Page 178 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

156 Meredith Marra and Janet Holmes

for instance, so that they could move about; the recording was monitored re-
motely by a Research Assistant, and editable MiniDiscs were used to remove
large gaps between interactions. In all cases, volunteers have full control of the
recording process, choosing what and when to record, and what to edit out if
they so wish. The resulting database currently comprises approximately 1500
interactions ranging from 30 second phone calls to day-long meetings and 12
hour factory shifts (see Holmes and Stubbe 2003a for a fuller description of the
dataset and methodology).
One particularly important objective of the project is to disseminate findings
back to end-users, whether HR managers, communication trainers, or language
teachers, in order to help improve communication in the workplace. Drawing on
this aspect of our work, the final section of this paper discusses the implications
of the analysis of workplace humour for intercultural and cross-cultural edu-
cation. First however, we examine selected examples of humour from two
multicultural teams in order to illustrate some of the complex functions of work-
place humour, and highlight differences in the way humour is used in different
communities of practice.

4. Two communities of practice

The concept of a ‘community of practice’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992,
1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998; Corder and Meyerhoff in this vol-
ume) provides a useful starting point for comparing the use of humour in differ-
ent groups. Evolving from a social constructionist approach, a ‘community of
practice’ (CofP) refers to the dynamic process whereby groups construct their
group identity through their common practices, verbal and non-verbal; group
identity develops through regular social interaction within ongoing exchanges.
Within this framework Wenger (1998: 73), an important proponent of the
concept of a community of practice, argues that three crucial criteria distinguish
a community of practice from other types of groups (a speech community, social
network or team, for example). Firstly, the community is characterized by mu-
2
tual engagement; secondly, members share a joint, negotiated enterprise; and
thirdly they have a shared repertoire. Using these criteria, both of the teams on
which we focus in this analysis qualify as communities of practice. Members in-
teract regularly: recordings of one-to-one conversations, as well as informal and
formal meetings, provide substantial evidence of their mutual engagement and
their orientation to progress in a jointly agreed enterprise, as well as their use of
a shared verbal and non-verbal repertoire to constantly negotiate various work
roles and workplace objectives.
As sociolinguists, we focus particularly on ways in which CofPs construct
and enact their shared discursive or linguistic repertoire. Wenger proposes spe-