By Bryant White<\/p>\n
Broner, M. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2002). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review<\/em>, 58<\/em>(4), 493\u2013525.<\/strong><\/p>\n This article examines the role that language play can have in L2 acquisition. The authors offer two definitions of language play, one following Cook (2000) and the other following Lantolf (1997). According to Cook (2000), language play is defined as fun occurrences of language use often accompanied by certain affective marks, such as laughter, shifts in tone of voice, the creation of a fictional world of reference, and performance in front of an \u201caudience\u201d. Moreover, Cook (2000) distinguishes between play with language forms and semantic play. According to Lantolf (1997), language play is defined as a private rehearsal of language forms intended to aid the learner and develop mastery over the forms. Using data from a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom setting, the authors demonstrate instances of language play that conform to both of these definitions. They argue that certain occurrences manifest one or the other forms of play, while others manifest both. The two concepts are thus not mutually exclusive. The authors conclude with the argument that such play helps L2 acquisition in several ways: 1. Because of language play\u2019s affective dimension, it can render \u201cL2 discourse\u2026more memorable\u201d (p. 516), 2. It can help learners experiment with and gain mastery over multiple registers through semantic play with different \u201cvoices\u201d (p. 516), 3. It helps to destabilize the interlanguage, with learners producing utterances that do not conform to their own or others\u2019 language norms. This, the authors contend, makes the interlanguage more elastic and flexible, \u201copening it to development.\u201d (p. 517)<\/p>\n In my opinion, this article offers a helpful introduction to the concept of language play. Not only does it provide empirical data, but it also gives a useful summary of two prominent definitions of language play that have been seen in past studies on the topic. It would be of interest to SLA researchers looking at developments in this area as well as to instructors seeking to introduce more creative activities in the classroom that provide an opportunity for students to engage in language play. I very much appreciate the authors\u2019 discussion of language play\u2019s effect on the interlanguage and would have liked to have seen more on this in the text. Moreover, I found the distinction made by the authors between \u201cplay with language forms\u201d and \u201csemantic play\u201d very useful. I believe that it maps well onto the later distinction between \u201cplay with<\/em> language\u201d and \u201cplay in<\/em> language\u201d developed by Bell (2012). At the same time, I would also argue that the authors define this distinction with much greater clarity than does Bell (2012).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Bryant White Broner, M. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2002). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 493\u2013525. This article examines the role that language play can have in L2 … Continue reading