Working Toward Play - Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities

Working toward Play: Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities
Author(s): Marilyn R. Whalen

Source: Language in Society, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 315-348
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168623
Accessed: 12-07-2017 14:35 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Language in Society
This content downloaded from 158.38.108.238 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:35:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Language in Society 24, 315-348. Printed in the United States of America
Working toward play:

Complexity in children's fantasy activities
MARILYN R. WHALEN
Department of Sociology
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97402-1291
ABSTRACT
Children's play activities are widely perceived as developing from prim-

itive to increasingly complex forms of social organization, as children
mature and acquire interactional competency. Research following this
traditional, developmentally oriented approach postulates that sports
and games with rules are the most advanced and complex form of play
activity; activities involving fantasy and pretend-play are viewed in com-
parison as considerably less complex. This article argues that fantasy
play encounters exhibit complex features in their own right, and that
long-held distinctions between higher-order games and fantasy play are
conceptually overdrawn. The argument is grounded in a conversation
analytic study of the play activities of a cross-sex, mixed-age neighbor-
hood play group. This analysis focuses on the endogenous social orga-
nization of a fantasy play encounter. (Conversation analysis, children's
play, socialization, social psychology)*
COMPLEXITY AND SOCIALIZATION
At least since Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, evolutionary principles bor-

rowed from the life sciences have been invoked by social scientists to describe
and explain change in human behavior and social organization. Underlying
a great deal of this evolutionary reasoning is the assumption that change nec-
essarily involves a progressive, typically linear development from simple to
complex forms, whether at the level of cognitive structures, social institu-
tions, or culture.' At each of these levels of analysis, then, the principle of
"increasing complexity," with higher forms arising from and surpassing
lower, has played a decisive role in both theory and research (cf. Giddens
1984:230-31 and passim).
This is especially so for the study of children's play. From the classic writ-
ings of Mead 1934 and Piaget 1962 to the more recent, widely cited work of
Lever 1976, 1978, children's play activities are seen as developing, as children
? 1995 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/95 $7.50 + .10
315
MARILYN R. WHALEN
grow from infancy to adulthood, from relatively simple organizations to

more complex hierarchies. As Hartup (1978:147) has summarized the argu-
ment, the development of children's play can be analyzed as a movement
from "loosely differentiated interchanges to highly differentiated interactions,
and from primitive awareness of the needs of others to reciprocal relations
based on complex attributions." This developmental approach is closely
linked to a commitment to treating play primarily, if not exclusively, as a
source of data for evaluating and theorizing about the maturation of chil-
dren's physical, cognitive, and social abilities. That is, the study of play activ-
ity has been largely subordinated to theorizing about child development and
socialization (see Garvey 1974).
For example, Mead's model for the emergence and development of the self
during childhood includes, as one of its central features, the notion that dif-
ferent forms of play-type activities serve as the basic medium, or arena, for
this development. Role play is viewed as the most primitive form. Here the
child acts out social roles made evident by others: mommy, police officer,
pilot, nurse. Having observed the activities of such persons, children repro-
duce their words and deeds in play, and come to have a sense of themselves
as objects in the world with specific capacities, qualities, motives etc. (Hewitt
1993:102-3; see also Mead 1934:216-46, Denzin 1975:458-60). For the self
to be developed fully, however, Mead argued that children need a more com-
plete sense of their place and membership in that larger social world; they
must be able to take the role not simply of particular others, but of the "gen-
eralized other," in the groups to which they belong. In Mead's view, children
acquire this fuller sense of self through participation in organized games with
rules, since games require participants to take the perspective of each player,
and to understand the relationship of their own activities to the activity as
a whole.
Lever 1976, 1978 follows this general approach in her investigations of sex
differences in the development of interpersonal skills, with a special focus
on the contribution made to the learning of these skills by the "structural
complexity" of the social setting within which children's play occurs. Lever
argues that games with rules show a much higher degree of complexity than
other forms of play, and that they directly mirror modern complex organi-
zations (cf. Etzioni 1969, Blau & Shoenherr 1971). Regarding this issue,
Lever (1978:474-75) indexes the complexity of games by using six attributes:
role differentiation, interdependence of player's performance, size of the
group, explicitness of goals, number and specificity of rules, and team for-
mation. Games with rules are thus seen as nicely adaptive to the demands of
industrial society, especially the corporate world; and Lever concludes that,
because boys exhibit more of an affinity for organized games and sports than
do girls, they gain a distinct social advantage through their participation in
these activities (but cf. M. Goodwin 1980, 1990).
316 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)
COMPLEXITY IN CHILDREN S FANTASY ACTIVITIES
One result of this approach - of treating play largely as a resource for the
analysis of child development and socialization, rather than as a topic of
investigation in its own right (cf. Zimmerman & Pollner 1970) - is that lit-
tle close empirical attention is given to the details of what children actually
do and say as they engage in such activity, or to the nature of the organiza-
tion of social action in play, including its "complexity." Put another way, the
complexity of different play forms has most often been stipulated concep-
tually, instead of documented empirically.
Moreover, the methodologies of data collection and techniques of analysis
typically employed in research on children's socialization and development -
laboratory experiments, clinical interviews, and subjective reports by sub-
jects, in the form of diaries or elicited accounts - cannot capture the fine-
grained details of play activities. Consequently, while many researchers
acknowledge that the action that takes place in children's play is the key to
understanding its structure and function (see, for example, Sutton-Smith
1979), their methods are not sensitive to the details of such action. Finally,
without close inspection, we have no way of knowing whether young chil-
dren's ordinary play activities (and not just games with rules) are perhaps
more "complex" than the prevailing conceptual framework would allow.
AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
In recent years some social scientists from a variety of disciplines have taken
an alternative approach to the study of play. By carrying out extensive eth-
nographic studies of children's naturally occurring play activities - studies
that often include the collection of data through video recordings - these
researchers have pointed to serious weaknesses in the traditional, develop-
mental line of analysis. These studies (see especially Garvey 1974, Corsaro
1979a, 1992, M. Goodwin 1983, 1990, Streeck 1984, Maynard 1985a,b,
Hughes 1988) have revealed that children's play activities, in all forms and
at various ages, are far more socially interactive and "orderly at all points," as
Sacks 1984 would put it, than suggested by developmentally oriented theory
and research on play.
Practitioners of the alternative approach to children's activities have often
drawn on the writings of Vygotsky rather than Piaget, largely because Vy-
gotsky (1962:164-65) saw the importance of collective life for individual
development. Piaget's notion of egocentric speech (1974:69-91) suggests
strong limitations on young children's social and interactive capacities;
indeed, one interesting by-product of the traditional, developmental
approach is a predisposition toward viewing young children as interaction-
ally incompetent. By contrast, Vygotsky argues that such speech is actually
a more sophisticated communicative form that emerges from children's fun-
damental sociality, rather than being a primitive precursor to sociality. It
Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 317
MARILYN R. WHALEN
therefore develops out of, rather than precedes, social speech (Vygotsky
1962:138; see also Wertsch 1985a,b). In other words, the speech that children
produce "to themselves," while playing near other children, indeed serves,
and is intended to serve, a social function.
Building on this point, Corsaro 1992 and others have assembled documen-
tation on a diverse array of interactive practices, indicating that young chil-
dren do in fact produce talk for their co-participants in social encounters,
and that this talk figures centrally in the accomplishment of activities in a
wide variety of those encounters. These activities include (a) sound play
among very young children, where the children attend to the formal prop-
erties of each other's utterances (Keenan 1974, 1977, Schieffelin 1981); (b)
metacommunication during play, where talk about the activities in which
children are engaged is used by them to organize the activity (Schwartzman
1978); and (c) the formation of alliances and enactment of disputes within
groups of children at play or in school (M. Goodwin 1980, 1990, Eisenberg
& Garvey 1981, Maynard 1985a,b, 1986a,b, Berentzen 1989, C. Goodwin &
M. Goodwin 1990). In contrast to the traditional findings regarding games
with rules, research within this alternative tradition has suggested that chil-
dren's social play activities (even as young as 3 2 years of age) depend quite
fundamentally on shared rules of procedure to which the children are explic-
itly oriented (Garvey 1974, Meehan 1990).
One finding common to all the recent naturalistic studies of play is that
even very young children exhibit a considerable degree of interactional com-
petency in all their play activities. Close inspection of children's vocal and
non-vocal actions while at play shows them to be fully engaged both in repro-
ducing a peer culture (Corsaro 1981, 1992) and in interactively constructing
an endogenous social world.
These findings point toward the possibility that complexity in play has been
misconstrued when it has been defined largely in terms of the characteristics
of games with rules, with the absence of those characteristics necessarily indi-
cating less complexity. We can ask: If children's play exhibits considerable
orderliness, may it also be the case that this orderliness is, in fact, quite com-
plex? This is certainly a question that needs to be addressed empirically, and
cannot be resolved through theoretical argument. We can also ask: May the
talk between and among children engaged in play be the most important evi-
dence for such complexity, given its central role in the organization of inter-
action? If so, then even in the absence of pre-allocated team membership,
children may nevertheless create and sustain detailed forms of cooperative
behavior through complex sequences of talk; and this cooperation may have
some distinct "team-like" qualities (cf. Goffman 1959). Similarly, competi-
tion may be a common feature of children's play; but instead of being gov-
erned by official rules, it may be interactionally produced and sustained in
exchanges of talk - talk that is observably complex.2
In this article, I focus on such issues, in an effort to address the problem

of complexity in children's play in a different manner than has traditionally
been done. This effort concentrates on the endogenous, local production of
social order within situated play activities, without a-priori assumptions
about the relative primitiveness or complexity of this order. I attempt to dem-
onstrate that conceptualizing games and sport as necessarily more complex
than other so-called primitive play activities is unwarranted. To develop this
analysis, I examine children's fantasy play activities, i.e. "free" play in the
colloquial sense of this term. By closely examining the details of fantasy play
activities, especially the details of talk that organizes those details, I show
them to be quite complex with respect to how the "fantasy" is structured by
the participants themselves. More importantly, this analysis documents how
children engage in a very intricate constellation of activities while playing
together - activities that must (a) provide common definitions for the raw
materials of the fantasy world, (b) initiate and maintain a social group of
players, and (c) create and animate the fantasy world's inhabitants. These
"working toward play" activities turn out to be crucial to the endogenous
organization of children's everyday encounters, and to the achievement of
a shared, known-in-common "world" among children.
DATA AND METHODS
The data for this article are drawn from a larger investigation of children
playing in a neighborhood setting. Most studies of play activities take place
in laboratories and school settings; it is rare to find investigations of how
children play together without the time constraints imposed by a school
schedule - e.g. fitting their play into a limited recess, lunch, or free play
period - or the supervisory constraints of adult interference (but see Man-
dell 1986:60-61, Berentzen 1989, M. Goodwin 1990:12). Moreover, the
design of laboratory studies and the very context of school site research fre-
quently organizes children into homogeneous age and gender groups. By con-
trast, a neighborhood setting affords the opportunity to observe children
playing for extended periods of time in cross-sex and age-mixed groupings
(see M. Goodwin 1990:12).
The children in this study ranged in age from 2! to 9! years. The neigh-
borhood in which they live consists of a series of cul-de-sacs with very light
automobile traffic. This ecological arrangement made it possible for even the
youngest of the children to move freely from house to house over the course
of a routine day.
In preparing for the research project, I visited many of the families in the
neighborhood; I asked the parents and children if the children wanted to par-
ticipate in the study, and requested signed consent from both adults and chil-
dren. As the children were enthusiastic and the parents supportive, the
MARILYN R. WHALEN
negotiation of a research role was very unproblematic. I had recently moved

to the neighborhood with my family, and the children knew me primarily as
a neighborhood parent. Thus it was impossible to maintain either a strict
observer role or one more participatory in nature, as the issues of status and
relations of authority were far too salient from the children's view (Fine &
Glassner 1979, Fine 1987). Instead, I adopted a "least adult" position, and
minimized my correction of the children's behavior and other parenting-type
actions (Mandell 1988). Occasionally, the children would ask me to settle dis-
putes, or would complain to me about other children's behavior. Neverthe-
less, I restricted my intervention to situations regarding issues of safety, either
for the children themselves or the various animals that the children owned,
e.g. a pet rat and an assortment of cats and dogs.
The data of the project consist of 35 hours of videotape and transcripts,
together with supporting ethnographic notes, made as the children played
together in their homes, yards, and garages over the course of one summer.
I used one camera in conjunction with three stationary microphones placed
around the particular area in which the children were playing. While the cam-
era was a curiosity to the children at first, they quickly became involved in
their play and largely ignored it. Initially, the older children treated the cam-
era as a potential source of surveillance, usually when small disputes
occurred. In this regard, the children would surreptitiously glance up at the
camera, or jokingly engage in some commentary about how the research (and
the researchers) intruded on their "private conversations."
I used three strategies for mitigating the children's awareness of the cam-
era and the microphones. First, I refrained from showing the tapes to the
children (or their parents) until the data collection was complete. This helped
to minimize the children's awareness of the videotapes as a "product," and
the sense that their behavior might somehow be "judged." Second, I rarely
took the equipment down over the four-month period of filming, except to
follow the children through the neighborhood. They literally had to climb
over the equipment to come into my house; the tripod, monitors, field deck,
and microphones thus appeared to be part of the house furnishings. Third,
I masked the red light on the front of the camera that indicated when it was
operating. Since I filmed much of the children's activities at the widest pos-
sible angle with a stationary camera, I often turned on the camera and left
the room in which the children were playing. On these occasions I took sup-
plemental ethnographic notes by using a video monitor out of the children's
sight.
The present analysis draws most heavily from a single play encounter that
lasted approximately one and a half hours, although supporting evidence is
drawn from other play encounters in the corpus. I premise the use of a sin-
gle case on the notion that explication of the underlying character of social
action - how it is organized at its most basic level - should be a central task
for the social sciences, and for sociology in particular (see Garfinkel 1967,
Heritage 1984, Schegloff 1987, Whalen et al. 1988). In theories of social
action, the empirical details of what members of society actually say or actu-
ally do on some particular occasion is frequently obscured during the very
process of social scientific analysis (Schegloff 1987). A single-case analysis
permits the recovery, in their full complexity, of situated social actions that
exist in the details of episodic conduct. Bringing the knowledge gained from
prior research on play to bear on a single-play occasion will assist in the spec-
ification of the linkages between the various phenomena as sequences of
action unfold. It is in these sequences of action that the full complexities of
play encounters can best be observed.
My analysis is conducted within the substantive domain of conversation
analysis, and will exploit the richness and density of these interactional
encounters. Conversation analysis, located within the tradition of ethnometh-
odology, is a research strategy aimed at explicating the competencies that
ordinary speakers use in producing intelligible, socially organized interaction.
The fundamental goal of such analysis is the explication of the systematic
methods by which conversationalists produce their own behavior, and under-
stand and deal with the behavior of others (Heritage 1984:241). This
approach seems most appropriate for explicating the details of children's play
activities; and the use of video data is essential in order to capture the details
of the children's activities, both vocal and non-vocal, as fully as possible.
This analytic technique differs from that used to analyze other video-taped
collections of children's play activities, in which the tapes are used to expli-
cate somewhat more global ethnographic phenomenon (see Corsaro 1979a,b,
1981, Eder & Enke 1991, Streeck 1984).
For ease of exposition, I present the encounter as it unfolds turn-by-turn,
so that the trajectory of the play is evident. I discuss each segment of the
encounter to develop the relevant issues contained in the trajectory of that
unfolding. This analysis is deeply descriptive in organization and structure,
in order to explicate the details of the encounter as a first step toward draw-
ing out their analytic import. A full transcript of the encounter (through line
121) is included in the appendix.
This 90-minute encounter was initiated when my son Mike and I invited
the children to play at our house. Four children participate in the encoun-
ter: Mike and Jen (both age 9), Eddie (age 5), and Jamie (age 4). Jen and
Jamie are sisters, and have often played with Eddie. At the time of the tap-
ing, Mike had lived in this neighborhood for less than one year; he had
played with these children before, but not as frequently as they played with
each other. After approximately 10 minutes of watching Mike's pet rat (who
remains loose for a time in the living room), the two younger children begin
to play with a "Richard Scarry Play Set." After a short while, the two older
children join them. The set includes two plastic boards with crisscrossing
MARILYN R. WHALEN
"grids" that hold cardboard pieces, such as parts of a house, bushes, trees,
a bus stop, vehicles, sections of stone and brick wall, and other accoutre-
ments. These cardboard pieces are laminated with scenes depicting inside
objects (curtains, television, furniture) and outside objects or structures (gar-
dening tools, brick walls, external views through the windows). The set also
includes three animal figures cartooned as humans of various ages and gen-
ders: an adult male, an adult female, and a male child. The box for the Rich-
ard Scarry Set is laminated with various picturesque scenes of the setup and
the characters.
ANALYSIS
A review of the data for this and other encounters in my corpus reveals that
the children themselves attend discursively to the relevance of five tasks or
problems when engaging in fantasy play. These tasks are the following:
(a) Selecting materials: At the very least, participants take it that they must
come to a preliminary understanding of just what materials (or toys) will be
used; i.e., what are they going to play with?
(b) Defining materials: Participants also are oriented to a need to arrive
at a somewhat common definition of what the materials actually are - or
what they will represent if, during the course of the fantasy play, they depart
from their actual physical appearance, and assume a ludic definition in the
fantasy game.
(c) Participation rights: Participants negotiate just who is going to partic-
ipate - or perhaps more importantly, who is not going to participate.
(d) Allocation of tasks: Participants take it that they need to achieve some
common understanding of what each participant will do - what tasks he or
she will perform'to construct the buildings and arrange the props.
(e) Development of characters: The task of which character(s) will be
assigned or adopted by each participant, and how each character will be
developed, is treated by participants as explicitly relevant and important.
Detailing the interactional accomplishment of the above tasks provides a

framework for the analysis that follows. I argue that these tasks are, in part,
precursors to the actual fantasy play, and will in the end permit the fantasy
activity to commence. This is not to say, however, that the tasks occur in a
prescribed order or sequence, since the process by which a particular task
becomes relevant is very closely tied to the particular play context. Moreover,
and most important, these tasks continue to be featured even as the fantasy
activity itself progresses, suggesting that the bulk of what "play" consists of
is, in fact, found in these tasks.
Getting something going: The selection of materials

It takes only the first few seconds of the encounter to demonstrate the fun-
damentally interactional character of the activities taking place within it. As
the encounter begins, Eddie and Jamie are seated with their legs folded on
the floor. Eddie is positioned with the box of materials to his left, and the
first board directly in front of him; Jamie is seated to his right against the
sofa, with the board in front of her (see Picture 1 and Figure 1). This posi-
tioning provides differential access to the materials: Jamie has easy access
to the board; but Eddie has almost exclusive access to the entire box of mate-
rials, as well as access to the board. (Jamie would have to get up and walk
around Eddie to get to the box.) This proves to be consequential for the
activity that unfolds. Consider the first 30 seconds of that activity in the
example that follows: 3
Ex. 1 1 Jamie: ((Places fir tree, passed to her by Eddie, into the board.))
2 Eddie: ((Selects a length of roof tile and a brick
3 wall section; tries to fit them together.))
4 A::^nd you ca:A:n
5 ((Again tries to fit them together.))
6 And you can [um (.) fit 'em (.) on the::se? 1
7 Jamie: |((Raises up on knees, takes the]
8 pieces from Eddie, and fits the roof tile
9 on top of the wall section.
10 Picture 1 taken here.))
11 Eddie: (.) blo^:cks and stuff? ((Turns, takes a
12 street lamp from box.)) And-
13 (.8)
14 Jamie: That's uh brick wall house
15 Eddie: ((Places the street lamp opposite the tree.
16 Leaning back to survey the
17 placement, he then makes two adjustments.))
18 Eddie: No:: it shoudn't go- ((Looks again.))
19 Bu- NO::':: it shoudn't go-
20 Jamie: ((Places brick wall and roof tile
21 in board; Eddie ceases his placement
22 with the lamp post in mid air, and watches.))
23 Eddie: Don't touch- No that's not
24 Jamie: THAT GOES
25 RIGHT THERE (1.5)
26 ((Both still looking at the placement.))
27 Jamie: That goes right there?
28 Eddie: (
29 ((Tosses his head away and looks to the box;
30 Jamie gets up, walks over to the box with
31 pieces in it, and drops to her knees,
32 then sits completely down.))
As line 1 in the transcript indicates, Jamie places the first piec

Eddie then takes two more pieces from the box, tries to fit them together,
and comments while doing so (in line 4), A:And you ca:^:n. The pieces do
not go together easily, and he cuts off this commentary while he continues
to try to fit them together; but note that he stretches both the initial and the
MARILYN R. WHALEN
- ----- E- ------- -------

PCTUR : Jai an Edi bgn oply
last vocalizations - a stretch coordinated with his continued efforts to assem-

ble the pieces (cf. M. Goodwin 1995). As Eddie continues this attempt, Jamie
raises up on her knees, glances behind him at the box of materials, and then
leans toward the materials. This indicates her impatience with the delay in
his delivery of another piece, and her desire to have direct access to the box.
However, such direct access is not possible for Jamie without a major shift
in her position; she thus aborts the motion, returning to her original posi-
tion. She then takes the additional pieces from Eddie, a yellow roof tile and
a section of red brick wall. This action interrupts both his talk and his
attempt to fit the pieces together (indicated in the transcript by the overlap
brackets in lines 6-7).
This overlap is not problematic for either of the participants; Eddie's com-
ments in line 2 can be heard as an explicit invitation for Jamie to take pieces
from him. Having "distributed" the fir tree to her, he continues - produc-
ing a conjunction in line 4, and thereby linking what has just happened (the
selection, distribution, and placement of the fir tree) to the very next action
(see Eisenberg 1980).4 The phrase you ca:A:n that follows the conjunction
(in line 4) projects an utterance that specifies what the child could possibly
do with these objects, and clearly displays Eddie's collaboration with Jamie
in this activity.
r --1: S p n J E
FIGURE 1: Spatial positioning of Jamie, Eddie,
Additionally, Eddie's utterances in lines 4-6 and 11 provide a commentary

on what he is doing with the objects - a commentary that is closely moni-
tored by Jamie, and evidenced in her own comment (in line 14) on Eddie's
definition of the objects, that's uh brick wall house (see Bloom 1970, Kee-
nan 1974).5 Note that the utterances of both Eddie and Jamie here could be
seen as prototypical instances of what Piaget (1962:285) defines as "egocen-
trism," or speech forms that "satisfy the activity and point of view of the indi-
vidual" (see also Rubin & Dyck 1980). But my analysis suggests that these
utterances are complementary commenting and monitoring activities; they
thus reveal a delicate and intricate interactional process, whereby the two
children begin to collaborate on a joint play activity in order to "get some-
thing going" with a co-participant. It is the sequential relationship between
these two utterances, together with the physical monitoring that accompa-
nies them, that demonstrates the social action of these commenting activities.
Moreover, the exchange provides preliminary evidence that the activity of
selecting materials is organized through a situated differentiation of roles,
with rules of procedure very much in accordance with Lever's specification
MARILYN R. WHALEN
(1978) for games with rules: Eddie is distributing the materials while Jamie
is receiving them. The difference here, of course, is that the "roles" and the
"rules" are a resource that is endogenous to the encounter and its partici-
pants, rather than an external "force" determining behavior. Finally, through
the mutual monitoring of their own and other's vocal and physical actions,
the children themselves exhibit that the activity is constructed out of very
interdependent, interactive processes; these are very close to another of
Lever's criteria for complexity, the "interdependence of performance."
Defining materials
Related to the activities of distributing and receiving materials are the activ-
ities of defining and placing them. The importance that participants attach
to the placement of each object is foreshadowed in lines 15-29, when Eddie
positions the lamp post. His actions in this segment demonstrate that the
placement of a piece needs to be satisfactory; it is subject to a process of
assessment and review, with the outcome possibly being a re-adjustment. This
process of review, assessment, and re-adjustment occurs repeatedly in play
activities of this type, and is the sequence out of which the gloss "defining
the materials" is fundamentally built.
In lines 15-29, Eddie's vocal account of his activities, while he re-positions
a piece that he himself placed, enables his co-participant to track a particu-
lar course of action as it is being developed. For example, Jamie is closely
monitoring his placement and re-adjustment of the lamp post while she is fit-
ting together her own pieces, the yellow roof tile and red brick wall, to form
a structure that she calls a brick wall house. Similarly, when Eddie sees Jamie
place the roof tile on top of the brick wall and fix it in the board, he expresses
disapproval (lines 21-29). However, Jamie strongly vocalizes her counterposi-
tion (Maynard 1985a); and while Eddie does eventually defer to Jamie's
assertion and placement of the brick wall house - in that he does not pur-
sue his objection, and in fact turns back toward the box to select another
piece - he nevertheless makes clear that he is less than satisfied with it
through his vocalizations (line 23) and his gestures (lines 28-29).
It is critically important to recognize that, through this work of "getting
something going," Jamie and Eddie have established a common definition
both of what they are playing with and of how those items will be used. They
have accomplished this through a very close monitoring of each other's
actions, and by treating "what something is" and "where it goes" as funda-
mentally important matters for the activity at hand that must be settled inter-
actionally. This importance is underscored by the minor dispute process that
occurs in the course of doing so. Thus the children have collaborated to
establish a "state of participation" with each other, aligning themselves as
an ongoing social unit (see Maynard 1986b). In putting aside their brief and
limited dispute, they are continuing to work on a joint project, one that lays
the foundation for further collaboration. While these represent interactional

tasks for any play activity, and are not simple matters, they nevertheless
"come off" so quickly and routinely that they are easily missed, even after
numerous reviews of video-taped recordings, and may be entirely overlooked
in studies that rely exclusively on field notes.
Participation rights
Another task that arises for Jamie and Eddie is what can best be termed the
"participation status" of other parties that might now (or subsequently) join
in the play (see Goffman 1981, M. Goodwin 1990, 1995). Plainly, Jamie and
Eddie have established themselves as a social unit which includes (as noted
above) a differentiation of tasks: Eddie distributes the materials, and Jamie
receives them. The differentiation is a situated phenomenon; and like most
task assignments, it is in principle a fluid process, with a resulting redistri-
bution of these same items between participants. Such a transition occurs as
Jamie changes her physical position, which allows her to access the box but
not the board (lines 29-32). Jamie is now unable to place pieces in the board,
as her access is blocked by the box of materials and by Eddie (see Picture 2).
Concurrent with this shift in task, two additional children - Jen and Mike -
enter the space that Jamie and Eddie have been occupying. This occurrence
has the potential for fundamentally altering the particular participation sta-
tus achieved between Jamie and Eddie. Jen and Mike have been physically
present at the scene during Jamie and Eddie's prior play activity (Mike even
steps over the play inset a few times); but it is through verbal actions, and
by advantaging particular spatial arrangements, that these two enter into the
play action itself:
Ex. 2 35 Eddie: ((Selects little kid figure, adjusts its

36 head and animates it on the board.))
37 Ah Aha:H.=
38 Mike: ((=Drops down on his knees, leans forward to
39 briefly touch the "brick wall house"; Picture 2 taken here.))
40 Jen: What does that do? ((Moves a second plastic
41 board up against the first.))
42 (3.0)
43 Mike: Let's see this
44 ((Mike takes a piece of white brick wall and
45 places it at the outer perimeter
46 of the first board.))
Mike simply "drops into" the encounter (at line 38) while Eddie is adjusting
and playing with the little kid figure. Mike's position gives him access to the
board and the box. Thus, like Eddie, Mike can select pieces from the box and
place them in the board. Jen takes up Jamie's former position; then, as Jamie
did, she has easy access to the board, but not to the box of materials.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
|Sl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............ ...
-~~~~
- | | -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
|~~~~~~
|~~~~~~~ ... ... ...
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ... .. .
- l * -~~~~~~~~......
_a~~~~~~~~~~~~...... X. ...... ......
~~.......l.;
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . l. ':
..~ .. .. . . . . .
- - l l -~~~~~~~...........
......... . .
s~~~~~~~~~~~~... .
not to the board
The initial utterances by Jen and Mike at lines 40 and 43 serve as commen-
tary on their actions, and thus mirror Jamie and Eddie's earlier behavior
(lines 16-30) - selecting, examining, commenting, and positioning pieces
from the playset. This once again demonstrates how commenting, a ubiqui-
tous activity in children's play, functions to account for and display the intent
of an action to others.6 For example, in line 40, Jen is making a request for
information as she first approaches the board; in line 43, Mike is displaying
his "perusal" (and placement) of a piece he has selected. However, in both
these cases the participants are announcing "use" of the materials through
these verbal activities. These actions also serve to indirectly announce Jen and
Mike's arrival on the scene as potential participants in the play activity that
Eddie and Jamie have initiated. In entering the play encounter in this way,
Jen and Mike have not sought permission to participate; rather, they are bid-
ding to play through precisely the kinds of initiating moves that Eddie and
Jamie enacted earlier. In the context of play that is already underway, these
initiating moves are a pre-emptive alternative to permission-seeking (see
Putallaz & Gottman 1981).7
Jen and Mike's "announcements" are consequential for what follows in

two important ways. First, Jen lines the additional board up to the first one
(thereby expanding the area for building to twice its former size) and then
makes a re-adjustment of Mike's placement of the wall pieces, moving them
outward to the edge of the new perimeter - an action that also mirrors the
tracking and adjustments done by Eddie and Jamie earlier. Second, Jamie
responds to this series of actions with a protest:
Ex. 3 47 Jen: Here. (1.0)

48 ((Joins second board to the first.))
49 Jamie: NO::'::::. (.) ((Looks down.))
50 Mike: ((Takes an identical piece of brick wall,
51 and lines it up next to the first.))
52 Jamie: WE WERE PLA:AYING [WITH IT MICHA::EL]
53 Jen: LOhp- Here. Make a J
54 a gate right here
55 Jamie: Uh:::::! JENNIFER WE WERE PLA^YING WITH I::T
56 ((Picture 3 taken here.))
In the first part of Jamie's objection (line 49), the negative item is initiated
in a fairly spirited way; but it is somewhat mitigated by the end, indicated
by the downward intonation marker. Then, after a slight pause (also in line
49), Jamie makes the second move in her objection (line 52) - again direct-
ing it to Mike, who is now reaching for another piece - and note that she is
soliciting collaboration from Eddie through the use of the we token. How-
ever, no one acknowledges Jamie's objection and claim. In fact, Jen contin-
ues with her definitional and placement activities, further establishing her
participation in the encounter. Specifically, she starts up her turn in overlap
of Jamie's claim to Mike (line 53). The turn that has two components to it,
first a correction marker, Ohp, then a substantive corrective directive (to
move a gate), accompanied by the physical movement of Mike's pieces to the
new perimeter.
Jen's use of the corrective item indicates her dissatisfaction with Mike's
paired wall pieces, and she makes a particular re-positioning relevant: Since
it is a "gate," it should go to the perimeter of the board in order to enclose
the property. Jen's vocal actions noted in the transcript are co-terminous with
her actual movement of the pieces of wall. Once again, then, the commen-
tary is intricately tied to the play actions. In addition, Jen revises Mike's
placement of the walls, a revision that he appears to accept.8
One consequence of these activities is that Jamie's objection and claim, as
to who has participation rights over the set, do not solicit a response. In fact,
Mike pursues his assembly of the wall in overlap of Jamie's first objection.
Jen extends this assembly activity, thereby taking a line of action that fur-
thers her own status as participant in the play activity, as well as Mike's. It
is clear that both Jen and Mike pointedly disattend Jamie's objection and
claim.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
7' 0
FIGURE 2: Spatial position

tional playmates Jen and Mike.
In response to this, Jamie reissues her objection and claim (line 55). This
time she directs it to Jen, and upgrades it; note that the increased volume
and spirited objection survive to the end of the utterance. The use of the
pronominal reference we (lines 52 and 55) exhibits Jamie's claim to exclusive
participation rights for herself and Eddie (cf. Garvey 1984:162, Maynard
1986a:269, Whalen & Zimmerman 1990, Sacks 1992). Moreover, this exclu-
sionary claim is based on the notion that those who have possession have pri-
ority over the materials (we were playing with it). Finally, the use of it to
reference the materials as a whole suggests that Jamie's objection is not gen-
erated by the particular piece that either Mike or Jen have chosen for inspec-
tion and use, but rather by the fact that they are using the materials at all.
In short, Jamie is claiming that she and Eddie have exclusive rights to par-
ticipation because they were playing with it first (cf. Forbes et al. 1982).9
In what happens next, the momentary features of social alignments within
a small group (see especially Garvey 1974, Maynard 1985b), be it one of
adults or of children, can be observed. Despite Jamie's exclusionary claim
on his behalf, Eddie proposes an expanded participation. The warrant for
. . . . . . . . . . I . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ... ........

..I .. ....... .
- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ..... . ...... ...

.. . . .
_ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ...... . i ...g-|

.. .. .. ..... a ::^ _
... ... .. ...........
|~ ! ~l S~ 11
N ~ 1~ 1~| 1...
~~~~~~.....
.. .. .. .. .. .. .......... l
.. ..
.. . .. . . .. . . s E ... ... ..
i z E M E _ _ | i~~~............
3 i I| ,| E
| N
_ 2
-_t _
|~~.............
" s~~~~~~~~~.... .
l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~.... .. . .. ...
l~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PICTURE 3: Jamie has moved to the sofa.
his proposal is precisely fitted to the issue of possession, although this time
it is "possession" of a somewhat higher order:
Ex. 4 57 Eddie: Well it's Michael's toy. so .hh he can play
58 wif it to:ô:.
59 (0.5)
60 Ri:ght?
Note that Eddie, in producing a pre-disagreement marker Well (Pomerantz

1984), is forecasting that his own position on the matter will be slightly dif-
ferent, but that Mike's right to participate resides in his ownership of the
playset. Note also that, prior to Jamie's second objection (line 55; see Pic-
ture 3), she gets up and moves to the couch. This move takes her closer to the
play board, but places her above the ongoing activity - the materials and the
other participants are sprawled on the floor. Moreover, since Jen is now seated
where Jamie was, there is no available space for Jamie (see Figure 2 and Pic-
ture 3). This marks the end of Jamie's participation in the encounter, as she
gets up from the couch and joins in the search for the rat. Observe, however,
that she has not been explicitly excluded. Eddie's proposal merely includes
Mike, and the too in his utterance is especially convincing in this regard.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
It is also the case, though, that while Jamie has indirectly solicited collab-
oration from Eddie, Eddie has rejected it (see Maynard 1986b:239-42). By
the same token, Eddie's solicitation of collaboration (lines 57-58) from the
group is not ratified. Although his solicit is not overtly rejected, no one
accepts it either. Nevertheless, the particular social configuration on which
Jamie's complaint was based has been transformed. This, in and of itself,
need not mark the end of her participation; it is quite possible that she could
have either pursued the issue with the others, or quietly deferred to Eddie's
position - as he did earlier regarding her rejection of his placement of the
brick wall house. The critical feature seems to be that Jamie no longer has
access to a physical location that would enable her to participate - access to
both the board and the box are effectively blocked.'0 With Eddie's align-
ment to Mike and Jen's physical placement, the issue is effectively settled;
Mike, Jen, and Eddie remain to play with the set.
Thus, in addition to selecting and defining the play materials, the issues
of who is playing - and, perhaps more importantly and more tacitly, who
is not - have emerged as central foci. While this is a task that is typically
negotiated early in play encounters (Garvey 1984:167), participation rights
established at that time are hardly immutable. In fact, Jen and Mike success-
fully accomplished an "intrusion," and Jamie's attempts to preserve the sta-
tus quo were not effective. This is but one illustration of the kind of vigorous
interactional work that must be done to sustain these particular parameters
of play participation, as newcomers employ various strategies to gain entry
into an encounter. The maintenance of participation boundaries in this case
is not especially disputatious, despite the minor dispute in lines 49-60.
Further, in this encounter, Jen and Mike use a strategy of disattention in
their bid for participation status. Disattention is a device whereby a partici-
pant ignores an action of another, often for purposes of avoiding conflict.
Thus Eddie does not receive acknowledgment of his alignment to Mike (note
the silence in line 59), but he explicitly requests one in line 60 (Right?), thus
marking or calling attention to its absence.
Mike faces the delicate problem here of acknowledging Eddie's statement
about the ownership of the toys, even as his actions have exhibited an inter-
est in sharing them and playing in collaboration with others. Furthermore
claiming privilege by virtue of possession, while also sharing, may be some-
what incompatible activities. Hence Mike's failure to acknowledge Eddie's
statement may indeed represent a strategic move. Both children are invok-
ing devices that are sensitive to certain partisan issues. For Eddie, redesign-
ing the alignment structure of the encounter to include Mike works to
mitigate Jamie's vigorous complaint (the second time Eddie has enacted a
mitigating response; see lines 28-29). For Mike, avoiding a discussion of the
complaint can be viewed as a deft political tactic (cf. Maynard 1985b:213).
COMPLEXITY IN CHILDREN' S FANTASY ACTIVITIES
If Mike were to acknowledge Eddie's statement, it would call attention

to the challenge to his participation that precipitated that assertion, thus
potentially drawing him into debate with Jamie. Previous work on the social
organization of disputes suggests that once an account is offered, it can be
countered, and often is (M. Goodwin 1980, 1990, Eisenberg & Garvey 1981,
Maynard 1985b, Whalen et al. 1988, C. Goodwin & M. Goodwin 1990). Dis-
attending Eddie's alignment, and his request for acknowledgment, functions
to preserve Mike's status as participant in the encounter. Jamie's exclusion-
ary claim has not been acknowledged, Eddie's alignment has not been "offi-
cially" receipted, and the activity has been able to proceed with Jen and Mike
still using the materials.
It is significant in this regard that, instead of responding to Eddie's align-
ment, Mike announces that he will "get" the rat (who has suddenly re-
appeared and is running around the room's perimeter), but next declines to
do so:
Ex. 5 61 Mike: I'll get 'em

62 ((The rat scurries across the room.))
63 (1.3)
64 Mike: There 'e i:::z ((with an "isn't he cute"
65 voice quality)) but I won't- An- okay=
66 ((Jamie goes over to the place where Mike saw
67 the rat just as Mike says There he is.))
68 Jen: =Leave 'im alone you guys?
69 Mike: Let 'im Arun free:, we'^ll git 'em:
70 (0.6)
Mike's statement occasions activity from Jamie and Lynn (a child who has
just returned from another part of the house), who are now vigorously
searching for the rat. Jen and Mike both respond to this search activity,
directing them to leave the rat alone (lines 68-69). With this the participa-
tion issues are closed, as Jamie and Lynn are engaged in an alternative line
of action, and the three remaining children continue to work with the mate-
rials. For a brief time, they return to selecting and defining the materials:
Ex. 6 71 What is this.

72 (1.5)
73 Eddie: r(Are you)]
74 Mike: LAre these Jget=alo::ngs? I don't
75 think so.
76 (1.7)
77 Eddie: Kin I see 'im? (0.7) huh?
78 ((Reaches for and takes one of the pieces.))
79 (2.7)
Here Mike is examining some pieces and asks for an identification of them.
Eddie displays an interest in Mike's activity in line 73. Mike, however, asks
another definitional question, Are these get=alo::ngs? (as a possible answer
MARILYN R. WHALEN
to his first one), then dismisses his own suggestion as a possibility. Eddie then
asks to have the items, and takes them from Mike.
Meanwhile, starting with her actions in line 80, Jen moves away from the
definitional process:
Ex. 7 80 Jen: ((Stretching over to box.))
81 They ran duta um (0.6) whi- whi:te bricks
82 so they had to (0.9) use these (.)
83 RE(HHH)d ones.
Displaying that she has come to a decision regarding the gate that was under
scrutiny earlier, Jen is now engaged in the task of constructing the wall, and
planning for the inhabitants of the fantasy world. What follows is the first
reference in this encounter to the fantasy world. The pronominal they (line
81) references the imaginary inhabitants, and Jen's proposal is an account
of why the wall that she is building is composed of two different building
materials (white stone wall sections and red brick wall sections). There sim-
ply are not enough wall pieces of the same type to construct an enclosure on
the scale that she is projecting; starting as she is at the extreme perimeter,
it is at the outset more than simply a backyard or a garden.
Allocation of tasks
Closely tied to the selection and definition of materials is the allocation of

tasks within the fantasy game: What, specifically, is each participant going
to do? The next segment of the encounter illustrates how this allocation of
tasks is accomplished by the participants. Jen has explicitly referenced the
fantasy world that is under construction, and Eddie is the next one to ref-
erence this feature of their play activities:
Ex. 8 88 Eddie: ((Holding a piece of the house.))
89 Where's this go? ((Briefly touches a piece of
90 house that Mike is holding.)) That's a house.
91 Jen: The other set of house is down there ((Pointing to box.))
92 Jen: Al right guys.]
93 Mike: LI got it. J
In line 90, observe that Eddie contributes to the ongoing definition of the
materials, announcing that the piece Mike is holding is a house. Mike has one
section in his right hand, and is glancing about for the other sections. Jen
looks over, and making use of Eddie's definition, she informs Mike of the
location of the pieces (line 91): The other set of house is down there. Con-
sequently, at this point in the encounter, the three participants have displayed
a recognition that the pieces of the set are parts of some as yet unconstructed
whole, namely a house.
It is in lines 92-93 that Jen and Mike display (nearly simultaneously) that
a joint plan of action is underway - marking a shift away from the more
inductive, piece-by-piece exploration and activity, which had an ad hoc char-
acter to it. This is accomplished by Jen's Alright guys, and Mike's announce-
ment that he's got it, referring to the collection of house pieces to which Jen
directed him just seconds before. The form that both these utterances take
supports the suggestion that a shift in activity is underway. Jen's Afright guys
addresses her two co-participants and is inclusive of them, soliciting their par-
ticipation in a joint plan of action - this even as she proposes to cancel their
prior activities and to initiate new ones. Mike's I got it is responsive to Jen's
directive in line 91; it marks his availability for the next activity, building the
house. However, while the participants are clearly working toward a shift in
activity, the specifics of the joint plan of action - exactly how the house
should be built, who is going to build it, and how the house fits into the
broader ecology of the play board - will be the subject of detailed
negotiations.
To begin explicating these negotiations, observe that Mike makes a request
that he be allowed to make the house (line 95), while Jen starts to remove
pieces from the board, including the piece of house that Mike has placed in
the board (line 96). Mike first acknowledges her action, and then directs her
to wait (line 98):
Ex. 9 94 (0.7)
95 Mike: Okay, let me make rthe houlse
96 Jen: [Here WAIT]
97 Jen: Here=
98 Mike: =O- Okay wait =
99 Jen: [LET- LET-]
Jen proceeds to take the pieces out, and Mike again

ing that the pieces he has gathered are all part of the house. Here he echoes
Jen's earlier comment to him, that the house pieces are a "collection":
Ex. 10 100 Mike: =Bu- wai- wait. This is 'all part of the
101 house=
Jen nevertheless presses on with her action, which is essentially "to start all
over again," and dismantles all the pieces that were placed previously:
Ex. 11 102 Jen: =LE- LET'S start all over again

103 ((Removes all pieces from the playset's
104 plastic base.))
105 Mike: No- well-=
106 Jen: =Put the house in the mi^:ddle
The plan that is under construction here is clearly one to which the
involved parties attend, in that its progression is documented by Eddie, Jen,
and Mike as they enact this shift in activity. But it is here that the specifics
of the plan are detailed: For Michael, the issue is assembling the house; for
Jen, the issue is that the house should be in the middle, and the street lamp
and the fir tree need to be removed, which is essentially what she has done.
Also, Jen has left intact the stone enclosure that she has been constructing
around the perimeter.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
Observe that Mike agrees with Jen's proposal at this point:

Ex. 12 107 Mike: Okay. The house'll be in the middle.
108 ((Jen and Mike both holding onto cardboard
109 wall of house, then Jen lets go.)) Lemme-
110 lemme put (the) house (there) This
111 ((placing piece in base)) right herAe=
112 Jen: =Okay
113 Mike: [This
114 Jen: LAlrigh'-J WAIT ((Takes hold of piece that
115 Mike is holding.)) This way.
116 Mike: [He:::yl ((Pulling piece away from Jen.))
117 Jen: [This wjay. Put it- turn aro-
118 ((Motions to Mike.))
119 (0.4)
120 Mike: S- Like [this?]
121 Jen: huh -huh. (.) Yeah.
However, the allocation of tasks - more specifically, who is going to build

the house - is still unsettled. In ex. 12, we see that Mike again directs Jen to
let him make the house (lines 109-110), in response to her taking hold of the
piece of house. Jen releases the piece, and Mike then places it in the board
(line 11 1). Jen initially agrees to let him place that particular piece (line 112);
but when Mike begins to place the next section of house, Jen objects, tak-
ing vigorous hold of the piece (line 114). Mike attends Jen's taking of the
piece, He:::y, pulling it away from Jen's grasp. Here Mike is treating Jen's
action as a challenge to the prior agreement that he be the one to build the
house. Mike quickly revises this, however, as Jen provides an account for her
action (line 117). Since Mike has inadvertently placed the piece with the inside
laminations on the outside, she indicates that the piece should be turned
around. Mike readily agrees to do so (line 120), and asks for confirmation
of the adjustment, Like this, which acknowledges Jen's directive. Thus what
initially appeared to Mike to be a challenge by Jen, disputing his claim to be
the one to build the house, is transformed into what by now is a familiar rou-
tine in this play encounter - the placement of a piece, a review of its posi-
tioning, and then a re-adjustment of that piece.
The above segments illustrate the strength and depth of the type of col-
laboration that is achieved between participants in a play encounter of this
sort: Whatever the understandings achieved (Heritage 1984) regarding the
allocation of tasks and materials, each piece is positioned, evaluated by self
and others, and possibly re-positioned. Competition for specific tasks and
particular definitions and placements exist right alongside very detailed coop-
eration toward a common goal - the construction of the fantasy world in as
close accordance as is possible to features of the real world.
Deciding who's who: Character selection

The preceding analysis documents the preliminary tasks that need to be
accomplished before the essence of fantasy play can fully begin. This is not
COMPLEXITY IN CHILDREN 'S FANTASY ACTIVITIES
to say that the demarcation between the planning activities and the fantasy
activities is a sharp one. In fact, they blend into one another; planning for
the props and structures becomes less prominent, and the fantasy activity
becomes more so. However, even when fantasy has achieved prominence, it
is continually juxtaposed with planning of a different sort, namely how the
characters will be assigned to individuals, or how they will be animated with
specific characteristics and actions. The assignment and adoption of char-
acters - who is going to be whom - is another task that arises in the encoun-
ter. Eddie is the first to raise the issue:
Ex. 13 1 Eddie: I'M THE DA:D ((He is holding the

2 adult male plastic figure.))
3 (0.8)
In making this announcement (in line 1), Eddie has staked a claim on which
character he is going to be. Moreover, having said it first, he has first "dibs";
much work would have to be done to divest him of the dad figure, as
becomes clear below. In addition to that, his announcement most definitely
projects (without preliminary discussion or negotiation) what the fantasy
game is going to be: the generic game of "playing house." It is this projected
feature of the announcement that Mike selects for attention after a fairly long
silence (line 3):
Ex. 14 4 Mike: The Ada::d.

5 (1.8)
6 ((Tries to take figure from Eddie.))
7 wai- first let's make the town
8 before we um (.) decide who's who.
Mike's response displays two bases for his objection. First, as the ^da::d
is said with a disparaging tone, rising as it does on the first syllable and fall-
ing on the second, it appears that Mike is making a bid to block the pro-
jection of playing house as the definition of the fantasy; he attempts to take
the daddy figure from Eddie, which is an attempt to take the figure "out
of play." " Failing to get the figure (it is clear that a greater degree of force
will have to be used to achieve that end), Mike deploys a delaying tactic
(wai- first), proposing that they make the town before animating it with
characters. 12
The delaying tactic is unsuccessful, however, as Jen, like Eddie, attends
to the issue of what they should do next (line 9); she turns to the activity of
character definition and selection as she examines an adult female figure
from the playset:
Ex. 15 9 Jen: (Now whatta we do)

10 Jen: Who's thas? (.) the wife?
11 ((Picking up and looking at a figure,
12 this one an adult female.))
13 (0.8)
14 Mike: I understa::nd. ((Reaching to his left.))
MARILYN R. WHALEN
15 Jen: (I >wanna be< the=kid)

16 ((Swipes up a second figure.))
17 Mike: Okay, let's see::
18 Jen: Here you be the kid.
19 ((Looks over both figures, and then holds the
20 second figure out toward Eddie.))
21 Mike: I'll be the kid ((takes the figure))=
22 Eddie: =No- ((Pulling figure in to his midriff
23 in a protective way.))
Mike replies to Jen's comment on the female character, and simultaneously

reaches in the general area of another figure, the kid (line 14). Jen treats this
move on his part as an attempt to take the male child figure by enacting a
speeded up "swipe" of the figure - one that she matches by speeding up the
delivery of her vocal turn in line 15.
In this segment, some conflicting views of how the game should proceed
are visible. Despite Mike's objection to the definition that Eddie gives to the
game, and his directive to wait on deciding this issue, Eddie's announcement
has initiated a state of bidding that is "time-resource limited," in that there
are only three characters; since Eddie has already made his choice, only two
characters are left for selection by the next person. This is plainly what Jen's
actions suggest in the above segment, with her announcement of wanting to
be the kid; but then, after examination and comparison of the two figures,
she offers the kid to Eddie, and keeps the wife for her own use. Jen's cat-
egorization of the female figure as the wife and the other character as the kid
indicates acceptance of Eddie's projected plan for playing house. Finally,
Mike enters into the bidding as well, taking the kid from Jen before Eddie
indicates that he is not willing to give up his daddy figure.'3 In sum, this
exchange demonstrates the consequence of the bidding activity that Eddie ini-
tiated with his announcement, while also showing how competition (a for-
mal feature of complexity noted by Lever and others) enters into, and can
be a fundamental basis of, social fantasy play activity.
Once the participants select the characters and agree on the game's direc-
tion, the development of the characters becomes the next relevant activity. 14
In the following exchange, Jen is the first to initiate this activity:
Ex. 16 1 Jen: Michael?

2 (0.5)
3 Mike: Wha A :t
4 Jen C ome 'ere
5 ((Mike walking around; he steps closer
6 to Jen when she says Come 'ere.))
7 Mike: Huh
8 Jen: Um, are we gunna have names?
9 (0.3)
10 Eddie: YESTER-=
11 Mike: =>Okay Albert<
12 Jen: Junior hah ha ha
13 Eddie: [Albert ]
14 Mike: L(Those)J names (.) no this is Albert
15 Jen: Junior
16 (0.7)
17 Mike: No [ 1 ha-
18 Eddie: L I'll] be Junior
19 Mike: >No okay< this is Junior cuz he's (.) the
20 little one ((Points to figure in Eddie's
21 hand.)) an' tha's um (.) Albert
22 Jen: Mommy an' Daddy
23 (0.7)
24 Mike: Mommy an' Daddy (.) yeah
In summoning Mike (line 1), Jen secures his attention. She wants to decide
if they are going to name the characters. Mike agrees and names his kid fig-
ure Albert. Jen proposes another name for the kid figure: Junior. Eddie
accepts Jen's suggestion in claiming the name Albert for his daddy figure (line
13). Mike objects, No this is Albert (line 14), while Jen counters again (line
15) that his character's name is Junior. Mike again objects (line 17), and
Eddie then offers to take the name of Junior for his character.
Mike objects to Eddie's offer (No) in line 19, then says okay, which proj-
ects agreement (or at least concession) to at least some of the prior sugges-
tions the other children made. He suggests that his own character be called
Junior because of its size (he's the little one); and that Eddie's daddy figure
now be named Albert, as Eddie himself had just suggested. While Mike has
worked through the logic of the names this far - explicitly referencing the
fixed attributes of the small figure, to determine his name among the choices
available - Jen suggests that the remaining figures be named Mommy and
Daddy. In doing this, she is rejecting Albert as a name altogether. At the end
of this complicated process of negotiation and concession-making the chil-
dren agree to use the generic names of Mommy, Daddy, and Junior - names
consistent with the game as they currently define it: playing house.
Some time later (approximately 45 minutes into the encounter), Eddie
leaves to go home for a few minutes; Mike and Jen remain, discussing the
development of characters and the placement of various house furnishings.
The town has been constructed, and Picture 4 shows how materially dense
the construction is with a house and items of various sorts. What began as
an empty inset with a single fir tree is now a completed house and yard. The
above analysis conveys some sense, too, of the interactional density that
assisted in the production of this completed product, as the placement of
each piece was carefully negotiated and assessed.
CONCLUSION
In the preceding analysis, I closely examined a number of instances of play

activity that were drawn from a single, extended encounter. The purpose in
MARILYN R. WHALEN
_ , l _ I 8S S ................. :~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... ...

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... . ..... -:.
- ' l - t r - :'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------
PITR 4 e an Mik wit c mle d town
doing so was to demonstrate the detailed ways that children first initiate, then
systematically organize and accomplish fantasy play as a socially shared,
thoroughly collaborative activity. This analysis also allows us to assess the
concept of "complexity" as social scientists generically use it in the literature;
examination of the encounter among the four children reveals the cultural
depth and structural complexity that arise when children engage in fantasy
play with others. The socio-sequential organization involved with certain
tasks - selecting, defining, and placing the objects that physically make up
the fantasy world; the work of achieving and sustaining participation status;
the allocation of tasks; and the assignment and development of characters -
indicates that the received view of role and fantasy play as less complex (and
therefore less "adaptive") than competitive games is deficient in a number
of ways. This also indicates that prevailing evolutionary notions about play
and its structural complexity have led researchers to miss the interactional
richness and fine-grained organization of children's social worlds.
These findings demonstrate that a research perspective based on the idea
that concrete activities are not endogenously organized, and that the task of
social theory is to provide an analytic framework and conceptual apparatus
with which to "find" social order or social structure, is very different from
a perspective that starts with the effort to discover that local, endogenous,
achieved-by-members "order" (Garfinkel 1988).15 Beginning one's research
with the problem of how concrete activities are endogenously organized is
incompatible with an approach that starts out with a model stipulated by
theory and derived through logical reasoning. For the case currently under
consideration, it was essential to observe the organizational details of fan-
tasy play activities, without assumptions or a-priori judgments regarding their
complexity. As Sacks 1984 suggested in this regard, it is virtually impossi-
ble to hypothesize (either theoretically or imaginatively) the kind of local,
endogenous, achieved order that in fact exists at all points in the social world;
rather, this order needs to be discovered.
The parallels between the above remarks and the argument presented in
the current analysis are now transparent. There is certainly a commonsense
way in which the activities of older children are more complex than the "sim-
ple" activities of younger children. The game of baseball - with its rules,
competition, and specialization of tasks - is demonstrably a complex activ-
ity. However, that commonsense view prevents us from appreciating the
complex features of the social organization of fantasy play activities that pos-
sess many of these same features. Moreover, whatever the degree of complex-
ity vis-a-vis the formal definitions of the model, the fantasy play activities
are certainly complex enough to permit children to interact with one another,
and to display the social world to one another in mutually adaptive, coop-
erative (and sometimes competitive), but always elegantly coordinated ways.
NOTES
* An earlier version of the article was presented at the 85th annual meeting o
can Sociological Association, Washington, DC, August 1990. The collection and preliminary
preparation of data were funded by the Center for the Study of Women in Society at the Uni-
versity of Oregon. I am grateful to Marilyn Carter, Marjorie Harness Goodwin, Jean Stock-
ard, Lucy Suchman, and Don Zimmerman for their helpful comments, and to Russell Tomlin,
Director of the University of Oregon's Yamada Language Center, and Kent June for technical
support. I reserve special thanks for Douglas Maynard and Jack Whalen for their assistance
at many points in the development of the project.
I Gould 1987 has persuasively argued that a built-in bias exists in evolutionary models that
posit simplicity at the starting point of the process, and complexity at the ending point. Evo-
lutionary models of human societies are a case in point. Admittedly, there is a commonsense
way in which our modern, industrialized society is more "complex" than the "simple" hunter-
gatherer tribes of centuries ago. But that view prevents us from appreciating the "complex" fea-
tures of those hunter-gatherer group organizations and their culture. Moreover, the notion of
complexity that is usually used by social scientists is based on seeing complexity in a modern
context, where pre-existing forms of society must necessarily appear "simple." However, in the
context of hunter-gatherer social organization, the societal forms were certainly "complex
enough."
2As Waxler (1986:82) nicely summarizes the traditional approach, the developmentally
based way of studying children "brings to light the idea of negative categories, i.e. categories
MARILYN R. WHALEN
constructed on the absence of one or more characteristics, e.g. pre-cognitive, non-verbal, imma-
ture, developmentally delayed."
3The notational conventions employed in the transcripts are taken from a set developed by
Gail Jefferson. This orthography tries to capture how the participants actually talked, without
rendering the transcripts unreadable (see Atkinson & Heritage 1984:ix-xvi).
Symbol Definition
(talk) Uncertain transcription.

Empty parentheses indicate talk that was indecipherable.
(0.5) Silence, in seconds and tenths of seconds.
(.) A short untimed silence, one tenth of a second or less.
((gesture)) Ethnographic description of a vocalization, sound, or action.
Stress Underlining indicates emphasis or stressed utterance.
LOUD Speech that is much louder than accompanying talk.
O A passage of talk that is much quieter than the surrounding talk.
Prolongation of the preceding sound.
= The talk linked by equal signs is contiguous.
Brackets mark the onset and completion of simultaneous talk.
hhh .hhh Audible exhalations (hhh) and inhalations (.hhh).
A period indicates a stopping fall in tone.
heh, ha Laughter particles are transcribed as they sound.
A comma indicates a continuing intonation.
? A question mark indicates a rising inflection.
An exclamation point indicates an animated tone.
- An abrupt cutoff.
A A caret indicates a sudden upward shift in intonation.
A sudden downward shift in intonation.
Arrows highlight particular lines containing vocalizations analyzed in the
text.
>word word< Greater than and less than signs indicate a speeded-up delivery.
4Eisenberg's (1980) longitudinal studies of the emergence of connectives shows that the use
of and as a connective indicates relations of temporal succession. This is precisely the use to
which Eddie is putting it here in lines 4 and 6.
5 Bloom 1970 first identified "the comment" as a description of some activity which is being
performed in the present, or which will be performed in the future, or which names an object.
Keenan (1974:165) expands on this definition to include descriptions of the condition or status
of the object.
6Note also that, while the literature attributes such activities to younger children who are
producing large amounts of egocentric speech, this vocal work seems to be adapted to the sit-
uation at hand: getting something going with a group of co-participants. Since Mike and Jen
are considerably older than the two younger children, it is safe to assume that these activities are
not restricted to use by younger children - nor does it appear that Jen and Mike are regressing.
7 Just as permission can be denied, this sort of bidding can be rejected, as Jamie does in
lines 49, 52, and 55. It is possible that asking permission could have elicited a milder rejection.
I Note that Jen and Mike are essentially dealing with the same contingencies that Jamie and
Eddie were dealing with earlier: What are these materials and how should they be defined? Mike's
exploratory touch to Jamie's construction, his Let's see this, and Jen's display of her recogni-
tion that this is to be a gate are functionally the same activities that Eddie and Jamie engaged
in earlier. Apparently this is a generic contingency associated with "getting something going,"
when entering into a play situation with new materials.
9 Further support for this analysis is found in Maynard's example (1986b:263) in which a
small group of first-graders are using crayons: Judy puts a crayon that she had been using on
Jim's paper. Mary takes the crayon from Jim's paper, and puts it in the common crayon box.
Thereupon Jim says, Hey that was mine, you, and takes the crayon back out of the box, plac-
ing it in his own small box. For Jim, having had the crayon in his possession gives him claims
over its use, and he is even willing to defend this claim to the teacher: As Mary tries to retrieve
the crayon from him again, Jim says, I'll tell.
10This issue of spatial arrangements is an important one: In Maynard 1986b, the children
are seated around a rectangular table for a "reading lesson." Thus everyone's participation has
a certain prescribed, even institutionalized, mandate. Such a mandate does not exist in peer group
interaction; children generally decide, independent of adult intervention, who is playing what
with whom. Jamie's loss of an opportune position is thus very consequential.
l It is somewhat surprising that Mike is objecting to this feature of Eddie's announcement,
since they are expressly about the business of building a house. It therefore follows somewhat
naturally that the house would be inhabited by a "dad" and the rest of the family - in short,
playing house could be seen as a logical extension of making a house. Mike displays his com-
mitment to the notion that they are building a house in the following segment, in which he does
a "put down" of Eddie for stating what Mike considers obvious:
1 Eddie: Hey, we're gonna makin' a whole house

2 ((Leaning back surveying the construction.))
3 Mike: Of course we're makin' a whole house. What uz
4 this look like?
5 (1.0)
12 Mike's objections here displays one of

town is prior to both the selection of characters and the development of a theme, such as play-
ing house. The following example illustrates this same point of rule, in which Jen also deploys
a delaying tactic to Eddie, who starts to animate a character on the playset:
1 Eddie: Ya:::hoo::::::
2 Mike: [this-]
3 Jen: LBo Jth of thuh trees
4 are- oh in thuh (bathroom) (2.0) NOT YE:^T
5 Eddîe
6 heh.
13The announcement of "who's going to

next action by other participants. In this sense, the children themselves attend to the time and
resource limitation of materials and characters within the game. The following example sup-
ports this point; it is taken from an encounter in which Jen has invited a group of children (who
were playing outside) to come to her garage to play house - a game that they often play together,
and about which they express great enthusiasm. Mark (age 5) initiates the bidding for charac-
ters while he is running down the cul-de-sac with Eddie, announcing (screaming actually):
1 Mark: 'ME: un EDDIE'W ABA:YBIES (.)

2 AMEHEE 'n EDDIE'R BA:Yb#hee:z
3 Jen: Ah^l: ri#:ght git in there then. ((Gesturing to the playpen))
4 Mark: EDdie,.hh we haftuh git'n da' cra^:d#le
14This is not to say that the arrangement of props and the negotiations regarding these
arrangements are finished. Rather, they are gradually replaced by negotiations regarding the
types of things the characters will be/should be doing. In fact, the very next segment in the tran-
script illustrates further negotiation by Mike and Jen, regarding the proper placement of a tree
in either the front yard or backyard:
26 Mike: Here's thuh tree:: here's th- this is

27 thuh backyard.
28 (0.6)
29 Jen: I thought this was their front yard (.)
30 cause there's their front door
31 ((Both Jen and Mike look on both sides of the house.))
32 (0.7)
33 Jen: No this is our front yard.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
15 The former approach does not postulate that concrete activities ar

otic, but rather that whatever organization they do have is not especially interesting for sociol-
ogy. The theoretical effort is then focused on macro-phenomena such as institutional order, social
structure, and culture.
REFERENCES
Adler, Peter, & Adler, Patricia (1986), eds. Sociological studies of child development, vol. 1.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Heritage, John (1984), eds. Structures of social action. Cambridge &
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Berentzen, Sigurd (1989). Children constructing their social world: An analysis of gender con-
trast in children's interaction in a nursery school. (Bergen Occasional Papers in Social Anthro-
pology, 36.) Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen, Department of Social Anthropology.
Blau, Peter, & Schoenherr, R. A. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic.
Bloom, Lois (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corsaro, William (1979a). "We're friends, right?": Children's use of access rituals in a nursery
school. Language in Society 8:315-36.
(1979b). Young children's conception of status and role. Sociology of Education
52:46-59.
(1981). Entering the child's world: Research strategies for field entry and data collec-
tion in a preschool setting. In Judith L. Green & Cynthia Wallat (eds.), Ethnography and lan-
guage in educational settings, 117-48. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
(1992). Interpretive reproduction in children's peer culture. Social Psychology Quarterly
55:160-77.
Denzin, Norman K. (1975). Play, games and interaction: The contexts of childhood socializa-
tion. Sociological Quarterly 16:458-76.
Eder, Donna, & Enke, Janet L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints.
American Sociological Review 56:494-508.
Eisenberg, Ann (1980). A semantic, syntactic and pragmatic analysis of the acquisition of con-
junction. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, Stanford University, 19:70-78.
, & Garvey, Catherine (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts.
Discourse Processes 4:149-70.
Etzioni, Amitai (1969). A sociological reader on complex organization. New York: Holt.
Fine, Gary Alan (1987). With the boys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
, & Glassner, Barry (1979). Participant observations with children: Promise and prob-
lems. Urban Life 8:153-74.
Forbes, David; Katz, Mary; Paul, Barry; & Lubin, David (1982). Children's plans for joining
play: An analysis of structure and function. In David Forbes & Mark Greenberg (eds.), Chil-
dren's planning strategies, 61-79. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(1988). Evidence for the locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order,
logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary
society (I of IV): An announcement of studies. Sociological Theory 6:103-9.
Garvey, Catherine (1974). Some properties of social play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 20:163-80.
(1984). Children's talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
(1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1990). Interstitial argument. In Allen D.
Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk, 85-117. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1980). "He-said-she-said": Formal cultural procedures for the con-
struction of a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist 7:674-95.
(1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations. Journal of

Pragmatics 7:657-77.
(1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press.
(1995). Assembling a response: Setting and collaboratively constructed work talk. In
George Psathas & Paul ten Have (eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of
talk and embodied activities, 173-86. Washington DC: University Press of America.
Gould, Stephen (1987). "Bushes all the way down." Natural History 96:12-19.
Hartup, Willard W. (1978). Children and their friends. In Harry McGurk (ed.), Child social
development, 130-70. London: Methuen.
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity.
Hewitt, John P. (1993). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Hughes, Linda A. (1988). "But that's not really mean": Competing in a cooperative mode. Sex
Roles 19:669-87.
Keenan, Elinor Ochs (1974). Conversational competence in children. Journal of Child Language
1: 163-83.
(1977). Making it last: Uses of repetition in children's discourse. In Susan Ervin-Tripp
& Claudia Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child discourse, 125-38. New York: Academic.
Lever, Janet (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems 23:478-87.
(1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children's play and games. American Soci-
ological Review 43:471-83.
Mandell, Nancy (1986). Peer interaction in daycare settings: Implications for social cognition.
In Adler & Adler, 55-79.
(1988). The least adult role in studying children. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra-
phy 16:433-67.
Maynard, Douglas W. (1985a). How children start arguments. Language in Society 14:1-29.
(1985b). On the functions of social conflict among children. American Sociological
Review 50:207-23.
(1986a). The development of argumentative skills among children. In Adler & Adler,
261-85.
(1986b). Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children
(and other humans). Human Studies 9:261-65.
Mead, George H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meehan, Albert J. (1990). Rule recognition and social competence: The case of children's play
and games. In Spencer Cahill (ed.), Sociological studies of child development, vol. 3, 245-
61. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Piaget, Jean (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
(1974). The language and thought of the child. New York: New American Library.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of pre-
ferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage, 57-101.
Putallaz, Martha, & Gottman, John (1981). Social skills and group acceptance. In Steven Asher
& John Gottman (eds.), The development of children's friendships, 116-49. Cambridge & New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, Kenneth, & Dyck, Louisa (1980). Preschoolers' private speech in a play setting. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly 26:219-29.
Sacks, Harvey (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson & Heritage, 21-27.
(1992). "We": Category-bound activities. In his Lectures on conversation, ed. by Gail
Jefferson, 333-47. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of conversation: An exercise in con-
versation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50:101-14.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1981). Talking like birds: Sound play in a cultural perspective. In John
Loy (ed.), The paradoxes of play, 177-84. New York: Leisure.
Schwartzman, Helen (1978). Transformations: The anthropology of children's play. New York:
Plenum.
Streeck, Jurgen (1984). Social order in child communication: A study in micro-ethnography.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
MARILYN R. WHALEN
Sutton-Smith, Brian (1979). The play of girls. In Claire B. Kopp (ed.), Becomingfemale: Per-
spectives on development, 229-57. New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waxler, Frances Chaput (1986). Studying children: Phenomenological insights. Human Stud-
ies 9:171-82.
Wertsch, James (1985a). Introduction. In James V. Wertsch (ed.), Culture, communication and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 1-50. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University
Press.
(1985b). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Whalen, Jack; Zimmerman, Don H.; & Whalen, Marilyn R. (1988). When words fail: A sin-
gle case analysis. Social Problems 35:335-61.
Whalen, Marilyn, & Zimmerman, Don H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology
in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society 19:465-92.
Zimmerman, Don H., & Pollner, Melvin (1970). The everyday world as a phenomenon. In Jack
Douglas (ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of everyday knowl-
edge, 80-103. Chicago: Aldine.
APPENDIX
1 Jamie: ((Places fir tree into the plastic board.))

2 Eddie: ((Selects a length of roof tile and a brick
3 wall section; tries to fit them together.))
4 A:"nd you ca:^:n
5 ((Again tries to fit them together.))
6 And you can [um (.) fit 'em (.) on the::se?
7 Jamie: 1((Raises up on knees, takes the]
8 pieces from Eddie, and fits the roof tile
9 on top of the wall section.
10 Picture 1 taken here.))
11 Eddie: (.) bloA:cks and stuff? ((Turns, takes a
12 street lamp from box.)) And-
13 (.8)
14 Jamie: That's uh brick wall house
15 Eddie: ((Places the street lamp opposite the tree.
16 Leaning back to survey the
17 placement, he then makes two adjustments.))
18 Eddie: No:: it shoudn't go- ((Looks again.))
19 Bu- NO::':: it shoudn't go-
20 Jamie: ((Places brick wall and roof tile
21 in board; Eddie ceases his placement
22 with the lamp post in mid air and watches.))
23 Eddie: Don't touch- No that's not ( GE
24 Jamie: [THAT GOES
25 RIGHT THERE (1.5)
26 ((Both still looking at the placement.))
27 Jamie: That goes right there?
28 Eddie: (
29 ((Tosses his head away and looks to the box;
30 Jamie gets up, walks over to the box with
31 pieces in it, and drops to her knees,
32 then sits completely down.))
33 ((Side activity and talk among Mike, Jen,
34 the mother about the rat deleted.))
35 Eddie: ((Selects little kid figure, adjusts its
36 head and animates it on the board.))
COMPLEXITY IN CHILDREN 'S FANTASY ACTIVITIES
37 AhA ha:H.=
38 Mike: ((=Drops down on his knees, leans forward to
39 briefly touch the "brick wall house"; Picture 2 taken here.))
40 Jen: What does that do? ((Moves a second plastic
41 board up against the first.))
42 (3.0)
43 Mike: Let's see this
44 ((Mike takes a piece of white brick wall and
45 places it at the outer perimeter
46 of the first board.))
47 Jen: Here. (1.0)
48 ((Joins second board to the first.))
49 Jamie: NO::'::::. (.) ((Looks down.))
50 Mike: ((Takes an identical piece of brick wall,
51 and lines it up next to the first.))
52 Jamie: WE WERE PLA:^YING rWITH IT MICHA::EL]
53 Jen: [Ohp- Here. Make a
54 a gate right here
55 Jamie: Uh:::::! JENNIFER WE WERE PLAAYING WITH I::T
56 ((Picture 3 taken here.))
57 Eddie: Well it's Michael's toy. so .hh he can play
58 wif it to:Ao:.
59 (0.5)
60 Ri:ght?
61 Mike: I'll get 'em
62 ((The rat scurries across the room.))
63 (1.3)
64 Mike: There 'e i:.:z ((with an "isn't he cute"
65 voice quality)) but I won't- ^n- okay=
66 ((Jamie goes over to the place where Mike saw
67 the rat just as Mike says, There he is.))
68 Jen: =Leave 'im alone you guys?
69 Mike: Let 'im 'run free:, we'^ll git 'em:
70 (0.6)
71 What is this.
72 (1.5)
73 Eddie: r(Are you)]
74 Mike: LAre these] get=alo::ngs? I don't
75 think so.
76 (1.7)
77 Eddie: Kin I see 'im? (0.7) huh?
78 ((Reaches for and takes one of the pieces.))
79 (2.7)
80 Jen: ((Stretching over to box.))
81 They ran outa um (0.6) whi- whi:te bricks
82 so they had to (0.9) use these (.)
83 RE(HHH)d ones.
84 ((Side activity between others deleted here.))
85
86
87
88 Eddie: ((Holding a piece of the house.))
89 Where's this go? ((Briefly touches a piece of
90 house that Mike is holding.)) That's a house.
91 Jen: The other set of house is down there ((Pointing to box.))
92 Jen: Al [right guys.
93 Mike: LI got it. J
MARILYN R. WHALEN
94 (0.7)
95 Mike: Okay, let me make [the hou] se
96 Jen: [Here WAIT]
97 Jen: Here=
98 Mike: =0- O kay wait ]=
99 Jen: LET- LET-]
100 Mike: =Bu- wai- wait. This is 'all part of the
101 house=
102 Jen: =LE- LET'S start all over again
103 ((Removes all pieces from the playset's
104 plastic base.))
105 Mike: No- well-=
106 Jen: =Put the house in the mi^:ddle
107 Mike: Okay. The house'll be in the middle.
108 ((Jen and Mike both holding onto cardboard
109 wall of house, then Jen lets go.)) Lemme-
110 lemme put (the) house (there) This
111 ((placing piece in base)) right herê=
112 Jen: =Okay
113 Mike: rThis
114 Jen: [Alrigh'- WAIT ((Takes hold of piece that
115 Mike is holding.)) This way.
116 Mike: rHe:::y] ((Pulling piece away from Jen.))
117 Jen: LThis wJay. Put it- turn aro-
118 ((Motions to Mike.))
119 (0.4)
120 Mike: S- Like [this?]
121 Jen: huh -huh. (.) Yeah.

Working Toward Play - Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Working Toward Play - Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Working toward Play: Complexity in Children's Fantasy Activities

Author(s): Marilyn R. Whalen

Working toward play:

Children's play activities are widely perceived as developing from prim-

COMPLEXITY AND SOCIALIZATION

At least since Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, evolutionary principles bor-

? 1995 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/95 $7.50 + .10

grow from infancy to adulthood, from relatively simple organizations to

316 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 317

318 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

In this article, I focus on such issues, in an effort to address the problem

DATA AND METHODS

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 319

negotiation of a research role was very unproblematic. I had recently moved

320 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 321

Detailing the interactional accomplishment of the above tasks provides a

322 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Getting something going: The selection of materials

As line 1 in the transcript indicates, Jamie places the first piec

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 323

- ----- E- ------- -------

last vocalizations - a stretch coordinated with his continued efforts to assem-

324 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

FIGURE 1: Spatial positioning of Jamie, Eddie,

Additionally, Eddie's utterances in lines 4-6 and 11 provide a commentary

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 325

326 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

the foundation for further collaboration. While these represent interactional

Ex. 2 35 Eddie: ((Selects little kid figure, adjusts its

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 327

not to the board

328 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Jen and Mike's "announcements" are consequential for what follows in

Ex. 3 47 Jen: Here. (1.0)

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 329

FIGURE 2: Spatial position

330 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ... ........

- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ..... . ...... ...

_ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ...... . i ...g-|

PICTURE 3: Jamie has moved to the sofa.

Note that Eddie, in producing a pre-disagreement marker Well (Pomerantz

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 331

332 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

If Mike were to acknowledge Eddie's statement, it would call attention

Ex. 5 61 Mike: I'll get 'em

Ex. 6 71 What is this.

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 333

Closely tied to the selection and definition of materials is the allocation of

334 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Jen proceeds to take the pieces out, and Mike again

Ex. 11 102 Jen: =LE- LET'S start all over again

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 335

Observe that Mike agrees with Jen's proposal at this point:

However, the allocation of tasks - more specifically, who is going to build

Deciding who's who: Character selection

336 Language in Society 24:3 (1995)

Ex. 13 1 Eddie: I'M THE DA:D ((He is holding the

Ex. 14 4 Mike: The Ada::d.

Ex. 15 9 Jen: (Now whatta we do)

Language in Society 24:3 (1995) 337