In linguistics, is laughter a form of non-verbal communication or prosody?
I have to analyse a transcript of a man and woman talking and it says at one point:
Laura: [laughs] So did I.
Is there a specific term I can use to describe her laughing?
It is definitely non verbal communication.
Laughter existed before speech, it is understood worldwide no matter what language you speak and is produced differently to speech,so it isn't prosody, which relates to speech.
In the case of Laura, "laughs" is an action she performs before speaking. It could have been exchanged with "shrugs" or "grins" or "frowns" to give her words a different meaning.
Laughter existed before speech, it is understood worldwide no matter what language you speak and is produced differently to speech,so it isn't prosody, which relates to speech.
In the case of Laura, "laughs" is an action she performs before speaking. It could have been exchanged with "shrugs" or "grins" or "frowns" to give her words a different meaning.
As written the transcription means that Laura laughs while she is saying "So did I", or immediately prior to it, using the laughter as a descriptor of the words, though it would be open to individual interpretation as to whether the laughter stops before the words are said or continues through them.
It is a standard form of giving instructions, whether written in by the playwright or added by the director or by an editor or re-writer adapting a story for stage, or editing an existing play.
Although the laughter itself is ipso facto non verbal, it's use can alter the effect of the words and it therefore has verbal intent by modifying the sense in which the words are to be understood, a point well raised above when mentioning the other qualities which could have been associated with those words and I have TU'd the above answer for raising the issue.
Humans have a great penchant for attempting to classify things and to keep them in separate compartments.
However, verbal and non-verbal communication are both forms of language, and a complete separation of the two is not always possible .
The sound of laughter is produced by the vocal chords and by buccal cavity modulation, as words are, but the source of the response is not the same as with the use of specifically modulated sounds as words, for a language in the intellectual sense.
In it's pure form it is an emotional response, not an intellectual or an analytical one, but it may be used in an intellectual or an analytical manner by our creative and sometimes cunning human minds, and may be presented in a variety of forms, some of which are not always intended honestly.
Is it simply a laugh or is it a cynical laugh or a laugh intended to hide or to falsify in the hearer's mind the feeling or meaning that Laura has when she says "So do I"?
As such, laughter is a word.
Entire books have been written on exactly what constitudes a word, but in a nutshell a word is an idea and is also the expression of an idea.
Using laughter in a calculated fashion to convey a feeling or any other idea is using it as a word, and since it is vocalised it may be called verbal when used in that fashion.
It can also be used as a prosodic element rather than as a word in itself, using a calculated form of laughter to modify the sound and rhythm, and so also the particular nuance of meaning, of a verbal response in order to influence the way it is understood by the hearer(s), or to influence their emotional or intellectual response to it.
The extent to which a particular use of laughter with words may be prosodic might not always be entirely clear, and is a form of artistry akin to the use of contrasting or sympathetic lines or colours in a painting which may give the viewer an unclear message as to their meaning, for example in allowing two forms of interpretation which may be deliberately misleading or lead to mixed feelings concerning the quality of the object or scene affected and to differing interpretations by the viewers.
In fact any observable element may be used in such a manner and is a common ploy in all forms of artistic expression where sound and vision are concerned, as well as in writing.
Filming a character moving in a particular manner or against a suitable background may give an idea of their athletism or artistic ability or character which is shown later in the film to be a false impression, and merely part of the film-maker's weaving and convoluting of a story in order to keep the audience guessing or for later emotional or intellectual assuaults on them.
As given, the direction is simply to laugh before or whilst saying the words, or both, and it may be assumed on that basis that an honest and innocently happy laughter is intended.
It should be read however in the context of both the specific situation and of the development of Laura's personality and character in the piece as related to the character to whom she is speaking.
I suspect the character is a good one, since the name Laura has been chosen, a name not normally associated in name-casting with any form of low-life, or with seedy or unsavoury characters, but with well-mannered and presentable daughters who grow to be good and cultured ladies of good social standing and moral virtue.
What's in a name?
Laura was chosen as a name for the lead character and the film, but who is hardly seen for much of the film (she's dead, having had her face blown to bits with a shotgun), in the 1944 'film-noir' classic "Laura", simply because of the 'good' associations of the name and therefore of the character.
http://bernardschopen.tripod.com/laura.h… . . . .
The same of "Lo Specchio di Laura", an Italian film, which, as in "Laura" above, is a story of a good girl in a bad world
http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=dzQy… . . . . .
There is also of course the modern character of Lara (Laura) Croft, the upper-class highly presentable and awfully nice good girl turned toughie warrior fighting for good causes, and Laura Ashley designs with it's goody-goody image of middle class comfort and easy luxury.
Laura is likely to be intended as an honest and likeable character, and an honest laugh is likely to be intended in the direction.
The laugh might be described without further specific direction as a non-verbal modifyier of verbal communication with possible prosodic intent.
But it's probably just an honest laugh with no undercurrents, and written into the script with the intention of it being issued by the character with complete innocence and spontaneity.
I hope so.
In the world of image making, to have a Laura being anything less than lovely to know and of pure heart would be like putting white suits and hats on the bad guys.
It is a standard form of giving instructions, whether written in by the playwright or added by the director or by an editor or re-writer adapting a story for stage, or editing an existing play.
Although the laughter itself is ipso facto non verbal, it's use can alter the effect of the words and it therefore has verbal intent by modifying the sense in which the words are to be understood, a point well raised above when mentioning the other qualities which could have been associated with those words and I have TU'd the above answer for raising the issue.
Humans have a great penchant for attempting to classify things and to keep them in separate compartments.
However, verbal and non-verbal communication are both forms of language, and a complete separation of the two is not always possible .
The sound of laughter is produced by the vocal chords and by buccal cavity modulation, as words are, but the source of the response is not the same as with the use of specifically modulated sounds as words, for a language in the intellectual sense.
In it's pure form it is an emotional response, not an intellectual or an analytical one, but it may be used in an intellectual or an analytical manner by our creative and sometimes cunning human minds, and may be presented in a variety of forms, some of which are not always intended honestly.
Is it simply a laugh or is it a cynical laugh or a laugh intended to hide or to falsify in the hearer's mind the feeling or meaning that Laura has when she says "So do I"?
As such, laughter is a word.
Entire books have been written on exactly what constitudes a word, but in a nutshell a word is an idea and is also the expression of an idea.
Using laughter in a calculated fashion to convey a feeling or any other idea is using it as a word, and since it is vocalised it may be called verbal when used in that fashion.
It can also be used as a prosodic element rather than as a word in itself, using a calculated form of laughter to modify the sound and rhythm, and so also the particular nuance of meaning, of a verbal response in order to influence the way it is understood by the hearer(s), or to influence their emotional or intellectual response to it.
The extent to which a particular use of laughter with words may be prosodic might not always be entirely clear, and is a form of artistry akin to the use of contrasting or sympathetic lines or colours in a painting which may give the viewer an unclear message as to their meaning, for example in allowing two forms of interpretation which may be deliberately misleading or lead to mixed feelings concerning the quality of the object or scene affected and to differing interpretations by the viewers.
In fact any observable element may be used in such a manner and is a common ploy in all forms of artistic expression where sound and vision are concerned, as well as in writing.
Filming a character moving in a particular manner or against a suitable background may give an idea of their athletism or artistic ability or character which is shown later in the film to be a false impression, and merely part of the film-maker's weaving and convoluting of a story in order to keep the audience guessing or for later emotional or intellectual assuaults on them.
As given, the direction is simply to laugh before or whilst saying the words, or both, and it may be assumed on that basis that an honest and innocently happy laughter is intended.
It should be read however in the context of both the specific situation and of the development of Laura's personality and character in the piece as related to the character to whom she is speaking.
I suspect the character is a good one, since the name Laura has been chosen, a name not normally associated in name-casting with any form of low-life, or with seedy or unsavoury characters, but with well-mannered and presentable daughters who grow to be good and cultured ladies of good social standing and moral virtue.
What's in a name?
Laura was chosen as a name for the lead character and the film, but who is hardly seen for much of the film (she's dead, having had her face blown to bits with a shotgun), in the 1944 'film-noir' classic "Laura", simply because of the 'good' associations of the name and therefore of the character.
http://bernardschopen.tripod.com/laura.h… . . . .
The same of "Lo Specchio di Laura", an Italian film, which, as in "Laura" above, is a story of a good girl in a bad world
http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=dzQy… . . . . .
There is also of course the modern character of Lara (Laura) Croft, the upper-class highly presentable and awfully nice good girl turned toughie warrior fighting for good causes, and Laura Ashley designs with it's goody-goody image of middle class comfort and easy luxury.
Laura is likely to be intended as an honest and likeable character, and an honest laugh is likely to be intended in the direction.
The laugh might be described without further specific direction as a non-verbal modifyier of verbal communication with possible prosodic intent.
But it's probably just an honest laugh with no undercurrents, and written into the script with the intention of it being issued by the character with complete innocence and spontaneity.
I hope so.
In the world of image making, to have a Laura being anything less than lovely to know and of pure heart would be like putting white suits and hats on the bad guys.