LANGUAGE AND INTER-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION SYMPOSIUM
The Role of Interpersonal Relations in the Second Language Classroom
Olga Sánchez-Castro
Flinders University
INTRODUCTION
Humour has only begun to receive attention in second language learning research
recently. Studies on first language (L1) communication have identified a variety of
communicative functions in the use of humour. For example, Veatch (1998) maintains
that humour has an important communicative function for social interaction. Both
positive and negative judgements can be transmitted through use of humour, with
corresponding social consequences, including on the one hand, release of tension and
on the other hand, aggression, perceived superiority and ridicule.
Similarly, despite the role language play has to L1 development as it relates to
language learning (Cazden, 1976; Nelson, 1989), and although language play (LP) has
been claimed to be used regularly in second language informal conversations (Tarone,
2000), researchers of second language learning (SLL) have only begun to study the
functions of LP for second language (L2) learners.
There has also been interest in humour in L1 computer-mediated communication
(CMC), and although humour has been shown to play a particularly important role in
community formation, group identity and solidarity in on-line communities (Baym,
1995, Rheingold, 1993; Wilkins, 1991), very little work has been done on humour in
L2 CMC.
In addition, although language learning is part of a process of socialization through
which the learner acquires particular status and relationships in the social environment
where the learning takes place (Wan Shun, 2004), relatively little of past research on
interpersonal processes, that is relations between individuals among members of a
group, has focused on the educational domain, particularly in SLL, and even less
when it relates to computer-assisted language learning (CALL).
Interpersonal processes are important because, at the individual level, can foster
motivation and interaction. However, they can also produce anxiety about how one is
perceived and accepted by others. At the level of whole groups, if well functioning
they can promote enhanced self-efficacy and cooperation. However, a poorly
functioning group can result in apathy and even due to high levels of anxiety, aversion
to interaction (Ehrman & Dörney, 1998).
Definition and Theory of Humour
Definitions of humour focus either on the speaker intention, or on the audience
interpretation. Others identify humour as utterances that are intended by the speaker
to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants (Hay, 2001;
Holmes & Hay, 1997). As this study explores the use of humour in socialization,
Holmes and Hay’s definition has been selected for the exploration of humour as a
mechanism for social support and affiliation.
Most theories of humour maintain that it arises out of sudden “appropriate
incongruity” (Oring, 1992). However, not all instances of incongruity are found to be
funny by all receptors. Humour is embedded in shared knowledge, shared codes and
shared emotional significance that provide its meaning, and determine its
appropriateness (Chiaro, 1992; Oring, 1992). Hence, as a situated performance,
incongruities have meaning in a given socio-cultural situation.
Underlying this view of humour, as a social phenomenon is the theory of humour
developed by Veach (1998). His theory of humour states that three sufficient
conditions need to occur concurrently. The conditions describe 1. a subjective state of
apparent emotional absurdity. 2. This absurdity is perceived as such as it constitutes a
violation of some affective commitment of the perceiver (“subjective moral
principle”) and 3. at the same time, the situation is seen simultaneously as normal.
Both views, normality (N) and violation (V), are views of a situation that carry
emotional or affective content. N and V interpretations are not independent, they
interact and hence, the perceiver to identify the situation as humorous needs not to be
strongly attached to the principle violated (that is, not to feel offended), in order to be
able to hold both views at the same time.
2
From this view, shared humour requires shared affective evaluations. Hence, for
shared humour to occur, active listening and agreement of moral interpretation is
required. Moreover, since failure of shared humour may offend, or confuse, the
speaker needs to tailor humour to the listener. Thus, shared humour implies highquality communication as well as shared affect and attitudes.
Sociolinguistic Functions of L1 Humour and L2 Humorous Language Play
Humour serves a wide range of functions in social interaction. Besides entertaining
(Holmes, 2000), humour can be used to negotiate identities (Boxer & Cortés-Conde,
1997), to create and affirm affiliation (Boxer & Cortés-Conde, 1997; Norrick, 1993),
to communicate social norms or to criticize (Norrick, 1993), to protect one’s own
identity , ie “save face” (Holmes, 2000; Norrick, 1993; Zajdman, 1995), to mitigate
face-threatening acts (Holmes, 2000), or to hide embarrassment (Nijolt, 2002) and to
dominate a discussion or change its topic as in Adelsward & Oberg (1998) study,
where humorous events seemed to be related to discourse boundaries (topic shifts).
However, the primary function of much humour is to reinforce solidarity between
group members (Holmes & Marra, 2002). In this context, humour is use in creating
and constructing relationships by invoking fantasy and anecdotal humorous
narratives. Both fantasy and narratives require time and many turns to be developed
hence, they encourage participation in the joint construction of humour and in doing
so they express commonality, in the sense of humour, solidarity and support (Hay,
2001; Holmes, 2000; Holmes & Marra, 2002).
L2 researchers on the other hand, have only recently started to examine the functions
of humorous language play for L2 learners (Belz, 2002, Cook, 1997; Kramsch and
Sullivan, 1996; Tarone, 2000). SLL researchers have defined language play in two
senses. Lantolf (1997) uses the term in the sense of “rehearsal”. However, the term is
more frequently used to refer to the use of language for fun and amusement, for
example Sullivan (2000) frames it as play that entails fun and that it is often
accompanied by laughter, including teasing and joking.
3
Similarly, Cook (1997) defines LP as a social, fun-loving, exuberant speech that first
and additional language learners engage in regardless of age. In a later study, Cook
(2000), explains that LP entails a broad range of activities and within those that not
only entertain but cause enjoyment are duelling, jokes and narratives. These, he places
in a category of LP that is termed “humorous language play”.
L2 researchers have suggested important roles of LP to SLL. Bell’s (2005) study,
argues that LP may result in deeper processing of lexical items by making them more
memorable, thus helping acquisition of vocabulary and semantic fields. Kramsch and
Sullivan (1996) claim another role for L2 LP, that of raising learner awareness of the
links between L2 forms and meaning.
Furthermore, although Tarone (2000) concludes that LP is not necessary for second
language acquisition (SLA), she suggests that LP may facilitate SLA by a) creating a
playful atmosphere that decreases anxiety, thus encouraging interaction, b) increasing
the memorability of language associated with the positive affective state, c)
encouraging the mastery of additional target language and registers through role-play
and “double-voicing” and most importantly d) promoting creative language use which
may, in turn, push reorganization of the interlanguage rule system.
From an interactional perspective, Norrick’s (1993) research suggests that humour
plays an important role in socialisation. This has been corroborated by Bongartz &
Schneider’s (2003) findings in L2 language play. These findings indicate that
collaborative construction of humour as language play contributes to the achievement
of affiliation and fulfilment of the affective function of language, ie constructing
friendship by displaying social relationships.
Belz’s (2002) study, also illustrates from the perspective of the learner, how it can
reveal the ways learners construct new selves and new social relations. The
construction of social identity through humour is particularly important as it plays the
pragmatic function of social inclusion and/or exclusion (Cook, 2000).
4
Features of L2 CMC for SLL
CMC research has examined some of the linguistic, interactional and interpersonal
dimensions to second language learning. Research suggest that CMC can encourage
learners’ participation in conversational exchanges, and that this can provide
opportunities for the development of their communicative competence in the target
language.
Learners’ communicative practices change significantly when discussions move
online because of the medium, defined by its use and shaped by its users (Leh, 1999,
Meskil, 1999). Some of those changes are due to the intrinsic characteristics of CMC.
They include increased use of personal addresses, use of markers to relate to a
conversational thread and in synchronous CMC (Chat) non-conventional turn-taking,
which can engender coherence as participants do not follow linear sequencing and
jump in and out of topics.
However, these changes in communication patterns are related not only to the
characteristics of online communication (hybrid between oral and written
communication) but also as the histories of use and practice have an effect on the
processes of communication thereby also on the relationship building of communities
(Thorne, 2000).
Overall, research indicates that the written nature of CMC and the possibility to
participate at one’s own pace have been identified as providing a number of
advantages, including:
a) reduced cognitive load due to reduced constraints such as sound recognition and
additional time delay in composing messages (Abrams, 2003; Lamy & Goodfellow,
1999), b) reduced anxiety as potentially intimidating non-verbal clues are absent and
the presence of positive attitudes towards online communication (Finholt & Sproull,
1990; González-Bueno, 1998), and c) increased equalisation as learners have greater
control over their contribution and discourse management. (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995;
Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996).
5
While CMC has received recognition for its potential ability to promote SLL for the
features described above, and has begun to illuminate the linguistic, interactional and
interpersonal dimensions to text-based interaction (Blake, 2000; Chun, 1994; Herring,
1996; Kern, 1995, Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Ortega, 1997; Pellettieri, 2000, Thorne,
2000), some researchers (e.g. Sproull & Kiesler, 1991) have found CMC to be an
inadequate tool for sharing emotion due to the lack of nonverbal “cues”, filtering out
important paralinguistic aspects of communication that are present in face-to-face
(FtF) such as stress, volume, intonation…etc, which also can define the social
situation, and participant identities and affiliation.
Some CMC research has also argued that the nature of the system leads to
depersonalisation (Baron, 1984, Parks & Floyd, 1996), takes time away from “reallife” human interaction (Stoll, 1996) and “cultivates” argumentative discourse such as
flaming (Mabry, 1997). However, it has also been noted that adhesion to social
conventions such as politeness is in fact enacted in online interaction between
participants that do have FtF contact (Campbell and Wickman, 2000).
Furthermore, CMC is also claimed to have a highly intimate content and a purely
social function (McCormick and McCormick, 1992). Participants in online networks,
according to Wellman & Gulia (1995), have reported to seek not only information but
also social support, and a sense of belonging.
Humour and Social identity in CMC
Online tools such as “chat” have been argued to be more about building and
solidifying relationships than exchanging information (Meakins & Rintel, 2000).
Conversational use of humour has been reported to foster just this. Baym’s (1995)
study provides evidence of community formation and how L1 humour can be critical
to creating social meaning on-line. She describes how group identity is created
through references to shared knowledge, as participants drew on previous messages to
ground their humour. Moreover, humour became a mechanism for the establishment
of solidarity as all participants positioned themselves and perceived each other as
competent viewers of the soap opera genre they discussed.
6
L1 CMC researchers have also claimed that synchronous CMC or “chat” is “an
inherently playful medium” (Danet, Ruedenberg-Wright & Rosenbunbaum-Tamari,
1997). Herring’s (1999) study corroborates this claim suggesting that the nature of
CMC, as an interactionally less coherent medium than oral conversation in terms of
turn-taking, is conducive to humorous play. She explains that this is so as relaxed
norms of coherence can be perceived as liberating, giving rise to the exploitation of
the loosened coherence by users in the form of language play.
A particularly interesting CMC study, Darhower (2002), has explored some of the
interactive features of CMC for L2 learners. Amongst these, various form of humour
such as joking and teasing as well as humorous “flaming” (defined by Sproull &
Kiesler (1991) as inappropriate or excessive emotionalism, bluntness or hostility) are
reported to contribute to the social cohesiveness of the group. However, the use of
humour, particularly in flaming, has a potential to develop positive as well as negative
feelings. In his study, humour played an important and positive role in social
cohesion, and most importantly, learners’ engagement fostered not only solidarity and
enjoyment but also development of sociolinguistic competence.
In the subsequent sections, a proposed study is presented. It is intended to explore
whether and how L2 learners use humorous language play in both synchronous CMC
(i.e. Chat) and FtF modes, and if in turn may promote social affiliation. First, the aim
of the study will be stated and the research approach and research questions presented.
Then, the rationale that guided the design of instruments and procedures for data
collection and analysis will be explained. Finally, examples of unexpected
preliminary results derived from another broader thesis project that prompted the
design of this study will be provided.
7
PROPOSED STUDY
This project aims to assist in developing a better understanding of the role of
interpersonal processes play in L2 CMC and FtF interaction. In particular, the use of
supportive peer interactive strategies such as humorous LP in creating classroom
communities. These strategies are claimed to have a role in socialization and SLL.
The study will explore patterns of humorous LP interaction from an ethnographic,
longitudinal, mixed-design research and learner centred approach. Thus, it takes a
holistic view on the investigation of people, in this case L2 learners, and their
interactional and social behaviours from the learners’ perspective, in the naturalistic
setting of their L2 class.
The notion of humorous LP thus becomes a useful approach to investigating
interpersonal processes and L2 classroom community formation. Accordingly three
research questions guided the present study:
1. Do learners engage in use of humorous language play in L2 online ComputerMediated Communication? And in FtF interacion?
2. If so, what types of humorous LP do these learners use in both modes?
3. Is there evidence of solidarity and community formation through the use of
humorous language play in L2 Computer-Mediated Communication? And in
FtF interaction?
Participants
Intermediate Spanish learners, attending classes taught by the researcher at Flinders
University and The University of Adelaide, will be invited to participate in the study.
The participants will compromise two intact classes (i.e. not randomly selected) from
an anticipated population pool of 50 to 60 intermediate-level students.
8
However, only participants who speak English as their first language, and will have
had studied Spanish for two semesters, at university level prior to this study, will be
included in the project. The choice made represents an attempt to include only
students with a similar second language background, eliminating the necessity to
administer a Spanish proficiency pre-test, which in turn will avoid the pitfalls
associated with the measurement of proficiency (Skehan, 1998).
Task Design
Over the course of a two semester academic year (totalling 24 weeks), students will
participate in six 30 minute online and six 30 minute face-to-face discussion tasks that
will be part of the normal class activities for the Spanish 2, Part 1 and Part 2 topics.
Students will work in groups of threes. Group composition will be changed for each
open discussion task in order to heighten the collaborative nature of students’
interactions, and to avoid any personality clashes.
Before each CMC and FtF session, learners will view a 20-minute short film by a
Hispanic filmmaker or read a one-page authentic short story written by a Spanishspeaking writer. The themes of these short films and texts will be related to the
cultural content of the course syllabus and textbook.
Preparatory exercises will set the scene for the short films providing key background
information, including a vocabulary list, as well as cultural notes explaining the
historical context central to the texts and readings, and will be followed by postviewing and post-reading activities that will ensure comprehension, preparing
students for the discussion of the film and text themes. FtF and CMC discussions will
be scheduled at the beginning, as well as at the end of units of work, and to link the
CMC discussions not only to written texts, but also to films.
9
Data collection and Analysis
Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected over the course of one academic
year, through 6 Chat-logs and Transcripts of 6 FtF interactions, 12 Feedback Forms,
as well as through direct observation by the teacher / researcher and 2 interviews.
Chat-logs will be saved on diskettes and FtF interactions audio recorded and
transcribed. Students’ feedback on both online and FtF tasks will be collected at the
end of each CMC and FtF discussion.
Feedback Forms will be collected at the end of each CMC and FtF discussion and will
elicit information on students’ attitudes towards participation and perceptions of
difficulty of discussions. Self-report data will be also supported by observations in
order to ensure triangulation and provide greater validity to the study. Observations of
student participation in language learning tasks will be carried out during the 6 CMC
and 6 FtF class discussions.
Individual interviews will be carried at the end of both semesters that is, after
participating in two sets of three CMC and three FtF discussions, and will be
recorded. They will gather information on learners’ attitudes and expectations towards
participation in the CMC and FtF discussions as well as learners’ affective variables.
Interaction in the CMC and FtF discussions will be measured quantitatively in terms
of number of words, and number and length of turns. Discourse Analysis will be used
as the principal approach to the qualitative analyses of Transcripts and Chat-logs.
Qualitative analyses of CMC and FtF discussions will intend to examine the coconstruction of discourse and solidarity relationships in terms of use of social
interactive features such as humorous language play in both modes.
Instances of humorous interaction will be identified according to features reported to
be indicative of having a humorous intention in CMC literature, as in Baym’s (1995)
study. These include use of non-verbal paralinguistics (expansion of letters, use of
quoted speech, bracketed commentary, formatting – such as upper-case, exclamation,
emoticons) and echo or overlapping turns.
10
In addition, instances of humorous language play will also be identified according to
Cook’s (1997) distinction between form-based LP (sound and word play) and
meaning-based LP (fictional discourse and narratives created for enjoyment as in
stories, jokes, amusing informal conversation and irony).
Other categories illustrated in other studies will be added to the previously mentioned
categories, as they also emerged in the initial analysis of the data collected for the
thesis that prompted this project. These include insults (Bongartz & Schneider, 2003)
-commonly referred to as flaming in CMC terminology-, sarcasm, irony and teasing
(Darhower, 2002; Hay, 2001), amusing conversation such as playing along the gag
(Hay, 2001) and self-deprecation (Hay, 2001, Norrick, 1993).
Students’ feedback forms and interviews will be analysed qualitatively. Feedback
forms will be analysed in order to ascertain learners’ perceived usefulness of the tasks
in relation to language learning. The interviews will explore the role played by
learners’ attitudes and affective variables in their engagement in CMC and FtF
discussions in order to ascertain which mode is perceived to be most conducive to the
development of students’ social interaction.
PERUSAL 0F RAW DATA
Following some instances of observed humorous language play will be identified in
order to illustrate the potential role of humorous language play for interactional and
social dimensions of language learning. These examples have been chosen from the
data collected for the mentioned thesis, in particular from two CMC discussions of the
four Chat-logs collected in Semester 1, 2005.
Example A: use of humorous LP in the form of teasing, joking and flaming.
Topic: Personal details
L
--Khjaic es de Bosnia?
D
--No, Kljaic es de Serbia!!!!!!
L
--es un mombre de la europea, o?
D
--Serbia, no Bosnia!!!!!
C
--OK!!!!!
Is Khjaic (a city) of Bosnia?
No, Kljaic is in Serbia !!!!!!
It is a European name, isn’t it?
Serbia not Bosnia!!!!!
11
L
--como se dice "almost"?
D
--Comprendes, serbiaaaaaaa!!!!!!
C
--almost es casi
L
--si, perdon!
D
--eS OK!
How do you say “almost”?
Do you understand, Serbia!!!!
“almost” is almost (in Spanish)
yes, sorry!
L
C
D
C
D
L
C
L
L
C
D
C
L
D
C
D
L
C
It’s OK!
--pero estuvo antes lo mismo pais, o?!!!!!!!!!
But it used to be the same country, didn’t it?!!!!!!!
--problemas, problemas...
problems, problems….
--no comprendo
I do not understand
--politica no es una buena matiera aqui, creo...
politics it’s not a good subject (to talk about) here, I believe ….
--Yo soy muy furioso, grrrrrr!!!!
I am furious, grrr!!!!
--que interessante es esta pais!
What an interesting country!
--yo tengo miedo de ti ahora!!!
Now I am fearful of you!!!
--no.no es serioso
(I am) mot serious
--hay muchas fronteras, pero no son la verdad o?
there are many frontiers, but they are not true, are they?
--Ninos, por favor!!!
Boys, girls, please!!!
--CCCCC!!!
CCCCC!!!
--que significa CCCCC?
What does CCCC mean?
--si??
Si?? (so??)
--:)
:)
--???
???
--UPS
UPS
--CCCCClaro!!
Ooooof course
--aha!!!
(C and L continue the conversation joking about being “ fierce female big cats”)
D
C
C
D
--Por favor, serioso conversation!!!
Please, serious conversation!
--no se como respuertar a ti!!!
I do not know how to answer you (to you)
--pero serioso no es divertido!!!
But serious it’s not amusing
--Si, pero Olga diec que nosotros tenemos hablar serioso!
Yes, but Olga says that we should speak serious (seriously)
Example B: playing along the gag and engaging in amusing informal conversation
Topic: Environment
12
C
C
J
C
C
J
C
M
J
T
C
M
C
M
J
J
C
C
C
C
T
J
C
J
T
C
C
M
J
M
C
--tambien,un problema en el mundo es los huevos de tortugas (get eaten!)
Also, (another) problem the world faces is related to (the fact
that
turtle eggs (get eaten!)
--los tortugas son animales (como se dice "endangered”?
Turtles are animals (how do you say engangered?)
--quien comi el huevos de tortugas?
Who eats turtle eggs?
--los cocodrillos
crocodiles
--los humanos!
Humans!
--en mi casa tengo un recete por tortuga sopa
At home I have a recipe for turtle soup
--para le cena!
For dinner!
--el huevos de tortugos son delicious, mi piachen mucho
Turtle eggs are delicious, I like them very much
--pero con tortuga carne..no tortuga huevos
But with turtle meat .. not turtle eggs
--que? tortuga sopa? ew!
What? Turtle soup? Ew!
--si! humanos muerte los tortugas (como se dice "kill)
Yes! Humans die (kill) turtles (how do you say “kill”)
--morir
To die
--morir means kill?
To die means to kill?
--pienso
I think so
--comiste tortuga?
Have you eaten turtle?
--morir se dicen to die
To die is “to die”
--gracias
Thanks
--TORTUGAS GRANDES!! me da mieod
BIG TURTLES!! I am scared of them
--miedo
(spelling self-correction)
--haha
--que problemas medioambientales tiene australia?
What are the environmental problems in Australia?
--miedo...estan tortugas....!
Fear (fearful)… are these turtles
--ummm.......desperdicios!
Ummmm….. waste (environmental waste)
--tortugas son "cute"
Turtles are cute
--me gusta tortugas!
I like turtles
--tortugas son vicious mouths
Turtles are (have) vicious mouths
--bocas
(self-translation/correction)
--cuales son las causas da la polucion???
What causes pollution???
--tortugas no son bocas vicios..so simpatico y divertido
Turtles are (have) vicious mouths… they are not nice and amusing
--tortugas son stupido
Turtles are stupid
--snapping tortugas?
Smapping turtles?
13
Both examples display use of paralinguistics in the form of emoticons, expansion of
letters and use of formatting (upper-case, dots and exclamation marks). Form-based
LP is also used in sound play (noises, laughing and word play (repetition of pattern,
invented and repeated words). However, most cases of humorous language play are
meaning-based. These include narratives, amusing informal conversation, joking,
playing along the gag, flaming, teasing and irony.
It is hoped that findings from the proposed analyses of data to be collected will
illuminate whether and how humorous language play can facilitate social affiliation
and promote SLL.
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous CMC on Oral
Performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.
Adelsward, V., & Oberg, B. M. (1998). The function of Laughter and Joking in
Negotiation Activities. Humor, 11(4), 411-429.
Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer-Mediated Communication as a Force in Language
Change. Visible Language, 18(2), 118-141.
Baym, N. K. (1995). The Performance of Humor in Computer-Mediated
Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,11.
Retrieved September, 27, 2004, from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol11/issue2/baym.html
Bell, N. (2002). Using and Understanding Humor in a Second Language: A Case
Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania.
Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 Language Play as an Aid to SLL: A Case Study of
Humour in NS-NNS Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 192-218.
Belz, J. (2002). Second Language Play as a Representation of the Multicompetent
Self in Foreign Language Study. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 1(1), 13-39.
Belz, J., & Reinhart, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced Foreign Language Proficiency:
Internet-Mediated German Language Play. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(3), 324-362.
Binstead, K., & Ritchie, G. (2001). Towards a Model of Story Puns. Humor, 14, 275292.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer Mediated Communication: A Window on L2 Spanish
Interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Bongartz, C., & Schneider, M. (2003). Linguistic Development in Social Contexts: A
Study of Two Brothers Learning German. The Modern Language Journal,
87(1), 13-37.
Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From Bonding to Biting: Conversational
Joking and Identity Display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275-294.
Burden, R., & Williams, M. (1998). Language Learners' Perceptions of Supportive
Classroom Environments. Language Learning Journal, 17, 29-32.
Campbell, C., & Wickman, S. (2000). Familiars in a strange land: A Case-Study of
Friendship Online. M/C A journal of Media and Culture, 3(4). Retrieved
January, 10, 2006, from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0008/friends.php
15
Cazden, C. (1976). Play and Meta-linguistic Awareness. In A. Jolly & S. K (Eds.),
Play - Its Role in Development and Evolution (pp. 603-608). New York: Basic
Books.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The Language of Jokes: Analysing Verbal Play. London:
Routledge.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using Computer Networking to Facilitate the Acquisition of
Interactive Competence. System, 22, 17-31.
Cook, G. (1997). Language Play, Language Learning. English Language Teaching
Journal, 51(3), 224-231.
Cook, G. (2000). Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Danet, B., Ruedenberg-Wright, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (Eds.). (1997). Smoking
Dope at a Virtual Party: Writing, Play and Performance on Internet Relay
Chat. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press.
Darhower, M. (2002). Synchronous CMC in the Intermediate Spanish Class: A Case
Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Duke University, USA.
Ehrman, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language
Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. California: Sage
Publications.
Finholt, T., & Sproull, L. (1990). Electronic Groups at Work. Organization Science,
1(1), 41-64.
González-Bueno, M. (1998). The Effects of Electronic Mail on Spanish L2 Discourse.
Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 55-70.
Goodchilds, J. (1957). Effects of Being Witty on Position in the Social Structure of a
Small Group. Sociometry, 22(3), 261-272.
Green, J. M. (1993). Student Attitudes Toward Communicative and NonCommunicative Activities: Do Enjoyment and Effectiveness Go Together?
The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 1-10.
Hampes, W. P. (1999). The Relationship between Humor and Trust. Humor, 12, 253259.
Hay, J. (2001). The Pragmatics of Humor Support. Humor, 14(1), 55-82.
Herring, S. (1996). Two Variants of an Electronic Message Schema. In S. Herring
(Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and CrossCultural Perspectives (pp. 81-106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 4. Retrieved June, 24, 2004, from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4
16
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the
Workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 65-87.
Holmes, J., & Hay, J. (1997). Humour as an Ethnic Boundary Marker in New Zealand
Interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18(2), 127-151.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Over the Edge? Subversive Humor between
Colleagues and Friends. Humor, 15(1), 65-87.
Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2001). Effects of CMC on Student Participation
Patterns in a Foreign Language Learning Environment. In Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 263-264). Seattle, Washington:
ACM Press.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Network Computers:
Effects on Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. Modern
Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and Practice of Network-Based
Language Teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-Based
Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate Pedagogy. English Language
Teaching Journal, 50(3), 199-212.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2001). Foreign Language Learning as a Global
Communicative Practice. In. D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Language
Learning and Teaching in the Age of Globalization. London: Routledge,
Retrieved October, 10, 2005, from
http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/KramschThorne.html
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective Conversation in the Virtual
Language Classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 43-61.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (1997). The Function of Language Play in the Acquisition of L2
Spanish. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Leh, A. (1999). Computer-Mediated Communication and Foreign Language Learning
via Electronic Mail. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of ComputerEnhanced Learning, 1(2). Retrieved May, 23, 2005, from
http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/08/index.asp
Mabry, E. (1997). Framing Flames: The Structure of Argumentative Messages on the
Net. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved
December, 15, 2005, from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/mabry.html
McCormick, N. B., & McCormick, J. W. (1992). Computer Friends and Foes: Content
of Undergraduates' Electronic Mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 379405.
17
Meakins, F., & Rintel, S. (2000). Editorial: Chat. M/C A journal of Media and
Culture, Volume(4). Retrieved September, 27, 2004, from http://www.mediaculture.org.au/0008/edit.txt
Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as Tools for Sociocollaborative Language Learning. In
K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning: Media, Design and
Applications (pp. 141-162). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Murray, D. E. (1991). Conversation for Action: The Computer Terminal as a Medium
for Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nelson, K. (1989). Narratives from the Crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Nijolt, A. (2002). Embodied Agents: A New Impetus to Humor Research. Paper
presented at the April Fool's Day Workshop on Computational Humour,
Trento, Italy.
Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their Relations. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and Outcomes in Networked Classroom Interaction:
Defining the Research Agenda for L2 Computer-Assisted Classroom
Discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 82-93.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of
Communication, 46, 80-97.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in Cyberspace: The Role of Chatting in the
Development of Grammatical Competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern
(Eds.), Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 5986). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993). Virtual Communities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Net-Work
Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stoll, C. (1996). Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway.
New York: Anchor Books.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A Comparative Study of Two ESL Writing
Environments: A Computer Assisted Classroom and a Traditional Oral
Classroom. System, 29, 491-501.
18
Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as Mediation in Communicative Language Teaching
in a Vietnamese Classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting Serious about Language Play: Language Play,
Interlanguage Variation and Second Language Acquisition. In B. Swlezbin, F.
Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive
Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999
Second Language Research Forum (pp. 31-54). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla
Press.
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Thorne, S. (2000). Beyond Bounded Activity Systems: Heterogeneous Cultures in
Instructional Uses of Persistent Conversation. In S. Herring & T. Erickson
(Eds.), The Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference
on Systems Science. New York: IEEE Press.
Veatch, T. C. (1998). A Theory of Humor. Humor, 2(2). Retrieved December, 5,
2005, from http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper/humor.html
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in the
Second Language Classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Wan Shun, E. L. (2004). Second Language Socialization in Bilingual Chat Room:
Global and Local Considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 4465.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1995). Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone. Virtual Communities
as Communities, Volume. Retrieved December, 15, 2005, from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/csoc/cinc/wellman.htm
Wilkins, H. (1991). Computer Talk: Long-Distance Conversations by Computer.
Written Communication, 8, 56-78.
Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous Face-Threatening Acts: Humour as Strategy. Modern
Language Review, 52(4), 325-339.
19