1887
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the way that laughter is employed to manage threats to interlocutor affiliation in talk among humanitarian aid workers as they describe their professional activities in settings of armed conflict. I first set out to situate my analysis within the tradition of work in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM), exploring how that approach differs in significant ways from work in pragmatics and related traditions of discourse analytic research. Unlike the latter approaches, EM examines laughter for the intelligibility it is deployed by speakers to furnish, so that the presumption of laughter’s revelatory nature which characterizes a pragmatically-oriented analysis is seen as a participant resource for rendering the situated significance of actions visible by and for the involved parties of a given episode of interaction. Following this, I examine talk from open-ended interviews with aid agency operatives who work in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, exploring how laughter is employed to manage threats to interlocutor affiliation where the potential accusation of opportunism arises in accounts of personal job satisfaction as against the legitimacy otherwise afforded with an appeal to altruism and self-sacrifice. Where speakers attend to the criticism of humanitarian activity for its significance in affecting outcomes of warfare, the management of these different demands is accomplished in reflexive work to ironize their own and others’ formulations of motivation for pursuing humanitarian work.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.04mck
2017-06-29
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.27.2.04mck.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.04mck&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ashmore, Malcolm
    1989The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashmore, Malcom , and Darren Reed
    2000 “Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis: The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research1 (3).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashmore, Malcolm , Katie MacMillan , and Steven D. Brown
    2004 “It’s a Scream: Professional Hearing and Tape Fetishism.” Journal of Pragmatics36: 349–374. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00005‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00005-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Attardo, Salvatore
    1997 “The Semantic Foundations of Cognitive Theories of Humor.” Humor10 (4): 395–420. doi: 10.1515/humr.1997.10.4.395
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1997.10.4.395 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2002 “Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of Detection.” InSay Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication, ed. by Luigi Anolli , Rita Cicei , and Giuseppe Riva , 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Austin, Paddy
    1990 “Politeness Revisited – The Dark Side.” InNew Zealand Ways of Speaking English, ed. by Allan Bell and Janet Holmes , 277–293. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergson, Henri , Cloudesley Shovell Henry Brereton , and Fred Rothwell
    1914Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Billig, Michael
    2005Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Billig, Michael , Susan Condor , Derek Edwards , Mike Gane , David Middleton , and Alan Radley
    1988Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boden, Deidre
    1990 “The World as it Happens: Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.” InFrontiers of Social Theory: The New Synthesis, ed. by George Ritzer , 185–213. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chapman, Anthony , and Hugh Foot
    (eds.) 1976Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications. London: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins, Randall
    1981 “On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology.” American Journal of Sociology86 (5): 984–1014. doi: 10.1086/227351
    https://doi.org/10.1086/227351 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1987 “Interaction Ritual Chains, Power, and Property: The Micro-Macro Connection as an Empirically Based Theoretical Problem.” InThe Micro-Macro Link, ed. by Jeffrey C. Alexander , Bernhard Giesen , Richard Münch , and Neil J. Smelser , 193–206. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Drew, Paul
    1987 “Po-Faced Receipts of Teases.” Linguistics25: 219–253. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Bois, John W.
    1991 “Transcription Design Principles for Spoken Discourse Research.” Pragmatics1: 71–106. doi: 10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Bois, John W. , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Susanna Cumming , and Danae Paolino
    1993 “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. by Jane A. Edwards , and Martin D. Lampert , 45–89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, Derek
    1995 “Two to Tango: Script Formulations, Dispositions, and Rhetorical Symmetry in Relationship Troubles Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28 (4): 319–350. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2804_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2804_1 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2005 “Moaning, Whinging and Laughing: The Subjective Side of Complaints.” Discourse Studies7 (1): 5–29. doi: 10.1177/1461445605048765
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048765 [Google Scholar]
  20. Foucault, Michel
    1980 “The Eye of Power.” InKnowledge/Power: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. by Colin Gordon , 146–165. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Freud, Sigmund
    1938 “Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious.” InThe Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, 631–805. New York: Modern Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1974 “Origins of the Term ‘Ethnomethodology’.” InEthnomethodology: Selected Readings, ed. by Roy Turner , 15–18. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1991 “Respecification: Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order*, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Method, etc., in and as of the Essential Haecceity of Immortal Ordinary Society, (I) – An Announcement of Studies.” InEthnomethodology and the Human Sciences, ed. by Graham Button , 10–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611827.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1996 “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly59 (1): 5–21. doi: 10.2307/2787116
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787116 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2002Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism., ed. & introd. by Anne Warfield Rawls . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2006Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Boulder, CO and London: Paradigm Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2007 “Four Relations between Literatures of the Social Scientific Movement and their Specific Ethnomethodological Alternate.” InOrders of Ordinary Action: Respecifying Sociological Knowledge, ed. by Stephen Hester and David Francis , 13–29. Aldershot, Hampshire and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Garfinkel, Harold , and Harvey Sacks
    1970 “On the Formal Structures of Practical Action.” InTheoretical Sociology, ed. by John C. McKinney , and Edward A. Tiryakian , 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Garfinkel, Harold , and D. Lawrence Wieder
    1992 “Two Incommensurable, Asymmetrically Alternate Technologies of Social Analysis.” InText in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology, ed. by Graham Watson , and Robert M. Seller , 175–206. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Giddens, Anthony
    1984The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Glenn, Phillip
    1995 “Laughing at and Laughing with: Negotiation of Participant Alignments through Conversational Laughter.” InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. by Paul ten Have , and George Psathas , 43–56. Landham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2003Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2010 “Interviewer Laughs: Shared Laughter and Asymmetries in Employment Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1485–1498. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  35. Graham, Elizabeth E. , Michael J. Papa , and Gordon P. Brooks
    1992 “Functions of Humour in Conversation: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Western Journal of Communication56 (2): 161–183. doi: 10.1080/10570319209374409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319209374409 [Google Scholar]
  36. Haakana, Markku
    2001 “Laughter as a Participant’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text21: 187–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2002 “Laughter in Medical Interaction: From Quantification to Analysis, and Back.” Journal of Sociolinguistics6: 207–235. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00185
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00185 [Google Scholar]
  38. Haiman, John
    (ed.) 1985Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Heidegger, Martin
    1993 “On the Essence of Truth.” InBasic Writings: From Time and Being (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964), revised and expanded edition, ed. by David Ferrel Krell , 115–138. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2004 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders , 103–147. New York and London: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2012b “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2013 “Action Formation and its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies15 (5): 551–578. doi: 10.1177/1461445613501449
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hilbert, Richard A.
    1992The Classical Roots of Ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill, NC and London: University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2009 “Ethnomethodology and Social Theory.” InThe New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. by Bryan S. Turner , 159–178. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444304992.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  47. Holmes, Janet
    2000 “Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace.” Discourse Studies2 (2): 159–185. doi: 10.1177/1461445600002002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2006 “Sharing a Laugh: Pragmatic Aspects of Humor and Gender in the Workplace.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 26–50. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  49. Holmes, Janet , and Meredith Marra
    2002 “Having a Laugh at Work: How Humour Contributes to Workplace Culture.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1683–1710. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00032‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00032-2 [Google Scholar]
  50. Holt, Elizabeth
    2010 “The Last Laugh: Shared Laughter and Topic Termination.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1513–1525. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2011 “On the Nature of “Laughables”: Laughter as a Response to Overdone Figurative Phrases.” Pragmatics21 (3): 393–410. doi: 10.1075/prag.21.3.05hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.05hol [Google Scholar]
  52. Hopper, Paul J. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language56 (2): 251–299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  53. Horton-Salway, Mary
    1998Mind and Body in the Discursive Construction of M.E.: A Struggle for Authorship of an Illness. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough University.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    2008Conversation Analysis. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hutchinson, Phil , Rupert Read , and Wes Sharrock
    2008There is no Such Thing as a Social Science: In Defense of Peter Winch. Aldershot, Hampshire and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Jefferson, Gail
    1979 “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance Declination.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas . New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1984 “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 1985 “An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk , 25–34. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2004 “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male-Female’ Interaction.” Discourse Studies6: 117–133. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039445
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jefferson, Gail , Harvey Sacks , and Emanuel Schegloff
    1987 “Notes on Laughter in Pursuit of Intimacy.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button , and John R. E. Lee , 152–205. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Jha, Prem , and Eric Hobsbawm
    2006The Twilight of the Nation State: Globalisation, Chaos and War. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kaldor, Mary
    1999New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Keyton, Joann , and Stephenson J. Beck
    2010 “Examining Laughter Functionality in Jury Deliberations.” Small Group Research41 (4): 386–407. doi: 10.1177/1046496410366311
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410366311 [Google Scholar]
  64. Koestler, Arthur
    1964The Act of Creation: A Study of the Conscious and Unconscious in Science and Art. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lavin, Danielle , and Douglas W. Maynard
    2001 “Standardization vs. Rapport: Respondent Laughter and Interviewer Reaction during Telephone Surveys.” American Sociological Review66 (3): 453–479. doi: 10.2307/3088888
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3088888 [Google Scholar]
  66. Lampert, Martin D. , and Susan M. Ervin-Tripp
    2006 “Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking among Male and Female Friends.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 51–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  67. Liberman, Kenneth
    2007Husserl’s Criticism of Reason: With Ethnomethodological Specifications. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lynch, Michael
    2012 “Revisiting the Cultural Dope.” Human Studies35 (2): 223–233. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑012‑9227‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9227-z [Google Scholar]
  69. Lynch, Michael , and David Bogen
    1996The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Mair, Michael , Christian Greiffenhagen , and Wes W. Sharrock
    2015 “Statistical Practice: Putting Society on Display.” Theory, Culture & Society33 (3): 51–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Malešević, Siniša
    2010The Sociology of War and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511777752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777752 [Google Scholar]
  72. Maynard, Douglas W. , and John Heritage
    2005 “Conversation Analysis, Doctor–Patient Interaction and Medical Communication.” Medical Education39 (4): 428–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2929.2005.02111.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02111.x [Google Scholar]
  73. McKenzie, Kevin
    2009 “The Humanitarian Imperative under Fire.” Journal of Language and Politics8 (3): 333–358. doi: 10.1075/jlp.8.3.01mck
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.8.3.01mck [Google Scholar]
  74. 2011 “Structure and Agency in Scholarly Formulations of Racism.” Human Studies34: 67–92. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9176‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9176-y [Google Scholar]
  75. Mehan, Hugh , and Houston Wood
    1975The Reality of Ethnomethodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mulkay, Michael
    1988On Humour. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pazzini, Franca
    1991 “Communication Hierarchies in Humour: Gender Differences in the Obstetrical/Gynaecological Setting.” Discourse & Society2 (4): 477–488. doi: 10.1177/0957926591002004008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926591002004008 [Google Scholar]
  78. Pollner, Melvin
    1974 “Mundane Reasoning.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences4: 35–54. doi: 10.1177/004839317400400103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317400400103 [Google Scholar]
  79. 1987Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Potter, Jonathan
    1996Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  81. 1998 “Cognition as Context (Whose Cognition?).” Research on Language and Social Interaction31 (1): 29–44. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_2 [Google Scholar]
  82. Potter, Jonathan , and Alexa Hepburn
    2010 “Putting Aspiration into Words: ‘Laugh Particles’, Managing Descriptive Trouble and Modulating Action.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1543–1555. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rawls, Anne Warfield
    1989 “Language, Self and Social Order: A Reformulation of Goffman and Sacks.” Human Studies12 (1/2): 147–172. doi: 10.1007/BF00142843
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142843 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rieff, David
    2002A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis. London: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Ruiz-Gurillo, Leonor , and M. Belén Alvarado-Ortega
    (eds.) 2013Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.231
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.231 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  87. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “On Talk and its Institutional Occasions.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 101–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1997 “Whose Text? Whose Context?” Discourse & Society8 (2): 165–187. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schütz, Alfred
    1967The Phenomenology of the Social World. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Sharrock, Wes
    1974 “On Owning Knowledge.” InEthnomethodology: Selected Readings, ed. by Roy Turner , 45–53. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 2004 “What Garfinkel Makes of Schutz: The Past, Present and Future of an Alternate, Asymmetric and Incommensurable Approach to Sociology.” Theory & Science. Available attheoryandscience.icapp.org/content/vol5.1/sharrock.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Sharrock, Wes , and Robert J. Anderson
    1987 “The Definition of Alternatives: Some Sources of Confusion in Interdisciplinary Discussion.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button , and Robert E. Lee , 290–321. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Simone, Raffaela
    (ed.) 1994Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Steiner, H. J. , and P. Alston
    2000International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Strengers, Isabelle
    2011Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts, trans. by Michael Chase . Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tracy, Karen , and Nikolas Coupland
    1990 “Multiple Goals in Discourse: An Overview of Issues.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology9 (1–2): 1–13. doi: 10.1177/0261927X9091001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9091001 [Google Scholar]
  97. Truong, Khiet P. , and David A. van Leeuwen
    2007 “Automatic Discrimination between Laughter and Speech.” Speech Communication49: 144–158. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 2006 “Discourse, Context and Cognition.” Discourse Studies8 (1): 159–177. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059565
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 [Google Scholar]
  100. Wagner, Johannes , and Monika Vöge
    (eds.) 2010 “Laughter in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1469–1576.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Watson, Rod
    1998 “Ethnomethodology, Consciousness and Self.” Journal of Consciousness Studies5 (2): 202–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Whalen, Marylin R. , and Don H. Zimmerman
    1990 “Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police.” Language in Society19 (4): 465–492. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500014779
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014779 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wilson, Thomas P.
    2003 “Garfinkels’ Radical Program.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36 (4): 487–494. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3604_8
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3604_8 [Google Scholar]
  104. Winch, Peter
    1958The Idea of a Social Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Winick, Charles
    1976 “The Social Contexts of Humor.” Journal of Communication26 (3): 124–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1976.tb01915.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01915.x [Google Scholar]
  106. Žižek, Slavoj
    2011 “With Hegel beyond Hegel.” Criticism53 (2): 295–313. doi: 10.1353/crt.2011.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/crt.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.04mck
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error