Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 3:2 (2021) ► pp.195–222

Enacting burikko

Lexical learning in an English/Japanese bilingual lunch conversation

 | University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Adopting a single case analysis, this article examines how the learning of the Japanese word burikko 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 burikko, the laughable of a humor sequence, becomes a learnable through a repair sequence. I then analyze a reinitiated joking sequence, where the VE recipient categorizes one of the co-participants as burikko 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.
Keywords: CA-SLA, vocabulary explanation, enactment, jocular mockery, Japanese as a foreign language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Vocabulary explanation in and outside of the classroom
    • 2.2Enactments
    • 2.3Defining burikko: Jocular mockery and categorization
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Renewal of laughter
    • 4.2Vocabulary explanation
    • 4.3Demonstration of understanding
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Limitations and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20006.yag
References (72)
References
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2078–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. (2009). Quotative ‘be like’ in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay? English World-Wide, 30(1), 68–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, J. (1993). Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3(4), 387–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics, 641, 52–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 1501, 80–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat (Version 6.1.16). Phonetic Sciences. Retrieved on 28 June 2021 from [URL]
Burch, A. R., & Kasper, G. (2016). Like Godzilla: Enactments and formulations in telling a disaster story in Japanese. In M. T. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.), Emotion in multilingual interaction (pp. 57–85). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 251, 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, T. (2018). The Japanese change-of-state tokens a and aa in responsive units. Journal of Pragmatics, 1231, 151–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018). ‘We’re learning a lot of new words’: Encountering new L2 vocabulary outside of class. Modern Language Journal, 1021(Supplement 2018), 46–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1021(Supplement 2018), 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (Eds.). (2015). Advances in membership categorisation analysis. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, S. (2006). Quoted thought and speech using the mitai-na ‘be-like’ noun-modifying construction. In S. Suzuki (Ed.). Emotive communication in Japanese (pp. 53–95). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E., & Clift, R. (Eds.). (2007). Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Burch, A. R. (2016). Focus on form in the wild. In R. A. van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 198–232). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Prior, M. T. (2015). “You said that?”: Other-initiations of repair addressed to represented talk. Text & Talk, 35(6), 815–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2018). Epistemological reorientations and L2 interactional settings: A postscript to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 1021(Supplement 2018), 82–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Practices for initial recognitional reference and learning opportunities in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 709–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kita, S. (1997). Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35(2), 379–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kōjien. (2018). Burikko. In Kōjien (7th ed., p. 17444). Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I., & Seo, M. S. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text & Talk, 32(2), 167–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majlesi, A. R., & Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 193–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Maynard, S. K. (2016). Fluid orality in the discourse of Japanese popular culture. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. (2004). You are doing burikko!: Censoring/scrutinizing artificers of cute femininity in Japanese. In S. Okamoto & J. S. Shibamoto Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology: Cultural models and real people (pp. 148–165). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). The temporal orders of multiactivity: Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.). Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 33–76). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, K. (2011). Doing word explanation in interaction. In G. 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
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Newbury House.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vol. I & II. (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2018). “What’s it called in Norwegian?” Acquiring L2 vocabulary items in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 1261, 68–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011a). Language learning activities in everyday situations: Insisting on TCU completion in second language talk. In G. 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
(2011b). Second language interaction for business and learning. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Interactional competence and development (pp. 93–118). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal, 1021(Supplement 2018), 30–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traunmüller, H., & Eriksson, A. (1995). The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults [Manuscript]. [URL]
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–101). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2013). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 455–474). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. R. (1978). Categorization, authorization and blame: Negotiation in conversation. Sociology, 12(1), 105–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Some general reflections on ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 49–75). University Press of America.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ro, Eunseok & Hyunwoo Kim
2024. Pre-service teachers’ hinting practices in managing responses in a microteaching context. Linguistics and Education 84 ► pp. 101345 ff. DOI logo
Choe, Ann Tai & Junichi Yagi
2023. Embodied remembering in coordinated performances. Multimodal Communication 12:2 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Kasper, Gabriele & Eunseok Ro
2022. Student essays as evidential resource in placement meetings. Linguistics and Education 72 ► pp. 101127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.