Article published In: Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 3:2 (2021) ► pp.195–222
Enacting burikko
Lexical learning in an English/Japanese bilingual lunch conversation
Published online: 6 October 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20006.yag
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20006.yag
Abstract
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.
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
References (72)
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2078–2105.
Barbieri, F. (2009). Quotative ‘be like’ in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay? English World-Wide, 30(1), 68–90.
Bilmes, J. (1993). Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3(4), 387–409.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Endo, T. (2018). The Japanese change-of-state tokens a and aa in responsive units. Journal of Pragmatics, 1231, 151–166.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119.
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America.
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245.
Holt, E., & Clift, R. (Eds.). (2007). Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.
(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.
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.
Kasper, G., & Prior, M. T. (2015). “You said that?”: Other-initiations of repair addressed to represented talk. Text & Talk, 35(6), 815–844.
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.
Kim, Y. (2012). Practices for initial recognitional reference and learning opportunities in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 709–729.
Kita, S. (1997). Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35(2), 379–415.
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209.
Koshik, I., & Seo, M. S. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text & Talk, 32(2), 167–189.
Majlesi, A. R., & Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 193–207.
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.
Maynard, S. K. (2016). Fluid orality in the discourse of Japanese popular culture. John Benjamins.
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.
Mondada, L. (2014a). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 137–156.
(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.
Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6(1), 1–53.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550.
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.
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270.
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.
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.
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.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245–251.
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409.
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.
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303.
Svennevig, J. (2018). “What’s it called in Norwegian?” Acquiring L2 vocabulary items in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 1261, 68–77.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). Continuum.
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.
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218.
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.
Watson, D. R. (1978). Categorization, authorization and blame: Negotiation in conversation. Sociology, 12(1), 105–113.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Ro, Eunseok & Josephine Mijin Lee
Ro, Eunseok & Hyunwoo Kim
Choe, Ann Tai & Junichi Yagi
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.
