Collaborative narration in preadolescent girl talk: A Saturday luncheon conversation among three friends

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Collaborative narration in preadolescent girl talk: A Saturday luncheon conversation among three friends Cynthia B. Leung * College of Education, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, 140 – 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, United States Received 21 October 2005; received in revised form 24 February 2009; accepted 26 February 2009

Abstract Collaborative narration, where several speakers contribute to the development of a story by adding events, evaluations, or details, can occur spontaneously in conversations of friends or family members. Informal conversations during meals provide an opportunity space for narration to become a joint activity among participants. This paper examined the collaborative narratives that developed spontaneously during a luncheon conversation of three American preadolescent girls in a home setting. The conversation was videotaped. Participants were shown the transcript and interviewed about their contributions to the narratives and their prior knowledge of events that were narrated. Co-narration involved repetition of words, phrases, and sounds; onomatopoeia; gesturing; dramatization; and latching. The girls used collaborative narration as play frames to build and demonstrate their friendship. Three collaborative narratives from the luncheon conversation were analyzed to identify narrative features used by the girls and situations that contributed to co-narration. # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Collaborative narration; Narrative; Preadolescent; Repetition; Verbal play; Conversation

1. Introduction Stories that emerge from conversations are ‘‘interactive phenomena’’ (Goodwin, 1990:237) that involve varying degrees of verbal and nonverbal collaboration between the speaker and recipients. Analyses of spontaneous narratives embedded in conversation have shown that solo narrators may pause, ask tag questions, or gaze in the direction of listeners at points in the narrative where they expect a response, and listeners may respond by nodding their head, gazing at the speaker, laughing, or adding words of agreement or disagreement (Goodwin, 1984, 1990; Jefferson, 1978; Sachs, 1978). Some conversational narratives are co-narrated by several speakers who substantially contribute to the development of a story by adding events, providing details about the setting or characters, telling the point of the story, or adding other narrative elements (see Coates, 1996, 2005; Eckert, 1990; Eder, 1998; Polanyi, 1985). Conarrated or ‘collaborative narratives’ occur most often in conversations among friends or family members (Ochs et al., 1996; Polanyi, 1985). In this paper I will examine collaborative narration that occurs spontaneously during an informal luncheon conversation among three American preadolescent girls who are best friends. My analysis centers on how the girls use verbal and nonverbal channels to co-construct collaborative narratives and to build and reinforce friendship. I begin by * Correspondence address: P.O. Box 56192, St. Petersburg, FL 33732-6192, United States. Tel.: +1 727 873 4051 (office); fax: +1 727 873 4191. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.011

1342

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

discussing findings from previous research that examined ways narratives are jointly constructed in different contexts. I then focus on research on collaborative narration among adolescent and preadolescent peers. 2. Characteristics of collaborative narration Researchers who study spontaneous narratives have found that in order for more than one speaker to contribute successfully to the co-construction of a narrative, the speakers must have shared knowledge of the episode they are narrating, either through experiencing the event together or having knowledge of a past event (Coates, 2005; Eder, 1998; Polanyi, 1985). Co-contributors know each other well or are related, and they must be willing to share responsibility for telling the story, or share power, as in Ochs et al.’s (1996) examples of parents and children solving problems through collaborative narration at dinnertime and Coates’ (2005) examples of heterosexual couples jointly telling stories. Research has shown that narrative discourse is a medium that can be used for expressing common beliefs and values and for comparing different points of view (Eder, 1998; Ochs et al., 1996; Polanyi, 1985). By providing opportunities to recount and evaluate past events, conversational narratives can ‘‘strengthen social relationships and a general sense of co-membership’’ (Ochs et al., 1996:109). Co-narration is a way to perform friendship because it demonstrates shared knowledge of events (Coates, 2005). Anyone in the group who has knowledge of an event can contribute collaboratively to the telling if the group allows open turn-taking. Collaborative storytelling among family members can demonstrate family membership and shared values, feelings, and memories (Norrick, 1997). Studies of language use in women’s friendship groups and rap groups have documented the collaborative nature of women’s talk and shown that storytelling binds women friends together (Coates, 1988, 1996; Kalcik, 1975). In singlesex groups, men as well as women tell stories collaboratively; however, men seem to prefer to participate in collaborative narration with women co-narrators (Coates, 2005). From her collection of narratives created by male and female single-sex groups and heterosexual couples, Coates found that 22% of the all-male narratives involved some collaboration while 50% of the women’s stories were collaboratively produced. She concluded that when males conarrate with a female partner, they ‘‘perform coupledom’’ (92), which is highly valued by heterosexual men. Mandelbaum (1987) also confirmed this use of co-narration with heterosexual couples. Coates (2005) hypothesized that homophobia was behind heterosexual men’s avoidance of co-narration with other men since co-narration signifies a connectedness through language. Polanyi (1985) found co-narration to be most common in stories concerning friendship since stories that are collaboratively produced draw on common experiences and interests of the group. She identified three types of narratives that involve collaboration: diffuse stories, story sequences, and negotiated stories. Diffuse stories have blocks of the story interspersed with blocks of conversation that relate to the story. The story is told back and forth between two narrators who disagree with, correct, and amplify elements of the event being narrated. In story sequences, more than one story is narrated, but stories can be embedded within other stories. One narrator at a time generally has the floor but more than one narrator tells his or her story within the sequence of narratives. Individual sequenced stories can be co-narrated. Negotiated stories result from an audience questioning and challenging the narrator. Through audience interaction – comments, laughs, questions, shows of assent – the point of the story is negotiated with the narrator. In collaborative narration the co-narrators must carefully monitor syntactic, semantic, and prosodic development of the story so that their individual contributions ‘‘join together seamlessly’’ (Coates, 2005:91). Some features that Coates (1988, 2005) noted in co-constructed narratives are the repetition of phrases, clauses, or sentences; the rephrasing of ideas; latching between speakers; overlapping speech; the shared construction of utterances with one narrator completing another’s utterance; and frequent use of back channeling (e.g., I see, that’s right, OK). 3. Collaborative narration among adolescents and preadolescents Studies of co-constructed conversational narratives occurring in adolescent and preadolescent peer talk have focused on social and linguistic aspects of narrative use to build solidarity among group members (Eckert, 1990; Eder, 1988, 1998; Greenwood, 1998), to align group members of the same social class (Eckert, 1990; Goodwin, 2006), and to exclude peers from different social backgrounds by policing joint participation (Goodwin, 2006). Many of the

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1343

collaborative narratives of adolescents and preadolescents collected by these researchers were found in conversations taking place at lunch or dinnertime in home and school settings. Mealtime appears to create an ‘‘opportunity space’’ (Ochs et al., 1996) where narration can become a joint activity among participants. In her studies of language use among American adolescent peer groups, Eckert (2004) found narratives to be a central mode of discourse. She concluded that ‘‘preadolescents engage intensively in narration, and as they move towards an adolescent peer controlled social order, narration becomes an important resource for the construction of this order’’ (367). Some of the narratives Eckert (1990) analyzed were co-constructed by several group members. Adolescent girls who co-narrated a shared personal experience used their collaborative narrative as a way to enhance their status in the group by interjecting into the story their point of view and information about their personal affiliations. Co-narrators in other girl talk events sometimes disagreed on specifics of incidents being narrated or on the role of the tellers in the incident, in which case cooperative competition resulted in group members providing commentary or challenges to the narration. Stories created during girl talk by groups of teens contribute to what Eckert (1990) refers to as an ‘‘interactional history’’ (99). Group participation in narratives can involve adding commentary or laughing at appropriate places in a narrative told by one or several of the group members. A history of using particular linguistic devises to build stories may develop. The group can build on these stories and refer to them at later points in their conversation or in future interactions. Conversational participants build community as they build stories (Eckert, 1990). By participating in a peer group’s narrative discourse, adolescents learn to construct effective narratives and to control audience responses, skills that Eckert (2004) considers important to social entitlement. Eder (1998) and colleagues observed and recorded lunchtime conversations of students 10–14 years old at a middle school in the Midwestern United States as part of a study of the development of adolescent peer culture. Most students attending the school were European American. Collaborative narration was found to be a common mode of communication among both girl and boy same-sex peer groups and served to show solidarity and support of other group members. Girls jointly told stories to display opposition to adult expectations of teen behavior and to challenge adult views. Female narrators changed their voices to signify adults and made up imaginary conversations that contrasted teen and adult perspectives. Boys mocked traditional gender roles and explored self and group identities through joint storytelling. Athletic events and movies were topics for collaborative stories that all members of male groups could contribute to. Movies shown on cable television provided shared experiences for the boys, who selected scenes from movies with sexual or violent overtones and collaboratively retold or acted out the scenes (Eder et al., 1995). Among the adolescents she studied, Eder (1998) found that solo stories were shorter and less frequent than collaborative narratives since individual narratives about personal experiences were of less interest to others in the group than were stories about shared experiences. The girls had fewer experiences in common so many of their conarrations involved only two or three girls in the group who had shared the experience. For girls, ‘‘collaborative storytelling served to solidify specific friendships rather than strengthen groupwide solidarity’’ (85). In order to successfully tell an experience-related story collaboratively, all narrators had to have knowledge of the experience being narrated. Strategies the girls used to create collaborative personal narratives and establish solidarity among the narrators were to divide elements of the story, especially descriptions and evaluations, among different speakers and to use repetition and sentence completions to maintain coherence (Eder, 1988). Eder (1998) concluded that collaborative narration was ‘‘a highly flexible form of discourse that allows participants to develop relatively complex notions of their shared culture’’ (p. 82). Greenwood (1998) audio recorded table talk of her children, 13-year-old male and female twins and an 11-year-old daughter, with several of her son’s male friends at her home. She compared the conversational style of the groups when two different boys joined her children for dinner. On both occasions the siblings used funny animated voices to collaboratively narrate a humorous stylized story that concluded with the tongue twister ‘‘Bettybitabitofbitterbutter’’ (70). One boy, a lifelong friend of Greenwood’s son, accommodated his friend and siblings by sharing the collaboratively told joke and laughing at the appropriate time. Another boy repeatedly tried to control the topics of conversation and resisted collaborative participation in the joke, which set up a conflict situation with the older daughter. She interpreted the boy’s lack of participation in their story as rejecting an offer of friendship while the boy felt he was being repeatedly interrupted as he tried to carry on a conversation. Neither teen was able to successfully control the conversation or adjust their conversational style. These examples show how adolescents and preadolescents in mixed-gender groups with family and friends use or resist collaboration in language play.

1344

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

In her research on preadolescent girl talk while playing games on a school playground, Goodwin (2006) discovered instances of collaborative narration that took place while girls were eating outside. Selection of story topics resulted in expanded or limited group participation in a story. If one of the girls initiated a story about cultural knowledge or an experience shared by all in the group, the girls together re-enacted different characters, animated their voices, added gestures, or repeated a story preface to create a chained story (e.g. ‘‘When I was little, I used to call [adult word][baby word]’’ used as a story preface for a baby talk story) (Goodwin, 2006:167). Sometimes a girl would open up a narrative for others in the group to participate by clarifying the topic (e.g., ‘‘We’re talking about . . .’’) (167). At other times, girls in popular cliques differentiated themselves and excluded others in the group by initiating stories about an activity or privilege of the upper middle class. Other girls of that social class aligned themselves with the narrator by adding details or evaluations, laughing at appropriate places, or criticizing participation from someone not in the same social class. In this way girls used exclusion and ridicule during storytelling to control and ‘‘police their social order’’ (165). 4. Methods 4.1. Research setting and data collection The data analyzed in this paper are taken from a luncheon conversation of my daughter and her two best friends. The conversation, lasting 26 min and 40 s, was video recorded at my home on a Saturday when the girls met to play. A camcorder was set up on a tripod, and I was in another room during the recording. After I transcribed the conversation, the girls viewed the video, and I went over the transcript with them. I interviewed them individually and as a group about their contributions and intensions during the conversation and about their prior knowledge of conversational topics and stories. The data that are of particular interest in this paper are the instances of successful and unsuccessful attempts at developing collaborative narratives. 4.2. Participants Nadia (my daughter), Lisa, and Yvonne were best friends in the same class at school. (Pseudonyms are used for the girls’ names.) All three were born in the month of September and celebrate their birthdays within the same week. At the time of data collection, Nadia and Lisa were 10 years old, and Yvonne was nine. They attended an alternative K-8 school in a college town in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. In a more traditional educational setting, Yvonne would have been in fourth grade, and Nadia and Lisa would have been in fifth. At their school, classes were grouped socially rather than by age, with 10 children in a class. Lisa attended this school for 4 years before the study took place. Nadia joined Lisa 3 years before, but they had both gone to another school together while they were in kindergarten and first grade. This was Yvonne’s second year in the group. The girls come from Middle class families. Their fathers were all research scientists. Nadia, Lisa, and Yvonne developed a close friendship at school but also enjoyed spending time together in each other’s homes and at community events. As mother of one of these girls, I had often observed them playing together both at school and at my home. They enjoyed role playing, looking at books together, and playing board games. The girls loved animals, and Nadia and Lisa thought they might like a career that involved taking care of animals. Nadia’s large collection of stuffed animals provided ample props for setting up a pet store, zoo, or veterinarian’s office when they played in my home. Yvonne had a husky, and Nadia had a miniature schnauzer. Lisa was a ‘‘cat person’’ and had three cats. Nadia had become a vocal defender of animal rights, and Yvonne was equally vocal defending vegetarianism. On this day in October, the girls played video games and a board game, created a play setting with Barbie and Ken dolls, and played outside with Nadia’s miniature schnauzer puppy before eating lunch. After lunch, the girls went back outside to play. 5. Verbal play during the luncheon conversation Before focusing my discussion on collaborative narratives that occurred during the luncheon conversation, I will highlight some frames where the girls collaboratively played with language and individually created short narrative vignettes. Appendix A outlines the topics of the entire luncheon conversation and includes sample excerpts of discourse. The symbol # refers to a short pause.

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1345

5.1. Collaborative teasing As food was being served and the girls were eating, most of the conversation centered on food and events that occurred while eating. Sometimes talk about food included collaborative teasing. For example, 14 min into the meal, Nadia and Yvonne realized that Lisa had spaghetti sauce on her face. (1)

Nadia:

(2) (3) (4)

Yvonne: Nadia: Yvonne:

(5)

Lisa:

looks like a stain here # here ((points to her own cheek and chin)) ((Lisa wipes her face with her napkin)) down a little more lower ((Lisa gets all the sauce off her face)) still there ((Lisa goes to the bathroom and Nadia and Yvonne laugh)) ((Lisa shouts)) OK wise guys # it’s gone # it’s gone I just walked in there and # who’s the wise guy ((speaks in an animated voice as she walks back to the table)) ((Lisa pretends to be angry but then laughs)) (14:04)

Coates (2007) found that laughter and repetition were features of collaborative conversation and humorous language play. Both elements are present in this frame. What began as an implied suggestion by Nadia for Lisa to wipe the spaghetti sauce off her face (1) turned into a play frame as Yvonne teasingly told Lisa that the sauce was still on her chin (4), even though Lisa had actually wiped it off. The girls’ laughter shows the playfulness of this performance embedded in their conversation and the collaborative effort involved in creating this humorous event. Nadia and Yvonne laugh when Lisa is out of the room to indicate they are teasing Lisa. Lisa’s laughter marks the end of the frame and signified that she accepted the teasing as playful, rather than insulting. Calling Nadia and Yvonne ‘‘wise guys’’ also signaled that Lisa was aware of the trick played on her. Different forms of repetition also were apparent in this frame. Nadia’s gesture of wiping her face led to a similar movement by Lisa to wipe her own face. Nadia and Lisa repeated phrases, ‘‘here # here’’ (1) and ‘‘it’s gone # it’s gone’’ (5). Semantic repetition occurred with the words down and lower (2–3) as Nadia and Yvonne asked Lisa to move her napkin further down her face. In addition to the language play taking place during this frame, the girls dramatized the event, extending the physical space of their performance beyond the dining room to the living room and bathroom. 5.2. Verbal play with stylized language The girls played with styled language, shifting into different voices during their verbal play to ‘perform’ their friendship. When a plate of chicken was placed on the table next to Lisa, she squealed, ‘‘Chicken Little,’’ in a high voice (05:37). The girls demonstrated their knowledge of social customs with a stylized toast. Nadia held up her glass to make the toast and said, ‘‘Chars,’’ in an affected tone to imitate an upper class dialect. Then Lisa and Yvonne clinked their glasses against Nadia’s (18:13). When making the toast, the girls again used stylized language and dramatization as they drew on their knowledge of registers of language. 5.3. Language games Goodwin (2006) examined a chained story about baby words that preadolescent girls had created on the playground of their school. The topic of baby language led to a story that all members of the group could contribute to. Nadia, Lisa, and Yvonne, who were about the same age as the girls in Goodwin’s study, also were interested in baby talk. They collaboratively participated in a language game where they pretended to be babies. (1) (2)

Nadia: Yvonne:

I’m a California baby let’s be babies now ((Nadia, Lisa, and Yvonne make baby sounds)) (06:12)

1346

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

Nadia provided a topic initiation with ‘‘I’m a California baby’’ (1). Yvonne followed with a cooperative agreement ‘‘let’s be babies’’ (2) to initiate a game in which verbal play, the baby noises, became important in marking the girls’ solidarity. The baby sounds involved dramatization and creating different voices, which were elements of other play frames in the luncheon conversation. This was not the first time the girls had played their baby game. On other occasions I had observed the girls pretending to be babies as they played together at my home. They had selected their ‘baby talk performance’ from a repertoire of play enactments they had performed in the past. 5.4. Narrative vignettes of personal experiences Eating spaghetti brought to mind past incidents when the girls were eating spaghetti with their family. These personal experiences, that had not been shared by the other girls, were expressed by a single clause, similar to an ‘abstract’ of a longer narrative, or by a ‘minimal narrative’ with ‘‘a sequence of two clauses which are temporally ordered,’’ as defined by Labov (1972:360). Yvonne told her ‘story’ in one clause: ‘‘Once I got whipped in the eye by spaghetti’’ (09:30), and Lisa told a minimal narrative about her sister eating spaghetti. Lisa: my sister # once she had a whole big plate # she took it and did this ((demonstrates how her sister took up spaghetti with her fork)) (19:45) These short solo stories, or narrative vignettes, provided a way of interjecting a personal story into the collaborative conversation. The stories could stand alone, as in these examples. Yvonne’s clause about getting whipped in her eye by spaghetti is an abstract or summary of a potential narrative. Lisa’s narrative identifies the time (once), the person (my sister), and the situation (eating spaghetti). She uses dramatization to act out the ‘complicating action’ of the narrative and to temporally connect the sequence of events, using her fork to try to take up all the spaghetti on her plate at once. 6. Collaboration narration during the luncheon conversation While the examples of verbal play in Section 5 involve collaboration, they are not co-constructed or collaborative narratives as defined earlier in this paper. These examples, however, do provide an interactional history (Eckert, 1990) of particular conversational strategies used by this group of friends. The verbal play and body language that occurred throughout the girls’ luncheon conversation is continued in narratives the girls jointly construct. Collaborative narratives occurred at the end of the luncheon conversation (22:30–26:40) after Yvonne and Lisa had finished eating the main course and were waiting at the table for Nadia to finish. Unwittingly, the girls had set up a situation where talking together, rather than eating, became their focal social activity. The transcript of this segment of the conversation, along with the corresponding nonverbal events, is provided in Appendix B. The length of the segment is 4 min and 10 s. In this section I will examine three collaborative narratives created by the girls during this time frame. The narratives follow one after the other in their conversation and will be presented in that order here. In my discussion I will also include information and quotes from interviews with the girls to clarify their actions and intended meanings. Discussion of elements of narrative structure will use Labov’s (1972) terminology. 6.1. Ashley’s Rottweiler collaborative narrative After a 15 s pause in their conversation, Nadia reintroduced the topic of favorite things ‘‘to get the conversation going’’ (N). The girls had earlier talked about their favorite cat (16:15). Now Nadia initiated the topic of favorite dogs. The following excerpt shows how talk about favorite dogs transformed into a collaborative narrative about Ashley’s Rottweiler. I will label the different parts of this excerpt to show where the collaborative narrative is embedded in the conversation. Numbering is by turns. Favorite Dogs (6) Nadia:

Lisa # what’s your favorite kind of dog? ((to Yvonne)) that should be a good idea

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Yvonne: Lisa: Yvonne: Lisa: Yvonne:

1347

huh huh ((laughing) German shepherd ((muffled from mouth full of food, munching on raw vegetables)) (5) I like almost all kinds (4) I don’t know but my favorite kind is a [husky or a (2) German shepherd (2) [whoa

Solo Narrative Attempted (12) Nadia: ((to Lisa)) if you like German shepherds # why don’t you # why don’t you go over n:ex across the street and just get killed by one (2) I don’t know ((high pitch with rising to falling intonation)) (2) they have two big German shepherds # one police dog (2) and one is a pet (2) ((uses fingers of left hand to emphasize words)) one with= Interruption (13) Yvonne:

Collaborative Narrative (14) Nadia: (15) (16)

Yvonne: Nadia:

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

Yvonne: Nadia: Lisa: Yvonne: Lisa: Nadia: Yvonne:

(24)

Lisa:

(25)

Yvonne:

= I think Rottweiler’s are cute I saw pictures of their um babies # I # I mean # when they’re puppies # they were so cute Yvonne has # I mean # Ashley has # a Rottweiler ((muffled, barely audible because of food in her mouth)) what? Yvonne has # I mean # WHOA Ashley has a Rottweiler = = I know # so does Courtney it ate their cat it ate their cat = = no # I thought it smuushed it yeah it smuushed it and it was still playing with it # and um ((nonverbal demonstration of actions)) r::ah::p ((lifts both arms into air)) w::am::p ((moves arms to indicate struggling)) ((mouth moves to indicate eating)) ((hands on lap)) ((munching sound)) squush what was that ((high squeaky voice)) heh heh heh

Nadia introduced the topic of dogs (6) by asking Lisa a question: ‘‘What’s your favorite kind of dog?’’ Since all the girls loved dogs, she thought it would be a good topic to continue the conversation: ‘‘We like to talk about dogs’’ (N). Nadia then evaluated the appropriateness of her topic initiation by turning to Yvonne and adding ‘‘that should be a good idea’’ (6). Yvonne responded by laughing to indicate agreement. Lisa’s response: ‘‘I don’t know but my favorite kind is a husky or a German shepherd’’ (10) connected to her friends’ pets since Yvonne had a husky and Nadia had had a German shepherd who recently passed away. This favorite dog segment is parallel to a favorite cat segment earlier in their conversation. At that time Nadia had asked Lisa what her favorite cat was. Lisa, who had a tabby cat, answered ‘‘tabbies,’’ and the girls talked about Lisa’s cat Pickles. Lisa’s inclusion of German Shepherds as a favorite dog led to Nadia’s linking a solo narrative about German Shepherds to her response. Lisa knew about the canine cop who lived across the street from Nadia, but Yvonne did not have that knowledge. Nadia did not get very far into her narrative before Yvonne cut her off. Nadia’s solo narrative is

1348

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

characterized by repetition (repeating her own phrase ‘‘why don’t you,’’ repeating Lisa’s phrase ‘‘I don’t know,’’ and repeating 2 s pauses after utterances), changing her voice to a high pitch, and using gestures for emphasis. The narrative elements she completed were: Abstract: Evaluation: Orientation:

If you like German shepherds # why don’t you # why don’t you go over n:ex across the street and just get killed by one (2) I don’t know (2) they have two big German shepherds # one police dog (2) and one is a pet (2)

When I showed the girls the videotape of this segment, Nadia responded, ‘‘I don’t know why Yvonne cut me off.’’ Yvonne replied, ‘‘I was bored.’’ Yvonne had no prior knowledge of the situation Nadia was narrating and lost interest. Eder (1998) has found that solo narratives among middle school students were not as common as collaborative narratives. It appears that to keep the conversation going, all members of the group need to be included in the talk. When Yvonne did not connect to Nadia’s developing story, she interrupted Nadia’s narrative by latching her own narrative vignette about seeing pictures of Rottweiler puppies (13) to the middle of Nadia’s utterance. Nadia then shifted from her solo narrative about German Shepherds to one about Rottweilers, providing an abstract to a new narrative based on knowledge shared by the three girls: ‘‘Ashley has a Rottweiler’’ (16). Yvonne latched on an evaluation (‘‘I know # so does Courtney’’) (17), and Nadia pulled the focus back to the ‘Ashley’s Rottweiler story’ by completing her abstract: ‘‘it ate their cat’’ (18). Lisa’s repetition of ‘‘it ate their cat’’ (19), after Nadia’s 2 s pause, brought all three girls into the narrative development. Yvonne disagreed with the event ‘‘it ate their cat’’ and corrected it with her evaluation ‘‘no I thought it smuushed it’’ ((20). Lisa and Nadia both agreed to this correction: ‘‘yeah’’ – L (21), ‘‘it smuushed it’’ – N (22). Then Yvonne began the complicating action with ‘‘it was still playing with it’’ (23) and told the rest of the story using onomatopoeia and body language, dramatizing the dog ‘‘smuushing’’ the cat and then eating it. At the end of her narration of the complicating action, Yvonne moved her mouth to mime eating the cat and then made munching sounds – even though she had indicated earlier that the dog had not eaten the cat, only smuushed it. Lisa provided the result with body movement and a high squeaky voice like a cartoon character: ‘‘squush,’’ looking down, ‘‘what’s that?’’ Lisa’s result was based on the girls’ negotiated conclusion that the dog had not eaten the cat. Yvonne concluded the narrative with her laughter, hey, hey, hey (23), which acted as a coda. This collaborative narrative created by the three girls is joined seamlessly together with linguistic features that Coates (1988, 2005) identified in adults’ collaborative narratives: repetition of phrases, latching between speakers, and use of back channeling. The narrative also has features of talk in a play frame: repetition and laughter (Coates, 2007). Looking at the girls’ interactional history from earlier in their luncheon conversation, we can see linguistic and nonverbal strategies of their play frames that also appear in this narrative, including changing voices (Lisa’s high squeaking cartoon character voice shift), repetition of phrases (‘‘it ate their cat’’ 18/19 and ‘‘it smuushed it’’ 20/22) and sounds (the s sound in ‘‘smuushed’’ and ‘‘squush’’), onomatopoeia (‘‘r::ah::p’’ and ‘‘w::am::p’’), and dramatization and body movements (Yvonne’s miming). The occurrence of these features suggests that collaborative narratives that emerge from the conversations of these three friends are a type of verbal play, and dramatization is an important element of play frames for these particular girls. The use of repetition not only helped to seamlessly join the different parts of the narrative, but to bond the girl’s relationship. As Tannen (1989) noted, repetition in conversation ‘‘bonds participants to the discourse and to each other, linking individual speakers in a conversation and in relationships’’ (52). 6.2. ‘Lion eating a puppy’ collaborative narrative The second collaborative narrative follows directly from ‘Ashley’s Rottweiler collaborative narrative.’ Yvonne’s first utterance is part of her turn where she provided the coda for the previous narrative. (25)

Yvonne:

(26)

Lisa:

the un that # the one in California (2) the drug buster I heard of a dog that ate the # a # cat (2) in one big mouthful

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35)

Yvonne: Lisa: Yvonne: Lisa: Nadia: Lisa: Nadia: Lisa: Nadia:

(36) (37)

Yvonne: Lisa:

1349

have you ever heard of a cat who ate a dog in one big mouthful? ((shakes head left to right)) neither have I heh heh (laughing) ((to Lisa)) oh # oh yeah # yup oh yeah # a cheetah= =a lion yuah # a lion [ate a puppy= [ahh:: ((left arm held up and fingers bent to resemble a lion’s paw with claws)) =goo goo goo goo ((in ascending tones)) ((brings arms down little by little with each repetition of goo)) well # I # I mean like a house cat # you know # Persian or whatever yep ((nods head up and down))

From turns 25 to 33, the girls negotiated the abstract of a new narrative. Yvonne introduced an idea about a dog drug buster (25) but did not follow up. Lisa repeated the abstract of their previous narrative about Ashley’s Rottweiler: ‘‘I heard of a dog that ate the # a # cat in one big mouthful’’ (26). Then Yvonne repeated Lisa’s abstract but reversed dog and cat to produce ‘‘Have you ever heard of a cat who ate a dog in one big mouthful?’’ (27). Turns 28 to 33 are evaluations, with Lisa responding with head movements (28) and Yvonne with words (29) to indicate they had not heard of such a cat, Lisa laughing (30), then Nadia and Lisa coming up with examples of a cheetah (32) and lion (33). Lisa’s laughter suggests the playfulness of their discourse. Lisa then produced the abstract of the collaborative narrative: ‘‘a lion ate a puppy’’ (34). As she spoke this clause, Nadia used onomatopoeia and arm movements to act out the complicating action of the story (35). Yvonne added the coda (36), indicating that she originally meant house cats, and Lisa showed her connection to Yvonne by saying ‘‘yep’’ and nodding her head in agreement. In this collaborative narrative, the girls followed the same pattern as in their narrative about Ashley’s Rottweiler, using latching, repetition, onomatopoeia, and body movements to tell the story. This narrative, however, involved more negotiation of the abstract or topic initiation and resulted in back and forth evaluation of the topic until the narrative was produced. In their group interview, Lisa and Nadia told of a short story that Lisa had read in the newspaper when she was on vacation the previous summer. She had shared this story with Nadia. The story was about a lion that ate a puppy. Nadia jogged Lisa’s memory about the lion story when she latched the word lion onto Lisa’s response cheetah. It was this story that Lisa and Nadia jointly performed (34–35): ‘‘That’s the lion story that Lisa told me about’’ (N). Yvonne did not know the lion story so she could not contribute to its telling. She shifted the talk back to her initial narrative abstract: ‘‘I mean like a house cat’’ (36). The development of this collaborative narrative shows the amount of negotiation that goes into the production of narratives with co-narrated events. All participants must be familiar with the events in order to contribute beyond evaluating. 6.3. Killer cat collaborative narrative The third collaborative narrative directly follows the ‘lion eating a puppy’ narrative. This is an example of a narrative that is co-constructed by group members, but one member does not have prior knowledge of the event being narrated. (37)

Nadia:

(38) (39)

Yvonne: Nadia:

(40)

Yvonne:

(41) (42)

Lisa: Nadia:

((To Yvonne)) Lisa # how about ((fast)) # how about our # our breed that we made up and it could just kill any [cat [I know # any cat they have like fangs like this big ((shows about 6 inches with hands)) (2) when they’re babies= = claws this big ((indicates about a foot with hands)) with blue tip tails like this thick of fur ((uses hands to indicate about a foot)) (3) OK guys # let’s go [downstairs [but they wouldn’t even shave them ((to Yvonne)) = they would like kill them for their fur #

1350

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

(43)

Yvonne:

(44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56)

Lisa: Nadia: Lisa: Nadia: Yvonne: Lisa: Yvonne: Nadia: Yvonne: Nadia: Lisa: Nadia: Lisa:

(57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64)

Nadia: Yvonne: Nadia: Yvonne: Nadia: Yvonne: Nadia: Yvonne:

too bad for them # but they could like kill a person # and there’s so much fur that they can’t like # shoot it or something (2) they couldn’t shoot it they also are bullet proofed ((nods head up & down)) (4) and they make ah ointment all over bullet proof # and it # could kill hunters [except for [yeah and it would go back ((points left hand straight ahead, then pulls it back)) except for like cows or something (3) cows too ((to Yvonne)) cows too (2) chickens (2) yes= =yes # and chickens too= =all [animals ((fades away)) [there are so many chickens yeah they multiply like that (2) they kill those an: # they kill those # they breed those animals to be killed because there are so many of um but not cows ((to Yvonne)) not cows but chickens are like (2) I know ((softly)) I mean there are so many= =let’s play chickens ((said slowly and distinctly)) outside

When Nadia began talking about the breed of cat she had made up with other students at her school, she forgot that Lisa had not been involved in that project. The previous year during summer school, Nadia and Yvonne published a magazine called Cat Fancy. They created the new breed of cat that they described in the present conversation (37–45) and wrote about it in their magazine. During their interview with me, they talked about their magazine and the cat breed. Lisa expressed surprise: ‘‘What were you talking about? I have no idea. I thought you were talking about killing animals for food.’’ Nadia introduced the topic of killer cats with an abstract: ‘‘Lisa # how about our # our breed that we made up and it could just kill any cat’’ (37), but she looked at Yvonne while addressing Lisa. Yvonne evaluated with ‘‘I know # any cat’’ (38). Nadia and Yvonne then collaboratively narrated the killer cat story. Turns 39 and 40 are the orientation where they describe the cats. Nadia used her hands to show how big the fangs were, and Yvonne, mirroring Nadia’s gestures, showed with her hands how big the claws were. Turns 42, 43, and 45 are the complicating action where Nadia and Yvonne talk about killing the cats for fur and the cats making a bullet proof ointment. As in their other collaborative narratives, dramatization and gesturing were an important part of this narrative. Lisa did not participate in the killer cat narrative and was so confused about the story that she made the suggestion, ‘‘OK guys # let’s go downstairs’’ (41), but Yvonne and Nadia were so involved in their description of the killer cat that they did not hear her. Again, Lisa tried to project herself into the narration at (44) with ‘‘except for.’’ Nadia overlapped her words and demonstrated with her arm how the killer cat’s fur moved back to become bullet proof. At (46), Lisa successfully projected herself into the story, but she misunderstood what Nadia and Yvonne’s story was about. When Lisa said ‘‘except for like cows or something’’ (46), she meant that cows should not be killed (L), but in the flow of conversation she seems to be talking about cows being killed. Nadia and Yvonne repeat the word cows to include Lisa in their narration, but with the introduction of cows, the topic of the story changed to animals that people eat. Yvonne is vegetarian and earlier in their luncheon conversation at 07:30 and 08:46, Nadia had called attention to Yvonne’s vegetarianism by trying to get Yvonne to eat some chicken. The concluding turns in the killer cat narrative return to

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1351

that previous conversational segment. Yvonne had heard enough about killing animals and was ready to play outside. She added the coda: ‘‘let’s play outside’’ (62/64/66), which was continued by Lisa: ‘‘last one downstairs is a rotten egg’’ (67) and Nadia: ‘‘first one has to eat it’’ (70). 7. Conclusions This paper set out to examine spontaneous collaborative narration in a luncheon conversation of three preadolescent girls. Analysis of the conversation revealed the playful nature of the girls’ word play and dramatizations. Linguistic and nonverbal strategies were similar in the girls’ verbal play and their collaborative narratives, which suggest that the girls saw their collaborative narratives as play frames. Davies (2003) concluded that talk in a play frame is ‘‘a specialized joint activity’’ (1368), and Coates (2007) noted the collaborative nature of playful talk: ‘‘co-participants collaborate not only in sustaining a particular topic but also in sustaining a particular way of talking’’ (46). Talk in a play frame, whether in word games or collaborative narratives, leads to solidarity of the participants because of their efforts at collaboration. The girls’ laughter during the creation of their collaborative narratives demonstrated their togetherness and the fun they had collaborating together. The girls in the present study had many experiences in common from which they could draw topics for collaborative narratives. All successful collaborative narratives were based on experiences common to the three girls, as ‘Ashley’s Rottweiler story’ demonstrates. The final collaborative narrative, where Lisa did not take part in creating the Cat Fancy killer cat character that Nadia and Yvonne’s story was built on, shows what can go wrong when a participant does not have knowledge of a co-narrated event. Longer solo narratives, developed following the classic narrative elements identified by Labov (1972), did not fit into the collaborative style of the conversation, as when Nadia’s attempt to develop a solo narrative about German Shepherds was diverted by Yvonne. Previous studies of collaborative narratives (e.g., Coates, 2005; Eder, 1998; Polanyi, 1985) also concluded that collaborative narration only occurs among participants who shared the experience or knowledge of the experience being narrated. The three collaborative narratives analyzed in this paper show how the girls evaluated a topic initiation before they built the complicating action. The girls produced single-clause narrative vignettes that were similar to Labov’s (1972:363) concept of an ‘abstract’ that occurs at the beginning of a narrative. These abstracts could stand alone as a summary of an event, or they could serve as the initial utterance of a collaboratively developed narrative. Both of these situations occurred in the examples provided here. These abstracts were ways for the girls to interject personal experience narrative summaries into their conversation, as with Yvonne’s spaghetti vignette, or to test whether others shared knowledge of the event. If the others knew about the event summarized in the abstract, the topic had the potential to be developed into a collaborative narrative. While collaborative narratives produced by participants in studies by other researchers often had evaluations by co-participants throughout the narrative, as in Goodwin’s (2006) examples of preadolescent girls’ playground narratives and co-constructed narratives by women friends in Coates (1996) study, the girls in this study only used evaluations to negotiate the topic of narratives. Also, Nadia, Yvonne, and Lisa did not always have an orientation section in their collaborative narratives. Since the collaborative narratives were based on common knowledge, descriptions of the setting and characters may not have seemed necessary to them, especially when the abstract was concise and included the time and place of the event. Nadia and her friends used linguistic strategies – like repetition of phrases, words, and sounds – that researchers, including Tannen (1989) and Coates (2005), have shown are a means of collaborating in conversations and narration. The girls carried over the repetition to their gesturing and other body movements. Stylized speech and voice changes were also noted in collaborative narratives created by middle school girls in Eder’s (1998) study and in the humorous dinner table joke told by Greenwood’s (1998) children. While the girls in this study, especially Yvonne, sometimes latched an utterance onto the previous speaker’s utterance, they did not overlap speech or continue an utterance started by another participant, as Coates (1996, 1998, 2005) found in collaborative narratives by women friends and heterosexual adult couples. The extensive use of onomatopoeia, gesturing, and dramatization by the girls in their stories celebrated their friendship and appears to be a special feature of these girls’ collaborative narratives. As Eckert found in her research (1990), co-narration was a key way for these preadolescent girls to build and to demonstrate their friendship. My aim in exploring the features of the collaborative narratives produced by these friends was to further our understanding of ways that spontaneous conversational narratives are co-constructed. The girls in this study attended a private alternative school where play and dramatic performances were an important part of the curriculum. Collaborative narration became a type of play frame for these girls in their interactions at school and in

1352

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

home settings. Their use of language and body movements to express their shared stories and their openness to turntaking by the other girls demonstrate the closeness of their relationship. The girls’ shared personal histories and the shared context of being social friends and school peers resulted in an ease of conversational flow and allowed for their co-construction of narratives to transition so smoothly. Most research on collaborative narratives of preadolescents and adolescents has looked at stories created by girls. Further research can examine the types of situations where boys use co-narration. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the girls and their parents for allowing me to record and analyze the luncheon conversation that is the focus of this paper. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments and suggestions. Appendix A. Outline of topics during the entire luncheon conversation Total time: 26 min 40 s # 00:00 01:42 02:20 03:18 03:44 05:37 06:00

06:12

06:25 07:30

07:46 08:46

09:30 09:45 09:50 11:20

12:00 12:55

short pause equivalent to comma (minutes:seconds).

Talk about food and eating. Hot rolls are placed on table and Lisa sings ‘‘Hot Cross Buns.’’ ((Lisa later refers to rolls as ‘‘buns’’)) Lisa bites into carrot and her gums start bleeding where she lost a tooth several days before. Nadia initiates topic of age and birthdays of the girls. Talk centers around Lisa losing her tooth. Spaghetti and vegetables are placed on the table. Talk about food and eating. Chicken is placed on table. Lisa: Chicken Little ((high voice)) Lisa picks up her knife. It was Nadia’s baby knife and has an impression of Big Bird from Sesame Street on it. Lisa: get this = we eat with Big Bird we will eat with Big Bird Nadia initiates talk about babies. Nadia: I’m a California baby Yvonne: let’s be babies now ((Nadia, Yvonne, and Lisa make baby sounds.)) Mayonnaise is placed on table for Lisa to use as vegetable dip. Nadia tries to get Yvonne, who is vegetarian, to try some chicken. Nadia: do you think this would be a good time to try it = you have to try it some time Yvonne: I know I’m gonna hate it Talk about food and eating. Nadia gets back on subject of eating chicken. Nadia: Yvonne # have you ever had chicken before? Yvonne: no # I told you Yvonne tells about time she got ‘‘whipped in the eye by spaghetti.’’ Nadia holds up bottle of soy sauce to Lisa. Nadia: please try just a little Talk about food and eating. The girls start doing silly things for the camera. Researcher talks about acting natural for the videotaping. Lisa: isn’t eating natural? Lisa tells about visiting the university library and researcher’s office. Talk about food and eating.

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1353

Appendix A (Continued ) 14:04

15:07 16:55

18:13 18:20 19:25 19:45

22:29 22:30–26:40

Lisa gets spaghetti sauce on her cheek and her chin. Nadia and Yvonne tell her where to wipe her face. Nadia: looks like a stain here # here Yvonne: down a little more Nadia: lower Yvonne: still there ((Lisa goes to the bathroom and Nadia and Yvonne laugh. Lisa shouts)) Lisa: OK wise guys it’s gone # it’s done I just walked in there and # who’s the wise guy ((spoken as she walks back to table)) The girls concentrate on eating. Nadia introduces topic of favorite cat. Nadia: Lisa # what’s your favorite kind of cat? Lisa: tabbies Nadia: me too ((high voice)) Yvonne: silver tabby Pickles ((squeaky voice)) Nadia: Pickles is not a silver tabby Lisa: yes he is # that’s what our doctor said he was Nadia: well # silver tabbies # they’re white until like brownish they have like black lines The girls toast with their glasses. Nadia initiates: chars [cheers] Talk about food and eating. Nadia sets up an eating race, but she does not participate. Lisa tells about her sister eating spaghetti. Lisa: my sister # once she had a whole big plate # she took it and did this ((shows how her sister took up spaghetti with fork)) Yvonne and Lisa finish eating race at about the same time. Yvonne is announced the winner. SEGMENT FOCUSED ON IN STUDY

Appendix B. Verbal and nonverbal communication during focal segment of conversation Nadia, Lisa, and Yvonne are eating lunch at the dining room table. L and Y have already finished eating the main course and carried their empty plates to the kitchen. N is still eating her spaghetti and rolls, and L and Y are munching on raw vegetables. 1:01 P.M., October 14. Length of this segment of conversation is 4 min, 10 s. # short pause equivalent to comma; (number) seconds of pause. (1) (2)

L: N:

I already cleaned off my plate ((fast)) You still gotta put that away ((points to bottle of mayonnaise)) unless you’re still using it (6) and I have to put this away ((touches bottle of soy sauce)) (15)

N is eating roll. L dips raw carrot into mayonnaise.

Y pulls chair up to table.

1354

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

Appendix B (Continued )

(3)

Y:

Yvonne # ((points to Yvonne with left hand)) what’s your favorite book? (3) ((shrugs shoulders)) I don’t know (2)

(4)

N:

what book do you hate the most?

(5) (6)

Y: N:

(7) (8)

Y: L:

(9) (10)

Y: L:

(11) (12)

Y: N:

(13)

Y:

I don’t know ((low voice)) (9) Lisa # what’s your favorite kind of dog? ((to Yvonne)) that should be a good idea Huh huh ((laughing)) German shepherd ((muffled from mouth full of food)) (5) I like almost all kinds (4) I don’t know but my favorite kind is a [husky or a (2) German shepherd (2) [whoa ((to Lisa)) if you like German shepherds # why don’t you # why don’t you go over n:ex across the street and just get killed by one (2) I don’t know ((high pitch with rising to falling intonation)) (2) they have two big German shepherds # one police dog (2) and one is a pet (2) ((uses fingers of left hand to emphasize words)) one with= = I think Rottweilers are cute # I saw pictures of their um babies # I # I mean # when they’re puppies # they were so cute Yvonne has # I mean # Ashley has # a Rottweiler ((muffled, barely audible because of food in her mouth)) what? Yvonne has # I mean # WHOA Ashley has a Rottweiler = = I know # so does Courtney it ate their cat (2) it ate their cat= = no # I thought it smuushed it yeah it smuushed it ((barely audible)) it was still playing with it # and um ((demonstrates with arms and sound effects what happened)) r::ah::p ((lifts both arms into air)) w::am::p ((moves arms to indicate struggling)) ((mouth moves to indicate eating)) ((munching sound)) ((hands on lap))

(14)

N:

(15) (16)

Y: N:

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

Y: N: L: Y: L: N: Y:

N dips roll into spaghetti with right hand and eats as she talks. Y & L put elbows on table. L twiddles fingers. Y looks at fingers. N dips roll into sauce again.

Y drops carrot, picks it up, and takes a bite. Y puts napkin back on table & licks fingers. N takes a bite of roll. L wipes off mouth with napkin. L has left arm on table.

L has left elbow on table & takes bite of carrot.

L is eating a raw carrot.

L takes another bite.

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1355

Appendix B (Continued ) (24)

L:

squush # ((looks down)) what’s that? ((high & squeaky like a cartoon character))

(25)

Y:

heh heh heh and un that # the one in California (2) the drug buster

L takes bite from carrot.

(26)

L:

(27)

Y:

(28) (29) (30)

L: Y: L:

(31) (32) (33) (34) (35)

N: L: N: L: N:

(36)

Y:

(37)

L:

(37)

N:

(38) (39)

Y: N:

(40)

Y:

(41) (42)

L: N:

I heard of a dog that ate the # a # cat (2) [in one big mouthful [((dog whimpers)) have you ever heard of a cat who ate a dog in one big mouthful? ((shakes head left to right)) neither have I heh heh ((laughs)) ((to Lisa)) oh # oh yeah # yup oh yeah # a cheetah = = a lion yuah # a lion [ate a puppy = [ahh:: ((left arm held up & fingers bent to resemble a lion’s paw with claws)) = goo goo goo goo ((in ascending tones)) ((brings arms down little by little with each utterance)) well # I # I mean like a house cat # you know # Persian or whatever yep ((nods head up & down)) ((to Yvonne)) Lisa # how about ((fast)) # how about our # our breed that we made up and it could just kill any [cat [I know # any cat they have like fangs like this big ((shows about 6 inches with hands)) (2) when they’re babies = = claws this big ((indicates about a foot with hands)) with blue tip tails like this thick of fur ((uses hands to indicate about a foot)) (3) OK guys # let’s go [downstairs [but they wouldn’t even shave them ((to Yvonne)) = they would like kill them for their fur # too bad for them # but they could like kill a person # and there’s so much fur that they can’t like # shoot it or something (2)

Y puts carrot into mouth & moves napkin around table. N takes drink of water. N’s miniature schnauzer has been on the deck outside the screen door to the right of the table. L eats carrot.

N looks at L. N moves glass down from mouth. N still holds glass in hand as she talks.

Y picks up napkin, opens it up & puts it back on the table. Y folds napkin. N expressively moves left hand.

L pats left hand on table.

Y pats napkin on table.

1356

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

Appendix B (Continued ) (43)

Y:

(44) (45)

L: N:

(46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55)

L: N: Y: L: Y: N: Y: N: L: N:

(56)

L:

(57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65)

N: Y: N: Y: N: Y: N: Y: N:

(66)

Y:

they couldn’t shoot it they also are bullet proofed ((nods head up & down)) (4) and they make ah ointment all over bullet proof # and it # could kill hunters [except for [yeah and it would go back ((points left hand straight ahead, then pulls it back)) except for like cows or something (3) cows too ((to Yvonne)) cows too (2) chickens (2) yes = = yes # and chickens too = = all [animals ((fades away)) [there are so many chickens yeah they multiply like that (2) ((raises right arm and snaps fingers)) they kill those an: # they kill those # they breed those animals to be killed because there are so many of um but not cows ((to Yvonne)) not cows but chickens are like (2) I know ((softly)) I mean there are so many = = let’s play chickens ((said slowly and distinctly)) outside Mom # I can not eat my spaghetti ((from another room barely audible, Mom says: that’s OK # you don’t have to eat it)) look ((rising to falling intonation)) ((holds up plate of spaghetti with both hands to show Mom)) let’s play outside now

(67) (68) (69) (70)

L: N: L: N:

last one downstairs is a rotten egg NO:: NOT IN THERE ((rising tone)) just kidding first one has to eat it

Y puts both hands against head.

Y stretches back over chair. Y rests shoulders again chair top.

Y & N to L.

N addresses Y to talk about chickens.

L puts right hand against face.

N looks straight ahead.

N takes plate, gets up from table, & starts to walk away. Y gets up & walks from table. L also starts walking away. Y & L walk in front of the video camera.

References Coates, Jennifer, 1988. Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In: Coates, J., Cameron, D. (Eds.), Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. Longman, London, pp. 94–122. Coates, Jennifer, 1996. Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Blackwell, Oxford.

C.B. Leung / Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009) 1341–1357

1357

Coates, Jennifer, 2005. Masculinity, collaborative narration and the heterosexual couple. In: Thornborrow, J., Coates, J. (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Narrative. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 89–106. Coates, Jennifer, 2007. Talk as a play frame: more on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 29–49. Davies, Catherine Evans, 2003. How English-learners joke with native speakers: an interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1361–1385. Eder, Donna, 1988. Building cohesion through collaborative narration. Social Psychology Quarterly 51, 225–235. Eder, Donna, 1998. Developing adolescent peer culture through collaborative narration. In: Hoyle, S.M., Adger, C.T. (Eds.), Kids Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 82–94. Eder, Donna, Evans, Catherine Colleen, Parker, Stephen, 1995. School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Eckert, Penelope, 1990. Cooperative competition in adolescent ‘‘girl talk’’. Discourse Processes 13, 91–122. Eckert, Penelope, 2004. Adolescent language. In: Finegan, E., Rickford, J.R. (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 361–374. Goodwin, Charles, 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In: Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 225–246. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, 1990. He-Said–She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Greenwood, Alice, 1998. Accommodating friends: niceness, meanness, and discourse norms. In: Hoyle, S.M., Adger, C.T. (Eds.), Kids Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 68–81. Jefferson, Gail, 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In: Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, New York, pp. 219–248. Kalcik, Susan, 1975. ‘‘. . .like Ann’s gynecologist or the time I was almost raped’’: personal narratives in women’s rap groups. Journal of American Folklore 88, 3–11. Labov, William, 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mandelbaum, Jennifer, 1987. Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly 35, 144–170. Norrick, Neal R., 1997. Twice-told tales: collaborative narration of familiar stories. Language in Society 26, 199–230. Ochs, Elinor, Smith, Ruth C., Taylor, Carolyn E., 1996. Detective stories at dinner-time: problem solving through co-narration. In: Briggs, C. (Ed.), Disorderly Discourse: Narrative, Conflict, and Inequity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 95–113. Polanyi, Livia, 1985. Telling the American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis of Conversational Storytelling. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Sachs, Harvey, 1978. Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In: Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, New York, pp. 249–269. Tannen, Deborah, 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cynthia B. Leung is associate professor of literacy at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. She has taught at the University of Delaware, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, and North Dakota State University. Her research includes studies of classroom discourse, classroom literacy learning, ESL language learning, and vocabulary development.