Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Talking, Creating: Interactional Language, Creativity, and Context
Talking, Creating: Interactional Language, Creativity, and Context
When creative uses of spoken language have been investigated, the main
examples have been restricted to particular contexts such as narrative and
related story-telling genres. This paper reports on an initial investigation using
the 5 million word CANCODE corpus of everyday spoken English and discusses
a range of social contexts in which creative uses of language are manifested. A
main conclusion reached is that creative language use often signposts the
nature of interpersonal relationships, plays an important role in the construc-
tion of identities and is more likely to emerge in social contexts marked by non-
institutionalized, symmetrical, and informal talk. The paper also argues that
dierent creative patterns of talk are produced for dierent purposes, that clines
and continua best capture such distinctions and that applications of such
understandings to language learning and teaching, including the teaching of
literature and culture, can bene®t from closer scrutiny of such data.
1. INTRODUCTION
The analysis of creative language has been seen mainly in terms of distinctions
between literary and non-literary language, with analysis, following in the
tradition of Russian formalist aesthetic theory, highlighting the extent to
which `literary' language foregrounds attention by deviating from expected
patterns and promoting new, schema-refreshing ways of seeing the familiar
and everyday. Traditional discussion in the ®eld of stylistics (Short 1996;
Widdowson 1992) has largely followed such theoretical precepts but has
recently been extended to include non-canonical texts such as advertising
copy, newspaper headlines, and jokes, with an emphasis on the centrality of
language play in a range of everyday discourses and on the breaking down of
divisions between literary and non-literary language (Alexander 1997; Carter
and McRae 1996; Chiaro 1992; Cook 1994, 1996, 2000; Crystal 1998;
Kramsch and Kramsch 2000). In these traditions, however, applications to
the analysis of everyday spoken interaction have been limited.
Work in cognitive psychology and linguistics has further developed insights
into the common nature of creative language with representative authors
such as Lako and Turner (1989), Lako and Johnson (1999), Turner (1991),
Sweetser (1990), and Gibbs (1994, 1999) arguing that familiar ®gures of
speech such as metaphor, irony, and hyperbole are natural and normal
components of language, and that the human mind should thus be seen as
RONALD CARTER and MICHAEL McCARTHY 63
is a piece of moving art. And a piece of metaphoric word play at this point in
the unfolding discourse prompts, as we shall see in the commentary below,
further play with ®gures of speech. This usage is a more conventional instance
of linguistic creativity involving changes in, to, and with the language.
However, we propose a further and complementary de®nition which also
takes fuller account of functions in context and which acknowledges that to
recognize linguistic creativity much depends on how language is used by
speakers in relation to local contextual purposes and, especially, interpersonal
interactions with language.
Repetition is a good example of speakers `talking, creating'. Repetition
works as a more subtle token of a relationship, not just between utterances or
turns but between speakers, the main purpose often being to co-construct
interpersonal convergence and to creatively adapt to the other speaker(s).
According to Tannen (1989), repetition is a key component in the poetics of
talk:
For example, the above extracts, 1±3, mainly involve repetition across
speaking turns. But the repetition is not simply an echo of the previous
speaker. The forms include both verbatim phrasal and clausal repetition and
repetition with variation (for example, the addition of the word `relaxing' in
extract 2). The patterning with variation includes both lexical and
grammatical repetition (the repetition of the word bit or likeÐin its dierent
grammatical realizations as verb and prepositionÐas well as repetition of the
deictic determiner that in extract 3), pronominal repetition with variation
(extract 1), and phonological repetition with variation (for example, bit/better
in extract 3). Repetition is evident here in varied linguistic ways but the main
creative functions are in the dialogic building of relationships and of accord
between the speakers.
This account of linguistic creativity is dierent from creativity as de®ned by
Chomsky who sees it as a fundamental species-speci®c capacity for generating
an in®nite number of rule-governed language choices which are for the most
part new to both speaker and listener and yet are readily undestood by both.
In Chomsky's de®nition (1964: 7) the creative capacity also extends to the
ability to construct a context in which an interpretation of the language can
be made, even if the language is not formed according to the rules governing
that language. We share in particular Chomsky's stress on the creative
capacity of the receiver of a message (1964: 9) but argue that, because his
view is limited to the problems of handling invented sentences, it does not
account for the speaker's capacity to handle stretches of text or naturally-
occurring, contextually variable sequences of speaking turns in which
66 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT
patterns of language can form and reform dynamically and organically over
stretches of discourse, and emerge through the joint conditions of production.
In a sense, of course, and except for the most routinely formulaic or
inattentive turns, almost all conversational exchanges are creatively co-
produced. As Sacks (1984) argues, ordinary talk has to be achieved and it is a
human, social, and creative accomplishment which is far from being
`ordinary'. One aim in this paper is to attempt to underline this point but
we also hope to go beyond Sacks' insights to explore more fully not only what
is linguistically creative in everyday interactions but also begin to identify
contexts in which creative language use may be less evident. We argue in
particular that creative language choices compel recognition of the social
contexts of their production: principally, the construction and maintenance of
interpersonal relations and social identities. Our main research aim in this
paper then is to explore what kinds of functions linguistic creativity has in
dierent speech genres, social contexts, and types of interaction and then
draw some conclusions concerning such language functions and contexts,
mainly in relation to language study and teaching.
Table 1: CANCODE text types and typical situations in which they might be
found
Context-type Interaction-type
and 800 words) were searched in each cell, the overall approach is qualitative
rather than quantitative, not least because, in the current stages of automatic
retrieval of language, manifestations of linguistic creativity are not easily
identi®able by quantitative means. The overall approach to the data is to use it
to exemplify categories rather than to undertake a quantitative survey of the
corpus. Thus the corpus has to be `read' like a transcribed, living soap opera,
in a series of representative extracts. In short, a methodology which combines
the ®ne-tooth comb of conversation analysis with the immediate availability
of the large number of contextually controlled samples which the corpus
oers seems to be the only way forward in the current state of corpus
technology.
1. Sunday afternoon
[Contextual information: extract from a conversation involving three Art
College students. The students are all female, are the same age (between 20
and 21) and share a house in Wales. Two of the students [hS 01j and hS O3j]
are from the south-west of England and one [hS O2j] is from South Wales.
They are having tea at home on a Sunday. The main CANCODE speech genre
involved in the Sunday afternoon extract is `socializing/collaborative idea'].
1 hS 03j I like Sunday nights for some reason. [laughs] I don't know why.
2 hS 02j [laughs] Cos you come home.
3 hS 03j I come home+
4 hS 02j You come home to us.
5 hS 03j +and pig out.
6 hS 02j Yeah yeah.
7 hS 03j Sunday is a really nice day I think.
8 hS 02j It certainly is.
9 hS 03j It's a really nice relaxing day.
10 hS 02j It's an earring.
11 hS 03j Oh lovely oh lovely.
12 hS 02j It's fallen apart a bit. But
13 hS 03j It looks quite nice like that actually. I like that. I bet, is that
supposed to be straight?
14 hS 02j Yeah.
RONALD CARTER and MICHAEL McCARTHY 69
hS 02j Well they* would go smashing with a cup of tea wouldn't they.
hS 01j Oh they would.
hS 01j [In mock Cockney accent] Cup of tea and a fag.
hS 03j [In mock Cockney accent]Cup of tea and a fag missus. [Reverts to
normal accent] We're gonna have to move the table I think.
[* reference to a type of cake being oered by one of the girls]
The chorus-like repetition by speaker 3 of speaker 1's parody and her
addition of missus underlines the collaborative nature of the humour. The girls
membership themselves temporarily as `working-class cockney women', such
a self-categorization and its precise occasion of utterance being among the key
elements in the creation of identities in talk emphasized by Antaki and
Widdicombe (1998). Other ®gures of speech here are also more directly
interpersonal, for example the similes inviting comparison; in this case, a
perceived likeness between stained glass mobiles seen at a local craft fair and a
colour wheel (ll.25±28). There is also a case for seeing some of the formality
switches (for example, pig out, l.5) as constituting ironic-comic reversals of the
kind not uncommonly connected with humorous creative eects (Norrick
1993; Clift 1999). Sometimes the eect of these features is playfully to provide
for humour and entertainment; but such patterns also generate innovative
ways of seeing things and convey the speaker's own more personalized
representation of events. So this example shows creation of convergence;
creative use of speech; creative adaptation of the use of expressions; and
creation of identity. The following sections show the range of ways linguistic
creativity can be used and consider the ways this seems to happen in
particular sample contexts.
2. Lifeguards
[Contextual information: lifeguards in an oce, chatting in-between taking
entrance fees from customers. hS 01j lifeguard: male (32); hS 02j lifeguard:
male (31). The speakers are discussing possible reading matter for a
forthcoming holiday]
1 hS 01jThe thing about hard-backs is if you take a hard-back on the
beach pages don't blow up. Some pages are bound and if you take a
paper-back on the beach all the bleeding glue melts.
2 hS 02j Oh.
3 hS 01j You end up pages all over the place.
4 hS 02j That might do there and all cos it's like about ninety to hundred
degrees at the moment there.
5 hS 01j Yeah.
6 hS 02j So.
7 hS 01j It's er. I was in, I was in, reading F H M on the sunlounger happy
as hell. Not very hot. Pages open. Mm. The next thing you know
this page came in my hand and all glue that holds the pages had
melted and there were pages blowing all over the place. Not a happy
hamster.
8 hS 02j [laughs] Not a happy one. I've gotta take something and there's
like a good book-shop er in Manchester airport. So you get there
early enough anyway. So.
9 hS 01j Mm.
10 hS 02j Straight down to W H Smith's and er see what books I can get.
11 hS 01j Mm.
12 hS 02j I'm not gonna like leave it 'til we get there cos they'd be like you
know. Separate Tales of Doctor Duck or sommat
13 [laughter]
hS 01j I were taking, I bought Marvin Gaye's biography and taking that
and erm what's the other one. Phil Lynott you know him out of
Thin Lizzie?
14 hS 02j Yeah.
15 hS 01j Him [unintelligible]+
16 hS 02j [unintelligible]
17 hS 01j +died of drugs and er+
18 hS 02j Yeah.
19 hS 01j +his erm, he married Leslie Crowther's, Crowther's daughter didn't
he?
20 hS 02j Yeah.
21 hS 01j I'll have a look through them two. Something about like
biographies I ®nd them more interesting than than ®ction.
Fiction's all right innit.
22 hS 02j I like some of Yeah.
72 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT
extracts, markers such as the thing about X is . . . , the next thing you know, . . . ,
like, you know, suggest that new conversational frames are projected in which
evaluation or stance of some kind is to be creatively displayed.
The next example involves radio journalists.
3. Radio journalists
[Contextual information: radio journalists on a local radio station are engaged
in a meeting, the main purpose of which is to decide which stories to
programme. The context is professional, (even though the relationships are
clearly suciently familiar to suggest that the context could be marked as
socializing). And the nature of the interaction (predominantly collaborative
task) also shifts in a dynamic way as goals change so that parts of the talk are
clearly more relational than transactional and in some stretches of the
discourse the contours are closer to collaborative idea. The dominant
paradigm is, however, `professional/collaborative task'. hS 01j radio producer:
male (40s) hS 02j journalist: female (20s); hS 03j journalist: female (20s); hS 04j
journalist: male (40s); hS 05j journalist: female (20s) (These people don't
appear on the transcript: hS 06j journalist: male (30s); hS 07j radio engineer:
male (30s); hS 08j news editor: male (40s) ).]
1 hS 01jErm. This isn't really any= anybody's patch but you might want
to do it tomorrow. Bea=Beatrix Potter's diary is going on sale at
Phillips in London tomorrow and apparently we talked about this
last week it tells of her unhappy life in the Lake District. Which is
a complete, everybody thought.
2 hS 05j Oh I thought she was happy as a sandboy.
3 hS 04j All the bleeding tourists going round her house she didn't like.
4 [laughter]
5 hS 01j Yeah.
6 hS 02j No it's not her unhappy life in the Lake District.
7 hS 05j It's all them mice wasn't it. [laughs]
8 hS 02j It was her happy life in London cos she lived in Kensington didn't
she?
9 hS 01j Oh is it.
10 hS 02j Yeah. She lived in Kensington and that was how she spent her
childhood. Trapped by the city and+
11 hS 01j Oh that's+
12 hS 02j +retreated into a+
13 hS 01j +that's boring isn't it.
14 hS 02j +pet pet
15 hS 04j No it's not such a good story+
16 hS 01j Yeah.
17 hS 04j +now is it.
18 hS 01j No. [laughs]
74 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT
After such a long period of time in which documents are pored over and
during which time the main purpose of the exchanges has been to transmit or
obtain information, the speakers take a holiday from information transfer and
joke and banter their way through to the end of the formal proceedings of the
meeting (ll.19±28; note the whistle, which suggests a dierent conversational
frame has been or is being established). The business done, it seems, they are
free to play with words and the labels for what is in their immediate
environment. The context and interaction type have restricted opportunities
for such engagements. An increase in creativity coincides for all the speakers
with points of release from institutional identities in which information
transfer is the main requisite. In short, they creatively re-cast themselves
through the shift in language and conversational frame.
The next example, DIY, involves a group of friends discussing home
78 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT
5. DIY
[Contextual information: hS 01j secretary: female (31); hS 02j scientist: female
(31); hS 03j unemployed: female (28); hS 04j production chemist: male (29).
Speakers 03 and 04 are partners]
1 hS 03jI mean there's not room enough for two people in my kitchen. You're
still brushing up against each other all the time. It's quite stressful
when you're cooking.
2 [unintelligible]
3 hS 01j [unintelligible] making square pastry or something like that.
4 hS 03j [unintelligible] knock through into that shed. But it's still, I th=, I
still think it's a good idea it's too much like hard work.
5 hS 02j Mm.
6 hS 03j I could just see if we're gonna do a great big massive thing like that
it'll be years before we get any semblance of any decent kitchen.
7 hS 04j The thing to do is, when you g=, when you start making money is
pay someone to do it.
8 hS 03j Yeah.
9 hS 01j Some things I think are de®nitely worth paying someone to do.
10 hS 03j Abso-bloody-lutely.
11 [unintelligible]
12 hS 01j [unintelligible] house-keeper.
13 [laughter]
14 [unintelligible]
15 hS 04j Yeah.
16 hS 03j Bloody too right.
17 hS 02j I would as well.
18 hS 01j That's the ®rst I'd get.
19 [laughter]
20 hS 02j Me too. I would. Especially if I lived with Tom.
21 hS 03j He's not untidy is he?
22 hS 02j Oh God. He lives in total chaos.
23 hS 03j Well I do really.
24 hS 02j I've been on a campaign to sort him out.
xx
xxxxxxx
Collaborative ideas xxxxxxx
xxxx
xx xxx
Collaborative task
RONALD CARTER and MICHAEL McCARTHY 81
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the editors of the journal and to three anonymous readers for many incisive
comments and much helpful and patient advice in drafting and re-drafting this paper.
APPENDIX
Notes on Transcription
Transcription convention
for Symbol Explanation
Speaker codes hS 01j, hS 02j, etc. Each speaker is numbered hS 01j, hS 02j,
etc.
Extralinguistic
information [] This includes things like laughter, coughing
and inaudible speech on the tape.
Interrupted sentence + These instances are marked by a + at the
point of where one speaker's utterance is
interrupted and are followed by another +
when the speaker resumes his or her
utterance:
hS 01j I think I would like+
hS 02j Right.
hS 03j + to teach.
These interruptions may overlap with the
previous speaker's utterance or occupy an
individual turn after which the interrupted
speaker resumes his or her turn. Or: these
interruptions occupy turns by themselves
and do not overlap with the utterance that
has been interrupted.
Back-channel () Back-channel items tend to overlap with
the turn of the current speaker and are
therefore inserted into his or her utterance,
e.g.:
hS 01j I think I would like (hS 02j Right) to
teach.
Un®nished words = Speakers not only change their course in
mid-sentence but also in the middle of
individual words which has been marked
as follows:
hS 01j I wouldn't ha=, I wouldn't have
thought so.
RONALD CARTER and MICHAEL McCARTHY 85
NOTES
1 CANCODE stands for `Cambridge and Not- culture, literary and everyday, I should
tingham Corpus of Discourse in English'. The logically also posit a similar element in
corpus was developed at the University of those who receive and respond to wordplay:
Nottingham, UK between 1994 and 2001, that is, all of us. Punning is a free-for-all
and was funded by Cambridge University available to every-one, common property; it
Press , with whom sole copyright resides. The is a democratic trope. It is the stock-in-trade
corpus conversations were recorded in a of the low comedian and the most sophistic-
wide variety of mostly informal settings ated wordsmith: James Joyce and Max
across the islands of Britain and Ireland, Miller . . . It is and always has been. (Redfern
then transcribed and stored in computer- 1984: 175)'
readable form. The corpus is designed with a 3 Further extracts from CANCODE data can be
particular aim of relating grammatical and found in Carter and McCarthy (1997).
lexical choice to variation in discourse con- 4 The signi®cance of the relationship between
text and is used in conjunction with a range creative communication and more intimate
of lexicographic, grammar, and vocabulary speech genres is further evidenced in a sub-
teaching projects (Carter and McCarthy corpus of emails and IRC (Internet Relay
1995a; Carter, Hughes and McCarthy, Chat) data collected in Nottingham as a
2000). In spite of trends to ever larger, supplement to the CANCODE corpus. Sev-
multi-million-word corpora and associated eral thousand emails and several hours of
quantitative analysis, in the case of CAN- IRC data (Fung 2001; Gillen and Goddard
CODE the main global aim has been to 2000) on a variety of topics are being
construct a corpus which is contextually collected in order to examine the continua
and interactively dierentiated and which between planned and unplanned discourse,
can allow more qualitative investigation. The the interpenetration of spoken discourse
data have been especially carefully collected features into written text (Baron 2000;
with reference to a range of dierent speech Cherny 1999) as well as the creativity
genres and social contexts. In all cases, to manifest in these more informal, mixed-
safeguard against possible misinterpretation mode forms of communication (Crystal
by the analyst, information on speaker 2001). The research follows studies of bi-
relationships is provided in the majority of and multi-lingual crossings of the kind
cases by the person contributing the data to documented by Rampton (1995) where a
the corpus. An assessment of speakers' own key argument is that these creative combi-
goals remains central to the analysis. nations are not merely ornamental but
2 Puns are a particular feature of demotic encode purposeful functions in the expres-
creativity: `In studying the ludic element in sion of identity and the construction of
86 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT
shared worlds, including worlds which seek everyday conversation, but Harris's notion of
to exclude others or to adopt an adversarial `integrational' linguistics sees both spoken
stance to others (see also Bauman and Briggs and written texts as co-existing as `species of
1990). situated communicative action' (Fleming
5 Harris's work (e.g. Harris 1980, 1998) has 1995: 94). The work of William Hanks is
implications too for our initial point of similarly suggestive for future developments
departure on this paper. The past emphasis of the research reported in this paper, in
on creativity in written texts and certain particular for his view of the `contextually
kinds of performed spoken texts (e.g. folk saturated' nature of language (Hanks 1996:
narratives) occurs at the expense of banal, esp. ch. 7).
REFERENCES
Adolphs, A. and R. A. Carter. 2003. `Creativ- ing and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cam-
ity and a corpus of spoken English' in bridge University Press.
S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, and Candlin, C., A. Lin, and T. W. Lo. 2000. `The
N. Mercer (eds): Language, Literacy and social significance of voices and verbal play:
Education: A Reader. Trentham Books: exploring group membership and identity in
Stoke-on Trent, pp. 247±62. the discourses of Hong Kong youth' in
Alexander, R. 1997. Aspects of Verbal Humour in Research Report, The Discourse of Adolescents
English. TuÈbingen: G. Narr. in Hong Kong, Centre for Language Educa-
Antaki, C. and S. Widdicombe. 1998. `Identity tion and Communication Research, City
as an achievement and as a tool' in C. Antaki University of Hong Kong.
and S. Widdicombe (eds): Identities in Talk. Carter, R. A. 1999. `Common language:
London: Sage Publications, pp. 1±14. corpus, creativity and cognition.' Language
Armstrong, I. 2001. The Radical Aesthetic. and Literature 8/3: 195±216.
Oxford:Blackwell. Carter, R. A. and M. J. McCarthy. 1995a.
Aston, G. 1988. Learning Comity. Bologna: `Grammar and the spoken language,' Applied
Editrice CLUEB. Linguistics 16/2: 141±58.
Baron, N. 2000. Alphabet to Email: How Written Carter, R. A. and M. J. McCarthy. 1995b.
English Evolved and Where it's Heading. `Discourse and creativity: Bridging the gap
London: Routledge. between language and literature' in G. Cook
Bauman, R. and C. L. Briggs. 1990. `Poetics and B. Seidlhofer (eds). Principle and Practice
and performance as critical perspectives on in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
language and social life,' Annual Review of versity Press, pp. 303±23.
Anthropology 19: 59±88. Carter, R. A. and M. J. McCarthy. 1997.
Boxer, D. and F. Cortes-Conde. 1997. `From Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cam-
bonding to biting: conversational joking and bridge University Press.
identity display,' Journal of Pragmatics 27: Carter, R. A. and J. McRae. (eds) 1996.
275±94. Literature and the Learner: Creative Classroom
Brumfit, C. J. 1985. `Creativity and constraint Practice. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Educa-
in the language classroom' in R. Quirk and tion.
H. G. Widdowson (eds): English in the World: Carter, R. A., R. Hughes, and M. J. McCarthy.
Teaching and learning the language and litera- 2000. Exploring Grammar in Context. Cam-
tures. Cambridge: Cambridge University bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Press, pp. 148±57. Cherny, L. 1999. Conversation and Community:
Cameron, L. 1999. `Identifying and describing Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford: CSLI
metaphor in spoken discourse data' in Publications.
L. Cameron and G. Low (eds): Researching Chu, Y.-K. 1970. `Oriental views of creativity'
and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge: Cam- in A. Angoff and B. Shapiro (eds): Psi Factors
bridge University Press, pp. 105±33. in Creativity. New York: Parapsychology
Cameron, L. and G. Low. (eds) 1999. Research- Foundation, pp. 35±50.
RONALD CARTER and MICHAEL McCARTHY 87
Chiaro, D. 1992. The Language of Jokes: Analys- Department of Linguistics, Macquarie Uni-
ing Verbal Play. London: Routledge versity, Sydney.
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind:
Theory. Mouton: The Hague. Figurative Thought, Language and Understand-
Clift, R. 1999. `Irony in conversation.' Lan- ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
guage in Society 28: 523±53. Gibbs, R. W. 1999. `Researching metaphor' in
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature: The L. Cameron and G. Low (eds): Researching
Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford and Applying Metaphor, Cambridge: Cam-
University Press. bridge University Press, pp. 29±47.
Cook, G. 1996. `Language play in English' in Gillen, J. and A. Goddard. 2000. ` ``Is there
J. Maybin and N. Mercer (eds): Using English: anybody out there?'': Creative language play
From Conversation to Canon. London: Rout- and ``literariness'' in internet relay chat
ledge, pp. 198±234. (IRC).' Mimeo. Centre for Language and
Cook, G. 2000. Language Play, Language Learn- Communication, Manchester Metropolitan
ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1996. `The prosody of Goddard, A. 1996. `Tall stories: The meta-
repetition: on quoting and mimicry' in phorical nature of everyday talk,' English in
E. Couper-Kuhlen and M. Selting (eds): Education, 30/2: 4±12.
Prosody in Conversation: International Studies, Goffman, E. 1979. `Footing,' Semiotica 25: 1±
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29.
pp. 366±405. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford:
Coupland, J. (ed.) 2000. Small Talk. London: Blackwell.
Longman. Gordon, D. 1983. `Hospital slang for patients:
Crystal, D. 1998. Language Play. Harmonds- Crocks, gomers, gorks and others,' Language
worth: Penguin. in Society, 12: 173±85.
Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet. GuÈnthner, S. 1999. `Polyphony and the ``layer-
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ing of voices'' in reported dialogues: An
Eggins, S. and D. Slade. 1997. Analysing Casual analysis of the use of prosodic devices in
Conversation. London: Cassell. everyday reported speech,' Journal of Prag-
Emerson, C. 1983. `The outer world and inner matics, 31: 685±708.
speech: Bakhtin, Vygotsky and the interna- Hanks, W. F. 1996. Language and Commun-
lization of language,' Critical Inquiry 10/2: icative Practices. Coulder, CO: Westview Press.
245±64. HarreÂ, R. 1985. `Situational rhetoric and self-
Fabb, N. 1997. Linguistics and Literature. presentation' in J. Forgas (ed.): Language and
Oxford: Blackwell Social Situations. New York: Springer Verlag,
Fleming, D. 1995. `The search for an integra- pp. 175±86.
tional account of language: Roy Harris and HarreÂ, R. 1988. `Accountability within a social
conversation analysis,' Language Sciences 17/ order: the role of pronouns' in C. Antaki
1: 73±98. (ed.): Analysing Everyday Explanation.
Friedrich, P. 1979. `Poetic language and the London: Sage Publications, pp. 156±67.
imagination: A reformulation of the Sapir Harris, R. 1980. The Language Makers. London:
Hypothesis' in Language, Context and the Duckworth.
Imagination. Essays by Paul Friedrich. Stan- Harris, R. 1998. Introduction to Integrational
ford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 441± Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.
512. Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Nar-
Friedrich, P. 1986. The Language Parallax: rative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of
Linguistic Relativism and Poetic Indeterminacy. Voice. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Austin: University of Texas Press. Hill, J. 1985. `The grammar of consciousness
Fung, L. 2001. `E-chat and new Englishes.' and the consciousness of grammar,' American
Mimeo. School of English Studies, Univer- Ethnologist 12: 725±37.
sity of Nottingham. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in
Garbutt, M. 1996. Figure Talk: Reported Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
speech and thought in the discourse of Press
psychotherapy. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Kramsch, C. and O. Kramsch. 2000. `The
88 INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, AND CONTEXT