Pomerantz & Bell (2007) Learning To Play, Playing To learn-FL Learners As Multicompetent Language Users
Pomerantz & Bell (2007) Learning To Play, Playing To learn-FL Learners As Multicompetent Language Users
Pomerantz & Bell (2007) Learning To Play, Playing To learn-FL Learners As Multicompetent Language Users
doi:10.1093/applin/amm044
INTRODUCTION
In this paper we focus on language play as an aspect of creativity in language
that has particular relevance to language teaching and learning. As more
and more foreign language (FL) teachers at the university level have
embraced communicative approaches, classrooms now offer opportunities
for new and more varied forms of talk, including language play. Whereas
choral repetitions, grammar drills, and translations were once the norm,
contemporary FL classrooms are filled with small-group discussions, games,
and skits that often involve, but rarely laud, the creative and playful use
of language. Building on the theoretical proposals of scholars like G. Cook
(2000) and Tarone (2000), a small but growing body of work has begun to
examine empirically the ways in which language play might both index
linguistic competence and facilitate additional language learning in classroom
contexts. For example, scholarship conducted in this vein has illustrated
how engagement in creative and playful language practices might contribute
to increased metalinguistic awareness, syntactic and semantic development,
ANNE POMERANTZ AND NANCY D. BELL 557
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Ideologies of language use in FL classrooms
In this paper, we problematize the tendency in both communicative language
teaching and SLA research to privilege utilitarian acts of language use, thus
relegating play to the margins of acceptable classroom practice (cf. Cook
2000: 183). In FL classrooms, the creation of novel L2 forms, even during
sanctioned language play, is often considered useless, disruptive behaviour,
and is generally frowned upon, regardless of the communicative or affective
potential of these new locutions. Unlike native speakers, learners are rarely
positioned in ways that grant them agency creatively to supplement or
subvert the target language system. As Brutt-Griffler has noted:
Modern linguistics works from the assumption that change
initiated by a ‘native’ (or mother tongue) speaker is not error.
Theories of SLA, on the other hand, begin from the opposite
558 LEARNING TO PLAY, PLAYING TO LEARN
the language used within classroom activities that have been framed
predominately as either work or play, with the focus mainly on ludic, or
humorous, language play.2 This type of language play is fun (Sullivan 2000:
122), and is commonly marked by overt signs of pleasure, such as laughter,
German and at least one additional language. This work demonstrated that
rather than switching languages to make up for some deficiency, learners, at
times, switched playfully and purposively at all levels of language. Further-
more, they associated code-switching with ‘a growing sense of linguistic
METHODOLOGY
The data we wish to present are drawn from a larger study of FL learning
at a US university (Pomerantz 2001). They were collected over the course
of a 15-week semester in an advanced Spanish conversation course and
the corpus includes ethnographic observations in both the classroom and the
department, tape-recordings of 45 hours of classroom interaction, and
interviews with individual study participants in both English and Spanish.
Twelve of the resulting classroom tapes were transcribed in their entirety.
These transcripts, along with extensive field notes from ethnographic
observation in and out of the classroom and interviews with individual
learners, comprise the data for this paper.
562 LEARNING TO PLAY, PLAYING TO LEARN
7 Leah un grupo y
(‘a group and’)
8 Ravi todos los miembros son muy uh uh
(‘all the members are very uh uh’)
12 Ravi sı́
(‘yes’)
13 hay orden en el paı́s
(‘there is order in the country’)
In line 2, Prajesh takes Ravi up on his request to name the worst form of
government and offers a response, in English, ‘fascism’. In line 5, Ravi switches
to Spanish and Prajesh offers a minimal response in this language. The
juxtaposition of languages is particularly notable here, as Ravi seems to be
invoking a return to the norms of classroom practice. In other words, his code-
switch seems to reframe the playful topic switch as acceptable if done in
Spanish. Ravi and Prajesh then spend lines 7–15 working together in an
animated fashion to enumerate the benefits of military dictatorships in
Spanish. Indeed, they seem to be co-constructing a dual frame that allows
them to ‘play the school game’ (i.e. work), while simultaneously having fun
with it.
Yet, in their minor act of transgression, they are actually producing more
elaborate and thematically cohesive utterances than they had earlier in the
activity. Here, the playful change in topic encourages the learners to marshal
a broader range of lexical items and syntactic constructions in order to
produce a facetious argument in favour of military dictatorships. As we see
in lines 7–15, the play frame both creates and entails participation in a kind
of verbal duelling (cf. Cook 2000: 64–70), as Ravi and Prajesh compete to
enumerate an exaggerated list of imaginary benefits that come from
embracing this form of government. In the interest of entertainment, Ravi
and Prajesh’s previously careful (and rather boring) utterances give way to
language that is richer and more meaningful. The grammatical errors that
riddle their talk suggest that they are taking some risks with the target
language. When the debate is framed solely as work (as in example 1), it
seems to encourage less complex constructions in order to ensure a conven-
tional and perhaps more error-free performance. The parody of the debate,
however, offers a licence to experiment. Should the learners’ performance
deviate too much from ‘standard’ Spanish and the norms of FL classroom
talk, they can always say that they were just ‘playing’.
gain the floor (‘well’) and initiate change in speaker/topic; or it can serve as
a conjunction (‘since’). At first, we see Ravi using pues (line 3) conven-
tionally, as a way to initiate a change in topic and code:
A few moments later, when the teacher, Sylvia, approaches the group, we
see Ravi using pues again, but this time the meaning of his utterance is less
straightforward.
29 Hannah es possible pero
(‘it’s possible but’)
30 Ravi pues
Sylvia pero quizás parte de de
(‘but perhaps part of of’)
32 tener un culto es que sea semi-secreto no
(‘having a cult is that it is semi-secret, right?’)
Here, it is unclear whether he is using pues to get the floor or to signal that
he is actively participating in the activity in Spanish. After all, prior to the
teacher’s approach, he had been regaling his classmates, in English, with a
story about his drunken escapades at a bar the night before. Two subsequent
uses of pues, however, shed additional light on Ravi’s understanding of
this term.
260 Ravi [to Jim, Hannah is writing] Do we have a paper due for poli sci next
week?
261 Jim I hope not man
262 Ravi Yeah
263 Jim I haven’t touched the books
264 Ravi [yawns] pues pues pues
265 Jim I’m getting emails about it
266 Ravi Sı́
(‘yes’)
267 Jim by all these dumb people
268 Hannah cómo se dice even?
(‘how do you say even?’)
269 aun (.) no it’s not
(‘even no it’s not’)
270 Ravi I don’t know
271 um just put down pues
272 that usually fits in everywhere
273 Hannah pues [laughing]
ANNE POMERANTZ AND NANCY D. BELL 569
At the beginning of this extract, Jim and Ravi are discussing an upcoming
assignment for a political science class, while Hannah struggles to write a
summary of her group’s discussion on cults. In line 264 Ravi yawns and says
‘pues, pues, pues’ and again this utterance is difficult to interpret definitively.
In line 4, Addison exclaims, ‘bueno morado’ and laughs. He then says the
word ‘colour’ (morado is the Spanish word for purple) in English. Addison’s
utterance, however, is not only a clever observation of the phonetic
similarity between enamorado and morado, two semantically unrelated words.4
It also seems to be an allusion to the fact that the teacher has assigned names
to the discussion groups and this one is, in fact, ‘the purple group’. Indeed,
his code-switch to English in line 5 seems to underscore the fact that he has
said something ambiguous, as he both laughs and offers his classmates
additional information with which to interpret the preceding utterance.
As such, line 5 seems to mean ‘good job purple group’ and could be refer-
encing the way in which his classmates have used both Spanish and class-
room language appropriately to negotiate a misunderstanding. This episode
of unsanctioned language play, which allows Addison to experiment with
ANNE POMERANTZ AND NANCY D. BELL 571
a kind of language use that the ‘regular’ discussion/debate talk does not
permit, resonates with Ravi’s manipulation of pues. While Addison’s foray
into the realm of the symbolic is brief, nevertheless it stands as an act of
a (multi)competence that extends beyond the confines of transactional
Luı́s says that he will not marry Fatima and she pretends to cry dramatically.
At this point, the following unscripted exchange takes place:
1 Fatima él es un
Throughout the episode, the participants speak through the voices of typical
talk show guests, asking personal questions, revealing secrets, and making
outlandish accusations, linguistic acts that would not typically occur in a
debate/small-group discussion. As the story-line unfolds, the learners build
on one another’s contributions by appropriating chunks of discourse that are
associated with such talk in English (cf. Tarone 2000).5 This exchange illus-
trates the learners’ awareness and selection of communicative repertoires
that extend beyond those privileged in typical FL classrooms. In lines 2
and 6, Fatima insults Luı́s by calling him an ‘animal’, a language function
that is not usually permissible (although frequently present) in classroom
settings. While we cannot say with certainty whether Fatima’s choice of this
particular constellation of linguistic forms was based on her knowledge of
insult routines in English or Spanish (‘he’s an animal’ is a common insult in
both languages), nevertheless it shows her using a communicative repertoire
that is conventionally associated with both the situation at hand and her talk
show identity. Moreover, because this exchange occurs in the context of
a role play, it allows Fatima to take some risks. Should her facetious insult
misfire linguistically or socially (i.e. should she actually insult the ‘real’ Luı́s),
she can always back away from her utterance by saying that she was ‘just
playing’—a stance that is not as available during more ‘serious’ activities
(see, however, Example 2).
The teams then took turns asking each other the questions, earning points
for correct answers. In the following extract, we see Ravi engaged in a
serious effort to render a mathematical word problem into Spanish.
Leah immediately recognizes the structure of his utterance and voices her
dislike of word problems. Ravi, however, is not swayed and continues on
with his effort, eventually asking his classmates for assistance, as his
communicative repertoire does not seem to include the language of math.
12 Ravi por cuántas horas or cuántos minutos necesita manejar por avregar6
(‘for how many hours or how many minutes does he need to drive to
average’)
13 cómo se dice average?
(‘how do you say average’?)
14 Shauna Mm
15 Ravi por avregar avre
(‘in order to average’)
16 Fatima median median
17 Ravi oh por su median uh speed es sesenta milas por hora
(‘oh in order to median uh speed is 70 miles per hour’)
Mistaking Fatima’s offer in line 16 of the noun ‘median’ for the verb
‘average’, Ravi again tries to phrase his question. Finally, after numerous
unsatisfactory attempts, he leaves the group and asks the teacher for assis-
tance. Here, it is important recognize that despite the linguistic difficulties
this ‘translation’ activity presents, Ravi seems deeply invested in both
articulating the question and making sure that his team uses it in the contest.
This episode differs quite a bit from the previous examples that feature Ravi
in that here his attempt to come up with the Spanish word for ‘average’
(lines 13 and 15) does not seem playful at all. While he adds Spanish verbal
morphology to the English word, the resulting novel form does not meet
with his classmates’ recognition or even laughter. This bid for vocabulary
assistance is constructed as serious and not an attempt to engage in either
form play or what Jane Hill (1993, 1998) has termed ‘mock Spanish’
(see also Barrett 2006). Yet, in subsequent turns, Ravi reveals that part of his
motivation for translating this word problem accurately rests on the fact that
it is a trick question, ‘they [the other team] will think this is pretty easy but
it’s not . . . it’s a trick question.’ He wants to use it in the service of play.
As such, an anticipated play frame necessitates the use of a highly specialized
communicative repertoire and Ravi must tap his instructor’s expertise in
order to access the necessary linguistic forms. Here, it is the desire to play
that seems to be driving Ravi’s investment in expanding his knowledge
of the language of word problems.
574 LEARNING TO PLAY, PLAYING TO LEARN
CONCLUSIONS
In this classroom, as in many FL classrooms, what counted as legitimate
language use was narrowly defined. Language play was acceptable only under
I like [working with] Ravi for kind of the like wrong reason, cause
we’ll always like talk about something that has like no relation to
it and go off on like a long tangent. So I guess he’s someone that
I shouldn’t work with frequently, but I do like working with him
(interview, Kevin).
As the above comment reveals, play and those who engage in it were
constructed as activities/people one should try to avoid in the classroom, no
matter how tempting or enjoyable. Likewise, even Ravi himself was cognizant
of the prohibition against play in this and most FL classrooms, stating during a
private interview that frequent disciplinary sanctions in a middle school
Spanish course had taught him that ‘classroom antics had to be curbed in order
to pass’. While not all play involves the complex use of multiple languages, we
argue that in FL classrooms the potential benefits of play are ignored and little
effort is made to include such creative forms of language use.
This view comes at a time when both the construct of L2 competence and
the role of language play are being subjected to scrutiny. Our analysis shows
a qualitative difference in the language used during sanctioned and unsanc-
tioned play, as well as in non-playful discourse, which comprised the bulk of
interaction in this classroom. Following Hall et al. (2006), we have advocated
a view of learners as multicompetent language users (Cook 1991, 1992,
1999), whose language knowledge is grounded in the actual linguistic
practices in which they engage. In examining the use of language play across
activities we have indeed seen multicompetent learners. In Examples 2–5,
the play in which the learners participated offered both a context for and
evidence of their linguistic expertise. Thus, Examples 2 and 3 show learners
enacting, through their use of Spanish, awareness of conventional FL
classroom discourse, while at the same time, constructing creative and
playful subversions of the topic (military dictatorship as the best form of
government) and of semantic possibilities (extending the use of pues). In this
way, they walk a fine line between doing school and just playing around.
In Example 4, however, the student seems to recognize that his pun is a
school-sanctioned display of Spanish knowledge, despite its playful nature.
ANNE POMERANTZ AND NANCY D. BELL 575
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS
? rising intonation
__ stressed word/syllable
CAP loud
[text] commentary
[ overlapping turns
(1) approximate length of pause in seconds
((xxx)) speech hard to discern
(‘gloss’) gloss of Spanish utterance
italics Spanish language utterance
bold linguistic resource of interest to discussion
(.) pause of less than one second
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Janet Maybin, Joan Swann, Guy Cook, and three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful and generous comments.
3 The data were collected in 2000, a time 5 While such shows were popular on
when Spanish-language music, like Spanish-language television at the
Reggaetón, was just gaining popularity time of data collection, no overt
in the USA. Ravi seems to be imagining linguistic tokens point definitively to
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: Byrnes, H. and H. H. Maxim. 2004. Advanced
University of Texas Press. Foreign Language Learning: A challenge to college
Barrett, R. 2006. ‘Language ideology and racial programs. Boston: Heinle Thomson.
inequality: Competing functions of Spanish in an Carter, R. 2004. Language and Creativity: The Art of
Anglo-owned restaurant,’ Language in Society 35: Common Talk. New York: Routledge.
163–204. Cook, G. 1997. ‘Language play, language
Bateson, G. 1972/1955. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. learning,’ English Language Teaching Journal
New York: Ballantine Books. 51/3: 224–31.
Bell, N. 2005. ‘Exploring L2 language play as an aid Cook, G. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning.
to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS Oxford: Oxford University Press.
interaction,’ Applied Linguistics 26/2: 192–218. Cook, G. 2001. ‘ ‘‘The philosopher pulled the lower
jaw of the hen’’: Ludicrous invented sentences
Bell, N. 2006. ‘Interactional adjustments in
in language teaching,’ Applied Linguistics 22/3:
humorous intercultural communication,’
366–87.
Intercultural Pragmatics 3/1: 1–28.
Cook, V. 1991. ‘The poverty of stimulus argument
Belz, J. 2002a. ‘Second language play as a repre-
and multicompetence,’ Second Language Research
sentation of the multicompetent self in foreign
7/2: 103–17.
language study,’ Journal for Language Identity, and
Cook, V. 1992. ‘Evidence for multi-competence,’
Education 1/1: 13–39.
Language Learning 42/4: 557–91.
Belz, J. 2002b. ‘The myth of the deficient Cook, V. 1999. ‘Going beyond the native speaker
communicator,’ Language Teaching Research 6/1: in language teaching,’ TESOL Quarterly 33/2:
59–82. 185–209.
Belz, J. and J. Reinhardt. 2004. ‘Aspects of Cook, V. 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon:
advanced foreign language proficiency: Multilingual Matters.
Internet-mediated German language play,’ Garces-Conejos, P. 2006. ‘Interlanguage prag-
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14/3: matics: A response to Andrew Cohen’s ‘‘Stra-
324–62. tegies for learning and performing L2 speech
Broner, M. and E. Tarone. 2001. ‘Is it fun? acts’’ published in vol. 2, no. 3, of Intercultural
Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immer- Pragmatics,’ Intercultural Pragmatics, 3/2: 213–23.
sion classroom,’ The Modern Language Journal Golombek, P. and S. R. Jordan. 2005. ‘Becoming
85/3: 363–79. ‘‘black lambs’’ not ‘‘parrots’’: A poststructuralist
Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English. Clevedon: orientation to intelligibility and identity,’ TESOL
Multilingual Matters. Quarterly 39/3: 513–33.
Byrnes, H. 2006. ‘Perspectives: Interrogating Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies.
communicative competence as a framework for Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
collegiate foreign language study,’ Modern Hall, J. K., A. Cheng, and M. Carlson. 2006.
Language Journal 90/2: 244–66. ‘Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory
578 LEARNING TO PLAY, PLAYING TO LEARN
of language knowledge,’ Applied Linguistics 27/2: Pavlenko, A. 2003. ‘ ‘‘I never knew I was a
220–40. bilingual’’: Reimagining teacher identities
Hill, J. 1993. ‘Is it really ‘‘No Problemo’’?’ in in TESOL,’ Journal of Language, Identity, and
R. Queen and R. Barrett (eds): SALSA 1: Proceed- Education 2/4: 251–68.