Is It Fun? Language Play in a Fifth-Grade Spanish Immersion Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we use an approach to the study of inter-language that challenges prevailing models of second language acquisition (SLA) which assume that negotiation of meaning is the only causal variable in SLA. Ludic language play may also play a role in the development of inter-language (Tarone, 2000a). In this article, we examine two notions of language play as they have been presented in the applied linguistics literature: ludic language play, as defined in Cook (2000), and language play as rehearsal in private speech, as considered by Lantolf (1997), and its relationship to SLA. Through the analysis of classroom interactions among children attending a full immersion program, we show that these two types of play can be distinguished in classroom discourse by the presence or absence of five channel cues: presence/absence of laughter, shifts in voice quality and pitch versus shifts in loudness/whispering, use of language forms that are well-known versus forms that are new; presence/absence of a fictional world of reference, and presence/absence of an audience other than the self. It is also argued that the distinction between the two types of language play in learner language allows us to study their distinct roles in the process of SLA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".