Discourse analysis was the primary research method used to analyze the data presented in this book, and I introduce it here as it relies on the understandings of language and communication laid out in this chapter. Discourse analysis is a form of inquiry that involves close, systematic examination of interaction. It can utilize both quantitative and qualitative procedures, and both are found within this text, although qualitative analysis predominates. Discourse analysis can be undertaken for a variety of reasons. Tracking patterns of language across contexts helps us understand how conversation is organized and what types of knowledge are needed for successful communication to take place. These patterns also reveal the norms and values of a discourse community. These may be values with regard to interaction, but also the choices we make in our speech reveal a great deal about our broader world view, the ways that we wish to position ourselves, and how we see others. The language we use both reflects and constructs our social
Discourse analysis and the study of (failed) humor 17
reality. Furthermore, and of special interest to research on failed humor, the study of trouble spots in conversation can be particularly revealing with regard to con-versational norms, as it is often only when those norms are violated that we are able to recognize them. Discourse analysis was used for the present project with the following goals in mind:
1. to identify the ways that humor can fail,
2. to identify the interactive structure of episodes of failed humor, and 3. to examine the social consequences of failed humor.
Thus, discourse analysis was helpful here for both the purpose of understanding interaction, as well as understanding the wider social values that are revealed through language use. There are a variety of schools of discourse analysis and, like many scholars, I draw from a number of them, using an eclectic selection of tools to accomplish my analysis. Here I highlight three that are central to my methodology: interactional sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and ethno-graphically-informed discourse analysis.
Interactional sociolinguistics is strongly associated with the work of Erving Goffman and John Gumperz, and thus some of its analytic concepts have already been introduced. Interactional sociolinguists assume that language both indexes and constructs the social world, and that, while communicative norms exist, these are jointly negotiated by interlocutors in local contexts. Changes in lan-guage use result in changes to the participation framework, participant roles and alignments, and relevant identities. The concepts of framing and contextualiza-tion cues discussed above are normally associated with interaccontextualiza-tional sociolin-guistics, and are used to examine how meaning emerges in interaction. In addi-tion, interactional sociolinguistics focuses on the ways in which language use varies systematically across contexts and interlocutors, highlighting norms of use and how violations of these norms are treated in interaction. Evidence to support an interactional sociolinguistic analysis can come from prior research demon-strating how language is used, from participants’ own displayed understandings, and from the analyst’s knowledge of the situation. Examples of studies of humor that have drawn from this perspective include Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997), Davies (2003), Everts (2003), and Straehle (1993).
Conversation analysis (CA) has its roots in ethnomethodology and focuses on the organization of talk-in-interaction, that is, how interlocutors actually accomplish conversation. CA requires the analyst to pay close attention to the sequential unfolding of conversation, as each utterance is contingent on what came before it. This method is particularly helpful in providing procedures that help create strong textual evidence to support an analysis. To provide just one example, the concept of next-turn validation helps to keep the analysis focused
on the participants’ interpretations, rather than the analyst’s. Although we can never fully identify a speaker’s motives or intentions, speakers do display their understandings of prior utterances, as in the following two (invented) examples:
1 A: Hello!
B: Hi!
2 A: Hello!
B: Oh, did you find it?
In the first instance, B’s response demonstrates an understanding of A’s utter-ance as a greeting. In the second, B responds as if A’s utterutter-ance was meant to indi-cate that something (such as a jigsaw puzzle piece) had been found. Whether or not B’s interpretations are those that A intended would likely be apparent in A’s next turn. If B had responded in a manner that indicated an understanding other than what A had intended, A would likely display some confusion and initiate a corrective sequence. CA is particularly useful in the study of failed humor due to the rich body of research that has already been developed with respect to laughter (e.g. Glenn 2003; Glenn and Holt 2013, Jefferson 1979, 1984) and to miscommuni-cation (e.g. Bolden 2012, Drummond and Hopper 1991, Schegloff 1987, 1992).
A strong version of CA restricts the analyst to only that information found in the text. In other words, if the speakers have not made gender relevant through their talk, it cannot be invoked in the analysis. I side, however, with those who support a less strict view (e.g. Moerman 1988), and at times draw on my own knowledge of the context and participants, or on ethnographic information reported by informants in understanding specific instances of failed humor.
This is especially crucial, for example, when naming a particular utterance as an attempt at humor when there are no textual cues, as it has gone unnoticed by the other participants (see, e.g. Priego-Valverde 2009).
No matter what type of discourse analysis, the transcription of talk is a crucial theoretical and practical issue (Ochs 1979). Video and even audio recordings contain an infinite amount of information that could be included in a transcrip-tion. These include not only the words that were uttered, but their intonation, volume, pitch, and speed. Pauses of various lengths, stuttering, false starts, and various non-word sounds occur regularly, and only some of these are identifiable as things like clearing the throat or coughing. Furthermore, nonverbal behavior supports linguistic communication, and gestures and facial expressions can be crucial to understanding a conversation. The analyst must make choices about what to include or exclude and how to represent what is included. We aim for a
Structure of the book 19
transcript that provides an accurate representation of the interaction, with enough information to perform an analysis, but not so much detail that the resulting doc-ument is difficult to read. For this project, I have erred on the side of readability, given the broad audience for this book, which is likely to include some readers who are unfamiliar with reading transcripts that represent talk as it occurs, rather than edited transcripts. I have also standardized transcriptions that I have taken from other publications, and this has often meant stripping them of information.
Thus, interested readers will often find more detailed transcripts in the originals.
In addition, some examples are not taken from recordings, as these were either reported to me or come from the transcripts provided by media outlets, which are considerably less detailed than linguists prefer, and no audio or video was avail-able so that they could be embellished. In these cases the transcription conven-tions used in this text and provided in Appendix A do not apply. Such transcripts will be recognizable by their use of conventional punctuation, including capital letters at the beginnings of turns, which are not used in the full transcripts.