Managing interactional (In)competence through laughter in peer L2 word search sequences

This study examines how laughter is used to manage interactional (in)competence during word search sequences in peer L2 English interactions. While research has highlighted the diverse roles of laughter in L1 interaction and L2 classroom discourse, little attention has been paid to its role in L2 peer talk, particularly in online environments. Drawing on 548 min of Zoom conversations among 16 university students in Sweden and Japan, this study employs conversation analysis (CA) to explore how laughter emerges in during word search sequences–moments where speakers display difficulty retrieving a lexical item. Analysis identifies four recurrent positions for laughter: post-candidate word, pre-candidate word, with candidate word, and post-word search marker. Findings show that laughter functions not merely as an affective marker, but as an interactional resource that can (a) display difficulty in lexical retrieval, (b) pre-emptively flag a candidate word as potentially problematic, and (c) invite interlocutor to join the word search. However, the effectiveness of laughter as an interactional resource depends on a shared context, explicit cues, and the affordances of online communication. In some cases, laughter failed to facilitate progressivity, leading to prolonged or abandoned searches. Beyond its interactional role, laughter also reveals tensions between speakers’ current linguistic repertoire and their awareness of the linguistic repertoire they need. The study argues that laughter reveals both interactional competence–through cooperative management of trouble–and interactional incompetence, through reliance on laughter and their interlocutor. The findings suggest the need to raise awareness of explicit word search markers to enhance communicative clarity. • Demonstrates how laughter reveals both interactional competence and incompetence. • Identifies four recurrent positions of laughter in Zoom-based L2 conversations. • Shows laughter can signal lexical trouble, pre-empt non-understanding, and invite collaborative support. • Reveals how shared context is necessary for laughter to work as an interactional cue. • Highlights laughter as a display of tension between current and ideal linguistic repertoire.