Under Construction @ Keele 2016 Volume 2 Issue 2 | Page 31

22

negative outcomes. The most common strategy is ‘stand-off’, whereby the conflict terminates
with both parties maintaining position and ceasing to discuss the topic.13 Whilst this halts
further escalation, it does not successfully resolve or terminate the conflict and is considered
a negative outcome. Within disagreements, participants may respond with counter
arguments which serve to escalate the dispute, however sometimes laughter is for mitigation
whilst allowing both participants to maintain their viewpoint.14 Acceptance of a laughter
invitation diffuses conflict, providing a chance to resolve and transition the topic in a mutually
positive way.15 Laughter appears to allow participants to successfully mitigate and terminate
the disagreement without being submissive or losing face. This suggests that although
research often considers laughter and closings in relation to everyday conversations16, they
also appear particularly relevant within conflict.
Building upon current literature, this particular study was conducted to identify the
fine details of these disputes. This research set out to address how couples argue,
specifically in relation to what underlying practices couples use to manage their disputes.
Furthermore, it is apparent that while there is extensive CA literature surrounding
conversation closing regarding laughter17 and conflict18 separately, there is little which
encompasses these elements together. This study focuses upon the ways laughter is used
within couple’s disagreements in order to mitigate seriousness and terminate in an amicable
manner.
Methodology
Data was collected from four couples, each provided with recording equipment from the
Keele University Psychology Department. Couples were helped in setting up the equipment
to ensure optimum placement in the room most regularly used by participants– usually the
living room or kitchen. Participants were instructed to record their conversations during
everyday activities such as cooking or eating dinner. Each couple was asked to record
footage between four and ten hours long, with the final collated footage totaling 24 hours of
naturalistic observations. Within CA, it is not unusual to use small sample sizes as the
analysis does not focus on comparison between participants but only analyses the data
recordings themselves.

13

Samuel Vuchinich, “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Verbal Family Conflict,” in Conflict
Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations ed. by Allen Grimshaw
(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
14
Warner-Garcia, “Laughing when nothing’s funny”.
15
Ibid.
16
Sacks and Schegloff, (1973), Holt (2010) & Holt (2011).
17
Holt, (2010). & Holt, (2011).
18
Vuchinich (1990), & Warner-Garcia, (2014).