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

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

‘Lego my keego!’: An Analysis of Language

Play in a Beginning Japanese as a Foreign
Language Classroom

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

CADE BUSHNELL
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa

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
50 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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.
 CADE BUSHNELL 51

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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.
52 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

Research questions and methodology

I will employ the methodology of conversation analysis (CA) in considering
the following research questions:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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
 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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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
54 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

(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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 benkyoo

good 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.=

 CADE BUSHNELL 55

KEG KEGO
Keg! Kego!
8 S2: =KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe
KE::GO:::hehehehehehehe
Kego! hehehehehehe

9 Ss: =hehehehehehehe
hehehehehehehe
=hehehehehehe

10 T: hai, DAME::. [hehehehehehe

yes no good hehehehehehe

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 kore

that T keg keg keg this
That’s keg. Keg. Keg this

16 S2: [kegu?
keg
Keg?

17 T: keego. [hehehehehe
honorifics 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]
56 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 EggoÕ ’ from a well-known television commercial for
Kellogg’s ‘EggoÕ 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).
 CADE BUSHNELL 57

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 o
S-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},

58 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

you know report O wrote

you know. (I) wrote my report

11 S: AH. so desu ka:: hehe

AH 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
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296

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

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

through 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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 that

Yeah, 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?° =

60 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

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 read

a certain Chinese character))

12 S: ima, ah::. ima wa. ano:, ima:: wa: chotto

now ah now T um now T little

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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:, uh

um 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, how

Ah 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 for
lunch?

20 T: hiru gohan de.

noon food DA
For lunch.

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

ok 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
 CADE BUSHNELL 61

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 O

professor professor hamburger O

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 o

no no white bean(s ) white bean(s ) O

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

ate 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. [heheheheh

diarrhea O did heheheheh
=(I) got diarrhe(h)a. heheheheheh

36 S: [A::::::H
ah
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 heheh
diarrhea heheh
Diarrhea heheh

40 HAI.
yes.
62 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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
 CADE BUSHNELL 63

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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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:
64 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM

(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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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.
 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

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

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 Mānoa 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
66 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM


words softer than surrounding talk
words more emphasis than surrounding talk
wo- cut-off
’ continuing intonation
. final intonation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024

? 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
Mānoa 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.
CADE BUSHNELL 67
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-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024
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.
68 LANGUAGE PLAY IN A BEGINNING JAPANESE FL CLASSROOM
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-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024
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:
Cambridge University Press.
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
CADE BUSHNELL 69
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.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/30/1/49/188296 by Linnaeus University user on 05 February 2024
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 Mānoa.
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:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. 2000. ‘The output hypothesis and
beyond: Mediating acquisition through colla-
borative dialogue’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
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
Theory and Second Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
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.