Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:28:59.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Language, Creativity, and Language Play in a Second Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Nancy Bell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the late 1990s, the field of applied linguistics has seen a revival of interest in the topic of linguistic creativity and language play, with several theoretical works spawning a variety of empirical studies of (second language) L2 learners. This chapter reviews recent literature in order to examine the reciprocal relationship between formulaic language and L2 language play. Formulaic language provides a point of reference against which other uses can be recognized as creative or playful. At the same time, language play can also create new linguistic conventions. Thus, while the relationship between formulaic language and language play has not been explicitly addressed, as the examples presented here will demonstrate, formulaic language is a necessary part of much language play. This article begins by theorizing the relationship between formulaic and playful language. This relationship is then examined in terms of functions, age differences, and media differences, and the article closes with a number of suggestions for future research.

Type
SECTION C: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 189 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Evaldsson, A.-C., & Cekaite, A. (2010). “‘Schwedis’ he can't even say Swedish”: Subverting and reproducing institutionalized norms for language use in multilingual peer groups. Pragmatics, 20, 587–604.

This article represents a continuation of the excellent work coming out of Sweden on multilingual language play, identity construction, and socialization among children (e.g., Cekaite & Aronsson, 2004, 2005; Evaldsson, 2005). The data, analyzed through the lens of conversation analysis, are drawn from a long-term ethnographic investigation of two Swedish elementary school contexts, both made up of a multiethnic, primarily immigrant population. Here the authors reported on the ways in which language minority children in these contexts used utterances that deviate from standard Swedish to tease their peers, thereby reinforcing monolingual norms. At the same time, they exploited minority languages to circumvent and subvert classroom sanctions against the use of so-called bad (i.e., insulting, sexist, threatening) language. The examples presented in this article are particularly illustrative of what Carter (2004) called pattern-forming play, where speakers align themselves over time through their playful repetition and recycling of various forms.

Garland, J. (2010). “I am under cool”: Humorous mock translation as a claim to expertise in an Irish language class. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4, 27–44.

In this excellent article the author examined how humorous displays of knowledge about L2 formulaic sequences are exploited as a way of demonstrating expertise in and authentic knowledge of the L2. The adults in the classroom under investigation were learning Irish, and approximately half of them were from Ireland, while the other half represented a mix of international visitors. As the title suggests, students often engaged in “mock translation,” providing literal English translations of Irish expressions. Such activity was used both as a way of mitigating the face-threat brought on by lack of linguistic knowledge, as well as to display their knowledge of Irish even when they were missing particular words or structure. One example from this article is provided in the preceding text.

Gardner, S. (2008). Transforming talk and phonics practice: Or, how do crabs clap? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 261–284.

With public school reforms that increasingly regiment teachers’ days, script their language, and limit their autonomy, this description of how one teacher transformed a traditional literacy activity designed for native English-speaking students into one that helped her language minority students should be of interest. For the activity, students were given cards labeled “yes” on one side and “no” on the other. The original activity asked them to quickly decode a yes or no question, many of which would be considered silly (e.g., “Do slugs swing?”), and hold up the side of the card that represented their answer. The teacher altered this work with formulaic sequences by requiring the children to justify their responses, and in doing so, transformed the activity into a game. As the children took ownership of the game, they continued to develop it, playing with language more and in increasingly sophisticated ways. Gardner suggested that not only did altering task into a language play activity scaffold their L2 development, but it also opened up for them new, empowering ways of seeing language and learning.

Kim, Y.-H., & Kellogg, D. (2007). Rules out of roles: Differences in play language and their developmental significance. Applied Linguistics, 28, 25–45.

This research, too, examines children's L2 use and development, and it is particularly important to this review as the only work that explicitly addresses the links among formulaic language, language play, and L2 development. Kim and Kellogg compared the quality of language that emerges in two different types of play: role-plays and rule-based games. They demonstrate how, in role-plays, young Korean learners of English tended to produce less complex language and more dispreferred responses. Rule-based games, on the other hand, encouraged more discourse complexity and bound initiates.

Lytra, V. (2008). Playful talk, learners’ play frames and the construction of identities. In Martin-Jones, M., de Mejia, A. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 3. Discourse and education (pp. 185–197). New York, NY: Springer.

Although formulaic language is not part of this contribution, Lytra provided a useful review of recent and foundational scholarship relating to language play. The review is limited to research that took an ethnographic or social interactionist perspective on language play and identity; however, this is not a shortcoming, as this type of work represents the majority of research on the topic.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humor in NS-NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and non-playful incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62, 236–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 324–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2009). Meaning-making as dialogic process: Official and carnival lives in the language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8, 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushnell, C. (2009). “Lego my keego!”: An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 30, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (1999). Common language: Corpus, creativity, and cognition. Language and Literature, 8, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2004). Repetition and joking in children's second language conversations: Playful recyclings in an immersion classroom. Discourse Studies, 6, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children's L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 51, 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DaSilva Iddings, A., & McCafferty, S. (2007). Carnival in a mainstream kindergarten classroom: A Bakhtinian analysis of second language learners’ off-task behaviors. Modern Language Journal, 91, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evaldsson, A.-C. (2005). Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in a multiethnic peer group. Discourse and Society, 16, 763–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evaldsson, A.-C., & Cekaite, A. (2010). “‘Schwedis’ he can't even say Swedish”: Subverting and reproducing institutionalized norms for language use in multilingual peer groups. Pragmatics, 20, 587–604.Google Scholar
Garland, J. (2010). “I am under cool”: Humorous mock-translation as a claim to expertise in an Irish language class. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, S. (2008). Transforming talk and phonics practice: Or, how do crabs clap? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, K. (2009). Breaking in and spinning out: Repetition and de-calibration in Thai children's play genres. Language in Society, 38, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, T. (2010). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2008). Literacy and technology in French language teaching: Issues and prospects. In Ayoun, D. (Ed.), Studies in French applied linguistics (pp. 255–294). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.-H., & Kellogg, D. (2007). Rules out of roles: Differences in play language and their developmental significance. Applied Linguistics, 28, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In Glass, W. R. & Perez-Leroux, A. T. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3–24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leppanen, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2009). Language policy in the making: An analysis of bilingual gaming activities. Language Policy, 8, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lytra, V. (2007). Play frames and social identities. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lytra, V. (2008). Playful talk, learners’ play frames and the construction of identities. In Martin-Jones, M., de Mejia, A. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 3. Discourse and education (pp. 185–197). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Kwak, H.-Y. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisition. In Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2010). Bilingual practices and the social organization of video gaming activities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3012–3030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009a). Collaborative game-play as a site for participation and situated learning of a second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009b). Other repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a video game. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users.Applied Linguistics, 28, 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2011). Humor as pedagogical safe house in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (suppl.), 148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2007). Bumping into creative idiomaticity. English Today, 23, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T. (2000). The acquisitional grammaticalization of unreal conditionals and modality in L2 oral English: A longitudinal perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2005). Formulaic language: Fixed and varied. Elia, 6, 13–39.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. (2000a). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 115–131). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. (2000b). Spoken artistry: Performance in a second language classrooms. In Hall, J. K. & Verplaetse, L. (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Talmy, S. (2010). Achieving distinction through Mock ESL: A critical pragmatics analysis of classroom talk in a high school. In Kasper, G., Nguyen, H. T., Yoshimi, D., & Yoshioka, J. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning 12 (pp. 215–254). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation and second language acquisition. In Swierzbin, B., Morris, F., Anderson, M. E., Klee, C., & Tarone, E. (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 31–54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2006). Fossilization, social context, and language play. In Han, Z. & Odlin, T. (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 157–172). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Thorne, S., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tin, T. B. (2011). Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied Linguistics, 32, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2007). Riddles and puns in the ESL classroom: Adults talk to learn. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: Empirical studies (pp. 143–167). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Dam, J. (2002). Ritual, face, and play in a first English lesson: Bootstrapping a classroom culture. In Kramsch, C. (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 237–65). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I., & Fuchs, C. (2009). Does CMC promote language play? Calico Journal, 27, 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergriff, I., & Fuchs, C. (in press). Humor support in synchronous computer-mediated classroom discussions. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind In Society: The Development Of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, L.-C., & Hyun, E. (2009). A study of sociolinguistic characteristics of Taiwan children's peer talk in a Mandarin English-speaking preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, C. (2004). It's just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 69–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/pdf/warner.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Communication, 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, D., Young, M., Wagner, M., & Brewer, R. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in game-based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar