ABSTRACT
We examined if and how laughter functioned communicatively as an indicator of engagement in group interactions involving adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Engagement refers to the intensity and manner of interpersonal involvement displayed by participants in social situations, and it reflects the extent to which they are mutually engrossed in, and alive to, the unfolding interaction. Analysis revealed that laughter functioned communicatively to support the “face,” or public self-image, of those with TBI and to foster rapport and social closeness.
The distribution of laughables, or verbal and nonverbal behaviors that occasion laughter, between participants was also examined and compared with data collected by Simmons-Mackie and Schultz in their analysis of humor during traditional aphasia therapy. Results revealed that laughter and laughables are sensitive to how individuals engage one another in interaction. Implications are considered with respect to more recent models of intervention that seek to promote more discourse equality between participants.
KEYWORDS
Laughter - engagement - social interaction - clinical discourse
REFERENCES
-
1 Tannen D. Talking Voices. Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press 1989
-
2 Gumperz J. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press 1982
-
3 Erickson F, Shultz J. The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York, NY; Academic Press 1982
-
4 Kovarsky D, Walsh I. Uncomfortable moments in speech-language therapy discourse. In: Sarangi S, Candlin C Communication in Professions and Organisations. Berlin, Germany; Mouton in press
-
5
Simmons-Mackie N, Schultz M.
The role of humour in aphasia therapy.
Aphasia.
2003;
17(8)
751-766
-
6 Glenn P. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press 2003
-
7 Straehle C A. “Samuel?” “Yes, dear?” Teasing and conversational rapport. In: Tannen D Framing in Discourse. Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford University Press 1993: 210-229
-
8 Jefferson G. On the organization in laughter in talk about troubles. In: Atkinson J, Heritage J Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press 1983: 346-369
-
9
Kovarsky D, Shaw A, Adingono-Smith M.
The construction of identity during group therapy among adults with traumatic brain injury.
Commun Med.
2007;
4(1)
53-66
-
10 Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster 1963
-
11
Wilkinson R.
Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: on the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences.
J Pragmatics.
2006;
39
542-569
-
12
Lindholm C.
Laughter, communication problems and dementia.
Commun Med.
, In press
-
13
Walsh I.
Small talk is “big talk” in clinical discourse.
Top Lang Disord.
2007;
27(1)
24-36
-
14 Hagen C. Levels of Cognitive Functioning. Rehabilitation of the Head Injured Adult: Comprehensive Physical Management. Dowey, CA; Professional Staff Association of the Rancho Los Amigos Hospital 1998
-
15 Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA; Cambridge University Press 1987
-
16 Scollon R, Scollon S. Intercultural Communication. Oxford, United Kingdom; Blackwell 1995
-
17 Simmons-Mackie N, Damico J. Social role negotiation in aphasia therapy: competence, incompetence, and conflict. In: Kovarsky D, Duchan J, Maxwell M Constructing Incompetence: Disabling Evaluations in Clinical and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum 1999: 313-342
-
18
Damico J, Damico S.
The establishment of a dominant interpretive framework in language intervention.
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch.
1997;
28
288-296
-
19
Simmons-Mackie N, Elman R, Holland A, Damico J.
Management of discourse in group therapy for aphasia.
Top Lang Disord.
2007;
27(1)
5-23
-
20 Goffman E. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA; University of Pennsylvania Press 1981
Dana KovarskyPh.D.
Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
RI 02852
Email: dana@uri.edu
