bell language play

8/10/2019 Bell Language Play

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bell-language-play 1/27

Applied Linguistics 26/2: 192–218 Oxford University Press 2005

doi:10.1093/applin/amh043

Exploring L2 Language Play as an Aidto SLL: A Case Study of Humour

in NS–NNS Interaction

NANCY D. BELL

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

In the past few years researchers have begun to show an interest in humour

and language play as it relates to second language learning (SLL). Tarone (2000)

has suggested that L2 language play may be facilitative of SLL, in particular by

developing sociolinguistic competence, as learners experiment with L2 voices;

and by destabilizing the interlanguage (IL) system, thus allowing growth to

continue. She recommends research examining the ways in which adult L2

speakers interacting outside the classroom play with language as a way of

learning more about this issue. Using case study methodology to document the

ways in which L2 verbal humour was negotiated and constructed by three

advanced non-native speakers (NNSs) of English as they interacted with native

speakers (NSs) of English, this study contributes to this knowledge base by

showing patterns of interaction that arise during humorous language play

between NSs and NNSs and how these may benefit second language acquisition

(SLA). Results suggest that language play can be a marker of proficiency, as

more advanced participants used L2 linguistic resources in more creative ways.

Language play may also result in deeper processing of lexical items, making

them more memorable, thus it may be especially helpful in the acquisition of

vocabulary and semantic fields.

INTRODUCTION

Although humour has only recently begun to receive attention from

scholars in SLA, it has a history of theoretical and empirical work that dates

back to Plato and Aristotle (Morreall 1983; see also Raskin 1985, ch. 1).

Humour can be used to negotiate identities (Apte 1985; Basso 1979; Boxer

and Corte s-Conde 1997; Eder 1993; Eisenberg 1986; Wennerstrom 2000;

Yedes 1996), to mitigate face-threatening acts (Holmes 2000), to create and

affirm affiliation (Basso 1979; Boxer and Corte s-Conde 1997; Eder 1993;

Norrick 1993; Straehle 1993), to communicate social norms or to criticize(Eder 1993; Eisenberg 1986; Goldberg 1997; Jorgensen 1996; Miller 1986;

Norrick 1993; Yedes 1996), to attempt to subvert social norms or power

structures (Holmes and Marra 2002), to release feelings of aggression

(Pogrebin and Poole 1988; Yedes 1996), to protect one’s own positive face

a t S WE T S -T r u s t e d A g en t G a t ew a y - O U P onN ov em b er 9 ,2 0 1 0

a p pl i j . ox f or d j o ur n al s . or g

D ownl o a d e d f r om

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/





























needs (Holmes 2000; Norrick 1993; Zajdman 1995) and of course, to

entertain (Eisenberg 1986; Holmes 2000).

Language play in general has long been recognized as important for

development and learning and has been of interest to L1 researchers forsome time (e.g., Cazden 1976; Chukovsky 1963; Kuzcaj 1983; Nelson 1989;

Weir 1962). Scholars of second language learning (SLL), however, have only

recently started to examine the functions of humorous language play for

L2 learners (Belz 2002; Belz and Reinhardt 2004; Broner and Tarone 2001;

Cook 1997, 2000; Crystal 1998; Davies 2003; Kramsch and Sullivan 1996;

Lantolf 1997; Sullivan 2000; Tarone 2000). Tarone (2000) suggests that the

role of language play in SLL is facilitative, although not necessary. Because

studies of L2 language play have focused largely on children and adolescents

in L2 classrooms, she calls for further research focusing on how adult L2speakers interacting outside of the classroom play with language, in order to

further our understanding of the contribution of language play to SLL. She

also sees arguments for increasing the role of language play in SLL in

the work of Larsen-Freeman (1997) who views interlanguage (IL) from the

perspective of chaos/complexity science, as a complex nonlinear system. She

also draws on the Bakhtinian model of language as a site where normalizing

forces are in tension with forces of individual creativity. Both chaos/

complexity science and the Bakhtinian model provide a way of viewing

language play as part of the unpredictability inherent in (L2) language use

and stemming from individual creativity.

Within this model, Tarone suggests that language play may aid in the

acquisition of sociolinguistic competence as learners experiment with

different voices by, for example, humorously imitating a friend or playfully

criticizing someone by using a pedantic ‘teacher’ style. She also proposes

that play with language form may make a contribution to SLL, explaining

that the ‘IL system could not develop unless the more conservative forces

demanding accuracy were counterbalanced with more creative forces

demanding innovation’ (Tarone 2000: 49). In other words, language play

may help to destabilize the IL system, allowing growth to continue. Finally,she also notes that language play may facilitate SLL by lowering the affective

filter. These positive feelings could in turn make the linguistic elements

involved in the play more memorable.

Developing the ideas presented in Cook (1997), Cook (2000) argues for

the importance of language play for adult language learning, as well as for

child language acquisition. He notes that, like children, adults spend a great

deal of time involved in play and unreality, through, for example, watching

television, reading works of fiction, daydreaming, playing games, and using

humour. He explores various explanations as to why humans might do this,rather than spend their free time simply doing nothing, and his book

reinforces the idea that play has a central role in human development

whether at the level of species, society, or individual. Like Tarone (2000),

he sees the elements of randomness (in the sense of unpredictability) and

NANCY D. BELL 193

































creativity that are involved in language play as central to development,

and suggests that language play be incorporated into L2 classrooms. He also

suggests, similarly to Tarone, that the very fact that the forms constructed

through language play are unusual and novel may make them morememorable to the learner than forms that are common in daily usage. Cook

also views the ability to play with language as a potentially important

marker of proficiency.

The work of Sullivan (2000, see also Kramsch and Sullivan 1996) suggests

yet another possible role for L2 language play, that of raising learner

awareness of L2 forms. She was struck by the large amount of laughter that

she observed in Vietnamese classrooms, and set out specifically to examine

L2 language play and its mediating role between the participants and the

language under study. In this class, the teacher and students createdhumorous collaborative narratives, and played with both the sounds and

meanings of English words. Sullivan suggests that the playful L2 utterances

that were exchanged between the instructor and his students served to raise

the students’ awareness of the links between L2 form and meaning.

Drawing on V. Cook’s (1992) concept of multicompetence, Belz (2002)

takes on the issue of language play from the perspective of the learner to

demonstrate not so much how it may aid in acquisition, but how it can

reveal the ways in which learners construct new selves and new social

relations through play with the L2 and multilingual play. Belz and Reinhardt

(2004) further develop this idea through the case study of one learner of

German. They show how this learner used language play for his own

creative pleasure, to experiment with L2 forms and functions, to create and

maintain relationships, and to present positive face. In addition, they provide

examples of how L2 language play may be used as evidence of advanced

proficiency. Whereas Cook’s (2000) suggestion along these lines emphasized

the appropriate use of linguistic forms, Belz and Reinhardt focus on

proficiency as ‘the ability to use language as a symbolic resource in order to

effect membership in social groups and in order to facilitate the performance

of social actions within these groups’ (2004: 351). One way the participantrevealed his advanced proficiency was by showing, through L2 play, his

awareness of the multifunctionality of language, including its aesthetic,

semantic, and semiotic functions.

Davies (2003) examines the collaborative construction of humour between

NSs and NNSs of English in the context of voluntary peer conversation

groups at an intensive English programme, rather than in classrooms. The

NNS participants in this study were beginning learners of English, and the

NSs were American student employees of the programme, who participated

in weekly sessions with a faculty coordinator to discuss cross-culturalcommunication skills. Davies’ analysis revealed how the NS played an

important role in the construction of humorous discourse by providing

support in the form of initiations of humour, scaffolding of NNS attempts

at humour, and construction of contexts that were conducive to NNS

194 EXPLORING L2 LANGUAGE PLAY AS AN AID TO SLL

































creation of humour. She suggests that NS support allows learners ‘not only

to learn how to engage in the joking activity, but also to experience its social

meaning in American society’ (Davies 2003: 1382).

Each of these studies suggests various roles that language play may havein facilitating SLL. Taking this prior research as a base, for the present study

I examined the playful interaction of three adult L2 speakers of English

interacting outside of the classroom with NSs of English and asked whether

and how this play may have furthered their SLL. Using Tarone’s (2000)

suggestions for ways in which language play may aid SLL as a starting point,

I examined my data for potentially facilitative patterns of interaction that

occurred in the humorous language play of the three participants. In this

case, the learners are much more advanced than those of the studies

mentioned above. In addition, whereas Davies’ participants interacted withsympathetic NSs, the NNSs in this study recorded their conversations with

a wide variety of NSs, from family members to strangers, and thus were

not always certain to encounter a NS willing to collaborate with them. Thus,

the examples I present of humour are not always co-constructed, or even

apparently humorous to both parties. Because of this, I begin with a

definition of humour/language play.

DEFINING HUMOROUS LANGUAGE PLAY

Because it is used in different ways and because it is relatively new to L2

research, the use of the term ‘language play’, and the use of the term

‘humour’ as well, require some discussion. Broner and Tarone (2001) note

that the term ‘language play’ has been used by L2 researchers in two senses.

Lantolf (1997) uses the term in the sense of ‘rehearsal’. In this view,

language play is not necessarily fun, but rather a means by which learners

develop linguistic skills. More frequently, however, the term has been used

to refer to the use of language for fun and amusement.

For Cook (2000: 123), language play typically combines three features:

linguistic patterning and repetition, semantic reference to alternative worldsand ‘vital’ subject matter, and the pragmatic function of social inclusion

and/or exclusion. As such, it includes a broad swath of activities, including

verbal dueling, tongue twisters, songs and rhymes, puns, riddles, jokes,

narratives, and play languages, such as Pig Latin. Clearly, not all of these are

humorous all of the time. Songs and rhymes, for example, do not necessarily

entail mirth, and thus often fall outside the category of ‘humorous language

play’ (2000: 71), which raises laughter. Sullivan, too, notes that ‘play entails

fun’ and that it ‘is often accompanied by laughter,’ and includes in her use of

the term ‘teasing and joking, puns and word play, and oral narratives’ (2000:122). Sociolinguistic definitions of humor (e.g. Holmes 2000; Norrick 1993)

overlap a great deal with Cook’s and Sullivan’s.

Belz (2002), however, points out that most accounts of play have defined

it in one of two ways: either as a list of criteria or as the way in which an

NANCY D. BELL 195

































activity is done. In her examination of the language play of German foreign

language learners, she draws on Kuczaj (1983) and Weir (1962) in defining

language play as ‘the conscious repetition or modification of linguistic forms

such as lexemes or syntactic patterns’ (Weir 1962: 16). Cook, too, refers to‘the exploitation of formal patterns and random coincidences’ (2000: 122) as

part of play. Crystal (1998: 1) also explains language play as ‘manipulation’

of language which occurs when ‘we take some linguistic feature . . . and make

it do things it does not normally do’.

These definitions reflect the problems of discourse analysts who have

examined humour in interaction. These researchers have long noted the

difficulty of identifying when an utterance counts as humorous and have

emphasized the importance of a close analysis of context to determine this.

Both Holmes (2000) and Norrick (1993), for example, define humour asutterances intended as amusing by the speaker and insist upon the presence

of linguistic and contextual clues to support this. As Chiaro (1992: 5)

notes, ‘word play is inextricably linked to circumstances which belong to

the world which exists beyond words’. Taking a qualitative, contextually

sensitive approach to the study of humorous language play offers the best

opportunities for defining humour from the perspective of the participants

themselves.

The focus of the present paper is on humorous language play, as defined

by Cook (2000) and Sullivan (2000). From this point onwards, I will use the

terms ‘humour’ and ‘language play’ interchangeably.

METHODOLOGY

In this section I describe the methodology employed in the gathering and

analysis of data. I begin with a description of the data.

DataThe data for the research reported here come from a larger study that used

qualitative and quantitative discourse analysis to investigate how L2 humour

was perceived and negotiated by three highly advanced female NNSs

of English in interaction with native English speakers (Bell 2002). Each

participant was initially interviewed to obtain details of her background,

learn about the English NSs with whom she interacted regularly, and explore

her views on both L1 and L2 humour. The primary source of data, however,

came from tape recordings of the interaction of the three participants with

NSs over a period of 1 to 2 years. During this time, each participant wasprovided with a mini cassette recorder and taped her conversations with NSs

whenever convenient and appropriate.1 By encouraging the participants

to record interaction at their discretion (and at the discretion of their

interlocutors, who gave verbal permission to be taped) I had little control


































over the data gathering. However, this allowed the participants to use the

tape recorders in ways that were comfortable for them. The tapes contained

a wide range of interaction in diverse contexts. Among the three participants,

a total of 32 hours of naturally occurring interaction was obtained. These tapesyielded 541 examples of conversational humour. Of these, 204 instances

were initiated by an NNS and 337 were initiated by an NS.

After locating sections of tape about which I had particular hypotheses

or questions, I arranged to meet each participant for a playback interview.

Following Erickson and Shultz (1982: 56–63) I used these interviews to

check the validity of my perceptions and to gain an understanding of each

participant’s view of the interaction. I gave them a copy of the transcript

(as the tape was sometimes difficult to hear), and played that portion of the

tape, allowing them to stop and make comments. Sometimes I also focusedtheir attention on specific lines and asked them questions (e.g. ‘why did you

say that?’) to help them reflect. I also learned about their perceptions of NS

humour by asking, ‘Why do you think he/she said that?’ Each participant

took part in at least two of these playback interviews, producing a total

of 7 hours of feedback.

Participants

All three of the participants in this study were young women who were

working toward degrees at US universities. All three were also friendly and

outgoing. Table 1 summarizes some key characteristics. Note that the

participants were all highly proficient in English. I have provided an estimate

of their oral abilities in English expressed in terms of approximate ACTFL

levels. Having received prior training in ACTFL interviewing and rating,

I have based these estimations on my perceptions of their speech in the

data and on my own interaction with them. As I did not perform formal

ACTFL interviews with them, these evaluations are provided only as a

way of presenting, in the terms of a widely used scale, a fuller picture of

each participant’s level of proficiency than can be provided by their

TOEFL scores.

Judith,2 the youngest of the three at 18, was Venezuelan. She had studied

English for 10 years in Venezuela and was pursuing an undergraduate degree

Table 1: Participants

Participant name Age at start

of study

Nationality Most recent

TOEFL score

Estimated

ACTFL score

Judith 18 Venezuelan 497 Advanced low/mid

Pum 24 Thai 580 Intermediate high

Tanya 22 Russian 560 (5 years ago) Superior

NANCY D. BELL 197

































in the USA. At the start of the study she had been living in the USA for

6 months. Her most recent TOEFL score, which she had taken to be admitted

to the university, was 497. Judith taped her interaction with NSs for nearly

2 years, and during that time I estimate that she moved from an AdvancedLow to an Advanced Mid speaker, as defined in the ACTFL speaking

guidelines (Breiner-Sanders et al. 2000). Judith interacted with the widest

variety of NSs, ranging from people she sat next to on the bus, to classmates,

to numerous acquaintances she met at the many social occasions she

attended with family and friends.

Pum was the oldest participant, at 24. She had left her native Thailand

1½ years earlier with the intention of obtaining a Master’s degree in the

USA. She had studied English for 10 years in her home country, and then

spent 6 months in an intensive English programme in the USA beforestarting graduate school. Her most recent TOEFL score was the highest of

the three participants, at 580; however, due to her continuing struggles with

grammar and pronunciation in spoken English, I estimated her ACTFL

speaking score as Intermediate High. Pum taped her interaction with NSs

for nearly one year, capturing conversations mainly with her boyfriend and

classmates.

Tanya, a Russian of Armenian descent, was 23 at the start of the study.

She had had a great deal of formal and informal exposure to English, having

studied it for 13 years in Russia, as well as having spent 6 months as anexchange student in the USA in high school and having worked for two

summers at a camp in the USA. In addition, her family in Russia had

regularly hosted American exchange students. Tanya’s 5-year-old TOEFL

score of 560 did not provide an accurate picture of her abilities in English,

her estimated ACTFL score being a better indicator. Due to her very fluent

and native-like English, including her command of a wide variety of

vocabulary and syntactic structures, I estimated her score to be Superior.

Tanya taped her interaction with her host family and a close friend for nearly

one year.

Identification of humorous language play

I employed several means to recognize humorous utterances, relying mainly

on overt cues that tend to signal humour (cf. Norrick 1993: 8). First,

following Attardo’s (1994: 13) proposal, an utterance can be considered as

humorous when its effect is laughter, so long as ‘one takes ‘‘laughter’’ with

a grain of salt’. In other words, laughter can be seen as indexing humour,

however, we must proceed with caution in recognition of the other functionsof laughter, such as to indicate embarrassment, surprise, or nervousness.

As noted by Jefferson (1979, see also Glenn 2003), laughter on the part of

the speaker, too, can signal a humorous utterance and invite laughter from

the hearers. Thus, if a speaker’s turn contained laughter, this was considered


































as a clue that the speaker intended his or her comment to be interpreted

playfully, even if the hearer(s) did not respond with laughter.

In addition to laughter, Straehle (1993) identifies prosody and marked use

of pronouns as indicative of humour. Other indications that emerged fromthe data include the use of unusual voices and marked vocabulary choices.

Also, if one of the participants refers to an utterance by its folk name or

genre (Hymes 1974) that utterance could also usually be coded as humorous.

For example, if a comment was intended as humorous, but seemed instead to

cause offence, the speaker might quickly say, ‘I was just kidding.’

As I wished to capture all forms and functions of humorous language play,

and as my interests lay broadly in the experiences of L2 speakers creating,

understanding, misunderstanding and generally coping with L2 humour in

interaction, I included all instances in which a spate of talk was treated ashumorous by at least one participant. Unintended humour, such as slips of

the tongue, was included only when it led to further, intentional joking.

Non-verbal humour was excluded.

Finally, all of the above methods were supplemented with ethnographic

knowledge of the context and participants. Humour, more so than other

aspects of interaction, seems to be subject to individual variation (Tannen

1984). My own interaction with and observations of the participants

provided me with an understanding of how they used humour and what

they considered funny, thus ensuring greater reliability in my identification

of their humour.

As Holmes points out, the role of the analyst in humour research often

goes unaddressed, yet, working from audio-tapes of others’ interaction, ‘the

analyst’s identification of instances of humour is a crucial component in

the analytical process’ (Holmes 2000: 163). While I feel confident that the

combination of methods described above for creating my data set allowed

me to identify correctly most instances of humour, I recognize that my own

biases and preferences may have caused me to overlook some attempts at

humour, or influenced me to select as humorous, interaction that was not

considered funny by any of the participants.

EXAMPLES OF L2 LANGUAGE PLAY

In the following sections I present data concerning each of the proposed

ways in which the language play that occurs in NS–NNS interaction may

contribute to SLL: by allowing experimentation with L2 voices, by drawing

learners’ attention to L2 forms and meanings, and by destabilizing the IL

system, thus preventing fossilization and allowing for greater linguistic

development. Before analysing the examples, two cautionary notes are inorder.

As with all utterances, a single playful utterance can fulfil multiple

functions. A tease, for example, can serve to criticize an interlocutor, while at

the same time demonstrating affiliation with that person by showing others

NANCY D. BELL 199

































4 Ben: yeah [but they figure you know-

5 Judith: [ha ha

6 Ben: ((yeah [you say that!))

7 Judith: [ha ha ha

8 I just kidding9 Ben: I know!

Judith’s mock boast/challenge in line 3 is double-voiced in that it layers her

own voice with that of someone who might best be described as a ‘tough

cookie’. She prefaces the forceful comment ‘you have to try me’ (one which

might be used in other circumstances to instigate a fight) with the attention-

getter ‘hey.’ In addition, she stresses the verb ‘try,’ which adds to the

impression that she is issuing a mock challenge. On the one hand, Judith

exploits this phrase in such a way as to demonstrate that she has clearlymade it her own. On the other hand, it is also a conventional use of a phrase

which has been parodied to such an extent that its serious use is almost

impossible. Because of this, I have used the term ‘conventionally creative’ to

describe this use of L2 resources (Bell 2002: 315). These two examples show

how Judith’s manipulation of L2 resources relied heavily on context and

formulaic language.

Pop culture as a resource

The next example demonstrates a somewhat more abstract and creative

use of L2 resources, this time by Pum, who frequently drew on references

to US popular culture to construct humour in interaction with NSs. Here, she

uses the title of a popular television game show to tease her boyfriend, Jake,

about a problem he is having working with one of the groups that he has to

work with on a project for his graduate class in marketing. Jake has been

expressing annoyance with his group, saying that they ‘don’t want to learn’.

Pum, who is in the same graduate programme as Jake, and thus has

experienced this type of group project before, suggests that he make his

feelings clear. Jake asserts, however, that this will result in his expulsionfrom the group and thus his having to do the entire paper by himself.

Pum then teases him, suggesting that he is ‘the weakest link’ in the group.

Example 3: The weakest link

1 Jake: I don’t want to say anything because no- I know the one guy

2 doesn’t- will throw me out he’ll want to get rid of me

3 Pum: but why do you it’s li[ke you-

4 Jake: [they will! they’ll just say ‘why do you want

5 to start trouble?’

6 Pum: ‘you are the weakest link’ ((something like that?))

7 Jake: yeah I’m the weakest link yeah I really am

8 Pum: ‘get oHHff!’

9 Jake: yeah he’s just the type of guy that’ll do that.


































In referring to Jake as ‘the weakest link’ Pum has keenly observed the

similarities between his situation and that of the contestants in the game

show with the same name in which, at the end of each round, group

members vote to eliminate one contestant. Jake’s situation is parallel to thisgame show in several ways, the most obvious being how he is at the mercy

of the other members of his group, who can force him to, as Pum puts it in

line 8, ‘get off!’ Because of his interest in actually learning more about the

topic, rather than simply nominally fulfilling the requirements in order to

receive a grade, Jake’s position might be considered as analogous to that

of a contestant whose perfectionism had slowed the progress of the entire

group. Although Pum’s humorous analogy fails to cheer Jake, he does recognize

the parallels between his situation and the game show, glumly admitting

(line 7) that he is ‘the weakest link’.This use of resources drawn from US popular culture to construct

humour was one of Pum’s strengths. First, as noted above, she has used

this reference to create an appropriate and sophisticated analogy. This

example also shows her ability to play with other voices in English. With

her commanding tone in lines 6 and 8 she appropriates the voice of the

very stern hostess of the show, who is renowned for her harsh judgements

of the players. Compared to Judith’s more formulaic and context-

dependent use of L2 resources, Pum’s use of voicing, as well as her

analogy of Jake’s situation to the game show, shows more creativity,

which suggests a greater degree of control over a wider variety of L2

resources.

Native-like creativity with L2 resources

The next example involves Tanya, the participant with the highest L2

proficiency. Tanya consistently demonstrated a sophisticated understanding

of the variety of L2 resources available and the voices and meanings that

they could be used to construct. Not only could she speak with a wide

variety of styles, but she could manipulate resources for humorous purposeswith extensive creativity. In example 4, Tanya and her close friend Mary

have been baking a cake at Mary’s house. Mary begins to try to speak about

something, but has trouble formulating what she wants to say. Tanya teases

her about this, then, after a short discussion concerning the cake (omitted),

Tanya again teases Mary about her presumption of knowing Tanya’s feelings,

using a well-known formula in a creative manner.

Example 4: Miss Predicting-all-the-Feelings

1 Mary: I can’t wait to- I am- you know- it’s like- you don’t feel- I know

2 you probably do but-

3 Tanya: huh huh huh huh hhhhh do I need to be here or are you

having fun

4 talking to yourself?

NANCY D. BELL 203

































(some talk about the cake)

5 Tanya okay. Go ahead. So what do you know what I feel. since you are

6 Miss Predicting-all-the-/fIlI˛z/

7 Mary: feelings.

In lines 1 and 2 Mary appears to begin to pose a question to Tanya, but she

interrupts herself and answers it. Tanya notices this, and her first tease, lines

3–4, implies that Mary is not giving her the opportunity to participate in

the conversation. This first tease is not responded to, as the conversation

turns briefly to the matter of the cake. Tanya then prompts Mary to continue

with what she had been trying to say earlier. Her prompting begins

neutrally; however, she quickly begins to tease Mary again, reminding her

that she had been attempting to explain something that she ‘knew’ that

Tanya felt. This type of teasing between these two very close friends was

common and their barbs seem most often to indicate the intimacy of their

relationship (cf. Boxer and Corte s-Conde 1997). In line 6 the tease becomes

sharper, with Tanya referring to Mary as ‘Miss Predicting-all-the-Feelings’.

By drawing on a form often used to show disapproval (compare ‘Miss

Know-it-All’ or ‘Miss High-and-Mighty’), Tanya playfully demonstrates her

objection to having her unspoken emotions assumed to be understood by

another.

I turn now to the second set of examples, which involve the role of

humorous language play in noticing and learning an L2.

ATTENTION TO FORM/MEANING

Many SLA researchers claim that interaction plays an important role in

acquisition. By some (e.g., Long 1996; Philp 2003; Pica 1994) it is regarded as

important for potentially promoting noticing of mismatches between learner

and NS production, which may in turn prompt the learner to alter his or her

IL. For others, (e.g., Block 2003; Johnson 2004; Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000)

the social aspect of interaction is viewed as inseparable from the cognitiveaspect. In this view, interaction provides access to L2 resources and learning

occurs in opportunities to use these in the construction of new identities and

relationships through participation in new communities of practice.

The successful construction of humour requires sophisticated linguistic

and cultural knowledge in order to carefully select and place appropriate

linguistic and extra-linguistic cues. In addition, as humour thrives on the

unexpected, creative and unusual uses of linguistic resources often occur in

playful conversation. These two factors make both the construction and

interpretation of humour frequently difficult for L2 speakers, as confirmed bythe larger study from which the present data are drawn (Bell 2002). At the

same time, these same factors make humorous language play a prime area

in which L2 development can continue to occur even for highly proficient

L2 speakers, as learners’ attention can be drawn to linguistic form(s) and


































meanings, and the different ways in which these can be used, as noted by

Sullivan (2000). The following two extracts demonstrate this through an

example of implicit feedback based on an NNS’s attempt at joking and an

instance of explicit talk about language, culture, and humour.

Implicit feedback through reformulation

In the first example, Judith is spending an evening at the house of her cousin

Mike, his fiance e Gwen, and Gwen’s friend Jill (who does not speak in this

portion), all in their late 20s. They have been discussing movies and the

overall mood has been playful, with a great deal of affectionate teasing and

banter between Mike and Gwen, especially. Just prior to this, Mike had been

teasing Gwen about her taste in movies, facetiously implying that she is too

mature to enjoy animated films. When he then sets up a portrayal of himself

as a lover of Disney movies, in contrast to Gwen, Judith teasingly challenges

him about his reasons for liking these films:

Example 5: The Little Mermaid

1 Mike: see here I I love The Little Mermaid

2 [Aladdin, The Lion King, / ? /

3 Judith: [yeah but you love the Little Mermaid cause you said that is

4 ((she’s goo::d she has a good shaHApe))5 Gwen: I love the Lion King

6 Mike: (. . .) the one from Aladdin the one from the

Hunchback is hot too.

In line 4 Judith uses unusual terms to describe the physical attractiveness

of the animated character, however, her intonation (‘goo::d’) and her

description (‘a good shape’) make her meaning clear. Although no one

responds directly to her tease, her cousin indirectly acknowledges it (and the

truth of it) in line 6. At the same time, he reformulates the tease, using the

more colloquial, and here more amusing, expression for physical attractive-ness, ‘hot’. While the conversation remained focused on meaning rather

than form, this type of interaction, which occurred periodically during

playful conversation between these NNSs and their NS interlocutors, pro-

vides opportunities for implicit SLL. The topical cohesion of the conversation

serves to make available to the learner new L2 resources with equivalent

meanings. Chances for learning are increased in these cases as research has

shown that when acquiring new meanings from context it is easier to learn

a new word for a familiar concept than one for a new concept (Nagy et al .

1987; Sheffelbine 1990; Shu et al . 1995; all cited in Nagy 1997: 79). Inexample 5, Judith clearly already has the concept of ‘physical attractiveness,’

thus exposure to this alternative use of the term ‘hot’, an already

familiar lexical item, may have allowed her to extend its meaning to a

new context.

NANCY D. BELL 205

































Metalinguistic sequences

NSs’ attempts at humour with these NNSs also sometimes resulted in explicit

socialization and metalinguistic sequences concerning ‘what’s funny’,

perhaps because playful talk frequently builds on references to culturally

specific or in-group information. Carrell, in discussing the linguistic

processing of humour, points out that for a joke to be deemed amusing

depends ‘almost exclusively on the availability of the audience’s scripts

for humor ’ (1997: 181, emphasis in original). In other words, the hearer must

not only possess the schema necessary to understand the joke, but in

addition the schema must not be restricted to non-humorous uses only. For

example, a joking comment about a certain disease may invoke an icy stare

from someone who has personal experience with the disease, thus making

it unavailable for humour. While this person possesses the necessaryinformation to understand the joke, their particular semantic script for this

disease is not available for humour. Instances in which a NNS in this study

received instruction concerning humour can be viewed as an attempt on the

part of the NS to add to the NNS’s repertoire of scripts available for humour.

In addition to providing sociocultural information, the metalinguistic

aspect of these sequences provides occasions for the acquisition of new

lexical items. The recent work of Swain and others (e.g., Swain 1998, 2000;

Swain and Lapkin 2002; Swain et al . 2002; Williams 2001) has demonstrated

the importance for L2 learning of metalinguistic sequences that takeplace during talk that remains focused on meaning. Many of the studies

cited above use the concept of language-related episodes (LREs), which

involve any dialogue in which learners comment on or question their

own, or another’s language use. LREs are often restricted to metalinguistic

talk that is learner-initiated, but other-initiated LREs have also been

examined (e.g., Williams 2001). Taken together, these studies have shown

that explicit talk about language form and use can be a powerful learning

device. The example below contains a metalinguistic sequence in which

the NS interlocutor is the one who initiates the lengthy metalinguisticdiscussion.

Pum’s boyfriend, Jake, was one NS who took particular pains to explain

cultural concepts to Pum in hopes that she would learn to find certain things,

such as the band Lynrd Skynrd, funny. While Pum often found his efforts

amusing, she did not manage to incorporate such concepts into her scripts

for humour. Nonetheless, these sequences did seem to promote some degree

of vocabulary learning. In this example of this type of explicit instruction

Jake describes a concept, ‘hillbillies,’ that is amusing to him.

Example 6: Hillbillies

1 Jake: look at the swamp it’s a swamp back there. ((That’s where all the

2 pineys live too)) do you know who the pineys are?

3 Pum: I don’t know


































4 Jake: they’re like hillbillies HUH

5 Pum: What’s thaHHt? huh huh huh huh

6 Jake: what’s a hillbilly?

7 Pum: I doHHn’t knoHHHw (serious) no I don’t know

8 Jake: the hillbilly is- they like to- they drive the pickup trucks9 Pum: uuunnnhh

10 Jake: They listen to old Lynrd Skynrd. They say, ‘Free:: Bir:::d!’ heh

11 heh heh heh heh heh

12 Pum: huh huh huh you sick

13 Jake: the hillbilly- you don’t know who the hillbillies are

14 Pum: I don’t know!

15 Jake: they’re like that the the backcountry like the

16 Pum: no I don’t like country

17 Jake: they live in the mountains

18 Pum: no19 Jake: the hillbillies live in the mountains and they’re like

Appalachian

20 like backwards people

21 Pum: I don’t know. so?

22 Jake: so they’re like I don’t know so they’re like backwards

uneducated

23 people

24 Pum: mm

Jake begins by teasingly introducing Pum to the idea of ‘pineys’ (line 2).

That he frames this in a playful way, and as he immediately asks Pum if she

knows who they are demonstrates that part of the joke, for him, lies in what

is sure to be Pum’s lack of familiarity with the term. When Pum tells him

that she doesn’t know who ‘pineys’ are, he introduces the term ‘hillbillies’ to

explain (line 4), his laugh particle revealing this as amusing and inviting

Pum to laugh with him. Although Pum professes her lack of familiarity with

the word, at the same time she treats it as laughable, although whether this

is to oblige Jake or is in appreciation of the phonological patterning of

the word (or some combination) cannot be certain. In line 8, after Pumhas established her knowledge gap, Jake begins to define a ‘hillbilly’ for her.

He begins with a standard definition format (‘the hillbilly is-’), but interrupts

himself to instead portray the social category of ‘hillbilly’ by listing several

examples of what he apparently considers to represent ‘hillbilly’ activities.

That he finds this amusing is evident in his laughter (lines 4 and 11), and the

generally playful tone he takes. Pum’s laughter and her playful insult of Jake

(‘you sick’) in line 12 is more likely due to the fact that Jake’s mention of

‘Free:: Bir:::d!’ is an intertextual link to an earlier conversation in which he

was singing this song in an apparently ridiculous matter (this interaction wasnot recorded, but was referred to several times). In line 13 Jake begins and

then abandons another attempt to define ‘hillbilly’, instead opting to

reconfirm that this lexical item is unfamiliar to Pum. From this point on,

the vocabulary lesson takes place within a serious frame, becoming more

NANCY D. BELL 207

































interactive, as well. Pum again professes her lack of knowledge, which

prompts Jake to try a different means of defining ‘hillbillies’, locating them

in the ‘backcountry’ (line 15). From her response (‘I don’t like country’) it

appears that this, too, is an unfamiliar term for Pum, who does not seem torecognize it as a single lexical item. In response, Jake describes their home

as being ‘in the mountains’. While this is certainly part of Pum’s vocabulary,

she shows with a simple ‘no’ that this explanation is not yet sufficient,

causing Jake to continue, by naming a specific American mountain range

where he locates ‘hillbillies’ (Appalachia) and adding a term to describe his

perception of their lifestyle (backwards). Pum insists that she still does not

‘know’ what he is talking about, but encourages him to further develop or

make a point about the concept, asking ‘so?’ In line 22, Jake, sounding a bit

weary, manages to come up with ‘uneducated’ as a further descriptor beforethe topic is closed.

Despite Jake’s efforts, it is not clear by the end of this sequence that Pum

has grasped the concept of a ‘hillbilly’. Based on his description, Pum

described hillbillies to me in an interview as ‘like a country people, a

countryside kind of people that do everything in the old way, not really- it’s

not fashionable or something.’ Thus, the sequence did serve to help her

comprehend the denotative meaning of ‘hillbilly’, but as her definition

demonstrates, she did not have a firm grasp of the connotations surrounding

the term. Indeed, like the French immersion students in Yeoman’s (1996)

study, Pum lacked the affective sense of the word, an important component

of meaning and one which often allows speakers to select vocabulary for

humorous effect. Because of this, she was unable to access the script for use

in the creation of humour, despite Jake’s persistent and regular use of this

term in a joking manner during one period in which she was tape recording.

When I asked her why she never teased him about hillbillies, she said that

‘maybe I don’t know exactly when should I use it’ and that she was ‘not

ready to use it like he use’. Thus, although Pum was not prepared to use this

word, or at least to use it in a joking manner (‘like he use’), her playful

conversations with Jake about this concept had ensured that she could at

least recognize this new lexical item in conversation and had some grasp of

its cultural connotations.

Vocabulary learning is discussed further in the following section.

IL DESTABILIZATION AND VOCABULARY LEARNING

In an early argument for the importance of noticing in L2 development,

Schmidt (1983) suggested that cognitive effort could cause destabilization inthe IL system. Tarone (2000) points out that play with an L2 form necessarily

implies that the form has been noticed. Yet, she explains:

it would be simplistic to view language play with L2 forms as simply a

‘noticing’ of L2 forms that need to be acquired. . . . Language play with


































form involves not just noticing correct L2 forms in order to weed out

incorrect productions and acquire the correct ones. Quite the contrary;

the play with second-language forms . . . introduces more variation into

the IL system, not less. (Tarone 2000: 49, emphasis in original).

IL development occurs through the push and pull of ‘more conservative

forces demanding accuracy [that are] counter balanced with more creative

forces demanding innovation’ (Tarone 2000: 49). In this view, language play

can be seen as one of the forces of creativity.

Humorous language may also contribute to learning by increasing the

depth of processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972), which means that new

information is made more memorable when the learner pays more and

higher quality attention to it. More elaborate processing is thought to be of

help, particularly in learning new lexical information, and humour may be one way for elaboration to come about. First, humour in interaction may

make a new lexical item more noticeable. Also, humorous language play

often involves repetition, which creates more opportunities to process new

lexical items. Finally, playful contexts often provide very rich interaction,

thus enriching the quality of attention paid to new vocabulary.

As both interviews and data from the three NNSs in this study showed,

humour is one type of daily language that may provide a site in which new

linguistic forms and functions are made available to the learner, who upon

noticing them will process them deeply and thus destabilize aspects of theIL system, leading to further development. The following example is an

instance in which this may have occurred in Tanya’s case. An impromptu,

explicit vocabulary lesson takes place after Tanya misunderstood the word

‘clone,’ with humour arising from differences between the NS’s and NNS’s

perceptions of its semantic field. Before the confusion, Tanya is trying to

explain to her friend Mary that the actor Tom Hanks’ son looked exactly like

Tom Hanks himself. Her choice of the word ‘copy’ to convey this is confusing

to Mary; however, Tanya finds Mary’s proposal to use ‘clone,’ in this

situation, to be not only inappropriate, but also hilarious (so much so thata good portion of the tape was inaudible due to her laughter!):

Example 7: Clone

1 Tanya: do you know that he- Tom Hanks’ son is him

2 Mary: nope

3 Tanya: he is his copy he’s completely his copy

4 Mary: his what?

5 Tanya: copy?

6 Mary: copy?

7 Tanya: the way he looks?

8 Mary: o::h clone.

9 Tanya: whaHHHt?! HUH HUH His cloHHHOHOHOn::e!

10 Mary: [((what’s / ? / son))

NANCY D. BELL 209

































11 Tanya: [ha ha HUH HUH HUH HUH HUH

12 Mary: but he- or you could say he’s his double [I don’t know

13 Tanya: [/ ? / thHHHis modern

14 modern modern generationHHHH huh huh his

coHHHHHpy / ? /15 his cloHHHHne huh h[uh huh huh

16 Mary: [or you- is this- (3)

17 Tanya: go ahead

18 Mary: you could say he looks exactly like him or you could say-

19 Tanya: you can’t say he’s his copy?

20 Mary: I don’t think so.

21 Tanya: okay

22 Mary: ask another American but (.) that is just all sugar.

Tanya’s initial use of the metaphor ‘copy’ (line 3) puzzles Mary until

Tanya clarifies, saying, ‘the way he looks’ (line 7). Once she has understood

Tanya’s intent, Mary is able to provide a different metaphor, ‘clone’, as a way

of describing that two people look very much alike. This suggestion is greeted

with immediate surprise (‘WhaHHHt?!’) and laughter from Tanya. The falling

intonation with which she delivers the words ‘his clone!’ in line 9 indicates

an amused dismissal of the use of the term in this context, probably because

she assumed that Mary provided the word based on a misunderstanding

of Tanya’s point, as she indicated in a playback session. Perhaps because

her first suggestion was met with great hilarity, Mary gives an alternate

formulation of the idea, indicating that Tanya could also have said, ‘he’s his

double’ (line 12). At this point the interaction for Mary, but not Tanya, has

been reframed from ‘clarification talk’ to ‘mini vocabulary lesson’. In fact,

it is not clear that Tanya even takes note of Mary’s second option, as she

remains consumed with laughter at the use of ‘clone’. In lines 13 and 14 she

gives some indication that for her the semantic field of ‘clone’ is restricted to

scientific uses, facetiously associating Mary’s word choice with ‘this modern

generation’. After attempting twice to speak (line 16), Mary pauses, perhaps

viewing it as futile to attempt to continue the lesson. As in the case ofexample 5, at this point the play frame is abandoned and the vocabulary

lesson/clarification sequence continues seriously, with Tanya now calmer

and urging Mary to continue (line 17). Mary then suggests the use of an

entire sentence to explain the concept (‘he looks exactly like him’) and

begins to provide another option, but is interrupted by Tanya. Tanya is still

disbelieving and checks again that ‘you can’t say he’s his copy?’ (line 19).

Finally, in line 22, Mary, exasperated, recommends that Tanya ‘ask another

American’, and the talk returns to the cake they are making.

Although Mary approaches the misunderstanding as an opportunity toinstruct Tanya in more appropriate ways to formulate the concept of a

striking likeness, Tanya’s attention seems to be focused on dismissing ‘clone’

as an option for describing physical similarities and confirming the

inappropriateness of ‘copy’ in this context. In fact, it is not certain that she


































not only demonstrates a certain ability to construct a variety of L2 voices,

but also functions as an off-record attempt to distract Ben from what had

become an all-too-frequent and somewhat uncomfortable topic of conversa-

tion for Judith. Tanya’s very creative, but recognizably patterned use of‘Miss Predicting-all-the-Feelings’ (example 4) was humorous, but also gently

chided her friend about her assumptions. Humorous language play can thus

reveal linguistic and sociolinguistic proficiency (Tarone 2000). Further

longitudinal work must be done, however, to determine precisely how

language play may help learners progress from more formulaic to more

creative speech, and how humour may act as a site in which experi-

mentation is possible and even encouraged.

Humorous language play and opportunities for learning

The language play which occurred in the naturalistic interaction examined in

this study differs from that in the classroom studies. Most notably, syntactic

and phonological play were absent. It is possible that an explicit learning

situation encourages different types of linguistic experimentation and play,

but this is clearly an area in which further investigation is needed.

As these examples suggest, the humorous language play that arises in

interaction outside of the classroom may provide opportunities that are

especially conducive to the acquisition of vocabulary. In a conversation that

remained focused on meaning, Judith’s cousin provided her with the word

‘hot’ as an alternative and more conventionally humorous way to describe

a physically attractive person (example 5). Examples 6 and 7 showed how

lexical items can come into metalinguistic focus, either in an attempt at

humour or with the outcome as humour. In both cases, however, the

participants clearly remembered the items, although their understanding

remained incomplete. In example 6, at the beginning of Jake’s ‘hillbilly’

vocabulary lesson, Pum was completely unfamiliar with the word. After the

lesson, Pum knew the oral (but not necessarily written) form of the term,

could properly inflect it as well as use it in a sentence, and had someunderstanding of its basic referential meaning, as she was able to explain to

me. Although she lacked a full sense of the word’s meaning, she had already

obtained a great deal of information from this single exposure. For Tanya, in

example 7, the form, structure, and syntactic patterning of both words under

discussion, ‘clone’ and ‘copy’ were understood. In addition, it is likely that

she was familiar with lexical relations and collocations of both. Her ‘lesson’

afforded her the opportunity to adjust the parameters of each lexical item’s

semantic field. Although she was not yet prepared to use ‘clone’ as a way

of describing physical similarity, she was likely to remove this use from hersemantic field for ‘copy’.

These examples point to a deep level of processing for these items. This

elaboration, and possibly the laughter in particular, makes the new forms

or meanings more memorable. In Tanya’s case, it may also have helped

NANCY D. BELL 213

































her to recognize that L1 meanings do not always map onto L2 words in the

same way.

Future research

A great deal stands to be gained through further study of L2 humorous

language play in non-classroom contexts. Because humour varies so much

from person to person, types of language play that were absent in the

interaction of these three participants, such as phonological play, may be

common with another L2 speaker. In addition, different learners will react

in diverse ways to the humour of NSs. For example, some may frequently

request detailed explanations of new language, whereas others will simply

ignore what they do not understand. Different methods of coping with L2humour may have different consequences for learning. Evidence for a

facilitative role of language play in SLL is growing and should continue to be

pursued. In order to determine further to what extent language play may aid

in L2 acquisition, observation of a learner hearing L2 structures introduced

or reformulated in a playful context and later using the vocabulary

or structure would be ideal. More controlled conditions might allow us to

begin to better understand the impact of humour on SLL.

The methodology used in the work of Williams (2001, see also Swain

1998: 75–6) suggests a promising avenue from which to begin to examine

whether playful language is recalled and retained better than serious

language. Williams found that more advanced learners benefited more from

explicit discussions of language use, something that linguistic humour may

prompt, than did beginners. Her findings are based on her analysis of

language-related episodes (LREs). She refers to these as ‘discourse in which

learners talk or ask about language, or question, implicitly or explicitly, their

own language use’ (2001: 328). She recorded 65 hours of classroom inter-

action and coded it for LREs. After examining the LREs, test items were

created for each participant in the study, based on the focus of the LREs in

their data and these tests were administered two weeks after the recordings.This construction of individual tests allowed her to see the effect that

different types of LREs had on the students’ recall of the LRE focus, for

example, whether student or teacher initiation of the LRE promoted better

recall.

Williams’ methods might be applied to an empirical study of whether the

incorporation of language play in the L2 classroom might aid in SLL, as

suggested by Cook (2000: 194–201), Tarone (2000: 45–9), and the evidence

discussed in the present study. In such a study, the researcher could record

those LREs which occurred within a play frame (playful LREs, or PLREs) andcompare responses on tailor-made tests to items that were focused on in

LREs versus PLREs. While the participants in this study most often chose not

to ask questions about humour that they did not understand, this could be

different in a language classroom, especially one in which the instructor


































encouraged questioning and exploration of the language, thus potentially

increasing the number of PLREs. The effect of humour on recall of language

might also be examined with Williams’ methods. In this case, tests could be

constructed based on items that were either reformulated (although notexplicitly discussed) or were the subject of playful discussion. If language

play is to be incorporated in any significant way into the L2 classroom,

as suggested by Cook (2000) and by materials writers, such as Medgyes

(2002), efforts must be made to determine more precisely what it can

contribute to SLL.

In fact, contrary to an assertion by Davies (2003: 1367), it is possible that

the classroom might be the best place to tackle humour, which quite often

involves linguistic, sociolinguistic, and cultural elements that are too subtle

or complex for L2 speakers to interpret unaided. As discussed above, playwith form was not apparent in the 32 hours of interaction collected for

this study, whereas it has been found in classroom studies – suggesting that

an explicit educational context may encourage learners to engage in playful

metalinguistic sequences involving form, rather than voice and semantic

meaning as we saw here. Even though the question of the role of humour in

SLL is only just beginning to be addressed, L2 teachers should be aware of

the potential of this variety of language play to aid in SLL, rather than

viewing it as simply a motivational device or, as also sometimes occurs,

as off-task behaviour. Precisely because humour remains difficult, even

for advanced L2 speakers, it may provide an important resource for L2

instruction.

NOTES

1 In keeping with university policy,

the procedures and requirements

of participation in the study were

explained in a written consent form,

as well as the time requirements

and possible risks and benefits. All

participants signed the consent forms.

It was explained to all participants

that the purpose of the study was

to examine L2 humour in NS–NNS

interaction. I obtained written

permission to conduct audio-taped

interviews for research purposes, and

also obtained written permission for

the use of their audio-taped inter-

action for research purposes. Partici-

pants also asked permission of

the NSs before turning on their tape

recorders.

2 All names are pseudonyms chosen by

the participants.

3 Double parenthesis indicate that the

words within were spoken while

smiling and italics indicate emphasis.

Laughter occurring within words is

separated by a capital H.

NANCY D. BELL 215

































REFERENCES

Apte, M. 1985. Humor and Laughter: An

Anthropological Approach. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.Attardo, S. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor .

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late

Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Basso, K. 1979. Portraits of ‘The Whiteman’:

Linguistic play and cultural symbols among

the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bell, N. 2002. Using and Understanding Humorin a Second Language: A Case Study. University

of Pennsylvania doctoral dissertation.

Bell, N. Forthcoming. ‘How native and non-native

English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural

interaction,’ Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research.

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

sentation of the multicompetent self in foreign

language study,’ Journal for Language Identity,

and Education 1/1: 13–39.

Belz, J. and J. Reinhardt. 2004. ‘Aspectsof advanced foreign language proficiency:

Internet-mediated German language play,’

International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14/3:

324–62.

Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language

Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Boxer, D. and F. Corte s-Conde. 1997. ‘From

bonding to biting: conversational joking and

identity display,’ Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–94.

Breiner-Sanders, K., P. Lowe, J. Miles, andE. Swender. 2000. ‘ACTFL proficiency

guidelines—Speaking, revised 1999,’ Foreign

Language Annals 33/1: 13–18.

Broner, M. and E. Tarone. 2001. ‘Is it fun?

Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish

immersion classroom,’ The Modern Language

Journal 85/3: 363–79.

Carrell, A. 1997. ‘Joke competence and humor

competence,’ Humor: International Journal of

Humor Research 10/2: 173–85.

Cazden, C. 1976. ‘Play and meta-linguistic aware-ness’ in J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, and K. Sylva

(eds): Play—Its Role in Development and Evolution.

New York: Basic Books, Inc., pp. 603–608.

Chiaro, D. 1992. The Language of Jokes: Analysing

Verbal Play. London: Routledge.

Chukovsky, K. 1963. From Two to Five. Berkeley:

University of California 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, V. 1992. ‘Evidence for multi-competence,’

Language Learning 42/4: 557–91.

Craik, F. I. M. and R. Lockhart. 1972. ‘Levels

of processing: A framework for memory

research,’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior 11: 671–84.

Crystal, D. 1998. Language Play. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.Davies, C. 2003. ‘How English-learners joke

with native speakers: an interactional sociolin-

guistic perspective on humor as collaborative

discourse across cultures,’ Journal of Pragmatics

35: 1361–85.

Eder, D. 1993. ‘ ‘‘Go get ya a French!’’: romantic

and sexual teasing among adolescent girls’ in

D. Tannen (ed.): Gender and Conversational

Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press,

pp. 17–31.

Eisenberg, A. 1986. ‘Teasing: verbal play intwo Mexicano homes’ in B. Schieffelin and

E. Ochs (eds): Language Socialization across

Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

pp. 182–98.

Erickson, F. and J. Shultz. 1982. The Counselor

as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews.

New York: Academic Press.

Glenn, P. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Goldberg, D. 1997. ‘Joking in a multi-disciplinary

team: negotiating hierarchy and the allocationof ‘‘cases’’,’ Anthropology and Medicine 4/3:

229–44.

Hall, J. K. 1995. ‘(Re)creating our worlds

with words: A sociohistorical perspective of

face-to-face interaction,’ Applied Linguistics

16/2: 206–32.

Holmes, J. 2000. ‘Politeness, power and

provocation: How humour functions in the

workplace,’ Discourse Studies 2/2: 159–85.

Holmes, J. and M. Marra. 2002. ‘Over the edge?

Subversive humor between colleagues andfriends,’ Humor: International Journal of Humor

Research 15/1: 65–87.

Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An

Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press.


































Jefferson, G. 1979. ‘A technique for inviting

laughter and its subsequent acceptance

declination’ in G. Psathas (ed.): Everyday

Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York:

Irvington Publishers, Inc., pp. 79–95.Jiang, N. 2004. ‘Semantic transfer and its implica-

tions for vocabulary teaching in a second

language,’ The Modern Language Journal 88/3:

416–32.

Johnson, M. 2004. A Philosophy of Second Language

Acquisition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jorgensen, J. 1996. ‘The functions of sarcastic

irony in speech,’ Journal of Pragmatics, 26:

613–34.

Kramsch, C. and P. Sullivan. 1996. ‘Appropriate

pedagogy,’ English Language Teaching Journal

50/3: 199–212.

Kuzcaj, S. 1983. Crib Speech and Language Play.

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

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

in the acquisition of L2 Spanish’ in W. R. Glass

and A. T. Perez-Leroux (eds): Contemporary

Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish.

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 3–24.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 1997. ‘Chaos/complexity

science and secondlanguageacquisition,’ Applied

Linguistics, 18: 141–65.

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

environment in second language acquisition’

in W Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds): Handbook

of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego:

Academic Press, pp. 413–68.

Medgyes, P. 2002. Laughing Matters. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Miller, P. 1986. ‘Teasing as language socialization

and verbal play in a white working-class com-

munity’ in B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds):Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–212.

Morreall, J. 1983. Taking Laughter Seriously.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nagy, W. 1997. ‘On the role of context in first-

and second-language vocabulary learning’ in

N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds): Vocabulary:

Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–83.

Nelson, K. 1989. Narratives from the Crib.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Norrick, N. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in

Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.

Pavlenko, A. and J. P. Lantolf. 2000. ‘Second

language learning as participation and the

(re)construction of selves’ in J. P. Lantolf

(ed.): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

pp. 155–77.

Philp, J. 2003. ‘Constraints on ‘‘noticing the gap’’:Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in

NS-NNS interaction,’ Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 25: 99–126.

Pica, T. 1994. ‘Research on negotiation: What

does it reveal about second-language learning

conditions, processes, and outcomes?’ Language

Learning 44: 493–527.

Pogrebin, M. and E. Poole. 1988. ‘Humor in the

briefing room: A study of the strategic uses of

humor among police,’ Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography 17/2: 183–210.

Raskin, V. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor .

Boston: Reidel.

Schmidt, R. 1983. ‘Interaction, acculturation, and

the acquisition of communicative competence:

A case study of an adult’ in N. Wolfson and

E. Judd (eds): Sociolinguistics and Language

Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Publishers, pp. 137–74.

Straehle, C. 1993. ‘ ‘‘Samuel?’’ ‘‘Yes, dear?’’

Teasing and conversational rapport’ in

D. Tannen (ed.): Framing in Discourse. New York:

Oxford University Press, pp. 210–30.

Sullivan, P. 2000. ‘Playfulness as media-

tion in communicative language teaching

in a Vietnamese classroom’ in J. P. Lantolf

(ed.): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language


pp. 115–31.

Swain, M. 1998. ‘Focus on form through con-

scious reflection’ in C. Doughty and J. Williams

(eds): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 64–81.

Swain, M. 2000. ‘The output hypothesis

and beyond: Mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue’ in J. P. Lantolf (ed.):

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language


pp. 97–114.

Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. ‘Talking it

through: Two French immersion learners’

response to reformulation,’ International Journal of Educational Research 37: 285–304.

Swain, M., L. Brooks, and A. Tocalli-Beller.

2002. ‘Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second

language learning,’ Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 22: 171–85.

NANCY D. BELL 217

































Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing

Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Tarone, E. 2000. ‘Getting serious about lan-

guage play: Language play, interlanguagevariation and second language acquisition’

in B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson,

C. Klee, and E. Tarone (eds): Social and

Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition:

Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language

Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press,

pp. 31–54.

Weir, R. H. 1962. Language in the Crib. The Hague:

Mouton.

Wennerstrom, A. 2000. ‘Is it me or is it hot in

here? Menopause, identity, and humor,’ Humor

13/3: 313–31.

Williams, J. 2001. ‘The effectiveness of sponta-

neous attention to form,’ System 29: 325–40.Yedes, J. 1996. ‘Playful teasing: kiddin’ on the

square,’ Discourse and Society 7/3: 417–38.

Yeoman, E. 1996. ‘The meaning of meaning:

Affective engagement and dialogue in a second

language,’ Canadian Modern Language Review

52/4: 598–610.

Zajdman, A. 1995. ‘Humorous face-threatening

acts: Humor as strategy,’ Journal of Pragmatics

23: 325–39.
































bell language play

Documents