Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Cook (2000: 5) argues that play is highly beneficial to human development,
and that language play (henceforth LP) in particular is important not only in
child language acquisition, but in adult language learning as well. However,
as Cook noted, a serious examination of LP had at that time on the whole
been neglected, or at least sidelined, in the study of language and language
learning (2000: 4) and until the 2000s, second language researchers had paid
relatively little attention to LP, a notable exception being Kramsch and
Sullivan (1996). In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), where the
dominant theoretical frameworks have tended to emphasize interaction
50
CADE BUSHNELL
51
52
CADE BUSHNELL
53
form pairs or groups and be given various tasks related to the pedagogical
focus (often involving some variation of role play) as the teacher circled the
room providing assistance. The teacher then usually led the students in
discussing any highlights, problems, etc. they experienced while engaging in
the task. Occasionally, several pairs or groups of students would be asked to
perform the task in front of the whole class.
54
ANALYSIS
Playing together: features of language play in whole-class
interaction
Excerpt 1 shows a segment of talk involving whole-class interaction where the
teacher (T) is working to create a transition to a new pedagogical focus by
asking the students (Ss) to recall the topic of the previous weeks lesson: keego
honorific language. While consideration is also given to the function(s)
(offering affordances for language learning, and sequence-organizational) of
the LP, for illustrative purposes, the analysis will foreground the various
features of the LP as they are evident in the excerpt. In this regard, Excerpt 1 is
an especially perspicuous example because features from all three of Cooks
(2000) levels are identifiable within this one excerpt. (See the Appendix for a
list of transcription conventions and grammatical terms.)
Excerpt 1: Lego my keego1
T:
ii
good
simasita
did
everyone
(.) o benkyoo
honorifics
study
ne.=
IP
S1:
=keego.
honorifics
Honorifics.
4
T:
honorifics T
what
(2)
S2:
keego?
honorifics
bought
keg
honorifics
Ss:
[KEG. KEGO.=
CADE BUSHNELL
KEG
KEGO
Keg! Kego!
8
S2:
=KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe
KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe
Kego! hehehehehehe
9
Ss:
=hehehehehehehe
hehehehehehehe
=hehehehehehe
10 T:
no good
hehehehehehe
12
KE:GO
hehehehehe
big
beer
beer
hehehe
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
sore wa ke:ggu. ke:ggu. (.4) [ke:ggu kore
that
keg
keg
keg
this
[kegu?
keg
Keg?
17 T:
keego. [hehehehehe
honorifics
hehehehehe
is keego. hehehehehe
18 S2:
19
20
21
22
23
55
56
CADE BUSHNELL
57
H:
what
er
weekend
what
simasita ka?
did
S:
uh
MASU.
DS marker
I ask
you
HU-ask
dude
H:
=uh:::
S:
DA
what
did
H-title
(3)
H:
wrote
it's
right
S:
10 H:
[hehehehe
=you know. {repooto o
kakimasita},
there
58
you
know
report
wrote
AH. so
AH
that
hehe
The interaction begins with both Sal and Hal orienting to the task-at-hand as
directed by the teacher. Hal asks Sal about his weekend using the model
provided by T in the prior activity, forming the first pair part of a Question/
Answer adjacency pair. However, Sal hesitates to respond to Hals question by
deploying a greatly lengthened first word followed by the hesitation token uh,
followed by a 5 second pause (line 3). At this point, Sal informs Hal that he
(Sal) will do the asking. Though Sals turns in lines 3, 4, and 6 ignore the
adjacency pair initiated by Hal, Sal formulates his utterance in line 4 by using
highly colloquial language accompanied by contextualization cues (Gumperz
1982; Ostermann 2003) that are subsequently oriented to by Hal as a potential
initiation of LP: the alignment marker, dude, a code-switch into English, and
finally, use of the voice of Teacher by referring to Hal in the same manner that T
does (e.g. by attaching of Hal-san to the end of his question in line 6; a possible
inversion of reality, one feature of LP (Cook 2000: 123)).3
In line 8, following a 3 second pause, Hal orients to Sals actions by deploying
a highly marked tone of voice (an apparent imitation of a British accent), which
serves the function of aligning his interactional frame with the non-real world
orientation (one of Cooks (2000) features) initiated by Sal. Hals actions
simultaneously become a preferred response to Sals invitation to engage in LP
and the first pair part of a Joke/Laughter adjacency pair (Schegloff 1987; Sacks
1989). Sal unhesitatingly responds (note the overlap in lines 8 and 9) with the
second pair part of laughter (line 9). Upon experiencing favorable reception
from Sal, Hal recycles his laughter-evoking utterance to which Sal responds in
line 11 with further laughter and an acknowledgment token, so desu ka::, with
an affected elongation on the final syllable.
In Excerpt 2, although Sal and Hal chose to orient to the task as friends-at-play
rather than students-at-work, they have been able to skillfully merge the
requirements of the task with their LP. They are collaboratively using and
creating with the target language. Additionally, line 6 shows Sal experimenting
with the use of a different voice (i.e. the voice of teacher) as he initiates this
round of LP. Such experimentation has been argued to be beneficial to the
development of sociolinguistic competence of both child and adult L1 and L2
learners (Tarone 2000) and is a common feature of the LP in my data. Finally,
Excerpt 2 shows Hal and Sal collaboratively co-constructing their LP; I suggest
that this co-construction and use of ludic activity becomes a resource by which
learners may organize the deployment of on-task target language forms.
CADE BUSHNELL
59
S:
youre
gonna
be the
professor
alright?
alright
least
on
this
one
so
professor
H:
S:
=konnichi wa.
today
=hello.
5
H:
{a:::. S-sa:n}.=
a
S-title
S:
H:
=heheh
koni(h)ti
wa(h).
today
He(h)llo(h).
8
S:
ano::, uh:::(.)
um
uh
Um. uh
9
H:
{S-sensee. [S-sensee}
S-teacher
S-teacher.
{Professor S. Professor S}
((lines 5 and 9: {words}=East Asian sage tone))
10 S:
60
is this
this
is
this
this
=its ima.
its now
Its now.
((lines 10 and 11: talking about how to read
a certain Chinese character))
12 S:
13
chotto
now
little
ah
now
yorosii desu
good
um
now
ka?
hai.
yes
mo:: mochiron.
of c-
of course
nan
deshoo?
what
16
uh
ye-
yesterday
uh
17
ye:sterday
masita
what
H-eat
ka?
DS marker
19
noon
food
noon.
uh
how
you
say
eat
something
for
lunch
Ah, lunch. noon. ((to T)) Uh, how would you say eat something for
lunch?
20 T:
food
DA
For lunch.
21 S:
22
we're
good
uh
thank
yo-
uh
very
arigatto:: gozaimasita, a:
thank you
HU-exist
24
kino(.)
so
um
yesterday
noon
noon
food
DA
what
uh,
mesiagarimasita ka?
H-eat
CADE BUSHNELL
(2)
uh::, Wahoos sando (1) o tabemasita,
uh
28
Wahoos
sandwich
ate
uh
white
bean(s)
Uh, (I) ate a Wahoos sandwich and then, (3.2) uh white beans (4)
29 S:
30
hamburger
DS-NG
whoa
bi::nzu o
no
bean(s )
no
white
bean(s )
white
but
uh
diarrhea
O d-
heh
No no. White beans! I ate white beans, but (.) uh (1) diarrhea (I)
ge- heh
34 S:
GEri
o::,=
diarrhea
Diarrhea,=
35 H:
=geri
simasit(h)a. [heheheheh
diarrhea
did
heheheheh
[A::::::H
ah
37
HEHEHGERHEHEH A:::
hehehedihehehe
ah
di-
professor
diarrhea
di-
[geri
diarrhea
heheh
heheh
Diarrhea heheh
40
HAI.
yes.
did
61
62
In lines 1 and 2, Sal initiates the interaction via his managerial use of L1. Hal
produces a turn overlapping the last half of Sals utterancea weak
endorsement of Sals proposal: yeah, I can live with that. In line 5, Hal
deploys a marked tone of voice in his production of an exaggeratedly
elongated change of state token: ah (Heritage 1984; see also Mori 2004 for
Japanese). The participants subsequently orient to this move as an initiation
of a round of LP in which they collaboratively co-construct a double-framed
interaction, that is simultaneously both a non-real world and on-task (i.e.
real world) frame.
Hals marked tone of voice and word choice suggest that this is an
instantiation of double-voicing (Bakhtin 1981; Tarone 2000), and that Hal is
assuming the role of a stereotypical East Asian sage/sensee. Several things are
happening here. First, T has assigned the Ss a role play wherein they must
assume either the role of T or S. By engaging in this task, Sal and Hal are
doing being students. Second, within this T-imposed frame, Sal has assigned
the role of sensee to Hal. Third, Hal simultaneously plays the role of T (an
orientation to the real world demands of the task), and the role of sage/
sensee (an orientation to the non-real world feature of LP). This is evidence
of Hals developing awareness of the interactional effects made available
through assuming different voices. It also highlights the way in which LP
provides a venue for further development of such sociolinguistic competency
through experimentation. In line 6, Sal responds to Hals LP with laughter, a
sign that he acknowledges Hals attempt to double-frame the interactional
sequence as an opportunity to initiate a round of LP nested within an
orientation to task accomplishment.
In the subsequent interaction, Sal and Hal weave LP into the task-at-hand
in a complex way, eventually reorganizing and transforming the task
dramatically. The pair temporarily puts the Hal-initiated LP on hold while
they engage in a brief side sequence (Jefferson 1972) concerning the correct
reading of a Chinese character printed on the cue sheet for the role play
(lines 10 and 11), and pursue several moves with a practical orientation to
the task-at-hand (lines 1217). After asking T for some grammatical
assistance in lines 18 to 22, Sal produces the first pair-part of a Question/
Answer adjacency pair in lines 2325. Hals line 27 begins by first providing
the second pair-part to Sals adjacency pair and then continues using sosite
and (line 28), which maintains the floor by creating an addition-relevant
slot. Hal fills this slot with the considerably loud and emphasized siroi
BI:NZU (i.e. white bean(s); Hal subsequently uses this object to produce an
accounting of his intestinal distress in lines 3135). In lines 29 and 30, Sal
continues to orient to Hal as sensee on the one hand (both by reference to
the title and by using honorific language), while resonating with Hals siroi
BI:NZU by producing a prosodically similar HANBAAGAA, a word recycled
(note that such recycling may work to heighten a sense of social inclusion
a feature of the pragmatic level of LP) from the LP of a previous interactional
sequence (not shown) on the other. This move shows that LP need not be
CADE BUSHNELL
63
64
CONCLUSION
Cekaite and Aronsson (2005: 169) argue in favor of a ludic model of language
learning, contending that we need to take non-serious language more
seriously. The goal of this research has been to give serious consideration to
instantiations of LP in the interactions of beginning students of JFL. To do so,
the following research questions were considered:
The present study has clearly illustrated the complexity and depth with which
adult L2 learners may engage in LP. First, the learners have been shown to use
LP as a resource through which to organize their co-engagement in pedagogical
tasks. Within the contexts of the data considered in this study, I have argued
that LP used in this manner functions to provide affordances (van Lier 2000,
2004) for encoding the target language in a highly memorable fashion, and for
developing greater sociolinguistic competence by, for example, experimenting
with different voices. The findings of this study contribute to SLA research by
accounting for these under-considered functions of LP, which may be of great
benefit to classroom language learning.
A growing body of research has shown that not only do learners tend not
to engage in negotiation when performing (referential) meaning-focused
interactional tasks (Foster 1998; Roebuck 2000; Foster and Ohta 2005), but
they often fail even to do the expected task (DiNitto 2000; Seedhouse and
Richards 2005). In my data, however, a joint orientation to an LP frame
seems to have provided a shared space in which the participants were able to
reorganize the task as play and then effectively engage in the task-as-play.9
Importantly, the participants have been shown to be using on-task language
forms as they engage in LP. This fact forces us to re-conceptualize LP as a
possible motivator and facilitator rather than as disruptive, off-task behavior.
CADE BUSHNELL
65
In this vein, Cook (2000: 204) argues that Play . . . does not entail a rejection
of order or authority, though it does at least imply more voluntary and
creative reasons for embracing them.
Furthermore, Foster and Ohta (2005) suggest that one possible reason for the
paucity of negotiation for meaning in classroom interaction may be that such
negotiation actually constitutes a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson
1987). By providing a non-real world frame, however, LP may create a low
anxiety (Tarone 2000) space for learners to freely experiment with and use L2
free from any concerns of losing face (see Zajdman 1995; van Dam 2002;
Cekaite and Aronsson 2005). Future research should be done to examine the
mechanism by which LP creates such a space. If, as many SLA researchers have
reasoned, it is true that negotiated interaction and engagement in tasks are an
important or essential ingredient to SLA, it thus becomes arguable that LP is
indeed worthy of serious consideration as a contributing factor to language
development. Finally, longitudinal research should be done to track the ways in
which participants act on affordances provided by LP, and how these
affordances contribute to language development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 10th Annual International Conference of
the Japanese Society for Language Sciences in Shizuoka, Japan, 1213 July 2008. I wish to
express my heartfelt appreciation to Dina Yoshimi for her valuable comments on earlier versions
of this paper. I am also deeply grateful to the Applied Linguistics editors and the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable suggestions, and to the University of Hawaii at Manoa CA data
session participants for their many helpful insights. However, any errors or misinterpretations of
the data are my own.
APPENDIX
Transcription conventions
^
glottal stop
hehe
laughter
"#
high or low pitch (placed prior to affected element)
4words5 quicker than surrounding talk
5words4 slower than the surrounding talk
[
beginning of overlapped speech
]
end of overlapped speech
latching (i.e. no pause after the completion of one utterance and the
beginning of another)
(3.3)
length of pause (measured in seconds and tenths of seconds)
(.)
unmeasured pause
(words)
unclear utterance
((words)) commentary by transcriptionist
wo:::rd
geminate
WORDS louder than surrounding talk
66
continuing intonation
.
final intonation
?
question intonation
NOTES
1 Transcriptions appear with the first
line in Romanized Japanese followed
by a literal translation with grammatical elements in all capital letters. An
italicized gloss in natural English is
supplied in the third line.
2 Although Excerpt 1 embodies all three
features of LP, it will be recalled that,
according to Cook (2000), this need not
necessarily be the case.
3 One of the anonymous reviewers
questioned whether Hals use of
S-san in line 1 should not also be
CADE BUSHNELL
67
68
REFERENCES
Attardo, S. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bakhtin, M. [1934] 1981. The Dialogic Imagination,
Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Ed. M. Holoquist,
trans C. Emerson. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. [1929] 1984. Problems in Dostoevskys
Poetics. Ed. and trans. C. Emerson. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bell, N. 2005. Exploring L2 language play as an aid
to SLL: A case study of humour in NSNNS
interaction, Applied Linguistics 26/2: 192218.
Belz, J. 2002a. The myth of the deficient communicator, Language Teaching Research 6/1: 5982.
Belz, J. 2002b. Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign
language study, Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education 1: 1339.
Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language
Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univesity
Press.
Block, D. 2007a. Second Language Identities. London:
Continuum.
Block, D. 2007b. Socializing second language
acquisition in Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei, and
V. Cook (eds): Language Learning and Teaching as
Social Interaction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Broner, M. and E. Tarone. 2001. Is it fun?:
Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom, The Modern Language Journal 85/
3: 36379.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cekaite, A. and K. Aronsson. 2005. Language
play: A collaborative resource in childrens L2
learning, Applied Linguistics 26/2: 16991.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms:
Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. 1997. Language play, language learning,
English Language Teaching Journal 51/3: 22431.
Cook, G. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. 2001. The philosopher pulled the lower
jaw of the hen: Ludicrous invented sentences
in language teaching, Applied Linguistics 22/3:
36687.
Craik, F. and R. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of
processing: A framework for memory research,
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:
67184.
Craik, F. and E. Tulving. 1975. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104/3: 26894.
DiNitto, R. 2000. Can collaboration be unsuccessful?: A sociolinguistic analysis of classroom setting and Japanese L2 performance in group
tasks, Journal of the Association of Teachers of
Japanese 34/2: 179210.
Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. Information gap
tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20: 30525.
Foster, P. 1998. A classroom perspective on the
negotiation of meaning, Applied Linguistics 19:
123.
Foster, P. and A. Ohta. 2005. Negotiation for
meaning and peer assistance in second language
classrooms, Applied Linguistics 26: 40230.
Gafaranga, J. 2005. Demythologising language
alternation studies: Conversational structure
vs. social structure in bilingual interaction,
Journal of Pragmatics 37: 281300.
Garvey, C. 1984. Childrens Talk. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Garvey, C. [1977] 1990. Play. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hauser, E. 2005. Coding corrective recasts: The
maintenance of meaning and more fundamental
problems, Applied Linguistics 26/3: 293316.
Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and
aspects of its sequential placement in J. M.
Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structure of Social
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. 2007. Making humour work: Creativity on the job, Applied Linguistics 28/4: 51837.
Jefferson, G. 1972. Side sequences in
D.N. Sudnow (ed.): Studies in social interaction.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp. 294333.
Kim, Y. and D. Kellogg. 2007. Rules out of
roles: Differences in play language and their
developmental significance, Applied Linguistics
28/1: 2545.
Kramsch, C. (ed.) 2002. Language Acquisition and
Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives.
New York, NY: Continuum.
Kramsch, C. and P. Sullivan. 1996. Appropriate
pedagogy, English Language Teaching Journal 50:
199212.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and
Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
CADE BUSHNELL
69