Page 176 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

154 Meredith Marra and Janet Holmes

there are also some very distinctive features of the styles of humour which char-
acterize the interactions of the different workplace teams. In this paper we ex-
plore these differences, relating them to the distinctive communities of practice
of each group (Wenger 1998), with specific reference to the ethnic and cultural
norms that permeate them.

2. The functions of humour

The most obvious and overt function of humour is to entertain or amuse, but, as
many researchers have pointed out, it serves a range of other functions (e.g.,
Duncan 1985; Murphy 1986; Linstead 1988; Sabath 1990; Cox, Read and Van
Auken 1990). Some have proposed taxonomies to categorize the functions of
humour. Martineau (1972), for example, identifies three broad functions of hu-
mour: humour for consensus, conflict and control. Ervin-Tripp and Lampert
(1992) depict humour as equalizing, defending, sharing and coping. Graham,
Papa and Brooks (1992) list 24 types of humour and focus on the social-psycho-
logical functions. Hay’s (1995) taxonomy identifies twelve micro-functions,
including insult, fantasy, and self-deprecation. Clearly, humour serves many
different and complex functions. Moreover, any specific instance of humour
may be multifunctional (e.g., Tracy and Coupland 1990), so that humour often
serves multiple goals simultaneously.
Several types of humour are particularly relevant in the workplace context.
Firstly, humour may serve as a form of relational practice by ‘creating team’
(Fletcher 1999) and building solidarity or social cohesion between workers
(Blau 1955; O’Quin and Arnoff 1981; Holdaway 1988). Humour has been de-
scribed as the glue that holds groups together and helps people feel included
(a form of ‘positive politeness’ in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) terms). Under-
standing an in-joke, for example, demonstrates the existence of common ground
between co-workers, and reinforces team membership.
Humour also contributes to the ongoing construction of social identity by
actively highlighting and reinforcing boundaries between different social
groups i.e. creating an us and a them, but in an acceptable way. In response to
specific aspects of the on-going interaction, an individual may use humour to
draw attention to their ethnicity or gender, and distinguish it from that of others,
as illustrated in Holmes and Marra (2002a). In particular, minority group
members often use humour to express, in a socially acceptable way, some de-
gree of resentment at their marginalization, or to contest majority group norms.
Poking fun at an outgroup is safe and entertaining when the outgroup members
are safely out of range, but challenging outgroup members in face-to-face inter-
action is a much riskier enterprise; in such contexts the tension-defusing role of
humour is very valuable.