or not there
are fundamental differences in the dynamics involved. To that end, it is interesting to note
that Adelsward and Oberg’s study of international negotiations showed a laughing events
per minute rate of 0.3, West’s study of doctor-patient interaction showed a rate of 0.1,

and Adelsward’s study of job interviews showed a rate of 0.8.

223

The present study shows a relatively high rate of 1.67 laughter episodes per
minute, and suggests again that perhaps the nature of writing tutorials in this study is
somehow different from other institutional speech events. International negotiations and
the treatment of illness—the purpose of the above mentioned studies—are more high
stakes in terms of outcomes than are tutorials. Discussing political or economic alliances
affecting millions of citizens, or discussing diagnoses and treatments for physical illness
would naturally lend themselves to more serious interaction than what goes on between a
tutor and a student, and so it might be expected that due to the less serious nature of
writing tutorials, less tension-induced laughter might occur than in other institutional
contexts. However, tutors have less authority than do heads of state or medical doctors,
and while tension-relieving or “troubles-telling” laughter does constitute slightly over
half of all laughter in this study, there is much laughter of an affiliative nature, and so a
higher rate of laughter in tutorials might be expected. The limited number of studies done
in all these contexts, though, makes comparisons tentative as best.

What can give a small degree of grounding to the present study is to compare this
study to other research on laughter in writing tutorials, and this involves looking at the
work of Terese Thonus, the one researcher, at least to my knowledge, who does look at
laughter in writing tutorials. In “What Makes a Writing Tutorial Successful: An Analysis
of Linguistic Variables and Social Context,” Thonus examines variables in what tutor and
student participants rate as “successful tutorials.” Laughter, particularly shared laughter,
is one such variable that Thonus found, and she compares the laughter among the
tutorials in her data set by calculating the rate per turn of laughter instances, a different

measure than the rate of laughter per minute that other laughter researchers used. Table

224

 

6.1 below presents the data in the present study as raw counts of laughter and rate per
turn and compares this data Thonus’s. There were only very slight differences between
both the tutor and student means in the studies: Thonus’s tutors’ mean was 0.14 as
compared to 0.09 in the present study, and Thonus’s students’ mean was 0.25 as
compared to 0.21 in the present study. The higher rates in Thonus’s dissertation study
most likely are due to the differing population she studied: in 7 of the 12 dyads studied,
the participants had worked together in prior tutorials. Additional support for this
explanation was found in the present study. In the process of coding data, tutorial HCTD
was coded, but not selected for inclusion in the final data set. This dyad consisted of
female tutor HC and male student TD, and the two had worked together on a regular
basis. The coding revealed 47 instances of laughter: the highest number in the final data
set was 34, a difference most likely due to the degree of familiarity between the

participants.

225

 

 

Table 6.1 Raw counts of laughter and rate per turn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thonus’s Studv Present Studv
Participants Laughter Participants Laughter
Tutor A 18 = .17 FSEL / Tutor 1 = .02
Student A 19 = .18 FSEL/ Student 29 = .52
TutorB 38:.32 FSKP/T 11=.l7
Student B 6 = .05 FSKP / S 23 = .40
Tutor C 26 = .24 ALCK IT 10 = .09
Student C 49 = .45 ALCK / S 16 = .14
Tutor D 25 = .22 ALMS / T 1 = .01
Student D 7 = .06 ALMS / S 3 = .05
Tutor E 20 = .17 CRAM / T 2 = .02
Student E 9 = .08 CRAM / S 18 = .23
Tutor F 2 = .01 CRCC / T ---
StudentF 41 =.18 CRCC/S 7=.13
Tutor G 61 = .36 GJWB /T = .03
Student G 100: .59 GJWB / S 6 = .24
TutorH 5= .06 GJWS/T 11=.l6
Student H 43 = .49 GJWS IS 13 = .18
Tutor I --- HCCA / T = .08
Student I 7 = .06 HCCA / S 22 = .37
TutorJ 12=.10 HCPR/T 13=.l9
Student] 47 = .41 HCPR / S 1 = .01
Tutor K --— --------------
StudentK 13:.12 --------------
Tutor L 6 = .04 --------------
Student L 45 = .27 --------------
Tutor Mean 213 = .14 Tutor Mean 55 = .09
Student Mean 386 = .25 Student Mean 138 = .21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The similarities between the results of Thonus’s study and this study give further
support to the claim that the nature of writing tutorials is somewhat different from the
nature of other types of institutional discourse insofar as writing tutorials contain higher
rates of laughter. The occurrence of even higher rates of laughter in tutorials with
participants who are familiar with each other suggests also that the dichotomous nature of
tutor/authority-student/subordinate may lessen somewhat over time. However, the final

data set in this study was composed of dyads who did not have prior acquaintanceship,

226

 

and discussion of the effects of familiarity on shared laughter are beyond the scope of this
study.

Research question 2 in Chapter 2 asked, “Who laughs first and why?” The
discussion will next bring together the quantitative and qualitative analyses of initiations,
and will focus on the salient features to show why participants introduce laughter into

interaction.

6.3. WHAT LAUGHTER INITIATIONS SAY

ABOUT TUTORIAL DYNAMICS

In Chapter 3, the data show that the types of laughter initiated in writing tutorials,
all of which are facework strategies, are comprised mainly of laughter that mitigates for
self (Ml), that is affiliative (A), or that mitigates/relieves tension for the other person
(M2). Laughter that is disaffiliative occurred only rarely, and the occurrences involved
only one tutor. A review of the three types of laughter that did occur shows that of the
193 instances of laughter initiation, students initiated laughter 72% of the time, and
students’ use of laughter that mitigated tension for themselves constituted 43% of all
laughter in the data set. Tutors’ use of laughter to mitigate for self was much lower—9%
of the total data set. Together, students’ and tutors’ tension-relieving laughter accounted
for over half (52%) of all the laughter initiations in the data set. The next most prevalent
type was affiliative/shared laughter, which accounted for 34% of all laughter (Students
27%, Tutors=7%). The third type—laughter that mitigated for the other person—was

used solely by tutors and accounted for only 6% of all laughter in the data set. These

227

 

 

percentages show that in this study, students use laughter primarily to preserve their own
positive face by relieving their own tension, and secondarily to show affiliation with the
tutor. Tutors’ laughter initiation types are about evenly divided among affiliative (27% of
tutor total), tension relieving for self (33%), and tension relieving for other (22%), and
show that while tutors’ primary use of laughter, like students’, is to relieve their own
tension, almost as often they use laughter to foster alignment with students or to help

maintain students’ positive face.

6.3.1. TENSION-REUEVING LA U GH TER

The fact that laughter does not occur particularly frequently, and that when it
does, it primarily serves to relieve tension is not surprising. The participants in this study
had not previously met, and yet as is inherent in tutorials, were expected to interact over a
text—an activity that forces the student to make him or herself vulnerable to criticism, a
face threatening act (PTA), and forces the tutor to make potentially angst-producing
comments to the student. Further, because discussing an essay necessitates close physical
proximity, some participants may feel uncomfortable being so physically close to a
stranger. In these circumstances, for a speaker to laugh, even if the intent is to bridge the
gap between strangers, can risk offending the hearer if the laughter is misunderstood.
However, while both students and tutors are guarded in their use of laughter, that is not to
say laughter serves little purpose in communication; in fact, laughter allows the
expression of emotions and reactions to comments that participants choose not to reveal

in words. To admit to being nervous, embarrassed, uncertain, or unknowing is to lose

228

 

face, yet to do nothing to change the circumstances causing the negative emotions is to
allow tension to continue to build. Laughter can allow interlocutors to communicate these
feelings, and makes the job of facework easier. Conversely, using words to ease someone
else’s tension might risk calling attention to the other person’s insecurity, and thus cause
the other person to lose positive face.. Laughter can be used as a subtle cue that the

situation is not so serious, and can allow tensions to diffuse.

6.3.1.1. Tension for Students

Participants in tutorials differ in the types of tension they might experience. For
students, tension and the resulting loss of face can be caused by several factors. First,
70% of the students in this study came to the WDC because their instructor required them
to come, and many brought drafts of essays that had already been heavily marked up by
the instructor. An essay complete with visual indicators of errors and shortcomings can
serve as a sort of calling card announcing that the student has trouble writing, and
presents the student in a negative light even before he or she can make a good impression
on the tutor. The student is deprived of the opportunity to give, using Goffman’s term, a
good performance or to present a positive face. For three of the five female students,
these many markings were cause for embarrassment and high numbers of laughter
initiations that all coders observed were “nervous giggles.” One of these students made
several self-deprecating comments either preceded or followed by laughter. Laughter in
these cases functions as a communication device that allows emotions to be expressed in
a context that would normally prevent such expression. Innerrnost feelings are intensely

personal, and revealing them in public situations such as writing tutorials, especially with

229

persons unacquainted with each other, can be awkward if not culturally prohibited.
Tension-relieving laughter frequently comes after a sequentially troublesome bit of
interaction, troublesome because perhaps the tutor has been explaining a concept new to
the student, or the tutor has asked to student to restate an unclear phrase or passage, and
the students is unable to think of an alternative.

In addition to having to present oneself through a poorly written essay (at least in
the classroom instructor’s eyes), students can also feel tension when tutors use unfamiliar
terms to explain writing conventions. For example, in Excerpt 6.1 below, male tutor AL
is explaining parallel structure to female student CK, and even though he doesn’t use the
term “parallel structure” the parts of speech he does use are unfamiliar to CK, and so the

meaning is lost.
Excerpt 6.1 (ALCK turns 128-135)

T: one problem is that all these things are nouns, like weakness, trembling, shaking,
heavy-breathing, I mean they look like verbs, but the “ing” changes the whole thing
into nouns, heavy-breathing is a thing, you know, trembling is a thing, it’s a symptom .
weakness. But then you get to light-headed, and that’s an adjective, so when you have
these all strung together, noun, noun, noun, noun, noun, adjective, and noun, it kind
of ..you try and read it, trembling, shaking, weakness, heavy-breathing, headache,
light-headed..does that..does that come out to you at all?.. Just throwing in light-
headed?= =No?= =(Uhahaha)Um, well

S:9l =No= =©but you know what you’re talkin’ about©=

T: like I said=

S: 92 =what if I put it first and then said all my adjectives can I do tha@ @ @t or
just NOT have it?=

T: =you’d have to change it into noun like light-headedness which might
sound a little funny . if you’re gonna have all these nouns together, it’s a little awkward
to throw in the adjective..because it just changes the whole like direction of the
sentence (10 s as S writes) When you do it here (unclear) of jittery, being frustrated,
angry, stubborn, and nervous, tense um..being frustrated seems a bit wordy . uh you
could of just said frustration, and a few, like this is a, you could change these into
nouns: angriness, stubbomess, and nervousness . the thing is when you have um, a
bunch of things joined together, you want to keep them at the same parts of speech,

um...you wouldn’t like group together a dog, a cat, and being nervous:
S:-)3 =(ahHAHA)=

230

 

T: =you know=(smiles) = um, even if they all were related, you wouldn’t say ‘em like
S: 9 =yea@ @ha=
T: that, they’re different parts of speech (unclear)...

At 9', CK says “no” to show she doesn’t follow what AL is saying, and when
AL then asks “No?” CK reveals a submissive attitude by saying in a smiley voice, “But
you know what you’re talkin’ about.” Through this cormnent, she lets AL know that
while she doesn’t understand what he’s saying, she believes that what he says is right
since he is the expert. At 92, CK attempts to solve the problem, but realizes she doesn’t
quite yet understand, and so laughs again this time relieving some of her anxiety. At both
93, and 94, CK uses laughter to show both affiliation for AL’s laughable of assigning
parallel value to “a dog, a cat, and being nervous,” as well as to release pent-up anxiety
from trying to understand AL’s explanation.

Students can also experience tension when they do not agree with the advice the
tutor gives. Much like patients who don’t feel they have the qualifications to disagree
with a doctor’s diagnosis, students, too, can feel that even though they believe their
sentences to be clear, or their organizational structure to be logical, they don’t have the
same degree of expertise as does the tutor who suggests revisions. Finally, tensions can
' arise for a student when a tutor gives advice that contradicts what the student’s classroom
instructor has said. In Chapter 5, Excerpt 5.2 from GJWS (F/F) shows tutor GJ cautioning
student WS to indent a paragraph, but WS is using a different format that her boss—a
PhD—uses. WS circumvents a direct confrontation of GJ’s assertion, and ends the

exchange and thereby her tension by using laughter in the comment “©He’s got his Ph.D,

I don’t ©.”

231

 

6.3.1.2. Tension for Tutors

Tutors also experience tension in tutorials, though not to the same extent as
students at least as measured by (M1) laughter. In the 28% of laughter occurrences that
tutors do initiate, tutors use this type only half as often as students do. Causes of tension
for tutors can stem, as with students, from the desire to project a good image. However,
whereas a student’s image is projected via the written document he or she brings to the
tutorial, a tutor tries to project a good image through being able to help students improve
their writing and being able to answer students’ questions. Tutors can feel insecure in
dealing with students’ writing. In this data, the tutorial FSKP (MIM) that occurred
between undergraduate tutor FS and the very competent writer KP showed FS’s
insecurity through his frequent use of (MI) laughter: 64% of his laughter was used to ease
his own tension. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the post-tutorial interview with FS revealed
that he felt a bit intimidated by the depth of KP’s topic and KP’s command of vocabulary
and rhetorical style. FS’s authoritative status was less secure in this tutorial than it was in
FSEL (M/F), and this contributed to the frequent use of (M1) laughter.

Additionally, tutors’ tasks include making students feel welcome at the writing
center, and tutors vary in the degree of their development of the interpersonal skills
required to connect with strangers. The average length of the opening phase of tutorials—
the phase in which participants engage in the small talk of greetings—was 1 minute 45
seconds, not much time to get to know each other. This abbreviated acquaintance time is

inherent in tutorials, though, since appointments are constrained by time and some of that

232

time is taken up by paperwork that must be filled out. In only two of the tutorials in this
study—FSEL (M/F) and GJWS (F/F) did any laughter occur in the opening phase, and
while this study does not make claims that the presence or absence of laughter makes for
a good or poor tutorial, that this laughter occurred was indicative of how the participants’
interacted throughout the remainder of the tutorial. Both these tutorials throughout their
duration showed much laughter, although the dynamics between the dyads were quite
different. In FSEL, 94% of the laughter was initiated by EL, and of that, 69% was
affliative. FS shared in EL’s laughter only 10% of the time, and this perhaps reflects
Haakana’s findings that the professional often chooses to maintain a distance between
him or herself and the lay person. Further complicating interaction between peer tutors
and their students when they are of different genders is the risk that by laughing too
readily or appearing too friendly could be misconstrued as a sexual advance, and this
would be inappropriate in an institutional setting. In contrast, in the remainder of GJWS
(F/F), tutor GJ initiated 46% of the laughter, and of that, 55% was affiliative, and another
45% was (M') laughter used to lessen the tension of student WS. As could be seen in
Chapter 3, GJ ’s age was nearly 23 years younger than WS’s, and perhaps this difference
created the dynamic that GJ strove to make WS feel comfortable.

Finally, tutors may be uncomfortable in giving criticism because they are not sure
themselves how to offer a better alternative. For example, in Excerpt 6.2 from HCCA
(F/F) below, HC is reading CA’s essay aloud and recognizes in a description of an
enclosed mall in Sydney, Australia, a redundancy in word choice, but isn’t quite sure how

to explain what the problem is. When she calls attention to the problem area, and asks CA

233

for different way to phrase it, CA is not forthcoming with an alternative. HC then offers

two alternative choices, and reveals a bit of tension when she uses (Ml) laughter at 9'.

Excerpt 6.2 (HCCA turns 76-77)

T: ok, “and a glass roof to cover it off’..um, cover it off is a little bit like (shakes head) .
how could you say it differently? kind of thing: =uh “exotic plants

S: =um-hm yea@ @ @h

T: throughout, located throughout and a glass roof" (shrugs): =to cover .even:

S: =um-hm: =inhaha

T: 9 1or “and a glad roof” period inha= =ok

S: =yeah, ok=

Tutors can feel pressured and rushed to begin critiquing an essay before they have had

time to become familiar with the student’s writing style or particular needs. Some tutors

quickly read through the essay and give it a cursory evaluation, or they have either

themselves or the student read it aloud and evaluate the essay in the process. If the

student is reluctant or unwilling to set the agenda, tutors must decide what to talk about,

and this invariably focuses to a great extent on the essay’s weaknesses. Delivering

criticism to a stranger requires tact and diplomacy, and formulating what to say and how

to say it can create tension especially when tutors feel pressured to get through as much

of the essay as possible.
6.3.2. AF F ILIATIVE LAUGH TER

While the laughter initiations in this study serve primarily to communicate
feelings or tension or insecurity, laughter also allows interlocutors to indicate positive
emotions and the desire to, as Coser says, “come close” (172). Affiliative laughter (A)

was an important component of the laughter in the data set, accounting for 34% of all

234

 

laughter initiations. Overall, students used (A) laughter more than tutors (27% of all
laughter in the data set was (A) laughter by students as compared to 7% for tutors), but if
looked at as a percentage of participant laughter, the results were not as far apart: 38% of
student laughter was (A) laughter, and 27% of tutor laughter was (A) laughter.

The results in Chapter 4 indicate that students and tutors use (A) laughter for
different purposes. Students generally use (A) laughter to show support for something the
tutor has said or done—a humorous comment or a paralinguistic cue such as a tilting of
the head or a raising of the eyebrow. Through the use of (A) laughter, a student can signal
the tutor that the invitation to laugh has been accepted, and that the student appreciates
the tutor’s attempt at changing the dynamic of the tutorial from one of formalin to one of
a more casual nature. Through laughter, the student can show that he or she is also
willing to enter into a playframe. Occasionally, students are the ones to issue invitations
to come closer, and are willing to risk being misinterpreted, but the main function of (A)
laughter for students is to serve as a backchannel for the tutor.

For tutors, (A) laughter is used not only to support students’ attempts at humor,
but also to show their alignment with students, and thereby put students at ease. In
Excerpt 4.5 (FSKP) in Chapter 4, male tutor FS was appreciative of the skill with which
male student KP integrated subtle humor into his writing, and would laugh while reading
KP’s essay aloud. In Excerpt 6.3 below, male tutor CR has commented on male student

AM’s accent:

Excerpt 6.3 (CRAM turns 41-46)

T: ok, you got a cool, an interesting accent: [have] you really?=

S: =oh, I been all over (ha[hahalha) =yeah
..down south all over: =Austin Texas:

T: =I’m, I’m happen to be from Austin Texas: =and

235

 

9 I [ I used] to have a= =ehaha[hahaha] It’s taken a
S: [aw, 1] =1 know you hate the weather here now: [hehehe]
T: long, it’s taken some getting used to, I do like the sun

This excerpt occurred after the diagnostic phase had begun, and student
AM had been lamenting the fact that he had forgotten about outlining, and that maybe if
he had first outlined his essay as his instructor had suggested, that maybe it would have
helped his organization. Male tutor CR had explained that outlines work well for some
people, but not so well for others, and then switched the topic to AM’s accent. CR
commented that it was a “cool” accent, a positive comment that successfully changed the
focus of the discussion from a shortcoming of AM’s to an interesting facet of his speech.
After AM establishes his geographic knowledge gained through extensive travel, he
offers a comment, “I know you hate the weather here now” (it was cold and rainy). At 9,
CR is able, through his affiliative laughter to show an appreciation for AM’s empathy as
to what CR must be feeling. AM shares in the laughter indicating the two are aligned.

Tutors also use laughter that serves a slightly different function than to initiate

alignment, and that is (M2) laughter which mitigates or eases tension for the other person.
While both types of laughter result in participants coming closer, (A) laughter does not
presuppose the hearer is feeling tense, whereas (M2) laughter does. There were no
instances of students using (M2) laughter, and only 12 cases in which tutors did. In
Excerpt 6.4 below, from the opening of GJWS (F/F), student WS reveals her insecurity,
and tutor GJ promptly makes a comment that shows she understands, but does not judge
negatively, WS’s excuse for not having correct citations.

Excerpt 6.4 (GJWS turns 1-2)

S: I know my um.. cite, uh um, the cites they’re not right: :1 know they’re not right.
TI =ok=

236

 

S: I just hurried up and um, you know, did them:
T: 9 (smiling)=(ahahaha) Did what you could, right?
S: (smiling) yeah

At 9, tutor GJ realizes WS’s tension, and prefaces her laughter by smiling. This
laughter cues WS that what G] is about to say is not intended maliciously. After GJ’s
question (“Did what you could, right?”) WS shares in the laughter and the two are more
ahgned.

Initiations, then, allow participants to smoothly interact through expressions of

emotions and cueing of intent of comments that might otherwise be misconstrued.

6.4. WHAT RESPONSES TO LAUGHTER SAY

ABOUT TUTORIAL DYNAMICS

Because students were responsible for 72% of the initiations, most of the data in
this study concerns tutor responses. How tutors respond to laughter in this study mirrors
how the professional person responds in other studies of institutional discourse. Tutors,
like doctors, tend not to support the laughter of the person with lesser status, a seeming
contradiction on the surface since tutors theoretically wish to put students at ease, and
laughing together indicates alignment. However, as the discussion in Chapter 5 on neutral
responses concludes, to join in laughter during troubles-telling is not warranted: to share
laughter in this circumstance is to validate a student’s sense of insecurity. Much student
laughter in this study was coded as self-mitigating, and tutor responses to laughter are

most often neutral and comprise 59% of tutor responses.

237

 

 

However, the data in this study show that students—unlike patients in medical
encounters—give neutral rather than affiliative responses the majority of the time (44%).
As discussed in Chapter 5, neutral responses, in addition to avoiding validating self-
deprecation, are also ambiguous and can indicate, at least to the participant who initiated
the laugh, that the invitation to laugh might not have been understood, or that the bearer

doesn’t find the situation funny.

6.4.1 NEUTRAL RESPONSES

Neutral responses are safe responses. For tutors, if a student is making self-
deprecating comments, to laugh might risk offending by affirming the student’s
insecurity. Tutors also might appear less than professional if the “seriousness” of their
discourse is interrupted by laughter. As the measures of power as indicated by the
quantitative analyses in Chapter 3, tutors generally claim and maintain the authority
throughout tutorials, and to initiate as well as to respond to laughter might undermine that
authority.

Students, too, can find neutral responses to be safe, especially if they’re not
certain of the tutor’s intent. For example, in Excerpt 6.5 below, male student WB does
not join in female tutor GJ ’s laughter at 9. GJ has just finished glancing through WB’s
essay on censorship, an essay which his instructor had commented heavily upon. In her
typical tutoring style, GJ begins the directive phase of the tutorial with a series of positive
comments (“I think you have a lot of good ideas in here” “I thought this was a GREAT

example you had in here”), and then moves into a heavily mitigated directive frame.

238

J;

 

Excerpt 6.5 LGJWB turn 12)

T: I thought this was a GOOD example that you had here, so what I THOUGHT maybe is
we could TRY and do something like this: =with, with maybe the rest of these
' =um-hum:
: paragraphs. [um], and your teacher has a LOT of questions in here: .. .. um and I
: [ok] =yeah:
: think a lot of them are valid questions: =. . .um and maybe we can look at
. =um-hum:
: those to = =to help YOU maybe um, judge as to what your instructor’s looking for:
. =ok= =ok
: looking for also. Um. .. ok, uh, let’s see. . .. First things, ok well first thing is with your
thesis: =um, you might. want to reword it: =. . ..um and not saying like you
S: =um-hum: =ok=
T: know I do not believe in censorship, but maybe say that um... you can reword it
9 without SAYIN you know, I’m against it and this is wh(hahaha)y= =you might:
S: =ok= =yeah:
T: =be able to say, you know maybe you wanna say like um.. that um.. censorship um is
not needed or you know, censorship should not be.. uh, WIDELY exercised or
something to that effect: 2. . .. um, and THEN you could say BECAU::SE and then
S: =ok=

1—lU}1-lC(J-lm-l§/J

From student WB’s point of view, OJ ’5 laughter could be confusing: Was she
laughing because of the way he had constructed his thesis? Was she laughing because his
reasons for being against censorship were laughable? Or perhaps, as this particular
episode of laughter was evaluated by all coders, was she laughing because she was
nervous and frustrated that the interaction was not going smoothly? WB gives a neutral
response, which is safe at this point. For WB not to share the laughter allows him not to
risk interpreting the intent in the wrong way. He neither aligns himself with GJ by
sharing in her laughter, nor does he disaffiliate himself by showing offense. Instead he
gives a simple acknowledgment, “ok,” to GJ’s directive.

However, from GJ’s point-of-view, a neutral response at this point could be
frustrating. The interaction is not going smoothly for tutor GJ . She pauses frequently (as

indicated by .) to turn the direction of the interaction over to WB, but he does not

239

 

 

M...)- 1zbu~~ o..,..-‘.

respond. GJ becomes progressively more frustrated with WB’s uninvolvement, and at 9
reveals some frustration by initiating a bit of tension-relieving laughter for herself
embedded in the word “why.” While neutral responses can be safe for the bearer, for the
person whose laughter is not shared, they can be frustrating. If affiliative initiations are
not shared, the speaker’s attempt to come closer is thwarted, and in the case above, if the
hearer of tension-relieving laughter by the speaker does not attempt to rectify the tension-
inducing situation, the interaction will not continue smoothly. In the post-tutorial
interview, GJ commented that early in the tutorial,
I felt like it started turning into me suggesting to him what he should do
more than like an interaction between the two of us. . .I felt like I was kind
of taking over the paper. . .I think he wanted more of an authority simply
because he’s kind of set back and didn’t say anything. . .It was kind of

difficult to work with him in a collaborative way.

That this tutorial was problematic was echoed in the observations of both coders.
Coder A said, “The student mostly spoke in a monotone voice which indicated he didn’t
particularly want to be at the conference.” Coder B said, “The two didn’t seem very
comfortable with each other, although the student didn’t seem to be particularly engaged
in the discussion.” GJWB is the tutorial with the highest number of backchannels, and of
the 198 in the tutorial, WB does 163 of them with only 3 as laughter. His abundant use of
backchannels such as “yeah” “um-hm” and “ok” allowed him to seemingly participate in

the interaction, but unlike the use of laughter, these utterances were little more than place

240

 

 

markers and by themselves did little to show more than a superficial connection between
the speakers.

Neutral responses, as discussed in Chapter 5, are most frequently used by tutors
when students initiate laughter—laughter that mitigates tension for oneself, although
neutral responses which follow student’s attempts at affiliation are nearly as frequent. To
validate students’ insecurities as revealed through (Ml) laughter goes against the
theoretical purpose of tutorials, which is to build students’ confidence in their writing.
However, to not join in students’ overtures to come closer may not necessarily be
undesirable in all cases. If a student is making sarcastic remarks about a classroom
instructor, and invites the tutor to share the laughter, for the tutor to do so risks the tutor’s
authority as a representative of the institution. On the other hand, to share the laughter
would, particularly if the instructor were more concerned with adherence to rules than
expression of ideas, as noted earlier in this chapter, help students to “resist exercises of

power and authority in the academy” (National Conference on Peer Tutoring).

6.4.2. AF FILIA TIVE RESPONSES

Affiliative responses in this study roughly parallel the affiliative responses in
other institutional contexts in that participants with lesser status (in this case students) use
this type of response more than do participants with more status (in this case tutors).
However, an important difference is evident: in this study, tutors responded affiliatively
at a higher rate than would be expected (35% of their responses were affiliative) while

students responded affiliatively at a lower rate than would be expected (56% of their

241

 

 

responses were affliative). These percentages reflect a total of all types of affiliative
responses: affiliative/shared (AIS), affiliative/verbal (AIV), affiliative/non-verbal
(AINV), and affiliative/delayed (AID).

The higher percentages of affilitive laughter in this study may be reflective of a
difference in analytical procedures between those in this study and those in other
research. For example, West in examining medical encounters, counted a response as
affiliative only if it involved reciprocal laughter. Haakana (“Laughing”) added responses
said in a “smiling/smiley voice” since, as he argues, laughter and smiling are closely
connected. This study also included smiley voice as a response to laughter, and went
further by including comments that indicated an acknowledgment and appreciation of the
laughter. For example, in Excerpt 6.6 from FSEL (MIF) below, tutor FS does not laugh or
smile, but his response at 9l shows that he picks up on EL’s laughter as indicating an

assessment of her instructor which differs from the words she uses:

Excerpt 6.6 (FSEL turns 83-85)

 

T: ..so how are you liking the class so far?= 9l =It’s all right? I’ve

S: =Um, it’s all right (uhaha)=

T: heard complaints about it: I heard that he’s really rough, is he?=

S: =yeah: =Yeah..l don’t
know. .I didn’t thInk well like he grades on a portfolio: =so he gives you like

T: =um- ~hm=

S: 92 really low gra@ @ @des" an.d he’s like “oh don’ t worry about it don’ t worry” .Am I
93 gonna fail this cla@ @ @s or wha@ @t?=

T: =(6 seconds pass as T stares out the window)

S: I don t know if he’ s staying here though. I thInk he’s going somewhere else:

T. =oh

94“© What a shame ©”= =Well I know how it is writin’ a paper. I’ve been

S: =(uhahaha)=

T: workin’ on mine. I’ve only got about four pages written of a THIRTY- TWO one I
gotta have done by the end of the semester:

S: =(makes an “oh” with her mouth and smiles)

242

 

T: a thirty-two page history paper:
s: -)5 =(hahaha) who is that with?

At 9', FS questions the surface meaning of EL’s answer, and all coders counted
“It’s all right” as an affiliative/verbal response. We did have some discussion as to
whether or not FS might have asked the question even if EL had not cued her feelings
with laughter since FS may have been curious about the instructor anyway. However, we
agreed that our criteria for counting responses included comments that showed sequential
cohesion with the initiated laughter, so we coded this as (AIV) laughter.

The excerpt above illustrates the difficulty of determining whether a discourse
move is aimed at fostering connectedness or maintaining control. FS initiates this topic
by asking how EL likes the class so far. FS then asks EL to elaborate on whether or not
the instructor is “rough,” and EL does. However, at 92, EL reveals that she is a bit
nervous talking about the subject as she uses laughter that was coded as tension-relieving
for herself. She pauses after “gra@ @ @des,” and again after “oh don’t worry about it
don’t worry” and not getting a backchannel from F8, initiates two more instances of (M')
laughter embedded in the words “cla@ @s” and “wha@ @t.” By this time, FS, who had
asked for elaboration by EL and who had not uttered any backchannels to show he was
listening, had shifted his body so that he could stare out the window. EL waits for a
response for six seconds, and then makes another comment about her instructor. At
94,FS initiates affiliative laughter through the smiley voiced comment of “© What a
shame ©,” and ELresponds with affiliative laughter. All coders found problematic FS’s
action of staring out the window and remaining silent. EL’s body language at this point

indicated she was uncomfortable with the silence, and since FS was not forthcoming with

243

a response, EL continued with the same topic. FS’s sarcastic comment of “© What a
shame ©” seemed designed as much to close the topic as to show alignment. The
remainder of the interaction focused on PS and his task of composing a thirty-two page
paper, and in fact, during the remaining four minutes of the tutorial, the topic focused
only on PS, his paper, and his instructor.

Whether FS was fostering alignment with EL by responding affiliatively to EL’S
assertion that the class was “all right,” or whether he was merely satisfying his own
curiosity is debatable. However, in looking at the analysis of discourse features in
Chapter 3, FS clearly does not share much authority with EL: FS issues 100% of the
directives, asks 63% of the questions, initiates 88% of the topics, and is responsible for
only 4% of the backchannels and 0% of the overlaps. Many of the questions EL does ask
either concern what FS thinks she should do, or in the latter part of the tutorial, ask FS
about himself. Further, the tutor—student word/turn ratio is 11.5:] showing FS does
virtually all the talking. In this tutorial, of the 31 initiations, FS does only one and 72% of
his responses are neutral. EL’S initiations are divided between affiliative aimed at
supporting FS’s comments (69%) or mitigating her own tension (28%). So by these
measures of power, and types of laughter used, FS’s desire to share control of the tutorial
with seems dubious.

Initiating and responding to laughter shows some relation to gender and to humor

styles, and these will be discussed below.

244

6.5. GENDER

Claims to gender differences in this study are limited by the small number of
participants: 6 tutors (3 male, 2 female) and 10 students (5 male, 5 female). While
generalizing beyond this study would not be valid, comparing the results of this study to
theories about gender is useful. Most studies show that women laugh more than men, and
in this study, that is supported. Female tutors laugh twice as often as male tutors, and
female students laugh nearly twice as often as male students. Female tutors show through
both the high numbers of tension-relieving laughter instances and the lack of affiliative
laughter when working with male students that they are perhaps uncomfortable with the
role of authority. Male tutors, on the other hand, use little self-mitigating laughter but do
use frequent affiliative laughter or laughter that mitigates for the other person when they
work with either male or female students. Further evidence that traditional gendered roles
are often enacted in this data—roles that allow males inherent power—is that speech
activities show that male tutors use more directives, ask more questions, initiate more
topics, and give fewer backchannels than do female tutors. On the other hand, female
tutors mitigate directives more often, and show a higher degree of connectedness through
the use of overlaps than do male tutors.

However, as Jefferson cautions, stereotypes of gendered behavior are “crude
expressions” for a whole range of complex behaviors (“Note” 131), and analyses of
student interactional behavior in this data show that the stereotypes don’t always apply.
While female students do laugh more, mitigate more directives, use more laughter as

backchannels, and overlap more than their male counterparts, all other speech activities

245

analyzed in this study indicate that female students claim more power than do male
students: female students issue more directives, ask more questions, initiate more topics,
and interrupt more. Given the nature of tutorials though—verbal interaction which
includes asking for and taking criticism—females may feel more comfortable in keeping
the conversation going by asking questions and initiating topics, activities which females
typically do to a greater extent than males. Female students, may also be less concerned
with maintaining positive face than male students, and may be more willing to risk losing
face by seeking advice in the form of asking questions or in bringing up topics they don’t
understand.

One other surprising result revealed in this study is that female tutors working
with male students use no affiliative laughter and 73% of all their laughter is self-
mitigating. As discussed earlier in Chapter 3, the stereotypical expectation that female
instructors, by virtue of being female, would naturally be nurturing, affiliative, and would
try to make the institutionalized roles less dichotomous may be offset by female tutors
not being sure enough of their authority to relinquish any of it. Other explanations are
worth noting as well. Dyads of female tutors and male students have much lower
averages of laughter initiations than do all other gender combinations: 3.5 for (PM) as
compared to 147-17 .5 for others, though this most likely is a result of the particular
participant combination than the influence of gender. In Excerpt 6.5 above, GJWB (FIM),
GJ finds trying to engage WB in the tutorial to be problematic, and all coders agreed that
WB didn’t appear to be interested in investing much of himself in the discussion. The
lack of affiliative laughter on GJ ’s part may not be so much a function of her gender as

frustration in dealing with a resistant student. In a similar fashion, in HCPR , the other

246

(F/M) dyad, the lack of affiliative laughter by HC may be problematic not so much
because of her gender, but because of her personality, particularly her style of humor.
HCPR is anomalous: HC does 13 of the 14 initiations (93 %), and the average for all
tutors is 28%. Further, half of her initiations are self-mitigating (M') laughter, and the
other half are coded as problematic for being either disaffiliative or unclear, and no other
tutors, male or female, exhibited such laughter. HC may fit the gender profile of a female
educator who is unsure of her authority since she does frequently use (M') laughter, and
because she is an undergraduate and therefore has less inherent power than a tutor who is
a graduate student. However, HC also has a rather aggressive style of humor, which
typically, as Sev’er and Ungar note, is not used by female educators (90). HC may be
using her humor style to maintain her own negative face—that face which wishes control,
or that wishes to be unimpeded by others. Kotthoff notes that “Anyone who makes other
people laugh has, as Coser (1960) states, momentary control of the situation” (8). Both
GJ and HC may be heavily influenced by gendered role expectations and less secure in
their authority than their male counterparts and less willing to relinquish their authority
by using affiliative laughter with male students. However, other factors may account for

the lack of affiliative laughter by the female tutors in this study.

6.6. HUMOR STYLES

Wallace Chafe suggests that laughter expresses an emotion, and while “this

emotion is not usually included in a class with anger, fear, sadness, or joy,” he suggests

that “it does belong in such a list” (39). The nervous laugh reveals tension, a sneer with

247

 

 

laughter communicates anger or offense taken, and uncontrollable laughter can indicate
hysterical fear. However, Chafe observes that we don’t have a label for the more playful
emotion that laughter expresses, and that while “humor” comes to mind, it “applies to
some of the stimuli that produce this emotion, not the emotion itself.” Chafe suggests the
emotion that some laughter expresses could be called “the feeling of non-seriousness.”

In tutorials, the “feeling of non-seriousness” frequently occurs, and may be the
result of the deliberate use of humor, or of an accidental type of humor such as when
tutor FS reads aloud student KP’s essay and twice mispronounces “synonym” as
“cinnamon” (FSKP turn 23). As discussed in Chapter 1, individuals vary in the way they
deliberately use humor, and Rod Martin identifies four styles of humor: affiliative, self-
enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating. Humor, though not synonymous with laughter,
has long been recognized as a complex discourse strategy that can be used to bond as
well as to distance interlocutors. Humor is often a precursor to laughter, and its intention
can be cued through a speaker’s laughter, and its reception cued through a hearer’s
laughter. Humor, among its many functions in this data, is used to introduce delicate
topics, to gain distance from a sensitive situation, to relieve tension for either speaker or
hearer or both, to gain a different perspective, and to bring interlocutors closer together.
An individual’s sense of humor or humor style underlies his or her initiation of and
response to laughter. Though an in-depth analysis of each participant’s humor style in
this study would be insightful, it is beyond the scope of this study. However, the impact
of humor style is important to at least consider.

Humor can be risky to use, and in institutional contexts in which people are

strangers, and in which there is an understood agenda dictating more or less acceptable

248

 

 

discussion topics and/or level of formality in conversation, the use of humor might be
expected to be rare. However, humor is quite prevalent in the present set of data as
evidenced both linguistically through comments and paralinguistically through the use of
voice contours or other sounds, gestures, and facial movements. While we did not devise
criteria to describe what did and what did not constitute humorous intent, we did code as
affiliative any laughter that we perceived as intended by the speaker to initiate what
Gregory Bateson and Erving Goffman characterize as “play”: “an interactional state
created by metacommunicative signals which frame or bracket messages as nonserious”
(italics added, in Glenn Laughter 137). We also coded as affiliative any responsive
laughter that supported what we perceived as intentional humor of the speaker. Indeed,
34% of Initiations (7% Tutor, 27% Student), and 42% (26% Tutor, 16% Student) of
responses were affiliative. Sometimes the speaker’s humor is obvious and the hearer
responds affiliatively with laughter and the speaker then joins in the laughter as in
Excerpt 6.7 when student WS describes the highly energetic social worker at the

women’s prison featured in WS’s essay (humor underlined):

Excerpt 6.7 (GJWS turn 55)

 

S: Yeah she’s wonderful. just wonderful, she’s Hispanic: =and and she talks a
T: =uh-huh:

S: mile a minute: [heha]ha and she’d just go, and I’d say “Carolina where do you
T: =(haha[haha]

S: get all your energy from?= =She’s she’s wonderful, wonderful to work with.

TI =yeah:

Other times the speaker’s humor is cued with laughter and the bearer responds
affiliatively through words as in Excerpt 6.8 when student WS explains the many search

terms she used, and that since she had such a difficult time finding research on

249

 

 

incarcerated mothers, she was going to use every little thing she found (humor cue

underlined):
Excerpt 6.8 LGJWS turn 48)

S: I was having a hard time finding any research on [THAT]. And I told her I was and
T: [yeazzh]
S: she was just like ‘Well, just keep looking’— - =[and I and I even went in
T: =um- -,hum um- hum=[yeah]
S: you know the library and went into the computer and went into the internet,= :1
T: =um-hm:
S: put incarcerated mothers visitations um with incarcerated mothers and children, I mean

I went every way um [I could] through child welfare,- — = and I tried all kind of
T: [yeah] =um- -hm=
S: little blurbs and I had a hard time. I found [a few] things. And b@ @elieve me

lyea: h]
:I’m gonna u@ @se em some but I had a hard time finding infor[mation] uh, because
[yeah]
:as I said, there’s not a lot of research: =on this topic.= =Not yet.=
=um-hm: =um-hm: =yeah

73547739073.

Speakers can also cue humor through laughter and hearers can accept the
invitation to laugh as in Excerpt 6.9 when at the end of CRAM, male student AM once
again calls male tutor CR “sir” even after CR has repeatedly asked AM to use CR’s first

name (laughter episode underlined):

Excerpt 6.9 (CRAM turns 145-149)

S: =Ok, thank you
um and I need to... when can I um bring it back to you?=

T: =You wanna come back next
week?= .d.on’t call me sir- =call me Tim.— -

S: =yes sir. =Tim= = You ain’t gonna let me come
back are you? lhaha_ht_II (uhhah_a). .(hunh) (uhunha=

T: |hahaha|. .(6 5).. =If you want to come back next
Thursday, we can take a look at it

250

Tutors can use humor aggressively when the target of the humor is something or
someone other than the student. For example, tutors can disparage the sometimes inane
conventions of academic writing or the student’s classroom teacher in an attempt to Show
empathy, and thus foster alignment with the student. For example, in Excerpt 6.10, tutor
FS is reading a list of several assignment requirements that student KP’s instructor has
given him, and interjects humorous comments cued through laughter at 9, increased

stress at 1‘, and a smiley voice at 62 :

Excerpt 6.10 (FSKP turns 9-12)

T: Do you have a copy of the assignment
itself?

5:. . .A copy of the assignment itself?=

T: =yeah <teaching poetry and the English language>
(. .5) This gives me an idea of what they’ re looking for:

S: = All right.

T: All right..English 121.informative research paper" th“is 1s your chance to put
everything we’ve learned together. In addition, you will learn to research in the library,
gather information to help you think about your topic and document outside sources
Your purpose is to inform a lay reader about your topic in an interesting way” <U..9U>
¢ “ONE book, ONE scholarly journal, ONE newspaper, ONE government document,
one 9reference worzhahhk. . .find someone to interview if you can” ©Ok, they did 11
ask for much

9©(lnh shrug)... “T o be decided. You may give some ideas, but we will avoid the old
worn out ones, for sure” Aznd your topic was Teaching Poetry and the English

language?.... Ok <U.2> “organization..= =rhetorical strategies, or combination,
compare/contrast, process analysis,

S: =Yeah:

T. cause effect, divide classify” Basically it’s wide open... “I must have all of these steps
or I cannot accept your paper”- — w..ell. .. ©isn’t that pleasant?©=

S: =Alright= =We don’t have

much of a choice, that’s for sure:

Tutor FS begins to express his negative assessment of the instructor’s assignment

requirements with his repetition of the heavily stressed adjective “ONE” at 1‘. He then

251

signals his frame of mind through the embedded laughter particles in the word “work”
(worzhahhk) in the next line and, in that same line, adds a sarcastic comment (“Ok, they
did not ask for much”) cued as humorous through a smiley voice and laughter. In his last
turn, he adds (“isn’t that pleasant?”) in a tone and use of body gestures imitative of “Isn’t
that special,” a catchphrase made popular by the Church Lady, a humorous character
figure created and played by Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live, a contemporary
comedy show. Through the use of humorous comments and laughter, FS tries to get KP
to laugh, but KP does not respond—not even to the serious question, “A:nd your topic
was Teaching Poetry and the English language?”

KP’s declination to accept FS’s invitations to laugh in the opening and diagnostic
phases was noted as problematic by all coders. Coder I noted, “At first, this conference
didn’t seem to be going well, because the student didn’t respond to the tutor’s attempts at
humor. Eventually the conference smooths out and the T and S are sort of teasing each
other. They seem to grow more comfortable as time goes on, and the amount of laughter
seems to reflect this.” Coder 2 observed much the same dynamic and wrote, “T and S
start out looking somewhat ill at ease with each other particularly on S’s part. . .although
' as the session progressed they seemed more comfortable.” The lack of alignment between
FS and KP in the initial phases is striking considering that FSKP contains the highest
number of laughter initiations in the data set, and one explanation can be the differing
role expectations each participant brought to the tutorial.

As discussed earlier in Chapter 4: Initiations, KP revealed in his post-tutorial
interview that he came to his appointment expecting the tutor to be the authority (“I

figured they would just read through the paper and mark what they thought I needed help

252

with”) and left the appointment with quite a different impression of his tutor (“Um,

FS. . .was easy to get along with, really, really quick. . .[he] made everything more
comfortable because I really didn’t know what to expect from someone reading my
paper.”) FS’s affiliative humor attempts, which included disparagement of the assigmnent
and therefore the classroom instructor, must have been out of sync with KP’s
expectations of FS as tutor-as-institutional-representative. KP’S lack of acceptance of
FS’s invitations to laugh was most likely due to his unfamiliarity with tutor-as-
collaborator role.

In contrast to FS’s affiliative use of humor—which is also evident in FSEL, the
tutorial with the second highest number of laughter initiations—is student CK’s
consistent use of self-defeating humor in tutorial ALCK. The opening phase was
discussed at some length in Chapter 4: Initiations to demonstrate tutor AL’S use of M2
laughter to mitigate CK’S tension, and in Chapter 5: Responses to illustrate how an N
(Neutral) response to a speaker’s bid for reassurance can be disaffiliative, and so will not
be reprinted here. However, CK’s assessment of her writing shows up in other places in
the transcript in addition to her statement in the opening phase, “I know it’s shit. You can
just laugh. I, I tried on this, I don’t, I’ve never..” In the excerpts below, each time CK
introduces a laughable, she also uses laughter or a smiley voice to cue AL. (Self—

defeating comments are underlined, and laughter cues are indicated by 19

Excerpt 6.11 (ALCK turns 69-70)

T: Organizationally I think that’s for the better:

S. =Ok I didn’t know if I should go point by
point: =or, and, you know what I’m ..© I just can’t write ©=
T: =yeah: =you can but

253

sometimes it breaks down the flow of the uh summary and plus it seems like the
evaluations you’re giving are kind of . they’re quite similar..and so it sounded better to
say “I like this part”-— =

S: =Ri@ @ @ght, that’ s what I was say, “I know I like this, they
explained this well”

Excerpt 6.12 (ALCK turns 135-139)

T: then I was confused here “The problems when a person feels hypoglycemic can result
from inappropriate self treatment SUCH DOING”? Can keep the bg in the lower

 

range.” I don’t, I’m not sure what this means, “Such doing”?= =Oh,
S: =By doing so like:
T: um=
S: =by doing the self-treatment, by not doin’ it regularly? .= =should [I have
T: =ok= [maybe
S: [said that] I’m not sur@ @e? =(gesturing with hands)
T >by not doing such that<=
S: ©I’m not good with words and transitions grid stuff like thi@
T: (continues reading

paper aloud) “The problems when a person fears hypoglycemia...”

Excerpt 6.13 (ALCK turns 163-167)

T: (reading from essay) “to be of a great
understanding"?. = =©but(~lihunh~l«) tried to get

S: =1 tried gettin, you know, aHA@ @ but:

T: get scholarly or something?©=

S: =Yeah, I dont know, I tr1ed writing so I don't sound, lik_e_
retarded, and like I triedLHAHAHAHA)=

T: =You (smile) probably don't sound as retarded
as you think you do, but:
As Martin notes, one of the purposes of self-defeating humor is that it “attempts
to amuse others by doing or saying funny things at one’s own expense as a means of
ingratiating oneself or gaining approval,” and in Excerpts 6.11 and 6.13 above CK does

get AL to respond to her self-defeating comment with one of approval and support,

although in Excerpt 6.12 AL does not respond.

254

While FS is a tutor who uses affiliative humor to put students at ease, and while
CK is a student who uses self—defeating humor to gain approval, not all tutors use
affiliative humor and not all students use self-defeating humor. Tutor HC, 3 female
undergraduate, has a style of humor that coders l and 2 found difficult to interpret (See
Ch. 4: Initiations for a discussion of HC’s use of Disaffiliative humor) but which both
Coders l and 2 agreed was not affiliative. While some students were observed by the
Coders to be “nervous gigglers” (i.e. EL and CA), the students did not use self-defeating
humor. Finally, some participants—notably male tutor CR, male student PR, and the
male dyad of ALMS used little humor. This latter dyad—ALMS—was commented upon
by Coders 1 and 2 for its lack of laughter though this did not affect the quality of the
conference. Coder I noted “This conference went very well despite the fact that there
were very few instances of laughter. The tutor and student seemed comfortable together,
and out of the four instances of laughter, three of them were affliative.” Coder 2 noted,
“Almost no laughter and very little interaction beyond just what was needed for
discussion. Each had his own copy of the paper and didn’t need to Sit closely, but they
each seemed comfortable enough with each other. Very business like.” The participants,
in post-tutorial interviews, commented that the tutorial was successful: AL said, “I think
it went pretty well. It was pretty much, ‘Here’s my paper. How’s it goin’?’ He was doin’
a descriptive paper on a place. . .and I think the two biggest problems he had were be
repeated information I already knew, and there were comma splices.” MS echoed AL’s
recollection of the business rather than interpersonal impression of the tutorial: “I think it
went pretty good. I think it was pretty much what I expected. I just kind of wanted a

general overview of the paper, and that’s what I got. [He] was pretty helpful.”

255

As this discussion has shown, the use of humor has several ftmctions in tutorial
interaction, and participants’ individual humor styles can both positively and negatively
affect what is communicated. Linda Francis, Kathleen Monahan, and Candyce Berger, in
their study of the uses of humor in medical interactions, find humor to be a means of
managing the emotions of others in situations of “inherent fragility and emotional
intensity” (155). While tutorials do not involve life and death situations as do some
medical interactions, tutorials can be filled with emotional intensity particularly if the
student is working on a high-stakes paper which represents a large percentage of the
student’s course grade, or if discussing writing flaws is embarrassing for the student.
Francis, Monahan, and Berger found that the professional uses humor to “build rapport,
to calm and reassure, or to reduce embarrassment or other distancing emotions” while the
layperson uses humor . .either to deny or distance the problem or to express anger at
professionals” (171 -2). In the present study, participants use humor to draw out laughter
in ways similar to participants in Francis, Monahan, and Berger’s study: to accomplish
facework. Tutors use humor to elicit laughter and thereby enhance their own positive face
by showing that they are good-natured people who are not overly serious. Tutors also use
' humor to protect the positive face of students by building rapport that puts students at
ease and shows that tutors do not equate writing flaws with intellectual shortcomings.
Tutors will often, in a humorous fashion, admit to students that they also make writing
errors, and through the shared laughter that results, students become more relaxed.
Students also use humor, particulary self-deprecating humor, to accomplish mutual

facework. They laugh while using self-deprecating humor and thus show they are coping

256

with their troubles, and they laugh at tutors’ humor to show support and thereby enhance

tutors’ positive face.

257

 

 

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

In efforts to expand what is known about the multi-faceted paralinguistic device
of laughter, to improve what is known about the dynamics of interaction that occur in
institutional contexts, and to improve institutional effectiveness—particularly that of
writing centers—the verbal interactions that take place between professionals and lay
persons warrant close study. It is within this talk-in-interaction that the business of the
institution takes place: lay persons communicate their needs and abilities, and
professionals communicate strategies to help build on those abilities and work toward
goal fulfillment. However, while this communication is often straightforward and clear, it
is frequently confounded by participants using various interactional strategies to mask
embarrassment, confusion, feelings of inferiority, disagreement, offense, and other
emotions that are difficult to express or are of a delicate nature. Laughter is one such
strategy participants employ, and while the past three decades have seen progress in
defining and describing the functions of laughter, we have far to go in understanding this
complex form of communication.

With the need to further this understanding, this study was designed to build upon
the work of laughter researchers in institutional contexts, and to investigate how laughter
functions in one particular speech event: the writing tutorial. Virtually nothing has been
done in this area with the exception of Terese Thonus’s dissertation on attributes of
successful tutorials, and she looked only at whether or not the laughter was single,
sequenced, and simultaneous. Further, while laughter has been researched in other
institutional contexts such as doctor-patient interviews, international negotiations, and

educational settings, little has been done to distinguish the fine nuances that exist

258

 

between the uses of laughter in these contexts. Finally, researchers have used the
methodology of Conversational Analysis, and have used some quantitative methods to
uncover the power differentials affecting laughter-in-interaction, but the present study is
the first to use a hybrid methodology of the two as well as to triangulate the data through
participant and coder observations in order to construct a more thorough understanding of
the relation between power and the various types of laughter used to negotiate claims to
power.

Laughter is difficult to study since it occurs not only in isolation, but frequently at
the same time someone else is talking, and even in the middle of a word a speaker may be
uttering. Because of its fleeting nature, laughter must be studied through video and audio
recordings which can be transcribed and reviewed repeatedly. Conversation Analysis,
which looks at talk-in-interaction, is an ideal methodology for this undertaking, but its
shortcoming is that it looks only at what can be seen in the transcript: inclusions of
participant observations or of raw counts of features across a data set are not included.
The methodology of the present study, by contrast, allows for a richer understanding of
tutorial interaction than Conversation Analysis alone would by showing not only how
amounts and types of laughter used in one tutorial compare to that in another, but also
allows for some comparison with other types in institutional interaction.

Further, the coding system which emerged from the data in this study allowed
laughter to be classified according to more than simple dichotomous “Who laughed
first?” and “Was there a corresponding response?” criteria. By delving into the reasons
for initiations and describing the response types, the use of laughter by participants in

tutorials can be more clearly understood.

259

 

The major findings in this study show both similarities to and differences from
what have become reified beliefs about the ways participants use laughter in institutional
discourse. Similar to professionals’ responses to laypersons in other institutional contexts,
tutors tended not to respond to students’ initiations of laughter, nor did they initiate much
laughter on their own. Also similar to typical professionals’ interactional behavior, tutors
overwhelmingly gave neutral responses to student initiations. However, in this study,
through more closely defining initiation and response types, and through the use of
discourse features other than laughter, a more three-dimensional understanding of tutor
and student behavior emerged than what is often portrayed as little more than a stereotype
of professionals and laypersons.

In comparison to other institutional contexts, tutors show a wider range in the
degree to which they attempt to claim power through discourse. Unlike other
professionals such as doctors who maintain a degree of interpersonal distance, some
tutors use much affiliative laughter to draw students closer, and approach a fairly
equitable distribution of authority as evidenced through such discourse moves as
speaking only slightly more than half as much as students, frequently using backchannels,
yielding the floor when interrupted, or often responding affiliatively either through
laughter or through verbal means.

Students, too, in this study defied the layperson stereotype of placidly supporting
the professionals’ laughter by using a neutral response 44% of the time. This suggests the
nature of tutorials is such that students, while they may not feel empowered enough to
overtly avoid invitations to laugh, may at least not feel as obligated to support tutors’

laughter which is either unclear or disagreeable in its intention. The higher use of neutral

260

responses may also suggest that while tutors attempt to make less formal the distinction
between tutor and student roles, students may not know how to interpret these attempts to
bring participants closer together.

Due to the lack of clear patterns in gender differences in the use of laughter by
participants in this study, the results are important because they shed new light on
stereotypes of gender. The data do, to some degree, support results from many studies of
gender in interaction: women initiate more laughter than men, women use laughter as a
backchannel more than men, and male tutors make more claims to power than do female
tutors by issuing more directives, asking more questions, and controlling the topic with
greater frequency. However, this study shows that male tutors and students use a higher
percentage of their laughter initiations to show affiliation or to invite the other person to
come closer than do female tutors and students. Also, male students respond affiliatively
almost as often as female students. Finally, female students respond neutrally almost as
often as they do affiliatively. These results suggest that perhaps laughter that draws
people closer and laughter that supports the other person is used by men more often than
has been evidenced in other studies. Whether or not these differences are due to the
nature of tutorial discourse or to the idiosyncrasies of these particular participants is not
clear. Further, the number of participants in this study is too small to warrant conclusions
about gender based on the present data.

However, some conclusions can be drawn about the functions of laughter in this
study of writing tutorials. In writing tutorials, students make themselves vulnerable to
criticism and tutors are expected to assume—often unwillingly—an identity of

institutional authority. These roles have the potential to produce anxiety, and laughter is a

261

conversational strategy that participants use to encourage solidarity, mitigate critical
comments, change topics or discourse boundaries, or to introduce embarrassing IOpics.
Laughter can be used by participants either intentionally or unintentionally to reveal
emotions. Both tutors and students at times feel inadequate due to a lack of knowledge.
Students’ writing and participation in the tutorial can reveal ignorance of writing
conventions, strategies, and styles, and tutors’ knowledge of these writing concerns may
not be enough to answer student questions or to explain a particular problem. Through
the use of laughter, these feelings can be intimated. Also, laugher can be used to
communicate a willingness to break down role barriers inherent in institutional
encounters. Participants can sense tension in one another and can use laughter as a way to
ease that tension. Also, laughter can invite the other person to come closer, and can
indicate a willingness to share authority. Finally, laughter can be used to support the other
person’s attempts at humor, and can signal alignment.

The results of this study have implications for theory in the fields of institutional
discourse, humor studies, and writing center theory. First, this study has shown that even
though participant roles in tutorials are not as clearly defined as in other institutional
encounters, some participants have trouble interacting in a less dichotomous manner.
Contrary to current theories in the field of writing center studies that position tutors less
as authority figures and more as consultants or guides, in actual practice, at least in this
study, tutors do assume the role of authority and students do assume the role of
layperson. Since the goal a tutorial is different from other institutional contexts in terms
of how power differentials are realized, more research should be aimed at uncovering

how participant resistance to more egalitarian roles might be lessened. For example, a

262

 

 

 

patient’s goal in seeking medical advice is in part to get permission granted from the
doctor/authority to procure medicine or treatments. The patient has no goal of being
granted the authority to prescribe medicine for him or herself, and is quite content to let
the doctor do so. In the case of tutorials, the tutor/authority has no such permission
granting responsibilities and instead, in theory, is focused on helping the student to
become his or her own authority. A student’s goal is to become an efficient writer and not
need the assistance of a tutor, and based on what laughter responses in this study show,
particularly in terms of students’ neutral responses to tutor laughter initiations, more
research needs to be done to understand why students might resist sharing power.

Humor studies could benefit from the coding scheme devised for this study. Most
studies of laugher have simply counted whether or not the laughter initiation was
responded to, and have not attempted to further define what constitutes a response.
Haakana (1999) has made progress is defining responses, but more needs to be done.

Finally writing center theory would benefit from incorporating research on
laughter such as was done in this study. The results from this project indicate that
tutorials are not necessarily of the collaborative nature that is theoretically desirable.
Students, through laughter, indicate frequent moments of tension, and tutorials as
learning experiences would benefit if the ways ill which they are conducted might be
rethought.

This study also has implications for practical applications in institutional settings
particularly regarding training of professionals. Of particular use to professionals would
be an awareness of the potential for laughter to signal when a layperson is talking about

troubles. Whether in situations involving patients reporting symptoms, advisees seeking

263

information, or international negations, laughter can reveal a speaker trying to make light
of something that is painful or embarrassing to communicate. Sensitive, aware
professionals can then respond in a manner that would alleviate the lay person’s anxiety
and allow more open interaction to occur. Professionals should be aware, too, of the
potential of their own laughter to alienate other participants if the laughter is at the
expense of the other person.

This study was not designed to see if the presence or absence of laughter is
desirable; instead the goal was to see how laughter functions in interaction. While the
results are indicative of the function of laughter in these ten tutorials, and cannot be
portrayed with any validity to represent tutorials in general, what this study can represent
is a need for further research into what roles age, gender, and claims to power play in the

use of laughter.

264

 

APPENDIX A.l.

INSTRUCTOR CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY OF
INSTRUCTOR-STUDENT COMMUNICATION

TITLE: Instructor-student Communication in a Writing Center Setting
INVESTIGATOR: Mary Zdrojkowski
Director, Writing Development Center
Department of English
Eastern Michigan University
(313-487-0135)

PURPOSE: To study instructor-student communication in a writing center setting;
to gather information for articles on more effective instructor-student communication.

DESCRIPTION: I understand that my Writing Development Center student
conference will be recorded on videotape and later played back by the researcher to study
the instructor-student communication. I also understand that the researcher will tape-
record a follow-up telephone interview. If I wish, I may then contact the researcher and
view and/or listen to the recording(s).

CONFIDENTIALITY: I understand that any information about me obtained from
this research will be kept strictly confidential. I consent to the publication of study results
so long as the information is anonymous and/or disguised so that identification cannot be
made.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW: I understand that I am free to refuse to participate in
this study or to withdraw at any time; I understand that my decision will not adversely
affect my assignment to the Writing Development Center in any way. I further
understand that the videotape will NOT be used by the Writing Development Center
Director or by Eastern Michigan University faculty or staff to evaluate my effectiveness
as an instructor or to determine my continued assignment to the Writing Development
Center.

VOLUNTARY CONSENT: I certify that I have read the preceding or it has been
read to me and that I understand its contents. Any questions I have pertaining to the
research have been or will be answered by Mary Zdrojkowski. My signature below
means that I have freely agreed to participate in this study.

 

 

Date Participant’s signature Phone Number

 

Participant’s local address

 

Participant’s permanent address Phone #

 

 

Date Witness’s signature Phone Number

265

APPENDIX A.2.

STUDENT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY OF
INSTRUCTOR-STUDENT COMMUNICATION

TITLE: Instructor-student Communication in a Writing Center Setting
INVESTIGATOR: Mary Zdrojkowski
Director, Writing Development Center
Department of English
Eastern Michigan University
(313-487-0135)

PURPOSE: To study instructor-student communication in a writing center setting;
to gather information for articles on more effective instructor-student communication.

DESCRIPTION: I understand that my visit to the Writing Development Center
will be recorded on videotape and later played back by the researcher to study the
instructor-student communication. 1 also understand that photocopies will be made of my
working draft and final draft of my assignment, and that a follow up telephone interview
will be tape-recorded. If I wish, I may then contact the researcher and view and/or listen
to the recording(s).

CONFIDENTIALITY: I understand that any information about me obtained from
this research will be kept strictly confidential. I consent to the publication of study results
so long as the information is anonymous and/or disguised so that identification cannot be
made.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW: I understand that I am free to refuse to participate in
this study or to withdraw at any time; I understand that my decision will not adversely
affect my visit to the Writing Development Center in any way.

VOLUNTARY CONSENT: I certify that I have read the preceding or it has been
read to me and that I understand its contents. Any questions I have pertaining to the
research have been or will be answered by Mary Zdrojkowski. My signature below
means that I have freely agreed to participate in this study.

 

 

Date Participant’s signature Phone Number

 

 

Participant’s local address

 

Participant’s permanent address Phone #

 

 

Date Witness’s signature Phone Number

266

APPENDIX A.3.

DATE:

 

WRITING DEVELOPMENT CENTER
INFORMATION SHEET

TO THE STUDENT: PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND HAND IT TO THE
PERSON YOU WILL BE MEETING WITH

 

 

 

Name: ID#

Last First M
What is your College? Class Standing: Fr_ So_ Jr_ Se_
Have you declared a Major? If so, what is it?

 

 

 

What is your native language?

 

I came to the Writing Development Center because:

I referred myself
My teacher suggested that I come
My teacher required that I come

Other, explain

I am seeking help with:

An assignment for a course:
Dept. Course# Instructor:

 

 

A Non-academic writing project
A personal statement for graduate or professional school

Reviewing a completed piece of writing
Other:

 

Please describe the help you would like to have. The workshop instructor will take
seriously any request you make below:

 

 

 

NOTE: Your writing instructor will fill in the other side of this form.

267

To be completed by Writing Center inguctor

Name of Instructor:

Code:

 

Time in Conference:

 

 

Time of Appt:

*************’1'*************I1!********************************************

Workshop instructor’s comments and recommendations (e. g. further Writing
Development Center appointments):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We worked on (check all that apply):

01”.“.0‘999191‘

t—Ov—ip—av—tr—n
PPPT‘P'

p—a
M

Signed:

writer’s block

understanding the assignment
defining & discovering a topic
developing an approach
researching a topic

awareness of audience
developing ideas

using thesis statements
supporting points with examples
moving from summary to analysis
reorganizing the draft

citing sources

consistency of point of view
paragraphing

transitions

l6.
I7.
18.
I9.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

lllllllllllll

omitting sexist language
style

voice

clarity of expression
sentence structure
sentence boundaries
word choice

verb usage

pronoun usage
punctuation

spelling

grammar

Other

 

 

268

APPENDIX A.4.

WRITINE DEVELIIPNENT CENTER
EVALUATION FDR"

Tl] THE STUDENT: Please complete the rest of this form. and return it to the receptionist. If you are being seen at one of our walk-in
locations. please fold the form in half before giving it to the instructor

 

 

 

 

Date: Class Standing
fR_

College: Sll_
JR _

Major: SR_
Uther__

I. I came to the Center because: 2. I came to the Center to receive assistance with:

_ I referred myself _ a paper for a course

_ my teacher suggested that I come __ a personal statement for a job or graduate __ my teacher required that I come

school
__ a non-academic writing project
_reviewing a completed piece of writing
_Ilther:

3. I received the following assistance 4. I received the following assistance

in developing my project. in the mechanics of writing.

(More than one can be checked)

understanding the assignment consistency of point of view
defining 8 discovering a topic transitions between paragraphs 5 sentences
rhetorical strategy sentence structure
awareness of the audience clarity of expression
developing my ideas omitting sexist language
researching my topic word choice

using thesis statement or topic sentences verb usage

supporting my points w/ detail or examples pronoun usage

moving from summary to analysis punctuation

reorganizing my draft spelling

revising my draft

Please respond to the following by circling the letters:
SA=Strongly agree A=Agree N=Neither agree nor disagree D=llisagree SD=Strongly disagree

5. | feel better about my writing than I did before this appointment SA A N 0 SD
5. I left the meeting with a better sense of how to

(a) revise my paper: SA A N [l SD
(b) improve a particular aspect of the way I write: SA A N l] SD

7. The workshop instructor
(a) was knowledgeable about writing SA A N D SD

8. I would probably come again for help with writing: SA A N D SD

269

WORKS CITED

Adelsward, Vivika. “Laughter and Dialogue: The Social Significance of Laughter.
In Institutional Discourse.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12.2 (1989): 107-136.

Adelsward, Vivika., and Britt-Marie Oberg. “The Function of Laughter and Joking in
Negotiation Activities. HUMOR 11.4 (1998): 411-429.

Agar, Michael. “Institutional Discourse.” Text 5 (1985): 147-168.

Ainsworth-Vaughn, Nancy. Claiming Power in Doctor-Patient Talk. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988.

Allen, Myria W., Margaret Reid, and Cynthia Riemenschneider. “The Role of Laughter
When Discussing Workplace Barriers: Women in Information Technology Jobs.
Sex Roles 50.3 (2004): 177-189.

99

Apte, Mahadev L. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1985.

Astedt-Kurki, Paivi, and Arja Isola. “Humour between Nurse and Patient, and among
Staff: Analysis of Nurses’ Diaries.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 35.3
(2001): 452-458.

Attardo, Salvatore. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.

Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin. Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and
Joke Representation Model. HUMOR 4 (3) (1991): 293-347.

Bachorowski, Jo-Anne, and Michael Owren. “Not all Laughs are Alike: Voiced
but Not Unvoiced Laughter Readily Elicits Positive Affect.” Psychological
Science 12.3 (2001): 252-257.

Blau, Susan R., John Hall, and Tracy Strauss. “Exploring the Tutor/Client Conversation:
A Linguistic Analysis.” The Writing Center Journal 19.1 (Fall/Winter 1998): 1
9-47.

Burleson, Brant R., and Erina L. MacGeorge. “Supportive Communication.” Handbook
of Interpersonal Communication. Ed. Mark L. Knapp and John A. Daly. 3rd Ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002. 374-422.

Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York:
Macmillan, 1911.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper. eds. Cross-Cultural
Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989.

270

Boudreaux. Marjory Ann. Toward Awareness: A Study of Nonverbal Behavior in the
Writing Conference. Diss. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1998. Ann Arbor:
UMI. 9828752.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. 1978. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

“Call for Papers.” 23'd National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing: Negotiating
Authority in the Writing Center. 10-12 Nov 2006. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI. 7 May 2007. <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/swc/ngnw/papers/z

Cann, Arnie, Lawrence G. Calhoun, and Jamey T. Nance (2000). “Exposure to Humor
Before and After an Unpleasant Stimulus: Humor as a Preventative or a Cure.”
HUMOR 13.2 (2000): 177-191.

Cazden, Courtney. Classroom Doscourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1988.

Chapman, Antony J. “Social Aspects of Humorous Laughter.” Humor and
Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications. Ed. Antony. J. Chapman and
Hugh C. Foot. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1996. 155-185.

Chafe, Wallace. “Laughing While Talking.” Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics 2001, Linguistics, Language, and the Real World:
Discourse and Beyond. Ed. Deborah Tannen and James Alatis. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. 36-49.

Coser, Rose Laub. “Laughter among Colleagues: A Study of the Functions of Humor
among the Staff of a Mental Hospital.” Psychiatry 23 (1960): 81-95.

Coser, Rose Laub. “Some Social Functions of Laughter: A Study of Humor in a
Hospital Setting.” Human Relations: Studies towards the Integration of the
Social Sciences. 12.2 (1959): 171-182.

CREW. Hompage. 24 Jan. 2007. Univeraity of Macau. 3 May 2007.
<http://www.umac.mo/elc/elc_crew.html>.

Darwin, Charles. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 1872.
New York: Philosophical Society, 1955.

Davis, Kathy. Power under the Microscope. Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Foris Publications, 1988.

271

Davis, Kevin., Nancy Hayward, Kathleen R. Hunter, and David L.Wallace. “The

Function of Talk in the Writing Conference: A Study of Tutorial Conversation.”
The Writing Center Journal 9.1 (1988): 45-51.

Deutsch, Francine M., Dorothy LeBaron and Maury March Fryer. “What is In a Smile?”
Psychology of Women Quarterly 11 (1987): 341-352.

Devereux, Paul. G. and Gerald P. Ginsberg. “Sociality Effects on the Production of
Laughter” Journal of General Psychology 128.2 (April 2001): 227-40. Online
Version. 7 May 2007.
<http:IIfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_2_128/ai_7767494l>.

Dissertation Abstracts. 27 Apr 2007. First Search. Bruce T. Halle Library, Eastern
MichiganUniversity. 3 May 2007. <http://firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSQUERY?
format=Bl:next=html/records.html:bad=html/records.html:numrecs=lOzsessionid
=fsappl 3-445 70-fl 9fzm52-itmyd8 :entitypagenum=2:0:searchtype=advanced>.

Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.

Edwards, Derek. “Moaning, Whinging and Laughing: The Subjective Side of
Complaints.” Discourse Studies 7.] (2005): 5-29.

Edwards, Jane. A. “Principles and Contrasting Systems of Discourse
Transcription.” Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research.
Ed. Martin D. Lampert and Jane A. Edwards. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1993. 3-31.

Farrell-Childers, Pamela. “A Unique Learning Environment.” Intersections: T heorjy-
Practice in the Writing Center. Ed. Joan A. Mullin and Ray Wallace. Urbana, IL:
NCTE,1994. lll-ll9.

Fishman, Pamela. M. “Interaction: The Work Women Do.” Language. Gender,
and Society. Ed. Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley.
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, 1983. 89-101.

Fletcher, David C. “On the Issue of Authority.” Dynamics of the Writing Conference:
Social and Cognitive Interaction. Ed. Thomas Flynn and Mary King. Urbana:
NCTE, 1993. 41-50.

Francis, Linda, Kathleen Monahan, and Candyce Berger. “A Laughing Matter? The Use
of Humor in Medical Interactions.” Motivation and Emotion. 23.2 (1999):
155-174.

Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. 1905. Trans. James
Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton, 1960.

272

Gavoli, Laura. “Tum-Initial versus Turn-Final Laughter: Two Techniques for
Initiating Remedy in English/Italian Bookshop Service Encounters.” Discourse
Processes 19 (1995): 369-384.

Glenn, Phillip. “Initiating Shared Laughter in Multi-Party Conversations.”
Western Journal of Speech Communication 53 (Spring 1989): 127-149.

Glenn, Phillip.“Laughing At and Laughing With: Negotiation of Participant Alignments
through Conversational Laughter.” Situated Order: Studies in the Social
Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities (Studies in Ethnomethodology and
Conversation Analysis, Vol. 3). Ed. Paul. ten Have and George Psathas.
Washington, DC: lntemational Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation
Analysis and University Press of America, 1995.

Glenn, Phillip. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003.

Glenn, Phillip J ., and Mark L. Knapp. “The Interactive Framing of Play in Adult
Conversations.” Communication Quarterly 35.1 (Winter 1987): 48-66.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY
Doubleday Anchor Press, 1959.

Goldstein, Jeffrey H., and Paul E. McGhee, eds. The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical
Perspectives and Empirical Issues. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Graham, Elizabeth, Michael Papa, and Gordon Brooks. “Functions of Humor in
Conversation: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Western Journal of
Communication 56 (Spring 1992): 161-183.

Gronnerod, Jama Soilevuo. “On the Meanings and Uses of Laughter in Research
Interviews.” Nordic Journal of Youth Research 12.1 (2004): 31-49.

Gunther, Ulrike. “What’s in an Laugh?: Humour, Jokes and Laughter in the
Conversational Corpus of the BNC.” Diss. Albert-Ludwigs University, 2003.

Haakana, Markku. “Laughing Matters: A Conversational Analytical Study of Laughter.”
Diss. University of Helsinki, 1999.

Haakana, Markku. “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of
Medical Interaction.” Text 21.1 (2001): 187-219.

Haakana, M. “Laughter in Medical Interaction: From Quantification to Analysis,
and Back.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 6.2 (2002): 207-235.

273

Hartford, Beverly S., and Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. “Closing the Conversation: Evidence
from the Academic Advising Session.” Discourse Processes 15 (1992): 93-116.

Hawthorne, Joan. “Researching the Conference (Why We Need Discourse Analysis)”
The Writing Lab Newsletter 27.4 (Dec 2002): 1-5.

Hay, Jennifer. “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” HUMOR 14.1 (2001): 55-82.

Holmes, Janet. “Politeness, Power, and Provocation: How Humour Functions in
the Workplace.” Discourse Studies 2.2 (2000): 159-185.

Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra. “Over the Edge? Subversive Hmnor between
Colleagues and Friends.” HUMOR 15.1 (2002): 65-87.

James, Deborah and Janice Drakich. “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of
Talk: A Critical Review of Research.” Gender and Conversational Interaction. Ed.
Deborah Tannen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. 281-312.

Jefferson, Gail.“A Technique for Inviting Laughter and Its Subsequent Acceptance
Declination.” Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Ed.
George Psathas. New York: Irvington, 1979. 79-96.

Jefferson, Gail. “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.”
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Ed. J.
Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1984. 346-369.

Jefferson, Gail. “An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter.” Handbook
of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3 :Discourse and Dialogue. Ed. Tuen van
Dijk. London, UK: Academic Press, 1985. 25-34.

Jefferson, Gail. “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male-Female’ Interaction.” Discourse
Studies. 6.1 (2004): 117-133.

Johnson, W. Brad, and Charles R. Ridley. The Elements of Mentoring. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. _

Kotthoff, Helga. “Gender and Humor: An Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 38.1
(Jan 2006): 4-25.

Keith-Spiegel, Patricia. “Early Conceptions of Humor: Varieties and Issues.” The
Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. Ed.
Jeffrey. H. Goldstein and Paul. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press,
1972. 3-39.

274

Lampert, Martin. D., and Susan Ervin-Tripp. “Risky Laughter: Teasing and
Self-Directed Joking among Male and Female Friends. Journal of Pragmatics
38.1 (Jan 2006): 51-72.

Martin, Rod A. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA:
Elseview Academic Press, 2007.

Maples, Mary Finn, Peggy Dupey, and Edil Torres-Rivera. “Ethnic Diversity and the Use
of Humor in Counseling: Appropriate or Inappropriate?” Journal of Counseling
and Development 79.1 (Winter 2001): 53-60.

Miller, Jonathan. “Jokes and Joking: A Serious Laughing Matter.” Laughing
Matters: A Serious Look at Humor. Ed. John. Durant and Jonathan Miller. Essex,
England: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1988. 5-16.

Morreal], John. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1987.

Morreal], John. Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1983.

Monro, David H. Argument of Laughter. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1951.

Mullany, Louise. “Gender, Politeness and Institutional Power Roles: Humour as a
Tactic to Gain Compliance in Workplace Business Meetings. Multilingua 23
(2004): 13-37.

Nevo, Ofra. “Humor in Career Counseling.” Humor and Wellness in Clinical
Intervention. Eds. Waleed A. Salameh and William. F. Fry. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2001. 109-132.

Norrick, Neal. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1993.

North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” Landmark Essays on Writing Centers.
Ed. Christina Murphy and Joe Law. Davis, CA: Herrnagoras Press, 1995. 71-85.

O’Donnell-Trujillo, Nick and Katherine Adams. “Heheh in Conversation:
Some Coordinating Accomplishments of Laughter. The Western Journal of
Speech Communication 47 (Spring 1983): 175-191.

Oetzel, John G. and Stella Ting-Toomey. “Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict: A
Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face-Negotiation Theory.” Communication
Research 30.6 (December 2003): 599-624.

275

 

Oetzel, John G., et al. “Face and Facework in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of

China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.” Communication Monographs
68.3 (September 2001): 235-258.

Osvaldsson, Karin. “On Laughter and Disagreement in Multiparty Assessment
Talk.” Text 24.4 (2004): 517-545.

Pollio, H oward, Rodney Mers, and William Lucchesi. “Humor, Laughter, and Smiling:
Some Preliminary Observations of Funny Behaviors.” Ed. Jeffrey. H. Goldstein
and Paul. E. McGhee. The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and
Empirical Issues. New York: Academic Press, 1972. 211-239.

Provine, Robert. R. Laughter: A Scientific Investigation. New York: Penguin, 2000.

Ramachandran, Vilayanur S. “The Neurology and Evolution of Humour, Laughter, and
Smiling: The False Alarm Theory.” Med Hypotheses 51.4 (1998): 351-4.

Roberts, Felicia, and Jeffrey Robinson. “Interobserver Agreement on First-Stage
Conversation Analytic Transcription.” Human Communication Research 30.3
(2004): 376-410.

Rostila, Ilmari. “The Treatment of Client Responsibility and Laughter in Encounters
Between Social Workers and Clients.” Text and Talk in Personal Contexts:
Selected Papers from the International Conference “Discourse and the
Professions.” Uppsala, 26—29 August, 1992. Eds. Britt-Louise Gunnarsson,
Per Linell, and Bengt Nordberg. Uppsala, Sweden: The Swedish Association

of Applied Linguistics, 1994. 201-218.

Rothman, Ellen. “Community Celebrates a Child’s First Laugh.” Focus Online: News
from Harvard Medical, Dentakgnd Public Health Schools. 17 Dec 2004. Office of
Public Affairs at Harvard Medical School. 7 May 2007
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2004/Dec l 7_2004/forum .html>.

 

Ruch, Willibald, and Paul Ekman. “The Expressive Pattern of Laughter.” Emotion,
Qualia, and Consciousness. Ed. Alfred Kaszniak. Tokyo: World
Scientific Publishing, 2001. 410-25.

Sacks, Harvey., Emanuel.Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. “A Simplest Systematics
for the Organization of Tum-Taking in Conversation.” Studies in the
Organization of Conversational Interaction. Ed. Jim Schenkein. New York:
Academic Pres, 1978. 7-55.

Sacks, Harvey. Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1 and 2. Ed. Gail Jefferson. Blackwell:
Oxford, 1992.

276

 

Saunders, Pamela A. “You’re Out of Your Mind!”: Humor as a Face-Saving
Strategy During Neuropsychological Examinations.” Health Communication
10.4 (1998): 357-372.

Schegloff, Emanuel. “Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:1 (1993): 99-128.

Schenkin, James. N. “Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation and the Sense of
Heheh.” Semiotica 6 (1972): 344-377.

Sev’er, Aysan and Sheldon Ungar. “No Laughing Matter: Boundaries of Gender-Based
Humour in the Classroom.” Journal of Higher Education 68.] (Jan/Feb 1997):
87-106.

Simpson, Rita, and John Swales. eds. Corpus Linguistics in North America:
Selections from the 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2001.

Stenberg, Shari. “Making Room for New Subjects.” Teaching Rhetorica: Theory,
Pedagogy, and Practice. Eds. Kate Ronald and Joy Richtie. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook, 2006. 131-146.

Stewart, Stuart. “The Multiple Functions of Laughter in a Dominican Spanish
Conversation.” Paper presented at the Language South of the Rio Bravo
Conference, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. 10 Jan 1995. 7 May 2007
< http://www.tulane.edu/~ling/LSoRB/Proc/Stewart.html>.

Student Writing Center. Homepage. 3 May 2007. Salt Lake Community College. 3 May
2007. <http://www.slcc.edu/swc/index.asp>.

Tannen, Deborah. ed. Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford, 1993.

Thonus, Terese. What Makes a Writing Tutorial Successful: An Analysis of Linguistic
Variables and Social Context. Diss. Indiana University, 1998. Ann Arbor: UMI,
1998. 9919428.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. “Managing Intercultural Conflicts Effectively.” Intercultural
Communication: A Reader. 7'h ed. Ed. Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth: 360-372.

Vettin, Julia. & Todt, Dietmar. “Laughter in Conversation: Features of Occurrence and
Acoustic Structure.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 28.2 (2004): 93-115.

West, Candace. Routine Complications: Troubles with Talk between Doctors and
Patients. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

277

Writing Center. Homepage. 12 Sept. 2006. Denison University. 3 May 2007.
<http://www.denison.edquritingctr/students_why.html>.

278

 

111111111111111111