CASUAL CONVERSATION

Affiliation through humor in casual conversation among friends

Chrysa Staiano AL6140 Discourse Analysis Hawaii Pacific University Dr. Hanh Nguyen December 4, 2013 Revised March 27, 2014

CASUAL CONVERSATION Affiliation through humor in casual conversation among friends Introduction Humor in conversation is used to deepen and form relational bonds. Humor is also deployed to alleviate conflict, end arguments and broach touchy topics according to Norrick and Spitz (2011). While this is true for native speakers of a particular language, humor is a key element of second language learning. It is possible for language teachers to employee humor in the classroom to mitigate the differentiation of power between them and their students (Davis, 2003). Bell (2009) presents a variety of reasons that language teachers should encourage humor in the classroom. Firstly, humor is used to relax students and make the learning environment more comfortable. Secondly, humor within particular activities help raise student interest, which removes the motivation burden from the teacher. Also, humor helps create bonds amongst classmates. These bonds are vital to humor because humor is only understood on the common basis of what is funny. Therefore, it is hard for students to reach out to their peers of a different demographic or culture because they may not share the same sense of humor. This paper first reviews recent literature serving as the basis for the authors own research and findings. The ultimate goal of the paper is to examine the role of humor in the achievement of affiliation. Literature Review Affiliation through storytelling Wong and Waring (2010) describe storytelling as a fabric of social interaction and the telling of what happens in daily life, to include things that are happy, sad, moving, surprising, exhilarating, and sometimes shocking (p. 127). These stories are told for a variety of reasons, to

CASUAL CONVERSATION include conveying information, revisiting past events and for the enjoyment and pleasure derived from telling and exchanging itself (Conroy, 1999). These stories are often sprinkled with laughter from the participants, which signals amusement, invites laughter and identifies the ending of a conversation or topic (Schenkein, 1972). Storytellers also intersperse laughter to signal found humor about a previous utterance. Stories are performed by speakers and received by listeners who simultaneously agree to give the speaker an extended turn. Listeners must remain in their role for an undisclosed amount of time because the course and length of the story is not always obvious. Conroy (1999) says that this agreement alone is affiliative, but it is shown by cordial turn-taking sequences, such as question and answer adjacency pairs. The organization of topics in storytelling is important to achieving affiliation (Conroy, 1999). Through this method, speakers interactionally share a conversation and unbeknownst to them, focus on a commonality. Organization is built by the turn taking and sequencing practices described in Wong and Waring (2010). They include structures such as turn construction units, a variety of overlaps and projections. Stories can also be told collaboratively, which show agreement preferences and intimacy pursuits to build affiliation (Conroy, 1999). Personal storytelling Narratives in conversation act as revelations or to complement a narrative of another speaker (Goffman, 1974). Narratives involve the telling of what happened to someone firsthand, or someone else, such as a friend of theirs. Narratives can be generated from personal experience, but do not have to be, so they will less likely hold information that gives the speaker reason to pause. Because of this, they are more likely to be more broadcast than personal disclosures. Personal disclosures are from a first-person point of view and can be given in the

CASUAL CONVERSATION context of a narrative. They can provide information of a sensitive nature, to a listener (usually a very small audience). These utterances very often build affiliation because they are only shared within small social circles. The participants trust each other with private or sensitive information, which is often disclosed through storytelling. Kothoff (2006) also touches on personal disclosures, but in conversations comprised of female dyads. The article discusses the costs of humor, such as embarrassment or other lessthan-flattering emotions that may arise from these disclosures. Unlike the case with men, women invite other women to laugh with them instead of at them during a humorous story. This type of laughter is a common cause of overlap in the casual conversations from DeCapua, et al., (2006). Value- and culture-based humor as a basis for affiliation Humor always requires a platform before it is used to achieve affiliation. That is, in order for the humor to be effective, participants must be universal in that if a speaker expresses something funny, the listener must be able to get it. The likelihood of this is increased if the participants have a shared background because then the humorous references can be made without an explanation (Flamson & Barrett, 2008). The immediate reaction of laughter provides a hard-to-fake signal of shared background knowledge and allows participants to affiliate with one another through such shared knowledge. Kotthoff (1996) discusses how humor has been shown to increase and reinforce relations of familiarity and informality, which are both features of close friendships. Knight (2013) furthers this by stating that friends of the same community or culture build affiliation because they are able to laugh off or distance themselves from non-members. Therefore, friends can form an identity of us versus them to affiliate further in their roles. Since these friends share a community value, they are easily able to create humorous contrasts to it. This type of affiliation

CASUAL CONVERSATION is also seen in Mathis and Yule (1994), in which participants use zero quotatives (as opposed to quotatives be and like) to construct dialogues. When re-telling stories and pretending to be the original participant of a conversation, the participants often changed their voices and used speech in a sequential nature in order to show convergent behavior. Actions like these helped build affiliation because the participants aligned over a discussion of similar experiences, such as the difficulty of buying a Christmas gift for ones father. Research Questions In this paper, the following research questions will be addressed: 1. In what sequential context does a speaker introduce humor in storytelling? 2. How does the recipient treat the initiated humor? 3. How is humor used to build affiliation through narratives and disclosures? Methodology Data The data for this study are two hours of videotaped casual conversations. The participants were gathered in small groups based on commonalities in their interests, backgrounds and/or demographics. They met in a variety of private homes throughout Oahu, Hawaii. The participants gave oral content. The researcher was not present for any of the conversations. There were 6 total conversations recorded: three conversations (Real Estate, Yoga, and Do it yourself) were between female dyads, one conversation (Birthday party) between a married couple, and two conversations (Wedding and Germany) among a group of three people. Data from the Wedding group is not presented in this paper. All participants except a Filipino woman in Yoga are native speakers of English and come from various locations across the United States. Their age range was 28-40 years old and they all have at least some college education.

CASUAL CONVERSATION Analytic approach: Conversation Analysis Conversation analysis is not a term highly recognized among those outside of the fields of sociology and linguistics. It is a method of study in regards to talk-in interaction, that is a conversation, consisting of turn taking, sequencing and other linguistic elements. It can also be involved in analyzing snippets of conversation, such as fragments in which the turn of only one speaker is presented. Conversation analysis is different than other approaches in that it is emic. According to ten Have (2007), emic categories are focused on one culture in particular and are discovered during investigation into that particular culture (p. 34). That is, the researchers apply categories to the knowledge of the members in a particular setting. Unlike other research, a category to be studied is not applied to the data without validation. According to this perspective, a data sample is social interaction itself and by itself, reveals no new information. It relies on pattern detection by a scholar to produce a thesis. That is, use an inductive approach. Since this interaction is orderly, members display their interpersonal competency and can have their practices explained by all of the influences of conversation analysis. Analysis Humor in Storytelling Storytelling is one way that participants can share information and during the process, laughter sometimes occurs. This is because the information is usually tailored to the recipient; he/she has either asked for it (as is the case with Example 1) or the speaker thinks the humor, intended or not, is appropriate. In Excerpt 1, Joe asks his wife, Nan to provide the latest information about plans for their sons birthday party. The information has been relayed to Nan

CASUAL CONVERSATION by her mother-in-law because she and her husband (Joes parents) are hosting it. They party will take place in New York, where Joes parents reside. The venue for the party is called The Depot, which is not the type of establishment where Joe and Nan would normally plan to have the party themselves. (1) 00:10 in Birthday party 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Joe: Nan: So (.2) okay so give me tha update (.) that (.) you got (.) from my ma:m Okay so: right now were having it at the depot? and (.) >looks like< (.) the menus gonna be [hh. be hh. [hh. (xxx) an:d (.4) I think were gonna have some chicken wings and the colors are gonna be dark brown and blu:e

Joe: Nan:

In Excerpt 1, Nan initiates humor while responding to Joes request, given in Lines 0102. He has allowed her to have an extended turn, which is common in storytelling, as noted in Wong and Waring (2010). Nans intonation rises in Line 4 because she is unsure of The Depot as a suitable location for the event. She is not completely happy with her in-laws choice of venue, but she does not want to offend her husband. She uses laughter to delay the release of more details (the food) about the party, signaling that they are not what she would have picked for her sons first birthday party. Joe immediately recognizes Nans position and chuckles, indicating an attempt to affiliate with his wife. He downgrades the level of laughter because he cannot independently evaluate the food yet still wants to show affiliation with Nan. In Excerpt 2, the participants, Zeny and Sara are both certified yoga teachers. Together they are commiserating about people who are really just fitness experts, yet call themselves yoga teachers. One such example is Jillian Michaels, from the television show, The Biggest Loser.

CASUAL CONVERSATION Michaels is an easy target for the women because she is a celebrity trainer on TV, making lots of money while Zeny and Sara are local yoga teachers, often frustrated by their jobs. (2) 04:24 in Yoga 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Zeny: A fitness thing with a little bit of yoga but then theyre gonna call themselves yoga teachers Ri:ght Like Jillian Michaels h[h. [Yeah hh. [(xxx) [DO CHATURANGA hh. (authoritative voice) Dont be a loser (breathy voice) Right (.8) you wont be fat in my program yeah

Sara: Zeny: Sara: Zeny: Sara: Zeny: Sara:

Excerpt 1 is an example of how humor is used to build affiliation through narratives. Humor is introduced here by Zeny in Line 05. To complete her turn, she laughs, which signals that it is now Saras turn to talk. In Line 06, Sara performs transitional overlap because she recognizes that Zenys turn has ended. Zenys laughter in Line 05 is matched by Saras laughter in Line 06. The conversation becomes sequential in nature as the women then trade turns. They each perform upgrades while poking fun at Jillian Michaels, the third party that is not present. Building affiliation in this way is discussed in Knight (2013). Michaels is an easy target for Sara and Zeny because they believe she is a fraud, as an uncertified yoga teacher. Since Michaels is on television and not known to the ladies, she is also unable to defend herself from their mocking. In changing their voices to sound mean and overbearing, which they believe Michaels does when addressing her clients, they are performing zero quotatives, which Mathis and Yule (1994) found to be affiliative and allow the participants to display shared understanding and build solidarity.

CASUAL CONVERSATION Though Lines 08-11 are without laughter, the ladies obviously find the turns funny and affiliating because they continue. Each humorous utterance is accepted and then built upon by the co-participant. Humor helps them unite together against a third party who is not present in the conversation. Directing humor at absent third parties to build affiliation is discussed in Bell (2009). In Excerpt 3, Dina and Sela have been discussing where their friends and colleagues live on Oahu. Dina reveals that most of her husbands colleagues do not live on the windward side (which is where both Dina and Sela reside). Therefore, Dina reveals to Sela that her husband feels a little smug about living on the windward side, to the envy of his co-workers. (3) 05:40 in Real estate 196 197 198 199 200 Dina: he just said he was like kinda smug though hes like you know its kinda awesome cuz were the only people who live h[h. OUT HERE [OH YEAH HH.

Sela:

In this transcript, Dina has introduced humor through a narrative in Lines 196-9. Dina wants her turn to conclude to avoid seeming too self-important when discussing the minor jealousy of her husbands colleagues. Dina uses humor to signal the end of her turn (Line 199) which Sela recognizes and begins talking. Sela affiliates with Dina by also laughing (Line 200). She does this to help Dina end her turn, but also because Sela lives on the windward side of Oahu as well. She may also have experience with an issue of this type. The sequential nature and immediate receipt and reply with laughter by Sela sets the scene for an us versus them (or in this case, the haves versus the have nots) type of affiliation, like in Knight (2013). The women are affiliated in living in the windward community, while other Oahu residents, including people known to them, are not.

CASUAL CONVERSATION Humor and personal disclosure in storytelling Revealing personal information builds affiliation amongst friends because personal information is not widely broadcast. When a speaker reveals something about themselves (disclosure), the co-participant is likely to align on the same level because it is happening to their friend and not someone unknown. The co-participant is likely to find the happening even funnier because a) by nature of personal disclosures, he/she doesnt hear information like this often and b) he/she definitely and clearly wants to affiliate with the speaker since they are in a private conversation. In this type of setting, the reaction of the listener is especially important to the speaker. In Excerpt 4, Holly, Al and Brett have been discussing their experiences in Europe, specifically Germany. Both Holly and Al have lived there, while Brett spends every summer in Switzerland with his girlfriend. They are all familiar with the major roads in Germany, to include the autobahn. Al and Brett are very fond of driving and cars, specifically the German brand of automobiles, Bavarian Motor Works (BMW). (4) 02:46 in Germany 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Holly: Hm: (.2) I got my first ticket (.) ever on the autobahn= [hh. =[oh I got a ticket on the autobahn too A raises his hand [hh.

10

Al:

Brett:

Holly first introduces humor through a personal disclosure. She is able to do this because she is in a comfortable setting with friends. She does this poke fun at herself, but also to signal the end of her turn (and potentially, the topic) as noted in Schenkein (1972). Al then immediately self-selects and informs the group that he has also received a speeding ticket on the autobahn. By

CASUAL CONVERSATION doing this, he affiliates with Holly via their shared experiences, but also because his disclosure is a complement to Hollys. The sequential nature of their talk invites disclosures, which help build affiliation. Als actions are representative of the discussions of Conroy (1999) in that Al has used topical talk in order to achieve affiliation. In addition, complementary disclosures to build affiliation are discussed in Goffman (1974). Finally, Brett takes a turn in Line 07 and he simply laughs in order to affiliate with his friends. He does not perform a disclosure because he has never received a ticket on the autobahn. Holly and Al know Brett frequently travels to Europe, so the story is appropriate for the audience. In Excerpt 5, Nina and Jac have been discussing their home improvement do-it-yourself projects. Jac tells Nina about the saleswoman who pointed out the orange cart where the flags (for transporting wood, etc.) out the back of a vehicle are held. Nina admits she has used her daughters burp cloth for this purpose before because she did not know about the cart either. (5) 4:12 in DIY 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Nina: Jac: How have we never noticed that before? I: (.) dont know >she had to tell me about it< shes like see that orange cart over there and I was like yeah:? (.) shes like <theres flags in there> oh: okay. J points to a distance far away I had no idea about that we had a pink burp cloth [with CATS on it tied@ [Thats freakin hilarious @to the back of it h[hhh. [hhhh. Thats funny

11

Nina: Jac: Nina: Jac:

Excerpt 5 is the type of interaction described in Goffman (1974). First, Nina poses a question to her good friend Jac in Line 30. The question is affiliative in nature by Ninas use of we and not I. Jac responds with a short narrative in the context of storytelling when she describes her recent trip to the home improvement store. She then stops talking to perform a gesture and

CASUAL CONVERSATION then Nina reveals a personal disclosure in Lines 37-38. Nina did not know about the cart with flags in it either. Nina considers this a shortcoming because she is an experienced do-ityourselfer and takes pride in knowing much about this topic. Humor is first introduced in Excerpt 5 by Nina in Lines 37-38. Jac acknowledges the humor in Line 39, but does not laugh. Ninas statement is funny to her because she also has a child knows that burp cloths are not typically used as flags when hauling wood out the back of a moving vehicle. Line 39 is a recognitional overlap and Nina continues her turn, which culminates in laughter. This laughter is matched by Jac, who this time performs transitional overlap in Line 41. Jac emphasizes the humor found here by remarking Thats funny in addition to laughing. The simultaneous laughter is an example of the findings of Kothoff (2006), in that Nina has invited Jac to laugh with her and Jac accepts. The evaluation of humor is congruent to DeCapua, et al. (2006) in that it commonly causes overlap. In Excerpt 6, Dina and Sela have been discussing how many cars they own. Each has three cars even though they both have small families of just them and their husbands. Both of them think it is completely their husbands influences as to why they have excess cars and express frustration at their difficulty finding parking on the windward side of Oahu. (6) 15:00 in Real estate 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Dina: Sela: Dina: Sela: Dina: .hh How many do you have right now:? We have three. [hh. [We do too! [so [oh my gosh! I think its so weird that we have three ca:r[s [Yeah This is like the strangest thing It makes it very challenging hh. to find

12

Sela: Dina: Sela:

CASUAL CONVERSATION

13

Humor is introduced here in Line 03 when Sela offers a personal disclosure. Her falling intonation reveals she is not happy to reveal that she and her husband own three cars. She uses laughter to end her turn, which indicates this is a less than pleasant topic and may not wish to proceed. In Line 04, Dina performs transitional overlap and her excited upshot shows her aligning with Sela. This continues in Lines 06-08. Dina trails off in Line 10 because she has achieved her affiliation with Sela and Sela uses her turn (Line 11) to complement Dina. Selas laughter in Line 11 indicates she is hesitating to tell Dina about the challenges of having three cars. The specific issue is parking, but Sela delays because she does not want to further Dinas frustration. At this time, Dina has a chance to jump in the conversation because Sela has stopped speaking, but she chooses not to. Sela then continues by offering Dina tips. Using humor to discuss less-than-popular topics, or challenges (as performed by S in Line 11) is explained in Norrick and Spitz (2011). The women were able to bond here over their humor perceived at each having three cars, to which they fault their husbands. Discussion & Conclusion Limitations Despite the efforts of the researcher, limitations exist for this study. First of all, this study was the researchers first attempt at collecting and transcribing conversation analysis data. Though conversation analysis is an emic study, the researcher had no idea what interested her in this field and still is not aware of all the possibilities. Trends emerged in the data and the researcher chose affiliation in conversation as a topic of study. This topic was determined to be too broad, so the researcher narrowed her topic later than desired in the research and assignment process. The final topic chosen was how participants use humor to affiliate in causal

CASUAL CONVERSATION conversations. However, after the topic change some of the conversations had to be eliminated for analysis as they showed affiliation, but didnt include humor. Data for this study was collected over a one-week period of time, which is not very long. This stemmed from the researchers pressure to get it done in order to proceed with classroom requirements and commitments outside of school. In addition, the participants were only taped for a maximum of twenty minutes at a time. This may not be sufficient time to settle into a topic, pursue/change topics and experience communication lags, which are all authentic aspects of language. The Germany and Birthday party groups are clearly affected by the presence of the camera at the beginning of their tapes. All of the participants in the study are personal friends of the researcher. Whether or not they wanted to participate in their own right is unknown, but they were undoubtedly motivated by this relationship. The participants were mostly all of the same demographic and economic status: 11/14 women 13/14 English L1 speakers 13/14 Caucasians 13/14 married 13/14 hold bachelors degrees 14/14 middle to upper middle class An increased number of participants (and diverse sampling) may have found different ways in which humor is used to achieve affiliation. In addition, though the study was not conducted to survey the habits of English language learners, this is of interest to the researcher. Data from language learners as participants may have given the researcher a better base for implications of this study for language learners. Questions for further study

14

CASUAL CONVERSATION If the researcher were to further develop this study, potential questions would focus on humor in language learning. Really, if students are never taught how to integrate humor into conversation, how would they use it to build affiliation? Research would be conducted in order to find out if and how language learners were ever instructed how to use humor in casual conversation. The students would also be questioned about whether or not they are familiar with the term or description of affiliation. Familiarity with this concept is key to learners so they understand the basic building blocks of relationships. With friends and resources outside of the classroom, language learners will be encouraged to practice their target language without prompt or supervision by the teacher. Finally, the participants would be asked demonstrate their integration of humor in conversation an extended period of time (in video recordings). Therefore, the researcher could examine if/how the students have improved and what helped them along the way. This would inform other language teachers about the most effective means of teaching humor in conversation. Implications for language teaching The results of this study have given the researcher insight into how to better prepare students for building affiliation. Though a teacher cannot change the demographics of a student, he/she can help students surpass the intangible differences between them. By encouraging students to bond in and outside of class, the students will develop a friendship, a base from which their shared humor can be tried. If they develop into a member of the same community, they will find humor in their common experiences as noted in Kotthoff (1996). Next, since affiliation is shown through topic organization, it is very important that teachers instruct students about when to let their co-participants have a turn. Listening is necessary in order to receive the news or get the punch line of a joke. Hearers however do not

15

CASUAL CONVERSATION have to remain stone cold silent in order to show agreement. Teachers should inform students about back channeling tendencies and have them practice. Back channeling shows the speaker that a hearer is eager for more. Overlap is also common, especially if the listener and speaker have a close relationship. This type of overlap does not include the thoughtless talking over someone which occurs when both parties attempt to rush-through. In regards to humor, it is one way to achieve affiliation between speakers, not the only way. But since everyone loves to laugh, students should see this as a means of achieving affiliation quickly, especially as an outsider coming into a new group. Teachers can also be aware of this fact and use model conversations in which some of the speakers turns are comprised of laughter. Teachers can provide examples of humorous storytelling, disclosures and narratives in order for students to see how these are crafted. Of course, practicing in small groups and role-plays will be important to breed familiarity with these language features. Humor plays a huge role in American society. Saturday Night Live has been running for over thirty years, funny greeting cards are given on the holidays and jokes are often used to open staff meetings. Because native and non-native English speakers will be surrounded by humor (in the US at least), shouldnt they be introduced to it in the classroom? As affiliation in conversation is used to bond participants, it takes just one well-informed teacher to show language learners how to achieve this through humor. Key $$$ = conversation lost to the noise of a baby @ = speakers previous turn continues

16

CASUAL CONVERSATION References

17

Bell, N.D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 241-58. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=cf995 99a-528d-4c36-86b7-c478370c019e%40sessionmgr111&hid=113 Conroy, T.M. (1999). I dont want to burst your bubble: Affiliation and disaffiliation in a joint accounting by affiliated pair partners. Human Studies, 22, 339-59. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=ebb40 41c-e769-4831-b350-9901581582f6%40sessionmgr112&hid=113

Davies, C.E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolingustic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361-85.

DeCapua, A., Berkowitz, D., & Boxer, D. (2006). Women talk revisited: Personal disclosures and alignment development. Multilingua, 25, 393-412.

Knight, N.K. (2013). Evaluating experience in funny ways: how friends bond through conversational humor. Text & Talk, 33(4-5), 553-74. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=cf99 599a-528d-4c36-86b7-c478370c019e%40sessionmgr111&hid=113

Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4-25. --- (1996). Impoliteness and conversational joking: On relational politics. Folia

CASUAL CONVERSATION Linguistica 30(3/4). 299326. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=cf99 599a- 528d-4c36-86b7-c478370c019e%40sessionmgr111&hid=113

18

Mathis, T., & Yule, G. (1994). Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes, 18, 63-76.

Norrick, N.R., & Spitz, A. (2010). The interplay of humor and conflict in conversation and scripted humorous performance. Humor, 23(1), 83-111. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=cf99 599a-528d-4c36-86b7-c478370c019e%40sessionmgr111&hid=113

Schenkein, J.N. (1972). Towards an analysis of natural conversation and the sense of heheh. In N. Norrick (2010). Laughter before the punch line during the performance of narrative jokes in conversation. Text & Talk, 30(1), 75-95. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.hpu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=ebb40 41c-e769-4831-b350-9901581582f6%40sessionmgr112&hid=113

Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Wong, J., & Waring, H. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.