Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Adopting a single case analysis, this article examines how the learning of the Japanese word is occasioned in a bilingual lunch conversation through enactments that are employed for three interactional purposes: (a) renewal of laughter, (b) vocabulary explanation (VE), and (c) demonstration of understanding. The interactional analysis is enhanced by Praat to respecify the role of prosody in enactments. I first describe how , the of a humor sequence, becomes a through a repair sequence. I then analyze a reinitiated joking sequence, where the VE recipient categorizes one of the co-participants as and escalates the categorization through multimodal enactments. I argue that this jocular mockery, occasioning a demonstration of understanding, exhibits that the learning opportunity has been taken. Furthermore, I discuss how a repair work embedded within a larger humor-oriented activity may afford resources for language learning outside of the classroom, while sacrificing progressivity for intersubjectivity. The fact that the VE recipient, after intersubjectivity has been achieved, resumes the original activity of pursuing humor through the same means employed for the explanation of the target word offers interesting implications for CA-SLA and pragmatics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arundale, R. B.
    (2010) Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbieri, F.
    (2009) Quotative ‘be like’ in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay?English World-Wide, 30(1), 68–90. doi:  10.1075/eww.30.1.05bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.30.1.05bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, J.
    (1993) Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3(4), 387–409. doi:  10.1075/prag.3.4.02bil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.3.4.02bil [Google Scholar]
  4. (2014) Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 52–71. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2019) Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 150, 80–91. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2020) Praat (Version 6.1.16). Phonetic Sciences. Retrieved on28 June 2021fromwww.praat.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burch, A. R., & Kasper, G.
    (2016) Like Godzilla: Enactments and formulations in telling a disaster story in Japanese. InM. T. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.), Emotion in multilingual interaction (pp.57–85). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.266.03bur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.266.03bur [Google Scholar]
  8. Burdelski, M., & Mitsuhashi, K.
    (2010) “She thinks you’re kawaii”: Socializing affect, gender, and relationships in a Japanese preschool. Language in Society, 39(1), 65–93. doi:  10.1017/S0047404509990650
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990650 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bushnell, C.
    (2009) “Lego my keego!”: An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 49–69. doi:  10.1093/applin/amn033
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn033 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J.
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. doi:  10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dingemanse, M.
    (2012) Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones: Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 654–672. doi:  10.1002/lnc3.361
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361 [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, P.
    (1987) Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253. doi:  10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  13. Endo, T.
    (2018) The Japanese change-of-state tokens a and aa in responsive units. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 151–166. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2018) ‘We’re learning a lot of new words’: Encountering new L2 vocabulary outside of class. Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement 2018), 46–63. doi:  10.1111/modl.12451
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12451 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eskildsen, S. W., & Majlesi, A. R.
    (2018) Learnables and teachables in second language talk: Advancing a social reconceptualization of central SLA tenets. Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement 2018), 3–10. doi:  10.1111/modl.12462
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12462 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G.
    (2017) Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 143–164. doi:  10.1093/applin/amv010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W.
    (Eds.) (2015) Advances in membership categorisation analysis. Sage. 10.4135/9781473917873
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fujii, S.
    (2006) Quoted thought and speech using the mitai-na ‘be-like’ noun-modifying construction. InS. Suzuki (Ed.). Emotive communication in Japanese (pp.53–95). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.151.05fuj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.151.05fuj [Google Scholar]
  19. Glenn, P. J.
    (2003) Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodwin, C.
    (2018) Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haugh, M.
    (2010) Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hester, S., & Eglin, P.
    (Eds.) (1997) Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holt, E.
    (1996) Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holt, E., & Clift, R.
    (Eds.) (2007) Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–23). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  27. Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A.
    (2018) Explaining Hooke’s law: Definitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 694–717. doi:  10.1093/applin/amw025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw025 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kasper, G.
    (2004) Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567. doi:  10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑18‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-18-.x [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), 11–36. doi:  10.1515/iral.2009.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kasper, G., & Burch, A. R.
    (2016) Focus on form in the wild. InR. A. van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp.198–232). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095315‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095315-011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kasper, G., & Prior, M. T.
    (2015) “You said that?”: Other-initiations of repair addressed to represented talk. Text & Talk, 35(6), 815–844. doi:  10.1515/text‑2015‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0024 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J.
    (2018) Epistemological reorientations and L2 interactional settings: A postscript to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement 2018), 82–90. doi:  10.1111/modl.12463
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12463 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Y.
    (2012) Practices for initial recognitional reference and learning opportunities in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 709–729. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kita, S.
    (1997) Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35(2), 379–415. doi:  10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.379
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.379 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kōjien
    Kōjien (2018) Burikko. InKōjien (7th ed., p.17444). Iwanami Shoten.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Koole, T.
    (2010) Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209. doi:  10.1080/08351811003737846
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846 [Google Scholar]
  37. Koshik, I., & Seo, M. S.
    (2012) Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text & Talk, 32(2), 167–189. doi:  10.1515/text‑2012‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Majlesi, A. R., & Broth, M.
    (2012) Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 193–207. doi:  10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Markee, N.
    (1994) Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. InE. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp.89–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Maynard, S. K.
    (2016) Fluid orality in the discourse of Japanese popular culture. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.263
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.263 [Google Scholar]
  41. Miller, L.
    (2004) You are doing burikko!: Censoring/scrutinizing artificers of cute femininity in Japanese. InS. Okamoto & J. S. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology: Cultural models and real people (pp.148–165). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mondada, L.
    (2014a) The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2014b) The temporal orders of multiactivity: Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. InP. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.). Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp.33–76). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.187.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon [Google Scholar]
  44. Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K.
    (2016) Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6(1), 1–53. doi:  10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon [Google Scholar]
  45. Mori, J.
    (2004) Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550. doi:  10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑17‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-17-.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Mortensen, K.
    (2011) Doing word explanation in interaction. InG. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp.135–162). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Morton, T.
    (2015) Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nation, I. S. P.
    (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. O’Reilly, M.
    (2005) “Active noising”: The use of noises in talk, the case of onomatopoeia, abstract sounds, and the functions they serve in therapy. Text, 25(6), 745–762. doi:  10.1515/text.2005.25.6.745
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.6.745 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. M. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of social action (pp.57–101). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sacks, H.
    (1992) Lectures on conversation, Vol. I & II. (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A.
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.15–21). Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1987) Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J.
    (2011) Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245–251. doi:  10.1177/1754073911402396
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402396 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sidnell, J.
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stivers, T.
    (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. doi:  10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stokoe, E.
    (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. doi:  10.1177/1461445612441534
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
  59. Svennevig, J.
    (2018) “What’s it called in Norwegian?” Acquiring L2 vocabulary items in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 68–77. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.017 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tai, K. W. H., & Brandt, A.
    (2018) Creating an imaginary context: Teacher’s use of embodied enactments in addressing learner initiatives in a beginner-level adult ESOL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 244–266. doi:  10.1080/19463014.2018.1496345
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1496345 [Google Scholar]
  61. Theodórsdóttir, G.
    (2011a) Language learning activities in everyday situations: Insisting on TCU completion in second language talk. InG. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp.185–208). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2011b) Second language interaction for business and learning. InJ. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Interactional competence and development (pp.93–118). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑006
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-006 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2018) L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement 2018), 30–45. doi:  10.1111/modl.12457
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12457 [Google Scholar]
  64. Traunmüller, H., & Eriksson, A.
    (1995) The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults [Manuscript]. https://www2.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/aktupub.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wagner, J.
    (2015) Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. InT. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp.75–101). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110378528‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-006 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wagner, J., & Gardner, R.
    (2004) Introduction. InR. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp.1–17). Continuum. 10.1142/9781860945397_0001
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9781860945397_0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Walker, G.
    (2013) Phonetics and prosody in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.455–474). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Waring, H. Z.
    (2011) Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. doi:  10.1080/19463014.2011.614053
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614053 [Google Scholar]
  69. Waring, H. Z., Creider, S. C., & DiFelice Box, C.
    (2013) Explaining vocabulary in the second language classroom: A conversation analytic account. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(4), 249–264. doi:  10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Watson, D. R.
    (1978) Categorization, authorization and blame: Negotiation in conversation. Sociology, 12(1), 105–113. 10.1177/003803857801200106
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200106 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1997) Some general reflections on ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. InS. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp.49–75). University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J.
    (2010) Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 57–84. doi:  10.1080/08351810903471506
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471506 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error