Laughter by Japanese Learners of English
2009 Fall, SLS 660 Course Paper #2
Instructor: Dr. Christina Higgins
Kuniki Miyachi
1
1. Introduction
It is most likely true that most facial expressions including smiles are universal
across all cultures. It should be true, whether one is Japanese or American, that laughter
expresses joyfulness. However, Nakamura (1994) introduces some examples of laughter
by the Japanese which non-Japanese people who are novice to Japanese interactional
styles find peculiar and can hardly understand. That is, for example, the smiles and
laughter employed when they miss a train and when they cannot understand a foreign
language. In this respect, Nakamura (1994: 37) points out that it can be assumed there is
a rule in Japanese society that one is not supposed to express negative feelings in public
but instead should smile in order to hide such feelings. There is a general agreement in
Japanese society about how such a smile or laughter should be interpreted depending on
the situation since we somehow understand a common rule; however, an entirely
different rule may govern a different society underpinned by different cultural norms.
When I collected the data for my Master’s thesis in Japan, I was surprised by
the fact that Japanese learners of English laughed a lot when they had conversation in
English. In some cases, they shared laughter with the interlocutor who is a native
speaker of English, but in most other cases, they laughed alone during their own
utterances as well as the interlocutor’s utterances. To me, it seemed that they did not just
laugh a lot but rather they used laughter as a conversational strategy to make the
conversation flow smoothly.
In this paper, I will investigate why Japanese learners of English laugh a lot
when they have conversations in English in terms of what they are doing when they
laugh, that is, what they aim to achieve by employing laughter in conversations.
Considering the cultural differences of laughter, I will analyze laughter by Japanese
learners of English within the framework of Interactional Sociolinguistics.
2. Laughter
Laughter has been the object of a number of researchers’ attention. Among
others, there have been a lot of contributions by conversation analysts (Jefferson, 1979,
1984, Jefferson, Sacks, and Schegloff 1987, Glenn 2003). Collecting naturally occurring
talk-in-interaction, they try to answer the question: “What are people doing when they
laugh?” They investigated laughter in sequential organization and demonstrated how the
speaker invites laughter from the hearer, and how they share laughter. For example,
Jefferson (1979) illustrates how the speaker invites laughter from the hearer and what
happens when the hearer accepts or rejects such invitations. She also investigates how
laughter is related to turn-takings and topic-changes. Glenn (2003) gives us an insight
into who laughs first not only in two-party conversations but also in multi-party
conversations. She demonstrates that, although the current speaker usually laughs first
in two-party conversations, first laughter is provided by other than current speaker in
multi-party conversations, which is due to the differences in turn-taking systems in
two-party and multi-party conversations. Although these studies by conversation
analysts are quite enlightening, they did not take into consideration cross-cultural
differences of laughter and how such differences can lead to miscommunications, or
how culturally-salient inferences may contribute to misunderstanding. In other words,
they seem to take for granted when people laugh and how laughter is interpreted in
situated contexts, which I believe vary across cultures.
Laughter has a variety of functions when employed in conversations.
Hashimoto (1994: 43) claimed that the functions of laughter can be classified into the
following 4 categories when used toward the interlocutor:
1) Aggressive function
2) Sociable function
3) Self-defensive function
4) Conversational function
Laughter has an aggressive function when it is used as a mockery to browbeat
the interlocutor. This sort of laughter signals to the interlocutor that the speaker is
superior to him/her. A sociable function can be seen when laughter is used to show
his/her solidarity with or affections for the interlocutor. At the same time, however, this
sort of laughter is also frequently used to cover up his/her embarrassment. A
self-defensive function is somewhat similar to the sociable function in that it is used to
hide his/her bewilderment but is distinguished in that it is used to retain his/her pride.
For example, if a salaryman smiles when he ends up missing a train despite his rush, it
should be used to show his pride that he is not embarrassed at all. Lastly, laughter which
is inserted within an utterance or between turns can have a conversational function. This
sort of laughter usually forms an adjacency pair as a response to the former utterance by
the interlocutor. As such, one can say that laughter has the most distinct characteristics
as a facial expression but its meanings are ambiguous.
In Japanese, there is a well-established word ‘Aiso Warai’, which means
sociable laughter. Aiso Warai, which is sometimes translated as ‘fake smile’ (De Mente
2004: 17), is a culturally encouraged behavior in Japanese society, in which people
disguise their smiles to hide negative feelings even when they do not truly want to laugh.
Aiso Warai is regarded as an important behavior to create a positive atmosphere and
Japanese people can recognize such laughter when they see one. It is said, however, that
such laughter seems insincere and untruthful to foreign people who do not share
socio-cultural norms as to such behavior.
3. Contextualization Cues
As sociable laughter in Japanese society shows, when people laugh and how
they interpret certain laughter vary across cultures. In this sense, the present study
presumes laughter functions as what Gumperz (1982) terms a contextualization cue in
conversations. Gumperz (1982: 131) defines contextualization cues as “any feature of
linguistic form that contributes to signaling of contextual presuppositions.” He claims
contextualization cues include speakers’ speech style, prosodic phenomena, formulaic
expressions, conversational expressions, conversational openings, closings, and
discourse strategies. Clearly, these have certain meanings and functions in actual
conversations, but unlike meanings of words, those meanings are implicit and cannot be
interpreted without contexts. Furthermore, how people interpret the rules as to those
contextualization cues depends on their history and communicative experiences, and
shared by the same members of the same speech community. Therefore, as Gumperz
(1982: 132) asserts, “when all participants understand and notice the relevant cues,
interpretive processes are then taken for granted and tend to go unnoticed”. However, in
cross-cultural settings where all parties do not necessarily share those rules,
miscommunications happen when any differences emerge in interpreting relevant
contextualization cues and could result in mutual frustration. In this respect, what
laughter cues and its related conversational inferences are different in the case of
conversations where people from different cultural backgrounds interact. Thus, laughter
as a contextualization cue could be a source of miscommunications when interactants
interpret laughter in different ways.
4. Data
The data I will use in the present study were collected for my master’s thesis in
Japan, which aimed to investigate how Japanese learners of English respond to
compliments in English. In this experiment, Japanese learners of English had an English
conversation with a native speaker of English for 20 minutes in a silent meeting room.
The conversation was not only video-taped but audio-taped by an IC recorder. Since my
observing the conversation in the same room could possibly have made participants feel
nervous, I waited outside the room while two of them had a conversation with recording
devices on. The native speaker of English was trained by the researcher to compliment
the participants at least three times within 20 minutes. In this respect, the conversations
were quasi-experimental and the frequency of the compliments may have led the
participants to feel that the interaction was somewhat odd. However, I did not let the
participants know the true object of the experiment, nor did I direct them to speak about
certain topics; therefore they could engage in a quite natural interaction. The topics of
the conversations were varied, including their home towns, family and friends, life on
campus, hobbies, their culture and language. Here it is important to note that the
structure of the conversation was not one-way like a question-answer interview. The
conversation was comprised of many turn-takings and topic-changes spontaneously
brought by both of the participants and the native speaker. After the conversation, I
conducted follow-up interviews and asked them how they felt when they were
complimented while watching the video together. Not only that, I asked them about
many other things as well such as the impression of the native speaker, what difficulty
they had in conversation, and the topics they talked about.
The native speaker, Ashlee (pseudonym), who had conversation with the
participants on this research was a 21-year-old American female from the state of
Kentucky. She was an exchange student at Nagoya University in Japan and had lived in
Japan for 8 months at that time. Although she’s familiar with Japanese anime, culture,
and history, her Japanese proficiency is at the beginner’s level, which enables the
researcher to presume that both linguistic and cultural influences from Japanese on her
performance could be disregarded. The Japanese learners of English were graduate and
undergraduate students at Nagoya University in Japan, who can be regarded
over-intermediate-level speakers because they all have got over 700 in TOEIC test
which is one of the most prestigious English proficiency tests in Japan (average:
727.65). However, as the fact that TOEIC test doesn’t have a speaking section indicates,
TOEIC test often fails to capture oral proficiency very well.
5. Analysis
The learner, Bunta (pseudonym), is a 34-year-old male graduate student. He
lived in the U.K. for 1 year and 8 months to get a Master’s degree there. Although he
has got a perfect score in TOEIC test, he says himself that he is not good at speaking
and listening.
Excerpt 1
Ashlee and Bunta are talking about Japanese system of university entrance
exams. Bunta teaches English at a prep school to high school students and other
students called rounin in Japanese. Basically, rounin (浪人) has two meanings. One,
which is used in everyday conversation means a high school graduate who is preparing
for another chance to enter university. The other, which is used as a historical term
means masterless samurai. Here Bunta is talking about rounin that has the first meaning
and asks Ashlee how she says rounin in English. Since Ashlee is familiar with Japanese
samurai history, she makes a joke in response.
In this excerpt, the speaker and the hearer share laughter, which can be
considered to create solidarity between them. There seems to be no cross-cultural issues
in this excerpt.
 1:
B So::(.) is it for:: high school student a::nd (1)◦>How can I say?<◦ (1)
 2:
 3:
s-(.) [students
A
[students trying to get into(.) their university?
 4:
B (1) yeah
 5:
A um(1 ) Or would it be like the(1) was it(.) I think some term that uses =
=rounin(.) [because students that’re studying(.) that’ve like graduated from=
 6:
 7:
B
 8:
A =high school(.) but that’re still trying to get into their(.) [university?
 9:
B
[yeah(2) How do=
=you say(.) rounin in English? [◦How do you say(
 10:
 11:
[ah
A
 12:
) hhh◦
[ah::(1)
masterless(.)=
=samu(h)ra(h)i?
 13:
B
 14:
A
 15:
B samurai(
 16:
A =hhh
masterless hh s(h)amurai haha[hahaha
[hhahah=
) hhh [ah:::
[ye::(h)ah
Of particular interest are lines 11 and 12, where Ashlee makes a joke by saying
“masterless samurai”. She already starts laughing before her utterance reaches
completion. This kind of laughter is what Jefferson (1979) terms within-speech laughter,
based on studies of American English speakers. By laughing while speaking, the current
speaker invites laughter from the hearer and at the same time can cue the recipient even
before the utterance reaches completion that it is laughable. In other words, by laughing
within speech, the current speaker provides the hearer with a recognition point where
laughter is expected and appropriate. Bunta indicates that he understands Ashlee’s
previous laughable utterance and accepts the invitation, which leads to shared laughter
in line 13 and 14. This kind of shared laughter can create solidarity between parties.
Excerpt 2
This excerpt is from the very beginning of the conversation. Ashlee and Bunta
introduce themselves and start conversation.This excerpt shows examples of laughter by
a Japanese learner in which he tries to hide certain feelings when he is in trouble in
conversation. Moreover, one can clearly see that he employs laughter when he has
difficulty in understanding English and expressing what he thinks in English.
 1:
B How can I call you? Ashlee?
 2:
A Yes(.) You can call me Ashlee(.) It’s nice to meet you
 3:
B ◦Nice to meet you◦
 4:
((both taking a seat))
 5:
A Um(.) Let’s take a seat then
 6:
B hhhh ◦Thank you very [much◦
 7:
A
 8:
B m?
 9:
A Those are nice glasses
 10:
B Oh(.) Thank you very much(.) [hhhahah=
 11:
A
 12:
B =hhahah It’s a first time(.) to:: hhh
 13:
A Yeah(.) Ah: So(.) What do you do Bunta?
 14:
B Ah(.) Ya:(.) ◦(good) (
 15:
A Do you have a job?
 16:
B Ah::::: [Yeah(.)
 17:
A
 18:
B Ah(.) I’m student(.) [A:nd(.) also have a job hh[hh
 19:
A
 20:
[Those are cool glasses
[hh(.) You’re welcome
)◦ hhaha
[Are you a student?
[Ah
=What kinda job?
[Okay(.) Cool(.)=
 21:
B Ah::(.) Teacher(.)
 22:
A Teacher?
 23:
B Yeah(.) Teaching English
 24:
A Oh(.) Cool↑ hhh
 25:
B hhh If I can teach English [hhaha
 26:
A
 27:
[Yes(.) There (you go)(.) Teaching=
=English is a good job, very good(.) hhh
In this excerpt, too, Bunta laughs a lot. The interesting thing is that he laughs
after utterances, which have not been considered ‘laughable’ in studies of laughter in
American English (Jefferson 1979: 83). For example, in line 6, he laughs in response to
Ashlee’s previous utterance “Let’s take a seat then”, which is not laughable. He might
not have been able to hear what she said. Or it could be also the case that he is engaged
in creating a positive atmosphere by laughter because this is the very beginning of the
conversation. In line 10, he laughs in response to a compliment. In the follow-up
interview, he said he was bewildered when he received the compliment on his glasses.
His bewilderment is not only because he had never been complimented on his glasses,
but also because it is rare in Japan that one receives compliments in the first encounter.
Therefore, he laughs here to hide bewilderment. He keeps laughing in line 12 and tries
to say “It is a first time to be complimented on my glasses”. However, he’s at a loss for
words and feels embarrassed here. The same is true in line 14 where he is at a loss for
words again because he was confused with Ashlee’s previous question: “What do you
do?” He might have thought that A asked how he was doing considering the fact that he
indistinctly says “good”. One might wonder why he does not ask A to repeat a question
if he is not sure what she previously said. However, asking the interlocutor to repeat a
question is sometimes more embarrassing for learners. It should be even more
embarrassing when the utterance that a learner cannot understand is as easy as the
question in this excerpt: “What do you do?” Therefore, here despite the fact that he
does not know what to day, he just laughs instead waiting for Ashlee to say something
next. In this respect, Sasagawa (1997: 99) explains this kind of laughter by Japanese
people in terms of face work. Because feeling embarrassed threatens one’s own
negative face, people try to protect their own face by laughing. Laughter employed by
the Japanese when they miss a train should be explained in the same way. That is, when
the doors close right in front of you despite your rush to catch it, you’ll feel
embarrassed because you feel like everyone on the train might be looking and laughing
at you. In that case, Japanese people laugh to pretend as if you did not care at all about
what other people around think. In other words, they laugh to prove that you do not feel
embarrassed at all, which protects their own negative face.
Excerpt 3
Here, Ashlee and Bunta are talking about Ashlee’s favorite Japanese anime
‘Gundam’. Bunta has watched some Gundam series but is not that familiar. There are
two series of Gundam they are talking about here. One is the first ‘Gundam’ and the
other is ‘Gundam Wing’ which was the first Gundam series broadcasted in the U.S..
In this excerpt, there is an example of laughter which appears to lead to
cross-cultural misunderstanding due to the differences in how speakers from different
cultural backgrounds cue and interpret laughter in conversation.
 1:
A I like Char a whole lot better [than Amuro(.) Amuro(.) I just =
 2:
B
 3:
A = wanted to hurt him(.) h[haha
 4:
B
[hhh
[ah::::::(2) ◦re:ally◦
 5:
A I don’t know why(.) He just(.) >He got on my nerves a little bit too=
 6:
=much<
 7:
B hhaha[haha
 8:
A
 9:
[hh No(.) My first experience with Gundam was Gundam=
=Wing(.) So(.) [ah(.) Hiro:(.) Yui::(.)
[um::(.) ah::(.)
ah::::◦Gundam Wing(.)◦
 10:
B
 11:
A ◦um(.)◦
 12:
B ◦Sorry(.) I(.) I haven’t seen Gundam [Wing(.)◦
 13:
A
 14:
B
[Oh(.) Pbbt (.) [It’s okay
[hhhaha
In this excerpt, Ashlee laughs at the end of her utterance in line 3 saying that
she hates one of the main characters so much as to want to hurt him. Ashlee’s laughter
here invites laughter from Bunta. However, Bunta said in the follow-up interview that
he was surprised to know that she knows this Japanese anime a lot better than he does.
Therefore, he just says “ah, really” and shifts his gaze downwards waiting for her to
take a turn again. He then laughs in line 7 in response to Ashlee’s next utterance. He
said in the follow-up interview that he could not understand what she said because she
speaks a little bit fast here and he does not know the meaning of the idiom “to get on
one’s nerves”. However, he surely recognizes that her utterance reaches completion and
he is the one who is supposed to take a turn. As a result, he ends up taking a turn simply
by laughing. Here, laughter is employed as a ‘let it pass’ strategy by the learner. Firth
(1996: 243) claims that the ‘let it pass’ strategy is employed when the hearer faces
problems in understanding the speaker’s utterance, with which the hearer “lets the
unknown or unclear action, word or utterance ‘pass’ on the (common-sense) assumption
that it will either become clear or redundant as talk progresses.” He argues that this ‘let
it pass’ strategy is commonly deployed in lingua franca interactions. However, since
laughing usually signals understanding and acceptance of the previous statement in
American English, Ashlee keeps talking about Gundam Wing which Bunta has never
watched. It seems here that Ashlee is getting excited about talking about Gundam and
sharing it with Bunta. In line 12, however, Bunta confesses that he has never watched
Gundam Wing and Ashlee seems a little bit disappointed. To sum up, for Bunta, here
laughter is a contextualization cue for his act of ‘let it pass’ where his own trouble in
talk is overlooked (by himself) and avoided through laughter, whereas for Ashlee, it is a
cue for mutual understanding and appreciation. This difference between what the
speaker cues by laughter and how that laughter is interpreted by the hearer leads to
misunderstanding.
Excerpt 4
The learner, Chie (pseudonym), is a 20-year-old Japanese female. Ashlee is
asking Chie why she chose English linguistics as her major. This except shows an
example of laughter employed to bridge gaps between and within utterances in order to
make the conversation flow smoothly. Laughter can be regarded as a conversational
strategy employed especially by learners who are not capable of speaking English
fluently.
1:
A Why did you choose English linguistics?
2:
C Ah::: hhh(.) I like English and I want to:: speak(1) Ah:: I want to =
3:
=communicate with(.) foreigners(.) [more hhh fluently(.) [So: =
4:
A
[Uh-hm
5:
C = I wanted to study English more [hhh(.) So:(.) I- chose(.) hhh =
6:
A
[mm::
[Ah::
7:
C =[ this major
8:
A [Yeah(1) Well, you’re doing a good job with your English
9:
C hhahah ◦Thank you◦
10:
A: You’re welcome
In this excerpt, Chie frequently laughs within her utterance. It is like she laughs
every time she takes time before she comes up with what to say next. Her response to
the question by Ashlee starts off with a hedge “Ah:::” and laughter, which gains time for
her to come up with the reason why she chose her major and deliver what she thinks in
English. Likewise, in lines 3 and 5, she frequently laughs when she pauses within her
utterances. The laughter employed here can be considered as a filler that bridges gaps.
In other words, with laughter, she can make her utterances flow smoothly without long
pauses which could sometimes lead to awkward silence for learners.
In line 9, she responds to a compliment on her English skills with laughter
before showing her appreciation to the compliment. In this respect, Pomerantz (1978)
asserts that the recipient of a compliment faces dilemma, that is, the following two
conflicting constraints “which are concurrently relevant but not concurrently satisfiable”
(p. 81): (i) Agree with and/or accept compliments, (ii) Avoid self-praise. When the
recipient agrees with and/or accepts a compliment in order to follow the first constraint,
it means that at the same time the recipient violates the second constraint: Avoid
self-praise. On the other hand, when the recipient disagrees with and/or rejects a
compliment, it would make the complimenter feel uncomfortable since it violates the
first constraint: Agree with and/or accept compliments. As such, the system of
constraints governing how to respond to compliments is “a tricky business” (Golato
2005: 169). In Japanese society where a great value is placed on modesty and hence
self-praise is frowned upon, it is often the case that the recipient makes much of the
second constraint and rejects a compliment. On the other hand, most Japanese learners
of English know that acceptance is expected in English when they receive compliments.
Here, Chie may also face this kind of dilemma when she is complimented on her
English. By laughing before accepting the compliment, she tries to mitigate the degree
of self-praise and show her modesty at the same time. In other words, laughter is used
here to accept compliments without violating the second constraint; avoid self-praise. In
this sense, she, by employing laughter, tries to follow the expectations as to compliment
responses in English while showing her sensitivity to Japanese-culture based
expectations.
6. Discussion
I have so far examined the examples of laughter by Japanese learners of
English found in actual conversational data. The characteristics of their use of laughter
can be summarized as follows. Note, however, that the followings are hypotheses
simply based on the findings of the present study.
1. They laugh at the end of utterances, most of which are not considered ‘laughable’ in
studies of laughter in American English.
2. They sometimes try to terminate their turns simply with laughter as an act of ‘let it
pass’.
3. They use laughter as a filler.
4. They are sensitive to recognition points the speaker provides.
First, they often laugh at the end of their own utterances. This kind of laughter
indicates a completion of their utterance and their intention to allow their interlocutor to
take a turn. Moreover, they employ laughter when they are at a loss for words. That
moment should be embarrassing for learners and they laugh to hide such feelings. In
this sense, they are engaged in facework to protect their own negative face because
feeling embarrassed threatens their negative face.
Second, their laughter sometimes forms a turn on its own. In this case, they can
take a turn simply by laughing. This kind of laughter is useful strategy for learners in
conversation because even when they do not understand what the interlocutor says, they
can just let it pass in the hope that the unknown utterance will become clear as ongoing
talk further progresses. Like sociable laughter employed by the Japanese, this kind of
laughter is used to create a positive atmosphere by not breaking flow of the
conversation. However, as I said earlier, in cross-cultural communication where the
interlocutor does not necessarily share the same rules as to laughter, it could lead to
miscommunication as the conversation goes further.
Third, learners also employ laughter within their own utterances to bridge
pauses. Since long pauses while they search for words can lead to awkward silence, they
employ laughter to avoid them. Excerpt 4 clearly demonstrates this point.
Lastly, Japanese learners seem to be sensitive to recognition points where
laughter is expected and appropriate. It is important, I believe, for learners to accept as
many laughter invitations the interlocutor provides as possible in order to maintain a
positive atmosphere. In the data in this study, it seemed that Japanese learners of
English try not to fail to laugh where they think they are expected to laugh.
7. Conclusion
In this study, I have investigated laughter by Japanese learners of English when
they have conversation with a native speaker of English. As a result, it was revealed that
they do not laugh only when they find something funny. In fact, they use laughter in
various ways in conversations. They laugh when they try to hide bewilderment and
embarrassment, when they shift a turn without saying anything as an act of ‘let it pass’,
when they fill gaps within or between utterances to avoid awkward silence, and when
the interlocutor provides a recognition point, that is when they think they are expected
to laugh. It is clear that Japanese learners of English employ laughter to make
conversation flow smoothly by creating a positive atmosphere for the interlocutor as
well as themselves.
But apparently, there are still a lot of things to be researched in future studies.
First, I need to examine a higher amount of participants to make sure that the tendencies
of laughter by Japanese learners of English found in this study can also hold true in
other conversational contexts. Second, I need to investigate their Japanese conversations
as well to examine whether they laugh in Japanese conversations too, for it might be
their conversational strategy only when they have conversations in English. Lastly, I
need to investigate multi-party conversations to see if there is any difference from
two-party conversations. Jefferson (1979: 93), for example, mentions that how likely
people accept the laughter invitation from current speaker differs in two-party and
multi-party conversations. This is because in two-party conversations “decliner is the
only potential co-laughter, while in multiparty situations there are others who may take
up laughter”. Considering her findings, it could be the case that the Japanese learners in
the present study laughed a lot because it was two-party conversation and they knew
there would be awkward silence if they did not accept laughter invitations from the
interlocutor.
8. References
Baba, J. (1999). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Compliment responses by learners of
Japanese and English as a second language. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
De Mente, B. (2004). Japan’s cultural code words: 233 key terms that explain the
attitudes and behavior of the Japanese. Tuttle Publishing.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: on ‘lingua franca’
English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics. 26. 237-259.
Glenn, P. (2004). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and Copliment Responses: Grammatical structure and
sequential organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Hashimoto, Y. (1994). Warai no communication (Communication of laughter). Gekkan
Gengo. 23(12). 42-48.
Hayakawa, H. (2000). Classification of laughter as social interaction. Bulletin of the
faculty of language and literature. 14(1). 23-43. Bunkyo University.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance
declination. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: studies in
ethnomethodology. 79-96. New York: Irvingston.
Jefferson, G., Saks, H., Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy.
In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee. (ed.), Talk and social organisation. 152-205.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencery-Oatey, H. (ed.),
Culturally speaking : managing rapport through talk across cultures.
316-41.
London and New York: Continuum.
Murata, K. and Hori, M. (2007). Functions of laughter in intercultural communication:
an analysis of laughter as a communication strategy. Kokusai Kenkyu-ka Kiyo 9.
115-126. Ryukoku University.
Nakamura, M. (1994). Warai no shinrigaku (Psychology of laughter). Gekkan Gengo,
23(12). 36-41
Namba, A. (2006). “Listership” in Japanese face-to-face interaction: the contribution of
laughter, especially in its interaction with nodding and verbal backchenneling.
Postgraduate conference 2006. University of Edinburgh.
Osvaldsson, K. (2004). On laughter and disagreement in multiparty assessment talk.
Text 24(4). 517-545
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In Atkinson, J., & Heritage, J (Ed.),
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis pp. 152-63.
Cambridge University
Sasagawa, Y. (1997). Girei koui to shite no warai (Laughter as a ritual). Shinwa
Kokubun, 32. 84-109. Kobe Shinwa Women’s University.
(2008). An analysis of the function of laughter in controlling modality in Japanese
intercultural conversations. Language and culture, 2, 29-52. Kobe Shinwa
Women’s University.