49.full- lego my keego

Applied Linguistics 30/1: 49–69 � Oxford University Press 2008

doi:10.1093/applin/amn033 Advance Access published on 29 September 2008

‘Lego my keego!’: An Analysis of LanguagePlay in a Beginning Japanese as a ForeignLanguage Classroom

CADE BUSHNELL

University of Hawai’i at Manoa

In this article, I present an analysis of talk-in-interaction from an introductory

Japanese as a foreign language classroom at an American university. An

examination of the data revealed language play (LP) to be a highly salient

feature of the participants’ interactions. LP has come into increasing focus in the

second language acquisition research of the last decade. Research in L1 has long

shown the prevalence of LP in both the language data available to the learner

and learner language production (e.g. Garvey 1984, [1977] 1990), and recent

research in L2 has shown that LP is also a prominent characteristic of the

language production of both child and adult L2 learners (Kramsch and Sullivan

1996; Cook 1997, 2000, 2001; Lantolf 1997; Sullivan 2000; Tarone 2000; Broner

and Tarone 2001; Belz 2002a, 2002b; Bell 2005; Cekaite and Aronsson 2005;

Kim and Kellog 2007). Adopting Cook’s (2000) definition of LP, I use conver-

sation analysis to examine instances of LP in the participants’ interactions.

Analysis focuses specifically on the ways in which LP functions within the

context of the language learning classroom to provide ‘affordances’ (van Lier

2000, 2004) for language learning, and to become a resource for sequence-

organization. The analysis shows that by and through the fictional world of

LP, the participants were able to engage in the teacher-assigned pedagogical

activities on their own terms. In the discussion, I argue that LP is potentially

of great benefit to the linguistic development of second language learners—

echoing Cekaite and Aronsson’s argument in favor of a ludic model of language

learning, in which they contend that ‘we need to take non-serious language

more seriously’ (2005: 169).

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

focusing on referential meaning (e.g. ‘task-based’ instruction; Long 1983,

1996; Doughty and Pica 1986; Skehan 1998; Pica 2005; but see, e.g., Block

2003, 2007a, 2007b on the recent ‘social turn’ in SLA research), this is not a

surprising fact. However, research in L1 has long shown the prevalence of LP

in both language data available to the child language learner, as well as

learner language production (e.g. Garvey 1984, [1977] 1990). LP is also a

salient feature of child L2 acquisition (Tarone 2000; Broner and Tarone 2001;

Cekaite and Aronsson 2005; Kim and Kellogg 2007) and recent research on

adult L2 acquisition has unequivocally shown it to be in no way a ‘childish’

activity (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996; Cook 1997, 2000, 2001; Lantolf 1997;

Belz 2000a, 2000b; Sullivan 2000; Bell 2005).

While previous research has often focused on the intrinsic features of LP

(e.g. Cook 1997, 2000), or the possible effects of LP on interlanguage

structures and second language acquisition (e.g. Tarone 2000), the present

study will examine several of the socially situated functions of LP. Using

conversation analysis, I examine naturally occurring linguistic data collected

from a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. In the analysis, I

will show that the participants co-construct and use the fictional worlds of LP

as a resource by which to organize the pedagogical-task-as-social-interaction.

Moreover, I will argue that LP functions to offer ‘affordances’ (van Lier 2000,

2004) for the development of sociolinguistic competence (Tarone 2000), and

for encoding the target language in a highly internalizable and ‘deeply

processed’ (Craik and Lockhart 1972; Craik and Tulving 1975) fashion.

Functions of language play in second language acquisition

Tarone (2000) argues that LP may be an important facilitator to SLA in at

least the following ways. First, LP may lower affective barriers to SLA by

providing a means of assuaging anxiety, thus allowing linguistic data to pass

through the ‘affective filter’ (Krashen 1981) and become ‘intake’ (Chaudron

1988; Schmidt 1990).

Second, LP may increase the memorizability of the discourse engaged in by

the learner. Craik and Lockhart (1972), and Craik and Tulving (1975) suggest

that retrieval from the long-term memory is facilitated by the creation of a

‘trace’, or triggering association. Craik and Lockhart (1972) also argue that

‘depth of analysis’ or ‘elaborative encoding’ will promote the creation of a

strong trace. They define ‘depth’ as ‘involving a greater degree of semantic or

cognitive analysis (1972: 675)’ and argue that this semantic enrichment can

be achieved through an accumulation of ‘associations, images or stories on

the basis of the subject’s past experience with the word’ (ibid.). In this vein,

Cook (2001: 381–3) provides concrete examples of the mnemonic efficacy of

LP, and suggests that LP may produce such lasting impressions on the

memories of learners that, even after years of disuse, they will still be able to

vividly recall the language encoded via LP.

50 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

Third, LP may provide the learner with opportunities for incorporating

other ‘voices’ (see Bakhtin 1981) into their L2—possibly fostering socio-

linguistic competence. Sociolinguistic competence requires the appropriation

of not just one register, but of ‘several voices or varieties appropriate to the

speech communities to which the learner belongs, or wishes to belong’

(Tarone 2000: 46). Bakhtin (1981, 1984) emphasizes that we do not learn

our languages from a dictionary, but rather that we weave together a

patchwork of voices appropriated from the speech of others. LP gives learners

an opportunity to experiment with other voices without concern for adverse

social consequences. This process may enable learners to gain ownership of

the voices and construct their own complex identities, allowing them to

participate in their speech communities with a greater range of resources for

and freedom of self-expression (Tarone 2000).

Fourth, because LP may entail production of alternative linguistic forms, it

could play a crucial role in the destabilization and restructuring of the learner’s

interlanguage (IL) (Tarone 2000; Broner and Tarone 2001; Bell 2005; Kim and

Kellogg 2007). Tarone (2000) argues that IL development requires both

centripetal and centrifugal (see Bakhtin 1981) forces, which are manifest in the

push of the demand for accuracy and the pull of creativity and innovation,

respectively. She suggests that LP creates just such a situation for learners as

they engage in the act of noticing linguistic forms in the course of LP and

gradually replace incorrect productions with correct L2 forms.

Cekaite and Aronsson (2005: 170) touch upon two additional functions of

LP. The first is that of a ‘face-saving device’ which allows participants to

commit face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Brown and Levinson 1987) while

effectively avoiding social repercussions by remaining ‘off-record’ in the

context of play (see also Zajdman 1995; van Dam 2002). Second, they

suggest that LP may function as a venue for extended multiparty interaction.

They note that ‘[i]n ordinary conversations speech errors and overt

corrections frequently trigger play episodes’ (Cekaite and Aronsson 2005:

176). In the case of L2 learners, such instances may provide an opportunity

to engage in a ‘language related episode’ (LRE) where the focus of the

interaction shifts from conveying a message to attending to the linguistic

form of the message itself (Swain 2000). LP may thus contribute to the

creation of a space for continued collaborative attention to form.

It is arguable that all of the functions mentioned above (i.e. affective,

mnemonic, sociolinguistic, IL destabilizing, FTA mitigating, and interactional)

may have considerable impact on SLA. In the analysis presented below,

however, special attention is given to the ways in which LP functions to

provide affordances for learners to internalize interactional episodes, and to

develop greater levels of sociolinguistic competence. Additionally, I will also

emphasize another important function of LP, which, to the best of my

knowledge, has not been directly touched upon by previous research: LP as a

resource for organizing and engaging in social interaction.

CADE BUSHNELL 51

Research questions and methodology

I will employ the methodology of conversation analysis (CA) in considering

the following research questions:

� In what ways do the participants of this study use LP?

� How does this use of LP function as a resource for engaging in social

interaction?

� What affordances (van Lier 2000, 2004) for language development are

made available through the LP?

CA is an extremely robust tool by which to examine social interaction. It is

especially useful in helping the researcher to understand, from the participants’

perspective, how they (the participants) co-achieve social order and intersub-

jectivity within their interaction (Sacks et al. 1974; see also Tanaka 1999 for

Japanese). Much of the previous research has tended to view LP through the

lens of the individual learner. LP has been seen as a social phenomenon only

insofar as it ‘occur[s] as part of a process in which learners appropriate the L2

speech of others in interaction and internalize it’ (Broner and Tarone 2001:

497). Furthermore, the relationship between LP and social action has often been

de-emphasized in order to focus on its intrinsic features (see, e.g., Cook 1997).

By using CA, however, the present study seeks to give careful consideration to

the ways in which the participants orient to and use LP as a resource for

engaging in and organizing their social interaction in the context of the

pedagogical task.

SETTING AND DATA

Classroom setting

Data were collected from two second semester Japanese as a foreign language

(JFL) classrooms at an American university. Signed consent was obtained

from all participants prior to data collection. The data used in this study come

from a subset of the data collected from one of these two classes. Ten of the

fifteen students in the JFL class examined here had been together in the

same class taught by the same teacher from the previous semester. None of

the five new students were known to the other ten prior to the beginning of

the data collection period. This fact served to create a classroom in which the

intra-group interactions of one group of students were characterized by a

familiarity and solidarity that reflected their shared social history from the

previous semester. Such familiarity/solidarity was generally absent in the

other group of students in both inter- and intra-group interactions (though

some of the students from the ‘new group’ had developed associations within

their own group prior to data collection).

Class met four days a week for 50 minutes per session. The typical

pedagogical flow began with a teacher-fronted presentation followed by

whole class, teacher-fronted practice. The students would then be asked to


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.

Participants and data collection procedures

Approximately 25 hours of audio data were collected from the class in

question. In the present study, I analyze data from a ‘whole-class’ interaction

(Excerpt 1), and data from the interactions of two individuals (Excerpts 2

and 3) from the JFL class described above. These two participants, Sal and

Hal, were representative of the average to above average students in the

class. Data collection was accomplished by having one participant, Sal, wear

a lapel microphone for the entire class period during every day of the data

collection period. This procedure was followed from the week prior to

collection of the data used in this study. Additional data were also gathered

via several informal interviews with Sal. According to Sal, at the time of data

collection he and Hal were already well acquainted with each other as a

result of extensive prior interaction.

Types of language play: ‘rehearsal’ vs. ‘fun’

Generally speaking, two distinct categories of LP have been discussed in the

literature (Broner and Tarone 2001). The first type has been referred to as

‘rehearsal’ (Bell 2005; Broner and Tarone 2001) and is marked by such

characteristics as a lower vocal volume, the absence of laughter,

manipulation of phonological and morphosyntactic elements new to the

learner, and lack of overt reference to a fictional world. Additionally, this

type of LP is typically addressed to the self in the form of private speech

(Broner and Tarone 2001; see also Lantolf 1997, 2000; Ohta 2001).

The second type of LP, which most resembles the type examined in the

current study, has been referred to as ‘fun’ LP (Broner and Tarone 2001).

According to Broner and Tarone (2001), this type of LP contrasts with LP as

rehearsal in that it may typically feature smiles or laughter, marked shifts in

vocal pitch and quality, use of linguistic forms already known to the learner,

reference to fictional worlds, and unlike the typically private rehearsal LP, fun

LP often appears to be addressed to an other. In this article, I shall assume that

the type of LP discussed by Cook (2000) falls under the heading of ‘fun’ rather

than ‘rehearsal’ LP, though he does not use these terms himself. Cook notes

that fun LP is ubiquitous in everyday interactions and that it may take on

different functions according to the contexts within which its various features

are deployed. Furthermore, he analyzes fun LP into three levels (formal,

semantic, and pragmatic) and identifies several defining features for each level

CADE BUSHNELL 53

(e.g., repetition and patterning [formal]; separation from ‘real-world’ reference

[semantic]; and social inclusion and or exclusion [pragmatic]). Importantly,

however, Cook also maintains that it is not necessary that all features exhibit

equal prominence, nor that all features be present in every instance. Thus, for

the purposes of this study, the presence of one or more of Cook’s features will be

acknowledged as an instantiation of LP.

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 week’s 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 Cook’s

(2000) levels are identifiable within this one excerpt. (See the Appendix for a

list of transcription conventions and grammatical terms.)

Excerpt 1: ‘Lego my keego’1

1 T: ii desu ka? minasan. keego (.) o benkyoogood C Q everyone honorifics O study

2 simasita ne.=did IP

Ok? Everyone, we studied (.) honorifics right?

3 S1: =keego.honorifics

Honorifics.

4 T: ((nodding to S1))keego. keego wa nan desu ka?honorifics honorifics T what C Q

((nodding to S1)) Honorifics. What are honorifics?

5 (2)

6 S2: keego? kego (.) kaimasita? KEG. [KEEGO.=honorifics kego bought keg honorifics

=Honorifics? (You) bought a kego? Keg! Honorifics!

7 Ss: [KEG. KEGO.=


KEG KEGO

Keg! Kego!8 S2: =KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe

KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe

Kego! hehehehehehe

9 Ss: =hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

=hehehehehehe

10 T: hai, DAME::. [heheheheheheyes no good hehehehehehe

Yeah right! hehehehehehe

11 S2: [AH::: ((disappointed tone))AH:::

12 AH. KE:GO [hehehehehe OO]KI BIIRU.AH KE:GO hehehehehe big beer

Aaah! ((disappointed tone)) Ah! Kego hehehehehe big beer!

13 S3: [OOKII BIIRU. hehehe]big beer hehehe

Big beer! hehehe

14 Ss: HEHEHEHEHEHEHE

15 T: sore wa ke:ggu. ke:ggu. (.4) [ke:ggu korethat T keg keg keg this

That’s keg. Keg. Keg this

16 S2: [kegu?keg

Keg?

17 T: keego. [hehehehehehonorifics hehehehehe

is keego. hehehehehe

18 S2: [KE:GO KEGU KE:GO. (1)KE:GO KEGU KE:GO.

19 DON'T PLAY WITH MY KE:GO=Kego kegu kego! (1) Don’t play with my ke:go!=

20 S3: =LEGO MY KEGO. [HEHEHEHEHEHE]21 S2: [LEGO MY KE:GO. HEHEHEHEHE]22 T: [HEHEHEHEHEHE]23 Ss: [HEHEHEHEHEHE]

CADE BUSHNELL 55

S2’s utterance in line 6 corresponds with the second feature of LP noted

above: a separation from ‘real-world’ reference. Here, after a 2 second pause

following T’s redirection to the previously studied topic of keego ‘honorifics’

(lines 1–5), S2 repeats the word keego with a rising intonation and immediately

follows with the question ‘kego (.) kaimasita?’ ((you) bought a keg?) (line 6). By

using the verb kaimasita ‘bought’, S2 ‘re-semiotizes’ (Belz 2002a) the Japanese

word keego based on its phonological similarity with the English word ‘keg’ (i.e.

keg of beer). This re-semiotization signifies a segment boundary between talk

oriented to the real world and a new orientation to a ‘non-real’ world in which

T has purchased a keg of beer. In lines 12 and 13, S2 and S3 co-clarify this

re-semiotization by the addition of ookii biiru ‘big beer’. The fact that the

interactional frame has been shifted to one of LP is further evidenced by the

extended loud laughter from the other Ss in line 14: they are now in on the joke,

having entered into an intersubjective state with the authors of this LP segment.

The second instance of LP in Excerpt 1 corresponds with the linguistic

patterning and/or repetition feature of LP. The Ss foreground the

phonological features of their play via manipulations and repetitions (lines

6, 7, 8, 12, and especially 18–21). In lines 15 and 17, we see T making a

repair of S2’s utterance by emphasizing the phonological differences between

keggu ‘keg’ (foreign loan word: cf. native Japanese sakadaru ‘sake cask; keg’)

and keego ‘honorifics’. T’s contribution, notably accompanied by laughter

(line 17), triggers a further expansion of the LP by juxtaposing the two pronun-

ciations, which S2 immediately incorporates into the play in a ‘sing-songy’

manner (lines 16 and 18). S2 also incorporates the phonological material

‘ke:go’ into the L1 clause ‘don’t play with my ke:go’ (line 19).

The third feature of LP mentioned above—the pragmatic function of social

inclusion and or exclusion—is especially salient in line 20 where S3 latches

onto S2’s substitution play utterance with ‘lego my kego’ (echoing the catch

phrase ‘lego my Eggo�’ from a well-known television commercial for

Kellogg’s ‘Eggo� waffles’). By couching ‘kego’ in a highly idiomatic chunk of

culturally charged language, this move again results in the re-semiotization

of the Japanese word keego. This triggers widespread and extended laughter—

evidence of the socially inclusive nature of the collaboratively constructed LP

frame (note the references to shared social experience among American

college students, i.e. beer that comes in a keg and instant breakfast food).2

LP in the case of whole-classroom interaction makes salient a complex web of

orientations to talk. We see instances of T constructing his default identity

(Richards 2006) as teacher through his use of organizational talk (line 4) and his

repair (lines 15 and 17). However, while the initial exchange between T and S1

orients towards classroom management as an interactionally accomplished

activity, the orientation of the talk quickly changes as S2 reorients to T’s talk not

as a student, but as a speaker (Shimazu 2000; Richards 2006). Other Ss

subsequently orient to S2’s move as a potential initiation of an LP round and use

the LP as a resource by which to extend and engage in the interaction via

collaborative participation and laughter (lines 7, 9, 13, 14, 20, and 23).


Playing being ‘sensee’: Engaging in the task as play

In Excerpts 2 and 3 below, I turn to a consideration of LP in dyadic

interactions between learners. An examination of the data revealed many

instances of language play. LP activities such as joking, story telling and

verbal dueling were common—in spite of the fact that the participants of this

study were beginning learners of Japanese. Though I continue to make note

of instances in the data that correspond to the features of LP as identified by

Cook (2000), I shift the analytic emphasis to the function(s) (sociolinguistic,

mnemonic and sequence-organizational) of the LP. In Excerpt 2, Sal and Hal

are negotiating a task in which they are required to talk about what they did

over the weekend. Just prior to this sequence, whole class practice had

focused on talking about weekend activities using the question shuumatu wa

nani o simasita ka (what did you do during the weekend?) and the response

pattern X o simasita (I did X), or X o 5verb4-ta (I 5verb4-ed).

Excerpt 2: ‘repooto o kakimasita’

1 H: S-san, nani o (.) er shuma:tu wa (.) nani oS-title what O er weekend T what O

2 simasita ka?did Q

Mr. S, what did you do over the weekend?

3 S: AI::::::uh:: (5) watasi wa (2) ukagai (2)ai uh I T HU-ask

4 MASU. i ask you dude=DS marker I ask you dude

Ai, uuh I’ll ask. I ask you dude

5 H: =uh:::

6 S: shumatu ni nani o simasita ka, (.)H-san.weekend DA what O did Q H-title

What did you do on the weekend, Mr.H.

7 (3)

8 H: {repooto o}kaki:masit [a, it's right there=report O wrote it's right there

(I) wrote (my) report, it’s right there

9 S: [hehehehe

10 H: =you know. {repooto o kakimasita},

CADE BUSHNELL 57

you know report O wrote

you know. (I) wrote my report

11 S: AH. so desu ka:: heheAH that C Q hehe

Ah. Is that right? hehe

((lines 8 and 10: {words}= ‘regal’ tone))

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 Hal’s 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 Sal’s 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 Sal’s 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 Cook’s (2000) features) initiated by Sal. Hal’s actions

simultaneously become a preferred response to Sal’s 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.


Making ‘sensee’ sick: Interactionally (re)organizing the taskthrough play

During the portion of class directly preceding Excerpt 3, T has modeled the

interaction for the Ss by calling on a volunteer and working through the pattern

of interaction with him, and has also offered a brief explanation in English and

Japanese regarding the proper use of keego ‘honorific language’ for referring to

the actions of one’s superiors. Excerpt 3 shows Sal and Hal enacting a role play in

which one of them is to play the part of a sick student seeking audience with his

busy teacher in order to reschedule an appointment, and the other to play the

part of the teacher. In their interaction, however, Hal and Sal (re)organize and

transform the task by, through, and for their play, while simultaneously

displaying an orientation to the use of ‘on-task’ language.

Excerpt 3: ‘siroi bi:nzu’

1 S: so, you’re gonna be the sensee. alright?so you’re gonna be the professor alright

So, you’re gonna be the professor. Alright?

2 [at least on this one.(.) so, a, sensee.=at least on this one so a professor

At least on this one. (.) So, a, professor.=

3 H: [yeah, i can live with thatYeah, I can live with that

4 S: =konnichi wa.today T

=hello.

5 H: {a:::. S-sa:n}.=a S-title

{Ah. Mr. S}.=

6 S: =heheh

7 H: koni(h)ti wa(h).today T

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: [° is this kon? (is this) kon?° =

CADE BUSHNELL 59

is this this is this this

Is this this’ ? (is this) this’?11 H: =it’s ima.

it’s now

It’s ‘now’.

((lines 10 and 11: talking about how to reada certain Chinese character))

12 S: ima, ah::. ima wa. ano:, ima:: wa: chottonow ah now T um now T little

13 yorosii desu ka?good C Q

Now, ah. Do you. uum, do (you) have a minute now?

14 H: hai. mo:: mochiron. nan deshoo?yes of c- of course what C

Yes. of c-, of course. What seems to be the matter?

15 S: ano:: (1) uh (2) ki- ki:noo:, ki:noo:, uhum uh ye- ye:sterday yesterday uh

16 (.) ki:noo, nani o (.) mesiagari (.)yesterday what O H-eat

17 masita ka?DS marker Q

Um uh ye- yester, yester, uh what did you eat yesterday?

18 ah, hiru go:han. hiru. (1) ((to T)) uh, howAh noon food noon. uh how

19 would you say eat something for lunch?would you say eat something for lunch

Ah, lunch. noonÕ. ((to T)) Uh, how would you say eat something forlunch?

20 T: hiru gohan de.noon food DA

For lunch.

21 S: ok. we're good. uh, thank yo- uh, domook we're good uh thank yo- uh very

22 arigatto:: gozaimasita, a:thank you HU-exist a

Ok. we’re good. uh, thank yo- uh, ‘thank you’.

23 ((reorienting to H)) ok, so ano(H)O(H)O:,ok so um

24 kino(.) hiru- hiru gohan DE(.)yesterday noon noon food DA

((reorienting to H)) Ok, so u:(h)m(h), yesterday lun- for lunch (.)

25 uh, nani o(.) uh, mesiagarimasita ka?uh what O uh, H-eat Q


uh, what (.) did you eat?

26 (2)

27 H: uh::, Wahoo’s sando (1) o tabemasita,uh Wahoo’s sandwich O ate

28 sosite, (3.2) uh (.) {siroi BI:NZU} o (4)and then uh white bean(s) O

Uh, (I) ate a Wahoo’s sandwich and then, (3.2) uh white beans (4)

29 S: >SENSEE SENSEE.< {HANBAAGAA Oprofessor professor hamburger O

30 [MESIAGARIMAS-}MASEN >MAS [EN DESITA KA<?H-didn’t eat DS-NG C Q

Professor, professor! Didn’t >didn’t you eat a hamburger<?

((lines 28 to 30: {words}= ‘wild’ tone))

31 H: [siroi whoa o:::o:::o::white whoa

White whoa ooo

32 H: no no::, SIROI BI::NZU::. siroi bi::nzu ono no white bean(s ) white bean(s ) O

33 tabemasita kedo (.) uh (1) ge:ri o su- hehate 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 O

Diarrhea,=

35 H: =geri o simasit(h)a. [hehehehehdiarrhea O did heheheheh

=(I) got diarrhe(h)a. heheheheheh

36 S: [A::::::Hah

37 HEHEHGERHEHEH ↓A:::hehehedihehehe ah

Aaah. hehehehdiarhehehe ! aaa.

38 GE- [SENSEE(.) GERI O SIMA- SIMASITA KA?di- professor diarrhea O di- did Q

Di- professor (you) go- got diarrhea?

39 H: [geri hehehdiarrhea heheh

Diarrhea heheh

40 HAI.yes.

CADE BUSHNELL 61

In lines 1 and 2, Sal initiates the interaction via his managerial use of L1. Hal

produces a turn overlapping the last half of Sal’s utterance—a weak

endorsement of Sal’s 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.

Hal’s 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 Hal’s 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 Hal’s LP with laughter, a

sign that he acknowledges Hal’s 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 12–17). 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 23–25. Hal’s line 27 begins by first providing

the second pair-part to Sal’s 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 31–35). 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 Hal’s ‘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


sustained in an uninterrupted manner. Rather, it can be put on hold within

the course of the interaction (as in lines 18–22), or even across interactions

(as with Sal’s recycling of ‘HANBAAGAA’), as it is collaboratively constructed

by the participants. Thus LP has arguably provided affordances (van Lier

2000, 2004) to the participants for elaborative encoding (Craik and Lockhart

1972; Tarone 2000)—making the language of their interactions highly

memorizable.

In lines 31–40, Hal uses his line 28 ‘siroi BI:NZU’ in a subtle reversal of the

discursive roles of the task4—an action which makes relevant a sickness

telling by Hal-as-sensee rather than by Sal-as-student.5 Hal does this by

producing an accounting of his ‘sickness’, asserting that the ‘siroi BI:NZU’

were a contributing factor to his geri ‘diarrhea’ (lines 32, 33, and 35). In line

34, Sal produces ‘GEri o::,¼’, with an elongated last syllable, a slightly rising

intonation, and a volume increase as well as a heavy emphasis on the first

syllable of geri. In line 35, Hal orients to this action by Sal as being a possible

initiation of repair by latching on to Sal’s line 34 with a redeployment of the

potential repairable ‘geri o simasit(h)a.’, with a falling final intonation. Hal’s

line 35 also features laughter, which begins during the last syllable of the

final word in his utterance. This laughter token touches off a round of

partially overlapped laughter, by which Hal and Sal collaboratively orient to

Hal’s line 35 as a joke (Schegloff 1987; Sacks 1989). In lines 38 and 39 the

participants produce repetitions of the laughable item, geri. In addition to the

absurdity of the notion of ‘sensee’ confiding in his student in this manner

about his intestinal distress, the joke here seems also to be related to a sort of

covert6 social inclusion (one of Cook’s (2000) LP features) based on the

shared cultural knowledge that this type of lexical item might normally be

considered taboo in a classroom setting. Thus, the participants are able to use

LP to organize a co-display of their orientations to social norms, and the

potential humorousness of flouting such norms. Of additional significance is

the fact that geri was a new vocabulary word for this lesson. Thus, the

participants’ use of geri as they engage in LP further evidences the double-

framed nature of this interaction; Sal and Hal are simultaneously orienting to

the task as both friends-at-play and students-at-work. Also, though the

participants have effectively transformed the task by reversing the discourse

roles by and through their LP, they have still displayed an orientation to

(most of) the requirements of the pedagogical task by ‘gaining audience to

the teacher’ and then producing a ‘sickness telling’ (although it was the

teacher that was sick and not the student).

Excerpt 3 shows that Sal and Hal have oriented to the T assigned role play7

in an LP frame. They have used their LP as a resource by which to organize

their interaction, into which they creatively and seamlessly incorporated ‘on-

task’ linguistic elements such as newly introduced vocabulary like geri, and

even keego ‘honorifics’. It must also be emphasized that not only have

Sal and Hal managed to include such language in their LP, but that the LP

has provided affordances (van Lier 2000, 2004) for language learning:

CADE BUSHNELL 63

(i) Hal’s multi-voiced orientation to the task (i.e. his simultaneous

assumption of both the T assigned role of ‘teacher’ and the Sal assigned

role of ‘sensee’, along with his own deployment of his East Asian sage ‘voice’),

Sal’s incorporation of keego, and the participants’ flouting of social norms in

co-constructing their ‘joke’ have provided them with affordances for further

development of their sociolinguistic competence; and (ii) the ways in which

the participants were seamlessly able to put the LP on hold in their

interaction, recycle items from previous interactions featuring LP, and the

fact that Sal subsequently went on to recycle items from the LP in Excerpt 3

in later interactions8 is indicative of how LP has functioned to provide

affordances for elaborative encoding.

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:

� In what ways do the participants of this study use LP?

� How does this use of LP function as a resource for engaging in social

interaction?

� What affordances for language development are made available through

the LP?

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.


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, 12–13 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 Hawai’i 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

¼ 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

CADE BUSHNELL 65

�words� softer than surrounding talk

words more emphasis than surrounding talk

wo- cut-off

’ continuing intonation

. final intonation

? question intonation

Interlinear grammatical notation key

C: Copula

CT: Continuer

D: Double particle (kamo, toka, etc.)

DA: Dative particle (he, ni)

F: Speech filler

IP: Interactional particle (yo, ne, etc.)

L: Linking device (-te, si, kedo, etc.)

M: Noun modification particle (no, na, etc.)

N: Nominalizer

NG: Negative

O: Object marker

P: Past tense

PA: Passive

Q: Question marker

QT: Quotation marker

S: Subject marker

T: Topic marker

Stylistic indicators (when necessary):

DS-: Distal style

FS-: Formal style

H-: Honorific

HU-: Humble

PS-: Plain style

NOTES

1 Transcriptions appear with the first

line in Romanized Japanese followed

by a literal translation with gramma-

tical 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 Hal’s use of

‘S-san’ in line 1 should not also be

seen as an instantiation of double-

voicing. While we cannot know Hal’s

intentions in framing his utterance in

such a way, three features of the data

must be noted. First, and most

importantly, Sal does not display an

understanding of Hal’s line 1 as being

LP initiation relevant. Second, Sal’s

line 6 differs from Hal’s line 1 in that it

affixes ‘H-san’ in an utterance final

position (which imitates T’s use of this

resource for classroom management).

Finally, it is both accompanied by


other contextualization cues and con-

textualized as being ‘teacher’s voice’

via prosodic features such as intona-

tion and stress (features which are

contrastingly absent in Hal’s line 1).

4 I am indebted to both one of the

anonymous reviewers and the partici-

pants in a fall semester 2007 data

session at the University of Hawai’i at

Manoa for their insights on this point.

5 Note that, Sal’s action of questioning

the sensee (i.e. Hal) about what he

had for lunch does not accomplish the

role reversal in and of itself. Rather, it

is Hal’s subsequent orientation to the

ensuing adjacency pair (especially his

own line 28 second pair-part) as a

resource for initiating his sickness

telling that does this.

6 Some ethnographic data suggest that

Sal and Hal may have perceived their

LP as an illicit activity. In one record-

ing, Sal made the following comment

(addressed apparently to the researcher,

whom Sal knew would eventually be

listening to the recording) about the LP

he and Hal had been engaging in:

Ok. Hal’s not answerin’ my ques-

tions! I ask him where he’s going

and he says hamburger. I ask him

what he ate and he says nemasita

(i.e.‘slept’) (laugh). You give’im

the grade you want; I just wanna

set the record straight (laugh).

This comment by Sal not only

evidences Sal’s awareness of having

engaged in LP, but also suggests that

Sal views LP as a somehow ‘substan-

dard’ or ‘illicit’ activity which could

rightly be dealt with in a disciplinary

manner (i.e. you give’im the grade you

want)

7 One of the anonymous reviewers ques-

tioned the value of examining LP

within a role play task since it would

seem to be a given that play would be a

salient part of such an interaction.

However, the simple fact that the

word ‘play’ is included in ‘role play’

does not a priori ensure that LP will

feature in the interaction (in fact, in my

data, role plays were also often char-

acterized by a ‘serious’ orientation to

the task—likely stemming from the

possibility of being requested to present

the role play in front of the class

afterwards). Furthermore, a major part

of the analytic focus in Excerpt 3 is on

the ways in which, by and through

their LP, Sal and Hal reorganized

and transformed the task in a way

which provided them with afford-

ances for language learning that

almost certainly would not have sur-

faced otherwise.

8 In addition to the evidence for elabora-

tive encoding provided by Sal’s recy-

cling of ‘HANBAAGAA’ from a previous

interaction with Hal, the LP of this

interaction apparently provided (at

least) Sal with affordances for inter-

nalizing the new lexical item geri

‘diarrhea’ as well: he was observed to

use it in LP during an interaction with a

different partner two days later.

9 Orienting to work as play is a common

human phenomenon. Cook (2000:

203; emphasis mine) notes that

people often play while working, and

that imbuing ‘work’ with a playful

sense may increase productivity by

‘co-ordinating actions and making

[the work] seem lighter and more

co-operative.’ In a study of interac-

tions in various New Zealand white

collar workplaces, Holmes (2007)

offers additional empirical support for

the work-related benefits of humor.

In particular, she notes that humor

(i) potentially contributes to the

construction of effective relation-

ships in the workplace, and (ii) may

stimulate intellectual activity relevant

to the achievement of work-related

objectives.

CADE BUSHNELL 67

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 Dostoevsky’s

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 NS–NNS

interaction,’ Applied Linguistics 26/2: 192–218.

Belz, J. 2002a. ‘The myth of the deficient commu-

nicator,’ Language Teaching Research 6/1: 59–82.

Belz, J. 2002b. ‘Second language play as a repre-

sentation of the multicompetent self in foreign

language study,’ Journal of Language, Identity, and

Education 1: 13–39.

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 immer-

sion classroom,’ The Modern Language Journal 85/

3: 363–79.

Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some

Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Cekaite, A. and K. Aronsson. 2005. ‘Language

play: A collaborative resource in children’s L2

learning,’ Applied Linguistics 26/2: 169–91.

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: 224–31.

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:

366–87.

Craik, F. and R. Lockhart. 1972. ‘Levels of

processing: A framework for memory research,’

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:

671–84.

Craik, F. and E. Tulving. 1975. ‘Depth of proces-

sing and the retention of words in episodic

memory,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-

eral 104/3: 268–94.

DiNitto, R. 2000. ‘Can collaboration be unsuccess-

ful?: A sociolinguistic analysis of classroom set-

ting and Japanese L2 performance in group

tasks,’ Journal of the Association of Teachers of

Japanese 34/2: 179–210.

Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. ‘Information gap

tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisi-

tion?’ TESOL Quarterly 20: 305–25.

Foster, P. 1998. ‘A classroom perspective on the

negotiation of meaning,’ Applied Linguistics 19:

1–23.

Foster, P. and A. Ohta. 2005. ‘Negotiation for

meaning and peer assistance in second language

classrooms,’ Applied Linguistics 26: 402–30.

Gafaranga, J. 2005. ‘Demythologising language

alternation studies: Conversational structure

vs. social structure in bilingual interaction,’

Journal of Pragmatics 37: 281–300.

Garvey, C. 1984. Children’s Talk. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Garvey, C. [1977] 1990. Play. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:


Hauser, E. 2005. ‘Coding ‘‘corrective recasts’’: The

maintenance of meaning and more fundamental

problems,’ Applied Linguistics 26/3: 293–316.

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: Creativ-

ity on the job,’ Applied Linguistics 28/4: 518–37.

Jefferson, G. 1972. ‘Side sequences’ in

D.N. Sudnow (ed.): Studies in social interaction.

Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp. 294–333.

Kim, Y. and D. Kellogg. 2007. ‘Rules out of

roles: Differences in play language and their

developmental significance,’ Applied Linguistics

28/1: 25–45.

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:

199–212.

Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and

Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


Lantolf, J. 1997. ‘The function of language play in

the acquisition of L2 Spanish’ in A. Perez-Leroux

and W. Glass (eds): Contemporary Perspectives on

the Acquisition of Spanish. Vol. 2: Production, Proces-

sing, and Comprehension. Sommerville, MA: Cas-

cadilla Press.

Lantolf, J. (ed.) 2000. Sociocultural Theory and

Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Long, M. 1983. ‘Native speaker/non-native speaker

conversation and the negotiation of comprehen-

sible input,’ Applied Linguistics 4: 126–41.

Long, M. 1996. ‘The role of the linguistic environ-

ment in second language acquisition’ in W. C.

Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds): Handbook of

Research on Language Acquisition: Second Language

Acquisition. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp.

413–68.

Mori, J. 2004. ‘Negotiating sequential boundaries

and learning opportunities: A case from a

Japanese language classroom,’ The Modern Lan-

guage Journal 88/4: 536–49.

Ohta, A. 2000. ‘Rethinking interaction in SLA:

Developmentally appropriate assistance in the

zone of proximal development and the acquisi-

tion of L2 grammar’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Socio-

cultural Theory and Second Language Learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processes

in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah,

NJ: LEA.

Ostermann, C. 2003. ‘Localizing power and soli-

darity: Pronoun alternation at an all-female

police station and a feminist crisis intervention

center in Brazil,’ Language in Society 32: 357–81.

Pica, T. 2005. ‘Classroom learning, teaching and

research: A task-based perspective,’ The Modern

Language Journal 89/3: 339–52.

Richards, K. 2006. ‘ ‘‘Being a teacher’’: Identity

and classroom conversation,’ Applied Linguistics

27/1: 51–77.

Roebuck, R. 2000. ‘Subjects speak out: How

learners position themselves in a psycholinguis-

tic task’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural Theory and

Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sacks, H. 1989. ‘An analysis of the course

of a joke’s telling in conversation’ in

R. B. a. J. Sherzer (ed.): Explorations in the

Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 337–53.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson.

1974. ‘A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation,’

Language 50: 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. 1987. ‘Some sources of misunder-

standing in talk-in-interaction,’ Linguistics 25:

201–18.

Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in

second language learning,’ Applied Linguistics

11/2: 129–58.

Seedhouse, P. and K. Richards. (eds) 2005.

Applying Conversation Analysis. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Shimazu, M. 2000. ‘Co-construction of classroom

identity in Japanese as a foreign language class-

rooms,’ Unpublished master’s thesis. University

of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, P. 2000. ‘Playfulness as mediation in

communicative language teaching in a Vietna-

mese classroom’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural

Theory and Second Language Learning. Cambridge:


Swain, M. 2000. ‘The output hypothesis and

beyond: Mediating acquisition through colla-

borative dialogue’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural



Tanaka, H. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversa-

tion: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amster-

dam: J. Benjamins.

Tarone, E. 2000. ‘Getting serious about language

play: Language play, interlanguage variation and

second language acquisition’ in B. Swierzbin

et al. (eds): Social and Cognitive Factors in Second

Language Acquisiton. Sommerville, MA: Casca-

dilla Press, pp. 31–54.

van Dam, J. 2002. ‘Ritual, face, and play in a first

English lesson: Bootstrapping a classroom cul-

ture’ in C. Kramsch (ed.): Language Acquisition

and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives.

New York, NY: Continuum.

van Lier, L. 2000. ‘From input to affordance:

Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspective’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural



van Lier, L. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of

Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.

Boston: Kluwer.

Zajdman, A. 1995. ‘Humorous face-threatening

acts: Humor as strategy,’ Journal of Pragmatics

23: 325–39.

CADE BUSHNELL 69

49.full- lego my keego

Documents

language play lp

language researchers

study of language

language acquisition

child language learner

inchild language acquisition

language data available

adult language learning