Finding and maintaining common ground through language play

2.5.3.1 Language play as a sign of intimacy

Evidence of native speakers’ use of language play indicates that it is far more prevalent among people who are on familiar terms than it is with those whose relationships are more formal (Carter, 2004; Straehle, 1993). This comes as no surprise, especially considering that one of its functions is to explore the nature and constraints of our social world (see Section 2.5.4 below). Rather like the pretend-fighting of young mammals, playing among friends and family rarely has serious consequences. Even at the aggressive end of the spectrum, verbal duelling, and teasing are often a sign of bonding as much as they are of competition (Bongartz and Schneider, 2003; Carter, 2004; Holmes, 2007; Norrick, 1993; Straehle, 1993). In language play, there seems to be the distillation of what Tannen (1986) sees as the innate

paradox that it encodes: play simultaneously shows solidarity and a potential lack of respect. Naturally, therefore, it tends to be used among those who feel comfortable in each other’s company. Consequently, investigations in the field have focussed on relaxed settings (Carter, 2004; Crystal, 1998; Straehle, 1993). Even in more formal contexts, such as the office, analyses have come from interactions between long-established colleagues during in- house meetings and conversations (Holmes, 2007). My own research setting is very different in that play has to grow and flourish among participants who have to initiate and establish relationships with each other in a very brief time span (see Chapter 3).

33

In the field of SLA research into language play, a focus on the informal can be found in Bell’s (2005) study of the learners’ interactions with their native- speaking friends. Research in the institutionalised setting of the classroom usually focuses on speakers who share a first language (Pomerantz and Bell, 2007; Sullivan, 2000) or whose primary interaction is with first-language speakers of the TL (Davies, 2003). In the case of the former, the learners may well already have established a relationship with their classmates through their L1 and, if not, can do so outside the language classroom. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that, within the class itself, combining the learners' common L1 with the TL can be exploited to build rapport through play (Pomerantz and Bell, 2007). Secondly, the fact that speakers have a shared cultural background is significant in terms of the play

opportunities open to learners. Much of the pleasure derived from jokes and the humorous exploitation of other texts and references comes from the fact that the audience is left to fill in the gaps from its own socio-cultural

knowledge. This is a central reason why language play is such an effective means of including and excluding others and also why, as Chiaro (1992: 122) points out, certain types of verbal humour do not travel well.

With regard to the literature investigating learners’ interactions with native speakers, almost inevitably, play shows a primarily assimilatory function to the dominant culture (Bell, 2005) or emphasises the role of native speakers in instigating or ‘scaffolding’ the learners’ appreciation of language play (Davies, 2003). However, it would be highly instructive to see how speakers who do not share a common cultural background can use play without recourse to commonly understood reference points or, indeed, a common

34

communicative code other than the TL. In addition, it is likely that people who have not met previously. such as those in the research cohort, would be interacting initially within what Nessa Wolfson (1988) calls ‘the Bulge’ – that non-intimate social framework where participants are, ostensibly at least, on an equal footing and where identities, relations and meaning have to be negotiated with great care. Carter (2004: 165) would see such a scenario as one within his taxonomy of context types which is less likely to produce creative and playful language. Speakers would need to build their relationships from scratch and the research context (see Chapter 3) is particularly useful in interrogating the extent to which the emergent group is defined and reinforced through the incremental accumulation of in-group references and the role of HLP in that process. As Pope (2005: 56) states:

the art of common talk is not simply a matter of the use of puns, metaphors and other kinds of overtly playful language, but also the ways in which group identity may be extended and enriched through kinds of communal pattern building and transformation.

It is to this communal pattern building which we now turn.

2.5.3.2 Play as an incremental phenomenon

It has already been noted (see Section 2.3.3) that language can accumulate meanings and associations which allow words and phrases to metonymically stand for a shared experience. This cumulative dimension to language play remains under-investigated. In fact, how humour builds up and coagulates into reference points that both promote and reflect a social group’s identity is indicative of a wider process in word-meaning development. In a Bakhtinian

35

framework, meanings accumulate and change with use and are part of the social process of forming group identities along various significant

dimensions (Bakhtin, 1981: 290):

In any given historical moment of verbal-ideological life, each

generation at each social level has its own language; moreover, every age group has as a matter of fact its own language, its own

vocabulary, its own particular accentual system that, in their turn, vary depending on social level, academic institution (the language of the cadet, the high school student, the trade school student are all different languages) and other stratifying factors. All this is brought about by socially typifying languages, no matter how narrow the social circle in which they are spoken.

In research into the language play of NSs, Carter (2004: 100-108) identifies the importance of what he calls ‘pattern-forming’ and ‘pattern-reforming’ choices, the former building on previous contributions to the interaction and the latter breaking with them, but both helping in the collaborative activity of weaving an often humorous conversational tapestry. However, Carter’s findings are constrained by the fact that he draws on CANCODE corpus data and, thus, the conversations he looks at appear as discrete episodes, lacking the perspective which allows one to look beyond the immediate conversation to how humorous language and references might have developed over time. Coates (2007) focuses on the importance of humour derived from shared knowledge and in-group norms within all-female social networks, norms which are established, in part, through the stories the women tell each other. Norrick (1993) too notes the importance of humorous personal anecdotes

36

and in-group mocking in maintaining and developing relationships, where particular stories and ritualised behaviour become part of a group’s culture, while Tannen (2006) shows how past arguments can be referred to and framed humorously to defuse tension.

In SLA research, there are a number of longitudinal studies of language play phenomena. Bell (2005) recorded her three research participants over a two- year period. Although it is true that the language play discussed includes evidence of the learners’ growing socio-cultural knowledge of their host country (Bell, 2005: 202-3), the data provide snapshots of language play rather than revealing an incremental dimension to it. In other SLA studies, the focus is on play’s possible role in the cognitive and linguistic

development of the research participants, not its part in any development of an in-group cultural identity (Bongartz and Schneider, 2003; Broner and Tarone, 2001; DaSilva Iddings and McCafferty, 2007; Davies, 2003). Possibly because of this, the data tends to be presented in separate episodes which are not related in terms of the language items used by speakers. However, there are glimpses of the incremental nature of

language play in some investigations. For example, in Pomerantz and Bell (2007), one of the students tries out new and playful meanings for the Spanish word ‘pues’ as evidenced in various pieces of the data. In Cekaite and Aronsson’s paper (2005), it is interesting to note how learners pick up and develop each other’s funny contributions in a Swedish immersion class for young immigrant and refugee children. More recently, Victoria (2011) has noted how particular words and phrases become significant for a group of immigrants on an Employment Preparation Programme in Canada, being

37

used to trigger amusement and pleasure by evoking their shared

experiences. However, even in this case, the development of such phrases as in-group identity markers are not traced in detail. Thus, their growing social significance is not plotted nor are any changes in the phrases themselves as they are reused in play episodes.

In summary, the extent to which playful episodes and the language within them become incorporated into a group’s cultural identity remains an under- researched area. Although, as mentioned above, some researchers have acknowledged the importance of a shared repertoire of humorous reference points, none has systematically traced the significance and development of particular references and language items over time. Tannen (1989: 45) mentions the ways in which certain expressions emerge in a group and assume particular significance for it, becoming part of a private language that '..gives a recognisable character to communication among long-term

associates.' However, as she mentions herself, most emergent expressions usually do not outlive their first context of use. In this regard, my own study provides the opportunity to investigate the extent to which newly-acquainted NNSs use shared reference points and their associated language which then become part of a group repertoire. The relatively enclosed investigative context (see Chapter 3) provides an ideal opportunity to trace the origins of in-group language and the extent to which it contributes to a group’s identity and provides reference points for further play opportunities.

2.5.3.3 Play as a collaborative activity

Language play is not only a means of establishing common ground, but its collaborative nature is itself conducive to the building of social relations. It

38

has long been recognised that a joke or humorous remark opens up a ‘play frame’ which gives others the licence to follow it up with word play or

thematically linked stories or jokes of their own. This is why much of the data collected on such linguistic behaviour shows that it clusters, occurring in play episodes (Carter, 2004: 100-1; Coates, 2007: 38-43; Holmes, 2007: 529-30). Even when playful language is focussed on one speaker, such as in the telling of a humorous story, the participation and response of the audience are vital in ensuring its success (Toolan, 2006: 65).

The collaborative nature of language play presents particular challenges to the second language learner. Firstly, he or she has to be able to both produce and recognise the conversational cues that signal play frames. In addition, once instigated, such a frame is particularly demanding for the NNS who attempts to build upon it because of the need to stay within the form or theme constraints introduced by the previous contribution. Furthermore, an utterance that attempts humour, even if it does not demand a contribution in kind, does require a reaction, if only of laughter. It could be argued that this is true of any conversational turn. However, the stakes are so much higher for both speaker and listener in humorous exchanges. As has already been alluded to, much humour depends on the listener to fill in the gaps of what remains unsaid. For example, if there is any fun to be had from innuendo it is that the listener identifies the lewd dimension of meaning while the speaker can act the innocent. Therefore, it is vitally important in the research not to neglect the addressee and the importance of his or her reaction to play in the meaning-making process. However, this does not necessarily imply that the audience needs to show a complete understanding of what is being uttered.

39

Research by Bell (2007b: 377) indicates that NNSs can appreciate the contextualisation cues and sense of bonhomie in play episodes without necessarily fully comprehending what is being said.