Abstract
This chapter continues to focus on the same three groups that feature in Chapter 4. As well as exploited play-as-rehearsal frames for their own humorous ends, the chapter highlights the ways that learners often generate humour by recontextualising and re-accenting language they have encountered collectively which had originally encoded different intentions and meanings. As such, the language of play is often used to metonymically refer to prior events experienced together by the group members and, in the process, helps to build up a pool of significant common reference points which symbolise their shared history. Play allows the learners to take ownership of the language by infusing it with their own communicative intentions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinner_for_One (accessed 13.06.2019).
References
Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984a). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984b). Rabelais and his world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.
Bell, N. D. (2007). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.002.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. Abingdon: Routledge.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. London: Routledge.
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003.
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. London: Penguin Books.
DaSilva Iddings, A. C., & McCafferty, S. G. (2007). Carnival in a mainstream kindergarten classroom: A Bakhtinian analysis of second language learners’ off-task behaviors. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00508.x.
Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Eisenlohr, P. (2010). Materialities of entextualization: The domestication of sound reproduction in Mauritian Muslim devotional practices. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 314–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01072.x.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harder, P. (1980). Discourse as self-expression—On the reduced personality of the second-language learner. Applied Linguistics, 1, 262–270.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership style. Humor, 19(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.006.
Kay, D. A., & Anglin, J. M. (1982). Overextension and underextension in the child’s expressive and receptive speech. Journal of Child Language, 9, 83–98.
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maybin, J. (1994). Children’s voices: Talk, knowledge and identity. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context (pp. 131–150). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Morreall, J. (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humour. New York: State University of New York.
Pennycook, A. (2007). “The rotation gets thick. The constraints get thin”: Creativity, recontextualization, and difference. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm043.
Rampton, B. (1999). Dichotomies, difference, and ritual in second language learning and teaching. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.316.
Rampton, B. (2006a). Language crossing. In J. Maybin & J. Swann (Eds.), The art of English: Everyday creativity (pp. 131–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rampton, B. (2006b). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Saussure, F. de. (1959). Course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (2006). Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text and Talk, 26(4–5), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.024.
Trester, A. M. (2012). Framing entextualization in improv: Intertextuality as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 41(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000061.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hann, D. (2020). Evoking Frames Through Associated Language. In: Spontaneous Play in the Language Classroom. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26304-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26304-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26303-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26304-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)