Using Laugh Responses to Defuse Complaints

Abstract

This research uses conversation analysis to explore a collection of extracts from telephone calls involving laughter as a response in a sequence characterized by complaining. In these instances, the laugh responses fail to align with the complaint in progress and are somewhat disaffiliative (in that they do not display the same stance as that taken by the complainant). However, they do not strongly disaffiliate; they do not, for example, overtly disagree with complaint-relevant assessments produced in prior turns. In this way, recipients of a complaint work to display a somewhat discordant stance to that of the teller, and to discourage further development of the topic in progress while maintaining social solidarity. Thus, the current research adds to the finding (see also Drew, 1987, and Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987) that laughter can be located somewhere in the middle of a continuum ranging from overt affiliation to disaffiliation (Glenn, 2003, ch. 6).

Acknowledgments

My thanks go to the helpful suggestions of the reviewers of this article.

Notes

¹See, for example, Emmersten and Heinemann (2010) and Heinemann (2009).

²On the distinction between affiliation and alignment, see Stivers (2008) and the section of this article entitled “Laugh Responses as Somewhat Disaffiliative and Nonaligning.”

³My collection numbers six instances of laugh responses in complaints, but, for reasons of space, I focus on three in this article.

⁴In certain respects, complaints and troubles-tellings are similar (sometimes overlapping) actions/sequences. Both can be treated as problematic (see Jefferson, 1980) and can receive disaffiliative responses (see, for example, Jefferson, 1984b, pp. 358–366). The extract from Jefferson (1984b) considered here shows (along with three extracts in my corpus) that laugh responses can also be used to display some disaffiliation and nonalignment in troubles-tellings. However, for the purposes of this article, I concentrate on laugh responses to complaints about third parties.

⁵But see Jefferson (1984b, p. 360) for a full analysis of this sequence.

⁶Laugh responses in each of the extracts are arrowed.

⁷Prior to Lesley's turn at line 24, there may be another indication that she does not fully affiliate with Mum's stance: There is a noticeable pause after Mum's expressed indignation at line 21.

⁸On disengaged contributions at topic termination see Jefferson (1993).

⁹In the original transcript, Gail Jefferson added a footnote saying “(t)hroughout this segment Leslie seems to be doing friendly censorship of Mum's talk about Mrs Field.” Interestingly, although Gail Jefferson was obviously referring to several turns, the footnote number was positioned at the end of the turn comprising laughter (line 27). The expression “friendly censorship” aptly captures the somewhat disaffiliative and nonaligned nature of Lesley's turns as she attempts to move toward topic termination. This may be oriented to by Mum in line 51 where she says musn't grumble.

¹⁰On treating prior turns nonseriously, see Sacks (1992, p. 672) and Holt (in press).